Page images
PDF
EPUB

relative of Sir George Carteret the gay courtier, who stood so near the wicked and debauched king of England. That Philip Carteret was chargeable with infractions of the "Grants and Concessions," the Magna Charta of the colony, is indisputable; that the colonists had good grounds of complaint against him, cannot be denied. But it is prob. able that if Carteret had been more conciliatory, less arbitrary, he might have gained and retained the esteem and confidence of the immigrants. If the people had been disposed to be less suspicious of the Governor, it is equally probable that while they might have chafed and become restive, he would have relaxed his arbitrary conduct. and been more in unison with those whom he attempted to rule. As is generally the case, there were faults on both sides; the people were too easily provoked; too jealous of any real, or even fancied invasion of their rights; too prone to seek occasion to criticise their Governor; he too ready to seize any opportunity of wreaking his wrath on his rebellious and contumacious subjects; too tenacious of his prerogative ast the representative of the Lords Proprietors and of the royal authority, and so the breach widened and the chasm between the two opponents could neither be crossed nor filled.

Carteret claimed that as Governor he was entitled to preside either personally, or by proxy, at the town meetings of the citizens. He also arrogated to himself the right to remove the military officers elected by the people and put others of his own appointment in their place.

He had brought thirty persons with him from Europe, most of whom he himself called "menial servants." They were in no respect congenial to the inhabitants; they were alien to them in race, manners, customs and religion; there was no point of similarity between them. Carteret claimed the right to introduce such of them as he chose into the body of the colonists on an equality with the other citizens; to invest them with a title in fee to home lots apportioned only to associates, in the original allotment of the land and thus make them "Freemen." This seemed and was, really, in itself a very small cause of grievance; -simply to sell and convey a few acres of land to a worthy man who had a family to support and had proved himself capable of becoming a good citizen and bearing his share of the burdens of the colony. Why should any one object? But objections and very strong ones were made to the measure. It was an invasion of the rights of the associates; it was a tyrannical, oppresive infringement of the privileges guarantied to them by the "Grants and Concessions," the fundamental organic law of

the province, the Magna Charta of the people. By those "Grants and Concessions" it was expressly provided that no one should be introduced into any one of the settlements in New Jersey, as a planter, without the consent of the whole community.

These were grounds of serious complaint, which the citizens in this early period in the history of the colony could not and did not overlook. But they were to be followed by grievances of a much graver character and which finally led to an outbreak threatening a disruption of all relations between Governor and people. For the present, however, there was comparative quiet; there were mutterings and discontent plainly expressed, but no actual explosion; the storm had not yet gathered its forces, although ominous clouds were hanging in the hori zon; the settlements were too far from each other, the country too sparsely settled for complete organization, but the people were almost unanimous in their opposition to the Governor and were impatiently awaiting the outcome of events; they were determined to brook no further oppression.

The inhabitants of Middletown and Shrewsbury had a grievance. peculiarly their own and between the first and second sessions of the Legislature they manifested their uneasiness in a very decided manner as already mentioned. The authorities had refused to publish the acts which had been passed, to recognize their binding force, to permit them to be enforced within the limits of their municipalities, or to pay any money towards the expenses of the government. Their representatives were present at the meeting of the Legislature, it is true, but it was claimed that they were illegally elected and that their acts could not bind their constituents. It was thus early that the battle cry of the Revolution, "No taxation without representation," afterwards so potent, was raised.

The second session of the first Legislature also met at Elizabeth Town, pursuant to adjournment, on the third day of November, 1668. The Governor and five members of his Council, the same who appeared at the first session, except Daniel Pierce, were present, with James Bollen as Secretary. The same deputies came from Bergen; John Brackett was superseded by Jacob Mollins, from Elizabeth Town; Jasper Crane came from Newark, in the place of Samuel Swaine; Samuel Moore appeared from Woodbridge instead of John Bishop and two new delegates, Peter Jegon and Fabrus (Fabrius?) Outout came from "Delaware River"; four Burgesses appeared from Middletown and

Shrewsbury, but the discontent of the people manifested itself through these men They were Jonathan Hulmns (Holmes?), Edward Tart, Thomas Winterton and John Hans, who all refused to take or subscribe to the oath of allegiance and fidelity unless they could interject certain provisos, which the Legislature would not allow, and not "submitting to the laws and government were dismissed."

The second session of the Legislature continued only four days and adjourned on the 7th day of November. The uneasiness and discontent of the people were carried into the legislative chamber, where very little of importance was accomplished; the law makers seem however, to have been busy, as thirteen acts were passed. The importance of educating the militia in military evolutions was recog nized; all males from sixteen to sixty were required to meet on training days in each year, ten days apart, at least, "in order to the better providing for the peace and safety of the inhabitants of the province. and the more ready accustoming of our soldiers to an expert handling of their arms." Horses and cattle were to be branded with a distinctive mark for each town; every town was obliged to provide an ordinary for the relief and entertainment of strangers. Mr. Ogden, a deputy from Elizabeth Town, was authorized "to take cognizance of the Country's charges and rates and to order the disposal of the same,' chases from the Indians of cattle or horses, dead or alive, or their skins, were forbidden.

