queen, or like birds disturbed and fluttering, ready to take wing at the slightest alarm, but not breaking away into actual flight.

แ

It is next in order to say that New-York had at the time, besides a few soldiers in the fort, six "train-bands," citizen militia. Their colonel was Bayard; the senior captain was Jacob Leisler; and the other captains were Abraham De Peyster, Nicholas Stuyvesant, Francis De Bruyn, Charles Lodowick, Gabriel Minvielle-good names, men of wealth, intelligence, standing; men of influence, had they in these decisive days sided with their colonel. To quiet fears caused just then by rumors of the French, it was the Governor's suggestion that they should take turns of duty in the fort. How easy to talk to their men if they wished to, to get them under some control during the month of this service-half a company at a time! Five-sixths of the time, five-sixths of the men under their command! Historians have called this the "Dutch plot," with Leisler as the Mephistopheles thereof; and so we must examine the ground. Stuyvesant was Bayard's own cousin, the sturdy old Director's son and himself forty-one years old. Was there no stuff in these men, these five captains, had they so determined, to meet and withstand one aggressive individual? Thus, then, the time passed till May 31st, a whole month and no outbreak. According to the good preaching of the Council, and doubtless many others, the people had been exercising the Christian grace of patience." And, after all, it was not Leisler but the Lieutenant-Governor himself who threw the match into the powder. So small a question as by whose authority a certain sentinel had been posted in the fort led him to dismiss from the service Lieutenant Henry Cuyler, of De Peyster's company, for impertinence. A most injudicious act at such a time! It angered De Peyster and his company, who were on duty. It angered the train-bands, as an act of authority on the part of James' Governor which changed the situation. Whereupon the drums beat. Fortynine excited men of Leisler's company rushed to his house, demanding to be led to the fort. It is said that he refused; but they went, nevertheless, under Sergeant Stoll, the leader, and Cuyler admitted them "without the word." Thus was this revolution begun; with De Peyster's company on duty, De Peyster's lieutenant admitting the malcontents of Leisler's company to the fort, and presently Leisler himself appearing as their commander. Did he usurp the fort over his fellowcaptain? No. That night it was Lodowick's turn of duty; and it was Lodowick and some of his company who appeared at the councilchamber demanding the keys of the fort, and they had to be given. Even yet, however, the matter was not over. Let us not suppose everything smooth and easy. What pressure these captains must have been under from their relatives and friends! We know that they had warm discussions with the Lieutenant-Governor and Council. It was

a serious matter for them, for James might yet be king. And among themselves what discussions; all over the city what debates and disputes "the divisions of Reuben among the sheepfolds"! Nor was it till June 3d that the real decision was made. Then Bayard once more called the train-bands together, captains and soldiers, and tried his influence with them. Leisler was not there, but it was in vain. The soldiers rushed to the fort; and there, after much debate, Leisler drew

Jacobheisler

hold and guard the fort for "the captain whose watch

up a paper which the officers signed. In it they agreed to govern alternately till orders came from England; to William till such time; it is," says Leisler himThis paper was also

self, “to be for that time captain of the fort." signed by four hundred others in the fort, citizens and soldiers. A moderate paper, yet effective. So far as the city was concerned, it decided the uncertainty; it was a positive step in favor of William; a withdrawal of allegiance to James and the government appointed by him; it deprived them of all effective power; and at the head of the movement were Leisler and his fellow-captains.

