USA > New Jersey > Essex County > Newark > First church in Newark : historical discourses, relating to the First Presbyterian church in Newark; originally delivered to the congregation of that church during the month of January, 1851 > Part 6
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
"that the Governor of New Jersey and from Smith, that Sir George's dissolute Captain James Carteret (then present) son had been allowed to exercise some authority in the Proprietary Government before the people drew him out of obscur- ity for their own purposes. should expeditiously order a General As- sembly to be called in that Government (ac- cording to their custom upon all emergent occasions) to know the people's strength * Whitehead, p. 57, note. E. J. Records. t The Concessions, in giving authority to the Assemby to enact laws, provided that these laws should " be enforced for the space of one year and no more," with- out a formal confirmation by the Proprie- tors. Several incidental notices in the Newark Town Records, indicate that those enacted in 1668 were not so confirmed, perhaps not presented for confirmation; and if not, there were at this time no laws in the province, except such local laws as towns might be authorized to enact. and readiness, and how far they were willing to contribute towards the prosecu- tion of a war against the Indians." That this General Assembly was actually or- dered, appears from the Newark Town Re- cords, where, under date of Sept. 29, 1671, we find Jasper Crane and Robert Treat, chosen " as deputies for the service of the Assembly, to meet October 3d, according to the Governor's warrant." There was also an Assembly in session June 13th, 1673. (See Bill in Chancery, p. 7.) N. B .- It would seem, from the above extract
# See Whitehead, p. 55; also East Jer-
51
MEASURES OF SELF PROTECTION.
Province, under the express assurance that law and order should be maintained on the principles of a free Constitution, saw themselves becoming the victims of anarchy on the one hand, and of a power to whose progressive encroachments they could assign no limits on the other. It was very plain that the time had come to do something, as the people of Newark very pertinently expressed the case, "to order matters for the safety of the country."*
In these circumstances two courses were open to them ; the one was to petition the Proprietors in Eng- land ; but that was a slow process, and of uncertain issue. The other was to avail themselves of the first opportunity to restore, in some legal way, that best of safeguards, a Legislative Assembly.+
sey Records, where the orders given to chosen on this occasion, were Robert extend the jurisdiction of the courts of Treat and Jasper Crane, principals, and Bergen and Woodbridge are to be found. Samuel Swaine, 'third man.' But before the meeting took place Treat was pre- paring to return to Connecticut, therefore Swaine took his place. Compare Grants and Concessions, p. 16, where the power to " constitute all courts, together with the limits, powers, and ju- risdictions of the same" is conferred on the General Assembly.
* Newark Town Records, p. 43. These are the terms of the commission given to the representatives from Newark, the day before the meeting of the Assembly at which the transactions complained of took place. Prior to this, January 22, 1671-2, "Mr. Treat and Lieut. Swaine are deputed to take the first opportunity to advise with Mr. Ogden, (John Ogden of Elizabeth- town,) or any other they shall see Cause, what may be the safest and best course to be taken for the town, about our lands and settlements here." But now, "May 13, 1672, Mr. Crane and Lieut. Swaine, that were chosen representatives for the town, are desired by the town to consult with the rest of the representatives of the country, to order matters for the safety of the country." The representatives
+ During all the period in which no As- sembly had been convened, regularly as the year came round, Newark had her deputies chosen, principals and substi- tutes, so that wherever else the fault may have been, there was no failure on her part in carrying out this fundamental pro- vision of the Constitution. There is no notice in the Town Records of an appoint- ment of deputies to the Assembly of 1668, but we learn from other documents that the town was represented by Robert Treat and Samuel Swaine at the first meeting in the Spring, and by Jasper Crane and Robert Treat at the adjourned meeting in November. We may there- fore assume that the appointment for that year was the same as in the years imme- diately subsequent, and shall have the following as the appointments of deputies
52
SPECIAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
They chose the latter. In an emergency requiring supplies to be furnished by the people, the Governor was induced to issue writs for the convening of a spe- cial General Assembly, early in the month of October, 1671 .* At this Assembly, Newark took care to be represented by two of her best men-Messrs. Treat and Crane-and it seems probable that during its sessions the Assembly which met in the follow- ing Spring was agreed upon. The Governor com- plained that the latter body was convened without writs from him; and moreover, what appears to be the head and front of offending, it was alleged that the representatives had before "taken the liberty to differ from the Governor and Council in establishing matters for the settlement of the people."+ Very likely
to the General Assembly during the first eight years :
1667-8 .- Jasper Crane, Robert Treat and Samuel Swaine, as third man.
