THE HISTORY OF NEW-YORK. PART III. FROM THE REVOLUTION TO THE SECOND EXPEDITION AGAINST CANADA. WHILE Our allies were faithfully exerting themselves against the common enemy, Colonel Henry Sloughter, who had a commission to be governor of this Province, dated the 4th of January, 1689, arrived here, and published it on the 19th of March, 1691. Never was a governor more necessary to the province, than at this critical conjuncture; as well for reconciling a divided people, as for defending them against the wiles of a cunning adversary. But either through the hurry of the king's affairs, or the powerful interest of a favourite, a man was sent over, utterly destitute of every qualification for government, licentious in his morals, avaricious, and poor. The council present at his arrival were JOSEPH DUDLEY, GABRIEL MIENVIELLE, CHUDLEY BROOK, THOMAS WILLET, WILLIAM PINHORNE. If Leisler had delivered the garrison to colonel Sloughter, as he ought to have done, upon his first landing, besides extinguishing in a great degree, the animosities then subsisting, he would, doubtless, have attracted the favourable notice, both of the governor and the crown. But being a weak man, he was so intoxicated with the love of power, that though he had been well informed of Sloughter's appointment to the government, he not only shut himself up in the fort with Bayard and Nichols, whom he had before that time imprisoned, but refused to deliver them up, or to surrender the garrison. From this moment, he lost all credit with the governor who joined the other party against him. On the second demand of the Fort, Milborne and Delanoy came out, under pretence of confering with his excellency, but in reality to discover his designs. Sloughter, who considered them as rebels, threw them both into goal. Leisler, upon this event, thought proper to abandon the fort, which Colonel Sloughter immediately entered. Bayard and Nichols were now released from their confinement, and sworn of the Privy Council. Leisler having thus ruined his cause, was apprehended with many of his adherents, and a commission of oyer and terminer issued to Sir Thomas Robinson, colonel Smith, and others, for their trials. In vain did they plead the merit of their zeal for king William, since they had so lately opposed his governor. Leisler, in particular, endeavoured to justify his conduct, insisting that Lord Nottingham's letter entitled him to act in the quality of lieutenant-governor. Whether it was through ignorance or sycophancy, I know not: but the judges instead of pronouncing their own sentiments upon this part of the prisoner's defence, refered it to the governor and council, praying their opinion, whether that letter "or any other letters, or papers, in the packet from White-Hall, can be understood, or interpreted, to be and contain, any power, or direction to captain Leisler, to take the government of this province upon himself, or that the administration thereupon be holden good in law." The answer was, as might have been expected, in the negative; and Leisler and his son were condemned to death for high-treason. These violent measures drove many of the inhabitants, who were fearful of being apprehended, into the neighbouring colonies, which shortly after occasioned the passing an act of general indemnity. From the surrender of the province to the year 1683, the inhabitants were ruled by the duke's governors and their councils, who, from time to time, made rules and orders, which were esteemed to be binding as laws. These, about the year 1674, were regularly collected under alphabetical titles; and a fair copy of them remains amongst our records to this day. They are commonly known by the name of the Duke's Laws. The title page of the book, written in the old court hand is in these bald words, “Jus Novæ Eboracensis; vel, Leges Illustrissimo Principe Jacobi Duce Eboraci et Albanæ, etc. Institutæ et Ordinatæ, ad Observandum in Territoriis America; Transcriptæ Anno Domini MDCLXXIV." Those acts, which were made in 1683, and after the duke's accession to the throne, when the people were admitted to a participation of the legislative power, are for the most part rotten, defaced, or lost. Few minutes relating to them remain on the council books, and none in the journals of the house. As this assembly, in 1691, was the first after the revolution, it may not be improper to take some particular notice of its transactions.* It began the 9th of April, according to the writs of summons issued on the 20th of March preceding. The Journal of the house opens with a list of the members returned by the sheriffs. City and County of New-York James Graham, William Merrett, Jacobus Van Courtlandt, Johannes Kipp. City and County of Albany- Derick Wessells, Levinus Van Scayck. County of Richmond Elias Dukesbury, John Dally. County of West-Chester John Pell. County of Suffolk Henry Pierson, Matthew Howell. * All laws made here, antecedent to this period, are disregarded both by the legislature and the courts of law. In the collection of our acts published in 1752, the compilers were directed to begin at this assembly. The validity of the old grants of the powers of government, in several American colonies, is very much doubted in this province. Ulster and Dutchess County Henry Beekman, Thomas Garton. Queen's County John Bound, Nathaniel Percall. King's County Nicholas Stillwell, John Poland. The members for Queen's county, being Qua kers, were afterwards dismissed, for refusing the oaths directed by the governor's commission, but all the rest were qualified before two commissioners appointed for that purpose. James Graham was elected their speaker, and approved by the governor. The majority of the members of this assembly were against the measures which Leisler pursued in the latter part of his time, and hence we find the house, after considering a petition signed by sundry persons against Leisler, unanimously resolved, that his dissolving the late convention, and imprisoning several persons, was tumultuous, illegal and against their majesties' right, and that the late depredations on Schenectady, were to be attributed to his usurpation of all power. They resolved, against the late forcible seizures made of effects of the people, and against the levying of money on their majesties' subjects. And as VOL. I.-15 |