LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

Roger Baker was well known as the landlord of the King’s Head, and Gabriel Thompson was equally well known as the landlord of the White Lion. As revealed by the scrutiny of the votes, Baker and Thompson were on opposite sides. Baker voted for William Morris, the anti-Leislerian candidate for alderman, and Thompson voted for Johannes DePeyster, who was the Leislerian candidate. Baker had been commissioned by Bellomont a lieutenant of militia and Thompson had also been an officer in the militia. In 1664, Gabriel Thompson, as master of the sloop, Hopewell, cleared from New York for places up the river seven times during the year. He was an ensign at Albany in 1685, and a captain in the expedition against the French and Indians in Leisler’s time, and since then had probably been a resident of New York City, where he had kept a tavern. He petitioned, in 1693, that the sub-collector repay to him £36 excise money, which indicated that he was a tavern-keeper, but where his house was then located we do not know. He was one of the signers of the petition showing to the home government the grievances existing in New York in 1692 and 1693.

      These were exciting times and the citizens who gathered at these two taverns in all probability had not a few hot discussions over the political situation. On August 29, 1701, a committee of the council was appointed to meet in conference a committee of the assembly at three o’clock in the afternoon at Roger Baker’s, at the sign of the King’s Head. The conference accordingly met, and from thence adjourned to Gabriel Thompson’s at the White Lion.

      During the months of September and October, 1701, many conference committees of the council and the assembly met at the White Lion, the house of Gabriel Thompson. There was a conference meeting here on September 4th and on September 11th we find record of another. On September 28, 1701, we find the following record in the Journal of the House:

      “A message was sent to this House from the Council, that a Conference is desired by the Council, with a committee of this House at 3 of the Clock in the Afternoon, at Gabriel Thompson’s, at the White Lion,

      Which was agreed to and,

      Ordered, That Capt. Provoost, Col. Rutsen, Mr. Hanjen, Mr. Sebring and Mr. Veghte, be a Committee of this House, to confer with a Committee of Council this Afternoon.”

      A deed bearing date November 23, 1701, shows that Gabriel Thompson, tavern-keeper, purchased from Nicholas Bayard and Abraham De Peyster the lot on the northwest corner of the present Wall and William Streets, but whether or not he ever kept a tavern here we have not been able to determine. Maps of this locality, of subsequent date, show no building between the City Hall and Bayard’s sugar house. Thompson’s house was undoubtedly in this neighborhood and probably not far from the City Hall, where the assembly held their sessions.

      It has been stated by some writers that the King’s Head, the house of Roger Baker, was at the corner of Pearl Street and Maiden Lane. Henry Coleman, butcher, mortgaged this property in February, 1701, to Roger Baker, vintner, for a loan of £348 10s. Baker may have eventually come into possession of it, and he may have kept a tavern here, but we can find no evidence of it. In the mortgage deed it is described as lying without the fortifications on the north side of a street called Queen Street and bounded on the east side by a street which leads to Green Lane.

      After the death of Bellomont, during the brief rule of Lieutenant-Governor Nanfan, who was a relative of the Earl, the political agitation was active and aggressive. As soon as it became known in New York that Lord Cornbury had been appointed to succeed the Earl of Bellomont as governor of the province, measures were taken to secure the favor of that corrupt individual by the anti-Leislerian party. In this procedure Nicholas Bayard took the lead, and procured addresses to be signed to the King, to parliament and to Cornbury. To Cornbury, a man very susceptible to flattery, they were profuse in their congratulations and in assertions calculated to prejudice him against those who had supported Bellomont and to gain his favor for themselves, that they might again become the dominant party. Not only were reflections freely cast on the Earl of Bellomont, but Nanfan, the lieutenant-governor, was accused of bribing members of the house of assembly.

