More on the New York Border

    992. From William Tryon, 15 June 1772

    993. To Charles Ward Apthorp, 18 June 1772

    994. To Thomas Pownall, 22 June 1772

    995. From William Sanford Hutchinson, 22 June 1772

    996. To William Tryon, 24 June 1772

    997. To Lord Hillsborough, 25 June 1772

    998. To Lord Hillsborough, 25 June 1772

    In late winter, Hutchinson believed the longstanding controversy with New York over its eastern border with Massachusetts was, at last, near resolution; the remaining territory, about which the commissioners were unable to agree in 1767, was to be split down the middle. Soon after the General Court had authorized a new delegation to meet with their New York counterparts, rumors began to circulate in western Massachusetts that New York was reviving its ancient claim to a border along the Connecticut River, and Governor William Tryon, wary that the Massachusetts legislation did not specify the preliminary terms of the agreement, refused to meet.

    992. From William Tryon

    Fort George New York 15th June 1772

    Sir, Until I had your Letter of the first instant1 I was undetermined whether I should trouble you again respecting the Partition Line before I had an opportunity to communicate to the Assembly of this Province your former Letter of the 26 of April inclosing a Copy of your late Act which unfortunately did not pass until about a month after our Session was at an end.

    His Majesty’s Council, before whom I have laid these papers, sincerely regret, as I do, the delay of the Answer of your Legislature, to the proposal I made in November last; for they are unanimously of opinion that it will be very inconvenient to reassemble the General Assembly at this season, and as his Majesty’s service requires my early presence in the northern parts of the Colony I cannot call them together in the course of this Summer.

    At present I cannot suggest any expedient to prevent the loss of the year, unless I send Commissaries to meet yours under the authority of the Great Seal; as the powers given by Act of Assembly to our former Commissaries were joint and are dissolved by the death of Mr. Nicoll, who was one of the three.2

    I was aware of the objection that their compact will, in that case, not be binding without a Law for its confirmation but I think it can have no weight, unless there is a reason to apprehend that the Colonies will with hold their approbation. On the part of this Province, we shall not expect that your Commissaries are to come to the Convention with more ample powers than our own; and I do assure your Excellency that I have not the least doubts of the cheerful concurrence of all the branches of our Legislature for confirming the agreement, provided the Line they fix for the boundary, equally divides the Tract laying between the ultimate offers of the Commissaries at New Haven in 1767.

    This is precisely the business I meant to invite them to execute in my first Letter to your Excellency upon this subject;3 for I had not the most distant hope of success if the controversy was to be renewed in all that latitude in which it has been or may be considered; and as I endeavoured in that Letter to state my intention with great clearness, I was sorry to find your Act expressed in such general terms as to not exclude all possibility of supposing that the Commissaries might be at liberty to waste time in treating about any other line of Partition, than that for which I proposed a new Congress.4

    If your Province will consent to a meeting under Commission, our Commissaries shall be particularly interested to enter into a compact agreable to my offer, and to wave debates upon the merits of our claim to more easterly limits.5 But if you chuse that they should defer their convention until vested with authority by Acts of the respective Legislatures, I think myself obliged in candor to apprize you that I despair off procuring a Law reposing an absolute confidence in the Commissaries, and enabling them to bind us to a more disadvantagious Partition than that which I have proposed.

    Whether this tedious dispute is to be adjusted either by virtue of Commissions, or Acts of the Provinces, there seems to be a necessity for my being informed of the approbation of your Legislature of my proposal, as the basis of Negotiations at the next Interview, and I wish it may be done by an additional Act in such an explicit and authentic manner as to prevent all future controversies. If your Commissaries are to aim at any other boundary than that one I have frankly recommended, and ours should be instructed to accede only to that, their meeting will be of no manner of use, and on the other hand if the Provinces can be brought to consent to a division of that inconsiderable Tract about which the former Commissaries could not agree, I can neither perceive any plausible objection against an immediate Congress under Commission, nor why the expences that will be incurred to our respective Governments by our personal attendance may not be dispensed with.

    I flatter myself that you will concur with me in these sentiments and upon the first notice that the necessary steps are taken by your Province I will Commissionate proper Persons on our side to carry this business into execution; resting in a firm expectation that we shall very speedily see these unhappy differences settled in the way so earnestly and graciously recommended to both Provinces by the Crown. I am, with great respect & regard Your Excellency’s most obedient Servant,

    W Tryon

    SC (National Archives UK, CO 5/761, ff. 144–45); at foot of letter, “His Excellency Governor Hutchinson Copy.” SC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 4:320–23); at foot of letter, “His Excelly Govr. Hutchinson.” SC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 25:519); at foot of letter, “His Excellency Governor Hutchinson”; excerpt of the eight and ninth paragraphs only.

