In the same year, lord Cornbury, a needy and profligate nobleman, was appointed governor of the province. He embraced the anti-Leislerian party, that being then the strongest. On meeting the assembly, he urged the necessity of providing money for the public exigencies; and, as he had arranged himself with the ruling party, the vote of supply was liberal. It was soon perceived that the confidence in the governor was misplaced. Considerable sums levied for objects of great interest, were applied to his private use. The system adopted in New York, for collecting and keeping public money, was calculated to favour this peculation. The colony having no treasurer, its revenue came into the hands of the receiver general for the crown, whence it was drawn by a warrant from the governor. Contests soon arose, between his lordship and the legislature, on the subject of money; the house requiring a statement of disbursements, and the appointment of a treasurer, to be controlled by them. At length, in 1706, an act was passed raising three thousand pounds for fortifications, and directing the money to be placed in the hands of a person named by the legislature. The assent of the governor to this act was not given till the succeeding year, and was then accompanied with a message stating, that he had it in command from the Queen "to permit the general assembly to name their own treasurer when they raised extraordinary supplies for particular uses and which are no part of the standing and constant revenue." The continual demands of the governor for money, his misapplication of it, his extortion in the form of fees, and his haughty tyrannical conduct increased the irritation subsisting between him and the legislature. At length, the Queen yielded to the complaints of both New York and New Jersey, and consented to recall him. During these altercations, some spirited resolutions were entered into by the assembly; one of which claims particular notice. It is in these words: "Resolved, that the imposing and levying of any monies upon her majesty's subjects in this colony, under any pretence or colour whatsoever, without their consent in general assembly, is a grievance, and violation of the people's property." This strong assertion of a principle, which afterwards dismembered the British empire, then passed away without notice. It was probably understood to be directed only against the assumption of that power by the governor.[124]