Joseph Wagner
Joseph earned his PhD, Scottish Colonization Before Darien: Opportunities and Opposition in the Union of the Crowns, in 2020 at the University of St Andrews. He currently teaches at the University of St Thomas (St Paul, Minnesota).
"The Scotch had the sole rule"?
Scots did not just emigrate to East New Jersey in the late seventeenth century, they sought to exert control over the land and commerce of the colony. In 1703, the English colonial official Robert Quarry observed that the preceding twenty years had seen a ‘contest in East Jersey…whether the County shall be a Scotch Settlement or an English Settlement’.[1] In 1705, the governor of the colony, Edward Hyde (Lord Cornbury), stated his belief that the Scots had won the contest: ‘the Scotch during the time of the Proprietary Gouvernment had the sole rule’.[2]
Scots had been seeking control over territory in the Americas since the creation of Nova Scotia in 1621, which was mostly abandoned by 1632. Plans and preliminary Scottish efforts to establish colonies in Carolina, Florida, Guiana, Jamaica, and St Vincent in the 1660s and 1670s proved abortive. With no colony of their own, an array of Scots saw an opportunity in East New Jersey to, at least, establish de facto control over American territory. Though it was a legally English colony, this group was, as Lord Cornbury recognised, largely successful in this endeavour. How did they accomplish this?
The advent of the Scots investors
The effort started in Britain where six Scots (London-based merchant Gawen Lawrie; James Drummond, 4th earl of Perth; his brother John Drummond of Lundin, later 1st earl of Melfort; Robert Barclay of Ury; his brother David Barclay; and the Barclays’ uncle, Robert Gordon of Cluny) and a Scotland-based Dutchman (Arent Sonmans) became East New Jersey proprietors in 1682. This entailed the acquisition of 1/24th of the land in the territory and a say in the governance of the colony, with Robert Barclay leading the way as colonial governor. Greatly expanding Scottish interest in the venture, another thirty-six Scots became ‘fractioners’ – individuals who obtained fractional proprietary shares – through 1685.[3]
With this strong investor base, it was the Scots – rather than the English investors – who organised the largest voyages of emigrants to East Jersey in 1683-1685, sending about six hundred individuals over that period. The Scots were then able to exert major influence over the colony through the newly created Council of Proprietors, individually held positions in the government and courts (which had a cumulative effect favouring Scottish interests in the colony), and, to an extent, through the Provincial Council.
Scots on the Board of Proprietors
The infusion of Scottish emigrants into East Jersey, including Scottish fractioners and proxy agents for the proprietors, as well as the attendant appointments of Scots to key government positions deeply altered the demographic and governing dynamics in the colony. Instituted in 1685, the Council of Proprietors came to control land grants as well as handle land purchases from Native Americans, boundary disputes, and the collection of quit-rents. It also played a key role in the appointment of officials, encouraging trade, and developing industries. Its membership included the proprietors or their proxies present in the colony and, because of the emigrations from Scotland, most original members were Scots. Indeed, twelve of the fourteen charter members were Scottish and, during its first twenty years, twenty of thirty-one members who were recorded as attending meetings were Scots.[4] This makeup of the council could result in controversy. For example, these ‘unruly Scots & those of their faction’ were accused of usurping power and factiously appointing their countrymen to colonial offices.[5]
In addition to dominance in the Council of Proprietors, Scottish interests were represented in the Provincial Council by the deputy-governors of the colony who were ex officio members and by additional Scots who became members starting in 1686. During Robert Barclay’s tenure as governor from 1682 to 1688, the deputy governors were the Englishman Thomas Rudyard (1683) followed by three Scots: Gawen Lawrie (1683-1686), Lord Neill Campbell (1686-1687), and Andrew Hamilton (1687-1688). Though Barclay was deeply involved in organising, raising money for, and guiding the venture from Britain, he never made the journey across the Atlantic. That situation rendered the deputy-governor the most influential person on the ground in the colony. Indicating the significance of holding the positions of governor and deputy-governor, an English complaint explained how the Scots possessed ‘the advantage of a Scotch Governour’ who led the colonial government ‘with a high hand ag[ains]t the rest of the Inhabitants’.[6] In addition to the deputy-governors, the Scotsmen David Mudie, John Johnstone, and James Dundas served on the Provincial Council.[7]
Scots as colonial officials
Additional Scots likewise held key offices in the colonial government. George Keith and William Haige held the position of surveyor-general and Haige also served as receiver-general. Further examples include John Reid as deputy-surveyor and collector of quit-rents, George Willocks as collector of quit-rents and attorney-general, and governor Barclay’s brother John Barclay’s wide range of offices, including surveyor-general, receiver-general, and deputy-secretary. Thomas Gordon also held a wide range of positions, such as sheriff of Middlesex County, judge of probate, officer of the customs, attorney-general, deputy-secretary, and secretary of the colony.[8] Gordon used the influence he possessed in these positions to further ‘the Scotch Interest’ in East Jersey.[9] The Court of Common Right – the supreme court of the colony – also came to have strong Scottish representation as the deputy-governors held positions as justices, as did David Barclay, David Mudie, James Dundas, John Campbell, George Keith, and John Johnstone. The clerks of the Court of Common Right were also frequently Scotsmen, with the ubiquitous Thomas Gordon and John Barclay holding the position during the era under discussion.[10]
