SECTION IV.

ALTHOUGH the Arguments contained in the foregoing Sections are full and conclusive, rela­tive to the Nullity and Nothingness of the Duke of York's Grant, at least, such Part thereof as con­cerns the present Dispute; and that neither the Go­vernment of New-York or its Patentees gain any Manner of Title to the Land in Contest, by predi­cating it on the Validity of that Grant, yet the General Assembly of the said Province in their State of the Rights, &c. venture the Stress of their whole Cause thereon, and deduce all their Ar­guments of Title to those disputed Premises there­from: It is therefore partly out of Compliment to so learned a Body of Doctors, as well as more fully to invalidate, and apparently demonstrate, to every capable Judge, the utter Insufficiency and Defect of Title to those Lands, by Convey­ance [Page 99]from the Government of New-York, that the Grant of the Duke of York is here brought under Consideration: And in Order thereto, it is Necessary that the second Grant be here inserted, which is tran­scribed from the New-York Pamphlet Verbatim.

It appears from the Sequel of the Representa­tions, Narratives and Arguments contained in the New-York Pamphlet, that the Government of New-York do not pretend to any Conveyance of the Fee of the Lands in Contest from the Duke of York. But their Grand Hypothesis is, that the Jurisdiction of their Government from the first Establishment, was predicated on, and bound­ed by the descriptive Limits of the said Grant; and consequently, that the disputed Premises was never in the Government of New-Hampshire; and, that that Government never was vested with Authority to grant those Lands, and also conse­quently, that the Grants by them made, are in their own Nature void. This is the Sum of the [Page 101] New-York Arguments relative to their Title to those Lands. Here,

FIRST, it is necessary the descriptive Limits of the above rehearsed Charter be brought under Con­sideration; which includes the Countries of St. Croix, adjoining New Scotland, Pemaquid, the River Kenebeque, and the Islands known by the Names of Martin's Vineyard, Nantucket, &c. All these Coun­tries lying far East of Connecticut River, and within the actual Jurisdiction of the Provinces of the Massachusetts Bay, New-Hampshire, &c. and at pre­sent, not contended for on the Part of New-York. Their General Assembly, in the ‘State of the Right.’ &c. had done well to have informed the Publick; whether their "ancient and indisput­able Right" of Jurisdiction extended to every Part of the discriptive Limits of the Grants aforesaid, and if not, to which Part it was circumscribed; and when done, and by what Authority; whether their Governors Commissions, at any Time, par­ticularized and determined to what Part of the Li­mits of the said Duke's Grant their Jurisdiction should extend, more than another, or to the whole; or, whether any Royal Edict or Proclamation, had ever thus given them such predicated Limits of Ju­risdiction: this is absolutely necessary for them to do, in Support of their Title to the Lands in Ques­tion. And furthermore, it is requisite for them to demonstrate that those Lands were actually con­tained in such their former Limits of Jurisdiction: but, if the Government of New-York from Royal Determination, cannot extend Jurisdiction to any [Page 102]one Part of the descriptive Limits of the Grant afore­said, more than to another; then, on this Hypothesis, their Jurisdiction includes the whole Limits con­tained in the Grant, or none at all; that it in­cludes the Whole, will not be pretended, and that any Part, as predicated on them Limits, cannot be made to appear: But on the contrary, it appears His Majesty and Council had no Reference to any Part of the Limits of this Grant, in determining the Boundaries of the Jurisdiction of New-York in 1764, as may appear from the Royal Order itself, an Extract of which is as follows: ‘His Majes­ty with the Advice of his Privy Council, doth Order and Declare, That the West Banks of the River Connecticut, from where it enters the Pro­vince of the Massachusetts Bay, as far North, as the Forty-fifth Degree of Northern Latitude, to be the Boundary between the said two Provin­ces’—that Parrallel of Latitude is also established it's North Boundary, &c. The Source of Connecticut River is supposed to be something to the Northward of Latitude Forty-Five, and comes much from the North-East, a considerable Dis­tance after it passes that Latitude; but it is notori­ous, that the Source of Hudson's River is far South of it; so that by comparing the descriptive Limits of the Duke of York's Grant, with those expressed in the Royal Order, they will be found to be ma­terially different. The Limit of that Part of the Duke's Grant, which respects the present Argu­ments, is in the Words following: ‘Together also with the said River called Hudson's River, and all the Lands from the West Side of Connecticut River [Page 103]to the East Side of Delaware Bay;’ which Limit in any possible Construction of it, can include but Part of the disputed Premises, (which said Premises extend and are bounded on the Forty-fifth Degree of North Latitude,) as will more fully appear in a further Discussion of that Line. But,

FIRST, it is manifest that the King and Privy Council, in determining the Extent of the Juris­diction of the Province of New-York, did not proceed upon the Idea of that Government's having any antecedent Right of Jurisdiction to those Lands. Had that been the Case, the Royal Order had been predicated on the Boun­dary Lines of the Duke's Grant aforesaid, and could not have comprehended any more Land than ‘from the West Side of Connecticut River to the East Side of Delaware Bay;’ and these Bounds are so loose, vague, and indeterminate, that it is altogether impossible to found a Line of Jurisdic­tion thereon, as will more abundantly appear by the following Observations on the discriptive Li­mits thereof, which may be seen at Large in the fore Part of this Section. Therefore, such Part only, as is necessary for the Consideration of the indeterminate Bounds, before spoken of, is here quoted; which, after describing the Situation of Long-Island, and that it abuts upon the Main Land ‘between the two Rivers there called or known by the several Names of Connecticut and Hudson's River,’ begins the Discription under Consider­ation, ‘together with the said River called Hud­son's River.’ Observe, that as the Description [Page 104]of this River is not immediately connected with any foregoing or following Discriptions in said Grant; nothing more can possibly be included in it, but a Discription of the River only, exclusive of one Foot of Land on either Side. The second Discription ‘and all the Land from the West Side of Connecticut River to the East Side of Delaware Bay.’ The best Mathematician on Earth can­not ascertain these Limits, except upon arbitrary Principles, as there can be no prefixed Place on Connecticut River where to erect the first Bounds; and as to any particular Place on the ‘East Side of Delaware Bay,’ where to erect a Second, is altogether undetermined in this Discription: But, inasmuch as it includes all the Land from the West Side of Connecticut River, &c. there is a little better Foundation to establish the first Bounds than the Second. It seems in order to include All as afore­said, it would be necessary to extend either to the Head of the River, or to the most Northerly Ex­tention of the whole Stream, to make the first Bounds; and provided this imaginary Bounds should extend North of the Forty-fifth Degree of Northern Latitude, it would so far exceed the Set­tlement of the Line in 1764. Be this as it will, the most Northerly Part of the River, which would most likely be the Head, would be the most fa­vourable on the Part of New-York, for to establish a first Bounds, and from thence to extend a strait Line to some Place on the East Side of Delaware Bay; this is something of a natural Construction, on the indeterminate descriptive Limits aforesaid, without exploring Connecticut River, which in this [Page 105]Case is necessary. And, First, in tracing said River to its Source, it is found towards it's Extremity, to come much out of the North-East. This being the Case, a strait Line from it's Head to Delaware Bay, would cross said River and include a large Tract of Land on the East Side, and perhaps cross the River sundry Times; the Consequences may be drawn thus, that where the Line may be sup­posed to cross the last Time, ought to be the first real North Boundary, of the ‘ancient and indis­putable’ Limit of Jurisdiction of New-York. For, if the Bounds at the Head of the River be­fore spoken of, be so established, it would include considerable Land on the East Side of the River, within the old Boundary of New-York, which is contrary to any Idea to be gained from the discrip­tive Limit aforesaid, viz. ‘and all the Land from the West Side of Connecticut River, &c.’ Still it may be queried whether there may not be another proposed first Boundary better purporting with the Discription of ‘And all the Land from the West Side of Connecticut River to the East Side of Delaware Bay,’ between the Head of the River, and the Place where the imaginary Line was supposed to pass? To this it may be answered, that a Place between these two, so far up the River as in tracing a strait Line from thence, to Delaware Bay, would not cross the River, may better agree with the above Discription: Still, from none of these imagined Lines, from the different imagined Bounds, or from any other projected, possible, first Bounds, can such a strait Line be ascertained, till the Place for the South-Western Boundary on the [Page 106]"East Side of Delaware Bay" be established? And the Vagueness of the discriptive Limit is so great, that it cannot be determined whether that Bounds shall be at the Northern Extremity of the East Side of Delaware Bay, or at the Southern, where it communicates with the main Ocean, or at any other intermediate Place between these two: so, that from the uncertainty of the second Bounds, it is impossible to establish the first, so as exactly to include "all the Land from the West Side of the said River to the East Side of said Bay," and no more. And,

THUS it is demonstrated from the Vagueness, Uncertainty and Obsoleteness of the discriptive Li­mits of the Grant to the Duke of York, before quoted at large; that it is in the Nature of Things absolutely impossible to ascertain it. From hence follows a Second necessary inference, viz. That it is equally impossible and contradictory, that governmental Jurisdiction should be predicated thereon; for an ideal uncertain Jurisdiction, in its own Nature incapable to be determined, is in reali­ty none at all. And from hence follows a Third Inference which determines the Sequel of the Argu­ment, on the Subject of Property, concerning the Lands in Question, to be in Favour of the Claim­ants under New-Hampshire: For, it is in the last Place, equally contradictory and impossible, as in the Case of the Absurdity of ascertaining the Limits of the pretended "ancient" Jurisdiction of New-York, predicating it on vague and undeterminate Boundaries, that, that Government should predi­cate [Page 107]their Right to the Fee of Lands, by them thus unascertainable; for as Uncertainty, and natural Impossibility of a Jurisdiction's being rendered determinate makes it in Reality to be none at all; so the Idea of Property, predicated thereon is e­qually impertinent.—True it is, by the royal De­termination in 1764, the East Line of New-York extended to the West Banks of Connecticut River. Which may be Foundation for Conjecture, that, that Limit might have Reference to a Discription in the Duke's Grant aforesaid, "and all the Lands from the West Side of Connecticut River," &c. Yet when the Representation made by Lieut. Governor Colden, to his Majesty in Council, as mentioned in this Pamphlet, under the Head of the Narra­tive, &c. comes to be considered it will reflect Light on this Point. The Arguments made Use of in the said Representation were those of Conveniency and Advantage to the Settlers on those Lands to be in the Government of New-York: And, that the West Banks of Connecticut River was a good and certain Boundary," &c. These were un­doubtedly the preponderating Motives of deter­mining the West Banks of Connecticut River to be the East Boundary of New-York, and such Ar­guments are utterly inconsistant with the Notion of an "Ancient indisputable Right" of Jurisdiction.

