Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/79

1675-si] The Carterets. 47 him to others. His own title was, as we have seen, re-established by a new grant. He likewise re-established those of Carteret and Berkeley, but only in part. He executed a fresh grant, transferring to Carteret alone a tract of land on the southern bank of the Hudson, but reserving to himself the left bank of the Delaware. In the meantime Berkeley had sold his share in the original grant to two Quakers, John Fenwick and Edward Bylling. They now virtually claimed that they were entitled to the residue of the original grant, after Carteret's new grant had been deducted. This claim the Duke disputed. Matters then, so far as territorial title went, stood thus. Carteret had an undoubted claim to the right bank of the Hudson. The Duke had a claim to the right bank of the Delaware, and a disputable claim to the left bank of the Delaware. Throughout the whole of this territory there were settle- ments which had come into existence with little or no help from any of the claimants. When, in 1675, Fenwick acted on his grant and endeavoured to form a settlement on the right bank of the Delaware, some of the existing settlers resented it, and appealed to Andros, who ordered Fenwick to give up his attempt. The order, however, was disobeyed; and a settle- ment came into existence called Salem. Soon afterwards William Penn and other Quakers who had acquired Bylling^s rights began colonising on the Delaware. In 1680 they received a fresh grant from the Duke, including Fenwick's settlement at Salem. There were thus two distinct settle- ments, called East and West New Jersey, one on the Hudson, the other on the Delaware. In each the government spontaneously fell into the accepted model, with a governor, council and representative assembly. In 1680 a dispute arose between Andros and Philip Carteret as to the right of the Duke of York to impose commercial restrictions and levy duties on New Jersey, in which Andros imprisoned Carteret in an arbitrary and brutal fashion. At the same time Andros, by the issue of writs for an assembly, confirmed the system of self-government which already existed in East Jersey. In 1681 the heir and namesake of Sir George Carteret received a fresh grant of his grandfather's territory from the Duke of York; and the authority of Philip Carteret was re-established. It is clear, however, that the attack made on Carteret's authority by Andros had weakened it in the eyes of the settlers, who now began to question the rights of the Proprietors. Sir George Carteret, dissatisfied, as he well might be, with the turn of affairs, sold his rights in the colony. Among the purchasers were the Quakers, William Penn and Gawen Laurie, who were already among the Proprietors of the eastern province, certain other members of the same sect, and several influential Scotsmen. The new Proprietors made an attempt to saddle the province with an elaborate constitution. But, as in Carolina, the simpler system evolved by the settlers to meet their own wants prevailed. The chief result of the transfer was to en. i.