119

CHAPTER VI

THE TRANSITION FROM DUTCH TO ENGLISH GOVERNMENT. THE EXECUTIVE IN PROPRIETARY NEW YORK

The transition from Dutch to English rule in New York can best be understood if we follow events in the order of time.¹ The royal charter of March, 1664, provided for the substitution, when the province should have been conquered, of an English duke as proprietor in the place of a group of Dutch merchants. To the proprietor were given rights of subordinate government, without mention of a representative legislature, and with the express reserve on behalf of the colonists of the right of appeal to the king. Under this character, Colonel Richard Nicolls was appointed governor.² As soon as the authorities at New Amsterdam had surrendered, a council of four members, two from England and two from Long Island, was appointed; Matthias Nicolls was appointed secretary, and Thomas Delavall collector and receiver-general. Cornelius van Ruyven, who had been the last to hold the office of secretary in the Dutch province, together with Johannes van Brugh, one of the schepens of New Amsterdam, were sometimes called in for advice.³ Since Nicolls’s instructions as governor of New York, if they ever existed, have been lost, it is impossible to say what directions or restrictions were imposed upon him.

The articles of surrender fully guarantied⁴ the rights of private property to all free inhabitants, and to the Dutch

120

“their owne Customes concerning their Inheritances.” Full recognition should be given to their public records and to the judgments which had been rendered in their courts. Contracts and bargains made previous to the day of surrender should be interpreted and executed according to Dutch law. All inferior civil officers and magistrates should continue in their places till the time of the next election should come, and then new ones should be chosen by themselves, provided the new incumbents should take the oath of allegiance to the English king. Free exit was allowed to those, soldiers or others, who desired to leave the province, while for six months intercourse might be freely kept up with the Netherlands. The benefits of these articles were extended to the inhabitants of Albany and Rensselaerswyck, and, though under a separate commission, to those on the South river.¹ As, however, it was expected that the great body of the Dutch inhabitants would remain in New York, Governor Nicolls, beginning with the magistrates of New Amsterdam, insisted that an oath of allegiance should be taken to the king of England. To this some objected, unless a clause was added implying that the oath did not involve the withdrawal of any of the privileges conceded in the articles of surrender. After a discussion on this point between the burgomasters and the governor, the latter, to make assurance doubly sure, issued a declaration, signed by himself and the magistrates of the city, stating that the articles were not in the least degree broken by the terms of the oath. The administration of the oath then went on unobstructed.²

These acts insured for a time to the Dutch inhabitants in many parts of the province the continuance of their system of law and local government. In Albany the officials were soon appointed regularly from lists of nominees submitted by the locality.³ But within the English section of the province, the governor and council could immediately set at work. The English component of the population was

121

increased by the inclusion of the towns at the eastern end of Long Island. The addition of such remote dependencies as Martha’s Vineyard, Nantucket, and Cornwall signified little to the province of New York itself. The loose authority which Connecticut had exercised over some of the eastern towns was withdrawn, and the process of incorporating them with New York began. The authority of Connecticut was again revived during the fifteen months of Dutch reoccupation (1673—1674), but on the restoration of English government it was finally abandoned and their fortunes were permanently joined with those of New York. Within Long Island, though it was inhabited partly by Dutch; in Staten island, which contained a small Dutch population; and in Westchester, which was wholly English, Governor Nicolls began the introduction of English institutions. The process commenced with the organization of this region as a great English county under the name of Yorkshire. It was divided into three ridings,—the east riding comprising the present Suffolk county; the west riding comprising Staten island, the present Kings county and the town of Newtown in Queens; the north riding including the rest of Queens county and Westchester.

