the province of New Hampshire embracing the whole territory now included in both that state and Vermont.

Besides these there were numerous other maps published in England prior to the order of the king in council of July 20, 1764, severing the present territory of Vermont from New York, on which the eastern boundary of New York is marked. Not a single map has been found which extends the province eastward to Connecticut river, and all concur in separating it from New England by a line running from Long island sound parallel to the Hudson. Of the maps bearing an earlier date than those of Dr. Mitchell, and of the treaty commissioners, on which the twenty mile line from the Hudson is made the eastern boundary of New York, and the western boundary of New England, a few will be mentioned.

In Morden's Geography of the World, published in London in 1688, at page 606 is a map of "New England and New York," which has a dotted line for the boundary between the two, beginning on Long Island sound with "Rye" on one side of it and "Greenwich" the other, extending north beyond Albany, but not having Lake Champlain upon it.

" on

A large quarto "Geography of the Earth, London 1709" (the name of the author not given), contains a map of North America, on which New England is separated from New York by a line running near the Hudson to Lake Champlain and along that lake to Canada.

In Oldmixon's "British Empire in America," London, 1741, is a map of "New England, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania," on which, for the eastern boundary of New York is a dotted line, about one-third of the distance from the Hudson to the Connecticut river, running from Long island sound nearly to the top of the map in latitude about forty-three degrees and a half north. In the body of the work (vol. 1, p. 238), the boundaries of New York are given thus: "On the south it is bounded by Long island and on the east by New England. Hudson river divides it from the Jerseys and a line drawn between Rye and Greenwich separates it from New England. Thus the whole province on the continent is not above twenty miles over, but is one hundred and twenty miles in length.”

In the volume of the Gentlemen's Magazine for 1754, is a small map of "the British American Plantations," which only extends north to latitude forty-three degrees, on which the boundary line between New York and New England is a dotted line parallel to the Hudson, and reaching from Long island sound to the top of the map.

The same magazine for each of the years, 1755, 57, 62, and

63, contains maps of the British colonies, on all of which New Hampshire is distinctly marked as extending westward to lake Champlain and to a line reaching northward from Long island to that lake.

From the year 1755 the English maps on which the limits of the several American colonies are designated, become very numerous, and all of them until several years after the king's order of July 1764, correspond with that of Dr. Mitchell in giving lake Champlain and the twenty mile line from the Hudson as the boundary between New York and New Hampshire.

That the officers of the king's goverment in England well understood that New Hampshire extended west to the line designated on Mitchell's and other maps of the period, is also shown by their uniform language whenever they speak of the extent of the province.

Thus, in the report of the lords of trade to the king, of the 25th of May, 1757, in which they recommend the authoritative establishment of a twenty mile line from the Hudson as the boundary between New York and Massachusetts, they describe it as running northerly to a point twenty miles east of Hudson's river "on that line which divides the province of New Hampshire and the Massachusetts bay," indicating very clearly, that New Hampshire extended as far west as the northern termination of the proposed line. And even Mr. De Lancey, lieutenant governor of New York, writing afterwards to the board of trade, speaks of the proposed line as reaching northerly to the line of New Hampshire.

Lord Hillsborough, the English secretary for the colonies, in his official correspondence with the governors of New York, uses language of a similar character. Thus, in addressing Lieut. Gov. Colden, under date of December 9, 1769, he says: "I think fit to send you copy of his majesty's order in council of the 24th of July 1767, forbidding any grants to be made of the lands annexed to New York, by his majesty's determination of the boundary line, between that colony and New Hampshire," and he uses similar language in a despatch to Governor Moore under date of Feb. 25, 1768. So in a letter to Governor Tryon of December 4, 1771, he says: "I have long lamented the disorders which have prevailed on the lands heretofore considered as a part of New Hampshire but which were annexed to New York by his majesty's order in council of the 20th of July, 1764.” And again, in another letter to Governor Tryon, of the 18th of April, 1772, he speaks of "that country which has been annexed to New York, by the determination of the boundary line" with New Hampshire.

So Lord Dartmouth, after he became colonial secretary, writing to Gov. Tryon, Nov. 4th, 1772, speaks of "the wisdom of the royal instructions by which you [Gov. Tryon] were forbid to make any grants within the district annexed to New York by the determination of the boundary with New Hampshire." And in the representation of the board of trade to the king of the 3d of December, 1772, the first object of consideration is stated to be, "the propriety or impropriety of reannexing to New Hampshire the lands west of Connecticut river." 1

Sir

It also appears to have been understood in New York that New Hampshire, prior to the king's order of July, 1764, extended westerly to the twenty mile line, and to lake Champlain. William Johnson, long a member of the New York council, and superintendent of Indian affairs, having been requested to point out a suitable place in the province for the location of a grant of land to which his friend, Commissary Gen. Leake, was entitled from the king, wrote him, under date of August 16, 1765, on the subject, saying, "for my part I know of no better at present than that part of New Hampshire lately made part of this province.”2

From all which, it seems very clear that, if New York, prior to the determination of the king in council of July, 1764, extended eastward to Connecticut river, it was not only unknown to the public in England and America, but also to the government officials in both countries.