THERE is still another Consideration which may be of Moment in the Observation of this, so Trumpt-up, "ANCIENT RIGHT OF JURISDICTION" of the Province of New-York, to the Lands in Contest: If it be admitted a Line should be drawn from the most northerly Part of Connecticut River [Page 108]to the most northern Extremity of Delaware-Bay; still, it is by no means probable such Line would include more than one half (if so much) of the Lands in Dispute so far as may be judged from the Latitude and Longitude of the respective Objects: For considering the Course of Connecticut River, which is nearly from North to South, except to­wards its Extremity; and the Sea coast, from the River's Mouth, together with Delaware Bay, forming also an indened Line, to the South of West; the Land included in these Limits, by a Line drawn from Connecticut River to Delaware Bay as aforesaid, would (excepting the small Pro­montory formed by the Mouth of the Bay and the Ocean) lye in the Figure of an obtuse angled Triangle; and the Course of the said Line from the River to the Bay, according to occular Survey, would be from the Northeast a Southwesterly Di­rection: Which very badly comports with the present North and Westerly Exercise of Jurisdicti­on of the Government of New-York, at Crown­point, Detroit, &c.—It may here well be observed, the Settlers under New-Hampshire seem to be in a critical Situation; every arbitrary Measure under the present Administration of the Government of New-York, is excercised against them; and pro­vided they flee to the Eastward to procure Inherit­ances, there they are fore-closed, the discriptive Limits of the said ancient Jurisdiction covers them (to wit) the Countries of St. Croix, Pemaquid, Kenebeque, Nantucket, Martin's Vineyard, &c.—Yet there is another large unknown Country to the West and Northwest, which has been but part­ly [Page 109]explored; and provided, these People, instead of fleeing to the Eastward, should turn their Course, to those Countries; there, it is indisputable but that, New-York would encircle them with ano­ther odd Discription of Domain contained in their Governor's Commissions, i. e. ‘A. B. Captain General Governor and Commander in Chief in and over the Province of New-York,’ next fol­lows the Discription hinted ‘and the Territories depending thereon, in America.’

FROM the foregoing Discriptions of the Govern­ment of New-York, it appears they lay Claim to so extensive a Domain three different Ways, or have three different Modes or Modifications in comprehending and engrossing their progressive Limits. As,

1stly. THE Province of New-York, which falls short of, and terminates considerably South of the City of Albany.

2dly. "THE Territories depending thereon in America." These Territories comprehending such Plantations, on extra-provincial Land, as are and have been carried on adjoining to the Province till its Territories, are at present extended to Detroit and the Neighbourhood thereof, &c.

3dly. The Limits of the Duke of York's Grant, and inasmuch as the Grantees and Settlers on the Lands in Dispute, hold their Title under New-Hampshire, and that Government had for several Years exercised their Jurisdiction over those Lands, [Page 110]even till 1764.—Therefore, in this Case the Go­vernment of New-York could not extend their Territorial Sort of Jurisdiction over the Premises; for such Sort of Jurisdiction might be challenged on the Part of New-Hampshire (if it should be ad­mited at that Time, said Premises was extra-pro­vincial Lands) and that with far the most Propriety. Inasmuch as that Government had granted the Land and began Settlements thereon. Add to this the following Clause in Governor Wentworth's Commission, which they viewed to be of great Weight in this Case, which, after discribing the former Limits of New-Hampshire, ‘and from thence extending West till it meets with his Majesty's other Governments.’ Add to this also, the Reasons held forth in the Chain of Arguments, contained in the three first Sections; all which were too potent for the New-York territorial Sort of Dominion to frustrate. At that Juncture, Therefore, the Lawyers, Land-jobbers, Politicians, &c. planed out the aforesaid third Modes of Ju­risdiction predicating it on the discriptive Limits of the Grant to the Duke of York. And on this new modled Plan breathed an air of ‘ANCIENT AND INDISPUTABLE RIGHT of’ Jurisdiction, and con­sequently to the Fee of the Lands in Contest.

THE first Intimation that ever saluted the Ears of the Publick, asserting it to be the ancient Right of the Colony of New-York, to extend to Con­necticut River as its eastern Boundary, was dis­coverd from a Proclamation, given under the Hand of William Tryon, Esq Governor of the [Page 111]Province of New-York, &c. and dated the 11th Day of December, 1771. His Proclamation be­gins after the following Manner. ‘Whereas it is the ancient and incontestible Right of this Co­lony to extend to Connecticut River, as its Eastern Boundary.’

THIS was drawing a positive Conclusion from fictitious, and till that Time, unheard of Premises: and rather influenced People, in the several Go­vernments, to purchase and settle under New-Hampshire, than diswade them therefrom, for common Fame, and common Sense were a Barrier against the Belief of this New-York Doctrine, which from the Time of the royal Adjudication in 1764, was by the Proclamation aforesaid, anti­dated to "Ancient." That this Doctrine till then, was incontested, is thought to be true; for it had but peept to public Consideration, and has ever since been contested.

SHOULD this, their new Hypothesis be admitted; yet, as hath been before observed, these Limits could include but Part of said Lands, according to the best Judgment that can be formed without an actual, and accurate Survey of the discriptive Li­mits of said Grant; which if the New-Yorkers can do and fairly Demonstrate, to any able Mathe­maticians, and competant and impartial Judges, that they have rightly ascertaned those Limits, it is engaged on the Part of the Claimants under New-Hampshire that they shall yield up, to the Land-jobbers of New-York, their Lands and Labours: [Page 112]an Object which undoubtedly would be grateful and pleasing to them; and which they have many Years been in Pursuit of, and have hitherto had the Mortification to be baffled. It is verily Incum­bant on the Government of New-York, in order to found Tittle to those Land on this new Scheme,

FIRSTLY, to ascertain the Limits of their ima­ginary Bounds: This, the Claimants under New-Hampshire, will expect compleated, or hear no more of those "ANCIENT AND INCONTESTIBLE" Boundaries of New-York.

SECTION, V.

THE General Assembly of the Colony of New-York, in their State of the Right of that Colony, &c. Page 3d. wave the Right of the English by first Discovery, as being foreign to their Purpose, & that the Dutch Possessions are only material to be supported; and Claim no further Right by Pay of the Dutch, but priority of Possession. Yet in the same Page inform, ‘when the first War be­tween England and Holland became inevitable, King Charles the Second, by Letters Patent dated the 12th Day of March 1663-4, granted to his Brother the Duke of York the Tracts of Country, which comprehend New-York. To ren­der this Gift effectual, before the War was proclaimed, a Fleet and Land Forces were sent out to remove the Dutch and put the Duke in Possession.’— The Circumstancies that attended the making this Grant, and sending the Armament [Page 113]to render it effectual, are a sufficient Reason to Determine that the Government at Home, at that Time, viewed the Dutch Settlement as an Intrusi­on, and Possession (which is all they rely on) gained by trespass, in legal Construction, is no Possession at all. That the English had prior Right to all the Countries from Forty to Forty-eight Degrees of North Latitude, by Virtue not only of Discovery by Sebastian Cabot and others, but by being in actual Possession of several Parts of the Premises, is Matters too well known to be disputed.

WHETHER there was real Seisin in the Crown, or not, or the Time of granting these Countries, is not truly in Question; since every Grant so made is incontestibly valid against the King, his Heirs and Successors; and the Colony of New-York be­ing entirely Dependant on the Crown of Great-Bri­tain for their Title; Priority of Charter is there­fore necessary to be determined.

THE Grant of King James the First to the Council of Plymouth bearing Date at Westminster, the 13th Day of November, in the Eighteenth Year or his Reign: comprehends all the Lands, Islands, &c. from forty to forty-eight Degrees of North Latitude, through the Main Land from Sea to Sea. On the 19th Day of March 1628, the Council of Plymouth under their common Seal, did grant to Sir Henry Roswell, Sir John Young, and Others, their Heirs and Associates for ever, all that Part of America, lying between the Great River [Page 114]there, commonly called Monomack, alias Merimack and Charles River, within the Space of three Miles to the Northward of the same River, called Mo­nomack, alias Merimack, or to the Northward of any or every Part thereof, and in Length and Longitude of and within all the Breadth aforesaid, thro'out the Main Lands there, from the Atlantic or Western Sea or Ocean on the East Part, to the South Sea on the West Part.

THIS Deed of Sale at the Suit of the Grantees, with a Charter of Incorporation, was granted and confirmed by King CHARLES the First, the 4th Day of March 1629, wherein the Limits are exact­ly the same with those in the Plymouth Conveyance; and the Proviso of CHARLES, that the actual Set­tlement of the Subjects of other Christian States to determine the Extent, the same as was the Proviso in JAMES'S Grant to the Plymouth Company.

THIS same Charter of Incorporation was adjudg­ed void in the High Court of Chancery of England in 1684; from which the Assembly of New-York in their State, &c. Page 5th, take Occasion to say ‘the Title of that Colony now solely depends on their new Charter of 1691.’ Nevertheless, the Right of Soil to All and every Part of the Deed of Sale aforesaid, remained indefeasible; for, only animadvert back to the Plymouth Conveyance, and observe, that the Right in Fee, was by them con­veyed to the Grantees; and trace it to King CHARLES'S Charter of Incorporation, which only vested the Grantees with Powers of Government. [Page 115]Though it is true, this Charter contains all the Formality necessary in the Conveyance of the Fee; yet is, so far as respects the Fee, is no more than a Duplicate of what was before granted, which neither adds nor deminisheth; and it is easy to see, that the Court of Chancery could not vacate or make Void, at most, any Thing more than those incorporate Privileges; and likewise as easily discernable that nothing more was attempted. Thus the Colony of the Massachusetts still hold their Right in Fee, by Conveyance from King JAMES to the Council of Plymouth, who were their Grantors.

IN the next Place it may be observed, that in 1691 the Privileges of Incorporation were restor­ed; though our Authors, in their State, &c. en­deavour to curtail the Colony of the Massachusetts, by construing their last Charter to extend no fur­ther West than the East Limit of the Colony of Connecticut. Their Words are these, "These Words (as far as) being in the Case of the Grant of the Crown on the Suit of the Party, in legal Construction, carry the Massachusetts Bay Colony no farther Westward than till it meets the Colony of Connecticut, and not to Connecticut River, and much less to the Westward of it." Be these bold As­sertions as they will, and provided it be here admit­ted, for Argument sake, that the Powers of Juris­diction of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay be ever so much curtailed, yet one Proposition we can verily be assured of, viz. That it is not in the Power of King or Chancery to curtail or deprive them of their Property.

[Page 116] IT is to be further observed, that however our Authors may Criticise upon the gramatical or legal Construction of selected Words or Phrases; yet, a little Attention to the following real Facts, will clearly point out the Inconsistency of such Sophisms.

FIRSTLY, Connecticut Charter, granted by King CHARLES the Second, the 23d Day of April 1662, was bounded and extended in Length, by and with the Massachusetts first Charter, granted by King CHARLES the First, the 4th Day of March 1629, which incontestibly extended agreeable with the aforesaid discriptive Limits of the Deed of Sale from the Council of Plymouth, to Sir Henry Roswell, Sir John Young, &c. and extended through the Main Land in Longitude to the South Sea on the West Part.

