USA > New Jersey > A civil and political history of New Jersey: embracing a compendious history of the state, from its early discover and settlement by Europeans, brought down to the present time > Part 15
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47
" The situation of the country when restored to the King might be consid- cred as somewhat different from its state at the time the original grants were inade. At that time it was held by right of descent, it might now be claimed from conquest, and the power of the King over conquered territory was re- garded as greater than that in his inherited dominions.
" See Grants and Concessions, p. 41.
.
160
RESTORATION OF ENGLISH AUTHORITY.
The course of conduct pursued by the Duke upon the renewal of his patent, was such as to justify the belief that he was inclined to retain in his own hands the entire advantages given by the grant, or at the least, that he was desirous to retain the authority it conferred. Only two days after his patent was received, he gave a commission to Edmund Andross as Governor, and includ- ed within his jurisdiction the whole of the country from "the west side of Connecticut River to the east side of Delaware Bay," and thus the territory which had formerly been granted by the Duke to Berkely and Carteret was now subjected to a rule of his own appointment. 14
But whatever were the wishes or intentions of the Duke, a re- newal of his grant to the proprietary of New Jersey was made. It is possible that a sense of justice, or his regard to the persons concerned, may have overcome, in part, his early reluctance, or if these motives were not of sufficient force, the wishes and acts of his brother the King, could hardly be disregarded.
On the 13th of June, 1674, the King had caused a letter to be written in which he had recognized and confirmed the interest and authority of Sir George Carteret (the remaining original Proprie- tor) in the province of New Jersey. The King commanded all persons to yield obedience to the laws and government which were or which should be established by Sir George, "he being seized of the province and of the jurisdiction thereof, and having the sole power, under us, to settle and dispose of the said country upon such terms and conditions as he shall think fit."15 This letter was issued even before the grant from the King, to the Duke of York had been made. Under these circumstances a second conveyance of the province was hardly left to the Duke as a matter of choice, and the conveyance was made without long delay. On the 29th of July, 1674, just one month after the reception of his own patent, he executed a new conveyance to Sir George Carteret; it
" The mere latitude of the commission given to Andross might not be con- sidered as sufficient evidence that the Duke was desirous to establish and exer- cise authority in New Jersey, but his subsequent conduct gives ample confirma- tion upon the point.
" Grants and Concessions, p. 49.
.
161
RESTORATION OF ENGLISH AUTHORITY.
was made in a similar manner, and nearly in the same terms as the former one. But this second grant was made to Sir George Carteret in severalty, and included only a part of the territory of New Jersey. As before related, Lord Berkely had disposed of his interest, being one undivided moiety of the province, to other parties, and these parties were not included in any wise in the new agree- ment.
During the joint ownership of. Berkely and Carteret no terri- torial division of the province had been attempted, nor is it cer- . tain that any had been contemplated, but in the conveyance now made to Carteret, a distinct line was laid down, dividing the terri- tory into two separate parts. Whether this was designed at the time as a final measure, or only as a sort of provisional arrange- ment, is not determined, but is was far from making an equal divi- sion. It gave to Sir George "all that tract of land adjacent to New England, and lying and being to the westward of Long Island and Manhatoes Island, and bounded on the east, part by the main sea, and part by the Hudson River, and extends southwards.as far as a certain creek called Barnegat, being about the middle between Sandy Point and Cape May; and bounded on the west, in a strait line from the said creek called Barnegat, to a certain creek in Delaware River, next adjoining to and below a certain creek in Delaware River, called Renkokus Kill; and from thence up the said Delaware River, to the northernmost branch thereof, which is in forty-one degrees and forty minutes of latitude; and on the north crosseth over, and thence in a strait line to Hud- son's River in forty-one degrees of latitude." Within these limits . much more than one half of .New Jersey was included.
