of towns, and, especially, when the Proprietors made the demand for quit rent, which fell due March 25, 1670, the discontent became more and more pronounced. This discontent, at first, assumed the form of objection to the payment of the rent claimed by the Proprietors. It was insisted that they had no right to such claim; that the settlers had obtained their title to land by deeds from the real owners, the Indians, or by grants from Governor Nicholls, of New York. This part of the controversy has already received some consideration and it is only introduced again for the purpose of showing what seems to be the real origin of the dispute.

From rejecting the right of the Proprietors to collect quit rent, it was an easy step to the rejection of their right of governing. The inhabitants of both provinces, especially in East Jersey, very early after the demand of the proprietors for the payment of rent, loudly protested against the further exercise of their right of ruling claimed by them. It was argued that the grant by Charles II to his brother James, might possibly have conveyed that right to him, but that, when the Duke conveyed to Berkeley and Carteret, he did not, and he could not, transfer any authority of government. Of course, it was further argued that if James did not transfer that, authority, or, if he could not, any subsequent conveyance of it by him, or by his assignees, would be inoperative and void.

Despite his grant to Berkeley and Carteret and the subsequent conveyances based upon that grant, by means of which West Jersey was eventually transferred to William Penn and his associates, the Duke of York, up to 1680, asserted the right to lay impost duties on all merchandise carried in vessels up the Delaware, and, in fact, had established a sort of custom house on that river where he intercepted the vessels. This claim was stoutly resisted, and was finally surrendered by James. There are fortunately some bits of correspondence still in existence. which throw light on the subject. The Duke had a Secretary, Sir John Werden. In February, 1675, Sir John wrote to Governor Andross: "I had almost forgot to tell you that you have as yet done nothing towards the adjusting of Sir George Carteret's pretensions in New Jersey, where I presume you will take care to keep all things in the same posture (as to the Duke's prerogatives and profits) as they were in your predecessor's time, until you shall hear of some alterations agreed to here." Undoubtedly Sir John Werden in writing this letter to Andross, had the support of his patron. He would hardly have dared interfere without it, in so important a matter.

In August, 1676, the Secretary writes again to the Governor: "I add thus much further in relation to Sir George Carteret's Colony of New Jersey, it is that I have acquainted his Royal Highness with what Mr. Dyre wrote to me about his late bickering with Captain Carteret, for not letting a present pass, &c. And though small matters are hardly worth notice, where Sir George Carteret himself is concerned (for whom the Duke hath much esteem and regard), I do not find that the Duke is at all inclined to let go any part of his prerogative which you and your predecessors have all along constantly asserted in his behalf, and so, though at present in respect to Sir George we soften things all we may, not to disturb his choler (for in truth the passion of his inferior officers so far infects him as puts him on demands which he hath no colour of right to), I verily believe should his foot chance to slip, those who succeed him must be content with less civility than we show him in this point, since that we should exercise that just authority his Royal Highness hath, without such reserves as though intended but favours now, may if confirmed, redound too much to the prejudice of your Colony." These letters undoubtedly had much to do with the oppressive acts inflicted by Andross upon the people of New Jersey.

The Commissioners of West Jersey made such an outcry against the exactions of the Duke of York and his agents that James was, at last, driven to have a consultation with Sir William Jones, an eminent lawyer of his time, in London. This Sir William Jones was probably an ancestor of the great Sir William Jones of the eighteenth century, the distinguished Eastern scholar and Judge under the East India Company over a large portion of Hindostan, whose discoveries in the Sanscrit language have made him famous.

On August 6, 1680, this memorandum was written: "Mr. Byllinge, for himself and others, having long insisted on their right derived from the Duke's grant to Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret, (as Proprietors of West New Jersey in America,) to be exempt from paying interest in customs or other duties, or being any ways under the jurisdiction of New York, but alleging the said West New Jersey to be wholly independent there: After many hearings by the appointments of his Royal Highness who was pleased to refer the whole matter to the decision of Sir William Jones, &c., at the last Sir William Jones gave his opinion under his own hand as followeth :

"I do humbly certify, that having heard what hath been insisted on

for his Royal Highness to make good the legality of the demand of five per cent. from the inhabitants of New Jersey, I am not satisfied (by anything I have yet heard) that the Duke can demand that or any other duty from the inhabitants of those lands. And that which makes the case the stronger against his Royal Highness is, that these inhabitants claim under a grant from his Royal Highness to the Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret, in which grant there is no reservation of any profit, or so much as jurisdiction."

"Wm. Jones.'

The Duke at once recognized the force of this opinion of the learned lawyer and on the 6th day of August, 1680, commanded his Secretary "to bring him a Deed of Confirmation (or Release) tendered by Mr. Byllinge, the more formally to convey the said West New Jersey to him and the rest of the Proprietors, and plainly to extinguish the demand of any Customs or other duties from them (save the rent reserved as at the first). His Royal Highness, through his Council at Law (Sir John Churchill and Sir George Jeffrey being both absent,) had neither drawn nor signed it, was pleased to execute the same accordingly, by reason that Mr. Byllinge urged the necessity of it now, to have the benefit of the ships' present voyage, some being now ready to sail unto those parts of West New Jersey above mentioned."

