Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. 5 (of 8) / The English and French in North America 1689-1763

by Unknown

CHAPTER III.

THE MIDDLE COLONIES.

BY BERTHOLD FERNOW,

Keeper of the Historical MSS., N. Y. State.

THE thirteenth volume of the New York Colonial Manuscripts contains a document called “Rolle van t’Volck sullende met het Schip den Otter na Niēu Nederlandt overvaren,” April 24, 1660, being a list of the soldiers who were to sail in the ship “Otter” for New Netherland. Among these soldiers was one Jacob Leisler, from Frankfort, who upon arriving at New Amsterdam found himself indebted to the West India Company for passage and other advances to the amount of nearly one hundred florins.

Twenty-nine years later this same quondam soldier administered the affairs of the colony of New York as lieutenant-governor, not appointed and commissioned by the king of England, but called to the position by the people of the colony. When the first rumors of the “happy revolution” in England reached New York, Sir Edmond Andros, the governor-general of New York and New England, was absent in Boston, where the citizens forcibly detained him. Nicholson, the lieutenant-governor, and one or two other high officials belonged to the Church of Rome, and were therefore disliked and suspected by the predominant Protestant population. Rumors had found their way, meanwhile, through the northern wilderness, that the French in Canada were making preparations to invade New York, hoping, with the assistance of the Catholics in the province, to wrest it from the English. The major part of the inhabitants were still Dutch or of Dutch origin, and these were nearly all Protestants. They were easily led to believe that the papists within and without the government had concerted to seize Fort James, in New York, and to surrender that post and the province to a French fleet, which was already on the way from Europe. The prompting of the Protestant party to anticipate any such hostile movement was strengthened when they heard the result of the revolution in England. Leisler, placing himself at the head of this anticipatory movement, seized the fort, and was shortly afterwards proclaimed lieutenant-governor, in order to hold the province for William and Mary until their pleasure should be known. There was little ground for distrusting the Catholics within the province; but the danger from the French was more real, and took a shape that was not expected, in the murderous assault which was made on Schenectady.[466] Leisler’s adherents, as well as his opponents, felt that this coup de main of the French might be only the precursor of greater disasters, if no precautionary steps were taken. Leisler himself believed that the English colonies would never be safe unless the French were driven from Canada. He called a congress of the colonies. Their deliberations led to the naval expedition of Phips against Quebec, and the march of Winthrop and Livingston against Montreal. Their disastrous failure has been described in an earlier volume.[467] Governor Sloughter arrived in New York a few months later, and soon put an end to the hasty revolt. Leisler and his son-in-law, Milbourne, were hanged for what seemed an untimely patriotism and still more uncalled-for religious zeal.

The cry was practically a “No Popery” cry upon which Leisler had risen to such prominence in the affairs of New York. It had appeared scarcely to attract the notice of the king, and he was prone to believe that Leisler was more influenced by a hatred of the Established Church than by zeal for the crown. It was not, however, without some effect. A few words added to the instruction of the new governor had materially changed the condition of religious toleration in the province. Earlier governors had been directed “to permit all persons, of what religion soever, quietly to inhabit within the government.” Under Governor Sloughter’s instructions papists were excepted from this toleration. Was such intolerance really needed for the safety of the English colonies? They had been so far in the main a refuge for those who in Europe had suffered because of their liberal and anti-Roman religious opinions, and had never been much sought by Catholics.[468] The conditions of life in the colonies were hardly favorable to a church which brands private reasoning as heresy; and even in Maryland—which was established, if not as a Catholic colony, yet by a nobleman of that faith—there were, after fifty years of existence, only about one hundred Romanists. Public opinion and the political situation in England had now raised this bugbear of popery. It was but the faint echo of the cry which prompted those restrictions in the instructions to King William’s governor which sought to enforce in New York the policy long in vogue in the mother country. The home government seemed ignorant of the fact that the natural enemies of the Church of Rome, the Reformed and Lutheran clergymen of New York, had not only not shared Leisler’s fears, but, supported by the better educated and wealthier classes, they had opposed him by every means in their power. When, however, with Leisler’s death the motive for their dislike of his cause had been removed, the general assembly, composed to a great extent of his former opponents, willingly enacted a law, the so-called Bill of Rights, denying “liberty to any person of the Romish religion to exercise their manner of worship, contrary to the laws of England.”[469] After the attempt on the life of King William in 1697, further laws, expelling Roman Catholic priests and Jesuits from the province, and depriving papists and popish recusants of their right to vote, were passed in 1700 and 1701. It was reserved for the Revolution of 1776 to change the legal status of the Roman Catholics of New York, and place them on an equal footing with the believers in other doctrines.

In establishing the colony of Pennsylvania on the basis of religious freedom, Penn declared that every Christian, without distinction of sect, should be eligible to public employments. But on the accession of William and Mary it became necessary to adopt and endorse the so-called “penal laws,” in prosecuting followers of the elder church. Penn himself was unable to prevent it, although his liberal spirit revolted at such intolerance, and it seems that the authorities in Pennsylvania were quite as willing as their chief to treat Romanists with liberality, notwithstanding the “penal laws,” since in 1708 Penn was unfavorably criticised in England for the leniency with which this sect was treated by him. “It has become a reproach,” he writes to his friend Logan, “to me here with the officers of the crown, that you have suffered the scandal of the mass to be publicly celebrated.”

Despite all laws, Pennsylvania became of all the colonies the most favorable and the safest field for the priests and missionaries of the Church of Rome. It is true, they had to travel about the country in disguise, but it was known everywhere that Romanists from other provinces came to Philadelphia or Lancaster at regular intervals to receive the sacraments according to the rites of their faith. Before the Revolution, Pennsylvania harbored five Catholic churches, with about double the number of priests and several thousand communicants, mostly Irish and Germans.

The attempt upon the life of the king in 1697 had much the same effect in East New Jersey as in New York. The law of 1698, “declaring what are the rights and privileges of his majesty’s subjects in East New Jersey,” directed “that no person or persons that profess faith in God by Jesus Christ, his only Son, shall at any time be molested, punished, disturbed, or be called in question for difference in religious opinion, &c., &c., provided this shall not extend to any of the Romish religion the right to exercise their manner of worship contrary to the laws and statutes of England.”[470]

When Lord Cornbury assumed the government of New Jersey in 1701, his instructions directed him to permit liberty of conscience to all persons except papists. Matters remained thus with the Romish Church in New Jersey until the end of British rule.

Another incident of Leisler’s brief administration was of greater importance and farther-reaching consequences than his proscription of persons differing from his religious opinions. It will be remembered[471] that a general assembly of the province had been elected in 1683, holding two sessions that year and another in 1684; also that it had been dissolved in 1687, pursuant to the instructions of King James II. to Sir Edmond Andros, directing him “to observe in the passing of lawes that the Stile of enacting the same by the Governor and Council be henceforth used and no other.” The laws enacted by the first assembly, and not repealed by the king, remained in force, and the government was carried on with the revenues derived from the excise on beer, wine, and liquors, from the customs duties on exported and imported goods, and from tax levies; but the people had no voice in the ordering of this revenue, as they had had none during the Dutch period and before 1683. Leisler and his party, however, firmly believed in the Aryan principle of “no taxation without representation,” and when a necessity for money arose out of the French invasion and the subsequent plan to reduce Canada, Leisler issued writs of election for a general assembly, which in the first session, in April, 1690, enacted a law for raising money by a general tax. Adjourned to the following autumn, it again ordered another tax levy, and passed an act obliging persons to serve in civil or military office.

In calling together this general assembly, notwithstanding the repeal by James II. of the Charter of Liberties of 1683, Leisler assumed for the colony of New York a right which the laws and customs of Great Britain did not concede to her as a “conquered or crown” province. The terms on which New York had been surrendered to the English, both in 1664 and in 1674, ignored a participation by the people in the administration of the government, and the king in council could therefore, without infringing upon any law of England or breaking any treaty stipulation, deal with the conquered province as he pleased; while all the other colonies in America were “settled or discovered” countries, which, because taken possession of as unoccupied lands or under special charters and settled by English subjects, had thereby inherited the common law of England and all the rights and liberties of Englishmen, subject only to certain conditions imposed by their respective charters, as against the prerogatives of the crown. The action of Leisler showed to the English ministry the injustice with which New York had been treated so long, and the instructions given to Governor Sloughter in November, 1690, directed him “to summon and call general Assemblies of the Inhabitants, being Freeholders within your Government, according to the usage of our other Plantations in America.” This general assembly was to be the popular branch of the government, while the council, appointed by the king upon the governor’s recommendation, took the place of the English House of Lords. The governor had a negative voice in the making of all laws, the final veto remaining with the king, to whom every act had to be sent for confirmation. Three coördinate factors of the government—the assembly, the council, and the governor—were now established in theory; in reality there were only two, for the governor always presided at the sessions of the council, voting as a member, and in case of a tie gave also a casting vote. This state of affairs, by which the executive branch possessed two votes on every legislative measure, as well as the final approval, continued until 1733, when, Governor Cosby having quarrelled with the chief justice and other members of the council, the question was submitted to the home government. The law officers now declared that it was inconsistent with the nature of the English government, the governor’s commission, and his majesty’s instructions for the governor in any case whatsoever to sit and vote as a member of the council. Governor Cosby was therefore informed by the Lords of Trade and Plantations that he could sit and advise with the council on executive business, but not when the council met as a legislative body.

The first assembly called by Governor Sloughter enacted, in 1691, the Bill of Rights, which was the Charter of Liberties of 1683, with some modifications relative to churches. It met with the same fate as before, as the Lords of Trade could not recommend it to the king for approval, because it gave “great and unreasonable privileges” to the members of the general assembly, and “contained also several large and doubtful expressions.” The king accordingly vetoed it in 1697, after the ministry had required six years to discover the objections against it. They could not very well give the real reason, which was that this Bill of Rights vested supreme power and authority, under the king, in the governor, council, and the people by their representatives, while it was as yet undecided whether in New York, a “conquered” province, the people had any right to demand representation in the legislative bodies.

GOVERNOR FLETCHER.

From a plate in Valentine’s N. Y. City Manual, 1851.

Governor Sloughter died within a few months after his arrival in New York (June, 1691), and was succeeded by Colonel Benjamin Fletcher, “a soldier, a man of strong passions and inconsiderable talent, very active and equally avaricious,” who, as his successor Bellomont said, allowed the introduction into the province of a debased coinage (the so-called dog dollars); protected pirates, and took a share of their booty as a reward for his protection; misapplied and embezzled the king’s revenue and other moneys appropriated for special and public uses; gave away and took for himself, for nominal quit-rents, extensive tracts of land; and used improper influence in securing the election of his friends to the general assembly.

A man of such a character could hardly be a satisfactory governor of a province, the inhabitants of which were still divided between the bitterly antagonistic factions of Leislerians and anti-Leislerians, without in a short time gaining the ill-will and enmity of one of them. The men whose official position, as members of the council, gave them the first opportunity of influencing the new governor were anti-Leislerians. Fletcher therefore joined this party, without perhaps fully understanding the cause of the dissensions. His lack of administrative abilities, coupled with his affiliation with one party, gave sufficient cause to the other to make grave charges against him, which resulted in his recall in 1697.

In the mean time the assembly had begun the struggle for legislative supremacy which characterizes the inner political life of New York during the whole period of British dominion.

It enacted two laws which were the principal source of all the party disputes during the following decades. One of these laws established a revenue, and thereby created a precedent which succeeding assemblies did not always consider necessary to acknowledge, while the executive would insist upon its being followed. The other erected courts of justice as a temporary measure, and when they expired by limitation, and a later governor attempted to erect a court without the assent of the assembly, this law, too, was quoted as precedent, but was likewise ignored.

In 1694 the assembly discovered that, during the last three years, a revenue of £40,000 had been provided for, which had generally been misapplied. Governor Fletcher refused to account for it, as, according to his ideas of government, the assembly’s business was only to raise money for the governor and council to spend. This resulted in a dissolution of the assembly, as in the council’s judgment “there was no good to be expected from this assembly,” and very little was done by its successor, elected in 1695. But not satisfied with vetoing the Bill of Rights, the home authorities tried further to repress the growing liberal movement in New York by giving to Fletcher’s successor, the Earl of Bellomont, an absolute negative on the acts of the provincial legislature, so that no infringement upon the prerogatives of the crown might become a law. He was further empowered to prorogue the assembly, to institute courts, appoint judges, and disburse the revenues. The Bishop of London was made the head of all ecclesiastical and educational matters in the province, and no printing-press was allowed to be put up without the governor’s license.

Bellomont, in addressing the first assembly under his administration, made a bid for popular favor by finding fault with the doings of his predecessor, who had left him as a legacy “difficulties to struggle with, a divided people, an empty treasury, a few miserable, naked, half-starved soldiers, being not half the number the king allowed pay for, the fortifications, and even the governor’s house, very much out of repairs, and, in a word, gentlemen (he said), the whole government out of frame.” The assembly was to find remedies, that is, money wherewith to repair all these evils. How they did it is shown by a speech made to them by Bellomont a month later: “You have now sat a whole month ... and have done nothing, either for the service of his Majestie or the good of y^e country.... Your proceedings have been so unwarrantable, wholy tending to strife and division, and indeed disloyal to his Majestie and his laws, and destructive to the rights and libertys of the people, that I do think fit to dissolve this present assembly, and it is dissolved accordingly.”

Having come with the best intentions of curing the evils of Fletcher’s rule, and being instructed to break up piracy, of which New York had been represented in England as the very hot-bed, Bellomont soon became popular, and no doubt grew in favor with the people, both by persuading the assembly to enact a law of indemnity for Leisler, whose body, with that of Milbourne, was now granted the honors of a public reinterment, and by bringing Kidd, the celebrated sea-rover, to justice. To-day that which was meted out to Kidd might hardly be called justice; for it seems questionable if he had ever been guilty of piracy.

Bellomont was not allowed to carry out his plans for the internal improvement of the province, for death put an end to his work at the end of the third year of his administration, in 1701. His successor, Lord Cornbury, who entered upon his duties early in 1702 (Lieutenant-Governor Nanfan having had meanwhile a successful contest with the leaders of the still vigorous anti-Leisler party), was sent out as governor by his cousin, Queen Anne, in order to retrieve his shattered fortune. The necessitous condition in which he arrived in New York and his profligate mode of life soon led him to several misappropriations of public funds, which resulted in a law, passed by the disgusted assembly of 1705, taking into their own hands the appointment of a provincial treasurer for the receipt and disbursement of all public moneys. The whole of Cornbury’s administration was occupied with a contest between the assembly and the crown: the former claiming all the privileges of Englishmen under Magna Charta; the latter, through its governor, maintaining its prerogatives, and saying that the assembly had no other rights and privileges “but such as the queen is pleased to allow.” Lord Cornbury’s recall did not mend matters.[472] The assembly of 1708, the last under Cornbury’s administration, had been dissolved, because in its tenacity of the people’s right it had declared that to levy money in the colony without consent of the general assembly was a grievance and a violation of the people’s property; that the erecting of a court of equity without consent of the general assembly was contrary to law, both without precedent and of dangerous consequences to the liberty and properties of the subjects.

The term of Cornbury’s successor, Lord Lovelace, was very short, death calling him off within six months, while the lieutenant-governor, Ingoldsby, was a man too much like his friends, Sloughter, Fletcher, and Cornbury, to improve the state of affairs. With Governor Robert Hunter’s commission there came, in 1710, the answer to the declaration of the assembly of 1708. He received thereby “full power and authority to erect, constitute, and establish courts of judicature, with the advice and consent of the council.” The assembly’s remonstrance had been met by ignoring its author, and this treatment naturally incensed the representatives of the people so much that all the efforts of Governor Hunter, a man of excellent qualities, the friend of Addison and Swift, availed nothing in the way of settling the existing differences.

GOVERNOR HUNTER.

Follows an engraving in Valentine’s N. Y. City Manual, 1851, p. 420. Cf. on the seals of the colonial governors, Hist. Mag., ix. p. 176.

After two years’ administration, Governor Hunter had to confess to the Lords of Trade that he could not expect any support of the government from the assembly, “unless her Majesty will be pleased to put it entirely into their own hands;” and in 1715 he appointed Lewis Morris, a wealthy man, as successor to the deceased Chief Justice Mompesson, “because he is able to live without salary, which they [the assembly] will most certainly never grant to any in that station.” He found that he could not carry on the government without yielding, and thereby acting contrary to his instructions, and during the summer of 1715 came to an understanding with the assembly. “I asked,” he says, in a letter to the Lords of Trade, “what they would do for the Government if I should pass it (the Naturalization Bill) in their way, since they did not like mine; I asked nothing for myself, tho’ they well knew that I had offers of several thousands of pounds for my assent; they at last agreed that they would settle a sufficient Revenue for the space of five years on that condition; many rubs I met with, but at last with difficulty carry’d through both parts of the Legislature and assented to both at the same time. If I have done amiss, I am sorry for’t, but what was there left for me to do? I have been struggling hard for bread itself for five years to no effect and for four of them unpitty’d, I hope I have now laid a foundation for a lasting settlement on this hitherto unsettled and ungovernable Province.”

In asserting their rights as representatives of the people and compelling the executive finally to acknowledge them, the assembly had followed the course which has been shown to be effective in the English Parliament since the days of William III. But the legislative supremacy over the executive established by this victory was greater than that obtained by Parliament. In New York the executive could only collect taxes when first authorized by the legislature, while the people, through their representatives, kept the control of the sums collected in their own hands by appointing the receiving and disbursing officers.

