Part 46

“P. S. If you can spare as much time as to give me notice of the receipt of this, and what hope I may form of my Clock, it will oblige me. If sent to Fredericksburg, it will come safe to hand.”

In the commencement of the year 1779, our benevolent Philosopher had an opportunity of testifying the friendly interest he took in the prosperity of his brother-in-law the Rev. Mr. Barton, and his family. This gentleman was then, with Mrs. Barton, in the city of New-York; to which they went towards the close of the year 1778, in pursuance of a permission granted for that purpose by the government of Pennsylvania, under certain conditions. All Mr. Barton’s children excepting the eldest, (the writer of these Memoirs), who was then abroad, remained in Pennsylvania; those in their minority, being six of the seven so remaining, having been previously placed under the charge of suitable persons. After a long absence of the eldest son from his native country, he returned to Pennsylvania the beginning of the year 1779. Immediately after his arrival at Lancaster, he received a letter from Mr. Rittenhouse, dated in Philadelphia, January 24th 1779, in which he says—“I most sincerely congratulate you on your safe arrival, and impatiently expect the pleasure of seeing you here. I received yours from Baltimore, ten days after the date, and immediately wrote to your father, supposing him to be still at New-York; though we cannot be certain as to that matter.” The Rev. Mr. Barton, on the 15th of February, acknowledged the receipt of his brother-in-law’s letter to him, which, although dated the 16th of January, did not reach him until the 13th of the succeeding month. In this answer, Mr. Barton says;—“To see, and to be united with my children, is my most earnest wish; but how that happy event is to be obtained, I know not: If my son should choose to come to Elizabeth-Town, perhaps I might be indulged with a flag, to have an interview with him there.”

-----

Footnote 195:

To this lady, who is yet living, Mr. Barton was married in the year 1776. She remains his widow, and enjoys the very affectionate respect of Mr. Barton’s descendants and relatives, to which her great worth and many virtues justly entitle her.

Footnote 196:

Colonel Samuel J. Atlee, formerly a parishioner of the Rev. Mr. Barton, had written two letters to him, to inform him of his son’s arrival. The second of these only had got to hand, and was acknowledged at the same time as Mr. Rittenhouse’s. Col. Atlee, who was a steady friend of Mr. Barton’s family, was a valuable officer in the American army, in the earlier period of the war; and afterwards served as a delegate in congress, for the state of Pennsylvania.

The difficulty of Mr. Barton’s returning to Pennsylvania, and which he alludes to, in his letter to Mr. Rittenhouse, arose from the terms of his passport to New-York, from the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania: it permits him to go to New-York, “not to return.” A letter which Mr. Barton wrote to John De Hart, Esq. of Elizabeth-Town in New-Jersey, on the 30th of January, 1779, will sufficiently explain the conscientious scruples which actuated the writer’s conduct; and they were such as, it is presumed, will have weight, when dispassionately and liberally considered.

In addressing Mr. De Hart, Mr. Barton says:—“I received your favour of the 22d instant, by Mr. Alexander. The papers with which you entrusted me, gave me no trouble, except that of my not being able to serve you in the manner which was first proposed. You may depend on their safety in my hands; subject to such directions as you shall be pleased to give me.” “I wish for an opportunity to oblige you, and if any should offer, I beg you will employ me without any apology.