On March 1, 1665, before a meeting of deputies from Westchester and all the towns of Long Island, the “Duke’s Laws” were proclaimed.¹ Within that region, as well as in Staten island,—though it had no deputies present,—the laws were at once put into force. This code was probably prepared by the governor, with the assistance of the secretary and members of the court of assizes. It was compiled from the codes of the New England colonies, with probably some additions from English sources, and the whole was thrown into such form as best to meet the needs of officials in a proprietary province. Under sections alphabetically arranged it set forth carefully the forms of judicial business and procedure; also the various civil actions classified as

122

was then the custom in English law, and a criminal code which was less severe than that of contemporary England. It also contained the law which was to prevail in the English part of the province concerning ecclesiastical relations, the Indians, military affairs, the courts, taxation, and the oaths and fees of officials. For the enforcement of the law within Yorkshire the governor and council appointed a high sheriff for the whole of the county, an under-sheriff and a board of justices for each of the ridings. The justices held a court of sessions in each of the ridings three times a year. The highest judicial body of the province, as well as the closest approximation which it had to a legislature, was the court of assizes. This met once a year at New York, and consisted of the governor, the council, and the justices of the courts of sessions. It was this body, or more truly the governor and council within it, which formulated the “Duke’s Laws” and subsequently revised them. At its meetings new laws were published, and important public business was done or the fact that it had been done was announced. The officials of the new county government were at once appointed, and it, with the court of assizes, was set in operation.

The substitution in the Dutch towns of officials with English titles and powers, in the place of the schouts and schepens, accompanied the process which has just been described. The Duke’s Laws provided for the election by the freeholders of each town of a board of eight overseers and a constable to hold for one year. One-half of the board of overseers should retire from office annually, and from the retiring list the constable should be chosen. The overseers and constable possessed judicial powers, as did the local officers of the Dutch village. We find that by December,¹ 1665, the change had been effected in Brooklyn, Flatbush, and Flatlands, and it is probable that the other Dutch towns on the island did not fall much behind in this matter. The English parish system in a somewhat modified form was legalized throughout this section.

Even earlier than this a similar change was effected in

123

the city of New York, this encroachment of English usage upon a town that was still essentially Dutch being due, we may suppose, to the residence there of the officials of the provincial government, as well as to instructions from England. In June, 1665, for government by schout, burgomasters, and schepens, was substituted¹ government by mayor, aldermen, and sheriff, all appointed for one year by the governor. The statement in their commission that they were to govern the city “according to the Generall Lawes of this Government,” and such special ordinances as might be thought convenient or necessary, was sufficiently ambiguous to open the way for the gradual substitution of English for Dutch law and usage in the city. Even the restricted right of choice which the city had previously enjoyed in the election of its magistrates was taken away. For this reason, and because the new measure seemed to violate the clause in the articles of surrender which provided that existing magistrates should continue as they were till the time of election, and that then new ones should be chosen in their places, objection was made by some to the installation of the governor’s appointees. But he met the objection by stating that the election referred to had been held the previous February, and by it the requirement in the articles of surrender had been fully met. He also declared that the duke had instructed him to establish the government of the city in conformity with the law of England. This silenced objection, and the English mayor, Thomas Willett, with the Dutch sheriff and the two English and three Dutch aldermen, took their oaths of office.

The work of introducing English law and officials did not proceed farther than this during Nicolls’s administration. Not until July, 1667, the date of the treaty of Breda, did England hold the territory of New Netherland by any title save that of conquest. The course which she pursued during that interval conformed with the dictum of the lawyers respecting the mode of introducing English law into conquered

124

territory. The change was effected by the act of the conqueror. But it is certain that the course pursued by the officials in New York differed in no vital respect from the measures by which we have seen that English government was established in other colonies. In the light of comparative study, the assertion of the lawyers, which was intended to apply exclusively to conquered territory, becomes broadened into a statement which applies in general to the entire process by which English law was introduced into the colonies. Not all of English law was introduced into any of the colonies. It was introduced into them all in various proportions, and by methods which differed in detail. The process in its main features was the result of conscious, purposed action. This statement, however, does not involve a denial of the probability that in the case of a conquered territory, of New Netherland itself in fact, the change was effected with greater care and more conscious intent than would appear in the history of most of the other colonies.