Hunter’s wise course in yielding on several points had a better effect on the province than at first he was willing to confess. Fletcher had found the people of New York “generally very poor and the government much in debt, occasioned by the mismanagement of those who have exercised the King’s power.” The revenues of the province were in such deplorable condition that several sums of money had to be borrowed on the personal credit of members of the council to pay the most pressing debts of government; the burden of war, unjustly placed on the shoulders of New York, had impoverished the inhabitants and almost destroyed their usefulness as taxpayers; while the neighboring colonies, either refusing to assist in the defence of the frontiers against the French or being dilatory in sending their quota of money and men, reaped the advantage of New York’s patriotism by receiving within their boundaries the bulk of the foreign trade, and by adding to their population the majority of emigrants. When Hunter left the province, after ten years’ service as its governor, he could congratulate the assembly on increased prosperity and on a better state of public affairs.

His successor was the comptroller of customs at London, William Burnet, the son of the celebrated bishop, who exchanged places with Hunter. Smith, the historian, describes him as “a man of sense and polite breeding, a well-read scholar, sprightly and of social disposition.... He used to say of himself, ‘I act first and think afterwards.’” The good reports which preceded Burnet made a favorable impression on the colonial assembly, and the whole period of his administration was undisturbed by constitutional disputes, even though people opposed to him tried to create trouble by asserting that the appointment of a new governor of the province required, like the accession of a new king, the election of a new assembly, and by representing the continuance of an assembly under two governors as unconstitutional.

Burnet’s distrust of the neighboring French caused some stir in mercantile circles. He had an act passed forbidding all trade in Indian goods with Canada,—an act which would have benefited the province in general by securing all the Indian trade, a large part of which now found its way to Canada; but the merchants of New York and Albany, who disposed of their surplus to Canada traders, would have made less profits. They consequently opposed Burnet’s plans until the end of his administration (1728).

During the three years of John Montgomerie’s rule, which was ended by his death, in 1731, New York enjoyed some rest, to be violently disturbed, however, by the claims of his successor. It had been usual in the royal instructions of the governor to fix the salary of the president of the council at half the amount allowed to the executive, and it was customary to provide that in the absence, resignation, or death of the governor or lieutenant-governor he should assume the reins of the government. Upon Montgomerie’s death, Rip van Dam, as eldest member of the council, became president, and then claimed the full salary of the governor, which the council, after five months’ deliberation, finally allowed. It was upon this decision that the famous Zenger libel suit of a few years later hinged. Soon after the arrival of the new governor, William Cosby, Rip van Dam was called upon (November, 1732) to restore to the treasury a moiety of the full salary, which, under the decision of the council, he had been receiving in contravention, as was claimed, of the royal instructions. On the refusal of the president to comply, the attorney-general of the province was directed to begin an action in the king’s name “to the enforcing a Due Complyance with the said Order [to refund] according to the true Intent thereof and of his Majestie’s Additional Instruction.”

At the trial, the chief justice, Lewis Morris, surprised the governor, the attorney-general, and the whole aristocratic party (Van Dam and his friends representing the popular party) by informing the king’s counsel, in the first place, that the question to be discussed was one of jurisdiction, involving the right of the court to decide cases of equity; and in the second place, that he denied such jurisdiction, and in general the right of the king to establish courts of equity.[473] Jealous to maintain the royal prerogatives, Cosby removed Morris from the chief-justiceship, and put De Lancey, the second justice, in his place. Finding his efforts to be reinstated without result, and having no other means to avenge himself, Morris had recourse to the press, and in Zenger’s New York Weekly Journal he attacked the governor with extreme rancor, and attempted to influence the general assembly, to which he had been elected, against the king’s authority to erect courts. Even Cosby’s death, in 1736, could not conciliate him. The attacks upon his administration continued, and Morris’s vindictiveness finally even disturbed the council and the assembly. President Clarke, who had temporarily succeeded Cosby, was deterred from arresting Van Dam, the younger Morris, Smith the historian, and Zenger the printer, to be sent to England to be tried for treason, only because the forty-fifth paragraph of the instructions required positive proof of the crime in such cases.

The trial of Zenger had, however, already shown that it was not safe to accuse a man of a crime when a jury had already acquitted him. The first number of the Weekly Journal appeared on the 5th of November, 1733; and its editor had from the beginning made war upon the administration with so much vigor that in January following the chief justice, De Lancey, “was pleased to animadvert upon the doctrine of libel in a long charge given in that term to the grand jury,”[474] hoping to obtain an indictment against Zenger. The jury did not share the opinions of the chief justice, and failed to indict Zenger. Nor was the general assembly willing to concur in a subsequent resolution of the council that certain numbers of the Journal should be publicly burnt by the hangman, “as containing in them many things derogatory of the dignity of his majesty’s government, reflecting upon the legislature and tending to raise seditions and tumults in the province,” and that the printer should be prosecuted. The burning of the papers (November 2, 1734), carried out by special order of the council alone, was in appearance far from the solemn judicial act which it was meant to be. The sheriff and the recorder of New York, with a few friends, stood around the pile, while the sheriff’s negro, not the official hangman, set fire to it. The municipal authorities, who usually have to attend such ceremonies ex officio, and were ordered to do so in this case, had refused to come, and would not even allow the order to be entered in the proper records, because they considered it to be neither a royal mandatory writ nor an order authorized by law. Zenger’s trial began on the 4th of August, and resulted in a verdict of “Not guilty.”

The publishing of the alleged libel had been admitted, but it was claimed to be neither false, nor scandalous, nor malicious. When the New York lawyers who had been engaged in the defence were disbarred, Andrew Hamilton, a prominent pleader from Philadelphia, took the case. He managed it so adroitly, met the browbeating of De Lancey so courageously, and pleaded the cause of his client so eloquently that he at once achieved a more conspicuous fame than belonged to any other practitioner at the bar of that day. The corporation of New York fell in with the popular applause in conferring upon him the freedom of their city, enclosing their seal in a box of gold, while they added the “assurances of the great esteem that the corporation had for his person and merits.”[475]

The result of Zenger’s trial established the freedom of the press in the colonies,[476] for it settled here the right of juries to find a general verdict in libel cases, as was done in England by a law of Parliament passed many years later, and it took out of the hands of judges appointed to serve during the king’s pleasure, and not during good behavior, as in England, the power to do mischief.[477] It also gave a finishing blow to the Court of Exchequer, which, after the case of Cosby versus Van Dam, never again exercised an equity jurisdiction, and it suppressed the royal prerogative in an assumed right to establish courts without consulting the legislature. The jurisdiction hitherto exercised by the Supreme Court as a Court of Exchequer—that is, in all matters relating to his majesty’s lands, rights, rents, profits, and revenues—had always been called in question by colonial lawyers, because no act of the general assembly countenanced it. It was, therefore, a relief to everybody in the province when the legislature, in 1742, passed an “Act for regulating the payment of the Quit-Rents,” which in effect, though not in name, established on a firm basis a branch of the Supreme Court as a Court of Exchequer. As then instituted, it passed into the courts of the state, and was only abolished in December, 1828.

The excitement over the Zenger trial had hardly had time to subside when Rip van Dam again disturbed the public mind by claiming, after Cosby’s death, that he as eldest councillor was entitled to be president of the council, and as such to be acting governor, although he had been removed from the council by Cosby. Before the quarrel could attain too threatening dimensions, Clarke’s commission as lieutenant-governor happily arrived, and Van Dam’s claim was set at rest. Clarke’s administration of the province was in the main a satisfactory one. He had lived nearly half a century in New York,[478] and was thoroughly conversant with its resources and its needs, and, assisted by a good education as a lawyer, he found little difficulty in managing the refractory assembly and in gaining most of his important legislative points. His greatest victory was that by certain concessions he induced the assembly of 1739 to grant again a revenue to the king equivalent to the civil list in England, which had been refused since 1736, but was continued during the whole of Clarke’s administration. Although perhaps never unmindful of his own interests, he had also the good of the province at heart, and it must be regretted that a plan, drawn up while he was yet secretary, for colonizing the Indian country was not fully carried out and bore no fruits. He proposed to buy from the Iroquois about 100,000 acres of land, the purchase money to be raised either by subscription or by the issue of bills of credit. Every Protestant family made acquainted with the conditions and wishing to settle was to have 200 acres at nominal quit-rents. All the officials who were entitled to fees from the issue of land patents agreed to surrender the same, so that it would have imposed upon the settlers only the cost of improvements. The neighboring colonies had industriously spread the report that there were few or no lands ungranted in the province of New York, and that the expense of purchasing the remainder from the Indians or obtaining a grant from the crown was greater than the price of land in Pennsylvania and other colonies. Advertisements were therefore to be scattered over Europe, giving intending emigrants a clear view of the advantages of settling in the backwoods of New York. The plan reads very much like a modern land-scheme. If it could, however, have been carried out in those days, with all the governmental machinery to help it, the country from the upper Mohawk to the Genesee would have been settled before the Revolution, and Sullivan’s expedition might have become unnecessary and a Cherry Valley massacre impossible.

The only great event of Clarke’s administration was the negro plot of 1741, which for a while cast the city of New York into a state of fear and attendant precautions, and these conditions were felt even throughout the colonies. A close examination of the testimony given at the trial of the alleged negro conspirators fails to convince the modern investigator that the slaves, who had been misled by the counsels of Roman Catholics, had really arranged a plan to murder all the whites and burn the city. Fires had occurred rather frequently, suspiciously so, during the spring of 1741, the negro riot of the earlier years of the century was remembered, reports of negro insurrections in the West Indies made slave-owners look askance at their ebony chattels, an invasion of the British colonies in America by France and Spain seemed imminent, and a rancorous hatred of the Church of Rome and its adherents prevailed among the English and Dutch inhabitants of New York, while tradition and the journal of the proceedings against the conspirators assure us that some sort of a plot existed; but we must still wonder at the panic occasioned among the ten or twelve thousand white inhabitants by what, after all, may have been only the revengeful acts of a few of the 20 whites and 154 negroes who were indicted on the most insufficient evidence. It is doubtful whether all who were indicted had anything to do with the fires or the intended murder, but the judicial proceedings were of a nature to implicate every one of the two thousand colored people in the county of New York, and two thirds of the accused were found guilty, and were either hanged, burnt at the stake, or transported.

Political astuteness, or perhaps a desire to enjoy in quiet his advancing years, had led Clarke to yield to the popular party on all important points. He had confined himself to wordy remonstrances in surrendering several of his prerogatives. His successor, Admiral George Clinton,—the second son of the Earl of Lincoln, and, as he acknowledged himself, a friend and cousin of Charles Clinton, father of Governor George Clinton of a later date,—found that the position of governor had ceased to be financially desirable. New Jersey had been again placed under a separate governor, thus reducing the income of the governor of New York by £1,000. “Former governors,” it is reported, “had the advantage of one of the four companies, besides the paying of all the four companies, which made at least £2,000 per annum;” but now the assembly had placed this in other hands.

GOVERNOR CLINTON.

From a plate in Valentine’s N. Y. City Manual, 1851.

They had also interfered with a former custom, according to which the governors drew one half of their salary from the date of their commissions; but under the new arrangement for raising and paying the salary he could only draw it from the date of his arrival. Clinton brought with him a prejudice against his lieutenant-governor which was perhaps justified, for he knew him to have led Cosby into all the errors which characterized the latter’s administration. But instead of maintaining an independent position apart from the two political parties, he threw himself into the arms of the cunning Chief Justice De Lancey, the leader of the popular faction. Acting under his advice, Clinton at first was as ready to yield every point to the assembly as Clarke had done, until he discovered that all the powers of a governor were gradually slipping into De Lancey’s hand, who hoped to tire out Clinton’s patience and induce him to resign, thus leaving the field free to him with a commission of lieutenant-governor.

Clinton, upon his arrival at New York, had found, as Clarke predicted, the province “in great tranquillity and in a flourishing condition, able to support the government in an ample and honorable manner.” He perhaps would have had no difficulty with the general assembly about money grants, if he had been less distrustful of Clarke and more willing to acknowledge the rights of the people in such matters. His first measures of dissolving the old assembly, calling a new one, and, perhaps for the first time in America, introducing a kind of civil service reform by continuing in place all officers who had been appointed by his predecessors, were received with great satisfaction throughout the province, but they failed to loosen the strings of the public purse, while the new assembly sought other measures to declare their independence. Clarke’s advice, given before Clinton’s arrival, that henceforth the assembly should allow the government a revenue for a term of years, was not acted upon; but instead they voted the usual appropriations for one year only. In voting salaries for officers, they did not recognize the incumbents by name, and the council pronounced this a device of the assembly to usurp the appointing power, and to change the stipends of the officers at any time.

Walpole had meanwhile turned over the government in England to his friend Pelham, a family connection of Governor Clinton. Macaulay describes Pelham as a man with an understanding like that of Walpole, “on a somewhat smaller scale.” During Pelham’s administration, a bill was considered in the House of Commons in 1744, news of which, upon reaching the colonies, did not fail to arouse their indignation. It forbade the American colonies to issue bills of credit or paper money. As these colonies had but little trade, and had to draw upon Europe for the tools and necessaries of life in the newly opened wilderness, the small amount of coin which they received from the West Indies and the Spanish main in exchange for bread-stuffs and lumber, their only articles of exportation, went across the ocean in part payment of their debts, leaving no “instrument of association,” no circulating medium, in their hands. To replace the coin, they had to have recourse to the issue of paper money, without which all intercolonial and internal trade would have been impossible. The parliamentary intention of depriving the colonies of these means of exchange led the New York assembly to declare that the bill was contrary to the constitution of Great Britain, inconsistent with the liberties and privileges of Englishmen, and subjected the British colonies in America to the absolute will of the crown and its officers.

The efforts of Governor Clinton to reconcile the assembly by giving his assent to all the bills passed by them in their first session did not prevent their assuming greater powers than the House of Commons. He could not obtain from them either money or men for the Cape Breton expedition, set on foot by Governor Shirley of Massachusetts. Trying to regain control of colonial politics, he stirred up a bitter feeling among the popular party men; and after years of struggle, during which the home government afforded him little comfort and support, Clinton was willing to throw up his commission as governor of New York in 1751, and return to England and resume his station as admiral.

The French of Canada had used many artifices and had been indefatigable in their endeavors to gain over the Six Nations. They had cajoled many of them to desert their own tribes and remove to Canada, and had instigated others, whom they could induce to desert, to go to war with the Catawba Indians, friends of South Carolina, thereby endangering and weakening the allegiance of the Southern Indians to the British interest. Commissioners had arrived, or were to come, from all the other colonies, to meet the Six Nations at Albany and renew the covenant chain. If Quidor (the Indian name for the governor of New York) were to be absent on such an occasion, especially a Quidor who already had made an excellent impression on the king’s red allies, the council conceived that the meeting would not only be without result, but that the Indians, considering themselves slighted, would turn a more willing ear to the French, and thus endanger the existence of the colonies. Clinton was luckily a man who considered duty higher than any personal comfort, and on the 1st of July, 1751, opened the conference with the Indians which may be said to have been one of the most important in the history of the English colonies. Colonel William Johnson was induced to withdraw his resignation as Indian agent, which had made the Six Nations very uneasy, and a peace was made between the Iroquois, of New York, and the Catawbas, which also included their friends among the Southern Indians. There is not space to say much of the Indian policy pursued by Governor Clinton and other royal governors of New York. To use the Indian explanation, “they took example from the sun, which has its regular course; and as the sun is certain in its motion, New York was certain to the Indians in the course of their mutual affairs, and deviated not in the least.” New York alone had to bear the expenses (£1,150) of this conference, since Massachusetts, Connecticut, and South Carolina refused to contribute, while New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia were not represented. The other colonies also refused to help New York in keeping the Iroquois in good humor by supplying smiths to live in the Indian territory and repair the savages’ guns and hatchets. New York has the benefit of the Indian trade, they said; let her bear the burden. Pennsylvania, most interested of all the middle colonies in keeping the Indians friendly, had soon learned the evils of neglecting them. Armed parties of French and savages came down into the valley of the Ohio in 1753, creating great confusion among the Indians of Pennsylvania, and inducing nearly all, the Delawares alone excepted, to join the French, as their best recourse in the indifference of the English. At the same time the New York Indians became dissatisfied at their treatment by the general assembly, which would not allow the forts in the Indian country, at Oswego and at Albany, to be maintained, preferring to trust to the activity of the Indians for keeping the French and their savage allies from devastating the northern frontier. Disgusted with the constant struggle which the jealousy of the assembly and their encroachments upon the royal prerogatives always kept alive, Clinton finally resigned in October of 1753; astonishing the council, and especially his political enemy De Lancey, the chief justice, before he surrendered the office to his newly arrived successor, Sir Danvers Osborn, by the production of a letter from the Duke of Newcastle, secretary of state, dated October 27, 1747, which gave Clinton a leave of absence to come to England, and covered De Lancey’s commission as lieutenant-governor. This stroke of Clinton’s did not succeed very well. It is true, Sir Danvers’ presence deprived the new lieutenant-governor of the pleasure of showing himself as chief magistrate of the province, but it was to be only for a few days. Sir Danvers, perceiving that the assembly of New York was not a body easily led by royal commands, exclaimed, “What have I come here for?” and hanged himself two days after taking the necessary oath; and thus the lieutenant-governor, De Lancey, came into power.

GOV. JAMES DE LANCEY.

From a plate in Valentine’s N. Y. City Manual, 1851. Cf. Lamb’s New York, i. 543.

De Lancey soon discovered himself in a dilemma. The oaths which he had taken when entering upon his new office, and which he must have had self-respect enough to consider binding, compelled him to maintain the royal prerogatives and several obnoxious laws made for the colonies by Parliament. On the other side, his political career and his bearing of past years forced him to work for the continuation of the popularity which his opposition to the very things he had sworn to do had gained him. De Lancey was skilful enough to avoid both horns of this dilemma. The assembly, rejoicing to see a man of their own thinking at the head of affairs, passed money and other laws in accordance with the lieutenant-governor’s suggestions, and quietly pocketed his rebukes, when he saw fit to administer any. The two most important events during his term were of such a nature that he could do nothing, or only very little, to prevent or further action.

