THOMAS] ENGLISH POLICY TOWARD THE INDIANS 559 



conformable to such directions iiiul instructions as we or they shall think proper to 

 give for that purpose. 



Although primarily relating to the colonies of (Juebec, East Florida, 

 and West Florida, it is evident from the distinct statements therein 

 that it was intended, as regards the points referred to in the quotation, 

 to be of general application. The policy set forth in this proclamation 

 is just and honorable, and appears to have been followed, as a general 

 rule, by Great Britain in its subsequent dealings with the Indians, 

 which, after 1776, were limited to its northern ])ossessions. 



In April, 1704, Sir William Johnson, as " Sole agent and superin- 

 tendent of Indian affairs for the Northern parts of iSTorth America," 

 concluded articles of peace with the Seneca Indians in which they 

 ceded to the King the following lands: 



From the Fort of Niagara, extending easterly along Lake Ontario, about four 

 miles, comprehending the Petit Marais, or lauding ^daco, and running I'rom thence 

 southerly, about fourteen miles to the Creek above the Fort Schlosser or Little 

 Niagara, and down the same to the River, or Strait and across the same, at the 

 great Cataract ; thence Northerly to the Banks of Lake Ontario, at a Creek or small 

 Lake about two miles west of the Fort, thence easterly along the Banks of the Lake 

 Ontario, and across the River or Strait to Niagara, comprehending the whole carrying 

 place, with the Lands on both sides the Strait, and contaiuing a Tract of ab' fourteen 

 miles in length and four in breadth.' 



As the articles make no mention of payment it is presumed the grant 

 was made by the Seneca to purchase peace with the English. 



Most of the foregoing facts relate, it is true, to the lands and Indians 

 of Xew York, and nught very properly be considered in referring to the 

 policy of that colony; however, as they give some insight into the 

 English policy in the latter days of British rule over the colonies, they 

 are presented here. It must be admitted, however, as before stated, 

 that they indicate an ill-deflued system resulting apparently from a 

 neglect to take the subject into consideration at the outset. Had some 

 provision for the proper treatment of the Indians in regard to their 

 possessory rights been made in the original charters, and the lords pro- 

 prietary and governors of the colonies been required to observe these 

 provisions, much of the trouble with the natives experienced by the gov- 

 ernment and the colonies would, in all probability, have been avoided. 



It is unnecessary to allude to the transactions of the English author- 

 ities in the southern colonies, as these, so far as they relate to ])urchases 

 and grants of lands by the Indians, will be referred to under tlie respec- 

 tive colonies. However, there are two or three treaties in regard to 

 lands in tlie south, outside of the colonies, which should be mentioned, 

 as the boundaries fixed therein are referred to in one or two of the 

 treaties in the accompanying schedule. 



The first of these is "a treaty between Great Britain and the Chicka- 

 saw and Choctaw Indians," made at Mobile, March 20, 1705. Article 5 

 is as follows: 



And to prevent all disputes on account of encroachments, or supposed encroach- 

 ments, committed by the English inhabitants of this or any other of His Majesty's 



• New York Colonial Documeats, vol. vn, p. 621. 