By the treaty of Breda New Netherland was left in the possession of the English in exchange for Surinam, which was restored to the Dutch. England thenceforward held New Netherland by a title which was valid by the law of nations. In the year following the conclusion of the treaty, Nicolls resigned the governorship, and was succeeded by Colonel Francis Lovelace. He brought with him a confirmation of the Duke’s Laws, and an instruction to make no changes in the system of government which Nicolls had established. This order was obeyed. But the reoccupation of the territory by Evertsen and Binckes, which brought the administration of Lovelace to a close, restored Dutch law and institutions, and they continued in existence for more than a year. By the treaty of Westminster, February, 1674, New Netherland was ceded to England, and thus the Dutch title was finally extinguished. By being a party to this act, England may be considered to have abandoned her former position, that the Dutch had never had any rights on the Hudson, and to have acknowledged that the original title of the Duke of York was defective. In order now to remedy this defect, a new charter was issued to him in 1674, which

125

was an almost verbal copy of its predecessor. Under its authority Edmund Andros was appointed governor, and by him English law and institutions were not only restored, but, under instructions from the proprietor, were gradually extended throughout the province. In 1674¹ the Duke’s Laws were introduced in the city of New York. By 1678 they had been put into force on the Delaware, in the towns at Esopus, and at Albany and Schenectady. On the Delaware English official titles had superseded the Dutch, though at Albany and Schenectady the latter survived for some time longer.² Many of the forms of Dutch procedure and provisions of their law continued long after this time, especially in the northern parts of the province, but the decisive steps toward the supremacy of English practice had now been taken. Strengthened thus by the perfected title of the duke, Andros also summarily quelled the opposition of a few who objected to taking the oath of allegiance, and it was administered to all Dutch subjects.

Executive action is much the same the world over. Especially is this true in the governments of two nations which in origin and type of culture were so much alike as the Dutch and the English. The course pursued by Stuyvesant and that followed by Andros—both men of the military type—were in their general character the same. Both, up to the measure of their powers, served their chiefs with the utmost fidelity. The autocratic and exclusive power of the

126

executive within the province was jealously maintained by both. Under the English system the crown held aloof from interference in the affairs of the province much more than the States General had done. Though the duke sought revenue and trade, his administration was scarcely characterized by the narrow and monopolistic spirit which a trading company is likely to exhibit. In New York as a proprietary province land-grabbing, so far as we know, never assumed the dimensions to which it attained in the time of Van Twiller and his associates. Indian relations developed on a much larger scale than during the Dutch period, and they were managed with much greater wisdom than was shown by Kieft. It is certain that under the English the people were more systematically trained in the use of arms than they had been under Dutch rule. The English executive was stronger, and its work more effective than that of the director and council, but that was largely due to the fact of conquest, and to the support which the officials received from the proprietor. The Duke of York compares very favorably not only with the Dutch West India company, but with other English proprietors as well.

The affairs of the Duke of York, especially after 1673, were regularly transacted¹ in England through a secretary, a treasurer and receiver-general, an attorney-general and solicitor-general, and commissioners of the duke’s revenue. By these officials, in the issue of commissions and instructions and in correspondence, the forms of the English chancery, and of the government offices in general, were followed. Thus the transaction of business in proprietary New York was characterized by greater regularity and observance of form than appears in any other proprietary province except Maryland, and the forms observed were distinctly like those of the later royal provinces. The conquest of New York resulted from the direct initiative of the crown, and Nicolls as the commander of that enterprise acted under a commission from Charles II. He acted at first in a double capacity, as royal commissioner and as proprietary appointee. Justice was administered in New York in the name of

127

the king, and all warrants, writs, and executions ran in his name.¹ The right of appeal to the crown was guarantied in the charter. Care was also observed, not only that the Dutch should take the oath of allegiance to the king, but that all officers of the province should do so as well.² These facts, when taken in connection with the relationship which existed between the duke of York and the king, show that New York always stood on the borderland between a proprietary and a royal province. Political motives also contributed to the same end. It was considered desirable by those who were best informed that New York should act as a curb on New England. Near the close of 1668 Governor Nicolls, finding it impossible to induce Massachusetts to embody its militia as a precaution against the possibility of French attack, wrote to Secretary Arlington, “My Lord, the foresaid discouragements fall heavy upon us poore mortalls that know no interest but his Majesty’s, and are ready every houre to sacrifize our lives for his honour and service. When His Majesty is truly informed how advantageously wee are posted by scituation to bridle his enemies and secure all his good subjects, I humbly presume to thinke that his Majesty would afford much countenance and regard unto us notwithstanding that his Majesty hath graunted the whole tract to his Royal Highness.”³