“I am just informed that my son has returned to his native country, after an absence of between three and four years. How melancholy and distressing is my situation! separated from eight children, and three congregations, to whom I am bound by duty, gratitude, and every tie of affection! ‘A parent only knows a parent’s woes;’ and such will feel for me. You are kind enough to tell me, that my son requests me to return to my parish. What he can mean by this request, I am totally at a loss to understand: could the matter have been determined by my option, I should never have left my parish, for any prospect of preferment that could offer. But no choice was left me, but either to take the oath, or to suffer a painful separation from my dearest connexions; as well as from a country which always had, since I have known it, my predilection and best wishes; a country to which, I can declare (with an appeal to heaven for the truth of the declaration,) I never did, or wished to do, ‘any act or thing prejudicial or injurious:’ and though my heart assures me, that many conscientious and good men have conformed to the test-act, yet my own conscience always revolted at the abjuration part of it, and prevailed with me to surrender every worldly consideration, that should come in competition, or tempt me to a violation of it. This, sir, was the only crime (if a crime it be) for which I now suffer banishment from all that are most dear to me; with an interdict, “not to return again.” I cannot therefore comprehend, how I can consistently return, before this interdict is cancelled; or some assurance given me, that I may again unite and live quietly with my family, without being subject to an abjuration, which I cannot take. The proper duties and profession of a minister of the gospel should, in my opinion, never lead him into the field of politics. In conformity to this opinion, every man who knows me can testify, that I never degraded my function by intermeddling, directly or indirectly, in the present unhappy contest: so that my own scruples would be a stricter tie upon me, than any that could be made by oaths or tests. You will excuse my troubling you on this subject, when I tell you, that the kind manner in which you address me has drawn it upon you.”

Footnote 197:

It was Mr. Barton’s intention, when he left Pennsylvania, to embark at New-York for England or Ireland: but his ill state of health, which soon after ensued, prevented his leaving New-York.

Footnote 198:

This indulgence was obtained in April, 1780, from the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania, chiefly through the friendship of the late general Joseph Reed, then president of that body; and, in pursuance of this passport, sanctioned by general Washington, the desired interview was had with Mr. and Mrs. Barton, at Elizabeth-Town, a very short time before the death of Mr. Barton.

-----

In the autumn of the same year, Mr. Rittenhouse again manifested his friendly attachment to Mr. Barton’s family, on an occasion which offered, relating to the writer of these Memoirs personally. Soon after the appointment of the late Henry Laurens, Esq. to be envoy to Holland, Mr. Rittenhouse applied to that gentleman for the purpose of obtaining for the writer, who was well known to him, the secretaryship to that mission: but Mr. Laurens had determined to appoint no secretary; at least before he should arrive in Holland. In a letter to the writer of this, communicating the result of his application, Mr. Rittenhouse says—“I wish you could obtain some handsome thing of this kind; but there are such numbers of humble suitors to, and dependants on, members of congress, that every thing is snapped up, before you or I know any thing of the matter.”

In consequence of a territorial dispute which had arisen between Pennsylvania and Virginia, Mr. Rittenhouse was appointed by the legislature of the former, in the year 1779, one of the commissioners for settling that controversy: his colleagues, on that occasion, were George Bryan, Esq. and the reverend Dr. Ewing.

These commissioners, thus nominated on behalf of their own state, were authorised “to meet and agree with other commissioners, on the part of Virginia, upon the western boundary.” They accordingly met Dr. James Madison, president of the college of William and Mary, (late bishop of the protestant episcopal church in Virginia), and Robert Andrews, professor of mathematics in that institution, the commissioners appointed by Virginia,—for the purposes of their respective appointments. This meeting was held on the 31st day of August, 1779. The propositions for an amicable adjustment of the boundary line in dispute, were first made by Pennsylvania: and, at the meeting thus held, in consequence of, Virginia having acceded to those propositions, the joint commissioners of the two states entered into the following agreement:

“We, George Bryan, John Ewing, and David Rittenhouse, commissioners from the state of Pennsylvania, and we, James Madison and Robert Andrews, commissioners for the state of Virginia, do hereby mutually, in behalf of our respective states, ratify and confirm the following agreement, viz. To extend Mason’s and Dixon’s line, due west, five degrees of longitude, to be computed from the river Delaware, for the southern boundary of Pennsylvania, and that a meridian, drawn from the western extremity thereof to the northern limit of the said state, be the western boundary of Pennsylvania for ever.”

