cause the church feared that its legal effect would be to establish it as tenant in common with the other heirs.

The Cornelius above referred to as selling out was the fighting Cornelius hereinafter alluded to.

Nine other suits were brought in 1847 by Cornelius Brouwer in the Supreme Court, in which the plaintiff suffered a nonsuit.

In 1851 another system was tried, and a suit was brought by one of the descendants of old Dr. Kierstede, who married a daughter of Mrs. Bogardus. In this action the State of New York was made a defendant. It was decided in April, 1856, adversely to the plaintiff. The claim of Kierstedt was that there was an obligation, legal and equitable, on the crown to restore the possession to the heirs of his ancestor, and that this obligation had devolved upon the State of New York; that the church was holding under a grant from Governor Cornbury in 1705, which was void under the vacating act of 1699. The plaintiff demanded that the State be required to recover the lands from the church, and then turn them over to the heirs, and that a receiver of the lands be appointed.

The court, on a demurrer to the complaint, held that there was no power in any of the courts of this State to entertain a suit brought against the State, except when specially authorized by statute.

The claims on the part of the State to the property have been on the ground that the church held over as tenant of the crown, and that the State had succeeded to the rights and property of the crown.

A bill was introduced in the Legislature of 1785 authorizing proceedings on the part of the State to recover the property. A remonstrance was thereupon sent to the Legislature by the church, and the bill was never passed. A counter remonstrance on the part of the heirs sent to the Legislature concludes with the forcible remark, that "when the devil's kingdom is in danger he roars the loudest."

Recently, however, in 1856, the State woke up again, and an ejectment suit was brought by the State for a lot on Murray Street, just south of the Domine's Bouwery, but part of the King's farm.

The corporation of Trinity Church set up as a defense its old plea of statute of limitations, and also a seizure in fee by the church. The case was tried before a

jury, and the State was nonsuited, which nonsuit was upheld by the Court of Appeals in 1860.

The State, in a recent case, claimed that the grant from Lord Cornbury in the name of Queen Anne in 1705 was void, because the act of 1702 was then in force, by which no grant could be made by a Colonial Governor for a longer period than his term of office.

The court held that prima facie the land had been granted by the crown, and that the evidence of the plaintiff showed it; and that the adverse possession of the church, as against the State, was fully made out; also that the reservation of a quitrent to the crown in the patent was merely a mode of payment of the consideration of the grant.

A claim was also supposed to exist in favor of the city of New York. It was made a matter of research, and in 1867 was submitted to the Corporation Counsel, Mr. O'Gorman, for his opinion. He reported that the city had no claim whatever.

The claim was based upon certain sovereign rights over the trial supposed to have been continued in the State of New York, as successors of the crown of England, which had passed to the city of New York from the State.

It will be observed that by the charter of Governor Dongan to the city in 1686, and of Governor Montgomerie in 1730, the King's farm and the adjoining swamp were expressly reserved from the general grant to the city of all vacant and unappropriated lands.

The last great attack on Trinity Church was in 1871. A suit was brought by Domine David Groesbeck, in his complaint alleging himself to be a Protestant minister of the Gospel, against the officers of the church.

The ground taken by the reverend plaintiff was that he was a successor of some of the original Dutch inhabitants who were corporators on the original establishment of the Episcopal Church in the colony.

He claimed that there had been a perversion and waste of the church property, and charged its corporation with having neglected to provide for the poor of the parish, while pampering the pride of the worldly-minded, and "laying up treasures on earth in bonds and mortgages held over Episcopal churches." He also averred that the purpose of the founders

of Trinity Church was to prevent the increase of vice in the city of New York, and not merely to support the "parasites of any sect," and he claimed a right to preach in Trinity Church as a believer in the doctrines established at the Synod of Dort, but was deprived of that right. He averred also that the corporation had violated its duty in allowing "one Morgan Dix," who was made a defendant, to preach that "Protestantism, as a moral system, was a failure," and also for allowing said Dix to say that "Luther perceived that he had committed a gigantic error in advocating the Scriptures alone as a means of salvation, knowing that the Church was the instrument that should decide controversies of faith." The plaintiff averred also that the officers of the corporation had paid said Dix a salary for uttering such blasphemies, and had allowed the services of the Greek Church to be performed in Trinity Church, and that the said Dix, with the connivance of said officers, advocated the establishment of institutions of able-bodied young women in the parish by means of the surplus revenues of the church. The plaintiff therefore claimed that a receiver of all the property be appointed, subject to the further order of the

court.

