Skip to main content

Full text of "The province of New Jersey, 1664-1738"

See other formats 


/^}i^re-_ 


LIBRARY 

OF  THK 

University  of  California. 


Class 


STUDIES  IN  HISTORY,  ECONOMICS  AND  PUBUC  LAW 

EDITED  BY  THE   FACULTY  OF   POLITICAL  SCIENCE 
OF  COLUMBIA   UNIVERSITY 

Volume  XXX 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW 
JERSEY 

1664-1738 


EDWIN  P.  TANNER,  Ph.D. 

Sometime  Fellow  in  American  History 

Columbia  University 

Instructor  in  History  in  Syracuse  University 


^tw  Dork 
COLUMBIA    UNIVERSITY 

LONGMANS,  GREEN  &  CO.,  AGENTS 
London:  P.  S.  King  &  Son 

1908 


.30 


Copyright,  igoS 

BY 

EDWIN  P.  TANNER 


PREFACE. 


The  chief  object  of  this  study  is  to  give  an  account  of 
the  political  institutions  of  New  Jersey  during  the  period 
of  her  executive  union  with  New  York.  The  chapters 
on  the  proprietary  period  were  originally  prepared  as 
introductory.  A  discussion  of  the  economic  and  social 
development  of  the  province  is  not  a  part  of  the  problem. 

The  most  important  original  sources  in  print  used  in 
this  work  are  the  New  Jersey  Archives,  the  New  York 
Colonial  Documents,  Leaming  and  Spicer's  Grants  and 
Concessions  and  the  Colonial  Laws  of  Nevill  and  Allison. 
Nevill  and  Allison,  however,  give  many  important  stat- 
utes only  by  title.  Most,  though  not  all,  of  the  missing 
acts  are  to  be  found  in  the  original  Bradford  prints  in 
the  Charlemagne  Tower  Collection  of  Colonial  Law  in 
the  library  of  the  Pennsylvania  Historical  Society.  The 
rare  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery  and  the  still  rarer 
Answer  to  the  Bill  give  invaluable  information  as  to  the 
land  controversy  in  East  Jersey.  Their  statements  have, 
however,  been  received  with  caution  as  the  arguments  of 
contending  lawyers. 

The  Journal  of  the  General  Assembly  for  the  union 
period  has  been  pubHshed  (Jersey  City,  1872)  up  to 
the  end  of  Ingoldsby's  administration.  The  rest  is  in 
manuscript  in  the  State  Library  at  Trenton.  Other 
manuscript  sources  used  are  the  Minutes  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  the  East  Jersey  Records,  the  West  Jersey  Records^ 

(Hi) 


175311 


iv  PREFACE 

Liber  AAA  of  Provincial  Commissions,  the  Minutes 
of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  East  Jersey  and  the 
Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey. 

The  Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  office  of  the 
Clerk  of  the  Supreme  Court  contain  brief  entries  of  the 
legal  proceedings  of  the  period,  but  do  not  give  much 
light  as  to  the  nature  of  the  issues  involved.  Where  a 
decision  was  reached,  however,  judgment  rolls  exist  con- 
taining the  judgment  of  the  court  in  full.  The  East  and 
West  Jersey  Records  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of 
State  comprise  the  books  of  deeds,  patents,  wills,  com- 
missions and  some  surveys.  Their  general  character  is 
made  clear  by  Vol.  XXI  of  the  New  Jersey  Archives y 
which  contains  a  summary  of  the  earlier  books.  The 
Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  East  Jersey,  still 
kept  in  the  office  of  the  proprietary  register  at  Perth 
Amboy,  throw  much  light  on  the  activity  of  the  propri- 
etors of  that  division.  Unfortunately  Book  A  begins 
only  with  the  reestablishment  of  the  council  in  1725. 
The  office  contains  also  eighteenth-century  copies  of  the 
East  Jersey  Records.  The  Minutes  of  the  West  Jersey 
Council  in  the  office  of  the  Surveyor-General  at  Burling- 
ton are  complete  for  the  proprietary  and  union  periods, 
and  readily  accessible  through  the  courtesy  of  the  pro- 
prietors and  of  the  Surveyor-General. 

In  addition  to  original  sources  use  has  been  made  of 
numerous  secondary  works,  especially  those  of  White- 
head, Hatfield,  Field,  Brodhead  and  Winfield.  The  stu- 
dent of  New  Jersey  history  can  not  be  too  grateful  for 
the  able  researches  of  these  pioneers. 

My  best  thanks  are  due  to  Mr.  William  Nelson,  Sec- 
retary of  the  New  Jersey  Historical  Society,  for  invalu- 
able advice  and  assistance  in  obtaining  access  to  material. 
I  am  also  indebted  to  Mr.  Francis  M.  Tichenor,  Presi- 


PREFACE  V 

dent  of  the  Board  of  East  Jersey  Proprietors,  for  per- 
mission to  examine  the  proprietary  minutes.  From  the 
beginning  I  have  had  the  advantage  of  the  advice  of 
Prof.  H.  L.  Osgood.  By  him  my  first  interest  in 
colonial  history  was  aroused;  at  his  suggestion  this 
work  was  undertaken;  and  without  his  patient  en- 
couragement its  completion  would  have  been  impossible. 

Edwin  P.  Tanner. 
Syracuse,  N.  V.,  Aug.  24,  1908. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 

PACK 

The  Proprietorship  in  Land 
Distinction  between  the  proprietorship  as  a  form  of  land  ownership 
and  as  a  grant  of  governmental  power— Origin  of  the  proprietor- 
ship— Efforts  of  the  Duke  of  York  to  recover  New  Jersey — The 
sale  of  Berkeley's  interest  to  the  Friends — Reconveyance  of  East 
Jersey  from  the  Duke  of  York  to  Carteret — Transactions  among 
the  proprietors  of  West  Jersey — The  Quintipartite  Deed — Final 
loss  of  West  Jersey  by  James  of  York — Development  of  the  West 
Jersey  proprietorship — The  investment  of  Dr.  Daniel  Coxe — The 
West  New  Jersey  Society — The  Twenty-four  Proprietors  of  East 
Jersey — Further  development  of  the  East  Jersey  proprietorship — 
Quarrel  between  the  Scots  Proprietors  and  William  Dockwra  .  .     24 

CHAPTER  II 
Sources  and  Chailacter  of  the  Population  of  the  Jerseys 
Failure  of  Dutch  colonization— East  Jersey  settled  from  New  Eng- 
land—The three  zones  of  colonization— Emigration  from  Scotland 
under  the  twenty-four  proprietors— Character  of  the  settlers  of 
West  Jersey 29 

CHAPTER  III 
The  Land  System  of  East  Jersey 
Treatment  of  the  Dutch  settlers  by  Berkeley  and  Carteret— The 
Concessions  and  Agreements  of  the  Lords  Proprietors — The  ex- 
ecution of  the  Concessions  rendered  difficult  by  the  character  of 
the  settlers — Conflict  between  the  proprietors  and  the  settlers — 
The  provisions  of  the  Concessions  finally  carried  out — Nature  of 
the  apportionment  of  the  land  under  Carteret — The  Concessions 
continued  by  the  twenty-four  proprietors — The  institution  of  the 
Board  of  Proprietors — Character  of  the  proprietary  officers — Com- 
paratively large  size  of  the  proprietary  holdings — Efforts  of  the 
new  proprietors  to  conciliate  the  settlers — Relation  of  the  assem- 
bly to  the  land  system— Steps  of  the  proprietors  immediately  pre- 
ceding the  institution  of  royal  rule 57 

(vii) 


viii  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

„  PACE 

CHAPTER  IV 
Land  Troubles  in  East  Jersey 
Popular  misunderstanding  of  the  land  troubles  in  East  Jersey— The 
real  issues — Legal  principles  involved — The  Monmouth  patent — 
Temporary  settlement  of  the  questions  arising  out  of  it— The 
Elizabethtown  controversy — Insufficient  character  of  the  evidence 
— Early  anti-proprietary  disturbances — Measures  of  the  proprie- 
tors— Effects  of  tke  Dutch  reconquest — Re-establishment  of  the 
proprietary  authority — Attitude  of  the  twenty-four  proprietors 
toward  the  Monmouth  and  Elizabethtown  questions— The  case  of 
Jones  vs.  Fullerton — Revival  of  anti -proprietary  agitation — The 
"Revolution" 80 

CHAPTER  V 

Political  Conditions  in  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors 
Uncertainty  of  the  proprietors'  claims  to  governmental  power — 
Political  features  of  the  concessions — The  establishment  of  the  pro- 
prietary government — The  first  assembly — Subversion  of  the  pro- 
prietary government — Collapse  of  the  anti-proprietary  movement 
— The  development  of  diflference  of  opinion  between  the  governor 
and  the  assembly — Conciliatory  policy  of  the  Twenty-four  pro- 
prietors— The  Fundamental  Constitutions — Attitude  of  the  people 
toward  the  rule  of  Andros— The  dismissal  of  Governor  Hamilton 
— Unfortunate  policy  of  Basse— Downfall  of  the  proprietary 
system 96 

CHAPTER  VI 
The  Land  System  of  West  Jersey 
Institution  of  the  system  of  tenths  and  proprieties — The  Conces- 
sions and  Agreements — Efforts  to  carry  out  the  Concessions  and 
Agreements — Gradual  modification  of  the  system — The  institution 
of  the  Council  of  Proprietors— Nature  of  the  apportionment  of  the 
land— New  elements  introduced  by  the  West  Jersey  Society — 
Unimportant  character  of  land  disputes  in  West  Jersey  as  com- 
pared with  those  of  East  Jersey — New  projects  of  the  proprietors.  112 

CHAPTER   VII 
Political  Conditions  in  West  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors 
Political  provisions  of  the  Concessions  and  Agreements — Interfer- 
ence  by  James   of   York   and  Edward  Byllinge— Readjustment 
under  Samuel  Jennings  as  governor— Dealings  between  the  as- 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  JX 

FAGB 

sembly  and  Byllinge — The  arbitration  of  1684 — Defeat  of  the 
assembly — Plans  of  Dr.  Daniel  Coxe — The  power  of  government 
passes  to  the  West  Jersey  Society — Development  of  parties  under 
Hamilton  and  Basse 124 

CHAPTER  Vni 
Relations  with  the  Duke  of  York  and  the  Crown 
Legal  invalidity  of  the  claim  of  Berkeley  and  Carteret  to  govern- 
mental power  over  New  Jersey — Inability  of  James  of  York  to 
prevent  the  establishment  of  their  government — Effects  of  the 
Dutch  reconquest — Relations  between  Andros  and  the  authorities 
of  the  Jerseys — The  arbitration  of  Sir  William  Jones  and  its  re- 
sults— Dealings  between  Governor  Dongan  and  the  twenty-four 
proprietors — The  Jerseys  brought  under  the  rule  of  Andros — The 
resumption  of  proprietary  rule — Controversy  between  Lord  Bello- 
mont  and  Governor  Basse — Determination  of  the  crown  to  as- 
sume jurisdiction  over  the  Jerseys — Surrender  of  the  proprietors.  138 

CHAPTER  IX 
The  Royal  Governors 

Unsuccessful  efforts  to  secure  the  appointment  of  Colonel  Hamilton 
— Edward,  Lord  Cornbury — John,  Lord  Lovelace — Colonel  Rich- 
ard Ingoldsby — Colonel  Robert  Hunter — William  Burnet — John 
Montgomerie — William  Cosby 147 

CHAPTER  X 
Legal  Position  of  the  Governor  as  Executive 
Power  conveyed  by  the  governors'  commissions — The  royal  in- 
structions— Financial  powers  of  the  governor — His  judicial  powers 
— Religious  control — Military  power — Relation  of  the  governor 
to  trade  and  commerce — Relations  between  the  governor  and  the 
proprietors — Information  to  be  furnished  by  the  governor — Addi- 
tional instructions  to  the  governors — Limitation  of  the  executive 
power  by  legislation 165 

CHAPTER  XI 
The  Executive  Power  in  Practical  Operation 
Effects  of  the  union  with  New  York  upon  the  executive  power  in 
New  Jersey — Executive   abuses  of  Cornbury's  administration — 
Corruption  checked  by  Lord  Lovelace — Cornbury's  regime  con- 


X  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

tinued  by  Ingoldsby — Hunter  reorganizes  the  administration — 
His  conflict  with  Cornbury's  ring — Success  of  Hunter — The 
policy  of  Hunter  continued  by  Burnet — Difference  between  the 
administrations  of  Hunter  and  Burnet — No  positive  poHcies  de- 
veloped by  Montgomerie  and  Cosby 220 

CHAPTER  XII 
The  Governor  in  Legislation 
Legal  control  of  the  governor  over  the  legislature— Part  taken  by 
him  in  its  proceedings — Differences  in  the  degree  of  influence  pos- 
sessed by  the  various  governors — Failure  of  Cornbury  to  control 
the  assembly — Influence  held  by  Lovelace — Some  success  gained 
by  Ingoldsby — Powerful  influence  of  Hunter  upon  the  assemblies 
— Burnet's  difficulties  and  final  success — Montgomerie  not  en- 
tirely successful — The  success  of  Cosby  greater  in  New  Jersey 
than  in  New  York 231 

CHAPTER  XIII 
The  Movement  for  a  Separate  Governor 
Union  with  New  York  never  really  popular  in  New  Jersey — Corn- 
bury's neglect  of  New  Jersey — The  demand  for  separation  brought 
forward  by  Colonel  Daniel  Coxe — Growth  of  the  desire  for  sep- 
aration— Unfortunate  attempts  of  Montgomerie  to  check  the 
movement — Efforts  of  Lewis  Morris — Effect  of  the  feeling  for 
separation  upon  Governor  Cosby — The  work  of  President  Ander- 
son and  council  and  of  the  provincial  agent— A  separate  execu- 
tive finally  granted 242; 

CHAPTER  XIV 
Other  Executive  Officers 

The  Lieutenant-Governor— Purpose  of  the  office — Difficulties  aris- 
ing out  of  it — Its  abolition. 

The  President  of  the  Council— Creation  of  the  post— Lewis  Morris 
becomes  president — His  difficulties  with  Cornbury  and  Ingoldsby 
His  two  administrations — Administration  of  Colonel  Anderson- 
Accession  of  Colonel  John  Hamilton — His  conflict  with  Morris. 

Patent  Officers  of  the  crown  —  The  provincial  secretary  —  The 
attorney  general. 

Officers  commissioned  by  the  governor — Commissioners  named  by 
the  assembly — Agents  of  the  proprietors 258 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  xi 

PACK 

CHAPTER  XV 
The  Council — Personnel 

Both  parties  represented  in  the  first  royal  council— A  majority  ob- 
tained by  the  anti-proprietary  party— The  suspension  of  Morris 
and  the  retirement  of  Jennings— Formation  of  Lord  Cornbury's 
"ring" — Col.  Daniel  Coxe  and  Peter  Sonmans  the  leading 
members — Changes  upon  the  accession  of  Lovelace — Cornbury's 
clique  continued  in  power  by  Ingoldsby — Blindness  of  the  Lords 
of  Trade— Hunter  recommends  the  destruction  of  Cornbury's 
ring— The  reorganization  of  the  council  at  length  effected — Later 
changes— The  high  character  of  the  council  maintained— Futile 
efforts  of  Cosby  to  obtain  the  dismissal  of  Morris  and  Alexander.  279 

CHAPTER  XVI 
The  Council— Its  Legal  Position 
The  legal  position  of  the  council  in  New  Jersey  similar  to  that  of 
the  councils  of  other  royal  provinces — Powers  of  the  council  as 
set  forth  in  the  governors'  commissions — Its  work  more  exactly 
stated  in  the  instructions— Number  of  its  members — Division  of 
its  membership  between  East  and  West  Jersey— Legal  privileges 
of  the  council — Extent  of  the  governor's  control  over  its  mem- 
bership— Its  advice  and  consent  needed  by  the  governor  for  the 
performance  of  many  executive  acts — Judicial  duties  of  the  coun- 
cil—Its reserve  powers — The  legal  position  of  the  council  re- 
mains substantially  unchanged  during  the  union  period 285 

CHAPTER  XVII 
The  Council  in  Administration 
Difficulty  of  understanding  the  nature  of  the  council's  proceedings 
— The  council  as  a  rule  dominated  by  the  governor — Frequency 
and  length  of  council  sessions — Functions  of  the  council  at  the 
beginning  of  new  administrations — Financial  duties  of  the  coun- 
cil—Powers over  the  courts — The  supervision  of  subordinate 
executive  officers — Laxity  of  its  control— General  police  powers 
of  the  council — Its  advisory  functions — The  council  as  an  admin- 
istrative ' '  ring  " 295 

CHAPTER  XVIII 

The  Council  in  Legislation 
The  council  as  upper  house  of  the  provincial  legislature — Simplicity 
of  its  legislative  methods — The  council  the  mouthpiece  of  the 


xii  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

governor  in  legislation — Its  early  efforts  to  assume  superiority 
over  the  assembly — Its  claims  to  be  a  secret  board — Defeat  of  the 
council — Theoretical  equality  and  real  inferiority  of  the  council  to 
the  assembly  under  the  later  governors — Harmony  between  coun- 
cil and  assembly — The  superior  experience  of  the  council  recog- 
nized by  the  assembly — The  control  of  the  assembly  over  the 
public  purse  established  in  practice — Activity  of  the  council  in 
drawing  up  addresses  to  the  crown  and  to  the  governors  ....    306 

CHAPTER  XIX 
The  General  Assembly — Personnel 

General  character  of  the  representatives — The  first  assembly  under 
proprietary  control — Strength  of  the  parties  in  the  second  assem- 
bly— Powerful  character  of  the  third  assembly — Varying  strength 
of  the  parties  under  Lovelace  and  Ingoldsby — Hunter's  first 
assembly  under  proprietary  control — Col.  Coxe  speaker  of  the 
seventh  assembly — Expulsion  of  Coxe  and  his  followers — Gov- 
ernor Hunter  becomes  the  real  leader — Fading  away  of  the  old 
party  lines  under  Burnet — Permanence  of  membership  in  the 
later  assemblies — The  rise  to  influence  of  John  Kinsey 316 

CHAPTER  XX 
The  General  Assembly — Constitution  and  Legal  Power 

The  original  constitution  and  powers  of  the  assembly  based  upon 
the  governor's  commission  and  instructions — Powers  of  the 
assembly  as  stated  in  Cornbury's  commission — Provisions  of  his 
instructions  relating  to  the  assembly — Further  power  and  priv- 
ileges of  the  representatives  based  upon  English  and  Colonial 
precedents — Unsuccessful  efforts  of  Cornbury  and  his  supporters 
to  change  the  constitution  of  the  assembly — The  constitution  of 
the  house  altered  by  an  additional  instruction — The  alteration 
confirmed  by  provincial  legislation  under  Lord  Lovelace — 
Further  changes  under  Ingoldsby— Difficulties  resulting  for  Gov- 
ernor Hunter— Eventual  settlement  of  the  questions  involved — A 
transfer  of  representatives  recommended  by  Burnet — The  opinion 
of  the  attorney-general — The  change  effected— The  act  of  1725 
regulating  elections — Passage  of  a  triennial  act  secured  by  John 
Kinsey — Its  disallowance — Kinsey's  act  for  the  freedom  of  as- 
semblies    332 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  xiii 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  XXI 
The  General  Assembly  in  Action 
Frequency  of  sessions— Length  of  assemblies— Places  of  meeting — 
Officers  of  the  assembly— Procedure  at  the  opening  of  assemblies 
— Methods  of  legislation — Importance  of  the  control  of  the  budget 
—Other  financial  powers — The  assembly  as  the  mouth-piece  for 
the  expression  of  grievances — Disputed  elections — The  assembly's 
power  of  determining  the  qualifications  of  its  members — Disci- 
pline over  members — Expulsion^ — Tendency  of  the  House  to  en- 
large its  sphere  of  action  at  the  expense  of  the  executive — The 
assembly  controls  the  colonial  agency 37^ 

CHAPTER  XXII 
Executive  and  Legislative  in  Conflict 
Apparent  harmony  at  the  beginning  of  royal  rule — Quarrel  between 
Cornbury  and  the  proprietary  party — The  "Blind  Tax" — Re- 
sulting dissolution  of  the  first  assembly — The  exclusion  of  the 
three  Quaker  members  from  the  second  assembly — Temporary 
control  of  the  anti-proprietary  party — Cornbury  loses  control  of 
the  representatives — Resulting  attacks  upon  the  governor — The 
great  Remonstrance  of  1707 — Cornbury 's  answer — The  reply  of 
the  House — Continued  conflict — Lovelace  well  received  by  the 
assembly — Attack  by  the  assembly  upon  the  council — Renewed 
conflicts  under  Ingoldsby — His  efforts  to  cast  the  blame  upon  the 
Friends — The  fifth  assembly  favorable  to  Ingoldsby— Quarrel 
about  the  title  ' '  General  Assembly  ' ' — The  early  attitude  of 
Hunter  conciliatory — He  is  supported  by  the  assembly  and 
thwarted  by  the  council— Cornbury's  ring  driven  from  the  coun- 
cil— Triumph  of  the  proprietary  party — The  seventh  assembly 
controlled  by  Col.  Coxe — Conflict  between  Hunter  and  the 
assembly — Defeat  and  expulsion  of  Coxe  and  his  supporters — 
Harmony  between  the  governor  and  the  legislature  at  length  re- 
established— Quarrel  between  Burnet  and  the  representatives — 
Burnet's  eventual  success  with  the  assembly — Conflict  between 
Montgomerie  and  the  assembly  over  separation  from  New  York 
— Montgomerie  corrected  by  the  Lords  of  Trade — Serious  trouble 
with  the  legislature  avoided  by  Cosby— Conclusions 457 

CHAPTER  XXIII 
The  Judicial  System 
The  System  of  Courts — Arrangements  under  the  proprietary  gov- 
ernments— Success  of  Cornbury's  administration  in  reorganizing 


xiv  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

FACE 

the  courts — Legislation  under  Hunter  affecting  the  system — 
Later  alterations  in  the  courts — Activity  of  Burnet  in  this  field. 

The  Personnel  of  the  Courts — Roger  Mompesson — William  Pin- 
home — Alexander  Grififith— David  Jamison— Thomas  Farmar — 
William  Trent— Robert  Lettice  Hooper. 

The  Courts  in  Action — Corruption  and  injustice  of  the  courts  under 
Cornbury  — The  injustice  checked  by  Lovelace—  Bad  effects  of  the 
accession  of  Ingoldsby — The  reformation  of  the  courts  by  Hunter 
— Important  prosecutions  of  public  officers — The  land  question  in 
the  courts — The  case  of  Vaughan  vs.  Woodruff — The  Schuyler 
case — The  judicial  work  of  the  council 501 

CHAPTER  XXIV 
Financial  Affairs 

Expenditure — The  payment  of  salaries  the  chief  regular  source  of 
expense — Efforts  of  Cornbury  to  obtain  high  salaries — Difficulties 
caused  by  the  death  of  Lovelace — A  fairly  permanent  scale  of 
salaries  established  under  Hunter — Grants  for  longer  periods  in- 
sisted upon  by  Burnet— The  question  of  the  appropriation  of  the 
interest  money  from  the  loan  offices — The  colonial  view  adopted 
by  Burnet  and  Montgomerie— Other  expenditures— Outlay  for 
the  expeditions  to  Canada. 

Taxation — The  system  established  under  Cornbury — Its  chief  fea- 
tures followed  in  later  acts — Methods  of  apportioning  and  collect- 
ing taxes — County  and  local  taxes  levied  under  provincial  acts — 
Import  and  export  duties — The  excise — Serious  difficulties  in  the 
collection  of  taxes. 

The  Bills  of  Credit — Their  first  issue  the  result  of  the  expeditions 
against  Canada — Early  difficulties  with  the  bills — A  new  issue 
forced  by  the  difficulties  of  taxation — The  establishment  of  the 
loan  offices  in  1723 — The  second  and  third  losn-office  acts — Atti- 
tude of  the  later  governors — Position  of  the  home  government  .    558 

CHAPTER  XXV 
The  Militia  System 
General  inefficiency  of  the  militia — The  political  importance  of  the 
militia  question  increased  by  the  presence  of  Quakerism — Military 
powers  of  the  governor — The  Quakers  attacked  by  Cornbury  and 
his  supporters  through  the  militia  act  of  1704— Resulting  diffi- 
culties— A  milder  system  established  under  Hunter — Military 
activity  of  Burnet — His  failure  to  gain  important  results— Weak- 
ness of  the  militia  at  the  end  of  the  period— New  Jersey's  contri- 
butions during  Queen  Anne's  War 579 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  XV 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  XXVI 

The  Church  of  England  in  the  Jerseys 

Religious  coloring  in  the  political  struggles  of  the  colony — Begin- 
nings of  Anglicanism  in  the  Jerseys — The  work  of  George  Keith 
— His  efforts  continued  by  Rev.  John  Talbot — Relations  between 
Cornbury  and  the  missionaries — Efforts  to  make  Burlington  the 
seat  of  an  American  bishop  — Hunter's  quarrel  with  the  high 
church  party — Defeat  of  Talbot  and  his  supporters — Progress 
made  by  the  Church — Talbot  consecrated  as  a  bishop  by  the  Non- 
Jurors— The  end  of  his  career — The  Church  well  established  at  the 
end  of  the  period 6oi 

CHAPTER  XXVn 

The  Proprietorship  under  Royal  Rule — East  Jersey 

Opposing  interests  in  the  East  Jersey  proprietorship — Belief  of  the 
proprietors  that  they  had  surrendered  on  conditions — Early  har- 
mony between  Cornbury  and  the  proprietors — The  "  Long  Bill" 
— Break  between  Cornbury  and  the  proprietary  party — Practical 
suspension  of  the  council  of  proprietors — Conflict  between  the 
proprietors  and  Cornbury — Struggle  in  England  between  the 
West  Jersey  Society  and  William  Dockwra — Claims  of  Sonmans 
as  general  agent  of  the  proprietors — He  is  recognized  by  Corn- 
bury— Work  of  the  proprietors  in  securing  Cornbury 's  removal— 
The  proprietors  favored  by  Lovelace — Their  efforts  checked  by 
Ingoldsby — Hunter  allies  himself  with  the  proprietors — Overthrow 
of  Sonmans,  Basse  and  Col.  Coxe — Revival  of  proprietary  activity 
— The  case  of  Vaughan  vs.  Woodruff — Effect  upon  the  people  of 
Elizabethtown — Dispute  with  West  Jersey  over  the  partition  line 
— George  Keith's  line  —  The  Barclay-Coxe  agreement  —  The 
"Greenland  award" — The  act  of  assembly  for  running  the  line — 
Failure  of  the  act — The  boundary  dispute  with  New  York — Bur- 
net's attitude  toward  the  proprietorship — His  quarrel  with  John- 
stone and  Willocks — The  revival  of  the  council  of  proprietors — 
Nature  of  its  organization  and  proceedings — Relations  with  Mont- 
gomerie  and  Cosby— The  proprietorship  weakened  by  the  with- 
drawal of  Lewis  Morris — Futile  efforts  to  adjust  the  question  of 
the  division  line  with  West  Jersey — Revival  of  the  Elizabethtown 
controversy— The  Schuyler  case  and  its  results — Increased  diffi- 
culties of  the  proprietorship 667 


xvi  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  XXVIII 

The  Proprietorship  under  Royal  Rule— West  Jersey 

Conflicting  elements  in  the  West  Jersey  proprietorship— Condition 
of  the  proprietary  affairs  at  the  beginning  of  royal  rule — The  con- 
flict with  Cornbury — Suspension  of  the  council  of  proprietors — Its 
revival  under  Lovelace — Transactions  relating  to  the  ' '  new  In- 
dian purchase" — The  council  of  proprietors  captured  by  Col. 
Daniel  Coxe — Relations  with  Hunter — Preparations  for  a  fourth 
proprietary  dividend — Appointment  of  a  register  and  surveyor  by 
the  West  Jersey  Society — The  influence  of  Coxe  supplanted  by 
that  of  Morris — The  election  of  James  Smith  as  register  and  of 
James  Alexander  as  surveyor-general — Attitude  of  the  West 
Jersey  proprietorship  in  the  boundary  dispute — The  council  once 
more  controlled  by  Coxe — He  opposes  the  adjustment  with  East 
Jersey — Renewed  conflict  over  the  surveyor-generalship — Alex- 
ander succeeds  in  retaining  ofifice — Later  work  of  the  council- 
Preparations  for  a  fifth  dividend — Business  methods  of  the  council.  702 


CHAPTER  I 
The  Proprietorship  in  Land 

A  clear  understanding  of  the  somewhat  complicated  legal 
questions  arising  in  the  Province  of  New  Jersey  during  the 
proprietary  period  is  most  readily  reached  by  drawing  a 
sharp  distinction  between  the  proprietorship  as  a  form  of 
land  ownership  and  as  a  grant  of  governmental  power.  It 
is  the  purpose  of  this  chapter  to  trace  the  changes  in  the 
title  to  the  soil  of  the  Province  under  the  British  Crown 
down  to  1703.  During  most  of  the  period  from  the  Eng- 
lish conquest  of  New  Netherland  to  the  establishment  of 
royal  rule,  the  proprietors  of  New  Jersey  were  maintaining 
a  government  over  the  province.  But  there  is  no  necessary 
logical  connection  between  the  two  phases  of  colonial  pro- 
prietorship, and  it  will  greatly  facilitate  our  task  to  discuss 
them  separately. 

According  to  the  English  law  of  the  seventeenth  century 
the  title  to  the  entire  eastern  shore  of  North  America  ex- 
tending through  from  sea  to  sea  lay  in  the  British  Crown 
in  virtue  of  the  discoveries  of  the  Cabots.  This  claim  was 
of  very  doubtful  justice,  but  it  was  made  good  by  the  su- 
perior colonizing  abilities  of  England.  As  for  the  Dutch 
claims  upon  the  Hudson  and  the  Delaware,  they  were  never 
expressly  recognized  by  the  British  government. 

The  great  patent  of  1606  to  the  London  and  Plymouth 
Companies  made  the  territory  now  included  in  New  Jersey 
a  part  of  the  zone  in  which  either  company  might  acquire 
territory.     But  neither  one  made  any  effort  to  plant  settle- 


2  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

ments  in  this  region.  Again,  in  1634,  while  New  Nether- 
land  was  actually  in  possession  of  the  Dutch,  King  Charles 
I,  probably  through  the  influence  of  Strafford,  granted  the 
province  of  New  Albion  to  the  Roman  Catholic,  Sir  Edmund 
Ployden.  New  Jersey  was  included  within  its  limits.  But 
Sir  Edmund  possessed  neither  the  ability  nor  the  means  to 
make  New  Albion  a  second  Maryland,  and  the  grant  became 
a  dead  letter. 

The  act  of  Charles  II  in  granting,  on  March  12,  1664,  to 
his  brother  James,  Duke  of  York,  an  extensive  American 
territory  coinciding  in  part  with  New  Netherland  is  to  be 
looked  upon  as  the  first  enduring  legal  separation  of  the  soil 
of  what  was  to  be  New  Jersey  from  the  English  Crown. 
New  Jersey  was,  however,  merely  included  in  the  sweeping 
gift  and  was  not  yet  in  any  way  marked  off  from  the  ad- 
joining territories.  The  patent  made  over  to  the  Duke  of 
York,  in  addition  to  certain  territories  in  New  England, 
Long  Island  "  lying  and  being  toward  the  west  of  Cape 
Cod  "  and  all  the  mainland  from  the  west  bank  of  the  Con- 
necticut to  the  east  side  of  Delaware  Bay.  All  this  terri- 
tory was  to  be  held  by  the  Duke  in  free  and  common  socage 
as  of  the  manor  of  East  Greenwich,  subject  to  the  rent  of 
40  beaver  skins  annually  if  they  should  be  demanded.* 

A  few  years  later  James  undoubtedly  estimated  the  im- 
portance of  colonial  affairs  more  justly  than  any  of  the 
other  Stuarts.  But  this  fact  was,  in  part  at  least,  the  result 
of  his  connection  with  the  maritime  affairs  of  England  as 
Lord  High  Admiral  and  of  his  experience  as  proprietor  of 
New  York.  In  1664  he  does  not  seem  to  have  known  ac- 
curately the  true  value  of  what  he  had  obtained. 

This  ignorance  led  him  to  commit  a  serious  blunder  at 
the  very  outset.     While  the  expedition  of  Nicolls,  which 

^ New  Jersey  Archives  (first  series),  vol.  i,  p.  3. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  IN  LAND  3 

was  to  clear  his  property  from  the  obstruction  of  Dutch  oc- 
cupation, was  still  on  the  ocean,  and,  of  course,  before  New 
Netherland  was  actually  in  his  possession,  the  Duke  exe- 
cuted, on  June  23  and  24,  1664,  deeds  of  lease  and  release 
to  Lord  John  Berkeley  and  Sir  George  Carteret,  by  which 
he  made  over  to  them  all  "  that  tract  of  land  lying  and  be- 
ing to  the  westward  of  Long  Island  and  Manhitas  Island 
and  bounded  on  the  east  part  by  the  main  sea  and  part  by 
Hudson's  river  and  hath  upon  the  West  Delaware  Bay 
or  river  and  to  the  northward  as  far  as  the  northermost 
branch  of  the  said  Bay  or  River  of  Delaware  which  is 
41°  40'  of  latitude  and  crosseth  over  thence  in  a  straight  line 
to  Hudson's  River  in  41°  of  latitude,  which  said  tract  of 
land  is  hereafter  to  be  called  by  the  name  or  names  of  Nova 
Cesarea  or  New  Jersey."  In  return  for  this  magnificent 
grant  the  Duke  received  merely  a  nominal  remuneration. 
The  lease  for  one  year  was  made  in  consideration  of  the 
sum  of  IDS  and  subject  to  the  rent  of  a  peppercorn.  The 
release  provided  for  a  rent  of  40  nobles  annually  if  de- 
manded.^ 

That  the  Duke  should  make  such  a  grant  to  Berkeley  and 
Carteret,  who  were  prominent  and  typical  figures  at  the  Re- 
storation court,  was  however,  very  natural.  The  Restora- 
tion was  a  time  of  great  revival  of  interest  in  the  colonies, 
and  both  noblemen  were  already  connected  with  colonial 
affairs  as  proprietors  of  the  Carolinas.  Berkeley  and  Car- 
teret were,  moreover,  tried  and  true  Cavaliers  who  had 
fought  and  suffered  in  the  King's  cause  and  to  whom,  there- 
fore, the  Stuarts  were  under  real  obligation. 

But  the  location  of  the  grant  in  the  midst  of  the  Duke's 
possessions  and  almost  cutting  them  in  two  made  the  gift 
a   harmful   one  to   James   himself.     Governor   Nicolls   of 

^New  Jersey  Archives  (first  series),  vol.  i,  pp.  8,  10. 


4  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

New  York,  in  his  irritation  at  being  deprived  of  the  terri- 
tory, declared  indeed  that  the  gift  was  due  to  the  machina- 
tions of  Capt.  Scott,  the  adventurer,  whose  claims  upon  Long 
Island  had  been  passed  over  and  who  had  other  grievances 
against  the  Duke  as  well.  Nicolls  thought  that  this  man 
in  spite  had  influenced  Berkeley  and  Carteret  to  ask  for  the 
land  in  question,  knowing  that  James  would  thus  lose  much 
of  his  finest  territory.^  There  is,  however,  no  further 
evidence  of  such  an  intrigue. 

But  the  eyes  of  James  were  soon  opened  to  the  mistake 
which  he  had  made.  As  soon  as  he  heard  of  the  grant, 
Gov.  Nicolls  wrote  to  the  Duke  protesting.^  He  stated 
that  Berkeley  and  Carteret  doubtless  did  not  know  how 
damaging  their  colony  would  be  to  the  Duke  and  suggested 
that  they  be  urged  to  take  instead  a  grant  lying  along  the 
two  shores  of  the  Delaware.'  Later,  Samuel  Maverick,  one 
of  the  royal  commissioners  to  New  England,  added  his 
protest.*  When,  moreover,  in  1668  Nicolls  returned  to 
England,  he  seems  to  have  done  all  in  his  power  to  con- 
vince the  Duke  of  the  necessity  of  undoing  the  grant,  if  it 
was  in  any  way  possible.  °  James  for  once  appears  to  have 
been  convinced,  and  when  determined  upon  advancing  his 
own  interest  he  was  never  backward.  His  first  step  was 
the  recovery  of  Staten  Island  which  was  taken  from  New 
Jersey  upon  the  technicality  that  one  arm  of  Hudson's 
River  flowed  around  it.®  As  the  deeds  making  over  the 
land  to  Berkeley  and  Carteret  were  undoubtedly  legal,  it 
is  difiicult  to  see  how  more  could  have  been  accomplished 
by  active  aggression. 

^Nezv  Jersey  Archives  (first  series),  vol.  i,  p.  46. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  46.        ^Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  54.         *Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  58. 

*  Brodhead,  History  of  the  State  of  New  York  (New  York,  1853),  vol. 
ii,  p.  149. 

*  Brodhead,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  149;  Clute,  Annals  of  Staten  Island 
(New  York,  1877),  p.  47. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  IN  LAND  5 

But  circumstances  almost  enabled  the  Duke  by  pacific 
means  to  regain  what  he  had  lost.  Lord  Berkeley  was 
never  much  interested  in  the  new  lands,  and  just  at  this 
time  he  fell  into  disgrace  at  court  owing  to  charges  of 
corruption.  He  therefore  offered  to  surrender  his  interests 
to  James  and  to  receive  lands  on  the  Delaware  instead. 
Sir  George  Carteret  also  agreed  to  the  exchange,  and  ar- 
rangements were  almost  concluded.  But  for  some  reason 
which  can  now  only  be  surmised,  though  probably  connected 
with  the  claims  of  Lord  Baltimore  to  the  western  shore  of 
Delaware  Bay,  the  transfer  fell  through.^ 

The  Dutch  reconquest  of  New  Netherland  and  the  subse- 
quent return  of  the  country  into  English  hands,  however, 
gave  James  a  golden  opportunity,  for  by  such  conquest  and 
recession,  according  to  the  principles  of  English  law,  all 
former  grants  and  patents  were  annulled,  and  the  whole  ter- 
ritory once  more  fell  directly  beneath  the  power  of  the 
British  Crown.  The  Duke  of  York  at  once  obtained  from 
his  brother  a  new  patent  reconveying  to  him  all  the  Ameri- 
can territories  which  the  former  grant  of  1664  had  given 
him.  This  was  esentially  a  new  grant  and  did  not  even 
allude  to  the  former  one.  It  of  course  included  New 
Jersey  with  the  rest  of  the  territory  conveyed.  Thus 
James  was  master  of  the  situation  by  every  legal  principle 
and  had  recovered  all  his  lost  ground.^ 

But  meanwhile  other  events  had  taken  place  altering  the 
situation.  Down  to  March  18,  1673-4,  Berkeley  and  Car- 
teret had  continued  as  joint  proprietors  of  New  Jersey,  hav- 
ing never  made  any  division  of  the  lands  between  them. 
But  Berkeley  soon  saw  the  difficulties  which  must  be  en- 
countered before  any  substantial  gain  could  result  from  the 

'Brodhead,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  150,  164. 

*  Ibid.,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  260-261;  Learning  and  Spicer,  Grants  and 
Concessions  (reprint.  Somerville,  1881),  p.  41. 


6  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

new  country.  He  had  little  interest  in  America  and  was 
anxious  only  to  come  out  of  the  whole  affair  without  loss. 
Therefore,  on  the  above-mentioned  date,  he  sold  out  his  un- 
divided share  of  New  Jersey  to  two  members  of  the  So- 
ciety of  Friends,  John  Fenwick  and  Edward  Byllinge,  for 
the  sum  of  £1000.  This  purchase  was,  of  course,  a 
bargain.^  But  the  Friends  were  unfortunate  in  that  it 
took  place  just  after  the  Dutch  reconquest  of  July,  1673. 
By  this  reconquest,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  the  claims  of 
the  English  Proprietors  were  forfeited.  Byllinge  and  Fen- 
wick might,  however,  justly  look  to  the  English  Crown  for 
compensation  since  the  Treaty  of  1674  had  restored  the 
country  to  England. 

Nevertheless  the  purchase  of  1673-4  is  an  event  of  the 
greatest  historical  significance  for  it  marks  the  beginning 
of  the  first  great  Quaker  experiment  in  American  coloniza- 
tion. It  is  unnecessary  to  trace  here  the  work  of  George 
Fox  and  the  growth  of  the  Society  of  Friends  in  England, 
nor  have  we  time  to  examine  the  disabilities  and  persecu- 
tions to  which  those  devoted  people  were  subject  there. 
Unfortunately  it  is  not  easy  to  trace  in  detail  the  develop- 
ment of  the  idea  of  colonization  among  them.  The  burn- 
ing zeal  of  the  early  Friends  had  driven  them  to  endure  in 
the  plantations  a  persecution  as  bitter  as  that  in  the  mother- 
land itself,  and  their  heroic  missionary  efforts  had  been 
crowned  by  considerable  success.  But  as  yet  there  had 
been  no  attempt  at  the  creation  of  a  Quaker  commonwealth 
in  America. 

Edward  Byllinge,  described  as  "  gentleman  of  West- 
minister, Middlesex,  England,"  was  a  Quaker  merchant  of 
some  standing,  while  John  Fenwick  was  a  former  officer  in 
Cromwell's  army,  who  had  become  a  convert  to  the  doctrines 

,    'Mulford,  History  of  New  Jersey  (Philadelphia,  1851),  pp.  155.  164. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  IN  LAND  7 

of  the  Friends.  He  seems,  however,  to  have  been  a  self- 
assertive  person,  by  no  means  entirely  weaned  from  the  in- 
stincts of  the  "  world's  people."  ^  But  as  the  purchase  of 
a  share  in  New  Jersey  was  simply  made  by  Fenwick  in 
trust  for  Byllinge,  the  latter  was  the  person  chiefly  con- 
cerned. 

There  is  no  direct  evidence  to  show  whether  Byllinge  had 
in  mind  originally  the  founding  of  a  refuge  for  his  sect  in 
America  or  whether  his  investment  was  simply  a  business 
transaction.  Later  events  surely  indicate  that  the  motives 
were  combined.  A  group  of  Friends  was  already  settled 
upon  the  soil  of  New  Jersey  at  Shrewsbury,  one  of  whom 
was  the  brother  of  a  well-known  London  upholsterer.* 
Moreover,  during  the  period  from  1671-3,  Fox  himself  was 
traveling  and  preaching  in  America  and,  as  his  route  from 
Maryland  to  New  England  took  him  directly  across  New 
Jersey,'  the  student  can  scarcely  help  inferring  a  connection 
between  his  journey  and  the  purchase,  though  Fox  himself 
says  nothing  to  indicate  it.  At  any  rate  William  Penn  was 
closely  associated  with  Byllinge,  and  the  leading  part  he 
subsequently  played  in  the  affairs  of  West  Jersey  makes 
it  probable  that  he  was  the  real  instigator  of  the  purchase. 
It  is  certainly  clear  that  the  whole  Society  of  Friends  soon 
came  to  be  behind  the  attempt  and  that  upon  the  suc- 
cess or  failure  of  West  Jersey  depended  the  extent  of  their 
subsequent  operations  in  America. 

But  though  the  claims  of  Berkeley,  such  as  they  were, 
to  the  soil  of  New  Jersey  thus  passed  into  the  hands  of  men 
of  an  entirely  different  stamp,  Sir  George  Carteret  did  not, 
like  his  associate,   wish   to   retire   from   colonization.     In 

^Ngw  Jersey  Archives  (first  series),  vol.  i,  p.  185,  note.    Johnson, 
Salem  (Philadelphia,  1839),  pp.  29-34. 
^  Journal  of  George  Fox  (Philadelphia,  undated),  p.  449. 
*Ibid.,  pp.  449-508,  453-455. 


8  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

spite  of  various  troubles  the  planting  of  Nova  Caesarea 
had  made  good  progress,  and  he  did  not  wish  to  abandon  it 
He  realized,  however,  the  necessity  of  obtaining  a  proper 
legal  basis  for  his  claims  and  therefore  exerted  his  influ- 
ence at  court  to  secure  the  renewal  of  his  grant.  King 
Charles,  as  usual,  was  ready  to  please  the  staunch  old 
Cavalier,  and  several  weeks  before  the  Duke  took  out  his 
second  patent,  he  signed  a  letter  setting  forth  that  Carteret 
was  legally  seized  of  the  Province  of  New  Jersey.^  How 
the  king  could  do  this  without  making  a  formal  grant  of 
the  province  to  Carteret  is  an  enigma,  for  at  the  time  the 
province  legally  belonged  to  Charles  himself  and  to  no  one 
else.  And  moreover,  a  royal  patent  was  about  to  be  issued 
giving  both  it  and  the  adjoining  districts  to  James. ^  How- 
ever, as  the  letter  was  unofficial,  we  may  disregard  it  as  of 
no  legal  value. 

Yet  it  was  a  foretaste  of  Carteret's  success,  for  soon  after 
he  actually  succeeded  in  getting  from  the  Duke  of  York, 
by  exactly  what  means  we  cannot  say,  a  formal  reconvey- 
ance for  a  portion  of  the  former  province  of  New  Jersey.^ 
He  was  to  have  all  north  of  a  line  drawn  from  Barnegat 
to  a  certain  creek  on  the  Delaware  next  below  Rankokus 
Creek,  an  arrangement  which  gave  Carteret  more  than  half 
of  the  territory.^  Carteret's  province  was  once  more  called 
New  Jersey.  James  himself  later  said  that  the  new  con- 
veyance was  obtained  from  him  "  by  surprise,"  but  this  is 
obscure.  It  is  more  likely  that  Carteret's  influence  was  too 
strong  for  the  Duke.  He  was,  moreover,  a  man  of  hot 
temper  and  much  determination,  whom  it  would  be  unwise 

^ New  Jersey  Archives  (first  series),  vol.  i,  p.  153. 
^Brodhead,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  267. 
^ New  Jersey  Archives  (first  series),  vol.  i,  pp.  160-163. 
*  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietary  Governments  (Newark, 
1875),  p.  81. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  IN  LAND  g 

for  James  to  antagonize  as  things  then  stood  in  England/ 
At  any  rate  the  fact  of  the  new  grant  remains  clear  and 
certain,  and  from  this  time  on  the  title  of  Carteret  to  the 
soil  of  such  land  as  the  conveyance  covered  was  never 
legally  called  into  question. 

There  still  remained,  however,  the  question  as  to  the  title 
of  the  remainder  of  the  original  New  Jersey  grant.  The 
Quaker  assigns  of  Berkeley  acted  as  if  they  supposed  that 
the  residue  necessarily  came  into  their  possession  in  spite  of 
the  Dutch  reconquest.  In  so  far  as  concerns  their  relations 
with  the  Duke  of  York,  their  conduct  is  certainly  charac- 
terized^ by  the  utmost  straightforwardness  and  simplicity 
of  mind.  In  their  relations  with  each  other,  however,  this 
simplicity  is  not  so  apparent.  Almost  immediately  a  diffi- 
culty arose  between  Byllinge  and  Fenwick  as  to  what 
interest  each  of  them  held  in  the  new  region.  As  they 
could  not  agree,  they  eventually  submitted  the  question  to 
the  arbitration  of  William  Penn,  whose  commanding  in- 
fluence among  his  co-religionists  is  thus  very  clearly  shown. 
After  due  consideration  he  awarded  nine-tenths  of  the 
territory  to  Byllinge  and  one-tenth  to  Fenwick,  with  a  con- 
siderable sum  of  money.^  But  a  set  of  curious  complica- 
tions soon  overset  this  arrangement.  Byllinge  met  with 
business  reverses,  and,  as  he  did  not  wish  to  surrender  the 
new  undertaking,  he  made  over  his  interest  in  New  Jersey 
to  William  Penn,  Gawen  Lawrie,  and  Nicholas  Lucas,  to 
be  held  in  trust  for  his  creditors.  The  fact  that  these  three 
prominent  Friends  thus  assumed  the  chief  management  of 
affairs  is  one  of  the  clearest  indications  that  the  entire  So- 
ciety was  interested  in  the  attempt  of  Byllinge.' 

'  Brodhead,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  268. 

'  Mulford,  New  Jersey,  p.  166;  Smith,  History  of  the  Colony  of  Nova 
Caesarea  or  New  Jersey  (Trenton,  1877),  p.  79. 
'Mulford,  op.  cit.,  p.  167;  Smith,  op.  cit.,  p.  79. 


lO  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

And  now  Fenwick  also  lost  legal  control  of  his  portion. 
He  had  begun  at  once  to  make  preparations  for  a  settlement 
in  person  and  in  addition  sold  portions  of  his  land  to  others. 
But  before  he  set  out  he  was  forced  to  obtain  a  loan  from 
John  Elbridge  and  Edmund  Warner,  two  well-known 
Friends,  and  as  security  for  the  payment  of  this  and  other 
debts  gave  them  a  lease  of  his  part  of  the  Province  for 
looo  years  with  the  power  to  sell  enough  to  reimburse  them 
for  the  loan.  This  transaction,  of  course,  really  took  all 
control  out  of  Fenwick's  hands. ^ 

Meanwhile,  Penn,  Lucas,  and  Lawrie  were  pushing  mat- 
ters and  succeeded  in  settling  the  claims  of  Byllinge's  credi- 
tors in  great  part  by  satisfying  them  with  land.^  But  the 
trustees  were  not  content  with  the  division  of  New  Jersey 
as  provided  for  by  the  Duke's  grant  to  Carteret  and  deter- 
mined to  bring  about  if  possible  an  arrangement  more  to 
their  own  advantage.  It  was  thought  expedient,  in  order 
to  accomplish  this,  that  the  whole  of  the  Quaker  portion  of 
New  Jersey  should  be  placed  under  the  direct  control  of  the 
representatives  of  Byllinge.  Therefore  Elbridge  and 
Warner  made  over  to  them  all  that  part  which  they  had 
obtained  from  Major  Fenwick.^  The  trustees  of  Byllinge, 
thus  having  complete  charge  of  the  Quaker  interest,  forth- 
with addressed  themselves  to  Sir  George  Carteret  and  with- 
out difficulty  obtained  a  new  division  of  the  province,  that 
nobleman  being  persuaded  by  the  Duke  of  York  to  surrender 
his  advantage.*  A  line  was  now  agreed  upon  beginning  at 
Little  Egg  Harbor  and  running  to  a  point  on  the  Delaware 
in  41°  north  latitude  which  was  in  future  to  be  the  boundary 

^Mulford,  op.  cit.,  p.  167;  Johnson,  Salem,  p.  56. 

'Mulford,  op.  cit.,  p.  169;  West  Jersey  Records,  liber  B  (part  i). 

•Mulford,  op.  cit.,  p.  170. 

*  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  p.  86. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  IN  LAND  1 1 

between  East  and  West  New  Jersey  as  the  two  portions 
were  now  definitely  christened.  The  document  by  which 
this  arrangement  was  effected  was  signed  by  Carteret,  Penn, 
Lucas,  Lawrie,  and  Byllinge,  and  is  therefore  known  as  the 
Quintipartite  Deed/  There  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  the 
Friends  knew  how  greatly  the  new  division  was  in  their 
favor,  but  it  gave  West  Jersey  approximately  4,595  square 
miles  as  against  2,981  for  East  Jersey.  Inasmuch  as  the 
Quaker  claims  to  any  part  of  New  Jersey  were  from  a 
strictly  legal  point  of  view  invalid,  the  power  of  Byllinge's 
trustees  to  make  any  rearrangement  of  the  territory  was 
naturally  nil.  Nevertheless,  as  the  claims  of  the  Friends 
were  eventually  made  good,  and  as  the  line  thus  laid  down 
really  came  to  be  the  division  between  two  distinct  provinces 
and  land  systems,  the  Quintipartite  Deed  must  be  regarded 
as  an  important  mark  in  New  Jersey  history.  From  this 
time  on  until  the  establishment  of  royal  government  we  are 
dealing  with  the  history  of  two  clearly  separate  colonies, 
— East  and  West  Jersey. 

After  the  transaction  had  been  completed,  Penn,  Lawrie, 
and  Lucas  reconveyed  Fenwick's  tenth  to  Elbridge  and 
Warner  but  now  made  it  over  to  them  in  fee  simple,  thus 
cutting  off  any  possible  reversion  to  Fenwick  or  his  heirs. 
This  was  a  sharp  practice,  though  perhaps  legal. ^  But  Fen- 
wick complained  loudly  that  he  had  been  defrauded  of  his 
rights.  He  refused  to  recognize  the  validity  of  what  had 
been  done  and  continued  to  style  himself  chief  proprietor 
of  West  Jersey.'  In  1675  he  had  established  a  colony  at 
Salem,*  but  before  his  relations  with  the  legitimate  proprie- 
tors could  lead  to  serious  difficulty  he  became  involved  in 
quarrels  with  Gov.  Andros  of  New  York  and  was  for  a  time 

^  New  Jersey  Archives  (first  series),  vol.  i,  p.  205. 

*Mulford,  op.  cit.,  pp.  170-171. 

•Johnson,  op.  cit.,  p.  37.  ♦Smith,  op.  cit.,  p.  79. 


12  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

forcibly  removed  from  the  scene  of  action/  After  the 
rights  of  Fenwick  had  been  thus  put  aside,  Elbridge  and 
Warner  were  joined  with  Byllinge  and  his  trustees  as  regu- 
lar proprietors  of  West  Jersey  and,  as  such,  participated  in 
action  taken  with  regard  to  the  province.^  But  Fenwick 
resolutely  maintained  at  least  his  claims  against  the  West 
Jersey  proprietors  until  1682,  when  a  peaceful  settlement 
was  at  length  effected  by  William  Penn.  In  September  of 
that  year  the  shares  of  Elbridge  and  Warner  were  made 
over  to  Penn,  and  in  March,  Fenwick  released  all  his  estate 
in  the  province  to  the  same  person,*  except  the  tract  known 
as  Fenwick's  Colony  containing  150,000  acres.*  To  this 
land  his  right  was  recognized,  but  henceforth  Penn  was 
acknowledged  as  owner  of  the  one-tenth  interest  in  the 
proprietorship  which  had  been  under  dispute. 

From  this  point  the  study  of  the  relations  of  the  various 
claimants  to  proprietorship  in  New  Jersey  is  much  compli- 
cated by  the  continued  dispute  carried  on  between  the  Duke 
of  York  on  the  one  hand  and  Carteret  and  the  assigns  of 
Berkeley  on  the  other  as  to  the  right  of  the  latter  to  exer- 
cise governmental  rights  over  the  province.  With  this  mat- 
ter we  are,  of  course,  not  in  this  chapter  concerned.  In  the 
case  of  the  Quaker  claimants  to  West  Jersey,  however,  the 
conflict  necessarily  involved  also  the  validity  of  the  claims 
of  Penn  and  his  associates  to  the  soil  of  West  Jersey  and  is 
therefore  of  great  account  in  our  present  consideration. 
From  the  signing  of  the  Quintipartite  Deed  the  Quakers 
were  engaged  in  a  desperate  legal  struggle  to  make  good 

'Mulford,  op.  cii.,  pp.  168-9,  184-S;  New  Jersey  Archives  (first 
series),  pp.  187-204,  235-239,  274-283. 

'■Mulford,  op.  cit.,  p.  171. 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii,  p.  loi. 

♦Johnson,  op.  cit.,  p.  26;  New  Jersey  Archives  (first  series),  vol.  i, 
p.  370. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  IN  LAND  13 

their  claims.  It  would  seem  that,  when  the  legal  basis  of 
their  case  was  so  weak,  the  result  must  have  been  a  foregone 
conclusion,  especially  when  they  were  pitted  against  James 
Stuart.  But  such  was  not  the  case.  Penn  and  his  asso- 
ciates handled  the  matter  with  great  skill.  This,  moreover, 
was  just  the  time  when  James,  threatened  by  the  Exclusion 
Bill,  was  obliged  to  retire  to  Scotland  to  avoid  the  outcry 
raised  against  him,  and  when  he  was  most  anxious  to  rid 
himself  of  all  further  causes  of  complaint  at  any  sacrifice 
whatever.  West  Jersey  was  a  small  thing  to  weigh  against 
the  crown  of  England.  Unwilling  to  alienate  the  influ- 
ence of  Penn  at  court  and  throughout  the  country,  the  Duke 
was  finally  led  to  leave  the  entire  controversy  to  the  de- 
cision of  Sir  William  Jones,  an  eminent  lawyer,  indeed,  but 
one  of  his  most  bitter  opponents.^ 

The  result  was  what  the  Friends  must  have  anticipated. 
They  argued  their  case  with  shrewdness,  and  Sir  William 
decided  against  the  Duke  in  every  particular.  His  brief 
opinion  mentioned  the  original  grant  of  New  Jersey  to 
Berkeley  and  Carteret  but  referred  in  no  way  to  the  Dutch 
reconquest  and  its  results.^  But  whatever  objections  may 
be  brought  against  the  arbitration,  James  was  in  no  position 
to  stand  out  against  it.  Without  waiting  even  for  the  ad- 
vice of  his  own  counsel  he  executed  a  deed  making  over 
whatsoever  rights  he  had  to  the  soil  of  West  Jersey  to  the 
Quaker  proprietors.  It  is  even  said  that  this  deed  of  re- 
lease was  presented  to  the  Duke  by  Byllinge  himself.  It  is 
certainly  significant  that  it  recites  most  carefully  the  several 
conveyances  which  had  taken  place  and  makes  special  men- 
tion of  the  Dutch   reoccupation.'     At  any  rate  the  con- 

'Brodhead,  Nov  York,  vol.  ii,  pp.  338-341. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives  (first  series),  vol.  i,  p.  323. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  324;  Brodhead,  op.  cii.,  vol.  ii,  p.  341. 


14  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

troversy  was  definitely  settled.     The  entire  soil  of  Nova 
Caesarea  had  slipped  from  the  grasp  of  the  Duke. 

It  now  remains  for  us  to  trace  the  proprietorships  of 
East  and  West  Jersey  down  to  1703,  the  date  of  the  es- 
tablishment of  royal  government.  It  will  be  most  con- 
venient to  consider  West  Jersey  first.  It  was  apparently 
never  the  intention  of  Byllinge  and  his  associates  to  retain 
any  general  proprietary  rights  to  the  soil  of  their  whole 
province.  In  March,  1676  in  the  "  Concessions  "  issued  by 
the  West  Jersey  proprietors,  a  definite  arrangement  was  set 
forth  by  which  proprietary  rights  could  be  acquired.^  The 
entire  province  of  West  Jersey  was  to  be  divided  into  100 
equal  parts  to  be  known  as  proprieties,  and  these  were  to 
be  grouped  into  ten  larger  divisions  known  as  tenths. 
Persons  purchasing  tenths  or  proprieties  were  to  be  recog- 
nized as  proprietors.  One-tenth  was  of  course  recognized 
as  belonging  to  Elbridge  and  Warner,  and  two  other  tenths 
were  disposed  of  at  once  to  creditors  of  Byllinge.  One  of 
these  was  made  over  to  five  Friends  of  Yorkshire,  Thomas 
Hutchinson,  Thomas  Pearson,  Joseph  Helmsley,  George 
Hutcheson  and  Mahlon  Stacy,  for  consideration  of  sums  of 
£2450  and  £1050  due  to  them  from  Byllinge.^  The 
other  tenth  was  acquired  by  a  group  of  London  Quak- 
ers,^ who  selected  as  their  commissioners  John  Penford, 
Thomas  Olive,  Daniel  Wills  and  Benj.  Scott*  But  neither 
of  these  associations  contemplated  the  establishment  of  con- 
solidated landed  interests.  The  Yorkshire  group  began  at 
once  to  dispose  of  portions  of  their  tenths  to  other  parties. 
The  London  Quakers  do  not  appear  to  have  acted  collec- 
tively after  their  purchase,  but  individually  they  too  sold  out 

^ New  Jersey  Archives  (first  series),  vol.  i,  p.  241. 
'Smith,  op.  cit.,  p.  92  (note);   West  Jersey  Records,  liber  B,  part  i, 
pp.  131,  138. 
•Smith,  op.  cit.,  p.  92.  */W</.,  p.  98. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  IN  LAND 


15 


fractions  of  their  interests.  Thus  the  number  of  proprietors 
increased  rapidly.  And  this  effect  was  further  increased 
by  additional  sales  of  shares  from  Byllinge  and  his  trustees.^ 
Several  sales  of  whole  proprieties  are  recorded.  But 
from  the  beginning  it  appeared  that  this  unit  was  too  large, 
and  fractions  of  proprieties  were  sold.  For  example,  on 
February  28  and  March  i,  1676,  Byllinge  and  his  assigns 
sold  one  propriety  to  William  Peachy.  Byllinge  received 
£350  and  Penn,  Lawrie,  and  Lucas  5s.  each.^  This 
seems  to  have  been  the  standard  price.  But  the  propriety 
was  divided  as  follows:  Wm.  Peachy  one-eighth,  John 
Cripps  one-eighth,  Thomas  Doll  one-eighth,  Richard  Smith 
one-eighth,  Richard  Mathews  one-eighth,  Henry  Stacy  one- 
eighth,  Wm.  Kent  one-eighth,  and  Wm.  Drewitt  one- 
eighth.  In  the  same  month  of  the  same  year  Thomas  Budd 
obtained  a  propriety  on  similar  terms.*  In  February,  1683 
he  sold  one-eighth  of  this  to  William  Budd.*  In  Septem- 
ber, 1682  another  one-eighth  had  been  sold  for  £50 
to  John  Gosling.*^  And  so  the  process  went  on.  But  the 
fractions  in  many  cases  kept  growing  smaller.  Thus  the 
Wm.  Kent  above  mentioned,  in  July  1678,  sold  one- fourth 
of  his  one-eighth  of  a  share  to  Wm.  Muliness.'  All  sorts 
of  fractions  of  proprieties  were  sold,  but  those  most  usual 
were  fourths,  eighths,  sixteenths,  thirty-seconds  and  sixty- 
fourths.  The  subdivision  of  shares  was,  also,  in  some 
cases  the  result  of  inheritance.  Of  larger  sales  perhaps  the 
most  notable  was  that  of  April,  1677,  from  the  proprietors 
to  Robert  Turner  and  four  other  Irish  Friends.  This  in- 
cluded an  entire  propriety.'  In  most  cases  the  early  pur- 
chasers of  proprietary  interests  were  Friends,  and  the 
greater  number  of  sales  of  shares  in  the  Yorkshire  Tenth 

'  JV^si  Jersey  Records,  passim.  ^ Ibid.,  liber  B,  part  i,  p.  i. 

^ Ibid.,  p.  6.  *Ibid.,  p.  37.  ^Ibid.,  p.  49. 

*Ibid.,  p.  84.  ^Ibid,,  p.  50. 


l6  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

were  to  persons  resident  in  the  north  of  England.  The 
great  majority  of  those  holding  shares  removed  to  the  pro- 
vince. 

Thus  the  entire  character  of  the  West  Jersey  proprietor- 
ship changed.  The  old  feudal  element  was  gone,  and  the 
proprietors  became  merely  a  numerous  body  of  land  own- 
ers. As  to  the  exact  number  holding  proprietary  interests 
down  to  1702  no  definite  statement  can  be  made.  Many 
shares  were  never  claimed  at  all;  others  were  not  recorded 
and  so  lost.^  In  1687  when  the  council  of  proprietors 
was  established,  an  important  agreement  was  signed  by  31 
residents  of  the  province,^  each  of  whom  held  at  least  an 
interest  of  one  thirty-second  of  a  propriety,  and  this  did  not 
include  the  eleven  members  of  the  council  itself.  After 
Penn  directed  his  attention  chiefly  elsewhere,  no  one  man 
of  commanding  ability  and  influence  appeared  among  the 
West  Jersey  proprietors  to  take  his  place.  The  most  not- 
able names  among  them  are  those  of  the  shrewd  and  cour- 
ageous Samuel  Jennings  and  the  respected  Thomas  Olive. 
Others  who  took  a  prominent  part  in  proprietary  affairs 
were  Francis  Davenport,  John  Reading,  William  Biddle, 
Peter  Fretwell,  Thomas  Gardiner,  Sr.,  and  Thomas  Gar- 
diner, Jr.,  who  was  surveyor  general  after  1694. 

But,  in  spite  of  the  various  sales  and  transfers,  the  inter- 
ests of  Edward  Byllinge  continued  to  predominate  down  to 
his  death  in  1687.  His  entire  holdings  then  passed  by  pur- 
chase from  his  heirs  into  the  hands  of  Dr.  Daniel  Coxe. 
Dr.  Coxe  was  a  well-known  personage,  being  physician  to 
the  Queen  of  Charles  II  and  later  also  to  Anne.^     He  was 

*  Stokes,  in  Proceedings  of  the  West  Jersey  Surveyors'  Association 
(Camden,  1880),  p.  48. 

"^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  i,  p.  i. 

*John  Clement,  Proceedings  of  the  West  Jersey  Surveyors'  Associa- 
tion, p.  119. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  IN  LAND  17 

an  energetic  and  ambitious  man  whose  object  at  this  time 
was  apparently  to  imitate  the  achievements  of  William 
Penn/  Coxe  afterward  speculated  rather  extensively  in 
colonial  land  claims,  being  remembered  especially  as  the 
purchaser  of  Sir  Robert  Heath's  patent  of  1629  for  "  Caro- 
lana,"  the  continued  validity  of  which  he  endeavored  to 
secure.^  But  as  Coxe  was  not  a  Friend  his  operations  were 
regarded  rather  coolly  in  West  Jersey.^  The  court  phy- 
sician had  difficulty,  however,  in  securing  the  recognition  of 
his  claims  to  governmental  control  over  the  province  and 
soon  decided  to  withdraw  from  his  venture.  Accordingly, 
in  1 69 1,  he  sold  out  the  greater  part  of  his  interest  to  a 
company  known  as  the  West  Jersey  Society.*  According 
to  the  deeds  of  lease  and  release,  about  20  proprieties  in 
West  Jersey,  together  with  certain  interests  in  East  Jersey, 
Pennsylvania,  and  New  England  passed  over  to  the  new 
investors  in  consideration  of  4,800  pounds.  The  names  of 
48  persons  appear  on  the  release  as  belonging  to  the  society. 
Sir  Thomas  Lane  was  its  first  president,  Edmund  Harrison 
its  vice-president,  and  Robert  Hackshaw  treasurer.  The 
Society's  articles,  of  agreement  state  its  purpose  as  "  our 
mutual  benefit,  profit,  and  advantage,"  as  well  as  "  the 
better  and  more  orderly  managing  and  improving  of  the 
said  hereditary  government,  lands,  and  tenements."  The 
stock  was  divided  into  1600  equal  shares,  and  the  holding 
of  two  of  these  was  required  for  the  privilege  of  voting  at 
the  annual  meeting  for  the  election  of  officers.  The  actual 
business  management  rested  in  the  hands  of  a  committee, 
which  had  power  to  sell  and  dispose  of  all  lands.     The 

'Smith,  op.  cit.,  p.  191  (note). 

'  McCrady,  South  Carolina  under  the  Proprietary  Government  (New 
York,  1897),  p.  55. 
•Smith,  op.  cit.,  p.  192. 
*  New  Jersey  Archives  (first  series),  vol.  ii,  p.  41. 


l8  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

possession  of  twenty  shares  was  required  for  being  of  the 
committee.^  The  workings  of  the  society,  however,  were 
not  smooth.  As  usual,  the  number  of  share  holders  was 
largely  increased  by  the  sale  and  inheritance  of  shares,  and 
confusion  resulted.  Another  distracting  element  was  thus 
added  to  the  complexity  which  already  characterized  the 
proprietorship  of  West  Jersey.  The  West  Jersey  Society 
continued  to  carry  out  its  operations  from  London,  and  the 
controlling  element  at  any  rate  was  non-Quaker.^ 

Dr.  Coxe  subsequently  conveyed  to  his  son,  the  famous 
Colonel  Daniel  Coxe  of  the  Royal  Period,  all  the  remainder 
of  his  interests.'  An  investigation  made  by  the  council  of 
proprietors  in  17 14  showed  that  Col.  Coxe  held  legal 
title  to  approximately  four  proprieties,*  the  largest  single 
interest  in  the  province  with  the  exception  of  those  of  the 
West  Jersey  Society  and  of  Penn.  But  the  uncertainty 
which  had  previously  existed  as  to  the  validity  of  the 
claims  of  the  Coxes  after  1691  was  a  source  of  annoy- 
ance and  difficulty  in  proprietary  affairs. 

The  council  of  proprietors,  which  came  into  existence  in 
West  Jersey  in  1687,  did  something  to  bring  unity  into  the 
proprietary  management.  In  February  of  that  year  a  gen- 
eral meeting  of  all  persons  having  proprietary  interests  was 
held  at  Burlington,  and  a  body  of  eleven  commissioners  es- 
tablished, to  be  chosen  annually  and  to  have  general  charge 
of  all  matters  touching  the  common  interest.  All  per- 
sons holding  one  thirty-second  of  a  propriety  were  admitted 
to  vote.*^     The  institution  of  the  council  gave  a  consider- 

'^ New  Jersey  Archives  (first  series),  vol.  ii,  p.  T>,' 
*John  Clement,  "The  West  New  Jersey  Society"  in  Proceedings  of 
the  West  Jersey  Surveyors'  Association,  pp.  118-148. 
^Ibid.,  p.  120. 

*  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii,  p.  no. 
*Ibid.,  bk.  i,  p.  i. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  IN  LAND 


19 


able  degree  of  unity  to  the  affairs  of  the  American  proprie- 
tors despite  the  unwieldly  character  of  the  system.  The 
members  of  the  council  were  usually  persons  possessing 
the  public  confidence,  like  Jennings  and  Olive.  There  was, 
indeed,  some  little  complaint  on  the  part  of  a  minority  that 
the  commissioners  sought  their  own  interest.^  But  on  the 
whole,  things  moved  harmoniously.  The  chief  cause  of 
trouble  was,  of  course,  the  fact  that  the  proprietors  in  Eng- 
land were  too  far  removed  to  cooperate  effectively.  Such, 
then,  was  the  condition  of  affairs  when,  in  1702,  West  Jersey 
came  under  royal  government.  The  student  who  compre- 
hends it  will  readily  understand  numerous  later  develop- 
ments which  would  be  otherwise  obscure. 

Meanwhile  a  very  similar  result  had  curiously  enough 
come  about  in  East  Jersey  in  spite  of  the  feudal  character 
of  Carteret's  original  undertaking.  During  his  lifetime 
Sir  George  remained  the  sole  proprietor  to  the  soil  of  East 
Jersey.  But  in  1680  the  gallant  old  Jerseyman  died  and 
left  his  wife,  the  Lady  Elizabeth,  executrix  and  guardian 
of  his  grandson  and  heir.  He  devised  to  Earl  Sandwich, 
Earl  Bath,  Hon.  Bernard  Grenville  and  others,  with  other 
lands,  his  property  in  East  Jersey  in  trust  for  his  creditors. 
These  gentlemen,  after  some  private  negotiations  of  which 
we  know  little,  put  up  the  province  at  public  sale,^  and  it  was 
purchased  by  William  Penn  and  eleven  other  Friends  for 
£3,400,  a  smaller  sum  than  the  Yorkshire  group  paid 
for  one-tenth  of  West  Jersey.  Their  deeds  of  lease  and 
release  bore  date  of  February  i  and  2,  1682."'' 

The  ventures  of  the  Society  of  Friends  in  West  Jersey 
had  been,  all  things  considered,  exceedingly  successful,  and 
this  is  the  direct  explanation  of  the  extension  of  their  oper- 

'  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  i,  2Sth  of 
6th  month,  1689,  Feb.  14,  1689. 
'Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  pp.  101-3. 
*  New  Jersey  Archives  (first  series),  vol.  i,  p.  366. 


20  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

ations  to  East  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania.  Among  the  twelve 
original  purchasers  of  East  Jersey,  none  except  Penn  was  of 
great  importance.  Robert  West  and  Thomas  Rudyard 
were  well-known  London  lawyers,  the  latter  having  appar- 
ently been  Penn's  counsel  when  he  was  tried  for  holding 
illegal  religious  meetings.^  The  rest  were  merchants  and 
tradesmen,  among  them  Hugh  Hartshorne,  brother  of  one 
of  the  early  settlers  of  Middletown.  But  immediately  each 
of  the  twelve  made  over  one-half  of  his  interest  to  an  out- 
side party,  thus  raising  the  number  of  proprietors  to  twenty- 
four.  The  new  proprietors,  however,  were  a  strange  com- 
mingling of  creeds,  nationalities  and  religions.'  The  five  most 
prominent  men  among  them  were  Scotch.  These  were 
the  Papist  Earl  of  Perth,  who  virtually  conducted  the  gov- 
ernment of  Scotland  under  King  James ;  James  Drummond, 
his  brother,  later  Viscount  Melford ;  the  great  Quaker  phil- 
osopher, Robert  Barclay,  known  as  the  author  of  the  cele- 
brated 'Apology  for  the  People  Called  Quakers  '  and  second 
only  to  Penn  among  the  Friends;  David  Barclay,  his 
brother,  and  Robert  Gordon.  Arent  Sonmans  was  a  Hol- 
lander resident  in  Scotland.  Thomas  Warne  and  Robert 
Turner  were  merchants  of  Dublin.  The  list  also  included 
Edward  Byllinge  and  Gawen  Lawrie.* 

Various  reasons  have  been  offered  to  account  for  the 
peculiar  personnel  of  the  "  twenty-four."  But  the  majority 
were  Quakers,  and  the  others  were  persons  of  especial  in- 
fluence or  means  who  were  enlisted  to  make  the  enterprise 
a  success.  The  political  alliance  between  the  Friends  and 
the  supporters  of  James  Stuart  is  well  known  to  all  stu- 
dents of  English  history,  and  Perth  and  Melford  were 
valuable  figureheads.  It  may  also  be  true  that  the  Friends 
wished  to  avoid  the  charge  of  sectarianism.^     But  it  is  a 

^Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  p.  164.  '^Jbid.,  p.  103.         *Ibid.,  p.  iiQ. 

*'Ibid.,  pp.  170-181.  ^Ibid.,  p.  119. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  IN  LAND  2 1 

safe  inference  from  later  events  that  the  purchasers  of 
East  Jersey  were  not  actuated  by  political  and  religious  mo- 
tives to  the  same  extent  as  the  proprietors  of  West  Jersey 
and  Pennsylvania.  The  purchase  of  East  Jersey  was  a 
business  investment. 

In  order  to  prevent  any  further  possibility  of  conflict 
over  the  title,  the  twenty-four  proprietors  took  the  pre- 
caution of  securing  directly  from  James  of  York  an  entirely 
new  grant  for  East  Jersey  according  to  the  bounds  of  the 
Quintipartite  deed.^ 

But  the  number  and  scattered  condition  of  the  proprietors 
made  unity  of  action  difficult.  And  this  tendency  was  in- 
creased by  the  transfer  and  especially  by  the  subdivision  of 
interests  which,  just  as  in  West  Jersey,  began  immediately. 
The  removal  of  several  of  the  proprietors  to  the  province 
also  added  an  element  of  confusion.  At  the  end  of  five 
years  important  changes  had  taken  place.^  Perth  and  Mel- 
ford  had,  of  course,  retained  only  fractions  of  their  interests 
and  were  soon  to  be  removed  from  further  participation  in 
proprietary  as  well  as  other  affairs  by  the  overthrow  of  the 
Stuarts.  Penn  always  retained  his  interest,  but  his  chief 
efforts  now  centered  in  his  own  province.  Of  the  remain- 
ing shares  all  but  four  had  in  effect  been  divided,  several 
into  small  fractions  like  twentieths  and  thirty-seconds.  The 
largest  single  interest  was  held  by  the  estate  of  Arent  Son- 
mans  who,  in  1683,  had  been  shot  by  a  highwayman.  This 
consisted  of  534  shares. 

The  Scotch  proprietors  certainly  manifested  more  inter- 
est in  the  province  than  the  English.  But  the  most  active 
individual  among  the  proprietors  was  William  Dockwra, 
who  had  acquired  half  the  share  of  Richard  Mew  and  frac- 
tions  of  other   interests.      Dockwra   was   a   merchant   of 

^ New  Jersey  Archives  (first  series),  vol.  i,  p.  383. 
*Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  528. 


22  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

London,  who  was  well  known  as  the  successful  manager  of 
a  penny  post  in  that  city/  Such  was  the  confidence  felt  in 
him  and  such  the  difficulty  of  securing  co-operation  among 
the  proprietors  that  in  1686  he  was  appointed  agent,  and  all 
documents  signed  by  him  were  to  have  the  same  validity  as 
if  signed  by  the  major  part  of  the  shareholders.' 

The  difficulties  caused  by  the  removal  of  proprietors  to 
East  Jersey  were  diminished  by  the  establishment,  in  August 
1684,  of  the  "  board  of  proprietors  "  consisting  of  all  pro- 
prietors present  in  the  Province  and  resembling  closely  the 
later  council  of  proprietors  of  West  Jersey.  Acting  with 
the  deputy-governor,  it  had  control  of  all  matters  relating 
to  the  proprietary  interests  and  especially  of  transfers  of 

land.' 

The  members  of  this  board  certainly  did  constitute  m  a 
sense  a  provincial  aristocracy,  although  they  were  regarded 
with  dislike  by  a  large  element  in  the  population.  This 
feeling  was  intensified  by  the  fact  that  the  most  prominent 
of  the  proprietors  in  East  Jersey  were  Scotch,"  and  that 
they  resided  chiefly  at  Perth  Amboy.  Among  this  group 
John  Barclay,  brother  of  Robert  and  David  Barclay,  George 
Willocks,  at  one  time  proprietary  agent  for  the  sale  of  quit- 
rents,  Thomas  Gordon,  and  Peter  Sonmans,  eldest  son  of 
Arent  Sonmans,  were  conspicuous.'' 

But  the  ablest  man  among  the  later  proprietors  was  un- 
doubtedly Col.  Lewis  Morris.  Col.  Morris  was  the  nephew 
and  adopted  son  of  Col.  Lewis  Morris  of  Barbadoes  and 
hence  a  member  of  that  great  family  which  produced  so 

•Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  p.  216. 
•^ New  Jersey  Archives  (first  series),  vol.  i,  p.  506. 
'  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  16. 
"•New  Jersey  Archives  (first  series),  vol.  iii,  p.  I4- 
*  Whitehead,  Contributions   to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Amboy 
(New  York,  1856),  pp.  43,  60,  75.  80. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  IN  LAND  23 

many  distinguished  public  men.  Though  of  Welsh  descent 
he  was  born  in  his  father's  manor  at  Morrisania,  New  York, 
and  bred  in  America.  Because  of  the  great  family  interests 
in  New  York  he  appears  almost  as  prominently  in  the  af- 
fairs of  that  colony  as  in  those  of  New  Jersey,  and  his  en- 
tire career  from  his  entrance  upon  public  life  in  1692  is 
sufficient  proof  of  his  unusual  energy  and  ability.  Morris 
appears  to  have  been,  however,  masterful  in  disposition  and 
perhaps  a  little  eccentric,  a  man  to  raise  difficulties  rather 
than  to  quiet  them.^ 

Well  indeed  would  it  have  been  for  the  proprietors  if 
they  could  have  worked  in  harmony.  But  it  was  perhaps 
hardly  to  be  expected  that  the  division  of  so  great  a  stake  as 
the  soil  of  East  Jersey  could  be  accomplished  among  men  of 
such  varying  interests  without  acrimony.  The  clash  natur- 
ally came  between  Dockwra  and  the  Scotch  Perth-Araboy 
group,  represented  especially  by  George  Willocks.  In 
August,  1 70 1,  Willocks  appeared  before  the  governor  and 
council  of  East  Jersey  and  formally  accused  Dockwra  of 
usurping  power  and  of  being  guilty  of  fraud  in  the  taking 
up  of  lands.  A  petition  was  also  presented  from  certain 
of  the  resident  proprietors  asking  that  Dockwra  be  sus- 
pended from  his  office  of  chief  secretary  and  register. 
But  the  government  of  East  Jersey  would  do  no  more  than 
recommend  to  the  proprietors  in  England  that  Dockwra  be 
suspended  unless  he  disprove  the  accusations.^ 

Thus  attacked,  Dockwra  and  his  allies,  among  whom 
Peter  Sonmans  was  most  conspicuous,  adopted  the  desperate 
course  of  joining  with  the  foes  of  the  proprietary  order  in 
East   Jersey   and   casting   their   influence   with   the   home 

'  The  Papers  of  Lewis  Morris,  Collections  of  N.  J.  Hist.  Soc,  vol. 
iv,  Introductory  Memoir. 

*New  Jersey  Archives  (first  series),  vol.  xiii,  pp.  283-292. 


24  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

government  against  Morris  and  the  Scotch  interest/  This 
clash  of  interests  undoubtedly  weakened  the  proprietorship 
in  its  struggles  against  the  forces  of  disorder  in  the  Pro- 
vince and  complicated  the  many  questions  to  be  settled 
when  the  proprietors  were  at  length  compelled  to  surrender 
their  political  powers  to  the  Crown. 

Thus,  though  the  conditions  of  the  proprietorship  in  East 
Jersey  in  some  respects  resembled  those  of  the  sister  pro- 
vince on  the  Delaware,  the  advantage  from  the  point  of 
view  of  the  public  interest  was  decidedly  with  the  latter. 
Yet,  as  we  shall  see,  the  proprietors  of  East  Jersey  had  by 
far  the  greater  obstacles  against  which  to  contend.  In  both 
the  Jerseys  results  had  come  about  entirely  unlike  those  in 
any  other  northern  colony  and  resembling  only  remotely 
the  developments  in  the  Carolinas.  The  changes  in  the 
proprietorships  of  the  Jerseys  during  the  period  immedi- 
ately before  the  institution  of  the  Royal  Government  indi- 
cate also  in  an  unmistakable  way  the  coming  of  a  new 
century  in  which  new  ideals  and  motives  were  to  prevail. 
The  New  Jersey  of  Carteret  and  of  Penn  had  been  re- 
placed by  the  New  Jersey  of  Dockwra,  of  Willocks  and  of 
the  West  Jersey  Society. 

'Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  p.  217, 


CHAPTER  II 

Sources  and  Character  of  the  Population  of  the 

Jerseys 

While  it  is  impossible  in  a  brief  study  of  this  character 
to  give  any  lengthy  description  of  the  original  settlement  of 
the  Jerseys,  certain  facts  concerning  their  colonial  popula- 
tion which  had  great  effect  upon  the  development  of  their 
institutions  must  be  pointed  out. 

The  Dutch  efforts  to  colonize  in  the  territory  which  later 
became  New  Jersey  were  certainly  a  failure,  owing  partly  to 
the  hostility  of  the  Indians.  As  a  result  of  their  attempts 
there  remained  at  the  time  of  the  English  conquest  only  the 
small  though  compact  settlement  at  Bergen  and  a  few  scat- 
tered boweries  along  the  Hudson.^  The  Dutch  element  thus 
established  in  the  population  of  the  province  persisted,  how- 
ever, and  was  reinforced  during  the  English  rule  by  the 
further  removal  to  New  Jersey  of  Dutch  settlers  from  New 
York.^  In  what  later  became  Bergen  County  the  Dutch 
continued  to  predominate.  They  made  themselves  felt  in 
the  politics  of  the  colony,  nevertheless,  mainly  by  their  in- 
activity, for  they  evidently  shared  in  only  a  small  degree  the 
thoughts  and  feelings  which  actuated  the  rest  of  the  popu- 
lation. 

The  real  development  of  East  Jersey  was  due  to  the  great 
wave   of   immigration   which   came   from   New   England, 

*  Winfield,  History  of  Hudson  County  (New  York,  1874). 
'There  was  also  an  interesting  Huguenot  settlement  on  the  Hacken- 
sack. 

[25 


26  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

chiefly  by  way  of  Long  Island,  as  soon  as  English  authority 
was  established.  The  greater  part  of  the  New  England 
settlers  were  from  the  old  jurisdiction  of  New  Haven  ^  and 
thus  represented  one  of  the  most  extreme  types  of  New 
England  training  and  thought.  To  them  proprietary  in- 
stitutions with  their  semi-feudal  incidents  were  not  only  un- 
familiar but  repugnant.  The  immigrants  settled  in  "towns" 
in  true  New  England  style  and  conducted  their  public  busi- 
ness by  town  meeting.  As  a  preliminary  step  to  founding 
their  new  towns  they  bound  themselves  into  associations, 
regulating  by  mutual  agreement  the  distribution  of  lands 
and  other  town  relations.  But  though  the  settlers  of  Eliz- 
abethtown  and  Newark  seem  to  have  been  Puritans  of  a 
rather  reactionary  type,  in  the  other  towns  signs  of  religious 
indifference  were  not  lacking. 

The  settlement  of  the  Monmouth  tract  was,  however, 
somewhat  distinct  from  that  of  the  rest  of  East  Jersey. 
Though  the  original  colonists  were  themselves  mainly  from 
Long  Island,  they  were  Quakers  and  Baptists,  receiving  sym- 
pathy and  support  from  Rhode  Island  rather  than  Connecti- 
cut or  New  Haven.^  For  some  time  their  relations  with 
the  men  of  Elizabethtown  and  Newark  were  by  no  means 
close. 

Thus  three  zones  of  colonization  can  be  distinguished 
in  East  Jersey :  the  Dutch  zone  in  Bergen  County,  the  Con- 
necticut zone  covering  the  original  Essex  and  Middlesex 
Counties,  and  the  Rhode  Island  zone  in  Monmouth. 

Though  a  few  colonists  are  known  to  have  arrived  direct 
from  England  or  from  the  southern  colonies  and  the  West 
Indies,  their  relative  number  was  small   during  the  pro- 

*Levermore,  Republic  of  New  Haven  (Baltimore,  1886). 
*  Salter,  History  of  Monmouth  and  Ocean  Counties  (Bayonne,  1890), 
p.  16. 


POPULATION  OF  THE  JERSEYS  27 

prietorship  of  Carteret.  Several  of  these  persons  were, 
however,  men  of  influence/ 

But  with  the  establishment  of  the  power  of  the  twenty- 
four  proprietors  came  several  changes.  Though  immigra- 
tion from  New  England  continued,  it  now  took  the  form 
of  merely  individual  removal.  On  the  other  hand  the  new 
owners  of  the  province  encouraged  emigration  from  the 
Lowlands  of  Scotland,  where  the  Covenanters  were  under- 
going their  cruel  persecution  at  the  hands  of  the  Stuarts. 
The  religious  and  social  difference  between  the  incoming 
Scotch  peasants  and  the  older  "  planters  "  was  certainly  not 
great  and  therefore  assimilation  was  not  difficult.  The 
newcomers  were,  however,  without  the  peculiar  New  Eng- 
land training  and  instincts,  and  moreover,  in  the  days  be- 
fore the  Union,  the  old  national  jealousy  of  England  and 
Scotland  was  still  intense."  Much  therefore  as  New  Jersey 
later  owed  to  the  sturdy  Scotch  element  among  her  people, 
their  arrival  certainly  did  something  to  increase  her  discord. 

The  Scotch  influence,  however,  made  itself  felt  most  im- 
mediately by  the  settlement  of  many  of  the  Scotch  proprie- 
tors themselves  in  Perth  Amboy  and  vicinity.  Few  of  the 
larger  English  shareholders  removed  to  the  province.  But 
Barclay,  Gordon,  Willocks,  Johnstone  and  others  undoubt- 
edly constituted  a  sort  of  Scotch  aristocracy  which  became 
one  of  the  great  political  forces  in  the  colony.^  These 
wealthier  Scots  were,  it  may  be  noted,  chiefly  supporters 
of  the  Church  of  England,*  and  Willocks,  at  least,  was  a 

'Notably  Robert  Vauquillin  and  James  Bollen,  who  accompanied 
Governor  Philip  Carteret  from  England;  and  the  West  Indians,  John 
Berry  and  William  Sandford. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  288;  vol.  ii,  p.  544;  vol,  iii,  p.  14. 

^New  Jersey  Archives  (first  series),  vol.  iii,  pp.  13-15- 

*  Whitehead,  Contributions  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Amboy, 
pp.  218-9,  222-3. 


28  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Jacobite.^  By  the  New  England  settlers  and  their  descen- 
dants they  were  regarded  with  dislike.* 

With  a  population  thus  constituted  the  peculiar  confused 
and  turbulent  character  of  the  earlier  history  of  East  Jersey 
is  not  at  all  astonishing.  The  very  nature  of  the  case  pro- 
duced a  proprietary  following  stronger  in  influence  than 
numbers.  The  New  England  element,  opposed  to  every- 
thing for  which  the  proprietors  stood,  were  hostile,  some- 
times passively  but  often  actively.  Between  stood  the 
Dutch,  neutral  usually,  because  they  had  little  share  in  the 
feelings  which  lay  at  the  bottom  of  all  the  conflicts. 

When  East  Jersey  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  twenty- 
four  proprietors  it  had  a  population  of  over  5,000,  of  whom 
two-thirds  lived  in  the  towns.  ^  But  no  later  figures  are 
available  until  the  establishment  of  royal  rule.  Besides 
Bergen,  the  province  contained  the  towns  of  Elizabethtown, 
Newark,  Woodbridge,  Piscataway,  Middletown  and 
Shrewsbury.  The  twenty-four  had  with  much  effect  es- 
tablished Perth  Amboy  as  their  capital,  but  it  did  not  pos- 
sess the  New  England  town  government. 

The  population  of  West  Jersey,  as  compared  with  that  of 
the  sister  province,  was  homogeneous.  Aside  from  the  set- 
tlement of  a  few  Swedish  families  on  Racoon  Creek  *  no 
permanent  European  establishment  existed  before  the  pro- 
vince passed  into  the  hands  of  the  Friends,  and  a  large  share 
of  those  who  settled  in  West  Jersey  under  the  Quaker  rule 
were  of  the  English  middle  class,  substantial  artisans,  trades- 

'^New  Jersey  Archives  (first  series),  vol.  v,  p.  11. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  14. 

*  Scot,  The  Model  of  the  Government  of  the  Province  of  East  New 
Jersey  in  America,  printed  in  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Pro- 
prietors, p.  409  et  seq. 

*Shourds,  History  and  Genealogy  of  Fenwick's  Colony  (Bridgeton, 
1876),  p.  492. 


POPULATION  OF  THE  JERSEYS  29 

men  and  small  farmers,  the  class  which  the  Friends  them- 
selves represented.  The  earliest  settlers  were  in  close  sym- 
pathy with  the  proprietors  at  home,  and  a  large  number  held 
proprietary  interests  themselves.  Under  these  circum- 
stances such  a  clashing  of  parties  as  came  about  in  East 
Jersey  was  impossible.  Still  there  were  not  lacking  on  the 
Delaware  some  elements  of  difference  among  the  colonists. 
Though  the  first  arrivals  at  both  Salem  and  Burlington 
were  mainly  Quakers,  the  later  comers  were  by  no  means 
all  members  of  or  even  sympathizers  with  the  Society. 
There  is,  of  course,  no  way  to  estimate  accurately  the  rela- 
tive number  of  those  who  were  non-Quakers,  but  it  seems 
certain  that  before  the  establishment  of  royal  rule  they  out- 
numbered the  Friends.^  There  was  thus  the  possibility  of 
development  of  parties  on  religious  or  semi-religious  lines, 
a  possibility  of  which  the  opponents  of  the  proprietors  did 
not  fail  to  take  advantage. 

As  the  settlers  on  the  Delaware  came,  in  the  main,  direct 
from  England,  no  such  town  system  as  was  developed  in 
East  Jersey  appeared  at  first.  Salem  and  Burlington,  the 
latter  the  especial  stronghold  of  the  Quaker  interest,  re- 
mained for  a  long  time  the  only  considerable  settlements. 
At  about  the  time  of  the  establishment  of  royal  rule  the 
population  of  West  Jersey  was  estimated  at  3,500,  per- 
haps one-third  that  of  East  Jersey.  But  West  Jersey  was 
strong  in  material  prosperity  and  in  the  absence  of  that 
contentious  spirit  contributed  by  New  England  to  the  neigh- 
boring province. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  305.     Daniel  Leeds  was,  however, 
a  determined  foe  of  the  Quakers. 


CHAPTER  III 
The  Land  System  of  East  Jersey 

Having  examined  hurriedly  the  character  of  the  proprie- 
tors and  of  the  proprietorship  so  far  as  it  was  a  form  of  land 
ownership  and  having  noted  the  nature  of  the  population 
which  settled  in  East  Jersey  we  must  next  consider  more 
closely  the  manner  in  which  the  land  of  the  province  actually 
passed  from  the  hands  of  the  lords  of  the  soil  into  those  of 
the  colonists.  This  study  will  afford  much  insight  into  the 
relations  existing  between  them.  In  this  chapter,  how- 
ever, we  shall  confine  our  attention  to  the  proprietary  land 
system  in  its  actual  workings.  The  interesting  and  im- 
portant attempts  to  overthrow  it,  especially  in  the  case  of 
the  bitter  Elizabethtown  controversy,  must  receive  separate 
consideration. 

The  original  Dutch  settlers,  at  least,  received  liberal  treat- 
ment at  the  hands  of  Berkeley  and  Carteret.  The  articles 
of  surrender  of  New  Netherland  expressly  promised  that 
all  lands  held  within  the  limits  of  the  province  should  be 
confirmed  to  their  owners,^  and  this  promise  Berkeley  and 
Carteret  faithfully  fulfilled  in  the  case  of  all  lands  actually 
taken  up  and  occupied.  The  only  conditions  required  were 
the  highly  reasonable  ones  that  the  owners  should  take  the 
oath  of  allegiance  to  the  King  and  of  fidelity  to  the  lords 
proprietors  and  fulfill  the  requirements  laid  down  for  the 
patenting  of  their  lands.^ 

'Brodhead,  New  York,  vol.  i,  p.  762. 

'The  confirmatory  grants  were  issued  in  accordance  with  the  require- 
ments of  the  "  Concessions." 
30] 


THE  LAND  SYSTEM  OF  EAST  JERSEY  31 

In  September,  1665  Governor  Philip  Carteret  and  coun- 
cil granted  to  the  town  and  freeholders  of  Bergen  town- 
ship bounds  including  about  11,520  acres,  express  reserva- 
tion, however,  being  made  of  quit  rent.^  The  bounds  began 
at  a  place  called  Mordams  Meadow,  lying  on  the  west  side 
of  the  Hudson;  from  thence  they  extended  in  a  northwest 
"  lyne  "  by  a  "  three  rail  fence  "  to  a  place  called  Espartin 
and  from  thence  to  a  little  creek  running  into  the  Hacken- 
sack  River.  The  Hackensack  was  then  the  limit  "  till  it 
comes  to  the  point  or  neck  of  land  that  is  over  against 
Staten  Island  or  Schooters  Island  in  Arthur  Cull  Bay." 
The  bound  was  then  the  Kill  van  Kull  to  Constable's  Hook, 
and  thence  the  "  lyne  "  was  the  Hudson  to  the  starting-place. 

Although  the  Proprietors  formally  confirmed  grants  for 
numerous  inhabitants  of  Bergen  ^  they  never  gave  to  an  in- 
dividual an  original  patent  for  lands  in  the  township.'  The 
exact  amount  of  land  already  appropriated  is  not  known,  but 
it  is  estimated  at  3,500  acres.*  The  grants  made  to  the  ori- 
ginal founders  of  Bergen  by  the  West  India  Company  were 
certainly  small,  nearly  all  being  25  or  50  morgen.  A  mor- 
gen  was  about  equal  to  two  acres.'  The  unappropriated 
lands  amounting  to  about  8,000  acres,  in  spite  of  numerous 
disputes  and  difficulties  regarding  them  and  several  efforts 
to  apportion  them,  continued  to  be  held  by  the  freeholders 
of  Bergen  in  common  until  1763.* 

But  in  the  apportionment  of  land  to  the  settlers  who 
came  after  the  establishment  of  English  control  lay  the  real 

*  Winfield,  History  of  the  Land  Titles  of  Hudson  County  (New  York, 
1872),  vol.  i,  pp.  14-15. 

'These  confirmations  are  found  chiefly  in  liber  i,  East  Jersey  Records. 

'Winfield,  op.  cit.,  p.  14.  *Ibid.,  p.  15. 

'O'Callaghan,  History  of  New  Netherland  (New  York,  1855),  vol. 
ii,  pp.  588-589. 

•Winfield,  op.  cit.,  pp.  15-24. 


32 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


test  of  the  wisdom  of  the  proprietors.  On  February  lo, 
1664,  Berkeley  and  Carteret  issued  "  the  Concessions  and 
Agreements  of  the  Lords  Proprietors  of  New  Jersey  to  and 
with  all  and  every  the  adventurers  and  all  such  as  shall 
settle  and  plant  there."  ^  The  Concessions  were  intended  to 
provide  a  suitable  form  of  government  for  the  new  colony, 
to  encourage  settlers  by  a  guarantee  of  liberties,  and  to  re- 
gulate the  distribution  of  land.  In  all  these  matters  they 
were  fair  and  liberal  to  as  great  a  degree  as  could  reason- 
ably be  expected  in  a  proprietary  province. 

The  Concessions  declared  that  all  persons  already  in  New 
Jersey  or  who  should  transport  themselves  thither  before 
January  i,  1665-6,  and  who  should  meet  the  governor  upon 
his  arrival  and  who  should  be  provided  with  "a  good  musket 
boare  twelve  bullets  to  the  pound  with  ten  pounds  of  pow- 
der and  twenty  pounds  of  bullets,  with  bandeleers  and  match 
convenient,  and  with  six  months  provisions  for  his  own  per- 
son," should  receive  150  acres  of  land,  English  measure. 
For  every  able-bodied  servant  similarly  equipped  that  such 
person  should  bring  with  him  into  the  province,  he  was  to 
receive  the  same  amount.  For  every  able-bodied  servant 
properly  armed  sent  into  New  Jersey,  even  if  the  master 
himself  did  not  remove,  150  acres  were  likewise  offered. 
For  every  weaker  servant  or  slave,  male  or  female  over 
fourteen  years,  75  acres  were  given,  and  every  Christian 
servant  was  to  receive  75  acres  upon  the  expiration  of  his 
term  of  service. 

Every  master  or  mistress  who  should  remove  to  New 
Jersey  before  January  i,  1665-6  was  to  receive  120  acres 
of  land  and  the  same  amount  for  every  able-bodied  servant 
properly  provided.  For  each  weaker  servant  the  premium 
was  60  acres  with  the  same  amount  for  each   Christian 

'  New  Jersey  Archives  (first  series),  vol.  i,  p.  28. 


THE  LAND  SYSTEM  OF  EAST  JERSEY  33 

servant  at  the  end  of  his  time.  For  the  second  year,  down 
to  January  i,  1666-7,  the  offer  was  90  acres  for  masters 
and  able-bodied  servants;  45  acres  were  to  be  given  for 
weaker  servants  and  as  a  servant's  reward.  For  the  third 
year,  down  to  January  1667-8,  the  corresponding  amounts 
were  60  acres  and  30  acres.  But  all  such  lands  were  to  be 
held  subject  to  the  condition  that  for  the  ensuing  13  years 
one  able-bodied  servant  or  two  weaker  ones  were  to  be 
maintained  upon  every  100  acres.  Upon  failure  in  this  re- 
gard, after  a  space  of  three  years  after  notification  had  been 
given,  the  lords  proprietors  were  to  have  the  power  of 
disposing  of  the  lands  to  other  parties  unless  the  assembly 
of  the  colony  should  judge  that,  owing  to  poverty  or  other 
cause,  the  fulfillment  of  the  conditions  was  impossible. 

The  governor  and  council  (and  assembly  if  any  be) 
were  to  see  that  all  the  land  should  be  divided  into  "  general 
lots,"  none  less  than  2100  acres  nor  more  than  21,000, 
excepting  "  cities,"  towns,  etc.,  and  the  "  near  lotts  of  town- 
ships," and  these  were  to  be  divided  into  seven  parts,  one  of 
which  was  to  be  reserved  for  the  lords  proprietors. 

The  method  by  which  the  land  was  to  be  taken  up  was 
minutely  regulated  as  follows:  the  governor  was  to  give 
to  each  person  to  whom  land  was  due  a  warrant  signed  and 
sealed  by  himself  and  the  major  part  of  his  council  and 
directed  to  the  surveyor  general  or  his  deputy  to  lay  out, 
limit  or  bound  the  required  number  of  acres.  After  the  re- 
gister of  the  Province  had  recorded  the  warrant  and  at- 
tested the  record  upon  the  warrant,  the  surveyor  general 
was  to  certify  to  the  chief  secretary  or  register  the  name 
of  the  person  for  whom  he  had  laid  out  the  land,  by  virtue 
of  what  authority,  the  date  of  the  warrant,  the  number  of 
acres  and  their  bounds.  This  certificate  was  likewise  to  be 
entered  in  a  book  by  the  register  which  was  to  have  an 
alphabetical  table  so  that  the  certificates  could  be  more  easily 


34  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

found.  The  certificates  having  been  duly  entered,  the  gov- 
ernor and  the  major  part  of  the  council  were  to  sign  a 
second  warrant  directing  the  register  to  prepare  a  grant 
of  land  to  the  proper  person.  A  form  was  then  specified 
in  the  Concessions  according  to  which  all  patents  must  run. 
The  form  distinctly  stated  that  the  land  granted  was  to  be 
held  in  free  and  common  socage,  but  subject  to  a  yearly 
quit-rent  of  one-half  penny  per  acre  to  the  lords  proprie- 
tors. Said  quit-rent,  however,  was  not  to  begin  until 
March  25,  1670.  All  grants  were  to  be  sealed  by  the  gov- 
ernor with  the  seal  of  the  province  and  to  be  subscribed  by 
him  and  the  council.  They  were  then  once  more  to  be  re- 
corded by  the  register  in  a  book  of  records  and  were  there- 
after to  be  effectual  in  law.  According  to  this  method  all 
conveyances  from  the  proprietors  would  be  recorded  three 
times  in  the  stages  usually  referred  to  as  "  warrants  for 
surveys,"  "  surveys,"  and  "  patents." 

The  Concessions  further  stated  that  in  towns  and  villages 
convenient  lands  were  to  be  granted  for  forts,  churches, 
streets,  etc.,  and  each  parish  was  to  have  200  acres  for  the 
support  of  the  minister.  All  such  lands  were  to  be  free 
from  taxation.  But  all  cities  and  towns  were  like  other 
tracts  to  be  divided  into  seven  parts,  one  of  which  was  to 
be  for  the  lords  proprietors.  Free  passage  to  the  sea 
through  all  rivers,  creeks,  etc.  was  guaranteed  to  all  settlers, 
and  it  was  declared  that  the  representatives  of  the  free- 
holders should  at  all  times  be  free  to  make  any  petition  for 
redress  of  grievances  to  the  lords  proprietors  either  with  or 
without  the  consent  of  the  governor  and  council. 

Such  were  the  leading  provisions  of  the  Concessions 
grouped  together  as  relating  exclusively  to  land.  But  in 
the  other  parts  of  the  document  there  were  also  several  im- 
portant paragraphs  regarding  the  land  system.  The  offices 
of   chief   secretary   or   register  and   of   surveyor   general 


THE  LAND  SYSTEM  OF  EAST  JERSEY 


35 


were  provided  for.  Their  incumbents  were  to  be  appointed 
by  the  lords  proprietors,  but  might  be  suspended  by  the 
governor  and  a  majority  of  the  council.^  In  the  clauses 
relating  to  the  assembly  it  was  set  down  that  that  body 
had  power  to  prescribe  the  quantities  of  land  which 
should  be  from  time  to  time  alloted  to  every  head,  free  or 
servant,  male  or  female  and  to  ordain  rules  for  the  casting 
of  lots  for  land  and  the  laying  out  of  the  same,  provided 
that  they  did  not  exceed  the  proportions  set  down  by  the 
Concessions.^  Under  the  duties  of  the  governor  and  coun- 
cil it  was  also  stated  that,  for  the  better  security  of  the 
proprietors  and  all  the  inhabitants,  they  were  to  take  care 
that  all  land  quietly  held  and  possessed  for  seven  years  after 
its  first  survey  by  the  surveyor  general  or  his  order  should 
not  be  subject  to  any  review,  resurvey,  or  alteration  of 
bounds.' 

As  the  Concessions  were  the  basis  of  the  land  system  of 
East  Jersey  this  statement  of  their  leading  provisions  is 
necessary.  It  is  to  be  admitted,  however,  that  they  present 
little  that  is  peculiar.  Upon  the  whole  they  are  a  credit  to 
the  liberality  and  common  sense  of  Carteret  and  his  asso- 
ciate, nor  could  they  be  fairly  expected  to  foresee  the  diffi- 
culties to  which  they  were  to  give  rise.  The  proprietors 
at  once  took  steps  to  put  them  into  operation  by  commis- 
sioning Philip  Carteret  as  governor,*  and  Robert  Vauquil- 
lin  as  surveyor  general. °  James  Bollen  was  appointed  re- 
gister by  the  governor." 

But  the  circumstances  of  the  settlement  of  East  Jersey 
rendered  it  practically  impossible  to  carry  out  the  Con- 
cessions, during  the  first  decade  at  any  rate,  in  the  spirit  in 

^ New  Jersey  Archives  (first  series),  vol.  i,  pp.  28-29. 
^Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  34.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  yj. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  20.  ''Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  26. 

•Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  p.  59, 


36  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

which  they  had  been  intended.  The  New  Englanders  who 
came  to  occupy  the  lands  had  been  accustomed  to  different 
methods.  They  settled  not  individually,  but  by  companies 
of  associates.  Having  obtained  the  legal  right  to  purchase 
their  lands  of  the  Indians  they  wished  to  apportion  what  they 
had  obtained  in  their  own  way.^  Moreover,  any  proprie- 
tary system  with  its  semi-feudal'  associations  was  to  them 
not  only  unfamiliar,  but  repugnant.  The  payment  of  quit- 
rents  especially  was  certain  to  be  a  burden  to  which  they 
would  not  cheerfully  submit. 

When  Governor  Carteret  arrived  in  the  province  the 
Monmouth  purchase,  sanctioned  by  Nicolls,  was  already  oc- 
cupied. At  least  four  families  were  at  Elizabethtown,^  but 
Carteret  by  the  purchase  of  John  Bailey's  interest  became 
himself  a  member  of  the  associates.^  The  settlements  of 
Woodbridge,  Piscataway  and  Newark  were  all  made  on 
Carteret's  invitation  and  by  his  consent*  But  in  spite  of 
the  fact  that  the  men  of  Elizabethtown  and  Woodbridge  at 
any  rate  readily  took  the  oath  of  fidelity  to  Berkeley  and 
Carteret,'"*  the  requirements  of  the  Concessions  regarding 
the  laying  out  and  patenting  of  lands  were  not  complied 
with  in  any  of  the  towns.  Apparently  Governor  Carteret 
did  not  press  this  at  first,  being  willing  no  doubt  to  let 
the  matter  rest  until  the  first  struggles  with  the  wilderness 
were  past. 

•The  New  England  method  is  clearly  stated  by  Daniel  Denton,  yi 
Brief  Description  of  New  York,  formerly  called  New  Netherlands  (re- 
print. New  York,  1845),  p.  17. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives  (first  series),  vol.  i,  p.  183. 

'Hatfield,  History  of  Elizabeth  (New  York,  1868),  p.  51;  Elizabeth- 
town  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  29. 

'Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  pp.  48-So;  Elizabeth- 
town  Bill  in  Chancery,  pp.  29-32. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives  (first  series),  pp.  SO-51- 


THE  LAND  SYSTEM  OF  EAST  JERSEY  37 

The  settlers  of  Elizabethtown  were  originally  divided 
into  three  classes,  known  as  first  lot  men,  second  lot  men, 
and  third  lot  men.  In  all  divisions  of  land  after  that  of 
the  horhe  lots  it  was  understood  that  a  second  lot  man  was 
to  have  twice  and  a  third  lot  man  three  times  as  much  as 
a  first  lot  man.^  It  is  believed  by  Hatfield  that  the  first 
surveys  were  made  previous  to  the  arrival  of  Carteret  and 
Vauquillin,  "  possibly  by  Wolphertsen,  who  had  been  the 
city  surveyor  of  New  Amsterdam,"  and  that  the  shares 
were  assigned  by  lot  as  in  the  case  of  Newark.^  Neverthe- 
less in  December,  1667,  Carteret,  acting  apparently  upon 
a  petition  of  some  of  the  inhabitants,  commissioned  John 
Brackett  ^  in  the  absence  of  the  surveyor  general  to  lay 
out  for  each  man  his  house  lot  which  was  to  consist  of  four 
acres  and  a  pittle,  or  addition  to  it,  of  about  twenty  acres. 
The  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery  asserts  that  the  first 
apportionment  of  land  was  agreed  upon  with  the  con- 
sent of  Governor  Carteret,  and  consisted  of  amounts  of  6, 
12,  and  18  acres  to  the  holders  of  the  respective  rights. 
Shortly  afterward  there  was  a  second  division  of  12,  24, 
and  36  acres.*  But  the  historian  of  Elizabethtown  main- 
tains that  the  work  of  Brackett  must  have  consisted  only  in 
rectifying  the  errors  of  the  earlier  surveys  and  in  laying  off 
the  shares  of  newcomers.^  Positive  evidence  does  not 
sustain  the  suppositions  of  Mr.  Hatfield,  but  it  is  at  any 
rate  clear  that,  though  the  lands  were  laid  off  before  1670, 
no  patents  were  taken  out  by  any  persons  of  Elizabethtown 
previous  to  that  date. 

When  the  sale  of  half  the  Elizabethtown  tract  was  made 

^Answer  to  the  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  22. 

*  Hatfield,  History  of  Elizabeth,  pp.  56,  122. 

*  East  Jersey  Records,  liber  iii,  p.  12. 

*  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  32. 

*  Hatfield,  History  of  Elizabeth,  p.  123. 


38  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

by  Carteret,  Ogden,  and  Watson  to  Daniel  Pierce  and  his 
associates  for  the  settlement  of  the  two  new  townships  of 
Woodbridge  and  Piscataway,  the  first  article  of  the  contract 
gave  permission  to  the  newcomers  to  lay  out  their  lands 
according  to  their  own  judgment,  but  not  exceeding  the 
proportions  laid  down  in  the  Concessions.  The  fifth  article, 
however,  not  only  required  the  payment  of  the  quit-rent,  but 
also  stated  that  all  lands  should  be  patented  and  surveyed 
by  the  surveyor  general.^  In  December,  1667,  Daniel 
Pierce  himself  was  commissioned  as  deputy  surveyor  for 
the  Woodbridge  district.  The  apportionment  of  the  land 
made  by  him  at  this  time,  however,  was  not  complete,  a 
large  part  of  the  tract,  as  in  Elizabethtown,  being  left  for 
later  division.^  But  in  spite  of  the  part  taken  by  Governor 
Carteret  in  arranging  the  settlement  of  Woodbridge,  no 
patents  appear  to  have  been  taken  out  in  either  that  town  or 
Piscataway  previous  to  1670. 

As  for  the  settlers  of  the  Monmouth  Patent,  and  of 
Newark,  they  recognized  in  no  way  the  control  of  the 
proprietors  over  the  land  within  their  bounds.  In  Newark 
the  lands  were  apportioned  by  lot  in  town  meeting  in  true 
New  England  style.'  The  same  method  was  followed  in 
Middletown,*  and  there  was  no  pretense  of  patenting  land 
under  the  Concessions. 

The  year  1670  is  an  important  point  in  the  development 
of  the  land  system  of  East  Jersey,  because  the  effort  to 
collect  quit-rent  began  at  that  time,  and  thus  forced  upon 
the  attention  of  the  settlers  the  requirements  of  the  Con- 

^ Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  29. 

*  Whitehead,  Contributions  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Amboy, 
P-  357. 

*  Newark  Town  Records  {Coll.  N.  J.  Hist.  Soc,  vol.  vi),  pp.  s, 
7-9,  IS. 

*  Town  Book  of  Old  Middletown,  pp.  1-3. 


THE  LAND  SYSTEM  OF  EAST  JERSEY  39 

cessions.  Berkeley  and  Carteret  must  have  supposed  that 
the  postponement  of  quit-rent  for  the  first  seven  years 
would  be  a  Hberal  encouragement  to  the  pioneers  of  the 
colony.  But  the  result  was  unfortunate,  for  when  the  rent 
came  due  it  seemed  to  many  of  the  settlers  like  a  new  and 
burdensome  exaction.  With  the  details  of  the  struggle 
which  ensued  between  the  proprietors  and  a  considerable 
part  of  the  inhabitants  over  the  payment  of  rent  and  the 
patenting  of  land  we  need  not  here  concern  ourselves. 
Suffice  it  to  say  that  the  proprietors  were  at  length  victor- 
ious although  their  triumph  was  postpoined  by  the  Dutch 
reconquest  of  1673-4. 

As  a  step  in  the  enforcement  of  their  rights,  however, 
Berkeley  and  Carteret  issued  a  document  known  as  "  a  De- 
claration of  the  True  Intent  and  Meaning  of  the  Conces- 
sions," which  really  modified  some  of  their  provisions  re- 
specting land.  No  person  was  henceforth  to  be  counted  a 
freeholder  or  to  have  any  vote  in  any  election  or  to  be 
eligible  for  any  office  in  the  colony  who  did  not  hold  his 
lands  by  patent  from  the  lords  proprietors.  It  was  speci- 
fically declared  that  the  governor  and  council  had  the  right 
to  "  dispose  of  the  Allotment  of  Land  "  without  the  general 
assembly,  which  of  course  was  always  likely  to  be  under 
anti-proprietary  control.  The  regular  laying  out  of  lands 
and  the  apportionment  of  house-lots  was  to  be  left  to  the 
first  "  undertakers "  upon  agreement  with  the  governor 
and  council.  The  consent  of  the  assembly  was  not  needed. 
This  provision  was,  of  course,  a  recognition  of  the  method 
of  settlement  by  companies  of  associates.^  But  in  this  case 
as  all  others  the  lands  were  to  be  actually  laid  out  by  the 
surveyor  general.  Finally  it  was  stated  that  all  warrants 
for  lands  not  exceeding  the  proportions  in  the  Concessions 
should  be  effectual  if  signed  by  the  governor  and  the  secre- 
^ New  Jersey  Archives  (first  series),  vol.  i,  p.  99. 


40  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

tary  alone,  even  if  the  council  or  any  portion  of  them  were 
not  present.  These  changes  appear  at  first  glance  to  be  in 
matters  of  detail  only,  but  they  effectually  checked  the  abil- 
ity of  the  disaffected  element  to  thwart  the  proprietors' 
agents. 

Immediately  after  the  restoration  of  proprietary  author- 
ity, December  ii,  1674,  the  governor  and  council  issued  a 
proclamation  ordering  the  surveyor  general  or  his  sub- 
stitute to  remain  at  Newark  for  the  surveying  and  patenting 
of  land.  He  was  also  to  attend  on  certain  days  at  Elizabeth- 
town,  Piscataway  and  the  Nevesinks  for  the  same  purpose.^ 

The  regular  patenting  of  lands  in  the  disaffected  towns 
thus  began,  and  the  East  Jersey  Records  give,  from  this 
point  on,  invaluable  information  regarding  the  distribution 
of  lands  in  the  colony.  The  greater  part  of  the  grants  of 
this  period  naturally  lay  within  the  township  limits,  and 
few  of  them  were  extensive. 

The  Woodbridge  patents  are,  speaking  in  a  general  way, 
the  earliest,  as  the  people  of  this  town  had  taken  little  share 
in  opposing  the  proprietors.  Most  of  the  original  settlers 
took  out  patents  even  as  early  as  1670.  Of  sixty-two  re- 
corded patents  for  this  and  the  few  following  years,  forty- 
four  range  somewhere  from  ninety  to  one  hundred  and 
seventy  acres.  Two  are  for  smaller  amounts,  while  the 
largest,  excepting  the  lands  reserved  for  the  proprietors, 
is  five  hundred  and  twelve  acres,  the  portion  of  John  Smith, 
"  milwright,"  one  of  the  original  purchasers.  The  nine  ori- 
ginal purchasers  were  each  allowed  two  hundred  and  forty 
acres  of  upland  and  forty  of  meadow  in  addition  to  the 
regular  allotment.  Only  four  grants  to  other  persons  ex- 
ceed three  hundred  acres.  Later,  however,  there  were  four 
other  allotments  of  land  to  each  freeholder, — eighty,  fifty, 

^East  Jersey  Records,  liber  iii,  p.  106. 


THE  LAND  SYSTEM  OF  EAST  JERSEY  ^j 

sixty,  and  twenty  acres  respectively,  the  first  of  these  being 
in  1687  ^"d  the  last  in  1706.^ 

In  Piscataway  the  result  was  similar.  Of  the  sixty  pa- 
tents granted  before  1690,  only  six  exceeded  three  hundred 
acres,  while  most  of  them  range  between  one  and  two  hun- 
dred.^ Of  the  ninety-nine  surveys  recorded  for  lands  in 
Newark  previous  to  1700,  nearly  all  are  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  one  hundred  acres,  the  largest  being  for  only  two 
hundred  and  eighty.^  A  peculiar  interest  naturally  at- 
taches to  the  allotments  in  Elizabethtown.  But  they 
do  not  differ  essentially  in  character  from  the  others.  The 
eighty- four  warrants  for  surveys  from  1675  to  1678  are,  in 
the  main,  for  amounts  of  approximately  sixty,  one  hundred, 
one  hundred  and  twenty,  and  one  hundred  and  eighty  acres. 
Seven  are  for  amounts  of  between  two  and  three  hundred, 
eight  between  three  and  four  hundred,  and  three  between 
four  and  five  hundred.  The  largest  warrant  is  for  2,700 
acres  for  Sir  George  and  Philip  Carteret,  and  their  eighteen 
servants.  Capt.  John  Baker  with  his  wife  and  eight  others 
received  1200.  The  largest  grants  were  due  either  to  the 
purchase  of  interests  or  to  the  importation  of  servants.* 

The  division  of  lands  in  the  Monmouth  Grant  had  some 
points  of  peculiarlity.  The  opposition  to  the  proprietors  by 
the  people  of  Middletown  and  Shrewsbury  had  been  es- 
pecially determined.  But  eventually  an  agreement  had 
been  arrived  at  between  them  and  Governor  Carteret  by 
which,  in  return  for  their  recognition  of  the  proprietary  au- 
thority, their  right  to  dispose  of  the  lands  within  the  Nicolls 

'Whitehead,  Contributions  to  the  Eatly  History  of  Perth  Amboy, 
PP-  355-8;  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery;  appendix,  schedule  vii. 

■■' Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  pp.  400-3;  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery; 
appendix,  schedule  v. 

^Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery;  appendix,  schedule  iv. 

•Hatfield,  History  of  Elizabeth,  pp.  182-184. 


42  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

grant  was  confirmed/  It  is  not  surprising  therefore  that 
the  allotments  were  somewhat  larger  than  elsewhere.  Of 
thirty-two  patents  issued  to  inhabitants  of  Middletown  in 
1676  and  1677,  "the  majority  are  for  over  two  hundred 
acres.  Seven  are  over  four  hundred  and  fifty  acres.  Rich- 
ard Hartshorne  received  seven  hundred  and  fifty,  Peter 
Tilton  five  hundred  and  seventy,  James  Grover  ten  hundred 
and  seventy-seven,  Jonathan  Holmes  seven  hundred  and 
sixty-one,  and  Richard  Gibbons  five  hundred.^ 

The  provisions  of  the  Concessions  appear  to  have  been 
carried  out  without  serious  modifications  or  omissions  until 
the  province  passed  out  of  the  hands  of  Carteret  and  his 
heirs  in  1682.  One  interesting  feature  of  their  operation 
was  the  granting  of  "  headlands  "  to  settlers  for  the  im- 
portation of  relatives  and  servants.  Under  date  of  1675, 
appears  in  the  East  Jersey  Records  the  statement :  "  Here 
begins  the  Rights  of  Land  due  according  to  the  Conces- 
sions," and  this  is  followed  by  a  statement  of  claims  entered 
for  lands.  ^  Those  recognized  as  allowed  foot  up  in  all 
to  over  12,000  acres.  It  is  noticeable,  however,  that  most 
of  the  persons  imported  were  members  of  the  families  of 
settlers, — wives,  sons,  and  daughters.  The  total  number  of 
white  servants  would  hardly  reach  fifty,  but  the  number  of 
negroes  is  larger,  thirty-two  being  brought  by  Capt.  John 
Berry.*  Some  of  the  lands  thus  granted  were  laid  off 
within  the  limits  of  the  townships,  notably  in  Elizabeth- 
town.  ° 

But  during  the  regime  of  Carteret  there  were  several 

^New  Jersey  Archives  (first  series),  vol.  i,  p.  88. 

^East  Jersey  Records,  liber  i.  A  complete  summary  of  early  surveys 
in  the  Monmouth  Patent  is  given  in  Salter's  History  of  Monmouth  and 
Ocean  Counties,  pp.  29-32. 

^ East  Jersey  Records,  liber  iii,  p.  i  (reversed  side). 

*Ibid.,  liber  iii,  p.  i  (reversed  side). 

^  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  44. 


THE  LAND  SYSTEM  OF  EAST  JERSEY  43 

grants  of  another  character,  extensive  transfers  of  land  out- 
side of  the  towns.  The  most  interesting  of  these  is  that  of 
3,840  acres  at  Shrewsbury  to  Col.  Lewis  Morris  of  Barba- 
does  and  his  associates  in  establishing  iron-works  there. 
This  grant  was  to  be  known  as  Tinton  Manor.^  In  1668 
all  the  meadow  and  upland  between  the  Hackensack  and 
the  Passaic,  south  of  a  line  drawn  seven  miles  north  from 
their  intersection,  was  granted  to  Captain  William  Sanford. 
By  a  special  arrangement  he  paid  twenty  pounds  sterling 
per  annum  instead  of  the  usual  quit-rent.^  Nathaniel 
Kingsland,  also  a  West  Indian,  later  became  interested  in 
this  grant.'  In  1669  Capt.  John  Berry  and  his  associates 
obtained  a  tract  adjoining  Sanford's,  extending  north  "  six 
miles  into  the  Country."  *  The  name  New  Barbadoes  was 
applied  to  this  locality,  now  Rutherford  and  vicinity.''  A 
little  later  William  Pinhorne  acquired  by  purchase  of  Ed- 
ward Earle,  Jr.  a  plantation  of  over  one  thousand  acres  at 
Snake  Hill.*'  In  April,  1682,  Lawrence  Andriesse  of  Bergen 
obtained  a  patent  for  1076  acres  at  Hackensack,"  and  a  few 
days  later  Philip  Carteret,  Mathias  Nicols,  Jacob  Courtillou 
and  other  associates  received  another  for  a  tract  lying  along 
Passaic  River,  known  as  Aqueyquinonke,  containing  5320 
acres.*  There  were  also  other  large  grants.  We  may  in- 
fer that  most  of  the  persons  concerned  in  these  intended  to 
sell  off  their  estates  in  smaller  quantities  later.     But  Berry 

^  East  Jersey  Records,  liber  i,  p.  155. 

^ Ibid.,  p.  33;  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  p.  54. 

*  East  Jersey  Records,  liber  i,  p.  130. 

*  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  p.  55;  East  Jersey 
Records,  liber  i,  p.  46. 

*Mellick,  Story  of  an  Old  Farm  (Somerville,  1889),  p.  118;  White- 
head, East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  p.  55. 
•Winfield,  History  of  the  Land  Titles  of  Hudson  County,  p.  130. 
^  East  Jersey  Records,  liber  iv,  p.  6.  *Ibid,.  liber  iv,  p.  8. 


44  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

and  Pinhorne  at  any  rate  maintained  extensive  plantations 
with  negro  slaves/ 

Speaking  in  general,  however,  we  may  safely  say  that 
during  the  Carteret  period  the  soil  of  East  Jersey  was  being 
taken  up  in  comparatively  small  allotments  by  bona-fide  set- 
tlers. Anything  like  a  system  of  large  estates  was  un- 
known, nor  was  land  speculation  being  carried  on  to  any 
great  extent,  except  of  course  by  the  lords  proprietors 
themselves.  The  purchase  of  East  Jersey  by  the  twenty- 
four  proprietors  marks,  however,  an  important  change  in 
the  development  of  the  land  system.  This  change  was  not 
so  much  in  the  mechanical  features  as  in  the  spirit  and  ob- 
jects with  which  it  was  carried  out  and  the  results  produced. 

The  provisions  of  the  Concessions  relating  to  land  were 
with  some  modifications  continued  by  the  Twenty-four.^  In 
their  "  Brief  Account,"  issued  immediately  after  the  pur- 
chase, however,  they  offered  new  inducements  to  settlers. 
All  persons  who  would  transport  themselves  and  their  fami- 
lies into  the  province  by  December  25,  1684,  were  to  receive 
twenty-five  acres  for  each  head,  such  land  to  be  taken  up  in 
one  of  the  townships  already  settled  and  laid  out.  If  any 
desired  more  land  they  might  purchase  up  to  the  limit  of 
one  hundred  acres.  The  charge  of  quit-rent  which  had  al- 
ready caused  such  trouble  was  continued.  The  new  pro- 
prietors were,  however,  wise  enough  to  provide  that  "  who- 
soever is  willing  to  buy  off  his  yearly  rent  and  become  a  free- 
holder may  do  so,  paying  after  the  rate  of  twelve  years  pur- 
chase, which  comes  to  fifty  shilling  for  a  lot  of  twenty-five 
acres  and  so  paying  for  the  same  rate  for  a  greater  or  less 
quantity."  ^     The  bounty  or  head-land  granted  to  colonists 

» Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  p.  406. 
^  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  I7- 
'Smith,  New  Jersey,  appendix,  pp.  545-^- 


THE  LAND  SYSTEM  OF  EAST  JERSEY  45 

was  later  continued  till  January  13,  1685-6.  but  was  then 
discontinued.^ 

One  of  the  first  plans  of  the  new  proprietors  was  the  lay- 
ing out  of  a  capital  town  or  city.  For  this  purpose  they 
selected  Ambo  Point,  which  had  hitherto  been  kept  unoc- 
cupied as  being  the  one-seventh  of  the  Elizabethtown  tract 
reserved  for  the  proprietors.  One  thousand  five  hundred 
acres  were  to  be  divided  into  one  hundred  and  fifty  equal 
lots,  of  which  one  hundred  were  to  be  sold  and  fifty  reserved 
for  such  of  the  proprietors  as  should  reside  in  the  province. 
The  lots  were  to  be  sold  for  fifteen  pounds  up  to  December 
25,  1682,  and  for  twenty  pounds  to  Christmas,  1683.  The 
proprietors  further  declared  their  intention  each  to  build  and 
maintain  a  house  in  the  new  city,  and  extra  inducements 
were  offered  to  carpenters,  masons,  and  laborers  of  all  sorts 
to  persuade  them  to  remove  there.^  The  town  was  actually 
laid  out  according  to  the  foregoing  plan  by  Samuel  Groome, 
the  new  surveyor  general,  though  later  it  was  rearranged 
by  Governor  Gawen  Lawrie.' 

But  the  main  interest  of  the  new  owners  was,  of  course, 
the  subdivision  of  the  unoccupied  lands  of  the  province. 
Whatever  their  other  motives,  the  business  side  of  their  ven- 
ture was  never  lost  sight  of.  It  was  therefore  determined 
that,  as  a  first  dividend  of  the  province,  10,000  acres  should 
be  "  set  out  *'  for  each  of  the  twenty-four  proprietors.  For 
this  purpose  convenient  tracts  were  ordered  to  be  surveyed, 
and  these  were  to  be  divided  into  either  three  or  two  parts, 
as  might  be  more  convenient,  one  part  being  for  eight  or 

^  Elisabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  16. 

*  Smith,  op.  cit.,  appendix,  pp.  543-4;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i, 
p.  434;  Whitehead,  Contributions  to  the  Early  Histary  of  Perth  Am- 
boy,  pp.  3-6. 

'Whitehead,  Contributions  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Amboy, 
pp.  5-11. 


46  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

twelve  proprietors  as  the  case  might  be.  The  parts  were 
then  to  be  subdivided/  Later,  upon  the  demand  of  the 
Scotch  proprietors,  it  was  ordered  that  the  lands  should  al- 
ways be  divided  into  two  parts,  of  which  one  was  to  be  for 
the  Scots  and  those  adventuring  with  them.^  Those  who 
had  purchased  the  fractions  of  interests  were,  of  course,  to 
receive  proportional  amounts  of  land  from  the  first  divi- 
dend, that  is,  five  hundred  acres  were  to  go  to  the  holder 
of  one-twentieth,  etc' 

In  spite  of  the  continuance  of  the  Concessions  of  Berke- 
ley and  Carteret,  certain  changes  did  come  with  the  advent 
of  the  Twenty-four  in  the  method  of  granting  lands.  This 
was  caused  by  the  institution  in  1684  of  the  council  of 
proprietors.*  In  the  previous  year  the  proprietors  had  is- 
sued a  new  constitution  for  East  Jersey,  known  as  the  "Fun- 
damental Constitutions  "  designed  to  replace  the  Conces- 
sions as  the  basis  for  the  government  of  the  colony,  but 
owing  to  the  indifference  of  the  settlers  this  elaborate  plan 
never  went  into  effect.  It  provided  in  one  of  its  clauses  for 
a  body  known  as  "  a  common  council  "  to  consist  of  the 
twenty-four  proprietors  or  their  proxies,  and  twelve  es- 
pecially elected  freemen,  to  whom  certain  important  func- 
tions were  to  be  given.  To  have  a  seat  in  the  council  a 
proprietor  must,  however,  retain  a  fourth  part  of  his  pro- 
priety, and  if  through  sub-division  no  person  held  such 
proportion  then  those  holding  smaller  interests  were  to 
choose  one  to  represent  them.' 

Now  although  the  Fundamental  Constitutions  became  a 
dead  letter,  the  proprietors  by  special  instruction  to  Gawen 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  pp.  427,  452;  Elizabethtown  Bill  in 
Chancery,  p.  16. 
"^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  448.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  452. 

* Elizabeihtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  pp.  16-17. 
^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  395. 


THE  LAND  SYSTEM  OF  EAST  JERSEY  47 

Lawrie,  their  governor,  under  date  of  August  i,  1684,  or- 
dered the  establishment  of  the  council,  naming  proxies  who 
were  themselves  in  most  cases  persons  holding  proprietary 
interests  resident  in  the  province.  The  idea  of  having  mem- 
hers  representing  the  freemen  was  of  course  dropped.^  To 
this  council  of  proprietors  was  intrusted  all  such  rriatters 
relative  to  the  proprietary  interest  as  needed  settlement  upon 
the  soil  of  the  province.  Naturally  these  had  to  do  es- 
pecially with  the  land  system,  with  such  things  as  the  dis- 
posing of  the  lots  in  Perth  Amboy,  the  purchasing  of  land 
from  the  Indians,  the  renting  of  lands  to  settlers,  etc.^  But 
the  most  important  function  of  the  council  was  the  examin- 
tion  of  the  right  of  all  claimants  to  land-titles,  and  at  least 
five  proprietors  must  sign  an  order  to  the  governor  before 
he  was  to  issue  his  warrant  to  the  surveyor  general  for  the 
further  laying  off  of  the  land.  This  method  began  No- 
vember 13,  1684."'' 

With  this  modification  the  manner  of  granting  lands  re- 
mained as  before.  The  warrants  and  returns  of  surveys 
were  still  recorded  by  the  proprietary  register,  and  patents 
issued  in  about  the  old  form  till  1703.  In  the  case  of  lands 
set  out  for  proprietors  no  quit-rent  was  required. 

From  the  beginning  many  difficulties  beset  the  Twenty- 
four,  not  the  least  of  which  was  that  of  finding  competent 
and  honorable  officers  and  agents.  They  began  by  naming 
the  respected  Robert  Barclay  governor  of  the  province,  but 
it  was  never  intended  that  the  distinguished  author  should 
rule  the  province  in  person.  Thomas  Rudyard,  one  of  the 
proprietors  and  a  well-known  London  lawyer,  was  therefore 
commissioned  as  deputy  governor.*     But  he  quarreled  with 

^  New  Jersey  Archives, vol.  i,  p.  459.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  461. 

* Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  17, 

*  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  pp.  119-121. 


48  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

the  surveyor  general  and  moreover  v^^as  guilty  of  taking  ad- 
vantage of  his  position  to  secure  especially  desirable  land. 
He  was  therefore  superseded  by  the  Quaker  Gawen  Lawrie, 
in  September,  1683.^  Lawrie  proved  even  more  remiss, 
disobeying  the  orders  of  the  proprietors  in  several  respects 
and  also  proving  too  shrewd  in  his  own  interest.^  The 
proprietors  then  made  the  mistake  of  naming  Lord  Neil 
Campbell,  brother  of  the  Duke  of  Argyle  who  had  just  re- 
belled and  lost  his  life.*  Campbell  had  little  interest  in 
New  Jersey  and  remained  only  until  it  was  safe  for  him  to 
return  to  Scotland.*  At  length,  December  10,  1686,  upon 
the  withdrawal  of  Campbell  the  control  passed  into  the 
hands  of  an  efficient  and  able  man,  the  Scot,  Andrew  Hamil- 
ton.^ But  when,  in  1697,  it  was  found  necessary  because  of 
certain  technicalities  to  supersede  him,  an  untrustworthy 
adventurer,  Jeremiah  Basse,  was  commissioned.® 

In  their  choice  of  other  officers  the  proprietors  were  some- 
what more  fortunate.  Their  first  selection  as  surveyor 
general  was  Samuel  Groome,  a  proprietor  who  served 
efficiently,  but  who  was  practically  superseded  under  Gov- 
ernor Rudyard  by  Philip  Wells.'  Groome  died  soon  after, 
and  the  surveyor-generalship  was  then  held  for  a  short 
time  by  William  Haige.^  But  in  August,  1684,  the  cele- 
brated George  Keith  was  commissioned.  His  tenure  is 
notable  because  of  his  work  in  running  the  dividing  line 
between  East  and  West  Jersey."     Upon  Keith's  withdrawal 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  423.  ^ Ibid., vol.  i,  pp.  492,  531. 

*  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  pp.  153-4- 
^Ibid.,  pp.  152-7,  226.  ^Ibid.,  p.  157. 

^Ibid,,  pp.  195,  229;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  91  (note). 
'Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  p.  130. 

"Whitehead,  Contributions  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Amboy, 
p.  14. 
^IHd.,  p.  17. 


THE  LAND  SYSTEM  OF  EAST  JERSEY  ^g 

to  Pennsylvania,  John  Barclay  was  appointed,  April,  1692,^ 
with  John  Reid  as  deputy  and  substitute.  Reid  eventually 
succeeded  to  the  office  in  1702,^ 

The  receiver-generalship  was  usually  connected  with  the 
office  of  surveyor  general.  Both  Groome '  and  Haige, 
were  commissioned  as  receivers  general.  Keith,  however, 
does  not  seem  to  have  acted  as  treasurer.  Instead,  upon 
the  death  of  Haige,  the  proprietors,  July,  1688,  named 
William  Dockwra.*  As  Dockwra  did  not  remove  to  the 
province,  he  authorized  Governor  Hamilton  to  collect  quit- 
rents  and  receive  other  payments  until  he  could  fix  upon  a 
suitable  deputy.  Eventually,  in  1692.  he  named  John  Bar- 
clay, thus  again  connecting  the  offices  of  surveyor  and 
receiver  general.''  Two  years  later,  however,  James  Dun- 
das  was  commissioned  by  Governor  Hamilton."  Although 
George  Willocks,  as  will  be  shown  later,  was  appointed  in 
1697  as  special  agent  for  the  sale  of  the  proprietors'  quit- 
rents,  and  for  the  collection  of  arrears,  no  commission  fill- 
ing the  place  of  Dundas,  who  died  in  1698,  appears  until  the 
establishment  of  royal  government. 

In  the  important  office  of  secretary  or  register  there  were 
fewer  changes.  When  Rudyard  came  out  as  governor  he 
bore  also  a  commission  as  secretary,^  and  although  removed 
from  the  governorship,  he  continued  as  secretary  down  to 
1685,  when  he  left  East  Jersey  for  Barbadoes.*     He  was 

'  Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  p.  42;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  81. 
'Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  p.  45. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  378. 

*  Whitehead,  Contributions  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Amboy, 
p.  IS. 

''Ibid.,  p.  42.  ^Ibid.,  p.  371. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  376. 

*  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  p.  132. 


50  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

succeeded  by  James  Emott  of  Elizabethtown,  a  terror  to 
all  students,  because  of  his  peculiar  script/  In  1689  the 
energetic  Dockwra  was  commissioned  by  the  proprietors  as 
secretary  and  register,  and  Thomas  Gordon  was  named  by 
him  as  deputy.  During  Gordon's  absence  in  England  on 
a  mission  for  the  proprietors,  John  Barclay  held  the  office. 
But  in  1702,  Thomas  Gordon  was  again  commissioned 
both  as  secretary  of  the  province  and  register  of  the  pro- 
prietors.^ 

It  is  very  noticeable  that,  especially  toward  the  end  of 
the  period,  the  majority  of  those  holding  office  were  Scotch- 
men, and  one  can  readily  appreciate  why  there  should  be 
feeling  against  the  clique  whose  most  prominent  members 
were  Gordon,  Barclay,  and  Willocks. 

The  taking  up  of  land  on  a  large  scale  by  the  proprie- 
tors and  their  assigns  soon  gave  a  very  different  aspect  to 
the  province.  Thousands  of  acres  of  the  most  desirable 
lands,  lying  especially  along  the  Bay,  the  Kills,  the  Hudson, 
and  the  lower  courses  of  the  rivers  of  the  province,  had  al- 
ready been  possessed.  The  new  proprietors  were,  therefore, 
in  the  main,  forced  to  content  themselves  with  lands  lying 
further  back.  But  as  was  usual  in  such  cases  their  surveys 
followed  chiefly  the  valleys  of  the  principal  streams, — the 
Passaic,  the  Hackensack,  the  Shrewsbury,  and  the  Raritan. 
The  valley  of  the  latter  river,  especially  reaching  back  into 
what  is  now  Somerset  County,  was  rapidly  taken  up.^  The 
new  owners  and  their  assigns,  however,  also  eagerly  ac- 
quired the  unoccupied  parts  of  the  existing  townships.  The 
advantageous  situation  of  the  Elizabethtown  tract  made  it 

*  Whitehead,  Contributions  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Amboy, 
p.  41- 
^Ibid.,  pp.  64-5. 
*East  Jersey  Records,  liber  A  and  B,  passim. 


THE  LAND  SYSTEM  OF  EAST  JERSEY  ^j 

especially  desirable,  and  the  surveys  lying  within  its  ori- 
ginal bounds  are  numerous.^ 

But  the  most  significant  thing  about  the  new  regime  is 
the  size,  comparatively  speaking,  of  the  allotments  now 
made.  It  is  true  that  not  many  of  the  original  Twenty-four 
contemplated  retaining  and  planting  independently  their  un- 
divided shares.  From  the  beginning  a  subdivision  of  their 
estates  was  planned.  The  Scotch  proprietors  "  and  those 
adventuring  with  them  "  were  most  active  in  endeavoring 
to  occupy  and  plant  their  own  portions.  The  majority  of 
the  servants  dispatched  to  East  Jersey  appear  to  have  been 
sent  by  the  Scotch  proprietors,^  while  several  vessels  with 
cargoes  valued  at  many  hundreds  of  pounds  also  left 
Scotch  ports  for  Perth  Amboy.^  In  their  instructions  of 
1684,  to  Governor  Lawrie,  he  was  required  neither  to  sell 
or  to  rent  the  lands  laid  out  for  the  Scots  at  the  rates  agreed 
upon  by  the  other  proprietors,  as  they  had  "  a  prospect  of 
turning  it  to  a  better  account."  *  On  the  other  hand  it  ap- 
pears, however,  that  the  Scots  were  particularly  active 
in  selling  subdivisions  of  their  shares. '^  Of  the  other 
proprietors  some  at  least  neglected  to  occupy  and  improve 
their  dividends,  thus  giving  rise  to  deserved  complaints  that 
they  were  retarding  the  development  of  the  province. 

The  accommodating  of  "  small  purchasers "  received 
much  attention  from  the  proprietors,  and  was  the  subject 
of  lengthy  instructions  to  their  officers  in  East  Jersey.  In 
1684  it  was  agreed  that  small  purchasers  should  at  once 
receive  their  shares  of  land  out  of  the  dividends  of  the  pro- 
prietors from  whom  they  had  bought,  and  that  if  any  share 

^  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  appendix,  schedule  iii. 
^Easi  Jersey  Records,  liber  A.  pp.  154,  184,  156,  266,  etc.;  White- 
head gives  a  list,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  p.  136  (note). 
*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  464,  etc.  *Ibid.,  vol,  i,  p.  449. 

^East  Jersey  Records,  liber  A,  passim. 


52  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

did  not  amount  to  five  hundred  acres,  it  should  nevertheless 
be  made  up  to  that  amount  if  the  purchaser  so  desired. 
If  a  proprietor  had  sold  so  many  shares  his  entire  dividend 
of  the  10,000  acres  was  to  be  taken,  if  necessary,  to  accom- 
modate each  with  the  required  five  hundred  acres,  pro- 
vided that  he  had  not  sent  servants  or  done  anything  to 
improve  his  land.  And  if  still  more  was  required,  it 
might  be  taken  from  the  unimproved  land  of  some  other 
proprietor.  Care,  however,  was  to  be  taken  to  reprise 
tihe  proprietors  whose  land  was  taken,  out  of  the  next 
dividend  of  the  10,000  acres,  and  the  small  purchaser  was 
to  have  no  more  land  in  the  later  dividends  than  his  own 
share  came  to  unless  he  had  already  improved  his  first  five 
hundred  acres.  ^ 

In  1685,  after  the  proprietors  at  length  understood  the 
mismanagement  of  Rudyard  and  Lawrie,  they  issued  a 
further  order  regarding  the  laying-out  of  the  lands  which  was 
even  more  specific.  It  was  now  set  down  that  each  owner 
of  a  propriety  or  half  a  propriety  should  have  1000  acres  set 
out  to  him  on  the  first  dividend,  and  should  settle  at  least  a 
family  with  three  working  hands  thereon.  Each  person  hav- 
ing a  less  share  should  have  five  hundred  acres  on  the  same 
condition.  Thus  lands  were  to  be  set  out  until  the  entire  10,- 
000  acres  agreed  upon  had  been  filled.  Then  further  al- 
lotment was  to  stop  on  that  propriety  for  three  years  until 
the  other  proprietors  had  a  chance  "  to  come  up  to  the  like 
quantity."  But  after  a  space  of  three  years  those  con- 
cerned in  said  propriety  might  take  up  another  10,000 
acres,  provided  that  they  settled  just  double  the  number  of 
persons  on  the  second  division  as  on  the  first.  All  lands 
already  taken  up,  however,  were  to  stand  as  portions  of 
the  first  division.     It  was  also  ordained  that  each  proprietor 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  471. 


THE  LAND  SYSTEM  OF  EAST  JERSEY  53 

must  retain  at  least  a  sufficient  share  of  his  interest  to 
qualify  him  as  a  proprietor  according  to  the  Fundamental 
Constitutions.^ 

But  in  spite  of  the  subdivision  of  interests,  the  tracts  of 
land  surveyed  and  taken  up  under  the  Twenty-four  greatly 
exceeded  in  size  those  patented  under  Berkeley  and  Car- 
teret, when  patents  of  even  five  hundred  acres  were  rather 
rare.  For  example,  within  the  disputed  Elizabethtown 
tract  we  find  that  thirty-eight  surveys  are  recorded  from 
1683  to  1703  for  tracts  of  five  hundred  acres  or  over.  Of 
these  no  less  than  twenty-three  exceeded  one  thousand 
acres.  Eight  surveys  were  over  two  thousand.  William 
Dockwra  had  five  thousand  acres  along  the  Passaic ;  Camp- 
bell and  Blackwood  obtained  3,900;  Peter  Sonmans,  2,800, 
while  the  Peapack  Tract  acquired  by  George  Willocks  and 
Dr.  John  Johnstone  covered  3,150.^  Owing  to  the  exis- 
tence of  the  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery  and  other  ma- 
terials relating  to  the  Elizabethtown  dispute,  the  exact  fig- 
ures for  this  district  are  readily  obtainable.  The  East 
Jersey  Records,  however,  show  that  not  only  for  the  valley 
of  the  Raritan,  but  for  the  whole  of  the  province,  a  period 
of  comparatively  large  surveys  begins  in  1683."  Most  of 
the  holders  of  extensive  tracts  were  of  course  themselves 
proprietors,  holders  of  at  least  fractions  of  interests.  But 
patents  for  extensive  tracts  to  outside  investors  are  not 
infrequent.*  A  few  rather  large  grants  for  headland  are 
also  to  be  found,  while  in  certain  cases  the  proprietors 
granted  tracts  of  land  as  special  rewards  for  services  ren- 
dered.    A  gift  of  one  thousand  acres  to  Dockwra  is  the 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  494. 

*  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  appendix,  schedule  iii. 

*  East  Jersey  Records,  liber  A  and  B. 

*For  examples,  Ibid.,  liber  A,  pp.  Q4-107,  166,  167,  etc. 


54  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

best  example/  Patents  for  smaller  tracts  still  appear,  but 
many  of  these  lie  within  the  bounds  of  the  original  town- 
ships. 

These  developments  brought  with  them  important  con- 
sequences. Henceforth  the  landholdings  of  East  Jersey- 
could  be  classed  into  two  general  groups :  the  small  hold- 
ing of  the  original  settlers,  lying  chiefly  within  the  towns 
and  subject  always  to  quit-rent,  and  the  large  tracts  of  the 
proprietors  which,  of  course,  were  free  from  such  payment. 
There  was,  of  course,  a  continual  tendency  toward  the  sub- 
division of  the  latter,  and  purchasers  from  individual  pro- 
prietors seem  to  have  been  subject  to  quit-rent  to  the  pro- 
prietors from  whom  they  purchased.  But  this  process  of 
subdivision  was  gradual.  If  we  bear  in  mind  the  pecu- 
liar division  of  the  lands  of  the  province  and  recall  the 
origin  of  the  people  into  whose  hands  they  came,  several 
important  developments  in  the  history  of  East  Jersey  will 
become  much  more  clear  than  would  otherwise  be  possible. 

While  adhering  strictly  to  their  right  to  quit-rent  un- 
der the  Concessions,^  the  Twenty-four  seem  to  have  made 
some  effort  to  conciliate  the  inhabitants  of  their  province, 
many  of  whom  were  implacably  hostile  to  the  Carterets.' 
In  this  effort  they  naturally  failed  as  long  as  they  were  un- 
willing to  remove  the  real  bone  of  contention,  the  quit-rent. 
The  proprietors  themselves  at  length  realized  that  though 
they  might  obtain  temporary  quiet  by  allowing  the  rents 
to  run  in  arrears,  no  permanent  settlement  would  be  pos- 
sible while  the  rents  remained.  They  therefore  in  1697 
commissioned  George  Willocks  as  their  agent  to  collect  ar- 
rears and  sell  the  rents.  Willocks  was  to  have  in  pay- 
ment five  pounds  of  every  one  hundred  he  obtained.     But 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  486.  ''Ibid.,  p.  477- 

*  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  pp.  130,  138-9- 


THE  LAND  SYSTEM  OF  EAST  JERSEY  55 

he  was  not  to  sell  any  rents  under  the  price  of  "  Twenty 
years  Purchase  of  the  full  Yearly  Value  of  those  Rents;" 
and  he  was  not  to  execute  any  release  of  rents  until  he  had 
made  contracts  for  at  least  one  hundred  and  thirty-three 
pounds  sterling  value  of  the  said  rents. ^  The  mission  of 
Willocks  was  a  step  in  the  right  direction,  yet  it  was  pro- 
ductive of  little  good.  The  concession  had  been  too  long 
delayed,  and  under  the  encouragement  of  Basse,  the  pro- 
prietors' renegade  governor,  a  direct  attack  upon  the  pro- 
prietary system  was  already  being  made.  The  terms  of- 
fered by  Willocks  seem  to  have  received  little  consider- 
ation on  the  part  of  the  disgruntled  element  in  the  province 
and  his  presence  as  proprietary  agent  only  made  the  con- 
flict more  bitter.^ 

Before  considering  the  developments  which  led  to  the 
"  Revolution,"  as  the  temporary  overthrow  of  the  proprie- 
tary system  was  often  called  in  East  Jersey,  we  must  pause 
for  a  moment  to  note  one  or  two  other  features  regarding 
the  land  operations  of  the  proprietors.  It  is  an  interesting 
fact  that  until  the  accession  of  Basse  the  general  assembly 
had  made  no  serious  effort  to  interfere  with  the  land  sys- 
tem. In  1682  it  had  enacted  that  all  patents  in  the  name 
of  the  lords  proprietors  and  signed  by  the  governor  and  the 
greater  part  of  the  council  should  be  valid  even  though  the 
names  of  the  proprietors  were  not  all  certified  particularly.' 
In  1686  an  act  regulating  fees  gave  the  surveyor  general  two 
shillings  six  pence  for  a  survey  of  thirty  acres ;  five  shillings 
for  surveys  up  to  fifty  acres ;  six  shillings  from  fifty  to  one  hun- 
dred acres;  six  shillings  a  hundred  acres  up  to  five  hundred; 
two  shillings  for  each  one  hundred  from  five  hundred  to  one 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  186. 

*  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  pp.  200-1,  210. 

*  Learning  and  Spicer,  Grants  and  Concessions,  p.  269. 


56  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

thousand  acres,  and  for  each  one  thousand  acres  in  the 
same  tract,  twenty  shillings,  and  for  odd  measure  in  pro- 
portion. He  was  to  have  two  shillings  for  the  return  of 
each  survey  and  twelve  for  a  copy  out  of  the  surveyor's 
record/  A  later  act  of  1692  declared  valid  all  convey- 
ances of  land  made  by  attorneys  of  proprietors.^  All  of 
these  laws  were  readily  approved. 

Even  after  the  anti-proprietary  movement  had  begun, 
it  took  the  form  rather  of  an  attack  against  the  entire  pro- 
prietary authority  than  an  effort  to  control  the  existing 
machinery  of  government.  In  1698  an  assembly  under 
anti-proprietary  influence  passed  an  act  declaring  valid  cer- 
tain land  grants  of  Carteret's  time  which  contained  an  error 
in  legal  phraseology.^  This  measure  was  carried  against 
bitter  opposition  by  Willocks,  who  demanded  that  no  such 
action  should  be  taken  without  consulting  the  proprietors.* 
This  was  the  only  important  law  relating  strictly  to  land 
carried  against  the  proprietary  interest,  though  in  other 
ways,  to  be  noticed  later,  the  assembly  sought  to  destroy 
proprietary  influence.  Another  act  of  1698  was  never- 
theless important.''  This  law  enacted  that  the  public  re- 
cords should  be  kept  at  Perth  Amboy  and  that  the  register 
should  enter  all  public  affairs,  all  grants  and  patents  of 
land,  and  all  deeds  or  conveyances,  which  deeds  those  con- 
cerned must  record  within  six  months  if  inhabiting  within 
the  province.  Deeds  were  to  be  first  acknowledged  by  the 
grantor  or  proved  by  one  of  the  witnesses  before  the  gov- 
ernor or  one  of  the  council,  who  was  to  endorse  the  fact 
upon  the  deed.     Such  deed  was  then  to  be  good  despite  any 

^Learning  and  Spicer,  op.  cit.,  p.  298. 
^Ibid.,  p.  315.  ^Ibid.,  p.  362. 

*  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  pp.  200-1. 
*This  was  the  interesting  act  "declaring  what  are  the  Rights  and 
Priviledges  of  his  Majesty's  Subjects,"  etc. 


THE  LAND  SYSTEM  OF  EAST  JERSEY 


57 


earlier  conveyance  not  recorded.^  But  nothing  in  the  act 
was  to  prejudice  any  outside  of  East  Jersey.  In  so  far 
as  the  keeping-  of  the  records  went,  this  act  merely  sanc- 
tioned earlier  practice. 

Just  before  the  end  of  the  proprietary  period  the  pro- 
prietors themselves  took  certain  important  steps.  On 
February  21,  1698,  the  council  of  proprietors  ordered  a  new 
dividend  in  the  province  of  five  thousand  acres  to  a  pro- 
priety. Further,  on  December  2,  1702,  an  addition  of  two 
thousand  five  hundred  acres  was  ordered.  A  general  di- 
rection was  then  given  to  the  surveyor  general  to  survey  to 
each  proprietor  his  share  without  further  particular  order. 
This  regulation  virtually  dissolved  the  council  of  pro- 
prietors, as  the  examination  of  claims  to  land  was  its  chief 
function.  But  a  former  regulation  was  then  renewed  that 
no  survey  should  be  made  to  any  whose  title  did  not  appear 
upon  record  with  the  proprietary  register,  who  by  means 
of  this  usually  certified  to  the  surveyor  general  the  title 
of  such  as  wished  lands  laid  out.^  It  was  in  confirmation 
of  this  order  that  the  act  of  assembly  of  1698  was  ap- 
parently passed. 

A  discussion  of  the  further  changes  in  the  land  system 
belongs  under  the  royal  period.  So  far,  to  1703,  the  gen- 
eral conditions  are  reasonably  plain.  We  must  now  turn 
our  attention  to  the  interesting  and  persistent  eflforts  made 
during  this  period  to  overthrow  the  system  of  the  pro- 
prietors. 

'  Learning  and  Spicer,  op.  cit.,  p.  369. 
'* Elizabethtown  Billin  Chancery,  p.  17. 


CHAPTER  IV 
Land  Troubles  in  East  Jersey 

To  students  of  political  history  the  struggle  between  the 
proprietary  and  anti-proprietary  parties  in  East  Jersey  has 
naturally  furnished  one  of  the  chief  threads  of  interest  down 
to  the  establishment  of  the  royal  government  in  1703. 
Certainly  the  rebellious  proceedings  beginning  in  1670  and 
in  1698  furnish  the  most  striking  events  in  the  history  of 
the  province  during  this  period.  The  true  causes  of  the 
disturbances  have,  indeed,  been  carefully  explained  by  cer- 
tain authorities,^  though  it  must  be  admitted  in  a  some- 
what partisan  spirit.  Yet,  they  are  assuredly  not  gen- 
erally understood.  It  is  usually  stated  that  the  rebellious 
elements,  constituting  probably  a  majority  of  the  people  of 
East  Jersey,  were  actuated  specifically  by  a  wish  to  be  rid 
of  the  quit-rent  due  to  the  proprietors  under  the  Conces- 
sions, and  that  in  a  more  general  way  they  opposed  the  entire 
proprietary  system  and  all  the  old-world  ideas  connected 
with  it.  As  opposed  to  the  proprietary  title  they  are  said 
to  have  advanced  the  plea  of  Indian  right,  namely,  that  in- 
asmuch as  they  had  purchased  their  lands  from  the  Indians, 
the  settlers  themselves  became  the  rightful  owners,  and  that 
all  attempts  of  the  proprietors  to  force  further  payments 
were  unjust  and  illegal.^ 

In  tlhis  popular  view  there   is   undeniably  much  truth. 

'  Especially  Hatfield  and  Whitehead. 

'See,  for  example,  Dally,   Woodbridge  and  Vicinity   (New   Bruns- 
wick, 1873),  p.  45. 
58 


LAND  TROUBLES  IN  EAST  JERSEY  59 

The  opponents  of  the  proprietors  were  at  bottom  actuated 
chiefly  by  the  desire  to  escape  from  the  hated  quit-rent  and 
by  a  general  dislike  for  proprietary  privileges,  especially 
when  in  the  hands  of  persons  like  Carteret  or  the  Twenty- 
four,  who  were  not  in  close  sympathy  with  the  colonists 
or  their  ideals.^  It  is  also  true  that  the  plea  of  Indian  right 
was  advanced  and  doubtless  was  believed  in  by  many  who 
shared  in  the  uprisings.  Yet,  though  these  things  are 
true,  they  are  by  no  means  the  whole  truth,  and  the  student 
who  goes  no  deeper  must  fail  to  comprehend  the  anti-pro- 
prietary movements  in  their  true  light. 

The  real  issue,  so  far  as  it  was  specific  in  character,  was 
as  to  the  ownership  of  two  large  tracts  of  land  in  the  pro- 
vince, embracing  some  of  the  most  valuable  territory  and 
covering  either  wholly  or  in  part  five  counties  of  the  present 
state.  These  tracts  are  usually  referred  to  by  the  some- 
what confusing  names  of  the  Monmouth  Purchase  and  the 
ElizabethtOAvn  Purchase.  They  were  purchased  from  the 
Indians,  and  occupied,  at  least  in  part,  by  settlers  from 
Long  Island  before  the  control  of  Berkeley  and  Carteret 
over  New  Jersey  was  established,  and  indeed  before  the 
transfer  of  the  province  from  James  of  York  to  Berkeley 
and  Carteret  was  known  in  America.^  Both  purchases 
had  been  made  by  permission  of  Col.  Nicolls,  at  that  time 
the  governor  of  all  the  Duke's  territories,  and  moreover 
were  duly  confirmed  by  him  in  proper  legal  form.'  Stated 
in  their  simplest  form,  the  questions  growing  out  of  these 
purchases  were:  (i),  whether  Berkeley  and  Carteret  ac- 
quired legal  title  to  these  tracts  which  had  already  been 

'Hatfield,  History  of  Elizabeth,  pp.  113-4,  ^ZSy  180,  etc. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  183;  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under 
the  Proprietors,  pp.  41-3. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  pp.  15,  17,  43. 


6o  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

conveyed  away  by  the  Duke's  legal  representative;  and 
*  (2),  w^hether,  therefore,  the  clharge  of  quit-rent  or  any 
other  payment  required  by  the  proprietors  w^ithin  these 
tracts  was  valid/  Modern  writers  'have  spoken  chiefly  of 
the  matter  of  quit-rent,  but  this  was,  after  all,  only  a  sub- 
ordinate issue  growing  out  of  the  larger  one  as  to  the 
actual  legal  ownership  of  the  soil.  When  we  remember 
that  the  two  tracts  in  question  included  a  very  large  slice 
of  the  most  valuable  part  of  the  province,  the  vital  char- 
acter of  the  issue  is  apparent. 

The  plea  of  Indian  title  alone  was  never  seriously  relied 
upon  by  the  leaders  of  the  anti-proprietary  party.  It  was 
the  grant  or  patent  for  the  land  given  by  Nicolls  to  which 
they  pinned  their  faith.  Since  the  days  of  Roger  Williams 
the  legal  worthlessness  of  the  claim  from  Indian  purchase 
had  become  too  well  established  in  New  England  juris- 
prudence to  allow  them  to  commit  such  a  legal  error.  In- 
deed the  Elizabethtown  men  later  complained  bitterly 
that  the  proprietors  were  endeavoring  to  make  them  ap- 
pear to  be  claiming  from  Indian  purchase  alone.^  There 
is  no  doubt  that  many  persons  inhabiting  districts  outside 
of  the  Monmouth  and  Elizabethtown  tracts  made  common 
couse  with  the  settlers  therein  against  the  proprietors.  The 
more  ignorant  among  them  perhaps  believed  that  Indian 
right  gave  a  valid  title  to  all  lands,  though  there  is  little  con- 
temporary evidence  to  show  that  such  was  the  case.  The 
fact  is  that  the  question  of  the  Elizabethtown  purchase 
formed  an  issue  which  served  to  rally  about  it  all  in  the 
province  who  disliked  the  proprietary  control. 

Let  us  now  examine  a  little  more  in  detail  both  the  legal 

^  These  issues  are  clearly  stated,  for  example,  in  the  Petition  to  the 
King,  drawn  up  by  the  people  of  Elizabethtown  apparently  in  1696. 
New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  124. 

*  Answer  to  the  Bill  in  Chancery. 


LAND  TROUBLES  IN  EAST  JERSEY  6, 

principles  and  the  facts  involved  in  the  purchases.  In  the  first 
place  nothing  can  be  more  clear  than  that  the  confirmation 
by  Nicolls  of  the  Elizabethtown  purchase  to  Baker,  Ogden, 
Bailey,  and  Watson  and  their  associates,  December  i,  1664, 
and  of  the  Monmouth  purchase  to  William  Goulding  and 
associates,  April  8,  1665,  was  invalid.  All  the  transactions 
involved  had  taken  place  after  the  lands  in  question  had 
passed  from  the  hands  of  James,  and  Nicolls  could  not 
legally  dispose  of  them  to  outside  parties.  That  the  trans- 
fer to  Berkeley  and  Carteret  was  unknown  in  America 
cannot  affect  the  principle.  The  purchasers  of  the  land 
who  acted  on  the  authority  of  Nicolls  had,  it  is  true,  a  clear 
case  in  equity  for  the  recovery  of  damages  against  the  Duke 
and  his  agent  But  this  fact  in  no  way  affected  the  in- 
validity of  their  claim  to  land-title.  Both  the  Elizabeth- 
town  and  the  Monmouth  purchases  were  void  by  every  prin- 
ciple of  law  known  at  the  time.^  But  though  this  con- 
clusion is  unavoidable,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  the 
claimants  by  the  Nicolls  grants  acted  in  bad  faith.  There 
is  no  evidence  to  prove  that  they  did  not  sincerely  believe 
that  their  contentions  were  both  legal  and  just.* 

Although  the  questions  regarding  the  two  grants  were 
very  nearly  similar,  that  of  the  Monmouth  Patent  did  not 
give  rise  to  such  long-continued  legal  complications  as  the 
Elizabethtown  Purchase.  The  Monmouth  Tract  embraced 
the  lands  between  the  Raritan  and  "  Sandy  Point,"  and 
reached  back  a  considerable  distance  into  the  country. 
The  purchasers  were  William  Goulding,  Samuel  Spicer, 
Richard  Gibbons,  Richard  Stout,  James  Grover,  John 
Bown,  John  Tilton,   Nathaniel   Silvester,   William   Reape, 

'Whitehead,  Easl  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  pp.  268-271;  New 
Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  272;  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  2T. 
*  As  charged  in  the  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  pp.  32,  43. 


62  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Walter  Clark,  Nicholas  Davis,  Obadiah  Holmes,  and  their 
associates  being  from  Gravesend  and  vicinity  on  Long 
Island.^  The  purchase  made  from  the  Indians  by  the  ori- 
ginal patentees  appears  to  have  been  genuine,^  although  as 
usual  there  was  some  misunderstanding  with  the  natives 
later;  ^  and  the  land  was  occupied  before  the  arrival  of 
Philip  Carteret*  In  common  with  the  other  colonists  the 
settlers  did  not  take  out  patents  for  the  lands  which  they 
had  occupied  and  apportioned.  But  unlike  the  men  of 
Elizabethtown,  they  did  not,  with  some  exceptions, 
take  the  oath  of  fidelity  to  Berkeley  and  Carteret.' 
Moreover,  they  objected  to  and  refused  to  recognize  the 
governmental  powers  of  the  proprietors  over  their  patent, 
unless  the  privileges  granted  to  them  by  Colonel  Nicolls 
were  excepted.**  Governor  Carteret  took  steps  to  enforce 
their  submission,'^  but  before  the  matter  could  come  to  a  de- 
finite issue,  the  25th  of  March,  1670,  the  day  upon  which 
was  due  the  first  payment  of  the  quit-rent,  arrived.  The 
demand  for  quit-rent,  however,  caused  great  disturbances 
throughout  the  province.  There  was  a  general  refusal  to 
pay  the  rent,  and  the  proprietors'  authority  was  successfully 
defied  for  about  two  years.  ^  But  in  the  disturbances  the 
settlers  of  the  Monmouth  Patent  took  little  part,"  and  when 
at  length  the  lords  proprietors  made  known  their  inten- 
tion of  enforcing  their  rights,  they  asked  for  a  suspension 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  43, 

'  Salter,  History  of  Monmouth  and  Ocean  Counties,  pp.  33-5- 

'Smith,  New  Jersey,  p.  63  (note). 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  183.  ^  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  51. 

'Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  pp.  62-3. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  pp.  58-59. 

•Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  pp.  64-71. 

*Ibid.,  p.  82  (note). 


LAND  TROUBLES  IN  EAST  JERSEY  63 

of  all  steps  against  them  until  they  could  communicate  di- 
rectly with  Berkeley  and  Carteret.  This  they  forthwith 
did,  and  an  agreement  was  reached  by  which,  with  certain 
other  privileges,  they  received  a  confirmation  of  the  lands 
covered  by  the  Monmouth  Patent  to  dispose  of  as  they  saw 
fit.  But  the  said  lands  were  to  be  conveyed  by  individual 
grants  subject  to  the  terms  of  the  Concessions,  and  all 
claims  under  the  Nicolls  Patent  were  to  be  given  up.^ 
Thus  the  Monmouth  controversy  was  apparently  settled, 
and  no  more  was  heard  of  it  for  some  time.  The  people  of 
Middletown,  however,  as  the  outcome  showed,  were  by  no 
means  satisfied.  This  town  remained  a  center  of  dissatis- 
faction with  the  proprietary  control,  and  claims  for  exemp- 
tion from  quit-rent  were  later  brought  forward  in  spite  of 
the  agreement. 

The  question  of  Elizabethtown  was  even  more  serious 
in  its  consequences,  and  hence  we  must  give  it  more  de- 
tailed consideration.  It  is  however  a  peculiarly  trying  ques- 
tion for  the  student.  A  wealth  of  material  indeed  exists. 
Every  scrap  of  available  evidence  was  seized  upon  in  the 
numerous  suits  growing  out  of  the  purchase,  and  the  whole 
has  been  preserved  in  the  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery 
and  the  Answer  to  the  Bill  in  Chancery,  prepared  probably 
in  1745  and  1757  respectively,^  at  the  time  of  the  celebrated 
suit  in  chancery  between  the  proprietors  of  East  Jersey 
and  the  associates  of  Elizabethtown.  These  statements 
were  prepared  by  the  most  distinguished  legal  talent  avail- 
able,— James  Alexander  for  the  proprietors,  and  William 
Livingston  and  William  Smith,  Jr.,  the  historian,  for  the 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  88;  Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  p.  71.  The 
original  patentees  were  g^ranted  500  acres  apiece.  New  Jersey  Ar- 
chives, vol.  i,  p.  171. 

*  Hatfield,  History  of  Elizabeth,  pp.  369-371. 


64  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

townspeople/  Even  for  those  to  whom  these  rare  works 
are  not  available,  excellent  secondary  discussions  of  the 
case  are  to  be  found  in  the  works  of  Whitehead,  who  favors 
the  proprietors,  and  in  Hatfield's  History  of  Elizabeth, 
which  is  a  plea  for  the  associates.  But  in  spite  of  all  this 
material,  the  evidence  which  is  really  essential  appears  to 
have  perished.  Until  the  Town  Book  of  Elizabethtown 
is  recovered  we  cannot  know  what  took  place  during  the 
earliest  years  of  the  settlement,  and  without  such  knowl- 
edge no  final  judgment  of  all  the  aspects  of  the  case  is 
possible.  It  was  always  claimed  by  tihe  proprietors  that 
the  Town  Book  was  deliberately  concealed  or  destroyed 
by  the  associates.^  This  charge,  however,  the  associates 
resolutely  denied,  and  tried  to  cast  the  blame  upon  their 
opponents.* 

Of  some  things,  however,  we  can  be  sure.  The  ori- 
ginal petition  to  Nicolls  for  permission  to  purchase  lands 
across  the  bay  was  dated  September  26,  1664,  ^.nd  signed 
by  six  settlers  of  Jamaica,  Long  Island:  Bailey,  Daniel 
Denton,  Benedyck,  Foster,  Nathaniel  Denton,  and  Watson.* 
Nicolls'  consent  was  given  on  September  30,  and  on  Octo- 
ber 28,  John  Bailey,  Daniel  Denton,  and  Luke  Watson 
entered  into  an  indenture  with  three  Indian  sachems  for 
"  One  parcel'  of  Land  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  setts  westward  out  of  the  said  Bay  aforesaid 
and  To  Run  west  Into  the  Country  Twice  the  Length  as 

*  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  p.  114. 
^Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  32. 

*  Hatfield,  op.  cit.,  p.  309. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  14. 


LAND  TROUBLES  IN  EAST  JERSEY  65 

it  Is  Broad  from  the  North  to  The  South  of  the  afore- 
mentioned Bounds."  Bailey,  Denton  and  Watson  made 
the  purchase  on  behalf  of  themselves,  "  Their  Associates, 
their  heirs  and  Executors."  ^  On  December  2,  Colonel 
Nicolls  confirmed  the  ownership  of  the  tract  to  Capt.  John 
Bailey  and  Luke  Watson  and  their  associates.  They  were 
to  hold  the  land,  "  Rendering  and  paying  yearly  unto  his 
Royal  Highness,  The  Duke  of  Yorke,  or  his  assigns,  a  cer- 
tain Rente  according  To  the  Customary  Rate  of  ye  Coun- 
try for  New  Plantations."  Further  liberty  was  also 
given  to  purchase  land  as  far  as  Snake  Hill.^ 

In  these  transactions  there  were  certain  minor  defects. 
The  lands  in  question  were  already  covered  by  an  old 
Dutch  purchase  of  Augustine  Hermans.  But  this  fact 
was  overlooked.  It  was  also  peculiar  that  only  one  of  the 
chiefs  mentioned  on  the  face  of  the  indenture  signed  that 
document,  while  an  unmentioned  sachem  fixed  his  mark.' 
It  likewise  appears  plain  that  though  the  remuneration  was 
actually  paid  to  the  Indians  after  some  delay,  they  gave 
up  their  control  of  only  a  portion  of  the  territory,  namely 
as  far  as  the  famous  Minnisinck  Path,  the  name  given  to 
an  important  Indian  trail  crossing  the  Raritan  at  Kent's 
Neck,  and  leading  to  the  Rahway  River  which  it  followed. 
West  of  this  trail  the  settlers  were  obliged  to  make  new 
purchases.     But  these  defects  were  hardly  vital.* 

The  boundaries  of  the  purchase  seem  clearly  stated  in 
Nicolls'  patent,  and  yet  it  was  over  these  boundaries  that 
a  bitter  controversy  was  raised.  The  patent  said  that  the 
land  should  be  bounded  by  Raritan  River  and  Staten 
Island  Sound,  and  run  northward  "  up  After  Cull,  (i.  e. 
Newark),    Baye  till   you   come  to   the   first   river   which 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  15.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  17. 

* Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  26.  ^ Ibid.,  p.  52. 


66  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

sets  westwards  out  of  the  said  Bay."  It  was  to  ex- 
tend into  the  country  "twice  the  length  of  the  breadth 
thereof  from  the  north  to  the  south."  ^  The  conflict  was 
as  to  what  was  meant  by  the  "  first  river  which  sets 
westward  out  of  the  said  Bay."  It  was  the  claim  of  the 
Elizabethtown  men  that  the  Passaic  River  was  designated,^ 
but  the  proprietors  later  insisted  that  the  little  stream 
known  as  Bound  Creek  because  it  long  formed  the  line 
between  Elizabethtown  and  Newark,  was  intended.^  The 
debatable  land  included  several  thousand  acres,  and  Newark 
itself.  It  was  therefore  a  very  valuable  stake.  Some  ex- 
tremists of  Elizabethtown  appear  later  to  have  laid  claim 
to  all  the  land  as  far  as  Snake  Hill,  taking  advantage  of 
Nicoll's  permission  to  purchase  to  that  point.*  But  no 
serious  effort  was  made  to  maintain  this  untenable  position. 
The  Bill  in  Chancery  states  that  the  entire  territory  from 
the  Raritan  to  the  Passaic  contained  above  400,000  acres 
of  the  best  land  in  the  province.  ° 

Another  doubtful  point  is  as  to  the  associates  of  the 
purchasers.  These  associates  are  mentioned  in  both 
the  Indian  purchase  and  Nicolls'  confirmatory  grant, 
though  not  in  a  definite  way.  Taking  this  into 
consideration,  as  well  as  the  tradition  to  the  effect  that 
a  society  of  associates  existed  previous  to  the  settlement  * 
and  the  fact  that  the  people  of  New  England  almost  in- 
variably set  about  making  new  settlements  in  companies 
or  congregations,  we  must  conclude  that  Bailey,  Denton, 
and  Watson  were  acting  on  behalf  of  a  number  of  pro- 

'  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  18. 

'Hatfield,  op,  cit,,  p.  119. 

^Elizabethtown  Billin  Chancery,  pp.  62-3. 

^Ibid.,  p.  63.  "Ibid.,  p.  23. 

•Murray,  Notes  on  Elizabethtown  (Elizabethtown,  1844),  pp.''i9-20. 


LAND  TROUBLES  IN  EAST  JERSEY 


67 


spective  settlers.^  But  to  what  extent  they  were  organized, 
and  whether  they  were  in  any  legal  sense  shareholders  in  the 
enterprise,  are  matters  of  doubt.  The  proprietary  conten- 
tion was  always  that  Bailey,  Denton,  and  Watson  were 
alone  concerned  in  the  purchase,  and  that  the  celebrated 
company  of  eighty  associates  was  not  formed  until  after 
the  arrival  of  Philip  Carteret  and  the  foundation  of  the  new 
town.^  As  partial  proof  they  referred  to  a  copy  of  a  min- 
ute from  the  lost  Elizabethtown  Book,  which  states  that  at 
a  "  Meeting  Court "  held  February  19,  1665-6,  it  was 
agreed  by  the  freeholders  and  inhabitants,  by  the  approval 
of  Governor  Carteret,  that  the  town  should  consist  for  the 
present  of  four-score  families,  and  that  an  addition  of  twenty 
more  might  be  made  later  if  desirable.  This  the  Bill  in 
Chancery  claims  to  be  proof  that  the  eighty  associates  were 
associates  only  in  founding  Elizabeth,  and  not  in  the 
Nicolls  grant.  ^  Such  evidence,  however,  is  hardly  very 
strong,  while  the  inherent  probability  that  the  purchase  was 
co-operative  is  great. 

The  early  relations  between  Philip  Carteret  and  the  set- 
tlers present  several  points  of  doubt.  It  has  been  asserted 
that  the  associates  had  already  established  a  numerous  set- 
tlement upon  their  purchase  before  Carteret  arrived,*  but 
the  only  contemporary  evidence,  though  it  is  of  an  unsatis- 
factory character,  states  that  only  four  families  were  in- 
habitating  there."  In  any  case,  no  disagreement  between 
the  new  governor  and  the  planters  regarding  the  land  or 
Carteret's  pretensions  to  govern  seems  to  have  occurred. 

'  A  little  positive  evidence  seems   to  be  offered  in  New  Jersey  Ar- 
chives, vol.  i,  p.  504. 
^Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery ,  p.  29.  *Ibid.,  pp.  32-3. 

*  Hatfield,  op.  cit.,  p.  42. 
''New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  183. 


68  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Carteret  and  his  company  were  welcomed  and  joined  in 
founding  the  town  to  which  Carteret  gave  the  name.  Car- 
teret, moreover,  soon  after  obtained  a  share  in  the  enter- 
prise by  purchasing  the  interest  of  John  Bailey/  though 
there  was  dispute  later  as  to  whether  this  amounted  to  a  third 
interest  in  the  entire  Indian  purchase  or  merely  to  one  of  the 
eighty  shares  in  the  cooperative  undertaking.  Vauquillin, 
also,  the  French  surveyor,  who  arrived  with  Carteret,  was 
admitted  as  an  associate.^ 

Since  no  record  exists  of  any  agreement  between  Car- 
teret and  the  associates,  great  interest  attaches  to  such  acts 
on  their  part  as  seem  to  indicate  their  understanding  of  the 
situation.  A  careful  study  of  what  occurred  certainly  seems 
to  indicate  that  the  settlement  was  made  under  the  Con- 
cessions, rather  than  in  virtue  of  the  Nicolls  grant,  and 
mutual  agreement.  On  February  19,  1665,  sixty-five  male 
inhabitants  of  Elizabethtown  took  the  oath  of  fidelity  to 
Berkeley  and  Carteret,  thus,  it  would  seem,  expressly  recog- 
nizing their  claims.^  Further,  in  December,  1666,  Carteret, 
Ogden,  and  Watson  sold  to  Daniel  Pierce  and  his  associates 
a  large  share  of  the  Elizabethtown  tract  for  the  settlement 
of  Woodbridge  and  Piscataway.  There  was  no  recognition 
that  any  except  the  three  patentees  were  concerned  in  the 
bargain.^  Further,  as  mentioned  in  the  preceding  chapter 
Carteret  commissioned  John  Brackett  to  lay  out  the  lands 
of  the  settlers  and  set  the  bounds  of  the  township,  while 
on  two  occasions  the  governor  and  council  forbade  the  cut- 
ting of  timber  within  Elizabethtown."*  The  settlement  of 
Newark,  too,  which  fell  within  the  bounds  of  the  Elizabeth- 

^  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  29;  Hatfield,  op.  cit.,  p.  51. 

'Hatfield,  op.  cit.,  p.  97. 

*New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  49. 

^Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  29.  ''Ibid.,  p,  34. 


LAND  TROUBLES  IN  EAST  JERSEY  69 

town  purchase,  as  later  claimed  by  the  associates,  was  ar- 
ranged by  Carteret  apparently  without  opposition/  There 
is  evidence  to  show,  however,  that  the  bounds  between 
Newark  and  Elizabethtown  were  arranged  by  mutual  agree- 
ment between  the  two  towns.^ 

In  contradiction  to  these  acts  which  show  clearly  a  recog- 
nition of  Carteret's  power,  the  upholders  of  the  associates 
have  been  able  to  say  merely  that  the  taking  of  the  oaths 
was  the  result  of  fear,  and  that  the  other  steps  were  taken 
with  the  consent  of  the  town.^  But  there  is  nothing  to  show 
that  such  was  the  case.  It  is,  of  course,  true  that  no  in- 
habitants of  Elizabethtown  took  out  patents,  but  neither 
did  the  people  of  the  other  towns,  and  Carteret,  so  far  as  we 
know,  made  no  effort  to  enforce  the  patenting  of  lands  until 
1670. 

The  first  demand  for  quit-rent,  however,  changed  the  en- 
tire situation.  There  was  a  general  refusal  by  the  associ- 
ates of  Elizabethtown  either  to  pay  the  rent  or  to  take  out 
patents,  and  this  refusal  was  soon  accompanied  by  riotous 
demonstrations  against  the  proprietors'  authority.  Philip 
Carteret  had  brought  with  him  eighteen  male  servants,  sev- 
eral of  whom  had  by  this  time  served  their  terms.  Upon 
one,  Claude  Valot,  the  governor  in  February,  1669-70,  be- 
stowed a  third  lot  right  in  the  town  which  he  had  acquired 
by  purchase,  and  also  declared  Valot  to  be  "  a  true 
Denizen  "  of  the  province.*  This  act  had  apparently  caused 
dissastif action,  for  when,  in  the  spring  of  1671,  Carteret, 
without  consulting  the  town,  made  a  small  grant  of  land  to 
another  former  servant,  Richard  Michell,  it  was  agreed  by 
the  associates,  in  a  meeting  of  June  19th,  that  Michell  should 

'  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  pp.  50,  51,  288-93. 
'  Town  Records  of  Newark,  p.  10.  'Hatfield,  op.  cit.,  p.  118. 

*  Hatfield,  op.  cit.,  p.  133. 


yo  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

not  have  the  land,  and  that  his  fence  should  be  pulled  down 
on  the  next  morning.  Accordingly,  upon  the  next  day,  the 
townspeople,  led  by  some  of  the  most  prominent  men,  as 
William  Meaker,  John  Ogden,  Jr.,  Jeffry  Jones,  and  Luke 
Watson,  assembled,  pulled  down  Michell's  fence,  and  de- 
stroyed his  garden.^ 

This  was  the  beginning  of  open  conflict  between  the  peo- 
ple of  Elizabethtown  and  the  governor.  Meaker,  Jones, 
Watson  and  their  confederates,  were  tried  by  a  special  court 
of  oyer  and  terminer,  with  a  jury  drawn  from  Woodbridge 
and  Bergen,  and  fined,  but  defied  the  authority  of  the 
court.^  In  this  conflict  the  Elizabethtown  men  had  the 
support  of  most  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  other  towns,  al- 
though their  people  had  no  reasonable  grounds  whatsoever 
for  refusal  to  obey  the  Concessions.  The  people  of  Newark 
had  offered  payment  of  the  quit-rents  in  wheat  instead  of 
lawful  money  as  the  Concessions  required.^  But,  when  the 
offer  was  not  accepted,  they  cooperated  with  the  anti-pro- 
prietary faction.  Bergen  also  refused  the  rents,  while  dele- 
gates from  even  Woodbridge  and  Piscataway  attended  the 
unauthorized  assemblies  of  1672.*  Cohesion  was  given 
bo  the  opposition  to  the  governor  by  the  appearance  upon 
the  scene  of  Capt.  James  Carteret,  a  son  of  Sir  George, 
who  was  then  on  his  way  to  Carolina,  of  which  he  had  been 
appointed  a  "  landgrave."  James  Carteret  seized  the  op- 
portunity to  gain  power  at  the  expense  of  his  kinsman, 
readily  allowing  himself  to  be  made  the  nominal  leader  of 
the  malcontents.'* 

*  Hatfield,  op.  cit.,  p.  137;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  pp.  84-86. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  pp.  80-87. 

*  Town  Records  of  Newark,  p.  30. 

*  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  p.  66. 
''Ibid.,  p.  67. 


LAND  TROUBLES  IN  EAST  JERSEY  71 

Against  this  formidable  uprising  Philip  Carteret  strug- 
gled in  vain  until,  at  length  convinced  of  his  helplessness,  he 
commissioned  Capt.  John  Berry  as  his  deputy,  and  left 
East  Jersey  for  England  to  lay  the  entire  case  before 
Berkeley  and  Carteret  in  person.^  The  result  was  decisive. 
King  Charles  himself  was  induced  to  order  a  letter  written 
to  Berry,  recognizing  his  authority  and  authorizing  him  to 
command  obedience,-  while  James  of  York  also  wrote  to 
Governor  Lovelace,  of  New  York,  declaring  the  Nicolls 
grants  void  and  instructing  him  to  give  information  of  its 
invalidity  to  the  "  contentious  persons  "  who  were  opposing 
Berkeley  and  Carteret.^  The  lords  proprietors  them- 
selves issued  a  proclamation  directly  to  the  planters  of  East 
Jersey,*  while  in  the  Declaration  of  the  True  Intent  of  the 
Concessions  they  changed  the  provisions  of  the  Concessions, 
as  has  been  previously  pointed  out,  in  such  a  way  as  to  cur- 
tail the  power  of  the  assembly  to  do  mischief.  It  was  or- 
dered that  the  arrears  of  the  quit-rents  of  Elizabethtown, 
Newark,  Piscataway,  and  the  two  towns  of  the  Navesinks, 
should  be  paid  in  three  years  from  1673.°  On  the  other 
hand,  the  upholders  of  Berkeley  and  Carteret  were  re- 
warded, the  town  of  Woodbridge,  wliich  had  been  in  the 
main  loyal,  receiving  a  remission  of  one-*third  its  quit-rent 
for  seven  years  to  come,® 

Before  this  formidable  show  of  authority  the  opposition 
to  the  proprietors  naturally  gave  way.  Berry  promptly 
published  the  document  sent  him,  and  set  a  time  limit  for  the 
submission  of  the  malcontents.''     Some  of  those  who  had 

'Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  p.  69;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  pp.  91,  94. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  107. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  97.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  lOl. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  io6.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  104. 

'  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  p.  ^\. 


72  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

borne  a  leading  share  in  the  rebellion  were  punished.  Wil- 
liam Meaker  was  compelled  to  forfeit  bis  estate  to  William 
Pardon,  one  of  Carteret's  council,  who  had  been  arrested 
and  forced  to  flee  by  the  insurrectionists,  while  a  number  of 
others  were  fined  ten  pounds/  But  before  the  proprietary 
authority  had  been  completely  restored,  the  chain  of  events 
was  suddenly  interrupted  by  the  Dutch  reconquest  of  New 
Netherland.^  This  event  has  an  interesting  connection  with 
the  Elizabethtown  dispute. 

James  Carteret  had  left  East  Jersey  for  Carolina  in  a 
sloop  commanded  by  one  Samuel  Davis.  With  him  was 
Samuel  Hopkins,  a  settler  of  Elizabethtown,  who  had  been 
identified  with  the  anti-proprietary  faction.  The  sloop, 
however,  fell  in  with  the  Dutch  squadron  of  Evertsen  and 
Biinckes,  and  was  captured.  Davis  was  promised  the  res- 
toration of  his  vessel  if  he  would  give  information  regard- 
ing the  defenses  of  New  York,  but  he,  nevertheless,  stated 
untruthfully  that  the  province  was  well  defended.  There- 
upon Hopkins  declared  that  Davis  had  replied  falsely,  and 
revealed  the  real  weakness  of  the  colony.  This  incident  un- 
doubtedly encouraged  the  Dutch  in  their  venture.  Car- 
teret was  put  ashore  in  Virginia,  but  Hopkins  was  brought 
north  with  the  fleet,  and  after  the  conquest  reappeared  in 
Elizabethtown.^ 

During  the  brief  period  of  Dutch  rule  the  advantage  lay 
with  the  associates  and  their  supporters,  for  not  only  were 
further  coercive  measures  prevented,  but  the  local  govern- 
ments organized  on  the  Dutch  plan,  which  took  the  place 
of  the  provincial  government,  were  chiefly  in  their  hands, 
John  Ogden,  Sr.,  Samuel  Hopkins  and  Jacob  Melyn  being 
Schepens    of   "  Elisabets    Towne."  *      The   bitterness    evi- 

'  Hatfield,  op.  cit.,  p.  151.  ^Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  p.  Ti- 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  pp.  121,  152.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  128. 


LAND  TROUBLES  IN  EAST  JERSEY  7, 

dently  continued,  however.  By  an  appeal  to  the  Council 
of  New  Netherland,  Capt.  Berry  and  Sandford  seem  to 
have  foiled  an  attempt  by  Hopkins  to  get  possession  of  the 
records  of  the  late  proprietary  province/  On  the  other 
hand,  Vauquillin,  Carteret's  surveyor  general,  was  ban- 
ished for  endeavoring  to  remove  goods  from  Philip  Car- 
teret's house  and  for  making  threats.^ 

The  re-establishment  of  English  rule  after  the  Treaty  of 
Westminster  brought  with  it  the  temporary  downfall  of  the 
anti-proprietary  party.  Legally  it  would  seem  that  the 
Dutch  conquest,  the  recession,  and  the  eventual  reconvey- 
ance of  the  entire  province  from  the  Duke  of  York  to 
Carteret,  must  effectually  cut  off  any  validity  which  the 
claim  from  the  Nicolls  grant  might  have.  The  return  of 
Governor  Carteret,  armed  with  ample  power  from  the  pro- 
prietors, brought  the  same  result  practically.  His  instruc- 
tions commanded  him  not  only  to  insist  upon  the  immedi- 
ate payment  of  the  quit-rent,  but  also  to  dispose  of  all  lands 
lying  within  the  Elizabethtown  tract  which  were  not  pa- 
tented within  a  year.  In  case  of  refusal  of  the  rent  the 
constable  of  the  town  was  to  seize  the  goods  of  the  party  to 
the  amount  required.  The  only  concession  made  was 
that,  at  the  request  of  the  governor  and  council,  the  rent 
might  be  paid  in  current  money  of  the  province  instead  of 
lawful  English  money.'  The  people  of  Elizabethtown  made 
a  feeble  effort  to  compromise,  offering,  March  11,  1674-5, 
to  pay  twenty  pounds  annually  in  consideration  of  a  town- 
ship eight  miles  square.  They  declared  that  they  had  been 
deceived  in  regard  to  the  badness  of  the  soil,  half  or  more 
"  being  but  waste  land."     But  the  governor  and  council 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  131. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  133.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  170. 


74  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

replied  that  no  alteration  from  the  requirements  of  the 
Concessions  could  be  considered.^ 

The  opposition  then  collapsed,  and  the  patenting  of  land 
began.  Among  those  who  took  out  warrants  for  surveys  are 
to  be  found  every  one  of  the  original  eighty  Elizabethtown 
associates  or  their  heirs  or  assigns,  with  the  single  exception 
of  Benjamin  Homan.  The  great  majority  also  obtained  sur- 
veys and  patents.  As  Homan  died  a  bachelor,  his  claim  does 
not  seem  to  have  been  continued.^  The  lands  in  Newark 
and  Piscataway  were  also  surveyed  and  patented  at  about 
the  same  period.  Thus  the  Concessions  were  in  effect  ful- 
filled. It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  considerable 
looseness  in  meeting  their  requirements  is  to  be  seen.  Pa- 
tents were  never  taken  out  on  some  of  the  surveys,  nor  do 
those  actually  recorded  correspond  exactly  in  all  cases  with 
the  warrants.^  The  payment  of  quit-rents  probably  always 
ran  behind.  But  the  great  point  had  been  gained  for  the 
proprietors.  These  things  were  matters  of  carelessness  or 
stealth,  not  of  rebellious  opposition. 

A  long  period  of  quiet,  so  far  as  the  land  controversy  is 
concerned,  followed  the  submission  to  Carteret.  A  volun- 
tary contribution  was  made  by  Elizabethtown  and  Newark 
to  compensate  William  Meaker  for  the  loss  of  his  property,* 
but  there  was  no  effort  at  open  opposition  during  Carteret's 
proprietorship.  Indeed,  the  people  of  East  Jersey  were  in- 
clined to  support  their  government  against  the  claims  of 
Andros  to  control  over  New  Jersey.  Under  the  circum- 
stances this  is  rather  remarkable.  °  It  must  not  be  under- 
stood, 'however,  that  the  old  claims  were  forgotten  or  that 

*  Hatfield,  op.  cit.,  p.  i8i;  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  pp.  42-3« 

*  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  43,  appendix,  schedule  viii. 
» Hatdelfi,  op.  cit.,  p.  184.  ^Ibid.,  p.  186. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  pp.  299,  311,  313,  etc. 


LAND  TROUBLES  IN  EAST  JERSEY  75 

the  people  of  Elizabetlitown  willingly  acquiesced  in  the  tri- 
umph of  the  lord  proprietor. 

The  Twenty-four  proprietors  used  characteristic  caution 
in  dealing  with  the  question  of  quit-rents  and  counter  land 
claims.  Not  only  did  Governor  Rudyard  bring  a  con- 
ciliatory letter  to  the  planters,^  but  the  offer  of  the  pro- 
prietors, in  their  "  Brief  Account,"  to  sell  out  all  the  rents 
for  fifty  shillings  on  twenty-five  acres,  shows  that  they  un- 
derstood this  matter  to  be  a  source  of  difficulty  and  desired 
to  be  rid  of  it.  In  May,  1683,  Rudyard,  in  council,  re- 
ceived committees  from  the  inhabitants  of  the  Monmouth 
Patent  and  from  Elizabethtown  with  a  view  to  adjusting 
difficulties.  The  committee  from  the  "  Neversinks  "  con- 
sisted of  John  Bowne,  Richard  Hartshorne,  and  Joseph 
Parker.  They  demanded,  however,  that  "  the  patentees  " 
should  have  their  lands  free,  and  afterward  admitted  that 
they  were  instructed  to  make  no  other  agreement  than  one 
for  payment  of  retnt  at  half  a  bushel  of  wheat  for  one  hun- 
dred acres.  As  these  terms  were  not  accepted  by  the  gov- 
ernor and  council,  the  conference  ended  unsatisfactorily.* 
Anti-proprietary  feeling  in  Middletown  not  only  continued, 
but  developed,  and  it  seems  probable  that  no  quit-rent  what- 
soever was  paid.  The  efforts  to  arrive  at  any  understand- 
ing with  Elizabethtown  were  equally  fruitless.'  But  the 
Twenty-four  continued  to  make  feeble  efforts  to  adjust  the 
question  of  rents.  Gawen  Lawrie  was  instructed  to  see  if 
those  planters  who  had  large  grants,  which  had  been  unused, 
and  who  were  in  arrears,  would  not  be  willing  to  give  up 
fractions  of  their  land  in  order  to  get  rid  of  the  rent  per- 
manently.*    On  the  other  hand,  the  new  proprietors  were 

'  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  p.  127. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  pp.  72-4.         *  Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  74. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  429. 


76  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

firm  enough  in  their  continual  refusal  to  recognize  the 
Nicolls  grants,  or  to  enter  into  any  agreement  with  the 
claimants  under  them.  Several  references  in  the  docu- 
ments of  the  proprietors  show  clearly  that  the  planters  of 
Elizabethtown  still  voiced  their  old  claims,  and  that  they 
were  regarded  with  apprehension.^  No  new  incident  in  the 
controversy  occurred  for  some  time,  however,  except  that, 
in  1684,  Capt.  John  Barker  is  accused  of  having  tried  to 
deceive  Governor  Lawrie  as  to  the  extent  of  the  original 
Elizabethtown  purchase.  He  is  said  to  have  bribed  the 
Indians  to  indicate  a  point  well  beyond  the  Minnisinck  path 
as  the  bound  of  the  tract  bought,  but  to  have  been  discov- 
ered and  to  have  confessed  his  deceit.^ 

During  this  period  of  quiet  many  persons  settled  within 
the  limits  of  the  Elizabethtown  tract  and  obtained  lands 
there  who  were  in  no  way  connected  with  the  original  as- 
sociates.^ Many  large  proprietary  surveys,  as  has  already 
been  indicated,  also  fell  within  the  limits  of  the  disputed 
territory.  The  Bill  in  Chancery  gives  sixty-two  of  these 
between  1682  and  1703.' 

But  in  spite  of  the  further  concession  of  the  proprietors, 
doubtless  due  to  the  continued  difficulty  of  collection,  that 
the  quit-rents  might  be  paid  in  the  products  of  the  country,* 
the  old  conflict  was  renewed.  This  came  about  as  the  re- 
sult of  the  case  of  Jones  vs.  Fullerton.  In  1693  J^^ry 
Jones,  one  of  the  original  eighty  associates,  and  a  man  who 
had  taken  an  active  part  in  the  first  riot,  ejected  James 
Fullerton,  holder  of  a  proprietary  interest,  from  land  oc- 
cupied by  him  on  Cedar  Brook.     The  proprietors,  in  the 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  pp.  429,  477. 
*  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  44. 
^ Ibid.,  appendix,  schedule  iii. 
^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p,  85. 


LAND  TROUBLES  IN  EAST  JERSEY  yy 

name  of  Fullerton.  therefore  brought  an  ejectment  suit 
against  Jones,  the  first  of  a  long  series  of  similar  legal  con- 
flicts. The  case  was  tried  in  May,  1695,  in  the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas  at  Perth  Amboy,  cind  judgment  was  given 
for  Fullerton/  Jeffry  Jones  therefore  appealed  the  case  to 
the  King  in  Council,  and  journeyed  to  England  to  plead  in 
person.  In  the  rehearing  of  the  case,  in  February,  1696-7, 
he  had  the  advantage  of  the  services  of  William  Nicoll, 
agent  of  New  York,  as  counsel.^  The  council  of  proprie- 
tors of  East  Jersey,  on  their  part,  dispatched  Thomas  Gor- 
don to  England  as  their  agent.'  But  the  result  of  the  hear- 
ing was  a  reversal  of  the  former  decision  and  the  triumph 
of  Jones  and  the  associates.  The  record  of  this  case  does 
not  seem  to  have  been  preserved,  for  while  th^  result  is  ad- 
mitted, the  parties  later  differed  diametrically  as  to  the  rea- 
sons for  the  reversal  of  judgment.  Nicoll  declared  under 
oath  that  the  sole  question  at  issue  was  the  validity  of  the 
Nicolls  grant,*  but  the  proprietors  asserted  that  the  decision 
was  changed  because  of  error  in  the  proceedings  of  the  pro- 
vincial court.'' 

