Civil List and Constitutional History of the Colony and State of New York, Part 12

Author:
Publication date: 1886
Publisher: Albany
Number of Pages: 1380

USA > New York > Civil List and Constitutional History of the Colony and State of New York > Part 12

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).

England was now learning, what New York was soon to learn, that Parliaments and Assemblies are not impregnable securities against arbitrary power. The Whig party became disorganized, and a faction, known as " the King's friends," sought by employing the most corrupt means, by promises of place and bribes of money, to control Parliament. The Press now became to England, as it had been to New York, an agency for the protection of the people.

السو

102

USURPATION BY PARLIAMENT.

Bute was driven from office in 1763, and Granville took his place. In 1764, oppressive commercial enactments were passed by Parlia- ment, which led to earnest remonstrances by the Colonies. In an address to the Lieutenant Governor (September 11), the Assembly expressed the hope that he would " join with us in an endeavor to secure that great badge of English liberty, of being taxed only with our own consent." The Lords of Trade, in an address to the King December 11, 1764, said that the New York Assembly, in their address to the Lientenant-Governor, avow powers and make declara- tions of a dangerous tendency ; and they said of a letter from a committee of the Massachusetts Legislature to the Agent of the colony, that " the acts and resolutions of the Legislature of Great Britain are treated with the most indecent respect, and principles of the most dangerous nature and tendency openly avowed." They doubtless regarded the petitions of the Assembly of New York to the King, Lords and Commons, under date of October 18, 1764, as equally " dangerous." To the King the Assembly said, " The subject, by the laws of our happy Constitution, carries with him his allegiance to the most distant corners of the earth ; and the protection of his constitutional rights and privileges is the true reason of that allegi- ance." They claimed to "have the highest reason, from the hitherto uninterrupted enjoyment of their civil rights and liberties as individuals, to consider themselves in a state of perfect equality with their fellow subjects in Great Britain, and as a political body enjoying, like the inhabitants of that country, the exclusive right of taxing themselves; a right which, with the most profound submis- sion be it spoken, whether inherent in the People or sprung from some other cause, has received the Royal sanction, is at the basis of our Colony State, and become venerable by long usage." To the Lords they said : "Ever since the glorious Revolution, in which this Colony displayed the most distinguished zeal and alacrity, we have enjoyed the uninterrupted privilege of being taxed only with our own consent, given by our Representatives in General Assembly. This we have ever considered as the inextinguishable right of British subjects, because it is the natural right of mankind. * The amazing powers vested by some of the late acts of trade in the Judges of the Vice-Admiralty Courts, who do not proceed accord- ing to the course of the common law, nor admit of trials by juries, one of the most essential privileges of Englishmen, has so unfavora- ble an aspect on the property of the subject, that we could not, con- sistent with our duty, suppress our apprehensions." At the same

103

RESISTED BY THE ASSEMBLY.

time, they were careful to remark that " the elaim of an exemption from being taxed by the supreme legislative power is far from in- volving in it the notion of independency." To the House of Com- mons they said : " An exemption from the burthen of ungranted, involuntary taxes must be the great principle of every free State. * * The People of this colony, inspired by the Genius of their Mother country, nobly disdain the thought of claiming that exemp- tion as a privilege. They found it on a basis more honorable, solid and stable ; they challenge it and glory in it as their right."

AGENT OF THE COLONY .!

The year 1764 saw the real birth of the American Union, in the first actual initiation 2 of the movement which had its culmination a few years later, in the first Continental Congress. Just one hundred years before this initial step (in 1664) the Articles of capitulation were signed ; and these Articles were regarded by the Dutch subjects of Great Britain as their Magna Charta. When they found their hopes frustrated they appointed the late Director-General their Agent at Court, to enforce their rights, as years before they had sent Agents to the States General. Stuyvesant appeared before the King in October, 1667. The Leisler rebellion 3 grew out of a boast by Lien- tenant-Governor Nicholson, that the colonists were a conquered people, and were not entitled to the rights of English citizenship. The vehemence of the party which sought to exclude the Dutch residents on the ground of being aliens was so great, that. in 1701 an Assembly elected by the Old Burgesses addressed a remonstrance to the King on the subject. Ont of this controversy grew the demand for a general naturalization act, which was extorted in 1715, in return for a vote of supplies for five years. An Agent of the Colony was appointed in 1695, by resolution, upon the suggestion of Governor Fletcher. His final accounting took place in 1699. When the con- troversy over the voting of supplies began, the Assembly undertook

