Dinsmore Documentation presents Classics of American Colonial History
| Author: | Osgood, Herbert L. |
| Title: | The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century. |
| Citation: | New York: Columbia University Press, 1904. |
| Subdivision: | Volume II. Part III. Chapter VIII. |
| HTML by Dinsmore Documentation * Added October 15, 2003 | |
| ← Vol. II, Pt. III, Ch. VII Table of Contents Vol. II, Pt. III, Ch. IX → |
CHAPTER VIII
On the threshold of this subject the inquirer is met by a question of fundamental importance, one which does not assume prominence in the history of any other proprietary province. The question is this, did the proprietors of New Jersey legally possess rights of government? The question arose from the fact that New Jersey, unlike the other colonies, New Hampshire excepted, did not originate from an immediate grant of the crown. The charters which were issued to the Duke of York contained no authority for a delegation by the grantee of governmental powers. Indeed, they could hardly have contained such a provision, for it was and is an accepted principle of English law that the right to exercise powers of government in the full and proper sense of the term can pass only by express grant from the king himself. In strict point of law a royal charter affords the only sufficient basis for the exercise of such powers, and a royal charter the proprietors of New Jersey never received. The nature of the grant which was made to them will be revealed by an examination of the documents that were issued.
The deed of release which was granted by the Duke of York to Berkeley and Carteret in 1664 was in point of law a permanent grant of the soil and nothing more. The phrase in that document,1 “with their and every of their appurtenances in as full and ample Manner as the same is graunted to the sayd Duke of Yorke,” referred only to the land and its appurtenances. By this and the accompanying lease the Duke of York effected a sale of all his rights in the soil of New Jersey, but nothing more. No expression which can
1 N. J. Arch. I. 12.
be understood to convey rights of government appears in the lease or release, and if such words had appeared, they would have been inoperative. In this fact lay the strength of the claim of the inhabitants of the Elizabethtown and Monmouth patents, in so far as their agitation was directed against the exercise over them by the proprietors of strictly governmental powers.
In consequence of the opposition with which the efforts of the proprietors to exercise powers of government were met, they procured in 1672 a letter1 from Charles II to Deputy Governor John Berry and the council of New Jersey. By this all inhabitants of the province were commanded to obey the laws and government which had been established there by the proprietors, who had the sole power under the king to settle and dispose of the said country as they should think fit. This of course did not amount to a legal conveyance of rights of government, though it was intended to strengthen the hands of the proprietors by a public assurance that the king was ready to support their claims. But the reoccupation of New Netherland by the Dutch immediately destroyed the effect of this letter. It also was held to have annulled the royal charter to the Duke of York, and that the rights which had existed under that grant did not revive with the conclusion of the treaty of Westminster and the retirement of the Dutch.
It would therefore seem that, during the interval between February, 1674, when the treaty of Westminster was concluded, and June 29 of the same year, when the second charter to the Duke of York was issued, the entire territory which had been New Netherland was an English royal province. But during that interval—that is in March, 1674—Lord John Berkeley sold2 for £1000 his undivided half of New Jersey to John Fenwick in trust for Edward Byllinge. As, however, the royal charter to the duke was not issued until the following June, it is difficult to see what was transferred by this act save an equitable claim to the land of one undivided half of New Jersey. The royal charter,
1 N. J. Arch. I. 107.
2 Leaming and Spicer, Grants and Concessions, 64; N. J. Arch. I. 209.
when issued, conveyed again to the duke, and in terms identical with the charter of 1664, the territory between the Connecticut and Delaware rivers, with additions which1 have already been mentioned. Immediately after, on July 1, 1674, Edmund Andros was appointed governor and his commission2 empowered him to administer the affairs of this entire region.
Inasmuch as in 1662 a royal charter had been issued to Connecticut by which a valid grant was made at least of the territory then occupied and usually claimed by the inhabitants of that colony, the charter of the Duke of York could not be legally operative there. But no similar charter protected the grantees of New Jersey. On June 13, 1674, Sir George Carteret obtained a letter3 from the king commanding all persons within the province to yield obedience to the laws and government which he had established or should establish there. But apart from the fact that this could not effect for him what the charter of Connecticut had secured for its grantees, it implied that Carteret had authority over the whole of New Jersey, a claim which could not be valid now that Berkeley had sold his share of the province.
On July 29, 1674, the Duke of York granted a release4 to Sir George Carteret of the eastern half of New Jersey, and in terms identical with those which had been used in the release of ten years before. It must be held, both from the origin and the wording of this document, that, in point of law, it conveyed to Carteret only the soil of East Jersey and the rights of a private owner over the same. Fenwick, Byllinge, and their associates, the purchasers of West Jersey from Berkeley, did not seek even to procure deeds of lease and release from the Duke of York, and therefore for a time, if our previous interpretations are true, must be regarded as squatters on the territory of the Duke of York. These considerations
1 When Fenwick was tried in New York in 1677, he could not produce Berkeley’s deed, but the fact that the grant was made is proved by a statement in the grant issued by the Duke of York to Penn, Lawrie, and Lucas in 1680. N. J. Arch. I. 237, 326. A copy of the deed itself is in Salem No. 1, p. 9. See N. J. Arch. XXI. 559.
2 N. J. Arch. I. 156.
3 Ibid. 153.
4 Ibid. 163.
explain the efforts of Governor Andros to administer government and exercise political control over both East and West Jersey. They also justify those efforts, so far as considerations of mere legality may justify any course of conduct. He attempted faithfully to obey his commission and instructions; and if any one should be censured for an ambiguous course of conduct, it should be the Duke of York himself.
Affairs continued in this uncertain state until the summer of 1680. Then, it will be remembered, Andros was recalled to England. Among the charges concerning the collection of revenue in the duke’s possessions, which were then urged, were the complaints of the proprietors of West Jersey that the payment of duties had been illegally enforced by New York officials on the Delaware. The question was referred to the attorney-general, Sir William Jones, and his opinion, based on the supposition that full governmental powers had gone with the grant, was that the duke was not entitled to the customs, because he had not expressly reserved the right to them, in the original deeds of lease and release issued in 1664.1 It is needless to say that this opinion was hastily formed, and ignored some important elements in the case. But it led to the issue, in the following August and September, of almost identical deeds of release both to the proprietors of West Jersey and to the younger Sir George Carteret, who was then the proprietor of East Jersey.2 By these documents the duke assigned to the grantees the free use of all bays, rivers, and waters within their respective limits for navigation, free trade, and fishing, and transferred to them all the “powers, authorities, jurisdictions, governments, and other matters and things whatsoever” which he had been granted by the king. Sir John Werden wrote to Andros that by these grants the duke intended to convey all his governmental and other rights in the premises, that they were valid and not surreptitiously obtained. These were the last concessions ever issued by the Duke of York to the New Jersey proprietors, and though they were regarded by the grantees as decisive in their favor,
1 N. Y. Col. Docs. III. 285, 286.
2 N. J. Arch. I. 324, 337.
it is certain that in point of law they did not convey powers of government, and therefore that they left the question as unsettled as it was at the beginning. Having thus outlined the strictly legal aspects of this controversy, it is now time to describe the steps which the New Jersey proprietors took in the assertion of their claim to rights of government. This will reveal the practical political aspects of the question, which for the time at least were decisive.