The Addresses Signed at the Coffee House

      The addresses were signed at the Coffee House, kept by John Hutchins, and as soon as it was known, Hutchins was summoned to appear before the lieutenant-governor and the council and ordered to produce the addresses. This he could not or would not do, and on the 19th of January, 1702, was arrested and committed to jail. Two days after, Bayard was also arrested and committed to prison on a warrant as a traitor. Nanfan was aware that Bayard had dug a pit for others that might be used for his own destruction. He had procured the passage of a law in 1691, when he was striving and hoping for the ruin of Leisler and his friends, by which, “whatsoever person or persons shall, by any manner of ways, or upon any pretence whatsoever, endeavor, by force of arms or otherwise, to disturb the peace, good and quiet of their majesties’ government, as it is now established, shall be deemed and esteemed as rebels and traitors unto their majesties, and incur the pains, penalties and forfeitures as the laws of England have for such offences, made and provided.” The trial of Bayard was hastened that it might be concluded before the arrival of Cornbury. The prisoners petitioned that they might not be tried until the usual sitting of the Supreme Court. This, of course, was refused. All objections were overruled and Bayard was ordered for trial on Monday, the 2d of March. He was convicted and sentenced to death, and Hutchins was tried and condemned in like manner. Bayard was granted a reprieve until her majesty’s pleasure might be known. Hutchins was released on bail. Bayard was held in confinement until the arrival of Cornbury, when all was reversed. Not very long after, by order of the government, Bayard and Hutchins were reinstated in all honor and estate, “as if no such trial had been.”

      In the trial of Bayard, testimony was given that the addresses were signed in an upper room in the Coffee House, and that Nicholas Bayard was present, “smoaking a pipe of tobacco.” One of the signers was Peter Matthews, who was a lieutenant in the service, and the landlord of the tavern where Bellomont declared the club met which was composed of men opposed to his administration. Lieutenant Matthews had come out with Governor Fletcher in 1692. He had previously been one of the household of the Governor, and by him had been made a lieutenant in the garrison at the fort. He subsequently rose to the rank of colonel and was one of the commissioners of Indian affairs in 1715. In 1703 his house was in the south ward. Soon after, he removed to Orange County, where he held a large grant of land.

Trial of Roger Baker

      Another tavern-keeper who became entangled in the meshes of the law and suffered from his boldness in expressing his opinions was Roger Baker, the landlord of the King’s Head. We give an account of his trial taken from a letter from New York, May 4, 1702, which is probably not altogether impartial.

      “The Grand Jury brought in presentments. – * * * One against Roger Baker saying the 5 November last the King was made a nose of wax and no longer King than the English please. * * * Roger Baker came upon tryal with a packt petty Jury according to custome, whereof four happening to be absent, a tales was ordered, and although there were then spectators in Court above 30 Englishmen and he told so, yet the Sheriffe went out and brought in three Dutch men of their party, and finding no more he was forced to take one John Ellis an Englishman then in court. Three witnesses were sworn the first said, he Baker spoke the words; but that they were all very drunk it being Holy-day. The other two said they were always present with them, but heard no such words nor nothing like it, that they were all drunk but the other witness to that degree he could not stand. Judge Atwood gave charge to the Jury to bring Baker in Guilty; the Jury went out and stayed all night then came into Court and deliver’d their verdict Not Guilty; at which Judge Atwood was very angry refusing to the Verdict, sent them out again, when after 6 hours they returned again with Not Guilty. At which the Judge grew very passionate, and threatening them several times. They were sent out three several times more and persisted in Not Guilty. Upon which the Judge threatened to imprison and fine them. That so scared the 11 Dutch, that in Open Court being sent for (it being about an hour before the Court was to determine), were demanded why they were not agreed and who it was that would not agree to find Guilty. Answer was made John Ellis upon which the Judge fell upon him with such menacing language in open Court and a considerable time hectoring and threatening him, he so managed him too that at last he gave his consent in open Court where Baker was recorded Guilty and fined 400 pieces of Eight and to remain in Custody of the Sheriffe till his fine was paid and after that until he made such

Скачать книгу