1 This otlice was overlooked by Dr. O'Callaghan, in the preparation of the Colonial official register pub- lished in the old Civil List. The attention of the author was inst called to it by Daniel J. Pratt, Ph. D., and a partial list was given in some of the later editions of that work. Since then, Mr. Pratt's researches among the records and my own examinations into the relation of the office to Crown and People, and the controversy between the Governor and Assembly with regard thereto, have resulted in seenring a complete list of Agents, and in determining the place held by these Agents in the struggle for civil liberty. 2 See page 10.

3 Francis Nicholson was at this time Andros' deputy In New York. The people rose, organized as " Inhabitants-Soldiers," issued a " Declaration " May 31, les, and appointed a Committee of Safety [See Legislative Councils, 16-91. The Lieutenant Governor Nicholson fled from the province. Jacob Leister seized the Fort June 3, in the name of William and Mary, and was appointed its captain June a, by the Committee of Safety. On the 16th of August he was appointed Commander-in-Chief, and on the Ith of December he was made Lieutenant Governor, a Connell was appointed, and writs were issued for the election of members of Assembly. . At Albany, William and Mary were proclaimed by the municipal au- thorities, but Letsler was resisted until the Spring of 1690, when Miyor Schuyler yielded, in order to secure united action against the French and Indians, who were seriously threatening the province. In April. of that year, the General Assembly convened, every county being represented except Suffolk. Leisler was tried and executed for treason the following year.

104

AGENTS OF THE COLONY.

to secure the appointment of an Agent, but failed. In 1711, an act for that purpose was vetoedl. In 1712. the Assembly urged the sub- jeet on the attention of the Governor. An Agent was secured on the termination of the struggle in 1715. Various appointments were made until the beginning of the contest over the acts establish- ing a monopoly in the Sugar Colonies. The term of Peter Le Heup expired January 1, 1731. On the 20th of September, Samuel Baker, George Straatfield, Samuel Storke, Richard Janeway, Joseph Low and Rodrigo Pacheco were empowered to employ an Agent, but the plan does not appear to have succeeded. The following year, the General Assembly undertook to secure the passage of an act em- powering them to make an appointment. In 1741, in answer to Lieutenant-Governor Clarke's appeal to them to provide for the appointment of an Agent, they conceded the advantages. provided he was " depending on and payable by the General _1-sembly." The contest continued until 1749, when Charles was appointed by a rider to the appropriation bill. In his address to the Legislature in 1769, the Governor urged them to appoint the Agent as in other Colonies, by the Governor, Council and Assembly, instead of by the Assem- bly alone ; but the General Assembly responded in an address written by Philip Schuyler, that " it would be sacrificing the rights and diminishing the liberties of our constituents to adopt any other mode of appointment than that which has been practiced in this Colony for many years past." On the day that Philip Schuyler stood up and voted " NO," alone, on the resolution denouncing the paper which arraigned the Assembly for voting supplies to the soldiers 1 (December 17, 1769) he nominated Edmund Burke as the Agent of the Colonies, but the appointment was not made until a year later.

AGENTS OF THE COLONY.

AGENTS.

APPOINTED.

AGENTS.

APP INTED.

AGENTS.

APIN INTED.

Peter Stirvrant 2. William Nicoli .s .... Jalın Champublici Aslolph Philipse + ...

Ikt. 4. lige

Peter Le 11. . 00 )

Juin 10. 1:21

Elinund Burk 3 ..

1. . . 1. 1720

Sept. 1, 1716

1 Sec page 110.

3 .Appointed by resolution of the General Asseinbly. 1 Appointed by statute, JJuly 21, 171 -.

5 Appointed by ex-Gov. Hunter at the request of the treneral A .- ttably, who offerel him the Agency 6 Joint Agents ; ajgminted by resolution.

Jun- 26. 1:21. 7 Appointed by resolution November 5 aral by statute November 11. 1.26, to take effect January 1. 175; expiredl Junitary 1. 1:55 ; reappointed by statute July 12. 1:29. an I contintil to January 1, 1:31 by rose lu- tion alptel ( loter 2. 1:30; communication- from Him, under dlate of April 2s. Hiss, transmitted to the Assinddy September 12.

