USA > New York > New York City > History of the city of New York, 1609-1909 > Part 16
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 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82
159
DEATH OF THE EARL OF BELLOMONT
In England an attempt was made to impeach Lord Chancellor Somers for passing Kidd's commission under the Great Seal, and also the first lord of the Admiralty, the Earl of Orford; and Lord Bellomont's name was freely used by the agents of Bellomont's enemies in London, but a complete investi- gation vindicated Bellomont and the others who had fitted out Kidd as a pri- vateer.
The Earl of Bellomont returned to New York by sea from Boston, arriv- ing July 24, 1700, and continued his attacks on piracy and illegal trading with much vigor. So, although strongly opposed in his policy by powerful com- mercial interests he, with the assistance of Thomas Weaver, who had become collector, succeeded so well that the pirates found no shelter in New York.
The session of the General Assembly which followed soon after the gov- ernor's return did nothing of special benefit to New York, the only notable measure passed by it being to prohibit Roman Catholic priests and Jesuits from coming into the province, under severe penalties. After the session the earl went to a conference with Indians at Albany. He returned to New York in bad health, but in February, 1701, he had a severe attack of the gout, and on March 5 he died.
As with other rulers over countries divided by partisan rancor, there have been many estimates of the character and services of the Earl of Bellomont. The latest verdict of history is strictly favorable with reference to his govern- ment of New York, as it has been from the first with regard to his acts as they relate to New England. He was honest, fearless and zealous, and while not immune from error, was nearly always just in his judgments. He be- lieved in representative government and upheld it; believed in justice and worked with disinterested enthusiasm to right the wrong done by Leisler's death and attainder.
He was probably wrong about Dellius so far as the Domine's character was concerned. Dellius had been a great enemy of Leisler, and a favorite of Sloughter and Fletcher, but he seems to have been a faithful pastor and he certainly did good service in teaching and restraining the Indians. On the other hand his land grants were far more than any man should have been given, and the earl did a patriotic service in persuading the Assembly to re- voke them; for from Leisler's time on, Dellius attended more to civic than to ecclesiastical matters.
During the earl's administration the most notable building erected in New York was the new City Hall, built in 1699-1700. The old "Stadt Huys," built in 1642, had become so dilapidated that it had been abandoned by the courts and the Common Council. The property on the north side of Wall Street was owned, in alternate sections, by Colonel Nicholas Bayard and Abraham de Peyster. Mr. De Peyster, who was the earl's most faithful
160
HISTORY OF NEW YORK
friend and adviser during his entire administration, gave the land, and Lord Bellomont permitted some material from the old fort to be used. The corner- stone was laid in 1699, by David Provoost, mayor of the city, in which office he succeeded Johannes de Peyster, his brother-in-law.
Domine Selyns, pastor of the Reformed Dutch Church, who died in July, 1701, after a pastorate in that church of nineteen years, was not friendly to the earl's administration, having been pastor to most of the anti-Leislerian leaders. In 1699, the infirmity of Domine Selyns becoming apparent, Gaultherius Du Bois, twenty-eight years old, was called as his assistant, and two years later succeeded him, and was a prominent figure in church and civic affairs during a pastorate of fifty-two years.
CITY HALL, WALL STREET Erected in 1700. Demolished in 1812
CHAPTE R SIXTEEN
ADMINISTRATION OF LORD CORNBURY NEW YORK'S WORST GOVERNOR
Edward Hyde, Viscount Cornbury, who was appointed governor of New York by King William, was grandson of the first Earl of Clarendon, prime minister and lord chancellor of England under Charles II. His father, the second earl, was brother-in-law to King James II, and the son was, therefore, first cousin to Princess Anne, later Queen. He was edu- cated in Geneva, and in 1688 married a daughter of Lord O'Brian.
Lord Macaulay, in his History of England, describes Lord Cornbury as a man so mentally inferior as "almost to verge on intellectual imbecility," while he was absolutely lacking in principle, dissolute in his life, arrogant in his demeanor and violent in temper. His kinship to James II secured him place and preferment, and he held a commission in the household troops of that monarch. He held the confidence of the king as one devoted to his person and his cause, and he was supposed to be one of the most loyal of the Jacobites, but when William of Orange approached the city of Salisbury, Lord Cornbury was one of the first to abandon his uncle's standard, carrying three cavalry regiments out of the army of James to that of William. There was no matter of principle involved in this action, the only motive of which was the desire to be on the winning side, and this act of desertion was regarded, even in that day of easy political morals, as absolute and despicable treachery.