The grant of a province like that of New Jersey would have been useless without rights of government. No effort was made by the Duke of York until after 1674 to administer its affairs through his own appointees, and even then it was done only at intervals and imperfectly. The proprietors, on the other hand, assumed rights of government, and from the outset acted as if they had been fully entitled to them. This assumption was acquiesced in by the king and the Duke of York, and was expressly approved by the former. The Duke of York himself, between 1680 and the time when the Jerseys were incorporated within the great consolidated province which, as king, he was building up, insisted upon no rights over that region except those which concerned his revenue and the interests of New York as a port. Through the assumption and continued exercise of political authority Berkeley and Carteret came for all practical purposes into its possession, though their right to it was for a long time challenged from various quarters. The struggle which resulted from these conditions chiefly determines the character of early New Jersey history and helps to make it unique among American proprietary provinces.
The first step which the New Jersey proprietors took in the establishment of government was the same as that taken by the proprietors of Carolina. The Concessions and Agreements which Berkeley and Carteret issued in 1665 were the same as those issued that very year by the Carolina proprietors and put into force at the Cape Fear settlement and partially also in Albemarle. The influence of those Concessions, as a precedent favorable to liberty, was felt through the entire proprietary period of Carolina history. In New Jersey, however, though they contained the provisions already outlined
for a representative legislature, with authority by statute to establish and regulate all the institutions of the province, they were viewed in many quarters as expressions of arbitrary power. This arose from the way in which the Elizabethtown grant and Monmouth Patent originated, and from the uncertainty which prevailed concerning the right of the proprietors to governmental powers. In other words, the social conditions under which the Concessions and Agreements were enforced in Carolina differed from those which existed in New Jersey, and a correspondingly different result followed.
The first act of the proprietors under the Concessions was the appointment of Philip Carteret, a relative of Sir George Carteret, as governor.1 He was authorized by them to select a council, raise and command troops, appoint officers, and do all other things belonging to the office of governor, as fully and freely as any governor had done. Though only fragmentary records of this time are now accessible, enough has been preserved to indicate how the official system of the province was developed. Six councillors were appointed, and from time to time vacancies in their number2 were filled. John Bollen was appointed secretary and Robert Vauquellen surveyor-general. This was done in February, 1665. Later a provost marshal or high sheriff of the province3 appears.
Local governments were organized in the towns which had been settled by the Dutch, or under grants from Nicolls, and the proprietors sought to establish a control over these localities which should be more than nominal. Charters were granted to Woodbridge and to the jurisdiction of Bergen.4 These provided that the freeholders should choose deputies to a general assembly, elect magistrates who should assist the local justice of the peace in the administration of justice, and choose their own ministers. The Woodbridge
1 N. J. Arch. I. 29.
2 Mulford, History of New Jersey, 141. Record of later appointments of individual councillors has been preserved in East Jersey Records, Ms. Liber III. 4, 7, 13, 28, 52. The contents of this volume are in part calendared in Calendar of New Jersey Records, 1664-1703, N. J. Arch. XXI.
3 N. J. Arch. XXI. 35, June 14, 1673.
4 Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, 286, 293.
charter also provided for town meetings. The resident justice of the peace, who was also president of the local court, was to be an appointee of the governor, though in most, if not all, cases the locality exercised the right of nomination. Thus a great degree of liberty was enjoyed by the towns.
Rights fully equal to those of Woodbridge were exercised by Elizabethtown and Newark,1 though without the guaranties of a charter. The towns of the Monmouth Patent, under authority2 claimed by virtue of Governor Nicolls’s patent, not only had their town meetings and equipment of officials after the New England model, but they now claimed to be virtually an independent jurisdiction. Everywhere, indeed, the conditions of settlement were such that a large degree of local liberty must necessarily be conceded by the proprietors.
But such authority as it was possible for Governor Carteret and his council to exercise through grants of land, the appointment of officers, and the administration of the oath of allegiance was maintained. In 1665 Nicholas Verlett, who was also councillor, was appointed president of the court of Bergen and its jurisdiction. In 1668 justices of the peace, on nomination by the inhabitants, were appointed for Woodbridge, Newark, Elizabethtown, and the settlements on the Delaware. In 1669 local magistrates of Woodbridge were commissioned in the same way. In 1672, at the request of the inhabitants, justices of the peace were appointed for Middletown and Shrewsbury.3 In January, 1665, James Bollen, the secretary, was appointed justice of the peace for the province in general, an indication, if the record be correct, of the looseness of existing relations. Occasionally a constable received appointment from the governor. From time to time militia officers were appointed for some of the localities. Deputy surveyors for the localities were also appointed by the governor, and one who was designated for
1 Hatfield, History of Elizabeth, 54; Records of Newark, published by N. J. Hist. Soc.
2 Leaming and Spicer, Grants and Concessions, 662; N. J. Arch. I. 88.
3 The citations are all from East Jersey Records, Ms. Liber III.
Elizabethtown, where the governor resided, was ordered to act wholly under his direction.
These appointments, occurring as they do in considerable number, and representing the chief civil functions as they were under the simple relations of those times, show that the proprietors were gradually developing a framework of government throughout their province. In some localities, especially those of the Monmouth Purchase, we know that the proprietary officials were scarcely recognized. But elsewhere they met with a fair degree of recognition. The oaths of allegiance and fidelity were administered to all who would take them,1 and strenuous efforts were made to induce all settlers to recognize the proprietors by receiving land patents from them, paying rent, and at the same time pledging their submission by the oath of fidelity. Evidence appears of the recall by the governor of various commissions, apparently because the appointees were not considered faithful to the proprietary cause. The proprietors lost no opportunity to declare2 that only those who held land of them, and had taken the oaths, could hold office or enjoy the privileges of freeholders.