Be  this  as  it  may,  the  result  was  far-reaching.  The  Eliz- 
abethtown  associates  at  once  addressed  a  petition  to  the 
King  praying  for  further  relief  from  the  proprietors,  declar- 
ing that  they  now  had  no  legal  government  whatsoever,  and 
asking  to  be  attached  to  the  royal  province  of  New  York.® 
The  petition  was,  of  course,  merely  an  indication  of  an  ag- 
gressive revival  of  the  anti-proprietary  movement.  It  was 
doubtless  because  of  these  signs  of  reviving  discontent  that 
the  proprietors  determined  to  dispose  of  their  troublesome 

'Hatfield,  op.  cit.,  p.  242;  Answer  to  Bill  in  Chancery,  pp.  30-1. 
^ Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  44. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  124. 

*  Hatfield,  op.  cit.,  p.  241;  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  44. 

*  Hatfield,  op.  cit.,  p.  242.        ^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  106. 


78  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

quit-rents  altogether,  and  dispatched  Willocks  to  East  Jersey 
as  their  agent  for  the  sale  of  them. 

But  other  circumstances  in  the  province  as  well  aided  in 
encouraging  further  agitation.  In  1697,  as  will  be  ex- 
plained more  fully  later,  the  proprietors  deemed  it  neces- 
sary to  remove  Andrew  Hamilton,  who  had  given  satisfac- 
tion as  governor,  and  to  appoint  in  his  place  the  clever, 
but  unreliable,  Jeremiah  Basse.  Basse's  commission,  how- 
ever, was  not  signed  by  the  requisite  sixteen  proprietors, 
nor  did  he  have  the  express  approval  of  the  King, 
which  was  now  required  by  act  of  Parliament  for  all 
governors  of  plantations.  For  these  reasons  his  authority 
in  the  Jerseys  was  questioned  by  many.^  This  was  a  very 
unfortunate  situation,  indeed,  for,  as  things  stood,  only  the 
greatest  wisdom  and  firmness  could  avert  dangerous  dis- 
order. But  Basse,  to  secure  his  position,  adopted  deliber- 
ately the  policy  of  alliance  with  the  enemies  of  the  pro- 
prietary order.  In  direct  opposition  to  his  instructions,  he 
signed  a  bill  sent  up  by  the  assembly  which  was  inimical  to 
the  interests  of  the  proprietors.  He  quarreled  with  Wil- 
locks, the  agent  for  the  sale  of  quit-rents,  and  abetted  his 
expulsion  from  the  assembly  to  which  he  had  been  chosen.' 
He  also  made  every  effort  to  discredit  the  Scotch  proprie- 
tors by  endeavoring  to  implicate  them  with  the  smugglers 
and  pirates  who  frequented  the  coast. ^  As  a  result  he  was 
denounced  and  defied  by  the  more  vigorous  among  the  pro- 
prietary adherenits,  and  a  regular  insurrection  headed  by 
Morris  and  Willocks  was  narrowly  averted.* 

Such  encouragement  naturally  gave  the  anti-proprietary 
party  every  opportunity  for  development.     And  when,  in 

'  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  pp.  194-8. 
*Ibid.,  pp.  199-202. 

*Nezv  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  288;  Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  p.  208. 
*  Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  pp.  210-ri. 


LAND  TROUBLES  IN  EAST  JERSEY  yg 

1699,  Hamilton  was  at  length  restored,  he  found  his  au- 
thority almost  void/  His  efforts  to  enforce  the  proprie- 
tary laws  gave  rise  at  once  to  disorders  far  more  dangerous 
than  those  of  1670-3.  Proprietary  courts  at  Elizabeth- 
town,  Newark,  Piscataway,  and  Middletown  were  assaulted 
and  broken  up,  amidst  scenes  of  violence  and  confusion. 
Proprietary  officers  were  beaten  and  insulted,  persons  ar- 
rested for  disorder  were  rescued  from  prison,  and  when 
Hamilton  raised  a  force  to  maintain  his  authority,  he  was 
met,  in  Monmouth  County,  by  a  larger  force  and  com- 
pelled to  retire.^  Throughout  the  insurgents  evidently  acted 
more  or  less  in  concert,  on  several  occasions  appearing  in 
military  array,  with  drums  and  colors.  The  men  of  Eliza- 
bethtown  and  Middletown  naturally  took  a  leading  part  in 
these  disturbances.  Proprietary  authority  came  virtually  to 
an  end  in  East  Jersey,  and  the  efforts  of  the  proprietors  to 
recover  their  control  were  to  an  extent  nullified  by  the  dis- 
creditable feud  between  Dockwra  and  his  associates.' 

It  is  very  evident  that  "  the  Revolution,"  as  the  over- 
throw of  proprietary  authority  in  East  Jersey  was  called, 
was  to  a  considerable  degree  the  immediate  result  of  poli- 
tical causes.  These,  however,  as  can  be  seen,  were  closely 
interwoven  with  the  land  controversy.  The  Elizabethtown 
claimants  at  once  took  advantage  of  the  downfall  of  their 
opponents.  In  the  fall  of  1699,  it  was  voted  in  town  meet- 
ing to  proceed  to  the  apportionment  of  the  lands  granted 
by  Nicolls  which  had  not  yet  been  divided.  Accordingly, 
John  Harriman,  Jr.,  the  eldest  son  of  the  minister,  was 
elected  surveyor  for  this  purpose,  and  Jonathan  Ogden, 
Benjamin  Lynn,  John  Clarke,  Samuel  Carter  and  Cornelius 
Hatfield  were  chosen  assistants.     They  began  their  work 

'Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  pp.  213-218. 

*New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  pp.  313,  315,  333,  362. 

'Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  pp.  215-218. 


8o  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

on  December  26,  1699,  and  proceeded  to  survey  and  divide 
into  lots  about  17,000  acres,  extending  from  the  Newark 
line  on  the  north  to  the  Woodbridge  line  on  the  south,  virith 
entire  disregard  to  proprietary  surveys  for  the  same  ground. 
Their  survey,  of  course,  covered  land  beyond  the  Minnisinck 
path,  but  they  did  not  appropriate  Newark  lands.  The  land 
was  divided  into  171  lots,  mostly  forty  by  twenty-six  chains, 
which  were  duly  distributed  among  the  associates,  and 
most  of  which  were  actually  occupied.^ 

This  division  was  known  as  the  Clinker  Lot  Division,  and 
those  holding  by  it  the  Clinker  Lot  Right  men.'^  The  terms 
were  later  rejected  by  the  associates  as  unwarranted  nick- 
names,^ but,  as  any  unworthy  significance  in  the  names  has 
long  passed  away,  they  may  be  conveniently  used  by  the 
student.  It  was  charged  by  the  proprietors  that  the  Clinker 
Lot  Division  was  made  secretly,  and  by  only  a  part  of  the 
people  of  Elizabethtown,  but  the  action  was  certainly  open 
and  approved  by  the  town  meeting.*  It  is  very  evident 
that  many,  at  least,  of  the  new  comers  to  the  town  made 
common  cause  with  the  original  associates  and  their  heirs. 

The  surrender  of  the  governmental  authority  of  the  pro- 
vince to  the  Crown  came  chiefly  as  a  result  of  the  utter 
inability  of  the  proprietors  to  cope  with  the  disorders. 
When  they  could  not  prevent  their  own  lands  from  being 
given  away  by  the  wholesale,  substitution  of  a  stronger 
power  was  their  only  salvation.  But  the  royal  govern- 
ment thus  had  to  face  a  situation  of  peculiar  difficulty.  The 
proprietors  and  their  opponents,  now  embittered  by  three 
decades  of  contention,  each  looked  to  the  new  authority  for 
support.  Only  extraordinary  wisdom  could  avoid  further 
disaster  to  the  province. 

^Hatfield,  History  of  Elizabeth,  p.  248;  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chan- 
cery, p.  47. 

*  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  47.     '  Answer  to  Bill  in  Chancery. 

*  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  47;  Hatfield,  op.  cit.,  p.  248. 


CHAPTER  V 

Political  Conditions  in  East  Jersey  Under  the 
Proprietors 

The  brief  examination  of  the  land  system  of  East  Jersey 
will  enable  us  to  understand  much  more  clearly  the  political 
conditions  of  the  proprietary  province.  The  proprietors 
of  the  American  colonies  in  addition  to  being  landlords, 
were,  of  course,  "  vice-kings  "  possessing  the  power  to  in- 
stitute and  maintain  government  over  their  respective  terri- 
tories. From  the  beginning,  however,  there  was  uncer- 
tainty as  to  whether  Berkeley  and  Carteret  were  proprietors 
in  this  double  sense.  To  the  modern  student  it  must  be 
clear  that  the  deeds  of  lease  and  release  from  the  Duke  of 
York  did  not  legally  convey  the  power  of  jurisdiction  over 
the  lands  given.  But  Berkeley  and  Carteret  certainly  be- 
lieved that  they  were  fully  entitled  to  set  up  a  government 
over  New  Jersey.  The  result  was  a  serious  controversy 
between  James  and  the  two  noblemen  and  their  assigns. 
This  dispute,  however,  can  best  be  considered  in  a  separate 
chapter.  We  need  only  say  here  that  during  most  of  the 
period  the  proprietors  of  New  Jersey  maintained  an  inde- 
pendent government,  and  that  in  the  end  James  surrendered 
his  claims. 

Directly  after  the  grant  of  1664  Berkeley  and  Carteret, 
following  the  usual  proprietary  practice,  issued  their  Con- 
cessions.^ which,  in  addition  to  establishing  the  land  system 

'  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  28. 

81 


82  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

of  their  province,  set  forth  its  form  of  government  and 
guaranteed  certain  private  rights  to  settlers.  The  liberality 
of  the  political  provisions  has  often  been  praised ;  ^  and 
they  do  clearly  show  that  Berkeley  and  Carteret  were  to  a 
large  degree  free  from  the  fantastic  and  mediaeval  notions 
of  lordship  which  afflicted  some  proprietors.  They  were 
not  indeed  theorists  on  the  subject  of  government,  and 
their  object  was  simply  to  attract  settlers.  The  Conces- 
sions were,  however,  merely  a  copy  of  a  similar  instrument 
issued  shortly  before  by  the  proprietors  of  the  Carolinas 
for  their  projected  settlement  at  Cape  Fear.^  The  merit 
of  Berkeley  and  Carteret  lies  simply  in  the  fact  that  they 
adopted  and  retained  the  Concessions. 

The  government  of  New  Jersey  was  to  consist  of  a  gov- 
ernor and  council  of  not  less  than  six  nor  more  than  twelve 
persons  chosen  by  him,  and  of  an  assembly  of  twelve  rep- 
resentatives chosen  by  the  freemen  of  the  province.  All 
who  were  or  should  become  subjects  of  the  King  of  Eng- 
land and  swear  or  subscribe  fidelity  to  the  lords  proprietors 
were  to  be  freemen.  The  general  assembly  was  to  ap- 
point its  'own  times  of  meeting  and  adjournment  and  to  fix 
its  own  quorum.  It  was  to  enact  all  laws  for  the  welfare 
of  the  province,  provided  that  they  were  within  reason  and 
as  near  as  might  be  agreeable  to  the  laws  of  England. 
Such  laws  were  to  remain  in  force  one  year,  unless  mean- 
while confirmed  by  the  lords  proprietors.  The  general 
assembly  was  further  to  constitute  courts,  to  raise  taxes,  to 
erect  manors,  constitute  ports  and  harbors,  and  divide  the 
province  into  parishes  and  districts,  to  provide  for  the  de- 
fence of  New  Jersey,  and  to  make  regulations  for  the 
naturalization  of  foreigners.     By  a  special  clause  it  was 

'  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  p.  Zl' 
^Colonial  Records  of  North  Carolina,  vol.  i,  p.  79. 


POLITICAL  CONDITIONS  IN  EAST  lERSEY  83 

declared  that  no  persons  should  be  interfered  with  in  mat- 
ters of  conscience  or  religion,  provided  they  did  not  disturb 
the  peace,  and  as  a  special  guarantee  of  such  liberty  the  gen- 
eral assembly  was  to  appoint  as  many  ministers  as  they  saw 
fit  and  to  provide  for  their  maintenance.  But  liberty  was 
reserved  for  any  one  to  maintain  other  ministers  if  he  so 
desired. 

The  lords  proprietors  dispatched  as  their  governor 
Philip  Carteret,^  a  distant  relative  of  Sir  George,  and  at  the 
time  a  young  man  of  only  twenty-six.  In  his  hands  was 
therefore  placed  the  actual  carrying-out  of  the  Conces- 
sions. Of  his  previous  career  and,  indeed,  of  his  character 
outside  of  his  official  acts,  little  is  known.  But  he  certainly 
showed  both  firmness  and  caution  as  governor,  and  al- 
though his  administration  was  a  disturbed  one,  the  cause 
lay  in  conditions  beyond  his  control.^  In  his  council,  how- 
ever, the  leading  influence  certainly  seems  to  have  been  held 
by  James  Bollen  and  Vauquillin,  both  officers  of  the  pro- 
prietors, William  Pardon,  who  seems  to  have  accompanied 
Carteret  from  England,  and  Capt.  John  Berry,  one  of  the 
planters  of  New  Barbadoes.  Among  the  members  were 
Samuel  Edsall,  Capt.  Nicholas  Verlett,  William  Sandford, 
and  Lawrence  Andriesse,  of  Bergen,  John  Pike  and  John 
Bishop,  of  Woodbridge.'  But  the  New  England  element 
in  Elizabethtown  and  Newark  was  represented  only  for  a 
short  time  by  Robert  Bond. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  liberality  and  comparatively 
democratic  spirit  of  the  Concessions  had  much  to  do  with 
the  rapid  settlement  of  East  Jersey,  and  especially  with  the 

"^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  20. 

*  Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  pp.  106-108. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  97;  Learning  and  Spicer,  Grants  and 
Concessions,  v.  77. 


84  ^"^-E  PROVINCE  OP  NEW  JERSEY 

willingness  of  the  New  Englanders  to  venture  there.  The 
institution  of  vigorous  town  governments  in  the  sev- 
eral settlements,  however,  naturally  made  the  provincial  au- 
thority somewhat  less  important,  and  Carteret  did  not  deem 
it  necessary  to  call  a  meeting  of  the  assembly  till  1668. 
This  first  representative  body  of  New  Jersey  met  at  Eliza- 
bethtown,  and  its  members  were  chosen  in  true  New 
England  fashion,  two  from  each  town.^  Its  chief  work 
was  the  passing  of  a  bill  of  "  pains  and  penalties,"  which 
enforced  many  of  the  provisions  of  the  Levitical  Law,  thus 
showing  the  survival  in  New  Jersey  of  the  spirit  of  the 
New  Haven  of  Davenport  and  Eaton.  It  also  laid  the 
foundation  of  a  system  of  provincial  taxation  by  levying 
five  pounds  upon  each  tOAvn  for  the  expenses  of  the  as- 
sembly.^ In  November  of  the  same  year  a  second  session 
was  held,^  but  it  was  notable  only  for  the  beginning  of 
that  difference  of  opinion  between  the  governor  and  coun- 
cil on  the  one  hand,  and  the  elected  representatives  on  the 
other,  which  was  so  characteristic  of  all  colonial  legislative 
procedure.  The  point  of  difference  seems  to  have  been  as 
to  whether  the  assembly  should  sit  with  the  council,  as  the 
representatives  demanded,  or  separately,  as  was  required  by 
Carteret^  As  a  result  the  body  adjourned  on  the  fourth 
day  without  having  accomplished  much  of  importance. 

Meanwhile  the  quarrel  with  the  towns  of  the  Monmouth 
Patent  had  begun.  The  Nicolls  grant  had  given  the  set- 
tlers of  Middletown  and  Shrewsbury  the  power  to  make 
such  rules  and  regulations  for  their  own  government  as 
they  might  deem  necessary/      Accordingly,  a  meeting  or 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  56. 

*  Learning  and  Spicer,  op.  cit.,  p.  77.  *  Ibid.,  p.  85. 

*  Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  p.  204,  note  j. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  pp.  45-46. 


POLITICAL  CONDITIONS  IN  EAST  lERSEY  85 

assembly  for  this  purpose  had  been  held  at  Portland  Point 
in  June,  1667.  Moreover,  the  people  of  Middletown  and 
Shrewsbury  refused  to  allow  the  laws  of  the  first  provincial 
assembly  to  be  published  or  enforced  within  their  limits,  but 
in  taking  this  attitude  they  relied  upon  the  claim  that  their 
representatives  had  not  been  legally  elected.  They  pro- 
fessed their  willingness  to  choose  new  delegates,  but  required 
that  there  should  be  a  proviso  in  their  oaths  expressly  re- 
cognizing the  privileges  granted  to  them  by  Nicolls.* 

As  the  representatives  of  Middletown  and  Shrewsbury 
would  not  take  the  oaths  without  the  proviso,  they  were 
excluded  from  the  second  session  of  the  assembly.^  The 
assembly  also  appointed  commissioners  to  visit  the  refrac- 
tory towns  to  collect  their  share  of  the  rates  that  had  been 
levied,  and  to  learn  their  exact  position  on  the  questions  at 
issue. ^  But  while  these  commissioners  were  not  met  by 
violence,  they  received  no  recognition  from  the  Monmouth 
settlers.  The  latter  at  the  same  time  issued  an  address 
declaring  that  they  would  rely  upon  their  grant  from  Nicolls 
by  which  they  were  to  be  exempt  from  all  payments  for 
seven  years.  At  the  same  time,  since  New  Jersey  had  been 
assigned  to  Berkeley  and  Carteret,  they  were  willing  to  be 
responsible  to  them  "  in  all  such  acknowledgements  as  others 
his  Majestie's  subjects  doe  in  the  government  of  New  Yorke 
to  his  Royal  Highness."  *  For  adopting  this  position  the 
people  of  Middletown  and  Shrewsbury  were  by  the  general 
assembly  of  1671  declared  guilty  of  contempt  of  the  lawful 
authorities  of  the  province." 

Before  Governor  Carteret  was  able  to  bring  the  Mon- 

'  Town  Book  of  Middletown,  p.  3. 

'Learning  and  Spicer,  op.  cit.,  p.  85.  *  Ibid.,  p.  89. 

*  Town  Book  of  Middletown,  p.  7. 

*  Whitehead,  East- Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  p.  63. 


86  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

mouth  people  to  terms,  his  own  authority  was  practically 
nullified  by  the  anti-quitrent  disturbances  of  1670.  As  a 
means  of  coping  with  the  opposition,  the  governor  author- 
ized the  courts  of  Woodbridge  and  Bergen,  the  only  two  in 
the  colony,  to  try  all  cases  brought  before  them,  even  when 
the  parties  came  from  outside  their  jurisdiction/  But  this 
and  all  similar  steps  were  alike  futile.  The  power  of  the 
provincial  government  could  no  longer  be  enforced. 

During  the  period  of  disorder  and  confusion  several 
meetings  of  bodies  claiming  to  be  assemblies  were  held. 
There  was  an  assembly  in  1671,  and  in  March,  1672,  rep- 
resentatives from  all  the  towns  except  Middletown  and 
Shrewsbury  assembled,  but  Carteret  and  the  council  would 
not  recognize  the  meeting  as  a  lawful  one,  and  all  its  re- 
cords were  suppressed  b}''  William  Pardon,  assistant  secre- 
tary of  the  council,  who  seems  to  have  had  charge  of  them.^ 
Not  to  be  thus  foiled,  however,  delegates  from  the  towns 
met  again  without  either  the  knowledge  or  consent  of  the 
governor,  and  took  the  extreme  step  of  electing  Capt. 
James  Carteret  "  President  of  the  Country."  ^  They  based 
the  right  to  do  this  upon  a  clause  in  the  Concessions  which, 
in  the  absence  of  the  governor  or  his  deputy,  authorized 
the  general  assembly  to  elect  a  president.*  A  chairman 
was,  of  course,  all  that  was  intended,  but  the  provision  was 
interpreted  to  allow  the  assembly  to  create  a  new  and  rival 
executive  when  the  governor  regularly  commissioned  by  the 
lords  proprietors  was  actually  within  the  province. 

It  is  interesting  to  notice  that,  although  the  disaffected 
parties  were  in  rebellion  against  the  proprietors'  govern- 
ment as  represented  by  Philip  Carteret,  they  still  endeavored 

'*■  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  62. 

*  Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  p.  66. 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  89.  VWrf.,  vol.  i,  p.  31. 


POLITICAL  CONDITIONS  IN  EAST  JERSEY 


87 


to  recognize  the  Concessions,  and  adopted  as  their  leader 
the  son  of  Sir  George.  Capt.  James  Carteret  seems  to 
have  been  a  dissolute  person,  of  little  judgment  or  ability, 
who  simply  took  advantage  of  the  circumstances  to  bring 
himself  into  prominence/  After  his  election  as  "  Presi- 
dent," however,  he  was  able  to  maintain  himself  against 
the  governor  and  his  council. 

The  mission  of  Philip  Carteret  to  England,  the  energetic 
action  of  the  lords  proprietors,  and  the  eventual  collapse 
of  the  rebellion  have  already  been  described,  for  the  resist- 
ance was,  after  all,  directed  rather  against  the  proprietors' 
land  system  than  the  proprietary  government.  As  for  the 
reestablishment  of  Dutch  rule,  it  forms  an  interesting  epi- 
sode, indeed,  but  it  has  little  or  no  real  connection  with  the 
political  development  of  East  Jersey.  During  the  brief 
Dutch  rule  the  towns  were  given  governments  of  a  schout 
and  schepens,  after  the  manner  of  the  Netherlands." 
Double  sets  of  names  were  selected  by  the  townspeople  from 
which  the  magistrates  were  selected  by  the  authorities  at 
"  New  Orange."  One  assembly  of  the  magistrates  of 
Achter  Kol,  as  the  Dutch  called  New  Jersey,  was  held  at 
Elizabethtown  to  make  laws  for  the  colony,  but  its  work 
was  not  of  importance. 

With  the  return  of  Philip  Carteret  and  the  reestablish- 
ment of  his  authority  came  certain  alterations  in  the  powers 
of  the  departments  of  the  government  brought  about  by  the 
"  Declaration  of  the  true  intent  and  Meaning  of  us  the 
Lords  Proprietors  and  Explanation  of  there  Concessions," 
etc.,  issued  by  Berkeley  and  Carteret  in  1672.^  The  object 
of  these  changes  was  to  lessen  the  power  of  the  assembly. 

'Whitehead,  £asi  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  pp.  67-68,  but  see 
contra,  Hatfield,  History  of  Elizabeth,  p.  141  and  note. 
"^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  pp. 128-129.  ^Ibid.,  pp.  99,  I73- 


88  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

The  right  to  regulate  meetings  and  adjournments  of  the  as- 
sembly, to  establish  courts  in  particular  jurisdictions,  and 
to  nominate  and  appoint  all  officers,  was  now  vested  in  the 
governor  and  council  alone.  The  governor  and  council 
could  also  henceforth  admit  planters  and  freemen  without 
the  consent  of  the  assembly,  and  no  one  was  to  be  ac- 
counted a  freeholder  or  have  any  vote  or  hold  any  office 
who  had  not  taken  out  a  patent  for  his  land.  In  future, 
ministers  were  to  be  appointed  by  the  governor  and  council 
upon  nomination  by  the  townships. 

As  the  spirit  of  resistance  was  for  the  time  being  checked, 
these  alterations  in  the  powers  of  the  government  caused 
no  immediate  controversy,  and  as  the  governor  wisely  made 
no  attempt  to  inflict  serious  punishment  upon  his  opponents,^ 
East  Jersey  entered  upon  a  period  of  quiet  so  far  as  in- 
ternal politics  were  concerned.  The  assembly  met  again 
in  November,  1675,  and  from  that  time  till  1681  it  held 
numerous  sessions  and  accomplished  needful  legislation. 
An  act  of  oblivion  was  passed  at  the  end  of  the  first  session, 
which,  while  allowing  all  judgments  to  stand,  suspended 
further  suits  to  recover  damages  against  any  concerned  in 
the  recent  disturbances.^  No  serious  party  controversy  oc- 
curred during  the  time,  and  the  people  showed  an  inclin- 
ation to  support  their  own  government  against  the  at- 
tempts of  Andros  to  establish  the  power  of  the  Duke  of 
York  over  New  Jersey. 

The  truce,  however,  could  not  be  lasting,  for,  in  addition 
to  the  special  causes  of  party  strife  in  East  Jersey,  cleavage 
between  governor  and  assembly  was  practically  inevitable 
in  all  the  colonies  of  the  provincial  type.  Conflict  began 
again  at  a  meeting  of  October,    1681,   at  Elizabethtown. 

'See,  however,  Hatfield,  op.  cit.,  pp.  151,  186. 
'Learning  and  Spicer,  Grants  and  Concessions,  p.  no. 


POLITICAL  CONDITIONS  IN  EAST  JERSEY  89 

The  chief  point  involved  was  the  right  of  the  proprietors  to 
alter  the  original  Concessions  of  1664.  This  the  deputies 
of  the  towns  now  denied.  As  the  debate  waxed  warm,  they 
refused  to  provide  for  the  support  of  the  government,  or  to 
enact  that  the  constables  of  the  towns  should  collect  the 
proprietors'  quit-rent  as  the  council  demanded.^  They  also 
ventured  to  style  themselves  the  "  General  Assembly,"  tak- 
ing the  ground  that  this  title  applied  only  to  the  deputies 
without  the  governor  and  council,  and  not  to  all  three  taken 
together.  As  a  result,  the  house  was  summarily  dissolved 
by  Carteret,  but  it  did  not  disband  without  a  formal  protest 
against  the  dissolution." 

That  the  breach  thus  begun  did  not  grow  wider  was 
due  to  the  establishment  of  the  government  of  the  Twenty- 
four  in  place  of  that  of  Carteret.  Both  the  new  proprietors 
and  the  planters  had  all  to  gain  by  accommodation  and 
agreement,  and  all  to  lose  by  a  continuation  of  the  strife  of 
the  recent  administration.  Thomas  Rudyard,  the  London 
lawyer,  who  was  the  first  deputy-governor  under  the  Twenty- 
four,  bore  a  conciliatory  letter  to  the  inhabitants  of  the 
colony,*  and  acting  doubtless  upon  instructions,  endeavored 
to  allay  factional  differences.  In  March,  1682-3,  he  pre- 
sided over  a  harmonious  and  useful  session  of  the  assembly. 
But  in  spite  of  his  success  in  this  matter,  his  administration 
was  short  owing  to  his  want  of  energy  in  maintaining  the 
land-interests  of  the  Twenty-four.* 

The  Quaker,  Gawen  Lawrie,  his  successor,  was  careful 
to  follow  the  pacific  political  policy  inaugurated  by  Rudyard, 
though,  like  him,  he  did  not  consider  the  pecuniary  interests 
of  the  Twenty- four  superior  to  his  own.*     He  brought  with 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  pp.  354-365-         ^Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  365. 
'Learning  and  Spicer,  op.  ctt.,  p.  167. 
*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  498. 


90  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

him  to  East  Jersey  a  curious  document  known  as  the  "  Fun- 
damental Constitutions,"  which  the  Twenty-four  had  pre- 
pared to  take  the  place  of  the  Concessions  of  1665/ 
Though  the  Fundamental  Constitutions  never  went  into 
effect,  they  must  nevertheless  retain  a  certain  interest  as  il- 
lustrating the  political  ideals  of  the  new  proprietors.  They 
provided  that  a  governor  should  be  chosen  once  in  three 
years  by  a  vote  of  sixteen  of  the  proprietors.  The  governor 
was  to  rule  the  province,  with  the  aid  of  two  councils,  which 
were  to  consist  partly  of  the  proprietors  or  their  proxies  and 
partly  of  representatives  of  the  freemen,  who  were  to  be 
chosen  by  a  mixed  system  of  elections  and  the  casting  of 
lots.  The  freemen  were  to  be  such  as  held  fifty  acres  of 
land.  The  Fundamental  Constitutions,  if  carried  out,  would, 
of  course,  have  given  the  proprietors  more  power  in  the  gov- 
ernment than  they  already  possessed,  while  the  people  would 
have  had  relatively  less.  Yet  the  proprietors  seemed  to 
think  their  new  system  so  desirable  that  they  ordered 
Lawrie  to  apply  it  only  to  those  who  would  submit  to  a 
resurvey  and  approval  of  their  grants,  provide  for  the  pay- 
ment of  all  back  quit-rent,  and  agree  to  pass  an  act  for  the 
support  of  the  government.^  Naturally  the  colonists  showed 
no  desire  to  surrender  their  control  of  the  assembly  upon 
such  terms,  and  Lawrie,-  seeing  that  confusion  must  result 
from  an  attempt  to  apply  the  Fundamentals,  very  sensibly 
laid  them  aside. 

But  though  the  proprietors  were  willing  to  conciliate 
the  disaffected  elements,  they  clung  tenaciously  to  their  legal 
prerogatives.  Lawrie  seems  to  have  shown  tact  in  avoid- 
ing quarrels,  as  the  old  opposition  to  the  proprietary  inter- 
ests was  still  alive. ^     But  his  policy  was  negative,  and  he 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  395-    ^Ibid.,  vol.  i,pp.  430,443-446. 
^  Fbid.,  vol.  xiii,  pp.  72-5;  vol.  i,  p.  477- 


POLITICAL  CONDITIONS  IN  EAST  lERSEY  gj 

escaped  conflict  by  not  insisting  upon  the  proprietary  claims. 
He  did  not  even  call  an  assembly  till  April,  1686,  and  then 
nothing  of  account  was  accomplished.  The  appearance  of 
indifference  to  any  interests  but  his  own  was  further  in- 
creased by  the  fact  that  Lawrie  continued  to  reside  at 
Elizabethtown  instead  of  at  Amboy,  in  the  settlement  of 
which  the  proprietors  were  so  concerned.^  The  proprie- 
tors, therefore,  removed  him  from  ofiice  and  censured  both 
him  and  Rudyard.^ 

The  choice  of  a  successor  was,  however,  a  mistake  very 
characteristic  of  the  period.  In  June,  1686,  the  proprietors 
named  as  governor  Lord  Neil  Campbell,  the  brother  of  the 
ill-fated  Argyle,  who,  owing  to  the  downfall  of  Argyle,  was 
seeking  a  temporary  refuge  from  Scotland.  How  the 
Papist  Earl  of  Perth  and  the  Quaker  Barclay  could  have 
consented  to  such  an  appointment  is  an  enigma.  The  ap- 
pointment is  merely  an  example  of  the  strangely  contradic- 
tory steps  which  the  Twenty-four,  separated  as  they  were  in 
character,  place  and  interest,  sometimes  took.'  But  a  noble- 
man like  Lord  Neil  had  little  desire  to  remain  in  East  Jersey 
any  longer  than  his  own  safety  demanded,  and  after  an  un- 
eventful stay  of  only  a  few  months,  he  returned  to  Scotland, 
leaving  the  government  in  the  hands  of  Andrew  Hamilton, 
formerly  a  merchant  of  Edinburgh,  a  man  possessing  the 
Scottish  qualities  of  prudence  and  tact  in  a  high  degree.* 
In  him  the  proprietors  were  to  find  their  first  agent  of  abil- 
ity. Before  any  marked  results  could  appear  from  the 
change  of  administration,  however,  the  proprietary  govern- 
ment was  overturned  by  King  James,  and  New  Jersey  was 

'Hatfield,  History  of  Elizabeth,  pp.  427-8. 
^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  pp.  492,  53i- 

*  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  pp.  153-6. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  i,  p.  541. 


92  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

united  with  New  England  and  New  York  under  his  tool. 
Sir  Edmund  Andros.  Just  how  this  came  about  we  shall 
investigate  later.  The  change,  for  the  time  being  at  least, 
put  an  end  to  further  political  developments  within  the 
colony. 

The  people  of  East  Jersey  seem  to  have  submitted  to 
Andros  with  remarkable  unconcern,  nor  was  the  overthrow 
of  James  the  signal  for  any  such  uprising  as  marked  the 
history  of  New  England  or  New  York.  It  would  indeed 
appear  that  there  was  some  little  Jacobite  sentiment  among 
the  more  prominent  planters,^  and  this  is  hardly  a  matter  of 
surprise  when  we  recall  how  closely  several  of  the  proprie- 
tors were  associated  with  the  Stuart  interests.  But  the 
feeling  about  the  transatlantic  events  was  not  strong 
enough  apparently  to  form  an  issue  in  the  colony.  The  fall 
of  Andros  left  New  Jersey  without  any  regular  govern- 
ment, but  the  people,  under  their  town  and  county  officers, 
suffered  little  inconvenience.  There  was  naturally  an  ele- 
ment in  the  colony  opposed  to  the  reestablishment  of  the  old 
proprietary  rule,  and  the  inhabitants  "  scrupled  to  obey  " 
first  John  Tatham,  known  to  be  a  Jacobite,^  and  then  Col. 
Joseph  Dudley,  who  were  successively  named  to  the  gov- 
ernorship by  the  proprietors.  But  eventually  the  need  of 
some  regular  government  was  recognized,  and  when  Andrew 
Hamilton  arrived  in  1692  with  a  new  commission,  he  was 
well  received. 

From  this  time  until  1697  East  Jersey  enjoyed  seeming 
political  quiet.  Regular  meetings  of  the  assembly,  chosen 
according  to  the  Concessions,  were  held,  and  under  the 
shrewd  guidance  of  Hamilton  quarrels  were  avoided  and 
useful   legislation   carried   through.     Yet   this   period  was 

^  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol,  iii,  pp.  656,  701,  746. 
*  Smith,  New  Jersey,  pp.  191-2;  Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  p.  185. 


POLITICAL  CONDITIONS  IN  EAST  JERSEY  93 

merely  the  calm  before  a  storm,  for  the  revival  of  the 
Elizabethtown  agitation  in  the  case  of  Jones  vs.  Fuller- 
ton  was  certain  to  produce  renewed  party  discord.  With 
a  less  able  hand  at  the  helm  the  clash  could  not  be  long 
avoided. 

In  1697  Parliament  passed  an  act  requiring  all  proprie- 
tors of  colonies  to  present  their  respective  governors  to 
the  king  for  approval,  and  "  that  no  other  than  a  natural 
born  subject  of  England  should  serve  in  any  public  post  of 
trust  or  profit."  As  Hamilton  was  a  Scotchman,  he  was 
apparently  covered  by  the  act,  and  the  proprietors,  nerv- 
ously anxious  to  retain  the  good-will  of  the  royal  authori- 
ties, felt  obliged  to  dismiss  him  in  spite  of  his  excellent  ser- 
vice. In  his  stead  one  Jeremiah  Basse  was  named  as  gov- 
ernor of  East  Jersey.^  The  selection  was  unfortunate. 
Nothing  is  known  of  Basse's  earlier  life  except  that  he  had 
been  an  Anabaptist  preacher.^  But  his  later  career  shows 
that  he  was  an  adventurer  of  no  very  high  type,  one  of  a 
class  only  too  prominent  in  most  of  the  proprietary  and 
royal  provinces.  Basse's  appointment  had  previously  been 
approved  by  the  king,^  but  he  avoided  giving  the  security 
for  good  behavior  required  by  the  act,  although  the  omis- 
sion was  called  to  his  attention  by  the  lords  of  trade.*  This 
prevented  the  appointment  from  being  officially  confirmed, 
and  opened  the  door  for  new  difficulties.  Moreover,  it  ap- 
peared that  the  commission  of  Basse  was  signed  by  only  ten 
instead  of  the  required  sixteen  proprietors. 

The  opponents  of  the  proprietary  regime  were  thus  given 
plausible  reasons  for  refusing  to  recognize  the  appointment 
of  the  new  governor  as  valid."     Some  of  the  resident  pro- 

^ New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  it,  p.  149. 

'Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  p.  229.  ^ Ibid.,  p.  195. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  150.  *  Smith,  op.  cit.,  p.  2io. 


94  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

prietors  themselves,  who  looked  upon  the  adventurer  with 
no  friendly  eye,  also  questioned  his  powers.^  Basse  never- 
theless entered  upon  his  duties  as  governor,  but,  alarmed 
lest  his  authority  should  not  be  acknowledged,  did  not  call 
the  assembly  till  February  21,  1699.  Then  he  adopted  the 
bold  course  of  forming  an  alliance  with  the  anti-proprietary 
party,  which  was  by  this  time  showing  dangerous  strength, 
owing  to  the  successful  mission  of  Jeffry  Jones.  Thus  he 
evidently  hoped  to  gain  popular  support.  He  therefore  con- 
sented to  the  passage  of  a  bill,  sent  up  by  the  anti-proprietary 
majority  in  the  assembly  preventing  the  election  of  any 
person  as  a  deputy  who  was  a  proxy  or  agent  of  any  pro- 
prietor.^ This  act  was  aimed  especially  at  George  Willocks, 
the  agent  for  the  sale  of  the  quit-rents,  who  had  been 
chosen  as  a  representative  of  Perth  Amboy;  but  its  more 
general  effect  would  certainly  be  to  damage  very  materially 
the  political  influence  of  the  proprietors.  Though  Wil- 
locks was  thus  forced  to  withdraw,  the  conflict  stirred  up 
was  so  violent  that  Basse  thought  it  best  to  visit  West  Jersey, 
of  which  province  he  was  also  governor,  upon  the  pretext 
that  its  affairs  needed  consideration.  He  appointed  Andrew 
Bowne,  long  known  as  a  bitter  enemy  of  the  proprietors, 
as  his  deputy  in  East  Jersey.' 

During  this  time  Basse  gave  much  attention  to  the  pirates 
who  infested  the  coast,  and  did  good  service  against  them.* 
Thus  he  endeavored  to  win  the  favor  of  the  home  gov- 
ernment. He  also  tried  in  every  way  to  connect  the  Scotch 
proprietors  and  settlers  with  the  operations  of  the  free- 
booters and  smugglers.  **     This  was  skillful  politics,  but  it 

*  Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  p.  198,  note. 

'  Learning  and  Spicer,  Grants  and  Concessions,  p.  367. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  267. 

*/Wrf.,  vol.  ii,  p.  243.  "Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  272,  288. 


POLITICAL  CONDITIONS  IN  EAST  JERSEY  g^ 

apparently  did  little  harm  to  persons  as  well  known  as 
Morris  and  his  associates. 

Basse's  return  to  East  Jersey  led  to  renewed  disorder. 
A  new  assembly  met  only  to  dissolve  in  confusion,  and 
armed  revolt  was  threatened  by  the  adherents  of  the  pro- 
prietors led  by  Morris  and  Willocks.^  But  at  this  juncture 
Basse  was  removed  and  Hamilton  restored  to  office.  The 
solicitor-general  had  given  his  opinion  that  a  native  of  Scot- 
land was  not  debarred  from  acting  by  the  statute  of  1697,* 
and  the  lords  of  trade,  when  applied  to,  replied  that  the 
right  of  the  proprietors  to  govern  the  province  was  about 
to  be  submitted  to  trial,  but  that  meanwhile  no  danger  would 
be  incurred  by  the  restoration  of  Hamilton.^  Hamilton 
was  therefore  recommissioned,  and  Basse  left  New  Jersey 
before  his  arrival.  It  was  now  hoped  by  the  proprietors 
that  the  ability  of  the  old  governor  would  again  secure  peace 
and  quiet. 

But  with  the  encouragement  they  had  received  the  anti- 
proprietary  party  had  already  grown  too  strong,  and,  more- 
over, the  irreconcilables  were  able  to  make  much  of  Hamil- 
ton's not  having  the  fonnal  approval  of  the  crown.* 
Hamilton  was  obliged  to  employ  a  technicality  in  dissolv- 
ing an  assembly  with  a  hostile  majority,  and  the  step  led 
to  the  holding  of  seditious  meetings  in  which  preparations 
were  made  to  defy  the  proprietary  authority.  A  condition 
of  violence  and  anarchy  ensued.  Proprietary  officers  were 
maltreated,  and  courts  at  Elizabethtown,  Piscataway,  and 
Newark  were  broken  up  amid  scenes  of  the  greatest  violence." 
At  Middletown  the  insurgents  were  especially  active,  but 
when  the  governor  raised  a  force  to  restore  order  there,  he 

'Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  p.  210. 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  374.        ^Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  369-371. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  371.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  3I3-3I7»  333-9' 


96  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

was  met  by  a  stronger  force  and  compelled  to  withdraw.^ 
Actual  bloodshed,  indeed,  did  not  occur,  and  the  disturb- 
ances had  many  of  the  ridiculous  incidents  common  to  such 
movements  in  the  colonies.  Yet  this  result  was  due  only 
to  the  weakness  of  the  proprietors ;  the  insurgents  appeared 
in  military  array  and  showed  determination.^  Among 
their  leaders,  Richard  Salter  of  Middletown,  and  Samuel 
Carter  of  Elizabethtown,  made  themselves  especially  con- 
spicuous. 

The  immediate  outcome  was  the  end  of  proprietary  gov- 
ernment, and  the  governor  himself  was  seized  and  tempor- 
arily imprisoned.^  This  period  became  henceforth  known 
in  East  Jersey  as  the  "  Revolution,"  a  term  which  in  com- 
mon parlance  always  signified  this  disturbance,  "  and  not 
the  glorious  Revolution  by  the  Accession  of  King  William 
and  Queen  Mary  to  the  Throne  of  Britain."  * 

Meanwhile  a  series  of  events,  which  we  have  later  to 
trace,  was  leading  to  the  assumption  of  control  over  the 
Jerseys  by  the  Crown  of  England.  This  result  was  certain 
to  come  eventually,  and  now,  although  some  of  the  proprie- 
tors continued  to  struggle  against  the  wishes  of  the  English 
government,  the  m^ore  long-sighted,  like  Morris,  saw  that 
nothing  was  to  be  gained  by  prolonging  the  condition  of 
anarchy,  and  were  anxious  only  to  make  the  best  terms 
possible  for  the  protection  of  their  interests.  After  ex- 
tended negotiations,  the  surrender  of  all  governmental 
power  was  eventually  effected  on  April  15,  1702.  Lord 
Cornbury  was  then  commissioned  as  the  first  royal  gov- 
ernor of  the  Jerseys,  and  order  was  restored. 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  pp.  327,  329-        ^Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  362. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  364. 

^Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  pp.  45-6. 


CHAPTER  VI 
The  Land  System  of  West  Jersey 

The  land  system  of  West  Jersey  was  intended  by  the 
proprietors  to  be  as  simple  and  just  as  could  be  devised. 
The  confused  and  complex  arrangements,  modeled  after  the 
institutions  of  feudalism,  had  no  place  in  a  province  where 
the  democratic  ideas  of  the  Friends  were  to  receive  their 
practical  test.  But  absolute  mathematical  accuracy  was  to 
prevent  disorder  and  dispute.  The  first  step  was  to 
be  the  division  of  West  Jersey  into  ten  equal  parts,  to  be 
known  as  tenths.  These  in  turn  were  to  be  subdivided  each 
into  ten  smaller  parts,  to  be  known  as  proprieties  or  hun- 
dreds.^ These  divisions,  it  was  hoped,  could  be  sold  to  per- 
sons inclined  to  enter  upon  colonization,  who  would  thus 
be  added  to  the  number  of  proprietors.  Whatever  other 
mistakes  the  Friends  may  have  committed,  they  had  at 
least  no  intention  to  monopolize  the  proprietary  right  to 
the  soil  of  their  province. 

The  arbitration  between  Byllinge  and  Fenwick  as  to  their 
respective  interests  in  West  Jersey  resulted  in  giving  the 
latter  ownership  of  one-tenth  of  the  province,  while  Byllinge 
retained  the  other  nine-tenths.^  This  was  the  first  divis- 
ion of  the  soil.  We  have  already  noted,  however,  how 
Fenwick's  share  came  into  the  legal  possession  of  Elbridge 
and  Warner,  though  Fenwick  long  refused  to  recognize 
their  rights,  while  Byllinge  was  obliged  to  make  over  this 

'  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  241.      '  Mulford,  New  Jersey,  p.  166. 

97 


qS  the  province  of  new  jersey 

nine-tenths  to  his  trustees,  Penn,  Lucas  and  Lawrie,  for 
the  benefit  of  his  creditors/  This  arrangement  could  be 
readily  carried  out  under  the  system  of  tenths  and  pro- 
prieties. 

Penn,  Lucas  and  Lawrie  started  their  trusteeship  happily 
by  disposing  of  two  considerable  shares  of  Byllinge's  pur- 
chase to  his  principal  creditors.  One  whole  tenth  of  the 
province  went  to  Thomas  Hutchinson,  Thomas  Pearson, 
Joseph  Helmsley,  George  Hutcheson  and  Mahlon  Stacy, 
all  of  Yorkshire,^  while  another  large  interest  went  to  a 
group  of  Friends  resident  in  London.^ 

Meanwhile,  James  Wasse,  Richard  Hartshorne  and  Rich- 
ard Guy  had  been  commissioned  to  proceed  to  the  Delaware 
to  make  preliminary  surveys,  and  in  the  next  year  settle- 
ment began.  Before  the  founders  of  Burlington  left  Eng- 
land, however,  the  proprietors  issued  a  document  known  as 
"  The  Concessions  and  Agreements  of  the  Proprietors,  Free- 
holders and  Inhabitants  of  the  Province  of  West  New 
Jersey  in  America."  *  This  was  intended  to  form  the  basis 
for  the  government  of  the  colony,  just  as  Berkeley  and  Car- 
teret's Concessions  had  done  for  East  Jersey.  But,  being 
in  the  form  of  an  agreement,  it  was  signed  as  well  by  the 
"  freeholders  and  inhabitants  of  the  said  province  "  as  by 
the  proprietors. 

Naturally  questions  of  land  occupy  a  prominent  place  in 
the  West  Jersey  Concessions.  But  it  is  evident  that  the 
requirements  of  actual  colonization  had  already  forced 
some  alterations  in  the  mathematical  theories  of  the  proprie- 
tors.    It  was  first  provided  that  all  lands  taken  up  by  pur- 

*  Smith,  New  Jersey,  p.  79. 

*  West  Jersey  Records,  liber  B  (part  i),  pp.  131,  138. 
'Smith,  op.  cit.,  p.  92. 

*New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  241. 


THE  LAND  SYSTEM  OF  WEST  JERSEY 


99 


chase  from  the  natives  or  otherwise  should  be  divided  into 
ten  parts,  and  that  the  Yorkshire  Friends,  as  the  terms  of 
their  purchase  entitled  them,  should  have  the  privilege  of 
selecting-  one  of  these.  Other  persons,  holding  ten  parts, 
should  then  be  allowed  to  choose  any  of  the  remaining  divis- 
ions, while  those  holding  interests  not  footing  up  to  ten 
shares  might  nevertheless  locate  within  any  of  the  remain- 
ing parts.  Such  tenths  were,  however,  to  be  divided  into 
proprieties,  and  each  settler  was  to  receive  as  many  of  these 
as  was  due  him. 

Provision  was  also  made  for  persons,  not  proprietors, 
"  adventuring  "  in  West  New  Jersey.  But  it  is  noticeable 
that  such  persons  were  required  to  have  the  consent  of  one 
or  more  of  the  proprietors,  certified  under  their  hand  and  seal. 
All  who  thus  entered  the  province  before  April,  1677,  were 
to  have  seventy  acres  for  their  own  persons,  and  a  similar 
amount  for  every  able-bodied  male  servant  transported. 
Whoever  merely  sent  servants  was  likewise  to  have  seventy 
acres  for  each.  For  each  weaker  servant  over  fourteen,  fifty 
acres  was  given,  and  each  servant  entering  West  Jersey 
was  to  have  fifty  acres  for  his  own  use  at  the  end  of  his 
service.  But  all  such  colonists  must  pay  yearly  to  the  pro- 
prietors to  whom  the  land  belonged  one  penny  per  acre 
for  land  in  towns  and  one-half  penny  per  acre  for  lands 
outside  of  town  bounds,  such  payment  to  begin  within  two 
years  after  the  lands  were  laid  out. 

The  terms  grew  less  liberal  if  settlers  delayed.  For  all 
who  entered  West  Jersey  before  April,  1678,  amounts  of 
fifty  and  thirty  acres  were  offered  on  similar  conditions. 
But  the  quit-rent  was  now  put  at  a  penny  farthing  per  acre 
for  land  in  towns  and  three  farthings  per  acre  for  land  in 
the  country.  All  who  entered  before  April,  1679,  were  to 
have  amounts  of  40  and  20  acres,  for  which  the  rent  was 
put  at  one  and  one-half  pence  per  acre  in  towns  and  one 


lOO  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

penny  for  land  outside.  But  upon  all  lands  two  able-bodied 
male  servants  or  three  weaker  ones  were  to  be  maintained 
for  every  one  hundred  acres,  beside  the  grant  for  the  person 
of  the  master  himself.  If  after  three  years  from  notifica- 
tion such  conditions  were  not  fulfilled,  it  might  result  in 
the  loss  of  the  land  for  twenty  years,  unless  the  general 
assembly  judged  the  requirement  impossible  of  fulfilment 
because  of  poverty  or  other  reason.  Proprietors  inhabiting 
the  province  were  to  keep  one  person  upon  every  lot  taken 
up  by  them,  and  if  said  lot  exceeded  two  hundred  acres, 
they  must  keep  one  servant  for  every  two  hundred  acres. 
All  other  proprietors  must  maintain  a  servant  for  every  one 
hundred  acres.  But  such  conditions  were  to  last  for  only 
ten  years. 

The  general  oversight  of  both  the  governmental  pro- 
visions of  the  Concessions  and  those  concerning  land  was 
to  rest  in  the  hands  of  ten  commissioners.  The  first  ten 
were  appointed  by  the  proprietors.  Among  them  were 
Thomas  Olive,  Daniel  Wills,  John  Penford  and  Richard 
Guy,  all  of  whom  played  active  parts  in  the  early  affairs  of 
West  Jersey.^  But  after  the  first  year  the  commissioners 
were  to  be  chosen  annually  by  the  proprietors,  freeholders 
and  inhabitants.  At  the  first  election  they  were  to  be 
chosen  at  a  general  meeting,  but  thereafter  the  inhabitants 
of  each  ten  of  the  one  hundred  proprieties  were  to  elect 
one  commissioner. 

When  a  grant  of  land  was  to  be  made,  it  was  first  to  be 
recorded  by  the  register  of  the  province,  who  was  then  to 
make  out  a  certificate  to  the  surveyor  to  lay  out,  limit,  and 
bound  the  required  number  of  acres.  Having  done  this, 
the  surveyor  was  to  certify  the  same  back  to  the  register, 
stating  the  bounds.     The  register  was  then  to  enter  the 

'  Smith,  Ne7v  Jersey,  p.  92. 


THE  LAND  SYSTEM  OF  WEST  JERSEY  jqi 

survey  in  a  book  to  be  kept  for  the  purpose.  The  entry 
was  then  to  be  endorsed  on  the  back  of  the  grant.  Thus 
the  process  of  obtaining  land  was  more  simple  than  in  East 
Jersey.  Only  two  records  were  made — that  of  the  title  and 
that  of  the  return  of  the  survey.  The  formal  issuing  of  a 
patent  under  the  seal  of  the  province  was  dispensed  with. 

After  the  institution  of  the  system  of  proprieties,  which, 
as  we  shall  see,  was  not  carried  out  completely  in  practice, 
the  greatest  peculiarity,  as  well  as  the  most  creditable  fea- 
ture in  the  West  Jersey  Concessions,  was  the  free  election 
of  the  commissioners  by  the  freeholders.  Inasmuch,  how- 
ever, as  no  one  could  receive  lands  unless  endorsed  by  the 
proprietors,  there  was  little  immediate  danger  to  the  pro- 
prietary interests  in  this  provision.  The  terms  of  settle- 
ment were  liberal,  but  no  more  so  than  those  offered  by 
Berkeley  and  Carteret,  while  the  reservation  of  a  quit-rent 
shows  that  the  desire  for  profit  was  not  entirely  lacking. 
But  as  the  rents  were  to  be  paid  to  individual  proprietors, 
rather  than  to  a  proprietary  office,  their  payment  would 
have  appeared  more  of  a  simple  business  arrangement  than 
in  East  Jersey.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  find  little  evidence 
of  quit-rent  being  actually  required  at  all.  The  question, 
of  course,  never  became  an  issue  as  in  East  Jersey. 

The  Concessions  and  Agreements  were  at  once  put  into 
operation.  The  expedition  of  1677  was  accompanied  by 
representatives  of  the  owners  of  the  Yorkshire  tenth,  and 
also  by  the  commissioners  of  the  London  creditors  of  Byl- 
linge.  These  agents  were  charged  with  the  duty  of  select- 
ing the  tenths  of  their  respective  principals.  After  purchase 
had  been  made  from  the  Indians,  the  Yorkshire  commis- 
sioners chose  their  tenth,  reaching  from  the  Falls  of  the 
Delaware  down,  while  the  London  representatives  took  their 
land  near  the  present  site  of  Gloucester.  But  the  London 
agents  were  eventually  induced  to  change  their  location, 


I02  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

and  take  up  their  tenth  immediately  below  that  of  the  York- 
shire purchasers,  joining  with  them  in  the  settlement  of  the 
town  of  Burlington.  A  surveyor  named  Noble  was  em- 
ployed to  lay  out  the  town,  and  the  main  street  formed  the 
division  between  the  two  tenths.  Ten  lots  were  laid  out 
on  each  side  of  this  to  be  distributed  among  the  holders  of 
the  several  proprieties.^ 

For  a  time  there  was  some  effort  to  carry  out  fully  the 
original  system  of  tenths  and  proprieties.  In  1677  another 
entire  propriety  had  been  disposed  of  by  Byllinge's  trustees 
in  satisfaction  of  debt  to  five  Irish  Friends,^  and  in  1681 
representatives  of  these  purchasers  took  up  land  in  a  new 
or  third  tenth,  usually  called  the  Irish  tenth,  reaching  from 
Oldman's  Creek  to  Pemisoakin  Creek. ^  Three  years  later 
a  fourth  tenth,  extending  from  Timber  Creek  to  Oldman's 
Creek,  was  also  beginning  to  be  settled.* 

But  the  arrangement  soon  proved  itself  unmanageable. 
Recognizing  that  it  would  be  impracticable  to  take  up  an 
entire  propriety  at  a  time,  the  proprietors  had  originally 
agreed  that  each  propriety  owner  should  at  first  receive  a 
dividend  of  5,200  acres. ^  And  in  November,  1681,  the 
commissioners  still  further  modified  the  system  by  agreeing 
upon  a  set  of  rules  regarding  the  distribution  of  land.*  The 
surveyor  was  now  ordered  to  measure  the  entire  front  of 
the  Delaware  from  Assanpink  Creek  to  Cape  May,  that  the 
division  lines  for  each  tenth  might  be  found.     Each  tenth 

'Smith,  op.  cit.,  pp.  98-9, 

*  West  Jersey  Records,  liber  B  (part  i),  p.  50. 

'  Clement,  Proceedings  of  the  West  Jersey  Surveyors'  Association, 
p.  30. 

*  Mulford,  New  Jersey,  p.  245,  note. 

*  Stokes,  Proceedings  of  the  West  Jersey  Surveyors'  Association ,  p.  48. 
•Smith,  op.  cit.,  pp.  131-5. 


THE  LAND  SYSTEM  OF  WEST  JERSEY  103 

was  to  front  on  the  Delaware,  and  3,200  acres  were  to  be 
allowed  to  each  holder  of  a  propriety,  wherever  he  chose  to 
take  it  up  in  the  tenth.  But  all  lands  so  chosen  were  to  be 
taken  up  within  six  months  or  the  choice  was  to  become 
void.  If,  however,  there  was  demand  for  land  by  actual 
settlers  over  and  above  the  3,200  acres  to  a  propriety,  the 
commissioners  reserved  the  right  to  take  it  up  to  the  5,200 
acres  provided  for  in  the  first  agreement.  Finally,  after 
other  minor  though  necessary  provisions,  it  was  ordered 
that  all  persons  who  had  already  received  land  in  the  first 
and  second  tenths  should  show  their  deeds  or  writings,  as 
proof  of  their  proper  title,  to  four  of  the  commissioners 
named  for  the  purpose. 

Finally,  on  August  8th  and  9th,  1682,  it  was  ordered  that 
Daniel  Leeds,  the  surveyor,  on  or  before  the  7th  of  the 
tenth  month  next,  begin  to  lay  forth  the  several  tenths  by 
dividing  the  entire  river  front  into  ten  equal  parts. ^  But 
for  some  reason  this  order  was  never  executed,  and  with  it 
passes  away  the  idea  of  a  mathematical  division  into  tenths. 

The  position  of  the  commissioners  in  the  land  sys- 
tem also  soon  changed.  Owing  to  developments,  to 
be  considered  more  fully  in  the  next  chapter,  the  gov- 
ernmental powers  originally  vested  in  the  commissioners 
by  the  Concessions  and  Agreements  passed  in  1681  into  the 
hands  of  a  governor  and  council.^  Commissioners  were 
still  chosen,  however,  to  have  charge  of  the  apportionment 
of  land,  though  they  were  elected  by  the  assembly  instead 
of  directly  by  the  people.'  But  the  importance  of  the  com- 
missioners evidently  decreased  gradually  until  they  became 
merely  agents  of  the  assembly,  whose  duty  it  was  to  examine 
claims   for  land  and  authorize  surveys.     The  number  of 

'Clement,  op.  cU.,  p.  119.  *  Smith,  op.  cit.,  p.  126. 

•Leaming  and  Spicer,  Grants  and  Concessions,  pp.  444,  457,  etc. 


I04  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

commissioners  was  lessened,  and  they  were  apportioned 
among  the  several  jurisdictions  and  counties. 

Finally,  in  1687  the  assembly  declined  further  to  look 
after  purely  proprietary  affairs.^  Thus  ended  the  co- 
operation of  the  inhabitants  of  West  Jersey  in  the  appor- 
tionment of  the  lands.  There  was  apparently  no  thought 
that  an  important  power  was  being  sacrificed. 

It  was  now  necessary  for  the  proprietors  to  devise  new 
means  for  the  management  of  their  business,  and  accord- 
ingly, on  February  14,  1687-8,  a  general  meeting  of  those 
holding  interests  was  held  at  Burlington,  and  eleven  per- 
sons, including  Samuel  Jennings  and  Thomas  Olive,  were 
selected  to  direct  the  affairs  of  the  proprietors  for  the  en- 
suing year.  A  definite  agreement  for  the  establishment  of 
this  "  Council  of  Proprietors "  was  also  drawn  up  and 
signed.^  Soon  afterward,  however,  the  number  of  mem- 
bers of  the  council  was  reduced  to  nine,  as  more  con- 
venient.^ Thus  was  instituted  a  body  which  continued  dur- 
ing the  colonial  period  to  be  the  directing  power  in  the 
land  system  of  West  Jersey. 

The  members  of  the  council  were  elected  annually,  five 
being  chosen  at  Burlington  and  four  at  Gloucester.  The 
council  itself  selected  its  president,  vice-president,  sur- 
veyor-general, clerk  and  other  officers.  Thomas  Olive  was 
the  first  president  of  the  council,  and  was  regularly  re- 
elected until  his  death  in  1693.  Thomas  Gardiner  was  then 
chosen.  He  was  succeeded  by  John  Tatham,  Francis  Dav- 
enport, William  Biddle,  Andrew  Hamilton,  and  Mahlon 
Stacy.  Andrew  Robeson  was  surveyor-general  until  his 
death.     In   1694  Thomas  Gardiner  was  chosen  and  con- 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  222. 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey;  Smith,  New 
Jersey,  p.  igg. 

^ Smith,  op.  cit.,  p.  201. 


THE  LAND  SYSTEM  OF  iVEST  JERSEY  105 

tinued.  John  Reading  acted  regularly  as  clerk.  Among 
other  prominent  members  of  the  board  were  Samuel  Jen- 
nings, William  Royden,  Peter  Fretwell,  and  John  Hugg. 
The  council  met  regularly  twice  a  year,  in  the  spring  and 
fall,  but  other  meetings  were  held  on  occasion.  At  times 
of  great  importance  all  proprietors  in  the  province  were 
summoned  to  meet  with  the  council.^ 

While  the  council  assumed  general  control  over  all  pro- 
prietary concerns,  it  acted  upon  individual  claims  for  land 
only  in  peculiar  or  extraordinary  cases.  Commissioners 
were  still  annually  appointed  by  the  council  in  the  counties, 
which  had  by  this  time  taken  the  place  of  the  tenths  as 
administrative  divisions,  whose  duty  it  was  to  examine  all 
deeds  for  lands  within  their  jurisdictions,  and  to  issue  war- 
rants for  the  surveying  and  taking  up  of  the  same.  But 
all  proprietors  applying  for  warrants  must  sign  an  instru- 
ment stating  their  willingness  to  pay  their  respective  por- 
tions towards  the  management  of  the  proprietary  affairs. 
This  arrangement  continued  as  long  as  the  proprietary  gov- 
ernment lasted.  Samuel  Jennings  was  the  first  commis- 
sioner named  by  the  council  for  Burlington  county,  and 
John  Reading  for  Gloucester.^ 

An  early  resolution  of  the  council  was  one  authorizing 
proprietors  to  take  up  their  shares  when  and  where  they 
pleased.  This  brought  definitely  to  an  end  the  attempt  to 
lay  off  the  province  mathematically,  and  substituted  an  ar- 
rangement like  that  in  East  Jersey,  where  the  proprietors 
simply  received  dividends  of  the  lands  according  to  their  re- 
spective interests.  The  council  also  endeavored  to  hasten 
the  taking-up  of  lands  by  re-adopting  the  provision  of  an 
earlier  act  of  the  assembly,  that  all  warrants  for  surveys  not 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors,  passim. 
^Ibid.;  Smith,  op.  cit.,  pp.  203,  205-6. 


I06  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

executed  within  three  months  should  be  void.^  It  also  ad- 
dressed the  English  proprietors  urging  them  to  locate  their 
shares  without  delay.  ^ 

The  distribution  of  land  in  West  Jersey,  which  had 
meanwhile  been  going  on,  offers  some  points  of  dif- 
ference from  that  in  East  Jersey.  The  original  dividend 
of  5,200  acres  to  a  proprietary  was  soon  followed  by 
a  second  "  taking  up  "  of  5,000  acres.  It  was,  of  course, 
required  that  all  such  lands  should  be  located  within  the 
tracts  already  purchased  from  the  Indians.  Only  on 
special  considerations  did  the  council  of  proprietors  grant 
to  individuals  the  privilege  of  independent  purchase  from 
the  natives.  But  from  the  first  there  were  many  proprietary 
shares  which  were  not  claimed. 

Among  the  earlier  settlers  a  large  share  held  proprietary 
interests,  and  these  naturally  became  the  most  considerable 
landholders  in  the  province.  Other  settlers  acquired  inter- 
ests after  settlement.  The  recorded  sales  of  fractions  of 
proprieties  are  numerous,  though  usually  only  small  inter- 
ests were  thus  acquired.^  One  thirty-second  of  a  propriety 
was  the  amount  required  for  a  voice  in  proprietary  affairs. 
It  must  not  be  forgotten,  however,  that,  as  there  were  theo- 
retically one  hundred  full  shares  in  the  West  Jersey  pro- 
prietorship as  against  twenty-four  in  East  Jersey,  the  cor- 
responding fractions  of  interests  were  of  very  different 
value  in  land. 

But  still  many  of  the  West  Jersey  settlers  merely  ob- 
tained surveys  of  land  from  some  one  of  the  proprietors. 
For  these  in  most  cases  a  consideration  was  paid  averaging 
about  ten  pounds  for  one  hundred  acres.     The  number  of 

^  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors,  Feb.  23,  1688-9. 

^ Ibid.,  March  26,  1689. 

*  West  Jersey  Records,  liber  B,  passim;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol. 
xxi,  pp.  394-541- 


THE  LAND  SYSTEM  OF  WEST  JERSEY  107 

persons  obtaining  less  than  this  amount  is  comparatively 
small,  while  more  extensive  grants  of  200,300  and  even  500 
acres  are  not  rare.  This  shows  that  the  holdings  of  the 
bona-fide  settlers  were  somewhat  larger  in  West  Jersey 
than  in  East  Jersey.  As  in  East  Jersey,  the  lands  first 
taken  up  were  those  adjoining  the  Delaware  and  other 
navigable  streams.^  This  fact  led  the  commissioners  in 
1 68 1  to  forbid  any  one  from  taking  up  land  on  both  sides 
of  a  creek,  unless  there  was  good  cause,  and  a  similar  rule 
was  reenacted  by  the  council  of  proprietors  in  1688-9.^ 

With  the  appearance  of  the  West  Jersey  Society  in  1691, 
an  important  new  element  is  introduced  into  the  land  sys- 
tem of  the  province.  The  interests  of  the  society  were  so 
extensive,  including  as  they  did  more  than  one-fifth  of  the 
land  of  West  Jersey,  that  their  operations  demanded  really 
a  separate  system.  The  West  Jersey  Society  was  purely  a 
business  company,  the  object  of  which  was  to  make  profit 
from  land  sales.  But  the  fact  that  it  was  an  English  company 
greatly  handicapped  it  in  its  work,  and  forced  it  to  rely  upon 
more  or  less  unreliable  agents.  The  first  agent  for  the  care 
and  sale  of  its  lands  was  Jeremiah  Basse,  who  had  already 
acted  in  a  similar  capacity  for  Dr.  Daniel  Coxe,  whom  the 
society  brought  out.^  His  commission  empowered  him  to 
take  up  lands,  to  inspect  and  direct  the  buying  and  selling 
of  the  company's  goods,  and  to  act  to  the  best  of  his  power 
in  all  their  concerns.  For  a  time  Nathaniel  Westland  seems 
to  have  been  associated  with  Basse,  but  in  1694  Basse  ap- 
pointed Joshua  Barkstead,  his  own  step-brother,  as  his  as- 

*  Wgsi  Jersey  Records,  liber  B,  passim  ;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol. 
xxi,  pp.  394-541- 

'Smith,  op.  cit.,  p.  131;  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of 
West  Jersey,  Feb.  23,  i688-g. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  91;  Clement,   Proceedings  of  the 
West  Jersey  Surveyors'  Association,  p.  135. 


I08  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

sistant.^  In  1692  the  society  had  commissioned  Thomas 
Revell  as  register  of  deeds,  and  in  1696,  when  Basse  left 
the  province,  he  transferred  24,000  acres  of  the  society's 
land  to  Revell  as  trustee,  so  that  sales  might  not  be  inter- 
rupted by  his  absence.^  In  1699  the  agentship  was  given 
to  Andrew  Hamilton,  whose  administration  as  governor  of 
the  Jerseys  had  already  proved  his  capacity.  But  upon 
Hamilton's  death  in  1703,  Lewis  Morris  of  East  Jersey 
succeeded,  thus  adding  to  his  already  large  influence  in 
the  Jerseys.^ 

The  lands  of  the  society  were  naturally  located  in  the 
remoter  parts  of  West  Jersey.  It  obtained  from  Coxe,  be- 
sides unapportioned  interests,  the  great  "  Minnisinck  Pro- 
vince," lying  between  the  Delaware  and  the  Blue  Moun- 
tains, and  estimated  at  200,000  acres,'  and  also  a  survey  of 
95,000  acres,  including  all  of  Cape  May  County.*  In  ad- 
dition to  this,  Basse,  during  his  agentship,  located  95,000 
acres,  chiefly  in  what  is  now  Hunterdon  County  and  on  the 
Cohanzie  River  and  Delaware  Bay.'' 

But  though  Basse  and  Revell  both  appear  to  have  been 
energetic,  the  society  suffered  greatly  from  the  incapacity 
of  its  agents.  When  Morris  was  appointed  he  could  ob- 
tain no  accounting  from  Basse  and  Westland,  who  were  in 
default  with  their  accounts,  so  that  the  society  could  get  no 
proper  statement  of  what  amount  of  land  they  had  sold." 
It  is  certain,  however,  that  they  had  disposed  of  large  tracts, 
and  that  the  portions  purchased  were  larger  than  in  the 
earlier  settled  parts  of  West  Jersey.  The  interests  of  the 
society  also  suffered  greatly  from  squatters,  but  this  was 
to  some  extent  unavoidable. 

'Clement,  op.  cit.,  p.  141.  ''Ibid.,  pp.  142-3- 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  41. 

*  Clement,  op.  cit.,  p.  125.  ''Ibid.,  p.  141.  ^Ibid.,  p.  142. 


THE  LAND  SYSTEM  OF  WEST  JERSEY 


109 


All  things  considered,  the  land  system  of  West  Jersey 
was  free  from  the  more  serious  difficulties  which  afflicted 
East  Jersey ;  nor  does  there  ever  seem  to  have  been,  during 
the  proprietary  period,  any  general  feeling  of  jealousy  or 
dislike  of  the  proprietors.  The  land  system,  though,  of 
course,  not  modern  in  conception,  will  certainly  compare 
favorably  with  that  of  the  other  proprietary  provinces. 
With  few  exceptions  the  administration  was  honest,  and 
there  is  no  indication  that  the  proprietors  ever  sought  ad- 
vantages at  the  expense  of  the  smaller  landholders. 

Yet,  even  in  West  Jersey  it  was  unavoidable  that  there 
should  be  some  irregularities  and  disputes.  One  cause  of 
trouble  was  found  in  the  operations  of  the  headstrong  Fen- 
wick  at  Salem.  Upon  Fenwick's  arrival  in  West  Jersey,  he 
styled  himself  sole  proprietor  of  the  province,  appointed  a 
register  and  a  surveyor,  and  undertook  to  grant  lands  in 
a  rather  indiscriminate  manner.^  In  spite  of  several  efforts 
at  conciliation,  he  continued  to  ignore  the  legitimate  proprie- 
tors until  1682,  when  an  agreement  was  at  length  affected 
with  him  through  the  instrumentality  of  Penn.  He  was 
allowed  150,000  acres,  that  being  the  amount  he  had  al- 
ready granted  in  Salem  town  and  vicinity,  and  his  deeds  to 
that  amount  were  recognized  as  valid.  All  further  claims 
Fenwick  surrendered  to  Penn,^  and  as  that  distinguished 
person  had  already  acquired  the  interests  of  Elbridge  and 
Warner,  he  thus  became  the  recognized  proprietor  of  the 
"  Salem  Tenth."  ' 

Another  somewhat  similar  difficulty  was  due  to  the  con- 
duct of  Edward  Byllinge,  who  undertook  to  grant  lands  in 
his  own  name,  before  his  trustees  had  resigned  their  trust 

'  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  pp.  193,  413-5;  vol.  xxi,  pp.  559-568,  etc. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  370. 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii,  p.  lOi . 


no  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

in  1682.  His  action  in  this  regard  was  clearly  illegal,  and 
the  council  of  proprietors  promptly  voted  such  deeds  in- 
sufficient for  the  issue  of  warrants  of  survey/  But  some 
annoyance  was  caused  by  the  presentation  of  such  claims.^ 

Some  annoyance  was  also  caused  the  council  by  the  diffi- 
culty of  ascertaining  how  much  land  in  the  province  had 
already  been  taken  up  and  by  what  warrants.  In  the  land 
regulations  of  1681,  all  persons  who  had  obtained  lands 
in  the  first  and  second  tenths  were  ordered  to  bring  their 
deeds  or  writings  for  the  same  to  any  two  of  four  commis- 
sioners named.  ^  But  in  December,  1688,  the  council  of 
proprietors  ordered  a  similar  inquest  for  the  inhabitants  of 
Gloucester  County,  and  in  May,  1687,  one  for  Burlington 
County.  As  various  accidents  occurred  to  prevent  the  later 
inspection,  another  order  to  the  same  effect  was  voted  on 
the  25th  of  August  (the  6th  month).* 

Honorable  as  the  members  of  the  council  of  proprietors 
undoubtedly  were,  they  did  not  escape  all  attack  on  the 
ground  that  they  were  conducting  business  for  their  own 
individual  interests.  In  1689  Thomas  Thackera  attacked 
the  council  for  selling  certain  pine  trees  which  had  been 
uprooted,  and  at  the  same  meeting  Mahlon  Stacy,  one  of 
the  original  Yorkshire  purchasers,  presented  a  paper  "which 
seemed  to  say  various  hard  things  against  the  council."  ^ 
These  complaints  led  to  the  resignation  of  the  council  as 
a  body,  but,  upon  a  new  election,  the  more  prominent  mem- 
bers of  the  old  council  were  again  chosen.^ 

As  was  almost  inevitable,  there  were  some  cases  of  tres- 

^  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  Oct.  10,  1688. 
^Ibid.,  March  25,  1689.  'Smith,  New  Jersey,  pp.  134-5- 

*•  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey. 
'Upon  being  interrogated,  however,  he  "did  not  charge  the  Council 
with  anything." 
^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey. 


THE  LAND  SYSTEM  OF  WEST  JERSEY  m 

pass  upon  proprietary  lands,  in  spite  of  the  annual  selection 
of  rangers  by  the  council  of  proprietors.  But  the  difficul- 
ties arising  therefrom  were  not  serious.^  The  hardest  prob- 
lem that  the  council  had  to  face  was  undoubtedly  that  of  es- 
tablishing proper  relations  with  Dr.  Coxe,  the  West  Jersey 
Society,  and  other  proprietors  in  England.  A  friendly  cor- 
respondence was  maintained  with  Coxe.  This  related 
largely  to  the  boundary-line  controversy  with  East  Jersey, 
in  negotiating  which  Coxe  received  the  support  of  the  coun- 
cil. That  body,  however,  desired  Coxe,  upon  an  intended 
visit,  to  bring  a  certificate  of  just  what  interests  he  had 
purchased.  They  endeavored  also  to  obtain  from  the  other 
English  proprietors  a  statement  of  their  holdings.^ 

When  Coxe  was  bought  out  by  "  the  Society,"  the  prob- 
blem  became  more  serious,  as  the  operations  of  that  com- 
pany were  carried  on  independently  of  the  council.  In  May, 
1695,  Jeremiah  Basse,  as  agent  for  the  society,  appeared 
at  a  council,  claimed  thirty  proprieties  for  his  employers, 
and  demanded  a  seat  at  the  board,  with  as  many  "  voats  " 
as  they  held  proprieties.  But  the  council  resolved  that  if 
Basse  gave  evidence  of  his  rights,  the  West  Jersey  Society 
should  have  liberty  to  elect  as  many  representatives,  resi- 
dents of  the  province,  for  the  thirty  proprieties  as  would  be 
proportional  to  the  number  chosen  for  the  forty  proprieties 
held  in  Burlington  and  Gloucester  Counties.^  Apparently 
Basse  did  not  accept  this  offer.  The  council  then  endeav- 
ored to  secure  the  passage  by  the  assembly  of  a  bill  pre- 
pared by  itself  "  constituting  "  the  council  and  putting  pro- 
prietors under  obligation  to  whatsoever  should  be  trans- 
acter  by  it.*      In  May,   1698,  the  council   was,  however, 

^Minutes    of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,    Nov.  4, 
1689,  May  13,  1693. 
^Ibid.,  Nov.  4,  1689,  May  13,  1693. 
^Ibid.,  p.  73.  *■  Ibid.,  p.  79. 


1 12  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

advised  that  the  surveyor  general  was  likely  to  be  inter- 
rupted by  one  claiming  under  the  society.  Such  an  attack 
it  prepared  to  resist  by  a  process  at  law/  Yet,  while 
Basse  was  governor  little  could  be  accomplished. 

When  Governor  Hamilton  superseded  Basse  as  agent  for 
the  society  the  situation  rapidly  cleared.  On  May  25,  1700, 
Hamilton  met  the  Council  and  produced  instructions  which 
ordered  him  to  consult  with  them  regarding  the  laying  out 
of  lands.  The  society  now  claimed  only  twenty  proprieties. 
The  council  at  once  recognized  the  right  of  the  agent  to  a 
seat,  and  forthwith  elected  him  as  president.^  At  the  next 
meeting  the  council  declared  null  and  void  all  surveys  made 
by  Barkstead  and  John  Jewell  in  virtue  of  a  commission 
from  the  society  during  the  administration  of  Basse.  This 
action  was  approved  by  the  governor  as  agent.  ^  Harmony 
between  the  leading  proprietors  in  the  province  and  in 
England  was  thus  for  the  time  being  secured. 

Matters  such  as  these  were  of  course  of  a  serious  nature 
for  those  concerned.  As  compared  with  the  savage  con- 
flicts in  which  the  East  Jersey  proprietorship  was  involved, 
however,  they  were  trivial. 

During  the  closing  years  of  proprietary  rule  the  West 
Jersey  Council  was  busy  in  perfecting  the  arrangements  for 
a  large  new  Indian  purchase  above  the  Falls  of  the  Dela- 
ware. This  was  to  be  the  basis  for  a  third  dividend  of  the 
land  of  the  province.  The  dividend  was  not  actually  accom- 
plished, however,  until  after  the  Jerseys  had  come  under 
royal  control.'* 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  p.  93- 
^ Ibid.,  pp.  99-100.  ^ Ibid.,  p.  103. 

*  Smith,  New  Jersey,  p.  95  (note);  Minutes  of  tfte  Council  of  Pro- 
prietors of  West  Jersey. 


CHAPTER  VII 

Political  Conditions  in  West  Jersey  Under  the 
Proprietors 

The  political  system  of  West  Jersey  under  the  proprie- 
tors must  have  special  interest,  inasmuch  as  it  was  the  first 
attempt  of  the  Society  of  Friends  to  carry  out  in  practice 
those  political  ideals  which  they  derived  from  their  peculiar 
religious  doctrines.  Here,  rather  than  in  Pennsylvania, 
are  seen  the  applications  of  the  teachings  of  Fox,  unmixed 
with  the  ideas  of  feudal  proprietorship. 

The  form  of  government  elaborated  by  the  Quaker  own- 
ers of  West  Jersey  appeared,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the  Con- 
cessions and  Agreements  of  1676-7.^  Whatever  arrange- 
ments existed  before  that  time  were  temporary  makeshifts 
only.  We  cannot  now  say  definitely  how  the  Concessions 
and  Agreements  were  prepared,  but  the  biographers  of  Penn 
have  always  claimed  for  him  their  practical  authorship,  and 
the  claim  is  inherently  probable.  The  later  conduct  of 
Edward  Byllinge  certainly  seems  to  preclude  the  possibility 
of  his  having  any  leading  share  in  drawing  up  the  Con- 
cessions and  Agreements. 

The  Concessions  and  Agreements  are  a  lengthy  docu- 
ment, but  are  taken  up  for  the  most  part  by  provisions  re- 
garding land  and  guarantees  of  private  rights.  The  latter 
clauses  have  much  political  significance.  It  was  declared 
that  the  Concessions  and  Agreements  were  to  be  the  funda- 
mental law  of  the  colony,  and  that  whosoever  moved  any 

'  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  241. 

1 1.1 


114  ^^^  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

change  in  their  principles  should  be  proceeded  ag-ainst  as  a 
traitor.  Their  provisions  were  to  be  "  recorded  in  a  fair 
table  in  the  assembly  house,"  and  also  in  every  hall  of  jus- 
tice, where  they  were  to  be  read  solemnly  to  the  people  four 
times  a  year.  It  was  laid  down  as  the  first  fundamental 
that  there  should  be  freedom  of  conscience.  Then  trial  by 
jury  was  guaranteed,  followed  by  provisions  to  ensure  fair 
trials.  Imprisonment  for  debt  was  abolished,  if  the  debtor 
had  no  means  to  pay,  and  there  were  other  similar  guaran- 
tees against  oppression. 

The  clauses  concerning  government  itself  come  at  the  end 
of  the  Concessions,  but  are  of  a  striking  character.  Prac- 
tically absolute  power  was  put  into  the  hands  of  the  general 
assembly,  which  was  to  consist  of  one  hundred  persons,  to 
be  elected  annually  by  the  proprietors,  freeholders  and  in- 
habitants, not  "  by  the  common  and  confused  way  of 
cry's  and  voices,  but  by  putting  Balls  into  Balloting  Boxes." 
One  representative  was  to  be  chosen  for  each  of  the 
one  hundred  proprieties,  and  no  qualification  was  re- 
quired except  free-hold.  The  members  of  the  assembly 
were  to  receive  instructions  from  those  electing  them,  and 
were  to  be  bound  to  act  in  accordance  therewith.  They  were 
to  receive  one  shilling  per  day  during  sessions  as  remun- 
eration, but  this  was  likewise  to  be  paid  by  their  electors. 
There  was  to  be  absolute  freedom  of  speech  in  the  assembly, 
and  all  votes  were  to  be  public.  The  assembly  was  to  pass 
all  laws  for  the  province,  to  establish  courts  and  jurisdic- 
tions, and  to  levy  taxes.  It  was  also  to  elect  ten  "  Com- 
missioners of  Estate,"  who  were  to  conduct  the  affairs  of 
the  province  during  adjournment.  The  absolutely  liberal 
and  democratic  character  of  the  Concessions  and  Agree- 
ments has  often  been  justly  praised  by  historians.  The  sin- 
cerity of  the  proprietors,  who  reserved  practically  no  pecu- 
liar power  to  themselves,  is  demonstrated  beyond  all  doubt.  It 


POLITICAL  CONDITIONS  IN  WEST  JERSEY  ug 

is  true  that  many  of  them  expected  to  remove  to  West  Jersey 
themselves,  and  thus  might  enjoy  the  benefits  of  the  Con- 
cessions and  Agreements.  It  must  also  be  remembered  that 
since  no  lands  could  be  granted  to  any  person  not  vouched 
for  by  a  proprietor,  it  was  almost  certain  that  the  inhabitants 
of  the  colony  would  be  in  close  accord  with  the  views  of  the 
Friends.  Still  there  was  nothing  to  give  the  proprietor^  a 
controlling  influence  except  their  position  as  the  largest 
land-owners.  Although  the  land  system  of  West  Jersey 
was  proprietary,  the  effect  of  the  Concessions  and  Agree- 
ments, if  executed,  would  have  been  to  make  the  colony  in 
its  government  practically  a  corporate  colony,  standing  in 
much  the  same  relation  to  the  home  government  as  Ply- 
mouth or  New  Haven  before  their  absorption  by  their  larger 
neighbors.  But  West  Jersey  would  have  been  a  real  demo- 
cracy without  the  limited  franchise  of  the  boasted  New 
England  "  republics." 

Through  no  fault  of  the  proprietors,  however,  their  sys- 
tem was  not  destined  to  be  thoroughly  tested.  During  the 
first  few  years  after  the  settlement  of  Burlington  no  as- 
sembly was  called,  doubtless  because  no  need  for  one  was 
felt,  and  the  affairs  of  the  colony  were  managed  by  the  com- 
missioners originally  named  by  the  proprietors.  Mean- 
while their  powers  to  establish  a  government  had  been 
called  into  question  by  James  of  York  and  Governor 
Andros,^  and  only  the  influence  of  Penn  prevented  the  loss 
of  that  right.  After  much  negotiation,  James  was  obliged, 
as  we  shall  see,  to  give  up  his  claims  to  both  the  soil  and 
government  of  West  Jersey.  But  while  he  formally  made 
over  the  soil  to  Byllinge  and  his  trustees,  he  gave  up  his 
claims  to  government  to  Edward  Byllinge  alone.*     Byllinge 

'  Smith,  Ngw  Jersey,  pp.  93-4. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  332. 


J  l6  .  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

had  signed  the  Concessions  and  Agreements  with  the  other 
proprietors ;  but  now,  eager  to  assert  his  new-found  author- 
ity, he  disregarded  what  he  had  done  and  commissioned 
Samuel  Jennings  as  governor  of  West  Jersey.^  To  take 
such  a  step  was  of  course  to  admit  that  James  had  pre- 
viously held  the  power  of  government,  but  this  obvious 
fact  had  no  effect  upon  Byllinge.  The  other  proprietors 
appear  to  have  been  unwilling  to  bring  the  matter  again  to 
an  issue,  and  therefore  avoided  it  by  electing  Byllinge  as 
governor  of  West  Jersey.  ^ 

Samuel  Jennings,  who  had  accepted  the  commission 
tentatively  to  prevent  possible  disorder,^  on  November  21, 
1 68 1,  called  the  first  assembly  held  in  the  province.  This 
body  proceeded  to  lay  again  the  foundations  of  government 
by  the  passage  of  "certain  fundamentals."  ^  It  was  laid  down 
that  there  was  to  be  a  free  assembly  every  year,  that  the 
governor  should  not  suspend  or  defer  the  signing  of  acts 
passed  by  the  assembly,  nor  should  the  governor  make  war 
or  raise  any  military  force  in  the  colony  without  consent 
of  the  representatives.  The  governor  and  council,  which 
body  now  appears  for  the  first  time,  were  strictly  forbidden 
to  pass  any  laws  or  ordinances  without  the  assembly,  nor 
were  they  to  prorogue  or  dissolve  the  assembly  without  its 
own  consent.  Further,  the  governor  and  council  were  not 
to  levy  taxes,  and  all  officers  of  state  or  trust  were  to  be 
appointed  by  and  be  accountable  to  the  assembly.  No  treaty 
or  alliance  was  to  be  made  without  the  assembly,  and  no 
assembly  was  to  grant  any  tax  or  custom  for  more  than  one 
year.     Liberty  of  conscience  was  to  be  the  right  of  all  who 

'Smith,  op.  cit.,  p.  126. 

*  Jennings,  Truth  Rescued  from  Forgery  and  Falsehood,  etc.,  (reprint, 
Philadelphia,  1880),  p.  47. 
'Smith,  op.  cit.,  pp.  126-128. 


POLITICAL  CONDITIONS  IN  WEST  JERSEY  uy 

lived  peaceably,  and  there  was  to  be  no  religious  test  for 
office. 

Most  of  these  matters  had  been  covered  by  the  Conces- 
sions and  Agreements,  and  it  is  hard  therefore  to  account 
for  the  conduct  of  the  representatives  in  thus  repassing 
them.  It  appears  to  have  been  considered,  however,  that  a 
change  in  the  constitution  of  the  colony  was  being  made, 
and  that  the  consent  of  the  inhabitants  was  necessary  to 
give  it  validity,  for  it  is  stated  that  upon  the  acceptance  and 
performance  of  these  new  fundamentals  by  Jennings  he  will 
be  received  by  the  assembly,  proprietors  and  freeholders  of 
West  Jersey  as  their  governor.^  Such  an  idea  was  good 
Quakerism,  but  hardly  good  law.  What  would  have  re- 
sulted in  case  of  the  rejection  of  Jennings  by  the  people 
can  only  be  surmised,  for  the  governor  promptly  signed  the 
articles,  and  everything  ran  smoothly.  The  province  was 
certainly  much  in  need  of  legislation,  for  this  first  assembly 
passed  no  less  than  thirty-six  acts.  A  number  of  these 
were  repetitions  of  clauses  of  the  Concessions.  There  were 
also  acts  further  defining  the  duties  of  the  govenor  and 
other  officers.* 

The  assembly  met  again  on  April  i,  but  adjourned  to 
the  14th,  and  then  agreed  to  dissolve.'  A  new  assembly 
came  together  on  May  2d,  and  chose  Thomas  Olive  as 
speaker.*  Some  important  business  was  transacted,  the  act 
of  most  account  being  the  division  of  the  province  into  two 
judicial  districts."  This  was  the  beginning  of  the  over- 
throw of  the  system  of  tenths  as  administrative  divisions. 
The  council,  commissioners  and  other  officers  were  also 
elected  in  due  form.      With  considerable  regularity  other 

'Smith,  op.  cii.,  p.  129. 

*  Learning  and  Spicer,  Grants  and  Concessions,  pp.  426-437. 
'Smith,  op.  cit.,  p.  151. 

*  Leaming  and  Spicer,  op.  cit.,  p.  442.  ^Ibid.,  p.  448. 


Il8  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

sessions  of  the  assembly  followed,  and  additional  measures 
of  importance  were  passed/  It  was  decreed  that  the  gov- 
ernor could  not  require  the  presence  of  the  assembly  or  of 
any  of  its  members  anywhere  without  the  consent  of  the 
house.^  For  the  dispatch  of  business  it  was  ordered  that 
the  governor  and  council  should  have  the  privilege  of  pre- 
paring bills  for  laws,  which  should  be  promulgated  twenty 
days  before  the  meeting  of  the  assembly.  The  governor, 
council  and  assembly  together  were  to  constitute  the  gen- 
eral assembly,  and  a  plurality  of  their  votes  was  to  decide 
all  matters,  the  governor  having  a  double  vote.' 

But  the  question  as  to  where  the  legal  right  to  govern 
the  colony  belonged  had  not  been  definitely  settled.  It  be- 
comes apparent  that  for  some  reason  a  breach  had  come  to 
exist  between  Byllinge  and  the  other  proprietors,  and  this 
tended  to  widen.  Byllinge,  to  enforce  his  claim  to  the 
government,  had  decided  to  remove  Jennings,  who  had 
given  great  satisfaction  to  the  people,  from  the  gov- 
ernorship.'* Under  these  circumstances  Penn  advised 
the  people  of  West  Jersey  to  confirm  the  power  of 
Jennings,  and  thus  bring  the  matter  to  an  issue. "^  Ac- 
cordingly, in  the  "  third  month,"  1683,  the  assembly 
drew  up  a  bold  set  of  resolutions  declaring  that  the 
land  and  government  of  West  Jersey  had  originally  been 
purchased  together,  that  the  Concessions  and  Agreements 
were  still  the  law  of  the  land,  and  that  the  assembly  would 
stand  by  them.  It  was  further  decided  that  application 
be  made  to  Byllinge  personally  to  confirm  his  first  agree- 
ment by  signing  and  sealing  a  document  to  that  effect  which 

*  Members  from  Salem  appeared  regularly  in  the  assembly  after  the 
adjustment  between  Fenwick  and  Penn. 

'Learning  and  Spicer,  op.  cit.,  p.  462. 
*Leaming  and  Spicer,  op.  cit.,  pp.  466-7. 

*  Smith,  op.  cit.,  p.  155.  *Mulford,  New  Jersey,  p.  242. 


POLITICAL  CONDITIONS  IN  WEST  JERSEY  ng 

was  to  be  transmitted  to  him.  Jennings,  upon  promising 
to  conform  to  the  law  and  to  the  Concessions  and  Agfree- 
ments,  was  again  formally  elected  governor/ 

The  assembly  had  taken  a  bold  stand,  and  in  its  two  fol- 
lowing sessions  passed  other  resolutions  and  acts  looking  to 
the  maintenance  of  its  position.^  Finally,  in  1684,  Jen- 
nings and  Thomas  Budd  were  dispatched  to  England  to  ne- 
gotiate directly  with  Byllinge,^  and  Thomas  Olive  was 
chosen  governor  in  place  of  Jennings.  But  the  mission  of 
Jennings  and  Budd  failed  completely.  According  to  the 
account  of  Jennings,  Byllinge  greeted  the  agents  with 
threats,  but  could  not  move  them  until  certain  prominent 
Friends  proposed  that  the  matter  be  arbitrated.  The  agents 
replied  that  they  had  no  authority  to  take  such  a  step,  but 
when  it  was  urged  that  they  might  act  on  their  own  account, 
Budd  closed  with  the  proposition,  and  Jennings  then  reluc- 
tantly yielded.*  Among  those  chosen  to  make  the  award 
was  George  Fox  himself.  The  purport  of  the  decision 
seems  to  have  been  that  Byllinge  was  legally  entitled  to 
the  government  of  West  Jersey  because  of  the  Duke's 
conveyance,  and  could  not  legally  sell  or  divide  it  among 
the  proprietors.  Still,  as  he  had  undoubtedly  given  the 
other  proprietors  reason  to  believe  that  they  should  share 
in  the  government,  he  ought  to  confirm  the  Concessions 
and  otherwise  secure  the  colonists  from  oppression.'     This 

'  Learning  and  Spicer,  op.  cit.,  pp.  468-472. 

*Ibid.,  pp.  480,  483-4-  *Ibid.,  pp.  485-7. 

*  Jennings,  Truth  Rescued  from  Forgery  and  Falsehood. 

•What  purports  to  be  the  award  is  given  in  a  pamphlet  entitled,  "  The 
Case  Put  and  Decided  by  George  Fox.  .  .  .  and  other  the  most  Ancient 
and  Eminent  Quakers  between  Edward  Bylling  on  the  one  part  and 
some  West  Jersians,  headed  by  Samuel  Jennings,  on  the  other  part." 
This  appears  to  have  been  published  in  February,  1698-9,  by  John  Tat- 
ham,  Thomas  Revell  and  Nathaniel  Westland.  Jennings  declared  that 
there  were  thirty-eight  variations  from  the  original  award  in  their  state- 
ment. 


I20  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

award  seems  to  have  settled  the  matter,  though  Jennings 
never  gave  up  his  opinion  that  the  land  and  government  of 
West  Jersey  had  been  purchased  together  from  Lord 
Berkeley. 

Byllinge  had  previously  named  William  Welch  as  deputy 
governor,  and  obedience  had  been  refused  by  the  colony. 
He  now  sent  a  fresh  commission  to  John  Skene  as  his 
deputy-governor.^  It  is  stated,  however,  that  Byllinge  con- 
sented to  grant  a  "  new  charter  "  to  West  Jersey,  although 
it  contained  no  new  liberties.  But  nothing  definite  is  known 
as  to  its  nature.^ 

The  assembly  in  September,  1685,  decided  to  recognize 
Skene's  commission,  though  with  a  reservation  of  their 
"  just  privileges  and  rights."  Any  further  action  was 
avoided  by  an  adjournment  owing  to  the  "  sharpness  of 
the  season."  ^  This  collapse  of  the  opposition  in  West 
Jersey  is  in  strong  contrast  to  the  measures  of  violence  so 
often  seen  in  the  sister  province.  Thus  ended  government 
under  the  Concessions  and  Agreements,  and  their  carefully 
drawn  provisions  for  the  liberty  of  the  people  remain  no 
more  than  indications  of  the  political  ideal  of  the  Friends. 
Instead  of  a  practically  self-governing  republic.  West 
Jersey  now  approximated  the  form  of  an  ordinary  proprie- 
tary province,  though  with  an  elective  council. 

But  a  curious  condition  of  confusion  followed  the  break- 
down of  the  opposition  to  Byllinge.  The  assembly  did  not 
meet  again  till  1692,*  and  during  most  of  the  interval  prac- 
tically no  general  government  seems  to  have  existed.  The 
only  governmental  power  existing  was  exercised  by  the 
local  governments  and  by  the  council  of  proprietors.  Mean- 
while occurred  the  death  of  Byllinge,  who  had  removed  to 

•Smith,  op.  cit.,  p.  190.  ''Mulford,  op.  cii.,  p.  246. 

*  Learning  and  Spicer,  op.  cit.,  p.  503.  ^  Ibid.,  p.  507. 


POLITICAL  CONDITIONS  IN  WEST  JERSEY  121 

the  province,  and  the  purchase  of  all  the  interests  of  the  de- 
ceased by  the  court  physician,  Dr.  Daniel  Coxe.^  The  lat- 
ter was  very  desirous  of  exercising  full  jurisdiction  over 
West  Jersey,  and  on  September  5th,  1687,  wrote  to  the 
council  of  proprietors,  stating-  that  upon  consultation  with 
the  highest  legal  authority  he  had  been  assured  that,  though 
the  Concessions  and  Agreements  might  have  been  binding 
upon  Byllinge,  they  in  no  way  applied  to  himself.  Further, 
he  declared  that  his  power  of  government  was  as  absolute 
as  that  of  Penn  over  Pennsylvania,  that  he  had  assumed 
the  title  of  governor,  and  would  exercise  its  duties  with  dili- 
gence. Coxe  was  willing  to  confirm  all  civil  privileges 
granted  by  the  Concessions  and  Agreements,  but,  as  the 
government  of  England  was  universally  esteemed  the  best  in 
form,  he  intended  to  establish  a  system  in  the  colony 
modeled  after  it.^ 

But  before  Coxe  could  carry  out  his  ambitious  schemes  a 
stronger  hand  than  his  had  seized  control  of  colonial  affairs, 
and  West  Jersey  was  added  to  King  James'  great  province 
of  New  England  with  Sir  Edmund  Andros  at  its  head. 
The  colony,  however,  was  little  troubled  by  the  presence  of 
the  viceroy,  and  the  local  authorities  continued  to  manage 
their  own  affairs  in  peace.  After  the  rule  of  Andros,  the 
control  of  the  province  went  back  once  more  to  its  proprie- 
tors. But  Coxe,  disappointed  by  the  opposition  offered 
to  his  plans,  had  meanwhile  sold  out  all  but  a  small  portion 
of  his  interests  to  the  West  Jersey  Society,  and  in  that  body, 
therefore,  according  to  the  logic  of  events,  rested  the  gov- 
ernmental power.  The  society  was  itself  interested  to  the 
extent  of  two  and  a  half  proprieties  in  the  affairs  of  East 

'  Clement,  Proceedings  of  the   West  Jersey  Surveyors'  Association, 
pp.  119-20. 
*  Smith,  op.  cit.,  p.  190  (note  k). 


122  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Jersey,  and  it  naturally  felt  how  beneficial  the  union  of  the 
two  provinces  under  the  same  governor  would  be.  There- 
fore, Andrew  Hamilton,  already  chosen  governor  of  East 
Jersey,  was  commissioned  for  West  Jersey  ^  as  well,  and  the 
government  by  a  governor,  council  and  assembly  was  once 
more  established. 

Col.  Hamilton  was  occupied  largely  with  the  troublesome 
affairs  of  East  Jersey,  however,  and  not  much  was  done  in 
the  sister  province.  When  Hamilton  was  superseded  by 
Basse  in  East  Jersey,  the  same  change  took  place  in  West 
Jersey,^  and  in  the  latter  province,  as  the  former,  Hamilton 
was  restored  in  1699.  Factional  spirit  undoubtedly  ran 
high  in  West  Jersey  between  the  supporters  of  Basse  and 
Hamilton.  As  was  shown  in  the  last  chapter,  the  contest 
also  involved  the  interests  of  the  West  Jersey  Society,  as 
represented  by  Basse,  as  against  those  of  the  council  of 
proprietors.  The  followers  of  Basse  were  strongly  opposed 
to  the  Society  of  Friends,  and  indeed  made  efforts  to  rep- 
resent the  contest  as  one  between  "  Christians  "  and  Quak- 
ers. Among  the  proprietors  Jennings  was  undoubtedly  the 
strongest  leader,  while  prominent  among  the  Bassites  were 
John  Tatham,  Thomas  Revell  and  Daniel  Leeds.  ^  But 
though  feeling  was  bitter,  there  were  no  great  disorders 
like  the  disturbances  of  1699  in  East  Jersey. 

But  the  determination  of  the  Crown  to  assume  control  of 
East  Jersey  naturally  led  to  a  similar  decision  regarding 
West  Jersey.  The  two  provinces  were  too  closely  united 
geographically   to  permit   the  maintenance   of  a   separate 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  87. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  143-4  (and  note). 

'Jennings,  Truth  Rescued  from  Forgery  and  Falsehood;  The  Case 
Put  and  Decided,  etc.  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  pp.  208,  305,  479, 
50a,  544. 


POLITICAL  CONDITIONS  IN  WEST  JERSEY  123 

proprietary  government,  with  its  greater  laxity  and  lesser 
burdens  in  one  of  them,  while  the  other  was  subject  to 
royal  government.  Hence  the  proprietors  of  West  Jersey 
were  forced  to  include  themselves  in  the  surrender  of  1702, 
and  the  Quaker  province  of  "  New  West  Jersey  "  came  to 
an  end. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
Relations  with  the  Duke  of  York  and  the  Crown 

The  study  of  the  relations  existing  between  the  various 
proprietors  of  New  Jersey,  on  the  one  hand,  and  James  of 
York  and  the  British  Crown,  on  the  other,  is  one  of  the  most 
interesting  topics  connected  with  early  New  Jersey  history. 
Unfortunately  we  have  here  time  for  only  the  briefest  sketch 
of  those  events  which  tended  to  bring  an  end  to  the  pro- 
prietary control  of  the  colony. 

From  the  very  beginning  there  was  doubt  as  to  the  right 
of  the  proprietors  of  New  Jersey  to  institute  a  separate 
government  over  their  possessions,  and  it  seems  now  rea- 
sonably certain  that  no  governmental  power  was  legally 
conveyed  by  the  Duke  of  York  to  Berkeley  and  Carteret. 
The  claim  of  Berkeley  and  Carteret  is  indeed  plausible,  as 
the  Duke  held  the  most  full  governmental  control  over 
his  American  possessions,  and  as  the  province  was  made 
over  to  them  "  in  as  full  and  ample  a  manner  "  as  he  him- 
self possessed  it.  But  such  argument,  nevertheless,  is  not 
well  founded  in  law.  In  the  release  to  Berkeley  and  Car- 
teret New  Jeresy  is  clearly  defined  as  "  a  tract  of  land." 
The  way  in  which  the  Duke  held  it  is  then  said  to  be  free 
and  common  socage,  with  a  rent  of  forty  beaver  skins  annu- 
ally. When  it  is  said  that  this  "  tract  of  land  "  is  given 
to  Berkeley  and  Carteret  in  as  "  full  and  ample  manner  " 
as  the  Duke  held  it,  it  is  clear  that  they  also  were  to  hold  it 
in  free  and  common  socage  subject  to  the  same  rent.  It 
124 


RELATIONS  WITH  THE  DUKE  OF  YORK  125 

is  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  such  a  grant  of  govern- 
mental power  as  was  claimed  could  have  been  conveyed 
in  general  terms  such  as  these.  Government  was  surely  not 
an  incident  of  the  tenure,  and,  moreover,  this  is  exactly 
the  wording  which  was  commonly  used  at  the  time  in  trans- 
fers of  real  estate.  Nowhere  else  is  there  any  mention  of 
government.  It  is  true  that  the  power  of  government  was 
not  expressely  reserved,  but  most  assuredly  it  was  not  con- 
veyed to  Berkeley  and  Carteret,  and  therefore  must  remain 
v{ith  the  Duke. 

Even  if  the  Duke  had  intended  to  convey  the  right  of 
government,  it  is  doubtful  if  he  had  the  power  to  do  so. 
The  right  to  institute  government  was,  according  to  Eng- 
lish law,  a  prerogative  right  inherent  in  the  Crown  which 
could  only  be  conveyed  to  others  than  the  king  by  his  ex- 
press grant  and  patent.  This  was  the  principle  which  had 
held  from  the  time  of  the  quo-warrantos  of  Edward  I,  and 
though  it  may  have  been  disregarded  in  some  cases,  it  was 
nevertheless  accepted  in  theory.  The  release  of  New  Jersey 
was  merely  a  private  transaction  between  James  and  Ber- 
keley and  Carteret,  and  the  king  had  borne  no  part  in  it. 
In  such  a  transaction  a  prerogative  right  could  scarcely  be 
conveyed.  The  case  of  New  Hampshire  shows  that  this  was 
a  real  difficulty,  for  the  claims  of  Mason  and  his  heirs  to 
governmental  control  had  there  to  be  given  up  for  lack  of 
the  royal  sanction.  It  is  barely  possible  that,  as  the  power 
of  government  was  originally  given  to  James,  his  "  heirs  and 
assigns,"  it  might  have  been  held  that  sanction  was  thus 
given  to  alienation  on  the  part  of  James,  for  Berkeley  and 
Carteret  were  of  course  his  assigns.  But  this  is  doubtful, 
as  "  heirs  and  assigns  "  was  merely  a  customary  phrase,  and 
would  scarcely  conceal  so  great  a  power. 

It  therefore  appears  that  James,  in  denying  the  right  of 
the  proprietors  to  institute  a  separate  government  at  Eliza- 


126  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

bethtown,  was  not  acting  the  part  of  an  unprincipled  tyrant,* 
but  was  merely,  in  a  very  cautious  and  moderate  manner, 
enforcing  his  just  authority.  It  seems  apparent,  however, 
that  James  did  not  at  first  understand  the  true  bearings  of 
the  case.  Berkeley  and  Carteret,  on  their  part,  never  seem 
to  have  had  a  doubt  as  to  their  power;  but  by  the  issue  of 
their  Concessions  and  the  dispatching  of  Philip  Carteret 
to  Elizabethtown,  made  the  province  of  New  Jersey  an  ac- 
complished fact  before  any  measures  of  prevention  could  be 
worked  out. 

The  disadvantages  of  having  two  governments  upon  one 
harbor  were,  however,  soon  made  apparent  to  James  by 
Nicolls  and  Samuel  Maverick.^  It  may  seem  now  rather 
strange  that  James  did  not  therefore  at  once  take  advantage 
of  the  fact  that  governmental  power  was  not  conveyed  in 
the  deeds  of  lease  and  release  to  suppress  the  government 
of  New  Jersey.  It  is  very  evident,  however,  that  he  did 
not  wish  to  offend  Berkeley  and  Carteret.  Probably,  also, 
it  was  unsafe  to  do  so,  for  we  must  remember  that  James 
was  playing  for  high  and  doubtful  stakes  in  England.  He 
therefore  preferred  to  wait  for  some  favorable  opportunity 
to  make  good  his  rights  without  prejudice  to  his  political 
interests.  This  was  good  policy,  but  it  apparently  puts  him 
in  the  wrong  by  making  him  seem  to  acquiesce  in  the  acts 
of  Berkeley  and  Carteret. 

New  Jersey  continued  undisturbed  till  the  Dutch  recon- 
quest.  But  this  reconquest  had,  according  to  the  theory  of 
the  English  law,  much  the  same  effect  upon  the  powers  of 
government  as  upon  land.  When  the  country  was  ceded 
back  to  England  absolute  control  lay  again  in  the  Crown, 
and  when  the  American  territories  were  once  more  con- 

'  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  p.  90. 
^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  pp.  46,  54,  57. 


RELATIONS  WITH  THE  DUKE  OF  YORK 


127 


veyed  to  James,  the  grant  included  the  old  sweeping  powers 
of  jurisdiction.  Meanwhile  Berkeley  had  sold  his  inter- 
ests in  land  and  government  alike  to  the  Friends,  Byllinge 
and  Fenwick.  Carteret,  however,  as  we  have  seen,  set  out 
at  once  to  obtain  a  renewal  of  his  old  grant,  and  was  able 
to  bring  such  influence  to  bear  upon  James  that  he  was 
forced  into  a  reconveyance  of  a  part  of  the  former  province 
to  the  old  Cavalier.  But  this  new  conveyance,  like  the 
old  one,  described  New  Jersey  simply  as  "  a  tract  of  land," 
and  made  no  mention  of  jurisdiction.*  At  the  same  time 
experience  must  have  shown  how  Carteret  understood  such 
a  grant,  and  there  seems  no  excuse  for  James  or  those  who 
acted  for  him  in  not  having  the  ambiguity  cleared  away. 

Meanwhile  Andros  had  been  commissioned  as  governor 
of  New  York  and  the  Duke's  other  possessions.  His  com- 
mission, of  course,  covered  New  Jersey.^  But  there  is 
evidence  that  he  received  side  instructions  to  "  keep  all 
things  in  the  same  posture  (as  to  the  Duke's  prerogatives 
and  profits)  as  they  were  in  your  predecessor's  time."  * 
He  therefore  did  not  interfere  with  the  reestablishment  of 
Carteret's  government.  But  Andros  insisted  upon  the  right 
of  the  Duke's  government  to  levy  customs  on  vessels  en- 
tering New  Jersey.  As  Philip  Carteret  resisted,  much 
trouble  and  irritation  were  caused.*  With  such  half-way 
measures  James  was  obliged  to  content  himself  for  the  time, 
as  he  dared  not  offend  Sir  George  as  things  then  stood. 
His  secretary  nevertheless  wrote  to  Andros,  "  should  his 

'  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  pp.  161-167. 

*  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iii,  p.  215. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  179;  New  York  Colonial  Documents, 
vol.  iii,  p.  229. 

*■  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  p.  382;  Learning  and  Spicer, 
Grants  and  Concessions ,  p.  131. 


128  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

(Carteret's)  foot  chance  to  slip  those  who  succeed  him  must 
be  content  with  less  civility."  ^ 

But  the  Quaker  proprietors  of  West  Jersey  were  not  in 
the  same  position  as  Sir  George,  nor,  indeed,  did  they  have 
the  claim  to  jurisdiction  which  arose  from  the  regrant  of 
New  Jersey  to  the  latter  after  the  Dutch  reoccupation.  It 
seems  strange  that  they  should  have  even  expected  any  re- 
cognition of  their  rights  on  the  part  of  Andros.  They  cer- 
tainly received  nothing  but  the  most  straightforward  treat- 
ment at  his  hands.  Fenwick,  as  we  saw,  came  first  and  es- 
tablished himself  at  Salem,  and  resisted  the  duty  which  the 
Duke's  garrison  at  Newcastle  levied  on  all  goods  passing 
up  the  Delaware.  He  was  therefore  promptly  arrested,  sent 
to  New  York,  tried  and  imprisoned  upon  refusing  to  give 
security  for  good  behavior.  Being  released,  however,  he 
returned  to  Salem  and  once  more  proceeded  to  institute  a 
government.  He  was  then  once  more  seized,  and  six  com- 
missioners were  appointed  to  act  at  Salem  subject  to  the 
Duke's  court  at  Newcastle.^  Thus  the  question  of  juris- 
diction over  Salem  was  effectually  settled  in  favor  of 
Andros. 

Byllinge  and  his  trustees  met  less  violent  but  still  similar 
treatment.  When  the  commissioners  sent  over  with  their 
first  expedition  reached  America,  they  found  it  advisable 
to  visit  Andros  at  New  York,  and  were  met  by  him  with  a 
flat  refusal  to  recognize  the  claims  of  the  Quakers  to  gov- 
ern West  Jersey.^  This  nearly  led  to  the  failure  of  the  ex- 
pedition, but  eventually  the  commissioners  were  allowed  to 
take  out  warrants  as  subordinates  of  Andros,*  and  upon  this 

'Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  p.  302  (note  M). 
^  New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  i,  pp.  186-204,  235-239,  278-285. 
'Smith,  New  Jersey,  pp.  93-4. 
*•  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  291. 


RELATIONS  WITH  THE  DUKE  OF  YORK  129 

basis  the  settlement  of  Burlington  was  made.  It  was  un- 
derstood that  the  arrangement  was  to  last  until  further 
advice  could  be  had  from  England.  Andros  meanwhile  en- 
forced very  rigidly  the  right  to  levy  customs  upon  the  Dela- 
ware, and,  as  West  Jersey  became  more  populous,  this  bur- 
flen  caused  continued  complaint.^  The  whole  Quaker  enter- 
prise was  in  the  greatest  peril,  for  in  spite  of  the  friend- 
ship between  Penn  and  the  Stuarts,  there  could  be  no  en- 
sured asylum  for  Friends  under  the  direct  authority  of  the 
Crown  of  England. 

Led  by  Penn,  the  proprietors  therefore  at  once  addressed 
themselves  to  the  Duke.  But  before  anything  could  be 
settled  came  a  change  in  the  affairs  of  East  Jersey.  On 
January  14,  1679,  Sir  George  Carteret  died,  and  Andros, 
who  probably  had  received  private  instructions  to  that  ef- 
fect, soon  afterward  commanded  Governor  Philip  Carteret 
to  cease  exercising  any  jurisdiction  over  the  Duke's  domin- 
ions unless  he  could  show  warrant.  Carteret  replied  boldly, 
asserting  his  rights  and  declaring  that  he  would  defend 
them."  Andros  soon  afterward  journeyed  to  Elizabeth- 
town  to  assert  his  authority.  Carteret,  however,  raised 
150  men,  and  though  Andros  was  kindly  received,  he  could 
accomplish  nothing.'  But  directly  afterward  Carteret  was 
violently  seized  by  a  secret  force  sent  from  New  York, 
conveyed  there  and  imprisoned,  awaiting  trial.  In  spite  of 
the  efforts  of  Andros  to  browbeat  the  court,  he  was  finally 
declared  innocent  of  offense,*  but  was  obliged  to  give 
security  not  to  exercise  authority  in  New  Jersey  till  affairs 

'  Smith,  op.  cit.,  p.  116;  Ne7v  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i.  p.  291. 
^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  pp.  294.  297. 
"Ibid.,  vol.  J,  pp.  299-302,  314-5- 

*  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  pp.  93-4.   log-rii: 
New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  pp.  303.  316  18. 


I30 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


were  settled  in  England.  Andros  now  appeared  before  the 
assembly  of  East  Jersey,  and  asked  that  it  adopt  the  laws 
then  in  force  in  New  York.  But  the  deputies  refused 
compliance,  declaring  that  not  the  king's  letters  patent,  but 
Magna  Charta  was  their  rule  and  safety.  They,  however^ 
presented  their  existing  laws  to  Andros,  who  apparently 
did  not  object  to  them.  Having  appointed  certain  local 
officers,  he  then  returned  to  New  York.^ 

Thus  the  authority  of  the  Duke  had  teen  asserted  over 
the  entire  province  of  New  Jersey.  But  the  matter  was  not 
yet  closed,  for  in  England  Penn  was  managing  the  Quakers' 
case  with  skill.  Fortune,  too,  favored  him,  for  this  was 
just  the  time  when  James,  threatened  by  the  Exclusion  Bill, 
was  forced  to  retire  to  Scotland  to  avoid  the  outcry  against 
him.  He  could  ill  afford  to  make  more  enemies,  especially 
of  such  men  as  William  Penn.  The  Duke  was,  indeed,  only 
anxious  to  escape  from  all  extra  embarrassment,  and  event- 
ually ordered  counsel  to  hear  and  make  report  of  the  case. 
Penn  and  his  confederates  presented  such  legal  arguments 
as  they  were  able,  but  put  most  stress  upon  the  political 
side  of  the  controversy.  The  levying  of  taxes  upon  the 
people  of  West  Jersey  without  their  consent  was,  they  said, 
an  abridgment  of  the  rights  of  Englishmen.  Here  was  the 
great  opportunity  for  the  Duke  "  to  free  the  country  with 
his  own  hand,"  and  thus  to  show  to  the  world  that  he  was 
the  friend  rather  than  the  opponent  of  free  government.^ 

Such  agreements  meant  little  to  James,  but  his  situation 
was  such  that  he  dared  not  seem  to  resist  them.  As  the  only 
way  out  of  the  difficulty,  he  agreed  to  submit  the  whole 
matter   to   the   decision   of   Sir   William  Jones,    formerly 

^New  Jersey   Archives,  vol.   i,  pp.   304-312;  Learning    and  Spicer, 
Grants  and  Concessions ,  pp.  681-683. 
*  Smith,  New  Jersey,  pp.  1 17-124. 


RELATIONS  WITH  THE  DUKE  OF  YORK 


131 


attorney-general,  but  now  one  of  his  greatest  opponents. 
After  considering  the  matter,  Sir  William  naturally  decided 
against  the  Duke,  both  as  to  his  right  of  government  and  as 
to  his  claim  to  levy  customs,  chiefly  because  jurisdiction  had 
not  been  expressly  reserved  in  the  Grant  of  1664  to  Berkeley 
and  Carteret.^  This  was  curious  legal  reasoning,  but  it  was 
sufficient.  James  could  no  longer  hold  out,  and  forthwith, 
without  even  waiting  for  the  advice  of  his  own  counsel,  exe- 
cuted a  deed  making  over  both  government  and  land  to  the 
Quakers.^  But  curiously  enough,  while  the  land  was  made 
over  to  Byllinge  and  his  trustees,  the  power  of  government 
was  given  to  Byllinge  alone.  No  adequate  reason  is  known 
for  this  step.  It  may  possibly  have  been  done  through  care- 
lessness. But  that  it  had  important  consequences  in  West 
Jersey  we  have  already  seen. 

Having  thus  surrendered  his  claims  to  control  of  West 
Jersey,  James  could  not  deny  the  demands  made  upon  him 
with  far  more  reason  by  Lady  Elizabeth  Carteret,  the  exe- 
cutrix of  Sir  George,  to  desist  from  his  suppression  of  the 
government  of  East  Jersey.  Accordingly,  James  signed 
another  instrument  giving  up  all  claim  to  that  province  as 
well.'  A  little  later  also,  after  the  sale  of  East  Jersey  to 
the  Twenty-four,  James  executed  a  similar  document  con- 
ferring the  government  and  land  directly  upon  the  new 
proprietors.*  This  ignored  altogether  the  grant  to  Lady 
Elizabeth,  and  was  unnecessary.  But  the  Twenty-four, 
doubtless  felt  that  it  was  safer  to  receive  the  power  directly 
from  the  Duke.** 

Thus  the  claims  of  the  several  proprietors  of  New  Jersey, 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  pp.  323-4. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  324. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  337.  *Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  383. 

^New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  Hi,  p.  329. 


132 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


however  faulty  they  may  originally  have  been,  were  appar- 
ently made  good.  It  is  true  that  the  old  principle  that 
jurisdiction  could  not  be  alienated  by  a  mesne  lord  without 
the  royal  sanction,  still  rendered  the  transfer  of  doubtful 
legality.  But  there  is  no  evidence  that  James  intended  to 
take  advantage  of  such  a  technicality.  However,  the  danger 
to  the  proprietors  was  by  no  means  passed.  James  was 
playing  for  the  throne  of  England,  and  once  seated  upon  it 
he  would  be  in  a  position  to  brush  aside  anything  that  stood 
in  the  way  of  his  interests.  He  now  understood  the  disad- 
vantages of  the  existence  of  the  Jerseys  as  proprietary  gov- 
ernments, and  might  be  relied  upon  to  override  whatever 
prevented  their  overthrow. 

But  temporarily  there  was  an  end  of  serious  trouble. 
Brockholst,  who  was  serving  at  New  York  in  the  absence 
of  Andros,  hesitated  to  permit  the  resumption  of  Carteret's 
government  even  after  the  facts  of  the  Duke's  release  were 
known. ^  He  did  not,  nevertheless,  interfere  by  force,  and 
Carteret  once  more  assumed  control.  But  the  greater  free- 
dom of  the  government  of  the  Jerseys  continued  to  cause 
discontent  among  the  people  of  New  York,  and  their  greater 
commercial  freedom  was  a  menace  to  the  prosperity  of 
James'  colony.  This  was  especially  true  after  the  Twenty- 
four  undertook  to  establish  at  Perth  Amboy  a  free  port 
which  should  rival  and  surpass  New  York.  This  danger 
was  clearly  seen  by  Dongan,  James'  new  governor,  who  not 
only  warned  his  superiors  directly,-  but  later  persuaded  the 
authorities  of  New  York  City  to  draw  up  a  memorial  pray- 
ing that  the  Jerseys  be  reunited  to  New  York."  Aroused 
by  his  representations,  the  Scotch  proprietors  of  East  Jersey 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  351. 

"^ New  York  Colonial  Docume7tts,  vol.  iii,  p.  429- 

^Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  361. 


RELATIONS  WITH  THE  DUKE  OF  YORK  133 

wrote  to  Dongan  directly,  remonstrating  with  him  upon  his 
course.^  But  Dongan  in  reply  declared  that  he  was  in  duty 
bound  to  represent  the  truth  to  his  master. "^  He  continued, 
whenever  he  touched  upon  the  subject,  to  inform  his  su- 
periors of  the  disadvantages  arising  from  East  Jersey."^ 

The  Twenty-four  adopted  a  conciliatory  course.  Gov- 
ernor Lawrie  was  instructed  to  do  all  he  could  to  promote 
harmony,  and  especially  to  discourage  the  removal  of  set- 
tlers from  New  York  to  New  Jersey.*  Lawrie  faithfully 
followed  his  instructions,  allowing  William  Dyre,  the  col- 
lector of  customs  at  New  York,  to  discharge  his  office  also 
over  East  Jersey.  •''  But  it  was  by  this  very  concession  that 
the  proprietors  overreached  themselves,  for  the  turbulent 
population  of  East  Jersey  was  little  inclined  to  submit  to  the 
charges  of  the  hated  customs  officer.  Soon  Dyre  was 
driven  to  complain  to  the  Commissioners  of  Customs  at 
London  that  he  was  absolutely  unable  to  carry  out  his  or- 
ders in  East  Jersey,  for  "  when  he  prosecuted  vessels,  the 
juries  found  their  verdicts  against  the  most  undoubted 
facts."  « 

These  complaints  arrived  in  London  just  at  the  right 
time.  James  Stuart  was  now  on  the  throne.  Monmouth 
and  Argyle  had  been  crushed,  and  the  king  was  free  to  ap- 
ply to  the  colonies  that  plan  of  centralization  which  he  had 
so  long  cherished.  He  was  already  involved  in  his  con- 
troversy with  New  England,  and  the  smuggling  of  East 
Jersey  was  a  good  pretext  to  include  that  province  also  in 
his  schemes.     Accordingly,  the  Committee  of  Plantations 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  463. 

^ New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iii,  p.  353. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  356,  392. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  426.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  142. 

•Whitehead,  East  Jersey  tinder  the  Proprietors,  p.  143. 


134  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

recommended  that  quo  warranto  proceedings  be  instituted 
against  East  Jersey,  West  Jersey  and  Delaware,  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  for  divers  reasons  prejudicial  "  that  such 
independent  governments  be  kept  up  and  maintained  with- 
out a  nearer  and  more  immediate  dependence  on  your 
Majesty."  ^  West  Jersey  was  nearly  innocent  of  offense, 
but  it  was  a  good  opportunity  to  attack  all  three  colonies 
at  once.  James  was,  of  course,  very  ready  to  accept  the 
recommendations  of  the  Plantation  Committee,  and  when 
he  ordered  Sir  Robert  Sawyer,  his  Attorney  General,  to 
introduce  quo  warranto  proceedings  against  Rhode  Island 
and  Connecticut,  he  gave  him  additional  charge  to  include 
both  East  and  West  Jersey  if  he  thought  it  necessary. 
Nothing,  however,  was  done  at  once.  But  eventually,  in 
May,  1687,  James  ordered  that  the  quo  warrantos  be 
pushed,  especially  against  New  Jersey,  Maryland  and  the 
Carolinas. 

The  proprietors  of  East  Jersey  made  such  resistance  as 
they  could.  They  presented  a  petition  complaining  of  the 
encroachments  of  New  York,  setting  forth  the  expense  they 
had  been  at  without  return,  and  arguing  that  East  Jersey 
should  not  be  held  responsible  for  customs  laws  instituted 
at  New  York.  They  asked  the  king,  if  he  thought  a 
change  necessary,  to  appoint  one  of  the  proprietors  gov- 
ernor of  both  East  and  West  Jersey,  and  finally  requested 
a  special  customs  collector  for  Perth  Amboy.^  But,  though 
the  last  request  was  granted,^  nothing  else  was  gained. 
Meanwhile  Andros  had  been  knighted,  and  sent  over  as 
governor  of  New  England.  It  became  evident  that  resist- 
ance was  useless,  and  the  proprietors  of  East  Jersey  there- 
fore determined  to  make  a  voluntary  surrender  of  their  gov- 

^New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iii,  p.  362. 

*New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  533-539-        ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  540. 


RELATIONS  WITH  THE  DUKE  OF  YORK  135 

ernment,  with  the  stipulation  that  their  rights  to  land  be 
respected.  The  surrender  was  therefore  promptly  effected, 
April,  1688.  The  owners  of  West  Jersey,  whose  case  was 
exactly  similar,  joined  in  the  transaction,  and  the  quo 
warranto  proceedings  were  of  course  discontinued.  Andros 
was  commissioned  governor  of  the  new  royal  province,^  and 
in  August  he  visited  the  Jerseys  and  took  over  the  govern- 
ments. There  was  no  demonstration  of  any  kind,  and  at 
least  a  part  of  the  people  seemed  well  content  with  the 
change. 

The  brief  rule  of  Andros  offers  little  of  significance.  He 
was  personally  engaged  elsewhere,  and  though  Andrew 
Hamilton  continued  to  rule  East  Jersey  several  months  as 
his  subordinate,  the  province  was  eventually  left  to  the  care 
of  its  local  governments.^  Upon  the  overthrow  of  Andros 
there  was  no  disturbance,  despite  the  proximity  of  East 
Jersey  to  New  York,  and  the  inhabitants  appear  to  have 
been  entirely  willing  to  remain  in  statu  quo. 

As  the  governmental  powers  of  the  proprietors  had  not 
been  destroyed  by  the  quo  warrantos  of  James,  the  revolu- 
tion led,  as  we  have  seen,  to  a  resumption  of  the  proprietary 
governments.  The  resumption  was  naturally  followed  for 
a  time  by  the  cessation  of  those  difficulties  with  the  crown 
which  had  formed  such  important  incidents  in  New  Jersey 
history.  William  was  far  less  interested  in  these  colonies 
than  James,  and  knew  far  less  about  their  affairs.  This 
condition  could  not,  however,  endure  long.  In  1694  the 
assembly  of  East  Jersey  authorized  the  establishment  of  a 
customs  house  at  Perth  Amboy,  and  required  all  vessels 

^  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iii,  p.  537. 
*New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  37;  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under 
the  Proprietors,  p.  160. 


136  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

coming  to  East  Jersey  to  enter  there  first/  The  exporta- 
tion of  pipe-staves,  shingles  and  plank,  except  to  "  places 
beyond  the  sea,"  was  also  forbidden.  Governor  Fletcher 
grumbled  at  these  measures,^  and  continued  to  force  vessels 
coming  to  New  Jersey  to  pay  New  York  customs.' 

Under  Bellomont,  however,  the  old  vexatious  customs 
question  was  reopened  in  earnest.*  The  proprietors  of 
East  Jersey  had  meanwhile  obtained  further  legal  opinion 
that  no  duties  could  be  levied  upon  them,^  and  forthwith 
presented  petitions  to  the  Lords  Commissioners  of  the 
Treasury,  the  Lords  Justices,  and  the  Lords  of  Trade,* 
asking  that  their  right  to  free  ports  be  established.  In 
these  representations  some  of  the  proprietors  of  West 
Jersey  joined.  But  the  law  officers  of  the  crown,  when 
consulted,  held  that  the  Duke  of  York  had  himself  never 
held  the  right  of  appointing  ports,  and  hence  could  not 
convey  it  to  Berkeley  and  Carteret.^  On  February  23, 
1698,  Bellomont  therefore  received  an  order  from  the 
Crown  commanding  him  to  enforce  the  rights  of  New 
York.®  Governor  Basse  violently  resisted  this  attack,**  and 
proceeded  to  put  a  cargo  into  the  sloop  "  Hester,"  then  ly- 
ing at  Perth  Amboy,  a  craft  of  which  he  was  part  owner. 
But  Bellomont,  sending  a  force,  seized  the  vessel,  and  as 
Basse  refused  to  pay  duty,^"  she  was  condemned.  The  East 
Jersey  assembly  supported  Basse  by  an  appropriation,"  and 

'  Learning  and  Spicer,  Grants  and  Concessions ,  pp.  342,  343. 

*  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  p.  114. 
' New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  132. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  237.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  136. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  164,  169,  171.  "^ Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  177,  231. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  218,  220. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  227,  238.  ^'^  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  245. 
"  Learning  and  Spicer,  Grants  and  Concessions,  p.  376. 


RELATIONS  WITH  THE  DUKE  OF  YORK  137 

legal  proceedings  were  begun  which,  as  usual,  spun  out  over 
several  years.  But  at  length  the  Court  of  King's  Bench 
gave  definite  decision  in  favor  of  Basse.  He  was  awarded 
ample  damages,  and  the  right  of  the  Jerseys  to  free  ports 
was  at  length  assured.^ 

The  issue  was  too  late,  however,  to  be  of  much  benefit. 
There  had  been  long-continued  complaints  against  the 
Jerseys,  with  other  proprietary  jurisdictions,  as  centers  of 
illegal  trade  and  harborers  of  pirates.^  The  disorders  aris- 
ing out  of  the  quit-rent  troubles  had  now  reduced  the  pro- 
prietors' government  to  impotence  and  contempt,  and  the 
Crown,  as  a  matter  of  vital  necessity,  had  already  deter- 
mined to  bring  their  rights  to  a  trial. ^  William's  lawyers 
in  their  advice  had  brought  prominently  forward  the  argu- 
ment that  powers  of  government  could  not  be  conveyed  by 
a  mesne  lord  without  the  royal  sanction,  and  there  is  no 
doubt  that  their  ground  was  well  taken.  But  only  a  few 
of  the  proprietors  wished  to  resist.  The  majority,  led  by 
the  West  Jersey  Society  and  Lewis  Morris,  who  visited 
England  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  the  matter  through, 
wished  only  to  secure  a  definite  guarantee  of  their 
right  to  the  soil  and  such  other  privileges  as  could 
be  obtained.  They  saw  that  the  government  of  East 
Jersey  was  beyond  their  power,  and  that  conditional 
surrender  was  the  best  course.  From  July,  1699,  to  April, 
1702,  the  negotiations  were  continued,  but  at  length  the 
proprietors  of  the  two  Jerseys,  convinced  that  their  rights 
would  be  respected,  were  induced  to  waive  their  claims 
and  consent  to  an  unconditional  surrender  of  governmental 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii.  p.  341;  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  undet 
the  Proprietors,  p.  206. 
^  Neu  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  pp.  122,  178,  291,  360,  etc. 
*  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  370. 


138  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

power.  With  such  dispatch  as  the  clumsy  nature  of  the 
proprietorship  admitted,  the  necessary  forms  were  carried 
out.  Thus  the  inevitable  result  was  at  length  worked  out, 
and  New  Jersey  was  at  last  a  Royal  Province. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  100. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  404,  412,  415.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  452,  461. 


CHAPTER  IX 

The  Royal  Governors 

During  the  negotiations  which  led  to  the  surrender  of  the 
government  of  the  Jerseys  to  the  crown,  the  major  part  of 
the  proprietors  made  an  effort  to  have  Andrew  Hamilton, 
who  had  struggled  so  efficiently  in  their  cause,  commis- 
sioned as  royal  governor.^  ,  The  appointment  was,  how- 
ever, actively  opposed  by  William  Dockwra,  Peter  Sonmans, 
and  the  minority  interest.^  In  this  opposition  they  were 
supported  by  Edward  Randolph,  Surveyor  General  of  the 
Customs,  and  by  Col.  Robert  Quary,'  and  the  Lords  of 
Trade  eventually  recommended  that  some  one  unconnected 
with  the  divisions  and  disorders  of  the  province  should  be 
appointed,*  Accordingly,  Edward,  Lord  Cornbury,  who 
had  already  been  commissioned  as  governor  of  New  York, 
was  named  as  the  first  royal  governor  of  the  united  province 
of  New  Jersey.*^  This  practice  of  appointing  the  same  per- 
son governor  of  New  York  and  the  Jerseys  was  continued 
until  1738,  and  whatever  its  other  results,  it  certainly  placed 
New  Jersey  under  the  oversight  of  men  of  more  prominence 
and  reputation  than  could  otherwise  have  been  the  case. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  pp.  408,  469,  475. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  430,  432,  466,  470. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  479.  481.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  484. 

*  Lewis  Morris  later  affirmed  that  after  the  rejection  of  Hamilton,  he 
himself  was  about  to  be  appointed  but  that  the  intentions  of  the  crown 
were  diverted  by  Cornbury's  superior  influence;  New  Jersey  Archives, 
vol.  V,  p.  320. 

139 


I40  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

But  though  the  reasons  for  the  rejection  of  the  able  and 
experienced  Hamilton  were  well  grounded,  the  new  appoint- 
ment proved  to  be  of  such  a  nature  as  to  reveal  the  very 
worst  features  of  the  English  colonial  system.  Lord  Corn- 
bury  was  a  nobleman  of  illustrious  descent  and  the  highest 
family  connections.  He  was  the  grandson  of  the  Earl  of 
Clarendon,  the  great  minister  of  Charles  H,  and  thus  the 
cousin  of  Queen  Anne  herself.  But  in  almost  every  other 
quality  needed  for  the  office  he  was  totally  deficient,  and 
the  sole  reason  for  his  nomination  appears  to  have  been  the 
strength  of  his  family  influence,  together  with  the  fact 
that  he  had  ingratiated  himself  with  the  Whig  govern- 
ment by  being  among  the  first  officers  of  the  royal  army 
to  desert  James  H  in  1688.^  According  to  the  statement 
of  an  able  and  well-informed  though  strongly  biased  colon- 
ial historian,  he  had  since  that  event  distinguished  himself 
chiefly  by  the  extravagance  of  his  living,  which  had  run 
him  so  deeply  into  debt  that  he  was  forced  to  leave  Eng- 
land to  avoid  his  hungry  creditors.^ 

Cornbury's  career  in  America  certainly  lends  color  to 
these  assertions,  for  not  only  did  he  fail  utterly  to  show  the 
smallest  political  sagacity,  but  he  made  it  evident  that  his 
own  pecuniary  profit  was  the  chief  aim  of  his  administra- 
tion, and  by  stooping  to  the  most  ill-concealed  bribery,  for- 
feited the  confidence  of  all  but  his  companions  in  corrup- 
tion. Even  his  zeal  for  the  Church  and  his  attempts  to 
cloak  his  rnisconduct  by  appeals  to  militant  patriotism  fail  to 
blind  the  investigator  to  the  real  character  of  the  man. 
The  typical  black-sheep  of  an  illustrious  house,  his  career 
in  the  colonies  must  stand  as  a  reproach  against  the  sys- 
tem which  could  give  such  a  man  such  wide  power. 

'  Smith,  New  Jersey,  p.  275;  Smith,  History  of  the  Late  Province  of 
New  York  (New  York,  1830),  vol.  i,  p.  169. 
'Smith,  New  York,  vol.  i,  pp.  169,  190,  193. 


THE  ROYAL  GOVERNORS  I4I 

Nor  was  his  public  life  alone  reprehensible,  for  the  mad 
pranks  of  his  private  life  contributed  almost  equally  in 
arousing  the  contempt  of  his  subjects/  His  debts  also 
continued  to  accumulate,  so  that  when,  after  repeated  com- 
plaints, he  was  at  length  removed  from  office  he  was  at 
once  arrested  by  the  sheriff  of  New  York  upon  the  just  de- 
mands of  his  creditors,  and  remained  in  prison  until,  upon 
the  death  of  his  father,  he  became  Earl  of  Clarendon,  and 
was  thus  enabled  to  return  to  England.^  It  would  be  too 
much  to  assert  that  the  feeling  of  suspicion  with  which  the 
inhabitants  of  New  Jersey  undeniably  regarded  their  royal 
governors  was  based  upon  the  unfortunate  conduct  of  Corn- 
bury,  but  there  is  abundant  evidence  that  the  feeling  of  dis- 
trust was  greatly  intensified  by  the  career  of  New  Jersey's 
first  royal  executive.* 

Cornbury's  successor,  John  Lord  Lovelace,  though  also 
a  member  of  the  nobility,  was  apparently  a  man  of  quite 
different  stamp.  His  early  death,  however,  prevented  him 
from  making  any  deep  impression  upon  the  colony.  He 
was  advanced  to  the  governorship  of  New  York  and  the 
Jerseys  from  the  office  of  cornet  in  her  majesty's  Horse 
Guards,  and  was  received  in  the  Jerseys  with  every  mark 
of  respect.  Lovelace  certainly  won  the  love  of  all  with 
whom  he  came  in  contact  during  his  brief  administration, 
and  left  a  favorable  impression  behind  him,  though  this 
easy  conquest  was  due  partly,  no,  doubt,  to  the  deep  feel- 
ing of  relief  at  the  departure  of  Cornbury/ 

Col.  Richard  Ingoldsby,  however,  who  as  lieutenant- 
governor  ruled  the  colony  during  the  period  from  the  death 
of  Lovelace  to  the  commissioning  of  Hunter,  revived  the 

'Smith,  New  York,  vol.  i,  p.  194.  "Ibid.,  vol.  i.  p.  193. 

* E.  g.,  Netv  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii.  pp.  242,  363. 
*  Smith,  New  York,  vol.  i,  p.  194. 


142  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

feeling  of  distrust  with  which  the  governorship  had  been  re- 
garded under  Cornbury.  Ingoldsby  was  well  known  in  the 
Jerseys,  for  he  had  been  prominent  in  the  affairs  of  New 
York  since  1691.  He  is  a  good  example  of  a  class  fre- 
quently to  be  met  with  in  the  colonial  politics  of  the  period. 
Born  of  good  family  in  England,  Ingoldsby  appears  first 
in  New  York  as  captain  of  a  company  of  troops  sent  to  the 
province  at  the  time  of  Leisler's  Rebellion.  Owing  to  his 
position,  he  played  a  rather  striking  part  during  the  Leis- 
lerian  troubles,  and  indeed  conducted  the  administration  of 
New  York  for  a  short  time  after  the  death  of  Governor 
Sloughter.^  But  he  incurred  the  hatred  of  the  Leislerian 
party,  and  shared  in  the  downfall  of  the  Anti-Leislerian 
faction  upon  the  appointment  of  Lord  Bellomont  as  gov- 
ernor of  New  York.  Bellomont  showed  his  dislike  of  In- 
goldsby plainly  in  his  correspondence,  terming  him  "  a  rash, 
indiscreet  man,"  and  declaring  that  he  showed  "  unpardon- 
able neglect "  in  absenting  himself  from  his  duty.^  That 
Bellomont  had  grounds  for  his  attitude  is  clear  from  the 
fact  that  Ingoldsby  was  endeavoring  to  have  himself  com- 
missioned as  Bellomont's  successor  in  New  York,  and  had 
made  a  journey  to  England  for  the  purpose.  Ingoldsby 
did  not  have  sufficient  influence,  however,  to  secure  his  ob- 
ject. Instead  of  obtaining  the  governorship  he  was  named 
as  lieutenant-governor  of  New  York  under  Cornbury,  and 
later  was  given  a  similar  commission  for  New  Jersey. 

By  Cornbury  he  was  regarded  with  suspicion,  and  on  at 
least  one  occasion  sharply  reprimanded.^  As  a  result  his 
commission  as  lieutenant-governor  of  New  York  was  or- 

'  Smith,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  120;  Brodhead,  New  York,  vol.  ii,  pp.  630, 
646. 
*  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  p.  760. 
^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  68. 


THE  ROYAL  GOVERNORS  I43 

dered  revoked  by  the  home  authorities/  But  there  is  no 
evidence  that,  even  in  his  opposition  to  the  detested  Corn- 
bury,  Ingoldsby  received  any  popular  support  or  sympathy.^ 
Upon  the  death  of  Lovelace,  Ingoldsby  assumed  the  exe- 
cutive office  in  New  Jersey.  Yet,  though  interest  is  given 
to  his  rule  by  the  events  which  occurred  in  it,  he  gave  no 
proof  of  ability  or  sympathy  with  the  people  of  the  colony, 
and  apparently  justified  the  assertion  of  Smith,  that  he  was 
naturally  "  a  heavy  man."  '  In  his  measures  he  met  op- 
position almost  as  violent  as  Cornbury  himself,  and  there 
was  the  same  feeling  that  he  was  seeking  only  his  own  inter- 
est rather  than  the  welfare  of  the  colony.  Ingoldsby 
withdrew  from  New  Jersey  before  the  arrival  of  his  suc- 
cessor, and  probably  returned  to  England.  Nothing 
further  is  known  of  his  career.* 

But  all  the  royal  governors  of  New  Jersey  were  not  of 
the  stamp  of  Cornbury  and  Ingoldsby.  Few,  if  any,  colon- 
ial governors  equalled  Robert  Hunter  in  tact  or  political 
skill.  Little  is  known  of  his  early  life  except  that  he  was  of 
Scotch  birth,  and  had  at  one  time  been  apprenticed  to  an 
apothecary.  But  his  correspondence  clearly  shows  that  he 
had  either  had  a  good  education  or  else  had  improved  his 
own  powers  with  great  ability.  Changing  his  occupation, 
he  entered  the  army,  and  by  1707  had  risen  to  a  colonelcy. 
In  addition  to  other  creditable  service,  he  fought  at  Blen- 
heim. Hunter  appears  meanwhile  to  have  become  well 
known  in  the  leading  English  society  of  the  day,  and  en- 
joyed the  acquaintance  of  such  men  as  Addison,  Steele  and 
Swift.     Through  the  influence  of  Addison  he  had,  as  early 

^Nfw  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  145,  146.     But  see  ibid.,  vol.  iii, 
p.  469. 
*Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  371.  'Smith,  New  York,  vol.  i,  p.  197. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii.  p.  290  (note  2). 


144  '^'^^  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

as  1705,  been  appointed  lieutenant-governor  of  Virginia, 
but  had  the  misfortune  to  be  captured  by  the  French  while 
on  his  way  to  the  province.  After  being  detained  for  some 
time  in  Paris,  he  was  at  length  released,  and  again,  through 
the  support  of  Addison,  was  commissioned  governor  of 
New  York  and  New  Jersey.^ 

From  the  very  first  the  new  governor  made  a  favorable  im- 
pression, and  by  his  consummate  ability  succeeded  in  quiet- 
ing the  discontents  which  had  done  so  much  to  destroy  the 
prosperity  of  the  Jerseys.  Possessed  of  all  the  shrewdness 
and  tact  of  his  race,  and  actuated  by  a  real  desire  to  further 
the  best  interests  of  his  provinces,  Hunter  found  the  colon- 
ists ready  to  repose  confidence  in  him  and  listen  to  his 
wishes.  Many  of  the  leading  men  of  the  Jerseys  became 
his  close  friends,  as  is  shown  by  the  correspondence  which 
was  kept  up  between  them  after  he  had  withdrawn  from 
the  province.^ 

It  is  true  that  Hunter  was  not  without  some  of  the  weak- 
nesses of  his  nationality  and  time.  "  He  had  a  ready  art 
of  procuring  money,  few  loved  it  more."  This  is  said  to 
have  led  him  into  schemes,  games,  and  considerable  losses.^ 
Whatever  his  faults  may  have  been,  however,  they  were  not 
of  a  nature  to  interfere  with  his  public  usefulness.  He  pos- 
sessed the  engaging  address  of  a  gentleman,  and  was  a 
churchman,  though  he  did  not  place  much  stress  upon  con- 
formity in  others. 

In  1720  Hunter,  on  account  of  his  health,  exchanged  posi- 
tions with  William  Burnet,  son  of  the  celebrated  bishop,  and 

'  Whitehead,  Contributiotis  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Anihoy,  p. 
147;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  11  (note);  Dictionary  of  Natioval 
Biography;  Smith,  New  York,  vol.  i,  p.  205. 

*  Smith,  New  York,  vol.  i,,p.  235. 

'Smith,  New  Jersey,  p.  413. 


THE  ROYAL  GOVERNORS  145 

returned  to  England  to  fill  the  position  in  the  customs 
which  the  latter  had  occupied.  In  1727,  however,  he  was 
appointed  governor  of  Jamaica  and  returned  to  America. 
Yet  he  never  again  visited  the  Jerseys,  and  finally  died  in 
1734.  Hunter  stands  out  as  the  best  type  of  the  colonial 
governor.  If  the  home  authorities  had  been  wise  enough 
to  send  many  men  of  his  calibre  to  America,  the  results 
would  have  been  far-reaching. 

His  successor,  William  Burnet,  although  differing  in 
many  respects  from  Hunter,  was  also  possessed  of  many  of 
the  qualities  necessary  for  a  successful  governor.  Great 
care  had  been  spent  by  his  father  upon  his  early  education, 
and  his  scholastic  training  had  been  supplemented  by  travel 
and  association  with  distinguished  men.  Although  it  is 
said  that  in  his  youth  he  was  rather  slow  intellectually,  he 
appears  later  to  have  convinced  himself,  at  least,  that  his 
scholarship  was  of  a  high  order.  At  any  rate  his  love  for 
intellectual  things  was  real,  and  much  of  his  small  income 
went  for  the  purchase  of  rare  and  valuable  books.  As  was 
not  unnatural,  he  became  especially  interested  in  theology, 
and  while  acting  as  governor  employed  his  spare  time  in 
writing  a  curious  theological  essay  which  was  published 
anonymously  in  London.  But  though  his  own  views  of  re- 
ligion, as  befitted  the  son  of  the  great  Bishop  of  Salisbury, 
were  broad  and  tolerant,  he  was  little  inclined  to  tolerate 
those  who  did  not  agree  with  his  opinions,  and  chose  his 
friends  from  those  who  were  in  sympathy  with  his  beliefs. 

Burnet  was  large  personally,  and  had  frank  manners  and 
a  dignified  demeanor,  which  evidently  enabled  him  to  im- 
press most  of  those  whom  he  met.  Yet,  in  spite  of  his 
scholarly  qualities,  he  was  gay  and  condescending.  More- 
over, he  did  not  make  that  affectation  of  pomp  which  was 
a  hindrance  to  so  many  governors,  but  mingled  in  colonial 


146  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

society  freely  and  in  a  friendly  spirit.  Burnet  devoted  him- 
self especially  to  the  ladies,  and  was  much  admired  by  them.^ 

Yet,  in  spite  of  his  many  good  qualities,  he  was  not  at 
bottom  the  equal  of  the  able  man  who  preceded  him.  In 
tact,  in  knowledge  of  men,  and  in  political  skill  Hunter  was 
greatly  his  superior.  He  also  differed  in  disposition  and  tem- 
perament from  Hunter,  and  was  unable  to  include  within 
his  circle  of  friends  some  prominent  men  who  had  been  the 
sturdy  supporters  of  the  latter.  Burnet  never  succeeded 
in  keeping  his  own  personality  in  the  background  while  at 
the  same  time  obtaining  all  his  ends  as  Hunter  had  done, 
while  that  sterling  good  sense  which  had  so  characterized 
the  other  Scotchman  was  sometimes  lacking  to  Burnet. 

Burnet,  however,  had  the  advantage  of  the  friendship 
and  advice  of  Hunter,  and  was  thus  able  to  avoid  some 
errors  at  the  beginning  of  his  administration.^  He  was, 
also,  able  to  commence  his  work  at  a  time  when  party  strife 
had  been  to  a  great  extent  quieted.  Upon  the  whole,  his 
rule  was  successful,  and  he  lost  little  of  the  ground  which 
Hunter  had  gained.  At  last,  owing  to  the  opposition  of 
certain  commercial  interests  in  New  York,  he  was  trans- 
ferred to  the  governorship  of  Massachusetts,  and  thus 
passes  from  our  field  of  study.  His  later  career  is  familiar 
to  all  students  of  colonial  history. 

Burnet  was  succeeded  by  another  Scotchman,  John  Mont- 
gomerie.  Montgomerie  had  served  in  the  army,  but  had  be- 
come better  known  as  a  courtier,  having  acted  as  governor 
of  the  bedchamber  of  George  I  before  he  became  king.  His 
influence  at  court  probably  secured  his  appointment,  as  he 
seems  to  have  been  a  man  of  little  force,  though  of  a  kindly 

•Whitehead,  Contributions  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Amboy,  p. 
156;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  i  (note);  Smith,  New  York,  vol.  i, 
pp.  247,  281. 

'Smith,  New  York,  vol.  i,  p.  248. 


THE  ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


147 


and  peaceable  disposition.  He  is  remembered  largely  be- 
cause of  the  amount  of  household  equipment  he  brought 
with  him  to  America  to  support  his  new  dignity.  On  the 
whole,  affairs  moved  quietly  during  his  rule,  but  his  work 
was  cut  short  by  death  after  he  had  been  in  the  colony  only 
a  little  over  two  years.^ 

The  appointment  of  his  successor  was  peculiar,  as  William 
Cosby,  a  naval  officer,  had  already  been  governor  of  the 
island  of  Minorca,  and  had  been  charged  with  maladminis- 
tration in  office  there."  During  his  short  career  in  America 
he  certainly  displayed  greed,  lack  of  tact  and  even  high- 
handed tyranny.  Those  qualities  were  shown  by  him,  how- 
ever, chiefly  in  his  administration  of  New  York.^  New 
Jersey,  though  suspicious  of  his  intentions,  suffered  little 
direct  harm,  from  him.  His  death  came  as  a  welcome 
relief  to  both  colonies.  Cosby  was  the  last  governor  to 
rule  both  New  Jersey  and  New  York.  Much  to  the  delight 
of  the  smaller  colony,  she  was  at  length  granted  a  separate 
executive,  and  Lewis  Morris,  her  own  most  prominent  pub- 
lic man,  received  the  commission. 

Our  brief  survey  of  the  character  of  the  early  royal 
governors  of  New  Jersey  shows  clearly  that  the  bitter  con- 
flicts between  the  executive  and  the  legislature  of  the  colony 
depended  in  a  large  degree  upon  the  character  and  ability 
of  the  governors.  When  men  of  tact  and  fairmindedness, 
like  Hunter  and  Burnet,  held  commissions,  English  control 
worked  smoothly  and  satisfactorily.  The  lack  of  judgment 
displayed  by  the  Board  of  Trade  in  sending  men  like  Corn- 
bury  and  Cosby  to  rule  prosperous  colonies,  for  reasons 
for  the  most  part  discreditable,  must  remain  as  one  of  the 
chief  causes  of  antagonism  to  the  home  government. 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  185  (note);  Smith,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i, 
pp.  281,  288. 
'Smith,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  i.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  30. 


CHAPTER  X 

Legal  Position  of  the  Governor  as  Executive 

The  position  of  the  royal  governors  of  New  Jersey  dur- 
ing the  Union  Period  did  not  in  its  legal  aspects  differ  ma- 
terially from  that  of  the  chief  executives  of  other  royal  pro- 
vinces. The  commissions  of  the  governors,  published  upon 
their  entering  on  office,  were  in  a  certain  sense  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  province,  for  they  were  the  only  official  written 
documents  the  binding  force  of  which  was  generally  recog- 
nized. The  commission  of  Cornbury,  by  which  royal  gov- 
ernment was  first  established,  gave  to  that  worthy  gentle- 
man the  usual  sweeping  executive  power.  After  stating 
briefly  that  the  disorders  of  the  province  had  led  the  pro- 
prietors to  surrender  their  powers  of  government  to  the 
crown,  it  proclaimed  Cornbury  captain-general  and  gov- 
ernor-in-chief of  both  East  and  West  Jersey.  He  was  di- 
rected to  rule  according  to  his  commission  and  instructions, 
and  also  according  to  such  reasonable  laws  as  should  be 
made  by  him  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  council 
and  assembly.  After  publishing  his  commission,  he  was 
to  take  the  usual  oaths,  and  was  then  to  administer  them 
to  the  lieutenant-governor  and  the  members  of  the  council. 
The  sections  immediately  following,  however,  deal  with  the 
governor's  relations  with  the  council  and  assembly,  and  can 
be  best  considered  in  discussing  the  organization  and  work 
of  these  bodies.  Cornbury  was  to  keep  the  seal  of  the  pro- 
vince and  act  as  chancellor.  Moreover,  at  his  discretion, 
he  could  administer  the  oaths  appointed  by  act  of  Parliament 
148 


LEGAL  POSITION  OF  THE  GOVERNOR  j^g 

to  be  taken  instead  of  the  oaths  of  allegiance  and  supremacy 
to  all  and  every  person  residing  in  or  passing  through  New 
Jersey.^ 

The  sweeping  power  to  establish  all  necessary  courts  to 
determine  all  cases,  criminal  and  civil,  in  both  law  and 
equity,  follows.  Judges,  commissioners  of  oyer  and  ter- 
miner, if  necessary;  justices  of  the  peace,  and  such  other 
officers  as  might  be  required  for  the  better  administration 
of  justice  and  for  putting  the  laws  into  execution,  were  like- 
wise to  be  appointed  by  the  governor.  His  wide  control 
over  the  judicial  system  was  increased  by  the  power  to  re- 
prieve until  the  royal  pleasure  was  known,  except  in  cases  of 
treason  and  willful  murder." 

In  ecclesiastical  affairs  the  governor  was  given  the  power 
to  collate  to  benefices.^ 

But  the  commission,  as  usual,  is  more  detailed  and  specific 
when  the  military  side  of  the  governor's  work  is  taken  up. 
Cornbury  had  the  right  to  muster  and  command  all  inhabi- 
tants of  the  province,  and  to  withstand  all  enemies  both  by 
land  and  sea.  He  could  transport  such  forces  into  other 
provinces  for  defense,  and  could  authorize  pursuit  of  enemies 
either  within  or  without  the  colony.  He  could  execute  mar- 
tial law  in  time  of  insurrection  or  war  and  do  all  pertaining 
to  the  place  of  captain-general.  Likewise  he  might  erect 
fortifications  and  grant  commissions  to  masters  of  ships  to 
execute  martial  law  at  sea  in  time  of  war.  But  this  power 
was  not  to  extend  in  any  way  to  the  royal  navy.* 

Lastly,  all  moneys  raised  by  any  act  were  to  be  issued 
only  on  warrant  from  Cornbury,  with  the  consent  of  the 
council,  and  were  to  be  disposed  of  only  for  the  support  of 
the  public  service  and  not  otherwise.     The  governor  was 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  pp.  489-495.     *Ibid.,\o\.  ii,  pp.  495-6. 
^Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  496.  ^ Ibid.,  vol,  ii,  pp.  496-9. 


I50  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

also  given  authority  to  appoint  fairs,  marts,  and  markets, 
as  well  as  ports  and  harbors,  but  only  by  consent  of  his 
council/ 

Such  was  the  executive  work  of  the  governor  as  set  forth 
in  the  commission  of  1702.  Subsequent  commissions  dur- 
ing the  entire  period  of  the  union  with  New  York  merely 
repeated  its  provisions  with  some  verbal  modifications.  As 
far  as  published  authority  from  the  British  crown  is  con- 
cerned, no  important  change  in  the  duties  and  position  of 
the  chief  executive  appears. 

In  examining  the  actual  position  of  the  governor,  how- 
ever, more  weight  attaches  to  the  instructions  given  by  the 
home  government  than  to  the  sweeping  general  clauses  of 
the  commissions.  In  the  detailed  paragraphs  of  the  various 
sets  of  instructions  may  be  traced  some  changes  in  the  ways 
in  which  the  governors  were  expected  to  carry  out  their 
powers.  It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  the  instruc- 
tions represent  only  the  ideas  of  the  home  government. 
They  were  absolutely  binding,  indeed,  upon  the  royal  ap- 
pointees, but  their  binding  force,  while  generally  acquiesced 
in,  was  never  admitted  as  absolute  by  all  of  the  colonists. 
The  instructions  were  moreover  supposed  to  be  secret. 
Lewis  Morris,  however,  obtained  a  copy  of  Cornbury's 
articles,  a  fact  very  embarrassing  to  that  worthy  executive  ;" 
and  throughout  the  period  the  nature  of  the  commands 
given  seems  to  have  been  often  understood  in  a  general 
way  by  the  provincial  leaders." 

The  instructions  given  to  Cornbury  in   1702  consist  of 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  499. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  Hi,  pp.  2,  74. 

'The  later  governors  stated  many  of  the  articles  to  the  assembly; 
e.  g.y  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  430;  Assembly  Journal,  March 
IS.  31.  1722,  etc. 


LEGAL  POSITION  OF  THE  GOVERNOR 


I^l 


103  articles,  dealing  with  the  whole  field  of  administration 
likely  to  need  his  attention  and  action.  Most  of  the  instruc- 
tions are  specific  in  character,  and  it  is  therefore  rather 
difficult  to  formulate  any  general  description  of  their  pro- 
visions. Many  of  the  articles  deal  with  the  work  of  the 
governor  in  legislation  and  in  other  fields,  which  we  shall 
consider  separately.  We  must,  nevertheless,  try  to  gain 
some  idea  of  the  character  of  those  relating  more  speci- 
fically to  administration. 

In  the  first  place  the  instructions  directed  Cornbury  to 
carry  out  the  provisions  of  his  commission.  For  the  better 
so  doing  he  was  to  impart  to  his  council  so  many  of  the  in- 
structions wherein  their  advice  and  consent  were  needed, 
and  also  as  many  more  as  he  might  deem  advantageous. 
In  all  things  Cornbury  was  to  avoid  sharing  in  the 
parties  of  the  province,  and  was  to  use  impartiality  and 
moderation.  All  officers  appointed  by  him  were  to  be  of 
good  life  and  well  affected  to  the  government.^  Cornbury 
himself  was  forbidden  to  come  to  Europe  without  special 
permission  from  the  crown,  and,  if  he  absented  himself  from 
New  York  and  New  Jersey,  one  "  full  moiety  "  of  the  salary 
and  emoluments  of  his  post  were  to  go  to  the  person  left 
in  charge.* 

After  the  articles  relative  to  his  more  strictly  legislative 
work  came  the  instructions  regarding  the  governor's  finan- 
cial powers.  He  was  not  to  permit  the  levying  of  any 
money  for  which  there  was  not  to  be  accountability  to  the 
treasury  department  in  England.  Full  books  were  to  be 
kept  of  all  accounts,  and  these  were  to  be  sent,  attested 
under  oath,  every  half  year  to  the  lord  high  treasurer  or  the 
commissioners  of  the  treasury  and  to  the  board  of  trade. 
Every  sum  disposed  of  was  to  be  specified.     No  money  was 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  pp.  508-9.         *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.  p.  514. 


152  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

to  be  paid  out  except  by  the  governor's  warrant  on  advice 
of  the  council,  but  the  assembly  were  to  have  the  right  to 
examine  all  accounts  of  expenditures  disposed  of  under 
laws  made  by  them/  Cornbury  was  not  to  remit  any  fines 
or  forfeitures  over  ten  pounds,  nor  dispose  of  any  such  until 
directed  so  to  do  by  the  home  government,  but  meanwhile 
he  might  suspend  such  fines. - 

The  exercise  of  the  governor's  judicial  powers  were  also 
prescribed  in  some  detail.  In  spite  of  the  authority  given 
by  his  commission,  he  was  not  to  erect  any  court  or  office 
of  judicature  not  previously  existing  without  order  from  the 
crown,  and  a  list  of  those  already  existing  was  to  be  sent 
home  with  all  speed.  With  the  council,  Cornbury  was  to 
regulate  all  salaries  and  fees,  but  these  were  to  be  in  mod- 
eration. That  there  might  be  no  extravagance,  the  fees 
were  to  be  hung  up  where  they  were  to  be  charged,  and  lists 
were  to  be  sent  to  the  board  of  trade.  ^  No  man's  goods 
were  to  be  taken,  except  by  laws  as  nearly  as  possible  like 
those  of  England,  and  no  judge,  justice  or  similar  officer 
was  to  be  removed  without  good  cause  signified  to  the 
crown  and  board  of  trade.  To  prevent  arbitrary  removals, 
the  commissions  of  judges  and  justices,  granted  with  the 
consent  of  the  council,  were  to  be  unlimited  as  to  tim.e. 
Cornbury  himself  was  not  to  execute  any  such  office  or  al- 
low any  one  else  to  execute  them  by  deputy.* 

Though  religious  questions  can  scarcely  be  said  to  have 
occupied  much  of  the  governor's  attention,  his  instructions 
minutely  covered  this  field.  There  was  to  be  perfect  liberty 
of  conscience  to  all,  except  Papists,  who  did  not  disturb  the 
peace,  and  he  was  to  see  that  an  act  was  passed  allowing 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  pp.  514-515.        *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  516. 
*  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  520-1.  ^  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  518-9. 


LEGAL  POSITION  OF  THE  GOVERNOR 


153 


the  declaration  of  Quakers  to  stand  for  an  oath.  Quakers 
were  to  be  admitted  to  places  of  trust  upon  signing  the 
usual  declarations  instead  of  the  oaths. ^  Religion  was  to  be 
encouraged,  and  care  was  to  be  taken  that  the  Prayer  book 
be  read  and  the  sacrament  administered  according  to  the 
Church  of  England.  Cornbury  was  to  promote  the  building  of 
churches  and  the  maintenance  of  orthodox  ministers.  En- 
couragement was  to  be  given  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Bishop  of  London.  Collation  to  benefices,  the  granting  of 
marriage  licenses  and  the  probate  of  wiJls  were  reserved 
to  the  governor,  but  no  minister  was  to  be  accepted  with- 
out a  certificate  from  the  bishop.  If  any  occasioned  scandal, 
he  was  to  be  removed,  and  no  one  not  having  proper  orders 
was  to  preach  in  an  orthodox  church.^  With  the  aid  of  the 
council  and  assembly  the  governor  was  to  find  the  best 
means  of  converting  the  Indians  and  negroes.^ 

Military  matters  naturally  received  careful  attention  in 
the  instructions.  Cornbury  was  to  see  to  it  that  the  in- 
habitants were  properly  armed  and  trained  in  military  exer- 
cises, but  such  training  was  not  to  interfere  needlessly 
with  the  people,  and  no  articles  of  war  or  other  law  martial 
was  to  be  enforced  except  by  the  advice  of  the  council.*  To 
prevent  abuse,  Cornbury  was  given  the  right  to  impress 
men  for  the  royal  navy,  and  the  high  admiral  was  in- 
structed that  captains  should  be  ordered  to  call  upon  the 
governor  for  the  men  they  required  instead  of  impressing 
them  for  themselves.  **    The  governor  was  likewise  to  make 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  pp.  522-3. 

*/dtd.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  528-9.  ^/did.,  vol.  ii,  p.  532. 

*The  governor  did  not  have,  however,  the  power  to  execute  martial 
law  in  time  of  peace.  For  the  preservation  of  discipline  in  the  militia 
an  act  of  assembly  was  required. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  ii,  pp.  523-5- 


154  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

a  report  of  the  fortifications  existing  in  the  province,  as  well 
as  of  what  additional  ones  were  needed.^  Cornbury  was 
to  encourage  the  Indians  to  the  English  trade  rather  than 
that  with  any  other  nation,  but  he  was  to  appoint  proper 
officers  in  portions  of  the  colony  bordering  on  the  Indians 
who  might  raise  men  to  oppose  them  in  case  of  sudden  in- 
vasion. In  case  any  colony,  especially  New  York,  needed 
assistance,  he  was  to  see  that  it  was  furnished  according  to 
the  quotas  which  had  already  been  prepared  in  England.^ 

The  important  subject  of  trade  was  of  course  not  ne- 
glected. The  governor  was  to  use  his  best  endeavors  to 
promote  trade,  but  was  to  take  all  means  to  enforce  the 
acts  of  trade  and  navigation.  Constant  protection  was  to 
be  given  to  all  officers  of  the  customs.  Cornbury  was  to 
see  to  it  that  entries  were  made  at  all  ports  of  all  imports 
and  exports,  as  well  as  of  all  vessels  entering.  These  en- 
tries were  to  be  forwarded  yearly  to  England.  To  prevent 
losses  from  the  French,  all  vessels  were  to  leave  New  Jersey 
either  in  fleets  or  under  convoy.^  Cornbury  was  also  or- 
dered to  encourage  the  Royal  African  Company,  and  to 
prevent  illegal  trade  with  any  part  of  Africa  under  its 
charter.  He  was  to  submit  a  yearly  account  of  all  negroes 
supplied  and  at  what  rates.  The  home  government  was 
also  to  be  kept  informed  of  the  chief  products  of  the  colony 
and  its  chief  wants  in  the  way  of  trade.*  Reference  to 
piracy  recalls  at  once  to  the  mind  of  the  student  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  period.  All  goods  piratically  seized  were 
ordered  to  be  taken  and  held  subject  to  the  disposal  of  the 
crown,  while,  in  accordance  with  a  commission  already  sent 
him  as  governor  of  New  York  for  the  trying  of  pirates  in 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  526.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  532-3. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  526-7.  *^Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  530-1. 


LEGAL  POSITION  OF  THE  GO  PERNOR 


155 


these  parts,  Cornbury  was  to  take  steps  for  their  suppression 
pursuant  to  act  of  Parliament.^ 

An  important  part  of  the  instructions  related  to  the 
dealings  between  the  royal  government  and  the  proprie- 
tors, who,  it  must  be  remembered,  had  surrendered  upon 
the  understanding  that  the  royal  officers  should  be  in- 
structed to  respect  their  rights  over  the  land.  The 
governor  was  ordered  to  secure  the  passage  of  an  act 
confirming  the  lands  of  the  province  to  the  proprie- 
tors and  those  who  had  purchased  under  them.  Their 
quit-rents  were  to  be  secured,  and  all  other  privileges 
granted  them  by  James  of  York,  except  the  right  of  gov- 
ernment. All  private  lands  properly  held  were  to  be  con- 
firmed under  such  conditions  as  should  tend  to  their  most 
speedy  improvement.  But  Cornbury  was  not  to  consent 
to  any  act  taxing  unprofitable  land.  None  but  the  proprie- 
tors were  to  buy  lands  of  the  Indians,  and  Cornbury  was 
to  permit  the  surveyors  of  the  proprietors  to  carry  on  their 
work  and  to  allow  and  assist  the  agents  appointed  to  collect 
the  quit-rents,  provided  they  took  the  customary  oaths  of 
allegiance  to  the  crown.  He  was  to  see,  however,  that  all 
lands  purchased  were  cultivated.* 

As  to  efforts  to  spread  intellectual  enlightenment  among 
the  provincials  little  is  said  in  the  instructions  except  that 
no  one  was  to  be  permitted  to  have  a  printing  press  without 
a  license,  and  no  book  was  to  be  published  without  leave 
first  obtained.' 

Real  effort  is  noticeable  to  secure  for  the  home  govern- 
ment proper  information  regarding  the  colony  and  the  con- 
duct of  the  government.  A  map  of  the  plantations  and  a 
list  of  all  officers  under  the  government  and  of  all  public 

'  Nrw  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii.  p.  520. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  517-518.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  534- 


156  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

charges  was  to  be  submitted  as  soon  as  possible/  The 
secretary  of  the  colony  was  to  be  directed  to  prepare  copies 
of  all  acts  or  public  orders  which  were  to  be  forwarded  to 
the  crown  and  board  of  trade.  If  the  secretary  did  not  do 
so  he  was  to  forfeit  his  place.  ^  A  full  account  of  the  in- 
habitants was  to  be  at  once  transmitted  to  England,  and 
each  year  a  record  of  increase  or  decrease  of  population 
was  to  be  sent.  The  governor  was  further  to  keep  a  record 
of  all  born,  christened  or  buried.^ 

If  any  matter  arose  not  covered  by  the  instructions.  Corn- 
bury  was  to  take  action  temporarily,  with  the  advice  of  the 
council,  but  was  to  send  word  with  all  due  speed  to  the 
home  authorities.*  He  was,  moreover,  to  maintain  cor- 
respondence with  one  of  the  principal  secretaries  of  state 
and  with  the  board  of  trade  as  to  the  condition  of  affairs 
in  the  province.  °  It  was  also  required  that  Cornbury  ex- 
amine the  work  of  all  the  patent  officers  of  the  crown  and 
report  to  the  board.  He  might  suspend  any  patentee  or 
deputy,  though  he  must  not  fill  such  office  except  tem- 
porarily." 

Such  is  a  brief  summary  of  the  more  important  points 
included  in  the  instructions,  with  the  exception  of  those 
dealing  directly  with  the  governor's  work  in  legislation  and 
those  relating  to  the  structure  and  functions  of  the  courts. 
These  parts  of  the  governor's  duties  will  be  considered  sep- 
arately. It  must  not  be  forgotten,  however,  that  they  con- 
stituted two  of  his  most  important  fields  of  action. 

There  were  certain  ways,  however,  in  which  the  position 
of  the  governor  might  be  altered  during  his  administration. 
The  letters  received  from  the  board  of  trade  and  other  au- 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  518.  ''■Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  516. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  523.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  534. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  535.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  519. 


LEGAL  POSITION  OF  THE  GOVERNOR  157 

thorities  at  home  gave  advice  regarding  his  conduct  which 
he  was  bound,  practically  at  any  rate,  to  obey.  This  cor- 
respondence, however,  related  nearly  always  to  matters  of 
policy  rather  than  of  power.  Most  of  the  letters  dealt  with 
the  governor's  attitude  toward  the  legislature  of  the  pro- 
vince, with  the  confirmation  and  disallowance  of  provincial 
acts  by  the  crown,  and  with  grievances  presented  by  sub- 
jects. But  from  time  to  time,  as  circumstances  demanded, 
additional  instructions  were  issued  to  the  governor,  which 
limited  him  in  just  the  same  way  as  the  original  articles. 
These  additional  instructions  also  sometimes  had  to  do  with 
the  governor's  legislative  functions,  but  that  was  by  no 
means  always  the  case. 

The  first  additional  instructions  received  by  Cornbury 
bore  date  of  April  20,  1705.^  The  first  paragraphs  referred 
to  the  qualifications  of  representatives  in  the  assembly,  but 
it  was  then  ordered  that  as  soon  as  proper  provisions  should 
have  been  made  for  the  support  of  the  government,  either 
the  governor  or  the  lieutenant-governor  should  reside  con- 
stantly in  the  province.  This  provision  led  to  the  station- 
ing of  Ingoldsby  permanently  at  Burlington.^  Lastly,  it 
was  ordered  that  no  fees  should  be  granted  or  taken  by  any 
provincial  officer  for  grants  of  land  made  by  the  proprietors 
or  their  agents.  In  May,  1707,  another  instruction  was 
given  ^  providing  for  the  administration  of  the  province  in 
case  of  Cornbury's  death  or  absence,  if  there  should  be  no 
lieutenant-governor.  The  original  articles  had  ordered  that 
in  such  case  the  council  should  assume  the  administration, 
with  the  eldest  councillor  presiding,  but  it  was  now  declared, 
because  of  disputes  arising  in   other  provinces   from   the 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  96. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  181.  ^  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  T69. 


158  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

former  rule,  that  the  eldest  councillor  who  was  named  first 
and  who  should  be  at  the  time  residing  in  the  province 
should  assume  the  administration  until  the  governor  re- 
turn or  the  lords'  pleasure  be  further  known. 

The  home  authorities  evidently  believed  that  the  troubles 
of  Lord  Cornbury's  administration  were  not  due  to  defects 
in  the  governor's  legal  position,  for  when  that  worthy  exe- 
cutive was  at  length  recalled  in  1708  and  Lord  Lovelace 
commissioned  as  his  successor,  no  very  radical  changes  in 
the  instructions  appear/  The  chief  alterations  were  natur- 
ally in  the  articles  dealing  with  the  assembly  and  the  gov- 
ernor's relations  with  it.  The  only  important  article 
omitted  was  that  requiring  the  executive  to  see  that  mer- 
chant vessels  should  leave  New  Jersey  only  in  fleets  or  under 
convoy.  But  there  were  naturally,  owing  to  the  war,  sev- 
eral additions  to  the  instructions  upon  military  affairs. 
Lovelace  was  to  take  care  that  valuable  information  was 
not  obtained  by  the  French  through  the  capture  of  merchant 
vessels  bound  from  the  colony.^  The  governor  was  also 
to  hinder  by  all  means  possible  secret  correspondence  with 
the  French  in  the  West  Indies  which  was  known  to  have 
been  carried  on  during  "  the  late  war."  All  vessels  com- 
missioned by  Lovelace  were  henceforth  to  fly  a  flag,  the 
form  of  which  was  given,  inasmuch  as  certain  captains 
claiming  to  act  under  commission  from  colonial  governors 
had  brought  dishonor  on  the  royal  service  by  committing 
irregularities  while  flying  colors  like  those  of  the  navy. 
Other  additional  articles  referred  to  the  work  of  the  courts. 
It  should  be  stated,  however,  that  in  a  communication  to 
Lovelace  of  January,  1708,  the  lords  of  trade  rejected  the 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,    vol.  iii,  p.  316. 

'  See  Circular  Letter  from  the  Lords  of  Trade  to  the  Governors  of 
Plantations,  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  60. 


LEGAL  POSITION  OF  THE  GOVERNOR  159 

interpretation  that  Cornbury  had  put  on  several  of  his  in- 
structions and  warned  the  new  executive  against  following 
his  example.^ 

During  the  brief  administration  of  Lovelace  no  additional 
instructions  were  sent.  As  for  Ingoldsby,  who  followed 
him  as  lieutenant-governor,  the  home  authorities,  upon  in- 
vestigation, revoked  his  commission  in  October,  1709,^  and 
did  not  even  deign  to  correspond  with  him  regarding  New 
Jersey  affairs  except  to  convey  their  order  that  he  quit  the 
administration  at  once. 

The  instructions  of  Governor  Hunter  must  be  regarded 
as  representing  the  more  mature  opinions  of  the  home  au- 
thorities relative  to  New  Jersey,  as  the  numerous  com- 
plaints from  and  the  party  struggles  in  the  colony  had  in- 
volved many  of  the  points  covered.  They,  however,  repeat 
with  only  a  few  verbal  modifications  those  of  Lovelace. 
Several  articles  were  indeed  added,  but  they  concerned  the 
execution  of  trade  laws  and  regulations  passed  for  the  en- 
tire colonial  system,  and  bore  no  special  relation  to  New 
Jersey.'  During  the  successful  administration  of  Hunter 
no  important  additional  instructions  were  sent. 

When  William  Burnet  was  commissioned  in  1720,  his 
instructions  were  similar  to  those  of  Lovelace  and  Hunter.* 
He,  however,  later  received  a  number  of  additional  articles 
relating  to  new  questions  of  colonial  politics  which  were 
forcing  themselves  upon  the  attention  of  the  home  govern- 
ment. In  September,  1720,  he  was  ordered  not  to  assent 
to  the  issue  of  bills  of  credit  unless  the  act  contained  a 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  323.  "* Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  474- 

*Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  I.     The  Lords  also  wrote  Hunter  a  letter  practi- 
cally identical  with  that  sent  Lovelace  at  the  beginning  of  his  adminis- 
tration.    Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  2. 
*  Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  3. 


l6o  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

clause  providing  that  it  should  not  take  effect  till  approved 
by  the  crown.  But  exception  was  made  of  acts  for  sup- 
port of  the  government/  In  1721  there  was  an  instruction 
relative  to  church  affairs  '  which,  as  we  shall  see,  had  caused 
trouble  to  Hunter.  Whereas  the  governor's  previous  in- 
structions had  commanded  that  he  should  not  prefer  to  a 
benefice  any  clergyman  who  had  not  a  certificate  from  the 
Bishop  of  London  or  some  other  bishop,  he  was  now  in- 
structed to  prefer  only  such  as  were  certified  by  the  Bishop 
of  London. 

The  next  year  there  was  a  lengthy  additional  instruction 
resulting  from  the  information  that  a  large  trade  was  carried 
on  secretly  from  the  East  Indies  directly  with  America.^ 
Burnet  was  ordered  to  execute  most  strictly  the  acts  of 
Parliament  dealing  with  such  illegal  trade.  The  penalty 
for  neglect  was  immediate  removal  and  a  fine  of  £1000, 
with  the  King's  highest  displeasure.  All  vessels  illegally 
bringing  negroes  or  East  Indian  goods  were  to  be  required 
to  leave  the  jurisdiction  at  once.  If  a  vessel  belonging  to 
persons  in  New  Jersey  brought  in  such  goods  or  bartered 
or  sold  them,  it  was  to  be  seized.  If  any  customs  officer 
was  remiss  Burnet  was  to  suspend  him  immediately.  He 
was  also  required  to  transmit  from  time  to  time  an  account 
of  his  proceedings  to  the  home  government. 

In  1723  there  was  still  another  additional  instruction  re- 
lative to  the  approval  of  private  acts  by  the  governor,*  and 
a  little  later  another  changing  the  manner  of  electing  rep- 
resentatives for  the  assembly.^  In  July,  1726,  an  import- 
ant instruction  was  sent  relative  to  the  suspension  of  sen- 

'^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  4. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  2J,.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  46. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  71.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  84. 


LEGAL  POSITION  OF  THE  GOVERNOR  j^i 

tences  in  cases  of  appeal  to  the  crown. ^  It  had  formerly 
been  the  rule  that  execution  of  sentence  be  not  suspended 
pending  appeals.  But  this  had  caused  great  harm,  as  some- 
times those  appealing  were  ruined  before  the  Crown's  pleas- 
ure could  be  known.  Now  it  was  ordered  that  there  should 
be  suspension  of  sentence  unless  the  appellee  gave  ample 
security  to  make  full  restitution  of  all  that  the  appellant  may 
have  lost  in  case  judgment  be  reversed.  In  1727,  upon 
petition  of  the  Bishop  of  London,  an  additional  instruction 
for  all  colonial  governors  was  ordered,  commanding  them 
to  enforce  the  laws  against  vice  and  to  encourage  schools.^ 

The  instructions  given  to  Montgomerie  show  some  re- 
arrangement of  articles,  as  well  as  several  additions.^  The 
additional  instructions  given  to  Burnet  were  of  course  in- 
cluded. The  changes  related  in  part  to  legislation  and  the 
composition  of  the  council  and  general  assembly.  Several 
new  instructions  related  to  judicial  matters.  Montgomerie 
was  not  to  remit  any  fines  or  forfeitures  over  £10. 
He  might,  however,  suspend  the  payment  of  larger  sums 
until  he  had  communicated  with  the  home  government.  In 
addition,  he  was  not  to  dispose  of  forfeitures  or  escheats 
until  the  sheriff  or  other  proper  officer  had  made  inquiry  by 
a  jury  upon  their  oaths  into  their  true  value.  As  there 
had  been  complaint  about  the  proceedings  of  the  courts,* 
Montgomerie  was  to  observe  great  care  that  their  duties 
were  properly  performed,  and  no  person  was  henceforth  to 
be  sent  as  a  prisoner  to  England  unless  sufficient  proof  of 
his  crime  was  sent  with  him." 

As  the  customs  officers  and  the  surveyor-general  of  cus- 

^  New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  v,  pp.  122,  157. 
*Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  159.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  pp.  169,  171. 

*It  does  not  appear  that  these  related  to  New  Jersey  especially. 
*Ibid.,  vol.  v,  pp.  174-176. 


1 62  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

toms  had  complained  that  they  were  hindered  by  being 
obHged  to  serve  on  juries  and  in  the  mihtia,  Montgomerie 
was  to  see  that  such  abuse  ceased.  Further,  in  case,  owing 
to  the  great  distances,  the  surveyor-general  did  not  promptly 
appoint  officers  of  the  customs,  the  governor  was  to  make 
temporary  appointments  that  there  be  no  intermission  of 
the  service.  But  Montgomerie  was  not  under  any  pretense 
to  interfere  with  the  powers  of  the  surveyor-general  of  the 
customs.^ 

As  there  had  been  irregularities  in  the  granting  of  com- 
missions to  private  ships  of  war,  Montgomerie  was  to 
govern  himself  strictly  by  the  commissions  and  instructions 
granted  such  vessels  in  England.  Further,  he  was  not 
to  grant  letters  of  marque  or  reprisal  against  any  state  in 
amity  with  England,  without  special  command.  Store- 
houses were  forthwith  to  be  provided  throughout  the  pro- 
vince for  keeping  arms,  ammunition  and  other  public  stores.' 

A  part  of  Burnet's  instructions  relating  to  the  trial  of 
accessories  in  cases  of  piracy  was  omitted,  since  it  had  been 
covered  by  act  of  Parliament.' 

The  sole  additional  instruction,  sent  to  Montgomerie  in 
1730,  ordered  him  to  support  the  commission  which  had 
given  the  Bishop  of  London  and  his  commissaries  ecclesias- 
tical jurisdiction  over  the  colonies.*  During  the  brief  rule 
of  Cosby  there  were  no  further  developments  which  need 
occupy  our  attention  here. 

Upon  the  whole,  though  some  important  alterations  in 
detail  had  been  made  since  Cornbury's  time,  the  chief  execu- 
tive powers  certainly  remained,  as  far  as  the  instructions 
from  the  home  government  go,  essentially  unimpaired.     The 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  176. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  178.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  170. 

*-Ibid.,  vol.  V,  pp.  264-265. 


LEGAL  POSITION  OF  THE  GOVERNOR  163 

only  important  lines  of  change  were  in  requiring  the  gov- 
ernor to  give  more  attention  to  the  acts  of  trade  and  in 
compelling  him  to  prevent  unwarranted  issues  of  bills  of 
credit. 

There  was,  however,  another  way  in  which  the  executive 
powers  of  the  governor  might  be  changed  and  limited. 
This  was  through  the  passage  of  acts  by  the  colonial  legis- 
lature controlling  matters  covered  by  the  commission  and 
instructions  of  the  chief  executive.  The  efforts  of  the  as- 
sembly to  usurp  in  this  way  the  powers  of  the  governor 
gave  rise  to  several  conflicts  between  the  departments  of  the 
government.  Since  these  conflicts  form  one  of  the  most  in- 
teresting and  instructive  parts  of  the  political  history  of  the 
province,  we  shall  reserve  them  for  separate  consideration. 
It  may  be  well  in  this  place,  however,  to  indicate  to  what 
extent,  as  a  result,  the  powers  of  the  executive  were  re- 
stricted. 

It  must  be  noted  at  the  beginning  that,  in  spite  of  the  fierce 
political  quarrels  in  New  Jersey,  the  attacks  upon  the  gov- 
ernor's executive  power  as  such  were  not  as  bitter  or  as  con- 
tinuous as  in  some  other  provinces,  nor  was  that  power  in 
the  end  so  greatly  limited.  Further,  there  was  a  tendency 
on  the  part  of  the  wiser  executives,  like  Hunter  and  Burnet, 
not  to  object  seriously  to  the  passage  of  legislative  acts  regu- 
lating executive  functions  when  no  vital  matter  was  at 
stake.^  It  seems  evident  as  well  that  upon  several  such 
questions  both  departments  in  New  Jersey  were  satisfied 
to  follow  the  precedents  set  by  more  powerful  neighboring 
colonies.* 

'  Both  allowed  the  passage  of  acts  indirectly  reducing  fees. 

*  Notably  in  the  matter  of  the  accountability  of  the  treasurer  and  with 
regard  to  the  exclusive  right  of  the  representatives  to  initiate  money 
bills. 


l64  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Of  all  the  functions  assigned  to  the  governor,  perhaps  it 
was  his  power  over  the  courts  which  was  most  frequently- 
attacked.  But,  though  the  assembly  did  succeed  in  forc- 
ing the  governor  to  comply  with  its  desires  regarding  the 
judicial  system,  it  was  not  able  to  limit  his  powers  by  law 
to  any  considerable  extent.  Several  acts  regulating  court 
procedure  were  carried,  notably  laws  preventing  corrup- 
tion,^ malicious  prosecution  by  information,^  and  multipli- 
city of  law  suits.  ^  But  acts  for  shortening  law  suits  and 
for  regulating  the  practice  of  the  law,*  though  twice  passed, 
were  disallowed  by  the  home  government.  The  assembly 
never  succeeded  in  prescribing  the  organization  of  the  courts 
or  their  place  of  sessions,  though  it  greatly  coveted  the 
right. ^  The  same  result  came  from  efforts  to  limit  the 
legal  court  fees.  Laws  regulating  fees,  even  though  pur- 
porting merely  to  supplement  and  enforce  the  governors' 
ordinances,  were  disallowed  by  the  crown  in  1721  and  1735." 

The  governor's  control  over  the  militia  was  never  seri- 
ously threatened,  although,  owing  to  the  tyrannical  use 
made  by  Cornbury  and  his  clique  of  their  powers,  the  Third 
Assembly  refused  to  pass  an  act  for  disciplining  the  forces, 
and  thus  virtually  dissolved  the  militia.^  The  governor's 
ecclesiastical  powers,  since  they  did  not  give  rise  to  serious 
controversy,  were  never  questioned,  nor  were  his  powers 
over  trade. 

The  financial  control  of  the  executive,  on  the  other  hand, 

'  March,   1713-14;    Allinson,   Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Province  of  New  Jersey. 
*  Ibid.  *May,  1722;  ibid. 

*March,  1713-14,  disallowed  Jan.  20,  1721;  Feb.,  1727-8,  disallowed 
Nov.  25,  1731. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Oct.  16,  29,  1723. 

•Allinson,  Statutes;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  240,  515. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  May  12,  1708. 


LEGAL  POSITION  OF  THE  GOVERNOR  165 

was  another  center  of  dispute.  This  came  about,  however, 
largely  because  Cornbury  disobeyed  at  least  the  spirit  of 
his  instructions  in  refusing  to  the  assembly  the  right  to 
examine  in  a  proper  way  the  receiver-general's  accounts.^ 
The  legislation  upon  this  field  virtually  substituted  treas- 
urers responsible  to  the  legislature,  and  with  duties  limited 
by  law,  for  the  official  originally  intended  to  be  the  rep- 
resentative of  the  English  Treasury  Board.  But  by  allow- 
ing these  treasurers  to  be  nominally  appointed  by  the  gov- 
ernor, and  to  keep  the  title  and  status  of  receivers-general, 
the  assembly  did  not  encroach  theoretically  upon  the  powers 
of  the  executive. 

Our  general  conclusion  must  therefore  be  that,  legally 
considered,  the  limitation  of  the  executive  power  during 
the  Union  Period  was  not  great.  Montgomerie  and  Cosby, 
theoretically,  possessed  the  same  rights  as  Cornbury  and 
Lovelace.  Unfortunately  for  the  royal  governors,  how- 
ever, the  legal  possession  of  power  and  the  ability  to  exer- 
cise it  practically  are  not  the  same  thing.  To  understand 
to  what  extent  they  differed  in  New  Jersey  we  must  now 
turn  our  attention  to  the  efforts  of  the  governors  to  apply 
their  executive  powers  in  actual  government. 

^Assembly  Journal,  May  14,  1707. 


CHAPTER  XI 
The  Executive  Power  in  Practical  Operation 

In  its  actual  workings  the  executive  power  in  New  Jersey 
was,  during  the  period  from  1702  to  1738,  different  in 
some  important  respects  from  that  in  the  other  provinces. 
This  difference  was  the  result  of  the  fact  that  the  governor 
of  New  Jersey  was  at  the  same  time  governor  of  New 
York.  The  latter  province,  as  larger  and  more  exposed  to 
attacks  from  both  Indians  and  French,  necessarily  occupied 
the  greater  part  of  his  time  and  attention.  During  the 
Union  Period  no  governor  of  New  Jersey  ever  resided  in 
the  province  for  any  considerable  length  of  time;  and  the 
only  prolonged  visits  of  the  executive  were  during  the  sessions 
of  the  assembly,  held  alternately  at  Perth  Amboy  and  Bur- 
lington.^ Even  the  journey  to  Burlington  was  regarded  by 
Cornbury  as  a  hardship,  and  was  not  relished  by  the  other 
governors.  In  addition  to  these  visits,  the  governors  made 
occasional  trips,  usually  to  Amboy,  but  sometimes  to  Ber- 
gen and  other  towns  in  the  neighborhood  of  New  York, 
in  order  to  hold  meetings  of  the  council  when  special  neces- 
sity required.  But  in  spite  of  these  visits,  the  chief  execu- 
tive was  not  usually  on  the  soil  of  New  Jersey,  Cornbury 
at  one  time  not  entering  the  province  for  nine  months.^ 

•  Hunter  and  Burnet,  however,  maintained  houses  in  Perth  Amboy; 
Whitehead,  Contributions  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Amboy,  p.  153 
et  seq.  Burnet  in  his  last  meeting  with  the  Assembly  recommended 
that  the  Province  maintain  a  house  for  the  governor.  But  the  Assem- 
bly would  not  spend  the  money,  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  342. 

'^  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  243. 
166 


THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER  167 

The  governors  regularly  resided  in  New  York,  which  was, 
to  be  sure,  within  an  easy  journey  of  the  chief  towns  of 
East  Jersey,  and  during  the  eighteenth  century  communi- 
cation by  mail  was  always  possible/  It  was,  however,  a 
real  hardship  for  the  people  of  West  Jersey,  especially  of  the 
remoter  counties  like  Salem  and  Cape  May,  to  apply  to  them 
personally.^ 

Perhaps  more  important  than  this  mere  absence  from  the 
soil  was  the  fact  that  the  governor  had  to  give  so  much  of 
his  time  and  attention  to  the  affairs  of  New  York.'  He 
was  absent  on  long  visits  to  the  frontiers,  and  the  admin- 
istration of  so  large  a  province,  and  one  where  political 
factions  were  so  bitter,  was  in  itself  a  sufficient  task  for  all 
but  the  ablest  executives.  Moreover,  the  governor's  closest 
friends  and  associates  were  usually  residents  of  New  York,* 
and  not  infrequently  were  they  named  to  places  of  trust 
and  profit  in  the  sister  colony  in  which  they  had  little  at 
stake.''  It  was  also  unfortunate  that  some  of  the  most  dis- 
tinguished men  of  New  Jersey,  notably  Lewis  Morris  and 
James  Alexander,  possessed  large  interests  in  New  York, 
and  took  an  active  part  in  the  politics  of  that  colony.  Thus 
the  interests  of  New  Jersey  were  imperiled  on  at  least  one 
occasion,®  because  of  contentions  and  quarrels  which  ori- 
ginally bore  no  relation  to  her  affairs.  When  we  consider 
the  bitterness  of  the  party  strife  in  the  Jerseys  and  its  pecu- 
liarly complicated  character,  the  unwisdom  of  the  executive 
union  becomes  the  more  clear.    The  situation  in  New  Jersey 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  Hi,  p.  181.  *Ibid.,  vol.  Hi,  p.  244. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  299.  ^  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  453. 

*  Fauconnier,  Jamison  and  Bycrly  are  instances.  Morris,  Alexander, 
Johnstone  and  Mompesson  were  also  residents  of  New  York  for  a  large 
part  of  the  time. 

*  During  the  rule  of  Cosby. 


1 68  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

demanded  the  entire  attention  of  an  able  statesman.  The 
home  government,  though  undoubtedly  not  intentionally  un- 
just to  the  Jerseys,  must  certainly  bear  the  blame  for  its 
shortsightedness. 

Under  these  conditions,  the  honesty  and  efficiency  of  the 
administration  depended  in  a  great  degree  upon  the  men 
named  by  the  crown  and  by  the  governor  to  subordinate 
executive  offices,  for  their  work  could  not  have  the  same 
oversight  as  in  provinces  where  the  governor  was  person- 
ally present.^  During  entire  years  New  Jersey  was  prac- 
tically without  government,  except  that  of  the  judges, 
sheriffs,  and  justices  of  the  peace. 

Under  Lord  Cornbury  nothing  could  be  much  worse; 
corruption  ruled,  and  the  sole  object  of  the  chief  executive 
and  many  of  his  subordinates  was  personal  profit  and  ad- 
vantage. Cornbury  and  the  clique  which  surrounded  him 
were  the  better  enabled  to  carry  out  their  schemes  because 
of  the  fierce  party  struggles  going  on  in  the  province.  In 
East  Jersey  they  found  the  proprietary  interests  in  violent 
conflict  with  the  anti-proprietary  element  among  the  set- 
tlers, which  took  its  stand  upon  the  Elizabethtown  purchase 
and  the  Nicolls  grants.^  Among  the  proprietors  themselves 
there  was  the  bitter  struggle  between  the  majority  sharehold- 
ers, representing  mainly  the  Scotch  purchasers,  who  now 
made  Perth  Amboy  their  headquarters,  and  a  very  energetic 
and  unscrupulous  minority  styling  themselves  the  "  English 
Proprietors,"  led  by  Dockwra  and  Peter  Sonmans.  In 
West  Jersey  the  conflict  was  perhaps  not  quite  so  bitter. 
The  Quaker  proprietors  represented  in  the  council  of  pro- 
prietors were  in  general  accord  with  the  West  Jersey  So- 
ciety and  its  agent.  But  Col.  Daniel  Coxe,  son  of  the 
physician  who  had  once  claimed  to  be  sole  proprietor,  was 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  299.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  Hi,  p.  14. 


THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER 


169 


the  determined  foe  of  the  controlling  element,  and  an  anti- 
Quaker  political  party  had  already  developed.^ 

Cornbury  began  operations  by  receiving  a  tip  of  £200 
from  the  Perth  Amboy  group,  even  before  he  pub- 
lished his  commission,'^  It  took  him,  or  perhaps  it  would 
be  more  correct  to  say  his  advisers,  some  little  time,  how- 
ever, before  they  thoroughly  understood  the  situation  and 
how  to  make  use  of  it.  A  new  executive  was  naturally 
much  influenced  by  the  council,  and  in  this  body  Lewis 
Morris  and  Samuel  Jennings  were  prominent,  although  it 
also  contained  several  strong  opponents  of  the  leading 
proprietors. 

Under  the  influence  of  Morris  and  his  supporters,  Corn- 
bury  seems  to  have  commenced  his  actual  administration  re- 
spectably enough,  although  his  suspicion  of  the  Quakers  was 
at  once  apparent.  When  he  administered  the  oaths  to  his 
council,  Jennings,  Davenport,  and  Deacon  refused  to  swear, 
and  demanded  that  they  be  allowed  the  lawful  affirmation 
instead.  But  Cornbury,  although  his  instructions  were 
positive  and  direct  upon  the  point,  hesitated  to  permit  this 
until  the  Quakers  themselves  bade  him  examine  his  instruc- 
tions further.  He  was  then  obliged  to  qualify  them  under 
the  53d  article.  The  governor,  however,  was  enraged  at 
this  proof  that  the  proprietors,  through  Lewis  Morris,  had 
obtained  a  copy  of  his  instructions.  In  his  first  official 
letter  to  the  lords  of  trade  he  complained  of  this  fact,  and 
also  remonstrated  with  the  home  government  about  em- 
ploying the  Quakers  further  in  places  of  trust.  He  rep- 
resented that  it  was  unnecessary,  as  a  sufficient  number  of 
persons  were  properly  qualified  who  were  not  Quakers,  and 
the  latter  would  always  oppose  a  militia  act' 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  479;  vol.  ii,  p.  15. 

^  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  207.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  2  et  seq. 


lyo  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Nevertheless,  the  earlier  appointments  of  the  governor 
gave  no  special  offence.  He  named  Roger  Mompesson,  a 
London  lawyer  of  experience  and  ability,  who  had  recently 
arrived  in  America,  as  chief  justice/  William  Pinhorne, 
the  proprietor  of  Mount  Pinhorne,  was  second  judge, ^  and 
Alex.  Griffith,  whose  true  character  had  not  yet  been  shown, 
was  attorney-general.^  Peter  Fauconnier,  a  Huguenot  mer- 
chant of  New  York,  was  receiver-general.*  Richard 
Townley  °  and  Coxe "  became  colonels  of  the  militia  of 
East  and  West  Jersey  respectively.  None  of  these  officers 
except  Coxe  had  played  a  leading  part  in  Jersey  affairs^ 
though  he  was,  of  course,  an  opponent  of  the  leading  pro- 
prietors. On  the  other  hand,  Thomas  Gordon,  the  Scotch 
proprietor,  was  high  sheriff  of  East  Jersey,^  and  Cornbury 
recognized  and  supported  the  appointments  of  John  Barclay 
as  receiver  of  the  proprietors'  quit  *  rents  in  East  Jersey, 
and  of  Thomas  Gordon  as  their  register,  Basse,  distinctly 
a  dangerous  man  under  the  circumstances,  had  received  the 
patent  from  the  crown  as  provincial  secretary,®  but  for  this 
mistake  at  least  Cornbury  was  not  responsible.  His  lord- 
ship did  adopt  the  questionable  policy  of  naming  the  mem- 
bers of  his  council  as  associate  provincial  judges  and  as 
judges  of  the  pleas  in  the  counties.^"  Even  the  Friend, 
Samuel  Jennings,  was  named  as  judge  in  Burlington 
County."     But  in  his  appointments  of  sheriffs  and  justices, 

^  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  pp.  23,  40.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  23,  41. 

'Griffith  held  a  patent  for  this  office.    New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii^ 
p.  302. 

^ Liber  AAA  of  Commissions ,  p.  37.  ^ Ibid.,  p.  2. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  6.  ''New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  15. 
"^ Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  p.  31. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  20;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  26. 
^^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  pp.  69,  150. 

"  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions ,  p.  12;  Thomas  Revell  was  soon  named 
in  his  place. 


THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER  171 

the  governor  at  first  certainly  recognized  both  parties. 
Cornbury  also  sanctioned  the  efforts  of  the  missionary 
clergymen,  Brook  at  Elizabethtown  and  Amboy/  and 
Moore,  who  had  begun  work  in  1705,  at  Burlington  and 
elsewhere  in  West  Jersey.^ 

The  opening  of  the  new  administration  was  even  marked 
by  one  really  noteworthy  achievement,  for  Cornbury's  judi- 
ciary ordinance,  while  fully  in  accordance  with  his  instruc- 
tions to  continue  the  existing  courts  of  the  province,  reor- 
ganized them  with  excellent  judgment,  as  will  be  more  fully 
explained  in  the  chapter  on  the  judicial  system,  and  thus 
laid  the  basis  for  an  effective  system  of  courts.  There  can 
be  little  doubt  that  Mompesson  was  the  real  author  of  this 
commendable  work.' 

But  with  such  a  man  as  Cornbury  at  the  head  of  affairs, 
no  continuously  good  administration  was  possible.  Pro- 
vincial politicians  were  never  in  doubt  as  to  his  true  char- 
acter,* while,  on  the  other  hand,  his  habits  made  him  the 
subject  of  popular  contempt.  His  appointees  soon  showed 
that  they  were  willing  to  be  parties  to,  if  not  indeed  actu- 
ally the  instigators  of,  the  governor's  corrupt  acts.  Mom- 
pesson and  Pinhorne  allowed  themselves  to  become  mere 
tools  of  his  tyranny,  while  Ingoldsby,  Basse,  Griffith,  and 
Fauconnier  appear  in  an  even  worse  light.  Even  Coxe, 
doubtless  the  ablest  of  them  all,  did  not  hesitate  to  make  use 
of  the  governor  for  his  own  interest.  Thus  the  governor 
was  surrounded  by  a  corrupt  ring,  the  practices  of  which 
were,  to  say  the  least,  more  shameless  than  those  of  un- 
scrupulous modern  politicians. 

'Whitehead,   Contributions  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Amboy, 
p.  212. 
'Hills,  History  of  the  Church  in  Burlington  (Trenton,  1876),  p.  64. 
•Field,  Provincial  Courts  of  New  Jersey ,  p.  50  and  appendix  C,  p.  256. 
*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  207. 


172  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

This  "  ring  "  was  virtually  the  governor's  council,  for  all 
the  persons  mentioned  either  originally  were  or  became 
members  of  that  body  except  Fauconnier,  Griffith,  and 
Basse,  and  the  latter  was  its  secretary.  Certain  other  coun- 
cilors, notably  Peter  Sonmans,  and  Col.  Richard  Townley, 
were  also  leading  members  of  Cornbury's  clique;  but  his 
opponents  were  soon  forced  from  the  council  and  all  other 
posts  of  trust.  Lewis  Morris  was  suspended,^  and  only 
saved  from  removal  by  his  influence  with  the  home  govern- 
ment,^ while  Jenninngs  voluntarily  resigned.'  Thus  the 
government  of  New  Jersey,  like  that  of  so  many  provinces, 
was  virtually  monopolized  by  a  small  group  of  favorites  of 
the  governor,  who  shielded  each  other  in  their  corrupt  prac- 
tices. It  is  a  little  curious  to  note  that  Col.  Quary,  the  sur- 
veyor-general of  Her  Majesty's  customs,  was  in  the  main  a 
supporter  of  the  "  ring,"  *  Though  a  rather  subservient 
official,  Quary  bore  the  reputation  of  being  both  zealous  and 
upright." 

Difficulty  began  when  it  became  apparent  to  Cornbury, 
during  the  sessions  of  the  First  Assembly,  that  the  proprie- 
tors and  their  supporters,  who  were  in  the  majority,  were 
not  willing  to  make  a  sufficiently  large  appropriation. 
Meanwhile  Coxe  and  the  anti-proprietary  leaders  had  ad- 
dressed themselves  to  the  governor  through  Col.  Quary,* 
and  the  strongest  circumstantial  evidence  goes  to  show  that 
a  "  deal  "  was  agreed  upon  whereby  the  anti-proprietary 
party  were  to  choose  men  for  the  next  assembly  who  would 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  T] . 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  124,  154.  Morris  made  no  submission  to  Corn- 
bury  and  did  not  resume  his  place  in  the  Council  till  the  accession  of 
Lovelace. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  160,  224,  235.  *^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  61. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  50.  '^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  16,  37. 


THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER 


173 


"  effectually  answer  all  the  ends  of  Government,"  while 
Cornbury  was  to  prevent  the  enforcement  of  the  claims  of 
the  proprietors  over  Elizabethtown,  and  to  support  the 
"  English  Proprietors "  against  the  Perth  Amboy  group 
and  Coxe  against  the  Quakers.  As  a  part  of  this  states- 
manlike transaction,  a  fund,  referred  to  commonly  as  the 
"  Blind  Tax,"  was  raised  by  the  anti-proprietary  party  in 
East  Jersey  as  a  bribe  to  Cornbury.  This  "  Blind  Tax  " 
was  raised  through  numerous  comparatively  small  contri- 
butions by  certain  of  the  inhabitants  of  Middletown,  Eliza- 
bethtown, and  even  of  the  other  towns,  and  the  proceeding 
was  so  ill-concealed  that  the  proprietary  supporters  had 
little  difficulty  later  in  laying  bare  the  whole  proceeding. 
The  actual  collecting  seems  to  have  been  done  chiefly  by 
Richard  Salter  and  John  Bowne,  of  Monmouth.^ 

This  agreement  bore  the  most  immediate  fruit,  not  only 
in  the  dissolution  of  the  first  assembly  and  the  securing 
of  an  anti-proprietary  majority  in  the  second  by  the  most 
unjust  interference  on  the  part  of  Cornbury,^  but  also  in 
the  use  of  the  strictly  executive  power  of  the  governor.  We 
must  note  first  of  all,  however,  that  the  "  deal  "  into  which 
Cornbury  had  entered  was  in  itself  the  most  outrageous  vio- 
lation of  his  instructions,  which  directly  commanded  him 
to  keep  aloof  from  parties  and  to  secure  the  confirmation 
of  the  rights  of  the  proprietors.' 

It  was  after  the  conclusion  of  his  alliance  with  the  anti- 
proprietary  party  that  the  governor  suspended  Morris  from 
the  council  for  disobedience,  and  forced  Jennings  to  resign. 
He  did  not  stop,  however,  with  this  deposition  of  the  lead- 
ers.    The  supporters  of  the  proprietors  were  also  excluded 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  Hi,  pp.  198-219.     Some  of  those  contribu- 
ting may  not  have  known  for  what  purpose  the  fund  was  to  be  used. 
*Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  88.  »/6»V/.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  508,  517. 


174  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

from  the  commissions  of  the  peace,  from  the  office  of 
sheriff,  and  from  command  in  the  mihtia.  Their  places 
were  suppHed  with  tools  of  the  council,  several  of  whom 
were  unfit  and  corrupt.  Among  the  "  scandalous  persons  " 
of  whom  complaint  was  especially  made  were  Richard 
Salter,  the  collector  of  the  "  Blind  Tax,"  who  was  appointed 
a  justice  of  the  peace  for  Monmouth;^  Thomas  RilHng-- 
worth,  a  judge  in  Salem  County,^  and  William  Fisher, 
sheriff  of  Burlington.^  It  was  claimed  that  the  latter  at 
least  was  named  by  Cornbury  contrary  to  the  advice  of  his 
council,*  though  the  lords  of  trade  upheld  his  right  to  do 
this.^  In  one  instance  also  complaint  was  made  that  a 
sheriff  was  named  only  three  days  before  election,  and  that 
in  consequence  many  of  the  electors  had  no  notice  as  to  who 
was  sheriff  or  when  the  election  was  to  be  held.® 

The  control  of  the  courts  was  carried  out  with  the  same 
low  motives.  Indeed,  of  all  the  maladministration  of  Corn- 
bury's  time,  that  of  the  judiciary  was  perhaps  the  most 
shameless.'  The  Supreme  Court,  under  the  subservient 
Mompesson  and  Pinhorne,  was  occupied  largely  with  prose- 
cutions against  persons  who  had  opposed  or  spoken  con- 
temptuously of  the  government.  When  grand  juries  re- 
fused to  indict  such  persons,  as  was  apparently  always  the 
case,  informations  were  filed  by  "  that  vile  fellow  Griffith,"  * 
and  the  victims  tried  under  these.  Yet,  owing  to  the  brave 
stand  of  the  juries,  only  in  one  case  was  a  verdict  of  guilty 
found,  and  that  was  because  the  accused,  one  Pomphrey, 

^  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  p.  15. 

^ Ibid.,  p.  34.  ^ Ibid.,  p.  29. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  93,  152,  156. 
''Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  118.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  87. 
"^Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court,  passim,. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  209. 


THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER  175 

produced  no  witnesses  and  had  no  counsel.^  The  court  did 
not  dare  to  sentence  even  him.  Yet  the  court  endeavored  to 
punish  the  enemies  of  Cornbury  without  obtaining  verdicts. 
Persons  were  compelled  to  attend  session  after  session  be- 
fore being  brought  to  trial,  and  when  acquitted  after  trials 
upon  information,  were  compelled  to  pay  costs.^  Attorneys 
also  found  it  so  dangerous  to  act  against  the  government 
that  eventually  no  one  could  be  found  to  defend  an  accused 
person.^  Another  abuse  was  the  refusing  of  appeals  upon 
properly  drawn  writs,  notably  in  the  case  of  Peter  Blacks- 
field,  of  Salem  County,  a  matter  for  some  time  regarded 
as  an  especial  public  grievance.* 

The  most  notorious  single  case  was,  however,  that  of 
Thomas  Gordon,  who  was  arrested  for  refusing  to  obey 
Cornbury's  order  to  deliver  the  proprietary  records  to  Secre- 
tary Basse.  For  this  offence  he  was  suspended  from  prac- 
ticing as  an  attorney,  and  twice  brought  before  the  Supreme 
Court,  only  to  be  discharged.  Immediately  after  the  session 
of  the  assembly  which  had  chosen  him  speaker  to  carry  on 
the  brave  work  of  Jennings,  he  was  arbitrarily  imprisoned 
for  fifteen  days,  and  refused  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  by 
Judge  Pinhorne,  and  even  after  his  final  release  he  was  not 
restored  the  right  to  practice.  This  injustice  was  the  more 
inexcusable  because  of  the  part  which  Gordon  had  played 
in  the  political  struggle  against  the  governor." 

The  lower  courts  were  naturally  guilty  of  similar  pro- 
ceedings, as  they  were  largely  conducted  by  the  same  per- 
sons. In  all  the  courts  there  were  numerous  complaints 
of  the  charging  of  unjust  and  excessive  fees.' 

•Field,  Provincial  Courts  of  New  Jersey,  p.  56. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  41. 

*  Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (1704-1715),  p.  49. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  41,  vol.  xiii,  p.  472. 
*Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  74-77.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  175. 


176  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

It  is,  indeed,  probable  that  the  opponents  of  Cornbury 
and  his  clique  represented  their  proceedings  in  the  worst 
colors,  and  their  charges  may  not  have  always  been  true  in 
detail.  But  there  is  no  reasonable  room  for  doubt  that  the 
maladministration  of  the  courts  was  essentially  as  charged.^ 
Hunter,  at  any  rate,  was  convinced  of  this,  and  he  certainly 
was  in  a  position  to  pass  judgment.  So  high  did  the  feel- 
ing run  against  those  concerned  in  the  corrupt  proceedings, 
that,  upon  the  removal  of  Cornbury,  efforts  immediately  be- 
gan to  secure  justice  against  his  tools.  Basse  and  Sonmans 
were  actually  indicted  for  perjury,  forgery,  illegal  handling 
of  juries,  and  other  crimes.  But  the  death  of  Lovelace  and 
the  accession  of  Ingoldsby  prevented  them  from  being 
brought  to  justice.^ 

Cornbury  himself  had  some  direct  share  in  the  unjust 
proceedings  of  the  courts,  as  on  several  occasions  he  actually 
presided  over  the  Supreme  Court,  probably  in  imitation  of 
the  king  sitting  in  King's  Bench.^  It  was  also  asserted 
that  in  two  cases  he  caused  the  sentence  of  persons  convicted 
of  willful  murder  to  be  suspended  indefinitely  without  re- 
ferring the  matter  to  the  crown.  Thus  he  practically 
usurped  the  pardoning  power  in  such  cases,  in  direct  opposi- 
tion to  his  instructions.* 

Cornbury  and  his  satellites  made  pretense  of  great  zeal 
in  the  exercise  of  their  control  over  the  military  system. 
Energy  in  this  department  was  indeed  highly  proper,  as  a 
great  war  with  France  was  raging,  and  New  York  was  di- 
rectly exposed  to  attacks.  New  Jersey,  however,  was  a  par- 
ticularly unmilitary  province,  partly  because  she  was  pro- 

'  Field,  op.  cit.,  p.  56. 

*  Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (1704-1715),  pp.  75,  80-1. 
'Field,  op.  cit.,  p.  52  (note). 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  174,  181,  245,  326. 


THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER  1 77 

tected  by  New  York  from  direct  attacks,  and  partly  because 
of  the  large  Quaker  and  Dutch  elements  in  her  population. 
In  his  very  first  letter  to  the  lords  of  trade,  Cornbury  stated 
that  he  had  "  settled  "  the  militia  of  West  Jersey  and  begun 
on  that  of  the  Eastern  Division,^  but  this  apparently  meant 
little  more  than  the  appointment  of  officers.  Almost  im- 
mediately thereafter  he  began  to  complain  of  the  opposition 
offered  by  the  Quakers  to  the  service  of  the  queen,^  and  in 
these  representations  he  was  supported  by  Quary,  Coxe, 
and  others.' 

The  first  assembly,  under  proprietary  control,  would  take 
no  action  on  the  governor's  recommendation  for  the  pas- 
sage of  a  militia  act.*  But  the  clique  in  power,  of  course, 
realized  that  they  had  found  an  excellent  means  of  making  a 
show  of  patriotism  and  injuring  the  Quakers  at  the  same 
time,  and  when  they  gained  control  of  the  second  assembly, 
they  carried  through  a  militia  bill  establishing  severe  fines 
for  those  who  would  not  attend  musters,  and  authorizing 
the  seizure  of  their  goods  if  they  did  not  pay."  The  act  was 
especially  unjust  in  that  it  did  not  provide  for  a  return  of 
the  excess  over  the  amount  of  the  fine  after  the  goods  had 
been  sold.  Its  great  object  was  undoubtedly  to  enable  the 
creatures  of  Cornbury  to  injure  and  persecute  their  oppo- 
nents under  pretense  of  the  law.  Much  harm  was  actually 
done  to  the  Friends  through  the  seizure  of  their  property," 
but  public  opinion  in  West  Jersey  was  so  strongly  in  their 
favor  that  several  of  the  constables  of  Burlington  County 
refused  to  make  distress  upon  them.       For  this  conduct 

"^  New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  iii,  p.  6.     *  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  4,  114,  269. 
*Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  53,  83,  236,  273,  etc. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Sept.  7,  1704. 

^ Laws  enacted  in  1704  (Bradford  print). 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  280;  vol.  iv,  p.  58. 


178  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Richard  Wildgoose  and  seven  other  ex-constables  were 
prosecuted  upon  informations  in  November,  1708.^  The 
militia  act  became,  indeed,  one  of  the  grievances  of  the  pro- 
vince.^ After  the  usual  delay,  however,  it  was  disallowed 
by  the  home  government.^ 

Whether  the  militia  of  New  Jersey,  as  organized  under 
this  act,  was  active  and  efficient  as  Cornbury  claimed,  the 
evidence  left  us  is  not  sufficient  to  determine,  as  luckily  it 
was  not  called  upon  for  the  actual  defence  of  the  province. 
The  dissatisfaction  of  the  inhabitants  with  the  control  of 
Cornbury  was  so  great,  and  the  incompetency  and  dishon- 
esty of  his  subordinates  so  manifest,  that  the  existence  of  an 
efficient  system,  even  for  a  time,  is  highly  improbable.  Upon 
the  lapsing  of  the  act  of  1704,  the  assembly,  now  again  un- 
der the  control  of  the  proprietary  party,  absolutely  refused 
to  take  further  action  regarding  the  militia,  and  accordingly, 
when  Lovelace  arrived,  he  found  it  virtually  dissolved. 

Cornbury  undoubtedly  did  carry  out  the  letter  of  his  in- 
structions regarding  military  affairs.  He  issued  commis- 
sions to  several  privateers  against  the  French ;  *  he  regularly 
commissioned  militia  officers  in  the  various  localities;  he 
recommended  the  passage  of  a  militia  act  to  each  assembly, 
and  even  asked  aid  for  the  defence  of  New  York.  But,  by 
allowing  his  satellites  to  make  use  of  the  military  necessities 
of  the  province  for  party  purposes  and  for  the  gratifica- 

^  Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (1704-1715),  p.  57. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  May  12,  1708. 

■  Apparently  on  the  ground  that  the  money  levied  might  be  paid  into 
the  hands  of  any  person  the  governor  might  appoint  and  because  the 
uses  to  which  it  was  to  be  put  were  not  specified,  Archives,  vol.  iii, 
P-  324- 

*The  briganteen  "Good  Intent,"  the  briganteen  "Abraham  and 
Sarah,"  the  sloop  "Resolution,"  and  the  sloop  "Diamond:"  libet 
AAA  of  Commissions,  pp.  32,  33,  52,  78. 


THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER  jyg 

tion  of  personal  spite,  he  rendered  good  results  impossible, 
and,  indeed,  made  the  military  administration  not  the  least 
of  the  evils  of  which  New  Jersey  had  to  complain. 

The  governor,  although  both  he  and  his  henchmen  made 
great  parade  of  zeal  for  the  Church  of  England,  gave  little 
attention  to  ecclesiastical  affairs.  This  in  itself,  however, 
was  hardly  blameworthy,  because  the  Anglicans  had  as  yet 
little  foothold  in  the  Jerseys.  Still  the  conduct  of  his  lord- 
ship in  this  field  was  no  more  happy  than  in  other  direc- 
tions. Though  services  were  occasionally  held  at  a  num- 
ber of  places  in  the  two  divisions,  Amboy,  Elizabethtown 
and  Burlington  alone  seem  to  have  had  promising  parishes, 
and  only  two  missionary  clergymen,  sent  by  the  Society  for 
the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel,  were  at  work — Brook  in 
East  Jersey  and  Moore  in  West  Jersey.  Moore  soon  identi- 
fied himself  with  the  party  of  opposition  to  Cornbury,  and 
bravely  denounced  from  the  pulpit  his  debauchery  and 
degraded  habits.^  He  also  refused  the  sacrament  to 
Lieutenant-Governor  Ingoldsby.*  For  this  boldness  Moore 
was  in  1707  summoned  to  New  York,  but  he  took  the  posi- 
tion that  while  Cornbury  was  in  New  York  he  had  no  power 
in  New  Jersey,  and  refused  to  obey.'  Cornbury  then  had 
Moore  arrested  by  the  sheriff  of  Burlington,  brought  to 
Amboy,  and  imprisoned  in  the  fort  at  New  York.*  In  his 
opposition  to  the  governor,  Moore  had  the  sympathy  of 
Brook,  though  the  latter  had  taken  no  active  part  in  the 
controversy."  Now,  taking  advantage  of  Cornbury's  ab- 
sence in  Albany,  Moore  and  Brook  both  escaped  from  the 

'Hills,  History  of  the  Church  in  Burlington,  pp.  66,  71  et  seq. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  79.  *  Ibid.;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  270. 

*  Hills,  op.  cit.,  p.  66  et  seq. 

*  Whitehead,  Contributions  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Amboy, 
p.  215. 


l8o  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

province  and  sailed  from  Boston  for  England/  This  highly 
characteristic  incident  seems  to  have  furnished  the  only 
occasion  upon  which  Cornbury  exercised  any  important 
power  over  the  Church.^  The  nominal  adherence  of  the 
governor  and  most  of  his  crew  was,  however,  a  serious 
obstacle  to  the  work  of  those  who  were  bravely  struggling 
to  build  up  the  Episcopal  Church  in  New  Jersey.' 

While  Cornbury  did  not  openly  violate  the  command  to 
guarantee  liberty  of  conscience,  we  have  already  seen  that, 
through  the  militia  act,  he  inflicted  upon  the  Quakers  no 
inconsiderable  hardship.  From  the  beginning  he  adopted 
toward  them  an  attitude  of  dislike  and  distrust ;  refused  to 
put  them  in  positions  of  trust  whenever  he  could  avoid  it; 
and  in  his  correspondence  with  the  home  government  en- 
deavored to  show  that  they  were  opposed  to  all  government 
and  order.*  In  a  lesser  degree  he  was  unfriendly  to  all 
dissenters. 

In  the  exercise  of  his  financial  duties  the  governor  was 
no  less  unscrupulous  than  in  other  fields.  The  greatest  out- 
rage of  his  administration  was  his  acceptance  of  two  bribes," 
and  suspicion  of  further  corruption  was  probably  well- 
founded.  While  he  did  not  so  far  violate  his  instructions  as 
to  refuse  to  the  assembly  inspection  of  Receiver-general 
Fauconnier's  accounts,  he  certainly  rendered  such  inspection 
useless  by  refusing  to  submit  his  vouchers."  There  is  no 
doubt  that  the  position  assumed  by  him,  that  the  receiver- 
general  was  directly  responsible  only  to  the  English  treas- 

*  Their  vessel  was  lost  at  sea. 

•Cornbury  says  he  named  the  church  at  Burlington,  St.  Ann's,  New 
Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  107.  One  Thomas  Killingworth  was  prose- 
cuted upon  information  for  railing  at  the  Church  of  England. 

•Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  p.  216. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  66, 114.      ^Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  198-219. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  May  14,  1707. 


THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER  l8i 

ury,  was  the  original  one  of  the  home  authorities,  but  the 
latter  certainly  had  no  desire  to  conceal  from  the  provincials 
the  nature  of  the  financial  transactions  of  the  colony.^ 
When,  after  a  lengthy  struggle,  the  assembly  was  at  length 
enabled  to  conduct  a  careful  examination  of  Fauconnier's 
accounts,  they  were  found  unsatisfactory,^  and  Hunter, 
upon  the  advice  of  the  representatives,  caused  his  prose- 
cution.' 

With  regard  to  the  enforcement  of  his  control  over  trade, 
there  was  not  so  much  ground  for  complaint.  But  this  was 
due  to  the  fact  that  New  Jersey  really  had  no  trade  except 
with  New  York  and  Philadelphia.*  Cornbury  did  nothing 
to  encourage  trade,  nor  did  he  make  any  very  serious  ef- 
fort to  furnish  the  board  of  trade  with  the  information  re- 
garding it  which  they  desired.  No  determined  effort  was 
made  by  him  to  prevent  smuggling.  Indeed,  the  only  note- 
worthy act  of  Cornbury  and  his  council  regarding  trade 
was  the  granting  of  the  sole  right  to  carry  goods  on  the 
road  from  Burlington  to  Amboy,  to  Hugh  Huddy,  later  a 
member  of  the  council."  This  act  was  complained  of  by 
the  assembly  as  the  granting  of  a  monopoly.*  Cornbury, 
in  his  reply  to  the  charges  of  1707,  declared  that  it  had  had 
a  most  beneficial  result,  and  that,  by  enabling  all  persons  to 
dispatch  goods  once  a  fortnight  at  fixed  rates,  a  trade  be- 
tween Philadelphia,  Burlington,  Amboy,  and  New  York, 
had  been  created.^  But  the  assembly  returned  to  the  at- 
tack, maintaining,   in  words  which  would  have  delighted 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  515. 
^  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  25,  1710-11. 

*  Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (1704-1715),  p.  131. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  21;  vol.  iv,  p.  450. 
^  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions ,  p.  67. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  176.  ''Ibid.,  vol.  Hi,  p.  186. 


l82  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Manchester  economists,  that  perfect  freedom  of  trade  was 
alone  beneficial/ 

Two  other  executive  acts  relating  to  a  different  field  also 
gave  rise  to  much  complaint.  Cornbury  allowed  the  pro- 
vincial secretary  to  maintain  his  office  at  Burlington  alone,^ 
and  the  only  office  for  the  probate  of  wills  was  kept  at  the 
same  place.  ^  Thus  all  having  business  in  these  offices,  even 
from  distant  parts  of  East  Jersey,  were  compelled  to  make 
the  long  journey  to  Burlington.  When  these  abuses  were 
brought  forcibly  to  his  attention,  Cornbury  would  allow  no 
change.* 

But  it  was  the  governor's  dealings  with  the  proprietors 
which,  after  all,  aroused  the  bitterest  feelings.  When  the 
proprietors  had  surrendered  to  the  crown,  it  had  been  done, 
of  course,  with  the  understanding  that  their  rights  to  the 
land  should  be  guaranteed,  and  the  governor's  instructions 
relating  to  his  dealings  with  the  proprietors  had  been  pre- 
pared to  carry  this  understanding  into  effect.  Morris  and 
other  proprietors  indeed  declared  that  the  surrender  had 
been  made  upon  definite  conditions. °  This  assertion  was, 
however,  directly  denied  by  the  lords  of  trade.  They  ad- 
mitted, nevertheless,  that  the  crown  desired  to  protect  the 
just  interests  of  the  proprietors,  and  that  the  instructions 
had  been  prepared  with  this  object  in  view.®  In  any  case 
Cornbury  should  of  course,  have  been  bound  by  his  instruc- 
tions. But,  though  he  was  able  in  a  certain  sense  to  keep 
within  the  exact  words,  he  violated  their  spirit  most  directly 
and  shamelessly. 

Before  Cornbury's  quarrel  with  the  First  Assembly,  the 
executive  was  on  good   terms   with  the  proprietary  ma- 

'^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  250. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  175.  ^Ibid. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  183,  185.  -'Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  ^Z,  81,  86. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  117. 


THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER  1 83 

jority  in  East  Jersey,  represented  by  Morris,  Gordon, 
Johnstone,  and  Willocks.  Cornbury  recognized  Gordon  as 
the  register  of  the  East  Jersey  proprietors,  and  Barclay  as 
the  collector  of  the  quit-rents,  and,  following  his  orders  to 
aid  the  proprietary  agents,  he  had  issued  a  proclamation 
to  the  inhabitants  in  behalf  of  the  latter. '^ 

After  the  collection  of  the  "  Blind  Tax,"  however,  this 
co-operation  was  exchanged  for  bitter  hostility.  Yet  Corn- 
bury  was  obliged  to  appear  to  assist  the  proprietors.  He 
therefore  recognized  the  opposing  minority  element  among 
the  East  Jersey  proprietors,  the  clique  of  Dockwra  and 
Peter  Sonmans,  as  being  the  rightful  proprietary  authority.^ 
Previous  to  the  surrender  and  before  his  quarrel  with  Wil- 
locks, Wm.  Dockwra  had  been  commissioned  as  a  sort  of 
general  agent  by  the  proprietors  in  London,  and  documents 
signed  by  him  had  been  recognized  as  valid,  just  as  if 
signed  by  a  majority  of  the  share-holders.'  He  had  also 
been  for  a  time  secretary  and  register,*  as  well  as  collector  of 
quit-rents,  exercising  his  powers,  however,  by  deputy,  since 
he  had  not  removed  to  East  Jersey.  After  his  exposure 
by  Willocks,  however,  Dockwra's  powers  had  been  sus- 
pended by  the  council  of  East  Jersey,  and  all  records  handed 
over  to  Thomas  Gordon,  his  former  deputy."^  Dockwra 
and  his  supporters,  nevertheless,  did  not  recognize  this  dep- 
osition. Accordingly,  in  1705,  Dockwra  commissioned 
Peter  Sonmans  as  agent  of  the  proprietors,  giving  him  the 
power  to  sell  the  proprietors'  lands  and  to  collect  their 

^  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  p.  31. 
^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  189. 

•  It  was,  however,  asserted  by  Willocks  that  Dockwra  had  no  proper 
authority  to  claim  such  power. 
^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  284. 
''Ibid,,  vol.  xiii,  p.  292. 


1 84  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

quit-rents/  This  commission  also  suspended  the  council 
of  proprietors  and  declared  their  acts  void. 

Cornbury  forthwith  recognized  Sonmans.  He  immedi- 
ately recalled  his  previous  proclamation  in  favor  of  Barclay 
as  receiver-general  of  quit-rents,  and  issued  another  in  favor 
of  Sonmans.^  Further,  he  annulled  the  power  of  Gordon 
as  register,  and,  in  spite  of  his  efforts  to  avoid  the  issue, 
compelled  him  to  surrender  the  proprietary  records  to  Sec- 
retary Basse,'  from  whom  they  passed  to  Sonmans.  For 
his  disobedience  in  the  matter  Gordon,  as  we  have  seen,  was 
arrested  and  subjected  to  long-continued  and  unjustifiable 
persecution.  As  Sonmans  was  the  bitter  enemy  of  the 
Perth  Amboy  clique,  the  making-over  of  the  records  to  him 
was  the  greatest  injury  Cornbury  could  do  them,  Sonmans, 
it  is  claimed,  carried  the  records  out  of  the  province,*  and 
perhaps  actually  did  conceal  or  make  away  with  a  part  of 
them.  So  effective  was  Sonmans  as  an  ally,  that  he  was 
soon  in  high  favor  with  the  governor,  and  at  his  instance 
was  appointed  to  the  council.  The  net  result  was  the  vir- 
tual destruction  for  the  time  being  of  the  rights  of  the  legi- 
timate proprietors  and  their  council. 

The  alliance  with  Sonmans  naturally  led  Cornbury  into 
further  difficulties.  Arent  Sonmans,  father  of  Peter,  had 
owned  five  and  one-fourth  proprieties  in  East  Jersey,  that  is 
to  say,  more  than  one-sixth  of  the  province.  The  inherit- 
ance of  this  large  interest  was  in  dispute,  for  whereas  Peter 
claimed  the  whole,  a  counter  claim  was  entered  by  Joseph 
Ormston,  of  London,  merchant,  son-in-law  of  Arent  Son- 

^  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  p.  38. 

*Ibid.,  p.  60.  When  in  1707  Barclay  produced  another  commission 
signed  by  ten  English  proprietors  it  was  taken  from  him  by  Corn- 
bury and  Council  on  the  pretence  that  it  was  to  be  sent  home  for 
judgment  by  the  Crown,  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  313-316,  331. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  75.  *^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  176. 


THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER  185 

mans,  as  trustee  for  Peter  and  his  two  sisters.^  Now,  as 
Ormston  possessed  influence,  he  succeeded  in  obtaining  a 
royal  order  through  Harley,  secretary  of  state,  command- 
ing Cornbury  to  pass  a  grant  confirming  his  rights  under 
the  seal  of  the  province.*  The  order  was  brought  to  Corn- 
bury  by  John  Ormston,  brother  of  Joseph,  but  the  governor 
delayed  upon  various  pretexts,  until  Peter  Sonmans  could 
issue  a  caveat  against  the  grant ;  then  he  delayed  further  on 
similar  trivial  grounds,  and  thus  virtually  nullified  the  royal 
order.'  Ormston's  cause  was  at  once  taken  up  by  the  op- 
ponents of  the  governor,  and  became  one  of  the  long  list 
of  grievances. 

An  even  more  serious  blunder  on  the  part  of  Cornbury 
was  his  undertaking  to  charge  fees  for  the  patenting  of  pro- 
prietary lands.*  This  abuse,  however,  was  soon  stopped  by 
an  additional  instruction.** 

Cornbury's  relations  with  the  proprietors  of  West  Jersey 
were  even  more  outrageous.  His  conduct  was  no  doubt 
due  to  the  advice  of  Coxe,  and  he  was  the  more  easily  per- 
suaded because  of  his  dislike  of  Quakers  in  general  and  Jen- 
nings in  particular,  and  of  Morris,  the  agent  of  the  West 
Jersey  Society." 

In  1706  he  suddenly  called  upon  the  council  of  West 
Jersey  proprietors  to  show  the  authority  by  which  it  pre- 
tended to  act.''     In  reply  the  council  submitted  a  statement 

'The  claim  of  Ormston  was  based  upon  the  assertion  that  Arent 
Sonmans  had  [died  an  alien,  and  that  his  rights  had  reverted  to  the 
Queen  by  whom  they  were  given  in  trust  to  said  Ormston. 

^  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  p.  71. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  161. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  92.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  98,  118. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  92;  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West 
Jersey,  bk.  2,  Oct.  ii,  1704. 

''New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  158. 


1 86  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

of  its  origin,  composition  and  method  of  election,  as  well 
as  of  its  duties/  But  Cornbury  had  already  enjoined  it 
from  taking  any  further  steps  whatsoever,  upon  the  ground 
that  his  instructions  ordered  him  to  allow  the  agents  of  pro- 
prietors to  act  only  upon  condition  of  their  taking  the 
oath  of  allegiance  to  the  crown;  and  as  the  members  of 
the  council  were  not  under  oath,  they  must  be  disbanded.^ 
This  action  on  the  part  of  Cornbury  reached  the  limit  of 
absurdity  and  malice.  By  it  he  destroyed  the  rights  of  the 
owners  of  West  Jersey  as  effectually  as  he  had  those  of 
the  proprietors  of  the  sister  province,  for  without  their 
council  the  operations  of  the  proprietorship  of  West  Jersey 
were  paralyzed. 

By  these  outrages,  though  they  were  successful  for  a  short 
time,  Cornbury  stirred  to  action  the  ablest  and  most  in- 
fluential men  of  the  province,  as  well  as  such  powerful  per- 
sons as  Paul  Dominique  and  Edward  Richier  in  London. 
Numerous  protests  and  representations  were  sent  to  the 
home  authorities  by  the  proprietors  of  the  two  divisions,^ 
and  in  the  assembly  they  took  the  lead  in  the  conflict  with 
the  governor.  It  was  undoubtedly  the  influence  of  the 
proprietors  which  contributed  most  of  all  to  Cornbury's 
downfall. 

In  one  respect  at  least  Cornbury  was  forced  by  circum- 
stances to  have  regard  to  his  instructions.  The  continued 
complaints  and  addresses  made  to  the  crown  and  the  lords 
of  trade  forced  him  to  write  frequently  to  the  home  authori- 
ties, and  to  give  them  at  least  some  information  regarding 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  220.      ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  178,  192. 

'The  West  Jersey  Society  took  the  leading  part  although  Dominique, 
Bridges  and  Michel  had  petitioned  the  Lords  of  Trade  to  prevent  the 
Council  of  West  Jersey  Proprietors  from  proceeding  independently  of 
the  society. 


THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER  187 

conditions  in  the  province.^  Whether  Cornbury  himself 
was  the  real  author  of  these  communications  is,  of  course, 
doubtful.  In  any  case  they  display  ignorance,  in  some  in- 
stances at  least  not  creditable  to  a  governor.^  The  motive 
throughout  was  to  justify  his  lordship's  policy,  and  Corn- 
bury  did  not  hesitate  to  misrepresent  his  opponents,  especi- 
ally the  Quakers,  and  to  conceal  facts  deliberately  when  it 
was  his  interest  to  do  so.  All  things  considered,  it  seems 
to  the  modern  student  rather  remarkable  that  the  home 
government  did  not  see  through  his  shallow  excuses  more 
readily  than  seems  to  have  been  the  case.  Cornbury,  how- 
ever, had  an  efficient  ally  in  Quary,  whose  letters  placed  the 
governor's  acts  in  the  most  favorable  light.  Cornbury 
also  had  the  advantage  of  employing  a  personal  agent,  one 
Mr.  Sloper,  to  make  direct  representations  in  answer  to 
complaints." 

Yet  in  the  end  the  board  of  trade  decided  nearly  all  the 
questions  at  issue  against  Cornbury.  His  earlier  recom- 
mendations regarding  appointments  were  in  most  cases  ap- 
proved, but  Morris  was  restored  to  the  council,*  and  his 
lordship  was  directed  to  cease  meddling  with  elections  to 
the  assembly.  He  was  also  told  not  to  charge  fees  for  the 
patenting  of  proprietary  lands,"  and  was  instructed  to  return 
to  the  proprietors  all  records  which  did  not  relate  directly 
to  the  government."  When  Lovelace  was  commissioned  in 
Cornbury's  place,  he  received  a  communication  from  the 
lords  of  trade  condemning  many  things  which  the  late  gov- 
ernor had  done.     Persons  convicted  of  wilful  murder  were 

'  Yet  in  Feb.,  1706  the  Lords  had  received  no  minutes  of  the  Council 
or  Assembly;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  128. 
^  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  30.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  133. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  124.  ^  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  98. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  127. 


1 88  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

to  be  reprieved  only  until  the  pleasure  of  the  crown  was 
ascertained.  Costs  were  not  to  be  levied  upon  accused  per- 
sons unless  indictments  were  actually  found.  The  patent 
given  to  Hugh  Huddy  was  declared  a  monopoly.  No  fee 
was  lawful  unless  warranted  by  prescription  or  enacted  by 
the  legislature.  The  establishment  of  an  office  for  the  pro- 
bate of  wills  in  East  Jersey,  moreover,  was  not  to  be  held 
a  danger  to  the  prerogative.^ 

Throughout,  the  British  authorities  showed  every  desire 
to  give  justice  even  against  Cornbury,  but  the  vexatious  de- 
lays inherent  in  the  colonial  system  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury rendered  their  decisions  tardy  in  the  extreme.  The 
final  removal  of  his  lordship,  though  too  long  delayed,  was 
a  real  proof  of  this  wish.  It  may  be  noted  here  that  Corn- 
bury  was  the  only  royal  governor  actually  removed  during 
the  entire  Union  Period. 

The  administration  of  "  the  good  Lord  Lovelace  "  was 
too  brief  to  allow  of  the  thorough-going  reform  of  the 
executive  department  which  the  circumstances  of  the  case 
urgently  demanded.  From  the  beginning,  however,  the 
new  governor  showed  every  inclination  to  give  New  Jersey 
an  honorable  rule,  and  to  carry  out  his  instructions  in  the 
spirit  in  which  they  were  intended.^ 

In  his  first  official  letter  Lovelace  informed  the  lords  of 
trade  that  he  had  ordered  the  proper  officers  to  transcribe 
fair  accounts  of  the  minutes  of  the  council  and  assembly, 
also  lists  of  the  vessels  entered  and  cleared,  and  accounts 
of  the  revenue  during  Cornbury's  time.  Lovelace  said, 
however,  that  it  would  be  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  give 
an  accurate  account  of  the  number  of  negroes  imported, 
but  that  he  would  do  his  best* 

^  Nezv  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  326-7.        ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  361. 
^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  359. 


THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER 


189 


The  only  governmental  matter  of  importance  during- 
Lovelace's  time  was  the  session  of  the  council  and  assembly 
of  March  and  April,  1709.  In  this  session,  despite  the  ful- 
some flattery  with  which  he  had  been  welcomed  by  the  cor- 
rupt ring  in  the  council,  Lovelace  showed  a  decided  inclina- 
tion to  favor  their  opponents.^  This  led  the  assembly,  as 
we  shall  see,  to  attack  the  chief  advisers  of  the  late  governor 
in  addresses  to  both  the  crown  and  the  governor.  The  chief 
effort  was  leveled  against  Sonmans,^  who  was  accused  of 
numerous  tyrannical  and  unjust  proceedings  in  the  courts. 
The  old  clique  of  favorites  was  apparently  both  alarmed 
and  angered.  The  answering  addresses,  prepared  by  both 
Ingoldsby  and  the  council  *  and  by  Sonmans  personally,* 
though  decidedly  defensive  in  tone,  heaped  blame  upon 
Morris  and  the  Quakers,  and  even  mildly  reproved  the  gov- 
ernor for  having  listened  to  the  advice  of  the  Scotch  pro- 
prietor, George  Willocks.  Willocks  was  declared  to  have 
instigated  the  assembly  in  its  opposition  to  the  late  governor, 
and  the  fact  that  he  was  "  a  high  flowne  "  Jacobite  was 
paraded  to  prove  his  dangerous  character.  Sonmans  de- 
fended his  conduct  elaborately  in  a  clever,  but  specious,  docu- 
ment, which  only  confirms  our  opinion  that  he  was  an  able 
but  unprincipled  adventurer. 

But  though  the  corruption  of  Cornbury's  time  was 
abruptly  checked,  Lovelace  did  not  remove  many  of  the 
guilty  persons  from  office."  At  the  urgent  request  of  the 
assembly,  he  substituted  Miles  Forster  for  Fauconnier  as 
receiver-general  "  and  treasurer  "  of  New  Jersey,  the  latter 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  364,  367. 
*  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  375  et  seq.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  390  et  seq. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  416  et  seq. 

'AH  sheriflfs  were  compelled  by  law  to  give  ample  security.    Ibid., 
vol.  xiii,  p.  314. 


I90  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

title  indicating  that  he  was  to  be  held  strictly  accountable  to 
the  assembly/  The  governor  also  said  he  would  order 
Fauconnier  to  attend  the  assembly  and  submit  his  vouchers 
when  he  could  be  found.  Mompesson  was  superseded  as 
chief  justice  by  Thomas  Gordon.^  But  Basse  and  Griffith, 
the  attorney-general,  secure  in  their  royal  patents,  remained 
in  office. 

The  unfortunate  death  of  Lovelace  prevented  further  de- 
velopments, for  Richard  Ingoldsby,  the  lieutenant-governor, 
who,  after  some  hesitation,  was  recognized  by  the  assembly 
as  the  legitimate  executive  until  a  new  governor  should  be 
commissioned,  was  himself  a  member  of  the  clique  of  Coxe, 
Sonmans  and  Pinhorne.  His  accession  renewed  the  old 
executive  abuses  to  some  extent,  yet  his  rule  was  brief,  and, 
owing  to  the  tentative  character  of  his  power,  he  was  less 
bold  than  Cornbury.  The  most  immediate  result  of  the 
change  was  the  escape  of  Sonmans  and  Basse,  who  had  been 
indicted  for  their  crimes,  but  who  were  now  acquitted  by 
packed  juries.^  Gordon,  the  new  chief  justice,  was  at  once 
replaced  by  Mompesson.* 

Ingoldsby  performed  the  usual  executive  acts,  naming 
judges,  justices,  sheriffs,  and  officers  of  the  militia.  He 
called  and  presided  over  three  sessions  of  the  assembly,  two 
of  which  were  summoned  for  the  purpose  of  providing  for 
the  raising  of  New  Jersey's  quota  of  men  for  the  Nicholson- 
Vetch  expedition  against  Canada.  In  connection  with  this 
work,  Ingoldsby  and  his  council  endeavored  to  force  the 
Quakers  into  a  position  of  disobedience  to  the  queen,  be- 

'^  Assembly  Journal,  March  24,  1708;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii, 
p.  307. 

*The  indictments  against  Basse  and  Sonmans  immediately  followed. 

*  Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court,  {1704-171$),  pp.  75,  80-1. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  500. 


THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER  igi 

cause  of  their  scruples  against  the  employment  of  soldiers 
for  any  purpose/  The  lieutenant-governor  commissioned 
John  Harrison  and  Jacob  Spicer  as  captains  of  the  two  com- 
panies of  "  fuzilleres  "  raised  for  the  expedition,'^  and  also 
gave  a  commission  to  a  privateer/  With  his  council,  he 
issued  a  patent  for  St.  Mary's  Church  at  Burlington.* 

Ingoldsby  sent  communications  to  the  home  authorities, 
in  which  he  stated  that  he  had  assumed  the  administration 
and  asked  to  be  continued,  because  he  had  performed  meri- 
torious service  and  had  received  little  salary.'^  But  the  im- 
portant laws  passed  under  Lovelace  were  not  forwarded  to 
England.®  Ingoldsby  declared  later  that  he  knew  nothing 
of  them,  and  believed  that  Lady  Lovelace  had  burned  them 
with  her  husband's  other  papers.  Basse,  the  secretary,  was 
also  unable  to  produce  them,  though  it  appeared  that  the 
printed  copies  had  been  taken  from  the  originals.  The  dis- 
appearance of  the  acts  was  a  little  suspicious,  because  In- 
goldsby procured  from  the  Fifth  Assembly  an  act  giving 
him  a  large  part  of  the  salary  voted  for  Lovelace.  Thus 
the  queen  could  not  pass  on  the  'two  appropriation  laws 
separately. 

With  his  satellites,  Ingoldsby  returned  to  the  attack  upon 
Morris,  Willocks  and  Gordon,  the  first  of  whom  he  ven- 
tured to  suspend  again  from  the  council.^  The  result  was, 
however,  not  what  he  anticipated,  for  the  lords  of  trade, 
after  investigation,  decided  that  he  was  not  entitled  to  the  ad- 
ministration in  New  York,  as  his  commission  as  lieutenant- 
governor  for  that  province  had  been  ordered  revoked  in 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  470. 

*  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  pp.  103,  104. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  107.  It  was  the  ship  "  Resolution."  *Ibid.,  p.  118. 
''New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  460-4.  *Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  56. 
''Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  368;  vol.  iii,  pp.  464,  476  ei  seg. 


192  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

1706,  though  it  was  not  certain  that  the  order  had  been 
signed  by  the  queen.^  They  forthwith  prepared  a  new 
order  revoking  his  commission  for  New  Jersey  also,  and 
commanding  him  to  give  up  the  administration  immediately.^ 
Though  the  reason  for  this  action  was  not  directly  stated, 
it  is  fair  to  suppose  that  the  lords  were  determined  not  to 
permit  a  continuance  of  the  abuses  within  the  province. 

The  appointment  of  Hunter  gave  New  Jersey  for  the 
first  time  a  strong  and  able  executive.  The  new  governor 
was  also  a  man  who,  while  by  no  means  forgetful  of  his  own 
interests,  was  not  eager  for  a  parade  of  power,  and  who  was 
capable  of  understanding  the  point  of  view  of  the  colonists. 
Hunter  took  no  decided  steps  until  experience,  derived  from 
his  relations  with  the  council  and  assembly,  gave  him  op- 
portunities to  judge  at  first  hand  the  real  cause  of  the  evils 
of  the  provincial  government.  As  in  the  case  of  Lovelace, 
the  ring  in  the  council  endeavored  to  gain  the  favor  of  the 
new  executive  by  an  ultra-loyal  address.'  But  Hunter  was 
unmoved,  and  after  the  first  session  of  the  legislative  bodies 
in  which  both  the  past'  corruption  of  the  administration  * 
and  the  present  unscrupulous  maneuvers  of  the  council 
were  thoroughly  revealed,  he  determined  to  uphold  the  pro- 
prietary party  and  to  destroy  the  influence  of  their  opponents 
as  the  only  means  of  bringing  peace  to  the  province. 

He  therefore  recommended  that  Coxe,  Sonmans,  Pin- 
horne  and  Hall  be  removed  from  the  council,"*  and  after 
the  usual  vexatious  delay,  while  the  lords  of  trade  examined 
the  matter,  this  was  done."  Meanwhile  Mompesson,  whom 
Hunter  and  most  of  the  proprietary  party  regarded  rather 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  469. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  474.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  17. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  24,  71,  73,  74,  79. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  61.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  182. 


THE  EXECUTIVE. POWER  1 93 

more  leniently  than  the  other  members  of  Cornbury's 
clique,  voluntarily  surrendered  his  position  of  chief  justice, 
and  was  succeeded  by  David  Jamison,^  a  lawyer  of  good  re- 
putation, though  a  resident  of  New  York.  Somewhat  later 
Hunter  commissioned  Thomas  Farmar  as  second  judge.* 
Thomas  Gordon  was  made  receiver-general  "  and  treas- 
urer." '  John  Johnstone  and  John  Hamilton,  son  of 
Andrew  Hamilton,  the  last  proprietary  governor,  became 
colonels  of  the  militia.  Thus  the  power  of  the  old  ring 
was  effectually  shattered,  though  Griffith,  the  attorney- 
general,  and  Basse,  the  secretary,  secure  in  their  patents,  re- 
tained office  for  some  time.  Hunter's  appointees  were 
nearly  all  prominent  proprietors  and  Scots.  In  a  certain 
sense  they  undoubtedly  constituted  a  new  governmental 
clique;  but,  though  not  all  of  them  were  above  reproach  as 
politicians,  they  were  at  least  a  great  improvement  upon 
their  predecessors. 

It  is  important  to  note  a  change  since  the  time  of  Lovelace 
in  the  governor's  relation  to  the  receiver-generalship. 
Miles  Forster  had,  of  course,  continued  to  hold  the  office  of 
provincial  receiver-general  under  Ingoldsby.  But  when 
the  assembly  had  raised  funds  for  the  Nicholson-Vetch  ex- 
pedition, it  named  in  the  act  separate  treasurers  to  handle 
these  moneys,  different  persons  being  chosen  for  East  and 
for  West  Jersey.  Miles  Forster  was  designated  as  treas- 
urer for  East  Jersey,  but  Dr.  John  Roberts  was  given  charge 
in  the  western  division.  Upon  the  death  of  Forster,  Gov- 
ernor Hunter  appointed  Dr.  Johnstone,  J.  Billop,  and  Wil- 
liam   Bradford,    to   act   as    commissioners    in    his    room.* 

^  New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  iv,  p.  70. 

*  Field,  Provincial  Courts  of  New  Jersey,  p.  92. 

*  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions.  July  16.  1711. 
^Ibid.,  July  17,  1710. 


194 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


When,  in  171 1,  under  Hunter,  the  assembly  made  provis- 
ions for  New  Jersey's  contingent  for  the  second  Canada  ex- 
pedition, it  again  named  treasurers  for  the  special  handling 
of  the  sums  raised, — Gordon  for  East  Jersey,  and  Thomas 
Gardiner  for  West  Jersey.  Gordon  and  Gardiner  were  duly 
commissioned  by  Hunter  to  perform  the  services  required.^ 
These  special  treasurerships  were,  however,  distinct  from 
the  regular  provincial  treasurership,  to  which  Hunter  had 
named  Gordon  as  a  person  distinctly  acceptable  to  the  as- 
sembly. 

Hunter  also  allowed  the  assembly  to  investigate  fully  the 
work  and  to  fix  the  accountability  of  all  financial  officers.  As 
a  proof  of  this  decision,  he  allowed  that  body  to  see  the  bond 
of  Fauconnier,  the  late  receiver-general,  a  privilege  for 
which  it  had  formerly  striven  in  vain,^  and  when  the  former 
receiver-general's  accounts  were  found  defective,^  directed 
his  prosecution.*  At  the  end  of  his  administration,  when, 
owing  to  an  error  in  book-keeping,  the  accounts  of  Gordon 
likewise  appeared  to  b,e  unsatisfactory.  Hunter  asked  the 
house  whether  he  should  prosecute  or  not.*^  He  also 
promptly  complied  with  the  wish  of  the  assembly  that  there 
might  be  two  distinct  provincial  treasurerships,®  naming 
Jeremiah  Basse  for  West  Jersey,''  and  William  Eires  for 

'  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  p.  134.  Upon  the  death  of  Gardiner, 
Dr.  Roberts  was  again  appointed,  ibid.,  p.  147. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  8,  12,  1710-11. 
^ Ibid.,  Jan.  25,  1710-11. 

^Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (1704-1715),  p.  131. 

^Assembly  Journal,  March  27,  1719.  The  House  replied  that  the  ac- 
counts had  only  been  found  inconsistent  and  therefore  it  did  not  as  yet 
desire  prosecution. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  4,  1718-19. 

'When  Basse  was  unable  to  furnish  satisfactory  security,  Isaac  Decowe 
was  commissioned  by  Morris,  the  President  of  the  Council. 


THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER  1 95 

East  Jersey,  in  room  of  Gordon.     Hunter  thus  initiated  a 
policy  which  was  regularly  followed  by  his  successors. 

In  spite  of  the  removal  of  their  colleagues,  both  Griffith 
and  Basse  gave  the  governor  further  trouble.  Their  con- 
tinued opposition  seems  to  have  been  due,  however,  to  the 
encouragement  of  Col.  Coxe,  who  openly  assumed  the  lead- 
ership of  the  elements  hostile  to  Hunter.  Griffith,  through 
intentional  neglect,  rendered  the  prosecution  of  Peter  Son- 
mans  abortive,  and  allowed  him  to  escape  from  the  province 
with  the  proprietary  records.  He  virtually  refused  to  begin 
proceedings  against  Daniel  Leeds  and  other  offenders,  thus 
thwarting  the  endeavor  of  the  governor  to  bring  some  of 
Cornbury's  henchmen  to  justice.  At  length,  in  January, 
1714-15,  the  conduct  of  the  attorney-general  was  consid- 
ered by  the  governor  and  council,  and  Griffith  was  sus- 
pended. Thomas  Gordon  was  appointed  as  commissioner 
to  execute  the  office  till  the  pleasure  of  the  crown  was 
known.* 

Basse,  the  secretary,  gave  even  more  trouble.  He  not 
only  refused  to  obey  Hunter's  direct  orders  to  qualify 
Thomas  Gardiner,  the  prominent  Quaker  leader,  as  sur- 
veyor-general of  West  Jersey,  on  the  old  pretext  that  he 
would  not  take  the  oaths,^  but  also  cooperated  with  the  tools 
of  Coxe,  who  for  the  time  being  controlled  majority  senti- 
ment in  Burlington  County,  in  indicting  Jamison,  the  new 
chief  justice.  Col.  Lewis  Morris,  and  Gordon,  the  new 
attorney  general,  for  allowing  Quakers  to  serve  upon  grand 
juries."  These  mdictments  were,  of  course,  soon  quashed,* 
but  formed  a  part  of  the  policy  of  obstruction  with  which 
Coxe  assailed  Hunter. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  pp.  S57-.S63;  vol.  iv,  p.  209. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  141-5,  148.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  230,  236-40. 

*  Field,  Provincial  Courts  of  New  Jersey,  p.  97. 


196  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

At  this  juncture  the  death  of  the  queen  brought  a  new 
complication,  for  it  was  now  necessary  for  all  royal  officers 
to  be  recommissioned.  Coxe  and  his  supporters  at  once 
exerted  all  their  influence  in  England  to  prevent  the  issue 
of  a  new  commission  to  Hunter.  Representations  against 
Hunter  were  made  by  Dr.  Daniel  Coxe,  the  former  proprie- 
tor of  West  Jersey,^  by  Cornbury,  now  Earl  of  Clarendon,^ 
and  others.  But  the  new  governor  had  been  too  useful. 
Not  only  was  a  new  commission  granted,  but  his  administra- 
tion received  the  direct  approval  of  the  crown.' 

And  indirectly,  also,  the  change  of  sovereigns  proved  help- 
ful to  Hunter,  for  Basse,  against  whom  the  governor  had 
naturally  made  outspoken  complaints  *  to  the  lords  of  trade, 
was  superseded  as  provincial  secretary  by  James  Smith." 
This  downfall  of  Basse  brought  an  interesting  result. 
Threatened  by  further  disaster,  the  ex-secretary  apparently 
made  up  his  mind  that  Hunter  would  be  successful  in  con- 
trolling the  province,  and  not  only  ceased  from  opposition, 
but  gradually  acquired  the  governor's  confidence.  When 
chosen  to  the  assembly,  he  proved  a  useful  member,^  and 
eventually,  in  1719,  was  named  by  Hunter  himself  as 
Gordon's  successor  as  attorney-general  and  also  as  treas- 
urer of  West  Jersey.^ 

It  was  not  alone  the  leading  executive  positions  which  were 
refilled  by  Hunter.  As  a  part  of  his  war  upon  the  sup- 
porters of  Cornbury,  he  removed  all  the  members  of  the  old 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  pp.  198,  203. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  199.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  202,  215,  327. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  139,  172,  209,  234.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  2. 

•The  speech  made  by  Basse  in  Jan.  15,  1716-7  regarding  the  financial 
situation  is  the  only  speech  during  the  period  reported  at  length  in  the 
Assembly  Journal. 

"*  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  Mar.  28,  1719. 


THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER  197 

clique  from  their  offices  as  associate  provincial  justices  and 
as  county  judges.  Hunter  maintained  that  this  was  the 
only  method  of  purifying  the  courts  and  of  restoring  to  the 
province  the  right  of  bona  fide  appeal.^  Such  sheriffs,  jus- 
tices of  the  peace  and  militia  officers  as  had  been  con- 
spicuously identified  with  the  party  of  Cornbury  and  Coxe 
were  also  replaced.  It  was  one  of  the  complaints  made 
against  Hunter  by  his  enemies  that  many  of  his  removals 
were  arbitrarily  made,  without  reason  stated.^  But  this 
objection  could  have  deceived  no  one  who  knew  the  cir- 
cumstances. On  the  other  hand,  the  governor  gave  over 
the  whole  machinery  of  the  government  to  the  adherents 
of  the  proprietors.  With  his  appointees  in  power,  no 
movement  hostile  to  them  had  the  slightest  chance  of  suc- 
cess. 

Not  only  were  Hunter's  chief  opponents  removed  from 
places  of  trust,  but  most  of  them  soon  ceased  for  other  rea- 
sons to  be  factors  in  provincial  affairs.  Mompesson  and 
Townley  died  not  long  after  their  overthrow.^  Sonmans 
fled  from  the  province,  while  Coxe,  after  expulsion  from 
the  assembly,  betook  himself  to  England  to  attack  Hun- 
ter before  the  home  authorities.  His  influence  in  the  pro- 
vince was  still  considerable,  however,  and  he  reappeared 
in  the  next  administration  to  engage  in  new  conflicts.  Pin- 
horne  retired  into  private  life.  Owing  to  the  disobedience 
of  Griffith  and  the  disappearance  of  Sonmans  and  Coxe 
from  New  Jersey,  Hunter's  efforts  to  bring  the  members  of 
Cornbury 's  ring  to  justice  failed.  Fauconnier  alone  under- 
went a  lengthy  prosecution,  and  even  he  seems  to  have 
escaped  a  direct  judgment  against  him.  But,  after  all,  the 
motive  of  the  governor  and  his  supporters  was  rather  to 

^  New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  iv,  p.  150.         ^ Ibid.,  vol.  \y,  pp.  129,  204. 
*  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  175,  208. 


198  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

drive  their  opponents  from  power  than  to  take  personal 
veng-eance/ 

The  closest  advisers  of  Hunter  seem  to  have  been  Morris, 
for  whom  he  had  special  regard;  Dr.  Johnstone,  so  long 
prominent  in  proprietary  affairs;  James  Alexander,  who 
had  recently  arrived  from  Scotland,  but  who  was  destined 
to  play  a  leading  part  for  many  years  in  all  proprietary 
matters;  Thomas  Gardiner,  the  brave  Quaker,  while  he 
lived;  and  Col.  Farmar,  of  Middlesex.^ 

So  far  we  have  been  considering  the  use  made  by  Hunter 
of  the  power  of  appointment  and  removal  alone.  Though 
this  was,  as  must  always  be  the  case,  the  lever  controlling 
the  governor's  other  duties,  we  must  now  notice  a  little  more 
carefully  the  work  of  Hunter  in  other  fields. 

There  is  little  in  Hunter's  exercise  of  his  judicial  powers 
to  need  comment  in  this  section,  especially  as  the  judicial 
system  will  be  made  the  subject  of  more  detailed  study  later. 
Hunter  issued  a  new  ordinance  for  constituting  and  regulat- 
ing the  courts,  but  it  did  little  more  than  repeat  the  excel- 
lent provisions  of  Cornbury's  original  ordinance.'  The 
condition  of  the  courts  under  Hunter  was  an  especially  im- 
portant matter,  since  he  had  announced  it  as  the  key-note  of 
his  policy  that  all  disputes  regarding  property  should  be  de- 
cided judicially,*  and  a  test  case  regarding  the  validity  of 
the  claims  of  the  proprietors  to  unpatented  portions  of  the 
Elizabethtown  tract  was  brought  and  came  to  an  issue  be- 
fore the  Supreme  Court  in  1718.°     Under  Hunter's  admin- 

'  The  case  of  Basse  is  an  illustration. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  119. 

'Field,  op.  cit.,  appendix  D,  p.  263. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  427. 

*The  case  of  Jacob  Daniel  on  the  demise  of  Vaughan  vs.  Joseph 
Woodruff;  Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (Perth  Amboy,  1714-1731), 
p.  27. 


THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER  199 

istration  the  decision  in  favor  of  the  proprietors  was,  of 
course,  to  be  expected,  but  there  is  not  the  slightest  direct 
evidence  to  show  that  the  proceedings  were  in  any  way  un- 
fair. In  general,  the  courts  seem  to  have  met  regularly 
and  quietly,  to  have  observed  the  laws  and  customary  usages, 
and  not  to  have  laid  themselv^es  open  to  charges  of  injustice 
and  corruption/  Hunter  himself  did  not  interfere  with  the 
action  of  the  courts,  setting  in  this  respect  an  excellent 
example  for  later  executives. 

Hunter,  for  really  the  first  time,  gave  the  Jerseys  a 
militia  system  which  did  not  cause  continual  complaint. 
This  was  organized  by  the  governor  under  a  new  militia  act, 
the  passage  of  which  was  secured  as  soon  as  Hunter  had 
overthrown  the  obstructive  ring  which  opposed  him."  The 
new  arrangement  permitted  the  Friends  to  escape  military 
duties  on  the  payment  of  reasonable  fines.  The  enforce- 
ment of  the  act  appears  to  have  been  left  by  Hunter  to  the 
militia  officers  and  the  local  authorities,  upon  whom  they 
were  authorized  to  call.  Under  the  circumstances  it  could 
not  be  expected  that  the  militia  would  reach  any  very  high 
degree  of  efficiency,'  but  the  conclusion  of  the  long  war  with 
France  made  this  a  matter  of  less  importance  than  formerly. 
Hunter  deserves  at  least  credit  for  putting  the  system  upon 
a  permanent  footing,  and  removing  the  abuses  of  Cornbury 
and  Ingoldsby's  time,  even  if  he  did  not  achieve  the  im- 
possible task  of  making  the  Quakers  of  West  Jersey  into 
formidable  troops. 

In  ecclesiastical  affairs,  however.  Hunter  found  peculiar 
difficulties.     This   was   partly  because,   though   himself  a 

'When  the  Assembly  asked  for  Jamison's  removal  because  he  was  a 
resident  of  New  York,  no  charges  of  improper  conduct  were  brought. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  541;  Bradford,  Laws  of  Netv  Jer- 
sey, 1717- 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  323. 


200  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Churchman/  he  was  a  moderate,  not  in  sympathy  with  vio- 
lent and  coercive  efforts  to  extend  the  authority  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  partly  because  the  political  circum- 
stances of  the  province  had  caused  him  to  identify  himself 
with  a  party  composed  largely  of  Dissenters  and  Quakers, 
or  at  least  of  persons  sure  to  be  represented  as  such  by  their 
opponents.^  The  power  of  the  governor  to  collate  to  bene- 
fices meant  little  in  New  Jersey,  as  the  supply  of  clergymen 
sent  by  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  was 
always  insufficient  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  several  con- 
gregations which  had  been  formed  in  various  parts  of  the 
province.  During  Hunter's  time  only  four  Anglican  clergy- 
men were  regularly  settled  in  the  province.  These  were 
Edward  Vaughan  at  Amboy,  Thomas  Halliday  at  Elizabeth- 
town,  Dr.  Inness  in  Monmouth,  and  the  able  and  energetic 
Talbot  at  Burlington. 

The  ring  of  favorites  who  had  surrounded  Lord  Corn- 
bury  had  made  great  protestations  of  zeal  for  the  Church. 
It  was  natural,  therefore,  that  Cornbury's  clique  should  find 
support  from  some  of  the  clergy.  In  Monmouth,  where  the 
church  had  been  built  up  partly  by  the  influence  of  Col. 
Lewis  Morris,  there  was  naturally  no  difficulty.  But  in 
Amboy  Mr.  Halliday  was  an  adherent  of  Cornbury  and  es- 
pecially friendly  to  Peter  Sonmans.  This  fact  caused  trou- 
ble between  the  missionary  and  Willocks,  Gordon,  and  other- 
prominent  proprietors  who  were  members  of  the  parish  and 
hostile  to  Sonmans.  Finally,  in  1713,  Halliday  denounced 
Willocks  from  the  desk  for  misappropriating  funds  of  the 
church.     The  result  was  the  virtual  expulsion  of  the  clergy- 

'  Hunter  was  a  member  of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the 
Gospel. 

'New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  pp.  128,  323.  See,  however,  ibid., 
vol.  iv,  p.  176  et  seq. 


THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER  20 1 

man  by  his  parishioners,  though  he  persisted  in  remaining 
at  Piscataway  and  officiating  in  other  neighboring  places.' 
Hunter,  though  annoyed,  apparently  took  no  official  notice 
of  the  matter. 

Very  different,  however,  was  his  attitude  toward  Rev. 
John  Talbot,  of  St.  Mary's,  Burlington.  This  church, 
which  had  prospered  greatly  under  the  energetic  rectorship 
of  Talbot,  was  the  chief  center  of  opposition  to  Quakerism 
in  West  Jersey,^  Among  its  prominent  members  were 
Col.  Daniel  Coxe,  Secretary  Basse,  and  Alexander 
Griffith,  and  Hunter  soon  came  to  regard  St.  Mary's 
as  an  organization  of  his  opponents.  He  was  es- 
pecially bitter  against  Talbot  himself,  whom  he  knew  to 
be  using  his  influence  in  support  of  Col.  Coxe.  He  accused 
Talbot  and  his  parishioners  of  being  Jacobites,  and  said  that 
Talbot,  by  organizing  them  as  a  church,  had  consecrated 
their  treason.^  This  charge  was  transmitted  by  the  lords 
of  trade  to  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gos- 
pel, by  whom  it  was  sent  to  Talbot  for  an  answer.  The 
denials  drawn  up  by  Talbot,  Basse,  and  the  church  wardens  * 
seem  to  have  been  received  as  satisfactory,  however,  as 
the  society  took  no  action.  Hunter's  complaints  against 
the  aid  given  by  the  energetic  missionary  to  his  opponents 
nevertheless  continued,  and  furnish  good  evidence  that  Tal- 
bot was  a  power  in  West  Jersey."  To  Hunter's  appeals  the 
lords  of  trade  eventually  responded  by  informing  the  Bishop 
of  London  that  complaints  had  been  made  by  Hunter  and 

'  Whitehead,  Contributions  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Amboy,  pp. 
216-7. 
•Hills,  History  of  the  Church  in  Burlington,  p.  45  ZinA  passim. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  209. 

*  Hills,  op.  cit.,  pp.  140-5. 

^ New  JerseylArchives ,  vol.  iv,  pp.  220,  224,  226,  230,  234,  etc. 


202  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Other  royal  officers  against  his  missionaries/  but  they  took 
no  active  steps  to  right  matters. 

The  governor  was  therefore  forced  to  take  action  himself 
and  in  May,  1716,  the  case  of  Talbot  was  considered  by  the 
council.^  That  body,  now  entirely  in  the  hands  of  Hunter's 
friends,  held  Talbot's  conduct  to  be  that  of  a  Jacobite  and 
an  inciter  of  disorder  in  the  province.  An  order  was  there- 
fore sent  to  the  sheriff  of  Burlington  to  administer  the  oath 
of  allegiance  to  the  troublesome  missionary,  and,  in  case 
he  refused,  to  prevent  him  from  exercising  his  functions 
further,  and  to  arrest  him  and  hold  him  in  custody  until  he 
gave  security  for  good  behavior.^  These  means,  appear  to 
have  been  effective  in  silencing  Talbot. 

The  passing-away  of  the  political  animosity  aroused  by 
the  fight  of  Col.  Coxe  against  the  governor,  and  probably 
the  wish  to  resume  work  at  St.  Mary's,  soon  led  Talbot, 
however,  to  desire  a  change  in  his  relations  with  Hunter. 
At  any  rate,  a  reconciliation  between  him  and  the  governor 
was  finally  effected  through  the  influence  of  their  mutual 
friend,  George  Willocks,  himself  an  avowed  Jacobite.* 
Talbot,  according  to  Willocks'  statement,  admitted  his  er- 
rors, apologized  for  what  he  had  done,  and  promised  to 
meddle  no  more  in  politics.  After  the  reconciliation,  he  re- 
sumed his  duties  at  St.  Mary's  and  continued  the  labors 
which  have  justly  caused  his  name  to  be  remembered  with 
honor. 

Another  clergyman  who  embarrassed  Hunter  was  Mr. 
Vesey,  of  New  York,  who  was  eventually  named  by  the 
Bishop  of  London  as  commissary  for  that  province.®  Hunter 
regarded  him  as  a  confederate  of  Talbot,  and  likewise  com- 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  212.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  16. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  18.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  290,  291,  294,  298,  301. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  218. 


THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER  203 

plained  of  his  conduct  to  the  board  of  trade/  At  the  same 
time,  however,  he  declared  that  Vesey  had  no  power  to  do 
him  serious  harm.' 

During  the  early  part  of  his  administration  Hunter  was 
also  troubled  by  Rev.  Jacob  Henderson,  a  missionary  of 
Pennsylvania,  and  evidently  a  sympathizer  with  Talbot  and 
Coxe.  In  1 71 2  Mr.  Henderson  made  a  representation  to 
the  home  authorities  stating  that  the  removal  by  Hunter  of 
Cornbury's  friends  in  the  council  was  really  an  attack  upon 
the  Church  of  England.'  Coxe,  Sonmans,  and  their  con- 
federates were  represented  as  zealous  churchmen,  while 
Morris  was  said  to  be  a  man  of  no  principles,  and  the  six 
persons  recommended  for  the  council  were  denounced  as 
Dissenters,  Quakers,  and  men  of  ill  character.  Henderson 
reached  the  height  of  absurdity  when  he  said  that  John 
Harrison,  one  of  the  new  councillors,  was  believed  upon 
good  authority  to  have  been  brought  up  by  "  one  Kid,  a 
Pirate."  It  was  also  said  that  Hunter  did  nothing  to  en- 
courage the  Church,  and  that  as  a  result  Anglicanism  was 
at  a  low  ebb  in  the  Jerseys, 

As  a  result  of  the  high  church  attack,  the  board  of  trade 
consulted  the  Bishop  of  London  regarding  the  character  of 
those  recommended  by  Hunter  for  the  council  vacancies.* 
The  accusations  were,  however,  effectively  answered  by  one 
of  Hunter's  friends,  probably  Morris,"^  and  were  too  pal- 
pably groundless  to  injure  those  whose  characters  were 
assailed.  The  changes  in  the  council  were  forthwith  ap- 
proved by  the  bishop. 

With  the  exception  of  the  case  of  Talbot,  Hunter  avoided 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  pp.  216,  220,  223. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  219. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  155.  *Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  168.  / 
''Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  161. 


204  ^^^^  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

interfering  directly  with  the  Church/  contenting  himself 
with  making  representations  to  the  board  of  trade  which 
he  knew  would  be  presented  to  the  Bishop  of  London.  This 
course  was  certainly  a  wise  one,  for,  even  as  it  was,  Hunter 
had  been  represented  as  attacking  the  Anglican  missionaries 
in  the  interests  of  Quakers.  The  matter  is  again  an  illustra- 
tion of  what  we  may  call  Hunter's  negative  wisdom.  He 
usually  knew  well  what  not  to  do. 

In  the  financial  field  Hunter's  policy  has  been  to  some  ex- 
tent indicated.  While  carrying  out  scrupulously  the  form 
of  his  instructions,  he  simply  acquiesced  in  complete  prac- 
tical control  of  the  treasury  by  the  assembly.  He  named 
"treasurers"  agreeable  to  the  assembly;  be  allowed  the 
strictest  auditing  of  their  accounts;  and  at  the  close  of  his 
administration  he  even  declared  that,  as  the  assembly  had 
assumed  control  of  the  finances,  he  would  follow  its  advice 
about  the  prosecution  of  Thomas  Gordon,  treasurer  of  the 
province,  whose  accounts  had  been  judged  unsatisfactory.^ 
By  taking  this  position  Hunter  again  avoided  difificulties, 
yet  he  did  so  by  the  practical  surrender  of  a  most  im- 
portant field  to  the  representatives. 

The  attitude  of  Hunter  toward  the  trade  of  the  province 
permits  of  no  lengthy  discussion.  He,  of  course,  permitted 
the  royal  customs  officers  to  discharge  their  duties,  but  ap- 
parently made  no  very  energetic  efforts  to  assist  them. 
We  have  no  evidence  that  he  submitted  any  account  of 
negroes  imported,  and  in  answering  a  set  of  questions  trans- 
mitted to  him  toward  the  close  of  his  administration,  he 
stated  that  New  Jersey  had  no  foreign  trade.  Everything 
was  obtained  from  New  York  or  Philadelphia,  he  declared, 

'  Hunter  granted  licenses  upon  petition  for  the  building  of  churches 
at  Woodbridge  and  Piscataway. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  March  27,  1719. 


THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER  205 

and  a  few  coasting  sloops  made  up  the  entire  marine  of  the 
province.^  In  this  field,  as  well  as  others,  Hunter  was  con- 
tent to  leave  things  as  they  were. 

In  his  attitude  toward  the  proprietors  Hunter,  of  course, 
reversed  entirely  the  policy  of  Cornbury  and  Ingoldsby. 
Yet  he  aided  the  legitimate  owners  of  the  province  rather  by 
giving  them  control  of  the  legislative  department  of  the  gov- 
ernment, through  the  ousting  of  their  foes  from  the  council 
and  defeating  the  efforts  of  Coxe  to  control  the  assembly, 
than  by  direct  interference  in  proprietary  affairs.  The 
moral  support  of  the  governor  meant  a  great  deal,  how- 
ever, to  Morris  and  his  party. 

The  first  object  of  the  proprietors  after  regaining  influ- 
ence was  naturally  to  depose  Peter  Sonmans  from  the  posi- 
tion as  agent  and  collector-general  of  quit-rents,  which 
through  Cornbury's  aid,  he  had  usurped,  to  recover  the  pro- 
prietary records,  and  to  punish  him  for  his  conduct.  But 
Sonmans,  on  learning  that  complaints  against  him  had  been 
brought  to  the  attention  of  Hunter,  fled  from  the  province, 
carrying  the  records  with  him.  Meanwhile  a  warrant  for 
the  apprehension  of  Sonmans  had  been  issued  by  the  chief 
justice.  But  soon  afterward  the  trunk  containing  the  re- 
cords fell,  by  design  Hunter  believed,  into  the  hands  of 
Basse,  who  was  deputy  surveyor  of  customs  at  Burlington. 
Basse  for  the  time  being  refused  to  part  with  them.^  But 
they  were  later  made  over  by  order  of  Hunter  in  council 
to  Thomas  Gordon  as  the  properly  constituted  register. 

In  171 5,  however,  the  matter  was  more  definitely  settled, 
for  when  Basse  was  replaced  by  James  Smith  as  secretary 
of  the  province,  the  latter  produced  a  commission  as  pro- 
prietary  register  and   recorder   for  both   divisions   of  the 

^  New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  iv,  pp.  449-50. 
^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  171-2;  vol.  xiii,  p.  559. 


206  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

province.  At  the  same  time  James  Alexander,  later  so 
prominent  in  the  affairs  of  both  New  York  and  New  Jersey, 
laid  before  the  council  a  similar  commission  as  surveyor- 
general  of  East  and  West  Jersey.  A  royal  letter  approving 
the  proprietary  appointment  of  Smith  and  Alexander  was 
also  submitted,  and  the  governor  and  council  forthwith 
issued  a  proclamation  forbidding  all  other  persons  to  exer- 
cise the  said  offices.^ 

The  defeat  of  Sonmans  naturally  led  to  the  long  de- 
ferred victory  of  Joseph  Ormston,  in  spite  of  the  efforts  of 
Attorney-General  Griffith  to  hinder.  The  case  was,  in 
March,  171 3,  brought  before  Hunter  and  council  on  a  peti- 
tion from  Willocks,  acting  as  attorney  for  Ormston.  As  a 
result,  the  council  ordered  that  a  grant  of  the  lands  formerly 
held  by  Arent  Sonmans  be  made  to  Ormston  in  due  form, 
as  required  by  the  queen's  letter  to  Lord  Cornbury.'^ 

With  regard  to  the  West  Jersey  proprietorship.  Hunter 
had  to  face  a  slightly  different  situation.  Upon  the  ac- 
cession of  Lovelace  the  council  of  proprietors  had  resumed 
its  operations.''  Lewis  Morris,  the  agent  of  the  West 
Jersey  Society,  became  president  of  the  council,  and  Thomas 
Gardiner  was  again  surveyor-general.  But  in  the  fall  of 
171 1  Basse,  as  secretary  of  the  province,  although  directly 
commanded  so  to  do  by  Hunter,*  refused  to  qualify  Gardiner 
for  his  office,  on  the  ground  that  he  would  not  take  the  re- 
quired oath,  and  also  because  his  selection  had  not  been  as- 
sented to  by  all  the  proprietors  of  West  Jersey."  The  situ- 
ation was  now  further  complicated  by  the  capture  of  the 

^Aew  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  2-3. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  pp.  542,  554-5- 

*  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  2,  p.  7. 

*■  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  141. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  142  et  seq. 


THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER  207 

council  of  proprietors  itself  by  Coxe  and  his  supporters, 
which  occurred  in  1712.^  Daniel  Leeds,  Coxe's  old  tool, 
was  at  once  joined  with  Gardiner  in  the  post  of  surveyor- 
general,  and  further  complications  resulted. 

But  upon  the  defeat  of  Coxe  in  his  political  campaign 
against  Hunter  and  his  flight  from  the  province,  the  Quaker 
interest  again  dominated  in  the  proprietorship.  Upon  com- 
plaint by  Thomas  Byerly,  the  proceedings  of  Leeds  were 
considered  by  the  governor  and  council,  and  he  was  removed 
from  office  and  prosecuted  by  their  order  on  the  charge  of 
altering  the  West  Jersey  Records.^  In  171 5,  as  has  been 
indicated,  the  situation  was  at  length  simplified  by  the  official 
recognition  of  James  Smith  and  James  Alexander,  as  re- 
gister and  surveyor-general,  respectively,  for  West  Jersey. 
Thus  the  situation  existing  before  Cornbury's  interference 
was  reestablished,  though  not  owing  to  any  active  inter- 
vention by  Hunter  himself. 

In  one  department  at  least  Hunter  was  active.  This  was 
in  keeping  up  a  constant  communication  with  the  board  of 
trade  and  Secretary  Popple.  His  letters  certainly  kept 
the  home  government  fully  informed  as  to  the  condition  of 
politics  in  the  Jerseys,  as  well  as  to  the  course  of  the  gov- 
ernor himself.  Hunter's  correspondence  is  both  clear  and 
interesting,  fully  convincing  the  student  of  the  governor's 
ability  and  literary  attainments.  As  was  to  be  expected, 
Hunter  was  outspoken  in  his  attacks  upon  Coxe,  Talbot  and 
his  other  enemies,  and  no  doubt  failed  to  do  justice  to  their 
motives  and  points  of  view.  It  must  be  remembered,  how- 
ever, that  he  was  dealing  with  a  dangerous  political  situa- 
tion, and  that  his  opponents  were  both  annoying  and  un- 

^  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  3,  p.  2. 
*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  pp.  516,  563.     He  was  tried  but  not 
convicted. 


2o8  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

scrupulous.  One  noteworthy  feature  about  Hunter's  let- 
ters is  certainly  the  very  evident  anxiety  they  display  re- 
garding the  support  of  the  home  authorities.^  Coxe  and 
Dockwra  possessed  influence  in  England,  and  the  governor 
had  good  cause  for  dreading  defeat.  The  home  govern- 
ment, to  its  credit,  apparently  never  wavered  in  its  attitude 
toward  its  able  servant.  Yet  this  fact  could  not  be  at  once 
apparent.  Hunter's  feeling  in  the  matter  makes  plain  what 
was  undoubtedly  one  of  the  chief  obstacles  with  which  pro- 
vincial executives  had  to  contend. 

Hunter  also  transmitted  regularly  the  journals  of  the 
houses  and  the  acts  of  the  assembly  with  comments.  These 
were  of  course  sometimes  delayed,  but  never  without  proper 
reason. 

Altogether,  Hunter  was  in  many  respects  the  best  execu- 
tive New  Jersey  had  during  the  Royal  Period.  He  dealt 
with  a  most  trying  situation  by  the  only  means  possible,  and 
eventually  brought  the  province  to  a  condition  of  peace  and 
prosperity.  He  kept  his  dignity  under  much  annoyance, 
and,  though  not  infallible,  made  few  mistakes.  His  actions 
were  seldom  unjust  and  always  reasonable.  Still  it  cannot 
be  denied  that  Hunter,  to  some  extent,  won  success  by  sacri- 
ficing the  position  of  the  executive.  In  his  hands  the  gov- 
ernorship tended  to  become  rather  the  means  by  which 
the  assembly  executed  its  purposes,  than  the  strong  and 
leading  factor  in  colonial  affairs.  Indeed,  Hunter  seldom 
employed  his  power  at  all  when  it  could  be  avoided.  His- 
torically, this  was  the  correct  course,  as  it  was  in  line  with 
the  ever-growing  spirit  of  democracy  and  popular  govern- 
ment.    Yet  Hunter  handed  over  to  his  successor  an  execu- 

'  Burnet  refers  to  Hunter's  lack  of  support  at  home,  New  Jersey  Ar- 
chives, vol.  xiv,  p.  i6i. 


THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER  209 

tive  power  limited  by  precedent  to  a  greater  degree  than  it 
had  been  when  he  assumed  office. 

Governor  Burnet  had  the  advantage  of  Hunter's  advice 
in  beginning  his  administration,  and  naturally  adopted  the 
same  general  policy.  He  made  no  radical  changes  in  the 
composition  of  the  council,  and  retained  many  of  Hunter's 
appointees  in  subordinate  executive  offices.  Jamison  was 
continued  as  chief  justice  and  Basse  as  attorney-general 
till  1723,  when  James  Alexander  succeeded  him.  James 
Smith,  of  course,  remained  as  secretary. 

Burnet  made  no  objection  to  the  double  treasurership 
which  had  been  established  after  the  resignation  of  Gordon. 
He  named  John  Allen,  who  had  served  in  the  assembly,  as 
a  representative  of  the  town  of  Burlington,^  as  treasurer  of 
West  Jersey,  and,  upon  the  death  of  Eires,  appointed  Michael 
Kearney,  of  Perth  Amboy,^  for  East  Jersey.  Both  of  these 
men  seem  to  have  been  thoroughly  acceptable  to  the  repre- 
sentatives, and  performed  their  duties  creditably.  Some 
changes  in  the  command  of  the  militia  are  to  be  noted,  but 
they  do  not  seem,  with  one  exception,'  to  have  been  of  poli- 
tical significance. 

Under  Burnet's  rule,  feeling  developed  strongly  against 
the  continuance  of  officers  who  were  not  residents  of  the 
Jerseys.*  For  this  reason,  while  not  charging  him  with 
any  offense,  the  assembly  in  November,  1723,  requested 
Burnet  to  supersede  Jamison."^  Burnet  readily  complied, 
and   nominated   William   Trent,   then   speaker   of  the   as- 

'^  Assembly  Journal,  March  7,  1721-2. 

'Whitehead,   Contributions  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Antboy, 
p.  90. 
•That  of  Colonel  Daniel  Coxe. 
*  Hunter  was  not  free  from  blame  in  this  respect. 
^  Assembly  Journal ,  Nov.  23,  1723. 


2IO  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

sembly/  Upon  Trent's  sudden  death  a  little  later,  Robert 
Lettice  Hooper  took  his  place.  ^  Both  of  these  appointments 
were  of  a  high  order,  and  neither  gentleman  had  been  to  a 
great  degree  identified  with  any  political  faction. 

Indeed,  Burnet  was  able  to  improve  upon  Hunter  by  not 
committing  himself  quite  so  completely  to  one  party.  While 
rather  favorable  to  the  proprietors,  he  was  not  their  partisan 
to  the  same  extent  as  Hunter.  Circumstances  made  such 
a  change  desirable,  for  under  Hunter  the  old  corrupt  ring 
of  Cornbury  had  been  thoroughly  destroyed,  and  Coxe, 
Sonmans  and  Dockwra  reduced  to  comparative  helplessness. 
It  was  therefore  possible  for  the  next  governor  to  keep 
clear  of  party  issues.  The  dying-away  of  the  former  bit- 
ter conflict  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  Burnet  even  thought 
best  to  make  Daniel  Coxe  colonel  of  the  militia  regiment 
of  the  new  County  of  Hunterdon.^ 

Later  in  the  administration  a  new  danger  to  the  poli- 
tical peace  of  the  province  appeared.  While  the  old 
popular  opposition  to  the  proprietors  at  Elizabethtown 
and  elsewhere  had  been  taken  advantage  of  by  Coxe 
and  Sonmans  to  advance  their  own  ends,  the  real 
struggle  under  Cornbury  and  Hunter  had  been  between 
Morris,  the  Amboy  clique  and  the  Quakers  on  one  side, 
and  their  rivals  for  control  of  the  proprietorship,  aided 
by  political  spoilsmen  like  Basse  and  Ingoldsby,  on  the 
other.  After  the  collapse  of  the  efforts  of  Coxe  and 
Sonmans  and  the  establishment  of  peace,  however,  there 
came  a  revival  of  the  old  popular  movement  in  East  Jersey. 
This  interesting  and  important  movement  will  be  more  fully 
noticed  elsewhere.     Sufiice  it  to  say  here,  that  it  did  not  dis- 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  95,  257. 

"^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  289. 

^ Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  p.  187. 


THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER  211 

turb  the  peace  of  the  province  while  Burnet  was  in  control, 
though  his  general  attitude  enabled  it  to  gain  some  headway. 

But  though  Burnet  continued  the  general  policy  of  Hun- 
ter, he  did  not  accept  counsel  from  the  same  circle  of  ad- 
visers and  friends.  He  remained  on  good  terms  with 
Morris  and  Alexander,  it  is  true.  But  from  the  beginning 
he  resented  violently  the  interference  of  George  Willocks 
in  public  affairs.^  This  soon  brought  upon  him  the  secret 
opposition  of  Dr.  John  Johnstone,  who  was  closely  associ- 
ated with  Willocks.  The  reasons  for  the  clash  were,  no 
doubt,  partly  personal,  as  Johnstone  and  Willocks  were  fond 
of  power,  while  Burnet  on  his  side  could  not  keep  his  per- 
sonality in  the  background,  as  Hunter  had  done,  and  actu- 
ally rule  while  seeming  to  follow.  Moreover,  Willocks 
was  an  avowed  Jacobite,  a  fact  which  appeared  far  more 
criminal  to  the  scholar  Burnet  than  to  the  soldier  Hunter. 
But  a  stronger  reason  for  the  hostile  attitude  of  Johnstone 
and  Willocks  toward  Burnet  was  undoubtedly  that  the  lat- 
ter refused  to  lend  himself  to  certain  land-jobbing  trans- 
actions and  to  a  scheme  which  the  pair  of  land  speculators 
had  taken  up  for  incorporating  the  proprietors  upon  such 
terms  as  would  give  all  the  power  to  the  Amboy  group.'' 

Johnstone  and  Willocks  possessed  great  political  influence 
in  both  divisions,  and  caused  Burnet  much  annoyance  in  his 
early  dealings  with  the  assembly.^  In  1722,  however,  the 
governor  succeeded  in  getting  the  assembly  to  pass  an 
"Act  for  the  Security  of  His  Majesty's  Government  of  New 
Jersey,"  *  which  declared  those  who  refused  to  take  the 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  pp.  11,  32. 

^  fbid.,  vol.  V,  p.  56  et  seg.;  p.  101. 

*In  consequence,  Burnet  had  Willocks  arrested  as  a  person  disaffected 
to  the  government  and  bound  over  to  good  behavior.  New  Jersey  Ar- 
chives, vol.  xiv,  p.  151. 

'Allinson,  Slatutes. 


212  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

oaths  of  allegiance  to  the  king  "  Popish  Recusants  Con- 
vict," and  liable  to  all  the  penalties  established  against  such 
persons  by  the  laws  of  England.  Threatened  by  such  a 
danger,  Willocks  was  forced  to  leave  New  Jersey/  John- 
stone, on  the  other  hand,  wisely  gave  up  his  concealed  hos- 
tility to  Burnet,  after  the  latter  had  demonstrated  his  ability 
to  maintain  himself.  In  spite  of  the  difficulties  resulting, 
the  quarrel  probably  had  a  good  result.  New  Jersey  had 
certainly  been  threatened  with  the  formation  of  another 
executive  ring,  but  the  independence  of  Burnet  prevented 
it  from  solidifying. 

In  his  attitude  toward  the  various  fields  of  executive 
power,  Burnet  was  much  like  Hunter,  though  he  at  first  un- 
doubtedly felt  himself  more  closely  bound  by  the  letter  of 
his  instructions.^  Three  judiciary  ordinances  were  issued 
upon  his  authority,  though  it  is  hardly  to  be  supposed  that 
he  was  actually  their  author.^  The  first,  that  of  1723,  the 
"  Ordinance  of  George  II,"  was  practically  a  copy  of  Mom- 
pesson's  original  work.  This  was  followed  by  another,  in 
1725,  which  changed  the  time  of  holding  some  of  the  courts. 
In  1728  came,  however,  a  more  important  ordinance,  by 
which  two  supreme  courts  were  really  created,  one  to  be 
held  four  times  a  year  at  Burlington,  and  the  other  four 
times  a  year  at  Amboy.  This  change  was  made  in  response 
to  long-continued  agitation  in  the  assembly.*  Burnet  was 
said  to  have  been  especially  fond  of  exercising  his  powers  in 
chancery,  and  in  1724  issued  the  first  ordinance  for  regulat- 
ing fees  in  chancery.® 

The  judicial  system  seems  to  have  worked  very  smoothly 
under   Burnet's   well-qualified   judges,    and   to   have  been 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  loi.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  161. 

'Field,  Provincial  Courts  of  New  Jersey,  appendix  E,  F,  G. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  114.  ^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  251. 


THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER  213 

creditable  to  the  province/  There  was  the  more  need  of  a 
well-regulated  judiciary,  because  issue  upon  the  question  of 
the  Elizabethtown  grants  was  soon  again  to  be  joined  in 
the  courts. 

Burnet,  following  his  instructions  literally,  was  more  ac- 
tive in  military  affairs  than  his  predecessor,^  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  active  hostilities  with  the  French  had  ceased.  Soon 
after  his  accession,  in  April,  1721,  Burnet  laid  the  articles 
of  his  instructions  relative  to  this  field  before  the  council, 
and  asked  for  their  assistance  in  obtaining  legislation  for 
giving  aid  to  New  York  in  supporting  frontier  defenses,  for 
erecting  suitable  fortifications  in  New  Jersey,  and  for  mak- 
ing the  militia  more  efficient.^  But  the  council  would  only 
say  that  it  was  just  that  the  Jerseys  should  aid  in  resisting 
French  encroachments  and  providing  for  the  common  de- 
fense of  the  colonies,  that,  owing  to  the  situation  of  the 
province,  fortifications  were  entirely  unnecessary,  and  that 
the  defense  of  the  colony  depended  entirely  upon  the  militia, 
which  should  be  made  as  efficient  as  possible.*  Burnet  evi- 
dently endeavored  to  arouse  interest  in  the  subject  of  de- 
fense by  lending  credence  to  the  reports  of  hostile  Indian 
movements.**  But  the  attempt  of  the  council  to  carry 
through  a  stricter  militia  act  was  nevertheless  defeated  by 
the  assembly.*  The  effect  made  by  the  governor's  efforts 
upon  public  opinion  in  the  colony  may  be  shown  by  the  as- 
sertion attributed  to  one  John  Case,  of  Monmouth,^  "  that 
the  country  was  men  and  would  never  be  imposed  upon, 
and  that  they  would  stand  by  one  another,  and  that  they 

*  Field  calls  Burnet's  administration  '  *  the  golden  age  of  our  colonial 
history." 

'  His  attitude  was  of  course  in  line  with  his  policy  in  New  York. 

^  Neiv  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv.  p.  166  et  seq. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  174.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  198. 

"■  Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  198.  ''Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  201. 


214  ^^^  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

were  not  to  be  frightened  with  notions  of  Canada  Indians, 
for  he  was  the  man  would  fight  them  all  himself  that  would 
ever  come  to  disturb  this  country." 

At  the  next  session  of  the  assembly,  however,  Burnet  did 
obtain  an  act  somewhat  stricter  than  that  of  Hunter/  He 
also  succeeded  in  organizing  a  new  militia  regiment  in  West 
Jersey,  thus  bringing  the  number  in  the  province  up  to  six. 

Though  Burnet  was  naturally  interested  in  ecclesiastical 
affairs,  he  had  little  call  to  take  positive  action  regarding 
the  Church  of  England  in  New  Jersey.  The  violently  ag- 
gressive attitude  of  the  earlier  missionaries  of  the  Society 
for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  seems  to  have  been  al- 
tered somewhat  by  the  victory  of  Hunter  over  Talbot  and 
Coxe,  and  even  the  Anglican  Church  relapsed  into  the 
calm  which  seems  to  mark  the  entire  history  of  the  Jerseys 
during  Burnet's  rule.  Burnet  nevertheless  saw  fit  to  secure 
from  "the  Society"  the  final  dismissal  of  the  devoted  Talbot 
on  the  ground  that  he  was  a  Jacobite. 

That  the  subject  of  trade  was  receiving  more  active  at- 
tention from  the  home  government  is  made  evident  by  the 
additional  instructions  issued  to  Burnet.  As  the  direct  trade 
of  the  Jerseys  with  foreign  ports,  however,  was  still  incon- 
siderable,^ the  governor  evidently  thought  that  he  had  little 
call  for  action.  But  though  the  administration  of  New 
Jersey  was  thus  made  singularly  easy  in  this  respect,  there 
is  no  means  of  knowing  how  much  illegal  trade  actually 
went  on.  The  financial  administration  of  Burnet  was  also, 
in  the  main,  a  continuation  of  that  of  Hunter,  the  powers  es- 
tablished by  the  assembly  over  the  treasury  being  unques- 
tioned. Yet  when  the  assembly  in  1723  tried  to  carry 
through  a  bill  compelling  the  estate  of  Thomas  Gordon,  the 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  234;  vol.  v,  p.  54. 
^Ibid.,  vol.  V,  pp.  21,  87. 


THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER  215 

late  treasurer,  to  make  good  the  sum  for  which  he  was  be- 
lieved to  be  indebted  to  the  province/  the  governor,  acting  of 
course  with  the  council,  compelled  the  representatives  to 
allow  the  substitution  of  legal  proceedings  against  the  rep- 
resentatives of  Gordon,  for  the  direct  punishment  proposed.* 
On  the  other  hand,  as  will  be  more  fully  shown  elsewhere, 
Burnet  accepted  the  colonial  point  of  view  with  regard  to 
paper  money,  and  wrote  several  times  to  the  lords  of  trade 
in  support  of  acts  for  the  issue  of  bills  of  credit,  and  for 
the  appropriation  of  the  interest  money  thereby  accruing  to 
the  support  of  the  government. 

There  were  several  interesting  developments  in  the  affairs 
of  the  proprietors  of  East  Jersey  during  this  administration, 
though  we  must  limit  ourselves  in  this  chapter  to  stating 
briefly  the  governor's  connection  with  them.  In  1725  the 
old  council  of  proprietors  of  East  Jersey  was  reestablished 
for  the  general  direction  of  the  proprietary  affairs,  and 
thereafter  continued  to  hold  regular  meetings,  generally 
twice  a  year.'  Lewis  Morris  became  president  of  the 
council,  while  Alexander,  Kearney,  Hamilton  and  John- 
stone, with  other  persons  holding  office,  were  prominent 
members.  The  revival  of  the  council  undoubtedly  increased 
the  proprietary  influence  in  the  public  affairs  of  the  province, 
though,  unfortunately,  that  influence  is  now  difficult  to 
trace.  The  governor  was  on  friendly  terms  with  the  coun- 
cil of  proprietors,  though  there  is  no  evidence  that  it  exer- 
cised improper  influence  over  him.  Upon  application  from 
the  proprietors.*   Burnet   issued   a   proclamation  declaring 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  261. 

"^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  284,  302,  309.  The  result  justified  Burnet  as  it 
was  shown  that  the  apparent  default  of  Gordon  was  due  to  a  mere  mis- 
take in  his  accounts. 

*  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  East  Jersey. 

^Ibid.,  bk.  A,  p.  8. 


2i6  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Richard  Ashfield  the  legally  constituted  receiver-general  of 
quit-rents.^  This  step  was,  of  course,  in  accordance  with 
his  instructions,  but  such  action  had  not  been  taken  since 
Cornbury  issued  his  dishonest  proclamation  in  favor  of 
Sonmans. 

At  about  this  time  Peter  Sonmans  himself  not  only  ven- 
tured to  return  to  the  province,  but  actually  collected  quit- 
rents  from  the  trustees  of  Bergen  township,  in  virtue  of  his 
commission  of  1703.  This  fraud  was  at  once  brought  to 
the  notice  of  Burnet  in  council  by  the  proprietors,  and,  after 
investigation,^  Sonmans  was  bound  over  for  trial  before  the 
Supreme  Court.  Though  he  eventually  managed  to  escape 
direct  conviction,  he  was  thus  effectually  removed  from  ob- 
structing further  the  management  of  proprietary  affairs. 
Aside  from  these  matters,  Burnet  did  not  interefere  in  ques- 
tions of  the  rights  of  proprietors. 

Proprietary  affairs  in  West  Jersey  remained,  so  far  as  the 
provincial  executive  was  concerned,  exactly  as  in  Hunter's 
time. 

Like  all  capable  governors,  Burnet  was  diligent  in  his  cor- 
respondence with  his  superiors  in  England.  He  did  not, 
however,  devote  as  much  time  and  attention  to  the  affairs 
of  the  Jerseys  as  Hunter  had  done,  nor  do  his  letters  carry 
as  clear  and  as  accurate  a  picture  of  political  conditions  in 
the  colony.  Burnet  appears  to  have  regularly  dispatched 
provincial  acts  and  the  journal  of  the  house.  Towards  the 
end  of  his  administration,  however,  he  received  an  order 
from  Secretary  Popple  bidding  him  be  more  prompt  in 
giving  information  regarding  ( i )  the  accounts  and  receipts 
of  all  public  moneys,  especially  of  quit-rents  and  fines;  (2) 
the  number  of  inhabitants  and  accounts  of  christenings  and 

^  hew  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  125. 
"^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  309  et  seq. 


THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER 


217 


burials;  (3)  ordinance  and  all  kinds  of  military  stores; 
(4)  maps  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey  and  accounts  of 
the  strength  of  their  neighbors.'  Burnet  promised  to  have 
the  proper  officers  prepare  such  accounts  at  once.  With  re- 
gard to  the  second  point,  however,  he  said  that  he  had  been 
advised  that,  since  the  people  of  New  Jersey  were  chiefly  of 
New  England  extraction,  they  would  regard  such  an  enum- 
eration as  a  repetition  of  the  sin  which  David  committed  in 
numbering  the  people.  This  had  caused  him  to  put  it  off. 
Moreover,  the  dissenting  ministers  kept  no  account  of  chris- 
tenings and  burials  and  Quakers  did  not  baptize,  so  that  no 
accurate  statement  of  these  things  could  be  given.  As  re- 
gards military  affairs,  while  he  promised  to  submit  an  ac- 
count for  New  York,  he  made  no  mention  of  the  Jerseys. 

A  little  later,  a  census  of  the  Jerseys  was  actually  taken  " 
which  showed  that  the  province  contained  32,442  people; 
2,581  of  whom  were  negroes.  It  had  about  three-fourths 
as  many  people  as  New  York.  Burnet  also  caused  to  be 
compiled  from  the  accounts  of  the  customs  officers  the  state- 
ment as  to  negroes  imported  which  had  so  often  been  asked 
for  in  vain.  It  was  said  that  from  1698  to  171 7  none  had 
entered  the  province.  From  1 718  to  1727,  115  negroes  had 
been  brought,  all  from  Barbadoes,  Jamaica  and  other  parts 
of  the  West  Indies.  The  report,  however,  covered  only 
East  Jersey.' 

The  administrations  of  Montgomerie  and  Cosby  were  too 
brief  to  permit  many  general  assertions  as  to  the  exact 
status  of  the  executive  power  in  their  hands.  Their  ap- 
pointments hardly  had  much  political  significance.  Just  be- 
fore the  transfer  of  Burnet,  he  had  superseded  Hooper  as 
chief  justice  by  Thomas   Farmar,   who  had   remained    as 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  117.  '^ Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  164. 

^  Ibid.y  vol.  V,  p.  152. 


2i8  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

second  judge  since  Hunter's  appointment.^  No  reason  is 
assigned  for  the  change,  as  Hooper's  work  appears  to  have 
been  satisfactory.  Three  years  later  Farmar  went  insane, 
and  Hooper  was  restored  by  Montgomerie.  In  Cosby's 
time  James  Smith,  the  provincial  secretary,  died,  and  that 
public-spirited  governor  promptly  appointed  his  son  "Billy" 
to  act  temporarily.^  "  Billy  "  did  not,  however,  receive  the 
royal  patent  which  went  after  an  interval  to  Robert  Burnet 
of  Perth  Amboy.^ 

Both  Hunter  and  Burnet  used  such  influence  as  they 
had  with  their  friends  in  the  province  to  secure  for 
Montgomerie  a  favorable  reception.*  They  seem  to 
have  recognized  that  the  new  governor  was  not  a  man  of 
ability  and  would  need  good  counsel  to  avoid  mistakes. 
Alexander  and  the  other  leaders  in  the  Jerseys  appear  to 
have  been  favorably  disposed  toward  Montgomerie.  The 
latter,  however,  showed  dislike  for  the  Quakers,  accusing 
them  in  his  letters  to  the  home  government  of  being  pur- 
posely annoying.^  He  also  showed  poor  judgment  in  en- 
deavoring to  check  the  movement  to  attain  a  separate  exe- 
cutive for  New  Jersey.  This  brought  him  into  collision 
with  John  Kinsey,  speaker  of  the  assembly,  as  well  as  with 
public  opinion.®  But  Montgomerie  was  set  right  in  this 
matter  by  the  lords  of  trade,^  and  the  good  feeling  which 
had  been  brought  about  with  so  much  efifort  by  Hunter  and 
Burnet  was  not  seriously  disturbed. 

In  his  executive  practice  Montgomerie  did  not  depart 
from  the  lines  followed  by  his  predecessor. 

'  Field,  Provincial  Courts  of  New  Jersey,  p.  126. 

''■New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  321. 

'  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  June  14,  1734. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  pp.  179,  233. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  235.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  263. 

'^ Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  247. 


THE  EXECUTIVE  POWER  219 

Cosby,  however,  came  into  the  province  under  unfavor- 
able circumstances.  His  conduct  in  New  York  caused  him 
to  be  regarded  with  suspicion.  Moreover,  he  almost  at 
once  quarreled  violently  with  both  Lewis  Morris  and  Alex- 
ander regarding  New  York  affairs.^  He  therefore  incurred 
their  bitter  opposition  in  both  provinces.  Morris  jour- 
neyed to  England  to  present  his  side  of  the  matter  directly 
to  the  home  authorities,  while  Alexander  refused  to  attend 
council  meetings  under  Cosby  and  wrote  to  England  bitterly 
attacking  him.^ 

In  spite  of  these  hindrances  Cosby  managed  to  avoid  any 
great  disturbance  in  the  Jerseys.  Apparently,  however,  he 
gave  little  attention  to  their  affairs  at  all,  less  even  than 
Cornbury.  He  probably  entered  New  Jersey  only  once 
during  the  first  nine  months  of  his  administration.  He 
met  the  assembly  only  once;  performed  few  executive  acts 
and  wrote  little  to  the  lords  upon  New  Jersey  affairs,  ex- 
cept in  so  far  as  concerned  Morris  and  Alexander.  During 
his  administration  the  affairs  of  the  province  must  have 
been  carried  on  almost  entirely  by  the  subordinate  executive 
officers.  That  the  province  was  able  to  take  care  of  itself 
so  successfully,  speaks  highly  for  the  ability  of  Hunter  and 
Burnet.  No  serious  complaints  of  maladministration  are  to 
be  met,  and,  with  one  exception,  the  fields  of  executive  work 
seem  to  have  suffered  little  from  Cosby's  neglect.  But  even 
at  the  end  of  the  administration  of  Montgomerie  Lewis 
Morris  had  stated  to  the  lords  that  the  militia  was  in  a  bad 
and  inefficient  state,  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  fines  for 
neglect  of  military  duties  were  so  low  and  the  love  of 
"  millitary  honour  "  so  weak  that  few  men  could  be  found 
who  would  accept  commissions  as  officers.^     Nothing  was 

'  The  motives  of  Cosby  certainly  seem  to  have  been  discreditable. 
■New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  360.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  319. 


220  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

done  by  Cosby  to  remedy  this  state  of  inefficiency.  Cosby's 
correspondence  strengthens  our  opinion  that  he  was  a  place- 
man of  low  order.  His  letters  attack  Alexander  and  Morris 
in  violent  and  undignified  terms,  which  seem  ridiculous  when 
it  is  remembered  how  prominent  they  had  been  in  colonial 
affairs.^  The  general  tone  of  his  correspondence  can  sug- 
gest only  Cornbury  and  Ingoldsby,  of  whom  Cosby  un- 
doubtedl}^  reminded  not  a  few  in  the  colony. 

This  hasty  survey  of  the  actual  work  of  the  chief  execu- 
tive during  the  Union  Period  makes  clear  certain  facts. 
In  the  first  place  it  shows  how  much,  as  well  for  the  people 
of  the  colony,  the  proprietors  of  the  Jerseys,  and  the  home 
government,  depended  upon  the  ability  and  the  personality 
of  the  Governor.  In  the  second  place,  it  indicates  the  ex- 
tent to  which  the  work  of  the  executive  was  actually  cur- 
tailed by  the  governing  power  of  the  assembly.  It  is  evi- 
dent that  governors  of  New  Jersey  were  in  1738  somewhat 
less  limited  in  this  respect  than  the  executives  of  New  York 
and  some  of  the  other  royal  provinces.  Lastly,  we  see  that 
whereas  New  Jersey  was  at  first  one  of  the  most  trying  and 
contentious  of  all  the  provinces  from  the  point  of  view  of 
the  executive,  the  ability  of  Hunter  and  the  good  sense  of 
Burnet  had  changed  it  for  the  time  into  a  comparatively 
quiet  and  easily  controlled  colony. 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  pp.  325,  329,  366,  395. 


CHAPTER  XII 

The  Governor  in  Legislation 

No  statement  of  the  position  of  the  governor  in  the  pro- 
vincial government  could  be  complete  which  did  not  include 
his  legislative  work.  The  governor  had  the  power  to  call, 
dissolve,  prorogue  and  adjourn  assemblies,^  and  during  the 
sessions  he  presided  in  person  over  the  council  which  con- 
stituted the  upper  house.  Following  the  usage  of  the  other 
provinces,  which  was  in  turn  based  upon  the  precedents  of 
the  English  Parliament,  the  governor  always  opened  ses- 
sions of  the  legislature  by  a  speech  to  the  members  of  the 
two  houses.  This  speech  usually  stated  the  purpose  of  the 
session,  recommended  certain  necessary  subjects  of  legis- 
lation, and  made  patriotic  reference  to  the  benefits  received 
from  the  royal  government.  The  assembly  then  regularly 
withdrew  and  went  into  committee  on  the  governor's  speech, 
usually  resolving,  after  brief  consideration,  what  action  it 
would  take.  During  the  actual  work  of  legislation  the  gov- 
ernor sometimes  communicated  with  the  assembly  by  mes- 
sages, which  were  entered  in  the  journal.  On  occasions  of 
special  importance,  he  summoned  the  two  houses  before  him, 
as  at  the  beginning,  and  addressed  them  personally.  More 
frequently,  however,  the  assembly  communicated  with  the 
governor,  requesting  privileges,  asking  him  to  take  action 
in  matters  like  the  removal  of  certain  officers  and  the  nam- 
ing of  new  ones,  or  asking  information  as  to  his  views  or 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  pp.  492,  494. 

221 


222  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

powers.  In  matters  of  more  serious  nature,  the  house 
sometimes  drew  up  formal  addresses  or  remonstrances  to  the 
governor,  and  waited  upon  him  while  these  were  read  by  the 
speaker.  When  a  bill  granting  "  support  "  to  the  govern- 
ment was  completed,  it  was  the  custom  for  the  speaker  and 
the  house  to  attend  the  governor  in  a  body  to  present  it. 
And  when  the  governor  at  length  determined  to  end  the 
session,  he  always  summoned  the  houses,  and,  in  their  pres- 
ence, formally  assented  to  the  bills  which  had  been  passed 
and  which  met  with  his  approval.  There  was  usually  also 
a  closing  speech  by  his  excellency  in  which  he  thanked  or 
reproved  the  assembly  as  the  case  might  be.^ 

Such  from  a  mechanical  point  of  view  was  the  part  played 
by  the  chief  executive  in  the  making  of  laws.  In  the  extent 
of  their  influence,  however,  in  the  manner  in  which  they  ex- 
ercised their  power  over  the  assembly,  and  in  their  success  in 
obtaining  the  legislation  which  they  desired,  there  were  the 
widest  differences  among  the  governors.  These  differences 
are  not  always  to  be  readily  seen  in  the  assembly  and  coun- 
cil journals.  The  opening  speeches  of  nearly  all  the  ses- 
sions read  very  much  alike.  ^  These  ask  for  the  legislation 
which  the  governors  are  told  by  their  instructions  to  obtain. 
The  two  subjects  almost  always  brought  forward  are  the 
support  of  the  government  and  the  reorganization  of  the 
militia.  As  to  the  patriotic  utterances,  they  are  too  con- 
ventional to  have  much  practical  meaning.  In  many  of  the 
proceedings  of  the  council  and  house  the  governor  is  hardly 
mentioned.  The  actual  relation  of  the  governor  to  what  is 
going  on  is,  in  many  cases,  to  be  found  only  by  reading  care- 
fully between  the  lines  of  the  journals  and  by  a  study  of  the 

*  Assembly  Journal,  passim. 

^The  plain  and  businesslike  statements  of  Hunter  are  somewhat  in 
contrast  to  the  speeches  of  the  other  governors. 


THE  GOVERNOR  IN  LEGISLATION 


223 


correspondence  of  the  governors  and  other  officers  with  the 
home  government. 

It  must  be  remembered,  also,  that  in  the  actual  process  of 
legislation  the  council  was  scarcely  more  than  the  mouth- 
piece of  the  governor.  Disagreements  between  the  council 
and  the  house  were  in  most  cases  disagreements  between  the 
executive  department  and  the  assembly.  The  governor,  no 
doubt,  often  took  advice  from  the  leading  councillors. 
Nevertheless,  the  members  of  the  council  were  in  practice 
dependent  upon  the  governor  for  their  places,  and  could 
be  relied  upon  to  do  his  bidding.  To  this  general  state- 
ment there  are  exceptions,  but  they  are  of  such  nature  as 
to  prove  the  rule.  Under  Lovelace,  it  cannot  be  said  that 
the  governor  controlled  a  majority  of  the  council,  for  the 
ring  of  Cornbury  was  still  entrenched  there.  The  adminis- 
tration was  too  brief,  however,  to  permit  of  the  drawing  of 
a  serious  issue.  Hunter's  rule  began  with  a  direct  conflict 
between  governor  and  council.  But,  as  in  the  case  of  Love- 
lace, this  disagreement  occurred  because  the  creatures  of  the 
former  executives  were  not  in  sympathy  with  the  new  gov- 
ernor. After  Hunter  had  succeeded  in  expelling  his  op- 
ponents from  the  upper  house,  his  control  over  that  body 
was  complete. 

The  efforts  of  Cornbury  in  legislation  were  a  complete 
failure.  He  was  commanded  by  his  instructions  to  secure 
an  act  for  the  support  of  the  government.^  Such  act 
was  to  be  unlimited  in  time,  unless  there  was  temporary 
need.^  He  was  also  ordered  to  obtain  a  law  securing  the 
lands  to  the  proprietors  and  those  who  had  purchased  of 
them.  The  proprietor's  quit-rents  and  other  privileges  were 
likewise  to  be  safeguarded.'     Cornbury  was  told  to  obtain 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  513.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  515. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  517. 


224  ^^^  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

an  act  allowing  the  solemn  declaration  of  the  Friends  to 
stand  for  an  oath,  similar  to  that  passed  in  England  in 
the  reign  of  William/  He  was  also  to  have  an  act  passed 
for  securing  discipline  in  the  military  forces  of  the  province, 
and  was  to  obtain  contributions  for  the  defense  of  New 
York.^  It  was  desired  that  the  general  assembly  should 
restrain  by  legislation  all  inhuman  severity  toward  slaves 
and  servants.^  An  act  was  to  be  secured  insuring  to  credi- 
tors in  England  the  payment  of  debts  due  from  persons 
having  estates  in  New  Jersey.* 

In  not  one  of  these  matters  did  Cornbury  succeed  in  ful- 
filling the  wishes  of  the  home  authorities,  and  he  was  like- 
wise unsuccessful  in  securing  his  own  personal  objects, 
unless  the  two  bribes  he  is  known  to  have  received  be  con- 
sidered." He  recommended  to  the  first  assembly  the  rais- 
ing of  a  support  for  the  government  and  the  confirmation 
of  the  proprietors'  estates.^  At  its  second  meeting  he  added 
recommendations  for  a  militia  act,  and  for  provision  for  the 
repair  of  roads,  and  for  the  establishing  of  a  beacon  on 
Sandy  Hook.^  But  in  his  dissatisfaction  at  the  small  appro- 
priation offered  by  the  assembly  to  himself  and  his  friends, 
he  prevented,  by  adjournment,  the  passage  of  bills  to  con- 
firm the  proprietary  estates  and  for  other  objects.  He  then 
broke  away  from  the  proprietary  party  and  entered  into 
his  infamous  deal  with  their  opponents.  To  obtain  his 
ends  he  excluded  upon  the  flimsiest  pretext  three  regularly 
elected  members  from  the  second  assembly,  thus  securing 
for  a  time  an  anti-proprietary  majority  which  he  hoped 
would  do  his  will.^    The  assembly  did,  indeed,  grant  a  some- 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  522.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  524,  532. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  532.             '^ Ibid.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  198-219. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  10,  1703.  ''Ibid.,  Sept.  7,  1704. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  88. 


THE  GOVERNOR  IN  LEGISLATION  225 

what  larger  sum  to  the  government  for  two  years.  It  also 
passed  a  militia  act  intended  to  punish  the  Quakers,  an  act 
altering  the  method  of  electing  the  representatives  in  the  in- 
terest of  the  anti-proprietary  party,  an  act  for  the  laying 
out  of  highways,  and  an  act  for  regulating  negro  and  Indian 
slaves/  But  so  ill-concealed  was  the  motive  in  these  meas- 
ures that  all,  even  the  act  of  support,  were  disallowed  by 
the  home  government.^ 

At  the  very  next  session  the  party  of  Morris,  Jennings 
and  Gordon  regained  control  of  the  assembly.  The  party 
bitterness  was  greatly  increased  by  the  numerous  scandals 
of  the  administration  and  the  injustice  of  the  courts  and 
executive  officers,  and  from  this  point  to  the  end  of  his 
rule  Cornbury  could  do  nothing  with  the  assembly.  Not 
only  could  he  not  secure  the  legislation  he  recommended, 
but  he  could  not  obtain  any  legislation  at  all.  The  rep- 
resentatives occupied  themselves  with  the  grievances  of  the 
province,  and  the  Jerseys  were  left  almost  entirely  without 
laws. 

The  fact  that  Lovelace  succeeded  such  a  person  as  Corn- 
bury,  together  with  his  own  high  character  and  reputation, 
gave  him  much  influence  with  the  single  assembly  which  met 
under  his  governorship.  In  the  line  of  positive  recom- 
mendations Lovelace  asked  only  for  support  for  the  gov- 
ernment and  a  proper  militia  act,'  and  with  these  sugges- 
tions the  house  readily  complied.  The  act  of  support  was 
indeed  limited  to  one  year,  but  upon  the  matter  of  limited 
grants  no  assembly  ever  yielded  to  a  royal  governor.*     The 

^ Laws  Enacted  in  1704  (Bradford  print). 

*Allinson,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii, 
p.  324.  The  act  regulating  slaves  was  disallowed  because  it  provided  for 
the  infliction  of  an  inhuman  penalty;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii, 
P-  473- 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  309. 

*  Burnet  did,  however,  obtain  support  for  lengthened  terms. 


226  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

governor  had,  in  his  set  of  instructions,  been  directed  to 
alter  the  method  of  selecting  representatives,  so  as  at  the 
same  time  to  prevent  the  carrying-out  of  Cornbury's  scheme, 
and  to  rectify  the  faults  of  the  method  originally  in  force. ^ 
The  assembly  was  found  very  willing  to  put  this  instruction 
in  the  form  of  an  act.^  Numerous  other  laws  were  passed, 
though  there  is  no  evidence  that  any  of  them  originated 
with  the  governor  or  his  advisers. 

Whether  Lovelace  could  have  retained  his  influence  or 
not,  is  of  course  uncertain,  Ingoldsby,  owing  to  his  con- 
nection with  Cornbury,  had  at  first  to  combat  the  hostility 
of  the  assembly.  But,  fortunately  for  him,  Colonels  Nichol- 
son and  Vetch  appeared  with  the  royal  commands  for  rais- 
ing troops  and  supplies  for  their  Canada  expedition,^  and. 
unwilling  as  the  supporters  of  the  proprietors  were  to  coun- 
tenance the  lieutenant-governor,  they  could  not  disregard 
the  wishes  of  the  crown.  Ingoldsby  undoubtedly  secretly 
wished  the  assembly  to  reject  the  recommendations  for  aid- 
ing the  expedition,  so  that  he  might  cast  the  blame  upon 
the  Quakers.  Through  a  shallow  trick  on  the  part  of  two 
anti-proprietary  members  of  the  house,  at  which  the  clique 
in  control  of  the  executive  department  connived,  the  bill 
appropriating  funds  for  the  expedition  was  defeated.*  But, 
through  the  efforts  of  Nicholson  and  Vetch,  the  lieutenant- 
governor  was  virtually  compelled  to  call  the  assembly  again, 
and  the  required  acts  were  promptly  passed,  in  spite  of  the 
nominal  opposition  of  the  Quakers  based  upon  religious 
principle  rather  than  political  feeling. 

A  new  election,  however,  resulted  in  the  choice  of  a  house 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  318,  325. 

*  Allinson,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  329  et  seg. 

*^  Assembly  Journal,   June   13,    1709;  New  Jersey  Archives,   vol.  iii, 
p.  470. 


THE  GOVERNOR  IN  LEGISLATION  227 

favorably  disposed  toward  the  lieutenant-g"overnor.  His 
opening  speech  to  the  fifth  assembly  has  not  been  recorded, 
but  he  secured  the  passage  of  an  act  giving  a  large  part  of 
the  sum  previously  appropriated  for  Lord  Lovelace  to  him- 
self. This  act  would  no  doubt  have  been  disallowed  but  for 
the  failure  of  Ingoldsby  and  Secretary  Basse  to  send  to  the 
home  authorities  the  laws  passed  under  Lovelace.^  By 
their  suspicious  negligence  the  crown  was  deprived  of  the 
opportunity  of  acting  on  the  two  measures  relating  to  the 
support  of  the  government  separately.  Two  of  the  other 
acts  passed  by  the  fifth  assembly  were  also  greatly  in  the 
interest  of  the  political  faction  with  which  Ingoldsby  had 
identified  himself.^  These  were  the  "Act  for  ascertaining 
the  place  of  Setting  of  the  Representatives  in  General  As- 
sembly," and  the  "Act  for  better  Qualifying  Representa- 
tives." The  former  enacted  that  henceforth  sessions  of  the 
assembly  should  be  held  only  at  Burlington,  where  Ingoldsby 
and  Coxe  had  much  influence.^  The  latter  act  was  an  ef- 
fort to  disqualify  Dr.  Johnstone,  Capt.  Farmar,  and  other 
proprietary  leaders.*  We  have  no  way  of  knowing,  how- 
ever, how  far  these  measures  were  the  work  of  the  lieutenant- 
governor  himself.  It  is  more  likely  that  they  were  insti- 
gated by  Coxe. 

With  the  advent  of  Hunter  the  relations  of  the  governor 
with  the  legislature  became  completely  changed.  Like 
Lovelace,  he  had .  from  the  beginning  the  support  of  the 
lower  house,  in  which  the  proprietary  party  again  domin- 
ated. On  the  other  hand,  he  encountered  at  first  the  oppo- 
sition of  the  council,  who  defeated  numerous  bills  which 
had  the  approval  of  Hunter. "^     Nevertheless,  he  secured  in 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  pp.  57,  66. 

'^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  411.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  57,  67. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  67.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  51  et  seq. 


228  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

the  very  first  session  an  act  for  the  support  of  the  govern- 
ment and  an  act  for  the  reviving  of  the  mihtia  act,  an 
achievement  which  had  been  impossible  for  Cornbury.^  By 
his  urgent  representations  to  the  home  authorities,  Hunter 
secured,  after  a  tedious  delay,  the  dismissal  of  the  trouble- 
some persons  from  the  council,  and  henceforth,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  one  short  period,  really  dominated  both  houses  of 
the  legislature.  That  he  succeeded  in  retaining  his  influ- 
ence in  the  legislative  branch  to  the  end  of  his  administra- 
tion, affords  a  high  proof  of  his  skill.  He  accomplished  this 
partly  by  his  friendship  with  Morris,  Gordon,  Johnstone 
and  Gardiner,  the  leaders  of  the  dominant  proprietary  party, 
and  partly  by  the  shrewdness  he  displayed  in  his  actual  deal- 
ings with  the  assembly.  Hunter  personally  never  took  a 
prominent  part  in  the  actual  proceedings  of  the  houses; 
he  avoided  interfering  with  their  deliberations,  and  was 
willing  in  every  way  to  consider  their  prejudices.  He  re- 
cognized clearly  what  a  governor  could  not  hope  to  accom- 
plish, and  never  began  a  contest  in  which  he  was  likely  to 
meet  defeat,  even  if  he  had  to  sacrifice  his  instructions 
themselves.  Yet,  indirectly,  he  gained  everything  that  a 
royal  governor  could  fairly  expect,  and  was  a  real,  though 
quiet,  directing  force. ^ 

He  obtained  without  difficulty  continuous  support  for  the 
government,  and,  although  all  the  appropriations  were 
limited  in  time,  they  were  regularly  renewed.^  Militia 
bills,  placing  the  forces  of  the  province  in  a  fairly  efficient 
state,  were  also  passed  and  renewed.*  The  long-delayed 
bill  giving  to  the  affirmation  of  Quakers  the  full  validity 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  pp.  64,  65. 

"^Assembly  Journal,  passim. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  pp.  469,  552;  vol.  xiv,  p.  iii. 

*  Ibid.,  vol,  xiii,  pp.  470,  541. 


THE  GOVERNOR  IN  LEGISLATION  229 

of  an  oath  was  another  achievement/  Acts  for  enforcing 
the  collection  of  taxes,  and  for  enforcing  the  ordinance  es- 
tablishing fees,  met  the  approval  of  assembly  and  governor 
alike."  But  it  is  not  in  place  here  to  give  a  full  list  of  all 
the  laws  advantageous  to  the  executive  which  resulted 
from  Hunter's  skill.  Enough  has  been  stated  to  show  his 
success  in  this  field.' 

Only  once  was  this  control  of  the  assembly  seriously 
threatened,  and  that  was  when,  upon  the  choice  of  the 
seventh  assembly,  Col.  Daniel  Coxe,  his  great  opponent, 
succeeded  in  controlling  a  majority.  The  manner  in  which 
he  was  able  to  overthrow  Coxe  and  his  followers,  obtain 
their  expulsion  from  the  very  house  they  had  controlled 
and  once  more  gain  control  of  the  assembly,  exhibits  at  the 
same  time  the  governor's  shrewdness  and  the  strength  of 
his  position  in  the  colony.*  Hunter  was  not  over-scrupul- 
ous, it  is  true,  yet  he  solved  a  serious  political  difficulty, 
while  keeping  within  legal  bounds. 

Burnet  was  somewhat  less  fortunate  than  Hunter  in  his 
legislative  duties.  His  first  meeting  with  the  assembly  was 
almost  disastrous,  owing  to  the  combination  which  had 
been  formed  against  him  by  the  proprietors,  Willocks  and 
Johnstone."  Burnet  also  used  poor  judgment,  losing  his 
temper  at  the  opposition,  and  interfering  continually  in  the 
deliberations  by  speeches  and  messages.'     The  provocation 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  541. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  552.     The  latter  was  a  just  attack  by  governor  and 
house  upon  Secretary  Basse.     It  was  eventually  disallowed. 

'  As  instances  of  the  feeling  of  the  assembly  toward  Hunter  see  two 
of  their  addresses;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  21,  28. 

^Assembly  Journal,  May  7,  1716  et  seq. 

''New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  56  et  seq. 

*  Ibid.,  vol,  xiv,  pp.  145-199. 


230  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

was  no  doubt  great,  but  Hunter  would  have  been  more  pa- 
tient. The  result  of  the  conflict  was  the  total  failure  of 
legislation.^ 

In  the  later  meetings,  after  Willocks  had  been  chased 
from  the  Jerseys,  Burnet  was  far  more  successful.  He 
never  again  failed  to  obtain  the  required  appropriations 
for  support,  and  actually  succeeded  in  having  the  grant 
lengthened  to  five  years,  a  notable  victory.^  The  militia 
was  regularly  maintained  by  the  legislature,  and  the  penal- 
ties for  default  made  somewhat  stricter.®  The  act  for  the 
security  of  the  government,  intended  to  secure  the  appre- 
hension and  punishment  of  Jacobites,  was  another  im- 
portant gain  of  the  early  part  of  Burnet's  administration.* 
Throughout,  his  wishes  were  respected  by  the  assembly,  and 
his  influence  was  considerable.  Yet  his  control  was  prob- 
ably never  as  well  secured  as  that  of  Hunter. 

Montgomerie's  brief  experience  with  the  assembly  of  the 
Jerseys  was  not  altogether  happy.  In  spite  of  the  fact  that 
he  was  favorably  regarded,  his  first  session  ended  in  failure, 
because  he  set  himself  in  opposition  to  the  movement  to  se- 
cure a  complete  separation  from  New  York,  a  matter  in 
which  the  assembly  was  now  much  in  earnest.  °  A  second 
meeting  gave  better  results,  as  Montgomerie  secured  a 
militia  act.®  Several  other  laws  were  also  passed  which 
the  governor  approved,  though  their  nature  shows  that  he 
could  hardly  have  originated  them.  While  the  records  of 
the  journals  are  not  conclusive,  we  may  believe  with  reason- 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  10. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  S3.  In  1723  he  attained  an  "additional  support" 
for  ten  years;  this  apparent  concession  was,  however,  merely  a  scheme 
by  which  the  assembly  secured  paper  money.    Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  75. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  54.  *Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  53. 

''Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  263.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  438. 


THE  GOVERNOR  IN  LEGISLATION  23 1 

able  certainty  that  Montgomerie  had  little  directing  influ- 
ence, like  that  exercised  by  Hunter  and  Burnet.^ 

Cosby,  the  last  executive  of  the  Union  Period,  met  the 
assembly  only  once.  But  in  this  meeting  he  was  more  suc- 
cessful than  might  have  been  anticipated  from  the  results 
of  his  conduct  in  New  York.  There  was  no  open  conflict, 
and  the  assembly  passed  not  only  a  measure  for  support, 
but  also  an  act  enabling  creditors  to  recover  debts.''  What 
might  have  occurred  had  Morris  remained  in  New  Jersey 
instead  of  seeking  redress  in  England,  is,  of  course,  a  mat- 
ter of  speculation. 

Taking  the  part  played  by  the  governor  in  the  work  of 
legislation  as  a  whole,  our  study  shows  that  the  office  was 
respected  by  the  legislative  bodies,  and  that,  when  the  post 
was  held  by  men  who  sought  the  welfare  of  the  province, 
they  could  obtain  reasonable  measures  which  did  not  run 
absolutely  counter  to  colonial  views.  The  extent  of  the  di- 
recting influence  possessed  by  the  governor,  on  the  other 
hand,  depended  upon  his  political  skill  and  his  ability  in 
handling  men.  It  must  never  be  forgotten,  however,  that 
there  were  certain  things  which  no  governor  could  ever 
persuade  the  assembly  to  enact,  such  as  unlimited  appro- 
priations, really  rigorous  militia  laws,  and  contributions 
for  the  aid  of  New  York.'  The  wiser  governors  made  no 
serious  effort  to  secure  these  things.  The  general  influ- 
ence of  Hunter  was,  no  doubt,  practically  the  greatest 
which  any  executive  could  have  secured. 

'The  general  character  of  his  relations  with  the  assembly  are  shown 
in  his  letter  of  November  20,  1730;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  288. 
''Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  501-2. 

*The  experience  of  Burnet  and  Montgomerie  seems  also  to  show  the 
impossibility  of  opposing  successfully  the  demand  for  bills  of  credit. 


CHAPTER  XIII 
The  Movement  for  a  Separate  Governor 

The  union  with  New  York  was  never  really  popular  in 
New  Jersey,  and,  from  the  time  it  went  into  effect  down 
to  the  separation  in  1738,  there  were  constantly  recurring 
efforts  to  secure  a  distinct  executive.  Upon  the  surrender 
by  the  proprietors,  as  has  been  indicated,  an  effort  was  made 
to  have  Andrew  Hamilton,  the  last  proprietary  governor, 
continued,  but  he  was  rejected  by  the  home  authorities  be- 
cause they  held  that  he  had  borne  too  great  a  part  in  the 
political  struggles  of  the  Jerseys/  If  we  are  to  believe 
Lewis  Morris,  he  himself  was  then  considered,  and  would 
probably  have  been  chosen  had  it  not  been  for  the  influence 
of  Cornbury,  who  was  desirous  of  increasing  his  income  by 
obtaining  the  addition  of  the  Jerseys  to  the  territory  over 
which  he  was  to  rule.^  It  is  hardly  probable,  however, 
that  the  lords  of  trade  instigated  the  union  with  the  mere 
purpose  of  securing  gain  for  the  royal  governors.  There 
was  the  feeling  that  the  Jerseys  were  poor  and  weak,  and 
that  they  could  not  maintain  efficient  separate  government.' 

At  the  beginning  there  seems  to  have  been  no  popular 
feeling  against  Cornbury,  because  he  was  at  the  same  time 
governor  of  New  York.  As  feeling  developed  against  the 
corrupt  administration  of  his  lordship,  however,  one  of  the 
points  most  emphasized  by  his  opponents  was  that  he  re- 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  484. 

''Ibid.,  vol.  V,  pp.  298,  320;  vol.  ii,  p.  474.  ''Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p,  272. 

232 


THE  MOVEMENT  FOR  A  SEPARATE  GOVERNOR      233 

sided  continually  in  New  York  and  neglected  the  Jerseys.* 
Tlie  fact  that  Lieutenant-Governor  Ingoldsby  was  stationed 
permanently  at  Burlington  was  justly  disregarded  by  the 
leaders  of  the  assembly,  as,  indeed,  lie  did  nothing,  and  was 
a  needless  expense."  In  the  great  remonstrance  of  1707, 
which  sums  up  the  chief  causes  of  complaint  against  Corn- 
bury,  the  first  charge  relates  to  his  continued  absence.  The 
object  of  the  opposition  was,  however,  to  get  rid  of  the 
governor  and  his  corrupt  ring  personally.  Centering  their 
efforts  uppon  this,  they  wisely  forbore  to  demand  sweeping 
changes  in  the  constitution  of  the  province,  and  so  the  need 
for  a  separate  governor  was  only  hinted  at,  rather  than 
openly  asked,  during  the  campaign  against  Cornbury.  It 
is  amusing  to  note  that,  whereas  in  1707  the  assembly  com- 
plained of  Cornbury's  continued  absence,  a  later  assembly 
declared  that  they  were  fully  convinced  that  Cornbury's 
presence  would  have  been  still  more  hurtful. 

Lovelace  was  welcomed  because  his  advent  put  an  end 
to  Cornbury's  power,  and  Ingoldsby  was,  of  course,  not  re- 
garded as  a  permanent  executive.  But  there  seems  to  have 
been  no  active  attempt  to  secure  separation  during  the  in- 
terval before  the  commissioning  of  Hunter.  The  bitter 
party  strife  in  the  Jerseys  continued  to  prevent  this  issue 
from  being  made  prominent.  The  able  rule  of  Hunter 
gave  satisfaction  to  the  proprietors  and  peace  to  the  pro- 
vince. He  had,  nevertheless,  to  combat  the  hostility  of 
such  able  men  as  Colonel  Coxe,  Basse  and  Sonmans.  After 
he  had  driven  them  from  the  council,  Coxe,  Basse  and  their 
followers  appealed  to  the  people  against  the  governor,  and. 
as  we  have  noted,  succeeded  in  gaining  for  a  short  time 
control  of  the  assembly.     In  his  efforts  to  arouse  public 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  174,  243. 
*  Ibid.,  vol.  iii.  pp.  ill.  243. 


234  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

feeling,  Coxe  appears  to  have  appealed  largely  to  the  pre- 
judices of  the  churchmen  against  the  Quakers;  he  also,  how- 
ever, began  to  voice  the  demand  for  a  separate  governor.^ 
This  was  certainly  shrewd  politics,  for  Coxe  might  hope  not 
only  to  obtain  much  support  on  the  question,  but  also  to 
cause  special  annoyance  to  the  governor,  who  was  thus 
threatened  in  his  income.  Hunter,  however,  wrote  to  the 
lords  that  he  would  heartily  join  with  Coxe  in  his  suppli- 
cation, if  it  were  consistent  with  his  duty;  but  as  it  was  an 
ill  precedent,  he  would  endeavor  to  put  a  stop  to  the 
agitation,^ 

After  allowing  himself  and  his  followers  to  be  expelled 
from  the  assembly  for  non-attendance,  Coxe,  probably  fear- 
ing prosecution,  made  a  journey  to  England  to  make  direct 
representations  against  Hunter.  As  to  his  conduct  in  Lon- 
don and  what  he  succeeded  in  accomplishing  we  know  little, 
except  that  in  the  end  Hunter  was  vindicated.  Samuel 
Bustall,  a  friend  of  Coxe,  who  accompanied  him,  wrote 
home,  however,  that  Hunter  was  to  be  displaced,  and  that 
New  Jersey  was  to  have  a  separate  administration.'^  Un- 
doubtedly Coxe  made  every  effort,  though  unsuccessfully^ 
to  accomplish  this  result. 

The  matter  of  separation  did  not  again  come  up  under 
Hunter,  nor  do  the  lords  seem  to  have  considered  it  when 
Burnet  was  named  as  governor  of  New  York  and  New 
Jersey.  From  the  beginning,  Burnet,  advised  probably  by 
Hunter,  seems  to  have  understood  that  the  people  of  New 
Jersey  desired  a  separate  governor.  In  his  opening  speech 
at  the  first  meeting  of  the  assembly,  he  assured  the  members 
that  he  would  give  the  province  a  proportional  amount  of 
his  time.  In  1721,  in  a  report  upon  the  condition  of  New 
Jersey,  he  assured  the  lords  that  the  people  thought  it  a 

'^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv.  p.  233.     ^Ibid.      ^/bid. ,  vol.  iv,  p.  263, 


THE  MOVEMENT  FOR  A  SEPARATE  GOVERNOR      235 

great  hardship  to  pay  a  governor  who  resided  in  another 
colony,  and  that  they  would  gladly  raise  a  larger  sum  for 
a  governor  of  their  own,  believing  that  a  separation  would 
greatly  increase  the  trade  and  welfare  of  the  province.^  At 
about  the  same  time,  when  the  question  of  the  ownership 
of  the  islands  in  the  Delaware  was  being  considered  by  the 
home  government,  a  description  of  the  island  of  Burling- 
ton, prepared  by  Daniel  Coxe,  pointed  out  that  when  New 
Jersey  obtained  a  separate  governor  the  said  island  would 
be  a  highly  suitable  place  for  his  residence.'^ 

Since  the  people  of  New  Jersey  enjoyed  great  prosperity 
and  quiet  under  Burnet,  no  further  active  agitation  was  for 
some  time  carried  on.  Yet,  during  the  administration,  the 
feeling  against  having  persons  in  offices  of  trust  who  did 
not  reside  in  the  province,  strongly  develo^jed.^  Burnet 
showed  wisdom  in  countenancing  this  feeling,  and  one  im- 
portant result  was  the  supplanting  of  Jamison,  the  chief 
justice,  by  Trent,  a  Jerseyman.*  The  establishment  of  an 
agent  in  London,  responsible  only  to  the  New  Jersey  As- 
sembly, was  also  a  noteworthy  step,  though  the  object  was 
not  primarily  to  obtain  a  complete  separation  from  New 
York."  In  the  very  last  session  of  Burnet's  term,  the  move- 
ment for  a  separate  executive  was,  however,  renewed  by 
the  able  and  ambitious  John  Kinsey,  of  Middlesex.  Burnet 
succeeded  in  postponing  th6  matter  by  holding  a  conference 
with  Kinsey  and  his  friends,  in  which  he  told  them  that  he 
could  not  at  that  time  countenance  their  demand,  and  that 
if  they  persisted  he  must  dissolve  the  assembly."       They 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  21.  "^ Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  40. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  20,  1723. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p,  "JT. 
''Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  25,  1723. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  262;  vol.  xiv,  p.  355.     Burnet  in  his 


.236  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

agreed  for  the  time  being,  but  the  matter  was  henceforth 
regarded  as  one  of  the  important  questions  of  provincial 
politics. 

Montgomerie,  though  of  no  great  ability,  had  been 
thoroughly  informed  of  conditions  in  New  Jersey  by  both 
Hunter  and  Burnet/  He,  however,  made  the  mistake  of 
opposing  the  strong  public  opinion  regarding  separation. 
Kinsey  was  a  controlling  element  in  the  assembly,  and  early 
in  its  first  session  under  the  new  executive,  it  voted  that 
having  a  distinct  government  would  be  advantageous 
to  the  colony.  It  then  proceeded  to  consider  the  best  means 
of  obtaining  one,  and  named  a  committee  to  ask  the  governor 
and  council  for  their  cooperation  and  a  conference.  They 
were  to  inform  Montgomerie  that  it  was  not  their  desire  to 
cause  him  the  least  uneasiness,  but  merely  to  perform  what 
they  believed  to  be  a  duty.'  But  Montgomerie  would  make 
no  terms.  As  soon  as  he  learned  of  the  action  of  the  house, 
he  laid  the  matter  before  the  council,  and  as  a  result  adjourned 
the  assembly.  Soon  after  he  dissolved  it.  It  writing  home 
in  regard  to  the  matter,  Montgomerie  stated  that,  since  the 
assembly  had  made  no  mention  of  addressing  the  crown,  he 
regarded  their  action  as  disrespectful  to  the  king.  The 
lords  of  trade,  however,  very  properly  took  a  different  view 
of  the  affair,  and  replied  that,  though  the  manner  in  which 
the  assembly  proceeded  might  have  been  indiscreet,  they 
did  not  think  that  subjects,  especially  when  met  in  assembly, 
should  be  discouraged  from  appealing  to  the  crown. ^    This 

speech  to  his  last  assembly  urged  that  an  official  residence  be  provided 
in  New  Jersey  for  the  governor,  but  no  action  was  taken.  Burnet  and 
Hunter  had  maintained  houses  at  their  own  expense  at  Amboy. 

^  Morris  said,  however,  that  Montgomerie  expected  a  much  greater 
income  from  New  Jersey  than  he  received;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol. 
V,  p.  315- 

'^ Ibid.,    vol.  xiv,  pp.  398-9.  '^ Ibtd.,  vol.  v,  p.  247. 


THE  MOVEMENT  FOR  A  SEPARATE  GOVERNOR     237 

answer  evidently  frightened  the  governor,  for  he  made  haste 
to  reply  that  the  leaders  of  the  assembly  had  carried  on  their 
plans  at  secret  meetings  and  had  refused  to  w^ork  openly, 
and  that  he  had  acted  according  to  the  advice  of  his  coun- 
cil/ Warned  by  the  advice  of  the  lords,  Montgomerie  as- 
sumed a  different  attitude  toward  the  newly  elected  assembly. 
The  change  was  fortunate,  as  Kinsey  was  chosen  speaker, 
thus  showing  that  he  controlled  a  majority  of  the  house. 
An  understanding  was  now  probably  arrived  at  between  the 
governor  and  the  speaker,  and,  by  permission  of  Mont- 
gomerie, Kinsey  prepared  an  address  to  the  crown  setting 
forth  the  advantages  of  a  distinct  government.  This  ad- 
dress was  promptly  voted  by  the  house  and  transmitted  to 
England  by  the  governor  himself.  The  address  stated  briefly 
that,  as  the  governor  resided  in  New  York,  the  affairs  of  that 
province  necessarily  occupied  most  of  his  time,  and  applica- 
tion to  him  was  difficult.  The  same  thing  applied  also  to 
other  officers,  who  not  only  lived  in  New  York,  but  spent 
their  salaries  there.  The  people  of  New  Jersey  were  well 
pleased  with  Montgomerie,  but  honestly  believed  that  a 
separate  government  would  be  an  advantage.^ 

The  unexpected  death  of  Montgomerie  led  to  more  vig- 
orous action  for  separation.  When  Morris,  as  president  of 
the  council,  took  over  the  administration,  an  address  was 
presented  to  him  by  his  council,  setting  forth  the  evils  of  the 
absence  of  the  governor  in  New  York,  and  advocating  an 
independent  government.^  A  copy  of  this  address  was  sent 
to  the  Duke  of  Newcastle,  and  his  friendly  intervention  with 
the  king  was  asked  by  Richard  Partridge,  now  the  agent  of 

^  Neu>  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  pp.  268-269. 
*Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  270. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  296.  The  student  cannot  help  feeling  that  this  ad- 
dress may  have  been  instigated  by  Morris  himself. 


238  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

New  Jersey/  A  little  later  President  Morris  wrote  per- 
sonally to  Newcastle  advocating  separation.^  As  usual, 
his  letter  is  able  and  gives  a  clear  idea  as  to  the  situation. 
Morris  said  that  it  was  undoubtedly  the  desire  of  the  greater 
part  of  the  people  to  have  separation.  But  many  were  in- 
different, and  those  living  near  New  York  were  opposed. 
One  of  the  most  popular  arguments  used  was  that,  if  New 
Jersey  had  a  governor  of  her  own,  many  of  the  merchants 
of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  would  settle  there,  and  thus 
increase  the  trade  of  the  province.  But  Morris  himself 
was  uncertain  as  to  this,  as  New  York  and  Pennsylvania 
had  much  the  better  of  them  in  trade.  Morris,  however, 
believed  that  the  addition  of  New  Jersey  to  New  York 
meant  more  to  prospective  governors  in  London  than  to  ac- 
tual governors  in  America.  Their  expense  in  attending  to 
it  would  be  as  much  as  their  profits.  Finally,  the  president 
of  the  council  admitted  that  the  people  of  the  Jerseys  really 
wished  a  redivision  of  the  province  into  East  and  West 
Jersey.^  But,  though  each  part  was  anxious  to  obtain  the 
governor's  residence,  if  a  separate  governor  came,  neither 
part  had  a  house  for  the  governor  or  anything  for  this  en- 
tertainment except  an  inn.  The  jealousy  of  the  divisions 
might  even  defeat  all  suitable  provision  for  the  governor. 

Morris  also  pointed  out  that  an  able  man  would  be  neces- 
sary to  control  the  assertive  assembly  of  New  Jersey,  and 
closed  his  communication  by  modestly  recommending  him- 
self for  the  post.  The  wishes  of  the  leaders  and  people  of 
the  Jerseys,  however,  did  not  prevail  immediately  against 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  303.         '^ Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  314  et  seq. 

*The  substitution  by  Hunter,  upon  the  request  of  the  assembly,  of  sep- 
arate treasurers  for  East  and  West  Jersey  for  a  single  provincial  treas- 
urer may  be  an  indication  of  this  feeling;  Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  4, 
1718-19. 


THE  MOVEMENT  FOR  A  SEPARATE  GOVERNOR      239 

the  influence  of  Cosby,  who  was  forthwith  commissioned  as 
governor  of  both  New  York  and  New  Jersey.  Under  the 
conditions  of  the  old  colonial  system  it  was  indeed  difficult 
to  secure  any  changes  of  existing  institutions  without  con- 
tinued effort.  It  may  be  noted  that  the  bitter  animosity 
between  Morris  and  Cosby  may  not  have  been  altogether 
disconnected  with  the  attempt  of  the  former  to  obtain  a 
commission  for  New  Jersey. 

Cosby,  in  his  opening  speech,  expressed  his  earnest  desire 
to  divide  his  time  between  the  two  provinces.^  But  it  ap- 
pears that  he  paid  less  heed  to  the  affairs  of  New  Jersey 
than  any  governor  since  Cornbury.  During  the  single  ses- 
sion of  the  assembly  held  during  his  rule,  however,  no  for- 
mal action  was  taken  to  secure  separation  so  far  as  the 
governorship  went.  The  house  did  present  an  address 
to  Cosby  representing  the  need  of  appointing  as  members 
of  the  council  and  other  important  officers  only  such  as  were 
actually  residents.  To  this  prayer  Cosby  replied  favorably.^ 
Later  in  the  work  of  the  assembly  the  governor  thought  it 
necessary  to  reprove  the  house  for  its  slowness,  and  to  ad- 
journ it  for  a  short  recess.  In  his  speech  on  this  occasion, 
he  said  he  knew  their  desire  to  obtain  a  distinct  government, 
and  was  willing  to  do  all  in  his  power  to  remove  difficulties, 
implying,  of  course,  that  the  members  were  showing  ingrati- 
tude.' The  death  of  Cosby  occurred,  however,  before  any- 
thing further  was  accomplished. 

It  now  seemed  to  be  the  common  understanding  that  a 
separation  would  be  effected.  Almost  the  first  act  of 
Colonel  John  Anderson,  the  new  president  of  the  council, 
was  to  transmit  to  Newcastle  a  petition  to  the  king  praying 

'  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  477. 
"^  Assembly  Journal,  May  18,  1733. 
^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  481. 


240  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

for  a  separate  governor,  signed  by  himself,  the  council  and 
divers  members  of  the  assembly/  The  agitation  was  then 
actively  taken  up  by  Richard  Partridge,  the  agent,  v^ho  sub- 
mitted another  petition  and  a  representation  based  upon 
the  former  communication  of  Lewis  Morris,^  and  who  fol- 
lowed this  by  a  further  detailed  statement  of  reasons  for 
the  separation  of  New  Jersey  from  New  York.^  The  want 
of  a  separate  governor,  he  said,  ruined  the  trade  of  New 
Jersey,  abated  the  price  of  land,  and  depopulated  the  pro- 
vince. As  there  was  no  naval  of^cer,  no  vessel  could  be 
registered  without  going  to  New  York,  and  from  some 
places  that  cost  £io.  Acts  for  preserving  timber  could 
not  be  enforced,  lest  they  prejudice  the  trade  of  New 
York.  The  consumption  of  provisions  and  manufactures 
"  from  hence  "  would  be  greater  if  the  governor  and  all 
officers  were  residents  of  the  Jerseys.  People  in  Europe 
would  not  settle  in  a  province  which  was  dependent.  All 
judges  and  other  officers  had  to  be  attended  at  New  York, 
and  this  also  robbed  New  Jersey  of  the  sums  paid  them. 
No  application  could  be  made  to  them  upon  sudden  occasion 
without  great  expense,  and  sometimes  not  then.  As  the 
governor  lived  in  New  York,  he  seldom  held  councils  in 
New  Jersey,  and  hence  writs  of  error  from  the  supreme 
court  sometimes  lay  a  year  without  attention.  The  militia 
could  not  be  disciplined,  because  the  officers  lived  without 
the  province.  The  judges  countenanced  the  New  York 
lawyers,  who  carried  away  all  the  business.  The  troubles 
of  New  Jersey  were  not  understood  in  New  York.  The 
officers  in  New  York  gave  no  security,  and,  hence,  were  in 
no  danger  of  punishment  if  they  did  wrong.  The  coun- 
cillors at  New  York,  having  the  governor's  ear,   recom- 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  523;  vol.  v,  p.  441. 
"^ Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  448.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  451. 


THE  MOVEMENT  FOR  A  SEPARATE  GOVERNOR 


241 


mended  to  office  persons  who  were  scarcely  known  in  New 
Jersey.  The  governor,  moreover,  could  hardly  be  expected 
to  pass  bills  affecting  the  interests  of  New  York.  New 
Jersey  was  entirely  ready  to  support  her  own  administration. 
Many  Palatines  and  others  would  not  settle  in  New  Jersey, 
because  they  had  been  ill-treated  by  the  governor  of  New 
York.  If  there  were  a  separate  government,  it  would  pre- 
vent much  trouble  to  the  people  of  New  Jersey  who  were 
loyal  to  the  crown.  The  trade  of  the  colony  would  increase, 
and  that  would  help  England,  as  more  people  would  be 
employed  in  making  naval  stores.  Though  the  agent  in  his 
zeal  undoubtedly  overstated  the  facts,  and  though  his  ill- 
assorted  and  ill-arranged  reasons  are  based  largely  upon 
the  economic  theories  of  mercantilism,  there  was,  neverthe- 
less, sufficient  truth  at  the  bottom  of  nearly  all  his  state- 
ments to  prove  his  main  contention. 

Meanwhile,  Sir  William  Keith  had  applied  for  the  separ- 
ate governorship  of  New  Jersey  and  added  his  efforts  to 
those  of  Partridge.^ 

But  in  the  colony  the  attention  of  the  political  leaders 
had  meanwhile  been  diverted  by  the  unseemly  contest  be- 
tween Hamilton  and  Morris  for  the  presidency  of  the  coun- 
cil. This  contention  ended  in  the  recognition  of  the  former, 
who  was  ordered  to  preserve  order  until  the  arrival  of  Lord 
Delaware,  who  was  to  be  commissioned  as  joint  governor 
of  New  York  and  New  Jersey.^  The  astonishing  decision 
of  the  home  authorities  to  continue  the  union  was,  however, 
not  final.  Upon  more  mature  consideration  it  was  de- 
cided to  grant  to  New  Jersey  the  distinct  administration 
she  had  so  long  desired,  and  this  concession  was  followed 
by  the  further  one  of  naming  Lewis  Morris  as  her  first  in- 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  pp.  435,  446,  450. 
^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  490,  491  (note). 


242 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


dependent  governor.  Though  his  recent  conduct  had  been 
found  unwarrantable/  Morris  was  certainly  entitled  to  the 
place  by  his  long  experience  in  New  Jersey  affairs,  as  well 
as  by  his  undoubted  ability.  Only  later  results  could  show 
that,  after  all,  he  lacked  some  of  the  qualifications  needed 
for  a  successful  executive. 

The  demand  of  New  Jersey  was  certainly  a  just  one,  in 
the  light  of  her  growth  in  population  and  wealth.  Its  re- 
cognition was  proof  that  the  home  government  was  desir- 
ous of  benefiting  the  province  by  every  proper  means  con- 
sistent with  the  political  and  economic  theories  of  the  time. 
But  the  delay  and  trouble  in  carrying  the  matter  through, 
as  usual,  must  have  given  the  colonists  the  impression  that 
the  concession  was  made  grudgingly  and  hesitatingly. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  v,  pp.  480-1. 


CHAPTER  XIV 
Other  Executive  Officers 

When  the  royal  government  was  instituted  over  New 
Jersey,  Richard  Ingoldsby  was  commissioned  as  lieutenant- 
governor  under  Lord  Cornbury/  He  held  a  similar  posi- 
tion, also,  in  New  York.  The  object  of  creating  a  lieute- 
nant-governor appears  to  have  been  to  provide  a  capable 
substitute  for  the  chief  executive  in  that  one  of  the  united 
provinces  from  which  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  be  ab- 
sent. It  must  have  been  thought,  therefore,  that  Ingoldsby 
should  devote  himself  especially  to  New  Jersey.  The 
lieutenant-governor  was,  of  course,  to  succeed  the  governor 
in  case  of  his  death  or  absence.  From  the  beginning,  how- 
ever, the  arrangement  worked  poorly.  The  selection  of 
an  ambitious  office-seeker  like  Ingoldsby  was  a  mistake 
second  only  to  the  appointment  of  Cornbury  himself.  Corn- 
bury  was,  moreover,  suspicious  of  Ingoldsby.^  For  this  sus- 
picion there  was  some  reason,  for  Cornbury's  conduct  was 
of  such  character  that  it  was  highly  dangerous  for  him  that 
any  one,  especially  a  possible  successor,  should  be  closely 
informed  as  to  the  nature  of  his  acts. 

Trouble  began  as  early  as  November,  1704.  At  this  time 
Ingoldsby,  though  on  his  way  to  Burlington,  was  at  New 
York  City.  Cornbury  was  at  Burlington,  attending  a  ses- 
sion of  the  New  Jersey  assembly.     A  letter  arrived  from 

'  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  p.  22. 

'^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  1 10,  145. 

243 


244  ^^^  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

the  frontier  addressed  to  the  governor,  and  Ingoldsby,  be- 
lieving it  to  be  of  importance,  summoned  the  council  at  New 
York,  and  opened  it.  He  then  forwarded  a  translation  to 
Cornbury.^  For  this  act  he  was  sharply  rebuked  by  his 
superior,  who  declared  that  Ingoldsby  knew  that  he  was 
stationed  at  Burlington,  and  that  his  presence  at  New 
York  was  accidental.^  Ingoldsby  then  proceeded  to  Bur- 
lington where  he  remained.  A  little  later,  upon  applica- 
tion, he  gave  a  pass  to  an  Indian  chief  to  visit  New  York. 
At  this  step  Cornbury  was  again  displeased,  and  told  the 
lieutenant-governor  that  he  had  exceeded  his  authority. 
Ingoldsby  then  asked  for  instructions,  but  Cornbury  gave 
none,  saying  that  he  should  not  act  at  all.' 

Ingoldsby,  who  seemed  to  have  been  chagrined  at  his  lack 
of  power,  wrote  in  November,  1705,  to  the  lords  of  trade 
complaining  of  Cornbury's  treatment  and  asking  instruc- 
tions.* But  the  home  government,  upon  consideration  of 
the  matter,  decided  that  the  existing  arrangement  was  a 
cause  of  confusion.  Ingoldsby's  commission  as  lieutenant- 
governor  of  New  York  was  therefore  ordered  revoked.' 
He  was,  however,  at  the  same  time  appointed  a  member 
of  the  council  of  New  Jersey,  to  which  he  had  not  pre- 
viously belonged.®  Thereafter  he  remained  stationed  per- 
manently at  Burlington,  representing  Cornbury  in  a  sense, 
though  performing  no  important  acts  of  government.''    The 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  67,  no. 

"^Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  68.      '^Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  in.      ^Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  109. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  145.  It  does  not  appear,  however,  that  the  order 
was  signed  by  the  queen;  ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  469. 

''Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  145. 

"^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  98.  Ingoldsby  issued  some  licenses,  the  most  im-^ 
portant  of  which  is  one  to  George  Willocks  and  partners  to  purchase 
land  of  the  Indians  in  West  Jersey  up  to  the  amount  of  their  proprie- 
tary shares;  liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  p.  90.  He  also  declared  Mr. 
Moore  suspended  from  the  ministry,  and  Cornbury  approved  the  act. 


OTHER  EXECUTIVE  OFFICERS 


245 


lieutenant-governor  would  have  been,  indeed,  an  expensive 
ornament  for  New  Jersey,  had  it  not  been  for  the  wisdom 
of  the  assembly  in  refusing  to  grant  any  funds  whatever 
for  the  support  of  Cornbury  and  his  corrupt  crew. 

In  spite  of  what  had  passed  between  Cornbury  and  In- 
goldsby,  the  latter  became  an  important  member  of  the 
clique  supporting  the  tyranny  of  the  governor.  He  signed 
the  council's  address  to  the  Crown  in  favor  of  Cornbury's 
course,  and  was  in  general  a  subservient  tool.  Yet,  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  Ingoldsby  had  been  deprived  of  all  au- 
thority, Cornbury  did  not  hesitate  to  declare,  in  reply  to 
that  part  of  the  famous  assembly  protest  of  1707,  which 
complained  of  his  continued  absence  from  the  Jerseys, 
that  the  lieutenant-governor  was  always  in  the  province  to 
do  justice  to  all.^  While  at  Burlington,  Ingoldsby  was 
closely  associated  with  Daniel  Coxe,  Jr.,  and  Basse.  With 
them  he  was  prominent  in  the  "  Jacobite "  church,  St. 
Mary's.  Nevertheless,  on  one  occasion  he  was  refused  the 
sacrament  by  the  brave  Mr.  Moore.'' 

During  the  brief  rule  of  Lovelace  Ingoldsby  continued 
as  lieutenant-governor.  He  did  nothing,  however,  except 
to  give  such  encouragement  as  his  title  afforded  to  the 
clique  of  councillors  opposing  the  assembly.^ 

Upon  the  untimely  death  of  Lovelace,  Ingoldsby  assumed 
the  execution  of  his  commission  and  instructions  as  his 
designated  successor."*  The  general  character  of  his  ad- 
ministration has  already  been  stated.  He  called  meetings 
of  the  council  and  assembly,  signed  commissions  and  wrote 
to  the  home  authorities,  just  as  a  full  governor  would  have 
<lone.     In  his  first  letter  to  the  lords  he  asked  for  a  con- 

'  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  181. 

'  Hills,  History  of  the  Church  in  Burlington,  p.  79. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  364,  390.        ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  460. 


246  THE  PRO    -^^CE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

tinuance  of  his  power  as  governor  upon  the  ground  that  he 
had  served  long  in  Cornbury's  time  without  recompense.^ 
The  reply  of  the  lords,  however,  was  to  revoke  Ingoldsby's 
commission  and  order  him  to  cease  from  exercising  further 
authority.^  In  the  light  of  Ingoldsby's  character  and  ability, 
this  was  a  wise  decision.  His  brief  term  of  power  ended 
thus  ingloriously. 

A  lieutenant-governor  was  never  again  appointed  for 
New  Jersey.  The  office  had  proved  inconvenient,  useless 
and  expensive. 

In  Cornbury's  commission  it  was  stated  that  in  case  of 
the  death  or  absence  of  the  governor,  if  there  were  no 
lieutenant-governor,  the  administration  should  be  assumed 
by  the  council,  and  the  councillor  who  should  at  the  time 
be  residing  in  the  province,  and  who  was  named  in  the  in- 
structions before  any  other  councillor,  should  preside,  with 
such  powers  as  should  be  necessary  in  those  circumstances 
for  the  carrying  on  of  orderly  government.^  But  the  in- 
structions ordered  the  council  in  such  cases  to  forbear  all 
acts  of  authority  not  immediately  necessary,  until  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  new  governor.*  By  an  additional  in- 
struction, issued  to  Cornbury  in  1707,  a  slight  change  was 
made  in  the  arrangements  for  the  succession.  This  article 
stated  that  the  oldest  councillor,  whose  name  was  placed  first 
in  the  instructions,  and  who  was  actually  residing  in  the 
province  at  the  time  of  the  absence  or  death  of  the  gov- 
ernor, should  assume  the  administration  until  the  governor 
returned  or  the  further  pleasure  of  the  Crown  was  known.  ° 
The  office  of  president  of  the  council  was  thus  rendered 
a  little  more  definite. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  \o\.\n,  ■p.  ^62,.  ''/Wrf. ,  vol.  iii,  p.  474. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  500.  *■  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  534. 

''Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  170. 


OTHER  EXECUTIVE  OFFICERS  247 

In  Cornbury's  instructions  the  name  of  Edward  Hunloke, 
of  West  Jersey,  stood  first,  and  that  of  Lewis  Morris 
second.^  Before  the  council  took  the  oaths,  however,  Hun- 
loke was  dead,  and  Morris,  therefore  succeeded  to  the  rights 
of  "  first  named  councillor."  ^  Morris  was,  however,  soon 
suspended  from  the  council  because  of  his  violent  opposition 
to  the  governor,  and,  although  the  lords  of  trade  directed 
Cornbury  to  restore  him  upon  his  making  due  submission,' 
he  did  not  resume  his  place  until  the  accession  of  Lovelace. 
Upon  the  death  of  Lovelace  and  the  assumption  of  power  by 
Tngoldsby,  the  devoted  Morris  was  once  more  suspended.* 
But  his  name  was  again  placed  first  among  the  councillors 
when  Hunter's  instructions  were  drawn." 

While  Morris  was  under  suspension,  the  presidency  of  the 
council  fell  to  William  Pinhorne,  better  known  as  second 
judge  of  the  supreme  court  under  the  administrations  of 
Cornbury  and  Ingoldsby.  During  the  early  part  of  In- 
goldsby's  rule,  Pinhorne,  in  the  capacity  of  first  named  coun- 
cillor, actually  presided  over  several  meetings  of  the  coun- 
cil in  the  absence  of  the  lieutenant-governor.' 

But  from  the  arrival  of  Hunter  until  his  death,  the  pre- 
sidency of  the  council  was  held  continuously  by  Lewis 
Morris.  The  fact  that  such  an  able,  well-known  and  in- 
fluential person  held  the  position,  undoubtedly  added  some- 
thing to  the  importance  of  its  honorary  value,  while,  con- 
versely, the  fact  that  he  was  president  increased  the  pres- 
tige of  Morris. 

Yet,  Morris,  with  all  his  excellent  qualities,  appears  to 
have  been  a  little  vain,  and  to  have  assumed  a  dignity  as 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  507. 
^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  i.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  124,  349. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  464.  ''Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  2. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  pp.  340,  350,  351  et  seq. 


248  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

president  of  the  council  which  the  actual  importance  of  the 
office  hardly  justified.  This  attitude  at  times  excited  the 
ridicule  of  Morris'  enemies,  as  when,  upon  the  arrival  of 
Lovelace,  Morris  presented  a  personal  address  of  congratu- 
lation and  approval  to  the  new  governor/ 

Owing  to  the  presence  of  the  lieutenant-governor  and  the 
brief  interval  between  the  retirement  of  Ingoldsby  and  the 
arrival  of  Hunter,  the  actual  administration  of  the  province 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  assumed  by  the  president  of  the 
council  until  1719,  during  the  period  between  the  with- 
drawal of  Hunter  and  the  arrival  of  Burnet.  During  this 
interval  Morris  deemed  it  necessary  to  summon  several 
meetings  of  the  council  and  to  take  up  some  rather  im- 
portant business.^  Steps  were  taken  to  enforce  the  col- 
lection in  Burlington  and  Hunterdon  counties  of  the  tax  re- 
quired by  the  act  for  the  support  of  the  government.'  The 
council  insisted  that  the  treasurers  of  the  province  should 
have  security,  and  when  Basse  was  unable  to  do  so,  accepted 
his  resignation.*  The  accounts  of  Gordon,  the  late  pro- 
vincial treasurer,  were  audited  and  found  satisfactory." 
Two  rather  important  communications  were  received  from 
the  home  authorities  and  read.®  Petitions  from  the  pro- 
prietors were  received,  but  were  put  over  for  future  action.' 
Morris  was,  however,  authorized  to  press  the  president  and 
council  of  New  York  relative  to  the  running  of  the  boundary 
line  between  the  provinces  which  had  been  provided  for  by 
recent  acts  of  the  assembly.*  Morris  also  issued  commis- 
sions naming  Isaac  Decowe  as  treasurer  of  West  Jersey,  in 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  380,  381. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  116  et  seq. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  116,  118,  128;  vol.  iv,  p.  400. 

*-Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  117,  127,  135.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  119  ei  seq. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  129  et  seq.  "^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  408. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  134;  vol.  iv,  pp.  446,  448. 


OTHER  EXECUTIVE  OFFICERS  249 

room  of  Basse. ^  and  appointing  military  officers.  When 
his  power  in  the  latter  field  was  denied  by  Major  Josiah 
Ogden,  the  attorney-general  was  directed  to  prosecute 
Iiim.'^  Morris,  in  fact,  ventured  to  do  nearly  everything 
that  a  governor  would  do  except  to  call  the  assembly.  Yet 
as  New  Jersey  was  without  a  governor  from  August,  17 19, 
to  September,  1720,  he  probably  did  no  more  than  was 
necessary. 

As  Montgomerie  arrived  in  the  province  before  Burnet 
retired,  the  power  of  the  president  of  the  council  did  not 
reappear  in  1728.  Upon  Montgomerie's  death,  however, 
there  was  another  interregnum,  and  Morris  again  assumed 
the  administration.'  This  second  presidency  lasted  from 
July,  1 73 1,  to  August,  1732,  when  Cosby  arrived.  No 
very  important  steps  were  taken  during  this  period.  A  pro- 
clamation was  issued  continuing  all  military  and  civil  officers 
until  further  notice.*  But  two  sheriffs  soon  had  to  be 
removed  upon  charges  brought  against  them."  A  letter 
was  received  from  the  president  of  New  York  relating 
to  French  encroachments,"  but  the  council  of  New  Jersey 
would  merely  say  that  they  doubted  not  but  that  the  king, 
if  he  were  properly  informed,  would  take  proper  steps. 
They  were  unwilling  that  the  agent  of  New  Jei-sey  should 
join  in  making  representations  on  the  subject  until  they 
knew  definitely  what  was  to  be  solicited.^  Morris  also 
proclaimed  the  disallowance  by  the  Crown  of  three  acts 
of  the  assembly.* 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  135;  liber  AAA  of  Commissions. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  137,  138,  139. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  455  ^^  seq. 

*  Ibid. ,  vol.  xiv,  p.  455.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  457,  458. 
*^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  462.                   ''Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  467. 

*■  Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  469. 


250  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

During  Montgomerie's  administration,  the  movement  for 
a  separate  governor  had  made  great  headway.  While  act- 
ing as  president,  Morris  wrote  to  the  Duke  of  Newcastle 
an  able  letter  on  the  subject,  which  gave  a  very  fair-minded 
account  of  the  feeling  in  the  province,  and  argued  in  favor 
of  separation  from  New  York.^  Morris  had  been  told  that 
the  duke  had  recommended  him  as  governor  in  case  of 
separation,  and,  though  he  said  that  he  was  not  vain  enough 
to  ask  for  such  a  favor,  yet  he  must  state  that  at  the  time 
of  the  surrender  he  had  been  regarded  by  Queen  Anne  as 
not  without  merit.  The  home  government  had,  however^ 
not  yet  made  up  its  mind  to  the  step,  and  Cosby  succeeded, 
by  his  influence,  in  obtaining  commissions  for  both  New 
York  and  New  Jersey. 

As  we  have  previously  seen,  the  jealous  and  avaricious 
Cosby  violently  attacked  Morris,  removed  him  from  the 
post  of  chief  justice  of  New  York,  and  urgently  recom- 
mended that  he  be  removed  from  the  council  of  New  Jersey. 
To  meet  this  attack,  Morris  made  a  journey  to  England, 
and  eventually  succeeded  in  obtaining  a  decision  in  his 
favor.  Before  he  had  returned,  however,  Cosby  was  dead. 
The  presidency  of  the  council  was  therefore  assumed  by 
John  Anderson,  of  Monmouth,  as  the  oldest  councillor, 
named  first  in  the  instructions,  and  then  in  the  province.^ 
Anderson  was  a  Scot  who  had  many  years  before  com- 
manded a  ship  in  the  unfortunate  Darien  enterprise,  and 
who,  upon  its  failure,  removed  to  New  Jersey,'  where  he 
had  long  been  prominent.  Anderson  and  the  council  con- 
tinued all  existing  officers,*  and  sent  a  petition  to  the  king 

'^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  314.     This  letter  was  written  after 
an  address  on  the  subject  had  been  presented  to  Morris  by  the  council. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  521.  ^  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  156,  179. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  xiv.  p.  521. 


OTHER  EXECUTIVE  OFFICERS 


251 


asking  a  separate  government.^  But  a  few  days  later 
Anderson  himself  died.  The  presidency  was  then  assumed 
by  Colonel  John  Hamilton.^  Hamilton  had  been  for  some 
time  a  power  in  the  Jerseys.  He  was  the  son  and  heir  of 
Andrew  Hamilton,  the  last  proprietary  governor,  and  him- 
self a  prominent  member  of  the  Perth  Amboy  group  of 
proprietors  of  East  Jersey.  Upon  the  withdrawal  of 
Morris,  he  had  been  elected  his  successor  as  president  of 
the  proprietary  council  of  East  Jersey.  As  to  his  ability, 
we  have  little  means  of  judging,  though  his  leadership  of 
the  proprietary  interests  hardly  appears  to  have  been  suc- 
cessful. He  is,  however,  highly  spoken  of  by  contem- 
poraries.' 

Soon  after  Hamilton's  accession,  Lewis  Morris  arrived 
in  Boston,  and  immediately  put  forward  his  claims  to  the 
administration.  The  result  was  a  contest  between  Hamil- 
ton and  Morris  for  the  power,  which  was  scarcely  creditable 
to  either.  Hamilton  took  the  ground  that  Morris,  by  ab- 
senting himself  from  the  province  without  leave,  had  nulli- 
hed  his  right  to  the  presidency  and  even  to  a  seat  in  the 
council.  Further,  he  was  not  a  resident  of  New  Jersey, 
even  if  he  did  maintain  a  house  there,  and  in  any  case  was 
not  residing  in  New  Jersey  when  Cosby  died,  as  he  was  in 
England.  Therefore,  when  Morris  appeared  in  the  coun- 
cil and  demanded  recognition.  Col.  Hamilton  refused  to 
turn  over  the  administration,  and  was  supix>rted  by  a 
majority  of  the  council.*  Morris  maintained  that  he  had 
been  recognized  by  the  home  authorities  as  president  of 
the  council,  and  as  proof  produced  an  additional  instruc- 

'  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  441.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  527. 

'Whitehead,  Contributions  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Amboy,  p. 
168.  Hamilton  is  best  known  as  the  first  deputy  past  master  general  of 
the  colonies. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv.  pp.  538-543. 


252  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

tion  addressed  to  him  under  that  title.^  When  refused 
recognition  by  the  council,  he  proceeded  to  issue  two  procla- 
mations as  president,  one  adjourning  the  assembly  still  fur- 
ther, and  the  other  setting  forth  his  additional  instructiorr 
which  related  to  the  form  of  the  prayer  to  be  used  for  the 
royal  family,"  Hamilton  forthwith  issued  a  counter  proc- 
lamation, ordering  all  persons  to  pay  no  heed  to  Morris' 
claims  and  authorizing  his  arrest.^  Both  Morris  and  Ham- 
ilton, meanwhile,  appealed  to  the  home  authorities."*  But 
the  lords  of  trade  decided  in  favor  of  Hamilton,  and  held 
Morris'  conduct  unwarrantable  and  improper. °  In  June, 
1737,  the  lords  of  trade  wrote  to  Hamilton  stating  that 
Lord  Delaware  had  been  named  as  governor  of  New  York 
and  New  Jersey,  and  would  sail  with  all  speed.  They  de- 
sired him  to  maintain  tranquillity  until  his  arrival."  All 
this  time,  however,  the  work  for  a  separate  governor  had 
been  continued,  and  it  was  at  length  successful.  Upon  the 
resignation  of  Delaware,  Lewis  Morris  was  appointed  gov- 
ernor of  New  Jersey  in  spite  of  what  had  occurred.  But 
until  the  arrival  of  his  commission  Hamilton  retained 
control. 

Under  Hamilton's  presidency,  the  council  was  occupied 
largely  with  the  quarrel  with  Morris.  Yet  other  necessary 
business  was,  of  course,  performed.  Warrants  were  signed,'' 
and  the  royal  approval  of  certain  acts  was  entered  in  the 
council  journal.**  Complaints  against  the  sheriff  of  Hun- 
terdon County  were  considered,  and  he  was  removed  for 
misconduct.®     The  ordinance  for  the  sitting  of  the  supreme 

'  A"ew  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  538.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  464. 

*Ilnd.,  vol.  V,  p.  469.  *Idid,  vol.  v,  pp.  455,  467,  472,  478,  481. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  47Q.  ^ Tbid.,  vol.  v,  p.  490. 

'^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  528-9,  535 >  555- 

^Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  530,  545.  "* Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  535. 


OTHER  EXECUTIVE  OFFICERS  253 

court  was  altered  as  to  the  dates.^  On  October  29, 
1736,  however,  the  council,  considering  the  smallness  of 
their  number  and  the  remoteness  of  their  habitations  from 
each  other,  requested  the  president  not  to  call  them  again 
except  in  urgent  need,  but  advised  him  to  issue  procla- 
mations and  to  take  all  other  steps  to  preserve  the  royal 
authority.^ 

Several  later  meetings  were  nevertheless  held,  in  which 
matters  of  some  weight  were  taken  up.  Complaints  were 
made  as  to  vexatious  suits  in  the  courts.  It  was  held  that 
this  was  due  to  the  long  credit  given  to  the  practicing  at- 
torneys, and  an  ordinance  was,  therefore  ordered  prohibit- 
ing such  long  credit,  and  ordering  the  judges  to  make  proper 
rules  to  enforce  the  decision.''  Upon  petition  of  the  people 
of  the  county,  it  was  ordered  that  justices  of  the  peace 
and  military  officers  be  named  for  Hunterdon.*  During 
the  year  1737,  however,  only  four  council  meetings  were 
held.  The  council  met  three  times  in  1738,  under  the  pre- 
sidency of  Hamilton.  It  thus  appears  that  during  this  in- 
terval few  executive  acts  were  performed,  as  the  president 
of  the  council  never  took  any  important  step  without  the 
approval  of  his  fellow  councillors.  When  affairs  ran  so 
smoothly  without  a  governor,  it  is  not  surprising  that  at 
least  some  people  in  the  Jerseys  regarded  the  support  of  the 
royal  officials  as  rather  onerous. 

The  only  strictly  provincial  offices  in  the  Jerseys  which 
were  held  by  royal  patent  were  those  of  provincial  secretary 
and  attorney-general."  The  history  of  these  offices  during 
our  period  certainly  carries  out  the  statement  of  Burnet, 
that  "  patent  offices  appointed  in  Great  Britain  are  gener- 
ally unwelcome  to  the  plantations." 

'  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  538.  "^Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  544. 

'  Ibid. ,  vol .  xiv ,  p .  547.  *  Ibid. ,  vol .  xiv ,  p .  553 . 

''Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  452;  vol.  V,  p.  22. 


254  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

The  post  of  secretary  was  first  obtained  by  Jeremiah 
Basse,  in  spite  of  counter  efforts  of  Peter  Sonmans.^  Basse 
took  a  leading  part  in  various  acts  of  maladministration  dur- 
ing the  rule  of  Cornbury  and  Ingoldsby.  Upon  the  acces- 
sion of  Hunter,  however,  he  came  into  conflict  with 
the  chief  executive,  who  was  evidently  unwilling  to  sus- 
pend him,  because  of  his  position  as  a  patent  ofiicer.  To 
punish  him  the  assembly  passed  and  the  governor  ap- 
proved, in  March,  171 3-14,  three  acts  greatly  reducing  his 
fees.  These  were  "  an  act  for  shortehing  lawsuits  and  re- 
gulating the  practice  of  the  law,"  "  an  act  for  enforcing  the 
ordinance  for  establishing  fees,"  and  "  an  act  for  acknowl- 
edging and  recording  of  deeds  and  conveyances  of  land  in 
each  county  of  this  province."  ^ 

When,  however,  the  home  authorities,  listening  to  the 
complaints  of  Hunter,  gave  James  Smith  the  royal  patent, 
these  acts  were  not  repealed.^  Smith  naturally  represented 
the  case  to  the  lords  of  trade,  and  eventually,  in  April, 
1722,  Governor  Burnet  laid  before  the  council  a  letter  from 
that  body,  directing  him  to  move  the  assembly  to  repeal  the 
acts.  The  governor,  therefore,  submitted  a  bill  prepared 
by  the  chief  justice  to  accomplish  the  required  result.*  This 
bill,  with  the  letter  from  the  board  of  trade,  was  sent  down 
to  the  assembly,'^  but  the  latter  body  would  not  pass  it.  Bur- 
net, nevertheless,  foiled  an  attempt  made  by  the  house,  at 
the  instigation  of  his  enemy  Willocks,  to  enact  a  bill  requir- 
ing the  secretary  to  give  a  security  which  he  regarded  as 
ruinous.® 

In  1 72 1  the  three  acts  interfering  with  Smith's  emolu- 
ments had  been,  however,  disallowed  by  the  crown.' 

^  New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  iii,  pp.  22,  26.     "^  Ibid., vol.  xiii,  pp.  541,  552. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  225.  *  Ibid,  vol.  xiv,  p.  226. 

■'Assembly  Journal,  May  3,  1722. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  220;  vol.  v,  p.  32. 

''Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  240. 


OTHER  EXECUTIVE  OFFICERS 


255 


But  in  1728,  after  Burnet  and  his  assembly  had  come  into 
entire  agreement,  the  governor  himself  consented  to  the 
reenacting  of  the  bills  for  "  shortening  of  lawsuits  "  and 
"  concerning  the  acknowledging  and  registering  of  deeds, 
etc."  ^  At  the  same  time  £25  per  annum  was  voted  to 
Smith  as  a  compensation.  He  accepted  this  sum  as  the 
best  thing  he  could  obtain  at  the  time. 

But  when  Montgomerie  succeeded  to  the  administration, 
the  secretary  memorialized  the  lords  of  trade  again,  de- 
claring that  Burnet  had  acted  from  motives  of  personal 
gain,  and  that  he  had  coerced  Smith.''  In  1731  the 
troublesome  laws  were  once  more  disallowed  by  the  king 
in  council.'  In  spite  of  this  second  disallowance,  an  effort 
was  made  to  repass  the  measures  under  Cosby,*  and  "  an 
act  for  the  better  enforcing  an  ordinance  made  for  estab- 
lishing fees  "  was  actually  passed."  But  this  measure,  too, 
was  again  vetoed  by  the  crown." 

In  spite  of  his  efforts  to  prevent  the  cutting  down  of  the 
income  of  his  office,  James  Smith  seems  to  have  been  a  re- 
spectable person.  He  appears,  however,  to  have  turned  his 
post  into  a  sinecure,  residing  regularly  at  Philadelphia,  and 
executing  his  duties  through  two  deputies.' 

Alexander  Griffith,  the  attorney-general  under  Cornbury, 
also  held  a  royal  patent.®  He  was,  however,  eventually 
suspended  by  Hunter  for  endeavoring  to  shield  Sonmans  and 
other  confederates  of  Cornbury 's  clique,  in  direct  disregard 
of  the  orders  of  the  governor  in  council."  Gordon  was  then 
named  as  commissioner  to  execute  the  office.     The  later  at- 

'  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  388-389,      ''Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  198. 
^  Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  471,  472.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  478,  479. 

''Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  502.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  515. 

"* Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  321.  *Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  302. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  561. 


256  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

torneys-general  were  Basse,  Alexander,  Lawrence  Smyth^ 
and  Joseph  Warrell. 

Besides  these  strictly  provincial  officers,  there  were  also 
several  royal  appointees  whose  powers  extended  over  all  or  a 
considerable  part  of  the  colonies,  who  exercised  duties  in  the 
Jerseys.  Such  were  the  surveyor-general  of  customs  and 
the  surveyor-general  of  His  Majesty's  Woods.  In  the 
former  office  Colonel  Robert  Quary  was  especially  active 
under  Cornbury,  Lovelace  and  Hunter.  Perhaps  the  bad 
reputation  of  the  Jerseys  for  smuggling  may  account  for 
this  activity. 

Customs  officers  were,  of  course,  maintained  in  the  colony. 
John  White  was  the  first  collector  of  customs  at  Amboy,^ 
while  John  Jewell  was  surveyor  of  customs  for  all  West 
Jersey.^  These  officers  had  full  power  to  examine  goods, 
collect  duties  and  make  seizures,  yet  the  control  of  a  single 
surveyor  of  customs  for  each  division  could  not  have  been 
very  effective.  All  the  officers  appear,  however,  to  have 
been  assisted  by  deputies.  The  earlier  commissions  were 
given  directly  by  the  commissioners  of  the  customs  in  Eng- 
land, but  the  later  ones  were  from  Quary  and  other  colonial 
surveyors-general.  But,  after  all,  there  were  fewer  officers 
representing  the  royal  power  directly  in  the  Jerseys  than  in 
several  of  the  other  provinces.  New  Jersey  was  a  small 
province,  and  not  at  all  liberal  in  the  payment  of  her  offi- 
cials. There  was  apparently  no  very  urgent  demand  in 
London  for  appointment  to  executive  offices  there. 

Among  the  offices  regularly  commissioned  by  the  gov- 

'  John  White  was  succeeded  by  Thomas  Farmar.  In  1710  Farmer  v/as 
suspended  and  Henry  Swift  named. 

"^ Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  p.  9.  In  1732  John  Norton  was  named 
as  collector  of  "the  port  of  Salem"  in  room  of  John  Rolfe,  deceased. 
Rolfe,  the  successor  of  Jewell,  had  been  commissioned  as  collector  of 
customs  for  "the  western  division." 


OTHER  EXECUTIVE  OFFICERS 


257 


ernors,  several  were  judicial  or  semi-judicial.  Such  were 
the  chief  justice,  the  second  judge  and  other  associate  pro- 
vincial judges,  the  county  judges  of  the  pleas,  commis- 
sioners of  oyer  and  terminer,  and  the  justices  of  the  peace. 
Besides  these,  the  governors  named  the  receivers-general 
or  treasurers,  as  they  later  come  to  be  almost  exclusively 
called,  the  sheriffs,  and  the  officers  of  the  militia.  Persons 
were  also  commissioned  to  execute  the  office  of  attorney 
general  when  no  royal  patent  had  been  issued.^  The  duties 
of  several  of  these  officers,  and  the  changes  in  the  character 
of  their  posts,  will  be  treated  more  fully  in  the  chapters 
relating  to  the  several  departments  of  the  administration. 

As  in  practically  all  the  provinces,  there  were  certain  com- 
missioners exercising  what  were  practically  executive  func- 
tions, who  were  named  in  acts  of  assembly,  and  who  were 
responsible  to  the  legislative  branch  rather  than  to  the  gov- 
ernor. Such  were  the  commissioners  for  laying  out  high- 
ways, the  commissioners  for  signing  the  bills  of  credit,  and 
the  tax  collectors  of  the  several  counties  and  localities. 

It  must  be  remembered,  too,  that  certain  very  important 
administrative  officers  were  agents  of  the  proprietors. 
Among  these  were  the  surveyors-general  of  the  two  divis- 
ions, the  proprietary  registers,  and  the  receiver-general  of 
quit-rents  of  East  Jersey.  The  continued  existence  of  the 
proprietorship  under  the  royal  rule  is,  of  course,  one  of  the 
distinguishing  features  of  the  system  of  New  Jersey,  as  com- 
pared with  those  of  other  royal  provinces. 

In  accordance  with  the  governor's  instructions,  the  com- 
missions of  the  subordinate  officers  were  unlimited  as  to  time, 
that  they  might  be  more  fearless  in  the  execution  of  their 
duties.^  The  sheriffs  were,  however,  named  each  year.   Yet, 

'  It  appears  that  Gordon,  Basse,  Alexander  and  Lawrence  Smyth  all 
acted  on  commissions  from  the  governors  alone. 
^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  pp.  518-19. 


258  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

owing  to  the  political  conditions  of  the  Jerseys,  removals 
were  rather  frequent.  After  the  overthrow  of  Cornbury's 
clique,  the  higher  officers  appear  to  have  been  fairly  honest 
and  efficient,  and  several,  like  Alexander,  Hooper  and 
James  Smith,  had  long  terms.  But  among  the  holders  of 
the  lesser  posts  some  were  amazingly  careless  and  corrupt. 

It  has  already  been  made  apparent  that  there  was  a  ten- 
dency to  concentrate  several  offices  in  the  same  hands.  The 
members  of  Cornbury's  council  were  practically  all  named 
as  associate  provincial  or  county  judges  and  as  militia  offi- 
cers. Basse  was  not  only  provincial  secretary,  but  clerk  of 
the  council,  clerk  of  the  supreme  court  and  deputy  collector 
of  customs.  James  Alexander  was  attorney  general  and 
surveyor-general  of  both  Jerseys.  James  Smith  had  not 
only  the  posts  held  by  Basse,  but  also  the  proprietary  regis- 
tership.  But  this  monopoly  of  office  by  rings  of  prominent 
persons  was  a  common,  perhaps,  indeed,  a  necessary  feature, 
of  all  American  provincial  government. 


CHAPTER  XV 
The  Council — Personnel 

One  great  source  of  strength  in  the  council  of  the  pro- 
vince of  New  Jersey  undoubtedly  lay  in  the  character  of  the 
men  who  composed  it.  The  advisers  of  the  crown  certainly 
tried  to  select  the  most  able  and  influential  persons  for  mem- 
bership, and,  speaking  in  general,  they  did  so,  though  their 
intentions  were  at  times  thwarted  by  the  misrepresentations 
of  such  governors  as  Cornbury  and  Cosby. 

As  soon  as  it  became  certain  that  the  proprietors  intended 
to  surrender  the  government  of  the  Jerseys  to  the  crown,  a 
struggle  began  regarding  the  constitution  of  the  council. 
This  conflict  was  between  the  majority  share-owners  of  the 
two  Jerseys,  called  by  their  opponents  the  "  Scotch  and 
Quaker  factions,"  and  the  minority  party  in  East  Jersey, 
led  by  Dockwra,  and  supported  by  the  Coxe  interest  and 
its  allies  in  West  Jersey.^  Neither  party  won  a  complete 
victory,  though  the  controling  element  in  proprietary  affairs 
was  scarcely  as  fully  recognized  as  it  might  fairly  have  been 
expected  to  be.  Six  of  the  twelve  members  of  the  council, 
as  named  in  Cornbury's  instructions,^  were  prominent  pro- 
prietors— Hunloke,  Morris,  Jennings,  Davenport,  Leonard, 
and  Deacon.  Of  these  Morris,  Jennings  and  Davenport 
were  especially  unacceptable  to  the  anti-proprietary  party. 
Moreover,  Hunloke,  as  first  named,  would  preside  over  the 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  pp.  417,  429,  430,  487,  502. 
'Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  507. 

259 


26o  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

council  in  case  of  the  absence  of  the  governor  and  h'eutenant- 
governor,  while  Morris  was  next  in  the  line  of  succession.' 
On  the  other  hand,  the  council  contained  Andrew  Bowne/ 
Sandford  and  Pinhorne  of  East  Jersey,  and  Revell  and 
Leeds  of  West  Jersey,  who  were  all  more  or  less  out  of  sym- 
pathy with  the  proprietors,  or  at  least  with  the  "  Scotch  and 
Quaker  interest."  Robert  Quary,  who,  as  surveyor-general 
of  customs,  was  included  in  the  council  from  the  beginning, 
also  showed  antagonism  to  the  proprietors.'  Walker,  the 
remaining  member,  took  no  decided  stand.  Thus  the  mal- 
contents were  sure  to  have  their  side  of  the  case  well  rep- 
resented, and,  if  fortune  favored,  might  easily  control  the 
policy  of  the  upper  house. 

Two  of  the  council  were  of  unusual  ability,  a  rather  dan- 
gerous quality  in  members  of  a  body  the  work  of  which 
was  largely  advisory.  These  were  Lewis  Morris  and 
Samuel  Jennings,  the  ex-governor  of  West  Jersey,  whose 
characters  and  earlier  careers  have  already  been  considered. 
The  rest  were  men  of  ordinary  stamp.  Andrew  Bowne,  of 
Monmouth  County,  had  taken  a  very  active  part  in  the 
affairs  of  East  Jersey,  figuring  as  a  supporter  of  Basse  and 
the  bitter  foe  of  the  proprietors.  For  a  time,  during  the 
absence  of  Basse,  he  had  been  deputy  governor  of  East 
Jersey.*  But  he  was  now  too  old  for  active  work." 
Francis  Davenport  was  a  leading  Friend,  who  had  been  at 
one  time  president  of  the  council  of  proprietors  of  West 
Jersey.  Daniel  Leeds  had  been  one  of  the  chief  agents  of 
Coxe,  and  later  of  the  West  Jersey  Society,  and  was  for  a 
time  surveyor-general  of  the  Western  Division,  But  he  was 
an  unscrupulous  tool  of  Coxe.    William  Sandford,  of  Bergen 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  170;  vol.  ii,  p.  500. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  327,  385.        '^  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  544;  vol.  iii, p.  isetc. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  267.  ''Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  i,  155. 


THE  COUNCIL— PERSONNEL  26 1 

County,  and  William  Pinhorne,  of  Snake  Hill,  were  large 
landowners  of  East  Jersey,  and  men  of  fair  character  and 
attainments.  Pinhorne  had,  however,  formerly  played  a 
prominent  part  in  the  politics  of  New  York,  and  had  been 
dismissed  from  a  judgeship  by  Bellomont  for  alleged  mis- 
conduct/ Hunloke  and  Leonard  were  respected,  but  both 
died  before  they  entered  upon  office.^  Quary  was  a  zealous 
and  honest  official,  whose  character  was  esteemed  even  by 
his  opponents  in  New  Jersey.^  Jennings,  Davenport  and 
Deacon  were  Quakers,  and  the  Crown  deserves  credit 
for  including  them.  Hunloke  and  Leonard  were  zealous 
"  sticklers  for  Quakers."  * 

The  death  of  Hunloke  and  Leonard  was  a  stroke  of  for- 
tune for  the  anti-proprietary  party,  as  it  gave  them  a  ma- 
jority. Neither  party  could,  however,  hope  to  control  the 
council  without  the  support  of  Cornbury.  From  the  be- 
ginning his  lordship  showed  his  suspicion  of  the  Quakers, 
for  at  the  first  meeting  he  actually  entertained,  in  spite  of 
the  explicit  wording  of  his  instructions,  objections  to  quali- 
fying Jennings,  Davenport  and  Deacon,  because  they  could 
not  take  the  oaths.  The  Quakers  themselves  appealed  to 
the  instructions,  and  Cornbury,  upon  "  looking  further," 
felt  obliged  to  admit  them  under  the  fifty-third  article. 
The  incident  proved  to  his  mind  that  Morris  had  brought 
a  copy  of  his  instructions  from  England."*  Cornbury,  in 
his  first  letter  home,  informed  the  lords  of  trade  that  it  was 
not  necessary  to  put  Quakers  into  the  council  because  so  few 
others  were  qualified,  as  had  been  alleged.  He  understood, 
also,  that  they  would  oppose  a  militia  act."     The  governor 

'  Brodhead,  New  York,  vol.  ii,  pp.  427,  628,  646;  New  Jersey  Archives , 
vol.  iii,  p.  299  (note);  vol.  iv,  p.  60. 
^Fbid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  i.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  50,  61. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.  p.  502.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  2. 

'^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  3,  4- 


262  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

therefore  asked  the  wholly  unnecessary  question  as  to  what 
he  must  do  in  future  regarding  the  Friends. 

In  spite  of  his  dislike  of  the  Quakers,  however,  Corn- 
bury  at  first  inclined  toward  the  proprietary  party,  which 
had  a  majority  in  the  assembly,  and  therefore  could  bestow 
favors  upon  the  governor/  But  the  failure  of  his  lord- 
ship to  obtain  a  satisfactory  emolument  at  their  hands, 
and  the  making  of  the  "  deal "  between  himself,  Coxe  and 
the  anti-proprietary  party  for  their  mutual  advantage,  have 
already  been  stated.  The  alliance  between  Cornbury  and 
the  opponents  of  the  proprietors  brought  the  most  important 
consequences  for  the  council.  William  Dockwra  had  al- 
ready recommended  the  appointment  of  Peter  Sonmans  to 
the  place  left  vacant  by  the  death  of  Leonard,  representing 
him  as  "  agent  "  of  the  English  proprietors.'  By  using  the 
term  "  proprietors  in  England,"  Dockwra,  of  course,  im- 
plied large  shareholders  who  were  more  or  less  at  variance 
with  the  Scots  of  Perth  Amboy,  but  actually  these  "  Eng- 
lish proprietors  "  were  a  small  ring  led  by  Dockwra  him- 
self, and  controling  not  more  than  five  or  six  of  the  twenty- 
four  shares  of  East  Jersey.  The  claims  of  Daniel  Coxe. 
Jr.,  were  also  advanced,  though  apparently  not  by  Dockwra 
directly.^  Indignant  protests  against  these  appointments 
were,  however,  entered  by  the  West  Jersey  Society.*  But 
Cornbury  himself  now  recommended  for  the  vacancies 
Daniel  Coxe  and  Col.  Townley,  of  Elizabethtown,  and,  as  a 
third  vacancy  resulted  from  the  death  of  Walker,  he  put 
forward  Roger  Mompesson,  whom  he  had  already  named 
chief  justice.'  All  these  persons  were,  of  course,  unac- 
ceptable to  the  proprietors. 

'  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  121.       "^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  35,  40,  42. 
''Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  40,  42.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  35. 

"Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  78. 


THE  COUNCIL— PERSONNEL  263 

The  adherence  of  Cornbury  to  the  anti-proprietary  fac- 
tion almost  at  once  brought  him  into  violent  conflict  with 
Lewis  Morris,  who  possessed  courage  in  a  high  degree,  and 
who  was  always  inclined  to  take  direct  and  even  violent 
means  to  enforce  his  rights.  Morris  at  once  asserted  that 
the  conduct  of  Cornbury,  in  refusing  to  safeguard  the  rights 
of  the  proprietors,  was  a  violation  of  the  conditions  upon 
which  the  province  had  been  surrendered.^  As  the  pur- 
poses of  the  governor  became  clearer,  Morris  refused  to 
obey  his  orders  or  to  attend  meetings  of  the  council,  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  he  took  a  leading  part  in  organizing  the 
opposition  to  Cornbury.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  able 
Morris  was  fully  informed  as  to  the  underhand  dealings  of 
his  lordship,  and  knew  that  the  proprietors  could  save 
themselves  only  by  open  war.  Cornbury  therefore  sus- 
pended Morris  from  the  council,  but  a  temporary  reconcilia- 
tion was  effected  through  Dr.  Innis,  the  Anglican  clergy- 
man of  Monmouth  County.^  When  Cornbury  managed  to 
capture  the  second  assembly,  however,  Morris  endeavored 
to  defeat  the  passage  of  the  legislation  upon  which  the  allies 
had  agreed,  and  Cornbury,  representing  this  as  an  attempt 
to  defeat  the  Queen's  service,  suspended  Morris  again,  and 
notified  the  home  authorities.^ 

The  loss  of  Morris  was  soon  followed  by  that  of  Samuel 
Jennings,  who  also  recognized  the  impossibility  of  resist- 
ing Cornbury  within  the  council,  and  who  did  not  have  the 
same  influence  and  wealth  to  rely  upon  in  opposing  the 
governor.  He  therefore  resigned  from  the  council  on  the 
plea  that  he  could  not  afford  the  expense  involved.*  The 
two  ex-councillors,  Morris  and  Jennings,  became  at  once 
the  leaders  in  the  fight  against  Cornbury's  tyranny.     Both 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  73-4.  ''Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  75. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  77.  ^  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  160. 


264  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

secured  election  to  the  third  assembly,  of  which  Jennings 
was  chosen  speaker,  and  their  bravery  and  determination 
enabled  the  representatives  to  make  the  celebrated  stand 
against  the  outrageous  corruption  of  Cornbury  which  re- 
sulted at  last  in  his  overthrow.  When  Cornbury  forced  into 
fierce  opposition  the  two  ablest  men  of  the  colony,  his  blun- 
der was  fatal. 

