USA > New Jersey > Hudson County > Paper read before the historical society of Hudson County. 1908 > Part 18
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
The pinch first came with the advent of 1670 and the first demand for quit-rent, as authorized by the concessions and agreements. There was a general refusal on the part of the inhabitants to pay the rent, and Governor Carteret, helpless before determined opposition, leaving Capt. Berry as his deputy, went to England to impress upon the authorities the sad state of affairs existent in New Jersey. The result was decisive and the opposition melted, before proclamations of the proprietors commanding obedience to Berry, and asserting the invalidity of claims held under the Nicolls patent. 10
Shortly after came the Dutch conquest of New York, to be followed closely by the reconquest of the English. Subse-
(6) N. J. A I, p. 49.
(7) N. J. Historical Society 2nd Series, I, p. 161, reg.
(8) N. J. Historical Society, 2nd Series, I, p. 160.
(9) Elizabeth Bill in Chancery, p. 41
(10) Lee I, p. 138.
7
quent to this double change of ownership which New York ex- perienced between 1673 and 1674 the Duke of York reconveyed East Jersey to Carteret. The patent which James obtained from the King after the resurrender of New York to the Eng- lish was an absolutely new one which according to English law annulled previous grants. Hence in the same way, the Duke's reconveyance to Carteret gave the latter a new and unques- tioned title to his part of New Jersey, and would in point of law necessarily rob the Nicolls patent of any possible validity which might previously have been claimed for it. And such was indeed the case, for with a single exception, all of the orig- inal Elizabeth Town associates obtained warrants for surveys under the proprietors, as was also quite generally the case in Newark and Piscataway.
For a considerable period there were occasional mutterings of discontent heard, but the twenty-four proprietors, into whose hands East Jersey had now come, never relaxed in their opposi- tion to any recognition of the Nicolls grants, and comparative quiet was maintained. This, however, was the lull before a formidable storm, which when its power was spent, was a chief cause of the surrender of the proprietary government to the crown. In 1693, when Jones ejected James Fullerton, a land- holder under proprietary title, from his land, the ejectment suit of Jones vs. Fullerton followed, which in the Perth Amboy court resulted in a decision in favor of Fullerton.11 By an appeal to King in Council James obtained a reversal of the decision. This decision was the match which kindled the smouldering embers of anti-proprietary discontent. The King was petitioned to grant relief from the Proprietors, proprietary courts were over thrown, and scenes of violence were frequent. In the so-called Clinker Lot Division,12 a great extent of terri- tory was surveyed and divided by the Elizabeth Town claimants in utter disregard of proprietary rights.
Indeed the Clinker Lot Right then did not recognize the existence of such an inconvenient abstraction as proprietary rights. At this juncture, as has been said mainly because of the inefficiency of the proprietary government, both the East Jersey and West Jersey Proprietors transferred their powers of
(II) Hatfields, Elizabeth, p. 242.
(12) Tanner, p. 79.
8
government to the crown, retaining, however, unaltered their rights to the soil of the province.
In the instructions to Lord Cornbury 1702, the first Royal Governor of the Jerseys, it was ordered that the right of the soil should be secured to the Proprietors by the passage of an act of the Legislature.13 At the Assembly's first session the so called "Long Bill" was prepared for this purpose, and in part provided for the invalidation of claims to land based on the Nicolls patent. Cornbury, disgruntled at what he regard- ed as lack of financial support, prorogued the Assembly before the passage of the "Long Bill", and this bright hope for a de- finite and final decision of the conflicting interests was shatter- ed. While Cornbury was surrounded by his inner circle of cor- rupt politicians, -a Colonial Tweed Ring-the interests of the Proprietors dwindled to a very low state. During his adminis- tration, the way was paved for great difficulties to the Propri- etors by the illconsidered grants of the two large Ramapo and New Britain tracts. During Governor Ingoldby's regime an ill-starred attempt to secure the right of soil to the Proprietors was made, but was practically smothered in an Anti-Propri- etors Committee of the Assembly.
Upon the succession of Governor Hunter in 1710 proprietary affairs began to take on a brighter hue. The new Governor took the position that property disputes should be settled not by legislative action but by judicial decision.14 An excellent theory that was, and just also, but the conditions were too stoutly op- posed to its successful and satisfactory adoption in practice.
