Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1888-01-27
EARLY HISTORY.

HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS.
NJ. Eitor.-Was the present town of
Nottingham ever chartered or organized
under the name Of Cumberland Upon
this question the historians of that goolly
town do not agree. aud, unfortunately, con
siderable bad blood has been exhibited when
there should have been none at all. One Of
your correspondents, writing in support Of
the affirmative Of the above proposition
quotes from Deming's Vermont Officers the
following "Whitingham, before 1850 was
called Cumberland
1t has been clearly established, and it is
not disputed, that the township Of Whiting
ham was chartered by that name TO Col
Nathan Whiting and others, by the author
tiles of the province of New York, March
-, no When, by whom, and 10 whom
was it ever chartered by the name Of Cum
berland When and by whom was it ever
organized as a town under that name +,
These inquiries have never yet been salts
factorily answered by those who have un-
dertaken to maintain the affirmative of the
main question at issue. ! submit that they
are pertinent to this much mooted question.
Guess work nor speculation as to what
might have been, is not the proper material
for authentic history. That it was at one
land, is not denied That it was also known
and called by the name Nottingham under
which it was chartered, previous to $50,
by the inhabitants thereof, and others, who
had the best opportunity of knowing its
true name can he established 10y the most
irrefragable evidence
1t is contended on the part of one Of the
historians (Mr. Brown Of Whtmgham
that the charter of March r. li,0, bec;uue
aud was utterly void for the following rcn
sons, viz LIST, "The charter was issued in
express violation of the DEGREES and orders
of the King in council >. "The terms Of
the charter were not complied with rela
tive to the cultivation of lands, the settle
ment Of the township, etc.
In the light of recognized historical facts
the foregoing seem but speclOus objections
TO the validity of the charter 1t should Ice
horne in mind that 10y virtue Of royal or
der or decree issued by the king in li6L
the iursdictional line of the Province of
New York was extended to the Connecticut
river. Many of the settlers, then occupy
ing territory which is now Vermont, held
their lands under grants from the outhori
ties of the Massachusetts Bay and New
Hampshire In some instances the same
lands had been granted to others 10y the an
thorties of New York, which created much
confusion and bitter contention among the
respective grantees holding under different
authority, although no evidence has been
adduced of any such contention ever hay
ing arisen among the various grantees of
lands in what is now Whitingham. Those
holding under Massachusetts Bay and New
Hampshire memoriaized the King for Is
redress of their grievances The order and
decree referred to bv the above named his
torian was issued hy the authority of the
King July "a, 1861, and is as follows His
maiestv doth hereby strictly
charge, require and command. that the
Governor or COMMANDMENTS Chief of His
Maiesty's Province of New York for the
time being, do not. upon pain of His Males
tvs highest displeasure. presume to make
any grants whatsoever. Of any of the lands
described in the said report. until His Mai
esty's rurther pleasure shall be kao,cn con
corning the same" CSee Gov. and Council
Vol l. 3g1.)
Is it "A reasonable suppnsition that the
loval Governor of His Maiestv's Province
of New York deliberately defcd the com
mands of his sovereign bv repeated viola
tiuns Of the provisions of the aforesaid ROY.
al proclamation The fact that the author
tiles of New York, holding their commits
siuns under the British crown. strongly rs
serted and strenuouslv maintained, up to
the time of the commencement Of armed
hustiities between the colonies and the
mother country. its claim of jurisdiction to
the west bank of the Connecticut river bv
granting township charters and patents to
individuals of lands situate and being in
what is now Vermont, and in aifordmg pro
lection to said grantees so far as they were
able to do through the machinery of their
courts. ought to he quite conclusive. in the
absence of evidence to the contrary. that
it was "His Maiesty's further pleasure" to
remove. and that he did remove. the inhi
bition contained in the proclamation of JulN
u, 1867. long before the charter of Whit
ingham was granted So much for uhiac.
ton No. /.
Objection No. is equally untenable. 1t
would seem hardly safe to assume, without
some little proof thereof that the township
charter was revoked bv the authority grant
ing it, and that all the rights and interests
Of the grantees, and those holding hy pur
chase under them--actual settlers aud in
habitants-had become and were forever
forfeited for the reason that certain Of the
provisions named in the grant. and Of the
character mentioned. had not been strictly
complied with within the time specified IT,
is not probable that the precise terms and
conditions of any township charter in Yer
mont were ever fully performed bv its
grantees and their assigns. IT, for such
reasons, IA revocation was declared. it Wa
restored upon petition Several instances
of this kind happened in the early history
of our state but do not remember of an
instance. in all nv reading. where the re
vocation was enforced hv the authorities
granting the charter. to the extent of dis
tants of title in their lands and driving
them from their homes
Col. Nathan Whiting and Col. James
Smedlev were two of the grantees named
in the charter Of Nottingham. Mr. Brown.
in his history of Nottingham, page 81, says :
"In 1913. Eleazer Fitch decided two hun
dred acres To Daniel Wilcox and William
Clark describing as part of the right of
Col. James Smedley. deceased bv virtue of
letters patent from the province of New
York and was recorded Aug 10. 1886
Also that ION the 10th dav of August l1SG
Nathan Whiting uuit-claimed his right to
the north half of Writings grant in Whit
mgham to William Anderson and also
give "A like deed to Silas Brooks and an
other to James Mullett all bearing the
same date. Aug. 10. 1856. and all recorded
August 10. 1886. And in these deeds he
guarantees and warrants against all claim,
of any person or persons claiming by. from
or under the New York charter of the
town of Whtinghamn Has Mr.. Brown
ever learned, and is it a fact, that any of
the aboye-named grantees of Fitch and
Whiting. or their heirs and assigns wer,
ousted or dispossessed of these lands by
persons holding title from any other source ,
if not. then the present owners of the
same lands in Nottingham derive their titl,
from the charter of March 70 no
There is no pretence that either NIas.a-
chusetts Bay or New Hampshire. or even
Vermont after she became a state. ever