No general provincial court existed in New Jersey prior to the Dutch reoccupation. In April, 1670,3 Governor Carteret tried temporarily to supply the place of one by enlarging the jurisdiction of the court of Woodbridge. In February, 1672, for the trial of disturbers of the peace; a special court, consisting mainly or wholly of members of the council, was held at Elizabethtown. In June, 1673, under authority, it is said, of an act of assembly, a similar court was held at Bergen.4 Concerning other judicial tribunals of this character, no evidence appears.
The first body calling itself an assembly which met within the territory of New Jersey consisted of deputies from Middletown, Shrewsbury, and Portland Point,5 the towns of the
1 N. J. Arch. I. 48.
2 Ibid. 59, 64, 103.
3 Ibid. 62.
4 Ibid. XXI. 35.
5 Portland Point is now the Highlands of Navesink. See a paper on Monmouth County during the Provincial Era by Hon. Joel Parker, 2 Proc. N. J. Hist. Soc. III. The Middletown Town Book, from which Parker quotes at length, is also in print. The records of the so-called assembly of the Monmouth Patent are in the office of the clerk of Monmouth county.
Monmouth Patent. It met in June, 1667, and was called the “General Assembly of the Patentees and Deputies.” Sessions continued at intervals for a number of years. Local orders were passed, judicial functions performed, and grants of land were made. The existence of this body affords curious proof of the obstacles against which the New Jersey proprietors had to contend.
The first assembly which met under the authority of the proprietors was convened at Elizabethtown in May and November, 1668. It was called by the governor, and he, with the council, sat apart from the deputies. At the May session deputies were present from Bergen, Newark, Elizabethtown, Woodbridge, and the towns of the Monmouth Patent. At the November session two representatives also appeared from Delaware river, but Middletown and Shrewsbury were unrepresented. In addition to the passage of a number of “capital laws,” which, in their severity, remind one of Puritan legislation, a brief act was passed for the maintenance of the authority of the proprietors. Rates were voted, the same to be levied by quotas upon the towns, and the prices of commodities in which they should be paid were specified. A province treasurer was designated to receive and disburse the rates, John Ogden of Elizabethtown being the second appointee to this office. The general obligation of keeping firearms was enforced, and provision was made for trainings. A beginning was made in legislation concerning the Indians. By an order of the first session, the time when the second session should begin was designated.
A message from the deputies to the council, which was sent toward the close of the second session, shows that the usual amount of friction had existed between the two houses. “We,” say the deputies, “finding so many and great Inconveniences by our not setting together, and your apprehensions so different to ours, and your Expectations that things must go according to your opinions, though we see no Reason for, much less Warrant from the Concessions, wherefore we think it vain to spend much Time of returning Answers by writings that are so exceeding dilatory, if not fruitless and endless, and therefore we think our way rather to break up our
meeting, seeing the Order of the Concessions cannot be attended unto.” The governor and council desired that a joint committee might be appointed to consider in what respect they had violated the Concessions. But to this the deputies apparently paid no attention, and instead carried out the resolution they had already formed to finally adjourn. This they did without the coöperation of the governor.1
The relations between this assembly and the towns of the Monmouth Purchase throw much light on the political conditions of the times. James Grover and John Bowne attended the assembly in its May session, claiming to be deputies from Middletown and Shrewsbury. The inhabitants of Middletown, however, at their next town meeting, declared2 that Grover and Bowne had been chosen by only a few of their friends hastily summoned for the purpose, and that neither their election nor their departure for the assembly was known to the town at large. For this reason their acts as deputies were repudiated. Shrewsbury sent no delegates of its own, leaving Middletown to act on its behalf.
Two deputies from each of these towns were chosen to attend the November session of the proprietary assembly. But before the local election was held the inhabitants of Middletown in town meeting instructed their deputies not to take the oath or subscribe a declaration of fidelity unless it contained a reservation of the privileges claimed under the Nicolls patent. When the deputies, however, insisted at Elizabethtown upon the addition of the proviso to their oath, they were not allowed to take their seats. Another event which contributed to the same course of action was this, that the two towns had refused to pay a tax of £5 each which had been levied by the proprietary assembly in its spring session to meet the needs of the province. Therefore two commissioners, Luke Watson and Samuel Moore of Woodbridge, were sent thither to collect the arrears, by distress if necessary, and to demand if the towns in question intended to submit to the authority of the proprietors.
Middletown replied to this by the adoption of a resolution
1 Leaming and Spicer, 77-91.
2 Middletown Town Book.
in its next town meeting1 requiring all the inhabitants to assist in securing the property of one and all against any attempt to levy upon it by distress, for the collection of the province rate. If any individual should be summoned before governor or court because of his giving such assistance, the town would pay his expenses and his business should be cared for during his absence. Moore and Watson were also informed in further resolves that they would receive no assistance, and that no inhabitant should be carried away by force until the town had taken further action. A formal reply to the demand of the proprietors that full submission should be made was also prepared by a committee and adopted by the town. In this document, which was drawn with ability, full reliance was placed on the validity of the patent from Nicolls, with its guaranty of property and of the right to pass by-laws. To the obligation to pay rent to the new proprietors and to submit to the “absolute” authority of their government, the remonstrants declared that they could not submit. If they did this, they would be proving false to their patent. But if security could be granted,—by which was meant exemption from the payment of proprietary quitrents, and a guaranty of rights of local government,—the towns would submit to the proprietors.
In November, 1671, an assembly was held, of which no record has been preserved. It, however, passed an act in which the towns in question were charged with contempt of authority. When this became known to them, together with the fact that a summons to elect delegates to attend a later session had been issued, the towns declined to hold the election,2 but sought to excuse previous failures of their deputies to attend. In an assembly which was held the following year, the Monmouth towns were also unrepresented. This, however, told in their favor, for since 1670 the quit-rents had fallen due, and great disorder occurred in connection with attempts to collect them. Though nearly all the records of the time have been destroyed, enough remains
1 Middletown Town Book; 2 Proc. N. J. Hist. Soc. III.
2 Middletown Town Book.
to show that riots occurred, and that the prospect of the overthrow of the government which the proprietors had partially established was imminent. The fact that James Carteret, the reckless son of the proprietor, allowed himself to be made president of the province, and to appear as leader of the malcontents, shows the extent to which the opposition was able to go. Under his authority they even held an assembly. Governor Philip Carteret was forced to return to England for advice and support, leaving John Berry as deputy governor. From the proprietors Carteret procured a declaration confirming the Concessions, and so interpreting them as to sustain the claims which the governor had been making. This, with the letter from the king, brought about the temporary submission of the Monmouth towns to the authority of the proprietors. They abandoned for the time the claims they had urged under the Nicolls patent, and received grants of land from the proprietors.1 In return for this, existing property rights and rights of local government among them were confirmed, and it was ordered that patentees who had expended money in the purchase of land from the Indians should have grants of five hundred acres each. James Carteret now withdrew, and quiet was restored throughout the province. Soon after the attainment of this result, the Dutch reappeared and again temporarily set up their power.