Meanwhile  the  home  government  had  supplied  the  va- 
cancies in  the  council  by  naming  Coxe,  Townley  and  Mom- 
pesson,  in  accordance  with  the  wishes  of  Cornbury.^  All 
three  of  these  were  to  be  prominent  in  the  politics  of  the 
province,  and,  second  only  to  the  royal  governors  and 
Morris,  Col.  Coxe  was  to  be  a  leader  in  affairs  during  al- 
most the  entire  period.  He  was  the  son  of  Dr.  Daniel 
Coxe,  who  had  purchased  the  original  rights  of  Edward 
Byllinge,  and  later  had  sold  the  greater  part  of  his  inter- 
ests to  the  West  Jersey  Society.  As  his  father  was  one  of 
the  court  physicians  of  Queen  Anne,  and  widely  known, 
Col.  Coxe  possessed  considerable  influence  with  the  home 
government.^  As  representative  of  the  Coxe  interests  in 
the  Jerseys,  he  stood  in  general  opposition  both  to  the 
Quaker  proprietors,  who  controlled  the  council  of  proprie- 
tors, and  to  Morris,  the  agent  of  the  West  Jersey  Society. 
It  was  therefore  natural  that  he  should  be  an  ardent  sup- 
porter of  Anglicanism,  and  one  of  the  leading  spirits  in 
St.  Mary's  Church  of  Burlington,  where  for  a  time  he  re- 
sided. In  character  he  was  energetic,  scheming  and  con- 
tentious, like  Morris,  his  rival.  Hunter,  who  later  came 
into  violent  conflict  with  him,  called  him  "  a  noisy  fool."  ' 
but  he  undoubtedly  possessed  much  ability,  though  without 
caution  or  the  finer  kind  of  political  skill.     He  was  not  very 

^  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  p.  72.  * 

''New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  262.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  2og. 


THE  COUNCIL— PERSONNEL  265 

scrupulous  in  his  methods,  and  his  connection  with  Coni- 
bury  is,  of  course,  discreditable.  Later,  however,  he  did 
n?uch  to  retrieve  his  reputation,  serving  on  the  bench  of 
the  province  with  credit,  and  holding  the  post  of  president 
of  the  council  of  West  Jersey  proprietors.^ 

Townley  and  Mompesson  were  tools.  Col.  Richard 
Townley,  though  of  Elizabethtown,  was  an  Anglican  and  a 
Jacobite.  Born  of  good  family  in  England,  he  had  re- 
trieved a  broken  fortune  by  a  marriage  with  the  widow  of 
Governor  Carteret.  Col.  Townley  seems  to  have  borne  an 
excellent  character  among  his  townsmen,  and  is  remem- 
bered chiefly  because  of  his  efforts  in  founding  and  main- 
taining St.  John's  Anglican  Church  in  this  hostile  ground.'' 
Apparently,  however,  he  was  not  a  man  of  marked  char- 
acter, and  was  willing  to  approve  of  the  ill-concealed  cor- 
ruption of  Cornbury  and  his  ring.  Mompesson  was  a 
London  lawyer,  who  had  recently  arrived  in  America,  and 
who  had  been  made  chief  justice  of  New  York  and  New 
Jersey.  He  appears  to  have  been  an  ably-trained  lawyer, 
but,  like  Townley,  was  willing  to  be  Cornbury's  confeder- 
ate. Mompesson  became  the  son-in-law  of  Judge  Pinhorne, 
with  whom  he  remained  closely  associated.'  He  deserves 
at  least  the  credit  for  having  been  a  less  resolute  knave  than 
most  of  those  who  surrounded  Cornbury. 

The  efforts  of  the  "  English  proprietors  "  to  secure  the 
appointment  of  Peter  Sonmans  continued,"  but  the  opposi- 
tion caused  the  lords  of  trade  to  take  the  precaution  of 
asking  Cornbury's  opinion  regarding  his  suitability."    That 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  116  (note).    Coxe  is  noted  espe- 
cially as  the  author  of  one  of  the  earliest  plans  of  colonial  union. 
.  'Hatfield,  History  of  Elizabeth,  pp.  274-5. 

*  Field,  Provincial  Courts  of  New  Jersey,  pp.  56-61. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  lOi,  129. 
Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  125. 


266  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

high  authority  replied  that  he  thought  Sonmans  very  suit-- 
able,  since  he  had  always  acted  "  with  respect  to  the  govern- 
ment,"'^ Upon  the  retirement  of  Jennings,  Cornbury  re- 
commended Sonmans  for  the  place,^  and  the  appointment 
was  eventually  made.""*  Peter  Sonmans  must  have  been  in 
some  respects  a  superior  man,  yet  all  the  evidence  goes  to 
show  that  his  career  was  one  of  the  worst  that  the  early 
history  of  New  Jersey  presents.  He  was  a  Hollander  by 
birth,  and  had  been  educated  in  the  University  of  Leyden, 
but  had  later  removed  to  England,  and  had  held  several  con- 
siderable public  posts  there  under  William  HI.  His  father 
was  Arent  Sonmans,  one  of  the  original  twenty-four  pro- 
prietors of  East  Jersey,  and  from  him  Peter  Sonmans  in- 
herited large  proprietary  interests.*  In  England  he  seems 
to  have  been  closely  associated  with  Dockwra,  and  through 
him  received  a  commission  as  "  agent  "  of  the  "  English 
proprietors."  ^  As  a  member  of  the  council  of  New  Jersey, 
however,  he  became,  with  Coxe  and  Basse,  a  leader  of  Corn- 
bury's  notorious  clique.  In  certain  proceedings  in  the 
Courts  of  Middlesex  County,  he  was  guilty  of  injustice 
and  misconduct.  So  deeply  involved  was  he  that  his  con- 
duct became  one  of  the  special  subjects  of  complaint  against 
the  administration,^  and,  upon  the  retirement  of  Cornbury, 
he  was  indicted  for  perjury  and  other  high  crimes."^  At 
a  later  period  he  was  apprehended  in  what  was  apparently 
deliberate  fraud  and  embezzlement  of  proprietary  funds.** 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  154.        "Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  160. 
"•  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  339. 

*  Whitehead,  Contributions  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Amboyy 
p.  76. 

^  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  p.  38. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  374. 

''Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  378;  Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (1704-1715),. 
pp.  80-1. 

^ Ibid.,  vol,  v,  p,  124. 


THE  COUNCIL— PERSONNEL  267 

Yet  such  was  the  adroitness  and  skill  with  which  he  de- 
fended himself  when  under  prosecution,  that  he  succeeded 
in  avoiding  serious  punishment.  The  lengthy  memorials 
and  communications  in  which  he  defended  himself  show 
clearly  his  education  and  ability,  but  are  also  good  evidence 
of  his  misconduct.^  As  to  his  private  character,  it  is  fitting 
after  this  lapse  of  time,  to  say  no  more  than  that  it  was 
not  above  reproach,  though  he  paraded  his  zeal  as  a  church- 
man. That  it  was  possible  for  such  a  man  to  play  so 
prominent  a  part  for  so  long  a  time  shows  clearly  the  laxity 
of  the  provincial  government. 

Such  was  the  constitution  of  the  council  which  supported 
Cornbury.  During  his  rule,  however,  Davenport,  Revell  and 
Bowne  were  unable  to  play  a  very  active  part  because  of  age." 
Upon  one  point  Cornbury  met  direct  defeat.  This  was  re- 
garding the  suspension  of  Morris.  No  sooner  was  the  sus- 
pension announced  than  efforts  began  to  be  made  to  secure  his 
restoration,  especially  by  the  influential  West  Jersey  Society, 
of  which  he  was  agent.''  The  lords  of  trade  soon  directed 
Cornbury  to  restore  Morris,  though  they  thought  it  fitting 
that  he  should  first  make  "  submission  "  to  the  governor.* 
Cornbury  expressed  his  willingness  to  obey,  but  said  he 
had  no  idea  that  Morris  would  "  submit."  This  outcome 
was  virtually  a  victory  for  Morris,  as  he  boasted  that  he 
could  take  his  place  in  the  council  when  he  chose,  and  the 
opposition  to  the  governor  was  strengthened  and  encour- 
aged.' Morris,  however,  rightly  judged  that  it  would  avail 
him  little  to  sit  in  a  hopeless  minority  in  the  council.  In- 
stead, he  preferred  to  act  in  the  assembly,  where,  as  has  been 
indicated,  he  was,  with  Jennings,  the  leading  spirit. 

When  Cornbury  was  superseded  by  Lovelace,  even  the 

'  JVezv  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  416.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  i5S- 

*  fbid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  85.  '■Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  124, 

■^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  225. 


268  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

lords  of  trade  understood  that  a  change  in  the  council  was 
necessary.  The  West  Jersey  Society  made  representations 
against  Coxe,  Sonmans,  Revell,  Leeds  and  Quary,'  but  the 
home  government  acted  only  against  Leeds  and  Revell,  be- 
cause of  their  indefensible  conduct  in  abetting  Cornbury 
in  keeping  the  three  West  Jersey  members  out  of  the  second 
assembly.  The  advice  of  William  Penn  was  asked,  and  his 
opinion  was  that  Revell  and  Leeds  should  be  dropped. "* 
Their  names  were  accordingly  omitted  from  Lovelace's 
instructions.^  Their  punishment  was,  indeed,  deserved; 
yet,  after  all,  they  appear  to  have  been  mere  tools,  and  far 
less  dangerous  than  Coxe  and  Sonmans.  Nor  was  the 
choice  as  their  successors  of  Hugh  Huddy,  of  Burlington, 
and  William  Hall,  of  Salem,  a  happy  one.  These  men  had, 
however,  been  recommended  with  others  by  the  West  Jersey 
Society.'* 

Hugh  Huddy  was  the  person  to  whom  Cornbury  had 
granted  that  monopoly  of  the  highway  between  Amboy  and 
Burlington,  which  had  been  one  of  the  grievances  in  the 
great  remonstrance  of  1707.^  Hunter  described  him  as  a 
weak  old  man,  readily  led  by  the  members  of  Cornbury's 
ring,^  and  his  career  seems  to  justify  this  characterization, 
as  he  proved  always  ready  to  follow  the  lead  of  Coxe.  Of 
William  Hall's  character  and  personality  little  is  known, 
but,  like  Huddy,  he  soon  became  a  prominent  member  of 
the  hateful  administrative  clique,  and  was  accused  of  abuses 
of  power  second  only  to  those  of  Sonmans.^  Hall  had 
formerly  been  a  Quaker,  but  now  soon  began  to  show  zeal 
for  the  Anglican  church — a  fact  which  may  in  some  degree 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  300.  'Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  303. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  309,  317.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii.  p.  302. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  176;  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  p.  67. 
''New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  t\.  ''Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  79. 


THE  COUNCIL— PERSONNEL  269 

account  for  the  peculiar  bitterness  with  which  he  was  re- 
garded in  West  Jersey.^  The  accession  of  these  two  mem- 
bers to  the  "  ring  "  was  partly  overset  by  the  formal  re- 
storation of  Lewis  Morris  to  the  presidency  of  the  council, 
for  in  Lovelace's  instructions  his  name  led  all  the  rest. 

Before  Lovelace  arrived  Davenport  and  Andrew  Bowne 
were  dead.  Cornbury  notified  the  lords  of  this  fact  and 
recommended  successors,  but  the  vacancies  were  allowed  to 
stand.*  The  brief  administration  of  Lovelace  brought  no 
further  changes  in  the  constitution  of  the  council. 

One  of  the  first  acts  of  Lieutenant-governor  Ingoldsby 
was  to  re-suspend  the  devoted  Morris,'  who  had  greatly  en- 
raged his  colleagues  by  acting  entirely  independent  of  them 
during  the  rule  of  Lovelace.*  As  Ingoldsby  did  not  dare  to 
suspend  Morris  upon  his  own  responsibility,  an  address  to 
the  lieutenant-governor,  accusing  him  of  causing  the  dis- 
orders of  the  province,  and  asking  for  his  permanent  re- 
moval, was  prepared  and  signed  by  Pinhorne,  Townley, 
Coxe,  Sonmans  and  Huddy.**  It  was  then  entered  on  the 
council  records  that  Morris  was  suspended  for  the  reasons 
given  in  the  address.  Ingoldsby  also  wrote  to  the  lords 
relative  to  the  vacancies  existing  in  the  council,*  but  all  his 
recommendations  were  ignored.  The  lords  of  trade  re- 
commended that  Morris  be  restored,  since  his  suspension 
had  been  upon  insufficient  grounds,  and  that  Thomas  Gor- 
don and  Thomas  Gardiner  be  put  into  the  vacancies.'  This 
recommendation  was  carried  out  when  Governor  Hunter 
was  commissioned  in  1709.  But  though  the  West  Jersey 
Society  made  strong  representations  against  continuing 
Coxe,  Sonmans  and  their  clique,®  the  lords  did  not  have 

'  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  pp.  125, 157.      ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  340. 
*Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  pp.  367-9.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  380,  381. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  464.  '^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  463. 

''Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  499.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  497. 


270 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


penetration  enough  to  see  the  necessity  of  retiring  them. 
Thus  the  new  governor  was  called  upon  to  do  battle  with 
a  ring  of  corruptionists  well  intrenched  in  power/  There 
was  some  gain  for  the  proprietary  party,  however,  in  the 
retirement  of  Ingoldsby  and  the  naming  of  Gordon  and 
Gardiner. 

The  earlier  career  of  Thomas  Gordon  has  already  been 
touched  upon."  A  Scot  by  birth,  a  university  man  by  edu- 
cation, he  was  one  of  the  leading  members  of  the  Amboy 
clique  of  proprietors  of  East  Jersey.  As  speaker  of  the  as- 
sembly, after  the  illness  of  Jennings,  he  had  taken  an  active 
part  in  the  conflict  with  Cornbury,  and  had  suffered  real 
persecution  at  the  hands  of  his  lordship  and  Peter  Son- 
mans.^  Gordon  was  one  of  the  few  attorneys  in  the  prov- 
ince, and  his  experience  certainly  qualified  him  for  a  place 
in  the  council.  But  while  the  career  of  Gordon  was  active, 
he  gave  no  proof  of  signal  ability.  Under  Hunter  he  be- 
came treasurer  of  the  province,  but  finally  got  into  an  un- 
fortunate tangle  over  his  accounts,  which  were  adjudged  by 
the  assembly  to  be  many  pounds  short,  and  died  before  it 
was  shown  that  the  difficulty  was  due  to  a  mere  error  in 
book-keeping,*  Like  so  many  of  the  council,  Gordon  was 
an  active  churchman.^  Thomas  Gardiner,  on  the  other 
hand,  was  a  West  Jersey  Friend,  a  son  of  one  of  the  early 
settlers  of  Burlington,  himself  a  proprietor  and  a  member 
of  the  council  of  proprietors.  To  some  degree  he  was  the 
successor  of  Jennings  as  the  political  leader  of  the  Quakers, 
and  he  had  just  distinguished  himself  for  his  bravery  in 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  2. 

'For  a  summary  of  Gordon's  career  see  Whitehead,  Contributions  to 
the  Early  History  of  Perth  Amboy,  p.  60,  et  seq. 
^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  75. 

*■  Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Coutt  (Amboy,  1714-1731),  pp.  131,  134. 
*  Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  p.  219. 


THE  COUNCIL— PERSONNEL 


271 


opposing  the  expedition  to  Canada.^     Later  he  became  one 
of  Hunter's  chosen  advisers.^ 

There  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  Hunter  had  deter- 
mined upon  his  attitude  toward  the  party  in  control  of  the 
council  before  he  assumed  the  administration.  But  his 
experience  with  his  first  assembly  convinced  him  that  Corn- 
bury's  clique  were  adopting  a  policy  of  mere  obstruction, 
with  a  view  to  making  political  capital.  He  also  saw  that 
the  difference  between  the  parties  was  irreconcilable.  There- 
lore,  in  his  very  first  lengthy  communication  to  the  home 
government  relating  to  New  Jersey  affairs.  Hunter  in- 
formed them  that  political  tranquillity  in  the  province  would 
be  impossible  while  Sonmans,  Coxe,  Pinhorne  and  Hall  re- 
mained in  the  council.  Mompesson  and  Huddy  he  regarded 
as  weak  men,  led  astray  by  the  four  mentioned.  Quary 
was,  he  believed,  an  able  and  honorable  officer,  who  had 
been  temporarily  mistaken  in  his  policy.'  The  recommen- 
dation that  four  such  prominent  men  be  removed  was  a  bold 
one.  Hunter's  task  of  clearing  out  the  old  ring  was,  how- 
ever, somewhat  lightened  by  the  fact  that  Townley  died  at 
about  the  time  that  he  arrived  in  America,*  and  that  Sand- 
ford,^  and  a  little  later  Mompesson,  voluntarily  retired.® 

The  usual  lengthy  delay  followed  Hunter's  recommenda- 
tions as  to  removal.  His  suggestions  were  carefully  con- 
sidered by  his  various  superiors  in  England,  and  meanwhile 
several  influences  were  at  work  for  and  against  the  gov- 
ernor. The  West  Jersey  Society,  led  by  its  energetic  vice- 
president.  Edward  Richier,  aided  his  efforts,  endeavoring 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  462. 
^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  119;  Smith,  New  Jersey,  p.  401. 
*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  61.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  61. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  60. 

"He  attended  no  meetings  after  July,  \yi\.  Pinhorne  did  not  attend 
after  the  first  assembly. 


272  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

at  the  same  time  to  secure  the  appointment  to  the  council 
of  persons  satisfactory  to  it.'  Dockwra,  as  usual,  acted 
as  the  mouthpiece  for  Coxe,  and  the  council  ring,  submit- 
ting to  Secretary  Popple  a  long  communication  from  an  un- 
named member  of  the  council,  vigorously  attacking  Hunter.^ 
A  new  element  in  the  discussion  was  added  by  the  Rev,  Jacob 
Henderson,  an  Anglican  missionary  of  Pennsylvania,  who 
represented  Hunter's  whole  conduct  as  an  attack  upon  the 
Church  of  England/''  The  delay  was  so  long  that  Hunter, 
embarrassed  as  he  was,  wrote  twice  to  the  home  authorities 
urging  action.*  Finally,  after  a  delay  of  over  two  years, 
the  lords  recommended  that  Coxe,  Sonmans,  Pinhorne  and 
Hall  be  removed,  and  that  John  Anderson,  William  Morris, 
John  Hamilton  and  John  Reading  be  appointed  in  their 
places,  while  Elisha  Parker  and  Thomas  Byerly  were  named 
for  the  two  vacancies.  The  crown  confirmed  all  the  persons 
named  except  William  Morris,  who  died  while  the  matter 
was  pending.  ° 

The  sweeping  change  in  the  council  was  a  great  victory 
for  Hunter,  and  at  the  same  time  a  true  proof  of  his  states- 
manship. It  brought  about  complete  harmony  between  gov- 
ernor and  council,^  and  the  latter  body  was  once  more  made 
respectable.  Yet  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  new  members 
were  persons  of  commanding  abilities.  The  two  most  not- 
able were  Col.  John  Hamilton  and  John  Anderson,  whose 
careers  have  been  touched  upon  in  the  section  upon  the 
presidency  of  the  council,  to  which  post  both  eventually 
succeeded.  John  Reading  was  another  West  Jersey  pro- 
prietor, who,  though  not  himself  a  Quaker,''  was  closely 

^  New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  iv,  pp.  115,  141,  152. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  116  et  seq.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  155. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  149,  151.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  169,  171. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  486.  "*  Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  483. 


THE  COUNCIL— PERSONNEL 


273 


identified  with  them,  and  known  chiefly  as  the  clerk  of  the 
council  of  proprietors.*  Thomas  Bycrly  was  collector  of 
customs  at  New  York,  but  held  proprietary  interests  in  the 
Jerseys.^ 

The  change  thus  effected  was  the  crucial  one  as  regards 
the  character  of  the  council.  From  this  time  on,  during 
the  union  period,  with  the  exception  of  the  short  rule  of 
Cosby,  the  council  remained  entirely  under  the  control  of 
the  governor  and  of  the  propretary  party.  Changes  in  the 
membership  were  due  to  death  or  resignation,  and  had  no 
great  political  significance.  With  one  exception,  the  coun- 
cil did  not  contain  men  of  unusual  parts.  Yet  its  niember- 
ship,  after  Hunter's  time,  did  fairly  represent  such  wealth 
and  ab  lity  as  the  province  possessed.  The  council  plays  a 
less  prominent  part,  because  it  did  not  cause  violent  con- 
tentions with  the  governor  and  assembly,  but  it  did  its  duty 
more  effectively  through  its  policy  of  quiet  agreement  in  the 
wise  policies  of  Hunter  and  Burnet. 

During  the  administration  of  Hunter,  further  vacancies 
were  caused  by  the  death  of  Quary,  Mompesson,  Gardiner,' 
Reading,  Huddy,  and  Elisha  Parker.*  At  one  time,  ow- 
ing to  the  difficulty  in  obtaining  a  quorum.  Hunter  was 
forced  to  exercise  his  power  of  making  temporary  appoint- 
ments, naming  Dr.  John  Johnstone  and  John  Parker,  of  Perth 
Amboy,  and  Peter  Fretwell  and  John  Hugg,  two  Quakers 
of  West  Jersey.'  These  appointments  were  eventually  con- 
firmed. David  Lyell,  of  Amboy,  and  John  Wills,  of  the 
Western  Division,  were  also  given  places.*  The  home  au- 
thorities,   in   accepting   these   persons,   willingly   followed 

*  New  Jersey  Archives, vol.  iv,  p.  62  (note). 

*Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  62.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  175. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  326,  363.       *  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  363;  vol.  xiv,  p.  75. 
^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  331;  vol.  xiv,  p.  6. 


274  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Hunter's  wishes,  as  his  success  had  secured  their  confid- 
ence. There  were,  however,  the  usual  delays  and  misun- 
derstandings due  to  the  slowness  of  communication  and 
the  cumbersome  character  of  the  British  colonial  system/ 
A  touch  of  humanity  appears  in  one  instance;  when,  owing 
to  a  mistake,  the  lords  of  trade  removed,  as  superannuated, 
George  Deacon,  Hunter  wrote  back  asking  that  the  step 
be  rescinded,  as  Deacon  had  been  faithful,  and  removal 
would  break  the  old  man's  heart.^  It  was  nevertheless  a 
source  of  weakness  to  the  council  that  several  of  its  mem- 
bers were  likely  to  be  too  old  for  active  service.  Neither 
Deacon  nor  Byerly  could  at  this  time  attend  meetings  held 
at  any  distance  from  their  homes.  ^ 

Of  the  members  named  in  the  latter  part  of  Hunter's 
time,  John  Johnstone  and  David  Lyell  were  the  most  not- 
able. Johnstone,  like  Thomas  Gordon,  had  already  had  a 
long  career  in  New  Jersey.*  He  had  originally  been  a 
chemist  in  Edinburgh,  and  hence  was  usually  called  Dr. 
Johnstone.  Being  associated  with  George  Scot,  of  Pit- 
lochie,  in  inducing  immigration  to  East  Jersey  from  Scot- 
land, Johnstone  had  removed  to  the  colony  himself  in  1685. 
For  his  work  with  Scot  he  was  rewarded  by  several  large 
land  grants  from  the  proprietors,  and  took  a  very  active 
share  in  proprietary  affairs.  He  resided  chiefly  in  New 
York,  although  interested  in  the  Jerseys,  and  took  some  part 
in  the  affairs  of  that  colony  also.  Johnstone  was  a  friend 
of  Hunter,  and  seems  to  have  had  many  fine  traits  of  char- 
acter. He  was,  however,  unscrupulous  in  his  political 
methods,  and  his  ability  made  him  dangerous  to  those  whom 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  374. 

"* Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  373.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  363. 

*  Whitehead,  Contributions  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Ambcy, 
p.  69. 


THE  COUNCIL— PERSONNEL  275 

he  opposed.^  David  Lyell  was  also  an  active  member  of 
the  Amboy  group  of  Scotch  proprietors.^  John  Parker 
was  the  son  of  Elisha  Parker,  and  son-in-law  of  Dr.  John- 
stone. Though  resident  at  Amboy,  he  was  a  merchant  in 
New  York.*  It  is  certainly  very  noticeable  how  completely 
the  Amboy  element  in  East  Jersey  and  the  Quakers  of 
Burlington  and  their  allies  dominated  the  council  under 
Hunter. 

Just  before  the  close  of  his  rule  two  new  appointments 
were  made :  John  Reading,  son  of  the  former  councilor,  and 
Peter  Bard,  a  naturalized  Huguenot  merchant,  resident  in 
Burlington. 

In  the  instructions  of  Burnet  no  changes  in  the  council 
were  made.  It  now  consisted  of  Morris,  Gordon,  Ander- 
son, Hamilton,  Byerly,  Lyell,  Parker,  Wills,  Hugg,  John- 
stone, Reading  and  Bard.*  Burnet  had,  however,  scarcely  be- 
gun his  administration  before  vacancies  resulted  from  the 
death  of  Gordon  and  Byerly.  To  these  places,  upon  the 
governor's  recommendation,  James  Alexander,  the  sur- 
veyor-general of  the  province,  and  James  Smith,  its  secre- 
tary, were  named. '^ 

James  Alexander  undoubtedly  stood  next  to  Morris  as  the 
most  able  person  in  the  public  life  of  the  province.  He  was 
of  noble  birth  in  Scotland,  recognized  as  heir  to  the  title  of 
Earl  of  Sterling,  but  he  had  joined  the  cause  of  the  Pre- 
tender in  1 71 5,  and,  after  his  defeat,  thought  it  best  to 
withdraw  to  the  colonies.  He  had  been  well  educated,  es- 
pecially in  mathematics,  and  had  served  in  the  Stuart  army 
as  an  engineer  officer.  In  New  York,  Alexander,  in  spite 
of  their  opposition  in  political  principles,  formed  a  friend- 

'  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  56. 

'Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  p.  84.  ^Ibid.,  p.  129. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  3.  *Ibid.,  vol.  v,  pp.  52,  71. 


276  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

ship  with  his  fellow  Scot,  Governor  Hunter,  through  whose 
assistance  he  rose  to  prominence.  When  he  came  to 
America,  he  brought  with  him  authority  from  several  of 
the  proprietors  of  East  Jersey  to  look  after  their  interests,^ 
and  he  almost  at  once  began  to  take  an  active  part  in  pro- 
prietary affairs.  Later  he  was  named  as  surveyor-general 
of  both  the  Jerseys,^  as  well  as  of  New  York.  Meanwhile 
Alexander  took  up  the  study  of  law,  and  was  soon  recog- 
nized as  the  ablest  lawyer  in  New  York.  In  the  course  of 
his  long  public  career  he  held  numerous  high  offices  in  both 
New  Jersey  and  New  York,  and  seems  to  have  acquired  dis- 
tinction in  all.  The  private  character  of  Alexander  was  of 
the  highest  type,  and  he  was  a  scholar  and  scientist  of  abil- 
ity, one  of  the  founders  of  the  American  Philosophical  So- 
ciety.^ 

Yet,  great  as  were  the  services  of  James  Alexander,  he  is 
known  to  the  student  of  New  Jersey  history  chiefly  because 
he  was  the  author  of  the  Elizabethtown  Bll  in  Chancery, 
and  the  father  of  Lord  Sterling,  the  revolutionary  general. 
These  are  no  mean  titles  to  remembrance,  but  they  should 
scarcely  outweigh  the  meritorious  service  of  a  lifetime. 

The  beginning  of  Burnet's  administration  was  marked 
also  by  another  suspension.  Burnet,  undoubtedly  with 
much  reason,  believed  that  George  Willocks  was  responsible 
for  the  opposition  offered  to  him  by  his  first  assembly.  As 
Willocks  was  a  professed  Jacobite,  Burnet  declared  him  to 
be  an  enemy  of  the  government.  But  John  Anderson  said 
in  the  council  that  he  did  not  take  Willocks  to  be  an  enemy 
of  the  government.  Thereupon  Burnet  suspended  Ander- 
son from  the  council,  and  informed  the  lords  of  trade.* 

^  New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  iv,  p.  241. 

''Ibid.,  vol,  iv,  p.  288;  vol.  xiv,  p.  3. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  399  (note).  *Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  221. 


THE  COUNCIL— PERSONNEL  277 

The  governor  appears  to  have  been  rather  hasty  in  the  mat- 
ter, no  doubt  being  chagrined  at  the  oppos'tion  and  annoy- 
ance offered  him.  The  lords  seem  to  have  taken  no  action 
and  after  a  time  Burnet  himself  removed  the  suspension  and 
restored  Anderson  to  his  place.^ 

The  only  other  change  in  the  council  under  Burnet  seems 
to  have  been  the  appointment  of  Cornelius  Van  Horn,  in 
1727,  to  the  place  made  vacant  by  the  death  of  David  Lyell.^ 
There  was  no  further  alteration  during  the  bref  rule  of 
Montgomerie,  though  a  vacancy  was  caused  by  the  death  of 
Hugg.' 

Upon  the  arrival  of  Cosby,  however,  there  were  new  de- 
velopments, due  chiefly  to  the  bitter  quarrel  originating  in 
New  York  affairs  between  the  governor  and  Morris  and 
Alexander.  Cosby's  attack  upon  the  positions  and  char- 
acters of  the  two  gentlemen  was  of  so  crude  and  violent  a 
nature  as  to  reveal  clearly  the  motives  lying  beh'nd  it.  He 
recommended  to  the  home  government  that  both  of  these 
distinguished  men  be  removed  from  the  council,*  and  the 
lords  of  trade  actually  submitted  to  the  Crown  the  names  of 
successors."  Neither  Morris  nor  Alexander  attended  any 
meetings  under  Cosby,  the  former,  indeed,  making  a  journey 
to  England  to  appeal  personally  against  the  unjust  conduct 
of  the  governor.  Morris's  mission,  as  we  know,  resulted 
in  his  complete  vindication  and  restoration  to  the  post  of 
chief  justice  of  New  York,  a  place  which  he  was  soon  to 
exchange  for  the  governorship  of  the  Jerseys, 

Since  the  death  of  Quary  no  customs  officer  had  held  a 
place  in  the  council  of  New  Jersey.     Soon  after  the  appoint- 

'  AVze/  Jersey  Archives, \o\.  xiv,  p.  3:8.        *  Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  335. 
*Ibid.,  vol.  V,  pp.  316,  346.     Dr.  Johnstone  died  soon  after  Mont- 
gomerie. 
*  Ibid.,  vol.  V,  pp.  323,  325,  329,  366  etc.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  409. 


278  ^rHE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

ment  of  Cosby,  however,  John  Peagrim,  the  surveyor-gen- 
eral of  customs  of  the  district,  was  given  a  place,  though  he 
manifested  much  less  activity  and  interest  in  the  affairs  of 
the  Jerseys  than  Quary  had  done/  Meanwhile  a  number 
of  vacancies  in  the  council  occurred  through  the  deaths  of 
Hugg,  Bard,  Johnstone,  Parker  and  James  Smith.  To  the 
first  vacancy,  William  Provost,  who  had  been  recommended 
by  Morris  during  his  presidency,  was  named.^  For  the 
other  places  Cosby  recommended  Thomas  Farmar,  who  had 
so  long  been  second  judge;  John  Schuyler,  famous  as 
the  owner  of  the  copper  mine  in  Bergen  County,  of 
which  such  frequent  mention  is  made.  Dr.  John  Rodman 
and  Richard  Smith.®  The  lords  complained  that  these 
gentlemen  made  no  efforts  to  have  their  warrants  passed, 
and  stated  that  if  their  neglect  continued  it  would  be  neces- 
sary to  appoint  other  persons  in  their  stead.*  This  step  was 
not  taken,  however,  and  during  Cosby's  rule  the  council 
remained  short-handed.  Cosby  finally  put  Farmar  into  the 
council  to  secure  a  quorum,^  but  the  other  persons  recom- 
mended did  not  take  their  seats  until  the  next  administration. 
With  the  exception  of  Morris  and  Alexander,  the  mem- 
bers of  the  council  seem  to  have  been  on  good  terms  with 
Cosby.  Hamilton  and  Anderson  appear  to  have  been  in 
special  favor,  and  we  may  guess  that  the  council,  as  a  whole, 
was  not  sorry  to  be  relieved  of  the  predominating  influence 
of  Morris  and  Alexander.®  The  endeavor  of  Morris,  after 
the  death  of  Cosby,  to  assert  his  right  to  the  presidency  of 
the  council,  and  the  resulting  conflict  with  Hamilton  and  the 
majority  of  the  council,  have  been  treated  in  the  section  on 
the  presidency  of  the  council.     During  the  period  following 

"^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  347.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  346. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  V,  pp.  374,  402.  *-Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  454. 

'Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  516.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  463. 


THE  COUNCIL— PERSONNEL  279 

the  death  of  Cosby,  no  further  changes  in  the  personnel  of 
the  council  took  place  until  the  issue  of  the  instructions  to 
Governor  Lewis  Morris. 

During  the  latter  part  of  the  union  period,  when  feeling 
in  favor  of  a  separate  executive  was  growing  in  the  Jerseys, 
complaint  was  frequently  heard  that  many  members  of  the 
council  were  residents  of  other  colonies.  As  has  been  stated 
in  another  section,  a  formal  address  was  made  on  this  point 
by  the  assembly  to  Governor  Cosby. ^  Considering  the 
union  period  as  a  whole,  we  must  certainly  be  struck  by  the 
fact  that  a  number  of  the  most  prominent  councilors  did  not 
reside  continuously  in  the  Jerseys.  Among  these,  Lewis 
Morris,  Alexander,  Johnstone,  Mompesson  and  Byerly  lived 
in  New  York,  while  Quary,  James  Smith  and  Coxe  were 
residents  of  Philadelphia.  Most  of  these  men,  however, 
lived  at  various  times  in  the  Jerseys,  and  Morris  always 
maintained  an  estate  at  Shrewsbury.  All  except  Mom- 
pesson, Quary  and  Smith  held  important  proprietary  inter- 
ests, and  Morris,  Alexander,  Coxe  and  Johnstone  were  per- 
haps the  leading  political  forces  in  the  public  affairs  of  the 
Jerseys.  But,  at  the  same  time,  nearly  all  of  the  non-resi- 
dent councilors  were  taking  an  active  part  in  the  political 
life  of  New  York  and  other  colonies,  and  hence  did  not  give 
their  whole  attention  to  Jersey  affairs. 

The  council  was  therefore  fairly  representative  of  the 
leading  political  interests  in  the  province,  though  hardly  of 
its  native  talent.  It  now  remains  to  be  shown  what  share 
the  council  actually  took  as  a  body  in  the  work  of  adminis- 
tration and  government. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  May  18,  1733. 


CHAPTER  XVI 
The  Council — Its  Legal  Position 

When  New  Jersey  became  a  royal  province,  what  we 
may  call  the  typical  form  of  provinc'al  government  had  al- 
ready become  well  established  in  the  custom  of  the  home 
government,  as  well  as  in  the  thought  of  the  American 
colonists  themselves.  The  new  province  was  therefore 
given,  with  some  few  relatively  unimportant  concessions  to 
local  condit'ons,  the  usual  organs  of  government.  Of  these 
the  governor's  council  was  one  of  the  most  important.  '  The 
legislative,  judicial,  administrative  and  advisory  powers 
were  essentially  the  same  as  those  possessed  by  the  councils 
of  all  the  other  royal  colonies. 

Cornbury's  commission  directed  that  he  should  rule  ac- 
cording to  his  commission  and  instructions,  and  according 
to  such  reasonable  laws  as  should  be  agreed  upon  by  him, 
with  the  consent  and  advice  of  the  council  and  the  assembly.^ 
The  council  was  thus  at  the  beginning  made  the  upper 
house  of  the  leg'slature  of  the  province.  Cornbury  was  to 
administer  the  oaths  of  allegiance  to  the  council  immediately 
after  the  publication  of  his  commission,-  and  though  he  did 
not  have  the  power  to  make  permanent  appointments  to  the 
council,  he  did  have  full  authority  to  suspend  all  members. 
But  in  case  of  any  vacancy  by  death,  suspension,  or  other- 
wise, he  was  to  give  immediate  notice  to  the  home  govern- 
ment, that  new  appointments  might  be  made.     The  gov- 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol  ii,  p.  490.  ''Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  491. 

280 


THE  COUNCIL— ITS  LEGAL  POSITION  281 

ernor  was,  however,  in  such  cases  allowed  to  fill  up  the  mem- 
bership of  the  council  to  the  number  of  seven,  and  such 
appointees  were  to  act  until  they  were  either  confirmed  or 
others  named  in  the'r  stead.  The  small  number  of  three 
was  fixed  as  a  quorum  of  the  council  for  business.^ 

Cornbury  was  to  call  general  assemblies  with  the  advice 
and  consent  of  the  council.  And  by  the  advice  and  consent 
of  the  same  body  he  was  to  establish  all  the  courts  of  judica- 
ture and  to  appoint  their  powers  and  fees.^  With  the  same 
sanction  he  might  erect  forts,  and  furnish  them  with  arms 
and  supples  necessary  for  the  defense  of  the  province.^ 
Public  money  was  to  be  paid  out  only  upon  warrants,  signed 
by  the  governor,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  coun- 
cil. Cornbury  could  appoint  fairs,  marts  and  markets ;  also 
ports,  harbors,  etc.,  by  and  with  the  consent  of  the  council.* 
In  case  of  the  death  or  absence  of  both  governor  and 
lieutenant-governor,  the  council  was  to  take  upon  itself  the 
administration  of  the  province,  under  the  presidency  of  the 
councilor  who  was  named  first,  and  who  was  residing  in  the 
province.' 

This  was  all  that  was  actually  said  in  the  commission  as 
to  the  work  of  the  council,  though  it  was,  of  course,  under- 
stood that  its  general  position  was  to  be  that  of  the  council 
in  the  other  royal  provinces.  A  study  of  the  governor's 
instructions,  however,  gives  a  more  detailed  knowledge  of 
its  character  and  functions.  The  number  of  the  council 
was  fixed  at  twelve,  who  were  named  in  the  instructions. " 
Of  these,  six  were  from  West  Jersey,  and  six  from  the 
eastern  division;  and  though  it  was  not  specifically  stated, 
the  custom  was  afterward  followed  of  having  the  mem- 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  492.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  495. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  499.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  499. 

■'Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  497.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  507. 


282  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

bership  divided  in  this  way/  This  territorial  division  of 
the  council  is  doubtless  the  leading  peculiarity  of  the  coun- 
cil of  the  Jerseys,  as  compared  with  those  of  other  royal 
provinces.  The  number  was,  however,  increased  by  the  ad- 
dition of  Robert  Quary,  the  surveyor-general  of  customs  for 
all  the  colonies,  and  later  by  that  of  the  lieutenant-governor.^ 
Cornbury  was  ordered  to  impart  to  the  council  so  many 
of  the  instructions  wherein  their  advice  and  consent  was  re- 
quisite, as  well  as  such  others  as  he  found  of  advantage. 
The  council  was  to  have  freedom  of  debate  and  vote  upon 
all  matters  taken  up  by  it ;  and  although  three  members  con- 
stituted a  quorum,  the  governor  was  not  to  act  with  less 
than  five  unless  in  case  of  necessity.^  That  the  Crown 
might  know  the  names  of  persons  properly  qualified  for  the 
council,  Cornbury  was  to  send  the  names  of  six  such  per- 
sons of  each  division  to  the  commissioners  of  trade,  and  as 
this  list  became  diminished  he  was  to  send  more  names. 
In  case  he  himself  put  persons  temporarily  into  the  council, 
he  was  to  send  their  names  and  qualifications  immediately. 
All  councilors  were  to  be  of  good  life  and  well  affected  to 
the  government.  Cornbury  was,  however,  forbidden  to  in- 
crease or  diminish  the  number  of  his  council.  He  was  not 
to  suspend  any  without  good  cause,  and  in  case  of  suspen- 
sion he  was  to  enter  the  reasons,  with  the  charges  and 
proofs,  together  with  the  answers  of  the  accused,  upon  the 
council  books,  unless  there  were  extraordinary  reasons  for 
not  doing  so.  All  these  things,  together  with  the  reasons 
for  not  entering  if  this  were  not  done,  were  to  be  trans- 
mitted at  once  to  the  Crown  and  to  the  commissioners  of 
trade.''  Cornbury  was  to  tell  the  council  that  if  they  were 
absent  for  two  months  from  the  province  without  leave  of 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  316.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  146. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  508,  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  509. 


THE  COUNCIL— ITS  LEGAL  POSITION  283 

the  governor,  or  for  two  years  without  leave  of  the  queen, 
their  places  were  to  become  void.^ 

Many  of  the  most  important  duties  of  the  governor  were 
to  be  executed  "  by  and  with  the  consent  of  the  council." 
Such  were  the  signing  of  warrants  for  the  payment  of  pub- 
He  moneys  *  and  the  granting  of  commissions  to  provincial 
officers,'  The  sessions  of  the  assembly  were  to  be  held 
alternately  at  Burlington  and  Amboy,  unless  the  governor, 
by  the  advice  of  his  council,  should  appoint  otherwise  be- 
cause of  special  necessity.  Salaries  and  fees  were  to  be 
regulated  by  the  governor  with  the  council.''  It  was  es- 
pecially stated  that  no  martial  law  was  to  be  proclaimed 
without  the  consent  of  the  council.*  War  was  never  to  be 
declared  without  the  special  command  of  the  Crown,  except 
against  the  Indians  in  special  emergency,  and  then  with  the 
council's  approval.^  With  the  council,  Cornbury  was  to 
provide  for  the  raising  of  stocks  and  the  building  of  work- 
houses for  the  employment  of  the  poor." 

Of  great  importance  were  the  judicial  duties  of  the  coun- 
cil. Appeals  could  be  made  from  the  regular  courts  of  the 
province  to  the  governor  and  council  in  cases  of  error.  Ap- 
peal could  only  be  taken,  however,  in  cases  exceeding  one 
hundred  pounds,  and  security  must  be  given  by  the  appellant 
to  satisfy  judgment  in  case  the  decision  were  affirmed. 
It  was  also  provided  that  members  of  the  council  who  were 
judges  in  the  courts  whence  the  appeals  were  taken  were 
not  to  sit,  though  they  might  be  present  "  to  state  their 
reasons,  etc."  In  cases  exceeding  two  hundred  pounds 
there  could  be  appeal  from  the  governor  and  council  to  the 
Crown  and  privy  council  in  England." 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  510.  ''Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  515. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p,  510,  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  521. 
"^ Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  524.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  53s. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  532.  ^  Ibid.,  vol,  ii,  p.  53(. 


284  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

The  council  had  also  certain  reserve  powers.  In  case 
any  matter  arose  not  provided  for  by  the  instructions,  the 
governor,  with  the  council,  was  to  take  such  action  as  they 
might  deem  necessary.  But  their  decision  was  to  be  tenta- 
tive merely,  and  prompt  information  of  the  matter  was  to 
be  sent  to  the  Crown.  In  case  of  the  governor's  death, 
the  council  was  to  assume  the  administration,  but  was  to 
forbear  all  acts  not  immediately  necessary  until  a  new  gov- 
ernor was  sent.^ 

A  journal  of  all  the  council's  acts  was  to  be  kept,  and 
from  time  to  time  copies  were  to  be  sent  to  the  home  au- 
thorities.^ 

Such  was  the  general  legal  position  of  the  governor's 
council  as  marked  out  in  the  first  commission  and  set  of  in- 
structions. As  its  position  was  based  upon  the  long  experi- 
ence gained  in  other  royal  provinces,  it  is  not  surprising  that 
its  general  legal  powers  remained  substantially  unchanged 
during  the  entire  union  period.  There  did  occur,  however, 
a  few  changes  in  its  sphere  of  action  which  may  be  noted. 

We  have  already  referred  to  the  changes  in  the  office  of 
president  of  the  council.  But  the  many  difficulties  of  Corn- 
bury's  administration  led  the  hom.e  government  to  take  some 
further  steps  relative  to  the  council,  as  well  as  to  the  other 
departments  of  the  government.  In  New  Jersey,  as  in  other 
colonies,  the  governor  complained  that  it  was  difficult  to 
obtain  a  quorum  of  the  council,  owing  to  the  unwill'ngness 
of  the  members  to  undergo  the  trouble  and  expense  of 
travel,  as  well  as  to  other  reasons.  Accordingly,  we  find 
in  1707  the  draft  of  a  circular  letter  prepared  by  the  lords 
of  trade  to  the  several  governors  in  America,  ordering 
them  to  suspend  such  councilors  as  willfully  absented  them- 
selves, after  due  notice  of  meetings,  if  they  persisted  after 
admonition.  iMembers  were  to  be  notified  of  this  order  and 
^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  534.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  516. 


THE  COUNCIL— ITS  LEGAL  POSITION  285 

it  was  to  be  entered  on  the  council  books.^  There  is  no  evi- 
dence that  this  letter  was  ever  sent  to  Cornbury.  The  new 
rule  was,  however,  made  a  part  of  the  instructions  of  Love- 
lace.'^ Another  point  raised  in  Cornbury 's  time  was  as  to 
the  action  of  the  council  regarding  appointments  to  office. 
Cornbury *s  appointments  gave  r"se  to  great  complaint,  and 
the  West  Jersey  Society,  in  a  memor.'al  to  the  lords  of  trade, 
declared  that  he  had  named  persons  to  office  without  and 
even  against  the  advice  of  the  council.^  The  lords,  how- 
ever, while  not  justifying  Cornbury's  general  conduct,  ruled 
that  the  governor  was  not  bound  to  have  the  advice  of  his 
council  in  naming  sheriffs,  if  he  saw  cause  to  act  inde- 
pendently.* Though  their  ruling  lessened  the  power  of  the 
council,  it  was  undoubtedly  justified  by  the  text  of  the 
instructions. 

The  instructions  of  Lovelace  made  no  important  alter- 
ations in  the  work  of  the  council.  An  add'tional  article, 
however,  emphasized  the  necessity  of  appointing  men  of 
h'gh  character  to  it,  as  well  as  to  other  important  offices.' 
Hunter's  instructions  repeated  Lovelace's  with  only  verbal 
changes.  The  added  articles  did  not  refer  to  the  structure 
and  powers  of  the  colonial  govermriCnt."  Likewise,  in  the 
orders  given  Burnet,  Montgomerie  and  Cosby,  the  legal 
position  of  the  governor's  council  was  allowed  to  remain 
unchanged.  This  comparative  permanence  of  the  legal 
place  of  the  council  is  very  similar  to  that  of  the  governor- 
ship, and,  indeed,  of  all  the  governmental  inst'tutions  of 
the  colony.  Like  them,  however,  though  perhaps  in  a  some- 
what less  degree,  the  actual  working  position  of  the  council 
did  change.  To  understand  how  this  occurred  we  must 
look  beyond  mere  constitutional  documents  and  see  the 
council  in  action. 

'^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  241-2.  'Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  317. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  g3.  ^  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  118. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  317.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  2. 


CHAPTER  XVII 
The  Council  in  Administration 

Although  we  can  safely  form  certain  conclusions  as  to 
the  part  played  by  the  council  in  the  work  of  administration, 
there  are  two  obstacles  to  a  detailed  understanding  of  its 
exact  place.  One  of  these  is  the  fact  that  the  council  re- 
cords for  nearly  all  of  the  administration  of  Cornbury  have 
disappeared,^  a  thing  in  itself  very  suspicious  when  we  re- 
call the  general  reputation  of  his  lordship  and  his  advisers. 
A  second  greater  obstacle  is  the  meagre  character  of  the 
minutes  for  the  rest  of  the  union  period.  These  state  clearly 
enough  the  action  which  the  council  took,  but  give  no  ac- 
count of  the  debates  and  discussions,  if  such  there  were, 
which  led  to  the  decisions.  The  student  can  therefore  upon 
many  matters  merely  draw  inferences  from  circumstances 
which  are  not  conclusive.  In  this  respect,  however,  the 
minutes  of  the  governor  and  council  of  New  Jersey  resemble 
most  records  of  the  colonial  period. 

With  the  exception  of  short  periods  under  Lovelace  and 
Hunter,  the  governor  and  council,  as  has  been  shown,  were 
always  in  close  political  accord.  Whether  the  governor 
controlled  the  council  or  the  council  the  governor,  must, 
of  course,  have  depended  to  some  extent  upon  the  strength 
of  character  and  intellect  of  the  two  parties.  The  student 
can  hardly  help  believing  that  the  corrupt  and  ignorant 
Cornbury  was  to  a  great  degree  controlled  by  the  ring  of 

'  For  a  full  discussion  of  their  disappearance  see  preface  of  vol.  xiii, 
New  Jersey  Archives,  ^.  y  et  seq. 
286 


THE  COUNCIL  IN  ADMINISTRATION  287 

politicians  which  surrounded  him,  and  which  contained  men 
of  the  ability  of  Coxe,  Sonmans,  Pinhorne  and  Basse/ 
But  this  relation  was  exceptional.  As  the  members  of  the 
council  owed  their  appointments  to  the  governor  and  must 
look  to  him  for  further  favors,  their  attitude  toward  him 
was  usually  one  of  extreme  deference.  Through  congratula- 
tory addresses  and  otherwise  the  council  sought  to  win 
the  approval  of  new  governors.'  Lovelace's  council,  though 
out  of  sympathy  with  him,  dared  offer  no  open  opposition 
to  his  course.^  Hunter  did,  indeed,  find  it  impossible  to 
control  the  ring  intrenched  in  the  council  under  Ingoldsby, 
but  by  removing  the  ringleaders  he  dominated  it  com- 
pletely. So,  too,  did  Burnet  and  even  Cosby.  Upon  many 
matters  the  council  was  scarcely  more  than  a  means  of 
giving  formal  sanction  to  the  governor's  acts,  and  thus 
enabling  him  to  escape  the  entire  load  of  responsibility  to 
the  home  government.  Undoubtedly  the  council  gave  the 
governors  advice  as  to  methods  and  means  of  action,  but, 
as  an  independent  force  in  directing  the  policy  of  the  ad- 
ministration, it  played  an  important  part  only  during  the 
intervals  between  the  departure  of  one  governor  and  the 
arrival  of  another,  when  the  president  of  the  council  was 
very  careful  to  rely  upon  its  direction  and  support. 

Yet,  even  if  its  action  was  hardly  more  than  formal,  the 
council  was  a  necessary  part  of  the  administrative  machin- 
ery of  the  province.  The  governor  was  forbidden  by  his 
instructions  to  sign  warrants  for  the  payment  of  public 
money  without  its  approval.*  Moreover,  it  was  certainly 
expected  by  the  home  government  that  he  would  take  no 

'  Cornbury's  alliance  with  the  anti-proprietary  party  was  quite  clearly 
the  work  of  Coxe  and  Quary.      New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  iii,  pp.  16,  37. 
"^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  pp.  333,  436;  vol.  iii,  p.  380. 
*  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  372,  390.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  515. 


288  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

very  important  step  without  consulting  his  council.  These 
limitations  upon  his  power  compelled  the  governor  to  sum- 
mon his  council  at  least  once  a  year,  for  otherwise  the  pay- 
ment of  salaries  would  be  blocked. 

No  exact  general  statement  can  be  made  as  to  how  often 
the  council  regularly  met.  During  the  sessions  of  the  as- 
sembly it,  of  course,  held  long  meetings  corresponding  to 
those  of  the  lower  house.  These  sessions  at  Burlington  and 
Amboy  were  naturally  devoted  chiefly  to  legislation.  As 
the  council,  however,  always  acted  much  more  summarily 
than  the  assembly,  it  was  able  to  devote  some  time  to  its 
administrative  and  judicial  duties.  In  addition  to  these 
long  sess'ons,  special  meetings  of  the  council  were  con- 
voked by  the  governor  as  occasion  required.  These,  how- 
ever, were  not  frequent,  usually  occurring  not  more  than  two 
or  three  times  a  year.  Cornbury  was  accused  of  not  visit- 
ing New  Jersey  at  all  for  nine  months.^  Such  special  meet- 
ings were  generally  held  at  points  convenient  for  the  gov- 
ernor from  New  York,  such  as  Amboy,  Bergen,  and  even 
Horsimus  (now  Jersey  City)." 

The  administration  of  a  new  governor  regularly  began  by 
a  meeting  of  the  council,  at  which  the  governor's  commis- 
sion was  read  and  then  published.  The  members  of  the 
council,  except  the  Friends,  next  took  the  oaths  required. 
The  Quakers  for  their  part  signed  the  corresponding  de- 
clarations.^ The  commissions  of  patent  ofiicers,  of  cus- 
toms officers,  and  of  proprietary  agents,  were  regularly  read 
in  the  council,  and  the  oaths  were  sometimes  administered 
to  them  here  as  well.  Numerous  proclamations  were  from 
time  to  time  issued.     The  accessions   of  the  kings  were 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  243. 

^  Ibid:,  vol.  xiii,  pp.  307,  553,  556;  vol.  xiv,  pp.  1,  309,  etc. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  pp.  301,  307;  vol.  xiv,  pp.  143,  392,  474. 


THE  COUNCIL  IN  ADMINISTRATION  289 

thus  announced.^  Other  proclamations  were  in  aid  of  the 
agents  of  the  proprietors,  informing-  all  that  they  were 
legally  commissioned,  and  ordering  that  assistance  should 
be  given  them."  Upon  a  governor's  accession,  a  proclam- 
ation usually  continued  the  powers  of  the  existing  executive 
and  administrative  officers  until  successors  were  legally 
appointed. 

The  further  administrative  work  of  the  council  was,  of 
course,  very  miscellaneous,  but  the  greater  part  of  it  can  be 
arranged  under  a  few  heads. 

The  council  always  witnessed  the  signing  of  warrants  for 
the  payment  of  moneys.  This  hardly  appears  to  have  been 
more  than  a  form,  though  special  meetings  were  in  a  few 
cases  called  because  of  its  necessity.*  If  the  original  in- 
tentions of  the  home  government  had  been  carried  out,  the 
council  would  undoubtedly  have  exercised  power  in  super- 
vising the  work  of  the  receiver-general  and  auditing  his  ac- 
counts, under  the  direction  of  the  governor;  but  from  the 
beginning  the  assembly  insisted  upon  its  right  to  control, 
not  only  the  raising,  but  also  the  expenditure  of  public  funds, 
and  after  the  accession  of  Hunter  its  claims  were  estab- 
lished.* The  council,  however,  was  always  requested  by 
the  assembly  to  name  a  committee  to  meet  with  that  of  the 
house  in  auditing  the  accounts  of  the  "  treasurer,"  and  this 
was  regularly  done.  The  council,  therefore,  had  a  voice  in 
deciding  what  action  should  be  taken  regarding  the  financial 
officers  and  their  work.  Yet  the  later  governors  were  in- 
clined   to    follow   whatever   wishes    the   lower   house   ex- 

^Nfw  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  556;  vol.  xiv,  p.  335. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  124;  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  pp.  31,  60. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  142,  554. 
Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  25,  Feb.  2,  1710-11. 


290 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


pressed,  and  the  council  nearly  always  dutifully  agreed  with 
his  excellency.^ 

The  power  possessed  by  the  governor  and  council  to  es- 
tablish courts,  to  fix  their  times  of  session,  and  to  institute 
suitable  fees,  was  undoubtedly  great.  But  the  council  dis- 
played little  independence  in  this  matter.  The  first  great 
ordinance  for  the  establishment  of  courts  is  recognized  to 
have  been  mainly  the  work  of  Mompesson,  Cornbury's  chief 
justice,  doubtless  elaborated  with  the  assistance  of  Judge 
Pinhorne.  Cornbury  and  council  merely  approved  of  it, 
and  issued  it  in  their  name.  The  later  ordinances  were 
based  upon  that  of  Mompesson.-  They  were  all,  however, 
read  and  considered  in  the  council  before  they  were  issued 
by  the  governor,  and  alterations  in  detail  were  made  in  def- 
erence to  the  wishes  of  the  province  and  the  experience  of 
the  judges,  many  of  whom  were  members  of  the  council.' 
The  ordinances  for  fees  seem  also  to  have  received  careful 
attention.*  Toward  the  end  of  the  period,  however,  they 
were  in  two  cases  prepared  in  deference  to  the  wishes  of 
the  assembly,^  which  was  desirous  of  passing  laws  regulat- 
ing fees,®  and  which  actually  did  secure  the  enactment  of 
statutes  to  make  the  ordinances  "  more  effectual."  '' 

One  of  the  chief   duties   of  the   council  was   the  exer- 

^  Under  Burnet,  however,  the  governor  and  council  checked  the  effort 
of  the  assembly  to  proceed  against  the  estate  of  Treasurer  Gordon  by 
legislation,  and  insisted  upon  judicial  proceedure  which  finally  justified 
Gordon;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  303. 

'  Field,  Provincial  Courts  of  New  Jersey,  p.  42  and  appendix. 

*New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  pp.  435,  S4o;  vol.  xiv,  pp.  244,  293, 
307,  388,  504. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  538;  vol.  xiv,  pp.  45,  113. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  535;  vol.  xiv,  p.  43. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  pp.  320,  393,  423,  487- 

''Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  552;  vol.  xiv,  p.  502.  These  acts  were,  however, 
disallowed  by  the  Crown;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  240,  515; 
Allinson,  Statutes. 


THE  COUNCIL  IN  ADMINISTRATION 


291 


cising,  under  the  governor,  of  a  general  oversight  of  the 
execution  of  the  laws  and  the  carrying-on  of  the  admin- 
istration by  the  subordinate  officers.  Complaints  and  peti- 
tions regarding  their  conduct  were  frequently  presented  to 
the  governor  and  council,  and  these  usually  gave  rise  to  in- 
vestigations. Though  the  governor  did  not  always  consult 
his  council  regarding  the  removal  of  colonial  officials  or  the 
appointment  of  new  ones,  he  usually  did  so.  The  most  im- 
portant instance  of  removal  during  the  union  period  was 
the  case  of  Alexander  Griffith,  in  1714.  Griffith  was  the 
attorney-general,  a  member  of  Cornbury's  clique,  who  had 
deliberately  neglected  to  prosecute  Peter  Sonmans  and 
Daniel  Leeds,  though  directly  ordered  to  do  so.  After  a 
lengthy  investigation,  which  was  virtually  a  trial  in  which 
Griffith  himself  had  opportunity  to  be  heard,  the  council 
found  that  he  had  been  guilty  of  misconduct,  and  advised  his 
suspension  from  office,  a  step  which  Hunter  promptly  took.^ 
Several  other  cases  concerned  proprietary  officers.  In 
February,  171 3-14,  Mr.  Byerly,  a  member  of  the  council, 
entered  complaint  against  Daniel  Leeds,  the  surveyor-gen- 
eral of  West  Jersey,  and  other  proprietary  officers."  Upon 
examination  before  the  council,  it  appeared  that  Leeds  had 
falsified  the  records  of  surveys.'  As  a  result,  the  council 
disqualified  him  from  acting  further  as  a  surveyor  in  the 
western  division,*  and  ordered  his  prosecution,  but  he  was 
by  Griffith  allowed  to  escape.  Upon  the  removal  of  the 
latter,  the  council  again  ordered  the  prosecution  of  Leeds.' 
Later,  in  April,  1726,  under  Burnet,  complaint  was  made 
against  Peter  Sonmans  for  endeavoring  to  act  as  collector 
of  quit-rents  in  virtue  of  his  invalid  commission  from 
Dockwra.'     After  full  examination  by  the  council,  it  was 

'  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  pp.  557-562.     "* Ibid.,\o\.  xiii,  p.  516. 
^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  525.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  551. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  563.  *Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  309. 


292  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

decided  to  prosecute  him  upon  information,  and  he  was 
bound  over  to  stand  trial/  A  proclamation  was  also  issued 
against  him.^ 

Sheriffs,  constables,  and  tax  collectors  were  also  brought 
to  task  and  removed  or  punished.  Thus,  under  Bur- 
net, the  sheriff  of  Monmouth  was  removed  by  order  of 
the  council,  for  negligence  in  failing  to  arrest  a  sedi- 
tious person,^  and  under  the  first  presidency  of  Morris  a 
sheriff  of  Gloucester  was  dismissed  and  the  tax  collectors 
threatened  with  prosecution  if  they  continued  to  fail  in  doing 
their  duty.* 

The  governor  also  preferred  to  act  with  the  council 
in  ordering  prosecutions  by  the  attorney-general  against 
provincial  officers  or  ex-officers.  Thus  in  January, 
1 714-15,  under  Hunter,  it  was  ordered  that  Daniel  Coxa 
should  be  prosecuted  for  "  several  contempts  and  misde- 
meanors." ^  Under  Burnet  the  prosecution  of  the  estate 
of  Gordon  was  instituted.®  Yet,  after  all,  when  we  con- 
sider the  great  laxity  in  enforcing  the  laws,  and  especially 
in  collecting  the  taxes,  the  conclusion  is  unavoidable  that 
the  oversight  of  the  council  was  not  very  rigid,  except  in 
cases  of  political  importance.  The  general  inefficiency  of 
its  control  is  to  be  explained  partly  by  the  infrequency 
of  its  meetings  and  partly  by  .the  difficulty  of  secur- 
ing convictions  in  the  provincial  courts.^  The  assembly, 
by  its  addresses  and  other  representations  to  the  governor, 
was  far  more  successful  in  getting  rid  of  officers  to  whom  it 
objected  than  was  the  council.  The  dismissals  of  Faucon- 
nier.  Gordon  and  Jamison  are  cases  in  point.® 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  316-317.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  326. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  202.  *^  Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  n8,  128. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  563.  *Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  309. 
^  In  the  several  cases  mentioned  none  of  the  persons  prosecuted  were 

convicted. 

'Assembly  Journal,  March  23,  24,  1708;  March  27, 1718-19;  Nov.  23, 
1723. 


THE  COUNCIL  IN  ADMINISTRATION 


293 


In  close  connection  with  this  general  supervisory  func- 
tion, the  governor  and  council  exercised  a  sort  of  general 
police  power  over  the  province.  Acting  usually  on  complaint, 
the  council  had  brought  before  it  persons  accused  of  sedi- 
tious words  or  language,  or  of  attempting  to  bring  the 
government  into  contempt.  There  are  several  notable  ex- 
amples of  the  use  of  this  power.  Two  of  these  are  con- 
nected with  the  political  contest  between  Hunter  and  Col. 
Coxe.  Coxe,  in  his  efforts,  had  been  warmly  supported  by 
the  Rev.  George  Talbot,  the  able  rector  of  St.  Mary's  Church 
at  Burlington.  In  171 5,  just  after  the  overthrow  of  Coxe 
and  his  party,  the  council  declared  that,  since  Talbot  was 
suspected  of  sedition,  the  sheriff  of  Burlington  should  ad- 
minister the  oaths  of  allegiance  to  him,  and,  if  he  refused 
to  take  them,  he  should  be  suspended  from  the  ministry  and 
imprisoned  until  he  entered  into  a  recognizance  to  keep  the 
peace. ^  These  measures  were  effective  in  silencing  Talbot. 
It  proved  necessary  to  deal  with  other  members  of  Coxe's 
party  also.  After  the  expulsion  of  Clews,  Hewlings,  Bull, 
and  the  other  colleagues  of  Coxe,  from  the  assembly,  they 
proceeded  to  hold  meetings  and  "continue  their  conspiracy." 
It  was  therefore  ordered  that  they  be  arrested.^  Bull  and 
Hall  were  eventually  brought  before  the  council  and  bound 
over  for  trial.' 

Another  case  resulted  from  the  opposition  offered  by  the 
Jacobite  proprietor,  George  Willocks,  to  Governor  Burnet. 
In  March,  1721,  Willocks  was  brought  before  the  council 
charged  with  disaffection  to  the  king  and  his  government 
in  the  colony.     After  examination,  he  was  remanded  to 

^  New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  16-19. 
*Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  30. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  42-43.  It  does  not  appear  that  they  were  con- 
victed.    Hall  died  soon  after. 


294  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

custody  until  he  gave  security  for  good  behavior.^  Several 
other  persons  of  less  note  M^ere  arrested  by  the  council  for 
somewhat  similar  offenses.^ 

The  council  was  also  supposed  to  advise  the  governor 
upon  important  matters,  and  all  the  governors  frequently 
called  for  the  opinions  of  the  membei's.  But  the  subjects 
upon  which  this  advice  was  asked  differed  widely.  On  one 
or  two  occasions  the  chief  executive  consulted  his  council 
with  the  bona  fide  intention  of  learning  the  opinions  of  the 
leading  men  of  the  province.  So  Burnet  consulted  his  coun- 
cilors as  to  the  best  means  of  providing  for  the  military  de- 
fense of  the  Jerseys.^  In  this  case  a  committee  of  the  coun- 
cil considered  at  length  and  presented  a  written  report,  the 
purport  of  which  was  certainly  not  what  the  governor  de- 
sired.* Usually,  however,  the  asking  of  the  advice  of  the 
council  was  a  mere  form  intended  to  justify  the  governor 
in  some  step  he  was  about  to  take,  and  the  council  dutifully 
replied  as  his  excellency  desired.  So  Hunter  consulted  his 
council  about  the  advisability  of  dissolving  an  assembly  in 
which  Coxe  had  a  majority,^  and  soon  after  about  calling  an 
assembly  at  Amboy,  instead  of  at  Burlington,  as  a  means  of 
circumventing  Coxe.®  So,  too,  Montgomerie  consulted  his 
council  as  to  the  conduct  of  the  assembly  in  addressing  the 
Crown  for  a  separate  government,  and  was  informed  that 
it  showed  disloyalty  to  do  so  before  finding  out  the  wishes 
of  the  Crown  in  the  matter.^  So  far  as  appears  from  the 
journal,  the  governors  never  formally  asked  advice  on  mat- 
ters of  general  policy. 

Such  were  the  main  administrative  functions  of  the  coun- 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  151. 

^  Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  33,  200.         ''Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  164,  166. 
^-Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  174.  ''Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  4. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  6.  'Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  398. 


THE  COUNCIL  IN  ADMINISTRATION  295 

cil.  Other  miscellaneous  duties  it  had,  like  the  granting  of 
patents  for  several  purposes.  Ferries,  for  example,  were 
thus  established.  Other  patents  were  for  churches,  one  of 
the  most  interesting  of  which  was  for  the  establishing  of 
St.  Mary's  at  Burlington,  granted  in  1710.^ 

It  must  be  very  evident  from  what  has  been  stated  that,  in 
carrying  on  its  work,  the  governor  and  council  acted  to- 
gether as  a  unit.  It  is  highly  probable,  indeed,  that  much 
of  what  went  on  in  the  council  had  been  arranged  before- 
hand by  private  conferences  and  discussions  between  the 
governor  and  his  friends  both  in  and  out  of  the  council. 
This  was  especially  the  case  under  Hunter,  who  was  ac- 
cused, during  the  early  part  of  his  rule,  of  having  a  sort  of 
"  cabinet  "  apart  from  the  council,  consisting  of  Morris, 
George  Clarke,  Farmar,  Gordon,  Gardiner,  and  the  Jacob- 
ite, Willocks." 

Before  leaving  the  administrative  work  of  the  coun- 
cil, there  is  another  aspect  of  the  matter  which  must  be 
considered.  In  New  Jersey,  as  in  nearly  all  the  colonies, 
the  members  of  the  council  held  at  the  same  time  numerous 
other  more  or  less  lucrative  and  important  posts  under  the 
government.  To  give  only  a  few  cases,  Lewis  Morris  was 
not  only  president  of  the  council,  but  agent  of  the  West 
Jersey  Society,  president  of  the  council  of  proprietors  of 
East  Jersey,  and  the  holder  of  numerous  posts  in  New 
York,  including  for  a  time  that  of  chief  justice.  James 
Alexander,  while  serving  in  the  council,  was  surveyor-gen- 
eral of  both  the  Jerseys  and  their  attorney-general,  besides 
holding  offices  in  New  York.  Col.  Hamilton  was  deputy 
postmaster  for  North  America,  and  for  a  time  second  judge 
and  president  of  the  council  of  proprietors  of  East  Jersey. 
Mompesson  was  chief  justice  of  both  New  York  and  New 

^ Nfw  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  396.  "^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  119. 


296  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Jersey.  Pinhorne  was  second  judge  of  the  Jerseys.  Coxe 
was  a  colonel;  Leeds,  surveyor-general  of  West  Jersey; 
Sonmans,  collector  of  quit-rents  in  East  Jersey;  Byerly  was 
collector  of  customs  at  New  York;  Thomas  Gardiner  was 
surveyor-general  of  West  Jersey;  John  Reading,  clerk  of 
the  council  of  proprietors  of  West  Jersey;  and  James  Smith, 
secretary  of  the  province  and  proprietary  register.  Nearly 
all  the  members  of  the  council  under  Cornbury  and  Ingolds- 
by  were  judges  in  their  respective  counties,  and  many  of 
them  were  military  officers.^  A  large  number  of  councilors 
were  proprietors,  though  all  the  factions  in  the  proprietor- 
ship were  represented  at  various  times. 

Thus,  in  supervising  the  administration  the  councilors 
were  to  some  extent  supervising  themselves.  The  concen- 
tration of  offices  in  a  few  hands  appears  in  its  worst  form 
under  Cornbury.  Under  worthier  executives  its  harmful 
results  are  not  so  apparent.  In  any  case  it  was  undemo- 
cratic and  undesirable.  The  aspect  of  the  council  as  a  ring 
of  officeholders  is,  of  course,  a  purely  non-legal  one.  But 
the  actual  importance  of  the  provincial  council  cannot  be 
understood  without  taking  it  into  account. 

'  They  were  put  into  the  commission  of  the  peace  for  all  the  counties 
and  Sandford,  Bowne,  Coxe,  Leeds  and  Revell  were  provincial  judges; 
liber  AAA  of  Commissions. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 
The  Council  in  Legislation 

As  the  upper  house  of  the  colonial  legislature,  the  position 
and  work  of  the  council  of  the  Jerseys  corresponded  closely 
with  those  of  the  councils  of  the  other  royal  provinces.  Its 
consent  was  absolutely  required  for  the  enactment  of  pro- 
vincial statutes,  and  so  far  as  the  requirements  of  the  gov- 
ernor's commission  and  instructions  went,  it  had  absolute 
equality  with  the  assembly  in  the  work  of  legislation.* 
Moreover,  as  "  the  upper  house  "  it  enjoyed  certain  honor- 
ary distinctions  during  the  sessions  of  the  legislature.  Its 
presiding  officer  was  his  excellency  in  person,  and  its  secre- 
tary was  regularly  the  secretary  of  the  province,  a  patent 
officer  of  the  Crown.^  At  the  opening  of  the  session  the 
members  of  the  assembly  attended  the  council  chamber  to 
hear  the  governor's  speech,  and  if  the  lower  house  at  any 
other  time  wished  to  present  an  address  or  remonstrance,  it 
attended  in  like  manner.  The  governor  also  on  occasion 
summoned  the  representatives  of  the  people  before  himself 
and  council  to  address  them  further.  It  was  also  the  cus- 
tom for  the  assembly  to  present  bills  for  the  support  of  the 
government  by  waiting  upon  him  in  person.' 

Since  the  council  was  a  small  body,  its  methods  of  pro- 
cedure in  legislation  were  rather  simple,  despite  its  affecta- 
tion of  dignity.     Bills  were  sometimes  introduced  by  in- 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  pp.  493,  511. 

'Basse  to  1715,  then  James  Smith. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  xiii  and  xiv,  passim. 

297 


298  '^HE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

dividual  members  on  permission  given,  but  frequently  the 
council  simply  voted  that  a  bill  of  a  certain  nature  be  pre- 
pared, and  named  a  person  or  a  committee  to  draw  it  up. 
Bills  were  regularly  given  three  readings,  and  then  sent 
down  to  the  lower  house.  On  important  questions,  notably 
on  many  of  the  bills  sent  up  from  the  assembly,  committees 
to  investigate  and  report  were  employed,  but  these  were 
never  permanent  or  standing  committees.  The  council 
often  disposed  of  matters  rather  summarily,  owing  partly  to 
its  small  size  and  partly  to  the  unanimity  which  usually 
existed  among  its  members.  Evidences  of  controversy  and 
party  divisions  among  the  members  are  rare.^  As  in  its  ad- 
ministrative so  in  its  legislative  work,  the  council  was 
nearly  always  thoroughly  under  the  control  of  the  governor. 
It  regularly  defeated  or  smothered  bills  of  which  his  ex- 
cellency did  not  approve,  and  so  enabled  him  to  escape  di- 
rectly refusing  to  consent  to  measures  which  had  the  ap- 
proval of  the  entire  legislature-— a  "  negative  voice  "  which 
he  was  admitted  to  possess,  but  of  which  he  was  desirous 
to  avoid  making  use.  Only  during  the  earlier  years  of 
Hunter  was  the  council  disposed  to  offer  opposition  to  the 
chief  executive.^  In  the  dealings  between  council  and  as- 
sembly messages  were  sent  back  and  forth  by  the  secretary 
or  clerk  or  by  members,  and  where  there  were  real  differ- 
ences of  opinion  conferences  were  held  which  sometimes 
lasted  several  days.^ 

But  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  it  was  the  "  upper  house," 

^  They  appear  under  Cornbury  and  Hunter.  But  members  out  of  sym- 
pathy with  the  policy  of  the  council  usually  did  not  attend  the  meetings 
as  in  the  cases  of  Morris  under  Cornbury  and  Cosby,  Pinhorne  and 
Mompesson  under  Hunter,  and  of  Alexander  under  Cosby. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  51. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii  and  xiv,  passim.  Conferences  were 
always  held.  In  1703,  however,  Cornbury  denied  that  the  assembly  had 
the  right  to  claim  these  conferences  as  a  privilege. 


THE  COUNCIL  IN  LEGISLATION  299 

the  council  in  practice  had  by  no  means  the  same  influence 
and  authority  in  the  actual  work  of  legislation  as  the  as- 
sembly. Its  early  efforts  to  assume  superiority  on  certain 
points  were  soon  defeated.  During  the  bitter  struggles  of 
the  administrations  of  Cornbury,  Lovelace  and  Ingoldsby, 
the  council  took  an  active  part.  But  these  conflicts  con- 
cerned chiefly  matters  of  general  policy,  like  the  treatment 
of  the  proprietors  and  the  support  of  the  government.  Even 
in  so  far  as  constitutional  questions  were  involved,  it  was 
in  the  main  the  prerogative  of  the  governor  and  the  pri- 
vileges of  the  assembly  that  were  under  discussion  and  the 
council  acted  merely  as  the  tool  of  Cornbury  and  Ingoldsby. 
Still,  in  one  or  two  instances  the  relations  of  the  council  and 
the  assembly  were  a  subject  of  controversy.  The  corrupt 
ring  which  dominated  the  council  naturally  took  the  position 
that  the  deliberations  of  their  body  were  secret,  even  when 
it  was  acting  as  a  part  of  the  legislature.  It  assumed  this 
position  notably  when,  after  the  defeat  in  the  house  of  the 
measures  for  the  support  of  the  Nicholson- Vetch  expedition 
against  Canada,  it  had  named  a  committee  to  search  the  re- 
cords of  the  representatives  with  a  view  to  fixing  the  guilt. 
The  house  retaliated  by  naming  a  committee  to  examine 
the  council  records.  The  council  then  declared  that  as  a 
special  concession  only  would  it  allow  the  representative  to 
see  such  minutes  as  referred  to  their  house,  but  no  others.^ 
and  even  this  concession  was  nullified  by  Ingoldsby 's  action 
in  adjourning  the  assembly.^ 

Later,  when  the  assembly  undertook  an  examination  into 
the  conduct  of  the  expedition  and  directed  Secretary  Basse 
to  submit  the  documents  relating  to  it,  the  council  withheld 
them  on  the  ground  that  it  was  itself  considering  them.^ 

'^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  361.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  364.. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  30,  1709-10. 


^OO  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

But  these  pretentions  on  the  part  of  the  council  soon  had 
to  be  surrendered,  because  Hunter  was  absolutely  unwilling 
to  shield  the  ring  of  politicians  installed  by  Cornbury. 
When  the  question  of  access  by  the  house  to  the  council 
journal  was  again  raised/  Hunter,  on  address  by  the  as- 
sembly, at  once  submitted  copies  of  the  minutes.^  He  also 
directed  the  secretary  that  in  the  future  the  minutes  of  the 
council  relating  to  the  passing  of  bills  be  kept  in  a  separate 
book.  To  this  legislative  journal  the  house  could  have  ac- 
cess at  any  time;  for  a  perusal  of  earlier  minutes,  however, 
the  representatives  were  to  apply  to  the  governor,  as  they 
contained  both  legislative  and  administrative  matters,  the 
latter  of  which  were  admittedly  secret.^  Soon  after,  in  spite 
of  certain  feeble  efforts  to  delay,  the  council  was  com- 
pelled to  submit  the  documents  relative  to  the  Canada  ex- 
pedition to  the  inspection  of  the  house."  Hunter  also  laid 
before  the  representatives  the  entry  of  the  reasons  of  Law- 
rence and  Mott,^  two  members  of  the  assembly,  for  voting 
against  the  bill  for  supporting  the  expedition.  After  these 
persons  had  been  refused  by  the  house  the  privilege  of  enter- 
ing their  statements  upon  the  assembly  journal,  they  had 
teen  allowed  by  the  council  to  make  the  entry  upon  their 
minutes,  and  Secretary  Basse  had  refused  to  allow  the  rep- 
resentatives to  see  the  statement.  By  Hunter's  firm  action 
the  principle  was  thus  established  that  the  council  should 
not  withhold  knowledge  as  to  its  legislative  proceedings  or 
block  the  house  in  legitimate  investigations. 

Upon  one  matter,  however,  the  council  won  a  partial  vic- 
tory. Lovelace,  upon  application  by  the  assembly,  had 
handed  over  to  that  body  an  address  sent  by  the  lieutenant- 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  28,  29,  1710.  ^ Ibid.,  Jan.  30,  1710. 

"^ Ibid.,  Jan.  i,  1710-11.  *-Ibid.,  Jan.  t6,  1710-11. 

"Ibid.,  Jan.  17,  1710-if. 


THE  COUNCIL  IN  LEGISLATION 


301 


governor  and  council  to  the  Crown  in  Cornbury's  time,  a 
document  which  reflected  upon  the  representatives.^  But 
Hunter  did  not  compel  his  council  to  reveal  the  somewhat 
similar  address  sent  under  Ingoldsby.^  This  check  upon  the 
popular  body  was,  however,  of  little  account,  for,  under  the 
wise  rule  of  Hunter,  Cornbury's  corrupt  clique  was  super- 
seded in  the  council  by  men  who  had  no  reason  to  desire 
secrecy  in  their  actions. 

But,  though  the  claim  to  secrecy  was  the  matter  which 
most  directly  concerned  the  position  of  the  council  in  the 
legislature,  it  was,  of  course,  not  the  only  question  upon 
which  it  had  met  defeat.  The  long  conflict  between  the 
governor  and  council  and  the  house  under  Cornbury,  Love- 
lace and  Ingoldsby,  is  described  in  detail  elsewhere.  It 
would  be  useless  to  repeat  it  here.  Suffice  it  to  say  that 
under  the  first  governor  the  conflict  resulted  in  the  entire  de- 
feat of  practically  all  legislation.  But  while  Lovelace  and 
Ingoldsby  were  in  power  numerous  important  measures 
were  enacted  which  the  council  endeavored  in  vain  to  amend 
radically.'  During  this  period  it  became  very  apparent  that 
when  the  assembly  was  in  earnest  in  its  demands  the  "  upper 
house  "  must  yield.  The  assembly  proved  both  ready  and 
willing  to  defeat  the  ends  of  government  entirely  rather 
than  concede  important  points.  The  council,  composed  as 
it  was  of  royal  appointees,  could  not  incur  a  similar  respon- 
sibility, and  showed  the  fact.  Thus  the  ultimate  superiority 
of  the  lower  house  was  established,  though,  of  course,  it 
was  never  formally  recognized. 

During  the  long  time  between  the  victory  of  Hunter  over 

'  Assembly  Journal,  March  9,  1708.  */bid.,  Jan.  3,  1710-11. 

»  Notably  in  the  conflict  as  to  the  use  of  the  title  "  General  Assembly  " 
in  acts.  The  council  was  squarely  defeated  in  its  efforts  to  compel  the 
assembly  to  use  this  title  for  the  entire  legislature  and  not  for  the  house 
of  representatives  alone. 


302  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Coxe,  Sonmans  and  Basse,  and  the  end  of  the  union  period, 
in  which,  speaking  generally,  the  council  and  assembly  were 
in  agreement,  the  theory  of  the  general  equality  of  the  two 
houses  prevailed.  Yet  the  most  casual  survey  of  the  legis- 
lative history  of  the  time  shows  that  in  practice  the  assembly 
was  a  far  more  important  factor  than  the  council.  It  was 
in  the  house  that  the  first  resolution  was  regularly  adopted 
as  to  what  action  should  be  taken  upon  the  recommenda- 
tions of  the  governor's  speech,  a  step  which  decided  usually 
what  the  chief  work  of  the  session  should  be.  Nearly  all 
the  bills  originated  in  the  assembly,  and  that  body  un- 
doubtedly supplied  the  initiative  force  in  carrying  them 
through.  The  council,  partly  through  the  force  of  circum- 
stances, partly  through  the  policy  of  Hunter,  dropped  into 
the  position  of  an  advisory  and  moderative  body  rather  than 
an  initiating  one. 

But  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  therefore  the  council  be- 
came unimportant.  The  character  and  ability  of  the  men 
who  composed  it,  and  its  recognized  position  as  the  legisla- 
tive mouth-piece  of  the  governor,  always  prevented  such  a 
result.  It  continued  to  amend  most  of  the  measures  sent 
up  to  it,  and  in  a  great  majority  of  cases  these  amendments 
were  accepted  in  whole  or  in  part.  The  readiness  with 
which  the  later  assemblies  accepted  council  amendments 
shows  the  harmony  of  feeling  between  the  houses,  and  it 
would  not  be  too  fanciful  to  infer  from  it  also  some  re- 
cognition of  the  superior  experience  and  knowledge  of  the 
council.^  At  the  same  time,  in  the  few  instances  when  mat- 
ters of  principle  were  involved,  as  in  the  first  session  of 
Burnet's  rule,  the  assembly  always  stood  firm.  The  coun- 
cil always  retained  the  right  to  introduce  bills,  and  occa- 
sionally did  so.  In  nearly  every  session  some  measure  ori- 
ginated in  the  upper  house,  though  the  assembly  seldom  dis- 

'  AVzf  Jersey  Archives,  vols,  xiii  and  xiv,  passim. 


THE  COUNCIL  IN  LEGISLATION  303 

played  much  enthusiasm  for  such  measures.  In  the  field  of 
military  affairs  especially  the  council  evinced  great  interest, 
and  several  measures  relating  to  this  department  originated 
there.' 

There  was.  however,  one  subject  of  legislative  action  re- 
garding which  the  assembly  from  the  beginning  to  the  end 
of  the  period  claimed  and  maintained  an  important  super- 
iority over  the  council.  The  assembly  always  regarded 
itself  as  alone  privileged  to  originate  money  bills,  and  gen- 
eral colonial  practice  was  so  well  established  that,  however 
much  the  governor  and  council  endeavored  to  influence  by 
persuasion  and  patronage  the  making  of  liberal  grants, 
they  only  once  endeavored  to  anticipate  the  action  of  the 
representatives  by  introducing  an  independent  bill.^ 
Though  nothing  was  said  in  the  commissions  or  instructions 
of  the  governors  on  this  point,  and  no  formal  recognition 
of  this  peculiar  power  of  the  house  was  ever  made,  the 
abandonment  of  the  right  to  initiate  money  legislation  to 
the  assembly  was  in  practice  nearly  complete. 

In  New  York  and  other  colonies  there  had  been 
bitter  conflicts,  not  only  as  to  the  right  to  originate 
bills  granting  money,  but  also  about  the  power  of  the 
council  to  amend  money  bills  when  sent  up.  New  Jersey 
did  not  entirely  escape  the  latter  quarrel.  When  Burnet 
superseded  Hunter,  he  took,  as  we  shall  see,  a  very 
decided  stand  on  the  subject  of  long-term  grants  of  sup- 
port to  the  government,  instead  of  the  grants  limited  to 
two  or  three  years,  which,  in  spite  of  their  instructions  to 
the  contrary,  earlier  executives  had  always  accepted.'     Dur- 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  88,  175,  187,  416. 
^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  418.     The  house  would  take  no  action  upon  this 
measure. 
*  Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  153,  197. 


304  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

ing  his  first  meeting  with  the  assembly,  the  council  amended 
the  bill  for  support  sent  up  by  the  house,  changing  the  time 
of  the  grant  from  two  to  twenty-one  years.  ^  The  house, 
which  was  already  hostile  to  the  new  executive,  formally 
resolved  that  such  a  step  was  unconstitutional,^  and  as  the 
council,  under  Burnet's  control,  would  not  give  way,  the 
measure  was  lost.  Thus  the  house  enforced  its  contention, 
and  though  in  later  sessions  it  was  induced  to  lengthen  the 
grants,  it  took  such  action  itself.  The  effort  of  the  council 
under  Montgomerie  to  originate  a  money  bill  met  speedy 
defeat,'  and  the  house  may  be  justly  regarded  as  having  es- 
tablished the  principle  for  which  it  contended.  The  con- 
trol of  the  purse  strings  was,  of  course,  as  in  all  Anglo- 
Saxon  communities,  the  one  great  secret  of  the  superiority 
of  the  representatives  of  the  people  over  both  the  executive 
and  the  appointive  upper  house.  The  governor  and  the 
councilors  were  perhaps  not  vitally  affected  by  the  refusal 
of  the  assembly  to  pass  other  measures  of  which  the  pro- 
vince stood  in  need,  but,  without  the  grant  for  support,  they 
could  receive  no  salaries.  The  councilors  were,  indeed, 
"  men  of  substance,"  but  the  expenses  involved  in  service 
on  the  board  must  have  been  not  inconsiderable.*  Closely 
associated,  as  they  were,  with  the  governor  and  other  royal 
officers,  they  showed  themselves  ready  to  yield  to  the  de- 
mands of  the  house  rather  than  prevent  the  appropriations. 
Under  such  a  condition  it  is  perhaps  remarkable  that  the 
council  was  able  to  retain  the  power  and  influence  which 
it  actually  possessed  during  the  period  of  the  union. 

Before  concluding  this  brief  statement  of  the  place  of  the 
council  in  legislation,  it  will  be  well  to  mention  another 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol,  xiv,  p.  193. 
'* Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  195.  ^ Supra,  p.  303- 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  160.    Jennings  resigned  from  the  council  on  the 
plea  of  the  expense. 


THE  COUNCIL  IN  LEGISLATION 


305 


field  of  activity  of  the  upper  house  which,  though  not  actu- 
ally legislative  in  character,  was  nevertheless  closely  con- 
nected with  its  legislative  work.  This  was  the  drawing  up 
of  addresses,  congratulatory,  patriotic  and  otherwise,  to  the 
Crown  and  to  the  governors.  Some  of  these  addresses 
were  hardly  more  than  formal,  such  as  those  congratulating 
Queen  Anne  and  King  George  upon  the  victories  of  the 
royal  arms.^  They,  nevertheless,  were  assurances  to  the 
home  government  of  the  loyalty  of  the  province,  and  more- 
over gave  proof  of  the  zeal  of  the  royal  governor  whose 
rule  inspired  such  sentiments.  In  some  cases,  however, 
the  addresses  of  the  council  had  greater  importance.  Thus, 
upon  the  accessions  of  Lovelace  and  Hunter,  they  received 
communications  from  the  council,^  which  can  hardly  be  re- 
garded as  more  than  bids  on  the  part  of  the  corrupt  ring 
in  the  council  for  a  continuance  of  the  executive  favor  and 
protection  which  it  had  enjoyed  under  Cornbury  and  In- 
goldsby.  The  address  of  congratulation  to  Lovelace,  in 
which  he  was  hailed  as  "  the  embodiment  of  all  perfec- 
tions," was  so  servile  in  character  as  to  arouse  indignation 
in  the  province. 

Two  of  the  addresses  to  the  Crown  were  also  notable. 
One  of  these  was  drawn  up  after  the  great  attack  upon 
Cornbury  by  the  assembly  in  1707.'  In  it  the  council  rep- 
resented in  fulsome  terms  the  uprightness  of  the  governor, 
and  bitterly  attacked  Morris  and  Jennings  as  the  inciters 
of  disturbance  and  faction.  The  other  was  sent  by  Ingolds- 
by's  council  during  the  agitation  over  the  Nicholson- Vetch 
expedition.*  It  put  the  blame  for  the  defeat  of  the  meas- 
ures to  provide  support  for  the  expedition  upon  the  Quak- 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  239;  vol.  iv,  p.  252. 

*  Smith,  New  Jersey  and  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  17. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  287.  ^/bid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  470. 


3o6  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

ers,  and  represented  the  need  of  excluding  them  from 
office.  Both  addresses  are  strong  evidences  of  the  servility 
and  corruption  of  the  council  at  the  time  they  were  pre- 
pared, and  as  soon  as  their  purport  was  known  they  became 
objects  of  attack  by  the  assembly.  There  was,  indeed,  good 
reason  for  the  attempts  of  the  council  to  prevent  the  rep- 
resentatives from  obtaining  copies  of  these  documents.  It 
was  very  fortunate  for  the  Jerseys  that  the  addresses  failed 
to  create  upon  the  home  authorities  the  impression  which 
their  unprincipled  authors  intended. 


CHAPTER  XIX 
The  General  Assembly — Personnel 

It  can  scarcely  be  said  of  the  general  assembly  as  of  the 
council  that  its  importance  was  largely  due  to  the  distin- 
guished character  of  the  men  who  composed  it.  The  power 
of  the  assembly  rested  upon  the  fact  that  it  represented  the 
public  opinion  of  the  province,  and,  while  its  members  were 
necessarily  "  men  of  substance,"  most  of  them  appear  to 
have  been  only  good  representatives  of  localities  which  sent 
them,  and  not  persons  of  extensive  political  experience  or 
ability.  Such  being  the  case,  the  important  share  taken  by 
the  assembly  in  the  work  of  carrying  on  the  government 
is  even  more  creditable  to  its  members  and  to  the  province. 
Nearly  every  assembly,  however,  contained  some  leaders 
who,  to  a  greater  or  less  degree,  directed  its  policy,  and  in 
fact  most  of  the  distinguished  men  of  the  union  period 
served  at  some  time  or  other  as  representatives.  It  is  true, 
nevertheless,  that  not  many  of  these  persons  actually  made 
their  reputations  as  assemblymen.  Such  men  as  Morris, 
Johnstone,  Coxe  and  Basse  are  to  be  remembered  chiefly  for 
other  reasons.  But  in  several  cases  they  added  materially 
to  their  power  and  reputation  by  their  work  in  the  house. 

The  first  assembly,  chosen  in  1703,  contained  a  proprietary 
majority,  shown  at  once  by  the  choice  of  Thomas  Gordon 
as  speaker.  Among  the  East  Jersey  members  other  notable 
persons  were  John  Reid,  John  Harrison,  Miles  Forster  and 
Col.  Richard  Townley.     In  the  West  Jersey  delegation  were 

307 


3o8  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Thomas  Lambert,   William  Biddle,  John  Hugg,   William 
Hall,  Peter  Fretwell,  and  Thomas  Gardiner/ 

John  Reid  is  to  be  remembered  chiefly  for  his  work  as 
proprietary  surveyor.  He  had  acted  as  deputy  to  both 
Keith  and  John  Barclay,  and  in  1702  had  succeeded  them 
as  surveyor-general.  A  Scot  by  birth,  he  was  a  prominent 
and  useful  member  of  the  Amboy  group  of  proprietors.^ 
Miles  Forster  was,  like  Reid,  a  proprietor,  and  had  origin- 
ally come  into  prominence  as  deputy  surveyor  to  William 
Haigh  in  1684.  Later  he  had  been  collector  and  receiver 
of  the  customs  at  Amboy,  under  Governor  Dongan,  but  in 
1689  he  appears  to  have  been  a  merchant  at  New  York. 
He  returned,  however,  to  Amboy,  played  a  prominent  part 
in  the  political  affairs  of  the  province  during  the  opening 
years  of  royal  government,^  and  was  eventually  named  by 
Lovelace  to  succeed  Peter  Fauconnier  as  "  receiver-general 
and  treasurer."  John  Harrison,  on  the  other  hand,  was 
a  trader  of  Elizabethtown,  who,  unlike  most  of  his  towns- 
men, had  purchased  a  proprietary  interest.  Later  he  be- 
came prominent  as  captain  of  the  East  Jersey  company  of 
"  fuzilleres,"  raised  for  the  unfortunate  Canada  expedition 
of  1709.  Harrison  was  also  commissary  of  the  expedition. 
Later  he  removed  to  Amboy,  where  he  acted  occasionally  as 
surveyor.  He  died  in  1724.*  William  Biddle,  Thomas  Lam- 
bert, John  Kay  and  John  Hugg  were  long  prominent  among 
the  proprietors  of  West  Jersey,^  while  Fretwell,  Gardiner 
and  Col.  Townley  all  became  well  known  later  as  members 
of  the  governor's  council. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  10,  1703- 

'Whitehead,  Contributions  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Amboy, 
P-  45- 

^Ibid.,  p.  46. 

"^ Ibid.,  p.  86;  liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  p.  103;  New  Jersey  Ar- 
chives, vol.  xiii,  p.  415. 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  passim. 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY— PERSONNEL  309 

The  second  assembly  of  1704  is  notable  because  of  the 
determined  effort  made  by  Cornbury  and  his  new  allies,  the 
anti-proprietary  party,  to  control  it  for  the  injury  of  the 
proprietors.  In  spite  of  all  their  influence,  however,  the 
proprietary  party  had  a  bare  majority  of  the  members 
elected.  The  vote  for  a  speaker  resulted  in  a  tie  between 
Peter  Fretwell  and  John  Bowne,  whereupon  the  clerk,  An- 
derson, a  henchman  of  Cornbury,  cast  the  deciding  vote  for 
Fretwell.^  This  was  no  doubt  done  to  disarm  suspicion, 
as  Fretwell  was  the  proprietary  candidate.  Among-  the 
prominent  members  on  the  anti-proprietary  side  were  John 
Bowne,  Obadiah  Bowne,  Richard  Salter  and  Richard  Harts- 
horne,  all  of  East  Jersey.  The  assembly  contained  both 
Thomas  Gordon  and  John  Barclay,  yet  the  real  strength  of 
the  proprietors  lay  in  the  West  Jersey  delegation,  which 
included  John  Hugg,  John  Kay,  William  Hall,  Thomas 
Gardiner,  Thomas  Lambert  and  Joshua  Wright.  Other 
notable  men  in  the  assembly  were  Jasper  Crane,  John  Royse 
and  Robert  Wheeler.^ 

The  Bownes  and  Richard  Salter,  of  Monmouth,  were 
already  prominent  as  energetic  and  violent  leaders  of  their 
faction.  They  had  taken  a  leading  part  in  the  revolution 
which  had  overthrown  proprietary  rule,  as  well  as  in  the 
collection  of  the  "  Blind  Tax,"  the  bribe  given  Cornbury 
to  dissolve  the  first  assembly.  From  this  time  forth  they 
became  staunch  supporters  of  the  governor,  and  were  placed 
by  him  in  several  positions  of  trust. ^  The  violence  of 
Salter  made  him  especially  obnoxious  to  the  proprietary 
party,  who  complained,  after  he  had  been  made  a  justice 
of  the  peace  and  captain  of  militia,  that  he  was  a  person  of 
*'  notorious  character."  *     Richard  Hartshorne,  a  man  of 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  14,  1704.  *  Ibid.,  Nov.  13.  1704- 

*  Liber  AAA  of  Commissio7is,  pp.  15,  2g,  42,  44. 
^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  93,  156. 


3IO  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

apparently  much  higher  type,  had  come  to  Monmouth  from 
London  in  1699,  and  acquired  a  large  landed  interest  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  Navesinks.  He  was  a  Quaker  by  profes- 
sion, and  one  of  the  commissioners  named  in  1676  to  lay  out 
West  Jersey/  Though  of  considerable  influence,  he  took 
little  part  in  public  affairs,  but  his  sympathies  seem  to  have 
been  throughout  with  the  settlers  of  Middletown  against  the 
proprietors.  He  had  been  excluded  from  the  first  assembly 
by  the  proprietary  majority  on  the  ground  that  he  was  not 
properly  qualified.^  The  most  prominent  of  the  West 
Jersey  representatives  was  perhaps  John  Kay,  later  known 
as  an  active  member  of  the  council  of  proprietors,  and  for  a 
time  its  vice-president.^  But  especial  distinction  was  won 
during  the  proceedings  by  Lambert,  Gardiner  and  Wright, 
the  three  Quaker  members  illegally  excluded  from  the  as- 
sembly by  Cornbury,  in  order  to  give  his  supporters  a  tem- 
porary majority.  Robert  Wheeler,  merchant,  of  Burling- 
ton, a  convert  from  Quakerism  to  the  Anglican  faith,  was 
best  known  for  his  prominent  connection  with  St.  Mary's 
Church.*  John  Royce  was  a  merchant  of  New  York,  who 
had  purchased  lands  on  the  Raritan,°  but  who  was  not  in 
sympathy  with  the  proprietorship.  Jasper  Crane,  of 
Newark,  was  the  son  of  that  Jasper  Crane  who  had  been 
one  of  the  original  settlers  of  New  Haven,  and  afterward 
the  leader  of  the  Branford  people  in  their  removal  to  the 
Jerseys. 

The  third  assembly,  justly  famous  because  of  its  gallant 
stand  against  Cornbury's  tyranny,  was  naturally  an  unusu- 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol,  ii,  p.  329  (note). 
'*  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  17,  1703. 

*  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  3,  p.  133. 

*  Hills,  History  of  the  Church  in  Burlington,  pp.  29,  45  et  passim. 
^ East  Jersey  Records,  liber  A,  pp.  99,  166,  189. 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY—PERSONNEL  ^H 

ally  strong  one,  though  almost  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the 
proprietary  party.  Its  speaker  was  the  Friend,  Samuel 
Jennings,  who  added  to  his  already  great  services  to  the 
colony  by  his  bravery  and  coolness  in  the  presence  of  the 
governor.  But  the  real  leader  in  the  house  was,  of  course, 
Lewis  Morris,  who  chose  this  new  field  for  battling  against 
the  common  enemy  of  proprietors  and  people.  Among  the 
East  Jersey  members  were  Harrison,  Thomas  Farmar, 
Elisha  Parker,  Jasper  Crane  and  John  Bowne.  In  the  West 
Jersey  representation  were  John  Wills,  Thomas  Gardiner, 
John  Kay  and  William  Hall/  Of  these  Parker,  Wills, 
Gardiner  and  Hall  were  later  of  the  council,  while  Farmar 
is  hereafter  to  be  noticed  as  second  judge  of  the  supreme 
court.  After  the  retirement  of  Jennings,  through  illness, 
Gordon  succeeded  him  as  speaker. 

Lovelace's  first  assembly,  the  fourth  under  royal  rule,  was, 
of  course,  weakened  by  the  absence  of  Morris  and  the  death 
of  Jennings.  Like  the  third,  the  proprietary  majority  was 
large.  Gordon  was  again  chosen  speaker.  From  East 
Jersey  were,  in  addition,  Farmar,  Parker,  Harrison  and 
John  Royce.  The  West  Jersey  delegation  was  perhaps 
weaker  than  usual,  but  included  Gardiner  and  Kay.^  Mon- 
mouth County  sent  two  new  members,  Elisha  Lawrence  and 
Gershom  Mott,  who  represented  the  violent  anti-proprietary 
feeling  in  that  district.  They  soon  made  themselves  almost 
as  obnoxious  to  the  proprietary  element  as  the  Bownes  and 
Salter.'  Essex  sent  John  Treat,  the  son  of  the  leader  in 
emigration  from  Milford,*  while  Middlesex  was  represented 
in  part  by  the  Quaker,  John  Kinsey,  later  speaker  of  an 

^  Assembly  Journal,  April  5,  1707.  ^ Ibid.,  March  3,  1708-9. 

*They  showed  their  position  almost  immediately;  Assembly  Journal , 
March  14,  1708-9. 
^Ibid.,  March  5,  1708-9. 


312  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

assembly.  He  was  the  son  of  one  of  the  first  commissioners 
of  West  Jersey,  and  had  been  himself  one  of  the  earliest 
settlers  in  that  division/ 

The  fifth  assembly,  meeting  under  Richard  Ingoldsby,  in 
1709,  was  rather  notable  in  that  the  prevailing  spirit  was 
anti-proprietary,  although  not  violently  so.  Its  speaker  was 
the  West  Jersey  proprietor,  John  Kay.^  Among  the  mem- 
bers of  former  assemblies  returned  were  John  Harrison, 
Thomas  Gordon,  John  Treat,  Elisha  Lawrence,  Gershom 
Mott,  Peter  Fretwell,  Thomas  Lambert  and  Robert 
Wheeler.  Notable  new  members  were  Dr.  Johnstone,  the 
powerful  Perth  Amboy  proprietor,  and  Major  Jacob  Spicer, 
of  Cape  May.  Spicer  was  of  Puritan  stock,  but  had  re- 
moved to  Cape  May  from  Long  Island.^  He  had  com- 
manded the  West  Jersey  contingent  in  the  Nicholson- Vetch 
expedition,*  and  from  that  time  on  played  a  prominent  part 
in  the  politics  of  the  colony.  Spicer  was  a  supporter  of 
Col.  Coxe,  and  an  opponent  of  the  proprietors. 

The  sixth  assembly,  the  first  to  meet  Hunter,  was,  how- 
ever, once  more  strong  in  the  proprietary  interest.^  Kay, 
of  Gloucester,  was  again  speaker.  Like  him,  most  of  the 
other  prominent  members  had  served  in  former  assemblies. 
Burlington  sent,  with  Robert  Wheeler,  the  Huguenot,  Isaac 
Decowe,  a  proprietor,  member  for  a  time  of  the  council  of 
proprietors,  and  later  treasurer  of  West  Jersey.  Burling- 
ton County  sent  Thomas  Lambert  and  Joshua  Humphries, 
both  well-known  proprietors.  The  Irishman,  Isaac  Sharp, 
was  now  one  of  the  members  from  Salem  County.     Later 

^  Smith,  New  Jersey,  pp.  92,  103. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  i,  1709. 

*  Stevens,  History  of  Cape  May  County  (Cape  May  City,  1897),  P-  44- 

^ Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  p.  104. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  6,  1710. 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY— PERSONNEL  31^ 

he  acquired  considerable  prominence  in  politics,  served  as 
a  member  of  the  council  of  West  Jersey  proprietors,  and  be- 
came colonel  of  militia.^  As  in  the  last  assembly.  Cape 
May  was  represented  by  Fretwell  and  Spicer.  The  town 
of  Perth  Amboy  sent  Dr.  Johnstone  and  the  ex-Quaker, 
John  Reid;  Middlesex  was  represented  in  part  by  Farmar; 
and  Essex  by  John  Treat.  Monmouth  returned  Gershom 
Mott,  but  sent  with  him  William  Lawrence,  a  somewhat  less 
resolute  opponent  of  the  proprietors.^  From  Bergen  came 
William  Sandford,  the  former  member  of  Cornbury's  coun- 
cil. Col.  Sandford  was,  however,  expelled  by  the  proprie- 
tary majority  during  the  session. 

Hunter's  second  assembly,  the  seventh,  was  notable  for 
the  final  bitter  conflict  which  occurred  in  it  between  the  sup- 
porters of  the  governor  and  those  of  Col.  Coxe,  the  last 
powerful  representative  of  Cornbury's  old  ring.  The  as- 
sembly was  originally  under  the  control  of  Coxe,  who  served 
himself  as  representative  of  Gloucester,  and  was  chosen 
speaker.'  The  other  Gloucester  member  was  Richard  Bull, 
at  one  time  a  member  of  the  council  of  proprietors,*  but  a. 
staunch  supporter  of  Coxe.  Others  of  the  faction  from 
West  Jersey  were  Jacob  Spicer,  Jacob  Hewlings,  William 
Clews,  and  William  Hall,  the  renegade  Quaker.  William 
and  Elisha  Lawrence,  of  Monmouth,  were,  as  always,  will- 
ing to  take  part  in  any  attack  upon  the  proprietors.  Hun- 
ter's supporters  included  Farmar,  Harrison,  Kinsey,  and 
from  West  Jersey,  Isaac  Sharp  and  Samuel  Smith,  of  Bur- 
lington.    Essex  was  represented  by  Col.  Josiah  Ogden,  of 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  59;  liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  p. 
158;  Minnies  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  2,  p.  i 
et  seq.',  bk.  4,  p.  64. 

^Assetnbly  Journal,  May  23,  1716.  *  Ibid.,  April  4,  1716. 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii,  p.  41. 


314  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Newark,  and  Joseph  Bonnell,  of  Elizabethtown.  The  latter 
was  a  man  long  prominent  in  the  affairs  of  his  town,  one 
of  the  committee  of  seven  to  defend  the  land  titles  of  the 
associates,  and  later  first  mayor  of  Elizabethtown/ 

But  the  expulsion  of  Coxe  and  his  followers  during  the 
second  session  changed  the  character  of  the  seventh  as- 
sembly completely,  and  made  it,  like  earlier  bodies,  a  pro- 
prietary instrument.  John  Kinsey  was  chosen  speaker  in 
place  of  Coxe,  and  the  choice  warmly  approved  by  Hunter.^ 
But  of  the  persons  chosen  in  room  of  the  expelled  represen- 
tatives only  two  were  of  great  prominence.  These  were 
Philip  Schuyler,  later  of  the  council,  and  Jeremiah  Basse, 
who,  at  the  close  of  his  long  and  troubled  career,  thus  re- 
appeared as  representative  of  Cape  May.  The  real  leader 
of  the  assembly  was,  however,  Governor  Hunter  himself. 

The  course  of  the  eighth  assembly,  which  met  Governor 
Burnet  in  1721,  indicates  clearly  the  fading  away  of  the  old 
party  lines.  Of  this  body  Dr.  Johnstone  was  speaker,^  a 
post  which  was  more  and  more  coming  to  carry  with  it 
the  leadership  of  the  house.  Among  former  members  re- 
turned were  Ogden,  Bonnell,  William  Lawrence  and  Isaac 
Sharp.  Many  new  members,  however,  appear,  but  among 
them  only  Robert  Lettis  Hooper  and  William  Trent  are 
notable.  Both  of  these  gentlemen  must  be  noticed  later  in 
connection  with  their  work  as  chief  justices.* 

The  ninth  assembly,  beginning  in  1727,  and  chosen  be- 
cause of  the  accession  of  a  new  king  rather  than  for  any 
political  necessity,   did  not  differ  in  a  marked  way  from 

'  Hatfield,  History  of  Elizabeth,  pp.  310,  320. 
'Assembly  Journal,  May  21,  1716. 

■^  At  the  beginning  of  the  second  session  he  declared  that  he  was  un- 
able to  attend  because  of  sickness,  and  William  Trent  was  chosen. 
*  Assembly  Journal,  March  7,  1721-22. 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY— PERSONNEL  31- 

its  predecessor  in  personnel.^  Dr.  Johnstone  was  again 
speaker,  and  the  membership  included  John  Kinsey,  Jr., 
Thomas  Farmar  and  Joseph  Bonnell.  Andrew  Johnstone, 
the  doctor's  second  son,  later  a  man  of  prominence  among 
the  proprietors,  represented  Amboy  with  his  father.^ 
xMahlon  Stacey,  son  of  one  of  the  original  Yorkshire  pur- 
chasers in  West  Jersey,  who  had  won  a  seat  from  Burling- 
ton County  after  a  contested  election  with  Colonel  Coxe  dur- 
ing the  last  session  of  the  eighth  assembly,  were  again  re- 
turned.^ An  interesting  feature  was  the  reappearance  of 
the  old  adventurer  and  speculator,  Peter  Sonmans,  as  rep- 
resentative of  Bergen.  That,  after  his  long  and  discredi- 
table career,  he  was  thus  able  to  reenter  public  affairs,  is  not 
highly  creditable  to  the  province.  Among  other  things,  the 
ninth  assembly  was  marked  by  the  advance  in  the  influence 
of  the  able  politician,  John  Kinsey,  Jr.,  who  now  undoubt- 
edly shared  with  Dr.  Johnstone  the  leading  power  in  the 
assembly. 

The  tenth  and  last  assembly  of  the  union  period,  which 
met  in  1730  under  Montgomerie,  and  later  in  1733  under 
Cosby,  showed  no  sweeping  change  in  membership. "*  In- 
deed, except  when  party  strife  was  keen,  as  under  Ingoldsby 
and  Hunter,  it  is  very  noticeable  that  most  of  the  members 
of  the  assembly  served  for  considerable  periods.  The  house 
included  Dr.  Johnstone,  Peter  Sonmans,  Mahlon  Stacey, 
and  John  Kinsey,  Jr.  Aaron  learning,  of  Cape  May, 
known  to  students  as  one  of  the  compilers  of  the  "Grants 
and  Concessions,"  was  serving  his  second  term.     The  choice 

"^  Assembly  Journal ,  Dec.  9,  1727. 

*  Whitehead,  Contributions  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Amboy, 
p.  72. 

^Assembly  Journal,  Ju\y  29,  1725. 

*  Ibid.,  May  7,  1730. 


3i6  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

of  a  Speaker,  however,  resulted  in  favor  of  John  Kinsey.* 
It  is,  indeed,  unfortunate  that  more  is  not  known  regarding 
the  personality  of  this  interesting  leader,  as  he  had  un- 
doubtedly become  one  of  the  strongest  forces  in  the  pub- 
lic life  of  the  province.  To  so  able  a  critic  as  James  Alex- 
ander, Kinsey  seemed  a  man  of  intelligence  and  good  sense. 
He  nevertheless  regarded  him,  because  of  his  championship 
of  popular  issues,  as  a  seeker  after  popularity.^  But  to  a 
modern  student,  the  manner  in  which  Kinsey  had  revived 
and  brought  forward  such  issues  as  that  of  separation  from 
New  York  and  the  demand  for  a  three  years'  limitation 
upon  the  duration  of  assemblies,  bespeaks  a  democratic  and 
statesmanlike  instinct  which  at  once  arouses  sympathy. 
The  history  of  the  province  of  New  Jersey  has  lost  some- 
thing because  fate  has  been  unkind  to  the  memory  of  the 
Middlesex  representative. 

'  Smith,  New  Jersey,  p.  103. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  262.     Kinsey  was  later  chief  justice 
of  Pennsylvania. 


CHAPTER  XX 

The  General  Assembly — Constitution  and  Legal 

Power 

It  is  not  the  function  of  an  institutional  sketch  Hke  this 
to  determine  whether,  under  the  British  constitution  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  the  people  of  the  Jerseys  had  an  in- 
herent right  to  an  assembly  or  other  form  of  representation, 
or  whether  the  privilege  of  choosing  one  of  the  houses  of 
the  legislature  was  merely  a  privilege  conferred  upon  them 
by  the  Crown.  Under  proprietary  rule  East  and  West 
Jersey  had  always  had  elective  legislative  bodies,  though 
they  had  sometimes  gone  years  without  meetings  of  their 
assemblies,  and  it  would  have  been  absolutely  impossible  to 
govern  them  satisfactorily  without  allowing  representation. 
The  logic  of  events  has,  moreover,  given  them  the  "  un- 
alienable right  "  to  govern  themselves. 

Nevertheless,  the  constitution  of  the  assembly,  and  to 
some  extent  its  powers,  were  based  upon  the  commissions 
and  instructions  of  the  royal  governors.  Cornbury's  com- 
mission directed  him  to  rule  in  accordance  with  laws  made 
by  him  with  the  consent  of  the  council  and  the  assembly. 
Such  laws  were  not  to  be  repugnant  to,  but,  as  near  as  might 
be,  agreeable  with,  the  laws  of  England.  But  within  three 
months  they  were  to  be  submitted  to  the  Crown  for  approval 
or  disallowance,  and  all  laws  not  previously  approved  might 
be  at  any  time  thereafter  disallowed,  and  were  then  to  be 

[317 


3i8  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

void.  Cornbnry  himself  was  given  a  veto  over  all  laws, 
and  had  full  power  to  call,  adjourn  and  dissolve  assemblies.^ 

The  instructions  gave  more  specific  directions.  For  the 
better  uniting  of  the  province,  Cornbury  was  ordered  to  call 
a  general  assembly  with  all  convenient  speed.  It  was  to  sit 
first  at  Amboy  and  then  at  Burlington ;  thereafter  it  was  to 
meet  at  the  two  towns  alternately,  unless  the  governor,  by 
advice  of  the  council,  should  otherwise  appoint.  The  as- 
sembly was  to  consist  of  twenty-four  members,  two  chosen 
by  the  inhabitants  householders  of  Perth  Amboy,  two  by  the 
inhabitants  householders  of  Burlington,  ten  by  the  free- 
holders of  East  Jersey,  and  ten  by  the  freeholders  of  West 
Jersey.  Members  of  the  assembly  must  have  one  thousand 
acres  in  their  own  right  within  the  division  for  which  they 
were  chosen ;  electors  must  have  one  hundred  acres  in  their 
division.  The  number  of  representatives  and  the  manner  of 
choosing  was  to  be  altered  only  by  act  of  assembly,  con- 
firmed by  the  Crown.^ 

In  passing  acts,  the  style  of  "  governor,  council  and  as- 
sembly "  was  to  be  observed  and  no  other.  Cornbury  was 
to  take  care  that  different  subjects  were  not  mixed  in  the 
same  act,  and,  as  stated  in  his  commission,  copies  of  all  acts 
were,  within  three  months,  to  be  sent  to  the  Crown  for  ap- 
proval or  disallowance."^  The  assembly  was  given  the  im- 
portant right  of  examining  from  time  to  time  all  accounts 
of  expenditures  disposed  of  under  laws  made  by  them.*  The 
assembly  was,  of  course,  to  have  a  clerk,  who  was  to  fur- 
nish a  copy  of  its  journal  that  it  might  be  submitted  to  the 
home  government.*^  At  the  beginning  of  the  session  the 
governor  was  to  see  that  the  proper  oaths  were  taken  by  all 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  pp.  490,  492-494. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  510.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  511,  512. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  515.  ''Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  516. 


GENERAL  ASSEMBLY— CONSTITUTION  AND  POWER    31Q 

representatives ;  Quakers,  however,  had  the  right  to  sign  de- 
clarations instead  of  taking  the  oaths.^ 

The  instructions  also  placed  several  direct  limitations  upon 
the  action  of  the  assembly.  Thus,  no  act  was  to  be  passed 
changing  the  value  of  coin  (whether  foreign  or  English), 
unless  express  permission  was  given.  So,  also,  the  settled 
revenue  was  not  to  be  lessened  except  by  the  previous  con- 
sent of  the  home  government.  These  prohibitions,  how- 
ever, in  practice  had  little  importance. 

It  was  in  accordance  with  Cornbury's  commission  and  in- 
structions that  the  first  assembly  of  the  royal  province  of 
New  Jersey  was  elected  and  began  its  work.  But  it  must  be 
remembered  that  the  instructions  were  not  publicly  known. 
Nor  could  it  be  correctly  maintained  that  they  covered  the 
entire  field  of  power  and  privilege  which  the  assembly  was 
understood  by  both  the  home  authorities  and  the  inhabitants 
of  the  colony  to  possess.  It  was  certainly  expected  that  the 
representatives  of  the  new  province  should  be  allowed  all 
the  rights  and  powers  commonly  held  by  the  assemblies  of 
other  royal  provinces,  rights  and  powers  which,  whatsoever 
their  legal  basis,  were  similar  in  character  to  those  of  the 
English  House  of  Commons. 

When,  therefore,  the  first  assembly  met,  it  proceeded  to 
choose  a  speaker,  whom,  in  accordance  with  the  custom,  it 
presented  to  Cornbury  for  approval.^  This  practice  was 
followed  by  all  succeeding  assemblies,  but  the  approval  of 
the  governor  was  hardly  more  than  a  form,  since  several 
times  during  the  union  period  governors  approved  speakers 
to  whom  they  were  bitterly  hostile.*  Next  the  house  re- 
quested the  following  privileges :  that  the  members  and  their 

'  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  pp.  521-522. 

*  Assembly  Journal.  Nov.  10,  1703. 

*  Cornbury  approved  Jennings  and  Gordon,  and  Hunter,  Coxe. 


320 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


servants  might  be  free  from  arrest  during  the  sessions ;  that 
they  might  have  free  access  to  the  governor's  person;  that 
they  might  have  free  speech  and  a  favorable  construction  on 
all  debates ;  and  that  in  case  of  difference  of  opinion  between 
the  houses  a  committee  of  the  council  m'ght  be  named  to 
confer  with  one  from  the  house  to  adjust  and  reconcile. 
All  of  these  requests  were  duly  confirmed  by  Cornbury  ex- 
cept the  last,  which  he  rejected  as  an  innovation.  Hence- 
forth they  became  practically  a  part  of  the  constitution  of 
the  house.  When  succeeding  speakers  were  chosen,  they 
regularly  requested  "  the  usual  privileges,"  and  they  were 
always  granted.^  Even  the  fourth  privilege,  rejected  by 
Cornbury  in  1703,  was  always  given  in  practice.  Because 
of  its  formal  rejection,  however,  it  could  not  be  said  to  be 
one  of  "  the  usual  privileges." 

There  was  no  change  in  the  constitution  or  legal  power  of 
the  house  until  the  first  meeting  of  the  second  assembly  in 
the  autumn  of  1704.^  This  was  the  session  made  notorious 
by  the  exclusion  of  the  three  West  Jersey  members  through 
the  illegal  and  tyrannical  interference  of  Cornbury.  It  will 
be  recalled  that  this  action  on  the  part  of  the  governor  was 
part  of  a  plan  arranged  between  Cornbury  and  the  leaders 
of  the  anti-proprietary  party,  in  accordance  with  which,  in 
return  for  the  support  of  his  excellency  against  the  claims 
of  the  proprietors,  the  anti-proprietary  faction  undertook 
"  to  answer  the  ends  of  government."  During  the  period 
in  which  the  new  friends  of  the  governor  were  able  to  main- 
tain their  ill-gotten  majority,  an  act  was  passed  "  for  alter- 
ing the  present  constitution  and  regulating  the  election  of 

^Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  15,  1704,  for  the  example  at  the  opening  of 
the  second  assembly. 

^The  first  assembly  had  worked  upon  a  bill  for  regulating  the  choice 
of  representatives  which  aimed  simply  to  enact  the  requirement  of  the 
instructions,  but  Cornbury  cut  short  the  session  before  it  was  passed. 


GENERAL  ASSEMBLY— CONSTITUTION  AND  POWER    321 

representatives  to  serve  in  general  assembly."  ^  This  was 
a  political  measure  intended  to  secure  the  permanent  control 
of  the  assembly  to  the  anti-proprietary  party,  by  lowering 
the  qualifications  for  the  suffrage,  and  thus  admitting  to 
the  ballot  the  poorer  element  in  East  Jersey,  which  was 
mainly  anti-proprietary  in  feeling.  But  while  the  motive 
for  its  passage  was  apparently  an  unworthy  one,  the  act 
itself  was  certainly  a  step  in  the  direction  of  democracy.  It, 
moreover,  corrected  certain  other  defects  in  the  method  of 
choosing  representatives  which  had  already  led  to  well- 
merited  complaint. 

The  new  act  declared  that  henceforth  representatives 
should  be  elected  by  a  majority  of  the  freeholders  of  each 
county.  It  thus  did  away  with  the  requirement  of  owner- 
ship of  one  hundred  acres  for  the  suffrage.  It  also  abolished 
the  pernicious  practice  of  having  the  ten  members  for  each 
division  chosen  at  some  one  point  in  the  division  arbitrarily 
selected  by  the  high  sheriff  of  the  division,  a  practice  which 
had  already  enabled  the  sheriff  of  East  Jersey,  Thomas  Gor- 
don, to  secure  the  election  of  proprietary  members  to  the 
first  assembly  against  the  wishes  of  a  majority  of  the  elec- 
tors of  the  division.^  The  new  act  endeavored  to  apportion 
representation  among  the  several  counties  according  to  popu- 
lation. It  gave  Bergen  one  member,  Essex  three,  Middle- 
sex two,  Amboy  two.  Somerset  one,  and  Monmouth  three. 
In  West  Jersey,  Burlington  town  was  assigned  two,  Bur- 
lington County  two,  Gloucester  three,  Salem  four,  and 
Cape  May  one.  As  to  qualifications  of  representatives,  it 
was  said  merely  that  they  should  be  inhabitants  and  free- 
holders of  the  division  for  which  they  were  chosen,  and 
freeholders  of  the  county  whence  they  were  elected.     The 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  12,  1704. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  14,  276. 


322  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

house  itself  was  to  be  the  judge  of  the  quahfications  of  its 
members.^ 

In  hs  correspondence  with  the  lords  of  trade,  Cornbury 
argued  that  a  change  in  the  constitution  of  the  house  was 
necessary,  because  men  well  fitted  to  serve  were  debarred  by 
not  having  one  thousand  acres  of  land,  though  they  had 
many  times  its  value  in  money.  He  said  that,  as  a  result, 
several  members  of  the  first  assembly  were  elected  simply 
because  of  their  ownership  of  the  one  thousand  acres, 
though  they  were  so  ignorant  that  they  could  not  read  or 
write  or  answer  a  question.  His  excellency  also  explained 
the  difficulty  of  compelling  electors  to  travel  two  hundred 
miles  in  order  to  vote."  The  arguments  of  Cornbury,  of 
course,  are  not  to  be  taken  seriously.  A  purely  political 
motive  was  responsible  for  the  passage  of  the  act,  and  it 
was  ent'rely  too  democratic  to  be  acceptable  to  the  home 
authorities.  With  the  other  important  laws  of  the  session, 
it  was  disallowed  by  the  Crown. ^ 

But  the  inconvenience  of  the  former  constitution  of  the 
assembly  had  at  least  been  made  clear.  An  additional  in- 
struction was  therefore  issued  to  Cornbury  in  April,  1705, 
which  he  was  ordered  to  proclaim  in  a  public  manner.* 
Henceforth  two  representatives  were  to  be  chosen  by  the 
inhabitants  householders  of  the  "  City  or  Town  "  of  Perth 
Amboy  and  two  by  the  freeholders  of  each  of  the  five 
counties  of  East  Jersey.  Two  representatives  were  to 
be  chosen  in  similar  manner  by  the  inhabitants  house- 
holders of  the  town  of  Burlington,  and  two  by  those  of 
Salem.     The  freeholders  of  each  of  the  four  counties  of 

^ Laws  Enacted  in  1704  (Bradford  print). 
^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  54,  72. 
'Allinson,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey. 
*New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  96. 


GESERAL  ASSEMBLY— CONSTITUTION  AND  POWER    323 

West  Jersey  were  also  to  elect  two  representatives  for  each 
county.  The  manifest  object  of  this  apportionment  was, 
of  course,  to  secure  equality  between  the  two  divisions. 
The  property  qualifications  were  restored,  but  it  was  now 
ordained  that  electors  should  possess  one  hundred  acres  of 
land  or  fifty  pounds  sterling  in  personal  property;  while 
representatives  must  have  one  thousand  acres  or  five  hun- 
dred pounds  sterling-.  Nothing  was  said  about  a  residence 
qualification.  No  alterations  in  the  constitution  of  the  as- 
sembly were  to  be  made  save  by  act  of  assembly.  Corn- 
bury  accepted  the  new  arrangement  with  the  best  grace  pos- 
sible, merely  telling  the  lords  of  trade  that,  since  the  pro- 
prietors of  West  Jersey  were  still  tenants  in  common,  it  was 
difficult  to  say  whether  any  one  of  them  had  one  thousand 
acres  in  his  own  right  or  not.^ 

The  disallowance  of  the  act  of  the  second  assembly  en- 
abled the  proprietary  party  to  regain  control  of  the  as- 
sembly, and  to  retain  it  for  the  remainder  of  Cornbury's 
rule.  No  further  change  in  the  character  or  position  of  the 
house  was  made,  and  when  Lovelace  succeeded  Cornbury, 
the  additional  instruction  of  1705  was  made  a  part  of  his 
regular  instructions.* 

But  the  fourth  assembly,  which  met  under  Lovelace  in  the 
spring  of  1708-9,  passed  an  "  act  regulating  the  qualifica- 
tion of  representatives  to  serve  in  general  assembly,"  which 
modified  the  effect  of  the  royal  instructions  by  substituting 
fifty  pounds  and  five  hundred  pounds  current  money  as  the 
value  of  the  personal  property  qualifying  persons  for  the 
suffrage  and  the  right  to  serve  as  representatives  for  the 
corresponding  amounts  sterling  which  the  instructions  had 
ordered.  The  act  also  declared  that  each  representative 
should  be  a  freeholder  of  the  division  for  which  he  was 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  iig.         ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  318. 


324  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

chosen,  and  that  the  assembly  should  be  the  judge  of  the 
qualifications  of  its  members.  With  these  changes  and  ad- 
ditions, the  statute  repeated  the  requirements  of  the  in- 
structions/ It  is  to  be  noticed  that  this  law  reducing  the 
property  qualifications  was  the  work  of  an  assembly  con- 
trolled by  the  proprietary  party,  which  naturally  repre- 
sented such  aristocratic  feeling  as  ex-'sted  in  the  province. 
Like  the  other  acts  of  Lovelace's  time,  it  was,  however, 
owing  to  the  neglect,  if  not  something  worse,  of  Basse, 
never  sent  home  for  the  action  of  the  Crown.^  It  neverthe- 
less remained  in  recognized  force  in  the  colony,  was  re- 
printed in  the  books  of  statutes,  and,  except  where  sightly 
modified  by  later  legislation,  regulated  the  choice  of  repre- 
sentatives until  Burnet's  administration. 

A  change  of  some  significance  was  made  by  the  fifth  as- 
sembly, under  Ingoldsby,  a  body  which  was  somewhat  fav- 
orably inclined  to  the  lieutenant-governor.  It  was  enacted 
in  the  spring  of  1709-10,  that  henceforth  representat'ves 
must  be  actually  residents  with  their  families  of  the  Jerseys, 
and  that  they  should  have  an  estate  sufficient  to  qualify  them 
within  the  division  for  which  they  were  chosen.^  It  was 
asserted  by  Hunter,  who  had  every  reason  to  judge  cor- 
rectly, that  this  was  a  partisan  measure  aimed  to  disqualify 
Dr.  Johnstone  and  Capt.  Farmar,  the  aggressive  proprie- 
tary leaders  who  were  residing  in  New  York.* 

There  are  also  two  other  matters  worthy  of  note  during 
the  period  of  Lovelace  and  Ingoldsby.  The  twenty-second 
article  of  Lovelace's  instructions,  repeated  in  the  sets  of 
later  governors,  ordered  him  not  to  assent  to  the  passage  of 
any  unusual  or  extraordinary  bill  effecting  the  prerogat've 
or  property  of  the  Queen  or  her  subjects,  unless  a  draft  of 

'  Allinson,  op.  cit.  *  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  pp.  45,  56. 

'  Allinson,  op.  cit.  *' New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  56. 


GENERAL  ASSEMBLY— CONSTITUTION  AND  POWER    32- 

the  measure  had  first  been  submitted  to  the  Crown  and  ap- 
proved, or  unless  there  were  a  clause  in  the  bill  suspending 
its  operation  until  the  royal  assent  had  been  given.^  While 
this  was  a  command  directed  primarily  to  the  governor,  it 
was  in  effect  a  limitation  imposed  by  the  instructions  upon 
the  house.  The  restriction  proved,  however,  hardly  of 
much  importance  in  practice. 

A  more  important  change  was  brought  about  by  another 
law  of  the  fifth  assembly.  An  act  for  ascertaining  the 
place  of  the  sitting  of  the  representatives '  ordered  that 
henceforth  the  assembly  should  meet  only  at  Burlington, 
instead  of  at  Amboy  and  Burlington  alternately  as  hereto- 
fore.' This  was  apparently  another  slap  at  the  Amboy 
clique  of  East  Jersey  proprietors  in  the  interest  of  Ingoldsby 
and  Coxe. 

When  Robert  Hunter  was  commissioned,  a  peculiar  com- 
plication arose,  because  in  drawing  his  instructions  the  home 
authorities  acted  in  ignorance  of  the  acts  passed  under 
Lovelace,  and  in  disregard  of  those  passed  under  Ingoldsby. 
Hunter's  instructions  were  a  mere  repetition  of  those  of 
Lovelace,  and  therefore  contained  the  same  statement  re- 
garding qualifications  for  the  assembly  as  Cornbury's  addi- 
tional instruction  of  1705.  The  assembly  was  also  ordered 
to  meet  alternately  at  Burlington  and  Amboy.*  The  mat- 
ter of  qualifications  gave  no  immediate  trouble.  In  a  letter 
to  Hunter  sent  with  the  instructions,  the  lords  of  trade  in- 
formed him  that  they  had  no  objection  to  the  act  of  Corn- 
bury's time,  altering  the  requirements  for  representatives  and 
electors,  save  that  it  did  not  fix  a  definite  property  quali- 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  320. 
'  Allinson,  op.  cit.  (the  act  is  given  by  title  only) . 
^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  pp.  67.  221,  230. 
*Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  2,  222. 


326  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

ficat'on,  and  that  they  were  wilh'ng  that,  if  the  property- 
qualification  was  too  high,  it  should  be  reduced  by  act  of 
the  legislature/  But  the  question  as  to  the  place  of  session 
was  more  troublesome.  On  this  point  there  was  now  a  di- 
rect contradiction  between  the  law  of  the  province  and  the 
instructions  of  the  Crown. 

Hunter's  council,  controlled  at  first  by  the  old  cl'que,  split 
as  to  whether  it  was  expedient  to  obey  the  royal  commands 
or  the  recent  act,  but  Hunter,  with  his  usual  prudence,  de- 
cided to  meet  his  assembly  first  at  Burlington,  "  there  being 
hardly  any  house  at  the  place  called  Amboy."  -  When  the 
sixth  assembly  came  together.  Hunter  tried  to  avoid  further 
difficulties  by  obtaining  the  repeal  of  the  recent  acts  regard- 
ing the  place  of  sess'ons  and  the  necessity  of  actual  resi- 
dence for  a  seat  in  the  assembly.  But  though  the  assembly, 
again  under  proprietary  control,  was  agreeable  to  the  sub- 
stitution of  the  provisions  of  the  instructions  in  the  form 
of  new  acts,  the  council  defeated  the  measure.^  In  his  able 
letter  to  the  lords  of  trade  of  May  7,  171 1,  Hunter  there- 
fore took  the  position  that,  since  the  act  requiring  sessions 
at  Burlington  only  was  contrary  to  the  instructions,  it  was 
of  an  "  extraordinary  nature,"  and  consequently  of  no 
force  till  formally  approved  by  the  Crown.  He  therefore 
declared  his  intention  of  calling  the  next  assembly  at  Am- 
boy,* and  actually  did  so.°  As  the  second  session  of  the 
sixth  assembly  was  held  to  provide  means  for  the  second 
Canada  expedition,  his  opponents  deemed  it  inadvisable  to 

'^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  3.  The  reduction  had  of  course 
already  been  made  by  the  act  under  Lovelace. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  II. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  55.  It  appears  to  have  been  "  smothered  "  in  com- 
mittee; ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  <^50. 

*■  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  67. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  July  6,  1711. 


GENERAL  ASSEMBLY— CONSTITUTION  AND  POWER    327- 

protest.  Subsequently,  however,  Hunter  was  informed  by 
the  lords  of  the  official  confirmation  of  the  act  fixing  meet- 
ings of  the  assembly  at  Burlington/ 

Hunter  met  the  third  session  of  the  sixth  assembly  at 
Burlington.  But  before  the  seventh  assembly  met  Queen 
Anne  was  dead,  and  Hunter  had  received  a  new  commis- 
sion and  a  new  set  of  instructions  as  the  representative  of 
George  I.^  The  new  instructions  again  ordered  alternate 
meetings  at  Burlington  and  Amboy,'  and  Hunter,  basing 
himself  upon  these  and  the  advice  of  his  council,  called  the 
session  at  the  latter  place.*  The  seventh  assembly,  however, 
was  under  control  of  Coxe,  and  at  once  denied  the  right  of 
the  governor  to  overrule  a  law  of  the  province.*^  But  the 
result  of  the  conflict  was  the  expulsion  of  Coxe  and  his 
friends  from  the  house,  and  the  ruin  of  their  party  in  the 
province. 

The  policy  of  Hunter  was  of  very  doubtful  legality  in 
spite  of  his  success.  Yet  he  certainly  had  no  desire  to  act 
arbitrarily.  To  put  an  end  to  the  whole  difficulty  a  new  act 
was  passed  by  the  re-formed  seventh  assembly,  repealing  the 
law  of  Ingoldsby's  time  which  had  caused  so  much  trouble," 
on  the  ground  that  it  was  "  contrary  to  royal  instructions 
and  prejudicial  to  the  interests  of  the  eastern  division." 
Henceforth  the  old  practice  of  having  alternate  sessions  was 
unquestioned. 

The  province  was  quite  satisfied  to  allow  things  to  re- 
main as  they  were  during  the  rest  of  Hunter's  successful 
rule.  The  growth  of  the  province  in  population  and  wealth, 
however,   rendered   certain  changes   necessary   during  the 

*New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  227.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  215. 

^Assembly  Journal,  April  6,  1716. 
*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  6. 
^  Assembly  Journal ,  April  5-9,  1716. 
"*  AUinson,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey. 


328  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

administration  of  Burnet.  After  his  difficulties  with  the 
third  session  of  the  seventh  assembly,  Burnet  wrote  to  the 
lords  of  trade  recommending  that  the  apportionment  of  rep- 
resentatives be  changed  so  as  to  give  the  new  county  of 
Hunterdon  the  two  representatives  then  assigned  to  Salem 
Town.^  He  explained  that  the  inhabitants  of  Hunterdon 
were  numerous,  but  still  had  to  journey  to  Burlington  to 
vote;  while  Salem  was  "  a  fishing  village  "  of  twenty  houses 
and  seven  or  eight  votes.  His  excellency  also  represented 
that  the  two  members  from  Salem  had  been  the  ringleaders 
against  him,  and  yet  they  were  sure  of  reelection,  while 
Hunterdon  was  loyal  and  would  send  good  men.  The  only 
objection  to  the  alteration  of  the  system  of  representation 
by  the  issue  of  an  additional  instruction  was  the  existence 
of  the  law  of  Lovelace's  time  which  confirmed  the  present 
arrangement.  But  Burnet  raised  the  point  that  the  act 
existed  only  in  print,  and  had  never  been  sent  home  for 
confirmation.  In  any  case,  however,  such  act,  being  op- 
posed in  tenor  to  several  things  in  the  instructions,  would 
be  void. 

The  question  as  to  the  relative  validity  of  the  act  and  the 
instructions  was  referred  by  the  lords  of  trade  to  the  at- 
torney-general, who  reported  in  September,  1723,  in  favor 
of  the  view  of  Burnet.  If  the  act  had  been  confirmed  it 
would  have  held  good,  but  such  was  not  the  case.  The 
method  of  representation  was  founded  upon  an  instruction, 
and  had  several  times  been  altered  by  instructions  under 
Cornbury.  The  attorney-general  held,  therefore,  that  the 
Crown  possessed  the  power  to  alter.^  Soon  afterward  an 
additional  instruction  was  issued  to  Burnet,  giving  to  Hun- 
terdon County  the  two  representatives  of  Salem  Town.' 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p,  12. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  72.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  v,  pp.  83,  84. 


GENERAL  ASSEMBLY— CONSTITUTION  AND  POWER    2,2^) 

The  new  arrangement  went  into  effect  apparently  without 
protest,  but  the  ninth  assembly,  the  last  of  Burnet's  time,  in 
which  the  patriotic  and  aggressive  John  Kinsey  was  a 
power,  enacted  the  terms  of  the  additional  instruction  into 
a  provincial  statute,^  It  does  not  appear  that  the  law  con- 
firming the  change  was  suggested  by  the  governor,  though 
he  approved  of  it.  The  statute  stated  that  the  change  was 
made  because  the  late  King  George  had  been  pleased  to 
alter  his  instructions,  and  because  it  was  "  highly  reason- 
able "  that  the  numerous  inhabitants  of  Hunterdon  County 
should  have  the  right  to  choose  representatives.  This  was 
the  last  change  in  the  system  of  representation  made  dur- 
ing the  union  period. 

In  1725,  also  under  Burnet,  the  first  law  was  enacted  for 
regulating  elections,  and  laying  a  penalty  on  all  officers  and 
other  persons  who  interfered  with  the  polls.''  The  two 
previous  acts  regarding  the  qualifications  of  representatives 
had  made  sheriffs  who  made  false  returns  guilty  of  a  crime, 
but  the  entire  system  of  conducting  elections  had  never 
been  stated  before  in  detail.  The  new  law  ordered  that 
all  sheriffs,  or  other  officers  to  whom  writs  for  the  election 
of  members  of  assembly  were  addressed,  should  forthwith 
give  public  notice  of  the  day  and  place  of  election,  by  put- 
ting up  advertisements,  at  least  twenty  days  before  the 
time  of  election,  at  three  of  the  most  public  places  in  their 
county  or  town.  On  the  day  named  they  should,  between 
the  hours  of  ten  and  twelve,  proceed  to  the  election  by  read- 
ing their  writs,  and  should  not  declare  the  choice  upon  the 
view  nor  adjourn  the  election  from  that  place  to  any  other 

*  Allinson,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey. 

*  Ibid.,  This  act  was  the  result  of  the  disputed  election  between  Col. 
Coxe  and  the  Quaker,  Mahlon  Stacey,  in  which  Weston  the  sheriff  of 
Burlington  had  unduly  favored  Coxe;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v, 
p.  105. 


330  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

place  without  the  consent  of  the  candidates,  nor  should 
they  by  unnecessary  adjournment  delay  the  election.  But 
they  should,  if  a  poll  were  required,  fairly  and  indifferently 
take  the  poll  from  day  to  day  and  time  to  time  until  all  the 
electors  there  present  were  polled.  The  sheriffs  were  com- 
manded to  appoint  one  clerk  and  one  inspector  for  each 
candidate,  upon  the  nomination  of  the  candidates.  The 
clerks  were  to  take  oath  to  act  fairly,  and  were  then  to  take 
the  poll  by  setting  down  the  names  of  the  electors  and  the 
place  of  their  abode  and  the  person  they  voted  for.  The 
sheriff  was  to  give  a  copy  of  the  poll  to  any  who  desired  it, 
upon  the  payment  of  a  reasonable  fee.  If  any  elector  was 
questioned,  an  oath  was  to  be  administered  to  him,  while 
Quakers  might  affirm  to  the  same  effect.  Penalties  were 
set  for  persons  who  conveyed  lands  to  others  to  enable  them 
to  vote,  subject  to  agreement  to  recover  them.  Such  grants 
were  to  be  held  as  absolute,  and  both  parties  concerned  were 
to  forfeit  ten  pounds  to  any  one  who  should  sue.  A  sheriff 
not  acting  in  accordance  with  the  law,  or  returning  a  per- 
son not  elected,  was  to  forfeit  three  hundred  pounds,  one- 
third  to  the  Crown,  one-third  to  the  poor  of  the  place,  and 
one-third  to  the  person  aggrieved  that  should  sue.  All  brib- 
ery and  corruption  were  prohibited,  and  any  candidate  prac- 
ticing them  was  to  be  disabled  from  sitting,  even  if  elected. 
Further,  any  one  who  slandered  the  opposing  candidate  or 
influenced  votes  by  indirect  means  was  to  forfeit  twenty 
pounds,  one-half  to  the  Crown  and  one-half  to  the  person 
who  sued  for  the  same.  To  the  student  of  modern  politics 
this  first  election  law  of  1725  contains  much  that  is  inter- 
esting as  well  as  amusing. 

The  only  other  important  matter  in  Burnet's  administra- 
tion relating  to  the  legal  position  of  the  assembly  was  the 
passage  by  the  ninth  assembly,  largely  through  the  efforts  of 
John  Kinsey,  of  a  triennial  act  providing  for  a  meeting  of 


GENERAL  ASSEMBLY— CONSTITUTION  AND  POWER    331 

the  legislature  at  least  once  in  three  years  and  for  triennial 
elections.  This  act  was  assented  to  very  reluctantly  by  Bur- 
net, and  was  disallowed  by  the  home  government/ 

The  instructions  of  Montgomerie  contain  no  articles  al- 
tering essentially  the  constitution  of  the  assembly.-  He  was, 
however,  forbidden  to  assent  to  acts  for  the  issue  of  bills  of 
credit  unless  they  contained  a  clause  suspending  their  oper- 
ation until  approved  by  the  Crown.*  In  practice  this  proved 
a  decided  limitation  upon  the  house.  Montgomerie  was  also 
warned  not  to  approve  of  any  act  running  for  less  than  two 
years,  as  in  such  cases  the  law  would  expire  before  the 
Crown  could  act  upon  it;  nor  was  he  to  assent  to  any  act 
once  disallowed  or  to  an  act  disallowing  any  statute  al- 
ready passed,  even  though  it  had  not  received  the  royal 
approbation,  unless  express  leave  was  first  obtained  from 
the  Crown.*  These  clauses  were  not,  strictly  speaking,  legal 
checks  upon  the  power  of  the  assembly,  though  they,  of 
course,  amounted  to  the  same  thing. 

Under  Montgomerie  the  tenth  assembly,  of  which  Kinsey 
was  speaker,  passed  an  act  for  the  freedom  of  assemblies." 
This  act  ordered  that  if  any  member  of  the  assembly  ac- 
cepted a  place  of  profit  from  the  Crown  or  governor,  his 
place  should  become  void,  and  a  writ  for  the  election  of  a 
new  member  should  be  issued.  So  also  anyone  who,  by 
reason  of  any  office,  pension,  or  salary  from  the  Crown,  was 
by  the  laws  of  Great  Britain  disabled  from  sitting  in  par- 

'  Allinson,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v, 
p.  192. 

*His  13th  article,  however,  again  directed  that  the  requirement  in 
personal  property  be  five  hundred  pounds  sterling  for  members  of  assem- 
bly, and  fifty  pounds  sterling  for  electors.  He  was  told  to  secure  an 
act  in  conformity  to  the  article. 

* N(W  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  173. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  174.  *  Allinson,  op.  cit. 


332  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

liament,  should  also  be  disabled  from  sitting  in  the  assembly 
of  the  province,  and,  if  any  such  person  should  presume  to 
sit,  he  was  to  forfeit  fifty  pounds. 

During  the  brief  and  unsatisfactory  rule  of  Cosby  there 
were  no  further  alterations. 

Such  was  the  legal  position  of  the  assembly  of  the  pro- 
vince of  New  Jersey  as  defined  in  the  commissions  and  in- 
structions of  the  governors  and  the  laws  of  the  province. 
It  can  hardly  be  said,  however,  that  these  convey  a  very 
accurate  idea  as  to  the  place  the  assembly  actually  occupied 
in  the  machinery  of  government.  Even  more  than  in  the 
case  of  the  governor  and  of  the  council,  a  study  of  the  as- 
sembly at  work  is  requisite  for  him  who  would  realize  what 
the  lower  house  really  contributed  to  the  history  of  the 
province.  A  most  vital  part  of  the  assembly's  work  can  be 
best  understood  by  observing  it  in  conflict  with  the  execu- 
tive and  the  upper  house.  Before  considering  the  great 
political  struggles  of  the  province's  history,  however,  some 
statement  as  to  what  the  assembly  habitually  did  in  carry- 
ing out  the  legal  powers  treated  in  this  present  section  is 
highly  desirable. 


CHAPTER  XXI 
The  General  Assembly  in  Action 

It  is  the  purpose  of  this  section  to  indicate  briefly  the 
manner  in  which  the  general  assembly  performed  its 
duties,  and  to  show  the  customary  sphere  of  its  activity 
in  practice.  Elsewhere  we  shall  consider  in  detail  the 
struggle  between  this  body  and  the  executive,  and  note 
the  steps  by  which  it  slowly  but  materially  increased  its 
powers  at  the  expense  of  the  governor  and  council. 

Sessions  of  the  assembly  were  held  regularly  upon  call 
by  the  governor.'  Their  frequency  depended,  of  course, 
upon  the  political  circumstances  of  the  province.  In  all 
twenty-seven  meetings  took  place  between  1703  and 
1738.  Before  the  accession  of  Burnet,  sessions  were 
more  frequent,  owing  to  the  short  periods  for  which  the 
revenue  was  voted.  In  Burnet's  administration  of  seven 
years  only  four  sessions  were  held ;  Montgomerie  sum- 
moned two ;  while  during  the  long  interval  from  the 
death  of  Montgomerie  to  the  commissioning  of  Lewis 
Morris,  in  1738,  only  one  meeting  (1733)  took  place. 
Except  upon  great  necessity  the  sessions  took  place  in 
the  spring,  beginning  in  March  or  April,  and  running 
into  the  summer,  or  late  in  the  autumn,  and  continuing 
through  the  winter,  in  some  cases  well  into  March.  The 
winter  session  was  regarded  as  especially  desirable,  be- 
cause during  this  season  the  members  were  not  under 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  492. 

333 


334  'THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

necessity  of  attending  to  their  plantations — a  circum- 
stance which  recalls  vividly  to  our  minds  the  extremely 
rustic  character  of  the  province/ 

The  governors  used  very  actively  their  power  to  ad- 
journ, prorogue  and  dissolve.^  Hunter  and  Burnet,  with 
real  political  tact,  adjourned  sessions,  upon  the  request 
of  the  house,  to  seasons  more  convenient  for  the  mem- 
bers.3  On  the  other  hand,  both  Burnet  and  Cosby  em- 
ployed their  power  to  adjourn  as  a  punishment  intending 
to  bring  intractable  assemblies  to  their  senses/  Burnet 
adjourned  the  seventh  assembly  from  day  to  day  for 
three  weeks.  Adjournment  proved,  nevertheless,  a  poor 
means  of  discipline,  as  the  efifect  was  simply  to  irritate 
the  representatives.  In  1722  Burnet  began  the  practice 
of  ending  sessions  by  requesting  the  house  to  adjourn 
itself  to  a  given  date/  This  was  apparently  intended  as 
a  compliment  to  the  assembly,  but  the  form  was  usually 
followed  later. 

No  accurate  general  statement  can  be  made  as  to  the 
length  of  assemblies.  There  could  be  little  complaint  of 
the  infrequency  of  elections,  for  during  the  union  period 
only  two  houses  lasted  more  than  three  years.^  Yet  it 
can  scarcely  be  said  that  the  governors  complied  with 
the  wishes  of  the  colony  in  this  regard.  Cornbury  called 
new  assemblies  because  the  existing  ones  were  intract- 
able, and  he  hoped  to  secure  more  compliant  ones. 
Lovelace  and  Ingoldsby  ruled  for  too  short  a  time  to 
give  any  offense.  Both  Hunter  and  Burnet  showed  a 
decided    inclination    to    retain    satisfactory    assemblies. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv.  pp.  80,  81. 

'^Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  494.  "^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  28-9,  8c-i,  287-8. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  177,  482.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  234. 

*This  statement  does  not,  however,  include  the  tenth  assembly,  since 
the  legislative  power  was  virtually  suspended  after  the  death  of  Cosby. 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  IN  ACTION  335 

Hunter  dissolved  the  sixth  assembly  only  because  of  the 
death  of  Anne,  as  the  death  of  the  sovereign  was  held  to 
put  an  end  to  an  assembly  as  to  a  House  of  Commons, 
and  the  seventh  assembly  he  retained  for  the  rest  of  his 
administration,  a  period  of  four  years.  Burnet  retained 
this  house  which  had  been  so  compliant  to  Hunter,  but 
it  gave  him  so  much  trouble  that  he  dissolved  it  after 
one  session.  The  eighth  assembly  he  retained  for  four 
years,  until  it  was  terminated  by  the  death  of  George  I. 
The  policies  of  Montgomerie  and  Cosby,  with  regard  to 
the  calling  of  new  assemblies,  could  not  take  shape  be- 
cause of  their  untimely  deaths.  Montgomerie  held  one 
election,  as  he  had  disagreed  with  the  ninth  assembly, 
but  Cosby  paid  little  attention  to  New  Jersey  anyway, 
and  only  troubled  himself  to  call  one  session  of  the  ex- 
isting house. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that,  in  spite  of  the  general 
excellence  of  Hunter's  rule,  his  use  of  the  power  of  dis- 
solution was  perhaps  more  questionable  than  that  of  any 
other  governor.  When  the  death  of  Anne  put  an  end 
to  the  sixth  assembly,  and  the  election  for  the  new 
body  was  carried  by  the  faction  of  Coxe,  Talbot  and 
other  enemies  of  the  governor.  Hunter  did,  indeed,  call 
a  meeting  of  this  new  house,  but,  as  was  very  frequently 
the  case,  the  members  were  slow  in  assembling,  and  his 
excellency  seized  advantage  of  this  fact  to  dissolve  the 
assembly  before  it  was  organized.  In  so  doing  he  acted 
upon  the  advice  of  his  council,  but  the  only  reason  given 
was  that  the  house  contained  certain  "  notorious  per- 
sons ! " '  Even  Cornbury  had  not  gone  as  far  as  this. 
In  the  new  elections,  however,  Coxe  was  again  success- 
ful, and  Hunter,  after  all,  was  obliged  to  meet  the  issue 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  4. 


336  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

which  he  had  hoped  to  escape.  Hunter's  conduct  in  this 
matter,  as  well  as  his  policy  of  retaining  the  compliant 
sixth  and  seventh  assemblies,  was  evidently  the  result  of 
the  fact  that  he  had  assumed  the  practical  leadership  of 
one  of  the  political  parties  of  the  province.  However 
much  we  may  condemn  his  policy,  it  must,  nevertheless, 
be  remembered  that  he  did  not  act  from  tyrannical 
motives,  like  Cornbury  or  Cosby.  During  his  rule  the 
assembly  was  certainly  representative  of  the  public 
opinion  of  the  province,  and  after  the  agitation  of  Coxe 
had  died  away  its  work  gave  general  satisfaction. 

Previous  to  the  appointment  of  Burnet,  it  was  the 
common  view  in  the  province  that  the  appointment  of  a 
new  governor,  like  the  accession  of  a  new  sovereign, 
required  the  choice  of  a  new  house.  It  is  true  that 
Ingoldsby  held  a  session  of  the  fourth  assembly  after  the 
death  of  Lovelace,  but,  as  he  was  merely  a  lieutenant- 
governor,  this  was  not  a  precedent.  Burnet,  however, 
chose  to  retain  the  seventh  assembly,  which  had  done 
such  good  work  for  Hunter.  The  members  assembled 
at  his  command,  but  refused  to  meet  or  organize  as  a 
house.'  A  deadlock  with  the  governor  followed,  but 
Burnet  eventually  succeeded  in  pursuading  them  that  his 
course  was  legal,  and  a  regular,  though  very  unsatis- 
factory, session  was  held.  Later  the  right  of  the  gov- 
ernor to  continue  an  existing  assembly  was  approved  by 
the  lords  of  trade,""  and  when  both  Montgomerie  and 
Cosby  saw  fit  to  continue  existing  assemblies,  their 
power  was  not  disputed. 

With  the  exception  of  the*  short  period  during  which 
the  act  of  Ingoldsby's  time  fixing  the  place  of  the  ses- 

'^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  pp.  8,  58;  vol.  xiv,  pp.  145-6. 
*  Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  183,  186. 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  IN  ACTION  337 

sions  at  Burlington  was  effective,  the  meetings  of  the 
assembly  were  held  alternately  at  Burlington  and  Perth 
Amboy.  Only  one  meeting  during  the  entire  union 
period  took  place  elsewhere,  and  that  was  the  third  ses- 
sion of  the  seventh  assembly  under  Hunter,  which  was 
held  at  Chesterfield  or  Crosswicks,  a  hamlet  in  Burling- 
ton County,  because  the  small-pox  was  raging  in  the 
town  of  Burlington  itself/  Burnet  called  the  last  session 
of  his  time  at  Amboy,  although  the  previous  session  had 
been  held  at  that  place.  The  governor,  by  the  advice  of 
his  council,  was  empowered  by  his  instructions  to  change 
the  regular  order  for  reasons  of  weight,  though  nothing 
was  said  about  this  in  the  act  of  1716.  Burnet  explained 
to  the  members  that  he  summoned  them  at  Amboy 
because  he  was  momentarily  expecting  the  arrival  of  his 
successor,  and  wished  to  be  near  New  York  to  receive 
him/  The  house  replied,  in  an  address,  that  the  custom 
of  having  alternate  sessions  gave  great  satisfaction,  but 
that  they  were  entirely  willing  to  meet  at  Amboy,  pro- 
vided the  fact  was  not  made  a  precedent/ 

When  a  newly-chosen  house  first  met,  the  members 
immediately  waited  upon  the  governor,  and  took  the  re- 
quired oaths  or  aflfirmations  in  his  presence.  They  then 
withdrew  and  elected  a  speaker.  The  choice  of  this  offi- 
cer was  a  matter  of  much  importance,  because  it  deter- 
mined which  party  was  in  control  of  the  house,  and 
because  the  speaker  was,  of  course,  designated  as  its 
spokesman,  and  in  a  sense  its  leader.  The  house  then 
waited  upon  his  excellency  and  presented  the  speaker  for 
his   approval,   which   was   always   given.     Cornbury   ac- 

'  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  35;  vol.  iv,  pp.  264,  273. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  341. 

^  Assetnbly  Journal,  Dec.  13.  1727. 


338  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

cepted  Jennings  and  Gordon,  whom  he  detested,  and 
Hunter  approved  of  Coxe.  After  the  speaker  had  re- 
quested the  "  usual  privileges  "  for  the  house,  and  these 
had  been  granted,  the  governor  deHvered  his  formal 
opening  speech  to  the  assembled  houses.  The  repre- 
sentatives then  withdrew  to  their  own  chamber,  and  the 
actual  business  of  the  session  commenced.* 

Besides  the  speaker,  the  assembly  of  the  union  period 
had  regularly  two  other  officers,  who  were  not,  however,, 
members  of  the  house.  These  were  the  clerk  and  the 
sergeant-at-arms.'  They  were  named  by  the  governor 
upon  the  request  of  the  house.  Cornbury  named  clerks 
who  were  not  acceptable  to  the  house:  first,  William 
Anderson,  a  thorough  tool,  and  later  Capt.  John  Pin- 
horne,  son  of  the  second  judge.  Later  governors,  how- 
ever, appointed  persons  acceptable  to  the  majority.^ 
Because  of  the  well-known  character  of  Anderson,  the 
third  assembly,  ever  memorable  for  its  brave  stand 
against  tyranny,  took  the  position  that  when  it  was  act- 
ing in  committee  of  the  whole  it  might  exclude  the 
regular  clerk  of  the  house  and  name  one  of  its  members 
clerk.  The  result,  as  we  shall  see  later,  was  a  struggle 
with  the  governor,  which  resulted  not  only  in  the  victory 
of  the  house  on  the  issue  involved,  but  also  in  the  dis- 
missal of  Anderson.3  After  the  overthrow  of  Cornbury 
and  his  clique,  however,  the  question  as  to  the  right  of 
the  house  to  name  its  own  clerk  when  in  committee 
ceased  to  have  importance. 

^Assembly  Journal,  passim.  The  proceedure  of  the  sixth  assembly 
at  its  first  session  may  be  taken  as  typical,  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  6 
and  7,  1710. 

*The  third  assembly  was  the  first  to  apply  for  a  sergeant;  Assembly 
Journal,  April  19,  1707. 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol,  iii,  p.  227;  Assembly  Journal,  April  19^ 
1707. 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  IN  ACTION  339 

When  the  house  assembled  in  its  own  chamber,  after 
listening  to  his  excellency's  speech,  it  regularly  went  into 
committee  of  the  whole  to  determine  what  action  should 
be  taken,  and  after  consideration  resolutions  were  voted. 
After  peace  had  been  established  by  Lovelace  and  Hun- 
ter between  the  executive  department  and  the  assembly, 
the  resolution  was  nearly  always  a  statement  of  the 
intention  of  the  house  to  vote  a  certain  sum  for  the 
support  of  the  government  for  a  stated  number  of  years. 
Sometimes  the  house  also  announced  that  it  would 
prepare  other  necessary  measures.  Under  Cornbury, 
however,  the  third  assembly  had  dared  to  maintain  that 
it  would  vote  no  money  until  the  grievances  of  the  prov- 
ince were  investigated  and  redressed.'  After  having  thus 
in  a  way  mapped  out  the  work  of  the  session,  the  house 
next  proceeded  to  draw  up  an  address  in  reply  to  the 
governor's  speech.  Except  when  conflicts  were  actually 
raging  between  the  governor  and  the  assembly,  these 
addresses  of  the  house  were  usually  brief  and  general  in 
character,  merely  expressing  pleasure  on  meeting  the 
governor  and  the  desire  of  the  assembly  to  serve  king 
and  country.  New  governors  were  congratulated  upon 
their  arrival.  But,  unlike  the  council,  the  house  always 
avoided  servility,  although  a  humbleness  of  tone  some- 
times appears  which  hardly  accords  with  modern  notions 
of  the  importance  of  the  representatives  of  the  people.' 
After  the  address  had  been  adopted,  the  house,  waited 
upon  the  governor,  and  it  was  read  by  the  speaker. 

Regular  routine  work  was  then  begun  by  the  intro- 
duction and  discussion  of  bills.     Sometimes  these  were 

^  Assembly  Journal ,  Apr.  8,  1707;  Oct.  27,  1707. 
*The  most  interesting  address  is  that  to  Montgomerie  upon  his  first 
meeting  with  the  assembly;  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  19,  1728. 


340  ^^^  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

brought  in  by  private  members,  upon  permission  given 
by  the  house,'  but  the  nature  of  more  important  meas- 
ures was  decided  upon  in  committees  of  the  whole,  and 
special  committees  were  named  to  prepare  them.  All 
bills  received  three  readings,  as  at  present.  Special 
committees  were  regularly  employed  for  the  more 
minute  study  of  all  important  bills  and  measures,  but 
really  vital  measures,  like  those  for  the  support  of  the 
government,  were  generally  elaborated  in  committee  of 
the  whole.  The  "tyranny"  of  standing  committees  was, 
of  course,  unknown.  Upon  the  amendment  of  bills  by 
the  council  and  the  rejection  of  the  amendments  by  the 
house,  conferences  were  usually  held  at  the  request  of 
one  house  or  the  other.  Conference  committees  were 
named  just  as  at  present,  and  conferences  took  place 
which  often  lasted  several  days.  But  while  the  house 
not  infrequently  consented  to  the  council  amendments, 
upon  matters  of  principle,  as  will  be  shown  in  the  chapter 
on  the  struggles  between  the  departments,  the  repre- 
sentatives regularly  prevailed,  because  the  house  nearly 
always  showed  its  determination  to  defeat  all  legislation 
rather  than  yield;  while  the  council,  composed  of  oflfice- 
holders  as  it  was,  was  usually  unwilling  to  assum.e  a 
similar  responsibility. 

Perhaps  the  most  direct  victory  won  by  the  house 
over  the  council  was  in  the  matter  of  its  own  title. 
When  Ingoldsby  requested  legislation  from  the  fourth 
assembly,  providing  support  for  the  Canada  expedition 
of  Nicholson  and  Vetch,  the  house  drew  up  the  acts  in 
the  style  of  governor,  council  and  general  assembly,  thus 
appropriating  the  latter  title.    This  was  not  an  absolutely 

'"Freak  Bills"  were  not  unknown;  Assembly  Journal,  Mzxch  22, 
1721-2. 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  IN  ACTION 


341 


new  claim,  as  the  question  had  come  up  during  the  pro- 
prietary period  in  East  Jersey,  but  the  proprietary 
assembly  had  based  itself  upon  the  phraseology  of  the 
original  "  Concessions  "  of  Berkeley  and  Carteret.  The 
council  now  strenuously  objected  to  the  pretentions  of 
the  house,  because  it  was  stated,  in  the  governor's  com- 
missions and  instructions,  that  governor,  council  and 
representatives  together  constituted  the  general  assem- 
bly, and  because  that  style  had  previously  been  followed 
in  legislation.'  The  house  replied  by  citing  the  practice 
in  New  York.^  That  the  bills  might  be  carried  the 
council  was  forced  to  yield. ^  The  controversy,  of  course, 
immediately  reappeared  during  the  session  of  the  fifth 
assembly,  *  which,  though  favorably  inclined  to  the 
lieutenant-governor,  was  strong  for  its  rights  as  a  body. 
The  representatives  proudly  declared  that  the  title  of 
general  assembly  was  the  meanest  one  which  could  be 
given  to  their  house,  ^  and  by  their  determination  again 
forced  the  council  to  give  way.  By  the  precedent  thus 
gained,  the  representatives  of  the  Jerseys  became  offi- 
cially known  as  the  "  General  Assembly,"  and  the  title  is 
still  used. 

During  the  work  of  the  session  the  house  communi- 
cated frequently  with  the  governor,  sometimes  by  means 
of  formal  addresses,  but  more  usually  by  sending  com- 
mittees, with  requests  that  he  take  certain  action  or  give 
important  information.  All  the  governors  made  a  great 
show  of  willingness  to  comply  with  reasonable  wishes  of 
the  house,  though  Cornbury  on  several  occasions  refused 
requests  on  various  pretexts.^     His  real  willingness  to 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  376.        *  Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  378. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  380.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  406. 
^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  409. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  17,  1705;  May  14  and  Oct.  28,  1707. 


342  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY- 

take  the  house  fully  into  his  confidence  was  one  of  the 
strongest  points  of  Hunter,  who  not  only  gave  the  house 
certain  of  his  instructions,  but  also  submitted  the  ac- 
counts of  expenditures  as  a  guide  to  the  members  in 
preparing  the  bills  for  support  of  the  government.' 

Throughout  the  work  of  the  sessions  there  are  num- 
erous indications  that  much  of  importance  went  on  out- 
side of  the  chambers  of  the  houses.  The  bribing  of 
Cornbury,  by  both  parties  in  turn,  to  influence  his  atti- 
tude toward  the  assembly,  is  a  case  in  point.  But  more 
creditable  examples  are  to  be  found  in  the  cases  of 
Hunter  and  Burnet,  who,  by  holding  friendly  conferences 
with  the  members  of  the  house,  as  well  as  by  their  gen- 
eral influence  and  control  over  the  affairs  of  the  province, 
seem  to  have  directed  to  a  large  degree  what  went  on  in 
the  assembly.  The  best  illustration  of  this  is  perhaps 
the  way  in  which,  during  the  first  session  of  the  ninth 
assembly,  Burnet  persuaded  John  Kinsey,  Jr.,  to  dis- 
continue his  agitation  for  a  separation  from  New  York — 
the  matter  which  later  caused  trouble  for  the  inexperienced 
Montgomerie.''  There  also  seems  to  have  been  at  times 
no  little  of  what  we  now  call  lobbying.  The  nearly  suc- 
cessful effort  of  George  Willocks,  an  outsider,  to  control 
the  seventh  assembly  against  Burnet,  presumably  to 
further  his  own  business  interests,  is  a  striking  example.' 

The  discussion  of  the  character  of  the  legislation  of 
the  general  assembly  hardly  belongs  in  this  section.  Of 
the  subjects  regularly  considered  by  the  house,  however, 
the  most  important  was  the  raising  of  taxes  for  support 
of   the   government.     The    control   of    this   subject    lay 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  19  and  23,  1710. 
"^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  262. 
^Ibid.,  vol.  V,  pp.  33,  59. 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  IN  ACTION  343 

almost  exclusively  with  the  house,  as  it  was  never  seri- 
ously denied  that  money  bills  should  there  originate, 
and  the  house  always  successfully  maintained  its  claim 
that,  though  the  council  might  reject  money  bills,  it 
could  not  amend  them.'  After  it  had  decided  in  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  the  total  amount  to  be  raised  for 
support,  the  house,  still  in  committee,  fixed  by  resolu- 
tion the  salaries  of  the  governor  and  of  all  the  other 
officers,  as  well  as  the  sums  to  be  allowed  them  for 
traveling  and  other  expenses.  It  then  worked  out  the 
manner  of  laying  and  apportioning  the  taxes  by  which 
these  sums  were  to  be  raised.  Though  the  house  some- 
times respected  the  wishes  of  the  governor  in  its  work, 
in  general  it  kept  the  whole  field  of  taxation  and  the 
payment  of  salaries  very  jealously  under  its  control. 
When  we  consider  that  it  was  in  most  cases  necessary 
for  the  governor  and  council  to  accept  any  arrangement 
which  the  assembly  saw  fit  to  make,  the  tremendous 
power  of  the  latter  body  becomes  apparent.  The  work 
of  preparing  the  act  for  support  was  usually  rather  pro- 
longed. But  as  the  same  general  principles  of  appor- 
tioning salaries  and  raising  taxes  were  followed  from 
session  to  session,  we  must  conclude  that  the  chief 
reason  for  the  delay  was  the  desire  of  the  house  to  be 
assured  that  other  measures  which  it  regarded  as  neces- 
sary should  be  approved  by  the  council  before  it  gave 
away  the  key  of  power.  When  the  house  had  at  length 
prepared  the  act  of  support,  it  usually  rose  in  a  body 
and,  led  by  its  speaker,  tended  to  the  governor  the  gift 
of  the  people.  This  presentation  of  the  support  was 
usually,  though  not  always,  the  signal  for  the  close  of 
the  session.' 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  194. 
^Assembly  Journal,  passim. 


344  T'HE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

In  close  connection  with  its  control  over  the  budget, 
the  house  developed  certain  other  powers  which  were  not 
strictly  legislative.  The  governor's  instructions  gave  the 
house  the  right  to  examine  the  accounts  of  all  moneys 
expended  under  its  own  acts,'  though  it  was  certainly 
contemplated  by  the  home  government  that  the  receiver- 
general  should  be  responsible  primarily  to  the  governor 
and  the  treasury  board  in  England.  But  from  the  begin- 
ning the  general  assembly,  like  all  bodies  of  colonial  re- 
presentatives, showed  its  desire  to  hold  the  receiver- 
general  responsible  strictly  to  itself.  In  this  purpose,  as 
we  shall  see,  it  did  not  at  once  succeed,  for,  though 
Cornbury  did  unwillingly  submit  Peter  Fauconnier's 
accounts,  he  refused  the  request  of  the  house  that  his 
vouchers  also  be  examined,  thus  defeating  the  purpose 
of  the  examination.''  But,  with  the  accession  of  Hunter, 
the  right  of  the  assembly  to  conduct  a  complete  auditing 
of  the  accounts  was  established.  He  not  only  readily 
submitted  the  full  accounts  of  the  previous  administra- 
tions,^  but  allowed  the  house  to  insist  upon  the  attend- 
ance of  the  "treasurers,"  even  to  the  extent  of  having 
the  sergeant-at-arms  bring  Dr.  Roberts,  the  treasurer 
of  the  western  division,  before  the  assembly  to  submit 
his  accounts."*  The  actual  work  in  auditing  was  done  in 
most  of  the  assemblies  by  the  committee  of  the  whole 
acting  in  cooperation  with  a  special  committee  of  the 
council,  and  often  occupied  several  weeks.  Nor  did  the 
house  stop  with  a  mere  examination.  It  did  not  hesitate 
to  condemn  treasurers  or  other  officers  guilty  of  dis- 
honesty or  negligence,  as  the  cases  of  Fauconnier^  and 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  515. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  May  13  and  14,  1707. 

^Ibid.,  Jan.  25.  1710-11.  *Ibid.,  Jan.  i,  1716-17. 

''Ibid.,  March  23,  1708;  Jan.  25,  1710-11;  March  27,  1719. 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  IN  ACTION 


345 


Thomas  Gordon  show.  In  such  instances  the  assembly 
regularly  addressed  the  governor  to  have  the  delinquents 
prosecuted,  and  in  both  cases  the  chief  executive  did  as 
requested.'  Indeed,  Hunter,  in  the  case  of  Gordon, 
formally  questioned  the  representatives  as  to  what  action 
he  should  take."*  Because  of  the  strict  control  instituted 
by  the  house,  the  later  treasurers  give  little  cause  of 
complaint. 

The  house  not  only  audited  accounts  and  secured  the 
punishment  of  delinquents,  but  it  also  had  much  to  do 
with  the  appointment  of  financial  officers.  Upon  the  re- 
quest of  the  house,  Lovelace  named  Miles  Forster  as 
receiver-general  in  place  of  Fauconnier,  Cornbury's  tool, 
and  the  house  accepted  him  as  "  treasurer."  ^  From  that 
time  on,  although  the  house  never  gained  the  formal 
right  to  elect  a  treasurer,  the  governors  always  selected 
persons  highly  acceptable  to  the  house.  Hunter,  upon 
the  request  of  the  house,  adopted  the  practice  of  naming 
two  treasurers,  one  for  each  division.* 

Closely  connected  with  this  control  of  the  treasury  was 
the  practice  of  the  house  after  the  adoption  of  the  system 
of  bills  of  credit.  The  bills  of  credit  were,  of  course, 
issued  under  the  authority  of  provincial  statutes,  which 
named  commissioners  to  sign  and  otherwise  handle  the 
bills.  The  issue  of  the  bills  soon  led  to  the  establish- 
ment of  the  loan  offices,  which  were  also  in  the  hands  of 
commissioners    named    by    the    legislature.^      At    every 

^Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (1704-1715),  p.  121;  (Perth  Amboy, 
1714-173O.  P-  131. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  March  27,  1719. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  March  24,  1708. 

^  Ibid.,  Feb.  4, 1718-19.    Jeremiah  Basse  was  named  for  West  Jersey, 
and  William  Eires  for  East  Jersey. 
^The  first  loan  office  act  was  passed  in  1723  under  Burnet. 


346  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

regular  session  after  the  institution  of  these  new  features 
of  provincial  finance,  committees  were  named  to  join 
those  of  the  council  in  investigating  the  conduct  of 
the  commissioners,  and  to  destroy  in  proper  form  the 
expired  bills  of  credit.  We  shall  consider  elsewhere 
the  development  of  this  new  form  of  colonial  cur- 
rency, and  shall  then  study  the  nature  of  the  legislative 
control  in  its  more  special  features.  Suffice  it  to  point 
out  here  that  during  the  later  part  of  the  union  period 
this  field  always  occupied  considerable  attention  during 
assemblies.' 

But,  important  as  its  financial  duties  were,  there  was 
another  field  outside  of  the  strictly  legislative  which  also 
demanded  much  care,  and  which  was  at  times  even  more 
troublesome  to  the  representatives.  It  was,  of  course, 
their  function  to  investigate  and  make  known  the  griev- 
ances of  the  province,  and  to  address  the  governor  or,  if 
need  be,  the  home  authorities  for  redress.  The  first  and 
greatest  work  accomplished  by  the  assembly  in  this 
direction  was  during  the  first  meeting  of  the  third  as- 
sembly in  1707,  when,  led  by  Morris  and  Jennings,  the 
house  determined  to  prepare  a  remonstrance  upon  the 
condition  of  the  province,'  and,  in  spite  of  the  governor's 
warnings,^  conducted  for  two  weeks  an  investigation  of 
Cornbury's  administration,  and  specially  of  the  circum- 
stances relating  to  the  raising  of  the  "Blind  Tax"  to 
bribe  the  governor.  During  this  investigation  it  as- 
sumed the  right  to  summon  witnesses,"*  and  to  enforce 
their  attendance  by  causing  their  arrest  by  the  sergeant- 
at-arms.5     It  even  compelled  the  sheriff  of  Burlington, 

^Assembly  Journal,  passim. 

'^Ibid.,  Apr.  8,  1707.  ^ Ibid.,  Apr.  9,  1707. 

*Ibid.,  Apr.  21,  1707.  ^Ibid.,  Apr.  26  and  29,  1707. 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  IN  ACTION 


347 


Hugh  Huddy,  a  supporter  of  Cornbury,  to  release  John 
Langstaff,  who  had  been  summoned  as  a  witness,  but 
against  whom  charges  had  been  made,  presumably  to 
prevent  his  attendance  on  the  house.'  The  result  of  the 
investigation  was  the  preparation  of  a  petition  to  the 
queen,'  of  a  letter  to  Robert  Harley,  secretary  of  state, 
and  of  the  celebrated  remonstrance  of  1707,^  which  the 
speaker,  Samuel  Jennings,  won  fame  by  reading  to  the 
indignant  governor  in  person/ 

The  second  and  third  sessions  of  the  third  assembly, 
cut  short  as  they  were  by  the  power  of  the  governor, 
were  also  occupied  entirely  with  protesting  against 
Cornbury's  misrule. '  During  the  second  session,  the 
answer  of  the  house  to  Cornbury's  reply  to  their  re- 
monstrance was  drawn  and  entered  upon  the  journal,' 
while  in  the  session  beginning  May,  1708,  the  reply  of 
the  house  to  the  governor's  opening  speech  was  virtually 
another  remonstrance.' 

The  fourth  assembly,  which  met  under  Lovelace,  had 
naturally  no  call  to  remonstrate  with  the  governor. 
Upon  obtaining  from  him,  however,  a  copy  of  the  ad- 
dress sent  to  the  Crown  by  Ingoldsby  and  the  council 
during  the  recent  administration,  the  assembly  regarded 
it  as  necessary  to  prepare  and  send  home  a  counter 
address  denying  the  charges  of  Cornbury's  clique,  and 
begging  the  queen  not  to  be  misled.®  Although  the 
conflict   between   the   governor   and    the   assembly  was 

^  Assembly  Joumai,  Apr.  30,  May  i,  1707. 

"* New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  171.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  173. 

*  Smith,  New  Jersey,  p.  295. 
^Assembly  Journal,  Oct.  ly,  1707. 

*Ibid.,  Oct.  29,  1707;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  242. 
"*  Assembly  Journal,  May  12, 1707. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol,  iii,  p.  385. 


348 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


renewed  under  Ingoldsby,  the  peculiar  circumstances  of 
his  administration  brought  it  about  that  no  great  amount 
of  time  was  spent  by  the  assembly  in  remonstrances  or 
addresses. 

But  under  Hunter  the  assembly  did  important  work  in 
this  field  on  several  occasions.  Hunter's  first  house  pre- 
pared and  presented  to  the  governor  elaborate  charges 
against  Secretary  Basse'  and  William  Hall,  the  county 
judge  of  Salem  County,^  as  well  as  a  memorial  upon  the 
recent  perversions  of  justice, ^  which  were  the  result  of  a 
lengthy  investigation.  While  examining  the  misconduct 
of  Hall,  the  house  caused  the  sheriff  of  Salem  County  to 
be  brought  before  it  under  arrest  by  its  sergeant-at-arms,-* 
and  also  examined  Capt.  William  Dare,  sheriff  of  Corn- 
bury's  time.^  The  overthrow  of  the  adherents  of  Corn- 
bury  in  the  council,  however,  soon  rendered  such  steps 
unnecessary.  It  was  not  until  the  seventh  assembly, 
which  met  in  April,  1716,  and  in  which  Col.  Coxe  and 
his  followers  had  a  majority,  that  the  house  again  drew 
up  a  vigorous  remonstrance.  Since  Hunter  had,  in 
accordance  with  his  instructions,  but  contrary  to  the 
unconfirmed  act  of  1709,  called  the  session  at  Amboy 
instead  of  Burlington,  the  assembly  drew  up  an  address 
demanding  that  they  be  adjourned  to  the  West  Jersey 
town.^  When  the  governor  refused  to  do  this,  the  house 
turned  to  other  grievances,  deciding,  among  other 
things,  to  draw  an  address  against  Hunter's  action  in 
dissolving  the  recently  elected  assembly  before  it  had 
met.^     Such  was  the  show  of  hostility  that  on  April  28th 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  71. 

^  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  79.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  87. 

^ Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  20,  1710-11.  "Ibid.,  Jan,  4,  1710-11. 

^Ibid.,  Apr.  7,  1716.  "^ Ibid.,  Apr.  26,  1716. 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  IN  ACTION 


349 


Hunter  prorogued  the  assembly  until  May  7th.'  This 
step  proved  a  happy  expedient  for  the  chief  executive, 
since  Coxe  and  his  supporters  endeavored  to  checkmate 
him  by  staying  away  from  the  sessions  when  the  house 
reassembled.  The  supporters  of  Hunter  were  thus 
enabled  to  control  the  house,'  and  the  prompt  expulsion 
of  Coxe  and  his  chief  adherents  rendered  this  control 
permanent.  The  harmony  between  the  governor  and 
the  house  resulted,  as  usual,  in  the  latter  body  applying 
itself  diligently  to  routine  work  in  the  field  of  legislation. 

Not  until  the  accession  of  Burnet  did  the  assembly 
again  endeavor  to  bring  forward  important  grievances. 
As  is  shown  elsewhere,  the  unwillingness  of  the  new 
governor  to  arrive  at  an  understanding  with  the  clique  of 
proprietors  led  by  Willocks  and  Johnstone  resulted  in  a 
rather  violent  clash  between  him  and  the  seventh  assem- 
bly, which  he  had  decided  to  continue  in  existence, 
although  it  had  been  chosen  under  Hunter.^  With  the 
precise  points  of  conflict,  which  related  chiefly  to  tech- 
nical questions  of  privilege,  we  need  not  concern  our- 
selves here.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  the  assembly  spent 
much  of  its  time  in  drawing  up  a  set  of  resolutions*  and 
in  preparing  two  rather  lengthy  addresses,  maintaining 
its  contentions,  and  by  implication,  at  any  rate  criticizing 
Burnet.'  There  seems  little  doubt  that  in  the  main  the 
leaders  of  the  assembly  were  acting  from  political  rather 
than  patriotic  motives,  though  several  of  their  conten- 
tions seem  highly  proper  from  the  modern  democratic 
point  of  view. 

During  the  remainder  of  Burnet's  administration  the 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Apr.  28,  1716.  ^Ibid.,  May  21,  1716. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  pp.  10,  56. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  159.  ''Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  176,  185. 


350  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JEFTJEY 

assembly  found  little  occasion  for  remonstrances  or 
addresses  except  those  of  a  formal  nature.  We  have 
already  seen,  however,  how  during  the  last  legislative 
session  of  Burnet's  time,  the  desire  long  felt  by  the 
province  to  have  a  separate  governor  was  brought 
forward  as  an  issue  by  the  restless  and  energetic  John 
Kinsey,  Jr.  It  has  also  been  shown  elsewhere  how  the 
effort  to  bring  this  subject  to  the  attention  of  the  home 
authorities  was  temporarily  checked  by  Burnet, '  but 
how,  under  his  successor,  Montgomerie,  the  assembly, 
after  a  serious  disagreement  with  the  governor,  at  length 
succeeded  in  formulating  and  forwarding  an  address  to 
the  Crown,  praying  for  complete  separation  from  New 
York.''  With  this  final  victory  the  assembly  may  be  said 
to  have  concluded  its  work  during  the  union  period,  as 
mouth-piece  for  expressing  formally  the  grievances  and 
desires  of  the  people  of  the  Jerseys. 

It  seems  almost  needless  to  point  out  that  though, 
after  the  accession  of  Hunter,  the  province  was  in  little 
danger  of  tyranny,  the  function  of  the  assembly,  just  de- 
scribed, was  nevertheless  one  of  the  most  vital  import- 
ance. The  firmness  of  the  house  in  publicly  exposing 
the  corruption  of  Cornbury  in  1707  certainly  contributed 
materially  to  his  overthrow,  and  the  knowledge  that  the 
assembly  was  only  too  eager  to  take  up  any  case  of  cor- 
ruption or  maladministration  must  have  acted  powerfully 
to  prevent  such  abuses.'  As  representing  in  this  way 
the  demands  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  colony,  the  history 
of  the  assembly  of  New  Jersey  is  highly  creditable. 

In  sketching  the  work  of  the  assembly  in  securing  the 
redress  of  grievances  we  have,  of  course,  considered  only 

^ New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  xiv,  p.  355;  vol.  v,  p.  262. 
^ Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  270.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  262. 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  IN  ACTION 


351 


matters  of  prime  importance.  During  the  sessions  num- 
erous addresses  were  prepared  to  the  governors,  asking 
for  more  specific  changes.  Thus  the  governors  were 
regularly  asked  to  name  clerks,  sergeants  and  door- 
keepers for  the  assembly.  Sometimes  they  were  re- 
quested simply  to  give  information  or  to  allow  the  rep- 
resentatives a  sight  of  certain  of  their  instructions.^ 
Hunter,  as  we  have  seen,  was  requested  to  name  two 
treasurers  instead  of  one,'  while  Burnet  received  an 
address  requesting  that  he  appoint  a  chief  justice  resi- 
dent in  the  province.^  Some  of  these  special  addresses, 
like  those  last  mentioned,  were  of  considerable  import- 
ance. All  the  executives  made  a  brave  show  of  comply- 
ing with  such  wishes  when  formally  expressed  by  the 
"  lower  house,"  and  the  wise  ones,  like  Hunter  and 
Burnet,  did  so  in  fact. 

Because  of  its  power  in  this  regard  the  house  was  con- 
tinually receiving  petitions  of  all  kinds.  These,  however, 
generally  demanded  legislation  of  some  sort.  Several 
asked  for  the  naturalization  of  persons  of  foreign  birth ; 
others  for  changes  in  county  lines.  In  1722  the  new 
county  of  Hunterdon  asked  representation  in  the  assem- 
bly.* The  most  important  were  the  petitions  which 
complained  of  grievances,  like  those  of  Peter  Blacksfield, 
under  Ingoldsby  and  Hunter.^  It  is  not  possible  here  to 
attempt  any  catalogue  of  such  petitions,  especially  as  the 
more  important  are  considered  in  the  chapter  on  conflicts 
between  the  departments  of  government.  But  it  must 
be  noted,  in  considering  the  duties  of  the  assembly,  that 
nearly  every  session  brought  such  prayers,  and  that  they 
always  received  at  least  formal  consideration. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  3,  1710-11,  ^Ibid.,  Feb.  4,  1718-19. 

*  Ibid.,  Nov.  23,  1723.  *  Ibid.,  Apr.  4,  1722, 

^ Ibid.,  June  28,  1709  and  Dec.  15,  1710. 


352  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Among  the  most  important  powers  of  the  assembly 
were  those  of  determining  the  qualifications  of  its  own 
members,  of  maintaining  discipline  over  them,  and  of 
expelling  them  if  necessary.  Questions  relating  to  these 
matters  at  times  received  much  care  and  attention,  and 
in  several  cases,  where  the  parties  were  nearly  balanced, 
had  important  results.  Even  the  most  hasty  considera- 
tion of  the  work  of  the  assembly  in  exercising  these 
powers,  however,  shows  plainly  two  facts :  first,  that  in 
the  choosing  of  representatives  there  was  often  much 
carelessness  and  irregularity,  if  not  something  worse; 
and  second,  that  the  assembly  in  judging  such  questions 
was  nearly  always  guided  by  party  feeling.  It  is  never- 
theless also  true  that,  after  the  settling  of  the  disputes 
growing  out  of  the  misconduct  of  Cornbury,  there  is 
much  less  to  which  a  modern  student  can  take  exception.' 

We  shall  consider  first  the  more  important  questions 
of  disputed  election  and  of  the  determination  of  qualifi- 
cations. It  will  be  remembered  that,  at  the  choice  of  the 
first  assembly,  the  members  for  East  and  West  Jersey 
respectively  were  chosen,  not  by  districts,  but  at  large, ^ 
the  poll  being  held  supposedly  at  some  central  point  in 
each  division.  The  struggle  in  East  Jersey  between  the 
proprietary  and  anti-proprietary  parties,  which  had  only 
recently  resulted  in  the  violence  of  *'  the  revolution,"  was, 
of  course,  bitter,  while  the  control  of  the  house  was  of 
vital  importance.  Thomas  Gordon,  the  well-known  pro- 
prietor, was,  however,  sheriff  of  Middlesex,  and  to  him 
as  high  sheriff  of  East  Jersey  the  writs  for  the  election 
were  directed.  The  majority  of  the  members  returned 
were  of  the  "proprietary  interest." ^ 

^Assembly  Journal,  passim. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  510;  vol.  iii,  pp.  29,  55. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  13,  15,  276. 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  IN  ACTION 


353 


No  sooner  was  the  assembly  organized,  however,  than 
a  petition  was  received  from  John  Royse,  John  Bowne, 
Richard  Salter,  Anthony  Woodward  and  William  Law- 
rence, all  prominent  members  of  the  anti-proprietary 
faction,  complaining  of  the  undue  election  of  five  East 
Jersey  members,  including  Col.  Richard  Townley,  John 
Harrison  and  Jedidiah  Allen,'  A  copy  was  at  once  given 
to  Gordon,  and  he  was  given  time  to  answer.  On 
November  13  Salter  attended  and  prayed  that  he  with 
the  others  might  have  leave  to  call  as  many  witnesses  as 
they  should  need.  This  request  the  house  granted,  but 
cautiously  stipulated  that  they  were  not  to  exceed 
twenty,'  and  when,  three  days  later,  Capt.  John  Bowne 
asked  that  summons  be  granted  for  three  evidences 
against  Gordon  who  were  unwilling  to  appear,  the  house 
would  take  no  action.^  On  the  afternoon  of  the  same 
day  the  Gordon  case  was  taken  up.  Gordon  delivered 
his  answer,  and  his  witnesses  were  sworn.'^  On  the  17th 
the  case  was  continued.  On  question  as  to  whether 
Gordon's  evidences  be  heard  by  the  assembly  as  a  house 
or  in  committee  of  the  whole,  it  was  decided  that  the 
members  would  act  as  a  house.  The  witnesses  were 
then  examined. 5  On  the  next  day  it  was  voted  that  the 
evidences  produced  by  Gordon  were  sufficient,  and  that 
no  further  evidence  be  allowed,  and  then,  upon  motion 
of  Gordon  himself,  the  representatives  voted  that  the 
petition  be  dismissed,  and  that  the  members  returned 
were  duly  elected.* 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that,  whether  Gordon  was 
technically  guilty  of  a  false  return  or  not,  the  members 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  12,  1703.  *  Ibid.,  Nov.  13,  1703. 

*Ibid.,  Nov.  16,  1703.  *Ibid.,  Nov.  16,  1703. 

^ Ibid.,  Nov.  17,  1703.  '^Ibid.,  Nov.  18,  1703. 


354 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


chosen  did  not  fairly  represent  the  people  of  East  Jersey. 
Although  the  requirement  of  the  ownership  of  one  hun- 
dred acres  of  land  for  the  suffrage  shut  out  many  of  the 
adherents  of  the  anti-proprietary  party,  a  study  of  the 
patents  and  surveys  of  East  Jersey  indicates  that  a 
sufficient  number  of  persons  of  New  England  origin, 
and  identified  with  the  opposition  to  the  proprietors, 
must  have  been  qualified  to  constitute  a  majority.* 
Indeed,  that  such  was  the  case  was  specifically  stated  by 
Col.  Quary,  who,  though  bitterly  against  the  proprietors, 
was  later  admitted  by  Governor  Hunter  himself  to  be 
both  efficient  and  honest."  Quary  assured  the  lords  of 
trade  that  the  proprietors  could  bring  to  the  polling- 
place  only  forty  electors,  while  the  other  party  had 
between  three  and  four  hundred,  and  could  easily  have 
brought  more.  The  result,  according  to  him,  was  accom- 
plished by  Gordon  through  the  trick  of  adjourning  the 
poll,  so  as  to  force  "the  country"  to  delay  "in  a  place 
without  all  accomodations."  3  That  this  statement  of  the 
case  was  essentially  correct  is  shown  by  the  letter  of 
Lewis  Morris  to  the  secretary  of  state  of  February, 
1707-8,  an  interesting  and  able  document  transmitted 
with  the  results  of  the  great  investigation  of  the  third 
assembly  into  Cornbury's  maladministration.  The  whole 
letter  is  a  denunciation  of  Cornbury  and  his  allies,  but, 
in  speaking  of  the  election  of  1703,  Morris  frankly  admits 
that  "  the  Basse  faction"  were  a  majority  in  East  Jersey, 
but  that  they  lost  the  election  through  "an  artifice  of 
their  opponents."*     That  the  consideiation  of  the  dispute 

*Thc  anti-proprietary  party  usually  controlled  Monmouth,  Essex  and 
Bergen. 

''New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  pp.  50,  61. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  15.  *Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  2y6. 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  IN  ACTION  355 

by  the  assembly  was  a  farce,  the  house  journal  clearly 
shows,  and  the  matter  is  more  ridiculous  when  we 
remember  that  Gordon  himself  was  the  speaker  of  the 
assembly. 

We  have  dwelt  upon  the  circumstances  of  this  case 
because  it  was  important  in  itself,  since  it  involved  the 
control  of  the  house.  But  fairness  also  requires  that  it 
be  stated  that  certain  members,  at  any  rate,  of  the  pro- 
prietary party,  by  their  odious  juggling  with  this  election, 
and  by  the  bribe  paid  by  them  to  Cornbury,'  actually 
initiated  that  policy  of  dishonesty  and  lack  of  scruple  in 
public  affairs  which  their  opponents  so  readily  took  up. 
The  conduct  of  Gordon  does  not  justify  the  action  of 
Salter  and  Bowne  in  raising  "the  Blind  Tax,"  but  it 
helps  to  explain  it.  Doubtless  we  should  not  expect  a 
higher  political  morality  in  the  Jerseys  than  in  England 
and  in  neighboring  colonies,  but  it  must  ever  be  a  source 
of  regret  to  all  true  Jerseymen  that  our  colonial  annals 
are  fouled  by  such  transactions. 

Immediately  after  the  opening  of  the  first  session  of 
the  second  assembly,  in  November,  1704,  a  petition  was 
received  from  five  Quakers  of  Burlington,  among  whom 
were  Hugg  and  Gardiner,  complaining  that  an  untrue 
return  had  been  made  by  William  Fisher,  sheriff  of 
Burlington,  one  of  Cornbury's  creatures."  As,  owing  to 
the  nefarious  exclusion  of  the  "  three  members,"  the 
house  had  at  this  time  an  anti-proprietary  majority,  it 
was  hardly  to  be  expected  that  justice  would  be  done. 
Consideration  of  the  petition  was  postponed  from  time 
to  time.  Finally,  on  December  5th,  both  the  petitioners 
and  Fisher  were  heard,  but  no  decision  was  made.     On 

'  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  207. 
'^  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  24,  1704. 


35-6 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


the  next  day,  however,  the  house  voted  that  the  peti- 
tion was  '' frivilous,"  and  that  those  returned  had  a 
right  to  sit/ 

The  third  assembly,  rendered  so  illustrious  by  its  pro- 
test against  Cornbury,  curiously  enough  had  no  case  of 
disputed  election.  The  fifth  assembly,  meeting  in  1709 
under  Ingoldsby,  was  obliged  to  consider  several  cases, 
however,  and  seems,  in  this  regard  as  in  several  others, 
to  have  shown  less  party  animosity  than  the  other  earlier 
assemblies.  Peter  Sonmans  presented  a  petition  against 
the  election  in  Perth  Amboy,  and  was  given  a  hearing. 
He  was  answered  by  Gordon,  and  the  house  decided  for 
the  proprietary  candidate.^  A  double  return  had  been 
made  from  Burlington  Town,^  and  in  a  hearing  on  De- 
cember 3,  1709,  Coxe,  Wheeler,  Gardiner  and  others 
testified.*  After  full  consideration,  the  assembly  voted 
that  there  had  been  irregularities  on  both  sides,  and 
ordered  a  new  election.'^  Ingoldsby,  after  considering 
the  request  for  a  new  writ  and  consulting  the  council, 
sent  a  message  to  the  house  stating  that,  as  the  sheriff 
of  Burlington  was  a  county  ofificer  he  was  not  a  proper 
person  to  receive  the  writ.  Ingoldsby  therefore  directed 
the  writ  to  the  town  constable. ^  But  when  the  return 
was  again  made,  a  protest  against  it  was  received  from 
the  Quakers  Deacon  and  Burg.^  The  house,  however, 
rejected  this  and  the  choice  stood.  Protest  was  also 
received  against  a  return  from  Somerset,  but  this,  too, 
was  rejected.^ 

The  meeting  of  Hunter's  first  assembly — the  sixth — in 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  6,  1704.  ''■Ibid.,  Dec.  3,  1709. 

^ Ibid.,  Dec.  i,  1709.  "^ Ibid.,  Dec.  3,  1709. 

^ Ibid.,  Dec.  6,  1709.  *Ibid.,  Dec.  13  and  14,  1709. 

''Ibid.,  Dec.  14,  1709. 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  IN  ACTION 


357 


1710,  brought  numerous  petitions,  most  of  which  were 
manifestly  due  to  political  motives.  After  Thomas 
Gordon  had  sent  a  petition  urging  that  Gershom  Mott, 
of  Monmouth,  well  known  as  an  active  opponent  of  the 
proprietors,  was  not  properly  qualified,'  the  latter  re- 
taliated by  presenting  petitions  against  the  elections  in 
Perth  Amboy  and  in  Middlesex.'  Apparently  none  of 
these  protests  was  regarded  seriously,  as  the  house 
proceeded  to  business,  and  later  voted  that  the  elections 
were  fair,  and  that  Mr.  Mott  should  serve.'  A  more  im- 
portant matter  came  up  regarding  the  election  in  Bur- 
lington Town.  Protests  were  received  from  divers  of 
the  inhabitants,  and  they  were  immediately  considered 
in  committee.'  It  was  held  that  all  freeholders  in  Bur- 
lington and  all  other  towns,  though  not  residing  therein, 
had  a  right  to  vote.  But  all  who  were  supported  by 
charity  or  who,  by  reason  of  poverty,  did  not  pay  taxes 
were  declared  incapable.  The  house,  therefore,  made 
application  to  Hunter  for  a  new  writ,  which  was  forth- 
with issued.3  Although  in  the  third  session  of  1713 
an  investigation  was  made  into  the  proper  form  of 
writs  and  returns  made  thereon,  there  were  no  further 
disputes  regarding  proper  elections  until  the  meeting  of 
the  seventh  assembly. 

The  seventh  assembly,  meeting  in  April,  1716,  was 
notable  because  of  the  struggle  between  Col.  Coxe,  its 
first  speaker,  and  the  governor.  But  curiously  enough, 
there  were  no  heated  election  contests.  At  the  begin- 
ning it  appeared  that  Coxe  had  been  chosen  in  English 
fashion  for  both  Gloucester  and  Salem  Town.     He  de- 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  8,  1710.  *  Ibid.,  Dec.  16,  1710. 

^Ibid.,  Dec.  9,  1710;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  428.     Robert 
Wheeler  and  Isaac  Decowe  were  returned. 


-,^3  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

clared  to  serve  for  Gloucester,  and  a  new  election  was 
ordered  in  Salem/  A  few  days  later,  however,  the  house 
ordered  William  Harrison,  sheriff  of  Gloucester,  to  ap- 
pear and  answer  charges  relating  to  the  election  of 
representatives.^  Harrison  appeared  and  charges  were 
delivered  against  him  in  writing  by  Coxe.^  Harrison, 
after  time  had  been  given,  replied.  But,  upon  consider- 
ation, the  house  voted  that  the  action  of  the  sheriff  in 
adjourning  the  poll,  on  Feb.  loth,  from  "  the  field  near 
John  Kay's  to  the  house  of  William  Cooper,  several 
miles  distant,"  without  consent  of  the  candidates,  was 
contrary  to  law  and  the  right  of  the  subject.  It  was 
therefore  ordered  that  Harrison  be  reprimanded  by  the 
speaker,  and  that  a  bill  be  brought  in  to  regulate  the 
elections.*  But  before  this  could  be  done  Hunter  pro- 
rogued the  hostile  house,  and  when  it  met  again,  on 
May  7th,  the  absence  of  Coxe  and  his  party  gave  its 
control  to  the  supporters  of  the  governor,  led  by  John 
Kinsey.  The  expulsion  of  the  protesting  members  led 
to  the  holding  of  new  elections  in  several  of  the  coun- 
ties. But,  though  some  difficulty  was  caused  by  the 
returning  of  ineligible  persons,  the  house  was  not  called 
upon  to  decide  any  election  disputes. 

With  the  general  subsidence  of  political  heats  under 
the  respectable  rule  of  Burnet,  we  find  few  cases  of  dis- 
puted elections.  In  the  last  session  of  the  eighth  as- 
sembly, however,  held  in  1725,  there  was  a  bitterly  con- 
tested poll  in  Burlington  and  Hunterdon  Counties  between 
Mahlon  Stacy,  representing  the  Quaker  interest,  and 
Col.  Daniel  Coxe,  who  was  seeking  to  reenter  the  public 
life  of  the  province. ^     The  case  seems  to  have  attracted 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Apr.  16,  1716.  "^Ibid.,  Apr.  5,  1716. 

