This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 67-2460

HOROWITZ, Gary 8., 1942- NEW JERSEY LAND BIOTS, 1745-1755.

The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1966 History, modem

University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan I HEW JERSEY lAHB RIOTS, 1745 - 1755

DISSERTATION Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By Gary 8. Horowitz, B.A., H.A.

*******

The Ohio State university • 1966

Approved by

i iviser Department of History 7im

Kftrch 4, 1942 Bom, Hew York, Hew York

1962 ...... B.A., The City College, Hew York

1963 ...... M.A., The Ohio State University, Oolimbus, Ohio

1963-1966 ...... Teaching Assistant, History De­ partment, The Ohio State Univer­ sity , Columhus , Ohio 1966 ...... Assistant Professor, Alfred University, Alfred, Hew York

FIELDS OP STUDY

Major Fields History American Colonial. Professor Harry L. Coles American Early H atici^l. Professor Harry L* Coles Latin America. Professor John J. TePaske Tudor and Stuart England. Professor Clayton Roberts The Far East. Professor Jerome B. Grieder

ii TâBLE OP OOBTEBÏS Paga XNÎROSUCTXON ••«•••••<)•••«•••••••• 1 Footnotes - Introduction 6 GHdPTSS X - THE GHAHTS . » ...... 7 Footnotes - Chapter I.,...... »,,,.. 21 GHâPTER XI - THE HOOTS OP THE COHPIiXOT 16?0 - 1702 • . 23 Footnotes - Chapter IX . . 45 CHâPTBR XIX - LEGAL miïBHVERISS 1702 - 1 7 4 5 ..... 48 Footnotes - Chapter XXX ...... 64 CHAPTER IT - BEGIBHIRG OP THE R I O T S ...... 67 Footnotes - Chapter XV ...... 95 CHAPTER V - A BRIEF PERIOD OP COOPERATION WITH GOVERNOR BELCHER...... 98 Footnotes - Chapter T...... 127 CHAPTER VI - APPEALS TO ENGLAND...... 131 Footnotes - Chapter VI ...... 164 CHAPTER V II - THE WAR CP WORDS...... l68 Footnotes - Chapter V II ...... 186 CHAPTER V III - THE WEST JERSEY SOCIETY...... 187 Footnotes - Chapter VXXX ...... •• 197 CHAPTER XX - RETDRN TO PEACEFUL NEGOTIATIONS ...... 199 Footnotes - Chapter IX ...... 206 CHAPTER X - CONCLUSION...... 207 Footnotes - Chapter X...... 215 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 216

ill INTRODUCTION v

New Jersey has been compared to a keg tapped a t both ends. Historians have been more interested in either New York or Pennsylvania than in what lies between. For this reason New Jersey has been one of the neglected colonies in terms of research. In a listing of dissertations in history from 1873 to I960 there are only eight which deal with colonial New Jersey, Of these five are exclusively on that colony. Compared with New York with forty-seven, Pennsylvania with thirty-two, Virginia with sixty-one, Maryland with twenty-seven, and South Carolina with twenty, this is indeed a poor showing. The matter is placed in even sharper perspective when we see that tiny Delaware had two dissertations completed on her colonial period and yoTxng Georgia had two,^ The problem of discussing the proprietary and later royal colony is difficult because the quantity of secondary material is limited. The latest volume on colonial New Jersey is New Jersey from Colony to State (Princeton, 1964) by Richard P, McCormick and it is the first volume of the series published for the state’s tercentenary celebration by Van Nostrand Company, Volume nine of the same series. The 'SQtT Jersey Proprietors and Their Lands by John Pom- fret, is mainly sections from his two earlier works with no new research on the period after 1702, Pomfret, however, has written two excellent books on Bast and West Jersey carrying the story of the two divisions from the founding of the colony until the surrender of governmental powers to the crown in 1702,^ Three additional bsoks complete the books which deal with the history of the province from 1702 until the Re­ volution, Donald D, Kemmerer's Path to Freedom (Princeton, 1940), sees the history of the colony as a continuing struggle between the good Mew England settlers who moved to Mew Jersey and the oppressive English government. In his view the land riots were part of that contest and, of course, Kommorcr portrays virtue everrrhelming evil. Two carefully researched dissertations at Columbia University supply the remaining secondary works published in this century, Edwin P. Tanner®s, The Province of Mew Jersey. 1664-1758 (Mew York, 1908) and Edgar J, Fisher's, Mew Jersey as a Roval Province. 1738-1776 (Mew York, 1911) are topically and chronologically arranged and they pre­ sent material which had previously gone unnoticed. Before the Mew Jersey'Arvhives were published William A, Whitehead published several volumes which utilized and reproduced documents previously unpublished. The most notable was Sast Jersey under the Proprietary Governments (Newark, 1875). The best of all local histories is Edwin H atfield’s, History of Elizabeth. Hew Jersey (Hew York, 1868). Despite the fact that Hatfield wrote a century ago, his work remains an essential source for Hew Jersey his­ tory, Many local histories tend to be eulogies for local inhabitants and in some instances authors were actually paid by descendants of individuals to improve on the facts. Hatfield, on the other hand, serves as an example of how good local history should be written. Although a great deal of primary material, both printed and manuscript, is available New Jersey remains a relatively unexplored field. This work attempts to explain a problem which runs continually throughout the century of English domination of Hew Jersey, The issue be^h in June 1664 when James, Duke of York, bestowed Hew Jersey upon two court favorites, Berkeley and Carteret. In the fall of that same year the Duke's governor, Richard Hicholls, granted areas within the province to groups of settlers who had petitioned for townships. Hicholls, unfortunately, did not know that his lord had already given the lands away. Therefore, two rival claims to the same tracts were established. When the proprietors demanded that all settlers pay quit-rents for the lands that they held, the Hicholls* grantees refused to heed the call. The settlers of Eewark and Elizabeth Town said that they would not apply for patents from the proprietors and they only succumbed when the pressure to do so became overwhelming. Throughout the century after 1664 both sides resisted any efforts to compromise their positions. The animosity of the Hicholls patentees was so great that it was an important factor in the surrender of governmental rights by the proprietors in 1702, After many years of court proceedings during the early eighteenth century the people of Elizabeth Town and Newark were at the point of total frustration and they broke into open rebellion to the laws of the colony. They pro­ ceeded to rescue their fellow citizens who were arrested for trespassing on lands claimed by the proprietors and

dispossessed farmers from lands that they laid claim to. Contrary to Kemmerer’s thesis this dissertation con­ tends that the rioters and their supporters were not re­ volting against the government but against tie proprietors, who were private land holders. The issue becomes confused because the proprietors dominated the government and at times the two are considered to be the same. The Assembly, composed of popularly elected representatives, was not pro-rioter as the proprietors consistently claimed. The lower house refused to take any action to suppress the riots because it was looked in battle with the other branches of government. Because the Council was controlled by two leading proprietors, James Alexander and Robert Hunter Morris, the Assembly would not join with that body to pass legislation to increase the power o f the proprietors. The governor, Jonathan Belcher, during the last eight years of the riots, was caught in the crossfire between the two houses sad was badly maligned by the Council. Throughout this paper the dates are according to the style in use during the colonial period. Until the change from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar in 1752 the Eng­ lish year began on 25 March, Therefore, an event which occurred between 1 January and 24 March w ill have a year denoting the old system, for example, 1663/4. NOTES - INTRODUCTION

1, Warren F. Kuehl. Dissertations In History. And Indeix to Dissertations Oomnleted In History Departments of United States and 6anadlan Universities (University of keniucky Duress, 19^5). 2. The Province of West New Jersey 1609-1702: A History of ^he Origins of an American Colony (Princeton, 1956); The Province of kast New Jersey 1609-1702; The Rebellious Proprietary (Princeton. l9o2). CHiPTER I THE GRAHTS

The conflict over land titles that continued to smolder throughout New Jersey's colonial period and which finally erupted into violence in 1745 originated in 1663/4» On March 12, 1 6 6 3 /4 King Charles II granted to his brother, James, the Duke of York, a vast tract of land in New Eng­ land.^ In June 1664, James transferred by instruments of lease and release the area of New Caesarea, or New Jersey, p to Lord John Berkeley and Sir George Carteret. Both King Charles* grants and the Duke's grants were completed even before the English could claim the region by conquest. The Dutch still controlled the land which James so graciously bestowed upon the two loyal friends of the royal family. The task of conquest lay ahead and this was assigned to Richard Nicholls who was commissioned by the Duke on 12 March 1663/4 to capture the Dutch territory and to act as deputy governor. Later that year, on 27 August^, the Dutch governor in New Amsterdam surrendered to a superior English fo rc e . Desiring to achieve his master's aims, Nicholls rea­ lized the necessity for rapidly settling the territory across the Hudson River. Therefore, he readily consented 8 when six men from Long Island petitioned him for the pri­ vilege of purchasing land in the area around Arthur Oull Bay.3 Governor licholls promised to give the petitioners "all due Encouragement in so good a Work."^ The Long Island settlers then "began negotiations with the Indians and soon concluded a treaty of purchase. On 28 October John Bailey, Daniel Denton and Luke Watson bought for themselves and for their associates a tract of land, containing approximately 400,000 acres* Governor Nicholls then confirmed the purchase so that the lands could be quickly settled. In return for the Hicholl*s confirmation, the purchasers were enjoined to pay forever yearly rents to James or his assigns. The rent was desig­ nated to be according to the custômary rule of the country for new piantatlonB:^ Thus began one of the long struggles between the proprietors of East New Jersey, assigns of Sir George Carteret, and those who claimed under the Nicholls grant. The proprietors claimed that those living in the area pur­ chased in 1664, called the Elizabeth Town Purchase, should take out patents from the proprietors and pay yearly quit- rents for the land. The Elizabeth Town Associates, the people who divided the lands from the purchase, on the other hand, held that James could not legally grant the territory to Berkeley and Carteret because he did not have possession 9 of the land. Thus, the proprietors gars not the legal cwnsrs of the province and the Elizabeth Town people were not liable for quit-reuts to them. Nicholls cannot be blamed for the troubles which came from his grant because he did not know of the Berkeley- Oarteret grant until after April 1665. Not until the ar­ rival of Philip Carteret, nephew of the proprietor, in

A ugust 1665 did Nicholls officially learn of the transfer. As governor, Nicholls was concerned with the fastest and best way to populate the Duke*s domain thereby realizing income and profit. His Intention was to see that his lords’ lands were settled and that they were earning money. Unfortunately, the Duke’s alienation of the land to his friends impaired the effectiveness of his deputy.

The Elizabeth Town grant eztended fr o m the mouJh of the Raritan River to the mouth of the Passaic River, which is about seventeen miles, and it went west for double that distance or 34 miles into the back country. When Philip Carteret, arrived, he claimed that not more than four families had settled on the giant. The proprietors also claimed that the town was named for the wife of Lord Car­ teret while the associates held that it was named for Queen Elizabeth. Upon his arrival, Philip Carteret purchased the share of Bailey and he became one of the associates of Elizabeth Town. Before the inclusion of the governor 10 in the group plans were made for settling the grant. Town lots of six acres were sold at four pounds each. Indivi­ duals could purchase first-lot rights, six acres, second- lot rights, twelve acres, or third-lot rights, eighteen 6 a c re s . To regulate the relations between the inhabitants of Hew Jersey and the Proprietors, the latter published the Concessions and Agreements on 10 February 1664/5. This document established the method of choosing a government for the province, guaranteed religious freedom, listed the powers of the Assembly and Council, provided for head-rights, and prescribed the processes for land settlement. Before anj lands could be surveyed the governor was to issue a warrant to the person who sought the land. After the sur­ veyor general or his deputy laid out the tract it was to be recorded. Then the governor could prepare a grant. The grant, or patent, required the payment of one-half penny per acre which was due every 25 tfe-rch beginning in 1670.7 From the Elizabeth Town grant two additional towns were formed. Both of these, Woodbridge and Piscutaway, were founded by a group of men who purchased land from the three leading owners of the Elizabeth Tcxrn grant: Carteret, Watson and Ogden. In May I 666 they agreed to relinquish the southern part of their holdings to Daniel Pierce, John Pike and Andrew Tappan. The purchase price 11 was eighty pounds and in December I 667 a confirmatory deed 8 was signed for the town of Woodbridge. The charter for the new settlement issued in September 16?2 provided for the payment of a proprietary quit-rent of one-half pence

per acre. On 16 December I 666 Danial Pierce transferred a third of his holdings to four men. The associates of this purchase established the town of New Piscataway, or Piscataway, The second major area of discontent in the eighteenth century was Newark. Even during the Dutch occupation of New Jersey, the English inhabitants of Connecticut were petitioning for the opportunity to establish themselves in that region. But they were not successful in consummating an agreement. When news arrived that Berkeley and Carteret

were proprietors of the area and that they had promised liberality toward religion, the people in Connecticut re­ newed their efforts, Robert Treat and two others were Q dispatched to meet with Governor Carteret, On 11 J u ly 1666 Philip Carteret granted a license for the petitioners to purchase land from the Indians. Accord­ ing to the leaders of the Newark Committee in 1752, the original negotiators paid a considerable amount, in goods, for the land around Arthur Oull Bay and which extended west for seven miles.The original indenture for Newark was signed on 11 July I 667 and a second indenture was com­

p le te d on 13 March 1667 / 8 , The latter deed extended the 12

Uewark purchase to the top of the Wachung Mountains instead of to the foot as in the earlier conveyance. The Newark leaders contended that Philip Carteret witnessed the deed, A further extension of the Newark claim came in 170I with the signing of a third deed with the Indians. The lands in question were between the top of the mountains and the Passaic River. When the town was first inhabited there were only a few white people and many Indians and the whites feared the numerous savages. Therefore, accord­ ing to their defense in the Newark B ill, they invited as many people as wanted to come to settle in their town. Unfortunately, the area was too small for the large numbers who came. Thus, using the old I 666 license granted by Philip Carteret they met with the Indians in September

1701 and signed the deed the following March. The Newark B ill in Chancery held that James had no right to grant the lands in question to Berkeley and Car­ teret. In fact, the controverted lands did not lie within King Charles* original grant to James. The people in Newark said that they at first believed the grant to include the lands, but now, in 1752, they no longer accept this. The error came, they said, from the grant from James to Berkeley and Carteret, The second grant ^ve them the land to 4 l” 40* which included the. Newark purchase. They contended that in 1664 James was only a subject and he could not therefore grant lands he did not possess. Since Charles did • J not grant the lands in question, the line of conveyance claimed by those holding title under the proprietors was invalid and they therefore did not owe any ouit-rents. As a second point of argument the b ill purported to show that James could not grant the lands in fee simple because Charles really did not have possession of them. The Eewark purchasers held that the Indians were in actual possession of the land and they could only be divested of it by conquest or purchase. Neither of the two occurred before the purchasers acquired the tract. The only right that King Charles could bestow was that of pre-emption. No matter iijw barbaric a people might be they still main­ tained certain rights and among these was the right to hold property.

Even if the lands in controversy were given to James, he could not transfer them to another party because the same lands had been previously granted to Connecticut, In addition, James could not grant the territory to Berkeley and Carteret because the Duke was a subject and not in possession of the lands. He had received no rents from his grant and therefore had no estate in the lands, James only had the right to grant pre-emption and this right ifas given to the people of Newark, And those who claimed under the proprietors never purchased of the Indians, The plaintiffs of the Newark b ill denied that the second grant naade to James In 1674 contained the lands in controversy 14 any more than the first one. And they questioned whether the Dutch ever reconquered New Jersey in 16?3, But if the province was subject to Dutch rule, which it was, then those who held the lands should be entitled to them in equity, They held that James never intended to prejudice anyone's title gained under the first grant. Edmund Andros was appointed as James' deputy governor in New York and New Jersey after the second conquest. On 9 November 16?4 Andros declared all former grants valid. The people were th u s made secu re in t h e i r r i g h t s . The case of the Elizabeth Town claimants is very similar to that of Newark. In April 1745 the Board of Proprietors of the Eastern Division of New Jersey, those who were owners of lands under title from Sir George Carteret's estate, filed a bill in chancery which set forth their case against those who claimed to possess the Elizabeth Town grant. The 1745 b ill was prepared by James Alexander, one of the most brilliant lawyers in the colonies and a member of the board of proprietors. Alexander pre­ pared a detailed and tightly reasoned brief which not only presented the proprietor's viewpoint but in addition destroyed their opponent's case. The rebuttal to the Elizabeth Town Bill was filed in 1752 after many years of delay and, unfortunately for those who sought refuge under its argu­ ments, the Answer was not as well prepared as Alexander's work. The Answer was written by William Livingston, J r., 15 and William Smith, Jr. At times, the Answer appears to he the work of frightened people who are lashing out with­ out any substantial evidence to prove their points. The Elizabeth Town Bill charged that the defendants had never shown title to their lands and thereby questioned whether they had one at all. In reply, the Answer angrily asked, why should we show it?^^ We are under no obligation to do sol The Answer is also full of suppositions which again lack any supporting facts to justify the statements. The Elizabeth Town people, like those in Newark, ques­ tioned the right of Charles to make a grant of New Jersey because he did not control the region. They held that the Indians were the true inhabitants of the lands and because they were not conquered or bought out the Indians remained in possession^ Charles could only grant the ri^ t of pre­ emption and this is what he granted to James, The plain­ tiffs to the Answer claimed that the Duke had no right to pass on the lands in question because he was not in posses­ sion of the land; the Dutch still controlled it. Also, James had not received any rents or profits from New Jersey and therefore he had no estate and could not grant it in fee simple. The only right that James granted was that of pre-emption and this is what the purchasers of Elizabeth Town utilized in the deed of 1664,^^ The proprietors contended, however, that King Charles possessed the landsi They purported to show that in fact 16

the Dutch had purchased of the Indians and when the conquest was made in 1664 these lands became the property of the crown of England. Even if the king was not vested with ownership in 1664 then he most certainly was after the treaty of 16?4 when the Dutch surrendered for a second time. If the latter is true, the Bill continued, then the Nicholls grant was void.^^ In response to the mention of the second cession by the Dutch and the second grant, the Answer said that even if the Dutch reconquest extended to New Jersey^: which the Answer denied, then the grant to Carteret was void because it was granted in July 16?4 while the Dutch cession to the crown was not until the following October. James, therefore, did not have possession and could not 14 g r a n t. On the question of an Indian sale of the Elizabeth Town region the proprietors pointed to a purchase made by an Augustus Herman in 1651. Herman was a Dutch subject and on 6 December 1651 he supposedly purchased the "greatest Part of the Lands in Question." And the Indian who executed

the deed in I 6 5 I, Mattano, was one of the three, grantors of the Elizabeth Town deed of 28 October 1664. It appeared to the proprietors that Mattano and his followers had sold the 15 same land twice, If the Herman deed was valid then the deed of 1664 was void,^^ In addition, the Herman purchase proved that the Indians were not in possession at the time of the conquest and that King Charles was therefore in control of the lands. 17

The Elizabeth Town claimants admitted the purchase hut said that they "do not know" if it included the lands in controversy. Even if it did, however, it could not he of any use to the proprietors. They claimed that Austine Herman had released all of his land to the purchasers and associates. But, the deed from Herman wsts recorded in the town hook which was lost or destroyed in 1721. Hence, it was impossible to produce. At this point the Answer relies on probability to justify its allegation of a conveyance. If Herman did not release the lands in question and if he s till had a claim on them, then he would have said some­ thing. But there is no recorded protest. The proprietors' claim that Herman forfeited his lands with the English con­ quest is not valid because the conquerors promised the Dutch that their subjects could retain their lands if they obeyed English authority. The Herman family must have compiled with the obligation because they owned lands in other areas. In addition to the Indian purchase the Elizabeth Town Associates, as the purchasers were wont to be called, based the validity,of their claim on Governor licholls* grant. They contended that by his grant and the purchase the asso­ ciates were vested with the lands in fee simple. Hicholls did not, according to the Answer, grant the lands in his own name but by his authority as deputy governor. The problem of the Hicholls grant was that he made it after James 18 had already bestowed the same lands on the two proprietorsj and the Board of Proprietors held that he had no right to do so because the Duke was no longer in possession. On the other hand, it must be noted that Hicholls was not notified of the change in ownership for many months after the transaction. The people of Elizabeth Town also pointed to the fact that Hicholls had made other grants during his 18 doubtful tenure which were upheld by the propreitors. The Elizabeth Town B ill charged that Hicholls could not confer any lands because of the grant of June 1664. This grant left the deputy governor nothing to grant. The Herman purchase also precluded the 1664 grant. Even if Hicholls could have made the grant to the Associates, which the Bill denies, it was invalid because several conditions were attached to it and these were not fulfilled. Among these were settling in a reasonable time and at most only four families were living there when Philip Garteret arrived; and payment of rents. The most that the people of Elizabeth 1Q Town were entitled to was equity, ^ But if equity was due to the Associates the ones responsible were the Duke and his deputy, and not the proprietors. Even though the pro­ prietors bore no responsibility they had procured for the grantees all the equity owed by the Duke. They had pur­ chased the share of Bailey and had received eight pounds for Woodbridge and Piscataway which covered the cost of the 19 original purchase. In addition, Carteret granted the first four families in Elizabeth Town the land they had settled for a quit-rent of one-half penny per acre. The proprie­ tors claimed that they were not liable for any more than what they had done. 20 A point of contention between, the two groups of clai­ mants was the role of Philip Oartoret in the Elizabeth Town settlement. The proprietors contended that the town was settled under the conditions set forth in the Concessions and that Governor Carteret did nothing to prejudice the 21 proprietors' cause. The Associates held that Governor Carteret aided them with full knowledge of their position. When he first arrived he was met by the Associates, and they stated that it was closer to eighty than four families, and he put a hoe on his shoulder and went up from the land= Ing place. To them this signified his intent to join them as a planter. When he purchased his various rights to the grant he did so fully cognizant of the basis of the claim and of Herman's purchase. He worked with them until his second arrival when he changed and conspired for their de­ f e a t . ^2

The Concessions provided that the first quit-rents would be due on 25 March 1670. The Newark purchasers and the Elizabeth Town Associates refused to take out patents, let alone pay the required quit-rents. The attempts to 20 enforce payment and the refusal of the people to comply resulted in a period of contention for several chaotic y e a rs . FOOTNOTES - Chapter 1

1. William A, Whitehead., ed., Socnmeiits Relatlaa: to the Colonial History of the State of NewV Jersey (Nemrk and Bayonne, 18^0-85), series one, Ï, 5-6. 2. Ibid.. I, 8-14. 5, The petition was signed on 26 September 1664 by John Bailey, Daniel Denton, Thomas Benedyok, Nathaniel Denton, John Poster and Duke Watson of Jamaica, Long Is­ land. Ibid.. I. 14-15. Also in A Bill on the ChancerY of New-^erskz. At the Suit of Jjshn la ri Q£_sia_rr.,a^^ others. Proprietors of the Bastem-Division of New-Jersey; A ^ln it Ben.1amin Bond and some other Persons of Blizabeth- Town. distinpaished by the Name of the Clinker Lot RigyT* Men;. With Three large Bans done from Conper-Plates. To which is added: The Publications' of the Council of Proprie­ tors of East New-Jc'rsey And M(r. N evili's Sneeches to tne General Assembly. Concerning the Riots committed in New- Jerseyl and the Pretenoes of the Rioters, and iheir S'êïïucers. (New fork, 1747). (Hereafter cited as klizaSieth'"!f6 ^ B ill) 7" 25. - 4. 30 September 1664. NJA. I, 15; Elizabeth Totm B i l l . 25. 5. NJA. I, 15-19; Elizabeth Town B ill. 25-26. 6. John B, Pomfret, The Province of East New Jersey!. 1609 - 1702, the Rebellious pr'o^ri'e'tary (jPrinceton. New Jer­ sey, 1962), 57. 7. MA, I, 28-43. 8. Pomfret, East New Jersey. 38-39.

9. I b id . . 4 9- 5 2 . 10, In the Stevens Mss, of the New Jersey Historical Society is a bound volume entitled, "Elizabeth Town, N. J. - Proceedings regarding claims for lands held under Indian t i t l e , 1752 ," #175 . This manuscript has been mislabeled and is actually the draft of a bill in chancery prepared by the Newark Committee. Internal evidence indicates that this is not a complete copy. Many years ago a fire in Tren­ ton, New Jersey destroyed the records of bills in Chancery and we do not know if this particular b ill was ever filed.

21 22

11. An Answer To A Bill In the Olaanoery of New- Jersey at the Suit of John Earl of Starr, and others. Oogmonly called Proprietors of the Eastern Division of New-Jersey. Agalnsi Beniamin !Èonci. and other claiming under tne ori­ ginal" ^Proprietors and Associates of Bllzabetn-Town. To tfhlch Is added; nothing either of The Pablleatlon of the Counoll of Proprietors of East IJeW-Jersey or of tne Pre^ fences of the Rioters, and tiieir SeducersV^xcept so far as"the Persons meant by Rioters^ pretend Title Against the Parties to the above "Answer: Put a Great Peal ox the Con­ troverse? though Much Less of the History and Oonstitutlon of Hew^Jersey th an th e sa id B i ll a (Ne%--York. 1752] , 11. Hereafter cited as Answer...... 12. Ibid.. 5-6. 13. E liz a b e th Town B i l l, 5, 66. 14. Answer. 10. 12.

15. E liz a b e th Town B i l l , 5, 2 6 . 16. Ibid., 66-7. 17. Answer, 8-10, 18. Ibid.. 14-16, 26. 19. Elizabeth Town B ill. 27, 66-67 20, I b i d . . 67. 21. Ibid.. 33, 65. 22. Answer, 7-8. 20-21. OHA.PTBR I I

THE ROOTS OP THE OOHPLIOT I 67 O - 1702

The Concessions and Agreements provided for quit-rents to be paid starting on 25 March 167 O, P h ilip C a rte r e t, who had become an associate of Elizabeth Town through purchase, managed by that date to alienate many people in the town by his high-handed actions, Carteret evoked dissatisfac­ tion because he presided over the town meetings although his right to do so was questionable. He also admitted whom he pleased to the status of freeman. And finally, he trans­ ferred town lots to his servants without permission of the town meeting. Violence occurred in I 671 because of Carteret*s actions and those found guilty of the distur-

4 bances were fined,' Soon after the deadline for the first payment of quit- rents passed the governor and council warned the towns against allowing persons to hold office or to act as freemen unless they patented their lands. Only legally recognized freeholders could act as citizens. And accord­ ing to the Concessions proprietary patents were essential to recognition as freeholders. Few men in Elizabeth Town had taken out the required patents and, therefore, many who held lots in the town were not listed on the quit-rent

23 24 rolls. Only 58 names were on a lis t compiled in 1685 as P owing monies s in c e 1670* The situation in Newark was sim ilar. In Newark, however, the enforcement of payment of quit-rents brought forth a storm of controversy. The people considered pay- % ment to the Indians as ending their obligation,-^ Â town meeting in February 1670/1 stated that the freeholders; do Hold and Possess their Lands and Eights in the said Town, both by Civil and Divine Right, as by their Legall purchase and Articles doth and may Shew. And as f o r th e payment of th e Ete-lf Penny per Acre for all our Allotted Lands,,, You assuring them to us, we are ready when the Time Gomes, to perform our Duty to the Lords or their Assigns,^

On 24 March I 670 /I the townspeople decided to pay their quit-rents, but in wheat. The value of summer wheat was set at 4s, per bushel and winter wheat was valued for 5s, The wheat was to be delivered to Governor Carteret, Carteret, however, refused to accept it. The following year, the same offer was tendered to the governor,^ The struggle over the quit-rents and the attempt by Carteret to deny the rights of freemen to those who did not hold land under a proprietary patent evoked strong anti­ administration feelings in New Jersey,^ At this juncture, James Carteret, son of Sir George, arrived in New Jersey, On 26 March 1672 the assembly met at Elizabeth Town and it is believed that the representatives were elected with­ out the sanction of the governor or council. What was 25 discussed at the meeting is unlmcwn but there is some indi­ cation that the issues of proprietary patents and the pay- ment of quit-rents were paramount. A second unauthorized meeting was held the following May l4th, with deputies from a ll towns except Middletown and Shrewsbury. At this meet­ ing, James Oarteret was chosen as "president of the province." She council asked Philip Oarteret to go to England and fully inform Sir George Oarteret of the events in the province. It was their hope that %hen presented with the situation the proprietor would order his son "to desist from such 8 ■ Irregularities. " In addition to asking the governor to make the long journey, the council prepared an address to the two proprie­ tors asking for help in "Ouring this wound by speedy Medicine

which delay may Oause to Gangrene^" They requested that, although the Concessions required payment of quit-rents in the current currency of England, the proprietors allow pay­ ment in kind; "in such Pay as groweth in the Country at Merchant's price. When the news of events reached England there was a flurry of pronouncements and all had the intent of quelling the illegal actions across the sea. On 25 November 16?2 the Duke of York wrote to Governor Lovelace of New York and explained his position on the claims of Elizabeth Town. James contended that the Nicholls grant was posterior to 26 the one to Berkeley and Carteret and was, therefore, void in law. He wanted Lovelace to tell those who claimed otherwise that under no circumstances would he countenance such a claim, James did not want to hear of any claims to derogate the proprietors hold. The Duke of York wanted 10 his officers to help restore peace, • King Charles II also expressed his views on the matter. On 9 December 1672 he sent a letter to Captain John Berry, deputy governor of the rebellious province, and to the council. His majesty ordered the leaders in Hew Jersey to command all people in the colony to obey the laws and gov­ ernment of the proprietors. The two lords had been granted the sole power to settle and govern the area and the king expected his subjects to comply with his grant. Unless the dissidents carried out the royal command then they 11 faced punishment by law. The Elizabeth Town Associates later said that the letter from the king had been obtained through misrepresentations on the part of the proprietors. If men of great power had not gained the ear of his Majesty and he had had the opportunity to hear the truth 1P then he would not have had written what he did, Berkeley and Carteret were the busiest men in counter­ acting the revolutionary statements and actions of the inhabitants. In the "Declaration of the True Intent and Meaning of their Concessions" the proprietors reiterated the basic system of government of their province. They 27 firmly stated that under no circumstances would a person be considered a freeholder or would he have the right to vote or to hold office unless he actually held his land under a proprietary patent. The powers of the governor and his council were stressed; to call the Assembly, to dis­ pose of allotments of land without the approval of the Assembly, to appoint civil and military officials on their own, to enlist any aid available to squelch rebellions, to lay out land without consent c£ the Assembly, and to sit separate from the popular house. On the same day, 6 December 1672, Berkeley and Carteret also dispatched a declaration to the inhabitants of Hew 14 Jersey, In this document they promised that any lands granted by their governor to 28 July I 672 and completed frith recorded patents would be forever respected. Sut they disowned any claim to lands held by grants from H ich o lls, The two lo rd s held th a t the H icholls grant was made after the grant from James and therefore was void. They also pointed to the l e t t e r of James to Governor Love­ lace to prove their point. If any of those who claimed by the Hicholls grant would patent their land according to authority and pay the quit-rents due they would enjoy their estates. If the dissidents refused to comply with the order then the governor and council were empowered to dispose of the tracts to those who would be of the best advantage to the proprietors. Of course, anyone who felt discriminated 28

against could apply to the King and Council for redress. Berkeley and Carteret ordered town constables to begin to

collect the quit-rents due in I 67 O by way of distress. And heeding the plea of the council for a change in the method of payment they agreed to accept produce for payment of rent. The following day the governor and council were ordered to collect the arrears in quit-rent from 1670 and

that the sum be paid by I 676 . In addition, the growing rent would also be collected.On 22 May 1673 Deputy Gover­ nor Berry and his council ordered that warrants and patents be taken out within a specified time or'else the people would forfeit their right to choose representatives and lose their la n d s .16 The rebellion ended by June 1673, when the "president," James Carteret, left New Jersey and went to Carolina, The previous month several members of the ousted government, notably Berry, returned from England with documents vesting them with authority to run the government. Such authoriza­ tion convinced James Carteret of his errors and he resigned the role that he had accepted.1? Before the proprietors could fully reassert their control the Dutch reconquered 1 R New Jersey, and foreign rule lasted until November 1674. The second Anglo-Dutch War was ended on 9 February

