506

CONTROVERSY RESPECTING THE NEW HAMPSHIRE GRANTS.

of the co-operation of the Assembly, I beg leave to particularize a few of the many obstaclesto the proposed act, that rise to my view :

First—Loud Complaints will be made of the Crown’s reseizing of unimproved lands by those whohave had New York Patents since the Royal decision in 1764 for Tracts not before granted by N.Hampshire. For these Proprietors will insist that no advantage can equitably be taken of theirunsettled Parcels, since the non improvements are to be imputed to the violence & power of thegeneral opposition of the N. Hampshire Planters in the vicinity—and the justice of their claimsto an exemption from the forfeiture seems to be strongly inforced by the neglect of Governmentto aid them in repelling this violence, which it must be confessed, they have repeatedly implored asessential to their deriving any benefit from their grants; and

Secondly; and even as to such of the New York Patentees whose claims interfere with priorGrants under N. Hampshire; they too indulge an unshaken confidence in their Titles, and areencouraged in it by the common suffrage of the Colony—May I not be permitted to say more?

The two Provinces contending about this partition, it was referred to the decision of the Crown.The King was pleased in 1764 to declare the west Banks of Connecticut River to be the EasternBoundary of New York, and this considered with reference to the Grant of the Province to the Dukeof York in 1664, which conveyed to his Royal Highness all the Lands from the head of Connecticut to Delaware, together with the whole of the River Hudson , which is between them, what room wasthere for questioning the Right of this Colony to issue Patents for those lands? And being issued,the Patentees will most assuredly assert and maintain their Title in all the Forms in which theycan be justified by the Law of that Land.

Thirdly; there are fifteen Townships granted by New Hampshire , and which have been confirmedby N. York. These proprietors, who above all things, have avoided to give umbrage to Govern 1 , ordisturb the tranquility in both Provinces, must surely be entitled to special indulgences; but thro’the troubled State of the Country, great Part of these Townships remain still unimproved, and theircase will be thought singularly hard, if they are to loose the unsettled parcels.

Fourthly; difficulties will also attend the provision that is to be made for the Officers and Soldiers,who are the objects of the Royal promise in the Proclam tn of the 7 th Octob r 1763—I cannot compre-hend in what way the value of their lands and improvements is to be adjusted without expence tothemselves; nor by what arguments they can ever be persuaded to dismiss their claims until theyare actually vested with the equivalents. Besides many of these Military Grants are now owned byother persons who have paid for their possessions and will never become volunteers in tire cession inthe expectation of other Tracts, while there is reason to apprehend, that the residue 'of the Landin the district, out of which they are to be satisfied, (free from claims) is not of sufficient value, itsremoteness and quality considered to compensate for the surrender of what they hold by theirPatents.

Fifthly; how, My Lord, can the State of the possessions, and improvements which are to remainto the Patentees be settled by Inquests in so extensive a Woodland Country will not the partialprejudices that prevail in the respective Provinces of New York and N. Hampshire exclude theInhabitants of both as Incompetent Tryers ? and by whom is the expence to be sustained ? Thiswill be considerable, for disinterested and fair Jurors, must be brought from distant places. I shallonly add, My Lord,

Sixthly : that scarce any measure can raise a more general discontent in this Colony, than a Lawto vacate Patents for nonsettlement—those of which the advantage might be taken are many, andthe dread of a precedent of this kind will unite all the Landholders to oppose a project so alarmingto their Interest I will not presume to say, there is no instance, in which the avarice of a Patentee