^Ibid.,  Apr.  26,  1716.  ''Ibid.,  Apr.  28,  1716. 

^ Ibid.,  July  22  and  26,  1725. 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  IN  ACTION  359 

considerable  attention.  Since  the  return  of  the  writ  was 
found  to  be  improper,  Charles  Weston,  sheriff  of  Burling- 
ton, was  arrested  and  brought  before  the  house  to  explain 
why  he  had  made  it.  The  charge  was  brought  against 
him  that  he  had  assumed  authority  belonging  to  the 
house.  But  the  sheriff  humbly  asked  pardon,  explaining 
that  he  had  acted  only  through  ignorance.  He  was  dis- 
missed with  a  severe  reprimand.'  Meanwhile  Coxe  had 
been  given  an  opportunity  to  present  his  reasons  why 
Stacy  should  not  sit."*  On  July  28  and  29,  1725,  both 
Coxe  and  Stacy  were  heard,  and  presented  their  evi- 
dences and  affidavits.  The  house,  after  debate,  at  length 
decided  that  the  election  be  not  declared  void,  and  that 
Stacy  should  have  the  seat.^  Whether  the  decision  was 
due  to  political  motives  or  not,  it  is  now  impossible  to 
say,  though  it  seems  not  unlikely  that  it  was.  Still,  unlike 
the  cases  in  the  stirring  times  of  Cornbury,  both  parties 
were  undoubtedly  given  a  fair  hearing.  This  case  was 
the  direct  cause  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  for  the  better 
regulation  of  elections,  described  in  an  earlier  chapter."* 

We  find  no  further  election  decisions  of  importance 
during  the  union  period. 

The  work  of  the  assembly  in  determining  the  qualifi- 
cations of  its  members  follows  closely  the  lines  of  its 
actions  regarding  elections,  and  the  general  conclusions 
as  to  motives  must  be  the  same.  Among  the  members 
returned  to  the  first  assembly  was  the  well-known  Richard 
Hartshorne,  of  Monmouth,  an  anti-proprietary  leader. 
Gordon,  the  speaker,  and  John  Reid  at  once  protested 

^Assembly  Journal,  Aug.  10,    13,  1725.    Weston  had  favored  Coxe 
unduly  in  the  taking  of  the  poll. 
^ Ibid.,  July  26,  1725.  *  Ibid.,  July  29,  1725. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  105. 


360  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

that  Hartshorne  was  not  qualified.'  The  house  there- 
fore sent  to  know  if  Cornbury  in  council  was  pleased  to 
swear  or  attest  the  evidences  to  appear  before  the  house, 
or  whether  he  would  appoint  some  of  the  council  to  do 
so.  His  excellency,  in  reply,  asked  that  Hartshorne 
might  have  leave  to  attend  him.  To  this  dangerous 
request  the  house  acceded,  but  sent  a  committee,  in- 
cluding Gordon  and  Reid,  to  accompany  him.^  The 
committee,  on  its  return,  reported  that  the  governor 
had  ordered  Hartshorne  to  qualify  himself  as  the  law 
directed.  Thereupon  the  house  ordered  Hartshorne  to 
withdraw,  and  he  did  so.^  Thus  at  the  very  beginning 
the  proprietary  clique  disposed  of  a  troublesome  op- 
ponent. 

The  second  assembly  was  made  notable  by  the  exclu- 
sion of  the  three  West  Jersey  members,  Thomas  Lam- 
bert, Thomas  Gardiner  and  Joshua  Wright,  upon  the 
ground  that  they  did  not  own  the  requisite  amount  of 
property.'*  It  was,  of  course,  the  boldest  sort  of  a  polit- 
ical scheme  on  the  part  of  Cornbury  and  his  new  aUies, 
the  anti-proprietary  party.  The  exclusion  of  the  three 
Friends  after  the  first  session  was,  however,  not  the  work 
of  the  assembly,  but  of  the  governor  and  council.  Corn- 
bury, in  refusing  to  admit  the  three  members  to  attest, 
took  the  ground  that  he  also  had  a  right  to  judge  of  the 
qualifications  of  representatives.^  Because  this  claim  led 
to  a  fierce  struggle  between  the  governor  and  the  house, 
this  matter  will  be  considered  at  length  in  the  chapter  on 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  16,  1703.  '^  Ibid.,  Nov.  16,  1703. 

^Ibid.,  Nov.  17,  1703. 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  ^  et  seq.  The  hearing  on  their 
case  was  put  off  by  the  assembly  on  various  pretexts  until  the  session 
was  at  an  end. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  17,  1705. 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  IN  ACTION  361 

the  conflicts  of  departments.  Suffice  it  to  say  here  that 
even  the  anti-proprietary  assembly  would  not  support 
Cornbury  in  his  effort  to  exclude  the  three  Quakers  in- 
definitely,' that  the  three  members  obtained  their  seats  at 
the  second  session/  and  that  Cornbury  was  reproved  by 
the  home  authorities  for  his  conduct.^ 

Possibly  because  of  the  recollection  of  Cornbury's 
tyrannical  interference,  the  question  of  proper  qualifica- 
tion does  not  seem  to  have  been  raised  again  until  Hun- 
ter's time.  When  the  sixth  assembly  met  in  1710, 
Thomas  Gordon  sent  a  petition  urging  that  Gershom 
Mott  of  Monmouth  was  not  qualified,  and  Dr.  Johnstone 
sent  another  against  Major  Sandford  and  Mr.  Van  Bus- 
kirk,  of  Bergen.*  Upon  investigation  by  the  house,  the 
persons  attacked  were,  however,  declared  qualified.  ^ 

During  the  early  part  of  the  seventh  assembly,  when 
Coxe  was  speaker,  more  interesting  cases  arose.  On 
April  24,  1 716,  the  house  requested  Hunter  to  qualify 
William  Clews,  member  from  Salem  County.  But  when 
he  came  before  the  governor,  Clews  declared  that  he  had 
never  taken  an  oath.  Thereupon  Hunter,  who  under- 
stood that  Clews  was  neither  a  Quaker  nor  a  "reputed 
Quaker,''  refused  to  qualify  him,  taking  the  position  that 
the  privilege  of  affirmation  was  granted  to  the  Friends 
alone.  The  house,  however,  promptly  sent  a  committee 
to  inform  Hunter  that  Clews  was  "3.  reputed  Quaker." 
The  governor  then  qualified  him  by  affirmation.* 

Meanwhile  objection  had  been  raised  to  the  quahfica- 
tions  of  Thomas  Farmar,  of  Amboy,  a  staunch  follower 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Oct.  18,  1705.  * /did.,  Oct.  26,  1705. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  127. 

'^  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  8,  1710.  ^ Ibid.,  Dec.  16,  1710. 

^ Ibid.,  Apr.  25,  1716. 


o 


62  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


of  the  governor.'  Action  was  for  a  time  postponed,  but 
on  April  28  the  matter  was  taken  up.  On  a  motion  that 
Farmar  withdraw  while  his  qualifications  were  discussed, 
the  vote  was  a  tie.  Farmar  himself  offered  his  vote,  but 
it  was  voted  that  this  should  not  be  allowed.  When  the 
question  was  again  put,  it  was  carried  that  Farmar  with- 
draw. He  was  given  till  the  next  Monday  to  prove  his 
right  to  sit,^  but  there  is  no  doubt  that  he  was  marked 
by  the  majority  for  sacrifice  because  of  his  political  posi- 
tion. But  before  he  could  be  driven  out,  the  proroga- 
tion by  Hunter  and  the  resulting  expulsion  of  Coxe  and 
his  followers  changed  the  complexion  of  the  house. 
With  Kinsey  as  speaker,  it  was  promptly  voted  that 
Farmar  was  qualified.^ 

Another  example  of  disqualification  occurred  during 
the  stormy  meeting  between  Burnet  and  the  seventh  as- 
sembly in  1 72 1.  At  this  session,  of  which  we  have  only 
an  imperfect  record,  Burnet  believed  that  a  West  Jersey 
member  was  declared  lacking  in  the  required  qualifica- 
tions because  he  was  willing  to  support  the  governor. 
When  new  members  were  chosen  from  Middlesex  and 
Salem  Town,  the  house  requested  Burnet  to  send  the 
clerk  of  the  Crown  with  the  rolls  of  oaths  to  qualify 
them  before  the  house.'*  This  request  led  to  a  heated 
controversy,  since  the  governor  took  the  stand  that  new 
members  must  be  sworn  before  him  in  person. ^  He  ad- 
mitted that  in  one  or  two  cases -the  governor  had  dis- 
pensed  with   the    ceremony,    but    resolutely   maintained 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Apr.  10,  1716.  ^/did.,  Apr.  28,  1716. 

^ Ibid.,  May  21,  1716. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  154. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  155.  During  the  controversy  Burnet  like  Hunter 
maintained  that  acts  not  formerly  confirmed  by  the  Crown  might  be 
be  superseded  by  later  royal  instructions. 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  IN  ACTION  363 

that  the  power  must  be  always  his  to  require  it.'  In 
spite  of  the  failure  of  the  session,  Burnet  did  not  give 
way  on  this  point. 

We  find  no  other  important  case  of  disqualification 
during  the  union  period  except  that  in  1733  the  tenth 
assembly,  under  Cosby,  ordered  a  new  election  in  Somer- 
set County  to  provide  a  member  in  place  of  Isaac  Van 
Zant,  who  had  accepted  the  office  of  sheriff,  and  thus 
disqualified  himself  under  the  recent  act  barring  office- 
holders from  being  representatives.' 

Of  more  interest  is  the  action  of  the  assembly  in  main- 
taining discipline  and  in  using  the  power  of  expulsion. 
The  most  common  evil  with  which  the  house  had  to  deal 
was  absence.  At  almost  every  session  numerous  of  the 
members  duly  chosen  were  late  in  arriving,  and  in  sev- 
eral instances  they  absented  themselves  for  long  periods. 
With  a  few  notable  exceptions,  these  absences  were  not 
due  to  political  reasons,  but  were  caused  sometimes  by 
private  business,  sometimes  by  absence  from  the  pro- 
vince or  by  illness.  In  a  few  cases  it  appears  that  the 
members  had  actually  not  been  informed  of  the  time  of 
holding  the  sessions.  The  difficulties  of  travel  no  doubt 
had  much  to  do  with  mere  tardiness. ' 

The  earlier  assemblies  did  not  suffer  from  the  absence 
of  members  as  much  as  the  later  ones,  although  in  the 
first  assembly  so  prominent  a  person  as  Col.  Richard 
Townley  did  not  attend  the  first  session  at  all,  and  was 
a  week  late  in  attending  the  second.*  Afterward,  how- 
ever, it  became  necessary  to  take  action  in  the  matter, 
and  when  members  disregarded  the  orders  of  the  assem- 

^  New  Jersey  A f  chives,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  157,  158,  162. 

^Assembly  Journal,  May  i,  1733. 

*  Ibid.,  passim.  *Ibid.,  Sept.  8,  1704. 


364  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

bly  to  attend,  the  sergeant-at-arms  was  sent  to  arrest 
and  bring  them  to  their  duty.  This  course  appears  to 
have  been  followed  first  by  the  fourth  assembly  of  Love- 
lace's time,  and  Capt.  William  Morris  and  Enoch  Machil- 
son  had  the  doubtful  honor  of  being  the  first  members  so 
sent  for/  The  most  extreme  case  was  that  of  Jacob 
Spicer,  of  Cape  May,  who,  though  originally  chosen  a 
member  of  the  seventh  assembly  which  first  met  on 
April  4,  1 716,  did  not  attend  until  December  28,  when 
he  was  "brought  up"  by  the  sergeant.^  Spicer  ex- 
plained, however,  that  he  had  had  more  than  ordinary 
occasion  for  absence,  that  he  had  intelligence  that  the 
house  had  been  adjourned  because  of  the  small  pox,  and 
that  he  was  preparing  to  come  when  the  sergeant  ar- 
rived. He  prayed  the  house  not  to  consider  his  absence 
a  contempt.  Whatever  the  validity  of  these  excuses,  the 
house  saw  fit  to  accept  them,  and  Spicer  was  admitted 
to  his  seat.3 

Because  of  the  proper  strictness  of  the  house  regard- 
ing absence,  members  having  important  business  some- 
times asked  leave-of-absence,  a  request  which  the  house 
did  not  always  grant.  From  the  beginning  of  the  royal 
rule  until  Hunter's  time,  a  majority  of  the  members  had 
been  regarded  as  a  quorum. '•  The  conflicts  of  Hunter 
and  Burnet  with  the  seventh  assembly,  however,  showed 
that  under  certain  circumstances  such  a  rule  as  this 
might  be  dangerous  to  the  power  of  the  house.  The 
eighth  assembly  therefore  decided  that  sixteen  of  the 
twenty-four   members  should   be  a  quorum.^     This  be- 

^  Assembly  Journal,  March  8,  1708-9. 

"^  Spicer  was  a  supporter  of  Coxe  and   his  absence  was   apparently 
thought  to  be  a  part  of  the  campaign  of  obstruction  of  his  party. 
^Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  28,  1716.  *  Ibid.,  May  21,  1716. 

''Ibid.,  March  8,  1721. 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  IN  ACTION  365 

came  the  rule,  but  it  was  subsequently  modified  by  a 
vote  allowing  thirteen  members  to  organize,  adjourn  and 
compel  the  attendance  of  absentees,  though  not  to  do 
business.' 

The  house  was  also  compelled  to  exercise  its  authority 
in  not  a  few  cases  of  quarrels  between  its  members  or 
between  members  and  outside  parties.  These  cases 
usually  related  to  the  use  of  insulting  language  or  to 
efforts  to  cast  reproach  or  contempt  upon  representa- 
tives. In  times  of  party  conflict  such  occurrences  seem 
to  have  been  rather  frequent,  as  was  not  unnatural  in  a 
frontier  society.  Most  of  these  incidents  appear  trivial, 
if  not  actually  ridiculous,  after  this  lapse  of  time,  but  they 
certainly  did  not  so  appear  to  those  concerned  in  them,* 

During  the  session  of  the  fifth  assembly  in  1709,  for 
example,  Captain  Duncan  drew  his  sword  on  Mr.  Sharp, 
another  representative,  and  tried  to  kill  him,  *'etc."  For 
this  offence  Duncan  was  made  to  acknowledge  his  fault 
before  being  allowed  to  take  his  seat.^  But  the  over- 
throw of  Coxe  and  his  party  in  1716  caused  especially 
bitter  feeling  in  the  province,  and  rendered  the  members 
of  the  loyal  party  in  the  assembly  extremely  unpopular 
in  certain  districts.  The  supporters  of  Coxe  added  fuel 
to  the  fire  by  circulating  various  writings  attacking  their 
opponents.  Thus  stung  to  action,  the  reorganized  seventh 
assembly  named  a  committee  on  libels,  with  power  to  send 
for  persons  and  papers,*  and  numerous  complaints  of  in- 
sults to  members  were  brought  before  the  house.  William 
Lawrence  reported  that  he  had  been  insulted  by  one 
Benj.  Johnstone,  of  Monmouth,  who  declared  in  slander- 
ous terms  that  he  had  been  false  to  his  trust  in  the  as- 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  13,  1728.  ^  Ibid.,  passim. 

*  Ibid.,  Jan.  11,  1709-10.  *  Ibid.,  Jan.  23,  171&-19. 


366 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


sembly.  The  house  voted  the  words  false  and  scandal- 
ous, and  ordered  the  sergeant  to  arrest  Johnstone,  but 
he,  having  notice,  escaped/  A  more  serious  charge  was 
soon  after  made  against  Major  Sandford  and  Thomas 
Van  Buskirk,  of  Bergen,  for  scandalizing  Philip  Schuyler, 
the  representative  of  the  same  county.  Sandford  and 
Van  Buskirk  were  brought  in  by  the  sergeant  and  charged 
with  reporting  that  Schuyler  "  drank  a  health  to  the 
damnation  of  the  governor  and  the  justices  of  the  peace." 
Sandford  acknowledged  this  utterance,  and  presented  an 
aflfidavit  of  John  Wright,  coroner  of  Bergen,  to  prove  it. 
Schuyler  denied  the  statement  of  afBdavit,  but  admitted 
that  they  had  quarrelled  and  that  he  had  kicked  John 
Wright.  Schuyler  was  ordered  to  withdraw  and  given 
leave  to  go  home  and  collect  evidence.  Sandford  and 
Van  Buskirk  were  now  discharged  without  paying  fees. 
Finally  on  February  20,  1718,  the  house  considered  the 
case,  both  Schuyler  and  Wright  attending.  Wright  de- 
sired more  time  to  produce  his  proof,  but  was  asked  to 
name  the  persons  to  whom  he  related  what  passed  be- 
tween him  and  Schuyler.  Three  were  called,  but  none 
remembered  the  words  charged.  The  house  then  voted 
that  Schuyler  was  not  guilty,  and  he  took  his  seat.^ 

This  case  is  highly  typical,  but,  after  the  passing  away 
of  the  excitement,  such  brawls  became  more  infrequent. 
The  most  striking  later  case  was  in  1730,  when,  during 
the  first   meeting  under    Montgomerie,  Fenwick  Lyell, 

'^Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  24  and  Feb.  3,  1718-19.  William  Lawrence 
was  a  member  of  the  anti-proprietary  party  who  had  capitulated  to  their 
victorious  opponents.  At  the  same  time  Titan  Leeds  was  arrested 
because  of  a  passage  in  his  almanac,  but  he  escaped  from  custody.  One 
John  Harriet  was  also  taken  for  insulting  members  and  hindering  their 
passage  of  Amboy  Ferry. 

^Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  30,  Feb.  6,  14,  20,  1718-19. 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  IN  ACTION  367 

the  prominent  proprietor,  was  charged  with  assaulting 
a  member  of  the  house.'  Lyell  fled  from  arrest,  but  soon 
after  the  end  of  the  session  again  beat  his  enemy.  For 
this  act  he  was  arrested  by  order  of  the  house,  but  now 
humbly  acknowledged  his  offense  and  begged  pardon  of 
the  assembly  and  of  the  assaulted  representative.  He 
was   then  discharged.^ 

But  the  assembly  was  not  infrequently  called  upon  to 
apply  discipline  to  oflfenses  of  a  nature  different  from 
such  outbreaks  of  anger  or  party  feeling.  In  several  im- 
portant instances  the  power  of  expulsion  was  used  in 
matters  of  much  political  importance.  The  first  case 
appears  at  the  opening  of  the  famous  third  assembly  in 
1707.  When  the  house,  in  April  of  that  year,  began  its 
great  investigation  into  the  collection  of  the  "  Blind 
Tax,"  it  called  upon  Capt.  John  Bowne,  then  a  member 
from  Monmouth,  one  of  the  most  prominent  leaders 
of  the  anti-proprietary  party  in  East  Jersey,  and  known 
to  have  been  with  Richard  Salter,  the  leader  in  raising 
the  bribe,  to  testify  to  the  committee  on  grievances  as  to 
what  he  had  done  with  the  money.^  Bowne  refused  to 
take  oath,  and  the  house  then  voted,  with  one  dissenting 
voice,  that  he  was  in  contempt.  Next  day  it  appeared 
that  John  Langstaff,  one  of  the  most  prominent  wit- 
nesses, had  been  imprisoned  by  the  sheriff  of  Burlington 
at  the  suit  of  Capt.  Bowne.  The  house  then  at  once  ex- 
pelled him.*  The  conduct  of  Bowne  had  been  such  that 
the  assembly  was  surely  justified ;  by  getting  rid  of  him, 
however,  they  certainly  removed  a  serious  obstacle  to  the 
success  of  their  investigation. 

^Assembly  Journal,  June  30,  1730. 

*Ibid.,  July  I,  2,  6,  7,  1730,  and  May  15,  18,  24,  1733. 

^  Ibid.,  April  29,  1707.  *  Ibid.,  April  30,  1707. 


368 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


Such  severity  did  not  have  to  be  resorted  to  again 
until  the  fifth  assembly,  under  Ingoldsby.  This  assembly 
was  rather  queerly  constituted  from  a  party  standpoint. 
The  majority  seems  to  have  been  unfavorable  to  the 
proprietors  and  not  ill-disposed  to  Ingoldsby,  though 
not  bitterly  hostile  to  the  proprietary  interests.  The 
house  ordered  a  bill  prepared  for  settling  the  rights  of 
the  proprietors  and  purchasers  of  East  Jersey,  and  re- 
ferred it  to  a  committee  of  which  Thomas  Gordon  was 
chairman,  but  which  had  an  anti-proprietary  majority, 
including  the  bitter  Elisha  Lawrence  and  Mott,  of  Mon- 
mouth. The  committee  in  due  time  reported  that  they 
had  blotted  out  the  entire  bill  except  the  title.  Lawrence, 
who  delivered  the  report,  said  he  thought  this  was  the 
best  amendment  they  could  make  to  it.  But  Gordon 
explained  that  Lawrence,  contrary  to  his  consent  as 
chairman,  "did  blot  out  the  bill,"  and  that  Mott  had 
forcibly  detained  him  in  the  room  while  Lawrence  did 
so.  The  house  voted  both  Lawrence  and  Mott  in  con- 
tempt,' and  ordered  them  to  be  brought  to  the  bar  of 
the  house  to  ask  forgiveness  and  to  acknowledge  the 
favor  of  the  house  in  not  expelling  them.  This  they  did 
and  were  then  reinstated.^  But  the  motion  to  bring  in 
another  bill  for  the  proprietors  was  squarely  defeated. 
It  seems  not  unlikely  that  the  house  had  intended  to 
smother  the  bill  as  gently  as  possible,  but  Lawrence  and 
Mott  by  their  violence  had  deranged  the  plan. 

The  triumph  of  the  proprietary  party  in  controlling 
Hunter's  first  assembly — the  sixth — brought  with  it 
punishment  for  some  of  their  foes  in  the  house.  When 
feeling  between  the  council  clique  and  the  house  was 
running  high,  the  latter  body  took  up  for  consideration 

^Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  2,  1709-10.  '^ Ibid.,  Jan.  3,  1709-10. 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  IN  ACTION  369 

the  address  sent  by  Lieutenant-Governor  Ingoldsby  and 
the  council  to  the  Crown  in  Cornbury's  time.  This  they 
voted  false  and  scandalous.  It  was  then  voted  that  no 
signer  of  the  scandalous  document  was  a  fit  member  of 
the  house  unless  he  acknowledged  his  fault.  But  Major 
Sandford,  then  a  representative  from  Bergen,  but  previ- 
ously of  Cornbury's  council,  admitted  that  he  had  signed, 
and,  when  asked  to  acknowledge  his  guilt,  said  that  he 
had  signed  as  a  member  of  the  council  and  was  respon- 
sible only  to  the  Crown.  He  was  thereupon  expelled. 
January  17,  1710-11." 

Immediately  after  the  expulsion  of  Sandford,  the  house 
turned  its  attention  to  the  conduct  of  Mott  and  Elisha 
Lawrence,  who  had  made  entry  in  the  journal  of  the 
council  of  their  reasons  for  defeating  the  bill  appropria- 
ting money  to  support  New  Jersey's  quota  in  the 
Nicholson-Vetch  expedition  to  Canada."  It  was  well 
understood  that  their  action  had  been  part  of  a  scheme 
to  injure  the  Quakers  by  making  them  seem  to  be  to 
blame  for  opposing  the  military  measures  of  the  Crown. 
The  house  had  previously  endeavored  to  obtain  a  sight 
of  the  reasons  entered  by  the  two  Monmouth  members, 
but  had  failed.  Now,  however.  Hunter  caused  the  clerk 
of  the  council  to  submit  a  copy.^  The  house,  after  con- 
sidering them,  resolved  that  the  application  made  by 
Mott  and  Lawrence  to  have  them  entered  upon  the 
council  books  was  an  arraignment  of  the  honor  of  the 
house. 3  Mott,  who  was  then  a  member,  was  asked  to 
acknowledge  his  fault,  but  hesitated,  and  was  given 
further  time  to  consider.  Next  day  Mott  replied  that 
he  was  not  conscious  of  having  done  the  assembly  any 

'^New  Jersey  Archives^  vol.  iv,  p.  22.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  381. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  18,  1710-11. 


370  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

wrong.  He  was  then  told  to  withdraw  while  the  house 
considered  his  case.  The  house  then  debated  the  pre- 
amble and  reasons  given  in  the  entry  of  Mott  and 
Lawrence,  and  voted  them  false  and  scandalous.  Mott 
was  recalled,  but  once  more  refused  to  acknowledge  his 
fault.     Thereupon  the  house  expelled  him.' 

But  when  the  new  elections  were  held  in  Bergen  and 
Monmouth,  both  Sandford  and  Mott  were  returned. 
These  returns  the  house,  of  course,  rejected.  Sandford, 
indeed,  was  arrested  and  brought  before  the  assembly 
for  uttering  words  that  grossly  reflected  upon  it.  He 
succeeded,  however,  in  explaining  that  his  words  did 
not  refer  to  the  existing  house,  and  was  dismissed.  But 
Mott  was  declared  incapable  of  sitting  until  he  acknowl- 
edged his  fault.^ 

At  the  third  session  of  the  sixth  assembly  Mott  was 
again  returned,  but  was  once  more  kept  out.^  Mon- 
mouth then  elected  Elisha  Lawrence,  who  was  equally 
guilty  with  Mott.  He  was  qualified,  but  the  house  voted 
that  he  should  not  be  permitted  to  serve  till  he  also  had 
confessed  his  fault.  But,  like  Mott,  he  remained  stub- 
born and  was  expelled.*  When  he  was  again  returned, 
the  house,  as  in  the  previous  case,  resolved  that  he  was 
incapable  of  sitting  until  he  acknowledged  his  offence. s 
Meanwhile  both  Monmouth  and  Bergen  had  been  long 
without  members.  A  new  writ  had  been  issued  for 
Bergen  but  not  returned.^  Finally,  however,  Philip 
Schuyler  was  qualified  for  Bergen  on  Feb.  2,  1713.^  The 
electors  of  Monmouth  were  more  stubborn.     But  even- 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  19,  1710-11. 

"^ Ibid.,  Jan.  29,  Feb.  2,  1710-11.  ^ Ibid.,  Dec.  8,  9,  1713. 

'^ Ibid.,  Jan.  4,  1713-14.  ^ Ibid.,  Jan.  27,  1713-14. 

'^ Ibid.,  Jan.  6,  1713-14.  "^ Ibid.,  Feb.  2,  1713-14. 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  IN  ACTION 


371 


tually,  on  Feb.  25,  Elisha  Lawrence  drew  up  a  paper 
regarding  his  conduct  and  presented  it  to  the  house. 
This  explanation  was  voted  satisfactory,  and  he  was 
admitted.'  As  to  its  contents  we  can  only  guess.  Ap- 
parently it  was  not  the  humble  confession  of  fault  which 
the  house  desired. 

The  punishment  of  Sandford,  Mott  and  Lawrence  was, 
of  course,  an  effort  by  the  assembly  to  take  vengeance 
upon  their  opponents  for  the  opposition  they  were  offer- 
ing to  Hunter.  But  it  appears  only  to  have  increased 
hostility  instead  of  lessening  it. 

The  seventh  assembly,  beginning  in  April,  1716, 
brought  a  more  interesting  use  of  the  house's  power  of 
discipline.  At  the  opening  of  the  session  this  house  was 
under  control  of  Coxe,  but  so  hostile  was  it  toward 
Hunter  that  he  adjourned  it  till  May  7.  In  spite  of  the 
bitter  protest  which  the  house  had  offered  against  violat- 
ing the  act  of  1709,  requiring  all  sessions  to  be  held  at 
Burlington,  Hunter  persisted  in  ordering  the  assembly 
to  meet  at  Perth  Amboy.  Coxe  and  his  partisans  there- 
fore adopted  the  policy  of  absenting  themselves  to  defeat 
the  governor.  Cornbury  had  thus  been  defeated  by  the 
second  assembly,  but  Hunter  was  of  different  stamp.  On 
May  7  a  quorum  did  not  appear,  and  the  adjournment 
was  continued  for  a  week.  On  May  14  only  nine  mem- 
bers appeared ;  the  governor  then  prorogued  the  assem- 
bly from  day  to  day  till  the  17th,  when  the  members 
present  offered  an  address  praying  Hunter  to  take  meas- 
ures which  would  compel  attendance.'  His  excellency 
therefore   sent   warrants   '*  to   several   absentees,"    com- 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  2,  1713-14. 
*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  13. 


272  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

manding  them  to  attend  or  they  '*  would  answer  the  con- 
trary on  their  peril." ' 

Four  members,  thus  intimidated,  obeyed,  and  a  majority 
now  being  assembled,  Hunter  sent  for  them  and  spoke 
recommending  them  to  meet  and  to  choose  another 
speaker  in  place  of  the  rebellious  Coxe,  in  order  to 
enable  themselves  to  send  their  sergeant  for  the  ab- 
sentees,^ This  advice  the  members,  of  course,  followed, 
and  elected  as  speaker  John  Kinsey,  who,  being  a 
Quaker,  was  strongly  opposed  to  Coxe.  Hunter  warmly 
approved  the  choice,  and  proceeded  to  open  the  session 
in  due  form  by  the  usual  speech.  But  the  first  business 
of  the  house  was  naturally  regarding  its  insurgent  mem- 
bers. Its  first  vote  was  that  the  absence  of  Coxe,  to 
defeat  the  service  "  of  the  king  and  country,"  was  a  con- 
tempt and  breach  of  trust.  It  was  then  resolved  that  he 
was  a  person  unfit  to  sit  in  the  house. ^  The  case  of 
William  Lawrence,  of  Monmouth,  was  then  taken  up. 
He  had  not  only  absented  himself,  but  had  disobeyed 
Hunter's  warrant,  and  the  sergeant  was  ordered  to  bring 
him  at  once  before  the  assembly.  It  was  next  resolved 
that  Elisha  Lawrence  of  Monmouth,  Henry  Joyce  of 
Salem  Town,  William  Hall  and  William  Clews  of  Salem 
County,  Jacob  Spicer  and  Jacob  Hulings  of  Cape  May, 
Richard  Bull  of  Gloucester,  and  David  Ackerman  and 
Henry  Brockholst  of  Bergen,  should  repair  at  once  to 
the  house  or  answer  the  contrary  on  their  peril.  Each 
was  ordered  served  with  a  copy  of  the  order.* 

Next  day  the  house  formally  expelled  Coxe.^  But 
William  Lawrence,  who  was  brought  before  the  house  in 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  14;  Assembly  Journal,  May  19, 
1716. 
*Ibid.,  May  19,  1716.  ^ Ibid.,  May  21,  1716. 

^Ibid.,  May  21,  1716.  ^Ibid.,  May  22,  1716. 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  IN  ACTION  373 

custody,  after  hesitating  and  asking  time,  acknowledged 
his  guilt  and  humbly  begged  the  pardon  of  the  house. 
He  was  therefore  allowed  to  take  his  seat.'  Soon 
after,  upon  application  from  the  assembly.  Hunter  re- 
ported that  the  sergeant  had  not  found  the  members 
of  Bergen  County  at  home,  but  had  left  the  order  for 
their  attendance  at  their  houses.  The  house  at  once 
voted  them  in  contempt  and  expelled  them :  Brockholst 
and  Ackerman.^  Five  days  later  the  sergeant  reported 
that  he  had  left  the  orders  of  the  assembly  at  the  homes 
of  as  many  of  the  absent  members  as  he  could.  None  of 
them  paid  any  attention.  The  house  thereupon  voted 
them  in  contempt  and  expelled  Hewlings,  Bull,  Hall, 
Clews  and  Joyce.^  An  exception  was  made  of  Spicer, 
because  he  had  never  attended  any  of  the  sessions,  and 
had  not  even  been  qualified.  He  was  voted  in  contempt,* 
and  his  arrest  was  ordered,  as  has  been  described  above. 

New  elections  were  ordered  in  place  of  the  expelled 
persons,  and  both  Bull  and  Hall  were  reelected,  but  the 
house  would  not  receive  them  and  ordered  a  new  choice.' 
By  the  close  of  the  next — the  third — session  of  the 
seventh  assembly  all  the  vacancies  but  two  had  been 
filled. 

Though  the  expulsion  of  Coxe  and  his  party  evidently 
aroused  the  bitterest  feeling  in  the  province,  it  proved 
nevertheless  a  masterstroke  for  Hunter,  Kinsey  and  their 
party,  for  it  gave  the  proprietary  interest  a  renewed  con- 
trol over  all  the  departments  of  the  government,  Coxe 
was  forced  from  the  Jerseys,*^  and  his  followers  were  soon 
overawed.  The  modern  student  can  hardly  help  sympa- 
thizing  with   those   who   maintained  that  a  law  of   the 

*  Assembly  Journal,  May  23,  1716.  ''/did..  May  25,  1716. 

^Ibid.,  May  30,  31,  1716.  ^ Ibid.,  May  31,  June  i,  Dec.  4,  1716. 

^ Ibid.,  Nov.  28,  1 716.  ^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  258. 


374 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


province  was  of  more  binding  force  than  the  governor's 
instructions.  But  in  this  matter,  as  in  most  of  the  rest, 
the  issue  was  at  bottom  poHtical ;  the  struggle  was  one 
of  parties,  not  of  principles  primarily,  and  the  success  of 
Hunter's  policy  was  undoubtedly  for  the  interest  of  the 
Jerseys. 

So  thoroughly  were  the  angry  feelings  allayed  that 
during  the  rest  of  the  union  period  there  occurred  no 
further  cases  of  expulsion  or,  indeed,  of  strong  discipHn- 
ary  measures  over  members  of  the  house. 

But  any  detailed  description  of  the  various  fields  in 
which  the  assembly  exerted  power  may  give  a  false 
impression.  The  chief  work  of  the  assembly  was,  of 
course,  legislative — work  which  certainly  took  up  the 
greater  part  of  its  time  and  attention.  This  was  the 
more  true  also  toward  the  close  of  the  period,  when  the 
bitterness  of  the  earlier  party  struggles  had  been  to  a 
great  extent  allayed.  Under  Burnet  especially,  the  ses- 
sions were  business-like  and  industrious  in  the  extreme.^ 

Before  leaving  the  subject  of  the  assembly  in  action, 
there  is,  however,  one  other  aspect  of  its  work  which 
must  be  indicated.  It  is  undeniable  that  there  was  a 
constant  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  representatives  to 
enlarge  their  sphere  of  action  at  the  expense  of  the 
other  organs  and  officers  of  the  province.  No  doubt, 
under  the  circumstances,  this  was  a  healthy  tendency, 
but  it  naturally  gave  rise  to  conflicts,  as  will  be  hereafter 
more  fully  indicated,  and  to  complaints  of  the  aggres- 
sions of  the  house. 

The  house  endeavored  continually  to  dictate  to  the 
governor  regarding  his  appointments.  It  has  already 
been  shown  that  the  later  governors  were  obliged  always 

^Assembly  Journal,  passim. 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  IN  ACTION 


375 


to  name  "  treasurers  "  agreeable  to  the  house.  Under 
Burnet,  the  house  addressed  the  governor  to  dismiss  the 
chief  justice  and  to  name  some  one  residing  in  the  prov- 
ince.' To  this  prayer  Burnet  yielded  by  naming  the 
speaker  of  the  house  himself,  William  Trent."  The  ninth 
assembly  endeavored,  though  unsuccessfully,  to  secure 
the  appointment  of  John  Kinsey,  Jr.,  as  attorney-gen- 
eral.3  The  house  also  endeavored  to  establish  court 
fees,  though  the  instructions  gave  this  power  specifically 
to  the  governor.  It  tried  to  fix  by  law  the  times  of 
meetings  of  the  assembly  and  the  duration  of  assemblies.* 
The  General  Assembly  even  tried  on  two  important 
occasions  to  usurp  the  powers  of  the  courts  themselves: 
once  under  Ingoldsby,  when  a  bill  was  prepared  by  it 
setting  aside  the  judgment  against  Peter  Blacksfield  and 
restoring  him  to  his  estate; '  and  once  under  Burnet, 
when  a  measure  was  sent  up  for  compelling  the  estate  of 
Thomas  Gordon,  the  late  treasurer,  to  pay  the  sum  in 
which  the  auditing  committee  had  found  his  accounts 
deficient.^  Both  of  these  measures  were  defeated  with 
difficulty  by  the  governor  and  council. 

In  New  Jersey  the  assembly  did  actually  succeed  in 
establishing  full  control  over  one  very  important  means 
of  communication  between  the  provincial  government 
and  the  home  authorities.  This  was  in  the  matter  of  the 
provincial  agent  at  London.  At  his  last  meeting  with 
the  assembly.  Hunter,  upon  the  urgent  direction  of  the 
home  government,  asked  for  an  appropriation  for  an 
agent.     New  Jersey  was  said  by  the  board  of  trade  to  be 

*  Assevtbly  Journal,  Nov.  23,  1723. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  257. 
^Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  6,  1727-8. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  192.  ^  Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  397. 
*Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  261,  284. 


376  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

the  only  colony  without  one.'  But  the  house,  in  spite 
of  Hunter's  great  influence,  was  unwilling  to  make  the 
expenditure.''  In  1723,  under  Burnet,  the  house  finally 
voted  £100  for  an  agent,  and  engaged  Peter  La  Heupe, 
well  known  as  a  representative  of  other  colonies. ^  It  was 
ordered,  however,  that  the  agent  should  correspond  with 
the  general  assembly  by  letters  directed  to  the  speaker.^ 
Thus  La  Heupe  was  really  the  agent  of  the  house  alone 
rather  than  of  the  entire  provincial  government,  as 
Hunter  and  Burnet  had  intended.  La  Heupe  does  not 
seem,  however,  to  have  been  continued  as  agent,  but  in 
1727,  when  the  feeling  for  a  separate  government  was 
becoming  strong,  Richard  Partridge  was  made  agent  on 
practically  the  same  terms,  and  £100  was  given  him.'*  A 
committee,  including  Johnstone  and  Kinsey,  was  also 
named,  to  which  £270  was  ordered  given  to  transmit  to 
the  agent  as  had  been  or  might  be  directed. ^  During 
the  ensuing  years  the  committee  kept  up  correspondence 
with  the  agent,  presumably  in  defiance  of  the  policy  of 
Montgomerie  against  separation,  and  as  has  been  indi- 
cated. Partridge  contributed  materially  to  the  final  estab- 
lishment of  a  distinct  executive  for  the  Jerseys.^ 

The  general  aggressiveness  of  the  assembly  will,  how- 
ever, be  more  clearly  indicated  in  the  section  on  the 
departments  of  the  government  in  conflict.  It  is  hoped 
that  a  sufficiently  clear  idea  of  its  character  and  usual 
work  has  been  given  to  make  plain  the  tremendous 
power  which  it  displayed  against  both  the  chief  executive 
and  the  council, 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  82. 

'^  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  23,  1718-19.  '•''Ibid.,  Nov.  27,  1723. 

^Ibid.,  Feb.  9,  1727-8.  ^Ibid.,  Feb.  10,  1727-8. 

^ Netv  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  pp.  303,  448.  Partridge  was  also  en- 
gaged in  efforts  to  secure  approval  for  the  rather  doubtful  financial  leg- 
islation of  the  province. 


CHAPTER  XXII 
Executive  and  Legislative  in  Conflict 

The  first  assembly  held  under  the  royal  government 
met  on  November  lo,  1703,  at  Perth  Amboy,  with  every 
outward  appearance  of  harmony.  It  contained  members 
of  both  the  proprietary  and  anti-proprietary  parties  in 
East  Jersey,  as  well  as  a  considerable  Quaker  delegation 
from  West  Jersey.  The  majority,  however,  represented 
the  proprietary  interest,  as  was  soon  shown  by  the  choice 
of  Thomas  Gordon  as  speaker.  At  the  commencement 
of  the  session,  the  house,  following  the  custom  of  similar 
colonial  bodies,  requested  as  privileges  that  the  members 
and  their  servants  be  free  from  arrest  during  the  session, 
that  they  might  have  free  access  to  the  governor's  per- 
son, that  they  might  have  free  speech  and  favorable 
construction  in  all  debates,  that  in  case  of  difference  be- 
tween the  houses  a  committee  of  the  council  might  be 
named  to  confer  with  one  from  the  assembly  to  adjust 
and  reconcile,  and  that  the  foregoing  requests  might 
be  approved  by  Cornbury  and  entered  on  the  council 
books. ' 

The  governor  addressed  the  house  in  a  favorable 
speech,  assuring  them  of  the  benefits  of  royal  govern- 
ment, and  making  a  plea  for  the  reconciliation  of  past 
differences.     He  further  instructed  them  as  to  the  form 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  10,  1703. 

i77 


378 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


in  which  bills  should  be  passed.  And  lastly,  following 
his  instructions,  recommended  the  raising  of  a  revenue 
to  support  the  government  in  proper  dignity  and  the 
confirmation  of  the  rights  of  the  proprietors.  He  con- 
cluded by  urging  dispatch  and  unanimity.' 

Immediately  afterward,  however,  came  the  first  note  of 
discord,  when  Cornbury,  though  granting  the  other 
privileges  requested  by  the  house,  refused  their  fourth 
request  as  an  innovation.^  Nevertheless,  the  house 
unanimously  voted  a  congratulatory  address  to  the  gov- 
ernor, which  shows  no  trace  of  suspicion  as  to  his  true 
character.3 

But  the  harmony  of  action  did  not  long  continue. 
The  assembly  was  almost  immediately  involved  in  a  dis- 
pute as  to  the  election  of  five  of  its  East  Jersey  mem- 
bers, the  validity  of  which  was  attacked  by  the  anti- 
proprietary  party .'^  With  this  quarrel  we  need  not  here 
concern  ourselves,  except  to  note  that  it  made  plain  that 
Gordon  and  the  proprietary  interest  controlled  the  house, ^ 
and  led  to  the  exclusion  of  Richard  Hartshorne,  one  of 
the  most  prominent  of  their  opponents.^ 

The  further  conduct  of  the  house  soon  gave  additional 
proof  that  it  regarded  the  protection  of  the  rights  of  the 
proprietors  as  its  chief  aim.  The  first  bill  reported  was 
the  so-called  "  Long  Bill,"  confirming  the  proprietary 
title  to  the  soil  of  the  province,  and  thereby  ensuring  the 
payment  of  quit-rent,  and  quashing  all  claims  arising  from 
the    Nicolls    grants   and    the    Elizabethtown    purchase. ^ 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  8. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  lo,  1703. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  11. 

*■  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  12,  1703.  °Ibid.,  Nov.  18,  1703. 

^ Ibid.,  Nov.  17,  1703.  "^ Ibid.,  Nov.  22,  1703. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT 


379 


This  bill  was  soon  followed  by  another,  prohibiting  the 
unlicensed  purchase  of  land  from  the  Indians  ; '  and  a  third 
for  the  enforcement  of  a  tax  of  £1,400,  laid  in  1700  for 
the  support  of  the  proprietary  government  of  West 
Jersey,  the  collection  of  which  had  been  a  failure.'  A 
bill  was  also  passed  by  the  house  determining  the  salaries 
and  fees  of  its  members.'  Meanwhile,  after  having  cared 
for  the  interests  of  the  party  it  represented,  the  assembly 
agreed  to  raise  £1000  for  the  support  of  the  government 
for  one  year  and  £300  for  representatives'  fees,  the  sala- 
ries of  royal  officers,  and  other  incidental  charges. 

This  action  was  too  much  for  Cornbury,  whose  interest 
in  the  whole  proceeding  came  to  an  end  when  he  saw 
the  hopelessness  of  obtaining  a  satisfactory  grant.  He 
refused  to  approve  any  of  the  bills,  with  the  single 
exception  of  that  relating  to  Indian  purchases,  and 
ended  the  session  with  a  sharp  speech,  on  the  ground 
that  the  season  was  too  far  advanced  to  allow  of  further 
discussion.-*  He  still  held  out  the  possibility  of  recon- 
ciliation with  the  dominant  party,  however,  by  his  state- 
ment that  the  members  had  at  least  learned  where  the 
difficulties  in  settling  affairs  lay,  and  by  expressing  the 
hope  that  when  the  assembly  met  in  the  spring  they 
might  be  promptly  removed.  Meanwhile  Cornbury,  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  he  had  already  received  a  substantial 
"gift"  from  the  proprietary  leaders,^  had  been  led  to 
negotiate,  through  Col.  Robert  Quary,  with  the  anti- 
proprietary  party,  with  a  view  of  arriving  at  an  under- 
standing, and  assurance  had  been   given  that  in  a  new 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  23,  1703. 

^ Ibid.,  Nov.  26,  1703.  ^ Ibid.,  Dec.  7,  1703. 

*  Ibid.,  Dec.  13,  1703.     Neu<  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  28. 

''Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  207. 


380  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

election  that  faction  was  ready  to  choose  men  who  would 
"  effectually  answer  all  the  ends  of  government."' 

The  assembly  did  not  meet  the  next  spring,  but  was 
further  prorogued  by  proclamation  until  September  ist, 
1704,^  when  it  finally  came  together  at  Burlington. 
Cornbury  in  his  speech  urged  that  a  sufficient  support 
be  provided  for  the  government,  and  stated  the  need  of 
a  good  militia  act  and  provision  for  the  building  and 
repair  of  high  roads.  He  also  said  that  the  rights  of  the 
proprietors  and  the  possessions  of  all  the  inhabitants 
claiming  under  them  should  be  confirmed,  but  that  he 
did  not  believe  that  this  end  could  be  accomplished  by 
the  bill  prepared  last  session.  Finally,  he  urged  dispatch 
in  order  that  he  might  attend  the  meeting  of  the  as- 
sembly of  New  York  at  the  beginning  of  next  month. ^ 

The  house  proceeding  to  business  somewhat  more 
promptly  than  at  its  first  session,  carried  through  a  bill 
for  "uniting  and  quieting  the  minds  of  all  the  Queen's 
subjects  within  this  province,"*  as  also  one  for  suppres- 
sing vice, 5  and  made  progress  upon  bills  for  laying  out, 
regulating  and  preserving  highways,  for  regulating  negro 
and  Indian  slaves,  for  ascertaining  the  boundaries  and 
limits  of  the  counties,  and  for  other  useful  objects. 
Meanwhile,  however,  bills  for  confirming  the  rights  of 
the  proprietors  had  once  more  made  their  appearance, 
which  seem  to  have  been  similar  in  character  to  that  of 
the  first  session,  though  now  there  were  separate  meas- 
ures for  East  and  West  Jersey.^  On  September  12th 
the  matter  of  support  was  taken  up,  but  the  best  that 
the   assembly   would   do  was   to   grant   £1,500   for   one 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  16.  '^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  65. 

^Assembly  Journal,  Sept.  7,  1704.  *Ibid.,  Sept.  11,  1704. 

^Fbid.,  Sept.  26,  1704.  ^Ibid.,  Sept.  28,  1704. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT      381 

year  and  £1,000  per  annum  for  the  next  two  years.' 
The  progress  upon  the  revenue  bill  was  slow,  and  it 
became  evident  that  the  majority  of  the  house  in- 
tended to  connect  its  fate  with  that  of  the  proprietors' 
bills.  Cornbury's  patience  and  time  were  now  exhausted. 
Summoning  the  house,  he  made  a  peppery  speech,  accus- 
ing them  of  delaying  the  revenue  bill  until  they  knew 
that  he  could  not  stay  to  pass  it,  and  berating  them  for 
failure  to  even  consider  the  defence  of  the  province. 
With  the  declaration  that  they  had  failed  both  queen  and 
country,  he  then  dissolved  the  assembly.^ 

But  while  Cornbury  made  great  show  of  righteous 
wrath  against  the  assembly,  there  is  good  evidence  to 
prove  that  his  motives  were  far  from  disinterested.  An 
investigation,  later  carried  on  by  the  assembly  of  1707-8, 
brought  together  abundant  proof  that  a  corruption  fund 
had  been  raised  by  the  anti-proprietary  party  in  East 
Jersey  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  the  dissolution  of 
the  assembly,  and  getting  a  new  one  hostile  to  the 
proprietary  claims.  The  leaders  in  the  movement,  for 
which  it  must  be  admitted  some  of  the  proprietors  had 
already  set  a  precedent,  were  Richard  Salter,  who  seems 
to  have  done  most  in  the  actual  collecting  of  the  "Blind 
Tax,"  and  John  Bowne.  While  it  could  not  be  shown 
definitely  that  Cornbury  himself  actually  received  the 
moneys  thus  gathered,  the  circumstantial  evidence  is 
almost  conclusive  against  him,^  in  spite  of  his  positive 
denial.*  At  any  rate,  at  about  this  time  his  lordship 
went  over  entirely  to  the  popular  party. 

The   new    elections   were   carried    through    in   undue 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Sept.  13,  1704. 

■Ibid.,  Sept.  28,  1704;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  65. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  198-219.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  194. 


382 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


haste/  But,  in  spite  of  the  efforts  to  secure  an  assembly 
which  would  do  what  was  required,  the  result  was  not 
wholly  satisfactory.  The  new  assembly  met  at  Burling- 
ton, November  13,  1704,  and  contained  John  Bowne, 
Richard  Salter  and  Richard  Hartshorne,  all  prominent  as 
opponents  of  the  proprietors.  Thomas  Gordon,  John 
Barclay,  and  other  proprietors  appeared  among  its  mem- 
bers, however,  and  their  supporters  appeared  to  have  a 
majority  of  two.  Other  means  had  therefore  to  be  em- 
ployed, and  when  the  members  presented  themselves  to 
be  sworn  or  attested,  Thomas  Revell  and  Daniel  Leeds, 
two  of  the  council  from  West  Jersey,  who  were  parties 
to  the  agreement  for  obtaining  an  anti-proprietary  house, 
objected  to  Thomas  Lambert,  Thomas  Gardiner  and 
Joshua  Wright,  three  Quakers  from  West  Jersey,  on  the 
ground  that  they  were  not  qualified  to  serve,  because 
they  did  not  own  the  required  amount  of  land.  Corn- 
bury  therefore  refused  them  the  affirmations. °  Revell 
and  Leeds  at  once  petitioned  the  assembly,  stating  that 
they  had  good  cause  for  suspecting  the  three  members, 
but  that  they  desired  fourteen  days  in  which  to  make 
their  grounds  of  objection  plain.  After  debate,  this 
worthy  petition  was  granted,^  and  when,  on  the  next  day 
the  three  members  produced  copies  of  surveys  in  proof 
of  their  qualifications,  they  were  also  put  off  by  being 
granted  time  in  which  to  make  their  case  stronger.'* 

As  the  three  members  did  not  appear  on  the  appointed 
day,  it  was  voted  that  they  should  be  heard  only  by  peti- 
tion,5  On  December  4th  their  petition  for  admission  was 
received,  and  they  were  voted  a  hearing  on  the  next  day. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  87.  "^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  88. 

''  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  15  and  16,  1704. 

^Ibid.,  Nov.  19,  1704.  '''Ibid.,  Dec.  i,  1704. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT      383 

Revell  and  Leeds  were  acquainted  with  the  decision,'  but 
appear  to  have  been  satisfied  with  what  they  had  already 
accomplished.  After  further  postponement  for  a  day  the 
three  members  were  at  last  heard,  and  showed  beyond 
dispute  that  they  owned  the  required  one  thousand  acres. 
The  assembly  therefore  requested  Cornbury  that  they  be 
allowed  to  qualify  themselves.'  But  before  this  could  be 
done,  Cornbury  brought  the  session  to  an  end  on  De- 
cember I2th.  Thus,  by  the  most  barefaced  violation  of 
the  right  of  representation,  his  lordship  and  the  anti- 
proprietary  party  secured  a  scant  majority  during  the 
entire  session.  Their  conduct  had,  however,  aroused 
their  opponents  to  the  necessity  of  a  more  determined 
opposition. 

The  assembly  had  been  adjourned  till  May,  1705,  at 
Burlington,  but  although  the  governor  and  the  members 
from  East  Jersey  journeyed  to  that  town  at  the  required 
time  none  of  the  members  from  West  Jersey  appeared 
with  the  exception  of  those  from  the  town  of  Burlington. 
The  East  Jersey  representatives  became  uneasy  at  the 
turn  things  had  taken,  and  petitioned  to  be  allowed  to 
return  home.  Cornbury  consented,  and  the  session  was 
postponed  until  December,  at  Amboy.' 

On  December  15,  1705,  the  assembly  at  last  met, 
although  the  members  from  the  Western  Division  were 
still  tardy  about  coming.  The  question  as  to  the  rights 
of  the  three  members,  which  had  thus  remained  unsettled 
for  a  year,  at  once  came  up,  and  now  the  majority  of  the 
house  was  strong  against  the  governor.  The  house 
promptly  voted  that  the  three  members  should  be  admit- 
ted.     But  Cornbury  replied  that,  as  the  queen  had  re- 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  4,  1704.  *Ibid.,  Dec.  6,  1704. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  103. 


284  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

posed  a  trust  in  him,  he  also,  as  well  as  the  house,  should 
be  satisfied  as  to  their  qualifications.  When  it  was  rep- 
resented to  him  that  the  three  members  had  deeds  and 
records  which  had  satisfied  the  house,  he  agreed,  how- 
ever, to  consider  these  upon  the  next  day/  The  mem- 
bers therefore  attended  the  governor,  and  he  took  "  min- 
utes "  of  their  proofs.  But,  instead  of  admitting  them, 
he  dismissed  them,  saying  that  he  would  send  for  them 
if  he  found  occasion.  But  the  house  at  last  met  the 
arbitrary  conduct  of  Cornbury  resolutely,  and  resolved 
that  it  would  not  proceed  until  its  membership  was 
full.''  Their  action  was  decisive,  and  the  three  members 
were  qualified  and  took  their  places. ^  Thus  the  proprie- 
tors once  more  controlled  the  majority  of  the  lower 
house. 

Nor  was  Cornbury's  action  allowed  to  pass  wholly 
unrebuked.  In  his  letter  of  February  17,  1704-5,  to  the 
lords  of  trade,  describing  the  first  session  of  the  second 
assembly,  the  governor  passed  over  the  affair  in  silence.* 
But  the  matter,  with  other  abuses,  was  brought  to  the 
notice  of  the  home  government  by  a  memorial  from  the 
West  Jersey  Society,  received  September  i,  1705.^  In 
a  later  letter  to  Secretary  Hedges,^  as  well  as  through 
Mr.  Soper,  his  personal  agent  in  England,  Cornbury  was 
obliged  to  explain  his  attitude  toward  the  three  members 
in  order  to  justify  his  conduct  in  his  later  dealings  with 
the  assembly.^  As  a  result,  the  lords  of  trade  "advised" 
his  lordship  not  to  interfere  with  the  privileges  of  the 
house. ^ 

^Assembly  Journal,  Oct.  17,  1705.  ^Ibid.,  Oct.  18,  1705, 

^Ibid.,  Oct.  26,  1705.  *^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  68. 
''Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  85.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  112. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  137.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  126. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT      385 

Cornbury  and  his  supporters  had,  however,  already 
attained  some  of  their  objects.  The  first  session  of  the 
second  assembly  had  promptly  carried  through  an  act 
granting  £2000  for  the  support  of  the  government, 
though  even  the  anti-proprietary  party  had  been  un- 
willing to  vote  this  sum  for  longer  than  two  years. 
Nevertheless,  Cornbury  had  approved  the  act  as  the 
best  that  could  be  obtained.'  The  £2000  was  to  be 
raised  in  great  part  by  a  tax  upon  the  lands  of  all 
inhabitants  who  had  settled  tenants,  servants  or  slaves 
upon  their  real  estate."  Thus  the  act  of  support 
also  aimed  a  blow  at  the  proprietors,  many  of  whom 
had  extensive  grants,  small  portions  of  which  they  had 
settled  by  servants  or  tenants.  The  assembly,  in  addi- 
tion, passed  an  act  for  uniting  and  quieting  the  minds  of 
all  her  Majesty's  subjects  within  this  province,  which  put 
an  end  to  all  prosecutions  for  acts  committed  before  1703 
except  in  the  case  of  such  offenses  as  treason  or  piracy;* 
and  another  altering  the  mode  of  electing  representa- 
tives, so  that  all  resident  freeholders  might  vote  for  and 
be  returned  as  members  of  the  assembly.*  This  last 
measure  was  designed  to  take  the  control  of  the  house 
from  the  proprietors,  in  whose  favor  the  high  property 
qualifications  worked.  The  house  also  accepted  a  rigor- 
ous militia  act  sent  down  by  the  council,  and  aimed 
especially  at  the  Quakers.*  An  apparently  useful  meas- 
ure was  passed  for  the  improving  of  highways.*  But 
this,  too,  served  a  party  use,  for  in  executing  it  every 
effort  was  made  to  construct  roads  so  as  to  injure  pro- 
prietary lands.* 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  12,  1704. 

^  Laws  Enacted  in  1704  (Bradford  print).  *  Ibid. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  Hi,  p.  280. 


386  T-HJS  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Two  other  acts  were  passed — one  for  suppressing  vice 
and  one  regulating  negro  and  Indian  slaves.'  All  the 
acts  of  this  assembly  however,  except  the  measure 
against  vice  and  that  preventing  prosecutions  for  acts 
before  1703,  were  eventually  disallowed  by  the  home 
government,  but  not,  of  course,  before  they  had  gone 
into  effect,  and  accomplished  something  of  their  objects.' 
Cornbury,  in  his  closing  speech,  expressed  great  satisfac- 
tion with  the  readiness  of  the  house  to  agree  with  the 
council.3 

The  breach  between  the  governor  and  the  majority  of 
the  assembly  over  the  qualification  of  the  three  members, 
however,  destroyed  the  harmony  between  the  executive 
and  the  legislature,  as  it  eventually  gave  complete  con- 
trol of  the  house  to  Cornbury's  opponents.  The  house, 
in  the  session  of  October  and  November,  1705,  at  length 
began  business  by  preparing  a  sarcastic  address  of  thanks 
to  the  governor,  in  which  they  expressed  their  gratitude  for 
his  favorable  opening  speech,  and  for  his  allowing  them 
"an  opportunity  to  prepare  laws."*  This  done,  they  at 
once  commenced  the  preparation  of  bills  for  confirming 
the  rights  of  the  proprietors,  entrusting  the  work  to  a 
committee  with  a  proprietary  majority,  including  Gardiner 
and  Lambert. 5  The  house  voted,  indeed,  to  consider  the 
recommendation  of  the  governor,  that  the  charges  of  the 
government  before  the  settling  of  the  revenue  be  de- 
frayed,^ but  showed  little  intention  to  take  action  upon 
it  until  the  fate  of  their  own  measures  was  assured. 
Cornbury,  therefore,  seeing  that  his  case  was  hopeless, 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  12,  1704. 

"  AUinson,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey. 

^Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  12,  1704.  ^Ibid.,  Nov.  i,  1705. 

^ Ibid.,  Nov.  2,  1705.  ^Ibid.,  Nov.  3,  1705. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT      387 

adjourned  the  assembly  till  the  next  spring  at  Burlington. 
His  closing  speech,  as  usual,  heaped  all  the  blame  upon 
the  refractory  house. ' 

It  was  not  until  October,  1706,  however,  that  the 
assembly  actually  met  for  its  third  session  at  Amboy.' 
But,  as  no  quorum  appeared,  Cornbury  was  obliged  to 
adjourn  the  house  till  next  day.  The  daily  adjournment 
continued  into  November,  when  the  governor  in  disgust 
adjourned  the  legislature  by  proclamation  till  the  next 
spring.  Later,  by  the  advice  of  Quary  and  others  of  the 
council,  he  dissolved  the  second  assembly,  and  ordered  a 
new  election. 3 

If  Cornbury  had  an  expectation  of  obtaining  a  house 
which  would  be  more  favorable  to  the  government,  he 
was  doomed  to  disappointment,  for  the  third  assembly 
contained  an  overwhelming  proprietary  majority.  Prom- 
inent among  its  members  were  Lewis  Morris,  the  real 
leader  of  the  proprietary  interests,  who  was  under  sus- 
pension as  a  member  of  the  council,  and  Samuel  Jen- 
nings, the  West  Jersey  Quaker  proprietor,  who  had  only 
recently  resigned  from  the  council.  These  two  men  at 
once  assumed  a  position  of  leadership  in  the  house,  Jen- 
nings being  chosen  speaker.^ 

Cornbury  opened  the  session,  nevertheless,  with  a 
hopeful  speech.  He  recommended  first  the  settling  of  a 
sufficient  revenue  upon  the  government,  as  the  former 
act  had  now  expired,  and  stated  that  the  home  govern- 
ment, out  of  its  great  consideration  for  the  province 
had  instructed  him  to  accept  £1,500  a  year  instead  of 
the    £2,000  formerly    granted,    but    expected    that     the 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  8,  1705.  *Ibid.,  Oct.  25,  1706. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  160. 
*  Assembly  Journal,  April  5,  1707. 


^88  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

grant  would  be  for  twenty-one  years.  He  also  again 
went  through  the  form  of  recommending  a  bill  confirm- 
ing the  rights  of  the  proprietors  and  inhabitants.  Corn- 
bury  then  urged  that  measures  be  passed  for  the  better 
care  of  highways,  for  settling  the  qualifications  of  jury- 
men, for  levying  a  scale  of  import  duties  uniform  with 
that  of  New  York,  and  for  reviving  the  now  expired 
militia  act.  He  advised  also  that  the  laws  of  the  prov- 
ince before  the  surrender  be  examined  and  any  acts 
thought  still  useful  be  revived.' 

But  the  house  at  once  resolved  itself  into  a  committee 
of  the  whole  upon  grievances.''  The  first  act  of  the 
committee  was  to  decide,  after  some  debate,  that  it  had 
the  right  to  name  a  clerk  of  its  own,  and  to  choose 
Farmar,  one  of  its  own  members,  for  the  place.^  This 
action  was  to  rid  the  committee  of  Anderson,  the  regular 
clerk  of  the  house,  who  was  a  partisan  of  Cornbury. 
The  governor  now  believed  that  he  had  a  good  oppor- 
tunity to  interfere,  and,  calling  the  house  before  him, 
accused  them  of  unprecedented  irregularities  in  turning 
out  the  clerk  of  the  house  and  in  appointing  one  of  the 
members,  thus  depriving  him  of  the  right  of  debating 
and  voting.  He  warned  the  house  to  proceed  directly 
to  business.3 

The  assembly  decided  to  consider  this  speech  as  a 
house,  and  formally  voted  that  the  committee  of  the 
whole  had  a  right  to  its  own  clerk.^  Next  day,  going 
into  committee,  it  ordered  Anderson  to  withdraw.  But 
he  refused,  saying  that  he  was  bound  by  his  oath,  where- 
upon Morris  reported  that  Anderson  had  said  that  he 
was  sworn  to  discover  debates  that  were  dangerous  to 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  165. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  April  8,  1707.  '^Ibid.,  April  9,  1707. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT 


389 


the  government.  This  speech  was  promptly  voted  a 
misdemeanor,  and  a  scandalous  reflection  upon  the 
members.'  The  house,  however,  instead  of  acting  in- 
dependently, addressed  Cornbury,  asking  him  to  remove 
the  misunderstanding  by  naming  a  new  clerk,  who  was 
a  resident  of  New  Jersey,  as  it  was  a  great  injury  that 
the  records  might  be  carried  from  the  province.^  Corn- 
bury,  in  reply,  said  that  he  was  willing  to  gratify  the 
house  so  far  as  was  reasonable,  but  wished  to  know  what 
conduct  of  the  clerk  had  been  scandalous.  A  committee 
of  the  house  was  named  to  consider  the  reply,  but 
Anderson,  though  required,  still  refused  to  withdraw. 
He  even  said  that  he  was  sworn  to  discover  debates 
dangerous  to  the  government,  and  that  he  did  not  know 
but  that  the  committee  were  going  to  have  such  debates. ^ 

Next  day,  however,  Cornbury  summoned  the  house, 
and  stated  that  he  had  dismissed  Anderson,  and  named 
Capt.  John  Pinhorne  as  clerk.*  The  house  made  no  ob- 
jection to  the  choice,  but  did  not  allow  Pinhorne  to  act 
as  clerk  of  the  committee,  retaining  Farmar  in  that 
capacity.5  Cornbury,  though  displeased,  made  no  further 
active  objection,  and  the  house  thus  scored  its  first 
victory  of  the  session. 

The  house  next  applied  to  the  secretary,  ex-Governor 
Basse,  for  all  the  laws  of  both  divisions,  but  the  secretary 
replied  that  he  could  not  deliver  them  without  Corn- 
bury's  order.  He  objected,  also,  that  the  order  from 
the  house  was  not  signed  by  the  clerk,  as  such  orders 
should  be.''  But  when  the  house  insisted,  the  secretary 
finally  sent   word   that   they  could   have  such  papers  as 

^  Assembly  Journal,  April  10,  1707.  ^Ibid.,  April  17,  1707. 

"^ Ibid.,  April  18,  1707.  ^ Ibid.,  April  19,  1707. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  227. 


390 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


they  wished.'  Meanwhile  the  house  had  asked  Cornbury 
for  a  sergeant-at-arms,  a  request  which  the  governor 
granted  without  objection.^ 

After  these  preliminary  skirmishes,  the  house  once 
more  went  into  committee  of  the  whole  upon  grievances, 
directing  its  attention  especially  to  the  "Blind  Tax," 
which  had  been  collected  to  dissolve  the  first  assembly. 
Petitions  regarding  it  were  considered,  witnesses  sum- 
moned, and  the  sergeant  was  sent  to  compel  the  attend- 
ance of  those  who  were  unwilling.^  Cornbury  and  his 
supporters  were  now  in  a  trying  position. 

The  house  first  attacked  one  of  its  own  members, 
Capt.  John  Bowne,  who  had  been  prominent  in  the  collec- 
tion of  the  "Blind  Tax."  It  was  ordered  that  he  be  ex- 
amined as  to  what  he  did  with  the  sum  paid  to  him,  and 
when  he  refused  to  take  oath  before  the  committee,  he 
was  voted  in  contempt  and  committed  to  the  custody  of 
the  sergeant.*  Meanwhile  John  Langstafif,  one  of  the 
witnesses,  had  been  arrested  and  detained  in  prison  by 
the  sheriff  of  Burlington  upon  the  suit  of  Bowne.  For 
this  act  Bowne  was  expelled  from  the  house,^  and  Hugh 
Huddy,  the  sheriff,  was  compelled  to  release  Langstaff, 
and  make  submission  to  the  assembly.^  The  investiga- 
tion was  then  pushed  actively.  Other  grievances,  in 
addition  to  the  "  Blind  Tax,"  were  also  taken  up  and 
considered.'' 

At  length  a  petition  to  the  queen,  a  letter  to  Robert 
Harley,  secretary  of  state,  and  an  address  to  the  governor, 
were  definitely  adopted  and  ordered  to  be  signed  by  the 
speaker.'^     The  address  to  the  queen  was  a  short  docu- 

^  Assembly  Journal,  April  21,  1707.  "^Ibid.,  April  21,  1707. 

^ Ibid.,  April  21-May  i,  1707.  ^ Ibid.,  April  29,  1707. 

""Ibid.,  April  30,  1707.       ^Ibid.,  May  i,  1707.       ''Ibid.,  May  5,  1707. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT 


391 


ment,  stating  briefly  the  circumstances  relating  to  the 
"  BHnd  Tax,"  complaining  of  the  exclusion  of  the  three 
members  of  the  second  assembly,  and  setting  forth  that 
it  was  impossible  to  obtain  redress  from  the  governor.* 
With  it  there  were  sent  to  the  home  government  a  large 
number  of  affidavits  taken  by  the  house  which  estab- 
lished beyond  doubt  the  collection  of  the  "Blind  Tax," 
and  made  it  clear  that  the  money  went  to  Cornbury,  or 
at  best  to  those  near  him."  Among  the  aflfidavits  is  one 
by  Dr.  Johnsone,  setting  forth  that,  before  Cornbury 
had  published  his  commission,  he  had  waited  on  his  lord- 
ship in  New  York,  and  left  upon  his  table  £200  to  encour- 
age the  chief  executive  to  be  diligent  in  looking  after  the 
interests  of  the  proprietors.  Although  this  testimony 
prejudices  greatly  the  political  virtue  of  the  proprietary 
faction,  the  confession  therein  contained  certainly  adds 
great  strength  to  the  charges  against  Cornbury. 

On  May  8,  1707,  the  house  waited  upon  the  governor 
and  presented  its  address  of  remonstrance.'  This  address 
is  declared  by  Cornbury  to  have  been  mainly  the  work 
of  Morris,*  but  it  was  read  by  Jennings  as  speaker,  and 
he  seems  to  have  exhibited  the  greatest  courage  and  self- 
control  upon  the  occasion.  The  remonstrance  itself  is 
in  some  ways  a  remarkable  document.^  After  expressing 
regret  that  the  affairs  of  New  York  left  the  governor  so 
little  time  to  attend  those  of  New  Jersey,  the  address 
charged  Cornbury  with  suspending  the  sentence  of  two 
persons  charged  with  willful  murder.  It  next  com- 
plained that  persons  accused  before  the  grand  jury  were 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  71. 

"^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  198-219,  274. 

^Assembly  Journal. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  226.  ^  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  173. 


3^2  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

obliged  to  pay  fees,  even  if  found  innocent,  and  urged 
also  as  a  grievance  that  the  only  office  for  the  probate  of 
wills  was  kept  at  Burlington,  and  that  the  secretary's 
office  was  to  be  found  only  at  the  same  place.  Cornbury 
was  next  accused  of  granting  a  monopoly  of  trade  on 
the  road  from  Amboy  to  Burlington,  and  of  arbitrarily 
establishing  fees  in  direct  contradiction  to  Magna  Charta. 
He  was  taken  to  task  for  interfering  with  the  pro- 
prietors, particularly  for  putting  the  records  of  the  east- 
ern division  into  the  hands  of  Peter  Sonmans,  and  for 
preventing  the  council  of  West  Jersey  proprietors  from 
fulfilling  its  duties.  The  remonstrance  concluded  by  at- 
tacking Cornbury  for  the  exclusion  of  the  three  members 
and  for  his  connection  with  the  "Blind  Tax." 

Cornbury  appears  to  have  been  carried  away  with 
wrath  by  the  conduct  of  the  assembly.  He  stated,  how- 
ever, that  it  would  require  time  to  prepare  his  answer.' 
On  May  12  he  summoned  the  house  and  read  his  reply.' 
Considering  the  badness  of  his  cause,  this  answer  is 
cleverly  contrived,  and  we  cannot  refrain  from  guessing 
that  it  was  not  the  work  of  his  lordship  himself.  It  is 
marred,  nevertheless,  by  personal  abuse  of  Morris,  Jen- 
nings and  the  Quakers,  whom  his  lordship  charges  with 
wishing  to  subvert  all  orderly  government.  The  claims 
of  the  reply  are  too  long  to  recite  in  detail.  In  general, 
the  governor  endeavored  to  shield  himself  behind  his  in- 
structions. He  tried  to  justify  his  right  to  judge  of  the 
qualifications  of  the  three  members,  and  denied  abso- 
lutely and  entirely  that  he  had  any  knowledge  of  or  share 
in  the  ''Blind  Tax."  He  also  aimed  a  counter  attack  at 
the   assembly,    accusing  them  of  their   irregularities    of 

^  Assembly  Journal,  May  8,  1707. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  180. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT      393 

procedure  and  of  a  desire  to  oppose  the  service  of  queen 
and  country. 

Meanwhile  a  new  subject  of  controversy  between  the 
governor  and  the  assembly  had  appeared.  The  house 
had,  of  course,  refused  to  take  any  action  upon  measures 
recommended  by  Cornbury  until  its  grievances  had  been 
redressed.  On  May  ist  the  house  had  asked  the  council 
to  lay  before  it  the  receiver-general's  accounts  for  the 
last  two  years,  but  the  council  refused  to  take  any  action, 
as  no  quorum  was  present.'  In  reply,  the  assembly 
refused  to  consider  the  defrayment  of  the  charges  of  the 
government  until  the  accounts  were  submitted.  The 
point  was  therefore  conceded  and  the  accounts  submitted.' 
On  May  13  the  house  took  up  the  matter,  and  summon- 
ing Fauconnier,  the  receiver-general,  before  them,  called 
for  his  vouchers.  Fauconnier  replied  that  he  could  not 
give  them  without  Cornbury's  consent.'  A  message  was 
therefore  sent  to  the  governor,  but  Cornbury  replied 
that  he  had  already  done  more  than  was  needful  in  sub- 
mitting the  accounts.  The  vouchers  could  not  be  sub- 
mitted legally,  for  the  lord  high  treasurer  had  appointed 
an  auditor  general,  and  he,  not  being  in  the  province, 
had  deputed  one  to  audit  accounts.  The  receiver-general 
was  accountable  only  to  the  lord  high  treasurer.  Still, 
if  the  representatives  were  dissatisfied  with  any  articles 
of  the  accounts,  and  would  apply  to  him  he  would  satisfy 
them.* 

The  reply  of  the  house  was  to  refer  Cornbury's  reply 
to  further  consideration,  and  to  order  bills  brought  in 
for  confirming  the  estates  of  the  proprietors  and  other 
purchasers    of    land    in    West    Jersey,    for    ascertaining 

^  Assembly  Journal,  May  i,  1707.  ^Ibid.,  May  6,  1707. 

^  Ibid.  *Ibid.,  May  14,  1707. 


394  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

representatives'  fees,  and  for  ascertaining  the  qualifica- 
tions of  jurymen,'  Cornbury,  realizing  at  length  that  it 
was  useless  to  struggle  further,  summoned  the  assembly 
before  him  and  adjourned  it  until  the  autumn.'' 

The  recess,  however,  did  little  to  alter  the  situation. 
The  session  was  called  for  October  i6,  1707,  but  it  was 
not  until  the  23d  that  a  quorum  was  present  and  the 
assembly  met.  Cornbury,  in  his  opening  speech,  ex- 
pressed his  anger  at  the  tardy  attendance.  He  then 
recommended  the  passage  of  the  same  measures  which 
he  had  urged  upon  the  previous  session,  with  one  or  two 
additions,  especially  a  bill  for  restraining  refractory 
negroes.3  But  the  house  promptly  resolved  that  it  would 
grant  no  support  until  grievances  were  redressed.  When 
that  was  done  it  would  raise  £1500  for  one  year.* 

The  house  then  asked  Cornbury  when  he  would  receive 
their  reply  to  his  answer  to  their  remonstrance.  He 
replied  that  he  would  let  them  know.^  The  house  there- 
upon determined  to  send  Cornbury  a  copy  of  their  reply, 
and  further  ordered  it  printed  and  published.  The  mes- 
sengers of  the  house  met  Cornbury  by  the  way  and  he 
consented  to  hear  their  message,  "as  well  here  as  any- 
where else."  But  when  informed  of  their  having  come 
to  deliver  the  "  reply,"  the  governor  said,  "  I  will  not 
receive  it;  you  do  not  proceed  regularly."  The  house 
therefore  could  only  order  the  entry  of  their  reply  upon 
the  journal.^  The  reply  is  a  lengthy  document,  showing 
the  fallacy  of  Cornbury's  answer  to  the  grievances  of  the 

^  Assembly  Journal,  May  24,  1707.  The  last  measure  was  to  enable 
Quakers  to  serve. 

"^ Ibid.,  May  16,  1707.  ^ Ibid.,  Oct.  23,  1707. 

*Ibid.,  Oct.  27,  1707.  '•'Ibid.,  Oct.  28,  1707. 

*Ibid.,  Oct.  29,  1707. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT      395 

house,  and  refuting  his  counter  charges  against  the 
assembly.  It  is  most  bitter  in  tone,  and  was,  of  course, 
intended  as  a  popular  manifesto  rather  than  to  convince 
the  governor.' 

Meanwhile,  after  having  ordered  a  bill  for  confirming 
the  rights  of  the  proprietors,  with  other  useful  acts,  the 
assembly  named  a  committee  for  revising  the  former  laws 
of  the  province.  But  when  the  committee  addressed  the 
secretary  for  the  laws,  he  again  declared  that  he  could  not 
part  with  them  without  order  from  the  governor.  When 
sent  for,  he  replied  that  his  attendance  was  needed  by  the 
council.'  Thus  foiled,  the  house  began  to  consider  "  a 
certain  printer  paper"  called  "Forget  and  Forgive," 
which  it  resolved  did  not  reflect  upon  the  government.^ 
Before  further  action  could  be  taken  Cornbury  put  an  end 
to  the  session. 

During  the  recess  both  parties  addressed  themselves  to 
the  home  government.  Lewis  Morris  sent  a  long  and  able 
letter  to  the  secretary  of  state,  together  with  the  petition, 
letter,  and  affidavits  drawn  up  by  the  assembly  during 
its  first  session.''  On  the  other  hand,  Cornbury  trans- 
mitted an  address  to  the  queen  from  the  lieutenant- 
governor  and  council,  complaining  of  the  conduct  of  the 
assembly.5 

On  May  5,  1708,  the  assembly  met  for  the  last  time  at 
Burlington.  Some  delay  was  caused  by  the  illness  of  the 
speaker,  and  Cornbury,  glad  apparently  of  an  excuse  to 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  242. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Oct.  31.  1707. 

*  Ibid.  For  composing  and  publishing  this  so-called  libel,  George 
Willocks,  John  Pike  and  John  Barclay  were  prosecuted  upon  informa- 
tion; Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (i  704-1 71 5),  p.  48. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  274. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  285,  286. 


3g6  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

be  rid  of  Jennings,  ordered  the  choice  of  a  new  one. 
The  house  thereupon  selected  Thomas  Gordon,  who  had 
made  himself  almost  equally  obnoxious.'  Cornbury, 
however,  felt  obliged  to  approve  the  choice.  His  open- 
ing speech  was  a  mere  reproduction  of  what  he  had  said 
at  the  beginning  of  the  earlier  sessions,  urging  the  sup- 
port of  the  government  for  twenty-one  years,  the  revival 
of  the  militia  act,  and  other  measures  which  he  had  for- 
merly advised.' 

The  house,  after  due  consideration,  prepared  a  reply  to 
the  speech,  which  they  delivered  on  May  12th.''  While 
they  were  sorry  for  the  misunderstanding  which  had 
arisen,  they  maintained  that  most  of  the  grievances  which 
they  had  set  forth  at  their  first  meeting  still  existed. 
They  now  complained  further  that  persons  were  prose- 
cuted upon  informations,  which  rendered  grand  juries 
useless  and  gave  the  attorney-general  power  to  increase 
his  own  fortune  at  the  expense  of  the  country.  They 
further  complained  of  the  great  charges  due  to  bringing 
juries  and  evidences  from  great  distances  to  the  supreme 
courts  at  Burlington  and  Amboy,  also  that  lawyers  who 
defended  persons  prosecuted  upon  informations  were 
intimidated  from  doing  their  duty  by  the  fear  of  being 
suspended.  Lastly,  they  asserted  that  the  clerk  of  the 
Crown  had  refused  to  issue  a  writ  for  the  election  of  a 
member  wanting  to  the  house. 

The  assembly  hoped  that  the  governor,  by  removing 
these  and  other  grievances,  would  enable  them  to  do 
their  utmost  to  support  the  government,  but  they  were 
convinced  that  if  the  queen  were  rightly  informed  she 
would  not  expect  them  to  vote  support  for  more  than  a 
year.     As  to  the  militia  bill,  they  refused  to  revive  it,  as 

^  Assembly  Journal ,  May  5,  1708.  ''Ibid.,  May  12,  1708. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT 


397 


it  was  a  great  grievance,  though  they  were  very  ready 
to  provide  for  the  defense  of  the  country.  They  had 
already  prepared  a  bill  confirming  the  rights  of  the  pro- 
prietors and  other  purchasers,  but  had  not  been  allowed 
to  perfect  it.  In  revising  the  laws  of  the  province  they 
had  been  impeded  by  Secretary  Basse,  who  had  refused 
to  let  them  see  the  laws.  The  house  concluded  by  ex- 
pressing its  determination  to  do  its  utmost  in  serving 
the  queen  and  advancing  the  interests  of  the  country. 

The  firm  stand  of  the  assembly  was  sufficient  to  con- 
vince Cornbury  that  he  had  nothing  to  gain  from  con- 
tinuing the  session.  Immediately  after  the  delivery  of 
the  answer,  he  adjourned  the  assembly  until  September.' 
Before  that  time,  however,  Cornbury  had  been  removed, 
and  Lord  Lovelace,  a  man  of  entirely  different  disposi- 
tion and  views,  had  been  appointed  in  his  place.  The 
struggle  between  executive  and  legislative  was  not  yet 
to  end,  but  the  popular  body  had  nevertheless  so  far 
gained  a  victory  by  its  obstinate  stand  against  the  high- 
handed course  of  Cornbury. 

When  the  fourth  assembly  began  its  first  session  at 
Amboy  March  3,  1708,  it  quickly  displayed  its  confidence 
in  the  new  governor  as  well  as  its  desire  to  bring  to  an 
account  the  advisers  of  the  hated  Cornbury.  After  the 
selection  of  Thomas  Gordon  as  speaker,"  Lovelace 
opened  the  session  by  a  mild  speech  stating  that  he 
would  give  the  province  no  cause  for  uneasiness,  and  re- 
commending the  measures  for  the  support  of  the  govern- 
ment and  the  establishment  of  the  militia  which  he  be- 
lieved  needful   to  the  ease  of  the  people.^     The   house 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  291-298. 
"^  Assembly  Journal,  March  3,  1708. 
*New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  309. 


398  ^^^  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

replied,  expressing  their  confidence  in  Lovelace  and  their 
gratitude  to  the  queen  for  "  putting  an  end  to  the  worst 
administration  New  Jersey  ever  knew."  They  would 
willingly  contribute  to  the  government  and  the  gov- 
ernor's reasonable  desires  should  be  their  command/ 

Nor  did  the  assembly  let  their  promises  remain  unful- 
filled. They  at  once  proceeded  to  work  upon  various 
measures  of  which  the  province  was  greatly  in  need,  owing 
to  the  virtual  absence  of  legislation  under  Cornbury.  A 
bill  granting  £1,722,  los,  4d  for  one  year  for  the  support 
of  the  government,  a  measure  re-establishing  the  militia, 
though  with  far  less  severe  penalties  attached,  and  a 
number  of  other  important  acts  were  soon  carried 
through.^ 

Meanwhile,  however,  the  enemies  of  the  party  now  in 
control  of  the  house  were  not  left  in  peace.  The  attack 
was  begun  by  an  address  to  Lovelace  asking  for  a  copy 
of  the  address  which  had  been  sent  to  the  Crown  by  In- 
goldsby  and  eight  members  of  the  council  in  1707  con- 
taining a  violent  denunciation  of  the  conduct  of  the  house 
and  casting  the  responsibility  upon  Morris  and  Jennings.^ 
Lovelace  at  once  gave  the  assembly  a  copy  of  the  paper,* 
and  the  house  after  some  discussion  once  more  addressed 
the  governor  asking  that  the  council  should  appear  be- 
fore the  governor  to  make  good  their  charges  and  that 
the  house  might  be  present. ^  A  week  later  the  assembly 
again  communicated  with  Lovelace,  asking  what  action 
would  be  taken.^     But  meanwhile,  Ingoldsby,  Townley, 

^ New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  iii,  p.  362. 

'  Allinson,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey;  Assembly  Journal. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  364. 

^Assembly  Journal,  March  9,  1708. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  367. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  March  22,  1708, 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT      399 

Quary,  Coxe,  Pinhorne,  and  Sanford  had  applied  to  the 
governor,  asking  for  time  in  which  to  collect  suitable 
proof  of  their  charges.'  Lovelace  therefore  assured  the 
assembly  that  the  council  should  answer  in  a  day  or  two." 
The  learned  Chief  Justice  Mompesson,  evidently  fearing 
the  result,  had  separated  himself  from  the  rest  of  the 
signers  by  saying  that  he  had  put  his  name  to  the  ad- 
dress without  examining  its  particulars,  as  it  was  cus- 
tomary in  similar  bodies  for  all  to  sign  such  papers,  even 
if  they  dissented  in  opinion. ^ 

The  house,  meanwhile,  prepared  an  address  to  the 
Crown  to  off-set  that  of  Ingoldsbyand  his  allies  in  which 
they  denied  and  refuted  the  charges  of  the  council  and 
begged  the  queen  not  to  be  misled.*  At  length,  in  April, 
Ingoldsby  and  his  supporters,  who  were  now  again  joined 
by  Mompesson,  presented  to  Lovelace  a  lengthy  justifi- 
cation of  their  conduct.^  It  went  over  all  the  old  grounds 
of  quarrel  between  Cornbury  and  the  house,  but  was 
violent  in  tone  and  marred  by  personal  bitterness. 
Owing  to  the  dissolution  of  the  assembly,  no  reply  from 
the  house  was  received,  and  the  question  did  not  come 
to  an  issue. 

While  this  quarrel  was  going  on  the  house  had  also 
made  a  violent  attack  upon  its  old  enemy,  Peter  Sonmans, 
a  member  of  the  council,  for  arbitrary  conduct  in  prac- 
tically preventing  the  persons  summoned  upon  the  grand 
jury  of  Middlesex  from  serving  and  then  fining  them  for 
non-attendance.*^     To  this  charge  they  coupled  others  of 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  372. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  March  23,  1708. 

*New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  373. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  385.  *Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  390. 

'^Assembly  Journal,  March  18,  1708. 


400  T^^  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

perjury,  adultery,  and  other  crimes.'  But  Sonmans  man- 
aged to  defend  himself  at  such  length  that  no  immediate 
result  was  gained." 

The  house,  however,  gained  an  important  advantage 
in  another  field.  It  had  not  forgotten  the  conduct  of 
Receiver-General  Fauconnier,  and  on  March  12th  it  sum- 
moned him  once  more  to  submit  the  vouchers  of  his  ac- 
counts of  the  last  revenue.^  As  this  summons  had  no 
effect,  the  house  ten  days  later  drew  up  an  address  to 
Lovelace,  asking  him  to  command  Fauconnier,  the  "  re- 
ceiver-general of  the  last  revenue"  who  was  then  "in  the 
province  of  New  York  under  your  lordship's  administra- 
tion "  to  attend  the  house  with  his  vouchers  and  if  he 
neglected  or  refused,  to  order  his  securities'  bonds  to  be 
put  in  suit."*  Lovelace  replied  to  the  address  that  he 
would  send  for  Fauconnier  as  soon  as  he  knew  where  he 
was.*  Directly  afterward  the  house  came  to  a  conclusion 
upon  the  bill  for  support  previously  mentioned.  But  it 
desired  that  Lovelace  would  nominate  a  treasurer  for  the 
ensuing  year  who  should  be  approved  by  the  house  and 
should  be  a  resident  of  New  Jersey.^  The  governor  took 
a  day  to  consider  this  request  and  then  named  Miles 
Forster  "  receiver-general "  for  the  ensuing  year.  The 
house  promptly  voted  that  he  be  allowed  "treasurer" 
on  giving  due  security.^ 

Thus  through  the  session  the  house  had  made  good 
progress  in  its  power,  and  if  Lovelace  had  lived  the  over- 
throw of  Cornbury's  supporters  would  have  been  assured. 
Before  the  assembly  met  again,  however,  Lovelace  was  in 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  374. 

^Assembly  Journal.  ^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  416. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  379. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  March  23,  1708.  ^Ibid.,  March  24,  1708. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFUCT 


401 


his  grave  and  Richard  Ingoldsby,  the  lieutenant-governor, 
had  stepped  into  his  place.  The  conflict  was  now  sure 
to  reopen.  But  fortune  favored  Ingoldsby,  for  just  as  he 
took  office,  Colonels  Nicholson  and  Vetch  appeared,  in- 
trusted by  the  Crown  with  the  raising  of  forces  for  their 
expedition  against  Canada.  New  Jersey's  quota  was  set 
at  two  hundred  men.'  Ingoldsby,  therefore,  had  the 
opportunity  of  appearing  in  a  patriotic  role  and  could 
hope  by  clever  management  to  make  any  objections  to 
his  course  offered  by  the  assembly  appear  in  the  worst 
light. 

He  at  once  called  the  legislature  by  proclamation, 
March  25,  1709,  and  explained  "the  extra  ordinary  ser- 
vice "  that  was  required.^  The  assembly  immediately 
called  into  question  Ingoldsby's  right  to  the  government 
and  ordered  that  the  secretary  attend  with  the  record  of 
commissions.  This  occasioned  delay,  as  Basse  replied 
that  he  did  not  have  the  records  in  town.  But  after  a 
little  further  wrangling  he  satisfied  the  house  by  laying 
before  it  a  copy  of  Ingoldsby's  commission. ' 

The  assembly  then  proceeded  to  consider  the  equip- 
ment of  the  quota  for  the  expedition,  working  in  consul- 
tation with  a  conference  committee  from  the  council  and 
with  Nicholson  and  Vetch.*  But  from  the  beginning  no 
eagerness  was  shown.  Not  only  was  the  distrust  of  the 
executive  apparent,  but  the  Quakers  were  in  conscience 
bound  to  oppose  any  military  measures,  although  the 
sequel  seems  to  show  that  they  did  not  wish  now  to 
incur  the  blame  for  the  failure  of  the  required  bills. 

First,  reasons  were  presented  why  New  Jersey's  quota 
should  be  reduced,  but  Nicholson  and  Vetch  answered 
that  they  had  no  power  to  admit  a  reduction. "♦     Then  the 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  337.         ^Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  329. 
*  Assembly  Journal,  May  27  and  28,  1709.         ^  Ibid.,  May  30,  1709. 


402  1'HE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

house  took  up  the  question  as  to  whether  "  men  be 
detached,"  that  is,  whether  miHtia  be  sent  by  the  prov- 
ince. The  vote  at  first  stood  even.  But  upon  the  sec- 
ond vote  the  motion  was  squarely  defeated.'  New  Jersey, 
therefore,  would  support  the  expedition  only  by  volun- 
tary enlistments.  The  house,  however,  in  committee  of 
the  whole  decided  to  raise  £3,000  for  the  support  of 
their  troops,  and  proceeded  to  elaborate  a  bill  for  the 
purpose.' 

But  Ingoldsby  and  his  council  would  not  let  the  chance 
slip  of  involving  the  Quakers  in  difficulty,  nor  was  the 
house  inclined  to  pass  any  opportunity  of  attacking  the 
lieutenant-governor.  The  council  proceeded  to  pass  and 
send  down  an  address  of  thanks  to  the  Crown  ^  and  a 
little  later  another  praying  Nicholson  to  take  command 
of  the  forces  raised.*  The  latter  was  promptly  accepted 
by  the  house,  though  with  the  proviso  that  it  should  be 
understood  as  applying  only  to  those  who  voluntarily 
enlisted,  and  sent  back  to  the  council  signed  by  the 
speaker.^  But  the  council,  seeing  its  advantage,  returned 
it  with  the  request  that  all  the  representatives  subscribe 
it,  as  was  done  in  other  colonies.  Such  members  of  the 
house  "  as  pleased  "  then  signed. '  In  similar  manner  the 
house  agreed  to  the  address  to  the  Crown  and  sent  it  up 
signed  by  the  speaker.^  But  the  council  again  took  ex- 
ception to  this  mode  which  allowed  the  Quakers  to 
escape  responsibility,  and  sent  back  a  new  copy  of  the 
address. 3  The  house,  thereupon,  drew  up  an  address  of 
its  own  to  the  queen  which  it  ordered  signed  by  the 
speaker  alone.^     But  Thomas  Gardiner  in  behalf  of  him- 

^  Assembly  Journal,  May  31,  1709.  ^Ibid.,  June  i,  1709. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  355. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  352.  ^  Assembly  Journal,  June  3,  1709. 

^ Ibid.,  June  4,  1709.  ''Ibid,,  June  9  and  10,  1709. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT      403 

self  and  the  other  Friends  boldly  accepted  the  challenge 
and  caused  entry  to  be  made  that,  though  the  Quakers 
were  always  willing  to  support  the  government,  they  were 
in  conscience  bound  to  oppose  raising  money  for  soldiers.' 
Meanwhile  the  assembly  passed  a  bill  to  prevent  prose- 
cutions by  information.^  It  also  undertook  to  amend 
the  militia  act.^  On  the  other  hand,  the  house  rejected 
point-blank  a  bill  sent  down  by  the  council  for  preventing 
persons  from  leaving  the  province  to  escape  service  on 
the  expedition.*  The  council  replied  by  rejecting  the 
bill  preventing  informations. ^ 

On  June  10,  1709,  the  bill  for  raising  £3,000  for  the 
expedition  came  to  its  final  consideration  in  the  assem- 
bly. In  spite  of  the  formal  opposition  of  the  Quakers 
its  passage  was  assured.  But  it  certainly  appears  that 
in  spite  of  their  feigned  eagerness  the  supporters  of  the 
lieutenant-governor  were  really  disappointed  that  they 
could  not  make  profit  by  casting  upon  the  Friends  the 
blame  for  the  failure  of  the  measure.  They  endeavored 
to  gain  their  end  by  a  ruse.  Elisha  Lawrence  and 
Gershom  Mott  of  Monmouth,  both  of  whom,  as  being 
opposed  to  the  proprietary  interests,  were  supporters  of 
Ingoldsby,  and  had  voted  all  along  for  the  bill,  now 
suddenly  cast  their  votes  against  it  upon  the  final  ques- 
tion. These  two  negatives,  with  the  votes  of  the  Quakers, 
made  a  majority  against  it,  and  it  was  thus  defeated  to 
the  dismay  of  all.^ 

The  council   at  once  named  a  committee  to  examine 

^  Assembly  Journal,  June  10,  1709.  ^Ibid.,  June  7,  1709. 

^ Ibid.,  June  4,  1709.  ^ Ibid.,  June  3,  1709. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  359. 

^Assembly  Journal,  June  10  and  13,  1709;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol. 
iii,  p   467. 


404 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


the  books  of  the  house  with  a  view  to  finding  evidences 
of  guilt/  But  the  assembly  promptly  answered  the 
attack  by  naming  a  committee  to  inspect  the  council 
journal.''  This  step  confused  the  council.  They  made 
answer  that  the  house  had  made  no  mention  of  the  lieu- 
tenant-governor without  whom  they  could  not  act. 
Further  they  presumed  that  the  deliberations  of  the 
council  were  secret.  Still,  if  proper  applications  were 
made,  they  would  show  all  minutes  referring  to  the 
house. 3  The  house  replied  that  they  conceived  that  such 
minutes  were  kept  in  a  separate  book  and  prayed  that 
they  might  examine  such  records.^  But  though  a  time 
was  set  for  the  examination,  the  clerk  of  the  council  did 
not  appear  with  his  minutes,"*  and  further  action  was 
prevented  by  the  adjournment.  Meanwhile,  the  council 
committee  had  gone  through  the  journal  of  the  house 
and  carefully  copied  such  entries  as  they  believed  would 
serve  their  designs. ^ 

Ingoldsby  called  the  representatives  before  him  on 
June  13th  and  adjourned  the  assembly  until  July  28th. 
He  had  expected  ready  compliance,  but  instead  they  had 
trifled  away  their  time  and  done  nothing.^  Immediately 
after  the  adjournment  the  lieutenant-governor  and  his 
confederates  drew  up  an  address  to  the  queen,  violently 
attacking  the  Quakers  and  heaping  upon  them  the  blame 
for  the  failure  of  the  province  to  comply  with  the  Crown's 
commands.  The  only  remedy  was  to  exclude  them  from 
office.' 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  360. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  June  11,  1709. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  xiii,  p.  361. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  June  13,  1709. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  362,  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  363. 

"^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  365. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT      405 

But  the  further  prosecution  of  the  schemes  of  the  anti- 
proprietary  faction  were  foiled  by  Nicholson  and  Vetch, 
who  were  unwilling  to  see  their  expedition  crippled  to 
gratify  party  ends.  Apparently  assurance  was  given  them 
that  the  assembly  would  pass  the  required  act.  At  any 
rate,  upon  the  solicitation  of  the  officers,  Ingoldsby  sum- 
moned the  legislature  by  proclamation,  and  it  met  again 
June  23d. 

With  the  utmost  promptness  the  house  passed  a  bill 
for  raising  £3,000,'  another  to  encourage  volunteers,* 
and  a  third  for  enforcing  the  currency  of  £3,000  in  bills 
of  credit."  The  first  of  these  appears  to  have  had  a 
narrow  escape,  however,  from  the  fate  which  it  met  the 
previous  session,  being  carried,  after  a  tie  vote,  by  the 
ballot  of  Hugh  Middleton,  "  one  reputed  a  Quaker," 
who  saw  how  affairs  stood,  and  was  unwilling  to  be  made 
a  political  tool  because  of  his  religious  belief.^ 

The  council  speedily  passed  unchanged  the  bill  to 
encourage  volunteers.*  The  other  two  acts,  however, 
it  insisted  upon  amending.  Some  of  these  amendments 
were  readily  accepted  by  the  house,  but  upon  one  point 
a  direct  conflict  ensued.'  In  the  acts  sent  up  the  words 
"  general  assembly "  were  used  referring  to  the  house 
alone.  The  council  claimed  that  they  should  apply  only 
to  the  governor,  council  and  assembly  acting  together, 
and  based  their  contention  upon  the  governor's  commis- 
sion and  instructions,  as  well  as  upon  former  practice.' 
But  the  house  held  resolutely  to  its  position,  and  gave 
the  council  plainly  to  understand  that  it  must  either  yield 
the  point  or  incur  the  responsibility  for  the  failure  of  the 

^Assembly  Journal,  June  29,  1709.  *Ibid.,  June  28,  1709. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  36.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  374. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  378. 


4o6  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

measures.  This  the  council  was  unwilling  to  assume  and 
it  accordingly  gave  way,  though  with  very  bad  grace.' 
The  three  bills  were  thus  passed  and  assented  to  by 
Ingoldsby,  after  which  the  assembly  was  adjourned. 
The  house  had  won  a  substantial  victory,  and  the  plans 
of  the  lieutenant-governor  had  been  sharply  checked. 

During  the  session  thus  ended  there  had  been  several 
other  points  of  conflict  between  the  executive  and  legis- 
lative. Owing  to  the  shortness  of  the  proceedings, 
however,  these  had  come  to  no  direct  issue.  The  session 
had  hardly  opened  when  Lawrence  and  Mott  requested 
that  as  a  justification  they  be  allowed  to  enter  upon 
the  journal  of  the  house  their  reasons  for  voting  against 
the  bill  for  raising  £3,000.  The  request  was  refused,'* 
whereupon  they  applied  to  the  council  and  were  allowed 
to  state  their  reasons  upon  the  council  journal.  Here 
they  protest  against  the  entry  upon  the  journal  of  the 
house,  of  the  fact  that  they  had  voted  against  the  meas- 
ure, as  unprecedented,  and  state  that  they  did  so,  not 
because  they  were  unwilling  to  obey  the  queen's  orders, 
but  because  they  thought  that  many  parts  of  the  bill  were 
ill  advised,  as,  for  example,  that  which  made  the  quota 
consist  entirely  of  volunteers  and  did  not  provide  for  a 
detachment  in  case  the  number  fell  short.  They  thus 
tried  to  make  it  appear  that  the  measure  was  not  strict 
enough  to  suit  them.* 

Meanwhile  the  house  had  called  Secretary  Basse  before 
it  and  asked  whether  Miles  Forster  had  given  security  as 
treasurer  for  the  last  tax.  Basse  replied  that  he  did  not 
know  and  that  he  regarded  it  only  as  his  business  to  file 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p,  379. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  June  24,  1709. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  381. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT      407 

the  bond  when  it  was  sent  him.  The  house  thereupon 
named  a  committee  to  see  that  Forster  gave  bond.' 
Next  the  assembly  named  a  committee  to  inquire  what 
had  been  done  with  two  bills  sent  up  last  session,  that  re- 
garding informations  and  a  measure  concerning  the  pay- 
ment of  old  debts.'  The  latter  bill  was  considered  and 
finally  passed  by  the  council,  but  with  amendment  which 
the  house  would  not  accept."  Adjournment,  however, 
prevented  further  discussion.  Some  consideration  was 
also  given  by  the  house  to  a  petition  from  one  Peter 
Blacksfield,  praying  relief  from  a  judgment  against  him 
for  a  supposed  breach  of  his  recognizance.  But  this 
matter  was  soon  postponed  till  next  session.  ^  The 
urgency  of  the  occasion,  therefore,  prevented  for  the  time 
being  the  wrangle  and  conflict  which  under  the  existing 
state  of  feeling  was  likely  to  come  between  Ingoldsby  and 
his  opponents.  When  the  assembly  met  again  in  Novem- 
ber, 1709,  at  Burlington,  however,  the  field  was  clear. 

This  was  a  new  assembly,  for  another  election  had 
been  held  during  the  interval,  and  the  result  undoubtedly 
changed  the  feelings  of  the  house  toward  the  executive. 
The  majority  of  the  fifth  assembly  were  by  no  means 
zealous  in  the  interest  of  the  proprietors,  and,  though 
ready  to  oppose  the  council  in  defence  of  their  rights  as 
a  house,  passed  several  measures  in  the  interest  of  In- 
goldsby and  Coxe.  An  important  part  of  the  work  of 
the  session  was  the  passage,  after  much  discussion,  of  an 

^  Assembly  Journal,  June  26,  1709.  *Ibid.,  June  29,  1709. 

^ Ibid.,  June  28  and  29,  1709.  Blacksfield  had  given  security  for  the 
appearance  of  William  Slooby,  of  Salem  Co.,  who  had  been  held  for 
trial  before  the  Supreme  Court  for  piracy.  The  non-appearance  of 
Slooby  in  November  Term,  1705,  led  to  the  judgment  against  Blacks- 
field who  was  thereby  ruined.  According  to  Hunter,  the  judgment  was 
notoriously  unjust. 


4o8  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

act  for  explaining  the  act  of  support  which  had  been 
passed  under  Lovelace.'  This  measure,  regarded  by 
Hunter  as  infamous,  gave  £600  of  the  £800  granted 
Lovelace  to  Ingoldsby,  leaving  only  £200  to  Lady  Love- 
lace.^ 

But  none  the  less  grounds  of  disagreement  were  not 
lacking.  The  house  prepared  two  bills  confirming  the 
rights  of  the  proprietors  of  East  and  West  Jersey  re- 
spectively. But  the  latter  was  defeated  in  the  council 
without  being  committed,^  and  the  former  met  an  even 
more  untimely  fate.  The  house  committee  to  which  it 
was  intrusted  contained  an  anti-proprietary  majority  in- 
cluding Lawrence  and  Mott.  This  committee  deliber- 
ately blotted  out  the  entire  bill  except  the  title,  even 
using  force  against  its  chairman,  Thomas  Gordon,  who, 
of  course,  objected.'*  For  this  conduct  Lawrence  and 
Mott  were  forced  to  ask  forgiveness  at  the  bar  of  the 
house.  Nevertheless  it  was  voted  not  to  bring  in  an- 
other similar  bill  that  session.^  The  Blacksfield  petition 
was  also  investigated  by  the  assembly,  and  as  a  result  a 
bill  was  passed  annulling  the  decision  and  judgment  of 
the  case.  This  bill,  however,  was  immediately  rejected 
by  the  council.^ 

The  curious  conflict  about  the  title  "  general  assem- 
bly" was  renewed.  In  spite  of  the  precedent  of  the 
fourth  assembly  the  council  amended  bills  sent  to  it  by 
striking  out  the  word  ''general"  when  referring  to  the 

^Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  14,  1709  et  seq. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  57-8. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  400. 

*■  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  2,  1709-10.  ^ Ibid.,  Jan.  3,  1709-10. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  397.  The  judgment  against 
Blacksfield  was  eventually  quashed  by  the  council  under  Hunter  on  pro- 
ceedings in  error. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT      409 

house  alone,'  But  when  the  house  made  an  issue  of  the 
matter,  the  council  was  obHged  to  recede.'  Thus  the 
point  gained  by  the  last  house  was  not  lost. 

Another  disagreement  took  place  upon  a  bill  regulat- 
ing court  fees,  in  which  the  council  undertook  among 
other  changes  to  raise  the  fees  which  had  been  agreed 
upon  in  the  house.^  After  conference  no  agreement 
could  be  reached,  and  the  bill  was  lost.*  There  were 
also  disagreements  upon  other  measures,  notably  upon 
that  preventing  prosecutions  upon  informations  and  that 
for  regulating  representatives'  fees,  but  the  latter  bill  was 
finally  passed. 

The  most  important  work  of  the  session,  however,  was 
the  investigation  of  the  expedition  to  Canada  and  of  the 
questions  arising  out  of  the  issue  of  bills  of  credit  which 
it  had  entailed.  This  was  carried  on  by  the  committee 
of  the  whole  house,  assisted  by  a  committee  of  the 
council  named  by  Ingoldsby.^  Thomas  Pike,  Capt. 
Farmar,  John  Royse  and  Elisha  Parker,  or  any  three  of 
them,  had  been  appointed  to  sign  the  bills  of  credit.  But 
Royse  had  died  before  any  were  issued.  The  three  re- 
maining commissioners  had  then,  without  authority,  as- 
sociated Adam  Hude  with  themselves  to  sign  the  bills. 
Hude  had  signed  some  of  the  bills  with  his  three  col- 
leagues, but  more  with  only  two.  There  was  also  some 
difference  between  the  form  of  the  bills  issued  and  that 
which  had  been  required  by  the  act.* 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,   vol.  xiii,  p.  406;  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  16 
and  17,  170Q-10. 
^ Ibid.,  Jan.  21,  1709-10. 
^ Ibid.,  Jan.  17,  1709-10;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  409. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  17  and  30,  1709-10. 

^  Ibid.,  Dec.9and23,  xyof^et  seq.'.  New  Jersey  Archives, yo\.rxi\,^.y^\ . 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  414. 


410  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

To  remedy  these  defects,  John  Harrison  brought  a 
bill  in  the  house  for  amending  and  explaining  the  act  for 
the  currency  of  the  bills  of  credit.'  After  some  change 
it  was  passed  by  the  assembly.*  But  the  council 
instead  of  passing  it  took  the  opportunity  of  attacking 
the  persons  concerned  in  the  Canada  expedition  who 
were  adherents  of  "the  country  party."  After  receiving 
the  report  of  the  select  committee  which  had  investigated 
the  expedition  with  the  committee  of  the  house,  it  passed 
a  series  of  resolutions.^  These  declared  that  Pike,  Parker, 
Farmar  and  Hude  had  all  acted  criminally.  All  bills 
signed  only  by  Hude  and  two  persons  were  declared 
void,  and  the  conduct  of  the  signers  an  encouragement 
to  counterfeiting.  Farmar  and  Parker,  the  commis- 
sioners for  managing  the  expedition,  were  also  declared 
to  have  betrayed  their  trust,  as  had  John  Harrison,  the 
commissary.  Basse,  who  with  Gordon  had  gone  over 
the  accounts,  was  publicly  thanked. 

Meanwhile  the  house  had  passed  a  bill  for  punishing 
deserters  during  the  late  expedition.  Sonmans  in  the 
council  promptly  moved  that  it  be  amended  so  as  to 
compel  Farmar,  Parker,  Hude  and  Harrison  to  restore 
the  moneys  of  which  they  had  cheated  the  province.* 
But  no  action  in  this  matter  was  pushed  home,  owing  to 
the  opposition  of  the  house.  Soon  after  the  council 
received  a  delegation  of  merchants  including  Peter  Fau- 
connier,  who  represented  the  trouble  and  loss  caused  by 
the  fact  that  the  bills  of  credit  had  not  been  properly 
signed,  a  fact  which  had  caused  them  to  lose  credit. 
They  stated  that  the  merchants  had  resolved  not  to  take 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  ii,  1709-10.  '^ Ibid.,  Jan.  16,  1709-10. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  416, 
*^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  420. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT      411 

any  more  of  them.'  The  council,  however,  had  already 
sent  down  an  act  for  calling  in  and  declaring  void  the 
old  bills  and  enforcing  the  currency  of  new,'  but  the 
house  threw  this  out  absolutely.^ 

The  council  now  at  length  took  up  the  house  bill, 
amending  that  for  the  issue  of  the  original  bills  of  credit 
and  passed  it  with  amendments.*  The  delegation  of 
merchants  had  meanwhile  addressed  themselves  to  the 
house,  and  in  a  memorial  prayed  that  the  house  would 
not  confirm  the  present  bills  of  credit,  but  that  they 
might  be  heard  on  the  same.s  Another  petition  was  also 
presented  from  Trent,  Glenncross,  Wilson  and  other 
traders  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  desiring  to  be 
heard  against  the  bill  enforcing  the  currency  of  the  money 
lately  issued.  A  hearing  was  promptly  given  to  the 
latter  parties.^  The  house  then  accepted  the  council 
changes  in  the  bill  for  amending  the  act  for  the  currency 
of  the  bills  of  credit,^  But  the  session  came  to  an  end 
without  its  receiving  the  assent  of  the  governor. 

Meanwhile  the  house  had  ordered  the  secretary  to  lay 
before  it  all  papers  and  acts  connected  with  the  Canada 
expedition,  and  had  been  informed  by  Basse  that  the 
documents  were  under  consideration  by  the  council.^ 
But  Ingoldsby,  secure  in  having  his  own  needs  provided 
for,  now  decided  to  end  the  session,  already  the  longest 
yet  held,  by  an  adjournment  till  March  17th.* 

When  the  legislature  met  again  it  found  a  new  policy 
to  be  dealt  with  and  a  new  executive  behind  it,  in  the 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  421.  "^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  420. 

^  Assembly  Journal.  Jan.  26,  1709-10. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  422. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  27,  1709-10.  *Ibid.,  Jan.  28,  1709-10. 

"^ Ibid..  Jan.  30,  1709-10.  ^ Ibid.,  Jan.  31,  1709-10. 


412  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

person  of  Governor  Robert  Hunter,  the  ablest  statesman 
whom  the  colonial  history  of  New  Jersey  presents.  Gov- 
ernor Hunter  opened  the  first  session  of  the  sixth  assem- 
bly by  a  businesslike  statement  in  which  he  simply  said 
that  as  long  as  the  unhappy  divisions  of  the  province 
continued  there  was  little  hope  of  successful  work.  He 
therefore  urged  that  they  leave  disputes  of  property  to 
the  laws,  and  join  in  agreement  like  good  subjects.  All 
owned  the  need  of  supporting  the  government.  Several 
other  matters  needing  attention  he  would  bring  forward 
directly.  In  addition  he  would  concur  in  all  that  was 
advantageous.^  A  little  later  he  laid  before  the  house 
several  articles  of  his  instructions  requiring  legislation, 
as  well  as  a  letter  from  the  Queen  in  favor  of  Lady  Love- 
lace.* As  for  the  rest  Hunter  kept  himself  carefully  in 
the  background  and  waited  the  result  of  the  deliberations, 
meanwhile  following  keenly  the  conduct  of  both  council 
and  assembly. 

The  house  after  replying  courteously'  proceeded  to 
work  in  good  spirit.  It  recalled  from  the  council  the 
engrossed  bills  which  had  been  sent  up  during  the  re- 
cent sessions'*  and  not  passed,  and  after  reconsideration, 
sent  a  number  of  them  up  again.  Among  these  were 
the  bill  for  preventing  prosecutions  by  information,^ 
and  the  bill  for  the  amending  the  act  for  the  currency  of 
£3,000  bills  of  credit^  which  had  so  nearly  become 
law  at  the  last  meeting.     The  house  then  went  on  to 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  426. 

-^Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  19,  1710.     The  letter  urged  the  payment  to 
Lady  Lovelace  of  the  ;^8oo  previously  voted  to  her  husband. 
^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  428. 
*■  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  12  and  13,  1710. 
^Ibid.,  Dec.  21,  1710.  ^Ibid.,  Dec.  22,  1710. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFUCT 


413 


further  legislation,  in  part  at  least  upon  lines  suggested 
by  the  governor.  In  all  it  elaborated  nineteen  measures, 
nearly  all  of  which  were  regarded  by  Hunter  as  proper 
and  useful.'  They  included  a  bill  for  regulating  elections, 
which  was  directly  required  by  Hunter's  instructions,  a 
bill  relieving  those  injured  by  the  militia  act,  and  a  bill 
regulating  the  qualifications  of  jurors  which  would  have 
enabled  Quakers  to  serve.  The  house,  however,  regarded 
it  as  useless  to  attempt  a  bill  confirming  the  rights  of 
the  proprietors  until  the  membership  of  the  council 
was  changed.  The  bill  appropriating  £944  for  the 
support  of  the  government  for  two  years  was  prepared 
in  a  new  and  businesslike  manner,  creditable  both  to  the 
assembly  and  to  Hunter.  Upon  taking  up  the  question, 
the  house  asked  the  governor  what  he  would  regard  as 
a  reasonable  support  for  one  year.'  In  reply  Hunter 
submitted  an  account  of  the  charges  of  the  government,' 
and  the  bill  appears  to  have  been  framed  on  the  informa- 
tion given.  It  was  satisfactory  to  Hunter  for  the  time 
being,  though  he  advised  the  Board  of  Trade  that  he 
hoped  in  due  time  to  secure  a  more  proper  sum."* 

But  far  different  was  the  conduct  of  the  council,  con- 
trolled as  it  was  by  the  old  supporters  of  Cornbury  and 
Ingoldsby, — Pinhorne,  Coxe,  William  Hall,  and  the  med- 
dlesome Sonmans.  These  men  soon  made  it  apparent 
that  their  aim  was  to  thwart  the  assembly  and  to  cause 
all  the  trouble  possible  to  the  supporters  of  the  proprie- 
tors and  the  Quakers.  They  proceeded  to  reject  all  the 
bills  except  five,  chiefly  upon  hasty  and  insufficient  pre- 
texts which   left   bare  their  real   motive.     Most  of  the 

^Ngtv  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  51  et  seq.;  p.  118  et  seq. 

^  Assembly  Journal ,  Dec.  21,  1710.  ^Ibid.,  Dec.  23,  1710. 

*New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  64. 


414  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

bills  were  simply  rejected  upon  second  reading,  but  when 
the  subject  matter  was  so  important  that  the  bills  had  to 
be  committed,  they  were  so  clogged  with  amendments 
that  certain  defeat  followed.'  The  result,  of  course,  was 
the  failure  of  all  the  objects  of  the  session.  Even  the 
tactful  remonstrance  of  Hunter  could  not  dissuade  the 
council  from  its  course.''  Only  three  of  the  many  im- 
portant bills  were  saved :  the  act  of  support,  the  act 
amending  the  act  for  the  currency  of  the  bills  of  credit, 
and  the  act  reviving  the  militia  act.^  These  even  Coxe 
and  Sonmans  dared  not  defeat. 

While  this  conflict  was  taking  place,  several  other  col- 
lisions between  the  houses  occurred.  After  several  bills 
had  been  sent  up  by  the  house  to  the  council  the  former 
body  named  a  committee  to  inspect  the  council  minutes 
to  see  what  action  had  been  taken.  They  were  to  get  a 
copy  of  the  minutes  signed  by  the  clerk  and  lay  it  before 
the  house.*  But  the  clerk  of  the  council  refused  to  show 
the  minutes  or  to  give  a  copy  without  order  from  the 
council.5  The  house  then  addressed  Hunter  relative  to 
the  refusal,  and  the  governor  at  once  directed  Basse  to 
lay  before  the  house  copies  of  the  minutes.^  Hunter 
further  ordered  that  in  future  the  minutes  of  the  council 
relative  to  the  passing  of  bills  should  be  kept  in  a  sepa- 
rate book  to  which  the  house  might  have  recourse  at  any 
time.  But  as  to  former  minutes  the  house  must  apply 
to  the  governor  as  they  were  intermixed  with  other 
matters.' 

^JVew  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  51  et  seq.;  vol.  xiii,  p.  434  et  seq. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  54. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  10,  1710-11. 

^ Ibtd.,  Dec.  28,  1710.  ^Ibid.,  Dec.  29,  1710. 

^Ibid.,  Dec.  30,  1710.  'Ibid.,  Jan.  i,  1710-11. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT      415 

This  substantial  victory  as  well  as  the  substitution  by 
Hunter  of  William  Bradford  for  Capt.  Pinhorne  as  clerk 
of  the  assembly  encouraged  the  representatives.'  They 
now  asked  Hunter  for  a  "  perusal  "  of  the  council  minutes 
relative  to  the  Canada  expedition  and  also  for  a  copy  of 
the  address  to  the  Crown  sent  by  the  council  in  In- 
goldsby's  time.'  As  to  the  latter,  however,  the  secre- 
tary reported  that  though  he  had  been  ordered  to  show 
minutes  regarding  bills,  the  council  would  not  consent 
that  the  address  be  shown.^  As  to  the  records  of  the 
Canada  expedition,  Basse  stated  that  he  could  not  deliver 
certain  of  the  papers  without  direct  orders  of  the  council 
to  that  effect.*  The  house,  however,  might  have  copies. ^ 
The  house,  therefore,  resolved  that  the  secretary's  action 
had  disabled  it  from  proceeding  upon  the  country's  busi- 
ness and  proceeded  to  address  the  governor  against 
Basse.*  The  address  declared  that  the  house  believed 
that  Basse  falsified  when  he  said  he  had  orders  from  the 
council  not  to  show  the  documents,  and  that  it  was  in- 
tolerable that  the  representative  body  should  be  insulted 
by  one  whose  crimes  and  misdemeanors  deserved  public 
censure. 

A  few  days  later  a  message  was  receiv^ed  from  the 
council  through  Basse  in  person  in  which  it  was  desired 
that  the  house  particularize  as  to  which  papers  relating 
to  the  Canada  expedition  they  wished  to  examine.  The 
house  after  inspecting  its  journal  replied  that  they  desired 
to  see  all  the  papers  which  had  originally  been  laid  be- 
fore the  committee  of  the  two  houses  and  which,  when 
they  had  applied  to  Ingoldsby  in  January,  1709,  he  had 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  i.  1710-11. 

"^Ibid.,  Jan.  2,  1710-11.  ^ Ibid.,  Jan.  3,  1710-11. 

^ Ibid.,  Jan.  8,  1710-11.  ^Ibid.,  Jan.  11,  1710-11. 

*Ibid.;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  73. 


41 6  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

informed  them  were  then  under  consideration  before  the 
council.  This  answer  was  conveyed  to  the  council  by  a 
committee  which  further  informed  that  body  that  the  right 
of  the  house  to  all  the  papers  was  indisputable.'  Soon  after 
the  house  was  informed  that  the  council  had  named  Coxe 
and  Gordon  as  a  committee  to  examine  which  of  the  papers 
need  be  copied.  These  copies  were  to  be  for  the  use  of 
the  council  and  the  originals  would  be  laid  before  the 
house  in  a  few  hours. ^  Next  day  Basse  handed  over  the 
documents. 3  He  refused,  however,  to  let  i:he  house  see 
the  reasons  entered  by  Lawrence  and  Mott  upon  the 
council  journal  for  their  voting  against  the  appropriation 
of  the  moneys  for  the  expedition.'*  But  the  house  as 
usual  applied  to  Hunter  who  promptly  sent  them  a  copy 
of  the  entry. 5  The  representatives  upon  consideration 
of  their  conduct  censured  Lawrence  and  Mott,  and 
when  the  latter  after  some  hesitation  refused  to  admit 
his  fault,  he  was  expelled.^ 

Meanwhile  the  house  had  obtained  from  Capt.  Pin- 
horne,  its  former  clerk,  a  copy  of  the  address  sent  by 
Ingoldsby  and  the  council  to  the  Crown  in  Cornbury's 
time  which  had  been  furnished  by  Lord  Lovelace.  After 
examining  this  worthy  document  the  assembly  voted  to 
address  the  Queen  in  defense  of  itself  and  former  assem- 
blies;  ^  it  declared  all  signers  of  the  scandalous  paper 
unworthy  to  be  members  of  the  house,  and  forthwith 
expelled  William  Sandford,  a  former  councilor,  then 
serving  as  member  from  Bergen.^     When  Sandford  and 

^Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  12  and  13,  1710-11. 
'Ibid.,  Jan.  15,  1710-11.  "^Ibid.,  Jan.  16,  1710-11. 

*Ibid.,  Jan.  15,  1710-11.  ''Ibid.,  Jan.  17,  1710-11. 

^Ibid.,  Jan.  19,  1710-11.  ''Ibid.,  Jan.  17,  1710-11. 

'^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  22. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT      417 

Mott  were  re-elected  they  were  declared  incapable  of 
sitting.  In  a  lengthy  and  able  representation  to  the 
governor  the  assembly  not  only  answered  the  charges 
made  in  the  council's  address,  but  thoroughly  exposed 
the  abuses  of  the  recent  administrations.  This  document 
undoubtedly  made  a  great  impression  upon  Hunter.' 

Meanwhile  the  house  had  obtained  from  Hunter  a 
sight  of  the  bond  of  the  former  receiver-general,  Faucon- 
nier,'  and  a  committee  examined  his  accounts. '  These 
were  discovered  to  be  faulty  in  several  respects,  and  the 
governor  was  addressed  for  relief.* 

During  the  latter  part  of  the  session  the  house  was 
occupied  in  investigating  charges  brought  against 
William  Hall  and  Basse  for  improper  use  of  their  powers, 
especially  during  certain  recent  court  proceedings. 
Hall  was  accused  of  abusing  his  power  as  justice  at 
Salem  by  illegally  imprisoning  and  coercing  one  Gotbolt 
and  his  wife.  Basse  was  charged  with  numerous  misde- 
meanors, especially  in  the  proceedings  against  Thomas 
Gordon  during  Cornbury's  time.  The  attack  upon  the 
secretary  was  based  partly  upon  charges  brought  in  the 
assembly  by  George  Willocks,  the  old  foe  of  the  clique 
to  which  Basse  belonged.  Sonmans  and  Pinhorne  were 
also  involved.  The  assembly  finally  presented  addresses 
against  both  the  secretary  s  and  Hall.^  When  at  length 
Hunter,  on  Feb.  10,  1710-11,  adjourned  the  assembly, 
the  feeling  between  the  two  houses  had  become  so  bitter 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  24  et  seq. 

"^  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  8,  1710-11. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  350. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  25,  Feb.  2,  1710-11. 

''New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  pp.  71,  87. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  79. 


4i8 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


that  hot  words  and  personalities  were  uttered  even  dur- 
ing conferences/ 

But  although  the  first  session  of  the  sixth  assembly 
thus  ended  in  disagreement  and  failure,  it  brought  with 
it  most  important  results.  Hunter  now  saw  exactly 
where  the  difficulty  lay.  He  recognized  the  impos- 
sibiHty  of  carrying  on  legislation  successfully  with  hostile 
majorities  in  the  two  houses  of  legislature,  and  he  was 
convinced  that  the  proprietary  party  in  control  of  the 
lower  house  represented  the  true  sentiments  of  the 
province.^  Upon  this  opinion  he  based  his  future 
course.  That  he,  a  shrewd  and  upright  outsider,  should 
come  to  such  a  conclusion  is  one  of  the  strongest  argu- 
ments in  favor  of  the  "  Country  Party."  Whatever  our 
sympathy  for  the  original  settlers  of  Elizabethtown,  it 
seems  certain  that  Sonmans,  Hall,  Pinhorne,  and  their 
followers  now  constituted  a  corrupt  clique  of  office 
holders.  The  argument  that  Hunter  as  a  Scotchman 
was  naturally  favorable  to  his  fellow  Scots,  the  leading 
proprietors,  is  counterbalanced  by  the  fact  that  the 
leaders  of  the  council  made  great  parade  of  churchman- 
ship  while  among  their  opponents  were  many  dissenters 
and  Quakers.  Hunter  though  tolerant  was  himself  a 
good  churchman. 

Immediately  upon  the  close  of  the  session  Hunter 
wrote  fully  to  the  Lords  of  Trade  stating  exactly  what 
had  occurred  and  casting  all  the  blame  upon  the  council. 
He  declared  that  nothing  could  be  accomplished  while 
Pinhorne,  Sonmans,  Coxe  and  Hall  held  their  positions 
and  accordingly  recommended  strongly  that  they  be  re- 
moved from  the  council  at  once  and  their  places  be  sup- 
plied by  men  of  the  opposing  interest.^     From  this  time 

"^  Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  9,  1710-11. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  59  ^/  seq. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT 


419 


on  the  governor  undoubtedly  had  a  full  understanding 
with  Morris  and  the  assembly  leaders,  for  they  acquiesced 
in  his  policy  of  making  no  further  efforts  at  serious 
legislation  until  the  cumbersome  machinery  across  the 
water  should  bring  about  the  required  changes.  If  it 
had  not  not  been  for  the  circumstances  of  the  war  with 
France,  which  it  must  be  remembered  was  all  this  time 
going  on,  it  is  probable  that  Hunter  would  not  even 
have  summoned  another  session  of  the  assembly  until 
this  had  been  accomplished. 

As  it  was,  however,  a  brief  session  was  held  at  Perth 
Amboy  in  July  171 1  for  the  purpose  of  providing  New 
Jersey's  quota  for  the  Walker  expedition.'  The  session 
was  harmonious  as  the  council  dared  not  seem  to  oppose 
the  wishes  of  the  Crown,  and  the  assembly  acted  with 
dispatch.  There  was  no  attempt  at  general  legislation 
and  immediately  upon  the  passage  of  bills  for  the  raising 
of  12,500  ounces  of  plate  in  the  form  of  bills  of  credit 
and  for  encouraging  volunteers  to  go  upon  the  expedi- 
iton  to  Canada,  Hunter  adjourned  the  assembly.* 

A  further  interval  followed  during  which  Hunter  again 
applied  to  the  home  government  urging  action,^  and  at 
length  his  advice,  supported  by  the  efforts  of  the  West 
Jersey  Society,*  prevailed.  On  August  27,  1712,  the 
Lords  of  Trade  recommended  to  the  Queen  that  Pin- 
home,  Coxe,  Sonmans,  and  Hall  be  removed  from  the 
council  and  Anderson,  William  Morris,  John  Hamilton, 
and  Reading  be  named  in  their  places.  Elisha  Parker 
and  Thomas  Byerly  were  recommended  for  vacancies. 
All  of  these  appointments  were  duly  approved  by  Queen 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  476. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  July  16,  171 1;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  137. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  149,  151.  *Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  115,  140,  152. 


^O  T^^  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Anne  in  June  1713  except  that  of  William  Morris,  who 
had  died/  But  this  victory  was  not  won  without  op- 
position as  William  Dockwra,  the  old  ally  of  Sonmans 
and  Coxe,  and  certain  of  the  Anglican  clergy  in  the 
province  had  used  every  effort  to  prevent  it,"" 

Hunter  was  now  secure  in  the  support  and  sympathy 
of  a  majority  in  both  houses,  and  on  Dec.  8,  1713,  once 
more  met  the  assembly  at  Burlington.  The  session  be- 
gan with  every  indication  of  harmony  and  satisfaction. 
Hunter  in  his  speech  expressed  his  pleasure  at  meeting 
the  assembly  again  and  said  he  believed  they  would  be 
glad  to  see  him  "  in  such  good  company."  He  congrat- 
ulated them  on  the  peace  which  the  Queen  had  given 
them  and  thought  that,  as  the  majority  of  the  council 
now  held  views  in  agreement  with  their  own,  it  would 
be  well  for  the  houses  to  hold  frequent  conferences.  As 
to  matters  of  legislation  he  reminded  them  of  the  neces- 
sity of  supporting  the  government.  He  thought  the 
time  had  come  to  confirm  the  rights  of  the  proprietors 
and  to  reconsider  some  of  the  recent  bills  which  the 
council  had  spoiled.  Several  other  matters  of  local  con- 
cern were  also  suggested. ^  The  assembly  replied  in  an 
equally  pleasant  spirit.*  They  congratulated  Hunter  on 
being  in  such  good  company,  expressed  their  obligation 
to  the  Queen,  and  hoped  they  would  show  that  they 
were  not  ungrateful. 

The  session  thus  begun  fulfilled  in  every  respect  its 
early  promise.  From  December  8th  to  March  17th,  the 
houses  remained  steadily  at  work  and  carried  to  com- 
pletion more  than  thirty  bills,  many  of  them  dealing  with 

^ New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  iv,  pp.  168,  169. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  116,  153.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  484. 

*lbid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  486. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT      421 

important  subjects.  During  all  the  work  the  council 
and  assembly  cooperated  heartily.  Numerous  confer- 
ences were  held  to  the  satisfaction  of  both  bodies,  and 
though  there  were  some  few  differences  of  opinion,  no 
conflict  whatever  took  place.  The  statesmanship  of 
Hunter  had  accomplished  its  result. 

Though  numerous  of  the  measures  passed  were  of 
account,  a  discussion  of  the  strictly  legislative  work  of 
the  session  does  not  belong  under  our  present  topic. 
Most  of  the  acts  will  be  considered  elsewhere.  It  is  to 
be  noted  here,  however,  that  the  victorious  party  carried 
through  triumphantly  many  of  the  bills  which  had  been 
subjects  of  conflict  between  the  assembly  and  the  late 
majority  in  the  council.  Among  these  were  a  bill  for 
preventing  malicious  informations,  a  bill  for  the  Quakers, 
giving  validity  to  their  declarations,  and  thus  enabling 
them  to  hold  all  offices  of  trust,  and  a  bill  for  preventing 
corruption  of  the  courts.'  It  is  interesting  to  notice 
that  though  a  bill  for  confirming  the  rights  of  the  pro- 
prietors of  West  Jersey  was  considered,''  it  was  not 
passed  in  time  for  acceptance  by  the  governor. 

The  house  exercised  and  thus  confirmed  its  right  to 
inspect  the  accounts  of  all  the  provincial  officers.  Not 
only  were  the  accounts  of  Thomas  Gordon,  receiver- 
general  and  "treasurer"  of  the  province,  considered, ^ 
but  also  the  accounts  of  the  treasurers  of  the  recent  ex- 
peditions against  Canada,  Gordon  for  East  Jersey,  and 
Thomas  Gardiner  and  Dr.  John  Robert  for  the  western 
division.*     The  assembly  also  appointed   committees   to 

^  Assembly  Journal,  March  11,  1713-14.  'Ibid.,  Feb.  19,  1 713-4. 

*New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  185;  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  21, 
1713-4. 

*Ibid.,  Jan.  22,  23,  Feb.  6,  1713-14;  liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  pp. 
134,  147- 


^2  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

examine  the  statements  of  the  collectors  of  the  taxes  for 
the  recent  Canada  expedition  in  the  several  counties/ 

The  matter  of  the  support  of  the  government  and  the 
payment  of  the  arrears  since  the  last  act  was  adjusted 
without  dispute.  Gordon's  accounts  showed  that  he  had 
in  hand  £1,162  los.  3d.,  and  this  sum  was  appropriated 
to  pay  the  arrearages  from  June  1712,  to  Sept.  1713. 
Hunter  was  to  have  £500  a  year  salary  and  £100  for  ex- 
penses.'' An  additional  act  of  support  gave  £2,550  for 
the  payment  of  expenses  for  two  years.^  These  bills 
though  approved  without  comment  by  Hunter  were  re- 
garded by  him  as  being  too  small  in  amount. 

Throughout  the  session  Hunter  kept  himself  in  the 
background  and  made  no  effort  to  interfere  in  the  de- 
liberations. The  journal  of  the  representatives  scarcely 
mentions  him  except  when  he  formally  accepts  the 
measures  at  the  end  of  the  session. 

But  the  victory  of  Hunter  and  the  proprietary  party 
was  not  a  final  one.  The  death  of  the  Queen  and  the 
accession  of  George  I  put  an  end  to  the  sixth  assembly 
which  had  served  so  well  the  purposes  of  the  governor, 
while  it  made  it  necessary  for  Hunter,  himself,  to  obtain 
a  new  commission.  Dr.  Daniel  Coxe,  the  former  pro- 
prietor of  West  Jersey  endeavored  in  the  interests  of  his 
son  to  prevent  his  reappointment*  and  in  attacking 
Hunter  he  was  joined  by  the  resentful  Cornbury,  now 
Earl  of  Clarendon. 5  The  eflfort  to  overthrow  Hunter  in 
England  failed,  however,  as  a  new  commission  was 
promptly  given.^  The  issue  of  this  patent  put  an  end  to 
a  newly  elected  assembly  before  it  had  met.  ^ 

'Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  i,  2  and  4,  1713-14. 

^Ibid.,  Jan.  23,  Feb.  26,  1713-14.  '^Jbid.,  Feb.  17,  March  17,  1713. 
*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  pp.  198,  203.  ^  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  199. 
^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  202.  ''Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  7. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT 


423 


Meanwhile  the  elements  of  opposition  in  New  Jersey 
itself  were  being  reorganized.  The  leaders  were  now 
more  especially  Col.  Coxe  and  Basse,  who  had  been  super- 
seded as  provincial  secretary  by  James  Smith.'  But  they 
found  allies  in  the  Rev.  Mr.  Talbot  and  other  high 
churchmen  who  regarded  Hunter's  removal  of  Coxe  and 
his  fellow  council  members  as  an  attack  upon  Angli- 
canism in  the  interest  of  Quakers  and  dissenters.  The 
strength  of  the  opposition  lay  in  the  western  division,  in 
Salem,  Gloucester,  and  Cape  May,  a  fact  rather  remark- 
able as  East  Jersey  had  always  been  the  center  of  anti- 
proprietary  feeling. 

When  the  new  elections  were  held,  Coxe  and  his 
supporters  were  successful  to  such  an  extent  that  Hun- 
ter evidently  feared  being  confronted  by  a  hostile  assem- 
bly.^ He  called  a  session  for  December,  171 5,  at  Bur- 
lington, but  the  representatives  were  slow  in  appearing, 
and  Hunter  after  consultation  with  his  council  declared 
the  assembly  dissolved  before  it  had  actually  organized, 
and  ordered  a  new  election.  The  reason  assigned  was 
that  several  of  the  members  chosen  were  *'  notorious 
persons."  3  But  the  result  was  hardly  more  satisfactory 
to  the  executive  as  Coxe  and  William  Hall  were  again 
returned  and  controlled  a  majority  of  the  lower  house. 

Hunter  at  length  summoned  the  assembly  at  Amboy 
on  April  4,  1716,  and  the  house  at  once  chose  Coxe 
speaker,  an  act  in  itself  a  declaration  of  war.*  The  gov- 
ernor's opening  speech  was  certainly  not  calculated  to 
pacify  his  opponents. ^     He  said  that  the  delay  in  calling 

^  New  Jersey  Assembly,  vol.  xiv,  p.  2.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  210. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  4-6. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  April  4,  1716. 
^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol,  xiv,  p.  7. 


424  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

the  assembly  was  due  to  the  recent  long  session  at  New- 
York  and  his  necessary  presence  on  the  frontier.  De- 
spite the  insinuations  of  two  persons  at  home  who  pre- 
tended to  have  been  instructed  from  this  side,  he  defied  the 
most  malicious  to  name  an  instance  where  he  had  not 
acted  for  the  good  of  the  country.  As  to  the  work  of 
the  session,  the  last  assembly  had  passed  so  many  good 
laws  that  what  was  left  could  not  take  much  time.  It 
was  necessary  of  course  to  support  the  government. 
After  a  forceful  reference  to  the  defeat  of  the  ''hellish 
designs"  of  the  Pretender,  he  concluded  by  promising 
to  concur  in  all  good  action. 

The  house  at  once  made  application  to  Hunter  for  his 
instructions  relative  to  the  sitting  of  the  assembly  at 
Perth  Amboy.'  The  governor  then  promply  submitted 
article  twenty-five  of  the  instructions,  which  ordered 
that  the  assembly  sit  alternately  at  Perth  Amboy  and 
Burlington,  "or  otherwise  as  you  with  the  advice  of  our 
aforesaid  council  shall  think  fit  in  case  of  extraordinary 
necessity  to  ap't  them,"^'  But  the  assembly  nevertheless 
drew  up  an  address  demanding  to  be  adjourned  to  Bur- 
lington, on  the  ground  that  the  act  of  Ingoldsby's  time 
regulating  the  place  of  the  sitting  of  representatives,  one 
of  the  few  provincial  laws  which  had  been  confirmed  by 
the  Crown,  required  that  all  sessions  be  held  at  that 
town.3 

Hunter  had  expected  such  an  attack,  for  he  had  con- 
sulted his  council  relative  to  his  powers  previous  to  the 
session."*  In  replying  to  the  assembly  he  took  the 
ground  that  the  power  to  call  sessions  was  a  part  of  the 

''  Assembly  Journal,  April  5,  1716. 

^Ibid.,  April  6,  1716.  ^ Ibid.,  April  7,  1716. 

*New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  6. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT       ^25 

prerogative  of  the  Crown,  and  that  the  action  of  the  late 
Queen  could  not  be  binding  upon  her  successor.  The 
act  in  question  would  have  to  be  confirmed  by  King 
George  before  it  would  be  again  in  force.  He  had  rea- 
sons of  great  weight  why  the  session  should  be  at  Am- 
boy.'  The  executive  was  so  careful  in  this  matter  that 
upon  examining  the  assembly  journal  he  objected  to  the 
entry  of  his  reply,  thinking  with  apparent  reason  that 
there  had  been  an  attempt  to  misrepresent  what  he  said.' 
He  therefore  sent  his  answer  in  writing  and  caused  it  to 
be  entered. 3  Immediately  afterward  the  speaker  "re- 
turned," and  requested  Hunter  to  repeat  what  he  had 
originally  said,  "for  the  sake  of  his  memory."  Hunter 
did  so,  and  this  second  statement  also  was  entered.  The 
governor  now  charged  the  assembly  with  endeavoring  to 
usurp  the  executive  powers  of  the  government,  when 
as  a  fact  they  had  "  but  a  third  share  in  the  legislative."  "• 
After  this  skirmish  the  house  proceeded  to  business, 
drawing  up  several  bills  and  undertaking  to  examine  the 
accounts  of  Thomas  Gordon,  the  receiver-general  and 
treasurer,  and  of  all  those  concerned  in  the  expeditions 
to  Canada  and  the  issuing  of  the  bills  of  credit.'  The 
majority  as  usual  endeavored  to  make  their  opponents 
feel  their  power.  William  Harrison,  the  sherifif  of  Glou- 
cester, after  an  examination,  was  ordered  to  receive  a 
reprimand  for  holding  an  improper  election.^  The  quali- 
fications of  Capt.  Farmar,  always  a  supporter  of  the 
governor,  were  challenged,  and  he  was  apparently  about 
to  be  disqualified.^  A  rather  interesting  point  was  raised 
by  the  election  of  William  Clews  as  member  from  Salem 

'  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  10. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  April  7,  1716.  ^Ihid.,  April  9,  1716. 

^ Ibid.,  April  9,  1716.  ^Ibid.,  April  11,  12  and  13,  1716. 

''Ibid.,  April  28,  1716.  ''Ibid.,  April  25,  1716. 


426 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


county.  He  refused  to  take  the  qualifying  oath,  and  as 
Hunter  did  not  regard  him  as  either  a  Quaker  or  a 
reputed  Quaker  he  refused  to  let  him  affirm,  as  the  ben- 
efit of  the  act  giving  validity  to  affirmations  was  confined 
to  the  Friends.^  But  when  the  house  informed  the  gov- 
ernor that  Clews  was  reputed  a  Quaker  he  promptly 
qualified  him.'  A  bill  was  brought  in  relating  to  land 
records  in  East  Jersey,  and  on  April  26th  the  house 
resolved  that  the  proclamations  dissolving  the  last  three 
assemblies  and  such  other  papers  as  the  house  judged 
necessary  be  laid  before  it.*  Before  any  open  conflict 
took  place,  however.  Hunter  prorogued  the  assembly 
till  May  7th. 

The  results  of  the  prorogation  were  far-reaching,  and 
if  they  were  foreseen  by  Hunter  he  exercised  great  polit- 
ical shrewdness  in  taking  the  step.  When  May  7th 
arrived  he  continued  the  adjournment  till  May  14th,  and 
on  that  day  only  nine  members  appeared. ^  All  the  lead- 
ing opponents  of  the  government  including  the  speaker, 
Coxe,  Hall,  Clews,  and  Spicer  had  purposely  absented 
themselves.  But  if  their  design  was,  as  seems  probable, 
to  baffle  the  executive  in  this  way  they  were  wofully  at 
fault.  Their  absence  gave  the  proprietary  supporters 
the  very  opportunity  which  they  sought.  On  the  19th 
the  members  who  were  present  addressed  Hunter  pray- 
ing him  to  take  such  measures  as  would  secure  the 
attendance  of  the  absentees.  He  accordingly  sent  war- 
rants to  "several  absentees"  commanding  their  attend- 
ance, and  four  obeyed.'*  Hunter  then  sent  for  the 
members  and  recommended  them  to  meet  and  choose  a 
speaker  "in  order   to   enable  themselves   to  send   their 

^  Assembly  Journal,  April  25,  1716.  ^Ibid.,  Apr.  26,  1716. 

^Ibid.,  May  14,  1716.  ^Ibid.,  May  19,  1716. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT      427 

sergeant-at-arms  for  the  absentees." '  On  the  20th, 
a  majority  being  present,  they  accordingly  met  and 
chose  John  Kinsey  speaker.  This  selection  of  course 
meant  that  the  supporters  of  Hunter  were  in  control  of 
the  house.'' 

Hunter  in  his  speech  expressed  his  hearty  approval  of 
the  choice  the  assembly  had  made.  He  hoped  that  the 
conduct  of  the  late  speaker  would  open  the  eyes  of  all 
such  as  had  been  imposed  upon  by  him.  As  to  recom- 
mendations, he  referred  to  his  speech  at  the  last  session, 
but  as  harvest  was  drawing  near  he  hardly  thought  they 
could  do  more  than  the  most  necessary  things  like  pro- 
viding for  the  support  of  the  public  credit.  They  knew 
that  the  time  of  expiration  of  their  bills  was  approaching, 
and  something  must  be  done  to  prevent  confusion  in  the 
currency.* 

But  though  the  house  appears  to  have  worked  indus- 
triously it  did  not  accomplish  much  in  the  way  of  legis- 
lation. On  June  first  it  asked  the  governor  for  an  ad- 
journment if  it  were  in  any  way  possible  until  the  latter 
part  of  September,  as  corn  harvest  was  at  hand,  and  then 
hay  harvest  and  seed  time  would  demand  the  attention 
of  the  members.  Hunter  at  once  consented,  adjourning 
them  until  October  third.  Only  one  bill,  that  to  enforce 
the  payment  of  all  public  taxes,  was  completed  and  ac- 
cepted.3 

But  during  the  month  important  political  changes  had 
already  been  accomplished.  The  house,  after  voting  that 
Coxe's  absence  was  a  breach  of  trust,  expelled  him.* 
The  other  absentees  were  ordered  to  repair  at  once  to  the 
house  and  each  was  to  be  served  with  a  copy  of  the  order.^ 

^  Assembly  Journal,  May  iq,  1716. 

"* Ibid.,  May  20,  1716.  ^Ibid.,  June  i,  1716. 

*  Ibid  ,  May  21  and  22,  1716.  ^  Ibid.,  May  21,  1716. 


428  T'HE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

William  Lawrence  who  had  not  only  failed  to  appear  but 
had  also  disobeyed  Hunter's  warrant  was  arrested  by  the 
sergeant-at-arms,  brought  before  the  house/  and  com- 
pelled to  acknowledge  his  guilt.'  As  Brockholst  and 
Ackerman,  the  members  from  Bergen,  also  disregarded 
the  governor's  warrants,  they  were  declared  in  contempt 
and  expelled.'  Later  in  the  session,  when  the  sergeant- 
at-arms  reported  that  he  had  served  the  orders  upon  the 
other  absentees,  and  they  paid  no  attention,  the  house 
likewise  expelled  Hall  and  Clews  of  Salem  County,  and 
Bull,  Huling  and  Joyce,  also  of  the  western  division.* 
Spicer  was  declared  in  contempt,  and  was  to  be  served 
with  a  warrant,  but  he  was  not  expelled,  as  he  had  not 
attended  any  of  the  sessions,  and  had  not  even  qualified 
as  a  member.  New  elections  were  ordered  where  men 
had  been  expelled,  but  the  expelled  members  were  de- 
clared incapable  of  sitting.  By  this  wholesale  procedure 
the  control  of  the  lower  house  was  permanently  secured 
by  the  proprietary  party. 

It  is  almost  needless  to  add  that  during  the  session 
the  house  had  agreed  perfectly  with  Hunter  and  the 
council.  In  their  addresses  to  his  excellency  the  mem- 
bers declared  that  his  whole  administration  had  been  "  a 
continued  series  of  justice  and  moderation,"  and  declared 
that  the  sole  study  of  Coxe  was  to  disturb  the  tranquillity 
of  the  province.^  Council  and  assembly  joined  in  send- 
ing an  address  to  the  Crown  expressing  their  loyalty.^ 

It  was  natural  that  the  governor  after  obtaining  such 
an  agreeable  house  should  not  be  in  a  hurry  to  dissolve 

"^Assembly  Journal,  May  22,  1716.  ^Ibid.,  May  23,  1716. 

^Ibid.,  May  25,  1716.  *Ibid.,  May  30,  31,  1716. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  xiv,  p.  21;  vol.  iv,  p.  251. 
*  Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  25;  vol.  iv,  p.  252. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT 


429 


it,  and  indeed  during  the  remaining  five  years  o(  his  ad- 
ministration the  seventh  assembly  continued  in  existence. 
After  the  rout  of  Coxe,  for  such  it  really  was,  open  op- 
position to  the  policy  of  Hunter  collapsed.  Coxe  him- 
self left  the  province,  and  after  a  sojourn  in  Pennsylvania, 
sailed  for  England.'  William  Hall  soon  after  died,  and 
Basse,  like  a  true  politician,  made  his  peace  with  the 
existing  powers.  Yet  on  one  point  the  foes  of  Hunter 
had  won  a  fruitless  victory,  for  the  Lords  of  Trade  in 
1716  had  written,  stating  that  as  the  act  regarding  the 
sitting  of  assemblies  had  been  formally  confirmed,  it 
must  stand,  notwithstanding  the  change  in  sovereigns, 
until  superseded  by  another  act.' 

The  third  session  of  the  seventh  assembly  met  in 
November,  1716,  at  Chesterfield,  or  Crosswicks,  near 
Burlington.3  The  meeting  was  not  held  at  the  latter 
town  itself  because  of  an  outbreak  of  small-pox.  New 
elections  had  been  held  where  members  had  been  ex- 
pelled, and  the  membership  of  the  house  was  nearly  full. 
But  none  of  the  opposition  leaders  held  seats,  and  there 
were  few  serious  differences  in  opinion.  Basse  repre- 
sented Cape  May,  but  proved  a  peaceful  and  useful  mem- 
ber. Jacob  Spicer,  too,  was  brought  in  early  in  the 
session  in  the  custody  of  the  sergeant-at-arms,  but  he 
excused  his  prolonged  absence  on  the  ground  of  extra- 
ordinary business,  and  said  that  his  conduct  was  not  due 
to  contempt.  The  house  then  voted  to  receive  him,  and 
he  was  qualified.*  The  greatest  harmony  prevailed  dur- 
ing the  entire  session,  a  fact  which  was  the  more  re- 
markable since  much  legislation  was  accomplished. 

Sixteen  measures,  some  of  them  important,  were  carried 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  258.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  227. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  27,  1716.  *Ibid.,  Dec.  28,  29,  1716. 


430  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

through.  But  a  great  deal  of  time  was  spent  on  financial 
questions.  The  accounts  of  the  treasurer,  Gordon,  were 
examined  by  the  assembly  and  a  committee  of  the  coun- 
cil named  by  Hunter  at  the  request  of  the  former  body.^ 
Dr.  Roberts,  the  treasurer  of  the  western  division  was 
compelled  to  submit  his  accounts,  being  arrested  and 
brought  before  the  house  by  these  rgeant-at-arms.''  The 
figures  of  the  treasurers  were  finally  approved,^  but  the 
greatest  remissness  was  found  in  the  collection  of  the 
taxes,  Burlington  alone  being  in  arrears  £246  8s.  lod., 
the  whole  amount  of  the  last  tax.'^  Much  attention  was 
also  given  to  the  handling  of  the  bills  of  credit.  The 
act  of  support  received  much  attention,  and  it  was 
eventually  decided  to  vote  support  for  three  years.  The 
governor's  salary  was  raised  £100  and  other  officers 
were  likewise  given  increased  pay.^  The  work  of  the 
session  was  not  only  approved,  but  viewed  with  satisfac- 
tion by  Hunter.^  But  the  shrewd  Scot  was  careful,  as 
usual,  to  keep  himself  in  the  background  during  the 
debates.  Desire  to  dictate  openly  was  certainly  not  one 
of  Hunter's  faults. 

The  governor  did  not  deem  it  necessary  to  summon 
the  assembly  again  till  April,  171 8,  when  they  met  at 
Amboy.  He  put  before  them  as  the  chief  need  of  the 
session  the  support  of  the  government,  as  the  former  act 
was  about  to  expire.^  But  the  house  replied  in  a  respect- 
ful address  that  though  they  were  ready  to  provide  the 
needed  support,  the  private  affairs  of  the  members  did 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  17,  18,  1716. 

"^Ibid.,  Dec.  29,  1716;  Jan.  i,  1716-17. 

^Ibid.,  Jan.  14,  1716-17;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  51. 

*^  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  14,  1716-17.  ^Ibid.,  Dec.  20,  1716-17. 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  pp.  2T^,  291.       '^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  78. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT       431 

not  permit  of  a  long  session.  Therefore  they  prayed  to 
be  adjourned  till  the  fall  or  winter.'  With  this  reason- 
able request  Hunter  promptly  complied.  Confidence 
and  good  feeling  were  displayed  by  both  governor  and 
house. 

Meanwhile  Coxe  in  London  had  been  making  repre- 
sentations to  the  home  government  against  Hunter,'  and 
rumors  were  spread  by  his  supporters  in  New  Jersey 
that  the  latter  was  about  to  be  superseded.  A  paper 
charging  Hunter  with  various  offenses,  especially  in  con- 
nection with  the  proceedings  of  the  recalcitrant  members 
of  the  seventh  assembly,  was  drawn  up  and  signed  by 
about  fifty  of  the  anti-proprietary  party  in  the  province.^ 
These  actions  evidently  caused  Hunter  uneasiness,  and 
he  took  every  means  to  defend  himself.*  He  was  in 
no  serious  danger,  however,  and  upon  investigation  his 
administration  received  the  approval  of  the  Crown. '  No 
disorder  of  any  kind  had  occurred  in  the  province. 

In  January,  1 718-19,  Hunter  met  his  assembly  for  the 
last  time,  and  while  the  session  was  harmonious  and  suc- 
cessful it  was  marked  by  several  important  considerations. 
In  his  opening  speech  the  governor  reminded  the  mem- 
bers of  the  fact  that  the  adjournment  to  this  time  was 
occasioned  by  their  own  desires.  He  spoke  of  the  need 
of  further  support,  and  made  a  plea  for  more  liberal  sal- 
aries for  the  officers  of  the  province.  The  assembly  was 
also  reminded  of  the  necessity  of  legislation  on  the  cur- 
rency. The  passage  of  an  act  providing  for  the  ascer- 
taining of  the  division  line  between  New  Jersey  and  New 
York  was  advised,  and  lastly  Hunter,  in  accordance  with 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  80. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  262.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  306. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  312.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  327,  334. 


432  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

instructions,  urged  the  appointment  of  an  agent,  since 
New  Jersey  was  the  only  province  unsupplied,  and  the 
business  of  the  province  suffered  in  consequence.  The 
governor  asked  dispatch,  and  referred  to  his  own  un- 
happy state  of  health.' 

The  house  as  usual  replied  by  an  address. =*  This  was 
courteous,  but  certainly  did  not  meet  the  wishes  of  the 
executive  in  all  respects.  They  would  provide  support 
and  see  that  no  injury  was  done  by  the  bills  of  credit. 
They  were  willing  to  pass  an  act  for  the  division  line, 
but  humbly  maintained  that  the  expense  should  be  borne 
by  the  proprietors.  As  for  an  agent  they  regretted  that 
the  means  of  the  province  were  not  sufficient  to  main- 
tain one.  The  address  concluded  with  expressions  of 
loyalty  to  the  king  and  regard  for  Hunter. 

The  assembly  passed  after  lengthy  consideration,  but 
no  open  objection,  acts  not  only  for  ascertaining  the 
dividing  line  from  New  York,  but  also  for  running  the 
partition  line  between  East  and  West  Jersey.  An  act  of 
support  was  also  carried,  but  the  assembly  would  not 
advance  salaries.  Indeed,  the  salary  of  the  chief  justice 
narrowly  escaped  reduction,  and  several  of  the  subor- 
dinate officers  were  actually  reduced.^  The  act  was  for 
only  one  year,  but  it  was  understood  that  this  was  be- 
cause of  Hunter's  approaching  retirement. 

Much  time,  as  usual,  was  spent  upon  financial  affairs. 
After  consideration  Hunter  was  requested  to  name  two 
treasurers  in  future,  one  for  each  division.  To  this  he 
readily  agreed  "as  it  was  for  the  ease  of  the  people."* 
Committees  of  the  house  carefully  audited  the  accounts 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  8i. 

'^  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  23,  1718-19. 

^ Ibid.,  Jan.  29,  31,  1718-19.  ^Ibid.,  Feb.  4,  1718-19. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT      433 

of  Gordon,  the  provincial  treasurer,  and  of  Roberts,  the 
treasurer  of  the  western  division,  and  found  them  un- 
satisfactory in  the  extreme.'  The  assembly  then  ad- 
dressed Hunter  to  name  some  one  else  in  place  of  Gor- 
don.' Just  before  the  close  of  the  meeting  the  governor 
spoke  to  the  house  on  the  subject.  He  said  that  "since 
the  house  had  laid  hands  upon  the  treasurer,"  he  would 
be  glad  if  the  afTair  could  be  settled  during  his  adminis- 
tration. He  therefore  wished  to  know  whether  the 
house  desired  him  to  prosecute  Gordon.^  Thus  he  vir- 
tually admitted  that  the  control  of  the  treasury  was  the 
special  function  of  the  representatives.  The  house  after 
consideration  replied  that  as  they  had  found  the  treas- 
urers' statements  merely  inconsistent  they  could  not  wish 
prosecution  before  the  accounts  were  more  fully  settled 
and  adjudged.* 

The  session  was  prolific  in  acts,  though  some  were  of 
a  private  character.  But  a  great  difficulty  was  found  in 
the  fact  that  the  taxes  were  in  arrears  over  £1000.^ 

With  the  adjournment  of  the  fifth  session  of  the  seventh 
assembly  Hunter's  connection  with  the  legislative  pro- 
ceedings ceases.  The  work  he  had  accomplished  will 
speak  for  itself.  He  had  found  the  departments  of  the 
government  in  bitter  conflict ;  he  left  them  cooperating 
to  good  purpose.  It  is  true  that  he  had  been  content  to 
sacrifice  some  of  the  authority  insisted  upon  by  former 
governors,  but  the  executive  would  probably  have  lost 
more  through  conflict  with  the  assembly.  Hunter  under- 
stood his  place  as  executive  under  a  representative  sys- 
tem, better,  no  doubt,  than  those  who  drew  his  instruc- 

^  Assembly  Journal,  March  18,  25,  27,  1718-19. 

^ Ibid.,  March  27,  1718-19.  *Ibid.,  March  28,  1718-19. 

"Ibid.,  March  28,  1718-19.  ^Ibid.,  March  18,  1718-19. 


434  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

tions.  The  worst  that  can  be  said  of  him  is  that  he 
identified  himself  with  a  party  and  that  he  was  not  too 
scrupulous  in  the  means  he  employed  against  Coxe  and 
his  other  opponents.  But  it  was  impossible  to  induce 
the  bitter  wranglers  whom  he  found  in  the  council  and 
assembly  to  agree.  Either  one  faction  or  the  other  must 
go.  It  may  be  a  question  whether  the  governor  made 
the  right  choice,  but  it  certainly  would  have  been  far 
harder  for  him  to  maintain  himself  against  the  opposition 
of  the  proprietors.  It  does  seem  as  if,  for  a  time  at 
least,  Coxe  and  his  party  represented  majority  sentiment 
in  New  Jersey,  but  Hunter  always  maintained  that  the 
election  of  Coxe  and  his  followers  was  secured  by  fraud 
"  through  an  inundation  of  Swedes." '  The  opponents 
of  Hunter  were  certainly  far  more  unscrupulous  than  he. 
At  any  rate  Hunter  must  receive  from  the  historian  the 
commendation  due  to  him  who  accomplishes  excellent 
results. 

Although  Governor  Burnet  had  the  advantage  of 
Hunter's  friendship  and  advice,  he  began  his  relations 
with  the  legislature  most  unfortunately.  Although  it 
was  the  prevailing  opinion  in  New  Jersey  that  the  ap- 
pointment of  a  new  governor  required  the  election  of  a 
new  assembly,  he  determined  to  retain  the  body  which 
had  co-operated  so  well  with  Hunter,  and  summoned  a 
sixth  session  of  the  seventh  assembly  in  February,  1720- 
21.  Burnet's  attitude  upon  the  legalitj^  of  continuing  an 
assembly  was  approved  by  the  Board  of  Trade, ^  but  it 
led  to  a  heated  conflict.  Although  most  of  the  mem- 
bers came  to  Burlington,  they  refused  to  regard  them- 
selves as  a  legal  assembly.^     Burnet  believed  that  there 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  210.  "^Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  183. 

"^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  145. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT 


435 


was  a  regular  conspiracy  to  defeat  his  administration 
and  cast  the  blame  upon  the  Jacobite,  George  Willocks,' 
who  had  been  a  supporter  of  Hunter,  but  whose  refusal 
to  take  the  oaths  to  King  George  prejudiced  the  new 
governor,  fresh  as  he  was  from  old-world  politics,  against 
him.  But  the  real  cause  of  the  trouble  seems  to  have 
been  the  refusal  of  Burnet  to  lend  himself  to  the  plans 
of  the  Amboy  group  of  proprietors  who  desired  to  se- 
cure an  act  incorporating  the  proprietors  of  East  Jersey 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  place  all  the  real  power  in  their 
own  hands.'  This  antagonizing  of  a  powerful  proprie- 
tary interest  by  the  executive  was  a  departure  from  the 
policy  of  Hunter. 

After  much  difficulty  the  governor  at  length  succeeded 
in  persuading  the  assembly  to  meet  for  business  on  Feb- 
ruary 28th.  Before  his  formal  speech  he  told  the  mem- 
bers that  they  had  behaved  undutifully,  but  he  took  it 
that  their  presence  at  that  time  denoted  a  change.  In 
his  address  he  made  a  plea  for  harmony,  stating  that  he 
had  received  a  favorable  character  of  the  assembly  from 
Hunter.  Burnet  then  asked  for  a  more  liberal  support, 
as  the  salaries  of  the  royal  officers  were  insufficient.  He 
also  spoke  of  the  need  of  action  to  benefit  the  currency, 
avowed  his  desire  to  assent  to  all  good  measures,  and 
closed  with  generalizations  about  the  goodness  of  King 
George.3 

But  further  difficulties  at  once  followed,  and  Burnet, 
to  compel  the  house  to  reflect  upon  its  conduct,  took 
the  rather  irritating  measure  of  adjourning  it  from  day 
to  day  for  twenty  days.*     Perhaps  the  chief  subject  of 

^  New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  v,  pp.  11,  32. 

"^ Ibid.y  vol.  V,  p.  56  et  seq.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  147. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  177. 


436  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

conflict  was  the  matter  of  support.  The  house  drew  up 
a  bill  for  support  for  two  years,  though  it  refused  to  in- 
crease the  appropriations.  Hunter  would  no  doubt  have 
accepted  this  as  the  best  that  could  be  obtained  under 
the  circumstances.'  But  Burnet  took  his  stand  upon  his 
instructions  which  required  that  grants  for  support  be 
unlimited  in  time.'  He  refused  to  consider  an  appropri- 
ation for  less  than  five  years.  The  council  accordingly,^ 
at  the  instance  of  the  governor,  amended  the  bill  for 
support,  to  accord  with  the  instructions.'  The  house,  of 
course,  showed  the  true  colonial  spirit  in  the  matter,, 
and  not  only  refused  to  agree  to  the  amendment,  but 
declared  that  the  council  had  no  right  to  amend  a  money 
bill.*  For  this  conduct  the  assembly  was  scolded  by  the 
governor,  but  the  result  was  that  no  support  was  given. 
Another  subject  of  contention  was  regarding  the  form 
in  which  new  members  of  the  assembly  should  be  quali- 
fied. At  the  beginning  of  the  session  the  house  decided 
that  two  of  its  members  were  not  properly  qualified,  and 
accordingly  ordered  new  elections.  When  the  new  mem- 
bers arrived  the  house  desired  Burnet  to  send  the  clerk 
of  the  Crown  with  the  rolls  of  oaths  that  they  might  be 
sworn. s  But  Burnet,  who  believed  that  the  former  mem- 
bers had  been  dismissed  because  they  had  evinced  a  will- 
ingness to  agree  with  the  executive,  replied  that  the  prac- 
tice had  always  been  to  swear  new  members  before  the 
governor,  and  this  must  be  carried  out.^  The  house  then 
cited  a  number  of  cases  when  members  had  been  sworn 
by  the  clerk  before  the  assembly,^  but  Burnet  declared 

^  New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  i6o,  igo-i. 

"^Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  153,  193.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  193. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  195.  ^ Ibid.  vol.  xiv,  p.  154. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  155.  ''Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  157. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT 


437 


that  such  instances  made  no  difference.  The  governor 
had  the  power  to  commit  the  act  to  another  if  he  chose, 
but  if  he  required,  members  must  be  sworn  before  him.' 
The  controversy  continued  without  satisfaction  to  either 
department,'  but  no  record  appears  that  the  oaths  were 
administered. 

A  second  question  also  became  involved.  Burnet  in 
his  address  to  the  house  on  the  question  of  the  qualifica- 
tions of  members  declared  that  the  acts  of  the  provincial 
legislature  regulating  qualifications  were  not  in  force,  as 
they  had  not  received  the  confirmation  of  the  Crown, 
and  changes  had  since  been  made  by  the  Crown  in  the 
instructions  which  were  at  variance  with  the  acts.'  As 
an  instance  of  such  change,  the  instructions  now  required 
the  members  to  possess  an  estate  of  £500  sterling,  while 
the  provincial  acts  required  only  £500  proclamation 
money.  To  this  wholly  untenable  proposition  the 
assembly  naturally  replied  by  resolving  that  provincial 
acts  were  in  force  until  disallowed  by  the  home  gov- 
ernment.■♦  The  governor  spoke  to  them  hotly  on  the 
subject,  but  of  course  gained  nothing. 

There  was  a  dispute  about  military  concerns.  Burnet 
laid  before  the  council  the  instructions  which  required 
him  to  obtain  contributions  from  New  Jersey  and  other 
colonies  for  the  defense  of  the  northern  frontier,  to  pro- 
vide suitable  fortifications  for  New  Jersey  itself,  and  to 
insist  upon  a  strengthening  of  the  militia.  The  council 
agreed  that  the  defense  of  the  frontier  was  a  matter  of 
concern  to  New  Jersey,  and  that  she  ought  to  contribute. 
But  they  held  that  the  situation  of  the  settlements  in 
New  Jersey  made  fortification  wholly  unnecessary.    They 

^  N ew  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  xiv,  p.  158.        *Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  177. 
^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  155.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  162. 


438 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


agreed  that  the  militia  should  be  strengthened,  since  the 
defense  of  the  Jerseys  really  depended  upon  it,  and  drew 
up  a  bill  for  that  purpose.'  But  the  assembly  at  once 
amended  it  so  that  it  merely  provided  for  a  continuance 
of  the  former  conditions,"  They  would  not  be  moved 
from  their  position  and  the  bill  was  lost.  Burnet  in- 
cluded this  matter  also  in  his  scoldings. 

While  the  governor  did  not  try  to  interfere  with  the 
house  in  the  work  of  auditing  the  treasury  accounts  and 
carrying  on  the  further  financial  supervision  which  it  had 
assumed,  he  did  criticise  the  assembly  for  condemning 
the  accounts  of  Thomas  Gordon,  the  former  treasurer, 
before  he  had  been  able  to  appear  and  be  heard.^ 

Throughout  the  session  Burnet,  though  firm,  displayed 
lack  of  tact.  He  personally  addressed  the  members 
of  the  house  no  less  than  seven  times  and  on  six  of 
these  occasions  he  had  the  speaker  and  the  assembly 
summoned  before  him.  He  sent  a  lengthy  message, 
also,  in  reply  to  a  set  of  resolutions  voted  by  the  house.* 
His  speeches  were  hardly  more  than  scoldings,  and  he 
showed  a  constant  desire  to  impress  the  members  with 
the  fact  that  he  was  wiser  and  more  accurate  in  his 
knowledge  than  they.  At  first  he  endeavored  to  put 
them  into  the  position  of  well-meaning  men^  who  had 
been  misled  by  clever  and  designing  rascals  such  as  Wil- 
locks ;  but  he  finally  dismissed  them  with  direct  charges 
of  misconduct.^ 

The  assembly  on  its  part  was  not  unwilling  to  retaliate 
in  kind.     Early  in  the  session  it  passed  the  resolutions 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  167-175. 
''/did.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  197-8.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  196. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  158.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  152. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  199. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT 


439 


which  so  excited  Burnet's  wrath.'  These  declared  among 
other  things  that  the  house  had  not  been  led  aside  into 
practices  dangerous  to  the  public  peace  and  derogatory 
to  the  prerogative ;  that  they  were  not  sensible  of  heats 
and  animosities  among  themselves  as  the  governor 
charged ;  and  that  their  cheerfulness  in  raising  a  suitable 
support  was  such  as  to  entitle  them  to  the  same  good 
character  that  they  had  from  Hunter.  Other  resolutions 
defended  their  positions  on  the  several  subjects  of  con- 
troversy. On  April  sixth  the  house  presented  an  ad- 
dress to  Burnet  ='  which  covered  some  of  the  same  points 
as  the  resolutions,  but  also  complained  directly  of  the 
governor's  conduct  in  adjourning  the  house  twenty  days 
to  the  great  expense  of  the  province,  and  of  his  meddling 
with  the  business  of  the  house  which  they  took  to  be  a 
breach  of  privilege.  They  stated  that  even  Cornbury, 
the  worst  governor  of  all,  never  interfered  with  the 
house  when  it  determined  the  qualifications  of  members, 
though  he  had  refused  to  swear  three  of  them.  How- 
ever they  charitably  suggested  that  Burnet  would  not 
have  gone  to  such  lengths  had  he  not  been  imposed 
upon  by  designing  men. 

Later,  however,  the  house  became  more  conciliatory. 
After  having  been  shown  a  letter  of  December  20,  1720, 
from  the  Board  of  Trade,  they  willingly  admitted  that 
Burnet  was  justified  in  continuing  the  assembly.  On 
April  26th  they  presented  an  address  of  very  friendly 
tone,  ending  by  saying  that  they  hoped  a  good  under- 
standing had  now  begun. ^  But  the  governor  was  ap- 
parently as  much  displeased  with  their  later  action, 
especially  with  their  rejection  of  the  militia  act,  as  with 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  159.  '^Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  176. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  185. 


440 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


their  earlier  conduct.  The  dissolution  of  the  long-sufifer- 
ing  assembly  by  the  governor  on  May  26,  1721,  brings 
to  the  student  a  sense  of  relief.  Yet  the  quarrels  be- 
tween Burnet  and  the  assembly  have  in  one  respect  an 
interest  beyond  many  of  those  we  have  considered,  for 
they  were  manifestly  not  entirely  the  outgrowth  of  party 
politics  in  the  province,  but  grew  rather  out  of  the  nat- 
ural differences  in  object  between  the  representative  of 
the  home  government  and  the  representatives  of  the 
people  of  the  colony. 

But  the  unpleasant  session  just  described  was  not,  as 
might  have  been  expected,  the  forerunner  of  later  stormy 
proceedings.  When  the  eighth  assembly  at  length  met, 
in  March,  172 1-2,  at  Amboy,  it  was  constituted  partly 
at  least  of  new  men  who  had  had  no  share  in  the  recent 
disputes.^  Burnet,  himself,  appears  in  quite  a  dififerent 
role,  and  no  doubt  had  learned  something  from  his  ex- 
perience. After  the  assembly  had  chosen  Dr.  Johnstone, 
the  proprietor,  as  speaker,  the  governor  reminded  them 
of  the  necessity  of  providing  suitable  support  for  the 
government.  In  this  matter  he  asked  them  not  to  con- 
sider so  much  his  own  salary  as  that  of  the  inferior  offi- 
cers, many  of  whom  could  not  cover  expenses.  He 
congratulated  the  assembly  upon  the  mineral  discoveries 
recently  made  in  the  province,  and  closed  by  patriotic 
reference  to  the  defeat  of  the  Pretender.^  The  house 
replied  as  usual  by  an  address,  in  which  they  said  they 
would  demonstrate  their  loyalty  by  providing  for  the 
government.  They  regretted  that  the  circumstances  of 
the  province  would  not  permit  them  to  support  the 
dignity  of   the  government  as   it  deserved.     When  the 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  204  (note). 
"^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  205. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT      441 

imaginary  mineral  treasures  became  real,  they  would 
make  the  government  a  partaker  in  their  advantages.' 
Burnet  thanked  the  members  for  their  good  intentions 
and  the  work  of  the  session  began. 

The  discords  of  the  seventh  assembly  were  apparently 
forgotten.  The  house  without  undue  delay  prepared  a 
bill  for  support  for  five  years,  thus  conceding  to  the 
governor  the  long-term  appropriation  upon  which  he  had 
insisted.  This  was  certainly  an  important  victory  for 
Burnet.  On  the  other  hand  the  subordinate  officers 
received  little  advance  in  salary.'  Numerous  other 
measures,  including  a  militia  act,  were  carried  through ' 
and  the  house  exercised  its  usual  supervision  of  the 
finances.  The  auditing  of  Gordon's  accounts  seemed  to 
prove  that  he  was  indebted  to  the  sum  of  £1070  8s.  y6., 
and  there  was  the  usual  heavy  arrearage  of  taxes.* 

Upon  only  one  important  measure  was  the  accord  be- 
tween executive  and  legislative  broken.  James  Smith, 
the  provincial  secretary,  had  memorialized  the  Loids  of 
Trade,  representing  the  hardship  he  suffered  owing  to 
the  reduction  of  the  fees  of  his  office  by  several  acts 
passed  while  Basse  was  secretary,  and  aimed  against  him.' 
Burnet,  having  received  a  letter  from  the  Lords  upon  this 
matter,  prepared  a  bill  repealing  the  portions  of  acts 
cutting  down  the  fees.*    This  bill  was  promptly  passed 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  207. 
"^  Assembly  Journal,  April  4,  1722. 

*  Ibid.,  May  5,  1722.  ^  Ibid.,  April  zy,  1722. 

*They  were:  an  Act  for  Shortening  law  Suites  and  Regulating  the 
practice  of  the  Law;  an  Act  for  enforcing  the  ordinance  for  establisliing 
of  fees;  and  an  Act  for  Acknowledging  &  recording  of  deeds  &  Con- 
veyances of  land  in  each  County  of  this  province.  All  these  were 
eventually  disallowed  by  the  Crown;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv, 
pp.  541.  552. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  225. 


442 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


by  the  council,  but  the  house  after  consideration  refused 
to  take  action  till  next  session.'  Meanwhile  the  house  had 
passed  a  bill  for  compelling  clerks  and  other  officers  who 
kept  records  to  give  security,  Burnet  held  that  this  meas- 
ure was  intended  to  ruin  the  secretary,  and  when  it  ap- 
peared that  the  bill  instead  of  being  copied  by  the  clerk 
was  in  the  hand-writing  of  Willocks,  his  wrath  blazed 
up.  So  angry  was  he  that  when  Col,  Anderson  of  the 
council  said  that  he  did  not  regard  Willocks  as  an  enemy 
of  the  government  he  promptly  suspended  him.'' 

But  there  was  no  serious  break  between  the  governor 
and  house.  The  assembly  toward  the  end  of  the  session 
greatly  pleased  Burnet  by  carrying  a  bill  for  the  security 
of  the  government  which  enabled  him  to  prosecute  as 
enemies  all  who  refused  the  oaths  of  allegiance. ^  Thus 
his  hands  were  strengthened  against  Willocks,  who  was 
soon  compelled  to  flee  the  province.  Burnet  on  the 
closing  day  thanked  the  members  warmly  and  requested 
them  to  adjourn  themselves  till  October  first. 

The  second  session  of  the  eighth  assembly  was  doubt- 
less even  more  satisfactory  to  the  governor.  It  met  on 
September  2y,  1723,  at  Burlington,  Some  little  delay 
was  caused  by  the  absence  of  Dr,  Johnstone,  the  speaker, 
who  declared  himself  ill  and  unable  to  attend,  but  upon 
the  direction  of  the  governor  a  new  speaker,  William 
Trent,  was  elected,"*  The  change  was  a  happy  one ;  for 
Johnstone,  though  he  pretended  to  be  favorable  to  Burnet, 
was  actually  the  partner  of  Willocks  and  apparently  had 
been   at   the   bottom   of   some   of   the  recent   troubles. ' 

^Assembly  Journal,  May  3,  4,  1722. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives y  vol,  xiv,  pp,  220-221, 

^  Assembly  Journal,  May  4,  1722,  "Ibid.,  Sept.  27,  1723. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  56  et  seq. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT 


443 


During  the  session  the  support  granted  to  the  govern- 
ment was  increased  by  the  appropriation  of  a  fund  of 
£i,ooo  per  annum,  to  the  great  satisfaction  of  Burnet  and 
the  other  crown  officers  who  shared  in  the  benefits. 
This  appropriation  ran  for  ten  years.  But  the  unpre- 
cedented Hberality  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the  royal 
instructions  permitted  the  issue  of  bills  of  credit  only 
in  acts  for  support.' 

Yet  there  were  some  differences  of  opinion.  The 
governor  and  council  had  recently  prepared  an  ordinance 
reconstituting  the  court  of  the  province.  This  was  ad- 
mittedly a  part  of  the  executive  power,  but  the  ordinance 
caused  complaint  because  under  its  provisions  the  su- 
preme court  was  to  sit  only  at  Amboy  and  Burlington. 
One  of  the  first  steps  of  the  assembly  was  therefore  to 
address  Burnet  for  permission  to  bring  in  a  bill  changing 
this  ordinance.*  But  the  governor  and  council,  though 
they  professed  themselves  willing  to  remedy  all  inconve- 
niences, were  unwilling  that  it  should  be  done  by  bill.^ 
Later  in  the  session  the  house  again  addressed  Burnet, 
asking  that  he  appoint  a  chief  justice  who  resided  in  New 
Jersey.  They  made  no  charges  against  Mr.  Jamison, 
but  believed  that  inasmuch  as  the  governor  necessarily 
resided  in  New  York  the  chief  judicial  officer  should  be 
always  in  the  province."*  Burnet  replied  favorably,  and 
soon  afterward  nominated  Trent  as  chief  justice.'  The 
house  voted  that  there  should  be  paid  to  a  chief  justice 
who  would    ride  the  circuit  £1.00  as  occasion  required; 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p,  75;  Assembly  Journal,  Oct.  8,  1723. 
^ Ibid.,  Oct.  16,  1723. 

*  Nezv  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  251-2. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  23,  1723. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv.  p.  257. 


444 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


they  also  gave  the  attorney-general  £40  a  year  for  two 
years  in  addition  to  his  regular  salary;  the  second  judge 
received  £50  and  the  clerk  of  the  circuits  £20.' 

The  house  sent  up  a  bill  for  obliging  the  estate  of 
Thomas  Gordon,  now  deceased,  to  make  good  the  defi- 
ciencies in  the  accounts  of  the  province.'  But  the  coun- 
cil refused  to  approve  immediately,  and  ordered  that  at 
the  next  session  the  parties  concerned  should  appear. 
The  house  was  desired  to  appoint  persons  to  make  good 
its  charges  against  Gordon,^  a  step  which  it  immediately 
took. 

During  this  session  the  house  also  engaged  Peter  La 
Heupe  as  its  agent  in  England  at  a  salary  of  £100  a  year.* 
Although  the  governor  had  previously  recommended  the 
appointment  of  an  agent  for  the  province,  neither  the 
executive  nor  the  council  was  to  have  any  share  in  con- 
trolling his  conduct.  That  no  serious  opposition  was 
offered  to  this  step  of  the  house  is  somewhat  remark- 
able. By  obtaining  an  independent  agent  its  influence 
was  much  increased. 

Petitions  were  received  from  the  widows  of  Mompesson 
and  Pinhorne  for  sums  due  their  husbands  under  warrants 
from  Cornbury.  Application  was  also  made  by  Mary 
Ingoldsby  for  arrears  due  in  Ingoldsby's  time.^  But 
though  Burnet  in  his  speech,  by  royal  order,  endorsed 
these  claims,^  the  assembly  would  not  recognize  them.^ 
Evidently  the  recollections  of  Cornbury  and  Ingoldsby 
were  still  bitter.     These  points  of  difference,  however, 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  23,  27,  1723.  *Ibid.,  Nov.  26,  1723. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  261. 

^Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  27,  1723. 

^ Ibid.,  Sept.  30  and  Nov.  16,  1723. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  247.        "^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  249. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT      445 

did  not  seriously  injure  the  good  feeling  between  the 
governor  and  the  representatives. 

In  May,  1725,  a  third  successful  session  of  the  eighth 
assembly  was  held.  As  the  original  act  of  support  was 
about  to  expire,  the  house  made  a  new  appropriation 
which  was  again  to  run  for  five  years.'  Much  time  was 
given  to  financial  matters,  as  was  necessitated  by  the 
system  of  bills  of  credit.  The  case  of  Gordon  was  con- 
sidered in  the  council,  a  defence  of  the  estate  being 
made  by  his  widow.*  At  the  very  end  of  the  session,  the 
house,  which  had  given  up  its  attempt  to  condemn 
Gordon's  estate  by  an  act,  requested  Burnet  to  order 
the  prosecution  of  the  representatives  of  the  late  treas- 
urer, and  the  governor  assented.^  A  disputed  election 
case  in  Burlington  also  forced  itself  upon  the  attention 
of  the  representatives.  Col.  Coxe  had  again  appeared 
and  disputed  the  election  of  the  Quaker,  Mahlon  Stacy. 
But  after  a  spirited  debate  Stacy  was  finally  seated,*  and 
the  sheriff  was  reprimanded  for  improper  conduct  in  the 
election. 5  Some  useful  measures  were  carried,  but  this 
was  the  last  session  of  the  assembly,  because  the  death 
of  George  I  brought  about  its  dissolution. 

The  ninth  assembly,  however,  the  last  under  Burnet's 
administration,  was  very  similar  to  the  eighth  in  consti- 
tution, though  the  growing  influence  of  John  Kinsey,  Jr. 
was  more  clearly  shown  in  its  deliberations.  The  new 
assembly  met  in  Dec,  1727,  at  Amboy,  and  chose  Dr. 
Johnstone  speaker.  Burnet  explained  his  failure  to  meet 
them  the  previous  spring  by  the  necessity  he  was  under 

^Assembly  Journal,  June  12,  16,  1725. 

*Ntw  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  284. 

^Assembly  Journal,  Aug.  23,  1725.  *  Ibid.,  July  29,  1725. 

''Ibid.,  Aug.  14,  1725. 


446 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


of  counteracting  the  advance  of  the  French  on  the  north- 
ern frontier.  This  work  he  believed  to  be  for  the  pro- 
tection of  New  Jersey  as  well  as  of  New  York.  He  also 
explained  that  he  had  summoned  the  meeting  at  Amboy 
instead  of  Burlington  because  he  was  momentarily  ex- 
pecting the  arrival  of  his  successor.  Burnet  suggested 
that  the  province  should  provide  a  suitable  residence  for 
its  governor.  He,  himself,  had  been  at  considerable  ex- 
pense in  obtaining  a  house  which  he  would  like  his  suc- 
cessor to  escape.^  In  their  answering  address  the  house 
after  professions  of  loyalty  to  George  H  said  among  other 
things  that  they  were  highly  pleased  with  the  alternate 
sessions  at  Burlington  and  Amboy,  but  they  had  no  ob- 
jection to  the  present  meeting  if  it  were  not  made  a 
precedent.  They  felt  that  they  must  say,  however,  when 
a  change  of  governors  was  about  to  be  made  that  it  was 
a  great  disadvantage  for  New  Jersey  to  be  joined  with  so 
powerful  a  colony  as  New  York.  This  was  not  a  reflec- 
tion upon  Burnet,  as  they  regretted  that  he  had  not  been 
wholly  theirs.  The  assembly  took  no  notice  whatsoever 
of  the  advice  that  they  procure  an  executive  mansion.'' 

The  work  of  the  session  was  upon  the  whole  interest- 
ing. Early  in  it  the  house  addressed  Burnet  asking  that 
he  allow  a  committee  of  the  council  to  join  one  of  the 
house  to  consider  means  to  redress  the  hardships  suffered 
under  the  present  arrangement  of  courts.^  But  the  gov- 
ernor only  replied  that  he  would  lay  the  matter  before 
the  council.*  Thus  aggression  in  this  field  by  the  as- 
sembly was  again  checked. 

Toward  the  end  of  the  session  a  serious  difference  of 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  341. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  13,  1727. 

^ Ibid.,  Jan.  2,  1727-8.  ^Ibid.,  Jan.  3,  1727-8. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT       447 

opinion  arose  between  the  council  and  house.  This  grew 
out  of  an  effort  to  ensure  a  more  satisfactory  recording 
of  deeds  and  land  titles.  We  may  believe  that  the  quarrel 
over  this  question  was  partly  the  result  of  the  resurrection 
of  the  old  council  of  proprietors  of  East  Jersey  which  had 
come  about  in  1725.  The  proprietors  evidently  controlled 
the  council  absolutely,  while  the  house,  though  not  actu- 
ally anti-proprietary,  was  not  devoted  to  the  interest  of 
the  proprietors.  The  reappearance  of  the  land  question 
in  any  form  before  the  provincial  legislature  is  significant. 
The  house  had  prepared  a  bill  for  preventing  the  trouble 
and  expense  involved  in  the  enrollment  of  deeds  and 
conveyances  of  land.  This  bill  the  council  would  not  ac- 
cept without  amendment.'  They  desired  that  deeds  of 
proprietors  should  be  recorded  only  in  the  office  of  the 
recorder  of  the  proprietors,  as  otherwise  the  "  door 
would  be  opened"  for  frauds  and  mistakes  regarding  the 
distribution  of  the  proprietary  dividends.  Disagreement 
and  unsatisfactory  conference  followed.  To  remedy  the 
difficulty  the  council  then  sent  down  a  bill  to  prevent 
frauds  and  mistakes  in  obtaining  warrants  for  surveys  of 
lands  and  for  keeping  minutes  of  the  deeds  on  which 
they  were  founded  and  for  recovery  of  the  minutes  of  the 
council  of  proprietors.^ 

Upon  continued  application  from  the  house  as  to  their 
decision  on  the  former  bill  the  council  replied  that  they 
had  resolved  not  to  come  to  a  resolution  upon  it  until 
the  house  had  taken  action  upon  the  bill  to  prevent  frauds 
and  mistakes.3  This  message  the  house  hotly  resented, 
declaring  that  they  were  under  no  obligation  to  render 
account  of  their  actions.*     The  council  replied  by  a  long 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  11,  1727-8.  *Ibid.,  Feb.  i,  1727-8. 

^Ibid.,  Feb.  2,  1727-8.  ^Ibid.,  Feb.  3,  1727-8. 


448  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

message  defending  themselves,  declaring  that  their  bill 
only  involved  the  substance  of  what  had  been  agreed  in 
conference,  and  asserting  that  all  representatives  were 
responsible  for  their  actions.^  The  house  maintained 
that  such  a  thing  as  the  new  law  opening  the  door  for 
frauds  was  purely  imaginary,  for  as  things  then  stood 
there  was  no  necessity  for  recording  deeds  anywhere. 
The  wrangle  continued  and  both  bills  were  lost,  as  well 
as  another  bill  for  prescribing  the  time  of  recording  sur- 
veys, upon  which  there  had  been  some  difference  of 
opinion.  In  this  conflict  the  governor,  however,  does 
not  appear  to  have  been  very  directly  involved. 

During  this  session  a  bill  was  passed  for  frequent 
meetings  of  the  assembly.  It  provided  that  sessions 
should  be  held  at  least  once  in  three  years,  and  that  no 
assembly  should  last  longer  than  the  same  period.  Bur- 
net accepted  this  measure,^  but  it  was  later  disallowed  by 
the  home  authorities.  In  spite  of  the  spirited  debates 
the  assembly  was  industrious,  and  thirteen  acts  were 
finally  passed.' 

Burnet,  who  was  transferred  to  the  governorship  of 
Massachusetts  Bay,  was  succeeded  by  the  amiable  court- 
ier John  Montgomerie.  Though  his  administration  had 
not  been  marked  by  the  tact  and  political  insight  so 
characteristic  of  Hunter,  he  had  given  New  Jersey  hon- 
est and  honorable  rule,  and  had  added  prestige  to  the 

'  Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  6,  1727-8. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  192;  vol.  xiv,  p.  388. 

'Among  these  were:  an  act  for  shortening  of  law  suits,  and  an  act 
concerning  the  acknowledging  and  registering  of  deeds,  etc.,  which 
again  reduced  the  fees  of  the  secretary.  He  was,  however,  given  £2$ 
per  annum  as  additional  salary.  Smith  later  represented  that  Burnet 
approved  of  these  acts  in  spite  of  their  previous  disallowance  in  return 
for  a  gift  of  ;^6oo.  Both  acts  were  again  disallowed.  New  Jersey 
Archives,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  191,  198.     Allinson,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT      449 

royal  governorship.  In  some  respects  Burnet  had  actu- 
ally strengthened  the  executive,  as  in  the  case  of  his 
obtaining  long  appropriations  for  support.  If  he  could 
have  suppressed  a  little  more  his  own  personality  he 
would  have  lacked  little  of  the  success  of  his  great 
predecessor. 

Montgomerie,  upon  advice  of  his  council,  decided  to 
follow  the  example  of  Burnet,  and  retain  the  same  as- 
sembly as  his  predecessor.  The  result  was  scarcely  more 
satisfactory.  Montgomerie  journeyed  to  Burlington  in 
December,  1728,  and  opened  the  second  session  of  the 
ninth  assembly  in  a  courteous  and  well-worded  speech, 
in  which,  however,  the  only  positive  recommendation 
was  for  the  granting  of  a  suitable  support.'  The  as- 
sembly replied  in  kind.  They  congratulated  themselves 
upon  receiving  as  governor  one  who  had  been  so  close 
to  the  king  and  who  had  held  such  other  office  as  that 
of  member  of  parliament.^ 

The  house  at  once  began  work  upon  an  act  of  support 
for  three  years,  and  other  measures.  But  on  January 
9th  it  voted  after  debate  that  it  would  be  advantageous 
for  New  Jersey  to  have  a  distinct  government,  and  a 
committee  was  sent  to  the  governor  and  council  to  ask 
their  co-operation  and  a  conference  as  to  the  best  mode 
of  obtaining  separation.  They  assured  Montgomerie 
that  they  had  no  desire  to  cause  him  uneasiness,  but 
only  to  do  what  they  thought  their  duty.^  Such  con- 
duct was  too  much  for  the   courtier   soul    of   the  new 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  396. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  19,  1728. 

"^ Ibid.,  Jan.  9,  1728-9.  This  project  was  the  work  of  John  Kinsey,  Jr. 
He  had  endeavored  to  set  on  foot  a  similar  movement  under  Burnet, 
but  had  been  persuaded  by  that  governor  to  give  up  his  attempt  for  the 
time.    New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  262. 


450 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


governor.  After  consultation  with  his  council  he  first 
adjourned  and  then  dissolved  the  assembly  which  had 
dared  to  take  such  bold  action  without  first  ascertaining 
the  will  of  the  Crown.'  In  his  communications  with  the 
home  government  Montgomerie  heaped  the  blame  upon 
the  Quakers  in  such  manner  as  to  recall  their  arch- 
enemy Ingoldsby.^ 

Montgomerie  did  not  meet  the  tenth  assembly  till  May, 
1730.  Most  of  the  members  of  the  last  house  were  re- 
turned, but  John  Kinsey  succeeded  Dr.  Johnstone  as 
speaker.  The  governor's  speech  made  touching  refer- 
ence to  the  loving  care  of  King  George  for  his  "  remote 
dominions,"  but  contained  no  positive  recommendations,' 
while  the  house  replied  respectfully  with  similar  general- 
ities."*  The  session  thus  begun  was  rather  proHfic  in  acts 
and  was  unmarked  by  serious  conflict.  An  act  was 
passed  for  "the  freedom  of  assemblies,"  which  forbade 
any  representative  to  accept  a  crown  office  while  serving.^ 
The  council  hesitated  to  assent  to  it  at  first,  but  eventu- 
ally did  so. 

Just  as  had  been  the  case  in  Burnet's  time,  the  assembly 
insisted  upon  appropriating  for  immediate  use  the  interest 
money  accruing  from  the  work  of  the  loan  offices.  This 
the  Lords  of  Trade  had  forbidden,  but  both  Burnet  and 
Montgomerie,  accepting  the  representations  of  the  lead- 
ers of  the  province,  had  endeavored  to  move  them  to 
change  their  decision.*  Montgomerie  now  consented  to 
the  passage  of  a  bill  making  such  an  appropriation,  fearing 
that  if  he  stood  out  the  assembly  might  refuse  to  vote 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  399.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  234. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  408.  *Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  410. 

^  AUinson,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  pp.  165,  200,  249,  266,  302. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT 


451 


support.'  Later  the  Lords  of  Trade  expressed  surprise 
at  his  action.  A  bill  had  been  introduced  to  appropriate 
support  for  five  years, ^  but  the  measure  was  later  dropped 
and  a  new  bill  substituted,  coupling  the  granting  of  sup- 
port with  the  appropriations  of  the  interest  money.' 
Montgomerie,  with  the  aid  of  Kinsey  and  Johnstone, 
managed  to  have  the  two  measures  separated,  but  only 
upon  the  understanding  that  both  should  be  accepted/ 
The  amount  of  support  was  about  the  same  as  that  given 
to  Burnet.  While  this  matter  was  under  consideration 
the  council  prepared  a  bill  for  additional  support  and  for 
laying  a  duty  on  all  copper  ore  exported,  but  the  house 
would  not  consider  an  appropriation  bill  originating  in 
the  council.^  A  militia  bill  sent  down,  however,  was 
accepted  without  opposition.  During  the  session  there 
are  several  indications  that  the  house  was  not  entirely 
under  the  control  of  the  proprietors;  among  other  things 
a  bill  for  regulating  the  affairs  of  the  proprietors  of  the 
Western  Division  failed  of  passage. 

The  chief  cause  of  difficulty  between  the  governor  and 
the  assembly  had  meanwhile  been  removed  as  the  Lords 
of  Trade  had  advised  Montgomerie  that  they  saw  no 
reason  for  interfering  with  the  petitions  for  a  separate 
government,  provided  they  were  drawn  peaceably  and 
openly.^  Much  thought  was  undoubtedly  given  by  the 
members  to  this  subject.  The  agent.  Partridge,  was 
thanked  for  what  he  had  already  done  and  a  regular  ap- 
propriation was  made  for  him  for  five  years.'     Toward 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  287. 

"•  Assembly  Journal,  May  27,  1730.  *Ibid.,  Jan.  3,  1730. 

*New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  288. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  June  22,  1730. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  247. 

''Assembly  Journal,  June  5,  1730. 


452 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


the  end  of  the  session  a  formal  address  to  the  crown  for 
separation  was  prepared  by  the  house  without  interfer- 
ence from  the  governor.  In  this  address  the  assembly 
was  careful  to  state  that  they  had  the  best  feeling  for 
Montgomerie.' 

The  death  of  the  governor  in  July,  1731,  certainly 
turned  out  to  be  a  misfortune  to  the  province  owing  to 
the  selection  of  an  improper  successor.  Montgomerie 
was  inexperienced  and  of  no  great  ability.  He  was  yield- 
ing in  disposition,  however,  and  would  not  have  created 
serious  opposition.  All  who  met  him  seem  to  have 
credited  him  with  good  intentions. 

Only  one  meeting  of  the  assembly  occurred  during  the 
administration  of  William  Cosby,  and  this  began  at  Bur- 
lington in  April,  1733.  Before  it  took  place,  however, 
Cosby  had  become  involved  in  difficulties  in  New  York 
which  had  necessarily  an  influence  upon  feeling  in  the 
sister  province.  He  had  antagonized  violently  Lewis 
Morris,  whom  he  had  removed  from  the  chief-justiceship 
of  New  York,  and  James  Alexander,  the  next  ablest  man 
among  the  proprietors  of  East  Jersey.  Though  the 
quarrel  originated  in  New  York,  Cosby  endeavored  to 
secure  the  removal  of  these  two  prominent  persons  from 
the  council  of  New  Jersey.^  The  Lords  of  Trade  actu- 
ally recommended  the  removal  of  Morris,^  but  the  latter 
himself  went  to  England  and  after  representations  on 
both  sides  maintained  his  position.  Neither  Morris  nor 
Alexander  attended  meetings  of  the  council  under  Cosby, 
but  their  influence,  of  course,  was  cast  against  him. 

The  session  of  1733  was  nevertheless  not  marked  by 
serious  conflict  between  Cosby  and  the  house.     The  gov- 

'^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  270. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  V,  pp.  325,  395,  402,  etc.         ^Ibid.,  vol.  v,  pp.  408,  433. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT 


453 


ernor  in  his  speech  excused  his  delay  in  calHng  the  as- 
sembly by  the  fact  that  he  had  remained  in  England  to 
cast  his  influence  against  the  sugar  bill,  by  the  excessive 
cold  of  the  recent  winter,  and  by  his  regard  for  the  con- 
venience of  the  majority  of  the  members.  He  said  that 
he  believed  that  they  were  resolved  to  raise  a  revenue  for 
the  government  and  revealed  his  uneasiness  about  the 
possible  separation  of  New  Jersey  from  New  York  by 
declaring  that  he  would  divide  his  time  as  far  as  possible 
between  the  two  provinces.  The  speech  closed  with  the 
usual  patriotic  references  to  the  good  intentions  of  the 
king.'  The  assembly  in  reply  acknowledged  the  efforts 
of  the  governor  against  the  sugar  act  and  said  that 
though  they  regretted  that  an  earlier  session  was  impos 
sible  they  would  now  apply  themselves  to  business  with 
all  diligence.  They  would  endeavor  to  provide  for  the 
government  so  that  he  might  pass  a  considerable  time 
among  them  and  were  grateful  to  have  a  person  of  "  his 
excellency's  character"  to  govern  them.  The  address  of 
the  house  certainly  revealed  no  lack  of  confidence.' 

But  in  spite  of  its  favorable  expressions  the  assembly 
was  slow  in  accomplishing  results.  After  nearly  seven 
weeks  it  had  made  little  progress,  and  Cosby  thought  it 
necessary  after  administering  a  mild  rebuke  to  adjourn 
it  for  a  month.  On  reassembling,  the  house  did  better, 
though  there  is  little  evidence  that  it  employed  haste.^ 

The  assembly  finally  gave  the  usual  support  for  three 
years,  and  also  passed  an  act  appropriating  interest 
money  for  the  incidental  charges  of  the  government.* 
This  measure  Cosby  approved,  and  the  Lords  of  Trade» 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  476. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  May  10,  1733. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  481.        ^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  501. 