At this point occurs the opportunity for some account of Captain Jacob Leisler, as a necessary prelude to his connection with these affairs. Leisler came to New-York from Frankfort, Germany, in 1660. Concerning him the Archivist of that city writes: "Jacob Leysseler of Frankfort, who sailed to America in 1660, is evidently the son of the Rev. Jacob Victorian Leisler, baptized here March 31, 1640. No further news about this son than the date of his baptism on the day of or a few days after his birth are to be found here. The father had been born at Oettingen, Kingdom of Bavaria, became a minister at Franckenthal, Palatinate, and from there was called to Franckfort by the two Reformed congregations, the French and the Dutch, in 1638. Before this call he had been persecuted on account of his religion and for some time had lived in exile. He died February 8, 1653. Of his wife only the baptismal names Susanna Adelheid are known. Besides Jacob, other children were baptized in Franckfort: (1) Johann Heinrich, February 10, 1642; (2) Hans Jacob, October 20, 1646; and (3) a daughter, Susanna, who died young."1

At this period Leisler was a well-known citizen, a merchant, and a man of very considerable property.

1 Extract from a letter of Dr. R. Jung, Archivist to the City of Frankfort-on-the-Main, to Mr. Berthold Fernow, May 23, 1891. (Translated.) Of his work in Frankfort an anniversary publication of the French Reformed Church in 1854 says: "J. Victorien Leisler, appelé de Franckenthal, par les

Two years after his coming he

deux communes, remplissait, de concert avec le pasteur flamand, les fonctions pastorales, malgré sa débile santé; il a servi l'église avec beaucoup de bénédictions; son ministère et celui de son successeur paraissent avoir été très-actifs et ont laissé des traces profondes."

VAN CORTLANDT ARMS.

had married Elsie (Tymens), the widow of Vanderveen, a reputable merchant. Elsie was a niece of Anneke Jans. How many families to this day keep bright the links of kinship with the latter, and-her estate, so long owned and guarded and fostered by Trinity Church! Strangely enough, this marriage brought Leisler, even thus early in life, into a family connection with Bayard, Philipse, and Van Cortlandt-at the close of it his worst enemies. In 1670 we find him a deacon in the Dutch Church, with Peter Stuyvesant and Van Cortlandt's father as fellowmembers of consistory, and then, as always, a man of sturdy religious profession and belief. Evidently a man with generous impulses: when a Huguenot family was to be sold for non-payment of ship charges, he himself stepped forward and purchased their freedom. Evidently an independent man: when, in 1667, two people were on trial for "murder by witchcraft," he was one of a jury to acquit them both a thing the Quakers of Pennsylvania only accomplished in 1684, that could hardly have been done in Boston in 1689. As a magistrate, in 1675, he so vigorously opposed an effort of Andros to thrust a priest (whom James had sent over) into occupancy of the Dutch Church, that Andros imprisoned him. Yet that at that time he was well esteemed in the community is evident from the fact that only three years later, in 1678, when he and a vessel of his were captured by the Turks, this same Andros initiated a collection throughout the province for his redemption. Leisler held few offices, but was called into service when needed; and he had been captain since 1684. This is what we know of him up to 1689. And we have thus reached an important historical question: What was he doing up to June 3d of that year? When the first intimations of William's landing came he had a vessel in port, on which he at once refused to pay duties to Plowman, James' collector and a Catholic. He also went before the Council, and before them persisted in his refusal-just like his sturdy independence, whether backed by anybody or not. From that time and to escape those duties, according to current histories, he is a dangerous person in the community, plotting treason and the overthrow of the Government. Yet at the time of the "uproar" and when Boston had set the example, where is the one man, the demagogue, quick to seize events and bulging with importance, to head "the rabble" to its destruction?

It is not Leisler. On the contrary, almost immediately thereafter, Nicholson and the Council place him in the fort at the head of an armed company to quiet the people; or, if he so chooses, to breed

