USA > Vermont > The history of Vermont, from its discovery to its admission into the Union in 1791. By Hiland Hall > Part 50
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55
476
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
until his death, which took place February 1, 1797. Sce a biographical notice of him in the 4th volume of the Documentary History of New York, page 1063.
APPENDIX NO. 2.
[See page 45.]
EXTRACT FROM THE COMMISSION OF KING GEORGE THE SECOND TO GOV. WENTWORTHI, DATED JUNE 3, 1741, SHOWING THE EXTENT OF TIIE PROVINCE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AND THE GOVERNOR'S AUTHORITY TO GRANT LANDS.
" And further, know ye that we reposing special trust and confidence in the prudence, courage and loyalty of you the said Benning Wentworth, of our special grace, certain knowledge and meer motion have thought fit to constitute and appoint you the said Benning Wentworth to be our governor in chief of our province of New Hampshire within our dominions of New England, in America, bounded on the south side by a similar curve line pursuing the course of the Merrimack river at three miles distance on the north side thereof, beginning at the Atlantic ocean, and ending at a point due north of a place called Pautucket Falls, and by a straight line drawn from thence due west across the said river till it meets with our other governments. And bounded on the north side by a line passing up through the mouth of Piscataqua harbor, and up the middle of the river into the river Newickwannock, part of which is now called Salmon Falls, and through the middle of the same to the farthest head thereof, and from thence north two degrees westerly until one hundred and twenty miles be finished from the mouth of Piscataqua harbor aforesaid, or until it meets with our other governments, and by a dividing line parting the Isle of Shoals and running through the middle of the harbor between the said islands to the sea, on the southerly side, the south westerly point of the said islands to be accounted part of our province of New Hampshire, with all and singular the powers and authorities hereby granted to you for and 0* during our will and pleasure. ** * *
" And we do hereby likewise give and grant unto you full power and authority by and with the advice of our said council to agree with the inhabitants of our said province for such lands and tenements and hecrediti- ments as now are or hereafter shall be in our power to dispose of and them to grant to any person or persons for such terms and under such moderate quit rent, services and acknowledgments, to be thereupon reserved unto us, as you by and with the advice aforesaid shall think fit; which said grants are to pass and be sealed by our scal of New Hampshire, and being entered on record by such officer or officers as you shall appoint thereto shall be good and effectual in law against us, our heirs and successors."
A true extract from Gov. B. Wentworth's conunission as entered and recorded in the secretary's office, State of New Hampshire.
Attest, JOSEPH PEARSON, Deputy Secretary.
477
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
APPENDIX No. 3.
[See page 48.]
ORDER OF THE KING IN COUNCIL, DIRECTING NEW HAMPSHIRE TO SUPPORT FORT DUMMER.
{ Seal At the court at Kensington, the 6th day of September, 1744 .- Present,
The King's most excellent Majesty,
Lord President. Lord Delawar.
Lord Privy Seal. Mr. Speaker.
Earl of Winchester.
Mr. Vice Chamberlain.
Lord Cathcart.
WHEREAS, William Shirley, his majesty's governor of the province of Massachusetts Bay hath by his letters to the Lord President of the council and to the Duke of Newcastle one of his majesty's principal secretary's of state (which have been laid before his majesty at their Board), com- plained of his majesty's province of New Hampshire for neglecting to take possession of and to provide for a Fort, called Fort Dummer, which was built by the Massachusetts government about twenty years since upon the then western frontiers of that province and been hitherto garrisoned by them, but is lately fallen within the limits of said province of New Hamp- shire, by the settlement of the boundary line between the two provinces, and which Fort is represented by the said governor to be at this time of very great consequence to all his majesty's subjects in those parts in regard it is situated within three or four days march at furthest from a very strong fort built within these few years by the French at Crown Point, which will be a place of constant retreat and resort for the French and Indians in all their expeditions against the English settlements, and therefore request- ing that his majesty will be graciously pleased to give such directions in relation thereto as may prevent the said Fort from falling into the hands of the enemy, the Massachusetts government not thinking themselves obliged to provide for a fort which no longer belongs to them.