    993. To Charles Ward Apthorp1

    Boston 18th. June 1772

    Sir, One of my Sons who is lately married has been informed by your brother Mr. Wm. Apthorp that he believed you would dispose of the house in which Mr. Burch lately lived and as my Son inclines to live in that part of the Town, he has desired me to write to you upon the Subject.2 I am informed Mr. Molineux has the care of the house.3 He is a person with whom I cannot enter into any sort of Treaty, but if you incline to impower any other person I am willing to be the purchaser at such price as the house in it’s present condition is reasonably worth. I am with very great Regard Sir Your most obedient humble Servant,

    AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:345); at foot of letter, “Hon Charles Ward Apthorp Esqr.”; in EH’s hand.

    994. To Thomas Pownall

    Boston 22d June 1772

    Dear Sir, I thank you for your last favour of 5 April.1 If you was now in Amer. you would be sick of it in a week & leave it. Ten years ago they had some notions of Government they have none now. Can any thing be more absurd than for the Representatives of a people to admit the prerogative of the Crown & yet declare that all power is to be exercised for the good of the people & they are to judge when it is so exercised and submit or not submit accordingly.2 What they hold in theory they have not yet been able to carry into practice & I hope never will. I have removed them to Boston after 3 years absence. Upon considering their message I had some doubt whether they did not intend to dispute the King’s authority to direct me to remove the Court & I declined at first complying with their request. After I had kept them ten days longer at Cambridge & found that both sides agreed there was no such intention I required the opinion of the Council upon their oaths & they were unanimous that consistent with His Majesty’s Instructions I might remove them to Boston. The only point which can keep up a discontent is my declining to consent to a Tax on the Salaries of the Kings Servants whose Offices have no peculiar relation to this Province for all the stuff in the News Papers about the Kings paying the Salaries of his Governors can cause no difficulty and the other is a thing so reasonable that no exception ought to be taken to His Majesty’s Instructions to that purpose.

    This however & every Instruction that does not violate the Charter I shall most certainly adhere to as you justly observe I ought to do. Indeed I never had an Instruction but what appeared to me consonant with the Charter. I rather think we do not differ much in opinion as to the Affair of the Castle & that you have been misinformed as to facts.3 The Castle remains under the Governor as it did. The Stores are as absolutely under my directions as ever and all the Apartments & buildings. The Garrison would immediately remove if I should give orders for it. That the King has a right notwithstanding he has given the Supreme or chief command under him of a fort or army to a General or Governor to appoint inferior Officers will not be denied. I observed to you in a former letter that much may be said to shew that it is not in the power of a crownd Head to divest the Crown of that military authority which is inherent in it but it must pass to the Successor any Charter or grant notwithstanding but there is no need of it in the present case because the Charter or Grant has been strictly conformed to.4 Indeed our male contents who say the whole proceeding tho they call it a manoeuvre are silenced.

    You would know but few of the people who are now most active among us. There is nova progenies. I can not add the rest of the line.5 Most of your old friends have left the political & many the natural world. Some of those which remain who have made you the greatest professions have not kept up to them. I think they are almost discouraged in their Schemes for separate Agents. I do not yet know their intentions but rather think our dispute with NYork will force them into the choice of a provincial agent.

    The Union of the Colonies is pretty well broke. I hope I shall never see it renewed. Indeed our sons of liberty for their illiberal brutal treatment of all in authority as well as for their strutting in their late non importation project are hated & despised by their former brethren in NYork and Pensilvania & it must be something very extraordinary ever to reconcile them. I am with very great regard Sir Your faithful & most obedient Servant,

    AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:346–47); at foot of letter, “Gov Pownall.” Contemporary printings: Boston Gazette, 26 June 1775; Massachusetts Spy, 5 July 1775; Essex Journal, 29 September 1775.

    995. From William Sanford Hutchinson

    London 22 June 1772

    Honoured Sir, I suppose you will have an account of our arrival before you can receive this. I should have wrote by Jacobson had I known he was going so soon. We had an agreable passage of 28 Days & landed at Weymouth, 130 Miles from London, and passed through as fine a Country as any in England, which would have pleased me more had I been well, but the Cold which I had when I left Boston, lasted me the whole passage & has somewhat reduced me. I have not yet got rid of the Cough, but, hope I shall soon, as the Weather is very fine and has been so ever since our arrival in England. I was not at all Sea Sick.

