Letter from Edmund Burke, to the Committee of Correspondence for the General Assembly of New York, respecting the effect of the Quebec bill upon the boundary of New York. <Mss. N.Y. Hist. Society.--Colden papers, vol. IV.> 1 0215

V. LETTER FROM EDMUND BURKE, TO THE COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEW YORK, RESPECTING THE EFFECT OF THE O.UEBEC BILL UPON THE BOUNDARY OF NEW YORK. | MRS. N. Y. Hist. Society. Colden Papers, Vol. IV.

2 0217

LETTER FROM EDMUND BURKE, RESPECTING THE EFFECT OF THE QUEBEC BILL UPON THE BOUNDARy OF NEW YORK. On the 21st December, 1770, information was communicated to the Colonial Assembly of New York of the death of Robert Charles, Esq., who had long acted in the capacity of agent for that colony at the Court of Great Britain ; and on the same day, Edmund Burke was appointed as his successor. Occasional notioes appear in the Journals of Assembly, indicating his interest in the affairs of the colony, and his fidelity in the discharge of the duties of his office. His correspondence with the Assembly, during his agency, from the time of his appointment to the dissolution of the Assembly in April, 1775, has never been published. Nor is any part of it known to exist in the United States, except the letter now first published. Mr. Spares remarks in relation to it, (Life of Gouv. Morris, i. 51.) "Could the whole now be found and brought before the Public, it would doubtless present in a full and luminous manner the views of that able statesman on all the important topics agitated at that time between Great Britain and the Colonies, and prove a treasure of rare worth in the historical materials of the country." The following letter, it will be seen, refers to the bill which had been recently passed by the British Parliament for the Government of Canada, commonly called tL. Quebec Bill. The bill was brought into the House of Lords by the Earl of Dartmouth, on the 'id of May, 1774, and passed without opposition. In the House of Commons it encountered much debate, Mr, Burke opposing it, in all its stages. He was successful in procuring an amendment in relation to the boundaries, designed to protect the interests of New SECOND SERIES, VOL. II. 15

3 0218

218 LETTER FROM EDMUND BURKE. York. The bill, as amended, passed the Commons on the 13th June, and was returned to the House of Lords on the 18th, when the Earl of Chatham denounced it asr " a most cruel, oppressive and odious measure," and " one that would shake the affections and confidence of his Majesty's subjects, in England and Ireland, and finally lose him the hearts of all the Americans." The bill passed by a large majority, and reoeived the royal assent on the 22d June. It was very unpopular in America, as it granted extraordinary privileges to the Catholic clergy, and was obviously intended to conciliate the Canadians through their influence, and unite them against the other colonies. It gave rise to much discussion in the assemblies, particularly that of New York, to which it was obnoxious on account of their proximity to Canada; and was referred to in their petitions and memorials, representation and remonstrance as " giving great uneasiness to the minds of many," and exciting B jealousies in the colonies, by the extension of the limits of the Province of Quebec, in which the Roman Catholic religion has received such ample support." It was also specified in the Declaration of Independence, as one of the " acts of pretended legislation," fchich justified the separation from the parent country.

4 0219

LETTER. Gentlemen i I was prevented by pressing business, and by not the best health, from sending you a letter by the July pacquet. When I had last the honor of writing to you on your affairs, I entertained no strong apprehensions, that the clause in the Quebec Bill concerning the boundary of that new Province, could materially affect the rights of your colony. It was couched in general and saving terms: it reserved all rights, and confirmed all adjudications; it was in all appearance sufficiently equitable. But upon a close consideration and subsequent inquiry, I found that you might be very much affected by it. I take the liberty of stating to you the light in which it appeared to me, and the conduct which I held, in consequence of that view of your interests. I must first observe to you, that the proceedings with regard to the town of Boston and the Province of Massachusetts Bay, had been from the beginning defended on their absolute necessity, not only for the purpose of bringing that refractory town and province into proper order, but for holding out an example of terror to the other colonies, in Some of which (as it was said) a disposition to the same or similar excesses had been marked very strongly. This unhappy disposition in the colonies was by the friends of the coercive measures, attributed to the pride and presumption arising from the rapid population of these colonies, and from their lax form, and more lax exercise, of government. I found it in general discourses, and indeed in public debate, the predominant and declared opinion, that the cause of this resistance to legal power ought to be weakened, since it was impossible to be removed; that any growth of the colonies, which might make them grow out of the reach