Prior La Hemp. ;.

.Jin. 1. 1:27

. Appointed by a rober in the appropriation bill, which was not ameidabke by the Council. Mr. Charles GAfe troin England with Patrick Gordon, Lieutenant-Governor of Pennsylvania, as his priv.il . . retary. all we by him recommended as Clerk of the Council of that Colony, to which position he was apprinted Spenil-r 1, 1.26. He was appointed a l'onamis -fourr to Marvian l in the matter of boundaries June 2), 1731, and assistant Agent to England with Benjamin Franklin, October 15, Fico, and succeeded hun as Agent.

COLONIAL CONFEDERACIES.

The Pequod war, which occurred in 1637, produced a desire for union among the eastern colonies, and this desire led to definite action in 1643. "The united colonies of New England " were then "made all as one." The objects of the confederation were " pro- tection against the encroachments of the Dutch and the French, security against the tribes of savages," and " the liberties of the gospel in purity and peace." This first confederacy formed among the American provinces included " the colonies and separate gov- ernments of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut and New Haven." The plantations of Providence and Rhode Island were not admitted. This may be explained, perhaps, by the reason assigned for not tak- ing in the people beyond the Piscataqua : " They ran a different course, both in their ministry and civil administration." Connecti- cut demanded for each colony a negative on the acts of the confedera- tion. Massachusetts refused assent to the principle, and Connecticut waived it. Plymouth led the way in determining that the acts of the confederation should have no force until they were " confirmed by a majority of the people."

In 1690, the General Court of Massachusetts issued a call for a Convention to agree upon a plan for the invasion of Canada. This call was not formally acted upon, an invitation from Lieutenant-Gov- ernor Leisler being accepted in its place, to meet in the city of New York for the same purpose. Delegates were present from Massa- chusetts, Plymouth and New York.

In October, 1745, a grand conference with representative Indians was held at Albany, at which Commissioners were present from Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York and Pennsylvania.

A Convention assembled at Albany June 19, 1754, to renew the treaty with the Six Nations and to unite upon some scheme for the common defense against the French. Delegates were present from

106

FIRST COLONIAL COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENCE.

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland.

Benjamin Franklin, a delegate from Pennsylvania, submitted to the Convention a plan for a union of the colonies. It provided for a President-General, appointed and supported by the Crown, and for a Grand Council elected by the General Assemblies of the respective colonies. It was approved by the Convention, but was rejected by the Colonial Assemblies because it gave too much power to the Crown, and by the Crown because it gave too much power to the people.

William Smith, a member of the Executive Council of New York, who was a member of this Convention, subsequently proposed a plan of Colonial union. It provided for a Lord Lieutenant and Council, to be appointed by the Crown, and for a House of Commons to be chosen by the Provinces. The Crown was to retain its ancient negative, and the British Parliament its legislative supremacy in all cases relative to life, liberty and property, except in the matter of taxation for general aids, or for the immediate support of the Ameri- can government. , This plan was approved by Lord Granville, but was not submitted to Parliament.

The first movement looking toward a Union of the Colonies against the aggressions of the Crown, was made by the New York Assembly October 18, 1764. It adopted resolutions approving the petition of the New York city merchants, relative to the oppress- ive commercial legislation of Parliament, and directed that the memorial be forwarded to the Agent of the colony at the Court of Great Britain, assuming the expense of urging it upon the attention of the Government. It then " Ordered that the committee ap- pointed to correspond with the said Agent be also a committee dur- ing the recess of this House to write to and correspond with the several Assemblies or committees of Assemblies on the subject-matter." of these acts, " and also on the subject of the impending dangers which threaten thie colonies, by being taxed by laws to be passed in Great Britain." This Committee of Correspondence was first ap- pointed April 4, 1761, and consisted of the New York members. On the 9th of December, 1762, Robert R. Livingston was added. The Committee was appointed at the first session of the 29th As- sembly, and continued throughout all its sessions, until it was dis- solved in 1768. The members of the Committee were John Cruger, Philip Livingston, Leonard Lispenard, William Bayard, Robert R.

107

COLONIAL CONFERENCES.

Livingston. On the 31st of October, 1765, at a meeting of the merchants of the city of New York, a Committee of Correspondence was appointed, consisting of Isaac Sears, John Lamb, Gershom Mott, William Wiley and Thomas Robinson.

