English government conveying to its subjects the territory occupied by the Dutch, and in this manner the English right was asserted and reasserted. The English colonists also continued to maintain, that of right the country belonged to them or their nation: and besides these declarations, they attempted at various times to secure possession of different portions. In some of these instances their efforts were successful, in others they failed, but in either case, the claim was maintained. The Dutch were not allowed to establish a title by long and peaceable possession.

To sum up the case, the Dutch had no right as discoverers of the country. They acquired by purchase from the natives only a part of the country, and the conveyances obtained were imperfect and doubtful, and if these conveyances had been full and good, and had embraced the whole of the territory, still, the principal right which was held by the English, remained untouched. Finally, their possession of the country was interrupted and incomplete, and therefore was not sufficient to establish a title. 16

If these conclusions are well founded, they will serve, if not completely to justify the conduct of Charles, the English King, yet at least to absolve him from the charge of "flagrant injustice and usurpation."

Yet, if the claims of the Dutch to the country of New Netherland were not such as to secure to them its permanent and full possession and control, still, these settlers were not destitute of equitable rights. They had subdued and cultivated the lands, they had navigated the streams, and erected dwellings. They had prepared a home for civilized man. And they were allowed to continue in its enjoyment. No one was dispossessed of his lands or turned from his dwelling, the people remained in the possession of their property of every description. The only change was

15 The principal circumstances that may be urged in support of the Dutch claim, are the implied acknowledgment in their favor, contained in the colonial arrangement respecting boundaries, made in 1650; and the treaty afterwards concluded between the republics of England and Holland. But the colonial agreement was not finally ratified in England. And the provisions of the later treaty were extended to the colonies rather by inference, than express stipulation, nor could these provisions if extending to the colonies, be fairly construed as determining any questions of title.

one that many of the colonists themselves desired, and which was probably beneficial to all.

But the reduction of the country was not quietly submitted to by the Dutch; a general war between England and Holland was the consequence. This circumstance however, made no alteration in the course of affairs in the province; this was not made the theatre of war, and at the conclusion of hostilities, it was left in the hands of the English.

The agreement which had been concluded between the English King, and his brother, the Duke of York, was now to be carried out into full effect; the latter had been invested by the terms of his grant, with full authority both as owner and ruler, within the country to be subdued, and the subjection was now completed. In pursuance of the plan, Nicholls, who had been appointed to the government of the country under the Duke, assumed the direction of affairs.

But, previous to the actual investiture of the Duke of York, a division of the country had been made. Not long after the reception of the grant from the King, and before he had been put in possession, the Duke conveyed a portion of the territory to two other individuals, Lord Berkely and Sir George Carteret. Different motives have been assigned as leading to this grant from the Duke: no other is apparent, than a desire to give expression to royal approbation, the grantees, at the time, being high in favor, as well as in place, at the English Court. 17 The conveyance to Berkely and Carteret was made by an instrument in form as follows:

"This Indenture, made the three-and-twentieth day of June, in the sixteenth year of the Raigne of our Sovreign Lord Charles the Second, by the Grace of God of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith-Anno Domine 1664. Between his Royal Highness James Duke of York and Albany, Earl of Ulster, Lord High Admiral of England and Ireland, Constable of Dover Castle, Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, and Governor

17 See Nicholls' letter to the Duke of York. The statements there made in reference to the causes of the grant to Berkely and Carteret, wear but a doubtful appearance.

of Portsmouth, of the one part, John Lord Berkeley, Baron of Stratton, and one of his Majestie's most honorable Privy Council, and Sir George Carteret of Sattrum in the county of Devon, Knight, and one of his Majestie's most honorable Privy Council, of the other part, Witnesseth that said James Duke of York, for and in consideration of the sum of ten shillings of lawful money of England, to him in hand paid, by these presents doth bargain and sell unto the said John Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret, all that tract of land adjacent to New England, and lying and being to the westward of Long Island. Bounded on the east part by the main sea, and part by Hudson's River, and hath upon the west Delaware Bay or River, and extendeth southward to the main ocean as far as Cape May at the mouth of Delaware Bay, and to the northward as far as the northermost branch of said Bay or River of Delaware, which is in forty-one degrees and forty minutes of latitude, and worketh over thence in a straight line to Hudson's River-which said tract of land is hereafter to be called by the name, or names of NOVA CESAREA, or NEW JERSEY."

The name was given in honor of Carteret, on account of his spirited defence of the Island of Jersey, at the time he was Governor of that Island.

17

CHAPTER VIII.

NEW JERSEY.

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF GOVERNMENT.

IT has been seen that the territory now recovered by the English, had been granted by the King, to his brother, the Duke of York. The right of the King of England to grant out new lands to his subjects, could not be called into question; it was one of the prerogatives of the Crown which the laws of the realm had yet left untouched. The country now granted, was given as Crown lands; as territory held by the Sovereign by right of descent; the possession of the country by the Dutch at the time of the grant, was in no wise regarded, they being considered as mere intruders upon the rights of others. But the grant was a conveyance of the powers of government as well as of the rights of property. The institution of government in new countries under British authority, was effected in different modes. Power was sometimes simply delegated by the King to certain individuals to act as his representatives, and these individuals were entrusted with such an amount of authority, as the Sovereign might choose to entrust to them, only that it could not exceed his own, in kind or degree. In these cases the power of government was entirely unconnected with any thing else, and its duration was determined by the discretion or will of the original grantor. Such were royal governments. In some cases charters were granted which gave authority for the institution and perpetuation of government by the acts of the people, according to such forms as were prescribed in the charter, or as they should adopt. In other instances power was given in connexion with property; portions of territory were granted,

and the grantees were invested at the same time with authority to govern within the limits assigned to them, but subject always to allegiance to the Crown, and sometimes to farther limitations. These were proprietary governments. In such governments, unless special agreements were made to the contrary, the duration and transmission of authority were governed by such regulations as applied to the property with which it was connected. No certain period was prescribed for its continuance and it was made transferable like property, to heirs, and also to assigns. The authority granted to the Duke of York may be considered as essentially of the proprietary character. The country was granted to him with all "the rents, revenues, and profits of the premises, and all our estate, right, title, and interest therein, and we do farther grant unto the said James the Duke of York, his heirs, deputies, agents, commissioners, and assigns, full and absolute power and authority to correct, punish, pardon, govern, and rule, all such person or persons as shall from time to time adventure themselves into any of the parts or places aforesaid, and to establish such laws, orders, and ordinances as may be thought necessary; so that they be not contrary to, but as near as conveniently may be, agreeable to the laws, statutes, and government, of the realm of England." The grant from the Duke of York to Berkely and Carteret, was of a similar character. In the instrument of transfer to them, the powers of government were not specifically given, but there was a general declaration that the grant was made to them, their heirs, and assigns, "in as full and ample a manner" as it had been received by the Duke himself, and in the absence of any reservation, all the incidents connected with the possession, would be fairly included.

Berkely and Carteret thus became rulers as well as owners of the country. They also, from the nature of the case, obtained the privilege of making a transfer to others; they might convey their powers and their interests to any other person, or to any number of persons. By thus placing political authority in connection with property, and making it subject to similar incidents, the allegiance and obedience of subjects were made transferable at the same time, and in the same modes as the titles to land. Government was rendered a thing that might be conveyed by bargain and sale, it might be passed over from hand