His majesty in council this day, took the same into consideration, together with a report made thereupon by the Lords of the committee of council and hath been thereupon pleased to order that the said Fort and the garrison thereof should be supported and maintained, and that the governor or commander-in-chief of New Hampshire should forthwith move the assembly in his majesty's name to make a proper provision for that ser- vice, and at the same time inform them, that in case they refuse to comply with so reasonable and necessary a proposal his majesty will find himself under a necessity of restoring that fort with a proper district contiguous thereto to the province of the Massachusetts Bay who cannot with justice be required to maintain a Fort no longer within their boundaries, and that the said governor should transmit to his majesty at his Board with all convenient speed an
478
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
account of his proceedings together with the final resolution of the assem- bly thereupon. But his majesty considering the importance of the said Fort and the great mischiefs that may happen to his subjects in those parts in case the same should in the meantime fall into the hands of the enemy, doth therefore think it proper hereby to order and require the governor of the Massachusetts Bay to represent to the assembly of that province the necessity of continuing to provide for the security of Fort Dummer until a final answer can be obtained from New Hampshire, and his majesty's pleasure be further signified herein.
WM. SHARPE.1
.
Extract from the Report of the English attorney and solicitor generals, dated August 14, 1752, on a case stated by the king in council, for their opinion, with respect to certain tracts of land granted by the governments of Massachu- setts Bay and Connecticut in New England.
" There are also about 60,000 acres of land situated on the west side of Connecticut river which were purchased by private persons from the government of Connecticut, to whom that land had been laid out by the government of the Massachusetts Bay, as an equivalent for two or three townships which the Massachusetts Bay purchased from Connecticut government. This tract of land by the determination of the boundary line in 1738, is become part of New Hampshire, but the proprietors of it are subject to no conditions of improvement, and the land is waste and uncultivated." 2
APPENDIX NO. 4.
[Referred to at page 5 and 58.]
PROCLAMATION OF LIEUT. Gov. COLDEN, ANNOUNCING THE KING'S ORDER MAKING CONNECTICUT RIVER THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN NEW YORK AND NEW HAMPSHIRE.
By the Hon. Cadwallader Colden, Esq., his Majesty's lieutenant go- vernor and commander-in-chief of the province of New York and the territories depending thereon in America.
WHEREAS, I have received his Majesty's order in council of the 20th day of July last, establishing the boundary line between his province of New Hampshire and this his province of New York, with directions to cause the same to be made public, which is in the words following :
1 (Mass. Archives in the office of the Secretary of that State, vol. 72, p. 698).
2 From Mass. Archives. See Stevens Papers, 1730-1775, p. 14, and Doc. ITist. N. Y., vol. 4, p. 542.
شف الجديـ
479
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
Seal " At a court at St. James, the 20th day of July, 1764 .- Present,
The King's most excellent Majesty. Lord Steward. Earl of Hillsborough.
Earl of Sandwich. Mr. Vice Chamberlain.
Earl of Halifax. Gilbert Elliot, Esq.
Earl of Powis. James Oswald.
Earl Harcourt.
" WHEREAS, there was this day read at the board, a report made by the right honorable the lords of the committee of council for plantation affairs dated the 17th of this instant upon considering a representation from the lords' commissioners for trade and plantations, relative to the disputes that have for some years subsisted between the provinces of New Hamp- shire and New York concerning the boundary line between those pro- vinces. His majesty taking the same into consideration was pleased with the advice of his privy council to approve of what is therein proposed, and doth accordingly hereby order and declare the western banks of the river Connecticut from where it enters the province of Massachusetts bay, as far north as the forty-fifth degree of northern latitude to be the boundary line between the said two provinces of New Hampshire and New York. Wherefore the respective governors and commanders-in-chief of his majesty's said provinces of New Hampshire and New York for the time being and all others whom it may concern are to take notice of his majesty's pleasure hereby signified and govern themselves accordingly.
WM. BLAIR.
I have therefore thought proper to publish and notify his majesty's said order in council by this proclamation, to the end that all his majesty's subjects within this province may conform thereto and govern themselves accordingly.