It was for this act that William rewarded Lord Cornbury with appointment as governor of New York, to which office he was commis- sioned in September, 1701. He did not sail, however, until the following March, two days before the death of the king, and he arrived in New York May 3, 1702. Upon his arrival, after having his commission publicly read and taking the usual official oaths before Chief Justice Atwood, he received the seal of the province from Lieutenant Governor Nanfan, who had administered the affairs of the province since the death of the Earl of Bellomont. Lord Cornbury thereupon administered the oaths of office to those members of the Council who had been specifically named in his instructions.
In the first important matter that came up for the governor's action, he aligned himself squarely with the anti-Leislerian, or aristocratic faction. This was in connection with Nicholas Bayard, then in jail under conviction for high treason. During the last part of Bellomont's administration the Leislerians were in full power, a majority of that party having been elected
11
162
HISTORY OF NEW YORK
to the General Assembly, and others having been appointed members of the Provincial Council when Bellomont dismissed councilors from the other party who would not support his endeavors to suppress piracy, or to vacate excessive land grants. After Bellomont's death the Leislerians became more strongly partisan in their actions, and determined to avenge the acts of their opponents in general, and of Nicholas Bayard in particular, who had brought about the death of Leisler and Milborne.
Chief Justice William Atwood had been sent from England to be head of the court in New York, where he arrived July 24, 1701. He had been selected because he was reputed to be an expert in admiralty law and therefore especially qualified to punish pirates and violators of the naviga- tion laws, in which direction Chief Justice Smyth, whom he succeeded, had not given much support to Lord Bellomont's efforts. The accession of Atwood, who at once aligned himself with the Leislerians, and the loss of office by Smyth, who had been their friend, added greatly to the dis- comfiture of Bayard and associates. The lieutenant governor, John Nanfan, was a relative of Lady Bellomont, and in sympathy with the Leislerians.
On the other hand, Thomas Noell, anti-Leislerian, was elected mayor at the annual election in October, 1701. In three of the wards the alder- manic candidates of both parties claimed election. The Leislerian claim- ants were sworn in by De Remer, the retiring mayor, but Noell, when himself sworn in, refused to recognize them, and the city government came to a standstill.
Bayard and his friends saw little hope of return to power unless Lord Cornbury (whose appointment had been announced, but whose arrival was delayed) could be won to their side. So addresses to the king, to Par- liament, and to Lord Cornbury were prepared, setting forth the Bayard view of the government of the colony under the late governor, the present lieutenant governor and other officials in which some statements were made which were considered sufficiently strong to base an indictment against Bayard and against Alderman John Hutchins, one of his satellites, for high treason. The indictment was founded on an act which, in 1691, after Leisler's execution for high treason, Bayard had himself prepared and had passed by the legislature and approved by the king. It prescribed the pains, penalties and forfeitures of high treason for those who should in any possible way endeavor "by force of arms or otherwise to disturb the peace, good and quiet of their Majesties' government as now established."
Asked for his opinion, Attorney-General Broughton, who had come from England with Chief Justice Atwood, said he believed no crime had been committed by Bayard, and therefore declined to take part in the prosecution, whereupon Mr. Weaver was appointed solicitor-general for
163
BAY ARD SENTENCED TO DEATH, THEN RELEASED
the government and tried the case before the court, composed of Chief Justice Atwood, with De Peyster and Walters as lay judges. After the jury had been out a long time they returned a verdict of guilty, and Bayard was sentenced to death by Judge Atwood. He asked for a reprieve, but was told by the lieutenant governor that unless he confessed his guilt he would be executed. Bayard made several equivocal expressions of sorrow and half-confession, but finally, learning that his death warrant was to be signed he sent the required confession, which, however, he afterward con- tended, was merely to gain respite until Lord Cornbury should arrive, and upon receiving this confession Lieutenant Governor Nanfan granted a reprieve "until his Majesty's pleasure could be known." When Governor Cornbury arrived he reversed all the proceedings against Bayard, and restored him to liberty. When the anti-Leislerians petitioned, soon after- ward, that Abraham de Peyster, Robert Walters and Dr. Samuel Staats, members of the Provincial Council, should be punished for their activity in the "late troubles," Lord Cornbury thoroughly aligned himself with the Bayard faction, dismissing these gentlemen from the council without a hearing, and appointing Dr. Gerardus Beeckman, Rip van Dam, Killiaen van Rensselaer and Thomas Wenham to membership in that board.
