USA > New York > A short history of New York State > Part 4
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 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75
THE charter for New York which King Charles II gave to his brother James in 1664 continued the pattern of arbitrary government established by the Dutch West India Company. The Duke of York, unrestricted by any popular assembly, enjoyed the sole power to make laws and to govern as he saw fit. He appointed all officials and determined judicial matters, and these actions were subject only to the right of appeal to the Privy Council in England. As proprietor, he controlled the trade of his colony, fixed the imposts, granted land, and directed the defense, but he delegated many of these powers to his governors.
Several factors, however, curtailed these sweeping powers. The terms of surrender guaranteed certain rights, such as liberty of conscience and possession of private property. In addition, the charter of 1664 provided that all laws had to harmonize with those of England. Apparently James had little desire to rule autocratically, and he instructed his governors to treat the people "with humanity and gentleness." He consulted local opinion by selecting a few influential citizens to serve on the governor's Council.
James ruled New York for twenty-one years as duke, and for three years as king. His primary concern in New York was financial, and he took particular interest in the duties laid on imports and exports. But because the cost of maintaining the defenses more than offset the revenues, New York proved a disappointing investment. The governors found it impossible to enforce trading regulations and to collect imposts in the teeth of colonial resistance. The governors were no more able to satisfy provincial demands than to fill the duke's treasury. They failed
29
30
A SHORT HISTORY OF NEW YORK STATE
to solve several recurring problems: the question of boundaries; defense against the Indians and the French; the demand for representative government and home rule for localities; and the regulation of economic activities. Failure to meet these problems created social unrest which erupted in rebellion in 1689.
Colonel Richard Nicolls proved an enlightened governor (1664-1668) not only in conciliating the Dutch but also in establishing proprietary rule without stirring to revolt the autonomous English towns on Long Island. The governor, with the advice of a Council and secretary, col- lected the revenue, granted land patents, regulated Indian affairs, erected forts, and created a court system. He reconstituted the municipal govern- ment of New York, appointing a mayor, aldermen, and sheriff but leaving the powerful Dutch merchants in substantial control of city affairs.
The English towns on Long Island continued their campaign for a representative assembly. These transplanted New Englanders were not only accustomed to self-government but they also disliked the customs and trade regulations. In 1665 Nicolls established the shire of Yorkshire, consisting of Long Island, Westchester, and Staten Island, and he called a general meeting at Hempstead to which seventeen towns from these areas were asked to send delegates. The governor turned down their request for an assembly but he granted them considerable local self- government. He compiled a code of laws derived from the statutes of Massachusetts and New Haven and known as the "Duke's Laws." In addition to criminal and civil clauses, there were clauses outlining a system of local government. Freeholders elected a constable and a board of overseers. These officials were responsible to the governor, who also maintained some control over localities by appointing the justices of the peace. The laws worked well on the whole and were gradually extended to the entire province, but the fact that the initiative came from James and that he retained the power to appoint magistrates left the Long Islanders dissatisfied.
The jurisdiction of courts and the principles of law were of special importance in New York. Perhaps the transfer of sovereignty made citizens more sensitive to their rights under English and Dutch law. Perhaps the precarious validity of land titles made landholders and their challengers-tenants, governors, neighboring provinces, and rival land- holders-more aware of the need for a sympathetic judiciary. Perhaps the unusually large number of lawyers in the province stimulated as well as accommodated the litigious spirit of the inhabitants.
The British contended that the law of conquered territories was what the King willed. Thus the charter of 1664 granted the Duke of York plenary power to make laws provided they did not contravene the common law of England. At first glance the charter might seem to open
31
REVOLT AGAINST AUTOCRACY
the way to dictatorial control of the colony. Actually, the difficulty of enforcing unpopular laws so far from the seat of British power made this eventuality very unlikely.
The inhabitants of New York gradually developed their own theories as to what the law of their province should be. In general, the Dutch recognized the transfer of sovereignty, and Dutch legal precedents died away. The Yankees on Long Island were more tenacious in their con- ception of law-a curious blend of Biblicism, Puritanism, and the in- stitutions of local jurisdiction functioning in seventeenth-century England. Among the latter were the borough courts in the cities, the county courts, and the quarter sessions held by the justices of the peace in the county. On the manors were introduced the court baron, which handled ques- tions of tenancy and the petty litigation of tenants. Few manor lords felt it worth while to exercise their right to establish a police court (court leet).