1 Jan., 1668-9. "Mr. Crane and Mr. Treat are chosen deputies or burgesses for the General Assembly for the year en- suing, and Lieut. Swaine is chosen a third man in case of either of the others fail- ing." Town Records, p. 10.
1 Jan., 1669-70. "Mr. Crane and Mr. Treat are chosen deputies to the General Assembly, if there shall be any." p. 21.
2 Jan., 1670-1. " Mr. Crane and Mr. Treat are chosen deputies for the General Assembly, and Lieut. Swaine as the third man." p. 32.
29 Sept., 1671. "Mr. Jasper Crane and Robert Treat are again chosen deputies in our town for the service of the Assembly on the 3d Oct., ensuing the date, accord- ing to the Governor's warrant." p. 38.
1 Jan., 1671-2. " Mr. J. Crane and Mr. Robert Treat are chosen deputies for the General Assembly for the year, and Sam- uel Swaine is chosen the third man." p. 40.
1 Jan., 1672-3. " Mr. Crane and Mr. Bond are chosen deputies for the General Assembly, for the year ensuing, and Lieut. Swaine the third man." p. 45.
The Dutch came into power July 30th, 1673. Philip Carteret returned and re- sumed his authority Nov. 6, 1674.
"Nov. 7, 1674. Mr. Ward and Mr. Kitchel are chosen as deuputies to go over to Bergen to hear what the Governor hath to say according to his warrant." p. 53.
Jan. 1, 1675-6. "It is voted that the deputies for the General Assembly in April shall be chosen by vote with hands. Lieut. Ward and Thomas Johnson are chosen to attend to that business, and Capt. Samuel Swaine is the third man." p. 56
* See note, p. 49. Smith's Hist. N. J., p. 69, 70. In recording the appointment of deputies, Mr. Recorder Treat took care to have no mistake as to the authority by which they were summoned in this in- stance. Hence, perhaps, the significance of the words : "According to the Governor's warrant."-p. 38.
t East Jersey Records.
53
THE PEOPLE APPOINT AN ASSEMBLY.
these representatives, being most of them New England men, had taken the fancy that popular legis- lators have the right to differ from Governors in such matters when they see occasion; and as no writs had been issued for a long time previous, nor were likely to be in time to come, they may have supposed them- selves justified, now they were lawfully together, in appointing time and place for another meeting .* How- ever that may be, it appears that they did meet, both in the months of March and May following, though the laws which they enacted at the former date are not on record, the Deputy Secretary having run away with the minutes.+
And now what were the transactions ? The current account is, that at the meeting in May, the people de- posed the rightful Governor, and appointed James Carteret in his stead. But it is worthy of remark that. the Governor and Council themselves, at the time, made a different representation. They charged the
* It is worthy of remark, that in the abridgement of the Assembly's powers by the Proprietors, consequent on the trans- action in question, this right of appointing time and place for its own meetings was transferred from that body to the more friendly hands of the Governor and Coun- cil. The instrument by which this was done, is entitled, " A declaration of the true intent and meaning of us, the Lords Proprietors, and explanation of their Concessions made to the Adventurers and Planters of New Cæsarea or New Jersey." The terms of the Concessions were as fol- lows: "Which Assembly are to have power, First, to appoint their own time of meeting, and to adjourn their sessions from time to time to such places as they shall think convenient." But the "true intent and meaning" of these terms ac-
cording to the "declaration," is this : " As to the General Assembly, that it shall be in the power of the Governor and his Council to appoint the times and places of meeting of the General Assembly, and to adjourn and summon them together again when and where he and they shall see cause." On the whole, we can hardly regard it as surprising, that before the " declaration" was promulgated, the peo- ple should have failed to divine this same "true intent and meaning," and that mis- understandings and collisions should have arisen in consequence, even in the most loyal community. (See Grants and Con- cessions, pp. 15-33. )
+ East Jersey Records. The person re- ferred to above, was William Pardon, for whose arrest James Carteret issued a war- rant, May 25, 1672, requiring him to be
54
PRESIDENT APPOINTED.