Richard Nicolls was eminently qualified for the discharge of the delicate task which was imposed upon him. The record of his acts, as well as the testimony of his contemporaries, shows that he possessed that combination of firmness with a conciliatory spirit which make the successful administrator. Law and power were wholly on his side, and he was not slow to make it evident when necessity required. When a spirit of opposition in the towns of Southampton, Easthampton, and Southold manifested itself in what he regarded as an unjustifiable delay in the choice of constables and overseers, Nicolls wrote,⁴ “I am much more troubled to heare that such wicked designs should have Generall Influence upon those three Townes, contrary to the Duty they owe to his Majesty,

128

whose crown and dignity, wisdom & power I must and will assert, not only against his publique but his private Enemys. . . .” If the neglect were continued, “I shall bee necessitated,” he wrote, “to declare against the dissenters therein, as mutinous contemners of the Lawes Established, and disturbers of the peace of this Government, and shall (with God’s Assistance) proceed against any or every person according to Law, in those cases provided.” In a different spirit he wrote to the inhabitants of Jamaica respecting a controversy which that town was having with Flushing over a parcel of land recently bought from the Indians:¹ “I am very tender in giving credit to the reports on one part till the other is heard, and I am also very unwilling to putt the Magistrates or Inhabitants to the trouble of coming hither this Winter Season to Answer what those of Flushing have objected, but rather to recommend to you the Silencing of former Divisions betweene Neighbors, and no(t) beginning any new occasion of difference. . . .”

To the constable and overseers of Oyster Bay,² who had objected to an order of the governor increasing the public rate for the year 1666 to a penny in the pound, and who had probably objected also because they were being taxed without their consent, Nicolls wrote that he would never be unwilling to manifest the openness both of his ears and heart to the humblest man in the world who complained of oppressive treatment. After insisting that the trust committed to him by the king was sufficient warrant for what he had done, and that he had done it in order that the public debts might not run into arrears or men complain that they must wait two years for payment, he continued, “You see how ready I am to satisfy your scruples, and therefore I cannot but expect your complyance to my directions, whose dayly meditacon it is, which way I can best serve the country, and without any other expectation of benefit from them than a good name and no such peevish dispositions which may render them refractory to his Majesty’s Government.” He closed with a declaration that before God and the world he would justify what he had done, and would uphold the

129

officials of the town in executing it. When, at the close of his short term, Colonel Nicolls was returning to England, Samuel Maverick, his associate upon the royal commission, wrote¹ concerning him to Secretary Arlington, “After his abode here four yeares (where he hath lived with great reputation and honour) hee is now returning home, I must needs accompany him with this character, that hee hath done his Majesty and his Royall Highness very considerable service in these parts, having by his prudent management of affaires kept persons of different judgments and of diverse nations in peace and quietnes, dureing a time when a great part of the world was in warrs. As to the severall Nations of the Indyans, they were never brought into such a peaceable posture & faire correspondence, as by his means they now are.”

Edmund Andros, who was appointed to the governorship after the close of the Dutch reoccupation, possessed the strong and imperious will of Nicolls, but without his conciliatory manners. The two were alike in their fidelity to the rights and interests of their superior. Both were also men of the military profession, and fond of autocratic rule. Andros possessed less of the gentlemanly instincts and sense of justice than did Nicolls. Nicolls was better able to conceal the harsh features of absolutism than was Andros. But both men were willing servants under the same regime.

