seigneurie, and property; and the said provinces with respect to their government and jurisdiction. "With regard to the transactions on the part of New-York, we beg leave to observe, that whatever agreements have been made formerly between the two provinces for settling their boundaries; whatever acts of assembly have passed, and whatever commissions have been issued by the respective governors and governments; the proceedings under them have never been perfected, the work remains unfinished, and the disputes between the two provinces subsist with as much contradiction as ever; but there is a circumstance that appears to us to have still more weight, namely, that those transactions were never properly warranted on the part of the crown; the crown never participated in them, and therefore cannot be bound with respect to its interests by proceedings so authorized. "The interest which your majesty has in the determination of this boundary, may be considered in three lights: either as interests of sovereignty, respecting mere government; of seigneurie, which respect escheats and quitrents; or of property, as relative to the soil itself; which last interest takes place in such cases, where either your majesty has never made any grants of the soil, or where such grants have by escheats reverted to your majesty. "With regard to the first of these interests, viz. that of sovereignty, it has been alleged to us in support of the act, that it is not materially affected by the question, as both provinces are under your majesty's immediate direction and government: but they stand in a very different light with respect to your majesty's interest in the quitrents and escheats; in both which articles the situation of the two provinces appears to us to make a very material alteration: for although the province of New-Jersey is not under regulations of propriety or charter with respect to its government, yet it is a proprietary province with respect to the grant and tenure of its territory, and consequently as New-York is not in that predicament, the determination of the boundary in prejudice to that province, will affect your majesty's interest with respect to the tenure of such lands as are concerned in this question: it being evident, that whatever districts are supposed to be included in the limits of New-Jersey, will immediately pass to the proprietors of that province, and be held of them, by which means your majesty would be deprived of your escheats, and the quitrents would pass into other hands. "To obviate this objection, it has been alleged that the crown has already made absolute grants of the whole territory that can possibly come in question under the denomination of this boundary, and reserved only trifling and inconsiderable quitrents on those grants: but this argument does not seem to us to be conclusive, since it admits an interest in your majesty, the greatness or smallness of which is merely accidental; and therefore does not affect the essence of the question: and we beg leave to observe, that in the case of exorbitant grants with inconsiderable quitrents; and where consequently it may reasonably be supposed, that the crown has been deceived in such grants by its officers; your majesty's contingent right of property in virtue of your seigneurie, seems rather to be enlarged than diminished. "This being the case, it appears to us that governor Hunter ought not to have issued his commission for running the line above mentioned, without. having previously received the royal direction and instruction for that purpose; and that a commission issued without such authority, can be considered, with respect to the interests of the crown, in no other light than as a mere nullity and even with respect to New-York, we observe that the said commission is questionable, as it does not follow the directions of the above-mentioned act, passed in 1717, which declares, that the commission to be issued, shall be granted under the joint authority of the governor and council of that province. "But it has been further urged that the crown has since confirmed these transactions, either by previous declarations or by subsequent acquiescence, and consequently participated in them so far as to include itself: we shall therefore, in the next place, beg leave to consider the circumstances urged for this purpose. "It has been alleged that the crown, by giving consent to the aforesaid act, passed in New-York in 1717, for paying and discharging several debts due from that colony, &c. concluded and bound itself with respect to the subsequent proceedings had under the commission issued by governor Hunter; but the view and purport of that act appears to us so entire, and so distinctly formed for the purpose of raising money and establishing funds; so various and so distinct from any consideration of the disputes subsisting in the two provinces, with respect to the boundaries; that we cannot conceive a single clause in so long and so intricate an act, can be a sufficient foundation to warrant the proceedings of governor Hunter subsequent to it, without a special authority from the crown for that purpose; and there is the more reason to be of this opinion, as the crown, by giving its assent to that act, can be construed to have assented only to the levying money for a future purpose; which purpose could not be effected by any commission but from itself; and, therefore, can never be supposed to have thereby approved a commission from another authority, which was at that time already issued, and carrying in execution, previous to such assent. "We further beg leave humbly to represent to your majesty, that the line of partition and division between your majesty's province of New-York and colony of Connecticut, having been run and ascertained, pursuant to the directions of an act passed at New-York for that purpose, in the year 1719, and confirmed by his late majesty in 1723; the transactions between the said province and colony, upon that occasion, have been alleged to be similar to, and urged as a precedent, and even as an approbation of the matter now in question: but we are humbly of opinion that the two cases are materially_and essentially different. The act passed in New-York, in 1719, for running and ascertaining the lines of partition and division between that colony and the colony of Connecticut, recites, that in the year 1683, the governor and council of New-York, and the governor and commissioners of Connecticut, did, in council, conclude an agreement concerning the boundaries of the two provinces; that, in consequence of this agreement, commissioners and surveyors were appointed on the part of each government, who did actually agree, determine, and ascertain, the lines of partition; marked out a certain part of them, and fixed the point from whence the remaining part should be run: that the several things agreed on and done by the said commissioners were ratified by the respective governors; entered on record in each colony, in March 1700; approved and confirmed by order of king William, the third, in his privy council; and by his said majesty's letter to his governor of New-York. From this recital it appears to us, that those transactions were not only carried on with the participation, but confirmed by the express act and authority of the crown; and that confirmation made the foundation of the act passed by New-York, for settling the boundaries between the two provinces; of all which authority and foundation the act we now lay before your majesty appears to us to be entirely destitute. "Upon the whole, as it appears to us that the act in question cannot be effectual to the ends proposed; that your majesty's interest may be materially affected by it, and that the proceedings on which it is founded were not warranted in the first instance by the proper authority, but carried on without the partici pation of the crown; we cannot think it advisable to lay this act before your majesty, as fit to receive your royal approbation. "Which is most humbly submitted, "DUNK HALIFAX, "J. GRENVILLE, "JAMES OSWALD, "ANDREW STONE. "Whitehall, July 18, 1753." PART V. From the year 1720 to the commencement of the administration of Colonel Cosby. WILLIAM BURNET, esq. took upon him the government of this province, on the 17th of September, 1720. The council named in his instructions were COL. SCHUYLER, MR. BARBARIE, MR. PHILIPSE, CAPT. WALTER, MR. BYERLY, COL. BEEKMAN, MR. CLARKE, DR. JOHNSTON, COL. HEATHCOTE, MR. HARISON. Mr. Burnet was a son of the celebrated bishop of that name, whose piety and erudition, but especially his zeal and activity for the glorious revolution and protestant succession, will embalm his memory to the most distant ages. The governor was a man of sense and polite breeding, a well read scholar, sprightly, and of a social disposition. Being devoted to his books, he abstained from all those excesses into which his pleasurable relish would otherwise have plunged him. He studied the arts of recommending himself to the people, had nothing of the |