Other grounds were that the corporation of the church sought to gain political weight, and treated the Legislature with contempt. The defendants to this comical complaint put in a demurrer, that is, put in a defense, that even if the facts alleged were true, the plaintiff could not by law have any recovery. Some of the alleged grounds taken in support of the demurrer were as queer as those of the complaint. Among them were that the Church of England holds the Catholic faith to be necessary; that it does not use the word Protestant; that by its Twenty-first Article it acknowledges the authority of the Church in matters of faith; and that although Luther is esteemed as a saint among Protestants, in the calendar of the English Church he is not so great a worthy as St. Peter or St. Clement, Bishops of Rome, or St. Boniface, St. Sylvester, or St. Gregory, also Bishops of Rome.

Other grounds in support of the demurrer were that the Synod of Dort never pretended really to settle any doctrines of the Christian communion, but only some miserable controversies between Calvinists, Gomarists, and Arminians, and

that although certain representatives from England were present at the Synod, they had no power to commit the Church of England to anything, and that its decrees were never accepted in England. Another answer was that even if heresies had been preached in the church, that was no reason why the salary of the preacher should not be paid.

The learned jurist who pronounced upon all this tangled theological and legal matter sustained the demurrer, and thereby threw the plaintiff out of court.

In the course of its opinion the court profoundly remarks, as to the plaintiff's willingness to preach in Trinity Parish Church, as follows: "I have no doubt whatever in regard to such willingness; nay, more, if such willingness were just cause of complaint, or if such condescension on the part of plaintiff could be made the basis of a good count upon which to sustain an action, that there are many of the clergy in the different Protestant denominations who would most willingly condescend in like manner to preach in Trinity Church. Indeed, I am afraid, if such were the case, and this court had jurisdiction over the subject-matter, there would be no end of actions against the corporation."

Lately an old Dutch Bible, alleged to have belonged formerly to Mrs. Anneke Bogardus, has come to light in the hands of one Miss Harriet Van Atten, of Glenville, Schenectady County, a direct descendant of Pieter Bogardus, a son of the old lady, to whom it is stated to have been given by her. On the strength of this, and a pair of gold ear-rings that once belonged to her venerable ancestor as personal property, application was recently made to the Surrogate of Albany for letters of administration upon the personalty of Mrs. Anneke Bogardus.

The Surrogate of Albany County refused to entertain the application, and the matter is now on appeal to the General Term of the Supreme Court from his decision. If letters of administration are granted, the intention is to open the legal battle again, and to claim an accounting from Trinity Church.

This coveted tract of land has not only been the subject of forensic battle, but bone and sinew have been engaged in the contest; heads have been broken and shots have been fired in support of the claims of the redoubtable and indefatigable heirs.

Mars has been invoked where Mercury has failed, and for years before and after the evacuation of the city by the British forces, in November, 1783, the community was kept in alarm by the contests of the contending factions seeking to obtain and hold an actual possession of the old Bouwery.

Long before the Revolutionary war the Trinity Church physical warfare was begun. We find that in September, 1773, under orders from the authorities of the church, a force of a dozen men armed with broad-axes entered upon the premises where Cornelius E. Brouwer had located himself on the tract, and tore down and burned the fences he had erected to define his possession.

In 1775 they also tore down the fences about one Noblet's house, a tenant of the heirs, and destroyed Noblet's field of rye. The wounds received in this campaign, the chronicle tells us, were, an old woman kicked in the eye, and her husband wounded, who sought to get her out of the way. During the troubles consequent upon the occupation of the British the old farm had been in a comparatively deserted state. The great contest for national liberty had turned people's minds from private interests. On the return of peace, however, the premonitory rumblings indicating the renewal of the great war for the old Bouwery were heard.

The Council appointed by the new State government for the temporary government of the southern district of the State took possession of the temporalities of Trinity Church, and in January, 1784, issued a proclamation against the conduct of Cornelius Egbert and Everardus Bogardus, Cornelius Cooper and Abraham Brouwer, senior and junior, in intriguing with and menacing the tenants on the land of the church. It may be here remarked that this temporary occupation of the property of the church by the State authorities was afterward made use of as an argument in the various claims made by the State for the ownership of the land. This proclamation was published in the New York Gazette. To this the Bogardus heirs responded by another published manifesto claiming the legal title, and that they and their grantors and tenants had had possession until the church, taking advantage of the absence of the Bogardus family during the Revolution, had taken surreptitious possession, and they charge

the church with pilfering their lands, and "with an unconscientious defense at the suit of honest title."