During his administration of seven years as proprietary governor Andros visited England twice, and reported upon the condition of New York. His report² on the first occasion—in 1678—was made to the committee of Trade and Plantations, and was occasioned by the charges made by Massachusetts that, during the recent Indian war, the people in the neighborhood of Albany had furnished ammunition and other material for war to Philip and his men. Upon petition of Andros, Stoughton and Bulkley, the agents of Massachusetts, were called upon to justify the charge, but were unable to do so. Thereupon an order in council was issued declaring that none of the inhabitants about Albany should lie under such an imputation unless Massachusetts

130

should prosecute them thereon to a legal conviction within one year, and that the government of Massachusetts should be immediately informed to that effect. The Puritan colonies never responded to the challenge. The relations between them and Andros had never been cordial, and, in fact, could not be so with any governor of New York, so long as by charter its northeast boundary line was the Connecticut river. In the testimony, moreover, which Andros gave before the English authorities concerning the colonies in general, he urged the importance from the military standpoint of the crown regulating the militia of the colonies in such a way as to secure united action. This foreshadowed the course which was later to be taken, and this, with other free criticisms, still further prejudiced New Englanders against Andros. The confidence of the crown in his ability and fidelity was, however, shown by the bestowment on him at this time of the honor of knighthood.

The second visit of Andros to England, and the one which closed his administration, was caused, in 1680, by a direct summons from the duke.¹ The occasion of this was the circulating of charges by private persons, including certain Quakers, Captain Christopher Billop—who for misconduct had been discharged from his office as commander on the Delaware—and others, to the discredit of Andros. It was said that in trade regulations he favored Phillips and Van Cortlandt, who were councillors and wealthy Dutch merchants; that he caused ordinances to be issued which were harmful to the English; that he traded directly himself or admitted Dutch ships promptly, while unduly detaining those of Englishmen. Offers had also been made to farm the duke’s revenue in New York, and the estimates of its amount contained in these offers differed greatly from the reports of Andros. As the information which had reached James concerning the province was loose and scattered, Andros was ordered to return and fully explain all matters. At the same time John Lewin, supposed to have been a London attorney, was commissioned as the special agent of the duke, to go to New York and thoroughly inform himself

131

concerning the administration of the revenue of the province and its amount. He was carefully instructed to examine records, and officials and private individuals as well, and if possible ascertain whether or not the duke had been defrauded or private traders wronged in the administration of the customs. Andros was ordered to give him all possible countenance and assistance, and did so just before he himself sailed for England. Lewin submitted a long report,¹ in which he treated several of the charges as substantiated, and presented a complaint of his own that various records and other sources of information had been withheld from him. To Lewin’s report Andros presented a reply, denying the charges seriatim, and shifting the responsibility on other officials and their conduct after he had left the province. William Dyer, the collector of the customs at New York, having meanwhile been sent to London under a charge arising from illegal collection of the revenue, he, with Andros, Lewin, and others, was examined by John Churchill on behalf of the commissioners of the duke’s revenue. Churchill could not find that Lewin and his friends were able to sustain any of their charges against either Andros or Dyer, and both were discharged. But, though the fidelity of Andros to the proprietor was proven, Colonel Thomas Dongan was selected to carry on the government of the province, and to finally quench the hostility of the English merchants to the customs regulations of the duke, from which Andros had suffered, by calling a representative assembly. Dongan’s career in the province proved that James had again chosen wisely. He proved to be one of the very best of all the colonial governors. So far, then, as its chief magistrates were concerned, New York was fortunate so long as James Stuart held the power of appointment.

The council of New York, like that of New Netherland and those of the other English proprietary provinces, consisted of few members. The secretary, Matthias Nicolls, was sworn in regularly as councillor, and with him on the board, as first organized, were Captains Robert Needham and Thomas Delavall, who had accompanied the commissioners from England,

132

Thomas Topping of Southampton, and William Wells of Southold.¹ The board usually numbered from six to eight. At executive sessions sometimes only two were present, as the governor and Mr. Whitfield; again, the governor, Mr. Whitfield, and the secretary; still again, the governor, Mr. Delavall, Mr. Willett, and the secretary; or the governor, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Steenwyck, and the secretary.² Passing to the administration of Governor Andros, we find that on October 23, 1675, the governor, the secretary, Captain Dyer, and Mr. Phillips were present. On May 5, 1676, the governor, Captain Brockholls, the secretary, Captain Dyer, and Mr. Phillips were in attendance.³ These entries fairly indicate the members who regularly attended. Attention to the personnel of the council will reveal the additional fact, already familiar from the study of other colonies, that this body consisted almost wholly of officials. Among the members just referred to as in attendance were the secretary, the mayor, and one of the aldermen of the city of New York—both appointees of the governor; also a lieutenant-governor, who was at the same time the major of a militia company and the collector of the customs. The mayors of the metropolis were regularly appointed councillors. Of the council, as first organized, the high sheriff of Yorkshire was a member. The heads of the rising families of the province,—merchants and large landowners,—especially if they lived in the vicinity of the city of New York, were almost sure to be members of the council. Frederick Phillips and Stephen Van Cortlandt in early times are good examples of members of this class. At the beginning the council was largely composed of military officers and lawyers direct from England. As time passed, its membership came necessarily to consist chiefly of permanent residents of the province. Men of Dutch as well as English descent were appointed, provided they showed themselves loyal to the established government. Of the loyalty of Nicholas Bayard, Andros at first had doubts, but in 1685 Bayard was appointed