In 1765, the General Court of Massachusetts resolved to ask counsel from the other colonies, with respect to the complications with the home goverment. In a circular, Samuel White, the Speaker, invited the several Colonial Assemblies " to meet in the city of New York, on the first Tuesday in October next, to consult together on the present circumstances of the colonies, and the ditti- culties to which they are and must be reduced by the operation of the acts of Parliament for levying duties on the colonies." The Conference was held accordingly. Seventy-eight delegates were present, representing Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and South Carolina. The Conference adopted a petition to the King written by Livingston; and another to Parliament, by James Otis, and set forth "a declaration of rights and grievances " to the people of England and America, " claiming the right of taxing themselves, either personally or by representatives of their own choosing, the right of trial by jury, and the right of petition." This declaration was written by Cruger.

NEW YORK DELEGATES TO COLONIAL CONFERENCES.

1690.

1754.

1765.

Jacob Lelsler, Lient. - Governor. Peter de La Noy, of Council.

1745.

James De Lancey, Lieut .- Gov. Joseph Murray. William Johnson, Yof Council. John Chambers, William Smith,

Robert R. Livingston, Philip Livingston. Leonard Lispenard. John Cruger, William Bayard.

Admiral George Clinton, Governor. Damiet Horsemanden, Lof Council. Joseph Murray, .

The New York General Assembly, on the 20th of November, 1765, approved the proceedings of the Colonial Committees, and in December adopted petitions to the King, Lords and Commons, claim- ing "the exclusive right of giving to the Crown all necessary aids, raised in the Colony either by duties or taxes," which were " free gifts of the people ; " but expressing a willingness "to submit in every other respect to the legislative authority of the British Parlia- ment," for the " powers of legislation and taxation are not insepara- bly connected." Two days after the adoption of these petitions, Colden wrote to Conway that " whatever happens in this place has the greatest influence on the other Colonies. They have their eyes

108

SUSPENSION OF THE ASSEMBLY.

perpetually on it, and they govern themselves accordingly." From this time forward, peculiar means were resorted to, to obtain control of the Assembly of New York.

The stamp act was repealed March 13, 1766. In June, Governor Moore notified the Assembly to make provision for troops, accord- ing to the requirements of the Mutiny act. They refused. Twice they were prorogued. In the fall, referring to the specific requisi- tions of the Governor, they said: " We cannot consent, with our duty to our constituents, to put it in the power of any person (what- ever confidence.we may have in his prudence and integrity) to lay such burdens on them." Again they were prorogued. Parliament then asserted its sovereignty by suspending the Assembly until it made provision for the troops, and imposed trivial import duties on goods entering American ports. The act of suspension went into effect October 1st, 1767, and was announced to the Assembly November 18th. Meantime, however, it had surrendered. On the 6th of June, it had appropriated £3,000 for troops quartered in the colony, paya- ble to the commander-in-chief, and it now proceeded to appropriate £1,500 payable on the warrant of the Governor and Council. The Lords of Trade gave it as their opinion, May 7, 1768, that the act of Parliament had been complied with, and the King expressed his approval in Council August 12. Henceforward, the Assembly voted money for troops, regularly.

A new Assembly was elected in 1768, and met in October. On the 31st of December, they adopted petitions to the King, Lords and Commons, in which they defined the issues with the ministry in un- mistakable terms. To the King they said: The late acts imposing duties on the colonies with the sole view and express purpose of rais- ing a revenue, were utterly subversive of their constitutional rights. The act for suspending the legislative power of the representatives of the colony they consider as still more dangerous and alarming. To the Lords they said that by the late extension of the Admiralty jurisdiction to penalties, forfeitures and even trespass upon the land, we lose the unspeakable advantages of the ancient trial by jury, so deservedly celebrated by Englishmen in all ages as essential to their liberty. To the Commous they stated that they had not the most distant desire of independence of the parent kingdom. It is there- fore with the greatest anxiety that we observe the acts of the late Parliament imposing duties on the colonies for the declared purpose of raising a revenue, while we lament as subversive of the natural and constitutional rights of the people we represent, whose property

109

INDEFEASIBLE RIGHT OF THE LEGISLATURE.

