THE NEW HAMPSHIRE GRANTS.
As early as 1749, a dispute concerning the boundaries of their provinces
had arisen between the governments of New Hampshire and New York, when
Governor Benning Wentworth of New Hampshire had communicated to Governor
Clinton of New York his intention of granting unimproved lands within
his government under instructions received from his Majesty King George
Second, and inclosed his Majesty's description of the province of New
Hampshire.[27] In 1740 the king had determined "that the northern
boundary of Massachusetts be a similar curve line pursuing the course of
the Merrimack River at three miles distance on the north side thereof,
beginning at the Atlantic Ocean and ending at a point due north of a
place called Pautucket Falls, and by a straight line drawn from thence
due west till it meets with his Majesty's other governments."
By this decision, reaffirmed in Governor Wentworth's commission, the
government of New Hampshire held that its jurisdiction extended as far
west as that of Massachusetts, which was to a line twenty miles east of
Hudson River. Furthermore, the king had repeatedly recommended to New
Hampshire the support of Fort Dummer, as having now fallen within its
limits, and which was well known to be west of the Connecticut.[28]
But it was ordered by the governor's council of New York "that his
Excellency do acquaint Governor Wentworth that this Province is bounded
eastward by Connecticut River, the letters Patent from King Charles the
Second to the Duke of York expressly granting all the Lands from the
West side of Connecticut River to the East side of Delaware Bay."[29]
Governor Wentworth had already, in January, 1749, granted one township
west of the Connecticut, which in his honor was named Bennington, but he
now promised for the present to make no further grants on the western
frontier of his government that might have the least probability of
interfering with that of New York. Later he agreed, by the advice of his
council, to lay the matter before the king and await his decision, which
his government would "esteem it their duty to acquiesce in without
further dispute," and furthermore agreed to exchange with the government
of New York copies of the representation made to the king.[30]
This the council of New York reported in November, 1753, that he had
failed to do.
This wrangling of governors and councils continued till the beginning
of the war in 1754 stopped for the time applications for grants, when
the mutterings of the inter-provincial quarrel were drowned by the
thunder of the more momentous contest of nations.
With the subjugation of Canada, the granting of lands in the debatable
ground was resumed. Governor Wentworth had a survey made sixty miles up
the Connecticut, and three lines of townships were laid out on each side
of the river. During the next year sixty townships were granted on the
west side of the river, and within two years 108 grants were made,
extending to a line twenty miles east of the Hudson, and north of that
to the eastern shore of Lake Champlain.
It was reported in New York that a party of New Hampshire surveyors, who
were laying out lands on the east side of the lake in September, 1762,
asserted that Crown Point was in the limits of their government. In
December, 1763, Lieutenant-Governor Colden issued a proclamation
reiterating the claim of New York to the Connecticut as her eastern
boundary, still basing it on the grant to the Duke of York, and also on
the description of the eastern boundary of New Hampshire as given in the
letters-patent of his Majesty dated July 3, 1741. He commands the civil
officers of his government to exercise jurisdiction as far as the banks
of the Connecticut River, and the high sheriff of the county of Albany
to return the names of all persons who, under the grants of New
Hampshire, shall hold possession of any lands westward of Connecticut
River, that they may be proceeded against according to law. This was
followed by a proclamation of Governor Wentworth on March 13, 1764, in
which he reviews and denies the claim of New York. He says: "At present
the boundaries of New York to the Northward are unknown, and as soon as
it shall be His Majesty's pleasure to determine them, New Hampshire will
pay a ready and cheerful obedience thereunto, not doubting but that all
Grants made by New Hampshire that are fulfilled by the Grantees will be
confirmed to them if it should be His Majesty's pleasure to alter the
jurisdiction." He encouraged the grantees under his government to be
industrious in clearing and cultivating their lands, and commanded all
civil officers within his province to be diligent in exercising
jurisdiction as far westward as grants had been made by his government,
and deal with all persons who "may presume to interrupt the settlers on
said lands as to law and justice doth appertain."[31]
Though the claims of New York had thus far been founded on the grant to
the Duke of York, she now sought to establish it on a less doubtful
tenure, and made application to the crown for a confirmation of the same
grant. This was supported by a petition representing that it would be
greatly for the advantage of the settlers on the New Hampshire Grants to
be annexed to New York. To this were appended the names of many such
inhabitants, who afterwards asserted that it was done without their
knowledge.[32]
In response came a royal order declaring "the Western bank of the
Connecticut, from where it enters the province of Massachusetts Bay as
far north as the 45th degree of northern latitude, to be the boundary
line between the said two provinces of New Hampshire and New York."
Though this decision was not in accordance with the wishes of many of
the inhabitants of the Grants, it gave them no uneasiness concerning the
validity of their titles. They had obtained their lands under grants
from the crown, and had no fear that under the same authority they would
or could be compelled to relinquish or repurchase them. Governor
Wentworth remonstrated against the change of jurisdiction, but finally
by proclamation, "recommended to the proprietors and settlers due
obedience to the authorities and laws of the colony of New York."[33]
But the government of New York chose to construe his Majesty's order as
annulling the grants made by Governor Wentworth west of the Connecticut.
It divided its newly confirmed territory into four counties, annexing
the southwestern part to the county of Albany, which was termed by the
New Hampshire grantees the "unlimited county of Albany." North of this
was the county of Charlotte, east of it the county of Cumberland, and
north of this the county of Gloucester.
The New Hampshire grantees were required to surrender their charters,
and repurchase their lands under New York grants. Some complied, and
paid the excessive fees demanded by the New York officials, which were
twenty fold greater than those exacted by the government of New
Hampshire;[34] but for the most part the settlers were not men of the
metal to submit to what seemed to them rank injustice, and they refused
to comply with the demand. Thereupon New York re-granted their lands to
others, and actions of ejectment were brought against them. It was an
easy matter to obtain judgments in the county of Albany against the
settlers, but the execution of them was met by stubborn resistance, in
which the people soon associated for mutual protection.
A convention of representatives from the towns on the west side of the
mountains was called, and by it Samuel Robinson of Bennington was
appointed as agent to present the grievances of the settlers to the
British government, and obtain, if possible, a confirmation of New
Hampshire grants.
The mission of Robinson[35] was so far successful that the governor of
New York was commanded by his Majesty "to make no grant whatever of any
part of the lands in dispute until his Majesty's pleasure should be
further known" (July 24, 1767).
But the governor's council of New York decided that this order did not
restrain the granting of any land formerly claimed by New Hampshire, but
not already granted by that government; and the governor continued to
make grants, and writs of ejectment were issued as before, returnable to
the Supreme Court at Albany. It was decided in this court that
authenticated copies of the royal orders to the governor of New
Hampshire, and the grants made in pursuance thereof, should not be used
in evidence.
Ethan Allen, soon to become one of the most prominent actors in this
controversy, was attending suits at Albany when this decision was made.
Being urged by some of the officials there to use his influence with the
settlers to induce them to make the best terms they could with their New
York landlords, and reminded that "might often prevails against right,"
Allen replied, in the Scriptural language which he was so fond of
employing, that "the gods of the valleys were not the gods of the
hills;" and when asked by the attorney-general to explain his meaning,
answered that, "if he would accompany him to Bennington Hill, it would
be made plain to him."[36]
Thus debarred from obtaining justice in the courts, the people,
assembled in convention at Bennington, "resolved to support their
rights and property in the New Hampshire Grants against the usurpations
and unjust claims of the Governor and Council of New York by force, as
law and justice were denied them."[37]
A more thoroughly organized resistance was now opposed to all attempts
of the New York officers to make arrests or serve writs of ejectment.
Surveyors who undertook to run the lines of New York grants across lands
already granted by New Hampshire were compelled to desist. A sheriff
could not come so secretly that vigilant eyes did not discover his
approach, nor with so strong a posse that, when he attempted to execute
his duties, he did not find a formidable force gathered to resist him.
If he persisted, he was, in Allen's quaint phrase, "severely chastised
with twigs of the wilderness," though the "blue beech" rod, whose
efficacy in reducing a refractory ox to submission had been so often
proved by the rough yeomen of the Grants, and which they now applied to
the backs of their oppressors, could hardly be termed a twig. This mode
of punishment, with grim humor, they termed the "beech seal."
A proclamation was issued by the governor of New York for apprehending
some of the principal actors, and in the January (1770) term of the
court at Albany several of the inhabitants of Bennington were indicted
as rioters, but none of them were arrested.
Each party in the quarrel accused the other of being incited by the
greed of the land-jobber and speculator, and no doubt there was some
foundation for the charge, even on the part of the New Hampshire
grantees. But with them, as against an aristocracy of monopolists, were
the sympathies of the yeomen of New York, who, when called upon to
enforce the authority of their own officers against their brethren of
the Grants, held aloof, or feebly rendered their perfunctory aid.
Sheriff Ten Eyck, being required to serve a writ of ejectment on James
Breckenridge of Bennington, called to his aid, by order of the governor,
a posse of 750 armed militia. About 300 of the settlers, being apprised
of his coming, assembled to oppose him. Nineteen of them were posted in
the house; the others, divided in two forces of about equal number, were
concealed along the road by which the sheriff and his men were
advancing, and behind a ridge within gunshot of the house. Unsuspicious
of their presence, the sheriff and his men marched to the house and were
within the ambuscade. On threatening to make forcible entry, the sheriff
was answered by those within, "Attempt it and you are a dead man." The
ambuscading forces now made their presence known, and, displaying their
hats upon the muzzles of their guns, made a show of twice their actual
strength. The sheriff and his posse became aware of their dangerous
position, and as one of the first historians of Vermont, Ira Allen,
quaintly remarks, "not being interested in the dispute," and Mr. Ten
Eyck remembering that important business required his immediate presence
in Albany,[38] they discreetly withdrew without a shot being fired on
either side.[39]
The New York officers were not always so easily vanquished, nor so
unsuccessful in their attempts. The doughty esquire John Munro, who held
lands in the Grants under a New York title, and lived upon them among
his tenants in Shaftsbury, was a justice of the peace for the county of
Albany. He was a man of other metal than Sheriff Ten Eyck, whom he
assisted to arrest Silas Robinson, of Bennington, at his own door; and
though the house wherein they lodged with their prisoner the night
thereafter was surrounded by forty armed men who demanded his release,
they carried him to Albany. Robinson was there indicted as a rioter in
January, 1771, and held in jail till the next October, when he was
released on bail. Upon another occasion, Munro, accompanied by the
deputy sheriff and twelve men whom he called to his aid, demanded
entrance to the house of Isaiah Carpenter, to serve a writ of ejectment
upon him. Carpenter threatened to blow out the brains of any one who
should attempt to enter, whereupon the deputy and his men forced the
door, and Munro, entering alone, seized Carpenter with his gun in his
hand. Two other men were found in the house, and two guns in a corner,
"one loaded with powder and Bullets and the other with Powder and
kidney Beans."
The New York claimants now sought to draw some of the prominent persons
of the Grants to their interest by offers of New York titles on
favorable terms, and by the bestowal of offices upon them, and they
induced people of their own province to settle upon unoccupied New
Hampshire Grants. By such means they hoped to smother the unmanageable
element which had so far thwarted their attempts to gain control of the
coveted region, and insidiously overcome the turbulent faction termed by
them the "Bennington Mob."
Committees of Safety were organized in several towns of the Grants, and
a convention of the settlers decreed that no New York officer should be
allowed to take any person out of the district without permission of the
Committee of Safety, and that no surveys should be made there, nor lines
run, nor settlements made, under the authority of New York. The
punishment for violation of this decree was to be discretionary with a
court formed by the Committee of Safety. Civil officers, however, were
permitted to perform their proper functions in the collection of debts,
and in other matters not connected with the controversy.[40] Thus the
inhabitants of the Grants established a crude but efficient civil
government of their own.
FOOTNOTES:
[27] _Doc. Hist. N. Y._ vol. iv. pp. 331, 332.
[28] Williams's _Hist. of Vt._ vol. ii. pp. 12, 13.
[29] _Doc. Hist. N. Y._ vol. iv. p. 332.
[30] _Ibid._ p. 333.
[31] _Doc. Hist. N. Y._ vol. iv. p. 353.
[32] Slade's _State Papers_, p. 62.
[33] _State Papers_, p. 20.
[34] The fees to the governor of New Hampshire for granting a township
were about $100. Under the government of New York, they generally
amounted to $2,000, or $2,600. Williams's _Hist. Vt._ vol. ii. p. 9.
[35] Governor Moore sneers at him as "a driver of an ox-cart for the
sutlers." _Doc. Hist. N. Y._
[36] Thompson's _Vermont_, part ii. p. 21.
[37] Slade's _State Papers_, p. 21.
[38] _Doc. Hist. N. Y._ vol. iv. p. 422.
[39] Thompson's _Vermont_, part ii. p. 22.
[40] Thompson's _Vermont_, p. 22.