On the 11th of January, 1754, a great number of people assembled in the city of New York, on account of a late agreement of the merchants and others not to receive or pass copper half-pence in payment at any other rate than fourteen to the shilling. The crowd kept increasing until two o’clock in the afternoon, when the arrest of the man beating the drum and of two others throwing half-pence into the mass quieted them.

GOV. CADWALLADER COLDEN.

From a plate in Valentine’s N. Y. City Manual, 1851, p. 420.

Later there was the conference of commissioners of all the colonies at Albany in July, 1754, convened to treat anew with the Iroquois, and also to consider, in obedience to orders from England, a plan of confederation for all the colonies. The deliberations and conclusions of the congress in this last respect are made the subject of inquiry in a later chapter of the present volume.[479] De Lancey was accused of opposing this plan of union by his machinations. We may say that such accusation was unjust. The general assembly of the province, to whom the “representation of the state and plan for union” was referred, that they might make observations thereupon, said in their report or address to the lieutenant-governor, on the 22d of August, 1754: “We are of opinion with your Honor, that nothing is more natural and salutary than a union of the colonies for their own defence.” While he transmitted the minutes of the congress at Albany to the Lords of Trade without a word of comment, he may have used his private influence to defeat the union; but there is no reason to believe that he acted even in that wise from other than upright motives, and he had already shown, in the New Jersey boundary question, how personal associations had restrained him from interfering or giving an opinion. His sense of duty in office was perhaps exaggerated, and he could not brook censure by the home authorities. The receiver-general and other officers entrusted with the collection of the king’s revenue desired the passage of an act “for the more easy collecting his majesty’s quit-rents, and for protection of land in order thereto.” The assembly and council having passed such a bill, it came before the governor for his assent, which he readily gave, supposing that an act favored by the king’s officers could not meet with the disapproval of the government in England. The Lords of Trade, however, rebuked him, and he sent in his resignation.

GOV. MONCKTON.

From a plate in Valentine’s N. Y. City Manual, 1851.

In the mean time, the appointment of Admiral Sir Charles Hardy as governor had relieved De Lancey for a time (1755-57) from the cares of the administration. Sir Charles allowed himself to be led by his lieutenant-governor, and therefore the affairs of government went on as smoothly as of late, excepting that the assembly made occasional issues upon money bills, though that body was little inclined to press their levelling principles too strongly against their old friend, the lieutenant-governor, now that he was the adviser of the executive. Sir Charles proved less fond of the cares of office than of the sea, and after two years’ service resigned, to hoist his blue admiral’s flag under Rear Admiral Holbourn at Halifax. De Lancey had therefore to assume once more the government on the 3d of June, 1757, which he administered, with little to disturb the relations between the crown and the assembly, down to the time of his death, on July 30, 1760. This event placed his lifelong adversary, Cadwallader Colden, in the executive chair, first as president of the council, and a year later as lieutenant-governor.

The policy of the royal representative was now very quickly changed. The acquiescent bearing of De Lancey in his methods with the assembly gave place to the more peremptory manner which had been used by Clinton, whose friend Colden had always been. The records of the next few years, during which Monckton, who was connected with the Acadian deportation, was governor, show but the beginning of that struggle between prerogative and the people which resulted in the American Revolution, and a consideration of the immediate causes of that contest belongs to another volume.

The history of Pennsylvania, down to the appointment of Governor Blackwell in 1688, has been told in a previous chapter.[480] The selection of John Blackwell for the governorship was an unfortunate one. A son-in-law of the Cromwellian General Lambert and a resident of puritanical New England, he must have shared more or less in the hatred of the Friends’ religion, so that his appointment to govern a colony settled principally by this sect most likely arose from Penn’s respect and friendship for the man and from his inability to find a suitable Quaker willing to accept the office. Within two months after his arrival, he had quarrelled with his predecessor, Thomas Lloyd, then keeper of the broad seal, and the rest of the council. Shortly after this he succeeded in breaking up the assembly, and before he had been in the province one year he became convinced that his ideas of governing did not meet with the approbation of the people, and returned to England, leaving the administration in the hands of his opponent, Lloyd.

After having acquired from the Duke of York the Delaware territory, Penn endeavored to bring his province and the older settlements under one form of government; but he could not prevent the jealousies, caused often by difference of religious opinion and by desire for offices, from raising a conflict which soon after Blackwell’s departure threatened a dissolution of the nominal union. Lloyd remained president of Pennsylvania, while Penn’s cousin, Markham, was made lieutenant-governor of Delaware, under certain restrictions, as detailed in a letter from Penn, which still left the supremacy to Lloyd in matters of governing for the proprietary.

In the mean time James II. of England had been forced to give up his crown to his son-in-law, and this event brought unexpected results to the proprietary of Pennsylvania. Penn’s intimacy with the dethroned Stuart, unmarred by their different religious views, made him at once a suspicious person in the eyes of the new rulers of England. He had been arrested three times on the charges of disaffection to the existing government, of corresponding with the late king, and of adhering to the enemies of the kingdom, but had up to 1690 always succeeded in clearing himself before the Lords of the Council or the Court of King’s Bench. At last he was allowed to make preparations for another visit to his province “with a great company of adventurers,” when another order for his arrest necessitated his retirement into the country, where he lived quietly for two or three years. This blow came at a most critical time for his province, distracted as it was by political and religious disturbances, which his presence might have done much to prevent. The necessity of keeping remote from observation did not give him opportunity to answer the complaints which became current in England, that a schism among the Quakers had inaugurated a system of religious intolerance in a province founded on the principles of liberty of conscience. The result of this inopportune but enforced inactivity on Penn’s part was to deprive him of his province and its dependency (Delaware), and a commission was issued to Benjamin Fletcher, then governor of New York, to take them under his government, October 21, 1692. Fletcher made a visit to his new territory, hoping, perhaps, that his appearance might bring the opposing sections into something like harmony. Quickly disabused of his fond fancy, and disappointed in luring money from the Quakers, he returned to New York, leaving a deputy in charge. About the same time, 1694, Penn had obtained a hearing before competent authority in England, and having cleared himself successfully of all charges, he was reinvested with his proprietary rights. Not able to return to Pennsylvania immediately, he transferred his authority to Markham, who continued to act as ruler of the colony until 1699, when Penn visited his domain once more.

One of Penn’s first acts was to impress the assembly with the necessity of discouraging illicit trade and suppressing piracy. He did it with so much success that the assembly not only passed two laws to this effect, but also took a further step to clear the government of Pennsylvania from all imputations by expelling one of its members, James Brown, a son-in-law of Governor Markham, who was more or less justly accused of piracy. He was equally successful with his recommendations to the assembly concerning a new charter, the slave-trade, and the treatment and education of the negroes already in the province. But when, in 1701, he asked in the king’s name for a contribution of £350 towards the fortifications on the frontiers of New York, the assembly decided to refer the consideration of this matter to another meeting, or “until more emergent occasions shall require our further proceedings therein.”

The evident intention of the ministry in England to reduce the proprietary governments in the English colonies to royal ones, “under pretence of advancing the prerogatives of the crown,” compelled Penn to return to England in the latter part of 1701. But before he could leave a quarrel broke out in the assembly between the deputies from the Lower Counties, now Delaware, and those of the province. The former were accused of having obtained some exclusive powers or rights for themselves which the others would not allow them, and in consequence the men of the Lower Counties withdrew from the assembly in high dudgeon. After long discussions, and by giving promises to agree to a separation of that district from the province under certain conditions, Penn at last managed to patch up a peace between the two factions. He then went to England.

The new charter for the province and territories, signed by Penn, October 25, 1701, was more republican in character than those of the neighboring colonies. It not only provided for an assembly of the people with great powers, including those of creating courts, but to a certain extent it submitted to the choice of the people the nomination of some of the county officers. The section concerning liberty of conscience did not discriminate against the members of the Church of Rome. The closing section fulfilled the promise already made by Penn, that in case the representatives of the two territorial districts could not agree within three years to join in legislative business, the Lower Counties should be separated from Pennsylvania. On the same day Penn established by letters-patent a council of state for the province, “to consult and assist the proprietary himself or his deputy with the best of their advice and council in public affairs and matters relating to the government and the peace and well-being of the people; and in the absence of the proprietary, or upon the deputy’s absence out of the province, his death, or other incapacity, to exercise all and singular the powers of government.” The original town and borough of Philadelphia, having by this time “become near equal to the city of New York in trade and riches,”[481] was raised, by patent of the 25th of October, 1701, to the rank of a city, and, like the province, could boast of having a more liberal charter than her neighbors; for the municipal officers were to be elected by the representatives of the people of the city, and not appointed by the governor, as in New York.

The government of the province had been entrusted by Penn to Andrew Hamilton, also governor for the proprietors in New Jersey, with James Logan as provincial secretary, to whom was likewise confided the management of the proprietary estates, thus making him in reality the representative of Penn and the leader of his party. Hamilton died in December, 1702; but before his death he had endeavored in vain to bring the representatives of the two sections of his government together again. The Delaware members remained obstinate, and finally, while Edward Shippen, a member of the council and first mayor of Philadelphia, was acting as president, it was settled that they should have separate assemblies, entirely independent of each other.

The first separate assembly for Pennsylvania proper met at Philadelphia, in October, 1703, and by its first resolution showed that the Quakers, so dominant in the province, were beginning to acquire a taste for authority, and meant to color their religion with the hue of political power. According to the new charter, the assembly, elected annually, was to consist of four members for each county, and was to meet at Philadelphia on the 14th of October of each year, sitting upon their own adjournments. Upon the separation of the legislative bodies of the two sections, Pennsylvania claimed to be entitled to eight members for each county, which, being duly elected and met, reasserted the powers granted by the charter; but when the governor and council desired to confer with them they would adjourn without conference. Upon the objection from the governor that they could not sit wholly upon their own adjournment, they immediately decided not to sit again until the following March, and thus deprive the governor and council of every chance to come to an understanding on the matter.

Before President Shippen could take any step toward settling this question, John Evans, a young Welshman, lately appointed deputy-governor by Penn, arrived in Philadelphia (December, 1703). The new-comer at once called both assemblies together, directing them to sit in Philadelphia in April, 1704, in utter disregard of the agreement of separation. He renewed Hamilton’s efforts to effect again a legislative union, and also failed, not because the Delaware members were opposed to it, but because now the Pennsylvania representatives, probably disgusted with the obstinacy of the former, absolutely refused to have anything to do with them. Governor Evans took this refusal very ill and resented it in various ways, by which the state of affairs was brought to such a pass that neither this nor the next assembly, under the speakership of David Lloyd, accomplished anything of importance, but complained bitterly to Penn of his deputy. In the latter part of the same year the first assembly for the Lower Counties met in the old town of New Castle, and was called upon by Governor Evans to raise a militia out of that class of the population who were not prevented by religious scruples from bearing arms,—soldiers being then needed for the war against France and Spain. About a year later, having become reconciled with the Pennsylvania assembly of 1706, Evans persuaded the Delaware representatives to pass a law “for erecting and maintaining a fort for her Majesty’s service at the Town of New Castle upon Delaware.” This law exacted a toll in gunpowder from every vessel coming from the sea up the river.[482]

These quarrels between the governor and the assemblies were repeated every year. At one time they had for ground the refusal of the Quakers to support the war which was waging against the French and Indians on the frontiers. At another they disagreed upon the establishment of a judiciary. These disturbances produced financial disruptions, and Penn himself suffered therefrom to such an extent that he was thrown into a London prison, and had finally to mortgage his province for £6,600. The recall of Evans, in 1709, and the appointment of Charles Gookin in his stead, did not mend matters. Logan, Penn’s intimate friend and representative, was finally compelled to leave the country; and, going to England (1710), he induced Penn to write a letter to the Pennsylvania assembly, in which he threatened to sell the province to the crown, a surrender by which he was to receive £12,000. The transfer was in fact prevented by an attack of apoplexy from which Penn suffered in 1712. The epistle, however, brought the refractory assembly to terms. After exacting a concession of their right to sit on their own adjournment, they consented to the establishment of a judiciary, without, however, a court of appeal, and finally yielded to passing votes to defray the expenses of government. They even gave £2,000 to the crown in aid of the war. Affairs went smoothly under Gookin’s administration until, in 1714, the governor, whose mind is supposed to have been impaired, began the quarrel again by complaining about his scanty salary and the irregularity of payments. He also insisted foolishly upon the illegality of affirmation; foolishly, because the Quakers, who would not allow any other kind of oath, were the dominant party in the province.[483] Not satisfied with the commotion he had stirred up, he suddenly turned upon his friend Logan, and had now not only the anti-Penn faction, but also Penn’s adherents, to contend with. The last ill-advised step resulted in his recall (1717) and the appointment of Sir William Keith, the last governor commissioned by Penn himself; for the great founder of Pennsylvania died in 1718.

While after Penn’s death his heirs went to law among themselves about the government and proprietary rights in Pennsylvania, Governor Keith, who as surveyor of customs in the southern provinces had become sufficiently familiar with Penn’s affairs, entered on the performance of his duties under the most favorable conditions. The assembly had become weary to disgust with the continuous disputes and altercations forced upon them by the last two governors, and it was therefore easily influenced by Sir William’s good address and evident effort to please. Without hesitation it voted a salary of £500 for the governor, and acted upon his suggestion to examine the state of the laws, some of which were obsolete or had expired by their own limitations. The province was somewhat disturbed by the lawsuit of the family for the succession, finally settled in favor of Penn’s children by his second wife, and by a war of the southern Indians with the Susquehanna and New York tribes; but nothing marred the relations between governor and legislature. Under the speakership of James Trent, later chief justice of New Jersey (where the city of Trenton was named after him),[484] an act for the advancement of justice and more certain administration thereof, a measure of great importance to the province, passed the previous year (1718), became a law by receiving the royal assent. Governor Keith’s proposal in 1720 to establish a Court of Chancery met with unqualified approval by the assembly. Under the next governor this court “came to be considered as so great a nuisance” that after a while it fell into disuse.

In 1721 the first great council which the Five Nations ever held with the white people outside of the province of New York and at any other place than Albany, N. Y., took place at Conestoga, and the disputes which had threatened the outlying settlements with the horrors of Indian war were amicably settled. The treaty of friendship made here was confirmed the next year at a council held at Albany, as in the mean time the wanton murder of an Iroquois by some Pennsylvania traders had somewhat strained the mutual relations.

The commercial and agricultural interests of the province began to suffer about this time for want of a sufficient quantity of a circulating medium. Divers means of relief were proposed, among them the issue of bills of credit. Governor Keith and the majority of the traders, merchants, and farmers were enchanted with the notion of fiat money, and overlooked or were unwilling to profit by the experiences of other provinces which had already suffered from the mischievous consequences of such a measure. The result was that, after considerable discussion, turning not so much upon the bills of credit themselves as upon the mode of issuing them and the method of guarding against their depreciation, the emission of £15,000 was authorized, despite the order of the king in council of May 19, 1720, which forbade all the governors of the colonies in America to pass any laws sanctioning the issue of bills of credit. It would lead us too far beyond the limits of this chapter to inquire whether, as Dr. Douglass, of Boston, suggested in 1749, the assembly ordering this emission of £15,000 bills of credit, and another of £30,000 in the same year, was “a legislature of debtors, the representatives of people who, from incogitancy, idleness, and profuseness, have been under a necessity of mortgaging their lands.” All the safeguards thrown around such a currency to prevent its depreciation proved in the end futile. The acts creating this debt of £45,000[485] provided for its redemption a pledge of real estate in fee simple of double the value, recorded in an office created for that purpose. The money so lent out was to be repaid into the office annually, in such instalments as would make it possible to sink the whole original issue within a certain number of years. In the first three years the sinking and destruction of the redeemed bills went on as directed by law; but under its operation the community found itself suffering from the contraction, although only about one seventh of the debt had been paid. The legislature, therefore, passed a law (1726) directing that the bills should not be destroyed, as the former acts required, but that, during the following eight years, they should be reissued. The population of the province, growing by natural increase and by immigration, seeming to require a larger volume of currency, a new emission of £30,000 was ordered in 1729 under the provisions of the laws of 1723. In 1731 the law of 1726 was reënacted, to prevent disasters which threatened the farmer as well as the merchant, and to avoid making new acts for emitting more bills. In 1739 the amount of bills in circulation, £68,890, was increased to £80,000, equal to £50,000 sterling, because the legislature had discovered that the former sum fell “short of a proper medium for negotiating the commerce and for the support of the government.” They justified this step, and tried to explain why a pound of Pennsylvania currency was of so much less value than a pound sterling by asserting that the difference arose only from the balance of Pennsylvania’s trade with Great Britain, which was in favor of the former, since more English goods found their way here now that bills of credit had become the fashion. The act of 1739 had made the bills then in circulation irredeemable for a short term of years, which in 1745 was extended to sixteen years more under the following modifications: the first ten years, up to 1755, no bill was to be redeemed, or, if redeemed, was to be reissued; after 1755 one sixth of the whole amount was to be paid in yearly and the bills were to be destroyed. In 1746 a further issue of £5,000 for the king’s use was ordered, to be sunk in ten yearly instalments of £500 each, and in 1749 Pennsylvania currency, valued in 1723 at thirteen shillings sterling per pound, had, like all other colonial money, so far depreciated that a pound was equal to eleven shillings and one and one third pence.[486]

When the limit of the year 1755 was reached many of the bills of credit had become so torn and defaced that the assembly ordered £10,000 in new bills to be exchanged for the old ones. In the mean time the French war had begun, and to support the troops sent over from England £60,000 were issued in bills to be given to the king’s use.

