coverer of the country sailed, as Crown Lands," and as such was the subject of grant by the sovereign. Charles II made grants of New York and New Jersey, which he claimed to be "Crown Lands" and his grantee in turn, made release of part of the land so granted to him. This has already been stated, but is again referred to in this connection, as it seemed necessary to recall the facts. When, therefore, a denial was made of payment of quit rent to the Lords Proprietors, upon the ground that the land for which rent was claimed was held by another title; that is, by deed from the aborigines, or from any other source, those who refused to make such payment, virtually denied the general principle which obtained at the time.

To recapitulate, for the purpose of grouping the sources of titles to land in New Jersey together so that they may be compared and understood:

Fourth.

That granted by the Lords Proprietors, and behind them all, the grant from the sovereign, Charles II, claiming paramount title over all, by virtue of the right of discovery, and his undoubted estate in the countries granted as "Crown Lands."

It must be remembered that with the Letters Patent from Charles to the Duke of York went not only the title to the land but the right of government, and that the Lords Proprietors not only claimed but exercised the sole sovereignty over the province they acquired. this claim of York's grantees to sovereignty, there was a general acquiescence by all the inhabitants of the province, but it was somewhat inconsistent on the part of those who admitted this claim, that they should dispute their title to the land. The proprietors called a meeting of an assembly, or what would be denominated at the present day, a legislature. To this body Newark and other towns sent delegates; thus acknowledging the authority of the Lords Proprietors in this direction. But, as will be seen hereafter, there were no more persistent deniers of the title of the Lords Proprietors to the land than these very communities which elected members of this colonial legislature and thus acknowledged the right of sovereignty in the proprie

tors.

Charles II hated the Dutch; he had no great love for his own people; he cared little for the glory or honor of his kingdom. It was

well enough for him to be a king, it gave him immunity from accountability; it provided the means for him to pursue a life of sin and unrighteousness. If he could serve his own personal interests; secure his own ends; satisfy his revenges, and provide for his sensual indulgences, he cared nothing for results. He was a true Stuart and during the whole of his career manifested the worst characteristics of that miserable family which never gave a respectable sovereign to England. In his mad career for pleasure he lost sight of every measure which tended to elevate his throne to its proper place among the powers of Europe. With few exceptions, every king of England from the time of William the Conqueror, down to that evil day when James I ascended the English throne, had labored with clear sighted vision to preserve a balance of power in Europe which would keep in check the ancient foe and traditional rival of England. The Dutch were the natural allies of Great Britain; they were a nation of intrepid and veteran sailors, and were the only nation in Europe who could successfully defend and protect the English from invasion across the narrow channel dividing England from France. But Charles was more French than English; in the impressionable age when youth takes on the fashions, the habits of thought and action of its surroundings, he had been in France, and after he became an English king he never lost the impressions which had filled his heart and mind when he was among the dazzling glories of the French court. He lost his manhood, he surrendered his independence, yielded up his self-respect and became a traitor to his people and his crown. He was the bribed pensioner of the French monarch; so, when that monarch. directed him to declare war against the Dutch, he obsequiously obeyed, and in 1672-3 hostilities broke out between the two countries, which should have been cemented by the strongest ties. Louis XIV, who was then king of France, joined Charles in declaring war; but he stood aloof in a great measure from the contest and allowed the two antagonists to fight their battles alone. The struggle was unequal; it would have been much more so, if Louis had heartily aided his English ally. The Dutch were led by the most skillful and ablest officers. But the English leaders, some of whom had never served in the navy, were equally potent on the sea as on the land. Holland seemed on the point of being overwhelmed by the English. The ruin of the Dutch was not what Louis desired; it might become necessary thereafter to use Holland in keeping the English in check. So Charles was directed to

make peace, and he obeyed; the continuance of his French pension depended upon his obedience to his royal benefactor. Hostilities were of short continuance; and on the 9th of February, 1674, the peace of Westminster was signed by the commissioners of the belligerents. By the terms of that peace all the territory taken by either of the antagonists, during the war, was to be restored to the former owner.

The Dutch almost immediately after the breaking out of the war sent a naval force to seize New York and on the 13th day of July, 1673, the attempt was successful. The surrender of the town gave rise to a controversy, many insisting that the officer in command for the English should never have surrendered, and that officer was tried by court martial. The fall of New York brought with it the possession to Holland of what was called the New Netherlands, which included New Jersey. In pursuance of the treaty of Westminster, the country thus conquered was restored to England. The cession was made formally by the States General to the king of England. These facts created a doubt whether the grant already made by Charles to the Duke of York was valid. Of course, if that were of no force, then the release by James to Berkeley and Carteret were valueless. To obviate any difficulty and to remove any doubt as to the title of the Duke to New York and New Jersey, the King, on the 29th day of June, 1674, made a newgrant by Letters Patent to James, by which he conveyed precisely the same domain as that described in the first deed. The second Letters Patent are an exact copy of the first except in some very few and unimportant words.