This arbitrary act of the governor incensed a large number of the people, and the New York Assembly, resenting it, passed an act to indemnify those who had sustained losses during the Revolution, which became known as the "Leisler Act." When the act was reported to the Lords of Trade in London they sent a peremptory order to Lord Cornbury that the Assembly should not be permitted to take such action.
A confirmation of Lord Cornbury's commission from Queen Anne was received Wednesday, June 17, 1702, with orders to proclaim her queen, which was done the following day in New York, and on the following Mon- day at Burlington, N. J., whence he went to Philadelphia and proclaimed the queen there the next day. On his return he found an epidemic (probably yellow fever) raging in the town. In alarm he went with his family to Jamaica, L. I., but found no place fit for his occupancy. The best house in the village was occupied by Rev. Mr. Hubbard, the Presbyterian minister, having been built for him by his congregation. William Smith's "History of New York" tells us that: "His Lordship begged the loan of it for the use of his own family, and the clergyman put himself to no small inconvenience to favor the governor's request; but, in return for the generous benefaction, His Lord- ship perfidiously delivered the parsonage-house into the hands of the Episcopal party, and encouraged one Cardwel, the sheriff, a mean fellow, who afterward put an end to his own life, to seize upon the glebe, which he sur- veyed into lots and farmed for the benefit of the Episcopal Church."
164
HISTORY OF NEW YORK
The action here referred to was executed July 4, 1704, by the sheriff on an order from Cornbury, whose plea was that the church and parsonage having been built with public money it could belong only to the Church of England. As a matter of fact the church had been planned by New England Puritans resident in Jamaica, who had raised sufficient money to purchase the ground and to partly build the foundation of the church. They were the insti- gators of the "Ministerial Act" of 1691, under which the church was finished and the yearly salary of the minister was paid. The congregation built the manse and the Rev. Mr. Hubbard, whom they called to the pastorate, ministered to the people and remained unmolested until Lord Cornbury suddenly developed a degree of fanatical zeal for "the Church of England as by law established," though it had, in fact, never been established in New York. Moreover, in 1691, when the "Ministerial Act" was passed, there were no Episcopalians in Jamaica. In fact there were less than a score of that faith there when Corn- bury had the Presbyterians ousted in 1704. The Presbyterians, contending that the governor exceeded his authority, occupied the church after being notified by the sheriff, until on one Sunday afternoon, when the service was in progress, a party of Episcopalians, under Cornbury's advice, broke down the doors of the church and drove the worshipers into a neighboring orchard, where Mr. Hubbard concluded his sermon.
Rev. William Urquhart, clergyman of the Church of England, was put in possession of the church and parsonage, and the salary of the Presbyterian pastor was paid to him. After his death, in October, 1709, his daughter, who married a dissenting minister, continued to occupy the parsonage with her husband until 1711, but was then ousted by Governor Hunter at the request of the Episcopalians, and an Anglican minister again installed, and the wrangling continued, the church being occupied for different periods by the contending denominations, while a fight was kept up in the courts which did not finally settle the matter until 1828, when the decision was given in favor of the Presbyterians, who thereafter remained in peaceable possession.
During the administration of Cornbury, the province was in a state of perpetual expectation of an attack from the French fleet which had been assaulting the British possessions in the West Indies. This had some good effect in inciting the colonial government to the repair and increase of the defenses of the city. Fifteen hundred pounds was appropriated to fortify the Narrows, but went astray of its purpose, Lord Cornbury taking the money and using it to build a country seat on Nutten or Governor's Island, for himself and his successors. There was much discontent expressed when this diversion of funds became known, and considerable alarm when the news came of the arrival of a French privateer of fourteen guns off Sandy Hook, following news that French vessels, off the capes of Virginia, had recently captured
165
THE ASSEMBLY OPPOSES CORNBURY
seven merchantmen. All able-bodied citizens of New York were set to work throwing up earthworks for the defense of the city, while Captain Richard Davis manned the Triton's Prize, which was the new name of a lately captured French man-of-war. He came up with the Frenchman at early dawn next day, July 26, 1706, and engaged the privateer until sunset, when in a dead calm the French vessel was carried out of range and sight by the use of the sweeps, and made its escape. Captain Davis, who had received an ugly wound in the neck during the engagement, returned and reported all present danger passed. The next day a report that ten large French privateers had passed inside of Sandy Hook created a panic, which was allayed by the later information that the ten French vessels were prizes captured by Captain Adrian Clavear, who was bringing them into port. For a time every incoming vessel was figured as a hostile Frenchman, until it came close to land.
