THIS government, Astonished at the late extra­ordinary claims of New-Hampshire and Mas­sachusetts-Bay to the territory of Vermont, and the following remarks having been omitted in any piece heretofore published on the subject, find themselves under the disagreeable necessity of publicly exposing the imbecility, and depravity of those governments, whose candour, on the very first attempt, should have suggested to them, that in prosecuting such claims, they would unavoidably become accomplices with the government of New-York, in their many aggravated and long continued oppressions of the people of this State. This government sensible of the devices of certain leading gentlemen of the government of New-York against them, and being apprised that they had sometime since proposed to certain leading gentlemen in the States of New-Hampshire and Massachusetts-Bay, to divide this State among the three States a­foresaid, which are now actually claiming it several­ly, and sensible likewise of our danger from the fron­tier situation to the Province of Quebec, and of the [Page 4]influence which the government of New-York (espe­cially if corrobarated by those of New-Hampshire and Massachusetts-Bay) might have in the Congress of the United States, in which we have not been re­presented. These apprehensions excited this govern­ment to remonstrate at the General Courts of New Hampshire and Massachusetts-Bay, against their making and prosecuting such claims, which, in their nature and tendency, are cruel, unjustifiable and with­out any reasonable foundation for their support:—And having received several acts of Congress of the 24th of September last, among which is contained a recommendation to the several States of New Hamp­shire, Massachusetts-Bay and New-York, to pass laws expressly authorizing the Grand Council of America to hear and determine the differences which have sub­sisted between them, on one part, and the inhabitants of a district of country called the New Hampshire Grants (as they are pleased to term them) on the o­ther, on the first day of February next; and a cita­tion (only) to the inhabitants of the latter to choose Agents and otherwise prepare for the hearing aforesaid; have therefore thought it expedient to exhibit to the world, and to the honorable Congress, as a very res­pectable part of it, the apparent impropriety of those claims.

AND firstly, we shall consider the pretension; of Massachusetts-Bay. It is admitted that previous to the adjudication of the boundary line in 1739, be­tween New-Hampshire and Massachusetts-Bay, the latter had claimed a considerable part of the present jurisdiction of New-Hampshire, from the atlantic ocean on the east part, (which claim did equally in­terfere with the territory now in dispute) and in lon­gitude [Page 5]through the main land to the south sea, on the west part, as described in the charter of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay. This antiquated claim of Massachusetts-Bay was refered to the King and Coun­cil, by an appeal from a Court of Commissioners previously authorized by the same authority to de­termine, and mark out the boundaries between the said two Provinces; as may appear from the follow­ing extract of the settlement of that line, viz.

‘AND whereas appeals from the determination of the said Commissioners, have been said before his Majesty, by the Agents for the respective Provin­ces of the Massachusetts-Bay and New-Hampshire; which said appeals have been heard before the Committee of Council for hearing appeals, from the plantations, who, after having considered the whole matter, and heard all parties concerned therein, did report unto his Majesty as their opini­on, that the northern boundary of the said Province of Massachusetts-Bay are, and be, a similar curve line, pursuing the course of Merimack 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 (in a plan returned by said Commissioners) called Pantucket Falls; and a straight line drawn from thence due west cross the said river till it meets with his Majesty's other governments; which said report of the Commit­tee of Council, his Majesty hath been pleased with the advice of his Privy Council to approve, and to declare, adjudge and order, that the northern boundary of the said Province of the Massachusetts-Bay are and be a similar curve line, pursuing the course of Merimack River at three miles distance, [Page 6]on the north side thereof, beginning at the atlan­tic ocean, and ending at a point due north of a place in the plan returned by the said Commission­ers called Pantucket-Falls; and a strait line drawn from thence due west cross the said river, till it meets his Majesty's other governments.’ This adjudication was made in 1739, which was forty years ago, and the government of the Massachusetts-Bay have regulated their jurisdiction accordingly ever since; which is too notorious to be disputed, and may be further illustrated by a variety of acts of their own, as well as of the British government; one of them respects Fort-Dummer, which was built by the Massachusetts-Bay Province in 1724, and gar­risoned at their expence a number of years; but upon its being excluded from their jurisdiction by the settlement of the boundary line aforesaid, the Bay Province represented to the government at home, that the said district of land claimed as aforesaid, and Fort-Dummer, having been determired to be the property of New-Hampshire, they were no longer obliged to garrison and maintain it; and praying, that as it was necessary for the defence of that part of the country, that New-Hampshire might be di­rected to support it. In consequence of which, an order passed the King and Council in 1744, as fol­lows, viz. ‘That the Governor and Commander in Chief of New Hampshire should forthwith move the Assembly, in his Majesty's name, to make a provision for that service;’ and at the same time informing them, ‘that in case they refused to com­ply with so reasonable and necessary a proposal, his Majesty would find himself under the necessity of restoring that fort, with a proper district of land contiguous to it, to the province of the Mas­sachusetts-Bay, [Page 7]who cannot (with justice) be re­quired to maintain a fort no longer within their boundary.’ In consequence of this requisition New-Hampshire did actually maintain Fort Dum­mer, and paid a demand of arrears for its previous support, to Massachusetts-Bay; and the receipt thereof remains in the Secretary's office of New-Hampshire to this day.

