Colonel Howard and the Town of Hinsdale

    928. To William Tryon, 21–22 December 1771

    Just as the vexed issue of the border with New York appeared to be inching toward a rapprochement, Hutchinson found it necessary to write Governor William Tryon on behalf of the inhabitants of the town of Hinsdale, which straddled the Connecticut River, thus containing sections of the present-day towns of Hinsdale, New Hampshire, and Brattleboro, Vermont. The town was founded with a grant from the Massachusetts General Court, which believed at the time that the town was within its jurisdiction. As a young man in 1741, Hutchinson argued in London on behalf of the Massachusetts settlers, but he lost the case, and the Lords of Trade awarded all the land from the Merrimack River to the Connecticut River to New Hampshire. In 1770, the Privy Council granted Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Howard ten thousand acres of undeeded land in New York. Howard then applied to Tryon for a patent in the town of Hinsdale, since New York claimed the land on the western side of the Connecticut River (now Brattleboro, Vermont). Hutchinson drafted two versions of his letter to Tryon. The first version provides more background on the inhabitants’ claim, the second shortens the letter and softens the language.

    928. To William Tryon

    Version 1

    Boston 21 Dec 1771

    not sent

    Sir, Application has been made to me in behalf of divers persons inhabitants & proprietors of a place called Hinsdale now in the Province of N York near Connecticut River informing me that they had reason to suppose these lands would be patented out by Your Excellency & desiring me to write to you & acquaint you with the history of their settlement & their titles to their Possessions. As they were originally Grantees from this Province I hope your Excellency will not think that I go out of my line in complying with their Request. Until many years after their lands were granted there was no suspicion that the jurisdiction of the Massa which they were then under would ever be alterd but about the year 1737 or 1738 upon a dispute with N. Hampshire it was determind by Comissioners appointed by the Crown that the line of this Province did not comprehend them & the jurisdiction of those & other lands which had been granted by the Province was given to NHampshire but it was a condition of the submission to the Commissioners that property should not be affected by any alteration which might be made in the lines. The people being uneasy with the change of jurisdiction about the year 1741 petitiond His Majesty that they might go back to the jurisdiction of the Massa. I was then in England & sollicited in their behalf & had assurance that the prayer of their petition should be granted but the Agent for NHamp. refusing to admit some facts which tho notorious were not properly authenticated I was obligd to move for a continuance that I might have time for the authentication [Before I left England].1 Whilst this was done I was assured at the Board of Trade by Ld Monson Colo Bladen & the other Commissioners that the property of the people was in no danger & upon a question whether property could be acquired when the Grantor had no jurisdiction it was allowed that property derivd from a jursidiction de facto & not de jure must be meant by the condition or it could have no meaning at all.2 The Expence attending petitions in Engd & the assurances I gave the people upon my return that their property was secure put a stop to any further proceedings.3 Notwithstanding these assurances some of the Grantees were obliged to purchase their places of the Governor of NHampshire to a composition some whose Grants were of a recent date & without improvements by new grantors entering upon their lands were dispossessed but a great part remaind unmolested & a few against whom a prosecution had been carried on recoverd in the Courts of NHampshire & others upon an appeal to the King in Council & for many years before the late extension of the jurisdiction of NYork over lands which were taken from the jurisdiction of NHampshire all had been quiet.

    I would further observe that the Proprietors of Hinsdale & lands adjacent acquired their property in the same way with the Inhabitants of this province in general viz by Grants from the Assembly a great part of the lands have been cleared & cultivated the remaining part has been bought & sold & the property been continually changing without any doubt of the Title. If the Grantors had had less colour for making their Grants such a possession & improvement I conceive would have given an equitable title to those who now claim the lands & according to my observation in the decisions of the King in Council upon these American disputes Equity has governed the more than it would have done if the cases had been decided in Westminster hall. The share I took in patronizing these Grantees so many years since will I hope apologize with your Excellency for interesting my self in their concerns & I have a further motive to give you this trouble being informed that Colo Howard a gentleman who in the short time he staid among us acquired the esteem of all who had the honour of his acquaintance intends to make a pitch there.4

    If your Excellency thinks proper to communicate this State of the case to him he will better judge I conceive whether to pitch upon Lands that are claimed with so much clear title or upon Lands that have no claims & will occasion no future dispute & controversy. I have the honour to be Sir Your,

    AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:266–67).

    Version 2

    Boston 22d Decr. 1771

    Sir, Application has been made to me in behalf of the Inhabitants & Proprietors of Hinsdale upon Connecticut River a place which was formerly within this Government afterwards was included in the Commission for New Hampshire and is now in the Province of New York. When the Lands were granted by this Government they were supposed to be within the bounds of the Province and when the Controversy with New Hampshire was settled by Commissioners in 1737 it was stipulated previous to the submission that however the Line of Jurisdiction might be altered private property should not be affected.

    I take this to be one of the most ancient Grants made by the Massachusets of Lands which fell to New Hampshire and the people have suffered much in bringing forward the Settlement having been a Frontier in the two last Wars. They suppose that Colo Howard is about to locate the whole or part of 10,000 Acres within their Township and they have prayed me to represent their case to your Excellency.

