108 HISTORY OF BROOKLYN.

posed to remedy the serious defects which existed in the administration of civil and criminal justice. And, finally, so far did the Governor’s assumption of authority exceed the patience of the commonalty, and so general was the feeling of public insecurity and discontent, that the people resolved, with great unanimity, to make a formal presentation of their grievances to the Governor, and demand redress.

Accordingly, on the 26th of November, 1653, “the most important popular convention that had ever assembled in New Netherland” met at New Amsterdam. It adjourned, however, to the 10th of December following, at which time delegates appeared from the city, Breuckelen, Flatbush, Flatlands, Gravesend, Newtown, Flushing, and Hempstead. Breuckelen was on this occasion represented by Messrs. Frederick Lubbertsen, Paulus Van der Beeck, and William Beekman, all men of position and ability. The Convention, after mutual consultation and discussion, adopted a remonstrance which our space will not allow of quoting in full, but which we may characterize as ably drawn and firmly but courteously expressed, and as manifesting an intelligent appreciation of their own rights, as well as a thorough acquaintance with the legitimate objects of civil government. It substantially demanded necessary reforms, and laws “resembling, as near as possible, those of the Netherlands.” Stuyvesant winced under the truth which this earnest popular protest contained, and sought to weaken its effect by declaring that Breuckelen, Midwout, and Amersfoort had “no right of jurisdiction,” and therefore no right to send delegates to a popular convention, and that the Convention itself was an unorganized body who had no right to address the Director, or anybody else.” Nothing daunted, the deputies, on the 13th of December, appealing to the law of Nature, which permits all men to assemble for the protection of their liberties and property, presented a second remonstrance, and declared, that if the Governor and Council would not grant them redress and protection, they would appeal to their superiors, the States-General and the West India Company. Irritated by their pertinacity and overmatched in argument, Stuyvesant fell back on his prerogative, and in an arrogant messageÐwhich declared that “We derive our authority from God and the Company, not