    I have delivered most of your Letters, & have seen Sir F Bernard who has nearly recovered his health,1 he has been very kind & obliging. Mr Gambier introduces me to My Lord Hillsborough to Morrow Morning.

    You will excuse to my Brothers & Sisters & Aunt my not writing & assure them it wasnt through want of affection. I hope by the next Vessel to get a little more settled when I will write them all. Your dutiful Son,

    Wm. Sanford Hutchinson

    Please to Remember me to all Friends & Relations.

    RC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 25:520–20a); endorsed, “London 22d June 1772 Son Billy.”

    996. To William Tryon

    Boston 24th June 1772

    Sir, I should have acknowledged the receipt of your Excellency’s Letter of the 15th by the return of the post if my absence from Town had not prevented. I have laid the Letter before my Assembly and it is now under consideration of a Committee.1 When they shall come to any determination I will acquaint you with it.

    I think it necessary to acquaint you that altho’ the powers given to the Commissaries were general, yet I have no reason to think they would have entered further into the controversy than to have taken it up where the former Commissaries left it and they were restrained by no Instructions whatsoever.

    I do not know what would be the sentiments of the Council & House of Representatives but so far as respects the share I am to take I could have been satisfied with a Commission under the Seal of your Province in the King’s name with your Test without an Act of your Assembly, provided you had given to the Commissaries as full powers as we have given to our Commissaries.

    If you expect that in the authority given to our Commissaries your proposal be made the basis is it not equally reasonable it should be so in the authority given to your Commissaries and if this be the case, what need of any Treaty? If this be agreed to be the line there seems to be nothing more necessary than to appoint Surveyors on each part to run or ascertain it.

    The settlement may and must be delayed but I hope may finally be effected.

    I am deprived of the pleasure I expected from a day or two spent in Governor Tryon’s Company. I am with very great esteem, Your Excellency’s most obedient Servant,

    SC (National Archives UK, CO 5/761, ff. 146–47); at foot of letter, “His Excelly Governor Tryon.” AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:347); at foot of letter, “His Excelly Govr Tryon.”

    997. To Lord Hillsborough

    Boston 25 June 1772

    (No 29)

    My Lord, I shall transmit under cover with this Letter a Report of a Committee accepted by the two Houses relative to the Line with New York together with the Letters which have passed between the Governors of the two Provinces on that subject.

    There is a jealousy in the people of this Province that New York expect a more extensive Jurisdiction will be determined for them in England than what they have proposed themselves and that this expectation is the real cause of the long delay of an answer to my Letters to Governor Tryon, and of their declining to close immediately, with the proposal of this Province.

    The two Houses have the new Proposals of New York under consideration. I do not believe that any settlement will be effected until New York Assembly meets and makes advances equal to those made by this Assembly or that the Governor will make them without the Assembly. I have no doubt that if the Governors & Commissaries had met agreeable to the Act of this Province such a line might have been settled as that His Majesty would have approved of it; and the same disposition continues still on the part of this Province.

    I may therefore, I conceive, be allowed humbly to pray that no determination be made by His Majesty in Council disadvantageous to this Province and that no Act of the General Assembly of the Province of New York which extends the Jurisdiction of that Province beyond the Line reported by the Lords of Trade & Plantations may be allowed by His Majesty, especially as that Line was proposed by the Commissaries from this Province at New Haven in 1767 and refused without sufficient reason, as I apprehend, by the Commissaries from New York. I have the honour to be My Lord Your Lordship’s most humble & most obedient Servant,

    RC (National Archives UK, CO 5/761, ff. 136–37); at foot of letter, “Rt. Honble. the Earl of Hillsborough”; docketed, “Boston 25th. June 1772. Governor Hutchinson. (No. 29) Rx 5th. August.” DupRC (National Archives UK, CO 5/894, ff. 212–13); docketed, “Massachusets. Duplicate of a Letter No. 29 from Govr. Hutchinson to the Earl of Hillsborough, dated June 25. 1772, relative to the establishing of a Line between the provinces of Massachusets Bay & New York. O.o. 50. Reced Read Decr: 10. 1772.” AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:348); at foot of letter, “Ld Hillsborough.” SC (National Archives UK, CO 5/768, ff. 247–48); docketed, “Govr. Hutchinson. Boston, 25th. June, 1772. (No. 29.) Rx 5th. Augst.”; at foot of letter, “Inclosures. 1. Report of the Committee of Council & Assembly of Mass. Bay, concerning the Boundary with New York. 2. Letter from Govr. Tryon to Govr. Hutchinson of 6th. Novr. 1771. 3. Do. from Govr. Hutchinson to Govr. Tryon of 26 April, 1772. 4. Do. from Govr. Tryon to Govr. Hutchinson of 15 June, 1772. 5. Do. from Govr. Hutchinson to G. Tryon of 24 June, 1772. 6. Boston Newspaper of 2d. July, 1772.” Enclosures to RC: Report of the Committee of the General Court Concerning the New York Line, 24 June 1772 (National Archives UK, CO 5/761, ff. 138–39); William Tryon to TH, 6 November 1771 (ff. 140–41); TH to Tryon, 26 April 1772 (ff. 142–43); Tryon to TH, 15 June 1772 (ff. 144–45); TH to Tryon, 24 June 1772 (ff. 146–47); Massachusetts Gazette and Boston Weekly News-Letter, 2 July 1772 (ff. 148–49).