5 0220

220 LETTER FROM EDMUND BURKE. of the authority of this Kingdom, ought to be accounted rather a morbid fulness than a sound and proper habit. All increase of the colonies which tended to decrease their advantage to this country, they considered as useless, and even mischievous. From this predominant way of thinking, the enormous extent of the colonies was censured. It was not thought wise to make new grants of land but upon the weightiest consideration, if at all. Prerogative was to be strengthened as much as possible, and it was thought expedient to find in the tractable disposition of some provinces, a check upon the turbulent manners, and a balance to the less manageable plan of government, in the others. These principles (whatever their merit may be) became very fashionable, during the agitation of the Massachusetts bill, in the House of Commons. A Peer, who I think does not always vote in the majority, made a sort of proposition for an address to the King, that no more lands should be located in America. This was the substance of the proposition, although it proceeded no further, for reasons of decorum. The ministerial side in that House fell in very directly with those sentiments, and, as I am told, plainly shewed a resolution to act in conformity with them, as far as the power of the Crown in that particular extended. It is true, that a few Lords, and Lord Rockingham in particular, objected to the idea of restraining the colonies from spreading into the back country, even if such restraint were practicable; for by stopping the extending of agriculture, they necessitated manufactures, contrary to the standing policy of colonization. The general sentiments were, however, as I have stated them. I mention this disposition of the House of Peers, particularly, (though it prevailed almost equally elsewhere,) because the Quebec Bill originated in that house. Very many thought, on a careful perusal, that the lines of the plan of policy I have just mentioned, were Very distinguishable in that bill as it came down to us. It was for that Teason, I became more uneasy than at first about the lax and unde-terminate form in which the boundary clause of this new-colony was worded, in the original bill. The idea of which (whether seriously adopted by ministry or not) was very prevalent, that the British colonies ought to be restrained, made it necessary that this restraint should not be arbitrary. It was the main ground of the amendments which I proposed and carried, with regard to the boundary clause.

6 0221

LETTER FROM EDMUND BUEKE. 221 However, as a mer<5 unconnected arrangement, it was right to define with clearness, although such a plan of policy never had existed, or thould pass away, as I hope and think in some degree it has, with the first heats. The bill passed through, the House of Lords, with some opposition, but no amendment; but when it came into the House of Commons, the ministers confessed, that it was hastily drawn, and they professed great candor in admitting alterations. The part by which your province would be directly affected, was only the boundary clause. As the boundary was, in the most material parts In the original bill, only constructive, and in general words of reference, "to the boundary lines of the other provinces, as adjudged or allowed by the Crown;" I thought it necessary to know, with regard to you, what lines had been actually drawn, and next what principles were to guide in adjudging your real boundaries in future. With regard to the first point, I found, that a line of division between your colony and that of Quebec, had been allowed by the King in Council to be run from a point on Lake Champlain in forty-five degrees of north latitude. So far had been agreed between the Governors of the two provinces and allowed. But no line had been actually run in consequence of this agreement, except from the river Connecticut to the Lake, bven this lin« had not been formally allowed; and none at all had been run to the westward of Lake Champlain. So that your boundary on the north had never been perfectly delineated, though the principle upon which it should be drawn had been laid down. For a great part of the northern frontier, and for the whole of the western, until you met the line of New Jersey, you had no defined boundary at all. Your claims were indeed extensive, and I am persuaded just; but they had never been regularly allowed. My next object of inquiry, therefore, was, upon what principles the Board of Trade would in the future discussions which must inevitably and speedily arise, determine what belonged to you, and what to Canada. I was told, that the settled, uniform doctrine and practice of the Board of Trade, was this: that in questions of boun-dary, where the jurisdiction and soil in both the litigating provinces belonged to the Crown, there was no rule but the King's will, and that he might allot as he pleased, to the one or th.e other. They said also, that under these circumstances, even where the King had actually adjudged a ter-