THIS Charter, as above, being nullified in the High Court of Chancery of England in 1684, and restored again in 1691, wherein the West Extent of Limit is predicated by that of Connecticut, and this West Limit of Connecticut being predicated by the old Charter of the Massachusetts Bay, and ex­presly extending in Longitude to the South Sea on the West Part, exactly extends the present Char­ter of the Massachusetts Bay, with it's Powers of Jurisdiction to All, and every Part of the Limits of the old nulled Charter. This is the natural and legal Sense of the present Charter of the Colo­ny of the Massachusetts Bay, predicated on undeni­able Facts,

[Page 117] IN the next Place 'tis necessary to consider the Charter of Connecticut, which our Authors inform should not extend West of Connecticut River, in the Words following: ‘This being a Crown Grant on the Suit and Petition of the Grantees, is to be taken most beneficially for the King. The discriptive Words, and the Intention of the Grant, will in legal Construction be satisfied by giving the Colony the same Length as the Mas­sachusetts Bay; and it is plain, both from the Re­cital and the saving Clause in the Plymouth Pa­tent, on which the Massachusett's Title was found­ed, that the Latter cou'd not in any Sense, ex­tend to the Westward of Connecticut River.’ As this their Assertion is founded on the Hypothesis of Connecticut Charter's being predicated on that of the Massachusett's, and therefore the Arguments before exhibited on that Head, are equally Con­clusive for the establishing the Western Extent of Connecticut, nothing more is necessary for that Pur­pose, but a Recital of the discriptive Words of their Charter, granted subsequent to their Purchase from the Council of Plymouth by King CHARLES the Second, the 23d Day of April, 1662, ‘Bounded on the East by Narraganset River, commonly called Narraganset Bay, where the said River falleth into the Sea; and on the North by the Line of the Massachusetts Plantation; and on the South by the Sea, and in Longitude as the Line of the Massachusetts Colony, running from East to West: That is to say, from the said Narraganset Bay on the East, to the South Sea on the West Part.’ Thus it appears not [Page 118]only by the Demonstrations aforesaid, but from the express Words of the discriptive Limits of the Charter itself, which cannot admit of a double Meaning, (curious as our Authors be in the Art of playing with Words, they have not attempted to obviate their literal Meaning,) that it is the un­questionable Right of the Colony of Connecticut to extend it's Western Boundary to the South Sea on the "West Part;" and in this that Colony agree, who are now challenging their Right in Fee to those Limits, and actually making Plantation, as at Susquebannah, &c.

BY this Time, undoubtedly Queries will arise in the Mind of the Reader, What will become of the Grant to the Duke of York, if the Massachu­sett's and Connecticut Colonies extend "to the South Sea on the West Part?" The following In­telligence from our Authors will introduce an Answer to this Query; who, after discribing said Grant further inform, in Page 3d of the State, &c. That ‘a Fleet and Land Forces were sent to re­move the Dutch, and put the Duke in Possession.’ Accordingly, on the 27th Day of August 1664, the Dutch Governor Stuyvesant, surrendered by Ca­pitulation, all the Countries the Dutch then pos­sessed, to King CHARLES the Second; when among other Terms it was stipulated, ‘that all the People shall remain free Denizens, and shall enjoy their Lands, Houses, and Goods, where [...] [...]er they are within this Country, and dispose of them as they please.’ Thus, by Conquest, the King be­came revested with his Right to the Lands conquer­ed: [Page 119]for, as the King had antecedently disposed of all the Estate the Crown was possessed of in these Countries, to the Colonies of Connecticut and the Massachusetts Bay; therefore, his Right now could not extend any further than the actual Conquest, which, in legal Construction, must be satisfied with, and can extend no further than the actual Possessi­ons described in the forementioned Capitulation. A further Information is in Page 4th, ‘To re­move any Doubt of the Validity of the Dukes Title, either from the Want of Seisin in the Crown when it originated, or on Account of the intermediate Conquest by the Dutch, it was con­firmed to his Royal Highness by further Let­ters Patent, dated the 29th Day of June, 1674.’ That there was Want of Seisin in the Crown at the Time of first Granting, is incontestible; for, as above said, the King by antecedent Grants had di­vested the Crown of it's Right, and by this Con­quest became revested: So that from this, Occasion will be taken to say, that in Fact the Province of New-York was originally sounded on Conquest, and the Limits of it, as before mentioned, circumscrib­ed by the Dutch Possessions pointed out in the Terms of Capitulation. However [...]ourable this Conclusion may be thought, on the Part of New-York, yet, as the Crown had prior to either of the Duke's Grants, disposed of its Right to the Massachusetts and Connecticut Colonies—if it was not thus founded on Conquest, it hath no Foundation at all; and it's having any Place for Existence, is but an "Intrusion on the Rights" of those other Colonies. Furthermore, it is Mysterious and Con­tradictory, [Page 120]admitting that that Government was thus founded, to suppose the Duke could be Lord Proprietor; inasmuch as by the Conditions of Capitulation, the Fee then acquired to the Crown, passed to the Dutch Inhabitants, who then became English Subjects.

THE Reader is in the next Place invited to a more particular Consideration of the aforesaid dis­puted Premises, which are bounded South on the North Line of the Massachusetts Bay, and West by a Line about twenty Miles East of Hudson's River, extending North ten Degrees, East till it comes al­most opposite to Ticondaroga; thence West till it strikes on Lake Champlain, thence on the East Banks of said Lake to the Forty fifth Degree of Northern Latitude, and on the North by the said Latitude, and East on the West Banks of Connecticut River. On this Tract of Country 'tis not pretended there ever was any ancient Dutch Possessions, nor any un­der Title from New-York, except on the West Part of the Township of Pownal, situate at the South-West Corner of this Tract; and some Possessions in the Township of New-Haven, on Otter Creek, which Colonel Reed gained and maintained by Force, a­bout three Years, and which by Force he was o­bliged to surrender to the first Settlers, who were Claimants under New-Hampshire.

THOUGH this Tract of Land was contained in the original Grant to the Council of Plymouth, yet, as they never made any Conveyance of it, therefore it reverted to the Crown on the Surrender of that [Page 121]Grant, the 7th Day of June, 1635. From which it may be objected, on the Part of New-York, that the above Conciseness in the Circumscription of the Boundaries of their Colony is too great; for, that the Grant to the Duke must hold good where the Crown, at the Time of granting, was vested with a Right to the Lands granted. In Answer, it has been argued in the preceeding Section, that it is very uncertain whether the Limits of the Duke of York's Grant included this Tract of Land, or if any, how great a Part; and that the Limits of said Grant cou'd not be ascertained—and that govern­mental Jurisdiction, and Property cou'd not be predicated on such obsolete and uncertain Bounds. It was also demonstrated in the first Section, and will be further observed in this, that the Duke of York's Grant reverted to the Crown, and that the Landholders in the Government of New-York hold under the Crown—and that, if it did not revert to the Crown, the Fee is still in the Duke, his Heirs or Assigns, and no Landholders in the Government are vested with the Fee of the Lands they pos­sess, &c ^*. It would be too tedious as well as needless to recite the Arguments that have been offered in the three first Sections, which is humbly conceived are abundantly sussicient to Answer the aforesaid Objection, and fairly demonstrate Priority of Title to be in Favour of New-Hampshire; to which the curteous Reader is referred for a Con­sideration.

[Page 122] As has been before observed, the Design of the Duke of York's Grant was to include the Dutch Possessions, or in other Words, that it never was valid any further than to such Possession, which by Conquest, reverted to the Crown, and no farther than these Limits, to interfere with the Charter Colonies of the Massachusetts and Connecticut. And as a Twenty Miles Line to the Eastward from Hud­son's River would include the most Eastern Extent of the forementioned Possessions, the Reason why such a Line was agreed to as the Boundary between the Colonies of Connecticut and New-York: But, as these Possessions to the Northward of Connecticut, fell far short of this Twenty Mile Line, or were so inconsiderable and uncertain as not to come within the Capitulation Reserve, therefore, the Massa­chusetts Colony contended with New-York for a fur­ther Western Extent than Twenty Miles East from Hudson's River; but the restless Government of New-York, ever uneasy within it's own Boundaries, presumed unrelenting, to intrude on, and contest­ing for the just Rights of the Massachusetts, by ex­tending their Patents far to the Eastward of Twen­ty Miles from Hudson's River; in Consequence of which the greatest Disturbances have arisen between the Inhabitants of the respective Colonies, and sun­dry of the Conflicts so severe, that human Blood spilt in the Contests redened the Hands of the In­truders; but finally a boundary Line was agreed to by the respective Governments in 1773, at a Twenty Miles Distance from Hudson's River, which has since been ratified by his Majesty.

[Page 123] IN the State of the Right, &c. Page 4th, is the most extraordinary Account of Alienation of Pro­perty that is to be found in the Annals of History. ‘The Duke continued Proprietor and chief Go­vernor of this Province till he ascended the Throne, when his Right merged in the Royal Authority, on his Abdication it passed to King William, his Successor, as Lord Proprietor and Royal Sovereign.’ That upon the Duke's ac­cession to the Throne his Right of Government merged in the Royal Authority will not be denied; But, that his Right in Fee, consequently passed to King William as his Successor, wants greater Proof than a bare Assertion; our Authors should have explained this Matter; 'tis taken for granted they will not pretend that King William was Heir at Law to the Duke's Estate, and they mention no Conveyance from the Duke to the King, but say the "Duke's Right merged in the Royal Autho­rity;" to suppose it is possible that Right should pass to King William, as Lord Proprietor, is so great an Absurdity that it wants a Name.