AFTER these solemn governmental transactions, and actual compliance of Massachusetts-Bay to the said royal adjudication, their pretensions to the ju­risdiction of Vermont appears to be not only imper­tinent but arbitrary; and should such a precedent take place, would make an end to all jurisdictional limitations through the United States, as well as those of Vermont; as in this case no antient settle­ment of boundary lines respecting them could be valid, and consequently, the greatest confusions and disorders would necessarily ensue. Furthermore, if there be any thing in those pretensions of Massachu­setts-Bay, they equally affect the actual jurisdiction of New Hampshire to the eastward of Connecticut river, over which eastern part, when Massachusetts-Bay shall exercise their jurisdiction, it will be early enough for them to do the same over an equal width of the jurisdiction of Vermont. After all, provided there be any reality in those pretensions, there is a great deal in them, as they are founded on a charter right, and consequently challenge the right of soil. This the principal gentlemen of their court gave our Agent to understand, that they demanded, with jurisdiction; which opens another scene of expence to the inhabitants (provided their pretended claim takes place). This will undoubtedly be displeasing [Page 8]to the present occupents, their lands having been (the greater part of them) already granted by New-Hamp­shire and New-York; but there is no probability of satisfying the many unwarrantable and avaricious claims of the several contending governments, the citizens of Vermont, therefore judge it reasonable to reject them.

THIS government have such a sacred regard to the occupency of land within their jurisdiction, that they would not wish to have the possessors and occupents disturbed in their possessions: notwithstanding such lands may have been appropriated by either of the contending governments (New-York not excepted).

WE come now to the consideration of the pretensi­ons of New-Hampshire to the jurisdiction of Vermont, by introducing the settlement of the boundary line between them and New-York, as follows, viz.