Nevertheless a test case was actually tried in the Supreme Court with the natural result, a proprietary victory, for the court was admittedly in the Proprietors' favor. Numerous sur- veys were then made by the Proprietors and the dissensions seemed on a fair way toward settlement, but such a supposition subsequently proved to be a delusion, although in 1725, a case-that of Vaughan vs. Woodruff-had been decided against the Elizabeth Town adherents, they were averse to any conclusive settlement.
In 1731 suits of ejectment were brought against them in several cases, the case of Lithgow and Robinson standing as
(13) N. J. A. II, p. 517.
(14) N. J. A. XIII, p. 427.
9
the test. The tables were again turned, the case being decided against the proprietary interests. Encouraged by this decision the Elizabeth Town associates began bold proceedings. Funds were collected by assessment with which to maintain their claims to land title, preparations were made for dividing lands not parcelled out in the Clinker Lot survey, and in 1737 the associates themselves brought an action against one Vail, who held his land under proprietary title.
This case was ultimately decided against the Proprietors, but to offset the effect of the reversals in the cases of Lithgow vs. Robinson and Jackson vs. Vail, the Proprietors had met favorable decisions in other cases, resulting from ejectment proceedings brought by them against some of their opponents.
Such was the early history of Elizabeth Town purchase up to this time, then there had been certain decisions rendered, some in favor of the Proprietors, others in favor of this anti- proprietary party.
Little time need be spent in the consideration of the land troubles arising from the Monmouth Patent to 1738. This tract was granted in 1665 by patent from Gov. Nicolls to Will- iam Goulding and others, who had before the arrival of the English expedition purchased the land from Indians. It includ- ed lands between the Raritan and "Sandy Point" and extend- ing back into the interior for some distance. 15
Three years from date the patentees were to have settled roo families on the lands, and for seven years they were to be free from rent.16 When Gov. Carteret arrived, the settlers located there refused to recognize the authority of the pro- prietary title over the lands. When the quit-rents were demand - ed in 1670 resolute resistance was offered, but an agreement was finally reached between Berkley and Carteret, and the Mon- mouth purchasers, according to which in return for the sur- render of the claims under the Nicolls Patent the settlers were to have their land granted to them individually in accordance with the terms of the Concessions.17 This was more an ap- parent than real settlement, for the people of Middletown later showed their dissatisfaction, even professing exemption from the payment of quit-rents.
(15) Tanner, p. 61; Whitehead: "E. J. under the Proprietors", p. 45.
(16) Parker, N. J. Historical Society, 2nd Series III, p. 18.
(17) Tanner, p. 63.
IO
III-THE CONTEST DURING GOV. MORRIS'S ADMINISTRATION.
The varying successes of their suits seemed to have tanta- lized the Elizabeth Town settlers beyond their powers of en- durance, and they determined to put an end to the whole bus- iness with one fell swoop. To submit their case directly to the King was the determining stroke which they agreed upon. Mr. Fitch, a Norwalk lawyer, was engaged to draw up a petition to the crown.1 After stating the early history of the grant of New Jersey and the Nicolls patent. The petition asserts that Gov. Carteret "was so far from insisting on the said Lord Berkley's and Sir George Carteret's right to the lands purchased by your humble Petitioners' Ancestors" that he purchased Bailey's share .? In many suits, the petition continues, the petitioners have been successful, but by their continued eject- ment suits the "would be proprietors" reduced the inhabitants to distress. The Governor, Chief Justice, Judges and even juries were interested against the petitioners and hence there was no prospect for the distressed subjects except to be heard at "The Fountain of Justice" under Your Majesty's Royal Care and Protection.3 The King was asked to hear and determine the question, appoint disinterested commissions from the col- onies to decide or grant some other relief. There were 309 names affixed to the petition. It was read in Council July 19, 1744, and subsequently referred to the Lords of the Committee of Council for plantation affairs, and later to the Lord's Com- missioners for Trade and Plantations, but beyond that nothing is known of it.
In 1745 serious difficulties arose on that part of the Eliza- beth Town Purchase tract where Newark was situated. On September 19, 1745, Samuel Baldwin, a member of a Committee of Essex County, chosen to protect the affairs of the people in their land rights, was arrested for cutting logs on the so-called Van Gesin's tract. The Proprietors alleged that his conduct violated a legislative enactment of 1713, which provided that any man cutting trees on lands not his legal property "should be fined twenty shillings." In a demonstration, which must
(1) Hatfield's: Elizabeth, p. 366.