Sir George Carteret received back his province under the fol -. lowing circumstances. The King of England, had expressly . confirmed the authority formerly exercised by Carteret and his associate, under their grant from the Duke of York, as well as . such authority as Carteret should afterwards exercise, and this confirmation from the King was in advance of all conveyances or grants to others, made subsequent to the Dutch possession. The . Duke of York had also made his grant to Carteret in the same - manner and form as the original one; the province was conveyed by the Duke as before, "in as full an ample a manner as it had
21
162
RESTORATION OF ENGLISH AUTHORITY.
been given to him," and under the former conveyance the rights of government were supposed to be conveyed and had been actu- ally exercised by the Proprietors, with the full concurrence of the Duke himself. But, before his grant to Carteret the Duke had included this very province in a commission of government given to Edmond Andross. In the conduct of the Duke there is ex- hibited a great degree of duplicity or obtusity, or rather a singular mixture of both.
Philip Carteret, the Governor of New Jersey, whose mission to England has already been noticed, remained in that country during the time of the occupation of his province by the Dutch, and until the consequent proceedings were completed. So soon as the Proprietary authority was again confirmed, Sir George Carteret gave a new commission to his brother as Governor, and the latter soon afterwards returned to the province. He brought a new confirmation by Sir George of the concessions as "ex- plained" by the joint Proprietors, with such other regulations as the altered state of affairs had appeared to demand. 16
Nearly at the same time that Governor Carteret returned to New Jersey, Edmund Andross, who had been appointed as Gover- nor under the Duke of York, arrived in the country, and took possession of his post. It will eventually be seen that the authority held or claimed, by these neighboring officers, brought them into frequent and rude collision.
Governor Carteret met with no opposition from the settlers at his return to the province; there was even an appearance of satis- faction. He published his commission at Bergen on the 6th of .November, 1674, in the presence of his Council, and Commis- sioners from most of the towns, and thus resumed the reins of . authority which he had been compelled for a time, to relinquish.
At an early period a General Assembly of the province was summoned, and the session began on the 5th of November, 1675. Eight members of Council including. the Governor, were present, and fourteen Representatives appeared from the towns. The members of both bodies took the oath of allegiance to the King
" Grants and Concessions, p. 55.
.
.
:
163
RESTORATION OF ENGLISH AUTHORITY.
· and fidelity to the Lord Proprietor, except that the oath was re- fused by one of the Representatives from Shrewsbury. He was dismissed.
Laws were enacted at this session for the defence of the pro- vince, against "any enemies or dangers that may accrue," by-pro- viding for the establishment and arming of military bodies, and the erection of places of security in the several towns. Provision was also made for the institution of regular courts to go under the deno- mination of County Courts. 17 Two of these courts were to be held in every year in each one of the counties, adjacent towns forming a county, and a rate of fees for the court officers was also established. · Regulations were made for the assessment of taxes throughout the province, and a "Country Treasurer" was appointed. 18. A code of capital laws was also adopted, very similar in its provisions to that which had been passed in 1668.
An act of amnesty concluded the proceedings of the session. By this last mentioned act it was prescribed, that all inhabitants and members of the province should be freely pardoned of all offences, whether capital or other, committed between the year 1670 and the 1st of June 1673, and also that " all reviling speeches practices, or intents" tending in times past, to the disturbance of amity, should be pardoned by the Governor, and be buried in oblivion.
This favorable beginning seemed to give a promise of future harmony and success, a promise however, which was not in the event entirely fulfilled.
But before proceeding to consider the further course of affairs, it may be proper to notice the events which relate to the other portion of the province.
" Previous to this tinie there had been no other courts than those established by particular corporations.
"Samuel Moore, of Woodbridge, was appointed to this office, who was to have nine pence per pound for his care and pains.
-
CHAPTER X.
PURCHASE BY FENWICK AND BELLINGE, - PARTITION BETWEEN FEN1 .WICK. AND BYLLINGE .- SETTLEMENT OF FENWICK. - QUINTIPAR- TITE DIVISION :- PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT :- PROPRIETARY GO- VERNMENT.