PROBABLY the advocates for the pretensions of the claim of New-Hampshire to this territory, will ad­vert to the 47th and [...] pages of our vindication of the right of the inhabitants of Vermont, to form into an independent State; where we shew the nul­lity of the said adjudicated line of 1764, in conse­quence of the declaration of independence of the United States, and the annihilation of the British government in America; asserting, that in conse­quence of our arguments alluded to as aforesaid, they open a door for the claim of New-Hampshire to take place, by making void that line, in order to defeat the claim of New-York. The attention of [Page 10]the reader is requested very particularly to the fol­lowing observations, viz. The territory of Vermont, until the people's declaration of independence, was extra-provincial land, and the governments of New-Hampshire and New-York claimed the jurisdiction of it by turns, merely [...] the sovereign will and pleasure of the King, as neither of these govern­ments were possessed of any charter right, as a body politic, which they could call their own, or challenge in their own right. Had New-Hampshire been pos­sessed of such a charter-right, their claim would have been more respectable and permanent, and would have operated against the adjudication of 1764 afore­said, provided such boundaries had been previously ascertained: But this disputed territory being in those times crown lands, and without the limits of any of the (then) colonies or plantations, the King's autho­rity over it was therefore absolute; and while this power remained in being, the last royal decree was valid and binding, which was that of 1764 aforesaid, which extended the jurisdiction of New-York over the said territory; at which time the claim of New-Hampshire to the premises became extinct and finish­ed; nor is it in their power to renew their claim to this government, being wholly destitute of any char­ter right thereto, and having lost it by the same ar­bitrary power by which alone they acquired it, and therefore ought to be finally silent about it, as well as on account of their own relinquishing of such claim, and not affording the inhabitants any protection or jurisdictional support for a succession of years; but since the declaration of the independence of this State, have not only relinquished their said claim by their governmental transactions, explicitly acknowledging the independence of this State: The proper creden­tials [Page 11]of this last fact will be exhibited in the follow­ing sheets, with some further illustration:—Be­ing at present impatient to observe, that as the claim of New-Hampshire to this territory was nullified, and became extinct, in consequence of the royal de­cree of 1764 aforesaid, as before argued; and as the claim of New-York to this territory was equally de­ficient as that of New-Hampshire, to any charter right as a body politic, or inherent constitutional jurisdiction; the claim of New-York therefore only survived that of New-Hampshire from the arbitrary decree of 1764, to the glorious aera of AMERICAN LIBERTY and INDEPENDENCE, which was declared the fourth day of July 1776, and then expired also, to the inexpressible joy of the free citizens of Ver­mont, who, in consequence thereof, reverted to a state of nature, and have since formed government on the true principles of liberty.

THIS royal arbitrary line in the time of the kingly power was in the nature of it incompatible with the rights of a free people as they were thereby divested of the inestimable privilege of choosing their own form of government, and of electing their chief ma­gistrates; nor were they in such circumstances, in any condition, to know what form or alteration of go­vernment might next take place, as the King and his creatures were the sole arbitrators of it. In fine, this people have suffered every indignity and oppression, that prodigal and lucrative governors, and their swarm of hungry dependants could invent, and carry into execution; and it is surprising, that any persons that live in these days of liberty, still entertain any idea that the said boundary line should operate in favour of the claim of New-York. From this short [Page 12]review of the claims of Massachusetts-Bay and New-Hampshire, they cannot effect the claim of Vermont to independence; which may be further illustrated by a two fold argument, viz. provided those adju­dicated boundary lines of 1739 and 1764 aforesaid, be deemed authentic and valid, their claims to Ver­mont must be considered as nugatory and abortive; but on the other hand, if those adjudicated lines, be considered as null and void, in this case the claim of Vermont to the jurisdiction of this territory, would be much better grounded, than these of Massachusetts-Bay or New-Hampshire, inasmuch as their govern­ment hath for a long time been formed by the autho­rity of the people at large, or their legal representa­tives, who under God have a natural and indisputa­ble right to form their own governments; so that the claims of Massachusetts Bay and New-Hampshire to this territory, are bar'd either by the aforesaid ad­judication, or in consequence of the legal establishment of the government of Vermont, nor is it possible for any one, or both of those governments, to set up a third principle, whereby they can deduce a legal or just claim to any part of this government; for if their claims are not founded on the lines formerly ascer­tained by the British government, or the free consent and mutual association of the people of this territory, their pretensions are frivolous, or tyrannical. This two fold argument is not viewed as being absolutely necessary in order to defeat the claims of those go­vernments to the said premises; but was introduced by way of supererogation, sufficient it is in order to vindicate the claim of independence of the State of Vermont, against those of Massachusetts Bay and New-Hampshire; that these governments have for a series of years conformed to those settlements of 1733 [Page 13]and 1764 in their legislative and executive capacities, and acted uniformly agreeable to those limitations, till within a few months last past. Sundry years be­fore the commencement of the present British war with the colonies, the people of this territory repeat­edly solicited both of those governments, at different times, to extend their governmental protection to them, and prevent the ruin with which they were threatned by the oppressive iron rod of the government of New-York, but could obtain none. But it ap­pears by their late claims, that they have since alter­ed their minds, altho' their motives herein (it is pre­sumed) are far from being honorable—for it is a great fundamental and universal principle in all free go­vernments, that government and protection are inse­perably connected together; so that without protecti­on, or at least an attempt to extend it when earnestly solicited as aforesaid, government naturally and ne­cessarily ceases to be; or in other words, such a re­fusal of protection implicitly disavows any right of jurisdiction, or forfeits any supposed right either by neglecting such claim, or refusing such protection: From whence we may infer, that all pretenders to government, which have not ultimately the good of the governed in view, and do not afford, or endeavour to afford protection to those over whom they pretend such claims, should instead of the respects due to le­gislatures, courts and the like, be esteemed and treat­ed as enemies to society and the rights of mankind. Thus it appears from the great and most universally received maxim in all free governments, that the citi­zens of Vermont are and ought to be independent of the three governments which lay claim to them; and that every of their said pretensions are dating usurpa­tions and insults on the liberty of an independent, [Page 14]brave and free people, who have never received any governmental protection or benefit from either of them; but instead thereof, have every thing to appre­hend from their venality and usurpation.

