that Lord Cornbury had been appointed governor of the province and the 
desire to be relieved from the hardships of the existent government. 170 Ordered 
to produce the addresses before the New York council, the Bayards 
refused compliance as beyond their power. They were thereupon ordered to 
furnish security to appear at the next Supreme Court and to answer to an indictment 
brought in the King's name by the Attorney General. 171 
Hutchins alleging inability to produce the addresses, it was resolved by 
the council that this recalcitrant had acted in manifest contempt and violation 
of a 1691 act for quieting recent disorders, which had been passed by the anti- 
Leislerians. 172 The principal offense was the addressing of Lord Cornbury, 
which was interpreted as disowning the present authority established by the 
commission to Lieutenant-Governor Nanfan. 173 Accordingly a warrant was 
issued for the sheriff to take Hutchins into custody until delivered by due 
course of law. 174 Hutchins was to be admitted to bail upon production of the 
addresses, but having none in his possession, he could scarcely comply. Therefore, 
a writing in the nature of a petition was presented to the council by the 
elder Bayard and three other anti-Leislerians, praying the release of Hutchins 
and admitting that copies of the addresses were in their possession, but adamantly 
refusing to produce them. 175 The opinion of Attorney General 
Broughton was then sought, but this official was of the opinion that neither 
the petition to Cornbury itself nor any matter therein was criminal or illegal 
and that the refusal to produce the addresses was not such a contempt of the 
council or other offense for which Bayard et al. might be committed. The provincial 
council, however, refused to accept this opinion, feeling that Broughton 
had failed to discharge the duties of his office. 176 
were said to have been employed to obtain 
signatures. 
""Ibid., #373 
171 Ibid.; 8 MS. Mins. N.Y. Council, Part I, 
297-99; cf- 4 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 
944-46. The offense was regarded as a misdemeanor 
at this stage (Case of William 
Atwood, Esq., 270). 
172 CSP, Col., 1702, #41. This act (1 Col. 
Laws N.Y., 223) provided that "whatsoever 
person or persons shall, by any manner of way, 
or upon any pretense whatsoever, endeavour 
by force of arms or otherwise to disturbe the 
peace, good and quiet of this their majesties' 
government, as it is now established, shall be 
deemed and esteemed as rebells and traitors 
unto their majesties, and incurr the pains, 
penalties, and forfeitures as the laws of England 
hath, for such offenses, made and provided." 
For the background of the act see 
The Case of William Atwood, Esq., 243-45. 
The act was confirmed by the King in Council 
in May, 1697 (2 APC, Col, p. 849). 
173 4 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 947; CSP, Col., 
1702, #373- 
174 CSP, Col, 1702, #41; 8 MS Mins. N.Y. 
Council, Part I, 299-300. For a copy of the 
warrant see CO 5/i047/#33 iv. 
175 CSP, Col, 1702, #41, 343 vi; 8 MS Mins. 
N.Y. Council, Part I, 300-301. The three 
others joining in the address were Rip Van 
Dam, Phillip French, and Thomas Wenham 
(14 Howell, State Trials, 472). This report 
in the State Trials follows a second edition of 
a narrative of the proceedings printed in 
London in 1703* by Bayard sympathizers. The 
first account was published in New York in 
1702. See Goebel and Naughton, Law Enforcement 
in Colonial New York. (1944) c. ii, 
n. 135. 
176 CSP, Col., 1702, #41; Case of William. 
Atwood, Esq., 272-73. Compare Broughton's