Production Note
Cornell University Library produced this
volume to replace the irreparably
deteriorated original. It was scanned using
Xerox software and equipment at 600 dots
per inch resolution and compressed prior to
storage using CCITT Group 4 compression.
The digital data were used to create
Cornell's replacement volume on paper that
meets the ANSI Standard Z39.48-1984. The
production of this volume was supported in
part by the New York State Program for the
Conservation and Preservation of Library
Research Materials and the Xerox
Corporation. Digital file copyright by
Cornell University Library 1993.Y.
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.]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, Ed-
mund Burke was appointed as his successor. Occasional notices
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 pub-
lished. Mr. Sparks remarks in relation to it, (Life of Gouv.
Morris, i. 51.)	“ Could the whole now be found and brought be-
fore 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 the Quebec Bill. The bill was
brought into the House of Lords by the Earl of Dartmouth, on the
2d 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.	15218
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 as “ 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 received 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 obnox-
ious 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
“ jealousies in the colonies, by the extension of the limits of the
Province of Quebec, in which the Roman Catholic religion has re-
ceived such ample support.” It was also specified in the Declara-
tion of Independence, as one of the “ acts of pretended legislation,”
which justified the separation from the parent country.LETTER,
Gentlemen :
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 af-
fairs, 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 con-
sideration 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 con-
duct which I held, in consequence of that view of your
interests.
I must first observe to you, that the proceedings with re-
gard to the town of Boston and the Province of Massachu-
setts 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 presump-
tion 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 de-
bate, 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 reach220
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 strength-
ened 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 man-
ageable 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 propo-
sition, 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 particu-
lar, 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 agri-
culture, they necessitated manufactures, contrary to the
standing policy of colonization. The general sentiments
were, however, as I hav§, stated them.
I mention this disposition of the House of Peers, particu-
larly, (though it prevailed almost equally elsewhere.) be-
cause 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 reason, 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 arbi-
trary. It was the main ground of the amendments which
I proposed and carried, with regard to the boundary clause.LETTER FROM EDMUND BURKE*
221
However, as a mere unconnected arrangement, it was right
to define with clearness, although such a plan of policy
never had existed, or should pass away, as I hope and think
in some degree it has, with the fifrst 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 re-
ference, “ to the boundary lines of the other provinces, as ad-
judged 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 adjudg-
ing your real boundaries in future.
With regard to the first point, I found, that a line of di-
vision 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, n^ven this line 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
dowrn. 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 discus-
sions which must inevitably and speedily arise, determine
what belonged to y-ou, 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 the other. They said also, that under these circum-
stances, even where the King had actually adjudged a ter-222
LETTER FROM EDMUND BURKE.
ritory to one province, he might afterwards change the
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 wrere to-
tally separated, and had distinct Governors and Assemblies.
Although I had the greatest reason to question the sound-
ness 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 were
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 erect-
ed. 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 your
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 possi-
bility, (at Jeast,) 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
geographical 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 these impressions, I proposed my objections on the
second reading, reserving a more regular opposition to the
Committee. In the interval, I conferred with Lord Dart-
mouth and Mr. Pownall, and afterwards with Lord North,LETTER FROM EDMUND BURKE.
223
upon the subject. But first, I formed my plan for an amend-
ment to the clause, as it stood in the bill, before it was com-
mitted. I could have wished for a more perfect and au-
thorized 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 could
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 wTant 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 toler-
ably extensive boundaries, were better than the amplest
claims, which are neither defined nor allowed. My idea
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 lakes, where I could have them; lines,where
lines could be drawn; and where reference and description
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 reasona-
ble 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 Pennsylva-
nia. We could not determine whether it advanced north-
ward beyond Lake Erie, or ran within that Lake, or fell to
the south of it; and this uncertainty made the whole mat-
ter beyond expression perplexing. Objections on the part
of Quebec were raised to the last moment, and particular-224
LETTER FROM EDMUND BURKE.
ly to the post of Niagara, which Mr. Carlton, I am told,
was very earnest to have within his government, but sby
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 arrange-
ment, it prevents a very bad one, and may form a basis for
a much better, in times more favorable to th^ 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 mark-
ed 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 difficul-
ties, Lord North proposed to revert to the old words, which
he said to him were the best, and that he only gave wray to
the sentiments of other people, who, on his concession
found a difficulty in effectuating their own purpose.LETTER FROM EDMUND BURKE.
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 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 rec-
titude 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 di-
vulge.
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 enti-
tle him.
I have the honor to be, with the highest
esteem and regard, gentlemen, your most
obed’t and humble servant,
EDMUND BURKE.
Beaconsfield, August 2, 1774.
To the Committee of Correspondence for the General Assem-
bly at New York.
(D* 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 re-
ceive 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 Eng-
lish 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-226
LETTER PROM EDMUND BURKE.
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 de-
cide, 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 interfer-
ence with, and may fix your boundary line at the very gates of New York, per-
haps 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 ceriainty.”—Debates on the Quebec Bill, pp. 192, 193.