    998. To Lord Hillsborough

    Boston 25 June 1772

    My Lord, I have the honour of a private letter from your Lordship from Mr. Story. Your Lordships recommendations will always command every thing that is in my power to grant.1

    There are very few places in this Government except such as are elective worth accepting and it is to be lamented that those few have been too often filled with persons who, while seeking them, have professed to be well affected to Government but, having obtained them, join with the Opposers of it and boast that it is not in the power of the Governor without the voice of the Council to remove them.

    Mr. Story seems not to despair of an appointment in the Revenue. Newbury Port, a Town of considerable trade in this Province, is now part of the Port of New Hampshire. He thinks it will be made a distinct Port. I have talked with the Commissioners of the Customs who judge it to be proper but say the Collector of New Hampshire, if the Port be divided, ought to have his choice and they think he would chuse Newbury Port. Is not there one Objection, My Lord, against Newbury Port & New Hampshire continuing one Port. All Vessels, built in or belonging to Newbury Port, are now registered by the Governor of New Hampshire. The fees are not an Object, perhaps not Twenty pounds sterling a year, but it has been made a doubt whether a Governor has authority to grant registers for Vessels unless they belong to his own Province; or are within it at the time when they are registred?

    The Assembly make a long Session being employed in a new valuation of the Estates of the Inhabitants in order to a more equal rule for taxing them.2 The House have a Committee projecting something to raise a clamour upon the Subject of the Governor’s Salary being paid out of a Revenue raised from the Province by authority of Parliament. If the friends of Government who are more numerous in the Assembly than they have been should not be strong enough to prevent some unjustifiable Resolves or Votes yet I am not apprehensive of any great effect upon the minds of the people who in general wish to be quiet & would be so if they were not constantly teazed by a few of the most wicked desperate men in any part of His Majesty’s dominions.

    There is more danger of bad consequences from the present Temper of the Rhode Islanders. A Gentleman yesterday from Providence informs me that the Perpetrators of the late atrocious crime are well known but that it would be as much as a man’s life is worth to bring forward a prosecution.

    I furnished Adm. Montagu with the relation of another Gentleman a Merchant of this Town of fair character who was at N London in Connecticut Sunday the 21st Instant on which day a Sloop rowed out of the harbour fitted with several Guns & three times the usual Compliment of men which it was understood was designed to protect from seizure some Vessels [expected at] N haven. I hope if any Offenders are taken in any such Acts of Rebellion upon the High Seas [tear in MS] Engd where the Law must take its course.

    I have in a publick letter represented to your Lordship the state of our Controversy with New York.3 I beg leave in a private Letter to mention what I have often heard suggested as an obstruction to a Settlement. The New Yorkers have always urged in support of their Claim a pretended ancient grant from the Dutch to a Ranslaer about the year 1630 of Lands extending 24 Miles East of Hudsons River.4 This grant has been under consideration in their Courts by one of their best Lawyers and I am informed that the known natural boundaries by which it is limited will not extend more than 12 miles from the River.5 Whatever therefore New York gains above the 12 Miles will not be allowed to the Ranslaers but considered as Land unpatented & either is or will be granted to other persons. Upon this Tract 500 families or upwards are actually settled having first purchased the Indian Title and then obtained a quit claim from the General Court of this Province. They have built Houses & made such improvements that the Land is ten times more valuable than it was in its natural state.6 I humbly submit to your Lordship whether if these Lands are to be granted anew they who are in possession have not an equitable claim to be preferred to all others in such grants. I dont know the person of more than one or two of them and have no inducement to mention this to your Lordship other than a regard to natural justice. The Comissaries from this Province at New haven in 1767 would have conformed to the Line reported by the Lords of Trade. The last offer made by the Commissaries from New York it is supposed would include thousand acres of land more than their Lordships report and therefore is so much contended for which, if gained by New York may make a fine Manor but if left to this Province will remain to the present Possessors or Grantees. Mr Tryon’s insisting upon an air line will no doubt if complied with leave still more to New York but this seems not to consist with what was agreed to by both sides viz. that the corner settled by Connecticut to be 20 miles from the River should be our Southern corner.7 I am with the greatest respect My Lord Your Lordship’s most obliged faithful Servant,

    AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:349–52); at foot of letter, “Rt Honble. the Earl of Hillsborough.”