133

mayor of New York, and at the same time began his career as a councillor.¹ It would appear that the council in New York was aristocratic and exclusive in character, and the official spirit strongly prevailed within it. Sessions of the council were held in any part of the province where the governor happened to be and where it was most convenient that business should be done.

The directing influence of the governor and council was continuously felt in all sections of the province. In Long Island its attention was chiefly devoted to the settlement of boundary disputes and other conflicting claims between towns. There also it had to contend with the sensitiveness of the people on the subject of prerogative taxation, and over the requirement that land patents should be taken out anew from the English authorities. In the valley of the Hudson the council was largely concerned with the Indians, and with the founding of new settlements and the regulation of affairs at the Esopus. Relations with New Jersey naturally came in for a large share of attention. On the Delaware relations with the Swedes and with the inhabitants of Maryland, who claimed the territory as far north as the fortieth degree of latitude, land grants, the maintenance of peace and trade with the Indians, the appointment of English officials and establishment of courts, and finally the controversy with John Fenwick over his settlement on the east side of the bay, occupied very much of the attention of the council. A somewhat more extended reference to certain typical examples of the business thus transacted will throw light on the history of the times.

One of the most difficult tasks which the New York executive had to undertake was that of establishing a uniform system of control over the towns of Long Island. It was necessary to impose it, not only on the towns which were inhabited by Hollanders and had been under Dutch rule, but on the English towns at the east end of the island, which had hitherto been practically independent. The system of control in itself was no more searching than that which the executives of the New England colonies exercised over their

134

towns, but it did not proceed from men of their own choice, acting under laws of their own making; neither from men of their own religious confession, or those whose political views were in harmony with the desires of the people who were to be governed. In a word, it was imposed by an outside power instead of being part of a system of self-government.

It was fortunate that when the first encounter between the towns and the provincial executive occurred, a man with the temper of Nicolls was in the office of governor. Under the lead of Howell of Southampton and Young of Southold, these towns, together with Easthampton, refused to choose town officers or to pay rates. John Underhill, who at the time was high constable of the east riding, sympathized more or less with them, and there was widespread aversion to the Duke’s Laws and to the way in which they had been imposed by executive action at the meeting which was held at Hempstead in March, 1665. The oaths of the town overseer and constable bound them to obey and enforce these laws, together with the orders of the executive and courts, and the obligation to take the oaths was especially offensive. Personal jealousy of William Wells of Hempstead, who had been appointed high sheriff of Yorkshire, and perhaps of other fellow-townsmen who had gained the confidence of the government, probably had an influence with some. At any rate, the discontent was widespread, leading to utterances and acts which savored of sedition. At Seatalcot (Brookhaven) the constable, while executing the duties of his office, was assaulted by citizens in a riotous manner. Nicolls met this crisis with a combination of firmness and conciliation. He declared to people and officials alike his resolution to enforce the law and maintain authority. Disturbers of the peace were threatened with immediate punishment. But at the same time he ordered that the requirement that town officers should take the oath should be suspended until further action by the court of assizes. The result was that quiet was soon restored, and open opposition to the establishment of government in the duke’s name among the towns ceased.¹

