ferent towns, collected from various parts of New England, more readily united for the support of public worship, in a mode to which they had been accustomed, than they would have done in any new mode. But in most of the towns there was a greater proportion of those belonging to the minor sects, than there were in the other New England States, and an opposition to the [above quoted] Ministerial act was at once manifested. And this opposition naturally increased from year to year, until the year 1801, when the Legislature repealed the clause in the Ministerial Act, enabling any individual to obtain a certificate to exempt him from the payment of taxes, and enacted the following as a substitute:

"That every person of adult age, being a legal voter in any town or parish, shall be considered as of the religious opinion and sentiment of such society, as is mentioned in said act, and be liable to be taxed for the purposes mentioned in said act, unless he shall, previous to any vote, authorized in and by said act, deliver to the clerk of said town or parish, a declaration in writing, with his name thereto subscribed, in the following words, to wit: I do not agree in religious opinion, with a majority of the inhabitants of this town."

This, it was supposed, would remove all objections and silence all complaints against the Ministerial act, but it was soon found that the number of those opposed to the act was increasing. At every session of the Legislature, efforts were made to repeal the act, until the year 1807, when the Legislature repealed the offensive parts of it, divesting the towns of all power to act or pass any vote for the building of meeting-houses or the support of ministers, leaving every individual to decide for himself whether he would contribute anything for the promotion of those objects. It was well that this act was continued so long under various modifications. It has taught us a valuable lesson, that all laws must be made in the spirit of our free institutions, or they will be neither satisfactory, useful, or permanent.

It was for some time supposed that the dissatisfaction of the people with the Ministerial act arose from their objections to its details, and they were modified, but this appeared to have no other effect than to increase the opposition to the act. And at length the people spoke to the Legislature in a language which could not be misunderstood, - we will not permit the Legislature to interfere in any manner with our religious concerns. When this act was repealed, great fears were entertained that the cause of religion would suffer, that public worship could not be supported without the aid of the law, that ministers would be driven from their profession for want of a support, but the condition of the clergy was improved by the repeal of the act. And now [1849] after the experience of more than forty years, it is evident that the time had arrived for setting aside that system of supporting public worship by taxation, which was adopted by our puritan fathers, and which was so necessary in that age for the support of a pious and learned clergy, and which had been so beneficial in the first settlement of this State. But useful as that system had been, while those in the minor sects were few in number, it proved otherwise when their numbers had greatly increased. As none but the Congregationalists taxed them for the support of the gospel, they naturally imbibed a strong prejudice against that order, but since the cause has been removed, since all the christian sects have been placed on an equal footing, that prejudice is wearing off, and there is a fair prospect that all the christian sects will treat each other in a true christian spirit.

APPENDIX F.

THE NAME "VERMONT."

[From Zadock Thompson's Vermont, Part First, p. 4, note.]

This name is said to have been adopted upon the recommendation of Dr. THOMAS YOUNG. The following account of the christening of the Green Mountains is given by the Rev. SAMUEL PETERS, in his life of the Rev. HUGH PETERS, published at New York in 1807:

“Verd-Mont was a name given to the Green Mountains in October, 1763, by the Rev. Dr. Peters, the first clergyman who paid a visit to the 30.000 settlers in that country,' in the presence of Col. Taplin, Col. Welles, Col. Peters, Judge Peters and many others, who were proprietors of a large number of townships in that colony. The ceremony was performed on the top of a rock standing on a high mountain, then named Mount Pisgah because it provided to the company a clear sight of Lake Champlain at the west, and of Connecticut river at the east, and overlooked all the trees and hills in the vast wilderness at the north and south. The baptism was performed in the following manner: Priest Peters stood on the pinnacle of the rock, when he received a bottle of spirits from Col. Taplin; then haranguing the company with a short history of the infant settlement, and the prospect of its becoming an impregnable barrier between the British colonies on the south and the late colonies of the French on the north, which might be returned to their late owners for the sake of governing America by the different powers of Europe, he continued, we have here met upon the rock Etam, standing on Mount Pisgah, which makes a part of the everlasting hill, the spine of Asia, Africa and America, holding together the terrestrial ball, and dividing the Atlantic from the Pacific ocean-to dedicate and consecrate this extensive wilderness to God manifested in the flesh, and to give it a new name worthy of the Athenians and ancient Spartans,—which new name is Verd Mont, in token that her mountains and hills shall be ever green and shall never die.' He then poured out the spirits and cast the bottle upon the rock Etam.