Given under my hand and seal at arms at Fort George in the city of New York in council this 10th day of April, 1765, in the fifth year of the reign of our sovereign lord, George the third, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland, king, defender of the faith, etc.
CADWALLADER COLDEN.
By his Excellency's command, G. BANYAR, Deputy Secretary.
.
480
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
APPENDIX NO. 5.
[See page 94.]
ORDER OF THE KING IN COUNCIL FORBIDDING THE GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK TO MAKE GRANTS OF LANDS LATELY CLAIMED BY NEW HAMP- SHIRE.
At the court of St. James the 24th day of July, 1767, Present, The King's most excellent Majesty,
Archbishop of Canterbury. Earl of Shelburne.
Lord Chancellor.
Viscount Falmouth.
Duke of Queensbury.
Viscount Barrington.
Duke of Ancaster.
Viscount Clare.
Lord Chamberlain.
Bishop of London.
Earl of Litchfield.
Mr. Secretary Conway.
Earl of Bristol. Hans Stanley, Esq.
WHEREAS, There was this day read at the board, a report from the Right Hon. the lords of the committee of council for plantation affairs dated the 30th of last month in the words following viz :
" Your majesty having been pleased to refer unto this committee the humble petition of the incorporated society for the propagation of the gospel in foreign parts, setting forth among other things, that Benning Wentworth, Esq., governor of New Hampshire in New England made several grants of large tracts of land lying on the west side of Connecticut river, which were incorporated into about one hundred townships, and several shares were reserved in each of the said grants to the petitioners for a glebe for the church of England and for the benefit of a school; that the government of New York having claimed the said lands and the juris- diction thereof, granted great part of those lands without reserving any shares for the above mentioned public uses ; and therefore the petitioners pray that the grants made by the government of New Hampshire may be ratified and confirmed, or such order made thereupon as to your majesty should seem meet. And your majesty having been likewise pleased to refer unto this committee the humble petition of Samuel Robinson of Ben- nington in North America, on behalf of himself, and more than one thou- sand other grantees of lands on the west side of Connecticut river, under certain grants issued by the said governor of New Hampshire -setting forth amongst other things, that the said governor made grants to the peti- tioners of several tracts of land lying as aforesaid on the western side of the Connecticut river, which were incorporated into above one hundred townships and supposed to be within the government of New Hampshire, whereupon the petitioner's expended large sums of money in settling and cultivating the same. That on the 20th of July, 1764, the said lands hav- ing been declared by your majesty to be within the government of New York, the lieutenant governor of that province made grants of parts of the
481 :
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
said lands included within the petitioner's grants, which being of infinite prejudice to them ; they therefore most humbly pray (amongst other things) that their said several grants made by Gov. Wentworth may be ratified and confirmed under your majesty's royal order. The lords of the committee in obedience to your majesty's said order of reference, have taken the said petitions into their consideration, together with a report made by the lords commissioners for trade and plantations upon the former of the said petitions, and do thereupon agrec humbly to report as their opinion to your majesty, that the most positive orders should be im- mediately sent to the governor of New York, to desist from making any grants whatsoever of any part of those lands, until your majesty's further pleasure shall be known."
His majesty taking the said report into consideration, was pleased with the advice of his privy council to approve thereof, and doth hereby strictly charge, require and command that the governor, commander-in-chief of his majesty's province of New York for the time being, do not, (upon pain of his majesty's highest displeasure) presume to make any grant what- ever of any part of the lands described in the said report, until his majesty's further pleasure shall be known concerning the samc.
W. SHARPE.1
APPENDIX NO. 6.
[See page 118.]
BILL OF EXCEPTIONS IN THE LEADING EJECTMENT TRIAL AT ALBANY.
Peter Quiet, ex dem. John Small
Jajah 28.
