Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

in its early population, was overwhelmingly in the majority and its influence has never been lost.

Up to the time of Hunter's assuming his office of Governor of New Jersey and since the surrender, the delegates to the Assembly had been returned from the eastern and western divisions, without reference to their places of residence, except such as were elected for Amboy and Burlington, but, in 1710, there was a change; the representatives from the two divisions were then named as if elected in the different counties; those counties were Burlington, Gloucester, Salem and Cape May, in West Jersey; Middlesex, Essex, Bergen, Monmouth and Somerset, in East Jersey. The number of delegates was the same, however,ten from each division. The first reference to counties, and that is very incidental, appears in a law passed by the Legislature, in 1675, at its second session. In Chapter VI it is enacted that courts of justice should be maintained which "may go under the designation of County Courts," and that "two of those courts be kept each year in each respective county, viz. Bergen and the adjacent plantations about them, to be a county and have two courts in the year, whose session shall be the first Tuesday in September. Elizabeth Town and Newark to make a county, Woodbridge and Piscataway to be a county,

and the two towns of Nevysink to make a county." It is very doubtful whether the representatives, up to 1710, were chosen by counties; it is probable that they were generally elected from the two districts. But in that year they must have been elected by the separate counties, whether by general ticket, cannot now be determined.

A disturbing question of prime importance had arisen by reason of certain proceedings in the courts throughout the whole province, which involved the interests of a large number of the inhabitants, especially in West Jersey. The Judges of the courts, who were universally op posed to the Quakers, had refused to permit them to serve on juries. Cornbury, in his arraignment of the Assembly, had violently attacked them, charging that their refusal to take an oath was a mere pretence; that under the most solemn affirmation, they dared commit the greatest enormities; that they were designing and vindictive, and that the Queen's subjects "ought to beware and be protected from them." All these charges were in connection with the subject of juries, so that it is evident that the objection to their serving as jurors came from those who supported Cornbury.

In the time of William and Mary, remedial statutes had been passed

relieving them from many political disabilities. Queen Anne, who, with all her Stuart prejudices and failings, was inclined to follow the example of King William, in his liberality, undoubtedly intended to refer to the Quakers, in her "Instructions" to Cornbury, when she especially directed that an act defining the qualifications of jurors should be passed. She did not, it is true, specify that any particular class in the community should be enabled, by legislation, to be empanelled as jurors. But she did direct that Quakers should be permitted to affirm and should not be obliged to take oaths, and that they might fill the position of representatives and other offices of trust in the colony. Their fitness to do so and to become jurors could not be questioned; they formed the very best element in the colony and were remarkable for sincerity in their religious belief, for their integrity and benevolence and for their wisdom and sagacity. The practice which obtained so universally in the courts, of rejecting them as jurors, inflicted great hardships, interfered materially with the administration of justice and created much confusion. In many places the inhabitants from whom jurors could be selected were mostly Quakers. This question had agitated the community certainly since the surrender, and probably prior to that event. Early in Hunter's time, the Assembly attempted, by legislation, to remedy what really was a great evil. Accordingly, an act entitled "An act for ascertaining the qualifications of jurors and enabling the people called Quakers to serve on them," was introduced and passed by the popular branch of the Legislature and was then sent to the Council for its concurrence, but was rejected. This action of the Council, virtually withdrawing a very large majority of the citizens in one part of the province from the performance of so important a duty, involving the highest interests and the dearest rights of suitors in courts of justice, and creating an inequality among the colonists, not warranted by any existing circumstances of the case, could not have arisen from high motives, but must have been actuated by base and selfish impulses. But the Council was victorious and by their opposition, effectually prevented the passage of a law based upon the truest principles of right and which should have received the sup port of every right minded man in the Legislature.

At the session of the Legislature beginning March 17, 1713, an act was passed thus entitled: "An act that the Solemn Affirmation and Declaration of the people called Quakers shall be accepted Instead of an Oath in the Usual Form and for Qualifying and Enabling the said

People to serve as Jurors and to execute any office or Place of Trust or Profit within this Province." The form of the affirmation directed to be taken by all persons conscientious as to the matter of oaths, was this: "I, A. B., declare in the presence of Almighty God the witness of the truth of what I say." This act required Quakers to be drawn for jurors and enabled them to sit on juries and to hold offices of profit and trust. The statute, however, was to be in force for only eleven years. When speaking of those holding the tenets of the denomination of Christians called by themselves, Friends, this expression was used: "Quakers or reputed Quakers." The act declares that the affirmation taken in pursuance of its provisions shall be as binding as though an oath had been administered and imposed the same penalty for perjury as was then in force.