IN the same Page they further inform, That ‘in the Duke of York's Commissions to his several Lieutenant Governors, Major Edmond Andross on the first Day of July 1674, and Col. Thomas Dongan on the 30th Day of September 1682, among other Discriptions of the Boundaries of this Province, are expresly comprehended all the Land from the West Side of Connecticut River to the East Side of Delaware Bay.’ Note, those Commissions were from the Duke before he ascend­ed [Page 124]the Throne; undoubtedly in his Commissions to his Lieutenant Governors, he had referrence to the Limits of his Grant, to determine their Boun­daries: But after his Abdication, and the Ac­cession of King Willaim and Queen Mary, we find a Commission from their Majesty's to Henry Slaughter, to be materially different. ‘King Wil­liam and Queen Mary, by their Commission, dated the Fourth Day of January, in the First Year of their Reign, appointed Henry Slaughter to be Governor of the Province of New-York, and the Territories depending thereon in America.’ The same Assembly (stiled our Authors) further inform, that ‘in all subsequent Acts and Com­missions this Colony is described by the same Words, the Province of New-York, and the Territories depending thereon in America.’ "No Arguments need be used to prove, for it is self evident their Majesty's had some dif­ferent Idea of the Province of New-York, than what had been before described by the Duke's Commissions to his Lieutenant Governors, and a little attention to the original State of that Go­vernment, will explain that Difference. Our Au­thors further inform, Page 17, ‘The Ransselaer Family are not indebted to the Government of New-York for their Estate, they continue to en­joy it by an Act of Justice and not of Favour; it was originally a Dutch Colony of it self, grant­ed to their Ancestors by the Dutch West-India Company, who held it as a Part of New Nether­lands, under the States General. On the Sur­render in 1664, their Rights were secured to [Page 125]them in common with the rest of the Inhabitants, by the before mentioned Article of Capitulation granted on the Surrender of the Country, by Col. Nichols, the Commander in Chief under the Crown, and Lieut. Governor under the Duke: the Faith of Government was pledged for their Security, and their Estates were con­firmed under the Seal of this Colony in the Year 1685, not by meer Act of the Provincial Go­vernor and Council, but by an express Order of King James the Second.’ They further inform Page 5th, ‘so long ago as the Year 1685, King James the Second, by Letters Patent under that Seal granted to the Ransselaer Family the Manor Renselaerwick, extending from Hudson's River both on the East and West Sides Twenty-four Miles.’ This Manor includes the City of Albany, and ex­tends near Twenty Miles to the Southward of it; South of which terminates the Province of New-York, expressed in their Governor's Commissions, so that this Manor is included in their second Dis­cription of Domain, viz. the Territories depending thereon, and exclusive of this Clause in the Com­missions, antecedent to the forementioned Deter­mination in 1764, the Governors of New-York cou'd not exercise Jurisdiction even in the Manor of Renselaerwyck, and much less to the Northward of it, as Settlements which lay Contiguous to those Limits seemed necessarily to fall under the Jurisdiction of that Government. Thus their terri­torial Sort of Dominion hath been extended with­out any Prescription or Limitation, agreeable to the Observation of their celebrated Judge Smith, who, [Page 126]speaking of that Government, said ‘it might well be accounted unlimitted.’

IT may be further offered in Objection, on the Part of New-York, That allowing the foregoing Ar­guments relative to the Territories, and that Ren­selaerwyck was, before the AEra of the aforesaid De­termination, in Fact annex'd to the Government by the territorial Clause in the Governor's Com­missions; yet, nevertheless the Duke's Grant must be valid to the Northward of that Manor, to all the Lands it originally covered. This cannot o­perate in Favour of New-York, for, in Addition to what has been before argued to this Purpose, the Reader is desired to observe, that King James. the Second, who was this same Duke of York, abdi­cated the Throne in 1688, and his Estate reverted to the Crown of England, and this Grant became vested in the Crown, the same as though the Duke or his Grant had never had an Existance.—Nor have any of their Governor's Commissions, from Henry Slaughter, the first Governor appointed by King William and Queen Mary, down to this pre­sent AEra, ever been predicated on, or had the least Reference to the Limits of that Grant.

SECTION VI.

THE Government of New-York make the great­est Outcry against her Sister Colonies, taxing them with Intrusion, Violence and Encroachment; and, at the same Time, are flagrantly more guilty of [Page 127]the same avaricious, unjust, and hostile Wick­edness than all the rest of English America: Their capricious Land-Jobbers have a surprising Faculty in carrying their Points; at the same Time, they are encroaching upon their Neighbours, provided they meet with Opposition, they will cry out in the most exagerating Exclamations, Violence, Ri­ot, Treason, &c. and at the same Time, not he­sitate to trample upon his Majesty's Authority, (the Particulars of which may be seen in the pre­ceding Narrative) They are great Advocates for Law, Order, and good Government; these are their Horns of Iron, and with them do they push the Poor and Needy, when they get them into their Net. Their Way is as the Way of a Serpent upon a Rock, and it is difficult to trace their Footsteps: They com­plain of the lawless, factious, and riotous Con­duct of the Settlers under New-Hampshire; yet know, that they themselves are the moving Cause of all the Disturbances they complain of: It is in­credible to suppose a Collection of Farmers ex­posed to the perpetual Fatigues, and laborious Toils of cultivating a Wilderness Country, should under a just Administration of Law, become "a Confederacy of Insurgents:" Was it only, that natural Presumption being so much in Favour of those Inhabitants, it is humbly conceived, that all wise and unprejudiced Persons will, at least suspend their Judgments concerning them, 'till the New-Yorkers can clearly evince, that these Peo­ple are in reality, without Cause, tumultuous, disorderly, &c. And, inasmuch as the Facts of this Controversy is so fully set forth in the preceding [Page 128]Narrative of this Treatise, the Reader is thereto refered for a clearer Exhibition.

OUR Authors, in Order to maintain their Claim to the Lands in Contest, and if possible, to include it within One of the descriptive Limits of the Grant to the Duke of York, tell us many strange Things about the Colonies of Connecticut and the Massachu­setts: That Connecticut. "in legal Construction" should not have extended to the Westward of Connecticut Ri­ver, and that their Settlements West of that River were an Intrusion on the Right of the Colony of New-York; yet, nevertheless for Peace sake, and rather than contest with "a powerful Neighbour," they settled with that Colony at twenty Miles dis­tance from Hudson's River.

THEY further inform, that ‘the Massachusetts Claim stands by no Means in so respectable a Light as that of Connecticut,’ and in legal Con­struction, should extend ‘no further Westward than 'till it meets the Colony of Connecticut, and not to Connecticut River, and much less to the Westward of it.’ Our Authors being Men of great Learning and Sagacity; soon extended their antient Right of Jurisdiction over such Part of the Massachusetts Colony as lay to the Westward from Connecticut River, and this their Scheme in stop­ping the Western Extension of that Colony where it meets Connecticut, may be reckoned as one a­mong the greatest of their political Atchievements. "And it is worthy a Remark," that had the Mas­sachusetts Colony extended West to the South Sea, [Page 129]it could not have met Connecticut, but must have extended parallel with it, in the same Direc­tion.

To give this pleasing Scheme some Kind of Co­lour, they argue the Nullity of the Massachusetts first Charter, and introduce the Duke of York's Grant as the oldest Title, Page 5th, ‘The Mas­sachusetts Charter was vacated, and the Title of that Colony now solely depends on their Char­ter of 1691.’

YET they allow, that that Colony obtained the Right of Soil from the Council of Plymouth, and that the Charter of King Charles dated the 4th Day of March 1628-9, ^* vested them with Powers of Government, (it's needless to animad­vert on these strange Accounts) however, after they have charmed their Imaginations with the fruitless Idea of extending their antient Right to all that Part of the Bay Province West of Connec­ticut River, they complain bitterly of the En­croachments of the Massachusetts, Page 8th. ‘Un­der Circumstances so favourable to the Rights of this Colony, we have great Reason to com­plain of the unwarrantable Encroachments un­der the Authority of the Government of the Massachusetts-Bay, by which a valuable Tract extending from Connecticut River, within Twen­ty Miles of Hudson's River, has been wrested from us.’

[Page 130] ‘THEIR Conduct seems the more inexcusable, as they must have known that such Encroach­ments were not only disrespectful to his Majes­ty's Authority, and big with great Mischiefs and Disorders, but were highly injurious to pri­vate Property, great Part of these Lands having antiently been granted to his Majesty's Subjects under the great Seal of this Colony.’

THEN they proceed to recite their old Grants, which they tell us ‘cover the Country the whole Breadth of the Massachusett's Claim:’ The Ma­nor of Renselaerwyck, granted in 1685, and extend­ing 24 Miles each Side, from Hudson's River; and Westonhook, in 1705, which extends about 30 Miles from Hudson's River; and Hoosick, in 1685, which extends about 30 Miles from the River. It seems to have been a political, and universal Principle with the Government of New-York, to begin their Patents within the Twenty Mile Line, and extend them Eastward of it, that by this Means they might have Opportunity to encroach on, and jockey their neighbouring Colonies, more or less, out of their Lands, as subsequent Policy, Intrigue and Power, would render practicable.

THAT Government, thus extended their Patent into Connecticut, One in particular, into the Town­ship of Salisbury; and it has ever been their Prac­tice to wrangle till they find by Experience, that neither by Sophistry, Law, or Hostility, they can maintain their exorbitant Claims, and then capitu­late on as good Terms as they can; and conclude [Page 131]with branding their Competitors with Dishonesty, Encroachment and many hard Names, and don't scruple to impeach their Governmental Authority, (as in the Case just recited of the Massachusetts-Bay) with being Disrespectful to his Majesty's Authority, and guilty of great Mischiefs and Dis­orders; although the Authority of their own Go­vernment, by their unjust, avaricious Encroach­ments on the Massachusetts even to Connecticut River, laid the Foundation of those Disorders, and they might have added Blood-shed; yet their Assembly have the Impudence to Palm it all upon the Au­thority of the Massachusetts.

THE Claimants under New-Hampshire are so happy as to be almost exempted from any New-York Claims, by Patents from that Government prior to their's; the aforesaid Hoosick and Wallumscock Patents being the only ones of this Nature, the former includes about one Qaurter of the Town­ship of Pownal, on which Part were about four Settlers, when it was granted by New-Hampshire. This Township is bounded Southerly by the North Line of the Massachusetts-Bay, and extends West as far as the Connecticut and Massachusetts Colonies; the latter, i. e. Wallumscock Patent, was granted un­der the common Seal of the Province of New-York, the 15th Day of June, 1739. This Patent is said to interfere with the Township of Bennington, and it is Matter of Dispute, whether in it's first Locati­on, it included more than about 30 or 40 Acres within that Town, tho' it seems the Patent by it's discriptive Limits, extends further into the Town, [Page 132]and the Patentees produce a Map corresponding with those Limits: However, an Indian, aged Fif­ty-Nine, who was Pilot to the Party that located this Grant, informs of a certain Monument they then erected, where they broke a Bottle, &c. for their Eastern Bounds. "And it is worthy a Remark," that this Indian happens to be exactly of the same Age with Ebenezer Cole, one of our Author's prin­cipal Deponants. This Monument is well known by the Bennington People, and is on the Western Edge of the Town; and there has never been a Discovery of any Lines of the Survey of that Lo­cation to the Eastward of this Monument. The many Circumstances of this Nature, amount to al­most a Certainty, that the Patentees never made any actual Location further interfering with Ben­nington, than as aforesaid; notwithstanding, as they have planned their patent, it includes about one Eighth Part of the Town; which Lands are exceeding good in Nature, and are settled wholly under the New-Hampshire Title, by industrious Farmers, who form a Wilderness State, have culti­vated and brought the most of it under good im­provements, with many valuable Houses, Barns and Orchards; some of them annually mowing at least 80 Tons of Hay, and raise other Produce of the Country in Proportion. Not the least Im­provements or Possessions were ever made in that Town, except by these Inhabitants; neither had they the least Knowledge of a Pretence of any New-York Patents extending there till several Years af­ter they had settled the Land. As has been be­fore observed, there was about four Settlers on that [Page 133]Part of Hoosick Patent, included in the Township of Pownal, when it was granted; and if the Au­thor has a right Information, there has not been any more Settlements made under the New-York Title since, though there hath sundry Families set­tled on the Premises, included as aforesaid, under the New-Hamshire Title.

