LECTURE.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Or the large and respectable audience now assembled here, there is perhaps not one individual who has not read the history power and of the rise and progress of Rome, of the increase of her of the gradual extension of her boundary, so as first to embrace the petty domains of her neighbors; then all Italy, and finally that vast territory which extends from the Western Ocean to the Euphrates, and from Mount Atlas to the Danube and the mountains of Caledonia. The history of that haughty nation which fought and conquered two thousand years ago, and at the distance of many thousand miles from us, is familiar to our school-boys; and yet it is probable that there are now present some intelligent persons who are not aware that an angry controversy raged, not more than seventy years ago, between Pennsylvanians and Virginians, for the territory in and around this city. A still larger number, no doubt, are uninformed as to the origin of that controversy, the grounds of the claims of the different parties, and the mode and the terms of the final arrangement. That there should be a want of general, correct information, is not, under the circumstances, very remarkable. The controversy commenced while these States were colonies; the terms of the compromise were agreed upon during our struggle for independence, and attracted less attention among the more exciting events of the war of the Revolution. Since that time, so far as my research has extended, no full and accurate notice of the controversy has been published. Mr. Barton, in his Memoirs of Rittenhouse, has several references to the matter; and the late Judge Brackenridge, in his Law Miscellanies, has a short chapter devoted to the subject. But both those writers have permitted some errors to find places in their publications. It has occurred to me that a plain, unvarnished history of a controversy about the very soil upon which we stand, would not be less interesting to the audience now assembled, than even a more ornate notice of some ancient or fardistant nation.

I proceed, therefore, to give a very plain, though, I trust, accurate account of that dispute, and shall labor to make it as intelligible, as the fear of being tedious will permit. In the year 1606, James the First granted to the London and Plymouth Companies the privilege of making two settlements on any part of the coast of America, between the thirty-fourth and forty-fifth degrees of North latitude, the whole of which country was called Virginia. Under this grant, the former Company made a settlement at Jamestown, and thus became entitled, under the terms of the grant, to territory one hundred miles square.

Considering this extent of territory too contracted for their purposes, the Company applied for a further enlargement of their grant, and in 1609, an additional grant was made to them in the following terms:-"All those lands, countries and territories, situate, lying and being in that part of America called Virginia, from the Point of land called Point Comfort, all along the sea-coast to the Northward two hundred miles, and from the said Point Comfort, to the Southward, two hundred miles, and all that space and circuit of land lying from the sea-coast of the precinct aforesaid, up into the land throughout, from sea to sea, West and North-West."

In 1623, a Writ of Quo Warranto was issued against the Company from the Court of King's Bench, which was decided against it the next year. By this decision, the Company was dissolved, and the land within the limits of the grant, with the exception of such tracts as had been granted to settlers, reverted to the Crown. Against this decision the Company seems never to have made any objection.

In 1632, Charles the First granted to Lord Baltimore, the present territory of Maryland, which greatly encroached upon the bounds of the grant to the London Company; yet against this grant neither that Company nor the Colonial Legislature made any opposition. This is only material in this place, as showing the submission of those interested, and as proving that the decision on the Quo Warranto was acquiesced in as legal.

In 1680, the grant was made to William Penn, of "All that tract or part of land in America, with all the islands therein contained, as the same is bounded on the East by Delaware river, from twelve miles Northward of New Castletown, unto the three and fortieth degree of Northern latitude, if the said river doth extend so far Northwards; but if the said river shall not extend so far Northwards, then

by the said river so far as it does extend; and from the head of the said river, the Eastern bounds are to be determined by a meridian line to be drawn from the head of said river unto the said three and fortieth degree. The said lands to extend Westward five degrees in longitude, to be computed from the said Eastern bounds; and the said land to be bounded on the North by the beginning of the three and fortieth degree of Northern latitude, and on the South by a circle drawn at twelve miles distance from New Castle, Northward and Westward, unto the beginning of the fortieth degree of Northern latitude, and then by a straight line Westward to the limits of longitude above mentioned.”