By this time Pennsylvania had become so largely in debt as to make her taxes burdensome. Notwithstanding a hesitation to increase the volume of indebtedness, her assembly felt called upon by reason of the war to contribute her share of the cost of it, and in September, 1756, a further issue of £30,000 was authorized under a law which provided for the redemption of the bills in ten years by an excise on wine, liquor, etc. If this excise should bring in more than was necessary, the “overplus” was to go into the hands of the king.[487]

Governor Keith took care to increase his popularity with the assembly, and thereby to advance his own personal interest in a greater degree than was compatible with his allegiance to the proprietary’s family. Having managed to free himself from the control of the council, who were men respecting their oaths and friends of the Penn family, he incurred the displeasure of the widow of the great Quaker, and in 1726 was superseded by Patrick Gordon. Keith and his friend David Lloyd had vainly endeavored to persuade Hannah Penn that her views concerning the council’s participation in legislative matters were erroneous, and that the council was in fact created for ornamental purposes and to be spectators of the governor’s actions. This opinion of Keith was of course in opposition to the instructions which he had received. Fully to understand the condition of affairs, we must remember that the government of this colony was as much the private property of the proprietary as the soil; and that in giving instructions to his deputy and establishing a council to assist the deputy by their advice, the proprietary did no more than a careful business man would do when compelled to absent himself from his place of business,—or at least such were the views of the Penns.

The even tenor of political life in Pennsylvania, the greater part of whose inhabitants were either Quakers, religiously opposed to any kind of strife, or Germans, totally ignorant of the modes of constitutional government, was somewhat disturbed during the first two or three years of Gordon’s administration by Keith’s intrigue as a member of the assembly, to which he was soon chosen. We are told that he endeavored by “all means in his power to divide the inhabitants, embarrass the administration, and distress the proprietary family.” He grew, however, as unpopular as he had been popular; and when he finally returned to England, where he died about 1749, the colony again enjoyed quiet for several years.

Governor Gordon had in his earlier life been bred to arms, and he had served in the army with considerable repute until the end of Queen Anne’s reign. As a soldier he had learned the value of moderation; and not forgetting it in civil life, his administration was distinguished by prudence and a regard for the interests of the province, while his peaceful Indian policy secured for the colony a period of almost unprecedented prosperity. Planted in 1682, nearly fifty years later than her neighbors, Pennsylvania could boast in 1735 that her chief city, Philadelphia, was the second in size in the colonies, and her white population larger than that of Virginia, Maryland, and the Carolinas.

The death of Hannah Penn, the widow of the first proprietor, in 1733, threatened to put a sudden stop to Gordon’s rule, since the assembly, deeming his authority to be derived from Hannah Penn, and to end with her death, refused him obedience. The arrival of a new commission, executed by John, Thomas, and Richard Penn, quickly settled this question, as well as another point. The king’s approval of it reserved specially to the crown the government of the Lower Counties, if it chose to claim it. Of the progress in Gordon’s time towards the settlement of the disputed boundary with Maryland, the recital is given in another chapter.[488]

Upon Gordon’s death, in 1736, James Logan, the lifelong friend of Penn, succeeded as president of the council, but gave place, after two uneventful years, to the new governor, George Thomas, who had been formerly a planter in the island of Antigua.

A promise of continued quiet was harshly disturbed when the governor authorized the enrolment of bought or indented servants in the militia. Opposed to the use of military arms under all conditions, the Quakers who owned these enrolled servants, of whom 276 had been taken, were still more aggrieved by having their own property appropriated to such uses. The assembly finally voted the sum of £2,588 to compensate the owners for the loss of their chattels, but the feeling engendered by the governor’s action was not soothed. The relations between governor and assembly became strained; the governor refusing to give his assent to acts passed by the assembly, and the latter neglecting to vote a salary for the governor. This condition of affairs may have led to the serious election riots which disturbed Philadelphia in 1742. The governor, who had only received £500 of his salary, began to be embarrassed, and was in the end induced by his straits to assent to bills beyond the pale of his instructions, while the assembly soothed him by no longer withholding his salary. In this way good feeling and quiet were restored, and when, in 1747, he decided to resign, the regret of the assembly was unfeigned.

After a short interregnum, during which Anthony Palmer, as president of the council, ruled the province, James Hamilton was appointed deputy-governor by the proprietors, Richard and Thomas Penn. He entered upon his duties with good omens. He was born in the country, and his father had somewhat earlier enjoyed an eminence from the result of the Zenger trial such as no lawyer in America had enjoyed before. For a while the assembly and Hamilton were mutually pleased; but as, in time, he withheld his assent to bills that infringed the proprietary’s right to the interest of loans, the assembly was arrayed against him, and rendered his position so unpleasant that in 1753 he sent to England his resignation, to take effect in a year. His place was taken by Robert Hunter Morris, son of the chief justice of New Jersey, who was, like Hamilton, a man thoroughly conscientious and conversant with the political life in the colonies. Very early in his term he came in conflict with the assembly on a money bill, which his instructions would not allow him to sign. Hampered by these orders, he was unable to rely upon his judgment or feelings and to act independently; hence very soon, in 1756, he resigned, and retired to New Jersey, where he died in 1764.

The state of affairs under the next governor, William Denny, is shown by a passage in one of his early messages. “Though moderation is most agreeable to me,” he says to the assembly, “there might have been a governor who would have told you, the whole tenor of your message was indecent, frivolous, and evasive.” Again the instructions were the cause of all trouble. The governor was in duty bound to withhold his assent from every act for the emission of bills of credit that did not subject the money to the joint disposal of the governor and assembly, and from every act increasing the amount of bills of credit or confirming existing issues, unless a provision directed that the rents of proprietary lands were to be paid in sterling money, while the taxes on these lands could not become a lien on the same. The treasury of the province was on the verge of complete bankruptcy, when the governor rejected a bill levying £100,000 on all real and personal property, including the proprietary lands. Seeing no other way out of the dilemma, the assembly amended their bill by exempting the proprietary interests from taxation, but they sought their revenge by sending an agent, Benjamin Franklin, to England to represent their grievances to the crown. Franklin reached London in July, 1757, and entered immediately upon a quarrel with the proprietors respecting their rights, from which he issued as victor. Denny, tired of the struggle, and in need of money, finally disobeyed his instructions, gave his assent to obnoxious bills, and was recalled, to give way to Hamilton, who in 1759 was again installed.

Hamilton went through his second term without strife. There were too many external dangers to engage the assembly’s attention. Parliament, in anticipation of a Spanish war, had appropriated £200,000 for fortifying the colony posts; the assembly took the province’s share of it, £26,000, and made ready to receive the Spanish privateers, to whose attacks by the Delaware the country lay invitingly open. The danger was not so great as it seemed. In 1763 Hamilton was superseded by John Penn, the son of Richard and grandson of William Penn.

During these later years, Pennsylvania could justly be called the most flourishing of the English colonies. A fleet of four hundred sail left Philadelphia yearly with the season’s produce. The colony’s free population numbered 220,000 souls, and of these possibly half were German folk, who had known not a little of Old World oppression; one sixth were Quakers, more than a sixth were Presbyterians, another sixth were Episcopalians, and there were a few Baptists. The spirit and tenets of the first framers of its government, as the Quakers had been, were calculated to attract the attention of oppressed sectaries everywhere, and bodies of many diversified beliefs, from different parts of Europe, flocked to the land, took up their abodes, and are recognized in their descendants to-day. Conspicuous among these immigrants were those of the sect called Unitas Fratrum, United Brethren, or Moravians, who settled principally in the present county of Northampton. Though they labored successfully among the Indians in making converts, it was rare that they succeeded in uniting to their communion any of their Christian neighbors. The Moravians had been preceded by a sect of similar tenets, the adherents of Schwenckfeld. They had come to Pennsylvania in 1732 and mostly settled in the present county of Montgomery. Still earlier a sort of German Baptists, called Dunkers, Tunkers, or Dumplers, coming to America between 1719 and 1729, had found homes in Lancaster County. Another sect of Baptists, the followers of Menno Simon, or Mennonists,—like the Friends, opposed to taking oaths and bearing arms,—had begun to make their way across the ocean as early as 1698, induced thereto by information derived from Penn himself. Like the Dunkers, they chose Lancaster County for their American homes.

But there were other motives than religious ones. There came many Welsh, Irish, and Scotch farmers. The Welsh were a valuable stock; the same cannot be said of the Irish, who began to come in 1719, and continued to arrive in such large numbers that special legislation in regard to them was required in 1729. An act laying a duty on foreigners and Irish servants imported into the province was passed May 10, 1729. This act was repealed, but many features of it were embodied in an act of the following year, imposing a duty on persons convicted of heinous crimes, and preventing poor and impotent persons being imported into the province. It must be acknowledged that the Catholic religion, professed by these immigrants, had not a little to do with the temper of the legislation which restrained them, in a colony which had been modelled on the principles of religious freedom. It was not assuring, on the other hand, for the legislators to discover that the sympathy which the Roman priests showed for the French enemies of the province foreboded mischief.

It has been told in a previous chapter how New Jersey passed from the state of a conquered province to that of a proprietary or settled colony, and how little the change of dynasty in England affected the public affairs of this section of the middle colonies. The proprietors of East New Jersey had grown weary of governing the province, and in April, 1688, had drawn up an act surrendering their share. The revolutionary disturbances in England which soon followed prevented action upon this surrender; but when, at the beginning of the next century, the proprietors of West New Jersey also showed themselves willing to surrender the burden and cares of government to the crown, the Lords of Trade gave it as their opinion that no sufficient form of government had ever been formed in New Jersey, that many inconveniences and disorders had been the result of the proprietors’ pretence of right to govern, and advised the Law Lords to accept the surrender. The proprietors reserved to themselves all their rights in the soil of the province, while they abandoned the privilege of governing. East and West New Jersey, now become again one province, was to be ruled by a governor, a council of twelve members appointed by the crown, and twenty-four assembly-men elected by the freeholders. The governor was given the right of adjourning and dissolving the assembly at pleasure, and of vetoing any act passed by council and assembly, his assent being subject to the approval or dissent of the king.

When surrendering in 1701 their rights of government, the proprietors recommended, for the office of royal governor, Andrew Hamilton, their representative in the colony, in whose ability and integrity they had the fullest confidence, and who during his previous terms as governor had also won the admiration and reverence of the governed. Intrigues against Hamilton, instituted by two influential proprietors, Dockwra and Sonmans, and by Colonel Quary, of Pennsylvania, resulted in Hamilton’s defeat and the appointment of Edward Hyde, Lord Cornbury, who was already governor of New York. Cornbury published his commission in New Jersey on the 11th of August, 1703, and inaugurated, by his way of dealing with the affairs of the colony, the same series of violent contests between the governor and the people, represented by the assembly, that had served under him to keep New York unsettled. Complaints made by the proprietors against him in England had no effect, although he had clearly violated his instructions, by unseating three members of the assembly; by making money the proper qualification for election to the same, instead of land; and by allowing an act taxing unprofitable and waste land to become a law. His successor, John, Lord Lovelace, appointed early in 1708, arrived in New York early in December of the same year. He had various schemes for the improvement of both colonies, but it is doubtful whether his previous position of cornet in the royal horse-guards had fitted him for administrative and executive work. A disease was, moreover, already fastened upon him, which in a few months carried him off. His successor, Major Richard Ingoldsby, is best described by Bellomont, under whom he had previously served in New York. “Major Ingoldesby has been absent from his post four years,” says Bellomont in a letter to the Lords of Trade, October 17, 1700, “and is so brutish as to leave his wife and children here to starve. Ingoldesby is of a worthy family, but is a rash, hot-headed man, and had a great hand in the execution of Leisler and Milburn, for which reason, if there were no other, he is not fit to serve in this country, having made himself hatefull to the Leisler party.” Cornbury understood the man so fully that he would not allow him to act as lieutenant-governor of either New York or New Jersey, to which office he had been appointed in 1704. Ingoldsby’s commission as lieutenant-governor was revoked in 1706, but he was admitted as a member of the council for New Jersey. It seems that the order revoking the commission was not sent out to New York in 1706, for upon Lord Lovelace’s death he assumed the government, and acted so brutally that, when news of it reached England, a new order of revocation was issued. In the short interval before the arrival of his successor, Governor Robert Hunter, who published his commission in New Jersey in the summer of 1710, Ingoldsby had managed to get into conflict with the assembly, largely formed of members from the Society of Friends, and brought about the state of affairs which we may call usual in all the British colonies ruled by a governor appointed by the king, and by an assembly elected by the people. Hunter must be termed the first satisfactory governor of New Jersey. Early in his administration he met with opposition from those who so far had slavishly followed the royal governor. These opponents were the council of the province, who objected to every measure which Governor Hunter, advised by Lewis Morris and other influential members of the Quaker or country party, deemed necessary for the public good. The council was entirely under the thumb of Secretary Jeremiah Basse, who, having been an Anabaptist minister, agent in England for the West Jersey Society, governor of East and West Jersey, had shared in the obloquy attached to Lord Cornbury’s administration. Public business threatened to come to a standstill, as the home authorities were slow in acting on recommendations to remove the obnoxious members of the council. Hunter constantly prorogued the assembly of New Jersey; “it being absolutely needless to meet the assembly so long as the council is so constituted,” he writes to the Lords of Trade, June 23, 1712, “for they have avowedly opposed the government in most things, and by their influence obstructed the payment of a great part of the taxes.” But it was not until August, 1713, that the queen approved of the removal of William Pinhorn, Daniel Coxe, Peter Sonmans, and William Hall from the council, in whose places John Anderson, a wealthy trader and farmer of Perth Amboy, John Hamilton, postmaster-general of North America, and John Reading, of West Jersey, were appointed. William Morris, recommended in place of Sonmans, had died meanwhile. Sonmans stole and took out of the province all public records, and, having gone to England with his booty, he used the papers to injure Governor Hunter in the estimation of the people of New Jersey, while “our men of noise” agitated against him in the province and in its assembly. No effort was spared to prevent a renewal of Hunter’s commission in 1714, and when he was reappointed notwithstanding, Coxe, Sonmans, and their friends had so inflamed the “lower rank of people that only time and patience, or stronger measures, could allay the heat.” At last it became an absolute necessity to summon the assembly again, and an act “for fixing the sessions of assembly in the Jersies at Burlington” was passed in 1715, which became the cause of incessant attacks upon the governor by Coxe and his party. Hunter, seeing the wheels of government stopped by the factious absence of Coxe and his friends from the legislative sessions, said to the assembly, May 19, 1716: “Whereas, it is apparent and evident that there is at present a combination amongst some of your members to disappoint and defeat your meetings as a house of representatives by their wilful absenting themselves from the service of their country ... I have judged it absolutely necessary ... to require you forthwith to meet as a house of representatives, and to take the usual methods to oblige your fellow members to pay their attendance.” The assembly, like a sensible body, aware that Governor Hunter had always acted with justice and moderation, answered his appeal to them by expelling on the 23d of May their speaker, Coxe, as a man whose study it had been to disturb the quiet and tranquillity of the province, and such other members as did not attend and could not be found by the sergeant-at-arms of the house.

Coxe did not consider himself vanquished. An appeal to the king followed. Coxe charged Hunter with illegal acts of every kind, and his petition was numerously signed; but the council certified that his subscribers were “for the most part the lowest and meanest of the people,” and the king sustained and commended the governor. When, a few years later, Hunter resolved to return to Europe to recover his health at the baths of Aix-la-Chapelle, he could with pride assert that the provinces governed by him “were in perfect peace, to which both had long been strangers.”

William Burnet, who succeeded his friend Hunter, was not so amiable a man, and showed the airs of personal importance too much to suit the Quaker spirit which prevailed among the New Jersey people. He needed money to live upon, however, and there was something of the Jacobite opposition in the province for him to suppress. He had difficulty at first in getting the assembly to pass other than temporary bills; but in 1722 the governor and assembly had reached an understanding, and Burnet passed through the rest of his term without much conflict with the legislature, and when transferred to the chair of Massachusetts, in 1728, he turned over the government in a quiet condition, and with few or no wounds unhealed.

The most notable event during the three years’ term of his successor, Montgomerie, was the renewal of an effort, already attempted in Burnet’s time, but defeated by him, to have New Jersey made again a government separate from New York. “By order of the house 4th 5mo, 1730,” John Kinsey, Junr., speaker, signed a petition to the king for a separate governor. Montgomerie died July 1, 1731, and Lewis Morris, as president of the council, governed till September, 1732, when Cosby, the new governor, arrived. The grand jury of Middlesex tried to further the attempt for a separate government in 1736, but nothing was done till Cosby died, when Morris, whom Cosby had shamefully maligned, received the appointment from a grateful king, and New Jersey was again possessed of a separate governor.