1673/4 with the treaty of Westminster. By this treaty there was a mutual return of conquests by the Dutch and English. 29

On 13 June, King Charles proclaimed Sir George Carteret possessed of New Jersey and he warned the inhabitants of the province not to disobey his laws as had occurred with­ in the p a s t. Like h is l e t t e r of December 16?2, Charles was distressed by the thought of illegal assemblies and re­ bellious actions. In the same language used in March 1663A the king regranted his brother, the Duke of York the lands between the Delaware River and Connecticut.^^ And on 28 and 29 July 167*+ the Duke signed deeds of lease and release for East Jersey to Sir George Carteret.20 Once again Philip Carteret was appointed to act as governor for the proprietor. The instructions given to P h ilip were very sim ilar to the D eclaration of December

1672 in which the then two proprietors promised recognition to anyone who had been granted land previous to 28 July

1672 , but refused to recognize or countenance any claims under the Nicholls government. Anyone who refused to take out a proprietary patent within one year faced the possibility of losing his land. Constables were given permission to use actions of distraint to recover quit-rents in arrears,21 Carteret arrived in New Jersey in November 167*+. Philip Carteret and his council soon ordered that starting in March 167*+/5 and lasting through August 1675 the surveyor general would be in several towns throughout the province to prepare surveys in order to patent. But if it appeared 30 that the people had been remiss in submitting to surveys or in failing to acquire patents, then the Governor and Councill doe by these Ord^s conclude themsellves wholly acquitted from the Malicious censure of Reggour for prosecuting the Lord Propfs Com*ands in dispossessing those that shall be therein Neglectvil, the same haveing beene for severall yeares past persuaded, and the Work now as much as may be f a c i li t a t e d ,22 When it became apparent that Governor Carteret was going to assert the interests of his lord the people of Elizabeth Town petitioned for a charter for township eight miles square. The petition requested a charter which would bestow on them the privileges of other towns. For this

charter they offered to pay 20 pounds per y e a r . 23 In the request they asked that the land be divided into first, second and third lot rights. But this was refused by the proprietary government because it had been instructed to grant lands only at the rate of one-half penny per acre and nothing l e s s . 2^ In the Elizabeth Town Bill the proprietors claimed th a t by the end of 1675 a l l the A ssociates of the town, except one, had taken out warrants for their lands and they later received patents. The people, according to the same B ill, "laid aside" the pretensions of claiming by Indian purchase. The proprietors said that this signified the forfeiture of all claims to non-proprietary titles,25 The Associates, or rather, their heirs and assigns, took a different viewpoint. They held that the only reason they applied for warrants and patents was to ward off the 31 threats made by the proprietor that unless they conformed they would lose all their rights. Acceptance was, there­ fore, only a matter of prudence. The proprietors were men of great power and influence and the inhabitants of Eliza­ beth Town could in no way match them. And the adversaries of Elizabeth Town acted as both legislator and judge which further tended to diminish any opposition. Because of the use of compulsion the Associates argued that their accept­ ance of patents should in no way injure their claims.26 Newark, like Elizabeth Town, tried to deal with the proprietors about the requirement for patents. Twice they wrote to the governor about the proclamation requiring sur­ veys. In March 167^/5 they sent three men to Elizabeth Town to debate with Carteret on the issue, but nothing was resolved. Although there were strong feelings about paying quit-rents many people in Newark took out patents and started

to pay the required fees.27 For the remainder of Carteret*s tenure as governor the issue remained quiet. In the meantime the ownership of East Jersey underwent a radical change. On 30 January 1679/80 Sir George Carteret died and the province was left to trustees to be sold to pay o ff h is c re d ito rs . His widow, Lady C a rte re t, was made h is executrix. A year later, on 1 and 2 February 1681/2, the trustees gave deeds of lease and release for the province to twelve Quakers, In June each of the twelve transferred 32 one-half of his holdings to another. Thus, the number of proprietors for East New Jersey now was twenty-four.28 The new deputy governor of East Jersey was Thomas Rudyard who arriv ed in November 1682. Rudyard had some disputes over the questions of quit-rents but they were not serious. When three representatives of Elizabeth Town appeared before the Council and said that there would be a town meeting to divide the town lands in to f i r s t , second and third lot rights. Governor Rudyard replied that the inhabitants could do anything they wanted so long as they obtained proper registration for their lands. This was the only discussion about the Elizabeth Town purchase during his administration. There was a dispute concerning other towns who claimed governmental powers from their Nicholls grants but this was settled without any serious tro u b le .29 The administration of Governor Gawen Lawrie was wracked with convulsions brought about by attempts to enforce the proprietors instructions on the collection of quit-rents, Lawrie received the unpleasant and difficult task of finding a solution to the whole question of proper titles. He was instructed to bring an end to all opposition which existed to the proprietors* claim and to get a repudiation to claims under Nicholls grants and Indian purchases. In attempting to carry out these great tasks he found his name and his reputation tarnished. 33

Lawrie*s commission bears the date July 1683 . 3^ That same month the proprietors in London issued a series of instructions that he should carry out when he arrived in New Jersey. The proprietors® main concern was that their interest be protected 5 that the profits from the land be as great as possible. Number ten of the instructions dealt with quit-rents. Lawrie was to get arrears in payments and to make settlements to insure future payments: "so we leave him to bargain with them in such cases, as in discretion he shall see meet, not standing much with them upon small M atters."31 In ad d itio n , Lawrie was to prepare a statem ent on the amount of quit-rents due, the amount of land already granted and any agreements th a t he might have made. The perennial problem of the Nicholls grant found men­ tion in the twelfth article of the instructions. A complete examination of Nicholls powers was ordered to establish exactly what rights he had and how much he was permitted to do. Where the loss to the proprietors by those claiming under the Nicholls grants was small then the advantage would go to the inhabitants. But if the loss would be to the detriment of the proprietors then their interests should be paramount. And if no settlement could be reached then the issue should be sent to London for action.32

On 21 February I683 A the proprietors addressed a

letter to the people of their p r o v i n c e . 23 They were / - 3^ informed that Gawen Lawrie had been sent as deputy governor and that he had full powers for "putting all Things in good Order." The communication expressed the deep dismay of the proprietors at attempts to subvert their title. They hoped that those who made the try were rebuked by their disappoint­ ment in getting the proprietary title invalidated. Those who expect the g reat d istance between London and New Jersey to allow them, to pursue their unreasonable claims will be greatly mistaken* the letter continued. Despite the diffi- cuties the proprietors will take an active role in their investments and will pursue their rights. Those who opposed the rightful owners were not friends. With a just govern­ ment they hoped to change the situation. The proprietors expected submission by their opponents, "nd finally, the l e t t e r condemned a l l claims by Indian purchase and announced for all to hear that under no circumstances would such a claim be countenanced. Lawrie*s tenure in office marked the establishment of the Board of Proprietors of the Eastern Division of New Jersey, On 1 August 168^- the proprietors in London consented to permit greater authority for those proprietors residing in America. The reason for the grant of power was to per­ mit the proprietors to handle situations as soon as they arose and thereby create a better atmosphere for the settle­ ment of the land. In addition to having the right to approve 35 and confirm acts of the Assembly the resident proprietors could also act to end all disputes over arrears in quit- rents. They also had the authority to purchase Indian lands, to lay out lands for settlers, and to run the divi­ sion line between East and West Jersey.3^ After the trans­ fer of governmental powers to the crown in 1703 the Board became the all-important agent for proprietary interests, Lawrie was compelled to write an account of his efforts to end the land conflicts because he was under extreme attack. In fact, he was removed from his position as deputy governor because the proprietors found "it unfit to continue him longer in any publique employment."35 The deputy governor authored "a Brief Account of the Severall treaties between the Governor of East New Jersey and the Inhabitants thereof Concern—their quit rents and arriers and colonel Nicholas Pattent for L a n d . "36 in his justifica­ tion the embittered governor contended that contrary to allegations he had acted with only the proprietors* inter­ ests in mind, Lawrie first encountered the opposition of John Berry who claimed that the act establishing the Court of Common Right was not legal since it had not been approved by the proprietors as required by the Concessions. If he were upheld thoii the government would be unable to collect quit- rents due since I 67 O and which Berry owed a considerable amount on. Despite a determined stand by Berry the Deputy 36

Governor was able to reach an agreement with Berry whereby the latter would patent his land and receive a reduced rate on what he owed. With the towns which claimed under the Monmouth grant, Lawrie also made a settlement. After several months of negotiations the towns of Middletown and Shrewsbury agreed to apply for proprietary patents at favorable quit-rents. Similar arrangements were made with Woodbridge and Piscataway. Lawrie managed to persuade some individuals who claimed under the Elizabeth Town purchase to take out patents, but many continued th e ir re sista n c e to the demands to apply fo r w arrants. In December 168^- a d eleg atio n from E lizabeth Town offered the governor an arrangement whereby the towns­ people would forfeit all claims to the Nicholls grant in exchange for a general proprietary patent for their town­ ship at the rate of one lamb per year as quit-rent, Lawrie, however, refused this offer and countered with a proposal for low quit-rents. When nothing came from this line of discussion Lawrie proposed that the entire question of the Nicholls grant be put to a test by the king and council or by the lords justices. The Elizabeth Town delegation pro­ posed arbitration with men from Long Island or Rhode Island but since the town was settled with people from these areas the proposal was rejected. The governor then offered arbi­ tration by men from East Jersey. This too was refused and 37 this effort came to naught. Finally, in 1686 several in­ habitants applied for individual proprietary patents for which they were required to pay their arrears. When a delegation from Newark approached Lawrie in January 1685 to request a general patent for their land the governor told them that all who already held patents had to pay their quit-rents and those who had refused had to take out the required patents. After several weeks the town's offer was repeated only to be refused again. When the townspeople tried again the following October they were told that no consideration would be made of the offer until all quit-rent arrears were paid. It wasn't until 1693 that some Newark people agreed to the p ro p rie to r's demands. Governor Lawrie made an excellent effort to resolve the complicated differences between the proprietors and their opponents. Considering the magnitude of the task he must be commended and not condemned for h is attem pts. But in his tenure in office he made many enemies and they managed to have him removed. They charged th a t he took the best lands available for himself and did not set them aside for the general proprietors as required. The proprie­ tors residing in England could not and did not know the facts and they mistakenly accepted the charges without criti­ cally examining the case. Therefore, Gawen Lawrie was removed from office. 38

On 5 October 1686 Lawrie was succeeded by Lord Neil Campbell who was in East Jersey. Campbell remained in charge only through December when he returned to Scotland and in h is stead he nominated Andrew Hamilton who assumed the office the following April. It was during Hamilton*s first term as governor that the Andros interlude took p lace. On 9 A pril 169237 Hamilton was once again commis­ sioned as governor. He was instructed to prepare a roll

of quit-rents and to demand all payments in a r r e a r s . 38 The case of Fullerton vs. Jones again brought forward the question of quit-rents. Jeffery Jones occupied a 180-acre farm in Elizabeth Township for which he paid no quit-rents.39 The proprietors were anxious to have a court decision on the validity of their title and brought a suit of trespass and ejectment against Jones in September 1693 in the name of James Fuller­ ton. Jones was defended by William Nicholls of New York and the plaintiff was represented by James Emott,. former secretary of the Board of Proprietors. After many delays the trial was finally held in May 1695. Nicholls argued that James could not legally grant East Jersey to Carteret in 167*+ because of an ancient statute which required the grantor to possess the land for one year. Emott countered with the argument that the second grant was not a new one but a revival of an old one. Nicholls also claimed that 39 because Jones possessed the land for some twenty years he came under the protection of a statute of limitations. Emott said that the act was not applicable to the situation. The court decided in favor of Fullerton and Nicholls carried an appeal to England.^0 In 1697 the Elizabeth Town inhabitants petitioned the king concerning the attempts of the proprietors to force them off the lands granted in 166^. The petition stated that the jury at the trial, although chosen by the proprie­ tors, delivered a verdict for Jones, But, they continued, the judges, appointed by the proprietors and therefore partial, gave judgment against the defendant,A different

version of the same matter was delivered in I 7OO by the proprietors in an answer to a memorial by East Jersey in­ habitants for the appointment of a royal governor. The proprietors contended that both sides in the case had agreed upon a special verdict so that a decision would be made in England, but the jury disregarded the agreement and gave a general verdict in favor of Jones, This was contrary to the order of the court and the judges set the jury's verdict a s id e .^2

Exactly what occurred a t the t r i a l is unknown but i t is known that once the appeal was made in London the verdict was reversed. Nicholls pleaded the appeal and on 25 February

1696/7 the king and the privy council decided in favor of ho

Jones. According to Nicholls the question before the privy council was whether Col» Nicholl*s grant in 1664- was legal and if valid conld English subjects purchase lands under it? He read the decision to be yes and the Elizabeth Town people took heart after this decision and believed their case to be forever settled against any claims made by the proprietors. The proprietors on the other hand, said that the reversal by the king was made on the basis of an error in proceedings, although they were never able to discover exactly what the error was.^3 Because of Fullerton v. Jones the old question of quit- rents was raised. The Assembly which was beginning to chafe under demands of-Governor Hamilton was h e s ita n t to enact legislation until some arrangements were made to reduce the burden of the quit-rents, Richard Hartshorne, speaker of the Assembly, suggested that some method be found to buy up the quit-rents. Hamilton suggested that the lower house send someone to England to discuss i t w ith the p ro p rie to rs. But before he would support such an effort the governor re­ quired that the Assembly vote the government a yearly fund. Hartshorne refused to accept this because he said that the proprietors must indicate their good faith first. The ever­ lasting battle between the upper house and the Assembly did not find a solution at this time.^^ 41

Because of a provision in the Navigation Act of I 696 Andrew Hamilton was disqualified as governor. The act pro­ vided that only native-born Englishmen could serve in positions of trust and, as a Scot, Hamilton could not qualify. Therefore, a new governor, Jeremiah Basse, was appointed. Bassets tenure in office alienated many groups because the people felt he had used the office for his own personal gain. One of the more serious questions raised during his term was a free port for East Jersey which the proprietors wanted so that their profits could be increased. Unfortun­ ately for tbsm. New York fiercely contested any such claim and managed to prevent th e ir g ettin g the r ig h t, The most vocal opponent to Basse was Lewis Morris, governor in 1745 when the riots broke out. Morris contended that Basse was not legally appointed as chief executive and refused to recognize him, Basse dropped Morris from the council.At one point Morris was committed to prison for contempt of court but he was rescued from jail by friends. Lewis Morris, stirred up opposition throughout the province to the governor and to the right of the proprietors to govern. He leveled an attack on quit-rents which he called an unjust tax. Basse left New Jersey in I 699 for England and he appointed Andrew Bowne as deputy governor. Bowne served until Basse returned in July 1699, and in August Andrew Hamilton was reappointed. The proprietors were k2 disgusted at Basse*s actions and the disorders which came from them and they hoped that Hamilton would correct the s itu a tio n . Because of Morris* activities riots erupted throughout East Jersey protesting the proprietor*s claim to govern. The country was thrown into a state of complete confusion and this resulted in the surrender of the right to govern by the proprietors in 1702. In the fall of I 7OO well over . 200 inhabitants of East Jersey petitioned the king on the state of the c o lo n y .^7 In the remonstrance they reviewed their claim by virtue of the Nicholl's grant. The angry citizens claimed that the proprietors were acting against the interests of the crown by assuming the right to govern. Specifically, they charged that the proprietors appointed governors without the king's approbation. They requested the king to correct the oppressions levied by the proprie­ tors and to commission a person qualified to settle the differences between them and the proprietors. The proprietors were already preparing preliminary negotiations for relinquishing the power of government, but they were ready to answer the charges raised in the petition of I 7OO. On 9 December I 7OO the proprietors pre­ sented a very carefully prepared document to counter the claims made by what they considered to be a mutinous faction of people who wanted to deprive them of their rights to the 43 soil and the qnit-rents from themJ48 jhe proprietors* answer traced their claim and refuted any possible claims under the Nicholls grant. The reply also contended that the present government had done nothing to the detriment of the king's authority. Disorders continued in the colony and Governor Hamilton urged that the king order the subjects to obey the govern­ ment. Hamilton pictured the province deteriorating into anarchy unless something was done.^9 It was only a matter of time until the surrender was completed but in the mean­ while the proprietors begged for help. Finally, in April

1702 the proprietors turned over the reins of government to the crown. Under the terms of the agreement the proprietors renounced all claims to right to govern, but retained the rights to the soil.?^ Now Queen Anne appointed Lord Gornbury, governor of New York, to be governor of New Jersey as well. The joint government existed until Lewis Morris was commissioned as governor in 1739. From I 67 O u n til the surrender in 1702 the question of quit-rents and of the proprietors' right to the soil played an important role in the history of the colony. It helped to stir up animosities toward the govern­ ment which resulted in its demise. After this point the target of the Elizabeth Town and Newark claimants would not be the government, but the proprietors, although they would Mf claim that the proprietors dominated and controlled it. The struggle would now shift to the courts for a settle­ ment. FOOTNOTES - Chapter 2

1. Pomfret, East New Jersey, 60-61. 2. Quit Rent Book in the library of Rutgers University, 3. i^Hi5t.ory.-Qf_the. Cit.y. ...Q.f Newark, __New Jersey, Em­ bracing Practically Two and a Half Centuries (New York and Chicago. 1913? 3 vols.), I, *+5. 4-, As in Pomfret, East New Jersey, 61-62.

5 . Ibid. . 62; History of Newark, I, 146-4?. 6. Ibid.. I, 146.

7 . Ibid., I, 146; Pomfret, East New Jersey. 63. 8. NJA, I , 91- 9 2.

9. 1 July 1672 , NJA, I , 94- 9 7. 10. Ibid.. 97- 98. 11. Ibid. . 107; Aaron Learning and Jacob Spicer, eds,, The Grants, Concessions and Original Constitutions of the Province of New-Jersev (Philadelphia, 1752). 12. Answer, 25.

13. NJA, I, 99-101, 14. Ibid., I, 101- 103. 15 . Ibid., I, 105-106.

16. Ibid., I, 119- 2 0 .

17. Pomfret, East New Jersey, 69-70.

18. Ibid.. 73-81 has an excellent discussion of East Jersey under Dutch rule.

19. 29 June 1674, NJA, I, 160-61,

45 46

20. Ibid. . 161-67. 21. Ibid.^ I, 167-75» Learningand Spicer, Grants and Concessions. 5l. 52, 55. 22. I, 176-79. 23. 11 March 1674/5, Elizabeth Town B ill. 42. 24. Ibid. . 43; Answer. 23-24, 27; Pomfret, East New Jersey. loFI 25. Elizabeth Town B ill. 43. 26. Answer. 27-29. 27. History of Newark. I, 148; Pomfret, East New Jersey. 155 . 28. Pomfret, East New Jersey. 130=131, has an excellent discussion of the change to the twenty-four proprietors and their backgrounds,

29. Ibid., 161. 30. NJA, I , 423- 2 5 . 31. Ibid.. I. 426-34.

32. Learning and Spicer, Grants and Concessions, 174. 33. Ibid.. 188-90; NJA, I, 454-59. 34. NJA, I, 459-62.

35. 5 May I687 , ibid., 531-32. 36 . John E. Pomfret, "The Anoloaia of Goyernor Lawrie of East New Jersey, I68 O," William ana Mary Quarterly. XIV (Ju ly 1957), 354 . 37. Pomfret, East New Jersey. 278.

38. NJA., II, 84-86.

39. E lizabeth Town B i l l . 44; Edwin F. H a tfie ld , H is­ tory of Elizabeth, iklew Jersey; including the Early History of Union County (New York. 1868). 24l-42.

46 h 7

^0, Pomfret, East New Jersey^ 299-301. ^■1. NJA, I I , 121-29. 4-2. Ibid. . 344-52.

4 3 . Elizabeth Town B ill. 44; Answer, 30-31. 44. Pomfret, East New Jersey. 292-97.

4 5 . I b id . , 320.

46. I M â i r 330- 3 3 . 4 7. Ibid.. 334-40; NJA, X, 322-27.

48. NJA, I I , 344- 52 .

4 9. Pomfret, East New Jersey. 346-48,

50 . I b id .. 361 ; NJA, II, 452-61. CHAPTER I I I LEGAL MANEUVERING 1702 - 17^5

The four decades after the crown assumed governmental powers in New Jersey were filled with great activity in the courts. The proprietors instituted many suits of tres­ pass and trespass and ejection. By the 1730*s the number of suits grew so large that the Board of Proprietors de­ cided that the quickest way to settle the entire question of land titles was through a decision in the Court of Chancery. A single decision in equity could mean a final end to the controversy because it would be an all-encompass­ ing verdict. If the proprietors were forced to continue p ressin g in d iv id u al s u its in the Supreme Court they estim ated that it would take at least thirty-six years to settle the situation and would be very costly.1 In fact, at a Board meeting in 1725 the proprietors ordered their attorneys to bring law suits against trespassers but declared at the same time "that they engage the Proprietors in no expensive suits at Law."^ Thus, James Alexander began compiling material for a b ill in ©hancery on 28 October 17^0.3 During the chaos of the late I690's when the proprietors were preparing to turn the reins of government over to the

48 49 crown the Associates of Elizabeth Town extended their claims. What the A ssociates did was to survey lands included in the Nicholls grant but which had never been divided. By doing

so in 1699 they escaped the vigilant viewing of the proprie­ tors and for many years they were able to carry out their aims. From December 1699 to the follow ing March, some 17)000 acres on the Rahway River were surveyed by John Harriman. All the lands were part of the Elizabeth Town purchase. Parts of this division had been granted to pro­ prietors and part held in common by all the proprietors.4 The proprietors referred to this division as the Clinker Lot Division and those involved as Clinker Lot Right Men. In the Bill the proprietors said they did not know the reason for the name but that it was to distinguish them from a far greater number of Associates who refused to countenance the conspiracy. The Elizabeth Town people stoutly maintained that a majority of people supported the division and that it was not a conspiracy. They also objected to the use of the name Clinker Lot Division or Clinker Lot Right Men. The name, in their opinion, was a derisive one and that is why the proprietors insisted on referring to the 1699 division in th a t manner. The Answer suggests th a t the name was f i r s t used by an enemy of the Elizabeth Town Purchase and it was then embraced by their adversaries.^ 50

The royal governors a f te r 1702 were in stru c te d to refuse permission to any person, except the proprietors or their agents, to purchase Indian lands. To carry out this provision the legislature in 1703 passed "An Act for

regulating the purchasing of Lands from the I n d i a n s . The act provided that no Indian lands should te purchased unless permission was first obtained from the proprietors. Any person who violated the act was denied recourse to the courts to claim title, or to have any right in equity. The Elizabeth Town Associates denied that the act affected them because they had a license to purchase: the license from 1664.7 One of the earliest courc cases in this period was Vaughn v. Woodruff in 171^. In 1686 the p ro p rie to rs granted 300 acres to James Emott. The land eventually came into th e hands of the Rev, Edward Vaughn who m arried Emott*s widow. The same tract of land was given to Joseph Woodruff by the Elizabeth Town Associates after a survey in 1699/1700.

In the 171^ November term of the Supreme Court, Vaughn brought an action of ejectment against Woodruff. The trial was held

in May I7I 6 and two years la te r a judgment was issued in favor of the plaintiff. Woodruff appealed the verdict on a writ of error to the governor and council intending to carry it to the king. There was never a reversal of the 51 original verdict and after many year's delay the case was dropped.8 The proprietors claimed that for four years after the decision there were some fifty recorded surveys for Elizabeth Town claimants and that the associates gave up pretenses to their claim.9 The Schuyler case, Lithgow v. Robison, is another land­ mark in the turbulent eighteenth century. Patrick Lithgow had come into some land west of the Rahway River which had been originally patented in 1682 to Peter Schuyler by the proprietors, A portion of the same tract was claimed by the Elizabeth Town Associates and several others had come into possession of the land, including John Robison, Henry C larke, Andrew Craige and Joshua Marsh. The s u it was trie d in Middlesex County and a general verdict was given for the defendants. The proprietors held that the jury reached their decision solely on the defect of the lessor of the plaihtiff*s title without considering the défendantes pre­ tended title. Of course, the Associates denied this alle­ g atio n , They contended th a t several members of the jury said that they considered the Elizabeth Town title as good and valid as any in the w o r l d . ^0

Lithgow V . Robison is significant because the verdict boosted the Associates morale and spurred them on to pursue their claims aggressively. They believed that the verdict confirmed the validity of the Elizabeth Town purchase and 52 the Nicholls grant. The proprietors felt that it encouraged them in their belief that they had the right to sell all the land remaining within the bounds of that grant. And after the verdict the proprietors claimed that the Associates extended their purchase westward and northward "to such a Length and Breadth as was by their Forefathers never thought

ofVJL 9 0 0 0 The case of Fenn v . Chambers and A lcorn, the f i r s t brought to trial after the Schuyler verdict, was instituted in 1735 but was not decided until 16 August 17^1. An action of ejectm ent was brought in the Supreme Court by James Fenn The defendants were John Chambers and Alcorn who claimed part of Fenn's land through title by the Elizabeth Town claim. After a forty-six-hour trial the jury decided for the plaintiff on the grounds that the land in question was not included in the Elizabeth Town purchase. The Associates held that the verdict was not on the worth of the title but on the b e lie f th a t a v a ria tio n of the compass would leave the defendant's land out of the 166^ purchase. The pro­ prietors of course claimed that the Verdict, which was delivered by a jury which included at least nine men who held interest in the Elizabeth Town purchase, established their just title.12 Two responses came from the Fenn case. First, the proprietors claimed that after the verdict Chambers and 53 others living on the 7500 acre Penn tract submitted to the Penns,The tenants obviously lost any hope of sustaining their claim to title by Indian purchase and decided to pro­ tect their lands from seizure. The expense of a dual title, proprietary and Elizabeth Town, must have led to increasing bitterness on the small farmer*s side which contributed to the violence after 17^5«. And second, the Associates, to meet the expenses of the suit, on 15 December 17^1 decided to give full power to the town committee to sell several hundred acres of land.^^ The proprietors upon seeing the increased activity of their adversaries were spurred on to greater efforts. In turn the Associates felt more pressure and this sparked further emnity. The determined efforts of the proprietors to achieve a judicial end to their troubled claims helped to create a vicious cycle which was broken only by mob action. The proprietors pressed on with trespass suits. In May 1738 Daniel Cooper, who held land by a proprietary title , filed a suit against several men who illegally entered onto his tract. Cooper charged that in February 1737/8 the A ssociates entered on h is land "in so p riv ate a Manner and mostly by Moon Light, in the Night Time", to divide it into lots. After finding witnesses to the trespass Cooper brought several actions against Joseph Moss, John Crane, John Dennon, John Scudder, John Terril, Samuel Norris, Sr., and Samuel Norris, Jr. When the hearing was held in May, t’- defen­ dants pleaded not guilty. The case against as was scheduled to be tried in March 17^-1/2 but upon the request of the Elizabeth Town Committee it was postponed. Finally, in the August term 17^2 the t r i a l was held and a f te r a forty-hour trial the Morris County jury decided for the plaintiff.The Associates claimed that Morris County had been formed in March 1738/9 and Somerset County had been so altered in November 17^1 as to bring much of the land in question into these counties. They felt that the proprietors wanted the cases tried before juries of Morris and Somerset Counties because the men in those counties were known to be opposed to Elizabeth Town pretensions. In addition they charged the judges were allied to their adversaries.