454  1'^^  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

in  spite  of  their  previous  attitude,  allowed  it  to  stand. 
Four  other  acts  were  also  passed,  and  the  assembly 
performed  its  usual  supervisory  work  over  the  finances, 
but  a  bill  for  the  frequent  calling  of  the  assembly  was 
lost  in  the  council/ 

Before  the  adjournment  the  house  had  addressed  the 
governor  upon  the  inconvenience  of  having  members  of 
the  council  who  were  not  residents  of  the  province. 
They  prayed  that  he  would  name  only  residents  for 
future  vacancies  in  the  council  and  to  all  other  posts  of 
trust.  Cosby  received  the  request  favorably,  and  said 
he  would  take  particular  care  in  the  matter.'  The  ses- 
sion was  finally  brought  to  a  close  on  August  i6,  1733. 
In  the  light  of  Cosby's  record  in  New  York  it  is  impos- 
sible to  commend  his  conduct  as  an  executive.  It  must 
be  admitted,  however,  that  in  his  dealings  with  the  as- 
sembly of  New  Jersey  he  gave  no  especial  cause  for 
offense.  His  death  in  1736  prevented  further  trial  of 
his  abilities,  as  he  did  not  again  call  a  session  in  New 
Jersey. 

During  the  period  from  the  death  of  Cosby  to  the 
commissioning  of  Lewis  Morris  as  New  Jersey's  first 
separate  governor,  the  legislative  department  of  the 
province  was  suspended.  This  interval  was  marked  by 
renewed  and  successful  application  to  the  home  authori- 
ties for  independence  from  New  York,  in  which  proceed- 
ings Richard  Partridge,  the  agent  of  the  "  general 
assembly,"  took  an  active  part,^  and  by  the  unfortunate 

^  A  bill  for  shortening  of  law  suits  and  regulating  the  practice  of  the 
law,  and  another  concerning  the  acknowledging  and  registering  of 
deeds  and  conveyances  of  land,  etc.,  were  also  lost  in  the  council.  The 
titles  of  these  bills  are  like  those  of  the  acts  passed  under  Burnet  and 
disallowed  in  1731.     New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  469-473. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  May  18,  1733.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  v,  pp.  448,  451. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT      455 

controversy  between  Morris  and  Col.  John  Hamilton 
regarding  the  presidency  of  the  council.  With  these 
matters  we  are  not,  however,  here  concerned. 

Looking  back  over  the  long  and  varied  field  of  con- 
troversy between  the  executive  and  legislative  depart- 
ments during  the  union  period,  we  are  now  in  a  position 
to  see  distinctly  certain  general  characteristics  of  the 
conflict  as  well  as  its  more  important  results.  Stripping 
off  the  accidental  circumstances  connected  with  the 
various  differences  of  opinion,  we  find  that  in  the  main 
they  involved  the  following  questions:  (i)  the  payment 
of  the  salary  of  the  governor  and  other  officers;  (2)  the 
confirmation  of  the  rights  of  the  proprietors  over  the 
Elizabethtown  tract,  and  other  disputed  districts;  (3) 
the  right  of  the  house  to  have  a  responsible  treasurer,  to 
audit  his  accounts,  and  to  provide  for  his  punishment  if 
necessary;  (4)  the  right  of  the  house  to  equality  with 
the  council  upon  such  points  as  (a)  conferences  upon 
disputed  bills,  (b)  access  to  the  journals  of  the  other 
house,  (c)  the  examination  of  all  documents,  laws, 
and  other  similar  materials;  (5)  the  privileges  and  lib- 
erties of  the  house  involving  such  matters  as  (a)  the 
right  of  the  house  to  determine  the  qualifications  of  its 
own  members,  (b)  the  right  to  have  a  clerk  named  by 
themselves  in  committee  of  the  whole,  (c)  the  right  to 
the  title  of  general  assembly;  (6)  whether  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  new  governor  required  the  election  of  a  new 
assembly;  (7)  whether  Quakers  could  hold  office  and 
enjoy  other  rights  of  complete  citizenship;  (8)  the 
organization  and  especially  the  discipline  of  the  militia; 
(9)  the  power  of  the  governor  to  change  the  place  of 
holding  sessions;  (10)  the  exclusive  right  of  the  gov- 
ernor and  council  to  constitute  and  regulate  the  pro- 
cedure  in  the  courts;   (11)   the  exclusive  right  of   the 


456  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

house  to  originate  all  bills  appropriating  money;  (12) 
the  appointment  of  non-residents  to  office;  (13)  the 
right  of  the  house  to  address  the  Crown  upon  matters 
not  approved  by  the  governor  and  council,  as  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  separate  government;  (14)  the  validity  of 
provincial  laws  not  formally  approved  by  the  Crown; 
(15)  the  gratification  of  party  and  personal  animosity. 

To  the  student  of  colonial  history  it  is  not  at  all  sur- 
prising that  the  house,  vested  as  it  was  with  control  of 
the  purse  strings,  should  win  victory  upon  nearly  all  of 
the  issues  and  thus  cut  down  gradually,  but  very  mate- 
rially, the  sphere  of  action  of  the  executive.  Upon  the 
first,  third,  fourth,  fifth,  seventh,  thirteenth  and  four- 
teenth of  the  debated  questions  the  victory  of  the  lower 
house  was  practically  complete.  Upon  the  ninth  issue 
also  it  was  virtually  successful.  Upon  the  eleventh  and 
twelfth  the  assembly  maintained  its  position.  The  only 
reason  that  the  efforts  of  the  house  to  confirm  the  in- 
terests of  the  proprietors  failed  was  that  the  later  assem- 
blies were  not  under  complete  proprietary  control.  If 
the  house  had  remained  true  to  the  proprietors,  it  would 
easily  have  prevailed.  The  only  issues  upon  which  the 
house  was,  up  to  1738,  squarely  defeated  were  the  sixth 
and  tenth.  Of  these  the  sixth  was  of  comparatively 
little  importance,  while  as  to  the  tenth,  the  wishes  of  the 
house  were  to  a  great  extent  followed  though  its  tech- 
nical control  was  not  established.  In  New  Jersey,  then, 
as  in  all  of  the  American  colonies,  the  whole  trend  of 
the  political  development  was  in  the  direction  of  making 
the  governor  the  executor  of  the  wishes  of  the  assembly 
rather  than  its  master.  This  result  is  the  more  interest- 
ing because,  down  at  least  to  the  administration  of  Bur- 
net, the  great  political  issue  was  between  the  proprietary 
and  anti-proprietary  parties.     Executive  and  legislature 


EXECUTIVE  AND  LEGISLATIVE  IN  CONFLICT 


457 


were  in  general  opposed  to  each  other  as  agents  of  the 
provincial  factions  rather  than  because  of  their  inherently 
different  objects  and  points  of  view.  It  is  a  false  view 
which  reads  into  New  Jersey  history  during  the  earlier 
part  of  the  eighteenth  century  opposition  to  the  gov- 
ernor as  the  royal  representative.  The  attacks  upon  the 
governor  were  always  made  upon  the  ground  that  he  did 
not  properly  represent  the  king;  that  is  to  say,  they 
were  based  upon  the  true  principles  of  the  English  sys- 
tem of  government.  The  theory  was  always  that  the 
interests  of  people  and  king  were  identical,  and  the  time 
had  not  yet  come  when  men  saw  that  it  was  not  so. 


CHAPTER  XXIII 

The  Judicial  System 

Upon  a  topic  on  which  so  excellent  a  monograph  as 
Judge  Field's  Provincial  Courts  of  New  Jersey  already 
exists  little  indeed  remains  to  be  said.  The  present 
chapter  is,  however,  required  to  make  our  survey  of  the 
political  institutions  of  the  Jerseys  complete. 

At  the  time  of  the  surrender  to  the  Crown  complete 
systems  of  courts  existed  in  both  the  Jerseys.  In  East 
Jersey  the  earliest  court  was  that  in  the  town  of  Bergen. 
After  the  English  conquest  there  was  another  at  Wood- 
bridge.  But  these  were  purely  local  courts  established 
by  the  corporations  of  the  two  towns  in  accordance  with 
their  charters.'  The  Monmouth  settlers  also  established 
certain  courts  in  virtue  of  their  patent  from  Col.  Nicolls. 
These,  however,  were  discontinued  after  the  submission 
of  the  Monmouth  patentees  to  Berkeley  and  Carteret.'' 

But  a  court  system  was  established  first  in  1675  t>y  act 
of  assembly.  There  was  instituted  first  a  monthly  court 
of  small  causes  for  the  trial  of  disputes  under  forty  shil- 
lings. These  courts  were  to  be  held  in  each  town  by  two 
or  three  persons  elected  for  the  purpose,  one  of  whom 
must  be  a  justice.^  Above  these  were  to  be  county 
courts  or  courts  of  sessions,  to  be  held  twice  a  year  in 

^Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietors,  pp.  287,  294. 
*Marcellus,  Proceedings  of  the  New  Jersey  Historical  Society,  vol.  i, 
p.  167. 

'Learning  and  Spicer,  Grants  and  Concessions,  p.  99. 
458 


THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM 


459 


each  county.  The  county  judges  were  also  to  be  elected. 
Apparently  the  county  court  had  unlimited  jurisdiction, 
but  there  was,  of  course,  appeal,  though  in  cases  under 
£20  this  was  to  be  allowed  only  to  the  court  of  assize 
or  the  court  of  chancery.'  The  court  of  assize  was 
the  provincial  court,  which  was  to  meet  once  a  year  at 
Woodbridge  or  where  the  governor  and  council  should 
appoint.'  From  it  appeal  lay  to  the  governor  in  coun- 
cil and  then  to  the  crown.  This  general  arrangement, 
though  modified  in  numerous  of  its  details,^  continued 
until  the  surrender. 

The  name  of  the  provincial  court  was  changed  to  the 
court  of  common  right  under  the  Twenty-four  Proprie- 
tors,* and  its  place  of  sitting  was  moved  first  to  Eliza- 
bethtown,  and  then  to  Amboy.^  It  was  given,  also, 
jurisdiction  in  equity  as  well  as  in  common  law.  Accord- 
ing to  Field  this  interesting  combination  of  power  was 
the  result  of  Scotch  jurisprudence,  since  in  Scotland 
there  was  never  a  distinct  court  of  equity.^  The  com- 
bination was  not,  however,  satisfactory  to  the  people,  for 
in  1698  the  general  assembly,  in  the  celebrated  act  de- 
claring "  what  are  the  rights  and  privileges  of  his 
majesty's  subjects  inhabiting  within  this  province," 
decreed  that  judges  of  common  right  should  not  be 
judges  of  the  high  court  of  chancery.'  Equity  jurisdic- 
tion was  apparently  intended  to  be  exercised,  if  it  was 
exercised  at  all,  by  the  governor  and  council. 

The  development  in  West  Jersey  was  in  the  main  sim- 

'  Learning  and  Spicer,  op.  cit.,  pp.  96-7. 

^ Ibid.,  p.  97.  ^ Ibid.,  pp.  229-232,  270,  304,  347. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  199.  ^  Ibid.,  pp.  232,  293. 

•Field,  Provincial  Courts  of  New  Jersey,  pp.  12,  13. 

^  Learning  and  Spicer,  op.  cit.,  p.  370. 


460  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

ilar.  It  is  rendered  especially  interesting  nevertheless, 
because  of  the  predominance  of  Quaker  influence  with 
its  peculiar  and  commendable  attitude  toward  both  legal 
procedure  and  crime.  The  simplicity  of  Quaker  thought 
in  this  direction  is  vividly  recalled  when  we  read  that 
Thomas  Olive,  when  governor  of  West  Jersey,  used  to 
dispense  justice  "  sitting  on  the  stumps  in  his  meadows." 

As  the  basis  of  the  system  in  West  Jersey,  there 
was  a  court  of  small  causes  held  by  a  single  justice 
having  jurisdiction  up  to  forty  shillings  with  appeal 
to  the  county  court.'  County  courts  were  established 
for  Burlington  and  Salem  in  1682,  and  in  the  other 
counties  somewhat  later.  They  were  held  four  times  a 
year  by  the  justices  of  each  county,  and  appear  to  have 
had  unlimited  jurisdiction  in  all  cases  civil  and  criminal, 
except  that  they  could  not  try  ofifenses  of  a  capital 
nature.' 

Not  until  1693  was  there  created  a  supreme  court  of 
appeals,  consisting  of  one  or  more  of  the  justices  of  each 
county  and  one  or  more  of  the  governor's  council.^ 
Down  to  1699  this  court  was  appellate  only,  but  in  that 
year  its  nature  was  altered.  It  was  renamed  the  pro- 
vincial court,  and  was  to  be  composed  of  three  judges, 
to  be  chosen  by  the  house  of  representatives  and  one  or 
more  of  the  justices  of  each  county.  It  was  to  be  held 
twice  a  year  in  each  county,  and  was  to  have  original  as 
well  as  appellate  jurisdiction  where  more  than  £20  was 
concerned.  Appeal  lay  to  the  general  assembly,  a  proof 
that  the  original  political  ideas  of  the  Friends  had  not 
yet  lost  their  vitality.'' 

In  1693  there  was  created  for  the  first  time  a  tribunal 

^  Learning  and  Spicer,  op.  cit.,  p.  509.  ^ Ibid.,  p.  448. 

^ Ibid.,  p.  517.  *^ Ibid.,  p.  563  et  seq. 


THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  461 

with  capital  jurisdiction.  This  was  a  court  of  oyer  and 
terminer,  consisting  of  a  judge  named  by  the  governor 
and  council,  aided  by  two  or  more  justices  of  the  county 
where  the  crime  was  committed.'  Even  this  court,  how- 
ever, could  not  inflict  the  death  penalty.  Persons  found 
guilty  of  treason  or  murder  were  to  be  turned  over  to 
the  general  assembly  which  was  to  give  sentence.' 

No  traces  of  a  court  of  equity  are  to  be  found  in  West 
Jersey. 

Such,  briefly  speaking,  were  the  systems  of  courts  ex- 
isting in  the  Jerseys  when  the  royal  government  was 
established.  Cornbury's  commission,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  gave  him  the  power  to  establish  all  necessary  courts 
both  of  law  and  equity,  to  name  all  judges,  justices  of  the 
peace  and  other  judicial  officers,  and  to  grant  reprieves 
until  the  pleasure  of  the  Crown  could  be  learned  in  all 
cases  but  those  of  treason  and  wilful  murder.-  These 
sweeping  powers  were  in  one  respect  actually  enlarged 
by  the  instructions  which  gave  to  the  governor  and 
council  the  right  to  regulate  all  salaries  and  fees,  though 
these  were  required  to  be  in  moderation."* 

The  instructions,  however,  put  upon  the  governor's 
control  certain  great  limitations.  To  prevent  arbitrary 
removals  the  commissions  of  all  judges  and  justices  issued 
by  the  consent  of  the  council  were  to  be  unlimited  in 
time.  No  such  officer  was  to  be  removed  without  good 
cause  signified  to  the  Crown  and  to  the  Board  of  Trade. 
Nor  was  Cornbury  himself  to  undertake  the  execution  of 
any  such  office  or  to  allow  anyone  else  to  do  so  by 
deputy.5     The  limitation,  however,  which  had  the  most 

'  Learning  and  Spicer,  op.  cii.,  p.  520. 

'  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  292.  '^ Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  495. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  i«,  p.  S2I.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  518. 


462  THE  PROVINCE  OP  NEW  JERSEY 

immediate  importance  was  that  forbidding  the  governor, 
in  spite  of  the  legal  power  given,  to  erect  without  order 
from  the  Crown'  any  court  or  office  of  judicature  not 
previously  existing.  A  list  of  all  such  already  existing 
was  to  be  sent  home  with  all  speed. ^ 

The  reconstitution  of  the  provincial  courts  was  one  of 
the  first  problems  to  receive  the  attention  of  Cornbury's 
administration,  and  its  solution  in  an  admirable  manner 
was,  as  has  been  elsewhere  stated,  one  of  the  very  few 
important  services  rendered  by  his  government  to  the 
Jerseys.  In  1704  was  issued,  upon  the  authority  of  the 
governor  and  council,  "An  Ordinance  for  Establishing 
Courts  of  Judicature."  3  We  know  that  this  subject  had 
been  considered  more  or  less  fully  in  the  meetings  of  the 
council,*  though  unfortunately  we  shall  probably  never 
know  positively  who  was  the  real  author  of  the  ordi- 
nance. There  seems  every  reason  to  believe,  however, 
that  it  was  the  work  of  Roger  Mompesson,  Cornbury's 
chief  justice,  who  alone  in  the  council  possessed  the 
necessary  legal  training.^  Cornbury  probably  did  no 
more  than  issue  the  ordinance  on  his  responsibility. 

The  ordinance  of  1704,  while  retaining  essentially  the 
existing  courts,  reorganized  and  recombined  them  in  an 
excellent  manner.  The  justices  of  the  peace  were  to 
have  cognizance  of  all  cases  of  debt  and  trespass  up  to 
forty  shillings.  But  there  was  to  be  a  right  of  appeal  to 
the  next  court  of  sessions  in  all  cases  above  twenty  shil- 
lings. In  the  justices'  court  causes  were  to  be  deter- 
mined without  jury.  It  was  next  ordered  that  a  court  of 
Common   Pleas   be   held   in   every  county  at  the   place 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  520.  "^ Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  531. 

*  Field,  Provincial  Courts  of  New  Jersey,  appendix  C,  p.  256. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  pp.  303-5. 

*  Field,  op.  cit.,  p.  50. 


THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  463 

where  the  general  court  of  sessions  was  held,  to  begin 
immediately  after  the  sessions  had  ended.  The  court  of 
Common  Pleas  was  to  have  power  to  try  all  actions  tri- 
able at  common  law.  Actions  might,  however,  be  ap- 
pealed or  removed  to  the  Supreme  Court  if  they  involved 
£10  or  if  the  title  to  land  was  an  issue.  The  courts  of 
general  sessions  were  to  be  held  four  times  a  year  in 
each  of  the  other  counties,  but  three  times  in  Cape  May. 
Each  session  was  to  continue  not  exceeding  two  days. 
These  courts  were  to  meet  at  Perth  Amboy  for  the 
county  of  Middlesex,  at  Bergen  for  Bergen,  at  Newark 
for  Essex,  at  Shrewsbury  for  Monmouth,  at  Burlington 
for  Burlington,  at  Gloucester  for  Gloucester,  at  Salem  for 
Salem,  and  at  the  house  of  Shamgar  Hand  for  Cape  May. 

The  system  was  completed  by  the  institution  of  a 
supreme  court.  This  was  to  sit  alternately  at  Perth 
Amboy  and  Burlington.  It  was  to  meet  at  Amboy  the 
first  Tuesday  in  May,  and  at  Burlington  the  first  Tues- 
day in  November,  but  sessions  were  not  to  continue 
more  than  five  days.  The  Supreme  Court  was  to  have 
cognizance  of  all  pleas  civil,  criminal,  and  mixed  as  fully 
as  the  courts  of  Queen's  Bench,  Common  Pleas,  and 
Exchequer  in  England.  Actions  might  be  begun  there 
if  they  were  for  over  £10. 

The  ordinance  further  stated  that  one  of  the  justices 
of  the  Supreme  Court  might,  if  need  be,  go  the  circuit 
and  keep  the  supreme  courts  for  the  various  counties  at 
prescribed  dates.  Such  justice  was  to  be  assisted  on  the 
circuit  by  two  or  more  justices  of  the  peace  in  each 
county. 

The  conservative  and  well  arranged  system  thus  de- 
vised endured  without  serious  change  during  the  entire 
colonial  period,  and  indeed  forms  the  basis  of  the  ar- 
rangements which  still  exist. 


464  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

The  courts  were  soon  put  into  operation  by  the  com- 
missioning of  the  requisite  officers :  a  chief  justice,  a 
second  judge,  several  associate  judges,  judges  of  the 
pleas  for  the  counties,  and  justices  of  the  peace.'  At 
the  beginning  many  irregularities  in  the  practice  of 
the  courts  naturally  appeared  and  the  conduct  of  the 
clique  which  surrounded  Cornbury  almost  at  once 
converted  the  tribunals  of  the  colony  into  engines  of 
injustice.*  These  abuses  we  shall  examine  later.  The 
system  as  such  was,  however,  an  immediate  success  with 
the  exception  of  the  provision  for  sending  a  justice  of 
the  supreme  court  on  the  circuit.  This  clause  appears 
from  the  beginning  to  have  been  ineffective. 

There  were,  however,  certain  features  in  the  judicial 
system  of  New  Jersey  which  were  not  founded  upon 
Cornbury's  ordinance.  As  in  the  case  of  all  the  royal 
provinces  the  governor's  instructions  expressly  gave  to 
the  inhabitants  the  right  of  appeal  in  case  of  error  from 
the  highest  provincial  court  to  the  governor  and  coun- 
cil, which  body  thus  became  a  part  of  the  judicial  sys- 
tem. But  in  such  case  those  members  of  the  coun- 
cil who  were  judges  in  the  lower  court  from  which 
the  appeal  was  taken  were  not  to  vote,  though  they 
might  be  present  to  explain  their  decisions.  If  the  case 
at  issue  exceeded  £200  sterling,  further  appeal  might  be 
made  to  the  Queen  in  council.' 

The  royal  commission  had  also  given  Cornbury  the 
right  to  appoint,  when  necessary,  commissioners  of  oyer 
and  terminer  for  the  trial  of  criminal  cases,  a  power  of 
which  all  the  governors  made  use  when  occasion  re- 
quired."* 

^ Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  pp.  23,  40,  41,  passim. 

'Field,  op.  cit.,  p.  52  (note). 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  531.  *■  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  495. 


THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  465 

Cornbiiry  in  addition  issued  in  1705,  by  and  with  the 
advice  of  his  council,  an  ordinance  for  the  estabHshment 
of  a  high  court  of  chancery  for  the  purpose  of  giving  re- 
lief in  cases  where  the  strictness  of  the  rules  of  common 
law  made  such  action  necessary.'  The  court  of  chancery 
was  to  consist  of  the  governor  £nd  lieutcncnt-governor 
for  the  time  being  and  any  three  of  the  council.  They 
were  to  act  as  nearly  as  might  be  in  conformity  with  the 
usages  of  the  high  court  of  chancery  in  England,  and 
were  to  hold  four  stated  terms  each  year.  The  court 
was  to  be  open  on  Thursday  of  each  week  at  Burlington 
to  hear  motions  and  make  rules  and  orders  thereon. 
Though  the  question  of  chancery  jurisdiction  was  a  mat- 
ter fought  over  with  great  bitterness  in  New  York  and 
other  colonies,  the  erection  of  the  court  seems  to  have 
aroused  little  attention  in  the  Jerseys,  and  its  work  dur- 
ing the  earlier  part  of  the  union  peiiod  seems  to  have 
been  of  no  great  importance. 

The  wide  control  held  by  the  governor  over  the  judi- 
cial system  was  certainly  one  of  the  matters  which 
aroused  especially  the  jealousy  of  the  assembly.  In 
spite,  however,  of  the  bitter  protests  made  by  the  repre- 
sentatives, both  in  the  remonstrance  of  1707  and  else- 
where, against  the  miscarriage  of  justice  in  the  courts 
under  Cornbury,  Mompesson  and  Pinhorne,"  the  legisla- 
lature  was  naturally  unable  to  pass  any  laws  altering  the 
judicial  system  materially  until  the  accession  of  Hunter. 
The  only  act  relating  directly  to  courts  passed  before 
Hunter's  arrival  was  that  of  1704  "  for  Reviving  and  Con- 
tinuing the  Courts  of  Quarter  Sessions  and  Common 
Pleas  in  Bergen,  Middlesex  and  Monmouth  Counties."  ^ 

^  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  p.  66;  Field,  op.  cit.,  p.  113. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  174  et  seq.,  244  ei  seq.,  374  et  seq. 

^ Laws  Enacted  in  1704  (Bradford  print). 


466  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

The  holding  of  these  courts  had  been  prevented  by  the 
attendance  of  the  judges  and  justices  upon  the  meeting 
of  the  assembly,  and  the  object  of  the  act  was  to  con- 
tinue all  suits  in  them  in  the  same  status  as  before.  But 
even  this  law  was  disallowed  by  the  Crowm,  along  with 
all  the  others  passed  by  the  second  assembly,  although 
in  later  administrations  several  similar  laws  were  carried 
and  allowed  to  stand. 

With  the  arrival  of  Hunter,  however,  there  was  a 
change,  and  when  in  1713  that  governor  at  length  met 
the  assembly  with  a  council  over  which  he  had  control, 
the  colonial  legislature  proceeded  to  pass  several  laws  of 
importance  relating  to  the  courts.  These  laws,  it  is  true, 
concerned  legal  practice  rather  than  the  structure  of  the 
courts,  yet  it  is  convenient  to  mention  them  at  this  point. 
Their  general  object  was,  of  course,  to  prevent  the  abuses 
of  justice  which  had  so  disgraced  the  province  under 
Cornbury.  An  act  for  preventing  corruption  in  the 
courts  of  justice  declared  all  laws  existing  in  England 
against  bribery  and  corruption  in  the  courts  in  force  in 
New  Jersey.  Further,  any  judge  determining  a  cause  in 
a  lower  court  who  should  sit  in  judgment  thereupon  in 
a  superior  tribunal  was  to  forfeit  £40.  Another  act 
was  intended  to  prevent  "  Malicious  Prosecutions  by 
Information."  This  law  ordained  that  no  person  should 
be  tried  upon  information  unless  by  an  order  of  the  gov- 
ernor signed  in  the  council.  The  person  accused  was  to 
be  brought  to  trial  at  the  second  court  after  such  infor- 
mation was  filed  or  else  discharged.  Any  person  acquitted 
on  such  trial  was  not  to  pay  fees,  and  if  the  attorney- 
general  or  any  one  else  violated  the  statute  the  fine 
was  to  be  £50.  A  third  act  was  "for  Ascertaining 
the  Qualifications  of  Jurors."^  This  law  enacted  that  all 
^  Allinson,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey. 


THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  467 

grand  and  petit  jurors  were  to  be  summoned  by  the 
sheriff  or  his  deputy,  or,  in  case  either  were  concerned, 
by  the  coroner  of  the  county.  Jurors  were  to  be  of 
good  fame  and  freeholders  of  the  county  for  which  they 
served.  All  grand  jurors  must  possess  at  least  £100 
in  real  estate  in  the  county,  and  petit  jurors  f  100  in  real 
or  personal  estate.  A  fourth  most  important  law  of  the 
same  session  made  the  solemn  affirmation  and  declaration 
of  the  people  called  Quakers  acceptable  instead  of  an  oath 
in  the  usual  form,  and  qualified  them  especially  to  serve 
as  jurors.'  This  was  a  most  necessary  piece  of  legisla- 
tion, and  would  have  been  enacted  long  before  if  Corn- 
bury  and  Ingoldsby  had  not  been  deliberately  false  to 
the  spirit  of  their  instructions. 

Another  measure  carried  through  was  entitled  "  An 
Act  for  Shortening  of  Lawsuits  and  Regulating  the 
Practice  of  the  Law.''^*  This  was  a  lengthy  act,  which 
endeavored  to  prevent  the  virtual  defeating  of  justice 
through  the  intentional  spinning  out  of  suits  by  impos- 
ing time  limits  for  the  trial  of  cases  and  the  carrying  out 
of  other  legal  procedure.  Theoretically,  it  was  no  doubt 
open  to  grave  objections,  though  it  was  probably  well 
suited  to  the  circumstances  of  a  frontier  community. 
"  An  Act  for  Acknowledging  and  Recording  of  Deeds 
and  Conveyances  of  Land  within  each  respective  County 
of  the  Province,"  3  provided  for  the  witnessing  of  trans- 
fers of  land  before  the  judges  and  justices  of  the  re- 
spective counties  and  the  recording  of  such  transfers  by 
the  clerk  of  the  pleas.  This  measure  was  intended  to 
save  the  people  from  the  expense  of  making  long  journeys 
to  Amboy  or  Burlington  to  record  titles,  but  it  injured 

•  Laws  Enacted  in  1713  (Bradford  print) . 

*  Allinson,  o|^.  aV.  ^  Ibid. 


468  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

the  secretary  of  the  province  in  spite  of  the  provision 
that  all  titles  recorded  with  him  were  to  be  legal  as  here- 
tofore. "  An  Act  for  Enforcing  the  Observation  of  the 
Ordinance  for  Establishing  Fees  within  this  Province," ' 
not  only  enforced  under  penalty  of  £50  the  said  fees  and 
no  other,  but  also  enacted  that  attorneys  who  split  cases 
so  as  to  obtain  more  actions  or  in  any  other  way  initiated 
unnecessary  procedure,  should  have  no  more  fees  than 
for  a  single  action. 

All  of  these  acts,  except  possibly  that  for  "Shorten- 
ing" lawsuits,  seem  to  have  been  of  a  proper  character, 
and  indeed  highly  desirable  after  the  gross  abuses  of 
Cornbury's  time.  But  James  Smith,  the  provincial  secre- 
tary, finding  that  the  emoluments  of  his  office  were 
greatly  reduced  by  the  law  "shortening"  lawsuits,  that 
regarding  deeds,  and  that  enforcing  the  ordinance  of 
fees,  memorialized  the  lords  of  trade  upon  the  subject.^ 
The  lords  sought  to  obtain  satisfaction  for  Smith  from 
the  assembly  itself  through  Governor  Burnet.^  But 
when  the  representatives  refused  to  restore  the  fees  the 
acts  in  question  were  eventually  disallowed  by  the 
Crown.*  The  action  of  the  home  authorities  in  thus 
deliberately  sacrificing  the  well-matured  desires  of  the 
colonial  legislature  to  the  plea  of  a  single  royal  official 
seems,  to  say  the  least,  most  ill-advised. 

The  legislation  discussed  shows  at  the  same  time 
the  interest  taken  by  the  assembly  of  the  colony  in  the 
judicial  system,  and  the  extent  to  which  it  interfered 
with  its  work.  The  actual  constitution  of  the  courts 
-was,  however,  always  under  the  control  of  the  governor 

^AUinson,  op.  cit. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  225. 

^ Ibid.,  vol,  xiv.,  p.  226.  *Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  240. 


THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  469 

alone.  In  1714  Hunter  issued  a  new  ordinance  for  the 
establishment  of  the  courts.'  But  its  provisions  were 
identical  with  those  of  the  original  ordinance  of  Corn- 
bury  and  Mompesson,  except  on  one  or  two  matters  of 
detail.  This  ordinance  expressly  forbade  the  county 
justices  from  trying  cases  in  which  title  to  land  was  con- 
cerned, a  provision  highly  proper  when  one  considers 
the  political  importance  of  the  land  question.  It  was 
also  ordered  that  henceforth  appeals  should  not  be  taken 
from  the  county  courts  to  the  supreme  court  unless 
they  involved  £20  instead  of  £10  as  formerly.  The 
office  of  the  supreme  court  was  to  be  kept  in  future  by 
the  clerk  or  his  sufficient  deputy  at  both  Amboy  and 
Burlington  under  penalty  of  deposition  and  such  other 
fines  as  the  law  could  inflict.  This  change  was  to 
remedy  a  grievance  hotly  advanced  by  the  assembly  in 
1707.  The  only  other  changes  were  in  the  time  of  hold- 
ing some  of  the  sessions. 

But  there  was  one  important  change  made  in  the 
courts  by  Hunter.  This  was  with  regard  to  the  chan- 
cery. Being  out  of  sympathy  during  the  earlier  part 
of  his  rule  with  most  of  the  members  of  his  council, 
Hunter  asserted  the  power  clearly  given  in  his  instruc- 
tions to  exercise  the  powers  of  chancellor  alone.'  Natur- 
ally his  action  was  made  one  of  the  points  of  attacks  by 
Coxe  and  the  party  of  opposition.'  But  Hunter's  course 
was  approved  by  the  home  government  and,  although 
no  new  ordinance  for  the  chancery  was  issued,  the  gov- 
ernor continued    to  act  as   chancellor   till    1770.      The 

'  Field,  Provincial  Courts  of  New  Jersey ,  appendix  D,  p.  263.  Hunter 
said  that  personally  he  was  very  ignorant  of  law  matters,  having  never 
been  concerned  in  a  suit. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  pp.  70,  114, 198;  Field,  op.  cit.,  p.  114. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  205. 


OF  THE     ~     %. 

UNIVERSITY 


470  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

change,  however,  undoubtedly  made  the  chancery  more 
unpopular. 

Under  Governor  Burnet  there  were  further  changes,, 
though  not  of  a  very  sweeping  character.  In  April,. 
1723,  there  was  issued  an  ordinance  for  altering  and  reg- 
ulating the  times  of  the  sitting  of  the  courts.^  This 
ordinance,  however,  embodied  some  of  the  provisions 
of  the  disallowed  acts  of  1713.  It  further  led  to  a 
protest  from  the  assembly,  who  represented  that  it 
still  held  the  people  of  the  province  under  the  incon- 
venience of  journeying  from  distant  points  to  Amboy 
and  Burlington  for  comparatively  trifling  matters."  The 
representatives  desired  leave  to  prepare  a  bill  to  remove 
the  difficulties,  but  to  this  procedure  the  governor  and 
council  would  not  consent.^  The  latter  nevertheless, 
named  a  committee  to  look  into  the  inconveniences  in- 
volved. 

A  little  later  the  assembly  presented  another  address 
relating  to  the  judicial  system.*  This  address  called  the 
attention  of  the  governor  to  the  disadvantages  of  having 
a  chief  justice  who  did  not  reside  in  the  province  and 
laid  emphasis  upon  the  injustice  of  compelling  persons, 
to  journey  from  remote  parts  of  the  Jerseys  to  New  York 
for  the  sake  of  giving  bail  or  obtaining  a  writ.  The 
house  immediately  after  voted  that  f  100  extra  should  be 
paid  to  a  chief  justice  who  would  ride  the  circuit. ^  This 
action  by  the  representatives  led  to  the  superseding  of 
Chief  Justice  Jamison  by  William  Trent. 

A  further  result  was  the  issuing  by  Burnet  of  "  An 
Ordinance   of   George    II,"    reconstituting   the    courts.^ 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  244.  '^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  251^ 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  252.  *'Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  255. 

^Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  23,  1723. 
*  Field,  op.  cit.,  appendix  E,  p.  269. 


THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM 


471 


The  new  ordinance,  of  course,  retained  the  leading  pro- 
visions of  those  of  1704  and  1714.  It,  however,  allowed 
appeals  from  the  justices'  court  to  the  general  sessions 
in  all  cases  over  ten  shillings.  It  was  also  provided  that 
any  two  judges  of  the  supreme  court  (the  chief  justice 
always  to  be  one)  should  have  power  to  commission 
suitable  persons  in  each  county  to  receive  bail  from  per- 
sons concerned  in  actions  or  suits  before  the  Supreme 
Court.  Such  recognizance  was  then  to  be  transmitted 
to  some  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  by  him  re- 
ceived upon  payment  of  the  usual  fees.  Further,  the 
chief  justice  or  other  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court 
was  every  year  to  go  into  each  county  except  Bergen 
and  Cape  May  to  try  all  cases  coming  before  the  Supreme 
Court,  judgment  to  be  given  at  the  next  Supreme  Court 
held  at  Amboy  or  Burlington  after  such  verdict  as  was 
given  in  the  counties.  The  high  sheriff,  justices  of  the 
peace,  the  mayor  and  aldermen  of  any  corporations 
within  the  county,  and  all  officers  of  the  court,  were  to 
attend  the  chief  justice  while  within  the  county  on  penalty 
of  prosecution. 

The  ordinance  of  1724  was  superseded  by  still  another 
the  next  year.'  This  however  was  hardly  more  than  a 
verbal  repetition.  The  only  important  alteration  was 
the  extension  of  the  circuit  to  all  the  counties  but  Cape 
May.  In  February,  1728,  came  the  last  ordinance  of 
Burnet,  and  indeed  of  the  union  period  for  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  courts. "^  It  was  now  ordained  that  hence- 
forth there  should  be  two  supreme  courts,  one  to  sit  at 
Amboy,  the  other  at  Burlington.  That  at  Burlington 
was  to  meet  in  May,  August,  November  and  February, 
and  that  at  Amboy  in  the  same  months  but  at  different 

'Field,  op.  cit.,  appendix  F,  p.  281.  *  Ibid.,  appendix  G,  p.  292. 


472 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


dates.  The  courts  were  to  sit  five  days,  but  all  trials 
and  returns  of  juries  were  to  be  m£.de  cnly  in  the  May 
and  November  terms.  The  August  and  February  terms 
were  to  be  for  the  returns  of  writs  and  for  other  law 
proceedings.  Except  for  this  important  change  the 
ordinance  of  1728  followed  that  of  1724. 

Governor  Burnet  was  especially  fond  of  his  chancery 
jurisdiction,  and  in  1724  issued  the  first  ordinance  for 
the  regulation  of  fees  in  chancery.'  These  fees  are  re- 
garded by  Judge  Field  as  most  liberal  though  at  the 
time  they  seem  to  have  caused  complaint. "*  Governor 
Montgomerie,  unlike  his  predecessor,  was  opposed  to 
the  chancery  court,  and  avoided  exercising  his  powers 
as  chancellor  whenever  possible.  Under  him,  in  1730,  a 
committee  of  the  council  was  appointed  to  revise  and 
moderate  the  fees,  so  as  to  make  them  conformable 
to  the  circumstances  of  the  province.  The  committee 
was  also  charged  with  examining  into  the  abuses  which 
had  grown  up  in  the  practice  of  the  court. ^  In  due 
time  it  reported  proposing  certain  amendments  to  the 
former  ordinances  intended  to  expedite  the  proceedings 
of  the  chancery  and  to  cut  down  the  expenses  of  suits. 
The  result  was  the  issuing  of  a  new  ordinance  by  the 
governor  and  council  embodying  the  suggestions  of  the 
council. ■♦ 

Under  Burnet,  Montgomerie  and  Cosby  several  laws 
were  passed  regarding  judicial  practice.  But  most  of 
these  offer  to  the  historical  student  little  of  interest. 
Such  were  an  act  for  preventing  multiplicity  of  lawsuits 
of  1722,5   an   act  for   the  limitation   of  actions   and  for 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  276.  *  Field,  oP.  cit.,  p.  114. 
^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  432.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  /!53. 
"Allinson,  Statutes  of  Nezv  Jersey. 


THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  473 

avoiding  suits  in  law  of  1728,"  and  an  act  prescribing 
the  forms  of  declaration,  the  effect  of  the  abjuration  oath 
and  affirmation  instead  of  the  forms  hitherto  required  in 
such  cases,  etc.,'  passed  at  the  same  session. 

Three  of  these  later  laws  may,  however,  receive  a  little 
more  notice.  In  the  last  session  under  Burnet  there  was 
passed  an  act  for  preventing  malicious  prosecutions  on 
indictments  and  other  suits  of  the  Crown  and  rectifying 
sundry  abuses  in  the  proceedings  thereon.^  This  enacted 
that  in  all  cases  where  persons  tried  on  indictments  were 
found  innocent  they  should  be  discharged  from  all  costs 
whatever,  any  usage  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 
It  was  also  declared  that  where  several  persons  were  in- 
dicted for  an  offense  and  found  guilty  the  costs  should 
not  be  taxed  against  each  severally  but  against  all,  and 
should  not  amount  to  more  than  the  cost  of  the  suit 
against  one  particular  person.  In  the  same  session  an- 
other act  was  passed  "Concerning  the  Acknowledging 
and  Registering  Deeds  and  Conveyances  of  Land.""*  This 
statute  contained  all  the  chief  provisions  of  the  disallowed 
act  of  1713  for  the  recording  of  deeds  by  the  county 
clerks.  It  also  contained  provisions  intended  to  prevent 
errors  in  the  recording  of  proprietary  lands.  Another 
act  for  "  the  Shortening  of  Lawsuits  and  Regulating  the 
practice  and  Practioners  of  the  Law  "  was  an  effort,  like 
the  similar  law  of  Hunter's  time,  to  fix  the  time  within 
which  issues  at  law  must  be  joined  and  trials  held.*   Both 

'Allinfon,  op.  cit.  This  law  declared  that  all  statutes  in  fcrce  in 
Great  Britain  regarding  the  limitation  cf  actions  should  also  be  in  force 
in  the  colony. 

^  Ibid.  This  last  was  a  highly  necessary  act  for  further  ease  of  the 
Quakers. 

^Ibid.  ''Ibid. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  471-3.  This  action  was  taken 
after  further  memorializing  by  James  Smith. 


474 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


these  laws  were  again  disallowed  by  the  Crown  in  Novem- 
ber, 1 73 1. 

Finally,  in  1733  under  Cosby  we  have  another  act  "for 
the  better  enforcing  an  Ordinance  made  for  Establishing 
of  Fees  and  for  Regulating  the  Practice  of  the  Law." ' 
The  object  of  this  measure  was  to  reduce  the  cost  of  cases 
by  cutting  down  the  fees  where  possible.  It  was  even 
claimed  that  the  act  in  several  cases  actually  lowered  the 
fees  established  by  the  ordinance.  The  act  also  made 
changes  in  the  procedure  of  the  courts  which  were  believed 
by  the  opponents  of  the  assembly  to  be  in  the  interest  of 
the  debtor  class  and  to  entail  hardship  upon  all  credi- 
tors.^ The  law  did  contain,  however,  the  wholesome  pro- 
vision that  none  should  be  admitted  as  attorneys  who 
were  not  skilled  in  the  law,  having  either  served  an  ap- 
prenticeship of  seven  years  to  an  able  licensed  attorney 
or  studied  law  at  least  four  years  after  becoming  of  age. 
In  any  case  the  measure  did  little  harm,  for  it  was  disal- 
lowed by  the  Crown  in  1735.^ 

It  is  thus  to  be  seen  that,  in  spite  of  its  efforts,  the  as- 
sembly did  not  meet  with  complete  success  in  its  attempt 
to  regulate  the  courts.  The  legislation  of  Hunter's  time 
against  the  great  abuses  of  Cornbury  and  his  ring  was 
undoubtedly  salutary.  But  the  credit  for  the  inaugura- 
tion and  development  of  the  judicial  system  must  go  to 
the  wise  policy  of  the  executives.  The  elaboration  of  so 
excellent   a   system   was   certainly  a   meritorious   work, 

'  Nezv  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  377. 

*Mr.  Fane  said  that  the  act  really  meant:  "We  will  pay  no  law  fees, 
we  will  have  no  lawyers,  we  will  pay  no  custom  house  fees,  neither  will 
we  pay  any  debts.  But  we'll  punish  every  man  that  shall  pretend  to 
sue  for  his  own;"  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  393. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  515. 


THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM 


475 


though  it  was  of  course  much  simpHfied  by  the  examples 
of  neighboring  colonies.  But  of  more  importance  was 
the  actual  administration  of  justice  through  the  courts. 
To  this  topic  we  must  now  turn  our  attention. 

Nowhere  perhaps  was  the  influence  of  the  several  royal 
governors  more  directly  shown  than  in  their  appoint- 
ments to  high  judicial  positions.  The  first  chief  justice 
of  New  Jersey  was  Roger  Mompesson.  Mompesson  had 
been  a  lawyer  of  some  eminence  in  England,  having 
served  as  recorder  of  Southampton  and  as  a  member  of 
two  parliaments.  He  had  arrived  only  a  short  time  before 
in  America,  whither  he  had  come  "  to  ease  his  fortune  of 
some  of  his  father's  debts  he  was  unwarily  engaged  for." 
But  though  recommended  by  William  Penn  for  high  office 
in  Pennsylvania,  Mompesson  was  disappointed  in  obtain- 
ing advancement  there.  He  was,  however,  soon  made 
chief  justice  of  both  New  York  and  New  Jersey  by  Lord 
Cornbury,  of  whose  father,  the  Earl  of  Clarendon,  he 
had  been  a  favorite. 

Mompesson  became  Cornbury's  chief  adviser  in  all 
matters  of  law,  and  was  soon  made  a  member  of  the 
governor's  council.  In  the  high  stations  held  by  him 
his  record  is  most  discreditable,  as  under  his  guid- 
ance the  courts  became  engines  of  an  arbitrary  tyranny. 
Mompesson  did  indeed  render  the  province  a  service  by 
the  skill  with  which  he  constituted  the  courts.  But  aside 
from  this,  the  best  that  can  be  said  of  him  is  that  he 
acted  rather  as  the  subservient  tool  of  Cornbury  than  on 
his  own  initiative,  and  that  when  brought  to  task  under 
Lovelace  and  Hunter  he  showed  himself  somewhat  less 
resolute  than  other  members  of  Cornbury's  ring.' 

Of   Mompesson's   private   life   and   character   little   is 

^Nezv  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  Hi,  p.  yjy,  vol.  iv,  p.  70. 


476  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

known.  He  became  the  son-in-law  of  William  Pinhorne, 
the  second  judge,  with  whose  later  career  his  own  was 
closely  connected/ 

William  Pinhorne,  unlike  Mompesson  was  not  bred  to 
the  law,  but  had  originally  been  a  merchant  in  New 
York.  In  that  colony  he  had  already  taken  a  prominent 
part  in  public  affairs.  Pinhorne  had  been  a  member  of 
Governor  Sloughter's  council  when  Leisler  was  ex- 
ecuted, and  continued  to  hold  that  position  until  1698 
when,  on  the  overthrow  of  his  party,  he  was  suspended 
from  his  offices  and  found  it  wise  to  retire  to  New  Jer- 
sey. In  the  latter  province  he  was  proprietor  of  an 
extensive  estate  between  the  Hackensack  and  Passaic 
Rivers  at  Snake  Hill  then  known  as  Mount  Pinhorne. 
Like  Mompesson  he  was  a  member  of  Lord  Cornbury's 
council,^  and  seems  to  have  been  equally  guilty  with  the 
other  members  of  maladministration.  As  a  judge  he 
was  no  better  than  Mompesson,  and  was  guilty  espec- 
ially of  denying  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  to  Thomas 
Gordon,  the  speaker  of  the  assembly.^ 

The  first  attorney-general  of  the  royal  province  was 
Alexander  Griffith,  "that  vile  fellow  Griffith,"  as  Hunter 
termed  him,'*  who  is  remembered  chiefly  for  the  cam- 
paign of  prosecutions  upon  information  which  he  directed 
against  all  who  opposed  Cornbury.  The  clerk  of  the 
Supreme  Court  was  Jeremiah  Basse,  secretary  of  the 
province  whose  career  calls  for  no  further  description 
here. 

'Field,  Provincial  Courts  of  New  Jersey,  pp.   56-61;   New  Jersey 
Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  ti6  (note  2). 
^During  the  suspension  of  Morris  he  was  president  of  the  council. 

*  Field,  op.  cit.,  p.  y2>  et  seq.;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  299 
(note). 
*Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  209. 


THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  477 

Upon  the  arrival  of  Lovelace,  Mompesson  voluntarily 
retired,  and  was  succeeded  as  chief  justice  by  Thomas 
Gordon,  the  very  man  who  had  suffered  most  severely 
from  the  tyranny  of  the  courts.  Gordon's  power  was 
not  for  long,  however,  as  upon  the  death  of  Lovelace 
and  the  accession  of  Ingoldsby,  Mompesson  and  Pin- 
home  were  restored  to  power.' 

But  the  arrival  of  Hunter  meant  a  permanent  change 
in  the  personnel  of  the  courts.  Hunter's  selection  for 
the  post  of  chief  justice  was  David  Jamison,  a  Scot  by 
birth  and  a  resident  of  New  York,  where  he  was  recog- 
nized as  an  able  lawyer.  He  had  been  clerk  of  the 
council  of  New  York  under  Fletcher,  but  was  removed 
by  Bellomont,  who  made  against  him  astonishing  charges 
of  atheism  and  bigamy.  Later,  however,  Jamison  was 
restored  to  his  office  by  Bellomont  himself,  and  in  1699 
was  one  of  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Church.  The  new 
chief  justice  of  the  Jerseys  had  distinguished  himself  by 
his  brave  defense  of  McKemie,  the  Presbyterian  clergy- 
man, against  Cornbury,  and  the  only  serious  objection 
to  his  appointment  was  that  he  remained  a  resident  of 
New  York.  Jamison's  administration  of  the  courts 
seems  to  have  been  both  capable  and  upright.  After  his 
retirement  under  Burnet,  he  held  the  important  post  of 
attorney  general  of  New  York."" 

The  associate  justice  was  Thomas  Farmar,  who  had 
previously  held  the  post  of  collector  of  the  customs  at 
Perth  Amboy,  whither  he  had  removed  from  Staten 
Island  in  171 1.  Farmar  was  during  several  assemblies 
the  representative  of  Middlesex  in  the  assembly  and  had 

"^  New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  iii,  p.  500. 

*  Field,  op.  cit.,  p.  gi  et  seq.;  Whitehead,  Contributions  to  the  Early 
History  of  Perth  Amboy,  pp.  38,  40. 


478  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

taken  an  active  part  in  the  proceedings  as  a  member  of 
the  proprietary  party.  He  continued  to  act  as  repre- 
sentative while  on  the  bench.  Farmar  held  the  post  of 
second  judge  for  many  years,  and  eventually  in  1728  be- 
came chief  justice.  He  was  superseded,  however,  in 
1729,  possibly  because  of  the  insanity  from  which  he  is 
known  to  have  suffered  before  his  death.'  Farmar's  son, 
under  the  name  of  Christopher  Billop,  was  the  prominent 
leader  of  the  loyalists  in  Staten  Island  and  vicinity  during 
the  Revolution.^ 

In  1 713,  upon  the  suspension  of  Griffith  from  the  at- 
torney-generalship, Thomas  Gordon  was  named  by 
Hunter  as  "  commissioner "  for  executing  that  office. 
In  the  first  year  of  George  I  he  was  regularly  com- 
missioned as  attorney  general.  In  1719,  while  his  old 
enemy  Hunter  was  still  in  power,  Jeremiah  Basse  re- 
ceived the  governor's  commission  for  the  office,  and 
closed  his  checkered  career  by  respectable  service  to 
the  province. 

The  appointees  of  Hunter  remained  in  office  during 
the  earlier  part  of  Burnet's  administration. ^  But  in  1723 
the  eighth  assembly  addressed  Burnet  to  name  a  chief 
justice  resident  in  the  province,  and  who  would  ride  the 
circuit.  This  address,  however,  contained  no  complaint 
against  Jamison's  administration  of  the  post.  The  gov- 
ernor wisely  decided  to  gratify  the  assembly,  and  ap- 
pointed as  chief  justice  William  Trent,  at  that  time 
speaker.  Trent,  like  Farmar,  was  not  a  lawyer  by  pro- 
fession.     He  was  a  native  of   Inverness,   Scotland,  but 

'  Such  is  the  suggestion  of  Field.  In  1735,  however,  Farmar  was 
named  as  a  member  of  the  council  by  Governor  Cosby;  New  Jersey 
Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  516. 

^  Field,  op.  cit.,  p.  126  et  seq.;  Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  p.  92. 
'In  1 721  Peter  Bard  was  second  judge. 


THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  479 

had  long  been  a  resident  of  Philadelphia,  where  he  had 
been  a  most  successful  merchant.  For  many  years  he 
had  been  judge  of  the  supreme  court  of  Pennsylvania 
and  speaker  of  the  assembly,  so  that  he  had  had  long 
judicial  experience.  In  1714  he  purchased  Mahlon 
Stacy's  plantation  of  eight  hundred  acres  on  the  Assan- 
pink  Creek,  where  the  city  of  Trenton  now  stands,  and 
soon  became  a  resident  of  New  Jersey.  In  1721  he  was 
elected  as  representative  to  the  assembly  from  Burlington 
County,  and  in  1723  was  chosen  speaker.  William  Trent 
did  not  live,  however,  to  enjoy  the  post  of  chief  justice 
long,  as  he  died  in  1724,  only  a  few  months  after  taking 
his  seat.  The  terms  of  respect  with  which  he  is  always 
mentioned  by  his  contemporaries  indicate  that  he  was  a 
man  of  high  character  and  strong  personality,  and  that 
his  death  was  a  distinct  loss.' 

His  successor  was  Robert  Lettice  Hooper,  who  had 
also  been  prominent  in  the  assembly,  though  he  had 
taken  no  leading  part  in  the  politics  of  the  colony.' 
Hooper's  reputation  was  made  in  his  judicial  office, 
as  his  administration  was  creditable  and  satisfactory, 
though  unmarked  by  striking  occurrences.  He  pre- 
sided, however,  over  the  trial  of  the  highly  important 
Schuyler  case  in  1733,  in  which  a  notable  victory  was 
won  for  the  associates  of  Elizabethtown  against  the  pro- 
prietors. Hooper  continued  as  chief  justice  during  the 
remainder  of  the  union  period.  His  tenure  was,  how- 
ever, interrupted  in  1728  by  the  appointment  of  Thomas 
Farmar  as  his  successor.  Why  Burnet  took  this  peculiar 
step  is  not  known.  In  the  very  next  year  Hooper  was 
restored.' 

'  Field,  op.  cit.,  p.  105  et  seq.;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  T]. 
'Field,  Provincial  Courts  of  New  Jersey,  pp.  126,  129. 
^Ibid.,  p.  128. 


480  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

In  1734,  under  Cosby,  another  notable  appointment 
was  made.  This  was  that  of  Col.  Daniel  Coxe  as  second 
judge.'  Like  Basse  this  leader  of  the  opposition  to 
Hunter  had  at  length  made  his  peace  with  the  chief  ex- 
ecutive. Coxe  had  resumed  a  prominent  place  in  the 
affairs  of  the  colony  under  Burnet  and  had,  in  spite  of 
his  bad  reputation  as  a  supporter  of  Cornbury,  shown 
himself  worthy  of  further  trust.  His  record  on  the 
bench  was  creditable. 

The  successors  of  Basse  as  attorney-general  were 
James  Alexander,  whobc  notable  career  is  elsewhere  de- 
scribed, Lawrence  Smyth  and  Joseph  Worrell. 

The  examination  of  the  provincial  courts  of  New 
Jersey  in  action  is  certainly  one  of  the  most  instructive 
chapters  in  the  political  history  of  the  colony.  We  are 
to  consider  in  this  field  a  condition  of  things  so  different 
from  that  of  our  own  time  as  to  be  realized  only  by  some 
effort  of  the  historical  imagination.  Yet  an  understand- 
ing of  this  topic  is  essential  to  a  knowledge  of  the  true 
political  issues  of  the  province. 

The  courts  under  Cornbury  were  undoubtedly  engines 
of  despotism.  Even  after  this  lapse  of  time  no  milder 
term  could  be  justified.  The  complete  control  by  the 
executive  over  the  judicial  system,  arising  especially  from 
the  power  of  the  governor  to  appoint  the  judges  and 
justices,  made  it  difficult  indeed  for  the  people  of  the 
province  to  meet  this  species  of  oppression.  Of  all  the 
powerful  weapons  in  the  hands  of  the  corrupt  governor 
and  his  clique  this  control  over  the  courts  was  perhaps 
the  most  effective  and  was  employed  with  the  most  com- 
plete lack  of  scruple. 

Nor  did  this  aspect  of  the  courts  take  long  in  develop- 

*  Field,  op.  cit.,  p.  132  et  seq. 


THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  481 

ing.  The  first  session  of  the  Supreme  Court  which  was 
held  at  Burlington  in  November,  1704,  was  indeed  not 
productive  of  important  results.  The  chief  justice  and 
the  second  judge  took  their  seats  and  a  grand  jury  was 
returned  by  the  sheriff  of  Burlington  County,  but  no  in- 
dictments were  found  and  no  civil  suits  were  ready  for 
trial.  The  chief  business  was  the  admission  of  several 
attorneys,  among  whom  were  John  Moore,  May  Bickley 
and  Thomas  Gordon.' 

But  in  the  May  term  of  1704,  held  also  irregularly  it 
would  appear  at  Burlington,  the  courts  began  their 
interference  in  politics.  Much  bitterness  and  criticism 
had  naturally  been  aroused  by  the  governor's  attitude 
toward  the  first  assembly,  and  the  governor's  henchmen 
on  the  bench  at  once  made  the  courts  the  upholders  of 
his  excellency's  conduct.  Three  rather  well-known  per- 
sons were  arraigned  before  the  grand  jury  for  uttering 
seditious  words  regarding  Cornbury.  These  were  John 
Hollingshead  of  Rancocas  Creek,  one  of  the  earliest 
settlers  in  Burlington  County,  Walter  Pumphrey  of  Bur- 
lington Town,  and  Jedediah  Allen  of  Shrewsbury,  Mon- 
mouth County,  himself  a  member  of  the  first  assembly.' 
Hollingshead  was  accused  of  declaring  "that  the  gov- 
ernor had  dissolved  the  assembly,  but  that  they  could 
get  another  just  as  good,  and  if  the  governor  liked  them 
not,  he  might  go  whence  he  came."  Allen  had  made 
the  heinous  assertion  "that  Col.  Morris  was  dismissed 
from  being  of  the  council  by  my  Lord,  but  that  it  was 
more  than  my  Lord  had  power  to  Doe."'  But  the 
grand  jury  in  spite  of  these  terrible  charges  bravely 
refused    to    find    indictments.      The    governor    and    his 

^Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (1704-1715),  p.  i. 
^Ibid.,  pp.  7,  8,  9. 


482  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

clique,  however,  were  not  to  be  thus  balked,  and  accord- 
ingly the  attorney  general  was  instructed  to  apply  to  the 
court  for  leave  to  file  informations.  This  permission 
was  at  once  given  and  the  informations  drawn  up/ 

The  defendants  all  pleaded  not  guilty.  Hollingshead, 
whose  case  was  the  first  to  come  up,  moved  to  postpone 
his  trial  until  the  following  term.  This  was  allowed, 
providing  he  would  put  in  an  issuable  plea,  thus  admit- 
ting the  sufficiency  of  the  information.  The  court, 
therefore,  ordered  that  he  should  enter  into  a  recogni- 
zance to  appear  at  the  next  term  to  put  in  an  issuable 
plea,  and  to  keep  the  peace  meanwhile.  But  Hollings- 
head refused  to  do  this,  and  the  court  then  committed 
him  for  contempt  and  "for  abusing  the  witnesses  of  her 
Majesty."  At  the  next  term  Hollingshead  was  tried  and 
acquitted,  but  the  court  refused  to  discharge  him  until 
he  had  paid  all  the  costs. ^  He  was  accordingly  con- 
tinued on  recognizance  till  next  term,  and  this  was 
regularly  renewed  until  the  May  term  of  1707,  when  he 
was  at  length  discharged. ^ 

Walter  Pumphrey  adopted  a  bolder  course,  agreeing 
to  go  to  trial  at  once.  He  would,  however,  neither  em- 
ploy counsel  nor  submit  any  evidence.  The  jury  was 
therefore  obliged  to  bring  him  in  guilty,  but  the  court 
nevertheless  did  not  pronounce  judgment,  doubtless 
fearing  popular  indignation.  Pumphrey  was  instead  put 
on  recognizance  to  appear  from  term  to  term,  and  after 
several  renewals  forfeited  his  recognizance,  as  Field  be- 
lieves with  the  understanding  that  no  further  proceed- 
ings would  be  brought."* 

'  Field,  Provincial  Courts  of  New  Jersey,  p.  54.     Field  bases  his  ac- 
count directly  upon  the  court  record. 
^Ibid.,  pp.  55-56. 

^Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (i 704-1 715),  p.  37. 
*  Field,  op.  cit.,  pp.  55,  56. 


THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  483 

The  case  of  Allen  apparently  never  came  to  trial. 
But  after  the  court  had  caused  him  all  the  annoyance 
and  expense  possible  the  proceedings  were  discontinued/ 

These  three  cases  were  an  ominous  beginning  of  the 
work  of  the  royal  courts.  For  a  brief  space  there  ap- 
pears to  have  been  a  suspension  of  hostilities.  But  it 
was  not  for  long.  In  the  May  term  of  1707,  Thomas 
Killingworth,  of  Salem,  was  tried  upon  two  informations 
for  speaking  slanderously  against  the  Church  of  England, 
declaring  it  "  a  carnal  church,"  and  using  other  un- 
seemly words.     He  was,  however,  acquitted.' 

As  the  struggle  between  Cornbury's  ring  and  the  pro- 
prietary leaders  became  intensified,  the  servile  courts 
grew  more '  active.  Informations  were  filed  upon  var- 
ious pretexts  against  many  of  those  prominent  in  the 
proprietary  interest.  Capt.  Harrison,  Dr.  Johnstone, 
and  George  Willocks,  were  thus  prosecuted  for  "  slan- 
derous words  against  the  chief  justice."  George  Wil- 
locks, John  Pike,  and  John  Barclay,  were  accused  of 
publishing  a  "libel"  called  "Forget  and  Forgive."' 
An  information  was  brought  against  Thomas  Gardiner 
for  pretending  to  act  as  surveyor  general  of  West  Jersey 
without  authority.  Richard  Wildgoose  and  seven  other 
ex-constables  of  Burlington  County  were  prosecuted  for 
failure  to  make  distresses  on  the  Quakers  under  the 
militia  act  of  1704.^ 

But  the  court  had  learned  from  its  experience,  and  in 
conducting  these  cases  made  no  effort  to  bring  them  to 
trial  or  to  secure  convictions.  The  object  of  the  confed- 
erates was  to  inflict  punishment  upon  the  opponents  of 

'Field,  op.  cit.,  p.  56. 

^Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (1704-1715),  pp.  48-50. 

Ubid.,  p.  57. 


484  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

their  policy  of  corruption  by  putting  them  on  recog- 
nizance, and  then  spinning  out  their  cases  and  compelHng 
them  to  incur  the  trouble  and  expense  of  hiring  counsel 
and  making  journeys  to  attend  the  court/  It  is  this 
aspect  of  the  matter  which  makes  the  conduct  of  Mom- 
pesson,  Pinhorne,  Griffith,  and  the  other  judges  and 
court  officers  so  entirely  unjustifiable. 

The  court  also  used  its  power  over  attorneys  to  intimi- 
date the  practitioners  of  the  law  from  opposing  the  gov- 
ernor or  the  chief  justice.  When  Capt.  Harrison  was 
under  prosecution  in  1708  he  was  obliged  to  move  that 
counsel  be  obliged  to  plead  for  him  as  he  had  offered 
fees  and  none  dared  accept.  Emmet  and  Regnier,  the 
latter  a  hanger-on  of  the  ring  and  clerk  of  the  court, 
were  ordered  to  represent  him.  The  case  finally  went  to 
the  jury  and  he  was  acquitted.''  It  is,  indeed,  a  matter 
of  much  credit  to  the  province  that  no  jury,  so  far  as  the 
records  of  the  Supreme  Court  show,  ever  brought  in  a 
verdict  of  guilty  against  a  person  on  trial  for  contempt 
of  the  government  under  Cornbury  unless  the  unavoid- 
able verdict  against  Pumphrey  be  regarded  as  an  ex- 
ception.3 

Somewhat  similar  to  the  experience  of  Harrison  was 
that  of  Thomas  Turnbull  who  was  accused  of  slandering 
Cornbury  and  whose  case  came  up  soon  after.  Turnbull 
also  found  it  impossible  to  secure  counsel.  The  court 
assigned  him  Jacob  Regnier,  who  advised  him  to  plead 
guilty  and  ask  for  mercy."*  When  he  did  so  he  was 
ordered  to  go  to  Cornbury  and  beg  his  pardon  and  then 
to  be  committed  to  prison  for  three  months. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  41. 

*  Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (i  704-1 715),  p.  49. 
'Field,  op.  cit.,  p.  56. 

*  Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (1704-1715),  p.  49. 


THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  485 

But  perhaps  the  proceedings  in  which  the  political 
motives  of  the  judicial  officers  were  most  clearly  exhibi- 
ted were  those  against  Thomas  Gordon,  the  prominent 
proprietary  leader.  As  is  shown  more  fully  elsewhere, 
he  was  in  1703  commissioned  as  register  by  the  proprie- 
tors of  East  Jersey.  Cornbury,  however,  demanded  as  a 
part  of  his  campaign  against  the  proprietors  that  the 
records  should  be  handed  over  to  Basse,  the  secretary  of 
the  province.  The  order  was  served  upon  Gordon  at 
Shrewsbury,  but  Gordon  declined  to  answer  it  directly, 
stating  that  the  records  were  at  Amboy.  He  was,  there- 
fore, at  once  arrested  by  the  order  of  Andrew  Bowne,  a 
member  of  the  council,  and  was  held  on  excessive  bail  to 
answer  before  Cornbury  and  council  in  the  following 
October.  Before  the  council  Gordon  was  much  abused 
by  Cornbury,  but  after  various  negotiations  the  records 
were  finally  delivered  to  Basse.' 

In  February,  1706,  writs  were  again  issued  for  the  ap- 
prehension of  Gordon  and  he  gave  bail  to  appear  before 
the  supreme  court.  But  soon  afterward  he  was  sus- 
pended by  the  court  from  practicing  as  an  attorney  with- 
out reason  being  entered.  Even  when  in  May,  1708,  he 
appeared  before  the  supreme  court  and  was  discharged, 
"nothing  appearing  against  him,''  he  was  not  restored 
to  his  position.'  At  this  point  he  was  elected  speaker 
of  the  third  assembly,  in  the  room  of  Samuel  Jennings, 
who  was  ill,  and  bravely  carried  on  the  campaign  against 
the  governor  which  Morris  and  Jennings  had  so  ably 
begun.3 

As  a  result  he  was  arrested  on  the  warrant  of  Corn- 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  75  et  seq. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  75  et  seq. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  May  5,  1708. 


486  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

bury  himself,  within  half  an  hour  after  the  adjournment 
of  the  assembly  upon  the  same  old  charge.  Gordon 
promptly  applied  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  but  this  was 
denied  by  Judge  Pinhorne.  The  pretext  was  that  such 
application  must  be  made  by  counsel-at-law.  Gordon 
was  thereupon  kept  in  prison  for  fifteen  hours  to  his 
great  discomfort  and  injury.  At  length  he  succeeded  in 
engaging  Capt.  John  Pinhorne,  son  of  the  judge,  to  act 
as  his  counsel,  and  paid  him  the  required  fees,  though 
Gordon  himself  drew  the  writs.  He  thus  secured  his 
liberty  upon  bail,  but  was,  of  course,  obliged  to  attend 
the  next  supreme  court.  Here  he  was  again  discharged. 
But  though  thus  apparently  cleared,  his  suspension  from 
practicing  law  was  not  removed  until  the  arrival  of 
Lovelace.' 

Another  case  of  miscarriage  of  justice,  which  attracted 
much  attention,  was  that  of  Peter  Blacksfield.  This  pro- 
ceeding appears  to  have  been  equally  outrageous,  though 
the  motive  back  of  it  was  not  so  evidently  political.  It 
appears  that  the  said  Blacksfield  gave  security  for  the 
appearance  of  one  William  Slooby,  of  Salem  County,  who 
was  on  trial  before  the  Supreme  Court  for  piracy,  and 
Slooby  faihng  to  appear  in  the  fall  term  of  1705,  judgment 
was  given  against  him  by  default  and  his  recognizance 
forfeited.  Blacksfield  was  thus  ruined.  But  the  parties 
involved  maintained,  apparently  with  truth,  that  no 
proper  notice  had  been  given  Slooby  that  his  appearance 
was  required.  Blacksfield,  after  further  efforts  to  secure 
justice  from  the  Supreme  Court,  endeavored  to  appeal  to 
the  superior  authority  of  the  governor  and  council.  But 
that   excellent   body  would  take  no  cognizance   of   the 

'  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  pp.  40,  jy. 


THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  487 

appeal,  and  the  erroneous  decision  therefore  stood  until 
the  case  was  revived  under  other  conditions.' 

Such  tyrannical  conduct  was  not,  however,  confined  to 
the  superior  tribunals.  Among  those  who  suffered  most 
in  the  county  courts  were  no  doubt  the  Quakers,  who,  in 
spite  of  the  manifest  intention  of  the  royal  instructions  to 
have  them  put  on  an  equality  with  other  residents  of  the 
province,  were  excluded  both  from  serving  on  juries  and 
from  giving  evidence  unless  it  suited  the  purpose  of 
Cornbury's  judges. =" 

But  of  all  the  corrupt  persons  who  presided  over 
justice  in  the  local  courts  it  was  undoubtedly  Peter 
Sonmans  who  caused  the  most  complaints.  A  long  list 
of  charges  was  drawn  up  against  his  conduct  as  coun- 
cilor and  justice  by  the  assembly  under  Lovelace,  the 
greater  part  of  which  related  to  abuses  of  justice.^ 
Sonmans  was  accused  of  obtaining  the  arrest  of  John 
Barclay  just  as  he  was  coming  out  of  the  church  from 
the  celebration  of  the  sacrament,  an  act  directly  contrary 
to  law.  He  was  said  to  have  forcibly  seized  the  horse  of 
one  John  Brown  without  assigning  reason,  and  later  to 
have  caused  Brown  to  be  imprisoned  for  no  offense. 
One  Mellin,  a  tailor,  was  forced  by  him  to  flee  from  the 
province  because  of  a  trivial  and  unjust  charge  made 
against  him.  Sonmans  had  refused  to  bind  one  Alex- 
ander Walker  to  keep  the  peace,  although  he  had  beaten 
his  wife  and  threatened  to  murder  his  son-in-law.  He 
had  tried  to  browbeat  and  intimidate  sheriffs  and  other 
officers.  Worse  than  all,  Sonmans  had  endeavored  to 
pack  juries,  especially  that  before  which  John  Harrison 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  358;  vol.  iv,  pp.  42,  45;  vol.  xiii, 
p.  472. 
*Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  42.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  374  et.  seq. 


488  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

was  to  be  tried  upon  an  information.  He  offered  in  this 
case  to  secure  eleven  Dutch  men  who  would  "  give  little 
trouble."  He  was  in  addition  accused  of  preventing 
those  impanneled  to  serve  on  the  grand  jury  of  Middle- 
sex and  Somerset  from  meeting,  and  then  fining  them 
for  not  doing  so. 

Sonmans,  who  "  did  not  lack  abilities,"  answered  most 
of  these  charges  in  a  statement  to  Lord  Lovelace  in  a 
manner  plausible,  though  not  convincing.^  The  charges, 
however,  are  themselves  so  gross  that  the  student  can 
hardly  accept  them  from  Sonmans'  bitter  enemies  as  be- 
ing absolutely  true.  Making  all  due  allowance,  never- 
theless, for  the  motives  of  the  assembly,  we  must  con- 
clude that  Sonmans  had  undoubtedly  greatly  abused  his 
powers. 

A  sudden  stop  was,  of  course,  put  to  the  corruption 
and  injustice  of  the  courts  by  the  advent  of  Lovelace  as 
Cornbury's  successor.  With  Thomas  Gordon,  Lovelace's 
appointee  as  chief  justice,  the  proprietary  interest  now 
felt  itself  strong  enough  to  retaliate  upon  Cornbury's 
faction  through  the  courts.  Not  only  were  Willocks  and 
Barclay,  who  were  still  under  prosecution,  promptly  re- 
leased, but  indictments  were  found  by  grand  juries 
against  Peter  Sonmans  and  Jeremiah  Basse,  the  secretary 
who  had  again  been  guilty  of  many  irregularities.  Son- 
mans was  indicted  for  perjury  and  adultery,  while  Basse 
was  charged  with  perjury  and  forgery.  Under  the  cir- 
cumstances, both  of  these  worthies  seemed  sure  of 
conviction.'' 

As  we  have  seen  elsewhere,  a  determined  attack  was 
also   made  by   the   fourth   assembly  against    Ingoldsby, 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  416  et  seq. 

^Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (i 704-1 71 5),  May  Term,  1709. 


THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  489 

Mompesson,  Sonmans  and  other  creatures  of  the  late 
governor,  in  which  the  abuses  of  the  courts  were  to  some 
extent  exposed. 

But  the  sudden  death  of  Lord  Lovelace  saved  the 
guilty  parties  for  the  time  being.  Ingoldsby  promptly 
reappointed  Mompesson  in  place  of  the  long-suffering 
Gordon,  and  the  old  ring  was  restored  to  power.  The 
immediate  result  was,  of  course,  the  clearing  of  both 
Basse  and  Sonmans,  who  were  tried  before  juries  which 
had  been  carefully  packed  in  the  fall  term  of  1709,'  and 
the  spring  term  of  1710  respectively."  The  opponents  of 
the  government  evidently  recognized  the  uselessness  of 
the  attempt  to  punish  Sonmans,  as  no  evidences  at  all 
were  offered  against  him.  The  party  in  power  neverthe- 
less retaliated  by  causing  an  information  to  be  filed 
against  Sonmans'  rival,  John  Barclay,  charging  him 
with  altering  the  records  of  the  province.  But  he  was 
not  brought  to  immediate  trial.^ 

Though  the  conduct  of  the  Supreme  Court  was  not  so 
tyrannical  under  Ingoldsby  as  under  Cornbury,  many  of 
the  old  abuses  were  revived,  Basse  especially  being  ac- 
cused of  drawing  up  excessive  bills  of  costs,  of  packing 
juries,  and  of  other  offences.-^  But  public  indignation 
seems  to  have  been  especially  directed  against  William 
Hall,  a  member  of  the  council,  and  judge  of  the  pleas  of 
Salem.  Hall  was  likewise  accused  of  charging  excessive 
fees.  But  the  more  serious  charge  was  made  that  he  had 
coerced  certain  persons  of  humble  condition  into  binding 
themselves  as  indentured  servants  to  his  friends.  Thus 
he  was  said  to  have  forced  Thomas  Bartlett  to  bind  himself 

^Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court,  op.  cit.,    p.  75. 

^Ibid.,  pp.  80-81. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  364.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  71. 


490 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


to  Simon  Morgan  and  afterward  to  have  threatened  one 
Francis  Godbolt  and  his  wife  with  prosecution  for  burglary, 
unless  they  likewise  indentured  themselves.  Godbolt  was 
willing  to  bind  himself  but  not  his  wife,  but  the  justice 
was  not  satisfied  and  since  they  confessed  their  guilt 
committed  them.  Later,  Hall  was  accused  of  selling 
Godbolt  aboard  a  New  England  sloop,  while  retaining 
his  wife  as  a  servant.  It  was  also  said  that  Hall  had 
taken  possession  of  flour  belonging  to  John  Reeve,  for 
which  he  refused  to  account.' 

Ingoldsby  and  his  friends,  however,  did  not  have 
entire  control  of  the  fifth  assembly,  although  it  was  in 
several  respects  favorable  to  them.  This  body  received 
a  petition  from  Peter  Blacksfield,  praying  for  the  long- 
delayed  justice.^  After  an  investigation  the  assembly 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  judgment  of  the  court 
was  an  error  and  prepared  a  bill  setting  it  aside  and  re- 
storing Blacksfield  to  his  estate.^  Naturally,  however, 
this  bill  did  not  pass  the  council.'^ 

Robert  Hunter  was  not  the  man  to  tolerate  such  a 
condition  of  things  as  he  found  in  the  judicial  system  of 
the  Jerseys.  Yet,  just  as  in  the  other  departments,  it 
cost  him  a  hard  struggle  to  remove  the  abuses.  The 
same  ring  which  was  intrenched  in  his  council  was  in- 
trenched in  the  courts,  and  though  he  at  once  super- 
seded Mompesson  by  Jamison,  and  Pinhorne  by  Col. 
Farmar,  he  did  not  thereby  gain  complete  control. 
Attorney-General  Griffith  and  Secretary  Basse,  as  well  as 
the  clique  in  the  council  still  remained. 

In  January,  1710,  at  a  meeting  of  the  council,  the  case 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  pp.  79,  82. 

"^Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  23,  1709.  *Ibid.,  Dec.  31,  1709. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  397. 


THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM 


491 


of  Peter  Blacksfield  was  heard  on  appeal,  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  a  majority  of  the  council  were  still  of  Corn- 
bury's  party.'  Blacksfield  was  represented  by  Gordon 
as  counsel,  and  the  attorney  general  was  obliged  to 
confess  the  errors,  which  he  excused  on  the  ground  that 
the  case  had  been  agitated  during  his  sickness.  The 
decision  was  then  reversed,  and  Blacksfield  triumphantly 
restored  to  his  estate.  In  the  fall  term  of  the  Supreme 
Court  for  171 1  Barclay  was  also  tried  and  acquitted. 

But  this  was  a  mere  beginning  of  the  political  conflict 
in  the  courts.  In  the  fall  term  of  the  Court  for  1715, 
held  at  Burlington,  a  grand  jury  was  summoned  with 
Peter  Fretwell,  the  well-known  Quaker,  as  foreman. 
Thereupon  Basse,  the  clerk,  absolutely  refused  to  allow 
him  to  qualify  by  affirmation,  taking  the  ground  that  an 
act  of  parliament  of  the  first  year  of  George  I  had  ex- 
tended to  America  the  act  of  the  7th  and  8th  of  William 
which  excluded  Quakers  from  serving  on  juries  and 
thereby  repealed  the  provincial  statute  in  their  favor. 
The  stand  of  the  clerk  was,  of  course,  an  attempt  to 
keep  the  Quaker  interest  in  West  Jersey  from  obtaining 
recognition  in  the  courts.  As  Basse,  however,  continued 
his  refusal  to  obey  the  law  of  the  province,  he  was  de- 
clared in  contempt  and  was  directed  by  the  court  to 
name  another  to  qualify  the  jury.     He  was  also  fined  £20.' 

The  struggle  was  now  on,  and  the  growing  popular 
strength  of  the  party  of  Coxe  encouraged  them  to  force 
the  issue.  Accordingly,  in  the  spring  of  1716,  the  grand 
jury  of  Burlington  found  an  indictment  against  chief  jus- 
tice Jamison  for  violating  the  act  of  parliament  of  the 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  472.     Hunter  had  advised  the  as- 
sembly not  to  proceed  by  legislation. 
*  Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (1704-1715),  pp.  147-8. 


492 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


first  of  George  I  by  admitting  a  Quaker  as  juryman.'  A 
similar  indictment  was  found  against  Lewis  Morris  for 
admitting  Quakers  while  acting  as  justice  at  the  quarter 
sessions  for  Burlington.^  In  reply  to  this  step,  however, 
Hunter  issued  an  address  to  the  public,  which  was  vir- 
tually a  proclamation  declaring  that  the  act  of  the  assem- 
bly in  favor  of  the  Quakers  was  still  in  force.  In  the 
May  term  of  1716  Jamison  delivered  a  speech  to  the 
court,  in  which  he  vindicated  his  position,  and  the  court 
with  Farmar,  the  second  judge,  presiding,  then  ordered 
the  indictment  quashed  on  the  ground  that  it  had  been 
found  against  the  chief  justice  for  doing  his  duty.^ 

The  court  then  turned  upon  the  now  helpless  Basse 
and  ordered  that,  since  he  had  been  "instrumental  in 
sowing  discord  and  sedition  among  divers  of  his  Maj- 
esty's subjects  within  this  province"  and  had  aided 
especially  in  procuring  the  indictments,  he  should  be 
forthwith  suspended  from  practicing  both  in  the  Supreme 
Court  and  in  all  other  courts  in  the  province.'*  This 
blow  fell  at  about  the  same  time  as  the  rout  of  Coxe  and 
his  followers  in  the  assembly  and  the  resulting  over- 
throw of  their  party  in  the  province. 

The  victory  of  the  governor  was  now  won.  Griffith 
had  some  time  before  been  suspended  from  the  attorney- 
generalship,5  and  a  politician  like  Basse  was  not  the  man 
to  continue  a  hopeless  struggle  against  those  who  con- 
trolled the  patronage.  When,  shortly  afterward  chosen 
a  representative  from  Cape  May,  he  became  completely 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  236. 

'^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  239.     Gordon  the  attorney-general  was  also  indicted 
for  calling  the  act  of  parliament  "a  ballard."    Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  259. 
^Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (Burlington,  1716-1731),  p.  3. 
^ Ibid.,  p.  8.  ^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  561. 


THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM 


493 


reconciled  with  Hunter  and  lived  to  fill  the  attorney- 
generalship  itself  under  both  Hunter  and  Burnet. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  Hunter  used  his  control 
of  the  courts  to  good  advantage.  It  is  of  course 
true  that  his  appointees,  Jamison  and  Farmar,  were 
favorable  to  the  proprietary  interests  and  that  while  they 
were  in  office  the  opponents  of  the  proprietary  claims 
had  little  chance  of  success  in  legal  proceedings.  It  is 
also  true  that  the  courts  continued  to  be  not  unwilling 
to  aid  the  governor  by  using  their  powers  against  politi- 
cal offenders.  But,  beginning  with  the  ousting  of  Basse, 
the  courts  of  the  province  certainly  became  respectable. 
Bribery  and  corruption  on  any  large  scale  ceased.  The 
persons  named  by  Hunter  and  his  successors  to  judicial 
office  were  men  of  recognized  standing  and  attainments. 
The  courts  henceforth  rendered  substantial  justice  and 
soon  won  the  confidence  of  the  people.  The  most 
gratefully  remembered  names  of  the  latter  part  of  the 
union  period,  William  Trent,  James  Alexander,  and 
John  Kinsey,  Jr.,  are  those  of  persons  prominently  con- 
nected with  the  judicial  system.  In  thus  rescuing  the 
courts  Hunter  performed  one  of  the  greatest  of  his 
many  services  to  New  Jersey. 

But  when  the  courts  turn  their  attention  away  from 
the  conflicts  of  factions  and  occupy  themselves  with  giv- 
ing private  justice,  they  become  less  interesting  to  the 
student  of  political  history.  During  the  remainder  of 
the  union  period  we  find  ourselves  chiefly  attracted  by 
the  trial  of  certain  officers  accused  of  misconduct  in 
office.  But  in  most  of  these  cases  the  disinterested 
character  of  the  courts  is  illustrated. 

The  first  important  effort  to  bring  a  public  officer  to 
justice  through  the  courts  was  in  the  case  of  Peter  Fau- 
connier,  Cornbury's  receiver-general.     It  will  be  remem- 


494  ^^^  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

bered  how  Cornbur)'^  had  refused  to  allow  the  General 
Assembly  to  examine  his  vouchers,  thus  nullifying  their 
attempts  to  audit  his  accounts,  and  how  in  various  ways 
he  had  escaped  a  reckoning  under  Lovelace  and  In- 
goldsby.  Hunter,  upon  application  from  the  assembly, 
however,  submitted  all  the  evidence  relating  to  Fau- 
connier's  administration.  But  the  house  after  examina- 
tion found  the  accounts  unsatisfactory,  and  addressed 
Hunter  to  have  Fauconnier  prosecuted.'  The  governor 
caused  proceedings  against  him  to  be  begun  immedi- 
ately. In  the  spring  term  of  1711  his  arrest  was  ordered 
by  the  Supreme  Court,  and  the  case  was  pushed  as 
rapidly  as  was  possible,  with  such  an  obstacle  as  Griffith 
in  the  attorney-generalship.  Fauconnier  entered  a  de- 
murrer against  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court,  thus  raising 
a  point  of  the  utmost  importance  for  the  province.  In 
August,  1 713,  argument  upon  the  demurrer  by  counsel 
on  both  sides  M^as  heard  at  length  by  the  court,  and 
judgment  was  given  for  the  Crown."  Thus  the  account- 
ability of  royal  officers  to  the  provincial  courts  was 
established.  But  though  the  proceedings  against  Fau- 
connier were  continued,  no  final  judgment  against  him 
appears  to  have  been  gained.  It  is  probable  that  the 
object  of  the  prosecution  was  to  establish  his  accounta- 
bility and  not  actually  to  punish  him.  The  assembly 
seems  to  have  been  satisfied  by  the  result. ^ 

Another  semi-political  prosecution  of  the  period  was 
that  of  Daniel  Leeds,  the  former  surveyor-general  of 
West  Jersey,  who  had  rendered  himself  obnoxious  be- 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  25,  1710-11. 

^Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (1704-1715),  p.  131. 

^  In  1718  the  assembly  named  a  committee  to  examine  into  what  had 
been  done.  They  reported  that  the  case  was  still  pending  and  the  house 
acquiesced.     Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  10,  11,  1718-19. 


THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM 


495 


cause  of  his  connection  with  Cornbury  and  Coxe,  and 
his  antagonism  to  the  Quaker  interest  in  his  division. 
His  prosecution  was  ordered  by  the  council  on  the 
ground  that  he  had  altered  the  book  of  surveys  of  West 
Jersey.'  In  1716  he  was  tried  before  the  Supreme  Court 
at  Burlington,  but  found  not  guilty," 

In  the  well-known  case  of  Thomas  Gordon,  treasurer 
of  the  province  under  Hunter,  the  court  appears  to  sim- 
ilar good  advantage.  It  has  been  previously  stated  that 
in  1 718  Gordon's  accounts  were  found  by  the  assembly 
to  be  unsatisfactory  and  he  was  accordingly  allowed  to 
resign  from  the  treasurership.  Considerable  controversy 
resulted  between  the  council  and  the  house,  the  council 
believing  that  the  lower  house  had  been  unjust.^  But 
the  eighth  assembly  of  172 1-2,  after  another  examination, 
declared  that  Gordon  was  indebted  to  the  sum  of  £  1070 
8s,  7d,*  At  the  next  session  of  1723  the  house  actually 
prepared  a  bill  for  compelling  the  estate  of  Gordon,  now 
deceased,  to  make  good  to  the  province  all  sums  due.^ 
But  the  governor  and  council  refused  to  allow  this  mode 
of  procedure,  pointing  out  that  the  proper  method  was 
through  the  courts.  The  house,  making  a  virtue  of 
necessity,  consented,  and  legal  proceedings  were  begun 
by  the  attorney  general.^ 

The  case  came  up  in  the  fall  term  of  1727,  and  the 
court  proceeded  to  appoint  a  competent  committee  of 
auditors  to  audit   the   estate   and   accounts  of  Gordon. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii.  p.  563. 

^Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (Burlington,  1716-1731),  pp,  4,  8, 
He  was,  however,  reindicted  and  continued  on  his  recognizance, 
"^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol,  xiv,  pp.  119-126. 
^Assembly  Journal,  April  27,  1722. 
^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  261,         *  Ibid.,  vol,  xiv,  p.  303. 


496  I'HE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

The  committee  did  this  with  all  care,  and  revealed  the 
fact  that,  while  the  accounts  had  been  kept  with  apparent 
honesty  of  purpose,  they  contained  certain  errors  due  to 
the  difference  between  proclamation  money  and  sterling 
valuation.  It  was  found  that  the  total  sum  due  was  only 
£1775.  2d.  The  court  confirmed  the  report,  and  the 
estate  promptly  paid  the  amount  due  to  the  treasurer. 
Thus  the  difficulty  was  happily  settled,  and  the  memory 
of  Thomas  Gordon  vindicated.' 

The  last  public  prosecution  of  the  union  period  of 
great  poHtical  interest  was  that  of  Peter  Sonmans,  who 
under  Burnet  ventured  to  return  to  the  province  and  to 
exercise  his  invalid  commission  as  receiver  general  of  the 
proprietary  quit-rents.  For  so  doing  he  was  by  order  of 
the  council  prosecuted  by  the  attorney  general  upon  in- 
formation.^ The  many  enemies  of  Sonmans  greatly  de- 
sired his  condemnation,  and  the  evidence  against  him  was 
so  well  established  as  to  give  little  apparent  chance  for  his 
escape.3  But  Sonmans  was  always  a  hard  man  to  bring 
to  justice.  His  case  came  to  trial  in  November  of  1728, 
and  seems  to  have  called  forth  more  show  of  legal  learn- 
ing, both  on  the  part  of  the  attorney  general  and  of  the 
defendant,  than  nearly  any  other  trial  of  the  period.'^  But 
the  jury  did  not  convict  Sonmans  directly,  finding  a 
special  verdict.  Sonmans  was  continued  on  his  recog- 
nizance, and  the  proceedings  against  him  were  kept  up 
until  about  1732,  when  they  appear  to  have  been 
dropped.      Thus   he   escaped   serious  damage.      At  the 

^Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (Perth  Amboy,  1714-1731),  p.  131. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  317. 
^Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  311-313,  3I5.  317- 

*  Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (Perth  Amboy,  1714-1731),  p.  143; 
New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  202. 


THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM 


497 


same  time,  however,  his  enemies  had  effectually  elim- 
inated him  as  a  force  dangerous  to  the  government  and 
the  proprietors.  His  difficulties  were  also  increased  by 
the  bringing  of  sundry  ejectment  suits  against  him,  in 
several  of  which  he  was  worsted/  But  in  spite  of  all  he 
was  able  to  secure  an  election  to  the  general  assembly 
and  to  take  a  rather  prominent  part  there. 

Aside  from  these  political  cases,  interest  is  given  to 
the  proceedings  of  the  courts  during  the  latter  half  of 
the  union  period  through  certain  important  cases  relating 
to  the  Elizabethtown  tract.  This  issue  was,  after  all,  the 
most  vital  in  the  entire  history  of  the  province  as  the 
results  of  the  cases  clearly  showed.  When  Hunter 
assumed  the  administration  of  the  province  he  declared 
as  one  of  his  guiding  principles,  that  questions  of 
land  title  should  be  left  to  the  courts.'  Accordingly, 
in  the  November  term  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  1714, 
a  test  case  turning  upon  the  validity  of  the  proprietors' 
title  to  the  EHzabethtown  purchase  was  brought  in  the 
name  of  Jacob  Daniel  on  the  demise  of  Edward 
Vaughan  against  Joseph  Woodruff.^  Vaughan  held  of 
the  proprietors  and  Woodruff  by  the  "  Clinker  Lot " 
survey.  The  case  came  to  trial  in  the  spring  term  of 
the  next  year,  but  the  jury  returned  a  special  verdict. 
This  was  several  times  argued,  but  finally,  on  May  17, 
1 71 8,  the  court  gave  judgment  for  Daniel  and  awarded 
him  a  writ  of  possession.*  The  brief  record  seems  to 
show  that  the  case  was  fully 'and  fairly  heard,  although 
perhaps  no  other  outcome  was  possible  with  Chief 
Justice  Jamison  presiding  as  an  appointee  of  his  fellow 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  202.  "^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  427. 

*  Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (Perth  Amboy,  1714-1731),  p.  27. 

*  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  46. 


498  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Scot,  Hunter,  the  staunch  friend  of  the  proprietors.  At 
any  rate  the  proprietors'  title  to  the  Ehzabethtown  tract 
was  established,  and  the  province  rested  for  a  time  in  the 
decision. 

But  the  matter  did  not  rest  here  permanently.  It 
seems  not  improbable  that  the  movement  in  the  assembly 
which  resulted  in  the  removal  of  Jamison  as  chief  justice 
involved  some  feeling  against  the  proprietors.  At  any 
rate,  with  the  more  disinterested  Burnet  as  governor, 
and  Robert  Lettice  Hooper  on  the  bench,  the  proprie- 
tary control  of  the  courts  was  not  so.  assured.  As  we 
shall  see  elsewhere,  there  was  an  interesting  and  active 
revival  of  the  old  anti-proprietary  feeling  in  East  Jersey 
in  Burnet's  time.  The  proprietors,  therefore,  desiring 
to  clinch  their  claims  to  the  Elizabethtown  tract, 
brought,  in  1730,  sundry  ejectment  suits  in  the  name  of 
Patrick  Lithegow,  on  the  demise  of  Peter  Schuyler, 
against  several  persons  who  had  acquired  lands  within 
the  Elizabethtown  tract  by  the  "  Clinker  Lot "  right. 
The  defendants  were  John  Robinson,  Henry  Clark, 
Andrew  Craig,  Joshua  Marsh,  and  others.^ 

These  cases  were  undoubtedly  watched  with  the 
greatest  interest  by  all  concerned  in  the  politics  of  East 
Jersey.  The  best  counsel  obtainable  was  employed ; 
Murray  and  James  Alexander,  the  authors  of  the  Bill  in 
Chancery,  for  Lithegow,  and  John  Kinsey,  the  political 
leader,  and  Smith,  for  the  defendants.  The  trial  finally 
came  on  May  17  and  18,  1733,  before  Chief  Justice 
Hooper  in  person. =*  The  minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court 
unfortunately  do  not  give  the  argument ;  they  do,  how- 

^  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  47. 

^Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (Perth  Amboy,  1732-1738),  pp. 
173-178. 


THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM 


499 


ever,  show  that  the  hearing  was  continued  "  at  above 
nineteen  hours,"  and  that  the  chief  justice  summed  up 
the  evidence  "at  five  of  the  clock  in  the  morning." 
These  things  are  proof  of  the  great  and  unusual  im- 
portance of  the  issue.  On  the  next  day  the  jury  brought 
in  a  verdict  in  favor  of  the  defendant. 

Thus  was  won  a  legal  victory  which  brought  about 
an  immediate  revival  of  the  demands  of  the  original 
Elizabethtown  purchasers.  The  development  of  this 
movement  brought  with  it  most  important  results  in  the 
political  field,  and  was  destined  soon  to  disturb  once 
more  the  tranquillity  of  the  province.  The  full  signifi- 
cance of  the  decision  will,  however,  be  shown  in  detail 
in  the  chapter  upon  the  proprietorship.  It  is  our  pur- 
pose here  merely  to  indicate  the  importance  of  the 
work  of  the  courts  in  determining  the  questions  of  land 
title  which  had  been  so  long  pending. 

It  remains  under  this  topic  merely  to  state  a  few  gen- 
eral facts  not  brought  out  by  a  discussion  of  important 
cases.  In  the  first  place  any  student  must  be  impressed 
by  the  great  number  of  legal  cases  and  proceedings  car- 
ried on  before  the  courts.  The  number  is  certainly 
remarkable  for  so  young  a  colony  as  New  Jersey,  and 
undoubtedly  indicates  that  in  default  of  other  excitement 
litigation  was  one  of  the  diversions  of  the  colonists, 
though  a  troublesome  and  expensive  one.'  But  many  of 
the  cases  were  ejectment  suits,  showing  how  defective 
the  system  of  apportioning  land  was,  and  to  what  extent 
there  had  been  frauds  and  other  ill  practices.  Fairness 
requires  it  to  be  said,  however,  that  nearly  all  the  land 
suits  were  in  East  Jersey. 

In  the  second  place,  it  has  already  been  indicated  that 

'Field,  Provincial  Courts  of  New  Jersey,  p.  21. 


500 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


in  the  early  practice  of  the  courts  there  were  many 
irregularities  and  peculiarities/  Under  Cornbury  jus- 
tices of  the  peace  appear  as  sitting  in  the  Supreme 
Court,  their  names  being  regularly  entered  on  the 
minutes.  In  the  trial  of  the  first  person  indicted  for 
murder,  which  took  place  in  Gloucester,  Cornbury  in 
person  presided  over  the  court,  just  as  the  king  was  sup- 
posed to  sit  in  King's  Bench.  It  has  also  been  shown 
that  the  Supreme  Court  tried  many  criminal  cases  on  in- 
dictments brought  by  grand  juries,  which  were  returned 
by  the  sheriff  of  the  county  in  which  the  court  sat. 
This  practice  was  of  course  perfectly  regular,  though  odd 
from  the  modern  point  of  view.  But  the  Supreme  Court 
had,  of  course,  no  such  number  of  cases  brought  up  on 
appeal  as  at  the  present  day. 

A  word  may  be  said  too  as  to  the  work  of  the  council 
as  the  highest  provincial  court.  Although  there  were  so 
many  legal  proceedings,  not  many  cases  were  carried  up 
on  appeal  to  the  council.  Under  Cornbury  it  appears 
that  the  council  in  some  cases  refused  to  receive  appeals 
brought  in  an  entirely  legal  manner.  The  fact  that  so 
many  of  its  members  were  serving  as  judges  also  went 
far  toward  nullifying  the  right  of  appeal,  as  even  if  the 
judges  of  the  lower  courts  did  not  vote  on  the  decision 
of  cases  carried  up  from  their  own  tribunals  the  clique 
spirit  was  strong  among  Cornbury's  henchmen.  More- 
over, a  quorum  of  the  council  might  not  be  left  to  vote.* 
But  even  after  the  ousting  of  Cornbury's  clique  the  num- 
ber of  appeals  was  small.  It  is  probable  that  not  many 
of  the  cases  heard  in  the  lower  courts  were  of  the  value 
of  the  £  200  required  for  appeal. 

'Field,  op.  cit.,  p.  52  (note). 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  69. 


THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM 


501 


Aside  from  the  case  of  Peter  Blacksfield  already  men- 
tioned, the  case  of  most  historical  importance  brought 
before  the  council  was  that  of  Jacob  Daniel  on  the 
demise  of  Edward  Vaughan  vs.  Joseph  Woodrufif.  On 
the  decision  of  this  case  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  1718, 
declaring  against  the  Elizabethtown  title,  Woodrufif  ap- 
pealed. The  proceedings  in  error  began  before  Hunter 
and  council,  in  March,  1719,'  and  were  spun  out  during 
the  administration  of  Burnet  until  August,  1725,"  when 
there  was  at  length  a  rehearing.  But  the  council  took 
no  further  action,  and  the  proceedings  were  thereupon 
discontinued.  The  decision  for  the  proprietors  therefore 
stood. 3 

Until  late  in  the  period  the  chief  connection  of  the 
council  with  the  actual  work  of  the  courts  was  therefore 
through  its  administrative  and  police  powers ; — its  work 
in  ordering  the  prosecution  of  delinquent  officials  and 
the  arrest  and  trial  of  persons  dangerous  to  the  public 
peace. 

If  appeals  to  the  council  were  somewhat  rare,  those  to 
the  king  in  council  were  scarcer  still.  During  the  union 
period,  so  far  as  the  existing  council  record  shows,  there 
was  but  one  appeal  to  England.*  The  appeal  of  the 
celebrated  case  of  Jones  vs.  Fullerton  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  proprietary  period  will,  however,  be  remembered. 

^ Ngu'  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  112.        ''Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  299. 

"  No  other  result  was  possible  with  such  a  strong  proprietary  influence 
in  the  council. 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  519.  The  appeal  was  made  in 
eight  cases  at  the  same  time.  These  were  ejectment  cases  involving 
the  claims  of  Col.  Coxe  in  Hunterdon  County. 


CHAPTER  XXIV 

FINANCIAL    AFFAIRS 

The  chief  source  of  expense  under  the  provincial  gov- 
ernment was  usually  the  payment  of  salaries.  This 
item  was  always  the  all-important  part  of  the  bills  "for 
support  of  the  government,"  The  first  assembly  of  1703 
offered  to  raise  by  taxation  £1,000  for  the  government 
and  £300  for  representatives'  fees  and  incidental  charges, 
the  grant  to  run  for  one  year  only.'  But  Cornbury  re- 
jected so  small  an  amount  by  adjourning  the  assembly. 
At  the  second  session  held  the  next  year  the  assembly 
proved  slightly  more  liberal,  offering  £1,500  for  one  year 
and  £1,000  for  the  next  two  following-^"  But  these 
amounts  were  equally  unacceptable  to  his  excellency. 

The  second  assembly,  in  which  it  will  be  remembered 
the  supporters  of  Cornbury  were  for  a  time  in  the 
majority,  was  more  ready  to  "  answer  the  ends  of  gov- 
ernment." It  passed  a  bill  appropriating  £2,000  "cur- 
rent money  of  the  Eastern  Division"  for  "support"  for 
two  years.3  The  assembly  does  not  appear  to  have 
specified  in  any  way  how  the  sum  granted  was  to  be  dis- 
tributed. The  accounts  of  Peter  Fauconnier,  the  re- 
ceiver-general, show,  however,  that  the  governor  received 
£650  per  annum,  the  lieutenant-governor  £300,  the  chief 
justice  £130,  the  second  judge  £100,  and  the  attorney- 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  23  and  Oct.  2,  1703. 
^Ibid.,  Sept.  13,  1704. 

^Ibid.,  Nov.  22,  1704;  Laws  Enactedin  1704  (Bradford  print). 
502] 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS 


503 


general  £100.  The  secretary  was  given  £30  and  as  clerk 
of  the  council  £50,  with  £20  for  contingencies ;  the  clerk 
of  the  assembly  had  £50  with  £20  for  contingencies.  £50 
went  to  the  printer,  and  £30  to  the  door-keeper  of  each 
of  the  houses.  But  the  most  interesting  payments  were 
£180  for  the  governor's  house  rent,  "  etc.,"  and  £260  per 
annum  for  the  receiver-general.  Fauconnier  also  pre- 
sumed to  pay  to  Cornbury  £61  9s  id  as  part  of  his  salary 
for  a  third  year  in  spite  of  the  time  limitations  of  the 
act.'  This  was  one  of  the  offenses  for  which  he  was  later 
prosecuted.' 

The  revenue  bill  was  eventually  disallowed  by  the 
home  government,  certainly  a  rather  unusual  proceeding.' 
It  had,  however,  already  been  carried  into  effect.  In 
April,  1705,  the  Lords  wrote  to  Cornbury  stating  that 
they  deemed  £1,500  for  the  first  year  and  £1,000  for  the 
succeeding  years  sufficient.  £400  was  to  be  for  the  gov- 
ernor's salary  and  traveling  charges,  £200  for  the  lieu- 
tenant-governor, and  the  rest  for  the  contingent  charges 
of  the  government.  The  Lords  desired  that  such  a  grant 
be  made  for  at  least  eleven  years.*  By  this  communica- 
tion Cornbury  was  evidently  surprised  and  shocked.  He 
nevertheless  answered  dutifully  that  he  would  readily 
yield  as  to  his  own  salary.^  He  would  willingly  submit 
all  his  private  concerns  to  the  queen.  She  had  always 
allowed  him  £500  for  New  Jersey,  however,  as  a  salary 
and  for  traveling  expenses.     "Traveling,"  he  reminded 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  352-5. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  2$,  1710-11. 

^So  stated  in  Allinson,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey.  But  the  statement 
may  refer  to  the  expression  of  general  disapproval  by  the  Lords  men- 
tioned below. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  gg. 
''Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  1 19-120. 


504  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

the  Lords,  was  very  dear  in  America.  Cornbury  also  felt 
that  £400  would  not  settle  the  contingent  charges  of  the 
government.  Out  of  it  must  come  the  salaries  of  the 
collectors,  of  the  chief  justice,  of  the  attorney-general, 
and  of  the  secretary,  besides  other  charges.  If  the 
salaries  were  to  be  equivalent  to  those  of  the  same  offices 
in  New  York,  the  certain  charge  would  foot  up  to  £1,170, 
"  besides  customs  officers,  a  messenger  for  the  council 
and  other  casualties." 

Cornbury,  nevertheless,  did  dutifully  inform  the  third 
assembly  that  the  queen  would  be  satisfied  with  the 
amounts  specified  by  the  Lords,  but  expected  it  would 
be  granted  for  twenty-one  years.'  But  the  assembly  in 
its  wisdom  never  granted  him  another  penny  during  his 
administration.  Thus  his  lordship's  greed  defeated  itself. 
As  a  part  of  his  total  profit,  however,  we  must  remember 
that  he  had  already  received  at  least  two  large  bribes, 
one  at  the  beginning  of  his  rule  consisting  of  £200  in 
plate  from  certain  of  the  proprietors  represented  by  Dr. 
Johnstone;^  and  the  second,  the  so-called  "Blind  Tax," 
raised  by  Capt.  John  Bowne  and  Richard  Salter  among 
the  anti-quit-renters.  This  was  said  by  Morris  to 
amount  to  £1500.3 

The  general  assembly  proved  entirely  willing  to  make 
an  appropriation  upon  the  request  of  Lovelace,  but, 
warned  by  past  abuses,  would  make  it  for  only  one  year. 
The  amount  given  was  £1600.'*  Of  this,  £800  was  to  be 
paid  to  Lovelace.  But  the  untimely  death  of  Lovelace 
opened  the  way  for  difficulties.     Ingoldsby  neglected  to 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Apr.  7,  1707. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  207. 

"^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  227.    Morris  undoubtedly  exaggerated. 

*  AUinson  states  the  exact  amount  as  ;^i722  ids.  4d. 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS 


505 


send  the  acts  passed  under  Lovelace  home  for  approval, 
thus  rendering  it  easy  to  change  them.  The  fifth  as- 
sembly, which  was  not  unfavorable  to  the  Ingoldsby 
regime,  in  consequence  actually  passed  "  An  Act  for  Ex- 
plaining and  Rendering  more  Effectual "  the  act  of  sup- 
port. This  gave  to  Ingoldsby  £600  of  the  £800  appro- 
priated for  Lovelace.^  As  a  consequence  Lady  Lovelace 
appealed  to  the  Queen,  and  when  Hunter  arrived  he  bore 
a  royal  letter  in  favor  of  Lady  Lovelace,  stating  that  the 
Crown  was  not  only  satisfied  that  the  £800  be  paid  to 
her  but  deemed  it  to  be  an  act  of  the  highest  justice." 
Hunter's  assembly  prepared  a  bill  declaring  the  printed 
copy  of  all  the  acts  passed  in  Lovelace's  time  valid  as 
the  originals.  This  measure  would  have  given  the 
Crown  the  opportunity  of  choosing  between  the  original 
law  and  the  act  as  altered  under  Ingoldsby.  But  the 
council,  still  under  control  of  Cornbury's  old  clique,  de- 
feated it,  with  most  of  the  other  measures  sent  up  by 
the  assembly.3  Hunter,  however,  ventured  to  send  the 
printed  copies  of  Lovelace's  acts  to  the  Lords.  But  it 
does  not  appear  that  any  part  of  the  money  given  In- 
goldsby under  the  act  1709  was  recovered. 

The  accession  of  Hunter  marks  the  commencement  of 
a  new  era  in  the  financial  history  of  the  province,  for 
from  that  time  on  "support"  was  granted  regularly  and 
without  serious  delay.  At  Hunter's  first  meeting  with 
the  assembly  in  the  winter  of  1710,  "support"  was 
voted  for  two  years.*  In  preparing  the  act  the  assembly 
adopted  the  new  plan  of  consulting  the  governor  as  to 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  pp.  57,  66.    Hunter  declared  that  In- 
goldsby bribed  the  council. 
*Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  430;  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  11,  1710-11. 
^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  58. 
^  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  5,  1710-11. 


5o6 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


his  instructions  on  the  subject,'  and  Hunter  aided  the 
representatives  in  their  work  by  showing  them  an  ac- 
count of  the  expenses."  The  assembly  now  specified  by 
resolution  the  amount  of  salary  to  be  given  each  officer. 
Hunter  received  £500  a  year  "proclamation  money," 
and  £100  more  for  house  rent,  fire,  candles,  express,  and 
other  incidental  expenses.  The  chief  justice  received 
£100,  the  treasurer  £40,  the  clerk  of  the  council  £35,  the 
clerk  of  the  assembly  £45,  the  door-keeper  of  the  council 
£10,  the  door-keeper  of  the  assembly  £12,  the  sergeant- 
at-arms  £12,  the  auditor-general  £40,  and  the  printer 
£30.  The  attorney-general  was  given  £20,  and  each 
assemblyman  was  to  have  five  shillings  a  day  during  ses- 
sions. For  this  purpose  £300  per  annum  was  to  be 
raised  and  included  in  the  act  for  support.^  It  can 
easily  be  seen  that  the  small  sums  given  to  several  of 
the  lesser  officers  was  due  to  dislike  of  the  persons  hold- 
ing the  positions,  as  Griffith  and  Basse.'*  The  act, 
however,  established  a  scale  of  salaries  destined  to  be 
somewhat  permanent.  Hunter  himself  thought  that  the 
amount  given  was  inconsiderable,  but  held  the  form  of 
the  act  correct,  and  hoped  that  a  larger  sum  might  be 
given  later.5 

In  1713  the  assembly  again  readily  voted  support  for 
two  years.^     As  before,  the  governor  was  given  £500  for 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  21,  1710,  Jan.  3,  1710-11. 

*  Ibid.,  Dec.  23,  1710.     Hunter  stated  to  the  house  that  he  had  no  in- 
structions fixing  the  amount  of  his  salary. 

^Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  5,  8,  1710-11;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol. 
xiv,  p.  121. 

*  No  provision  was  made  for  the  payment  of  the  council. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  64. 

*•  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  23,  1713-14;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv, 
p.  122. 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS 


507 


salary,  and  £100  for  expenses.  In  the  salaries  of  the 
lower  officers  there  were  some  small  changes.  The  chief 
justice  was  given  £100,  the  second  judge  £30,  the  clerk 
of  the  council  £35,  and  the  attorney-general  £15.  The 
treasurer  was  to  have  £50  for  the  first  year  and  £40  for 
the  second.  The  clerk  of  the  assembly  received  eight 
shillings  for  each  day  during  the  sessions  and  an  addi- 
tional sum  for  ''  paper,  parchment,  minute  books,  etc." 
The  door-keepers  of  the  two  houses  had  two  shillings 
six  pence  per  day  for  the  session.  Provision  was  made 
for  the  sergeant-at-arms,  and  the  printer  was  reimbursed 
for  printing  sixty  copies  of  the  laws  and  votes  passed 
during  the  session.  Lastly,  each  member  of  the  general 
assembly  was  to  have  five  shillings  for  each  day  and  for 
coming  and  going,  but  each  councilor  received  six  shil- 
lings per  diem.  This  last  item  is  not  only  interesting  in 
itself  as  the  first  specified  grant  in  payment  for  the  coun- 
cil, but  also  shows  the  final  reconciliation  between  the 
houses. 

When  the  support  was  renewed  in  1716,  after  the  suc- 
cessful termination  of  the  struggle  with  Coxe,  Basse  and 
Griffith,  there  were  no  important  changes  in  the  amounts 
appropriated.  Hunter's  salary  was  increased  to  £600, 
but  this  sum  was  to  include  his  incidental  charges.  The 
door-keeper  of  the  council  now  had  £10  and  the  printer 
£25  per  annum.  The  sergeant-at-arms  received  three 
shillings  a  day  and  councilors  and  representatives  an 
equal  amount  of  five  shilHngs.  The  other  salaries  were 
substantially  as  before.'  The  last  appropriation  act  of 
Hunter's  time,  passed  in  the  session  of  1718-19,  was  also 
hardly  more  than  a  continuation  of  the  former  act  for 

^Assembly  Journal.  Jan.  8,  1716-17;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv, 
p.  79. 


5o8  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

two  years.  It  did,  however,  contain  one  interesting 
change  in  salary,  as  the  pay  of  the  chief  justice  was  cut 
from  £ioo  to  £80.' 

In  Burnet's  first  meeting  with  the  assembly,  in  Feb- 
ruary 1 720-1,  he  made  a  strong  plea  for  an  increased 
revenue,  declaring  that,  though  the  prosperity  of  New 
Jersey  was  increasing  greatly,  the  salaries  of  her  officers 
had  actually  been  reduced.^  The  assembly  promptly  set 
about  preparing  a  bill  appropriating  £1,020  for  two  years 
for  the  support  of  the  government,  and  £700  for  the 
purpose  of  paying  the  assembly  and  council  at  the  rate 
of  five  shillings  per  diem  for  all  sessions  held  during  the 
two  years.  This  was  approximately  the  amount  given 
under  Hunter.  But  it  was  not  satisfactory  to  the  new 
executive.  Under  his  influence  the  council  amended  the 
bill  so  as  to  make  it  run  for  the  lifetime  of  King  George 
and  one  year  longer. ^  As  the  assembly  would  consider 
neither  the  power  of  the  council  to  amend  such  a  meas- 
ure nor  the  extension  of  the  grant,  the  bill  was  lost. 
Burnet  declared  that  his  instructions  absolutely  forbade 
him  to  accept  a  bill  for  so  short  a  term."* 

When  Burnet  met  the  assembly  again,  in  March,  1721, 
under  more  favorable  circumstances  he  again  made  a 
plea  for  an  increased  revenue.  This  time,  however,  he 
told  the  house  not  to  think  of  him  as  much  as  of  the  in- 
ferior officers  verbose  salaries  had   not  covered  their  ex- 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  2y,  1718-19.  The  reduction  may  be  an  in- 
dication of  dissatisfaction  with  a  chief  justice  resident  in  New  York. 
See  also  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  128. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  147-8. 

*The  acts  as  prepared  by  the  assembly  and  as  amended  by  the  council 
are  entered  in  the  assembly  journal. 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  197.  He  also  objected  to  the  pay- 
ment of  the  salaries  of  assemblymen  on  warrant  from  the  speaker. 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS 


509 


penses.'  The  assembly  now  showed  itself  somewhat 
more  willing  to  conform  to  the  wishes  of  the  governor 
and  passed  a  bill  supporting  the  government  for  five 
years.'  The  amount  given,  however,  was  approximately 
the  same  as  under  Hunter.  Burnet  received  £500  with 
£100  for  incidental  charges,  the  chief  justice  £100,  the 
treasurer  of  each  division  £20,  the  attorney-general  £20, 
the  clerk  of  the  council  £25,  the  doorkeeper  of  the  coun- 
cil £10,  the  clerk  of  the  assembly  eight  shillings  per  diem 
and  a  sum  for  express,  paper,  etc.,  the  sergeant-at-arms 
three  shillings  per  diem  and  three  shillings  more  when 
traveling  where  he  could  not  get  fees,  and  and  the  door- 
keeper of  the  assembly  two  shillings  six  pence  per  diem. 
£60  was  given  to  the  council  to  be  paid  to  its  members 
in  proportion  to  the  time  they  attended  while  the  as- 
semblymen received  the  usual  five  shillings  per  diem. 
Afterward,  however,  the  bill  was  amended  so  as  to  give 
the  council  five  shillings  per  diem.' 

The  session  of  the  fall  of  1723  brought,  however,  a 
new  complication.  Heretofore  all  the  sums  appropriated 
for  support  had  been  raised  by  taxation.*  But  the  posi- 
tion assumed  by  the  home  government  that  it  would 
allow  the  issue  of  bills  of  credit  only  in  acts  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  government  now  produced  a  result  which 
might  have  been  foreseen.  An  act  was  passed  for  the 
issue  of  £40,000  in  bills  of  credit.'     Of  this  sum  £36,000 

^  New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  xiv,  p.  205. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Apr.  4  and  5,  1722.  ^  Ibid.,  Apr.  4,  1722. 

*Thcre  had  been  one  partial  exception.  In  1714  an  act  had  been 
passed  appropriating  ;^999  13s.  6d.  for  the  support  of  the  government 
out  of  the  moneys  raised  for  the  Canada  expedition. 

*Nevill,  Acts  from  the  Time  of  the  Surrender  of  the  Government  in 
the  2d  of  Queen  Anne  to  the  25th  of  King  George  II  (Woodbridge, 
1752);  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  12,  14,  1723. 


^lO  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

was  to  be  loaned  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  province  at 
five  per  cent,  interest  through  the  county  loan  offices. 
The  £4000  remaining  v^as  to  be  paid  to  the  treasurers  of 
the  two  divisions  of  the  province.  Part  was  to  be  used 
to  sink  all  old  bills  of  credit  still  in  circulation.  But  the 
rest  was  to  go  as  emoluments  to  certain  colonial  officers. 
The  members  of  the  assembly  and  of  the  council  were  to 
have  six  shillings  per  diem  for  the  present  session.'  The 
clerk,  door-keeper  and  sergeant-at-arms  of  the  assembly 
were  to  have  their  usual  pay.  Further,  all  councilors 
and  assemblymen  who  had  attended  the  session  begun  in 
February,  1721,  were  to  have  £10  each  and  all  officers 
their  full  fees,  deducting  what  they  had  already  received. 
The  treasurers  were  to  have  £10  a  year  additional  for  the 
next  two  years  and  the  attorney-general  £40  for  services 
during  the  session.  £1000  annually  was  to  be  raised  by 
taxation  for  ten  years  in  the  same  way  as  the  money 
previously  voted  for  support.  The  proceeds  of  this  tax 
for  the  first  four  years  were  to  go  to  sink  the  £4000  in 
bills  of  credit  paid  to  the  treasurers.  The  rest  of  the  tax 
was  to  be  used  as  an  additional  support  for  the  govern- 
ment. This  provision  was  no  doubt  the  bait  intended  to 
induce  Burnet,  and  perhaps  even  the  home  authorities, 
to  approve  the  measure.  For  the  student  it  is  surely  an 
act  highly  instructive  as  to  colonial  financiering. 

Burnet  himself  seems  to  have  been  entirely  convinced 
that  the  act  was  proper  and  indeed  a  great  gain  for  the 
government.  He  wrote  at  length  to  his  superiors  in 
explanation  and  defense  of  it  for  it  was  well  understood 
that  the  Lords  of  Trade  viewed  the  issue  of  bills  of 
credit  with  much  suspicion.^     In  this  case,  however,  they 

*  Assemblymen  were  to  be  paid  on  warrants  from  the  speaker. 
"^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  pp.  75,  86  et  seq. 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS  51I 

agreed,  though  evidently  rather  unwillingly,  to  let  the 
act  stand  for  the  present  at  least.' 

During  the  same  session  the  representatives  succeeded 
in  having  Chief  Justice  Jamison  replaced  by  William 
Trent,  an  inhabitant  of  the  province  who  would  ride  the 
circuit.  In  connection  with  this  matter  they  voted  to 
pay  £100  additional  salary  to  a  chief  justice  who  would  go 
on  the  circuit.  They  resolved  also  that  the  second  judge 
should  have  £50  additional  for  the  next  two  years,  the 
attorney-general  £40,  and  the  clerk  of  the  circuits  £40.* 
'  The  session  held  in  the  spring  of  1725  also  brought 
certain  interesting  developments.  The  assembly  proved 
very  willing  to  continue  the  support  for  five  years,^  but 
in  addition  to  voting  the  usual  taxes  they  proceeded  to 
appropriate  the  further  sum  of  £1321  which  had  accrued 
as  interest  from  the  loaning  of  the  bills  of  credit. •♦  This 
welcome  addition  to  the  public  funds  of  the  province 
enabled  the  assembly  to  be  much  more  liberal  in  its 
grants.  Nearly  all  the  salaries  were  increased. ^  Burnet 
received  £500  a  year  and  had  £500  given  for  incidentals. 
The  chief  justice  received  £200  for  salary  and  for  riding 
the  circuits.  The  second  judge  got  £50,  each  treasurer 
£50,  the  attorney- general  £50,  the  clerk  of  the  council 
£30,  the  clerk  of  the  circuits  £30,  the  door-keeper  of  the 
council  £10,  the  clerk  of  the  assembly  eight  shillings  per 
diem,  and  a  fee  of  fifty  shillings  for  every  private  bill 
passed,  the  sergeant-at-arms  three  shillings  per  diem, 
and  four  shillings  extra  when  traveling  if  he  could  not 
collect  fees.     The  door-keeper  of  the  assembly  received 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  121. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  23,  25,  1723.  ^Ibid.,  June  16,  1725, 

*  Bradford,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey  (1732). 
'^Assembly  Journal,  June  12,  July  30,  1725. 


512 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


three  shillings  per  diem;  councilors  and  assemblymen 
were  raised  to  six  shillings  per  diem.  Bradford,  the 
printer,  received  £25  for  printing  the  acts  in  1722,  and 
other  past  services  were  suitably  rewarded. 

Burnet  again  did  his  best  to  persuade  the  Lords  of 
Trade  that  the  act  marked  a  triumph  for  the  govern- 
ment, and  that  no  harm  could  possibly  come  to  the 
currency  of  the  province  through  the  appropriation  of 
the  interest  money.'  But  the  Lords  were  not  enthusi- 
astic. They  solemnly  warned  him  that  such  proceedings 
had  caused  great  harm  in  other  colonies,  and  strongly 
desired  that  no  further  alterations  in  the  disposal  of  the 
bills  of  credit  be  made.^  However,  they  were  willing  to 
let  the  new  act  stand  without  formal  approval.  Accord- 
ing to  Burnet  this  concession  was  obtained  only  through 
the  representations  of  the  agent  La  Heupe.^  After  the 
receipt  of  the  answer  of  the  Lords,  Burnet,  who  had 
every  opportunity  of  knowing  colonial  feeling  on  the 
subject,  wrote  several  times,  urging  that  the  appropria- 
tion of  the  interest  be  allowed.^*  He  even  offered  to 
assume  all  responsibility  personally.^  But  as  usual  the 
Lords  gave  no  indication  of  any  change  of  opinion. 

But  in  spite  of  the  attitude  taken  by  the  Lords  the 
assembly  in  its  session  of  1727  proceeded  among  other 
financial  measures  to  pass  a  bill  for  appropriating  £1725 
of  the  interest  money  on  the  bills  of  credit  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  government  and  other  purposes.^  This 
ninth  assembly,  it  will  be  remembered,  was  dominated 
by  John  Kinsey,  Jr.,  a  politician  only  too  ready  to  op- 

^ New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  v,  pp.  104,  129,  153-4. 
*  Ibid.,  vol.  V,  pp.  121,  156.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  341. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  163,  165.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  166. 

^Bradford,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey. 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS  513 

pose  the  government  in  the  interest  of  a  popular  cause. 
Burnet  was  given  £600  for  incidentals  out  of  the  interest ; 
the  councillors  and  representatives  were  to  receive  six 
shillings  per  diem  for  the  session,  and  the  other  officers 
of  the  house  received  their  usual  fees.  Kinsey  himself 
was  to  have  £20  for  drawing  up  bills  and  other  services. 
Richard  Partridge,  the  new  agent  from  whom  much  was 
expected,  received  £100  directly,  and  £270  in  addition 
was  given  to  the  committee  which  had  charge  of  the 
agency  to  be  transmitted  to  Partridge  at  such  times  as 
should  be  deemed  best.' 

In  spite  of  what  he  had  been  told,  Burnet  accepted  this 
act,  and  in  informing  the  lords  of  its  passage  stated  that, 
though  he  was  disappointed  that  they  had  not  been  con- 
vinced by  his  former  arguments,  he  again  enclosed  cer- 
tificates to  show  that  the  bills  of  credit  had  risen  in  value, 
and  trusted  that  they  would  excuse  his  giving  way  to  a 
measure  he  could  not  avoid.*  Meanwhile  Montgomerie 
had  succeeded  Burnet,  and  also  wrote  to  the  lords  in 
favor  of  the  act.^  In  reply  the  lords  wrote  to  Mont- 
gomerie expressing  their  strong  disapproval  of  Burnet's 
action  in  passing  the  bill.*  They  stated  that,  if  the  last 
clause  which  allowed  the  general  assembly  to  appropriate 
all  interest  money  on  bills  of  credit,  when  it  accrued,  to 
the  charges  of  the  government,  were  not  repealed,  they 
would  have  the  act  disallowed,  and  they  ordered  Mont- 
gomerie to  move  the  assembly  to  its  repeal.  Against 
this  order  Montgomerie  protested  at  length.^  Mean- 
while, however,  misunderstanding  between  Montgomerie 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  9,  1727-8. 

*New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  pp.  192  4. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  V,  pp.  190,  249.  *Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  200. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  249. 


514 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


and  the  ninth  assembly  had  prevented  any  appropriations 
during  its  second  session. 

The  tenth  assembly  began  work  upon  an  act  for  the 
support  of  the  government  for  five  years,'  but  soon  with- 
drew it  and  substituted  a  bill  appropriating  the  money  to 
be  raised  by  the  unexpired  act  of  1723  for  additional 
support  and  for  raising  a  further  support  for  one  year.' 
At  the  same  time  work  was  begun  on  a  bill  to  enforce  the 
payment  of  the  incidental  charges  of  the  government  out 
of  the  interest  money  made  subject  to  appropriation  by 
the  act  of  1727.3  Both  of  these  measures  were  eventually 
passed,  Montgomerie  offering  no  real  opposition.  The 
expenditure  was  smaller  than  under  Burnet,  in  spite  of 
the  fact  that  lighter  taxation  was  secured  through  the 
use  of  the  interest.  The  measures  provided  for  the  ap- 
propriation of  £1,000  for  the  five  ensuing  years.  The 
governor  was  given  £500  per  annum,  the  chief  justice 
was  cut  to  £150  (which  must  include  his  expenses  on 
circuit),  and  the  second  judge,  treasurers  and  attorney- 
general  to  £40  per  annum  apiece.  The  secretary  was  to 
have  £25  per  annum  during  the  continuance  of  the  acts 
reducing  his  fees,  and  £80  a  year  was  appropriated  for 
the  agent.     The  other  officers  received  about  as  before.* 

In  transmitting  these  acts  to  the  lords,  Montgomerie 
admitted  that  he  had  been  overridden,  and  justified  him- 
self for  assenting  to  them  by  saying  that  the  province 
was  determined  upon  them,  and  that  if  he  had  not 
yielded  the  government  must  have  gone  without  sup- 
port.5     The  lords  in  reply  said  rather  sternly  that  they 

^Assembly  Journal,  May  27,  1730. 
^  Ibid.,  June  3,  1730;  Bradford,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey. 
^Assembly  Journal,  June  3,  1730.  *^ Ibid.,  July  3,  1730. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  pp.  287-9.    The  governor's  statement 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS 


515 


must  adhere  to  what  they  had  formerly  said,  and  that  as 
the  assembly  had  not  repealed  the  clause  of  the  act  of 
1727  making  the  interest  money  subject  to  appropriation 
they  had  laid  the  said  law  before  the  king  for  disallow- 
ance.' In  spite  of  this  threat,  however,  it  does  not 
appear  that  the  act  was  disallowed. 

With  such  precedents  it  was  but  natural  that  the 
assembly  should  continue  to  follow  its  own  desires  in  the 
matter  of  appropriations,  especially  as  the  substitution  of 
Cosby  for  Montgomerie  added  little  real  strength  to  the 
provincial  executive.  In  the  only  session  of  the  assem- 
bly held  under  Cosby,  that  of  1733,  the  legislature  again 
made  use  of  the  interest  money  of  its  bills  of  credit  for 
meeting  the  charges  of  the  government,  though  they 
added  a  clause  to  the  act  suspending  its  operation  until 
it  had  been  confirmed  by  the  crown.'  The  same  policy 
of  retrenchment  which  was  adopted  under  Montgomerie 
was  followed.  The  acts  passed  gave  only  £100  per  an- 
num for  the  support  of  the  government  for  the  years 
1736-8,  and  the  salaries  of  the  officers  remained  practi- 
cally as  under  the  law  of  1730.  It  is  important  to  note 
that  the  appropriation  of  £80  for  the  agent  was  con- 
tinued, and  his  place  as  a  regular  officer  of  the  colony 
was  thus  better  established.3 

Considering  the  grants  for  support  of  the  union  period 

that  he  had  conferred  with  every  one  of  the  members  of  the  assembly  and 
had  told  them  that  he  was  ordered  to  move  the  repeal  of  the  clause  of  the 
late  act  subjecting  the  interest  money  to  appropriation  is  an  almost  pitiful 
confession  of  helplessness  in  light  of  the  result.  He  had  not,  however, 
received  the  reply  of  the  Lords  to  his  recent  representations. 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  302. 

*Jbid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  501.  This  act  of  1733  was  eventually  confirmed; 
Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  531. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Aug.  8,  1733. 


5i6  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

as  a  whole,  the  student  cannot  avoid  being  impressed 
with  the  great  economy  shown  by  the  general  assembly 
in  making  such  appropriations,  and  by  the  fact  that  this 
economy  tended  rather  to  increase  than  diminish  as  the 
colony  grew  in  population  and  prosperity.  Beginning 
with  the  grant  of  £2000  a  year,  made  to  Cornbury,  we 
find  the  amount  cut  to  £1300  under  Lovelace,  Hunter 
and  Burnet,  and  finally  reduced  to  £1000  under  Mont- 
gomerie  and  Cosby,  and  this  in  spite  of  the  inclusion  of 
the  income  gained  from  the  bills  of  credit.  We  must,  how- 
ever, avoid  drawing  inferences  too  hastily.  The  reason 
for  the  later  reduction  was  not  so  much  unwillingness 
to  maintain  an  efficient  government  as  lack  of  confidence 
in  new  and  untried  governors.  Moreover,  it  was  highly 
proper  that  the  assembly  should  not  yield  to  the  demands 
of  royal  officers,  whose  views  on  the  subject  of  the  dig- 
nity of  the  government  had  been  formed  amid  other 
conditions.  We  should  also  remember  that  the  abihty 
of  the  colony  to  pay  depended  not  so  much  upon  the 
value  of  its  resources  as  upon  the  amount  of  actual  cur- 
rency, always  insufficient,  which  it  had  at  its  command.' 

In  judging  the  amount  of  the  salaries  given  the  pro- 
vincial officers  we  should  also  be  on  our  guard.  The 
exceedingly  small  sums  given  to  the  subordinate  officers 
by  no  means  represented  their  total  emolument,  which 
consisted  chiefly  of  fees  for  the  performance  of  the  vari- 
ous acts  pertaining  to  their  offices.  This  fact  is  well 
illustrated  by  the  case  of  James  Smith,  the  secretary  of 
the  province,  whose  memorial  to  the  Lords  of  Trade, 
complaining  of  the  reduction  of  his  fees  by  the  acts  of 
1727,  declared  that,  in  consideration  of  a  loss  sure  to  be 
£60,  the  assembly  had  compensated  him  by  a  gift  of  but 

^Payment  of  taxes  in  wheat  was,  however,  legalized  in  New  Jersey. 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS  517 

£25.'  These  fees  were  of  course  not  taxes  upon  the 
entire  province. 

Aside  from  the  salaries,  there  were  certain  other  ex- 
penditures which  seem  to  have  been  taken  somewhat 
regularly  out  of  the  appropriations  for  support.  These 
were  chiefly  sums  voted  to  persons  for  performing  some 
necessary  service  for  the  province  or  the  assembly. 
Numerous  sums,  varying  according  to  the  service,  were 
paid  to  the  printer,  William  Bradford,  for  printing  the 
laws  of  the  colony. ="  The  clerk  of  the  house,  and  some- 
times other  officers,  were  reimbursed  for  special  service.' 
The  sergeant-at-arms  received  amounts  to  cover  his 
traveling  expenses.*  Special  rewards  were  on  several 
occasions  sent  to  the  agent. '  Individual  members,  like 
Kinsey,  were  even  paid  for  drawing  bills  and  similar 
services.  But  though  such  payments  as  these  were 
authorized  at  nearly  every  session  of  the  legislature,  the 
total  sum  thus  expended  was  never  large. 

Aside  from  the  payment  of  salaries  and  the  incidental 
charges  connected  with  the  holding  of  assemblies,  the 
regular  expenditures  of  the  provincial  government  were 
indeed  inconsiderable.  About  the  only  other  regular 
charges  authorized  by  colonial  laws  were  for  the  building 
and  repair  of  court  houses  and  jails,^  for  the  laying  out 
and  repair  of  roads, ^  and  for  the  payment  of  premiums  for 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  199. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  5,  1710-11;  Feb.  17,  1713-14;  Jan.  8,  1716- 
17;  Jan.  29,  1718-19;  June  18,  1725,  etc. 

^Ibid.,  e.  g.,  Aug.  7,  1725.  *  Ibid.,  e.  g.,  Apr.  4,  21,  28,  1722. 

^Ihid.,  Nov.  26,  1723;  Feb.  10,  1727-28. 

"AlHnson,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii, 
p.  528. 

''Laws  Enacted  in  1704  (Bradford  print);  Nevill,  Statutes;  New  Jer- 
sey Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  69. 


5i8  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

the  killing  of  wolves,  panthers,  red  foxes  and  other  dan- 
gerous animals.'  Though  these  expenditures  were  au- 
thorized by  provincial  acts,  yet  in  their  nature  they  were 
really  county  expenditures.  The  amounts  required  were 
to  be  determined  by  county  officers  and  assessed  in  the 
counties  by  their  direction.  In  a  similar  way  the  over- 
seers of  the  poor  were  authorized  to  expend  such  sums 
as  were  needed  and  to  assess  the  same  upon  their  town- 
ships or  precincts.' 

The  province  did,  however,  employ,  aside  from  its 
regular  officials,  such  officers  as  tax  assessors  and  col- 
lectors in  the  various  counties,  commissioners  for  the 
management  of  the  loan  offices  established  under  Burnet, 
and  commissioners  for  the  signing  of  bills  of  credit. 
Tax  collectors  were  remunerated  by  being  allowed  to 
keep  small  percentages  of  what  they  collected. ^  The 
commissioners  of  the  loan  offices  received  sums,  specified 
in  the  loan-office  acts,  out  of  the  interest  on  the  amounts 
loaned.*  The  commissioners  for  signing  bills  of  credit, 
who  were  usually  prominent  members  of  the  assembly, 
also  received  their  pay  out  of  the  bills  signed.*  The  ex- 
penditures for  all  the  above  purposes  came  only  indirectly 
out  of  the  pockets  of  the  people. 

But  there  were  certain  extraordinary  expenditures 
during  the  union  period  which  the  province  was  called 
upon  to  meet  and  which  entailed  most  important  results 
both  of  a  financial  and  a  political  nature.  These  were  in 
connection  with  the  two  futile  expeditions  against 
Canada,  to  which  New  Jersey  was  obliged  to  contribute. 

•Allinson,  op.  cit.;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  438. 
'  AUinson,  op.  cit.;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  328. 
"See  for  example  the  act  of  support  of  1725;  Bradford,  Statutes. 
*Act  of  1723;  Nevill,  Statutes. 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS  519 

For  the  Nicholson-Vetch  expedition  of  Ingoldsby's  time 
New  Jersey  raised  £3000  to  maintain  her  quota,"  and  for 
the  Walker  expedition  two  years  later  she  gave  £5000/ 
These  heavy  immediate  expenses  were  met  by  the  issue 
of  bills  of  credit,  and  indeed  caused  the  beginning  of  the 
issue  of  this  form  of  currency  in  New  Jersey.  The  ex- 
pense of  sinking  the  bills  was  to  be  met  by  moneys 
raised  from  taxation,  but,  as  there  was  no  direct  return 
from  the  expeditions,  the  province  was  thus  left  for 
several  years  with  a  troublesome  debt  in  the  form  of 
outstanding  bills.  As  we  shall  see  later,  the  handling  of 
this  debt  was  for  a  time  the  leading  factor  in  the  financial 
history  of  the  province. 

The  methods  of  raising  money  followed  in  the  province 
of  New  Jersey  were  from  the  modern  standpoint  primi- 
tive in  the  extreme.  The  acts  for  support  regularly  pro- 
vided for  the  levying  of  a  land  tax  and  a  general  prop- 
erty tax.  The  acts  themselves  were  very  similar  in  their 
general  character,  and  most  of  the  perplexities  con- 
nected with  modern  taxation  were  of  course  unknown. 

The  system  of  taxation  in  the  royal  province  was  be- 
gun by  the  act  of  support  of  1704.'  This  contained  an 
interesting  preamble  setting  forth  that  "  Her  majesty's 
dutiful  subjects,  the  representatives,"  being  deeply  sen- 
sible of  her  majesty's  **  tender  care  "  in  appointing  Corn- 
bury  as  governor,  were  heartily  willing  to  support  the 
government  "  to  the  utmost  of  their  poor  ability."  The 
law  then  enacted  that  every  freeman,  married  or  unmar- 
ried, the  tax  on  whose  real  or  personal  estate  did  not 
amount  to  six  shillings,  should  notwithstanding  pay  six 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  468. 

*Ilnd.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  481;  Assembly  Journal,  July  10,  1711. 

*  Laws  Enactedin  1704  (Bradford  print). 


520 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


shillings.  All  persons  keeping  ferries  must  pay  twenty 
shillings  for  each  ferry;  but  a  certain  widow  Jones,  who 
kept  a  ferry  at  Piscataway,  was  exempted.  All  wherries 
that  carried  passengers  and  all  boats  or  sloops  exporting 
wood  or  other  commodities,  paid  fifteen  shillings.  All 
persons  selling  beer,  ale  or  cider  under  ten  gallons,  or 
stronger  drink  under  a  quart,  after  the  publication  of  the 
act,  were  to  be  taxed  at  the  discretion  of  the  assessors 
not  under  twenty  shillings  nor  over  three  pounds.  The 
assessors  were  also  to  tax  at  discretion  all  owners  of 
grist  mills  and  saw  mills,  all  Indian  traders,  shop-keepers, 
and  merchants  trading  in  the  province.  Mill  owners 
were  to  pay  not  under  twenty  shillings  nor  above  three 
pounds,  and  all  traders  not  under  twenty  shillings  nor 
over  four  pounds. 

The  rest  of  the  £2,000  appropriated  was  to  be  raised 
by  a  tax  "upon  goods  and  chattels."  All  lands  held  by 
surveys,  deeds  or  patents  belonging  to  inhabitants  or  to 
persons  not  in  the  province,  who  had  settled  the  same  by 
tenants,  servants  or  slaves,  were  valued  at  £10  per  one 
hundred  acres.  All  cattle  and  horses  over  one  year  old 
were  valued  at  forty  shillings  each.  All  slaves,  except- 
ing those  disabled,  were  rated  at  £20.  Sheep  were  to  be 
held  worth  four  shillings  per  head. 

For  raising  the  tax  two  assessors  and  a  collector  for 
each  county  were  named  in  the  act  itself.  These  persons 
were  to  take  an  oath  for  the  faithful  performance  of  their 
duties  before  two  justices  of  the  peace,  and  if  they  failed 
to  carry  them  out,  were  to  be  fined  £5,  and  taxed  at 
the  discretion  of  the  assessors.  If  anyone  gave  an 
untrue  list,  he  was  to  pay  ten  times  the  value  of  the  ob- 
ject concealed.  The  assessors  were  to  meet  at  Amboy 
on  April  first  next  and  the  following  year  at  Burlington 
in  order  to  apportion  the  tax.     They  were  to  sum  up  the 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS 


521 


amount  to  be  obtained  by  the  taxation  of  heads  and  other 
objects  of  assessment  and  subtract  it  from  the  £2,000. 
Then  they  were  to  account  the  goods  and  chattels  re- 
ported and  assess  the  tax  equally.  The  assessors  of  each 
county  were  to  make  perfect  lists  of  the  assessment  of 
each  person,  and  these  were  to  be  given  to  the  con- 
stables, who  were  to  notify  the  persons  taxed  on  or  be- 
fore May  first.  All  taxes  were  to  be  paid  in  current 
silver  of  the  eastern  division  on  or  before  May  15th,  and 
the  collectors  were  to  give  receipts. 

Lists  were  to  be  drawn  immediately  of  all  who  had 
neglected  to  pay.  These  were  to  be  given  by  the  col- 
lectors to  any  justices,  and  the  latter  were  at  once  to 
issue  warrants  to  the  constables  to  make  distress  upon 
the  goods  of  offenders.  If  these  distresses  were  not 
redeemed  within  five  days,  they  were  to  be  put  up  for 
sale,  but  the  overplus  was  to  be  returned  to  the  owner. 
All  taxes  were  to  be  paid  by  the  collectors  to  the 
receiver-general  on  or  before  June  15th.  Each  collector 
and  assessor  was  allowed  twenty  shillings  per  annum  and 
every  constable  twelve  shillings,  besides  such  fee,s  as 
arose  from  distress. 

It  seems  probable  that  beneath  some  of  the  provisions 
of  the  act  of  1704  lay  the  desire  of  the  majority  of  the 
assembly  to  injure  their  opponents,  the  proprietors. 
Many  of  the  proprietors  in  England  held  patents  for 
large  tracts,  which  they  had  settled  only  in  small  part  by 
sending  over  servants  or  tenants.  Such  persons  could 
be  subjected  to  heavy  taxation.  The  act,  moreover,  had 
given  its  own  execution  into  the  hands  of  men  the  oppo- 
sition of  most  of  whom  to  the  proprietors  was  well 
known.  Nevertheless  the  act  marked  out  the  lines  which 
all  subsequent  acts  followed  in  a  general  way,  though  of 
course  many  details  were  altered  or  added. 


522 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


The  act  of  171 1,  the  first  act  of  support  under  Hun- 
ter, provided  for  a  tax  closely  resembling  that  of  1704-5.' 
All  freemen  whose  salable  estate  was  not  assessed  at  six 
shillings  were  nevertheless  to  pay  six  shillings,  but  all 
tradesmen  who  followed  their  trades  were  to  pay  from 
four  to  sixteen  shillings,  at  the  discretion  of  the  asses- 
sors. The  ferries  of  the  province  were  now  to  con- 
tribute different  sums,  which  were  fixed  by  the  assembly. 
These  ranged  from  six  shillings,  to  be  given  by  the  ferry 
at  "Weighhawk,"  to  thirty  shillings,  from  the  ferry  at 
Amboy.  Every  wherry  carrying  passengers  and  goods 
for  hire  was  taxed  twenty  shillings,  and  every  flat-boat 
ten  shillings.  Wood-boats  carrying  six  cords  of  wood 
paid  twenty  shillings,  and  if  under  six  cords  ten  shillings; 
if  under  four  cords  six  shillings.  Grist  and  saw-mills 
were  taxed  from  fifteen  shillings  to  three  pounds,  at  dis- 
cretion ;  fulling-mills  from  ten  shillings  to  twenty  shil- 
lings. Merchants  and  traders  were  to  give  from  twenty 
shillings  to  ten  shillings,  at  discretion,  and  inn-keepers 
from  twenty  shillings  to  ten  pounds. 

Some  changes  were  also  made  in  the  general  property 
tax.  All  unimproved  land^  was  to  be  valued  at  £7 
per  one  hundred  acres.  All  laboring  slaves  over  four- 
teen and  under  fifty  were  valued  at  £15  per  head;  all 
cattle  and  horses  over  three  years  at  forty  shillings. 
Hogs  and  sheep,  if  one  year  old,  were  to  be  held  worth 
four  shillings,  but  swine  over  one  year  old  were  valued 
at  six  shillings.  All  sums  were  of  course  in  proclamation 
money. 

From  the  accession  of  Hunter  to  the  end  of  the  union 
period  the  tax  continued  to  be  levied  in  practically  the 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  10,  1710-11. 

*The  act  of  course  refers  only  to  land  held  under  patent. 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS  523 

same  way.  The  amounts  of  the  various  assessments  of 
course  varied  a  little  according  to  the  total  sums  to  be 
raised,  yet  the  changes  were  not  great. 

In  the  act  of  1 713  it  was  first  specifically  stated  that 
persons  not  residing  in  the  province,  bringing  in  goods 
for  sale  except  at  public  fairs,  should  be  taxed  on  the 
same  scale  as  resident  traders.'  In  1716  it  was  enacted 
that  such  persons,  if  they  sold  at  retail,  should  be  taxed 
not  under  four  pounds.  This  clause  introduced  the 
principle  of  discrimination  in  favor  of  home  traders,  who 
were  to  be  taxed  from  thirty  shillings  to  five  pounds  at 
discretion.  The  act  of  1716  also  stated  that  all  vessels 
or  boats  coming  into  the  Jerseys  from  other  provinces 
should  pay  the  same  taxes  as  the  boats  of  the  province.' 

In  1713  it  was  ordered  that,  in  making  up  the  general 
property  tax,  all  owners  of  houses  and  lots  in  towns  the 
tax  of  whose  salable  estate  did  not  amount  to  eight 
shillings  should  pay  at  the  discretion  of  the  assessors  not 
over  ten  shillings  nor  under  five  shillings  per  annum. 
The  following  act  declared  that  they  should  pay  not  over 
twenty  shillings  nor  less  than  three  shillings.  In  the 
law  of  1 716  an  important  feature  was  added  by  the  order 
that,  in  valuing  land,  all  unimproved  land  held  by  surveys 
or  patents  whereon  could  be  found  any  goods  of  any  one 
inhabiting  was  to  be  valued  at  £7  per  one  hundred  acres 
as  formerly,  but  if  absolutely  no  settlement  had  been 
made  it  was  to  be  valued  at  £4  per  hundred.  This 
change  was  no  doubt  in  the  interest  of  the  proprietors. 

The  act  of  1716  enumerated  all  the  mills  in  the  prov- 
ince and  fixed  the  tax  to  be  paid  by  each  just  as  in  the 

^Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  27,  1 713-14.  This  act  levied  the  six  shill- 
ings per  capita  tax  only  upon  single  men,  thus  making  it  virtually  a  tax 
on  bachelors.     The  later  acts  followed  the  act  of  1713  in  this  respect. 

*Ibid.,  Jan.  8,  1716-17. 


524  ^^^  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

case  of  the  ferries.  The  amounts  ranged  all  the  way 
from  forty  shillings  to  five  shillings.  But  this  precedent 
was  not  afterward  followed,  or  at  least  the  amounts  were 
not  entered  on  the  assembly  journal  or  in  the  act  itself. 

The  last  appropriation  act  of  Hunter's  time,  that  of 
1 718,  made  no  important  changes  except  that  it  did  not 
keep  the  discrimination  against  outside  traders  estab- 
lished in  1716.^ 

Burnet's  first  act  of  1722  reduced  the  per  capita  tax  from 
six  shillings  to  four  shillings.'  It  laid,  however,  a  "  cer- 
tainty "  upon  all  public-house  keepers  who  were  to  pay  at 
least  £5,  though  not  more  then  £15.  This  provision  was 
an  important  addition.  Merchants  and  shop  keepers  were 
also  assessed  from  £5  to  £15,  though  Indian  traders  es- 
caped more  easily.  All  lands  regularly  held,  whereon 
any  improvement  had  been  made,  were  to  be  valued  at 
only  £5  per  one  hundred  acres.  Unimproved  lands  were 
not  mentioned.  It  was  now  specified  that  all  taxes  for 
support  of  the  government  must  be  paid  in  gold,  silver, 
or  wheat.  Wheat  was  to  be  taken  at  five  pence  less  per 
bushel  than  its  market  value  at  New  York  or  Philadel- 
phia.    Bills  of  credit  were  of  course  not  to  be  taken. 

The  act  of  1725  required  all  those  who  brought  goods 
to  sell  from  neighboring  colonies  to  pay  £3  to  the 
treasurers  or  county  collectors. ^  Otherwise  they  for- 
feited £6  for  each  offense.  Merchants  of  the  Jerseys 
paid  from  twenty  shillings  to  five  pounds.     Otherwise 

^Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  31,  1 718-19;  Laws  Enacted  in  1718-19 
(Bradford  print).  Persons  not  inhabitants  of  New  Jersey  who  brought 
in  goods  to  sell  at  retail  had  to  obtain  certificates  from  the  county  col- 
lectors which  were  virtually  licenses. 

^Assembly  Journal,  Apr,  13,  1722;  Laws  Enacted  in  1722-23  (Brad- 
ford print) . 

^  Assembly  Journal,  June  12,  1725. 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS 


525 


no    important    change    was    made    from    the    previous 
arrangements. 

The  later  acts  of  Burnet,  Montgomerie  and  Cosby, 
follow  in  principle  the  earlier  legislation.  The  amounts 
levied  by  them  were,  however,  for  reasons  already  stated,, 
somewhat  less  than  those  called  for  by  the  earlier  acts. 

The  method  of  collecting  and  apportioning  the  taxes 
also  remained  very  much  the  same  throughout  the 
period  we  are  treating.  The  method  employed  in  1704 
appears  to  have  been  followed  until  1716,  when  an  act 
for  the  more  regular  choosing  and  electing  of  assessors 
and  collectors  in  the  respective  towns  and  counties  was 
passed.'  By  this  it  was  enacted  that  the  freeholders  of 
each  town  or  precinct  should  meet  and  elect  annually 
one  assessor  and  one  collector.  If  the  freeholders  ne- 
glected to  do  this,  any  three  justices  might  meet  and 
appoint  a  collector  and  an  assessor.  Within  ten  days 
these  officers  were  to  qualify  themselves  by  oath  or 
affirmation  before  a  justice.  On  a  provincial  tax  the 
assessors  were  to  go  to  all  the  inhabitants  and  take  an 
exact  account  of  all  their  ratable  goods.  Then  they 
were  to  meet  at  the  most  convenient  place  of  their 
counties  and  assess  the  inhabitants  equally  to  make  up 
the  county's  quota.  The  assessor  was  then  to  make  out 
a  list  of  every  person's  tax  and  deliver  one  copy  to  the 
collector  of  each  town  and  one  to  the  collector  of  each 
county,  who  was  still,  as  under  the  old  arrangement,  to 
be  named  in  the  act  of  the  assembly.  The  local  col- 
lector was  forthwith  to  gather  the  tax  and  pay  it  to  the 
county  collector,  who  was  to  pay  the  same  over  to  the 
treasurer  or  such  person  as  the  act  directed.  The  fees 
of  the  assessor  were  nine  pence  per  pound,  and  of  the 
collector  six  pence  per  pound. 

'  Allinson,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey. 


526 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


If  any  person  concealed  any  of  his  estate  from  the 
assessor,  he  was  to  forfeit  two  shillings  per  pound  for 
such  neglect,  to  be  recovered  by  any  one  by  an  action 
for  debt  before  any  justice,  one-half  to  go  to  his  own 
use  and  one-half  for  the  Crown.  If  any  refused  to  pay, 
the  collector  was  to  return  his  name  to  a  justice,  who 
was  to  issue  a  warrant  to  the  constable  for  distress.  If 
there  were  no  goods,  the  person  was  to  be  taken  and 
turned  over  to  the  sheriff,  who  was  to  keep  him  in 
custody  until  the  tax  and  costs  were  paid.  If  any  col- 
lector, assessor,  or  justice  refused  to  perform  the  dis- 
tress, he  was  to  forfeit  forty  shillings,  and  in  the  case  of 
the  death  or  removal  of  any  collector  or  assessor  any 
two  justices  of  the  peace  might  appoint  others. 

If  any  person  thought  he  was  wronged  by  the  assess- 
ment he  might  appeal  to  the  next  court  of  quarter  ses- 
sions or,  in  case  the  tax  was  to  be  paid  before  such 
court,  to  three  justices  of  the  peace.  These  bodies 
might  make  abatement,  or  if  it  appeared  that  any  were 
not  assessed  high  enough  they  might  levy  the  extra  sum. 

When  it  was  necessary  to  levy  a  county  tax,  it  was  to 
be  assessed  and  raised  in  the  same  manner  and  was  to  be 
paid  to  the  county  collector,  to  be  used  as  determined 
by  the  justices  of  the  county  with  the  freeholders  chosen 
according  to  the  act  for  building  and  repairing  jails,  etc. 

The  county  collectors  were  to  keep  "  fair  accounts  "  of 
all  sums  received  from  the  several  local  collectors,  and  of 
the  deficiencies  due  from  each,  and  for  all  moneys  raised 
for  support  of  the  government  were  to  deliver  the  same 
to  the  treasurer.  The  accounts  for  county  rates  were 
to  be  delivered  before  the  court  of  quarter  sessions  once 
a  year.  If  the  collectors  had  in  their  hands  money  over 
and  above  the  quota  of  the  county,  it  was  to  be  employed 
for  the  use  of  the  county. 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS 


527 


This  act  remained  in  force  during  the  union  period. 
The  system  of  local  election  of  assessors  and  collec- 
tors established  by  it  was  certainly  far  more  in  keeping 
with  the  spirit  of  the  colony  than  the  old  arrangement 
by  which  those  officers  were  named  directly  by  the  as- 
sembly. 

The  apportionment  of  the  taxes  among  the  counties 
was  now  regularly  made  by  the  assembly.  The  act  of 
support  of  1 718  apportioned  the  sum  of  £1350  appointed 
to  be  raised  for  the  first  year  as  follows:  Bergen,  £111 
I2S.;  Essex,  £180  5s.;  Middlesex,  £157  i6s.;  Somerset, 
£52  6s.;  Monmouth,  £230  2s.;  Burlington  and  Hunter- 
don, £270  i8s.;  Gloucester,  £116  19s.;  Salem,  £194  14s.; 
Cape  May,  £42  8s.  This  apportionment  should  give  a 
fairly  correct  estimate  of  the  relative  wealth  of  the 
counties.'  The  act  of  1720  apportioned  the  sum  of  £1111 
to  be  raised  for  the  first  eighteen  months  on  a  scale 
practically  similar:  Bergen,  £90;  Essex,  £151;  Middle- 
sex, £129  3s.;  Somerset,  £43;  Monmouth,  £188;  Hunter- 
don, £80;  Burlington,  £140;  Gloucester,  £95;  Salem, 
£158;  Cape  May,  £36  17s.' 

The  tax  for  the  support  of  the  government  was  the 
only  regular  provincial  tax  levied  for  the  sake  of  the 
proceeds.  But  it  was  by  no  means  the  only  tax  levied 
by  provincial  laws.  The  other  taxes  may  be  divided 
into  two  classes :  first,  those  to  meet  county  and  local 
expenditures ;  and  second,  those  intended  to  regulate 
the  trade  of  the  colony  or  to  produce  certain  social 
results. 

Among  the  taxes  of  the  former  class  are  to  be  placed 
those  for  the  construction  of  jails  and  court  houses,  for 

•  Laws  EnacUd  in  1718-19  ( Bradford  print) . 
*Ibid.  (1722-23). 


528  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

the  laying-out  of  highways,  for  the  relief  of  the  poor,  and 
for  providing  premiums  for  the  slaying  of  wolves  and 
other  dangerous  animals.  In  1714  was  passed  the  first 
act  "for  raising  money  for  the  building  and  repair  of 
gaols  and  court  houses  within  each  county." '  This 
enacted  that  once  each  year  the  inhabitants  of  each  town 
or  precinct  should  choose  two  freeholders  for  the  ensuing 
year.  These  "chosen  freeholders,"''  together  with  the 
justices  of  the  peace,  were  to  meet  and  agree  upon  such 
sums  as  should  be  needed  for  jails  and  court  houses^ 
The  county  board  thus  created  was  to  name  assessors 
and  collectors  for  gathering  such  tax,  and  was  given  full 
power  to  enforce  its  payment.  The  justices  and  free- 
holders were  also  to  name  managers  to  carry  out  work 
agreed  upon,  and  these  were  authorized  to  draw  war- 
rants upon  the  collectors  for  payment  for  the  work  and 
materials.  But  all  such  officers  were  accountable  to  the 
county  board.  The  act  provided  also  that,  if  the  people 
neglected  to  elect  "freeholders,"  the  justices  of  the 
peace  in  their  quarter  sessions  might  appoint  them. 

The  provisions  of  this  act  were,  however,  modified  in 
some  respects  by  the  act  of  1716,  for  the  more  regular 
choosing  and  electing  assessors  and  collectors  for  the 
raising  of  provincial  taxes.  The  new  law,  as  previously 
stated,  laid  it  down  that  county  taxes  should  be  raised 
in  the  same  manner  and  by  the  same  assessors  and  col- 
lectors as  the  provincial  tax.  For  the  employment  of  all 
county  moneys,  however,  the  county  collector  was  to  be 
responsible  to  the  justices  and  "chosen  freeholders," 
as  before.  As  the  former  law  was  not  formally  repealed, 
confusion  seems   to   have  resulted   in   some  cases  until 

'^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  528;  Allinson,  Statutes. 

*  Still  the  title  of  the  members  of  the  county  board  in  New  Jersey. 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS 


529 


1719,  when  a  new  act  was  passed  "to  Prevent  Mistakes 
and  Irregularities  by  Assessors  and  Collectors." '  This 
ordered  that  in  future  all  county  taxes  be  raised  in 
accordance  with  the  act  of  1716.  Such  sums  were  to  be 
paid  by  local  collectors  to  the  county  collector,  to  be 
disposed  of  as  appointed  by  the  justices  and  the  chosen 
freeholders.  The  part  of  the  law  of  1714  relating  to 
assessors  and  collectors  was  thereby  repealed.  The  ar- 
rangements thus  made  remained  in  force  during  the  rest 
of  the  union  period. 

In  1 719  there  was  also  an  act  for  the  building,  rebuild- 
ing, repairing  or  amending  of  bridges  in  the  respective 
towns  or  precincts.''  It  enacted  that  in  the  case  of  large 
bridges  lying  wholly  within  a  town  or  precinct,  which 
could  be  repaired  only  by  the  assistance  of  special  handi- 
craftsmen, the  overseers  of  the  highroads  of  the  town 
were  to  apply  to  its  two  chosen  freeholders  and  two 
justices.  These,  with  the  surveyor  of  the  highroads  of 
the  town,  were  to  contract  for  the  necessary  repairs. 
The  sums  required  were  to  be  collected  and  assessed 
under  the  act  for  the  more  regular  choosing  of  assessors 
and  collectors.  Any  surplus  was  to  be  used  on  the 
highroads. 

Beginning  with  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1704  "for 
laying  out,  regulating,  clearing,  and  preserving  public 
common  highways  throughout  this  province,"  there  was 
always  a  system  of  contributions  for  the  maintenance  of 
roads. 3  Such  contribution,  however,  was  paid  in  labor 
rather  than  in  money.  The  act  of  1704  ordered  the  con- 
struction of  certain  provincial  highroads  and  named 
commissioners  of  highways  in  each  county  who  were  to 

'  Allinson,  op.  cit.  '  Nevill,  Statutes. 

*  Laws  Enacted  in  1704  (Bradford  print). 


530  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

lay  out  such  roads,  if  they  did  not  already  exist,  and  also 
such  lesser  roads  as  the  counties  required.  For  main- 
taining the  highways  the  justices  of  the  peace  in  their 
quarter  sessions  were  to  name  two  overseers  of  the  high- 
ways for  each  town  or  precinct  in  each  county.  These 
overseers  were  to  summon  such  and  so  many  of  the  in- 
habitants as  they  should  think  fit  to  meet  at  such  times 
and  places,  and  to  labor  upon  the  roads  for  so  long  a 
time  as  the  commissioners  should  appoint.  Each  team, 
with  cart  or  wagon,  was  to  be  "  esteemed  "  at  three  days' 
labor  for  one  man.  There  was  a  six-shillings  fine  for 
absence,  but  the  overseers  were  to  employ  inhabitants 
justly  and  equally. 

This  act,  with  the  others  passed  by  the  second  assem- 
bly, was  disallowed  by  the  Crown,'  but  not  before  it  had 
been  executed.  The  commissioners  named  were  all  men 
who  could  be  depended  upon  to  work  in  the  interest  of 
Cornbury's  faction,  and  it  is  asserted  that  their  chief 
object  in  constructing  roads  was  to  injure  their  enemies 
by  compelling  them  to  pull  down  their  enclosures  and 
to  allow  roads  to  be  run  through  their  orchards. =* 

In  1 716,  under  Hunter,  the  system  was  put  on  a  better 
basis  by  the  passage  of  an  "Act  for  the  Better  Laying  out, 
Regulating,  and  Preserving  Public  Roads  and  Highways 
thro'  this  Province." ^  This  confirmed  most  of  the  roads 
laid  out  under  the  previous  act,  but  ordered  that  hence- 
forth the  freeholders  and  inhabitants  of  each  town  should 
choose  four  persons  for  surveyors  of  the  highways,  of  whom 
the  justices  in  quarter  session  should  select  two  who  should 
act  for  the  ensuing  year.  The  quarter  sessions  of  each 
county  was  also  to  appoint  two  persons  of  each  town  or 

'  AUinson,  Statutes.  *  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  280. 

» Nevill,  Statutes. 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS  53 1 

precinct  to  act  as  overseers,  to  keep  all  roads  in  repair. 
The  overseers,  as  before  were  to  call  the  inhabitants  to 
mend  the  highways,  and  the  fine  for  default  was  four 
shillings  six  pence.  Overseers  were  to  account  to  their 
successors  for  all  sums  received,  and  if  the  labor  of  all 
the  persons  of  a  town  was  not  needed  every  year  the 
overseers  were  to  give  to  their  successors  an  account  of 
those  who  had  not  worked.  New  roads  were  to  be  laid 
out  by  the  surveyors  with  the  assistance  of  those  of  the 
adjoining  townships,  but  this  was  to  be  done  only  upon 
application  made  to  them  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  town, 
and  care  was  to  be  taken  not  to  injure  the  lands  of  any. 
Provision  was  made  for  altering  the  course  of  roads  laid 
out  under  the  former  act  where  it  had  proved  incon- 
venient. The  law  also  contained  special  provisions  cov- 
ering certain  cases,  like  the  repair  of  the  bridge  of 
Gloucester  River  on  the  Salem  road  and  that  over  South 
River  on  "  the  great  highroad "  between  Amboy  and 
Burlington,  where  the  expense  was  too  great  to  be  borne 
by  the  adjoining  towns.  County  taxes  were  here  pro- 
vided for. 

In  1709,  under  Lovelace,  a  system  of  poor  relief  was 
established  by  an  "Act  for  Relief  of  the  Poor."'  This 
enacted  that  each  township  or  precinct  by  warrant  from 
one  justice  should  meet  and  choose  overseers  and  as- 
sessors. The  assessors  were  to  assess  the  inhabitants 
such  sum  and  in  such  manner  as  the  township  in  its 
meeting  agreed  upon,  and  the  overseers  were  to  collect 
the  same.  The  overseers  with  the  aid  of  one  or  more 
justices  were  to  *'  put  forth "  such  children  as  had  no 
parents  able  to  care  for  them,  and  to  see  that  all  poor 
were    supplied    with    necessary    maintenance.      Pounds 

'  Allinson,  op.  cit. 


532 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


were  also  to  be  built  for  stray  cattle  and  horses,  and 
placed  under  the  direction  of  persons  selected  by  the 
towns. 

In  the  same  session  of  the  legislature  an  act  for  de- 
stroying of  wolves,  panthers,  crows,  and  blackbirds  was 
passed,  offering  small  premiums  to  all  who  should  slay 
such  animals.  Such  sums  were  to  be  paid  by  the  jus- 
tices in  their  sessions  with  the  concurrence  of  the  grand 
jury,  and  were  to  be  raised  by  assessors  and  collectors 
nominated  by  the  said  authorities.'  In  1730  this  law 
was  superseded  by  another. "  The  justices  and  the 
chosen  freeholders  of  each  county  were  now  to  raise  the 
required  sums  in  the  same  manner  as  other  county  taxes. 
The  premiums  were  limited  to  wolves  and  panthers : 
twenty  shillings  for  a  wolf,  (five  shillings  if  it  were  a 
whelp  unable  to  prey) ,  and  fifteen  shillings  for  a  panther. 

Such,  with  the  exception  of  certain  acts  of  special  and 
limited  application,  were  the  chief  local  taxes  levied 
under  provincial  law  during  the  union  period.  While  it 
is  impossible  now  to  estimate  accurately  their  amount, 
they  must  certainly  have  been  very  light  when  the  con- 
ditions of  the  country  are  considered. 

Of  a  different  nature  were  the  import  and  export 
duties,  levied  for  various  reasons  upon  articles  of  com- 
merce. In  1 714,  under  Hunter,  such  enactments  were 
begun  by  the  levying  of  an  export  duty  of  thirty  shillings 
per  thousand  on  pipe  staves,  and  of  twenty  shillings  per 
thousand  on  hogshead  staves  exported  out  of  the  eastern 
division  to  neighboring   colonies.*     The  proceeds  were 

^Bradford,  Laws  of  the  Province  of  New  Jersey  (1717). 
'  AUinson,  Statutes;  "  An  Act  for  Preventing  the  Waste  of  Timber, 
Pine  and  Cedar  Trees,"  etc. 
*Allinson,  op.  cit. 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS  533 

to  go  for  the  support  of  the  government.  The  reason 
assigned  was  that  the  exportation  of  staves  would  cause 
a  waste  of  timber,  and  was  at  present  a  great  discourage- 
ment to  the  trade  of  the  colony.  In  the  same  session  a 
duty  of  £10  per  head  was  laid  upon  all  negro,  Indian, 
and  mulatto  slaves  imported.'  Hunter  stated  to  the 
Lords  of  Trade  that  the  object  was  to  encourage  the 
bringing  of  white  servants  "  to  better  people  the  col- 
ony."' The  act,  however,  permitted  a  person  intending 
to  settle  permanently  in  the  province  to  bring  free  of 
duty  as  many  slaves  as  he  chose.  At  the  same  time  a 
duty  was  laid  upon  all  wheat  exported  out  of  the  eastern 
division  to  any  other  American  colony.  Hunter  de- 
clared that  this  was  to  encourage  their  manufacture  of 
bolting  that  they  might  have  the  benefits  of  their  own 
produce.' 

In  1 7 16  the  duties  on  staves  and  wheat  were  repealed.' 
But  in  1725,  under  Burnet,  a  new  law  was  passed  impos- 
ing duties  on  wheat,  wheat  meal,  staves,  and  headings  of 
all  sorts,  and  bolts  whereof  staves  or  headings  might  or 
could  be  made.'*  This  law  ordered  that  all  persons  ex- 
porting from  the  eastern  division  into  the  western  or  any 
other  English  colony  on  the  continent,  any  wheat  or 
wheat  meal,  before  it  had  been  bolted  or  packed,  or  any 
staves  or  headings  made  of  oak,  or  any  bolts  whereof 
staves  or  headings  might  be  made,  should  first  enter 
the  same  with  the  collector  of  customs  of  the  east- 
ern division,  and  pay  one  shilling  for  every  bushel  of 
wheat  or  wheat  meal  unbolted  and  fifteen  shillings  for 

'Allinson,  op.  cit.;  "An  Act  for  Laying  a  Duty  on  Negro,  Indian 
and  Mulatto  Slaves,"  etc. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  iv,  p.  196. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  293.  'Bradford,  Statutes. 


534 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


every  thousand  staves  of  thirty-five  inches  and  under,  and 
higher  rates  according  to  an  established  scale  if  they 
were  longer.  Also  such  persons  must  pay  thirty  shill- 
ings for  every  thousand  of  heading  of  any  sort  and  nine 
pence  for  bolts  whereof  staves  or  headings  could  be  made. 
Payment  was  to  be  made  to  the  collector  or  his  deputy, 
and  the  penalty  was  forfeiture  of  the  goods.  Masters  of 
vessels  were  required  to  enter  into  bond  yearly  with  the 
collector  to  the  sum  of  f  i,ooo  that  they  would  not  ship 
any  articles  contrary  to  the  act,  and  any  master  or  other 
person  violating  the  act  was  to  forfeit  £20.  The  law  was 
to  be  enforced  for  ten  years  and  no  longer. 

The  purpose  of  the  act  was  to  bring  about  the  grind- 
ing and  bolting  of  the  wheat  before  it  was  exported.'  It 
was  also  thought  that  it  would  encourage  the  making  of 
casks  within  the  province.  As  the  representatives  and 
people  of  West  Jersey  were  not  in  favor  of  the  measure, 
it  was  not  applied  to  them.  The  motive  was  of  course 
to  benefit  East  Jersey,  even  at  the  expense  of  the  neigh- 
boring provinces  of  New  York  and  Pennsylvania.  The 
law  was  not  re-enacted  during  the  union  period  and 
therefore  expired  in  1735. 

Of  different  nature  was  an  act  passed  in  1730  under 
Montgomerie  imposing  upon  masters  of  vessels  bring- 
ing into  the  province  persons  previously  convicted  of 
heinous  crimes  a  duty  of  £5  per  head.'  They  were  also 
to  be  bound  in  £50  for  the  good  behavior  of  such 
convict  for  one  year.  The  act  also  provided  at  length 
against  efforts  to  avoid  its  conditions  and  fixed  heavy 
penalties  against  those  making  them.  But  this  elemen- 
tary immigration  law  went  into  effect  too  late  to  pro- 
duce any  striking  results  during  the  union  period. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  105.  *Allinson,  op.  cit. 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS 


535 


Though  the  laws  summarized  above  have  much  inter- 
est and  importance  as  revealing  the  economic  and  social 
policy  of  the  colony,  they  were  doubtless  of  little  account 
as  direct  sources  of  income  to  the  government.  Of 
more  value  in  this  direction  was  the  excise  upon  all 
strong  liquors  retailed,  established  in  1716/  The  charges 
made  upon  keepers  of  public  houses  in  the  acts  for  sup- 
port had,  of  course,  been  really  a  tax  upon  the  retailing 
of  liquor,  but  previously  there  had  been  no  separate 
excise.  The  excise  of  1716  laid  a  duty  of  twelve  pence 
per  gallon  on  all  rum,  brandy,  wine  and  other  spirits  re- 
tailed under  the  quantity  of  two  gallons,  and  of  four  shil- 
lings six  pence  upon  every  barrel  of  cider  retailed  under 
the  quantity  of  five  gallons ;  and  for  every  barrel  of  beer 
retailed,  two  shillings,  and  for  every  gallon  of  **  cider 
royal "  and  metheglin,  six  shillings  per  gallon.  The 
proceeds  were  for  the  support  of  the  government.  The 
act  was,  however,  limited  to  five  years,  and  it  was  not 
renewed.  The  same  object  was,  however,  secured  by 
laying  a  heavier  charge  upon  inn-keepers  in  the  regular 
acts  of  support  under  Burnet." 

The  excise  was  by  a  clause  in  the  act  of  1716  farmed 
out  to  David  Lyell  and  William  Bradford  for  the  full  five 
years.  In  return  they  were  to  pay  the  crown  £300  yearly. 
They  and  their  deputies  were  given  the  right  to  enter 
into  all  houses  and  cellars  belonging  to  retailers  of  strong- 
drink,  to  gauge  and  take  account  of  all  such  liquors,  and 
in  case  the  retailers  refused  to  enter  into  bond  to  pay  the 
duties  the  farmers  might  seize  all  the  liquors.  Further, 
all  retailers  were  to  declare  to  the  farmers  or  to  such  dep- 
deputies  as  they  should  appoint  in  each  county  the  quan- 

'  Laws  EnacUd in  1716  (Bradford  print). 
*Laws  Enacted  in  1722-3  (Bradford  print). 


536  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

tity  and  quality  of  such  liquors  as  they  received.  All 
liquors  not  reported  were  to  be  seized  and  three  times 
the  value  thereof  forfeited.  There  were  the  usual  pro- 
visions inflicting  penalties  against  those  who  tried  to 
avoid  the  act  on  various  pretexts,  but  the  farmers  were 
on  their  part  held  strictly  accountable  to  the  governor, 
council,  and  general  assembly  at  the  end  of  the  five  years. 
The  act  concluded  with  the  characteristic  provision  that, 
to  prevent  the  charging  of  unreasonable  prices  for  liquor 
or  provisions  by  public-house  keepers,  the  justices  of  the 
peace  in  their  sessions  should  fix  the  prices  of  all  such 
articles. 

Such  was  the  system  of  taxation  existing  in  the  pro- 
vince down  to  1738.  Doubtless  it  was  crude  and  un- 
scientific, yet  it  seems  to  have  been  in  general  fairly  just 
in  its  distribution  of  the  burdens.  As  in  all  the  colonies, 
there  was  grumbling  enough  over  the  payment  of  taxes, 
though  there  was  no  effort  to  establish  any  other  system.^ 
In  a  society  where  wealth  consisted  chiefly  of  land  and 
tangible  objects,  the  problem  of  taxation  was  of  course 
far  simpler  than  under  present  conditions. 

It  cannot,  however,  be  maintained  that  the  arrange- 
ments for  tax  collecting  worked  smoothly,  for  the  pro- 
vince was  in  continual  difficulty  because  the  taxes  were 
nearly  always  in  arrears.  This  was  especially  the  case 
under  Hunter.  The  difficulties  experienced  in  collecting 
the  taxes  under  that  able  governor  were,  however,  un- 
doubtedly due  to  a  systematic  effort  made  by  the  faction 
of  Coxe  and  Basse  to  embarrass  and,  if  possible,  over- 
throw the  chief  executive." 

^  Unless  we  consider  as  such  the  efforts  to  lighten  taxation  through 
the  issue  of  bills  of  credit. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  232. 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS 


537 


There  is  little  evidence  regarding  the  raising  of  the 
revenues  under  Cornbury  and  Lovelace.  In  1713,  how- 
ever, the  sixth  assembly,  after  investigating  through 
committees  the  accounts  of  the  taxes  since  1708,  felt  it 
necessary  to  pass  a  special  act  for  collecting  the  arrear- 
ages.' But  the  great  conflict  between  the  governor  and 
Daniel  Coxe  and  his  supporters  in  the  seventh  assembly 
increased  the  disorder.  During  the  second  session  of 
the  seventh  assembly  another  law  was  enacted  "to 
Enforce  the  Payment  of  all  Public  Taxes.""  But  this 
certainly  did  not  remedy  the  evil.  In  the  third,  or 
Chesterfield  session  of  the  same  body,  a  full  investigation 
of  the  accounts  was  made  by  the  house  in  committee  of 
the  whole,  and  a  startling  condition  revealed.^  It  ap- 
peared that  the  province  was  in  arrears  £380  on  the 
taxes  for  support  voted  since  Hunter  took  office,  besides 
£327  on  the  taxes  for  the  first  Canada  expedition,  and  a 
further  sum  which  could  not  be  exactly  estimated  upon 
the  £5,000  tax  for  the  second  expedition.  The  worst 
condition  existed  in  Burlington  County,  where  the  in- 
fluence of  Coxe  was  strong,  and  where  Hewlings,  a  sup- 
porter of  Coxe,  was  assessor.  So  bitter  was  his  partisan- 
ship, that  he  preferred  to  incur  the  penalties  for  failure 
in  his  duties  rather  than  assess.^  On  the  taxes  for  sup- 
port for  the  years  171 1,  1712,  1714  and  1715  Burlington 
was  in  arrears  no  less  than  £246  8s  lod.^  The  assembly, 
in  consequence,  passed  a  bill  to  enforce  the  payment  of 
340  ounces  of  plate  in  the  county  of  Burlington,  that 
sum  being  its  share  of  the  £5,000  tax  for  the  year  1714, 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  9,  1713-4. 

''New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  261. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  51;  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  14,  1716-17. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  292.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  52. 


538  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

and  voted  to  address  Hunter  to  order  the  prosecution  of 
all  concerned  in  the  mismanagement  of  the  taxes.'  The 
act  for  the  more  regular  choosing  and  electing  assessors 
and  collectors,  previously  described,  was  also  a  result  of 
this  session. 

But  in  spite  of  the  efforts  of  the  assembly,  the  auditing 
of  the  accounts  in  the  spring  session  of  171 8-19  showed 
that  there  was  still  due  as  arrears  of  taxes  a  sum  which, 
with  interest,  amounted  to  £891  9s  5d.  Accordingly^ 
in  the  act  of  support  prepared  during  the  meeting,  provi- 
sion was  made  for  assessing  and  raising  from  the  various 
counties  in  addition  to  the  new  tax  their  share  of  the 
arrears.  Burlington  was  to  pay  £295  and  Hunterdon 
£198.' 

These  means  seem  to  have  been  fairly  effective,  as  the 
examination  of  accounts  by  Burnet's  eighth  assembly  in 
1722  revealed  only  comparatively  small  arrears.  Thus 
there  was  due  from  Burlington,  though  this  did  not  in- 
clude the  support  voted  in  1718,  only  £15  12s.  Several 
counties  were  completely  paid  up.  The  total  due  was 
£207  15S.3 

From  this  point  on  the  collection  of  the  taxes  evi- 
dently became  a  matter  of  less  difficulty.  We  find  that 
the  arrears  due  in  West  Jersey  for  1722,  1723,  and  1724 
were  only  £2  19s,'*  while,  during  the  service  of  Michael 
Kearney  as  treasurer  of  East  Jersey,  in  1723  and  1724  that 
division  actually  overpaid  £1  17S.5     There  was,  however, 

^Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  15,  1716-17.  Basse's  speech,  the  only 
speech  recorded  in  the  assembly  journal,  was  made  upon  the  financial 
situation. 

^Lazvs  Enacted  in  1718-19  (Bradford  print);  Assembly  Journal, 
March  17,  1716-19. 

^Assembly  Journal,  Apr.  27,  1722.  *Ibid.,  Aug.  20,  1725. 

^  Ibid.  The  statement  refers  only  to  the  regular  tax  for  support  of  the 
government.     The  surplus  payment  was  from  Essex  Co. 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS 


539 


a  deficiency  in  the  revenue  for  1726.  The  taxes  were 
again  short  £28,  due  from  Burlington,  Cape  May  and 
Middlesex.  Moreover  the  collector  of  Piscataway 
'*  eloped "  with  the  greater  part  of  the  taxes  raised 
there  in  1722.'  The  deficiency  was  nevertheless  not  re- 
garded as  very  serious.  Later  auditings  by  the  legisla- 
tive committees,  as  those  of  1730'  and  1733,-  also  show 
some  arrears  in  the  raising  of  taxes. 

But,  all  things  considered,  it  is  not  surprising  that  it 
was  difficult  to  raise  taxes  promptly  in  a  community 
such  as  New  Jersey  then  was.  The  continual  arrears 
evidently  caused  much  labor  and  anxiety  to  both  gov- 
ernors and  assemblies,  but  the  system  still  worked  well 
enough  to  answer  the  needs  of  the  province  and  perhaps 
as  well  as  any  arrangement  which  would  have  respected 
the  individual  liberty  of  the  people. 

The  first  issue  of  bills  of  credit  in  New  Jersey  was 
under  Ingoldsby  in  1709  and  was  made  to  provide  funds 
for  the  equipment  of  New  Jersey's  quota  to  the  Nich- 
olson-Vetch expedition  to  Canada.  The  sum  issued  was 
£3000.  The  issue  was  covered  by  a  tax  for  the  same 
amount,  to  be  raised  in  annual  instalments  for  a  term  of 
years.'* 

In  some  respects  this  first  experiment  was  not  very 
happy.  A  committee,  consisting  of  Thomas  Pike,  Capt. 
Farmar,  John  Royse  and  Elisha  Parker  or  any  three  of 
them,  was  named  to  sign  the  bills.  But  Royse  died  be- 
fore any  of  the  bills  were  issued.     The  survivors  then, 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  5,  1727-8. 

*Ibid.,  July  I,  1730.  ^Jbid.,  Aug.  11,  1733. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  468.  The  act  designated  special 
treasurers  for  the  handling  of  these  funds.  Miles  Forster,  the  regular 
provincial  treasurer  was,  however,  named  as  special  treasurer  for  East 
Jersey.     Dr.  John  Roberts  was  appointed  for  West  Jersey. 


540 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


without  any  authority,  associated  with  themselves  Adam 
Hude  to  sign  the  bills.  Some  of  the  bills  Hude  signed 
with  all  three  of  his  colleagues,  but  most  of  them  with 
only  two.  Moreover  the  form  of  the  bills  which  the 
committee  caused  to  be  printed  was  thought  to  be  not 
exactly  like  that  specified  in  the  act.' 

Difficulty  naturally  resulted,  and  it  seems  probable  that 
the  colony  actually  suffered  loss  through  the  hesitation 
of  merchants  of  neighboring  colonies  to  accept  the  bills. =" 
The  matter  naturally  came  up  at  the  next  meeting  of  the 
assembly,  and  the  representatives  prepared  a  bill  "  for 
Amending  and  Explaining  the  Act  for  the  Currency  of 
Bills  of  Credit  for  £3000."  The  object  of  this  measure 
was  to  legalize  what  the  commissioners  had  done  and 
enforce  the  currency  of  the  existing  bills.  But  the  coun- 
cil, which  desired  only  to  involve  the  leaders  of  the  pro- 
prietary party  in  trouble,  amended  the  bill.^  Meanwhile 
petitions  were  received  from  numerous  merchants  of 
New  York  and  Philadelphia,  among  whom  were  Peter 
Fauconnier  and  William  Trent,  praying  that  the  house 
would  not  confirm  the  existing  bills,  but  that  they  might 
be  heard.*  The  hearing  was  given,  and  so  effective  were 
the  statements  of  the  merchants  that  the  house  accepted 
the  council  changes  in  the  bill.^  The  bill,  however,  was 
not  acted  upon  further  by  the  council  and  so  was  lost. 
This  result  may  have  been  partly  due  to  the  sharp  feel- 
ing between  the  houses  which  had  resulted  from  the 
work  of  the  joint  committee  of   investigation  into  the 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  414.         ''Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  417. 

'  Previously  it  had  sent  down  a  bill  declaring  the  bills  of  credit  null 
and  void.  But  the  house  rejected  it  immediately.  New  Jersey  Archives, 
vol.  xiii,  p.  419. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  27,  28,  1709-10. 

^Ibid.,  Jan.  28,  1709-10. 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS  54I 

handling  of  the  Canada  expedition  and  the  issue  of  the 
bills  of  credit. 

After  receiving  the  report  of  its  committee,  the  coun- 
cil passed  a  set  of  resolutions  declaring  that  Pike,  Parker 
and  Farmar  had  acted  illegally  and  committed  a  breach 
of  trust.  Hude  had  committed  a  high  crime  and  mis- 
demeanor. Such  conduct  was  said  to  be  an  encourage- 
ment to  counterfeiting.  All  bills  signed  only  by  Hude 
and  two  others  were  declared  void,  and  all  four  persons 
were  said  to  be  guilty  of  the  grossest  misconduct.  An 
attack  was  also  made  upon  the  managers  and  the  com- 
missary of  the  expedition.  Though  a  statement  of  the 
accounts  of  the  expedition  was  laid  before  the  assembly 
by  Gordon  and  Basse,  who  had  been  employed  to  go 
over  them,  the  house  took  no  formal  action  thereon. 

The  financial  difficulty  thus  created  added  to  the 
troubles  under  which  the  province  was  laboring  when 
Hunter  took  office.  Some  legislation  regarding  the 
bills  of  credit  was,  of  course,  absolutely  necessary,  and 
in  spite  of  the  bitter  conflict  between  the  council  and 
general  assembly  which  spoiled  the  session  of  1710-11, 
an  act  was  passed  "for  Amending  and  Explaining  an 
Act  entitled  an  Act  for  Enforcing  the  Currency  of 
£3,000  Bills  of  Credit."  This  declared  the  existing  bills 
legal.  But  the  measure  was  much  weakened  by  the  loss 
of  an  amendment  declaring  the  offer  and  refusal  of  such 
bills  legal  payment  of  all  debts.' 

The  session  of  July,  171 1,  was  called  by  Hunter  in 
order  to  make  provision  for  New  Jersey's  quota  to  the 
Walker  expedition  against  Canada.  The  assembly  voted 
to  do  so  by  the  issue  of  new  bills  of  credit  to  the  value 
of   12,500  ounces  of   plate.'     As   in   the   previous    case, 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  416  ei  seq.    "^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  64. 


542 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


these  were  to  be  sunk  by  a  tax  for  the  raising  of  £5,000. 
This  tax  was  to  be  paid  in  ten  yearly  instalments,  and 
was  to  cover  also  the  interest  on  the  old  bills  and  the 
cost  of  raising  both  taxes. ^  The  new  issue  was  thus 
again  made  in  response  to  a  patriotic  need.  The  bills  of 
credit  were  now  nevertheless  fastened  upon  the  colony 
for  several  years,  and  the  handling  and  sinking  of  the 
bills  became  naturally  one  of  the  chief  subjects  of  con- 
sideration at  sessions  of  the  legislature  of  the  province. 
The  bills  of  credit  undeniably  filled  a  need  in  supply- 
ing the  province  with  a  currency.  Yet  the  system 
brought  with  it  real  dangers,  though  these  did  not  show 
themselves  at  once.  The  issues  of  the  bills  up  to  the 
point  we  have  reached  had  certainly  been  rendered  prac- 
tically necessary  by  the  burdens  of  the  war. 

During  the  session  of  171 3-14  it,  however,  appeared 
that  Thomas  Gordon,  the  treasurer,  had  in  his  hands  the 
sum  of  £999  13s  3d  over  and  above  the  cost  of  the  recent 
abortive  expedition.^  The  assembly  promptly  appro- 
priated this  amount  for  the  support  of  the  government 
from  June  23,  1712  to  Sept.  23,  1713.  This  measure 
was  one  of  the  few  formally  confirmed  by  the  Crown 
during  the  union  period.^  But  immediately  afterward 
the  representatives  prepared  and  carried  through  a 
bill  to  "Continue  and  Revive  the  Currency  of  the  Bills 
of  Credit  Appointed  to  be  Sunk  in  the  year  1712  and 

^Assembly  Journal,  July  10, 11, 12,  1711.  The  method  of  levying  the 
tax  was  like  that  of  the  regular  taxes  for  support  of  the  government. 
Special  treasurers  were  again  named  in  the  act;  Gordon  for  East  Jersey, 
and  Thomas  Gardiner  for  West  Jersey. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  23,  1713. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  217.  Cornbury,  now  Earl  of  Clar- 
endon, vainly  entered  objection  on  the  ground  that  a  large  part  of  his 
own  salary  as  governor  of  New  Jersey  was  still  unpaid.  Ibid.,  vol.  iv, 
p.  199. 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS  543 

1 713  and  to  Enable  Thomas  Gordon,  Treasurer  of  this 
Province  to  pay  in  the  said  Bills,  the  Several  Sums  of 
money  due  to  Several  persons  having  warrants  etc." ' 
This  is  the  first  indication  of  any  desire  on  the  part  of 
colonists  to  make  the  bills  of  credit  a  permanent  feature 
of  their  finance.  The  measure  seems  to  have  been  passed 
with  little  notice  by  the  governor,  while  the  home 
authorities  do  not  refer  to  it  at  all. 

During  the  third,  or  Chesterfield,  session  of  the 
seventh  assembly  there  were  further  developments. 
Gordon  submitted  the  accounts  of  the  bills  of  credit  he 
had  issued  in  accordance  with  the  act  of  1 713-14.  But 
as  he  had  not  brought  with  him  all  the  bills  of  credit  in 
his  possession,  he  was  required  to  go  to  Amboy  and 
fetch  them.'  Eventually  the  bills  of  both  the  £3000  and 
the  £5000  tax  were  examined  by  the  committee  of  the 
council,  and  forthwith  sunk  and  destroyed  with  the  ex- 
ception of  £8  5s  which  were  found  to  be  counterfeit.' 
The  center  of  the  stage  was  then  seized  by  Jeremiah 
Basse,  who  had  only  recently  been  taken  into  favor  by 
Hunter.'*  Basse  delivered  a  speech  upon  the  financial 
situation  which  seems  to  have  been  regarded  as  such  an 
effort  that  it  was  reported  at  length  in  the  Assembly 
Journal ;  the  only  instance  during  the  union  period  of  a 
recorded  speech  by  a  member  of  either  house.  Basse 
described  the  position  of  the  province  in  terms  indeed 
affecting.  If  the  taxes  were  paid  up,  all  the  bills  of 
credit  would  have  been  redeemed  and  money  would  be 
in  the  treasury.     But  now  they  were  indebted  £1700  and 

^Assembly  Journal,  March  5,  1713-14;  New  Jersey  Archives,   vol. 
xiii,  p.  541. 
*  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  3,  1716-17. 
*Ibid.,  Jan.  10,  11.  1716-17.  ^ Ibid.,  Jan.  15,  1716-17. 


544 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


odd  in  bills,  and  the  treasury  was  empty.  Their  ill 
circumstances  were  increased  by  the  deadness  of  trade, 
the  poverty  of  the  province  and  the  cheapness  of  its 
products.  But  the  chief  causes  of  their  woes  were  the 
disastrous  expeditions  to  Canada  and  their  own  discords. 
The  negligence  of  their  officers  and  the  scarcity  of 
money  had  also  contributed.  The  veteran  politician 
then  made  a  touching  plea  for  unity  on  the  lines  of  the 
golden  rule.  But  the  situation  must  be  met.  To  levy  a 
new  tax  was  impossible.  It  would  be  foolish  to  levy 
money  at  interest.  Therefore  he  wished  a  new  issue  of 
bills  of  credit  secured  by  an  indubitable  sinking  fund. 
This  means  he  thought  in  every  way  the  most  easy  and 
expedient  for  paying  their  debts. 

After  debate  the  house  acquiesced  in  this  irresistible 
conclusion  and  named  a  committee  to  draw  a  bill  for  the 
issue  of  more  paper  money.^  Accordingly  an  act  entitled 
"An  Act  for  the  Currency  of  Bills  of  Credit  up  to  11,675 
ounces  of  plate"  was  prepared  and  passed.*  The  paper 
money  system  was  thus  definitely  continued. 

No  further  legislation  upon  the  currency  was  necessary 
until  1723.  The  provisions  already  made  were,  however, 
carefully  carried  out.  In  the  session  of  1718  bills  of 
credit  to  the  amount  of  £3,436  17s  6d  were  sunk.  £1,827 
15s  of  this  sum  was  composed  of  new  bills.^  In  1722  the 
finances  were  found  in  a  satisfactory  state,  and  the  taxes 
were  declared  sufficient  to  redeem  all  the  bills.** 

The  session  of  1723,  under  Burnet,  is  notable  for  the 
introduction  of  a  new  feature  into  the  financial  system  of 
the  colony, — the  loan  offices.     That  the  establishment  of 

^  Assembly  Journal ,  Jan.  15,  1 716-17. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  65. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  March  4,  1718-19.  *Ibid.,  Apr.  27,  1722. 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS 


545 


such  a  system  had  long  been  under  contemplation,  is 
proved  by  the  fact  that,  in  1716,  a  curious  paper  had  been 
submitted  to  the  assembly  by  Judge  Pinhorne,  who  had 
been  for  some  time  in  political  retirement,  arguing 
against  the  plan  which  he  thought  would  be  advanced  of 
loaning  sums  in  bills  of  credit  to  the  inhabitants  of  the 
colony  at  5  per  cent,  upon  landed  security.'  He  urged, 
instead,  the  loaning  of  the  sums  gratis  upon  proper 
security,  one-twentieth  to  be  repaid  annually  in  silver. 
The  silver  returned  could  be  easily  put  out  at  common 
interest,  and  the  income  would  make  a  sure  provision  for 
sinking  the  bills  and  give  the  province  a  handsome  profit. 

We  fortunately  have  the  full  text  of  the  act  of  1723 
"for  an  additional  support  of  this  government  and  mak- 
ing current  £40,000  in  bills  of  credit  for  that  and  other 
purposes  therein  mentioned."*  As  Burnet  himself  ex- 
plained to  the  Lords  of  Trade,  the  colony  had  now  fully 
determined  to  have  paper  money. ^  His  instructions,  how- 
ever, allowed  bills  of  credit  to  be  issued  only  in  acts  for 
support.  Hence  the  peculiar  title  and  form  of  the  bill. 
The  act  itself  set  forth  that  many  petitions*  had  been 
received  stating  that  the  silver  and  gold  formerly  current 
had  been  almost  entirely  exported  to  Great  Britain,  a  fact 
which  involved  the  Jerseys  in  hardship  for  want  of  a  cur- 
rency. New  York  and  Pennsylvania  had  remedied  this 
want  by  issuing  bills  of  credit,  but  these  were  not  legal 
tender  in  New  Jersey. 

Therefore  the  assembly  enacted  that  bills  of  credit  to 
the  amount  of  £40000  according  to  the  Queen's  proclama- 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  269. 
*Nevill,  Statutes  ot  New  Jersey. 
^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  pp.  75,  86. 
*  See  Assembly  Journal,  Oct.  8,  1723. 


546  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

tion  be  forthwith  issued.  These  were  to  be  4000  bills  of 
£3  value,  8000  of  £1  IDS.,  8000  of  15s.,  8000  of  12s., 
8000  of  3s.,  12,000  of  IS.  6d.,  and  14,000  of  is.  The 
form  of  the  bills  was  carefully  described,  and  a  commit- 
tee was  named  to  sign,  number  and  indent  them.  The 
committee  consisted  of  John  Parker,  Peter  Bard,  R.  L. 
Hooper  and  James  Trent,  or  any  three  of  them.  They 
were  directed  to  administer  an  oath  to  the  printer  to 
prevent  fraud  on  his  part  like  the  striking  of  extra 
copies.  When  the  bills  were  signed,  £3000  was  to  be 
given  to  the  treasurer  of  the  Eastern  division,  £1000  to 
the  treasurer  of  the  Western  division  and  the  rest  to  the 
commissioners  of  the  loan  ofBces  in  the  several  counties. 
The  sums  to  be  given  to  the  several  counties  were  speci- 
fied in  the  bill,  Monmouth  receiving  the  greatest  amount, 
£6,033  and  Cape  May  the  smallest,  £1,115. 

Two  or  three  reliable  persons  were  then  named  as 
commissioners  of  the  loan  office  in  each  county.  The 
list  included  such  names  as  Col.  Josiah  Ogden  of  Essex, 
Thomas  Farmar  of  Somerset,  William  Trent  of  Hunter- 
don, and  Daniel  Coxe  of  Burlington.  The  commissioners 
were  to  be  put  upon  proper  oath  and  security,  and  the 
commissioners  of  each  county  were  declared  to  be  bodies 
poHtic  and  corporate.  They  were  empowered  to  use  a 
common  seal,  to  sue  and  be  sued  and  generally  to  use 
all  powers  necessary  to  their  trust. 

The  commissioners  were  to  lend  the  bills  of  credit  to 
such  as  applied  and  would  give  security  by  mortgage  on 
lands,  lots,  houses,  or  other  valuable  improvements 
lying  in  the  same  county.  But  this  was  to  be  done  only 
after  proper  advertisement  that  the  commissioners  would 
receive  borrowers  at  a  certain  day  and  place,  and  all  were 
to  be  served  according  to  priority  unless  reasonable  ex- 
ception was  offered  to  the  titles  and  values  of  the  lands 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS 


547 


offered.  If  the  security  was  good,  the  money  was  to  be 
loaned  at  five  per  cent  for  twelve  years  in  sums  not  over 
£ioo  nor  under  £12  12s.  to  any  one  person.  The 
security  taken  by  way  of  mortgage  was  to  be  double  the 
value  of  the  property,  except  in  the  case  of  houses,  when 
it  was  to  be  three  times  the  value.  Every  year  £8  los. 
was  to  be  repaid  on  each  £100  borrowed  and  so  for  the 
first  ten  years,  and  £7  los.  for  every  £100  for  the  last  two 
years.  There  must  also  be  paid  five  per  cent  per  annum 
for  the  sum  borrowed  or  remaining  in  the  hands  of  the 
borrower.  Sums  lent  out  after  the  original  date  were  to 
be  repaid  in  such  instalments  that  the  amounts  with  in- 
terest might  be  all  paid  in  on  March  25,  1736.  Bor- 
rowers, however,  had  the  option  of  repaying  the  entire 
sums  taken  up  at  any  time  before  the  date  of  final  pay- 
ment.    Such  amounts  were  to  be  loaned  out  again. 

If  any  borrower  failed  to  make  payment,  his  mortage 
was  to  be  foreclosed  in  thirty  days  and  his  lands  sold  to 
the  highest  bidder.  But  all  sums  resulting  from  the  sale, 
over  and  above  the  amount  lent  and  the  interest  money, 
were  to  be  returned  to  the  borrower. 

The  bills  of  credit  issued  by  the  act  were  to  have  cur- 
rency for  twelve  years  between  man  and  man,  but  should 
be  received  as  good  by  the  provincial  treasurer  for  six 
months  thereafter  and  no  longer.  Further,  they  were  to 
be  received  at  the  value  expressed  upon  their  face.  The 
tender  of  bills  of  credit  for  the  payment  of  any  debt  was  to 
be  just  as  effectual  as  if  the  same  sum  of  specie  had  been 
offered.  Tender  of  payment  in  bills  of  credit  before  two 
credible  witnesses  was  to  extinguish  any  debt.  Any 
person  refusing  the  bills  upon  the  sale  of  goods  or  ask- 
ing a  greater  value  in  bills  was  to  be  fined.  If  an  in- 
habitant of  New  Jersey  refused  the  bills  in  some  other 
province  or  asked  discount,  he  was  to  forfeit  any  sum 


548  ^^^  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

for  which  he  should  be  sued,  up  to  one  fourth  the  value 
of  the  goods  involved  or  one  fourth  the  money  offered 
plus  the  whole  discount.  If  the  prosecutor  was  a  person 
living  outside  of  the  province,  he  was  to  be  allowed  ten 
shillings  per  diem  while  engaged  in  the  suit  and  six 
shillings  for  witnesses,  if  they  were  not  above  two. 
These  charges  were  to  come  out  of  the  costs  of  the  suit. 
All  counterfeiters  of  bills  and  those  who  aided  them 
were  to  suffer  death. 

The  bill  then  went  on  to  prescribe  in  detail  the  duties 
and  procedure  of  the  commissioners  of  the  loan  office. 
The  commissioners  were  every  year  to  pay  the  interest 
money  received  to  the  treasurer  of  the  province.  Their 
accounts  were  to  be  annually  inspected  by  the  justices 
and  the  "chosen  freeholders"  of  their  county.  Bills  of 
credit  paid  in  were  to  be  sunk  in  the  presence  of  the 
county  board,  but  the  tops  and  bottoms  of  the  said  bills 
were  to  be  preserved  in  bundles  and  delivered  to  the 
treasurer.  In  return  for  these  services  the  commis- 
sioners were  to  receive  payments  varying  from  £9  in 
Cape  May  to  £25  in  Monmouth. 