There is a word in this opinion of Sir William Jones which gives an insight into the manners of the time. A great lawyer "humbly" certifies his opinion to his client. Lawyers do not seem to have been held in high estimation, at least, by some of the inhabitants of the Colony. Among the inducements to immigration sent to the mother country, about that time, was this: That there were no lawyers nor ministers within the whole bounds of the colony!

In pursuance of these instructions by the Duke, a deed was prepared and executed by him to William Penn, Gawen Lawry, Nicholas Lucas, John Eldridge and Edmond Warner. This deed dated the 6th of August, 1680, after reciting the grant made to Berkeley and Carteret and the several deeds by which the grantees of this second conveyance became vested with the title to West New Jersey, and that, in consideration of a competent sum of lawful English money, paid to him, and for the better extinguishing of all such claims and demands, as his said Royal Highness may any ways have, of, or in the premises aforesaid, now called West New Jersey, or any part of them; and for the further and better settling, conveying, assuring, and confirming of the same,

and of every part thereof, according to the purport and true meaning of "these premises, hath granted, bargained, sold and confirmed and by these presents doth grant, bargain, sell, and confirm unto the said William Penn, Gawen Lawry, Nicholas Lucas, John Eldridge, and Edmund Warner, all that part, share and portion, and all those parts, shares and portions of all that entire tract of land, and all those entire premises so granted by his said Royal Highness unto the said John Lord Berkeley, and Sir George Carteret, and their heirs as aforesaid, as in, by, and upon the said partition aforesaid, was and were vested in the said William Penn, Gawen Lawry, and Nicholas Lucas, and their heirs, and then agreed to be called by the name of West New Jersey, together with all islands, bays, rivers, waters, forts, mines quarries, royalties, franchises, and appurtenances whatsoever, to the same belonging, or in any wise appertaining. And all the estate, right, title, interest, reversion, remainder, claim and demand whatsoever, as well in law as in equity, of him the said James, Duke of York, of, into, and out of the same, or any part or parcel of the same; as also the free use of all bays, rivers and waters, leading unto or lying between the said premises, or any of them in the said parts of America, for navigation, free trade, fishing or otherwise."

This put an end to the pretensions of the Duke and the Delaware River was open to all comers to bring in their commodities for the purpose of sale or barter with the inhabitants of the Colony. Free trade with all the rest of the world was declared and became the law of the Province.

A new order of things was now about to obtain in both provinces. Up to this period the Colony had been in a formative state, subject, at first, to the authority of two English noblemen, but soon passing under the control of a constantly increasing number of rulers. These rulers, though invested with governmental authority, really had behind them no power by which they could enforce any legislation. They were simply "Lords Proprietors," to whom had been granted an authority which was disputed. They had no army by which they could quell insurrection. There were at first some few courts established by the people themselves, but, of course, through them they could secure no relief. Some courts had been organized by the Legislature prior to the close of the 17th century, but they also seemed powerless. The position was an anomalous one for the rulers and the ruled, and it was better for all parties that there should be a change.

The inhabitants had largely increased in number; there were certainly, at the close of the seventeenth century, more than 10,000 people in New Jersey; towns had sprung up which had assumed an importance in governmental affairs. Legislatures had been summoned, but the popular branch had been controlled by representatives from the people who were never, at any period in the history of the Colony prior to this time, in accord with the Proprietors. The people had contemned the authority of those who had the right to exercise that authority; they refused to obey laws; to pay the expenses of the government; they broke open the doors of the jails and rescued prisoners who were confined under lawful process. The attrition between the Proprietors and their subjects was constantly increasing in force and virulence, and there seemed no possibility of the breach being closed. The increase in the number of Proprietors in both provinces, already referred to, presented another difficulty. The interests of these owners, in many cases, were divergent, clashing with each other; each one had his own favorite scheme, and, of course, there was confusion. This was particularly the case in East Jersey, where the people became more and more restive and often broke out into actual rebellion and absolute riot.

The following fact will somewhat illustrate the condition of affairs connected with the holding of titles to lands in East Jersey where the Earl of Perth was one of the tenants in common. He was a staunch adherent of James, King of England, and one of the jury who, in 1681, had found the Earl of Argyle guilty of treason. Robert Barclay, who had been converted to the faith of the Quakers and who wrote the celebrated "Apology" in defence of his co-religionists, was Governor for life of East Jersey, and Lord Neill Campbell, the brother of Argyle, was Deputy Governor under Barclay. It is doubtful whether Perth joined in the appointment of Barclay or of Campbell; whether he did or not, the strange spectacle is presented of his important interests as a land owner, being committed to the charge of the brother of the man, in whose death he had been so instrumental.

Among these owners were Quakers and Roman Catholics, Roundheads and Cavaliers, Puritans and Episcopalians, those who insisted upon the divine right of kings to rule, and staunch Republicans. In view of this state of facts, it needs no argument to show that there must have been serious conflict of opinion as to the proper mode of action. Besides this, a writ of quo warranto had been issued out of the