In Jackson v. Vail the usual procedure was reversed because an Elizabeth Town claimant was the plaintiff. The suit was brought in August 1738 but a verdict was not de­ livered until 19 March 17^1/2. A Middlesex County jury decided in favor of the plaintiff and an appeal was carried to the governor and council but no disposition was ever made of it. The defendant, John Vail, received 619 acres

in 1732 from Peter Sommons who claimed by proprietary title. Through various transactions over the years the plaintiff 55 came into a second lot right claim originally granted to John Baker. Thus, Jackson claimed under the Nicholls grant. Vail attempted to show that Baker had laid aside all pretensions to the Nicholls grant by applying for a warrant to survey I 8OO acres. The patent, however, was never issued. In addition, the proprietors held that the land was never occupied by the first two claimants, According to the proprietors the verdict was "contrary to the Expectation of all, or most of the numerous Audatory of the said T rial,T hey held that the verdict was brought about through pressure by a single juror, John W etherill, W etherill owned 400 acres by virtue of the Elizabeth Town purchase and therefore held great sway with his fellow jurors. His influence was further enhanced because "the most sensible" members of the original panel were struck by Jackson*s attorney. By threatening to starve them out unless they joined him, and with convincing speeches, W etherill brought his eleven peers to concur in the verdict. In the Answer the Associates denied all the allegations of the proprietors but like the rest of their case, presented no evidence to substantiate their position.^9 Victories such as Jackson v. Vail made it more difficult to end the conflict by judicial processes because it gave hope to the Associates that they would eventually be vindicated 56 in their position and it moved the proprietors to instigate more suits to counteract them,20 In order to meet effectively the challenge of the well- organized and powerful Board of Proprietors the Elizabeth Town people elected a committee to represent them. The committee, called the Committee of Seven, was given great powers and was responsible for pushing the town*s pretensions. Information about the efforts of the town to match their op­ ponents is found in the Elizabeth Town Book, The original town book which contained all surveys and records, disap­ peared around 1?14^ and when it seemed that it would never 21 be found again a new book was compiled in 1729« The Asso­ ciates claimed that it was "maliciously stolen" from them so that they could never prove their claims because the last book contained the 166^- grant and license to purchase. The proprietors, however, held that the Associates purposely destroyed it because it incorporated information detrimental to their position. So relying on the memories of the old town clerk and surveyor the book was recreated and later used as the basis of the Elizabeth Town c l a i m , 22 At a town meeting on 2 August 1720, and reaffirmed in November 1729, the freeholders chose a committee of seven to represent them, "In all affairs. Touching The settlement of Their, and Every of Their Just Rights, and properties," The men elected were given full power and authority to act 5?

in all matters concerning the grant and purchase under Nicholls, The Committee of Seven instituted court cases and defended titles^^ against their opponents. They also had the responsibility of surveying lands and selling them so that funds could be raised for legal expenses. In 1720 the Committee consisted of: John Blanchard, Capt. Joseph Bonnel, Jolin Crane, Joseph Williams, Samuel Potter, Nathaniel Bonnel, and Daniel Sayre, In 1729, Benjamin Bond, Joseph Woodruff and John Harriman were appointed to take the place of John Crane (dead), Joseph Williams, and Daniel Sayre (dead). On 4 April 1732 a town meeting chose Joseph Williams, Joseph Halsey, Jeremiah Crane, Samuel M iller, Caleb Jefferys, John Crane, and Joseph Bonnel. On 1^ November 1737 John Megie was chosen to replace Samuel M iller who was judged to

be too old and infirm. By March 1738/9 two additional changes were made in the compositioncf the Committees Jonathan Dayton replaced Joseph Williams who had died and John Ogden replaced Jeremiah Crane because the latter was too old. John Blanchard replaced Joseph Bonnel on 18 June

1739. In 17^0 the Committee included Andrew John, John Crane, Joseph Man, Thomas Clark, Andrew Craige, Jonathan p U- Dayton and John M agie.^ The expense of combating the proprietors in the courts was very great and in order to do it properly the Committee

had to find a source of income. Two methods were decided 58 upon: the sale of land and the sale of bonds to those who purchased. On 1 July 1734 a town meeting decided to sell a tract of land in the Elizabeth Town purchase to help de­ fray expenses. The Committee of Seven was entrusted to sell the land and to use the proceeds to defend the people who lived on it or in dispossessing any who dared to intrude on th e t r a c t . 2^ A further disposition of land, in hundred acre lots, was authorized on 11 March 1734/5. The lots were to be divided among the Associates or sold to those who might have settled upon it. Again, whatever money was raised by these efforts would be utilized for legal expenses. The case of Fenn v. Chambers and Alcorn forced the Associates to seek increased funds and a new order for land sales was made on 16 September 1735. The land was clearly included in the Elizabeth Town purchase. The price was set at two thousand pounds for the entire tract or less in pro­ portion to the aiüount sold. Up to one-third of the tract could be reserved for the Associates if so desired and the price would be reduced by that amount. The funds were for the improvement of the general good of the Associates. On 15 December 1747, three hundred acres near Ash Swamp were placed on the market to defray additional expenses in the Fenn case.^7 The second source of income for the Elizabeth Town group was bonds bought by lessees. Land sold at five pounds per 59 hxindred acres but when the need grew the price increased to ten, fifteen and twenty pounds per hundred acres. Even with the highest price the purchaser received a bargain be­ cause the proprietors estimated the worth of the land at one hundred pounds to three hundred pounds per hundred acres. Those who bought their lands from the Associates were ex­ pected to give bond of ten pounds per hundred acres that they would stand by the sellers against the proprietors. They were also expected to contribute up to ten pounds for defense. At a town meeting on 28 March 1738 the Associates decided to defend against molesters all those who were paying ten shillings per year per hundred acres. The Associates vehemently denied the allegation that purchasers were forced to pay for legal expenses when they purchased the land. Contributions were not a condition for purchase, but the people voluntarily gave after the purchase. After all, weren*t they united in a common effort to achieve recognition of their just titles? How voluntary the entire process was is uncertain. On 18 June 1739 five men were appointed to collect money from the inhabitants of the town to help defray legal expenses. No mention was made of a set rate or penal­ ties for non-payment and this could indicate a degree of freedom for the people. And the continuous need to make further land sales to raise funds suggests that the people were slow in providing m o n e y . 28 60

The Board of Proprietors recognized the Committee of Seven and tried to negotiate with it to settle the contro­ versy, A board meeting on 10 January I 725/6 appointed James Alexander to write to Joseph Bonnel expressing an interest in talks and asking for proposals or time for a meeting. Alexander could assure the Associates of "the hearty inclina­ tion of the proprietors to an amicable agreement with them," Bonnel replied that his group was willing to talk whenever the proprietors saw fit to establish the time. The Board of Proprietors accepted Bonnel's letter and decided to meet with any representatives the Committee might appoint. And the president was ordered to write to the Committee to assure them that the proprietors wanted to promote good understanding with the people of Elizabeth Town. Nothing more is recorded of this exchange and no meeting ever o c c u rre d . 29

By December 1735 the proprietors were worried by the ' vigorous efforts of the Elizabeth Town people in appointing a committee and amassing a fund through the sale of lands. They called a full meeting of all proprietors in order to decide on action before their opponents became too impossible to contend with. They decided to put a speedy end to the Associates and they called their attorneys before them. Evan Drummond and John Vail were questioned but they could only give general answers to the inquiries. Therefore, they #1 were ordered to make a complete report on everything that was happening in Elizabeth Town. The Board decided to start a law suit after Vail delivered his report. To raise money for the suit the Board ordered four thousand acres to be s o ld .30

John Vail*s report was detailed and described how many acres of proprietary lands were appropriated by the Associates, Many men lost two to three thousand acres and some only three to four hundred. But the important fact was that the Com­ mittee was gaining power and prestige among the people. After hearing the report the Board ordered six suits of tres­ pass bought in Somerset County and Lyell was ordered to bring the actions. Fenwick Lyell, some months later, reported that he found only one case of trespass in Somerset and was await­ ing further orders. He was told that if he had sufficient evidence in this case he should definitely file suit.31 In addition to bringing suits the Board decided to defend these people who purchased land from the proprietors and who were threatened by Elizabeth Town, The settler caught in the middle of the struggle had to promise that he would not succumb to the Associates* pressures and purchase his land from them as well. They required that the person desiring protection take out a bond as surety of his inten­ tion to resist Elizabeth Town claimants. If he entered into an alliance with the Associates he would forfeit the bond and his land,32 62

In 17^3 the Associates of Elizabeth Town decided that a more definite action was necessary and they voted to send an appeal to the king* The petition for relief against the proprietors was to be carried to England by Matthias Hatfield and Stephen Crane, In their representation, signed by three hundred and nine inhabitants of Elizabeth Town, they ex­ plained the background of the controversy. They argued that if they could find unprejudiced juries their title would be accepted. But the so-called proprietors control the supreme court and the council and therefore the Associates were discriminated against. If they were forced to face continual trials they would probably be bankrupted and com­ pelled to surrender their estates. When the petitioners attempted to appeal the decision in Vaughn v. Woodruff the Council, controlled by the proprietors, kept it for twelve years and it finally died. The Council would not permit the appeal to be carried to his Majesty because they feared a reversal as in Fullerton v. Jones, Because the petitioners had no hope for fairness in New Jersey they sought King George II*s aid. They suggested that he appoint commissioners from neighboring provinces to hear and decide the c a s e . 33 The petition was read in the Privy Council and referred to the Commissioners for Trade and Plantations but no disposi­ tion of the appeal is recorded,3^ 63

Even before the Elizabeth Town petition was prepared the Board of Proprietors, on the urging of James Alexander, decided to prepare a b ill in d&ancery. On 19 August 17^1 Alexander informed the Board that in February 1739A0 he began to research the situation.35 The next day the deci­ sion was made and Alexander was ordered to draw up a b ill after all his research was completed so that a final settle­ ment could be made. He was to have the assistance of three attorneys, Murray, Lyell and Ogden, in preparing the b ill. Over the years Alexander reported the progress of his re­ search and his conclusion was that the Elizabeth Town Associates had compromised and given up their pretenses sixty years previously. The petition convinced the pro­ prietors that immediate action was necessary and Alexander was ordered to rush the bill. It was filed on 17 April

17^5 and it contained over 100,000 words on eighteen parch­ ment skins, each 2^- by 27 inches written on both sides.3& Five months after the filing of the Elizabeth Town B ill in Chancery the first riot occurred in Essex County, The riot was caused by the frustrations of the people in what they considered a fair judicial settlement of the con­ troversy. The B ill in Chancery would be decided by the Chancellor, or governor, who was also a proprietor, Lewis Morris. Their petition to the king was lost in red tape and they abandoned hope of a favorable decision. The result was mob action to end a controversy of eighty years standing. FOOTNOTES - C hapter I I I

1. E liz a b e th gown B i l l . 69 , 2. 5 October 1725, Ibid.. II 9. 3. Board of General Proprietors of the Eastern Division of New Jersey, Minutes of the Board from 1685 to 1764; Intro­ duction by George J. M ller (Perth Amboy. New Jersey. 1949-» 1960 , 3) volumes), II, xx. Hereafter cited as MEJP. 4. Elizabeth Town B ill. 46j jmewer, 32; Hatfield, History of Elizabeth Town. 248: Edvln fanner. The Province of key j^ersev l 6 6 4 - 1 volume XXX of the StudleF In m s tory. Economics and Public Lav, edited by the Faculty of Pollxical Science of Columbia University (Hew York, 1908), 79-80. 5. Elizabeth Town B ill. 46; Answer. 32-33. 6 . Elizabeth Town B ill. 18-19; HJA. II, 517. 7. Answer. 17. 8. Elizabeth Town B ill. 46; Hatfield, History of Eliza­ b e th Town. 35Y-3Ô8. 9. Elizabeth Town B ill. 46-47. 10. Ibid. . 47; Answer. 33; Hatfield, History of Elizabeth Town. 313-14, 11. Elizabeth Town B ill. 47; Hatfield, History of Eliza­ b e th Town. 313-14. 12. Elizabeth Town B ill. 48s Answer. 34; MEJP. II, 102- 103; Hatfield, history of Elizabeth Town. 315, 3^-65. 13. Elizabeth Town B ill. 48. 14. Hatfield, History of Elizabeth Town. 365. 15 . Ibid. . 318, 365; Elizabeth Town B ill. 49-50; 313, 365. 16 . MEJP. II, 62-64; 81, 208-214, 236; Hatfield, History of Elizabeth town. 365.

64 65

17. MEJP. II, 62, 98-99, 120-21; Hatfield, History of Elizabeth Town. 36). 18. MEJP, I I , 163-65. 19. Elizabeth Town B ill, ^8-^9; Answer 3^. 20. Additional cases are: Alexander and Dnnstar v. Norris, et al., 17^+1; Elizabeth Town B ill, 50-51, MEJP. II, 211; Golborn v. Manning and Skinner, 17Ï8: Elizabeth'Town B ill, 51; Johnston v, Clawson and Younglove. 174-2/3. ibid. , 51, MEJP. II, 221-22; Hill v. Daniel Clarke. 1744, Morris Papers, box 3, State University of New Jersey at Rutgers; Drummond and Alexander v. Cole. 1738, MEJP. II, 264. 21. The second volume is in the Princeton University L ib ra ry . 22. Elizabeth Town Book, 1 and ElizabethTown Records. 3-4, both at Princeton University Library; Hatfield, History of Elizabeth Town, 309. 23. Elizabeth Town Book, 2; Answer. 33; Hatfield, His­ tory of Elizabeth Town. 310-11. 24. Elizabeth Town Book, 2, 17, 19, 20-21; Elizabeth Town Records, 10; H atfield, History of Elizabeth Town, 311, 317- 16 ; 364. 2 5 . Elizabeth Town Book, 3| Hatfield, History of Eliza­ beth Town. 1l4. 26. Elizabeth Town Book, 4-5; Hatfield, History of ■ I, 314. 2 7. Elizabeth Town Book, 8, 23; Hatfield, History of Elizabeth Town, 315-16.

2 8. Elizabeth Town Book. 19-20; Elizabeth Town B ill. 47-48; Answer. 33; Hatfield, History of Elizabeth Town. 3i4.

29. MEJP. I I , 13- 15 .

30. 3 December 1735, ibid. . II, 41-42; 4 December 1735, ibid., II, 42-43. 31. IM d., II, 48 - 50 , 55-57. 3 2 . I b id . . I I , 154 - 5 5 , 193- 9 4, 224-225. m

33. M à i VI, 205-15; Hatfield, History of Elizabeth Town, 366 - 6 7 . 3 4 . 10 October 1?44, Journal of the Commissioners for Trade and Plantations (London, 1920-1938, 14 Volumes), VIII, 129.

3 5 . MEJP. I I , 127- 30. 36. Ibid.. II, xxl; 144-45, 227-28. CHAPTER IV BEGINNING OF THE RIOTS

Six months after the proprietors filed their b ill in chancery the first of many riots occurred. On 19 September 17^5 Samuel Baldwin was arrested for trespassing when he was sorting logs on his land. The prisoner was then taken to the jail in Newark, That same day Baldwin was rescued from the Essex County jail by about one hundred fifty men who wielded clubs, axes, crow bars and other cudgels. The mob threatened that if any members of their party were pun­ ished for the ja il break they would raise twice as many men and repeat the action. Law officers were also warned that if they arrested any person for trespass, as they did Baldwin, because he claimed land by Indian purchase, the same results would occur. And, finally, the mob made a threat which, although idle, caused the government some concern. They promised to augment their force with one hundred Indians, This was said, despite the fact that within fifty miles of Newark there were only two Indians.1 The rescue of Baldwin was the start of the decade of lawlessness in New Jersey, The riots continued unabated during this period. In what appears to have been a well- organized effort, the leaders in Elizabeth Town and Newark

67 68 were attempting to achieve a solution by force to the long standing dispute over land titles. The riots were started almost spontaneously. They began in 17^5 after a period of intense activity in the courts and in negotiations to find a settlement, Baldwin*s arrest was the last event which was to trigger the release of the frustrations of the people. The leaders, however, were able to mobilize and mold the people for their use. The details of the organization are unknown, but from contemporary accounts we can piece together some picture of how the leaders operated. There were a few main leaders and one man repeatedly pinpointed by the proprietors as the head rioter was Amos Roberts. There is little information about him, except that he was always referred to as the organizer of the rioters and that he was indicted several times for high treason in connection with the disorders. An examination of surveys, deeds and w ills of the eighteenth century reveals nothing about him. We do know, however, that he was listed among the freeholders of Newark in a compila­ tion of September 1755.^ After the first riot meetings were held in various taverns in East Jersey.' Our sources for information about these meetings are affidavits prepared for the proprietary interests and therefore must be regarded with caution. Samuel Boyle gave sworn evidence before James Alexander on 69

1 June 17^7 about a meeting of the rioters held on 22 May. One of the reasons for the conference he believed vas to plan a march, Boyle said that the rioters were meeting to choose their leader, called "captain,” and to plot their moves. At the meeting which he attended, Boyle spoke to the men and they said that they would stop the disorders only if their demands were met. In addition, Boyle was told by a participant that the farmers in the area had made a firm agreement to protect their farms by mob action and that people from Maidenhead and Hopewell had promised their s u p p o rt,3

Abraham Shotwell, of Essex County, made a sworn affi­ davit on 2 December 1?48 about a meeting of the rioters he witnessed near Newark on 29 November, About sixteen men were present including some very active rioters: Simon Wyckoff, Boilings Hegeman and Nathaniel Wheeler, Some came from beyond New Brunswick and Repack. After eating dinner with the mobmen Shotwell saw one.of them, possibly Joseph Smith, busily writing something. The document was described as "new articles" that the rioters were going to enter into. The agreements would divide the rioters into three wards, A trustee would be appointed in each ward to raise the funds for a fair trial, Roberts tried to get Shotwell to join the rioters but he refused the invitation. The acknowledged leader of the group delcared that all of his followers were his children and of one family.^ 70

Despite the fact that Shotwell described written agreements there probably was no actual compact among the large majority of those involved. When the word went out that mob action was to be employed neighboring farmers would turn out in overwhelming numbers for the event. Many of the disorders appear to have been spontaneous while the jail breaks seem to have had more organization. Without actual evidence it is fair to assume that the Eliza­ beth Town and Newark committees were also the leaders of the rioters. If any group held control over them it was the bodies of respected citizens of Essex County. The proprietors repeatedly asserted that the rioters levied and collected taxes from those claiming by Indian title or from the Nicholls grant.^ They tried to convince the king that his sovereignty was being infringed upon. Again, our information about this aspect of the rioters is incomplete. Several men were named by the proprietary interests as assessors and collectors of taxes. These include Emmanuel Cocker of Newark, Francis Cook, Samuel fk Harrison and Joseph Roberts, son of Amos. Samuel Harrison kept a complete record of. all financial transactions in which he was involved. In one section of his account book he details the receipt and disbursement of money fer October

1744.^ Most of the transactions average about ten shillings but there are some donations of five pounds. Some traveling 71 was done by the committee because expenses are paid for trips to New England for periods of four and nine days. Journeys were also made to Horse-Neck and New York. Whether or not assessments were made remains obscure but obviously there were attempts to get many of the people opposing the proprietors to give money.& The rioters counted among their supporters certain of their clergy. Some of the pamphlets published to explain and vindicate the riots were attributed to the ministers of Elizabeth Town and Newark, For the first two years of the disturbances a war of words was conducted in the New York newspapers and the role of the clergy often was dis­ cussed, "Layman” condemned the rioters for claiming to be pious Christians and pretending that they committed no sins. The wsiter believed that the ministers and teachers approved and encouraged the lawless behavior of the citizens. Since he had not heard of any condemnation for the actions of the parishioners in their sermons.^ An anonymous reply called Layman*s letter a false and insidious accusation against the ministers. If Layman, the reply continued, had been among the rioters he would have known that the ministers were opposed to the riots and definitely not accessories. Preachers admonished the rioters from the pulpits and told them that heaven looked with disfavor on their acts. One minister even rode a great distance to confront the rioters 72 and convince them that they should confess their guilt and plead for a pardon. This unidentified clergyman did not cease his efforts until he thought that he had convinced them.^^ William Neuter, supposedly a disinterested party, discussed the New Jersey situation and reproved the ministers for their lax acceptance of the calamitous efforts of the p e o p le . Undoubtedly, the religious leaders of Newark and Elizabeth Town aided their flocks. Their help was probably in the area of advising them and in writing their pamphlets and letters defending the rioters. They were the best edu= cated men in the community. If the highly articulate pro= prietors were io be effectively answered then these men were extremely important. The Reverend Mr. Taylor was believed by the proprietors to have used the pseudonym "Griffin Jenkins." Jenkins authored the pamphlet "A Brief Vindica­ tion of the Purchasers against the Proprietors in a Chris­ t ia n Manner."12 The quality of the prose and its religious approach suggests that someone with the background of a minister probably was the author. A month after the Baldwin rescue. Governor Lewis Morris addressed the Assembly on the situation. The governor in­ formed the members of the lower house that present laws were sufficient ico punish rioters or other minor offenders but not adequSte to quell a disturbance of the type that 73 occurred in Newark, The only way to quell riots or insur­ rections like the one of September was to use force. Un­ fortunately, no force could be continued without provisions to support it. Law officers and courts were necessary for convictions but these cannot work unless salaries were paid or some provisions made to defray the cost of prosecution. But, he said, the Assembly has not, and in all likelihood w ill not, provide the money. The Assembly replied that present laws were more than sufficient to meet the crisis.13 The second riot in New Jersey was the direct result of the first. On 15 January 17^^76 Robert Young, Thomas Sergeant and Nehemiah Baldwin were arrested for rioting the previous September, Nehemiah Baldwin was rescued, or "escaped" in the words of his defenders, when the sheriff was taking him to the court for trial, Baldwin was offered the opportunity to post bail but he refused. The rioters had about three hundred men, with more promised for the following day.1^ The government contended that the mob released two other prisoners as well but this was denied. Those who escaped along with Baldwin, the rioters said, did so entirely on their own. And this is true of all jail breaks in the decade: the only persons rescued were those jailed for participating in previous outbreaks or for trespass. The rioters also took the trouble to deny the newspaper report that many people were wounded in the rescue. Not one man. 7^ from either side, was "dangerously wounded.Some f i f t y - seven men, in addition to Amos Roberts, were named by the sheriff and justices present at the riot as being partici­ p a n ts .

After the second riot in January lyk^/6 James Alexander wrote Robert H. Morris about it. Ee commented that it was good that the sheriff did not fire on the mob for it might have developed into bloodshed. Alexander pointed out that the only remedy was harmony among the various branches of the government. He also told the Chief Justice that people were pointing to the mob rescue of Lewis Morris from jail in 1701 as a precedent for their actions in 17^5» Robert H, Morris concurred about the urgency of the situation and he said that he thought the prospects for action by the Assembly

4 r i the best for a long time. ' On March Governor Morris again referred the rebel­ lious activities to the Assembly’s attention. This time he clearly labeled the events as an insurrection which, unless quelled, most assuredly would lead to rebellion. To supple­ ment the Governor’s pleas the attorney general laid four accounts of the Newark riots before the Assembly, These were duly read and referred to the committee of the whole house. In its reply of 11 March^® the Assembly said that the riots were under consideration. To help correct the situation they ordered a m ilitia b ill prepared. And they 75 also assured His Excellency, Governor Morris, that they would "cheerfully" join the other house of the legislature in any additional measures necessary to suppress the dis­ orders. The promise of cooperation with the Council was repeatedly made for two years before any substantive legislation was passed. This long period of delay created ill will on the part of the proprietors toward the Assembly. Alexander and Robert Hunter Morris, as the two leading figures during the troublesome decade, charged that the Assembly was infiltrated and dominated by leaders of the rioters. And the man they pinpointed as the overall leader was John Low, representative from Essex County. David Ogden, an attorney for the proprietors, wrote Alexander in April

17^6 that Low had been in Newark the previous week and that he gave encouragement to the people. In addition, two or three members of the town committee had gone to the Assembly to present their case which had been long in preparation.19 The alleged collusion between Assembly and rioters was charged again and again by the proprietors and reported to the authorities in England. The rioters sent two petitions to the Assembly in April

17^ 6 . One, on 17 April, was from "a great number of in­ habitants of the Northern part of New Jersey."^0 The petitioners said they purchased land from the Indians and had lived on it for scores of years. Now the proprietors 76 threatened a m ultiplicity of suits which caused the riots at Newark. They prayed that some relief he made, or, that the petitioners have the liberty to apply to the King for relief. In the meanwhile they asked for an act of indemnity for their past actions. Also, they requested a stay of pro­ cesses on properties until the king's pleasure be known. And they requested that their petition be passed on to the Governor in Council. The second address was sent on 24- April and this one concerned the proposal to have a single selected case to settle judicially the question of titles for all time.^l First, the petitioners denied receiving a letter from David Ogden agreeing to a test case as the proprietors charged in their publication of 25 March 174-6. But they said that they wanted to join issue with their opponents. For the court action they desired a suit against Francis Spier of the Horse-Neck region. There was, however, a condition attached to the proposal. If the proprietors agreed to a suit against Francis Spier then all other processes against them must cease, And during the determination of the final outcome in England the Indian purchase claimants would retain possession of the disputed lands, Samuel Wevill, representative from Perth Amboy and an ally of the proprietors, attacked the two petitions in an Assembly speech on 26 April.He denied that the rioters' 77 title s were good because the Indian purchase was illegal and void. The land belonged to the proprietors and they had every right to dispossess intruders. Nevill argued that the Horse-Neck tract belonged to only three men and not the proprietors in general. Therefore, any question of title must be settled with the three owners. Since legal recourse was open to the rioters their resorting to force was wrong. If they wanted a judicial settlement they should accept Ogden’s offer. And to refer to the proprietors as "so-called" was to deny the king's supremacy. Nevill found the first petition particularly irritating because five signers were indicted for the Newark riots and thirty more were recorded as rioters. He characterized the second peti­ tion as being not as abusive but still full of sedition and u n tr u th s .

On 25 April a motion was made to present the two peti­ tions to the Governor. The vote was sixteen to two. The dissenters were Nevill and Philip Kearney of Middlesex County. John Crane of Essex County and Aaron beaming of Cape-May were appointed to deliver the addresses to Governor Morris. The next day they reported that they gave the petitions and the Governor said that he would consider them.^3 To deal with the riots the Council passed a b ill entitled "An Act for preventing Tumults and riotous Assemblies" in

A p ril 17^ 6 .^^ It was then brought to the Assembly for their 78 concurrence* The b ill was read and ordered for a second reading. It provided that if twelve or more people who were unlawfully and riotously assembled to the disturbance of the public peace refused to disperse after being commanded to do so by an officer of the town then they should be ad­ judged felons and subject to death without the benefit of clergy. The officer was to go as near the mob as possible, demand silence, and in a loud voice order the mob to dis­ perse in the king's name. If any group of twelve or more acted to pull down a house or break open a jail they would be adjudged felons and subject to death without benefit of clergy. Anyone who knowingly and willingly obstructed any person from reading the dispersal proclamation would be sub­ ject to the same penalty of death. The act was to be read once at every session of the Supreme Court, Circuit Court and Court of Quarter Sessions. The act was to remain in effect for five years. The Council professed to believe that most of the rio­ ters were ignorant of the true facts and were being used unwittingly* They therefore proposed a general pardon. Governor Morris was willing to go along with the suggestion. According to the proposal offenders would take oaths of allegiance to the king and give their own bonds for good behavior. The Governor was to grant the pardon when the Assembly passed the riot act and requested Morris to grant 79 mercy. On 26 April Nevill moved that the Assembly agree to the act and make the request for mercy. But on 1 May the b ill was read a second time and by a vote of sixteen to six the bill was ordered to lie on the table to be recon­ sidered at the next session. The six opponents were Nevill and P o n tiu s S te e le o f P e rth Amboy, Kearney and John Heard of Middlesex, and Richard Smith and David Smith of Burlington County, Then a motion was made to print the b ill so that the people could read it. This was passed eighteen to four, Nevill, Stelle, Kearney and Heard were in favor. The two Smiths, William Hancock of Salem, and John Emley of Hunten- don and Morris were opposed. The Assembly refused at this time to join the Council and Governor in suppressing the riots. But the Assembly did agree to a continuation of the M ilitia B ill which was enacted into law.^° Upon the death of Lewis Morris in May the Presi­ dent of the Council, John Hamilton, took over the responsi­ b ilities of the office until a new governor was appointed.

On 2h June 1?46 he addressed both houses of the legislature. He told the Assembly of the riots and of reports that the rioters boasted of being unafraid. The government had used all its powers, he said, but was still ineffectual. Presi­ dent Hamilton warned the representatives that unless something was done to restore authority we "have reason to fear the Resentment of his Majesty and a B ritish Parliament which may 80 be too heavy for us to bear." He asked for quick action to restore peace and tranquility. To the Council he re­ peated his fears of British intervention and urged speedy efforts to quell the riots and re-establish government a u th o r ity . 27

Meanwhile the proprietors were attempting to bring about a judicial settlement. In a proposal to the rioters* committee in June 1746 the proprietors tried to establish the method of ending the controversy. First, they said that the Board had no concern with the Horse-Neck purchase un­ less it affected all the proprietors. But since the ques­ tion was the validity of the Indian title as opposed to Carteret's, the Board would lead the defense of their title until a final determination of the issue was reached. They also chided the Newark committee for failing to apply to the king whenever the opportunity had arisen and for refusing to take the loan offered by Ogden for that purpose. The proprietors said that they could not bring suit against Spier because his land concerned specific proprietors but if a suit involving the general proprietors was instituted then they would be happy to agree to such an action. Elisha Parker was appointed to bring the suit at the August Term and to give bond for costs and appeals if the committee would do the same. The appeal was to be made immediately. It was pointed out that the proprietors could not follow the 81 conditions outlined by the committee. That is, they could not stop actions but Alexander and Morris, owners of the Horse-Neck tract, gave their word that they would not pro­ secute any actions for three years or until the case was finally decided. Bond, however, must be made that no timber be cut during that time. The proprietors claimed that they would be willing to be reasonable if the opponent*s attorneys could point out any faults in the p r o p o s a l s . ^8 On 28 July Alexander wrote Morris that James Murray, one of the many lawyers retained by the Board of Proprietors, approved of the plan to meet the rioters in court. Any Murray spent four days in consideration of the scheme. At that time Murray was engaged in drawing up a special verdict on behalf of the proprietors,29 In August iy46 Nathaniel Wheeler and several others of the rioters* committee informed the proprietors that they were having difficulty in hiring a lawyer. They blamed this on the fact that all attorneys of repute were working for the Board of Proprietors, If the Board was willing to provide them with one then the proposed action could continue. In the meantime the committee would endeavor to make certain that no timber was needlessly des­ troyed on the contested lands. Interestingly, one of the signers of this letter was John Low.^O Elisha Parker replied on 29 August iy46 and he rejected the request for an attorney. He said that the Board had only 82 three counsel, James Murray, William Smith and David Ogden, and only one attorney, himself. The proprietors did not think it wise to release any single one because they all had been involved in the issues for years and therefore they knew all the evidence. Besides, there were many other lawyers available in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania. In addition, a year before the Supreme Court offered to appoint a lawyer if requested to do so, but the Committee did not ask for one. Parker expressed disappointment that the rioters did not come to court in August when the pro­ prietors were prepared. But he said that he would be ready again in November to join issue. Both Alexander and Morris were prepared to post their bonds,31 Despite all the efforts by Parker to reach an accord the rioters never met their opponents in court. In December iy46 Parker made a sworn affidavit that he wrote Nathaniel Camp, one of the Committee, on 29 August about meeting them in November. This letter was delivered by David Ogden, By that time no rioter con­ tacted him to join in the action of ejectment. He waited at Burlington throughout November without success. And to his knowledge, he continued, the rioters made no application to the Court or to the proprietors. This attempt at a peaceful solution failed but not because of the proprietors.3^ When Alexander was preparing â representation for the Board of Trade he wrote Morris and asked him to bring along 85 all the materials on the latest riot. He also requested that Morris bring along Elisha Barker and all his communi­ cations with the rioters. The astute Alexander wanted all details of the abortive effort to achieve a judicial settlement. He realized that the failure of the rioters to request an attorney from the court would be a serious indictment against them. He planned to send copies of Barker's affidavits to this effect to Ferdinand John Baris, the proprietor's agent in London, for proper distri­ b u tio n ,^ ^ A third riot occurred in Bergen County on 5 August 1746, Edward Jeffers held two hundred acres from the proprietors and hi had mde improvements upon the tract. About twelve men armed with clubs went to his house and threatened him. They ordered him to come to an agreement with a Mrs. Yallsau who also pretended title to the land, or be turned out of possession, Jeffers, afraid that the threats would be carried out, consented to take a lease from Mrs. Falleau» His lease was for one hundred acres which included his house and one half of his improvements. Mrs. Valleau then leased the remaining land to John Helms. Helms was another of the twelve claiming title to the land.^* Another instance of dispossession by a mob occurred on 9 September 1746. The incident took place in Essex County on a tract of two thousand acres owned by John 84

Burnet, The mob turned out of possession several persons living on this tract and put others in their place. The mob was reputed to be from Newark, The grand jury handed down several indictments for the event, By December 1746 the mob had become more brazen and form ulated p lan s f o r a march on P e rty Amboy, th e c a p ita l of New Jersey, On the second, about one hundred people, "in a violent and riotous manner," broke open the Somerset County ja il and rescued Abraham Anderson. He had been imprisoned on a writ issued by the Supreme Court at the behest of the executors of Daniel Coxe's estate. Only five persons were indicted because most were unknown in that county. About thirty were described as coming from Essex County, frc Ji beyond Newark, When asked why they aided in the break they replied that it was done with grea’S planning by their advisors. The Essex people then schemed to march on Perth Amboy and to destroy the home of Samuel Nevill, Their dislike of Nevill, a member of the Assembly, was very great because Nevill was one of the leading opponents of their efforts. The mob wanted N e v ill to d e liv e r some bonds to Thomas Clawson which Clawson had originally given him for a large sum of money. Some of the mob wanted to go immediately, but others wanted to wait and see if Nevill would give the bonds without force being used. It is reported that 85

Clawson went to Hevlll on the fifth and after demanding th e "bonds s a id , "He would have them , i f he dyed f o r i t . " The threat of a march moved the government to action. The Council on the eighth advised the President to issue a warrant to the sheriff for the arrest of Clawson and all others who might join him. The sheriff was told that if he desired he could raise and arm a posse. But the threats ■56 to Nevill never materialized,^ In ülarch 1747 came another attempt at dispossession. This time it was aimed at Joseph Balrymple who lived on part of a two thousand acre tract on the Passaic Hiver in Morris County, The tract belonged to William Dockwra, an East Jersey proprietor. Balrymple was under the protection of the Board of Proprietors and had taken out a bond pro­ mising that he would ksop possession of the land and turn it over to Bocfcwra's heirs when they demanded it. Between 10 and 11 P.M., on 30 March 1747, several men came to Balrymple*s home. Balrymple had heard of previous efforts of dispossession and he refused to open the door when Abraham Hendricks asked to come in to light his pipe. There were cries that unless he opened the door the mob would rip the roof off. Balrymple asked the men to be careful because his wife was pregnant. They replied that his wife was his protection against any serious moves on their part. 86