Finally,  as  has  previously  been  described,  the  act  pro- 
vided for  the  better  sinking  of  the  bills  by  levying  an 
annual  tax  of  £1000  for  ten  years. 

As  the  necessary  supplement  of  this  first  great  loan- 
office  act  there  was  passed  at  the  same  session  an  act 
"  Concerning  the  Duty  of  the  Commissioners  appointed 
to  manage  the  Loan  Offices  .  .  .  and  for  Providing  a 
Remedy  in  Case  any  of  the  Signers  of  the  Bills  of  Credit 
of  this  Province  should  by  Death  or  Otherwise  be  rend- 
ered incapable  of  signing  the  same."  '  This  law  care- 
fully prescribed  the  forms  of  the  mortgages  and  other 

*  Nevill,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey. 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS  549 

securities  to  be  taken  by  the  commissioners.  It  named 
two  substitute  signers  to  act  in  case  any  of  the  four  men 
originally  named  became  incapable  and  ordered  that,  if 
further  disability  occurred,  the  governor  should  appoint. 

What  was  probably  the  opinion  of  the  most  thought- 
ful and  experienced  men  in  the  province  was  expressed 
by  Burnet  in  his  letter  of  May  12,  1724,  to  the  lords.' 
In  this  he  assured  them  that  the  act  was  so  carefully 
framed  that  the  difficulties  which  had  resulted  in  New 
England  and  Carolina  from  the  issue  of  paper  money 
were  here  impossible.  In  this  letter  there  was  also 
enclosed  a  further  argument  in  favor  of  the  bills  by  so 
conservative  a  man  as  James  Alexander.'  Alexander 
pointed  out  that,  as  an  act  of  New  York  making  bills  of 
credit  current  for  twenty-one  years  had  been  approved, 
New  Jersey  must  in  any  case  have  paper  money  for  a 
longer  period  than  her  own  act  specified.  He  advanced 
the  old  pleas  of  the  necessity  of  currency  and  the  hard- 
ships brought  upon  the  debtor  class  by  the  scarcity  of 
money.  An  increase  in  the  currency  would  aid  trade 
and  industry  of  all  kinds.  Lastly,  he  showed  that  New 
York  and  Pennsylvania  now  gained  all  the  interest  from 
the  paper  money  current  in  New  Jersey.  This  condition 
was  manifestly  unjust. 

No  further  important  legislation  regarding  the  cur- 
rency was  needed  for  some  time.  The  session  of  the 
assembly  in  1725  did,  however,  pass  a  bill  providing  for 
the  naming  of  new  commissioners  of  the  loan  office,  in 
case  of  death  or  resignation,  without  compelling  the 
governor  to  journey  to  New  Jersey  and  summon  a 
council,  as  had  formerly  been  required.^     New  commis- 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  86.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  94. 

'  Bradford,  Statutes. 


550 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


sioners  were  to  be  chosen  by  the  justices  of  the  county,. 
with  the  "  chosen  freeholders,"  upon  a  mandate  issued 
by  any  two  justices  upon  a  written  order  from  the  gov- 
ernor. The  same  act  also  provided  that  the  sinking  of 
such  part  of  the  £4000  devoted  by  the  measure  of  1723 
to  the  support  of  the  government  as  might  be  necessary 
might  take  place  before  the  governor  and  council  alone 
if  the  assembly  was  not  in  session  during  the  year.  This 
provision  was  to  prevent  a  large  sum  in  bills  from  being 
left  for  several  years  in  the  hands  of  the  treasurer.  The 
act  of  1725,  however,  concerned  only  matters  of  detail 
and  made  no  real  change  in  the  system. 

The  session  of  1727  brought  more  important  legisla- 
tion, legislation  which  shows  at  the  same  time  the  suc- 
cess of  the  loan-office  system  of  1723  and  the  dangers 
involved  in  it.  The  most  important  measure  was  an  act 
**  for  the  making  of  £24,760  in  bills  of  credit  in  order  to 
exchange  the  bills  of  credit  formerly  made  current  in  this 
province  by  an  act  passed  in  1723."'  The  preamble 
states  that,  of  the  bills  issued  in  1723,  £24,760  were  still 
current.  But  it  had  been  found  that  counterfeits  of 
several  thousands  pounds  had  been  made  in  Ireland  and 
passed  in  neighboring  colonies.  Many  of  the  old  bills 
were  also  much  worn.  New  bills  were  therefore  to  be 
printed  and  signed  by  John  Stevens  and  Isaac  Decbwe. 
The  new  bills  were  to  be  only  two  inches  by  four  in  size,, 
so  that  folding  would  be  unnecessary.  They  were  to  be 
countersigned  also  by  the  treasurers  of  the  two  divisions 
respectively.  Regulations  were  also  made  for  exchang- 
ing these  for  the  old  bills  without  charging  fees  to  those 

*  Nevill.  Statutes.  The  new  bills  were  to  be:  1000  each  of  ;^6  and 
£3,  4000  each  of  3cs,  and  153.,  5000  each  of  12s.  and  6s.,  7000  of  3s., 
8000  of  IS.  6d.,  and  12,200  of  is. 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS 


551 


holding  them.  The  old  bills  were  to  be  good  in  trans- 
actions between  man  and  man  for  only  five  months  after 
the  ensuing  first  of  June,  but  they  were  to  be  received  in 
exchange  for  a  whole  year  and  no  longer.  Advertise- 
ment of  the  necessity  of  exchanging  the  bills  was  to  be 
made  by  the  treasurers  in  New  York  and  Philadelphia 
papers.  The  currency  of  these  new  bills  was  to  be  for 
the  same  period  as  had  been  enacted  for  the  original 
£40,000.  Finally,  as  a  further  precaution  against  frauds, 
two  boards  of  inspectors  were  appointed,  one  for  each 
division.  These  inspectors  were  to  administer  oaths  to 
the  treasurers  and  signers,  to  attend  and  see  the  cancel- 
ling of  the  old  bills,  and  to  have  some  supervision  over 
the  treasurers  in  their  work  of  exchanging  the  bills. 

In  the  same  session  a  bill  was  passed  reducing  by 
nearly  one-half  the  salaries  of  the  commissioners  of  the 
loan  offices.'  It  was  said  that  experience  had  shown 
that  the  previous  salaries  were  excessive. 

Under  the  weak  Montgomerie  the  advocates  of  an 
increased  paper  currency  evidently  met  little  check ;  and 
New  Jersey,  like  so  many  frontier  communities,  sought 
increased  prosperity  in  an  increased  currency.  In  1730 
the  assembly  passed  an  "  Act  the  better  to  Enable  the 
Inhabitants  of  this  colony  to  Support  Government,  Dis- 
charge their  Engagements  in  the  Loan  Offices,  and  for 
Relieving  their  Other  Necessities  by  Making  Current 
£20,000  in  Bills  of  Credit."'  In  its  main  features  this 
bill  was  like  that  of  1723,  which  we  have  given  at  length, 
and  it  seems  to  have  been  remembered  in  the  province 
as  the  "Second  Loan  Office  Act.""  The  £20,000  in 
bills  was  to  have  currency  for  sixteen  years.     As  before, 

1  Nevill,  op.  cit. 

*  So  described  in  Allinson's  Statutes. 


552 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


the  money  was  to  be  distributed  among  the  commis- 
sioners of  the  loan  offices  to  be  loaned  on  proper  landed 
security  at  5  per  cent,  interest.  One-sixteenth  of  the 
sum  loaned,  with  the  interest,  was  to  be  repaid  each 
year.  The  form  of  the  new  bills  was  to  be  like  those 
authorized  in  1727,  except  for  such  distinction  of  color 
as  was  necessary  to  separate  the  two  issues.  All  the 
arrangements  for  loaning  the  bills,  obtaining  the  securi- 
ties and  handling  the  funds  were  similar  to  those  of  the 
first  land-office  act.^ 

There  were,  however,  some  few  new  features.  Bills 
to  the  amount  of  £5,000  additional  were  to  be  printed 
and  signed,  in  order  to  be  exchanged  for  bills  which 
were  soiled  or  worn  out.  These  duplicate  bills  were  to 
be  kept  by  the  treasurers  and  exchanged  gratis.  There 
was  also  a  further  reduction  in  the  salaries  of  the  loan 
commissioners.  As  before,  payment  of  principal  bor- 
rowed might  be  made  in  gold,  silver,  or  wheat,  at  a  dis- 
count of  four  pence  per  bushel  on  the  selling  price  at 
New  York  or  Philadelphia.  Old  bills  of  credit  might 
also  be  received. 

This  act  levied  no  tax  to  secure  any  part  of  the  issue, 
nor  did  it  specify  how  the  interest  money  was  to  be  ex- 
pended. In  these  respects  it  marked  an  advance  in  the 
paper  money  idea.  The  same  assembly,  moreover,  passed 
an  act  "to  enforce  the  payment  of  the  incidental  charges 
of  this  government  out  of  the  interest  money  by  a  former 
law  of  this  province  subjected  to  future  appropriation."^ 

^  These  bills  were:  625  of  £6,  1250  of  ^3,  2500  of  30s.,  5000  of  153., 
7500  each  of  12s.  and  6s.,  10,000  of  3s.,  12,500  of  is.  6d.,  and  16,250  of 
IS.  The  signers  were  Richard  Smith,  Caleb  Raper,  Andrew  Johnstone 
and  Michael  Kearney. 

*  Bradford,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey.  The  former  act  was  of  course 
that  of  1727-8,  spoken  of  in  the  chapter  on  taxation. 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS 


553 


With  regard  to  the  second  land-office  act,  Montgom- 
erie  did  so  far  respect  the  wishes  of  the  lords  as  to  insist 
upon  the  addition  of  a  clause  suspending  its  operation 
until  the  pleasure  of  the  Crown  was  learned.  But  he 
wrote  home,  vigorously  advocating  the  passage  of  the 
law  on  the  ground  that  the  province  was  suffering  from 
a  contracted  currency.  The  measure  was  approved  by 
the  king  in  council,  May  4,  1732,  after  the  receipt  of  a 
memorial  from  Richard  Partridge,  New  Jersey's  efficient 
agent. 

Under  the  circumstances,  it  was  only  natural  that  the 
next  assembly — that  of  1733 — should  pass  a  third  land 
office  act  for  the  making  of  £40,000  in  bills  of  credit. 
The  preamble  set  forth  that,  since  the  bills  previously 
issued  had  obtained  wide  circulation  in  other  colonies,  and 
since  three-fourths  of  the  £40,000  in  bills  formerly  made 
current  had  been  retired,  the  colony  was,  notwithstand- 
ing the  recent  issue  of  £20,000  in  bills,  suffering  from 
an  insufficient  currency.  The  act  then  went  on  to 
authorize  the  issue  of  the  £40,000  of  new  bills.  £io,oco 
more  were  also  to  be  printed  and  exchanged  by  the 
treasurers  for  old  and  soiled  bills,  as  under  the  act  of 
1730.  The  bills  were  to  have  currency  for  sixteen  years 
between  man  and  man,  but  were  to  be  taken  by  the 
treasurers  and  commissioners  for  six  months  more.  As 
under  the  earlier  loan  acts,  the  bills  were  to  be  dis- 
tributed among  the  counties  and  loaned  at  five  per  cent 
interest.  The  provisions  for  repayment  were  like  those 
of  1730. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  289.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  304. 

*  Nevill,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey;  "  the  Third  Loan  Oflfice  Act." 

*  These  bills  were  as  to  denomination:  1000  of  ;^6,  2000  of  ;C3,  4000  of 
30S.,  8000  of  155,,  i2,oco  of  I2S.  6d.,  16,000  of  3s.,  20,000  of  IS.  6d., 
26,000  of  IS.    The  additional  bills  were:  250  of  /'6,  500  of  ;^3,  1000  of 


554 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


It  was  ordained,  however,  since  there  had  been  com- 
plaints against  the  management  of  some  of  the  loan 
offices,  that  there  should  be  a  new  choice  of  commission- 
ers. This  choice  was  to  be  made  by  the  justices  and 
chosen  freeholders  of  each  county,  upon  notice  by  the 
provincial  secretary.  The  salaries  of  the  commissioners 
were  again  raised,  as  the  amount  of  business  they  were 
to  handle  would  be  greater.  Their  emoluments  were  to 
be  paid  from  the  interest  money  received. 

It  was  established  also  that,  if  by  any  possibility  there 
was  such  failure  in  the  payments  of  any  county  as  to 
cause  a  deficiency,  the  county  board  was  to  levy  said 
sum  upon  the  inhabitants.  Such  levy  was,  however,  not 
to  be  made  until  after  sale  of  the  premises  mortgaged. 
In  respect  to  its  other  provisions  the  act  of  1733  was 
similar  to  those  of  1723  and  1730. 

The  assembly  passed  still  another  bill  appropriating 
part  of  the  interest  money  to  the  incidental  charges  of 
the  government.  This  measure  had,  however,  a  clause 
suspending  its  operation  till  it  could  be  approved  by  the 
Crown,  and  it  was  eventually  confirmed. 

Cosby  was  evidently  not  as  enthusiastic  over  paper 
money  as  Burnet  and  Montgomerie.  He,  nevertheless, 
wrote  to  the  lords  in  favor  of  the  new  act.'  All  were 
agreed  that  it  was  necessary,  he  said,  and  he  was  so 
pressed  that  he  could  not  avoid  passing  it.  The  colony 
certainly  labored  under  great  need  of  a  currency.  There 
was,  however,  a  conflict  in  London  regarding  the  fate 
of  the  act.     A  list  of  reasons  was  presented  to  Secretary 

30s.,  2000  of  15s.,  3C00  each  of  12s.  and  6s.,  4000  of  3s.,  5000  of  is.  6d., 
and  6000  of  IS.    The  bills  were  signed  by  any  three  of:  John  Stevens^ 
Robert  Hude,  John  Allen  and  Isaac  Decowe. 
^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  365. 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS 


555 


Popple  by  John  Sharpe,  solicitor,  for  the  disallowance  of 
the  act.*  Among  other  arguments  he  said  that  New 
Jersey  had  already  issued  £60000  in  bills,  of  which  £30000 
still  existed.  To  issue  more  would  lessen  the  credit  of 
the  former  bills.  Before  the  passage  of  the  measure  New 
Jersey  paper  had  been  preferred  to  that  of  New  York,  but 
since  it  appeared  that  due  care  was  not  given  to  the  sink- 
ing of  the  bills,  the  people  of  New  York  were  now  very 
unwilling  to  take  Jersey  paper.  Sharpe  likewise  took 
exception  to  many  of  the  penalties  established  and  to 
other  details  of  the  bill.  Richard  Partridge  once  more 
proved  his  usefulness  to  the  colony  by  presenting  a  reply 
to  the  objections  of  Solicitor  Sharp,'  and  the  act  was 
eventually  approved.'  It  was  certainly  not  radically  dif- 
ferent in  its  general  character  from  the  earlier  laws. 

Thus,  at  the  end  of  the  union  period,  New  Jersey  was 
thoroughly  committed  to  a  paper  currency,  and  so  con- 
vinced were  her  representatives  of  the  advantages  to  be 
gained  by  expanding  the  issues  that  there  was  certainly 
some  danger  that  the  credit  of  the  colony  might  eventu- 
ally suffer.  It  would  no  doubt  be  out  of  place  here  to 
undertake  any  discussion  of  the  principles  of  finance 
involved  in  the  issues  of  the  colonial  bills  of  credit.  But 
the  reader  should  be  warned  to  pass  no  judgment  upon 
the  matter  without  taking  carefully  into  consideration 
the  actual  financial  condition  of  the  province,  and  espe- 
cially the  undeniable  scarcity  of  any  proper  medium  of 
exchange  suitable  for  larger  business  transactions.  It 
was  owing  neither  to  accident  nor  to  any  dishonest 
desire  to  escape  lightly  from  debts  that  the  people  of  the 
Jerseys  were  a  unit  in  favoring  paper  money. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  410.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  416. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  531. 


556  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Up  to  the  point  we  have  reached  New  Jersey  had 
suffered  few  of  the  evils  which  came  to  some  of  the 
other  colonies  through  the  issue  of  paper  bills.  The 
evidence  regarding  the  rate  at  which  her  bills  passed  is 
indeed  to  be  obtained  chiefly  in  the  statements  of  those 
favoring  the  bills  of  credit.  Yet  apparently  they  were 
stating  only  well-known  facts  when  they  asserted  that 
the  Jersey  bills  were  preferred  to  those  of  New  York. 
In  1726  Burnet  enclosed  in  a  letter  to  the  lords  of  trade 
certain  statements  regarding  their  circulating  value. 
One  of  these  was  signed  by  twenty-one  merchants  of 
New  York.^  It  set  forth  that  at  first  the  New  Jersey 
bills  of  1724  decreased  in  value  in  New  York,  passing  at 
the  rate  of  seven  shillings  as  equal  to  six  shillings  of 
New  York  bills.  Later  even  this  was  scrupled.  But  in 
the  second  year  they  gradually  rose  until  Jersey  money 
was  preferred.  At  the  time  the  statement  was  drawn  it 
was  at  a  premium  of  from  six  to  twelve  pence  per  pound. 
A  second  statement  was  regarding  the  value  of  New 
Jersey  paper  money  at  Perth  Amboy.^  This  certificate 
was  signed  by  fourteen  persons,  including  Andrew  John- 
stone, Fenwick  Lyell  and  Michael  Kearney.  It  set  forth 
that  the  bills  had  always  passed  current  in  New  Jersey 
and  in  Pennsylvania  without  discount.  It  was  true  that 
in  1725  there  appeared  a  discount  of  15  per  cent  on  the 
bills  as  against  gold.  This  still  existed,  but  had  dropped 
to  five  or  six  per  cent,  and  in  small  sums  had  disap- 
peared entirely.  In  New  York  the  Jersey  money  was 
at  a  premium. 

We  may  accept  these  assertions  without  being  led 
thereby  into  unqualified  approval  of  the  financial  methods 
of  our  colony.     But  it  certainly  seems  that,  up  to  1738, 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  153.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  154. 


FINANCIAL  AFFAIRS  557 

she  had  been  more  conservative  than  several  of  her 
neighbors,  had  avoided  their  mistakes  so  far  as  possible, 
and  thereby  gained  substantial  results. 

It  is  evident  that  the  home  authorities  regarded  the 
issue  of  paper  money  with  suspicion.  For  this  attitude 
results  elsewhere  had  given  good  cause.  The  governor's 
instructions  forbade  the  issue  of  bills  of  credit,  except  in 
acts  of  support,  unless  the  measures  contained  a  clause 
suspending  their  operation  until  confirmed  by  the  Crown. ^ 
All  the  executives,  in  writing  to  their  superiors  advocat- 
ing the  passage  of  acts  for  bills  of  credit,  assumed  a  de- 
fensive tone,  which  showed  clearly  that  they  knew  that 
the  authorities  at  home  disliked  any  policy  of  inflation. 
But  it  is  also  clear  that  as  regards  New  Jersey,  at  any 
rate,  the  home  authorities  objected  not  so  much  to  the 
issue  of  bills  of  credit  as  to  the  immediate  employment 
of  the  interest  money  obtained  therefrom  as  a  means  of 
lessening  taxation. ="  None  of  the  acts  for  bills  of  credit 
were  disallowed,  nor  did  the  lords  of  trade  reprove  gov- 
ernors for  passing  them.  Their  attitude  regarding  the 
appropriation  of  the  interest  has,  however,  been  brought 
out  elsewhere.  If  not  creditable  to  their  firmness,  it 
illustrates  at  least  their  caution. 

In  direct  contrast  with  the  attitude  of  the  home 
authorities  stands  that  of  the  colonial  governors.  All 
of  them  who  had  to  handle  the  subject  at  all  approved 
the  paper  money  policy,  while  Burnet  and  Montgomerie 
made  themselves  virtually  the  advocates  of  the  assembly 
in  this  respect.  By  approving  the  bills  of  credit  the 
governors   gained  an  increased   income  for   themselves 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  3. 

*The  attitude  of  the  Lords  of  Trade  is  most  clearly  brought  out  in 
their  letter  of  June  28,  1726  to  Burnet;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v, 
p.  120. 


5^8  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

and  their  subordinates,  and  at  the  same  time  made  them- 
selves exceedingly  popular.  Doubtless  colonial  opinion 
would  not,  as  Cosby  thought,  tolerate  opposition  in  this 
field.  But  Burnet  and  Montgomerie  were  men  of  honor, 
men  whose  careers  show  that  they  were  willing  to  face 
public  disapproval  if  they  deemed  it  in  line  with  their 
duty.  We  must  suppose  that  they  honestly  believed 
that  the  conditions  of  the  province  required  the  issue  of 
a  paper  currency. 


CHAPTER  XXV 

The  Militia  System 

It  is  probably  impossible,  after  this  lapse  of  time,  to 
write  an  accurate  and  detailed  description  of  the  militia 
system  of  the  province  of  New  Jersey.  Fortunately  for 
the  colony,  its  defensive  arrangements  were  never  tested 
by  actual  invasion  or  insurrection,  and  although  the  out- 
lines of  its  system  may  be  traced  in  the  colonial  legisla- 
tion, we  are  only  able  to  infer  how  fully  the  laws  were 
carried  out.  In  practice,  the  military  unit  was  the  town 
company  rather  than  the  regiment  which  was  never 
assembled  or  exercised  as  a  body.  It  therefore  depended 
upon  local  spirit  and  traditions  whether  the  company 
was  really  efficient.  It  seems  highly  probable  that  in 
those  communities  of  East  Jersey  which  were  of  New 
England  origin  the  militia  companies  were  in  some  de- 
gree efficient.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  clear  that,  owing 
to  the  influence  of  Quakerism  on  the  Delaware,  the  mili- 
tary arrangements  there  were  never  effective.  Much 
evidence  goes  to  show  that,  considered  as  a  colony.  New 
Jersey  was  one  of  the  least  military  in  spirit.  With  the 
single  exception  of  Pennsylvania,  her  military  system 
was  the  loosest  and  weakest.  The  disregard  of  and  dis- 
like for  military  afifairs  by  the  inhabitants  was  a  continual 
complaint  of  her  governors.'  It  was  owing  to  circum- 
stances of  situation  and  of  international  affairs  in  which 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  53, 83,  280, 465, 471;  vol.  v,  p.  319. 

559 


560  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

the  colony  had  no  share  that  this  weakness  did  not  bring 
disaster. 

There  is  one  phase  of  the  situation,  however,  upon  which 
the  student  may  speak  with  certainty.  This  is  as  to  the 
relation  between  the  questions  of  the  militia  and  the 
politics  of  the  colony.  And,  fortunately,  it  is  just  this 
phase  of  the  matter  which  has  most  historical  import- 
tance.  Sheltered  from  attacks  as  New  Jersey  seemed  to 
be,  it  meant  little  to  her  own  people  whether  their  militia 
was  effective  or  not.  It  meant  much,  however,  whether 
the  colony  should  be  compelled  by  executive  influence  to 
maintain  a  system  which  was  contrary  to  its  spirit,  and 
whether  the  Friends,  though  nominally  free  from  re- 
ligious persecution,  should  be  actually  subject  to  such 
persecution  because  of  their  objection  to  war. 

Among  the  powers  entrusted  to  the  governor,  those 
relating  to  military  matters  occupied  a  prominent  place. 
The  governor's  commission  gave  him  the  title  of  Captain 
General.  '  He  was  given  the  power  to  "  Levy,  arm, 
muster,  command  and  employ  "  all  inhabitants  and  to  re- 
sist and  withstand  all  enemies,  pirates  and  rebels  by  land 
and  sea.  He  could  transport  forces  outside  of  the  col- 
ony for  defense  or  pursuit  of  the  enemy.  The  governor 
could,  also,  execute  martial  law  in  time  of  invasion,  insur- 
rection, or  war,  and  do  everything  pertaining  to  the 
place  of  Captain  General.''  The  right  to  erect  and  arm 
fortifications  was  given  him  as  well  as  that  to  grant  com- 
missions to  masters  of  vessels  to  execute  martial  law  at 
sea  in  time  of  war.  This  latter  power,  however,  was 
not  to  extend  to  any  jurisdiction  over  the  royal  navy.^ 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  4go.    The  title  of  "Captain  General  '* 
stood  before  that  of  "  Governor  in  Chief." 
^Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  496.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  497-8. 


THE  MILITIA  SYSTEM  561 

Because  of  the  sweeping  powers  given  in  the  commis- 
sion, Cornbury's  instructions  do  not  give  as  much  atten- 
tion to  military  matters  as  might  be  expected.  He  was 
ordered  to  see  that  military  training  did  not  interfere 
unneedfully  with  the  inhabitants  of  New  Jersey ;  martial 
law  was  never  to  be  put  into  operation  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  council;  and  whereas  the  governor  had  no 
power  to  enforce  martial  law  in  time  of  peace,  he  was  to 
urge  the  assembly  to  the  passing  of  a  militia  act  which 
would  provide  for  the  disciplining  of  the  forces  of  the 
colony/  There  were  in  the  instructions  certain  articles 
intended  to  prevent  disagreement  between  the  governor 
and  the  officers  of  the  royal  navy.  Cornbury  was  also 
required  to  transmit  as  soon  as  possible  an  account  of 
all  defenses  and  fortifications  of  New  Jersey.^"  Since  the 
defense  of  New  York  was  too  great  for  that  colony 
alone,  the  governor  was  to  "dispose"  the  assembly  of 
New  Jersey  to  contributions  for  that  purpose  according 
to  a  quota  already  prepared.^  If  any  plantation,  and 
especially  New  York,  were  in  distress,  Cornbury  was  to 
give  such  aid  as  possible.*  For  greater  security,  suitable 
officers  were  to  be  appointed  in  those  parts  of  New  Jer- 
sey "bordering  on  the  Indians"  who,  in  case  of  sudden 
invasion,  might  raise  men  and  oppose  the  enemy  until 
they  received  the  governor's  directions. ^ 

In  considering  the  way  in  which  Cornbury  and  his 
successors  executed  these  directions,  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  a  great  war  was  then  raging  between  England 
and  France,  that  the  American  colonies  were  believed  to 
be  in  real  danger  of  invasion,  and  that  in  any  case  a  gov- 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  pp.  523-4. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  526.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  532. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  533.  ^ Ibid. 


562  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

ernor  who  showed  himself  active  and  successful  in  mili- 
tary matters  was  almost  sure  to  win  the  approval  of  the 
home  authorities. 

In  Cornbury's  first  official  letter  home,  after  assuming 
the  administration  of  the  Jerseys,  he  stated  that  he  had 
*'  settled  "  the  militia  of  the  western  division  and  had  be- 
gun on  that  of  East  Jersey/  This  "  settlement "  seems 
to  have  consisted  of  commissioning  officers  to  command 
the  companies  in  the  various  towns  and  districts.  Orig- 
inally there  was  one  regiment  in  West  Jersey  of  which 
Daniel  Coxe  was  named  colonel.'  There  was  a  company 
in  Cape  May,^  two  in  Salem,"*  two  in  Gloucester,^  one  in 
Burlington  Town,  and  at  least  two  in  outlying  townships 
of  Burlington  county.^  Each  company  had  regularly 
three  commissioned  officers,  a  captain,  a  lieutenant,  and 
an  ensign.  Hugh  Huddy  was  major  of  the  regiment.' 
Richard  Townley  was  originally  colonel  of  the  East  Jersey 
militia,^  but  this  force  was  later  divided  into  two  regi- 
ments, one  in  Middlesex  and  Monmouth,  the  other  for 
Bergen  and  Essex.  There  were  probably  three  compan- 
ies in  Monmouth  County,'  two  in  Middlesex,  including 
Somerset,"  and  two  in  Essex."  The  militia  of  Bergen 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  "  settled "  until  some  time 
after  the  other  companies.  It  has  been  indicated  that 
the  regimental  organization  meant  little  in  practice,  the 
company  being  the  important  unit. 

But  the  organization  could  not  be  effective  without  the 
passage  by  the  assembly  of  the  militia  act  which  Cornbury's 

^New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  6. 

*  Libei  AAA  of  Commissions,  p.  6. 

^Ibid.,  p.  37.  ^Ibid.,  pp.  53,  65.  ^ Ibid.,  p.  69. 

*  Ibid.,  pp.  32,  61,  62,  63.  "^  Ibid.,  p.  36.  ^Ibid.,  p.  11. 
^Ibid.,  pp.  42,  43.               ^^Ibid.,  p.  11.               ^^Ibid.,  p.  i6. 


THE  MILITIA  SYSTEM  563 

instructions  ordered  him  to  procure.'  And  the  governor's 
quarrel  with  the  first  assembly  effectually  prevented  such 
legislation  while  it  was  in  existence.  When,  however, 
Cornbury  and  his  allies  by  the  unjustifiable  means  already 
described,  secured  a  temporary  control  of  the  second 
assembly,  a  militia  act  was  carried  through  as  one  of  the 
features  of  the  governor's  policy."" 

This  act  ordered  that  no  persons  between  the  ages  of 
16  and  60  should  remain  unenlisted  "  by  themselves,  par- 
ents or  masters "  "  the  space  of  one  calendar  month." 
The  penalty  for  neglect  was  los  and  so  for  every  month. 
Every  foot  soldier  was  to  provide  himself  with  a  well- 
fixed  musket  or  fusee,  or  if  the  officer  appointed,  with  a 
good  pike  or  sword  or  lance  and  pistol.  Every  mus- 
keteer was  to  have  half  a  pound  of  powder  and  twelve 
sizeable  bullets  and  a  cartridge  box  or  powder  horn. 
Each  person  was  to  appear  thus  equipped  when  required 
under  penalty  of  5s  for  not  appearing  and  3s  for  want  of 
each  article,  but  the  whole  fine  for  lack  was  not  to 
exceed  5s. 

Every  horse  soldier  was  to  have  a  good  horse  of  his 
own  with  a  good  saddle,  and  holsters,  breast  plate,  crup- 
per and  a  case  of  good  pistols,  hanger,  sword,  or  rapier 
and  one-half  pound  of  powder  with  twelve  sizeable 
bullets.  The  penalty  was  los  for  each  absence  from 
training,  and  los  for  the  lack  of  each  article,  the  entire 
fine  not  to  exceed  15s. 

Each  soldier  was  to  have  an  additional  supply  of 
powder  and  bullets  at  his  house,  and  each  cavalryman 
was  to  keep  a  well-fixed  carbine  with  belt  and  swivel. 
There  was  to  be  an  additional  fine  of  los  for  each  de- 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Sept.  7,  1704. 

^ Laws  Enactedin  1704  (Bradford  print). 


564 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


fault  in  this  respect,  and  persons  not  bringing  the  said 
articles  into  the  field  when  required,  were  to  answer  by 
court  martial. 

When  the  troops  of  horse  fell  below  fifty  in  number, 
the  colonel  was  to  name  from  the  principal  inhabitants 
treble  the  number  of  the  vacancies  and  from  such  list 
the  governor  was  to  name  those  to  serve.'  For  refusal 
to  serve  there  was  a  fine  of  £5.  No  soldier  was  to 
depart  without  a  discharge  from  the  commander  of  his 
troop  or  company  on  penalty  of  40s.,  but  no  officer  was 
to  refuse  a  discharge  to  any  one  removing  from  the  pre- 
cinct or  province  on  "  paine  "  of  £5. 

All  commanding  officers  were  within  twelve  months  to 
provide  for  their  forces,  drums  and  colors,  trumpets  and 
banners  at  the  proper  charge  of  the  companies.  Once  a 
year  all  the  colonels  were  to  issue  warrants  to  their  in- 
ferior officers  for  a  diligent  search  as  to  whether  all  their 
men  were  duly  armed  and  equipped,  and  all  defects  were 
to  be  returned  to  the  end  that  they  might  be  redressed. 
The  penalty  for  neglect  by  the  officers  was  £12. 

Once  every  three  months  the  several  companies  in 
each  regiment  were  to  meet  at  the  most  convenient 
place  for  muster  and  exercise.  The  command  for  this 
was  to  be  given  by  the  Captain-General,  and  if  occasion 
required  he  might  order  more  frequent  musters.  While 
in  arms  the  soldiers  were  to  give  due  obedience  to  their 
officers,  and  to  observe  such  rules  and  articles  of  war  as 
should  be  established  by  the  Captain-General  with  the 
advice  of  a  general  council  of  war.  Copies  of  these  arti- 
cles were  to  be  given  by  the  colonels  to  their  officers,  that 
they  might  be  read  every  three  months  to  the  soldiers. 
If  any  soldier  should  afterward  take  revenge  for  anything 

^  There  are  no  indications  that  the  troops  of  horse  were  ever  organized. 


THE  MILITIA  SYSTEM 


565 


done  by  an  officer  when  under  arms,  he  was  to  be  tried 
by  court  martial  and  punished  as  if  the  offense  had  been 
committed  under  arms ;  but  punishment  was  not  to 
extend  to  life  or  limb.  Officers  who  neglected  to  per- 
form the  commands  of  their  superiors  were  to  be  tried 
by  court  martial  and  punished  by  cashiering  or  other- 
wise. 

Any  person  wounded  in  the  public  service  was  to  be 
cured  at  the  public  expense;  and  anyone  sued  or  molested 
for  anything  done  under  the  militia  act  itself  might  plead 
it  and  recover  triple  costs. 

The  provisions  relating  to  the  collection  of  fines  had 
special  importance.  All  fines  from  those  below  the  rank 
of  captain  were  to  go  to  pay  the  charges  of  the  several  com- 
panies. They  were  to  be  levied  before  the  next  exercis- 
ing day,  if  necessary,  by  distress  and  sale  of  the  offender's 
goods  upon  the  captain's  warrant  addressed  to  the  ser- 
geant or  corporal.  If  no  distress  was  found,  there  was 
to  be  punishment  by  riding  the  wooden  horse,  or  being 
tied  neck  and  heels  not  exceeding  an  hour.  If  the 
offender  was  a  servant,  the  master's  goods  were  to  be 
liable,  and  any  sergeant  or  corporal  refusing  to  levy 
distress  was  to  forfeit  40s.  If  said  fines  were  not  suffi- 
cient to  pay  the  charges  of  a  company,  what  was  wanting 
was  to  be  paid  by  the  soldiers  on  warrant  from  the 
colonel. 

The  fines  of  captains  and  higher  officers  were  to  be 
levied  on  warrant  from  the  captain-general,  or  the  chief 
field  officers  where  the  offenders  were.  One-half  was 
to  go  to  the  captain-general  and  one-half  to  the  com- 
mander of  the  regiment. 

The  rest  of  the  act  related  to  a  system  of  alarms.  It 
was  forbidden  to  fire  any  arms  after  8  o'clock  at  night 
unless  in  case  of  alarm  or  some  lawful  occasion,  such  as 


566 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


shooting  deer,  turkeys  or  wolves.  Four  muskets  dis- 
tinctly fired  or  two  muskets  and  beating  a  drum  were  to 
constitute  an  alarm.  Any  person  neglecting  to  forward 
an  alarm  or  guilty  of  firing  after  8  o'clock,  was  to  be 
punished  by  court  martial,  though  as  usual,  such  punish- 
ment was  not  to  extend  to  life  or  limb.  Every  man  who 
did  not,  upon  alarm,  repair  armed  to  his  colors,  was  to 
be  fined  £5.  £4  was  to  be  the  penalty  for  masters  of 
ships  at  anchor  in  the  province  for  every  gun-fire  or 
drum-beat  after  8  o'clock. 

The  militia  act  of  1704  provided  for  a  system  probably 
as  strict  as  existed  anywhere  in  the  northern  colonies. 
The  fines  were,  comparatively  speaking,  heavy ;  a  court 
martial  was  provided  for;  and  the  officers  of  the  com- 
panies were,  of  course,  to  be  appointed  by  the  governor, 
not  elected  as  in  New  England.  If  it  had  been  enforced 
New  Jersey  must  have  had  a  fairly  effective  defense. 

But,  unfortunately,  beneath  the  strict  provisions  of 
the  act  lay  the  desire  on  the  part  of  Cornbury  and  his 
advisers  to  injure  the  Quaker  interest  in  West  Jersey. 
The  fines  for  refusing  to  enroll,  for  refusal  to  attend 
musters,  etc.,  were  so  heavy  as  to  lay  a  real  hardship 
upon  the  Friends.  But  the  most  unjustifiable  feature 
was  the  lack  of  any  provision  by  which,  when  the  goods 
of  a  person  had  been  seized  by  distress,  and  sold  to  cover 
the  penalties,  the  "overplus"  should  be  returned  to  the 
owner.  Through  the  omission  of  such  a  clause  Corn- 
bury's  officers  were  permitted  to  rob  the  Quakers  with 
impunity. 

So  manifestly  unsuited  was  such  a  drastic  act  to  the 
circumstances  of  the  colony  that  it,  together  with  all  but 
one  of  the  other  acts  passed  by  the  second  assembly,  was 
disallowed  by  the  crown.'     During  the  period  in  which 

'  The  disallowance  was,  however,  upon  the  ground  that  the  sums  of 


THE  MILITIA  SYSTEM  567 

it  was  in  operation  it  certainly  failed  to  give  New  Jersey 
an  efficient  militia.  On  the  other  hand,  it  gave  rise  to 
the  bitterest  complaints  and  objections  from  those  who 
felt  its  severity  and  indeed  was  one  of  the  most  import- 
ant grievances  against  Cornbury's  government.  So 
bitter  was  the  feeling  in  West  Jersey  that  the  provisions 
of  the  law  could  not  be  carried  out.  Eight  of  the  con- 
stables of  Burlington  County  refused  to  levy  distresses 
upon  Quakers  who  would  not  serve  in  the  militia,  and 
were  prosecuted  by  the  attorney-general  upon  an  informa- 
tion, but  without  being  convicted.'  When  distresses 
were  levied,  no  one  would  buy  the  articles  seized.  Lewis 
Morris  declared  that  there  was  a  certain  house  in  Bur- 
lington filled  with  all  sorts  of  property  belonging  to  the 
Quakers.  He  said  also  that  the  seizures  amounted  to 
£1,000  a  year,  about  ten  times  the  real  value  of  the  fines." 
In  Salem,  where  William  Dare,  one  of  Cornbury's  hench- 
men, was  both  sheriff  and  captain,  there  were  similar 
abuses.'  When  Cornbury  recommended  at  his  last  meet- 
ing with  the  assembly  that  the  militia  law  be  re-enacted, 
the  house  refused  point  blank  to  do  so,  though  at  the 
same  time  it  expressed  its  willingness  to  provide  for  the 
defense  of  the  province  by  any  reasonable  means.* 

Thus,  owing  to  the  foolishness  and  selfishness  of  the 

money  levied  by  the  act  were  to  be  paid  into  the  hands  of  such  persons 
as  the  governor  should  appoint  and  were  to  be  applied  for  such  uses  as 
the  governor  should  direct,  instead  of  being  paid  to  the  receiver  gen- 
eral only  for  purposes  specified  in  the  act  itself.  The  arrangement  to 
which  the  Lords  objected  was  highly  characteristic  of  Cornbury's  ad- 
ministration. JVew  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  324. 
^Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (1704-1715),  p.  57. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  280.     See  also  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  365; 
vol.  iv,  p.  44. 

^  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  4,  1710-11. 

*Jbid.,  May  11,  12,  1708. 


568 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


governor,  New  Jersey  was  left  without  any  militia  legis- 
lation. Under  such  circumstances  it  need  hardly  be  said 
that  Cornbury  also  failed  completely  in  securing  the 
£250  fixed  by  the  home  authorities  as  New  Jersey's  con- 
tribution for  the  fortification  of  New  York.'  Even  the 
subservient  second  assembly  never  seriously  considered 
granting  this.  New  Jersey  herself  had  no  fortifications, 
and  the  governor  took  no  steps  toward  erecting  any. 
Cornbury  did  indeed  grant  commissions  to  at  least  four 
privateers  against  the  French.  They  were  the  sloop 
''Resolution"  of  25  tons  and  40  men;  the  brigantine 
"Good  Intent"  of  75  tons  and  9  guns;  the  brigantine 
"Abraham  and  Sarah"  of  95  tons  and  12  guns,  and  the 
sloop  "  Diamond  "  of  80  tons  and  4  guns.''  But  surely  no 
part  of  his  excellency's  administration  was  a  more  abject 
failure  than  this  very  field  of  work  in  which,  owing  to 
his  previous  experience,  it  might  have  been  hoped  that 
he  would  be  especially  successful. 

Lord  Lovelace,  on  the  contrary,  readily  secured  the 
passage  of  a  militia  act^  to  run  for  three  years,  which 
was  renewed  by  Hunter's  first  assembly- of  171 1."*  The 
text  of  this  law  has  apparently  not  been  preserved,  but 
it  is  clear  that  it  did  not  contain  the  objectionable 
features  of  the  act  of  1704.  It  seems,  therefore,  prob- 
able that  the  penalties  for  refusal  to  serve  in  the  militia 
or  for  negligence  were  so  relaxed  that  hardship  was  im- 
posed on  no  one.  But,  however  necessary  it  may  have 
been  to  preserve  the  religious  liberty  of  the  Quakers, 
a  home  defense  organized  in  their  interest  could  not 
have  been  very  efficient. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  541. 
^  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  pp.  32,  33,  53. 
^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  328. 
^Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  541;  vol.  iv,  p.  65. 


THE  MILITIA  SYSTEM 


569 


Under  Ingoldsby  and  in  the  early  years  of  Hunter's 
rule,  the  province  was  forced  to  give  much  thought  to 
military  affairs.  This  activity  was,  however,  in  regard 
to  New  Jersey's  share  in  the  two  futile  expeditions 
against  Canada,  and  did  not  relate  directly  to  the  militia 
system.'     It  may,  therefore,  be  best  discussed  separately. 

Hunter  handled  the  question  of  the  militia  in  much 
the  same  spirit  as  the  other  political  problems  which  he 
was  called  upon  to  solve.  Among  the  acts  prepared  by 
his  first  assembly  was  one  for  the  relief  of  persons  in- 
jured by  the  distresses  levied  under  Cornbury's  militia 
law.'  The  new  governor  regarded  this  measure  with 
approval,  but  it  was  rejected  by  the  council  along  with 
most  of  the  other  measures  of  the  session.  As  a  part 
of  his  war  upon  the  old  administrative  ring,  however. 
Hunter  retired  nearly  all  of  Cornbury's  militia  officers. 
Johnstone  and  Farmar  became  colonels  of  the  East  Jer- 
sey regiments,^  while  Daniel  Coxe  in  West  Jersey  was 
superseded  by  John  Hamilton,  son  of  the  last  proprietary 
governor.-*  The  control  of  the  town  companies  was  also 
taken  from  the  hands  of  men  like  Dare  and  Salter  who 
had  been  so  officious  under  the  late  regime.* 

In  1714  a  new  act  was  carried  "for  Settling  the 
Militia."^  By  accepting  this  law,  Hunter  evidently  be- 
lieved that  he  was  securing  the  best  provision  for  the 
militia  which  the  circumstances  of  the  colony  permitted.' 
As  this  act  remained  the  basis  of  the  system  for  the  rest 

'Ingoldsby  gave  a  commission  to  the  privateer  ship  "  Resolution"  of 
300  tons  and  20  guns. 

-New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  58. 

^  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  pp.  151,  152. 

*Itnd.,  p.  153.  ^ Ibid.,  passim. 

^ Laws  Enacted  in  1713-14  (Bradford  print). 

'  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  323. 


570 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


of  the  Union  Period  we  may  recite  its  contents  in  some 
detail.  Every  captain  was  required  forthwith  to  make  a 
list  of  all  men  in  his  precinct  between  15  and  50.  Those 
exempted  from  the  military  service  were  ministers, 
physicians,  school-masters,  civil  officers  of  the  govern- 
ment, the  representatives  and  slaves.  Every  person  "  so 
listed "  was  to  be  armed  with  a  musket  or  fusee,  well 
fixed,  a  sword  or  bayonet,  a  cartridge  box  or  powder 
horn,  a  pound  of  powder,  and  twenty  sizeable  bullets. 
They  were  to  appear  in  the  field  armed  twice  every  year, 
in  March  and  September,  at  places  appointed  by  the  cap- 
tains. But  they  were  to  remain  in  arms  but  one  day. 
Besides  these  semi-annual  trainings  the  militia  might  be 
summoned  on  other  occasions  by  written  order  from  the 
commander-in-chief.  At  the  musters  the  men  were  to 
be  taught  the  use  of  arms  by  their  officers.  If  disobe- 
dient, they  were  to  suffer  the  punishments  of  martial 
law,  not  extending  to  life  and  limb. 

The  act  provided  the  usual  system  of  fines  for  lack  of 
equipment, — for  lack  of  musket  2s.;  if  not  well  fixed  is.: 
sword  IS.;  pound  of  powder  is.;  one  pound  of  bullets  is. 
Said  fines  were  to  be  levied  by  the  sergeant  or  corporal 
on  warrant  from  the  captain  upon  the  goods  of  the 
offenders,  if  they  refused  to  pay.  The  fines  were  to  go 
for  drums  and  colors. 

Persons  failing  to  appear  at  the  appointed  places  were 
to  pay  5s.  to  the  support  of  the  government  for  each 
offense  in  default  of  reasonable  excuse  "  as  sickness,"  such 
excuse  to  be  allowed  by  the  commanding  officer.  The 
sums  were  to  be  paid  to  the  captain  and  by  him  from 
time  to  time  to  the  treasurer.  Upon  refusal  to  pay, 
fines  were  to  be  levied  by  distress,  but  such  distress  was 
to  be  made  only  once  a  year  for  all  fines  due,  and  upon 
sale  of  the  goods,  the  overplus  was  to  be  returned.    The 


THE  MILITIA  SYSTEM 


571 


treasurer  was  to  keep  account  of  all  sums  received  in 
this  way  and  was  to  have  £1  of  every  £100  for  his  trouble. 
If  the  fines  mentioned  before  were  not  sufficient  to  pro- 
vide any  company  with  drums  and  colors,  the  sum 
needed  should  be  allowed  by  the  treasurer  out  of  the 
other  fines. 

In  case  of  actual  invasion  it  was  to  be  lawful  for  the 
captain-general  to  call  as  many  of  the  militia  as  necessary 
to  repel  the  enemy.  He  might  order  such  as  he  saw  fit 
to  pursue  the  enemy  into  neighboring  governments. 

It  was  to  be  lawful  for  such  captains  as  lived  on  the 
seaside  or  near  the  Indians  to  call  together  such  men  as 
necessary  in  case  of  descent  or  invasion.  If  during  time 
of  war  or  danger  the  governor  should  direct  that  a 
watch  be  kept,  the  commanders  of  the  regiments  were 
to  issue  orders  to  the  captains  to  appoint  men  to  serve 
at  the  fires  and  at  the  places  set.  But  the  watch  was  to 
be  relieved  so  that  all  should  serve  alike.  Any  person 
refusing  to  watch  was  to  forfeit  5s.,  but  anyone  leaving 
the  watch  40s. 

Anyone  appointed  by  the  captain  as  sergeant  or  cor- 
poral who  refused  to  serve  forfeited  20s.  None,  how- 
ever, were  to  be  appointed  save  such  as  appeared  in  arms. 

The  act  was  to  continue  for  seven  years  and  no 
longer. 

The  simple  provisions  of  this  act  contrast  in  a  rather 
striking  way  with  the  clauses  of  Cornbury's  law  of  1704. 
Aside  from  the  omission  of  all  mention  of  troops  of 
horse,  the  spirit  of  the  acts  was  quite  different.  The 
new  law  made  the  fines  for  non-compliance  exceed- 
ingly small,  and  did  away  with  the  courts  martial.  It 
provided  also  in  a  skilful  way  an  easy  escape  for  the 
Friends.  It  was  made  to  rest  entirely  with  the  captains  of 
the  companies  whether  the  Quakers  should  be  fined  at  all. 


572 


THE  PROVINCE  OP  NEW  JERSEY 


The  fact  that  this  militia  law  gave  such  excellent  satis- 
faction seems  to  show  that  it  bore  heavily  on  none,  and 
that  the  militia  was  therefore  not  highly  efficient.  In- 
deed, with  only  two  trainings  a  year,  no  high  degree  of 
military  skill  could  possibly  have  been  developed.  It  is 
certainly  very  noticeable  that  Hunter,  himself  a  trained 
soldier,  rarely  speaks  of  the  military  affairs  of  the  Jerseys 
in  his  correspondence  with  the  home  authorities.  This 
fact  may  be  partly  explained  by  the  termination  of  Queen 
Anne's  War.  Colonel  Coxe  and  his  adherents,  however, 
endeavored  to  make  much  out  of  what  they  called 
Hunter's  neglect  to  keep  the  militia  under  proper  order 
and  discipline.^  But  he,  in  reply,  declared  that  the  militia 
had  been  in  very  good  order  ever  since  Coxe  and  his 
assistants  were  turned  out  of  it.*  The  governor  was 
evidently  satisfied  with  the  best  arrangements  which 
would  work  smoothly,  and  with  his  usual  common 
sense,  was  not  willing  to  make  demands  upon  the  col- 
onists to  which  he  knew  they  would  not  quietly  submit. 
Near  the  end  of  his  administration.  Hunter  estimated 
the  effective  strength  of  the  militia  at  3000.3  There 
were  now  three  separate  regiments  in  East  Jersey,  while 
West  Jersey  had  two,  one  for  Burlington  and  Gloucester, 
and  a  new  one  under  Isaac  Sharp  as  colonel  for  Salem 
and  Cape  May.'^ 

Governor  Burnet,  on  the  other  hand,  as  a  part  of  his 
general  policy  of  activity  against  French  aggression 
from    Canada,    showed    himself    especially    desirous    of 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  309. 

"^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  323.    The  governor  held  that  the  militia  was  not 
safe  in  their  hands  as  they  were  in  sympathy  with  the  Pretender. 
^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  451. 
^  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  p.  158. 


THE  MILITIA  SYSTEM 


573 


rendering  the  militia  more  efficient.  In  April,  1721, 
during  his  first  meeting  with  the  general  assembly, 
Burnet  communicated  to  his  council  his  full  instructions 
relating  to  military  affairs  and  to  the  securing  of  aid  for 
New  York.'  At  the  same  time  he  read  a  letter  from 
the  Indian  commissioners  at  Albany,  complaining  of 
French  encroachments  among  the  Five  Nations.*  Burnet 
desired  that  proper  places  for  fortifications  be  considered, 
and  that  a  new  bill  for  the  regulation  of  the  militia  be 
prepared.'  The  governor,  in  addition,  announced  his 
purpose  of  establishing  a  new  regiment  in  West  Jersey 
"that  they  might  have  three  as  well  as  East  Jersey."* 
The  council  proceeded  to  consider  these  matters  as  a 
committee  with  Lewis  Morris  as  chairman.  But  two  of 
the  councilors,  John  Wills  and  John  Hugg,  refused  to 
join  in  the  report  since  they  were  Friends. ^  The  mem- 
bers remaining  were  Morris,  Anderson,  Hamilton  and 
Peter  Bard.  After  brief  deliberation  they  reported  that, 
in  their  opinion,  the  French  aggression  among  the  Five 
Nations  was  a  danger  to  all  British  subjects,  and  that  all 
the  colonies  concerned  should  contribute  to  the  defense 
of  the  frontier.  They,  however,  regarded  the  erecting  of 
fortifications  in  the  Jerseys  as  useless.  Such  work  could 
not  prevent  Indian  incursions  from  the  west,  and  the 
distance  of  the  settlements  from  the  coast,  and  the  diffi- 
culty of  landing  "  so  as  to  come  at  them,"  were  a  suffi- 
cient protection  on  this  side.  All  that  would  serve  a 
practical  purpose  was  to  put  the  militia  into  "  as  good  a 
posture  of  defense  "  as  possible,  and  this  should  be  done 
with  all  speed.^ 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  164-171. 

"^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  164-172. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  165,  ^ Ibid. 

^ Ibid.y  vol.  xiv,  p.  173.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  174-5. 


574 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


The  council  ordered  that  a  bill  be  brought  in  to  render 
the  militia  more  serviceable.  This  bill  was  duly  pre- 
pared, but  the  assembly,  then  wrangling  with  Burnet, 
amended  the  bill  so  that  it  provided  merely  for  the  con- 
tinuation of  the  existing  arrangements.  As  the  governor 
and  council  would  not  accept  such  a  change,  the  bill  was 
lost.^  Even  Burnet's  well-meant  efforts  to  arouse  inter- 
est in  the  subject  by  submitting  an  account  from  James 
Logan,  Secretary  of  Pennsylvania,  of  a  marauding  ex- 
pedition of  the  Iroquois  into  Virginia  fell  fiat.' 

At  the  next  session,  held  in  the  spring  of  1723,  how- 
ever, after  an  understanding  had  been  reached  between 
the  governor  and  the  representatives,  a  new  militia  bill 
was  actually  passed.  Yet  this  bill,  after  all,  differed 
only  in  minor  details  from  that  of  1714.^  But  there 
was  an  additional  clause  by  which  every  "  listed "  man 
was  to  keep  always  at  his  house  a  "  well  fixt "  musket, 
%  pound  of  powder,  and  12  sizeable  bullets.  Captains 
were  empowered  to  order  their  sergeants  and  corporals 
to  examine  once  a  year,  and  those  found  lacking  were  to 
pay  3s.  This  act,  like  that  of  Hunter,  was  to  run  seven 
years,  but  was  then  to  continue  in  force  until  the  end  of 
the  next  session  of  the  assembly.  The  gaining  of  the 
law  of  1723  was  certainly  not  a  very  great  achievement 
for  Burnet  after  all  his  efforts.  It  did,  however,  settle 
the  question  of  the  militia  for  the  rest  of  his  administra- 
tion.* 

Nevertheless  the  governor  did  succeed  in  establishing 
a   third    regiment  in  West    Jersey.     This   was  for  the 

^ New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  xiv,  p.  198.  ^Ibid. 

^Laws  Enacted  in  1722-3  (Bradford  print);  New  Jersey  Archives, 
vol.  V,  p.  54. 

*As  Burnet  became  Americanized,  he  certainly  showed  less  anxiety 
about  carrying  out  his  instructions  to  the  letter. 


THE  MILITIA  SYSTEM  575 

newly-established  county  of  Hunterdon,  which  was  being 
settled  very  rapidly.  Burnet  named  as  colonel  Daniel 
Coxe,  who  had  been  such  a  bitter  opponent  of  Hunter, 
thus  showing  his  desire  that  the  old  feuds  be  given  up.' 

In  1730,  under  Montgomerie,  the  militia  act  was  re- 
newed for  another  period  of  seven  years,'  The  measure 
seems  to  have  been  passed  as  a  matter  of  course  and  to 
have  caused  little  discussion.  It  was  almost  exactly  like 
the  law  of  1723,  but  it  is  significant  that  the  fine  for 
absence  from  training  was  reduced  from  5s.  to  3s.  6d. 

In  the  efforts  to  attain  a  separate  government  for  New 
Jersey,  which  began  about  this  period,  one  of  the  argu- 
ments advanced  was  that  the  entire  inefficiency  of  the 
militia  was  due  to  the  connection  with  New  York. 
Lewis  Morris,  when  advocating  separation  to  the  home 
government,  declared  that  the  militia  was  in  a  bad  con- 
dition.3  The  penalties  imposed  by  the  acts  were  so 
small  that  people  preferred  to  pay  them  rather  than 
appear  in  arms.  Scarcely  a  man  could  be  found  willing 
to  take  a  commission.  The  secretary  had,  indeed,  in- 
formed Morris  that  there  were  several  bundles  of  com- 
missions lying  in  the  office  which  had  been  made  out  by 
Montgomerie,  but  which  the  persons  named  would  not 
take  out.  There  seems  no  reason  to  doubt  that  while 
Morris'  statement  may  have  been  somewhat  exaggerated, 
it  was  essentially  true.  There  was  also  truth  in  the  later 
statement  of  Mr.  Partridge,  the  agent  of  the  colony,  that 
many  of  the  militia  officers  lived  outside  the  province.* 

It  seems  clear,  then,  that  at  the  end  of  the  union 
period,  New  Jersey  had  attained  something  more  than 

^  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  p.  187.    Trent  was  the  first  colonel. 

*  Bradford,  Statutes  of  Aew  Jersey. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  319.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  336. 


576 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


the  usual  colonial  standard  of  inefifectiveness  in  her  mili- 
tia system. 

Aside  from  maintaining  her  militia  in  this  half-hearted 
way,  New  Jersey  had  taken  little  part  in  the  military 
affairs  of  the  colonies  as  a  whole.  In  both  of  the  fruitless 
land  expeditions  against  Canada,  undertaken  toward  the 
close  of  Queen  Anne's  war,  New  Jersey  participated  by 
sending  the  quotas  required  of  her.  The  quota  fixed  by 
the  Crown  as  her  contribution  to  the  Nicholson- Vetch 
expedition  of  1709-10  was  200  men."  When  the  general 
assembly  of  the  province  was  called  by  Ingoldsby  to 
make  the  necessary  provisions,  the  members,  though 
professing  their  willingness  to  obey  the  queen's  orders, 
displayed  great  lack  of  enthusiasm.  Reasons  were 
at  once  presented  why  New  Jersey's  quota  should 
be  reduced,  but  Nicholson  and  Vetch  replied  that  they 
had  no  power  to  admit  reductions.''  The  question  was 
then  considered  whether  New  Jersey  would  send  a  de- 
tachment of  her  militia,  but  it  was  voted  that  the  expe- 
dition should  be  supported  only  by  voluntary  enlist- 
ments.3  It  was,  however,  decided  to  raise  £3000  by  the 
issue  of  bills  of  credit  to  pay  the  expenses  of  the  expe- 
dition. But  when  the  council,  in  its  usual  excess  of  zeal, 
sent  down  a  bill  to  prevent  persons  from  leaving  the 
province  to  escape  service  it  was  flatly  rejected."* 

The  question  of  the  expedition,  as  was  the  case  with 
nearly  all  military  matters  in  the  Jerseys,  soon  came  to 
be  entangled  with  the  subject  of  Quakerism.  The  trans- 
parent  and   awkward,  yet  withal  dangerous,   efforts   of 

^  New  Jefsey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  336. 
^  Assembly  Journal,  May  30,  1709. 

^Ibid.,  May  31,  1709.     Upon  the  question  being  first  put  the  vote 
stood  even. 
*Ibid.,  June  3,  1709. 


THE  MILITIA  SYSTEM 


S77 


Ingoldsby  and  his  supporters  to  compel  the  Friends  to 
shoulder  the  blame  for  defeating  the  expedition  are  fully 
discussed  elsewhere.  Suffice  it  to  repeat  here  that  the 
measures  for  furnishing  the  quotas  were  eventually 
passed  though  only  after  considerable  delay. 

The  two  companies  of  "fusilleres"  which  composed 
New  Jersey's  quota  seem  to  have  been  readily  filled  by 
voluntary  enlistment,  and  under  Captains  John  Harrison 
and  Jacob  Spicer '  took  part  in  the  futile  march  to  Wood 
Creek.  But  the  failure  of  the  expedition  involved  the 
colony  in  debt  and  discouragement. 

The  fifth  assembly  proceeded  in  true  modern  style  to 
hold  an  investigation  into  the  conduct  of  those  connected 
with  the  expedition.  This  was  carried  on  by  a  committee 
of  the  council  acting  with  the  assembly  in  committee  of 
the  whole,^  but  it  is  evident  that  a  majority  of  the  mem- 
bers were  actuated  by  political  motives.  Several  of  the 
men  prominent  in  the  managing  of  the  expedition  were 
members  of  the  proprietary  party.  After  the  investiga- 
tion, the  committee  of  the  council,  therefore,  presented 
and  entered  upon  the  council  journal  a  report,  and  the 
council  passed  a  set  of  resolutions.^  These  declared  that 
the  commissioners  named  to  sign  the  bills  of  credit  had 
acted  illegally  and  were  guilty  of  the  gravest  misconduct. 
Farmar  and  Parker  who  were  commissioners  for  manag- 
ing the  expedition  were  accused  of  betraying  their  trust 
as  was  also  John  Harrison,  the  commissary.  But  in  the 
expression  of  these  opinions  the  house,  naturally,  did 
not  join.  When  the  house  sent  up  a  bill  for  punishing 
deserters  during  the  expedition,  the  council  amended  it 

^  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  pp.  103,  104. 

^Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  21,  22,  1709. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  pp.  416-18. 


578 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


SO  as  to  compel  Farmar,  Parker,  Hude  and  Harrison 
"to  refund  such  moneys  as  they  had  cheated  the  pro- 
vince of."  ^  The  bill  was  of  course  lost  by  the  refusal  of 
the  representatives  to  accept  the  amendment.  Out  of 
this  unfortunate  difference  no  result  came  except  an 
increase  of  the  already  bitter  factional  feeling. 

In  July,  171 1,  under  Hunter,  New  Jersey  was  again 
called  upon  by  the  Crown  to  take  part  in  an  attack  upon 
Canada.  Hunter,  in  his  speech  to  the  assembly,  called 
upon  the  assembly  to  levy  180  men  for  each  division  and 
to  provide  for  their  support.''  He  also  submitted  his  in- 
structions on  the  subject,  stated  that  the  royal  fleet  and 
forces  had  arrived  and  asked  despatch.  The  assembly 
which  was  in  complete  accord  with  the  governor  used 
all  speed  in  preparing  a  measure  for  the  raising  of  the 
equivalent  of  12,500  ounces  of  plate  in  bills  of  credit.^ 
As  before,  however,  the  quotas  were  to  be  filled  entirely 
by  volunteers.  The  house,  nevertheless,  acted  loyally 
and  drew  up  a  patriotic  address  to  the  Queen.  In 
promptness  it  indeed  left  little  to  be  desired. 

Although  the  Walker  expedition  was  even  more  dis- 
astrous in  its  results  than  that  of  Nicholson  and  Vetch, 
it  led  to  no  such  scandals  and  quarrels  in  New  Jersey. 
Although  the  usual  care  was  taken  by  the  assembly  in 
auditing  all  the  accounts  connected  with  it,*  no  more 
special  investigation  was  deemed  necessary.  This  result 
was  due  in  part  no  doubt  to  the  ousting  of  Cornbury's 
ring  from  the  council. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  420. 
^Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  477. 
*  Assembly  Journal,  July  lo,  171 1  et  seg. 

^Ibid.,  Feb.  6,  1 713-14.  The  committee  which  examined  into  the 
accounts  reported  everything  regular  and  vouched  for. 


THE  MILITIA  SYSTEM 


579 


The  conclusion  of  peace  with  France  seems  to  have 
been  received  in  New  Jersey  with  a  feeling  of  relief. 
Thereafter  the  people  of  the  Jerseys  troubled  themselves 
little  about  possible  dangers  from  Canada  or  the  sea. 
The  general  opinion  in  the  colony  seems  to  have  agreed 
with  that  of  the  disrespectful  John  Case  against  whom 
complaint  was  made  before  the  council  on  July  4,  1721, 
by  David  Lyell.'  The  said  Case  had  been  guilty  of 
"  slanderous  speeches  against  the  government."  He  had 
declared  that  the  country  would  not  be  frightened  by 
Burnet's  tales  of  Canada  Indians,  but  that  he  himself 
would  fight  all  that  came  to  attack  New  Jersey.  It 
should  be  said,  however,  that,  though  the  valiant  Case 
had  no  fear  of  Indians,  he  fled  from  home  ingloriously 
on  the  approach  of  the  sheriff  and  could  not  be  found. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  xiv,  p.  201. 


CHAPTER  XXVI 
The  Church  of  England  in  the  Jerseys 

While  both  East  and  West  Jersey  remained  without 
established  churches,  the  story  of  the  efforts  made  to  in- 
troduce and  spread  AngHcanism  in  the  colony  has  espe- 
cial interest  to  the  student  of  political  history  because  of 
their  influence  upon  the  party  struggles  in  the  province. 
Curiously  enough  Cornbury  and  his  clique,  Coxe,  Son- 
mans,  Hunter,  Burnet,  Morris,  Colonel  John  Hamilton 
and  the  most  notable  leaders  of  the  Perth  Amboy  pro- 
prietors, Gordon,  Johnstone  and  Willocks,  were  all 
Anglicans.  Yet  even  so,  their  political  struggles  were 
not  devoid  of  a  religious  coloring.  The  other  reHgious 
elements  which  were  factors  in  the  field  of  politics  were 
the  Presbyterianism  so  staunchly  held  by  the  New  Eng- 
land settlers  of  East  Jersey  and  the  Quakerism  of  many 
of  the  leading  proprietors  and  inhabitants  of  West  Jersey. 
The  political  influence  of  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church 
and  of  the  Baptist  congregations  of  Piscataway,  Somer- 
set, Monmouth  and  Cape  May  does  not  seem  to  have 
been  marked. 

The  appearance  of  Episcopacy  as  an  important  politi- 
cal force  in  the  Jerseys  is  to  be  connected  on  the  one 
hand  with  the  beginning  of  the  work  of  the  "  Society 
for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts," 
and  on  the  other  with  the  career  of  the  famous  George 
Keith.  Previous  to  the  establishment  of  the  royal  gov- 
ernment there  had  indeed  been  certain  beginnings  of 
580 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 


581 


Anglicanism  in  the  province.  We  know  that  Governor 
Philip  Carteret  of  East  Jersey  was  an  adherent  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  are  told  that  he  frequently 
attended  church  at  New  York.'  It  is  highly  probable 
that  there  were  churchmen  among  those  who  followed 
him  into  the  province,  but  they  were  entirely  lost  in  the 
flood  of  Presbyterianism  which  came  into  East  Jersey 
from  Long  Island  and  Connecticut.  When,  however, 
Perth  Amboy  was  founded  as  a  center  of  strictly  pro- 
prietary influence  the  position  of  Episcopacy  became 
better.  About  1695  several  of  the  East  Jersey  pro- 
prietors applied  to  Bishop  Compton  of  London  for  an 
Anglican  clergyman,  and  in  consequence  the  Rev.  Ed- 
ward Perthuck  was  sent  to  the  province  in  1698.'  To 
enable  him  to  conduct  his  work  the  proprietors  arranged 
that  one  of  the  houses  which  had  been  built  at  their 
general  charge  should  be  given  as  a  church.  It  appears, 
however,  that  Perthuck  did  not  remain  in  personal 
charge  of  the  congregation,  and  Lewis  Morris,  writing 
in  1700,  estimated  that  all  the  churchmen  in  the  province 
if  gathered  together  would  make  up  about  twelve  com- 
municants. 

But  meanwhile  George  Keith  had  appeared  in  the 
province.  This  remarkable  person  was  a  native  of 
Aberdeen,  Scotland,  and  though  originally  a  Presbyte- 
rian, was  already  known  as  a  man  of  some  prominence 
among  the  Quakers.  He  is  known  to  have  been  for 
some  time  a  schoolmaster,  but  becoming  acquainted 
with  Robert  Barclay  and  others  interested  in  East  Jersey 

'  Bankers  and  Slyter,  Journal  of  a  Voyage  to  New  York  (Brooklyn, 
1867),  p.  346. 

'Whitehead,  Contributions  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Amboy,  p. 
209. 


582  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

he  was,  in  1684,  named  surveyor-general  of  that  province.. 
This  position  he  filled  with  considerable  ability,  his 
administration  being  remembered  for  his  effort  to  run 
the  line  of  division  between  East  and  West  Jersey.  But 
in  1689  he  removed  to  Pennsylvania  to  assume  charge  of 
a  school  in  Philadelphia.  This  place  he  apparently  did 
not  hold  long.  He  was  by  this  time  well  known  both  as 
a  speaker  and  a  writer  among  the  Quakers,  and  he  now 
seems  to  have  devoted  himself  entirely  to  these  lines  of 
activity.  There  is  no  doubt  that  he  was  gifted  as  a 
preacher  and  was,  indeed,  a  man  of  superior  intellectual 
capability. 

But  Keith  was  a  natural  leader,  and  soon  gathered  a 
party  about  himself,  thus  occasioning  the  first  serious 
division  which  the  Society  of  Friends  had  known.  The 
chief  object  of  Keith  and  his  followers,  the  "Keithian 
Quakers,"  was  to  secure  a  stricter  discipline  among  the 
Friends,  whom  they  regarded  as  having  fallen  away  from 
the  primitive  simplicity  preached  by  Fox.  But  though 
he  won  many  supporters,  the  majority  sentiment  among 
the  Friends  was  against  him,  and  after  a  violent  contro- 
versy he  was  practically  expelled  from  the  society.' 
Under  these  circumstances  Keith  renounced  the  teach- 
ings of  Quakerism  and  went  over  to  the  Established 
Church  of  England,  in  which  he  took  orders.  Still 
impelled  by  his  fiery  zeal,  he,  in  1702,  returned  to^ 
America  as  a  missionary  for  the  newly  organized  Society 
for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel,  the  pioneer  of  a  great 
effort  to  win  America  back  to  the  historic  church.     He 

^  Whitehead,  Contributions  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Amboy,  pp. 
16-20;  Proud,  History  of  Pennsylvania  (Philadelphia,  1797),  vol,  i,  pp. 
363-376;  Gough,  History  of  the  People  Called  Quakers  (Dublin,  1789), 
vol.  ii,  pp.  317-350;  Sevi^el,  History  of  the  Quakers  (New  York,  1844),, 
vol.  ii,  pp.  345,  404. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 


583 


was  accompanied  by  the  Rev.  John  Talbot,  a  man  des- 
tined for  a  most  striking  career.' 

These  bold  missionaries  preached  and  held  service  at 
numerous  points  in  the  Jerseys  notably  at  Amboy, 
Elizabethtown,  Shrewsbury,  Woodbridge  and  Burling- 
ton, and  they  met  with  striking  success  especially 
among  the  "  Keithian  "  Quakers,  a  considerable  number 
of  whom  followed  their  leader  into  the  Anglican  com- 
munion. Among  these  converts  were  John  Barclay, 
brother  of  the  great  Quaker  apologist,  Miles  Forster' 
and  John  Reid  the  surveyor  general. 3  The  mission  was 
supported  and  encouraged  by  Lord  Cornbury,  who 
paraded  great  zeal  for  the  church. 

The  greatest  single  achievement  of  Keith  and  Talbot 
was  at  Burlington,  where  a  considerable  congregation 
was  soon  gathered,  by  which  land  was  purchased  and  a 
church  erected  in  1703.  *  This  church,  the  famous  St. 
Mary's,  became  a  veritable  bulwark  of  Anglicanism  in 
West  Jersey.  Lord  Cornbury  and  many  of  those  about 
him  were  present  at  the  first  sermon  preached  in  it  by 
Talbot. 5  Its  first  wardens  were  Nathaniel  Westland  and 
Robert  Wheeler,  while  among  other  well-known  persons 
connected  with  its  earliest  years  were  John  Jewell,  Wil- 
liam Budd,  Abraham  Hewling  and  Hugh  Huddy.^  Budd 
was  a  notable  convert  from  Quakerism. '  Of  St.  Mary's 
parish  Talbot  became  the  first  rector.^    Shortly  after  the 

'Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  pp.  20-21;  Hills,  Hist,  of  the  Church  in  Bur- 
lington, p.  21. 

'Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  p.  211  (note  5),  ^Ibid.,  p.  212  (note  6). 

*  Hills,  op.  cit.,  pp.  22,  30,  31,  32.  35- 

^Ibid.,  pp.  39,  40.  *Ibid.,  pp.  45,  53. 

^  Budd  is  known  as  the  author  of  the  curious  pamphlet.  Good  Order 
Established  in  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania  (1685).  In  this  he  ad- 
vocated compulsory  education  for  all  children  in  the  colonies. 

"John  Sharpe  was  for  a  short  time  his  associate  and  gathered  a  con- 
gregation at  Cheesquaks. 


584 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


establishment  of  the  church,  however,  he  returned  to 
England  on  business  connected  with  his  mission  and  was 
succeeded  at  St.  Mary's  by  the  Rev.  Thorowgood  Moore 
who  had  been  a  missionary  at  Albany  and  among  the 
Indians.^ 

Through  the  efforts  of  Keith  and  Talbot  another  con- 
gregation was  formed  at  Hopewell.  But  this  parish  had 
as  yet  no  clergyman  of  its  own. 

In  East  Jersey  the  results  of  the  mission  were  even 
greater.  The  interest  aroused  at  Amboy  by  Keith  and 
Talbot  brought  about  the  refitting  of  the  old  church.^ 
At  Elizabethtown  a  permanent  foothold  was  gained  by 
Anglicanism,  and  in  1706  St.  John's  Church  was  erected 
there.3  Such  progress  was  made  that  in  1704  Rev.  John 
Brooke  was  sent  by  the  Society  as  missionary  to  Eliza- 
bethtown, and  by  Cornbury's  orders  he  officiated  some- 
times at  Amboy.*  Among  the  notable  men  connected 
with  St.  Peter's  at  Amboy  were  Gordon,  Barclay,  Wil- 
locks,  Johnstone,  and  Sonmans.^  But  the  most  active 
lay  churchmen  at  Elizabethtown  was  Colonel  Richard 
Townley  of  Cornbury's  council. 

Brooke  worked  courageously  amidst  the  many  dis- 
couragements of  a  missionary.  He  held  service  at  seven 
different  places,  covering  ground  fifty  miles  in  extent. 
Besides  Elizabethtown  and  Amboy,  he  visited  regularly 
Rahway,  Cheesquaks,  Piscataway,  Rocky  Hill,  and  even 
Freehold,^  Of  Moore  and  Brooke  Mr.  Talbot  says 
"  the  most  pious  and  industrious  missionaries  that  ever 

^  Hills,  op.  cit.,  p.  64. 

*  Whitehead,  Contributions  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Amboy, 
p.  211. 

'Hatfield,  History  of  Elizabeth,  pp.  290,  298. 

♦Whitehead,  op,  cit.,  p.  212.  ^ Ibid.,  passim. 

•Hills,  History  of  the  Church  in  Burlington,  p.  83. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  585 

the  honorable  society  sent  over."'  Mention  should  also 
be  made  of  the  work  of  Rev.  Alexander  Inness,  who  had 
officiated  in  the  Jerseys  apparently  even  before  the  com- 
ing of  Keith  and  Talbot.  He  seems  to  have  remained 
as  missionary  in  Monmouth,  where  the  church  was  much 
aided  by  the  influence  of  Lewis  Morris,' 

The  Anglican  invasion  of  the  Jerseys  was,  however, 
not  accomplished  without  stirring  up  much  feeling. 
Here,  as  elsewhere,  the  Friends  opposed  with  great 
earnestness  the  efforts  of  Keith  to  proselyte.  Such  in- 
fluence as  the  governor  had  was  of  course  thrown  in 
favor  of  the  Anglicans,  and  Cornbury  and  his  council 
from  the  beginning  made  every  effort  to  have  Quakers 
excluded  from  all  official  posts. ^  The  real,  though  con- 
cealed, persecution  directed  against  the  Friends  under 
the  militia  act  of  1704  has  been  elsewhere  described/ 
The  advantage  to  be  gained  by  the  creatures  surround- 
ing Cornbury,  though  posing  as  the  especial  adherents 
of  the  Church  of  England,  was  too  manifest  to  be  neg- 
lected by  such  unscrupulous  politicians. 

But  the  alliance  between  the  governor's  clique  and  the 
church  was  not  unbroken.  The  Anglicans  in  the  pro- 
prietary party  of  course  refused  to  cooperate  with  Corn- 
bury in  his  attacks  upon  the  Friends,  while  the  fiery 
Morris  did  not  hesitate  to  write  to  Secretary  Popple 
that  Cornbury  himself  by  his  scandalous  life  and  unjust 
administration  was  the  greatest  obstacle  to  the  success 
of  the  church. 5  Neither  Moore  nor  Brooke  approved  of 
Cornbury's  actions,  and  the  former  publicly  denounced 

^  Hills,  op.  cit.,  p.  83.  *  Ellis,  History  of  Monmouth  County. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  3,  66,  82,  etc. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  280. 

'Hills,  History  of  the  Church  in  Burlington,  p.  80. 


586  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

the  conduct  of  the  governor  and  held  that  he  should  be 
excommunicated.  He  also  refused  on  one  occasion  to 
administer  the  sacrament  to  Ingoldsby,'  Moore  was, 
therefore,  summoned  to  New  York  to  answer,  but  he 
refused  to  obey  on  the  ground  that  Cornbury,  when  in 
New  York,  had  no  power  over  New  Jersey.^  Ingoldsby, 
then  resident  at  Burlington,  thereupon  suspended  him 
from  preaching,  but  Moore  would  not  recognize  his 
authority.'  Cornbury  ordered  the  sherifif  of  Burlington 
to  arrest  Moore  and  bring  him  to  Amboy  and,  when 
after  an  interview,  Moore  would  not  humble  himself,  he 
caused  him  to  be  removed  forcibly  to  New  York  and 
imprisoned  in  the  fort."*  Here  he  remained  about  three 
weeks,  but  when  Cornbury  left  the  city  for  Albany, 
Moore  took  advantage  of  the  lax  discipline  to  escape. ^ 
He  was  now  joined  by  Brooke,  who  was  also  not  well 
regarded  by  Cornbury  because  of  his  known  agreement 
with  Moore.  Together  Moore  and  Brooke  reached 
Boston  and  sailed  for  England.  But  the  incident  was 
ended  by  the  loss  of  the  vessel  with  all  on  board. 

Mr.  Talbot  had  meanwhile  returned  and  resumed 
charge  at  Burlington.  Brooke  was  replaced  at  Eliza- 
bethtown  in  1709  by  the  Rev.  Edward  Vaughan,  a  cler- 
gyman of  ability  and  high  character,  who  thus  began  a 
career  of  long  service.^  At  first  his  district  included  the 
same  territory  as  under  Brooke,  but  in  1711  Rev.  Thomas 
Halliday  was  sent  by  the  Society  to  take  charge  of  Am- 

*  Hills,  op.  cil.,  p.  79. 

*New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  270;  Hills,  op.  cit.,  p.  67. 
""Ibid.,  p.  68.  *Ibid.,  pp.  66-74. 

*  Whitehead,  Contributions  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Amboy,  p. 
255;  Hills,  op.  cit.,  p.  76. 

•Hatfield,  History  of  Elizabeth,  p.  365. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  587 

boy  and  Piscataway.'  These,  with  Mr.  Inness  of  Mon- 
mouth, made  up  the  Episcopal  clergy  of  the  colony. 

From  the  time  when  the  Anglican  Church  began  to 
gather  strength  under  the  energetic  efforts  of  Keith  and 
Talbot,  the  leaders  of  the  movement  saw  the  desirability 
of  obtaining  a  bishop.  But  this  proved  a  matter  of  the 
gravest  difficulty.  Mr.  Talbot  was  especially  energetic 
in  the  project,  and  in  1705  a  meeting  of  the  clergy  of 
New  York,  the  Jerseys  and  Pennsylvania  had  been  held 
in  Burlington,  which  addressed  the  Society  for  the  Propa- 
gation of  the  Gospel  upon  the  necessity  of  the  presence 
of  **  a  Suifragan  Bishop." '  They  also  prepared  a  petition 
to  the  queen,  which  they  sent  to  the  Bishop  of  London, 
requesting  that  he  determine  whether  it  was  convenient 
to  present  it.'  One  of  the  chief  objects  of  Mr.  Talbot's 
return  to  England  seems  to  have  been  to  make  direct 
representation  to  the  Society  of  the  need  of  a  bishop, 
though  he  also  sought  all  further  assistance  for  the  mis- 
sion work  obtainable.* 

As  a  result  the  Society  itself,  after  due  consideration, 
submitted  to  the  queen  in  1709  a  memorial  expressing 
the  need  of  the  American  church  for  a  bishop.  At 
almost  the  same  time  the  Society,  regarding  Burlington 
as  a  central  point  highly  suitable  for  the  residence  of  a 
bishop,  purchased,  through  Governor  Hunter,  a  large 
house  at  Burlington  for  that  purpose.  In  so  doing  they 
acted  upon  the  recommendation  of  Talbot. ^  The  house 
itself  was  the  "  palace  "  of  John  Tatham,  so  often  men- 
tioned with  admiration  by  contemporary  authors.^  The 
price  paid  was  £600  sterling.     But  though  the  residence 

'Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  p.  46.  *  Hills,  op.  cit.,  p.  61. 

^Ibid.,  p.  63.  *Ibid.,  p.  65.  ^Ibid.,  pp.  90,  100,  106,  107. 

•Gabriel  Thomas,  An  Historical  Description  of  the  Province  and 
Country  of  West  New  Jersey  (London,  1698),  p.  17. 


588  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

was  procured,  a  bishop  was  not  sent,  in  spite  of  further 
petitions  and  remonstrances  from  the  American  churches.' 
In  1 71 3  the  Society  presented  another  memorial  to  the 
queen,  which  was  so  favorably  received  that  immediate 
success  seemed  assured.  But  the  death  of  Anne  once 
more  defeated  the  project  for  the  time  being. 

Meanwhile,  in  spite  of  the  devotion  of  Talbot,  evil 
days  had  fallen  upon  St.  Mary's.  This  result  was  due 
to  the  unfortunate  prominence  in  the  affairs  of  the 
church  assumed  by  certain  members  of  that  political 
ring  which  had  surrounded  Lord  Cornbury,  and  which 
had  gained  a  new  lease  of  life  under  Ingoldsby.  Promi- 
nent among  the  congregation  in  1709  were  Ingoldsby 
himself.  Colonel  Coxe,  Hugh  Huddy,  Jeremiah  Basse, 
Alexander  Grififith,  Thomas  Revell,  and  Daniel  Leeds. 
The  political  influence  of  this  clique  undoubtedly  brought 
some  benefits,  notably  a  charter  of  incorporation  from 
Queen  Anne.'  It  must  be  admitted,  also,  that  in  spite 
of  his  bad  public  record,  Basse  at  least  was  a  faithful 
and  efificient  churchman.  But  the  church  was  never- 
theless drawn,  in  spite  of  itself,  into  the  current  of 
politics,  and  Talbot,  with  all  his  zeal,  was  unable  or  un- 
willing to  resist  the  steps  taken  by  his  influential  parish- 
ioners. 

When  Hunter  assumed  the  administration,  a  clash  fol- 
lowed, for  although  his  excellency  was  himself  a  sincere 
churchman,  he  was  a  thorough  Whig,  a  low  churchman, 
and  not  a  believer  in  measures  of  coercion  for  dissenters. 
As  we  have  already  seen,  he  soon  identified  himself  with 
the  proprietary  party,  to  which  the  Quaker  element  in 
West  Jersey  belonged,  and  thus  came  into  violent  oppo- 
sition to  the  clique  in  the  council  led  by  Coxe,  Pin- 
horne  and  Sonmans,  who  posed  as  high-churchmen. 

'Hills,  op.  cit.,  pp.  109,  154,  160.  *Ibid.,  p.  97. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  589 

In  February,  iyii-12,  Hunter  wrote  to  the  Secretary 
of  State  that  a  violent  contention  had  resulted  at  St. 
Mary's  because  Mr.  Jacob  Henderson,  who  was  conduct- 
ing serv'ices  during  a  short  absence  of  Mr.  Talbot,  had 
omitted  in  the  litany  the  prayer  for  victory  over  His 
Majesty's  enemies,  and  the  prayer  appointed  to  be  said 
in  time  of  war.  To  this  the  congregation  objected,  but 
Mr.  Henderson  would  only  say  that  he  did  so  in  accord- 
ance with  the  custom  of  Mr.  Talbot.  The  "  chiefe  "  of 
the  congregation,  however,  replied  that,  being  acquainted 
with  Talbot's  exemplary  life,  they  were  willing  to  bear 
with  his  scruples,  but  he  could  pretend  none,  having 
formerly  never  omitted  the  prayers.'  To  prevent  further 
trouble,  Hunter,  through  Colonel  Quary,  induced  Talbot 
to  return. 

But  increased  difificulties  soon  came.  The  wise  and 
statesman-like  policy  of  Hunter,  in  causing  the  removal 
from  the  council  of  Pinhorne,  Sonmans,  Coxe,  Huddy 
and  Hall  and  replacing  them  by  persons  in  the  proprie- 
tary interests,  was  regarded  by  the  high  churchmen  as 
being  a  direct  attack  upon  Anglicanism.  In  1712  the 
violent  Henderson,  now  missionary  to  Dover  Hundred 
in  Pennsylvania,  drew  up  a  "  Representation  of  the  State 
of  the  Church  of  England  in  New  York  and  New  Jersey" 
which  was  evidently  intended  as  a  protest  to  the  Lords 
of  Trade. '  Henderson  declared  that  in  New  Jersey  no 
laws  were  made  in  favor  of  the  church  by  reason  of  the 
fact  that  the  majority  of  the  assembly  was  composed  of 
Quakers  and  other  dissenters.  There  were  but  four 
ministers  of  the  Church  of  England  in  the  province. 
But  no  harm  had  been  done,  because  the  majority  of  the 

^  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  v,  p.  315. 
*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  155. 


590  'i'HE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

council  were  churchmen.  Now,  however,  Hunter  had 
joined  with  Morris  to  remove  from  the  council  worthy 
gentlemen  who  had  supported  the  church.  Morris  was 
indeed,  though  a  professed  Christian,  a  person  of  no 
principles,  "  who  calls  the  service  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land Pageantry."  Owing  to  the  encouragement  they 
had  received,  the  dissenters  had  actually  taken  posses- 
sion of  the  church  at  Hopewell,  which  was  built  by  sub- 
scriptions of  Church  of  England  men.  Henderson  ended 
his  remarkable  document  by  describing  the  characters  of 
those  who  were  about  to  be  removed  from  the  council 
and  of  those  recommended.  The  former  were  repre- 
sented as  zealous  churchmen,  while  the  latter  were  ab- 
surdly vilified.  John  Anderson  was  "  a  Scotch  Presby- 
terian who  commanded  a  ship  to  Darien  in  the  Scottish 
Expedition  thither,  and  on  his  return  in  at  Amboy,  New 
Jersey,  and  lett  his  ship  rot  and  plundered  her  and 
with  ye  plunder  brought  land."  John  Harrison  was  de- 
clared to  have  been  "  brought  up  with  one  Kid  a  pirate." 
Thomas  Reading  was  "  a  man  of  no  principles  and  who 
joyns  with  the  Quakers  in  all  their  measures." 

Henderson,  however,  certainly  succeeded  in  causing 
Hunter  annoyance.  Though  his  representation  was  ably 
refuted  in  a  statement  probably  written  by  Lewis  Morris,* 
the  home  authorities  deemed  it  wise  to  consult  the 
bishop  of  London  as  to  the  character  of  the  councilors 
recommended  by  Morris  and  Hunter."  To  justify  the 
governor,  a  meeting  of  the  clergy  of  New  York  and  New 

"^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  i6i. 

'^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  i68.  The  bishop  approved  Hunter's 
recommendations.  Upon  receipt  of  Hunter's  letter  complaining  of 
Henderson,  however,  the  Lords  again  wrote  to  the  Bishop  requesting 
that  he  see  to  it  that  none  but  persons  of  proper  character  and  prin- 
ciples be  sent  as  missionaries  in  the  future;  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  212. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 


591 


Jersey,  including  Inness,  Vaughan  and  Halliday,  drew  up 
a  letter  to  Henderson  expressing  disapproval  of  what  he 
had  done.'  On  his  part,  Thomas  Gordon,  one  of  those 
attacked  by  Henderson,  wrote  to  the  governor  with  the 
request  that  he  transmit  to  the  Lords  of  Trade  enclosed 
certificates  of  character  signed  by  Inness,  Vaughan,  Mr. 
McKenzie  of  Staten  Island  and  other  clergymen,  clear- 
ing both  himself  and  Colonel  Anderson  from  the  slanders 
against  them/  Hunter's  recommendations  were  eventu- 
ally approved  by  the  Lords  of  Trade,  though  only  after 
a  lengthy  delay. 

But  the  contest  was  only  beginning.  Mr.  Halliday,  of 
Perth  Amboy,  soon  became  embroiled  on  the  side  of  the 
militant  churchmen,  especially  as  the  partisan  of  the 
worthy  Peter  Sommans."*  Though  his  congregation, 
which  included  the  most  influential  of  the  Perth  Amboy 
proprietors,  was  bitterly  opposed  to  his  conduct,  he  was 
treated  with  respect  until  he  selected  Sonmans  as  his 
warden  and  denounced  George  Willocks  openly  from  the 
desk  for  a  presumed  misappropriation  of  funds  raised  for 
the  erection  of  a  church.  Thus  aroused,  the  congrega- 
tion shut  Halliday  out  of  the  church,  and  so  his  career  at 
Amboy  ended  ingloriously.  He  continued  for  some  time 
further  at  Piscataway,  but  finally  removed  to  New  York, 
where  he  caused  more  annoyance.^ 

But  Hunter's  chief  difficulty  was  of  course  with  Talbot, 
who  appears  to  have  sympathized  more  and  more  with 
the  opposition  until  he  became  the  fiery  ally  of  Colonel 
Coxe.     The  high-church  party,  which  had  struggled  so 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  173.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  176. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  103. 

*  Whitehead,  Contributions  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Amboy, 
p.  217. 


592  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

long  against  Quakerism,  of  course  bitterly  resented  the 
leniency  of  the  governor  toward  their  enemies,  and  when 
the  assembly  under  his  influence  passed  the  act  qualifying 
Quakers  to  serve  on  juries  their  anger  blazed  up.  In 
March,  1714,  the  wardens  and  vestry  of  St.  Mary's  ad- 
dressed a  remonstrance  and  petition  to  the  Society,  ask- 
ing it  to  make  every  effort  to  secure  the  disallowance  of 
the  act.""  Soon  after  an  address  was  sent  to  the  queen 
herself  by  Talbot  with  the  wardens  and  vestry.^  This 
represented  how  the  church  of  the  province  was  dis- 
tressed by  "  the  wiles  of  Quakerism  and  Seism,"  and 
especially  by  the  passage  of  the  act  allowing  Quakers  to 
hold  all  posts  of  trust.  The  queen  was  besought  to  pro- 
tect the  church  by  disallowing  the  act  as  contrary  to  the 
laws  of  England.  Communications  were  also  sent  to 
General  Nicholson,  of  Virginia,  asking  for  his  assistance, 
and  in  one  of  these  it  was  skilfully  suggested  that  the 
sending  of  a  bishop  was  the  only  sure  way  of  protecting 
and  guarding  the  church. ^  So  great,  indeed,  were  Mr. 
Talbot's  efforts  that  he  fell  sick,  and  in  his  discourage- 
ment requested  the  Society  for  permission  to  return  to 
England.  He  "had  been  long  enough  in  those  parts  to 
see  iniquity  established  by  law,  and  that  by  some  of  your 
own  members,'*  and  what  good  can  your  missionaries 
do?"5 

This  agitation  in  St.  Mary's  was  undoubtedly  closely 
connected  with  the  struggle  in  the  courts  over  the 
qualifying  of  Quakers  as  jurors.  It  will  be  remembered 
that  Basse,  the  clerk  of  the  Supreme  Court,  refused  to 

'Hills,  History  of  the  Church  in  Burlington,  p.  110. 

^Ibid.,  p.  116.  ^Ibid.,  pp.  119,  121. 

*  Hunter  was  a  member  of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the 
Gospel. 

*  Hills,  op.  cit.,  p.  125. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 


593 


attest    Peter    Frctwell    and    other   Friends   and    was  in 
consequence  removed  from  his  office. 

Hunter  was  now  moved  to  anger  and  in  171 5  wrote 
to  Secretary  Popple,  "  that  noisy  fool  Coxe  has  betrayed 
the  public  service  so  avowedly  that  I  verily  believe  he 
had  orders  from  home  to  do  so.  Mr.  Talbot  has  incor- 
porated the  Jacobites  in  the  Jerseys  under  the  name  of  a 
church  in  order  to  sanctify  his  sedition  and  insolence  to 
the  government."'  As  a  result  of  this  outburst  by  the 
governor  Talbot  himself  was  given  a  copy  of  the  charge, 
that  he  might  have  an  opportunity  to  answer.'  Basse 
wrote  to  the  secretary  of  the  Society  declaring  vigor- 
ously that  •  the  charge  of  Jacobitism  was  false,  while 
Talbot's  letter  to  the  Bishop  of  London  stated  that  he 
had  been  a  "  Williamite  "  from  the  beginning.^  Talbot 
also  sent  a  denial  to  the  Society  in  which  he  spoke  in  an 
affecting  way  of  the  evils  suffered  by  Basse  and  Griffith 
for  their  devotion  to  the  church.*  A  fourth  denial  was 
prepared  by  the  church  wardens  and  the  vestry,  in  which 
they  quoted  from  the  Bible  "  there  are  no  such  things 
done  as  thou  sayest,  but  thou  feignest  them  out  of  thine 
own  heart."* 

These  denials,  however,  had  no  effect  upon  Hunter. 
He  was  much  annoyed  by  the  conduct  of  the  Bishop  of 
London  in  naming  Mr.  Vesey  of  Trinity  Church,  New 
York,  as  Commissary,  and  he  declared  to  Secretary 
Popple  that  Vesey  and  Talbot  had  entered  into  a  "con- 
triveance "  with  Governor  Nicholson  to  ruin  him.  He 
reasserted  that  they  were  all  Jacobites,  declaring  that 
"  Talbot  is  a  profest  Jacobite ;  nay  he  will  not  dissemble 

^  New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  iv,  p.  209. 

*  Hills,  op.  cit.,  p.  140.  ^  Ibid. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  141.  ''Ibid.,  p.  145. 


594  ^^^  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

it." '  The  governor  was  convinced  that  the  efforts  of 
Coxe  to  master  the  province  against  him  owed  much 
of  their  strength  to  the  "  furious  Zeall "  of  Talbot. 
Together  they  "  Enflamed  the  lower  Rank  of  People  to 
that  degree  that  only  time  and  patience  or  stronger 
measures  than  at  present  in  my  power  can  allay  the 
heat."' 

But  zealously  as  Talbot  agitated,  he  shared  in  the 
downfall  of  Col.  Coxe  which  followed  his  expulsion 
from  the  seventh  assembly.  At  a  meeting  of  the  gov- 
ernor's council,  held  on  May  21,  1716,  at  Perth  Amboy, 
Talbot's  case  was  considered.  It  was  declared  that  he 
had  encouraged  a  spirit  of  division  in  the  province,  that 
he  omitted  prayers  from  the  liturgy,  especially  the  prayer 
for  victory  over  the  Sovereign's  enemy,"  and  that  he 
had  incited  the  recent  contempts  of  the  courts.  It  was 
therefore  ordered  that  the  sheriff  of  Burlington  ad- 
minister the  oath  of  allegiance  to  Talbot  and  that,  if  he 
refused  the  said  oath,  he  be  suspended  from  preaching 
and  kept  in  custody  until  he  should  enter  into  recog- 
nizance to  be  of  good  behavior.^ 

Whether  this  decision  was  enforced  does  not  appear, 
but  it  is  certain  that  the  opposition  of  Talbot  to  Hunter 
was  silenced.  In  1717  a  reconciliation  between  them 
was  accomplished,  however,  by  the  efforts  of  their  mutual 
friend  George  Willocks,  himself  an  avowed  Jacobite.*  An 
effort  appears  to  have  been  made  by  the  governor  and 
Willocks  to  have  Talbot  reveal "  the  wicked  design  of 
Coxe"  and  his  confederates.  But  Talbot  was  unwilling 
to  play  informer  or  else  had  nothing  to  reveal. ^    Willocks 

1  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  pp.  219-20. 

"^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  230.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  pp.  16-18. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  291.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  290,  298. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 


595 


declared  upon  oath  that  Talbot  had  informed  him  that  at 
the  time  of  Coxe's  election  his  party  wished  to  pull  down 
the  Quakers'  meeting-house  and  their  dwellings,  but  he 
(Talbot)  had  dissuaded  them.  At  another  time  it  was 
suggested  that  all  the  Quakers'  ''glass  windows"  be 
broken.  And,  lastly,  there  was  said  to  be  an  agreement 
among  Talbot's  followers  that,  if  he  were  imprisoned, 
they  would  pull  down  the  jail  bit  by  bit.  But  Talbot 
had  said  that  he  would  prevent  this  riot  by  leaving  the 
province.' 

In  spite  of  the  troubles  resulting  from  the  interference 
of  Talbot  in  politics,  the  Church  had  continued  to  make 
progress  in  both  Jerseys.  Upon  the  expulsion  of  Mr. 
Halliday,  Mr.  Vaughan  had  again  assumed  charge  of  the 
entire  district  originally  covered  by  Mr.  Brooke.  In 
171 1  a  congregation  at  Woodbridge  had  been  formed  as 
a  result  of  a  split  from  the  Presbyterian  church  there, 
and  this  also  fell  within  his  charge.^  In  1714  Mr. 
Vaughan  removed  from  Elizabethtown  to  Amboy  for  the 
beneht  of  his  health,  though  he  still  continued  to  ofBciate 
occasionally  at  the  former  place. ^  But  the  congregation 
at  Amboy  had  now  grown  to  need  a  separate  clergyman, 
and  when  Mr.  Vaughan  was  sent  back  to  Elizabethtown 
by  the  Society,  Rev.  William  Skinner  was  named  as  mis- 
sionary to  the  East  Jersey  capital.*  Skinner  arrived  in 
1722.  The  new  clergyman  officiated  every  third  Sunday 
at  Piscataway  and  occasionally  visited  Woodbridge  in  the 
afternoon.     In   172b  he  began  officiating  regularly  once 

'  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  pp.  301-3. 

-Whitehead,  Contributions  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Amboy, 
p.  389- 

'Ibid.,  p.  217.  In  1718  the  congregation  received  a  charter  from 
Hunter. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  221. 


596  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

2l  month  for  the  people  of  Monmouth.'  Christ  Church 
at  Shrewsbury  had  prospered  under  the  ministry  of 
Inness  and  the  protection  of  Colonel  Morris.  In  1708  it 
had  been  honored  by  the  gift  of  a  communion  service 
from  Queen  Anne  herself.  But  after  the  death  of  Inness,. 
which  occurred  probably  in  1713,  Monmouth  had  no 
regular  clergyman  until  1733,  when  the  Society  at  length 
sent  the  Rev.  John  Forbes." 

The  continued  labors  of  Vaughan  at  Elizabethtown 
also  added  materially  to  the  strength  of  St.  John's 
Church.3  Nor  does  it  appear  that  St.  John's  escaped 
entirely  from  playing  a  part  in  politics.  It  seems  to 
have  been  a  center  of  proprietary  influence  amidst  the 
antagonistic  population  of  Elizabethtown,  and  Mr. 
Vaughan  himself  figured  in  the  celebrated  test  case  of 
Vaughan  vs.  Woodruflf,  which  brought  temporary  victory 
to  the  proprietors  against  the  associates  in  the  NicoUs 
patent.'^  The  influence  of  Vaughan  in  favor  of  Hunter 
in  East  Jersey  thus  partially  overset  that  of  Talbot  against 
him.  Both  Vaughan  and  Skinner  continued  to  serve 
until  the  end  of  the  Union  Period. 

In  West  Jersey  the  progress  was  similar,  and  this 
growth  was  not  confined  to  St.  Mary's.  In  1723  Talbot 
was  visiting  Trenton,  Hopewell  and  Amwell.  In  1722  a 
church,  known  as  St.  John's,  was  organized  at  Salem. ^ 
It  is  probable  indeed  that  meetings  in  private  houses  had 
been  held  prior  to  this  time,  as  among  the  original  set- 
tlers there  were  several  Episcopalian  families.  The  Rev. 
Mr.  Holbrook  was  the  first  rector.     Although  the  peo- 

'  Whitehead,  op.  cit.,  p.  224. 

*  Ellis,  History  of  Monmouth  County. 

"Hatfield,  History  of  Elizabeth,  pp.  355-362.  *Ibid.,  p.  308. 

^Shourds,  History  and  Genealogy  of  Fenwick' s  Colony,  p.  438. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  597 

pie  were  generally  poor,  they  proved  willing  to  contri- 
bute to  the  erection  of  a  church  building  and  much 
needed  assistance  was  received  from  the  churchmen  of 
Philadelphia.  During  the  year  1726-7  Holbrook  re- 
ported fourteen  communicants.' 

Meanwhile  the  plan  for  procuring  a  bishop  had  not 
been  laid  aside,  and  in  June,  1715,  the  Society  presented 
a  memorial  to  George  I.  This  contained  a  plan  for  cre- 
ating four  American  bishoprics,  two  for  the  islands  and 
two  for  the  mainland.  The  seats  of  the  continental 
bishops  were  to  be  Burlington  and  Williamsburg.  But 
the  government  took  no  action  in  the  matter.  In  the 
same  year  Archbishop  Tenison  bequeathed  f  1000  to  the 
Society  toward  the  settlement  of  bishops  in  America. 
Until  bishops  were  established,  the  income  was  to  go  as 
a  pension  to  worthy  missionaries,  and  in  1721  this  pen- 
sion was  bestowed  upon  Mr.  Talbot  in  recognition  of  his 
prolonged  efforts.' 

In  1720  Talbot  made  his  second  visit  to  England, 
where  he  remained  about  two  years  and  a  half.^  During 
this  visit  it  seems  certain  that  he  received  episcopal  con- 
secration from  the  Scotch  non-juring  bishops,  although 
the  matter  was  for  a  time  kept  secret. ■»  This  fact  lends 
great  weight  to  the  charges  of  Jacobitism  formerly  made 
by  Hunter.  Be  this  as  it  may,  Talbot's  appeals  to  the 
legitimate  authorities  for  the  establishment  of  a  bishop 
in  America  ceased  after  his  return. 

Talbot  was  warmly  welcomed  by  his  loyal  flock  at  St. 
Mary's,  yet  he  found  that-  much  ground  had  been  lost 
during  his  absence.     The  bishop's  house  on  the  point, 

'  Shourds,  op.  cit.,  p.  439. 
^  Hills,  op.  cit..  p.  161. 
Ibid.  'Ibid.,  pp.  168,  186. 


598  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

which  had  so  long  awaited  the  coming  of  '*  a  head,"  was 
now  almost  in  ruins.  But  it  was  soon  put  once  more 
into  a  sort  of  repair  by  the  efforts  of  Colonel  Coxe  and 
William  Trent.' 

But  Talbot's  long  and  useful  career  was  about  to  come 
to  an  unfortunate  close.  Burnet  had  now  succeeded 
Hunter  as  governor  of  the  Jerseys,  and  the  son  of  the 
great  Bishop  of  Salisbury  was,  if  possible,  an  even 
stauncher  Whig  and  low  churchman  than  the  soldier  of 
Blenheim.  He  was,  moreover,  especially  interested  in 
ecclesiastical  afTairs.  Soon  after  his  return  to  America, 
Mr.  Talbot  had  to  suffer  from  the  violent  attacks  of  one 
Rev.  John  Urmston.  The  latter  was  a  clergyman  whom, 
apparently  for  good  reasons,  Talbot  had  co-operated 
with  divers  of  the  clergy  of  Pennsylvania  in  driving  out 
of  Christ  Church,  Philadelphia.  Urmston  now  loudly 
denounced  the  rector  of  St.  Mary's  as  a  Jacobite.^  At 
any  rate,  in  August,  1724,  Governor  Burnet  wrote  to 
the  Bishop  of  London  that  he  had  no  complaint  against 
any  of  his  clergy  except  Talbot,  who  never  would  take 
the  oaths  to  the  king  and  never  prayed  for  him  by  name 
in  the  liturgy.  The  governor  further  declared  that  when 
he  was  in  the  Jerseys,  Talbot  avoided  him  by  going  to 
Philadelphia.  Moreover,  he  "has  had  the  folly  to  con- 
fess to  some  who  have  published  it  that  he  is  a  bishop." ' 
At  about  the  same  time  the  old  ally  of  Talbot,  Jacob 
Henderson,  wrote  from  Maryland  to  the  Bishop  of 
London,  also  declaring  that  Talbot  was  in  episcopal 
orders,  and  that  there  was  danger  lest  he  and  Dr.  Welton, 
another  Jacobite  clergyman,  should  poison  the  minds  of 
the  people  of  the  province.* 

^  Hills,  op.  cit.,  pp.  169,  172.  ^Ibid.,  pp.  177,  187. 

Ubid.,  p.  188.  'Ibid.,  p.  188. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  -g,^ 

As  a  result,  Talbot  was  discharged  from  the  service  of 
the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel.  In  July, 
1725,  he  wrote  to  the  Bishop  of  London  denying  the 
charges  which  he  understood  had  been  made  that  he  had 
undertaken  to  exercise  the  jurisdiction  over  his  brethren 
the  missionaries.  "This  is  very  strange  to  me,  for  I 
know  nothing  about  it,  nor  anybody  else,  in  all  the 
world."'  Talbot  was  nevertheless  required  by  Burnet 
to  desist  from  preaching,  and  the  church  in  BurHngton 
was  temporarily  closed.  •  The  faithful  missionary  was 
compelled  to  leave  the  province.  His  devoted  fliock 
naturally  did  not  acquiesce  quietly  in  his  removal,  nor  did 
they  lack  powerful  sympathizers.  ^  In  January,  1726,  a 
memorial  was  sent  to  the  Society  by  the  wardens  and 
prominent  members  of  St.  Mary's.  It  was  signed  also 
by  the  wardens,  vestry,  and  members  of  Christ  Church, 
Philadelphia,  and  by  the  wardens  of  the  church  at  New 
Bristol.  The  memorial  represented  how  great  Talbot's 
services  had  been  and  how  the  churches  were  suffering 
for  lack  of  clergy  and  other  support.* 

Talbot,  however,  was  never  restored  to  his  position, 
and  in  November,  1727,  died  at  Burlington.  What- 
ever his  political  mistakes,  the  Episcopal  Church  of  New 
Jersey  owes  him  a  permanent  debt  of  gratitude. 

When  the  Society  removed  Talbot,  it  named  in  his 
place  Mr.  Holbrook  the  missionary  at  Salem. ^  But  so 
cool  were  the  churchmen  of  St.  Mary's  toward  the  new 
comer,  that  Holbrook  determined  to  remain  at  Salem.  ^ 
Rev.  Nathaniel  Harwood,  who  had  been  sent  to  Salem 
therefore  proceeded  to  Burlington  and  assumed  charge. 

'  Hills,  op.  cit.,  p.  192.  ^Ibid.,  p.  203. 

*Ilnd.,  p.  207.  *Ibid.,  p.  209. 

''Ibid.,  p.  206.  *Ibid.,  p.  207. 


6oo  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

But  he  was  evidently  not  powerful  enough  to  fill  the 
place  of  Talbot,  and  in  1729  the  church  wardens  wrote 
to  Mr.  Vesey  of  New  York  setting  forth  that  the  church 
had  dwindled  to  almost  nothing  and  that  they  would 
"take  it  extreme  kind"  if  he  would  signify  to  Harwood 
that  it  "  would  be  his  best  way  to  remove  with  all 
speed."  ^  An  address  was  also  sent  to  the  Society  ask- 
ing for  the  appointment  of  Rev.  Robert  Weyman,  whose 
work  in  Philadelphia  was  well  known. ^ 

This  request  was  granted,  and  Weyman  began  a  suc- 
cessful, though  rather  quiet,  rectorate,  quiet  at  least  as 
compared  with  the  stormy  times  of  Talbot.  In  1734 
Weyman  was,  however,  so  far  aroused  as  to  write  to  the 
secretary  of  the  Society  requesting  that  a  letter  be  sent 
to  his  congregation  asking  them  to  make  some  provision 
for  the  support  of  the  clergyman,  since  he,  being  a  man 
of  family,  was  unable  to  live  merely  upon  the  bounty  of 
the  Society  as  Talbot  had  done.  The  congregation 
"  constantly  and  duly  attend  the  worship  of  God,  but  do 
not  care  to  do  anything  toward  the  support  and  main- 
tainance  of  the  ministry."  ^ 

Weyman  died  in  1737  and  was  succeeded  by  the  Rev. 
Colin  Campbell.-* 

About  the  only  matter  of  importance  in  connection 
with  the  history  of  St.  Mary's  during  this  period  was  the 
project,  already  suggested  by  Talbot,  of  employing  the 
long-unused  bishop's  palace  as  a  college,  whereof  there 
was  much  need.  After  Talbot's  death  the  plan  was 
further  urged  upon  the  Society  by  Colonel  Coxe,  but  no 
definite  steps  in  the  matter  were  taken.^ 

Among  the  prominent  persons  connected  with  St. 
Mary's  toward  the  end  of  our  period  were  Peter  Bard, 

^  Hills,  op.  cit.,  p.  242.  ^Ibid.,  p.  243. 

^ Ibid.,  p.  251.  ^ Ibid.,  pp.  253,  254.  ^Ibid.,  p.  239. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  6oi 

William  Trent  and  John  Allen.  Its  most  active  bene- 
factors were,  however,  Col.  Coxe  and  Basse,  who  thus 
helped  to  redeem  the  errors  of  their  past  careers. 

In  East  Jersey  the  closing  years  of  the  Union  Period 
were  equally  uneventful.  By  the  successful  efforts  of 
Mr.  Skinner  the  number  of  the  communicants  at  Amboy 
was  raised  from  20  in  1722  to  53  in  1741.'  Among  the 
distinguished  parishioners  were  Dr.  Johnstone,  R.  L. 
Hooper,  Col.  John  Hamilton,  Fenwick  Lyell  and  Michael 
Kearney.  Mr.  Vaughan  of  Elizabethtown  was  equally 
successful.  In  1721  his  audience  had  increased  to  200, 
and  he  had  more  than  40  communicants.  In  1731  he 
wrote  that  within  the  last  two  years  he  had  baptized  556 
children  and  64  adults.  In  1734  there  were  70  communi- 
cants. In  1736  St.  Peter's  Church  of  Freehold  received 
a  separate  charter.^  And  just  at  the  close  of  the  period 
Newark,  the  most  strictly  Calvinistic  community  of  the 
province,  saw  the  establishment  of  an  Episcopal  congre- 
gation. This  was.  curiously  enough,  owing  to  a  split  in 
the  First  Presbyterian  Church  due  to  the  censuring  of 
the  influential  Col.  Josiah  Ogden  for  saving  his  crop  of 
wheat  on  Sunday.^  In  1736  the  Society  for  the  Propaga- 
tion of  the  Gospel  was  maintaining  six  ministers  in  New 
Jersey. 

The  Anglican  Church  had  thus  become  a  permanent 
institution  in  the  province.  But  it  was  no  longer  re- 
garded as  an  aggressive  invader,  threatening  religious 
liberty  and  political  freedom.  That  it  had  already  made 
so  good  a  showing  among  those  trained  to  regard  it 
with  suspicion  and  hostility  is  highly  remarkable. 

'  Whitehead,  Contributions  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Amboy,  pp. 
224-5. 
■''  Ellis,  History  of  Monmouth  County. 
'Atkinson,  History  of  Newark  (Newark.  1878),  pp.  56-8. 


CHAPTER  XXVII 

The  Proprietorship  under  Royal  Rule 

east  jersey 

To  understand  the  history  of  the  East  Jersey  proprietor- 
ship under  royal  rule  it  is  necessary  to  keep  constantly  in 
mind  the  fact  that  it  included  conflicting  elements  and  in- 
terests. The  majority  interest  was  certainly  made  up  of 
those  shareholders,  chiefly  of  Scotch  origin,  who  had  re- 
moved to  the  province  and  whose  center  of  operations  was 
Perth  Amboy,  in  general  alliance  with  a  portion  of  the 
English  and  Scotch  proprietors  at  home,  among  whom  the 
West  Jersey  Society  was  the  most  active  force.  ^  This 
majority  interest  was  not,  however,  always  entirely  harmon- 
ious. Among  the  Perth  Amboy  group  the  powerful  and 
masterful  Dr.  Johnstone  and  George  Willocks,  intent  upon 
various  land-jobbing  transactions,  were  not  infrequently  in 
opposition  to  other  proprietors ;  ^  while  Lewis  Morris,  as 
has  so  often  been  indicated,  was  somewhat  inclined  to  insist 
upon  leading.  As  the  American  "  agent  "  of  the  West 
Jersey  Society,  he  did  not  always  promote  peace. 

But  opposed  to  the  majority  shareholders  there  was 
an  influential  and  bitter  faction  calling  themselves  "  the 
English  proprietors  "  because  of  their  wish  to  make  the 
quarrel  between  themselves  and  their  rivals  appear  a  conflict 

'^■New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  313-316.     It  must  not  be  forgotten 
that  the  West  Jersey  Society  held  a  considerable  interest  in  East  Jersey. 
"^Ibid.,  vol.  V,  pp.  57,  loi. 
602 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         603 

between  Englishmen  and  Scotchmen.  The  leader  of  "  the 
English  proprietors  "  was  William  Dockwra  of  London, 
whose  unscrupulous  character  had  been  revealed  in  the  pro- 
ceedings brought  against  him  by  George  Willocks/  In  close 
alliance  with  Dockwra  was  Peter  Sonmans,  who  claimed  to 
have  inherited  the  four  and  one- fourth  proprieties  held  by 
his  father  Arent  Sonmans,*  the  largest  single  interest  among 
the  proprietors.  So  intent  were  the  "  English  proprietors  " 
upon  defeating  their  enemies  that  they  had  shown  them- 
selves during  the  closing  years  of  the  proprietary  rule  will- 
ing to  support  those  elements  in  the  population  of  the 
province  which  desired  the  complete  overthrow  of  the  pro- 
prietorship and  its  system  of  quit-rents.  They  had  given 
encouragement  to  Basse  and  Capt.  Andrew  Bowne  against 
Governor  Hamilton,'  and  in  that  way  contributed  in  no 
small  degree  to  the  wreck  of  the  proprietary  government. 

The  issue  between  these  factions  in  the  East  Jersey  pro- 
prietorship was  closely  connected  with  the  somewhat  similar 
conflict  in  West  Jersey  between  the  Quaker  interest,  in  alli- 
ance with  that  of  the  West  Jersey  Society,  and  the  in- 
terest of  the  Coxes  and  their  supporters.  The  Coxes  acted 
throughout  as  in  league  with  Dockwra  and  Sonmans.* 

There  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that  the  majority  element  in 
East  Jersey,  represented  by  Morris,  whose  journey  to  Eng- 
land for  the  purpose  of  arranging  the  surrender  to  the 
Crown  has  been  mentioned,  believed  that  by  giving  up  its 
powers  of  government  on  the  understanding  that  its  rights 
to  the  soil  should  be  protected  it  had  won  a  distinct  triumph. 
The  difficult  task  of  maintaining  order  and  of  enforcing 
the  decisions  of  the  courts  was  henceforth  to  be  executed 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  283. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  315.  ^  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  385,  401. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  62,  82,  loi. 


5o4  ^^^  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

by  royal  officers,  disobedience  to  whom  would  be  treason. 
Under  the  protection  of  the  Crown  the  pecuniary  interests 
of  the  proprietors  would  be  safe. 

It  was  asserted  afterwards  by  Morris  and  others  of  his 
interest  that  the  surrender  to  the  Crown  was  made  upon 
certain  definite  conditions  which  were  embodied  in  Corn- 
bury's  instructions/  The  Lords  of  Trade,  however,  de- 
clared with  authority  that  the  surrender  was  absolute  and 
not  "  made  upon  terms."  ^  They  admitted,  nevertheless, 
that  certain  articles  desired  by  the  proprietors  had  been  put 
into  the  instructions.^  Morris  certainly  saw  the  instructions 
in  England,*  and  there  seems  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the 
surrender  was  perfected  with  the  understanding  that  the 
articles  relating  to  the  proprietorship  would  be  executed."^ 

Lord  Cornbury's  instructions  ordered  in  the  36th  article 
that,  to  quiet  the  inhabitants  of  the  province,  an  act  should 
be  passed  securing  the  soil  to  the  proprietors  and  those  who 
had  purchased  of  them.®  Their  quit-rents  were  to  be  se- 
cured, as  well  as  all  other  privileges  originally  granted  by 
James  of  York  except  the  right  of  government.  All  private 
lands  properly  held  were  to  be  confirmed  under  such  condi- 
tions as  would  tend  to  their  more  speedy  cultivation.  But 
Cornbury  was  not  to  consent  to  any  act  taxing  unprofitable 
land.  The  37th  article  ordered  that  none  but  the  propri- 
etors should  buy  lands  of  the  Indians,''  while  the  38th  set 
forth  that  Cornbury  should  permit  the  surveyors  of  the 
proprietors  to  proceed  in  their  duties.^  He  was  also  to 
allow  and  assist  such  agents  as  the  proprietors  should  ap- 
point to  collect  their  quit- rents.  But  such  agents  were  not 
only  to  take  oaths  for  the  proper  performance  of  their  duties 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  73,  81,  86,  • 
"^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  117,  124.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  125. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  2.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  86. 
^Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  517.  ''Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  517. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         605 

and  give  proper  security,  but  must  also  take  the  oaths  apn 
pointed  by  parHament  to  be  taken  instead  of  the  oaths  of 
allegiance  and  supremacy.  The  governor  was  likewise  com- 
manded to  take  care  that  all  lands  purchased  should  be 
cultivated. 

These  were  the  only  articles  of  the  instructions  directly 
relating  to  the  proprietorship,  but  Morris  declared  that  the 
15th,  setting  a  high  property  qualification  for  members  of 
the  assembly,^  and  the  53d,  giving  Quakers  the  right  to 
hold  office,  were  also  concessions  to  the  proprietors."  The 
article  relating  to  Quakers  was,  of  course,  of  significance 
chiefly  for  West  Jersey,  but  the  15th  article  was  of  much 
importance  for  the  proprietors  of  the  Eastern  division.  Its 
execution  would  mean,  in  all  probability,  that  the  members 
of  the  assembly  would  be  themselves  proprietors,  as  few 
persons  besides  these  possessed  the  necessary  one  thousand 
acres.  The  requirement  of  ownership  of  one  hundred  acres 
for  the  suffrage  would  also  exclude  from  voting  many  of 
the  poorer  element  in  Elizabethtown  and  elsewhere.  Morris 
and  his  interest  really  intended  that  the  government  should 
be  under  the  control  of  the  proprietors  just  as  before  the 
surrender,  but  with  the  royal  executive  to  enforce  the  laws 
which  they  should  make. 

For  a  brief  time  after  the  arrival  of  Combury  the  new 
arrangement  worked  as  the  proprietors  had  expected.  Yet 
the  proprietors  from  the  beginning  seem  to  have  been  aware 
of  Cornbury's  true  character  as  a  certain  clique  among  them, 
represented  by  Dr.  Johnstone,  paid  him  a  bribe  of  one 
hundred  pounds  of  plate,  "  hoping  that  he  would  nicely 
observe  his  instructions."  Later  they  gave  him  a  second 
hundred  pounds.'     Combury  early  exhibited   a   suspicion 

"^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  p.  510;  vol.  iii,  pp.  74,  86. 

^Ibid.y  vol.  ii,  p.  523;  vol.  iii,  p.  74.        ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  207-209. 


6o6  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

of,  and  a  dislike  for,  the  Quakers,^  but  this  matter  con- 
cerned East  Jersey  only  indirectly.  The  governor  allowed 
Thomas  Gordon,  the  high  sheriff  of  East  Jersey,  to  secure 
the  election  of  the  proprietary  candidates  for  the  first  assem- 
bly by  an  "  artifice  " ;  ^  nor  did  he  undertake  to  interfere 
with  the  proprietary  officers  like  the  register,  Gordon,  or  the 
surveyor-general,  Reid,  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties. 
When  John  Barclay  was  commissioned  as  receiver-general 
of  the  proprietary  quit-rents  Cornbury  even  went  so  far  in 
observing  his  instructions  as  to  issue  a  proclamation  in  his 
favor,  December  ii,  1704.^  He  also  approved  an  act  passed 
by  the  first  assembly  in  December,  1703,  which  forbade  any 
one  from  purchasing  land  of  the  Indians  without  a  license 
from  the  governor,  such  licenses  to  be  issued  only  to  those 
who  had  previously  obtained  a  certificate  from  the  propri- 
etary register  to  the  effect  that  they  held  proper  title.  All 
purchases  previously  made  without  lawful  title  were  to  be 
void  unless  a  grant  from  the  proprietors  was  obtained  within 
six  months.*  This  act  remained  unrepealed  for  the  entire 
imion  period. 

But  the  harmony  between  the  governor  and  the  propri- 
etors did  not  last  long.  As  has  been  previously  indicated, 
the  break  seems  to  have  resulted  from  the  fact  that  the  first 
assembly,  being  under  proprietary  control,  would  not  give 
Cornbury  a  sufficiently  extravagant  amount  for  the  support 
of  himself  and  his  subordinates.^ 

At  the  first  session  of  the  assembly  that  body  prepared 
the  important  "  Long  Bill,"  the  object  of  which  was  to 
assert  the  rights  of  the  proprietors  to  the  soil  of  the  province. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  2.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  Hi,  p.  276. 

^  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  p.  31. 
*  Allinson,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey. 
^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  278. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         607 

The  exact  text  of  this  measure  is  not  now  accessible,  though 
what  purports  to  be  a  synopsis  of  it  is  given  by  Cornbury  in 
his  letter  to  the  Lords  of  January,  1703-4.^  It  is  clear  that 
the  important  sections  relating  to  East  Jersey  were  those 
declaring  invalid  all  claims  to  land  based  upon  the  Nicolls 
grant  and  the  Elizabethtown  purchase,  and  that  authorizing 
the  proprietors  and  their  agents  to  make  distress  upon  in- 
habitants for  the  non-payment  of  quit-rents.  Cornbury 
stated  that  such  distress  was  to  be  made  by  the  proprietary 
agents  independently  without  any  proper  warrant  or  author- 
ization from  any  officer  of  the  government.^  The  passage 
of  the  "  Long  Bill  "  was,  of  course,  opposed  by  the  inhab- 
itants of  Elizabethtown  and  also,  according  to  Cornbury, 
by  a  delegation  from  Woodbridge,  which  maintained  that  it 
would  destroy  their  charter.' 

The  fate  of  the  "  Long  Bill  "  was  indeed  a  matter  of  the 
utmost  moment  for  the  colony.  Its  passage  and  enforce- 
ment would  have  prevented  the  agitation  and  controversy  of 
all  the  following  years.  Yet  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that 
it  represented  an  efifort  to  settle  by  a  legislative  measure, 
and  a  strictly  party  measure  at  that,  a  queston  which  could 
have  been  settled  justly  only  by  a  judicial  decision.  As  it 
was,  however,  Cornbury  became  disgusted  with  the  assem- 
bly because  of  its  economy  in  its  offers  of  support,  and 
prorogued  it  before  the  "  Long  Bill  "  could  be  carried.* 

In  writing  to  the  Lords,  Cornbury  endeavored  to  explain  the 
many  defects  of  the  Long  Bill,  to  show  the  selfish  objects  of 
the  proprietors  and  the  injustice  done  to  the  people  of  Eliza- 
bethtown. His  communication  contained  the  following  re- 
markable description  of  the  origin  of  the  Nicolls  grant.  "^ 

'  Nfw  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  28  et  seq.,  p.  55  et  seq. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  34,  59.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  31,  56. 

*■  Assembly  Journal,  Oct.  13,  1703. 

'"New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  30. 


6o8  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

"  The  case  stands  thus.  The  people  of  New  York  were  re- 
fractory to  Nichols,  but  he  found  the  people  of  Elizabeth- 
town  ready  to  submit  to  him,  by  which  means  those  of  New 
York  were  brought  to  their  duty.  As  a  reward  for  their 
fidelity  Nichols  granted  the  people  of  Elizabethtown  the 
lands  they  now  hold."  Such  ignorance  seems  inexcusable 
even  in  Cornbury.  But  Robert  Quary,  the  surveyor-gen- 
eral of  customs,  also  wrote  to  the  Lords  of  Trade  against 
the  Long  Bill  and  the  general  course  of  the  proprietors.^ 
Quary's  character  was  above  reproach  even  by  his  oppo- 
nents,^ and  he  undoubtedly  believed  that  the  proprietors 
were  engaged  in  a  sort  of  conspiracy  against  the  inhabitants 
of  the  province.  The  force  of  his  views  is  much  weakened, 
however,  by  his  strange  blindness  as  to  the  character  of 
Cornbury. 

Before  Cornbury  cast  himself  into  the  hands  of  the  anti- 
proprietary  party  he  gave  the  first  assembly  one  more  chance 
to  "answer  the  ends  of  government."  But  the  breach  only 
became  wider.  At  the  second  session  of  the  assembly  bills 
were  again  brought  forward  for  confirming  the  proprietary 
estates.^  The  only  concession  made  to  the  governor  was 
the  introduction  of  separate  measures  for  East  and  for  West 
Jersey,  but  the  chief  provisions  of  the  former  "  Long  Bill  " 
were  retained.*  The  assembly  made  only  a  small  concession 
regarding  support,  and  made  it  evident  that  it  would  grant 
such  support  only  as  a  condition  for  the  passage  of  the  pro- 
prietary bills.  Cornbury  accordingly  declared  war  against 
the  proprietors  and  their  interests  by  dissolving  the  assem- 
bly in  anger. 

The  Lords  of  Trade,  in  reply  to  his  letters  reporting  his. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  17.  '^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  50. 

^Assembly  Journal,  Sept.  6,  13,  28,  1704. 
*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  66. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         609 

action,  so  far  justified  him  as  to  say  that  in  their  opinion 
the  proprietary  bills  in  their  present  form  were  unfit  to  be 
passed.^  It  cannot,  of  course,  be  believed  that  they  knew 
anything  of  the  influences  which  had  induced  the  governor 
to  take  up  his  position. 

It  was  later  very  conclusively  shown  that  an  alliance  had 
meanwhile  been  arranged  between  the  governor  and  the 
popular  party  in  East  Jersey.  Col.  Quary  seems  to  say  in 
one  of  his  letters  to  the  Lords  that  he  himself  had  suggested 
to  the  anti-proprietary  leaders  the  advantages  to  be  gained 
by  them  in  supporting  the  governor.''  But  such  a  man  as 
Quary  could  hardly  have  advised  the  course  actually  fol- 
lowed.^ The  fact  seems  undeniable  that  a  fund,  commonly 
called  "  the  Blind  Tax,"  was  raised  by  the  Bownes  and 
Richard  Salter,  of  Monmouth  County,  by  means  of  sub- 
scriptions from  persons  in  sympathy  with  the  Nicolls  claim- 
ants. Many  inhabitants  of  Elizabethtown  and  other  settle- 
ments gave  comparatively  small  sums,  and  the  whole  pro^- 
ceeding  was  very  badly  concealed.  Tliose  subscribing  do 
not  in  all  cases  appear  to  have  known  accurately  for  what 
purpose  the  money  was  to  be  applied,  but  it  was  clearly  un- 
derstood that  in  some  way  the  assembly  was  to  be  dissolved 
and  the  system  of  quit-rents  thereby  overthrown.  The  de- 
sire to  avoid  further  payment  of  quit-rent  was  certainly  the 
leading  motive.  The  sum  raised  was  said  to  have  been  as 
high  as  £700  or  £800,*  and  it  went  as  a  bribe  to  Cornbury 
and  those  near  him.'  Cornbury  understood,  also,  that  the 
anti-proprietary  party  would  give  him  general  support. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  iii,  p.  99.  *Ilnd.,  vol.  iii,  p.  16. 

'The  objections  offered  by  the  West  Jersey  Society  to  Coxe  as  a 
member  of  the  governor's  council  suggest  that  he  had  a  share  in  mak- 
ing the  "deal."    Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  37. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  200.     Morris  said  it  was  ;^I500;  vol.  iii,  p.  277. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  198-219. 


6io  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

The  result,  as  has  been  elsewhere  shown,  was  that  when, 
in  spite  of  every  effort  by  the  government,  the  proprietary 
interest  carried  by  a  very  close  margin  the  elections  for  the 
second  assembly,  the  executive  power  interfered,  and  by  a 
most  unjust  and  unwarranted  interpretation  of  the  instruc- 
tions excluded  three  Quaker  members  from  West  Jersey/ 
The  anti-proprietary  was  thus  put  for  a  brief  time  in  con- 
trol of  the  legislature  of  the  province. 

For  the  struggle  which  must  now  come  the  proprietors 
were,  to  say  the  least,  very  poorly  prepared.  Because  of 
their  numbers,  their  differences  in  nationality  and  character, 
and  of  their  wide  separation,  it  had  always  been  difficult  for 
them  tO'  take  vigorous  action.  The  complexity  of  their 
affairs  was,  moreover,  always  increasing  through  the  con- 
tinued subdivision  of  the  original  twenty-four  interests  by 
sale  and  inheritance.  Down  to  the  surrender  of  1702,  how- 
ever, some  degree  of  unity  had  been  maintained  through  the 
existence  of  the  council  of  proprietors.  It  is  true  that  the 
authority  of  this  body  was  denied  by  Dockwra  and  the 
"  English  Proprietors,"  yet  its  action  had  in  general  been 
effective.  But  apparently  with  the  expectation  that  the  in- 
stitution of  royal  government  would  relieve  them  of  their 
most  difficult  problem,  the  proprietors  had  disarmed  them- 
selves by  practically  abandoning  their  most  effective  weapon. 

On  Dec.  2,  1702,  the  council  of  proprietors  had  ordered 
that  an  addition  of  2,500  acres  to  a  proprietary  be  made  to 
the  second  general  dividend  of  land  declared  in  1698,  and 
it  was  ordered  that  the  surveyor-general  should  survey  to 
each  proprietor  his  share  without  further  particular  order.  ^ 
Thus  the  business  of  the  council  of  proprietors,  which  had 
consisted  largely  in  passing  upon  the  titles  of  lands  claimed, 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  88  et  seq. 
-  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  17. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         6ll 

was  dissolved,  for  a  former  regulation  was  now  renewed 
that  no  surveys  should  be  made  to  any  whose  title  did  not 
appear  upon  record  with  the  register  of  the  proprietors. 
The  register  by  means  of  this  record  henceforth  usually  cer- 
tified to  the  surveyor-general  the  share  of  each  proprietor 
desiring  lands/  The  survey  was  then  made  and  returned 
by  the  surveyor-general  or  his  deputy  as  before,  but  it  was, 
of  course,  impossible  to  issue  patents  any  longer  under  the 
great  seal  of  the  province.  The  council  of  East  Jersey, 
therefore  decided  that  henceforth  the  return  of  the  survey 
made  and  recorded  in  proper  form  should  be  a  sufficient  proof 
of  title.  This  step  was,  indeed,  merely  adopting  for  East 
Jersey  the  method  long  in  vogue  in  West  Jersey."  Having 
thus  surrendered  the  greater  part  of  their  office  to  the  sur- 
veyor-general, the  council  of  proprietors  gave  over  meeting 
3.t  any  stated  times.''  Conferences  of  the  leading  proprietors 
were  still  held  when  their  affairs  specially  required.  These 
seem  to  have  taken  place  during  the  meetings  of  the  assem- 
bly when  measures  relative  to  the  land  system  were  under 
consideration,  and  in  effect  were  no  more  than  what  we 
might  now  term  caucuses  of  the  members  of  the  houses 
belonging  to  the  proprietary  interest"  As  an  effective  cen- 
tral force  in  directing  proprietary  affairs,  the  council  of 
proprietors  of  East  Jersey  disappears  after  the  surrender. 

In  meeting  the  second  assembly  Cornbury  recommended, 
as  his  instructions  required,  legislation  confirming  the  privi- 
leges of  the  proprietors.*  He  repeated  this  recommendation 
to  other  houses.  But  these  speeches  deceived  nobody.  The 
second  assembly  not  only  passed  no  measure  providing  for 
the  interests  of  the  proprietors,  but  its  act  "  for  altering 

'  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  17. 

"* Ibid.,  p.  22.  ^ Ibid.,  p.  22. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  19,  1704. 


6i2  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

the  present  constitution  "  regulating  the  election  of  repre- 
sentatives in  the  assembly  struck  at  the  root  of  the  political 
influence  of  the  proprietors  by  doing  away  with  the  require- 
ment of  ownership  of  i,ooo  acres  of  land  for  members 
of  the  assembly  and  of  lOO  acres  for  the  right  of  suffrage. 
All  freeholders  were  declared  qualified  to  vote  and  to 
serve  in  the  assembly/  With  such  a  democratic  system 
it  was  a  foregone  conclusion  that  the  popular  party  would 
rule.  The  militia  act  was  especially  designed  to  injure  the 
Quakers  of  West  Jersey,  who  made  up  the  core  of  the  pro- 
prietary interest  there,  while  though  the  act  for  the  laying 
out  of  highroads  w^as  apparently  harmless  enough,  its  exe- 
cution, if  we  are  to  believe  Lewis  Morris,  was  given  to 
commissioners  who  made  every  effort  to  injure  their  ene- 
mies by  pulling  down  their  enclosures  and  laying  ways 
through  their  orchards.  They  even  laid  a  road  across  a 
mill-pond  to  make  a  proprietor  pull  down  his  dam  and  mills, 
though  he  oft'ered  to  build  a  bridge  for  them  which  would 
cut  off  three-fourths  of  a  mile.^  The  acts  of  the  second 
assembly  were,  it  is  true,  all  eventually  disallowed  by  the 
Crown;  but,  as  usual,  the  disallowance  was  not  known  in 
the  province  until  they  had  been  in  force  over  a  year. 

The  acceptance  of  these  acts  of  the  assembly  was,  how- 
ever, of  less  concern  for  the  proprietors  than  other  proceed- 
ings of  the  governor.  He,  of  course,  immediately  quarreled 
with  the  fiery  Morris,  who  boldly  asserted  that  Cornbury 
was  violating  the  conditions  upon  which  the  province  had 
been  surrendered.      In  the  meetings  of  the  council  during 

^  Laws  Enacted  in  1704  (Bradford  print) .  The  West  Jersey  Society 
declared  this  act  to  have  been  instigated  by  Coxe.  New  Jersey  Archives, 
vol.  iii,  p.  37. 

^Laws  Enacted  in  1704  (Bradford  print).  New  Jersey  Archives,  voL 
iii,  p.  280. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         613 

the  first  session  of  the  second  assembly  Morris  for  a  time 
endeavored  to  defeat  the  purposes  of  the  majority,  but 
eventually  he  absented  himself  and  refused  to  return  to  duty. 
Thereupon  he  was  suspended  from  the  council.^  Cornbury 
had  already  recommended  Coxe  and  Col.  Townley  for  va- 
cancies in  the  council.  He  now  recommended  Roger  Mom- 
pesson,-  and  finally  even  Peter  Sonmans.''  All  of  these 
persons  were  opponents  of  the  proprietors,  and  their  ap- 
pointment meant,  of  course,  tliat  the  upper  house  would 
henceforth  be  in  the  hands  of  their  bitter  enemies.  Coxe 
and  Sonmans  were  especially  dreaded  because  of  their  known 
animosities  and  ability.*  As  we  have  already  seen,  the  home 
authorities  did  actually  appoint  Townley,  Mompesson  and 
Coxe  in  1704,  and  Sonmans  somewhat  later.  Morris,  how- 
ever, had  too  much  influence,  and  Cornbury  was  ordered  to 
restore  him  to  his  place  upon  his  making  proper  submis- 
sion. **  But  he  would  not  resume  his  seat  while  Cornbury 
was  in  power.* 

Meanwhile  a  keen  struggle  had  been  going  on  in  Eng- 
land between  Dockwra,  Sonmans,  and  the  Coxe  interests 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  West  Jersey  Society,  with  others 
interested  in  the  Jerseys,  on  the  other.  Among  the  oppo- 
nents of  Dockwra,  Thomas  Lane,  Robert  Michell,  E.  Rich- 
ier.  and  John  Bridges  of  the  Society  were  active,  but  the 
real  leader  was  Paul  Dominique,  son  of  the  commissioner 
of  plantations,^  and  himself  later  a  member  of  the  board. 
Dockwra  had  recommended  Sonmans  for  the  council  in 
room  of  Leonard,  deceased,  as   the  representative  of  the 

'  Nfw  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii.  pp.  73-77.        "^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  78. 
^Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  154.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  35. 

''Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  124.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  225. 

''Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  51  (note). 


6i4  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

"  English  Proprietors,"  who  had  made  him  their  agent  and 
general  attorney/  But  their  opponents  submitted  objec- 
tions to  the  Lords  of  Trade,  urging  that  Sonmans  was  a 
bankrupt,  that  his  claims  in  East  Jersey  were  disputed,  and 
that  it  was  probable  that  his  lands  in  any  case  belonged 
only  to  the  Crown,  since  Arent  Sonmans  died  an  alien. " 
There  was  also  a  dispute  over  the  qualifications  of  Coxe 
for  the  council.  Dominique  and  his  party  alleged  that  Coxe 
really  had  no  interest  in  the  Jerseys  since  his  father  had  been 
bought  out  by  the  West  Jersey  Society.  They  also  accused 
him  and  Quary  of  instigating  "a  faction  of  the  poorer  sort"^ 
in  the  province  to  subvert  that  part  of  the  constitution  re- 
lating to  the  qualifications  of  members  of  the  assembly. 
Other  charges  were  also  brought.*  Coxe  easily  showed 
that  considerable  interests  had  been  reserved  when  Dr.  Coxe 
sold  to  the  West  Jersey  Society,  but  tried  to  justify  his 
conduct  in  the  political  affairs  of  the  province  by  citing  the 
approval  of  Cornbury.® 

When  the  action  of  the  second  assembly  became  known  in 
England  the  contest  was  resumed  upon  different  grounds. 
The  West  Jersey  Society  formally  petitioned  the  Lords  of 
Trade  against  Cornbury's  conduct,  asserting  that  he  was 
violating  the  conditions  of  surrender  embodied  in  his  in- 
structions.® Coxe,  Dockwra  and  Sonmans,  on  their  part, 
presented  a  memorial  praying  that  Quakers  be  excluded 
from  the  council,  assembly,  and  all  places  of  trust  in  the 
colony.  The  triumvirate  said  that  they  were  glad  that  the 
bill  altering  the  constitution  had  not  been  passed  by  the 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  40.  '■Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  35- 

^Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  37.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  27- 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  42-47.  West  Jersey  Records,  liber  B,  part  i,  pp. 
289-2g8. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  81. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         615 

Crown.  They  prayed,  however,  that  the  freeholders  in  each 
county  be  permitted  to  elect  whomsoever  they  saw  fit,  and 
begged  leave  to  offer  the  draft  of  a  proper  bill.^  The  West 
Jersey  Society  retaliated  by  another  lengthy  memorial  com- 
plaining of  Cornbury  and  thoroughly  exposing  the  infamous 
scheme  by  which  he  had  gained  control  of  the  second  assem- 
bly. They  set  forth  also  many  of  the  other  misdoings  of 
the  governor,  and  concluded  by  asking  that  Morris,  their 
agent,  be  restored  to  the  council.^ 

The  result  of  this  wordy  war  was  indecisive,  though 
rather  favorable  to  Dominique  and  the  Society.  Coxe  was 
named  for  the  council  with  the  other  persons  recommended 
by  Cornbury,*  and  the  Lords  repudiated  the  theory  of  a 
conditional  surrender  by  the  proprietors.  On  the  other, 
hand,  all  the  acts  of  the  second  assembly  were  disallowed, 
and  a  new  instruction  issued  regarding  the  constitution  of 
the  assembly  which  restored  a  high  property  qualification 
both  for  membership  in  the  assembly  and  for  the  suffrage.* 
Morris  was  ordered  restored,  and  a  letter  was  sent  by  the 
Lords  to  Cornbury  in  which,  although  he  was  approved  for 
not  passing  the  proprietors'  "long  bill"  in  its  present  form, 
he  was  told  plainly  not  to  meddle  in  the  future  with  the  re- 
sults of  elections.'  The  protests  of  the  West  Jersey  Society 
had  evidently  contributed  materially  in  shaking  the  confi- 
dence of  the  home  authorities  in  his  lordship. 

But  meanwhile  an  issue  of  even  more  immediate  import- 
ance for  the  proprietorship  had  appeared  in  the  colony  itself. 
In  1704  Peter  Sonmans  arrived  in  the  Jerseys  with  a  com- 
mission from  Dockwra  and  several  other  "  English  Propri- 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol,  iii,  p.  82. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  85.  '^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  125. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  96.  ''Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  lOO. 


5i6  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

etors  "  to  act  as  their  "  agent."  ^  He  was  authorized  by 
this  commission  to  appear  in  court  for  the  proprietors,  to 
sell  proprietary  lands  at  the  highest  price  obtainable,  to  sign 
warrants  of  survey  for  the  same,  and  upon  the  return  of 
the  surveys,  in  conjunction  with  certain  persons  named  in 
his  instructions,  and  also  such  of  the  proprietors  residing  in 
the  province  as  should  see  fit,  or  any  three  of  them,  to  grant 
patents  for  the  land.  He  might  also  suspend  the  present 
surveyor-general,  William  Lawrence,  and  appoint  a  succes- 
sor upon  his  death  or  removal.  Sonmans  was  further  to 
settle  accounts  with  all  quit-renters  and  to  prosecute  all  such 
as  refused  to  pay  the  proprietors  their  moneys.  Any  officer 
named  by  the  proprietors,  save  Dockwra,  might  be  sus- 
pended by  him.  The  commission  next  declared  the  powers 
of  the  council  of  proprietors  revoked  and  all  surveys  and 
transfers  of  land  made  by  them  void,  as  well  as  all  other 
acts.  The  agent  was  also  to  take  all  proper  legal  action  for 
recovering  Staten  Island,  which  rightfully  belonged  to  the 
proprietors.  He  was  to  appoint  rangers  on  the  proprietary 
lands  and  attend  to  many  other  lesser  matters.  In  return 
Sonmans  was  to  receive  £ioo  annually  out  of  the  quit-rents. 
The  commission  of  Sonmans  conflicted  directly  with  that 
of  John  Barclay  as  receiver-general  of  quit-rents.^  The 
question  between  them  was  of  course  a  legal  one  and  hardly 
a  matter  for  an  executive  decision.  But  Cornbury  was  in 
a  position  to  take  advantage  of  the  conflict,  and  did  not 
hesitate  to  do  so.  Although  he  seems  to  have  given  a  hear- 
ing to  the  parties,^  he  promptly  recognized  the  commission 
of  Sonmans,  and,  on  Nov.  9,  1705,  issued  a  proclamation 
recalling  his  former  proclamation  in  favor  of  Barclay  as 

'  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  p.  38.     Among  those  signing  the  com- 
mission was  William  Penn. 

"^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  331.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  131. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         617 

receiver-general  of  quit-rents  and  ordering  all  sums  due  to 
proprietors  to  be  paid  to  Sonmans. ' 

Though  Barclay  was  obliged  to  submit  for  the  time  being, 
in  1707  he  produced  before  Cornbury  and  council  a  second 
commission  as  receiver-general  of  quit-rents  signed  by  ten 
proprietors  residing  at  or  near  London,  and  superseding  the 
authority  of  Sonmans.  But  the  royal  council,  instead  of 
qualifying  him,  ordered  that  his  papers  be  taken  from  him. 
transmitted  to  England,  and  laid  before  the  Queen. '^  Mean- 
while in  May,  1708,  a  bill  in  chancery  had  been  filed  against 
Barclay  at  the  suit  of  Sonmans  and  upon  his  neglect  to 
oflfer  an  answer,  a  writ  of  commission  of  rebellion  was  made 
out  against  him.  Upon  this  he  was  arrested  and  imprisoned 
from  June  3,  1708.  until  March  12,  1708-9.  Finally  Bar- 
clay succeeded  in  obtaining  from  the  court  further  time  to 
prepare  an  answer.  He  thus  gained  his  liberty,  though  the 
contempt  of  court  was  not  cleared." 

Cornbury  had  meanwhile  ordered  the  surrender  of  the 
proprietary  records  in  the  hands  of  Gordon,  the  proprietary 
register,  to  Basse,  the  secretary  of  the  province.*  This 
order  was  served  on  Gordon  at  Shrewsbury,  and  he  en- 
deavored to  avoid  the  issue  by  saying  that  as  the  records 
were  at  Amboy  he  could  give  no  positive  information  till 
he  came  there.  He  was,  however,  arrested  and  put  under 
heavy  bail  to  answer  before  the  governor  and  council. 
Gordon  was  much  abused  by  the  governor  for  his  refusal 

'  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions ,  p.  60. 

^ Ne7o  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  331-3;  vol.  iv,  p.  43. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  375,  421. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  141,  253-4.  By  what  authority  Cornbury  acted  is 
not  clear.  The  Reneral  assembly  in  1707  declared  that  the  act  was  pure 
usurpation.  Sonmans*  commission,  however,  had  given  him  authority 
to  suspend  all  proprietary  officers. 


6i8  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

to  deliver  the  books,  but  resolutely  declared  that  ,he  could 
not  do  so  until  he  had  consulted  with  the  proprietors.  The, 
proprietors,  however,  yielded  to  necessity,  and  Gordon  fin- 
ally surrendered  the  records.^  The  records  were  delivered 
by  Basse  to  Sonmans.  Both  of  these  worthy  persons  took 
due  care  not  to  allow  their  opponents  access  to  them.  It 
was  later  declared  by  the  assembly  that  Sonmans  carried 
the  records'  out  of  the  province,^ 

The  position  of  Sonmans  was  eventually  further  strength- 
ened by  his  appointment  to  Cornbury's  council.^  This  had 
long  been  an  object  of  Dockwra  and  "the  English  Propri- 
etors," *  but  the  Lords  of  Trade  were  evidently  a  little  sus- 
picious. Being  willing  to  gratify  "  the  English  Propri- 
etors," however,  they  consulted  Cornbury  upon  Sonmans' 
qualifications.'^  Cornbury  replied  that  he  was  eminently 
suitable,  being  diligent  in  the  interest  of  the  proprietors  and 
highly  respectful  to  the  government.**  The  appointment  of 
Sonmans  was  surely  a  mistake  on  the  part  of  the  home 
authorities,  second  only  to  the  naming  of  Cornbury  and 
Ingoldsby. 

The  proprietors  were  still  by  no  means  routed.  They 
were  now  compelled,  however,  to  attack  Cornbury  through 
the  assembly  and  by  means  of  representations  to  the  Lords 
of  Trade.  Supported  by  the  provincial  government,  Son- 
mans was  free  to  exercise  his  commission  for  the  time  being, 
and  to  dispose  of  the  proprietary  lands  and  rents  as  best 
suited  his  purposes.  The  details  of  Sonmans'  administra- 
tion will  probably  never  now  be  known.  He  certainly  col- 
lected quit-rents,  probably  in  considerable  sums,  but  he  never 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  pp.  76-77. 

^Ibid.,\o\.  iii,  pp.  176-7.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  339. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  loi,  129.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  125. 
^Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  154. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         6lQ 

rendered  an  account  of  such  moneys  to  the  proprietors  in 
the  colony,  and  possibly  not  even  to  Dockwra.  At  a  later 
time  the  revived  council  of  proprietors  made  every  effort  to 
compel  him  to  give  a  statement,  but  without  success.^  The 
"  general  agent  "  also  disposed  of  proprietary  lands  rather 
recklessly.  One  important  sale  made  under  his  authority 
was  that  of  a  tract  of  about  42,000  acres  at  Ramapo,  in 
Bergen  County,  to  Peter  Fauconnier  and  a  company  of 
seven  other  well-known  Huguenots,  including  Peter  Bard 
and  Elias  Boudinot.'  A  second  was  the  "  New  Britain  " 
grant,  a  large  tract  lying  in  Essex  County  to  the  northwest 
of  Elizabethtown.  This  sale  was  also  made  to  a  company 
including  May  Bickley,  Nathaniel  Bonnell,  Richard  Town- 
ley,  William  Nicholl  and  Peter  Fauconnier,  By  the  terms 
of  the  sale  the  only  quit-rent  required  was  that  of  a  pepper- 
corn annually,  if  demanded.  Under  Ingoldsby  the  share- 
holders in  this  New  Britain  grant  succeeded  in  obtaining  a 
confirmatory  patent.'  The  efforts  of  the  legitimate  propri- 
etors to  recover  possession  of  these  tracts  gave  rise  later  to 
lengthy  legal  proceedings,  and  in  the  case  of  the  Ramapo 
lands  to  much  disorder  and  uncertainty  among  the  settlers. 
Meanwhile  an  attack  upon  Sonmans'  influence  came  from 
a  new  quarter.  His  claims  to  the  proprieties  of  his  father, 
Arent  Sonmans,  had  been  disputed  by  his  sisters  and  their 
husbands,  and  Joseph  Ormston,  the  husband  of  Rachel  Son- 
mans, was  a  merchant  of  some  influence.  In  September, 
1705,  Joseph  Ormston  obtained  from  the  Queen  herself  a 
royal  letter  directed  to  Cornbury  in  person.*  This  stated 
that,  as  Arent  Sonmans  had  died  an  alien,  his  lands  had 
reverted  to  the  Crown.      The  Crown  had  therefore  been 

'  Minutes  of  the  Couticil  of  Proprietors  of  East  Jersey,  bk.  A,  p.  1 1 . 

*  Roome,  Early  Days  and  Early  Surveys  in  East  Jersey,  p.  31  et  seq, 

*  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  p.  91.  ^  Ibid.,  p.  71. 


620  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

pleased  to  grant  all  its  rights  to  Ormston  and  Rachel  his 
wife,  to  be  held  in  trust  for  all  the  children  of  Arent  Son- 
mans,  viz.:  Peter,  Rachel,  and  Johanna,  wife  of  Joseph 
Wright.  Cornbury  was  ordered  to  prepare  and  pass,  under 
the  great  seal  of  the  province,  letters  patent  to  this  effect. 
This  letter  was  brought  to  the  province  by  John  Ormston, 
brother  of  Joseph.'  Whatever  its  legal  validity,  it  was  cer- 
tainly direct  and  binding  upon  Cornbury  himself,  who  al- 
ways made  great  parade  of  his  devotion  to  his  royal  cousin. 

But  the  passing  of  such  a  patent  would  have  gone  a  long 
way  toward  destroying  Sonmans'  influence  and  greatly  in- 
creased the  political  embarrassment  of  the  governor.  Corn- 
bury therefore  put  Ormston  off  upon  various  excuses, — the 
illness  of  his  wife,  the  non-attendance  of  a  sufficient  number 
of  the  council,  the  necessity  of  giving  a  hearing  to  Peter 
Sonmans,  and  finally  the  danger  of  a  French  attack  upon 
New  York.  Finally,  Sonmans  and  Ormston  were  both 
heard  at  length  before  the  council,  but  it  was  the  unani- 
mous decision  of  that  body  that  no  action  should  be  taken 
until  the  further  pleasure  of  the  Queen  was  known.-  Thus 
the  attack  upon  Sonmans  failed  for  the  time,  but  another 
ground  of  complaint  was  added  to  those  already  existing 
against  the  governor  and  his  clique. 

The  great  contest  between  Cornbury  and  the  third  and 
fourth  assemblies  had  meanwhile  been  raging.  The  brave 
and  determined  stand  made  by  these  bodies  against  the  ex- 
ecutive tyranny  is  highly  creditable  both  to  their  leaders 
and  to  the  province  at  large.  At  the  same  time  it  is  true 
that  those  who  took  the  lead  in  opposing  Cornbury  were 
proprietors  fighting  not  only  for  the  liberties  of  their  fellow- 
colonists,  but  also  to  preserve  their  own  pecuniary  interests 
and  the  social  and  political  influence  of  their  corporation. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  iii,  p.  i6i.        ^Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  161-3. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         62 1 

Morris,  Jennings  and  Gordon  were  striving  for  other  mo- 
tives as  well  as  patriotism. 

In  the  remonstrance  of  1707  the  putting  of  the  East 
Jersey  records  into  the  hands  of  Sonmans  was  set  forth  as 
one  of  the  seven  great  grievances  of  the  province.^  In  the 
reply  of  the  assembly  to  Cornbury's  answer/  further  tell- 
ing arguments  were  advanced  against  his  attitude  toward 
the  proprietors.  The  assembly  showed  plainly  that  Corn- 
bury  had  no  legal  power  to  judge  as  to  the  relative  holdings 
of  proprietors.  That  was  a  matter  for  judicial  decision 
alone.  Further,  even  if  Sonmans'  commission  were  ad- 
mitted as  valid,  it  gave  him  no  authority  to  keep  the  records. 
Moreover,  Sonmans  was  not  a  resident  of  the  province,  had 
given  no  security,  and  was  declared  to  be  of  notorious 
character. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  animosity  shown  by  Cornbury 
and  his  clique  against  Morris  and  Gordon  had  something 
more  than  a  political  motive.  The  continued  efforts  against 
Gordon  because  of  his  refusal  to  obey  Cornbury  in  surren- 
dering the  records  are  elsewhere  described.^  Among  other 
persons  prosecuted  before  the  corrupt  tribunals  several,  like 
Barclay  and  George  Willocks,  were  leading  proprietors.* 

The  removal  of  Cornbury  was,  of  course,  in  itself  a  great 
victory  for  the  majority  interest  among  the  proprietors  and 
may  well  have  saved  them  from  complete  ruin.  But  the 
appointment  of  Lovelace  and  the  preparation  of  his  instruc- 
tions were  the  occasion  of  a  new  struggle  between  the  fac- 
tions. This  centered  at  first  about  the  appointments  to  the 
council.     Morris  of  course  resumed  his  post  as  president,^ 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  176. 
^Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  253-5.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  75. 

^Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (1704-1715),  p.  48. 
''New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  317. 


622  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

and  the  influence  of  William  Penn  secured  the  exclusion 
of  Revell  and  Leeds  of  West  Jersey,  who  were  henchmen 
of  Col.  Coxe.^  But  the  efforts  of  the  West  Jersey  Society 
and  of  Joseph  Ormston  to  secure  the  dismissal  of  Sonmans 
did  not  succeed.-  During  this  conflict  both  factions  among 
the  proprietors  in  England  made  efforts  to  convince  the 
Lords  of  Trade  that  they  held  the  preponderating  interest. 
According  to  the  list  of  shareholders  submitted  by  Ormston 
the  persons  who  signed  Sonmans'  commission  as  "  agent " 
held  only  four  proprieties,  while  those  residing  in  and  about 
London  who  did  not  sign  held  eleven  and  three-fourths.' 
Dockwra,  however,  claimed  for  his  faction  ten  and  one- 
half,  while  those  who  did  not  sign  had  but  eight  and  three- 
fourths.*  The  difference  was  due  chiefly  to  the  fact  that 
Dockwra  credited  Peter  Sonmans  with  four  and  one-fourth 
proprieties,  while  Ormston  gave  these  to  himself  and  to 
Joseph  Wright.  The  name  of  William  Penn,  strangely 
enough,  appears  among  those  admitted  to  have  signed. 

The  administration  of  Lovelace  brought  also  an  active 
revival  of  the  conflict  of  the  proprietary  factions  in  the 
province,  but  it  was  too  brief  to  permit  a  definite  issue. 
The  struggle  is  so  closely  connected  with  the  conflict  of 
political  parties,  which  was  partly  its  outgrowth,  that  it  is 
difiicult  indeed  to  distinguish  the  twO'.  Lovelace  did  not, 
like  Hunter  later,  throw  himself  openly  into  the  arms  of 
either  faction.  As  has  already  been  indicated,  however,  he 
•inclined  to  the  proprietary  side,  which  during  his  brief  rule 
controlled  the  assembly.  Not  only  was  Fauconnier  super- 
seded as  receiver-general  by  the  proprietor,  Miles  Forster, 
as  treasurer,^  but  Thomas  Gordon  himself  became  chief  jus- 

'  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  303. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  300,  310,  312.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  313,  314. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  316.  ^Assembly  Journal,  March  24,  1708. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         623 

tice  in  room  of  his  persecutor,  Mompesson,^  This  appoint- 
ment carried  with  it  the  suspension  of  all  proceedings 
against  Barclay  and  the  other  proprietors  who  were  in  the 
clutches  of  the  courts,  and  led  indirectly  to  the  indictment 
of  Basse  and  of  Peter  Sonmans  for  various  high  crimes." 

The  bitter  warfare  of  memorials  and  addresses  carried  on 
between  the  house  and  the  lieutenant-governor  and  council 
during  Lovelace's  only  assembly  has  been  elsewhere  de- 
scribed. It  is  important  to  notice  that  the  house  directed 
especial  animosity  against  Sonmans,  and  in  a  lengthy  memo- 
rial not  only  laid  bare  his  arbitrary  and  unwarranted  con- 
duct in  numerous  legal  proceedings,  but  declared  that  the 
tyrannical  proceedings  of  Cornbury  were  partly  due  to  his 
advice.  His  personal  character,  as  usual,  was  not  spared, 
and  the  house  prayed  for  his  dismissal  from  the  council.' 
The  lengthy  address  of  defense  prepared  by  the  lieutenant- 
governor  and  council,  on  the  other  hand,  skilfully  paraded 
the  misdoings  of  the  proprietors.*  It  was  pointed  out  that 
Gordon  had  begun  the  whole  conflict  by  his  improper  con- 
duct as  sherifif  when  the  first  assembly  was  chosen.  The 
acts  of  Gordon  were  said  to  be  due  to  the  influence  of 
Morris,  Johnstone,  and  Willocks,  whose  tool  he  was." 
Much  was  made  of  the  fact  that  Johnstone  admitted  having 
tried  to  bribe  Cornbury,*  and  that  George  Willocks,  repre- 
sented as  a  leading  spirit  among  the  proprietors,  was  a 
"  high-flown  "  Jacobite,  who  refused  to  take  the  oaths  of 
allegiance  and  "upbraids  other  gentlemen — nay,  even  mem- 
bers of  the  council — with  being  damned  for  taking  them."  ' 

"^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  500. 

"^Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (1704-1715),  May  Term,  1709. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  374-8. 

'^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  390-415.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  392. 

'^Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  403.  ''Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  395. 


624  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Moreover,  the  old  decision  in  the  case  of  Jones  vs.  Fuller- 
ton  was  recited  to  show  the  injustice  of  the  claims  of  the 
proprietors  to  the  Elizabethtown  tract  ^  and  the  wickedness 
of  their  efforts  to  persuade  Cornbury  to  pass  their  "  long 
bill."  "  The  address  contained  also  a  bitter  personal  attack 
on  Lewis  Morris  and  many  other  allegations  against  the 
proprietors  too  lengthy  to  recite  here. 

The  accession  of  Ingoldsby,  however,  lost  for  the  pro- 
prietors whatever  advantages  they  had  gained  under  Love- 
lace. It  meant,  of  course,  the  revival  of  the  influence  of 
Sonmans,  Coxe,  and  Basse.  Mompesson  and  Pinhorne 
were  restored  to  their  places  at  the  head  of  the  courts,  and 
Sonmans  and  Basse  were  quickly  acquitted  by  packed  juries.'^ 
Morris  was  once  more  suspended  from  the  council,  while 
the  unfortunate  Barclay  was  by  order  of  the  council  again 
prosecuted  by  the  attorney-general  upon  information.  He 
was  charged  upon  very  insufficient  evidence  with  altering 
entries  in  the  proprietary  records.* 

The  great  efforts  made  by  Ingoldsby  and  his  council  to 
cast  upon  the  Quakers  the  blame  for  the  defeat  of  the  meas- 
ures in  aid  of  the  Nicholson- Vetch  expedition  ^  have  their 
place  also  as  events  in  the  warfare  between  the  proprietors 
and  their  opponents.  But  this  matter  chiefly  concerned  the 
proprietorship  of  West  Jersey.  Yet  we  must  recall  that  in 
the  fifth,  or  second  assembly  of  Ingoldsby's  time,  there  were 
further  developments.  Since  the  defeat  of  the  "  long  bill  " 
the  proprietors  had  apparently  made  no  further  direct  efforts 
to  secure  the  confirmation  of  their  claims  by  a  legislative 
act.     In  the  fifth  assembly,  however,  a  bill  for  settling  the 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  in,  p.  403.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  404. 

^Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  (i 704-1 715),  pp.  75,  80-1. 
^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  pp.  358,  364. 
^Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  470. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         625 

rights  of  the  proprietors  and  purchasers  was  ordered  pre- 
pared.^ As  the  majority  of  the  representatives  were  not 
strongly  in  the  interest  of  the  proprietors,  we  may  question 
whether  this  order  was  made  in  good  faith.  The  motive 
was  doubtless  to  make  it  appear  that  Ingoldsby  was  en- 
deavoring to  carry  out  his  instructions.  Bills  confirming 
the  rights  of  the  proprietors  of  the  two  divisions  respectively 
were  duly  prepared  and  laid  before  the  house.  "*  But  the 
East  Jersey  bill  was  referred  to  a  committee  with  an  anti- 
proprietary  majority,  although  Gordon  was  chosen  chair- 
man. The  committee  thereupon  proceeded  to  blot  out  and 
cancel  all  the  bill  except  the  title,  detaining  Gordon  by  force 
while  it  did  so.'  For  this  act  Capt.  Price,  Lawrence,  and 
Mott  of  the  committee  were  forced  to  ask  pardon  at  the  bar 
of  the  house;  *  but  the  assembly  at  once  voted  not  to  bring 
in  a  new  proprietary  measure.®  Under  Ingoldsby  the  fac- 
tional spirit  evidently  continued  to  run  high,  but  there  was 
after  all  little  change  in  the  situation. 

Thus,  up  to  the  accession  of  Hunter,  royal  rule  had 
brought  little  or  no  advantage  to  the  proprietors  of  East 
Jersey,  or,  to  speak  more  exactly,  to  the  majority  interest. 
The  enforcement  of  their  claims  to  the  Elizabethtown  tract 
was  as  far  off  as  ever.  The  council  of  proprietors  which 
had  given  some  show  of  unity  to  their  action  before  the 
surrender  had  been  virtually  dissolved.  The  executive  man- 
agement of  their  affairs  was  still  in  the  hands  of  their  enemy, 
Sonmans.  The  records  upon  which  a  great  part  of  the  land 
titles  of  East  Jersey  rested  were  still  in  his  control.  It 
seems  certain  that  the  payment  of  quit-rents  had  not  been 
enforced  in  the  greater  part  of  the  province,  and  such  sums 

^Assembly  Journal,  Dec.  7,  1709.  *Ibid.,  Dec.  13,  1709. 

^ Ibid.,  Jan.  2.  170Q-10.  *  Ibid.,  Jan.  3,  1709-10. 

''Ibid.    The  West  Jersey  bill  was  defeated  in  the  council. 


626  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

OS  had  been  raised  were  in  the  hands  of  Sonmans.  More- 
over, many  of  the  leading  proprietors,  as  Morris,  Gordon, 
Barclay  and  Willocks,  had  suffered  humiliating  personal 
hardships. 

But  it  is  important  to  notice  that  the  leading  part 
in  the  attack  upon  the  proprietors  has  been  taken  by 
Sonmans,  Dockwra  and  Coxe,  who  represented  the  minority 
element  among  the  proprietors  themselves.  The  old  pop- 
ular opposition  in  Elizabethtown  and  elsewhere  still  existed 
and  had  given  general  support  to  Sonmans  and  Coxe.  But 
the  alliance  was  one  of  convenience  only.  Mutual  opposi- 
tion to  the  Amboy  clique  was  the  only  bond  of  union  be- 
tween the  New  England  settlers  and  the  ring  of  speculators 
and  adventurers  who  had  seized  power,  nor  should  the  for- 
mer be  charged  with  all  the  misdoings  of  the  latter.  The 
Elizabethtown  party  were  willing  to  take  advantage  of  the 
situation  to  escape  the  hated  quit-rent,  but  cared  little  for 
the  other  questions  at  issue.  During  this  period  it  is  indeed 
rather  noticeable  that  the  persons  who  were  most  active  in 
the  assembly  and  among  the  people  in  carrying  on  the  war- 
fare against  the  proprietors  were  not  representatives  of 
Elizabethtown,  but  of  Monmouth — the  Bownes,  Richard 
Salter,  the  Lawrences,  and  Gershom  Mott. 

With  the  accession  of  the  Scot,  Robert  Hunter,  the  situa- 
tion changed.  Hunter  began  his  rule  by  an  effort  to  com- 
pose misunderstandings  and  to  secure  harmony.  In  his 
first  speech  to  the  assembly  he  pointed  out  that  successful 
government  was  impossible  if  disputes  over  property  were 
made  political  issues.  He  called  upon  all  to  conduct  them- 
selves like  good  subjects,  and  to  leave  the  decision  of  prop- 
erty disputes  to  the  courts.^  But  such  a  result  was  impos- 
sible.    The  struggle  had  been  too  bitter,  and  the  stake  in- 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  427. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         627 

volved  was  too  great.  Moreover,  it  was  well  understood 
that  there  was  no  justice  in  the  courts  as  then  constituted. 
The  first  session  of  the  sixth  assembly  was  marked  by  the 
usual  quarrel  between  Cornbury's  ring  in  the  council  and 
the  assembly,  in  which  the  council,  in  spite  of  Hunter's  pro- 
test, threw  out  nearly  all  the  measures  sent  up  for  their 
approval,^  and  the  assembly  presented  their  bitter  addresses 
against  Basse  '^  and  William  Hall.^  Sonmans  was  also  at- 
tacked by  the  assembly,  and  an  affidavit  declaring  that  he 
had  been  guilty  of  conduct  disparaging  to  the  new  governor 
was  submitted  by  sundry  inhabitants  of  East  Jersey,  among 
whom  Willocks  and  Barclay  were  prominent.* 

It  has  been  elsewhere  described  how,  under  these  circum- 
stances, Hunter  saw  that  he  must  identify  himself  with 
either  one  party  or  the  other.  He  recognized  clearly  that 
the  clique  in  the  council  was  a  corrupt  ring  acting  for  im- 
proper motives,  while  the  proprietary  party  certainly  repre- 
sented the  most  respectable  elements  in  the  colony."  It  must 
not  be  forgotten,  either,  that  Hunter  was  himself  a  Scot, 
like  Gordon,  Johnstone,  Willocks,  and  Barclay.  Hunter 
therefore  declared  war  upon  Sonmans  and  Coxe.  Prac- 
tically all  of  Cornbury's  officers,  both  civil  and  military,  were 
dismissed.  Jamison  and  Farmar  succeeded  Mompesson 
and  Pinhorne  as  judges  of  the  supreme  court,  while  Hunter 
recommended,  and  after  the  usual  unfortunate  delay  secured 
the  dismissal  of  Coxe,  Sonmans,  Pinhorne,  and  Hall  from 
the  council.  A  proprietary  majority  thenceforth  controlled 
the  upper  house  in  which,  in  addition  to  Morris,  Gordon, 
John  Anderson,  Col.  John  Hamilton  and  Elisha  Parker  were 
prominent.  The  influence  of  the  anti-proprietary  party  in 
the  executive  department  was  thus  completely  destroyed. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  51  et  seq. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  71.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  79. 

^  IfHd.,  vol.  iv,  p.  16.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  51  et  seq. 


628  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

But,  thoug-h  Hunter  had  assumed  office  in  1710,  it  was  not 
until  the  end  of  171 3  that  the  sweeping  changes  described 
had  been  carried  through/  Meanwhile  things  had  remained 
as  under  Ingoldsby. 

The  changes  in  the  colony  were,  of  course,  accompanied 
by  the  usual  struggle  in  England  between  the  West  Jersey 
Society  and  Dockwra.  Dominique  and  Richier  of  course^ 
when  consulted  by  the  Lords,  supported  the  recommenda- 
tions of  Hunter,^  Dockwra  left  no  stone  unturned  in  op- 
posing the  governor,  trying  especially  to  make  it  appear 
that  Hunter  was  attacking  the  '*  South  Britons "  and 
churchmen  in  the  province.  In  behalf  of  the  threatened 
councilors,  Dockwra  submitted  a  lengthy  letter  from  Coxe,* 
representing  the  conduct  of  Hunter  in  the  worst  light.* 

Meanwhile  Sonmans,  who  evidently  felt  the  net  tighten- 
ing about  him,  fled  from  the  province,  carrying  the  land 
records  with  him.  Warrants  were  issued  against  him,°  but 
a  trunk  containing  the  records  eventually  fell  into  the  hands 
of  Basse,  who  was  a  surveyor  of  customs  at  Burlington.. 
Basse  declared  that  he  thought  the  trunk  contained  smuggled 
goods,  and  so  opened  it,  but  some  one  had  previously  sent 
him  the  key,  and  Hunter  believed  that  the  whole  matter  had 
been  previously  arranged.  At  any  rate  Basse  refused  ta 
surrender  the  records  to  any  one.®  Sonmans  appears  to 
have  removed  to  Pennsylvania,  but  was  wise  enough  not  to 
make  himself  very  conspicuous  there.'' 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  484.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  140. 

'  No  name  is  attached  to  the  letter,  but  the  writer  speaks  of  Hugh 
Huddy  as  his  lieutenant-colonel.     Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  129. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  116,  118.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  559. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  172.  In  March,  1713-14,  the  records  were  by  order 
of  the  governor  and  council  turned  over  to  Thomas  Gordon.  Ibid., 
vol.  xiii,  p.  534. 

''New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  v,  p.  351,  but  see  also,  New 
Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  197. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         629 

Meanwhile  Hunter's  position  was  rendered  insecure,  first 
by  the  overthrow  of  the  Whig  ministry,  and  then  by  the 
death  of  Anne.  Dr.  Daniel  Coxe,  the  original  purchaser  of 
West  Jersey  from  Byllinge,  and  his  son,  Samuel  Coxe,  peti- 
tioned the  Lords  against  a  renewal  of  his  commission,^  and 
Dr.  Coxe  seconded  their  action  by  a  letter  to  the  Lords  of 
Trade  in  which  he  accused  Hunter  of  violating  his  instruc- 
tions and  of  committing  divers  other  illegal  acts.^  Hunter 
was  evidently  worried  by  this  flank  attack,'  but  he  actually 
had  little  cause  for  anxiety,  as  his  administration  had  given 
satisfaction,  and  he  was  immediately  re-commissioned.* 
Meanwhile  Col.  Coxe  and  Basse  had  been  carrying  on  an 
active  campaign  against  Hunter  in  the  province  itself,  and, 
as  has  been  elsewhere  shown,  succeeded  in  getting  control 
for  a  short  time  of  the  seventh  assembly.  The  issue  had, 
however,  now  become  partly  a  personal  one  between  Coxe 
and  the  governor,  and  partly  a  religious  question  between 
the  churchmen  and  the  Quakers.  The  supporters  of  Coxe 
were  chiefly  from  West  Jersey,  while  in  the  Eastern  division 
only  the  representatives  of  Monmouth  and  of  Bergen,  where 
it  appears  that  Sonmans  had  much  influence,  proved  willing 
to  oppose  the  governor  directly.'' 

The  expulsion  of  Coxe  and  his  followers  from  the  assem- 
bly definitely  ended  the  conflict,  and  left  Hunter  and  his 
supporters  in  control  of  the  political  situation."  Coxe, 
driven  from  the  province,  journeyed  to  England  with  the 
purpose  of  making  direct  representations  to  the  home 
government,'  while  Basse  eventually  made  his  peace  with 

'  A^fw  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  198.  "* Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p,  203. 

^  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  210.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  202. 

^Assembly  Journal,  May  21,  22,  25,  1716. 
^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  pp.  254,  255. 
'Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  262. 


630  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

the  party  in  power.  Thus,  at  length,  by  May,  17 16,  all  de- 
partments of  the  government  were  in  the  hands  of  the  pro- 
prietary party. 

Upon  the  rout  of  the  "  general  agent "  a  complete  re- 
organization of  the  proprietary  affairs  which  had  fallen  into 
such  demoralization  became  necessary.  But  as  usual  it  was 
so  hard  to  secure  unanimity  that  the  required  changes  occu- 
pied a  considerable  time,  and  indeed  were  not  completed 
until  the  next  administration.  In  171 5,  however,  shortly 
after  Hunter  had  received  his  commission  from  George  I, 
James  Smith  appeared  before  the  governor  and  council  with 
his  royal  patent  as  secretary  of  the  province,  and  also  with 
a  commission  from  the  proprietors  of  both  divisions  of  New 
Jersey  as  their  register  and  recorder.  At  the  same  time 
James  Alexander  produced  a  commission  as  surveyor- 
general  of  both  Jerseys.  Smith  and  Alexander  bore  also  a 
royal  letter,  approving  them  as  recorder  and  surveyor  re- 
spectively. Both  gentlemen  were  then  qualified  by  taking 
the  oaths,  and  the  council  ordered  a  proclamation  issued  in 
their  favor  and  prohibiting  all  other  persons  from  exercising 
the  offices  in  question.^  In  the  next  year  Alexander  re- 
ceived authority  from  Charles  Dunster  and  Joseph  Ormston, 
two  prominent  proprietors  in  England,  to  collect  proprietary 
quit-rents  and  arrearages,  which  they  believed  would 
amount  to  about  £500  per  annum,  country  money."  He 
was  evidently  admitted  as  the  authorized  receiver-general 
of  quit-rents.'  Thus  the  question  as  to  the  proper  quali- 
fication of  proprietary  officers  was  for  the  time  definitely 
settled.      As  may  be  easily  appreciated,  there  was  especial 

'  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  2-3. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  241.     Dunster  and  Ormston  state  that  they  enclose 
an  order  from  the  King  to  the  governor  to  admit  Alexander  to  the  office. 
^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  East  Jersey,  liber  A,  p.  4. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         631 

advantage  in  connecting  the  recordership  with  the  office  of 
provincial  secretary. 

The  excellent  position  of  the  proprietary  affairs  was  fur- 
ther strengthened  by  the  close  friendship  which  soon  sprang 
up  between  Governor  Hunter  and  several  of  the  leading  pro- 
prietors. Among  the  governor's  friends  Morris  ^  and  Dr. 
Johnstone  are  notable.^  James  Alexander,  also,  whose  con- 
nection with  the  proprietorship  begins  during  this  period, 
was  in  a  sense  Hunter's  protege.*  Thomas  Gordon  was  at 
first  high  in  the  confidence  of  the  governor,  and  even  the 
Jacobite,  George  Willocks,  who  seems  to  have  been  com- 
monly regarded  as  a  rather  unscrupulous  speculator,  might 
be  counted  among  Hunter's  supporters.*  But  though  Hun- 
ter's association  with  the  proprietors  was  close,  and  though 
he  was  now  virtually  their  political  leader,  there  is  no 
evidence  to  show  that  he  was  at  any  time  influenced 
by  any  but  proper  motives  in  his  attitude.  Bitterly  as  Hun- 
ter was  attacked  by  Coxe  and  his  other  opponents,  they 
never  appear  to  have  charged  him  with  corruption  in  any 
form.*^ 

But  the  time  had  already  gone  by  when  the  proprietors 
could  assert  their  claims  arbitrarily,  either  through  the  pas- 
.sage  of  a  legislative  measure  like  the  lamented  "  Long  Bill," 
or  otherwise.  Hunter  had  declared  for  a  settlement  of  all 
questions  of  property  through  the  courts,  and  even  the  pro- 
prietors must  live  up  to  the  declaration.  Yet  with  Jamison 
and  Farmar  presiding  over  the  supreme  court  a  decision  in 
their  favor  was  almost  as  certain  as  an  unfavorable  one 
would  have  been  under  Mompesson  and  Pinhorne.      From 

'  The  son  of  Lewis  Morris  was  Robert  Hunter  Morris. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  63.       ^  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  399  (note). 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  119. 

*  Burnet  was  not  so  fortunate.    Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  199. 


632  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

the  point  of  view  of  the  proprietors  the  establishment  of 
their  claims  over  the  Elizabethtown  tract  was  the  important 
issue  of  the  hour,  and  everything  did  indeed  seem  to  indi- 
cate a  final  settlement  of  the  troublesome  question  of  the 
Nicolls  grant. 

In  the  November  term  of  the  supreme  court,  in  the 
first  year  of  George  I,  the  proprietors  brought  a  test 
case  against  the  Elizabethtown  claimants.^  This  was  an 
action  brought  on  the  demise  of  the  Reverend  Edward 
Vaughan,  as  assignee  of  James  Emmott  for  recovery  of 
three  hundred  acres  granted  by  patent  to  Emmott,  April  6, 
1686,  which  tract  Joseph  Woodruff  had  acquired  by  the 
famous  Clinker  Lot  survey.  The  cause  was  tried  in  the 
next  year,  and  a  special  verdict  found  setting  forth  the  title 
of  the  proprietors,  the  Indian  purchase  of  Bailey  and  his 
associates,  and  the  Nicolls  grant.  The  former  was  on  the 
part  of  the  plaintiff,  the  latter  two  for  the  defendant.  This 
dssue  was  argued  at  length  for  several  terms,  and  finally  in 
May  term  of  the  fourth  year  of  George  I  judgment  was 
given  for  the  plaintiff.' 

The  effect  of  the  proprietary  victor^'  was  similar  to  that 
of  the  defeat  of  Capt.  James  Carteret  in  1670.  With  the 
strong  hand  of  Hunter  at  the  helm  any  riotous  or  rebellious 
outbreak  was  of  course  impossible,  and  the  Elizabethtown 
people  had  to  face  the  inevitable.  They  accordingly  pro- 
ceeded to  buy  up  the  proprietary  rights  to  numerous  tracts, 
lying  in  lands  still  held  by  the  proprietors  in  common,  and 
to  have  their  lands  appropriated  to  them  under  the  propri- 
etary agreements  for  apportioning  dividends.  Between  171 7 
and  1 72 1  no  less  than  forty-five  such  surveys  to  inhabitants 

^Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  46;  Hatfield,  History  of  Eliza- 
beth, p.  307. 

-  An  appeal  to  the  governor  and  council  by  Woodruff  was  fruitless. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         633 

of  Elizabethtown  were  recorded.  Several  of  these  were 
made  to  descendants  of  the  original  associates,  as  Joseph 
Meeker,  Nathaniel  Whitehead.  Benjamin  Ogden,  Robert 
Ogden,  and  Benjamin  Bond.  Several  were  made  to  John 
Harriman,  the  Clinker  Lot  surveyor,  and  it  is  asserted  that 
he  accepted  a  "deputation"  from  the  surveyor-general,  and 
himself  performed  many  of  the  surveys.^  But  though  the 
dispute  over  the  Nicolls  grant  thus  seemed  to  be  settled,  it 
is  clear  that  the  Elizabethtown  claimants  by  no  means  aban- 
doned their  hopes  of  reopening  the  question  in  the  future. 

It  was  only  natural  that,  under  these  conditions,  there 
should  be  a  considerable  revival  of  proprietary  activity,  and 
ax:cordingly  we  find  that  from  about  the  time  of  Hunter's 
victory  over  Sonmans  and  Coxe  the  taking-up  of  dividends 
and  parts  of  dividends  by  proprietors  went  on  much  more 
actively  than  before.  For  example,  from  1716  to  1730  no 
less  than  thirty-five  surveys  were  made  to  proprietors  within 
the  limits  of  the  Elizabethtown  tract.^  The  surveys  made 
to  the  inhabitants  during  this  period  were  mostly  for  small 
amounts,  the  largest  being  to  Henry  Norris  for  only  two 
hundred  acres.  But  several  of  the  surveys  to  proprietors 
were  for  large  amounts.  Willocks,  in  1716,  secured  9,000 
acres;  William  Penn,  in  1717.  7,500  acres;  James  Logan 
and  John  Budd,  in  1720,  8,990  acres;  and  the  West  Jersey 
Society  the  huge  tract  of  91,895  acres,  only  a  part  of  which, 
however,  lay  within  the  disputed  district.  But  these  tracts 
were  exceptionally  large.  The  other  proprietary  surveys 
were  mainly  for  amounts  under  300  acres. 

Under  these  conditions  the  proprietors  were  able  to  turn 
their  serious  attention  to  the  two  boundary  disputes  which 
had  caused  more  or  less  trouble  in  the  Jerseys  ever  since  the 

^  Elizabethtotvn  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  46,  appendix,  schedule  ix. 
'^ Ibid.,  appendix,  schedule  iii. 


634  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

sale  by  Lord  John  Berkeley  to  Edward  Byllinge.  The  first 
of  these  was  regarding  the  line  of  division  between  East  and 
West  Jersey,  and  the  other  as  to  the  northern  boundary  be- 
tween New  Jersey  and  New  York.  The  grant  of  East  Jer- 
sey made  by  James  of  York  to  Carteret  in  July,  1674,  had 
conveyed  all  lands  north  of  a  line  from  Barnegat  to  a  creek 
on  the  Delaware  next  below  Rankokus-kill.^  But  by  the 
quintipartite  division  of  1676  Carteret  agreed  with  the  pro- 
prietors of  West  Jersey  upon  a  new  line.  This  line  was  to 
be  drawn  from  the  most  northerly  point  of  the  province  to 
the  most  southerly  point  of  the  east  side  of  Little  Egg 
Harbor,^  The  northernmost  point  of  the  province  was  "ye 
Northernmost  Brance  of  the  said  Bay  or  River  of  Delaware, 
which  is  in  fourtie  one  degrees  and  fourtie  minutes  of 
Lattitude."  ' 

There  had  been  no  reason,  however,  for  the  actual  run- 
ning of  the  line  between  East  and  West  Jersey  until  the 
former  province  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  twenty-four 
proprietors.  But  in  1683  Governor  Gawen  Lawrie  of  East 
Jersey  was  instructed  to  make  all  needful  preparations  to- 
ward the  actual  survey  of  the  boundary.*  At  length,  at  a 
council  held  at  Fort  James,  New  York,  in  June,  1686,  Gov- 
ernor Lawrie  of  East  Jersey  and  Governor  John  Skene  of 
West  Jersey  agreed  with  Dongan  of  New  York  that  the 
lines  of  the  three  provinces  should  be  run.  As  the  first  step, 
it  was  to  be  determined  which  was  the  northernmost  branch 
of  the  Delaware,  and,  if  any  controversy  arose,  it  was  to 
be  determined  by  the  votes  of  two  of  the  three  surve)'-ors 
designated:  George  Keith,  Andrew  Robinson,  and  Philip 
Wells.  ^  These  well-considered  arrangements,  however,  led 
to  no  satisfactory  result.     This  outcome  may  have  been  due 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  pp.  161,  162.         ^Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  212. 
^Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  12.        ^ Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  428.        '"Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  517. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE 


635 


to  the  fact  that  there  is  no  point  on  the  Delaware  River 
proper  in  41°  40',  nor  indeed  very  near  it.* 

In  September,  1686,  therefore,  Robert  Barclay  and  Ed- 
ward Byllinge,  as  governors  of  the  two  Jerseys,  entered 
into  a  formal  agreement  to  submit  the  question  of  the  boun- 
dary between  their  provinces  to  arbitration.-  The  arbitra- 
tors were  to  make  as  equal  a  division  of  New  Jersey  as 
they  could,  according  to  their  best  judgment  and  skill,  and 
John  Ried  and  William  Emley  were  chosen  to  make  the 
award.  They,  on  Jan.  8,  1686-7,  decided  that  the  line  be- 
tween East  and  West  Jersey  should  run  from  the  north  side 
of  the  inlet  at  Little  Egg  Harbor  "  on  a  straight  line  to 
Delaware  river,  northwest  and  fifty  minutes  more  westerly 
according  to  natural  position  and  not  according  to  the  mag- 
net whose  variation  is  nine  degrees  westward."  '  This  line 
would  pass  within  seven  miles  of  the  falls  of  the  Delaware 
and  strike  that  river  far  south  of  41°  40'.*  Therefore 
strong  opposition  seems  to  have  been  at  once  offered  to  the 
award  by  the  "  West  Jersians,"  who  regarded  it  as  unfair 
to  their  division.  George  Keith,  the  surveyor-general  of 
East  Jersey,  however,  undertook  to  survey  the  line.  He 
began  at  Egg  Harbor  and  ran  the  line  for  about  sixty  miles 
till  it  struck  the  south  branch  of  the  Raritan  near  Three 
Bridges.  But  at  this  point  Keith  found  himself  within  lands 
claimed  under  grant  from  East  Jersey,  and  either  for  this 
or  other  reason  did  not  persist.  "^     Further  controversy  be- 

'  Whitehead  states  that  Robinson  and  Wells  located  the  point  on  the 
Delaware,  though  the  northern  boundary  line  was  not  run.  Proceedings 
of  the  New  Jersey  Historical  Society,  vol.  viii,  p.  163. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  519. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  523.  This  is  often  called  the  Greenland  award  because 
made  at  the  house  of  Henry  Greenland  of  Piscataway. 

*  Voorhees,  E.  and  W.  Boundary  Line  Controversy,  p.  10. 
''Ibid.,  p.  \i  et  seq. 


636 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


tween  the  proprietors  followed,  and  the  "  East  Jersians  " 
appear  to  have  contemplated  continuing  Keith's  line  or  suing 
for  the  face  of  the  five  hundred  pounds  bond  given  by  the 
"  West  Jersians  "  to  abide  by  the  award.  ^ 

But  finally,  in  1688,  Robert  Barclay  of  East  Jersey  and 
Dr.  Daniel  Coxe  who  claimed  full  governmental  authority 
over  West  Jersey  made  a  new  agreement  for  the  division 
of  the  province."  Keith's  line  was  to  be  adopted  as  far  as 
surveyed.  Then  the  line  was  to  continue  across  the  south 
branch  of  the  Raritan  in  a  northeasterly  direction  to  the 
north  branch,  then  up  this  to  its  north  end,  and  thence  east- 
ward to  the  nearest  point  on  the  Passaic;  thence  down  this 
to  its  junction  with  the  Pequanac,  and  up  this  as  long  as  it 
runs  northerly  or  northwesterly  to  the  bounds  of  the  prov- 
ince, or  until  it  reaches  41°,  and  then  due  east  to  "  Hudson's 
River."  In  obtaining  this  agreement  Coxe  secured  a  great 
advantage.  There  were  in  the  province  7,795  square  miles. 
West  Jersey  received  5,403,  while  East  Jersey  had  only  2,- 
392.^  The  agreement  was  naturally  confirmed  by  the  coun- 
cil of  proprietors  of  West  Jersey,^  but  it  was  so  greatly  to 
the  disadvantage  of  East  Jersey  that,  much  as  Barclay  was 
respected,  the  other  proprietors  of  that  section  rejected  it. 

As  a  result  the  line  had  simply  remained  unsettled  since 
that  time  and  serious  inconvenience  had  followed.  Divers 
surveys  on  West  Jersey  rights  were  made  to  the  east  of 
Keith's  line,  while  an  even  more  troublesome  conflict  of 
claims  occurred  to  the  north  and  west  on  the  Delaware.' 
With  the  rehabilitation  of  the  East  Jersey  proprietorship 
under  Hunter  it  was  felt  by  all  concerned  that  a  definite 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  p.  522;  vol.  ii,  p.  24. 
^ Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  34.  '^  Voorhees  op.  cit.,  p.  14. 

'^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  i,  p.  15. 
^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  pp.  377,  380. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         637 

settlement  was  necessary,  especially  when  a  prominent  part 
in  East  Jersey  councils  was  being  taken  by  those  energetic 
land  speculators,  Willocks  and  Johnstone.  Accordingly  the 
"  West  Jersians  "  opened  negotiations  with  the  proprietors 
of  East  Jersey  through  James  Logan,  the  well-known 
"  agent "  of  William  Penn,  who  was  now  taking  an  active 
interest  in  the  Jerseys.  In  a  letter  to  George  Willocks  of 
December,  17 18,  Logan,  while  insisting  upon  the  interpre- 
tation put  by  the  West  Jersey  proprietorship  upon  the  terms 
of  the  agreement  of  Coxe  and  Barclay,  nevertheless  ad- 
mitted that  the  two  governors  had  acted  absurdly  in  en- 
deavoring to  alter  so  arbitrarily  the  original  contract  be- 
tween Carteret  and  the  Friends.  Logan  urged  the  necessity 
of  an  arrangement  which  would  give  justice  to  those  who 
had  purchased  from  either  division  in  good  faith.* 

The  result  of  the  negotiations  between  the  proprietors  of 
the  two  divisions  was,  that  after  active  work  on  both  sides,'' 
Hunter's  last  assembly  was  induced  to  pass  an  "Act  for 
Running  and  Ascertaining  the  Line  of  Partition  or  Divi- 
sion between  the  Eastern  and  Western  Divisions  of  New 
Jersey  and  for  Preventing  Disputes  for  the  Future  Con- 
cerning the  Same,  etc."  "  According  to  the  arrangement 
therein  provided  for,  the  agreement  between  Coxe  and  Bar- 
clay was  to  be  entirely  set  aside  and  a  return  to  be  made  to 
the  "  Indenture  Quintipartite,"  wherein  the  line  of  division 
was  intended  to  run  from  the  most  northerly  point  of  the 
northernmost  branch  of  the  Delaware  River*  to  the  most 

^  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  377.  For  further  evidence  of  the  fairness  of  Logan 
see  ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  390. 

*In  November,  1718,  the  West  Jersey  council  declared  that  the  Bar- 
clay-Coxe  line  was  the  true  one  and  that  the  attempt  by  East  Jersey  to 
alter  it  would  lead  to  confusion  and  injury. 

'  Allinson,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey. 

*The  northernmost  point  on  the  Delaware  River  was  about  to  be  fixed 


538  '^^^  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

southerly  point  of  the  east  side  of  Little  Egg  Harbor.  This 
original  line  was  to  be  run  "  straight  and  direct."  A  com- 
putation was  then  to  be  made  of  all  lands  taken  up  by  the 
Eastern  proprietors  to  the  westward  of  the  line  and  east  of 
Keith's  line  of  1687.  All  such  lands  were  to  be  confirmed 
to  the  persons  holding  them.  A  survey  and  computation 
was  also  to  be  made  of  lands  taken  up  by  the  Western  pro- 
prietors eastward  of  the  line.  If  the  two  quantities  bal- 
anced, possession  was  to  be  free,  but  in  case  one  overbal- 
anced the  other,  the  difference  was  to  be  made  up  out  of  lands 
taken  up  and  surveyed  for  the  proprietors  of  the  division 
which  held  the  excess.  But  no  lands  already  improved  were 
to  be  taken  as  such  equivalent.  Lands  taken  as  equivalent 
were  to  be  held  as  belonging  to  the  division  by  the  propri- 
etors of  which  they  were  held.  It  was  also  declared  that, 
until  it  was  determined  of  what  amount  the  discount  should 
consist,  no  land  should  be  surveyed  or  taken  up  in  either 
division  except  tracts  of  not  above  one  hundred  acres  be- 
longing to  actual  inhabitants  and  settlements. 

A  very  important  portion  of  the  act  then  followed,  which 
related  not  to  the  boundary  line  but  to  the  more  proper 
keeping  of  all  proprietary  records  within  the  respective 
divisions.  It  was  enacted  that  the  respective  surveyors- 
general  should  henceforth  keep  duly  established  offices  at 
Amboy  and  Burlington,  wherein  should  be  carefully  kept 
the  surveys  of  all  lands  thereafter  made.  These  were  to  be 
held  good  evidence  of  title  and  might  be  pleaded  in  suits 
at  law.  The  surveyors-general  were  also  authorized  to  sue 
for  and  to  recover  all  maps,  draughts,  books  of  surveys,  etc., 
from  all  persons  throughout  the  province  which  might  be 

by  a  joint  commission  of  the  Jerseys  and  New  York  provided  for  under 
the  act  "for  running  and  ascertaining  the  division  line  between  this 
province  and  New  York." 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         639 

of  use  for  proving  the  rights  of  the  proprietors  and  those 
claiming  under  them.  These  were  to  be  safely  kept  within 
the  respective  offices.  But  such  as  were  private  property 
were  to  be  returned  to  their  owners  when  authenticated 
copies  had  been  made.  For  the  proper  delivering  of  all 
such  records  to  their  successors  the  said  surveyors  were 
to  give  £1000  security  to  Governor  Hunter.  To  pre- 
vent difficulties  which  had  previously  arisen  from  per- 
sons having  surveys  made  and  not  recorded,  it  was  or- 
dered that  all  surveys,  the  certificates  of  which  were  in  the 
hands  of  inhabitants  of  the  Jerseys  or  of  neighboring  prov- 
inces, and  which  were  not  recorded  within  two  years,  should 
be  void.  If  the  certificates  were  held  beyond  sea,  they  must 
be  recorded  within  three  years. 

For  the  execution  of  this  act,  as  well  as  for  that  of  the  act 
for  running  the  line  between  New  Jersey  and  New  York, 
the  proprietors  were  to  raise  such  sums  as  were  necessary, 
since  the  assembly  had  refused  to  saddle  the  charges 
upon  the  province.^  Commissioners  and  managers  for  the 
running  of  the  lines  were  appointed;  for  the  eastern  divi- 
sion John  Hamilton.  David  Lyell,  George  Willocks,  and 
John  Harrison;  and  for  the  western,  Isaac  Sharp,  James 
Logan,  Thomas  Lambert,  and  John  Reading.  These  per- 
sons were  after  due  consultation  with  the  proprietors,  to 
collect  and  receive  the  sums  necessary,  but  the  sums  were 
not  to  exceed  £650  for  East  Jersey  and  £500  for 
West  Jersey.  The  commissioners  were,  moreover,  given 
power  to  act  in  the  courts,  to  sell  and  convey  lands, 
and  to  do  all  that  should  be  necessary  for  the  execution  of 
their  duties.  But,  if  it  was  found  necessary  to  sell  lands 
for  the  purpose  of  raising  funds,  the  managers  of  the  east- 
ern division  were  to  sell  no  more  than  four  thousand  acres, 

'  Assembly  Journal,  Jan.  23,  1718-19. 


640  7^^^  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

and  that  in  one  tract  out  of  the  unappropriated  lands.  The 
managers  were  further  empowered,  by  the  consent  of  the 
major  part  of  their  proprietors  or  their  agents,  to  appoint 
the  surveyor-general  and  such  other  persons  as  were  neces- 
sary to  run  the  lines  and  to  make  the  surveys. 

The  managers  were  to  have  as  emolument  ten  per  cent 
of  all  sums  raised.  If  any  of  the  managers  died  or  refused 
to  serve,  the  governor  for  East  Jersey  and  the  council  of 
proprietors  for  West  Jersey  were  to  name  successors. 

Though  the  act  of  1719  failed  in  the  attainment  of  its 
immediate  objects,  it  brought  important  results.  Hence- 
forth the  surveyor-general's  offices  were  more  regularly 
maintained,  and  the  surveys  entered  in  separate  books  in  a 
systematic  manner  instead  of  being  recorded  almost  at  ran- 
dom amid  other  proprietary  records.  The  chances  of  dis- 
putes and  uncertainties  over  land  titles  were  thus  greatly 
decreased.  It  is  certainly  a  fair  inference  to  attribute  the 
carrying  out  of  the  new  system,  if  not  indeed  its  origin,  to 
the  surveyor-general,  James  Alexander,  whose  ability  is  fully 
demonstrated  by  an  abundance  of  other  evidence.^ 

But,  in  spite  of  the  act,  the  question  of  the  division  line 
was  not  yet  settled.  The  commissioners  named  in  the  act 
met  after  a  short  interval  at  "  Trentham,"  and  agreed  to 
run  the  line  as  soon  as  possible,^  The  proprietors  of  the 
eastern  division  were,  of  course,  anxious  that  this  should  be 
done,  and  the  council  of  West  Jersey  approved  the  action 
of  their  commissioners,  and  named  John  Reading  to  attend 
Alexander  in  running  the  line.  But  serious  opposition 
came  from  Col.  Coxe,  then  in  England  making  representa- 
tions against  the  Hunter  regime.  He  held  large  interests 
on  the  upper  Delaware  which  he  apparently  believed  tO'  be 

*The  office  at  Burlington  was,  however,  kept  by  Isaac  Decowe  as 
deputy. 
^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii,  p.  208. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         64 1 

threatened  by  the  act.^  Accordingly  he  entered  a  caveat 
against  it,^  and  by  his  activity  made  its  acceptance  by  the 
home  authorities  doubtful.^  Still,  the  line  would  no  doubt 
have  been  run  had  it  not  been  for  the  retirement  of  Hunter, 
who  just  at  this  time  turned  over  the  government  to  Burnet. 
Coxe  now  returned  to  the  Jerseys,  and  soon  succeeded  in 
gaining  a  leading  influence  in  the  council  of  West  Jersey 
proprietors  itself,  of  which  he  actually  became  president.* 
As  a  result,  the  West  Jersey  proprietors  not  only  refused 
to  cooperate  further  in  the  running  of  the  line,  but  began 
to  make  efforts  to  secure  the  disallowance  or  repeal  of  the 
act  which  authorized  it.°  The  East  Jersey  proprietors  were 
therefore  left  with  the  act  in  their  favor  but  without  the 
power  to  secure  its  execution  in  due  form.  The  further 
development  of  the  question  will  be  considered  later. 