At the top of the court system in New York was the Court of Assizes, consisting of the governor, his Council, and the several justices of the peace. This court handled criminal justice, civil suits exceeding twenty pounds, matters of equity, and appeals from lower courts. In 1684 this court was abolished and most of its cases turned over to a court of chancery run by the governor and his Council. The majority of civil and criminal cases were tried and received adjudication in the courts of session, three of which were set up in 1665. All cases in sessions were taken to a jury. Appeals were permitted only in cases where the law was in question or the amount of money exceeded twenty pounds. Township courts were erected, and justices of the peace presided over them. Local courts gradually absorbed the functions and jurisdiction of the manorial courts of New York.
Important territorial changes took place under Nicolls. In 1664 the King took away New Jersey and gave it to Lord John Berkeley and Sir George Carteret. At first only the land was assigned to the Jersey proprietors, but in 1665 they issued their Concessions and Agreements which assumed government powers as well. To the east, New York was also whittled down in size. Although New York regained title to all of Long Island, it lost its claim to the Connecticut River. In 1667 Nicolls agreed to hand back to Connecticut the lands east of a line drawn north from Mamaroneck.
Colonel Francis Lovelace (1668-1674) followed Nicolls' policy of conciliation and immersed himself in an ocean of administrative details. The restive towns on Long Island renewed their complaints against arbitrary power. In fact, Southhold, East Hampton, and Southhampton on the eastern part of Long Island petitioned the King in 1672 to restore them to the jurisdiction of Connecticut, but the petition was refused.
32
A SHORT HISTORY OF NEW YORK STATE
The outbreak of the Third Anglo-Dutch War led to the recapture of New York by a Dutch fleet in 1673. The peace settlement of February 19, 1674, restored New York to England. The Dutch reoccupation had little effect upon New York, although it caused Lovelace to lose his position and his property.
Major Edmund Andros (1674-1681) was an honest and devoted servant of the Duke of York, who overrode Andros' recommendation for an elected assembly. Although Andros threatened the rebellious towns on Long Island and warned Governor John Winthrop, Jr., of Connecticut to stop supporting them, unrest spread to Manhattan Island. Many merchants in 1681 refused to pay import duties, claiming that Andros had failed to provide for the continuation of the duties after his return to England in 1680. When Anthony Brockholls, the local commander in chief who temporarily took over the functions of the governor, ordered the collection of imposts, he met general resistance. The sharp reduction in revenue and the virtual collapse of the duke's authority forced James to agree to the formation of a provincial assembly. He realized that the co-operation of New York citizens was needed if his government was to continue.
To quiet the uproar, James sent out a new governor, Colonel Thomas Dongan (1683-1688), with instructions to call a general assembly. This body was to pass laws subject to the approval or disapproval of both the governor and the proprietor. Although it had power to raise money, the governor was to retain control over all expenditures.
The delegates, called by Dongan to sit with him and the five members of his Council, met at Fort James, near the present Battery, in the city of New York in October 1683. The first session of this assembly adopted the so-called "Charter of Liberties and Privileges," largely the work of the speaker, Matthias Nicolls. It provided for an assembly composed of delegates elected by freeholders and freemen. This body, sharing with the governor and Council the supreme legislative power, was to meet at least once in three years. Other sections of the charter provided for freedom of worship and trial by jury. The charter also set up a system of local and county courts. Both Dongan and the Duke of York ap- proved the charter, but the document was later disallowed by James after he became King of England in 1685.
Why did James reverse himself? Apparently the answer is wrapped up in his assumption of royal powers. James, acting on the advice of the Lords of Trade, hoped to strengthen royal control over all the northern colonies, partly for purposes of defense, partly for purposes of enforcing the Navigation Acts. To accomplish these ends, he deter- mined to establish a Dominion of New England which would include New York, New Jersey, and the New England colonies in a single
33
REVOLT AGAINST AUTOCRACY
governmental entity. Furthermore, James II disliked the principle of representative government either in England or the colonies. In any case, the charter was disallowed on the basis that it asserted too strongly the legislative supremacy of the governor, Council, and Assembly-an action which created much alarm in New York.
