Richard Saltar was one of the leaders of the antiproprietary movement. Author Daniel J. Weeks - a Monmouth (NJ) University professor and author of Not for Filthy Lucre’s Sake: Richard Saltar and the Antiproprietary Movement in East New Jersey, 1665 -1707 as explains:
“Since England failed to establish a colonial government, four different types of English colonies existed: corporate colonies, royal colonies, plantation covenant colonies, and propriety colonies.
The corporate colonies (such as Massachusetts and Virginia (the latter until 1624) were founded on the basis of royal charters granted to groups of stockholders who ostensibly were to develop the colonies for commercial purposes.
Royal colonies (such as Virginia after 1624, New Hampshire at its establishment in 1679 and New York after James II became king in 1685) were, of course, under the direct management of the Crown.
Plantation covenant colonies (such as Plymouth, Rhode Island, and in its early period, Connecticut) were settled by religious dissenters hoping to escape persecution either in England or in other colonies: these colonies began with no official recognition form the Crown and formed their governments on the basis of social contract among the settlers.
The proprietary colonies (such as Maryland, the Carolinas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and also New York, prior to 1685, which the duke of York ruled directly) were formed when the king granted enormous tracts of land to private individuals in return for loyalty or special service to the Crown. The king also gave these proprietors the right to govern the territory under their control as long as they did so in accordance with the laws of England. - New Jersey was unique among the proprietary colonies because the grant of land to the proprietors was not derived directly from the king but from the king’s brother, the duke of York. The antiproprietary party mounted considerable opposition to the proprietors’ attempts to control the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the colonial government.”
Daniel J. Weeks continues:
….To maintain a firm hold on the machinery of government, the Puritans in Massachusetts restricted voting and office holding to ‘freemen’, who were required to be members in good standing of the Puritan congregational church. ...As the colonial period wore on, the Puritans became more tolerant of religious differences, and little by little the Baptists, Anglicans, and even Quakers were able to gain broad religious tolerance and political rights in Massachusetts and elsewhere.
Click on the X to close this window and return to the Salter Page