diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68336-0.txt | 16639 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68336-0.zip | bin | 302862 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68336-h.zip | bin | 4262575 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68336-h/68336-h.htm | 19971 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68336-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 922568 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68336-h/images/i_001.jpg | bin | 66642 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68336-h/images/i_001large.jpg | bin | 256417 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68336-h/images/i_082.jpg | bin | 67204 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68336-h/images/i_082large.jpg | bin | 243894 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68336-h/images/i_111.jpg | bin | 69980 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68336-h/images/i_111large.jpg | bin | 329181 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68336-h/images/i_146.jpg | bin | 118475 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68336-h/images/i_146large.jpg | bin | 466106 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68336-h/images/i_162.jpg | bin | 164178 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68336-h/images/i_162large.jpg | bin | 634368 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68336-h/images/i_258.jpg | bin | 59283 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68336-h/images/i_258large.jpg | bin | 261398 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68336-h/images/i_320.jpg | bin | 42556 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68336-h/images/i_320large.jpg | bin | 169487 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68336-h/images/i_eob.jpg | bin | 60729 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68336-h/images/i_eoblarge.jpg | bin | 277897 -> 0 bytes |
24 files changed, 17 insertions, 36610 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d2a3d75 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #68336 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/68336) diff --git a/old/68336-0.txt b/old/68336-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index f081585..0000000 --- a/old/68336-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,16639 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of A history of Canada 1763-1812, by -Charles Prestwood Lucas - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: A history of Canada 1763-1812 - -Author: Charles Prestwood Lucas - -Release Date: June 17, 2022 [eBook #68336] - -Language: English - -Produced by: Sonya Schermann, hekula03, and the Online Distributed - Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was - produced from images generously made available by The - Internet Archive) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A HISTORY OF CANADA -1763-1812 *** - - - - - -=TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE= - - - Footnotes have been placed at the end of their respective chapters. - - - - - A - HISTORY OF CANADA - 1763-1812 - - - BY - SIR C. P. LUCAS, K.C.M.G., C.B. - - - OXFORD - AT THE CLARENDON PRESS - - 1909 - - - - - HENRY FROWDE, M.A. - PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD - LONDON, EDINBURGH, NEW YORK - TORONTO AND MELBOURNE - - - - -PREFACE - - -My warm thanks are due to Mr. C. T. Atkinson, M.A., of Exeter -College, Oxford, who most kindly read through the proofs of the -chapter on the War of American Independence and made some valuable -corrections; and also to Mr. C. Atchley, I.S.O., Librarian of the -Colonial Office, who has given me constant help. Two recent and -most valuable books have greatly facilitated the study of Canadian -history since 1763, viz., _Documents relating to the Constitutional -History of Canada, 1759-91_, selected and edited with notes -by Messrs. Shortt and Doughty, and _Canadian Constitutional -Development_, by Messrs. Egerton and Grant. I want to express my -grateful acknowledgements of the help which these books have given -to me. - - C. P. LUCAS. - - _December, 1908._ - - - - -CONTENTS - - - CHAPTER I PAGE - - THE PROCLAMATION OF 1763, AND PONTIAC’S WAR 1 - - - CHAPTER II - - CAUSES OF THE AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE QUEBEC - ACT 30 - - - CHAPTER III - - THE WAR OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE 90 - - - CHAPTER IV - - THE TREATY OF 1783 AND THE UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS 208 - - - CHAPTER V - - LORD DORCHESTER AND THE CANADA ACT OF 1791 236 - - - CHAPTER VI - - SIR JAMES CRAIG 298 - - - APPENDIX I - - TREATY OF PARIS, 1783 321 - - - APPENDIX II - - THE BOUNDARY LINE OF CANADA 327 - - - - -LIST OF MAPS - - - 1. MAP TO ILLUSTRATE THE PROCLAMATION OF 1763 _To face_ p. 1 - - 2. CANADA UNDER THE QUEBEC ACT ” 81 - - *3. PLAN OF THE CITY AND ENVIRONS OF QUEBEC ” 112 - - 4. MAP TO ILLUSTRATE THE BORDER WARS ” 145 - - *5. A MAP OF THE COUNTRY IN WHICH THE ARMY UNDER - LIEUTENANT-GENERAL BURGOYNE ACTED IN THE - CAMPAIGN OF 1777 ” 161 - - 6. THE TWO CANADAS UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL - ACT OF 1791 ” 257 - - 7. MAP TO ILLUSTRATE THE BOUNDARY OF CANADA ” 321 - - 8. MAP OF EASTERN CANADA AND PART OF THE UNITED - STATES _End of book._ - - - *Reproductions of contemporary maps. - - - - -[Illustration: - - _to face page 1_ - - =CANADA= - by the - Proclamation of =1763= - - From a map of 1776, in the Colonial Office Library - - B. V. Barbishire, Oxford, 1908 -] - - - - -HISTORY OF CANADA, 1763-1812 - - - - -CHAPTER I - -THE PROCLAMATION OF 1763, AND PONTIAC’S WAR - - -[Sidenote: The Peace of Paris.] - -On the 10th of February, 1763, the Peace of Paris was signed -between Great Britain, France, and Spain. Under its provisions -all North America, east of the Mississippi, which had been owned -or claimed by France, was, with the exception of the city of New -Orleans, transferred to Great Britain, the navigation of the -Mississippi being thrown open to the subjects of both Powers. The -English also received Florida from Spain, in return for Havana -given back to its old owners. Under a treaty secretly concluded in -November, 1762, when the preliminaries of the general treaty were -signed, Spain took over from France New Orleans and Louisiana west -of the Mississippi, the actual transfer being completed in 1769. -Thus France lost all hold on the North American continent, while -retaining various West Indian islands, and fishing rights on part -of the Newfoundland coast, which were supplemented by possession of -the two adjacent islets of St. Pierre and Miquelon. - -[Sidenote: The Proclamation of 1763.] - -In the autumn of the year 1763, on the 7th of October, King George -III issued a proclamation constituting ‘within the countries -and islands, ceded and confirmed to us by the said treaty, four -distinct and separate governments, styled and called by the names -of Quebec, East Florida, West Florida, and Grenada’. Of these -four governments, the first alone requires special notice. The -government of Grenada was in the West Indies, and the governments -of East and West Florida, excluding a debatable strip of territory -which was annexed to the State of Georgia, were co-extensive with -the new province which had been acquired from Spain. - -[Sidenote: Boundaries of the government of Quebec.] - -The limits assigned by the proclamation to the government of Quebec -were as follows: north of the St. Lawrence, the new province was -‘bounded on the Labrador coast by the river St. John, and from -thence by a line drawn from the head of that river, through the -Lake St. John, to the south end of the Lake Nipissim’. The river -St. John flows into the St. Lawrence over against the western -end of the island of Anticosti; Lake St. John is the lake out of -which the Saguenay takes its course; Lake Nipissim or Nipissing is -connected by French river with Georgian Bay and Lake Huron. The -line in question, therefore, was drawn due south-west from Lake -St. John parallel to the St. Lawrence.[1] From the southern end of -Lake Nipissim the line, according to the terms of the proclamation, -crossed the St. Lawrence and Lake Champlain in 45 degrees of north -latitude. In other words, it was drawn due south-east, to the -west of and parallel to the Ottawa river, until it struck the St. -Lawrence, where the 45th parallel of north latitude meets that -river at the foot of the Long Sault Rapids. It then followed the -45th parallel eastward across the outlet of Lake Champlain, and -subsequently, diverging to the north-east, was carried ‘along -the highlands which divide the rivers that empty themselves into -the said river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the sea’. -Further east it skirted ‘the north coast of the Baye des Chaleurs -and the coast of the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Cape Rosieres’, which -last named cape is at the extreme end of the Gaspé peninsula. The -line then again crossed the St. Lawrence by the western end of the -island of Anticosti, and joined the river St. John. - -Thus, south of the St. Lawrence, the boundary of the province -of Quebec was, roughly speaking, much the same as it is at the -present day. Its westernmost limit was also not far different, the -Ottawa river being in the main the existing boundary between the -provinces of Ontario and Quebec. On the north and north-east, on -the other hand, the government of Quebec in 1763 covered a smaller -area than is now the case. ‘To the end that the open and free -fishery of our subjects may be extended to and carried on upon the -coast of Labrador and the adjacent islands,’ ran the terms of the -proclamation, ‘we have thought fit, with the advice of our said -Privy Council, to put all that coast from the river St. John’s -to Hudson’s Straits, together with the islands of Anticosti and -Madelaine, and all other smaller islands lying upon the said coast, -under the care and inspection of our Governor of Newfoundland.’ To -the government of Nova Scotia were annexed the conquered islands of -St. Jean or St. John’s, now Prince Edward Island, and Isle Royale -or Cape Breton, ‘with the lesser islands adjacent thereto.’ - -[Sidenote: Encouragement of military and naval settlers.] - -[Sidenote: Provision for a legislature and for the administration -of justice.] - -It was greatly desired to encourage British settlement in North -America, and special regard was had in this respect to the -soldiers and sailors who in North American lands and waters had -deserved so well of their country. Accordingly the proclamation -contained a special provision for grants of land, within the -old and the new colonies alike, to retired officers of the army -who had served in North America during the late war; to private -soldiers who had been disbanded in and were actually living in -North America; and to retired officers of the navy who had served -in North America ‘at the times of the reduction of Louisbourg and -Quebec’. It was thought also by the Lords of Trade that confidence -and encouragement would be given to intending settlers, if at the -outset they were publicly notified of the form of government under -which they would live. Hence the proclamation provided, as regards -the new colonies, ‘that so soon as the state and circumstances of -the said colonies will admit thereof,’ the governors ‘shall, with -the advice and consent of the members of our Council, summon and -call General Assemblies within the said governments respectively, -in such manner and form as is used and directed in those colonies -and provinces in America which are under our immediate government’. -The governors, councils, and representatives of the people, when -duly constituted, were empowered to make laws for the public -peace, welfare, and good government of the colonies, provided that -such laws should be ‘as near as may be agreeable to the laws of -England, and under such regulations and restrictions as are used -in other colonies.’ Pending the constitution of the legislatures, -the inhabitants and settlers were to enjoy the benefit of the laws -of England, and the governors were empowered, with the advice of -their councils, to establish courts of justice, to hear and decide -civil and criminal cases alike, in accordance as far as possible -with the laws of England, a right of appeal being given in civil -cases to the Privy Council in England. It was not stated in the -proclamation, but it was embodied in the governors’ instructions, -that until General Assemblies could be constituted, the governors, -with the advice of their councils, were to make rules and -regulations for peace, order, and good government, all matters -being reserved ‘that shall any ways tend to affect the life, limb, -or liberty of the subject, or to the imposing any duties or taxes’. - -[Sidenote: The Western territories.] - -In June, 1762, James Murray, then military governor of the district -of Quebec, and subsequently the first civil governor of the -province, wrote that it was impossible to ascertain exactly what -part of North America the French styled Canada. In the previous -March General Gage, then military governor of Montreal, had written -that he could not discover ‘that the limits betwixt Louisiana and -Canada were distinctly described, so as to be publicly known’, -but that from the trade which Canadians had carried on under the -authority of their governors, he judged ‘not only the lakes, which -are indisputable, but the whole course of the Mississippi from its -heads to its junction with the Illinois, to have been comprehended -by the French in the government of Canada’. In June, 1763, the -Lords of Trade, when in obedience to the Royal commands they were -considering the terms and the scope of the coming proclamation, -reported that ‘Canada, as possessed and claimed by the French, -consisted of an immense tract of country including as well the -whole lands to the westward indefinitely which was the subject of -their Indian trade, as all that country from the southern bank of -the river St. Lawrence, where they carried on their encroachments’. - -After the Peace of Paris had been signed, the King, through Lord -Egremont, who had succeeded Chatham as Secretary of State for -the southern department, referred the whole subject of his new -colonial possessions to the Lords of Trade. In doing so he called -special attention to the necessity of keeping peace among the North -American Indians--a subject which was shortly to be illustrated by -Pontiac’s war--and to this end he laid stress upon the desirability -of protecting their persons, their property, and their privileges, -and ‘most cautiously guarding against any invasion or occupation -of their hunting lands, the possession of which is to be acquired -by fair purchase only’. The Lords of Trade recommended adoption -of ‘the general proposition of leaving a large tract of country -round the Great Lakes as an Indian country, open to trade, but -not to grants and settlements; the limits of such territory will -be sufficiently ascertained by the bounds to be given to the -governors of Canada and Florida on the north and south, and the -Mississippi on the west; and by the strict directions to be given -to Your Majesty’s several governors of your ancient colonies for -preventing their making any new grants of lands beyond certain -fixed limits to be laid down in the instructions for that purpose’. -Egremont answered that the King demurred to leaving so large a -tract of land without a civil jurisdiction and open, as being -derelict, to possible foreign intrusion; and that, in His opinion, -the commission of the Governor of Canada should include ‘all the -lakes, viz. Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan, and Superior’, and ‘all -the country as far north and west as the limits of the Hudson’s -Bay Company and the Mississippi’. At the same time He cordially -concurred in not permitting grants of lands or settlements in these -regions, which should be ‘for the present left unsettled, for the -Indian tribes to hunt in, but open to a free trade for all the -colonies’. The Lords of Trade were not convinced. They deprecated -annexing this western territory to any colony, and particularly to -Canada, on three grounds: The first was that annexation to Canada -might imply that the British title to these lands was the result -of the late treaty and of the cession of Canada, whereas it rested -on antecedent rights, and it was important not to let the Indians -form a wrong impression on this head by being brought under the -government of the old French province. The second ground was that, -if the Indian territory was annexed to one particular province and -subjected to its laws, that province would have an undue advantage -over the other provinces or colonies in respect to the Indian -trade, which it was the intention of the Crown to leave open as -far as possible to all British subjects. The third objection to -annexing the territory to Canada was that the laws of the province -could not be enforced except by means of garrisons established at -different posts throughout the area, which would necessitate either -that the Governor of Canada should always be commander-in-chief -of the forces in North America, or that there should be constant -friction between the civil governor and the military commanders. -This reasoning prevailed, and the lands which it was contemplated -to reserve for the use of the Indians were not annexed to any -particular colony or assigned to any one colonial government. - -[Sidenote: Provisions for the protection of the Indians.] - -With this great area, covering the present province of Ontario -and the north central states of the American Republic, the -Royal proclamation dealt as follows: ‘Whereas it is just and -reasonable, and essential to our interest, and the security of -our colonies, that the several nations or tribes of Indians, with -whom we are connected, and who live under our protection, should -not be molested or disturbed in the possession of such parts of -our dominions and territories as, not having been ceded to or -purchased by us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their -hunting grounds ... we do further declare it to be our Royal will -and pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our -sovereignty, protection, and dominion, for the use of the said -Indians, all the lands and territories not included within the -limits of our said three new governments, or within the limits of -the territory granted to the Hudson’s Bay Company, as also all -the lands and territories lying to the westward of the sources of -the rivers which fall into the sea from the west and north-west -as aforesaid; and we do hereby strictly forbid, on pain of our -displeasure, all our loving subjects from making any purchases or -settlements whatever, or taking possession of any of the lands -above reserved, without our especial leave and licence for that -purpose first obtained.’ - -Thus North America, outside the recognized limits of the old or -new colonies, was for the time being constituted a great native -reserve; and even within the limits of the colonies it was provided -‘that no private person do presume to make any purchase from the -said Indians of any lands reserved to the said Indians within -those parts of our colonies where we have thought proper to allow -settlement: but that, if at any time any of the said Indians -should be inclined to dispose of the said lands, the same shall -be purchased only for us, in our name, at some public meeting or -assembly of the said Indians, to be held for that purpose by the -governor or commander-in-chief of our colony respectively within -which they shall lie’. Trade with the Indians was to be free and -open to all British subjects, but the traders were to take out -licences, and, while no fees were to be charged for such licences, -the traders were to give security that they would observe any -regulations laid down for the benefit of the trade.[2] - -[Sidenote: Difficulties of the situation.] - -It is impossible to study the correspondence which preceded the -Proclamation of 1763, without recognizing that those who framed -it were anxious to frame a just and liberal policy, but its terms -bear witness to the almost insuperable difficulties which attend -the acquisition of a great borderland of colonization, difficulties -which in a few years’ time were largely responsible for the -American War of Independence. How to administer a new domain with -equity and sound judgement; how to give to new subjects, acquired -by conquest, the privileges enjoyed by the old colonies; how to -reconcile the claims of the old colonies, whose inland borders had -never been demarcated, with the undoubted rights of native races; -how to promote trade and settlement without depriving the Indians -of their heritage;--such were the problems which the British -Government was called upon to face and if possible to solve. The -proclamation was in a few years’ time followed up by the Quebec -Act of 1774, in connexion with which more will be said as to these -thorny questions. In the meantime, even before the proclamation had -been issued, the English had on their hands what was perhaps the -most dangerous and widespread native rising which ever threatened -their race in the New World. - -[Sidenote: French policy in North America.] - -The great French scheme for a North American dominion depended upon -securing control of the waterways and control of the natives. Even -before the dawn of the eighteenth century, Count Frontenac among -governors, La Salle among pioneers, saw clearly the importance -of gaining the West and the ways to the West; and they realized -that, in order to attain that object, the narrows on the inland -waters, and the portages from one lake or river to another, must -be commanded; that the Indians who were hostile to France must be -subdued, and that the larger number of red men, who liked French -ways and French leadership, must be given permanent evidence of the -value of French protection and the strength of French statesmanship. - -[Sidenote: The French posts in the West.] - -Along the line of lakes and rivers in course of years French -forts were placed. Fort Frontenac, first founded in 1673 by the -great French governor whose name it bore, guarded, on the site -of the present city of Kingston, the outlet of the St. Lawrence -from Lake Ontario. Fort Niagara, begun by La Salle in the winter -of 1678-9, on the eastern bank of the Niagara river, near its -entrance into Lake Ontario, covered the portage from that lake -to Lake Erie. Fort Detroit, dating from the first years of the -eighteenth century, stood by the river which carries the waters of -Lake Huron and Lake St. Clair into Lake Erie. Its founder was La -Mothe Cadillac. The post at Michillimackinac was at the entrance of -Lake Michigan. From Lake Erie to the Ohio were two lines of forts. -The main line began with Presque Isle on the southern shore of the -lake, and ended with Fort Duquesne, afterwards renamed Pittsburg, -the intermediate posts being Fort Le Bœuf at the head of French -Creek, and Venango where that stream joins the Alleghany. Further -west, past the intermediate fort of Sandusky, which stood on the -southern shore of Lake Erie, there was a second series of outposts, -of which we hear little in the course of the Seven Years’ War. The -Maumee river flows into the south-western end of Lake Erie, and on -it, at a point where there was a portage to the Wabash river, was -constructed Fort Miami, on or near the site of the later American -Fort Wayne. On the Wabash, which joins the Ohio not very far above -the confluence of the latter river with the Mississippi, were -two French posts, Fort Ouatanon and, lower down its course, Fort -Vincennes. On the central Mississippi the chief nucleus of French -trade and influence was Fort Chartres. It stood on the eastern -bank of the river, eighty to ninety miles above the confluence -of the Ohio, and but a few miles north of the point where the -Kaskaskia river flows into the Mississippi. On the Kaskaskia, among -the Illinois Indians, there was a French outpost, and settlement -fringed the eastern side of the Mississippi northwards to Fort -Chartres. Above that fort there was a road running north on the -same side to Cahokia, a little below and on the opposite side -to the confluence of the Missouri; and in 1763 a French settler -crossed the Mississippi, and opened a store on the site of the -present city of St. Louis. The posts on the Mississippi were, both -for trading and for political purposes, connected with Louisiana -rather than with Canada; and, though the Peace of Paris had ceded -to Great Britain the soil on which they stood, the French had not -been disturbed by any assertion of British sovereignty prior to the -war which is associated with the name of the Indian chief Pontiac. - -[Sidenote: The rising of Pontiac.] - -[Sidenote: Its special characteristics.] - -The rising which Pontiac headed came too late for the Indians to be -permanently successful. In any case it could have had, eventually, -but one ending, the overthrow of the red men: but, while it lasted, -it seriously delayed the consolidation of English authority over -the West. After most wars of conquest there supervene minor wars -or rebellions, waves of the receding tide when high-water is past, -disturbances due to local mismanagement and local discontent; but -the Indian war, which began in 1763, had special characteristics. -In the first place, the rising was entirely a native revolt. No -doubt it was fomented by malcontent French traders and settlers, -disseminating tales of English iniquities and raising hopes of a -French revival; but very few Frenchmen were to be found in the -fighting line; the warriors were red men, not white. In the second -place it was a rising of the Western Indians, of the tribes who -had not known in any measure the strength of the English, and who -had known, more as friends than as subjects, the guidance and the -spirit of the French. Of the Six Nations, the Senecas alone, the -westernmost members of the Iroquois Confederacy, joined in the -struggle, and the centre of disturbance was further west. In the -third place the rising was more carefully planned, the conception -was more statesmanlike, the action was more organized, than has -usually been the case among savage races. There was unity of plan -and harmony in action, which betokened leadership of no ordinary -kind. The leader was the Ottawa chief Pontiac. - -[Sidenote: Indian suspicions of the English.] - -‘When the Indian nations saw the French power, as it were, -annihilated in North America, they began to imagine that they ought -to have made greater and earlier efforts in their favour. The -Indians had not been for a long time so jealous of them as they -were of us. The French seemed more intent on trade than settlement. -Finding themselves infinitely weaker than the English, they -supplied, as well as they could, the place of strength by policy, -and paid a much more flattering and systematic attention to the -Indians than we had ever done. Our superiority in this war rendered -our regard to this people still less, which had always been too -little.’[3] The Indians were frightened too, says the same writer, -by the English possession of the chains of forts: ‘they beheld -in every little garrison the germ of a future colony.’ Ripe for -revolt, and never yet subdued, as their countrymen further east had -been, they found a strong man of their own race to lead them, and -tried conclusions with the dominant white race in North America. - -[Sidenote: Rogers’ mission to Detroit.] - -In the autumn of 1760, after the capitulation of Montreal, General -Amherst sent Major Robert Rogers, the New Hampshire Ranger, to -receive the submission of the French forts on the further lakes. On -the 13th of September Rogers embarked at Montreal with two hundred -of his men: he made his way up the St. Lawrence, and coasted the -northern shore of Lake Ontario, noting, as he went, that Toronto, -where the French had held Fort Rouillé, was ‘a most convenient -place for a factory, and that from thence we may very easily settle -the north side of Lake Erie’.[4] He crossed the upper end of Lake -Ontario to Fort Niagara, already in British possession; and, having -taken up supplies, carried his whale boats round the falls and -launched them on Lake Erie. Along the southern side of that lake -he went forward to Presque Isle, where Bouquet was in command of -the English garrison; and, leaving his men, he went himself down by -Fort le Bœuf, the French Creek river, and Venango to Fort Pitt, -or Pittsburg, as Fort Duquesne had been renamed by John Forbes in -honour of Chatham. His instructions were to carry dispatches to -General Monckton at Pittsburg, and to take orders from him for a -further advance. Returning to Presque Isle at the end of October, -he went westward along Lake Erie, making for Detroit. No English -force had yet been in evidence so far to the West. On the 7th of -November he encamped on the southern shore of Lake Erie, at a point -near the site of the present city of Cleveland, and there he was -met by a party of Ottawa Indians ‘just arrived from Detroit’.[5] - -[Sidenote: His meeting with Pontiac.] - -[Sidenote: Surrender of Detroit to the English.] - -They came, as Rogers tells us in another book,[6] on an embassy -from Pontiac, and were immediately followed by that chief -himself. Pontiac’s personality seems to have impressed the white -backwoodsman, though he had seen and known all sorts and conditions -of North American Indians. ‘I had several conferences with him,’ -he writes, ‘in which he discovered great strength of judgement and -a thirst after knowledge.’ Pontiac took up the position of being -‘King and Lord of the country’, and challenged Rogers and his men -as intruders into his land; but he intimated that he would be -prepared to live peaceably with the English, as a subordinate not -a conquered potentate; and the result of the meeting was that the -Rangers were supplied with fresh provisions and were escorted in -safety on their way, instead of being obstructed and attacked, as -had been contemplated, at the entrance of the Detroit river. On the -12th of November Rogers set out again; on the 19th he sent on an -officer in advance with a letter to Belêtre, the French commander -at Detroit, informing him of the capitulation of Montreal and -calling upon him to deliver up the fort. On the 29th of November -the English force landed half a mile below the fort, and on the -same day the French garrison laid down their arms. Seven hundred -Indians were present; and, when they saw the French colours hauled -down and the English flag take their place, unstable as water and -ever siding at the moment with the stronger party, they shouted -that ‘they would always for the future fight for a nation thus -favoured by Him that made the world’.[7] - -[Sidenote: Detroit.] - -There were at the time, Rogers tells us,[8] about 2,500 -French Canadians settled in the neighbourhood of Detroit. The -dwelling-houses, near 300 in number, extended on both sides of the -river for about eight miles. The land was good for grazing and for -agriculture, and there was a ‘very large and lucrative’ trade with -the Indians. - -[Sidenote: Return of Rogers.] - -[Sidenote: Michillimackinac occupied by the English.] - -Having sent the French garrison down to Philadelphia, and -established an English garrison in its place, Rogers sent a small -party to take over Fort Miami on the Maumee river, and set out -himself with another detachment for Michillimackinac. But it was -now the middle of December; floating ice made navigation of Lake -Huron dangerous; after a vain attempt to reach Michillimackinac he -returned to Detroit on the 21st of December; and, marching overland -to the Ohio and to Philadelphia, he finally reached New York on the -14th of February, 1761. In the autumn of that year a detachment of -Royal Americans took possession of Michillimackinac. - -[Sidenote: Indian discontent.] - -Throughout 1761 and 1762 the discontent of the Indians increased; -they saw the English officers and soldiers in their midst in -strength and pride; they listened to the tales of the French -voyageurs; they remembered French friendship and address, and -contrasted it with the grasping rudeness of the English trader or -colonist; a native prophet rose up to call the red men back to -savagery, as the one road to salvation; and influenced at once by -superstition and by the present fear of losing their lands, the -tribes of the West made ready to fight. - -[Sidenote: The fort at Detroit.] - -[Sidenote: Major Gladwin.] - -For months the call to war had secretly been passing from tribe -to tribe, and from village to village; and on the 27th of April, -1763, Pontiac held a council of Indians at the little river Ecorces -some miles to the south of Detroit, at which it was determined -to attack the fort. Fort Detroit stood on the western side of -the Detroit river, which runs from Lake St. Clair to Lake Erie, -at about five miles distance from the former lake and a little -over twenty miles from Lake Erie. The river is at its narrowest -point more than half a mile wide, and, as already stated, Canadian -settlement fringed both banks. The fort, which stood a little -back from the bank of the river, consisted of a square enclosure -surrounded by a wooden palisade, with bastions and block-houses -also of wood, and within the palisade was a small town with -barracks, council house, and church. The garrison consisted of -about 120 soldiers belonging to the 39th Regiment; and, in addition -to the ordinary Canadian residents within the town, there were some -40 fur-traders present at the time, most of whom were French. The -commander was a determined man, Major Gladwin, who, under Braddock -on the Monongahela river, had seen the worst of Indian fighting. -Before April ended Gladwin reported to Amherst that there was -danger of an Indian outbreak; and, when the crisis came, warned -either by Indians or by Canadians, he was prepared for it. For -some, at any rate, of the Canadians at Detroit, though they had no -love for the English, and though Pontiac was moving in the name of -the French king, were men of substance and had something to lose. -They were therefore not inclined to side with the red men against -the white, or to lend themselves to extermination of the English -garrison. - -[Sidenote: Pontiac’s attempt to surprise the garrison.] - -[Sidenote: The fort openly attacked.] - -On the 1st of May Pontiac and forty of his men came into the -fort on an outwardly friendly visit, and took stock of the ways -of attack and the means of defence. Then a few days passed in -preparing for the blow. A party of 60 warriors were once more to -gain admittance, hiding under their blankets guns whose barrels -had been filed down for the purpose of concealment: they were to -hold a council with the English officers, and at a given signal -to shoot them down. The 7th of May was the day fixed for the deed, -but Gladwin was forewarned and forearmed. The Indian chiefs were -admitted to the fort, and attended the council; but they found -the garrison under arms, and their plot discovered. Both sides -dissembled, and the Indians were allowed to leave, disconcerted, -but saved for further mischief. On the 9th of May they again -applied to be admitted to the fort, but this time were refused, -and open warfare began. Two or three English, who were outside -the palisade at the time, were murdered, and on the 10th, for six -hours, the savages attacked the fort with no success. - -[Sidenote: Siege of Detroit.] - -There was little danger that Detroit would be taken by assault, -but there was danger of the garrison being starved out. Gladwin, -therefore, tried negotiation with Pontiac, and using French -Canadians as intermediaries, sent two English officers with them to -the Indian camp. The two Englishmen, one of them Captain Campbell, -an old officer of high character and repute, were kept as captives, -and Campbell was subsequently murdered. The surrender of the fort -was then demanded by Pontiac, a demand which was at once refused; -and against the wishes of his officers Gladwin determined to -hold the post at all costs. Supplies were brought in by night by -friendly Canadians, and all immediate danger of starvation passed -away. - -[Sidenote: British convoy cut off.] - -Amherst, the commander-in-chief, far away at New York, had not -yet learnt of the peril of Detroit or of the nature and extent -of the Indian rising, but in the ordinary course in the month -of May supplies were being sent up for the western garrisons. -The convoy intended for Detroit left Niagara on the 13th of that -month, in charge of Lieutenant Cuyler with 96 men. Coasting along -the northern shore of Lake Erie, Cuyler, towards the end of the -month, reached a point near the outlet of the Detroit river, -and there drew up his boats on the shore. Before an encampment -could be formed the Indians broke in upon the English, who fled -panic-stricken to the boats; only two boats escaped, and between -50 and 60 men out of the total number of 96 were killed or taken. -The survivors, Cuyler himself among them, made their way across -the lake to Fort Sandusky, only to find that it had been burnt to -the ground, thence to Presque Isle, which was shortly to share the -fate of Sandusky, and eventually to Niagara. The prisoners were -carried off by their Indian captors, up the Detroit river; two -escaped to the fort to tell the tale of disaster, but the majority -were butchered with all the nameless tortures which North American -savages could devise. - -[Sidenote: Destruction of the Western outposts by the Indians.] - -[Sidenote: They take Michillimackinac.] - -While Detroit was being besieged, at other points in the West -one disaster followed another. Isolated from each other, weakly -garrisoned, commanded, in some instances, by officers of -insufficient experience or wanting in determination, the forts -fell fast. On the 16th of May Sandusky was blotted out; on the -25th Fort St. Joseph, at the south-eastern end of Lake Michigan, -was taken; and on the 27th Fort Miami, on the Maumee river. Fort -Ouatanon on the Wabash was taken on the 1st of June; and on the -4th of that month the Ojibwa Indians overpowered the garrison -of Michillimackinac, second in importance to Detroit. Captain -Etherington, the commander at Michillimackinac, knew nothing of -what was passing elsewhere, though he had been warned of coming -danger, and he lost the fort through an Indian stratagem. The -English were invited outside the palisades to see an Indian game of -ball; and, while the onlookers were off their guard, and the gates -of the fort stood open, the players turned into warriors; some of -the garrison and of the English traders were murdered, and the rest -were made prisoners. The massacre, however, was not wholesale. -Native jealousy gave protectors to the English survivors in a -tribe of Ottawas who dwelt near: a French Jesuit priest used every -effort to save their lives; and eventually the survivors, among -whom was Etherington, were, with the garrison of a neighbouring and -subordinate post at Green Bay, sent down in safety to Montreal by -the route of the Ottawa river. - -[Sidenote: Fort Pitt isolated.] - -Next came the turn of the forts which connected Lake Erie with -the Ohio. On the 15th of June Presque Isle was attacked; on the -17th it surrendered. It was a strong fort, and in the opinion of -Bouquet--a competent judge--its commander, Ensign Christie, showed -little stubbornness in defence. Fort le Bœuf fell on the 18th, -Venango about the same date, and communication between the lakes -and Fort Pitt was thus cut off. Fort Pitt itself was threatened by -the Indians, and towards the end of July openly attacked, while -on Forbes’ and Bouquet’s old route from that fort to Bedford in -Pennsylvania, Fort Ligonier was also at an earlier date assailed, -though fortunately without success. - -[Sidenote: Dalyell sent to the relief of Detroit.] - -[Sidenote: The fight at Parents Creek.] - -[Sidenote: Death of Dalyell.] - -Amherst now realized the gravity of the crisis, and his first care -was the relief of Detroit. A force of 280 men, commanded by Captain -Dalyell, one of his aides de camp, and including Robert Rogers -with 20 Rangers, was sent up from Niagara, ascended on the 29th of -July the Detroit river by night, and reached the fort in safety. -Long experience in North American warfare had taught the lesson -which Wolfe always preached, that the English should, whenever and -wherever it was possible, take the offensive. Accordingly Dalyell -urged Gladwin, against the latter’s better judgement, to allow him -to attack Pontiac at once; and before daybreak, on the morning -of the 31st, he led out about 250 men for the purpose. Less than -two miles north-east of the fort, a little stream, then known as -Parents Creek and after the fight as Bloody Run, ran into the -main river; and beyond it was Pontiac’s encampment, which Dalyell -proposed to surprise. Unfortunately the Indians were fully informed -of the intended movement, and there ensued one more of the many -disasters which marked the onward path of the white men in North -America. The night was dark: the English advance took them among -enclosures and farm buildings, which gave the Indians cover. As -the leading soldiers were crossing the creek they were attacked -by invisible foes; and, when compelled to retreat, the force was -beset on all sides and ran the risk of being cut off from the -fort. Dalyell[9] was shot dead; and, before the fort was reached, -the English had lost one-fourth of their whole number in killed -and wounded. The survivors owed their safety to the steadiness of -the officers, to the fact that Rogers and his men seized and held -a farmhouse to cover the retreat, and to the co-operation of two -armed boats, which moved up and down the river parallel to the -advance and retreat, bringing off the dead and wounded, and pouring -a fire from the flank among the Indians. - -Pontiac had achieved a notable success, but Detroit remained safe, -and meanwhile in another quarter the tide set against the Indian -cause. - -[Sidenote: Fort Pitt.] - -After General Forbes, in the late autumn of 1758, had taken Fort -Duquesne, a new English fort, Fort Pitt, was in the following year -built by General Stanwix upon the site of the French stronghold. -The place was, as it had always been, the key of the Ohio valley, -and on the maintenance of the fort depended at once the safety of -the borderlands of Virginia and Pennsylvania, and the possibility -of extending trade among the Indian tribes of the Ohio. In July, -1763, Fort Pitt was in a critical position. The posts which -connected it with Lake Erie had been destroyed: the road which -Forbes had cut through Pennsylvania on his memorable march was -obstructed by Indians; and the outlying post along it, Fort -Ligonier, about fifty-five miles east of Fort Pitt, was, like Fort -Pitt itself, in a state of siege. The Indians were, as in the dark -days after Braddock’s disaster, harrying the outlying homesteads -and settlements, and once more the colonies were exhibiting to -the full their incapacity for self-defence, or rather, the -indifference of the residents in the towns to the safety of their -fellows who lived in the backwoods. - -[Sidenote: The route to Fort Pitt.] - -Forbes’ road to Fort Pitt ran for nearly 100 miles from Bedford -or Raestown, as it had earlier been called, in a direction rather -north of west, across the Alleghany Mountains and the Laurel Hills. -The intermediate post, Fort Ligonier, stood at a place which had -been known in Forbes’ time as Loyalhannon, rather nearer to Bedford -than to Fort Pitt. Bedford itself was about thirty miles north of -Fort Cumberland on Wills Creek, which Braddock had selected for the -starting-point of his more southerly march. It marked the limit of -settlement, and 100 miles separated it from the town of Carlisle, -which lay due east, in the direction of the long-settled parts of -Pennsylvania. - -[Sidenote: Insecurity of the frontier.] - -[Sidenote: Difficulties with the Pennsylvanian legislature.] - -There was no security in the year 1763 for the dwellers between -Bedford and Carlisle: ‘Every tree is become an Indian for the -terrified inhabitants,’ wrote Bouquet to Amherst from Carlisle -on the 29th of June.[10] Pennsylvania raised 700 men to protect -the farmers while gathering their harvest, but no representations -of Amherst would induce the cross-grained Legislature to place -them under his command, to allow them to be used for offensive -purposes, or even for garrison duty. The very few regular troops -in the country were therefore required to hold the forts, as well -as to carry out any expedition which the commander-in-chief might -think necessary. A letter from one of Amherst’s officers, Colonel -Robertson, written to Bouquet on the 19th of April, 1763, relates -how all the arguments addressed to the Quaker-ridden government had -been in vain, concluding with the words ‘I never saw any man so -determined in the right as these people are in their absurdly wrong -resolve’;[11] and in his answer Bouquet speaks bitterly of being -‘utterly abandoned by the very people I am ordered to protect’.[11] - -[Sidenote: Henry Bouquet.] - -Henry Bouquet had reason to be bitter. He had rendered invaluable -service to Pennsylvania and Virginia, when under Forbes he had -driven the French from the Ohio valley. The colonies concerned -had been backward then, they were now more wrong-headed than -ever, and this at a time when the English army in America was -sadly attenuated in numbers. All depended upon one or two men, -principally upon Bouquet himself. Born in Canton Berne, he was -one of the Swiss officers who were given commissions in the Royal -American Regiment, the ancestors of the King’s Royal Rifles, -another being Captain Ecuyer, who was at this time commander at -Fort Pitt. Bouquet was now in his forty-fourth year, a resolute, -high-minded man, a tried soldier, and second to none in knowledge -of American border fighting. In the spring of 1763 he was at -Philadelphia, when Amherst, still holding supreme command in North -America, ordered him to march to the relief of Fort Pitt, while -Dalyell was sent along the lakes to bring succour to Detroit. -At the end of June Bouquet was at Carlisle, collecting troops, -transport, and provisions for his expedition; on the 3rd of July -he heard the bad news of the loss of the forts at Presque Isle, Le -Bœuf, and Venango; on the 25th of July he reached Bedford. - -[Sidenote: He marches to the relief of Fort Pitt.] - -He had a difficult and dangerous task before him. The rough road -through the forest and over the mountains had been broken up by -bad weather in the previous winter, and the temporary bridges had -been swept away. His fighting men did not exceed 500, Highlanders -of the 42nd and 77th Regiments, and Royal Americans. The force -was far too small for the enterprise, and the commander wrote of -the disadvantage which he suffered from want of men used to the -woods, noting that the Highlanders invariably lost themselves when -employed as scouts, and that he was therefore compelled to try and -secure 30 woodsmen for scouting purposes.[12] - -[Sidenote: The fight at Edgehill.] - -On the 2nd of August he reached Fort Ligonier, and there, as on -the former expedition, he left his heavy transport, moving forward -on the 4th with his little army on a march of over fifty miles to -Fort Pitt. On that day he advanced twelve miles. On the 5th of -August he intended to reach a stream known as Bushy Creek or Bushy -Run, nineteen miles distant. Seventeen miles had been passed by -midday in the hot summer weather, when at one o’clock, at a place -which in his dispatch he called Edgehill, the advanced guard was -attacked by Indians. The attack increased in severity, the flanks -of the force and the convoy in the rear were threatened, the troops -were drawn back to protect the convoy, and circling round it they -held the enemy at bay till nightfall, when they were forced to -encamp where they stood, having lost 60 men in killed and wounded, -and, worst of all, being in total want of water. Bravely Bouquet -wrote to Amherst that night, but the terms of the dispatch told his -anxiety for the morrow. At daybreak the Indians fell again upon -the wearied, thirsty ring of troops: for some hours the fight went -on, and a repetition of Braddock’s overthrow seemed inevitable. -At length Bouquet tried a stratagem. Drawing back the two front -companies of the circle, he pretended to cover their retreat with -a scanty line, and lured the Indians on in mass, impatient of -victorious butchery. Just as they were breaking the circle, the -men who had been brought back and had unperceived crept round in -the woods, gave a point blank fire at close quarters into the -yelling crowd, and followed it with the bayonet. Falling back, -the Indians came under similar fire and a similar charge from two -other companies who waited them in ambush, and leaving the ground -strewn with corpses the red men broke and fled. Litters were then -made for the wounded: such provisions as could not be carried were -destroyed; and at length the sorely tried English reached the -stream of Bushy Run. Even there the enemy attempted to molest them, -but were easily dispersed by the light infantry. - -[Sidenote: Victory of the English and relief of Fort Pitt.] - -The victory had been won, but hardly won. The casualties in the -two days’ fighting numbered 115. That the whole force was not -exterminated was due to the extraordinary steadiness of the troops, -notably the Highlanders, and to the resolute self-possession of -their leader. ‘Never found my head so clear as that day,’ wrote -Bouquet to a friend some weeks later, ‘and such ready and cheerful -compliance to all the necessary orders.’[13] On the 10th of August -the expedition reached Fort Pitt without further fighting, and -relieved the garrison, whose defence of the post had merited the -efforts made for their rescue. - -[Sidenote: Importance of Bouquet’s victory.] - -Bouquet’s battles at Edgehill were small in the number of troops -employed, and were fought far away in the American backwoods. They -attracted little notice in England--to judge from Horace Walpole’s -contemptuous reference to ‘half a dozen battles in miniature with -the Indians in America’;[14] but none the less they were of vital -importance. Attacking with every advantage on their side, with -superiority of numbers, in summer heat, among their own woods, -the Indians had been signally defeated, and among the dead were -some of their best fighting chiefs. In Bouquet’s words, ‘the most -warlike of the savage tribes have lost their boasted claim of -being invincible in the woods;’[15] and he continued to urge the -necessity of reinforcements in order to follow up the blow and -carry the warfare into the enemy’s country. But the colonies did -not answer, the war dragged on, and at the beginning of October -Bouquet had the mortification of hearing of a British reverse at -Niagara. - -[Sidenote: British reverse at Niagara.] - -[Sidenote: Ending of the siege of Detroit.] - -[Sidenote: Amherst succeeded by Gage.] - -The date was the 14th of September, and the Indians concerned -were the Senecas, who alone among the Six Nations took part in -Pontiac’s rising. A small escort convoying empty wagons from the -landing above the falls to the fort below was attacked and cut -off; and two companies sent to their rescue from the lower landing -were ambushed at the same spot, the ‘Devil’s Hole’, where the path -ran by the precipice below the falls. Over 80 men were killed, -including all the officers, and 20 men alone remained unhurt. Nor -was this the end of disasters on the lakes. In November a strong -force from Niagara, destined for Detroit, started along Lake Erie -in a fleet of boats; a storm came on: the fleet was wrecked: many -lives were lost: and the shattered remnant gave up the expedition -and returned to Niagara. Detroit, however, was now safe. When -October came, various causes induced the Indians to desist from -the siege. The approach of winter warned them to scatter in search -of food: the news of Bouquet’s victory had due effect, and so had -information of the coming expedition from Niagara, which had not -yet miscarried. Most of all, Pontiac learnt by letter from the -French commander at Fort Chartres that no help could be expected -from France. Accordingly, in the middle of October, Pontiac’s -allies made a truce with Gladwin, which enabled the latter to -replenish his slender stock of supplies; at the end of the month -Pontiac himself made overtures of peace: and the month of November -found the long-beleaguered fort comparatively free of foes. In -that same month Amherst returned to England, being succeeded as -commander-in-chief by General Gage, who had been Governor of -Montreal. - -[Sidenote: Plan of campaign for 1764.] - -Before Amherst left he had planned a campaign for the coming year. -Colonel Bradstreet was to take a strong force along the line of the -lakes, and harry the recalcitrant Indians to the south and west -of that route, as far as they could be reached, while Bouquet was -to advance from Fort Pitt into the centre of the Ohio valley, and -bring to terms the Delawares and kindred tribes, who had infested -the borders of the southern colonies. - -[Sidenote: Bradstreet.] - -Colonel John Bradstreet had gained high repute by his -well-conceived and well-executed capture of Fort Frontenac in the -year 1758--a feat which earned warm commendation from Wolfe. He -was regarded as among the best of the colonial officers, and as -well fitted to carry war actively and aggressively into the enemy’s -country. In this he conspicuously failed: he proved himself to be -a vain and headstrong man, and was found wanting when left to act -far from head quarters upon his own responsibility. In June, 1764, -he started from Albany, and made his way by the old route of the -Mohawk river and Oswego to Fort Niagara, encamping at Niagara in -July. His force seems to have eventually numbered nearly 2,000 -men, one half of whom consisted of levies from New York and New -England, in addition to 300 Canadians. The latter were included in -the expedition in order to disabuse the minds of the Indians of any -idea that they were being supported by the French population of -North America. - -[Sidenote: Indian conference at Niagara.] - -Before the troops left Niagara, a great conference of Indians was -held there by Sir William Johnson, who arrived early in July. -From all parts they came, except Pontiac’s own following and the -Delawares and Shawanoes of the Ohio valley. Even the Senecas were -induced by threats to make an appearance, delivered up a handful of -prisoners, bound themselves over to keep peace with the English in -future, and ceded in perpetuity to the Crown a strip of land four -miles wide on both sides of the Niagara river. About a month passed -in councils and speeches; on the 6th of August Johnson went back to -Oswego, and on the 8th Bradstreet went on his way. - -[Sidenote: Bradstreet’s abortive expedition.] - -His instructions were explicit, to advance into the Indian -territory, and, co-operating with Bouquet’s movements, to reduce -the tribes to submission by presence in force. Those instructions -he did not carry out. Near Presque Isle, on the 12th of August, -he was met by Indians who purported to be delegates from the -Delawares and Shawanoes: and, accepting their assurances, he -engaged not to attack them for twenty-five days when, on his -return from Detroit, they were to meet him at Sandusky, hand over -prisoners, and conclude a final peace. He went on to Sandusky a few -days later, where messengers of the Wyandots met him with similar -protestations, and were bidden to follow him to Detroit, and there -make a treaty. He then embarked for Detroit, leaving the hostile -tribes unmolested and his work unaccomplished. From Sandusky he had -sent an officer, Captain Morris, with orders to ascend the Maumee -river to Fort Miami, no longer garrisoned, and thence to pass on to -the Illinois country. Morris started on his mission, came across -Pontiac on the Maumee, found war not peace, and, barely escaping -with his life, reached Detroit on the 17th of September, when -Bradstreet had already come and gone. - -Towards the end of August Bradstreet reached Detroit. He held a -council of Indians, at which the Sandusky Wyandots were present, -and, having proclaimed in some sort British supremacy, thought he -had put an end to the war. The substantive effect of his expedition -was that he released Gladwin and his men, placing a new garrison -in the fort, and sent a detachment to re-occupy the posts at -Michillimackinac, Green Bay, and Sault St. Marie. He then retraced -his steps to Sandusky. Here the Delawares, with whom he had made a -provisional treaty at Presque Isle, were to meet him and complete -their submission; and here he realized that Indian diplomacy had -been cleverer than his own. Only a few emissaries came to the -meeting-place with excuses for further delay, and meanwhile he -received a message from General Gage strongly disapproving his -action and ordering an immediate advance against the tribes, whom -he had represented as brought to submission. He made no advance, -loitered a while where he was, and finally came back to Niagara at -the beginning of November after a disastrous storm on Lake Erie, a -discredited commander, with a disappointed following. - -[Sidenote: Bouquet’s operations.] - -If Bradstreet had any excuse for failure, it was that he did not -know the temper of the Western Indians, and had not before his eyes -perpetual evidence of their ferocity and their guile. Bouquet knew -them well, and great was his indignation at the other commander’s -ignorance or folly. After the relief of Fort Pitt in the preceding -autumn he had gone back to Philadelphia, and throughout the spring -and summer of 1764 was busy with preparations for a new campaign. -On the 18th of September he was back at Fort Pitt, ready for -a westward advance, with a strong force suitable for the work -which lay before him. He had with him 500 regulars, mostly the -seasoned men who had fought at Edgehill. Pennsylvania, roused at -last to the necessity of vigorous action, had sent 1,000 men to -join the expedition; and, though of these last a considerable -number deserted on the route to Fort Pitt, 700 remained and were -supplemented by over 200 Virginians. In the first days of October -the advance from Fort Pitt began, the troops crossed the Ohio, -followed its banks in a north-westerly direction to the Beaver -Creek, crossed that river, and, marching westward through the -forests, reached in the middle of the month the valley of the -Muskingum river, near a deserted Indian village known as Tuscarawa -or Tuscaroras. Bouquet was now within striking distance of the -Delawares and the other Indian tribes who had so long terrorized -the borderlands of the southern colonies. Near Tuscarawa Indian -deputies met him, and were ordered--as a preliminary to peace--to -deliver up within twelve days all the prisoners in their hands. - -[Sidenote: Submission of the Western Indians.] - -The spot fixed for the purpose was the junction of the two main -branches of the Muskingum, forty miles distant to the south-west, -forty miles nearer the centre of the Indians’ homes. To that -place the troops marched on, strong in their own efficiency and -in the personality of their leader, although news had come that -Bradstreet, who was to threaten the Indians from Sandusky, was -retreating homewards to Niagara. At the Forks of the Muskingum -an encampment was made, and there at length, at the beginning of -November, the red men brought back their captives. The work was -fully done: north to Sandusky, and to the Shawano villages far -to the west, Bouquet’s messengers were sent; the Indians saw the -white men in their midst ready to strike hard, and they accepted -the inevitable. The tribes which could not at the time make full -restoration gave hostages of their chiefs, and hostages too were -taken for the future consummation of peace, the exact terms of -which were left to be decided and were shortly after arranged by -Sir William Johnson. With these pledges of obedience, and with the -restored captives, Bouquet retraced his steps, and reached Fort -Pitt again on the 28th of November. - -[Sidenote: Bouquet’s success.] - -[Sidenote: His death.] - -He had achieved a great victory, bloodless but complete; and at -length the colonies realized what he had done. A vote of thanks to -him was passed by the Pennsylvanian Assembly in no grudging terms. -The Virginians, too, thanked him, but with rare meanness tried to -burden him with the pay of the Virginian volunteers, who had served -in the late expedition. This charge Pennsylvania took upon itself, -more liberal than the sister colony; and the Imperial Government -showed itself not unmindful of services rendered, for, foreigner -as he was, Bouquet was promoted to be a brigadier-general in the -British army. He was appointed to command the troops in Florida, -and died at Pensacola in September, 1765, leaving behind him the -memory of a most competent soldier, and a loyal, honourable man. - -[Sidenote: The Illinois country and the Mississippi.] - -[Sidenote: British occupation of Fort Chartres.] - -Beyond the scene of Bouquet’s operations--further still to the -west--lay the Illinois country and the settlements on the eastern -bank of the Mississippi. Ceded to Great Britain by the Treaty of -1763, they were still without visible sign of British sovereignty; -and, when the year 1764 closed, Pontiac’s name and influence was -all powerful among the Indians of these regions, while the French -flag still flew at Fort Chartres. By the treaty, the navigation -of the Mississippi was left open to both French and English; and -in the spring of 1764 an English officer from Florida had been -dispatched to ascend the river from New Orleans, and take over the -ceded forts. The officer in question--Major Loftus--started towards -the end of February, and, after making his way for some distance -up-stream, was attacked by Indians and forced to retrace his steps. -Whether or not the attack was instigated by the French, it is -certain that Loftus received little help or encouragement from the -French commander at New Orleans, and it is equally certain that -trading jealousy threw every obstacle in the way of the English -advance into the Mississippi valley. It was not until the autumn -of 1765 that 100 Highlanders of the 42nd Regiment made their way -safely down the Ohio, and finally took Fort Chartres into British -keeping. - -[Sidenote: Croghan’s mission.] - -The way had been opened earlier in the year by Croghan, one of Sir -William Johnson’s officers, who in the summer months went westward -down the Ohio to remind the tribes of the pledges given to Bouquet, -and to quicken their fulfilment. He reached the confluence of the -Wabash river, and a few miles lower down was attacked by a band of -savages, who afterwards veered round to peace and conducted him, -half guest, half prisoner, to Vincennes and Ouatanon, the posts on -the Wabash. Near Ouatanon he met Pontiac, was followed by him to -Detroit, where it was arranged that a final meeting to conclude -a final peace should be held at Oswego in the coming year. The -meeting took place in July, 1766, under the unrivalled guidance of -Sir William Johnson, and with it came the end of the Indian war. - -[Sidenote: End of the Indian war and death of Pontiac.] - -The one hope for the confederate Indians had been help from -the French. Slowly and reluctantly they had been driven to the -conclusion that such help would not be forthcoming, and that for -France the sun had set in the far west of North America. Pontiac -himself gave in his submission to the English; he took their King -for his father, and, when he was killed in an Indian brawl on the -Mississippi in 1769, the red men’s vision of independence or of -sovereignty in their native backwoods faded away. The two leading -white races in North America, French and English, had fought it -out; there followed the Indian rising against the victors; and soon -was to come the almost equally inevitable struggle between the -British colonists, set free from dread of Frenchman or of Indian, -and the dominating motherland of their race. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1] The _Annual Register_ for 1763, p. 19, identified the St. John -river with the Saguenay, and the mistake was long perpetuated. - -[2] All the quotations made in the preceding pages are taken from -the _Documents relating to the Constitutional History of Canada -1759-1791_, selected and edited by Messrs. Shortt and Doughty, 1907. - -[3] _Annual Register_ for 1763, p. 22. - -[4] _Journals of Major Robert Rogers_, London, 1765, p. 207. - -[5] _Journals of Major Robert Rogers_, London, 1765, p. 214. - -[6] _A Concise Account of North America_, by Major Robert Rogers, -London, 1765, pp. 240-4. - -[7] _Rogers’ Journals_, p. 229. - -[8] _A Concise Account of North America_, p. 168. - -[9] Dalyell seems to have been a good officer. Bouquet on hearing -of his death about two months’ later wrote, ‘The death of my good -old friend Dalyell affects me sensibly. It is a public loss. -There are few men like him.’ Bouquet to Rev. M. Peters, Fort -Pitt, September 30, 1763. See Mr. Brymner’s _Report on Canadian -Archives_, 1889, Note D, p. 70. - -[10] Brymner’s Report on _Canadian Archives_, 1889, note D, p. 59. - -[11] Ibid., Note D, pp. 60, 62. - -[12] Bouquet to Amherst, July 26, 1763: _Canadian Archives_, as -above, pp. 61-2. - -[13] Bouquet to Rev. Mr. Peters, September 30, 1763: _Canadian -Archives_, as above, p. 70. - -[14] ‘There have been half a dozen battles in miniature with the -Indians in America. It looked so odd to see a list of killed and -wounded just treading on the heels of the Peace.’ Letter of October -17 and 18, 1763, to Sir Horace Mann. - -[15] Bouquet to Hamilton, Governor of Pennsylvania, Fort Pitt, -August 11, 1763: _Canadian Archives_, as above, p. 66. - - - - -CHAPTER II - -CAUSES OF THE AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE QUEBEC ACT - - -It was said of the Spartans that warring was their salvation and -ruling was their ruin. The saying holds true of various peoples -and races in history. A militant race has often proved to be -deficient in the qualities which ensure stable, just, and permanent -government; and in such cases, when peace supervenes on war, an -era of decline and fall begins for those whom fighting has made -great. But even when a conquering race has capacity for government, -there come times in its career when Aristotle’s dictum in part -holds good. It applied, to some extent, to the English in North -America. As long as they were faced by the French on the western -continent, common danger and common effort held the mother country -and the colonies together. Security against a foreign foe brought -difficulties which ended in civil war, and the Peace of 1763 was -the beginning of dissolution. - -In the present chapter, which covers the history of Canada from -the Peace of Paris to the outbreak of the War of Independence, it -is proposed, from the point of view of colonization, to examine -the ultimate rather than the immediate causes which led to England -losing her old North American colonies, while she retained her new -possession of Canada. - -[Sidenote: Prophecies that the British conquest of Canada would be -followed by the loss of the North American colonies. Peter Kalm.] - -It had been abundantly prophesied that the outcome of British -conquest of Canada would be colonial independence in British -North America. In the years 1748-50 the Swedish naturalist, Peter -Kalm, travelled through the British North American colonies and -Canada, and left on record his impressions of the feeling towards -the mother country which existed at the time in the British -provinces. Noting the great increase in these colonies of riches -and population, and the growing coolness towards Great Britain, -produced at once by commercial restrictions and by the presence -among the English colonists of German, Dutch, and French settlers, -he arrived at the conclusion that the proximity of a rival and -hostile power in Canada was the main factor in keeping the British -colonies under the British Crown. ‘The English Government,’ he -wrote, ‘has therefore sufficient reason to consider the French in -North America as the best means of keeping the colonies in their -due submission.’[16] - -Others wrote or spoke to the same effect. Montcalm was credited -with having prophesied the future before he shared the fall of -Canada,[17] and another prophet was the French minister Choiseul, -when negotiating the Peace of Paris. To keen, though not always -unprejudiced, observers the signs of the times betokened coming -conflicts between Great Britain and her colonies; and to us now -looking back on history, wise after the event, it is evident that -the end of foreign war in North America meant the beginning of -troubles within what was then the circle of the British Empire. - -[Sidenote: Incorrect view of the conflict between Great Britain and -her colonies in North America.] - -[Sidenote: Great Britain failed for want of leaders.] - -Until recent years most Englishmen were taught to believe that the -victory of the American colonists and the defeat of the mother -country was a striking instance of the power of right over might, -of liberty over oppression; that the severance of the American -colonies was a net gain to them, and a net loss to England; that -Englishmen did right to stand in a white sheet when reflecting -on these times and events, as being citizens of a country which -grievously sinned and was as grievously punished. All this was pure -assumption. The war was one in which there were rights and wrongs -on both sides, but, whereas America had in George Washington a -leader of the noblest and most effective type, England was for the -moment in want both of statesmen and of generals, and had her hands -tied by foreign complications. We can recognize that Providence -shaped the ends, without going beyond the limits of human common -sense. Had Pitt been what he was in the years preceding the Peace -of Paris, had Wolfe and the eldest of the brothers Howe not been -cut off in early manhood, the war might have been averted, or -its issue might have been other than it was. One of Wolfe’s best -subordinates, Carleton, survived, and Carleton saved Canada; there -was no human reason why men of the same stamp, had they been found, -should not have kept for England her heritage. The main reason why -she lost her North American colonies was not the badness of her -cause, but rather want of the right men when the crisis came. - -[Sidenote: The result of the War of Independence was not wholly a -loss to Great Britain nor wholly a gain to the United States.] - -Equally fallacious with the view that England failed because -wrong-doing never prospers, is, or was, the view that the -independence of the United States was wholly a loss to England and -wholly a gain to the colonists. What would have happened if the -revolting provinces had not made good their revolt must be matter -of speculation, but it is difficult to believe that, if the United -States had remained under the British flag, Australia would ever -have become a British colony. There is a limit to every political -system and every empire, and, with the whole of North America east -of the Mississippi for her own, it is not likely that England would -have taken in hand the exploiting of a new continent. At any rate -it is significant that, within four years of the date of the treaty -which recognized the independence of the United States, the first -English colonists were sent to Australia. The success or failure -of a nation or a race in the field of colonization must not be -measured by the number of square miles of the earth’s surface which -the home government owns or claims at any given time. To judge -aright, we must revert to the older and truer view of colonizing -as a planting process, replenishing the earth and subduing it. If -the result of the severance of the United States from their mother -country was to sow the English seed in other lands, then it may -be argued that the defeat of England by her own children was not -wholly a loss to the mother country. - -Nor was it wholly a gain to the United States. Such at least -must be the view of Englishmen who believe in the worth of their -country, in its traditions, in the character of the nation, in its -political, social, moral, and religious tendencies. The necessary -result of the separation was to alienate the American colonists -from what was English; to breed generations in the belief that what -England did must be wrong, that the enemies of England must be -right; to strengthen in English-speaking communities the elements -which were opposed to the land and to the race from which they had -sprung. With English errors and weaknesses there passed away, in -course of years and in some measure, English sources of strength; -the sober thinking, the slow broadening out, the perpetually -leavening sense of responsibility. Had the American provinces -remained under the British flag it is difficult to see why they -should not have been in the essence as free and independent as -they now are; it is at least conceivable that their commercial and -industrial prosperity would have been as great; assuredly, for good -or for evil, they would have been more English. - -[Sidenote: Shortcomings of the English in foreign and colonial -policy.] - -The faults and shortcomings of the English, which throughout -English history have shown themselves mainly in foreign and -colonial matters, seem all to have combined and culminated in the -interval of twenty years between the Peace of 1763, which gave -Canada to Great Britain, and the Peace of 1783, which took from -her the United States; and in addition there were special causes -at work in England, which at this more than at any other time -militated against national success. - -[Sidenote: The party System.] - -The shortcomings in question are, in part, the result of -counterbalancing merits, fair-mindedness, and freedom of thought, -speech, and action. Love of liberty among the English has begotten -an almost superstitious reverence for Parliamentary institutions. -Parliamentary institutions have practically meant the House of -Commons; and the House of Commons has for many generations past -implied the party system. In regard to foreign and colonial policy -the party system has worked the very serious evil that Great -Britain has in the past rarely spoken or acted as one nation. The -party in power at times of national crisis is constantly obliged to -reckon on opposition rather than support, from the large section of -Englishmen whose leaders are not in office; and ministers have to -frame not so much the most effective measures, as those which can -under the circumstances be carried with least friction and delay. -The result has been weakness and compromise in action; among the -friends of England, suspicion and want of confidence; among her -foes, waiting on the event which prolongs the strife. The English -have so often gone forward and then back, they have so often said -one thing and done another, that their own officers, their friends -and allies, their native subjects, and their open enemies, cannot -be sure what will be the next move. If the Opposition in Parliament -and outside, by speech and writing, attacks the Government, the -natural inference to be drawn is that a turn of the electoral tide -will reverse the policy. - -Apart too from this more or less necessary result of party -government, the element of cross-grained men and women, who, when -their own country is at issue with another, invariably think that -their country must be wrong and its opponent must be right, has -always been rather stronger, or, at any rate, rather more tolerated -in the United Kingdom than among continental nations. This is due -not merely to the habit of free criticism, but also to a kind of -conceit familiar enough in private as in public life. Englishmen, -living apart from the continent of Europe, are, as a whole, more -wrapped up in themselves than are other nations; and in this -self-satisfied whole there is a proportion of superior persons who -sit in judgement on the rest, and who, having in reality a double -dose of the national Pharisaism, think it their duty to belittle -their countrymen. - -Fault-finders of this kind, or political opponents of the -Government for the time being, are apt, as a rule, to make light of -any minority in the hostile or rival country, who may be friendly -to England: they tend to misrepresent them as being untrue to their -own land and people, as wanting to domineer over the majority, as -seeking their own interests: and, if they have suffered losses -for England’s sake, the tale of the losses is minimized. But -it is not only the opponents of the Government who take this -line; too often in past history it has been to a large extent -the line of the Government itself. The perpetual seeking after -compromise, and trying to see two sides after the choice of action -has been made, has lost many friends to our country and nation, -and made none: while the retracing of steps, unmindful of claims -which have arisen, of property which has been acquired, and of -responsibilities which have been incurred has, as the record of the -past abundantly shows, brought bitterness of spirit to the friends -of England, and bred distrust of the English and their works. - -[Sidenote: Want of preparation for war.] - -The element of uncertainty in British policy and action towards -foreign nations or towards British colonies has been in part due -to ignorance: and to ignorance and want of preparation have been -due most of the disasters in war which have befallen Great Britain. -Here again something must be attributed to the fact of the island -home. The rulers of continental peoples have been driven by the -necessities of their case to learn the conditions of their rivals, -by secret service and intelligence agents to ascertain all that -is to be known, and at the same time to keep their own arms up to -date, and their own powder dry. They have prepared for war. England -has prepared for peace. Her policy has paid in the long run, but -it would not have been a possible policy for other nations; and at -certain times in English history it has wrought terrible mischief. -England does not always muddle through, as the English fondly hope -she does; notably, she did not muddle through when the United -States proclaimed their independence. - -In these years, 1763-83, there was the party system in England with -all its mischievous bitterness; there was a weak Executive at home, -and a still weaker Executive in the colonies; there was ignorance -of the real conditions in America, unwise handling of the colonial -Loyalists, threatening talk coupled with vacillation in action, -laws made which gave offence, and, when they had given offence, not -quite repealed. All the normal English weaknesses flourished and -abounded at this period, and were supplemented by certain sources -of danger which were the outcome of the particular time. - -[Sidenote: Special evils at work in England in the years 1763-83.] - -[Sidenote: A time of reaction.] - -[Sidenote: Partisan attitude of the Crown.] - -It was a special time, a time of reaction. England had lately gone -through a great struggle, made a great effort, incurred great -expense, and won great success. She was for the moment vegetating, -not inclined or ready for a second crisis. Second-rate politicians -were handling matters, and the influence of the new King was all -in favour of their being and remaining second-rate; for George the -Third intended, by meddling in party politics, and by Parliamentary -intrigues, to rule Parliament. Thus the Crown became a partisan -in home politics, and in colonial politics was placed in declared -opposition to the colonies, instead of remaining the great bond -between the colonies and the mother country. - -[Sidenote: Sympathy in England with the colonists and their cause.] - -The result was, that throughout the years of the American quarrel, -and in a growing degree, the colonies found powerful support in -this country, because they were, after all, not foreigners but -Englishmen--Englishmen who compared favourably with Englishmen -at home and whom patriotic Englishmen at home could admire and -uphold; because they were apparently the weaker side, attracting -the sympathy which in England the weaker side always attracts; -and because, through the attitude of the King, their cause was -associated with the cause of political liberty at home. Add to this -that the one great English statesman of world-wide reputation, -Chatham, had warmly espoused the colonial side, and it may well -be seen that, unless some able general, as Wellington in later -days, by military success, saved his country from the results of -political blunders, the position was hopeless. - -[Sidenote: Ultimate causes of the severance of the North American -colonies.] - -But for the special purpose of determining what place the episode -of the severance of the British North American colonies holds in -the history of colonization we must look still further afield. The -constitutional question as to whether the colonies were subject to -the Parliament of the mother country or to the Crown alone may, -from this particular point of view, be omitted, for the story -of the troubled years abundantly shows that theories would have -slept, if certain practical difficulties had not called them into -waking existence, and if lawyers had not been so much to the front, -holding briefs on either side. Nor is it necessary to dwell upon -the specific and immediate causes of the strife, except so far as -they were ultimate causes also. Among such immediate causes, some -of which have been already noted, were the personal character of -the English king for the time being, the corruption and jobbery -of public life in England, the weakness of the Executive in the -colonies, the enforcing of commercial restrictions already placed -by the mother country on the colonies, the kind of new taxes which -the Home Government imposed, the method of imposing them, and the -object with which they were devised; the outrageous laws of 1774 -for penalizing Massachusetts, the Quebec Act, and the employment of -German mercenaries against the colonists, which gave justification -to the colonists for calling in aid from France. All these and -other causes might have been powerless to affect the issue, if -England had possessed statesmen and generals, and if the growing -plant of disunion had not been deeply rooted in the past. - -[Sidenote: Comparison of Spanish and British colonization in -America.] - -[Sidenote: Spain held her American possessions for a longer time -than Great Britain held the North American colonies.] - -When France lost Canada and Louisiana, two European nations, other -than the Portuguese in Brazil, practically shared the mainland of -America. They were Spain and Great Britain. Spain won her American -empire not far short of a hundred years before Great Britain had -any strong footing on the American continent; she kept it for -some thirty or forty years after the United States had achieved -their independence. The Spanish-American empire was therefore much -longer-lived than the first colonial dominion of Great Britain -in North America, and the natural inference is, either that the -Spaniards treated their colonies or dependencies better than the -English treated theirs, or that the English colonies were in a -better position than the Spanish dependencies to assert their -independence, or that both causes operated simultaneously. - -It is difficult to compare Spain and Great Britain as regards their -respective colonial policies in America, for their possessions -differed in kind. Spain owned dependencies rather than colonies, -Great Britain owned colonies rather than dependencies. Spanish -America was the result of conquest: English America, not including -Canada, was the result of settlement. But, so far as a comparison -can be instituted, it will probably not be seriously contended that -the British colonies suffered more grievously at the hands of the -mother country than did the colonial possessions of Spain. The main -charge brought against England was that she neglected her colonies -and left them to themselves. Whether the charge was true or not--as -to which there is more to be said--neglect is not oppression; and -within limits the kindest and wisest policy towards colonies, which -are colonies in the true sense, is to leave them alone. ‘The wise -neglect of Walpole and Newcastle,’ writes Mr. Lecky, ‘was eminently -conducive to colonial interests.’[18] - -[Sidenote: Absence of system in British colonial policy in North -America.] - -The real, ultimate reasons why England held her North American -colonies, which now form the United States of America, for a -shorter time than Spain retained her Central and South American -possessions were two: first, that the English colonies were -in a better position than the Spanish dependencies to assert -their independence; secondly, that--largely because she owned -dependencies rather than colonies--Spain was more systematic -than England in her dealings with her colonial possessions. -These two reasons are in truth one and the same, looked at from -different sides. The English colonies were able to assert their -independence, because they had on the whole always been more or -less independent. They had always been more or less independent, -because the mother country had never adopted any definite system -of colonial administration. The Spanish system was not good--quite -the contrary; but it was a system, and those who lived under it -were accustomed to restrictions and to rules imposed by the home -government. Similarly in Canada, under French rule, there was a -system, kindlier and better than that of Spain, but one which had -the gravest defects, which stunted growth and precluded freedom: -yet there it was, clear and definite; the colonists of New France -had grown up under it; they knew where they were in relation to -the mother country; it had never occurred to them to try and -make headway against the King of France and his regulations. -Widely different was the case of the English colonies in North -America. All these settlements started under some form of grant -or charter, derived ultimately from the Crown: the Crown from -time to time interfered and made a show of its supremacy; but -there was no system of any sort or kind, and communities grew up, -which in practice had never been governed from home but governed -themselves. Most of all, the New England colonies embodied to -the full the spirit of colonial independence. Their founders, -men of the strongest English type, went out to live in their own -way, to be free from restrictions which trammelled them at home, -to found small English-speaking commonwealths which should be -self-governing and self-supporting, ordered from within, not from -without. - -[Sidenote: When the English colonies were planted in North America -there was the most complete absence of system at home.] - -The English have never been systematic or continuous in their -policy throughout their history; but the period of English history -when North America was colonized was the one of all others when -system and continuity were most conspicuously absent. It was a -time of violent political changes at home, of strife between -king and people. A line of kings was brought in from Scotland, -they were overturned, they were restored, and they were finally -driven out again. This was the condition of the Crown to which the -newly-planted colonies owed allegiance, and which was supposed to -exercise supreme authority over the colonies. Under the Crown were -Proprietors and Companies, whose charters, being derived from a -perpetually disputed source, were a series of dissolving views; -and under the Proprietors and Companies were a number of strong -English citizens who, caring little for the theoretical basis of -their position, cared very much for practical independence, and -ordered their ways accordingly, becoming steadily and stubbornly -more independent through perpetual friction and perpetual absence -of systematic control. Thus it was that the North American colonies -drank in, as their mother’s milk, the traditions and the habits of -independence. They carried with them English citizenship, but the -privileges of such citizenship rather than the responsibilities; -and, in so far as the mother country was inclined to ignore the -privileges, the colonies were glad to disclaim the responsibilities. - -[Sidenote: Absence of collective responsibility in the British -North American colonies.] - -They were separate and distinct, not only from the mother country, -but also from each other, and they could not in consequence from -first to last be held collectively responsible. In the wars with -Canada, New England and New York, though alike exposed to French -invasion, and from time to time co-operating to repel the invaders -or to organize counter-raids, yet acted throughout as entirely -separate entities, in no way inclined to bear each other’s burdens -as common citizens of a common country. The southern colonies, -until the French, shortly before the beginning of the Seven -Years’ War, came down into the valley of the Ohio, took no part -whatever in the fight between Great Britain and France for North -America. The New Englanders, most patriotic of the colonists, -beyond all others went their own ways in war and peace; uninvited -and unauthorized from home they formed a confederation among -themselves: early in their history they tried to make a treaty -with Canada on the basis that, whatever might be the relations -between France and England in Europe, there should be peace between -French and English in North America: they took Port Royal: they -attacked Quebec: they captured Louisbourg: and the anonymous French -eye-witness of the first siege and capture of Louisbourg commented -as follows on the difference between the colonial land forces and -the men of the small Imperial squadron which Warren brought to -the colonists’ aid: ‘In fact one could never have told that these -troops belonged to the same nation and obeyed the same prince. Only -the English are capable of such oddities, which nevertheless form -a part of that precious liberty of which they show themselves so -jealous.’[19] - -[Sidenote: The colonies had never been taxed for revenue purposes.] - -Most of all it should be remembered that, though subject to the -Navigation laws imposed by the mother country and to that extent -restricted in their commercial dealings, no English colony in -North America, before the days of the Stamp Act, had ever been -taxed by Crown or Parliament for revenue purposes. In the year -1758 Montcalm was supposed to have written on this subject in the -following terms: ‘As to the English colonies, one essential point -should be known, it is that they are never taxed. They keep that -to themselves, an enormous fault this in the policy of the mother -country. She should have taxed them from the foundation. I have -certain advice that all the colonies would take fire at being -taxed now.’[20] This judgement was probably sound. It might have -been well if from the first, when charters were issued and colonial -communities were formed, some small tax had been levied for -Imperial purposes upon the British colonies, if some contribution -of only nominal amount had been exacted as a condition of retaining -British citizenship. There would then have been a precedent, such -as Englishmen always try to find, and there would have been in -existence a reminder that all members of a family should contribute -to the household expenses.[21] - -[Sidenote: The political separation of the North American colonies -was the natural result of their geographical separation.] - -We are accustomed to think and to read of the separation of the -American colonies from the mother country as wholly an abnormal -incident, the result of bad handiwork, not the outcome of natural -forces. This view is incorrect. History ultimately depends on -geography. When two members of the same race, nation, or family -pass their lives at a long distance from each other, in different -lands, in different climates, under different conditions, the -natural and inevitable result is that they diverge from each other. -The centrifugal tendency may be counteracted by tact and clever -statesmanship, and still more by sense of common danger; but it -is a natural tendency. Men cannot live at a distance from each -other without becoming to some extent estranged. The Greeks, with -their instinctive love of logic and of symmetry, and with their -fundamental conception of a city as the political unit, looked on -colonization as separation, and called a colony a departure from -home. The colonists carried with them reverence for the mother -state, but not dependence upon it; and, if there was any political -bond, it was embodied in the words that those who went out went -out on terms of equality with, not of subordination to, those who -remained behind. The English, in fact, though not in principle, -planted colonies on the model of the Greek settlements; their -theories and their practice collided; and, being a practical race, -their theories eventually went by the board. - -[Sidenote: Conflicting tendencies. Distance and sentiment.] - -[Sidenote: στάσις and colonization.] - -When an over-sea colony is founded, the new settlement is in -effect most distant from the old country; that is to say, means -of communication between the one point and the other are least -frequent and least developed. The tendency to separation--as far -as geography is concerned--is therefore strongest at the outset. -On the other hand, in the foundation of a colony, unless the -foundation is due to political disruption at home, the sentiment -towards the mother country is warmer and closer than in after -years, for the founders remember where they were born and where -they grew to manhood. As generations go on, the tie of sentiment -becomes necessarily weaker, but, with better communication, -distance becomes less; there is therefore a competition between the -opposing tendencies. Many of the Greek colonies were the result of -στάσις or division in the mother cities. The unsuccessful party -went out and made a separate home. In a very modified form the -same cause was at work in the founding of the Puritan colonies -of North America. Notably, the emigrants on the _Mayflower_ were -already exiles from England, political refugees, who had found a -temporary home in the Netherlands. These founders of the Plymouth -settlement were by no means the chief colonizers of North America, -or even of New England, but their story--the story of the ‘Pilgrim -fathers’--became a nucleus of Puritan tradition; and from it after -generations deduced that New England was the home of English -citizens whom England had cast out. Thus one group, at any rate, -of North American colonies traced their origin to separation. Then -came the element of distance. ‘The European colonies in America,’ -wrote Adam Smith, with some exaggeration, ‘are more remote than -the most distant provinces of the greatest empires which had ever -been known before.’[22] The Atlantic Ocean lay between them and the -motherland, and cycles went by before that distance was perceptibly -modified. In our own time, steam and telegraphy have been -perpetually counteracting the effects of distance. It was not so in -the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries. Navigation was improved, -but was still the humble handmaid of wind and tide; and on the very -eve of the American War of Independence the remoteness of the North -American colonies, and the prevailing ignorance in England about -the North American colonies were, though no doubt much exaggerated, -a commonplace among the speakers and writers of the time. - -We start then with colonies planted from a land which had no -thought of systematic control over colonies or dependencies, whose -government was at the time of colonization in a chaotic state, -whose colonists went out in part, at any rate, intent on practical -separation, and who all settled themselves or were settled in a -remote region at a time when distance did not grow less. - -[Sidenote: General view of the duty of a mother country towards its -colonies.] - -The next point to notice is that it has always been held that, as -between a mother country and its colonies, if they are colonies -in the true sense and not merely tributary states, it is rather -for the mother country to give and her colonies to take, than vice -versa. This is a view which has been held at all times and among -all races, but especially among members of the English race. Other -nations and races have, it is true, felt as strongly as, or more -strongly than, the English the duty of protecting their outlying -possessions: they have in some cases lavished more money directly -upon them at the expense of the taxpayers at home; but, on the -other hand, they have almost invariably regarded their colonies as -dependencies pure and simple, constrained to take the course of the -dominant partner in preference to their own. The English alone in -history have bred communities protected by, but in practice not -subject to, the mother country. They have given, without exacting -toll in return. - -[Sidenote: Adam Smith on the subject.] - -No writer has laid greater stress on this view of the relations -between the mother country and the colonies than Adam Smith, who -published the _Wealth of Nations_ just as the American colonies -were breaking away from Great Britain. ‘The English colonists,’ he -wrote, ‘have never yet contributed anything towards the defence of -the mother country, or towards the support of its civil government. -They themselves, on the contrary, have hitherto been defended -almost entirely at the expense of the mother country;’ and again, -‘Under the present system of management, Great Britain derives -nothing but loss from the dominion which she has assumed over her -colonies.’ ‘Great Britain is, perhaps, since the world began, the -only state which, as it has extended its empire, has only increased -its expense without once augmenting its resources.’[23] His opinion -would have been modified could he have foreseen the help given to -the mother country in our own day by the self-governing colonies -of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in a war far removed from -their shores; but even in our own day the old view, against which -he contended, largely holds the field, that more is due from the -mother country to the colonies than from the colonies to the mother -country, that what the mother country spends on the Empire is -payment of a debt, while what the colonies spend on the Empire is a -free gift. - -[Sidenote: The mother country, being usually greater than the -colony, is expected to give rather than to receive.] - -[Sidenote: Contentions of the colonists.] - -This view of the relations between a mother country and its -colonies takes its ultimate source largely from the fact that the -mother country is nearly always[24] greater and stronger than any -one colony or group of colonies; and in the English mind the -instinct of fair play invariably makes in favour of the party to -a contract which is or appears to be the weaker party. It is in -the light of the fact that the American colonies were numerically -the weaker party in their contention with the mother country, and -with the misleading deduction that any demand made upon them was -therefore unjust, that the story of the War of Independence has -over and over again been wrongly told. In one of the more recent -books on the subject, Sir George Trevelyan’s _American Revolution_, -it is stated that all the colonies asked of the King was to be let -alone.[25] That is all that any man or any community asks, when -called upon to pay a bill; and the question at issue between the -mother country and the colonies in the eighteenth century was the -eternal question, which vexes every community and every federation -of communities, who ought to pay. The bill was one for defence -purposes; but, when it was presented, the colonists’ answer was -in effect, first, that it was the duty of the mother country to -defend the colonies; secondly, that that duty had been neglected; -and thirdly, that, assuming that it had been performed, it was -for the colonies and not for the mother country to determine what -proportion of the expense, if any, should be defrayed by the -colonies. - -[Sidenote: (1) It was the duty of the mother country to bear the -expense of defending the colonies.] - -[Sidenote: This view still prevails.] - -The first of these three contentions may not have been fully -avowed, but deep down in the minds of men there lay the conviction -that the mother country ought to pay for defending the colonies, -and there it has remained, more or less, ever since. It is true -that the grant of self-government in its fullest sense to the -present great provinces of the British Empire has been coupled with -the withdrawal of the regular forces from all but a few points of -selected Imperial vantage, and to that extent the colonies have -taken up, and well taken up, the duty of self-defence; but the -burden of the fleet, the great defensive force of the Empire as a -whole, is still borne in the main, and was till recently entirely -borne, by the mother country. When colonies or foreign possessions -are in a condition of complete political dependence upon the mother -country, it may fairly be argued that the latter, in insisting upon -dependence, should, as the price of supremacy, undertake to some -extent the duty of defence. And yet a survey of the British Empire -at the present day shows that no self-governing province of the -Empire is so highly organized or so fully charged for the purposes -of defence as is the great dependency of India. - -[Sidenote: Independence implies self-defence.] - -The first and most elementary duty of an independent community, the -one condition without which it cannot be independent, is providing -for its own defence. The American colonies claimed in reality -political independence, at any rate as far as internal matters were -concerned; but they did not admit, except to a limited extent, that -it was their duty to provide against foreign invasion. That duty, -in their eyes, devolved upon the mother country because it was the -mother country; because it was held that the mother country derived -more advantage from the colonies than--apart from defence--the -colonies derived from her; and because the mother country dictated -the foreign policy of the Empire; in common parlance, it called the -tune and therefore, it was argued, should pay the piper. - -[Sidenote: The Navigation Acts an inadequate return for the charge -imposed on the mother country for defending the colonies.] - -The Navigation laws, the commercial restrictions imposed by Great -Britain on her colonies, were assumed to represent the price which -the colonies paid in return for the protection which the mother -country gave or professed to give to the colonies; and these -same laws and restrictions, viewed in the light of later times, -have been held to be the burden of oppression which was greater -than the colonies could bear. Adam Smith, the writer who most -forcibly exposed the unsoundness of the old mercantile system, also -demonstrated most conclusively that that system was universal in -the eighteenth century; that it was less oppressively applied by -England than by other countries which owned colonies; that under -it, if the colonies were restricted in trade, they were also in -receipt of bounties; and lastly, that the undoubted disadvantages -which were the result of the system were shared by the mother -country with the colonies, though they weighed more heavily upon -the colonies than on the mother country, and were to the colonies -‘impertinent badges of slavery’. The conclusion to be drawn is -that, assuming Great Britain to have adequately discharged the duty -of protecting the colonies, she was not adequately paid for doing -so by the results of the mercantile system. - -[Sidenote: (2) Did Great Britain neglect the defence of the North -American colonies?] - -But it was further contended that the duty of protecting her -colonies was one which Great Britain neglected. While the colonies -were poor and insignificant, the mother country, it was alleged, -neglected them. When they became richer and more valuable she tried -to oppress them. If the charge of neglect in the general sense was -true, we may refer to Mr. Lecky’s words already quoted, as showing -that it may well be argued that the colonies profited by it.[26] -Mr. Lecky writes of conditions in the eighteenth century, but -Adam Smith used similar terms with reference to the earlier days -of the colonies. Contrasting the Spanish colonies in America with -those owned by other European nations on that continent, he wrote: -‘The Spanish colonies’ (in consequence of their mineral wealth) -‘from the moment of their first establishment attracted very much -the attention of their mother country; while those of the other -European nations were for a long time in a great measure neglected. -The former did not perhaps thrive the better in consequence of -this attention, nor the latter the worse in consequence of their -neglect.’[27] It may be answered, however, that the neglect here -referred to was neglect of the colonies in their internal concerns, -leaving them, as Adam Smith puts it, to pursue their interest in -their own way. This was an undeniably beneficial form of neglect, -wholly different from the neglect which leaves distant dependencies -exposed to foreign invasion and native raids. Was then the British -Government guilty of the latter form of neglect in the case of the -American colonies? - -[Sidenote: The attitude of the mother country in the earlier history -of the colonies.] - -There were many instances in the history of these colonies, while -they were still under the British flag, of the Imperial Government -promising assistance which was never sent, or only sent after -months of delay: there were instances of gross incapacity on the -part of leaders of expeditions sent out from home, notably in the -case of Walker and Hill, who commanded the disgracefully abortive -enterprise against Quebec in 1711. The state of Acadia, when -nominally in British keeping after the Treaty of Utrecht, was a -glaring illustration of English supineness and procrastination. -There was, at any rate, one notable instance of the mother country -depriving the colonies of a great result of their own brilliant -enterprise, viz. when Louisbourg, taken by the New Englanders in -1745, was restored by Great Britain to France under the terms of -the Treaty of Aix la Chapelle in 1748. Undoubtedly Great Britain -on many occasions disappointed and disheartened the colonies, and -especially the most patriotic of the colonies, the New England -states. On the other hand, it is beyond question that the colonies -were never seriously attacked by sea. They were threatened, -sometimes badly threatened, as by d’Anville’s fleet in 1746; -they were liable to the raids of daring partisan leaders, such -as d’Iberville; but either good fortune or the British fleet, -supplemented no doubt by a wholesome respect for the energy and -activity of the New England sailors themselves, kept the coasts and -seaports of the American colonies in comparative security through -all the years of war. It must be noted too that, while the colonies -suffered because Great Britain had interests elsewhere than in -America; while, for instance, a fleet designed for the benefit -of the colonies in 1709 was sent off to Portugal, and the New -Englanders’ prize of Louisbourg was forfeited in order to secure -Madras for the British Empire, the colonies at the same time shared -in the results of victories won in other parts of the world than -America. The Peace of Utrecht, with what it gave to the English in -America, was entirely the outcome of Marlborough’s victories on the -continent of Europe. Nothing that was done in America contributed -to it. The failures of England were under the colonies’ eyes; her -successes, the fruits of which they shared, were often achieved at -the other side of the world. - -[Sidenote: The conquest of Canada was mainly due to the mother -country.] - -But, taking the main events which contributed to the security -and greatness of the American colonies, how far should they be -credited to Great Britain and how far to the colonies themselves? -In earlier days, nothing was more important to the future of the -English in America than securing a continuous seaboard and linking -the southern to the northern colonies. This object was obtained -by taking New York from the Dutch, the result of action initiated -in Europe, not in America. The final reduction of Port Royal was -effected with the assistance of troops and ships from England. -The Peace of Utrecht, which deprived the French of Acadia and -their settlements in Newfoundland, was, as already stated, wholly -the result of Marlborough’s fighting in Europe. Though the New -Englanders took Louisbourg, and England gave it back to France, -the colonists’ success was largely aided by Warren’s squadron of -Imperial ships. But, most of all, the final conquest of Canada was -due far more to the action of the mother country than to that of -the colonies. - -The great, almost the only, foreign danger to the English colonies -in North America was from the French in Canada and Louisiana, but -it is not generally realized how enormously the English on the -North American continent outnumbered the French. At the time of the -conquest of Canada, the white population of the English colonies -in North America was to that of the French colonies as thirteen -to one. It is true that the English did not form one community, -whereas the French were united; but it is also true, on the other -hand, that the several English communities were more concentrated -than the French, and that they held the base of the triangle, which -base was the sea. A single one of the larger English colonies had a -white population equal to or surpassing the whole French population -in North America. Under these circumstances it might fairly be -asked why the English colonists required any help at all from the -mother country to conquer Canada. The war was one in which they -were vitally concerned. Its object was to give present security to -their frontiers, to rid them once for all from the raids of French -and Indians, which had for generations desolated their villages, -farms, and homesteads, and to leave the West as a heritage to -their children’s children, instead of allowing the valleys of the -Mississippi and the Ohio to remain a French preserve. No doubt it -was to the interest of Great Britain, as an Imperial Power, that -France should be attacked and, if possible, overthrown in the New -World as in the Old. The conquest of Canada was part of Pitt’s -general scheme of policy, and English regiments were not sent to -America for the sake of the American colonists alone.[28] But the -allegation made in after years, that the campaigns in America -were of great concern to the mother country and of little concern -to the American colonies, was on the face of it untrue. To the -English colonists in North America the French in Canada were the -one great present danger, and the conquest of Canada was the one -thing needful. Yet we find that, in 1758, the troops, nearly 12,000 -in number, which achieved the second capture of Louisbourg were -nearly all regulars; that in the force which Abercromby led against -Ticonderoga about one-half of the total fighting men were soldiers -of the line, and that even Forbes’ little army, which took Fort -Duquesne, contained 1,600 regulars out of a total of 6,000 men. -In the following year, Wolfe’s army, which took Quebec, was almost -entirely composed of Imperial troops. Nor was this all. Although, -in 1758, the colonies, or rather the New England colonies, readily -answered to Pitt’s call for a levy of 20,000 men, a considerable -part of the expense which was thus incurred was recouped from the -Imperial exchequer.[29] The conclusion of the whole matter is that -to the mother country, rather than to the colonies themselves, was -it due that the great danger which had menaced the latter for a -century and a half was finally removed. England gave the best of -her fighting men, and loaded her people at home with a debt of many -millions, in order that her great competitor might be weakened, -and that her children on the other side of the Atlantic might be -for all time secure on land from foreign foes, while her fleets -kept them safe from attack by sea; and, inasmuch as the French in -America were numerically insignificant as compared with the English -colonists, the only real justification for the colonists requiring -aid from the mother country to overcome the difficulty was, that -the English colonies were by geography and interest divided from -each other and consequently indifferent to each other’s burdens and -perils; while Canada, united in aim and organization, received also -assistance, though niggardly assistance, from France. - -[Sidenote: Aid given by the mother country against the Indians.] - -The French were the main enemies to the English in North America. -The native Indians were the only other human beings against whom -the colonists had to defend themselves, and here clearly it -was their concern alone. The New Englanders took the burden on -themselves manfully, so far as related to their own borders, but -they were not prepared to fight the battles of the Pennsylvanians -and Virginians; and the Pennsylvanians and Virginians were slow to -help themselves. The result was, as told in the last chapter, that -the brunt of the war with Pontiac and his confederates fell largely -on the mother country, her officers, and her troops, and this fact -alone was sufficient justification for Grenville’s contention, that -a small Imperial force ought to be maintained in, and be in part -paid by, the American colonies. - -[Sidenote: (3) Argument that because the mother country dictated -the policy she ought to bear the expense.] - -[Sidenote: Question of colonial representation in the Imperial -Parliament.] - -But then comes the last and the strongest argument of the colonies. -The mother country dictated the policy; distant and without direct -representation, though their agents were active in England, the -colonies could only follow where the mother country led: the mother -country, therefore, should pay the cost of defending the outlying -provinces; or, if the latter contributed at all to the cost, it was -for them and not for the mother country to determine the amount and -the method of the contribution. The real answer to this argument -was, as Adam Smith saw,[30] that the colonies should be represented -in the Imperial Parliament. He allowed that such a proposal was beset -by difficulties, but he did not consider, as Burke considered, that -the difficulties were insurmountable. Yet the problem, infinitely -easier in the days of steam and telegraphy, has not yet been solved, -and the preliminary task of combining a group of self-governing -colonies into a single confederation had, in the eighteenth century, -only been talked of and never been seriously attempted in North -America. - -[Sidenote: Moderation of the English demand on the colonies.] - -In theory, English citizens, who had never been taxed directly -for Imperial purposes, might fairly claim not to be taxed, unless -and until they were taken into full partnership and given a voice -in determining the policy of the Empire. But the actual facts of -the case made the demand of the mother country on the American -colonies in itself eminently reasonable. It was true that England -had dictated the policy; but it was also true that the policy had -been directly in the interests of the colonies, and such as they -warmly approved. They were asked for money, but only for their own -protection, and to preclude the possibility of a further burden -falling on the mother country, already overweighted with debt -incurred on behalf of these particular provinces of the Empire. -The demand was a small one; the money to be raised would clearly -defray but a fraction of the cost of defending the North American -colonies. To the amount no reasonable exception could be taken; and -as to the method of raising it the colonies were, as a matter of -fact, consulted, for Grenville, the author of the Stamp Act, gave a -year’s notice, before the Act was finally passed,[31] in order that -the colonies might, in the meantime, if they could, agree upon some -more palatable method of providing the sum required. - -[Sidenote: England suffered for her merits as well as for her -defects.] - -[Sidenote: The analogy of family life in the case of a mother -country and its colonies.] - -The merits of England, no less than her defects, tended to alienate -the North American colonies. It is possible that, if she had -made a larger and more sweeping demand, she would have been more -successful. Her requisition was so moderate, that it seemed to -be petty, and might well have aroused suspicion that there was -more behind; that what was actually proposed was an insidious -preliminary to some far-reaching scheme for oppressing the colonies -and bringing them into subjection. It has been held, too, that, if -the Stamp Act had been passed without delay, there would have been -less opposition to it than when it had been brooded over for many -months. In other words, the fairness of dealing, which gave full -warning and full time for consideration of a carefully measured -demand, was turned to account against the mother country. But after -all what was in men’s minds, when the American colonies began their -contest for independence was, speaking broadly, the feeling, right -or wrong, that a mother country ought to pay and colonies ought -not. Men argued then, and they still argue, from the analogy of -a family. The head of the family should provide, as long as the -children remain part of the household. - -The analogy of family life suggests a further view of the relations -between a mother country and its colonies, which accounts for the -possibilities of friction. A colonial empire consists of an old -community linked to young ones. The conditions, the standards, the -points of view, in politics, in morals, in social and industrial -matters, are not identical in old and young communities. Young -peoples, like young men, do not count the cost, and do not feel -responsibility to the same extent as their elders. They are more -restive, more ready to move forward, more prompt in action. Their -horizon is limited, and therefore they see immediate objects -clearly, and they do not appreciate compromise. The problems which -face them are simple as compared with the complicated questions -which face older communities, and they are impatient of the caution -and hesitation which come with inherited experience in a much wider -field of action. The future is theirs rather than the past, they -have not yet accumulated much capital and draw bills on the coming -time. Most of all, being on promotion, they are sensitive as to -their standing, keenly alive to their interests, and resent any -semblance of being slighted. It is impossible to generalize as to -the comparative standards of morality in old and young communities, -either in public or in private life, but, as a matter of fact, -political life, in the middle of the eighteenth century, was much -purer in the North American colonies than in England: whereas at -the present day, in this respect, England compares favourably with -the United States. The North American colonies were a group of -young communities, whose citizens were, at any rate in New England -and Pennsylvania, of a strong, sober, and very tenacious type: -the late war had taught them to fight: its issue had given them a -feeling of strength and security: there had been no extraordinary -strain upon their resources: they had reached a stage in their -history when they were most dangerous to offend and not unlikely to -take offence unless very carefully handled, and careful handling -on the part of the mother country, as all the world knows, was -conspicuous by its absence. - -[Sidenote: The Native question.] - -One more point may be noted as having an important bearing upon -the general question of the relations between a mother country and -its colonies, one which in particular contributed to ill-feeling -between England and the North American states. Colonization rarely -takes place in an empty land. The colonists on arrival find native -inhabitants, strong or weak, few or many, as the case may be. In -North America there were strong fighting races of Indians, and the -native question played an all-important part in the early history -of European settlement in this part of the world. It is almost -inevitable that white men on the spot, who are in daily contact -with natives, should, unless they hold a brief as missionaries or -philanthropists, take a different view of native rights and claims -from that which is held at a distance. It is true that in our own -time, to take one instance only, the Maori question in New Zealand -has been well handled by the colonial authorities, when thrown on -their own resources, with the result that there are no more loyal -members of the British Empire at the present day than the coloured -citizens of New Zealand; but in the earlier days of colonization -the general rule has been that native races fare better under -Imperial than under colonial control, for the twofold reason that -the distant authority is less influenced by colour prejudice, and -that white men who go out from Europe to settle among native races -are, in the ordinary course, of a rougher type than those who stay -at home, and that they tend to become hardened by living among -lower grades of humanity. The Quaker followers of Penn, in the -state which bears his name, were conspicuous for just and kindly -treatment of the Indians, but in the back-lands of Pennsylvania the -traders and pioneers of settlement were to the full as grasping -as their neighbours. The North American Puritan, like the South -African Dutchman, looked on the coloured man much as the Jewish -race regarded the native tribes of Canaan. The colonists came in -and took the land of the heathen in possession. Indian atrocities, -stimulated by French influence and French missionary training, were -not calculated to soften the views of the English settlers. They -saw their homes burned: their wives and children butchered: to them -arguments as to the red men’s rights were idle words. - -The only authority which could and would hold the balance even -between the races was the Imperial Government; and in the hands -of that Government, represented for the purpose in the middle of -the eighteenth century by a man of rare ability and unrivalled -experience, Sir William Johnson, the superintendence of native -affairs was placed. But this duty, and the attempt to carry it out -justly and faithfully, involved friction with the more turbulent -and the less scrupulous of the colonists. Colonization is a tide -which is always coming in; and, unless restrictions are imposed -upon the colonists by some superior authority, the native owners -are gradually expropriated. ‘Your people,’ said the representatives -of the Six Nations to Sir William Johnson in 1755, ‘when they buy a -small piece of land of us, by stealing they make it large;’[32] and -Johnson amply corroborated this view. In October, 1762, he wrote: -‘The Indians are greatly disgusted at the great thirst which we all -seem to show for their lands.’[33] - -[Sidenote: Sir William Johnson.] - -A word must be said of Sir William Johnson, for he was one of the -men who, in the long course of British colonial history, have -rendered memorable service to their country by special aptitude -for dealing with native races. In this quality the French in -North America, as a rule, far excelled the English, and at the -particular place and time, Johnson’s character and influence were -an invaluable asset on the British side. An Irishman by birth, and -nephew of Sir Peter Warren, he had come out to America in 1738 -to manage his uncle’s estates on the confines of the Six Nation -Indians, and some eleven years later he was made Superintendent of -Indian Affairs for the Northern division. He lived on the Mohawk -river, as much Indian as white man, his second wife being Molly -Brant, sister of the subsequently celebrated Mohawk leader, and -among the Iroquois his influence was unrivalled. In the wars with -France he did notable work, especially at the battle of Lake George -in 1755, and at the taking of Fort Niagara in 1759; and, when he -died in July, 1774, on the eve of the War of Independence, his -death left a gap which could not be filled, for no one among his -contemporaries could so persuade and so control the fiercest native -fighters in North America. - -[Sidenote: The Fort Stanwix line.] - -As has been seen, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 carefully -safeguarded the Indians’ lands, and in 1765 a line was drawn from -the Ohio valley to Wood Creek in the Oneida country, dividing -the country which should in future be open to white settlers -from that which the Six Nations were to hold for their own. -This boundary was, through Johnson’s influence, confirmed by an -agreement signed at Fort Stanwix on the 5th of November, 1768, in -the presence of Johnson himself as well as of Benjamin Franklin’s -son, who was at the time Governor of New Jersey. The signatories -were representatives of the colonies of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, -and Virginia on the one hand, and deputies of the Six Nations on -the other; and the Indians were described as ‘true and absolute -proprietors of the lands in question’. The line diverged from the -Alleghany branch of the Ohio some miles above Pittsburg; it was -carried in a north-easterly direction to the Susquehanna; from -the Susquehanna it was taken east to the Delaware; and from the -Delaware it was carried north along the course of the Unadilla -river, ending near Fort Stanwix, now the town of Rome, in Oneida -county of the state of New York. Under the terms of the agreement -all the land east of the line was, for a sum of £10,460 7_s._ 3_d._ -sold to the King, except such part as was within the province of -Pennsylvania.[34] It was a definite recognition of the Indians -as being owners of land, and a definite pronouncement that what -they sold should be sold to the Crown. Neither tenet was likely to -commend itself to the border colonists. They would find it hard -to believe that a savage’s tenure of land was as valid as that -of a white man, nor would they welcome the Imperial Government -as landlord of the hinterland. The red man thought otherwise. -The power from over the seas, which the colonists soon learnt to -denounce as the enemy of liberty, was to them the protector of life -and land: and, when the struggle was over, many of the Six Nation -Indians were to be found in Canada, not in their old homes under -the flag of the United States. - -[Sidenote: Attitude of the Canadians.] - -Nor were the Indians the only inhabitants of North America who -did not see eye to eye with the colonists in their contest with -the mother country. In October, 1774, the General Congress of the -recalcitrant colonies issued a long manifesto to their ‘friends -and fellow subjects’ in Canada, inviting them to ‘unite with us -in one social compact formed on the generous principles of equal -liberty’. The manifesto appealed to the writings of ‘the immortal -Montesquieu’, the ‘countryman’ of the French Canadians, and warned -the latter not to become the instruments of the cruelty and -despotism of English ministers, but to stand firm for their natural -liberties, alleged to be threatened by the Quebec Act which had -just been passed. But the high-sounding appeal missed its mark. -It is true that at the beginning of the war, when Canada was left -almost undefended, and when, in consequence, Montgomery and the -Congress troops overran the country up to the walls of Quebec, a -considerable number of the French Canadians, together with the -British malcontents in Canada, openly or secretly made common -cause with the invaders; but even then the large majority of the -French Canadians remained neutral, and, if some joined the ranks -of the invaders, others, including especially the higher ranks -of the population, supported her cause. Here was a people lately -conquered, under the rule of an alien race. A golden opportunity -was given them, it seemed, to recover their freedom. Why did the -French colonists not throw in their lot wholehearted with the -English settlers in North America? Why did they prefer to remain -under the British Crown? - -[Sidenote: The Canadians were not oppressed under English rule.] - -The first reason was that they were not oppressed. On the contrary -they had already enjoyed more liberty under the British Government -than under the old French régime. There were complaints, no doubt, -as will be seen, but the Canadians were free to make them; there -was no stifling of discontent, no stamping out of inconvenient -pleas for liberty. With British rule came in the printing press. -The _Quebec Gazette_ was first issued in June, 1764, and in it the -ordinances were published in French as well as in English. Even -under military administration a formerly submissive people learnt -their privileges and their rights, and General Murray, whose recall -was due to allegations that he had unduly favoured the French -population at the expense of the Protestant Loyalists, wrote of -the Canadians as a ‘frugal, industrious, moral race of men who, -from the just and mild treatment they met with from His Majesty’s -military officers, who ruled the country four years, until the -establishment of civil government, had greatly got the better of -the natural antipathy they had to their conquerors’.[35] Canada was -not anxious to overturn a system under which Canadians were being -trained to be free. If England oppressed, she oppressed Englishmen -rather than Frenchmen or natives, and one element in the alleged -oppression of her own people consisted in safeguarding the rights -of other races. - -[Sidenote: They preferred the English in and from England to the -English colonists in America.] - -The second and the main reason why Canada did not combine with the -United States was that, though Canadians did not love the English -from England, they loved less their English neighbours in America. -Charles the Second told his brother that the English would not kill -himself to make James king. Similarly the Canadians, on reflection, -were not prepared to turn out the British Government in order to -substitute the domination of the English colonies. Generalities as -to natural rights and equal liberties, borrowed from the writings -of European philosophers, could not cover up the plain facts of -the case. Canada, united to the English colonies, would have been -submerged, and French Roman Catholics would have been permanently -subject to English Protestants, far less tolerant than Englishmen -at home. The colonists who had issued the high-sounding manifesto -had done so with strong resentment at the extension of the limits -of the province of Quebec, at the widening of the field in which -the Canadian system and the religion of Canada should hold its -own. They were speaking with two voices at one and the same time; -calling on the Canadians not to submit to British tyranny, and -denouncing as tyranny a measure which favoured Canada. Many years -back the Canadians and their friends had differentiated between -the English from England, who came out to fight, and the English -colonists in America. The eye-witness of the siege and capture of -Louisbourg in 1745 favourably, and probably unfairly, contrasted -Warren and his British sailors with Pepperell and the New England -levies. To the men from a distance, better disciplined, less -prejudiced, less imbued with provincial animosity, there was no -such aversion as to the enemy who was ever under their eyes. At all -times and in all parts of the world there has been the same tale to -tell; if one race must be subordinated to another, it prefers that -its rulers should not be those who for generations have been their -immediate neighbours and their persistent rivals. - -It was written in the book of fate that New France should sooner or -later become incorporated in the British Empire; it was written too -that, when that time came, the British provinces in North America -would assert and win complete independence. It is impossible to -estimate aright the loss except in the light of the gain which -preceded it. Only consummate statesmanship or military genius -could have averted the severance of the North American colonies, -for the very qualities which had brought success alike to them and -to the motherland, dogged persistence, sense of strength, all the -instincts and the principles which have made the English great, -were ranged on either side in the civil war between England and her -children: and that war was the direct, almost the inevitable result -of their recent joint effort and their united victory. Friction -began: years went on: bitterness was intensified: the noisier and -less scrupulous partisans silenced the voice of reason: in the -mother country the Sovereign and his advisers made a good cause -bad: the revolting colonies were ennobled by Washington. Success -justified the action of the colonists. England was condemned -because she failed. Yet the story, if read aright, teaches only -this: that the defeat of England by her own children was due to the -simple fact that partly by her action, partly by her inaction, the -children in wayward and blundering fashion had grown to greatness. - -[Sidenote: Canada under military rule.] - -After the capitulation of Montreal, in September, 1760, Canada was, -for the time being, under military rule. There were three military -governors, General Murray at Quebec, Colonel Burton at Three -Rivers, and General Gage at Montreal. All three were subordinate -to Amherst, the Commander-in-Chief in North America, whose head -quarters were usually at New York. Amherst left for England in -1763, and was succeeded by General Gage, whose place was filled -by the transfer of Burton from Three Rivers, while the military -governorship of Three Rivers was entrusted to Colonel Haldimand, -one of the Swiss officers who deserved so well of England in North -America. - -[Sidenote: The French Canadians at the time of the British conquest -of Canada.] - -While Canada was still under military rule, and before the Peace of -Paris was signed, the British Government took steps to collect full -information as to their newly-acquired possession, with a view to -determining the lines on which it should be administered in future. -At the end of 1761 Amherst was instructed to obtain the necessary -reports, which were in the following year duly supplied by Murray, -Burton, and Gage in respect of Quebec, Three Rivers, and Montreal -respectively.