    999. To Sir Francis Bernard

    Boston 27 June 1772

    Dear Sir, I inquire after you from every New Engd man who comes from London. Story tells me he never saw you. Mr Murray says he had not seen you for many weeks before he left London but they both say you was recovering your health at Bath.1 My Ld Hillsboro in a private Letter says you had mentiond Story to him so that I hope you are reassuming business & that we shall reassume our Correspondence but I must have greater certainty of your state of health before I trouble you with any sort of business lest I should retard your recovery.2 I will just tell you that I have brought the Court to Boston after some altercations at the beginning of the Session & the unanimous opinion of the Council upon their Oaths that I might do it consistent with His Majestys Instructions to me which I laid before them, that I shall keep off the affair of taxing the Commissioners &ca to another year & that for want of other subject the House are trying if they cant make some thing out of the new method of paying the Governor which gives me you will think but little trouble or concern. Nothing else now respects this Province in particular. In what concerns America in general we dont interest ourselves more than the rest. All seem determined to pay as little regard to all the Laws of Trade as possible & they pay less & less evry day & if let alone will soon pay none at all. The Officers of the Customs evry where pretty near alike had rather take their Fees & be quiet than increase the Profits of their Office by troublesome seizures & it is settled by all in trade that a Customs house Oath imposed by an unconstitutional Act of Parlt. is no Oath at all & I know a Church member who threatned his Shipmaster to turn him out if he made any scruple of such an oath. Mr Bern is gone to the Eastward to settle some Affairs there. In settling his affair with G. I was obliged to appear so far in his behalf to prevent great injustice as has broke friendship between me & G & he has not treated me as he ought.3 I can forgive him if he desires it. I suppose your son has given you a particular account of that & other affairs.

    Dalrymple is upon motion with his Regiment the destination not yet publick it is generally tho’t to be the Southern part of the continent which must not be very agreeable to him.4 A Regiment from Halifax is to garrison the Castle. I must observe the same formalities as upon the former exchange & must expect a repetition of the same Squibs in the News papers. As oft as you are able I wish to hear from you if it be but a few lines. I am with sincere esteem & affection Dear Sir Your faithful Servant,

    AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:353–54); at foot of letter, “Sir F Bernard.”

    1000. To James Gambier

    Boston 30th. June 1772

    Dear Sir, Allow me now & then to enquire after you & Mrs. Gambier and the little Folks. You are in the midst of the great and important affairs of Britain and consequently of all the known parts of the Globe with which in a greater or lesser degree it is now connected. We are an insignificant province where there is little or nothing that is interesting to any but ourselves. You can expect nothing from me therefore of any moment, except we should get into the way of pulling down the houses of the Kings Servants, again, attacking his Troops, burning his Ships or such like exploits. The Province house they design shall fall down. Some of our Heroes talked of selling it but finding my consent was necessary to every valid act they laid aside their design. Our last Ships carried you the news of the burning the Gachepe Scooner at Providence. I hope if there should be another like attempt some concerned in it may be taken prisoners and carried directly to England. A few punished at Execution Dock would be the only effectual preventive of any further attempts. In every Colony they are sure of escaping with impunity. Dalrymple is preparing for an Expedition, it is thought, to the Southern part of the Continent. I pity him. He seems distressed in spight of all his endeavours to put on another face. One of the Regiments at Halifax or some other is to accompany him, the other the 64th. to take his place here. I have by degrees brought the Assembly to such a state that although there are a small majority sour enough yet when they seek matter for protests Remonstrances &c they are puzzled where to charge their Grievances which they look for in the first place and then consider whether the things they complain of are Grievances or not. Under such circumstances and the advantage of having them in the Town of Boston where I can see a Company of them every day, which by the way you would think to be dearly earning your Salary I hope to pass thro’ a Session without much trouble.1 Some foolish thing or other from such people is always of course. I see our old Friends Burch Paxton &c every day or two, not every night, they frequently desire when I write to make their Compliments. I am most Sincerely Dear Sir Your Faithful and most obedient Servant,

    AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:354–55); in EH’s hand. Contemporary printings: Boston Gazette, 26 June 1775; Massachusetts Spy, 5 July 1775; Essex Journal, 29 September 1775.