Some of them tried to push back the bolt of the door but this failed, and they pried the door off the hinges. About ten men entered the house and ordered the master, his expectant wife and their one year old child out. D alrym ple re fu s e d and th e mob s ta r t e d to use fo rc e . Thomas M iller was visiting at the time and begged the mob to con­ sider Mrs. Dalrymple's condition and not oust her in the night. His pleas were heeded and the mob generously pro­ posed to give Dalrymple fourteen days reprieve. This offer was refused because Dalrymple said that he had given a bond to the proprietors. The mob replied that he should not use or improve the tract. After justifying their position the men left. Outside the house the rioters called to John Cross, a minister in Baskingridge, Somerset County, and said, "We Give you the Possession of this Upper Lott,'* and to William Brested, "ta k e you p o sse ssio n o f th e o th e r L o tt." The men mounted their horses and went off shouting. Dalrymple complained in an affidavit that his wife was ailing ever since the experience and had not been out of bed. He also said that the mob numbered about thirty-five and that he knew three of them: Nathaniel Davis, James Hampton and William Brested.^^ The remainder of the story is recounted in the affidavit of Thomas M iller and Thomas McConnell. Both men were at Dalrymple *s place on 8 April and saw the three men named 87 above with about thirty others armed with cudgels break open the house. They watched as the mob evicted the family and removed the household goods. Davis, called the captain, then delivered possession of the estate to Hampton and Brested. Hampton was to be the tenant of John Cross, and Brested was to hold his in his own right. Dalrymple was warned not to molest or to disturb the new ow ners. M iller and McConnell also swore that they believed Cross requested and encouraged the dispossession. And to get the mob in the proper mood he treated them to three gallons of rum during their sojourn to Dalrymple's. In a postscript they asked that the part describing Cross as a Presbyterian minister be deleted to avoid offending "that sec of people now amongst David Ogden reported to President Hamilton on 22 April 1747 that a mob was planning to dispossess Justice Daniel Cooper, but quick action by the civil and military officers of the province prevented the move. Approximately one hundred armed peace officers went to Cooper's home and stopped the mob. The mob heard of the preventive effort and did not attempt to carry out their plans, Samuel Boyle was a prolific affidavit producer. On

13 May 1747 he made some interesting points before Chief Justice Robert Morris. At a meeting of rioters he heard 88 that they did not intend to dispossess any people in the spring because it was planting time and it would be diffi- cult to find a new place» ” The rioters had but one con­ cern and that was to impress the king that their cause was just and that some corrective efforts were necessary. They were not interested just in causing harm or discomfort. In addition, the mob referred to their law as "club law," They called their proceedings a court of equity and far Ai superior to the common law as enforced and used, Ju ly 17, 1747 saw another jail break. This time John Bainbridge was rescued from the jail in Perth Amboy, He stood indicted for a jail break in Somerset County and he was imprisoned upon a process of the Supreme Court. Approximately two hundred men took part in the release. The s h e r i f f o f th e co u n ty , John 33sa.ro, l a t s r -s p o rte d t h a t he had heard of the proposed plan to deliver Bainbridge several days prior to the break, Deare wrote a circular letter to the justices in the county requesting their aid and several justices and most constables responded. On the morning of the seventeenth the sheriff heard that the mob was gathering in Woodbridge, He decided to take Chief Justice Morris' advice not to offer resistance. At noon the men armed with "Great Clubs" rode into town, alighted and walked to the court house. The mob was led by Amos Roberts, Simon Wyckoff and Edmond Bainbridge, son of the prisoner, and two fiddlers, Deare met them at the 89 comer, asked their business, ordered them to disperse, and read them the proclamation against riotous assemblies* When he began to read the writ against Bainbridge, Deare was struck w3.th the butt end of a club and knocked down, Deare complained of a "Grievous Wound in my head." The Mayor was similarly struck, a constable suffered a split skull and several others were beaten. The mob proceeded to break open the three doors of the jail with a sledge hammer, an iron bar and a hatchet, Bainbridge was then released. The rescued man and his son rode through town to the ferry, crossed the river and departed from town. The rioters were not satisfied with the escape of their comrade because they also made threa- Ao tening statements about Judge Samuel Wevill, “ Thirty individuals were indicted by the gz%nd jury for high tree- A? son for levying war against the king, ^ At the end of July another jail break occurred, but this time in Somerset County, John Feniz was in Jail on an action of trepass brought at the suit of Andrew Johnston, About forty to fifty men came to the jail armed with clubs. They broke open the prison and released Feniz, Wo one knew the violators so there were no prosecutions,^^ Two rescues of the same man occurred in Morris County in the late summer of 1747. On 10 August the sheriff of the county arrested James Hampton on a w rit and Hampton 90 refused to post ball. On the way to jail the sheriff was confronted by a number of men carrying clubs. The prisoner was rescued. Some of the mob were recognized and named. On 23 September the same James Hampton was in ja il on an indictment by the county court. At this time about thirty armed men broke open the jail and rescued him. Whether Hampton was ever recaptured or re-imprisoned for a third time is unkonwn. James Alexander wrote the proprietary's London agent, Ferdinand John Paris, about the continuing disturbances. Alexander hoped that when the authorities in England learned of the disorders they would immediately come to the aid of the proprietors, Paris, however, wrote in February 1746/7 that he did not expect any help from London. The distance, he explained; wan nn great- that English officials were not greatly concerned with events in Uew Jersey. It would be better for the Board to try to settle the issue themselves, Paris was also in the dark as to exactly what relief Alexander was expecting in addition to forces. The situation in Eng­ land at the time would not allow men or money to be expended. Paris doubted whether he could get any help at all at that 46 time. On 4 March 1746/7 the Board of Trade read a letter from Alexander and Morris on the riots in Newark. Enclosed was the "State of the facts concerning the late riots at Newark, in the County of Essex, and in other parts of New 91

Jersey, December 24th, 1746.*’ The Board of Trade then ordered a letter written to the Duke of Newcastle on the 47 situation, ' In April the Board acknowledged receipt of a duplicate copy of the state of the riots as well as com­ plete copies of the minutes of the Assembly from September 48 1745 to November 1746, By sending the minutes, Alexander was trying to show how lax the Assembly was in dealing with the disturbances. In New Jersey, President Hamilton was still worried about something being done quickly, "for, we Cannot Suppose that a British Parliament will Suffer these Things long to Pass with Impunity,” He urged the Assembly to act to stop the riots Immediately because with each passing day the rioters grew stronger. Because government forces were not powerful enough to halt them,he warned them, the course of justice was at a standstill, Hamilton first read this appeal to the Council which approved and urged him to send Aq It to the Assembly. On 9 May 1747 the Assembly replied. It expressed Its willingness to join with other government bodies to make appropriate laws but said this would require a great deal of consideration. Unfortunately, there was not enough time since they were called to the present ses­ sion only to provide troops for the war. But If the riots continued they promised to consider the topic at the next meeting. An to top off their rejection they expressed the 92 hope that the government would take "prudent steps" until new acts could be passed.^ Imagine the frustration of Hamilton who was living in fear of provoking Parliament. After the sunmary dismissal of the problem by the Assembly, Alexander and Morr,^ s wrote to the Board of Trade for the Council. They told of the increasing internal disorders each day. Because of the riots the course of justice was at a standstill. They complained that the Assembly, however, met but would not join in any action to stop the spread of th e r i o t s . The extreme alarm with which the proprietors and their allies viewed the riots can be seen in the charge to the grand jury of Middlesex County in July 174? by Judge Samuel Hevill. He pictured a "dangerous and terrible Insurrection" which had the intention to destroy law in Hew Jersey. The men involved terrorized and threatened lives. The specific instance for H evill's charge was the rescue of John Bain­ bridge from the Perth Amboy jail the previous month. Des­ pite the fact that Hevill^s life was threatened he said that his reason for wanting to squash the riots was not a personal one. He saw it as his duty as judge to put an "End to these dreadful Beginnings before the whole Province in involved in Ruin and Destruction."5^ The protestations i of the proprietors, however, were not accepted by the other colonies or by the crown, neighboring colonies' newspapers, 93 except New York, rarely mentioned events in Uew Jersey, although if the situation was as desperate as Alexander and his friends portrayed certainly more would have been c a r r ie d . Paris informed Alexander "chat as of July the situation in England remained fluid, and no action was being taken. He had given related papers to the Secretary of State and he said he would try his best to get some movement. Elec­ tions, however, were over and the people were leaving town very rapidly. Therefore Paris anticipated little likeli­ hood of action.In August Paris petitioned the Board of Trade for copies of several papers concerning contested lands in New Jersey. Paris chose the ones he wanted and the Board consented to have copies nade. This is the ex-

wWAxy WJL JLXJu vw. w ujiAititWA W.A. I ; #; #

Prom the beginning of the riots one of the main stumb­ ling blocks to achieving an effective solution to the problem was the bitter animosity between the Assembly and the execu­ tive branch, Por years the House of Representatives was looked in battle with the Governor and they even refused to pay his salary. The death of Lewis Morris in May 1746 and the appointment of Jonathan Belcher in August 1747 might have made a settlement easier but by that time the Council became a third force to be reckoned with and it complicated the picture. The Council was dominated by %4

Robert Hunter Morris, son of Lewis Morris and also Ohief Justice of Hew Jersey, and James Alexander. Both men were proprietors and were bitter toward the Assembly for their hesitancy to put down the riots, Morris was angry because of the treatment accorded his father. The problem then became one between the Assembly and Council with Governor Belcher caught in the middle. FOOTNOTES - Chapter 17

1. William A. Whitehead, ed,. Documents Relating to the Colonial History of Hew Jersey (Newark and Bayonne, 1680-83), series one, vi, 397-98; Pierson, Narratives of Newark. 166 - 6 7 , 2, List of Freeholders, Essex County, September 1755, New Jersey Historical Society, 3. NJA. V II, 426-28, 4. Ibid,. VII, 179- 8 0. 5. Ibid.. VII, 224=25. 6, Ibid,. VII, 370; Paris Papers, R, #12. 7. Samuel Harrison’s Account Book, New Jersey His- t o r i c a l Society, 107-108, 8, NJA. V II, 224-25. 9. The New-York Evening Post. 3 August 1747. 10, I b i d , - 10 August 1747=

11, Ibid,. 7 September 1747. 12, Printed by John Zenger, Jr, ,, in New York, 1745/6; a ls o in NJA. V II, 266 - 9 2. 13. 18 October 1745, The Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of New Jersey, Held at Burlington on Tuesday the Twenty-fourth of September 1745. (PhiladelphiaÎ William Bradford, 1745), 25 5 NJA, VI, 264; The New-York Weekly Post-Boy. 27 January 17457BT 14, NJA. VI, 292- 9 6 ; Pierson, Narratives of Newark. 168 - 6 9 , ------

15 . NJA.' VI. 292- 9 6 .

95 96 16. I b id . . V II, 211. 17. 21 January 1745/6, Stevens Papers, #7833; Robert H, Morris to Alexander, 9 February 1745/6, Stevens Papers, # 2881 . 16. The Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of key Jersey. Held at Trenton on Weanes-° day the Tventv Sixth of February 174576J (Philadelphia î William Bradford. 1746L 6. 9. 15; The Heif«>York Weekly Post- Boy. 31 March 1746. 19. 17 April 1746, Alexander Papers, box 22, #2. 20. Votes of Assembly. 27. 21. Paris Papers, New Jersey Historical Society, volume 0. 22. NJA. VI, 323-48; The New-York Weekly Post-Boy. 19 and 26 May 1746. 23. Votes of Assembly. 34-35. 24. Ibid.. 31, 38-40; VII, 211-12. 25. NJA. VII, 211-12, 26. Ibid.. VII, 211. 27. Ibid. . XV, 488-89; The Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of kew-Jersey Held at Trenton on Friday the Ninth of May 1746. (Philadelphia: William Bradford, 1746), 22-23, 28. 30 June 1746, NJA. VI, 353-61. 29. Morris Papers, Rutgers University Library, box 3.

30. 11 A ugust 1746, NJA. VI, 3 6 5 - 6 7 .

3 1 . I b id . . VI, 393-95. 3 2 . December 1746, Ibid. . VI. 395-97; Alexander Papers, box 13. 33. 6 December 1746, Morris Papers, box 3.

3 4 . NJA. V II, 213-14.

35. Ibid.. VII, 214; Pierson, Narratives of Newark. 170. 97

36. NJA, V II, 214-16. 37. Ibid.. VI, 427-30. 38. Ibid.. VI, 430-32. 39. Ibid.. VI, 426-27. 40. Ibid.. VI, 419-25. 41. Hatfield, History of Elizabeth Town. 368-69, 42. VI, 463-70. 43. Ibid.. VII, 217-18. 44. Ibid.. VII, 218. 45. Ibid.. VII, 219. 46. P. J, Paris to Alexander, 17 February 1746/7, Ibid.. VI, 423-24. 47. Journal of the Board of Trade. VIII, 236, 48. Ibid.. VIII, 242. 49. 6 my 1747, HJA. VI, 436-38; Ibid. . XV, 501-2. 50. Ibid.. VI, 439-40. 51. 10 May 1747, Ibid.. VI, 446. 52. Ibid.. VI, 456-67. 53. Hew Jersey Mss., Hew Jersey Historical Society, IV, 42•

54. 6 and 11 August 1747, Journal of the Board of Trade, VIII, 249-51. OHâ.PTER V A BRIEP PERIOD OP COOPERAIlOK WITH GOVERNOR BELCHER

Jonathan Belcher, the new governor, arrived in Hew Jer­ sey in August 1747, greeted by welcomes from several towns. Perth Amboy expressed the wish that it could have greeted him in domestic peace while the country was engaged in a foreign war. But, notorious riots were being committed with the aim of abolishing the good laws of the country. The town said that it hoped Belcher's arrival would strike ter­ ror in the hearts of the rioters and restore peace. In reply the new royal emissary said that he would not hesitate to do anything to suppress the violators of the rule and government. He also urged the legislature to act as one man in putting down "the wicked Practices of some abandoned

4 People in the Province," Soon after reaching Hew Jersey Belcher addressed the Council and Assembly. To the lower house he said that he was greatly concerned to find the province wracked by those who wanted to throw off allegiance to the crown, to trample the laws, and to subvert all rule and government. People, if they had any grievances should seek redress in law not clubs. The Governor expressed the hope that all would u n ite to p u t down th e d is o rd e rs . The same speech was

98 99 2 delivered to the Oouncilc The Oouncil assured the Govemor that all he had heard about the riots was true. They saw the disturbancesj animated and spirited up by a few designing and wicked Men, big with the unjust and destructive Views of building up their own Fortunes on the Euins of others ; and who by crafty Insinuations and loose A rtifices have deluded from their Duty a great Number of ignorant and otherwise innocent Persons. They promised Belcher that they would join with the Assembly to do all within their power to strengthen the government,^ The Assembly tried to bring about some common action. They notified Belcher on 25 August that they had appointed a committee to meet with a committee of the Oouncil to con­ s id e r ways and means of su p p ressin g th e r i o t s . Members o f the Assembly committee were R, Smith, Cook, Hancock, Emley,

Council acted on the same day to appoint Reading, Alexander, Rodman, Hude and Coxe to be t h e i r r e p r e s e n ta tiv e s on th e joint Committee, By appointing the committee the Assembly hoped to indicate its willingness to join in attempts to A solve the crisis, Belcher wrote the Board of Trade late in August to tell them that he found the province in a great deal of confusion because of the riots. He explained that the Assembly sat only for a few days because it was a very busy season of the year. But he hoped to get proper measures at the next ICO sitting,^ Belcher also wrote to a friend that he had assured the proprietors that they could depend on him and on his office to protect them. He made it clear, however, that he would not interfere in the landowners’ private affairs,^ Because the proprietors were so convinced that their inter­ ests and the colony’s interlocked they felt a certain animosity for Belcher’s coolness to intervene on their b e h a lf. About two months after Belcher’s arrival tie rioters’ committee sent him an address welcoming him in his new post. The congratulatory address expressed the hope that he would be able to restore order and help the oppressed. John Low was one of the fifteen who signed it. A second communica­ tion was a petition. This contended that government was instituted to prevent and cure disorders in society. They said that it was bad when men were placed in positions of power just because they held someone’s favor and friendship. The rioters did not wish to overthrow the king’s authority. Rather, they wanted justice in legal hearings. They did not want the judges who were beholden to the proprietors to sit in judgment,7 Belcher wrote to a friend, Ool, Winslow, that the rioters addressed him the previous week in a “very Submissive" manner. He replied that it was his duty to enforce the laws against all offenders, but that they

would have his protection in all things consistent with 101 reason and justice. And Belcher then stated his philosophy of dealing with the riots: Soft words turn away wrath but the wringing of the Nose brings forth Blood—and I think this sore is at Pressant in a Likely way to be heal'd.8 Despite all Belcher's hopes for peace and a return to calm in his province the riots continued. Essex County saw two so-called riots in the fall of 1747 but, unfortunately, no details were available. In one instance the jail was broken open and prisoners released. The second case involved a private house being forcibly entered and a quantity of staves taken by the rioters.^ The sheriff of Hunterdon County reported that on 5 December 1747 at 4 P.M. an armed mob came to Trenton, Their purpose was to rescue David Brierly who had been arrested on an indictment for high treason. The sheriff met them and asked their reason for coming. When the mob replied, the sheriff, David Martin, responded that their actions aggravated the guilt and that it was an insult to, and open defiance of, the legislature then sitting to quiet the disturbances. The accused leaders of the rescue attempt, John Anderson and Edmond B aln b rid g e, s a id t h a t th e y were going to give an account of their proceedings to the gover­ nor and assembly, Martin arrested Balnbridge because there was a writ out for him and he warned the mob that it was 102 equally criminal to release the newly captured man. But all the warnings were to no avail and the rioters succeeded in their mission. By November 1?47 Govemor Belcher was growing impatient because the joint committee appointed to suggest a mode to end the riots had not done anything. He urged both houses to choose the most important men to study the affair and report what should be done. He saw the question as whether the king’s authority or that of the rioters should prevail in the province. All recourse for grievances, he emphasized, 11 must be through the laws. The Council then approved a motion by Robert H, Morris that the attorney-general be ordered to prepare an account of the riots and to explain why the government’s efforts to date had been so ineffectual.

Then, th e Oouncil decided to reactivate its half of the joint committee and substituted Robert H. Morris and Peter Kemble 12 f o r Rodman and Hude, The o th e r members rem ained th e same. Upon notification of the Council’s decision the Assembly ordered its committee to meet with the Council’s at 5 P.M. on the 30th at the.Widow Hunlake’s. They were to continue to meet at that place an hour each day,^^ The Council, under the leadership of James Alexander, became more and more critical of Belcher’s leniency. On 5 December 1747 they addressed the Govemor and pointed out that his strong inclinations to do justice and 103 re-establish authority had come to naught. Despite all his efforts the riots continued. They complained that property was not safe and that people indicted for treason traveled boldly across the country. If the people lived under a tyranny their actions could be understood, but they had the privilege to go to the courts for justice in New Jersey, Bather they chose to use violence, especially at a time when England could not send troops; she was at war with two foreign nations and at the same time meeting the invasion of Bonnie Prince Charles, In conclusion, the Council answered that it was not interested in any­ th in g b u t peace,The Council was to get even bolder in later years and send criticism s of Belcher to the Board of Trade. Robert Hunter Morris reported to the Oouncil on 8 December that there was a proposal for a march on the legislature by the rioters. He wanted the chief executive warned because it could be a danger to the peace and se­ curity of Hew Jersey, In addition, it might mean danger to his personal safety,This march came on th e h e e ls of the riot in Trenton when the mob released David Brierly. The Oouncil urged that a committee of the Assembly meet with one of its own to prepare effectual measures to halt the march, Robert H, Morris, Coxe and Johnson were 104 appointed by the Oouncil; Keamey, Cooper, Spicer, Fisher, Hancock and R, Smith, by the Assembly, On 11 December both Houses passed resolutions dis­ approving of the proposed march. The Council said that any group of tumultuous men coming to lay petitions before the legislature would be dangerous to the peace of the province. It was also high contempt for the legislature. They saw it as an attempt to awe them in matters under considera­ tion, The upper house ordered its resolves published and posted by the sheriffs of Hunterdon, Somerset, Middlesex and Essex Counties.A unanimous resolution of the Assembly declared that any proposed march by men involved in the riots would be an infringement on the rights of the legis­ lature and an insult to it. It would also be a contempt of the lawB: But if a small group presented their views 18 in a peaceful manner they would be received. Perhaps the quick and stem rejoinder by both houses served to forestall a march, but more than likely it was only some idle talk, by one or two men, which was blown out of pro­ portion. In any case, no march took place. The business most seriously facing the legislature was to prepare means to put down the riots. The task fell to the joint committee which-met only periodically after November. In early January both branches ordered their members to meet regularly with the other,The Assembly 105 told Belcher that since the dispute involved property they had made certain in appointing members to the committee that none had any direct interest in the matter. 20 This was in reference to the service of Robert H, Morris on the Council’s committee. On 15 January the joint committee unanimously declared that the legislature had to act to restore peace. It was agreed that the Assembly representa­ tives should ask their house to prepare bills for this pur­ pose, B^oth houses then accepted the decision. The Goyemor and the Council both expressed their pleasure at the workings 21 of the committee. Whatever action the Assembly might take was tempered by a desire to help the people in their predicament. The members of the House of Representatives knew the power of the proprietors and they did not want- them to override and destroy their opponents. So in agreeing to pass the re­ quested acts the Assembly demanded an act of pardon in exchange. At least the rioters would not face fines or imprisonment by a bitter group of men once the riots ended. While considering proposed bills the Assembly received a petition from people in Essex, Middlesex, Somerset, Hunter- 22 don, Bergen and Morris Counties, The petition stated that the grievances against the proprietors still existed because the m ultiplicity of suits continued and the judges were prejudiced against them. The riots were not against the 106 king, but were the only thing which could protect their lands until they could appeal to the king. The Assembly was asked to intercede with Belcher to appoint disinterested judges, sheriffs and other law officials. They claimed that they were really very loyal as witnessed in their help of putting down the Rebellion of 1745. They requested an act of indemnity. If an impartial trial could be arranged they would agree to a suit. Otherwise it should be left to im­ partial men from neighboring colonies to settle by arbitra­ tion, This petition and its appeal for justice greatly influenced the Assembly's actions. The joint committee agreed that if the govemor wished to extend a pardon it was within his prerogative to do so. The power was wholly at his disposal. The committee re­ ported also to the Assembly that Belcher Indicated his willingness to sign a pardon bill. Of course, he could pardon people only as far as his instructions allowed him. With the assurance of a jardon act the Assembly moved quickly to prepare and pass acts to suppress the riots. They were approved by Governor Belcher on 18 February 1747/ 8 ,^ ^ But before the Govemor would approve the b ill entitled, "An Act to Pardon the Persons Guilty of the InsurrectJjcoas Riotts and disorders raised and Committed in this province," he consulted the provincial privy council. Besides presenting the bill, he also put his instructions before the advisory 107 body and asked whether in their opinion he was permitted to 26 pass the bill. The opinion of the Privy Council was that when Belcher was satisfied that the Assembly had done what was necessary to prevent similar disturbances for the future and to strengthen the government for putting laws into execution then the instructions warranted him signing the pardon. In fact, it would be prudent and advisable to do so, Robert H, Morris disagreed with the opinion. He saw two parts to the bill: a pardon and a stay of proceedings. Morris believed that the governor had the right of pardon except in cases of treason. He felt that pardons should not be issued until the legislature strengthened the government to protect people and property, For the second part, Morris contended that Belcher’s commission did not give him the power to suspend proceedings in cases of high treason. Stays would actually be pardons because the individual would be at full liberty t" escape to another province or country, Morris did not believe Hew Jersey to be in such a state as to require special favors to those trying to throw off all allegiance to the government. Despite the opposition by Morris, Belcher signed the pardon, and would later have to defend his action from attacks led by Morris and Alssander, The pardon act stated that the govemor had the authority to grant pardons and since the rioters had petitioned for a 108 pardon he was inclined to extend the king's clemency. The govemor was willing to grant a pardon because he believed most of the rioters had been misled and that extending a pardon at this time might be the best means of preventing the need for it later. It declared that all those involved in the riots in any manner were pardoned. But those who were indicted, recorded or prosecuted would not be included unless within six months after the publication of the act they went before a justice of the Supreme Court or commis­ sioners appointed for that purpose and took an oath. Upon taking the oath the person would have to enter into a bond for one hundred pounds that he would be on good behavior for three years, A certificate issued by the justice or commissioner would be full proof of the pardon. No one, however, would be permitted to take advantage of the cle­ mency act unless he returned lands or possessions to the rightful owner. Those who had been indicted, recorded or prosecuted had to pay costs and fees before the pardon would be issued. Until the king's pleasure was known there waL a stay of prosecution of those indicted for high treason in Middlesex County, but before the stay was extended those indicted had to take the oaths and give bond. And, finally, the act was to be read in every court before the grand jury for six months. 109

The second act signed by Govemor Belcher on 18 Feb­ ru a ry 1 7 4 7 /8 was "An act for Avoiding Actions of Slander, and for Stay of Proceeding until the first Day of October, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Bight, in other Civil Actions against the late Rioters." This act stated that the rioters had complained of many grievances but these were all subject to remedy in the courts of law and equity which were open to all. It went on to stay all proceedings affecting the rioters until October first. Any rioter who took the oath of allegiance by that time would be free of prosecution. The third act was, "An Act for the Supressing and Preventing of Riots, Tumults, and other Disorders, with­ in this Colony." If any persons unlawfully, riotously or tumultuously met to break open a jail, court house or home or release a prisoner, then upon conviction they should pay a fine of ten pounds for every act committed or serve three months in prison. The convicted person had to pay for dam­ ages, The penalty was doubled for a second conviction. Prosecution would be led by the attorney-general. So that all would know the provisions of the act it was to be read in every court. The act was to last for three years. Satisfied with this legislation Belcher prorogued the legislature on 18 February, He said he hoped that those involved in the riots would accept the leniency extended and in gratitude return to their former obedience to the king and the government. 110

The proprietors, however, were skeptical about the probable outcome of events, Alexander was opposed to the dissolution of the Assembly until the results of the pardon were known. He said he would not risk elections until the colony was quiet again. If new elections were held sooner, Alexander foresaw violence governing many of the elections and Hew Jersey degenerating into an even more deplorable state, Alexander hoped that some trouble-makers would not be returned to the Assembly, but if violence occurred then the dissidents would probably increase in numbers. This danger could not be allowed to occur, Alexander's advice was heeded and Belcher agreed not to dissolve the Assembly, He said he expected to meet the lower house again in August. "51 Colonial laws had to be approved by the king and in June Governor Belcher wrote the Duke of Bedford, the Sec­ retary of State, asking for the royal approbation. He said that the laws would help re-establish tranquility in Hew Jersey. Belcher reported that Hew Jersey appeared quiet. Paris wrote Alexander and expressed his joy at hearing that the Assembly strengthened the hands of the governor to suppress the riots. To fu lfill the requirements of the pardon act Governor Belcher authorized John Reading, James Hude, Joseph Warrel, Cornelius Vanhor, Uzal Ogden and Matthias Eetfield to act as commissioners to take oaths for pardons.Ogden and Eetfield reported that they published notices of times and 111 places tliat they would be available to administer the oaths. In August some two hundred men came before them in Newark asking the terms. The terms were read and both men tried to persuade them to avail themselves of the pardon. The people were willing to take the oath to the king but not to comply with the act, Ogden and Hetfield blamed the failure of large numbers to ask for mercy on the obstinacy and influence of the leaders. They reported that only fourteen rioters took the oath, Joseph Warrell, attorney- general, reported that only nine men took the oaths from him on 18 August, Robert H, Morris said none applied to •515 him as chief justice and James Hude reported the same, Alexander wrote in September that very few rioters had chosen to accept the act of mercy and the time was r ip e to strengthen the government to en fo rce the laws vigorously. To forestall a new pardon act Alexander said that there was no precedent of a rejected pardon being offered a second time. He suggested that perhaps an act of attainder be passed for persons not delivering themselves for trial by a certain date. For precedents he offered

Parliament's actions after the rebellions of I 715 and 1745, Alexander was particularly b itter at Amos Roberts who he believed had stopped many people from taking the oath. If Roberts was to blame he proposed that Roberts should be made to suffer without mercy, A month later Alexander 112 was doubtful if the Assembly would agree to enacting new measures to suppress the riots. In that case he proposed that the Oouncil act alone and pass acts of attainder for ■56 those not coming forward for a trial.^ The Oouncil was also greatly disturbed by the failure of the Act of Pardon. In November the upper house asked Belcher for a report on the success of the effort. Gover­ nor Belcher replied that he did not have the figures on the number of people requesting mercy because these were sent to the Supreme Oourt as required by law. If they desired the information, application could be made there. The responses of Morris, Hude, Warrell and others that the total number of acceptances was only twenty-three angered the Oouncil and the matter was referred to the committee of ■57 the whole house for discussion^' The proprietors on 1 December 1748 decided to make their views known on the situation and sent a memorial to the legislature. It was written by Alexander and Morris, They declared that they had always submitted to royal authority and in return asked only for protection for their rights and property. But during a rebellion in England in

1745 several men joined together to deny the king's right to the soil of America and since that time riots had occurred. Because of the weakness of the government the guilty men had not been punished. They saw the riots as 113 a desire to bring an end to dependence on England. The proprietors said that if the riots did not end soon the province would have to face the wrath of king and parlia­ ment. Then, the Innocent would suffer with the guilty. Therefore, they urged the legislature to give strength to the government to bring an end to the riots. In the fall of 1748 two additional riots helped to bolster the demands of the proprietors that immediate action be taken to Insure peace and protection for their property. In November 1748 John S ty les p etitio n e d the governor, council and assembly for stronger laws to stop the dis­ orders so that he could recover his land from the rioters. Several years before. Styles had purchased 218 acres In Essex County from the proprietors and to prevent any dis­ putes he also acquired title from those who claimed by Indian purchase. The second title was obtained in 1740. Over the years Styles made Improvements on the land. Everything went along w ell u n til 1746 when r io te r s came and turned him out of his house. Two men, Samuel Headly and Peter Parcel, then took possession of the land. They began to cut the timber and Styles said that all was lost until the legislature took some action. On 28 November 1748, the sheriff of Essex County, William Chetwood, arrested Amos Roberts on a charge of treason and committed him to jail. That night about thirty 114 men gathered around the prison in Uewark. Joseph Roberts, son of the p riso n er, demanded the keys from John S ty les, the deputy sheriff. Styles refused the request and warned the mob about jail breaks. The rioters then shut Styles out in the street and locked his wife in the kitchen. Using an axe, the rioters cut the nails off the hinges and rescued Roberts, After finishing their work the mob went off cheering, but as Styles observed, not for King George as they had done on previous occasions. Interestingly, the Pennsylvania papers reported that after Amos Roberts was released he said that a strong northwest wind blew the hinges off the door and he walked out of prison like Paul and S ila s , Belcher addressed the Assembly to report that the riots

