contented with intrusions on the uncultivated parts of the State; they entered upon and seized the farms and habitations of Settlers under some of our most ancient grants which had long been quietly possessed.

Others who had no pretence, even under New Hampshire, were influenced by the example of the Claimants under that Government to make Encroachments.

To prevent the Incautious from being deceived, to assert the rights, and fully to maintain our Jurisdiction

18th Feb 1761 No. original This Government issued a Proclamation, prohibiting all persons from entering into or taking possession of land on Otter Creek, or Wood Creek, under the pretended title of one Lydias who had asserted that he had collected 800 Families to settle thereon-And on

Another Proclama

28th Dec 1763 No. original tion was published to require all officers of Justice to continue to exercise their respective Functions as far as the banks of Connecticut River, notwithstanding any claim of Jurisdiction or grants under New Hampshire westward of that River and to make return of the names of all offenders that they might be punished according to Law.

Lydias fled from Justice; but the New Hampshire Emissaries persevered in their Encroachments, and in distressing the People settled under New York.

No. 35 original. Deposition of James Van Cortlandt Esquire, That in summer of 1764 he assisted in arresting Samuel Robinson &c who with other Emissaries for New Hampshire had distressed the settlers under Hosick and Renssalaerwyck grants, drove off their Cattle, seized their grain, and threatned to distress all within their claim who would not hold under them; 7th August 1764 No. Minute of Council of New York on the same subject, containing substance of letters from Sherriff of Albany.

No. original. The letters from Harmanus Schy

ler Sherriff of Albany referred to in the above minute of Council.

Minutes Sup. Court No. These offenders on their submission were discharged by the Supreme Court without trial or fine.

The Government of New York now found it high time to urge the Crown to make a final decision of the Controversy which had been so long suspended on account of the War: which produced

20th July 1764 No. Copy recited in the next proclamation. The final decree of the King in privy Council declaring the western banks of the River Connecticut from where it enters the province of the Massachusetts Bay as far as the forty fifth degree of northern Latitude to be the boundary line between the two provinces of New Hampshire and New York.*

10th April 1765 No. original. A Proclamation of the Government of New York published the said decree in the usual form.

6th June, 1766, No. [14] Order of the Governor and Council of New York that the Claimants under New Hampshire sue out their grants by a limited time to prevent the preference of other Petitioners.

22 May, 1765. No. [15] Order of the Governor and Council of New York in favor of the Occupants under New Hampshire who were settled before the 22d May 1765.

No. original. Surveyor General's Certificate of Reservation in favor of New Hampshire occupants settled before the twenty second May 1765.

22 Oct 1765 No. [16] Minute of Council in Petition of Thomas Chandler and others for a new County on Connecticut river;

3d July 1766 A new County erected on the petition of the Inhabitants, by the name of Cumberland, on Connecticut River by an act entitled "an act for erecting certain lands lying on the west side of Connecticut

* See this Decree explained in Assembly's State before quoted, p. 19, &c.

River within this Colony into a separate County to be called by the name of the County of Cumberland.” Laws of New York, p.

Minutes of Council 28th Feby 1770 No. [17] Order of the Government of New York on Petition of the Inhabitants for erecting another County, by the name of Gloucester, on the same River.

Courts Representation. 11th July 1766 No. [18] Minutes of Council on ordinance for Courts of Justice in Cumberland County and appointment of Magistrates &c.

13th Nov 1771 No. [19] Minutes of Council of New York containing the substance of a letter of the 9th Nov 1771, from Governor Wentworth of New-Hampshire to Governor Tryon of New York declaring that he had given no Encouragement to the Claimants under that Government to hope for any alteration of Jurisdiction; but had recommended implicit obedience to the laws and upon all occasions positively disowned any connection with these people &c.; and advice of Council to issue a proclamation.

29th Jany 1772 No. [20] Copy letter from minutes. Minutes of Council of New York containing a Communication of a letter of the 8th Jan 1771 from John Wentworth Esq Governor of New Hampshire to Governor Tryon with a Copy of the minute of the Council of that province on the same day which are ordered to be entered on the minutes of Council.

The letter declares that no disturbances have been committed on the banks of Connecticut River where the Inhabitants of New York have daily intercourse with those of New Hampshire; on the Contrary that the reported evils are confined to a small district remote from the New Hampshire boundary line and more immediately connected with Hudson's River and the Colonies of Connecticut and Massachusetts Bay whence they origi nally migrated. That violence and illegal opposition to Government is the aversion of New Hampshire and every contrary assurance groundless, &c.

The minute entered at large in proceedings of the Council-Copy-The original minute in the office—

original.

The Council of New Hampshire declare that by the King's order in Council of the 20th July 1764 the western bank of Connecticut River was then commanded to be the west bounds of that province; and that that Government had ever and was entirely obedient thereto; that therefore the said Proclamation (being the last mentioned of the 11th December 1771 which Governor Tryon had transmitted) relating wholly to matters and things without the boundaries of that province; the publication thereof by authority of that province would be extra-provincial, &c.

Having stated the Evidence under the first General Head, Our Eastern boundary in opposition to the Government of New Hampshire as a State

We proceed under the same General head-

Secondly, To apply the Evidence in opposition to the Claimants of the right of soil, or of independent Jurisdiction; pretended to be derived under that Government—and first with respect to the right of soil.

It has been insisted in favor of the Claimants

1st That the original right to the Country which they claim appertained to New Hampshire, and was first made a part of New York by the decree of the King in privy Council of the 20th day of July 1764And that therefore all grants prior to that decision are valid.

[Note] In support of this assertion they have al ledged

1. That because the Massachusetts and Connecticut had carried their Western boundary within 20 miles of Hudson's River: that therefore New Hampshire ought to be entitled to the same licence.

2. That in 1744 an order was issued by the Crown that if New Hampshire did not provide for fort Dummer it should be annexed with a suitable district of country to the Massachusetts.

See these objections refuted in the Assembly's case before quoted p 12, 13. & 14.

2dly That the lands when granted by New Hampshire were reputed to be in that Government. That the claim of New York is novel; and was at the time of obtaining their grants and their subsequent settlement unknown; and that therefore they are to be considered as fair purchasers and to be secured.

[Note.] As to the second argument, it is refuted by the Proclamations, arrests, and other acts of Government, of public notoriety before quoted; and more fully in the narrative subjoined to the Assembly's case p 16, &c. where all their objections as offered by themselves to the late Government of New York are stated and answered.

3dly That as both New York and New Hampshire were royal Governments, and they have the King's letters patent under the seal of the latter, it is a good title, even if the lands were comprehended within the Jurisdiction of New York.

[Note.] See this objection refuted in the above narrative p 18 &c.

Secondly. To apply the evidence in opposition to their claim of Independent Jurisdiction.

1st They alledge that they have the same right to separate. and become independent of New York; as any of the States of America had to declare themselves independent of the Crown of England.

[Note] In answer to the 1st assertion—

1. The principle is totally inadmissible striking at the very foundation of all social liberty, Government and security.

2. Congress assembled and the States united to defend the political rights Jurisdictions and priviledges of their respective Communities.

3. In their several acts already passed they have clearly reprobated the Idea that a part of a Community may seperate from the rest without its consent: and it can never be admitted while any regard is paid