When the panic had subsided the people began to talk earnestly about the governor's criminal perversion of funds; the City Council ordered that the aldermen should solicit subscriptions, each in his ward, for the fortification of the Narrows, and the Assembly, in view of Cornbury's misfeasance, insisted on appointing its own treasurer to receive and disburse any moneys the legis- lature might order to be raised for public purposes. This legislature was very bold and had passed an act to establish a free grammar school under con- trol of the corporation of the city; a provision which was very obnoxious to Cornbury, who did not believe in the education of the masses. He is said to have been dissuaded from open opposition or veto by Rev. William Vesey the rector of Trinity. The Assembly was a thorn in Cornbury's side, for it had very democratic ideas of its rights and powers. Even worse, from the Cornbury standpoint, was the Legislature of New Jersey, which refused point- blank to accede to his requests to grant him a salary of £2000 per annum for twenty years; and when he immediately dissolved the Assembly and called for the election of a new one in the spring of 1706, for the specific purpose of increasing and renewing his salary, he found the new body even less appre- ciative of his proposition than the old one.
When the New York Assembly made the right to appoint its own treas- urer a condition precedent to the granting of supplies for specific purposes, Cornbury tried to have it remove the condition; but finding it obdurate, and fearing he would have no supplies voted, he referred the matter to the home government. Much to his chagrin the reply endorsed the action of the Assembly and ordered him to permit the General Assembly to name its own treasurer, and this order was accompanied by a letter expressing a hope that his lordship would lay before the Assembly an account of all moneys raised by acts of Assembly whenever they should desire the same, and counseled him to moderate and persuasive conduct in dealing with the Assembly. When the
166
HISTORY OF NEW YORK
order of the home authorities was transmitted to the Assembly it appointed Colonel Abraham de Peyster to the office of treasurer, and appropriated £3000 for the defense of New York.
Katherine, Lady Cornbury, died on Sunday, August II, 1706, in the thirty-fifth year of her age. She had been in poor health from her arrival in New York, suffering from a pulmonary complaint. She had been married to Lord Cornbury eighteen years and had seven children, of whom only one son and two daughters survived her. Rev. John Sharp, chaplain of the fort, con- ducted the obsequies and preached her funeral sermon, and she was buried in Trinity Church.
Cornbury was a man of dissolute habits, and after his wife's death he became more dissipated. But he was regular in his attendance at church, posed as the devoted champion of the Church of England, and to emphasize his zeal was as severe as possible in his dealings with dissenters. Rev. John Hamp- ton, of Maryland, and Rev. Francis Makemie, of Virginia, being on their way to Boston, and calling upon the governor, were invited to dine with him, and did so. The few Presbyterians in New York had no church, so the next day (being Sunday), Rev. Mr. Mackemie preached to them in the house of a shoe- maker named Jackson, and Rev. Mr. Hampton conducted services in the Pres- byterian Church at Newtown, Long Island. When Cornbury heard of their preaching he ordered the sheriff of Queens County to arrest the two clergy- men, and bring them before him. When this was done, the governor told them that the law would not permit him to countenance strolling preachers "who might be Papists in disguise," for all he knew to the contrary, and that they had no right to preach in New York without his consent. Makemie claimed that having qualified in Virginia he was entitled to preach anywhere in the queen's dominions, and the controversy, which became very warm, was ended by the two clergymen being sent to the city jail, where, because Roger Mom- pesson, then chief justice, was out of the city, they languished for seven weeks.
At that time the great majority of the people of New York were of the Reformed Dutch Church, and there was a French Huguenot church in Pine Street, erected in 1704, with a congregation made up of refugees, while the few Presbyterians mentioned and a not very much larger number of English Episcopalians made up the rest of the churchgoing population. Even the lat- ter were not pleased at Cornbury's arbitrary action, while those of the other denominations were greatly exercised at his tyranny.
