Fletcher, besides his commission for New York, was appointed governor of Pennsylvania and Delaware, this being the time when Penn was deprived of his charter.
In the spirit of the Revolution of 1688, Fletcher was a zealot for the establishment of the episcopal church, and, under the plea of introducing uniformity in the language and literature as well as the religion of the colony, the inhabitants of which were a mixture of Dutch and English, he introduced into the assembly a bill for the settlement of episcopalian ministers of his own selection throughout the province. This bill gave rise to a great deal of party spirit; and finally it was agreed that ministers should be settled in certain parishes, but that the choice should be left to the people.
“New York is the most northern colony which admitted by enactment the partial establishment of the Anglican Church.” The dissenters kept strict watch henceforth that the episcopacy, favoured by England, made no further inroad on their rights.
The peace of Ryswick terminated for the present the war with the French; and the Earl of Bellamont, a man of integrity, and with warm sympathies for popular freedom, arriving as governor in April, 1698, the dawn of a calmer day seemed at hand. The commission of Bellamont embraced the whole of the British northern territory from the confines of Canada to Connecticut and Rhode Island. His kinsman, John Nanfan, who accompanied him, was appointed lieutenant-governor of New York. Bellamont having served on the parliamentary committee which had inquired into the trials of Leisler and Milborne, viewed the aggressions of the opposite party with great disapprobation; and under his administration it was that the stigma was removed from the memory of those injured men, and justice done to their families.
Fletcher, “who was accused of winking at violations of the Acts of Trade, and favouring the pirates who frequented the American harbours,” was removed from his post on this ground, and the Earl of Bellamont was strictly enjoined to their vigilant suppression. The buccaneers, at the remonstrance of Spain, being no longer supported by France and England, had now become sugar-planters, holding large possessions of slaves in Jamaica, Hayti, and St. Domingo, which were now thriving islands through their means. Piracy, however, still remained to a vast and increasing extent, every sea from China to America being infested with these profligate robbers, who were often welcomed to the colonial harbours on account of the wealth they brought and the freedom of their expenditure.
Before Bellamont left England, a company was formed for the suppression of piracy; and it being supposed that great wealth would accrue from the re-capture of the pirate vessels, the king himself, the Earl of Bellamont, the Lord Chancellor Somers, the Earls of Shrewsbury, Romney, and Oxford, all held shares. By the advice of Robert Livingstone, a merchant of New York, then in England, and himself a partner, the command of a vessel fitted out for this purpose was given to Captain Kidd, a ship-builder of New York.
Kidd, duly commissioned, hastened to Plymouth in April, 1696; but turning pirate himself, sailed into the eastern seas, where he carried on great depredations. The wealth he thus amassed was buried, tradition says, on the east end of Long Island, after which, according to the same source, he burned or sunk his ship, the famous Quedah Merchant, and had the hardihood to take up his quarters at Boston, where, in 1698, he was arrested by Bellamont, who also held a commission as governor of Massachusetts, and sent to England for trial. The ship being driven back by the storm, gave rise to a rumour, that the ministry then in power were afraid of having Kidd brought to trial, on account of so many powerful Whig names being implicated in his piracy. This led to an impeachment of several of the adventurers in the House of Lords; but Kidd, and nine of his men, being easily found guilty, were condemned and executed for piracy and murder. The adventures and fate of Captain Kidd form the subject of one of the very few popular ballads which the history of America has given rise to in that country; which shows what hold the deeds of this bold sea-robber took on the public mind.[[15]]
Bellamont, by his urbanity and integrity, became greatly esteemed and beloved, both in New York and Boston. In the former place he at once obtained the confidence of the people, by acting up to the promise which he made in his address to the first assembly in this mercantile colony:—“I will pocket none of the public money myself, nor shall there be any embezzlement by others; but exact accounts shall be given you when, and as often as, you require.” In Boston he took the direct road to public favour, by paying attention to the ministers and popular teachers; and while he attended the episcopal church on Sundays, he was constant, and, by his own account, an edified attendant of the weekly lecture. The highest salary was voted to him in Boston that had ever been given to the governor; while in New York, spite of his controversies with the merchants regarding the Navigation Laws, a revenue for six years was provided for him.
Unfortunately, death soon closed the administration of this popular governor; and after about a year of violent contentions between the Leisler faction and the opposite party, Lord Cornbury arrived as governor both of New York and New Jersey, as we have already mentioned. Cornbury, though cousin of Queen Anne, was a needy and unprincipled man, and in him the aristocratic faction immediately found an ally. With a powerful majority in the assembly, a revenue was not only voted him for seven years, but £2,000 for the expense of his voyage, and his salary raised to £1,200 per annum.
In April, 1703, war having been proclaimed in England against France and Spain, the assembly met, and £1,500 was appropriated to fortify the Narrows, it being strictly provided that this money should be applied to no other purpose whatever. But the fortifications were not built, and Cornbury, dishonest as he was extravagant, made use of the money for his own necessities; and when the assembly, the following year, expressed their displeasure and refused to make further advances, Lord Cornbury said, “I know of no rights that you have as an assembly but such as the queen is pleased to allow you.”