IT has been stated that on the 18th of March, 1673, Lord : Berkely, one of the original proprietors of New Jersey, disposed of the whole of his right and interest in the province .: The pur- chase was made by John Fenwick and Edward Byllinge.1 These persons were members of the Society of Quakers or Friends, a . religious people who had experienced much opposition and- per- secution, and there is reason to believe that a principal object pro- posed by Fenwick and Byllinge in making their purchase, was to -secure a place of retreat for themselves and their religious asso- ciates. The Society of Friends. had arisen in England at a time . when all the elements which go to the constitution of general society, were in motion. It was a period of inquiry and of action. In the temporal affairs of men a most searching disposition had been working; the origin and nature of civil and political rights were inquired into, and the particular circumstances by which these might be endangered, as well as the points at which they had been actually encroached upon, were carefully noted. A spirit not unlike to this had also been in action in those higher investigations which relate to the spiritual concerns of man. The dogma which gave infallibility to one person as the head of the Church had long been utterly rejected, and the decisions of
. Councils and of Kings were no longer received as the true expo- nents of Christian doctrine. Man, individual man, claimed the right to know and to judge for himself, concerning the relation in
' They gave the sum of one thousand pounds.
--
165
PURCHASE BY FENWICK AND BYLLINGE.
which he stood to the maker and preserver of all. The Quakers or · · Friends became somewhat distinguished forthe boldness with which they pursued their inquiries, and for the position they assumed in religious concerns. They went further than other's in their ques -. . tionings, and rejected almost every thing belonging to the "acci- dents or circumstances" of religion. They were resolved to stop at no, shadow, but to reach to the substance. But this independence of thought and of action caused these persons to become objects. of suspicion to those who were incapable of comprehending their singleness ef- purpose. - The earthly themselves,- formed no con- ception of the spiritual, except as mingled with the earthly. They . were unable to comprehend an aim-that was far. above every thing connected with mere worldly advantage or aggrandizement. Hence, at the restoration of. Monarchy, the Quakers were classed - amongst those who were supposed to hold sentiments inimical to the peace and safety of the State, and were visited in consequence, with most rigorous persecution. A Royal proclamation was issued including them with persons known to be disturbers, and forbid- ding them to meet under the pretence of religious worship, except in the established parochial churches. A law applying particularly to them was also enacted, subjecting them to the severest penalties, and this law was enforced in many instances, in a manner the most unsparing. Under such an enactment too, escape was impossible ; it operated not merely in the case of overt acts, but was directed against a name, and a mere negative offence. All Quakers who should refuse to take the oaths of allegiance were subject, and were subjected, to the penalties set forth, and this too, though it was constantly asserted by the sufferers, that their refusal to take the oath proceeded from no want of attachment to the State, but from a regard to the high injunction "swear not at all." Besides the proceedings against the Quakers on the charge of disaffection to the State, they were visited also in the name of the Church. At the restoration, Charles had issued a specious declaration giving a promise of liberty of conscience to his people, but he was wanting either in disposition, or in power, to fultil his engagement. The English Church had rejected the authority of Rome and asserted the right to freedom of thought, but it resolved that this right should only be enjoyed within its own particular
1
166
PARTITION BETWEEN FENWICK AND BYLLINGE.
bounds. It assumed that the true point had been reached, and that all who should advance beyond this limit, were to be regarded and treated as offenders. The Quakers were summoned to the ecclesiastical courts, and prosecuted and condemned upon various pretences ; many were buried in prisons, and suffered the loss of their estates, and even of their lives. It is not wonderful, under these circumstances, that the members of this society should have been desirous to discover and secure a place of retreat. In sup- port of their testimonies they shrank not from suffering, and a few it may be, with questionable zeal, were even disposed to invite it. But the soberer views of the body led to the belief, that suffering in itself, was not to be esteemed as a merit, and that to avoid it, without a compromise of their principles and faith, wa's not to be condemned as a fault. And a place of escape presented. New Jersey had been in the hands of persons who had been possessed of ample authority, and had established a tolerant government. These persons had been disappointed in the expected pecuniary return, but a pecuniary return from the labor of others, was not the object which the Friends proposed, but rather security and peace for themselves. Hence the offer of Lord Berkely to dis- pose of his interest in the province was readily met and accepted.