As the State and Circumstances of such Part of the Townships aforesaid, as are included in the old Patents, are materially different, in many Respects, from the Circumstances of the New-Hampshire Grants in general; it will therefore be necessary that this Matter have a particular Consideration; and that none of the aforesaid Arguments be considered in this Case but what are truly applicable: and in this Review of the Case, it will be admitted, that the old Wallumscock Patent includes such Part of Bennington, as the Plan the Patentees exhibit doth contain.

IT is taken for granted that the Royal Determin­ation of the boundary Line in 1764 cou'd not ex­tend the Government of New-York antecedent to the Date of that Order, which was a Manifestation of Royal Power, and which was the sole Cause of that Extention; therefore, at the Time the Govern­ment of New-York granted the forementioned old Patents, they could have no greater Authority for so doing than what they were then in Fact possessed of: It remains therefore to be considered, whether the Patents from the Government of New-York are va­lid or not, so far as they interfere with the Town­ships [Page 134]of Bennington and Pownal. And Firstly, it has been proved that the Province of New-York as discribed in their Governor's Commissions, doth not extend so far North as the City of Albany; there­fore, the Northern Tracts of Country which these Patents of Hoosick and Wallumscock cover, must be considered as belonging to their second Sort of Domain, (to wit) the Territories. It has also been shewn, that these Territories are not circumscribed to any particular Limits, but that they were origi­nally meant to include some ancient Grants that were Independent of the Province and adjoining Settlements, on Extra-provincial Lands: probably that Government may have Authority to grant Land to the West and North-West, where it is in­disputably unappropriated, and where the Claim of none other Government could interfere: But it will be insisted upon, on the Part of the New-Hampshire Settlers, which are included in the afore­said old Patents, that the Government of New-York had no Right to extend any of their Patents to the Eastward of a Line equivalent to that which con­stitutes the Bounds between New-York and the Co­lonies of Connecticut and the Massachusetts: This Li­mit was ever thought by the People in general of the Colony of New-York, as well as those of the ad­jacent Colonies, to be the Eastern Boundary of New-York, until the Aera of the late Determination, which extended it to the River Connecticut: and la­bouring Men that support the World of Mankind, are obliged to form their Judgments of the Juris­diction of Government's by the common received Opinions of Mankind they are conversant with; [Page 135]and even admitting they make an erroneous Judg­ment, yet, in the present Case, as the Lands were of but little Value, exclusive of their Toil and Culti­vation; and as the Farmers in Reality uphold the State, it is therefore not only incumbent on the Laws, but on the Policy of the State to defend them in Cases of this Nature—it must be admitted that where the Limits of Governments are clearly ascertained and notoriously known, that a Farmer trespassing in this Manner on another's Property, must bear the Loss: But, provided a Country of People be generally under a Deception as to Mat­ters of Jurisdiction, and purchase Land and make great Improvements, and all on a mistaken Foot­ing, Men in such Circumstances should be consi­dered in the most favourable Light. For, as not only Individuals, but the Country about them were in the same Manner deceived, and therefore, at the Time of purchasing and Settlement, they were ut­terly destitute of the Means of Knowledge; yet, however, it is not conceded to, that those Farmers on whose Account the present Arguments are ex­hibited, are under a Deception about this Matter; for of all Sorts of governmental Jurisdiction, the New-York Territorial was the weakest, loosest and most vague; it was rather occasional and political, than positive, and in it's own Nature almost or quite incapable of being extended faster than Settlements were actually carried on, or at most the Lands ex­posed to this territorial Jurisdiction, should not be patented faster than his Majesty's Subjects are dis­posed forthwith to settle. The Necessity of grant­ing so fast may be pleaded on Account of Order—the [Page 136]Policy of Government may demand it; other­wise an occasional Jurisdiction would be altogether unable to abilitate the Government to make Con­veyance of the Right in Fee; although it is indis­putable that such a Jurisdiction in Matters of meer Government, is to all Intents and Purposes, equal to positive Jurisdiction; but with Respect to hav­ing a Power to convey the Fee of Lands, is Matter of Doubt: But thus much with Propriety may be inferred, that a Title so weak and impotent should not claim Superiority over the least Conception of Title whatever; a meer Possession is of itself abun­dantly sufficient to maintain the Right in the Pos­sessor, and on a judicious Tryal at common Law, (cou'd such an One be had) would be judged Pa­ramount to it.

There is another Consideration that must totally extinguish and obliterate all possible remaining Idea of Right, that the Patentees of Wallumscock may be supposed to have to the said Tract of Land includ­ed in the Limits of the Township of Bennington. Only advert to the Date of that Patent, which is on the 15th Day of June, 1739, and compare it with the Time of the Commencement of the Set­tlement of Bennington, which was in the Spring of the Year 1760, and there will be found to be 21 Years, from the Date of this Patent, to the begin­ning of the Settlement under New-Hampshire;—in all this Time there was not the least Settlement or Possession made in the Premises; although the ex­press Condition of the Patent was, that it should be settled in three Years from the Time of granting. [Page 137]Possibly in all that Time the Patentees might have got some Dutch Tenants on some Western Part of the Patent, which, with the Government of New-York, may be denominated a Fulfilment of the Condition of Settlement; many large Tracts hav­ing been patented, some since, and others longer ago than that Wallumscock, which are yet mostly a howling Wilderness. This Practice of the Go­vernment of New-York, in extending their Patents to the Eastward of a Twenty Mile Line from Hud­son's River, hath ever been considered as a disinge­nious and designing Policy in that Government; thereby to lay a Foundation for intruding on the Rights of their neighbouring Colonies; and has been attended with many disagreeable Consequen­ces, as has been before observed. And as that Government have given up their exorbitant Claims where they interfered with the Right of the Massa­chusetts, it would undoubtedly be their wisest Way to do the same with Respect to such Claims as in­terfere with the Right granted under the great Seal of the Province of New-Hampshire; and instead of treating the People that have settled those Lands under that Title, as Rioters and Felons; to exercise that Justice and Humanity towards them, which becometh Governors, to the governed.

IT remains still, that there be a summary View exhibited, relative to the Rule of Right which should take Place with Respect to the Settlers un­der each Government, that are settled on such Part of the forementioned Patents as are included in the Townships of Bennington and Pownal. And al­though [Page 138]Superiority of Title is in Favour of those under New-Hampshire; nevertheless, as the Line of Jurisdiction, in those Times of granting and Settle­ment, was not expresly ascertained or known.—Under these Circumstances, it would not only be bad State-policy, but great Inhumanity and Injus­tice to the Subject; for either the Government of New-York or New-Hampshire to dispossess them, let them have settled under the Title of either; for Titles liable to so much Dispute and Uncertainty as both must be confessed to be (though One may have much the Preference of the Other) are not sufficient to oust the Possessor, inasmuch as both challenge a legal Right; therefore, either Title, sealed and confirmed with the Sweat and Toil of the Farmer is abundantly paramount to the Other.

OUR Authors, in their Appendix, Page 19th, mis-represent the Plea of the Bennington People, in saying, ‘To reason on their own Principles, if Equity confirmed the Claims of Others under New-Hampshire, on Account of Priority of in­terfering Grants, it would have afforded a fatal Plea against the People of Bennington; because they ought then themselves to have yielded up all the Lands which are covered by more anti­ent Patents.’ The People of Bennington, or ra­ther the Claimants under New-Hampshire, have e­ver insisted, that at the Time the Government of New-Hampshire, granted those Lands, they had good Right so to do; but that New-York had not. This Matter is illustrated and proved by many Argu­ments, and real Facts, in this Treatise, particularly [Page 139]in the 2d and 3d Sections, to which the Reader is referred. 'Tis true, provided the Bennington Peo­ple had no further Considerations in the Matter of Title, but the Priority of interfering Grants—according to this Method of arguing, they ought to yield up such Part of that Town as interferes with Wallumscock Patent; but the Consideration of Settlement is undoubtedly, with the many other Matters, material to be considered, as argued afore­said.

SECTION VII.

HAVING gone through with the Remarks on the New-York Pamphlet, so far as immediately respects the Title of those Lands which has been the Prin­cipal Cause of the Publication of this Treatise—shall nextly proceed to detect some notorious and dishonorable Mis-representations contained in the Pamphlet aforesaid, particularly in the Appendix. In this brief Review, it would be too tedious, as well as needless, to trace the Authors through all their disguised and fictitious Representations, and intricate Windings. Shall therefore pass on with noteing such of their Exhibitions as are the most cruelly fallacious; among which the Story of the Extention of the Township of Bennington, merely by a Vote of the Inhabitants, at a Town Meeting, to the Westward from where it was intended to be granted, and within Seventeen Miles of Hudson's River, is the most flagrantly opprobrious. The Story may be seen recorded in the 4th Page of their Appendix. ‘The Grantees of the Township [Page 140]of Bennington, discovered that the Situation of the Tract according to the Intention of the Grant, would be both inconvenient and unprofitable, as it included a large Proportion of Mountain; and they therefore, by no better Authority than a Vote of their Town Meeting, presumed to ex­tend it to the Westward, within Seventeen Miles of Hudson's River.’