HAD New-York succeeded in their various and in­siduous attempts to subjugate the people of Vermont, the recent claims of those other governments would never have been mentioned, and the jurisdiction of New-York over this territory would, at this day, have been indisputable; so that Massachusetts-Bay and New-Hampshire have taken advantage of the controversy between New-York and Vermont, and even of the bravery of the latter in defending their natural rights and liberties, as the only possible ground of laying their frivilous claims. They have furthermore taken the advantage of the bravery of the United States in general, and Vermont likewise, in bringing about the present revolution, by which means they dare extend their pretended claims, which it is presumed they would not have had the hardi­ness to do under the British government, over the head of those royal adjudications of 1739 and 1764 aforesaid; and it is worthy a remark, that these claims have been started about three years since the decla­ration of the Independence of the United States. Still the people of Vermont, legally speaking, re­mained under the British government (over which Governor Philip Skeene was commissioned chief ma­gistrate, and next to this government, has the best claim to the jurisdiction of Vermont,) from the 4th day of July 1776, to the 15th day of January next following, and then in a solemn manner disavowed the British government, and rejected the pretensions of Mr. Skeene, and all other pretenders to the juris­diction [Page 15]of this territory, and declared themselves a FREE and INDEPENDENT STATE; and have, as they humbly conceive in their various struggles for liber­ty, fairly merited the enjoyment of it. This they consider as the ultimate reward of their many ex­pences, labours, toils, battles, victories and hazards, and for the attainment of which they have chearful­ly suffered such an uncommon series of concommi­tant evils.

THE following exhibits will set the pretensions of the claim of New-Hampshire in a true light. Not long after the settlement of the jurisdictional line in 1764, between New-York and New-Hampshire, Governor Benning Wentworth, who then presided over the latter, issued his proclamation, the princi­pal import of which is, ‘That whereas it was the King's pleasure that this territory should be under the jurisdiction of New-York—That New-Hamp­shire paid a ready obedience; furthermore adver­tising such persons as held either civil or military commissions (in this district) under the authority of New Hampshire, to surcease from any further administration. At the same time directing the inhabitants to conform to the government of New-York.’ We likewise find the following ex­tract, in a letter from the governor of New-Hamp­shire to governor Tryon, of the 19th of October 1771, viz. "That he had invariably recommended" to those inhabitants, ‘implicit obedience to the law of the province of New-York, and upon all occa­sions positively disavowed any connections with those people.’

WE nextly exhibit the minutes of the Council of New-Hampshire, viz.

THE following is a copy of a letter from the Presi­dent of the Council of New-Hampshire to the (then) Secretary of this State, viz.

COPY from President Weare's letter to Governor Chittenden, (dated)

THE foregoing letter was laid before the General Assembly of this State, at their session in October 1778, agreeable to President Weare's request, and a joint committee was thereupon appointed from the Council and Assembly, and the said union was dissol­ved; and President Weare's demands fully and am­ply adjusted and settled, at the then next adjourned session of Assembly held at Bennington, on the 12th day of February 1779; as will appear by the fol­lowing extract of the report of said Committee, and the resolution of the Assembly thereon, viz.