1 Smith's N. Y., vol. 2, p. 305. Col. Hist. N. Y., vol. 7, pp. 224, 334; vol. 8, pp. 12, 193, 285, 295, 318.

2 Doc. Hist. N. Y., vol. 2, p. 821.

CHAPTER VI.

THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF NEW YORK ON NEW HAMPSHIRE.

1749-1765.

The origin of the claim of New York to reach to Connecticut river, to the northward of the colony of Connecticut, in 1749, and its history — The king's order in 1764, making that river the boundary with New Hampshire Lands chartered by Governor Wentworth, of New HampshireClaim of the New York government, that the grants of the governor of New Hampshire were void, and the granting of the lands anew to others.

I

NOR more than three quarters of a century after the conquest of New Netherland by the English, the boundary adjustment then made between the king's commissioners and those of the colony of Connecticut, had been considered and treated as applicable to the whole eastern boundary of New York, and during all that time nothing had been heard of any claim of that province to reach eastward to Connecticut river, to the northward of that colony. It was not until some years after the determination of the crown, made in 1740, fixing upon the present northern line of Massachusetts as its boundary with New Hampshire, that it appears to have occurred to the rulers of New York to set up a claim under the old charter to the Duke of York, to extend eastward to that river. The rise and progress of the claim will now be considered.

Under date of Nov. 17, 1749, Gov. Wentworth of New Hampshire, wrote to Gov. Clinton of New York, that he had it in command from his majesty to make grants of unimproved lands within his government to such persons as would oblige themselves to improve the same; that applications were making for some townships to be laid out in the western part of it, and that wishing to avoid as far as he could interfering with the government of Gov. Clinton, he enclosed a copy of his own commission from the king, and desired to be informed “how far north of Albany and how many miles east of Hudson's river to the northward of Massachusetts line his (Gov. Clinton's) government by his majesty's commission extended."

This letter being laid before the New York council by Gov. Clinton, they advised him to acquaint Gov. Wentworth "that this province is bounded eastward by Connecticut river the letters patent from King Charles the second to the Duke of York expressly grant

ing all the lands from the west side of Connecticut river to the east side of Delaware bay."

This advice of the New York council being communicated to Gov. Wentworth, several letters subsequently passed between the two governors, the one claiming to the Connecticut river, and the other to a twenty mile line from the Hudson, and it was finally agreed to refer the matter to the decision of the king, and mutually to exchange the representations they should make to the crown on the subject.1 The letter of Gov. Clinton to Gov. Wentworth, of April 9, 1750, communicating the foregoing advice of the New York council, was so far as can be discovered, the first announcement ever made in behalf of the government of New York, that any part of that province to the northward of Connecticut extended eastward to Connecticut river.

It is evident from the correspondence, that the claim was entirely new to Gov. Wentworth; that when informed of it he was taken completely by surprise. The claim to extend eastward to the Connecticut river had never been made, except against the colony of Connecticut, and that not seriously persisted in; the twenty mile line having been agreed upon and accepted in behalf of the Duke of York in 1664, within three months after the conquest of the country by the Dutch. After having lain dormant for nearly a century it is not matter of great wonder that Gov. Wentworth had never heard of it, and should have been at a loss what to say in regard to it.

It is quite apparent also, that the claim was but a recent idea in New York. In July following the receipt of Gov. Wentworth's first letter, the subject of the claim of New Hampshire was referred by the governor and council to the attorney general. That office had then been held by Richard Bradley for over twenty-five years, and he ought to have known something of the claim, if it had been long in existence. And yet it was evidently new to him; his report concluding as follows, viz:

"I am very sensible, may it please your excellency, that the above representation, relating to the eastern bounds of this government, is very imperfect, being framed only on the few papers and materials I have been able to collect, at this time; relating to a matter, which I must confess myself much unacquainted with. But hope these few hints, may be of some use in the affair, and doubt not but his majesty's surveyor general, who I suppose is much better acquainted

1See the correspondence at length in Doc. History of N. Y., vol. 4, p. 531-537, and in Slade's Vt. State Papers, p. 9–13.