Assembly with appointing James Carteret, not as their Governor, but as their President. Now such an officer the Concessions authorized the Assembly to appoint in certain contingencies, and the right to do so contained an important safeguard of their liberties. That in- strument provides that the Governor or his deputy shall be present in the deliberations of the General Assem- bly, "unless they shall wilfully refuse, in which case they [the Assembly] may appoint themselves a PRESI- DENT during the absence of the Governor or Deputy Governor."*
Acts of apparent violence have been charged on this Assembly. "They imprisoned," it is said, "some of the officers of the Government, and confiscated their estates."+ But what are the facts ? One William Pardon, recently appointed Deputy Secretary of the Province, was arrested on a writ issued in his Majesty's name, probably by a Justice of the Peace; and he having twice escaped from the constable, other writs
kept in custody "till he deliver up the a fly leaf of the Newark Town Records. acts of laws made by the General Assem- However, the Proprietors rewarded him bly at their sitting the 26th of March last, for the use they made of him, by a grant of five thousand acres of land, and the of- fice of Receiver General, after his return from England. (See Whitehead, p. 56, note. the which laws the said William Pardon now refuseth to deliver." On the 25th of June following, Pardon having twice es- caped from the constable, John Ogden gave an order for the attachment of his * Grants and Concessions, p. 15. The constitution of Connecticut, besides con- taining a similar provision, empowered the people to call a General Assembly through the constable, if the Governor and magistrates should refuse to doit. See Trumbull, Hist. Conn., p. 102. Had the Concessions contained this latter provis- ion, the people of Newark, it is presumed, would not have regularly appointed their representatives three years in succession for nothing. goods, speaking of the laws in question, as "committed to the said Pardon, to take a copy of them. by order of the General Assembly, which he hath neglected and refuseth to do, and also to deliver up the said laws unto the Assembly at the next sitting, by whom they were demanded." East Jersey Records. This William Par- don seems to have been a man of various troubles, domestic as well as civil, if we may judge from his valorous proclamation against his disloyal wife, still extant on
+ Bill in Chancery, pp. 35, 63. -
55
CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT.
were issued, on similar authority, for the attachment and detention of his property. But what was the object ? Why, simply to recover possession, for the Assembly, of their own records, which that functionary had ab- stracted and refused to surrender. The papers are ex- tant, and can tell their own story .*
What other acts of alleged violence or usurped au- thority may have been committed, I know not. No others are specified. The Governor left the country and went to England shortly after, by advice of his Council, to complain to the Proprietors ; and James Carteret may have been, as some histories represent the case, thereupon acknowledged as Governor.+ But his proceedings, as the Council at the time state explicit- ly, were not based simply on the authority conferred upon him by the people. He acted under a pretended grant from his father, Sir George Carteret, and right as Proprietor, which empowered him to remove the Governor at his own pleasure.}
* John Ogden, who issued the warrant for attaching his goods was, or had been a justice of the peace, and it is not unnatural to suppose Capt. James Carteret might have had a similar commission. The con- stable to whom the warrant was issued, was William Meeker, of Elizabethtown, whom the people indemnified for his losses several years afterwards. Newark Town Records, p. 62.
+ Grahame says, p. 466, "He," i. e. Philip Carteret, "was compelled to return to England, stripped of his functions, which the Colonists forthwith conferred on a natural son of Sir George Carteret, November 1672, by whom their preten- sions were abetted." Chalmers makes a similar statement. p. 616. In the New- ark Town Records, under date of Novem-
ber 14, 1672, we find the following min- ute: "There was a full vote, passed Au- gust 10, 1672, that is not here recorded, but it is recorded fol. 36." Three or four years later, when after a temporary sus- pension of its power by the Dutch con- quest, the Proprietary Government was restored with increased authority, it was deemed expedient to subject this vote to the expunging process, and we find under date of Feb. 25, 1675-6, the following: "It is voted, that the vote which was passed the 10th of August, 1672, and recorded in fol. 36, concerning the government, shall be obliterated by the clerk."
# " All these proceedings he carried on with pretence that he hath power suffi- cient, he being Sir George Carteret's son, that he is a Proprietor, and can put out
56
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.