When, in 1674, Philip Carteret returned as governor of East Jersey under a single proprietor, he brought instructions2 confirmatory of the rights which Berkeley and Carteret had previously asserted, and explanatory of their Concessions. In reference to government it was declared in this document that the governor and council, to the exclusion of the assembly, should have the power to admit all persons to become freemen of the province, and to grant and confirm all rights of incorporation. The latter clause meant that town charters should be granted by the executive,
1 Leaming and Spicer, 53; N. J. Arch. I. 88; Whitehead, 71.
2 N. J. Arch. I. 167, 173. For a sharp and prolonged debate between the Council and deputies in the general assembly of 1681, over the right of the proprietors to make these changes, see ibid. 354; N. Y. Col. Docs. III. 293.
while the former provision made it all the more necessary that land in the various towns should be rapidly surveyed, and patents for it secured from the proprietors. The council soon ordered the surveyors to attend specially to this business.1
It was also declared that to the governor and council belonged the power of summoning and adjourning the general assembly at such times and to such places as they chose. The general assembly, moreover, should continue to sit in two separate houses. They also were authorized to establish town courts, but courts of sessions and assize should be established only by the governor, council, and assembly acting in conjunction. Over the establishment of fees, the appointment of officials, the surveying and granting of lands, the calling out of the militia to repel invasion or suppress rebellion, the governor and council should have exclusive control. They should also approve the ministers who were chosen and settled over the churches within the province.2 All these provisions indicated a strengthening of the executive, or distinctly proprietary, element in the province, as a means whereby the tendencies toward disorder and revolt which had manifested themselves might be restrained. Those who had shared in occasioning the disorders of 1672, unless they at once made amends, should be proceeded against in the courts. The letter which Charles II sent at this time from England tended in the same direction, for it commanded3 all persons whatsoever within the province to yield obedience “to the laws and government which are or shall be established” by Sir George Carteret.
On November 6, 1674, the royal letter and instructions from the proprietor were published at Bergen in the presence of commissioners from all the towns except Shrewsbury.4 On the 9th of the following March a proclamation was issued by the governor and council, convening at Elizabethtown a general court of oyer and terminer for the province.5 The immediate purpose of this act was to create a tribunal by
1 N. J. Arch. I. 178.
2 Ibid. 174.
3 Ibid. 154.
4 New Jersey Bill in Chancery, 40; Whitehead, 83.
5 N. J. Arch. I. 176.
which those who defied the authority of the proprietors could be tried and punished. To aid in the work, constables were sworn for the different towns. Samuel Moore, as provost marshal, was ordered to collect the fines for riotous conduct which had been imposed by courts in 1671 and 1673, and was given power to imprison those who refused to pay. In this task also the constables were to assist. Justices of the peace and presidents of local courts were also commissioned. In June, 1675, another1 commission for a court of oyer and terminer was issued. In July various military commissions were issued to officers in the localities, and orders for forming and training the militia, these being occasioned by the outbreak of Philip’s war in New England and by rumors of the restlessness of the Indians along the Delaware. In October still another commission for a court of oyer and terminer was published.
These measures restored and helped to develop the administrative system of the English province after its final relinquishment by the Dutch. They were accompanied by a return of quiet. The proprietary claims were also strengthened by the arrival from England of an opinion, signed by eight prominent lawyers, which was unfavorable to the claims of the Nicolls patentees. Under these conditions it appeared safe to again summon an assembly. It met at Elizabethtown in November, 1675, and between that time and the close of 1679 no less than eight assemblies were held.2 They met, not only at Elizabethtown, but at Woodbridge and Middletown. At first members elected from Shrewsbury refused to qualify by taking the necessary oaths. They were dismissed; and by the assembly of October, 1676, a law was passed making a town which should send such deputies liable to a fine of £10. The following year the deputy who was elected from Shrewsbury did not attend.3 He was fined 10s. for every day’s absence during the session. Shortly after this, provision was made for the payment of wages to governor, councillors, and deputies during the sessions of the assemblies, but it is not probable that
1 East Jersey Records, Liber III.
2 Leaming and Spicer, 93-137.
3 Ibid. 121, 123.
this or improvements in facilities for travelling materially changed the attitude of Shrewsbury toward the claims of the proprietors. Slowly and with the lapse of time the old animosities weakened and the eastern province grew together into a unit. In 1675 an act of oblivion was passed covering all acts between 1670 and June, 1673, the purpose of which was the overthrow of the government of the proprietors.
By the assembly of 1675 also the northern part of the province was divided into four counties, and provision was made for a court1 in each of them, which should hold two sessions a year. Their jurisdiction was loosely defined, and fees were prescribed for their officers. The judges of these courts were elected from their respective counties and were commissioned by the governor. By the same assembly monthly courts of small causes, with exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving less than forty shillings, were created, as well as a court of assize, which should be the supreme civil tribunal of the province, and meet once a year. This body was distinct from the council, though councillors were doubtless frequently appointed as its judges. The council as such acted as the highest court of appeals. The governor here, as elsewhere, possessed the powers of a chancellor.2
Provincial rates were regularly voted by these assemblies, annual public charges increasing from £30 in 1668 to £196 in 1680. Among the items of expenditure was the governor’s salary, which was annually fixed by the assembly. Provision was made in 1676 for its payment by the towns in kind, the constables collecting the same. A province treasurer was annually designated by the assembly.
It is to be remembered that in 1676 West Jersey was by the Quintipartite Deed fully separated from East Jersey and began its distinct career. But before it had more than entered on its separate existence, the resolution of Governor Andros to assert his control over New Jersey renewed disturbance
1 The jurisdiction of Bergen received one of these courts, Elizabethtown and Newark a second. Woodbridge and Piscataway a third, Middletown and Shrewsbury the fourth. In 1683 the names Bergen, Essex, Middlesex, and Monmouth were given to these jurisdictions.
2 Field, The Provincial Courts of New Jersey.
in the eastern province, while it aroused quite as strong protest in West Jersey. This interference with conditions in the Jerseys themselves must next be considered.
