Chap. 2. 



SETTLEMENT AND CONTROVERSIES 



19 



DIFFERENT VIEWS OF THE ROVAL DECREE. 



AGENT SENT TO ENGLAND. 



willing to submit ; but they had no ap- 

 prehension that it could, in any way, af- 

 fect their title to the lands upon which 

 they had settled. Having purchased and 

 paid for them, and obtained deeds of the 

 same under grants from the crown, they 

 could not imagine by what perversion of 

 justice they could be compelled, by the 

 game authority, to re-purchase their lands 

 or abandon them. Tlie governor of New 

 Hampshire, at first, remonstrated against 

 this change of jurisdiction ; but was, at 

 length, induced to abandon the contest, 

 and issued a proclamation recommending 

 to tlie proprietors and settlers due obedi- 

 ence to the authority and laws of the col- 

 ony of New York. 



Section HI. 



Controversy with jXem York from 1761 

 to 1773. 



The royal decree by which the division 

 line between New Hampshire and New 

 York was established, was regarded very 

 differently by the different parties con- 

 cerned. The settlers on the New Hamp- 

 shire grants considered that it only placed 

 them hereafter under the jurisdiction of 

 New York, and to tills they were willing 

 to submit ; but they had no idea that 

 tlieir titles to their lands, or that any past 

 transactions, could be atiected by it. Had 

 the government of New York given the 

 royal decision the same interpretation, no 

 controversy would ever have arisen. The 

 settlers would have acknowledged its ju- 

 risdiction and submitted to its authority 

 without a murmur. But that government 

 gave the decision a very different con- 

 .struction. It contended that the order 

 had a retrospective operation, and decided 

 not only what should tliereafter be, but 

 what had always been, the eastern limit 

 of New York, and consequently, that the 

 grants made by New Hampshire were 

 illegal and void. 



With these views, the government of 

 New York proceeded to extend Its juris- 

 diction over the New Hampshire grants. 

 The settlers were called upon to surren- 

 der their charters, and re-purchase their 

 lands under grants from New York. 

 Some of them complied with this order, 

 but most of them peremptorily refused. 

 The lands of those who did not comply 

 were therefore granted to others, in whose 

 names actions of ejectment were com- 

 menced in the courts at Albany, and 

 judgments Invariably obtained against the 

 settlers and original proprietors. 



The settlers soon found that they had 



nothing to hope from the customary forms 

 of law, and therefore determined upon 

 resistance to the unjust and arbitrary de- 

 cisions of the court, till his Majesty's 

 pleasure should be further known. Hav- 

 ing fairly purchased their lands of one 

 royal governor, they were determined not 

 willingly to submit and re-purchase them, 

 at an exorbitant price, of another; and 

 when the executive officers of New York 

 came to eject the inhabitants from their 

 possessions, they met with avowed oppo- 

 sition, and were not suffered to proceed 

 in the execution of their business. 



For the purpose of rendering their re- 

 sistance more effectual, various associa- 

 tions were formed among the settlers ; 

 and, at length, a convention of represen- 

 tatives from the several towns on the 

 west side of the mountains, was called. 

 This convention met in the fall of 1766, 

 and, after mature deliberation, appointed 

 Samuel Robinson, of Bennington, an 

 agent to represent, to the Court of Great 

 Britain, the grievances of the settlers, 

 and to obtain, if possible, a confirmation 

 of the New Hampshire grants. The ac- 

 tions of ejectment were, however, still 

 going on in the courts at Albany, but no 

 attention was paid to them by the set- 

 tlers, nor was any defence made ; but the 

 settlers were very careful that none of 

 the decisions of the court should be car- 

 ried into execution. 



On the 3d of July, 1766, the colonial 

 assembly of New York had passed an act 

 erecting a portion of the territory covered 

 by the New Hampshire grants into a new 

 county, by the name of Cumberland,* 

 and making provision for building therein 

 a court house and jail, to be located at 

 Chester; but in consequence of the rep- 

 resentations made by Mr. Robinson at 

 the British Court, his Majesty in council, 

 was pleased, on the 2Gth of June, 1767, to 

 Issue an order annulling this act of the 

 provincial legislatvire ; and on the 24th of 

 July following another special order was 

 obtained, prohibiting the governor of New 

 York, upon pain of his Majesty's highest 

 displeasure, from making any further 

 grants whatsoever of the lands in ques- 

 tion, till his Majesty's further pleasure 

 should be known concerning the same.t 



But before Mr. Robinson had fully ac- 

 complished the business of his mission in 

 England, he was so unfortunate as to 

 take the small-pox, of which distemper 

 he died at London, in October, 1767, and 

 it is not known that a detailed account of 

 his proceedings was ever transmitted to 



* See part third, article Cumberland County. 

 t Slade'3 Vermont State Papers, p. 20. 