Governor Morris published his commission at Amboy on the 29th of August, 1738; at Burlington a few days later. The council, with the assembly, expressed the thanks and joy of the people in unmeasured terms, prophetically seeing trade and commerce flourish and justice more duly and speedily administered under the new rule. The pleasant relations between the governor and the representatives of the people which these expressions of satisfaction seemed to foreshadow were not to be of long duration. “There is so much insincerity and ignorance among the people, ... and so strong an inclination in the meanest of the people to have the sole direction of all the affairs of the government,” writes Morris to his friend Sir Charles Wager, one of the treasury lords, May 10, 1739, “that it requires much more temper, skill, and constancy to overcome these difficulties than fall to every man’s share.” Under these influences, Morris, the former leader of the popular party, betrayed them, and tried to obey his instructions to the very letter. Following the example set by Cosby, of New York, in regard to the salary of an absent governor and a present lieutenant-governor or president of the council, he began to quarrel with John Hamilton, who as president had temporarily acted as governor. Fortunately for Morris’s reputation, this case did not grow into such a public scandal as the Cosby-Van Dam case, mentioned above, and was quietly settled in the proper way. The assembly, having early discovered that Morris was not an easy man to deal with, tried to discipline him by interfering with the disposal of the revenue granted for the support of the government, and finally refused to pass supply bills unless the governor disobeyed his instructions and assented to bills enacted by them. The wheels of the governmental machinery threatened to come to a standstill for want of money, when Morris, after an illness of some weeks, died at Trenton on the 21st of May, 1746, leaving the government of the province to his whilom adversary. John Hamilton, as president of the council, who was then already suffering from ill health, prorogued the assembly, then sitting at Trenton, and reconvened them at Perth Amboy, his own home. Relieved of their political enemy, Morris, the assembly became more amenable to reason, and during Hamilton’s brief administration “chearfully made provision for raising 500 men” for the Canada expedition, and lent the government £10,000 to arm and equip the New Jersey contingent. Hamilton soon succumbed to his disease, and died June 17, 1747. When John Reading, another member of the council, succeeded to power, his administration of a few months was mainly signalized by riots at Perth Amboy,—in which Reading was roughly handled. These disturbances were caused by an act to vacate and annul grants of land and to divest owners of property which had been bought some years before from the Indians.

Jonathan Belcher, after being removed in 1741[489] from the executive office of Massachusetts, had gone to England, where, with the assistance of his brother-in-law, Richard Partridge, the agent at court for New Jersey, he obtained the appointment of governor of this province. When he first met the council and assembly of New Jersey, on the 20th of August, 1747, he said to them, “I shall strictly conform myself to the king’s commands and to the powers granted me therein, as also to the additional authorities contained in the king’s royal orders to me, and from these things I think you will not desire me to deviate.” Belcher had not yet had occasion to arouse the anger of the assembly, when the latter, at their first session, of unusual long duration (fourteen weeks), already showed their distrust of him by voting his salary for one year only, and not “a penny more” than to the late governor, who had “harast and plagued them sufficiently.” Belcher was too well inured to colonial politics openly to manifest his anger at such treatment, or to tell the assembly that he considered them “very stingy,” as he called them in a letter to Partridge. His administration gave evidence of his ability to yield gracefully up to the limits of his instructions; but when a conflict with his assembly could not be avoided, he faced it stubbornly. On the whole, his rule resulted in a much-needed quiet for the province, which was only briefly disturbed by the riots already mentioned, which had begun before Belcher’s arrival. The members of the assembly, who depended largely for their election on the votes of these rioters, sympathized with the lawless element in Essex and other counties; but in the end wiser counsels prevailed, and the disturbances ceased.

In another part of the province the dispute over the boundary line with New York, as it affected titles of land, was also a source of agitation, which in Belcher’s time was the cause of constant remonstrance and appeal and of legislative intervention, but he left the question unsettled, a legacy of disturbance for later composition.

Age and a paralytic disorder, which even the electrical apparatus that Franklin sent to Belcher could not remove, ended Belcher’s life on the 31st of August, 1757, leaving the government in the hands of Thomas Pownall, who, on account of Belcher’s age and infirmity, had been appointed lieutenant-governor in 1755. Pownall was at the time of Belcher’s death also governor of Massachusetts. After a short visit to New Jersey he found “that the necessity of his majesty’s service in the government of the Massachusetts Bay” required his return to Boston, and his absence brought the active duties of the executive once more upon Reading, as senior counsellor, who, through age and illness, was little disposed towards the burden.

The arrival, on the 15th of June, 1758, of Francis Bernard, bearing a commission as governor, relieved Reading of his irksome duties. Bernard had, during his short term, the satisfaction of pacifying the Indians by a treaty made at Easton in October, 1758. The otherwise uneventful term of his administration was soon ended by his transfer to Massachusetts. His successor, Thomas Boone, after an equally short and uneventful term, was replaced by Josiah Hardy, and the latter by William Franklin, the son of the great philosopher. The latter had secured his appointment through Lord Bute, but nothing can be said in this chapter of his administration, which, beginning in 1762, belongs to another volume.[490]

The possible injury which a development of the manufacturing interests in the colonies might inflict on like interests in Great Britain agitated the mind of the English manufacturer at an early date. Already in Dutch times this question of manufactures in the province of New Netherland had been settled rather peremptorily by an order of the Assembly of the Nineteen, which made it a felony to engage in the making of any woollen, linen, or cotton cloth. The English Parliament, perhaps influenced by the manufacturers among their constituents, or not willing to appear as legislating in the interest of money, declared, in 1719, “that the erecting of manufactories in the colonies tends to lessen their dependence on Great Britain,” and a prohibition similar to that of the Dutch authorities was enacted. During the whole colonial period this feeling of jealousy interfered with the development of industries and delayed their growth. Whatever England could not produce was expected to be made here, such as naval stores, pearlash and potash, and silks; but the English manufacturer strenuously set himself in opposition to any colonial enterprise which affected his own profits.

Shipbuilding and the saw-mill had early sprung from the domestic necessities of the people. The Dutch had made the windmill a striking feature in the landscape of New York. The people of Pennsylvania had been the earliest in the middle colonies to establish a press, and it had brought the paper-mill in its train, though after a long interval; for it was not till 1697 that the manufacture of paper began near Philadelphia, and not till thirty years later (1728) was the second mill established at Elizabethtown in New Jersey. The Dutch had begun the making of glass in New York city, near what is now Hanover Square, and in Philadelphia it was becoming an industry as early as 1683; though if one may judge from the use of oiled paper in the first houses of Germantown, the manufacture of window-glass began later. Wistar, a palatine, erected a glass-house near Salem, in West New Jersey, in 1740, and Governor Moore, of New York, in 1767, says of a bankrupt glass-maker in New York that his ill success had come of his imported workmen deserting him after he had brought them over from Europe at great cost.

The presence of iron ore in the hills along the Hudson had been known to the Dutch, but they had made no attempt to work the mines, relying probably to some extent upon Massachusetts, where “a good store of iron” was manufactured from an early date. Towards the end of the seventeenth century, when the ore was tried, the founders discovered the iron to be too brittle to encourage its use. Lieutenant-Governor Clarke tried to arouse interest for the iron industry in 1737, and induced the general assembly to consider the advisability of encouraging proprietors of iron-works; but the movement came to nothing, and Parliament did what it could to thwart all such purposes by enacting a law “to encourage the importation of pig and bar iron from his Majesty’s Colonies in America, and to prevent the erection of any Mill or other Engine for Slitting or Rolling of Iron; or any plating Forge to work with a Tilt Hammer; or any Furnace for making Steel in any of the said Colonies.” When this act was passed in 1750 only a single plating-forge existed in the province of New York, at Wawayanda, Orange County, which had been built about 1745, and was not in use at the time. Two furnaces and several blomaries had been established about the same time in the manor of Cortland, Westchester County, but a few years had sufficed to bring their business to a disastrous end.

In 1757 the province could show only one iron-work at Ancram, which produced nothing but pig and bar iron. At this same establishment, owned by the Livingstons, in the present Columbia County, many a cannon was cast some years later to help in the defence of American liberties. In 1766 we find a little foundry established in New York for making small iron pots, but its operations had not yet become very extensive.

The first iron-works in New Jersey seem to have been opened by an Englishman, James Grover, who had become dissatisfied with the rule of the Dutch and the West India Company, and had removed from Long Island to Shrewsbury, New Jersey, where he and some iron-workers from Massachusetts set up one of the first forges in the province.

In 1676 the Morris family, which later became so prominent in colonial politics, was granted a large tract of land near the Raritan River, with the right “to dig, delve, and carry away all such mines for iron as they shall find” in that tract. The smelting-furnace and forge mentioned in an account of the province by the proprietors of East New Jersey, in 1682, employing both whites and blacks, was probably on the Morris estate. The mineral treasures of the province, however, remained on the whole undiscovered at the end of the century; but in the following century several blomary forges and one charcoal-furnace were erected in Warren County, the latter of which was still running twenty-five years ago. Penn had early learned of the richness of his province in iron and copper, though no attempt was made to mine them till 1698. At this early period Gabriel Thomas mentions the discovery of mineral ores, which were probably found in the Chester County of that day, and the first iron-works in the province were built in that region. Governor Keith owned iron-works in New Castle County (Delaware) between 1720 and 1730, and had such good opinion of the iron industry in the colonies that he considered them capable of supplying, if sufficiently encouraged, the mother country with all the pig and bar iron needed.

In 1718 we read of iron-works forty miles up the Schuylkill River, probably the Coventry forge, on French Creek, in Chester County; also of a forge in Berks or Montgomery County, which in 1728 became the scene of an Indian attack. The mineral wealth of Lancaster County soon attracted the attention of the thrifty Germans who had settled there. In 1728 this county had two or more furnaces in blast, and the number of them in the province increased rapidly up to the time of the Revolution.

Upon the Delaware, the Dutch and Swedes seem to have neglected the ores of silver, copper, iron, and other minerals, which they did not fail to discover existed in that region; but an Englishman, Charles Pickering, who lived in Charlestown, Chester County, Pennsylvania, appears to have been the earliest to mine copper, and was on trial in 1683 on the charge of uttering base coin. A letter written by Governor Morris, of New Jersey, to Thomas Penn in 1755, speaks of a copper-mine at the Gap in Lancaster County, which had been discovered twenty years previous by a German miner.

It was New Jersey, however, which led in the working of copper ore. Arent Schuyler, belonging to a Dutch family of Albany, New York, prominent in politics and in other matters, had removed in 1710 to a farm purchased at New Barbadoes Neck, on the Passaic River, near Newark. There one of his negroes re-discovered a copper-mine, known to the Dutch and probably worked before by them, asking as a reward for it all the tobacco he could smoke, and the permission “to live with massa till I die.” The ore taken from this mine proved to be so very rich in metal, copper and silver, that Parliament placed it on the list of enumerated articles, in order to secure it for the British market. Arent Schuyler’s son John introduced into the middle colonies the first steam-engine, requiring it to keep his copper-mine free from water. The copper-mining industry found another adherent about 1750 in Elias Boudinot, who opened a pit near New Brunswick, and erected there a stamping-mill, the products of which were sent to England and highly valued there. When Governor Hunter, in a letter to the Lords of Trade, November 12, 1715, speaks of “a copper mine here brought to perfection,” he undoubtedly refers to a New Jersey or Pennsylvania undertaking, for five years later he answers the question, “What mines are in the province of New York?” with, “Iron enough, copper but rare, lead at a great distance in the Indian settlement, coal mines on Long Island, but not yet wrought.” The coal mines, which have added so much to the wealth of Pennsylvania during the present century, had not been discovered during the period preceding the Revolution.

It has been said above that the colonies were expected to engage in the production of potash and pearlash. This was an industry already recommended as profitable by the secretary of New Netherland in 1650. The dearness of labor, however, interfered with its development, for “the woods were infinite,” and supplied all the necessary material. The attempt, about 1700, to employ Indians at this work failed, for “the Indians are so proud and lazy.” About 1710 a potash factory was established in the province of New York at the expense of an English capitalist, who found it, however, a losing investment. Not discouraged by previous failures, John Keble, of New Jersey, proposed to set up a manufacture of potash. He petitioned for authority to do so, and from his statements we learn that in 1704 Pennsylvania alone of the middle colonies exported potash, and only to the amount of 630 pounds a year. There is no information as to Keble’s success, but a memorial of London merchants to the Lords of Trade in 1729, asking that the manufacture of this important staple in the colonies might be encouraged, drew forth the opinion that not enough was thought of this industry to “draw the people from employing that part of their time (winter) in working up both Wooling and Linen Cloth.”

Tradition points to many a house, in the region originally settled by the Dutch, as having been built with bricks imported from Holland. That such was not the rule, but only an exception, in the days of the West India Company’s rule, is proved by the frequent allusion to brick-kilns on the Hudson, near Albany and Esopus, and on the Lower Delaware. For the convenience of transportation, the trade has centred in these localities to this day.

The making of salt, either by the solar process or by other means, was a necessity which appealed to the colonists at an early period. The Onondaga salt-springs had been discovered by a Jesuit about 1654, but, being then in the heart of the Indian country, they could not be worked by the French or Dutch. Coney Island had been selected in 1661 as a proper place for salt-works, but the political dissensions of the day did not allow operations to go on there. The Navigation Act of 1663, prohibiting the importation into the colonies of any manufactures of Europe except through British ports, made an exception in favor of salt. The result was that this industry was carried on in the middle colonies during the colonial period only in a few small establishments, furnishing not enough for local consumption.

When the palatines began to emigrate, and there was fear that they would carry with them the art of making woollens, Parliament in 1709 forbade such manufactures in the colonies. In 1715 the towns-people of New York and Albany, probably also of Perth Amboy, Burlington, and Philadelphia, are reported as wearing English cloth, while the poor planters are satisfied with a coarse textile of their own make. Nearly two thirds of such fabrics used in the colonies were made there, and the Lords of Trade were afraid that, if such manufacture was not stopped, “it will be of great prejudice to the trade of this kingdom.” Governor Hunter very sensibly opposed any legislation which would force the people to wear English cloth, as it would be equivalent to compelling them to go naked. A report of the Board of Trade, made in 1732, tells us that “they had no manufactures in the province of New York that deserve mentioning;... no manufactures in New Jersey that deserve mentioning.” “The deputy-governor of Pennsylvania does not know of any trade in that province that can be considered injurious to this kingdom. They do not export any woollen or linen manufactures; all that they make, which are of a coarse sort, being for their own use.”

The statements embodied in reports of this kind were made upon information acquired with difficulty, for the crown officers in the colonies interrogated an unwilling people, who saw no virtue in affording the grounds of their own business repression, and concealed or disguised the truth without much compunction of conscience; and in Massachusetts the legislative assembly had gone so far as to call to account a crown officer who had divulged to the House of Commons the facts respecting the exportation of beaver hats.

An address of the British House of Commons to the king, presented on the 27th of March, 1766, called forth a description of the textile manufactures in the province of New York at the close of the period of which this chapter treats. The Society of Arts and Agriculture of New York City had about this date established a small manufactory of linen, with fourteen looms, to give employment to several poor families, hitherto a charge upon the community. No broadcloth was then made in the province, and some poor weavers from Yorkshire, who had come over in the expectation of finding remunerative work, had been sadly disappointed. But coarse woollen goods were extensively made. One of these native textile fabrics, called linsey-woolsey, and made of linen warp and woollen woof, became a political sign during the Stamp Act excitement. People “desirous of distinguishing themselves as American patriots” would wear nothing else. The manufacture of these coarse woollens became an ordinary household occupation, and what was made in excess of family needs found its way to market. Governor Moore says, “This I had an opportunity of seeing during my late tour;... every house swarms with children, who are set to work as soon as they are able to spin and card; and as every family is furnished with a loom, the itinerant weavers, who travel about the country, put the finishing hand to the work.”

The making of beaver hats was an industry in which the colonial competition with the English hatters led to most oppressive legislation in Parliament. The middle colonies, particularly from their connection with the beaver-hunting Indians, had carried the art to a degree which produced a cheaper if not a better covering for the head than was made in England, and they found it easy to market them in the West Indies, where they excluded the English-made article. Accordingly the export of hats from England fell off so perceptibly that in 1731 the “Master Wardens and Assistants of the Company of Feltmakers of London” petitioned the Lords of Trade to order that the inhabitants of the colonies should wear no hats but such as were made in Great Britain. The prayer was denied, but Parliament was induced, in 1732, to forbid the exportation of hats from American ports.

But most trades in the colonies failed of the natural protection which arises from cheap labor, while the opportunities of acquiring lands and establishing homes with ample acres about them served further to increase the difficulties of competition with the Old World, in that artisans were attracted by lures of this kind to the new settlements, and away from the shops of the towns.

The commerce of the colonies easily fell into four different channels: one took produce to England, or to such foreign lands as the navigation laws permitted; the second bound the colonies one with the other in the bonds of reciprocal trade; a third was opened with the Indians; and the fourth embraced all that surreptitious venture which was known as smuggling.

The ports of New York and Philadelphia absorbed the foreign and transatlantic trade of the middle colonies, notwithstanding the efforts which New Jersey made to draw a share of it to Perth Amboy. Before Governor Dongan’s time, ships coming to Amboy had to make entry at New York, as it was feared that goods brought to the New Jersey port and not paying New York duties might be smuggled to New York by way of Staten Island. “Two or three ships came in there [at Amboy] last year,” writes Governor Dongan in 1687, “with goods, and I am sure that country cannot, even with West Jersey, consume £1,000 in goods in 2 years, so that the rest must have been run into this colony.” Some years later the Lords of Trade decided that the charter did not give to either West or East Jersey the right to a port of entry, but she, nevertheless, in due time obtained the right to open such ports at Amboy and Burlington. The displeasure of the New York authorities was manifest in the refusal of their governor to make proclamation of such decree, and the larger province was strong enough occasionally to seize a vessel bound for Amboy. New Jersey could protest; but her indignation was in vain, and she never succeeded in establishing a lucrative commerce. How steadily the commerce of her neighbor increased is shown in the record that in 1737 New York had 53 ships with an aggregate of 3,215 tons; in 1747, there were 99 ships of 4,313 tons; and in 1749, 157 with a capacity of 6,406 tons. The records of the New York custom-house show that the articles imported from abroad or from the other British colonies on this continent and from the West Indies were principally rum, madeira wine, cocoa, European goods, and occasionally a negro slave,[491] while the exports of the colonies were fish and provisions.