)t 4 continued. He said that the government must "rouse out of Sleep" and do everything possible to suppress the dis­ orders, The Assembly was remaining much clamer than either the governor. Council or proprietors. It replied that to their way of thinking present laws were adequate and should be enforced. If any defects could be pointed out then they would act to correct the situation. Until then, it was the government’s responsibility to handle the matter, Belcher replied that he was disappointed in the Assembly’s address because there was little of substance in it. He said that unless something was done quickly the province would decline 115 into a place of wild confusion. The Council told the A-ssemblj that the rioters were growing in numbers and in wealth with each passing day. They were of the opinion that the legislature should act to re-enforce the powers of the government. They also appointed a committee of three, Morris, Antill and Kemble, to meet with an Assembly com- mittee to decide on common action. 42 The Oouncil was becoming more radical as the hopes of getting new measures waned. On 9 December, Hude introduced a bill for an act of attainder for Amos Roberts, Simon Wyckoff and others named for participating in the riots. This is what Alexander was urging in September, Then i t prepared an address to Belcher, The chairman of the com­ mittee which prepared the address was Morris and this partially explains its implied criticism of Belcher, The Council said that it believed Belcher had the interest of the colony at heart and a zeal to enforce his authority. But it was concerned to find the leniency of the government tre a te d w ith contempt and th is showed th a t the rio te r s would continue iu their traitorous way unless vigorous measures were taken. The Council, on the other hand, had always been aware' of the dangers to the colony, and it hoped the Governor would not end the session until some vigorous measures were adopted. The Council promised to do all to aid and would even lay the matter before the king for 116 protection, Belcher replied that if no help could he found by the provincial government then he would bring the situa­ tion before the king. He also pictured the province on the "brink of an open rebellion. On 12 December 1748 the Oouncil considered a re p o rt of its committee on the riots. Morris, as chief justice, said that since certain parts reflected on the governor and other o ffic e rs whose duty i t was to execute the laws, he would leave the room during discussion of it. The committee resolved that Morris had done his utmost to bring criminals to justice and had neglected nothing in his power. It also found Belcher to be Innocent of any neglect of duty. There­ fore, Morris was recalled and he took his place once again. Then the Oouncil unanimously passed several resolutions, stating that because of the many rioters in Essex, Hunterdon and Somerset Counties it would be impossible to get an impartial jury and therefore they urged the governor to resist pressures to issue writs for Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery,They also wanted the Assembly to act to allow trials to be switched to other counties where they could be safely conducted. Money must also be allotted to allow a force to be raised to bring criminals to justice. After passing the resolutions the Council wont on to chastise the Assembly, It said that the Council had always been ready to act but the Assembly had continually delayed 117 taking necessary measures. The promise of leniency was a failure because only twenty-three rioters took the oaths and the others used the time to build up their power. And not one seized possession has been returned by the culprits. What was so discouraging to the Oouncil was that the lower house had not passed a single act to strengthen the govern­ ment or to increase the treasury. The Assembly had made promises of aid, but none were ever fulfilled. The Council demanded a definite answer from the Assembly, It contended that the lower house must join with the Oouncil to put down the riots effectively.^^ The Assembly replied that the only business before it was appropriations and unless some other matters were presented it would adjourn.In r e ­ sponse the Council said that such a statement in view of the riots was a violation of the representatives’ oath to the king, Robert Morris, and Antill were appointed to inspect the Assembly's records to see what it had done in regard to the traitorous activities of the rioters. On

16 December in a unanimous declaration the upper house noted that its counterpart had refused to do anything at that time against the rioters and even rejected meeting with them on the subject. The only recourse left open was for the Oouncil to lay the situation before the king and beè for relief, 118

The Council led by Morris, also sought a direct con­ frontation with the governor» Morris told Belcher that the Council had several matters to lay before him and to advise him on the present state of the colony. Governor Belcher replied that the Council could only advise when asked and he would ask only when he wanted to. The Chief Justice replied that the upper house thought it their duty to advise when it thought it for the good of the province, whether the executive asked or not. At this point Belcher walked out of the room. The Council was angered even further because Belcher refused to join them in a representation to the king. He wanted to try another session of the legislature before taking any drastic steps which might be regretted later. On 22 December 1748 the Council wrote Belcher and explained th e ir position- They re g re tte d th a t he neglected to heed their advice but they felt it their obligation to offer it. If he had not walked out in a huff they would have shown him the unreasonableness of the Assembly and the great necessity of applying to England. They would also have produced information on some government officials who had encouraged the riots and others who were remiss in their duties. To quell the rebellion they were prepared to ask Belcher to declare the rioters rebels and forbid other citizens to deal with them. In the Council's opinion this would stop the "infection." The statement was signed 119 by a l l the members except Leonard. Appended to th e o rig in a l draft after the signatures was the following: Had your Excellency been Pleased to have kept these Traitors and Rioters at a greater Distance from the Person of the King's Representative, we Cannot Con­ ceive that it Could have been in the least Prejudi­ cial to his Majesties Honour and Service; But When men, who your Excellency knew stood indicated of high treason, were admitted into private Conference with your Excellency, and Suffered unmolested, to Depart; it is not to be wondered. That They Think They have right to appear any where else with the Like Impunity; and how prejudicial the publick and open Appearance of these Daring people has been to his Majesties Authority, your Excellency can be at no Loss to know.^9 The split between the Council and the governor was an open and bitter one. Morris' leadership of the Council indicates just how powerful the proprietary interests were in the government and why the Assembly was always in opposition to the Council. Because the Assembly had done nothing about the rioters the Board of Proprietors decided to send a representation to the king, Morris, Alexander and Nevill were ordered to bring in a draft for the memorial.^0 I t was signed on 23 December by Andrew Johnston who was p resid en t of the pro­ prietors. The appeal stated that since 17^5 the king's authority had been held in contempt by a group of men who claimed that the crown had no right to the soil in New Jersey. The rioters established their ovm courts and levied taxes to carry on their rebellion. Because the Assembly had 120 failed to act they were forced to petition the king to pro­ tect the people from the traitors.51 The Council also sent a petition to the king which was almost a carbon copy of the proprietors'.52 Along with a petition the Council wrote to the Duke of Bedford, Secretary of State, The letter complained about the Assembly's refusal to take a stand against the rioters. In a rather accusing manner the Council said that it would not state why the Assembly refused to do so. Apparently the reason was so insidious that they dreaded the thought of even mouthing the words. They also reported that Governor Belcher refused to join in the letter because he wanted to give the Assembly another opportunity to act. But, the letter continued, there was a great majority in the other house which would not enter into any measures to stop the disorders.53 Alexander and Morris wrote Paris to inform him of the situation,5^ They to ld him th a t the Assembly refused to quell the riots and this would probably convince the rioters that they could get away with anything. John Low was accused of aiding the rioters and they lamented that he was not expelled from the House of Representatives. They wanted Paris to use his discretion on how to go about getting the attention of the home government. They wondered whether a lawyer should be hired to state the case and question whether the Assembly's refusal was a criminal act. 121

If their stand was illegal then the Board of Trade could order the governor to call the Assembly and tell them to act quickly or face punishment for neglecting their duty. Perhaps this would still be effective before the rioters grew in numbers completely out of proportion. Alexander was opposed to the use of force at the moment. R ather, Parliament should act to punish those who allowed the situa­ tion to deteriorate. Once peace was re-established adequate fo rce should be m aintained. From 1703 to 1739 order had been preserved by the fact that the governorships of New York and New Jersey had been combined under one head and New York had four companies of men.Although Alexander was wary of an army to solve the problem he was to suggest it formally within a few months. Because of the obstinacy of the Assembly in December Belcher dissolved it and called for new elections. In the

Assembly which met in February 17^8/9 John Lowvas not a

member.56 The speaker was Samuel N ev ill, the vociferous opponent of the rioters. Governor Belcher*s first address to the new legislature stressed the hope that this one would be more effective than last winter®s. He said he dissolved the previous one because nothing was accomplished. He warned that this Assembly should avoid feuds with the Council. The most pressing need was the riots. Money had to be appropriated for guarding the jails. He warned that if 122 nothing was done this session he would be forced to lay the situation before the king and to implore relief from across th e s e a .57 On 7 March 1748/9 the new Assembly addressed the Governor saying that they were sorry that the rioters had not been suppressed despite the efforts made by the entire legislature. They regretted that more rioters did not take advantage of the pardon act but enough warning time had not been given to prepare the people. In Essex County only three days notice was given that the commissioners would come to administer the oaths. Three months warning, on the other hand, would have greatly increased the number. Despite the fact that the Governor urged more appropriations the Assembly felt that it could not vote the funds because the colony's financial position would not permit it. Hope­ fully, some less difficult and more effectual means could be found. But, this was not to be taken to mean that the Assembly was discouraging full implementation of the laws. If new laws were needed the Assembly would act. And if the Governor found it necessary to appeal to the king then the lower house expressed the hope that he would do it with the greatest caution and impartiality. He should carefully point out the claimants to the disputed lands and the govern­ ment posts they held on the one hand, and the rioters and th e reasons they put fo rth fo r not coming to t r i a l on the other hand. 123

Governor Belcher was not satisfied with the Assembly's address. He said money must be voted to guard the jails and suppress the riots <>58 Belcher refused to accept the excuse that the money could not be raised because in the past funds were found even though the population was con­ siderably less. If he was compellel to appeal to the king then chances were that the innocent would suffer along with the guilty. He urged that the representatives realize that he had no land in New Jersey and no sinister motives. He was trying only to do his duty and support the king.59 A new petition from about one hundred seventy rioters was presented to both houses in March.The memorial said that they were misled into believing that rioting would protect what they felt to be their just rights. Now they were convinced that such acts were wrong and would not solve the problem. They requested that the legislature urge the governor to issue a second act of grace on the mildest terms possible. They desired that the dispute over land titles be settled by a fair trial before disinterested judges. The Council was rather skeptical over this change of heart and closely questioned the two men who delivered the p e titio n . What most concerned the members of the Council was the v a lid ity of the sig n atu res. They probed to discover whether the signers knew what they had signed, because some names were on separate sheets of paper and some 12^-

signatures were in the same handwriting. The messengers explained that some people were illiterate and asked others to w rite th e ir names fo r them. The two c a rrie rs said th a t the Reverend Caleb Smith of Newark was the author of the p e titio n . The rioters also proposed in another communication that there be a court case to make a final determination of this issue. John Condict and Nathaniel Camp put the proposal before the Assembly and said that it had already been de­ livered to Alexander and Morris. The case would be to determine the title of the 13,500 tract at Horse-Neck owned by Alexander and Morris. They were willing to give security that the people claiming under Indian purchase would accept any decision as final. Certain conditions, however, would have to be met before a t r i a l would take p lace. The t r i a l would have to be by a struck jury; it would have to be before disinterested people appointed by the governor; and either party could appeal to the King in Council. If both proprietors agreed to the conditions the rioters would meet them at Perth Amboy to give the bonds and make arrangements. David Ogden, who worked on the first proposed tria l in 1746, said he was happy that the rioters finally decided to come to court after three years of delay. Alexander and Morris both said that the rioters were wrong in their insinuation that they were to blame but they were hoping to see them at 125 th e next Supreme Court in P erth Amboy. At th a t time they would meet with their counsel and answer the proposal.^3 In April the Board of Proprietors disapproved the scheme; they wanted the proposals of iy46 renewed. This ended any hope of a trial. Meanwhile, the question of a new pardon was renewed. On 21 March the Assembly told the Governor of the petition asking for mercy.They said that people did not have enough time to take advantage of the last pardon and a new act would be extremely desirable. Belcher said he would do all in his power to resotre peace and would join the legis­ lature in measures they thought proper. The Council was asked to appoint a committee to meet with a corresponding committee of the Assembly to discuss the matter of another pardon and other measures necessary to quell the disturbances. The upper house appointed three men to meet with the Assembly's committee on ways to stop the riots but they rejected any possibility of a new pardon act being discussed. They said that only the governor had the power to issue pardons and they did not think it proper to enter into a conference on a matter in which they had not right to meddle. It was especially improper since they might have to give advice on it as a Council of State.^5 The Assembly to ld Governor Belcher on 25 March 17^9 that the riots were not due to lack of action on their part 126 and they pointed to his expression of pleasure at the suc­ cess of the legislature of 17^7/8» Once again they said that the treasury prohibited further appropriation. One solution would be to lessen the burden on the jails by removing the cause for the riots. The cause could be elim­ inated by having a trial on a specific case and allowing the decision to be final. And they asked, do our different approaches on how to deal with the riots mean that we are accessories to the law lessness?^^ At the meeting of the joint committee on the riots the Assemblymen asked the Councillors to appeal to Belcher for another act of pardon. They replied that as long as the lower house refused to comply w ith the Governor’s requests they thought another lenient approach was worthless. The Assemblymen refused to take any additional steps to end the riots and the conference ended. The Council dispaired of the Assembly helping to quiet New Jersey and it felt that the only solution was in England. If allowed to continue any longer the rioters would be encouraged by the Assembly and the riots might spread. They wrote the Duke of Bedford and the Board of Trade to say that since the representation in December a new Assembly has been chosen. But the new house was just as obstinate to urgings of the Governor for prompt and decisive actions. The only hope for relief, they lamented, was from the king.^? FOOTNOTES - Chapter V

1. The New-York Gazette. Revived In the Weekly Post- Boy. 17 August 17^-7 ; NJA, V II, 17.

2. 20 August. 17^7? The Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of Mew-Jersev. Held at Burlington on Thursday the Twentieth of August. 1 (PhiladelphiaÎ William Bradford^ 17^7). 5: NJA. VII. 21=22; The Nev°York G azette. Revived in the Weekly Post-Boy. 3I August 17^7; The Pennsylvania Gazette, 10 September 17^7j Boston Gazette. 8 September 1747.

3 . 22 August 1747, NJA, VII, 24=25; ibid., XV, 3 I9* 4. Votes of Assembly. 7, 10; NJA. VII, 28; ibid., XV, 524-25; The New-York G azette. Revived in the Weekly Post-Boy, 31 August 1747. 5 . 27 August 1747, NJA. V II, 29-3O; Journal of the Board of Trade. VIII, 266. 6. Belcher to Chamberlayne, 29 September 1747, Belcher Papers, New Jersey Historical Society. 7. NJA. VII, 64; Charles Head, Jr., to H. II. Morris, 1 October 1747, Morris Papers, box 2. 8. NJA. VII, 71-74; Belcher to nephew, 2 October 1747, Belcher Papers; Alexander to Ogden, 1 September 1747, NJA, VII, 53-54; 3 October 1747, Belcher Papers and NJA. VII 65 .

9 . NJA, V II, 219.

10. Ibid.. VII, 86- 87.

11. 19 November 1747, ib id . . V II, 68-69; ib id . , XV, 527- 28; The New-York Gazette. Revived in the Weekly Post- Boy. 6 December 1747: Boston G azette, 15 December 1747.

12. NJA, XV, 537, 539. 13. Votes of General Assembly NewJersey, 17 November 1747-18 February 1747/8 pp. 13-108 (Philadelphia: William Bradford, 1747), 24-25. 127 128

14. NJA, VII, 81-85; Ibid.. XV, 546-50. 15. Ibid., XV, 551-52. 16. 10 December 174?, ib id . . XV, 554-56; Votes of Assembly. 36-37.

17. NJA, VII, 88- 90; ibid. . XV, 558-59. 18. Votes of Assembly, 38.

19. NJA, XV, 579. 20. 7 January 1747/ 8 , Votes of Assembly. 62,

21. Ibid.. 74-75; NJA, VII, 9 5 , 220-21; ibid.. XV, 609 . 22. 19 January 1747/8, Votes of Assembly, 72-73.

23. 10 February 1747/8, ibid.. 95.

24. 19 January 1747/8, ibid.. 73.

25 . NJA, VII, 221-22. 26. 12 February 1747/8, ibid.. XVI, 68-73.

27. Anno^Regnl Gaorgii II. Regis Magnae Butanniae. Franciee, & Hiberiae, Vicesimo Primo. At General Assembly of the Colony of New-Jersey, continued bv Adjournments to the 17th Day of November, Anno Dorn. 1747, and then begun and h.Qlden at Burlington, being the fifth Sitting of the second Session of this present Assembly. (Philadelphia. B. Franklin, 17^8), 22- 27.

28. Ibid.. 45 -47.

29. Ib id .. 47- 51 . 30. Votes of Assembly, 107; NJA. VII, 105; The New- York Gazette. Revived in the Weekly Post-Boy. 7 March 1747/8.

31. Alexander to John Coxe, 2 May 1748, NJA. VII, 122-24; John Coxe to Alexander, 30 May 1748, ibid. . VII, 127- 30.

32. 24 June 1748, ibid. , VII, 139. 129

33. 16 Jime 1?48, ibid.. VII, 131-32. 3^. 18 July 1?48, The Pennsylvania Journal^ 28 July 1748. 35. 20 August 1748, Paris Papers, vol R, #11; Pierson, Narratives of Newark. 1?1; NJA, VII, 223; ibid. . XVI, 161- 62.

36. Alexander to Coxe, 5 September iy48, ibid. . VII, 154-56; 17 October 1748, ibid.. VII, 161-62. 37. Ibid.. XVI, 7-10, 13-15. 38. Ibid.. XVI, 15-19; MEJP. ill, 148-52; The Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of Nev- Jersev. Held at Burlington on Wednesday the sixth of July 1748. (Philadelphia;W illiam Bradford, 1748), 28-31. 39. A, M, Mss., New Jersey State Library, Trenton, #1879. 40. NJA, VII, 178- 82; Pierson, Narratives of Newark. 171- 72; The Pennsylvania Journal, 13 December 1748; The Pennsylvania G azette. 13 December 1748. 41. 3 December 1748, Votes of Assembly, 36-37.

42. Ibid., 44-45; NJA, VII, 41.

43. Ibid.. XVI, 37-40, 46.

44. 13 December 1748, ib i d ., XVI, 47-51; Votes of Assembly. 47-48.

45 . Votes of Assembly. 48-53.

46. Ibid.. 57, NJA, XVI, 61-62.

47. N ^ , XVI, 63-65. 48. 16 December 1748, ib id .. V II, 183-84.

49. Ibid.. XVI, 66-67; ibid.. VII, 185-88.

50 . 17 December 1748, MEJP. I l l , 183.

51 . Ibid., Ill, 155-57; NJA, VII, 193-97; Paris Papers, y o l. R, #15 . 130

52. 22 December 17^8, V II, 189-91. 53. 22 December 17^8, ib id . , V II, 192; P aris Papers, v o l. R, #16. 54-. 23 December 174-8, NJA, VII, 197-203. 55. Alexander to ?, 25 January 174-8/9, Stevens Papers, #7966. 56. The Votes and Proceedings of the General Assemblv of the Province of New-Jersev. Held sfc Burlington on Mondav the 20th of Februarv 174-8-9. (P h ilad elp h ia: William Brad­ fo rd , 1749), 3 .

57 . 21 February 174-8/9, ib id .. 5-6; MÀ, XVI, 112-13; The New-York G azette. Revived in the Weeklv Post-Bov. 13 March 174-8/9; The New-York Evening P o st. 13 March 174-8/9; The Independent A dvertiser (B oston), 20 March 174-8/9. 58. Votes of Assemblv. 19-21; NJA, XVI, 122-25; The New-York Evening P o st. 10 A pril 17^9.

59 . 16 March 174-8/9, Votes of Assemblv, 27-29; NJA, SVI, 131- 34-; The New-York G azette. Revived in the Weeklv Post-Bov, 10 April 174-9. 60. The actual petition is in the A. M. Mss., #1888; Votes of Assembly. 2/,

61. NJA, XVI, 130- 31. 62. Ibid.. VII, 284-85; Votes of Assemblv. 31-32.

63 . Morris Papers, box 3; Votes of Assembly. 32; MEJP. I l l , 158- 59 . 64-. Votes of Assemblv. 34-; NJA, VII, 285-86.

65 . 22 March 174-8/9, Votes of Assemblv. 34-; NJA. XVI, 137. 23 March 174-8/9, Votes of Assemblv. 35; NJA. XVI, 139-4-0.

66. 25 March 174-9, Votes of Assemblv. 36-39 =

67 . Ibid.. 39; NJA, VII, 236-37; ibid.. XVI, 141-47. OHàPTER VI APPEALS TO ENGLAND

The English government was at first uninterested in the problems of New Jersey. Parliament by 1749 was so busy that it did not pay any attention to the riots, Ferdinand John Paris, the proprietors* agent, wrote that not a single member of Parliament was concerned. The most he could strive for would be strong paper instructions to the Governor, Chances for a military force were very slim. The Board of Trade was also unconcerned because its main interest was the settlement of Nova Scotia, Paris could report, however, that the Board was angry at Governor Belcher who, they felt, should have used whatever powers he had to quell the riots, Paris said he believed the Board was in favor of removing Belcher, The agent pro­ mised that he would do all within his power to see that end was accomplished. Paris also said that the idea of a possible reunion of New York and New Jersey was not popular in London, Belcher, on the other hand, was not going to let his reputation be tarnished by the proprietors so he wrote the Board and said that the riots began years before he even arrived in the colony. The Assembly was stubborn and would not appropriate a shilling or do anything

131 132 to quell the riots. Therefore, the Governor requested that the issue be put before the king and that special orders be dispatched. Paris devoted all his energies in London to convince the authorities to take decisive steps. On 5 May 1749, with Paris in attendance, the Board of Trade was urged to consider the proprietary petition. The Board said it would act as soon as it was convenient and in the mean­ time asked him to prepare a state of the case. The issue was not discussed until 25 May and the next day Paris was questioned about the matter. His testimony was unfair to the rioters and to the Governor because he was privy to second-hand information and this came from Alexander and Morris, He reported that the situation in Hew Jersey was "now very great." which was not true. Without knowing the situation, he said that with forty men the riots could have been quelled in the beginning had the government acted swiftly. He said, without any danger of rebuttal, that the Assembly had absolutely refused to raise any money and he implied their association with the riots. When pushed for suggested remedies he said that since forces from England would be very expensive he recommended a letter from the king to the Assembly requiring them to raise money to strengthen the government and possibly to augment the m ilitia. Paris wrote to Alexander immediately 133 after the session and told him of the meeting. He said that the Board was convinced that the Governor was not sin­ cere in his support of the king's authority and would not advise sending special instructions to the governor. In fact, the Board seemed prepared to recommend to the king that he be removed, Paris said he told them that sending a new executive would mean a delay in receiving relief but that it was the only effectual means of combatting the riots. The Board, he reported, was adverse to annexing Uew Jersey to Hew York, Alexander and Morris continued to insist upon reunion so that Hew York's forces could be used despite the fact that Paris advised that the proposal P was unpopular in England. The Assembly's London agent, Richard Partridge, Bel­ cher's brother-in-law, was capable of reporting the news in England but he did not match the skill or drive that Paris exhibited, Paris' success in so greatly influencing the Board can partially be explained by the inability of his counterpart to make his views known. Partridge wrote Richard Smith that the resentment over the riots continued in London and th a t there was some ta lk of sending troops. He recommended th a t the rio te r s agree to a t r i a l and when they appealed to the king they would most certainly win. He based his opinion on the records of Fullerton v, Jones which he had recently found,^ 154

Paris continued to write encouraging letters home, perhaps to make it appear that he was doing an effective job, although the English government did not follow his advice. In June he told Alexander that he forgot to men­ tion in his last letter that the Board felt that Belcher had exceeded his power in granting pardons for treason. And also, that Parliament was disturbed at the prospect of the riots spreading and would possibly enter the debate. Because of increasing parliamentary concern the Board re­ quested a meeting of the Lord Chancellor and the Secretaries of State to discuss the situation. The Earl of Halifax issued a call for all ministers who were members of the Board to attend meetings on the riots so that common ac­ tion could be decided upon. Once again, Belcher wrote the Board to request instructions on how to proceed. He com­ plained of a lack of money and an Assembly which refused to help. Paris, however, took a dim view of Belcher’s letters. He felt that Belcher heard of the Board's anger and so he decided to make it appear that he was opposed to the riots, but he did not believe the change of heart was A genuine. The Board met on 12 July to discuss the riots and Paris was asked to attend. He said that his instructions from the Council suggested that peace might be restored . through a reunion of New York and New Jersey and the use 155 of New York's military might. After hearing this the Board decided on another meeting to consider the affair. Paris wrote that the Board met for six hours on the riots and that he made the suggestion for annexation. Once again, he attacked Belcher and reported his imminent removal but this time the reason was the pardon act, Paris must have been rather upset when the report of the attorney-general and solicitor-general on the pardon act was released. The report said that pardons for treason must rest only with the king but that in this instance the pardon should have been granted. On 21 July 17-^9 another Board of Trade meeting on the matter was conducted and Paris again talked about the best way to end the riots. He emphasized the four companies of m ilitia at the disposal of New York's governor. Paris then left the meeting and the Board read about Bacon's Rebellion to see if there were any precedents to be used, What con­ cerned them \ra.s the right of the governor to issue a pardon for treason, Paris said that Bacon forced the governor, Gouncil and Assembly to pass a pardon act. Then the king sent representatives to Virginia to pardon the governor and others for the traitorous act of granting the pardon. He regrettably noted that until the attorney-general's report on the pardon the Board felt Belcher's move was treason but after a conference with him they thought dif­ ferently, But the attorney-general and solicitor-general 136 recommended a royal veto on a l l three a c ts of February 1747/ 8. Paris promised to show that the Council only pas­ sively accepted the pardon act so that all the blame would fall on the Assembly.^ The Board of Trade suggested several different ap­ proaches to solving the crisis. Paris pictured them as being very confused on exactly what powers and orders should be given. He saw them using Bacon’s Rebellion as a source of their ideas.? When the time approached for their pro­ posals the Board told the lord Chancellor that the problem was a weakness of the government caused by the position of the governor. As long as the governor was dependent on the Assembly for his salary, they said, order and good govern­ ment could not be re-established. He was forced for economic reasons to join with their schemes or else he would lose h is money. The Board presented three a lte rn a tiv e s , F ir s t, would be the dispatching a military force from England. But this might be too expensive or some dangerous conse­ quences might arise from it. Second, would be to appoint a new governor whose salary would be paid in England, He would also have command of the four m ilitia companies in Hew York. In this case the governor might become too power­ ful which would be against the better interests of the crown. And, third, Hew Jersey could be rejoined with Hew York and the governor ordered to go to Hew Jersey with the four 137 companies to quell the riots. The Board pointed out that the third proposal was approved by the provincial Council. Since the Council members were also proprietors and the greatest sufferers from the riots the Council would not approve anything which was ineffectual. If a new chief executive was appointed he must have the proper powers to pardon, to bring offenders to justice and to restore vigor to the laws. For a precedent they referred to the situation o that existed during Bacon's Rebellion.

During the summer of 1749 Robert Hunter Morris an­ nounced that he had to go to England for personal reasons. In August the Board of P ro p rieto rs empowered him to ac t as their representative. In October he told the Council that if they thought he could give the ministers help in ending the riots he would willingly travel to England. The house then resolved that Morris would be extremely helpful in England and they asked Belcher to grant him a leave of absence so that he could go. The Council told Belcher that Morris was the best qualified person to go because he was so well acquainted with the situation, Belcher realized that Morris was not willing to go just because the upper house requested him to do so. He knew Morris had other reasons because several months before he had applied to the secretary of state for a leave,^ With Morris in England, representing both the proprietors and 138 the Council, Belcher could see that he would be subject to a great deal of attack; but he could not refuse Morris' req u est. During the intense efforts of the government to find a solution to the riots the disturbances continued to occur, Another prison rescue occurred in Newark on 15 July 1749, Both Aaron Ball and Theophilus Burwell had been committed for high treason. On the night of the rescue Mrs, Styles, wife of the sheriff, opened the door of the jail and a man took a swing at her with a club. She immediately closed the door and told her huehend not to go outside until the mob finished its task. When Styles finally looked he found that both prisoners had been released. But the door to the jail was rehung and a prisoner for debt was still inside. The ten individuals involved were all in disguise: black face, old clothes and straw on th e ir heads, James Alexander and Robert Morris commented to Paris that By th e ir coming in D isguise, i t seems th a t they have got a little more'Pear and Modesty, than they use'd to have, Ball and Burwell later petitioned the Assembly for its intercession with the governor for a speedy trial. They explained that they had come to realize that their escape was illegal and they had since returned to jail. Both men said in their petition that they were persuaded 139 to escape because they were imprisoned for an extended period of time with no promise of a quick end to their case even though they made repeated applications for a trial. And they felt that their continued confinement was prejudicial to them and their families. A week after the break Alexander and Morris in a letter to Paris con­ firmed this contention and said that the rioters had peti­ tioned for a special commission of Oyer and Terminer but that the Council refused to grant the commission.^^ On 9 November 1749 six men attem pted to dispossess a man from h is land in the Horse-Neck region. Abraham Phillips had permission of Alexander and Morris to take possession of one hundred sixty acres on their tract. The same land was claimed by another man through Indian purchase, but Phillips heard that the second man had abandoned the land five years before. Phillips improved the land by building a small log house, fencing a hog pasture and planting several apple and peach trees. As he said that the had intended to purchase or lease the land whenever the lawful owner appeared. Then a man came who claimed the tract and who declared that he was going to take possession. He was supported in his attempt by five other men. The mob threatened Phillips and also tore up the fence surrounding the stock yards. The pigs ran away 140 into the 'sfoods and a breeding sow was later found dead. Because Phillips saw one mn carrying a gun he did not try to fight the intruders. Before the man left, however, they destroyed the foundation for an oven and also several stacks of crops. When Phillips returned after removing his family to safety he found part of his roof destroyed and his furniture outside the house. Phillips attributed the attack on his property to his refusal to join the rioters who formed a majority of his neighbors and because of his intention to purchase of the rightful owners—the proprietors. 12 A spectacular incident occurred in a courtroom on 3 October 1749. On that day a grand jury was sworn for Somerset County. The prosecutor said that Thomas Clawson, a member of the jury, stood indicted for high treason and that he had delivered several processes to the sheriff for his arrest. The sheriff replied that Clawson was not in his baliwick and that he was surprised to see him sit­ ting on the jury. He also denied having any processes for him. Clawson, he stated, was not summoned by him, but by his deputy. The deputy said that he had called him because he believed the indictment was long since in­ v alid . The first justice of the court, Thomas Leonard, in­ formed the jury of Clawson’s indictment and ordered his 141 name struck from the panel. He ordered the sheriff to ar­ rest him. Supposedly the sheriff was drunk and the task fell to the deputy. The deputy refused to take him into custody. Clawson started to move away. The constable was ordered to pursue him. The hunted man ran to the deputy’s house and to keep the pursuers at bay he picked up an axe and threatened them, Clawson got on his horse and rode off to freedom, Clawson escaped capture and he caused the law enforcement officials great concern because an indicted man dared to present himself on a grand j u r y . ^3 Another incident concerning the grand jury occurred in October 1749. This time the riot was in Bergen County. In May 1749 Corsparus Prior reported that ten white men and four or five Negores came to his land in a riotous manner and pulled up and cut down his fences. The follow­ ing October the case went before the grand jury of the county. With several witnesses Prior proved his case to the jury, and several members of the jury acknowledged that the fact was established. But, despite the evidence, the grand jury refused to hand down any indictments The proprietors took this to indicate that the people in Bergen County were in sympathy with the rioters and re­ fused to punish those who took part. The complete story, however, is unknown and no conclusion to th a t e ffe c t is justifiable. 1^2

