vince to attend it. After pronouncing this complaint to be malicious, scandalous, and frivolous, contrived only to amuse poor ignorant people with notions of grievances, he says: "But of all people in the world, the Quakers ought to be the last to complain of the hardships of travelling a few miles upon such an occasion, who never repine at the trouble and charges of travelling several hundred miles to a yearly meeting, where it is evidently known, that nothing was ever done for the good of the country, but on the contrary, continual contrivances are carried on for the undermining of the Government both in Church and State."

"These, Governor, are some of the grievances," was one of the expressions in the remonstrance. This, he says, is certainly one of the boldest assertions that ever was made, especially when there appears no manner of proof to make it out: "And although I know very well, that there are several unquiet spirits in the Province, who will never be content to live quiet under any government but their own, and not long under that neither, as appears by their methods of proceeding when the Government was in the hands of the Proprietors, when many of these very men who are now the remonstrancers, were in authority, and used the most arbitrary and illegal methods of proceeding over

their fellow-subjects that were ever heard of; yet I am satisfied there are very few men in the province, except Samuel Jenings and Lewis Morris-men known neither to have good principles, nor good morals-who have ventured to accuse a Governor of such crimes, without any proof to make out their accusation; but they are capable of any thing but good."

"I was going to conclude," he says, “with giving you some wholesome advice; but I consider that will be but labor lost, and therefore shall reserve it for persons who I hope will make a right use of it."

A replication to this answer was of course prepared by the Assembly, and a committee appointed to present it to the Governor; but he refused to receive it, and the House thereupon ordered that it should be entered on their journal. It was dignified and dispassionate, but entirely too long to be here inserted. There was one passage in it, however, too characteristic to be omitted. In reference to his repeated attacks upon the Quakers, they remind him, that it was the General Assembly of the Province of New Jersey that complained, and not the Quakers, with whose persons and meetings they had nothing to do; but, it is added, "those of them who are members of this House,

have begged leave, in behalf of themselves and their friends, to tell the Governor, they must answer him in the words of Nehemiah to Sanballat, contained in the eighth verse of the sixth chapter of Nehemiah, viz.: “There are no such things done as thou sayest, but thou feignest them out of thine own heart."1

The Governor, alarmed at the effect which these complaints and remonstrances might have at home, prevailed upon the Lieutenant Governor Ingoldsby, and some of the Council, to unite in an address to the Queen, in which they fully justify the whole of Lord Cornbury's conduct; pronounce the charges made against him by the Assembly false and malicious; and ascribe all the difficulties which had arisen, to the "turbulent, factious, and disloyal principles of two men in the Assembly, Lewis Morris, and Samuel Jenings a Quaker-men notoriously known to be uneasy under all government-men never known to be consistent with themselves-men to whom all the factions and confusions in the Government of New Jersey and Pennsylvania for many years are wholly owing." The language of this address betokened but too clearly the source from which it emanated. It was in Lord Cornbury's own peculiar vein.

This reply will be found at large in Smith's N. J., pp. 313-336.

2 This address was not an act of the Council, nor was it entered on

One of the Council who put his name to this address was Roger Mompesson, the Chief Justice; and I have felt it to be my duty to go somewhat at large into this transaction, that his conduct upon the occasion might be exhibited in its true light. There may have been possibly a little exaggeration in some of the charges brought against the Governor. There may have been a spirit of factious opposition upon the part of some of the members of the House. But after making every allowance for the influence of party feeling, and a sense of personal obligation for numerous favors conferred by Lord Cornbury, it is impossible not to pronounce upon the Chief Justice a sentence of stern and unqualified condemnation.

The next year Cornbury was removed,1 and

same.

Those who put their names to the address were Richard Ingoldsby, William Pinhorne, Roger Mompesson, Thomas Revell, Daniel Leeds, Daniel Coxe, Richard Townley, William Sandford, and Robert Quarry.

their minutes; but was carried about ly accountable to her majesty for the secretly by a messenger of Lord Cornbury's, the signature of a number of the members procured by artifice, and then it was transmitted privately to the Queen. The Lieutenant Governor protested he signed it without ever reading it; the Chief Justice owned he never examined into the particulars of it. Sandford was the only one who seems to have behaved with any manliness in reference to it. When questioned by the House he admitted having signed it; and upon being asked if he would acknowledge his fault, he said he signed it as one of her majesty's Council, and was on

Quarry figures in the history of several of the Colonies. Smith says he was of the Council for five governments at one time, viz.: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia.

"Her majesty," says the historian of New York, "graciously listened to the cries of her injured sub

Mompesson, apprehensive, no doubt, that a similar fate awaited him, surrendered his commission. In 1710, during the administration of Governor Hunter, this address of the Lieutenant Governor and Council was made the subject of much discussion in the Assembly. By a solemn vote, they pronounced it to be a false and scandalous paper. They expelled William Sandford, one of their members, for having signed it, and in an address to Governor Hunter they review it at great length, and comment with much severity upon the conduct of the Chief Justice and Pinhorne, charging them with having made the Courts of Law in which they were Judges, instead of a protection and security to the liberties and properties of her majesty's subjects, the invaders and destroyers of them both. Mompesson did not attempt to justify his conduct.

jects, divested him of his power, and appointed Lord Lovelace in his stead; declaring that she would not countenance her nearest relations in oppressing her people.

"We never had a governor so universally detested, nor any who so richly deserved the public abhorrence. In spite of his noble descent, his behavior was trifling, mean, and extravagant."-Smith's N. Y., 188.

"Edward, Lord Cornbury, grandson of Lord Chancellor Clarendon," says Grahame,"possessed not one of

the qualities by which his distinguished ancestor was characterized, except an exaggeration of his zeal for the Church of England, and his intolerance of all other ecclesiastical associations. The rest of Lord Cornbury's character would have disgraced more estimable qualities; and seems to have formed a composition, no less odious than despicable, of rapacity and prodigality, voluptuousness and inhumanity, the loftiest arrogance and the meanest chicane."- Grahame's Col. Hist., 454.