'The population of Cumberland and Gloucester counties, as taken by the authority of New York, was 4669 in 1771-eight years after Dr. Peters' visit. Dr. Williams said: "These two Counties, at that time, contained about two thirds of the people in the whole district. The whole number of inhabitants therefore in 1771 must have been about seven thousand."-Williams's Vermont, second edition, vol. 2, p. 478.

2

The editor of this volume is ignorant of any mountain in Vermont which answers precisely to this description. Mansfield and Camel's Hump come the nearest to it, as from the rocks on their crests Lake Champlain can be clearly seen; Connecticut river, however, cannot be seen. Each of these mountains gives a view beyond the deep valley through which that river runs.

There is no doubt (added ZADOCK THOMPSON,) that the name Verd Mont had been applied to this range of mountains long previous to the above transaction, (if, indeed, it ever took place;) but we do not find that the name Verd Mont, or Vermont, was ever applied to the territory generally known as the New Hampshire Grants, previous to the declaration of the independence of the territory in January 1777.

From the mode in which Mr. THOMPSON introduced the foregoing note in his Vermont, the reader is liable to infer that the honor of giving the name Verd Mont was claimed for the Rev. Hugh Peters, from the history of whom the account was extracted: but that reverend gentleman was convicted of treason in England, and executed Oct. 16, 1660— one hundred and three years previous to the event alleged above. The "Rev. Dr. Peters," who it is said performed the rite of baptism in a decidedly spiritual way, was no other than the author of the History of the Rev. Hugh Peters. In other words, SAMUEL A. PETERS, D. D., LL.D., of Hebron, Connecticut, claimed that he himself was the officiating priest on the occasion described. In three biographical dictionaries, which have been examined, he is styled SAMUEL A. PETERS, D. D, LL. D., but in the preface to the American edition of the History of the Rev. Hugh Peters, (the first edition of which was printed in England,) the middle name is omitted. Rev. SAMUEL PETERS, LL. D., was born in Hebron, Conn. in 1717;' while SAMUEL A. PETERS, D. D., LL. D, was born in the same town eighteen years later, to wit, Dec. 12, 1735.2 SAMUEL A. PETERS was the author of a History of Hugh Peters, and also of A General History of Connecticut, printed in London in 1781, and re-printed in New Haven, Conn., in 1826. He was once selected for the office of Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Vermont, but was never consecrated. It will be noticed that Mr. THOMPSON hints a doubt of the veracity of this historian; knowing, doubtless, that his history of Connecticut had been characterized as "the most unscrupulous and malicious of lying narratives." It is in that volume, so broadly condemned, that the following other Vermont scene is described -Bellows Falls; and it is given here as a specimen of Mr. Peters's style of history:

"Here water is consolidated, without frost, by pressure, by swiftness, between the pinching, sturdy rocks, to such a degree of induration, that an iron crow floats smoothly down its current:-here iron, lead, and cork, have one common weight:-here, steady as time, and harder than marble, the stream presses irresistible, if not swift, as lightning:-the electric fire rends trees in pieces with no greater ease, than does this mighty water."-See General History of Connecticut, American edition, p. 110.

1

History of Hugh Peters, by Samuel A. Peters, p. 116.

'Drake's Dictionary of American Biography, and Allibone's Dictionary of Authors.

APPENDIX G.

THE UNION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TOWNS WITH VERMONT, IN 1778-9.

