Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

upon which the Quintipartite Deed was based. Subsequent events. will show that York did not recognize Berkeley's title and that he claimed West Jersey as belonging to himself.

On the 9th day of February, 1674, a short time before the new grant to Carteret for East Jersey was made, John Fenwick conveyed his moiety in the whole of New Jersey, sold to him by Berkeley, to William Penn, Gawen Lawry and Nicholas Lucas, for one year, by deed of bargain and sale. In this deed Edward Billinge joined, signing as one of the grantors. On the very next day, the 10th day of February, 1674, a tripartite deed was executed by John Fenwick of the first part, Edward Billinge of the second part and William Penn, Gawen Lawry and Nicholas Lucas of the third part. By this deed the undivided half of the whole of New Jersey was conveyed to Penn, Lawry and Lucas, as tenants in common; but in the deed it is stated that Edward Billinge claims to have an equitable interest in the lands conveyed. These two conveyances were of the same character as those before mentioned, called Lease and Release, adopted by English conveyancers at that time, to convey lands in fee.

By this chain of title, it will be seen that at the time of the Quintipartite Deed, the whole of New Jersey was vested in Sir George Carteret, William Penn, Gawen Lawry and Nicholas Lucas; the parties to the deed of partition by which East Jersey was assigned to Carteret and West Jersey was vested in Penn, Lawry and Lucas, as the grantees of Berkeley's assignee. This deed of partition is called the Quintipartite Deed because there were five parties to it, Edward Billinge, who had some unestablished interest in the land conveyed, being the fifth party.

There were some land holders, however, as has already been stated, who claimed by conveyances made by the Indians and would not acknowledge any right in Charles to make grants of land in the province which, they asserted, belonged to the aborigines; and there were others who claimed, in opposition to Carteret, through grants made by Governor Nicholls. But the question still remained unsettled whether the Dutch conquest had not utterly destroyed any title of the English monarch to any part of New Jersey. If it had done that, then it was necessary for Charles to reconvey to York and for York to make a new deed to Berkeley and Carteret. The king performed his part and made the new deed to the Duke, but York hesitated dallied, played fast and loose, equivocated and held back; finally, doubtless fearing to

arouse the wrath of his brother, the English monarch, he made a conveyance, but it was only for a portion of New Jersey, and to Carteret alone. The vexed question as to Berkeley's title still remained undetermined. The Quintipartite Deed acknowledged its validity, but the Duke did not,

On the 1st of July, 1674, York appointed Sir Edmund Andross governor of all the country which was granted to him by Charles by the new grant, and this was done only two days after that new grant was made.

There is considerable difficulty in arriving at exact facts at this period in the history of New Jersey. Public records were few, very meagre and quite uncertain. In many instances there were no records at all and the historian who honestly desires to ascertain the true state of affairs and to give facts which can be authenticated, is very much embarrassed. There were some records kept in New York, but they were, in many instances, mere skeletons and barely state transactions. in the briefest possible way and in such a manner that those only who were contemporary and knew the attendant circumstances might understand what was intended to be recorded; but to those who lived some generations afterwards, these records were, in a measure, unintelligible.

Up to December, 1672, Berkeley and Carteret undoubtedly acted in concert. As late as the 6th day of December, 1672, they published a declaration of the "true intent and meaning of us the Lords Proprietors" and an explanation of their concessions made in 1664. On the same day they announced another declaration of "us the Lords Proprietors of the province of New Caesarea or New Jersey," addressed to all adventurers, planters, inhabitants within any town and plantations in said province, in which they speak of "our Governor,” “our Secretary," and confirm all grants made by "our Governor," to the the 28th of July, 1672. On the 7th of December, 1672, they issued another joint declaration which they called "Directions for the Governor and Council of New Caeserea or New Jersey." In this last declaration they again style themselves "Lords Proprietors" and claim payment to their receiver-general of quit rent which they insist is due to them for the lands held by settlers. On the 9th of the same month and year, King Charles recognized them both as Lords Proprietors of New Jersey and as having the sole power to settle and dispose of the country upon such terms and conditions as they should see fit; he also takes the inhabitants to task because they refused obedience to Berke

ley and Carteret, "as absolute proprietors of the same." Finally on the 10th and 11th of the same month and year other communications from Berkeley and Carteret unmistakably show that up to that time they were acting together and claiming joint rule and proprietorship, as Lords Proprietors over the whole province of New Jersey.

There can be no possible doubt, then, that, up to the time of the conveyance to Fenwick, Berkeley's title to the undivided half of the whole province was recognized, if not absolutely agreed to; certainly by all parties interested. There is no record anywhere that any partition between Berkeley and Carteret was ever contemplated, and such circumstances as can be well authenticated, indicate that, so far as they themselves were concerned, a partition was never intended to be made between them.

