ly 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 your 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.-I 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.

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 have 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,

BEACONSFIELD, AUGUST 2, 1774.

EDMUND BURKE.

To the Committee of Correspondence for the General Assembly at New York.

During the debate on the Quebec Bill in the House of Commons, on the 6th June, 1774, Mr. BURKE 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

lishman. First, the clause provides 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 things, sir, that made me wish to establish a boundary of cer.ainty."-Debates on the Quebec Bill, pp. 192, 193.

VI.

REMARKS

UPON THE

BRITISH EXPEDITION TO DANBURY, CONNECTICUT,

IN 1777,

AS NARRATED IN CHAP. 11. VOL. III. OF

MARSHALL'S LIFE OF WASHINGTON.

BY ELISHA D. WHITTLESEY.

JMSS. New York Historical Society.]

G.Dec.C.

The passages in MARSHALL'S LIFE OF WASHINGTON, referred to by the writer of the following article, will be found in vol. iii. pp. 74-79, quarto edition. It is not deemed necessary to reprint them here, as most readers are familiar with the work, and the material points to which Mr. WHITTLESEY alludes, are sufficiently indicated in his remarks.