Closely  connected  with  the  question  of  the  division  line 
was  the  matter  of  the  northern  boundary  of  New 
Jersey.  When  the  territory  concerned  was  still  a  wilder- 
ness, the  exact  location  of  the  boundary  made  little 
difference.  Yet  some  efforts  to  adjust  the  difficulty  had 
been  made  during  the  proprietary  period.  New  York 
had  at  one  time  advanced  the  almost  absurd  claim  that 
the  dividing  line  should  run  from  the  head  of  Con- 
necticut River  to  Reedy  Island  at  the  head  of  Dela- 
ware Bay.  This  claim  was,  of  course,  based  upon  a 
manifest  misinterpretation  of  the  working  of  Charles  IFs 
first  grant,  and  was  soon  given  up.  It  appears  that  after 
the  meeting  held  in  1686  by  Governors  Dongan,  Lawrie, 
and  Skene,  the  surveyors  by  them  appointed  proceeded  to 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  386.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  445. 

'The  act  was  confirmed  by  the  Crown,  but  not  until  1729;  ibid.,  vol. 
xiv,  pp.  451-2. 
*  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii. 
^Ibid.,  bk.  iii,  pp.  239,  243,  251. 


642  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

fix  the  point  41°  upon  the  west  shore  of  the  Hudson.  This 
point  they  located  upon  the  "  high  chfts  of  the  Point  of 
Tapaan/'  one  minute  and  twenty-five  seconds  to  the  north- 
ward of  "Younckers  Milne."  ^  Nevertheless  the  rest  of  the 
boundary  line  was  left  undetermined.  But  it  was  later 
claimed  on  behalf  of  New  York  that  the  true  point  fell  due 
westward  of  Yonkers  Mills,  and  that  the  division  line 
should  run  west  to  the  forks  on  the  Delaware,  where  Easton 
now  stands.  It  was  even  asserted  that  Governor  Hamilton 
of  East  Jersey  had  admitted  that  the  point  on  the  Hudson 
was  directly  opposite  Frederick  Phillipp's  lower  mills. ^ 

Under  the  royal  rule  the  growth  of  New  Jersey  to  the 
north  and  west  was  rapid,  and  during  the  proprietary  re- 
vival under  Hunter  divers  East  Jersey  proprietors  took  up 
lands  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  upper  Delaware.  Among 
these  were  Willocks  and  Johnstone.  Disputes  over  land 
titles  became  really  dangerous  to  the  peace  of  the  provinces,' 
and  the  matter  was  made  worse  by  the  wholesale  smuggling, 
in  which  the  officials  of  New  York  believed  that  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  disputed  district  engaged.  When  Hunter  met 
his  last  assembly  he  was,  however,  able  to  inform  them  that 
he  had  already  procured  an  act  from  the  assembly  of  New 
York,  making  an  appropriation  for  running  the  line  and 
authorizing  him  to  appoint  commissioners  to  cooperate  in 
so  doing  with  representatives  of  the  Jerseys.  He  urged 
upon  the  New  Jersey  assembly  the  need  of  action  in  the 
matter.*  The  assembly  proved  willing  enough  to  make 
suitable  arrangements  for  running  the  line,  but  unwilling  to 
put  the  expense  upon  the  province.  An  act  for  running  the 
line  was  accordingly  passed,  and  the  act  for  determining  the 

^Nezv  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  pp.  520,  521;  but  see  vol.  iv,  p.  414. 
'^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  434.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  441,  446. 

*^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  365. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         643 

division  line  between  East  and  West  Jersey  ordered  that 
the  commissioners  named  for  that  purpose  should  have 
charge  of  the  running  of  the  province  line  as  well  and  that 
their  further  expenses  should  also  be  met  by  the  proprie- 
tors.' The  New  York  commissioners  were  Robert  Walter 
and  Isaac  Hicks,  with  Allan  Jarret  as  surveyor.^ 

The  commissioners  proceeded  to  work  promptly.  John 
Harrison  6i  East  Jersey  was  dispatched  upon  a  preliminary 
trip  from  the  Delaware  to  the  Susquehanna  and  back  again 
for  the  purpose  of  locating  all  the  branches  of  the  Delaware.'' 
He  was  followed  by  the  commissioners,  and  in  due  time  a 
tripartite  indenture  was  signed  by  .Walker,  Hicks,  and  Jar- 
ret  for  New  York,  by  Johnstone  and  Willocks  for  East 
Jersey,  by  Joseph  Kirkbridge  and  John  Reading  for  West 
Jersey,  and  by  James  Alexander  as  surveyor-general  for 
both  Jerseys.  This  indenture  solemnly  declared  the  "  so- 
called  Fisk-Kill  "  to  be  the  northernmost  branch  of  the 
Delaware  as  well  as  the  main  branch,  and  located  definitely 
the  point  41°  40'.*  But  their  other  proceedings  were  not 
so  happy.  Jarret  and  Alexander  next  endeavored  to  fix  the 
point  41°  on  the  Hudson.  The  result  was,  however,  an 
annoying  difference  of  opinion.  According  to  Jarret's 
statement,  their  first  observations  made  the  point  fall  north- 
ward near  Tappan  Creek,  but  it  soon  appeared  that  the  quad- 
rant was  incorrect.      Alexander  pointed  out  a  method  for 

'  Allinson,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  382.  ^  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  391. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  393.  The  recognition  of  the  Fisk-Kill  as  a  branch 
of  the  Delaware  within  the  meaning  of  the  original  grant  was,  of  course, 
a  great  victory  for  New  Jersey  in  the  light  of  the  later  controversy. 
The  later  contention  advanced  by  New  York  was  that  the  northernmost 
point  on  the  Delaware  was  in  41°  21',  where  the  Fisk-Kill  and  the 
Mahackamack.  now  known  as  Neversink  Creek,  branch  from  the  main 
stream. 


644  ^^^  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

correcting  the  errors  of  the  instrument,  but  this  method 
Jarret  would  not  accept.  As  no  agreement  could  be  reached, 
the  New  York  surveyor  laid  the  whole  matter  before  the 
council  at  New  York,  declaring  that  nothing  further  could 
be  done  until  an  instrument  of  jfive  or  six  foot  radius  could 
be  obtained  from  England.  He  also  repudiated  the  tripar- 
tite indenture,  although  he  had  previously  signed  it.^  The 
council  at  New  York,  considering  "  that  Jarret  was  selected 
as  the  most  able  mathematician  in  the  province,"  advised 
the  governor  to  suspend  all  operations  until  the  new  quad- 
rant could  be  procured." 

But  numerous  of  the  jSiew  Jersey  proprietors,  unwilling 
to  surrender  their  advantage,  drew  up  a  memorial,  present- 
ing an  able  argument  in  favor  of  Alexander's  position.  It 
quoted  Alexander  to  the  effect  that  Jarret  had  at  the  time 
not  denied  that  the  errors  in  the  instrument  could  be  recti- 
fied, that  he  had  apparently  not  understood  all  the  mathe- 
matical points  concerned,  and  that  he  had  been  captious  and 
tried  to  hinder.^  This  memorial  was  presented  to  Lewis 
Morris,  at  the  time  acting  as  president  of  the  council  of 
New  Jersey,  and  by  him  sent  to  the  Lords  of  Trade  with  a 
letter  in  which  he  declared  that  the  inhabitants  on  the  border 
line  were  near  bloodshed  over  the  quarrel.  They  agreed,  he 
said,  only  in  not  paying  taxes  to  either  colony.* 

The  president  of  the  New  York  council.  Colonel  Philip 
Schuyler,  on  the  other  hand,  sent  to  the  Lords  a  copy  of 
Jarret's  petition^  and  another  from  divers  inhabitants  of 
the  province  who  were  concerned.®  This  latter  document 
offered  objection  to  many  features  in  the  work  of  the  com- 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  pp.  403,  426. 
*Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  406.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  408. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  441-3.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  iv.  p.  431. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  433,  438. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         645 

mission,  and  among  other  things  to  the  appointment  as 
commissioners  for  East  Jersey  of  Willocks  and  Johnstone 
who  were  concerned  in  a  pecuniary  way  in  the  outcome. 

As  New  York  refused  to  take  further  action,  the  matter 
rested  for  the  time,  since  the  home  authorities,  of  course, 
took  no  immediate  action.  The  further  developments  in 
the  case  fall  beyond  our  period,  but  it  may  be  well  to  add 
that  eventually  in  1767  a  commission  was  named  by  the 
Crown  to  decide,  and  the  line  was  run  from  the  fork  where 
the  Delaware  branches  into  the  Fish-Kill  and  the  Mahack- 
amack,  in  41°  21'  19",  to  the  rock  upon  the  Hudson  first 
marked  by  Alexander  and  Jarret  as  41°.  Neither  party 
gained  its  entire  claim,  though  the  interests  of  New  Jersey 
were,  of  course,  sacrificed  to  a  far  greater  degree  than  those 
of  New  York  by  the  giving-up  of  the  point  41°  40'.  Yet 
the  line  was  accepted  after  much  grumbling.  It  is  interest- 
ing to  notice  that  the  point  on  the  Fish-Kill  fixed  in  the  tri- 
partite indenture  has  been  sustained  as  marking  the  end  of 
the  dividing  line  between  East  and  West  Jersey,^  and  that 
the  Fish-Kill  itself  is  now  commonly  recognized  as  a  part 
of  the  Delaware. 

In  close  logical  connection  with  the  settlement  of  the 
northern  boundary  was  the  question  of  the  ownership  of 
Staten  Island.  This  island  is,  of  course,  geographically  a 
part  of  New  Jersey,  and  it  was  no  doubt  the  intention  of 
Charles  II  to  convey  it  to  Berkeley  and  Carteret.  The  gov- 
ernment at  New  York  had,  however,  asserted  its  authority 
over  the  island  from  the  beginning,  maintaining  that,  since 
one  arm  of  "  Hudson's  River  "  flowed  around  it,  it  was 
not  conveyed  to  Carteret."  During  the  proprietary  period 
there  had  been  certain  attempts  to  open  the  question,  not- 

'  Whitehead,  Proceedings  of  the  N.  J.  Hist.  Soc,  vol.  viii,  p.  186. 
■■'Broadhead,  Nezt'  Y'ork,  vol.  ii,  p.  149. 


646  ^'^^  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

ably  during  the  brief  proprietorship  of  the  Lady  Elizabeth 
Carteret/  but  nothing  had  been  accomplished.  After  the 
surrender  to  the  Crown,  the  irrepressible  Sonmans  and 
Dockwra  presented  a  petition,  in  1704,  to  the  Lords  of 
Trade  urging  the  claims  of  New  Jersey  to  Staten  Island," 
but  there  was  apparently  no  result.^  There  was,  of  course, 
the  feeling  that  the  Crown  might  resent  any  attempt  to 
assert  title  to  the  Island  as  an  attack  upon  its  own  power. 
The  question  was  not  reopened  actively  until  after  the  union 
period,  but  it  appears  that  uneasiness  had  at  times  been 
caused  by  ill-considered  assertions  of  New  Jersey's  claims.* 

The  almost  complete  triumph  of  the  proprietors  of  East 
Jersey  under  Hunter  was  not,  however,  an  unmixed  bless- 
ing to  the  province,  for  we  have  the  confidential  assertion 
of  James  Alexander  that  some  among  them  took  advantage 
of  their  powers  to  carry  through  dishonorable  speculations 
in  land.°  This  was  generally  done  by  misrepresenting  the 
number  of  acres  in  surveys.  Alexander  believed  that  John- 
stone and  Willocks  were  especially  guilty,  saying  that  they 
held  a  tract  of  30,000  acres  on  the  north  branch  of  the 
Raritan  under  the  name  of  3,150  acres.  Alexander  speaks 
also  of  patents  for  lands  given  in  blank  by  "  the  governor  " 
to  his  friends  so  that  they  might  fill  in  any  amounts  they 
wished.  Which  governor  /Vlexander  meant  does  not 
appear,  but  it  was  certainly  one  of  the  proprietary  execu- 
tives, as  no  royal  governor  could  grant  such  patents.® 

Just  as  Hunter  left  New  Jersey  a  new  movement  was 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  i,  pp.  349,  350,  353. 
^Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  61. 

^Col.  Quary  asserted  that  the  proprietors'  "  Long  Bill"  would  have 
robbed  the  Crown  of  all  Staten  Island.    Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  17. 
^Ibid.y  vol.  i,  p.  484.  "Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  57  et  seg. 

*  Interesting  confirmation  of  Alexander's  statements  appears  in  a  letter 
of  Charles  Dunster;  ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  107. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         647 

developing  among  the  proprietors  to  have  themselves  "  in- 
corporated "  by  an  act  of  assembly.  Alexander  believed 
that  the  object  was  not  merely  to  obtain  greater  efficiency 
in  the  handling  of  the  proprietary  affairs,  but  to  arrange 
the  terms  of  the  incorporation  in  such  a  way  as  to  give 
complete  control  to  the  Amboy  clique.  The  prime  movers 
in  the  scheme  were,  as  usual,  Johnstone  and  Willocks,^ 

But  just  as  Hunter  had  shown  his  statesmanship  by  com- 
mitting himself  entirely  to  the  proprietary  party,  so  Burnet 
gave  a  high  proof  of  his  integrity  and  skill  in  taking  up  a 
more  impartial  attitude.  His  administration  indeed  opened 
by  a  sharp  break  between  himself  and  certain  of  the  pro- 
prietors. His  violent  and  somewhat  unseemly  quarrel  with 
the  assembly  which  he  had  retained  from  Hunter's  time  is 
described  elsewhere.  But  its  underlying  cause  seems  to 
have  been  the  unwillingness  of  Burnet  to  become  the  tool 
of  Johnstone  and  Willocks.^  Burnet  not  only  did  not  take 
kindly  to  the  plan  for  incorporating  the  proprietors,  but 
also  resented  bitterly  the  attempts  of  Willocks,  who  was 
not  a  representative,  to  interfere  in  the  proceedings  of  the 
legislature.'  But  though  Johnstone  and  Willocks  succeeded 
in  causing  the  governor  great  vexation  during  the  session 
of  the  assembly,  they  in  the  end  defeated  themselves,  for 
neither  they  nor  their  methods  were  popular  in  the  province, 
and  when,  upon  dissolution,  a  new  body  of  representatives 
was  chosen,  it  was  favorable  to  the  governor.*  Through- 
out the  controversy  Burnet  had  made  much  of  the  fact  that 
Willocks  was  an  avowed  Jacobite.  Whether  this  attitude 
was  due  to  old-country  prejudices,  or  whether  it  was  merely 
a  ready  means  of  attack  upon  Willocks,  is  not  certain.     But 

^  Neiv  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  57.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  58. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  II.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  62. 


648 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


at  any  rate  Burnet's  second  assembly  was  willing  to  pass 
an  "Act  for  the  Security  of  his  Majesty's  Government  of 
New  Jersey,"  which  gave  the  governor  or  any  appointed 
by  him  the  power  to  administer  the  oaths  of  allegiance  to 
any  one  suspected  of  disaffection.  If  the  person  refused 
he  was  to  be  prosecuted  as  a  popish  recusant,  and  was  to 
suffer  the  penalties  of  the  English  law.  It  was  made  a  high 
crime  and  misdemeanor  for  such  a  person  to  intermeddle  in 
any  way  in  public  affairs.^  Willocks,  now  recognizing  his 
defeat,  like  Coxe  before  him,  fled  from  the  province.^ 
Though  he  continued  to  intrigue  from  Philadelphia  and 
Staten  Island,  his  power  was  gone.  Johnstone,  whose  oper- 
ations had  been  better  cloaked,  escaped  disaster. 

It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  during  the  short  conflict 
Johnstone  and  Willocks  had  not  scrupled  to  make  overtures 
to  leaders  of  the  anti-proprietary  party  like  the  Hartshornes 
and  Lawrences  of  Monmouth  and  Bonnell  and  Ogden  of 
Elizabethtown.^  These  persons  for  a  time  aided  in  the 
attack  upon  Burnet,  but  during  the  second  meeting  of  the 
assembly  broke  from  Willocks  and  supported  the  governor.* 
They  rightly  calculated  that  they  could  gain  more  from 
Burnet  than  from  the  proprietors.  Throughout,  however, 
the  abler  men  among  the  proprietors  like  Morris,"  Alexan- 
der, and  John  Hamilton  had  stood  by  the  governor,  so  that 
the  defeat  of  the  partners  did  not  involve  the  loss  of  the 
governor's  favor  for  the  entire  proprietorship. 

The  year  1725  marks  a  most  important  change  in  the 
work  of  the  proprietorship,  for  during  it  the  plan  which 
had  been  for  some  time  maturing  to  revive  the  council  of 

'  Allinson,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey. 

'New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  107. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  61.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  62. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  60. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         649 

proprietors  was  at  length  carried  into  effect.  The  first  meet- 
ing of  the  council  under  the  new  arrangement  was  held  on 
March  25  at  New  York  City,  and  was  attended  by  Lewis 
Morris,  Charles  Dunster,  John  Burnet,  Richard  Ashfield, 
and  James  Alexander,  who  among  them  held  ninety-nine 
votes  at  eight  votes  to  a  property.^  Thus  only  barely  more 
than  a  majority  interest  was  represented,  but  at  the  en- 
suing meetings  there  was  a  much  larger  representation  of 
proprietors.  Among  those  attending  the  meetings  down 
to  1730  were  Samuel  Leonard,  Thomas  Humphrey,  David 
Lyell,  Thomas  Leonard,  Daniel  Hollingshead,  Dr.  John- 
stone, John  Parker,  Francis  Elrington,  Samuel  Vaughan, 
George  Lesly,  Col.  John  Hamilton,  John  Barclay,  and  Fen- 
wick  Lyell.  In  1727  Michael  Kearney  became  a  member 
of  the  revived  council  in  virtue  of  power  given  by  the  will 
of  Charles  Dunster.  After  the  retirement  of  Governor 
Burnet,  George  Willocks  also  appeared.  But  the  leaders 
during  the  early  years  certainly  seem  to  have  been  Morris. 
Alexander,  Hamilton,  and  Ashfield. 

In  the  first  few  meetings  much  time  was  given  to  per- 
fecting the  organization  of  the  council.  In  August,  1725. 
it  was  voted  that  thereafter  one-fourth  of  a  propriety  was  to 
have  one  vote;  one-half,  two  votes;  three- fourths,  three 
votes;  and  one  whole  propriety,  four  votes.  But  the  total 
votes  to  be  given  any  one  proprietor  should  not  exceed 
twelve,  and  no  one  should  act  as  "a  proxy  but  a  proprietor 
or  a  proprietary  agent.  A  quorum  at  a  regular  meeting  was 
to  consist  of  not  less  than  ten  persons,  representing  at  least 
eight  whole  proprieties."  In  1727,  however,  the  quorum 
was  cut  to  seven  persons,  though  eight  whole  proprieties 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  East  Jersey,  bk.  A,  p.  i; 
Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  22. 

'^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  East  Jersey,  bk.  A.  p.  3. 


650  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

were  still  to  be  represented/  Two  regular  meeting's  of  the 
council  were  held  annually,  but  the  times  of  holding  them 
were  several  times  altered,  though  one  was  usually  held  in 
the  spring  and  one  in  the  fall  after  the  regular  sessions  of 
the  supreme  court."  Special  meetings  were  also  called 
when  occasion  required.  Practically  all  the  meetings  took 
place  at  Perth  Amboy. 

It  was  voted  to  choose  a  president  annually,^  but  the 
commanding  influence  of  Morris  designated  him  as  the 
natural  leader,  and  he  held  the  presidency  of  the  council  of 
proprietors  continuously  until  August,  1730.  All  other  offi- 
cers were  to  hold  their  places  during  good  behavior  or  till 
displaced  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  all  the  proprietors.* 
James  Alexander  was  continued  as  surveyor-general  un- 
der the  authority  of  the  council  and  James  Smith  as 
register,  though  the  duties  of  the  latter  were  regularly 
performed  by  his  deputy,  Michael  Kearney.  But  almost 
immediately  after  the  revival  of  the  council  Alexander 
resigned  as  receiver-general  of  quit-rents,  and  Richard  Ash- 
field  was  chosen.^  The  latter  was  designated  as  treasurer 
also,  and  he  was  to  have  ten  per  cent  of  all  sums  col- 
lected, as  well  as  reasonable  traveling  expenses.®  Rangers 
were  named  by  the  council  for  the  several  counties.  But 
the  board  made  especial  haste  in  engaging  the  services  of 
able  legal  counsel,  James  Alexander,  Joseph  Murray,  and 
John  Kinsey,  Jr.^  The  connection  of  the  latter  with  the 
proprietors  was  not,  however,  permanent,  as  his  natural  in- 
stincts led  him  to  identify  himself  with  more  popular  in- 
terests. 

The  effect  of  the  re-establishment  upon  these  lines  of  tlie 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  East  Jersey,  bk.  A,  p.  18. 
^  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  22. 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  East  Jersey,  bk.  A,  p.  3. 
^Ibid.,  p.  3.  ^Ibid.,  p.  4.  «/*/</.,  p.  5.  'Ibid.,  p.  i. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         65 1 

council  of  East  Jersey  proprietors  was,  of  course,  to  give 
a  greatly  increased  unity  and  energy  to  the  proprietor- 
ship. It  is  true,  however,  that  even  after  the  reorganiza- 
tion of  the  council  a  degree  of  carelessness  and  laxity  still 
prevailed  which  would  be  almost  unimaginable  in  the  conduct 
of  a  modern  business  enterprise.  Such  increase  of  strength 
as  was  obtained  came,  nevertheless,  at  the  right  time,  for  the 
proprietorship  was  soon  compelled  to  face  circumstances 
almost  as  trying  as  those  of  "  the  Revolution  "  of  1699. 
The  most  difficult  questions  with  which  the  council  had  to 
struggle  were  those  connected  with  the  settlement  of  the 
boundary  dispute  with  West  Jersey,  and  the  reopening  in  a 
very  serious  form  of  the  Elizabethtown  controversy.  So 
important,  indeed,  are  these  matters  that  they  must  be  re- 
served for  "a  separate  consideration.  Before  taking  them 
up  let  us  study  briefly  the  other  work  accomplished  by 
the  council. 

In  the  political  field  the  council  did  not  accomplish  very 
great  results.  At  its  first  meeting  in  1725  the  president  of 
the  council  was  ordered  to  frame  one  or  more  bills  to  lay 
before  the  general  assembly  for  effectually  settling  the  pro- 
prietary rights.*  But  the  assemblies  under  Burnet  proved 
unwilling  to  take  any  decided  action  on  behalf  of  the  pro- 
prietorship, and  it  does  not  appear  that  such  a  measure  was 
actually  introduced.  On  the  other  hand,  the  assembly  of 
1727  was  eager  to  secure  the  passage  of  measures  to  reg- 
ulate in  a  manner  more  convenient  to  the  inhabitants  the 
recording  of  land  titles  and  deeds.  As  a  result  an  "Act 
concerning  the  Acknowledging  and  Registering  of  Deeds 
and  Conveyances  of  Land  "  ^  was  passed,  which  provided 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  East  Jersey,  bk.  A,  p.  i. 
*  Allinson,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey.     This  law  was  virtually  a  re-enact- 
ment of  a  previous  measure  which  had  been  disallowed  by  the  Crown  in 


652  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

far  the  recording  of  deeds  and  conveyances  in  the  respective 
counties  by  the  county  clerks  and  made  it  no  longer  neces- 
sary that  they  should  be  recorded  by  the  provincial  secre- 
tary alone  at  Burlington  or  Amboy.  The  house  also  made 
an  effort  to  carry  a  bill  for  prescribing  the  time  for  record- 
ing surveys,^  and  another  "for  preventing  the  trouble  and 
expense  relating  to  the  enrollment  of  deeds  and  conveyances 
of  land."  ^  But  the  council,  which  of  course  contained 
Morris  and  other  leading  proprietors,  insisted  that  the  latter 
bill  should  be  amended  so  that  all  deeds  of  proprietors 
should  be  recorded  only  at  the  register's  office,  as,  if  they 
were  recorded  at  any  other  place,  it  would  be  difficult  to 
tell  what  share  of  each  propriety  was  laid  out,  and  thus 
*'  the  door  would  be  opened  for  frauds."  But  the  house 
held  that  such  a  provision  in  the  law  was  unnecessary,  as 
the  council  of  proprietors  might  make  any  rules  it  deemed 
necessary  for  proprietors,  and  as  things  then  stood  it 
was  not  necessary  that  deeds  should  be  recorded  anywhere.'^ 
After  a  lengthy  and  rather  acrimonious  discussion  both 
measures  failed. 

The  council  of  proprietors  early  considered  the  matter  of 
the  quit-rents,  which,  as  usual,  seem  to  have  been  in  arrears. 
In  October,  1725,  the  receiver-general  was  directed  to  apply 
himself  to  their  collection  with  all  diligence,*  and  in  the 
next  year,  upon  his  own  request,  he  was  given  an  assistant. 
At  that  time  y\shfield  submitted  an  account  of  the  cash 
in   hand    for   the   use   of   the   proprietors,    which   proved 

1721.  It  was  also  disallowed  upon  the  plea  of  James  Smith  although  at 
the  time  it  was  passed  he  made  entry  upon  the  council  journal  that  he 
was  satisfied  to  receive  £25  per  annum  in  lieu  of  the  fees  which  were 
reduced.    New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  386;  vol.  v,  p.  198. 

^Assembly  Journal,  Feb.  2,  1727-8. 

^ Ibid.,  Jan.  11,  1727-8.  '^ Ibid.,  Feb.  6,  10,  1727-8. 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  East  Jersey,  bk.  A,  p.  7. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         653 

to  be  £401,  1 6s,  3d.^  It  is  impossible  to  tell,  how- 
ever, just  what  part  of  the  rents  or  for  how  long  a  time 
this  sum  represented.  To  aid  Ashfield  in  his  work  the  pro- 
prietors drew  up  an  address  to  Burnet  praying  him  to  issue 
a  proclamation  in  his  favor  as  the  legitimate  collector  of 
quit-rents,  just  as  Cornbury  had  done  first  for  Barclay  and 
then  for  Sonmans.'  Such  action  had,  indeed,  been  rendered 
necessary  by  the  return  of  Sonmans  to  the  province  and 
the  active  renewal  of  his  pretensions.  With  the  request  of 
the  council  Burnet  complied,  and  the  proclamation  was 
issued  in  due  form.'  The  proprietors  then  drew  up  an  ad- 
dress of  acknowledgment,  which  Morris  at  once  read  to  the 
governor  in  person,  and  which  he  received  kindly.  The  ad- 
dress stated  that  the  proprietors  had  always  understood  that 
they  had  surrendered  the  government  to  the  Crown  on  con- 
dition that  their  civil  rights  be  protected.* 

During  their  sessions  applications  were  made  to  the  board 
by  divers  persons  for  warrants  of  survey  upon  proprietary 
claims  under  the  several  dividends  of  land  already  voted. 
These  were  examined  carefully,  and  several  warrants  were 
given.  But  since  the  council  was  obliged  to  consume  much 
time  in  examining  into  the  validity  of  such  claims,  it  was 
eventually  voted,  in  1737,  that  all  applications  be  made  to 
the  register  and  that  he  make  the  proper  searches.  Every 
month  those  members  of  the  board  who  lived  near  Amboy 
were  to  meet,  and  any  three  with  the  register  were  to  be  a 
committee  to  make  further  examinations  of  the  claims  and 
report  the  same  to  the  council.'^ 

From  the  very  necessity  of  their  position  the  council  was 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  East  Jersey,  bk.  A,  p.  11. 
*Ibid.,  p.  16.  *Ibid.,  p.  8. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  126. 

*  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  East  Jersey,  bk.  A,  p.  52. 


654 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


soon  involved  in  legal  proceedings.  The  earliest  actions 
authorized  were  against  the  holders  of  tracts  which  had 
been  granted  by  Peter  Sonmans  during  his  usurped  director- 
ship of  proprietary  affairs  under  Cornbury.  Suits  in  chan- 
cery were  ordered  begun,  as  early  as  1725,  against  May 
Bickley  and  his  partners  in  the  Essex  tract  called  New 
Britain,  and  against  Peter  Fauconnier  and  his  associates  in 
the  Ramapo  tract  in  Bergen  County,  already  mentioned/ 
But  these  very  troublesome  cases  dragged  on  without  any 
very  definite  result.^  In  consequence  the  board,  in  1728, 
endeavored  to  engage  Andrew  Hamilton,  the  celebrated 
"  Philadelphia  lawyer,"  as  general  counsel  for  the  propri- 
etors. But  Hamilton  refused  a  general  retaining  fee,  though 
he  agreed  to  act  in  separate  cases  if  he  approved  of  them. 
The  board  voted  to  submit  to  him  the  state  of  the  Ramapo 
and  New  Britain  cases.  ^  But  though  the  suits  continued  to 
occupy  the  attention  of  the  board,  the  proprietors  did  not 
succeed  during  the  union  period  in  obtaining  decisions  defi- 
nitely making  void  Sonmans'  grants. 

The  council  also  began,  in  1726,  another  fruitless  proceed- 
ing in  chancery  against  Sonmans  to  compel  him  to  give  an 
account  of  the  quit-rents  he  had  collected.*  But  that  bold 
adventurer  upon  his  return  to  the  province  not  only  defied 
the  council,  but,  as  has  been  elsewhere  shown,  ventured  to 
exercise  his  commission  as  receiver-general  of  quit-rents 
given  by  Dockwra  and  the  "English  Proprietors"  in  Corn- 
btlry's  time.^  His  authority  was  recognized  by  the  corpor- 
ation of  Bergen,  and  the  legitimate  proprietors  were  in  con- 

"^  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  East  Jersey,  bk.  A,  p.  70. 
The  rights  of  the  proprietors  of  West  Jersey  were  also  involved  in  the 
New  Britain  Case. 

'Ibid.,  pp.  18,  19.  ^Ibid.,  p.  23.  ^Ibid.,  p.  11. 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  309. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         655 

sequence  defrauded  of  considerable  sums.^  For  this  conduct 
Sonmans  was  prosecuted  by  the  attorney-general  of  the  prov- 
ince upon  information  for  fraud.'^  But,  though  it  was  no 
doubt  the  influence  of  the  proprietors  which  led  to  his 
prosecution,  the  case  was  not  conducted  by  them  directly. 
Sonmans,  though  hard  pushed,  escaped  direct  condemnation 
and  continued  to  make  trouble  for  his  opponents,  though 
not  so  openly  as  before. 

When  Burnet  was,  in  1728,  succeeded  by  Montgomerie 
the  council  of  proprietors  naturally  desired  to  establish  re- 
lations with  the  new  governor  as  cordial  as  those 
which  had  existed  with  Burnet.  They  therefore  drew  and 
presented  an  address  of  congratulation  to  Montgomerie 
upon  his  safe  arrival.'  Morris,  who  prepared  the  address, 
again  put  in  a  clause  stating  that  the  proprietors  had  sur- 
rendered on  condition  that  their  private  rights  be  guaran- 
teefl.  In  the  next  year  the  board  petitioned  the  new  gov- 
ernor for  a  proclamation  in  favor  of  Ashfield  as  receiver- 
general  of  quit-rents,  citing  the  precedent  of  Burnet.*  But 
Montgomerie  was  not  in  power  long  enough  to  develop  any 
decided  policy  toward  the  proprietorship,  if,  indeed,  he  was 
capable  of  doing  so. 

In  1730  the  activity  of  the  council  of  proprietors  was 
rather  abruptly  interrupted  by  the  withdrawal  of  Lewis 
Morris,  its  president,  who  last  attended  a  meeting  in  August 
of  that  year.**  Col.  John  Hamilton  succeeded  him  first  as 
vice-president  and  then  as  president.  At  about  the  same 
time  Morris  succeeded  to  the  administration  of  the  Jerseys 
as  president  of  the  royal  council,  and  began  his  canvass  to 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  31 1-2,  314-6. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  317. 

*  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  East  Jersey,  bk.  A,  p.  20. 

*Ibid.,  p.  30.  ^Ibid.,  p.  33. 


656  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

obtain  the  governorship  itself.  These  circumstances  per- 
haps account  for  his  rather  sudden  retirement  from  the 
proprietary  concerns,  for  at  about  the  same  time  he  surren- 
dered his  position  as  agent  of  the  West  Jersey  Society,  a 
post  which  had  undoubtedly  added  much  to  his  power  and 
influence.  In  his  place  the  Society  named  Joseph  Murray, 
Jeremiah  Lattouch,  and  Joseph  Haynes  as  agents  in  East 
Jersey.^  The  result  of  Morris's  withdrawal  seems  good 
proof  that  he  had  been  the  chief  directing  force  in  the  pro- 
prietary affairs.  From  1725  to  1730  the  council  had  met 
regularly,  and  although  there  had  been  in  some  instances 
carelessness  in  executing  its  decisions,  its  business  had  been 
transacted  in  a  fairly  systematic  way. 

But  after  the  retirement  of  Morris  there  was  a  sharp 
change.  It  is  true  that  one  or  two  important  matters  were 
transacted  during  the  next  few  meetings.  In  October,  1730, 
the  great  step  was  taken  of  declaring  a  new  dividend  of  the 
unoccupied  land.  This  dividend  was  to  be  of  two  thousand 
acres  to  a  propriety,  and  so  in  proportion.^  It  was  to  be 
made  three  years  after  date,  and  public  advertisement 
was  to  be  put  in  English  papers  and  in  the  New  York 
Gazette  so  that  all  proprietors  might  have  due  notice  and 
provide  for  their  interests.  The  movement  to  obtain  in- 
corporation for  the  proprietors  was  also'  revived.'  But 
after  the  meeting  of  July,  1731,  a  strange  period  of  chaos 
occurs,  and  no  further  meeting  of  the  council  is  recorded 
until  December,  1735.  During  this  interval  the  proprietary 
concerns  suffered  from  neglect,  yet  it  seems  to  have  been 
only  the  urgent  necessity  arising  out  of  the  Elizabethtown 
question  which  brought  the  council  again  together.  Mean- 
while had  taken  place  the  violent  quarrel  between  the  new 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  East  Jersey,  bk.  A,  p.  42. 
^Ibid.,  p.  35.  ^Ibid.,  p.  36. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         657 

governor,  Cosby,  and  Morris  and  Alexander,  which  for  the 
time  completely  destroyed  the  influence  of  the  latter  gentle- 
men in  public  affairs.  Cosby,  however,  remained  on  excel- 
lent terms  with  Col.  Hamilton  and  with  the  majority  of  the 
proprietors,  whose  later  opposition  to  Morris  was  perhaps 
not  entirely  unconnected  with  his  sudden  abandonment  of 
their  mutual  affairs. 

Two  circumstances  make  clear  the  neglect  suffered  by 
the  proprietary  concerns  during  the  suspension  of  the  coun- 
cil. In  1735  it  appeared  that  Ashfield,  owing  to  the  ob- 
structions of  Sonmans,  had  for  several  years  been  able  to 
collect  no  quit-rents.  The  revived  council  endeavored  to 
remedy  this  loss  by  applying  to  Cosby  for  a  new  proclama- 
tion in  favor  of  their  receiver-general.^  But  more  discred- 
itable was  the  fact  that  in  1737  it  was  found  that  nothing 
whatsoever  had  been  done  either  toward  advertising  the 
dividend  of  land  voted  in  1731  or  toward  executing  it.^  It 
was  now  ordered  that  the  dividend  be  made  in  two  years, 
and  that  thereafter  there  be  yearly  dividends  until  the  whole 
of  the  land  was  apportioned.  Murray  and  Alexander  were 
made  a  committee  to  see  that  the  required  advertisements 
were  duly  published.'  At  the  next  meeting,  in  August, 
1737,  entry  was  made  upon  the  minutes  of  the  public  notice 
of  the  dividend.  All  proprietors  were  to  see  that  their 
agents  were  on  hand  to  locate  their  lands.  Otherwise  they 
were  to  be  themselves  to  blame  if  they  got  poor  land.* 

But,  after  all,  the  two  subjects  which  had  from  the  be- 
ginning required  the  closest  attention  from  the  council 
were  the  running  of  the  boundary  line  between  East 
and  West  Jersey,  and  the  Elizabethtown  question.  In 
October,   1725  the  council  of  East  Jersey  named  a  com- 

'  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  East  Jersey,  bk.  A,  p.  40. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  49.  ^Ibid.  ^Ibid.,  p.  51. 


658  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

mittee  to  consult  with  the  proprietors  of  West  Jersey 
with  a  view  to  securing  their  co-operation  against  the 
New  Britain  claimants.  The  same  committee  was  also 
to  concert  measures  for  the  running  of  the  division  line  al- 
ready authorized  by  act  of  assembly.^  But  four  months 
later  nothing  had  been  accomplished,  and  the  council  in- 
structed Col.  Hamilton  to  write  a  letter  to  James  Logan,  of 
West  Jersey,  regarding  the  necessity  of  running  the  line.- 
As  no  result  was  thus  gained  the  council,  in  May,  1727, 
voted  that  application  be  made  to  Governor  Burnet  to  ap- 
point two  commissioners  for  running  the  line,  since  Lyell 
and  Harrison,  named  for  East  Jersey  in  the  act  of  1718-19, 
were  dead.  Parker  and  Ashfield  were  suggested.^  But  the 
retirement  of  Burnet  prevented  action. 

Meanwhile  the  influence  of  the  Coxes  had  been  exerted 
with  the  home  authorities  to  secure  the  disallowance  of  the 
act  for  running  the  dividing  line  which,  like  so  many  other 
provincial  acts,  had  been  suffered  to  stand  without  formal 
approval.  Therefore,  in  1728,  the  council  voted  to  employ 
an  agent  in  England  to  solicit  the  passing  of  the  measure. 
Morris,  Alexander,  and  Ashfield  were  a  committee  to 
employ  a  fit  agent  and  to  correspond  with  him.  £50 
were  voted  from  which  were  to  be  supplied  such  sums  as 
the  agent  would  need.*  The  committee  promptly  wrote 
to  Peter  La  Heupe,  who  had  been  for  a  short  time  the  agent 
of  the  assembly,  asking  him  to  undertake  the  work.^  He 
was  informed  that  the  great  majority  of  the  West  Jersey 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  East  Jersey,  bk.  A,  p.  8. 

"^ Ibid.,  p.  14. 

^ Ibid.,  p.  17.  In  the  session  of  the  assembly  of  1727-8  John  Kinsey 
brought  in  a  bill  for  limiting  the  time  in  which  the  partition  line  was  to 
be  run.     But  though  it  passed  the  house  it  did  not  become  law. 

*Ibid.,  p.  22.  ^Ibid.,  p.  24. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         659 

proprietors  approved  of  the  division  and  that  it  was  op- 
posed only  by  Coxe  and  a  few  persons  who  held  small  inter- 
ests. There  might  be  some  opposition  from  Partridge,  the 
regular  provincial  agent,  yet  as  he  had  no  instructions  from 
any  part  of  the  legislature  he  ought  not  to  act.  La  Heupe 
was  also  furnished  with  a  list  of  "  considerable  persons  " 
in  London  who  held  interests  in  the  Jerseys  and  who  might 
give  assistance.  Charles  Dominique  was  designated  as  head 
of  their  affairs,  but  the  list  also  included  Robert  Mitchell, 
John  Bridges,  Levi  Ball,  and  others.^  La  Heupe  accepted 
the  position,  but  wrote  that  there  had  been  as  yet  no  opposi- 
tion to  the  act.  A  second  letter  said  that  he  had  a  favor- 
able report  from  the  Lords  of  Trade  upon  the  measure.^ 

In  August,  1730,  a  letter  was  received  from  the  West 
Jersey  proprietors  proposing  an  accommodation  about  the 
division  line.'  But  at  the  next  meeting  the  council  voted 
that  the  West  Jersey  proprietors  have  timely  notice  regard- 
ing the  line,  and  that  if  they  did  not  agree  East  Jersey 
would  run  it  separately.*  Four  thousand  acres  of  land 
were  to  be  disposed  of  to  cover  the  expense.  But  decisive 
action  was  again  hindered,  first  by  the  temporary  suspension 
of  the  council  which  followed  the  retirement  of  Morris,  and 
then  by  the  threatening  character  of  the  Elizabethtown  dis- 
pute. So  dangerous  did  the  latter  affair  indeed  become  that 
the  council  was  obliged  to  seek  the  aid  of  the  West  Jersey 
proprietorship.  It  could  not  afford  therefore  to  offend  its 
possible  allies.  In  March,  1738,  Col.  Coxe  was  himself 
present  at  a  meeting  and  requested  from  the  council  of 
West  Jersey  that  a  committee  be  named  to  see  about  the 

'  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  East  Jersey,  bk.  A,  p.  24. 
*Ibid.,  p.  25.     The  act  was  confirmed  by  the  Crown  in  1729;  New 
Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  451. 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Ptoprietors  of  East  Jersey,  bk.  A,  p.  33. 
' Ibid.,  p.  34. 


66o  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

dividing  line.  Murray,  now  vice-president,  of  the  East 
Jersey  council,  Alexander,  and  Lyell  were  named,  but  as 
usual  nothing-  decisive  resulted/  The  negotiations  dragged 
on  beyond  the  union  period  until  1743,  when  the  proprie- 
tors of  East  Jersey  finally  had  the  line  run  independently  by 
John  Lawrence.  Later  attempts  to  annul  this  survey  failed, 
and  the  Lawrence  line  has  remained  since  that  time  as  the 
boundary  between  the  eastern  and  the  western  division. 

When  the  council  was  re-established  in  1725,  there  seemed 
good  reason  for  believing  that  the  Elizabethtown  question 
was  at  least  on  the  way  toward  final  settlement.  The  fav- 
orable decision  in  the  case  of  Vaughan  vs.  Woodruff  had 
in  a  sense  established  the  claims  of  the  proprietors,  and  the 
subsequent  conduct  of  at  least  a  part  of  the  inhabitants  of 
Elizabethtown  in  obtaining  proprietary  titles  seemed  a 
further  recognition.  Under  the  circumstances  it  seemed 
both  possible  and  desirable  for  the  proprietors  to  come  to  a 
definite  understanding  with  the  town.  Accordingly,  in 
October,  1725,  the  council  named  a  committee  to  treat  with 
the  Elizabethtown  people,  that  "  the  affair  "  might  be  com- 
promised in  the  most  amicable  manner.  This  committee 
consisted  of  Morris,  Hamilton,  Ashfield,  and  Alexander,  the 
ablest  members  of  the  council."  But  four  months  later  the 
committee  had  apparently  done  nothing,  and  Alexander  was 
directed  to  write  to  Joseph  Bonnell  as  the  representative  of 
the  town,  stating  that  the  committee  was  prepared  to  re- 
ceive any  proposals  by  letter  or  to  arrange  a  meeting.'  The 
letter  was  duly  sent;  and,  in  July,  1726,  it  was  voted  that 
at  the  next  meeting  the  council  would  take  up  the  Elizabeth- 
town  question.*     Mr.  Bonnell  was  acquainted,  and  told  that 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  East  Jersey,  bk.  A,  p.  55. 
^ Ibid.,  p.  7.  ^ Ibid.,  p.  14.  *Ibid.,  p.  15. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         66l 

the  object  of  the  council  was  to  estabh'sh  good  feeling  be- 
tween -the  proprietors  and  all  the  inhabitants.  But  as  an  il- 
lustration of  the  strange  negligence  which  is  such  an  un- 
accountable characteristic  of  the  management  of  the  pro- 
prietary concerns,  we  find  that  at  the  next  session  the 
Elizabethtown  question  was  not  considered  at  all,  nor  is  it 
again  referred  to  in  the  proprietary  minutes  until  the  re- 
newal of  the  council  in  1735. 

But  instead  of  being  dropped,  the  dispute  was  actually 
about  to  enter  a  new  and  acute  stage.  Because  of  the  re- 
luctance of  the  Elizabethtown  people  to  come  to  an  under- 
standing which  would  involve  a  surrender  of  their  claims 
under  the  Nicolls  grant,  the  legal  advisors  of  the  proprietors 
evidently  concluded  to  push  proceedings  against  them  in  the 
courts.  Accordingly  in  1731  sundry  ejectment  suits  were 
brought  in  the  interest  of  the  proprietorship  at  the  suit  of 
Patrick  Lithgow  on  the  demise  of  Peter  Schuyler,  as  as- 
signee of  Philip  Carteret  to  recover  lands  surveyed  for  Sir 
George  and  Philip  Carteret  and  granted  by  patent  April 
24,  1682.  This  tract  was  now  held  by  John  Robison,  Henry 
Clarke,  Andrew  Craig,  Joshua  Marsh,  and  others  under  the 
Clinker  Lot  survey.' 

There  is  every  indication  that  both  parties  thoroughly 
understood  the  importance  of  the  issue,  and  were  ready  to 
meet  it,  for  the  cases  came  to  trial  on  May  17  and  18,  1733.' 
The  chief  justice,  R.  L.  Hooper,  presided,  and  the  jury, 
drawn  from  Middlesex,  was  selected  with  every  precaution. 
The  case  of  Lithgow  vs.  Robinson  was  taken  up  first  as  the 
test  case.  Both  parties  were  represented  by  the  ablest  coun- 
sel available:  the  proprietors  by  Murray  and  Alexander, 
later  the  authors  of  the  Bill  in  Chancery;  and  the  Eliza- 

'  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  47. 

^Supreme  Court  Docket  (Perth  Amboy,  1732-1738).  pp.  173-178. 


662  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

bethtown  people  by  John  Kinsey,  the  politician  and 
speaker  of  the  assembly,  and  Richard  Smith  of  New  York. 
The  weighty  aspect  of  the  case  is  proved  by  the  fact  that 
the  hearing  was  continued  "  at  above  Nineteen  Hours." 
The  chief  justice  summed  up  the  evidence  "  at  five  of  the 
clock  in  the  morning."  But  although  the  proprietors  had 
been  confident  of  success,  the  jury  next  day  found  for  the 
defendant,  and  a  victory  had  been  achieved  for  Elizabeth- 
town  comparable  only  to  that  won  by  Jeffry  Jones.  After 
the  decision  for  Robinson  the  plaintiff  defaulted  in  the 
other  cases,  and  was  non-suited.  The  Bill  in  Chancery 
maintains  that  the  somewhat  astonishing  verdict  against 
Lithgow  was  due  wholly  to  the  defect  of  the  lessor  of  the 
plaintiff's  title,  and  was  not  based  upon  the  Nicolls  grant.  ^ 
But  this  is  strongly  denied  by  the  Answer  to  the  Bill,^  and 
there  is  nothing  in  the  records  of  the  court  to  show  that 
such  was  the  case.  It  was  certainly  the  popular  impression 
that  the  Elizabethtown  claimants  had  been  upheld. 

The  effect  of  the  decision  in  the  Schuyler  case  was  very 
similar  to  that  of  the  decision  of  Jones  vs.  Fullerton  in 
1697,  for  it  gave  renewed  hope  and  determination  to  the 
Elizabethtown  claimants  who,  since  the  case  of  Vaughan 
vs.  Woodruff,  had  been  on  the  defensive.  In  August,  1720, 
after  that  defeat,  the  freeholders  of  Elizabethtown  had 
chosen  a  committee  of  seven  to  represent  them  in  all  mat- 
ters touching  their  claims.*  The  members  appear  to  have 
served  at  the  pleasure  of  the  town.  Among  those  origin- 
ally chosen  were  John  Blanchard,  Capt.  Joseph  Bonnell,  and 
John  Crane,  while  Benjamin  Bond,  Joseph  Woodruff,  and 
John  Harriman  became  members  later.     This  was  evidently 

^Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  47. 
^Answer  to  the  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery. 
^Hatfield,  History  of  Elizabeth,  p.  310. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         663 

the  body  with  which  the  council  of  proprietors  had  vainly 
tried  to  negotiate.  In  1732  the  membership  of  the  com- 
mittee was  almost  completely  changed,  though  it  still  in- 
cluded John  Crane  and  Joseph  Bonnell.^ 

But  after  the  victory  in  the  Schuyler  case  more  energetic 
action  was  in  order.  The  first  step  of  the  associates  was  to 
select  a  committee  of  three  trustees :  Nathaniel  Huttell, 
John  Crane,  and  Joseph  Shotwell,  and  to  enter  into  bond  to 
pay  to  the  said  trustees  such  sums,  (not  exceeding  £10  pro- 
clamation money  for  each  person),  as  should  be  duly  assessed 
by  the  trustees  toward  defraying  the  charges  of  maintain- 
ing the  Elizabethtown  title,  according  to  the  judgment  and 
discretion  of  the  committee  of  seven.^  It  was  further  agreed, 
in  July,  1734,  to  dispose  of  a  considerable  tract  of  land  to 
pay  the  expenses  of  litigation.^  The  associates,  also,  made 
efforts  to  win  over  the  tenants  who  were  actually  in  pos- 
session of  proprietary  lands  within  the  disputed  area.  As 
an  inducement  they  offered  to  sell  to  such  tenants  the  lands 
which  they  held  at  £5  per  hundred  acres,  and  to  guarantee 
the  defense  of  the  new  titles  to  the  extent  of  the  common 
fund.    These  offers  were  in  certain  cases  at  least,  accepted.' 

The  associates  next,  just  as  in  1699,  took  steps  for  the 
survey  and  apportionment  of  the  outlying  portions  of  the 
land  which  according  to  their  claims  lay  within  the  limits  of 
the  Nicolls  grant,  and  which  had  not  been  divided  among 
themselves  in  the  Clinker  Lot  survey.  At  a  town  meeting  in 
March,  1734-5  the  seven  trustees  were  authorized  to  lay  out 
the  common  land  of  the  town  lying  "back  of  the  first  moun- 
tain," to  divide  the  same  into  one  hundred  acre  lots,  and  to 
make  them  over  to  the  associates  by  lot.*     After  further 

'  Hatfield,  History  of  Elizabeth,  p.  313. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  314.  *  Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chanceiy,  pp.  47-48. 

♦Hatfield,  History  of  Elizabeth,  p.  315. 


564  -^^^  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

legal  proceedings  had  been  begun  by  the  proprietors,  how- 
ever, it  was  voted  at  a  town  meeting  in  September,  1735  that 
a  large  tract  be  disposed  of  to  meet  the  resulting  charges.^ 
This  was  "  a  certain  tract  or  parcell  of  land  lying  west  from 
a  place  known  by  the  name  of  Baskine  Ridge  and  between 
the  West  Jersey  line  not  to  exceed  eight  miles  upon  the 
east  and  west  line,  and  to  extend  to  our  utmost  bounds  upon 
the  north  and  south  lines."  This  land  was  to  be  sold  for 
not  less  than  £2000,  and  the  associates  reserved  the  right  to 
retain  one-third  part  for  their  own  use  if  required. 

A  considerable  tract  of  land  still  lay  unappropriated 
west  of  the  surveys  of  1699- 1700.  But  in  November,  1736 
steps  were  taken  to  apportion  this  also.^  At  a  town  meeting 
Joseph  Morse  was  elected  and  qualified  as  town  surveyor, 
and  the  work  duly  assigned  to  him  and  the  committee  of 
seven.  The  whole  of  the  district  involved  was  regularly 
surveyed  into  280  one-hundred-acre  lots,  the  work  being 
accomplished  by  Morse  and  William  Courson  of  Staten 
Island,  acting  with  various  assistants  chosen  by  the  town. 
In  March,  1738,  report  was  duly  made  to  the  town  meeting, 
and  arrangements  were  made  for  the  assignment  of  the  new 
tracts  by  lot  among  the  associates  and  those  who  had  pur- 
chased of  them  according  to  the  original  arrangement  of 
first,  second,  and  third  lot  rights.^  It  was  claimed  by  the 
proprietors  in  the  Bill  in  Chancery  that  the  surveys  of  Morse 
and  Courson  were  made  by  stealth  and  at  night,*  but  this 
accusation  is  just  as  strongly  denied  by  the  associates. 

The  proprietors,  as  we  have  seen,  were  sud-denly  con- 
fronted by  such  aggressions  at  a  time  when  their  council 
was  suspended.  But  the  blows  struck  at  their  claims  led  to 
its  second  revival,  for  in  December,  1 735,  a  general  meeting  of 

'Hatfield,  History  of  Elizabeth,  p.  315.  -Ibid.,  p.  316. 

^ Ibid.,  p.  317.  ^ Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  49. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         665 

the  proprietors  was  called  by  Col.  Hamilton,  though  appar- 
ently at  the  instance  of  Alexander,  to  consider  the  astonish- 
ing proceedings  of  Elizabethtown.^  The  proprietors,  how- 
ever, had  difficulty  in  learning  what  actions  the  associates 
had  really  taken.  It  was  nevertheless  voted  to  bring  the 
Elizabethtown  afifair  to  an  end  by  suits,  and  it  was  resolved 
that,  as  a  fund  for  that  purpose,  each  land  owner  in  the 
province  contribute  five  shillings  for  every  one  hundred 
acres.  ^  The  proprietors  of  West  Jersey  were  also  ad- 
dressed to  bear  some  part  of  the  charge.  But  no  positive 
step  could  be  taken  until  one  John  Vail,  a  proprietary  sup- 
porter, should  report  to  the  board  exactly  what  Elizabeth- 
town  had  done." 

In  April,  1737,  Vail  reported  fully  to  the  council  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  town  surveyors  and  committee.*  The  south 
bound  of  the  Elizabethtown  claim  had  been  run  from  the 
mouth  of  Robinson's  branch  on  Rahway  River  west  until  it 
crossed  the  north  branch  of  the  Raritan,  about  five  chains. 
Later  the  town  surveyors  had  begun  to  run  their  north  bound 
at  the  mouth  of  the  Passaic,  and  had  carried  it  west  twenty- 
one  miles.  The  proprietary  council  promptly  resolved  that 
six  ejectment  suits  be  begun  in  Somerset  County  "  to  try  the 
Elizabethtown  pretense."  Fen  wick  Lyell  was  put  in  charge 
of  the  suits,  and  a  subscription  was  raised  by  the  proprietors 
present  to  cover  his  expenses  until  reimbursement  could  be 
made  from  the  proprietary  funds."  To  reward  Vail  for 
his  information  he  was  excused  from  his  contribution  of 
five  shillings  for  every  one  hundred  acres. 

At  the  next  council,  of  August,  1737,  Lyell  was  obliged 
to  report  that  he  had  not  been  able  to  begin  his  suits,  as  he 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  East  Jersey,  bk.  A,  pp. 
38-39. 
* /bid.,  p.  41.  '  /f>i(/.,  pp.  40-41. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  43.  -'/bid.,  p.  44. 


(^  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

had  found  no  evidence  that  Elizabethtown  people  had  tres- 
passed, except  that  John  Crane  in  running  the  line  had 
marked  several  trees  on  lands  of  Stephen  Vail.'  Lyell  was 
ordered  to  secure  further  evidence  and  to  prosecute  Crane 
if  he  was  able."  But  meanwhile  the  associates  themselves 
brought  an  action  against  John  Vail  on  the  demise  of  one 
Joseph  Halsey.  Since  Vail  held  under  the  proprietors  Lyell 
promptly  undertook  his  case.  The  council  approved  and 
directed  Alexander  and  Murray  to  assist.^  At  the  same 
meeting,  in  March,  1738,  the  proprietary  counsel  received 
power  of  attorney  from  one  Daniel  Cooper  to  bring  action 
for  trespass  against  certain  persons,  said  to  be  of  Eliza- 
bethtown, who  had  done  injury  to  his  land.  The  board 
gave  security  to  Cooper  that  he  should  be  saved  harmless 
from  the  suit  and  indemnified  and  ordered  Alexander  and 
his  colleague  to  bring  suit  according  to  the  statement  of- 
fered by  one  John  Airs  of  Basking  Ridge,  who  declared 
that  Joseph  Morse,  the  surveyor,  John  Crane,  and  others 
acting  for  Elizabethtown  had  crossed  Cooper's  land  and 
gone  through  his  green  wheat.^  Actions  for  trespass 
against  Morse,  Crane,  and  four  others  concerned  were  ac- 
cordingly begun. 

To  the  pending  cases  of  Jackson  vs.  Vail  and  Cooper  vs. 
Morse  et  al.  another  must  also  be  added.  It  appears  that  in 
1736  several  servants  of  the  Penns  had  been  won  over 
by  the  Clinker  Lot  claimants.  Accordingly  the  proprie- 
tors began  several  ejectment  suits  in  the  name  of  James 
Fenn  against  these  tenants.  In  one  of  them  John  Cham- 
bers was  defendant,  and  in  another,  one  Alcorn.  The  Penn 
tract  involved  covered   7,500  acres.*      Other  actions  also 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  East  Jersey,  bk.  A,  p.  48. 
^Ibid.,  p.  49.  '^Ibid.,  p.  54. 

^Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  48. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE  (£j 

followed,  one  of  which  concerned  9000  acres  in  West 
Jersey  owned  by  James  Logan. ^  Logan's  tenants,  like  those 
of  Penn,  had  been  won  over  by  the  Elizabethtown  com- 
mittee. 

While  these  great  questions  were  still  pending,  the  union 
period  came  to  an  end.  Eventually  the  proprietors  won 
verdicts  in  the  cases  of  Cooper  and  of  Fenn,  but  in  the  Vail 
case  they  met  reverse.^  The  further  ejectment  proceed- 
ings and  the  riotous  disturbances  to  which  they  led  must 
unfortunately  not  be  considered  here.  Nor  can  the  cele- 
brated chancery  proceedings,  intended  by  the  proprietors  to 
make  a  definite  ending  of  the  entire  controversy,  be  touched 
upon.  The  great  chancery  suit  had  at  least  the  result  of 
giving  to  the  historian  Alexander's  able  Bill  in  Chancery 
and  the  Anszver  of  the  Associates,  but  the  eventual  suspen- 
sion of  the  proceedings  left  the  cause  without  other  issue 
than  the  failure  of  the  proprietors  to  establish  their  rights 
during  the  colonial  period. 

^Elizabethtown  Bill  in  Chancery,  p.  51. 
*Ibid.,  pp.  48,  49,  50. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII 

The  Proprietorship  under  Royal  Rule 

west  jersey 

A  STUDY  of  the  proprietorship  of  West  Jersey  does  not 
disclose  such  a  savage  clashing  of  interests  as  took  place 
in  the  affairs  of  the  proprietors  of  East  Jersey.  Neverthe- 
less the  management  of  the  proprietary  concerns  in  the  west- 
ern division  was  to  a  considerable  degree  determined  by  the 
changing  relations  of  three  dominating  interests.  The  first 
of  these  was  commonly  called  "  the  Quaker  interest."  By 
this  term  was  meant  the  party  among  the  proprietors  resi- 
dent in  the  province  which  had  been  acting  chiefly  under  the 
lead  of  Samuel  Jennings  and  of  Thomas  Gardiner,  the 
Second.  It  included  a  large  part  of  the  share-holders  in 
Burlington  and  Gloucester  counties  and  was  made  up  of 
Friends  and  persons  in  sympathy  with  them.  The  student 
is  in  almost  unavoidable  danger  of  confusing  this  numerous 
element  with  the  entire  proprietorship.  But  there  was  a 
second  very  active  interest  headed  by  Col.  Daniel  Coxe. 
Coxe  himself  held  the  third  largest  single  interest  in  West 
Jersey,  and  in  his  operations  was  supported  by  a  follow- 
ing of  smaller  share  owners,  chiefly  persons  opposed  to 
Quaker  domination.  Thirdly  there  was  the  large  proprie^ 
tary  interest  of  the  influential  West  Jersey  Society.  This 
company  during  the  royal  period  included  among  its  mem- 
bers such  powerful  persons  as  Paul  Dominique,  Edward 
Richier,  John  Bridges,  Robert  Michel,  and  Thomas  Lane. 
But  it  was  handicapped  by  the  fact  that  it  was  made  up  of 
668 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         669 

persons  resident  in  England.  It  had,  however,  been  rep- 
resented in  the  Jerseys  by  Governor  Andrew  Hamilton  as 
agent  and,  aft^r  his  death  in  1702,  was  to  have  the  advan- 
tage of  the  services  of  Lewis  Morris  in  the  same  capacity. 
These  three  interests,  though  not  usually  hostile  to  the  same 
degree  as  the  factions  of  the  East  Jersey  proprietorship, 
were  to  some  extent  opposed.  There  usually  existed  a 
cooperation  of  two  of  them  against  the  other. 

When  the  period  of  proprietary  government  came  to  an 
end  in  West  Jersey  the  management  of  the  land  system 
lay,  of  course,  in  the  hands  of  the  council  of  proprietors, 
and  this  body  retained  its  position  under  the  royal* rule.  Its 
nine  members  continued  to  be  chosen  at  annual  meetings  of 
the  proprietors  held  at  Burlington  and  Gloucester,*  and  to 
select  their  own  officers, — a  president,  vice-president,  clerk, 
and  surveyor.^  But  under  the  royal  government  the  coun- 
cil naturally  carried  its  functions  somewhat  further  than 
it  had  done  previously.  Separate  commissioners  for  the 
several  counties  to  pass  upon  land  claims  presented  and  to 
order  surveys  thereon  ceased  to  be  appointed,  and  instead 
the  council  required  that  all  claims  for  land  should  be  sub- 
mitted to  it  directly  and  that  the  surveyor  should  act  only 
upon  warrant  issued  by  its  own  direct  authority.  It  there- 
fore followed  that  its  meetings  were  taken  up  in  great  part 
in  considering  claims  entered  for  land  upon  proprietary 
shares  and  in  authorizing  surveys.'  Such  work  required 
frequent  and  rather  lengthy  meetings.  In  1717  it  was 
voted  that  the  council  meet  regularly  on  the  second  Tuesday 
of  May,  August,  November,  and  February.*     But  special 

^Ngw  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  223. 
*  It  also  regularly  named  rangers  for  the  several  counties. 
^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  passim. 
^Ibid.,  bk.  3,  p.  177. 


6/0 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


meetings  took  place  on  call  by  the  president.  The  council 
nearly  always  met  at  Burlington.  While  it  cannot  be  said 
that  its  proceedings  were  absolutely  free  from  the  con- 
fusion and  carelessness  which  mark  so  many  eighteenth  cen- 
tury enterprises,  its  records  show  that  upon  the  whole  the 
council  conducted  its  work  in  a  painstaking  and  business- 
like way.  Especially  when  compared  with  the  slipshod 
proceedings  of  the  East  Jersey  proprietorship  its  work 
seems  creditable  in  a  high  degree. 

During  the  closing  years  of  the  proprietary  period  the 
council  under  the  presidency  of  Governor  Hamilton,  the 
agent  of  the  West  Jersey  Society,  had  been  taking  steps  with 
a  view  to  an  extensive  Indian  purchase  above  the  Falls  of 
the  Delaware  from  which  a  third  dividend  on  proprietary 
shares  might  be  made.^  But  the  death  of  Hamilton  and  the 
confusion  incident  to  the  overthrow  of  the  proprietary  gov- 
ernment caused  delay.  The  council,  however,  continued 
to  carry  on  its  plans  under  the  presidencies  of  Mahlon 
Stacy,  John  Wills,  and  William  Biddle.'  By  June,  1703, 
two  large  tracts,  estimated  at  1 50,000  acres,  had  been  pur- 
chased at  a  cost  of  about  £700,  but  the  council  was 
intent  upon  obtaining  additional  lands  from  the  Indians 
so  as  to  allow  a  dividend  of  5000  acres  to  a  propriety.  It 
was  voted  by  the  council,  therefore,  to  give  public  notice 
to  the  proprietors  in  England  and  elsewhere  of  their  de- 
signs. All  proprietors  who  would  bear  their  share  of  the 
purchase,  which  would  be  about  £24  to  a  propriety, 
were  to  receive  their  rights  in  the  new  tracts.  But 
if  the  absent  proprietors  neglected  to  cooperate  through 
their  agents  the  proprietors  resident  in  the  province  were 
determined  to  make  the  purchases  independently.*     A  gen- 

'  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  i,  pp.  87, 102. 
^ Ibid.,  bk.  ii,  loose  pages.      ^Ibid.,  bk.  ii,  p.  i,  (among  loose  pages). 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         67 1 

cral  meeting  of  all  proprietors  interested  was  announced 
for  July  19th,  next,  at  Burlington. 

During  the  ensuing  meetings  the  council  considered  the 
reports  of  the  agents  who  had  negotiated  with  the  Indians 
and  took  steps  to  pay  to  the  natives  what  was  wanting  in 
the  purchase  money.  ^  But  it  is  evident  that  the  death  of 
Hamilton  had  destroyed  the  understanding  between  the 
"  Quaker  Interest,"  represented  in  the  council  by  such  men 
as  Jennings,  Biddle,  Deacon,  Wills,  Hall,  Wetherill,  and 
Kay,  and  the  West  Jersey  Society.  In  April,  1704,  Paul 
Dominique,  John  Bridges,  and  Robert  Michel  presented  a 
memorial  to  the  Lords  of  Trade  asking  that  the  persons 
"  calling  themselves  the  Council  of  Proprietors  residing  in 
Jersey  "  be  restrained  by  the  royal  governor  from  purchas- 
ing and  taking  up  lands  without  the  knowledge  or  consent 
of  the  proprietors  in  England. - 

But  certainly  the  chief  danger  to  the  Quaker  interest 
did  not  come  from  the  West  Jersey  Society.  Lord  Corn- 
bury  had  from  the  first  displayed  his  hostility  to  the 
Friends,  The  royal  council  already  contained  Thomas 
Revell  and  Daniel  Leeds,  two  leaders  of  the  "  Basse  faction  " 
in  West  Jersey,  and  in  1706,  Col.  Daniel  Coxe  himself  was 
appointed  and  at  once  became  a  prominent  force  in  the  ad- 
ministration." The  death  of  Deacon,  and  the  resignation 
of  Jennings  left  the  executive  department  of  the  province 
almost  completely  under  the  influence  of  men  opposed  to 
Quaker  control  in  any  form,  and  the  political  clash  de- 
scribed at  such  length  in  former  chapters  between  Corn- 
bury's  administration  and  the  proprietary  party  of  both 
Jerseys  was  becoming  ever  more  bitter. 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk,  ii,  pp. 
19,  23  (among  loose  pages) . 
"^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  50.  '^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  125. 


672  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Therefore,  in  November,  1706,  Cornbury  caused  a  sum- 
mons to  be  issued  to  "  those  that  Call  themselves  the  Coun- 
cil of  Propriet'rs  of  ye  Western  Devission  "  to  attend  upon 
him  in  council  at  Burlington  to  show  by  what  authority  they 
pretended  to  act  as  a  council.  In  the  meanwhile  they  were 
ordered  to  forbear  laying  out  lands  or  making  purchases 
from  the  Indians  without  first  obtaining  the  governor's 
license  as  required  by  the  recent  act  for  regulating  the  pur- 
chasing of  lands  from  the  "  Indeans."  ^  This  order  was 
considered  by  the  council  of  proprietors,  but  no  action  was 
taken  as  the  time  was  thought  too  brief.^  As  a  result  the 
council  was  forthwith  suspended  by  the  governor.  Under 
date  of  May  30,  1707,  the  members  of  the  council  presented 
a  statement  to  Cornbury  describing  the  origin,  constitution, 
and  legal  authority  of  their  body.^  But  their  action,  of 
course,  caused  no  change  in  his  Lordship's  attitude. 

The  conduct  of  Cornbury  toward  the  West  Jersey  pro- 
prietorship, just  as  his  interference  with  the  affairs  of  the 
owners  of  East  Jersey,  became  therefore  one  of  the  im- 
portant political  questions  before  the  province.  In  the 
great  remonstrance  of  1707  the  suspension  of  the  West 
Jersey  council  was  formally  stated  as  a  case  of  oppression.* 
In  his  answer  to  the  remonstrance  Cornbury  declared  in 
justification  of  his  conduct  that,  as  he  was  commanded  by 
his  instructions  to  allow  only  such  proprietary  agents  to 
act  as  had  qualified  themselves  by  taking  the  proper  oaths, 
and  as  the  so-called  council  had  never  presented  themselves 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  158. 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  ii,  p.  23 
(loose  leaves). 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  220. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  178.  It  will  be  remembered  that  Jennings  was 
speaker  of  the  assembly  and  read  the  remonstrance  to  Cornbury. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE 


673 


to  take  the  oaths,  he  was  only  carrying  out  his  duty  in 
prohibiting  them  from  acting.  Moreover  they  were  people 
pretending  to  act  upon  powers  derived  from  those  who  had 
no  power  to  grant/  But  in  their  reply  to  Cornbury's  an- 
swer to  their  remonstrance  the  assembly  showed  clearly  the 
weakness  of  his  contentions.  It  set  forth  that,  as  the  gov- 
ernor had  not  published  his  instructions,  proprietary  agents 
could  not  be  expected  to  present  themselves  to  meet  qualifica- 
tions of  which  they  knew  nothing.  Cornbury  had  more- 
over never  required  the  council  of  proprietors  to  take  the 
oaths.  But  in  any  case  the  said  council  were  not  agents 
within  the  meaning  of  the  royal  instructions.'^  No  one 
concerned  seems  to  have  been  in  the  least  deceived  as  to  the 
governor's  real  motives. 

But  the  misfortunes  of  the  '*  Quaker  interest  "  brought 
them  at  least  one  good  result.  Lewis  Morris,  now  the  agent 
of  the  West  Jersey  Society,  was  of  course  the  most  promi- 
nent leader  of  the  opposition  to  Cornbury.  Moreover  the 
interests  of  that  powerful  company  in  both  Jerseys  were 
equally  endangered  by  the  arbitrary  proceedings  of  Corn- 
bury. As  a  result  the  Society  drew  up  two  petitions  to  the 
Lords  of  Trade,  exposing  the  political  abuses  of  the  ad- 
ministration.' Though  these  memorials  naturally  did  not 
mention  the  suspension  of  the  council  of  proprietors  they  did 
make  much  of  the  exclusion  of  the  three  Quakers,  Thomas 
Gardiner,*  Thomas  Lambert,  and  Joshua  Wright  from  the 
second  assembly  upon  the  protest  of  Revell  and  Leeds.  By 
the  very  circumstances  of  the  case  cooperation  between  the 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  p.  192. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  256-261.     The  assembly  speaks  of  Morris  as  presi- 
dent of  the  council. 
"^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  81,  85. 
*  Gardiner  was  the  surveyor-general  of  West  Jersey. 


674 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


Society  through  Morris  and  the  Quaker  interest  was  re- 
stored. There  seems,  also,  little  doubt  that  the  activity  and 
influence  of  Dominique,  Richier,  and  Lane  did  much  toward 
opening  the  eyes  of  the  home  authorities  to  the  true  char- 
acter of  Cornbury's  rule.^ 

As  long  as  Cornbury  continued  in  power  the  proprietary 
machinery  in  West  Jersey  remained  suspended.  But  im- 
mediately upon  the  accession  of  Lovelace  the  council  of 
proprietors  resumed  operations  with  Lewis  Morris,  agent 
of  the  West  Jersey  Society,  as  president  and  William  Biddle 
as  vice-president.  Biddle,  however,  frequently  presided 
as  Morris  naturally  did  not  attend  all  the  meetings. 
Thomas  Gardiner  was  of  course  continued  as  surveyor  and 
John  Reading  as  clerk.  ^ 

Work  regarding  the  new  Indian  purchases  was  at  once 
resumed.  At  the  first  session,  in  September,  1708,  the 
council  ordered  that  a  general  survey  should  be  made  of  the 
recently  acquired  tracts,  that  it  might  be  known  what  sum 
must  be  paid  for  the  purchase  proportional  to  the  quantity 
of  land  that  each  proprietor  was  to  take  up.  It  was  also 
agreed  that  those  having  right  to  less  than  five  hundred 
acres  should  take  up  their  land  all  in  one  tract.  ^  For  the 
apportionment  of  the  land  it  was  determined  that  accord- 
ing to  the  number  of  persons  obtaining  warrants  at  each 
sitting  of  the  council  lots  should  be  made  and  numbered,  and 
according  to  the  number  each  investor  drew  he  should  have 
the  survey  of  his  land  made,  leaving  no  intervals,  but  taking 
up  the  same  contiguous  to  the  next  person.  But,  in  case 
any  proprietor  rejected  his  lot,  the  person  holding  the  next 
successive  number  was  to  take  his  place,  and  if  he  refused, 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  pp.  117,  127. 

''Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  ii,  p.  7. 

'^ Ibid.,  bk.  ii,  p.  7. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         675 

the  next,  and  so  on  till  the  last  number.  Persons  continu- 
ing to  refuse  might  have  their  land  in  a  second  new  pur- 
chase which  was  already  under  contemplation.  But  the 
person  drawing  the  first  number  might  have  his  land  where 
he  chose  providing  it  was  on  one  of  the  outside  lines  of  the 
purchase.^  The  renewed  influence  of  the  Society  clearly 
appears,  however,  in  the  vote  that  Morris  as  its  agent  might 
take  up  40,000  acres  at  the  uppermost  end  of  the  tract  and 
60,000  acres  adjoining  it  in  the  future  purchase." 

From  this  point  on  numerous  warrants  for  lands  in  the 
recent  purchase  begin  to  be  granted,  and  at  the  next  session 
of  the  council,  in  November,  1708,  it  was  resolved  that 
warrants  for  unoccupied  lands  in  the  old  purchases  should 
also  be  granted  to  such  as  requested  them  if  they  had  paid 
their  proportions  in  the  new  purchases  above  the  Falls. 

But  in  the  meeting  of  April,  1709,  with  Morris  presiding, 
it  was  determined  that  the  new  Indian  purchase  above  the 
Falls  should  continue  still  undivided  until  another  pur- 
chase of  all  the  land  in  West  Jersey  above  the  said  tract 
could  be  effected.  Then  all  the  land  was  to  be  taken  to- 
gether and  a  division  of  the  whole  made  with  all  convenient 
speed.  Notice  was  forthwith  given  of  this  further  project, 
so  that  as  many  proprietors  as  pleased  might  advance  money 
for  the  new  enterprise.''  Interest  of  eight  pounds  per  cent 
was  to  be  allowed  upon  all  advances  for  either  of  the  pur- 
chases until  the  dividend  was  made. 

The  extensiveness  of  the  new  operations,  however,  led 
the  council  to  take  increased  precautions  to  prevent  irregu- 
larities. In  February,  1709,  a  new  rule  was  adopted  that 
henceforth,  upon  all  warrants  for  surveys  that  should  be 
executed,  the  surveyor-general  should  return  a  draught  and 
a  certificate  of  survey  to  the  council  in  order  that  it  might 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  ii,  p.  8. 
^Ibid.,  bk.  ii,  p.  7.  *Ibid.,  bk.  ii,  p.  33. 


676 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


be  inspected  and  approved.  Only  after  such  approval  was 
the  survey  to  be  recorded  in  the  office  of  the  surveyor- 
general.' 

So  far  the  proceedings  of  the  council,  since  the  renewal 
of  its  activity,  had  gone  with  great  apparent  smoothness 
and  unanimity.  It  proved,  however,  a  matter  of  some 
difficulty  to  maintain  the  good  understanding  between  the 
energetic  Morris  and  rest  of  the  council.  Morris  evidently 
regarded  the  vote  of  the  council  declaring  that  "  the  So- 
ciety "  might  have  60,000  acres  lying  next  to  the  purchase 
on  the  Delaware  as  giving  him  proper  authority  to  make 
an  entirely  independent  Indian  purchase.  But  the  council 
resented  his  effects  and  thought  it  necessary  to  write  to 
Lieutenant-Governor  Ingoldsby  entreating  him  not  to  grant 
a  license  for  any  Indian  purchase  except  upon  certificate 
duly  signed  by  the  proprietors'  recorder.^  A  letter  was 
also  "  writt "  to  Morris  expressing  surprise  at  his  pro- 
ceedings. It  was  stated  that  the  purchase  under  consider- 
ation was  to  be  made  by  the  proprietors  in  general  to  the 
use  of  the  whole.  No  particular  person  had  been  designated 
for  "that  piece  of  Service."  The  letter  contained  more- 
over a  broad  hint  that  the  council  was  grieved  at  Morris's 
failure  to  attend  its  sessions."  Meanwhile  the  council  had 
considered,  though  without  any  definite  decision,  the  break- 
ing-up  of  the  tracts  above  the  Falls  held  so  long  in  common. 
Morris  was  informed  that  at  the  next  meeting  the  proprie- 
tors would  proceed  to  a  division  of  it  "  among  us  all !" 

But  at  the  following  meeting,   held   in  January,   1710, 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  ii,  p.  53. 

*  Since  Cornbury's  time  the  council  had  acted  in  accordance  with  the 
act  of  1703  requiring  that  purchases  should  be  made  only  on  license 
issued  by  the  governor  on  proper  application  by  the  proprietors. 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  ii,  pp. 
60-63. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE  677 

Morris  had  evidently  recovered  his  influence,  for  it  was  for- 
mally voted  that,  since  the  Indian  purchase  already  made 
fell  far  short  of  the  amount  expected,  a  certificate  should  be 
issued  to  Morris  to  buy  from  the  natives  all  the  lands  above 
the  Falls  which  remained  unpurchased.  He  was  to  act, 
nevertheless,  in  trust  for  "  the  Society  "  and  general  pro- 
prietors.' The  council,  however,  had  to  write  to  him  later 
asking  for  a  report  on  his  proceedings  as  well  as  a  state- 
ment as  to  the  quantity  of  land  he  had  secured  for  the 
Society. 

A  new  and  highly  important  development  now  appeared 
in  the  opening  of  negotiations  between  the  council  and 
Col.  Daniel  Coxe."  In  March,  1711-12,  the  council  wrote 
a  courteous  letter  to  Coxe,  stating  that  he  might  have  5000 
acres  in  the  new  purchase  and  expressing  the  wish  "  to 
cultivate  a  good  understanding."  Coxe  was  asked,  never- 
theless, to  send  his  deeds  to  have  them  minuted  according  to 
■"  our  usual  custom,"  to  pay  his  proportion  of  the  Indian 
purchase  and  to  draw  lots  with  the  others  for  the  location 
of  his  claim.  Delegates  were  even  sent  to  deliver  the  com- 
munication to  Coxe  personally,  but  could  not  do  so  on  their 
first  visit  "  by  reason  of  his  being  in  Bedd." 

On  the  next  day,  however,  the  Colonel,  who  was  now 
evidently  awake,  required  10,000  acres.  He  asked  for 
5,000  acres  "  certain  "  "  in  his  former  Pretended  Survey," 
but  for  the  other  5,000  he  was  willing  to  take  a  lot  and  pay 
his  part  of  the  purchase  price.  For  his  deeds  he  referred 
the  council  to  the  secretary's  office,  where  they  were  on  re- 
cord. To  this  message  the  council  replied  that  Coxe  could 
have  5,000  acres  and  no  more,  that  being  the  amount  that 
had  satisfied   William   Penn.      If  there  was   any   surplus 

'  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey ,  bk.  ii,  p.  ^^. 
^ Ibid.,  p.  142. 


^^8  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

after  the  allotments  were  surveyed,  Coxe  might  come  in  for 
a  further  proportion  with  the  others.^  To  this  ultimatum 
the  Colonel  replied,  "  I  thank  the  gentlemen.  I  shall  not 
trouble  myself  further  about  it." 

But  the  council  was  really  anxious  for  an  arrangement, 
and  in  another  message  told  Coxe  that  for  the  sake  of  a 
good  understanding  they  were  willing  to  concede  him  8000 
acres.  But  Coxe's  only  answer  was  that  when  the  business 
of  the  board  was  over  he  desired  to  discourse  with  them 
"  in  order  to  ask  some  questions,  etc."  ^ 

Meanwhile  the  council  had  proceeded  to  the  division  of 
the  Indian  purchase  about  which  there  had  been  so  much 
discussion.  Seventy-seven  lots  were  prepared  for  the  per- 
sons to  whom  the  council  had  authorized  warrants,  and 
these  were  now  duly  drawn.  Yet  the  allotment  gave  rise 
to  contention,  for  John  Wills,  who  had  succeeded  Biddle 
as  vice-president  of  the  council,  not  only  refused  to  sign 
the  lots,  but  deserted  the  board  and  withdrew  without  ad- 
journment "  or  any  cause."  In  order  to  avoid  further  con- 
fusion John  Kay  was  chosen  as  vice-president,  and  it  was 
ordered  that  the  warrants  for  taking  up  the  lands  distri- 
buted should  be  signed  by  all  the  members  of  the  council 
(except  the  surveyor)  or  by  so  many  of  them  as  could  be 
conveniently  had.^ 

The  surveyor  was  again  instructed  as  to  his  work  in  lay- 
ing out  the  allotments.  The  tracts  were  to  adjoin  each 
other  so  that  no  spaces  were  left,  and  all  surveys  were  to 
be  laid  out  in  straight  lines.  Each  surveyor  was  to  be  at- 
tended by  one  chain  carrier  who  should  be  sworn  or 
solemnly  attested  to  the  true  carrying  of  the  chain.  If  any 
person  for  whom  land  was  to  be  surveyed  should  be  absent 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  ii,  p.  144- 
^Ibid.,  p.  145.  ^Ibid.,  pp.  144-6. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         679 

(by  himself  or  deputy),  for  twenty-four  hours  attendance 
by  the  surveyor,  the  land  was  to  be  laid  out  for  the  owner  of 
the  next  lot  and  the  absentee  must  wait  until  the  end  of  that 
draft  of  lots.  The  surveyor  was  to  begin  work  on  April 
23,  next,  (1712)/ 

But  while  the  council  of  proprietors  was  taking  these  im- 
portant steps  the  political  struggle  between  Governor 
Hunter  and  the  old  party  of  Cornbury  had  begun,  and  had 
already  had  its  influence  upon  proprietary  affairs.  In  No- 
vember, 171 1,  Jeremiah  Basse,  the  secretary  of  the  pro- 
vince, although  directed  by  the  governor  to  qualify  Thomas 
Gardiner  as  surveyor-general,  refused  to  allow  him  to  take 
the  usual  attestation  on  the  ground  that  the  law  of  England 
did  not  permit  persons  to  qualify  in  that  way  for  offices  of 
profit,  and  that  moreover  the  governor's  directions  had 
spoken  only  of  qualification  by  oath.^  He  wrote  also  to 
the  governor  that  caveats  had  been  entered  against  Gardiner 
by  both  Col.  Coxe  and  Daniel  Leeds,  formerly  surveyor- 
general.'  Gardiner,  on  the  other  hand,  represented  to 
Hunter  that  the  efforts  against  him  were  due  to  the  fact 
that  Basse  and  Coxe  knew  that  he  would  not  commit 
frauds  to  oblige  them,  as  Daniel  Leeds  had  frequently  done.* 

Meanwhile,  as  a  further  manifestation  of  the  activity  of 
the  partisans  of  Coxe,  a  protest  had  been  drawn  up  against 
the  exclusive  and  "  dispotical  "  power  assumed  by  the  coun- 
cil of  proprietors  in  undertaking  to  inspect  and  pass  judg- 
ment on  all  land  titles  in  West  Jersey.  The  protest  de- 
clared that  the  council  had  authority  to  dispose  of  no  more 
than  their  own  particular  proprietary  shares.  It  was  signed 
by  sixteen  persons  claiming  to  be  proprietors  among  whom 
were  Daniel  Leeds,  Abraham  Hewlings,  and  John  Gosling.* 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proptieiors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  ii,  p.  147. 
^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  pp.  144.  148. 
^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  142,  148,  149.  *Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  144. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  iv.  p.  146. 


68o  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

But  the  campaign  of  Coxe  did  not  develop  as  might  have 
been  expected  into  a  further  attack  upon  the  council  as  the 
engine  of  the  Quaker  interest.  The  annual  election  of 
the  council,  held  in  the  spring  of  1712,  resulted  in  the  choice 
of  Col.  Coxe  himself  with  John  Wills,  Peter  Fretwell, 
Thomas  Stevenson,  and  Joshua  Humphreys  for  Burling- 
otn,^  while  John  Budd  and  Joseph  Kirkbride  were  of  those 
chosen  at  Gloucester."  The  election  meant  that  Coxe  was 
in  control  of  the  council,  for  he  was  forthwith  made  its 
president.  John  Wills  who  had  deserted  the  recent  council 
was  installed  as  clerk,  in  place  of  John  Reading.'  And 
though  the  new  board  did  not  go  so  far  as  to  turn  Thomas 
Gardiner  out  of  his  office,  it  coupled  Daniel  Leeds  with  him 
as  authorized  surveyor.*  What  causes  had  brought  about 
the  revolution  in  the  council  we  can  only  surmise.  It  seems 
probable  that  Coxe  had  obtained  the  support  not  only  of 
those  who  had  regularly  followed  him,  but  also  of  persons 
like  Wills  who  were  disgruntled  over  the  recent  allotments 
in  the  new  Indian  purchase. 

At  any  rate  there  were  important  results.  Directly  after 
the  election,  and  without  the  attendance  of  the  members 
chosen  at  Gloucester,  the  council  held  a  session  and  voted 
that  the  former  council  had  acted  too  hastily  and  irregularly 
with  regard  to  the  surveying  of  the  new  purchase.'^  An 
order  was  sent  immediately  to  Gardiner  to  prevent  him 
and  all  other  surveyors  from  making  any  further  surveys 
therein,  and  notice  of  the  action  was  given  to  the  public. 
At  the  next  meeting  it  was  further  ordered  that  a  caveat 
be  entered  in  the  secretary's  office  to  prevent  the  recording 
of  any  such  surveys  till  the  council  gave  its  consent.® 

^  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  152. 

*  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii,  p.  i. 

'^Ibid.,  p.  2.  ^Ibid.,  p.  7.  ^Ibid.,  p.  i.  '^Ibid.,  p.  3- 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         68l 

The  new  council  then  showed  its  real  hand  by  deciding 
that  Daniel  Coxe,  Peter  Sonmans,  and  Thomas  Stevenson 
should  have  10,900  acres  in  the  new  purchase  to  be  laid  out 
in  as  regular  a  form  as  the  nature  of  the  place  they  should 
pitch  upon  permitted.  It  was,  however,  to  be  clear  of  all 
the  surveys  lately  made,  and  the  holders  engaged  to  renounce 
all  further  claims  in  the  new  purchase  and  to  pay  their 
share  of  the  purchase  money.'  A  little  later,  Coxe  and 
Sonmans  were  authorized  to  take  up  a  further  tract  of  5,000 
acres,-  but  the  latter  soon  resigned  his  claim  to  his  part- 
ner.' In  the  December  meeting,  however,  Sonmans  ap- 
plied for  a  warrant  for  20,000  acres  in  any  place  already 
purchased,  basing  his  claim  upon  a  propriety  bought  by  his 
father  from  Edward  By  Hinge.  The  council  at  once  granted 
a  warrant.^ 

But  meanwhile  the  council  had  met  opposition  from  John 
Reading,  its  former  clerk.  The  new  board  had  ordered 
Reading  to  deliver  the  Indian  deeds  for  "  the  new  Indian 
Purchase,"  together  with  the  minutes,  books,  and  papers, 
belonging  to  the  proprietors.  Yet  he  hesitated  to  obey. 
After  endeavoring  to  delay  by  requesting  time  to  consider, 
Reading,  however,  finally  agreed  to  give  the  deeds  to  the 
secretary  that  they  might  be  recorded  and  then  made  over 
to  the  person  appointed  by  the  council  of  proprietors.  "*  In 
reply  to  this  proposition  the  council  resolved  that  they  had 
always  been  of  the  opinion  that  all  deeds  should  be  entered 
at  the  secretary's  office,  but,  as  the  secretary  would  not  re- 
turn for  five  days  and  as  they  feared  that  meanwhile  ill  use 
might  be  made  of  the  deeds,  they  insisted  that  the  records 
be  delivered  at  once.''  This  vote  seems  to  have  been  ef- 
fective, and  Reading  does  not  appear  to  have  even  incurred 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii,  p.  2. 
^IMd.,  p.  7.  ''Ibid.,  p.  14.  *Ibid.,  p.  17.  ^Ibid,,  p.  6. 


682  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

the  permanent  hostility  of  the  board,  as  upon  the  death  of 
Thomas  Gardiner,  John  Reading  Jr.  was  chosen  surveyor- 
general  in  his  stead/ 

At  length,  in  the  December  meeting  of  171 2,  the  new 
surveyor-general,  who  had  been  formerly  engaged  in  the 
work  as  deputy  to  Gardiner,  submitted,  by  order  of  the 
council,  an  account  of  the  surveys  already  made  in  "  the 
new  Indian  Purchase."  ^  There  were  thirty-three  of  these, 
chiefly  for  amounts  between  one  hundred  and  five  hundred 
acres.  Coxe  had  4,170  acres;  Gardiner's  heirs,  2,225 ;  Wil- 
liam Penn,  5,000;  and  William  Biddle,  tracts  of  1350  and 
1665. 

But  one  of  the  earliest  acts  of  the  Coxe  regime  was  to 
set  on  foot  a  further  Indian  purchase  with  a  view  to  mak- 
ing a  fourth  proprietary  dividend.^  The  first  difficulty 
to  be  encountered,  however,  was  in  obtaining  from  the 
govervnor  the  required  certificate  to  purchase  of  the  na- 
tives, for  it  must  be  remembered  that  Hunter  was  already 
at  swords'  points  with  Col.  Coxe.  Objection  was  at  once 
entered  by  Willocks,  and  by  Thomas  Byerly,  both  of  whom 
held  interests  in  West  Jersey,  against  the  issue  of  the  li- 
cense.* Hunter  also  received  a  protest  from  Morris.^ 
The  governor,  however,  informed  the  West  Jersey  council 
of  the  reasons  offered  against  them,  and  they  presented 
answers.®  They  informed  Hunter,  moreover,  that  there 
was  still  wanting  200,000  acres  to  accommodate  those  pro- 
prietors who  were  behind  on  their  first  dividend.'  The 
result  was  that  the  governor  granted  the  council  his  cer- 
tificate. * 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii,  p.  14. 

*Ibid.,  p.  30.  ^Ibid.,  p.  36.  ^Ibid.,  p.  10. 

^Ibid.,  p.  II.  ^Ibid.,  pp.  10,  11.  'Ibid.,  p.  13. 

^Ibid.,  p.  16;  Liber  AAA  of  Commissions,  p.  144.  The  license  gave 
power  to  purchase  to  Coxe,  Gardiner,  Kirkbride,  Stevenson,  Fretwell 
and  Wills. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         68- 

The  council  then  gave  public  notice  of  its  project  that 
all  proprietors  so  inclined  might  join  in  the  purchase. "^  But 
immediately  afterward  it  gave  an  object  lesson  of  its  new 
business  methods  by  the  vote  that  Col.  Coxe  should  have 
first  choice  of  15,000  acres  in  one  entire  tract  of  the  land 
to  be  acquired.  John  Wills  was  to  come  in  for  second 
choice  of  862  acres,  and  Peter  Fretwell  was  third  for  700. 
Then  came  Thomas  Stevenson,  who  was  to  have  2000 
acres,  Joseph  Kirkbride,  whose  share  was  6,000,  and  oth- 
ers in  designated  order. ^ 

Reading  and  Stevenson  were  deputed  to  view  the  lands 
in  the  northern  part  of  the  province  the  purchase  of  which 
was  contemplated,  and  to  them  with  Kirkbride  was  com- 
mitted power  to  treat  with  the  natives  and  to  secure  such 
lands  as  they  deemed  valuable.  But  the  council  had  difficul- 
ties in  securing  ready  funds  to  carry  through  the  transac- 
tion. When  the  project  had  first  been  taken  up  a  sub- 
scription of  £26  6s.  had  been  raised  to  buy  Indian  goods.* 
But  this  contribution  was  of  course  merely  to  cover 
preliminary  expenses.  A  considerable  debt  was  soon 
contracted,  and  in  the  meeting  of  March,  1712-13,  an 
appeal  had  to  be  issued  to  the  most  considerable  proprietors 
to  meet  and  contribute."  Yet  even  this  appeal  did  not  give 
a  satisfactory  result,  and  the  council  was  finally  obliged, 
after  full  consideration  of  ways  and  means,  to  empower 
Stevenson  and  Reading  to  sell  1000  acres  of  land,  or  as 
much  as  was  wanting  for  the  payment  of  the  natives."^ 

But  while  the  council  was  thus  engaged,  occurred  the 
annual  election  of  171 3.  Coxe  and  his  four  colleagues 
were,  however,  again  returned  for  Burlington,  but  the  pro- 

^  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii,  p.  17. 
*Ibid.,  pp.  34,  36.  ^Ibid.,  p.  7. 

*^Ibid.,  p.  36.  ^Ibid.,  pp.  43,  44. 


684 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


prietors  at  Gloucester  selected  John  Reading,  Richard  Bull, 
John  Budd,  and  James  Logan.  The  appearance  of  the 
latter  gentleman,  widely  known  as  the  representative  of 
William  Penn,  was  undoubtedly  a  matter  of  importance 
for  the  proprietorship  of  West  Jersey.^  After  the  board 
met  it  had  to  consider  a  dispute  as  to  the  election  of  Bull. 
But  to  save  time  it  decided  that  both  Bull  and  Kirkbride,  the 
rival  candidate,  should  sit  and  vote.  Col.  Coxe  was  re- 
elected as  president,  but  the  Quaker,  Peter  Fretwell,  became 
vice-president.     Wills  was  again  clerk  and  recorder.* 

Reading  and  Stevenson  now  reported  that  they  had  made 
several  purchases  from  divers  Indian  chiefs  by  which  the 
latter  had  given  up  all  their  rights  in  West  Jersey.*  There- 
upon the  council  made  public  ad^-ertisement  of  the  pur- 
chase and  the  apportionment  of  the  fourth  dividend.^  All 
desiring  to  take  part  were  ordered  to  meet  the  council  on 
October  20th  at  Burlington  to  enter  the  quantities  of  land 
to  which  they  were  entitled  and  to  provide  for  the  payment 
of  their  share  of  the  purchase  money. 

This  meeting  was  duly  held,  and  various  claims  entered 
and  approved."  But  it  was  further  agreed  that,  as  several 
of  the  proprietors  were  at  a  distance,  further  notice  be 
given,  and  that  all  who  paid  their  shares  before  November 
20th  should  be  allowed  to  come  in  on  equal  terms.*  Even 
with  this  concession,  however,  the  result  appears  to  have 
been   considered  so   unsatisfactory  that   in   the  spring  of 

'  Logan  was  for  a  long  time  treasurer  of  the  council. 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii,  p.  41. 

*Ibid.,  p.  45. 

■•  Like  the  earlier  dividends  this  was  for  5000  acres  on  a  propriety. 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii,  p.  51 
et  seq. 
^Ibid.,  p.  55. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE  685 

1 714  the  council,  which  had  not  been  radically  changed  in 
personnel  by  the  yearly  election,  thought  best  to  extend 
further  the  time  within  which  payment  should  be  made,  and 
to  give  formal  assurance  that  the  apportionment  of  the 
lands  would  be  impartial.  This  last  declaration  was  in 
answer  to  some  who  had  expressed  doubts  lest  the  tracts 
be  not  assigned  fairly.^ 

In  September,  171 4,  the  board  perfected  the  arrange- 
ments for  apportionment.^  All  the  land  was  to  be  surveyed 
into  lots  of  1250  acres  each.  These  were  to  be  numbered. 
Then  lots  were  to  be  drawn  "  faithfully,"  and,  according  to 
the  numbers  which  they  drew,  the  proprietors  were  to  have 
warrants,  and  should  proceed  in  the  same  order  to  have  their 
lands  surveyed  in  such  places  as  they  might  choose.  Those 
whose  claims  did  not  amount  to  1250  acres  were  to  join 
together.  But  none  should  take  up  above  ten  acres  of 
meadow  or  rich  low  land  to  one  hundred  acres,  and  not  less 
than  the  quantity  contained  in  the  respective  lots  should 
be  laid  out  in  one  tract  or  parcel.  Lots  might  be  rejected, 
and  those  so  acting  might  have  warrants  for  their  lands  in 
any  other  part  of  the  western  division. 

Among  the  numerous  claims  entered  for  the  new  dividend 
the  largest  were,  of  course,  those  of  Penn  and  Coxe.  Logan 
claimed  for  Penn  twelve  proprieties,  ten  secured  from  Fen- 
wick,  Elbridge,  and  Warner,  one  from  Daniel  Waite,  and 
another  purchased  in  1697  from  William  Hague  and  Philip 
Ford.^  Colonel  Coxe  claimed  20,000  acres  in  right  of  the 
share  undisposed  of  by  Edward  Byllinge  at  the  time  of  his 
decease.*  To  support  this  claim  he  produced  a  deed  from 
Gratia  Bartlet,  the  surviving  daughter  of  Byllinge,  in  con- 
firmation of  a  former  deed  of  1691.  granting  to  Dr.  Daniel 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii,  p.  60. 
*Ibid.,  p.  67.  ^Ibid.,  pp.  52,  101.  *Ibid.,  p.  109. 


686  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Coxe  all  of  Byllinge's  remaining  interests  in  West  Jersey. 
But  the  council  held  that,  because  of  the  generally  published 
account  that  Edward  Byllinge  had  disposed  of  all  his  ninety- 
hundredths  of  West  Jersey  before  his  death,  it  would  not 
be  safe  to  allow  Col.  Coxe's  claim  till  it  more  clearly  ap- 
peared that  Byllinge  at  his  death  had  a  right  to  any  lands 
then  not  alienated. 

Col.  Coxe  then  produced  an  account  from  several  lists 
that  in  1676  Byllinge  and  trustees  granted  to  Samuel  Cole 
of  London  (haberdasher),  and  Benjamin  Bartlet  of  Lon- 
don, (gentleman),  one  whole  propriety.  Also  Byllinge  and 
trustees  in  1677  granted  one  whole  propriety  to  the  said 
Bartlet,  Josiah  Thomas,  and  Elizabeth  Harris,  three- 
sevenths  for  Bartlet,  two-sevenths  to  Thomas,  and  two- 
sevenths  to  Elizabeth  Harris.  Coxe  further  produced  a 
deed  from  Gratia  Bartlet,  conveying  to  Dr.  Coxe  all  the 
estate  of  her  said  husand,  and  also  another  especially  con- 
veying his  estate  in  West  Jersey.  These  deeds  bore  the 
date  of  1702.  In  addition  Col.  Coxe  laid  before  the  coun- 
cil deeds  for  three  proprieties  from  Thomas  Williams.  By 
this  formidable  list  of  documents  the  board  was  convinced, 
and  ordered  the  issue  of  Coxe's  warrant.^ 

At  length  on  October  9,  17 14,  the  lots  were  drawn  and 
recorded.  The  total  area  thus  disposed  of  amounted  to 
205,374  acres. ^  The  council  then  agreed  that  April  i6th 
next  be  the  day  for  the  proprietors  and  the  surveyor  to  begin 
the  actual  work  of  surveying  the  lots,  or  at  least  April  i8th. 
The  surveyor  was  to  stay  at  least  twenty-four  hours  after 
the  survey  of  one  lot  before  beginning  the  next,  and  he 
must  then  survey  for  the  person  next  in  turn.' 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii,  pp. 

IIO-III. 

^Ibid.,  p.  112.  ^Ibid.,  p.  121. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE  68/ 

During  the  sessions  of  171 5  the  council  of  which  Col. 
Coxe  was  once  more  president,  with  John  Kay  as  vice- 
president,  was  occupied  chiefly  with  the  ordering  of  further 
warrants  and  the  approval  of  surveys  returned.  But  the 
only  serious  difficulty  shown  by  the  records  was  in  the  case 
of  a  claim  by  George  Willocks  which  was  now  disallowed 
though  once  held  valid.* 

But  while  the  council  of  proprietors  had  thus  been  engaged 
in  making  its  fourth  dividend  the  political  conflict  between 
Governor  Hunter  and  Colonel  Coxe  had  been  growing  ever 
more  bitter,  and  the  supporters  of  the  governor  both  in  and 
out  of  the  West  Jersey  proprietorship  were  only  too  ready 
to  seize  any  mode  of  attack  upon  Coxe  and  those  under 
his  control.  In  February,  1713-14,  Thomas  Byerly  de- 
livered to  Hunter  in  council  a  memorial  complaining  of 
Reading,  Leeds,  the  council  of  proprietors,  and  the  sec- 
retary." Ten  days  later  the  council  of  proprietors  ap- 
peared personally  before  the  governor  and  delivered  their 
answer.'  But  damaging  evidence  had  been  produced  to 
show  that  Surveyor-General  Leeds  had  altered  records  of 
survey  in  an  improper  manner.*  Leeds,  it  will  be  recalled, 
had  always  been  an  especially  subservient  tool  of  Coxe  and 
had  made  himself  conspicuous  as  such  during  Cornbury's 
administration.  After  investigation  the  royal  council  na- 
turally declared  that  Leeds  had  been  guilty  of  many  frauds, 
and  it  was  ordered  that  he  be  discharged  from  acting  further 
as  surveyor-general."  The  attorney-general  was  also  au- 
thorized to  prosecute  him  upon  information.  But  Alex- 
ander Griffith  deliberately  connived  at  his  escape."     Upon 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii,  p. 
133  et  seq. 
^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiit,  p.  516.  ^ Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  524. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  pp.  5^5,  526.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  551. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  p.  560. 


688  ^-^^  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

the  removal  of  Griffith,  Thomas  Gordon  was  directed  to 
renew  the  prosecution.^  In  1716  the  trial  was  at  length 
held  before  the  supreme  court,  but  Leeds  was  acquitted/ 
The  council  of  proprietors,  however,  made  no  effort  to 
reinstate  him  as  surveyor-general,  for  in  1714,  John  Read- 
ing, Jr.,  and  Richard  Bull  were  chosen  in  room  of  Leeds, 
and  Thomas  Gardiner,  deceased.* 

The  attack  upon  Leeds  was  of  course  hardly  a  very 
serious  blow  to  the  council  of  proprietors.  But  in  July 
1715,  that  body  received  Governor  Hunter's  proclamation 
forbidding  any  person  to  act  as  proprietary  register  within 
West  Jersey  but  James  Smith,  or  as  surveyor-general  but 
James  Alexander.^  Smith  and  Alexander  bore  commis- 
sions for  these  posts  from  the  West  Jersey  Society,  but 
the  governor  and  royal  council  recognized  their  claim  to  act 
for  the  entire  West  Jersey  proprietorship.^  No  doubt  the 
influence  of  Morris  had  much  to  do  with  the  stand  taken  by 
Hunter  as  the  former  had  held  resolutely  aloof  from  the 
work  of  the  council  of  proprietors  ever  since  it  had  come 
under  control  of  Coxe.  The  West  Jersey  council  appears 
to  have  been  rather  dazed  by  the  blow,  but  decided  to  ad- 
dress Hunter  on  the  subject  and  to  inform  him  of  "  their 
condition  and  circumstances."  Logan,  Coxe,  and  Reading 
were  named  to  prepare  the  address.^ 

Just  at  this  point,  however,  occurred  the  rout  of  Coxe 
and  his  supporters  in  the  seventh  assembly,  followed  by  the 
flight  of  the  redoubtable  colonel  from  the  province,  and 
his  futile  mission  to  England.     These  circumstances  had 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiii,  p.  563. 

"^Records  of  the  Supreme  Court,  Burlington  (1716-1732),  p.  4. 
^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii,  p.  64. 
^ Ibid.,  p.  150.  '"New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xiv,  p.  3. 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii,  p. 
150  et  seq. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE 


689 


an  immediate  effect  upon  the  proprietary  concerns.  The 
proprietary  election  for  171 6  resulted  in  the  choice  at 
Burlington  of  Coxe,  Logan,  Wills,  Deacon,  and  Lewis 
Morris,  while  Reading,  Bull,  John  Budd,  and  Humphries 
were  selected  at  Gloucester.  But  Coxe  was  naturally  not 
present  when  the  board  organized,  and  Lewis  Morris  was 
chosen  as  president  with  George  Deacon,  a  Friend,  and  a 
supporter  of  Governor  Hunter,  as  vice-president.  All 
other  officers  were  declared  continued  till  further  order. 
The  council,  however,  took  no  immediate  action  regarding 
the  recognition  of  James  Smith  and  Alexander.^  The  re- 
organization meant,  of  course,  the  supplanting  of  the  Coxe 
interest  by  that  of  Morris. 

The  conduct  of  the  new  council  showed  at  once  the  turn 
affairs  had  taken,  for  it  immediately  passed  resolutions  to 
remove  the  misunderstanding  which  was  declared  to  have 
existed  for  some  time  past  between  the  board  and  the 
agent  of  the  West  Jersey  Society.  It  was  agreed  that  the 
agents  of  all  absent  proprietors  should  be  admitted  to  vote 
in  electing  the  council  and  in  case  the  agent  of  "  the  So- 
ciety "  was  not  elected  he  was  still  to  be  admitted  as  a 
member  of  the  council  with  the  right  to  debate  and  to  vote.* 

In  addition  the  council  re-enacted  and  revised  some  of  its 
rules  regarding  the  keeping  of  its  records.  No  certificate 
was  to  be  issued  by  the  proprietary  recorder  for  obtaining 
the  governor's  license  to  purchase  land  of  the  Indians  with- 
out the  approval  of  the  committee  (council)  signified  by 
their  clerk.  In  case  the  office  of  recorder  and  clerk  were 
vested  in  different  persons  the  order  must  be  signed  by 
both.  The  surveyor-general's  office  was  to  be  held  at 
Burlington,  all  records  and  drafts  of  surveys  were  to  be 

'  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii,  p.  154. 
^Ibid.,  p.  157. 


690 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


lodged  there,  and  all  new  warrants  and  surveys  recorded. 
All  warrants  for  the  survey  of  land  were  to  be  directed  to 
the  surveyor-general  or  his  deputy,  and  the  said  surveyor- 
general  was  to  make  a  return  of  such  surveys  to  the 
committee.  The  return  was  to  be  by  them  inspected  and 
approved  before  being  put  on  record  by  the  recorder. 
All  warrants  previously  granted  and  not  yet  returned 
were  ordered  to  be  executed  by  the  officers  to  whom 
they  were  addressed,  and  returned  accordingly,  but  great 
care  was  to  be  used  in  approving  the  return  of  sur- 
veys. Lastly  it  was  agreed  that  notice  be  given  to  all  pro- 
prietors who  had  not  yet  had  their  lots  in  the  last  purchase 
surveyed  that  they  should  cause  them  to  be  surveyed  before 
January  first.  At  that  date  the  land  was  to  be  thrown  open 
to  all  proprietors  who  showed  title  and  paid  their  Indian 
purchase  money.  ^ 

Morris  next  submitted  the  draft  of  survey  of  a  tract  of 
91,895  acres,  made  in  June,  171 1,  in  accordance  with  the 
agreement  made  at  that  time  by  the  council  that  he  should 
make  an  Indian  purchase  of  100,000  acres  for  the  Society. 
Morris  said  that  the  death  of  Thomas  Gardiner,  and  the 
fact  that  he  himself  lived  so  far  from  Burlington  had  pre- 
vented the  presentation  of  the  survey  before.  In  spite  of 
the  flimsy  character  of  his  excuse  the  survey  was  of  course 
allowed  and  a  warrant  issued.^  The  energetic  "  agent " 
also  "  made  it  appear  "  that  a  considerable  amount  was  still 
due  the  Society  on  the  third  dividend,  but  the  council  would 
take  no  action  regarding  the  matter  until  the  fourth  dividend 
was  cleared  up.' 

From  this  time  until  1723  no  very  sweeping  change  in  the 
personnel  of  the  council  is  to  be  noted.     Morris,  however, 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii,  p.  157 
et  seq.  "^Ibid.,  p.  173.  ^Ibid.,  p.  175. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         69I 

as  usual  did  not  attend  the  meetings  regularly,  and  John 
Kay,  who  soon  superseded  Deacon  as  vice-president,  gener- 
ally presided.^  In  1718  Dr.  John  Johnstone,  so  well  known 
for  his  transactions  in  East  Jersey,  was  chosen  for  the 
council  from  Burlington  and  served  several  terms/  John 
Wills  continued  as  clerk. 

But  that  the  agent  of  the  West  Jersey  Society  continued 
to  have  influence  is  indicated  in  the  formal  election  by  the 
council  of  James  Alexander  as  surveyor-general  of  West 
Jersey  during  good  behavior.^  It  appears  that  the  coun- 
cil, though  willing  enough  to  have  Alexander  as  their  sur- 
veyor, did  not  wish  to  recognize  the  commission  granted  to 
him  in  171 5  by  the  West  Jersey  Society,  since  the  right 
to  control  the  surveyor-generalship  was  a  great  element  of 
strength  to  the  council.  To  prevent  trouble,  however,  and 
to  avoid  conflict  with  the  powerful  English  proprietors,  the 
council  proposed  to  elect  Alexander  on  condition  that  he 
would  accept  the  appointment  from  them.  Alexander 
agreed  on  the  proviso  that  his  appointment  should  be  made 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  prevent  later  disputes.* 

When  the  council  thus  selected  Alexander,  (who,  it  must 
be  remembered,  was  also  surveyor-general  of  East  Jersey), 
it  laid  down  certain  definite  conditions.*  He  was  to  keep 
the  ofiice  at  Burlington  either  personally  or  by  a  deputy  for 
whom  he  was  to  be  answerable,  and  who  was  to  be  approved 
by  the  board. °  The  regulations  of  the  council  regarding 
the  issuing,  return,  and  recording  of  warrants  for  survey 
were  to  be  strictly  observed,  and  Alexander,  in  accord- 
ance with  an  agreement  previously  made  with  Morris,  was 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  o{ Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii,  p.  176. 
^ Ibid.,  p.  182.  '^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  275. 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii,  p.  182. 
*  Isaac  Decowe  was  selected  as  deputy  and  approved. 


692  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

to  endeavor  to  collect  and  lodge  all  records  relating-  to 
surveys  in  his  office.  He  was  not  to  take  any  records  out 
of  Burlington  for  a  longer  space  than  twenty  days.  Lastly, 
Alexander  was  not  as  surveyor-general  of  East  Jersey,  in 
case  of  any  dispute,  to  presume  to  survey  for  any  of  the 
eastern  division  lands  that  had  been  regularly  surveyed 
on  proprietary  rights  of  West  Jersey. 

After  this  somewhat  unsatisfactory  settlement  of  the 
relations  between  the  council  and  the  West  Jersey  Society 
the  chief  matter  occupying  the  attention  of  the  former  body 
was  for  some  time  the  boundary  question.  As  early  as 
April,  1709,  the  council  of  proprietors  had  voted  that  the 
boundary  line  between  New  Jersey  and  New  York  should 
be  run  as  soon  as  possible  and  had  named  a  committee  to 
treat  with  the  proprietors  of  East  Jersey  and  with  Lord 
Lovelace  regarding  the  matter.^  In  March,  1712,  infor- 
mation was  brought  that  "  patentees  of  York  "  were  en- 
croaching upon  Jersey  settlers  and  harassing  them  by  suits. 
The  council  had  thereupon  ordered  Thomas  Gardiner  to 
state  the  case  to  Hunter,  to  the  end  that  he  might  stop  the 
troubles  and  cause  the  division  line  to  be  run.'^  But  this 
action  appears  to  have  had  no  immediate  result. 

Now  in  May,  1718,  the  council  received  a  letter  in  Dutch 
signed  by  Jan  Decker  and  other  settlers  on  the  upper 
Delaware  holding  under  West  Jersey,  complaining  that 
they  had  been  abused  by  inhabitants  of  New  York  to 
make  them  submit  to  that  government.  The  board  forth- 
with resolved  to  lay  the  matter  before  the  governor,  and  to 
do  all  it  could  to  promote  the  running  of  the  line.'     A  little 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  ii,  p.  33. 
This  action  was  taken  in  connection  with  the  Indian  purchases  on  the 
upper  Delaware. 

"^Ibid.,  p.  148.  ^Ibid.,  p.  179. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         693 

later  the  council  went  so  far  as  to  assume  the  expenses  of 
John  Budd  and  Richard  Bull  who  were  engaged  in  a  suit 
regarding  lands  in  East  Jersey  which  had  been  claimed  by 
New  York.^  These  circumstances  undoubtedly  contributed 
in  moving  Hunter  to  call  for  the  legislation  in  both  of  his 
provinces  which  provided  for  the  boundary  line  commission. 
Meanwhile  James  Logan  had  opened  the  negotiations 
with  the  proprietors  of  East  Jersey  regarding  the  running 
of  the  division  line  between  the  two  Jerseys.^  In  so  do- 
ing, however,  Penn's  representative  seems  to  have  acted 
without  the  formal  authority  of  the  council  of  his  division. 
Indeed  that  body  at  first  maintained  that  the  Barclay-Coxe 
line  was  the  only  true  one  and  that  the  attempt  of  certain 
of  the  East  Jersey  proprietors  to  alter  it  must  lead  to  con- 
fusion and  injury.*  But  led,  it  would  seem,  by  Logan, 
they  readily  acquiesced  in  the  passage  of  the  act  of  assembly 
of  1718-19  which  provided  for  the  abandonment  of  the 
Barclay-Coxe  line  and  all  other  accommodations,  and  a 
return  to  the  quintipartite  deed.  Logan  and  Dr.  John- 
stone took  the  lead  in  carrying  this  measure  through  the 
assembly.*  Logan  held  that  this  return  to  the  original  ar- 
rangement was  the  only  just  settlement,  and  moreover  that, 
even  if  the  West  Jersey  proprietors  surrendered  the  appar- 
ent advantage  of  the  Barclay-Coxe  treaty,  yet  they  would 
be  compensated  by  the  fact  that  "  ye  Titles  of  Land  will 
be  much  better  settled  &  their  prices  will  considerably  ad- 
vance." *  But  his  seasoning  was  clearly  influenced  by  his 
knowledge  that  the  Barclay-Coxe  agreement  "  had  no 
sufficient   foundation   in   ye   law   to  build   upon."  *      The 

^MinuUs  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey ,  bk.  iii,  p.  184. 

"* New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  377. 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii,  p.  186. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  390. 

^ Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  390.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  389. 


694 


THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 


West  Jersey  proprietorship  was  of  course  affected  equally 
with  that  of  East  Jersey  by  the  provisions  of  the  act  for 
running  the  division  line,  which  required  the  regular  main- 
taining of  the  surveyor-general's  offices  and  the  proper 
recording  of  all  surveys,  and  which  authorized  the  recovery 
of  all  land  records  held  in  private  hands/  But  in  the  case 
of  West  Jersey  these  articles  simply  gave  legal  sanction  to 
well  established  proprietary  regulations. 

The  West  Jersey  council  proceeded  promtply  to  ar- 
range for  the  carrying-out  of  the  act.  It  ordered  the 
raising  of  £500  to  cover  the  expenses  or  running  the 
line  by  a  charge  of  £5  on  each  propriety,^  and  wrote 
a  letter  to  the  proprietors  of  the  eastern  division  not 
only  setting  a  definite  time  for  the  meeting  of  the  man- 
agers appointed  to  carry  out  the  work,  but  also  urging  the 
need  of  prompt  action.^  Yet  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  Logan, 
Lambert,  and  Reading,  after  meeting  the  East  Jersey  com- 
missioners, themselves  emphasized  in  their  report  the  need 
of  dispatch,*  the  matter  hung  fire.  At  the  meeting  of  the 
council  of  May,  1721,  there  had  to  be  further  delay  because 
a  majority  of  the  managers  were  not  even  present.^  The 
reason  for  this  negligence  does  not  appear,  though  we  know 
that  John  Reading  was  now  dead  and  that  Joseph  Kirk- 
bride  had  been  inclined  to  the  Coxe  interest. 

The  delay  was  fatal  to  the  whole  project,  for  after  the 
retirement  of  Governor  Hunter  Colonel  Daniel  Coxe  re- 
turned to  West  Jersey  prepared  once  more  to  take  a  leading 
part  in  public  affairs.     The  proprietary  election  of  1723 

^  Allinson,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey. 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii,  p.  188 
et  seq. 

^ Ibid.,  p.  203.  The  letter  was  given  to  David  Lyell  who  happened  to 
be  in  Burlington. 

*Ibid.,  p.  208.  ^ Ibid.,  p.  223. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         695 

resulted  in  the  choice  of  the  said  Colonel  Coxe,  John  Gos- 
ling, Thomas  Wetherill,  Thomas  Budd,  and  Titan  Leeds  at 
Burlington,  and  of  John  Hugg,  John  Mickle,  Samuel  Coale, 
and  John  Inskip  at  Gloucester  to  "  agitate  "  the  proprietary 
affairs  for  the  ensuing  year.^  This  choice  gave  Coxe  again 
complete  control.  He  resumed  his  place  as  president  of 
the  council,  and  Titan  Leeds  superseded  Isaac  Deacowe^ 
as  clerk. 

Although  Logan  had  informed  Coxe  fully  as  to  the 
reasons  of  the  former  council  for  surrendering  their  claims 
under  the  Barclay-Coxe  agreement,*  Col.  Coxe  was  entirely 
opposed  to  the  act  of  1 718-19  for  running  the  boundary 
line,  as  well  as  to  all  other  arrangements  made  in  his  ab- 
sence. Surveyor-general  Alexander  was  at  once  ordered 
to  give  no  further  assistance  to  the  commissioners  of  East 
Jersey  for  running  the  line,  but  to  lay  all  papers  and  docu- 
ments relating  thereto  before  the  council.  If  the  East 
Jersians  insisted  on  running  the  line,  he  was  to  inform  Coxe 
at  once.*  Alexander  submitted  the  records  as  ordered." 
The  new  council  resolved  further  that,  as  there  was  reason 
to  apprehend  that  measures  might  be  taken  to  secure  the 
royal  approval  for  the  act  for  running  the  line,  it  would 
wait  upon  Governor  Burnet  and  desire  him  to  use  his  in- 
fluence against  such  approval  until  the  council  could  pre- 
sent its  side  of  the  case  to  the  Crown.'  In  the  October 
meeting  of  1723  the  council  carefully  prepared  a  bill  for 
repealing  the  act  in  question  and  had  it  "  writ  fare  "  to  lay 
before  the  assembly.''      But,   though   Coxe  did   not  have 

^  MinuUs  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii,  p.  238. 

*  Decowe  had  shortly  before  been  chosen  in  room  of  John  Wills. 

*  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  p.  388. 

*  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii,  p.  238. 
''Ibid.,  p.  243.  ^Ibid.,  p.  244.  "^ Ibid.,  p.  249. 


596  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

sufficient  influence  to  carry  this  measure  through  the  as- 
sembly, his  measures  for  blocking  the  running  of  the  line 
were,  for  reasons  explained  in  the  last  chapter,  en- 
tirely successful  for  the  time  being.  His  practical  nul- 
lification of  the  law  of  1 718-19  is  certainly  an  interesting 
episode  in  the  politics  of  the  colony. 

Meanwhile  the  re-establishment  of  Coxe's  control  over 
the  council  had  given  rise  to  certain  vexatious  difficulties. 
Decowe,  upon  order,  delivered  the  papers  in  his  possession 
to  the  newly  elected  clerk  Titan  Leeds.  ^  But  it  appeared  that 
a  part  of  the  minutes  of  the  council  were  still  in  the  hands 
of  John  Wills  and  John  Reading,  Jr.,  former  clerks.  The 
board  ordered  them  to  surrender  their  papers  and  resolved 
that  all  future  clerks  should  at  once  make  over  their  records 
to  their  successors.^  But  John  Wills  appeared  personally 
before  the  council,  and  said  that  he  would  not  deliver  the 
papers  until  they  had  been  "  farely  transcribed."  Then  the 
board  might  have  the  originals.^  After  a  delay  of  two 
months  he  was  ready  to  give  up  his  records,  but  did  not  do 
so  until  October,  1723.*  Meanwhile  the  business  of  the 
council  had  been  balked. 

But  John  Reading  still  held  out.  In  August,  1724,  he 
sent  a  letter  saying  that  he  would  copy  the  minutes,  if  he 
was  paid  for  the  copy.  Otherwise  he  would  deliver  them 
to  the  new  clerk  to  copy  upon  his  security  to  return  them." 
Yet  in  April,  1727,  Reading  had  still  failed  to  deliver  his 
records.  He  was  now  served  with  an  order  to  do  so,"  but 
we  can  only  infer  that  he  complied. 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii,  p.  238. 
^Ibid.,  p.  240. 

^ Ibid.,  p.  243.     The  student  can  hardly  avoid  the  inference  that  there 
were  often  suspicions  as  to  the  methods  of  Coxe. 
*Ibid.,  p.  246.  ^Ibid.,  p.  256.  ^Ibid.,  p.  286. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE 


697 


During  this  period  the  work  of  the  council  in  passing 
upon  claims  presented  and  authorizing  shares  of  the  divid- 
ends was  becoming  much  lighter.  The  third  and  fourth 
dividends  were  evidently  nearly  "  cleared  up."  About  the 
only  incident  relative  to  this  side  of  the  council's  activity 
which  seems  of  interest  to  the  historical  student  is  with 
reference  to  the  grant  of  20,000  acres  at  Amwell,  formerly 
given  to  Peter  Sonmans.  This  tract  Sonmans  had  released 
to  Col.  Coxe,  but  the  board  of  proprietors  interceded  with 
their  president  to  surrender  it  altogether.^  Coxe  finally 
did  so,  taking  a  receipt.  The  release  was  ordered  to  be 
kept  by  the  clerk.  But  later  the  matter  caused  further 
difficulty.  It  appeared  that  the  survey  had  originally  been 
made  for  Arent  Sonmans  in  1699,  but  he  had  left  it  to 
Peter,  his  heir,  who  had  conveyed  it  to  Col.  Coxe  in  1712. 
Later,  however,  by  "  inadvertance  "  ^  the  said  Peter  Son- 
mans made  it  over  to  John  Hadden,  and  three  others  in 
trust  for  the  London  Land  Company.  Accordingly  in 
1736  agents  of  the  London  Land  Company  requested  war- 
rants for  10,000  acres  in  West  Jersey  in  lieu  of  the  tract 
released  by  Sonmans.  Under  the  circumstances  the  coun- 
cil saw  fit  to  authorize  the  warrant  for  survey.' 

Meanwhile  came  a  new  conflict  regarding  the  surveyor- 
generalship.  It  might  naturally  be  expected  that  the  re- 
lations between  Coxe  and  Alexander,  the  protege  of  Hun- 
ter, would  not  be  too  cordial.  Nevertheless  after  the  re- 
establishment  of  the  Coxe  regime  Alexander  was  continued 
as  surveyor-general.*  But  he,  of  course,  continued  to  make 
New  York  his  headquarters  and  to  act  in  West  Jersey 
chiefly  "by  the  hand  of  Isaac  Decowe,"  his  deputy.     Evi- 

^  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iii,  p.  281. 
'Highly  characteristic.  The  date  of  the  transaction  was  Sept.,  1723. 
^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iv,  p.  66. 
*Ibid.,  bk.  iii,  p.  240. 


698  ^^^  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

dently  Alexander  was  not  in  very  close  touch  with  the 
council.  In  March,  1723-4,  upon  attending  their  session 
he  was  informed  that  his  deputies  had  taken  unusual  fees 
for  surveying/  The  board  thereupon  "  settled  "  the  fees, 
and  entered  them  upon  its  records. 

Finally  in  May,  1728,  the  council  elected  as  surveyor- 
general  in  place  of  Alexander,  John  Burr,  who  had  for 
some  time  previous  been  clerk. ^  In  the  letter  inform- 
ing Alexander,  however,  Thomas  Budd,  the  new  clerk,  was 
careful  to  state  that  the  step  had  been  taken  because  the 
council  had  information  that  Alexander  wished  to  give  up 
the  office  and  not  because  of  any  personal  dislike  or  charges 
of  misconduct.  Alexander  was,  however,  requested  to  sur- 
render all  records  belonging  to  his  post.^  Burr  also  wrote 
a  personal  letter  to  Alexander,  declaring  that  he  had  no 
inclination  to  act  without  his  consent.* 

But  Alexander  had  actually  no  desire  to  give  up  so  pro- 
fitable a  post,  and  would  not  make  over  the  records.  In 
May,  1728,  the  council  therefore  again  wrote  ordering  him 
to  do  so.°  Thus  assailed,  Alexander  memorialized  Gov- 
ernor Montgomerie.^  With  his  usual  ability  he  set  forth 
all  the  facts  in  his  case,  including  both  his  original  com- 
missioning by  the  proprietors  in  England,  and  his  subse- 
quent election  by  the  West  Jersey  council  to  serve  during 
good  behavior.  He  stated  that  he  had  given  the  £1000 
security  required  by  the  act  of  1 718-19,  and  that  he 
had  not  been  guilty  of  any  misconduct  in  office.  But  he 
believed  that  there  was  a  combination  among  some  of  the 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iv,  p.  252. 

^Ibid.,  p.  296.  '^ New  Jersey  Archives ,  vol.  v,  pp.  211,  212. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  V,  p.  212. 

'"Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iv. 

^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  273. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE 


699 


West  Jersey  proprietors  against  him.  Further  he  com- 
plained of  Samuel  Bustill/  deputy  to  James  Smith,  the  pro- 
vincial secretary,  for  having  taken  upon  himself,  without 
proper  authority,  to  qualify  another  person  for  his  office. 
A  copy  of  Alexander's  memorial  was  sent  to  Bustill. 

In  its  meeting  of  November,  1730,  the  council  of  pro- 
prietors determined  to  give  all  the  evidence  in  the  con- 
troversy to  John  Kinsey,  Jr.,  for  his  assistance  and  advice 
in  negotiating  the  affair,^  As  a  result  a  full  answer  was 
prepared  to  Alexander's  charges.^  But  the  council  was 
obliged  to  fall  back  upon  its  general  powers  which  they 
declared  had  been  recognized  by  Hunter.  They  had  al- 
ways constituted  a  surveyor-general,  nor  did  the  proprie- 
tors in  England  have  superiority  over  them  in  this  respect. 
As  for  the  action  of  Bustill  he  had  been  given  power  to 
qualify  officers  by  a  writ  of  Dedimus  potestatem,  and  had 
only  exercised  his  legal  right. 

Meanwhile  the  board  has  made  choice  of  Samuel  Scat- 
tergood  as  surveyor-general,  and  he  had  been  qualified  for 
the  office.*  The  council  then  authorized  him  to  recover  all 
records  from  Isaac  Decowe,  and  passed  a  lengthy  resolu- 
tion declaring  that,  in  spite  of  the  provision  of  the  act  of 
1718-19,  it  did  not  appear  that  Alexander  had  given  se- 
curity. 

At  this  interesting  point  the  confusion  of  the  proprietary 
minutes  prevents  us  from  seeing  clearly  in  what  way  the 
matter  was  settled.  But  it  is  certain  that  Alexander  was 
recognized  as  the  legal  surveyor-general  in  1731,'^  and  that 

'  Bustill  was  closely  identified  with  Coxe. 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iv,  mis- 
placed pages. 
^ New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  p.  278. 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iv,  p.  3. 
^Ibid.,  p.  171. 


700  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

he  was  re-elected  in  1732/  We  can  be  sure  only  that  the 
attack  upon  him  failed. 

Further  worry  was  now  caused  to  the  council  by  the  re- 
port received  in  a  letter  from  "  the  Jersey  agent "  to  John 
Kinsey  that  the  Lords  of  Trade  had  recommended  to  the 
Crown  the  confirmation  of  the  act  for  running  the  bound- 
ary line.  Coxe  was  therefore  authorized  to  write  to  the 
agent  and  represent  to  him  the  injury  sustained  by  West 
Jersey  under  the  said  act.^  In  addition  Morris  was  re- 
quested to  appoint  a  committee  of  East  Jersey  proprietors 
to  confer  with  one  from  West  Jersey  regarding  the  line.' 
But  though  the  act  was  really  confirmed  by  the  Crown  the 
embarrassed  East  Jersey  proprietorship  was  as  helpless  as 
ever  to  obtain  its  execution. 

Meanwhile  a  demand  developed  among  the  proprietors  of 
West  Jersey  for  a  fifth  dividend.  In  August,  1736,  this 
question  was  considered  by  the  council,  but  referred  to  a 
further  meeting.*  But  finally  in  March,  1736-37,  the 
board  determined  to  give  notice  of  a  fifth  apportionment, 
and  summoned  all  proprietors  to  meet  on  April  seventh 
or  May  third  next  at  the  house  of  William  Bickley  in 
Burlington  to  consider  the  matter. '^  At  the  meeting  in 
April  it  was  then  formally  agreed  that  no  warrant  for  the 
fifth  dividend  should  be  granted  to  any  except  with  the 
limitation  that  the  land  be  taken  below  the  Falls  of  the 
Delaware  at  Trenton.®  This  matter  having  been  deter- 
mined, the  issue  of  the  new  warrants  began.  The  board 
was  thus  occupied  when  the  union  period  came  to  an  end. 

Since  the  reappearance  of  Coxe  in  1723  there  had  of 
course  been  numerous  changes  in  the  personnel  of  the  coun- 

^ Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iv,  p.  23. 
^Ibid.,  p.  181.  ^Ibid.,  p.  65.  ^Ibid.,  p.  191. 

''Ibid.,  p.  66.  Ubid.,  p.  68. 


THE  PROPRIETORSHIP  UNDER  ROYAL  RULE         70 1 

cil  of  proprietors,  but  these  hardly  appear  to  have  been  of 
a  very  significant  character.  Colonel  Coxe  continued  to 
hold  the  presidency  and  the  prevailing  influence.  The  vice- 
presidency  was  held  first  by  Joshua  Wright,  and  later  by 
Thomas  Whetherill,  and  in  1729  it  was  voted  that  when 
the  president  was  absent  the  vice-president  and  any  four 
members  might  proceed  to  business.^  Such  an  arrange- 
ment was  quite  safe  as  little  business  was  being  transacted 
at  this  time.  There  were,  however,  numerous  changes  in 
the  clerkship  which  was  held  after  Titan  Leeds  by  John 
Hugg,  John  Burr,  Thomas  Budd,  and  Samuel  Scattergood. 
In  1732  the  board  itself  consisted  of  Coxe,  Peter  Bard, 
Whetherill,  John  Burr,  Scattergood,  William  Harrison, 
John  Hinchman,  John  Ladd,  and  Clement  Hall.^ 

Little  remains  to  be  said  as  to  the  general  character  of 
the  work  of  the  council.  Throughout  the  period  some  little 
trouble  had  been  caused  by  cases  of  trespass,  and  the  cut- 
ting of  trees  on  proprietary  land.^  But  all  things  consid- 
ered it  is  rather  remarkable  that  there  was  not  more 
complaint. 

In  its  general  business  methods  the  council,  as  has  been 
indicated,  was  painstaking.  Yet  the  clumsy  character  of 
the  proprietorship  itself  was  always  a  handicap.  In  some 
cases  it  was  evidently  difficult  to  tell  exactly  what  shares 
on  proprieties  still  remained  to  be  taken  up ;  and  new  claims, 
sometimes  of  doubtful  legality,  were  occasionally  presented. 
A  striking  example  occurred  in  1719,  when  a  memorandum 
was  made  in  the  minutes  of  a  whole  propriety  conveyed 
in  1685  by  Dr.  Daniel  Coxe  to  Walter  Harris,  merchant 
of  Dublin.  To  the  memorandum  is  attached  a  note,  "  Here 
is  a  propriety  named ;  query  whether  any  such,  Prop*^  ever 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iv,  p.  161. 
^IHd.,  p.  2Z.  ""E.  g..  Ibid.,  bk.  iii,  p.  188. 


702  THE  PROVINCE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

came  to  knowledge  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  before 
this  time."  ^ 

But  that  the  record  of  the  council  was  carefully  kept 
down  to  1729,  the  existing  minute  books  are  a  proof.  For 
a  period  after  this  date,  however,  the  minutes  seem  to  have 
been  kept  very  carelessly.  In  May,  1736,  the  council  itself 
ordered  that  since  for  "  some  years  "  the  minutes  had  been 
kept  in  a  loose  and  "  promisias  "  manner  the  clerk  should 
procure  a  book  and  transcribe  the  same.^  If  he  did  so  the 
transcribing  was  only  a  limited  success. 

^Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Proprietors  of  West  Jersey,  bk.  iv,  p.  196. 
^Ibid.,  p.  60. 


INDEX. 


Ackerman  David,  372,  373,  428 

Addison,  Joseph,  143,  144 

Airs,  John,  666 

Alcorn,  666 

Alexander,  James,  63,  167,  198,  206, 
209,  215,  218,  219,  256,  258,  275, 
276,  XJT,  278,  279,  295,  452,  480, 
493,  498,  549.  630,  631,  640,  643, 
644,  646,  647,  648,  649,  650,  657, 
658,  660,  661,  665,  666,  667,  688, 
689,  691,  692.  69s,  697,  698,  699 

Allen.  Jedediah,  353,  481,  483 

Allen,  John,  209,  601 

Ambo  Point.  45 

Anderson,  Col.  John,  239,  250,  272, 
275,  276,  277.  278,  309,  419,  442, 
573,  590,  591,  627 

Anderson,  William,  338,  388,  389 

Andriesse,  Lawrence,  43,  83 

Andros,  Gov.,  11,  74,  88,  92,  115,  121, 
\2^  128,  129,  130,  134,  135 

Anne,  Queen,  327,  335,  420,  422,  588, 
596,  619 

Aqueyquinonke,  43 

Ashfield,  Richard,  216,  649,  650,  652, 
653,  655,  657,  658,  660 

Assembly,  General,  307-376 

Acts  "concerning  the  Acknowledg- 
ing and  Registering  of  Deeds 
and    Conveyances    of    Land," 

651 

"for  the  Security  of  his  Ma- 
jesty's Government  of  New 
Jersey,"  211 

"for  ascertaining  the  place  of 
Settling  of  the  Representatives 
in  General  Assembly,"  227 
"for  better  Qualifying  Repre- 
sentatives," 227 
"concerning  the  Duty  of  the 
Commissioners  appointed  to 
manage  the  Loan  Offices,"  548 
"for  Providing  a  Remedy  in 
Case  any  of  the  Signers  of  the 
Bills  of  Credit  of  this  Pro- 
vince should  by  Death  or 
Otherwise  be  rendered  incap- 
able of  signing  the  same,"  548 
"for     laying    out,     regulating, 


clearing  and  preserving  public 
common  highways  throughout 
this  province,"  529,  530 
"for  building,  rebuilding,  re- 
pairing or  amending  of 
bridges  in  the  respective 
towns  or  precincts,"  529 
"for  the  Relief  of  the  Poor," 

531 

"for  Amending  and  Explain- 
ing an  Act  entitled  an  Act  for 
Enforcing  the  Currency  of 
£3000  Bills  of  Credit,"  541 
"for  the  Currency  of  Bills  of 
Credit  up  to  11,675  ounces  of 
plate,"  544 

"for  the  making  of  £24,760  in 
bills  of  credit  in  order  to  ex- 
change the  bills  of  credit  for- 
merly made  current  in  this 
province  by  an  act  passed  in 
1723,"  550  . 

"for  Reviving  and  Continuing 
the    Courts    of    Quarter    Ses- 
sions   and    Common    Pleas    in 
Bergen,    Middlesex    and   Mon- 
mouth Counties,"  465 
"for  Ascertaining  the  Qualifi- 
cations of  Jurors,"  466 
"for    Shortening    of    Lawsuits 
and    Regulating    the    Practice 
of  the  Law,"  467,  473 
"for   Acknowledging   and    Re- 
cording of  Deeds  and  Convey- 
ances   of    Land    within    each 
respective  County  of  the  Pro- 
vince," 467,  473 

"for  Enforcing  the  Observa- 
tion of  the  Ordinance  for  Es- 
tablishing Fees  within  this 
Province,"  468 

"for  the  better  enforcing  an 
Ordinance  made  for  Establish- 
ing of  Fees  and  for  Regulat- 
ing the  Practice  of  the  Law," 
474 

"for  Explaining  and  Render- 
ing more  Effectual  the  act  of 
support,"  505 

703 


704 


INDEX 


"for  Settling  the  Militia,"  569 
"for  Running  and  Ascertain- 
ing the  Line  of  Partition  or 
Division  between  the  Eastern 
and  Western  Divisions  of 
New  Jersey  and  for  Prevent- 
ing Disputes  for  the  Future 
Concerning    the     Same,     etc.," 

637 

"for  the  Security  of  his  Ma- 
jesty's Government  of  New 
Jersey,"   648 

"to   prevent   Mistakes   and   Ir- 
regularities  by   Assessors   and 
Collectors,"    529 
"to    Enforce   the   Payment   of 
all   Public  Taxes,"  537 
"to   prevent    Malicious    Prose- 
cutions by   Information,"  466 
"the  better  to  Enable  the  In- 
habitants   of    this    Colony    to 
'Support      Government,      Dis- 
charge   their    Engagements    in 
the   Loan   Office,  and   for   Re- 
lieving   their    Other    Necessi- 
ties by    Making   Current   £20,- 
000    in    Bills    of    Credit,"    551 

Bailey,  John,  36,  61,  64,  65,  66,  68, 
632 

Baker,  Capt.  John,  41,  61,  76 

Ball,  Levi,  659 

Baltimore.  Lord,  5 

Barclay,  Robert,  20,  47,  581,  635, 
636,  637 

Barclay,  David,  20 

Barclay,  John,  22,  27,  49,  50,  170, 
183,  184,  309,  382,  483,  487,  488, 
489,  491,  583,  584,  606,  616,  617, 
621,  623,  624,  620,  627,  649 

Barclay-Coxe   Agreement,   693,   695 

Bard,  Peter,  275,  278,  546,  573,  600, 
619 

Barkstead,  Joshua,  107,  112 

Bartlet,  Gratia,  685,  686 

Bartlet,  Benjamin,  686 

Bartlett,  Thomas,  489 

Basse,  Jeremiah,  48,  55,  78,  93,  94, 
95,  107,  108,  III,  122,  136,  137, 
170,  171,  172,  176,  184,  190,  191, 
193,  194,  195,  196,  201,  205,  206, 
209,  227,  233,  248,  254,  256,  258, 
300,  314,  324,  348,  389,  397,  401, 
406,  410,  411,  414,  415,  416,  417, 


423,  429,  476,  478,  485,  488,  489, 
490,  491,  492,  493,  506,  507,  541, 
543,  588,  592,  593,  601,  603,  617, 
618,  623,  624,  627,  628,  629,  679 

Bath,  Earl,  19 

Bellomont,  Lord,  136,  142,  477 

Bendyck,  64 

Bergen,  25,  28,  31,  70,  83,  86,  288, 
458,  463,  527,  629,  654 

Berkeley,  Lord  John.  3,  4,  5,  9,  12, 
30,  32.  39,  59,  62,  71,  81,  124, 
125,  126,  127,  634 

Berry,  Capt.  John,  42,  43,  73,  83 
Bickley,  May,  481,  619,  654 
Bickley,  William,  700 
Biddle,   William,    16,    104,   308,   670, 

671,  674,  678,  682 
Billop,  Christopher,  478 
Billop,  J.,  193 
BincKS,  72 
Bishop,  John,  83 
Blacksfield,  Peter,  175,  351,  375,  392, 

407,  408,  486,  490,  491,  501 
Blackwood,  53 
Blanchard,  John,  662 
Blind  Tax,   173,   183,  309,  346,  355, 

367,  381,  390,  391,  S04,  609 
Bollen,  James,  35,  83 
Bond,  Robert,  83 
Bond,  Benjamin,  633,  662 
Bonnell,  Nathaniel,  619 
Bonnell,  Joseph,  314,  315,  648,  660, 

662,  663 
Boudinot,  Elias,  619 
Bowne,  Obadiah,  309 
Bowne,  John,  61,  75,  173,  309,  311, 

353,  355,  367.  381,  382,  390,  504, 

609,  626 
Bowne,  Andrew,  94,  260,  267,  268, 

485,  603,  609,  626 
Brackett.  John.  37,  68 
Bradford,    William,    193,    415,    512, 

517,  535 
Bridges,  John,  613,  659,  668,  671 

Brockholst,    Henry,    132,    372,    373, 

428 
Brook.  Rev.  John,  171,  179,  584,  585, 

586 
Brown,  John,  487 
Budd,  John,  633  680,  684,  689,  693 
Budd,  Thomas,  15,  119,  695,  698,  701 
Budd,  William,  15,  583 
Bull,    Richard.   293,    313,    372,    373, 

428,  684,  688,  689,  693 


INDEX 


705 


Burg,  356 

Burlington,  18,  29,  98,  102,  104,  129, 
160,  179,  182,  191,  201,  212,  227, 
235,  244,  283,  288,  295,  318,  322, 
326,  327,  328,  337,  348,  356,  357, 
358,  392,  430,  445,  460,  463,  465. 
469,  471,  481,  491,  520,  527.  537. 
538,  539,  562,  583,  587.  599,  638, 
669,  670,  680,  689,  691,  692,  700 

Burnet,  Robert,  218 

Burnet,  John,  649 

Burnet.  Governor  William,  144,  14S, 
146,  159,  160,  161,  209,  210,  211, 
212,  213,  214,  215,  216,  217,  229, 
230,  234,  23s,  254,  25s,  276,  285, 
287.  292,  293,  294,  302,  303,  314, 
328,  329,  330,  ZZZ,  334,  336,  337. 
342,  349,  350.  362,  375,  434,  435, 
436,  437,  438,  439,  440,  441,  442, 
443.  444,  445,  446,  448,  470,  471, 
472,  473,  478.  498,  508,  509,  510, 
511,  512,  513.  524,  557,  572,  573, 
574,  580,  598,  647,  653,  655,  658, 
695 

Burr,  John,  698,  701 

Bustall,  Samuel,  234,  699 

Byerly,  Thomas,  207,  272,  27^,  274, 
275,  279,  291,  2^6,  419,  682,  687 

Byllinge,  Edward.  6,  7,  9,  10,  11,  12, 
13,  14,  15,  16,  20,  97,  109,  113, 
115,  118,  119,  120,  128,  131,  634, 
635,  681,  685,  686 

Cabots,  I 

Campbell.  Rev.  Colin,  600 

Campbell,  Lord  Neil,  48,  53,  91 

Carter,  Samuel,  79,  96 

Carteret,  Sir  George,  3.  4  5,  7,  8,  9, 

10,  II,  12,  19,  30,  39,  41,  42,  59, 

62,    71,   81.    124,    125,    126,    127, 

129,  634,  637,  645,  661 
Carteret,   Lady    Elizabeth,    19,    131, 

646 
Carteret,     Philip,    31,    35,    36,    37, 

38.  41,  43,  02.  67,  68.  69,  71,  73. 

83,  84,  86,  87,  126,  129,  581.  661 
Carteret,  Capt.  James,  70,  72,  86,  87, 

632 
Case,  John,  213,  579 
Cedar  Brook,  76 
Chambers,  John,  666 
Charles  L  King.  2 
Charles  II,  King,  2,  8,  71,  77,  641, 

645 
Chesterfield,  337.  429,  537,  543 


Church  of  England,  179,  180,  191, 
200,  201,  202,  203,  204,  214,  264, 
265,  580-601 

Clarke,  George,  295 

Clarke,  Henry,  498,  661 

Clarke,  John,  79 

Clark,  Walter,  62 

Clews,  William,  293,  313,  361,  372, 
272,  42s,  426,  428 

Clinker  Lot  Division,  80,  497,  498, 
632,  661,  663,  666 

Clinker  Lot  Right  Men,  80 

Coale,  Samuel,  695 

Cole,  Samuel,  686 

Compton,  Bishop,  581 

Concessions  and  Agreements  of  the 
Proprietors,  Freeholders,  and 
Inhabitants  of  the  Province  of 
West  New  Jersey  in  America, 
14,  98,  99,  100,  loi,  113,  114,  IIS, 
116,  117,  118,  119,  120 

Concessions  and  Agreements  of  the 
Lords  Proprietors  of  New  Jer- 
sey, 32,  33.  34,  35,  39,  42,  44,  46, 
74,  82,  83,  86 

Cooper,  William,  358 

Cooper,  Daniel,  666 

Cooper  vs.  Morse,  666,  (^7 

Cornbury,  Edward,  Lord,  96,  139, 
140,  141,  148,  149,  150,  151,  152, 
153,  154,  155,  156,  157,  158,  164, 
165,  166,  168.  169,  170,  171,  172, 

173,  174,  175.  ^7^,  ^77,  178,  179, 

180,  181.  182,  183.  184,  185,  186, 

187,  188,  196.  223,  225,  232,  233, 

243,  244,  245.  246,  247,  261,  262, 

263,  264,  267,  269.  280,  281,  282, 

283.  284,  285.  286,  288,  290,  296, 

298,  305,  310,  2'i7,  318,  319,  320, 

321,  322,  323,  334,  338,  339,  341. 

342.  344,  346,  347,  355,  360,  378, 

379.  380,  381.  383,  384,  38s,  386, 

387,  388.  389,  391,  392,  393,  394, 

395,  396.  397,  422,  461,  464,  465, 

475.  480.  484.  485.  494,  500,  502, 

503.  504,  519.  561,  563,  567,  568, 

580.  583.  585.  604,  60s,  606,  607, 

608.  609.  611,  613.  615,  616,  617, 

618,  620,  621,  671,  672,  673 

Cosby,  William,  147,  217,  218,  219, 

220.  231.  239.  250.  255,  277,  278, 

279,  285,  287.  315,  332,  334,  335, 

336,  452,  453,  454.  472,  515,  554» 
657 

Cosby,  "  Billy,"  218 


of    West 
702 
of    New 


18,  107, 
637,  658, 

170,  171, 
195,  196, 
227,  229, 
268,  269, 
294,  296, 
348,  349. 
362,  27^, 
414,  416, 
427,  428, 
480,  491, 
571,  575, 
594,  595, 
614,  615, 
631,  640, 
677,  678, 
684,  685, 
694,  695, 


706 

Council    of    Proprietors 

Jersey.  16,  18,  104,  671- 
Council   of   the    Province 

Jersey,  259-306 
Courson,  William,  664 
Courtillon,  Jacob,  43 
Coxe,   Dr.    Daniel,    16,    17, 
III,  121,  264,  629,  636, 

685,  701 

Coxe,  Col.  Daniel,  18,  168, 
172,  173,  185,  190,  192, 
197,  200,  205,  207,  210, 
233,  234,  235,  262,  264, 
271,  272,  279,  292,  293, 
Z^Z,  314.  327,  335,  338, 
356,  357,  358,  359,  361, 
Z72,  272,,  399,  407,  4^3, 
418,  419,  422,  423,  426, 
429,  431,  434,  445,  469, 
492,  507,  537,  546,  562, 
580,  588,  589,  591,  593, 
598,  600,  601,  603,  613, 
624,  626,  627,  628,  629, 
641,  658,  659,  668,  671, 
679,  680,  681,  682,  683, 

686,  687,  688,  689,  693, 
696,  697,  700,  701 

Coxe,  Samuel,  629 
Craig,  Andrew,  498,  661 
Crane,  Jasper,  309,  310,  31 
Crane,  John,  662,  663,  666 
Cripps,  John,  15 


Daniel,  Jacob,  497,  501 

Dare,  Capt.  Wm.,  348,  567,  569 

Davenport.    Francis,    16,    104,    169, 

259,  260,  261,  267,  268 
Davis,  Nicholas,  62 
Davis,  Samuel,  72 
Deacon,  George,  169,  259,  261,  274, 

356.  671,  689 
Decker,  Jan,  692  , 

Declaration  of  the  True  Intent  and 

Meaning  of  the  Concessions,  39, 

71,  87,  88 
Decowe,    Isaac,   248,   312,    550,   695, 

696,  697,  699 
Delaware,  Lord,  252 
Denton,  Daniel,  64,  65,  66 
Denton,  Nathaniel,  64 
Dockwra,  William,  21,  22,  23,  49,  50, 

53.   79,   139.    168,    183,  262,  272, 

420,  603,  610,  613,  614,  615,  616, 

618,  619,  622,  626,  628,  646,  654 
Doll,  Thomas,  15 


INDEX 


Dominique,  Charles,  659 

Dominique,  Paul,  186,  613,  615,  628, 
668,  671.  674 

Dongan,  Governor,  132,  308,  634,  641 

Drewitt,  Wm.,  15 

Drummond,  James,  Viscount  Mel- 
ford,  20,  21 

Dudley,  Col.  Joseph,  92 

Duncan,  Capt.,  365 

Dundas,  James,  49 

Dunster,  Charles,  630,  649 

Dutch  reconquest,  72,  87,  126 

Dyre,  Wm.,  133 


Earle.  Edward,  Jr.,  43 
East  Greenwich,  manor  of,  2 
East  Jersey,    11,   19.  20,  21,  22, 
24,  25,  26,  27,  28,  30,  35,  57, 
81-96,  129,  130,  131,  133,  134, 
136,  168,  183,  188,  215,  217, 
260,  281,  307,  309,  311,  352, 
354,  368,  381,  435,  447,  458, 
499,  538,  572,  584.  601,  602- 
693,  695,  700 
Edsall,  Samuel,  83 
Eires,  William,  194 
Elbridge,  John,  10,  11,  12,  14,  97, 
Elizabethtown,  26,  28,  30,  2^,  Z7 
41,  42,  so,  53.  59,  60,  61,  63, 
65,  66,  67,  68,  69,  70,  71,  72, 
74,  75,  76,  77,  79,  80.  83,  84 
88,  95,   ^72,   179,   198,  459, 
498,  499,  583,  584,  595,  596, 
607,  608,  609,  624,  626,  632, 
656,  657,  659,  660,  661,  662, 
665,  666,  667 
Elrington,  Francis,  649 
Emley,  Wm.,  635 
Emmott,  James,  50,  632 
"  English     Proprietors,    The," 
173,  265,  266,  602,  603,  610, 
615,  618,  654 
Evertson,  72 


23, 

58, 
135, 
259. 
353. 
498, 
667, 


685 
,  40, 
64, 
72, 
,87. 
497, 
605, 

633. 
663, 


168, 

614, 


Farmar,  Thomas, 
227,  278,  295, 
361,  362,  388, 
477.  478,  479, 
541,  546.  569, 

Fauconnier,  Peter 
181,  189,  190, 
393,  400,  410, 
503.  540.  619, 

Fenn,  James,  666, 


193,  198, 
311,  2'i^2, 
389,  409, 
490,  492, 
577,  578, 
,  170,  171, 

194,  197, 
417,  493, 
622,  654 
667 


217,  218, 

315,  324. 
410,  425, 

493,  539. 
627,  631 
172,  180, 
292,  344. 
494  502, 


INDEX 


707 


Fenwick,  John,  6,  7,  9.  10,   11,   12, 

97,  109.  128.  685 
Fisher,  William,  174.  355 
Fletcher,  Gov.,  136,  477 
Forbes,  Rev.  John,  596 
Ford,  Philip,  685 

Forster,    Miles,    189,    193,   307,   308, 

345.  400,  406,  583,  622 
Foster.  64 

Fox,  George,  6,  7,  119 
Fretwell,    Peter,    16,    105,   273,   308, 

309.  312,  Z^i,  491,  593,  680,  683, 

684 
Friends,  Society  of,  6,  7,  9,  10,  11, 

12,  13,  14,  15,  19,  20,  28,  29,  97, 

98,  99,  100,  101,  102,  103,  104, 
105,  106,  107,  108,  109,  no,  III. 
112,  113,  114,  115.  116,  117,  118, 
119,  120,  121,  122,  128,  129,  131, 
153,  169,  177,  180,  190,  195,  198, 
204,  207,  218,  224,  226,  228,  259, 
260,  261,  264,  270,  288,  30s,  310, 
319.  330.  355,  360,  361,  385,  392, 

401,  402,  403,  404,  413,  421,  426, 
450,  460,  467,  483,  487,  491,  492, 
560,  566,  567,  568.  571,  576,  582, 
585,  588,  589,  592,  595,  60s,  610, 
612,  614,  624,  637,  668,  671,  673, 
674,  680 

Fullerton,  James,  76,  jy,  501 
Fundamental  Constitutions,  46,  90 

Gardiner,  Thomas,  St.,  16,  104 

Gardiner,  Thomas,  Jr..  16,  194,  195, 
198,  206.  228,  26g,  270,  273,  295, 
296.  308,  310.  311,  355,  356,  360, 
382,  421,  483,  668,  673,  674,  679, 
680,  682.  688.  692 

George  I,  King.  327,  335,  422,  445, 
491.  508,  597 

George  II.  King,  446 

Gibbons,  Richard,  42,  61 

Glencross,  411 

Gloucester  Co..  104,  no,  357,  463, 
527,  562.  669,  680,  684 

Gordon,  Robert,  20 

Gordon,  Thomas,  22,  27,  50,  yj,  170, 
175.  183,  184,  190,  191,  193,  194,* 
ic;.  204,  214,  225.  228,  248,  25s, 
269,  270,  275.  292,  295,  307,  309, 
ill,  312,  321,  338,  345,  352,  353, 
354^  355,  356,  357.  359,  360,  361, 
368,  375.  2>77>  382.  386,  396,  397, 

402.  408.  410.  416.  421,  422,  425, 
430.  433.  438,  441.  444,  445,  476, 


477,  478,  481,  485.  486,  488,  489, 
491,  495.  496,  541,  542,  543,  580, 
584,  591,  606,  617,  618,  621,  622, 
623,  625.  626,  627,  631,  688 

Gosling,  John,  15,  679,  695 

Gotbolt,  417,  490 

Goulding,  Wm.,  61 

Grenville,  Hon.  Bernard,  19 

Griffith,  Alexander,  170,  171,  172, 
174,  190,  193,  195,  201,  206,  255, 
291,  476,  478.  484,  490,  492,  494, 
506,  507,  588,  593,  687 

Groome,  Samuel,  45,  48,  49 

Grover.  James.  42,  61 

Guy,  Richard  98,  100 

Hackensack,  43 

Hackshaw,  Robert,  17 

Hadden,  John.  697 

Haigh.  William,  48,  49,  308,  685 

Hall,  Clement,  701 

Hall,  William,  192,  268,  271,  272, 
293,  308,  309,  3n,  313,  348,  372, 
272,  413,  417,  418,  419,  423,  426, 
428,  429,  489,  490,  589.  627,  671 

Halliday,  Rev.  Thomas,  200,  586, 
591,  598 

Halsey,  Joseph,  666 

Hamilton,  Andrew,  48,  49.  78,  79,  91, 
92,  93.  95,  104,  108,  112,  122,  135, 
139,  232,  241,  654,  669,  670,  671 

Hamilton,  John,  193,  215,  251,  252, 
253,  272,  275,  278,  295,  419,  455, 
569,  573,  580,  601,  627,  639,  648, 
649.  655,  657,  658,  660,  665 

Hand,  Shamgar,  463 

Harley,  Robert,  347,  390 

Harriman,  John.  Jr.,  79,  633,  662 

Harris,  Elizabeth,  686 

Harris,  Walter,  701 

Harrison,  Edmund,  17 

Harrison,  Wm.,  358,  425,  701 

Harrison,  John,  191,  203,  307,  308, 
311,  312,  31  r  353,  410,  483,  484, 
487,  577,  578.  590,  639,  643,  658 

Hartshorne,  Hugh,  20,  648 

Hartshorne,  Richard,  42,  75,  98,  309, 
359,  360,  378.  382,  648 

Harwood.  Kev.  Nathaniel,  599,  600 

Hatfield,  Cornelius,  79 

Hajrnes,  Joseph,  65(5 

Heath,  Sir  Robert,  17 

Hedges,  Secretary,  384 
'  Helmsley,  Joseph.  14,  98 


7o8 


INDEX 


Henderson,    Rev.    Jacob,    203,    272, 

589,  591,  598 
Hermans,  Augustine,  65 
Hewling,  Abraham,  583,  679 
Hewlings,  Jacob,  293,  313,  372,  373, 

428,  537 
Hicks,  Isaac,  643 
Hinchman,  John,  701 
Holbrook,  Rev.,  596.  597,  599 
HoUingshead,  Daniel,  649 
Hollingshead,  John,  481,  482 
Holmes,  Obadiah,  62 
Holmes,  Jonathan,  42 
Homan,  Benjamin,  74 
Hooper,    Robert    Lettice,    210,    217, 

218,  258,  314,  479,  498,  546,  601, 

661 
Hopevirell,  584,  590 
Hopkins,  Samuel,  72 
Horsimus,  288 
Huddy,  Hugh,  181,  188,  268,  269,  271, 

273,  347,  390,  562,  583,  588,  589 
Hude,  Adam,  409,  410,  540,  541,  578 
Hugg,  John,  los,  273,  275,  278,  308, 

309,  355.  573,  695,  701 
Humphrey,  Thomas,  649 
Humphries,  Joshua,  312,  680,  689 
Hunloke,  Edward,  247,  259,  261 
Hunter,  Gov.  Robert,  143,  144,  146, 
159,  181,  192,  10^,  194,  195,  196, 
197,  198,  199,  200,  201,  202,  203, 
204  205,  206,  207.  208,  223,  227, 
228,  229,  233,  234,  254,  269,  271, 
272,  273,  274,  285,  287,  292,  293, 
294,  295,  298,  300,  301,  312,  313, 
314,  324,  325,  326,  327,  334,  335, 
336,  342,  344.  345,  348,  349,  350, 
351,  357,  358,  361,  371,  372,  375, 
412,  413,  414,  417,  418,  419,  420, 
422,  423,  424,  425,  426,  427,  428, 
430,  431,  432,  433,  434,  466,  469, 
477,  478,  490,  492,  493,  494,  497, 
505,  506,  507,  522,  524,  533,  541, 
569,  571,  578,  580.  588,  589,  590, 
593,  626,  627,  628,  629,  631,  641, 
642,  646,  682,  687,  688,  692 
Hunterdon  Co.,  328,  329,  358,  527, 

538,  575 
Hutchinson,  Thomas,  14,  98 
Hutcheson,  George,  14,  98 
Huttell,  Nathaniel,  663 

Ingoldsby,  Col.  Richard,  141,  142, 
143,  171,  179,  189,  190,  191,  192, 
226,  227,  233.  243.  244,  245,  246, 


269,  298,  301,  305,  312,  324,  336, 
340,  356,  398,  399,  401,  404,  407, 
411,  488,  489,  490,  505,  539,  586, 
588,  619,  624,  fes,  676 

Ingoldsby,  Mary,  444 

Innes,  Rev.  Alexander,  200,  263,  585, 
587,  591,  596 

Inskip,  John,  695 

Irish  Friends,  102 

Jackson  vs.  Vail,  666,  667 

Jamaica,  Long  Island,  64 

James,  Duke  of  York,  2,  3,  4,  5,  8, 
9,  10,  12,  13,  20,  21,  61,  65,  71, 
81,  91,  92,  115,  121,  124,  125,  126, 
127,  130,  131,  132,  133,  134,  634 

Jamison,  David,  193,  195,  209,  235, 
292,  443,  470,  477,  478,  490,  491, 
492,  493,  497,  498,  511,  627,  631 

Jarret,  Allen,  643,  644 

Jennings,  Samuel,  16,  19,  104,  105, 
116,  118,  119,  120,  122,  169,  170, 
172,  225,  259,  260,  261,  263,  305, 
311,  338,  346,  347,  387,  391,  392, 
396,  398,  48=?,  621,  668,  671 

Jewell,  John,  112,  256,  583 

Johnstone,  Dr.  John,  27,  53,  183,  193, 
198,  211,  215,  227,  228,  229,  273, 
274,  275,  278,  279,  312,  313,  314, 
315,  324,  349,  361,  376,  391,  442, 
445,  451,  483,  SO4,  569,  580,  584, 
601,  602,  605,  623,  631,  637,  642, 
643,  645,  646,  647,  648,  649,  691, 

693 
Johnstone,  Andrew,  315,  556 
Johnstone,  Benjamin,  365 
Jones,  Jeffry,  70,  76,  79,  94,  501 
Jones,  Sir  William,  13,  131 
Jones,  widow,  520 
Jones  vs.  Fullerton,  624,  662 
Joyce,  Henry,  372,  373,  428 

Kay.  John,  308.  309,  310,  311,  312, 

358,  671,  678,  691 
Kearney,  Michael,  209,  215,  538,  556, 

601,  649,  650 
Keith,  George.  48,  49,  580,  581,  582, 

583,  584.  585,  634,  635,  636 
Keith,  Sir  William,  241 
Keithan  Quakers,  582,  583. 
Kent,  William,  15 
Kent's  Neck,  65 
Killingsworth,  Thomas,  483 
Kingsland,  Nathaniel,  43 


INDEX 


709 


Kinscy,  John,  Jr.,  218,  235,  311,  313, 
314.  315,  316,  329,  330,  331,  342, 
350,  358,  362,  372,  375.  376,  427. 
445,  450,  451,  493.  498,  512,  513. 
517,  650,  662,  699,  700 

Kirkbride,  Joseph,  643.  680,  683,  684, 
694 

Ladd.  John,  701 

La  Heupe,  Peter,  276,  444,  512,  658, 

659 
Lambert,  Thomas,  308,  309,  310,  312, 

360.  382,  386,  639,  673,  694 
Lane,  Sir  Thomas,  17,  613,  668,  674 
Langstaff,  John,  347,  367,  390 
Lattouch,  Jeremiah,  656 
Lawrence,  Elisha,  300,  311,  312,  313, 

368,  369,  370,  371,  372,  403,  406, 

408,  416,  625,  626,  648 
Lawrence,  John,  660 
Lawrence,  Wm    313,  314,  353,  365, 

372,  428,  610,  626,  648 
Lawrie,  Gawen,  9,  10,  11,  15,  20,  45, 

47,  48,  51,  52,  75,  89,  90,  98,  133, 

634,  641 
Learning,  Aaron,  315 
Leeds,  Daniel,  103,  122,  195,  207,  260, 

268,  291,  296,  382.  383,  494,  588, 

622,  671,  673.  679,  680,  687,  688 
Leeds,  Titan,  695,  696,  701 
Leisler,  476 

Leonard,  Samuel,  259,  261,  613,  649 
Leonard,  Thomas,  649 
Lesley,  George,  649 
Lithegow,  Patrick,  498,  661,  662 
Livingston,  Wm.,  63 
Logan,  James,  574,  633,  637,  639,  658, 

667,  684,  685,  688,  689.  693,  694, 

695 
London.  Friends  of,  14,  loi 
"Long  Bill,"  378,  606,  607,  608,  615, 

624 
Lovelace,  Lord  John,  71,  141,  158, 

159,  187.  188,  189,  190,  191,  223, 

225,  226.  233,  268,  285,  287,  298, 

300,  301,  305.  311.  324,  345,  347. 

397.  398,  400.  477.  488,  489.  504, 

568,  622,  674,  692 
Lovelace,  Lady,  191,  408,  412,  505 
Lucas,  Nicholas.  9,  10,  11,  15,  98 
Lyell.  David,  273,  275,  535,  579,  639, 

649.  658 
Lyell,   Fenwick.   367,   556,  601,  649, 

660.  66^,  666 
Lynn,  Benjamin,  79 


Machilson,  Enoch,  364 

Marsh,  Andrew,  498 

Marsh,  Joshua,  661 

Mathews,  Richard,  15 

Maverick,  Samuel,  4,  126 

McKemie,  477 

McKenzie,  591 

Meaker,  Wm.,  70,  71,  74 

Meeker,  Joseph,  633 

Mellin,  487 

Melyn,  Jacob,  72 

Mew,  Richard,  21 

Michel,  Robert,  613,  668,  671 

Michell,  Richard,  09 

Mickle,  John,  695 

Middleton,  Hugh,  405 

Middletown,  28,  38,  41,  42,  63,  79,  85, 
86,  95,  172, 

Militia,  177,  178,  199,  213,  219,  224, 
225,  228,  559-579 

Minnisinck  Path,  65,  76 

Minnisinck  Province,  108 

Mitchell,  Robert,  659 

Mompesson,  Roger,  170,  171,  174, 
190,  192,  197.  262,  264,  265,  271, 
273,  279,  290,  295,  399,  444,  462, 
465,  475,  477.  484,  489,  490,  613, 
623,  624,  627 

Monmouth,  26,  36,  38,  41,  59,  61,  62, 
^2,  75,  79.  84,  200,  458,  527,  546, 
562,  626,  629 

Montgomerie,  Gov.  John,  146,  147, 
161,  162,  163,  217,  218,  230,  236, 
237,  249,  250,  255.  285,  294,  304, 
315.  ZZ^,  333.  335,  336,  342,  350, 
448,  449,  450,  451,  452,  472,  5 1 3, 
514,  553.  557,  575,  655,  698 

Moore,  John,  481 

Moore,  Thorowgood,  171,  179,  584, 
585.  586 

Morgan,  Simon,  490 

Morris,  Col.  Lewis,  22,  24,  43,  78,  95, 
96,  108,  137,  147,  150,  167,  169, 
172,  182.  183,  187,  189,  191,  195, 
198,  200,  203,  215,  219,  225,  228, 
232,  237.  238,  239,  240,  241,  242, 
247.  248.  249.  250,  251,  252.  259, 
260,  263.  264,  267,  269,  275,  277, 
278,  279,  292,  295,  305,  311,  333, 
346,  354,  387,  388,  391,  392,  395, 
398.  419,  452,  454.  455,  485,  492, 
S04,  567.  573,  575.  580,  581,  585. 
590,  596,  602,  603,  604,  60s,  612, 
613,  615,  621,  623,  624,  626,  627, 
631,  644,  648,  649,  650,  652,  653, 


710 


INDEX 


655,  656,  657,  658,  659,  660,  669, 
673,  674,  67s,  676,  677,  682,  688, 
689,  690,  691,  700 

Morris,  Wm.,  272,  364,  419,  420 

Morse,  Joseph,  664,  666 

Mott,  Gershom,  300,  311,  312,  313, 
357,  361,  368,  369,  370,  371,  403, 
406,  408,  416,  417,  625,  626 

Muliness,  Wm.,  15 

Murray,  Joseph,  498,  650,  656,  657, 
660,  661,  666 

Ivjegroes,  42,  44,  217,  533 

Nevesinks,  40,  71,  75 

New  Albion,  2 

Newark,  26,  28,   36,  27,  38,  40,  41, 

6S,  68,  69,  70,  71,  74,  79,  83,  95, 

463,  601 
New  Barbadoes,  43 
New  Britain,  619,  654,  658 
Newcastle,  Duke  of,  22i7,  250 
New  Netherlands,  2,  3 
Nicoll,  Wm.,  619 
Nicolls,  Col.,  2,  3,  4,  21^,  59,  60,  61, 

62,  64,  65,  126 
Nicoll's  grant,  607,  608,  632,  633,  661, 

662,  662, 
Nicols,  Mathias,  43 
Nicholson,  Gen.,  592,  593 
Nicholson  -  Vetch    expedition,    193, 

226,  299,  305,  340,  369,  401,  402, 

40s,  409,  519,  539,  576,  624 
Norris,  Henry,  633 
Nova  Cesarea,  3,  8,  14 

Ogden,  Benjamin,  633 

Ogden,  John,  Sr.,  38,  61,  68,  72 

Ogden,  John,  Jr.,  70 

Ogden,  Jonathan,  79 

Ogden,  Major  Josiah,  249,  313,  314, 

546,  601 
Ogden,  Robert,  633 
Olive,  Thomas,  14,  16,  19,  100,  104, 

117,  460 
"Ordinance  of  George  II,"  212 
"Ordinance  for  Establishing  Courts 

of  Judicature.  An,"  462 
Ormston,  John.  185,  206,  620 
Ormston,  Joseph,  184,  619,  620,  622, 

630 

Pardon,  Wm.,  71,  83,  86 
Parker,   Elisha,   272,   273.   311,  409, 
410,  419,  539,  541,  577,  578,  627 


1,  273, 


Parker.  John,  2^2,  275,  278,  546,  649, 

658  ] 

Parker,  Joseph.; 75 
Partridge,    Richard,    227,   240,   376, 

^     451,  454,  513.  553,  555,  575,  659 

Peachy,  Wm.,  15 

Peagrim,  John,  278 

Peapack  Tract,  53 

Pearson,  Thomas,  14,  98 

Penford,  John,  14,  100 

Penn,  William,  7,  9,  10,  n,  12,  13, 
15,  18,  19.  20,  21,  98,  109,  113, 
115,  118,  129,  130,  268,  475,  622, 
633,  637,  666.  682,  684,  685 

Perth  Amboy,  27,  28,  47,  51,  56,  77, 
94,  132,  134,  135,  166,  168,  169, 
179,  184,  200,  212,  251.  256,  270, 
283,  288,  294.  308,  318,  322,  326, 
327,  Zi7.  3^6,  357,  459,  463,  469, 
/47I,  477,  520,  581,  583,  584,  591, 
^  595.  601,  602.  638,  650,  653 

Perth,  Earl  of,  20,  21,  91 

Perthuck,  Rev.  Edward.  581 

Phillipp,  Frederick,  642 

Pierce.  Daniel,  38,  68 

Pike,  John,  83,  483 

Pike,  Thomas,  409,  410,  539,  541 

Pinhorne,  Capt.  John,  338,  389,  416, 
486 

Pinhorne,  Wm.,  43,  44.  170,  171,  174, 
17s,  190,  192,  197,  247,  260,  261, 

269,  271,  272,  290,  296,  399,  413, 
417,  418,  419,  444,  465,  476,  477, 
484,  486,  490,  545,  588,  589,  624, 
627 

Piscataway,  28.  36.  38,  40,  41,  68,  70, 
71,  74.  79.  95.  200,  539,  595 

Ployden,  Sir  Edmund,  2 

Pomphrey,  174 

Popple,  Secretary,  207,  216,  272,  555, 
585,  593 

Portland  Point,  85 

Price,  Capt.,  625 

Proprietors  of  East  Jersey,  Board 
of,  22 

Provost,  Wm.,  278 

Pumphrey,  Walter,  481,  482,  484 

Quakers.     See  Friends,  Society  of. 
Quary.    Col.    Robert,    139,    172,   187, 
256,  260,  261,  268.  271,  273.  278, 

270,  281,  354,  37Q.  387,  399,  589, 
608,  609,  614 

Quintipartite  Deed,  11,  12,  21,  634, 
637 


INDEX 


711 


Quit- rent,  58,  59.  60,  61,  62.  69,  70, 
71,  75,  94.  183.  184.  223,  604,  609, 
616,  618,  619,  650,  652,  654 

Racoon  Creek,  28 

Ramapo,  619,  654 

Randolph,  Edward.  139 

Reading,  John.  16,  272,  273,  275,  296, 

419,  639,  640,  643,  674,  680,  681, 

683,  684,  687,  688.  689,  694 
Reading,  John,  Jr.,  682,  696 
Reading,  Thomas,  590 
Reape,  Wm.,  61 
Reeve,  John,  490 
Regnier,  Jacob,  484 
Reid,  John,   49.   307,  308,  313.  359. 

360,  583.  606.  635 
Revolution  in   East  Jersey,  55,  69, 

70,  71,  72,  79,  95-  96 
Rev  ell,  Thomas,  108.   122,  260,  267, 

268,  382.  383,  588,  622.  671,  673 
Richier,  Edward,  186,  271,  613,  628, 

668.  674 
Rillingworth,  Thomas,  174 
Roberts,  Dr.  John,  193,  344,  421,  430, 

433 
Robeson,  Andrew,  104 
Robinson,  Andrew,  634 
Robinson,  John,  498 
Robison,  John.  661,  662 
Rodman,  Dr.  John,  278 
Royden,  Wm.,  105 
Royse,  John,  309.  310,  311,  353,  409, 

539 
Rudvard,  Thomas,  20,  47,  49,  52,  75, 

89,90 
Rutherford,  43 

Salem,  11,  29,  128,  322,  328,  357,  362, 

460.  463.  527,  562,  572,  596,  599 
Salem  Tenth,  109 
Salter,   Richard,   96.    173,    174,   309, 

353,  355.  367,  381,  382,  504,  569, 

609,  626 
Sandford,   Major  Wm.,  43,  73,  83, 

260,  271,  313,  361,  366,  369,  370, 

371,  399;  416 
Sandwick,  Earl.  19 
Sawyer,  Sir  Robert,  134 
Scattergood,  Samuel,  699,  701 
Schuyler,  John,  278 
Schuyler,  Peter,  498,  661,  662 
Schuyler,  Philip,  313,  3^,  370,  644 
Scot,  George,  274 


"Scotch  and  Quaker  factions,"  259, 

260 
Scott,  Benj.,  14 
Scott,  Capt.,  4 
Sharp,  Isaac,  312,  313,  314,  365,  572, 

639 

Sharpe,  John,  555 

Shotwell,  Joseph,  663 

Shrewsbury,  7,  28,  41,  43,  85,  86, 
463.  583.  596  . 

Silvester,  Nathaniel,  61 

Skene,  John,  120,  634,  641 

Skinner,  Rev.  Wm.,  595,  596,  601 

Slooby,  Wm..  486 

Sloper,  187.  384 

Sloughter.  Gov..  476 

Smith,  James,  196,  205,  206,  209,  218, 
254.  255,  258,  27s,  278,  279.  296, 
423,  441,  468,  516,  630,  650,  688, 
689,  099 

Smith,  John,  40 

Smith,  Richard,  15,  278,  662 

Smith,  Samuel,  313 

Smith,  Wm.,  Jr.,  63 

Smjrth,  Lawrence,  256,  480 

Snake  Hill,  43,  65,  476 

Sonmans,  Arent,  20,  21,  184,  266, 
603,  614,  619,  697 

Sonmans,  Peter,  22,  23,  53,  139,  168, 
172,  176,  183,  184,  18s,  189,  190, 
192,  195,  197,  200,  20s,  216.  262, 
265,  266,  267,  268,  269,  271,  272, 
291.  296,  315,  356,  392,  399,  400, 
410.  413,  414,  417,  418,  419,  487, 
488.  489,  496.  580,  584.  588,  589. 
591,  603,  613.  614,  615,  616,  617, 
618,  619.  620,  621.  622,  623.  624, 
625.  626,  627.  628,  646,  653,  654, 
655.  657.  681,  697 

Sonmans,  Rachel,  619.  620 

Spicer,  Jacob,  191,  312,  313,  364.  372, 
426,  429,  579 

Spicer,  Samuel,  61 

Stacy,  Mahlon.  14,  98,  104,  no,  670 

Stacy,   Mahlon    (son  of),  315,  358, 

359.  445 
Stacy,  Henry.  15 
Staten  Island,  646 
Stephenson,  Thomas,  680,  681,  683, 

684 
Sterling,  Lord,  276 
Stevens.  John,  550 
Stout,  Richard,  61 
Strafford,  2 
Supreme  Court,  174,  175,  176,  198 


712 


INDEX 


Talbot,  Rev.  John,  200,  201,  202,  214, 
293,  335,  423,  583,  584,  586,  587, 
588,  589,  591,  592,  593,  594,  595, 
596,  597,  598,  599 

Tatham,  John,  92,  104,  122,  587 

Tenison,  Archbishop,  597 

Thackera,  Thomas,  no 

Thomas,  Josiah,  686 

Tilton,  John,  61 

Tilton,  Peter,  42 

Tinton  Manor,  43 

Townley,  Richard,  170,  172,  197,  262, 
264,  265,  269,  307,  308,  353,  363, 
398,  562,  584,  613,  619 

Treat,  John,  311,  312,  313 

Trent,  James,  546 

Trent,  vvm.,  209,  210,  235,  314,  375, 
411,  442,  443,  470,  478,  479,  493, 
511,  540,  546,  598,  601 

"Trentham,"  640 

TurnbuU,  Thomas,  484 

Turner,  Robert,  15,  20 

Twenty-four  proprietors,  20,  21,  22, 
23,  28,  44,  45,  46,  47,  48,  49,  SO, 
51,  52,  ^3,  54,  55.  56,  57,  75,  76, 
77,  89,  90,  131,  132,  133,  459,  634 

Urmston,  Rev.  John,  598 

Vail,  John,  665.  666 
Vail,  Stephen,  666 
Valot,  Claude,  69 
Van  Buskirk,  Thos.,  361,  366 
Van  Horn,  Cornelius,  277 
Van  Zant,  Isaac,  363 
Vaughan,    Rev.    Edward,    200,   497, 
SOI,  586,  591,  595,  596,  601,  632 
Vaughan,  Samuel,  649 
Vaughan  vs.  Woodruff,  660,  662 
Vauquillin,  Robert,  35,  37,  68,  yz^  83 
Verlett,  Capt.  Nicholas,  83 
Vesey,  202,  593,  600 

Waite,  Daniel,  685 

Walker,  Alexander,  487 

Walker,  260 

Walker  expedition,  419,  519,  541,  578 

Walter,  Robert,  643 

Warne,  Thomas,  20 

Warner,  Edmund,  10,  11,  12,  14,  97, 

685 
Warrell,  Joseph,  256 
Wasse,  James,  98 
Watson,  Luke,  38,  61,  64,  65,  66,  68, 

70 
Welch,  Wm.,  120 
Wells,  Philip,  48,  634 


Walton,  Dr.,  598 

W^est,  Robert,  20 

West  Jersey,  11,  12,  13,  14,  16,  17, 
18,  28,  29,  97,  98,  99,  100,  lOI, 
102,  103,  104,  105,  106,  107,  108, 
109,  no,  III,  112,  120,  121,  122, 
128,  130,  131,  135,  168,  185,  186, 
206,  216,  260,  281,  309,  311,  460, 
494,  538,  562,  567,  572,  573,  636, 
637,  639,  641,  658,  659,  665,  668- 
702 

West  Jersey  Society,  17,  18,  19,  107, 
108,  no,  112,  121,  122,  137,  206, 
262,  267,  268,  269,  271,  285,  383, 
602,  613,  614,  615,  622,  628,  633, 
656,  668,  670,  671,  67:3,  675,  676, 
677,  688,  689,  690,  691,  692 

Westland,  Nathaniel,  107,  108,  583 

Weston,  Charles,  359 

Wetherell,  Thos.,  671,  695,  701 

Weyman,  Rev.  Robert,  600 

Wheeler,  Robert,  309,  310,  312,  356, 

583 

White,  John,  256 

Whitehead,  Nathaniel,  633 

Wildgoose.  Richard,  178,  483 

William,  King,  135,  137 

Williams,  Thomas,  686 

Willocks,  George,  22,  23,  27.  49,  50, 
53.  54,  56,  78,  94,  95,  183,  189, 
191,  200,  202,  206,  211,  212,  229, 
254.  276,  293,  295,  342,  349,  417, 
435,  442,  483,  488,  580,  584,  591, 
594,  602,  603,  621,  623,  626,  627, 
^3'^,  633,  ^37,  639,  642,  643,  645, 
646,  647,  648,  649,  682,  687 

Wills,  Daniel,  14,  100 

Wills,  John,  273,  275,  311,  573,  670, 
671,  678,  680,  683,  684,  689,  691, 
696 

Wilson,  411 

Wolphertsen,  37 

Woodbridge,  28,  36,  38,  40,  68,  70, 
71,  83,  86,  459,  583,  595,  607 

Wood  Creek,  577 

Woodruff,  Joseph,  497,  501,  632,  662 

Woodward,  Anthony,  353 

Worrell,  Joseph,  480 

Wright,  Johanna,  620 

Wright,  John,  366 

Wright,  Joseph,  620,  622 

Wright,  Joshua,  309,  310,  382,  673, 
701 

Yonkers  Mills,  642 

Yorkshire,  Friends  of,  14,  98,  99,  lOi 


Studies  in  History,  Economics  and  Public  Law 

Edited  by  the 

Faculty  of  Political  Science  of  Columbia  University 


VOLUME  I,  1891-2,    2nd.  Ed.,  1897.    396  pp.    Price.  $3.00. 

1.  The  Divorce  Problem.    A  Study  In  Statistics. 

By  Waltkr  a.  Willcox,  Ph.D.    Price,  75  cents. 

8.  The  History  of  Tariff"  Administration  In  the  United  States,  from 
Colonial  Times  to  the  McKInley  Administrative  Bill. 

By  John  Dean  Goss,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

3.  History  of  Municipal  Land  O-wnershlp  on  Manhattan  Island. 

By  Georcb  Ashton  Black,  Ph.D.    Price,  |i.eo. 

4.  Financial  History  of  Massachusetts. 

By  Chaklbs  H.  J.  Douglas,  Ph.D.    {,Noi  ioU  separatily.) 

VOLUME  n,  1892-93.    503  pp.    Price,  $3.00. 

1.  The  Economics  of  the  Russian  VlUase. 

By  Isaac  A.  Hourwich,  Ph.D.    {Out  of  print.) 

5.  Bankruptcy.    A  Study  In  Comparative  Legislation. 

By  Samubl  W.  Dunscomb,  Jr.,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^i.oo. 

8.  Special  Assessments:  A  Study  In  Municipal  Finance. 

By  Victor  Rosbwatkr,  Ph.D.    Second  Edition,  1898.    Price,  ^i.oo. 

VOLUME  ni,  1893.    465  pp.    Price,  $3.00. 

1,  "History  of  Elections  In  the  American  Colonies. 

By  Cortland  F.  Bishop,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

8.  The  Commercial  Policy  of  £ns:land  toward  the  American  Colonies. 

By  Gborgb  L.  Bebr,  A.M.    (Not  told  teparattly.) 

VOLUME  IV,  1893-94.    438  pp.    Price,  $3.00. 

1.  Financial  History  of  VIrKlnla.  By  William  Z.  Riplby,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.oo. 

2. The  Inheritance  Tax.       By  Max  Wkst,  Ph.D.    Second  Edition,  1908.    Price,  $3.00. 

3.  History  of  Taxation  In  "Vermont. 

By  Frederick  A.  Wood,  Ph.D.    (Not  told  teparately.) 

VOLUME  V,  1895-96.    498  pp.    Price,  $3.00. 

1.    Double  Taxation  In  the  United  States. 

By  Francis  Walker,  Ph.D.    Price,  Si.oo. 

S.  The  Separation  of  Governmental  Powers. 

By  William  Bondy,  LL.B.,  Ph.D.    Price, ^i.oo. 

3.  Municipal  Government  In  Michigan  and  Ohio. 

By  Delos  F.  Wilcox,  Ph.D.    Price,  fi.oo. 

VOLUME  VI,  1896.    601  pp.    Price,  $4.00. 

History  of  Proprietary  Government  In  Pennsylvania. 

By  William  Robert  Shepherd,  Ph.D.    Price  $4.00;  bound,  ^.50. 

VOLUME  Vn,  1896.    512  pp.    Price,  $3.00. 

1.  History    of   the    Transition    from    Provincial    to   Common'wealth. 
Government  In  Massachusetts. 

By  Hakrt  a.  Gushing,  Ph.D.    Price,  la.oo. 

ft.  Speculation  on  the  Stock  and  Produce  Exchanees  of  the  United 
States.  By  Henry  Crosby  Embrt,  Ph.D.    Price,  (ljo. 


VOLUME  Vin,  1896-98.    551pp.    Price,  $3.50. 

1.  Th.e  Struggle  between  President  Johnson  and  Congress  over  Re- 
construction. By  Charles  Ernbst  Chadsey,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.oo. 

S.  Recent  Centralizing  Tendencies  In  State  Educational  Administra- 
tion. By  William  Clarence  Webster,  Ph.D.     Price,  75  cents. 

S.  The  Abolition  of  Privateering  and  the  Deplaratlon  of  Paris. 

By  Francis  R.  Stark,  LL.B.,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

4.  Public  Administration  In  Massachusetts.    The  Relation  of  Central 

to  Local  Activity.  By  Robert  Harvey  Whitthn,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji.oow 

VOLUME  IX,  1897-98.    617  pp.    Price,  $3.50. 

1.  •English  Xiocal  Government  of  To-day.     A  Study  of  the  Relations 
of  Central  and  Local  Government. 

By  MiLO  Roy  Maltbie,  Ph.D.    Price,  |2.oo 

8.  German  "Wage  Theories.    A  History  of  their  Development. 

By  Jambs  W.  Crook,  Ph.D.    Price,  $i.oo. 

3.  The  Centralization  of  Administration  In  New  York  State. 

By  John  Archibald  Fairlie,  Ph.D.     Price,  |i.oo. 

VOLUME  X,  1898-99.    500  pp.    Price,  $3.00. 

1.  Sympathetic  Strikes  and  Sympathetic  Lockouts. 

By  Fred  S.  Hall,  Ph.D.     Price,  ^i.oo. 

2.  *Rhode  Island  and  the  Formation  of  the  Union. 

By  Frank  Greene  Bates,  Ph.D-     Price,  ti  so. 

3.  Centralized  Administration  of  Liquor  Law^s  in  the  American  Com- 

monwealths. By  Clement  Moore  Lacey  Sites,  Ph.D.     Price,  $i.oo. 

VOLUME  XI,  1899.    495  pp.    Price,  $3.50. 

The  Growth  of  Cities.  By  Adna  Fbrrin  Webbr,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XII,  1899-1900.    586  pp.    Price,  $3.50. 

1.  History  and  Ennotlons  of  Central  Labor  Unions. 

By  William  Maxwell  Burke,  Ph.D.    Price,  fi.oo- 

5.  Colonial  Immigration  Laws. 

By  Edward  Embbrson  Propbr,  A.M.    Price,  75  cents. 

3.  History  of  Military  Pension  Legislation  In  the  United  States. 

By  William  Henry  Glasson,  Ph.D      Price,  {i.oo. 

4.  History  of  the  Theory  of  Sovereignty  since  Rousseau. 

By  Charles  E.  Merriam,  Jr.,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^1.50. 

VOLUME  Xm,  1901.    570  pp.    Price.  $3.50. 

1.  The  Legal  Property  Relations  of  Married  Parties. 

By  IsiDOR  LoEB,  Ph.D.    Price,  fl.50. 
a.  Political  Natlvism  In  New  York  State. 

By  Louis  Dow  Scisco,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.00. 
8.  The  Reconstruction  of  Georgia. 

By  Edwin  C.  Woollby,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.oo. 

VOLUME  XIV,  1901-1902.    576  pp.    Price.  $3.50. 

1.  Loyallsm  In  New  York  during  the  American  Revolution. 

By  Alexander  Clarence  Flick,  Ph.D.    Price,  fa.oo. 
8.  The  Economic  Theory  of  Risk  and  Insuranoe. 

/  By  Allan  H.  Willktt,  Ph.D.    Price,  fuso. 

3.  The  Eastern  Question :  A  Study  In  Diplomacy. 

By  Stephen  P.  H.  Duggan,  Ph.D.    Price,  |i.oo. 

'     ~  VOLUME  XV,  1902.    427  pp.    Price,  $3.00. 

Crime  In  Its  Relations  to^ocial  Progress. 

By  Arthur  Clbtblaho  Hall,  Ph.D. 


VOLUME  XVI,  1902-1903.    547  pp.    Price,  $3.00. 

1.  The  Past  and  Present  of  Commerce  In  Japan. 

By  Ybtaro  KiNosiTA,  Ph.D.  Price,  J1.50. 
S.  The  Employment  of  AVomen  In  the  Clothing  Trade. 

By  Mabbl  Huro  Willbt,  Ph.D.  Price,  ^1.50. 

8.  The  Centralization  of  Administration  In  Ohio. 

By  Samubl  p.  Orth,  Ph.D.  Price,  Si. 50. 

VOLUME  XVn,  1903.    635  pp.    Price,  $3.50. 

1.  *CentrallzInfi:  Tendencies  In  the  Administration  of  Indiana. 

By  WiLUAM  A.  Rawlbs,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ss  S^. 

9,  Principles  of  Justice  In  Taxation. 

By  Stkphbn  F.  Wbston,  Ph.D.     Price,  $».<». 

VOLUME  XVni,    1903.    753  pp.    Price,  $4.00. 

1.  The  Administration  of  Iowa. 

By  Harold  Martin  Bowman,  Ph.D.    Price,  Si. so. 

2.  Tarifot  and  the  Six  Edicts.  By  Robert  P.  Shkphbrd,  Ph.D.    Price,  >i. 50. 

3.  Hanover  and  Prussia,  1705-18O3. 

By  Guy  Stanton  Ford,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  XIX,  1903-1905.    588  pp.    Price,  $3.50. 

1.  Joslah  Tucker,  Economist.  By  Walter  Ernest  Clark,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji. 50. 

2.  Illstory  and  Criticism  of  the    Liabor  Theory  of  "Value  in  English 

Political  Economy.  By  Albert  C.  Whitakbr,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

3.  Trade  Unions  and  the  Law  In  New  York. 

By  Gborgb  Gorham  Groat,  Ph.D.    Price,  |i .00. 

VOLUME  XX,  1904.    514  pp.    Price,  $3.00. 

1.  The  Office  of  the  Justice  of  the  Peace  In  England. 

By  Charles  Austin  Beard,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^1.50. 

S.  A  HlstoiTT  of  Military  Government  In  Newly  Acquired  Territory  of 

the  United  States.  By  David  Y.  Thomas,  Ph.D.    Price,  ^.00. 

VOLUME  XXI,  1904.    746  pp.    Price.  $4.00. 

1.  'Treaties,  their  Maklne  and  Enforcement. 

By  Samuel  B.  Crandall,  Ph.D.    Price, fx. 50. 
8.  The  Soololosry  of  a  New  Tork  City  Block. 

By  Thomas  Jbssb  Jonbs,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 
8.  Pre-Malthuslan  Doctrines  of  Population. 

By  Charles  E.  Stangbland,  Ph.D.    Price,  f.y>. 

VOLUME  XXn,  1905.    520  pp.    Price,  $3.00. 

The  Historical  Development  of  the  Poor  L>aw  of  Connecticut. 

By  Edward  W.  Capvn,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XXm,  1905.    594  pp.    Price,  $3.50. 

1.  The  Economics  of  LAnd  Tenure  In  Oeorsrla. 

By  Enoch  Marvin  Banks,  Ph.D.    Price,  St .00. 
S.  Mistake  In  Contract.    A  Study  In  Comparative  .Turlspmdenco. 

By  Edwin  C.  McKbac,  Ph.D.    Price,  Si.oo. 
8.  Combination  In  the  Mlnlnsr  Industry. 

By  Hbnry  R.  Mussby,  Ph.D.    Price,  Si.oo. 

4.  The  Ensllsh  Craft  Gilds  and  the  Government. 

By  Stblla  Krambr,  Ph.D.    Price,  |i.oo. 

VOLUME  XXIV,  1905.    521  pp.    Price,  $3.00. 

1.  The  Place  of  Maslo  In  vhe  Intellectual  History  of  Europe. 

By  Lynn  Thorndikb,  Ph.D.    Price,  75  cents. 

2.  The  Ecclesiastical  Edicts  of  the  Theodoslan  Code. 

By  William  K.  Boyd,  Ph.D.    Price,  75  cents. 
8.  *The  International  Position  of  Japan  as  a  Great  Power. 

By  S8i;i  G.  Hishida,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ju.oo. 


VOLUME  XXV,  1906-07.    600  pp.    Price,  $4.00. 

1.  *  Municipal  Control  of  Public  Utilities. 

By  Oscar  Lewis  Pond,  Ph.D.    Price,  |i.oo. 

3.  Tlie  Bndget  In  the  American  Commonwealtlis. 

By  Eugene  E.  Agger,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

8.  The  Finances  of  Cleveland.  By  Charles  C.  Williamson.  Ph.D.    Price,  |2.oo. 

VOLUME  XXVI,  1907.    559  pp.    Price,  $3.50. 

1.  Trade  and  Currency  in  Early  Oregon. 

By  Jambs  H.  Gilbert,  Ph.D.    Price,  |i.oo, 

3.  liU tiler's  Table  Talk.  By  Preserved  Smith,  Ph.D.     Price,  $i.oo. 

3.  The  Tobacco  Industry  in  the  United  States. 

By  Meyer  Jacobstein,  Ph.D.     Price,  J1.50, 

4.  Social  Democracy  and  Population. 

By  Alvan  a.  Tennev,  Ph.D.     Price,  75  cents. 

VOLUME  XXVII,  1907.    578  pp.    Price,  $3.50. 

1.  The  Economic  Policy  of  Robert  Walpole. 

By  NoRRis  A.  Brisco,  Ph.D.     Price,  ^1.50. 

2.  The  United  States  Steel  Corporation. 

By  Abraham  Berglund,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

3.  The  Taxation  of  Corporations  in  Massachusetts. 

By   Harry  G.  Friedman,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  XXVIII,  1907.    564  pp.    Price,  $3.50. 

1.  DeWItt  Clinton  and  the  Origin  of  the  Spoils  System  In  New  York. 

By  Howard  Lee  McBain,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

2.  The  Development  of  the  Legislature  of  Colonial  "Virginia. 

By  Elmer  1.  Miller,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

8.  The  Distribution  of  Ow^nership. 

By  Joseph  Harding  Underwood,  Ph.D.    Price,  fi.50. 

VOLUME  XXIX.  1908.    630  pp.    Price,  $4  00. 

1.  Early  New^  England  Tovsrns. 

By  Annb  Bush  MacLbar,  Ph.D.    Price,  J1.50. 

2.  New  Hampshire  as  a  Royal  Province. 

By  William  H.  Fry.    {In press.) 

VOLUME  XXX,  1908.    712  pp.    Price,  $4.00. 

The  Province  of  New  Jersey,  1664—1738. 

By  Edwin  P.  Tanner,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XXXI,  1908.    575  pp.    Price,  $3.50. 

1.  Private  Freight  Cars  and  American  Railroads. 

By  L.  D.  H.  Weld.  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

2.  Ohio  before  1850.  By  Robert  E.  Chaddock,  Ph.D.    Price,  J1.50. 

3.  Consanguineous  Marriages  in  the  American  Population. 

By  George  B.  Louis  Arnkr,  Ph.D.     Price,  ysc 

4.  Adolphe  Quetelet  as  Statistician.    By  Frank  H.  Hankins,  Ph.D.    Price,  |i  35. 

VOLUME  XXXII.  1908.    705  pp.    Price,  $4.00. 

The  Enforcement  of  the  Statutes  of  Laborers. 

By  Bertha  Haven  Putnam,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XXXIII,  1908-1909. 

1.  Factory  Ijegislatlon  In  Maine.  By  E.  Stagg  Whitin,  A  B.    Price,  |i.oo. 

VOLULIE  IV,  No.  2.  1908. 

*  The  Inheritance  Tax.  Second  edition.     Completely  revised  and  enlarged. 

By  Max  West,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.00. 

The  price  for  each  volume  is  for  the  set  of  monographs  in  paper.  Each  volume, 
as  well  as  the  separate  monographs  marked*,  can  be  supplied  in  eloth-bound  copies, 
for  50e.  additional.    All  prices  are  net. 

The  set  of  thirty-two  volumes,  comprising  eighty-five  monographs,  (except 

that  Vol.  II  can  be  supplied  only  in  unbound  nos.  2  and  3)  is  offered 

bound  for  $106.     Volumes  I,  III  and  IV  can  now  be  supplied 

only  in  connection  with  complete  sets. 

For  further  information,  apply  to 

Prof.  EDWIN  R.  A.  SELIGMAN,  Columbia  University, 

or  to  Messrs.  LONGMANS,  GREEN  &  CO.,  New  York. 
London:  P.  S.  KING  &  SON,  Orchard  House,  Westminster. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  TWr-  t  abo.  ,.    »-. 

AN  INITIAL  fTi^  qP  25  CENTS 

WILL.  'NCREASE  TO  so  cel?"J-  ^"^  ''^NALTY 
DAY  AND  TO  $[x)0  o^f  If  °'^  ^"^  ''°URTH 
OVERDUE.  '^    ^"^    SEVENTH     DAY 


V.30 


25j»-2,'H