Meanwhile Governor Dongan was showing a firm hand and political skill in developing New York. He was the first governor to recognize fully the key position of the Iroquois in holding back the French and in guaranteeing to Albany a steady supply of furs from the western tribes. Dongan was also a skillful politician who shrewdly built a loyal group of henchmen. He strengthened the aristocracy by erecting several manors, and he aided the merchants of New York City and Albany by granting more privileges to those cities. Albany received exclusive right to the fur trade and shared with New York the monopoly of bolting flour for export. New York was designated the port where all foreign goods had to be loaded or unloaded. This order annoyed the residents of Long Island, who often found a better market for their products in Boston than in New York City. Hudson River trade was reserved for the freemen of New York City. The officials of that city alone could determine who should have freeman rights. These privileges irritated citizens in other parts of the province who complained of high prices and discriminatory practices.
Governor Dongan granted liberal charters to New York City and to Albany. The charter for New York City provided that there were to be six wards; each ward was to elect an assistant and an alderman. The six assistants, meeting with the mayor, recorder, and aldermen, were to form a Common Council. The Council had full power to make laws, orders, and ordinances not contrary to the laws of England and the province. To check excessive popular control, the governor appointed the mayor and also named the other city officials.
In spite of these concessions to some groups, New York citizens were ready for revolt by 1688. The abolition of the Assembly in 1686 had enraged many citizens, particularly those on Long Island. Farmers and country millers resented the monopoly granted to flour bolters in New York City and Albany. Seaports on eastern Long Island complained that regulations requiring them to funnel all their trade through New York City were ruining their business with Boston and the West Indies. Merchants outside the inner clique complained of high taxes laid without popular consent. The deteriorating economic situation caused by the founding of Pennsylvania in 1681 intensified these grievances. Phila- delphia merchants captured much of the trade of New Jersey, gained control of the fur trade along the Delaware, and diverted much of the tobacco trade from New York shippers. Rumors spread through New
34
A SHORT HISTORY OF NEW YORK STATE
York in 1688 that Governor Dongan and James II, both Roman Catholics, were hatching a plot to restore Catholic power in New York.
New Yorkers were incensed with the King's grandiose project by which they became subjects of the Dominion of New England under Governor Edmund Andros. Andros clashed with the citizens of Massachusetts and Connecticut, who opposed his efforts to foster Anglicanism, to collect quitrents, to impose higher taxes, and to enforce the Navigation Acts. In New York his deputy, Captain Francis Nicholson, earned the distrust of the populace by his autocratic ways. Tension with the French over the Iroquois and the western fur trade convinced many citizens that the French might invade New York as part of a Catholic conspiracy to destroy Protestantism in New York. Memories of the religious troubles that took place a century earlier made Protestants fearful of persecution. And the recent revocation of the Edict of Nantes in France (1685) made them particularly wary of the French. New Yorkers of Dutch descent recalled the suffering their ancestors endured under the rule of the Spanish Duke of Alva and the Council of Blood.
When James II was dethroned in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and Governor Andros was imprisoned in Boston by the colonials, rebellion in New York became open. Nicholson's delay in recognizing the new Protestant monarchs, William and Mary, lent color to the charge that the royal officials in New York were up to some mischief. A group of citizens formed a Committee of Safety to defend the province against French invasion and the alleged Catholic conspiracy. It selected Jacob Leisler, one of the wealthiest merchants, as commander in chief.
Leisler was a figure of controversy to his own generation and remains a puzzle to historians. In the eyes of royal officials, the Anglican clergy, and the aristocrats, Leisler was a firebrand inciting the rabble to rebel- lion. To the populace and especially to the Dutch artisans, he was the champion of freedom against autocracy, Protestantism against Catholi- cism, and the lower classes against the ruling oligarchy. That Leisler was hot-tempered and domineering is well established. That his ad- ministration represented a popular protest against corrupt rule by a clique of merchant-landlords is also evident. Under Leisler artisans served as officials, a representative assembly was reconstituted, and the people of New York City had their one chance in colonial times to vote for a mayor. Leisler also broke the monopoly of bolting flour for export held by the merchants of New York City.