As this Representation in All and every Part is entirely groundless, and no Pretence of Proof to support it, but is the meer calumnious Aspersion of those who have an implacable Hatred to the Ben­nington People, a ositive Denial of the Facts al­ledged, would be a sufficient Refutation of those Facts. Nevertheless, as the Assembly of New-York have made a principal Engine of this infamous Story of their own Creation, to destroy the good Character of the People aforesaid, by representing them to the Government at Home as the vilest of In­surgents and Out-Laws—and inasmuch as the Facts alledged are capable of Dis-proof by mathematical Certainty, and sundry Demonstrations of this Sort having been actually made, (though not with a View of disproving this Calumny, as it had not then been published,) by Admensurations of the Distance from Hudson's River, to the Westerly Line of Bennington, all of which agree that it is at least Twenty Miles. Mr. Samuel Robinson for once made an actual Mensuration of that Distance, and found it to be Twenty Miles and Thirty-five Chains; his Affidavit and Mr. Ebenezer Wood's, together with an attested Copy of the Survey of that Town [Page 141]by Mr. Matthew Clesson, the Surveyor, is thought Expedient to transcribe in it's following Order, which will abundantly serve to exculpate the Peo­ple of Bennington from that Odium wherewith they have been branded. The Author is furthermore especially directed by the Inhabitants of that Town, to ‘request the Government of New-York to vindicate what their Assembly have before alledged, by another accurate Mensuration of the Distance from Hudson's River, to the Wes­terly Line of Bennington; and further notify that Assembly, that as omnipotent as they may con­ceive themselves to be, they must nevertheless recede from the Calumny wherewith they have abused the Inhabitants of that Town, and do public Penance for the same, or continue under the Resentment of those Inhabitans:’ Which take an additional Affront at the ill Usage, inas­much as our Opponents tell us Page 3d, it is to ‘be transmitted for the Information of the Go­vernment at Home;’ and further inform that it was to guard against the Impositions which from the Want of Candor, they were apprehensive the said Settlers, who ‘spared no Art of Act of Vio­lence,’ would by their Agents deceive the Go­vernment at Home, and therefore they had un­dertaken to transmit a Narrative of those Settler's Proceedings, for the Information of that Govern­ment. It seems the said Assembly fully resolved that the Settlers and Agents from the Want of Candor, would endeavour artfully to deceive, &c. and that themselves were as fully resolved to over match them in a Game of that Sort, being greater [Page 142]Practitioners than Peasants: But artful as they are, they made a fatal Mistake in advancing for Matter of Fact that which in its own Nature is incapable of Proof, and what has been disprov'd by Evi­dence of a mathematical Nature, and capable of further Dis-proof by actual Mensuration. It is no Ways marvellous that those Gentlemen which go­vern in that Assembly have an Antipathy against the Inhabitants of Bennington, who have had a great Share in defeating them in obtaining Possession of the Country of the New-Hampshire Grants: It seems they are no insensible of their Merit, for, say they, ‘it is to this Township erected by a Charter in itself void, and so greatly abused, that we are to ascribe all the Opposition which has since been given to the Jurisdiction of New-York.’ It is evident that these Gentemen have an evil Eye upon Bennington Inhabitants; for, when they mention the Opposition to their Juris­diction, they take Care to repeat the aforesaid groundless Aspersion, by adding these Words, ‘erected by a Charter in itself void, and so great­ly abused.’ They still proceed upon this their favourite Topic, and draw particular Infer­rences from it to their advantage, ‘for by chang­ing the Situation of Bennington, it is made to comprehend a large Part of Wallumscock, which was granted under the Seal of this Pro­vince so early as the Year 1739.’ This their scandalous Assertion is twice repeated in Page 8th. One of the Passages is as follows: ‘Mr. Ingersoll, one of the most eminent Counsel in Connecticut, and Mr. Selvester of Albany, were concerned for [Page 143]the Defendants. When these Gentlemen found Breakenridge's Farm to be within Seventeen Miles of Hudson's River, and greatly to the Westward of what the Government of New-Hampshire had ad­mitted to be the Jurisdiction of New-York—they told him that it was impossible to set up any Prin­ciple for his Defence. Accordingly, when his Case was brought to Tryal, he refused to confess the Lease, Entry and Ousture, agreeable to the Rule, and the Plaintiff being Non-suited, obtained Judg­ment in the succeeding July Term, against the cas­ual Ejector.’

THIS is far from being the true State of the Case. Sundry Causes which had been tried, were determined against the Claimants under New-Hampshire, and Mr. Breakenridge perceived it was expending Money to no Purpose, to maintain a Suit at Law against the New-York Patentees, as they had such a Combination of Interest with the Judg­es, Part of which were interested in the New-York subsequent Patents, which interfered with the Grants under New-Hampshire, though not in those on Tryal. This, with many other Things too te­dious to particularize, was the Cause why Mr. Breakenridge would not defend the aforesaid Suit in Tryal; but there as not a Word said, (as he in­forms me) between him and his said Attornies, a­bout his Farm's being within Seventeen Miles of Hudson's River; nor is it likely never such a Thing was mentioned in Albany County; the contrary be­ing so well known. Undoubtedly, this was wrote "for the Information of Government at Home," [Page 144]thinking the Fallacy would not there be detected, it being at so great a Distance.

OUR Authors, P. 10th, after giving a Narrative of a riotous and tumultuous Outrage, committed by the Inhabitants of Bennington, for which Pro­clamation had issued from the Earl of Dunmore, a­gainst the principal Authors of the Disturbance "which could not be brought to Justice," then they introduce a particular Charge against Mr. Breakenridge, which is entirely destitute of Founda­tion, viz. That he was One of the principal Rioters. To this they join the former Calumny of the West­ward Extention of Bennington, ‘by a Vote of their Town Meeting;’ and add to both these, the groundless Story of Mr. Breakenridge's Council's Inability to set up any Principle in his Defence, by Reason of his being seated ‘within Seventeen Miles of Hudson's River.’ All these Fictions blended together, make considerable of a Figure, in their own Words, ‘ James Breakenridge and Isaiab Carpenter, were Two of the most inexcusa­ble of all the Offenders: the first had seated him­self within Seventeen Miles of Hudson's River, where he knew it was impossible, on their own Principles, that he could be protected by the New-Hampshire Claim, he had declined a fair Tryal, and suffered Judgment by Default.’ With Respect to Mr. Breakenridge's being active in any Expeditions (the New-Yorkers denominate Riots, Mobs, Felony, &c.) it is well known thro' the Country of the New-Hampshire Grants, he has not. In the 18th and 19th Pages of the Appen­dix, [Page 145]they repeat their former Aspersion against the Inhabitants of Bennington in the most virulent and emphatical Language— ‘And what is still more shameful, they contend, they arm, they sight, for Lands, as a Part of Bennington, which lies with­in Seventeen Miles of Hudson's River, and which the Government of New-Hampshire never claim­ed, but admitted to be beyond their Jurisdicti­on.’

AS THERE can be no Doubt but these Gentlemen really wish these things to be true, and having so frequently repeated them as being so, it is conjec­tured they by this Time begin to believe them, or at least think others may; but that the imparti­al Reader may have the real Truth of the Matter, the following Evidence is exhibited.

IT may now be requisite to give the Reader to understand, that although no Part of the Town­ship of Bennington interferes with a Twenty Mile Line from Hudson's River; yet, it is probable some other of the Westerly Tear of Townships may in some Places, and in Others not approach it by a considerable Distance, which may be easily under­stood by the Windings of the River.

THE New-Hampshire Grants are bounded West on a Line commencing at the Massachusetts North-West old Corner, extending North ten Degrees, East till it reaches almost opposite to Ticondaroga, then extending West to the Lake. It is beyond Dispute, considering the Course and Windings of Hudson's River, that there is as much or more Land included in the old supposed Government of New- [...] by this Division, as would be by extending a [Page 149]Twenty Mile Line exactly parrallel with the River; it is also to be observed, that where those Grants, as above, extend West from this Line to meet the Lake, Hudson's River is at least Forty Miles to the Westward.—Therefore, upon this Hypothesis, it may well be concluded, that, al­though some Towns may interfere with a Twenty Mile Line from the River, yet the Proprietors have nevertheless equal Right to those Lands with them whose Townships do not interfere with that Line. Undoubtedly, against the Colonies of Connecticut and the Massachusetts Bay, this was the Case; that in some Instances New-York lost Land by the Windings of the River, in others it gained it so as to make it about equivalent to a Breadth Twenty Miles East from the River; had the Line commenced at that Distance from the River, and extended Equidistant to it, which would be a Line Difficult to ascertain, and perpetuate.

THE Representations our Authors have exhi­bited in the Thirteenth Page of their Narrative, relative to Cochran, Allen and Baker's dispossessing some People settled on a Tract granted to ‘Mr. Farret, a reduced Lieutenant,’ which is in the Western Part of the Township of Rupourt, and demolishing several Buildings, &c. are nearer the Truth, than most of their Accounts; yet, as the real State of the Facts are materially different, in many Respects, and as Evidence of these Matters is procured, for Brevity's sake shall pass over with inserting it.

HAVING procured with much Difficulty some Evidence relative to a spirited Controversy that hath for many Years subsisted between Col Reid, of the City of New-York, and certain Claimants under New-Hampshire, about a Township of Land called New-Haven, adjoining to the first Falls on Otter-Croek, a little to the Northward of Crown-Point; a State of the same Controversy, from the Com­mencement of it down to the Year 1772, was con­veyed to Governor Tryon, a Copy of which has been transcribed in the Narrative, at the Beginning of this Treatise. The present Evidence will serve to support the main Facts there alledged, as well as inform with Respect to some later Transacti­on of the same Controversy, which by Turns has subsisted to this Period. More Evidence would have been produced, not only relative to this Affair; but sundry others, had it not been, that the Justices at Crown-Point, refused to take any Affidavits in Be­half of the New-Hampshire Settler's, except thosé hereafter inserted, although they have been often thereto requested.

SECTION VIII.

OUR Authors in the Twenty Seventh and fi­nishing Page of their Narrative, discover great Invention and Subtilty, who after giving an Ac­count of the unfortunate Circumstances of the Town of Hinsdale which has, say they, ‘been taken up by a Royal Mandamus.’ This Town­ship had first been granted by the Government of the Massachusetts Bay, and upon the Settlement of the Boundary-Line between the Massachusetts and New-Hampshire in 1739, it fell within the latter, and by them granted, and fully ratified to the In­habitants and Proprietors, who in Addition to their Title, had also the Indian Right. This Township, by the Determination of the Boundary Line between New-York and New-Hampshire, fell within the Jurisdiction of the former, and was by them granted to Col. Howard, after it had been settled about Seventy Years. The Assembly of New-York in Order to screen their Government from the Imputation of the Blame justly due to so reprehensible a Conduct, endeavour to palm it on the Government at Home, see Page Sixth, with Respect to ‘ Hinsdale, a Township in the South East Corner of Cumberland County: Even this is not to be ascribed to our Government, it pro­ceeded from a much greater, and the highest Authority: A Mandamus was produced from the Crown, on the Report of the Board of Trade, and by the Advice of the Privy Coun­cil, which vested the Grantee with a Right of Election, an Act decisive in itself, and super­ceding [Page 158]the Agency of the Governor and Coun­cil here, and the usual Forms.’ A very Ex­traordinary Representation! The Nature of a Roy­al Mandamus is diametrically opposite to this Interpretation: The Right of Election in the Grantees, is restricted entirely to Crown Lands which are unapropriated; in such Lands, the Gran­tee has a Right of Election, and common Sense may teach, that neither a Mandamus or any o­ther Crown Grant can subvert the Property which the Subject holds under the Crown by Prior Grants; and, though there be ever so many Al­terations in the Jurisdiction, sundry of which have perplexed the Town of Hinsdale, yet this should have no Effect on the Property of the Subjects.—These Grantees are likewise withheld from inter­fereing on the Right of the Indian Subjects.—Yet, it seems Col. Howard had the Vanity to lo­cate his Mandamus on the old Plantation of Hinsdale, which was firstly appropriated by a Pur­chase from the Indians, secondly, by a Grant from the Government of the Massachusetts Bay, and thirdly, by the Government of New-Hampshire, and fourthly, by an uninterupted Possession and Occupancy about Seventy Years.

THE Subterfuge the Gentlemen make Use of, to rid their Government from Dishonour, in making this last Grant of Hinsdale, is very extra­ordinary; it seems not well calculated ‘to be transmitted for the Information of the Govern­ment at Home!’ who are undoubtedly compe­tent Judges of their own Mandamus's, and no [Page 159]Doubt will easily discern their Last Error to be worse than the First. Such preposterous grant­ing of Lands, is Criminally injurious to the Sub­ject, as it never fails to embarrass the different Claimants with many concomitant Difficulties. Yet, still to cast the Blame due to their Govern­ment, on the King's Mandamus, is more dar­ingly injurious to the highest Authority in the Nation.

