April, 1652, Beverwyck was declared to be independent of the Patroon's colony, "and the germ of the present city of Albany was released from feudal jurisdiction,"1 its court being established at Fort Orange. Two years later, Breuckelen and adjacent towns secured the privilege from Stuyvesant of having a greater number of schepens, and district courts were organized, (composed of delegates from each towncourt, together with the schout,) which had general authority over roads, the establishment of churches and schools, and the making of local laws, subject to the approval of the provincial government.3

About the same time, there came an increase in immigration, both from abroad and from New England. English settlers, fleeing from the persecutions of New England, had already established themselves in towns under the Dutch government, which, in New Netherland, still allowed the broad religious toleration of Holland. With the exception of some persecution of the quakers under Stuyvesant's personal lead, the principles which made Holland the asylum of the persecuted were observed by the Dutch in America. There came to the Hudson river, Walloons from the Spanish Netherlands, Huguenots from France, Puritans from New England, and Waldenses from Piedmont,-all seeking freedom from persecution, and finding it in New Netherland rather than in New England, where, at this time in Massachusetts colony, civil rights were dependent upon church membership. In New Netherland, such rights, fought for step by step, depended simply upon the ownership in land, as did the rights of the members of the early Germanic village community.

Turning from this hasty sketch of the growth of representative government in New Amsterdam and vicinity before the year 1650, we may take this middle year of the 17th

century as an approximate starting point for an examiination in detail of the peculiar characteristics of the Dutch village communities; for, from this time forward, the agricultural settlements increased more rapidly, and, under conditions of freer government, villages and towns grew up, on lands granted directly to those who were to cultivate the soil. Hoping to advance such settlement, van Tienhoven, the Dutch Secretary under Stuyvesant, sent information to Holland in March, 1650, in regard to taking up land in New Netherland. "Before beginning to build," he said, "'twill above all things be necessary to select a well located spot on some river or bay, suitable for the settlement of a village or hamlet. This is previously properly surveyed and divided into lots, with good streets, according to the situation of the place. This hamlet can be fenced all around with high palisades or long boards and closed with gates.1 . . Outside the village or hamlet, other land must be laid out which can in general be fenced and prepared at the most trifling expense.'

The draft of "Freedoms and Exemptions," in the same year, (1650) states that, "on the arrival of the aforesaid persons in New Netherland they shall be allowed and granted the privilege of choosing and taking up under quit rent or as a fief, such parcels of land as they shall in any way be able to cultivate for the production of all sorts of fruits and crops of those parts," on condition that they should be deprived of the land, if it were not cultivated within a year. enjoy exemption from Tenths," for a term of

They were to years, "and

'This enclosure is clearly analogous to the Hedge of the early Teutonic village, which, through the Saxon Tun, is perpetuated in our English word, Town. For the existence of a similar survival in New England and a more complete statement of the interesting derivation of the word Town, see "Studies," I., "Germanic Origin of New England Towns," pp. 26–31.

* Docs. Relating to Col. Hist. of N. Y., I., pp. 365, 367-8. This may be called the Village Mark in New Netherland,—a larger town around the smaller.

thenceforth one additional year's exemption for every legitimate child they shall convey thither or get there." They might also cut and draw timber from the public forests, and hunt and fish in the public woods and streams. The company sometimes advanced land, farm implements, and cattle, for the term of six years, the farmer being "bound to pay yearly one hundred guilders and eighty pounds of butter rent for the cleared land and bouwerie."

2

It has been noted that as early as 1646, the village of Breuckelen had about it common lands in which the inhabitants had a share, to be taken as a penalty from those who opposed the schepens, or magistrates, of the town. In New Amsterdam itself, where the people had not at first settled for agricultural purposes, the right of pasturage in common lands prevailed. In 1649, the Director and Council passed a resolution to the effect that "the farmers on the Island Manhattan requesting by petition a free pasturage on the Island Manhattan, between the plantation of Schepmoes and the fence of the Great Bouwery, No. 1, the petitioners' request is provisionally granted, and that no new plantation shall be made or granted between said fencing." What is now City Hall

4

1 Docs. Relating to Col. Hist. of N. Y., I., p. 401.

2 Docs. Relating to Col. Hist. of N. Y., I., p. 371. This word "bouwerie," which occurs so frequently in early Dutch documents, is an interesting one. The verb in Dutch is "bouwen," to build; to till, plough. "Bouwerie" is used to designate in most cases, not only the portion of the land which is tilled or ploughed, but also that portion on which the farm buildings stand. In other words, it means usually the "home-lot," which, in the village communities on the Hudson, as in those on the Rhine, and in other parts of Europe (Laveleye, Prim. Prop., p. 112), was in early times the only holding that was strictly in severalty.