In September 17^9 the Assembly met for another session and Belcher tried to stir it into action. He related how the last session of the lower house had turned a deaf ear to proposals for ending the riots. Belcher said that be­ cause of that he was forced to turn to the king and was awaiting special orders on how to proceed. The harrassed chief executive then urged the representatives to take some steps to quell the disorders; unless this session pro­ duced constructive acts then he feared they would be answer- able for the consequences of their- misconduct.^ 5 In reply, the Assembly said that they had consistently requested the government to indicate where the present laws were defective and when this was done the Assembly would be happy to correct them. Up to this time, however, this was not done. The Assembly contended that it had made positive suggestions for a solution. It urged leniency and a new pardon but this was rejected. Upon request of the rioters there was a pro­ posal for a new trial but Alexander and Morris did not reply. The rioters even went to the Supreme Court to have an attorney and counsel appointed for Francis Spier who would be the test case. At the joint committee on the riots the Council’s representatives obstructed its work by refusing to make any proposals. The Assemblymen suggested a pardon but this was refused. Thus, the Assembly had dis­ charged their duty in the way they thought best. But they 1 % urged the rioters not to be encouraged by the Assembly just because that body urged leniency. And finally, they ex­ pressed the hope that the Governor would be fair to the Assembly in any representation to the king.16 The Assembly also sent two men to Belcher to request a commission of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery in Essex County so that there could be speedier trials for those accused of high treason .17 The Assembly concluded that the time had come for it to petition the king and give its view of the riots and its role to quell them. The representation stated that the poor people in New Jersey had been harrassed by some rich and powerful men like James Alexander and Robert Hunter Morris. The two proprietors repeatedly refused to settle

+•UAXO ^ ^ 4 C* 4“ V WAJl O WWW WO. JU T kV C» k/ VL W 4- kV VkJ. 4" In, A loyal inhabitants with a multiplicity of suits. Because the oppressed people feared having their case tried before men like Morris and his appointees they resorted to violence. The Assemblymen asserted that the reason Morris had con­ tinually attacked them was that they had a bitter dispute with his father. And the Council was vitriolic because it was dominated by proprietors. They asserted that their loyalty should not be questioned.18 Alexander’s integrity and truthfulness was under scrutiny and he could not allow it to pass without a rebuttal.19 He said that since April 144

1749 he had not heard a single word from the rioters about a trial and he did not know of the steps taken by Francis Spier. Alexander also said that not one of these tenants on the Horse-Ueck tract had joined the rioters but he lost timber worth one thousand pounds over four years. He felt that the accusations made against him were without fact and just a smoke screen to cloud the true events, Robert Hunter Morris tried to use his influence in London to the best of his abilities. In December 1749 he wrote his friend Alexander that he met with the Duke of Bedford and lord Halifax on the riots. He felt he had made a good impression on them and after the Christmas holidays he was certain that they would act on the distur­ bances, These two public officials he considered of the greatest influence. On a possible solution he said that he did not consider reunion good because the forces could not be withdrawn from Hew York. An armed force from England would be best but this would be too expensive to be feasible, Besides meeting with government officials he also spoke to Penn and he said that trying Assemblymen who work with the rioters might have a beneficial effect so Morris asked A lexander f o r some a f f id a v it s on i t , 20 Morris petitioned the Board of Trade in the name of the proprietors. He said that the riots had increased in Hew Jersey despite the efforts of the Council, A partial 145 explanation of the increased activity was the countenance of the Assembly, All authority and good order had come to end in that troubled province, Morris found that the officials in London kept telling him that the situation was important yet they did not meet on it. He was very proud that he was able to convince Lord Halifax that the Assembly was the main supporter of the rioters and that the Gouncil acted according to its duty. Lord Halifax was led into concluding by himself that an armed force was the only effective means for suppressing the riots, Morris pressed for a meeting of ministers on the grounds that delay only made suppression more difficult. He became con­ vinced that the personal approach was much more profitable and vital then memorials and petitions. He felt by early February that a decision would be made by the king's ministers to correct the situation and that it would soon be issued, 21 Alexander was glad to hear that Morris was so successful in convincing Halifax that reunion was best. He also said that he recognized the financial problems of the ministry and why they would hesitate to spend money on Hew Jersey, There was no need for England, he said, to support the cost of the colonies. Parliament might be forced to levy heavy taxes on them to defray the expenses. To offset the rumors that the riots were abating Alexander asserted that this was impossible since no criminal had 146

"been brought to tria l and the government could not even hold them in jail. The rioters still possessed land by force. Instead of saying that the riots were dying, he suggested that they say the government was withering and 22 soon to die if impunity continued. In May 1750 the Board of Trade received a copy of the Assembly petition from the Privy Council. It was directed to consider the memorial and the report on the state of the province and then prepare a report for the Privy Coun­ cil, They decided to invite Morris to the meeting when the petition was being considered because it complained about him. The meeting was postponed until the twenty- ninth but in the meantime various affidavits and letters about the riots were read. When the Board finally got around to discussing the matter Partridge attended as the agent for the Assembly and Morris was present with Paris as his counsel. When asked what proof he could present to support the allegations in the petition Partridge replied that he could only present the representation and that he had no instructions to enter into a debate on the merits of the complaints. Paris argued that since 1?45 the pro­ prietors had been willing to join issue in a trial to test the matter judicially but that the rioters never completed the arrangements. The antagonists and the Board considered the dispute.^^ 147

On 1 June the Board signed its report to the Privy Oounoil. The report ominously noted that the riots began at a time when the mother country was having a great many problems. Wicked men, it said, "chiefly the dregs of the People, and many of them Irish ," took advantage of the situation to work to subvert the laws. In December 1749 the Assembly refused to pass any further measures to sup­ press the disorders. The lower house contended that the present laws should be fully executed. Then, if any de­ fects were discovered they should be brought to their attention for correction. Governor Belcher also came under attack. They chastised him for not representing the facts to the king as advised by the Council and never send­ ing any papers relating to the riots to the Board, If it were not for the Council, the Board stated, they would not know the true state of affairs in Wew Jersey, The rioters* claims also attracted the wrath of the Board. They found that the explanations were "either ignorantly or designedly very dark and unintelligible." The Board said that pretense to the Wicholls grant was "only a Piece of Art of the Rioters," For concrete suggestions the re­ port put forth the three alternatives mentioned earlier. In addition, the Board recommended that the king should disapprove the pardon and stay acts. 148

Morris and Paris conducted a very effective campaign against the Assembly, The report included a stinging ap­ praisal of the petition and of the entire position of the lower house. On the petition the Board concluded that it was merely “Libel upon the faithful Servants of the Crown both living and dead," It continued, that; Upon th e whole we must d eserv e to jo in Lord­ ships that the sending over this Petition un­ supported with any Evidence, appears to Us to be a further Proof of the bad Conduct of the Assembly of this Colony, an Insult upon the Crown, and an Injury to the Persons complain'd of therein.24

The importance of personal representatives in London during the colonial period is shown by this incident. A poor agent, like Partridge, could cause a great deal of harm to the people he represented. Luckily for the Assembly the Board's report was to sit for a long time before any action was taken upon it.

In J u ly 1750 the Council and proprietors memorialized the Privy Council with a proposal to supplement the Board of Trade's rep o rt.it suggested that New Jersey raise two companies of m ilitia and these would be supplemented with whatever troops could be spared from New York. The Board of Ordinance would send a train of artillery and small arms to be given to "untainted" subjects. A man of war would be stationed in New Jersey. To further enhance the king's authority ships stationed at Boston, New York, 149

Virginia and Carolina ■would be sent to the troubled region. Agreements would also be made with the governments of New York; Pennsylvania and Connecticut to give necessary assistance. The proprietary interests were pushing for what force might be necessary to protect their interests. They were making it appear that the situation was so des­ perate that only the m ilitary could save the colony, David Ogden, who lived in Newark, was able to keep an eye on the situation in that town and to report to Alexander whenever something was taking place.In A ugust he wrote Alexander that the rioters were preparing a peti­ tion to the king to state their case. The rioters were trying to collect as many signatures as possible and Ogden said that everyone, old and young, rioters and non-claimants alike, were being solicited. He contended that he was credibly informed that the petition ■was Richard Partridge's scheme. Partridge told the rioters that if the king knew their grievances he would settle the matter in their favor. The Assembly's agent had also tried to get money from the rioters to pay some of his expenses but according to Ogden they would trust him with the petition but not with money above that needed for postage, Belcher was extremely angry with his brother-in-law for having any dealings at all with the rioters. He was further troubled because Alexander knew of the affair and he would use the information 150 against the governor. He wrote, "Why w ill you he dahling with Such a Crew of Lawless V illians generally the Scum and offscouring of the Earth." Belcher told Partridge 27 that he hoped he used greater discretion in the future. The petition from the lewark Committee stated the facts of the case and stated that the people committed the riots because they saw no hope of getting a fair trial on the question of titles. They did, however, desire a judicial end to the matter. The petition also requested a new pardon because not enough time m s allowed for the last one. They expressed their regrets that the riots ever occurred and assured the king that the disorders were not designed to subvert his authority. To remove the source of the discontent they requested him to take from power their opponents so that they could carry their ap­ peal to England, Along with the petition went, "The State of the Possessors Case of lands in Newark and other parts of Essex Co." Besides restating the history of the dis­ pute the document attacked the actions of Alexander and Morris in pushing the actions of trespass and ejectment. It particularly wag bitter about the fact that Morris as

pQ chief justice would try the treason cases. By the fall of 1730 it appeared that the riots were quieting do?m and that perhaps peace would be restored. Governor Belcher wrote the Secretary of State that one 151 rioter had given up possession to the proper owner of the land and vra-s released from prison for this act. He hoped pQ that this would serve as an example to others, David Ogden wrote Morris in London that no riots occurred re­ cently but that the rioters still illegally held the land and out the timber. He also reported that John Oondict and Daniel Lamson went to London to represent the rioters before the king, Oondict was “ambassador” and Lamson his "secretary," Ogden said that the Hewark Committee levied a tax of two hundred thirty pounds for the mission. To raise tlaat sum they assessed many people in Newark who were not involved and then forced payment from them^^ Alexander also reported to Morris of Oondict and Lamson's mission, Morris reported a few months later that the two men had arrived although he had not seen them. He said that Paris, however, was keeping a sharp eye on them,^^ In February 1750/1 Governor Belcher again requested the Assembly to appropriate funds so that the government could take proper steps to end the confusion,He p o in te d to a letter from the Board of Trade which asked what could be wrong with an assembly which did not provide funds to suppress riots. Belcher said that this put the lower house in a bad light with the king. The Assembly replied that from the Board's letter it appeared that they had received false statements about the Assembly,Because l i t t l e 152 hope remined that the Assembly -would act in a positive manner Belcher decided to dissolve that body on 25 Feb­ ruary. He based his action on the lower house's statement that all friendly communications had been cut off with the Council. Therefore, he decided to give the people a chance to elect new men who would work to bring peace. Alexander reported to Morris that in the elections the leading sup­ porters of the rioters lost. The rioters would not be able to carry the new Assembly as they did the last, he wrote. Belcher was also joyful over the results and he wrote the Duke of Bedford that the new house seemed to be easier to work with and this might bring peace. Morris and Paris persisted in their efforts to dis­ credit the Assembly and the governor. One of the more vicious efforts was to associate two people Belcher recom­ mended for vacant Council seats with the rioters. William Morris had been recommended by the Governor to f ill John Coze's seat after he was suspended, Robert H, Morris told the Board of Trade that Morris' appointment would be in the best interests of the rioters. He averred that William Morris had spoken publicly in favor of the rioters several times and was connected with the Assembly faction which opposed passing laws to quell the disorders. When Richard Smith died another spot -was open. This time Richard Part­ ridge memorialized the Board to approve Samuel Smith for 153 the vacancy. Robert H« Morris was in attendance and he told the Board that Samuel Smith "was an encourager of and well wisher to the rioters, and that his family were the most active persons concerned in that faction." This was a complete falsehood. But the Board of Trade accepted the veracity of Morris and accepted his nominee, Lewis Ashfield, for the vacancy. They then prepared a letter to Belcher reprimanding him for recommending persons so closely asso­ ciated with the riots, "this being the second instance of that sort." They asked him why he would try to fill the Oouncil with people opposing the government. To further Morris* triumph over his undefended adversary the Board chose David Ogden, another proprietor, to fill Ooxe’s seat.^^ Partridge belatedly attempted to defend William Morris against the charges leveled by Robert Morris. He told the Board that the nominee was never involved in the riots and that Belcher was wrongly chastised. Governor Bâcher wrote the Earl of Halifax also to justify his choice and he said that Mprris* character was unblemished. Affidavits attest­ ing to William Morris' character were submitted to the Board of Trade, Belcher also justified his nomination by stating that if Ogden were appointed the Council would have ten members from the eastern division and only two from the western which was contrary to Belcher's instructions to keep the upper house evenly divided. The appointment of Morris 154 and Smith "would keep a better balance, Belcher could also point to the fact that in August 1751 Lewis Ashfield was indicted for swearing against the king's laws, Ashfield was later acquitted of the charge, Robert Hunter Morris was able to use his influence to convince the Board that he was correct. Eventually both Ogden and Ashfield assumed their seats and Belcher lost,^^ Another sore point on appointments came when Belcher moved to appoint Matthias Hatfield as sheriff of Essex County and Stephen Grain as judge. What irked James Alex­ ander was that both men represented the Elizabeth Town Committee in England in 1744 when they presented their petition to the king, Alexander told Belcher that Crain and Hatfield were both collectors for the committee and Crain was also the group's clerk. Despite the efforts of Alexander both men assumed their offices in Essex County. In July 1751 the proprietors petitioned the Privy Council to take into consideration the Board of Trade pro­ posals of June, 1750. They said that the rioters continued to control the Assembly and they refused to assist the government. Because of the lower house's obstinacy the province was still in confusion and his majesty's faithful subjects held their property at the mercy of the mob. They requested immediate action so that the petitioners could enjoy the full benefit of the laws,^® On 30 July the Privy 155

Council's committee for plantation affairs discussed the riots in Uew Jersey and the failure of attempts to stop them. The committee called for a complete inquiry into the situation by the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, They ordered that a draft of a commission of inquiry be prepared. In the meanwhile the Board of Trade was com­ manded to prepare Instructions for the governor. The in­ structions were to emphasize the displeasure of the king with the Assembly in past actions; they were to tell the people that the king had ordered an investigation; and that the crown has under consideration the granting of an indemnity. The Board of Trade disagreed with the Privy Oouncil on the powers of the commission of inquiry. They believed that the commission had no right to inquire into matters of private property but, rather, only to look into the causes of the riots. Therefore, they urged that only a general commission be prepared. To end the problem the Board suggested that the governor be instructed to recom­ mend to the judges trying cases of ejectment in Essex, Middlesex and Somerset Counties to find all the evidence in a special verdict. With a special verdict the whole issue could come by appeal before the king in Council. The king's decision on title possession would then be a rule for similar cases then the Board suggested that it should be given the authority to do so by the New Jersey 156

Assembly or the Parliament. On 23 October the Board pre­ pared additional instructions to Governor Belcher, The beleaguered executive was to call the Assembly together and te ll them of the king's great displeasure caused by their lack of action. They must be commanded to restore peace and tranquility. Belcher was also to inform the people that a commission had been ordered to inquire into the cause of the grievances and then report to the king. And, finally, the Governor was to Inform the people that the king was considering a pardon and that they should keep peace and good order. If Belcher found additional measures necessary he should inform the government. This draft was sent on to the Privy Oouncil for final approval. Because Hew Jersey was not as turbulent as It was in previous years any anxiety which existed wore off and London was not moved to expedite the instructions for the 4-0 commission. The news of possible action from London had a varied response in Hew Jersey. A worried David Ogden wrote James Alexander that the rioters were boasting of having heard from their attorney that they had been pardoned; and that commissioners would be appointed to hear their grievances. The rioters, he reported, believed that the report of the Privy Oouncil was in their favor. He asked Alexander if he knew exactly what happened in England. The Oouncil, 157 formerly the most active proponeat of legislation, now decided to wait upon word from England. They thought it best to defer any steps until new Instructions arrived. In lyJay 1752 the Council advised Governor Belcher to re­ frain from calling the Assembly because it would not do any good and London might decide something soon, Belcher wrote the Board of Trade that the Oouncil was refusing to do anything until orders arrived and only orders would activate the Assembly, Belcher was caught between two stubborn groups but he was responsible for the peace of 2li the colony, Belcher’s predicament can be partially explained by the fact that after years of riots the frequency of the disturbances greatly diminished and the factor of urgency disappeared. The Council learned to accept the riots and no longer felt that immediate action was necessary although it continued to press for remedial legislation. At this

tim e , 1752 , the Elizabeth Town group finally filed the answer to the original bill in Chancery, After seven years of delays there was hope, however dim, that a judicial settlement might be reached. Thus, the Assembly remained unwilling to enact new legislation. The expected orders from England would remove the pressures from both sides in New Jersey and neither was going to commit itself at this p o in t. 158

One of the last riots took place in April 1752. The man released from the Essex County jail m s Simon Wyokoff. On Monday, 6 April 1752, at 3 P.M. about twenty armed men broke open the jail. The mob at first demanded the keys to the jail, but when the sheriff refused their request they proceeded to use a hammer and chisel on the padlock. Wyckoff was carried out, mounted on a horse and led trium­ phantly amy. Governor Belcher was disturbed about the situation and especially about the fact that Wyckoff had been per­ mitted to leave jail the previous Friday and had returned only a few hours before the break. Apparently he was given ample time to arrange the jail break, Belcher thought that the sheriff was indolent and negligent in his duty and that the deputy should be severely punished for allowing Wyckoff to have a weekend away from confinement. What m s done to the two law officers is unknown. Events in London, meanwhile, moved slowly. In July 1752 the Board of Trade told the Privy Council that it had no opinion on the commission and because it appeared that tranquility had finally settled on the colony one ms A-z never issued. In May and June Governor Belcher met the legislature and urged them to do something about the riots, but he ms compelled to report to the Board of Trade that they had no inclination to do anything. But the province. 159 he said, was in good condition with no recent riots. Sven the proprietors were willing to allow the situation to drift because they refused to bring legal action against those who illegally possessed lands. When Belcher asked the advice of the Council whether he should call the As­ sembly for better acts to suppress the riots, the Council replied that he should wait for instructions from London. They also recommended that Belcher should not give orders for special and speedy prosecution of those arrested for breaking open the jails. The upper house felt that prose­ cution should proceed according to law with no extraordinary steps taken. In December 1752 Governor Belcher met his legislature once again. In his address to the Assembly he mentioned Simon Wyckoff's escape from jail the previous April and he recommended the passage of a good law to secure the public jails and to punish severely those guilty of break­ ing them open. He again repeated the oft-stated fear that if nothing was done by the legislature to curb the dis­ orders then the king would be greatly displeased. In reply, the Assembly said that since the colony had been peaceful they hoped the riots had ceased. Of course, they were concerned with the jail break in April, but in August Wyckoff voluntarily returned to jail only to be bailed out. Therefore, the Assembly still hoped that the laws would be 160 obeyed and offenders punished. Belcher angrily told the lower house that their address was no answer to his speech. The return of a prisoner to custody was no alleviation of the crime, Wyckoff might have chosen not to return which would mean that the laws were all in vain. The king’s authority must not be flouted and new laws were necessary, Belcher reported the failure of the Assembly to act and pleaded anew for orders from the king.^^ Governor Belcher did not cease to impress upon the Assembly the need for new acts. In May 1753 he told the representatives that they must do their utmost to pass a good law to suppress the riots. This is the one thing, Belcher said, which would bring them into the royal favor. The lower house said that it abhorred the riots and did not like to see them renewed. Since 1749, however, it had been urging speedy trials for those indicted to quiet the minds of the people but, because of the opposition of the Council, this never occurred, For over a year the Assembly said it had not heard of a single rioter arrested or brought to trial. This implied non-execution of the laws and a failure of those appointed to:carry them out, New laws were not the answer, but rather implementation of present statutes. Until officials were pressed by Belcher to enforce present laws the Assembly did not want to enact new laws. They also expressed bewilderment that Belcher 161

■would bring the issue forward when the colony was in such a tranquil state. They hoped that it was not done just to get the king angry at them. Belcher tried to get the Oouncil to agree to an immediate order for the speedy pro­ secution of rioters but they hesitated. The councillors said that since the peace and welfare of ETew Jersey depended on their answer they would prefer a full inquiry upon it 46 before making any judgment. In January 1754 a rio t occurred in Hunterdon County near the iron works of Alien and Turner, Governor Belcher issued a proclamation which ordered the magistrates of that county to discover and bring to justice those who were guilty of the disturbance. All law officers were commanded to act in concert to prevent future riots. But there was no action taken in the legislature, ' 47 Governor Belcher wrote the Board of Trade in November that he was of the opinion that the affair must go through the whole course of law before there could be a final resort to the king. He promised to urge this on the Coun­ cil, some of whom were large proprietors,^^ When he met the Oouncil later that month he read them a paragraph of a letter from the Board dated 5 July 1754, The letter expressed satisfaction in hearing that the colony ■was at peace from the riots of previous years. The Board said that it was in agreement with Belcher that the proprietors 162 should take advantage of the peaceful interlude and pro­ secute the rioters and trespassers so that a final deter­ mination might be made. Governor Belcher was urged to move the proprietors in this direction. The Council decided that impartial trials could not be held and the results Ilq would be worthless. ^ By summer of 1754 the riots passed out of the scene of Eew Jersey history. In a report to the Council on 20 August 1755 David Ogden stated that two events indicated that the riots had ceased.At a court of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery held in Essex County, in June and presided over by Samuel Bevill about sixty rioters came forward voluntarily, confessed to the indict­ ments against them, and submitted to the mercy of the court. The men paid their fines and entered into ÿonds for their good behavior» Eevill said that he believed the spirit of rioting had ceased. He ascribed this to some persons disliking the crime and others fearing the use of England's army against them if they continued to resist. The second event was a decision against the rioters on some West Jersey Society's land. The losers, on their law­ yer’s advice, decided to accept the verdict. Some of the men even purchased or leased the land from the Society. In addition to these events the French and Indian War was raging and this now dominated the thoughts and actions 163 of the govemment. Although the riots which lasted for the decade had ceased, the controversy over the disputed lands had not. By 17Ô6 , however, arbitration did settle the question of titles in the Newark dispute. FOOTNOTES - Chapter VI

le Paris to Alexander, 24 March 1748/9, HJA. VII, 234-55; Paris to Alexander, 15 April 1749, ihid. . VII, 239-40; 22 April 1749, ibid.. VII, 249-50. 2. Paris to Alexander, 26 May 1749, NJA. VII, 260-62; Journal of the Board of Trade. VIII, 4l4, 4l6-17; Stevens Papers, #79^9. 3. 3 June 1749, HJA. VII, 368-70. 4. Paris to Alexander, 7 June 1749. Ibid. . VII, 271- 72; Journal of the Board of Trade. VII, 421-22; Belcher to Board of Trade. 27 June 1749. NJA. VII, 293-94; Paris to Alexander, 4 July 1749, ibid. ."vTl. 295-96. 5o Journal of the Board of Trade. VIII, 434; Paris to Alexander. July 1749. ÜJA. V1Ï. 301-3: ibid.. VII, 305-8. 6. Journal of the Board of Trade. VIII, 434; Paris to Alexander. 21 July 1749. NJA. VII. 304-5; Paris to Alexander, 24 July 1749, ibid. . VII,"308-9.

7» Paris to Alexander, 26 July 1749, ibid.. VII, 310-11 « 8. 28 July 1749, ibid.. VII, 311-16, 9. 19 August 1749, ibid.. VII, 318-19, ibid. . XVL, 160-63, 172-73. 10. Morris Papers, box 2; NJA. VII, 328-29, 403, 433- 36.

11. Ibid.. VII, 328-29, 349-50, 404-5, 436-44.

12. Ibid.. VII, 364, 368 - 7 6 , 444-45; Pierson, Narra­ tives of Newark. 172. 13. a , 711, 447-48. 14. Ibid.. VII, 402, 429-30.

15 . 28 September 1749. Votes of Assembly. 42-41: NJA. VII, 333-34; ibid.. XVI, 15637: ------

164 165

16» 14 October 1749, Votes of Assembly, 64-67: 3JJA, VII, 346-49; Ibid. SVI, 178353% 17, 14 October 1749, Votes of Assembly. 64, 18, 19 October 1749, Votes of Assembly. 83-86; MJA. VII, 352-56. 19, 23 October 1749, ibid.. VII, 413-19. 20, Morris to Alexander, 19 December 1749, Stevens Papers, #7971. 21, 18 January 1749/50, NJA. VII, 379-80. Morris to Alexander, 23 January 1749/50, Stevens Papers, #7979; Morris to Alexander, 9 February 1749/50, ibid. . #7993. 22, Alexander to Morris, 5 April 1750, ibid,. #224, 23, Journal of the Board of Trade. IX, 69, 70, 72, 75, 78-79. 24, Ibid.. IX, 80; VII, 466-528, 25, Ibid.. VII, 537-40, 26, 28 August 1750, Stevens Papers, #227. 27, Belcher to Partridge, 17 October 1750, NJA, VII, 553 =5 4 » 28, Robert Hunter Morris Papers, New Jersey Historical Society, IX, 40. 2 9, Belcher to Duke of Bedford, 15 November 1750, M , VII, 375. 3 0 , Ogden to Morris, 18 December 1750, Stevens Papers, #5 06 7 . 31, Alexander to Morris, 29 December 1750, ibid. . #8081; Morris to Alexander, 3 March I 750 / 1, ibid. . #8092. 3 2 , 22 February 1750 / 1, llhe Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of New-Jersey. del<1 at t^^ixaaelphla,

3 3 , Votes of Assembly. 52-53. 166

34. Alexander to Morris, 11 Miaroh 1750/1, Stevens Papers, #5093» Alexander to Morris, 3 April 1751, ibid, . #8127: The Mew-York Gazette. Revived in the Weekly Tost-» Boy, 4 Mhroh 1750/1; The Mew-Tork Evening Post, 18 tlaroh # 6 /1 ; Belcher l4p4rsT W ;'" 75, #98: ^------35. Journal of the Board of Trade. IX. 153-54, 174, 187; Board of Trade to belcher, 2t Waroh 1751j NJA. VII, 5 8 5 -8 6 ..

36. Paris to Board of Trade, 5 Augus t 1751, BJ.L. V II, 602-4; Belcher to Halifax, 1 June 1751, ibid. VII, 594-96; ibid. . VII, 603-7; Journal of the Board of Trade. IX, 226; jèelcher to Board of ^rade. 8 Augu's’b i , Ife/AV Vll. 607-10; ibid. . VII, 612-14; Journal of the Board oT"ïrade. IX, 2 0 ^ 6 7 , 366 - 6 7 , 383-^47" 37. Alexander to Morris, 1 February 1750/1, Stevens Papers, #8087; 10 February 1750/1, ibid. , #8090; 19 December 1751 , HJA, V II, 651. 3 8. Robert Hunter Morris Papers, II, 40; Morris Papers, box 3. 39. Morris Papers, box 3; HJA. XVI. 322-24; Journal of the Board of Trade. IX, 223-24.

40. 12 A ugust 1751 , MJA. VII, 54-58; Morris Papers, box 3; HJA. T il, 632 - 3 4 ; Journal of the Board of Trade. IX, 457 « 41. Ogden to Alexander, 12 November 1751, Stevens Papers, #8134; m , XVI, 378, 379-80; ibid. . VII, 60 . 42. Ibid. . VII, 38-39; The Mew-Tork Gazette. Revived in the Weekly Post-Boy. 20 April 1757. 4 3 . Journal of the Board of Trade, IX, 351-56; RJA. V II, 90- 9 2. “ 44. 8 August 1752, ibid. . VII, 151-52; 10August 1752, ibid.. VII, 103-4; ibid. .^vT. 381-82.

4 5 . 18 December 1752 The Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of !lifew-Jersey. ÎÈ!eid at Elizabeth-Town on Thursday the Fourteenth of December 1752 (Miaâeiphia; William Sra'af ofd"), 542; ' December 1752, Votes of Assembly. 9, HjZT XVI, 395; 22 December 1752, Votes of Assembly. 9, RJX, XVI, 395; 22 December 1752, Votes of Assembly. 11,101, XVI, 397; Belcher to Board of Traie, 22 February ^753, 1$H« » VIII, 125-30. 167

46. 23 May 1753, Votes of Assembly. 11, HJA, XVI, 599-400; 5 June 1753, Voies of Assembly. 32-34T^JA . XVI, 412-14; 7 and 8 June 1753, I b id . . XVI, 430-31. 47. I b id . . XVI, 4 3 4 - 3 5 . 48. 6 Movember 1754, i b i d . . VIII, p t . 2 , 27.