The fiery governor ruled with some claim to legality. In December of 1689 letters arrived from England instructing Nicholson or "in his absence to such as for the time being take care of preserving the Peace and administering the Lawes." Leisler claimed his authority under these letters and always affirmed his complete loyalty to William and
35
REVOLT AGAINST AUTOCRACY
Mary. The merchants of Albany at first refused to recognize his right to rule, but the French raid on Schenectady in 1690 caused them to welcome the protection of his troops.
Meanwhile envoys denouncing and upholding Leisler besieged Wil- liam II to win his support. The new king chose Colonel William Sloughter, a weak person who was easily swayed by the aristocrats, to replace Leisler. Leisler played into the hands of his enemies by refusing to surrender the fort on Manhattan Island to an advance guard of Sloughter's troops. After Sloughter arrived on March 29, 1691, he picked enemies of Leisler as members of his Council. At once the aristocrats demanded revenge for Leisler's treatment of them while he was gov- ernor. Treason was the charge brought against Leisler and nine of his men. A special commission of oyer and terminer condemned Leisler and his son-in-law to death. Leisler appealed to King William for redress, but Sloughter denied the request and yielded to the clamor of the aris- tocrats for immediate hanging. Tradition has it that Sloughter signed the death warrants while intoxicated.
The revolutionary troubles in England and America had three im- portant effects upon the government of New York. First of all, King William abandoned James's plans for a Dominion of New England. Secondly, New York secured a permanent elected Assembly. Although only a minority of the inhabitants had the right to vote, the farmers had the opportunity to defend their interests. For example, in 1695 their representatives in the Assembly secured the right for all farmers to bolt, bake, and pack flour for export by refusing to pass any other measures. The establishment of the Assembly was thus an important step in the history of representative government in New York. Finally, the Council became the upper house of a legislature. Originally part of the executive branch, the Council after 1691 exercised both a legislative and a judicial function.
Leisler dead was almost as troublesome as Leisler alive. His memory split the tiny colony and bedeviled politics until well into the first decade of the eighteenth century. His followers tried to vindicate his name, while his foes, including most of the English, French, and Long Island Yankees as well as the largest landholders, tried to keep political control. For a time this feud obscured and complicated economic issues.
In 1691, at the death of Sloughter, the province of fewer than twenty thousand people was in confusion and the treasury was empty. The northern frontier was unprotected from French attack, as evidenced by the burning of Schenectady in 1690. The Council had chosen Robert Ingolsby, the commander of the troops, to hold the powers of the governor until the arrival of Governor Benjamin Fletcher. It re-established the courts and institutions of local government and, in effect, re-enacted the
36
A SHORT HISTORY OF NEW YORK STATE
charter of liberties of 1683. The aristocrats in the Council and Assembly passed vindictive acts against Leislerians, insisting upon punishment and the payment of damages to those who had lost property during the revolt.
In 1691 the Assembly reconstructed the judiciary. In place of town- ship courts, justices of the peace tried minor cases of debt or trespass. A court of sessions of the peace met in every city or county to handle criminal matters. Courts of common pleas, held in the various cities and counties, considered civil cases. The Assembly created a Supreme Court of Judicature which had cognizance in all cases, civil, criminal, and mixed. The judges of this court sat once every three months in New York City, and each judge made an annual circuit through each county of the province.
Two others features of the act of 1691 deserve attention because they were often the source of controversy between the governor and the Assembly. The governor and his Council constituted a court of appeals from which was authorized limited appeal to the British Crown in privy council. To handle cases in equity, provision was made for a court of chancery. The governor had the right to sit as chancellor of the court of chancery. This court was always the target of colonial suspicion. To most colonists it smacked of royal prerogative since neither Parliament nor the Assembly had clearly established this court. Furthermore, it seemed to bypass the regular courts and the common law. The governors upheld their rights in chancery and charged that the enemies of chancery were afraid to have their defective land titles examined. The right of the governor to create courts and define their jurisdiction became a burning issue and set the stage for the famous Zenger case discussed in Chapter 4.