further treason! A strange incongruity in the history, or wonderful stupidity on their part! Moreover, when the revolution begins-that 31st of May-it is through Nicholson's act and not his. And on the 3d of June the result is not to make Leisler a dictator, but that mutual agreement of the captains-in the face of which he is now represented to us as an ignorant man surrounded by "a rabble”; a mere puffball fuming with rage and insolence and profanity; as already infatuated with his own greatness, comparing himself to Cromwell, and most offensively assuming to his fellow-captains, whilst they are deferential! What injustice to them, in order to carry out the idea, received from the other side, of Leisler and the "lower classes, the rabble"! History makes them his mere foot-ball — Abraham De Peyster, Nicholas Stuyvesant, Charles Lodowick, and the rest; men assuredly not the ones to be dragged at a vulgar cart-tail through mud and slush. Historians deprive them of their manhood, and in these events would have us regard them as silent puppets upon a street-organ, moving to the tune of a coarse and ignorant player. And yet when, just after the revolution, Leisler himself wished to remove the obnoxious Catholic collector, he could not do it, for the reason which he gives: "I cannot get the other captains to turn out the collector"; and again (June 16th) "I can get no captain to side with me to turn him out." Outgoing letters from the fort are signed by the captains, the answers addressed to Leisler and "the rest of the captains" in command. They are so addressed by the General Court of Connecticut. When within a few days after signing that agreement Minvielle resigned, it was not on the ground of Leisler's tyranny and insolence, but because he thought their proceedings "hot-headed." The other captains remained, all of them, for months. When (June 11th) they sent to friends in England an address for the king from "the militia and inhabitants of New-York"-her citizen soldiery and only defense did they regard the movement as that of a "rabble"? When, so late as October 20th, Bayard-still as colonel and councilorwrote from Albany to De Peyster and De Bruyn an order "to bear good faith and allegiance" to William and Mary, but "to desist from aiding and abetting" Leisler, they put the letter into his hands; and when yet later (October 29th) he again commanded them "to obey the civil government established by Sir Edmund Andros," as still in force, they paid no heed. What do these facts prove? This period, the opening period of the revolution, was that of Leisler and the captains conjointly, not of Leisler and "the rabble." People of standing and influence parted from their own families and friends on these issues. History conceals it and them. It adopts a party stigma. It was slippery ground, and the Attorney-General, when drawing an indictment against Leisler, did not touch this period.

For a clear understanding of things, however, we must proceed with it a little further. On the 6th of June came credible news that William was king, and the messenger was on the way from Boston with letters. No doubt any longer about William; but will he continue in power the old government? What anxiety on both sides! The messenger gets to the fort first, and there all letters for the LieutenantGovernor or the Council are opened, read, and forwarded. No news, no orders; and so things remain as they were! But to open their letters, what an outrage! What indignation! What insolence in Leisler! Yet back in March, before Leisler had appeared upon the scene, upon a mere rumor of William's landing, they had themselves opened and suppressed seventeen private letters, "for the prevention of tumult," they said, "and the divulging of such strange news." Where was the difference? The difference was, that a revolution in England which changed kings-now that it

was successful- they were willing to accept; a revolution in New-York, which interfered with themselves as the government, that was Leisler and the rabble; and whatever derogated from the deference they claimed for themselves was insolence. Again, however, the truth of history requires us to ask, what of the other captains? Why single out Leisler for obloquy, when, by the agreement of only three days before, all were equally implicated, all equally and deeply interested in learning the first news? That plant of unpleasant odor which pervades these events like the sagebrush of the prairies, Leisler's insolence, was grown and perpetuated from party soil.

As yet he was only one of five captains, although the senior. I do not suppose Leisler to have been at any time choice of speech or deferential in his manners; on the contrary, a man of rugged honesty whose plain and often hasty speaking did him harm. But that was not the real, the underlying offense. If we read, we shall find that gentle speaking and gentle courtesy were not a characteristic of NewYork in these years of that century. "Knave" and "rogue" were frequent epithets by which to convey their opinion of one another. To the other side, however, the revolution itself was an insolence; whatever infringed upon the dignity of certain ones, of Van Cortlandt or Bayard or even the clergy, was an insolence; and upon Leisler, a German, with none of the make-up of society about him, the senior, the most popular, the boldest and most outspoken of his colleagues, upon him they visited the full measure of wrath and opprobrium.

VOL. I.-30.