7 0222

222 LETTER MOM EDMUND 8URKE. ritory to one province, he might afterwards change thft boundary; or if he thought fit, erect the parts into separate and new governments, at his discretion. They alleged the example of Carolina, first one province ; then divided into two separate governments, and which afterwards had a third, that of Georgia, taken from the southern division of it. They urged besides, the example of the neutral and conquered islands. These, after the peace of Paris, were placed under one government. Since then, they were totally separated, and had distinct Governors and Assemblies. Although I had the greatest reason to question the soundness of some of these principles, at least in the extent in which they were laid down, and whether the precedents alleged did fully justify them in that latitude; I certainly had no cause to doubt but that the matter would always be determined upon these maxims, at the board by which they were1 adopted. The more clearly their strict legality was proved, the more uneasy I became at their consequences. By this bill, a new province under an old name was in fact erected. The limits, settled by the proclamation of 1763, Were cancelled. On your side, a mere constructive boundary was established, and the construction, when examined, amounted to nothing more than the King's pleasure. No part of you* province, (not even of the settled quarters of the country, quite to the river Hudson,) was secured from the possible^ operation of such a principle. Besides there was a possibility, (at Least,) that in the settlement of the boundary, ministers would naturally lean to extend those limits the most, where the royal prerogative was most extensive, and consequently their power the highest. I do not mean to charge them with that intention. But no laws stood in the way of such an inclination, if it ever did exist, or should happen to exist hereafter. This was not (as it might be between two ancient British colonies) a mere question of gebgraphical distinction, or of economical distribution, where the inhabitants on the one side of the line and the other; lived under the same law and enjoyed the same privileges of Englishmen. But this was a boundary, discriminating different principles of jurisdiction and legislation; where, in one part, the subject lived under law, and in the other, under prerogative. From the.se impressions, I proposed my objections on the second reading, reserving a more regular opposition to the Committee. In the interval, I conferred with Lord DarO mouth and Mr. Pownall, and afterwards with Lord North*

8 0223

LETTER FROM EDMUND BURKE. 228 upon the subject. But first, 1 Formed my plan for an amendment to the clause, as it stood in the bill, before it was committed. I could have wished for a more perfect and authorized information; but I was obliged to act at the in* stant. The bill came in late in the session, and if I had let it pass for want of being instructed, the occasion «ould in all human probability never be recovered. I saw you had claims founded on these grounds. The old Dutch settlement; the placing of the Five Nations within your government; the boundary line of Governors Moore and Carlton; and the maintainance of the Fort of Oswego during the late war, which carried you to Lake Ontario. These claims had no fault but the want of definition. To define, is to abridge. Something then must be given up ; I was persuaded that when one negotiates with power, it is policy to give up handsomely what cannot be retained, and to gain that strength which will always more or less attend the reasonableness of a proposition, even when it is opposed by power. I thought that well secured and tolerably extensive boundaries, were better than the amplest claims, which are neither defined nor allowed. My ide,a was, to get the limits of Quebec, which appeared to many as well as myself intended to straiten the British colonies, removed from construction to certainty; and that certainty grounded on natural, indisputable and immovable barriers, rivers and takes, where I could have them; lines, where lines could be drawn; and where reference and^escription became necessary, to have them towards an old British colony, and not towards this new, and, as was thought, favorite establishment. I assured ministry, that if they refused this reasonable offer, I must be heard by council. As they found some opposition growing within and without doors, and they were in haste to carry through their bill brought in so late in the session, after some discussion and debate, they gave way to the amended clause, as you see it. The work was far more troublesome than those who were not present can well believe. It cost us near two whole days in the committee. The grand difficulty arose from the very unsettled state of the boundary of Pennsylvania. We could not determine whether it advanced northward beyond Lake Erie, or ran within that Lake, or fell to the south of it; and this uncertainty made the whole matter beyond expression perplexing. Objections on the part of Quebec were raised to the last moment, -and particular-