There is a singular fact appearing in the records which are still in existence. On the thirteenth day of June, 1674, King Charles addressed a letter to the authorities in New Jersey, in which he uses this language: "Whereas our right trusty and well beloved Councellor Sir George Carteret Knight and Baronet by grant derived under us, is seized of the province of New Caesarea or New Jersey in America and of the jurisdiction thereof." This was one month and seventeen days before the new grant by York to Carteret and is quite significant, certainly, of what the king supposed to be the true state of the case, or what he believed ought be, or, more probably, what he desired should be, under the circumstances. It must not be forgotten that Carteret was a great favorite both with Charles and with York.

Sir Edmund Andross, on the 9th of November, 1674, almost immediately after he became governor under the Duke of York, issued a proclamation, as governor, by which all former grants, privileges or concessions theretofore made or granted and all estates legally possessed by any under the Duke prior to the Dutch conquest were confirmed and the possessors, by virtue thereof, were to remain in quiet possession of their rights. This proclamation must have been made with the knowledge and, undoubtedly, with the full concurrence of the Duke. It is not at all probable that Andross would have dared publish so important a document to the world without the authority of his royal

master.

Andross was a man of violence, tyrannical in his treatment of those under his control and utterly regardless of the right. He was capable of committing the most outrageous acts without license or authority,

stopping at no bounds, if he could secure his end, oppressive beyond measure and abusing his authority to accomplish what he deemed to be most advantageous for his master and himself. Utterly subservient to his superiors and employers, if he had any virtue, it was that he was honestly courageous in attempting to secure their advantage, but, in furthering their interests, he was neither just to others nor correct in his methods.

James, himself, was open to the charge of tyranny and duplicity towards the struggling inhabitants in the province. He was openly charged with a desire to recover the lost province of New Jersey, which he had already granted to Berkeley and Carteret in 1664, to the great disgust of Col. Nicholls, who was then governor under him. A word— a single word, to Andross from York would have prevented his tyrannical acts which he so soon directed against Fenwick and West Jersey and afterward against Cartaret and the people of East Jersey.

He and his Council were vested with all the powers of government over the domain which was intrusted to his care, subject to all other grants which the Duke might legally make. But York had undoubtedly granted East Jersey to Sir George Cartaret with unmistakable power of government and Andross must have known that fact. He came over from England about the same time, if not on the same vessel, with Governor Philip Carteret. Whether he knew these facts at first, or not, he learned them soon after he assumed the governorship of New York. The deed of Lease and Release by York to Sir George, the warrant appointing Philip Carteret governor of East Jersey were exhibited to him and full opportunity given him to examine them, before he began his evil course against that province. At first, he did not seem disposed to take any steps to molest Carteret, or extend the authority of the Duke over East Jersey, but turned his attention to West Jersey.

The examination of this part of the history of New Jersey has an indirect connection with titles to land which is the subject now under discussion, and these facts are introduced at this point only because they have an influence on the question of titles. Fuller notice will be given them hereafter.

Andross attempted to introduce the Duke's authority over West Jersey and insisted upon the right to impose tariff duties upon all goods imported into the province and which might be exported. He imprisoned Fenwick and obliged him to give his parol that he would not attempt

to exercise any power of government in the province he had purchased from Berkeley, and which had been assured to him by the partition intended to be effected by the Quintipartite Deed. After these outrages in West Jersey, Andross turned his attention to East Jersey and claimed the right to exercise the same authority there and when Governor Philip Carteret bravely withstood him, he caused his arrest forcibly, under circumstances of great indignity and outrage, carried him to New York, threw him into prison and kept him confined there for nearly a month. It is true that his acts were finally ignored and repudiated by York, but Andross was virtually indorsed by his appointment as governor of New England, after York became James II.

The grant by Berkeley to Carteret was finally confirmed by James about 1680. This put an end to all disputes as to the title to land in both East and West Jersey, except as to that claimed by a few as being derived from the Indians and from Governor Nicholls. York could not well ignore deeds which were made by his own governor, granted under full authority given by him to that governor.

This then was the condition of the title to lands in New Jersey when there was a final settlement of the conflicting claims. New Jersey was divided into two distinct, separate and independent provinces called East and West Jersey.

It ought be said that the westerly division line between the two colonies was not well defined, and that this fact gave rise to great trouble and much litigation. That division line still remains undetermined.

Sir George Carteret and his heirs and assigns were the absolute owners in fee of all land in East Jersey not already granted to settlers and others, with powers of government; William Penn, Gawen Lawry and Nicholas Lucas were the owners in fee of all land in West Jersey except such as had already been conveyed by the rightful owners and were also vested with the right of government. Land in East Jersey was sold to twenty-four proprietors, so that all land there, at first, was held in twenty-fourths or fractions of a twenty-fourth. In West Jersey it was held in hundredths or fractions of a hundred.

There were two kinds of grants; one where a gift was made to actual settlers at the beginning of the history of the colony; when, by the "grants and concessions" the amount of land donated to a settler depended upon the number of individuals in his family, with an additional amount for each servant brought with the family into the province. These were called "headlands." The other kind of grant was

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »