: CHURCH QUARRELS DISTURB ELECTION 159 some person, for he appears to have been the sole officer of the board that first year. Again, in November, 1756, Gabriel Ludlow was put in charge of the collection, and, together with David Clarkson, was directed to receive funds and subscriptions. But in May, 1757, Mr. Smith was once more made "Clerk to the Trustees," an office evidently including guardianship of the capital, then "in M Ludlow's hands." At this stage it is well to pause for a glance at the changes that had taken place in the ranks of the Trustees. In consequence of three more elections, held regularly according to advertisement at the Exchange, thirteen new names appear on the roll, of whom three were the remaining founders, Philip Livingston, John Morin Scott and William Smith, Jr., all chosen at the second election. That this balloting of 1755 was attended with a repetition of the contest of a year before, with even greater acrimony, is revealed in the same communication from the forceful pen of "B," in the Mercury for May 12th, above quoted in part.1 Referring to the former effort as "A Design so disgraceful and ridiculous in itself, and so effectually frustrated, [as to] have satisfied any Man, but a blind, hot-headed, and imprudent Zealot," this racy writer proceeds to inform how, "after the fullest Defeat in the most shameful Cause, Bigotry ventured again to rear her Head"; and how a second attempt was made, "equally unsuccessful with the first." Responsibility was attributed to "the Resentment of a Bigot, now heightened into Madness by the late frequent controversial Defeats of HIGH-CHURCH, on the Subject of the COLLEGE," which "drove him, in Defiance of Reason, 1 See pp. 139, 140. and the Rules of Probability, into a Resolution, once more to attack the Presbyterians, and that in a Manner more base and insidious than the Former." He then explains that, on the day before election, "this palpable Untruth was impudently coined," and "as impudently propagated, That the Presbyterians were resolved to turn out every Churchman from the Trusteeship." "With what View this vile Slander was published," was "a Matter too obvious, to require a curious Disquisition." After denouncing such a report, as having "a natural Tendency to prepossess every warm Episcopalian with the strongest Prejudices against the Presbyterians," the philippic continues: "And doubtless had this Scheme taken its full Effect, the Trusteeship would have been filled with a Set of Persons far different in their Sentiments, from those who now enjoy it." This unpleasant exposé may well close with its very interesting estimate of the position and opportunities of the trusteeship: It must indeed be admitted, that the Office of a Trustee of our Library is, at present, of very little Importance, either to its Possessor, or the Public. We have an excellent Collection of Books, and no Money in Bank to be squandered. Hence it is impossible to prostitute the Office; and consequently a Matter of Indifference whoever fills it. But if its Unimportance cannot subvert the Right of a Subscriber to stand Candidate for the Post, all undue Means to destroy the Impartiality of an Election, is an Abridgment of his Right; which doubtless as an Englishman, he may justly resent. The fact that the seven new persons then chosen to the board were all of the popular party is proof enough that "the Presbyterians, . . . from a Love of British Freedom, ... devised Means in this particular Case, OPPOSING POLITICAL FORCES 161 effectually to disappoint the Invaders of their Rights," and that "in doing it they were remarkably successful." They were William Smith, William Smith, Jr., Philip, John and Peter Van Brugh Livingston, John Vanderspiegel and John Morin Scott, an interesting group, as showing the alignment of Dutch Church members with Presbyterians in opposition to the Anglican element. Though John Chambers and James Alexander of the Whig contingent were retired, their places were filled by representatives of the same views, William Walton being the sole Trustee with government leanings returned to office. The next year saw a turning of the tables, for, of the seven above mentioned, only one, John Livingston, was then reëlected; while his Honor Lieutenant-Governor De Lancey, the Hon.1 Joseph Murray, the Rev. Dr. Barclay, the Hon. John Watts and Benjamin Nicoll, Esq., were triumphantly reinstated; as was also the Hon. John Chambers of the opposition, which lost in its turn William Livingston, the Hon. William Alexander, Robert R. Livingston and William P. Smith, besides six of the Whigs elected only the year before. Furthermore, the aristocratic following gained four new men in the Hon. Oliver De Lancey, the Hon. Henry Cruger, David Clarkson and Gabriel Ludlow. In 1757 there came another reversal, by which there was a more equitable division of the opposing political forces, with only two new names, Peter Keteltas and Goldsbrow Banyar. Thereafter, a wholesome calm seems to have settled down upon that annual function, for, in the seventeen remaining years before the disrup 'The title "Hon." in colonial days implied a member |