Rev. Mr. Makemie, while in the jail, managed to have conveyed to Bos- ton and printed the sermon which he had preached at Newtown, with a dedi- cation to those who heard it. This sermon, with the title, "A Good Conver- sation," now one of the most rare of our historic pamphlets, was an able and evangelical discourse entirely free from controversial matter, and it caused the
167
TRINITY CHURCH ACQUIRES THE QUEEN'S FARM
entire community, without respect of denominational alignment, to recognize the great injustice done to Messrs. Makemie and Hampton. They were ac- quitted at the trial, but with great inconsistency were condemned to pay the costs of the action.
During Cornbury's administration Trinity Church acquired its title to the great properties which it has since held, at that time known as the "Queen's Farm" and the "Queen's Garden." The Queen's (formerly "King's") Farm was a tract of sixty-two acres, the present boundaries of which are the Hud- son River, Christopher Street, Bedford Street, West Houston Street, Sullivan Street, Canal Street, West Broadway, Barclay Street, Broadway to Fulton Street, and on that street west to the river again. The tract was granted to Roeloff Jansen by Governor Wouter van Twiller, in 1636. Jansen died a few months after receiving the grant, leaving his widow, Annetje Jansen (name corrupted into "Annetje Jans"), with four children. The widow married Do- mine Everardus Bogardus in 1638, and had four other children by him. Bo- gardus was drowned September 27, 1647, and in 1654 the property, then popu- larly known as "the Domine's Bouwerie" was confirmed by patent from Gov- ernor Stuyvesant to the widow, and again confirmed by the English govern- ment in 1664. It was conveyed in 1671, by the heirs, to Governor Lovelace, and was afterwards known as the King's Farm; and it was the failure of Cor- nelius Bogardus, one of the heirs, to join in this conveyance, which brought the long-continued "Anneke Jans" litigation, which was only ended a decade or two ago. The farm was leased to Trinity Church by Governor Fletcher, but the lease was terminated by the Earl of Bellomont. Mr. Vesey, the rector of Trinity, had set his heart on securing the property for the church, in per- petuity, and Lord Cornbury who made great outward profession of zeal for the Church of England, secured from Queen Anne, in 1705, a grant, by let- ters patent under the great seal of the Province of New York, "to the Rector and Inhabitants of the City of New York in Communion with the Church of England," which included not only the Queen's Farm, but also another tract, known as the Queen's Garden, a tract south of Trinity Church, extending west from Broadway to low water mark on the Hudson River.
The act of the queen and Lord Cornbury in making this grant was very obnoxious to the great majority of the people of New York, although it was only one of many of the grievances which the citizens of New York held against that disgraceful personage. The New York Assembly appointed a Committee on Grievances, which made out a formidable list of tyrannies, arbitrary exac- tions, and peculations of the governor, which they sent to the home govern- ment, accompanied by many petitions from citizens of New York and New Jersey asking for his recall. Lord Cornbury, thoroughly alarmed, called his Council together and had them pass a resolution exonerating him from all the
168
HISTORY OF NEW YORK
charges of corruption; but, the showing made against the governor was too strong to be overcome by this finding of his satellites, and Lord Cornbury was deposed from the governorship. John, Lord Lovelace, Baron of Hurley, was appointed governor as his successor.
Cornbury was a weak, effeminte, immoral man, a political adventurer without conscience or character. He amused himself in all kinds of sensual pleasures, and had so little personal dignity that he delighted to don female attire and walk around the fort thus dressed, in view of the soldiers of the garrison. The fact that he did so is mentioned in nearly all the narratives of his doings, and the only guess that has been hazarded as a possible reason for this conduct is that, so attired, his physical resemblance to his cousin, the queen, was made very evident. As an administrator there is scarcely any- thing to his credit. He was a bribe-taker, he appropriated public funds to his own use, was thoroughly selfish and dishonest, dissolute in his conduct, and absolutely depraved. When he was no longer governor he was thrown in jail for his private debts, for he scarcely ever had paid a personal bill, but upon the death of his father he paid his debts and left for England to take his seat in the House of Lords as the third Earl Clarendon. The verdict of history is practically unanimous, that he was the worst governor New York ever had.
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.