Governor Fletcher (1692-1698) brought comfort and aid to the aristo- crats, since he realized the value of their support in carrying through his defense program and in lining his own pockets. Members of the Council received extensive grants of land. Fletcher also encouraged the illegal activities of some merchants who were financing and supplying pirates in the Indian Ocean. In fact the governor received bribes from pirate captains who used New York harbor to refit their vessels. Shop- keepers, tavernkeepers, and shipwrights welcomed the free-spending buccaneers.
Fletcher's successes, however, were not to go unchallenged. In 1695, the Leislerian faction won control of the Assembly, and it repealed the bolting monopoly and the penalties imposed on followers of Leisler. In fact, Parliament also agreed to restore the estates of Leisler and his family. Reports of Fletcher's venality reaching London resulted in his dismissal in 1697.
Richard Coote, the Earl of Bellomont, Fletcher's successor, who was
37
REVOLT AGAINST AUTOCRACY
also named governor of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, received instructions requiring him to annul exorbitant land grants, to check illegal trade, and to stop piracy; and these measures antagonized the aristocracy. He allied himself with the Leislerians, who won a splendid victory in 1699 when he agreed to acts exonerating and indemnifying "rebels" in return for a bill granting him certain revenues for six years. His attempt to nullify the large land grants alarmed not only the Fletcher clique but also landholders in general. Very few landholders wanted any governor to scrutinize and vacate land titles. When Bel- lomont died in 1701, Lieutenant Governor John Nanfan took charge and continued a pro-Leislerian policy. The Assembly outlawed certain magnates and tried others for treason. Ironically enough, Nicholas Bayard, who had brought Leisler to the gallows, narrowly escaped the same fate.
The appointment of Lord Edward Cornbury as governor (1702-1708) brought the Leislerian domination to an end. Governor Cornbury swept out all the Leisler officials from the Council at the top to the justices of the peace at the local level. This frivolous and grafting nephew of Queen Anne so debauched his office that even his aristocratic friends could not stomach his greed or tolerate his buffoonery. His greatest contribution to New York was to create such a scandal that the citizens of all camps were united in opposition and demanded some curb to his power.
Cornbury's mismanagement of public money combined with the deep- ening depression during the first decade of the century forced the Assembly to consider remedial action. Leadership in this body was passing into the hands of younger anti-Leislerians from the counties of Suffolk and Queens who also rallied the rich importers and exporters of New York City, Albany, and Suffolk by advancing a program of economy and free trade. In the hope of building up this trade of New York City, they urged the abolition of tariffs and port charges. They also opposed the regulation and protection of local industry demanded by the artisans.
The Assembly in 1704 asked for the appointment of a treasurer to receive and pay out funds. It also denied the right of the governor's Council to amend money bills. The British government strongly supported Governor Cornbury's position that his Council could amend money bills. On the other hand, it granted permission to the Assembly to appoint its own treasurer when it needed to raise "extraordinary supplies" outside the regular standing revenue. Thereafter all expenditures became "ex- traordinary" except for provision of officials' salaries, which Cornbury had secured for five years. As a result of his outrageous extravagances, public credit sank to a low point. The leaders of the Assembly, reflecting
38
A SHORT HISTORY OF NEW YORK STATE
their Connecticut background, began to advance the extreme position that the Assembly alone had legislative power.
The gradual transfer of effective power from the governor to the Assembly is clearly discernible prior to 1710. The leaders of the Assembly worked through parties with a disciplined membership. The basic di- vision was between the artisans, shopkeepers, and yeomen farmers, on the one hand, and the rich merchants and land barons on the other. Geographically speaking, this cleavage was a clash between the rich merchants of Albany and New York City and the small farmers in the Hudson Valley and the "Yankee" towns on Long Island. Of course, many exceptions obscured and contradicted this pattern. The jealousy between Presbyterians and Anglicans and the latent hostility between Dutch and English, not to mention factional feuds, complicated political develop- ments. The next chapter will show in detail later steps taken by the assemblymen of New York to perpetuate their gains over Cornbury and to enlarge their powers over the governors.
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.