[36] - -Canada at this time contained little more than 70,000 white -inhabitants. The population, Murray thought, had tended to -decrease for twenty years past, owing to war, to the strictness -of the marriage laws, and to the prohibition of marriages between -Protestants and Roman Catholics; but he looked for a large increase -from natural causes in the next twenty years, the men being strong -and the women extremely prolific. - -The Canadians, Murray wrote, were ‘mostly of a Norman race’ and, -‘in general, of a litigious disposition’. He classified them -into the gentry, the clergy, the merchants, and the peasantry or -habitants. The gentry or seigniors, descendants of military or -civil officers, the creation largely of Louis XIV, Colbert, and -Talon, he described as for the most part men of small means, unless -they had held one or other of the distant posts, where they could -make their fortunes. ‘They are extremely vain, and have an utter -contempt for the trading part of the colony, though they made no -scruple to engage in it, pretty deeply too, whenever a convenient -opportunity served. They were great tyrants to their vassals, who -seldom met with redress, let their grievances be ever so just. -This class will not relish the British Government, from which they -can neither expect the same employments or the same douceurs they -enjoyed under the French.’ Of the clergy he wrote that the higher -ranks were filled by Frenchmen, the rest being Canadian born, and -in general Canadians of the lower class. Similarly the wholesale -traders were mostly French, and the retail traders natives of -Canada. The peasantry he described as ‘a strong, healthy race, -plain in their dress, virtuous in their morals, and temperate in -their living’, extremely ignorant, and extremely tenacious of -their religion. At the time of writing, Murray and his colleagues -evidently anticipated more loyalty from the peasantry than from -the higher classes of Canadians. Protected in their religion, -given impartial justice, freed from class oppression and official -corruption, they seemed likely to develop into happy and contented -subjects of the British Crown. The sequel was, however, to show -that more support would accrue to the new rulers of Canada from -the classes which had something to lose than from the credulous -habitants. - -‘The French,’ so ran Murray’s report, ‘bent their whole attention -in this part of the world to the fur-trade.’ They neglected -agriculture and the fisheries. ‘The inhabitants are inclinable -enough to be lazy, and not much skilled in husbandry, the great -dependencies they have hitherto had on the gun and fishing-rod -made them neglect tillage beyond the requisites of their own -consumption and the few purchases they needed.’ Gage wrote that -‘the only immediate importance and advantage the French king -derived from Canada was the preventing the extension of the British -colonies, the consumption of the commodities and manufactures of -France, and the trade of pelletry’. He noted how common it was -‘for the servants, whom the merchants hired to work their boats -and assist in their trade, through a long habit of Indian manners -and customs, at length to adopt their way of life, to intermarry -with them, and turn savages’. Burton’s report was to the same -effect: ‘The laziness of the people, and the alluring and momentary -advantages they reaped from their traffic with the Indians in the -upper countries, and the counterband trade they carried on with -the English colonies, have hitherto prevented the progress of -husbandry;’ and again, ‘The greatest part of the young men, allured -by the debauched and rambling life which always attend the Indian -trade in the upper countries, never thought of settling at home -till they were almost worn out with diseases or premature old age.’ - -It was a country and a people of strong contrasts, wholly unlike -their own colonies, that the English were called upon to rule. At -head quarters and near it there was a cast-iron system in Church -and State, trade monopoly, an administration at once despotic -and corrupt. Behind there was a boundless wild, to which French -restlessness, French adaptability for dealing with native races, -and the possibilities of illicit wealth called the young and -enterprising, who were impatient of control, and who could not -share the gains of corruption at Montreal and Quebec. In Canada -there was no gradual and continuous widening of settlement, such -as marked the English colonies in North America. In those colonies -development was spontaneous but, in the main, civilized; not -according to fixed rule, but not contrary to law, the law being -home-made and not imposed from without. - -In Canada extreme conservatism existed side by side with complete -lawlessness. At one pole of society were a certain number of -obedient human beings, planted out in rows; at the other were -the wandering fur-traders, who knew no law and had no fixed -dwelling-place. Excluding the officials from France, ill paid and -intent on perquisites alone, and excluding French or Canadian -merchants, the main constituents in the population of Canada were -the seignior, the priest, the habitant, and the voyageur; of these -four elements it would be hard to say which was farthest removed -from citizenship, as it was understood in England and the English -colonies. Yet all these elements were to be combined and moulded -into a British community. - -[Sidenote: Beginning of civil government.] - -The beginning of civil administration in Canada under British -rule was the Royal Proclamation of 7th October, 1763, which has -been noticed in the preceding chapter. Before it was issued, an -intimation was sent to Murray that he had been selected as the -first civil governor of the new British province of Quebec. His -commission as governor was dated 21st November, 1763; and the Royal -Instructions, which accompanied the Commission, bore the date of -7th December, 1763; but it was not until August, 1764, that he took -up his new position and military rule came to an end.[37] - -[Sidenote: General Murray.] - -James Murray was still under forty years of age. He proved himself -a stanch, loyal, and capable soldier, resolute in critical times, -as when he defended Quebec through the trying winter of 1759-60, -and later, in 1781-2, held Minorca until his handful of troops, -stricken with famine and disease, surrendered their arms, as they -said, to God alone. His words and his actions alike testified -that he was a humane and just man. Like other soldiers, before -and since, having seen war face to face, he was more ready than -civilians who had not risked their lives, but breathed threatenings -and slaughter from a safe distance, to treat the conquered with -leniency. - -[Sidenote: Difficulties of the situation.] - -[Sidenote: Ill feeling between soldiers and civilians.] - -He had many difficulties to contend with. Military matters did not -run smoothly. In September, 1763, there had been a dangerous mutiny -among the troops at Quebec. It was caused by an ill-timed order -sent out from home to the effect that the soldiers should pay for -their rations; and serious consequences might have followed but for -the prompt and firm attitude of the general and his officers. At -Quebec, Murray combined civil and military powers; but after civil -administration had been proclaimed, though his government included -the whole of the province as constituted by the Royal proclamation, -he was left without authority over the troops at Montreal, where -Burton jealously retained an independent military command. The -inevitable result was to fetter his action to a great extent, to -give to the Canadians the impression of divided authority,[38] -and to accentuate friction between soldiers and civilians, which -culminated in an assault at Montreal in December, 1764, on a -magistrate named Walker, who had made himself specially obnoxious -to the officers of the garrison. Two years later the supposed -perpetrators of the outrage were tried and acquitted, but the -affair left ill feeling behind it, and Walker remained an active -and pertinacious opponent of the British Government in Canada. - -[Sidenote: The Protestant minority.] - -Among the Canadian population there were various causes of unrest. -The priesthood were anxious as to their position and privileges. -The depreciation of the paper money, which had been issued under -the French régime, gave trouble. The law was in a state of chaos; -and, most of all, the first Governor of Canada had to withstand -the pretensions of the handful of Protestants, in 1764 about 200 -in number, in 1766 about 450, who wished to dominate the French -Canadians, alien in religion and in race. - -[Sidenote: Murray leaves for England and is succeeded by Carleton.] - -Against the claims of this small but noisy and intriguing minority -Murray resolutely set his face, but the difficulties which arose -led to his being summoned home. He left Canada for England towards -the end of June, 1766, and though he retained the post of Governor -till April, 1768, he never returned to Quebec. - -His successor was Guy Carleton, who arrived in Canada in September, -1766, and carried on the administration as Lieutenant-Governor -till 1768, when he became Governor-in-chief. Like Murray, he was -a soldier of distinction, and had been a warm personal friend of -Wolfe, who made him one of the executors of his will. He was born -in 1724, at Strabane in the north of Ireland, the third son of -General Sir Guy Carleton. He went into the Guards, was transferred -to the 72nd Regiment, and served in Germany, at Louisbourg, and, as -Quartermaster-General, with Wolfe at Quebec. He remained at Quebec -with Murray during the eventful winter of 1759-60; and, after -further active service at Belle Isle and Havana, he came back to -Quebec in 1766, to do more than any one man in war and peace for -the safety and well-being of Canada as a British possession. - -[Sidenote: Conditions which led to the passing of the Quebec Act.] - -The difficulties which Murray had been called upon to meet -confronted him also, and, like Murray, he saw the necessity as -well as the justice of resisting the extravagant claims of the -minority, and conciliating to British rule the large body of the -Canadian population. For nearly four years he remained at his -post, forming his views as to the lines on which Canada should -be remodelled. In August, 1770, he left for England on leave of -absence, and in England he remained until the Quebec Act had been -passed. The Act was passed in June, 1774, taking effect from the -1st of May in the following year; and in the middle of September, -1774, Carleton arrived again at Quebec. It is now proposed to -review the conditions which led to the passing of the Act, and the -policy which was embodied in it, omitting as far as possible minor -incidents and dealing only with the main features, which illustrate -the general course of British colonial history. - -[Sidenote: The Conquest of Canada presented a new problem in -British colonial history.] - -The acquisition of Canada presented to British statesmen a wholly -new problem. The British Empire had hitherto widened mainly by -means of settlement, for the seventeenth century, as far as Great -Britain was concerned, was a time of settlement, not of conquest. -Jamaica, it is true, had been taken from the Spaniards, and New -York from the Dutch; but, great as was the importance of securing -those two dependencies in the light of subsequent history, the -conquest or cession of both the one and the other was rather an -incident than the result of an era of war and conquest. Such an era -came with the eighteenth century; and, when the Peace of Utrecht in -1713 secured Great Britain in undivided possession of Newfoundland, -and confirmed to her the possession of the Acadian peninsula, and -of the Rock of Gibraltar, a notable outpost of the future Empire, -there was a beginning, though a small beginning, of territorial -expansion as the result of war. - -[Sidenote: Canada was: (1) a continental area; (2) colonized -by another European race; (3) bordering on a sphere of British -colonization; (4) the home of a coloured race.] - -The Seven Years’ War brought with it British conquest alike in -East and West; but in India the British advance was in some sort a -repetition on a wider scale of what other European nations had done -in the same regions. It was the natural outcome of trade rivalry, -and of white men coming among Eastern races. The conquest of -Canada, on the other hand, differed in kind from all that had gone -before in British history. The Imperial Government of Great Britain -took over a great expanse of continent, and became, by force of -arms, proprietor of a country which another colonizing race had -acquired by settlement. The new problems were how to administer -and to develop not a small island or peninsula but a very large -continental area, and how to rule a rival white race which from -the beginnings of colonization in North America had made that -area, or part of it, its own. To these two most difficult problems -was added a third, how to administer the new territory and to rule -the French colonists, so as to work in harmony with the adjacent -British colonies. Conquest and settlement, so to speak, overlapped. -If Canada had not been a French colony, and had been inhabited by -coloured men alone, or if Canada, as a French colony, had been in a -different continent from the British North American colonies, the -task of construction or re-construction would have been infinitely -easier. It would have been easier, too, if the French Canadians -had been the only inhabitants of Canada. But, as it was, one white -race conquered another white race, which in its turn had secured -mastery over a coloured race, and in the land of that coloured race -had not merely conquered or traded, but settled and colonized; and -the new conquerors were of the same kith and kin as settlers in the -adjoining territories, whose traditions were all traditions not -of ruling nor of conquering so much as of gradually acquiring by -settlement at the expense of the coloured race. - -[Sidenote: Conditions which guided British policy in Canada as -embodied in the Proclamation of 1763.] - -[Sidenote: Geographical division between the settled districts and -the hinterland.] - -[Sidenote: The Indian question.] - -[Sidenote: Necessity for attracting British colonists] - -What had British statesmen to guide them in dealing with the -question, and what considerations led to the provisions which were -embodied in their first measure, the Royal Proclamation of 7th -October, 1763? It was evident, in the first place, that a line -could, if it was thought advisable, be drawn between the settled -parts of Canada and the Western territories, where the French had -only maintained outposts and trading stations. The government of -Quebec, therefore, which was the new colony, was, as has been seen, -limited to the districts of Quebec, Three Rivers, and Montreal, -and did not include the regions of the lakes, or the territories -of the Hudson’s Bay Company. In the second place, past experience -had proved that English dealings with the Indians had been very -much less successful than French management, the characteristic -features of which were personal relations with a despotic governor -and his authorized agents and representatives; and that the -Indians enjoyed more protection and were likely to develop greater -loyalty and contentment under a central authority--the Imperial -Government--represented and advised by Sir William Johnson, than -if left to bargain with and to resent encroachments by the various -British colonies. Consequently the proclamation reserved the -western hinterland ‘under our sovereignty, protection, and dominion -for the use of the said Indians’, in addition to safeguarding -the existing rights and lands of the natives within the borders -of the colonies. In the third place it was obviously desirable -to introduce into Canada a leaven of colonists of English race, -and more especially of colonists who had been trained to arms and -already knew the land and the people. Hence, just as in bygone -days Colbert and Talon, when colonizing Canada on a definite -system, planted time-expired soldiers along the St. Lawrence and -the Richelieu rivers, so the Proclamation of 1763 empowered free -land grants to be given in Canada, as well as in the other American -possessions of Great Britain, to officers and soldiers who had -served in the late war; and it also encouraged British settlers -generally by providing that, as soon as circumstances allowed, a -General Assembly was to be summoned ‘in such manner and form as is -used and directed in those colonies and provinces in America which -are under our immediate government.’[39] - -[Sidenote: and for conciliating the French Canadians.] - -[Sidenote: Desire to give British privileges to Canada.] - -But most of all it was necessary to mete out fair and liberal -treatment to the new subjects, the French Canadians, and make -them contented citizens of the British Empire. This object, -Englishmen naturally argued, could best be attained, first, by -securing ‘the ancient inhabitants in all the titles, rights, and -privileges granted to them by Treaty’[40]; and secondly, by giving -the Canadians as soon as possible the laws and institutions -which British subjects valued and under which they had thrived, -by assimilating Canada as far as possible in these respects to -the neighbouring British colonies. Accordingly the Canadians were -from the first to enjoy the benefit of the laws of England, and -courts of justice were to be established with power to determine -all causes criminal and civil ‘as near as may be agreeable to the -laws of England’. The question of religion was ignored in the -proclamation; freedom of worship had already been guaranteed to -the Roman Catholics by the 4th Article of the Peace of Paris,[41] -and Murray’s instructions were that he should ‘in all things -regarding the said inhabitants, conform with great exactness to -the stipulations of the said treaty in this respect’. There the -matter was left for the moment, though Murray’s commission provided -that the persons who should be elected as members of the future -Assembly were to subscribe the declaration against Popery, enacted -in Charles the Second’s reign, which provision would have excluded -Roman Catholics from sitting in the Assembly. - -[Sidenote: Liberal intention of the Proclamation of 1763.] - -There is no question that the proclamation itself was conceived in -a wise and tolerant spirit. There was every intention to safeguard -the best interests alike of the French Canadians and of the -Indians; to give to the latter the protection of Imperial rule, -to give to the former the benefits of British laws, and as far as -possible the privileges of British citizenship. The proclamation, -too, was not drawn on hard and fast lines. As soon as circumstances -permitted, and not before, representative institutions were to be -introduced, and the laws were not to be necessarily the laws of -England, but ‘as near as may be agreeable to’ the laws of England. - -[Sidenote: Murray’s Commission.] - -[Sidenote: The Council of government.] - -Murray’s commission as governor empowered him, ‘so soon as the -situation and circumstances of our said province under your -government will admit thereof, and when and as often as need shall -require, to summon and call General Assemblies of the freeholders -and planters within your government.’ But by the terms of the -commission a council was joined with the governor and Assembly -as the authority for making laws and ordinances, and the Royal -Instructions provided that, pending the calling of a General -Assembly, the governor was to act on the advice of his council in -making regulations, which would have the force of law, and which -were, as a matter of fact, styled ordinances, certain important -subjects, such as taxation, being excluded from their scope. -Thus, until representative institutions could be given to Canada, -legislative and executive authority was placed in the hands of -the governor acting on the advice of a nominated council. But the -council, again, was constituted on liberal lines, as its members -were to be the Lieutenant-Governors of Montreal and Three Rivers, -the Chief Justice of the province of Quebec, the Surveyor-General -of Customs in America for the Northern district, and ‘eight other -persons to be chosen by you from amongst the most considerable of -the inhabitants of, or persons of property in, our said province’. -From the first, therefore, it was intended that the unofficial -element in the council should outnumber the officials--evidence, -if evidence were wanted, that it was desired to govern Canada in -accordance with the wishes of the people. - -[Sidenote: Courts of justice established.] - -[Sidenote: Causes of the difficulties which arose.] - -Immediately after civil government had taken the place of -military rule, an ordinance was, in September, 1764, promulgated, -constituting courts of justice, the law to be administered being -in the main the law of England, and trial by jury being introduced -without any religious qualification for jurymen. One provision in -the ordinance, it may be noticed in passing, abolished the district -of Three Rivers, which had hitherto been, like Montreal, in charge -of a Lieutenant-Governor. Thus Canada was started on its course as -a British colony, with the best intentions, the prospect of such -self-government as other American colonies enjoyed, British law -and justice, and above all a governor who was in sympathy with the -people, and earnestly worked for their good; but difficulties arose -almost immediately, and the causes of them are not far to seek. - -[Sidenote: The religious question.] - -It was the honest desire of the British Government to give liberty -to Canada, to treat it, not as a conquered country, but as a -British colony. Liberty, as the English understand it, has connoted -three things, representative institutions, British law and justice, -including especially trial by jury and the Habeas Corpus Act, and -freedom of conscience. But in past times to Protestants freedom -of conscience meant practical exclusion from the political sphere -of those, like Roman Catholics, whose creed was in principle an -exclusive creed; and therefore, in a Roman Catholic country under -Protestant supremacy, like Ireland or Canada in the eighteenth -century, representative institutions from the strong Protestant -point of view meant institutions which did not represent the bulk -of the population. In this matter, as in others, in the case of -Canada, English statesmen and English governors, though not at once -prepared to dispense with religious tests, were more liberally -inclined towards the ‘new subjects’, the French Canadians, than -were the English colonists in America; and the soldier Murray had -far more breadth of mind than the local lawyers and politicians -who prated of liberties which they had no intention of granting to -others. - -[Sidenote: Murray’s letter to Lord Shelburne.] - -[Sidenote: His opinion of the Protestant minority in Canada.] - -Shortly after his return to England, in 1766, Murray expressed -his views as to the small Protestant minority in Canada in plain -outspoken terms. In a letter addressed to Lord Shelburne on the -20th of August in that year, he wrote, ‘most of them were followers -of the army, of mean education, or soldiers disbanded at the -reduction of the troops. All have their fortunes to make, and I -fear few of them are solicitous about the means when the end -can be obtained. I report them to be in general the most immoral -collection of men I ever knew, of course little calculated to make -the new subjects enamoured with our laws, religion, and customs, -far less adapted to enforce these laws and to govern.’ As the -Canadian peasantry, he continued, ‘have been taught to respect -their superiors and not get intoxicated with the abuse of liberty, -they are shocked at the insults which their noblesse and the King’s -officers have received from the English traders and lawyers, since -the civil government took place.... Magistrates were to be made -and juries to be composed from four hundred and fifty contemptible -sutlers and traders ... the Canadian noblesse were hated because -their birth and behaviour entitled them to respect, and the -peasants were abhorred because they were saved from the oppression -they were threatened with.’ Equally severe was his judgement on -‘the improper choice and the number of the civil officers sent -out from England’, ignorant of the law and language, rapacious, -and lowering the dignity of government. In short his letter[42] -was a wholesale condemnation of the representatives of the party -which claimed to represent British civic life in a newly-acquired -possession. - -These men had bitterly attacked Murray, and no doubt Murray was -bitter in turn; but his strictures were largely justified. He had -lived for some years among the Canadians; he had commanded the -King’s troops; himself a man of high principle and good breeding, -he resented the mischief wrought by a low class of domineering -interlopers who, in the name of freedom, meant to oppress, and -painted as tyranny the policy which prevented oppression. A -continuance of military rule, which the Canadians understood, would -have been infinitely preferable to representative institutions in -which the overwhelming majority of the population would have had no -share. - -[Sidenote: Character of American Protestantism.] - -[Sidenote: Unfit men sent out from England.] - -Carleton’s view was much the same as Murray’s. His sympathies -too were with Canada and the Canadians, and yet the forces and -the instincts on the other side are at least intelligible. It was -natural that, when war was over, in the train of the conquering -army there should drift into the conquered country a certain -number of adventurers, eager for official and professional gain, -exploiting the land and the people, indifferent to higher objects, -for they had not known them. They were an inevitable evil, such -as must be reckoned with in similar circumstances at all times -and in all places. It was natural too that Protestantism, when -ascendant, should be aggressive; and Protestantism in Canada -was borrowed from the New England States; it was the Puritanism -of past days, hardened by memories of the evil wrought by Roman -Catholic teaching among the natives of North America, the fruits of -which had been, times without number, a series of savage crusades -against the border villages of the British colonies. But the -British Government, with all its kindly intentions, was at fault -too; and the fault was the same evil which was poisoning political -life at home. Unfit men were being sent out from home, and the -subordinate instruments for carrying out a new policy, and making a -new régime congenial to those who were to live under it, were not -well chosen. Men were wanted at first rather than institutions. The -soldier governors were good, but the same could not be said of the -civilians and lawyers. - -[Sidenote: Pouring new wine into old bottles.] - -Once more, too, it must be noticed that the actual merits of -British statesmanship and policy militated against its success. It -was so keenly desired to give the new subjects all the privileges -enjoyed by the old, that too little account was taken of the -training, the wishes, and the present needs of the new subjects. -The Canadians were politically children. They had never known even -the semblance of representative institutions. They had from all -time been born and bred under authority--under the King, under -the Church, under the seigniors. They had learnt unquestioning -obedience, and could not at once be re-cast in a democratic mould. -The printing press, the Assembly for law-making and debate, the -standing quarrels with governors, the withholding of supplies, -the aggressive freedom in every form which characterized the -English communities in North America, all were alien to the French -Canadian. The wine might be good, but it was new, and pouring it -into old bottles could only have one result, the loss of the wine -and the bursting of the bottles. So also with British law and -justice: that too was new and largely unintelligible; the language -puzzled and confused, and the lawyers who came in found the -confusion profitable. Premature attempts or proposals to assimilate -only served to emphasize differences, and for the moment good -intentions paved the way to something like anarchy. - -[Sidenote: Presentment of the Grand Jury in October, 1764.] - -In September, 1764, the ordinance constituting courts of justice -was promulgated, and in the following month the Grand Jury at -Quebec made a presentment, enumerating a number of alleged -grievances, concerned not merely with the administration of -justice, but also with various matters which lay wholly outside -their sphere. ‘We represent,’ so the framers of the presentment -wrote, ‘that as the Grand Jury must be considered at present as the -only body representative of the colony, they, as British subjects, -have a right to be consulted, before any ordinance that may affect -the body that they represent be passed into a law.’ It was an -impertinent document, a kind of manifesto against the Government; -and, taken by itself alone, gave ample evidence of the class and -the temper of the men who were determined to make trouble in -Canada. It was signed by some French jurors as well as English, but -a supplement to it, signed by the English, or, at any rate, by the -Protestant members alone, protested against Roman Catholics being -admitted as jurors, and it soon appeared that the French jurors had -signed the main document in ignorance of its contents.[43] ‘Little, -very little,’ wrote Murray, ‘will content the new subjects, but -nothing will satisfy the licentious fanatics trading here, but the -expulsion of the Canadians who are perhaps the bravest and the -best race upon the globe, a race who, could they be indulged with -a few privileges which the laws of England deny to Roman Catholics -at home, would soon get the better of every national antipathy to -their conquerors and become the most faithful and most useful set -of men in this American Empire.’[44] - -[Sidenote: Petition for recall of Murray.] - -The Grand Jury’s presentment was followed by a petition for -the recall of Murray, drawn up in the next year and signed by -twenty-one persons, which accused him of military prejudice against -civil liberties, and of discouraging the Protestants and their -religion. It asked for a new governor of a less military type, -and for a House of Representatives composed of Protestants alone, -though Roman Catholics might be allowed to vote for Protestant -members. Never did a small minority make more extravagant claims, -or attack with greater want of scruple those who were trying to -hold the balance even. - -[Sidenote: The ordinance of 1770.] - -[Sidenote: The Quebec Act.] - -Carleton succeeded Murray, and soon after his arrival showed -that he was as little disposed, as Murray had been, to submit -to dictation. A side issue had arisen as to the appointment and -precedence of members of the council, and, in answer to a protest -addressed to him by some of the councillors, he laid down that ‘I -will ask the advice and opinion of such persons, though not of the -council, as I shall find men of good sense, truth, candour, and -impartial justice; persons who prefer their duty to the King, and -the tranquillity of his subjects to unjustifiable attachments, -party zeal, and to all selfish mercenary views.... I must also -remind you that His Majesty’s service requires tranquillity and -peace in his province of Quebec, and that it is the indispensable -duty of every good subject, and of every honest man, to promote -so desirable an end.’[45] Still intrigue went on: religious -bitterness did not abate, as men spoke and wrote on either side: -legal confusion became worse confounded, and reports were made on -what was and what ought to be the state of the law, by the English -law officers of the Crown, by a delegate sent out from England, -and by Masères, the Attorney-General in Canada. One crying evil, -however, arising from the proceedings for the recovery of debts, -which were enriching magistrates and bailiffs and reducing Canadian -families to beggary, was remedied by Carleton in an ordinance dated -1st February, 1770, which among other provisions deprived the -justices of the peace of jurisdiction in cases affecting private -property.[46] It was a righteous ordinance, and those who had -profited by the old system raised an outcry against it, but in -vain. Eventually the Quebec Act was passed in 1774, the provisions -of which must now be considered. - -[Sidenote: Its objects.] - -‘The principal objects of the Quebec Bill,’ we read in the _Annual -Register_ for 1774,[47] ‘were to ascertain the limits of that -province, which were extended far beyond what had been settled as -such by the King’s Proclamation of 1763. To form a legislative -council for all the affairs of that province, except taxation, -which council should be appointed by the Crown, the office to be -held during pleasure; and His Majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects -were entitled to a place in it. To establish the French laws, and -a trial without jury, in civil cases: and the English laws, with a -trial by jury, in criminal; to secure to the Roman Catholic clergy, -except the Regulars, the legal enjoyment of their estates, and of -their tythes from all who were of their own religion. These were -the chief objects of the Act.’ - -[Sidenote: Extension of the boundaries of the province of Quebec.] - -It has been seen that, under the Proclamation of 1763, the province -of Quebec included the settled part of Canada, as far as the point -where the 45th parallel of latitude intersected the St. Lawrence, -midway between Montreal and Lake Ontario. Outside the province -were the Labrador coast from the river St. John to Hudson Straits, -which, with the island of Anticosti and other small islands in -the estuary of the St. Lawrence, was placed ‘under the care and -inspection’ of the Governor of Newfoundland; the government of Nova -Scotia, including at the time Cape Breton Island, the territory now -forming the province of New Brunswick, and the island of St. John, -afterwards Prince Edward Island; the territories of the Hudson’s -Bay Company; and the great undefined region of the lakes and the -Ohio as far as the Mississippi. The Quebec Act restored to Canada -or, as it was still styled, the province of Quebec, the Labrador -coast and Anticosti, and included in it, within the lines which -the Act prescribed, the Western territories for which England and -France had fought so hard. - -[Sidenote: The Labrador coast added to the province of Quebec.] - -The reason for re-annexing the Labrador coast to Canada was -that since 1763, when it had been placed under the Governor of -Newfoundland, there had been constant disputes and difficulties as -to the fishing rights on that coast. It was the old story, so well -known in the case of Newfoundland itself, of a perpetual struggle -between those who lived on or near the spot, and the fishermen -who came over the Atlantic from English ports, and who wanted the -fisheries and the landing-places reserved for their periodical -visits. The Governor of Newfoundland in the years 1764-8 was an -energetic man, Sir Hugh Palliser, who built a fort in Labrador, -and set himself to enforce the fishing rules which prevailed in -Newfoundland. But the Labrador fisheries, it was contended, were -of a more sedentary nature than those of the Newfoundland Banks, -sealing was as prominent an occupation as cod-fishing;[48] the -regulations which kept Newfoundland for the Dorset and Devon -fishing fleets could not fairly be applied to the mainland, and the -coast of Labrador should be placed under regular civil government, -and not be left in the charge of the sea captains who held -authority in Newfoundland. - -It was really a case, on a very small scale, of England against -America; and the interesting point to notice is that the opponents -of the Newfoundland régime included alike French Canadians and -New Englanders. The few settlers on the Labrador coast, and the -fishermen and sealers who came either from Canada or from the -New England states, were all concerned to prevent Labrador from -being kept, like Newfoundland, as a preserve for Englishmen, and a -nursery for English sailors; and it illustrates the confusion of -thought which existed among the opponents of the Quebec Act that, -in the debate on the Act, we find Chatham, the champion of the -rights of the American colonists, denouncing the provision which -gave back Labrador to Quebec, on the ground that it would become -a nursery for French instead of English sailors, forgetful that -the system which he wished to perpetuate, had been persistently -obstructed by the men of Massachusetts, forgetful too that true -statesmanship conceived of the French Canadians, on sea or land, as -future loyal citizens of the British Crown. - -[Sidenote: Inclusion of the western hinterland in the province of -Quebec.] - -But the extension of the boundaries of the province of Quebec on -the Atlantic side was after all a small matter, though the most was -made of it for party purposes. Nor could exception be taken to the -enlargement of the province to the north and north-west, until it -reached the territories which had been granted to, or were claimed -by, the Hudson’s Bay Company. Far more important and more debatable -was the inclusion of the western and south-western regions, which -had been left outside the government of Quebec by the Proclamation -of 1763. - -[Illustration: - - =Canada under the Quebec Act 1774.= from T. Pownall’s map of the - Middle British Colonies of N. America, London 1775. _to face - page 81_ - - B. V. Barbishire, Oxford, 1908 -] - -It will be remembered[49] that these territories had not been -included in the province of Quebec for three reasons: that their -incorporation with the conquered province might have been held to -be an admission that the British title to them only dated from -the conquest of Canada, that their annexation to any particular -province would have given to that province a preponderating -advantage in regard to trade with the Indians, and that the -extension to them of the laws and administration of the province -of Quebec would have necessitated the establishment of a number of -military garrisons throughout the territories. The first of these -three objections was, in fact, taken in the debates on the Quebec -Bill. ‘The first object of the Bill,’ said Mr. Dunning in the House -of Commons on the 26th of May, 1774, ‘is to make out that to be[50] -Canada, which it was the struggle of this country to say, was not -Canada.’ The second objection was clearly potent in the minds of -the partisans of the old British colonies, who opposed the Bill. -It would seem that when the Proclamation of 1763 was issued, the -British Government had contemplated passing an Act of Parliament, -constituting a separate administration for the Western territories, -but the plan, whatever it was, never came to the birth;[51] and, -as the King had foreseen, ‘great inconvenience’ had arisen ‘from -so large a tract of land being left, without being subject to the -civil jurisdiction of some governor’.[52] This inconvenience the -Quebec Act tried to rectify by bringing these western lands under -the government of Canada. - -The line now laid down, on the motion of Burke in the House of -Commons, was carried from the point where the 45th parallel of -latitude intersected the St. Lawrence to Lake Ontario, up Lake -Ontario and the Niagara river into Lake Erie, and along the -southern or eastern shore of Lake Erie, until it met the alleged -frontier of the state of Pennsylvania, or, if that frontier was -found not to touch the lake, up to the point nearest to the -north-western angle of Pennsylvania. From that angle it skirted the -western boundary of Pennsylvania down to the Ohio, which river it -followed to the Mississippi. - -[Sidenote: Claims of Pennsylvania.] - -In the debate in the House of Commons a petition was presented -from the Penns, claiming that part of the province of Pennsylvania -was situated to the north-west of the Ohio, and Lord North offered -no opposition to the petition, on the ground that the Bill was -not intended to affect existing rights. On a map of 1776, after -the passing of the Act, Pennsylvania was shown as jutting out at -an acute angle into Lake Erie, and the boundary line, identical -with the western frontier of the state, started from the lake -near Presque Isle, and struck the Ohio at Logs Town, west of Fort -Duquesne and slightly east of Beaver Creek, leaving to Pennsylvania -the whole course of the Alleghany, and Fort Duquesne or Pittsburg. -It will be noted that, further east, the line, being drawn along -the St. Lawrence and the lakes, excluded from Canada the whole -country of the Six Nations, which had been demarcated as Indian -Territory by the Agreement of 1768.[53] The net result was to leave -the boundary line south of the St. Lawrence, where it had been -drawn in 1763, as far as the intersection of the 45th parallel with -the river, and thence to follow the waterways up to the point in -the southern shore of Lake Erie where the old French route to the -Ohio left the lake. From the Atlantic up to this point the present -international line between Canada and the United States is not far -different at the present day, though more favourable to the United -States, especially where, since the Ashburton Treaty of 1842, the -state of Maine runs northward into the provinces of Quebec and New -Brunswick. But, by carrying the boundary from Lake Erie to the Ohio -and down the Ohio to the Mississippi, all the Illinois country and -all the western lands, for which English and French had contended, -were confirmed to Canada. - -[Sidenote: Reasons for the extension of the province.] - -There were good reasons for taking this step. Eleven years had -passed since the territories in question had been left as an Indian -reserve. Events move quickly in a border land, and encroachments -grow apace. The time had come for some defined system, some -recognized law and government. As far as there were permanent -settlers in these regions, they were, it would seem, although the -contrary was averred in the House of Commons, French rather than -English; and it would be more palatable for colonists of French -origin to be incorporated with Canada than to be absorbed by the -purely English colonies. The native population would unquestionably -be better cared for under the government of Quebec than under the -legislatures of Pennsylvania and Virginia. The waterways still, -as in old times, made communication easier from Canada than from -the southern colonies; and to those colonies, on the brink of war -against the mother country, the mother country could hardly be -expected to entrust the keeping of the West. - -[Sidenote: Arguments urged against it.] - -On the other hand there was bitter and intelligible opposition -to the annexation to Canada of ‘immense territories, now desert, -but which are the best parts of that continent and which run on -the back of all your ancient colonies’.[54] The decision which -was now taken meant cutting off the existing English colonies -from the West; and, in view of the other provisions of the Act, -the incorporation of the new territories with Canada placed them -under an administration in which there was at the time no element -of self-government and which gave formal recognition to the Roman -Catholic Church. It was, in short, or seemed to be, an admission -that the old claim of Canada to the regions of the Ohio, against -which, while Canada was still a French possession, the British -Government and the British colonies had alike contended, was after -all a valid claim; and it was, or seemed to be, a pronouncement -that in years to come the future of the Western lands was to be -shaped on Canadian principles and Canadian traditions, rather than -on those which had moulded and inspired the ever-growing colonies -of the British race. - -It has been argued that true statesmanship would, in accordance -with the plan which had been at one time contemplated, have -constituted the territories beyond the 45th parallel a separate -province under the Crown, separate alike from Canada on the one -hand, and from Pennsylvania and Virginia on the other. This -might possibly have been a preferable course; but, as subsequent -experience showed in the case of Upper Canada, an inland colony, -whose only outlet is through other provinces, is always in a -difficult position; and the multiplication of communities in North -America had already borne a crop of difficulties. Moreover, the -particular circumstances of the time accounted for the decision -which was taken, as they accounted also for the strong antagonism -which that decision called forth. In the same session in which -the Quebec Act was passed, the British Parliament had already -enacted three punitive laws against the recalcitrant colony of -Massachusetts; one closing the harbour of Boston; another altering -the legislature, and giving to the governor the power of appointing -and removing the judges, magistrates, and sheriffs; and a third -empowering the trial of persons accused of capital offences in the -discharge of their public duties to be held outside the limits -of the province. If it was thought necessary thus to limit the -liberties of one of the English colonies by Imperial legislation, -it would have been hopelessly illogical to enlarge the borders -of others among the sister communities; and if the only possible -alternative was to keep the Western territories directly under the -Crown, it was simpler, and involved less friction and debate, to -attach them by a single clause in a Bill to the existing province -of Quebec, than to treat them as a separate unit and to provide -them with an administration and a legislature by a separate law. -Furthermore, their annexation to Canada outwardly, at any rate, -strengthened at a critical time the one province in America where -the Crown still held undivided sway. - -[Sidenote: Sections in the Act which dealt with the religious -question.] - -The fifth, sixth, and seventh sections of the Act dealt with -religion. They provided for the free exercise of the Roman -Catholic faith by the members of that Church, subject to the -King’s supremacy as established by the Act passed in the reign of -Queen Elizabeth; but they substituted a simple oath of allegiance -for the oath required by Queen Elizabeth’s statute, and they -confirmed to the Roman Catholic clergy ‘their accustomed dues and -rights’. Protestants were expressly exempted from these payments; -but the Act provided that, from such dues as they would otherwise -have paid, provision might be made for the encouragement of the -Protestant religion and the maintenance of a Protestant clergy. In -other words, freedom of religion was guaranteed, the establishment -of the Roman Catholic Church was recognized by law, and the -principle of concurrent endowment was introduced. - -[Sidenote: Other provisions of the Act.] - -The eighth section of the Act restored Canadian law and custom in -civil matters, and confirmed existing rights to property, with the -exception of the property of the religious orders. The eleventh -section continued the law of England in criminal matters. The -twelfth, laying down that it was at present inexpedient to call an -Assembly, provided for a nominated Legislative Council, consisting -of not more than twenty-three and not less than seventeen members, -no religious test being imposed. The next section withheld from -the council the power of taxation, such additional taxes as were -deemed necessary being imposed by a separate Act of the Imperial -Parliament.[55] - -[Sidenote: The Act embodied a compromise.] - -[Sidenote: Opposition to it.] - -[Sidenote: Inconsistency of the opponents.] - -Such were the principal provisions of the Quebec Act. It embodied -a fair and reasonable compromise. In part the Government retraced -their steps; they restored Canadian civil law, they postponed -indefinitely a representative legislature, but they gave what -could under the circumstances be suitably and prudently given, -religious toleration, trial by jury in criminal matters, and a -council to which the Crown could call representatives of all creeds -and interests. The Bill was attacked in the House of Lords, and -in the House of Commons; and, even after it had become law, in -1775, Lord Camden in the House of Lords, and Sir George Savile -in the House of Commons, presented petitions from the British -inhabitants of the province of Quebec against the Act and moved for -its repeal. The corporation of London petitioned against it. The -American colonists made it the text of the manifesto to the people -of Canada, which has already been noticed.[56] In the debates in -Parliament various points were taken. Fox argued that, as the Bill -gave tithes to the Roman Catholic clergy, it was a money Bill, -and should not have originated, as it did originate in the House -of Lords. Others criticized the absence of any provision for the -rights of Habeas Corpus,[57] and the abolition of trial by jury -in civil cases; but the main attack was on the lines that the law -gave formal recognition to the Roman Catholic Church, that it -withheld popular representation, and that it extended these two -unsound principles to new territories whose lot should rather have -been cast with the English colonies. Reference was made to the -case of the colony of Grenada, in which limited representation in -the popular Assembly had been given to Roman Catholics; but the -opponents of the Quebec Act had not the courage to declare for a -popular Assembly for Canada, without any religious test, for it -would have meant an almost exclusively Roman Catholic legislature. -They were at one and the same time fighting for the Protestant -minority and contending for popular representation, but Protestant -claims and popular representation in Canada were hopelessly at -variance. This made the case of the opposition weak, and this was -the justification of the Act. Lord Chatham denounced it as a most -cruel, oppressive, and odious measure. Burke tried to appeal to -popular prejudice against the Canadian seigniors. He attacked them, -and he pressed the claims of the Protestant minority on the ground -of their commercial importance, descending to such clap-trap as -that in his opinion, in the case in point, one Englishman was worth -fifty Frenchmen. The tone of the opposition was unworthy of the -men, but minds had been so embittered and judgements so clouded by -years of wrangle and debate on the American question, that the Act -for the better government of Canada was viewed by the opponents of -the ministry and the partisans of the colonies mainly as a case of -French against English, and Papists against Protestants. None the -less, the Act was a just and generous measure, and, when Carleton -returned to Canada in September, 1774, his reception by the leading -French Canadians showed that they appreciated it. Because, when -war came, the Canadians as a whole stood aloof in a quarrel which -was no concern of theirs, and some of them joined the revolting -colonies, it was argued in the English Parliament that the Act had -not conciliated them, and therefore stood condemned; but history -has proved that this view was not true. No one measure or series of -measures can at once obliterate differences of race, language, and -creed; but, passed as it was at a time of failures, recrimination, -and bitterness, the Quebec Act stood and will to all times stand to -the credit of English good sense, in dealing with the actual facts -of a difficult position, and the feelings and prejudices of an -alien people. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[16] _Travels into North America_, by Peter Kalm, Eng. Transl.; -1770, vol. i, pp. 264-5. - -[17] Montcalm’s letters, however, to which reference is here -made, are held to have been forged by a Jesuit or ex-Jesuit named -Roubaud. See Mr. Brymner’s _Report on Canadian Archives_ for -the year 1885, p. xiii, &c., and Note E, p. cxxxviii. See also -Parkman’s _Montcalm and Wolfe_, 1884 ed., vol. ii, pp. 325-6, Note. - -[18] _History of England in the Eighteenth Century_, 1882 ed., vol. -iii, chap. xii, p. 272. - -[19] From the anonymous _Lettre d’un habitant de Louisbourg_, edited -and translated by Professor Wrong, Toronto, 1897, p. 58. - -[20] As to the authenticity of Montcalm’s letters, see above, note -to p. 31. - -[21] Sir G. Cornewall Lewis, in the _Essay on the Government of -Dependencies_, chap. vi, writes that the North American colonies -‘had not been required at any time since their foundation to -contribute anything to the expenses of the Supreme Government, -and there is scarcely any habit which it is so difficult for a -government to overcome in a people as a habit of not paying’. - -[22] _Wealth of Nations_: chapter on the ‘Causes of the Prosperity -of New Colonies’. - -[23] _Wealth of Nations_: chapters on the ‘Causes of the Prosperity -of New Colonies’, and on the ‘Advantages which Europe has derived -from the Discovery of America and from that of a Passage to the -East Indies by the Cape of Good Hope’. - -[24] The Greek colonies will be remembered to the contrary. Some of -them speedily outgrew the mother cities in wealth and population, -but then they were wholly independent. - -[25] _The American Revolution_, 1899 ed., Part I, chap. ii, p. 101. - -[26] See above, p. 38. - -[27] Chapter on ‘Causes of the Prosperity of New Colonies’. - -[28] The above, however, was not Adam Smith’s view. In the chapter -‘Of the Advantages which Europe has derived from the Discovery of -America, &c. &c.’ he writes, ‘The late war was altogether a colony -quarrel, and the whole expense of it, in whatever part of the world -it may have been laid out, whether in Germany or the East Indies, -ought justly to be stated to the account of the colonies.’ - -[29] It is very difficult to state the case quite fairly as between -the mother country and the colonies. In the first place a broad -distinction must be drawn between the New England colonies and the -more southern colonies. The New Englanders, who had the French on -their borders, made far more sacrifices in men and money than the -southern colonies, some of which, owing to remoteness, took no -part in the war. The efforts of Massachusetts, and the military -expenditure incurred by that colony, are set out by Mr. Parkman in -his _Montcalm and Wolfe_, 1884 ed., vol. ii, chap. xx, pp. 83-6. -In the next place, the regular regiments, though the whole expense -of them was borne by the mother country, were to a considerable -extent recruited in the colonies. The Royal Americans, e.g. were -entirely composed of colonists. At the second siege of Louisbourg -the English force consisted, according to Parkman, of 11,600 -men, of whom only 500 were provincial troops, and according to -Kingsford of 12,260, of whom five companies only were Rangers. -The expedition against Ticonderoga, excluding bateau men and -non-combatants, included, according to Kingsford, 6,405 regulars -and 5,960 provincials. Parkman gives 6,367 regulars and 9,034 -provincials; this was before the actual advance began, and probably -included bateau men, &c. Forbes’ army contained 1,630 regulars out -of a total of 5,980 (Kingsford). Wolfe’s force at Quebec, in 1759, -numbered 8,535 combatants, out of whom the provincial troops only -amounted to about 700 (Kingsford. See also Parkman’s _Montcalm and -Wolfe_, Appendix H). Amherst, in the same year, in the campaign on -Lakes George and Champlain, commanded 6,537 Imperial troops and -4,839 provincials. [The respective numbers in the different forces -are well summed up in the fifth volume of Kingsford’s _History of -Canada_, pp. 273-4.] - -[30] It is interesting to notice that as early as 1652 a proposal -emanated from Barbados that colonial representatives from that -island should sit in the Imperial Parliament. - -[31] Grenville carried a resolution in the House of Commons in -favour of the Stamp Act in 1764. The Act received the Royal Assent -in March, 1765, and came into operation on November 1, 1765. - -[32] O’Callaghan’s _Documentary History of New York_, vol. ii -(1849), MSS. of Sir William Johnson; this was at a public meeting -of the Six Nations with Sir William Johnson, July 3, 1755. - -[33] Sir W. Johnson to the Rev. Mr. Wheelock, October 16, 1762. -_Documentary History of New York_, vol. iv. Paper relating -principally to the conversion and civilization of the Six Nations -of Indians. - -[34] See O’Callaghan’s _Documentary History of New York_, 1849, -vol. i, Paper No. 20, pp. 587-91. - -[35] General Murray to Lord Shelburne, London, August 20, 1766. See -Kingsford’s _History of Canada_, vol. v, p. 188. - -[36] See _Documents Relating to the Constitutional History of -Canada_, 1759-91 (Shortt and Doughty), pp. 37-72. - -[37] The delay was probably due to the provisions of the fourth -clause of the Treaty of Paris, by which eighteen months were to be -allowed to the subjects of the French king in Canada, who wished -to leave the country, to do so. The treaty was signed on February -10, 1763, and was ratified by England on February 21, 1763; the -eighteen months were to run from the date of ratification, but -civil government in Canada began on August 10, 1764, i.e. eighteen -months from the date of the treaty itself. - -[38] ‘The Canadians are to a man soldiers, and will naturally -conceive that he who commands the troops should govern them.’ -Murray to Halifax, October 15, 1764. Shortt and Doughty, p. 153. - -[39] The words, ‘under our immediate government,’ did not -connote what would now be called Crown colonies as opposed to -self-governing colonies, but colonies which held under the Crown -and not under proprietors. - -[40] The Lords of Trade to Lord Egremont, June 8, 1763. Shortt and -Doughty, p. 104. - -[41] Part of the 4th Article of the Peace of Paris in 1763 ran as -follows: ‘His Britannic Majesty, on his side, agrees to grant the -liberty of the Catholic religion to the inhabitants of Canada; -he will in consequence give the most precise and most effectual -orders, that his new Roman Catholic subjects may profess the -worship of their religion according to the rites of the Romish -Church, as far as the laws of Great Britain permit.’ - -[42] The letter is printed in full in the fifth volume of -Kingsford’s _History of Canada_, pp. 188-90. - -[43] For these documents see Shortt and Doughty, pp. 153, &c. - -[44] October 29, 1764. See Shortt and Doughty, p. 167. - -[45] October, 1766: Shortt and Doughty, pp. 194-5. - -[46] For this ordinance see Shortt and Doughty, p. 280. Carleton’s -dispatch of March 28, 1770, which enclosed the ordinance, explained -the reasons for passing it, and submitted in evidence of the -abuses which had sprung up a letter from an ex-captain of Canadian -militia, will be found printed in Mr. Brymner’s _Report on Canadian -Archives_ for 1890 (published in 1891), Note A. - -[47] p. 75 - -[48] A French Canadian petition to the King, drawn up about the end -of 1773, referred in the following terms to the Labrador question: -‘We desire also that His Majesty would be graciously pleased to -re-annex to this province the coast of Labrador, which formerly -belonged to it, and has been taken from it since the peace. The -fishery for seals, which is the only fishery carried on upon this -coast, is carried on only in the middle of winter, and sometimes -does not last above a fortnight. The nature of this fishery, which -none of His Majesty’s subjects but the inhabitants of this province -understand; the short time of its continuance; and the extreme -severity of the weather, which makes it impossible for ships to -continue at that time upon the coasts; are circumstances which all -conspire to exclude any fishermen from old England from having any -share in the conduct of it.’ (Shortt and Doughty, pp. 358-9.) - -[49] See above, p. 6, and Shortt and Doughty, p. 111. - -[50] See _Canadian Constitutional Development_, Egerton and Grant, -p. 28. - -[51] See Shortt and Doughty, p. 381. Paper as to Proposed -extension of Provincial Limits: ‘The King’s servants were induced -to confine the government of Quebec within the above limits, -from an apprehension that there were no settlements of Canadian -subjects, or lawful possessions beyond those limits, and from a -hope of being able to carry into execution a plan that was then -under consideration for putting the whole of the interior country -to the westward of our colonies under one general control and -regulation by Act of Parliament.... The plan for the regulation of -the interior country proved abortive, and in consequence thereof -an immense tract of very valuable land, within which there are -many possessions and actual colonies existing under the faith -of the Treaty of Paris, has become the theatre of disorder and -confusion....’ - -[52] See above, p. 5, and Shortt and Doughty, p. 108. - -[53] See above, p. 59. - -[54] _Annual Register_ for 1774, p. 77. - -[55] The Quebec Act was 14 Geo. III, cap. 83, and its full title -was ‘An act for making more effectual provision for the government -of the Province of Quebec in North America’. The Quebec Revenue -Act was 14 Geo. III, cap. 88, and its full title was ‘An act to -establish a fund towards further defraying the charges of the -Administration of Justice and support of the Civil Government -within the Province of Quebec in America’. Much was heard of this -latter Act in the constitutional wrangles of later years in Lower -Canada. - -[56] See above, p. 60. - -[57] The opponents of the Quebec Act maintained that it took away -the right of Habeas Corpus. Thus petitions from English residents -in Quebec, dated November 12, 1774, complained, in respect to the -Quebec Act, ‘That in matters of a Criminal Nature the Habeas Corpus -Act is dissolved:’ and again, ‘That to their inexpressible grief -they find, by an Act of Parliament entitled an act for making -more effectual provision for the government of the province of -Quebec in North America, they are deprived of the Habeas Corpus -Act and trial by juries:’ and again, ‘an Act of Parliament which -deprives His Majesty’s ancient subjects of all their rights and -franchises, destroys the Habeas Corpus Act and the inestimable -privilege of trial by juries’ (Shortt and Doughty, pp. 414-18). The -Government on the other hand contended that before the Quebec Act, -the Statute of Habeas Corpus was not in force in Canada, although, -both before and after the Act, the Common Law right existed. Thus -Wedderburn, the Solicitor-General, before the Quebec Act was -drafted but while the subject matter was being considered by the -Government, reported, ‘It is recommended by the Governor, the Chief -Justice, and the Attorney-General, in their report, to extend the -provisions of the Habeas Corpus Act to Canada. The inhabitants -will, of course, be entitled to the benefit of the writ of Habeas -Corpus at Common Law, but it may be proper to be better assured -of their fidelity and attachment, before the provisions of the -statute are extended to that country’ (Ib. 300); and in November, -1783, Governor Haldimand reported that he was going to propose an -ordinance for introducing the Habeas Corpus Act, ‘which will remove -one of the ill-grounded objections to the Quebec Act, for though -that law had never been introduced into the province, people were -taught to believe that the Quebec Act had deprived the inhabitants -of the benefit of it’ (Ib. 499). The point at issue, and it is not -free from doubt, was whether the introduction _en bloc_ of the -English criminal law into Canada, brought with it _ipso facto_ -the introduction of the Habeas Corpus statute. Haldimand passed -his ordinance in 1784 under the title of an ‘Act for securing the -liberty of the subject and for the prevention of imprisonments -out of this province’. The preamble stated that ‘The Legislature -could not follow a better example than that which the Common Law of -England hath set in the provision made for a writ of Habeas Corpus -which is the right of every British subject in that kingdom’. - - - - -CHAPTER III - -THE WAR OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE - - -[Sidenote: Ticonderoga and Crown Point.] - -The War of American Independence began with the skirmish at -Lexington on the 19th of April, 1775. The battle of Bunker’s Hill -was fought on the following 16th of June. Between these two dates -a forward move was made towards Canada by the American colonists, -and the forts of Ticonderoga and Crown Point on Lake Champlain were -surprised and taken. - -[Sidenote: Carleton urges the upkeep of strong forts in North -America.] - -[Sidenote: Carleton’s policy: (1) adequate defences and garrisons: -(2) attachment of the Canadians to the British Crown especially by -giving them employment under the government.] - -Years before, shortly after taking over the administration of -Canada, Carleton had called attention to the dilapidated condition -of these forts. In a letter, dated the 15th of February, 1767,[58] -he wrote to General Gage, then Commander-in-Chief in North -America--‘the forts of Crown Point, Ticonderoga, and Fort George -are in a very declining condition, of which, I believe, your -Excellency is well informed. Should you approve of keeping up -these posts, it will be best to repair them as soon as possible.’ -The letter went on to suggest that, in addition to repairing the -forts in question, there should be ‘a proper place of arms near the -town of New York and a citadel in or near the town of Quebec’, the -object being to secure communication with the mother country and -to link the two provinces together. Written in view of ‘the state -of affairs on this continent’, the letter was statesmanlike and -farseeing in a high degree. The writer argued that ‘the natural -and political situation of the provinces of Quebec and New York -is such as must for ever give them great influence and weight in -the American system’. He pleaded, therefore, for strong forts at -Quebec and New York, and strong posts on the line between New York -and Canada. Thus, in the event of war breaking out, the King’s -magazines would be kept secure, the northern colonies would be -separated from the southern, and delay in transport and difficulty -of communication, so dangerous, especially in the early stages of -a war, would be averted. In the years which preceded the War of -American Independence, Carleton had constantly in view the twofold -contingency of war with France and war with the British colonies in -America; and there were two cardinal points in his policy, which he -never ceased to impress upon the Home Government, on the one hand -the necessity for adequate military forces, and adequate forts in -America, on the other the necessity for taking such steps as would -attach the Canadians to the British Crown. - -In November, 1767,[59] he wrote to Shelburne, ‘The town of Quebec -is the only post in this province that has the least claim to be -called a fortified place; for the flimsy wall about Montreal, was -it not falling to ruins, could only turn musketry.’ He went on to -show how the French officers who still remained in Canada, and the -Canadian seigniors who had served France, had lost their employment -through the conquest of Canada, and, not having been taken into the -English King’s service, had no motive to be ‘active in the defence -of a people that has deprived them of their honours, privileges, -profits, and laws’; and again he urged the importance of building a -citadel, for which he enclosed a plan, within the town of Quebec. -‘A work of this nature,’ he wrote, ‘is not only necessary as -matters now stand, but supposing the Canadians could be interested -to take a part in the defence of the King’s Government, a change -not impossible to bring about, yet time must bring forth events -that will render it essentially necessary for the British interests -on this continent to secure this port of communication with the -mother country.’ - -In January, 1868,[60] he wrote again to Shelburne, and referring to -his previous letter and to the scheme for constructing a citadel -at Quebec, he said--‘Was this already constructed, and I could -suppose it impossible for any foreign enemy to shake the King’s -dominion over the province, still I shall think the interests of -Great Britain but half advanced, unless the Canadians are inspired -with a cordial attachment and zeal for the King’s Government.’ Once -more he urged that the Canadians had no motive of self-interest to -attach them to British rule. The laws and customs which affected -their property had been overturned. Justice was slow and expensive. -The different offices claimed ‘as their right, fees calculated for -much wealthier provinces’; and the leading Canadians were excluded -from all places of trust and profit. Give the people back their old -laws and customs in civil matters, let them feel thereby secure -in their property, take a few Canadians into the service of the -Crown, enlist in the King’s forces ‘a few companies of Canadian -foot, judiciously officered’, ‘hold up hopes to the gentlemen, that -their children, without being bred up in France, or in the French -service, might support their families in the service of the King -their master,’ and, at any rate, some proportion of the French -Canadians would be found loyally attached to the British Government. - -Another letter, written to Lord Hillsborough in November, 1768,[61] -was in similar terms. It referred to rumours of French intrigues -and of a contemplated rising on the part of the Canadian gentry. -Carleton discredited the rumours, but added, ‘Notwithstanding this, -and their decent and respectful obedience to the King’s Government -hitherto, I have not the least doubt of their secret attachment to -France, and think this will continue, as long as they are excluded -from all employments under the British Government.’ He reflected -‘that France naturally has the affections of all the people: that, -to make no mention of fees of office and of the vexations of the -law, we have done nothing to gain one man in the province, by -making it his private interest to remain the King’s subject’. He -went on to point out that ‘the King’s dominion here is maintained -but by a few troops, necessarily dispersed, without a place of -security for their magazines, for their arms, or for themselves, -amidst a numerous military people, the gentlemen all officers of -experience, poor, without hopes that they or their descendants will -be admitted into the service of their present Sovereign’, and he -argued that, were a war with France to coincide with a rising of -the British colonies in North America, the danger to the British -power would be great. ‘Canada, probably, will then become the -principal scene, where the fate of America may be determined.’ On -the other hand he urged--‘How greatly Canada might for ever support -the British interests on this continent, for it is not united in -any common principle, interest, or wish with the other provinces, -in opposition to the supreme seat of government, was the King’s -dominion over it only strengthened by a citadel, which a few -national troops might secure, and the natives attached by making it -their interest to remain his subjects.’ - -[Sidenote: Carleton’s sympathy with the French Canadians.] - -[Sidenote: The French Canadians were a people of soldiers -accustomed to personal rule.] - -In the second of these letters[62] from which quotations have -been made, Carleton said that he would endeavour to represent -the true situation of the province to the ministers at home, who -were already engaged in considering ‘the improvement of the civil -constitution of Quebec’, lest the King’s servants, with all their -ability, should be at a disadvantage in forming their conclusions -‘for want of having truly represented to them objects at so great -a distance, and in themselves so different from what is to be -found in any other of his dominions’. But it was not merely a case -of the man on the spot advising the men at a distance; the value -of Carleton’s advice was largely due to the fact of his being a -soldier. To this fact must be attributed, in great measure, the -strong sympathy which the soldier-governors felt with the French -Canadians, and on Carleton’s part more especially with the French -Canadian gentry. As Murray had pointed out,[63] the Canadians -were a people of soldiers; they were accustomed to personal rule -and attachment rather than to the rule of the law. To high minded -English officers, themselves brought up in the King’s service, -trained to discipline, to well ordered grades of obedience, the -old Canadian system with its feudal customs was congenial and -attractive, and they resented attempts to substitute for it the -beginnings of undisciplined democracy. Hence Carleton laid stress -on taking Canadian gentlemen into the government service, and on -enlisting companies of Canadian soldiers, in other words, on making -the Canadians feel that they were, as they had been in past times, -the King’s men. Hence, too, we find him in a letter to Shelburne of -April, 1768,[64] recommending full recognition and continuance of -the old feudal tenures of Canada, including ‘a formal requisition -of all those immediately holding of the King, to pay faith and -homage to him at his castle of St. Lewis’. If left to himself, he -would have liked to repeal entirely the Ordinance of September, -1764, which introduced English laws into Canada, ‘and for the -present leave the Canadian laws almost entire;’[65] and, though -he assented to the compromise embodied in the Quebec Act, whereby -the criminal law was to be that of England, while in civil matters -Canadian law and custom were in the main to prevail, we find him in -June, 1775,[66] after war had begun, writing to Dartmouth, ‘For my -part, since my return to this province I have seen good cause to -repent my ever having recommended the Habeas Corpus Act and English -criminal laws.’ - -It was due to Carleton that the Ordinance of 1770, to which -reference has already been made,[67] was passed, taking away from -the justices of the peace jurisdiction in matters of private -property which had been exercised to the detriment of the French -Canadians. It was due to him that in 1771 a new Royal Instruction -was issued, authorizing the governor to revert to the old French -system of grants of Crown lands ‘in Fief or Seigneurie’;[68] and -his influence was all in favour of the clauses in the Quebec Act -which were favourable to the ‘new subjects’, the French Canadians, -who, at the time when the War of American Independence began, seem -to have numbered under 100,000.[69] - -[Sidenote: Carleton returns from England in September, 1774, and -sends two regiments to Boston.] - -As has been told, Carleton came back from England to Quebec in the -middle of September, 1774, finding the French Canadians in great -good humour at the passing of the Quebec Act. Twenty hours after -his arrival an express letter reached him from General Gage, still -Commander-in-Chief in North America, who was then at Boston.[70] -In it Gage asked his colleague to send at once to Boston, if -they could be spared, the 10th and 52nd Regiments, which formed -a large part of the scanty garrison of Canada. The transports -which brought the letter were to take back the troops. September, -1774, was a critical month in the North American provinces. The -first continental Congress met at Philadelphia; and at Suffolk, -near Boston, on the 9th September, a public meeting passed -resolutions,[71] boldly advocating resistance to the recent Acts of -Parliament. - -[Sidenote: Proposals to raise Canadian and Indian forces.] - -[Sidenote: Carleton strongly favours raising a Canadian regiment.] - -Accordingly, in addition to his request for the two regiments, Gage -wrote--‘As I must look forward to the worst, from the apparent -disposition of the people here, I am to ask your opinion, whether -a body of Canadians and Indians might be collected and confided -in, for the service in this country, should matters come to -extremities.’ Carleton promptly replied: ‘Pilots are sent down the -river, the 10th and 52nd shall be ready to embark at a moment’s -notice;’ and the regiments were sent to Boston, as in later -years Lord Lawrence, at the time of the Indian Mutiny, denuded -the Punjaub of soldiers, in order to strengthen the force which -was besieging Delhi. Carleton’s letter continued: ‘The Canadians -have testified to me the strongest marks of joy and gratitude, -and fidelity to the King, and to his Government, for the late -arrangements made at home in their favour: a Canadian regiment -would complete their happiness, which in time of need might be -augmented to two, three, or more battalions ... the savages of this -province, I hear, are in very good humour, a Canadian battalion -would be a great motive and go far to influence them, but you know -what sort of people they are.’ Here was the opportunity which -Carleton desired, of taking the Canadians into the King’s service. -Following on the Quebec Act, he looked to such a measure as likely -to rivet Canadian loyalty to the British Crown, and evidently took -himself, and inspired the Home Government with, too hopeful a -view of the amount of support to be expected from the Canadians, -looking to and sympathizing with the seigniors rather than the -lower classes of the people of Canada. It will be noted that both -Gage and he contemplated employing Indians, in the event of war -between the mother country and the North American colonies. Indians -had been used on either side in the wars with the French, but it -seems strange that there is no hint or suggestion in these letters -of the danger and impolicy of employing them against the British -colonists.[72] - -In November, 1774, writing to Dartmouth,[73] Carleton still spoke -of the gratitude and loyalty of the French Canadians, but there -was a warning note in his letter. While the respectable members of -the English community at Quebec supported the Government, there -was much disloyalty among the British residents at Montreal. The -resolutions of the Philadelphia Congress, and their address to -the people of Canada, had reached that place. Walker was much in -evidence, embittered by the outrage which he had suffered some -years before,[74] and, with others, was organizing meetings and -petitions both at Montreal and at Quebec. These proceedings, -Carleton wrote, were causing uneasiness to the Canadians, and he -concluded that ‘Government cannot guard too much, or too soon, -against the consequences of an infection, imported daily, warmly -recommended, and spread abroad by the colonists here, and indeed by -some from Europe, not less violent than the Americans’. - -[Sidenote: Canadian feeling at the beginning of 1775.] - -[Sidenote: Carleton strongly urges employing the Canadian gentry in -the regular army.] - -The year 1774 ended in anxiety and suspense, and the year 1775 -opened, memorable and disastrous to Great Britain. On Christmas -Day, 1774, Gage had written again to Carleton on the subject of -Canadian and Indian levies, and on the 4th of February, 1775, -Carleton answered the letter.[75] Political matters relating to the -Indians, he said, he had always considered to be the special charge -of the late Sir William Johnson, and outside the sphere of his own -authority, but his intelligence was to the effect that the Indians -would be ready for service if called upon.[76] Of the Canadians -Carleton wrote that they had in general been made very happy by -the passing of the Quebec Act, but he reminded Gage that that Act -did not come into force until the 1st of May following, that the -new commissions and instructions expected in connexion with it had -not yet arrived, and that the whole machinery for carrying out the -new system of government had still to be created. ‘Had the present -settlement taken place,’ he added, ‘when first recommended, it -would not have aroused the jealousy of the other colonies, and had -the appearance of more disinterested favour to the Canadians.’ He -pointed out that the gentry, ‘well disposed and heartily desirous -as they are, to serve the Crown, and to serve it with zeal, -when formed into regular corps, do not relish commanding a bare -militia.’ They had not been used to act as militia officers under -the French Government, and they were further deterred from taking -such employment by recollection of the sudden disbandment of a -Canadian regiment, which had been raised in 1764, and subsequently -broken up, ‘without gratuity or recompense to officers, who engaged -in our service almost immediately after the cession of the country, -or taking any notice of them since, though they all expected half -pay.’[77] The habitants, again, had since the introduction of -civil government into Canada, and in consequence of the little -authority which had been exercised, ‘in a manner emancipated -themselves.’ Time and good management would be necessary ‘to recall -them to their ancient habits of obedience and discipline’, and -meanwhile they would be slow to allow themselves to be suddenly and -without preparation embodied into a militia. Carleton accordingly -deprecated attempting to raise a militia force in Canada and -recommended enlisting one or two regular battalions of Canadian -soldiers. ‘Such a measure might be of singular use, in finding -employment for, and consequently firmly attaching the gentry to our -interests, in restoring them to a significance they have lost, and -through their means obtaining a further influence upon the lower -class of people, a material service to the state, besides that of -effectually securing many nations of savages.’ - -[Sidenote: Summary of the political conditions of Canada at the -beginning of the War of American Independence.] - -From the above correspondence we can form some impression of the -state of political feeling in Canada, when the great revolt of the -American colonies began. We have the picture of a conquered people, -accustomed to a military system, to personal rule, and to feudal -laws and customs. This people had been brought by the fortune of -war under the same flag as covered very democratic communities, -which communities were their immediate neighbours and had been -their traditional rivals. The few years which had passed since the -conquest of Canada had, with the exception of the Indian rising -under Pontiac, been years of uncomfortable peace and administrative -weakness. The government of the country, which was the mother -country of the old colonies and the ruler of the new possession, -was anxious to curtail expenses as much as possible, in view of the -great expenditure which had been caused by the Seven Years’ War; to -maintain and, if possible, to emphasize its precarious authority -over the democratic communities of the Atlantic seaboard; and, on -the other hand, in a sense to relax its authority over Canada, by -modifying in the direction of English institutions the despotism -which had prevailed under the old French régime. The net result was -that on the American continent the Executive, having insufficient -force behind it and in the old colonies no popular goodwill, was -increasingly weak, and the people were more and more unsettled. -The democratic communities became more democratic, and from those -communities individuals brought themselves and their ideas into -the sphere of French conservatism, adding to the uncertainty and -confusion which attempts to introduce English laws and customs -had already produced in Canada. The Canadian gentry under British -rule found their occupation gone, their importance minimized, -and no outlet for their military instincts and aspirations. The -peasantry found old rules relaxed and unaccustomed freedom. -Strength was nowhere in evidence in Canada. The forts were -falling into ruin; the English soldiers were few; there was the -King’s Government without the backing of the King’s men; the old -subjects were a small number of men, of whom a large proportion -were noisy, disloyal, adventurers; the new subjects were not held -in submission, but not admitted to confidence. On the other hand, -the French Canadians had recent and undeniable evidence of the -goodwill of the British Government in the passing of the Quebec -Act. Their governors, Murray and Carleton, had transparently shown -their sympathies with the French Canadian race, its traditions, and -even its prejudices. Amid many inconveniences, and with some solid -grounds for discontent, the Canadians had none the less tasted -British freedom since the cession of Canada; and they had not yet -imbibed it to such an extent as to overcome their traditional -animosity to, and their inveterate suspicion of, the militant -Protestants of the old colonies who were rising against the King. - -It is unnecessary for the purposes of this book to give a full -account of the War of American Independence, except so far as -Canada was immediately concerned. Here the Americans appeared in -the character of invaders, and the issue really depended upon the -attitude of the French Canadians. Would they rise against their -recent conquerors and join hands with the rebellious colonists, -or would their confidence in Carleton, coupled with their long -standing antipathy to the British settlers in America, keep them in -allegiance to the British Crown? For the moment all went well for -the Americans. - -[Sidenote: The Green Mountain rising.] - -[Sidenote: Ethan Allen.] - -[Sidenote: Capture of Ticonderoga and Crown Point.] - -It was characteristic of the state of unrest which prevailed at -this time in America that, while the colonies as a whole were -quarrelling with the mother country, one portion of a colony was -declaring its independence of the state to which it was supposed -to belong. On the eastern side of Lake Champlain were a number of -settlers who had come in under grants issued by the Governor of -New Hampshire, but over whom the government and legislature of New -York claimed jurisdiction, the New York claim having moreover been -upheld by the Imperial Government. These settlers were known at the -time as the ‘Green Mountain Boys’, and they were the nucleus of -the present state of Vermont. In April, 1775, they held a meeting -to declare their independence of New York, their leaders being -Ethan Allen, who had been proclaimed an outlaw by the Governor of -New York in the previous year, and Seth Warner. They had already -apparently in their minds the possibility of taking possession of -the forts on Lake Champlain. There were few men at Ticonderoga and -Crown Point, only about fifty at the former and half a dozen or so -at the latter, belonging to the 26th Regiment, enough and no more -than sufficient to guard the guns and the stores. The garrison -apprehended no attack and had made no preparations for defence. - -The news of Lexington suggested to the Green Mountain Boys to -commend themselves to Congress by at once securing these two -forts. If they had any instructions in planning their expedition, -those instructions seem to have come from Connecticut; and though, -before a start was made, Benedict Arnold was sent up by Congress -to take the matter in hand, the insurgents refused his leadership; -and, while he accompanied the expedition, it was Allen who mainly -carried out the enterprise. Under Allen’s command, on the night of -the 9th of May, a band of armed men, variously estimated at from -under 100 to over 200 in number, marched to the shore of the Lake -Champlain, where it narrows to little more than a river immediately -opposite Ticonderoga; and, crossing over in two parties, early -on the morning of the 10th were admitted to the fort on pretence -of bringing a message to the commandant, overpowered the guard, -and surprised the rest of the little garrison in their beds. Two -days later Crown Point was secured by Seth Warner; and shortly -afterwards, under the command of Arnold, part of the expedition -made their way in a captured schooner to the northern end of the -lake, took prisoners a dozen men who represented the garrison at -the fort of St. John’s, seized a vessel belonging to the Government -which was lying off the fort, and retreated up the lake on the -approach of a detachment from Montreal.[78] - -Thus the old fighting route by the way of Lakes George and -Champlain, the scene of numberless raids and counter-raids, where -Robert Rogers, William Johnson, Montcalm, Abercromby, Amherst, and -many others had played their parts, passed into the hands of the -revolutionary party, and only the forts of St. John’s and Chambly, -beyond the outlet of Lake Champlain, barred the way to Montreal. -The British power in Canada seemed gone to nothingness, and at the -beginning of June, in reporting to Dartmouth what had taken place, -Carleton wrote: ‘We are equally unprepared for attack or defence; -not six hundred rank and file fit for duty upon the whole extent of -this great river,[79] not an armed vessel, no place of strength; -the ancient provincial force enervated and broke to pieces; all -subordination overset, and the minds of the people poisoned by the -same hypocrisy and lies practised with so much success in the other -provinces.’[80] - -[Sidenote: Miscalculations as to Canadian feeling.] - -The gentry and clergy, he reported, had shown zeal and loyalty in -the King’s service, but they had lost much of their influence over -the people, and the Indians had been as backward as the peasantry -in rallying to the defence of Canada. The crisis had come, and -Carleton’s warnings of past years had been amply justified. Absence -of military preparations, and neglect to take measures to attach -the Canadians to the British Crown had resulted in a situation -full of danger, a province open to invasion, a government without -material for defence, and a confused and half-hearted people. Even -Carleton’s forecast had not been wholly accurate. He seems to have -over-rated the good effects of passing the Quebec Act, and not to -have fully realized the strength of class feeling in Canada, or the -extent to which the peasantry, under the influence of the disloyal -British minority and of emissaries from the revolting colonies, -had emancipated themselves from the control of the seigniors and -the gentry. It was even suggested that the lower orders in the -province, instead of being grateful for the Quebec Act, regarded -it with suspicion and dislike, as intended to restore a feudal -authority which they had repudiated, and such no doubt would have -been the doctrine taught by the British malcontents inside and -outside the province. ‘What will be your lordship’s astonishment,’ -wrote Hey, the Chief Justice of Canada, to the Lord Chancellor, -towards the end of the following August,[81] ‘when I tell you that -an Act passed for the express purpose of gratifying the Canadians, -and which was supposed to comprehend all that they either wished -or wanted, is become the first object of their discontent and -dislike. English officers to command them in time of war, and -English laws to govern them in time of peace, is the general wish. -The former they know to be impossible (at least at present), and by -the latter, if I understand them right, they mean no laws and no -government whatsoever. In the meantime, it may be truly said that -General Carleton has taken an ill measure of the influence of the -seigniors and clergy over the lower order of people.’ If Carleton -had misjudged the feelings of the Canadians, the Chief Justice -frankly admitted that he himself had been fully as much deceived. - -[Sidenote: Mistakes of the Home Government.] - -The mischief was that the Government in England had imbibed the -confident anticipations of Canadian loyalty which had been formed -by the men on the spot immediately after the passing of the Quebec -Act; and, instead of sending reinforcements to Canada, they -expected Carleton to reinforce Gage’s army in New England. On the -1st of July, Dartmouth wrote to Carleton, instructing him to raise -a body of 3,000 Canadians to co-operate with Gage; on the 24th of -July, having had further news from America, he doubled the number -and authorized a levy of 6,000 Canadians; and no hope was given of -sending British troops to Canada until the following spring. At the -beginning of the American war the greatest danger to the British -Empire consisted in the utter weakness of the position in Canada. -It was some excuse, no doubt, for the ministers at home that the -Governor of Canada had latterly over-estimated the loyalty of the -Canadians; and it may well have been too that the dispatch of -troops to the St. Lawrence was delayed in order not to alarm the -American colonies, before they openly revolted, and while there was -still some faint hope of peace, by a measure which might have been -interpreted as a threat of war. But those who were responsible for -the safe keeping of British interests in America stand condemned -in the light of the repeated warnings which Carleton had given in -previous years. As a skilled soldier, he had pointed out, and -history confirmed, the vital importance of Canada in the event of -war in America, its commanding position for military purposes in -relation to the other[82] provinces. He had urged the necessity -of military strength in Canada, of strength which was both actual -and apparent; of forts strong enough to be defended and of British -soldiers numerous enough to defend them; moreover, of forts strong -enough and British soldiers numerous enough to at once compel and -attract the attachment of a military people. As a statesman, he had -recommended more than a Quebec Act, years before the Quebec Act was -passed. Political and financial exigencies outside Canada may have -made it impossible to take his guidance, but had it been followed, -the whole course of history might have been changed. - -[Sidenote: Carleton moves troops to St. John’s.] - -[Sidenote: The Americans under Richard Montgomery invade Canada.] - -On hearing of the capture of the forts on Lake Champlain, -Carleton took what measures he could. He moved all his available -troops, including some Canadian volunteers,[83] to St. John’s, -and strengthened its defences. He went up himself from Quebec to -Montreal, where he arrived on the 26th of May. On the 9th of June -he called out the Canadian militia under the old French law, with -little effect beyond causing irritation and discontent, which -American emissaries and sympathizers turned to account; and on -the 2nd of August he went back to Quebec, to summon the first -Legislative Council which was constituted under the Quebec Act, -that Act having now come into operation. Meanwhile, after the -battle of Bunker’s Hill, the American Congress had resolved on -invading Canada in force; General Philip Schuyler was placed in -charge of the expedition, but, his health giving way, the command -devolved upon Richard Montgomery, who had served under Amherst -throughout the campaign which ended with the conquest of Canada, -and had subsequently settled in the state of New York and married -an American lady. - -At the beginning of September, the American troops moved northward -down Lake Champlain, and took up a position at the Isle aux Noix, -twelve miles from the fort at St. John’s, preparatory to besieging -that fort. ‘The rebels are returned into this province in great -numbers, well provided with everything, and seemingly resolved to -make themselves masters of this province. Hardly a Canadian will -take arms to oppose them, and I doubt all we have to trust to is -about 500 men and two small forts at St. John’s. Everything seems -to be desperate,’ so wrote Chief Justice Hey from Quebec to the -Lord Chancellor on the 11th of September.[84] On the 17th he added, -‘The rebels have succeeded in making peace with the savages who -have all left the camp at St. John’s, many of the Canadians in that -neighbourhood are in arms against the King’s troops, and not one -hundred except in the towns of Montreal and Quebec are with us. St. -John’s and Montreal must soon fall into their hands, and I doubt -Quebec will follow too soon.’ - -There was skirmishing between scouts and outposts, and on the night -of the 24th of September, a party of about 150 Americans under -Ethan Allen crossed over into the island of Montreal and penetrated -to the suburbs of the town. Their daring attempt, however, -miscarried: they were driven out: Allen was taken prisoner and -sent in irons to England: and his failure gave for the moment some -encouragement to the Loyalists’ cause. - -[Sidenote: Carleton applies to Gage for reinforcements.] - -[Sidenote: Admiral Graves refuses to move.] - -On hearing of Schuyler’s and Montgomery’s advance Carleton at once -hurried back from Quebec to Montreal. There were two possibilities -of saving the town, and with it, perhaps, the whole of Canada. One -was by obtaining reinforcements from the British army at Boston, -the other by contriving, even without reinforcements, to hold the -forts at St. John’s and Chambly until winter drove the invaders -back whence they had come. Early in September Carleton applied to -Boston for two regiments, the same number that in the previous -autumn he had sent to Boston at Gage’s request; his message came to -hand on the 10th of October, just as Gage was leaving for England, -and Howe, who took over the command of the troops, at once prepared -to send the men. But there was a blight on English sailors as on -English soldiers in America in these days. Admiral Graves, who -commanded the ships, refused to risk the dangers of the passage -from Boston to Quebec at the season of the year, and Carleton in -his sore straits was left unaided. All, therefore, turned on the -defence of the forts. - -[Sidenote: The siege of St. John’s and Chambly.] - -[Sidenote: The two forts taken.] - -St. John’s fort was manned by between 600 and 700 men, 120 of whom -were Canadian volunteers, the rest being regulars. Chambly was held -by some 80 men of the line. A few men were stationed at Montreal, -but Quebec was almost emptied of its garrison. Major Preston,[85] -of the 26th Regiment, commanded at St. John’s, and Chambly was in -charge of Major Stopford. On the 18th of September Montgomery laid -siege to the former fort, cutting off communication between the -defenders and the outside world; but, notwithstanding, news reached -Preston of Allen’s unsuccessful attempt on Montreal, and he held -out bravely, helped by the fact that Montgomery had hardly any -artillery, and could only rely on starving out the garrison, while -his own men were suffering from exposure, privations, and want of -ammunition. But in the middle of October the outlook was changed, -for, after less than two days’ siege, the fort at Chambly, said to -have been well provisioned, and with ample means of defence, was on -the 17th of that month surrendered,[86] providing Montgomery with -supplies, guns, and ammunition to be used against the main fort. -Preston’s condition was now desperate. An attempt made by Carleton -to cross from Montreal to his relief on the 30th of October was -beaten back, and on the 2nd of November, St. John’s surrendered, -after having held out for forty-five days. - -[Sidenote: Carleton leaves Montreal,] - -[Sidenote: which is occupied by the Americans.] - -[Sidenote: Carleton narrowly escapes capture and reaches Quebec.] - -The fall of St. John’s made the defence of Montreal impossible. -Carleton dismissed such of the militia as were in arms to their -homes, and with the few Imperial troops in the town, rather over -100 in number, and any arms and supplies that he could carry away, -embarked on the afternoon of the 11th of November to make the best -of his way to Quebec. On the 13th, Montgomery and his men entered -Montreal. Already advanced parties of the Americans were heading -down the river banks. Colonel Maclean, who had come up from Quebec -as far as the Richelieu river with a small body of Canadians and -Scotchmen, to co-operate with Carleton for the relief of St. -John’s, had fallen back, Benedict Arnold was threatening Quebec -itself, and it became a question whether Carleton would ever reach -the city to take charge of its defence. His vessels and boats -sailed down the river to a point some miles above Sorel at the -confluence of the Richelieu river. There one of them grounded; the -wind veered round and blew up-stream; for three days the little -flotilla remained stationary; the enemy overtook them on the land, -raised batteries in front to bar their progress, and summoned them -to surrender. On the night of the 16th Carleton went on board a -whale boat; silently, with muffled oars, and at one point propelled -only by the rowers’ hands, she dropped down-stream, undetected -by the watchers on the banks. On the 17th Carleton reached Three -Rivers, with the American troops close behind him, and lower -down he met an armed British ship, which carried him in safety -to Quebec. He entered the city on the 19th. On the same day the -vessels in which he had started from Montreal surrendered with all -on board, and, being brought back to Montreal, were used to carry -Montgomery and his men down to Quebec. - -[Sidenote: Arnold’s march from the mouth of the Kennebec to Quebec.] - -Quebec was already threatened by a small force under Benedict -Arnold. In the year 1761, while General Murray was in military -command of the city and district, an engineer officer, acting -under his instructions, had marked out a trail along the route -from the Atlantic coast, at the mouth of the Kennebec river, to -the confluence of the Chaudière with the St. Lawrence over against -Quebec. In 1775, when the American colonists determined to invade -Canada, Washington decided to send an expedition by this route to -co-operate with the main advance by Lake Champlain and the St. -Lawrence. The enterprise required a daring, resourceful leader, -and the command was given to Arnold. In the middle of September, -Arnold embarked with 1,100 men at Newbury port at the mouth of -the Merrimac, and sailed for the Kennebec. In the latter days of -September he began his march: some 200 batteaux were taken up the -Kennebec, carrying arms, ammunition, and supplies; the troops -were partly on board the boats, partly kept pace with them on the -banks. The expedition followed the course of the Kennebec and its -tributary, the Dead River, crossed the height of land, reached the -headwaters of the Chaudière in Lake Megantic, and descended the -Chaudière to the St. Lawrence. It was a march of much danger and -privation, no easy task for a skilled backwoodsman to accomplish, -and full of difficulty when it was a case of transporting a small -army. All through October and into November the men toiled in -the wilderness, boats were lost, provisions were scarce, the -sick and ailing were left behind, the rearguard turned back, but -eventually Arnold brought two-thirds of his men through, and, -with the goodwill and assistance of the Canadians on the southern -bank of the St. Lawrence, emerged at Point Levis on the 8th of -November, having achieved a memorable exploit in the military -history of America. On the 14th he crossed the river by night, -landed where Wolfe had landed before his last memorable fight, and, -after summoning the city to surrender without effect, retreated to -Pointe aux Trembles, nearly twenty miles up the river, to await -Montgomery’s arrival. Meanwhile, Carleton passed by and entered -Quebec. - -[Sidenote: Montgomery arrives before Quebec.] - -On the 5th of December, Montgomery came upon the scene, having -landed his guns at Cap Rouge, about nine miles above the city.[87] -A threatening letter which he sent to Carleton on the day after -his arrival summoning the British general to surrender, received -no answer, and he took up his position and planted batteries -within reach of the walls on the western side--the side of Wolfe’s -attack, while Arnold occupied the suburb of St. Roch, on the north -of the city, with the river St. Charles behind him. So far the -American advance had been little more than a procession. Montreal -had received Montgomery without fighting. Three Rivers had given -in its adhesion to the revolutionary cause, without requiring -the general’s presence, as he passed down the river. Nearly all -the British regulars were prisoners; and, with the help of the -disloyal element in the population, Montgomery had good reason to -expect that Quebec would forthwith pass into his hands and the -Imperial Government be deprived of its last foothold in Canada. -He was soon undeceived, however, and found the task beyond his -strength. - -[Sidenote: The siege of Quebec.] - -[Sidenote: Number of the garrison.] - -His whole force, when united to Arnold’s and including some -Canadians, seems not to have exceeded 2,000 men; his artillery was -inadequate, and winter was coming on. On the other hand, Carleton’s -garrison was a nondescript force of some 1,600 to 1,800 men. Nearly -one-third of the number were Canadians. About 400 were seamen and -marines from the ships in the harbour, including the _Lizard_ ship -of war, which, with one convoy ship containing stores and arms, -represented all the aid that had come from England. There were less -than 300 regulars, including about 200 of a newly-raised corps -under Colonel Maclean’s command, Scotch veterans who were known -as the Royal Highland Emigrants; and there were about 300 militia -of British birth. But the city was well provisioned; the disloyal -citizens had been ejected; Carleton himself had been through the -famous winter siege of 1759-60; and the preparations which had been -made during his recent absence at Montreal, showed that he had -capable officers serving under him. The upper classes of Canada -had from the first sided with the British Government, and now that -Quebec, the hearth and home of Canada, was in deadly peril, some -spirit of Canadian citizenship was stirred in its defence. - -[Illustration: PLAN OF QUEBEC IN 1775-6 - -Reduced from Plan in Colonial Office Library - - _To face p. 112_ -] - -[Sidenote: Montgomery plans a night attack.] - -Montgomery’s army was too small in numbers, without the support of -powerful artillery which he did not possess, to justify a direct -assault upon the town walls, and a prolonged siege in the depth of -winter meant severe strain on the American resources with no sure -hope of ultimate success. Moreover, many of the men had enlisted -only for a specified term, which expired at the end of the year. -Before the year closed, therefore, the general determined to -attempt a night surprise, and laid his plans not to attack the -city from the plateau, but to storm the barricades which guarded -the lower town by the water’s edge, and thence to rush the heights -above. - -[Sidenote: The attack of December 31, 1775.] - -Before dawn on the morning of Sunday the 31st of December,[88] -1775, between the hours of two and seven, in darkness and driving -snow, the attempt was made. From Montgomery’s batteries on the -Heights of Abraham the guns opened fire on the town. At Arnold’s -camp at St. Roch, troops placed themselves in evidence under arms; -and, while this semblance of attack was made, the two leaders led -two separate columns from opposite directions, intended to converge -in the centre of the lower town, so that the combined parties might -force the steep ascent from the port to the city on the cliff. - -[Sidenote: Repulse of Montgomery and his death.] - -About two in the morning Montgomery led his men, according to -one account, 900 in number, down to the river side at Wolfe’s -landing-place; and signalling with rockets to Arnold to begin his -march, started about four o’clock along a rough pathway which -skirted the river under Cape Diamond and led to the lower town. -Unnoticed, it would seem, by an outpost on Cape Diamond, and by -an advance picket, he came at the head of his force within thirty -yards of a barricade, which had been constructed where the houses -began at Prés de Ville. Up to this point the defenders had given no -sign, but now every gun, large and small, blazed forth: the general -fell dead with 12 of his following, and the whole column beat a -hasty retreat. - -[Sidenote: Repulse of Arnold’s column.] - -Meanwhile, on the other side, in the angle between the St. Charles -and the St. Lawrence, Arnold led forward 700 men, passing below -Palace Gate, and fired at from the walls where the garrison were -all on the alert, for Carleton had for some days past been warned -of a coming attack. The Americans crossed a small projecting point, -known as the Sault au Matelot, and reached one end of the narrow -street which bore the same name. Here there was a barricade, a -second barricade having been erected at the other end of the -street. The first barrier was forced, but not until Arnold himself -had been disabled by a wound; and led by the Virginian, Daniel -Morgan, who was second in command, and who, later in the war, won -the fight at Cowpens, the assailants pressed boldly on to take -the second barricade and effect a junction with Montgomery. But -Montgomery was no more; the garrison grew constantly stronger at -the threatened point; the way of retreat was blocked; and caught in -a trap, under fire from the houses, the attacking party surrendered -to the number of 431, in addition to 30 killed, including those who -fell with Montgomery. The day had hardly broken when all was over, -the result being an unqualified success for the English, a crushing -defeat for the American forces. Quebec was saved, and with Quebec, -as events proved, the whole of Canada. - -[Sidenote: Continuance of the siege.] - -[Sidenote: Quebec relieved on May 6, 1776.] - -The English, according to a letter from Carleton to General Howe, -written on the 12th of January, only lost 7 killed and 11 wounded -on this memorable night; but, notwithstanding, in view of the small -numbers of the garrison, the governor did not follow up his success -by any general attack on the American lines; he contented himself -with bringing in five mortars and a cannon from Arnold’s position, -and settled down with his force to wait for spring. The Americans, -from time to time reinforced by way of Montreal, continued the -blockade, but it was somewhat ineffective, as firewood and even -provisions were at intervals brought into the town. On the 25th -of March a party of Canadians, who attempted to relieve Quebec by -surprising an American battery at Point Levis, on the other side of -the St. Lawrence, were themselves surprised and suffered a reverse; -on the 4th of April the battery in question opened on the town with -little effect: on the 3rd of May a fire ship was directed against -the port and proved abortive. On the 6th of May English ships once -more came up the river with reinforcements, and the siege was at -an end. The Congress troops retreated in hot haste, as Levis’s men -had fled when Murray was relieved: artillery, ammunition, stores, -were left behind; and the retreat continued beyond Three Rivers, as -far as Sorel, at the mouth of the Richelieu. - -[Sidenote: Carleton’s Report.] - -‘After this town had been closely invested by the rebels for -five months and had defeated all their attempts, the _Surprise_ -frigate, _Isis_ and sloop _Martin_ came into the Basin the 6th -instant.... Thus ended our siege and blockade, during which the -mixed garrison of soldiers, sailors, British and Canadian militia, -with the artificers from Halifax and Newfoundland, showed great -zeal and patience under very severe duty and uncommon vigilance.’ -So wrote Carleton to Lord George Germain on the 14th of May, -1776, having conducted a singularly successful defence of an all -important point. Murray’s defence of Quebec had been marked by a -severe reverse, great sickness, privation, and loss. Nothing of the -kind happened under Carleton. He had, it is true, a far smaller -army against him than besieged Murray, and he had the inestimable -advantage of personal experience of the former siege, but on the -other hand the force which he commanded was infinitely weaker, -numerically and in training, than Murray’s. He made no mistakes, -incurred no risks, his one aim was to save Quebec, and he saved it. - -[Sidenote: Importance of holding Quebec.] - -The more the history of these times is studied, the greater -importance will be attached to Carleton’s successful defence of -Quebec, and his defeat of the American forces beneath its walls; -the more clearly too it will be seen that the net result of the -American war was due at least as much to the agency of individual -men as to any combination of moral or material forces. Whoever held -Quebec held Canada; and, if Great Britain had lost Quebec in the -winter of 1775-6, she would in all probability have lost Canada -for all time. Wolfe’s victory before Quebec, and the surrender of -the city which followed, determined that Canada should become a -British possession. Carleton’s defeat of Montgomery and Arnold in -the suburbs of Quebec, and the holding of the city which followed, -determined that Canada should remain a British possession. It was -not merely a question of the geographical position of Quebec, great -as was its importance from a strategical point of view. It was a -question of the effect of its retention or its loss upon the minds -of men. The Canadians were wavering: the tide was flowing against -the English: one rock alone was not submerged: the waves beat -against it and subsided. Thenceforward Canada was never in serious -danger. The Americans were not liked in Canada. They carried many -of the Canadians with them in the first impulse, but, when once -they were checked and driven back, the Canadians were given time to -think, and they inclined to the cause personified by the man who -had stemmed the tide of invasion and held Quebec. - -[Sidenote: Carleton as a general,] - -[Sidenote: and as a statesman.] - -[Sidenote: Carleton’s character.] - -When the news of what had taken place reached England at the -beginning of June, Horace Walpole wrote to his friend Sir Horace -Mann. ‘The provincials have again attempted to storm Quebec and -been repulsed with great loss by the conduct and bravery of -Carleton, who, Mr. Conway has all along said, would prove himself -a very able general.’[89] Two months later he wrote again to the -same friend: ‘You have seen by the public newspapers that General -Carleton has driven the provincials out of all Canada. It is well -he fights better than he writes. General Conway has constantly -said that he would do great service.’[90] Of Carleton’s merits as -a soldier there can be no question. No one ever gauged a military -situation better. No one ever displayed more firmness and courage -at a time of crisis, made more of small resources, or showed more -self-restraint. But he was more than a good military leader; he was -also a statesman of high order, and, had he been given a free hand -and supreme control of the British forces and policy in America, -he might well have kept the American colonies as he kept Quebec. -For Carleton was an understanding man. No Englishman in America, or -who dealt with America, was of the same calibre. He knew the land: -he knew the people: he had the qualities which were conspicuously -wanting in other English leaders of the time, firmness, foresight, -breadth of view, sound judgement as to what was possible and what -was not; above all, he had a character above and beyond intrigue. -Had he not been ousted by malign influence, but been given wider -powers and a more extensive command, the British cause in North -America might have had the one thing needful, a personality to -stand in not unworthy comparison with that of Washington. - -[Sidenote: Benedict Arnold.] - -Carleton was a little over fifty years old at the time of the -siege of Quebec. The two American generals who confronted him were -younger men. Montgomery was just under forty years of age when -he was killed; Arnold at the time was not thirty-five. It would -have been well for Arnold’s reputation had he shared Montgomery’s -fate. A New Englander by birth, a native of Connecticut, he seems -to have been a restless, adventurous man, with no strong sense of -principle. His name is clouded by his grievous treachery at West -Point, but his military capacity was as great as his personal -courage, and of all the American leaders in the earlier stages of -the war, he was the man who dealt the hardest blows at the British -cause in Canada. From the capture of the forts on Lake Champlain -till the fights before Burgoyne’s surrender at Saratoga, at almost -every point on the frontier he was in evidence, leading attack, -covering retreat, invaluable as a leader in border war. - -[Sidenote: Richard Montgomery.] - -Of Montgomery, Horace Walpole wrote that he ‘was not so fortunate -as Wolfe to die a conqueror, though very near being so’.[91] He -was so far fortunate in his death, that his name has passed into -American history as that of a martyr to the cause of liberty. -He was known to Burke, Fox, and the leaders of the Opposition in -England; and he seems to have been an attractive man in private -life as well as a capable soldier. We read in the _Annual Register_ -for 1776 that ‘The excellency of his qualities and disposition -had procured him an uncommon share of private affection, as his -abilities had of public esteem; and there was probably no man -engaged on the same side, and few on either, whose loss would have -been so much regretted both in England and America’.[92] In America -addresses and monuments commemorated his name, Tryon county of New -York was renamed Montgomery county in honour to his memory, and -in 1818 his remains were exhumed and taken to New York for public -burial. In England leading politicians bore tribute to his merits, -and as late as the year 1791, in the House of Commons, Fox called -to Burke’s remembrance how the two friends had ‘sympathized almost -in tears for the fall of a Montgomery.’[93] He died fighting for -what proved to be the winning cause, and men spoke well of him. -But there is another side to the picture which should not be -overlooked. Montgomery was not, like Arnold, born and bred on New -England soil. He was ‘a gentleman of good family in the kingdom -of Ireland’,[94] and educated at Trinity College, Dublin. He had -worn the King’s uniform from 1756 to 1772; he had served as a -subaltern at the capture of Louisbourg, under Amherst again on -Lake Champlain, and with Haviland’s division in the final British -advance on Montreal, by the line by which in 1775 he led the -American troops into Canada. After the British conquest of Canada -he had seen active service in the West Indies. His connexion with -the North American colonies consisted in having bought an estate in -New York, having married a lady of the well-known Livingston family -in that state, and having made his home there after retirement -from the army. That retirement took place in 1772. In 1775 he was -a brigadier-general in the American army, not concerned to defend -house and home against unprovoked attack, but to lead an army of -invasion into a neighbouring British province, endeavouring to -wrest from Great Britain what he himself had fought to give her, -and identifying oppression with one whose worth he must well have -known, with a fellow British soldier of Carleton’s high character -and name. Montgomery was an Irishman. In his case, as in that of -Arnold, the wife’s influence probably counted for much; and the -time was one when what were called generous instincts were at -a premium and principles were at a discount. But the terms[95] -in which he summoned Carleton to surrender suggest unfavourable -contrast between his own words and actions on the one hand, -and on the other the stern old-fashioned views of loyalty and -military honour which Carleton held, and which forbade him to pay -to Montgomery in his lifetime the respect which was ensured by a -soldier’s death. - -Montgomery had charged Carleton with inhumanity. Carleton was a -soldier who did not play with war and rebellion, but he was also -a humane man, and the charge, if it needed any contradiction, is -belied by a proclamation which he issued on the 10th of May, four -days after the relief of Quebec. In it search was directed to be -made for sick and wounded Americans, reported to be ‘dispersed in -the adjacent woods and parishes, and in great danger of perishing -for want of proper assistance’. They were to be given relief and -brought in to the General Hospital at Quebec, a promise being added -that, as soon as their health was restored, they should be at -liberty to return to their homes.[96] - -[Sidenote: The affair of the Cedars.] - -Quebec was relieved on the 6th of May. Some ships were sent up the -river, but Carleton waited for the reinforcements which were fast -coming in from England before making a decided move, and it was -not until the beginning of June that Three Rivers was re-occupied -by the Royal troops. Meanwhile, the American head quarters at -Montreal had been alarmed by a diversion from another quarter. -The invading forces had broken into Canada at two points only. -Montgomery’s advance had been direct to Montreal: Arnold had -marched straight on Quebec. The British outposts above Montreal and -in the west had been left undisturbed. One of them, very small in -numbers, was stationed at Ogdensburg, then known as Oswegatchie, a -few years previously the scene of the Abbé Piquet’s mission of La -Présentation. The commander was Captain Forster of the 8th Regiment -of the line, the same regiment which in the later war of 1812 -played so conspicuous a part in the defence of Canada. Towards the -end of the second week in May, Forster, with about 50 regulars and -volunteers and some 200 Indians,[97] started down the St. Lawrence, -his objective being the Cedars, a place on the northern bank of the -St. Lawrence below Lake St. Francis in that river, and a few miles -above Lake St. Louis and the island of Montreal. Here an American -force was stationed, numbering nearly 400 men. On the 18th and 19th -of May Forster attacked the post, which surrendered on the second -day; and on the 20th another small party of Americans, rather under -100 in number, which was advancing from Vaudreuil, seven miles to -the north of the Cedars, surrendered to a mixed body of Canadians -and Indians. By these two successes Forster secured between 400 -and 500 prisoners, and crossing over to the island of Montreal, he -advanced against Lachine, where a considerable force of Americans -was encamped. These men were under the command of Arnold who, on -recovering from the wound which he had received at Quebec, had been -placed in charge of the Congress troops at Montreal. Forster found -the position and the numbers defending it too strong to attack, -although he had been reinforced by a large party of Canadians. -Accordingly, he retired to the mainland. Arnold then attempted to -cross and make a counter attack, but was in turn obliged to recross -to the island. There then followed negotiations for the release of -the prisoners, who were handed over to Arnold on condition that -British prisoners should be subsequently released in exchange, and -at the end of the month Forster returned to Oswegatchie. - -His exploit had been a notable one. With a very insignificant -following he had defeated superior numbers and had threatened -Montreal. History repeated itself; and, as in the days of New -France, the Canadians and Indians showed themselves formidable -in sudden raids, supplementing the regular plan of campaign. The -affair of the Cedars proved that, as long as Quebec and the mouth -of the St. Lawrence were in British keeping, the American army -of occupation would be troubled on the western side by home-bred -combatants, stiffened by British outposts which could only be -dislodged as the result of a general conquest of Canada. Canada was -in fact far from conquered, and in a very short time the country -was cleared of its foes. - -[Sidenote: Dispute with Congress as to the exchange of prisoners.] - -But Forster’s enterprise obtained notoriety for another and a -different reason. The Congress of the revolting states refused to -ratify the agreement to which Arnold had consented. The American -prisoners, with the exception of a few hostages, were sent back, -but the promised exchanges were not made, and the reason given for -not fulfilling the engagement was that some of Forster’s prisoners -had been murdered and others maltreated and plundered. Congress -therefore resolved not to give back the requisite number of British -prisoners, until the authors and abettors of the alleged crimes -had been handed over and compensation made for the plunder. The -allegations seem in the main not to have been substantiated, as is -shown by a letter from one of the American hostages themselves.[98] -That the Indians looted some of the prisoners’ property was -undeniable, but Forster appears to have used every effort to secure -the safety and good treatment of those who were in his hands, and -the charges of murder were not made good. Carleton wrote strongly -on the subject,[99] attributing the action of the American Congress -to a desire to embitter their people against the English and to -prolong the war; but at this distance of time it is unnecessary to -revive the controversy. What is worth noting is the feeling aroused -when coloured men are enlisted, or even alleged to be enlisted, on -either side in white men’s quarrels, the exaggerated reports which -are spread abroad, and the credence which is given to them. The -record of Indian warfare in North America was a terrible one, and -it is no matter for surprise if, when Indians were found fighting -on the British side, the barbarities of the past were reported to -have been reproduced at a later date. - -[Sidenote: American delegates sent to Montreal.] - -[Sidenote: Retreat of the American army.] - -[Sidenote: Montreal re-occupied by the English, and preparations -made for an advance up Lake Champlain.] - -Before Quebec had been relieved, the weakness of the American hold -on Canada, and the condition of the army of occupation, had given -anxiety to Congress, who sent special commissioners to Montreal. -The commissioners were three in number. One was Benjamin Franklin, -and another was Carroll, a Roman Catholic, who was accompanied -by his brother, a Jesuit priest. The object was to ascertain -the actual position of matters military and political, and to -conciliate Canadian feeling. What was ascertained was depressing -enough, and the efforts at conciliation came to nothing. While -the commissioners were at Montreal, they received news of the -relief of Quebec, and events soon swept away recommendations. The -American army fell back from Quebec to the Richelieu; and, as the -troops came in from England, including some German regiments under -Baron Riedesel, Carleton sent them up the St. Lawrence by land and -water, Burgoyne being in command. In the first days of June Three -Rivers was garrisoned; and within a week, on the 8th of June, an -American general, Thompson, who made an attempt to regain the -position, crossing over by night from the southern shore, was cut -off and taken prisoner with over 200 of his men. This completed the -discomfiture of the Americans: small-pox and other diseases were -rife in their ranks: their posts on the line of the Richelieu were -hastily abandoned; Arnold barely had time to evacuate Montreal; -and, before the last week of June began, Montreal, Chambly, and St. -John’s were all again in British possession, and the invasion of -Canada was at an end. - -The Americans, however, still retained their hold on Lake -Champlain. It was impossible to dislodge them without organizing -transport by water as well as by land, and building armed vessels -to overpower the ships with which they commanded the lake. For when -they overran Canada as far as Quebec, they secured all the sailing -craft and bateaux on the Upper St. Lawrence. ‘The task was indeed -arduous,’ says a contemporary writer, ‘a fleet of above thirty -fighting vessels, of different kinds and sizes, all furnished -with cannon, was to be little less than recreated.’[100] Three -months, therefore, were taken up in boat-building, the material -being in large measure sent out from England, in making roads, -constructing entrenchments, drilling the troops, and collecting -supplies. The troops, over 10,000 in number, were stationed at -La Prairie on the St. Lawrence, immediately opposite Montreal, -at Chambly, St. John’s, and the Isle aux Noix, with detachments -lower down the Richelieu river than Chambly in order to keep all -the communications open; and in September, when the preparations -were nearly completed, advanced parties were moved forward to the -opening of Lake Champlain. - -[Sidenote: Fighting on Lake Champlain.] - -[Sidenote: Destruction of the American flotilla.] - -[Sidenote: Crown Point abandoned by the Americans.] - -[Sidenote: Close of the campaign.] - -In October the newly-constructed gunboats ascended the Richelieu -river from St. John’s, and entered the lake. On the 11th they -came into touch with the American vessels, which were then -stationed, under Arnold’s command, between Valcour Island and the -western shore of the lake. The place was about five miles south -of Plattsburg, about twenty-five miles south of what is now the -boundary line of Canada, and a little less than fifty miles to -the north of Crown Point. The strait between the island and the -mainland is about a mile wide, and across it was the American line -of battle. The English had the superiority in numbers and, as the -result of the first day’s fighting, being carried to the south of -the enemy’s ships, were at the close of the day drawn up in line -to intercept their retreat. At night, however, Arnold, bold and -skilful as ever, found a passage through and sailed off to the -south, hotly pursued by Carleton’s squadron. On the 13th fighting -began again, and ended with the capture or destruction of twelve -American vessels, out of a total of fifteen, over 100 prisoners -being taken including the second in command to Arnold. Crown Point -was set on fire and abandoned by the Americans, and on the 14th -Carleton wrote from his ship off that place reporting his success. -In his dispatch he expressed doubts whether anything further could -be done at that late season of the year, and he subsequently came -to the conclusion that an attack on Ticonderoga, which was held by -a strong force under Gates, must be postponed till the following -spring. Nor did he think it prudent to occupy Crown Point, which -was in a dismantled and ruined condition, through the winter, and -by the middle of November, he had withdrawn all his forces to the -Isle aux Noix and St. John’s, whence he had started. - -[Sidenote: Carleton censured by Germain.] - -It was a good summer’s work. Quebec had been relieved, the whole -of Canada had been recovered, and on the main line of invasion, -Lake Champlain, the English had obtained the upper hand by the -destruction of Arnold’s vessels. This last part of the campaign -stands out in bright contrast to the abortive Plattsburg expedition -in the later war of 1812. If there had been any delay, it was -largely due to the fact that Carleton had not received from England -all the boats and materials for boat-building for which he had -requisitioned; and, to judge from Horace Walpole, intelligent -observers in England were not disappointed with the outcome of -the autumn fighting. ‘You will see the particulars of the naval -victory in the _Gazette_,’ he wrote to Sir Horace Mann on the 26th -of November, 1776, ‘It is not much valued here, as it is thought -Carleton must return to Quebec for the winter.’ Nevertheless, -the British Government, as represented by Lord George Germain, -professed to be dissatisfied that more had not been achieved, -and that, having reached Crown Point, the general had not made a -further advance against Ticonderoga, or at least held his ground -where he was through the winter. Germain, who in January, 1776, -had succeeded Dartmouth in charge of colonial matters, had begun -by finding fault with Carleton, complaining that the latter had -left the Home Government in the dark as to his plan of operations -after the relief of Quebec, and as to the position in Canada. The -result was, Germain wrote, that it was impossible at the time to -send Carleton any further instructions.[101] It would have been -well if the impossibility had continued. He found new ground for -criticism in Carleton’s temporary retreat from Lake Champlain, -but the criticism was wholly without justification. Carleton was -a cautious leader; he had shown caution in the defence of Quebec, -where events had justified his attitude; but the whole record of -the 1776 campaign had proved him to be at the same time a man of -energy, firmness, and resource, unwearied in organizing, prompt in -action. Wolfe, it might be said, would at all hazards have attacked -Ticonderoga, but it must be remembered that Wolfe in America, where -he always preached and practised forward aggressive movement, was -fighting Frenchmen and Indians, not soldiers of the same race as -his own. If we compare Amherst, on the other hand, with Carleton, -we find that Amherst in 1759, having taken Ticonderoga and Crown -Point by the beginning of August, made no further move till the -middle of October, and then, after an abortive start down Lake -Champlain, gave up active operations for the winter. There is no -valid reason to suppose that Carleton’s judgement was otherwise -than sound. At any rate, to quote his own words to Germain in a -letter written on the 20th of May, 1777, ‘Any officer entrusted -with the supreme command ought, upon the spot, to see what was most -expedient to be done, better than a great general at 3,000 miles -distance.’[102] - -[Sidenote: The English generals in America.] - -Less capable than Carleton were the other British officers in -America, and far less satisfactory were the results of their -efforts. In the early days of 1775, before fighting actually -began, Amherst, the former Commander-in-Chief in North America, -was invited by the King to resume his command, but declined the -invitation, and General Gage was accordingly retained in that -position. To support him, three generals were sent out from -England, Howe, Burgoyne, and Clinton. They arrived towards the end -of May, 1775, after the fight at Lexington had taken place, and -before the battle of Bunker’s Hill. Early in 1776 Lord Cornwallis -also appeared upon the scene. After the battle of Bunker’s Hill, -Gage was recalled to England, and Howe was placed in command of -the troops on the Atlantic seaboard, while Carleton was given -independent command in Canada. Gage left in October, 1775, and -Howe, his successor, remained in America till May, 1778, having -sent in his resignation a few months previously. Clinton succeeded -Howe, and held the command until the surrender of Cornwallis at -Yorktown in October, 1781, turned out the ministry and practically -finished the war. Then, when it was too late, Carleton was named as -commander-in-chief, and arrived at New York in May, 1782, by which -time the fighting was practically over. - -[Sidenote: Howe.] - -[Sidenote: Clinton.] - -[Sidenote: Burgoyne.] - -[Sidenote: Cornwallis.] - -These men, who commanded the armies of England in America during a -disastrous war, were by no means hopelessly incompetent. Howe had -been one of the best of Wolfe’s officers. He had led the advanced -party which stormed the Heights of Abraham on the memorable -morning of the 13th of September, 1759. In the revolutionary war, -though found wanting in some of the qualities which make a great -general, he none the less showed firmness, courage, and skill in -various actions from Bunker’s Hill onwards, and he achieved several -notable successes. Clinton proved himself to be at least an average -commander. Burgoyne, in a subordinate position, was apparently a -good soldier; and the subsequent career of Lord Cornwallis showed -that he was a man of capacity. Comparing them with the predecessors -of Wolfe and Amherst in the late French war, with Loudoun, Webb, -and Abercromby, and bearing in mind that they had a far more -difficult task, they stand in no unfavourable light. But they were -not leaders of men themselves, and there was no man in power in -England, such as Chatham had been, who was a leader of men, strong -enough to break down political intrigue and court influence, to -find the best men and send them out, superseding the second best, -encouraging and supporting his soldiers and sailors, but not -worrying them with ill-timed and ignorant interference. - -[Sidenote: The English admirals.] - -On the sea England was even less fortunate in the men who served -her than on land, whereas, as events proved, the possibility of -success in the war depended entirely on keeping command of the -sea. In the time of the Seven Years’ War, the English admirals -were at their best. Hawke, in his brilliant fight at Quiberon, did -hardly better service than the less known Admiral Saunders, who -co-operated heart and soul with Wolfe at Quebec. Widely different -was the naval record of the War of American Independence. The -French navy, it is true, was stronger than in former years, but the -naval commanders on the English side were also less adequate. The -competent men were superseded by, or had to serve under, senior -and less competent officers. Sir George Collier, who showed energy -and ability, was succeeded by an inferior man, Marriot Arbuthnot; -and, at the most critical point of the campaign, when the French -admiral, de Grasse, combined with Washington to procure the -surrender of Cornwallis, Sir Samuel Hood, one of the best, had to -take his orders from Admiral Graves, one of the least competent -of British naval officers. Even Rodney, who had not yet won the -great victory in the West Indies, by which he is best remembered, -seems to have been remiss in regard to North America; and, if Hood -be excepted, Lord Howe alone among the famous seamen of England, -during a short period of the war, showed something of the skill and -energy which, at other times, and in other than American waters, -characterized the leaders of the British navy. - -[Sidenote: Military science was not conspicuous in the American War -of Independence.] - -Apart altogether from its causes and its results, and dealing -only with the actual operations, the War of American Independence -was a most unsatisfactory, and for the English, a most inglorious -war. It might well have resulted in a far more crushing defeat for -England, and yet have left a much better impression on English -minds. Though the war lasted for fully seven years, on neither -side, with one exception, were very great military reputations -made. The American Civil War of later days was marked by notable -military achievements, and extraordinarily stubborn fighting. It -was a terrible but a heart-whole struggle, fought hard to the -bitter end under men, among winners and losers alike, whose names -will live to all time in military history. In the American War of -Independence, on the other hand, though good soldiers were engaged -on either side and some, such as the American general, Nathaniel -Greene, deservedly attained high reputation, yet the only name -which lives for the world at large because of the war itself, is -that of Washington; and it lives not so much because of brilliant -feats of generalship, as because he led a murmuring people through -the wilderness with statesmanship, rare nobility of character, -and unconquerable patience. ‘Few of the great pages of history,’ -writes Mr. Lecky, ‘are less marked by the stamp of heroism than the -American Revolution.’[103] The Americans muddled through, because -the English made more mistakes, and because, though the American -people were divided among themselves, their leaders, at any rate, -knew their own minds, and were not half-hearted like the majority -of leading men at the time in the United Kingdom. - -[Sidenote: Wavering attitude of the English Government] - -For neither the English nation nor the English Government were -wholehearted in the war. It was of the nature of a civil war, with -little to appeal to on the English side. It is true that it was -for a time popular in England, that the intervention of France -prolonged its popularity, and that the outrageous extravagances -of Fox and other extreme Whigs also tended to provoke honest -patriotism in favour of the Government and their policy; but it was -not truly a nation’s war, guided by the nation’s chosen leaders. -Not only was there strong opposition to it in England, for reasons -which have already been given, strong especially in the personality -of men like Chatham and Burke who opposed it, but the ministry -themselves showed that their heart was not in their work. Twice -in the middle of the struggle they tried to make peace. In 1776, -the brothers Howe at New York, Whigs themselves, were commissioned -to open negotiations with the colonists: but their powers in -granting concessions were far too limited to satisfy opponents, -who had already, on the 4th of July in that year, declared for -independence. Again in 1778, under an Act of Parliament, specially -passed for the purpose, commissioners were appointed to negotiate -for peace. They were five in number, two being, as before, the -brothers Howe,[104] and the other three being delegates specially -sent out from home. This time ample powers were given to make -concessions, but the situation was wholly changed. Burgoyne had -surrendered in the preceding autumn, the French had joined hands -with the colonists, and Philadelphia was being evacuated by the -British troops. Had the commissioners been sent out after some -striking success on the side of England, offering generous terms -from a strong and resolute nation, they might have gained a -hearing, and the proffered concessions might have been accepted. -Under the circumstances the mission was interpreted as a sign of -weakness, and the messages which were brought were treated with -contempt. - -[Sidenote: and of the generals.] - -As it was with the Government, so it was also with the military -men. Amherst would not serve because of his old friendly relations -with the Americans. General Howe, for similar reasons, was at first -loth to serve, and his delays and shortcomings in prosecuting -the war may perhaps be in part attributed to the same cause. -Howe, Burgoyne, and Clinton all came out in 1775 from the House -of Commons, politicians as well as soldiers.[105] Burgoyne was -brought home towards the end of 1775. He went out again to Canada -in the spring of 1776, again went home in the autumn of that year, -and again went out in 1777 for his last disastrous campaign. -Cornwallis went to England twice in the course of the war. It was -probably a mere coincidence, but the fact remains that the two -commanders who suffered the greatest disasters, were the two who -went back and fore between England and America, and presumably -came most under the influence of the mischievous ministry at home. -It is true that Wolfe had gone home in 1758 after the taking of -Louisburg, discontented with the tardiness of Amherst’s movements, -and that he went out again in 1759 to his crowning victory and -death; but Wolfe went home to Chatham, Burgoyne and Cornwallis to -Lord George Germain. - -[Sidenote: Want of continuity in the military operations on the -English side.] - -Take again the spasmodic operations of the war. Boston, held when -war broke out, and for the retention of which Bunker’s Hill was -fought, was subsequently abandoned. Philadelphia was occupied and -again evacuated. The southern colonies were over-run but not held. -At point after point the Loyalists were first encouraged and then -left to their fate. Everything was attempted in turn but nothing -done, or what was done was again undone. The vacillation and -infirmity of purpose, which has so often marred the public action -of England, was never more manifest than in the actual campaigns of -the War of American Independence. The great difficulty to contend -with was the large area covered by the revolting colonies; and -the one hope of subduing them lay in blockading the coasts and -concentrating instead of dispersing the British land forces. Lord -Howe and Lord Amherst are credited with the view that the only -chance of success for England lay in a purely naval war; and it -is said to have been on Amherst’s advice that Philadelphia was -abandoned and the troops concentrated at New York. The true policy -was, as Captain Mahan has pointed out,[106] and as Carleton had -seen before the war came,[107] to cut the colonies in two by -holding the line of the Hudson and Lake Champlain; and the object -of sending Burgoyne down from Canada by way of Lake Champlain -in 1777 was that he might join hands with the British forces on -the Atlantic coast, as they moved up the Hudson from New York. -But, while Burgoyne was marching south, Howe carried off the bulk -of the troops from New York to attack Philadelphia; and there -followed, as a direct consequence, the ruin of Burgoyne’s force and -its surrender at Saratoga. No positive instructions had reached -Howe as to co-operating with Burgoyne, and the well-known story -goes[108] that this oversight was due to Lord George Germain, who -had fathered the enterprise, going out of town at the moment when -the dispatches should have been signed and sent. At any rate, -it is clear that, even when the British Government had formed a -right conception of the course to be followed, they failed to take -ordinary precautions for ensuring that it was carried into effect. -In Canada alone did the English rise to the occasion. Here, and -here only, was a man among them in the early stages of the war -who moved on a higher plane altogether than his contemporaries in -action, a statesman-general of dignity, foresight and prudence. -Here alone too the English were repelling invasion, and keeping for -the nation what the nation had won. In this wrong-headed struggle -the one and only ray of brightness for England shone out from -Canada. - -[Sidenote: Operations on the Atlantic seaboard.] - -After the battle of Bunker’s Hill, in June, 1775, the British army -of occupation at Boston spent the year in a state of siege. Gage -was recalled to England in October, the command of the troops being -handed over to Howe. Burgoyne too went home, returning to Canada in -the following spring. The autumn and the winter went by, Carleton -being beleaguered in Quebec, and Howe cooped up in Boston, while -British ships bombarded one or two of the small seaport towns on -the American coast, causing misery and exasperation, without -effecting any useful result. Early in 1776, Clinton and Cornwallis -were sent to carry war into the southern states, and towards the -end of June made an unsuccessful attack on Charleston Harbour. - -[Sidenote: Howe evacuates Boston and occupies New York.] - -In March Howe evacuated Boston, and brought off his troops to -Halifax. In June he set sail for New York, which was held by -Washington; established himself on Staten Island, where he was -joined by his brother, the admiral, with strong reinforcements; -and, having now ample troops under his command, he took action in -the middle of August. Crossing over to Long Island, he inflicted -a heavy blow on Washington’s army on the 27th of August, but did -not follow up his success, with the result that Washington two -days later carried over his troops to New York. In the middle of -September New York was evacuated by the Americans and occupied -by the English, and through October and November, Washington was -driven back with loss, until by the beginning of the second week in -December, he had retreated over the Delaware to Philadelphia, and -the whole of the country between that river and the Hudson, which -forms the State of New Jersey, was in British hands. The American -cause was further depressed by the temporary loss of General -Charles Lee, who had been surprised and taken prisoner. He was one -of the few American leaders who was a practised soldier, having -been before the war a half-pay officer of the British army; at the -time of his capture he stood second only to Washington. - -[Sidenote: Howe’s delays.] - -Howe had been almost uniformly successful, but at each step he had -been slow to follow up his successes. In all wars in which trained -soldiers are pitted against untrained men, it must be of the utmost -importance to give as little breathing space as possible to the -latter, for delay gives time for learning discipline, regaining -confidence, and realizing that defeat may be repaired. Easy to -check and to keep on the run in the initial stages of such a war, -the untried levies gradually harden into seasoned soldiers, taking -repulses not as irreparable disasters, but as incidents in a -campaign. For those who set out to subdue a stubborn race it is a -fatal mistake to give their enemies time to learn the trade of war. -Especially is it a mistake when, as in the case of the Americans, -the causes of the war and the ultimate objects are at the outset -not yet clearly defined, when there are misgivings and hesitations -as to the rights and wrongs, the necessities of the case, the most -desirable issue: most of all when one side represents a loose -confederation of jealous states, and not one single-minded nation. -Howe seems to have lost sight of these considerations, and not -to have wished to press matters too far. While engaged in taking -New York, he was also busy with his brother in trying vainly to -negotiate terms of peace; and subsequently, while mastering New -Jersey, instead of completing his success by sending ships and -troops round to the Delaware to attack Washington in Philadelphia, -he dispatched Clinton to the north to occupy Newport in Rhode -Island, a point of vantage for the naval warfare, but held at the -cost of dispersing instead of concentrating the British forces. - -[Sidenote: Washington’s victory at Trenton.] - -[Sidenote: Howe retreats from the Jerseys, and occupies -Philadelphia.] - -Yet, as the year 1776 drew towards its close, all seemed going -well for the English in America. Carleton from Canada, Howe from -New York, had uninterrupted progress to report. With Christmas -night there came another tale. In fancied security after the -late campaign, Howe’s troops in New Jersey were quartered at -different points, the commander-in-chief remaining at New York, and -Cornwallis, who had commanded in New Jersey, being on the point -of leaving for England. The village of Trenton on the Delaware, -through which passed the road from New York to Philadelphia, was -held by a strong detachment of Hessians under General Rahl, whose -whole force, including a few British cavalry, numbered about 1,400 -men. No entrenchments had been constructed, few precautions had -been taken against attack, and Christmas time and Christmas weather -made for want of vigilance. Crossing the Delaware with 2,500 men, -Washington broke in upon the position in the early morning of -December 26th, amid snow and rain, and the surprise was complete: -General Rahl was mortally wounded; between 900 and 1,000 of his -men were killed, wounded, or taken prisoners; and not many more -than 400 made good their escape. Returning with his prisoners to -Philadelphia, Washington again re-crossed the Delaware, and during -the rest of the winter and the first six months of the year 1777 -continually harassed the English in New Jersey, avoiding a general -engagement, which Howe vainly endeavoured to bring on. At length, -towards the end of July, Howe evacuated the territory, and, leaving -Clinton with over 8,000 men at New York, shipped the rest of his -army for Chesapeake Bay, resolved to attack the enemy from the -opposite direction and to take Philadelphia. Washington gave him -battle on the Brandywine river early in September and was defeated. -On the 26th of September Howe entered Philadelphia: and on the 4th -of October at Germantown, five miles distant from the city, he -successfully repelled a sudden attack by which Washington attempted -to repeat the success of Trenton. At Brandywine, Washington lost -some 1,300 men, at Germantown over 1,000; but, while Germantown was -being fought, Burgoyne’s army on the upper reaches of the Hudson -was nearing its final disaster. - -[Sidenote: Far-reaching consequences of the fight at Trenton.] - -The War of American Independence, to quote the words of the -_Annual Register_ for 1777,[109] was ‘a war of posts, surprises, -and skirmishes, instead of a war of battles’. The disaster to the -Hessians at Trenton was what would have been called in the late -South African war a regrettable incident, but it had far-reaching -consequences. The German troops employed by the British Government -were not unnaturally regarded by the American colonists with -special dislike and apprehension. They were foreigners and -professional soldiers, alien in sympathies and in speech, partisans -in a quarrel with which they had no concern, fighting for profit -not for principle. The citizen general, at the darkest time of the -national cause, came back to Philadelphia, bringing a number of -them prisoners, and broke at once the spell of ill success. There -followed, as a direct consequence, the abandonment of the Jerseys -by the English, the rising again of colonial feeling throughout -the region, and corresponding depression of the Loyalists. But -almost more important was the effect on the side of Canada; for -the Trenton episode led to the supersession of Carleton and to his -eventual resignation. - -[Sidenote: The Secretary of State for the American Department.] - -In the year 1768 the office of Secretary of State for the American -Department was created in England, to deal especially with -colonial matters. The Council of Trade and Plantations, which in -one form or another had hitherto taken charge of the colonies, -was not superseded, but to the new Secretary of State it fell to -handle questions of war and peace with the American colonies. The -appointment was not long lived, being abolished, together with -the Council of Trade and Plantations, by Burke’s Act in 1782. The -first Secretary of State for the American Department was Lord -Hillsborough; the second, appointed in 1772, was Lord Dartmouth, -in character and sympathy, a pleasing exception to the type of -politicians who at the time had power in Great Britain; the third, -appointed at the beginning of 1776, was Lord George Germain who, -when he took office, was about sixty years of age. - -[Sidenote: Lord George Germain.] - -No name in English political history during the last 150 years -is less loved than that of Lord George Sackville, or, as he was -known in later years, Lord George Germain. He was born in 1716, a -younger son of the first Duke of Dorset. Lady Betty Germain, who -died in 1769, left him the Drayton estate[110] in Northamptonshire, -and he took her name. Ten years before, he had been cashiered -for disobedience to an order to charge at the battle of Minden -in 1759, laying himself open by his conduct in that battle to -what was no doubt an unfounded charge of cowardice. He took to -political life, and has been commonly regarded as in a special -manner the evil genius of the British ministry during the war -with America. Yet he was not a man without parts. In his early -life he had some reputation as a soldier, being highly spoken of -by Wolfe. After he was dismissed from the army, he pertinaciously -demanded a court-martial, though warned that more serious results -even than dismissal might follow from re-opening the case. The -inquiry was held, and the dismissal confirmed; but, helped no doubt -by his family connexions, he held up his head in public life, -and became, in Horace Walpole’s opinion, one of the five best -speakers in the House of Commons.[111] Walpole, and probably others -also, disbelieved the charge of cowardice;[112] and certainly in -politics, whatever may have been the case on the battlefield, -Germain cannot be denied the merits of courage and tenacity, though -he may well have been embittered by his past, and hardened into -fighting narrowly for his own hand. He became a follower of Lord -North, and under him was appointed a Lord Commissioner of Trade and -Plantations and Secretary of State for the American Department. -He was an unbending opponent of the colonists and their claims. -‘I don’t want you to come and breathe fire and sword against the -Bostonians like that second Duke of Alva, the inflexible Lord -George Germain,’ wrote Horace Walpole in January, 1775,[113] before -Germain had taken office. To use Germain’s own words, he would be -satisfied with nothing less from the Americans than ‘unlimited -submission’.[114] - -Germain seems to have been deeply imbued with the great political -vice of the time, that of dealing with national questions from a -personal and partisan point of view. It was a vice inculcated by -George the Third. The King was a narrow man: his school bred narrow -men: and one of the narrowest was Lord George Germain. Such men are -fearful of power passing from their hands, and are consequently -prone to be constantly interfering with their officers. Hence it -was that the evil of ministers trying to order the operations -of generals, and of men in one continent purporting to regulate -movements in another, was more pronounced at this time than at -almost any other period in English history. Moreover, Lord George -Germain having been a soldier, though a discredited one, no -doubt thought that he could control armies; and, mixing military -knowledge with political intrigue, he communed with the generals -who came home, and formulated plans with slight regard to the views -of the responsible men in America. The result was disastrous, in -spite of the fact that he seems to have formed a true conception of -the campaign, viz., that the one army in Canada and the other at -New York should co-operate and cut in two the revolting colonies. -The immediate outcome of his arrogant meddling was the loss of -Carleton’s services. - -[Sidenote: His correspondence with Carleton.] - -[Sidenote: Carleton censured and superseded in command of the army -on the side of Canada.] - -On the 22nd of August, 1776, while Carleton was busy making -preparations to drive the Americans back up Lake Champlain, Germain -wrote to him, commending what had been done, expressing a hope that -the frontiers of Canada would soon be cleared of the rebel forces, -and giving instructions that, when this task had been accomplished, -Carleton should return to Quebec, to attend to civil duties and the -restoration of law and order, while detaching Burgoyne with any -troops that could be spared to co-operate with Howe’s army acting -from New York. Written when it was, the letter could hardly have -been received in any case before the year’s campaign was drawing to -its close, and before events had already determined what could or -could not be done. It might have been received, wrote Carleton in -a dignified and reasoned reply, at the beginning of November,[115] -and coming to hand then could only have caused embarrassment. As -a matter of fact, the ship which carried Germain’s letter, was -driven back three times, and Carleton only received a duplicate -in May, 1777, under cover of a second letter from Germain which -was dated the 26th of March in that year. This second letter -attributed the disaster to the Hessians at Trenton, which had -happened in the meantime, in part to the fact that by retreating -from before Ticonderoga in the preceding autumn Carleton had -relaxed the pressure on the American army in front of him, which -had thereby been enabled to reinforce Washington; and it announced -that two expeditions were in the coming campaign to be sent from -Canada, one under Colonel St. Leger, the other under Burgoyne, -while Carleton himself was to remain behind in Canada and devote -his energies to the defence of the province, and to furnishing -supplies and equipment for the two expeditions in question. It -will be remembered that Burgoyne had in the meantime returned to -England, reaching Portsmouth about the 9th of December, 1776, and -had brought with him Carleton’s plans for the operations of 1777, -which were therefore well known to Germain when he wrote in March. - -[Sidenote: Personal relations of Germain and Carleton.] - -It is difficult to imagine how a responsible minister could have -been at once so ignorant and so unfair as Germain showed himself to -be in this communication. To suppose that the movement or want of -movement on Lake Champlain could have had any real connexion with -the cutting off of a detachment on the Delaware river, which was -within easy reach of the rest of Howe’s forces, overpowering in -numbers as compared with Washington’s, was at best wilful blindness -to facts. To supersede Carleton in the supreme command of the -troops on the Canadian side was an act of unwisdom and injustice. -It is true that, already in the previous August, while Carleton -was still on the full tide of success, it had been determined to -confine his authority to Canada, and apparently, in order that -his commission might not clash with that of Howe, to place under -a subordinate officer the troops which were intended to effect a -junction with Howe’s army. But in any case it is not easy to resist -the conclusion that Germain had some personal grudge against the -governor.[116] From a letter written by the King to Lord North in -February, 1777, it would seem that, had Germain been given his -way, Carleton would have been recalled, and, writing to Germain on -the 22nd of May, Carleton did not hesitate to refer to the reports -which were set abroad when Germain took office, to the effect that -he intended to remove Carleton from his appointment, and in the -meantime to undermine his authority. In his answer, dated the 25th -of July, 1777, Germain gave the lie to these allegations, assuring -Carleton that ‘whatever reports you may have heard of my having -any personal dislike to you are without the least foundation. I -have at no time received any disobligation from you’; he stated -categorically that the action which had been taken for giving -Burgoyne an independent command was by ‘the King’s particular -directions’, and he added that the hope that Carleton would in -his advance in the previous autumn penetrate as far as Albany was -based upon the opinions of officers who had served in the country, -and was confirmed by intelligence since received to the effect that -the Americans had intended to abandon Ticonderoga, if Carleton had -attacked it.[117] But, whatever may have been the facts as to the -personal relations of Carleton and Germain, it seems clear that the -small-minded minister in England was bent on ridding himself of the -best man who served England in America.[118] - -[Sidenote: The case of Chief Justice Livius.] - -As Germain superseded Carleton in his military command, so he set -aside his advice, and over-rode his appointments in civil matters. -Reference has already been made to the evil effects produced by -appointing unfit men to legal and judicial offices in Canada. The -climax was reached when Germain in August, 1776, appointed to the -Chief Justiceship of Canada a man named Livius, whose case attained -considerable notoriety in the annals of the time. Peter Livius -seems to have been a foreigner by extraction. Before the war broke -out, he had been a judge in New Hampshire; and, his appointment -having been abolished, he came back to England with a grievance -against the governor and council, with whom he had been on bad -terms while still holding his judgeship. A provision in the Quebec -Act had annulled all the commissions given to the judges and other -officers in Canada under the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which -that Act superseded: and the English ministry seems to have taken -advantage of this provision to displace men who had done their work -well, and whose services Carleton desired to retain, substituting -for them unfit nominees from England. - -[Sidenote: Carleton’s description of Livius.] - -One of the men thus substituted was Livius, for whom they saw -an opportunity of providing in Canada. Lord Dartmouth wrote to -Carleton in May, 1775, notifying the appointment of Livius as a -judge of Common Pleas for the district of Montreal; and in August -of the following year he was promoted by Germain to be Chief -Justice of Canada. Livius succeeded Chief Justice Hey, who had -held the office since 1766, and had in August, 1775, requested to -be allowed to retire after ‘ten years honest, however imperfect, -endeavours to serve the Crown in an unpleasant and something -critical situation’.[119] Hey was a man of high standing and -character, and had been much consulted by the Government in passing -the Quebec Act. Livius was a man of a wholly different class. -Carleton’s unflattering description of him in a letter written on -the 25th of June, 1778,[120] was that he was ‘greedy of power and -more greedy of gain, imperious and impetuous in his temper, but -learned in the ways and eloquence of the New England provinces, -valuing himself in his knowledge how to manage governors, well -schooled, it seems, in business of this sort’. ‘’Tis unfortunate,’ -he wrote in another and earlier letter, referring apparently to -Livius, ‘that your Lordship should find it necessary for the King’s -service to send over a person to administer justice to this people, -when he understands neither their laws, manners, customs, nor their -language.’[121] - -[Sidenote: He dismisses him from office.] - -Livius’ appointment as Chief Justice apparently did not take effect -till 1777, and he lost no time in making difficulties. Though paid -better than his predecessor, he protested as to his emoluments -and position; he claimed the powers which had been enjoyed by the -Intendant under the old French régime, and both in his judicial -capacity and as a member of the council, constituted himself an -active opponent of the government. As Chief Justice, he espoused -the cause of a Canadian who had been arrested and sent to prison -for disloyalty by the Lieutenant-Governor Cramahé, and in the -council, in April, 1778, he brought forward motions directed -against what he held to be illegal and irregular proceedings on the -part of the governor. The result of his attitude was that on the -1st of May, 1778, Carleton, before he left Canada, summarily, and -without giving any reason, dismissed him from office. - -[Sidenote: Livius appeals to the King.] - -[Sidenote: Merits of the case.] - -Both Livius and Carleton went back to England, and in September -Livius appealed to the King. His appeal was referred to the Lords -Commissioners of Trade and Plantations, whose report on the case -was in turn referred to the Lords of the Committee of Council for -Plantation Affairs, and with their recommendation was brought -before the King in Privy Council, Livius having in the course of -the inquiry stated his case fully both in person and in writing, -while Carleton declined to appear, and contented himself with -referring to his dispatches and to the minutes of council. On -technical grounds Livius had a strong case. Appointed by the King, -he had been dismissed by the governor without any reason being -assigned in the letter of dismissal. His conduct in a judicial -capacity had not been specifically impugned, and the two motions -directed against Carleton, which he had brought forward in the -Legislative Council immediately prior to his dismissal, had, -at any rate, some show of reason. The first was to the effect -that the governor should communicate to the council the Royal -Instructions which had been given him with respect to legislation, -and which by those instructions he was to communicate so far as -it was convenient for the King’s service. The second referred -to a committee of five members of the council, which Carleton -had constituted in August, 1776, a kind of Privy Council for the -transaction of executive, as opposed to legislative business, in -which Livius was not included. Livius contended, and his contention -was upheld, that the instruction under which the governor had -appointed this board or committee, did not contemplate the -formation of a standing committee of particular members of council, -but only authorized the transaction of executive business by any -five councillors, if more were not available at the time. - -[Sidenote: The appeal upheld and Livius restored to office. His -subsequent career.] - -The result of the inquiry was that the Chief Justice was restored -to his office, but he never returned to Canada. In July, 1779, -a mandamus for his re-appointment as Chief Justice was sent to -Governor Haldimand, Carleton’s successor, and in the same month he -was ordered to go back at once to Quebec. But he remained on in -England on one pretext or another. In March, 1780, he was still in -London asking for further extension of leave, to see his brother -who was coming home from India. Two years later, in April, 1782, -he had not gone, though he alleged that he had attempted to cross -the Atlantic and had been driven back by stress of weather; and he -pleaded with rare audacity that it was advisable that he should -still prolong his absence from Canada, as otherwise it would be his -duty to oppose the high-handed proceedings, as he deemed them to -be, of General Haldimand. So matters went on until Carleton, now -Lord Dorchester, returned to govern Canada in the autumn of 1786, -when a new Chief Justice was at once appointed, and Livius finally -disappeared from history.[122] - -[Sidenote: Moral of the case.] - -It has been worth while to give at some length the details of this -somewhat squalid incident, because it is a good illustration of -the difficulties which may arise from one of the most valued and -valuable of English principles, the independence of the judicature. -In the distant possessions of Great Britain, even more than at -home, a great safeguard and a strong source of confidence is and -always has been that the judges are in no way dependent on the -Executive; and yet the case of Livius is by no means the only -case in which serious mischief to the public service has resulted -from this very cause. There can be no doubt that on technical -grounds the Privy Council were right in upholding Livius’ appeal. -What weighed with them most of all was that Livius had not been -dismissed for judicial misconduct; and short of such misconduct, -flagrant and proved beyond all shadow of doubt, it would still be -held that a judge should not be removed from office by the King -himself, much less by the governor. Carleton, like other men cast -in a large mould, did not sufficiently safeguard his action. A -mischief-making adventurer was placed in high office for which -he was clearly unfit. At a time of national crisis he used his -powers of making mischief, and feeling secure in the independence -of his judicial position, sought to undermine the authority of the -Government. Unwilling to leave the difficulty for his successor to -solve, the outgoing governor, fearless of responsibility, summarily -dismissed the man, and contemptuously refused to justify the -grounds of dismissal. He acted in the best interests of the public -service, but, in doing so, he placed himself in the wrong, and the -restoration of Livius to his office must be held to be justified, -while his original appointment admits of no excuse. - -[Sidenote: Carleton resigns.] - -[Sidenote: Germain’s plan of campaign for 1777.] - -In June, 1777, Carleton sent in his resignation, but a year passed -before he was able to leave Canada, and a bitter year it was for -the English cause in America. Germain’s letter to him of the -26th of March, to which reference has already been made, gave a -minute account of the plans for the year’s campaign. Carleton was -to remain behind in Canada with 3,770 men. He was to place under -command of General Burgoyne 7,173 men, in addition to Canadians and -Indians, and after providing him with whatever artillery, stores, -and provisions he might require, and rendering him every assistance -in his power, ‘to give him orders to pass Lake Champlain and -from thence, by the most vigorous exertion of the force under his -command, to proceed with all expedition to Albany, and put himself -under the command of Sir William Howe.’ In an earlier part of the -same letter the phrase is used that Burgoyne was ‘to force his way -to Albany’, leaving no doubt of the writer’s intention that at all -hazards Burgoyne was to effect a junction with Howe. Carleton was -further to place under Lieutenant-Colonel St. Leger 675 men, also -to be supplemented by Canadians and Indians, to give him all the -necessaries for his expedition, and to instruct him to advance to -the Mohawk river, and down that river to Albany, where he was to -place himself under Sir William Howe. St. Leger’s force was to -be supplementary to Burgoyne’s: as phrased elsewhere in the same -letter, he was ‘to make a diversion on the Mohawk river’. - -[Sidenote: Minuteness of the instructions.] - -[Sidenote: Germain fails to communicate with Sir W. Howe.] - -It is noteworthy how this remarkable letter purported to settle all -the details. The exact number of men for each service are counted, -the particular regiments and companies of regiments are told off, -no discretion is left to Carleton or to Burgoyne as to whom they -should send forward to Lake Champlain or the Mohawk, and whom they -should keep in Canada. No mention is made of the reinforcements -which Carleton had written were necessary. Nothing is allowed -apparently for sick or ineffectives. All is on paper, concocted -by the man at a distance who persisted in knowing better than the -far more capable man on the spot. But the most damning passage in -the letter is as follows, ‘I shall write to Sir William from hence -by the first packet, but you will nevertheless endeavour to give -him the earliest intelligence of this measure, and also direct -Lieutenant-General Burgoyne and Lieutenant-Colonel St. Leger to -neglect no opportunity of doing the same, that they may receive -instructions from Sir William Howe.’ Sir William Howe’s Narrative -of his operations, given to a Committee of the House of Commons in -April, 1779, states explicitly that the promised letter was never -sent to him by Germain; that it was not until the 5th of June that -he received from Carleton a copy of the letter which has been -quoted above, unaccompanied by any instructions; and that, before -Burgoyne left England, Germain had received Howe’s plans for the -Philadelphia expedition, and had written approving them. Such was -Lord George Germain’s conduct of the war in America. - -[Illustration: - - Map to illustrate =THE BORDER WARS= _to face page 145_ - - B. V. Barbishire, Oxford, 1908 -] - -[Sidenote: Burgoyne and Carleton.] - -On the 27th of March Burgoyne left London. On the 6th of May he -arrived at Quebec. There was no friction between him and Carleton. -He had made no attempt to supplant Carleton, and, bitterly as -Carleton resented his own treatment by Germain, he gave Burgoyne -the utmost assistance for the coming campaign. ‘Had that officer -been acting for himself or for his brother, he could not have shown -more indefatigable zeal than he did to comply with and expedite -my requisitions and desires.’ Such was Burgoyne’s testimony to -Carleton, in his Narrative of the ‘state of the Expedition from -Canada’ as given to the House of Commons.[123] - -[Sidenote: St. Leger’s expedition to the Mohawk river.] - -[Sidenote: Oswego.] - -Before following the fortunes of Burgoyne and his army, it will be -well to give an account of how St. Leger fared in the ‘diversion on -the Mohawk river’. As in the days of the French and English wars, -the twofold British advance from Canada followed the course of the -waterways. While the main army moved up Lake Champlain to strike -the Hudson at Fort Edward and thence move down to Albany, St. -Leger’s smaller force was dispatched up the St. Lawrence to Oswego -on Lake Ontario, in order by lake and stream to reach and overpower -Fort Stanwix on the upper waters of the Mohawk river, and then to -follow down that river to the Hudson, and reach the meeting-point -with Burgoyne’s troops at Albany. At Albany both Burgoyne and St. -Leger were to place themselves under Sir William Howe’s command. -Oswego, the starting-point of St. Leger’s expedition, owing to -its geographical position always played a prominent part in the -border wars of Canada and the North American colonies. From this -point Count Frontenac started when, in 1696, he led his men to -Onondaga, burnt the villages of the Iroquois, and laid waste their -cornfields. The first fort at Oswego was built in 1727 by Governor -Burnet of New York, who reported that he had built it with the -consent of the Six Nations. It was built on the western bank of the -mouth of the Onondaga or Oswego river, which here runs into Lake -Ontario, and it was still the main fort in 1756, when Oswego was -taken by Montcalm, although a subsidiary fort had also lately been -built upon the opposite--the eastern side of the river. The effect -produced both in England and in America by the French general’s -brilliant feat of arms marked the importance which was attached to -the position. The place was re-occupied by Prideaux and Haldimand -with Sir William Johnson in 1759; and subsequently a new fort was -constructed on the high ground which forms a promontory on the -eastern side of the estuary. This fort, which after the War of -Independence passed into American hands, was stormed and taken by -Gordon Drummond in the war of 1812. - -[Sidenote: The Six Nations.] - -[Sidenote: Allies of the English.] - -The Oswego river, or one branch of it, runs out of Lake Oneida: -and into that lake, at the eastern end, runs the stream which was -known as Wood Creek. From the Wood Creek there was a portage to the -Mohawk river, and at the end of the portage stood Fort Stanwix, -held by an American garrison, and barring St. Leger’s way to the -Mohawk valley and the Hudson. All this was the country of the Six -Nation Indians, Six Nations instead of Five since the early part -of the eighteenth century, when the Tuscaroras, driven up from -the south by the white men, had been admitted to the Iroquois -Confederacy. The people of the Long House, as the Iroquois called -themselves, had always been, in the main, allies of the English -as against the French. From the time when the state of New York -became a British possession, these Indians, who had had friendly -trading relations with the Dutch, transferred their friendship to -the English, and the chain of the covenant, though often strained, -was never completely broken. When the War of American Independence -began, and the English were divided, the Six Nations, though -confused by the issue and by the competing appeals of the two -parties, adhered as a whole to the Royalist cause. The majority of -the Oneidas, and possibly the Tuscaroras, inclined to the American -side, the Oneidas having come under the strong personal influence -of a New England missionary, Samuel Kirkland, but the other members -of the league were for the King. After the battle of Oriskany, -where, among others, the powerful clan of Senecas suffered heavily, -the enmity between these Indians and the colonists became more -pronounced, and took the form of a blood feud, accompanied by all -the horrors of militant savagery. - -There were various reasons why the Iroquois should espouse the side -of England against America. They looked to the Great King beyond -the sea as their father and protector. The English colonists on -their borders had shown little respect for their lands: and in -1774, in one of the inevitable conflicts between white men and red -on the Virginian frontier, which was known as Cresap’s war, some -of the Six Nation warriors had been involved, and the family of a -friendly Cayuga chief had been murdered by the whites, bringing -bitterness into the hearts of the western members of the Iroquois -Confederacy. But, most of all, the Mohawks shaped the policy of the -league, and they in turn were guided by the Johnson family, and by -their famous fighting chief Thayandenegea, more commonly known by -his English name of Joseph Brant. - -[Sidenote: The Mohawks.] - -[Sidenote: Sir William Johnson.] - -The Mohawks had always been the leaders among the Six Nation -Indians, though, by the time when war broke out between England -and America, they were comparatively few in number, worn down by -constant fighting, and by other causes.[124] Of all the Iroquois, -they had been most consistently loyal to the English, and the most -determined foes of the French. Their homes were at the eastern end -of the Long House, in the valley of the Mohawk river, and they -had therefore always been in close touch with the settlements at -Albany, Schenectady, and along the course of the river to which -they gave their name. They had mingled much and intermarried with -their white neighbours; and for thirty-five years they had had -living among them the Englishman, or rather the Irishman, who -above all others won the confidence of the North American Indians, -Sir William Johnson. They adopted him and he adopted them, taking -to wife in his later years, a Mohawk girl, Mary or Molly Brant. -If Johnson in large measure lived down to the Indians, he also -endeavoured to make the Indians live up to the white men’s level. -He encouraged missionary effort, and promoted education, sending, -among others, Joseph Brant, brother of Molly Brant, to a school -for Indian boys at Lebanon in the state of Connecticut. Johnson -represented the authority of the King, and he used his authority -and his influence for the protection of the Indians against the -inroads of the white men into their lands. The Mohawks, from -their position, were more exposed than the other members of the -confederacy to white land-jobbers, whose aggressiveness increased -after Johnson’s death in 1774. Accordingly, while their traditional -sympathies had always been with the English, when the civil war -came, they had no hesitation in attaching themselves to the King’s -cause. It was the cause of their protector; it was the cause of -the Johnson family; it was the cause to which both interest and -sentiment bade them to adhere. When Sir William Johnson died, he -left as his political representative, his nephew and son-in-law, -Colonel Guy Johnson: the heir of his estates was his own son, Sir -John Johnson. Both the one and the other were pronounced Loyalists: -they drew the Mohawks after them; and when, in the summer of 1775, -after hearing of the fight at Bunker’s Hill, Guy Johnson left the -Mohawk Valley for Oswego and crossed over to Canada, the majority -of the Mohawks left their homes and followed him. In Canada, it was -said, they received assurances from Carleton, which were confirmed -by Haldimand, that they should not be allowed to suffer for their -loyalty to the King.[125] - -[Sidenote: Joseph Brant.] - -The leader of these Mohawk friends of England was Joseph Brant, -who was born, the son of a full-blooded Mohawk, in 1742. He was -therefore a man of between thirty and forty years of age at the -time of the American Revolution. In the period intervening between -the British conquest of Canada and the battle of Waterloo, North -America produced three very remarkable men of pure Indian descent. -Pontiac was one, Joseph Brant was the second, the third was -Tecumseh, who fought and fell in the war of 1812. Of these three, -Joseph Brant alone sprang from the famous Iroquois stock. Pontiac -was to a greater extent than the others a leader of the red men -against the whites. So far as he had sympathies with white men, -they were with the French as against the English. Brant, in the -main, and Tecumseh played their parts when French rule had ceased -to exist in North America; they were fast allies of the English -as against the Americans or, to put it more accurately, of the -English controlled from home as against the English installed in -their own right in America. But all these three Indian chiefs -had, in one form or another, the same main motive for action, to -prevent what the red man had being taken from him by the white -man. Of the three, Brant was by far the most civilized. He was -an educated man and a Christian. He was, as has been seen, sent -to school in Connecticut, he was a friend of the missionaries, -he visited England twice, went to Court, had interviews and -correspondence with Secretaries of State, made acquaintance with -Boswell, was painted by Romney, and was presented by Fox with a -silver snuff-box. He was poles asunder from the ordinary native -inhabitant of the North American backwoods. He had known war from -early boyhood, had borne arms under Sir William Johnson against the -French, and had apparently fought against Pontiac. At the outbreak -of the revolution he followed Guy Johnson to Canada, and seems to -have taken part in opposing the American advance on Montreal. He -paid his first visit to England towards the end of 1775, returned -to New York in July 1776, and before the year closed made his -way back up country to the lands belonging to or within striking -distance of the Six Nations. Throughout the coming years of the war -his name was great and terrible in the borderland, the main scene -of his warfare being what was then known as the Tryon county of New -York, the districts east of the Fort Stanwix treaty line, which -were watered by the Mohawk river and its tributaries, and by the -streams which flow south and south-west to form the Susquehanna. -Once portrayed as the embodiment of ruthless ferocity, Brant was -afterwards given a place in history as a hero. He was present at -the Cherry Valley massacre, but in his fighting he seems to have -been beyond question more humane than most Indian warriors, and at -least as humane as some white men in these border wars, while his -courage, his skill in bush-fighting, and his rapidity of movement -were never surpassed. He was not a devil, and not an angel. Like -other men, both coloured and white, he no doubt acted from mixed -motives. His friendship for the English, and his patriotism for the -native races, may well have been coupled with personal ambition. -But he fought heart-whole and with no little chivalry for the cause -which he espoused; and in war, as in peace, he was above and beyond -the normal level of the North American Indian. After the war was -over, he settled with his people in Canada, where he died in 1807, -and the town of Brantford preserves his name. - -[Sidenote: St. Leger’s force too small for the task.] - -St. Leger’s expedition had been suggested to Germain by Burgoyne, -while the latter was in England: indeed, some enterprise of the -kind had been contemplated by Carleton. In view alike of past -history and of the general plan of the summer’s campaign, it had -much to recommend it; but the opposition which the English were -likely to encounter, and actually did encounter, was under-rated, -and the force was too small for the task imposed upon it. The total -number has usually been given at 1,700 men, including Indians; but -this seems to have been an over-estimate, at any rate when the -fighting came. The white troops probably did not in any case exceed -650 in number. There were only 200 British regulars, half of whom -were a detachment of the 8th, now the King’s (Liverpool Regiment), -the same regiment which had furnished a company for the attack on -the Cedars. There were a few German troops, who had just arrived in -Canada, and some of whom did not reach Oswego until the expedition -was over. The Germans, being wholly ignorant of the country, were -quite unsuited for bush-fighting and bateau-work. There was a corps -of New York Loyalists under the command of Sir John Johnson, and -known as Johnson’s Royal Greens. Colonel John Butler led a company -of the Rangers, and a small body of Canadians also took part in -the expedition. The Indian contingent numbered over 800 men. -Brant joined at Oswego at the head of 300 Indian warriors, mostly -Mohawks, and the Senecas were much in evidence. The Indians, as a -whole, were under the command of Colonel Daniel Claus, Johnson’s -brother-in-law, who for many years was one of the officers charged -by the British Government with the superintendence of Indian -affairs. Thus St. Leger had with him most of the men whose names -are best known on the British side in the annals of the border -warfare in these troubled times. Guns were taken with the force, -though of too small calibre to overpower a well-built fort; and, -when the advance began towards the end of July, no precautions were -neglected, a detachment was sent on a day’s march or so in front of -the main column, and the latter was led and flanked on either side -by Indians. - -[Sidenote: Fort Stanwix.] - -Fort Stanwix had at the time been renamed Fort Schuyler by the -Americans, presumably in honour of General Schuyler, who commanded -the American forces in the Northern Department. The older and -better known name was subsequently restored. The fort stood on the -Mohawk river, not actually on the bank of the river, but about 300 -yards distant, guarding the end of the portage from Wood Creek. -The length of the portage where the two rivers were nearest to -each other, was rather over a mile.[126] The old blockhouse, Fort -Williams, which had been the predecessor of the existing fort, -and the ruins of which were standing at the time of St. Leger’s -expedition, was destroyed by the English general, Daniel Webb, in -1756, as he retreated in hot haste on hearing of the capture of -Oswego by Montcalm. Two years later General Stanwix built a new -fort, which bore his own name. The town of Rome now covers the site -on which Fort Stanwix stood. The fort was square in form. It had -evidently been carefully designed by a trained soldier and strongly -constructed, but during the years of peace, in this case as in -those of the other border forts, the defences had fallen more or -less into decay, and had not been fully repaired or rebuilt when -the siege began. None the less, they proved to be too strong to be -overpowered by St. Leger’s light guns. The garrison consisted of -750 men, 200 of whom came in, bringing stores and provisions, on -the very day on which the forerunners of St. Leger’s force appeared -on the scene. The commander of the garrison was Colonel Gansevoort, -the second in command was Colonel Willett, both thoroughly -competent men. - -[Sidenote: The siege of Fort Stanwix begins.] - -St. Leger’s advanced guard, consisting of a detachment of 30 men of -the 8th Regiment, under Lieutenant Bird, with 200 Indians under -Brant, arrived before the fort on the 2nd of August. They had -been sent on, as is told in St. Leger’s dispatch, ‘to seize fast -hold of the lower landing-place, and thereby cut off the enemy’s -communication with the lower country.’[127] It had been hoped that -they would be in time to intercept the reinforcements which were -due at the fort, but they arrived too late for this purpose. They -took up their position at the point named, below and due south of -the fort, on the bank of the Mohawk river, athwart the road to -Albany. On the following day, the 3rd of August, St. Leger came up -himself, sent a proclamation into the fort, and began to invest -it, fixing his main encampment about half a mile to the north-east -of the fort, and higher up the river, which here runs in a curving -course, so that a straight line drawn from the main British camp -to the post at the lower landing-place would cross and recross -the river, forming the base of a semi-circle. The Americans had -blocked up Wood Creek with fallen timber, and St. Leger reported -that it took nine days and the work of 110 men to clear away the -obstructions, while two days were spent in making several miles of -track through the woods in order in the meantime to bring up stores -and guns. The siege, therefore, began long before the necessary -preparations had been made, and long before the besieging force had -been concentrated and duly entrenched. On the evening of the 5th of -August there were not 250 of the white troops in camp, and at this -juncture St. Leger was threatened by a strong body of Americans who -had gathered for the relief of the fort. - -[Sidenote: The fight at Oriskany.] - -When news came to the New York settlements of the British advance, -the militia of Tryon county were called out by their commander, -General Nicholas Herkimer. The rendezvous was Fort Dayton, at the -German Flatts, lower down the Mohawk valley than Fort Stanwix. The -German Flatts were so named after settlers from the Palatinate, -who had come out early in the eighteenth century, and from this -stock Herkimer was himself descended. On the 4th of August he -moved forward, the number of his force being usually given at -from 800 to 1,000 men. St. Leger reported that they were 800 -strong, and assuming that the total was between 700 and 800, the -relief force and the garrison together equalled, if they did not -outnumber, the whole of St. Leger’s army, the majority of which -moreover consisted, as has been seen, of Indians. On the 5th -Herkimer encamped near a place called Oriskany, about eight[128] -miles short of Fort Stanwix, where a stream called the Oriskany -Creek flowed into the Mohawk river. From this point he sent on -messengers to the fort to secure the co-operation of the garrison. -Meanwhile intelligence had reached St. Leger, sent it was said by -Molly Brant, of the coming relief force, and at five o’clock on the -evening of the 5th he dispatched 80 white troops, being all that he -could spare, with 400 Indians, to intercept the advancing Americans -before they came into touch with the fort, and ambush them among -the woods. Sir John[129] Johnson was placed in command of the -detachment, and with him were Butler and Joseph Brant. It was work -for which Brant was eminently suited, and he seems to have been -the leading spirit in planning the ambuscade. Very early on the -morning of the 6th of August, urged on by his impatient followers, -and against his own better judgement, Herkimer, without waiting -for reinforcements or for a sign from the beleaguered fort, -continued his advance. He reached a point between two and three -miles beyond Oriskany, and within six miles of the fort, where the -path descended into a semi-circular ravine, with swampy ground at -the bottom and high wooded ground at the sides. Here the Americans -were caught in a trap, which would have been more complete had -not the Indians begun fighting before the plan of ambush had been -fully developed. The American rearguard, which had not yet entered -the ravine, broke and fled: the main body were surrounded, Johnson -barring their way in front, Brant falling on their rear, while -others of the Indians and Butler’s rangers fought on the flanks. -There followed a confused fight among the trees, gradually becoming -a hand to hand struggle, with a brief interlude caused by a heavy -storm of rain. Herkimer was mortally wounded, many, if not most, -of the other leading American officers were killed; while, on the -British side, the Indians suffered heavy losses. In the end the -remnant of the American force seem to have beaten off or tired out -their assailants, and made good their retreat, but according to St. -Leger’s report only 200 of them escaped. Butler estimated the total -American casualties in killed, wounded, and prisoners, at 500, and, -according to American accounts, the total was about 400. The white -casualties on the British side were very small, but the casualties -among the Indians seem to have numbered from 60 to 100. - -While the engagement was going on, a sortie was made from the -fort, and it was probably news of this movement, coupled with the -Indian losses, which put an end to the fight at Oriskany. Bird, the -commander of the post at the lower landing-place, had been misled -by a rumour that Johnson was hard pressed, and led out his men to -support him, leaving the post undefended. Meanwhile, Willett at the -head of 250 men marched out of the fort, apparently in ignorance of -the ambuscade and designing to join hands with Herkimer’s force. -Willett found the post practically deserted, mastered it, and -carried off its contents, eluding an attempt which St. Leger made -to cut him off on his return to the fort.