Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

"Article XI.

Probate of wills is usually in the King's Governor, but he may appoint commissaries for executing the same in any part of his government."

"Article XII. We have no other objection than that this power is usually in the Governor."

"Article XIII. This article may be reasonable, except as to the goods and chattles of traitors, fugitives and persons out-law'd, which is matter of state; nor can right accruing to the Proprietors from the seas adjacent be well circumscribed; the grant also of 1682, ought to be duly considered, and such particulars therein as are proper may be allowed of, without such a general and determined reference."

The "Memorial" was duly signed on behalf of the Proprietors of East Jersey, and West Jersey does not seem to have taken any active part in promoting the surrender. A joint action of the two Provinces, of course, was desirable and, in fact, absolutely necessary to accomplish completely the desired object of the negotiations. A united "humble" petition of the Proprietors of East and West Jersey was presented "to their excellencies the Lords Justices of England;" but exactly at what date cannot be ascertained. It was, however, after the death of James II, as he is referred to in the document, as the "late" King and was probably not earlier than 1699. This petition undoubtedly had for its main object the reappointment of Colonel Andrew Hamilton as Governor of New Jersey. Hamilton was a Scotchman; his right to the office had been very seriously questioned and he had been removed. Subsequently, advice had been taken by the Proprietors from learned lawyers, as to his eligibility, and it had been decided by them that he was legally qualified.

The petitioners claimed that they were entitled to the government over both the provinces and based their claim upon the several grants and conveyances alluded to in the "Memorial." In connection with this claim, they use language which shows that there had been joint action between the two provinces. They say: "Your petitioners have. agreed and are ready to surrender all their right of government to his Majesty, upon such terms and conditions as are requisite for preservation of their properties and civil interests, and which they humbly hope will be allowed to them."

This petition was probably presented between the reception by the Council of the "Memorial" and their answer. There seems to have been two principal subjects of contention between the Proprietors and

the Council; one, the establishment of a port of entry at Perth Am boy; and the other, that New Jersey should be placed upon an equality with New York in all matters of representation.

Perth Amboy was settled in 1680, by Scotch immigrants, under the patronage of the Earl of Perth. Its Indian name was Ambo, by which it was long known. The early colonists called it Perth, in honor of their patron, who was one of the Proprietors of East Jersey, the two names being afterwards united. Its early advantages as an emporium of trade had been noticed by the thoughtful men of the Province and vigorous efforts were made to secure for it the position of a port of entry. The town is situated on an eminence at the mouth of the river Raritan, which is navigable for about twenty miles, and opposite Raritan Bay and the southern end of Staten Island. The bay was a safe roadstead and had sufficient water to float vessels of the largest size. The port was easier of access and nearer to the ocean than New York, and it seemed for a time as if Amboy might become her successful rival. The Proprietors, foreseeing the great advantage to be derived by the whole colony, if Amboy should be made a port of entry, were eager in pressing for the royal assent. On the 15th day of January, 1699, O. S., they made a short reply to the "Opinion and Answer" of the Lords Commissioners, in which they speak of the "dubious answer" returned to their proposal "concerning the establishment of a port at Perth Amboy." This answer is principally directed to an argument showing not only the propriety, but the justice, of consenting to the proposal. They close their answer with these suggestive words: "The Proprietors do further crave leave to mention, that if their desire of a port is once granted, they do not foresee any great difficulty to adjust with your lordships the other articles mentioned in their 'Memorial.'

On the 12th of August, 1701, the Proprietors of the two provinces presented their joint "Memorial" directed to the king, which is, in many respects, a repetition of that sent to the Council by the Proprietors of East Jersey. It, however, enters more into the argument connected with the establishment of ports of entry in New Jersey. Notwithstanding their insistment of their right to ports of entry in their colony, they seem willing to forego their claim. For, after arguing upon this right and referring to a trial between Jeremiah Basse, Governor of New Jersey and the Earl of Belloment, where the question was incidentally raised and settled by the Court of King's

Bench, they say this: "They are notwithstanding ready and desirous in obedience to his Majesty's pleasure, to surrender all right of government there, in humble hope and confidence, that as his royal wisdom prompts him to resume the American proprietary government into his more immediate administration, so his justice and goodness will incline him to grant the Proprietors all reasonable privileges, which are necessary to preserve their civil rights and the interests of the planters, and which are not inconsistent with his Majesty's service or royal authority."

The second point of contention between the Proprietors and the Council, above referred to, was very easily disposed of, although, at the time the contention arose, it was a very serious question.

The desire which the Proprietors had to place New Jersey on an equality with New York, was certainly a proper one, as it was then the plan that the two provinces should be consolidated under the same government, with one governor and one legislature. This difficulty was, however, obviated by the retention by New Jersey of an inde pendent government, with a legislature elected by the people.