The first encounter was between the government of New York and John Fenwick, the grantee of Lord Berkeley and trustee for Edward Byllinge. Fenwick had been one of Cromwell’s officers, but was now a convert to Quakerism. In the summer of 1675 he had arrived in the Delaware river with his family and a small additional group of settlers. They had taken possession, on the east bank of the Delaware, of the post known to the Dutch as Varcken’s Kill, and later to the Swedes as Elsingborg, and named it Salem. This was the beginning of Fenwick’s colony. Early in the following December the governor and council at New York, having been informed that this colony had been founded without its consent, resolved that Fenwick should not be acknowledged as proprietor, with authority of his own to grant land and exercise rights of local government. But, if he paid the duties, as other subjects did, he should be treated civilly, and if any of his colonists desired land it should be surveyed and granted to them under the authority of New York. The customs duties of New York should be levied on the east as well as the west shore of the Delaware, and exemption from them should not “be allowed in any case to the smallest vessell, boate or person.”1 It is certain that in no event of his career does the resolute and autocratic character of Edmund Andros appear more clearly than in his dealings with the New Jersey governments during the next five years. William Dyer had been commissioned to collect customs2 throughout the duke’s territories as specified in his charter, and this, with the authority granted in the governor’s own commission, Andros was resolved to maintain to the fullest extent.
In the summer of 1676 the duke’s secretary, Sir John Werden, wrote3 that his master was not inclined to let go any part of the “prerogative,” that is, of the governmental rights which Andros and his predecessors had asserted on
1 N. Y. Col. Docs. XII. 542; N. J. Arch. I. 185 et seq.
2 N. Y. Col. Docs. III. 221.
3 Ibid. 240.
John Fenwick seems to have ignored the command of the governor and council of New York for nearly a year. He continued to act as proprietor, that is, to survey and grant out lands and collect rents therefrom, and there is no evidence that he on the inhabitants of his colony paid customs to the duke. Jean Paul Jacquet complained that he had been dispossessed of land by the newcomers. Therefore, in the autumn of 1676, a warrant2 was issued to the commander on the Delaware to arrest Fenwick and bring him to New York. To Captain John Collier, when he went
1 The argument will be found in a memorial from the proprietors of West Jersey to the commissioners of the duke’s revenue, presented in 1680. Smith, History of New Jersey, 117.
2 N. Y. Col. Docs. XII. 559, 565; N. J. Arch. I. 189-294.
to serve the warrant, Fenwick declared that he had nothing to do with the governor of New York, and that he would obey no order except one that came from the king or the Duke of York. The latter statement weakened his case, but the old Cromwellian stood so on the defensive, finally bolting his door and speaking through “a small scuttle hole at the end of the house,” that the sheriff had to take a lieutenant and twelve soldiers to Salem to arrest him.
When he was brought to New York, in January, 1677, a special session of the court of assizes1 was called. Fenwick was found guilty of riotous conduct, fined £40, and ordered to be kept in custody till he could give a bond of £500 to keep the peace. His claim both to soil and government broke down because of his failure to produce the original of his deed of grant from Berkeley. Fenwick refused to give the security demanded, and was kept for some months in prison.2 There is no proof that he ever prosecuted an appeal before the privy council, though he threatened so to do.
Fenwick was finally released on parole, his bond was remitted, and he was allowed to return to the Delaware country on condition that he would not assume power of government there until he could produce from England more authentic proof of his right to do so than he had hitherto offered. But he at once resumed the administration of his colony as before. Complaints were again preferred against him,3 and after some threats of resistance he came to New York. His case was again heard, this time before the council, but nothing decisive seems to have been done. In October, 1678, Andros, according to his custom, appointed certain inhabitants of Salem to act as town overseers there. They were placed under the immediate jurisdiction of the magistrates at Newcastle, on the west bank of the river, who were virtually county officers within an important “appendage” of New York.4 Beyond this, no steps
1 N. Y. Col. Docs. XII. 568.
2 N. J. Arch. I. 199.
3 N. Y. Col. Docs. XII. 592-602, 610; N. J. Arch. I. 193 et seq., 275.
4 N. Y. Col. Docs. XII. 610; N. J. Arch. I. 284; 2 Pa. Arch. V. 708. The commission to the overseers, which was for one year, was renewed in 1679.
seem to have been taken, and Fenwick continued to grant1 land as usual.
Similar measures were adopted by Andros toward Thomas Olive and the Quakers associated with him, who came over in the summer of 1677 for the purpose of settling that part of West Jersey which lay north of Fenwick’s colony. When they appeared before him at New York, he asked them if they had anything from the duke. On their replying that they had no special grant, but only his conveyance to Berkeley and that of Berkeley to Byllinge and his associates, the governor replied that he could not resign jurisdiction over West Jersey without express orders from the duke. To this he adhered, though he permitted them to go thither and proceed with their settlement until full authority could be obtained from England. He also commissioned Thomas Olive and seven other leaders of the enterprise to act as overseers of the settlement for one year, holding courts, appointing constables, surveying and granting land, and performing all other necessary duties. On any extraordinary occasion they might apply to the commander and magistrates at Newcastle, and give notice to the governor and council at New York. Appeals were to be allowed in the more important criminal and civil cases from their court to the court of assizes at New York.2 This commission was renewed and the vacancies in the board were filled on May 22, 1681. By those who held the commission Burlington was founded. Thus Andros, as long as he remained governor, sought to retain at least a formal hold on West Jersey.
Over East Jersey the control of New York was for a time extended much farther. After the restoration of English government, in 1674, the payment of duties and the entering and clearing at New York of vessels which were trading with
1 N. J. Arch. XXI. 339, 541, 567, being the Calendar of Town Grants, New Salem, Fenwick’s Surveys, and Salem Deeds, Liber “B.”
2 The council minute in which an account is given of the interview between Andros and the would-be settlers is printed in N. Y. Col. Docs. XII. 579, and in N. J. Arch. I. 239, but the commission to Olive and his associates appears nowhere in print. It is recorded in Orders, Letters, and Warrants (Ms.), August 7, 1677.
East Jersey were regularly insisted on. This was borne without manifest show of resistance until April, 1679. At that time the legislature of East Jersey passed an act to the effect that, if any vessel, for the offence of entering and clearing at Elizabethtown, should be seized by the New York authorities, its owners should be indemnified at the expense of the colony.1 Governor Carteret declared that all vessels might trade freely with East Jersey. On the strength of that proclamation a ketch from Barbadoes was sent thither loaded with rum; but it was compelled to enter and pay duties at New York before its cargo could be landed. Andros soon after proposed to take possession of Sandy Hook, erect a fort there, and set up beacons. This implied a decisive assertion by New York of a right to Staten island and the Kill van Kull, as well as to the Narrows. To this Carteret replied that Andros in the prosecution of his plan would be resisted, and the East Jersey governor proposed to appeal to the king.2 Andros proceeded at once to the extreme of forbidding Carteret to exercise jurisdiction anywhere within the limits of the duke’s province as specified in the charter and his own commission, and forbade any one to assist or obey him.