4 9. 22 November 1754, ibid. . XVI, 493-94, 495. 50. I b id . . XVI, 549 - 5 2 . OmPIER VII TEE WAR OP WORDS

The detailed cases of both the proprietors and the purchasers were well presented in the various bills in Chancery, But in the decade of turmoil an extensive effort was made to attract supporters by the printed word, news­ papers and pamphlets were used to reach as many people as possible, New Jersey had no newspapers of its own and its news was reported in the Hew York papers. Only the Hew York papers carried the attacks and counter-attacks which indicates that the rest of the colonies treated the land problems in Hew Jersey as a purely local matter. The proprietors used The Hew-York Weekly Post-Boy as its organ. James Tarker, the printer of this paper, was the brother of Elisha Parker, attorney for the proprietors and a member of the Board, When Elisha Parker died in 1751 his brother, James, filled the vacant seat. The rioters, on the other hand, used the imprint of the Widow Catherine Zenger or J, Zenger, Jr, of Hew York for their pamphlets. This was the press established by John Peter Z enger, One of the earliest attempts by the rioters to justify their position was "A Brief Vindication of the Purchasers Against the Proprietors in a Christian Manner,” written

168 169 under the pseudonym Griffin Jenkins.^ The identity of Jenkins remained a question that plagued the proprietors, David Ogden, attorney for the proprietors, believed that the Reverend Mr, Taylor, minister for the Presbyterian church in Newark, was the author but he could not find 2 any proof to substantiate the allegation, "A Brief Vindication” was heavily oriented toward the religious, Jenkins emphasized the belief that God was all powerful and that he knew all that happened on earth. And when the time arrived for men to receive eternal judgment their actions on earth would be carefully weighed. Dig= honesty would deny men a place in heaven. In addition, the root and foundation of all sin and misery was coveteous- ness, Jenkins contended that the proprietors were the people who brought coveteousness to Newark and with it all the other evils attendant upon it. The author charged that the people who were forced to purchase from the proprietors were being victimized by un­ scrupulous landowners. Some poor farmers bought land only to discover that it was owned by a third party. To protect the original purchase the farmer had to pay a second time for the same land, Jenkins said that he knew of one piece of land which was sold three times. The proprietors were chastised for not giving assurances that they would protect any purchasers against other claimants. If they were honest the proprietors would not hesitate in making guarantees on their sales. 170

Jenkins also dealt with the validity of the claim by Indian title . To say that such purchases were invalid would mean breaking the peace with theIndians. Contention with the Indians, the author said, would mean greater trouble for the province than jail breaks to rescue inno­ cent men. The only way to settle the question of proper titles was to have a decision from the king. Jenkins felt assured that if the king ever could decide on the matter he would favor those who helped to bring peace to the wilderness by purchasing from the natives. The aim of this pamphlet was not to establish the claim of the people to 1he land because it die not inquire into the basis of the claim, but rather, to throw the blame of the riots onto the proprietors. The rioters felt that- they must turn public opinion against the proprietors. They felt that the riots themselves had to be justified. How effective the "Brief Vindication" was in turning public opinion is unknown but it did serve to anger the Board of Proprietors to the point of issuing a defense of their a c tio n s . The rioter's statement of 17 February 1745/6 gave their point of view,^ The disturbances, according to the state­ ment, were caused by the total exasperation of the people in their attempts to find an adequate solution to the question of proper title of the land. The rioters had tried 171 to achieve some sort of peaceful settlement hut they were constantly thwarted by the ever-grasping, greedy proprie­ t o r s . The statement said that the proprietors surveyed lands in the Horse-Keck region settled by people who claimed by virtue of an Indian purchase. The proprietors wanted the families to purchase the tracts from them and pay quit- rents on them. The people in Essex County decided in 1744 to send a petition to the king pleading for help. Pressure increased from the proprietors with additional ejectment and trespass suits being instituted. The rioters proposed a few select test cases to settle judicially the question of valid titles. The proprietors rejected, however, the condition that they cease pressing ejectment suits until a final decision on the matter was made. After the failure to achieve a peaceful settlement the first riots occurred over the arrest and imprisonment of Baldwin, The rioters said that the riot occurred because the people were deeply agitated and angry at the oppressions of the proprietors. They felt that the only way to alleviate the oppression was to break open the jail and rescue the prisoner. In this statement the rioters placed the blame of the disturbances squarely on the shoulders of the proprietors, and more specifically on Alexander, Morris and Ogden, These three individuals were the cause of the lawless acts. 172

If &bey had not refused to adjudicate the differences with a small number of test cases there would have been no need for a jail break. The rioters were hoping for support against the tyranny of the proprietors. In reply to the “Brief Vindication" and to the rioters' statement of 17 February 1745/6 the Board of Proprietors decided to issue a pamphlet which set forth their position. The pamphlet was also published in four installments in The ITew-York Weekly Post-Boy.^ The proprietors were concerned at the attempts to place the blame on them and they wanted to do something which would answer the charges. The reply of 25 March 1746 was intended to defend the proprietors. First, the proprietor's publication disputed the view of the rioters that they held better titles. Other conten­ tions of the rioters that were subject to error were that the mobs had been put to a great deal of work and expense in defense of their claims, that they were prevented from bringing their causes fairly before the king, that the con­ duct of the proprietors had been cruel, harrassing and vexatious, and that those living in Horse-Neck had better titles than the proprietors. The intention of the Board was to present the facts and to allow the public to judge for itself on the merits of the case. The proprietors said that there was the possibility that an oversight might have occurred and one proprietor 173 had gotten a dividend which had been previously granted. But every effort was made by the Board to prevent such errors and when it happened the Board accepted the first grant as the valid one. There were only three instances where mistakes were made and in each case the proprietors acted quickly to warn the people about the situation. They disclaimed any responsibility for what occurred be­ cause they informed the inhabitants of the matter. The Board said that it could not be responsible for evil men who fraudantly sold lands. It is the duty of the govern­ ment they said, to punish illegal actions. The proprietors' publication also said that claims to the Horse-Meek region by Indian title were illegal by provincial law. If the deeds to the land were actually

transacted in 1701 then the Act of I 683 governing Indian purchases made the event criminal. And, if the purchase was made in the 1740's, as the proprietors claimed, then the settlers were guilty of violating the Act of 1701. Whenever the deeds were negotiated the action was illegal. The proprietors also stated that the settlers were not put to any expense because the Board instituted all the suits and paid for the litigations. The publication argued that the proprietors could not agree to a halt in proceed­ ings because the settlers would continue to destroy all the valuable timber on the lands. The proprietors laid the blame for the failure to establish test cases on the unaccept­ able demands of the rioters. 174

Without any doubt the publication of the proprietors was far superior to the one of the rioters. As with the B ill in Chancery of 1745 this document was tightly organized and very logical. The rioters, on the other hand, depended more on the question of equity and not on a full level claim. The mob hoped to get support through pity rather than just rights. The author of the publication of 25 March 1746 was James Alexander, although it was signed by the clerk of the Board, Lawrence Smyth.'' The Board was willing to put all of its resources at work to win their argument and it made certain that the five hundred printed copies were well distributed. They were circulated in Newark, sent to the New York papers and presented to the members of the Assembly. In addition, the Board appointed Alexander, the Chief Justice, and Samuel Nevill to be a permanent committee to answer any publication of the rioters and to have the reply printed under the name of the clerk of the Board.

In a second publication of 25 March 1747^ the proprietors again claimed that the fault for the riots rested with the Essex purchasers and not with themselves. The proprietors gave a detailed account of the attempts to achieve adjudica­ tion, The publication related how the Board tried to do everything feasible to get the rioters to agree but the con­ ditions set down were much too demanding. The request for a proprietary lawyer and the counter proposal of a court-appointed 175 attorney were discussed. The failure of the rioters to reply to the Board’s suggestion was taken to indicate their insincerity in their demands. The proprietors concluded that the only thing the rioters wanted to gain through the offer of a trial was attention. The rioters did not deserve the pity of the world. And it was the hope of the proprietors that the world would know the insincerity of the rioters on the quest for a trial at law and pay no heed. The case pre­ sented by the proprietors was strong and very tight in its evidence to enforce its assertions. The influence of bril­ liant legal minds is evident. The reply of the rioters came in August 17^7 in a thirteen-page pamphlet entitled, "An Answer to the Council of Proprietor’s two Publications;..."? The answer appealed for support on the charge that any attempt to remove them from their lands was "manifest injustice." The rioters pleaded that they had received permission to buy from the Indians from Philip Carteret and had lived for many years in peace. The main question which they wanted to submit to the world was whether an act made for vacating and annulling grants of lands and taking the lands from the people years after the original purchase was made was unreasonable and grossly unfair to the inhabitants and first purchasers. To the people in lewark this was the central point in the con­ tro v e rs y . 176

The Newark Inhabitants claimed that they had settled the area under extreme hardships and had purchased the land from the Indians at great expense and not for a paltry sum as often charged. In addition, the purchase of 11 July

1667 was made with the advice and consent of Governor Oarteret, The governor wanted the land settled and he gave them a license in 1666 to make the purchase. This was done several years before any restrictions or lim itations was placed upon the land. The rioters' answer had to admit that the original grant from the governor was lost, but through no fault of their own. They claimed that the original Elizabeth Town book was stolen. Even though the license could not be produced there was sufficient evidence, according to the answer, to justify their contention that such a document existed, A copy was found in Governor Carteret's papers, mention of such a license had been made in other patents, and there were sworn statements by ancestors of the present claimants that it existed. Also, the Indian grants them­ selves implied that there was a license. To reiterate the importance of the sanctity bf land purchase for the proper operation of government the reply s ta te d : It is a receiv'd Observation, That a settled Rule of Property steadily Observ'd and impar­ tially Appiyed, is the great ligament of Government; and when PropertyIs made uncertain and precarious, this Bond is broken, and the Society is in danger of running into Disorder and Confusion, The purchasers had always supposed that a just and honest purchase from those who had the right would secure those same rights to those who had bought from them. And this was also accepted among most people "save...among such Creatures as the Proprietors." How, asked the Newark in­ habitants, can the proprietors ask for patents when these were not known when the land was settled? People never heard of the Concessions until after they lived on and improved the land. The proprietors could not allow the publication of

A ugust 1747 to go unchallenged and, on 14 September 1747, they published a reply.^ The conclusion of the reply was that since the first charges were levelled at the proprie­ tors in February 1745/6 the rioters could gather only five incidents to back up their allegations. The substance of the proprietors’ stand was that the rioters concocted a series of falsehoods, forgeries, and misinterpretations to justify their slander of the proprietors. In this publication the proprietors lashed out at the Newark Committee for blatantly forging the license for pur­ chase granted to the Newark settlers. They said that the sole purpose in this action was to cheat the proprietors out of thousands of acres of land. The so-called clubman 178 believed that interest and not justice governed the world, To this end the Oommittee used mny experts, including a member of the Assembly and two clergymen, to help them delude the people so that their own interests would be Q se rv e d ,^ This reply ended the formal attempts by both sides to gain adherents or supporters. Attacks would now be made through letters to the papers, "Layman,” on 3 August

10 ' 1747, chided the rioters for behaving in an un-Ohristian manner. He charged that the people had resorted to rebel­ lion only because they could not establish a case which would be upheld in the courts. They wanted their case to be tried according to their whims and not according to judicial standards. The rioters claimed to be pious Christians and they pretended to be innocent of any sin. Yet they gloried in their actions although they were resisting a government which was ordained by God. Their actions subjected them to damnation but Layman did not hear of their clergy condemning or disproving of their actions. In fact, he believed that the ministers approved of and encouraged the riots. Layman did not accuse any individuals but he hoped that the people and their ministers would take heed and rectify their grie­ vous errors.

An anonymous reply the next week labeled Layman's letter as a false and insidious accusation against the ministers, 179

If Layman was among the rioters, the author wrote, he would know that the clergy had admonished them from their pulpits and warned them how provoking the riots were to heaven. It is wrong, continued the defense, to imply that the ministers were accessories to the riots because they had always op­ posed them. William Neuter was struck by the letter from Layman and 12 on 7 September 1747 gave his views on the riots. leuter was moved by the fact that the riots appeared to be getting worse, and that if they continued unabated the innocent would assuredly suffer along with the guilty. He was w ill­ ing to admit that there were many people who had suffered in Hew Jersey because they purchased the same land several times over. But at the same time a majority of the rioters had no title to the land. William Heuter could see no rea­ son for the latter group to riot because they never purchased of the king or the proprietors. The rioters claimed their lands by Indian deed which Heuter rejected a,s no title at all. And it was the height of insolence, he said, to assert that the king had no right to the land. Those who made these assertions were enemies of the crown. He also stated that those men who were not oppressed and who participated in the riots were nothing less than "rank fools." Their heads were full of anarchy, Heuter proceeded to give advice on how to end the disturbances even though he claimed that he was not personally 180 involved.. He simply suggested that if the cause was re­ moved then the effect would cease. Therefore, make pro­ posals to the true sufferers to end their grievances with levity and justice. Once this was accomplished resentments would cool and the reason for the riots would evaporate. Heuter also offered some advice to the lenders that they should act quickly to protect themselves from punishment for their actions. The leaders should follow the steps taken by the Elizabeth Town Oommittee of petitioning newly ar­ rived Governor Belcher and pleading not guilty. Unless they repented, the instigators would find themselves treated as common enemies of the government. Heuter, who obviously spoke for the proprietors, also chastised the clergymen for not reproving the rioters. And if the promise of leniency to the rioters did not bring about the desired conclusion to the riots then there was the threat of force. Alexander and Morris suggested that troops be sent by the king to quell the outbreaks and Neuter’s letter was the expression of their views. He asked in conclusion; How would you like it to have three of four Thousand Soldiers sent over as a standing Army to be Q uartered upon you? An extremely clever piece of propaganda emanating from the proprietors appeared in October 1747.'^ The letter was written in a German or Dutch dialect and was supposedly from 181 one rioter, Mr, Van Prelandt, to Mr, John Low in Boston, The gist of it was the a Mr, T-K-found a copy of the letter and since it concerned the scheme of the rioters Mr, T, K, hoped that Parker would publish it for the benefit of the Kew Jersey readers. Van P re la n d t was c re d ite d w ith w arning J -L -, a member of the assembly, that his departure for Boston caused great concern among the rioters because the assembly was consider­ ing legislation against the rioters and they felt his presence necessary. Of course. Low was ordered to leave by the rioters* committee so that when the law was passed he could say that he had no hand in it. The letter suggested very strongly that the leaders were only using the common people for their own ends, to gain control of the govern­ ment, and did not really care about their needs. Low and his followers, acknowledged Van Prelandt, worked only for their own interests. Low was advised that the rioters regarded him with mis­ givings and they considered him guilty of the greatest in= gratitude. The people felt that he got their votes and when they needed his vote in the Assembly he disappeared and left them unprotected. They felt that they were without an advocate in the assembly and that Low had deserted his duty. Van Prelandt reported that the rioters felt that his trip was "so vile and base a tretément of yure friendts, dat dey . 182 coud not forgife yu." And he reported that he could not think of a single argument to keep the people as "our furder tools." low was told that the good minister, Mr. T., who was advisor to the rioters, had devised a scheme to keep up the spirit of the people. He suggested that a petition which placed all the blame for the riots on the proprietors be drawn and circulated. This would ; not only be a meens of keeping up de spirit we once raised among our frindts, some in expectashm of hafing grate tracts of landt, and oders of hafing cumisions, but also will strike a terror to de powers of Government, so as to mke dem cum into our measers. The petition was signed by young and old, rioter or not, land owner or not. In fact, any signature was requested and accepted. Hopefully, wrote Van Prelandt, the Assembly would not inquire into the grievances mentioned in the petition. But unless Low returned there was a good chance that they would and then everyone would know that the proprietors always acted within the law and that the rioters’ claims were wrong. So it was requested that Low come home and make certain that the Assembly did not investigate it carefully. The author of this letter was trying to plant in the minds of the rioters a seed of doubt concerning the faith­ fulness of their leaders to the cause. He also tossed aside 183 the arguments of the purchasers in a sharp satirical manner. Unfortunately for the rioters, they had no one who was cap­ able of matching the abilities of their antagonists. In every one of their printed statements the proprietors were able to surpass the arguments' of the riots, Amos Roberts, the man proclaimed to be the leader of the riots by the proprietors, wrote a letter in January 1748/9.1^ He said that there had been many disorders by men who called themselves proprietors who seemed desirous to sacrifice the whole country in order to benefit their own interest. The proprietors attempted to destroy men's good names by saying that they were guilty of treason when it was not true, Roberts stated that such a rumor was circulated about him; that he was committed to jail for speaking treason. He offered ten pounds to anyone who could bring in two sufficient pieces of evidence to prove the allegation of the proprietors. In fact, Roberts stated that

on 17 October 1748 he offered to Ogden and Hatfield to take the oath prescribed by the legislature. In this same letter he repeated the offer of the rioters' committee to try their case in a court of law. If the pro­ prietors would serve an ejectment action the entire committee would stand up as defendants. In addition, the committee would give good security. And in conclusion Roberts tried to attest to his loyalty to the crown by zvriting: Ho more at present, but God bless the King that sits upon the British Throne, 184

Under the name of “Henricus Aesiender” the rioters made a final attempt to destroy the arguments of the pro­ prietors.^^ The writer believed that the fault for the contention in Uew Jersey came from both sides. The rioters were obviously guilty of many riotous acts, including the breaking open of jails and the release of prisoners accused of treason. The proprietors, on the other hand, were also liable for the riots. Because they started so many law suits they caused the people to be filled with terror and apprehension. The fear of losing their land caused the r i o t s . The various publications in the name of the proprietors tried to make their cause the cause of mankind, according to Aesiender. But only two or three eminent proprietors were actually Involved, If the proprietary interests were free of blame for the riots why did they have the people arrested? Certainly the reason was not to bring them to trial because none had been tried. Their motives appeared to be aimed only at exasperating the legislature. Henrieus Aesiender saw the petition of 23 December 1748 from the proprietors to the king as an example of their role in the riots. The petition made it appear that the riots were planned in 1745 so that the people could subvert the laws. The people chose this time, it said, because of the dispute in the colony's legislature and because of the 185 rebellion baking place in England, Aesiender rigorously denied this and contended instead that it TfRs the lawsuits which catapulted the province into chaos. The people be­ lieved that their rights would be perverted and that they would bs crushed under the weight of the power and wealth of their adversaries. Contrary to the statements in the petition the rioters had not organized. Even if some of the charges in the petition were true, which Henricus Aesiender strongly doubted, the whole thing was presented with such exaggerations that it exceeded the bounds of moderation and truth. As a solution to the entire problem Aesiender suggested that both sides join in a petition to the king. But rather than requesting an armed force, as the proprietors had done, they should request the appoint­ ment of commissioners to settle the controversy. If this plan was implemented then peace and tranquility would be r e s to r e d . There is a marked difference in the publications of the two rivals. The proprietors’ efforts were superior to those of theiloters. The wirters for the proprietors were able to cite evidence to prove their point and they were far more capable in the use of satire. The rioters, on the other hand, could not present their position as forcefully or as eloquently. FOOTNOTES - Chapter VII

1„ Eew York; John Zenger, Jr., 1745/6; also in EJA, VI, 266-92, 2. 23 September 1747, Alexander Papers, box 6, #34 Ogden refers to Taylor as William but this is an error on his part. The correct name is Daniel. 3. The Eew-York Weekly Post-Boy. 17 February 1745/6. 4. Issues of 7, 14, 21 and 28 April 1746, Also EJA. VI, 297-323. 5 . MEJP. I I , 62-64. 6. Paris Papers, 0, 7. Eew York; Widow Catherine Zenger, 1747. 8. The Eew-York Gazette, Revived in the Weekly Post- Boy. 30 Eovember 1747, 9. Ibid. . 14 December 1747. 10. The Eew-York Evening Post. 11. Ibid., 10 August 1747. 12. Ibid. . 7 September 1747; E ^, XII, 397-400.

13. The Eew-York Gazette. Revived in the Weekly Post- Boy. 12 October 1747. 14. Ibid.. 23 January 1748; XII, 511-2.

15 . The Eew-York G az ette . Revived in th e Boy. 26 F ebruary i7 ^ 9 /^ G , ^

186 OHmSK VIII

IBS vs'si JSESEY SOCIEIY

Our atteatlen Is mainly draim to East Jersey in con­ sidering the riots, but West Jersey was also affected, And in West Jersey the chief target of the disorders was the lands belonging to the West Jersey Society, fhe Society suffered primarily from the temporary fall in prices occasioned by the disturbances, There were numerous cases of pillaging, but not to the extent that it occurred in 4 the eastern division.

West Jersey, unlike its sister division, was divided into a multiplicity of proprietaries after 16?4 when Sir

John Berkekey sold his share in the colony to John Fenwick and Edward Byllyngs. After EumerwuB subdivisions by the original two owners there were some one hundred thirty-two owners of one hundred shares in West Jersey.^ Many of the shares had been sold to individuals who wanted to claim sufficient land to establish a farm and live peaceably.

An overwhelming majority of the shares were purchased by

Quakers and West Jersey earned a reputation as a Quaker stronghold.

Dr. Daniel Ooze was not a typical proprietor of West

Jersey because he accumulated approximately twenty shares

187 188

In the oeleay by 1692, By hie eim estlisation his hold­ ings included many hundreds of thousands of acres,^ fhe attempts by the English govemment to end proprietary governments and the lure of business adventures in the

Oarolinas convinced Dr. Ooze that perhaps it would be best to dispose of his holdings in West Jersey. Therefore, on

4 March 1691/2 he sold the bulk of his estate and the right

of government to the West Jersey Society for 9,800 pounds,^ fhe Society comprised a group of London businessmen whose oencem was to obtain profits on their investment. The

Society issued some sixteen hundred shares at ten pounds

each, but prices want as high as fifty pounds per share,

At first the Seceity had some forty-eight members. A general

meeting was held once a year with an executive committee of

eleven carrying on the daily business,^

The West Jersey Society, up to 1702, bad control of

the government in its division and appointed the men In

charge. After the surrender of governmental authority to

the crown the Society concerned itself with its business

affairs and the responsibility that it owed to the share­

holders. By the 1730's it became apparent to the Society

that people were using their lands without formally leas­

ing them. In 1736 the Society decided te take steps to

insure proper settlement of their lands and therefore in­

crease their income. 189

la August 1736 the three attorneys for the Society in West Jersey, Joseph Hurray, Jeremiah lattouok and

Joseph Baynes, were ordered to eject intruders on the

Society's lands and to sell whatever remained. Lewis

Morris, Jr., agent for the Society, had managed to get some settlers to take out leases hut many others refused to do so. The attorneys were ordered to institute suits against those who could pretend to no right whatsoever.

If possible the men were to negotiate leases with the 6 settlers. To implement the instructions the three coun­ sel placed advertisements to warn the intruders of what was to be.? One such statement, written in London and sent to New Jersey, concerned the Great Tract which con­ tained 91,895 acres. This land had been surveyed by

Lewis Morris, onetime agent for the Society, and purchased from the Indians. Now numerous people were living on it without license from the owners. The trespassers were

given three months to apply for leases before legal action was begun. And unless the intruders paid à reasonable

price for timber illegally destroyed prosecutions would

be instituted. A second advertisement dealt with a tract

of 13,500 acres in Bast Jersey on the south side of the

Passaic River. Murray and his two associates were author­

ized to sell the land at fifteen pounds per hundred acres.

Anyone illegally living on the tract was forewarned that 190 unless leases vere taken out within three months they would be tïLk") ;d out of possession.

Xhe decade before 1745 was a busy one for the 2&st

Jersey proprietors In the law courts, fhe West Jersey proprietors believed that a suit In equity was more pre­ ferable than a suit In a law court. They oame to favor a bill In chancery because It was much easier to maintain.

A suit at eemmcn law required that It be filed In the names of all the proprietors while an equity case would allow It to be entered In the name of the committee for all the proprietors. Thus, they asked their attorneys to begin preparing a bill In chancery and If they eventually lost the case to be prepared to file an appeal.* The Society came to feel later, however, that a suit In equity could be a long and difficult process and they therefore Informed their counsel to await the results of the advertisements.^

The warnings had their effect because Lewis Morris, Jr., reported that one hundred families leased lands on the

Great Tract at five, ten or even fifteen pounds per hundred acres, and they would have paid four times that amount If

the lease had been for longer periods.

Once the Bast Jereey proprietors filed their bill In

chancery they requested the West Jersey proprietors to

share In the expenses. Alexander argued that since the

Issues raised by the Elizabeth Town pretense also affected 191

lands In West Jersey the people In that part of the oolony

should help pay the cost of the fight. The Council of

West Jersey proprietors were sitayed hy Alexander's plan

and in September 1745 they agreed to contribute money for

the printing of the bill.^^

By April 1746 there were reports of the Bast Jersey

rioters organizing the cottiers on the Society's Great

Tracts Affidavits were drawn to show how the settlers

held two meetings to form a compact to stand by one another

in defense of their possessions against the proprietors.

On 26 April the agreement was finished and seventy people

signed it. If any settler refused to join in the covenant

then he would be dispossessed by the rest and his land

sold to the highest bidder. Representatives from Rewark

and Elizabeth Town were reported attending the second

meeting in order to unite all anti»proprietary factions

into a single phalanx of opposition. This same report

alleged t%at ten or twelve East Jersey people were observed

riding continuously between that division and the Society's lands.

The people in West Jersey petitioned the colony's

Assembly for relief from the oppressions of the Society.

About two hundred and fifty inhabitants of Hunterdon,

Middlesex and Somerset counties complained that the pro­

prietors wwre trying to seize the lands which they had 192 peacefully occupied for years and in trying to resist the proprietors efforts they enecuntored large debts. Because of the financial pressures a great many people were pro­ voked into riots and other disorders. The petition implored the lower house to provide some rehef so their titles could be fairly determined. The inhabitants also asked for help in carrying their appeal to England. The Assembly presented the petition to Governor Morris for his perusal.

Governor Belcher fared much better with the West Jersey

Society than he did with the East Jersey proprietors. The

East Jersey group was always ready to attack and malign the

govemor while the western proprietors believed that he was working for their benefit. Soon after Belcher arrived in

New Jersey he wrote the West Jersey Society and informed

them of the numerous riots of the past two years. Belcher

promised them that he would do what was in his power to 1 C suppress the disorders. And because the Society's head­

quarters were in Tkigland they willingly accepted the

rioters' claim that James Alexander and Hobert H. Morris

were to blame for the disorders.The Society's committee

wrote their agent, Haynes, that:

We are very sorry to hear that Mr. James Alexander has been so much the occasion of the confusions and disturbances for some time past carried on by riotous persons in the Jerseys which are now grown 80 numerous and audacious that (as you observe) it is not safe to go there and sell any 195

of the Sooletys lands; but we hope that Governor Belcher by his prudent care and management with the advice and assistance of the Council and Assembly will be able to put all things to rights and the Society preserve their property.

It is surprising that Ferdinand John Baris was unable to use his facile tongue to turn the West Jersey proprietors against Jonathan Belcher as he had managed to do with government officials. In the same letter the Society also chastised the late Lewis Morris for allowing the people to intrude on their lands while he was agent. They were convinced that if he had taken any action in their favor the whole affair would not have gone so far.

Belcher recognized the need for supporters in Londcsx and he did his best to keep the Society Informed of events and to express continually his concern for their welfare.

In June 1748 he wrote the Society about the legislative acts passed the previous winter.Governor Belcher was able to inform them that the colony was quiet but the riotous spirit was only dormant and could rise again at any time. Belcher told the proprietors that he would try his best to keep the riots subdued so that land prices would begin to rise again. He promised, in addition that he would call the Assembly if necessary to get more legis­ lation.

The most prominent Society lands subject to the riots were the 5100 acres of the Great îract leased to William 194

Allen in 1752. Allen, of Philadelphia, and his partner,

Sumer, planned to dig mines and establish an iron works on the tract, ^ut, Allen reported that several hundred families bad settled cn the land he rented and destroyed the timber so essential to his business. She Society was ahked to have the offenders arrested and tried so that examples might be made of the guilty parties and eventually end all q Q the destruction. In October 1748 the Society brought

Allen and Sumer* s problem before Governor Belcher. They told Belcher of the hindrance that the intruders were to the two men and they requested him to do his best to end the disturbances. At the same time the proprietors urged

Allen to apply to the Hew Jersey government for relief.

And they also blamed Alexander and Lewis Morris for all

their troubles.

By the summer of 1749 th e Society concluded that they

should petition the Board of Trade on the riots. Joshua

Sharpe, their solicitor, was ordered to prepare a memorial

which was accepted by the Society on 27 July 1749.21 The

proprietors complained of the riots and implored the Board

of Trade for relief. They told if the dispossession of

proper land owners by rioters and the destruction of very valuable timber.^2

Governor Belcher was told by the Society of the peti­ tion to the Board of Trade, At the same time Belcher 195 reoeiveâ the Society*s regrets that the Assembly was not more receptive to requests for help quelling the riots.

They told him that they wanted him to work within the laws

but at the same time to do his utmost In suppressing the

disorders. And the Society continued to press for his assistance to William Allen.Allen was Instructed to apply to Governor Belcher if he continued to have diffi­

culties with the intruders. The Society promised to do their

best to restore order and told of their appeal to the Board

of Trade. But, the proprietors refused to accept any re­

sponsibility for the trespassers and they warned Allen and oA Turner not to deduct damages from the rent.

When news arrived that the riots were subsiding the

proprietors became cautiously optimistic and ordered their

agents to sell whatever lands possible.Reports of the

settlers asking for surveys in 1752 and Impending agreement

boosted the hopes of the Society,But the people in

West Jersey did not share their optimism. Stories of con­

tinued dispossessions and riots served to convince people

like Allen and Turner that their estates were being slowly

whittled away.^^ In late 1754, however, both harrassed

businessmen were able to reach an agreement with the Eliza­

beth Town claimants so that they could have a test case to

determine proper titles. The agreement ended their com­

plaints and although no final decision was reached they were 196

oft happy with Just the quiet. She Elizabeth Sown Associates continued to try to get settlers on the Great Sraot to buy leases from them but this was In 1755 when the end of the riots caused everyone to breathe a sigh of relief and turn 29 their eyes to new problems. ^

She West Jersey Society had its share of the disturb­ ances but not nearly to the extent that the East Jersey

proprietors did. Sherefore they tended to remain In the

background during the turbulent decade. And because the

Society was headquartered in London It did not find Itself

80 Involved as did their brethren to the east. And It Is

Interesting to see how the Society leaders befriended Bel­

cher and attacked Alexander. Their great distance from the

scene of the disorders permitted them to make a better

Judgment of the situation. POOÎHOTBS - Chapter V III

1. Keith Trace, "The West Jersey Society 1756=1819," Proceedings of the New-Jersey Historical Society. LKIS (Scto'oer T96 É ), éYT.

2, John S, Pomfret, The Province of West Hey Jersey 1609= 1702: A History of the Origins or an Am erican ôoionV wlnoeton. 1%6), é&5-Ô9.

5. Ibid.. 164,

4. Ibid.. 170-71.

5. Ibid.. 171-72.

6. 19 August 1736, West Wew Jersey Society Records, Public Record Office, London, Correspondence Entry Book, Volume E.

7. Ibid. . Volume E.

8. West Jersey Society Committee to Haynes and Lattouok, 6 September 1737, ibid.. Volume E; West Jersey Society Committee to Murray at al.. 15 September 1737, ibid. . Volume B*

9. West Jersey Society Ocmmittsc to H urray ^ , al.. î February 1737/8, ibid.. Volume E.

10, West Jersey Society Committee to Murray et al.. 14 September 1738 , ibid. . Volume E, ———=

11. Alexander to Isaac de Oorv, 26 August 1745, Council of Proprietors of the Western Division of Hew Jersey, Munîtes of the Council 1688-1758, Rutgers University Library, book 5,

12; 4 September 1745, ibid.. book 5,

13i HJA, VII, 212-13.

14, 30 April 1746, The Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of lew Jersey. Held at Trenton on

15. 18 September 1747, Belcher Papers; gJA, VII, 58.

m ? } ! ; ^ 197 198

17. 27 June 1748, NJA, VII, 145.

18. West Jersey Society Committee to Lattouok and Haynes, 29 HovemLer 1744, WJ Soc Records, Volume E,

19. 6 October 1748, ibid.. Volume B.

20. To William Allen, 6 October 1748.ibid.. Volume B,

21. West Jersey Soceity meeting, 13 July 1749, WJ Soc Records, piece #16; meeting of 27 July 1749, ibid. . piece #16.

22. HJA. VII. 316-18: Journal of the Board of Trade. VIII, 446. ------

23. 16 August 1749 , WJ Soc Records, piece #16.

24. 16 August 1749 , ibid.. piece # 16 ; 4 January 1749/50, ibid.. piece #16.

25. West Jersey Society Committee to Land and Johnston, 12 July 1750, ibid.f piece #16.

26. 15 September 1752, ibid.. piece # 16,

27. Allen and Turner to Alexander, 23 April 1754, Alexander Papers, box 1, #168.

28. Ibid.. box 1, #166; HEJP. Ill, 280.

29 . Alexander Papers, box 7, # 116. omPTEa IX

BSSMN TO PEiOEFOI BEGCTIÀT10NS

By the sumer of 1755 the riots ended and the proprie­ tors. as well as government officials, were happy that the ten years of disorders had finally passed. The colony now was faced with the French and Indian War and all the tensions of financing the last great intercolonial war. Bat the controversy was not settled. The proprietors still claimed the lands held by Elizabeth Town and Eewark. The dispute with Elizabeth Town never reached a conclusion but there was an arbitrated agreement with Newark in 1766. Despite the fact that after 1755 the subject receded into the ba,ckground it still occupied the thoughts and actions of the proprie­ tors up to the hôVûlûtiûü.

The Board of Proprietors continued to take bonds for

protection from people threatened by the Elizabeth Town

Associates.^ As long as the harassed individual promised

to refuse to purchase from the Elizabeth Town claimants

then the proprietors would use all their resources to pro­

tect him. At times the bonds would be for as much as one

hundred pounds. If a particular case appeared to be of

general interest to the board then it would agree to bear

the entire expense of prosecuting a case. In April 1757,

199 200

William Bumex imf ormed the Board that some Elizabeth Sowi elaimants vere trying to dispossess a tenant on his land in

Essex Ootmty. He asked the assistance of the proprietors 2 in this case, and the Board consented to defend the suit*

Robert Hunter Morris wrote William Alexander, Lord

Stirling, in August 1756 about investing in land in East

Jersey,^ He counseled the young Alexander that any land

purchases should be made with great oare because of the

conflicts over land titles. Morris believed that Elizabeth

fown people were probably in possession of the whole of

William Boekwra's estate despite all the efforts by the

Board of Proprietors. She proprietors tried to prevent

such a oonsequenoe by only settling people on the estate

who promise to relinquish it on demand to the heirs and

assigns of Bookwxa. But because of pressure from the

Elizabeth Sown inhabitants the plan failed.