Memorandum, that on the 28th day of Junc, A. D. 1770, before Robert R. Livingston, Esq., and Josiah Carpenter. George Duncan Ludlow, Esq., justices of our lord the king, for the trial of causes arising in the county of Albany, and brought to issue in the supreme court of judicature for the province of New York, the defendant in the above cause offered to give in evidence to the jury, sworn and empaneled in the above cause, an instrument under the great seal of the province of New Hampshire [the charter of the township of Shaftsbury], which they alleged to be a grant of the lands in question, which same instrument is dated the 20th day of August, A. D. 1761, and in the first year of the reign of King George the Third, with the several endorsements thereon, prout the said grant and endorsements, to which the plaintiff's counsel objected, for that no evidence had been given to the court and jury aforesaid, to prove that the said province of New Hampshire ever included the lands in question, or that any authority
1 Doc. Ilist. N. Y., vol. 4, p. 609.
61
482
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
had ever been vested in any governor of New Hampshire to grant the said lands or to exercise any powers whatsoever there, but that on the con- trary, it appeared to the court that the lands in question were within the province of New York, and prayed that the instrument aforesaid might not be received in evidence. And thereupon the said justices did declare and give it as their opinion that the same was not legal evidence, and did preclude the said defendant from giving the said instrument and the en- dorsements thereon in evidence to the said jury. Whereupon the counsel for the defendant did request of the said justices, according to the form of the statute in such cases provided, the present bill, which the said justices, at the request of the said counsel for the defendant, signed at Albany, the day and year first above written.
SILVESTER of counsel for the defendant, J. T. KEMPE of counsel for the plaintiff.1
ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON, GEO. D. LUDLOW.
APPENDIX NO. 7.
[See pages 150 and 151.]
THE NEW YORK ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE CONNECTICUT RIVER BOUNDARY CONSIDERED.
The claim of New York to extend eastward to the Connecticut river prior to and independent of the king's order of July, 1764, was elaborately advocated in a report made by a committee of the colonial assembly of the province on the 10th of March, 1773, which is found on the journal of that body of that date. It was published at the time with A Narrative of Proceedings and An Appendix, and was extensively circulated in vin- dication of the title of New York to the territory of the New Hamp- shire Grants, and as a defence of the New York government against the complaints of the settlers.
As stated in the text it was prepared with great care by James Duane, a learned and skilful lawyer of New York city, who as a large land claim- ant, had a deep personal interest in the establishment of the New York title. It is entitled A state of the right of the colony of New York with respect to its eastern boundary on Connecticut river, so far as it concerns the late encroachments under the government of New Hampshire.
This document embodies all the arguments that have at any time been adduced in favor of the New York title, and presents it in a very plausible and imposing light. It has been received by some historical writers, with- out inquiry into the truthfulness of its statements, as a full and complete
1 From papers of the old congress in the state department, Washington, No. 40, vol. 1.
483
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
vindication of the carly right of New York to the territory in question, and as a satisfactory defence of the conduct of the government of that province towards the settlers. In that light it appears to have been viewed by Benjamin H. Hall, author of the History of Eastern Vermont, who without any apparent suspicion that any thing could be wrong in this official manifesto, has rested the theory of his work, so far as it relates to the New York controversy, upon its supposed correctness, and has consequently treated the New Hampshire claimants as wholly in the wrong throughout his entire work, thereby making his book an apology for the unfeeling avarice and cupidity of their oppressors. If he had looked upon the matter of this paper as open to inquiry and criticism, and had applied to it the like thorough investigating talent which he has hap- pily displayed upon other subjects, he would most certainly have dis- covered that instead of being a reliable historical document it was so largely tinctured with misrepresentation and falschood as to be clearly unworthy his confidence.
This paper of Mr. Duane is unreliable, not so much because the facts stated are absolute falsehoods, though some of them are unfounded, as that most of them are unimportant to a right understanding of the real question in controversy, the main facts upon which the proper solution of that question depends, being either carefully omitted or so distorted and dis- colored as to make them convey erroneous impressions.
The subject of the ancient eastern boundary of New York has been very fully discussed in the preceding chapters, and it is not proposed to restate the facts and arguments therein adduced, but merely to notice some of the most important assumptions in this official manifesto, which seem to con- flict with the view already taken of the New York claim.