Scots influence over land and commerce
Through their domination of the Council of Proprietors and the holding of key positions in the government and courts, Scots were able to shape the colony’s development. Of particular importance was their influence over land and commerce. For example, the Scottish proprietors appointed John Reid as deputy-surveyor to survey lands to be granted to Scots even though the Englishman Samuel Groome had previously been sent to the colony as surveyor-general. As confirmed by 1684 instructions to Gawen Lawrie – who replaced the Englishman Thomas Rudyard as deputy-governor in 1683 – the Scots insisted that the proprietors’ lands in East Jersey be divided into an ‘English lot’ and a ‘Scots lot’.[11] Reid’s 1685 map of East Jersey exemplifies the division with distinct tracts of land belonging to the proprietors of England and Scotland (see map). As proprietors in Britain and through the appointment of Scots to important offices on the ground in the colony, the Scots were able to establish control over enclaves of territory to be specifically settled by Scottish emigrants.
The Scots also used their influence to enable Scottish colonial trade despite the English Navigation Acts, which outlawed direct trade between English colonies and Scotland as well as the use of Scottish vessels for the colonial trade. For example, the two main expeditions from Scotland in 1684 engaged in trade with English colonies despite the Acts. The Shield of Stockton, sailing from Leith, was blown off course and first arrived in Chesapeake Bay, where it acquired tobacco from Maryland to carry back to Scotland. Meanwhile, the Thomas and Benjamin of London, sailing from Leith via Montrose, carried assorted textiles to sell or trade in East Jersey.[12] William Dyre, the royal customs agent for New Jersey and Pennsylvania, brought charges for this infraction of the Navigation Acts, but realising he would not be able to win the case due to sentiment being on the side of the Scots in East Jersey, he did not appear in court. Indeed, Lawrie was to be the presiding justice in the case, and he would not have been inclined to rule against a ship sent by the Scottish proprietors.[13]
Additional complaints by royal officials in the colonies about illegal trade being conducted through East Jersey in the 1680s and 1690s indicate that the Scots were able to contravene the Navigation Acts through their influence in the colony. Among other examples, we find the Dolphin, possibly owned by the Scotsman William Orr, conducting illegal trade in 1685; the Unity, belonging to David Mudie (member of the Provincial Council and justice of the Court of Common Right), directly trading between East Jersey and Scotland in 1688 (and, perhaps, beyond); Scottish goods being imported into Perth Amboy and then carried overland to West Jersey in 1692; and the William and Mary engaging in direct trade with Scotland in the 1690s.[14]
Deputy-Governor Lawrie had granted a pass for the Dolphin to set sail from Elizabethtown despite Dyre’s orders and when the case went to court, one of the presiding justices was the Scotsman John Campbell. With Lawrie also present and a sympathetic jury, the case was found in favour of the Dolphin and against Dyre.[15] The former deputy-governor Andrew Hamilton became governor of East (and West) Jersey in 1692 and used the position to protect Scottish traders and ships breaching the Navigation Acts. He, for example, prevented the seizure and prosecution of the William and Mary in 1695. English colonial officials knew Hamilton for ‘protecting Scotch Ships and encourageing illegal Trade to the infringement of the Acts of Navigation’, as a ‘great favourer of the Scotch Traders, his Countrymen’, and simply for being ‘a Scotch Governour promoting a Scotch Interest’.[16] With this type of support from their countrymen holding positions in the government and courts, the Scots were described as ‘the principall traders in East [&] West Jersie & Pensilvania’ by 1699.[17]
A petition from 1700 signed by about 220 non-Scottish residents of East Jersey further demonstrates how the East Jersey Scots came to control much of the colony’s operations, worked together to assist their countrymen, and contravened the English Navigation Acts. The petitioners complained that the proprietors had,
"Commissionated a Native of Scotland to be Secretary and Attorney General of this your Ma[jes]tys Province (being both Places of the greatest Trust next the Governour) and one of the Same Nation to be Clerke of the Supream Court…Which may be of Ill Consequence in Relation to the Act of Trade and Navigation, and to the great Hindrance of Your Ma[jes]tys Loyall Subjects (the Power of Government being Cheifly in the Hands of Natives of Scotland) from Informing against any Illegal or Fraudulent Trading by Scotchmen or others in this Province."[18]
An additional complaint from 1702 expanded upon this concern, noting the influence of the ‘Scotch faction’ in the colony. This group included the likes of George Willocks, John Barclay, Thomas Gordon, and John Johnstone. Though perhaps not a Scot himself, Miles Forster, who had many links with Scots in the colony, was also named as a member of the faction.[19]
Along with the major investment and migrations from Scotland in the 1680s, these and other Scots were able to exert control over East Jersey by holding key positions of authority in the government and courts and through the Council of Proprietors. This combination resulted in Scots obtaining ‘the sole rule’ – de facto control – of the legally English colony of East New Jersey between 1682 and 1702.