[130] This ended the -day’s work. Herkimer’s force had been blotted out, but it must have -become increasingly evident that St. Leger’s men and resources were -hopelessly inadequate for the task which had been set him, to force -his way to Albany. - -[Sidenote: St. Leger fails to take Fort Stanwix and retreats to -Oswego.] - -After the battle of Oriskany, St. Leger summoned the fort to -surrender, but without effect. He continued the siege, but made -little or no impression upon the defences. On the night of the -10th of August Willett made his way out of the fort, reached Fort -Dayton, and went on to Albany where he met Benedict Arnold who -had been charged with the duty of relieving Fort Stanwix. Arnold -gathered troops for the purpose and in the meantime, with his -usual cleverness, contrived to send on rumours which caused alarm -in the British camp. A thousand men were reported to be coming, -then 2,000, then 3,000, and Arnold’s own name may well have been -a potent source of apprehension. The Indians, already depressed -by their losses at Oriskany, and by the prolonging of the siege, -became more and more out of hand, deserting, marauding, and -spreading exaggerated tales; and at length, on the 22nd or 23rd of -August, St. Leger beat a hasty retreat by night, leaving behind him -most of his stores and guns, and returned to Oswego, whence he went -back to Montreal and on to Lake Champlain in the wake of Burgoyne’s -army. Joseph Brant took a less circuitous route. When St. Leger -retreated from Fort Stanwix, Brant made one of his marvellous -flying marches down the Mohawk Valley: and, after passing for over -a hundred miles through the heart of the enemy’s country, which was -also his own, in two or three days’ time joined Burgoyne’s force on -the banks of the Hudson river. - -[Sidenote: Misconduct of the Indians.] - -[Sidenote: Bad effects of employing them in the war.] - -When he returned to Oswego, St. Leger, on the 27th of August, wrote -a dispatch to Burgoyne, giving details of his expedition, but not -punctuating his failure. The failure was due to insufficiency -of numbers and artillery in the first place, and in the second, -beyond question, to the misconduct of his Indian allies. The -employment of Indians in this war with British colonists may have -been inevitable, but it was certainly politically inexpedient, -notwithstanding the fact that the colonists themselves were ready -to avail themselves of similar aid. Indians had been engaged on the -English side in the wars with the French, but sparingly and under -strict supervision. Carleton, as long as he directed operations in -the War of Independence, had been equally careful in using these -savage tools.[131] In St. Leger’s expedition the disadvantages of -enlisting Indian fighting men came fully to light. They became, St. -Leger wrote to Burgoyne, ‘more formidable than the enemy we had to -expect.’ Disappointed of looting the enemy, they plundered their -friends and endangered, if they did not in some cases take, their -lives. Unstable as friends, ferocious as foes, they were not fit -helpmates for Englishmen in fighting Englishmen, even their value -as scouts was diminished by their incurable habit of believing and -exaggerating any report. As in the war with the French in Canada, -the English gained ground by the scrupulous care which they took -to prevent outrages on the part of the savages who accompanied -their armies, so in the later war with their own countrymen, they -distinctly lost ground through calling out the coloured men of -America against colonists of British birth. - -[Sidenote: Burgoyne’s address to the Indians.] - -Burgoyne’s instructions from Lord George Germain included the -employment of Indians under due precautions; and he formally -addressed his Indian followers in his camp at the river Bouquet, -on the western side of Lake Champlain, on the 21st of June, 1777. -‘The collective voices and hands of the Indian tribes over this -vast continent,’ were, he told them, with a few exceptions, ‘on the -side of justice, of law, and the King.’ He bade them ‘go forth in -might of your valour and your cause: strike at the common enemies -of Great Britain and America’. On the other hand, he sternly -forbade bloodshed except in battle, and enjoined that ‘aged men, -women, children, and prisoners must be held sacred from the knife -or hatchet, even in the time of actual conflict’. Compensation -would be given for the prisoners taken, but the Indians would be -called to account for scalps. His listeners replied, through an -old chief of the Iroquois--‘We have been tried and tempted by the -Bostonians, but we have loved our father, and our hatchets have -been sharpened upon our affections.’ They promised with one voice -obedience to the general’s commands. - -[Sidenote: Burgoyne.] - -At this date, in the year 1777, Burgoyne was fifty-five years -of age, having been born in 1722, two years before Carleton was -born. He was clearly a man of ability, and unusually versatile. He -was also, as times went, an honourable man. In his relations to -Carleton, at any rate, he seems to have been open to no reproach. -But he tried too many things to be first-rate in anything; he was -not adequate to a great crisis and to heavy responsibility: and -because he was not of the first class, and also because he had -much dramatic instinct, he seems to have had more eye for present -effect than for the root of matters. He was educated at Westminster -School, and, when he died in 1792, he was buried in the northern -cloister of Westminster Abbey. He was a soldier, a politician, a -dramatist, and a man of society. He entered the army in 1740, again -two years before Carleton’s military service began. He became so -involved in debt that he had to sell his commission. He rejoined -the army in 1756, and in 1762 he distinguished himself in Portugal, -where the English supported the Portuguese against Spain and -France. A few years later, however, in 1769, Junius referred to him -as ‘not very conspicuous in his profession’.[132] He went into the -House of Commons in 1761 as member for Midhurst. In 1768, through -the influence of his father-in-law, Lord Derby, he became member -for Preston, and, in connexion with his election, was attacked -by Junius for corruption and also for his gambling propensities. -As a politician he was, before he went to America, more or less -of a free-lance. He spoke on foreign and Indian questions, and -in 1773 made a speech in the House of Commons, attacking Clive. -After the catastrophe at Saratoga, and his return to England, he -threw in his lot with the Whigs, having been befriended by Fox -and his followers; he became Commander-in-Chief in Ireland under -Rockingham; and in 1787 he managed the impeachment of Warren -Hastings. Before the American war broke out, he produced in 1774 a -play called _The Maid of the Oaks_, of which Horace Walpole wrote: -‘There is a new puppet show at Drury Lane as fine as scenes can -make it, called _The Maid of the Oaks_, and as dull as the author -could not help making it.’[133] At a later date, however, Walpole -had to confess that ‘General Burgoyne has written the best modern -comedy’.[134] This was _The Heiress_, which was brought out in the -beginning of 1786, and achieved a great success. Walpole had no -love for Burgoyne, at any rate at the time when the latter served -in America. ‘You ask the history of Burgoyne the pompous,’ he -wrote in October, 1777,[135] the month in which the surrender at -Saratoga took place; and after describing him as ‘a fortunate -gamester’, he continued, ‘I have heard him speak in Parliament, -just as he writes: for all his speeches were written and laboured, -and yet neither in them nor in his conversation did he ever impress -me with an idea of his having parts.’ Burgoyne’s affectation and -mannerism may have been due to the fact that he was essentially a -man of society, as society was then. He had eloped in early life -with Lord Derby’s daughter, and, like Charles Fox, was a confirmed -gambler. The world of London was his world, and the standard by -which he measured things was not the standard of all time. When -he went out in 1777 to command the expedition from Canada, he was -on the flowing tide of fortune, and the tone of his proclamations -gave Walpole cause for sarcastic comment. ‘Have you read General -Burgoyne’s rhodomontade, in which he almost promises to cross -America in a hop, step, and a jump?’[136] ‘Burgoyne has sent over -a manifesto that if he was to over-run ten provinces would appear -too pompous.’[136] ‘I heard to-day at Richmond that Julius Caesar -Burgonius’s Commentaries are to be published in an Extraordinary -Gazette of three-and-twenty pages in folio to-morrow--a counterpart -to the _Iliad_ in a nutshell.’[136] All these three passages -were written in August, 1777, while Burgoyne’s expedition was -proceeding. The writer of them did not like Burgoyne, and did not -like the war in which Burgoyne was engaged; but, though Burgoyne -lent himself to criticism and lacked the qualities which the time -and place demanded, his story is by no means the story either -of a bad soldier or of a bad man; it is rather the story of a -second-rate man set with inadequate means to solve a problem of -first-rate importance. - -[Sidenote: Burgoyne’s advance against Ticonderoga.] - -[Sidenote: The American position at Ticonderoga.] - -Having completed his preparations, Burgoyne reached Crown Point on -the 26th of June, preparatory to attacking Ticonderoga. The full -control of the operations had passed into his own hands, for, by -Germain’s instructions, Carleton’s authority was limited by the -boundary line of Canada, and that line was drawn far north of -Crown Point and Ticonderoga, cutting the outlet of Lake Champlain -near the point of land named Point au Fer. The total force amounted -to rather over 7,000 men, nearly half of whom were Germans under -the command of Baron Riedesel. The advance was made on both sides -of the lake, the Germans being on the eastern shore, the British on -the western--the side on which were Crown Point and Ticonderoga. -The Americans, too, held positions on both sides of the lake, -for, over against the peninsula on which Ticonderoga stood, there -jutted out another point of land, described in Burgoyne’s dispatch -as ‘high and circular’, but in reality rather oblong in form, -rising well above the level of the lake and skirted in part on the -land side by a rivulet. It was called Mount Independence, and was -strongly held and fortified. The lake, here narrowed to a river, is -about a quarter of a mile across, and between Ticonderoga and Mount -Independence a bridge had been constructed, consisting of sunken -timber piers connected by floating timber, the whole being guarded -in front by a heavy boom of wood strengthened by iron rivets and -chains. - -[Illustration: MAP TO ILLUSTRATE BURGOYNE’S CAMPAIGN - -Reduced from the Map published in ‘A State of the Expedition from -Canada as laid before the House of Commons by Lieutenant-General -Burgoyne, London, 1780’ - -London, published as the Act directs, Feb. 1st 1780, by WM. FADEN, -Charing Cross - - _To face p. 161_ -] - -The Indian name Ticonderoga signified the confluence of three -waters. At this point the long narrow southern arm of Lake -Champlain, coming in from the south-east, meets the stream which -carries out the waters of Lake George into the third water, the -main lake Champlain. The outlet of Lake George describes a complete -semi-circle, and runs into Lake Champlain due west and east. The -direct route therefore from Lake Champlain to Lake George runs well -to the west of and inside the peninsula of Ticonderoga, cutting -the semi-circular stream without touching the peninsula. In this -consisted the weakness of the American position: unless the works -were extended further afield than they had men to hold them, part -of the attacking force could pass them by and invest Ticonderoga on -the southern as well as on the northern side, blocking retreat by -the line of Lake George. So it happened when Burgoyne’s army came -on the scene. - -[Sidenote: Burgoyne’s operations against Ticonderoga.] - -[Sidenote: The Americans evacuate their position,] - -After three days’ stay at Crown Point to bring up all his forces, -the general on the 30th of June moved forward his leading corps -on either side of the lake, and on the next day the whole army -followed. On the 2nd of July the Americans were reported to have -abandoned the post which guarded the bridge over the river from -Lake George, to the west of Ticonderoga, where saw-mills stood -and which was the starting-point of the ‘carrying place’ from -Lake Champlain to Lake George. They abandoned it, in order to -concentrate their strength against the English advance on the -north-west. Burgoyne immediately moved forward his troops and, -driving the enemy back, on the night of the 2nd occupied the high -ground on the west which commanded the communications with Lake -George, and thereby cut off the possibility of retreat in that -direction. On the 3rd and 4th the attacking forces drew nearer to -the two beleaguered forts, in spite of cannonade; and on the night -of the 4th, a party of light infantry occupied a height called -Sugar Hill, which stood on the southern bank of the outlet from -Lake George, in the angle between that stream and the southern arm -of Lake Champlain, overlooking and commanding both Ticonderoga and -Mount Independence at an estimated distance of about 1,400 and -1,500 yards respectively. On the 5th guns were being brought up to -the hill, but, when the morning of the 6th came, it was found that -the American general, St. Clair, had carried his troops across by -the bridge from Ticonderoga, and, having evacuated both that post -and Mount Independence, was retreating by land and water. - -[Sidenote: and are followed up by the English.] - -By land and water Burgoyne’s men followed on the same day, the -bridge and boom being broken for the gunboats to pass through. At -Skenesborough, where the navigation of Lake Champlain ends, the -enemy’s vessels were taken or destroyed by the British squadron, -and the detachment of Americans who held the fort set fire to it -and retreated to Fort Anne. Meanwhile, diverging to the east in the -direction of Castleton on the road to Connecticut, General Fraser, -commanding the van of the troops who pursued by land, followed -hard throughout the 6th upon the American rearguard; Riedesel came -up behind him with supports; but, by agreement between the two -commanders, Fraser, when night fell, bivouacked three miles in -front of his colleague. Early on the 7th he attacked the Americans, -who outnumbered his own troops, near a place named Huberton, and -was on the point of being beaten back when the arrival of Riedesel -converted a repulse into a victory. The colonists were broken, -their leader, Colonel Francis, and some 200 of his men were killed, -about the same number were taken prisoners, and a large number of -wounded were supposed to have lost their lives in the woods. Having -completed the rout, on the 8th and 9th Riedesel and Fraser came -into touch with the main army at Skenesborough. - -[Sidenote: Fight near Fort Anne.] - -At Skenesborough there was a portage from Lake Champlain to Wood -Creek,[137] a stream which flows into the lake from the south. -While boats were being dragged across from the lake to the river -with a view to further advance, the 9th Regiment was sent on -by land to Fort Anne, twelve miles distant in a due southerly -direction. By the evening of the 7th the English drew near to -the fort, and on the following day they were attacked and hard -pressed by a stronger body of Americans. They took up a position -on a hill, and held their ground resolutely, until the whoop of -Indians told that reinforcements were coming up: the Americans -then gave way, and, setting fire to Fort Anne, fell back to Fort -Edward. The English in their turn returned to Skenesborough, in -the neighbourhood of which, on the 9th and 10th of July, the whole -army, excluding the troops required to garrison Ticonderoga, was -concentrated, the line extending eastward from the head of Lake -Champlain towards Castleton. - -[Sidenote: Result of the operations.] - -‘General Burgoyne has taken Ticonderoga, and given a new complexion -to the aspect of affairs, which was very wan indeed,’ wrote Horace -Walpole, when the news reached England.[138] So far the operations -had been triumphantly successful. Hardly an attempt had been made -by the Americans to hold their ground at Ticonderoga and Mount -Independence, although months had been spent in strengthening the -positions, and the number of the defenders was variously estimated -at from 3,000 to 5,000 men. Great quantities of stores, of boats, -of guns had fallen into British hands: the enemy’s loss on the -retreat had been heavy, and the rapidity with which the retreat -had been followed up had caused widespread alarm. For the moment -there seemed nothing to check the tide of British victory, but -time, place, and insufficiency of numbers gradually told against -Burgoyne’s enterprise. He, too, had suffered some losses, though -small when compared with those of the Americans; and his army, -already inadequate in numbers for the expedition, was further -weakened by the necessity of garrisoning Ticonderoga with some -900 men. He applied to Carleton to supply the requisite number -of soldiers for the garrison from the troops who, in accordance -with the instructions from home, were retained for the defence of -Canada, but Carleton felt himself bound to refuse the request. It -was Germain who had given the orders, and yet the same man, writing -from England in the following September, on receipt of Burgoyne’s -account of the capture of Ticonderoga, stated that he presumed that -the post would be garrisoned from Canada.[139] - -[Sidenote: The two routes to the Hudson.] - -[Sidenote: Burgoyne’s line of advance.] - -[Sidenote: His object was to threaten the New England States.] - -Burgoyne’s objective was the Hudson river and Albany. Fort Edward -stood on the left or eastern bank of the Hudson, a little below -the point where that river curves to the south, to flow direct to -the Atlantic. It was twenty-six miles distant from Skenesborough, -and due south of that place. The first twelve miles of the route -from Skenesborough lay along Wood Creek, until Fort Anne was -reached, and from Fort Anne to Fort Edward was an interval of -fourteen miles. Three miles short of Fort Edward the road joined -the road to Fort Edward from Fort George, previously known as -Fort William Henry, at the head of Lake George, which was at much -the same distance from Fort Edward as Fort Anne, viz., fourteen -to sixteen miles. The more obvious route of advance towards the -Hudson from Ticonderoga, and the one originally contemplated, was -along Lake George, and Burgoyne was criticized for not taking that -line--without good reason, because the American retreat had already -determined the choice of routes. Having immediately followed the -enemy up as far as Skenesborough, Burgoyne, as he justly pointed -out, would have been unwise to make a retrograde movement in order -to adopt the alternative line of advance by Lake George. Moreover, -while the troops were moving forward from Skenesborough viâ Wood -Creek and Fort Anne, supplies were being forwarded along Lake -George in order to meet him when he reached Fort Edward. But there -was a further reason, which in Burgoyne’s mind made for the more -easterly of the two routes. His own scheme for the campaign had -inclined to carrying war to the east into Connecticut and the New -England states, in preference to a direct advance to the Hudson and -Albany; and, though his instructions prevented his carrying out the -plan which he preferred, he might yet, as he advanced, threaten New -England, and at the same time gather supplies from a more promising -country than would be found in the Adirondack region on the west of -Lake George. Thus in a private letter to Germain, which accompanied -his dispatch from Skenesborough, detailing the success of his -recent operations, he wrote: ‘I a little lament that my orders -do not give me the latitude I ventured to propose in my original -project for the campaign, to make a real effort instead of a feint -upon New England. As things have turned out, were I at liberty to -march in force immediately by my left, instead of by my right, I -should have little doubt of subduing before winter the provinces -where the rebellion originated.’ It must be remembered that at this -time British troops were in occupation of Rhode Island, and that -Sir William Howe had originally planned a campaign in New England -in 1777, only giving up the scheme when he found that sufficient -reinforcements from Europe would not be forthcoming. - -[Sidenote: Riedesel sent to Castleton.] - -[Sidenote: The army arrives at Fort Edward on the Hudson river.] - -It was with the object of keeping the New England States in fear -of invasion, or, as he himself phrased it, ‘of giving jealousy -to Connecticut, and keeping in check the whole country called -the Hampshire Grants,’[140] that Burgoyne, while encamped at -Skenesborough, detached Riedesel to occupy Castleton about fourteen -miles to the east. Castleton was an important point, because -through it ran a road which connected Skenesborough by land with -the shore of Lake Champlain opposite Ticonderoga and Crown Point. -Riedesel was absent for about twelve days, and in the meantime -preparations were pressed forward for a further advance of the -main army, the road to Fort Anne and the parallel waterway of Wood -Creek being cleared of obstructions. Simultaneous preparations -were made at Ticonderoga for forwarding supplies by Lake George. -On the 23rd of July the advanced guard moved forward to Fort Anne: -on the 25th the whole army had reached that point; on the 29th, -the van arrived at Fort Edward, which the Americans had already -evacuated, and on the 30th Burgoyne arrived at the same place. A -large convoy of provisions sent by Lake George reached the head of -that lake by the 29th, Fort George like Fort Edward having been -abandoned by the enemy, who had carried off their stores. Thus -the end of July found Burgoyne on the Hudson, well on his way to -Albany; the main difficulties of the expedition seemed to be past; -but as a matter of fact the most trying time was yet to come. His -communications were insecure, for he could not spare men to guard -them. His transport was inadequate, and so were his supplies. Delay -in bringing up stores meant time to the Americans to recover their -spirits and gather in his front: he had no tidings from Howe, and -no sure knowledge of St. Leger’s progress. He only knew that at all -hazards he was expected to make his way to Albany. - -[Sidenote: The beginning of misfortunes. Murder of Jane McCrae by -the Indians.] - -While he halted at Fort Edward, two untoward incidents took place. -The first was a brutal murder by Indians of a young white woman -named Jane McCrae, who had remained behind at or near Fort Edward, -when the Congress troops fell back before Burgoyne’s advance. The -story went that she was engaged and about to be married to an -officer in Burgoyne’s army. Falling into the hands of the Indians, -she was murdered with purposeless, savage fury, and the tale of the -outrage, embellished with horrors, was spread far and wide through -the land. Colonists hitherto inclined to the loyal cause, felt that -their homes and womenkind would not be safe, if they awaited the -coming of the English and their savage allies: the opponents of -England found additional justification for the stand which they had -taken up; the sympathizers with the American cause in England were -given a new text for denouncing the war; and Burgoyne lost Indian -support by taking steps to prevent a recurrence of such enormities. - -[Sidenote: The expedition to Bennington.] - -[Sidenote: Objects aimed at by the expedition.] - -The second misfortune which happened--a most grave misfortune--was -an unsuccessful expedition in the direction of Bennington. -Bennington is in the state of Vermont, to the south-east of Fort -Edward, lying about twenty-four miles due east of the stretch of -the Hudson river, between Saratoga on the north and the confluence -of the Mohawk on the south, which was known as Stillwater. It is -in the forks of the two streams which combine to form the Hoosick -river, a tributary of the Hudson, flowing into the main river -from the east. Burgoyne’s information was to the effect, quoting -his own words, that it was ‘the great deposit of corn, flour, and -store cattle’, intended for the use of the Congress troops, which -he designed to secure for his own army in view of the difficulty -and delay experienced in bringing up supplies from Canada. The -German general, Riedesel, seems to have originally suggested such -an expedition, from knowledge gained while he was stationed at -Castleton. He was anxious to obtain horses to mount his men and to -carry the baggage; there was evidence of a considerable Loyalist -element in the population, and little reason to apprehend strong -opposition from the colonial militia. Above all Burgoyne had -constantly in his mind the object of threatening the New England -states: and, having by this time received intelligence that St. -Leger was before Fort Stanwix, he wished to make a diversion to the -east, in order to prevent reinforcements being sent up the Mohawk -river to the relief of that post. The instructions which he issued -for the expedition show that he contemplated that the detached -force, if things went well, would penetrate far beyond Bennington, -up to the Connecticut river, and possibly not rejoin the main army -until the latter had reached Albany. - -[Sidenote: Strength and composition of the force.] - -[Sidenote: Colonel Baum in command.] - -About 500 men, according to his dispatch, were detailed for the -enterprise, but the number appears to have been larger.[141] -It was a mixed body. There was a strong contingent of Germans, -chiefly dismounted dragoons, ill suited for a cross-country march, -and there were also picked marksmen from the British regiments, -Canadians, provincials, and about 100 Indians. Out of compliment -to Riedesel, the command was given to Colonel Baum, one of his -officers, and in selecting German troops for the expedition, -Burgoyne marked his appreciation of the good service which those -regiments had rendered in following up the retreat of the Americans -from Ticonderoga. The starting-point was the Batten Kill stream, -running into the Hudson on its eastern side, ten miles lower down -than Fort Edward. From this point to Bennington, by the route -which Baum was finally instructed to take, was a distance of under -thirty miles. The advance guard of Burgoyne’s army had already -been moved down the Hudson to the Batten Kill, and, on the 14th of -August, after Baum had started, they were thrown across the main -river a little higher up under the command of General Fraser, and -moved forward on the western bank as far as Saratoga, with the -object of a further advance to Stillwater in the event of Baum’s -expedition proving successful. The temporary bridge of rafts, -however, by which they had crossed, being carried away, the troops -were recalled and passed back in boats to the eastern side. - -[Sidenote: Reinforcements sent under Colonel Breyman.] - -[Sidenote: Baum’s force surprised and cut up.] - -[Sidenote: Baum mortally wounded.] - -[Sidenote: Breyman attacked and forced to retreat with heavy loss.] - -Baum started from the Batten Kill early on the morning of the 13th -of August, reached a place called Cambridge in the afternoon of -that day, and on the following day arrived at Sancoick Mill near -the confluence of the two branches of the Hoosick river, about -four miles short of Bennington. There he found that the enemy in -front of him were more numerous than had been anticipated, and -he sent back to Burgoyne for reinforcements. Colonel Breyman, -another German officer, was dispatched to his support with nearly -700 men: he started early on the morning of the 15th, but, owing -to the difficulties of the route, and want of horses and forage, -he made slow way, and was far short of Baum when evening came. On -the 16th a number of men, as from the country side, came to where -Baum was encamped: they were taken to be friends and Loyalists, -and made their way within his lines. On a sudden, while beginning -to move forward,[142] he found himself attacked on all sides: the -component parts of his little force were separated from each other, -and only the German soldiers held together, fighting bravely, as -long as they had powder left, and then vainly endeavouring to -cut their way out with their swords. The end was inevitable. The -Indians dispersed in the woods: some of the British contingent with -their commander, Captain Frazer, escaped, and so did a good many -of the Canadians and provincials: but Baum was mortally wounded, -and nearly all of his Brunswickers were killed or captured. On the -afternoon of the same day, ignorant of what had happened, Breyman’s -force was coming up and was in turn suddenly attacked. Again the -men fought hard until their ammunition gave out, and eventually -the main body made good their retreat, though they suffered heavy -losses and had to leave their guns behind. John Stark was the -leader of the Americans in these hard fought engagements. - -[Sidenote: Consequences of the disaster.] - -The immediate result of the fighting was the loss to the English -of over 500 men and four guns,[143] and the total failure of the -expedition. The ultimate effect was much more serious. Burgoyne’s -small army was still further reduced: his hope of securing supplies -and horses from the surrounding country was entirely gone; his -expectation of Loyalist support, upon which the English had -counted, was shown to be groundless; the chance of facilitating -the main operations by a successful diversion was lost; the enemy -were put in good heart; and such fickle allies as the Indians -were further alienated. The enterprise was subsequently made -the subject of much hostile criticism, and blame was variously -assigned. Burgoyne considered that the failure was due to the fact -that Baum had not taken up a position in the open in accordance -with instructions, to the chance co-operation of bodies of the -enemy who happened to be near, and to undue slowness on Breyman’s -part. The truth seems to have been that the expedition was not -badly conceived, but imperfect knowledge of the country and faulty -intelligence as to the enemy’s strength and movements in this, as -in many similar cases, procured disaster.[144] - -[Sidenote: Burgoyne’s views on the situation.] - -Burgoyne’s anxiety as to the future was expressed in a private -letter which he wrote to Germain on the 20th of August, -accompanying the public dispatch of the same date in which he -reported the failure of the Bennington expedition. He wrote that, -in spite of St. Leger’s victory, Fort Stanwix was holding out -obstinately, that no operation had been taken in his favour, -and that the American forces under Gates in his front had been -strengthened and now outnumbered his own. Only one letter had -reached him from Sir William Howe. That letter was written from -New York on the 17th of July, and in it Howe stated that he had -heard of Burgoyne’s victory at Ticonderoga, adding ‘My intention -is for Pennsylvania, where I expect to meet Washington, but if -he goes to the northward contrary to my expectations and you can -keep him at bay, be assured I shall soon be after him to relieve -you’. As has been already stated, no instructions from Germain -had reached Howe on the subject of Burgoyne and his army, though -he had received from Carleton a copy of Germain’s dispatch of -March 26th, 1777, in which the programme of the expedition from -Canada had been detailed. Situated as Burgoyne was, knowing that -further advance would entail cutting of his communications with -Ticonderoga, it is no wonder that in his letter to Germain he -wrote that, had he latitude in his orders, he would have thought -it his duty to remain where he was encamped opposite Saratoga, -or further back at Fort Edward where his communications would -be secure, until events in other quarters facilitated a forward -movement. But his instructions were ‘to force a junction with Sir -William Howe’, or at any rate to make his way to Albany; and, as he -sadly wrote, when the catastrophe was over and he was a prisoner, -‘The expedition I commanded was evidently meant at first to be -hazarded. Circumstances might require it should be devoted.’ A -very strong man in his position would have taken the responsibility -of temporary retreat, but, good soldier as he was, he was not a -commanding character. He knew the power which Germain possessed of -making and unmaking men, he had before his eyes the harsh treatment -of Carleton, because Carleton had exercised wise discretion -in falling back from Crown Point in the preceding autumn. His -instructions freed him from responsibility if he went forward, the -blame would be his alone if he fell back. The evil influence of -Germain blighted loyal commanders and soldiers in America. George -the Third’s system was working itself out, and the British Empire -was being sacrificed to the ‘King’s Friends’. - -[Sidenote: Burgoyne’s communications attacked by the colonists.] - -The first necessity was to bring up supplies from Lake George for -the further advance, enough to last for twenty-five to thirty days, -inasmuch as crossing the Hudson and moving south meant the loss -of communication with Canada. This Burgoyne anticipated, and his -apprehensions proved true. Shortly after he crossed the Hudson -and began his southward march, a force of colonists, assembling -at Skenesborough, on the 18th of September attacked the British -garrisons at Ticonderoga and Mount Independence. They were repulsed -after four or five days’ fighting, but not until they had taken -outposts at the saw-mills, Mount Hope, and Sugar Hill, captured -three companies of British soldiers, and taken or destroyed a large -amount of stores and a number of boats. Retreating up Lake George, -they attacked a detachment on an island in the lake named Diamond -Island and, though they were again beaten off, their operations -served the purpose of making Burgoyne’s communications utterly -insecure.[145] - -[Sidenote: The Americans under Gates take up a position at Bemus’ -Heights.] - -From the 16th of August to the 13th of September, the British army -remained on the eastern bank of the Hudson over against Saratoga. -The reinforcements which joined them apparently amounted to only -300 men. News seems to have reached the army, before they moved -onward, that St. Leger was retreating from Fort Stanwix, so that -hope of co-operation in the direction of the Mohawk river was at -an end; on the other hand there was a possibility that St. Leger’s -men, brought down the St. Lawrence and up Lake Champlain and Lake -George, might be able to join the main force. It is not clear what -was the exact number of men who crossed the Hudson under Burgoyne’s -command. According to the evidence given at the subsequent -Parliamentary inquiry, the regulars, British and German, were -rather short of 5,000 men, but, if the Canadians and provincials -were included, the total fighting force must have reached 6,000. -From Fort Edward to Albany is a distance of over forty miles and -to the confluence of the Mohawk river about thirty-four; but -Burgoyne was already encamped ten miles south of Fort Edward and -the Americans, who had previously fallen back to what was known as -the Half Moon at the mouth of the Mohawk river, after the British -defeat at Sancoick Mills and the relief of Fort Stanwix, moved up -the Hudson a little way above Stillwater, and took up a strong -position on high ground called Bemus’ Heights, where they were -within ten miles’ distance of the point where Burgoyne crossed the -river. - -General Philip Schuyler had been in command of the Congress troops -on the side of Canada. He was a man of the highest character, and -apparently a perfectly competent soldier, whose Fabian tactics were -beginning to achieve success when he was superseded. After the -abandonment of Ticonderoga and the rout which followed, the tide -of public opinion set against him--without any adequate reason. -The New Englanders were jealous of a general from New York state; -and, under a resolution of Congress, Schuyler was in the middle -of August replaced by Horatio Gates, a godson of Horace Walpole, -who, like Richard Montgomery, had been born in the United Kingdom -and had served in the British army, having been badly wounded in -Braddock’s disastrous expedition. Gates, who in the previous year -had commanded the garrison at Ticonderoga, was a self-seeking, -intriguing man. His subsequent disloyalty to Washington, and -his defeat at Camden, clouded what reputation he gained through -receiving Burgoyne’s surrender. When he took over the command of -the troops opposing Burgoyne, his task was comparatively easy. -He had good men with him, among others Arnold, who had returned -from the march to relieve Fort Stanwix and between whom and Gates -there was no love lost, he had also Daniel Morgan and Lincoln; -while the army under their command had received an accession to -its numbers in consequence of Howe having moved off from New York -to Philadelphia. The Americans now largely outnumbered Burgoyne’s -force, and behind them, lower down the Hudson, the Highlands were -held against a possible movement on the part of Clinton, who -commanded the troops left behind at New York when Howe sailed for -Chesapeake Bay. - -[Sidenote: Burgoyne crosses the Hudson and advances South.] - -About six miles below Fort Edward, between that fort and the Batten -Kill stream, at a place named Fort Miller, there were rapids in -the Hudson, where a portage was necessary for the boats descending -the river; below it navigation was unimpeded, and the stores and -baggage of the army could be carried by water. A bridge of boats -was thrown over the river about half a mile above the Batten -Kill, and by this bridge the whole army crossed the Hudson on -the 13th and 14th of September from the eastern to the western -shore. Burgoyne was subsequently criticized for crossing, but -the criticism had no sound foundation. If he was to reach Albany -at all, he must cross the river at some point or other, and the -further he went down stream the more difficult the crossing was -likely to be. Moreover the high road ran along the western bank, -while on the opposite shore swamp and mountain would have made it -impossible at certain points to march close to the river bank, and -the army would therefore have been separated from the boats. On the -western side of the Hudson the country, through which the troops -advanced, was wooded and broken, the road and bridges over the -intervening creeks had been cut up by the enemy, and progress was -slow; but by the 17th less than four miles intervened between the -two armies. On the 18th there was skirmishing, while the British -force were repairing bridges and cutting a way through the bush: -and on the 19th a general action took place. - -[Sidenote: Action of September 19.] - -The British army advanced in three divisions. On the right under -General Fraser were the 24th Regiment, the light infantry and the -grenadiers, accompanied by Indian and Canadian scouts and supported -by some German troops under Colonel Breyman. The centre column, -entirely composed of British regiments, was under Burgoyne’s -immediate command. The left wing was in charge of Riedesel, and -included the main body of the German soldiers with most of the -artillery. The left marched along the high road on the lowland -following the course of the river, and one British regiment, the -47th, on the bank of the river, guarded the boats which carried the -stores. There was a deep ravine between the armies, and Fraser’s -division made a wide circuit to the right in order to keep on the -high ground. The movement was successfully carried out, and Fraser -established himself in a strong position while the centre column -moved forward, crossed the ravine, formed on the other side, and -bearing to the right became engaged with the enemy. The centre -of the battle was a clearing in the woods, where there was a -homestead known as Freeman’s farm; from this farm the Americans had -molested Burgoyne’s advance, and being dislodged by artillery fell -back into the cover behind. Their intention had been to turn the -British right, but, finding that Fraser was too strongly posted, -they counter-marched and placed their full force in front of the -centre column. Here the battle was fought, and for four hours, -from three o’clock in the afternoon till seven, the brunt of the -fighting fell upon three British regiments, the 20th, the 21st and -the 62nd, a fourth regiment, the 9th, being held in reserve. Some -help came from Fraser’s men, but the safety of the army depended -upon his holding his ground on the right, so that he could not -bring up his whole division in support of the centre. Constantly -reinforced and covered by the woods, the Americans, led by Arnold, -who commanded the left wing of their army, pressed hard upon the -fighting regiments, until, late in the day, Riedesel, having pushed -forward his troops along the line of the river, wheeled them sharp -to the right and struck in on the flank. This decided the battle, -and, as darkness fell, the forces of the Congress drew off, leaving -Burgoyne’s army in possession of the field. - -[Sidenote: Result of the fight--Burgoyne’s losses.] - -[Sidenote: Message from Clinton.] - -[Sidenote: Scarcity of provisions.] - -[Sidenote: Further movement necessary.] - -The fight was won, but, as Burgoyne wrote in his subsequent -dispatch, ‘it was soon found that no fruits, honour excepted, were -attained by the preceding victory.’ He had lost about 500 men, the -62nd Regiment having especially suffered, and though the losses -of the Americans had possibly been heavier, reinforcements were -available for them and their position grew stronger and stronger. -On the day after the battle the English moved forward slightly -until they were almost within cannon shot of their enemies, at a -distance of about half a mile, and in turn threw up entrenchments. -On the 21st Burgoyne received a message from Clinton, dated the -12th, to the effect that in about ten days’ time he intended to -move up the Hudson and attack the American forts in the Highlands. -Burgoyne sent back word, urging the necessity of some such -operation in his favour in order to divert part of the American -force which was barring his way, and he stated that he would hold -his ground if possible, till the 12th of October. The days went on: -provisions began to run short: on the 3rd of October it was found -necessary to reduce the soldiers’ rations: and, some movement -having become inevitable, Burgoyne determined on the 7th to make -a reconnaissance on the enemy’s left--the side furthest removed -from the Hudson, in order definitely to ascertain whether there -was a possibility of either forcing a passage or at any rate so -far dislodging the enemy as to enable the British army to retreat -unmolested. At the same time it was hoped that under cover of the -reconnaissance, forage, badly needed, might be collected for the -horses. - -[Sidenote: Action of October 7.] - -[Sidenote: The English heavily defeated and their corps partly -taken.] - -Only about 1,500 regular soldiers were available for the movement, -with ten pieces of artillery: and, small as the number was, hardly -enough men were left behind to guard the lines. The detachment -advanced, and was formed within about three-quarters of a mile of -the enemy’s left, waiting for some of the marksmen with Canadians -and Indians to make a detour through the woods still further to the -right and take the enemy in the rear. On a sudden the Americans -in superior numbers made a determined attack on the left wing of -the little force, where were the grenadiers and a German regiment. -At the same time the flank of the right wing was in imminent -danger of being turned: and, while the troops on this side were -being drawn back and reformed in order to secure the retreat, the -Americans redoubled the attack on the grenadiers and the Germans. -The German regiment gave way, the grenadiers were overpowered, and -complete disaster was averted only by the stanch fighting of the -gunners and by bringing up supports from the right under General -Fraser who, in carrying out the movement, was mortally wounded. -Hard pressed and heavily defeated, leaving six guns behind them, -the force regained their lines, but the Americans, who fought with -conspicuous boldness and resolution, followed on, broke through -the entrenchments, and eventually stormed the post in the rear of -the right which was held by Colonel Breyman and the scanty German -reserve. The position was taken, but night came on, Arnold who -had led the fight was wounded, and the Congress troops drew off, -content with the success which they had already gained. Under -cover of the same night Burgoyne fell back, and took up a new -position on high ground in the rear of his former camp.[146] - -[Sidenote: Burgoyne’s fatal delay.] - -Up to this point in the campaign General Burgoyne may have made -mistakes, but at any rate he had not shown himself to be either -irresolute or incompetent. He had been sent to achieve the -impossible: he had loyally attempted to carry out his instructions, -even when opposed to his own views; and, bearing in mind the small -number of his troops and the difficulty of securing provisions and -supplies, it is not easy to find ground for criticism either in his -delays or in his fighting. But now his duty was clear, to retreat -at once on Fort Edward and save the remnant of the expedition. -Every hour was of importance, for every hour numbers greater -than his own, emboldened by success, were gathering round him -and threatening his retreat. The position in which he was placed -after the battle of the 7th of October was no doubt one of great -difficulty, but at any rate there was only one practical course -to be taken, and a firm resolute man, intent only on the public -good, would have taken it at once. Burgoyne acted otherwise, his -movements were leisurely and almost invited the final catastrophe. -Reading the account of what took place, and his own defence, it is -difficult to resist the conclusion that the personal element was -strong in him, that there was a theatrical strain in his character, -and that he was concerned with public opinion and effect, instead -of simply gripping the nettle in manful fashion, neglecting no -chance, and fighting out hard to the last.[147] - -[Sidenote: Beginning of the retreat.] - -[Sidenote: Loss of the boats.] - -[Sidenote: Burgoyne’s irresolution.] - -[Sidenote: Negotiations with Gates.] - -[Sidenote: The final surrender.] - -All day on the 8th the army remained in their new position offering -battle, and burying General Fraser with the honour due to a brave -and much loved man, while parties of the enemy crossed the Hudson, -and fired on the British camp from the opposite side. A day was -lost, the Americans were beginning to turn the right or inland -flank, and on the night of the 8th the retreat began, the wounded -being left behind in hospital. The weather was bad, the baggage -encumbered the army, it was necessary to guard the boats on the -river, yet the distance to be traversed to Fort Edward was less -than twenty miles and a hurried retreat would have saved the army. -When the morning of the 9th came, however, Burgoyne called a halt -for his wearied men, and through the greater part of that day no -further movement was made. Late in the afternoon the march was -resumed, when darkness came, the troops passed through Saratoga and -crossed the Fish Kill stream, and on the morning of the 10th the -artillery was brought over. Meanwhile the Americans had pressed -forward up the eastern bank of the Hudson, and, when the British -troops neared Saratoga, they found a party of the enemy already in -front of them on the western side, who were beginning to throw up -entrenchments, but withdrew as the British came up, leaving the -road still open for retreat. On the 10th some troops were sent -forward by Burgoyne to hold the ford opposite Fort Edward and to -cover the work of repairing the bridges, but were recalled when the -main American force attacked the rear of the British army on the -line of the Fish Kill. The boats could now no longer be adequately -defended against the American guns, the provisions were taken out -of them, and they drifted into the enemy’s hands. Through the next -three days, the 11th, the 12th and the 13th, Burgoyne remained -inactive. Councils of war were held, and it was contemplated to -make a night march and try to cross the river near Fort Edward, -but the procrastination and indecision of the general put off -the movement until it was too late. ‘The army’, wrote Burgoyne -in his subsequent dispatch, ‘took the best position possible and -fortified, waiting till the 13th at night, in the anxious hope of -succours from our friends or, the next desirable expectation, an -attack from our enemy’. On the 14th negotiations were begun with -General Gates, they continued for three days, terms were signed -late on the 16th, and on the 17th the English surrendered to the -American general and his army, kindly and generous in the hour of -victory as they had been strong and stubborn in fighting. - -[Sidenote: Clinton’s movements.] - -The delay in the conclusion of the matter was due at first to the -wording of the terms which Gates dictated, and subsequently to -intelligence which reached both armies of Clinton’s movements up -the Hudson. On the 4th of October Clinton started up the river from -New York with some ships of war, carrying 3,000 men, and on the 6th -stormed two American forts which barred the passage of the river -about fifty miles from the sea; some of the ships went higher up -stream but did not come within many miles of Albany; and, brilliant -as the operation was, it could not in any case have affected the -main issue and only served, with the help of rumour and report, to -make Gates anxious to conclude the negotiations of surrender and -Burgoyne for a few hours reluctant to sign the terms. At length the -inevitable was accepted and the remains of the English army, under -5,000 in number, of whom about 3,500 were fighting men, were taken -as prisoners of war to Albany and Boston.[148] - -[Sidenote: Causes of the disaster.] - -[Sidenote: Carleton on Lord George Germain.] - -[Sidenote: Character of Burgoyne.] - -The ultimate cause of the disaster was Lord George Germain. Here -is Carleton’s judgement upon the matter, contained in a letter to -Burgoyne dated the following 12th of November, ‘This unfortunate -event, it is to be hoped, will in future prevent ministers from -pretending to direct operations of war, in a country at 3,000 miles -distance, of which they have so little knowledge as not to be able -to distinguish between good, bad, or interested advices, or to -give positive orders in matters which from their nature are ever -upon the change.’ The more immediate cause was the character of -Burgoyne. His condemnation is written in his own dispatch. - -‘The bulk of the enemy’s army was hourly joined by new corps of -militia and volunteers, and their numbers together amounted to -upwards of 16,000 men. After the execution of the treaty General -Gates drew together the force that had surrounded my position, and -I had the consolation to have as many witnesses as I had men under -my command, of its amounting to the numbers mentioned above.’ - -Why had the 16,000 men gathered round him? Because he had given -them time to do so, because in the hour of need his thought was -rather of saving his own reputation than of saving the force -under his command. Would Wolfe, weakly and suffering, have waited -helplessly for something to turn up, looking for co-operation -from Amherst in the far distance, as Burgoyne looked for it from -Clinton? Would he have found consolation in allowing the enemy’s -numbers to grow and counting up how far superior they were to his -own? Would he have been at pains to make the story plausible and -dramatic, so that he might hold up his head thereafter in London -circles and retain the favour of those who were in high places? -It was not English to court surrender, and to cast about for -excuse for surrender. Had Chatham been in Germain’s place, no such -foolhardy expedition would have been ordered cut and dried from -England. Had Wolfe been in Burgoyne’s, if success was possible he -would have achieved it, if it was impossible he would have redeemed -failure or died. Military skill, daring, manhood, self-reliance, -leadership of soldiers and of men, were the qualities which less -than twenty years before had shone out in dark days round Quebec; -the same qualities seemed dead or numbed, when Burgoyne bade his -men lay down their arms by the banks of the Hudson river. - -[Sidenote: Consequences of the disaster.] - -[Sidenote: The French intervene in the war.] - -The story of this ill-fated expedition has been told at some -length because it is part and parcel of the history of Canada. -The scene of the later years of the War of Independence was the -Atlantic seaboard; and Canada, except on her western borders, -though threatened, was unmolested. The surrender of Burgoyne’s -army by no means finished the fighting, the English were still to -win barren successes before the final catastrophe at Yorktown; -but after Saratoga the war entered upon a wholly new stage. The -surrender in itself was serious enough. No colonists had in modern -history achieved so great a triumph, no such disaster had ever -clouded British arms in the story of her colonization. The Preface -of the _Annual Register_ for 1777 refers to the ‘awful aspect of -the times’, awful indeed to a country whose best men had no faith -in her cause. But the great practical result which followed on the -reverse of Saratoga, the result which eventually decided the war, -was that the French now joined hands with the Americans, and the -latter thereby secured the help of a fleet, strong enough, when -the Spaniards at a later date also entered the ranks of England’s -enemies, to compete with the British navy on the western seas. - -[Sidenote: The French alliance with the Americans tended to protect -Canada from invasion.] - -While, however, the intervention of France greatly increased the -difficulties with which Great Britain had to contend at this -critical time of her history, for the moment it made the war more -popular in England, inasmuch as Englishmen were now called upon -to fight against their old rivals and not merely against their -kinsfolk. In another respect too it was of distinct advantage to -the British Empire, in that it brought to Canada immunity from -invasion. The American colonists welcomed French aid in securing -their independence, but they had no mind to restore Canada to -France, and they looked with suspicion on any proposal or utterance -which might seem to point in that direction. Though the French in -their treaty with the United States disclaimed any intention of -national aggrandizement in America,[149] Admiral D’Estaing, in -October, 1778, a few months after his arrival in American waters, -issued a proclamation to the Canadians, appealing to their French -nationality; and Lafayette proposed a scheme for an invasion of -Canada which Congress accepted but Washington set aside. There -was sufficient uneasiness in American minds with regard to French -designs to restrict French co-operation in the main to the Atlantic -side; and, though the Canadians were excited by their countrymen’s -appeal, they did not rise in arms themselves, nor did the Americans -attempt to repeat the movement by which Montgomery had over-run the -country up to the walls of Quebec. - -[Sidenote: Precautions taken in Canada against invasion.] - -It would not indeed have been easy for them to do so, for -Carleton and his successor Haldimand, though badly in need of -reinforcements, were yet better prepared and had more men at -their command than when the war first broke out. Immediately -after Burgoyne’s capitulation Ticonderoga and Crown Point were -abandoned, and the troops were withdrawn to the northern end of -Lake Champlain. A year later Haldimand directed the whole country -round the lake to be cleared of settlement and cultivation, as a -safeguard against American invasion. At various points, where such -invasion might take place, he established posts, on an island at -the opening of Lake Ontario, which was named Carleton Island; at -the Isle aux Noix at the head of the Richelieu river, and at Sorel -at its mouth: on the river St. Francis which joins the St. Lawrence -below Sorel, flowing from the direction of Vermont: and on the -Chaudière river over against Quebec, lest Arnold’s inroad by the -line of that river should be repeated. - -[Sidenote: Border War.] - -Nor was this all. As in Count Frontenac’s time, and with much the -same ruthlessness as in those earlier days, Canada was defended -by counter attacks upon the border settlements of the revolting -colonies, Loyalists and Indians dealing the blows and bearing the -penalties. In May and June of 1778, Brant harried the New York -frontier and burnt the town of Springfield; in July, in order, it -was said, to counteract American designs against Niagara, Colonel -John Butler, with a force of Rangers and Indians, carried war far -into the enemy’s country and uprooted the settlements at Wyoming, -on the eastern branch of the Susquehanna river within the borders -of Pennsylvania. Fact and fiction have combined to keep alive -the memories of the massacre at Wyoming; and, together with the -even more terrible tragedy of Cherry Valley which followed, it -stands to the discredit of England in the story of these most -barbarous border wars.[150] In September the Mohawk leader burnt to -the ground the houses and barns at the German Flatts, though the -settlers had been warned in time to take refuge in Fort Dayton. -In November Brant joined forces with Walter Butler, son of the -raider of Wyoming; and together they carried death and desolation -into the Cherry Valley settlement in Tryon county. In the following -year the Americans took a terrible revenge for these doings, and a -strong force under General John Sullivan turned the country of the -Six Nation Indians into a wilderness. ‘General Sullivan,’ wrote -Washington to Lafayette, ‘has completed the entire destruction of -the country of the Six Nations, driven all the inhabitants, men, -women, and children out of it’. - -[Sidenote: George Rogers Clark in the West.] - -Further west, in 1778 and 1779, the Illinois region and the -settlements on the middle Mississippi fell into American hands, -never to be regained, the leader of the backwoodsmen in this -quarter being George Rogers Clark, a young Virginian, one of the -pioneers of settlement in Kentucky, a most able leader and a hard -determined man. In July, 1778, Clark surprised and took the fort -and settlement of Kaskaskia standing on the river of that name a -little above its junction with the Mississippi, and immediately -afterwards he received the submission of the post at Vincennes on -the Wabash river. A few months later, in December, 1778, Vincennes -was re-occupied by Hamilton, Lieutenant-Governor of Detroit, with -a handful of men. Before the following February ended, Hamilton -was in turn attacked and overpowered by Clark who carried out a -daring winter march; and, being forced to surrender at discretion, -the English commander was, according to English accounts, treated -through long months of imprisonment with unmerited harshness. The -truth was that, as the war went on, bitterness increased, and when, -as in the West and on the border the combatants were backwoodsmen, -Rangers and Indians, the fighting became a series of ruthless -reprisals. - -[Sidenote: Later raids from Canada.] - -Later again, in 1780 and 1781, parties sent out from Canada -retraced the routes taken by Burgoyne and St. Leger, harried the -country at the southern end of Lakes George and Champlain, and laid -waste the settlements in the Mohawk valley. In one, commanded by -Major Carleton, brother of the late governor of Canada, Fort Anne -and Fort George were taken with their garrisons; in another, on the -line of the Mohawk, Major Ross, advancing from Oswego, inflicted -heavy loss on the Americans. In all these expeditions on either -side there was the same object, to prevent invasion by counter -invasion, to destroy stores, and to terrorize the adherents of the -enemy; but none of them, except the exploits of Clark, contributed -materially to the issue of the war. - -[Sidenote: Fighting on the Penobscot.] - -On or near the Atlantic coast-line of Canada, in 1779, fighting -took place which might well have had lasting results. An expedition -was sent in that year from Halifax to the Penobscot river, -commanded by Maclean, who had done good service under Carleton at -the time of the American invasion. In June he established himself -at Castine at the mouth of the Penobscot; and, inasmuch as the -place was then within the borders of Massachusetts, he was towards -the end of July attacked by a small squadron and a force of militia -sent from and paid for by that state. For between two or three -weeks the Americans besieged the British post until, towards the -end of the second week in August, British ships under Sir George -Collier appeared on the scene, and all the American vessels were -taken or destroyed. Maclean’s expedition was repeated with equal -success by Sir John Sherbrooke in the war of 1812, but neither -enterprise produced the permanent result of making the Penobscot -river, as it should have been, the boundary between Canada and the -United States. - -[Sidenote: Carleton succeeded by Haldimand.] - -It has been seen that in June, 1777, Carleton sent in his -resignation of the governorship of Canada. Burgoyne wrote privately -to Germain at the end of July, before he started on his expedition, -to decline the appointment in case it should be offered to him; -and in August, 1777, General Haldimand, who was then at home in -Switzerland, was nominated as Carleton’s successor. He was ordered -to go out as soon as possible in a ship which, as Germain wrote -to Carleton on the 19th of October, was to bring the latter home, -but did not leave England till the end of April or beginning of May -following, arriving at Quebec at the end of June, 1778. Carleton -then immediately returned to England, and was received with honour -by the King to the disgust of Lord George Germain. - -[Sidenote: Haldimand’s government.] - -General Haldimand, Sir Frederick Haldimand as he afterwards was, -governed Canada till the end of 1784, and he governed it, in -thankless times, strongly and well. In the year 1778 he was sixty -years of age, having been born in 1718. Like his great friend -Henry Bouquet, he was a Swiss. His birthplace was Yverdon at the -south-western end of the lake of Neuchâtel, and there he died in -1791, the year in which the Canada Act was passed. There is a -tablet to his memory in Henry VII’s Chapel in Westminster Abbey. -His career was that of a soldier of fortune. With Bouquet, he -served the Stadtholder of the Netherlands in a regiment of Swiss -Guards; and in 1754[151] the two officers entered the British -service as lieutenant-colonels of the newly-raised regiment of -Royal Americans. He fought under Abercromby at Ticonderoga, and -afterwards served under Amherst; and in 1759, while rebuilding -the fort at Oswego, he beat off a force of Canadians and Indians -commanded by St. Luc de la Corne, who in later days was a member -of his Legislative Council at Quebec. After the capitulation of -Montreal, being a French-speaking officer, he was selected by -Amherst to take possession of the city. He subsequently acted as -governor of Three Rivers, and when to his great grief Bouquet died -at Pensacola in 1765, Haldimand, in 1767, succeeded his friend in -the command in Florida. In 1773 he went to New York to act for -General Gage while the latter was on leave in England. In 1775 he -was brought back to England, and in 1778 he went out to govern -Canada. - -Haldimand was a man of the Carleton type; and, before he left -London to take up his appointment, he wrote to Germain to the -effect that he should be given full discretion in military matters, -and, as civil governor, have the nomination to all appointments. -Like Carleton, he was attacked by the partisans of Congress in -Canada as a military despot, the enemy of civil liberties, the -best known case against him being that of Du Calvet,[152] a French -Protestant, who was in 1780 arrested and imprisoned for encouraging -and abetting treason, and who subsequently published his case -against the governor in London. That Du Calvet was a traitor there -seems to have been no doubt, but his charges against the governor -coloured the view which was commonly taken in after years of -Haldimand’s administration. None the less, whatever may have been -the technical merits of this and other individual cases, it is -beyond question that, at a time when England was badly served both -at home and abroad, in the most critical years, and in Canada where -the position was most difficult, she was conspicuously well served -by Carleton and Haldimand. Haldimand governed a community, in which -the minority, as in Carleton’s time, was largely disaffected, and -the loyalty of the majority was undermined by French appeals. -From day to day the danger of attack at this point or at that -was imminent, while there was constant risk that the supplies -which came over the sea would be intercepted by French ships or -American privateers. In England Haldimand’s master was still the -same self-willed, half-informed minister Germain. In Canada there -were few that he could trust. Yet solitary in public as in private -life--for he had no wife or child--he held the reins of government -with a firm and an honest hand, a good servant of England though -of foreign birth. If Canada at the present day be compared with -the province of Quebec which the Peace of 1763 gave into British -keeping, the three main elements in the evolution of the great -Dominion will be found to have been British immigration, canals, -and railways. Railways, opening the North-West and linking the two -oceans, date from long after Haldimand’s time; but he was governor -when the first steps were taken to improve the waterways of Canada, -and he watched over the incoming of the United Empire Loyalists. - -[Sidenote: The Vermont negotiations.] - -Not the least of Haldimand’s difficulties was that he had to -negotiate peace and wage war at the same time, for, while directing -or controlling border raids at other points on the Canadian -frontier, he had on his hands, from 1779 onwards, troublesome and -in the end abortive negotiations with the settlers in the present -state of Vermont. Of the character of these settlers he seems to -have had but a poor opinion, their lawless antecedents no doubt -not being to his mind. Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys -had not been animated by American patriotism alone when at the -beginning of the war they took Ticonderoga. They had in their minds -to put themselves in evidence and to vindicate their claim to be -free of New York. While the war went on, and after it ended, their -determination to be an independent state was as strong as ever; -and their negotiations with Canada were an intimation to Congress -that the price of their continued adhesion to the continental -cause must be recognition of their local independence. The policy -had the immediate merit of giving them a respite from Canadian -raids, and it left open a choice of future issues. The Vermont men -knew the value or the weakness of their geographical position as -regards Canada. It was patent then as it was in the later war of -1812. In a private letter to Lord North, dated the 24th of October, -1783,[153] Haldimand wrote, ‘Since the provisional treaty has been -made public, several persons of influence in the state of Vermont -have been here at different times, they all agree in describing -these people as very averse to Congress and its measures.... They -made no scruple of telling me that Vermont must either be annexed -to Canada or become mistress of it, as it is the only channel by -which the produce of their country can be conveyed to a market, but -they assured me that they rather wished the former.’ The Vermont -settlers were, in short, like many states and many individuals -before and since, on the fence; but in the end they were neither -annexed to Canada nor did they become mistress of her, for in 1791 -Vermont became a state of the American Union, and Canada worked out -her own salvation. - -Haldimand’s dispatches might have been written by Carleton. There -is the same point of view, almost the same turn of expression. -On the 25th of October, 1780, in a long dispatch to Lord George -Germain, giving an account of the general conditions of men -and things in Canada, he wrote, ‘As it is my duty, it has been -my business to inform myself of the state of the country, and -I coincide with the majority of the Legislative Council in -considering the Canadians as the people of the country, and think -that in making laws and regulations for the administration of -these laws, regard is to be paid to the sentiments and manner of -thinking of 60,000 rather than of 2,000--three-fourths of whom are -traders and cannot with propriety be considered as residents of -the province. In this point of view the Quebec Act was both just -and politic, though unfortunately for the British Empire it was -enacted ten years too late. It requires but little penetration to -discover that, had the system of government solicited by the old -subjects been adopted in Canada, this colony would in 1775 have -become one of the United States of America.’[154] Three years -later, when the war was over, in his letter to Lord North referred -to above, he wrote ‘This province can only be preserved by bringing -back the Canadians to a regular subordination, and by rendering -them useful as a well-disciplined militia. In order to effectuate -this, the authority of government must be strengthened and not -diminished’.[155] - -Like Carleton and like Murray, Haldimand had it at heart to provide -the people of Canada with an upright and kindly administration. -Among the various grievances, real or alleged, which were -ventilated from time to time, one of the most substantial, so far -as the French Canadians were concerned, was the excessive amount -which was exacted from them by officials and lawyers in the form -of fees of office. In 1780 Haldimand assented to an ordinance -regulating the fees for two years, at the expiration of which time -he hoped that the Legislature would, from the experience gained -in the meantime, be able to draw up ‘a more perfect list of fees, -more permanent and less burthensome to the people’ for, he wrote, -‘the fees in general are by far too high and more than the people -of this province can bear.’[156] A favourite complaint of the -British minority, who had as little to complain of as they were -loud and persistent in complaining, was that there was no statutory -provision for the right of Habeas Corpus, which was supposed to -have been abolished by the Quebec Act. When peace was restored -and the step could safely be taken, Haldimand met this grievance -by passing, in 1784, an ordinance ‘for securing the liberty of -the subject and for the prevention of imprisonments out of this -province’.[157] When reporting the passing of the fees ordinance -Haldimand wrote, ‘Sir Guy Carleton had in the sessions 1775 -proposed to regulate the fees of office, and had that business -very much at heart. Committees were appointed for that salutory -purpose and, though many obstacles were thrown in the way, great -progress was made. The ordinance was lost for that time by Sir -Guy Carleton’s putting an end to the session in consequence of -motions made in council by Mr. Livius and others’.[158] He himself -suffered from similar obstruction; his dispatch goes on to refer -to members of his council, ‘who, however willing they may be to -circumscribe the King’s authority in measures of general utility -to his service and the welfare of his people, are for carrying on -to the greatest height his prerogative to grant Letters Patent -for the emolument of individuals though to the oppression of the -people’. As the outcome of the Livius case, two additional Royal -Instructions had been issued to Haldimand, dated the 29th of -March, 1779. The first prohibited him from interpreting the words -in the general instructions ‘It is our further Will and Pleasure -that any five of the said council shall constitute a board of -council for transacting all business in which their advice and -consent may be requisite, acts of legislation only excepted’, as -Carleton had interpreted them, namely, as authorizing the governor -to select five particular members of the Legislative Council to -form an Executive or Privy Council; and it instructed him to -communicate this decision to the council. The second instructed -him to communicate to the council ‘such and so many of our said -instructions, wherein their advice and consent are made requisite, -with such others from time to time as you shall judge for our -service to be imparted to them’.[159] Haldimand did not at once -communicate these additional instructions to his council. He -thought that at the time it was not for the public interest to -do so, and he wrote to Germain to that effect, but only brought -upon himself a severe reprimand alike from Germain and from the -Board of Trade. Equally he thought it inadvisable, under existing -circumstances, to communicate to his council certain clauses in -the general instructions, in which the Home Government practically -invited the Quebec Legislative Council to modify the Quebec Act, -recommending the introduction to some extent of English civil law -and also statutory provision for Habeas Corpus. Like Carleton he -saw things face to face, as a soldier not as a constitutional -lawyer, and he gave advice according to existing conditions, which -were those of war and not of peace. These two governors may have -been technically wrong in this point or in that, but they had the -root of the matter in them, they governed with a single eye, a firm -hand, and with most generous and humane intent. ‘Party spirit,’ -Haldimand wrote to Germain, ‘is the enemy of every private as well -as public virtue. Since my arrival in the province I have steered -clear of all parties and have taken great care not to enter into -the resentments of my predecessor or his friends, but this present -occasion obliges me to declare to your lordship that in general Mr. -Livius’ conduct has not impressed people with a favourable idea of -his moderation.’[160] There was no party spirit about Carleton, nor -yet about Haldimand. In a bad time, when partisanship was rife, -they stood for the good name of England, and for the substance of -sound and honest administration. - -[Sidenote: Clinton succeeds Howe at Philadelphia and retreats to -New York.] - -At the same time that Haldimand relieved Carleton, Sir Henry Clinton -took over from Howe the command of the army at Philadelphia. He -arrived there at the beginning of May, 1778, and at the end of the -month Howe left for England. The abandonment of Philadelphia had -been ordered from home, in view of the new complications produced by -the intervention of France in the war. All the available ships -carried off to New York, stores, baggage, and numbers of Loyalists, -while Clinton retreated with his army overland through New Jersey. -On the 18th of June he left Philadelphia, which was immediately -re-occupied by the Americans, and for a fortnight, closely followed -by Washington, he slowly made his way in the heat of the summer -through the enemy’s country. On the 28th of June in what is known as -the battle of Monmouth, near Freehold Court House, he fought a -rearguard action with Lee, who commanded the advance of Washington’s -army: and, thereby covering his retreat, reached Sandy Hook, and on -the 5th of July carried over his troops to New York. - -[Sidenote: The French fleet.] - -D’Estaing and a French squadron had now appeared on the scene, -threatened New York, and in co-operation with the American general -Sullivan attacked the English in Rhode Island. Bad weather, the -skill and seamanship of Admiral Howe, and the preparations made by -the English commander on shore, rendered the expedition abortive, -and the summer closed without decisive success on either side. - -[Sidenote: Operations in the south.] - -[Sidenote: Savannah taken by the English.] - -[Sidenote: Clinton takes command in the south.] - -Later in the year, an expedition under Colonel Campbell, was -dispatched to the south, and landing at the end of December near -Savannah, the capital of the colony of Georgia, by a skilful -movement took the town and captured the whole of the garrison -and stores. General Prevost, who arrived from Florida shortly -afterwards and took over command of the British troops in Georgia, -advanced into South Carolina and, in May, 1779, threatened -Charleston, but was compelled to retreat. In September D’Estaing’s -fleet appeared before Savannah; on the 9th of October a combined -French and American force attempted to re-take the town, but were -beaten off with heavy loss: and in the spring of 1780 Clinton -arrived with a large body of troops from New York to direct -operations in the southern states. A year and a half had passed -since he had brought off his army from Philadelphia, and little -had been done. There had been fighting on the Hudson, the coasts -of Virginia and the New England colonies had been harried, small -towns had been sacked and burnt, and stores and ships destroyed, -causing damage and distress to the Americans but also unwisely -embittering the war. Now the English garrison at Rhode Island had -been withdrawn and, while New York was still strongly held, the -main efforts on the British side were directed to re-conquering the -southern states, where Loyalist sympathies were strong and widely -spread. - -[Sidenote: Taking of Charleston.] - -[Sidenote: Cornwallis.] - -[Sidenote: The battle of Camden.] - -[Sidenote: King’s Mountain.] - -Charleston was the main point of attack. It was bravely defended -for several weeks by General Lincoln, but his communications were -cut by Clinton’s stronger force, the investment was gradually -completed, and on the 12th of May, 1780, the town was surrendered -and the garrison became prisoners of war. This success was followed -by the annihilation of another small body of American troops, on -which occasion Tarleton, the British commander, was accused of -indiscriminate slaughter. Clinton having returned to New York, the -command in the south devolved on Cornwallis, whose campaigns in -1780 and 1781 were the closing scenes of the war. He began with a -great success. General Gates had been sent south to take command of -the American forces in the Carolinas, and, having collected an army -which largely outnumbered the troops at the disposal of Cornwallis, -marched to attack the latter at Camden to the north-west of -Charleston. Cornwallis resolved on a counter attack; and, after -a night march on either side, the two forces came into collision -near Camden at dawn on the 16th of August. After hard fighting -the Americans gave way before a British bayonet charge and a rout -ensued, which was supplemented by a further small victory gained -by Tarleton over the American general Sumter, who had previously -intercepted Cornwallis’ communications and captured a convoy and -some prisoners. Cornwallis now advanced into North Carolina, but -behind him the backwoodsmen gathered, and on the 7th of October -overwhelmed, after heavy fighting, a strong detachment of -Loyalists under Major Ferguson at a place called King’s Mountain. -This reverse had the same effect as the fights at Trenton or -Bennington. Cornwallis had to fall back, the American cause revived -in the south, and the extraordinary difficulty of dealing with -guerilla warfare in an immense territory was once more effectively -illustrated. In December Gates was superseded by an abler and more -trustworthy general, Nathaniel Greene. - -In the north no decisive action took place during the year. The -English made an incursion into New Jersey, without producing any -effect. A French fleet and army under de Rochambeau arrived at -Rhode Island, where Clinton would have attacked them in force -but for want of co-operation on the part of the English admiral -Arbuthnot. The American cause received a heavy blow in the -treachery of Arnold, and on the other hand, before the close of the -year, the Dutch were added to the long list of enemies against whom -England was maintaining an unequal struggle. - -[Sidenote: The campaign of 1781, Cornwallis moves north.] - -[Sidenote: Cowpens.] - -[Sidenote: Guilford Court House.] - -[Sidenote: Cornwallis in Virginia.] - -With the opening of the new year, 1781, Cornwallis moved -northwards. In the middle of January the light troops from his -force, who were under Tarleton’s command, were heavily defeated -by the American general Morgan, at Cowpens near the border line -between South and North Carolina. Having received reinforcements, -Cornwallis still advanced, Greene falling back before him until he -had collected a larger number of men than the English general had -at his disposal. The two forces met near Guilford Court House on -the 15th of March, under much the same conditions as had preceded -the fight at Camden; and after an even fight the English were -victorious, though with a loss of about one-third of their small -army. After the battle, Cornwallis fell back for a while towards -Wilmington, and, as the Americans were again active behind him in -South Carolina, debated whether to continue his efforts to stamp -out resistance in the south, or to march forward into Virginia -where there was now a strong British force, commanded at first by -Arnold and afterwards by Burgoyne’s colleague General Phillips, who -were opposed by Lafayette. He determined on the northward movement -and effected a junction with Phillips’ troops, their commander -having in the meantime died at Petersburg in Virginia late in May. - -[Sidenote: Cornwallis takes up a position at Yorktown.] - -The fighting went on in the Carolinas with varying success. On -the 25th of April Lord Rawdon, who was then in command, defeated -Greene at Hobkirk’s Hill. In September his successor Colonel -Stuart fought a drawn battle at Eutaw Springs, but the Americans -secured one point and another, and the balance of the campaign was -against the British cause. In Virginia Cornwallis and Lafayette -manœuvred against each other, the British operations being hampered -by the apprehension of a combined attack in force by the French -and Americans on New York, which led Clinton to order the return -of a part of the army in Virginia. The order was countermanded, -but Cornwallis was instructed to take up a defensive position in -touch with the sea, and in August he concentrated his troops at -Yorktown on the bank of the York river, where a peninsula is formed -by that river and the James flowing into the mouth of Chesapeake -Bay; the village of Gloucester on the opposite side of the York -river was also held. It was not a strong position, and all depended -on keeping command, of the water. For once the English lost the -command, and the consequence was the loss of the army. - -[Sidenote: Naval operations. The French fleet under de Grasse comes -into touch with Washington and Lafayette.] - -[Sidenote: Cornwallis besieged at Yorktown.] - -At the end of March a strong French fleet under de Grasse sailed -from Brest for the West Indies. After a few weeks’ operations -among the islands, and taking Tobago, de Grasse made for Cap -François in Hayti and found dispatches from Washington. Taking -on board 3,500 French soldiers, he sailed for the North American -coast and reached the Chesapeake at the end of August. The object -was to co-operate with Washington and de Rochambeau in blockading -Cornwallis and compelling him to surrender. Meanwhile a French -squadron at Newport in Rhode Island, under de Barras, put out -to sea with a convoy containing the siege train, making a wide -circuit in order to escape detection by the English ships and join -de Grasse in Chesapeake Bay. On land Lafayette, strengthened by a -body of Pennsylvanians, already harassed Cornwallis, especially -charged to prevent as far as possible a retreat to the south; while -de Rochambeau from Rhode Island joined Washington who was facing -New York, and the combined army, after threatening an attack on -Clinton, crossed the Hudson in August, marched through New Jersey -to Philadelphia, and passing on to Virginia, with the help of -French transports appeared before Yorktown in the latter end of -September. Cornwallis was now besieged by 16,000 men on land and an -overwhelming fleet at sea. - -[Sidenote: Ineffective movements of the English fleet.] - -The movement had been well planned and skilfully executed. Clinton -at New York had been misled by a feint of attack, and on the sea -the English had been found wanting. When Rodney learnt that de -Grasse had left the West Indies for the North American coast, in -ill health himself and about to leave for England, he dispatched -Sir Samuel Hood in pursuit with fourteen ships of the line. A -stronger force was needed and had apparently been intended by -Rodney. Hood reached the Chesapeake three or four days before de -Grasse arrived, and passing on to New York came under the orders -of a senior officer, Admiral Graves, who had at the time but five -ships with him. The combined squadron sailed for the Chesapeake, -and found that de Grasse had forestalled them with a stronger -fleet. They attacked on the 5th of September, with no decisive -result on either side: for three or four days longer the two -fleets faced each other, then Graves returned to New York and de -Grasse went back to block Cornwallis, his manœuvres having enabled -de Barras in the meantime to bring in his ships in safety to the -Chesapeake. - -[Sidenote: Cornwallis surrenders at Yorktown.] - -Cornwallis was now in hopeless case, unless Clinton could relieve -him. Expectation of relief was given, the 5th of October being -named as the day on which the relieving force would probably -leave New York. On the night of the 5th the Americans began their -trenches, on the 9th the guns opened fire: after a week’s fighting, -on the 17th, Cornwallis treated for surrender; and on the 19th, -the day on which Clinton actually sailed from New York to bring -the promised aid, the British army laid down their arms, sickness -having reduced the number of fighting men from 7,000 to barely -4,000. - -[Sidenote: Consequences of the surrender.] - -[Sidenote: Carleton succeeds Clinton.] - -[Sidenote: Negotiations for peace.] - -[Sidenote: Peace concluded and the Independence of the United -States recognized.] - -Four years had passed almost to the day since the similar disaster -at Saratoga. The second surrender practically finished the war, -though there was still some small fighting in the south, the -English being driven back to Charleston and Savannah. Savannah -was eventually evacuated in July, 1782, and Charleston in the -following December, by which date terms of peace between Great -Britain and the United States had already been signed. Meanwhile -in England Carleton had been nominated to take the place of -Clinton as Commander-in-Chief in America, Germain resigned, and -in March, 1782, Lord North’s ministry came to an end. The Whigs -came in pledged to make peace, Rockingham being Prime Minister and -Shelburne and Fox Secretaries of State. Within four months Lord -Rockingham died, and Shelburne became Prime Minister, Fox leaving -the Government, and the younger Pitt joining it as Chancellor of -the Exchequer. Already negotiations for peace were proceeding at -Paris, where Richard Oswald, a nominee of Shelburne’s, had been -treating with Franklin, complaisantly entertaining every American -demand. Rodney’s great victory over de Grasse in the battle of the -Saints, on the 12th of April, 1782, enabled England to speak with -a firmer voice. The failure in September of the combined efforts -of France and Spain to take Gibraltar again added strength: and -Shelburne’s ministry was enabled to conclude a peace, which, if it -contrasted sadly with the triumphant Treaty of 1763, was at least -far from being the capitulation of a ruined Power. On the 30th -of November, 1782, articles were signed between Oswald, on behalf -of Great Britain, and the Commissioners of the United States, ‘to -be inserted in and to constitute the treaty of Peace’ which was -to be concluded when Great Britain and France had come to terms. -On the 20th of January, 1783, Preliminary Articles of Peace were -signed between Great Britain and France on the one hand and between -Great Britain and Spain on the other; and on the following 3rd of -September the Peace of Versailles was finally concluded, treaties -being made by Great Britain with France, Spain, and the United -States, a treaty with the Netherlands having been signed on the -previous day. Under the first article of the treaty with the United -States the King of England acknowledged the thirteen colonies then -forming the United States to be ‘free sovereign and Independent -States’. - -[Sidenote: Comparison of the American War of Independence with the -late war in South Africa.] - -[Sidenote: Effect on war of submarine cables.] - -At the time of the late war in South Africa an analogy was -sometimes drawn between that war and the War of American -Independence. In some respects there was similarity. In either -case a group of British colonies was primarily concerned, and in -either case the British Government was faced with the difficulty -of transporting large bodies of troops across the sea to a -distant scene of war, America in the eighteenth century before -the days of steam being for all practical purposes more remote -than South Africa in our own time. There were two distinct spheres -of operations in America in the earlier years of the war, Canada -and the Atlantic states, just as in South Africa the war was -divided between Natal and the Cape Colony; and the Boer invasion -of Natal and investment of Ladysmith to some extent recalls the -overrunning of Canada by Montgomery’s troops and the hemming up -of Carleton inside Quebec. In both cases there was the same kind -of half knowledge of the country and its conditions in the public -mind in Great Britain, and, curiously enough, in either case the -estimate seems to have been most at fault where fighting had been -most recent; in Natal, where less than twenty years had elapsed -since the previous Boer war, and on the line of Lake Champlain and -the Hudson, presumed to be well known to many who had served at a -somewhat shorter interval of time under Abercromby and Amherst, -and who encouraged Germain to give his confident instructions to -Burgoyne for a march to Albany. Distance, transport, supplies, -communications, rather than hard fighting, were the main elements -of either war; and the description of the American war given in the -_Annual Register_ for 1777, which has been already quoted,[161] -that it was ‘a war of posts, surprises, and skirmishes instead of a -war of battles’, would apply equally to the South African war. But -here the likeness ceases, and no real parallel can be drawn between -the two contests. The American war was a civil war, Englishmen were -fighting Englishmen. The war in South Africa was a war between -two rival races. In the earlier war the great forces which have -been embodied in British colonization, mental and physical vigour, -forwardness and tenacity, the forces of youth, which have the -keeping of the future, were in the main ranged against the mother -country: in the later war they contributed, as never before, to -the sum of national patriotism. In the earlier war foreign nations -intervened, with fatal effect, and the sea power of England was -crippled. In the later, the struggle was kept within its original -limits and British ships went unmolested to and from South Africa. -Not least of all, while on the former occasion ministers at home -tried to do the work of the generals on the spot, Carleton’s -bitter comments on the disastrous result, which have been quoted -above[162], could in no sense be applied to the later crisis. As -bearing on this last point, it is interesting to speculate what -would have happened had submarine cables existed in the days of -King George the Third. The telegraph invites and facilitates -interference from home. It tends to minimize the responsibility, -and to check the initiative, of the men on the spot: and if -the cables which now connect England and America, had been in -existence in the years 1776 and 1777, it might be supposed that the -commanders in America would have been even more hampered than they -were by the meddling of the King, and his ministers. But the evil -was that, in the absence of the telegraph, interference could not -be corrected, and co-operation could not be ensured. Germain laid -down a rigid plan: a second-rate man received precise instructions -which he felt bound to follow against his own judgement; and for -want of sure and speedy communication the cause was lost. It is -impossible to suppose that even the King and Germain would have -refused to modify their plans, had they known what was passing from -day to day or from week to week: in other words, the invention -which more than any other has opened a door to undue interference, -would probably in the case in point have done most to remedy the -ignorant meddling which was the prime cause of the disaster at -Saratoga. - -[Sidenote: Effects of the American War of Independence on the -British Empire as a whole.] - -The War of American Independence was ‘by far the most dangerous in -which the British nation was ever involved’.[163] It was seen at -the time that its issues would colour all future history and modify -for ever political and commercial systems, but no prophet seemed -to contemplate a colonial future for Great Britain, and Benjamin -Franklin said ‘he would furnish Mr. Gibbon with materials for -writing the history of the Decline of the British Empire’.[164] Yet -the present broad-based Imperial system of Great Britain was for -two reasons the direct outcome of that war. While the United States -were still colonial possessions of Great Britain, they overshadowed -all others; and, had they remained British possessions, their -preponderance would in all probability have steadily increased. It -is quite possible that the centre of the Empire might have been -shifted to the other side of the Atlantic; it is almost certain -that the colonial expansion of Great Britain would have been -mainly confined to North America. Nothing has been more marked and -nothing sounder in our recent colonial history than the comparative -uniformity of development in the British Empire. In those parts -of the world which have been settled and not merely conquered by -Europeans, and which are still British possessions, in British -North America, Australasia, and South Africa, there has been on the -whole parity of progress. No one of the three groups of colonies -has in wealth and population wholly out-distanced the others. This -fact has unquestionably made for strength and permanence in the -British Empire, and it is equally beyond question that the spread -of colonization within the Empire would have been wanting, had -Great Britain retained her old North American colonies. Unequalled -in history was the loss of such colonies, and yet by that loss, it -may fairly be said, Great Britain has achieved a more stable and a -more world-wide colonial dominion. - -But this result would not have been attained had not the lesson -taught by the American war sunk deep into the minds of Englishmen. -It is true that for a while the moral drawn from this calamitous -war was that self-governing institutions should not be given to -colonies lest they should rebel, as did the Americans, and win -their independence: but, as the smart of defeat passed away and -men saw events and their causes in true perspective, as Englishmen -again multiplied out of England but in lands which belonged to -England, and as the old questions again pressed for solution, -the answer given in a wiser and a broader age was dictated by -remembrance of the American war, and Lord Durham’s report embodied -the principles, on which has been based the present colonial system -of Great Britain. It was seen--but it might not have been seen -had the United States not won their independence--that English -colonists, like the Greek colonists of old, go out on terms of -being equal not subordinate to those who are left behind, that -when they have effectively planted another and a distant land, -they must within the widest limits be left to rule themselves; -that, whether they are right or whether they are wrong, more -perhaps when they are wrong than when they are right, they cannot -be made amenable by force; that mutual good feeling, community of -interest, and abstention from pressing rightful claims to their -logical conclusion, can alone hold together a true colonial empire. - -[Sidenote: Its effects on Canada.] - -Though the United States, in the war and in the treaty which -followed it, attained in the fullest possible measure the objects -for which they had contended, it is a question whether, of all -the countries concerned in the war, Canada did not really gain -most, notwithstanding the hardship which she suffered in respect -of the boundary line between the Dominion and the United States. -For Canada to have a future as a nation, it was necessary, in the -first place, that she should be cut adrift from the French colonial -system as it existed in the eighteenth century. This was secured -as the result of the Seven Years’ War. In the second place, it was -necessary that she should not be absorbed by and among the British -colonies in North America. This end was attained, and could only be -attained by what actually happened, viz., by the British colonies -in North America ceasing to belong to Great Britain, while Canada -was kept within the circle of the British Empire. Had the United -States remained British possessions, Canada must eventually have -come into line with them, and been more or less lost among the -stronger and more populous provinces. The same result would have -followed, had the British Government entertained, as their emissary -Oswald did, Franklin’s proposal that Canada should be ceded to the -United States. It would have followed too, in all probability, -if Canada had been left at the time independent both of Great -Britain and of the United States, for she would have been too weak -to stand alone. The result of the war was to give prominence and -individuality to Canada as a component part of the British Empire; -to bring in a strong body of British colonists not displacing but -supplementing the French Canadians and antagonistic to the United -States from which they were refugees; to revive the instinct of -self-preservation which in old days had kept Canada alive, and -which is the mainspring of national sentiment, by again directly -confronting her with a foreign Power; and at the same time to give -her the advantage of protection by and political connexion with -what was still to be the greatest sea-going and colonizing nation -of the world. The result of the War of American Independence was -to make the United States a great nation; but it was a result -which, whether with England or without, they must in any case have -achieved. The war had also the effect, and no other cause could -have had a like effect, of making possible a national existence for -Canada, which possibility was to be converted into a living and a -potent fact by the second American war, the war of 1812. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[58] Shortt and Doughty, p. 195. - -[59] Shortt and Doughty, pp. 196-9. - -[60] Ib., pp. 205-7. - -[61] Shortt and Doughty, pp. 227-8. - -[62] Shortt and Doughty, p. 196. - -[63] See above, p. 67 note. - -[64] Shortt and Doughty, pp. 208-10. - -[65] Letter to Shelburne, December 24, 1767, Shortt and Doughty, p. -203. - -[66] Shortt and Doughty, p. 454. See also note to p. 377. Carleton -had a much better opinion than most people of the administration -of justice under the old French régime. In his examination before -the House of Commons on the Quebec Bill, he was asked, ‘Do you -know from the Canadians themselves, what sort of administration -of justice prevailed under the French Government, whether pure or -corrupt?’ His answer was, ‘Very pure in general. I never heard -complaints of the administration of justice under the French -Government.’ Egerton and Grant, pp. 56-7. - -[67] See above, p. 79. - -[68] Shortt and Doughty, p. 295. - -[69] In 1775 the population of the whole of Canada was according to -Bouchette’s estimate 90,000 (see the _Census of Canada_, 1870-1, -vol. iv, _Statistics of Canada_). On the other hand Carleton, in -his evidence given before the House of Commons at the time when -the Quebec Act was being passed in 1774, estimated the number of -the ‘new subjects’ at ‘about 150,000 souls all Roman Catholics’ as -against less than 400 Protestants, excluding in the latter case -women and children. Egerton and Grant, pp. 51-2. - -[70] Shortt and Doughty, pp. 410-11. - -[71] Referred to by Carleton as ‘The Suffolk County Resolves in the -Massachusetts’. Shortt and Doughty, p. 413. - -[72] Carleton, however, after the war broke out, sternly repressed -any attempt of the Indians to act except under close supervision -of white officers. See Colonel Cruikshank’s paper on Joseph Brant -in the American Revolution, April 3, 1897. _Transactions of the -Canadian Institute_, vol. v, p. 243, &c. - -[73] Shortt and Doughty, pp. 412-14. - -[74] See above, p. 67. - -[75] Shortt and Doughty, pp. 450-2. - -[76] See the letter and the note to it at p. 451 of Shortt and -Doughty. Sir William Johnson had died in July, 1774; his nephew and -son-in-law, Colonel Guy Johnson, had acted as his deputy for Indian -affairs, and continued to do so for a while after his death, but -in 1775 Major John Campbell was appointed Superintendent of Indian -affairs. - -[77] The reference is to the raising of a body of 300 Canadians -in 1764 for service under Bradstreet in Pontiac’s war. See above -p. 24. It seems doubtful whether the complaint to which Carleton -refers had any foundation. See Kingsford, vol. v, p. 76. - -[78] Carleton’s account of the above, given in a letter to -Dartmouth, dated Montreal, June 7, 1775, is that on May 19 he -received news from Gage of the outbreak of hostilities, i.e. the -fight at Lexington, coupled with a request that he would ‘send -the 7th Regiment with some companies of Canadians and Indians to -Crown Point, in order to make a diversion and favour his (Gage’s) -operations’. The next morning news reached Quebec ‘that one, -Benedict Arnold, said to be a native of Connecticut, and a horse -jockey, landed a considerable number of armed men at St. John’s: -distant from this town (Montreal) eight leagues, about eight in -the morning of the 18th, surprised the detachment of the 26th -doing duty there, consisting of a sergeant and ten men, and made -them prisoners, seized upon the King’s sloop, batteaus, and every -other military store, and a few hours after departed, carrying -off the craft, prisoners, and stores they had seized. From this -party we had the first information of the rebels being in arms -upon the lakes, and of their having, under the command of said -Arnold, surprised Ticonderoga, Crown Point, the detachment of the -26th doing duty at these two places, and all the craft employed -upon those lakes’.... ‘The same evening another express brought an -account of the rebels having landed at St. John’s a second time, -in the night, between the 18th and 19th.’ Shortt and Doughty, pp. -453-5. - -[79] This seems to have been an under-estimate. There were -apparently at the time three British regiments in Canada, the 7th, -the 8th, and the 26th. - -[80] Shortt and Doughty, pp. 453-5. - -[81] Chief Justice Hey to the Lord Chancellor, August 28, 1775. -Shortt and Doughty, pp. 456-9. - -[82] Chief Justice Hey saw what a strong position Canada held, from -a military point of view, in regard to the other North American -colonies. In his letter to the Lord Chancellor of August 28, 1775, -he wrote, ‘It appears to me that while England has a firm hold of -this country, which a good body of troops and nothing else will -give her, her cause with the colonies can never be desperate, -though she should not have an inch of ground in her possession in -any one of them: from this country they are more accessible, I mean -the New England people (paradoxical as it may seem), than even from -Boston itself.’ Shortt and Doughty, p. 457. - -[83] ‘A few of the gentry, consisting principally of the youth, -residing in this place (Montreal) and its neighbourhood, formed a -small corps of volunteers under the command of Mr. Samuel Mackay, -and took post at St. John’s.’ (Letter from Carleton to Dartmouth as -above. Shortt and Doughty, p. 454.) - -[84] Shortt and Doughty, p. 459. - -[85] This may probably have been the Major Preston referred to in -Horace Walpole’s letter to the Countess of Upper Ossory, December -27, 1775. ‘Adam Smith told us t’other night at Beauclerk’s, that -Major Preston, one of two, but he is not sure which, would have -been an excellent commander some months since, if he had seen any -service.’ - -This and other quotations from Horace Walpole’s letters are taken -from Mrs. Paget Toynbee’s edition, Clarendon Press, 1904. - -[86] The general view seems to have been that Chambly might have -held out longer, and that the commander, Major Stopford, was -shielded by his aristocratic connexions, but the _Annual Register_ -for 1776 (p. 5) says that it ‘was in no very defensible condition’, -and Carleton seems to have found no fault with its surrender. -See the entry on p. 110 of Parliamentary Paper, Cd. 2201, 1904, -_Historical MS. Commission, Report on American manuscripts in the -Royal Institution of Great Britain_, vol. i. Sir Guy Carleton to -(Lord Barrington), May 21, 1777, ‘has nothing to charge either the -garrison of Chamblee or St. John’s with.’ - -[87] The _Annual Register_ for 1776, p. 12, makes Montgomery’s -advance from Montreal to Quebec a kind of repetition of Arnold’s -march. ‘Their march was in winter, through bad roads, in a severe -climate, beneath the fall of the first snows, and therefore made -under great hardships.’ He seems, on the contrary, to have come -down the river in the captured British vessels. - -[88] There is or was a dispute about the date. Kingsford makes it -the night of December 31 to January 1, but there seems no doubt -that the attack took place on the previous night, that of December -30-1. See Sir James Le Moyne’s Paper on the Assault on Quebec in -1775, in the _Proceedings of the Royal Society of Canada_, 1899. - -[89] Letter to Sir Horace Mann, June 5, 1776. - -[90] Letter to Sir Horace Mann, August 11, 1776. It is not clear -why Horace Walpole thought poorly of Carleton’s writing. His -dispatches are as clear and straightforward as could be wished. - -[91] Horace Walpole to Sir H. Mann, March 22, 1776. - -[92] p. 15. - -[93] _Parliamentary History of England_, vol. xxix, p. 379. Debate -of May 6, 1791. - -[94] _Annual Register_ as above. - -[95] The letter, in which Montgomery complained of personal -ill-treatment of himself by Carleton, concluded--‘Beware of -destroying stores of any kind, public or private, as you have done -in Montreal and in the river; if you do, by Heavens there will be -no mercy shown.’ - -[96] _Annual Register_ for 1776; _State Papers_, p. 255. Carleton’s -kindness to the American prisoners was so great that when some of -them returned on parole, they were not allowed to communicate with -the American troops serving at Crown Point for fear that they might -cause disaffection. See Stone’s _Life of Brant_ (1838), vol. i, p. -165. - -[97] There is an interesting account of the incident at the Cedars -in Stone’s _Life of Brant_ (1838 ed.), vol. i, p. 153, &c. Stone -says that Forster had with him one company of regulars and nearly -600 Indians, led by Joseph Brant, the celebrated Mohawk chief. But -in spite of the note to p. 151 there seems no doubt that Brant, -who had gone to England on a visit in the previous autumn, did not -start on his return voyage till late in May or June, and did not -arrive at New York till July, long after the event at the Cedars. -See Colonel Cruikshank’s paper on ‘Joseph Brant in the American -Revolution’, April, 1897, _Transactions of the Canadian Institute_, -vol. v, pp. 243, &c., Colonel Cruikshank says that Brant sailed -from Falmouth early in June, 1776, and reached New York on July -29, where he fought under Howe. Probably the affair of the Cedars -was confounded with the fighting at St. John’s and the attack on -Montreal when Ethan Allen was taken prisoner in 1775. Brant seems -to have been present in these actions. - -[98] See the letter of Ebenezer Sullivan abstracted in the 1890 -_Report on Canadian Archives, State Papers_, p. 78. - -[99] Ibid. p. 74. - -[100] _Annual Register_ for 1777, p. 2. - -[101] See Carleton’s letter to Germain of September 28, 1776, -quoting Germain’s of June 21, 1776. Shortt and Doughty, pp. 459-60. - -[102] The letter is quoted in extenso at pp. 129-32 of the sixth -volume of Kingsford’s _History of Canada_. - -[103] _History of England in the Eighteenth Century_, vol. iii, -1882 ed., chap. xii, p. 447. - -[104] Clinton was named to act instead of Sir William Howe, in -the event of his succeeding Howe in command of the army; this -contingency happened, and he, and not Howe, acted as commissioner. -Under the Act any three of the five commissioners were empowered to -treat with the Americans. - -[105] Howe was a pronounced Whig. Burgoyne was more or less neutral -until his later years, when he threw in his lot with Fox and his -friends. Clinton belonged to a Whig family, but seems to have been -a supporter of the Ministry; Cornwallis had voted with Lord Camden -against taxing the colonists. - -[106] _Influence of Sea Power on History_, chap. ix, pp. 342-3. - -[107] See above, pp. 90-1. - -[108] It is given in Lord E. Fitzmaurice’s _Life of Lord Shelburne_. - -[109] p. 20. - -[110] As to Lady Betty Germain’s bequest of Drayton to Lord George -Sackville, see the letter from Lord Vere to Earl Temple of December -19, 1769, in the _Grenville Papers_ (edited by W. J. Smith, 1853, -John Murray), vol. iv, p. 491. See also various references in -Horace Walpole’s _Letters_ (Mrs. Paget Toynbee’s edition, Clarendon -Press, 1904). In a letter to George Montagu, July 23, 1763, Walpole -gives a description of Drayton, and refers to Lady Betty Germain -as ‘its divine old mistress’. Drayton belonged to the Earls of -Peterborough, the Mordaunt family. The daughter and heiress of the -last earl married Sir John Germain, and left him the property. He -married, as his second wife, Lady Elizabeth Berkeley, the Lady -Betty Germain in question, and left Drayton to her, expressing a -wish that if she had no children, she should leave it to one of the -Sackvilles, which she accordingly did. Lady Betty Germain, whose -father was Viceroy of Ireland, was a friend of Swift. - -[111] Letter to Sir H. Mann, February 20, 1764. The other four were -Pitt (Lord Chatham), Charles Townshend, Conway, and Charles Yorke. - -[112] ‘I think nobody can doubt of Lord George’s resolution since -he has exposed himself to the artillery of the whole town. Indeed -I always believed him brave and that he sacrificed himself to -sacrifice Prince Ferdinand.’ Letter to the Countess of Upper -Ossory, November 23, 1775. The letter was written just as Germain -was about to take office. - -[113] To the Honourable Henry Seymour Conway and the Countess of -Ailesbury, January 15, 1775. - -[114] Quoted by Horace Walpole in his letter to Sir Horace Mann of -March 5, 1777. - -[115] Carleton’s letter was dated May 20, 1777. It is quoted in -full at p. 129 of the sixth volume of Kingsford’s _History of -Canada_, as well as in the _Report on the Canadian Archives_ for -1885. - -[116] One reason alleged is that Carleton had given evidence -against Germain at the latter’s court-martial. - -[117] This letter, with Carleton’s letter of May 20, 1777, will be -found in Mr. Brymner’s _Report on the Canadian Archives_ for 1885, -pp. cxxxii-vii, Note D. - -[118] The note to p. 474 of _Documents relating to the -Constitutional History of Canada_ (Shortt and Doughty) condemns -Carleton’s conduct to Germain. - -[119] Chief Justice Hey to the Lord Chancellor, August 28, 1775. -Shortt and Doughty, p. 458. - -[120] Quoted in full at pp. 457-9 of the sixth volume of -Kingsford’s _History of Canada_. - -[121] October 15, 1777. See _Canadian Archives Report_ for 1890, p. -101. It is not absolutely clear that the reference is to Livius. - -[122] The records as to the dates of Livius’ appointment are -somewhat confusing. There is a printed pamphlet in the Colonial -Office Library giving Livius’ petition and the proceedings which -followed in England. It is dated 1779, and entitled ‘Proceedings -between Sir Guy Carleton, K.B., late Governor of the Province -of Quebec, and Peter Livius Esq., Chief Justice of the said -Province, &c. &c.’. The note to p. 476 of _Documents relating to -the Constitutional History of Canada_ (Shortt and Doughty) is -favourable to Livius and unfavourable to Carleton. - -[123] See also below, p. 238. - -[124] One cause which reduced their numbers was that in the -seventeenth century the Jesuits converted a considerable number of -Mohawks and induced them to settle in Canada. They were known as -the Caghnawagas. - -[125] As regards the Six Nation Indians, Joseph Brant, and the -Border forays in the War of Independence, see Stone’s _Life of -Brant_, and two papers by Lt.-Col. Ernest Cruikshank, on ‘Joseph -Brant in the American Revolution’, in the _Transactions of the -Canadian Institute_, vol. v, 1898, p. 243, and vol. vii, 1904, p. -391. The papers were read in April, 1897, and April, 1902. See also -_The Old New York Frontier_, by F. W. Halsey. Scribners, New York, -1902. - -[126] On Pownall’s map of 1776 is marked at the spot ‘The great -portage one mile’, but the distance between the two rivers was -rather greater. - -[127] St. Leger’s dispatch to Burgoyne, dated Oswego, August 27, -1777, and written after his retreat, forms Appendix No. XIII to _A -State of the Expedition from Canada as laid before the House of -Commons by Lieutenant-General Burgoyne_. London, 1780. - -[128] St. Leger reported it to be twelve miles distant. - -[129] St. Leger says definitely, ‘Sir John Johnson put himself at -the head of this party.’ Stone, on the other hand, makes out that -Sir John Johnson remained behind in the camp and was at that part -of it which was surprised by Willett (See Stone’s _Life of Brant_, -1838 ed., vol. i, p. 235, note). St. Leger says that he ‘could not -send above 80 white men, Rangers and troops included, with the -whole corps of Indians’, but all the accounts seem to agree in -placing the number of Indians at 400 and no more. - -[130] The details of the fighting at Oriskany, and Willett’s sortie -from the fort, are more confusing and contradictory even than those -of most battles and sieges. The American accounts make Oriskany an -American victory, and Willett’s sortie a taking possession of the -whole British camp, the contents of which, after the defenders had -been put to flight, were carried off to the fort in seven wagons -which made three trips between the fort and the camp. St. Leger, no -doubt minimizing what happened, reported that the sortie resulted -in no ‘further advantage than frightening some squaws and pilfering -the packs of the warriors which they left behind them’. From the -contemporary plan of the operations at Fort Stanwix it seems clear -that Willett surprised only the post at the lower landing-place and -not the whole British camp. - -[131] See above pp. 96-7 and note. - -[132] Junius to the Duke of Grafton, December 12, 1769. - -[133] Walpole to the Honourable Henry Synan Conway, November 12, -1774. - -[134] Letter to the Countess of Upper Ossory, June 14, 1787. See -also letter to the same, January 16, 1786. ‘General Burgoyne’s -_Heiress_, I hear, succeeded extremely well, and was besides -excellently acted.’ - -[135] Letter to the Rev. William Mason, October 5, 1777. In this -letter Horace Walpole, apparently without real ground, says that -Burgoyne was the natural son of Lord Bingley. - -[136] Letters of August 8, August 11, and August 24, 1777. - -[137] Not to be confounded with the Wood Creek mentioned above, p. -147, &c., which was a feeder of Lake Oneida. - -[138] Letter to Sir H. Mann, September 1, 1777. - -[139] See _State Papers_, p. 97, in Mr. Brymner’s _Report on -Canadian Archives_ for 1890. - -[140] _State of the Expedition from Canada Narrative_, p. 12. - -[141] Kingsford makes the number to have been 746: _History of -Canada_, vol. vi, p. 216, note. - -[142] From Burgoyne’s dispatch it appears that Baum was beginning a -further advance when the attack was made. His words are, ‘Colonel -Baum was induced to proceed without sufficient knowledge of the -ground.’ - -[143] The American accounts put the British casualties at nearly -1,000. - -[144] It may probably have been to the disaster at Bennington that -Horace Walpole referred when he wrote to the Countess of Upper -Ossory on September 29, 1777: ‘General Burgoyne has had but bad -sport in the woods.’ - -[145] Benjamin Lincoln was the American commander charged with the -duty of attacking Burgoyne’s communications. He was afterwards in -command at Charleston when it was taken by the English in May, 1780. - -[146] It is not easy to make out the details of the fighting. -After the battle of September 19, the two armies were said to be -only about half a mile distant from each other, but on October -7, according to Burgoyne’s dispatch, after advancing for some -time he formed his troops within three-quarters of a mile of the -enemy. The advance was apparently not direct but diagonal against -the extreme left of the Americans. The main English camp near the -river, where there was a bridge of boats, does not seem to have -been at all molested, though it was presumably drawn back in the -following night. Breyman’s camp which was stormed is shown on the -plan appended to the _State of the Expedition from Canada_, as well -in the rear of the extreme right of the English line. - -[147] Horace Walpole, writing to the Countess of Upper Ossory on -November 3, 1777, seems to be referring to reports of the battle -at Freeman’s Farm. ‘If your angel would be seeing, why did he not -put on his spectacles and hover over Arnold, who has beaten the -vapouring Burgoyne and destroyed his magazines? Carleton, who was -set aside for General Hurlothrumbo, is gone to save him and the -remains of his army if he can.’ On November 13 he writes to the -same, ‘General Swagger is said to be entrenched at Saratoga, but -I question whether he will be left at leisure to continue his -Commentaries: one Arnold is mighty apt to interrupt him.’ Authentic -news of Burgoyne’s surrender did not reach England till December -1. Writing to Sir Horace Mann on December 4, Walpole says: ‘On -Tuesday night came news from Carleton at Quebec, which indeed had -come from France earlier, announcing the total annihilation (as to -America) of Burgoyne’s army.... Burgoyne is said to be wounded in -three places, his vanquisher, Arnold, is supposed to be dead of -his wounds.’ It will be noted that Arnold is made the hero on the -American side, and that there is no mention of Walpole’s godson, -Gates. Walpole contemplated invasion of Canada and possible loss of -Quebec as the result of the disaster. - -[148] The above account has been taken almost entirely from the -original dispatches, documents, and evidence published in _A State -of the Expedition from Canada as laid before the House of Commons -by Lieutenant-General Burgoyne_. London, 1780. Burgoyne, in a -private letter to Howe of 20th October, attributed the surrender in -part to the fact that his troops were not all British. See _Report -on American Manuscripts in the Royal Institution_ (1904), vol. i, -p. 140. - -[149] Article 6 of the Treaty of Paris between France and the -United States, dated February 6, 1778, ran as follows: ‘The most -Christian King renounces for ever the possession of the islands of -Bermudas as well as of any part of the continent of America which -before the Treaty of Paris in 1763 or in virtue of that treaty were -acknowledged to belong to the Crown of Great Britain or to the -United States heretofore called British colonies or which are at -this time or have lately been under the Power of the King and Crown -of Great Britain.’ (_Annual Register_, 1778, p. 341.) - -[150] Stone’s _Life of Brant_, and among recent books, Halsey’s -_Old New York Frontier_, give good accounts of this border war -from the American side. Fortunately the subject lies in the main -outside the scope of the present book. It would probably be fair -to say that there were undoubtedly great and horrible barbarities, -not confined to one side only, and on the other hand that there was -much exaggeration as, e.g. when Campbell in _Gertrude of Wyoming_ -made Joseph Brant, who never took any part at all in the raid, one -of the monsters of the story. - -The Wyoming valley had been colonized from Connecticut and was -claimed by and at the time actually incorporated with Connecticut, -though geographically within the state of Pennsylvania. The -settlers had sent a considerable contingent to Washington’s army -and their homes were in consequence but slenderly guarded. - -On Pownall’s ‘map of the Middle British Colonies in North America’, -published March 25, 1776, on the western side of the east branch of -the Susquehanna river, appears the following: ‘Colony from Wioming -Connecticut.’ - -In the ‘Topographical Description’ attached to the above map there -is the following note at pp. 35-6: ‘This Place and the District -is now settled by a populous Colony, which swarmed and came forth -from Connecticut. The People of Connecticut say, that their Charter -and the grant of Lands under it was prior to that of Pennsylvania; -that the grant of Lands to them extended within the Latitudes of -their Grant (except where possessed by other powers at that Time) -to the South Seas. They allow New York and New Jersey to have -been so possessed at the time of their Grant, but say, that their -right emerges again at the West boundary of those Provinces. Mr. -Penn and the People of Pennsylvania who have taken Grants under -him say, that this District is in the very Heart of the Province -of Pennsylvania. On this State of Claims the Two Colonies are in -actual war, which they have not even remitted against each other -here, although united in arms against Great Britain 1775.’ - -The note is interesting as showing how very far from amicable -were the relations of the colonies to each other when the War of -Independence broke out, cf. the case of the Vermont settlers and -New York referred to at the beginning of this chapter. - -[151] This is the date given on p. 10 of _Sir Frederick Haldimand_, -by Jean N. McIlwraith in the ‘Makers of Canada’ series. The notice -in the _Dictionary of National Biography_ gives the date as 1756. -The life states that Haldimand as a young man possibly took service -with the King of Sardinia, and certainly served under Frederick the -Great. The _Dictionary of National Biography_ states that there is -no record of his having been in the Prussian army. - -[152] For Du Calvet’s case see Mr. Brymner’s Introduction to the -_Report on Canadian Archives_, 1888, p. xv, &c., and also Note D. -This valuable Introduction and the equally valuable Introduction to -the 1887 volume should be consulted for an estimate of Haldimand -and his administration, the Haldimand papers being catalogued in -these volumes. - -[153] Shortt and Doughty, p. 497. - -[154] Shortt and Doughty, p. 488. - -[155] _Ibid._, p. 498. - -[156] _Ibid._, p. 486. See also above, p. 92. - -[157] 24 Geo. III, cap. 1, see Shortt and Doughty, pp. 499, 501 and -notes. See also above, p. 88, note. - -[158] Shortt and Doughty, p. 486. ‘The session’ must have been a -later session than that of 1775, as Livius was not in the Council -in that year. See above, p. 141. - -[159] Shortt and Doughty, pp. 476-7 and notes, also 487, 488-9 and -notes. - -[160] Shortt and Doughty, p. 488. It will be remembered that Livius -was not in Canada at this time. - -[161] See above, p. 134. - -[162] See above, p. 182. - -[163] Preface to _Annual Register_ for 1782. - -[164] Horace Walpole to the Rev. William Mason, April 25, 1781. - - - - -CHAPTER IV - -THE TREATY OF 1783 AND THE UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS - - -[Sidenote: The Treaty of 1783.] - -In the War of American Independence the English had no one to match -against Washington. In the negotiations for the peace which ended -the war they had no one to match against Benjamin Franklin. The -outcome of Franklin’s astuteness was the Treaty of 1783,[165] by -which Great Britain acknowledged the independence of the thirteen -United States, and which alike for Great Britain and for Canada was -rather the beginning than the end of troubles. - -The first words of the second article of the treaty, which -purported to determine the boundaries of the United States, were -as follows, ‘That all disputes which might arise in future on -the subject of the boundaries of the said United States may be -prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared that the following are -and shall be their boundaries.’ - -[Sidenote: The boundary disputes.] - -The words were no doubt used in good faith; but, as a matter of -fact, nowhere in the world has there been such a long series of -boundary disputes between two nations, as in North America between -Great Britain and the United States. - -[Sidenote: In 1783 the geography of North America was little known.] - -[Sidenote: The disputes were between provinces as well as nations.] - -The disputes were to a certain extent inevitable. When the Treaty -of 1783 was signed, half North America was unknown; while within -the colonized or semi-colonized area, the coast-line, the courses -of the rivers, the lie of the land, had never been accurately -mapped out. There were well-known names and phrases, but the -precise points which they designated were uncertain. It was easy -to use geographical expressions in drawing up a treaty, but -exceedingly difficult, when the treaty had been signed, to decide -what was the correct interpretation of its terms. The matter -was further complicated by the fact that in 1783, and for many -years afterwards, until the Dominion Act was passed, Nova Scotia -was a separate colony from Canada; while in the year after the -treaty, 1784, New Brunswick was carved out of Nova Scotia and also -became a separate colony. Similarly the United States, though -federated, were still separate entities, and Maine was in 1820 -separated from Massachusetts, just as New Brunswick had been cut -off from Nova Scotia. Thus on either side there were provincial -as well as national claims to be considered and adjusted; and it -resulted that the Treaty of 1783, which was to have been a final -settlement of the quarrel between Great Britain and her old North -American colonies, left an aftermath of troublesome questions, -causing constant friction, endless negotiations, and a succession -of supplementary conventions. A summary of the controversies and -conventions, out of which the International Boundary was evolved, -will be found in the Second Appendix to this book. There is more -than one reason why such a multiplicity of disputes arose, why the -disputes were so prolonged and at times so dangerous, and why the -issues were as a rule unfavourable to Great Britain and to Canada. - -[Sidenote: The Treaty of 1783 made a precedent for future American -successes in diplomacy.] - -First and foremost, not only was the original Treaty of 1783, in -the then state of geographical knowledge, or rather of geographical -ignorance, necessarily both inadequate and inaccurate, but in -addition those who negotiated it on the British side, in their -anxiety to make peace, were, as has been stated, completely -outmatched in bargaining by the representatives of the United -States. The result was that the weak points of the treaty, and the -conspicuous success of the Americans in securing it, infected all -subsequent negotiations. The wording of the document was played for -all and more than it was worth, and there grew up something like a -tradition that, as each new issue arose between the two nations, -the Americans should take and the English should concede. - -[Sidenote: Great Britain was more weighted by foreign complications -than the United States.] - -In the second place, Great Britain was always at a disadvantage in -negotiating with the United States, owing to her many vulnerable -interests and her complicated foreign relations. The American -Government was, so to speak, on the spot, concentrating on each -point exclusive attention and undivided strength. The British -Government was at a distance, with its eyes on all parts of the -world, and remembering only too well how the first great quarrel -with the United States had resulted in a world in arms against -Great Britain. At each step in the endless chaffering British -Ministers had to count the cost more anxiously than those who spoke -for a young and strong nation, as a rule untrammeled by relations -to other foreign Powers and as a rule, though not always, assured -of public support in America in proportion to the firmness of their -demands and the extent of their claims. - -[Sidenote: Canada was not one nation.] - -Lastly, it has often been said that Canada has grievously -suffered through British diplomacy. This is to a large extent -true, but one great reason has been that Canada, as it exists -to-day, was not in existence when most of the boundary questions -came up for settlement. The interests of a Dominion--except in -potentiality--were not at stake, and there was no Canadian nation -to make its voice heard. For two-thirds of a century after the -United States became an independent nation, in the North-West -the Hudson’s Bay Company or its rivals in the fur trade, on the -Pacific coast the beginnings of a small separate British colony, -were nearly all that was in evidence. Boundary questions in North -America between Great Britain and the United States could be -presented, and were presented, as of unequal value to the two -parties. Any given area in dispute was portrayed as of vital -importance to the United States, on the ground that it involved -the limits of their homeland and their people’s heritage. The -same area, it would be plausibly argued, was of little consequence -to Great Britain as affecting only a distant corner of some one -of the most remote and least known of her many dependencies. This -was inevitable while Canada was in the making. Yet in spite of -errors in diplomacy, and in spite of what on a review of all the -conditions must fairly be judged to have been great and singular -difficulties, the net result has been to secure for the Canadian -nation a territory which most peoples on the world’s surface would -regard as a great and a goodly inheritance. - -[Sidenote: Provisions in the 1783 treaty which referred to the -Loyalists.] - -The second article of the Treaty of 1783, which attempted to define -the boundaries of the United States and therefore of Canada also, -was by no means the only provision of the treaty which affected -Canada. The third article was of much importance, giving to -American fishermen certain fishing rights on the coasts of British -North America; but the fourth, fifth and sixth articles require -more special notice, inasmuch as, though Canada was not actually -mentioned in them, their indirect effect was to create a British -population in Canada, to make Canada a British colony instead of -a foreign dependency of Great Britain, and to strongly accentuate -the severance between those parts of North America which held to -the British connexion and the provinces which had renounced their -allegiance to the British Crown. - -The fourth article provided ‘that creditors on either side shall -meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in -sterling money of all bonâ fide debts heretofore contracted’. - -The fifth article, while discriminating between those who had and -those who had not borne arms against the United States, was to the -effect that Congress should ‘earnestly recommend’ to the several -states restitution of confiscated property and rights, and a -revision of the laws directed against the Loyalists of America. The -sixth article prohibited future confiscations and prosecutions in -the case of persons who had taken part in the late war.