[Page 22] IT is presumed that from the settlement of the boundary line between New-York and New-Hamp­shire in 1764, to the date of President Weare's letter of the 22d August aforesaid, which is more than four­teen years, that New-Hampshire (during this period) had given up, in the most explicit and public man­ner, all pretensions to the jurisdiction of any and eve­ry part of the lands comprehended in this State.—Governor Benning Wentworth's proclamation afore­said, sets this matter in a clear light, soon after the alteration of jurisdiction, directing the settlers under New-Hampshire to conform to the laws of New-York. The letter from the Governor of New-Hampshire to Governor Tryon, of the 19th of Oc­tober 1771, speaks the same language, viz. ‘That he had invariably recommended implicit obedi­ence to the laws of New York, and upon all occasions positively disavowed any connection with those people.’ The Governor and Council of New-Hampshire the 8th day of January 17, 2, wholly renounced their claim to the premises: ‘It is considered that by his Majesty's order in Coun­cil of the 20th of July 1764, the western banks of Connecticut river was then commanded to be the west bounds of this province; and that this government has been entirely obedient thereto.’ President Weare's letter to Ira Allen, Esq proceeds still further, and positively conceeds to the indepen­dence of this State. It appears that the Court of the State of New-Hampshire, by their President, address him in his official character, viz. as ‘Secretary of the State of Vermont;’ and in the contents of the letter, when writing to the Secretary of this State, not less than three times gives it the appella­tion or stile of "your State;" and observes in the [Page 23]finishing clause of the letter, ‘In behalf of the Council and Assembly, I am,’ &c. From all which it appears, that the said letter has the autho­rity of the General Court of that State for its sup­port; and which, in the most express terms, ac­knowledgeth the independence of this State, which is of itself a final bar to the claim of New-Hamp­shire: For, if governments can relinquish their claim of jurisdiction when they please, and assume it again at pleasure, the whole notion of governmental juris­diction is reduced to a mere romance, and nothing permanent, obligatory or binding in it; and there­fore such a precedent is inadmissible, as it would, if admitted to become general, destroy all order and decorum in the universe.

IT should be acknowledged that the court of New-Hampshire, through the channel of their President's letter to Governor Chittenden, before inserted, offer­ed a number of reasons relative to the impropriety of this State's taking into union sixteen towns east of Connecticut river; which reasons are equally con­clusive against the claim of New Hampshire to the westward of the same river. Says Mr. Weare, their President, ‘Is there any ascertaining the bounda­ries between any of the United States of America, but by the lines formerly established by the au­thority of Great-Britain? I am sure there is not.’ This being admitted, we are equally sure New-Hampshire has no right to any territorial jurisdiction to the westward of said river. Notwithstanding it appears that the court of New Hampshire, in the first place, plead the settlement of the line in 1764, as the main ground of their title to those sixteen towns aforesaid, (west of the Mason line) by which [Page 24]means they are included in their jurisdiction, and in a few months afterward break over the said line or 1764, and lay claim to the State of Vermont; when at the same time nothing can be more apparent than that the same arguments by which they establish their claim to those said sixteen towns east of the ri­ver, effectually bass their claim to the westward of the same river, and leaves the contested territory to be disputed between New-York and Vermont. ‘I am surprised,’ says the President, that "they," speaking of the inhabitants of this State, ‘should supply their enemies with arguments against them, by their connecting themselves with people (hav­ing reference to those sixteen towns) whose circum­stances are wholly different from their own, and who are actually members of the State of New-Hampshire.’ This last clause affirming that the inhabitants of those sixteen towns were actually members of the State of New-Hampshire; at the same time implicitly affirms that the inhabitants on the west side of the said river were not; which is ful­ly explained in the preceeding part of the same pa­ragraph, viz ‘whose circumstances are wholly dif­ferent from their own,’ that is, the members of the State of Vermont; which is still further explain­ed from another paragraph of the same letter, when, after stating the facts relative to the aforesaid union with those sixteen towns before frequently mentioned, says, ‘on which I am directed to represent to you, and to desire it may be laid before the representa­tives of your people.’ As this was addressed to the Governor of Vermont, from the court of New-Hampshire, to be laid before their representative bo­dy, or General Assembly, in which the claim of New-Hampshire is clearly set up, and their right vindi­cated [Page 25]to a number of towns, over which Ver­mont on a mistaken and wrong representation had encroached; upon the representation whereof, the General Court of the State of Vermont dissolved the union as aforesaid; and agreeable to the claim and request of the Court of the State of New-Hamp­shire, relinquished every connection, as a political body, with those sixteen towns east of Connecticut river: And thus the respective governments of New-Hampshire and Vermont, having mutually settled their boundary line on the west banks of Connecticut river, agreeable to the adjudication thereof in 1764, between New-York and New-Hampshire, cannot fail of operating as a final bar against any subsequent claim of New Hampshire to any part of the State of Vermont: For, New Hampshire madetheir claim, and Vermont very readily closed with them, and gave them their whole demand, in which the minds of both governments met, and the dispute naturally and necessarily ended; and it is but chil­drens play for New-Hampshire to make a second demand on the State of Vermont; for if one settle­ment is not decisive and binding, neither would a second, or a third, and so on ad infinitum.