On April 5 Andros went to Staten island with a number of councillors, officers, and merchants, and two days later crossed over to Elizabethtown. There he met Carteret and his council, who were accompanied by a number of armed men. A conference was held, at which both sides produced legal documents on which they based their respective claims.3 Andros insisted that the King’s letters patent were of greater force than the lease and release and the letter from the king. The point upon which the East Jersey men insisted was that Sir George Carteret was the duke’s assignee, and as such had as ample rights of government as the duke himself. They insisted on being left in possession until an appeal could be taken to England and the question finally settled.
1 Leaming and Spicer, 131; N. Y. Col. Docs. IV. 382.
2 Leaming and Spicer, 673, 674.
3 N. J. Arch. I. 299 et seq.; Leaming and Spicer, 677 et seq.; Whitehead, 92.
But Andros resolved not to wait for the regular course of proceedings. Ignoring the entire series of precedents since 1665, which told so strongly in favor of the essential right of the New Jersey proprietors to powers of government, he ordered the arrest of Carteret. Carteret himself relates how a party of soldiers from New York came to Elizabethtown, broke open his doors at dead of night, and with much show of brutality haled him out of bed and took him away to New York to prison.1 A special court of assizes was called, and he was brought to trial on the charge of unlawfully exercising powers of government within the Duke of York’s patent. Andros presided, and the trial was held before a jury. Carteret at first protested against the jurisdiction of the court, but being overruled, he finally pleaded not guilty. His commission and instructions, with other documents,2 were submitted to the jury, and they brought in a verdict of not guilty. Andros then sought to change the verdict by sending the jury out three times with repeated charges. But he was finally compelled to record the original verdict. Carteret was then released, but only on condition that he would not assume any authority or jurisdiction in East Jersey.
Meantime writs had been issued for an assembly to meet at Elizabethtown on June 2. Andros accompanied Carteret back thither, and, with members of his own council, held this session of the assembly. His own commission was read, and the Duke’s Laws were presented to the deputies for their acceptance, Andros at the same time urging that an act be passed to confirm past judicial proceedings and for the continuance of the courts. He also promised indemnity for all who had shared in previous acts of government. The deputies were told that, if they would submit to New York, they should retain the right to make local prudential laws, the court of assizes passing orders concerning important
1 Leaming and Spicer, 678; N. J. Arch. I 316; Journal of Dankers and Sluyter, Pubs. of L. I. Hist. Soc. I. 346-352.
2 During a colloquy between the two governors, Carteret is said to have produced letters in which, during the previous years of their friendship, Andros had addressed him as governor. This rather nonplussed the New York executive.
matters. The deputies, who did not refuse to act in conjunction with Andros, insisted upon a guaranty of all the privileges which the people had enjoyed under Carteret, and in particular that assemblies should continue to meet in October of every year, as had been the custom. All acts passed by former assemblies should also be confirmed, and the book of laws of New Jersey, including the Grants and Concessions, was presented as a counterpoise to the Duke’s Laws. Long and repeated conferences were held by Andros and his council with the deputies, but he did not find them disposed to intrust themselves to his tender mercies, except with all the guaranties which they had possessed. An argument extending through about two hours was held between the governor and John Bowne of Middletown, speaker of the assembly, in which the latter pleaded the rights and privileges of the deputies and the claims which were connected therewith. A bill was prepared for the confirmation of all existing laws and privileges, but to this Andros and his council were not willing to agree. Finally the council resolved, “that nothing offered by the Assembly is for the King’s or Country’s service, but the contrary, particularly reflecting upon his Majesty’s letters patents and the authority thereof.” Upon this the assembly was dissolved.
Andros, however, continued for some time thereafter to perform acts of government for East Jersey. On presentation by the inhabitants he commissioned overseers, constables, militia officers, and justices of the peace, some or all of these, for Elizabethtown, Newark, Bergen, Woodbridge, and Piscataway. In one instance petition was made for an appeal from the court of sessions at Elizabethtown to the authorities of New York.1
The aggressive measures of Andros, both in West and East Jersey, forced the proprietors to make urgent representations on their case at home. It was at this time that the argument of the West Jersey proprietors, already referred to, was presented. The influence of Penn was exerted with effect. Though Sir George Carteret was now dead, his widow and her friends exerted themselves to
1 N. J. Arch. I. 318-322, 334-336.
redress the wrongs of Philip Carteret. The anti-Catholic excitement which followed the revelation of the so-called Popish Plot, together with the struggle over the Exclusion Bill, embarrassed the Duke of York, and led him to withdraw for the time the support which he had undoubtedly been extending to Andros and his policy. In consequence of the opinion rendered by Sir William Jones, the additional deeds of release, to which reference has already been made, were issued in August, 1680. Andros was soon after recalled to meet other charges. In March, 1681, Governor Carteret proclaimed the cessation of all authority by New York,1 and New Jersey was again left to the natural course of its development. With this, the efforts of New York officials to exercise full powers of government in New Jersey came to an end. But their attempts, backed by the merchants of New York, to secure the annexation of New Jersey to that province continued for years to come.
We have now reached the time when, as the result of an auction sale in London and for the sum of £3400, East Jersey was sold by the trustees of Sir George Carteret to William Penn and eleven associates, mostly Quakers. The province then contained about thirty-five hundred inhabitants, grouped together in eight communities which extended from the shores of the Hudson and New York bay to the Raritan. For about fifteen years they had lived under such government as Carteret had been able to provide, enjoying throughout the time a large degree of local independence. Now, by a transaction in which they had no share, similar in all respects to the purchase of an estate of land, these people were subjected to the rule of a new and quite different proprietary body. By other transfers, which took place a few months later, this body was increased from twelve to twenty-four proprietors. In nationality, professions, and religion they not only differed widely among themselves, but were quite unlike Berkeley or Carteret. No province except East Jersey, after the process of settlement had progressed so far, was subjected in this sudden fashion to such a change of rulers.