In this description of the territory granted to Penn, there is no vagueness or uncertainty, except in one particular, and that as to the Western boundary. The words are, "Said lands to extend Westward five degrees in longitude, to be computed from the said Eastern bounds." Now as the Eastern "bounds" is the Delaware river, which in its meandering course varies its longitude more than forty miles, the questions soon occurred, from what point on the Delaware shall the five degrees of longitude be computed? shall the Western boundary be a meridian, or shall it be a crooked line corresponding to the curves of the Delaware, and distant from it five degrees of longitude at every corresponding point? These and other questions would naturally occur, in interpreting the words defining the Western boundaries of Pennsylvania.

I have before mentioned that the territory of Virginia, as granted to the London Company, with the exception of land actually granted to settlers, had reverted to the Crown by the judgment on the Writ of Quo Warranto. I have also stated that in 1632, forty-eight years before the grant was made to Penn, Maryland was granted to Lord Baltimore. In the latter grant, the Northern boundary is a right-line drawn from that part of the Delaware Bay which lieth under the fortieth degree of latitude, due West to the meridian of the first fountain of the river Potomac. Here, then, is an interference of boundary lines between Penn and Lord Baltimore. Penn had a grant to the beginning of the fortieth degree of North latitude; while Baltimore had a grant to pass beyond the beginning of that degree, and to extend some indefinite distance under it. In 1769, after a long and vexatious controversy, the boundary was fixed at latitude 39° 43′ 42′′ being the line so famous in late days, as Mason and Dixon's line. But although the prior charter to Lord Baltimore

prevailed over the later grant to Penn, throughout the entire length of the province of Maryland, there was no good reason why the South boundary of Pennsylvania, West of Maryland, should not conform to the charter, and extend South to latitude thirty-nine degrees, being the beginning of the fortieth degree. The grant to the London Company having been annulled, and the territory included in it having reverted to the Crown, there was no dispute between rival Grantees, as in the case of Maryland; no question about priority of grants; but the simple point to be settled was this,-does the charter to Penn include the territory in dispute?

Having thus made such preliminary remarks as were necessary o render the controversy between Virginia and Pennsylvania easily intelligible, I will proceed to the account of that matter.

In 1752, the Proprietors of Pennsylvania understanding that the Governor of Virginia was about to erect a Fort at the Forks of the Ohio, now Pittsburgh, to repel the incursions of the French, instructed their Governor, Hamilton, to render any assistance in his power, taking, however, an acknowledgment from Virginia, that any settlement made should not be construed to the prejudice of the right of the Penns. Of these instructions, Gov. Hamilton immediately gave Gov. Dinwiddie notice. Nearly two years later, in 1754, Gov. Dinwiddie being prepared to commence building the Fort at the Forks, issued a proclamation promising to lay out two hundred thousand acres of land, in and near this place, to be divided among those who would enlist in the service against the French. Upon receiving a copy of this proclamation, Gov. Hamilton, on the 13th of March, 1754, wrote to Gov. Dinwiddie, reminding him of his former intimation respecting the lands, and requesting such an acknowledgment as the Proprietaries had before suggested.

On the 21st of March, 1754, Gov. Dinwiddie replied: in his letter he said, "I am much misled by our Surveyors, if the Forks of the Monongahela be within the limits of your Proprietaries' grant. I have for some time written home, to have the line run,—to have the boundaries properly known, &c. In the mean time, that no hinderance may be given to our intended expedition, it is highly reasonable, if these lands are in your Proprietor's grant, that the settlers should pay the quit-rent to Mr. Penn, and not to His Majesty. And therefore, as far as in my power lies, I agree thereto, after the time granted by my proclamation, to be clear of quit-rent, ceases."

These proceedings (1752, '54) were the first acts by the provincial