The conveyance from Berkely was made to John Fenwick, in trust, for Edward Byllinge. Some difficulty was afterwards ex- perienced in determining the respective interests of these parties in the property they had purchased. The particular nature or cause of the embarrassment, is rather surmised than known, but it was necessary to effect a settlement. For this purpose the intervention of William Penn was requested; his talents in busi- ness and elevated character and standing, both within the limits of his own society, and also in the world, pointed him out as a proper arbitrator. His award was acceded to. It gave one-tenth part of the province, with a considerable sum of money, to Fenwick, and the remainder of the territory was adjudged to be the property of Byllinge.
No long time had elapsed before a new difficulty arose. Byl- linge was a merchant, and was overtaken by a change of fortune, in consequence of which he was obliged to make a conveyance of his rights and interests in the province, for the use and benefit
di
.
·
167
SETTLEMENT OF FENWICK.
of others. The property in the province, having been acquired, at least in part, with a view to the advantage it might afford to persons of his own profession, it was a proper desire that it should yet be held, so that the contemplated benefit might still be secured. It was therefore assigned to three of his fellow members in religious society, William Penn, Gawen Lawrie, and Nicholas Lucas. On the 10th of February, 1674, Fen- wick and his constituent Byllinge, assigned nine undivided tenth parts of the province to the three persons just mentioned, to be held by them, in trust, for the benefit of the creditors of Byllinge. The remaining tenth part of the province continued in the hands of Fenwick. But not long afterwards, circumstances occurred by which this portion also, was placed, in a legal sense, under other control.
At an early period measures were taken by Fenwick to effect a settlement of the province ; lands were sold to several individuals who proposed to adventure to the country, and this was also the design of Fenwick himself. But before his departure from England he procured a sum of money from two individuals, John Eldridge and Edmund Warner, and to secure the repayment of this, and some other sums, he executed to Eldridge and Warner a lease upon his portion of the province for one thousand years, with a condition allowing them to sell so much . of the land as would reimburse them the amount of their claim. A lease with a discretionary power to sell, effectually placed the control of the whole in the hands of the lessees, subject only to a contingent claim, remaining with Fenwick.
Notwithstanding this conveyance, Fenwick considered himself as still possessing such rights in the province as would warrant his entering at once, and using, for his own particular. benefit. Accordingly, he departed from London for the province, in com- pany with a number of settlers; they arrived in June, 1675, and landed not far froin the Delaware, at a place they called Salem. Here a permanent settlement was made .. Soon after his arrival, Fenwick entered into treaty with the natives, and purchased from them an extensive portion of country." He procceded to divide
" He purchased all the lands included in the present counties of Salem and Cumberland. See Johnson's Sulem for particulars in relation to these purchases.
. 168
SETTLEMENT OF FENWICK.
the lands and make grants to the several settlers, and claimed authority in the province, as Chief Proprietor. But at an early period opposition was experienced, and that from a quarter which could have been but little suspected.
It has already been stated that the Duke of York had given a commission to Edmund Andross, in which. New Jersey was in- cluded. But besides the acts and assurances of the Duke himself, .: Andross had published a proclamation promising that all former grants, privileges or concessions heretofore granted, and all estates legally possessed by any under his Royal Highness, before the late Dutch government, should be confirmed. This seemed to be sufficientacknowledgement of the rights and claims of the Proprie- tors of New Jersey, and of those who held under them. But these declarations were soon to be contradicted by positive acts.
Very soon after his coming to the country Andross gave a com- mission to Captain Edmund-Cantwell to take command at New Castle, and to superintend the collection of the customs at Hoarkill. Upon the advent of the settlers at Salem, information of the fact. was transmitted from Cantwell to his superior at New York. A council was directly held, and it was resolved that Fenwick having no order ("which if he had ought to have been first brought here and recorded,") should not be received as owner or proprietor of any land, and that as to any privilege or freedom of cus- · toms, or trading on the East Shore (of the Delaware,) none be allowed in any case "to the smallest vessel, boat, or person.". . This order was given .December 5th, 1675.3 At a subsequent period (November 8th, 1676,) a communication was transmitted from Andross, to the Commander at New Castle concerning "John Fenwick's actings on the east side of Delaware River," in granting patents for land, and refusing to obey a warrant from the Commander and Court. at New Castle, and a direction was given that Fenwick should be arrested and sent to New York. The attempt to execute this order was not quietly acquiesed in. Fen- . wick closed his house against the officers, and declared that he did not know that the Governor of New York .had any concern with him, and that he was resolved not to leave his house.unless
3 New Castle Records, cited by Johnson.
169
-SETTLEMENT OF FENWICK.
