(358) 
of peace, and the only logical end was the subjugation or 
the independence of the settlers. 
The sheriff's efforts during the following eight years to 
enforce these and similar judgments, sometimes with an 
York in April, 1765. It was nota direct answer to the enquiries ceeaien 
N 
the past, and thus to invalidate ‘the prior grants of Gov. Wentworth. But 
the Crown had no such intent. For over 20 years it had treated the district 
as a part of New Hampshire, and authorized grants by its Governor accord- 
ingly. It could not invalidate these grants without gross injustice, but it 
could change the jurisdiction for the future by making the n thence- 
forth) To BE the Connecticut River. n 4 te. Thus ge III, 
he i 
the original ee all trouble meas probably have been avoided. But it was 
positive eee were pe to the Governors that prior settlers made 
4 ; H. l’s 
Vt, cS 68), and that the order of July 20, 1764, only ‘‘ annexed” the district 
in question to New York. (See nee "Lord Hillsborough to Gov. Movre, 
Feb. 25, 1768, oe Doc., 8: 12; to Lieut. Gov. Colden, Dec. 9, 1769, 
Colonial Doc.,8 : 193, 206 ; to Gov. eye, anaes ad distict as Ronan 
TOFORE CONSIDERED ASA PART OFNEW Ham IR 
to New wie by his Majesty's order in Ronn of re 20, 1764.’? (Colonial 
oc., 8: ae fase ca 332.) That order was always referred to and in- 
burne and Dartmouth. A oc. Hist., 4: 476,559; 7: 917. H. 
88, 89, 119. Colonial Doc., 8: 339, 343, 356, 357. Macauley’s Hist., 408, 414.) 
Thus, the Lords of Trade say a by the order of July 24, 1767, “‘his Majesty 
was pleased to declare that xo part of the land lying on the west side of 
Connecticut River within that district claimed by New Hampshire, should 
be granted till his Majesty’s further pleasure was known. (Colonial Doc., 
8: 331.) 
The prohibitory order of July 24, 1767. Gov. Moore, by proclamation 
issued June 6, 1766, notified all the patentees under Gov. Wentworth to 
: Ve 
oc. Pub., 1869: 291.) To obtain new grants from New York, as aves 