3 See p. 20, supra.

Here, as often, "plantation" and "Bouwery" are used as opposite terms. Dr. O'Callaghan, Hist. of New Netherland, II., p. 291, Note, says of this use: "By bouweries are meant those farms on which the family resided; by plantations those which were partly cultivated, but on which no settlers dwelt."

5 Docs. Relating to Col. Hist. of N. Y., XIV., p. 110.

Park in New York, bounded by Broadway, Nassau, Ann and Chambers streets, was, as late as 1686, perhaps much later, known as the Village Commons, where the droves of cattle were sent morning and evening to pasture.1

These village rights of common in regard to land were accompanied, in New Amsterdam, by rights of common participation in the deliberative assembly of the people, as they were in the forests of Germany centuries before. The record runs : 'Tuesday Novbr. 11. 1653. Present at the meeting in the City Hall of New Amsterdam," two Burgomasters and three Schepens named. Then follows the statement that "some of the most influential burghers and inhabitants of this city having been lawfully summoned the following appeared," naming twenty-three. "To whom the said Hon11 Burgomasters and Schepens propose that, whereas they have asked the community to provide means for paying the public expenses and keeping in repair the works . . . the aforesaid Magistrates ask the Community whether they will submit to such ordinances and taxes, as the Magistrates may consider proper and necessary for the government of this city. They all answered 'Yes!' and promised to obey the Hon Magistrates in every thing as good inhabitants are in duty bound to do confirming it with their signatures." One needs no great power of the imagination to fancy that he hears, in the unanimously spoken "Yes" of the Dutch assembly, something very like the shaking of spears and clashing of shields with which the sturdy, warlike Teutons signified assent to the plans of their chieftains in the open-air meetings of the tribe!

bl

3

The voice of the colonial settlers had found tolerably free expression in local affairs, in some of the village communities* on Long Island, earlier than the organization of municipal

1 Valentine, History of New York City, p. 281.

2 Docs. Relating to the Col. Hist. of N. Y., XIV., p. 220.

Green's Hist. of the English People, I., p. 15.

“Gravesande” (1645); Breuckelen (1646); Amersfoort (1647).

government in New Amsterdam. The majority of the settlers in the neighboring hamlets were Dutch; some, however, were English, who had come from New England to enjoy religious freedom among the Dutch colonists. They took their lands by Dutch title, and willingly placed themselves under Dutch laws and modes of government.1 Director Kieft's patent to the town of Gravesend, in the year 1645, when a few settlers had moved there from New England, is a veritable Dutch charter of civil and religious freedom. The patentees, it reads, were "to have and enjoye the free libertie of conscience according to the costome and manner of Holland, without molestation or disturbance from any Madgistrate or Madgistrates or any other ecclesiasticall Minister that may p'tend iurisdiction over them, with libertie likewise for them the s patentees theyr associates heyres &c. to erect a bodye politique and ciuill combination amongst themselves, as free men of this Province & of the Towne of Gravesend & to make such ciuill ordinances as the Maior part of yo Inhabitants ffree of the Towne shall think fitting for theyr quiett and peaceable subsisting & to nominate elect & choose three of y ablest approved honest men & them to present annuallie to ye Gouernor Generall of this Province for the tyme being, for him y° said Gouern' to establish and confirme;" which three men were to act as a local court with the usual jurisdiction. Five years after this patent was granted, the record of "severall orders agreed vppon by and with consent and approbation of the inhabitants of Gravesend," shows that "the first inhabitants agree togeather att Amesfort that they would fence in a certaine quantitie of Land to Conteine eight and twenty shares, the s land to be fenced with post and raile in one Common fence and to have it compleated by a certaine daye by them agreed vppon; vppon the penaltie of forfeiting as much as the rest of the s" fence might come vnto;

1 Docs. Relating to Col. Hist. of N. Y., I., p. 181.

2 Doc. Hist. of N. Y., I., p. 411. (See Gravesend Records).