New Jersey had little Atlantic trade, since New York and Philadelphia could import for her all the European and West India goods which she needed. In intercolonial trade, however, she had a large share, and she supplied her neighbors with cereals, beef, and horses. New York, on the contrary, was sometimes pressed to prevent certain exportations, when she needed all her productions herself, as was sometimes the case with cereals. This intercolonial trade naturally grew in the main out of the products of the several colonies; while for their Indian trade, they were compelled to use what the avidity of the natives called for,—blankets, weapons, rum, and the trinkets with which the Indian was fond of adorning his person, and for all which he paid almost entirely in furs. The nature of this traffic was such, particularly in respect to the sale of arms and spirits, that legislation was often interposed to regulate it in the interest of peace and justice.

As respects the illegal or last class of commercial channels, we find that before Bellomont’s time there had grown up, as he found, “a lycencious trade with pyrats, Scotland and Curaçao,” out of which no customs revenue was obtained. As a consequence, the city and province of New York “grew rich, but the customes, they decreased.” Certain Long Island harbors became “a great Receptacle for Pirates.” The enforcement of the law gave Bellomont a chance to say, in 1700, that an examination of the entries in New York and Boston had shown him that the trade of the former port was almost half as much as that of the other, while New Hampshire ports had not the tenth part of New York, except in lumber and fish. The Philadelphia Quakers objected to fight the West Indian enemies of the crown; but they had little objection to trade with them, and to grow rich on such more peaceful intercourse.

Towards the end of the period spoken of in this chapter, a “pernicious trade with Holland” had sprung up, which the colonial governors found hard to suppress, but which was successfully checked in 1764 by the English cruisers; but shortly before the War of Independence it began again to flourish.

A diversity of trade brought in its train a great variety in the coin, which was its medium, and a generation now living can remember when the great influx of Spanish coin poured into the colonies in the last century was still in great measure a circulating medium. The indebtedness to the mother country which colonists always start with continued for a long while to drain the colonies of its specie in payment of interest and principal. As soon as their productions were allowed to find openly or clandestinely a market in the Spanish main and the West Indies, the return came in the pieces of eight, the Rix dollars, and all the other varieties of Spanish or Mexican coinage which passed current in the tropics. So far as these went to pay debts in Europe, the colonies were forced to preserve primitive habits of barter in wampum, beaver, and tobacco. By the time of Andros, foreign trade and the increasing disuse of these articles of barter had begun to familiarize the people with coin of French and Spanish mintage, and at that time pieces of eight went for six shillings, double reals for eighteen pence, pistoles for twenty-four shillings. Soon after this the metal currency began to be very much diminished in intrinsic value by the practice of clipping. Both heavy and light pieces were indiscriminately subjected to this treatment, and the price of the heavier pieces of eight advanced in consequence, so that in 1693 a standard of weight had to be established, and it was determined by a proclamation that “whole pieces of eight of the coins of Sevill, Mexico, and Pillar pieces of 15 pennyweight not plugg’d” should pass at the rate of 6 shillings; pieces of more weight to increase or lose in value 4-1/2 pence for each pennyweight more or less. Pieces of eight of Peru were made current at fourpence for each pennyweight, and Dog dollars at five shillings sixpence. English coin was of course current in the colonies, and the emigrants of that day brought their little hoard in the mintage of their European homes, instead of buying, as to-day, letters of exchange or drafts payable in a currency unknown to them. In 1753 it became necessary to enact, in New York, a law to prevent the passing of counterfeit English half-pence and farthings, and in the second half of the last century the coins mostly current, besides English ones, were the gold Johannis of eighteen pennyweight, six grains; Moidores of six pennyweight, eighteen grains; Carolines of six pennyweight, eight grains; Double Loons (Doubloons) or four Pistoles of seventeen pennyweight, eight grains; double and single Pistoles; French Guineas (louis d’ors) of five pennyweight, four grains; and Arabian Chequins of two pennyweight, four grains.

Of the middle colonies, New Jersey was the first to follow Massachusetts in issuing paper money, which she did by authorizing the issue of £3,000 in bills for the expedition against Canada in 1709.

The people of the Netherlands and the Belgic provinces had profited as little under religious persecution as the puritans and separatists of New England, to become tolerant of other faiths when in the New World they had the power of control. The laws of New Netherland were favorable only to the Protestant Reformed Dutch Church, although Swedes and Finns, who had come to New Sweden on the Delaware, were allowed to worship according to the Lutheran ritual. The directors of the West India Company, the supreme authority, did not approve of any religious intolerance, and expressed themselves forcibly to that effect when Stuyvesant tried to prosecute members of the Society of Friends. When New York and New Jersey became English provinces, complete freedom of religion was granted to them. This drew to them members of all established churches and of nearly every religious sect of Europe, the latter class largely increased by such as fled to New York from Massachusetts to enjoy religious toleration. In 1686, in New York at least, “the most prevailing opinion was that of the Dutch Calvinists.” How the Roman Catholics were treated has been shown above. The same reasons which had led to their proscription tried to impose upon the colonies the Church of England, by directing the governors not to prefer any minister to an ecclesiastical benefice unless he was of this order. This royal command to the governors of New York and New Jersey produced results which its originators probably did not contemplate. It led to the incorporation of Trinity Church in New York, with the celebrated and ever-reviving Anneke Jans trials growing out of it as a fungus, and to the creating a demand for ministers of the Anglican or Episcopal church which necessitated a school to educate them. This was the King’s College, known to us of the present day as Columbia College, chartered in 1754. The non-Episcopalians saw in this movement the fulfillment of their fears, first aroused by the Ministry Act under Governor Fletcher in 1693, tending towards the establishment of a state church. Out of this dread and out of the difficulty in obtaining ministers for the Dutch Reformed Church grew another educational institution, the Queen’s College, now known as Rutgers College, in New Brunswick, N. J. Another institution preceded it, the College of New Jersey at Princeton. This was first founded by charter from President Hamilton in 1746, and enlarged by Governor Belcher in 1747, who left, by will, to its library a considerable number of books. The proprietors of Pennsylvania, always thoughtful of the weal of their subjects, gave, in 1753, $15,000 to a charitable school and academy, founded four years before in Philadelphia by public subscription. Two years later, in 1755, it grew into the “College, Academy, and Charitable School of Philadelphia,” by an act of incorporation, and to-day it is the “University of Pennsylvania.”

Urged thereto by the founder of the independence of the Netherlands, William the Silent, Prince of Orange, the states-general had adopted in the sixteenth century the system of universal education, which, in our days, the New England States claim as their creation. Hence we find schools mentioned and schoolmasters at work from the beginning of the New Netherland; and though at first no classics were taught, even at so early a date as 1663 we read of a government schoolmaster who taught Greek and Latin. The assembly of New York passed, in 1702, an act for the encouragement of a free grammar school, and favored generally the primary education of the children of their constituents. New Jersey did not lag in the good work. In 1765 she had 192 churches of all denominations except the Roman Catholic, and we may safely suppose that a school was connected with nearly every church. The Moravians of Pennsylvania imitated the example set to them at home, and established boarding-schools at Nazareth, Bethlehem, and Litiz. The small number of schools among the “Dissenters,” as the Rev. Samuel Johnson calls all non-Episcopalians, induced him, however, to say, in 1759, that “ministers and schools are much wanted in Pennsylvania.”

[CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.]

I. The Manuscript Sources of New York History. (By Mr. Fernow.)—New York has taken the lead among the American States in the extent of the printed records of her history.[492] In the archives at Albany there are certain manuscript documents illustrating the period now under consideration deserving mention.

“When first his Royall Highnesse, the Duke of York, took possession of this Province [New York], he ... gave him [Gov^r Nicolls] certain Laws, by which the Province was to be governed.” Several copies of these, Duke’s Laws (1674), were made, and they were sent to the different districts, Long Island, Delaware, the Esopus, and Albany, into which the province was then divided.[493]

The so-called Dongan’s Laws (1683 and 1684) make a manuscript volume, containing the laws enacted by the first general assembly of the province during the years 1683 and 1684. It has upon its original parchment cover a second title, evidently written at a later date: “The Duke of York’s Charter of Liberty & Priviledges to the Inhabitants of New York, anno 1683, with Acts of Assembly of that year & the year 1684.” The laws are mainly a reënactment of the Duke’s Laws, and are now deposited in the State library. They have never been printed.

The Original Colonial Laws (1684-1775) make nineteen volumes of manuscripts, now in the office of the secretary of state at Albany, of which such as had not in the mean time expired by their own limitation were printed in 1694,[494] 1710, and 1726, by William Bradford; in 1719 by Baskett; in 1762 by Livingston and Smith; in 1768 by Parker, and in 1773 by Van Schaack. The Bradford edition of 1710 contains also the journal of the general assembly, etc.

Those Bills which failed to become Laws (1685-1732) make three volumes of manuscript, and though the measures proposed never became operative they show the drift of public opinion during the period covered by them. Several of these bills have been bound into the volumes of laws.

The student of colonial commerce and finances will find much to interest him in other manuscript volumes, now in the State library at Albany, to wit: Accounts of the Treasurer of the Province, under various titles, and covering the period from 1702 to 1776, eight volumes, and Manifest Books and Entry Books of the New York Custom House, 1728 to 1774, forty-three volumes. Much information coveted by the genealogist is hidden in the Indentures of Palatine Children, 1710 and 1711, two volumes; in forty volumes of Marriage Bonds, 1752 to 1783, of which an index was published in 1860 under the title New York Marriages; and in the records kept in the office of the clerk of the Court of Appeals,—Files of Wills, from 1694 to 1800, and of Inventories, 1727 to 1798.

Out of the 28 volumes of Council Minutes, 1668 to 1783, everything relating to the legislative business before the council has been published by the State of New York in the Journal of the Provincial Council. The unpublished parts of these records—the seven volumes of “Warrants of Survey, Licenses to Purchase Indian Lands,” 1721 to 1766, the fourteen “Books of Patents,” 1664 to 1770, the nineteen “Books of Deeds,” 1659 to 1774, and the thirty-four volumes of “Land Papers,” from 1643 to 1775—give as complete a history of the way in which the colony of New York gained its population as at this day it is possible to obtain without following the many private histories of real estate. The above-mentioned “Books of Deeds” contain papers of miscellaneous character, widely differing from deeds, such as commissions, letters of denization, licenses of schoolmasters, etc. Of the “Land Papers” a Calendar was published by the State in 1864.[495]

A public-spirited citizen of Albany, General John Tayler Cooper, enriched in 1850 the State library with twenty-two volumes of manuscripts, containing the correspondence of Sir William Johnson, the Indian commissioner. This correspondence covers the period from 1738 to 1774, and is important for the political, Indian, social, and religious history of New York. Extracts from it appeared in Dr. O’Callaghan’s Documentary History of New York (vol. ii.).[496]

Less important for the period treated of in this chapter are the Clinton Papers, especially the later series; but of the first importance in the study of the French wars are the Letters of Colonel John Bradstreet, deputy quartermaster-general, and The Letters of General Sir Jeffrey Amherst, commander-in-chief in America, dated New York, Albany, etc., from 1755 to 1771, a manuscript volume presented to the State library by the Rev. Wm. B. Sprague, D. D.[497]

An Abridgment of the Records of Indian Affairs, transacted in the Colony of New York from 1678 to 1751, with a preface by the compiler, is the work of Peter Wraxall, secretary for Indian affairs. It is a manuscript of 224 pages, dated at New York, May 10, 1754.[498] It is to be regretted that Wraxall’s complete record of these transactions has not been preserved, as the few extracts of them handed down to us in the Council Minutes and in the Documents relating to the Colonial History of New York give us a great deal of curious and interesting information.[499]

The religious life in the colony of New York during the early part of the eighteenth century, as seen from the Episcopal point of view, is well depicted in a manuscript volume (107 pp. folio), Extracts from Correspondence of the Venerable Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts with the Missionaries T. Payer, S. Seabury, and others, from 1704 to 1709.[500] The history of trade and business is likewise illustrated in the Commercial Letters of the firm P. & R. Livingston, New York and Albany, from 1733 to 1738, and of Boston and Philadelphia merchants during the same period, giving us a picture of mercantile transactions at that time which a number of account-books of N. De Peyster, treasurer of the colony and merchant in the city of New York, and of the firm of Beverley Robinson & Morrison Malcom, in Fredericksburg, now Patterson, Putnam County, N. Y., help to fill out.[501]

[II.] Cartography and Boundaries of the Middle Colonies. (By Mr. Fernow and the Editor.)—The following enumeration of maps includes, among others, those of a general character, as covering the several middle colonies jointly, and they run parallel in good part with the sequence named in an earlier section[502] on the “Cartography of Louisiana and the Mississippi Basin under the French Domination,” so that many of the maps mentioned there may be passed over or merely referred to here.[503]

There was little definite knowledge of American geography manifested by the popular gazetteers of the early part of the last century,[504] to say nothing of the strange misconceptions of some of the map-makers of the same period.[505]

A German geographer, well known in the early years of the eighteenth century, was Johann Baptist Homann, who, having been a monk, turned Protestant and cartographer, and at nearly forty years of age set up, in 1702, as a draftsman and publisher of maps at Nuremberg,[506] giving his name till his death, in 1724, to about two hundred maps.[507] Homann’s career was a successful one; he became, in 1715, a member of the Academy of Science at Berlin, and was made the official geographer of the Emperor Charles of Germany and of Peter the Great of Russia. A son succeeded to the business in 1724, and, on his death in 1730, the imprint of the family was continued by “the heirs of Homann,” at the hands of some university friends of the son. Under this authority we find a map, Die Gross Britannischen Colonial Laender in Nord-America in Special Mappen (Homannsche Erben, Nuremberg), in which nearly the whole of New York is called “Gens Iroquois,” or “Irokensium.”

Contemporary with the elder Homann, the English geographer Herman Moll was publishing his maps in London;[508] and of his drafting were the maps which accompanied Thomas Salmon’s Modern History or the State of all Nations, first issued between 1725 and 1739.[509] His map of New England and the middle colonies is not carried farther west than the Susquehanna.[510]

Mention has already been made of the great map of Henry Popple in 1732,[511] and of the maps of the contemporary French geographer D’Anville;[512] but their phenomenal labors were long in getting possession through the popular compends of the public mind. We find little of their influence, for instance, in the Gazetteer’s or Newsman’s Interpreter, being a geographical Index of all the Empires, Kingdoms, Islands, etc., in Africa, Asia, and America. By Laurence Echard, A. M., of Christ’s College, Cambridge (London, 1741).[513] In this New York is made to adjoin Maryland, and is traversed by the Hudson, Raritan, and Delaware rivers; New Jersey lies between 39 and 40° N. L., and is bounded on the east by Hudson’s Bay; and Pennsylvania lies between 40 and 43° N. L., but no bounds are given.

The French geographer’s drafts, however, were made the basis in 1752 of a map in Postlethwayt’s Dictionary of Commerce, which was entitled North America, performed under the patronage of Louis, Duke of Orleans, First Prince of the Blood, by the Sieur d’Anville, greatly improved by M. Bolton.

The maps which, three years later (1755), grew out of the controversies in America on the boundary claims of France and England have been definitely classified in another place,[514] and perhaps the limit of the English pretensions was reached in A New and Accurate Map of the English Empire in North America, representing their Rightful Claim, as confirmed by Charters and the formal Surrender of their Indian Friends, likewise the Encroachments of the French, etc. By a Society of Anti-Gallicans. Published according to Act of Parliament, Decbr., 1755, and sold by W^m. Herbert on London Bridge and Robert Sayer over against Fetter Lane in Fleet Street. This map is of some importance in defining the location of the Indian tribes and towns.

The English influence is also apparent in a reissue of D’Anville, made at Nuremberg by the Homann publishing house the next year: America Septentrionalis a Domino D’Anville in Gallia edita, nunc in Anglia Coloniis in Inferiorem Virginiam deductis nec non Fluvii Ohio cursu aucta, etc., Sumptibus Homanniorum Heredum, Noribergiæ, 1756.[515] It makes the province of New York stretch westerly to Lake Michigan.

Respecting the special maps of New York province, a particular interest attaches to The Map of the Country of the Five Nations, printed by Bradford in 1724, which was the first map engraved in New York. The Brinley Catal. (ii. no. 3,384, 3,446) shows the map in two states, apparently of the same year (1724). It originally accompanied Cadwallader Colden’s Papers relating to an Act of the Province of New York for the encouragement of the Indian trade. It was reëngraved from the first state for the London ed. of Colden’s Five Nations, in 1747, and from this plate it has been reproduced on another page (chapter viii.).[516]

CADWALLADER COLDEN’S MAP OF THE MANORIAL GRANTS ALONG THE HUDSON.

Another of Colden’s maps, made by him as surveyor-general of the province, exists in a mutilated state in the State library at Albany, showing the regions bordering on the Hudson and Mohawk rivers. It was drafted by him probably at the end of the first quarter of the eighteenth century,[517] and fac-similes of parts of it are annexed (pp. 236, 237).

A map of the northern parts of the province, called Carte du Lac Champlain depuis le Fort Chambly jusqu’au Fort St. Frédéric, levée par le Sieur Anger, arpenteur du Roy en 1732, faite à Québec, le 10 Octobre, 1748, signé de Lery, indicates the attempted introduction of a feudal system of land tenure by the French. The map is reproduced in O’Callaghan’s Doc. Hist. of New York.

The province of New York to its western bounds is shown in A Map of New England and ye Country adjacent, by a gentleman, who resided in those parts. Sold by W. Owen (London, 1755).

The New York State library has also a manuscript Map of part of the province of New York on Hudson’s River, the West End of Nassau Island, and part of New Jersey. Compiled pursuant to order of the Earl of Loudoun, Septbr. 17, 1757. Drawn by Captain [Samuel J.] Holland. This is a map called by the Lords of Trade in 1766 “a very accurate and useful survey, ... in which the most material patents are marked and their boundaries described.”