This deed from the King to York was followed on the 20th day of July of the same year, 1674, by a deed of lease and release from the Duke of York to Sir George Carteret of a portion of New Jersey thus described:

"All that tract of land adjacent to New England and lying and being to the westward of Long Island and Manhitas Island, and bounded on the east part by the main sea, and part by Hudson's river, and extends southward as far as a certain creek called Barnegatt being about the middle, between Sandy Point and Cape May, and bounded on the west in a strait line from the said creek called Barnegat, to a certain creek in Delaware river next adjoining to and below a certain creek in Delaware river called Renkokus Kill, and from thence up the said Delaware river to the northermost branch thereof, which is in forty one degrees and forty minutes of latitude; and on the north,

crosseth over thence in a strait line to Hudson's river in forty one degrees of latitude; which said tract of land is hereafter to be called by the name or names of New Caesarea or New Jersey."

This description is the first one which appears any where on any record of a distinctive part of New Jersey as an independent province and is, undoubtedly, intended to describe that part of the province which was thereafter to be known as East New Jersey.

Immediately after this deed to Carteret, he assumed separate and independent control of the part of New Jersey so conveyed to him. On the 31st day of July, 1674, he issued what he called "Directions, Instructions and orders":

"Directions Instructions and Orders, made and given by the Right Honourable Sir George Carteret, Knight and Baronet, Vice Chamberlain in his majesty's household, and one of his Majesty's most honourably Privy Council, Lord Proprietor of the country or Province of New Caesarea or New Jersey, together with a declaration by him made, of the true intent and meaning, and an explanation of several articles of the concessions formerly made by him, and the Lord John Berkeley, dated the 10th of February, in the year of our Lord 1664, to be observed by the Governor and Council, and inhabitants of the said Province."

These Directions" have an important bearing upon the question as to the title of land in New Jersey. While, of course, they could not change any legal title acquired before their issue, yet they express most explicitly the views held by Carteret as to the validity of any grants other than those obtained from him or his authorized agent. Some of the articles in these "Directions" are therefore quoted entire, so that more light may be thrown on the history of title to land in New Jersey.

"I. We being made very sensible of the great disorders in our Province, occasioned by several persons to the great prejudice of our self, our Governor and Council, and all other peaceable and well minded inhabitants, within our said Province, by claiming a right of propriety both of land and government. Wherefore we do hereby declare first, that all lands granted by our Governor to the 28th July, 1672, and confirm'd in our names by Patents, or Charters upon record in our Secretary's office, under our Province seal, signed by him and the major part of his Council, shall remain to the particular owners thereof, their heirs, &c., for ever, with all the benefits, proffits, and priviledges therein.

contain'd, they performing what they are obliged unto in every of the said respective Patents or Charters."

"II. For such as pretend to a right of propriety to land and government within our Province, by virtue of any patent from Governor Colonel Richard Nichols, as they ignorantly assert, we utterly disown any such thing. A grant they had from him upon such conditions which they never perform d; and by the said grant they were obliged to do, and perform such acts and things as should be appointed by his Royal Highness, or his deputies, whose power remained in us by virtue of a patent from his said Royal Highness bearing date long before those grants, which hath been often declared by our Governor, and since owned under the sign manual of his Royal Highness, bearing date the 25th of November, 1672, and demanded their submission to our authority, and to patent their land from us, and pay our quit rent according to our concessions; which if they had done, or shall yet do, we are content they shall enjoy the tract or tracts of land they are settled upon. Provided it hath not been taken up contrary to our order, and that it be not to the prejudice of the rest of the inhabitants and to have such other priviledges and immunities as our Governor and Council and they shall agree upon. But if such persons as have not already received patents of their land from us, shall not within one year after notice to them given of this our pleasure therein, desire and accept patents of the said land, we do hereby order our Governor and Council to dispose of such lands and tenements, in whole or in part for our best advantage to any other persons: And if any person or persons do think they have injustice, or wrong done them, by this our possitive determination, they may address themselves to the King and Council, and if their right to that land or government appears to be better than ours, we will readily submit thereunto."

"IV. That all grants of land, conveyances, surveys, or any other pretences for the hold of land, whatsoever within our said Province, that are not derived from us according to the prescriptions in our concessions, and entered upon record in our Secretary's office, in our said Province, we declare to be null and void in law."

"And Lastly. We do hereby grant, order and direct, that the concessions made sign'd and seal'd by the Lord John Berkeley, and myself, bearing date the 10th day of February, 1664, shall still continue and stand in force, and be kept, maintain'd, and perform'd in all and every of the parts and articles thereof, unto the said Province except such of