9 0224

224 LETTER FROM EDMUND BURKE. Jy to the post of Niagara, which Mr. Carlton, I am told, was very earnest to have within his government, but by the act it is excluded, and is on 3'our side. I believe some imagined, that these difficulties would make me give up the point; but it is carried, and if not a perfect arrangement, it prevents a very bad one, and may form a basis for a much better, in times more favorable to the old Colonies. After the affair was over, it was suggested to me, that I ought to have expressly defined this line to be the limits of New York, as well as of Canada. To this I answer, that I was aware of the inconveniences which might arise from the want of this clear specification, supposing the Board of Trade to act insidiously, unfairly and captiously; which I have no reason to imagine they will do, from any thing I have observed in them, or in other parts of ministry. But I confess, when I consider that Canada is put on the other side of the waters, its bounds being expressly so marked out, it appears to me absolutely impossible to say to whom the land on this side belongs,, except to you, unless his Majesty should choose to erect a new government, a thing no way likely or convenient for any good purpose. The Quebec Line was constantly stated and argued in the House, as the boundary between the Provinces of Quebec and New York, in that public discourse (rather than debate) which latterly we had on the subject. 1 think the line to all intents and purposes as much your boundary, as if it were ever so expressly set down. Canada, at least, cannot say, " this belongs to me." I did not press to have the line called the boundary between New York and Canada; because we should again fall into discussion about the bounds of other Colonies, as we had about those of Pennsylvania, which discussion alone had very near defeated me. It would be asked, why the line along Nova Scotia, New Hampshire, and the Northern Massachusetts Claim, was not called the boundary of these provinces, as well as of New York ? It would be said, that this Act was to settle a Constitution for Quebec, and not for adjusting the limits of the Colonies; and, in the midst of this wrangle, the whole object would have infallibly escaped the House, as it grew quite tired of it. All business stood still whilst we were wording the clause, and on our difficulties, Lord North proposed to revert to the old words, which, he said to him were the best, and that he only gave way to the sentiments of other people, who, on his concession found a difficulty in effectuating their own purpose.

10 0225

LETTER FEOM EDMUND BUSKI^ 225 I must, therefore, accept what I could get, and the true method of estimating the matter is to take together the time; what we escaped; and what we obtained ; and then to judge whether we halve not had a tolerable bargain. Those who were present, congratulated me, as on a great advantage. I am sure, I acted for the best, with great rectitude of intention and a good deal of assiduity. I send you the bill with the amendments marked. As to the other parts of the bill, they are matters of more general policy. As I have already given you a great deal of trouble, I do not mean to detain you any longer upon foreign matter. I received your obliging letter of the 31st of May, and am extremely happy in the honor of your approbation. You undoubtedly may dispose of my letters as you judge proper. I must in this respect confide entirely in your prudence, being fully satisfied, that the matter will always direct you sufficiently in what you ought to conceal, and what to divulge. I have sent off long ago the Wawayanda and Cheesecock Acts. I have had the honor of seeing Mr. Cruger at my house, on his return to Bristol. I endeavored to attend to him in the manner to which his merit and connections entitle him. I have the honor to be, with the highest esteem and regard, gentlemen, your most obed't and humble servant, EDMUND BURKE. BfiACONSFlELD, AUGUST 2, 1774. To the Committee of Correspondence for the General Assembly at New York. ET During the debate on the Quebec Bill in the House of Commons, on the 6th June, 1774, Mr. Bprke thus stated his objections to the Boundary clause, as proposed by the Minister, Lord North: " The reason why I feel so anxious is, that the line proposed is not a line of geographical distinction merely; it is not a line between New- York and some other English settlement; it is not a question whether you shall receive English law and English government upon the side of New York, or whether you shall receive a more advantageous government upon the side of Connecticut; or whether you are restrained upon the side of New Jersey. In all these you still find English laws, English customs, English juries, and English assemblies, wherever you go. But this is a line which is to separate a man from the right of an Eng-

11 0226

226 LETTER FROM EDMUND BURKE. lishman. First, the clause prbvides nothing at all for the territorial jurisdiction of the province. The Crown has the power of carrying the greatest portion of the actually settled part of the province of New York into Canada. It provides for individuals, that they may hold their property; but they must hold it subject to the French laws, subject to French judges, without the benefit of the trial by jury. Whether the English mode of descent is better than the French, or whether a trial by a judge is better than a trial by a jury, it is not for me to decide, but an Englishman has a privilege that makes him think it is better; and there is, sir, as much reason to indulge an Englishman in favor of his prejudice for liberty, as there is to Indulge a Frenchman in favor of his prejudice for slavery. The bill turns freedom itself into slavery. These are the reasons that compel me not to acquiesce by any means, either in the proposition originally in the bill, or in the amendment. Nay, the proposition in the amendment is a* great deal worse; because you therein make a saving of the right of interference with, and may fix your boundary line at the very gates of New York, perhaps in the very town itself, and subject that colony to the liability of becoming a province of France. It was this state of tilings, sir, that made me wish to establish a boundary of certainty ."-"Debates on the Quebec Bill, pp. 192, 199.