(2) N. J. A., VI, p. 209.
(3) N. J. A. VI, p. 206, reg.
II
have loomed before the little town of Newark as a dangerous riot, a crowd of Baldwin's sympathizers broke open the county jail at Newark, where he was confined, and released him. Governor Morris thereupon sent a message to the Assembly urging that the riotous condition of the province be earnestly considered, and that the disorders should not spread, proper acts should be passed, either a militia act or other acts.+ To this suggestion the Assembly replied on October 3d, by deplor- ing the lawless riot at Newark, but expressing the opinion that existent laws were sufficient to bring their violators to justice.5 The Governor could get little satisfaction from the lower house, for that common cause of dissention, the pulling of the purse strings, was at this time a bone of contention between them. Morris at least relieved his mind by retorting that even if the laws were sufficient to punish the rioters the Militia Act there in force could not quell such an uprising as then pestered the colony nor could the "Officers and Courts necessary to con- vict them, attend that service, -without salaries or some pro- vision to defray the charge of prosecution, which are not pro- vided, nor, as appears intended to be provided, by your house."
His Excellency ordered the Attorney General to prosecute any who had been active in the riot and at the same time, with the advice of his Council, directed the Essex County Sheriff to be diligent in the apprehension of the disturbers of the place and violators of the law, committing all such to any jail they thought most proper. The diligence of the Sheriff resulted in the arrest and commitment to the Newark jail of Robert Young, Thomas Sarjeant and Nehemiah Baldwin. But of these prisoners, Baldwin was boldly rescued while being taken by the Sheriff from the jail to the Supreme Court, and the other two were released from the jail by a crowd of rioters. Again the Governor appealed to the Legislature to take steps to prevent the defiance of government and contempt of laws, this time with more satisfactory results. The Assembly evidently saw the light, for a bill for "Better Settling and Regulating the Militia" was ordered to be brought in. Indeed the tone of the Assembly was so patronizing as to arouse suspicion.
There now appeared several publications designed to jus- tify the acts and claims of the contending parties. A commun-
(4) N. J. A. VI, p. 399.
(5) N. J. A. VI, p. 250.
12
ication of the rioters (February 1746) upheld the questionable proceedings in Essex County on the ground that the Proprietors threatened ejectment proceedings against all who would not subscribe to certain unreasonable demands.
It was thus the consequent exasperation of the people, that refused to contain itself longer because their "Rights, Properties and Possessions" had been invaded by the Propri- etors. In a lengthy statement sent forth from a Council meet- ing at Perth Amboy in March 1746, the Proprietors, after re- hearsing the history of the titles in dispute, pertinently re- marked that if any land deeds were taken based on any titles whatsoever, except "In the Name of the Lords, Proprietors of East New Jersey", according to an act of 1683 such transactions were criminal® and by an act of 1703 were invalid unless con- firmed by the General Proprietors within six months from the date of the act. Responsibility for the confusion in the prov- ince was shifted to the rioters who had "Set up sham deeds procured from strolling Indians, for a few Bottles of Rum". A tract which went by the name of the Horseneck Purchase figured largely in the ejectment proceedings complained against by the people. James Alexander, Robert Hunter Morris and David Ogden were the three Proprietors most heavily involved in this tract. According to the proprietary statement these men, with Ogden as negotiator, endeavored to have certain conciliatory propositions accepted by the people, but failed." Consequently ejectment proceedings were instituted, in any or all of which the issue might have been joined, an appeal to Eng- land taken if so desired and a settlement definitely obtained. The poor deluded people are urged by the Proprietors "To flie to the Mercy of the Laws for the Expiation of their criminal riots and to the Mercy of the Owners of the Lands they have been pillaging."
Two formal petitions prepared by some of the so-called rioters were brought into the New Jersey Assembly and read. One claimed to be from inhabitants in the northern part of the colony; the other from "eight persons chosen by a great num- ber of the inhabitants of the northern part of this province, a committee to represent and act for them " On April 26th, 1746, Samuel Nevill, an Assemblyman of exceptional ability and
(6) For the Act of 1683, See N. J. A. VI, P. 302.
(7) N. J. A. VI, p. 302.