The great champion and leader of the barred-out heirs now appeared in Cornelius B. Bogardus, who had been absent from the city during the war, and returned after the evacuation. He now sound

ed the trumpet call. A notice was published in the New York Packet of May, 1784, calling upon the heirs and representatives of Annie Bogardus, widow, deceased, to meet at Cape's Tavern "on business of high importance relative to the lands called Domine's Hook, which formerly belonged to her."

Bogardus now took practical steps for the resumption of possession by the heirs, so as to avoid the legal effects of an undisturbed possession by the church. He accordingly established himself in a house on the farm on what is now Chambers Street; he put his son Henry on a part of the farm at Reade Street, and his son John in a house at the corner of Reade and Chapel streets; he also located Lewis B. Bogardus in a house near formerly St. John's Square, in Hudson Street, which was known among the heirs as the "possession" house.

Cornelius B. also took possession of a pit of clay near Thomas Street, and daily dealt it out at a shilling a load, and also sold gravel from a pit which he had surrounded by rails.

An old lady claiming to be one of the heirs, named Mrs. Broad, also took possession of an old house called the Fort, near the foot of Reade or North Moore Street, surrounded by a breast work and trench. Here the old lady intrenched herself, and stoutly maintained her possession from the time the British left, in November, 1783, until 1787. We are told that she drove away people who came to take away any of the earth from her fort by pouring boiling water on them.

The doughty Cornelius also located a dozen more of his retainers on different other portions of the farm as tenants. He menaced and intrigued with the tenants of the church, and defied the temporal and spiritual forces of the church to dispossess him.

In June, 1784, Trinity Church raised an army of men and boys, under the command of one George Trenis, a Hessian, and pulled down and burned the Bogardus fences. The Trinity Church army then

put up its own fences, which were in turn burned by the Bogardus retainers. As a bloody incident of this war, one of the witnesses of the fight under oath stated that one of the church party, John Bertine, "took hold of Hannah Marsh, about 63 years of age, and pulled her down on her knees, and attempted to put her head into a pail of grog, first having dragged her across the street, and gave her very indecent usage otherwise."

There was also a fight in October, 1785. One Joseph Forbes, who had been appointed by Trinity Church as a sort of curator, undertook, with a body of retainers of the church, to pull down certain fences erected by the Bogardus heirs on the land, one of the fences running to the house occupied by one George Higday, who was in possession as châtelain in the interest of the claimants. In perform ance of his duties as keeper of the castle, the doughty Higday fired his shot-gun at Forbes and his men, and wounded Forbes and four others with bird shot. The victory in these contests rested, however, with the church.

In 1788, the church corporation having advertised for sale a number of lots on the tract, with a statement that the title was as good as any in the State, the heirs published the following proclamation:

"TO THE PUBLIC.

"Whereas the corporation of Trinity Church have advertised for sale at the Merchants' Coffee-House, on the 1st of April next, a number of lots of land situate in Chambers Street, Reade Street, and other places within the bounds of Domine's Hook Patent, in the West Ward of this city; the heirs of Annekie Bogardus, and those holding rights under them, in the said Patent, Do Hereby Give Notice that they are determined to support their claim to said lands, within the grant formerly made to the said

Annekie Bogardus. And this notice is given to prevent any person hereafter from pretending ignorance of the said claim; which the Heirs and those deriving title from them are

determined to support.

"NEW YORK, March 31, 1788."

The result of all these troubles, however, was that all the Bogardus fences were in time taken down or burned.

Lewis Bogardus's wife and children were driven from their house, during his temporary absence, by the Trinity Church forces. The rails around the clay pit were torn down, criminal charges were made of assault and perjury against the Bogardus retainers, the tenants were frightened away or bought off, and, worst of all, the doughty Cornelius himself sold his birthright to and was bought off by Trinity Church for the paltry sum of £700, and too humiliated to meet his former companions in arms, he therefore abandoned not only the scene of his contests, but the city.