This agreement, signed by the respective commissioners of the contending states, was, on the 19th of November ensuing, unanimously ratified and confirmed by the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, and its ratification duly transmitted to the government of Virginia.

But this agreement, thus solemnly concluded, did not quiet the pre-existing disputes. Divers persons, deriving authority, or pretending so to do, under the government of Virginia, proceeded to Fort Byrd in the county of Westmoreland, thirty miles at least within the line agreed on by the commissioners,—and upon lands originally settled under Pennsylvania, and long held as being within its unquestionable jurisdiction; and these intruders there exercised a summary and arbitrary authority, tending to the dispossession of the grantees under Pennsylvania; vexing and disturbing them, greatly, in the peaceable possession of lands which they had honestly purchased, and cultivated for a long course of years. Such injustice and outrages, on she part of the Virginia intruders, induced congress to interpose the little authority they possessed, for the purpose of tranquillizing the contending parties, at a period when the harmony of the citizens of the several states was highly important to the safety of the whole confederacy. Accordingly, in December, 1779, and nearly four months after the adjustment of the before disputed boundary by the persons duly empowered to settle the same, congress passed a resolution, attested by their secretary, in these words:

“In Congress, December 27, 1779.

“Whereas it appears to congress, from the representation of the delegates of the state of Pennsylvania, that disputes have arisen between the states of Pennsylvania and Virginia, relative to the extent of their boundaries, which may probably be productive of serious evils to both states, and tend to lessen their exertions in the common defence: Therefore,

“Resolved, That it be recommended to the contending parties, not to grant any part of the disputed land, or to disturb the possession of any persons living thereon; and to avoid every appearance of force, until the dispute can be amicably settled by both states, or brought to a just decision by the intervention of congress; that possessions forcibly taken be restored to the original possessors, and things be placed in the situation in which they were at the commencement of the present war, without prejudice to the claims of either party.”

It is evident from the face of this resolution, that congress were not disposed to notice this controversy, otherwise, than with extreme delicacy: and so cautious were they, under all existing circumstances, of interfering with the merits of this dispute between two great and powerful states, that they speak of the controversy as one then actually in existence, between those states; although, in regard to their respective governments, it had been settled long before. However, the day after the date of the resolution of Congress, the president and the supreme executive council of Pennsylvania issued a proclamation, requiring all officers, civil and military, and others, subjects of the state, to pay due obedience and respect to that resolution; and also encouraging the several grantees claiming under Pennsylvania to continue in the cultivation and improvement of their several estates and possessions, as well as in their allegiance and fidelity to the state,—notwithstanding any claims or pretences set up by the state of Virginia, or any other foreign jurisdiction; and assuring them of the protection and support of their own state, while so continuing in duty and obedience to its laws and government.

Notwithstanding all these proceedings, this extraordinary controversy was not terminated until long afterwards. In consequence of a resolution of the general assembly of Pennsylvania, of the 28th of August, 1783, the supreme executive council of that state passed, on the 11th day of the succeeding month, a resolution on their part, stating,—that, as many of the objections which had hitherto prevented the determination of the boundary-line, in question, were then removed, it became necessary to close that business with all possible accuracy and dispatch; and that, to this end, four commissioners should be immediately appointed, with directions to provide the necessary astronomical apparatus, and to correspond with those appointed by the state of Virginia for the same purpose: they therefore appointed the Rev. John Ewing, D. D., David Rittenhouse, Esq. treasurer of the state and Thomas Hutchins, Esq. to perform that duty.

The arduous service thus assigned to these gentlemen, all of them possessing great abilities, was accordingly executed; and a law was thereupon passed by the legislature of Pennsylvania, on the 1st of April, 1784; which, after reciting that the boundary-line agreed on by the former commissioners, on the 31st of August, 1779,—and which is therein stated to have been unanimously confirmed by Pennsylvania on the 23d of September, 1780, with the condition attached thereto by Virginia,—was by this law finally confirmed.

-----