I3
great prominence in the colony, but also a Proprietor, made an elaborate argument before the Assembly against the petitions. 8 Paragraph by paragraph both petitions were considered by the speaker and answered. Nevill concluded by moving that the petitions be rejected, but that the Governor "should extend His Majesty's mercy to those people by a general par- don, under such restrictions and upon such conditions as to his excellency shall deem proper." The movement toward an act of pardon, at this time progressed no farther than the prepara- tion of such an act, and this fact together with the impossibil- ity of the Council and Assembly's agreeing upon an act to pre- vent future riots did not bode well for the peace of the province.
In April, 1746, a communication was sent to the "House of Representatives" signed by seven rioters, reviewing Ogden's former proposal of a trial at law and professing their willing- ness to join in issue according to the proposal. A preference was stated that the action be brought against Francis Speirs of the Horseneck Tract. The General Proprietors agreed to bring an ejectment suit against Speirs and announced that their attorney would be at the next Supreme Court at Perth Amboy to sign the general rule for joining issue in the said action. Later the rioters complained that they were engaged in their opponent's cause and desired the Proprietors to release one of their attorneys that he might be engaged to appear for the pro- spective defendants. That the Proprietors refused to do on the ground that all those connected with their side of the case had been in charge of their affairs for some years, that there were many other attorneys in New Jersey and New York not engaged by "fee or interest for the Proprietors," and that the Supreme Court would require attorneys if necessary to serve the commit- tee of the rioters.9 These preliminaries all came to naught, for none of the rioters made application to the Supreme Court for attorneys nor took any steps to have a trial on their claims.
Governor Morris died on May 21st, 1766, and when Presi- dent Hamilton, acting Governor, met the Assembly in June, he called their attention to the distressed condition of the province, the inefficiency of all methods of relief and urged them to take rigorous action, lest they suffer the resentment of the King and Parliament. Later in the year, at President
(8) N. J. A., VI, p. 408.
(9) N. J. A. VI, P. 392.
14
Hamilton's request, Alexander and Morris wrote to the Lords of Trade complaining of the riots, and to the Assembly's inac- tivity, prophesying too that unless quelled the disorders would spread and effect the dependence of the plantations. While this letter to England was tinted to exaggerate the conditions, nevertheless it was true that the colony was not becoming quieted. On the first day of November the Assembly, having taken no action on the riots, asked to be dismissed, and had their request granted. Shortly after, the jail of Somerset County was robbed of a prisoner, and threats were made against Nevill, then a judge for Middlesex County. The only measure which the president could take was to issue a proclamation for- bidding the colonists to join the rioters, or assemble with them. But disturbances were beginning in Morris County, where one Darymple with his family was unceremoniously ousted from property which he had held under title from the East Jersey Proprietors.
In June, 1747, one of the most serious of the demonstra- tions occurred at Perth Amboy in Middlesex County, where a large number of armed men marched against the jail, and con- trary to the warning of the Sheriff, forcibly opened it and re- leased one Bainbridge, who was held under indictment for participation in the attack on the Somerset County Jail. The disturbances reduced even Chief Justice Robert Hunter Morris to pessimism, for in July, 1747, he wrote to James Alexander, that although the Assembly was about to meet he had no hopes of any effectual measures resulting, and that the Grand Jury at Amboy would hardly indict the rioters for riot, to say noth- ing of their holding them on a charge of high treason-the in- dictment which Judge Neville had urged upon the jury to re- turn. In truth, the outlook for the peace of the province was not encouraging, for with no remedy in sight, "persons who had long holden under the proprietors, were forcibly ejected; others compelled to take leases from landlords, whom they were not disposed to acknowledge; whilst those who had courage to stand out, were threatened with, and in many instances, receiv- ed personal violence."
Under these conditions there was convened at Burlington in August, 1747, the first session of the Legislature to meet under the inspiration of the puritanical Jonathan Belcher, the new Royal Governor of New Jersey.
15
IV-CONFLICTS AND PARTIAL ADJUSTMENT DURING GOVERNOR BELCHER'S ADMINISTRATION (1747-57).
The accession of Belcher had been regarded with great satisfaction by the disaffected persons in the colony, but so far as can be ascertained their joy was unavailing. As appearances go, it was however, not without foundation, because Belcher interested himself in the First Presbyterian Church of Elizabeth Town, of which congregation many of the defendants against the Proprietors were communicants.