is by these aets granted without their consent. The act of the same Parliament, suspending the legislative power of this colony until they shall have made the provision required for quartering his Ma- jesty's troops, is still more alarming, as destructive of the very end of representation, for the people can derive no advantage from the right of choosing their own representatives, as when chosen they are not permitted to exercise that freedom of judgment inseparable from legislation. The same day they adopted resolutions declaring their rights and privileges greatly abridged and infringed by acts of Par- liament, and asserted it to be their right to correspond and con- sult with other colonies. They also made this bold declaration : "This Colony lawfully and constitutionally has and enjoys an internal Legislature of its own, in which the Crown and the People of this Colony are constitutionally represented, and that the power and authority of the said Legislature cannot lawfully or constitu- tionally be suspended, abridged, abrogated or annulled by any power, authority or prerogative whatsoever ; the prerogative of the Crown ordinarily exercised for prorogations and dissolutions only excepted." There is reason to believe that these petitions and resolutions were written by Phillip Selmyler. They gave such offense to the Gover- nor that he dissolved the Assembly on the 2d of January.

The new Assembly was elected under the cry of, No Lawyers and No Presbyterians. The lawyers were devoted to the vital principles of civil liberty, and the Presbyterians were engaged in efforts to secure religious equality before the law, which was denied by the Goverment. The Assembly met April 4th, 1769. The funda- mental principles held in common by all, under the violations of constitutional law by the Ministry, were to result in the reorganiza- tion of parties, and the division of those who had hitherto stood together in defense of constitutional liberty.

There was first the party of independent action, which thought by humble petitions to obtain from the Crown a gracious con- cession of colonial rights. This party claimed the rights of the English Constitution ; but it sacrificed them in obsequious defer- ence to the prerogatives of the Crown. It agreed to a firm address written by Schuyler ; and on the 10th of April permitted to pass a resolution offered by Philip Livingston, thanking the non-importers for living up to their agreement, and sustaining them therein, " until such acts of Parliament as the Assembly had deelared un- constitutional and subversive of the rights of the people should be repealed." On the 13th, therefore, Governor Moore wrote that the

حيه

110

CARDINAL POLICY OF NEW YORK.

new Assembly is tenacious of its power ; and so it seemed to be. But it contained the seeds of disloyalty to liberty, in that it regarded with superior veneration the law of allegiance to a King who was himself a traitor to constitutional liberty. It postponed Livingston's motion to re-adopt the petitions of 1768, and voted appropriations to troops. Parliament rejected the petitions, and the Assembly was prorogued in May.

When the Assembly reconvened in November, Governor Moore (who died September 11) had been succeeded by Lieutenant-Gov- ernor Colden. It was known that all duties were to be repealed except upon tea, and the people had resolved to stand by Massachu- setts and South Carolina in refusing supplies to troops until Parlia- ment abandoned all pretense of right to tax the colonies. The Colonial party still adhered to the principle that the exclusive right of taxation existed in the Assembly, maintained the right of peti- tion and of trial by jury, and condemned the sending of persons beyond the high seas for trial as " highly derogatory to the British subject." The resolutions adopted by the Virginia House of Bur- gesses, May 16, were concurred in November 29. But here the Royalists stopped. The bill to furnish supplies to the troops was passed by one majority. A denunciatory circular was thereupon issued, arraigning the Assembly for disloyalty to the People, the strong point of which was that they had deserted the common cause, by voting supplies under the pretense of duty to the Crown, thus condemning all the colonies which were united in refusing to do so.

"The cardinal policy of New York," says Bancroft, " was the security and development of colonial liberty through our American Constitution, based upon the union of the Colonies in one General Congress." The party of the Union felt indignant at the betrayal of the People by the Assembly. A resolution was introduced denounc- ing the circular as " a false, seditious and infamous libel." It was adopted by the vote of every member present, except that of Philip Schuyler. Its author, Alexander MeDougall, was indicted and imprisoned, was arraigned before the Assembly, and was ably defended by George Clinton. His indictment for libel was never brought to trial, and he was released in February, 1771.

The Boston Massaere and the repeal of all duties except upon tea occurred the same day, March 5, 1770. New York alone had been perfectly true to the non-importation agreement, and its imports had fallen off more than five parts in six. It was impatient of a system

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.

Civil List and Constitutional History of the Colony and State of New York, Part 12

Author: Publication date: 1886 Publisher: Albany Number of Pages: 1380

Author:
Publication date: 1886
Publisher: Albany
Number of Pages: 1380