NOTES [1 - 19] - click to open
[1] William A. Whitehead, et al., eds., Documents Relating to the Colonial History of the State of New Jersey, 1st ser., 42 vols. (1880-1949) [hereafter DRCHNJ], 2: 544.
[2] DRCHNJ, 3: 106.
[3] Derrick Johnstone, ‘The Scots Venture to East Jersey’, on this site
[4] George J. Miller, ed., The Minutes of the Board of Proprietors of the Eastern Division of New Jersey from 1685 to 1705 (1949; repr., Perth Amboy, 1985).
[5] DRCHNJ, 3: 131-132.
[6] DRCHNJ, 3: 14.
[7] DRCHNJ, 13: 161-174, 187-238.
[8] DRCHNJ, 2: 81-84, 101, 106-107n1; DRCHNJ, 3: 132, 253, 331; DRCHNJ, 13: 142-143, 174, 189, 193, 234, 242, 273; Miller, ed., The Minutes of the Board of Proprietors, 5-8, 51-52, 63-64, 68, 95-96, 120, 169, 176-177, 181, 191-192; Preston W. Edsall, ed., Journal of the Courts of Common Right and Chancery of East New Jersey, 1683-1702 (Philadelphia, 1937), 107.
[9] DRCHNJ, 3: 14-15, 135, 195.
[10] Edsall, ed., Journal of the Courts, 21, 28-29, 35-37, 94-95, 130, 132, 143n22, 194, 297, 326-331; Miller, ed., The Minutes of the Board of Proprietors, 249; DRCHNJ, 3: 403-404; DRCHNJ, 13: 120-121, 142-143; The National Archives, CO 5/1261, no. 15(vii), Monmouth County court of sessions, 25 March 1701, fols. 83-84.
[11] DRCHNJ, 1: 423-425, 447-449.
[12] Joseph Wagner, ‘The Scottish Colonising Voyages to Carolina and East New Jersey in the 1680s’, The Northern Mariner 30, no. 2 (Summer 2020): 161-163, https://tnm.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/default/issue/view/3.
[13] Edsall, ed., Journal of the Courts, 134-135, 192-194; John E. Pomfret, The Province of East New Jersey, 1609- 1702: The Rebellious Proprietary (Princeton, 1962), 258.
[14] Edsall, ed., Journal of the Courts, 136-137; DRCHNJ, 21: 221; Robert Noxon Toppan and Alfred Thomas Scrope Goodrick, eds., Edward Randolph; including his Letters and Official Papers, 7 vols. (Boston, 1898-1909), 5: 85-87, 7: 399, 416, 472-473; The National Archives, CO 323/3, ‘Mr Randolph’s Paper representing the ill execution of the Acts of Parl[iament] relating to Trade’, 17 August 1696, fol. 30v.
[15] Edsall, ed., Journal of the Courts, 135-136, 198-200.
[16] Toppan and Goodrick, eds., Edward Randolph, 5: 157-158, 190, 280-281, 286-287; DRCHNJ, 2: 420, 435, 466-467; The National Archives, CO 5/1261, Memorial of Jeremiah Basse, 30 September 1701, fol. 153v.
[17] DRCHNJ, 2: 288.
[18] DRCHNJ, 2: 324-325.
[19] DRCHNJ, 2: 487-488.