The last one of all the heirs who held out in the war of 1784-5, and who is entitled, on the Bogardus side, to all the honors of war, was old Mrs. Broad, who lived in the stockades of the old fort at the foot of Reade Street. One of the witnesses in the suit brought in 1830 testified in 1842 that he knew the old lady, and that she continued in possession of the old redoubt, refusing to leave until the opposing forces actually dug it away, when she made a fair compromise with parties representing Trinity Church.

The heirs have not yet succumbed. Meetings are still held for the assertion of their claims. The contest will probably continue until through the natural increase of the multitudinous claimants the pecuniary result of even a successful attack would be reduced for each to a minimum.

gins the fourteenth volume of my diary. Fourteen volumes! I suspect that few bachelors who have lived in one place and passed their lives in the China trade can show so much. And yet I, the journalist, in the days of my youth, of my jeunesse orageuse, when I might have kept a journal to some purpose, kept none at all. Perhaps it is as well. It would not be pleasant reading now, though it might serve as a lesson, which, however, I hope I no longer need.

I am afraid there was not much of general interest in Volumes I. to XIII. inclusive. I doubt if even I shall ever read them over. And I fear they will not prove of absorbing interest to my heirs, remote collaterals as these must be. I kept my diary in order to form systematic habits, and now that I have formed the habits, they keep the diary. I wonder if this volume will be more interesting? Telegram to day from Rowbotham Brothers, ordering hemp, 800 barrels first, June-July, 1881, x. on Bombay, deliverable all Oct.-Dec.

June 15.-Telegraphed Rowbotham about his hemp. Saw Russell to-day; he is going home to get married. Year after year I have seen my friends go home to get married-some succeed and some of them don't leaving me in peace and HongKong. Many of them have gone, as the event proved, never to return. . . . I wonder whether I shall ever go home to get married? I suspect not. . . . Marriage is one of those rash things we do in our youth. Would I had never done anything worse!

June 16.-Rowbotham by cable countermands those two cargoes of hemp. I had already bought one of them. This telegraphing has spoiled the China trade. Now I have either got a lawsuit on my hands or a cargo of hemp. Well, I prefer the hemp, hate rows, and would rather do anything than go to law. A quiet life By-the-way, had a letter from Uncle John to-day; he wants me to go home and marry his grandniece. Cabled, "Impossible to leave this year; fear a panic." Uncle John's mind must be going.

June 17.-Saw Russell to-day. Never saw a man so happy. He is going off Saturday. Told him of my uncle's wanting me to go home. He slapped me on

back-luckily it is a stout one). "Rummy, my boy," said he, "you must go with me. All the fellows call me Rummy; I don't know why; I have never been intemperate in my habits. Didn't tell Russell why I was to go home. My uncle's grandniece, indeed! She must be hardly out of long clothes. Why, her mother was hardly too old for me to be a little in love with her. I wonder if the daughter is like her? Business very dull just

now.

June 18.-Cablegram from Uncle John: "Panic be blanked! Come at once. Don't break my heart." Just ten words. Intemperate old fellow, Uncle John. Of course I've got to go. He sent me out here, and now he sends me back. Que la volonté de Uncle John soit faite, as we say in French. A knowledge of French is the only profit I made the last time I disobeyed Uncle John's orders. And now I am all he has got in the world; that is, I and the grandniece. Russell seems delighted. Haven't told him about the grandniece, though; it would never do. He would be certain to tell all the fellows; and they insist on giving us a dinner the night before we go. Rowbotham took that hemp, after all; very kind of him. Nice fellow, Rowbotham.

June 19.-We had a great dinner last night. Very nice fellows these boys are in Hong-Kong, all of them. 'Pon my soul I was sorry to leave them, but said I'd be back in three or four months: just the time to convince Uncle John of his folly, and I'll come home again to HongKong.... Here we are on the steamer, already out of sight of land, and I am smoking on the deck. Russell has a headache, and says, petulantly, he don't see how a fellow can do it. I don't see how a fellow can take too much wine on the very night that he is leaving HongKong and going back to get married. If I were going home to get married, I am sure- After all, though, there's nearly ten years between us. He's a young fellow yet. His character isn't formed. He isn't much older in feeling than I was fifteen years ago, when I left Vienna-per order Uncle John, as usual. But Uncle John's orders had some sense in them then. Poor Mademoiselle Tavernier! she