But when English authority was restored after the Dutch

135

reoccupation, the trouble revived.¹ Governor Andros received a letter from the same towns, in which they declared that when New York had been surrendered in a cowardly manner to the Dutch, and its authorities had thereby failed to afford protection, the assistance of Connecticut had again been sought. By means of this the towns in question had been able to save themselves from the necessity of submitting to the Dutch, and now they declined to renew their connection with New York without the consent of Connecticut. This was the reply which they made to the command of Andros that they should reinstate the constables and overseers who were in office when Fort James was surrendered to the Dutch. It was true that Captain Manning, the officer in command at New York when Evertsen and Binckes appeared, was guilty of cowardice in its surrender, and was soon after convicted of the charge and dismissed from the king’s service. But that, of course, afforded no justification for the present conduct of the eastern towns. The Connecticut government, moreover, claimed no permanent interest in the towns or control over their administration. On the other hand, they were a part of the province of New York, and Andros in asserting authority over them was obeying the instructions of his superior. Acting therefore upon the advice of the council, he ordered Mulford, Howell, and Young, who had signed the letter of the towns, to answer at once before him at New York on penalty of being treated as rebels. The towns in question were again ordered to reinstate the constables and overseers in office. A special commissioner was sent thither to administer to them the oaths of office, to assure the inhabitants of the just intentions of the governor, and to report upon the state of feeling which he found in the towns. This prompt action, together with the knowledge that Connecticut would not interpose on their behalf, proved decisive. There could be no further thought of resistance, though the spirit of opposition continued to show itself in the refusal to renew land patents.

It was a fundamental law of New York as a proprietary province that all land should be held of the proprietor, as

136

the grantee of the king. Only in this way could a title which was good in English law be secured. The land would then be subject to a quitrent or other payments, such as the proprietor, with due regard to the possibilities of the case, might impose. This phase of the system, however, was peculiarly obnoxious to all New Englanders. The fact that purchases had been made from agents of Lord Stirling also played a part in the controversy. As has already been stated, it was found impossible, at this time, to collect quitrents of any amount from Long Island grants,¹ or even to specify the obligation. But it was the duty of the governors to insist upon a general renewal of patents, while, on the other hand, this met with much opposition. The towns of Southold and Southampton in particular maintained passive opposition to the demand from the time of Lovelace until 1676. In that year Southampton² formally presented to the governor its objections to taking out patents. The inhabitants claimed that their title was already valid, that the step they were required to take was new and strange, that it involved uncertainties and seemed to subject them to the arbitrary will of another. “Wee cannot bee free,” they said, “to pass over our owne proper rights to our lands into other mens hands and put ourselves and successors into a state of Servitude, which, if sae, whoe will pitty or helpe us.” The paper was laid before the court of assizes. That tribunal in response declared that the said towns had forfeited all right to the lands in question, unless within a fortnight they acknowledged their error and promised obedience. This brought the required submission; patents were accepted from the proprietor, and the question of land titles was finally settled. But, as will later appear, the spirit which lay behind this opposition readily lent itself, not many years after, to the successful demand for a representative assembly.

The administrative work of the governor and council of New York was of the ordinary prosaic sort.³ One of the

187

earliest entries in their records which has been preserved—September, 1668—reveals them engaged in the task of prescribing conditions on which trade with the other colonies, especially those of the West Indies, could be carried on. It then considered a dispute¹ between John Archer, who afterward was the grantee of the manor of Fordham, and the town of New Haerlem, over the possession of land, some of which lay near Spuyten Duyvil, and it was decided, after examination of the ground briefs and patents, that the land in question belonged to the town. The ferry at Haerlem not having answered the ends proposed, commissioners were sent to view the passage over the Haerlem creek at Spuyten Duyvil, to see how it could be made more commodious for travellers and cattle. A few months later we find commissioners appointed, by joint action of governor, council, and bench, to lay out a wagon road from New York to Haerlem. At the same meeting—which was held at Haerlem—a dispute between the town of Westchester and William Willett concerning Cornell’s neck, and between the same town and Thomas Hunt about his commonage and a washing place on Throgmorton’s neck, was to have been heard, but Westchester did not appear. Therefore a committee was appointed with power to adjust the disputes, and the governor would confirm their decision.