he should be carried away by force. But force was soon resorted to; on the 8th of December, 1676, a special meeting of the Com- mander and Justices was held at New Castle to take order for "the apprehending of Major Fenwick,"+ and a warrant was issued to Lieutenant Johannes De Haes, Michael Baron, and George Moore, under Sheriff, to levy twelve soldiers and to repair to Salem and make the arrest of Fenwick, and authority was given to use any degree of force that might be found necessary for the purpose. The order was executed; Fenwick was taken to New Castle and afterwards sent to New York.5 Upon his arrival at that place, he produced to Governor Andross the King's letters patent, the Duke's grant to Lord John Berkely and Sir George Carteret, and the Lord Berkely's deed to himself, whereupon, as he himself states, he was released and allowed liberty to return without obligation. "This release however was made with a con- dition that he should return on or before the 6th of October fol- lowing, which accordingly he did, and was afterwards detained and kept as a prisoner by order from the Collector of Assizes, and was finally liberated, (according to the statements of Andross and his officers,) upon his parole not to assume any authority on the east side of Delaware River, until further warrant should be given.
During this time measures had been progressing for the more general settlement of the province. The assignees of Byllinge had proceeded in the exercise of their trust; many of the creditors of Byllinge accepted lands in satisfaction of their claims, and other individuals purchased directly.
A form of government for the province was also projected and prepared, an instrument which will presently be noticed, at length. To facilitate the settlement and government of the country, it was deemed important that a division should be effected with Sir George Carteret, the proprietor of the other part. This was the business of the original proprietors, such a settlement being upplied in their agreement with purchasers. It was supposed
'Fenwick had formerly been a military officer.
'A circumstantial account of these proceedings is to be found among the New Castle Records. But every thing of importance is given by Johnson in Wve proceedings of the Historical Society of New Jersey, vol. 11.
22
170
QUINTIPARTITE DIVISION.
that this division could be more readily and properly accomplished by placing the whole of the portion that had been purchased from Lord Berkely, in the hands of the assignees of Byllinge, they already having the controlof nine, in ten parts. For this purpose Eldridge and Warner, the lessees of Fenwick, who had- control of the remaining tenth, conveyed that portion (reserving only the .. rights of original purchasers from Fenwick) to Penn, Lawrie, and Lucas, and in consequence, these latter persons were put in a situation to make a general partition with Carteret.
The division of territory that had been made by the line laid down in the second grant from the Duke of York, was not now insisted upon. It gave an important advantage to Carteret, a fact however, that may not have been known to him, or to the Duke, at that time. Whether so or not, a desire was expressed by the - Duke that the question of boundary should be opened anew, and an opportunity be given for the concurrence of the several parties that were now concerned, a course to which Carteret acceded.6
In pursuance of this design, a new boundary was agreed to, and the agreement was ratified and confirmed by an instrument which was called "An Indenture Quintipartite," taking its name from the number of persons engaged therein. These individuals were Sir George Carteret of the one part, and William Penn, Gawen Lawrie, Nicholas Lucas, and Edward . Byllinge, (the last having only an equitable interest.) on the other part. By the "deed quintipartite" which was dated July 1st, 1676, the line of division was made to extend across the province, from Little Egg Harbor, to a point on the Delaware River in forty-one degrees of north latitude.
To the divisions separated by this line, the names of East and West New Jersey respectively, were applied, and this distinction continued to be recognized, until the charters of. both were sur- rendered, and the two portions included. together under a Royal government.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.