From the rejection by the Council of this and of other acts, not so important nor so necessary, but which deserved its support, the Assembly finding the antagonism of its co-ordinate branch of the law making power so pronounced that it would be impossible to pass the law, abandoned it, but was more successful in its vindication of a former Assembly from charges made against it to the Queen through a letter sent to her by Lieutenant Governor Ingoldsby and some members of the Council, in 1707, in the time of Cornbury, purporting to come from the whole Council. It was very severe in its denunciation of the Assembly, but more particularly attacked Lewis Morris and Samuel Jennings, then members of the House and prominent in their opposition to Cornbury. This communication was slanderous and untruthful, and its authors deserved rebuke. It however, referred to a prior legislature and it would seem that it was entirely unnecessary for this Assembly to attempt the vindication of a similar body which had met three years before. But the members did not thus argue and proceeded, at once, to dispense justice to any of the offenders whom they could reach. William Sandford was a delegate from Bergen to the Assembly of 1710; he was one of the Council and had signed the offensive letter to the Queen. The Assembly first passed a resolution that no person who had signed that "false and scandalous representation" was a fit member to sit in the house, unless he acknowledged his fault. Sandford was called upon to answer and admitted that he had signed the paper, but, when asked if he would acknowledge his fault, refused to do so, alleging that he was a member of her Majesty's Council and was only accountable to the Queen, and

therefore it was "ordered that Major Sandford be expelled this house for signing a false and scandalous paper, called humble address' of the Lieutenant Governor & Council to her Majesty, in the year 1707; and he is expelled this house accordingly." Not satisfied with this, the Assembly made what it called "the humble representation of the General Assembly of her Majesty's province of New Jersey." The representation was a long and labored attempt to prove that the "Humble Address" to the Queen was both false and scandalous. It attacked the Council, as a body, and singled out individual members of it, by name, for its severest censure. In this effort, it not only succeeded most effectually, but it secured the support of the Governor and the removal of the most obnoxious members of the Council.

In their "representation" to the Queen, the Assembly exculpated certain Councillors who had signed the "Humble Address," upon the ground that they had either been deceived, or that they had put their names to the obnoxious paper unwittingly, supposing it to be some document which had been regularly passed by the Council and that their signatures were mere matters of form.

In July, 1711, Hunter again convened the Legislature at a very important period in the history of the mother country. War was still raging between England and France and another expedition was con templated against the French provinces in North America; men and money were needed and the Governor demanded both,-360 men and £5000 from the Assembly,-which promptly responded and issued new bills of credit in addition to the £3000 already raised. The means for paying these bills of credit, for both issues, were provided from a sort of sinking fund from future taxation.

The year 1713 was prolific in very important legislation. The As sembly met on the 7th of December, 1713, at Perth Amboy, and continued in session until the 17th of March, 1713-14 and forty acts were passed, a few of which deserve notice. Some of them will give a glimpse of the customs of the time; others will exhibit the initiatory to modern legislation on important matters and all that are quoted will afford information as to the subjects which engrossed the thoughts of the law givers of those times. The acts for "regulating of slaves," "regulating of white servants," " establishing a Ferry from Burlington to New Bristol," for "laying a duty on Negro, Indian and Mulatto slaves," and several acts naturalizing foreigners will illustrate some of the customs of the time. Queen Anne, in her "Instructions" to Corn

bury had especially favored slavery and the passage of the act for "the regulation of slaves" gives abundant proof that this domestic institution had become established in the province; but, it became necessary to regulate it and so that act was passed. Several penalties were imposed on any persons who should traffic with slaves without the consent of their masters or overseers, or those who hired them. Any persons finding slaves straying five miles beyond their master's residence, without his permission, might punish the wanderers with twenty lashes. on the bare back, for which he was to be paid by the owner, with a charge of six pence per mile for returning the slave; if any slave came into the province without license from the owner, he could be arrested, whipped on the bare back and imprisoned, the owner to pay for the thrashing and for the expense of confinement; for certain offences, the slave could be put to death, but the owner might appear at the trial and defend his property. If a Constable, Justice of the Peace, or Juror should refuse to perform the duty enjoined on them by the act, a fine of £5 was imposed on the Constable or Justice so refusing and twenty shillings on the Juror. If any one should employ or harbor a slave, except in stress of weather, without the consent of the owner, a fine of forty shillings was imposed and if, in consequence of such employment or harboring, the slave should be lost, die, or become unserviceable, then, the value of the slave was recoverable. No manumitted slave could hold real estate in fee and any one who should free a slave was obliged to give bond with two sureties to the Sovereign in £200 conditioned to pay £20 yearly to the manumitted chattel, so long as he lived, and these slaves were not only negroes and mulattos, but Indians. The act for regulating white servants, refers to persons, male and female, brought into the province by immigrants and also to those sold to serve such as would pay their passage money from Europe to America, for their service. Many who could not pay, were, on their arrival here, put up and sold by public vendue to the person who would take their services for the shortest time and pay the charge connected with. their transportation hither. They did not necessarily for this reason, lose character nor standing. It is a tradition in some of the very best families in New Jersey that their ancestor was sold "to pay his passage." And there are instances on record where the servants brought over by colonists intermarried with the daughters of their masters. But the relation created in this manner required regulating. So, by the act in question, it was provided that any servant should serve

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »