343
of Trade the date of which is Less than Seven months after Governour Wentworths promise in hisLetter to Governour Clinton last mentioned and we have the more reason to Believe that no Coppyof that Representation was sent by Governour Wentworth To Governour Clinton, Because nomention is therein made of its being So Communicated.
That in pursuance of the Order of the 24 th of July 1750 the Then Attorney Generali of thisprovince prepared and delivered a Representation to Governour Clinton Concerning the EasternBoundarys of this province which was read in Councill the 29 th day of September 1750 and ReferredTo a Committee of the Councill or any three of them to consider :
That on the 18 th of October 1751 the Committee to whom the Said Representation was Referred,Reported to Governour Clinton and Councill their approbation thereof, and itVas then approved of inCouncill and Ordered To Be Entered in the minutes thereof Together with a Letter from theSurveyor Generali of this Province on the same subject which were both entered on the minutesof the Councill accordingly.
We now Beg Leave to make a few remarks on Governour Wentworth’s Letter to the Board ofTrade which (had he Complyed with his promise made in his Letter of September 2 d 1750) mightprobably have Been Rendered needless To have Been Considered by the Board of Trade : for thisGovernment would thereby have had an opportunity of setting him right, in Sundry matters in whichwe shall Remark he was mistaken by his said Representation.
1 st Tho’ the Eastern Boundarys of this province and the Western Boundarys of New Hampshire so far as they Bound on one another (Being Both under his Majesty’s immediate government)intirely depend on his Majesty’s pleasure, Yet as the Eastern Boundary of this Province, was bythe Grant of King Charles the Second to the Duke of York, 1663-4, fixed at Connecticut river, nownear ninety year ago, where it has ever since remained So far as Concerns New Hampshire , wehumbly Conceive that his Majesty will make no alteration of the Bounds therof without sufficientReasons, and we know not of any, nor has Governour Wentworth pointed out any, But sundry Reasonsappear against any alteration, which are particularly Set forth in the Surveyor Generalls LetterEntered in the minutes of Councill of Oct r IS, 1751.
2' 11 y Governour Wentworth is pleased To Say that, <£ the Massachusetts Bay have allowed theGovernment of New York To extend their Claim also Twenty miles East of Hudson’s River.”On which w r e observe that this is a Very new kind of Title that Governour Wentworth says hisMajesty has to a great part of this his province the allowance of Ms Subjects of the Massachusetts Bay ,We apprehend that no good Title can be within his Majestys Dominions But under valid Grantsof the Crowm, and know of no valid Grant that Massachusetts Bay have to any Soil or Jurisdictionwest of Connecticut River , and that they have none appears in a Strong Light by a Report approvedIn the Councill of this province on the 20 th of ffebruary Last (which contains the substance of andmore than the Attorney Generals Representation before mentioned) which has been Communicatedto the Government of the Massachusetts Bay , and To which no direct answer has as yet Been given,tho again and again requested.
3diy We think that Governour Wentworth has Been greatly misinformed as to the Manor ofRenselaerswyck, By his suggesting that it is claimed By one person, whereas great numbers of personsme owners of lands within it and the whole city of Albany Situated within the Boundaries of it.
Again.
We know of no such Extent of Land within this province that has so much bad land in it as theManor of Renselaerswyck. Also the principal owner of that Manor Renselaerswyclc is an infantand unable to contend with the Massachusetts Bay, But his Guardian hath Lately petitioned the