PREVIOUS to the claims of Massachusetts Bay and New Hampshire to Vermont, the simplicity of the inhabitants of this government, and their veneration for Congress was so great, that it is highly probable that they would have very frankly submitted the long controversy between them and New-York, to the final decision of the Congress of the United States; though at the same time they were far from an opinion that Congress had any legal, inherent or constitutional right (exclusive of their own con­sent [Page 26]and approbation) so to do: But, the recent claims of Massachusetts-Bay and New-Hampshire, in concert with New-York, and it is suspected in confederacy with each other to divide this State among those three governments, has excited their apprehensions; for though it may not prove a tri­ple league as is imagined, it is at least a strong com­bination of interests, which will undoubtedly agree in the ruin of this State, whatever disputes may happen between themselves relative to the jurisdic­tion thereof. And as to the States of Virginia, North-Carolina and South-Carolina, whose territo­ries are immensely large, and whose interests it is to maintain their respective sovereignty's over their extensive claims, which may in natural probability influence their delegates in Congress to oppose the independence of Vermont; as it may in future ope­rate as a precedent to divide those large territories into different States, (not that it is apprehended by us that there are any similarity in the circumstances of this tract of country to any other part of Ameri­ca;) and thus from views of their own particular interests, be very partial and biassed judges of the right of Vermont to independence; and instead of judging on the principles of justice and equity which respects Vermont, as opposed to the claims of Massachusetts Bay, New Hampshire and New-York, may rather determine the matter agreeable to their own ambition and interest; so that were Ver­mont to calmly submit their indubitable claim of in­dependence to Congress, though they are as res­pectable a body as the world ever produced, it would be by no means certain that Vermont could have an impartial tryal; as there may be many con­nections of interests very prejudicial to them, which [Page 27]at present we cannot conceive of, and which is out of our power to come at the knowledge of, as this State is not represented in Congress. These things being premised, and as the freemen of this State have never had any voice in electing, forming or creating Congress, as a political body, or had any representation therein; but have been rather mis­represented. And whereas this State hold their charter of liberty from heaven, and not ‘of man, or of the will of man,’ have upon a full and can­did examination and consideration determined not to submit HEAVEN-BORN FREEDOM to the arbitra­ment of any tribunal below the stars, which through infirmity might deprive them of it: But, as they have closely embraced it in the most critical and hazardous times, are determined to hold it fast, ex­cept it be torn from them by the hand of power; which resolution we trust will be justified by the court of heaven and commended by all true friends to the liberty and happiness of mankind.

THE following is an extract from the proceedings of the General Assembly of Vermont, at their sessions in October last, viz.