The Board of Proprietors, although not meeting fre­

quently after 1755, continued to hold sessions devoted to

the Elizabeth Sown claim. In September 1757 they took into

consideration the damages suffered because their lands were

still in possession of the rioters.^ What particularly

irritated the proprietors was that the people were des­

troying valuable timber. She worth of the timber far ex­

ceeded the amount of quit-rents which might have been

collected. In spite of all efforts the proprietors were unable to recover their estates. 201

In 1760 the hopes of an ami cable settlement with the

Elizabeth fomn Associates were raised once again. Norris informed the Board on 26 M&rch that Cornelius Hatfield and

Robert Ogden told him that the people of Elizabeth Town were inclined to bring the dispute to a friendly settlement.

They said that at the last town meeting three men. Robert

Ogden, Stephen Orane and Ephraim Terril, were appointed to meet with appointees of the proprietors and negotiate a settlement. The Board was ready to make an attempt to con­ clude the costly controversy and also commissioned three men, Morris, David Ogden and John Stevens, with full power to make all agreements. The proprietor’s committee was ordered to make periodic reports.^ Because of business ob- li^tions David Ogden could not serve and Cortland Skinner replaced hlm.^

The proprietors wasted no time and on the 28th spent

the whole day in conference with the Elizabeth Town repre­

sentatives. It was first agreed by both sides that nothing

said in the discussions would be used unless an agreement was reached# The conferees hoped that this would remove all restraints and lead to more productive talks. Then a

general discussion took place but no final agreements were

concluded. Robert Morris reported that in his estimation

the Elizabeth Town people were inclined to negotiate.? But

the proprietors did not think It correct to enter into any 2 0 2 detailed proposals at the first meeting and so he eonld not guess what the final terms would he. The next meeting was set for Bay,

In June 1760 Morris wrote his fellow committeemen that the time was not ripe for the proprietors to meet their opponents, although they should he ready to accept the proposals laid down hy Slizaheth Town,^ Late in August a progress report was given to the proprietors. As spokes­ man for the committee, Morris told the Board that several meetings had been held. Various proposals were mde by both sides hut no conclusions were reached. Because the committee wanted to have the complete background on the state of the controversy they met with the proprietors* coun­ sel the previous July. Morris reported that there would he more meetings with the Elizabeth Town committee which he believed on the verge of agreement.^ The Board then pro­ ceeded to discuss the matter. It asked its representatives to get a treaty on the best possible terms but it did not make any specific proposals. The Board was perhaps a bit optimistic but it also authorized the Elizabeth Town referees to manage the affair with Newark if the controversy proceeded to that stage.

The two sides continued to meet over the years with no solution. The proprietors* committee advised that a suit of ejectment be instituted against Josiah Broadwell for lands 203 in SssGz County. This was reportod to the Board and instruc­ tions were requested. The Board decided that the committee should decide what actions were needed and then take effec­ tive measures to restore the tract to the proper owner.^ ^

Gourtland Skinner reported in March 1762 that there had been no formal meeting between the contesting parties for many months. The proprietors were told by members of the Elizabeth Town group that there was no reason for another meeting unless the proprietors had something new to offer.

The Elizabeth Town committee rejected all previous offers made by the proprietors. The Board unanimously agreed that considering the long delay in the ease it should be vigor­ ously prosecuted in the Court of Chancery and in courts of law. But at the same time the committee was ordered to continue to receive proposals for accommodation. They were not, however, to slacken in the legal prosecution of the 12 case. This marked the end of all attempts to end the

Elizabeth Town controversy by arbitrations As in the past,

there were high hopes at first for a peaceful agreement, but

these eventually ended in failure after long delays.

The Eewark controversy, on the other hand, was sub­

mitted to arbitration and a decision was handed down. There was even an attempt to comply with the agreement but not all

of the Eewark settlers capitulated to the proprietors. On

29 March 1764 the Board was told by Lord Stirling that the 204 attorney for the Newark e lala a n te told him that his clients were ready to settle the issme by referees whose award would be made a decree of the Chancellor. This would mean an end

to a l l the bills in chancery. The Board appointed a committee

to meet with the Newark people to bring about an end to the

dispute.

The arbiters chosen by both sides were Francis Lewis,

^▼id Klssom and William Necall» Jr., who were all from

Long Island. The decision was handed down on 28 May 1766

and dealt specifically with the Horse-Neok tract.Before

the arbitration commission started hearing the case both

sides entered into a bond of ten thousand pounds to cover

costs and damages. The purpose of the arbitration was to

settle two suits in chancery, Timothy Ball, et al.. v.

Alexander, et al.. and Medless. et al.. v. William. Earl of

Stirling, et al. Lewis, Kisses and Hicoll decided that the

proprietors were the legal and proper owners of the land in

controversy. Those people who claimed the lands by Indian

titles were ordered to take out deeds from the proprietors

by 1 March 17&7. And within three months of the signing of

the deeds the proprietors were to deliver to the new owners

releases of all actions against them. The decision was not

surprising and the Newiark claimants probably knew what it

would be even before they agreed to arbitration. Their fear

of losing their claims was the reason they delayed settling

the matter at least two or three decades earlier. 205

11 though the las.de were to be purchased by the follow­ ing March the actual process took several years. Ezeklsl

Ball wrote William llezander that people were still pillag- ing the timber on the land despite the agreement* ' havid

Ogden told llezander that he was awaiting a Hr* Hilledge who could help establish a fair price for each farm. Then each possessor would be given the choice of purchasing or i6 leaving. On 10 Bessaber 1770 David Ogden received over one hundred forty-nine pounds from the Hewark committee to help pay their part ©f the chancery suit which they lost.^?

The committee appointed to deal with Wewark gave a report on the situation on 13 April 1771. They said that David Ogden wrote and said that the Newark committee was anzious to end the dispute once and for all by giving up the contested lands and discharging their debts. Ogden received twelve month bonds from them for the costs which exceeded three hundred fifty pounds. This is the last heard of the entire controversy. 200ÏB0TB8 - Obapter IX

1. MBJP. Ill, 297, 308, 312.

2. Ibid., Ill, 311.

3. 15 August 1756, Alexander Papers, box 1, #173.

4. 19 September 1757, MBJP. Ill, 315.

5. Ibid.. Ill, 333.

6 . 27 Harch 176O, ibid.. Ill, 336.

7. 29 March 1760, ibid., Ill, 337-38.

8. 17 June 1760, Stevens Papers, #2797.

9. 20 August 1760, MEJP. Ill, 341. 10. 21 August 1760. ibid.. Ill, 344.

11. Ibid., Ill, 348, 354, 356.

12. 26 Harch 1762, ibid.. Ill, 372.

13. Ibid.. Ill, 421.

14. Alexander Papers, boxes 23, 43.

15. 12 Baceaber 1769, Alexander Mss., New York Public Library,

16. 13 December 1769, ibid.

17. Alexander Papers, box 23.

206 O m P T B E % oosroiiüsioN

In apparent fact during the troubled decade is that the Assembly refused, with one exception, to join with the other branches of government to pass legislation for quel­ ling the riots. The proprietors and the Oouncll claimed that the Assembly failed to act because it favored the rioters* The Assembly, on the other hand, stated that the laws were sufficient if vigorously enforced and the govern­ ment was at fault for the continuation of the riots. Caught in the middle was Governor Beleher who was damned by both sides for not embracing their cause. But from a study of the tur­ bulent ten years we must conclude that the impasse over the paesago of remedial legislation can be explained by the rivalries and conflicts among the three branches of govern­ ment. The Assembly was not pro-rioter but historically in opposition to the governor and Council and it continued this stance throughout the crisis.

Almost from the first meeting of the Assembly the lower house found something to argu® about with the Governor and Council. The issue might be whether the two houses should sit separately or it might be about the rate of taxa­ tion. Up to 1702 the Assembly contended that since the

207 208 proprietors received the profits from the colony from quit- rents, despite the fact that very little vas actually collected from the quit-rents, they should hear the hrunt of the defense costs* Of course the proprietors denied such a claim and In turn demanded tkiat the Assembly vote the necessary funds* During the governorship of Jeremiah

Basse the Assembly complained of the governor's use of the office for personal gain and this helped farther antagonisms.

The violent reaction to Basse's high-handed methods eventually led to the surrender of the government to the crown in 1702*

After 1702 the Assembly was In contention with royal offi­ cials and not proprietary officials*

In the years just preceding the outbreak of the riots the Assembly used the power of the purse to exert Its In­ fluence* If the governor refused to accept the decisions

of the lower house or If he tried to press his views on

them the representatives would not vote him a salary for

the year. Hew Jersey governors received their income and

expenses from the provincial treasury and unless they were

Independently wealthy they could not afford to anger the assemblymen. Levis Morris imde the error of raising the

Assembly's Ire and they did not appropriate any money for

his salary for the last twenty-two months of his term.

When the Board of Trade in 1748^ ordered Governor

Belcher to ask the Assembly to make provisions for Morris' 209 salary the Assembly sent a long reply outlining their posi­ tion. After listing grievances against the man * 8 o univer­ sally disliked in this Colony," the Assembly stated,

Prom whence your Excellency will Observe that he refused to do the Duties of Government, except the Assembly would give him Such a Salary as he asked, and in his own Mode and way, which without resigning their liberties they could not do.=

Lewis Morris was not the first governor to feel the wrath of the lower house. Governor Oombury was cited as by the representatives as a precedent for their stand in

1744# Because "many Irregularities" crept into Lord Oom­ bury's administration his salary was withheld for his last

two years.^ And despite repeated efforts to secure the money

the governor never received a shilling. The Assembly likewise

refused to make any allowance for Morris' heirs and therefore

earned the family's undying hatred. To end all possibilities

for future claims by the late governor's estate, the Assembly's

reply on the question ended by stating:

That it is altogether unlikely any Assembly in this Colony will ever look upon that to be a Just Debt, or apply any Money for the discharge thereof and that they cannot con­ ceive the further accomodation of it will 4 be of any Advantage to the Said Executors.

Assembly relations with the Council were just as tense

as those with the governor. The lower house contended that

the Council was a tool of the Board of Proprietors and if

the proprietors were not a numerical majority of the Council 210 then they at leaet controlled Its thinking, during the whole of the riot period James Alexander and Bobert Hunter

Morris were the leading spokesmen for the upper house.

They wrote most of the letters to the Board of Trade. For all practical purposes the Council reflected the views and fears of the proprietors and echoed them in their petitions and memorials to bngland.

TM conflict between the two houses flared into the

open over the question of the passage of a quota bill

Introduced in 1747. The struggle was over whether the

Council had the right to amend money bills. When the bill

passed the Assembly for the first time the Council amended

it because they felt that it contained certain provisions

contrary to the governor's instructions. The lower house

refused to accept the new version and the conflict continued

for four years until the upper house agreed to pass a bill

that had been revised seven times.^ The fight indicated

the depth of antagonism between the two legislative branches

and this affected the degree to which they would work with

one another to end the riots»

The Assembly's relations with the governors in this

period are varied. Obviously they were very poor with

Lewis Morris. After he died the president of the Council.

John Hamilton, took over the reins of government. Since

Hamilton was closely allied with the Council the Assembly 211

âlid %iOt soften its stand. During Hamilton's term in of flee the 1ÿsemhly either held that the lavs vere sufficient if enforced or that they would consider new legislation after a full study of the situation. Nothing, however, came of their promises and there were no new acts to quiet the colony.

When Governor Belcher arrived in August 17^7 the Assembly hGoame more amenable to the pleas for action. Six months after Belcher assumed office in New Jersey three bills de- sigBfê to stop the disturbances were signed into law. It appears tli^t the lower house was willing to bend their pre­ vious position a little to see how well they could get along with the new governor. The representatives were willing to make concessions to test Belcher and to discover what side he would take in the struggle between popular control and royal rule. The Assembly was ready to concede on some points in the hope of earning an ally in the contest. During

Belcher's nine years in office as governor of New Jersey he managed to remain friendly with the Assembly by not anta­

gonizing them and at the same time keeping the Oouneil and

the crown at bay by constantly chastising the Assembly and

by always urging a more vigorous approach to the riot problem.

The Oouneil took a very dim view of Governor Belcher

and they continually attacked him. One reason for this wag

the attitude of Robert H. Morris toward him, Morris was 212 appointed Chief Jnstice of the province by his father and he possibly ^ranted to be appointed In his place after his death. His willingness to accept an executive position Is

Shewn by his appointment as governor of Pennsylvania In

1753. And since the younger Morris was so powerful he was able to pressure his friends Into taking a similar approach

to Belcher. Â second and much more Important consideration was the opinion of Belcher sent to the Council by Ferdinand

John Paris. When Belcher was traveling to Hew Jersey Paris wrote that the Assembly would now have even less Inclination

to act to suppress the riots because the new governor was

not warm to the proprietors although he would pretend to be

friendly. Paris predicted that Belcher would be able to

deceive many Into believing that he was their ally and more

than anxious to help. Once the rioters got to know him,

however, his true feelings would be known and the mob would

grow In numbers.^ Why Paris felt this way is not known.

Why he considered Belcher to be antl-proprletor remains a

secret. Whatever the reasons for his statement the proprie­

tors took him at his word. When the situation deteriorated

even further Paris was able to write to Alexander and gloat

that his prediction had come true* Belcher would not act to

suppress the riots.

neither the Assembly nor Governor Belcher were In

support of those who broke open the jails or who dispossessed 215 people from their homes* Both wanted to see law and order restored to New Jersey. But they differed on the approach to be used. The Assembly wanted to gee a lenient method employed while Belcher was forced to demand a sterner policy.

The governor was being pressed by the Council and the pro­ prietors for stronger government action. If he wanted to keep his position, he would have to placate those who wielded the influence in London. Belcher believed that the question of land titles should be settled in a court

of law and not in the Court of Chancery. This might explain why the case was never settled in equity. The Council

played the role of the obstructionist and caused Belcher a great deal of trouble. The Council's conflicts with the

Assembly prevented the two houses from uniting to quell the

riots. The failure to produce corrective legislation re­

sulted from the deep split in the government.

Although the question of proper land titles played an

important part throughout New Jersey's colonial period the

last we hear of the issue is in 1770 with the payment by

the Newark Committee to the proprietors for costs incurred

in the chancery suits and the arbitration agreement. With

the Revolution the entire affair faded into the background.

Unlike other colonies, the proprietors' lands in New Jersey

were not seized. In fact, the Board of Proprietors Is still

in existence today selling lands and paying dividends. In 214

1809 the town of Bergen oiade an agreement with the propri@<^ tore to buy the yearly quit-rents on the town for a sum of fifteen hundred dollars. Elsewhere, the proprietors have every legal right today to collect the quit-rents due them, with arrears, but public opinion prevents them from attempt* 7 Ing to do 80 , yOOTHOSSS - Chapter 2

1* 25 Kovemher 1748, VII, 173-75.

2. 5 October 1749, Ibid». XVI, 149-56. 3. Ib id . . r , 555.

4. Ibid.. XVI, 155-56.

5. I b i d .. XVI, 6, 12-22, 114, 127-29, 135-36, 159, 166-67, 1557^201-2, 211, 218-19, 309.

6. Paris to dlexander, 13 august 1747, 15ev Jersey %ss., New Jersey Historical Society, IV, 45.

7. John B, Pomfret, The New Jersey Proprietors and Their Lands (Prinoetoa, 1964), 17^-73.

215 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources Manuscripts Alexander Papers, The New-York Historical Socity. William Alexander (Lord Stirling) Papers, The New York Public Library. A=M: Mssc, New Jersey State Library, Trenton. Belcher Papers (transcripts), The New Jersey Historical Society, Newark. Board of General Proprietors of the Eastern Division of New Jersey, Lists of Proprietary patents for lands in Bergen, Essex, Middlesex, Monmouth and Somerset counties, tabulated from Libers 1, 2, 4, A-I of E.J. patents and deeds (1667*1707)? Rutgers Univer­ sity Library. Council of Proprietors of the Western Division of New Jersey, Minutes of the Council 1688-1758? Rutgers

Elizabeth Town Book of Records, Princeton University Library. Elizabeth Town Mss., 1699-1804^ The New Jersey Historical Society. Freeholders List, Essex County, N.J., September 1, 1755, New Jersey State Library. , Middlesex County, N.J. n.d. , William Deare Sheriff, New Jersey State Library. ,, Middlesex County, 14 December 1752, New Jersey State Library. , Morris County, N.J., August 31, 1752, New Jersey State Library. Somerset County, N.J., 17 July 1753, New Jersey State Library. 216 217

Sanniel Harrison’s Account Book, The New Jersey Historical Society, Johnston Papers, Rutgers University Library. Legal volume of James Alexander with later additions by William Alexander, Livingston and Moore, The New- York H isto ric a l Society, Manuscripts records based on the original surveys of Elizabethtown, N.J., Princeton University Library, Morris (Robert) Papers, Rutgers University Library, Robert Hunter Morris Papers, The New Jersey Historical Society. New Jersey Mss,, The New Jersey Historical Society. New York and New Jersey Boundary Papers, The New-York Historical Society, James Parker Papers (1 723- 97), Rutgers University Library,

Ferdinand John Paris Papers, The New Jersey Historical Society,

Quit-Rent Book; I 683 , 1685, I 687-I 696 , The New Jersey Historical Society; Records of the Court of Oyer and Terminer, 1750-1800, Morris County, The New Jersey Historical Society, The Shiffner Archives, East Sussex County Record Office, Lewes Sussex, England (microfilm in Rutgers University L ibrary), Jacob Spicer Mss., The New Jersey Historical Society, Stevens Papers, The New Jersey Historical Society, West New Jersey Society Reeords, Public Records Office, London, England (microfilm in Rutgers University L ibrary, 218

Printed. Documents, Correspondence and Pamphlets Allinson, Samuel, ed.. Acts of the General Assembly of the P-rQgince-_Qf..-Fgw^exs_eg^_£rQm the Surrender of the Government to Queen Anne on the 17th Dav of A p ril, in the Year of our Lord 1702, to the 14th Dav of January 1776 (.Burlingtong Mew Jerse y . 1776). An Answer to a B ill in the Chancery of New-Jersev at the Suit of John Earl of Stair, and others, commonly called Pro­ prietors of the Eastern Division of New-Jersev. Against Beniamin Bond, and others claiming under the original Proprietors and Associates of Elizabeth-Tcwn. To which is added: Nothing either of The Publications of the Council of Proprietors of East Nev-Jersey. or of the Pretences of the Rioters, and their Seducers; Except so far as the Persons meant bv Rioters^ pretend Title against the Parties to the above Answer ^ But a great deal of the Controversev through much less of the History and Constitution of New-Jersey, than the said B ill. (Nev-York. 17%). Anno Regni Georgii II. Reels Magnae Britanniae. Franciae. & Hiberiae. Vicesimo Primo. At General Assembly of the Colony of New-Jersey. continued bv Ad.iournments to the T7th Day of Noyember. Anno Dorn. 17^7^ and then begun and holden at Burlington, being the fifth Sitting of the Second Session of this present Assembly. (Philadelphia, 17^6). A_B_ill in _the Chancery of.__New~Jersey, At the Suit of John Earl of Stair, _and others, ■Proprietors of the Eastern - Diyislon of New-Jersey; Against Beniamin Bond and some other Persons of Elizabath-Tovn. distinguished by the Name of the Clinker Lot Right Men. With three large Maps, done from C opper-Plates. To which i s added; The Publications of the Council of Proprietors of East New- Jersey and Mr. Nevilles Speeches to the General Assembly. Concerning the Riots committed in New-Jersev. And the Pretences of the Rioters, and their Seducers. (New- York, 1747). The B ill of Complaint in the Chancery of New-Jersev. brought by Thomas Clarke, and others, a gains t__Jame s. Alexander. JüSQî and others, commonly called The Proprietors of East New-Jersey. Wherein Title of the People of Eliza- beth-Town. to the controverted lands, is fully exhibited. and the Oblections of the pretended Proprietors, stated, 219

aM_Ke£ute_d»__. Now published from the O riginal, tile d in the Court of ChanceryV In 1754. to satisfy many who are curious to know the foundation of a private Debate of the greatest Importance in America.(N ew York, 1760). Board of Proprietors of the Eastern Division of New Jersey, Minutes of the Board from 168? to 176?; with an intro­ duction bv George J. Miller (Perth Ambov, 1949-1960, 3 volumes). Edsall, Preston W., ed., Journal of the Courts of Common Right and Chancery of East New Jersey 1683-1702 (Philadelphia, 1937). First Publication of the Council of Proprietors cf the Eastern D ivision of New-Jersey. March 2^. 1746 (New York, 17^7). Jenkins, Griffin, A Brief Vindication of the Purchasers Against the P ro p rieto rs in a C h ristian Manner (New York, 17W 6). Journal of the Commissioners for Trade and Plantations (London, 1920-1938, 1^ volumes). Learning, Aaron and Spicer, Jacob, eds.. The Grants, Con­ cessions, and Original Constitutions of the Province of Nsw-Jsrssv (Philadelphia. 1752). A Letter from a Gentleman of New-Brunswick. to his Friend in Elizabeth-Town: On the First Point in Controversy between the Proprietors and Elizabeth-Town (New Bruns­ wick, New Jersey, 1752). Nevill, Samuel, ed., Acts of the General Assembly of the Province of New-Jersey, From the Time of the Surrender of the Government in the Second Year of the Reign of Queen Anne, to this present Time, being the Twenty Fifth Year of the Reign of King George the Second. (William Bradford, 1752). ., ed., The Acts of the General Assembly of the Province of New-Jersev. from the Year 1793. being the Twenty-sixth of the Reign of King George the Second. where the First Volume ends, to the Year 1761. being the first of King George the Third (Woodbridge., New Jersey, 17^1). 220

Ogden, David, The Claim of the Inhabitants of the Town of Newark, in virtue of the Indian Purchase made bv the First Settlers of Newark, in 1667, Stated and Considered (Woodbridge, New Jersey, 1766). The Papers of Lewis Morris. Governor of the Province of New Jersey from 17^8 to 17^6. Collections of the New Jersey Historical Society. IV (Newark. 1%2). Patterson, William ed.. Laws of the State of New-Jersev; Revised and Published \mder the Authority of the Legislature (Newark. 1800). The Publication of the council of Proprietors of East-New- Jersey. of September 14th, Containing a reply to the paper, e n title d , An Answer to the council of Proprietor*s two Publications &c. (New-York. 1747). The Second publication of the Council of Proprietors of the Eastern Division of New-Jersev. dated the 25th of March. 17^7; containing a narrative of the proceedings of. and with, the rioters in New-Jersev. since the former publi­ cation of March 25. 1746. To which is annexed, copies" of the rioters proposal to the Assembly, to submit their pretensions to a trval at law, to be carried by appeal to the King and Councils copy of the Proprie»- tor*s acceptance of that proposal, with copies of sundry other original papers shewing that the rioters and their committee have slighted^ receded from, and not complied with, their own proposals aforesaid. (New-York, 17*+7)» The Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Pro­ vince of New Jersey.Held at Burlington on Tuesday the Twenty-fourth of September 17M-5. ( Philadelphia, 17^5). The Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of New Jersey. Held at Trenton on Wednesday the Twenty Sixth of February 17%9-6. (P hiladelphia, 17\ 6 ). The Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of New-Jersev Held at Trenton on Friday the Ninth of May 1746. (Philadelphia, 1746). Votes of the General Assembly N.J. May 9, 17^7, pp. 39- (Philadelphia, 17^7). >21

The Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of New-Jersev. Held at Burlington on Thursday the Twentieth of August. 1747. (Philadelphia, 1747). Votes of General Assembly N.J. November I 7, 17^7 - February 18, 1747/8 (Philadelphia, 17^7). The Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of New-Jersey. Held at Burlington on Wed- ■’■lesday the sixth of July. 17481 (Philadelphia, 17^8). The Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of New-Jersey. Held at Burlington on Monday the 20th of February 1748-9. (Philadelphia, 17^+9). The Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of New-Jersey. Held at Burlington on Tuesday the Thirteenth of February 1749-50. (Philadelphia), The Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of Nev-Jersev Held at Amboy on Thursday the 20th of September. 17% (Philadelphia). The Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of New-Jersey. Held at Burlington on Thursday the 24th January 1790/1. (Philadelphia). The Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of New-Jerseyt Held at Perth-Amboy on Monday the 20th of May 1751 (Philadelphia). The Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of New-Jersey Held at Burlington on Tuesday the 10th of September 17^1. (Philadelphia). The Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of New-Jersey Held at Perth-Amboy on Saturday the 2Sth of January 1792. (Philadelphia). The Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of New-Jersey. Held at Elizabeth-Tovm on Thursday the Fourteenth of December 1752. (P h ila d e l­ phia) . The Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of New-Jersev Held at Burlington on Wednesday the 16th of May 17^^. (Philadelphia). 222

The Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of New-Jersev, Begun at Perth-Ambov^ Wednes­ day April 17f 17^ and adioura's to Elizaheth-TownV Thursday April 2*?. 17S41 (Woodbridge, New Jersey, 175^). Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of New-Jersey. At a Sessions begun and holden at Pertfa- Amboy, October 1, 17541 .(Woodbridge, New Jersey). Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly N.J., April 7-26, 1 7 5 5 (Philadelphia, 1755). Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of New-Jersey At a Sessions begun at Elizabeth-Town. July Ust. 1755. and Adjourn'd to Perth-Amboy. August 2dri755. (Philadelphia). Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of New-Jersey At a Convention h:gun and held at Elizabeths- Town on Wednesday the 12th of November. 1755. vPhiladel- p h ia ). Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of New-Jersey At a Sessions begun at Elizabeth-Town. Monday. December 15th. 17S5. (P h ilad e lp h ia). Whitehead, William A., ed., Documents Relating to the Colonial History of the StsGs of New Jersey ^Newark, 1vwO—I 7O6 , 30 volumes),

Newspapers The Boston Gazette, or Weekly Journal. 17^5-'!755 also called The Boston Gazette, or Weekly Advertiser: The Boston Gazetteor Country Journal. The Independent Advertiser Boston , 17^8-9. The New-York Evening P o s t. 17^5-1751. The New-York Mercury, 1752-1755. The New-York Weekly Jo u rn a l, 17^5-1751. The New-York Weekly Post-Boy. 17^5-1755 also :The New- York G azette. Revived in the Weekly Post-Boy; New-York G azette: o r, th e Weekly Post-Boy. The Pennsylvania Gazette. 17*+5-1755. 223

Secondary Works Books Atkinson, Joseph, The History of Newark. New Jersey (Newark, N.J., IÔ78). B iographical and Genealogical H istory of the C ity of Newark and Essex County. New Jersey (New York and Chicago, 1898, 2 volume sT. Fisher, Edgar Jacob, New Jersey as a Royal Province. 1738- 1776 (New York, I 9II). Gordon, Thomas F ,, The History of New Jersey, from its Discovery by Europeans to the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Trenton. 18l4^.' Hatfield, Edwin F., History of Elizabeth, New Jersey; including the Early History of Union County ( n W York, 1868). A H istory of the City of Newark New Jersey Embracing P r a c ti­ cally Two and a Half Centuries (New York and Chicago. 1913, 3 volumesri Hoyt, James, The Mountain Society. A History of the First Presbyterian Church. Orange. New Jersey (New York, i860) Kemmerer, Donald L,, Path to Freedom (Princeton, 19^0). Lee, Francis B., Genealogical and Memorial History of the State of New Jersey (New York. 1910. 4 volumes). McCormick, Richard P ., New Jersey from Colony to S tate 1609-1 789 (Princeton, I 96V), Mott, George S., The First Century of Hunterdon County. State of New Jersey (Fiemington. New Jersey. 1878).

P ierso n , David Lawrence, N arratives of Newark (Newark, I 917). Pomfret, John E ., The New Jersey Proprietors and Their Lands (Prinœton, 196M-). ______, The Province of East New Je rse y . 1609- 1702. The Rebellious Proprietary (Princeton. 1962;. 22k

The Province of West Jersey 1609-1702; A History of the Origins of an American Colony (Princeton, 1956). Proceedings Commemorative of the Settlem ent of Newark? New Jersey, on its Two Hundredth Anniyersary. May 17th. 1866. Collections of the New Jersey Historical Society. VI supplement (Newark, 1Ô66). Smith, Samuel, The History of the Colony of the Colony of Nova-Caesaria. or Mew Jersey (Burlington. 1765). Stillwell, John S., Historical and Genealogical Miscellany (New York, 1903-1932, 5 volumes7. Tanner, Edwin P., The Province of New Jersey, 166^-1718 (New York, 190Ô). Whitehead, William A,, East Jersey Under the Proprietary Governments. Collections of the New Jersey Historical so c tm tv . I f e a V k : 1 s f e r

A rticles Connolly, James C., "Quit Rents in Colonial New Jersey As a Contributing Cause for the American Revolution," Proceedings of the New Jersey Historicàl Society, new series, VI1 (January, 1922), 13-21. "Earliest American Ancestors of Somerset Families," Somer­ set County Historical Quarterly. V (1916), 1I 9-I 2V, 1F6 -I 96 , 272-284; VI ( 1917), 38-4?, 81-85. Folsom, Joseph F ., "Two Most Unique Parchments of Morris County, N.J." Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, new series, L (1932), *+7-51. Gardner, Charles Carroll, "Eighteenth Century Freeholders in New Jersey, Monmouth County," The Genealogical Magazine of New Jersey. XVI1 (1942), 13-18, 38-*+*+, 65-69. Magie, William J . , "New Light on Famous Controversy in the History of Elizabethtown," Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, new series, 11 (1917), 65-67. 225

McGregor, David, "The Board of Proprietors of East Jersey," Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, new series, VII (1922), 177-195. Parker, Cortlandt, "The Board of Proprietors of East New Jersey," American Historical Magazine, I (I 906 ), 1-21. Pilch, Henry W., "Eighteenth Century Freeholders in New Jersey," The Genealogical Magazine of New Jersey. XVI (19^1), 59-65. ^ ______■ , "Some Morris County Family O r i g i n s The Genealogical Magazine of New Jersey. XXXi (1956;, 73-7^. Pomfret, John E., "The Apologia of Governor Lawrie of East New Jersey, 1686," The William and Mary Quarterly. XIV (July, 1957), 3% -357. ______, "Governor Gawen Lawrie's 'Brief Account' 1686," Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, new series, LXXV (1957), 96-i11. Pryor, William Y., "The Horseneck Tract." The Genealogical' Magazine of New Jersey. XXVI (1951;, 1-3. "Newark Mountain Purchase Claim," The Genealogical Magazine of New Jersey. XXVI (195177 37- 387^ Race, Henry, "The West Jersey Society's Great Tract in Hunterdon County," The Jersevman. Ill (1895), 1-5. Rankin, Edward S ., "The Purchase of Newark from the Ind ian s," Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, new series, XII (I 927), ^^2-Mf5. ed., "The Hamapo T ract," Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, new series, L (I 932), 375-39^. Sedgwick, Arthur G., and Wait, Frederick S., "The History of the Action of Ejectment in England and the United States," Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History (Boston, 1909, 3 volumes). III, 611-6^5. Trace, Keith, "The West Jersey Society 1736-1819," Proceed­ ings of the New Jersey Historical Society, new series, LXXX (1962), 267-280.

Turner, Gordon B ., "Colonial New Jersey I 703-I 763 ," Pro- ceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, new series, LXXX (1962), 267-280. 226

______■ " '' . "Governor Lewis Morris and the Colonial Government Conflict," Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, new series, LXVII (1949), 260- 304. Whitehead, William A., "A Review of Some of the Circum­ stances Connected with the Settlement of Elizabeth, New Jersey," Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, 2nd series, V (1867-69), 153-176.

Unpublished Dissertation Alter, Donald Rhodes, Mid-Century Political Alignments in the Middle Provinces 1740-1760, University of I l l i n o i s , 1934.