colonies, or as ever dishonored a noble an cestry. He was effeminate, grasping, and tyrannical. He delighted to array himself in woman's apparel and parade the streets of New York. He had some ability, and at first gave great promise of being an efficient and honorable governor; but in process of time he exhibited his entire unworthiness for the position to which the affection of his cousin the Queen had raised him. His ef forts, however, in the reorganization of the courts of New Jersey on a more systematic basis were eminently .successful, and to him and to his guiding hand may be attributed the present condition of the legal tribunals of the State. There has been very little, certainly no substantial, change in the con stitution and procedure of the courts since his day. Before his time the creation of courts and the election of judges were vested in the people and Legislature, — the people electing the justices of the peace and the judges of the County Courts; the Legislature choosing the judges of the higher courts. By his commission Lord Cornbury was vested with full power to "constitute and appoint Judges, and in cases requisite, Com missioners of Oyer and Terminer, Justices of the peace and other necessary officers and magistrates in our said Province, for the better administration of justice and putting the laws in Execution." This authority was exercised by the colo nial governors up to the time of the Revolu tion. For many years after that event the Legislature elected justices of the peace and the judges of the Court of Common Pleas; the Governor, by and/ with the advice and consent of fh'e Gonncil, ^rntil the Constitu tion of 1844, nominated, the justices of the Supreme Court. In 1776, while the country was resound ing with the din of arms and there could be but one result, — the disseverance of the colo nies from England, — a new constitution was established in New Jersey, which, while it impliedly acknowledged the supremacy of the King of England, yet fully recognized
the fact that his rule in the province was really at an end. This Constitution made no change either in the names, nor in the procedure, nor in the jurisdiction of the courts. It continued in force until 1844, when there was a very material change in some of the courts. The Court of Com mon Pleas and the Supreme Court remained the same; justices of the peace still had cognizance of small causes. But there was a vital alteration in the Court of Chancery. Up to that time the Governor of the colony and of the State had been the chancellor, so that a lawyer was re quired to fill the office of chief magistrate. By this new organic law the Governor ceased to be the chancellor, and on him was laid the responsibility of selecting the justices of the Supreme Court and the chancellor; but his selection must receive the sanction of the Senate, which now took the place of the Council. Under the Constitution of 1776 the Governor was elected from year to year; now his term expires only after three years, and the chancellor's term was extended to seven. Appeals in the last resort, instead of being submitted to the Council, now go up to the Court of Errors and Appeals, composed of the chancellor, the justices of the Supreme Court, and six lay judges who are nominated to the Senate by the Governor. Under the new Constitution a return was had to the old method of electing the justices of the peace by the people. There were two glaring defects in the jurisprudence of the State as established in this Constitution of 1844, — one, the compo sition of the Court of Appeals, in the intro duction of the lay element; and the other, the election of justices of the peace by the people. Both were compromises, and, like most compromises, mischievous. For a time, under the new Constitution, the judges of the Court of Common Pleas were elected by the Legislature in joint meeting; but now by statute the responsibility of selecting these officers is laid upon the Governor, who nom