One of, the acts passed at this session has reference to the rebellious attitude of the people of Middletown and Shrewsbury. Luke Watson, not a delegate, and Samuel Moore, Burgess from Woodbridge, were directed to go to the recalcitrant towns and demand the money which was assessed upon them at the first sitting as their share of the expenses of the government, together with the further sum of forty shillings, charged against them by the second session, as their proportion of the sum of twelve pounds for defraying public charges. If they refused to pay, then a distraint was authorized, not only for the amounts claimed as due from them, but for the charges and expenses attending the distress. A law was also passed at this adjourned session, which, if the defiant state of the people be considered, is very significant of the sense of propriety and of right entertained by the citizens. "All fines but what by law are disposed of, shall be for the Publick in all respective Towns in this Provence, after the Publication hereof. Always Provided that the Lords Proprietors Rights are not hereby infringed upon."

The discontent assumed unexpected form just at the close of this session of the Legislature, on the 6th of November, when the deputies sent a message to the Governor and his council which was very significant. The message and answer are so expressive of the views of both bodies and so quaint that they are copied. This is the message: "Honored Gentlemen, We finding so many and great Inconveniences by our not setting together, and your apprehension 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 we think our way rather to break up our meeting, seeing the Order of the Concessions cannot be attended unto."

It is fairly deducible from the Grants and Concessions that the deputies were correct in their views thus expressed, and that it was the duty of the Governor and his council to sit and act together with the deputies. A careful reading of the clauses of the Concessions must impel a disinterested reader to that conclusion; the deputies were to join with the Governor and Council in making the laws; the representatives with the Governor and Council were to form the General Assembly; the Governor or his deputy, being present, was to preside; if they re. fuse to be present, then the Assembly "may appoint themselves a President during the absence of the Governor or his Deputy." power granted to the General Assembly was for their joint action; there is nowhere in the Grants the slightest hint that the Assembly could meet in separate bodies or act separately. The practice which obtained at the very outset, of using separate rooms for meeting and of acting apart was, doubtless, gained from the two houses of Parliament, in England.

This was the answer: "In answer to your last Proposition we desire you to appoint two of your Deputies to consider with us in what Point. we Act contrary to the Concessions, it being too late to Night to entertain so long a debate, we will be ready To-morrow Morning to give them a hearing, and if reason will satisfy you, we shall be very well pleased that you proceed according to the Lords Proprietors Concessions and the Trust imposed upon you, if not you may do what you Please, only we advise you to consider well of your Resolutions before you break up." The curt and ungracious reply does not seem to have conciliated the angry deputies.

This correspondence passed between the two bodies on the 6th of No. vember; on the next day the Assembly broke up and no Legislature convened again until the 5th of November, 1675, seven years, almost to a day, after the adjournment in 1668.

But in the meantime the quarrel between the Governor and the people had reached its height and had culminated in outbreaks and absolute riots. In 1670, on the 25th of March, the beginning of the year, according to the computation of time at that period, the quit rents. claimed by the Lords Proprietors fell due, by the terms of the grants made to the colonists. Attempts were made to collect this quit rent, which were resisted. The amount was not large-only a half penny an acre-but its demand was all that was necessary to arouse the slumbering elements of opposition and this action of the authorities fanned the smouldering fire into flames. The resistance to the payment of the quit rent was not entirely unanimous, but nearly so, and on the part of some, it was determined and immediate.

Some of those, however, who objected to the demands of the Lords Proprietors could not have been honest in their opposition. They had taken the oath of allegiance to the king, of fidelity to the Proprietors, and had received confirmation from them of their title to land derived from the aborigines or from Governor Nicholls. Such persons had no excuse for their refusal to pay.

But there were others who had never directly acknowledged the sovereignty of the Proprietors; had never sworn fidelity to them; had never received confirmation of their titles; in fact, had purposely avoided asking or taking any such confirmation and had always insisted that their Indian deeds, or their grants from Nicholls, had invested them with a complete title. They claimed that they had paid full consideration to the Sachems for the lands purchased of them and that the Lords Proprietors could have no title paramount to that of the Aborigines. For such there may have been some excuse for disobedience of the constituted authorities; but there was really no justification for any resident in the colony, in their refusal to pay. Neither their deeds from the Indian Sachems, nor the grants from Governor Nicholls, gave them any substantial titles to the lands. They were living under the government of the Lords Proprietors, who offered them protection as citizens and they had availed themselves of that protection and enjoyed the privileges of citizenship. For the other rebels there was not the slightest excuse; they suffered self interest to obscure their vision

« PreviousContinue »