against the tter, that the treaties of 1684, 1701, 1726, 1744,754, between the Government of the former and the Six Nations, have annexed to it all the country claimed by these nations and their tributaries, and that the expense of New York in defending and protecting them ought in equity to be reimbursed by this exclusive advantage. The original title of New York is indeed drawn from the charter to the Duke of York in 1663-4, renewed after the treaty of Westminster in 1674. But this charter will not, I believe, reach any territory claimed by Virginia.

Much stress will also be laid on the treaty of Fort Stanwix, particularly as a bar to any corroboration of the claim of Virginia from the treaties of Lancaster and Loggstown. It is under this treaty that the companies of Indiana and Vandalia shelter their pretensions against the claims of Virginia, &c. &c. See the pamphlets entitled "Public Good" and "Plain Facts." As these pretensions can be of no avail, unless the jurisdiction of Congress, or New York at least, can be established, they no otherwise deserve notice than as sources of calumny and influence in the public councils; in both which respects it is the interest of Virginia that an antidote should be applied.

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH

DEAR SIR,

Philadelphia, April 23, 1782.

Congress have received from the Minister of France some informal communications relative to the issue of the proposed mediation of Vienna and Petersburgh. The answer of the British Court to the preliminary articles is among them. It rejects explicitly that part of the plan which requires concurrent negotiations between her and America, and guaranties the result, as incompatible with the relation of subjects to their sovereign, and the essential interests of the Empire; alleging, at the same time, that a great part of the people are disposed to return to their allegiance, and that such a treaty would supply the rebels with new pretexts for misleading them. The final answer of the mediating Courts professes great impartiality and delicacy toward the belligerent parties; adheres to the expediency of the first plan, and hopes that it may still become, under more favorable circumstances, the basis of a general pacification.

Another letter has come to hand from Mr. Dana. His proposed step was probably taken a few days after the date of it, which was about the middle of October.13

The Committee on the last application from Vermont have reported fully in their favor." The consideration of the report will not be called for, however, till the pulse of nine States beats favorably for it. This is so uncertain that the agents have VOL. I.-8*

returned. The recognition of the Independence of Vermont is not fully stated in the report, as a resolution, antecedent, went to authorizing a committee to treat with them on the terms of their admission. You will know the object of this arrangement.

OBSERVATIONS RELATING TO THE INFLUENCE OF VERMONT, AND THE TERRITORIAL CLAIMS, ON THE POLITICS OF CONGRESS. MAY 1ST, 1782.

The two great objects which predominate in the politics of Congress, at this juncture, are-first, Vermont; second, Western Territory:

First. The independence of Vermont, and its admission into the Confederacy, are patronized by the Eastern States (New Hampshire excepted.) 1st: From ancient prejudice against New York: 2nd: The interest which citizens of those States have in lands granted by Vermont: 3d: But principally from the accession of weight they will derive from it in Congress. New Hampshire having gained its main object, by the exclusion of its territory east of Connecticut River from the claims of Vermont, is already indifferent to its independence, and will probably soon combine with other Eastern States in its favor.

The same patronage is yielded to the pretensions of Vermont by Pennsylvania and Maryland, with the sole view of reinforcing the opposition to claims of Western territory, particularly those of Virginia; and by New Jersey and Delaware, with the addi

tional view of strengthening the interests of the little States. Both of these considerations operate also on Rhode Island, in addition to the above mentioned.

The independence of Vermont, and its admission into the Union, are opposed by New York, for reasons obvious and well known.

The like opposition is made by Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. The grounds of this opposition are, 1st: An habitual jealousy of a predominance of Eastern interest. 2nd: The opposition expected from Vermont to Western claims. 3d: The inexpediency of admitting so unimportant a State to an equal vote in deciding on peace, and all the other grand interests of the Union now depending. 4th: The influence of the example on a premature dismemberment of the other States. These considerations influence the four States last mentioned in different degrees. The second and third, to say nothing of the fourth, ought to be decisive with Virginia.

Second. The territorial claims, particularly those of Virginia, are opposed by Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland. Rhode Island is influenced in her opposition by, 1st: A lucrative desire of sharing in the vacant territory as a fund of revenue. 2nd: By the envy and jealousy naturally excited by superior resources and importance. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland are influenced partly by the same considerations; but principally by the intrigues of their citizens, who are interested in the claims of land companies. The decisive influence of this last consideration is manifest, from the peculiar and per

severing opposition made against Virginia, within whose limits those claims lie.

The Western claims, or rather a final settlement of them, are also thwarted by Massachusetts and Connecticut. This object with them is chiefly subservient to that of Vermont, as the latter is with Pennsylvania and Maryland to the former. The general policy and interests of these two States are opposed to the admission of Vermont into the Union; and if the case of the Western territory were once removed, they would instantly divide from the Eastern States, in the case of Vermont. Of this Massachusetts and Connecticut are not insensible, and therefore find their advantage in keeping the territorial controversy pending. Connecticut may likewise conceive some analogy between her claims to the Western territory and that of Virginia, and that the acceptance of the cession of the latter would influence her sentiments in the controversy between the former and Pennsylvania.

The Western claims are espoused by Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia and New York, all of these States being interested therein. South Carolina is the least so. The claim of New York is very extensive, but her title very flimsy. She urges it more with the hope of obtaining some advantage, or credit, by its cession, than of ever maintaining it. If this cession should be accepted, and the affair of Vermont terminated, as these are the only ties which unite her with the Southern States, she will immediately connect her policy with that of the Eastern States; so far, at least, as the remains of former prejudices will permit."