Something of the extension of settlements in the Mohawk Valley at this period can be learned from a manuscript Map of the Country between Mohawk River and Wood Creek, with the Fortifications and buildings thereon in 1758, likewise preserved in the State library.[518]

A drawn map of New York province and adjacent parts (1759), from Maj. Christie’s surveys, is noted in the King’s Maps (Brit. Mus.), ii. 527.

The boundary controversy between New York and New Jersey has produced a long discussion over the successive developments of the historical geography of that part of the middle colonies. An important map on the subject is a long manuscript roll (5 × 2-6/12 feet), preserved in Harvard College library, which has been photographed by the regents of the University of the State of New York, and entitled A copy of the general map, the most part compiled from actual survey by order of the commissioners appointed to settle the partition line between the provinces of New York and New Jersey. 1769. By Ber^d. Ratzer. [New York, 1884.] 7-5/8 × 12-3/4 in.[519]

Respecting the controversy over the New Hampshire grants, see the present volume (ante, p. 177), and Isaac Jennings’s Memorials of a Century (Boston, 1869), chapters x. and xi.

Of the special maps of Pennsylvania, the Holme map a little antedates the period of our survey.[520] The Gabriel Thomas map of Pennsylvania and New Jersey appeared near the end of the century (1698), and has already been reproduced.[521] In 1728 we find a map of the Delaware and Chesapeake bays in the Atlas Maritimus et Commercialis, published at London. In 1730 we note the map of Pennsylvania which appeared in Humphrey’s Historical Account of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts.[522]

About 1740, in a tract printed at London, In Chancery. Breviate. John Penn, Thomas Penn, and Richard Penn, plaintiffs; Charles Calvert, defendant,[523] appeared A map of parts of the provinces of Pennsylvania and Maryland, with the counties of Newcastle, Kent, and Sussex in Delaware, according to the most exact surveys yet made, drawn in the year 1740. The controversy over this boundary is followed in chapter iv. of the present volume.

A map of Philadelphia and parts adjacent, by N. Scull and G. Heap, was published in 1750, of which there is a fac-simile (folding) in Scharf and Westcott’s Philadelphia, vol. i.

The annexed fac-simile (p. 239) is from a plate in the London Mag., Dec., 1756.

A map to illustrate the Indian purchases, made by the proprietary, is given in An Enquiry into the Causes of the Alienation of the Delaware and Shawanese Indians (London, 1759).[524]

Surpassing all previous drafts was a Map of the Improved Part of Pennsylvania, by Nicholas Scull, published in 1759, and sold by the author in Second Street, Philadelphia. Engraved by Jas. Turner. It was reproduced in Jefferys’ General Topography of North America (Nos. 40-42), and was reissued in London in 1770, and again as A Map of Pennsylvania, exhibiting not only the improved parts of the Province, but also its extensive frontiers, laid down from actual surveys, and chiefly from the late Map of N. Scull, published in 1770. Robert Sayer & Bennett (London, 1775). The edition of 1770 was reëngraved in Paris by Le Rouge.

Upon the boundary controversy between Pennsylvania and Virginia respecting the “Pan handle,” see N. B. Craig’s Olden Time (1843), and the St. Clair Papers, vol. i. (passim).

[EDITORIAL NOTES].

The Leisler Papers constitute the first volume of the Fund Publications of the N. Y. Hist. Society’s Collections, and embrace the journal of the council from April 27 to June 6, 1689 (procured from the English State Paper Office), with letters, etc., and a reprint of a tract in defence of Leisler, issued at Boston in 1698, and called Loyalty Vindicated, being an answer to a late false, seditious, and scandalous pamphlet, entitled “A letter from a Gent,” etc.[525] The Sparks Catal. (p. 217) shows a MS. copy made of a rare tract in the British Museum, printed in New York and reprinted in London, 1690, called A modest and impartial narrative of the great oppressions that the inhabitants of their majestie’s Province of New York lye under by the extravagant and arbitrary proceedings of Jacob Leisler and his accomplices. Sparks endorsed his copy as “written by a violent enemy to Leisler; neither just, candid, nor impartial.”[526] Various papers relating to the administration of Leisler make a large part of the second volume of the Documentary History of New York, showing the letters written by Leisler to Boston, the papers connected with his official proceedings in New York, and his communications with the adjacent colonies; the council minutes in Dec., 1689; proceedings against the French and Indians; the papers relating to the transfer of the fort and arrest of Leisler; the dying speeches of Leisler and Milbourne; with a reprint of A letter from a gentleman of the city of New York to another (New York, 1698). There are a few original letters of Leisler in the Prince Letters (MSS.), 1686-1700, in Mass. Hist. Soc. cabinet.

The career of Leisler is traced in the memoir by C. F. Hoffman in Sparks’s Amer. Biog., xiii. (1844), and in G. W. Schuyler’s Colonial New York (i. 337). Peleg W. Chandler examines the records of the prosecution in his American Criminal Trials (i. 255). Cf. also Historical Magazine, xxi. 18, and the general histories, of which Dunlap’s gives the best account among the earlier ones.[527]

The student must, of necessity, have recourse to the general histories of New York for the successive administrations of the royal governors, and H. B. Dawson, in his Sons of Liberty (printed as manuscript, 1859), has followed the tracks of the constant struggle on their part to preserve their prerogatives.[528] Schuyler (Colonial New York, i. 394-460) follows pretty closely the administration of Fletcher. The chapter on New England (ante, no. ii.) will need to be parallelized with this for the career of Bellomont.

Under Nanfan, who succeeded Bellomont temporarily, Col. Bayard, who had brought Leisler to his doom, was in turn put on trial, and the narrative of the proceedings throws light on the factious political life of the time.[529]

One of the most significant acts of Cornbury’s rule (1702-1708) was the prosecution in 1707 of Francis Mackemie, a Presbyterian minister, for preaching without a license.[530]

J. R. Brodhead, who gives references in the case (Hist. Mag., Nov., 1863), charges Cornbury with forging the clause of his instructions under which it was attempted to convict Mackemie, and he says that the copy of the royal instructions in the State Paper Office contains no such paragraph. “History,” he adds, “has already exhibited Lord Cornbury as a mean liar, a vulgar profligate, a frivolous spendthrift, an impudent cheat, a fraudulent bankrupt, and a detestable bigot. He is convicted of having perpetrated one of the most outrageous forgeries ever attempted by a British nobleman.”[531]

The few months of Lovelace’s rule (1708-9) were followed by a funeral Sermon when he died, in May, 1709, preached by William Vesey (New York, 1709), which is of enough historical interest to have been reprinted in the N. Y. Hist. Coll. (1880).

During 1720-1722, the Shelburne Papers (Hist. MSS. Commission Report, v. 215) reveal letters of Peter Schuyler and Gov. Burnet, with various other documentary sources.

There is a portrait of Rip van Dam, with a memoir, in Valentine’s Manual (1864, p. 713).

In 1732 and 1738 we have important statistical and descriptive papers on the province from Cadwallader Colden.[532]

The narrative of the trial of Zenger was widely scattered, editions being printed at New York, Boston, and London; while the principles which it established were sedulously controverted by the Tory faction.[533]

The main printed source respecting the Negro Plot of 1741 is the very scarce book by the recorder of the city of New York, Daniel Horsmanden, A Journal of the proceedings in the Detection of the Conspiracy formed by some white people in conjunction with negro and other slaves for burning the City of New York, and murdering the inhabitants, etc., containing, I., a narrative of the trials, executions, etc.; II., evidence come to light since their execution; III., lives of the several persons committed, etc. (New York, 1744).[534]

The history of Pennsylvania during this period is a tale of the trials of Penn,[535] the misgovernment of the province by representatives of the proprietors, the struggles of the proprietary party against the people, the apathy of the Quakers in the face of impending war, and the determination of the assembly to make the proprietors bear their share of the burdens of defence. The published Pennsylvania Archives give much of the documentary evidence, and the general histories tell the story.

The Pennsylvania Hist. Soc., in vols. ix. and x. of their Memoirs, published the correspondence of Penn with Logan, his secretary in the colony, beginning in 1700. This collection also embraced the letters of various other writers, all appertaining to the province, and was first arranged by the wife of a grandson of James Logan in 1814; but a project soon afterwards entertained by the American Philosophical Society of printing the papers from Mrs. Logan’s copies was not carried out, and finally this material was placed by that society at the disposal of the Penna. Hist. Society. The correspondence was used by Janney in his Life of Penn, and liberal extracts were printed in The Friend (Philadelphia, July, 1842-Apr., 1846) by Mr. Alfred Cope. Mr. Edward Armstrong, the editor of the Historical Society’s volumes, gathered additional materials from other and different sources. A portrait of Logan is given in the second volume, which brings the correspondence down to 1711. The material exists for continuing the record to 1750, though Logan ceased to hold official connection with the province in 1738.

Sparks (Franklin’s Works, vii. 25) says that “a history of James Logan’s public life would be that of Pennsylvania during the first forty years of the last century.” See the account of Logan in the Penn and Logan Correspondence, vol. i.

The correspondence of Thomas and Richard Penn with a later agent in Philadelphia, Richard Peters, is also preserved. In 1861 this correspondence was in the possession of Mr. John W. Field, of Philadelphia, when Mr. Charles Eliot Norton gave transcripts of a portion of it (letters between 1750 and 1758) to the Mass. Hist. Society.[536]

Of an earlier period, when Evans was deputy-governor, there are some characteristic letters (1704, etc.) in a memoir of Evans communicated by E. D. Neill to the N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg., Oct., 1872 (p. 421).

There is a biographical sketch of Sir William Keith in the Penna. Historical Society’s Memoirs (vol. i.).

There is a pencil-drawn portrait of Sir William Keith, with a painting made from it, in the gallery of the Penna. Hist. Society. Cf. Catal. of Paintings, etc. (nos. 77, 162), and Scharf and Westcott’s Philadelphia (i. 177). Some of the rare tracts in the controversy of Governor Keith and Logan are noted in the Brinley Catal., ii. pp. 197-8. Cf. Hildeburn’s Century of Printing.

As to the position of the Quakers upon the question of defensive war, there is an expressive letter, dated in 1741, of James Logan, who was not in this respect a strict constructionist of the principles of his sect, which is printed in the Penna. Mag. of History (vi. 402). Much of this controversy over military preparation is illustrated in the autobiography and lives of Benjamin Franklin; and the issues of Franklin’s Plain Truth (1747) and Samuel Smith’s Necessary Truth, the most significant pamphlets in the controversy, are noted in the bibliographies.[537] Sparks, in a preliminary note to a reprint of Plain Truth, in Franklin’s Works (vol. iii.), states the circumstances which were the occasion and the sequel of its publication. In Ibid. (vii. 20) there is a letter of Richard Peters describing the condition of affairs.

A mass of papers, usually referred to as the Shippen Papers, and relating to a period in the main antedating the Revolution, have been edited privately by Thomas Balch as Letters and Papers relating chiefly to the Provincial History of Pennsylvania, with some notices of the writers. (Philad., 1855, one hundred copies.)

First of importance among the published travels of this period is the narrative of an English Quaker, Thomas Story, who came over in 1697. From that time to 1708 he visited every part of the colonies from New Hampshire to Carolina, dwelling for much of the time, however, in Pennsylvania, where he became, under Penn’s persuasion, a public official. The Journal of the life of Thomas Story, containing an account of his remarkable convincement of and embracing the principles of truth, as held by the people called Quakers, and also of his travels and labours in the service of the Gospel, with many other occurrences and observations, was published at Newcastle-upon-Tyne in 1747.[538]

George Clarke, born in 1676, was made secretary of the province of New York in 1703, and came to America, landing in Virginia. We have an account of his voyage, but unfortunately the book does not follow his experiences after his arrival;[539] but we have the Letters of his private secretary, Isaac Bobin, which, under the editing of Dr. O’Callaghan, were printed in a small edition (100 copies) at Albany in 1872.

George Keith’s Journal of Travels from New Hampshire to Caratuck, on the Continent of North America, London, 1706, is reprinted in the first volume (1851) of the Collections of the Prot. Episc. Hist. Society, together with various letters of Keith[540] and John Talbot.[541]

Benjamin Holme, another Quaker, came to the colonies in 1715, and extended his missionary wandering to New England, and southward beyond the middle colonies,[542] as did, some years later, 1736-1737, still another Quaker, John Griffeth, whose Journal of his life, labours, and travels in the work of the ministry passed through many editions, both in America and Great Britain.[543]

The records of missionary efforts at this time are not wholly confined to the Quakers. The narrative of the Rev. Thomas Thompson reveals the perplexities of the adherents of the Established Church in the communities through which he travelled in the Jerseys.[544] Similar records are preserved in the journals of Whitefield[545] and his associates, like the Journal of a Voyage from Savannah to Philadelphia and from Philadelphia to England, MDCCXL., by William Seward, Gent., Companion in Travel with the Reverend Mr. George Whitefield (London, 1740).

We have a few German experiences, among them Gottlieb Mittelberger’s Reise nach Pennsylvanien im Jahr 1750 und Rŭkreise nach Teutschland im Jahr 1754 (Stuttgart, 1756)[546]—which is the record of a German teacher and organist, who was in the province for three years. He had no very flattering notion of the country as an asylum for such Germans as, having indentured themselves for their passage, found on their arrival that they could be passed on from master to master, not always with much regard to their happiness.

Michael Schlatter, a Dutch preacher, published his observations of the country and population, and particularly as to the condition of the Dutch Reformed churches. He was in the country from 1746 to 1751, and made his report to the Synod of Holland. Though the book pertains mostly to Pennsylvania, his experiences extended to New York and New England.[547]

We have the reports of a native observer in the Observations on the inhabitants, climate, soil, rivers, productions, animals, and other matters worthy of notice, made by Mr. John Bartram in his travels from Pensilvania to Onondago, Oswego, and the lake Ontario in Canada. To which is annexed a curious account of the Cataracts at Niagara, by Mr. Peter Kalm (London, 1751).[548] Bartram was born in Pennsylvania, and made this journey in company with Conrad Weiser, the agent sent by Pennsylvania to hold friendly conference with the Iroquois, as explained in another chapter.[549] Bartram’s principal object was the study of the flora of the country, in which pursuit he acquired such a reputation as to attract the notice of Linnæus, but his record throws light upon the people which came in his way, and enable us in some respects to understand better their manners and thoughts. Evans’ map, already mentioned,[550] was in part the outgrowth of this journey.

We also owe to the friendly interest of the great Swedish botanist the observations of Peter Kalm, a countryman of Linnæus, whom the Swedish government sent to America on a botanical tour in 1748-1751. He extended his journeys to Pennsylvania, New York, and Canada, and we have in his three volumes, beside his special studies, not a little of his comment on men and events. He published his En risa til Norra America at Stockholm, 1753-1761. (Sabin, ix. 36,986.)[551]

The Rev. Andrew Burnaby’s Travels through the middle settlements in North America in 1759-1760, with observations upon the state of the Colonies, was published in London, 1775.[552] Burnaby was an active observer and used his note-book, so that little escaped him, whether of the people’s character or their manners, or the aspect of the towns they dwelt in, or of the political and social movements which engaged them.

The relations of the middle colonies to the Indians will be particularly illustrated in a later chapter on the military aspects of the French wars,[553] but there are a few special works which may be mentioned here: Colden’s Five Indian Nations (only to 1697); Morgan’s League of the Iroquois; Wm. L. Stone’s Life of Sir William Johnson; and Geo. W. Schuyler’s Colonial New York—Peter Schuyler and his family (Albany, 1885). The successive generations of the Schuylers had for a long period been practical intermediaries between the colonists and the Indians. Something of the Indian relations in Bellomont’s time is indicated elsewhere.[554] For the agreement between William Penn and the Susquehanna Indians in 1701, see the Penna. Archives (i. 145). Of similar records in Cornbury’s time, Schuyler (ii. 17) says the remains are meagre, but he gives more for Hunter’s time (ii. pp. 42-79) and Burnet’s (ii. p. 83). The Shelburne Papers (Hist. MSS. Commission Report, v.) reveal various documents from 1722 to 1724, and there is a MS. of a treaty between the governors of New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania (Albany, Sept., 1722) in the library of Harvard College.

For the treaty of 1735, see the Penna. Mag. of Hist. (vii. 215).

For 1742 there was a treaty with the Six Nations at Philadelphia, and its text was printed at London.[555]

In 1747 there were treaties in July at Lancaster, Penna., with the Six Nations, and on Nov. 13 with the Ohio Indians at Philadelphia. (Haven in Thomas, ii. 497.) Again, in July, 1753, Johnson had a conference with the Mohawks (2 Penna. Archives, vi. 150); and in Oct. a treaty with the Ohio Indians was made at Carlisle (Hildeburn, i. 1328; Haven, p. 517). There exist also minutes of conferences held at Easton, Oct., 1758, with the Mohawks;[556] at Easton, Aug., 1761, with the Five Nations; and in Aug., 1762, at Lancaster, with the northern and western Indians. (Hildeburn, i. 1593, 1634, 1748, 1908.)