[From Ira Allen's History of Vermont, in Vermont Hist. Soc. Coll., vol. I, pp. 394–400.] Since the acquiescence of the late government of New Hampshire to the change of jurisdiction in 1764, a good understanding subsisted between New Hampshire and the district of the New Hampshire Grants; indeed, that State had gone further towards the admission of Vermont to sovereignty and independence than any other, as will appear from President Weare's letter of July 1777, to Ira Allen, Secretary of the State of Vermont, announcing the assistance that State was sending, under the command of General Starks, for the defence of the frontiers; 1 the stile and expressions in his letter were addressed to Vermont as a new but sovereign free state. From these circumstances, it appeared that New Hampshire had virtually acknowledged the independence of Vermont, and it was expected that she would use her influence to have it acknowledged by Congress; but these prospects were soon clouded by the conduct of some people contiguous to Connecticut River, in New Hampshire, who attempting privately to concert measures to bring the seat of government to said river, called a Convention at Hanover to concert measures to unite all the New Hampshire Grants in one entire State; to effect which, a pamphlet was printed in 1778, in which it was stated, that New Hampshire was granted as a province to John Mason, and to extend sixty miles from the sea, which formed the line called and known by the name of the Mason line; that the lands to the west of that were annexed to New Hampshire by force of royal authority, and the lands were granted in pursuance of instructions from the King and Privy Council; that the jurisdiction of New Hampshire, west of the Mason line, ceased with the power of the crown, as it was held by force of royal commission only; that therefore the people were at liberty to chuse what form of government they would establish, and they thought proper to unite with the people of the New Hampshire grants, west of Connecticut River, who were about to establish a new State. These measures drew the attention of the people, so that a petition from sixteen towns, (including Hanover and others on the east side of Connecticut River,) was presented to the legislature of Vermont, at their first session, in March, 1778; in the course of said petition it was stated, that

1See ante, p. 132.

2 The editor of this volume has tried, but in vain, to procure a copy of the proceedings of the convention at Hanover, and of the pamphlet alluded to by Allen.-See ante, pp. 275, 276, note, and 278.

said sixteen towns were not connected with any State with respect to their internal police, and requested Vermont to receive them into union and confederation. The legislature was much perplexed with this petition; the most discerning men were apprehensive of difficulty from New Hampshire if they interfered with her internal police; the dispute arose so high, that some members contiguous to Connecticut River threatened to withdraw from the legislature, and unite with the people east of the said river, and form a State. At length it was resolved, to refer said petition to the consideration of the freemen of the several towns, to accept or reject said petition, and to instruct their representatives accordingly; a majority were in favor of said sixteen towns, consequently, at the next session of the legislature, an act was passed, authorizing said sixteen towns to elect and send members to the legislature of Vermont at their next session; this also laid a foundation for more towns to unite as aforesaid.

The sixteen towns announced to the government of New Hampshire that they had withdrawn from their jurisdiction, and wished to have a boundary line settled between them, and a friendly intercourse continued.

Meshak Weare, Esq., was then President of that State, who wrote to Thomas Chittenden, Esq., Governor of Vermont, reclaiming said sixteen towns, predicating on the established bounds of the late province of New Hampshire; that said towns were represented in the provincial Congress in 1775; on their applying to that government for arms, &c., on their receiving commissions, and acting as a part of the State of New Hampshire; that a minority claimed protection; that the State felt it a duty to afford it. He also wrote to the delegates of that State in Congress, urging them to procure the interference of Congress; therefore President Weare recommended to Governor Chittenden to use his influence to dissolve so dangerous a connection.

On the receipt of these dispatches Governor Chittenden convened the Council, who appointed General Ethan Allen to repair to Congress in quality of agent to make such statements as might be consistent, and to learn how the conduct of Vermont was viewed by that body. General Ethan Allen reported to the legislature in October, 1778, that the members of Congress were unanimously opposed to Vermont's extending jurisdiction across Connecticut River; that if she dissolved her unions, they generally appeared in favour of her independence. At this time ten of said sixteen towns were represented in the legislature of Vermont, when it was proposed to form the towns that had united with that State into a county by themselves, which was rejected by this and some other votes. It appeared that the Assembly declined to do any thing more to extend their jurisdiction to the east of Connecticut River. The members from those towns withdrew from the Assembly, and were followed by the Lieutenant Governor, three members of the Council, and fifteen members of the Assembly, who lived near Connecticut River. The object was, to break up the Assembly, as the constitution_required two-thirds of the members elected to form a house for business, but there remained a quorum who proceeded to business. They referred the matter respecting said sixteen towns to the freemen to instruct their representatives; as the union was formed by the voice of the people, the legislature chose to dissolve it in the same way. Ira Allen, Esq., was appointed and instructed to repair to the court of New Hampshire, in order to settle any difficulties that might subsist in consequence of said sixteen towns; Mr. Allen attended the General Court of New Hampshire, stated the causes that had produced said union, and the embarrassments the legislature of Vermont laboured under; that it would be