But the Governor's first message to the Legislature must have left a discouraging ring in the ears of the Elizabeth Town claimants. A committee of the rioters sent a congratulatory message to Belcher soon after his arrival, expressing the hope that under his wise administration the disorders, which they regretted, would cease, and that the "Lord of Hosts" would "Arise for the help and succor of the oppressed poor and crushed needy ones."1 The good Jonathan assured the rioters that his duty led him to support the King's authority and pun- ish "breakers of the public peace" but, with evident faith in the maxim that "soft words turn away wrath, but the wringing of the nose brings forth blood", he promised them his protection "in all things consistent with Reason and Justice". In a second dutiful petition to the Governor, several of the distressed set- tlers frankly confessed that they had no intention or desire of sundering the bonds that held them to His Majesty's authority, but had acted only in defence of their own and their poor neigh- bors' rights which were in danger of suffering great harm.
In his first address to the Legislature in August, 1747, Governor Belcher urged that all departments of the government unite in an endeavor to suppress the disorders and restore quiet. To this address the Council pledged its support, and the Assembly acted in a manner which presaged and augured well for a harmonious administration under the new royal executive. The Assembly notified the Council that it had appointed a com- mittee of nine to confer with a committee of the Council upon the subject as to the ways to suppress riot and disorders, meet- ings of the joint committee to be held at the house of the Widow
(1) N. J. A. VII, p. 63.
16
Hunloke in Burlington.2 Much to the Council's impatience the proposed meetings were deferred, various excuses being given by the Assembly. On December 10th, after the Council had received news of a riot in Hunterdon County, it pressed upon the Assembly the urgent need of meetings of the com- mittees. The Assembly ultimately condescended and meetings were held. It had been rumored that a "tumultous proces- sion" of rioters was about to take up the march to lay their grievances before the Legislature.
The joint committee recommended that each house pass re- solutions discouraging any such demonstration. Such resolu- tions were passed, pointing out that such procedure would be not only dangerous to the peace of the province, but would also be an infringement on the liberty of the Legislature, inasmuch as the intended procession was desired to awe and influence the Council and Assembly. In January, 1748, there was laid before the joint committee a statement of facts, prepared by the Council Committee, concerning the riots and the remedies attempted by the government to put an end to them. To what extent the work and influence of the joint committee was re- sponsible for two acts which were now passed by the Legis- lature, designed to put an end to the disorders, it would be difficult to state. One of the acts had progressed as far as its second reading during Governor Morris's administration, but had then been defeated by the Assembly, while the other had at least been previously suggested.
The first act was for"Suppressing and Preventing of Riots, Tumults and other disorders within this Colony". It passed the three readings and received the Governor's assent in re- markably quick time. This act was modelled after the Riot Act of Great Britain, which declared it to be a felony "for twelve or more, tumultuously assembled together, to refuse dis- perse upon the requisition of the civil authority, by proclama- tion, in form set forth in the act". This measure was passed in February, 1748, as was also the second act, "An Act to Par- don the Persons Guilty of the Insurrections, Riots, Tumults and other disorders, raised and committed in this Province." The act recites that many are thus guilty, and as some had prayed supplication of the Governor, this free pardon was
(2) N. J. A. XV, p. 539.
17
granted them. Justices of the Supreme Court, or Commission- ers appointed for the purpose, were to receive pardons and ad - minister the oaths to the penitent culprits.
The mad rush for executive clemency which some had hoped for did not materialize, and it was not until the next August that any applied to take advantage of the act of grace,3 when nine rioters entered into bond and took the oaths. The Council advised the Governor not to dissolve the Assembly until the rioters had accepted the act of pardon; and the Governor acted accordingly. Some of the prominent councilmen felt strongly that should the Assembly be dissolved and new elections be held, rioting would predominate at the elections and there would be returned to the Assembly a large anti-proprietary majority. But that was but one horn of the dilemma. When this same Assembly met at its next session, what should be done with the rioters who had not accepted the act of grace, and they were decidedly in the majority? James Alexander, the prominent councilman, took the ground that once ignored, clemency could not be offered again. His solution naturally reverted to the necessity of strengthening the hands of govern- ment so that guilty persons could be not only taken, but kept and brought to justice. That something needed to be done to the "hands of government" was evident, for they now began to fight amongst themselves.
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.