1 N. J. Arch. I. 346.
The new proprietors, moreover, not content with accepting the system of government which had already been worked out, constructed a frame of government of their own, and under the name of the Fundamental Constitutions attempted to impose it on the province. This document, as well as the Concessions and Agreements which were issued by the proprietors of West Jersey in 1677 and the Frames of Government of Pennsylvania, embody many of the ideas of the seventeenth-century Quaker concerning government. We may suppose that William Penn himself had a hand in the framing of them all. If one were taking a broader survey of schemes of government in that prolific century, these documents would have to be brought into comparison with the Agreement of the People and other manifestoes which proceeded from the Levellers in England between 1647 and the Restoration. They express in a crude way the yearning of the middle and lower classes of that day after proper guaranties of civil liberty.
The Concessions of East and West Jersey were largely occupied, it is true, with provisions concerning the granting of land and the collection of rents. The East Jersey document gave the proprietors a considerable share in the government. But both of these constitutions, as well as those which were issued in Pennsylvania, provided with scrupulous care for the protection of property and for personal liberty. The Concessions of West Jersey provided that the clauses which contained its guaranties of liberty should be read at the opening and close of every session of the general assembly and four times a year in the presence of the people of every locality; that no laws should be passed which were in the least degree inconsistent with the guaranties, and that, if any member of the assembly should attempt to secure the passage of such a law, he should be proceeded against as a traitor.
The familiar phrases of Magna Carta recur, elaborate provision was made for jury trial, simplicity and publicity in all judicial proceedings were insured, and care was taken to give the accused every advantage which justice could demand. The West Jersey Concessions gave the complainant,
whether in a civil or criminal case, the right to forgive the accused and remit his penalty, even after judgment. The East Jersey Constitutions provided that litigants might plead their causes in person, or employ a friend for that purpose. No one should take money for pleading or advice in such cases. In order to avoid an accumulation of statutes, which of itself might make lawyers a necessity, it was provided that no law should remain in force more than fifty years without renewal. The taking of oaths was of course dispensed with. Freedom of conscience was guarantied. The Indians were to be treated mildly and justly. The obligations of military service were ignored, or were so stated as to excuse those whose consciences forbade them to bear arms.
Another characteristic feature of all these plans of government was the prominence which they gave to election as a method of filling offices. The provisions of the West Jersey Concessions and of the Pennsylvania Frames of Government on this subject must be reviewed when those provinces come up for consideration. Those of the East Jersey instrument were substantially the same as the plan which Penn was then devising for his province across the Delaware. Their nature can be made clear by reference to the part which election was to play in the organization of the executive and of the legislature. The offices of governor and deputy governor were made appointive. The secretaryship and several of the other subordinate offices also remained appointive. Robert Barclay was appointed governor for life, and his deputy was to hold office for seven years. But thereafter the term of the governor was to be limited to three years. The governor was then to be appointed by sixteen of the proprietors from a list of nominees presented by the whole board. The governor’s council, or common council as it was called, was to consist practically of all the proprietors who were resident in the province, or their proxies, and the proxies of all the other members of the board, together with twelve freemen chosen by ballot from the great council.1 The thirty-six members of this body were to be organized into
1 N. J. Arch. I. 399.
three committees, one on manners, education, and the arts, one on trade and the treasury, and a third on plantations, There is no evidence that the common council was to have legislative power.
The legislature of the province was to be known as the great council, and was to consist of the proprietors or their proxies, and at first of 72 members—later to be increased to 144—who should be chosen by the freeholders of the province. The elected members should hold office for three years, one-third retiring every year. The election in each locality should be by lot. The council should meet annually in April and adjourn itself. Its session might be prolonged for two months. The governor and common council might extend it beyond that time, or call extra sessions. Bills could be passed only by a two-thirds vote, which should include the votes of twelve of the proprietors. All laws affecting the liberties or property of the inhabitants must pass this council.
This combination of a council, a part of which was elective, with so large a legislative body was cumbersome and to the highest degree impracticable. Both bodies were far too large for the capacities or needs of the province. Penn’s effort to administer government under a similar system in Pennsylvania failed. There is no accessible proof that in East Jersey the proprietors ever seriously tried to put their scheme into operation. The colonists had not the slightest interest in it. The institutions which already existed were sufficiently well adapted to their needs. An official system was in existence of which the proprietors availed themselves. Commissions of local officers which were issued by Gawen Lawrie and his successors in the governorship have been preserved. Writs of election dating from the same period are also in existence. The journal of the legislative council from and after 1682 as well as the laws which were passed during that period have been preserved.1 The evidence which they furnish is conclusive to the effect that in the actual organization and workings of the government under the twenty-four proprietors the Fundamental Constitutions were ignored. The
1 Leaming and Spicer, 227 et seq.; N. J. Arch. XIII.
small council, holding by appointment and exercising both legislative and executive powers, was retained.1 The lower house was organized on the same plan as that which existed in Carteret’s time, and the functions of the two were the same as they were during that period.
In 1682 and again in 1688 acts were passed which further extended the process of dividing the province into counties. Renewed legislative sanction was given to county courts and courts of small causes. By another act provision was made for a new supreme court of the province, with the title of the court of common right, and its jurisdiction was specified. A long list of general laws was passed, the contents of which do not agree with the Fundamental Constitutions. None of them materially changed the institutions of the province.
The provisions relating to government which were promulgated in the Concessions of West Jersey were at once simple and democratic. The executive authority was lodged in a board of commissioners, who were at first appointed by Penn, Lawrie, and Lucas in England, and were sent over to purchase lands from the Indians and prepare the way for settlement. After the settlement had been made the commissioners were to be chosen annually by the resident proprietors and freeholders in general assembly.2 By the assembly, also, all the other officers of the province were to be elected, the commissioners of the public seals, treasurers, chief justices, sheriffs, and collectors. Justices of the peace and constables were chosen by the people of the locality, though one engagement of justices of the peace has been preserved, who were chosen by the assembly to act as justices of what later became Salem county.3
The strictly representative part of the general assembly, when developed, consisted of ten members chosen by the freeholders of each tenth. During the period of which we
1 See the commission of Governor Thomas Rudyard to the council in December, 1682. N. J. Arch. XIII. 3.
2 Ibid. I. 220, 241, 265, 266; Clarkson, Life of Penn, Chap. 13.
3 See Ms. volume entitled West Jersey Concessions, etc., 1681-1699, in the office of the Secretary of State at Trenton.
are speaking, only five1 out of a possible ten tenths had been settled. One of these was Fenwick’s colony, and the others were the jurisdictions settled by the groups of Quaker colonists from London and Yorkshire. In the assembly of 1683, the governor, council, or commissioners, and representatives sat together in a single house,2 the governor presiding and having a double vote. But this practice does not seem to have been adhered to. The formal right of assenting to acts seems also to have belonged to the governor. During the intermissions of the assembly the governor and council administered the affairs of the province. They also prepared bills to be submitted to the general assembly, publishing the same through the province twenty days before the beginning of the session when they were to be discussed. It is clear that the general court in the New England colonies was no more truly the source of power than was the West Jersey assembly. That body expressly asserted its right even to amend the Concessions.