No doubt a change of Government was for a time ef- fected, and possibly the pretence which this unworthy, but privileged personage, set up, that he had private authority from the superior powers-a pretence which must have gained some color from the fact that he had before been allowed to exercise a kind of joint author- ity with his uncle, Philip Carteret,* was yielded to by the people more readily than it would have been un- der less pressing circumstances. Certain it is that the people did not consider themselves as disowning the authority of the Proprietors, since they proceeded im- mediately to make their appeal to them in a petition for redress of grievances.
What their own statement of these grievances was we do not know. Their opponents were on the ground, and had the ear both of the Proprietors and of the King, while they could only speak from a distance. The Proprietors, in their reply, literally scolded them like naughty children, and seized the first opportunity to abridge their privileges. But had we before us their own statements, we should doubtless see even more clearly than we can at pres- ent, that there were at least two sides to the question.t
the Governor as he pleases." (Extract from the Address to Berkley and Carteret by the Council. East Jersey Records )
* See note, p. 49. Also Smith's Hist. New Jersey, p. 70.
t The words of the reply are as follows : Grant and Concessions, p. 40.
"To the pretended representatives of Elizabethtown, Newark and New Piscata- way, and all others whom it may concern :
"We have received a long petition from you and of no date, yet out of a tender
care we have of your pretended griev- ances and complaints have examined some particulars thereof, the Governor and Mr. Bollen being now in town; yet we are ready to do you all the justice you can ex- pect, though you have been unjust to us, by which means you have brought a trou -. ble upon yourselves ; and if you will send over any person to make good your alle- gations in your petition, (while the Gov- ernor is here,) we shall be ready to hear all parties and incline to do you right, ale-
57
DEFENCE OF RIGHTS NOT INSURRECTION.
One thing at least is certain, and capable of proof. The fathers of Newark, in the transactions referred to, were no band of lawless anti-renters, seeking to de- fraud the legal proprietors by setting up titles to the soil, adverse to theirs. It was not Indian purchases, it was not Nichols' grants, it was not repugnance to quit- rents which, on their part, formed the occasion for dis- turbances, which have been too incautiously set down in history as insurrection. It was a contest for liber- ties, for solemnly guarantied rights. Some portion of the blood of 1776 was creeping quietly in the ancestral veins of these worthy men. And, if it be true that Robert Treat, Jasper Crane, Samuel Swaine and their associates, did in any respect transcend the forms of law, as, however, has not been proved, we may be sure that they did it not without good reason, and because what they believed to be their sacred rights, seemed in imminent peril .*
though you have not had such a tender Gawen Lawrie, the first Governor ap- regard of our concerns in those parts as in justice you ought to have had; and we do likewise expect for the future you will yield due obedience to our government and laws within the province of New Cæ- sarea or New Jersey, and then we shall not be wanting to manifest ourselves ac- cording to your deportment. Dated this 11th day of December, 1672."
* It may be that a more full investiga- tion would put a different complexion upon some features of the case from that which I have given them in the text; but from a careful comparison of all the docu- ments and statements of historians within my reach, especially the Newark Town Records, the impression has been strong- ly made upon my mind, that the people were far less censurable in those dis- orderly transactions than their rulers.
pointed under the twenty-four Proprie- tors who purchased the Province a few years later, gave this testimony to the character of the settlers of East Jersey. " The people are generally a sober, pro- fessing people, wise in their generation, courteous in their behaviour, and respect- ful to us in office." On which Grahame, who had probably formed his judgment chiefly from the representations of the Proprietary party, remarks very justly, "If we might rely implicitly on the opin- ion of this observer, we should impute the dissensions that had previously oc- curred in the Province, to the folly and mismanagement of Carteret and his asso- ciates in the government." p. 481. Could this candid historian have seen the rec- ords of the people in their local communi- ties, at least in this community, he would
58
DUTCH CONQUEST.
Nor did they stop here. Still confident in the justice of their cause, and notwithstanding the reception their petition had met with, the men of Newark made another attempt to obtain justice at the hands of the Proprie- tors .* From the Newark Town Records it appears that a second petition for redress was ordered to be sent to England in the month of July, 1673, and five prin- cipal men of the town were appointed to consult with messengers from other towns in preparing and sending it. But meanwhile, the difficulties still remaining un- settled, and war between England and Holland having broken out, the Dutch took armed possession of the Province, and the Proprietary Government was dis- placed. Nor can we wonder much, considering the cir- cumstances, that smarting as they were with their sup- posed grievances, the colonists should have made some haste in trying what might be hoped for from their new masters. It appears by the record, that but five days had elapsed after the surrender of New York, be- fore the people of Newark ordered a petition for privi- leges to be sent to the " Generals at New Orange ;" and again, ten months later, that they petitioned the same au- thorities "for the obtaining a confirmation of our bought and paid for lands." But peace returned ; the Pro- prietary Government was restored with new powers; the Concessions, qualified by a so-called " declaration
have seen less occasion than he supposed ter a little fire kindleth, and being desi- for qualifying that inference with an if.