At about the same time steps were taken to settle by arbitration a dispute over the boundary between the towns of Gravesend and New Utrecht. The claim of Oyster Bay to a certain neck of land, which was also in controversy between grantees of the Dutch government on the one hand and of the Earl of Stirling on the other, came before the council and later before the courts for settlement.² Shortly before the general meeting of March, 1665, at Hempstead, one important object of which was the adjustment of boundaries, the magistrates of Jamaica and Flushing were summoned³ to meet the governor for the purpose of discussing a boundary dispute between those towns. The boundary between New York and Connecticut was also under consideration. One of the most important suits over land titles which came in the

138

early years before the council and the courts was that between the town of Huntington and Richard Smith, the founder of the distinguished Long Island family of that name, over a claim to land on the west bank of Nesaquake river.¹ In 1669 controversies over the possession of land between Newtown and Hempstead, Newtown and Bushwick, as well as the one between Gravesend and New Utrecht, came before the governor and council. On petition, controversies between individuals and between towns and individuals, respecting a variety of matters, were also brought before the same body. Some of these naturally passed to the courts for adjustment.

The formation of villages and towns, either by new settlements in the wilderness, or by separation from towns previously existing, was regulated by the governor and council. By that body Shelter island² was set off by itself, while during the year 1669 and later they were much occupied with the organization of Marbletown and Hurley, two villages in the Esopus region near Kingston. The immediate care of this latter business was intrusted³ to commissioners. This involved the laying out of lots, the adjustment of land titles, the allotment of land to disbanded soldiers and others, provision for the defence of the settlements and their relations with the Indians, and the direction of the local magistrates in many things relating to the duties of their offices. All matters connected with the beginnings of town government on the frontier came in this way within the sphere of the governor and council. Under Governor Andros, instructions were freely issued to the commissaries at Schenectady; and a general court, or judicial tribunal, was organized, to consist of the commander and justices or commissaries of Albany and Rensselaerswyck, with those of Schenectady.⁴

The beginnings of New Dorp on Staten island⁵ and of the precinct at the Whorekills⁶ on the Delaware came in a similar way, though not in such detail, within the purview of the same authority. Throughout the Dutch sections of the

139

province, local magistrates were appointed by the governor, either directly or from lists nominated by freeholders of the localities. This involved the creation of local courts by the same authority. On the Delaware, when the Dutch magistrates had been superseded by sheriffs, constables, surveyors, and other officials for keeping the peace and administering justice, three courts were thereby organized. Each was provided with justices, a sheriff, and a coroner, and had jurisdiction over an administrative district. One of the courts was established at Upland, another at Newcastle, and a third at the Whorekills. Sessions were held with considerable regularity. The records of the court at Upland have been preserved, and show that it continued without interruption till it became the court of Chester county, Pennsylvania. Newcastle also was known as a county as early as 1678. By 1682 the region from Newcastle southward had become organized as the Three Lower Counties of Newcastle, James (later Kent), and Deal (later Sussex), and in that form it was annexed to Pennsylvania.¹ The organization of counties within the province of New York itself was not carried beyond the rudimentary stage until the process of legislation by a representative assembly began.

Fiscal affairs in the various sections were regulated by the governor and council. Full provision was made in the Duke’s Laws for the annual levy of rates under the authority of the governor, transmitted through the high sheriff to the constables, and for their collection under warrants to the constables. The enforcement of payment rested both with the governor and the courts. The governor appointed commissioners to collect taxes on Long Island which were due to Connecticut. From time to time instructions were issued to sheriffs and constables concerning the levy and collection of rates, whether for general or special purposes. The towns of the west riding of Yorkshire were ordered to contribute what was necessary for the building of a session house. The justices of the north riding were empowered to make a rate

140

for a similar purpose. The constable and overseers of Huntington were empowered to levy by distress both their town rate and a rate for the support of the minister.¹ As early as April, 1665, John Underhill was appointed surveyor of customs on Long Island,² and sub-collectors were later appointed for Easthampton and Southampton. At Esopus and the settlements about Albany the Dutch excise was continued until the English laws were fully introduced, and its collection was annually farmed out under orders of the governor and council.³ Customs duties and quitrents were collected on the Delaware under authority from the same source.⁴

The control of the governor and council over military affairs was equally complete.