For a time, however, the operation of this system was hindered by a claim of Edward Byllinge to the rights of governor. These seem to have originated in the grant from Berkeley and to have been strengthened by the language used near the close of the Duke of York’s grant of West Jersey to Penn and his associates in 1680.3 It was stated that in order the better to enable Edward Byllinge, his heirs and assigns, to settle the province and govern it, the duke granted and transferred “to the said Edward Byllinge all and every the same Powers, Authorities, Jurisdictions, Governments” which had been granted to him by the king. Penn and his associates as trustees, in order to quiet the claims which Byllinge had, chose him governor of West Jersey.4 Byllinge appointed Samuel Jennings as his deputy. By him an assembly was called which met in November, 1681. This body affirmed, under the title of “fundamentals,” the principles of government which had been stated in the Concessions.5
1 Five tenths were represented in the Assembly of 1686. See West Jersey Concessions, 1681-1699.
2 Leaming and Spicer, 474.
3 N. J. Arch. I. 331; Mulford, History of New Jersey, 234.
4 Smith, History of New Jersey, 125, 126.
5 Leaming and Spicer, 423.
These were to the effect that a general assembly should meet annually and that to it should belong the exclusive power to legislate on all matters of provincial concern. The governor should not attempt to legislate, or make war, raise money or have dealings with other colonies, tribes, or states without its consent. No grant of revenue should be made for a longer period than one year. The assembly, moreover, should elect all officers of the province; full liberty of conscience should be enjoyed and none should be excluded from office for ecclesiastical reasons. The assembly was not to be prorogued without its own consent, and the governor must confirm its acts. It was only on the acceptance of these conditions that Jennings was permitted to act as deputy governor.
But still Jennings was Byllinge’s appointee, and it seemed possible, notwithstanding the Concessions, that a non-resident as proprietor might secure control of the executive of the province. This uncertainty, accompanied by anxious discussions of the subject, continued until 1683. The assembly of that year determined to settle the question, to decide once for all that government went with the land, and that authority for it was derived from the body of freeholders. Therefore, upon the advice of William Penn, it was resolved1 that the assembly should choose Samuel Jennings governor, and that he should solemnly promise to execute the office diligently and according to the concessions. This was done, the required engagement was taken, and six hundred acres of land were granted to Jennings in recognition of his services as governor. This act was also accompanied by the adoption of a long series of resolves to the effect that the Concessions should be obeyed, and that Byllinge should be induced to sign a paper conceding this point. This meant that government had been transferred with the land, and that authority for its exercise should proceed from the general assembly. At the same session it was resolved that the general assembly should consist of governor, council, and assembly. Since the previous year the members of the council had been chosen by the assembly. Now the office of governor was filled in the same way. At this very session also
1 Leaming and Spicer, 466-472.
the justices of the respective tenths, the commissioners for dividing and regulating lands in each tenth, the commissioners for buying lands of the Indians, the two treasurers of the province, the recorder for the Salem jurisdiction and another for the rest of the province, a high sheriff for the Burlington jurisdiction and another for the Salem jurisdiction, a surveyor, and constables for the first, second, and third tenths were elected. The entire civil list of the province, except some local officers at Burlington and more in Fenwick’s colony, was thus filled by the assembly. This process was annually repeated by the assembly—when its sessions were not interrupted by outside interference—so long as West Jersey continued to be a distinct province.
But it was found impossible to induce Edward Byllinge to abandon his claims as proprietor. The assembly in 16841 chose the governor, Samuel Jennings, and Thomas Budd to go to England as agents and present a formal demand for the abandonment of Byllinge’s claims. An appropriation was made to meet the expense of the agency. Thomas Olive was chosen deputy governor, to hold during the interval, until the meeting of the next general assembly, and it was voted to continue the existing system of government. During Jennings’s absence it was indeed further perfected by laws for the levy and collection of taxes by officials elected by the people of the tenths, and an act authorizing the levy of local taxes and the building of highways within the Salem tenth.
Byllinge sent over a new charter and some additional bills, but he would not agree to abandon his claims.2 He appointed John Skene governor, while he, with three others who were apparently non-resident proprietors, insisted that proxies should be admitted to the assembly on their behalf. The assembly referred them to the committee which was inspecting the new charter. The only fragment of the proceedings of a West Jersey assembly which has been preserved relates to the session of 1686.3 From this it appears that the committee reported that each proprietor might have one proxy
1 Leaming and Spicer, 485.
2 Ibid. 497, 592, 503-505.
3 West Jersey Concessions, 1681-1699.
in the assembly and no more, provided such proxy were resident on the proprietor’s land. The bills and charter which had been sent over by Byllinge were also read, and a report of the committee against accepting them was unanimously adopted. The view was expressed that, irrespective of their contents, it would be improper to accept these proposals, since they came from a proprietor who lived so far away. Furthermore, if Byllinge might make void the Concessions which he and the other proprietors had already issued, he might with more ease recall those which he now sent. A committee was then appointed to write to Byllinge, asking him to instruct his deputy governor to approve such laws as the assembly and deputy together should consider necessary for the good of the province. The letter which they prepared was read and approved. On this particular subject no further entry appears.
The death of Byllinge the following year closed the controversy with him. His governor, Skene, by appointing certain rangers to take up stray horses and cattle, brought down on himself the rebuke of the assembly of 1686. They told him that such an act was an intrusion on the rights of the public, and required him to desist. They then resolved that rangers were necessary, and chose six for the four upper tenths. Immediately after this they declared to the governor that the right to choose officers belonged to themselves, and proceeded to elect Thomas Revell clerk and recorder. The governor and council were also ordered to prepare a table of fees for officers, and to submit this to the assembly for amendment and confirmation.
Upon the death of Byllinge, Dr. Daniel Coxe, who was already a proprietor of West Jersey, bought the entire interest of Byllinge and his heirs in the province.1 With this went his claims to government. Coxe took the advice of counsel and urged upon the colonists a full recognition of these claims. But before the controversy with him had proceeded far, such governmental rights as the proprietors had were surrendered to the king, and all New Jersey was joined to the great dominion which he was constructing.
1 Smith, History of New Jersey, 199; Mulford, 248.
Dinsmore Documentation presents Classics of American Colonial History