(359) 
armed fosse eomitatus of from 300 to 7oo men,* met with 
forcible resistance, riot and bloodshed. 
The settlers believed themselves protected by their earlier 
grants, and also by the King’s prohibitory order of 1767; they 
* Preamble to Vermont’s first Constitution; Slade’s Vt. State Papers, 
241. Poor’s ‘‘Constitutions,”’ p. 1858. 
required, payment of the New York scale of fees and quit rents was de- 
man ore than double those . pad Hampshire), which many were 
unable to pay. (Robinson’s Pet. i . Hall’s Vt., 86; N. Y. Hist. Soc 
Pub. , 1877: 11, 15, 198.) A Sala ae on May 22, 1765, forbade thie 
rveyor General to make return of any warrant of survey of any lands 
‘actually possessed ’’ under the New Hampshire grants, until further order. 
merous subsequent grants of such lands shows, however, that this 
ais was disregarded. (H. Hall’s Vt., 91.) 
n 1767, Mr. Robinson’s petition, signed by more than one thousand of 
re settlers, as was claimed, and reciting their hardships was presented to the 
Crown, which led to the speedy i issue of the order of July 24, 1767, forbidding 
subsequent grants a ‘“‘ doubtful title.’’ Co 5 AiG, 
he order was intended and understood by Ke Crea to apply to all the 
disputed or ‘‘annexed” territory. Gov. Moore so construed it, and made 
no further grants. (Doc. Hist., 4: 377, qto.) He had previously received 
eae censure from a Shelburne for taking proceedings ger ee 
Hampshire see coutrary to his instructions of December 1766, th 
settlers should ‘ a - molested on account of territorial ee ” 
Hall’s Vt. oc. Hist. : 589, 593. 
peered incteaetions . the different Coxeter from 1769 to 1773 renewed 
the same injunction against making any grants within that district ; and 
r. Duane, counsel to Gov. Moore, could not have been ignorant of its ex- 
tent and application. (H. Hall’s Vt., 90,99, 100.) This prohibition was 
mf 
Doc., 8: oe 331, 339, 343, 356, 357) 372; Doc. Hist., 2: 821, 824 
Gov. Moo Gov. Colden and Gov. Tryon by special instructions 
from Gords epee and ae in their letters of February 25, 
1768, December 9, 1769, and December 9, 1772, were forbidden in the strongest 
manner “‘to presume on any pretence to make any grant of lands annexed 
to New York by the order of July 20, 176g.’ (Colonial Doc., 8: 10-12, 193, 
285, 295, 318, 339, 357, 372) The letter to Colden was reveived by him be, 
fore the first patent was issued to Columbia. (See his letter of Feb. 21, 1770, 
Colonial Doc., 8: 206, Colden Papers, N. Y. Hist. Soc., 1877: 207.) Heun- 
— it applied to the whole district. (See letter to Tryon, May 4, 1774, 
.Y. t. Soc. Pub., 1877: 337.) The restrictive force of the order of 1767 
was ia by his Council ae 15,1772. (B. H. Hall’s Vt., 123.) 