LASTLY, the manner of Redress prescribed for the Sufferers, viz. the old Proprietors of Hinsdale, is the most shocking Piece of Contrivance, Page 27, ‘ Hinsdale, a small Township which has late­ly been taken up by Virtue of a Royal Mandamus, is alone unfortunate—but even here the Possessors may be relieved, by a suit­able Compensation, equal to the Value of their Improvements in Crown Lands, free from the Ex­pence of Fees.’ These Gentlemen in their great Clemency have also conceded that the New-Hamp­shire Settlers in general may be thus considered, ‘On the same Terms, may be assigned to each of those who are seated on the Soil, actually ap­propriated to others by the Government of New-York, and the Possessions of which can­not for that Reason be confirmed; such a Pro­portion of Crown Lands, as the Governor and Council shall judge to be adequate to their re­spective Improvements.’

THEN they proceed to describe the Tract, ‘A Fertile and extensive Country, in the north­ern [Page 160]Part of the County of Charlotte, and be­tween Connecticut River and Lake Cham­plain, still remains unpatented by either Go­vernment; and might be planted and culti­vated by these People:’—What a surprising Condescention this! the Posterity of the Original Proprietors of Hinsdale, especially, to be allowed the Privilege to pull up Sakes, quit their Farms and Possessions, Houses, Orchards, &c. and join Company with the New-Hampshire Settlers in ge­neral, and trudge off to the North-East Part of the Wilderness of Charlotte, and there commence another Settlement, leaving their pleasant Habi­tations, Fields, Tenements, and Country, in Ex­change for a howling Wilderness; a pretty Ex­change!—and this to gratify a number of New-York Cormorants. But, let's stop a little and consider—whether it would not be more Righ­teous to change the Scene, and so the New-York Patentees remove their Patents, that interfere with the New-Hampshire Grants, and lay them in the Wilderness of Charlotte, as neither Government have appropriated it.

A sufficient Reason to be offered in favour of the latter of these Projects, is, that the Settlers under New-Hampshire, are in Deed, and in Truth the right and lawful Owners and Proprietors of the Lands they possess, as, 'tis apprehended, has been fully demonstrated in the preceding Sec­tions. Although these Gentlemen have, in the Course of their Narration, flung out very extra­ordinary Hints of rewarding his Majesty's Sol­diery, [Page 161]by the Distribution of those Lands, yet, they may here again be reminded, (which may fur­ther serve as the above Reason) that his Majesty's Proclamation directed the Soldiery to make their Pitches on unappropriated and vacant Lands; this therefore, they must do, at the Hazard of los­ing their Grants, or repitching. For those Lands which being antecedently granted by the Crown, by the Agency of the Governor and Council of New-Hampshire, must forever exclude the Soldie­ry from pitching thereon; and put it entirely out of the Power of the Government of New-York, or the Crown, to grant them to a Second Person. And when it is considered, that the New-York Land-Jobbers have, long since purchased great Part of the Soldiery Rights, and that for a mere Trifle, and laid them out of themselves, at their own Risque; their Arguments on that Subject, cannot contribute greatly to the Removal of the New-Hampshire Settlers, to the exterior Part of Charlotte.

OUR Authors have given a tedious History of the Suits at Law, which have been commenced, by the New-York Patentees, against the Claim­ants, and Occupants under New-Hampshire, and have exhibited many specious Appearances of Fair­ness, Equity, and Impartiality in their Tryals. However, the Reader must observe, that in eve­ry of those, so boasted of, candid Tryals, the Defendants, by the Result, were to be dispossess­ed of their Farms. They then continue to tell of the entire Satisfaction of the Vanquished, (toge­ther [Page 162]with such or the New-Hampshire Claimants at attended the Courts) relative to the Validity of the New-York Title.—Soon after this, they give a surprising Account of Riots and Outrages, com­mitted by these Settlers, and mention Allen by Name, (who they say, but a little before was so fully persuaded of the Validity of the New-York Ti­tle) as one of their Leaders. This Narrative is in it­self incredible, it cannot be supposed, that Men who were convinced, they had had an impartial Try­al at Law, and of the Insufficiency of their own Title, and the Authenticity of that of their Op­ponents, would rally to arm, in Defiance of legal Authority, and in Defence of their own invalid Ti­tle; especially, after they had publickly declar­ed their own Sentiments concerning that Mat­ter.

THIS Assembly seem profusely lavish in the Praise of their own Government, concerning the Generosity, Forbearance and Humanity, &c. they have exercised towards the New-Hampshire Settlers; and that nothing of that Sort may here pass un­noticed, but that every Act, by them done, worthy of such Appellations, may be duly acknowledged; it will be freely confessed that Governor Tryon, and the Majority of his Majesty's Council, conduc­ted with Honour and Humanity toward them; while his Excellency was in the Administration, except in passing some very extraordinary Laws on the 9th of March, 1774, which may be seen in the fore Part of this Treatise, under the Head of the Narrative: But those Settlers must have that [Page 163]Charity for his Excellency, as to conclude he, would not have put his Sanction to those Laws, had he not known the said Settlers called the Green Mountain-Boys to be very expert with Fire-Arms and likewise very good Woodsers; and conse­quently, that the New-York Land-jobbers cou'd not put these Laws in Execution. To view this Matter in any other Light, they would be obliged to distrust the Fidelity of their worthy Friend Gover­nor Tryon. But to return to the Subject of Gene­rosity. The Assembly of New-York are unwise to make so great a Bustle about this Matter, inasmuch as they have spoiled the Joke themselves, by their so infamous a Proposal of Accommodation, which as has been before observed, is, that the New-Hampshire Settlers remove to the Wilderness of Charlotte, in Order to gratify a certain Fraternity with the Country they have with much Toil and Expence subdued: We have a very beautiful Repre­sentation of this New-York Beneficence by a wise Author, ‘the tender Mercies of the Wicked are Cruelty.’—Now follows another Quotation from our Authors, which is no less than a barefaced Insult on those Inhabitants, and one of the boldest of Misrepresentations. ‘If the New-Hampshire Claimants imagined that they were aggrieved by the Decisions of our Judges, the Means of Re­dress were in their own Power; and they ought to have sued their Writs of Error, and in the legal and ordinary Mode, to have referred their Cause to the final Sentence of his Majesty: But to expect a Remedy incompatible with the Ad­ministration of Justice, and the Rights of the [Page 164]Subject, either bespeak the greatest Ignorance, or Presumption.’

COULD they once get this established, that there should be no Access to his Majesty, or Trial, but in this "ordinary Mode," it would no doubt, be to their entire Satisfaction; Tryals in that Go­vernment would then easily become decisive; for in no Case, wherein the Demand of the Plain­tiff is below the Sum of Five Hundred Pounds, a Writ of Error in Favour of the Defendant can issue. And the New-York Attornies who com­piled the New-York Statings, and are also Paten­tees under that Government, well knew that eve­ry Action brought against the New-Hampshire Claimants has been designedly laid below that Sum. Yet they were possessed of that extreme Boldness to aver in express Terms, that, ‘if the New-Hampshire Claimants imagined, that they were aggrieved, by the Decisions of their Judges, their Means of Redress were in their own Power.’ i. e. by Way of a Writ of Er­ror.

THERE is nothing exhibited in this New-York Pamphlet which more sensibly deserves Resentment than their Pretensions of Indulgencies, Favours, &c. conferred on these Claimants by that Govern­ment— ‘To the Honor of the Government of New-York, it may justly be asserted, that the New-Hampshire Claimants have received every Mark of Favour and Indulgence which the Cir­cumstances permitted.’ Such Hypocrisy de­bases [Page 165]Human Nature, is the Pest of Society, par­takes of Falshood and Treachery; and what ren­ders it peculiarly vile, is, that it usurps the Seat of Virtue, and destroys Faith in Communities, and is the Source of cruel Jealousy. Had the Go­vernment of New-York been truly friendly to those Settlers, it had been return'd again; and mutual Good Will supplied the Place of Hatred an Strife. But, alas! so long as the Fee of the Country of the New Hampshire Grants is the Object in View, by the Government of New-York, how it is possible for Peace and good Order to take Place, can't well be conceived. Well would it be for that Go­vernment, and infinitely better for the Settlers un­der New-Hampshire, were they annexed to some o­ther Government; but they say, No. Quere, Why? The Answer is easy. They would then loose Sight of the aforesaid desirable Object: O­therwise, surely they would be glad to part with such rebellious Subjects as they represent them to be. For the Truth no Doubt is, that they are in Hopes some better Fortune may in future, attend them. And that they can take and execute some of the leading Men among these Inhabitants; and so frighten and impose on the Rest; and finally, by this Means, avail themselves of their Estates and Property. This is all they can desire in continu­ing this Country under their Jurisdiction. That they have in Reality a View to this, will further appear, by some memorable Sentences recorded in the 25th Page of their Appendix. "We may," say they, ‘readily conceive, that Breakenridge, and his Party, have abundant Reason to wish [Page 166]for an Alteration of Jurisdiction. The public Crimes, and private Wrongs which they have perpetrated, must make them look forward to the Hour of Tranquility, with the most anxious Apprehensions. The injured may then demand Satisfaction for all their Sufferings.—An A­tonement must then be made to the Country, for the Violation of it's Laws.’ Here the New-Hampshire Settlers may read their intended Doom, in Consequence of the Ability of the Government of New-York. And one Reason why this Govern­ment have not already destroyed the Inhabitants of the New-Hampshire Grants, with Fire and Sword, is their Want of Ability; and this Inability, in great Part, consists in this, that the common Peo­ple in the Government, are universally of Opinion that the Inhabitants have a good Right to those Lands, and should not be molested in the peaceable Enjoyment of them; and consequently will not as­sist their Civil Officers, in taking Possession of their Tenements, or them as Rioters. That they are no further turbulent than what is necessary to de­fend their Persons and Properties, from the Cruelty and Monopoly of their Rulers. This is the Ground of all the Lenity, Forbearance and Indul­gence of that Government towards those Inhabi­tants; and it is hoped, if these excessive Favours should be passed over without their Thanks, they may yet be excused for the Neglect.