1. The report commences with the statement of a variety of historical facts tending to show that the Dutch were the first to discover and occupy Connecticut river, and that New Netherland originally reached to that river, leaving it to be inferred that such wasits boundary at the time of its conquest under the grant of King Charles to the Duke of York. Upon this supposed inference as a basis, the author builds an argument in favor of the extension of New York to that river, by virtue of its succeeding to the rights of New Netherland. It is undoubtedly truc that the duke's charter was designed to embrace the Dutch territory of New Netherland, and the argument would be quite conclusive if it were only founded upon fact. But the whole of it is a bold attempt at deception, and could have been no otherwise understood by Mr. Duane, for he must have well known the fact that more than thirteen years prior to the charter to the duke and the surrender of New Netherland to the English, the eastern boundary of tlie Dutch colony had been solemnly agreed upon by treaty between Gov. Stuyvesant and the New England commissioners at Hartford to be a line drawn from the west side of Greenwich bay on Long Island Sound, northerly twenty miles up into the country and afterwards indefinitely so that it " come not within ten miles of Hudson's river." This treaty as we have already seen (chap. 2) had some years prior to the duke's charter been solemnly ratified by the States General of Holland, and was a line so well established and understood by the Dutch, that when they made a temporary reconquest of the country in 1673, the commission which was
484
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
issued to their governor Colve described the colony as bounded casterly, not by Connectieut river, but by such treaty line. This attempt at decep- tion by suppressing an important historical fact, which overthrows and annihilates the whole argument of the author, and turns it directly against himself, is calculated to cast a damaging suspicion upon the whole report, sufficient at least to justify and require a thorough examination of it before assenting to its correctness. The grossness of this attempt at deception is made most palpable by the fact that the author refers to and relies largely upon the letter of Gov. Stuyvestant to Col. Nicolls of September 2, 1664, in answer to his demand for the surrender of New Amsterdam, to prove the eastern extent of the province to Connecticut river. In that very letter, although the Dutch governor claims that New Netherland originally in- cluded that river, he yet mentions and recognizes the treaty of Hartford of 1650, by which that river boundary had been relinquished and the new one above mentioned established. For the letter at length see Smith's History of New York, vol. 1, p. 20-26.
2. In endeavoring to make the settlement of the eastern boundary of New York with the colony of Connecticut appear consistent with the claim of the province to reach Connecticut river to the north of that colony, the author not only ignores the fact of the existence of the Hartford treaty of 1650 with the New England commissioners, by which the Dutch aban- doned all claim to extend eastward to that river, but also the fact that any commissioners of the king accompanied the expedition for the conquest of the New Netherlands, or made or attempted to make any adjustment of boundaries with Connecticut at the time of the conquest, slurring over all that matter with a general declaration that during the first year of the administration of the duke's governor Nicolls " a fruitless attempt was made for establishing a boundary between New York and Connecticut." Now this " fruitless attempt" of the author of this report was a solemn adjudication made by the king's commissioners, of whom the duke's governor Nicolls was one, assented to by commissioners from Connecticut (as has already been seen) and was well understood at the time and after- wards by the New York authorities, as fixing upon a twenty mile line from the Hudson as the boundary, though by a mistake in the written award the line was made to take such a direction that it would eventually eross the Hudson, instead of running parallel to its general course. The settle- ment of 1683, mentioned in the report as an original adjustment was but a confirmation of the spirit and intention of that of 1664, as may be seen by a report of the English board of trade on the subject in vol. 4 of the Colonial History of New York, p. 625. See also Smith's N. Y., vol. 1, p. 35-38, and also ante, chap. 3, where the matter is fully explained.
3. A large portion of this State of the Right is taken up with what pur- ports to be an account of the transactions between the governments of New Hampshire and New York, in regard to the boundary, after the con- troversy arose, that can have little or no bearing upon the question of right which the document purports to discuss; and with a recital of the original charters of New Hampshire showing that by those charters the province extended inland from the Atlantic only sixty miles, not reach- ing by many miles to Connecticut river. This nobody ever disputed, and the only effect of introducing it would be to draw away the attention of
485
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
the reader from the real question in the case, viz: what was understood by the king to be the eastern boundary of New York in 1741, when he declared in his commission to Gov. Wentworth that his province extended westerly " to his majesty's other governments." It is not deemed necessary to take any further notice of this part of the report.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.