* Deputy Governor Berry seems about this time to have had some doubts con- cerning the wisdom of the course pursued justice." by the government; " having had sad ex- perience," as he said, "how great a mat-
rous, and also sensible that it is the duty as well to endeavor peace and friendship among the neighbors, as to administer Proclamation forbidding re- proachful words, &c. E. J. Records.
59
AUTHORITY UNCERTAIN.
of their true intent and meaning," which greatly abridg- ed the privileges conferred by them, were rigidly en- forced; the " Articles" seem to have become a nullity, and the people had no choice but to submit to uncon- trollable circumstances .* They did submit ; and the leading men of this town at least, took patents for their lands, after some attempts at negotiation, on the terms prescribed.+
The position of the early settlers of this Province, as loyal men, was attended with no little embarrass- ment. Amidst the doubtful and sometimes conflicting claims of their superiors, it was often difficult to deter- mine whose was the rightful authority .¿ The Duke of York, who had released the soil and government to
* As the original Concessions reserved no right of alterations, at least so far as such alterations might prejudice the rights of those who should have settled before they were made; the people, as might have been supposed, submitted very re- luctantly to a long bill of professed "ex- planations," which took away some of the best privileges expressly insured to them. They pronounced the " Declaration of the true intent and meaning of the Lords Proprietors, and explanation of the Concessions" to be " a breach of the Con- cessions." The two, they say, are "con- tradictory one with the other." See a synopsis of a correspondence between the representatives and the Council in 1681, which ended in the Governor's dissolving the Assembly. Whitehead, p. 193. The candid reader, I think, will readily come to the same conclusion with the represen- tatives. Nor is it strange that seeds of discontent thus sown, ripened at length into such power, that the Proprietors were obliged to relinquish into other hands the reins of government. Alas! avarice,
that once paid its court to freedom, and seemed so graceful in it, began, now that its first ends were gained, and the waste lands settled, to deem a little tyranny more suitable to its ulterior designs !
+ Tokens of their reluctance are very manifest in the Town Records. At first they replied to the summons from the Governor, that "they see not their way, clear to patent on the terms proposed;" then, in order that their rights might be satisfactorily set forth, a committee of three principal men were sent to Eliza- bethtown with a statement and petition ; in preparing which, the services of both the ministers were put in requisition. Town Records, pp. 54-6.
# An amusing instance of this uncer- tainty appears on the Town Records, un- der date of July 28th, 1669, viz .: "The town made choice of Mr. Crane and Mr. Treat to take the first opportunity to go over to York to advise with Col. Lovelace concerning our standing, whether we are designed to be a part of the Duke's Colony or no." p. 19.
60
USURPATION OF ANDROS.
Berkley and Carteret, seems to have meditated for a long time the recovery of both. At least, the right of government on their part was on some occasions vio- lently contested by his officers. When, in the year 1679, Sir Edmond Andros, relying, it is supposed, on the co-operation of a party disaffected towards the Pro- prietary title, undertook to seize the reins of govern- ment in the name of the Duke, and with that purpose "issued a proclamation abrogating the government of Carteret, and requiring all persons to submit forth- with to the King's authority as embodied in himself,"* the spirited answer of the men of Newark shows that they, at least in this instance, were not wanting in fidelity to the existing authorities. It is on record that " the town being met together, give their positive answer to the Governor of York's writ, that they have taken the oath of allegiance to the King and fidelity to the present Government, and until we have sufficient order from his Majesty, we will stand by the same."+ But scarcely had they made this demonstration, be- fore Governor Carteret, yielding to violence, had by his own act demitted his authority, and "the powers that be" were for the present no longer the same .¿ In all these difficulties, candor obliges us to confess, the fathers of Newark conducted themselves with rare wisdom and uprightness.
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.