The Moravians, settling first in Georgia, had founded Bethlehem in Pennsylvania in 1741, and soon extended the field of their labors into New York;[557] and in no way did the characteristics of this people impress the life of the colonies so much as in the intermediary nature of their missions among the Indians. David Zeisberger was a leading spirit in this work, and left a manuscript account (written in 1778 in German) of the missions, which was discovered by Schweinitz in the archives of the Moravian church at Bethlehem. (Schweinitz’s Zeisberger, p. 29.) It proved to be the source upon which Loskiel had depended for the first part of his History of the Mission of the United Brethren among the Indians in North America, in three parts, by Geo. H. Loskiel, translated from the German by Christian Ignatius Latrobe (London, 1794);[558] and Schweinitz found it of invaluable use to him in the studies for his Life of David Zeisberger (Philad., 1870). The other principal authority on the work of the Moravians among the Indians is Rev. John Heckewelder, whose Narrative of the Mission of the United Brethren (Philad., 1820) has been elsewhere referred to,[559] and who also published An account of the History, Manners, and Customs of the Indian Nations who once inhabited Pennsylvania and the neighboring States (Philad., 1818).[560] Schweinitz also refers to another manuscript upon the Indians, preserved in the library of the American Philosophical Society, by Christopher Pyrlaeus, likewise a Moravian missionary.[561] We have again from Spangenberg an Account of the manner in which the Protestant Church of the Unitas Fratrum preach the Gospel and carry on their missions among the heathen (English transl., London, 1788); and his notes of travel to Onondaga, in 1745, which are referred to in the original MS. by Schweinitz (Zeisberger, p. 132), have since been printed in the Penna. Mag. of History (vol. iii.).[562]

Perhaps the most distinguished of the English missionaries was David Brainerd, a native of Connecticut, of whose methods and their results, as he went among the Indians of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, we have the record in his life and diaries.[563]

The question of the population of the middle colonies during the eighteenth century is complicated somewhat by the heterogeneous compounding of nationalities, particularly in Pennsylvania. In New Jersey the people were more purely English than in New York. We find brought together the statistics of the population of New York, 1647-1774, in the Doc. Hist. of N. Y. (i. 687), and Lodge (English Colonies, p. 312) collates some of the evidence. The German element in New York is exemplified in F. Kapp’s Die Deutschen im Staate New York während des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts. (New York, 1884.)

In Pennsylvania the Swedes were beginning to lose in number when the century opened, and the Dutch were also succumbing to the English preponderance; but there were new-comers in the Welsh and Germans in sufficient numbers to keep the characteristics of the people very various.[564] Religion had brought the earliest Germans,—Dunkers[565] and Mennonists,[566] all industrious, but ignorant. By 1719 the Irish began to come, in part a desirable stock, the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians; but in large numbers they were as unpromising as the dregs of a race could make them. The rise of Presbyterianism in Pennsylvania is traced in C. A. Briggs’s Amer. Presbyterianism (New York, 1885).[567]

The influx of other than English into Pennsylvania in the eighteenth century had an extent best measured by A collection of upwards of 30,000 names of German, Swiss, Dutch, French, and other immigrants in Pennsylvania, 1727-1776, with notes and an appendix containing lists of more than one thousand German and French in New York prior to 1712, by Professor I. Daniel Rupp (2d enlarged ed., Philad., 1876).

Respecting the Welsh immigrants, compare the Pennsylvania Mag. of Hist., i. 330; Howard M. Jenkins’s Historical collections relating to Gwynedd, a township of Montgomery County, Penn., settled, 1698, by Welsh immigrants, with some data referring to the adjoining township of Montgomery, also a Welsh settlement (Phila., 1884), and J. Davis’s History of the Welsh Baptists (Pittsburgh, 1835).

The Huguenot emigration to the middle colonies, particularly to New York, is well studied in C. W. Baird’s Huguenot Emigration to America (1885). Cf. references ante, p. 98; and for special monographs, W. W. Waldron’s Huguenots of Westchester and Parish of Fordham, with an introduction by S. H. Tyng (New York, 1864), and G. P. Disosway on the Huguenots of Staten Island, in the Continental Monthly, i. 683, and his app. on “The Huguenots in America” to Samuel Smiles’s Huguenots (N. Y., 1868).

The best summary of the manners and social and intellectual life of the middle colonies will be found in Lodge’s Short History of the English Colonies (New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania), and he fortifies his varied statements with convenient references. For New York specially the best known picture of life is Mrs. Anne Grant’s Memoirs of an American Lady,[568] but its recollections, recorded in late life, of experiences of childhood, have nearly taken it out of the region of historical truth. For Pennsylvania there is a rich store of illustration in Watson’s Annals of Philadelphia, and much help will be derived from the Penn and Logan Letters, printed by the Penna. Hist. Soc.;[569] from the journal of William Black, a Virginian, who recorded his observations in 1744, printed in the Penna. Mag. of Hist. (vols. i. and ii.).[570]

The exigencies of the Indian wars, while they colored the life and embroiled the politics of the time, induced the search for relief from pecuniary burdens, here as in New England, in the issue of paper money, which in turn in its depreciation grew to be a factor of itself in determining some social conditions.[571]

The educational aspects of the middle colonies have been summarily touched by Lodge in his English Colonies. Each of them had founded a college. An institution begun at Elizabethtown in 1741, was transferred to Princeton in 1757, and still flourishes.[572] In 1750 the Academy of Philadelphia made the beginning of the present University of Pennsylvania. In 1754 King’s College in New York city began its mission,—the present Columbia College.[573]

The development of the intellectual life of the middle colonies, so far as literary results—such as they were—are concerned, is best seen in Moses C. Tyler’s History of American Literature (vol. ii. ch. 16).[574] The list by Haven in Thomas’s Hist. of Printing (vol. ii.) reveals the extent of the publications of the period; but for Pennsylvania the record is made admirably full in Charles R. Hildeburn’s Century of Printing,—issues of the press in Pennsylvania, 1685-1784.[575]

William Bradford, the father of printing in the middle colonies, removed to New York in 1693, where he died in 1752, having maintained the position of the leading printer in that province, where he started, in 1725, the N. Y. Gazette, the earliest New York newspaper.[576] His son, Andrew Bradford (born 1686, died 1742), was the founder of the newspaper press in Pennsylvania, and began the American Weekly Mercury in 1719, and the American Magazine in 1741.[577]

The records of the publication of Franklin and his press have been more than once carefully made,[578] and Col. William Bradford, grandson of the first William, has been fitly commemorated in the Life of him by Wallace.[579]

The general histories of New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey have been sufficiently described elsewhere.[580] The documentary collections of New York State have likewise been explained;[581] but the historical literature respecting the province and State has never been bibliographically arranged. The city of New York has some careful histories of its own.[582] The capital, Albany, by reason of the attention of its devoted antiquarian publishers, has recently had its own bibliography traced.[583] The extent of the other local histories of the State, particularly as far as the Dutch period was represented in it, has been already indicated;[584] but the list as touching the period covered by the present chapter could be much enlarged.[585]

The several official and documentary collections published by Pennsylvania have been described elsewhere.[586] Something of her local history has been also indicated, but the greater part of the interest of this class of historical records falls within the period of the present volume.[587]

Respecting the histories of Philadelphia, since the memoranda were noted in Vol. III. (p. 509), the material gathered by Thompson Westcott has been augmented by the labors of Col. J. Thomas Scharf, and the elaborate History of Philadelphia (Philad., 1884) with this joint authorship has been issued in three large volumes. Two chapters (xiii. and xv.) in the first volume cover in the main the period now dealt with. There is still a good deal to be gleaned from the old Annals of Philadelphia, by John F. Watson, of which there is a new edition, with revisions and additions by Willis P. Hazard.[588] It is a work somewhat desultory in character and unskilful in arrangement, but it contains a great body of facts.[589]

The views of New York here annexed (pp. 250, 251) are the principal ones of the earlier half of the seventeenth century. The larger (New York, on the scroll) is from the great map of Popple, British Empire in America, published in 1732. The upper of the two (p. 251) is reduced from a large panoramic South Prospect of y^e Flourishing City of New York (6-6/12 × 2-4/12 ft.), dedicated to Gov. George Clinton by Thomas Blakewell, which was published March 25, 1746. A lithographic reproduction appeared in Valentine’s N. Y. City Manual, 1849, p. 26, and in his Hist. of N. Y. City, p. 290. (Cf. Cassell’s United States, i. 480.) Originals are reported to be in the N. Y. Society library and in the British Museum (King’s Maps, ii. 329, and Map Catal., 1885, col. 2,975).

The reduced fac-simile view, called a “South Prospect,” follows a copperplate engraving in the London Magazine, Aug., 1761.

Key: 1, the fort; 2, the chapel in the fort; 3, the secretary’s office; 4, the great dock, with a bridge over it; 5, the ruins of Whitehall, built by Gov. Duncan [Dongan]; 6, part of Nutten Island; 7, part of Long Island; 8, the lower market; 9, the Crane; 10, the great flesh-market; 11, the Dutch church; 12, the English church; 13, the city hall; 14, the exchange; 15, the French church; 16, upper market; 17, the station ship; 18, the wharf; 19, the wharf for building ships; 20, the ferry house on Long Island side; 21, a pen for cattle designed for the market; 22, Colonel Morris’s “Fancy,” turning to windward, with a sloop of common mould.

This print is clearly based on the one placed above it.

The official documentary collections of New Jersey have already been indicated,[590] as well as some traces of its local history.[591]

A view of New York about 1695 is no. 39 in the gallery of the N. Y. Hist. Society. Cf. Mrs. Lamb’s New York, i. p. 455, for one assigned to 1704.

A view purporting to be taken in 1750 is found in Delisle’s Atlas (1757).

A collection of views of towns, which was published by Jan Roman at Amsterdam in 1752, included one of Nieu Amsterdam, namaels Nieu York. (Muller’s Catal. of American Portraits, etc., no. 310.)[592]

The earliest plan of New York of the period which we are now considering is one which appeared in the Rev. John Miller’s Description of the Province and City of New York, with the plans of the City and several forts, as they existed in the year 1695, now first printed from the original MS. (London, Rodd, 1843), and in a new ed., with introd. and notes by Dr. Shea (N. Y., Gowans, 1862). See Vol. III. p. 420, of the present History, and Mrs. Lamb’s New York (i. 421).

A fac-simile of this plan, marked “New York, 1695,” is annexed. It is reproduced several times in Valentine’s New York City Manual (1843-44, 1844-45, 1845-46, 1847, 1848, 1850, 1851, 1852), and is explained by the following:

Key: 1, the chapel in the fort of New York; 2, Leysler’s half-moon; 3, Whitehall battery of 15 guns; 4, the old dock; 5, the cage and stocks; 6, stadt-house battery of 5 guns; 7, the stadt or state house; 8, the custom-house; 8, 8, the bridge; 9, Burgher’s or the slip battery of 10 guns; 10, the fly block-house and half-moon; 11, the slaughter-house; 12, the new docks; 13, the French church; 14, the Jews’ synagogue; 15, the fort well and pump; 16, Ellet’s alley; 17, the works on the west side of the city; 18, the northwest block-house; 19, 19, the Lutheran church and minister’s house; 20, 20, the stone points on the north side of the city; 21, the Dutch Calvinists’ church, built 1692; 22, the Dutch Calvinists’ minister’s house; 23, the burying-ground; 24, a windmill; 25, the king’s farm; 26, Col. Dungan’s garden; 27, 27, wells; 28, the plat of ground designed for the E. minister’s house; 29, 29, the stockado, with a bank of earth on the inside; 30, the ground proper for the building an E. church; 31, 31, showing the sea flowing about New York; 32, 32, the city gates; 33, a postern gate.

There is a MS. plan of this date (1695) in the British Museum. A plan of the fort in New York (1695) is also given by Miller, and is reproduced in Gowan’s ed. of Miller, p. 264. (Cf. Appleton’s Journal, viii. p. 353.)

The Brit. Mus. Map Catal. (1885), col. 2,972, notes a map by J. Seller, London; and a Novum Amsterdamum, probably by Vander Aa, at Leyden, in 1720.

A large Plan of the City of New York, from an actual survey, made by Iames Lyne, was published by William Bradford, and dedicated to Gov. Montgomerie, while Col. Robt. Lurting was mayor, in 1728. It has been reproduced wholly or in part at various times.[593]

Popple’s plan of New York (1733) was later re-engraved in Paris. His map of the harbor, from his great map The British Empire in America (inscribed on a scroll, “New York and Perth Amboy harbours”), is annexed (p. 254) in fac-simile.

Key: A, the fort; B, Trinity Church; C, old Dutch church; D, French church; E, new Dutch church; F. Presbyterian meeting; G, Quakers’ meeting; H, Baptist meeting; J, Lutheran church; L, St. George’s Chapel; M, Moravian meeting; N, new Lutheran meeting; 1, governor’s house; 2, secretary’s office; 3, custom-house; 4, Peter Livingston & Co., supg. hu.; 5, city hall; 6, Byard’s sugar-house; 7, exchange; 8, fish market; 9, old slip market; 10, meal market; 11, fly market; 12, Burtin’s market; 13, Oswego market; 14, English free school; 15, Dutch free school; 16, Courtland’s sugar-house; 17, Jas. Griswold; 18, stillhouse; 19, Wileys Livingstone; 20, Laffert’s In. Comp.; 21, Thomas Vatar Distilhouse; 22, Robert Griffeth’s Distilhouse; 23, Jno. Burling’s Distilhouse; 24, Jas. Burling’s Distilhouse; 25, Jno. Leake’s Distilhouse; 26, Benj. Blagge’s Distilhouse; 27, Jews’ burial-ground; 28, poor house; 29, powder-house; 30, block-house; 31, gates.

Other drafts of New York harbor during the first half of the last century will be found in Southack’s Coast Pilot, and in Bowen’s Geography (1747). A chart of the Narrows is in a Set of Plans and Forts in America, London, 1763, no. 12.

A large plan of The City and environs of New York, as they were in the years 1742-1744, drawn by David Grim in the 76th year of his age, in Aug., 1813, as it would seem from recollection, is in the N. Y. Hist. Society’s library, and is engraved in Valentine’s N. Y. City Manual, 1854.

The plan of 1755 (also annexed), made after surveys by the city surveyor, and bearing the arms of New York city, follows a lithograph in Valentine’s N. Y. City Manual, 1849, p. 130, after an original plate belonging to Trinity Church, N. Y.

Cf. Valentine’s New York, p. 304, and the Hist. of the Collegiate Reformed Dutch Church in New York (New York, 1886). It was also given in 1763 in a Set of plans and forts in America (no. 1), published in London.

A plan of the northeast environs of New York, made for Lord Loudon, in 1757, is in Valentine’s Manual, 1859, p. 108.

The plan of 1755 (p. 255) needs the following

Key: A, the fort; B, Trinity Church; C, old Dutch church; D, French church; E, new Dutch church; F, Presbyterian meeting; G, Quakers’ meeting; H, Baptist meeting; I, Lutheran church; K, Jews’ synagogue; L, St. George’s Chapel; M, Moravian meeting; N, new Lutheran meeting; O, custom-house; P, governor’s house; Q, secretary’s office; R, city house; S, exchange; T, fish market; V, old slip market; X, meal market; Y, fly market; Z, Burtin’s market; 1, Oswego market; 2, English free school; 3, Dutch free school; 4, block-house; 5, gates.

Maerschalck’s plan of 1755 was used as the basis of a new plan, with some changes, which is here reproduced (p. 256) after the copy in Valentine’s Manual (1850), and called a Plan of the City of New York, reduced from an actual survey, by T. Maerschalkm [sic], 1763. The following key is in the upper right-hand corner of the original (where the three blanks are in the fac-simile), of a lettering too small for the present reduction:—

BELLIN’S PLAN, 1764.

Key: A, shipping port; B, bridge for discharging vessels; C, fountain or wells; D, house of the governor; E, the temple or church; F, parade ground; G, meat-market; H, slaughter-house; J, lower town; K, city hall; L, custom-house and stores; M, powder-magazine.[594]

The latest of the plans here reproduced is one which is given in Valentine’s Manual (1861, p. 596), and was made by Bellin by order of the Duke de Choiseul, in 1764:—

The view of Philadelphia (reproduced, p. 258) is the larger part of George Heap’s “East Prospect,” as reduced from the London Mag., Oct., 1761:—

Key: 1, Christ Church; 2, state-house; 3, academy; 4, Presbyterian church; 5, Dutch Calvinist church; 6, the court-house; 7, Quakers’ meeting-house; 8, High Street wharf; 9, Mulberry Street; 10, Sassafras Street; 11, Vine Street; 12, Chestnut Street (the other streets are not to be seen from the point of sight); 13, draw-bridge; 14, corn-mill.

The style of the domestic buildings in Pennsylvania during this period may be seen from specimens delineated in Scharf and Westcott’s Philadelphia (particularly the Christopher Saur house in Germantown, in vol. iii. p. 1964); Egle’s Pennsylvania; Watson’s Annals of Philadelphia; Smith’s Delaware County, Rupp’s Lancaster County; and other local histories, especially Thompson Westcott’s Historic buildings of Philadelphia, with notices of their owners and occupants (Philad., 1877). The Penna. Mag. of Hist., July, 1886, p. 164, gives a view of the first brick house built in New Jersey, that of Christopher White, in 1690.

The original was first published in London in 1754, and was engraved by Jefferys, and reissued in his General Topog. of N. America, etc., 1768, no. 29. It was reproduced on the same scale in Philadelphia, in 1854. In 1857, through the instrumentality of George M. Dallas, then minister to England, a large oil-painting, measuring eight feet long and twenty inches high, was received by the Philadelphia library; and attached to it was an inscription, The southeast prospect of the City of Philadelphia, by Peter Cooper, painter, followed by a key to the public and private buildings. Confidence in its literal fidelity is somewhat shaken by the undue profusion of a sort of cupola given to buildings here and there,—one even surmounting the Quaker meeting-house. Antiquaries are agreed that it must have been painted about 1720. Among the private houses prominent in the picture are that of Edward Shippen, at that time occupied by Sir William Keith, then governor of the province, and that of Jonathan Dickinson. (Cf. Hist. Mag., i. 137.) It has been reëngraved on a small scale in Scharf and Westcott’s Hist. of Philadelphia, vol. i., where will also be found (p. 187) a view of the old court-house, from an ancient drawing (1710). Cf. view of 1744 in Ibid., p. 207.

---