    I appeared for them before a Committee of Council and at the Board of Trade in 1741 upon a Petition to be restored to the jurisdiction of the Massachusets and then had such assurances of their being safe as to their property that when I returned to New England I advised them to rest contented with the change of jurisdiction being satisfied from my observation of the Cases from America decided by the King in Council that if their Title had been then to be determined by a judicial process judgement would have been in their Favour.

    The Relation I have stood in to these people will I hope apologize with your Excellency for my appearing in their behalf at their Request. If there be any matters which you or Colo. Howard, for whom I have the highest esteem, wish to be more particularly acquainted with I will give the most candid & impartial account of them as far as they have come to my knowlege. I have the honor to be Sir your most humble & most obedient Servant,

    RC (National Archives UK, CO 5/761, ff. 208–9); at foot of letter, “His Excellency Gov Tryon.” AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:268); at foot of letter, “His Excell Govr Tryon.”

    929. To Sir Francis Bernard

    Boston 24 Decem 1771

    Dear Sir, Since my last of the 3 by Folger nothing has occurred worth communicating to you. A hint you gave me in one of your Letters last Spring shall make a subject for this Letter.1

    You know my Sentiments of the C of Engd that they may be generally known I have since my being in the Chair been more frequent in my attendance there [than I used]2 to be & [had I been born & bred there I should never have left it for any other communion]. It is my opinion & I find it to be the opinion of [the episcopal Clergy] that I [can do more good in the way] I am in at present than by wholly going [over] from the [way of worship which] is so universal [through the Province & which] always will be the [prevailing way in America] until the Inhabitants have other notions of civil government than they have at present for it is the [lax government or rather the no government] among the several [professions of Dissenters] which is the cause of their respective attachments rather than the objections which they make to the [worship & ceremonies of the church].

    There seems to be a more [general expectation of an Episcopate in America] than there has been & since the [plan of its being confined to spirituals & to the members of that communion] only has been made publick I meet with [scarce any dissenters from the church of moderate tempers] who do not think it reasonable that the [national church should enjoy equal privileges] in America [with all other churches] which differ from it which they allow they do not [whilst the clergy are obliged to go to Europe for orders] & the laity [for confirmation] if they think it necessary.3

    Whether an [episcopate will] increase the [number or proportion of church men] is uncertain. A more easy [method] of obtaining [orders may induce some to take them] who would not otherwise have done it but I [fancy] as things [now] are if the laity was more numerous a sufficient [number of clergy] would appear ready to supply them. A general apprehension that the [church] will not by this measure [be increased] makes many persons easy who otherwise would be clamorous and turbulent. I write to you with [freedom & confidence] & am Dear Sir Your faithful & most obedient Servant,

    AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:265); at foot of letter, “Sr F B.”

    930. To Israel Mauduit

    Boston 24 Dec 1771

    Dear Sir, Mr Ruggles was in Town a few days ago & upon consulting with me in what manner to draw for his Salary I advised him to desire you to receive it from the Treasury & to give his bills upon you.1

    Since he left the Town I find among my Papers a power of Attorney which he intended should have been sent by the last Ship & I suppose expected I would forward it but forgot to mention it. I shall now send it under this cover.

    I think you are one or two Letters in my debt but I will not drive you rudely though I hope you will make payment when it suits with your convenience. I wait to hear how the extravagance of the Assembly in their last Session was resented by the King before I give them an opportunity of repeating it.2 As the Opposition to Government loses ground with you I flatter my self it will likewise with us, & that Parliament will meet with no obstruction in asserting & maintaining its just right over the whole British Dominion. Suffering this right to be openly denied with impunity especially by any portion subordinate legislative authority is the source of all our irregularities in the Colonies. I am with sincere regards Dear Sir Your faithful humble Servant,

    AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:269); at foot of letter, “Israel Mauduit Eq.”

    931. To Enoch Freeman1

    Boston 26 Dec 1771

    Sir, The late high handed assault upon Mr Savage Comptroller of the Customs at Falmo will I expect be attended with very ill consequences to the Government unless the civil authority shall exert itself to bring the Offenders to justice.

    I am informed that two persons have been taken by warrant from the Chief Justice & carried before you as a Justice of the peace & recognized to appear & answer at the Assizes.2 In Riots, especially, it seems to be, by law, made the duty of the Justices of the County not only to attempt the suppression of them but as soon as may be to make inquiry & proceed against all concerned in them without waiting for complaint or information in form. However I now acquaint you that I have received information that one Wm Campbell—Searl a master of a Vessel—Rogers another master John Martin Wm Mcclenan & Andrew Titcomb were accomplices with those you have already recognized & that John Minot Wanton Storer & Wheeler Riggs Jona Rand John Tookey servant to Mr Greenwood a Cabinet maker together with Moses Shaddock his wife & brother are all capable of giving evidence against some or other of the persons informed against. I must recomend to you therefore to make immediate inquiry into this affair & such of the persons charged as you shall find just suspicion against to bind over in a sum sufficient with sureties to answer at the Assizes & also to take such steps as the Law will allow to secure the appearance of the witnesses to give evidence.

    I depend much upon your fidelity in directing this affair & am Sir Your assured friend & Servant,

    AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:270); at head of letter, “Enoch Freeman Es.”