FURTHERMORE, those Gentlemen, after having thus soon out their in sulcible Complaints, crown the Whole in Page 25th. ‘That they, i. e. the [Page 167] New-Hampshire Settlers, may in Nothing [...] of Character, they have appointed James Brea­kenridge, (whom we have so often mentioned) a Fugitive from Justice, and who has rendered himself so obnoxious as to become the immedi­ate Subject of a Proelamation—as one of their Agents.’ What a monstrous Crime is here!—Has Mr. Breakenridge rendered himself obnoxious to Punishment in the Government of New-York? O strange! Such a pacific Government too!—But what has he done? He has never, (notwithstanding all their Insinuations) been active in any Riots (as they term them) occasioned by this Controversy; but is become the Subject of a Proclamation—yet still, what Evil has he done? As those Gentlemen have not obliged the Public with an Information, the Author can supply their Defect. This Gentle­man was one of the first Settlers on the New-Hamp­shire Grants; and has had a great Share in the poli­tical Oeconomy of that Country, is a Man of Probity and Stedfastness in Principle, and blessed with strong Power of Ponderation, and has gained, as well as merited the Esteem of these Settlers. He was by them chosen as Agent to represent their distressed Cause to the Right Honourable the Earl of Dartmouth, President of the Board of Trade; and also, to im­plore his Majesty to interpose his Royal Autho­rity, and relieve his oppressed Subjects.—He ap­proached his Lordship, with a Representation of the Conduct of the Government of New-York, to­wards his Constituents, and sollicited his Lordship's Aid and Assistance, in Behalf of the Sufferers. He was received with Expressions of Kindness, [Page 168]and when he had laid the Facts of the Cause before his Lordship, and substituted an Agent at London, and put the Cause in Readiness for a final Tryal, before his Majesty in Privy Council, returned to America; having done all Things to the great Sa­tisfaction of his Employers.—Since his Re­turn from Great-Britain, he has made his A­bode at his own House in Bennington, (which is not within Seventeen Miles of Hudson's Ri­ver,) although "a Fugitive from Justice,"—making further Preparations for the decisive Trial depending before his Majesty, and comfort­ing the Inhabitants, with the Hopes of his most gracious Deliverance. These are the Things which have so exasperated the Government of New-York, against this good and worthy Man.

AS THE Design of this Section was, in a concise Manner, to point out some of the most notorious Extravagancies of the Government of New-York, the Subject can't with Propriety be passed over, without taking a short Review of the forementioned Laws of that Colony, which are the most apparent Portrai­ture of their horrid Malevolence and Caprice. Pas­sing these Laws, which are evidently calculated with a Design of extirpating the Inhabitants, by them Laws alluded to, from their goodly Land, nay, from the Face of the Earth; is no less than lavish­ly foaming out their own Shame; Laws that ought, and are contemned and disregarded by eve­ry Lover of Virtue. Laws and Society-Compacts were originally designed to protect the Subjects in their Property. Loyalty and Subordination to [Page 169]such Government, is essentially necessary, for the Good of Society, and all good and liege Subjects will support such Laws and Legislators. But, as in the present Instance, when Laws, in their original Design and Administration, are degenerated from the good Ends for which Laws and Government were instituted, terminating in the Ruin and Des­truction of the Society it should secure & protect; from the same Principles, viz. Self-preservation, the Subjects are obliged to resist, and depose such Government. And, inasmuch as those Laws, to­gether with some Remarks on them, are to be seen in the Narrative Part of this Performance, shall therefore conclude, with leaving the Reader, from his own Meditations, to pass such Sentence con­cerning this Matter as may appear reasonable.

SECTION IX.

IT may be of some Moment, towards the Close of this Treatise, to exhibit a Number of special Motives which induced those Inhabitants to prose­cute Settlements on the controverted Premises. As,

FIRST, On the good Faith of his Majesty's Grants, by the Agency of the Government of New-Hampshire, the Validity of which has been suffici­ently argued. And,

SECONDLY, by Engagement from a Proclama­tion by his late Excellency Benning Wentworth, which, for the more public Information, is here inserted.

A THIRD and weighty Inducement to the Settle­ment of those Lands, was argued from his Ma­jesty's express Order, prohibiting the Government of New-York from Granting any of those Lands in Dispute, which is as follows.

A FOURTH, and last special Motive for the car­rying on, and extending those Settlements, was from a Report of the Lords of Trade, as follows,

THESE Inducements are indisputably Authori­tative, and need no Commentation: Yet notwith­standing the Priority and Preferance of the New-Hampshire Title to that of New-York, and the so many corroberating and concomitant Inducements to the Claimants under the former, to settle and cultivate those Lands; yet the Assembly of New-York, in sundry Parts of their State of the Right, &c. and more particularly through the Appendix, treat those Inhabitants, merely on Account of such Settlement, with the most extreme Injury; who, instead of arguing, only declaim against them, and go on in a Gradation of Consequences drawn from false Premises, till they have dragged them from their true Character of honest Men, to that of Usurpers, Rioters, and Felons. Although the Quotations from our Authors have already been lengthy, yet that a Precedent of their Injustice may not here be wanted, the following, from the third Page of their Appendix is inserted.

‘But though the same Principles have been explained, and enforced in several Acts and Proclamations of Government, as well as on re­peated Trials in our Courts of Judicatory, they have left no suitable Impression on the contenti­ous Claimants under New-Hampshire. On the Contrary, in Contempt of the Dictates of Justice, the Decisions of Law, and the civil Authority, [Page 179]have their Encroachments, which were few in Number at the Time of the royal Determinati­on, been increased and extended in a tenfold Proportion; and that in general by Men, who cannot plead that they were deceived or ig­norant of the Nature or Merit of their Claim, which it appears, were too notorious to have es­caped their Observation, but who in spite of e­very Warning and Remonstrance to deter them, which human Prudence could devise, engaged as Volunteers on the Side of New-Hampshire, and wilfully plunged themselves into the Controver­sy. To extenuate their own Indiscretion & Miscon­duct, Calumny & Misrepresentation are their on­ly Resource; and accordingly without the least Reason, they charge the Government of New-York with Partiality, and every Land-holder under it, upon whom they have trespassed, with Injustice & Oppression; asserting, that because they have sanctified their Claim by a wrongful Possession, they ought peacebly to enjoy the Fruits of their U­surpation. To fortify their Pretentions they have spared no Art or Act of Violence, however Criminal; and after all, as if they were really injured, and the Objects of Regard, they do not hesitate to carry their Complaints to the Throne, and by special Agents to solicit some extraordi­nary Act of Favour, by which their Offences may be passed over with Impunity, and their Encroachments perpetuated in Prejudice to those who enjoy a clear Title from the Crown, under the Great Seal of New-York.’

[Page 180] As this clamorous Quotation is already mostly answered, shall only remark, as to those Settlers ex­tending their Encroachments in a ten-fold Propor­tion, since the Royal Determination. It hath been fully evinced that this Determination respected Jurisdiction only, and the before recited Royal Order and Report of the Board of Trade, were ac­counted sufficient to exclude all manner of Doubts in the Minds of the New-Hampshire Claimants of the Validity of their Title. They truly cannot plead that ‘they were deceived or ignorant of the Nature or Merit of their Claim.’ This Mat­ter was elucidated by the highest Wisdom and Au­thority in the Nation; they rejoice in the Clem­ency of their Sovereign, and in the Wisdom and impartial Justice of the Honourable Board of Trade, exhibited as aforesaid, upon which Encou­ragement those Claimants have greatly extended Settlements on those Lands, in a more special Manner on Onion River, and Lake Champlain, between the Township of Panton, which a-buts on the Lake opposite Crown-Point, and the said River, and North of it almost to the Forty-fith Degree of North Latitude, and preparations are vigorously making to extend these Settlements to the very Bounds of the Province of Quebec. It is seldom any new Country Settles with such Rapidity, not­withstanding the Oppositions they meet with from the Government of New-York: The Expence of clearing Roads, building Mills, Moving to and settling in that Wilderness Country only for Two Years last past, would amount to no very incon­siderable Sum. And those Settlers from the fore­going [Page 181]Reasons, do not in the least hesitate, but that they in so fulfilling the Conditions of their Charters, have and are acting agreeable to his Majesty's Will and Pleasure; and that those Labours will not only be for their own Emolument, but for the Enlargement of the British Empire, and Addition of the Crown Revenue.

THE Assembly of New-York have been very particular in their History of the Tumults and Ri­ots made by those Settlers, in Opposition to that Government, (many of which Facts must be con­fessed to be true) though they have carefully o­mitted their manyfold Provocations, yet, with all their Particularity have given but a very imper­fect Idea of those Transactions. I shall here, there­fore, waving particulars, give a general Review of the Oeconomy of those Settlers in their Opposi­tions to that Government. For defending their Properties, they were indicted Rioters, the next Thing was to defend Rioters; then they had two Objects as the Subjects of their Protection, viz. their Persons, as well as Property: They were at First greatly intimidated at the empty Appear­ance of Law, that their Opponents were so con­versant with, sometimes despairing of maintaining their Possessions; yet upon Extremity, rather than quit their Substance to the insatiable Ravishers, would rally and frustrate their Designs: Thus, when the Sheriff of the County of Albany with his Posse came to dispossess some of them, they most generally, boldly took up Arms, and appointed Leaders. Matters having come to this, not long [Page 182]after, the Inhabitants assembled and appointed Committees of Safety in the several Towns through­out their Settlement; this general Committee have the conducting of the Public Affairs of the Coun­try for its Security, 'till his Majesty settles the Controversy. They have erected several Compa­nies, which by the Votes of the Soldiers are fur­nished with Officers, these Companies form a Re­giment which are known by the significant Cha­racter of GREEN-MOUNTAIN BOYS, who are ge­nerally in the Prime of Life, well versed in the Use of Fire-Arms, and of robust Constitutions; probably no American Regiment in an interior Defence could excel them, or that would willing­ly contribute more to the Support of the Crown of Great-Britain; for it is observable, that such Subjects that will not fight for their Property, will never fight for their King: And, the general In­structions from the Committee, ever have been, not to act in any thing against the Government of New-York, but on the Defensive.

IT is in the Nature of Things impossible to pass a right Judgment on the Conduct of the New-Hamp­shire Settlers, without taking into View the Treat­ment of the Government of New-York towards them. All Cases must be determined upon the peculiar Cir­cumstances attending; no Act can scarcely be con­ceived of which, under certain attending Circum­stances might not be lawful. It will be readily admitted on the Part of those Settlers, that, pro­vided the Government of New-York, and its Pa­tentees have a clear and incontestible Right to [Page 183]those Lands; and that they are Intruders, and by Force and Violence have maintained such En­croachments, then, they are truly guilty, in man­ner as the Assembly of New-York have alledged: But on the Contrary, if those Settlers have a legal and incontestible Right to those Lands, that they prosecute Settlement on the good Faith of that Title, and the sundry Approbations of both their Title and Settlement from the British Adminis­tration, then, they are not guilty in Manner as those Gentlemen have declared; and the impar­tial Public, instead of viewing them as Usurpers, Rioters and Felons, will justify them in their Con­duct, and esteem them as good Members of Soci­ety, leige Subjects to the Crown of Great-Britain, and good Soldiers for defending their Persons and Properties.

THUS, is humbly submitted the State of the Con­troversy, which has for many Years subsisted between the Government of New-York and the Settlers under New-Hampshire; by impartial Jus­tice must every Act stand or fall; if those Settlers are in the wrong, they are criminally so, but if not, then the Allegations of their Opponents will be adjudged as futile and cruel.