On the 2d of October, 1701, the Board of Trade, then a most im portant body of men in England, in reply to certain requests made by the Lords Justices, presented their opinion, first, as to the right of government claimed by the Proprietors; and, second, as to the expediency of the King accepting the surrender. Their opinion was, that there was no right of government then existing in the Proprietors, and, that it was expedient for the Crown to assume the government of the provinces and to appoint a governor "over those provinces by his immediate commission." They also advised that proper instructions should be given to the governor so to be appointed, but that such com mission and instructions should be presented to the Proprietors for their acquiescence.

Early in 1702, Anne, daughter of James II, whose right to the throne had been secured by the "Act of Succession," which limited the title to the Protestant branch of the Stuart family, became Queen of England. On the 15th day of April, of the same year, by the joint act of the Proprietors of both provinces, a full and unconditional surrender. of the right of government was made by deed, signed and sealed by twenty four Proprietors of East Jersey and by thirty-two of West Jersey. This surrender cited the several grants by King Charles to his brother, the conveyances by York to Berkeley and Carteret and the

mesne conveyances to the several Proprietors, who are mentioned by name in the body of the surrender. On the 17th of April, 1702, the Queen accepted the surrender and assumed the government over the two provinces.

On the 5th day of September, 1702, the Queen appointed her cousin, Edward Hyde, Lord Viscount Cornbury, governor of the whole of New Jersey, thus consolidating the two provinces. This surrender to Queen Anne and her subsequent action in appointing Cornbury, Governor, transferred the province and all governmental authority over it, to the Crown. The Grants and Concessions" of Berkeley and Carteret, the "Concessions and Agreements" and the "Fundamentals" of the Proprietors of West Jersey had no further validity or binding force. The Queen and her advisers were undoubtedly of the opinion that their operation ceased, and that it now belonged to the English Sovereign to make such grants to the people of the province as, in her good will and pleasure, seemed proper in accordance with the laws of England.

The colonists now became British citizens, invested with all the rights. of freemen, subject to English laws. Thereafter, the government of the colony was to be administered under what was called a "Royal Government," through a Governor appointed by the Sovereign, with a Council approved by the Crown and a Legislature elected by the people. There was no charter granted directly to the people, as in the case of some of the other colonies; nor was there any "Bill of Rights," or Constitution expressly vesting them with certain privileges, but there were two documents emanating from the Queen which, though not directed. to the people, yet, were of such a character that they might claim their protection and invoke their guardianship. These were the instructions given to Cornbury by the Queen and his commission as Governor.

The colony had now a strong government, with all the resources of Great Britain behind it to enforce laws, to punish criminals and to guaranty all their rights to the citizens. The English Parliament could pass laws which must be obeyed by the colonists. The Colonial Legislature might enact statutes, but they were ineffectual, unless approved by the Sovereign. The ordinary machinery of an organized government was in operation for the colonies; a Governor, a law making body composed of the Governor, his Council and representatives of the people, courts of justice, judges, sheriffs and constables. In their prior government, they had had well defined charters and constitutions in the "Grants and Concessions," in the "Concessions and Agreements,"

and "Fundamentals," but any force derived from these was at an end and they could claim no rights under them.

If, under the new order of things, their rights as citizens were invaded, what was their remedy? They could claim that protection to which every British subject was entitled under the common or statute law of the common country, or that which was impliedly guarantied by the "Instructions" and "Commission."

The remedy afforded by the Common, or statute Law of England was very precarious, even to a resident in Great Britain, itself. The courts of law had been too apt to disregard the rights of the people. This had been peculiarly the case under all the Stuarts, when judges and jurors had been subservient to the behests of the Crown. A better feeling had been gaining ground during the reign of William and Mary. Anne, though a Stuart, following such a liberal monarch as William, if she had dared, could not have stemmed the tide of popular sentiment which demanded that the privileges of British subjects should no longer be ignored by courts of justice, or even by the Sovereign. Besides, she was only remarkable for being controlled by such unprincipled and sharp-witted favorites as Sarah Jennings, the imperious wife of Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, who ruled her for a quarter of a century. Anne had the Stuart characteristic of dullness, exaggerated, and surrendered the reins of government almost entirely to her ministers, except when she, or they, might be overruled by her favorites.

If any colonist in New Jersey had desired to appeal to an English court for redress, he would have been obliged to go to England and to employ Counsel there, and the expense would have been so great as absolutely to have deprived him of that remedy.

The Instructions" to Cornbury were very full and minute in almost every particular of the manner in which he should rule the people of his province, and his Commission was also very comprehensive. These instructions were singularly able and were prepared with the greatest care, by a master mind.

It was, however, questionable, to say the least, whether the colonists could claim that to be a constitution or charter intended for them and as their safeguard, which was merely a document addressed to an individual, containing directions for him as to his conduct in a certain. official position. The royal governor was accountable, not to the body of citizens, but to his Sovereign. It could hardly be maintained that the colonists had any rights guarantied to them by the instructions and

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »