New York, by succeeding to the rights of the Dutch, would be of equal extent. In support of the assumption that such was the extent of New Netherland, he quotes the letter of Gov. Stuyvesant of Sept. 2, 1664, in answer to the summons of Col. Nicolls to surrender his province to the English, when in that very letter Gov. Stuyvesant refers, as of binding force on the Dutch, to the treaty of Hartford in 1650, by which the eastern boundary of New Netherland on New England was declared to be a line running from the west side of Greenwich bay on Long Island sound, indefinitely to the northward, so "that it came not within ten miles of Hudson's river;" which line, we have already seen, had been ratified by the States General of Holland, and had been declared in the commission of the Dutch governor, on the reconquest of the province from the English in 1673, to be their eastern boundary. The existence of this treaty boundary is not mentioned by Mr. Duane for the very good and sufficient reason that it would overthrow at once his whole argument on that most important point.1

In order to make it appear that the government of New York had always claimed jurisdiction over the disputed territory of the New Hampshire grants, Mr. Duane refers to several ancient patents of land by the governors of that province which he claimed were situated, not indeed upon Connecticut river or very near it, but which reached towards that river, and beyond the line as claimed by New Hampshire. The most important of those grants, and indeed the only one which on close examination seemed to favor such a claim of jurisdiction, was one made to Godfrey Dellius in 1696, which was alleged to embrace a territory of twelve miles in width and about sixty miles in length along the eastern shore of Lake Champlain, and within the present limits of Vermont. An examination of the description in the grant makes it very plain that not a single acre of the land could possibly be situated within the disputed territory. These two examples of error in this New York document must suffice for the present.2

Soon after the adoption of this legislative manifesto, it was published and extensively circulated, together with an appendix of still greater length, entitled "A narrative of the proceedings subsequent to the royal adjudication, concerning the lands to the westward of Connecticut river, lately usurped by New Hampshire, with remarks on the claim, behavior and misrepresentations of the intruders under that government."

1 For the letter of Gov. Stuyvesant, see Smith's Hist. N. Y., vol. 1, p. 20. "For the descriptive language of the patent, see Appendix No. 7.

ment.

This narrative, after a weak apology for the regranting of the disputed lands by New York, relates, in much detail and in highly colored language, the various threatening and violent acts of the settlers before mentioned, together with some others of similar character, but of less importance; and represents them as the lawless and unjustifible proceedings of a tumultuous unfeeling mob, deserving the decided condemnation of all friends of order and good governIf considered without reference to the cause which produced them, they should doubtless be viewed in that light. The conduct of the settlers was in opposition to the laws of the province, and might therefore be termed "lawless." The actors were not directed in their operations by an established and recognized government, and might consequently be denominated "a mob." But it should be remembered that such is always the character of the uprising of a people against government oppression. The American Revolution was initiated and largely aided in its early progress by "tumultuous mobs." The famous stamp act was prevented from being put in execution by what has often been styled "mob law." The officers of the crown who were appointed to distribute the stamps were in all the colonies prevented from doing so, either by threats of injury to their persons or property, or by actual violence. In New York, Lieut. Gov. Colden was only induced to give up the stamps by the pursuasion of a mob, which had first broken open his coach house and made a bonfire of its contents, together with his own effigy, amid the plaudits of a surrounding populace. The British armed schooner Gaspee, at Rhode Island, was captured and destroyed by "a mob," and "a lawless mob," disguised as Indians, seized by force and emptied into Boston harbor, three hundred and forty-two chests of tea, thereby in connection with similar irregularities in other parts of the country rendering the odious tax on that article inoperative. But there can be no need of enumerating instances of such unauthorized demonstrations. Such irregularities inseparably belong to every forcible opposition of a people to the tyranny of an established government. The question in such case is whether there shall be submission, or irregular or in other words mob resistance, for that is the only resistance which it is possible to make.

The point to be determined in relation to the New Hampshire settlers and claimants, is whether the measures attempted and threatened by the New York government were such as to excuse and justify resistance.

If we consider the instances in which those who have revolted against established governments, have been justified by the tri

bunal of history, we shall rarely find a case stronger than that of the New Hampshire claimants. Our American revolution can scarcely be said to furnish so clear an example of rightful resistance to oppression. The American people revolted from the mother country because of the imposition of taxes, which though small in amount, were founded on a principle that would allow the extortion of any further sum the parliament might at any time think proper to demand; thus destroying the security of the residue of their property, and leaving it at the mercy of the government. In the case of the inhabitants of the New Hampshire grants the principle of government exaction was carried at once by New York to its utmost extent by requiring not a fraction of their property, but demanding as a right the immediate surrender of the whole. If revolution were justifiable in the former case, as is now universally admitted, it must be deemed at least equally so in the latter. It should also be remembered that the New York oppression was rendered peculiarly hateful and odious by the fact that the motives which prompted it were of the most selfish and mercenary character; and that it was moreover inflicted by a subordinate government contrary to the declared opinion and express command of the king, its acknowledged superior.

The New Hampshire settlers were freemen, intelligent, hardy and brave. They had, in general, expended their all in the purchase, in good faith, of the lands which they occupied, and in transforming them into comfortable homes for themselves and families. Is it surprising that they should have resisted the attempts of the New York rulers to deprive them of their possessions? Would it not, indeed, have been craven and unworthy of manly heroism to do otherwise?

CHAPTER XIV.

CONDITION OF AFFAIRS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE GREEN MOUNTAIN; SECOND APPEAL TO THE KING, AND FAVORABLE REPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.

1772-1773.

Treatment of the settlers east of the Green Mountain by the New York government Counties of Cumberland and Gloucester formed-Smothered discontent with the New York government Outbreaks at Windsor and Putney Grant by Tryon of ten thousand acres of land in Hinsdale to Col. Howard Breakenridge and Hawley in England - Favorable Report of the Board of Trade and Protest against it of Gov. Tryon — The terror inspired by the threats of the Green Mountain Boys a principal weapon of defense against their adversaries - Corporal punishment by whipping, a common mode of punishment in New York and other colonies prior to the revolution.

WE

HILE the controversy in relation to their land titles was producing serious disturbances among the inhabitants on the west side of the Green mountain, those on the east side had remained comparatively quiet. It has already been seen that Lieut. Gov. Colden's patents in 1765, for peculiar reasons, had been confined to lands on the west side of the mountain. The numerous complaints made to Sir Henry Moore, his successor, of the great injustice of Colden's interfering patents, the application of the settlers to the king for relief, and the order of the crown consequent thereon, forbidding any further grants, operated to protect the lands of the inhabitants on the east side from the grasp of the speculators. As late as March 4th, 1771, Alexander Colden, surveyor general of the province, certified and doubtless truly, "that he had not made any return of the survey of any lands known to be held under the government of New Hampshire eastward of the ridge of the Green mountains," except of the rights allotted to Gov. Wentworth before mentioned. As these were not occupied, regranting of them did not injure the inhabitants. In fact, the formidable opposition occasioned by Colden's interfering grants made it for the interest of the New York government to strengthen itself with the crown and also at home, by conciliating the good will and obtaining the aid of the eastern settlers, in their controversy with those at the west, and that was the policy

early adopted by that government. The New Hampshire titles were confirmed to the original proprietors in several of the townships on Connecticut river, and in some instances with liberal deductions from the customary patent fees. As a further means of winning the favor of the eastern inhabitants, new counties were formed, creating a variety of offices to be filled by influential individuals. A county by the name of Cumberland was constituted by act of the assembly in July, 1766, embracing territory nearly identical with the present counties of Windsor and Windham. Among the officers immediately appointed were a sheriff, a surrogate, a county clerk and a coroner, three judges of the court of common pleas, seven assistant judges of the same court and fifteen justices of the peace. This act of the assembly was repealed and annulled by the king, and his order was laid before the assembly by the governor the 2d of December, 1767. The county consequently became extinct. It was however revived and reestablished by ordinance of the governor and council, bearing date February 10th, 1768.1 By ordinance of the governor and council adopted in March, 1770, another county was constituted, by the name of Gloucester, comprising all the territory north of Cumberland county and east of the Green mountain, of which Kingsland, now Washington in Orange county, was made the county seat. There were no inhabitants within many miles of the place, but a log hut, dignified with the name of a jail was erected in the wilderness and left without a keeper or tenant, but in which the courts were directed to be held. For this county the governor at once appointed a sheriff, a county clerk, four commissioners to administer oaths, three judges of the court of common pleas, four assistant judges and nine justices of the peace. The population within the limits of the county was probably less than six-hundred, and it is difficult to conceive what motive there could have been for its formation, other than that of gratifying the taste of persons ambitious for office and titles. An attempt to hold the court of common pleas in February, 1771, proved abortive. The officers after travel

1Mr. B. H. Hall, in his History of Eastern Vermont (p. 2), treats the reestablishment of Cumberland county as the personal act of the king in consequence of "numerous applications and representations made to the crown." In point of fact the king knew nothing whatever of the ordinance. The New York governor and council were the sole actors. The charter of the county issued by the governor, like his land patents, was in the name of the king, but the king knew no more of it than he did of the patent of Socialborough and that to Col. Reid, both of which were issued by the governor without the king's knowledge and in violation of his express order.