[166] - -[Sidenote: Bitter feeling in the United States against the -Loyalists.] - -In the negotiations, which preceded the conclusion of peace, no -point was more strongly debated between the commissioners of the -two countries than the question of the treatment to be awarded to -those who had adhered to the British cause in the American states -during the war. The British Government was bound in common honesty -to use every effort to safeguard the lives and interests of those -who had remained loyal under every stress of persecution. On the -American side, on the other hand, there was the most bitter feeling -against the Tories, as they were called, a feeling generally -shared by the members of the revolutionary party from Washington -downwards. As in all cases of the kind, Loyalists included good and -bad, worthy and unworthy, interested placemen or merchants as well -as men who acted on and suffered for principle alone. There were -men among them of high standing and reputation, such as William -Franklin the Loyalist Governor of New Jersey, only son of Benjamin -Franklin, and Sir William Pepperell, grandson of the man who -besieged and took Louisbourg in 1745. There were also men of the -type of Arnold, who deserved to be held as traitors. Many of the -Loyalists had fought hard, and barbarities could be laid, directly -or indirectly, to their charge. Their record was associated with -the memories of the border war, of Wyoming and Cherry Valley; but -equally on the American side could be found instances of cruelty -and ruthlessness. The war had been a civil war, long drawn out, -spasmodic, fought through largely by guerilla bands. It did not -lie with either side to monopolize claims to righteousness or to -perpetuate bitterness against their foes. - -[Sidenote: The sufferings of the Loyalists were increased by the -spasmodic operations of the English in the war,] - -There were two special causes which made the hard lot of the -Loyalists harder than it might otherwise have been. The first was -the unfortunate action of the English in occupying cities or tracts -of country and then again abandoning them. When Howe evacuated -Boston, over 900 Loyalists are said to have left with him for -Halifax. When the British army was withdrawn from Philadelphia in -June, 1778, 3,000 Loyalists followed in its train. But the misery -caused by the uncertain policy of the British Government or the -British generals cannot be measured merely by the actual number -of refugees on each occasion. A very large proportion of the -American population was at heart neutral, and they suffered from -not knowing whom to trust and whom to obey at a given time and -place. In the autumn of 1776 New Jersey was brought under complete -British control. The disaster at Trenton supervened, and in about -six months the whole country was given up. Much the same happened -in the southern states; at one time the English, at another the -Americans were masters of this or that district. The result was -that bitterness was intensified by prolonged uncertainty and -suspicion. Numbers of citizens, who only asked which master they -should serve, suffered at the hands of both. There would have been -far less misery and far better feeling if from the beginning to the -end of the war certain areas and no more had always remained in -British occupation, instead of towns and provinces being bandied -about from one side to the other. - -[Sidenote: and by the separate action of the several States.] - -The second special cause of suffering to the Loyalists was the -separate action of the several states. England was not fighting one -nation but thirteen different communities; and it may be said that -in each of the thirteen there was civil war. The smaller the area -in which there is strife, the meaner and more bitter the strife -will be. With a great national struggle were intertwined petty -rivalries, local jealousies, family dissensions. Men remembered -old grudges, paid off old scores, reproduced in the worst forms -the features which in quieter times had disfigured the narrow -provincial life of the separate states. Had the states been one -instead of many, there would have been a wider patriotism and a -broader outlook, for Congress with all its faults was a larger -minded body than a state legislature. Had they again been all one, -there would not have been a series of unwholesome precedents for -persecution of the minority. As it was, each state passed law after -law against the Loyalists, and each in its turn could point to what -its neighbour had done, in the hope of making a further exhibition -of patriotism, more extravagant and more unjust. - -[Sidenote: Powerlessness of Congress in the matter.] - -How helpless the central body was in the matter, as compared with -the separate sovereign states, is shown by the wording of the fifth -article of the Peace. All that the American commissioners could -be induced to sign was that Congress should ‘earnestly recommend -to the legislatures of the respective states’ a policy of amnesty -and restitution. It does not seem to have been anticipated that -the state legislatures would comply with the recommendation. At -any rate it appears that the emissaries of the United States who -conducted the peace negotiations were reluctant to consent even -to this small concession; that it was in after years represented -on the American side as a mere form of words, necessary to bring -matters to a conclusion and to save the face of the British -Government; that its inadequacy was hotly assailed in both Houses -of the British Parliament; and that it proved to be as a matter of -fact in the main a dead letter. - -[Sidenote: Debates in Parliament on the question of the Loyalists.] - -[Sidenote: The debate in the House of Lords.] - -Very bitter were the comments made in Parliament upon these -provisions in the treaty by the opponents of Shelburne’s ministry. -On the 17th of February, 1783, the Preliminary Articles of -Peace were discussed in either House. In the House of Lords -Lord Carlisle led the attack, moving an amendment in which the -subject of the Loyalists was prominently mentioned. The terms of -the amendment lamented the necessity for subscribing to articles -‘which, considering the relative situation of the belligerent -Powers, we must regard as inadequate to our just expectations and -derogatory to the honour and dignity of Great Britain’. Various -strong speeches followed, Lord Walsingham did not mince his words, -nor did Lord Townshend. Lord Stormont spoke of the Loyalists as -‘men whom Britain was bound in justice and honour, gratitude and -affection, and every tie to provide for and protect. Yet alas for -England as well as them they were made a price of peace’. Lord -George Germain, now Lord Sackville, who had so largely contributed -to the calamitous issue of the war, was to the front in condemning -the cruel abandonment of the Loyalists. In order to prove the -futility of the terms intended to safeguard their interests, he -referred to a resolution passed by the Legislature of Virginia -as late as the 17th of December previously, to the effect that -all demands for restitution of confiscated property were wholly -inadmissible. Lord Loughborough in a brilliant speech spoke out -that ‘in ancient or in modern history there cannot be found an -instance of so shameful a desertion of men who have sacrificed all -to their duty and to their reliance upon our faith’. The House sat -until 4.30 on the following morning, the attendance of peers being -at one period of the debate larger than on any previous occasion in -the reign of George the Third; and the division gave the Government -a majority of thirteen. - -[Sidenote: The Debate in the House of Commons.] - -[Sidenote: The Government defeated.] - -Meanwhile the House of Commons were also engaged in discussing -the Peace, and here Lord John Cavendish moved an amendment to the -Address, which was supplemented by a further amendment in which -Lord North raised the case of the Loyalists. The Government fared -ill at the hands of the best speakers in the House, of all shades -of opinion. ‘Never was the honour, the humanity, the principles, -the policy of a nation so grossly abused,’ said Lord North now -happy in opposition, ‘as in the desertion of those men who are now -exposed to every punishment that desertion and poverty can inflict -because they were not rebels,’ and he denounced the discrimination -made in the fifth article of the Peace against those who had borne -arms for Great Britain. Lord Mulgrave spoke of the Peace as ‘a -lasting monument of national disgrace’. Fox was found in opposition -to Shelburne with whom he had parted company, and on the same side -as his old opponent Lord North with whom he was soon to join hands. -Burke spoke of the vast number of Loyalists who ‘had been deluded -by this country and had risked everything in our cause’. Sheridan -used bitter words to the same effect; and even Wilberforce, who -seconded the Address on the Government side, had to own that, when -he considered the case of the Loyalists, ‘there he saw his country -humiliated.’ The debate went on through the night, and when the -division was taken at 7.30 the next morning, the ministers found -themselves beaten by sixteen votes. - -[Sidenote: Resolutions by Lord John Cavendish.] - -[Sidenote: Shelburne’s ministry defeated.] - -But the House of Commons had not yet done with the Peace, or with -the ministry. Four days later, on the 21st of February, Lord John -Cavendish moved five resolutions in the House. The first three -resolutions confirmed the Peace and led to little debate, but the -fourth and fifth were a direct attack on the Government. The fourth -resolution was as follows, ‘The concessions made to the adversaries -of Great Britain, by the said Provisional Treaty and Preliminary -Articles, are greater than they were entitled to, either from the -actual situation of their respective possessions, or from their -comparative strength.’ The terms of the fifth resolution were, -‘that this House do feel the regard due from this nation to every -description of men, who, with the risk of their lives and the -sacrifice of their property, have distinguished their loyalty, and -been conspicuous for their fidelity during a long and calamitous -war, and to assure His Majesty that they shall take every proper -method to relieve them, which the state of the circumstances of -this country will permit.’ A long debate on the fourth resolution -ended in the defeat of the Government by seventeen votes; and, the -Opposition being satisfied by carrying this vote of censure, the -fifth resolution was withdrawn. The result of the night’s work -was to turn out Shelburne and his colleagues, and to make way -for the famous coalition of Fox and North, which had been amply -foreshadowed in the debates. - -[Sidenote: Unnecessary concessions made on the English side in the -Peace of 1783.] - -It will be noted that, though the case of the Loyalists was made -a text for denouncing the terms of the Peace, the Government was -defeated avowedly not so much on the ground of dishonourable -conduct to the friends of England as on that of having made -unnecessary concessions. The case of the Opposition was strong, and -the case of the Government was weak, because sentiment was backed -by common sense. The Loyalists had been shabbily treated, without -any adequate reason either for sacrificing them or for making -various other concessions. That was the verdict of the House of -Commons then, and it is the verdict of history now. England had -become relatively not weaker but stronger since the disaster at -Yorktown, and the United States were at least as much in need of -peace as was the mother country. The Americans had done more by -bluff than by force, and the wholesale cession of territory, the -timorous abandonment of men and places, was an unnecessary price of -peace. The case of the Opposition was overwhelming, and it carried -conviction in spite of the antecedents of many of those who spoke -for it. North and Sackville, who declaimed against the terms which -had been conceded, were the men who had mismanaged the war. Fox was -to the front in attacking the Peace, and with reason, for he had -been the chief opponent in the Rockingham cabinet of Shelburne and -his emissary Oswald, but Fox beyond all men had lent his energies -to supporting the Americans against his own country in the time of -her trial. - -[Sidenote: Excuses made for the policy of the British Government -with regard to the Loyalists.] - -[Sidenote: Persecution of the Loyalists in the various states.] - -What the Government pleaded in defence of the articles which -related to the Loyalists was first, that they could not secure -peace on any other terms; secondly, that the Americans would -carry out the terms honourably and in good faith; and thirdly -that, if the terms were not carried out, England would compensate -her friends. The first plea, as we have seen, was rejected. The -second plea events proved to be ill founded. Congress made the -recommendation to the state legislatures which the fifth article -prescribed, but no attention was paid to it. ‘Confiscation still -went on actively, governors of the states were urged to exchange -lists of the proscribed persons, that no Tory might find a -resting-place in the United States, and in nearly every state they -were disfranchized’.[167] The Acts against the Loyalists were not -repealed, and in some cases were supplemented. In some states life -was not safe any more than property, and the revolution closed with -a reign of terror. South Carolina stood almost alone in passing, -in March, 1784, an Act for restitution of property and permitting -Loyalists to return to the state. In Pennsylvania Tories were still -disfranchized as late as 1801. - -In retaliation for the non-fulfilment of the fifth and sixth -articles of the treaty relating to the Loyalists, as well as of the -fourth article by which creditors on either side were to meet with -no lawful impediment in recovering their bonâ fide debts,[168] the -British Government, in their turn, refused to carry out in full -the seventh article under which all the places which were occupied -by British garrisons within the borders of the United States were -to be evacuated ‘with all convenient speed’; and it was not until -the year 1796, after further negotiations had taken place and a -new treaty, Jay’s Treaty of 1794, had been signed, that the inland -posts were finally given up. Meanwhile the Government took in hand -compensation for the sorely tried Loyalists, redeeming the pledges -which had been given and the honour of the nation. - -[Sidenote: Compensation given to the Loyalists from Imperial Funds.] - -A full account of the steps which were taken to compensate in -money the American Loyalists is given in a _Historical view of -the Commission for inquiry into the losses, services and claims -of the American Loyalists_ which was published in London in 1815, -by John Eardley Wilmot, one of the commissioners. Compensation or -relief had been going on during the war, for, as has been seen, -each stage of the war and each abandonment of a city implied a -number of refugees with claims on the justice or the liberality of -the British Government. Thus Wilmot tells us that in the autumn -of 1782 the sums issued by the Treasury amounted to an annual -amount of £40,280 distributed among 315 persons, over and above -occasional sums in gross to the amount of between £17,000 and -£18,000 per annum for the three last years, being payments applied -to particular or extraordinary losses or services. Shelburne named -two members of Parliament as commissioners to inquire into the -application of these relief funds; and they reduced the amount -stated above to £25,800, but by June, 1783, added another £17,445, -thus bringing up the total to £43,245. - -In July, 1783, the Portland administration, which had taken the -place of Shelburne’s ministry and which included Fox and North, -passed an Act ‘appointing commissioners to inquire into the losses -and services of all such persons who have suffered in their rights, -properties and professions during the late unhappy dissensions -in America, in consequence of their loyalty to His Majesty and -attachment to the British Government’.[169] The Act was passed for -two years only, expiring in July, 1785; and the 25th of March, -1784, was fixed as the date by which all claims were to be sent -in. But the time for settlement was found to be too short. In -the session of 1785 the Act was renewed and amplified, and the -time for receiving claims was extended under certain conditions -till May 1st, 1786. In that year the Act was again renewed, and -it was further renewed in 1787. Commissioners were sent out to -Nova Scotia, to Canada, and to the United States. On the 6th of -June, 1788, there was a debate in Parliament on the subject of -compensation, which was followed by passing a new Act[170], the -operation of which was again twice extended, and in 1790 the long -inquiry came to an end. The total grant allowed was £3,112,455, -including a sum of £253,000 awarded to the Proprietaries or the -trustees of the Proprietaries of Pennsylvania, North Carolina, -Virginia and Maryland, the Penn family receiving the sum of -£100,000 converted into an annuity of £4,000 per annum. - -It was a long drawn out inquiry, and the unfortunate Loyalists -chafed at the delay; but the outcome was not illiberal and showed -that England had not forgotten her friends. William Pitt, who as -Prime Minister carried the matter through, had been Chancellor of -the Exchequer in Shelburne’s ministry which was responsible for -the articles of the Peace, and his subsequent action testified -that amid the many liabilities of England which he was called upon -to face, he well remembered the pledges given in respect of the -Loyalists of America. - -[Sidenote: The Loyalist soldiers.] - -The number of claimants who applied for money compensation was -5,072: 954 claims were withdrawn or not prosecuted, and the number -of claims examined was 4,118.[171] The very large majority of the -Loyalists therefore did not participate in the grant, but for a -great many of them homes, grants of land and, for the time being, -rations were found in Canada, where General Haldimand and after -him Guy Carleton, then Lord Dorchester, cared for the friends of -England. Among the most deserving and the most valuable of the -refugees were the members of ‘His Majesty’s Provincial Regiments’, -the various Loyalist corps raised in America, the commanding -officers of which, on the 14th of March, 1783, presented a touching -and dignified memorial to Carleton while still Commander-in-Chief -at New York. They set out their claims and services. They asked -that provision should be made for the disabled, the widows, and -the orphans; that the rank of the officers might be permanent -in America and that they might be placed on half pay upon the -reduction of their regiments; and ‘that grants of land may be made -to them in some of His Majesty’s American provinces, and that they -may be assisted in making settlements, in order that they and their -children may enjoy the benefits of the British Government’.[172] - -[Sidenote: Numbers, with places, and destinations of the Loyalists.] - -[Sidenote: New York the principal Loyalist state.] - -Where did the Loyalists come from, where did they go, and what -was their number? The questions are difficult to answer. In all -the states there were many Loyalists, though the numbers were -much larger in some than in others, and varied at different times -according to special circumstances or the characters and actions -of local leaders on either side. New England and Virginia were -to the front on the Patriot, Whig, or Revolutionary side. In New -England Massachusetts, as always, took the lead. Here the Loyalist -cause was weakened and depressed by the early evacuation of Boston -and the departure of a large number of Loyalist citizens who -accompanied Howe’s army when it left for Halifax. Of the other New -England states, Connecticut, though it supplied a large number -of men to Washington’s army, seems to have contained relatively -more Loyalists than the other New England states, probably because -it bordered on the principal Loyalist stronghold, New York. In -Virginia Washington’s personal influence counted for much, and the -King’s governor Lord Dunmore, by burning down the town of Norfolk, -would seem to have alienated sympathies from the British side. New -York was the last state to declare for independence. Throughout -the war it contained a stronger proportion of Loyalists than any -other state, and of the claims to compensation which were admitted -by the commissioners quite one-third were credited to New York. -The commercial interests of the port, traditional jealousy of New -England, neighbourhood to Canada, made for the British connexion. -Family and church interests were strong, the De Lanceys leading -the Episcopalian party on the side of the King, as against the -Livingstons and the Presbyterians and Congregationalists who threw -in their lot with the Revolution. Most of all, after Howe occupied -New York, it was held strongly as the British head quarters till -the end of the war, and became the resort of Loyalist refugees -from other parts of America. In Pennsylvania the Loyalists were -numerous. Here the Quaker influence was strong, opposed to war and -to revolution. As already stated, when Philadelphia was abandoned, -3,000 Loyalists left with the British army. In the south the -Loyalists were strong, but in the back country where there were -comparatively new settlers, many of Scotch descent, rather than on -the coast. In North Carolina parties are said to have been evenly -divided. In South Carolina, and possibly in Georgia also, the -Loyalists seem at one time to have preponderated. When the British -garrisons at Charleston and Savannah were finally withdrawn, 13,271 -Loyalists were enumerated as intending to leave also, including -8,676 blacks. But any calculation is of little avail, for Loyalists -were made and unmade by the vicissitudes of the war. In America, as -in other countries in revolutionary times, it must be supposed that -the stalwarts on either side were very far from including the whole -population. - -[Sidenote: The Loyalists in Canada.] - -If it is not easy to trace where the Loyalists came from, it is -equally difficult with any accuracy to state, except in general -terms, where they all went. It was not a case of a single wave of -emigration starting from a given point and directed to a given -point. For years refugees were drifting off in one direction and -another. Many went during the war overland to Canada. Many were -carried by sea to Nova Scotia. A large number went to England. -Before and after the conclusion of the Peace there was considerable -emigration from the southern states to Florida, the Bahamas, -and the West Indies. But Canada, including Nova Scotia and New -Brunswick, became the chief permanent home of the Loyalists. It was -the country which wanted them most, and where they found a place -not as isolated refugees but as a distinct and an honoured element -in the population. The coming of the Loyalists to Canada created -the province of New Brunswick and that of Ontario or Upper Canada. - -[Sidenote: Loyalist colonization of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.] - -As far as dates can be given for an emigration which, was spread -over a number of years, 1783 may be taken as the birth year of the -Loyalist settlements in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and 1784 -as that of Upper Canada. We have an accurate official account of -the Loyalists in the maritime provinces in the year 1784, entitled -a report on Nova Scotia by Colonel Robert Morse, R.E.[173] The -scope of the report included New Brunswick, which was in that year -separated from Nova Scotia; and it is noteworthy that the writer -recommended union of the maritime provinces with Canada, placing -the capital for the united colony in Cape Breton. The Loyalists in -Nova Scotia and New Brunswick or, as Colonel Morse styled them, the -‘new inhabitants, viz., the disbanded troops and Loyalists who came -into this province since the Peace’, were mustered in the summer -of 1784 and were found to number 28,347, including women, children -and servants. Among them were 3,000 negroes, largely from New York. -As against these newcomers there were only 14,000 old British -inhabitants, of whom a great part had been disaffected during the -war owing to their New England connexion. Of the refugees 9,000 -were located on the St. John river, and nearly 8,000 at the new -township of Shelburne in the south-west corner of Nova Scotia. -Morse gave a pitiable account of the condition of the immigrants -at the time when he wrote. Very few were as yet settled on their -lands; if not fed by the Government they must perish. ‘They have -no other country to go to--no other asylum.’ There had been the -usual emigration story in the case of Nova Scotia, supplemented by -exceptional circumstances. Glowing accounts had been circulated -of its attractions as a home and place of refuge. Thousands who -left New York after the Peace had been signed, and before the -port was finally evacuated by the British troops, went to Nova -Scotia, having to find homes somewhere. Then ensued disappointment, -hardship and deep distress; and the country and its climate were -maligned, as before they had been unduly praised. Nova Scotia was -christened in the United States Nova Scarcity, and the climate was -described as consisting of nine months winter and three months cold -weather.[174] In the end many of the emigrants drifted off again. -Some succumbed to their troubles; but the strong ones held on, -and the Loyalists made of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia sound and -thriving provinces of the British Empire. - -[Sidenote: Loyalist colonization of the province of Ontario.] - -In addition to the refugees who have been enumerated above, -some 3,000 settled in Cape Breton Island, others found homes in -the Gaspé peninsula on the Bay of Chaleurs, others again on the -seignory of Sorel at the mouth of the Richelieu river, which -Haldimand had bought for the Crown in 1780[175] and which had a -special value from a military point of view; but more important -was the emigration to Upper Canada and the settlement of the -present province of Ontario. Through the war the Loyalists had been -coming in from the revolting states, many of them on arrival in -Canada taking service for the Crown in the provincial regiments. -When peace came, more arrived and, with the disbanded soldiers, -became colonists of Canada. In July, 1783, an additional Royal -Instruction was given to Haldimand to allot lands to such of the -‘inhabitants of the colonies and provinces, now in the United -States of America’, as were ‘desirous of retaining their allegiance -to us and of living in our dominions and for this purpose are -disposed to take up and improve lands in our province of Quebec’, -and also to such non-commissioned officers and privates as might be -disbanded in the province and be inclined to become settlers in it. -The lands were to be divided into distinct seignories or fiefs, in -each seignory a glebe was to be reserved, and every recipient of -land was to make a declaration to the effect that ‘I will maintain -and defend to the utmost of my power the authority of the King in -his Parliament as the supreme legislature of this province’.[176] -Along the St. Lawrence from Lake St. Francis upwards; in the -neighbourhood of Cataraqui or Fort Frontenac, near the outlet of -Lake Ontario, where the name of Kingston tells its own tale; on -the Bay of Quinté in Lake Ontario; near the Niagara river; and -over against Detroit, the Loyalists were settled. The strength of -the settlements was shown by the fact that by the Imperial Act of -1791 Upper Canada was constituted a separate province. About that -date there seem to have been some 25,000 white inhabitants in Upper -Canada, but the number of Loyalists who came into the province -before or immediately after the Peace was much smaller.[177] It -is impossible to give even the roughest estimate of the total -number of emigrants from the United States in consequence of the -war, or even of the total number of Loyalist settlers in British -North America. A census report estimates that in all about -40,000 Loyalists took refuge in British North America.[178] Mr. -Kingsford[179] thinks that the original emigration to the British -American provinces did not exceed 45,000; a modern American -writer[180] places the number of those who came to Canada and the -Maritime Provinces within the few years before and succeeding the -Peace at 60,000. Whatever were their numbers, the refugees from -the United States leavened the whole history of the Dominion; and -from the date of their arrival Canada entered on a new era of her -history and made a long step forward to becoming a nation. - -[Sidenote: The United Empire Loyalists.] - -The British Government and the nation on the whole did their duty -by the Loyalists in Canada. They gave money, they gave lands, they -gave food and clothing, and they gave them a title of honour. At a -council meeting held at Quebec on the 9th of November, 1789, Lord -Dorchester said that it was his wish to put a mark of honour upon -the families who had adhered to the unity of the Empire and joined -the Royal Standard in America before the Treaty of Separation in -the year 1783; and it was ordered that the land boards should -keep a registry of them ‘to the end that their posterity may be -discriminated from future settlers’. From that time they were -known as the United Empire Loyalists; and when in the year 1884 -the centenary of their arrival in Canada was kept, the celebration -showed that the memory of their sufferings and of their loyalty was -still cherished, that their descendants still rightfully claimed -distinction as bearing the names and inheriting the traditions of -those who through good and evil report remained true to the British -cause. - -[Sidenote: American persecution of the Loyalists a political -mistake.] - -In the debate in the House of Commons on the terms of the Peace, -Lord North, speaking of the attitude of the Americans toward the -Loyalists, said, ‘I term it impolitic, for it will establish -their character as a vindictive people. It would have become the -interests as well as the character of a newly-created people to -have shown their propensity to compassion’. The record of the -treatment of the Loyalists by their compatriots in the United -States is not the brightest page in American history. The terrible -memory of the border war was not calculated to make the victorious -party lean to the side of compassion when the fighting was over, -but when all allowance has been made for the bitterness which was -the inevitable result of the long drawn out struggle, the Americans -cannot be said to have shown much good faith or generosity in -their dealings with the Loyalists or much political wisdom. There -were exceptions among them. Men like Jay and Alexander Hamilton -and the partisan leader in the south, General Marion, gave their -influence for justice and mercy; but on the whole justice and mercy -were sadly wanting. The newly-created people, as Lord North styled -the Americans, did not show themselves wise in their generation. -Their policy towards the Loyalists was not that of men confident -in the strength and the righteousness of their cause; nor, if -they wished to drive the English out of America and, as Franklin -tried in his dealings with Oswald, to secure Canada for the United -States, did they take the right course to achieve their end. This -point is forcibly put by the American writer Sabine, whose book -published in 1847 is not wanting in strong patriotic bias. He -shows how British colonization in Canada and Nova Scotia was the -direct result of the persecution of the Loyalists, and sums up that -‘humanity to the adherents of the Crown and prudent regard for our -own interests required a general amnesty’.[181] The Americans, for -their own future, would have done well to conciliate rather than to -punish, to retain citizens by friendly treatment not to force them -into exile. Their policy bore its inevitable fruit, and the most -determined opponents of the United States in after years were the -men and the children of the men who were driven out and took refuge -in Canada. - -[Sidenote: Reasons for the persecution of the Loyalists.] - -[Sidenote: The American War of Independence as contrasted with the -later war between the North and the South.] - -The policy was unwise, but it was intelligible; and it is the more -intelligible when viewed in the light of the contrast furnished -by the sequel to the great civil war between the Northern and -the Southern states. As time goes on and the world becomes more -civilized, public and private vendettas tend to go out of fashion -and individuals and nations alike find it a little easier to -forgive, though possibly not to forget. In any case, therefore, -the outcome of a war eighty years later than the American War of -Independence might have been expected to bear traces of kindlier -feeling and broader humanity. But there were other reasons for the -contrast between the attitude taken up by the victorious Northern -states towards the defeated Southern confederacy and that of the -successful Revolutionary party towards their Loyalist opponents. -The cause for which the Northerners fought and conquered was the -maintenance of the Union; the cause for which the partisans of the -Revolution fought and conquered was separation. It was therefore -logical and consistent, when the fighting was over, in the former -case to do what could be done to cement the Union, in the latter -to do all that would accentuate and complete separation. Amnesty -was in a sense the natural outcome of the later war, proscription -was in a sense the natural outcome of the earlier. Slowly and -reluctantly the revolting states came to the determination to part -company with the mother country. Having made their decision and -staked their all upon carrying it to a successful issue, they were -minded also to part company for all time with those among them who -held the contrary view. They were a new people, not wholly sure of -their ground; they would not run the risk, as it seemed, of trying -to reconcile men whose hearts were not with theirs. - -Furthermore, in contrasting the two wars it will be noted that -in the later there was a geographical division between the two -parties which did not exist in the earlier case. The great civil -war was a fight between North and South; there was not fighting -in each single state of the Union. The result, broadly speaking, -was a definite conquest of a large and well-defined area where the -feeling had been solidly hostile, and the only practical method -of permanently retaining the conquered states was by amnesty -and reconciliation. The War of Independence, as already pointed -out, was not thus geographically defined. In each separate state -there was civil war, local, narrow, and bitter; and, when the end -came, the solution most congenial to the victorious majority in -each small community was also a practicable though not a wise or -humane solution, viz., to weed out the malcontents and to make -good the Patriots’ losses at the expense of the Loyalists. Union -was accepted by the thirteen states as a necessity; it was not the -principle for which they contended. They fought for separation, -they jealously retained all they could of their local independence, -and each within its own limits carried out the principle of -separation to its bitter end by proscribing the adherents to the -only Union which they had known before the war, that which was -produced by common allegiance to the British Crown. - -[Sidenote: The Glengarry settlers.] - -The main result of the incoming of the Loyalists was to give to -Canada a Protestant British population by the side of a Roman -Catholic French community; but among the immigrants were Scottish -Highlanders from the back settlements of the province of New York, -Gaelic speaking and Roman Catholic in religion, who had served in -the war and who were very wisely settled in what is now Glengarry -county on the edge of the French Canadian districts. Here their -religion was a bond between them and the French Canadians, while -their race and traditions kept them in line with the other British -settlers of Ontario. They brought with them the honoured name of -Macdonell, and in the early years of the nineteenth century another -body of Macdonells, also disbanded soldiers, joined them from -the old country. It needs no telling how high the record of the -Macdonells stands in the annals of Canada, or how the Glengarry -settlers proved their loyalty and their worth in the war of -1812.[182] - -[Sidenote: Scheme for a settlement of French Royalists in Upper -Canada.] - -Side by side with this Macdonell immigration, may be noted an -abortive immigration scheme for Upper Canada, which was not British -and was later in time than the War of American Independence, but -which had something in common with the advent of the Loyalists. -This was an attempt to form a French Royalist settlement in Upper -Canada under Count Joseph de Puisaye, ‘ci devant Puisaye the -much enduring man and Royalist’,[183] a French _emigré_ who had -taken a leading part in the disastrous landing at Quiberon Bay -in 1795. In or about 1797 he seems to have made a proposal to -the British Government that they should send out a number of the -Royalist refugees to Canada. The projected settlement was to be on -military and feudal lines. ‘The same measure must be employed as -in founding the old colony of Canada.... It was the soldiery who -cleared and prepared the land for our French settlements of Canada -and Louisiana.’ The writer of the above had evidently in mind the -measures taken in the days of Louis XIV to colonize New France, -and the planting out of the Carignan-Salières Regiment.[184] The -scheme, it was anticipated, would commend itself to the Canadians -in view of the community of race, language and religion, while to -the British Government its value would consist in placing ‘decided -Royalists in a country where republican principles and republican -customs are becoming leading features’, i. e. on the frontiers -of the United States. In July, 1798, the Duke of Portland wrote -to the Administrator of Upper Canada on the subject, evidently -contemplating the possibility of a considerable emigration to -Canada of French refugees then living in England, of whom de -Puisaye and about forty others, who were to embark in the course of -the summer, would be the forerunners. The Duke laid down that de -Puisaye and his company were to be treated as American Loyalists in -the matter of allotment of land. William Windham, Pitt’s Secretary -for War, also wrote, introducing de Puisaye to the Administrator -as being personally well-known to himself, and explaining that -the object of the scheme was ‘to provide an asylum for as many as -possible of those whose adherence to the ancient laws, religion, -and constitution of their country has rendered them sacrifices -to the French Revolution’, to select by preference those who had -served in the Royalist armies, to allow them to have a settlement -of their own ‘as much as possible separate from any other body of -French, or of those persons speaking French, who may be at present -in America, or whom Government may hereafter be disposed to settle -there’, and by this comparative isolation, as well as by giving -them some element of military and feudal discipline, to preserve -to them the character ‘of a society founded on the principles of -reverence for religion and attachment to monarchy’. The scheme was -born out of due time. The coming century and the New World were -not the time and place for reviving feudal institutions. But on -paper it was an attractive scheme. Side by side with the British -Loyalists who had been driven out of the newly-formed American -republic, would be settled French Loyalists whom the Revolution had -hunted from France. Their loyalty and their sufferings for their -cause would commend them to their British fellow colonists: their -kinship in race, religion, and language would commend them to the -French Canadians, who in turn had little sympathy with a France -that knew not Church or King. - -The place selected for the settlement was between Toronto and -Lake Simcoe. It was chosen as being roughly equidistant from -the French settlements in Lower Canada and those on the Detroit -river, and as being near the seat of government, Toronto then -York, and consequently within easy reach of assistance and well -under control. Here a township was laid out and called Windham. De -Puisaye and his party arrived at Montreal in October, 1798, and in -the middle of November de Puisaye himself was at York, while his -followers remained through the winter at Kingston. It was a bad -time of year for starting a new settlement in Upper Canada, and -possibly this was one of the reasons why it failed from the first. -Another was that de Puisaye, who seems to have formed a friendship -with Joseph Brant,[185] divided the small band of emigrants and -went off himself to form a second settlement on or near the Niagara -river. The scheme in short never took root: the emigrants or most -of them went elsewhere; the name Windham went elsewhere and is now -to be found in Norfolk county of Ontario. De Puisaye went back to -London after the Peace of Amiens, and the project for a French -Royalist colony in Upper Canada passed into oblivion.[186] - -[Sidenote: Loyalty of the Six Nation Indians and their settlement -in Canada.] - -White Loyalists were not the only residents within the present -boundaries of the United States who expatriated themselves or were -expatriated in consequence of the War of Independence, and who -settled in Canada. It has been seen that the Six Nation Indians -had in the main been steadily on the British side throughout the -war, and that prominent among them were the Mohawks led by Joseph -Brant. When peace was signed containing no recognition or safeguard -of the country of the Six Nations or of native rights, the -Indians complained with some reason that their interests had been -sacrificed by Great Britain. Under these circumstances Governor -Haldimand offered them lands on the British side of the lakes; and -a number of them--more especially the Mohawks--permanently changed -their dwelling-place still to remain under their great father, the -King of England. - -There were two principal settlements. One was on the Bay of Quinté, -west of Kingston, where some of the Mohawks took up land side by -side with the disbanded Rangers, in whose company they had fought -in the war, and where the township Tyendenaga recalled the Indian -name of Brant. A larger and more important settlement was on the -Grand river, also called Ours or Ouse, flowing into Lake Erie -due west of the Niagara river. Here Haldimand, by a proclamation -dated the 25th of October, 1784, found homes for these old allies -of England, the land or part of it having, by an agreement -concluded in the previous May, been bought for the purpose from -the Mississauga Indians. The proclamation set forth that His -Majesty had been pleased to direct that, ‘in consideration of the -early attachment to his cause manifested by the Mohawk Indians, -and of the loss of their settlement which they thereby sustained, -a convenient tract of land under his protection should be chosen -as a safe and comfortable retreat for them and others of the Six -Nations who have either lost their settlements within the territory -of the American states or wish to retire from them to the British;’ -and that therefore, ‘at the desire of many of these His Majesty’s -faithful allies’, a tract of land had been purchased from the -Indians between the Lakes Ontario, Huron and Erie, possession of -which was authorized to the Mohawk nation and such other of the Six -Nation Indians as wished to settle in that quarter, for them and -their posterity to enjoy for ever. - -The lands allotted were defined in the proclamation as ‘six miles -deep from each side of the river, beginning at Lake Erie and -extending in that proportion to the head of the said river’. Here, -in the present counties of Brant and Haldimand, many tribesmen -of the Six Nations settled. Brant county and its principal town -Brantford recall the memory of the Mohawk leader, and such villages -as Cayuga, Oneida, and Onondaga testify that other members of -the old confederacy, in addition to the Mohawks, crossed over -to British soil. Within a few years difficulties arose as to -the intent of the grant, the Indians, headed by Brant, wishing -to sell some of the lands; a further and more formal document, -issued by Governor Simcoe in 1793, did not settle the question; -and eventually a large part of the area included in the original -grant was parted with for money payments which were invested for -the benefit of the Indians. A report made in July, 1828, and -included in a Parliamentary Blue Book of 1834[187], stated that -the number of the Indian settlers on the Grand river was at that -date under 2,000 souls: that ‘they are now considered as having -retained about 260,000 acres of land, mostly of the best quality. -Their possessions were formerly more extensive, but large tracts -have been sold by them with the permission of H. M.’s Government, -the moneys arising from which sales were either funded in England -or lent on interest in this country. The proceeds amount to about -£1,500 p.a.’. - -Thus a large number of the Six Nation Indians adhered to the -English connexion and left their old homes for ever: most of them -became members of the Church of England, and the first church -built in the Province of Ontario is said to have been one for -the Mohawks.[188] In the second American war, as in the first, -they remained faithful as subjects and allies; and to this day the -descendants of the once formidable confederacy hold fast to the -old-time covenant which their forefathers made with the English -King. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[165] The text of the treaty is given in Appendix I. - -[166] See the text of the treaty in Appendix I. - -[167] From _The Loyalists in the American Revolution_, by C. H. -Van Tyne. Macmillan & Co., 1902, p. 295. The author gives in the -Appendices to his book a list of the laws passed against the -Loyalists in the various states. - -[168] American creditors sued Loyalist debtors in England, while -the Loyalists’ property in America was confiscated. - -[169] Act 23 Geo. III, cap. 80. - -[170] 28 Geo. III, cap. 40. - -[171] Wilmot’s account of the claimants and of the money awarded -is most confusing. The figures are taken from the last Appendix, -No. IX, which says the ‘claims including those in Nova Scotia and -Canada’ were 5,072. It is difficult to reconcile these figures with -those given on pp. 90-1 of the book, unless in the latter case the -claims made in Canada are omitted. - -[172] See the _Annual Register_ for 1783, p. 262. - -[173] Printed in Mr. Brymner’s _Report on the Archives of Canada_ -for the year 1884, Note C, pp. xl, xli. - -[174] See _The American Loyalists_, by Lorenzo Sabine. Boston, -1847, Historical Essay, p. 62, note. - -[175] See Shortt and Doughty, p. 495, note. - -[176] Shortt and Doughty, pp. 494-5. - -[177] In the volume for 1891 of Mr. Brymner’s _Report on Canadian -Archives_, p. 17, the ‘Return of Disbanded Troops and Loyalists -settled upon the King’s Lands in the Province of Quebec in the year -1784’ is given as 5,628, including women, children, and servants. -The province of Quebec at this time included both Lower and Upper -Canada. - -[178] _Census of Canada_ for 1871, vol. iv; _Censuses of Canada_, -pp. xxxviii-xlii. See also p. 238, note below. - -[179] vol. vii, p. 223. - -[180] Mr. Van Tyne, _The Loyalists in the American Revolution_, p. -299. - -[181] _The American Loyalists_, Preliminary Historical Essay, p. 91. - -[182] See the _Canadian War of 1812_ (Lucas) pp. 11-15. More than -one book has been written on the Macdonells in Canada. Reference -should be made to the _Report on the Canadian Archives_ for 1896, -Notes B and C. - -[183] Carlyle’s _French Revolution_, Book 4, chap. ii. Carlyle -evidently thought lightly of de Puisaye. For this French Royalist -scheme see Mr. Brymner’s _Report on Canadian Archives_ for 1888, -pp. xxv-xxxi, and Note F. - -[184] See Parkman’s _The Old Régime in Canada_, and see above, p. -71. - -[185] See the _Canadian Archives Report_ for 1888, Note F, p. 85, -and Stone’s _Life of Brant_, vol. ii, p. 403 and note. - -[186] On ‘A map of the Province of Upper Canada, describing all the -new settlements, townships, &c., with the countries adjacent from -Quebec to Lake Huron, compiled at the request of His Excellency -Major-General John G. Simcoe, first Lieutenant-Governor, by David -William Smyth, Esq., Surveyor-General’, and published by W. Faden, -London, April 12, 1800, ‘French Royalists’ is printed across Yonge -Street between York and Lake Simcoe. The map is in the Colonial -Office Library. - -[187] Entitled _Aboriginal Tribes_. Printed for the House of -Commons, 617, August 14, 1834, pp. 28-9. See also the House of -Commons Blue Book 323, June 17, 1839, entitled, _Correspondence -Respecting the Indians in the British North American Provinces_. - -[188] Before the War of American Independence, the Mohawks had a -church built for them in their own country in the present state -of New York by the British Government, to which Queen Anne in -1712 presented silver Communion plate and a Bible. The plate was -inscribed with the Royal Arms, in 1712, of ‘Her Majesty Anne by -the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland and Her -Plantations in North America, Queen, to Her Indian Chapel of the -Mohawks 1712’; and the Bible was inscribed, ‘To Her Majesty’s -Church of the Mohawks 1712.’ After the War of Independence, two -churches were built in Canada for the Mohawks who had emigrated to -remain under British rule, one begun in 1785 on the Grand River at -the present town of Brantford, and one on the bay of Quinté. The -Communion plate and Bible, which had been buried by the Indians for -safety during the war, were divided, four pieces of the plate and -the Bible being brought to the Brantford Church, and three to the -church on the bay of Quinté. The Brantford Church was the first -Protestant church in Canada, and a bell, said to be the first bell -to call to prayer in Ontario, and a Royal Coat of Arms were sent -out to it by the British Government in 1786. This church, known as -‘St. Paul’s Church of the Mohawks’, and in common parlance as the -old Mohawk Church, was in 1904, on a petition to the King, given by -His Majesty the title of ‘His Majesty’s Chapel of the Mohawks’, in -order to revive the old name of Queen Anne’s reign. - - - - -CHAPTER V - -LORD DORCHESTER AND THE CANADA ACT OF 1791 - - -[Sidenote: Carleton’s second term as Governor of Canada.] - -Sir Frederick Haldimand, who had succeeded Carleton and had -governed Canada with conspicuous ability during the later years of -the American War of Independence, left on the 15th of November, -1784. After an interval of nearly two years Carleton succeeded -him.[189] Carleton had been Commander-in-Chief at New York from -May, 1782, till November, 1783, refusing to evacuate the city until -he had provided for the safe transport of the large number of -Loyalists who wished to leave. In April, 1786, he was appointed for -the second time Governor of Canada. He was created Lord Dorchester -in the following August, and he arrived at Quebec on the 23rd -of October in the same year, being then sixty-two years of age. -He remained in Canada till August, 1791, when he took leave of -absence until September, 1793, and he finally left in July, 1796. -The whole term of his second government thus lasted for ten years. -During his first government he had been Governor of the province of -Quebec alone, but in April, 1786, he was appointed ‘Captain-General -and Governor-in-Chief’ not only of the province of Quebec--the -boundaries of that province being now modified by the terms of -the Peace of 1783--but also of Nova Scotia,[190] and of the -newly-created province of New Brunswick, receiving three separate -commissions in respect of the three separate provinces. Thus he -was, or was intended to be, in the fullest sense Governor-General -of British North America. - -[Sidenote: House of Commons debate on Carleton’s pension.] - -Before he went out, a debate in the House of Commons, towards -the end of June, 1786, gave evidence of the high repute in which -he was held. William Pitt, Prime Minister and Chancellor of -the Exchequer, presented a Royal Message, asking the House, in -consideration of Carleton’s public services, to enable His Majesty -to confer a pension of £1,000 per annum upon Carleton’s wife, -Lady Maria Carleton, and upon his two sons for their several -lives. The pension, it was explained, had been promised by the -King in 1776, but partly by accident and partly by Carleton’s -own wish the grant had been postponed. It was recounted by one -of the speakers that ‘when all our other colonies had revolted, -he (Carleton) by his gallantry, activity, and industry saved the -city of Quebec, and by that means the whole province of Canada’; -and when one malcontent--the only one--Courtenay by name, denied -that Carleton had rendered any services, asserting with wonderful -hardihood, that ‘Sir Guy had by no means protected Quebec. It was -the inhabitants in conjunction with Chief Justice Livius (whom -General Carleton afterwards expelled from his situation) that -protected it’, another member, Captain Luttrell, rejoined that ‘In -the most brilliant war we ever sustained, he was foremost in the -most hard earned victories, and in the most disgraceful contest -in which we ever were engaged, he alone of all our generals was -unconquered’. But the most delightful tribute to Carleton was paid -by Burgoyne, when the resolution had been agreed to and was being -reported. Referring to the help which Carleton had given him -in his fateful expedition, he said ‘Had Sir Guy been personally -employed in that important command, he could not have fitted it out -with more assiduity, more liberality, more zeal, than disappointed, -displeased, and resentful against the King’s servants, he employed -to prepare it for a junior officer’. Burgoyne then went on to -testify to the uprightness of Carleton’s administration, ‘the -purity of hand and heart with which he had always administered -the expenditure of the public purse.’ The pension was sanctioned -unanimously, to date from the 1st of January, 1785.[191] - -[Sidenote: Population of Canada in 1784.] - -[Sidenote: The first canals in Canada.] - -In 1784, before the full tale of Loyalist immigration was yet -complete, Canada, including the three districts of Quebec, Three -Rivers, and Montreal, had a population of 113,000,[192] the towns -of Quebec and Montreal containing in either case between 6,000 -and 7,000 residents. This was really the population of what was -afterwards the province of Lower Canada, exclusive of Ontario and -the Maritime Provinces which were the main scenes of Loyalist -settlement. The overwhelming majority of the population in the -province of Quebec, as Canada, other than the Maritime Provinces, -was styled prior to the Act of 1791, consisted of French Canadians, -and the citizens of British birth were still comparatively few in -number: but, as has been seen, the incoming of British citizens -was actively in process under Haldimand’s administration; and -during the same administration a beginning was made of the canals -which have played so great a part in the history of Eastern -Canada. Between the years 1779 and 1783, mainly for military -reasons, Royal Engineers under Haldimand’s directions constructed -canals with locks round the rapids between Lake St. Francis and -Lake St. Louis above Montreal, and in 1785 proposals were first -made--though not at the time carried into effect--for a canal to -rectify the break in navigation on the Richelieu river, caused by -the rapids between St. John’s and Chambly, and so to give unimpeded -water-communication between Lake Champlain and the St. Lawrence. -This latter project was of great importance to Vermont, which had -not yet been admitted as a state to the American Union. - -Thus Dorchester came back to the land of the St. Lawrence and the -great lakes amid indications of a new era with wider developments -and corresponding difficulties. He came back as the man who had -saved Canada in war, had given to the French Canadians the Quebec -Act, and had stood firm at New York for protection of the Loyalists. - -[Sidenote: The political situation in 1786.] - -It was not an easy time for any man, however popular, who was -responsible for the security and the welfare of Canada. British -garrisons still held the frontier posts which, by the Treaty of -1783, Great Britain was bound to hand over to the United States, -viz., Detroit, Michillimackinac, Erie or Presque Isle, Niagara, -Oswego, Oswegatchie, and, on Lake Champlain, Point au Fer and -Dutchman’s Point. The Indians were at open war with the Americans -down to the year 1794, claiming as their own the lands to the north -of the Ohio; and they were embittered against the English, because -no provision had been made in the treaty to safeguard their rights, -their homes and their hunting grounds. The Americans in their turn -were irritated by the withholding of the forts, and suspected the -English of instigating Indian hostilities and encouraging Indian -claims. Meanwhile the internal affairs of Canada were rapidly -growing more complicated, and the constitutional question pressed -for solution. - -[Sidenote: Lord Dorchester on the Quebec Act.] - -Writing on the 13th of June, 1787, to Thomas Townshend, Lord -Sydney, who was then Secretary of State,[193] Lord Dorchester -pointed out that the Quebec Act had been introduced at a time when -nothing could be thought of in Canada but self-defence. It came -into force at the outbreak of the war, and the first Council held -under its provisions was overshadowed by American invasion.[194] -The Act, therefore, owing to circumstances, had never really been -given a fair trial; yet it may be questioned whether the very -great difficulty of adjusting conflicting interests in Canada, -of bringing the old and the new into harmony, and of devising a -system of government, which would ensure comparative contentment -at the time and give facilities for future development, was really -increased by the fact that wars and threats and rumours of wars -clouded the first half century of the history of Canada as a -British possession. The evil of distracting attention from internal -problems, of interrupting and foreshortening political and social -reforms was counterbalanced by the wholesome influence of common -danger. As the removal of that influence had led to the severance -of the old North American colonies from Great Britain, so the -actual or possible hostility of the United States made the task of -holding Canada together easier than it would otherwise have been, -and, by preventing constitutional questions from absorbing the -whole energies of the government and the public, tended to produce -slow and gradual changes in lieu of reforms so complete as possibly -to amount to revolution. - -[Sidenote: Petition for a free constitution.] - -[Sidenote: Counter petition from French Canadian seigniors.] - -[Sidenote: Petition from disbanded Loyalist soldiers for a separate -province.] - -On the 24th of November, 1784, immediately after Haldimand’s -departure, a petition for a free constitution was addressed to -the King by his ‘ancient and new subjects, inhabitants of the -province of Quebec’. The petitioners asked, among other points, -for a House of Representatives or Assembly, with power to impose -taxes to cover the expense of civil government; for a Council of -not less than 30 members, without whose advice no officer should -be suspended and no new office be created by the governor; for a -continuance of the criminal law of England, and of the ancient -laws of the country as to landed estates, marriage settlements -and inheritances; for the introduction of the commercial laws -of England; and for the embodiment in the constitution of the -Habeas Corpus Act. It will be remembered that an ordinance had -lately been passed by the Legislative Council, on the 29th of -April, 1784, ‘For securing the liberty of the subject and for the -prevention of imprisonments out of this province,’[195] but the -petitioners wished to have the right of Habeas Corpus laid down as -a fundamental rule of the constitution. The petition purported to -be from the ‘New Subjects’, i. e. the French Canadians, as well -as from those of British extraction; but among the signatories -hardly any French Canadian names appeared, and a counter petition -was signed by French Canadian seigniors and others, deprecating -the proposed change in the system of government. ‘This plan’, they -wrote, ‘is so much more questionable, as it appears to us to aim at -innovations entirely opposed to the rights of the King and of his -Government and to detach the people from the submission they have -always shown to their Sovereign.’ In April, 1785, a petition was -presented in London by Sir John Johnson on behalf of the disbanded -soldiers and other Loyalists settled above Montreal, asking for the -creation of a new district separate from the province of Quebec, -whose capital should be Cataraqui, now Kingston, and that ‘the -blessings of the British laws and of the British Government, and -an exemption from the (French) tenures, may be extended to the -aforesaid settlements’.[196] - -[Sidenote: Debate on Mr. Powys’ Bill in the House of Commons April, -1786.] - -On the 28th of April, 1786, Mr. Powys, a private member of the -House of Commons called attention in the House to the petition of -1784;[197] and, in view of the fact that two years had passed since -it was presented, and that the Government had taken no action upon -it, he moved for permission to bring in a Bill to amend the Quebec -Act and ‘for the better securing the liberties of His Majesty’s -subjects in the province of Quebec in North America’. The object of -the Bill, which had been drafted in the previous year, was to limit -the power of the governor, for the mover complained that the Quebec -Act had ‘established as complete a system of despotism as ever was -instituted’, and stated that the aim of his measure was ‘to give -the inhabitants of the province of Quebec a system of government in -the particulars he had mentioned, founded on known and definitive -law. At present the government of that province rested altogether -on unfixed laws, and was a state of despotism and slavery’. The -Bill purported to give to the Canadians in the fullest measure the -right of Habeas Corpus, except in case of rebellion or of foreign -invasion, when it might be suspended, but only for three months -at a time, and only by ordinance of the Legislative Council; to -give trial by jury in civil cases at the option of either of the -parties; to take from the governor the power of committing to -prison by his own warrant, and of suspending judges and members -of the Legislative Council; while the last clause increased the -numbers of the council. It was supported by Fox, who took the -opportunity to denounce the Quebec Act ‘as a Bill founded upon a -system of despotism’, and by Sheridan; but the majority in a very -thin House rejected it, agreeing with Pitt that, in view of the -contradictory petitions which came from Canada, it would be well to -wait until Carleton went out and reported upon the feeling of the -country. - -Petitions continued to come in. In June, 1787, Lord Dorchester -wrote to Lord Sydney that with the increase of the English -population the desire for an Assembly would increase, but that he -himself was at a loss for a plan, and that a more pressing matter -was a change in the tenure of land. In the following September -Lord Sydney replied, in somewhat similar terms, that there was no -present intention to alter the constitution, but that the King -would be advised to make a change in the system of land tenure. - -[Sidenote: Adam Lymburner heard before the House of Commons.] - -[Sidenote: Fox and Burke on the Quebec Act.] - -In 1788 Adam Lymburner, a merchant of good position in Quebec, was -sent as a delegate to London, to represent the views of the British -minority in the province; and on Friday, the 16th of May, 1788, he -was heard at the bar of the House of Commons, in support of the -petitions which had been presented. He called attention mainly to -the confused state of the law in Canada, and to the defects and -anomalies in the administration of justice. A debate followed on a -motion by Mr. Powys[198] to the effect that the petitions deserved -the immediate and serious consideration of Parliament. The mover -once more attacked the Quebec Act of 1774, characterizing it ‘as -a rash and fatal’ measure and, when challenged to state what -he considered to be the points of greatest urgency, specified -‘the rendering the writ of Habeas Corpus a matter of right, the -granting independence to the judges, the lessening of the servility -and dependence of the superior officers of justice, and the -establishing a House of Assembly’. Fox, Sheridan and Burke spoke as -usual against the Government, denouncing Pitt for pleading that, -in view of the divergent views held in Canada, the Government -should be given more time to obtain further information from Lord -Dorchester. The whole of Lord Dorchester’s evidence on the Quebec -Bill, said Fox, who professed great respect for Lord Dorchester -himself, ‘contained opinions wholly foreign to the spirit and -uncongenial with the nature of the English constitution. Lord -Dorchester, therefore, was the last man living whose opinion he -would wish to receive upon the subject.’ Burke spoke of the Quebec -Act as ‘a measure dealt out by this country in its anger under -the impulse of a passion that ill-suited the purposes of wise -legislation’. - -It was true that two years had passed since the previous discussion -on the subject in the House of Commons, and that nothing had been -done in the meantime; but the hollowness of the debate was shown -by the stress laid by the Opposition speakers on the subject -of Habeas Corpus. The recently passed ordinance had given to -Canadians the right of Habeas Corpus, but it was argued that the -grant was temporary only and that the Crown which had given the -right and confirmed the ordinance might take it away, whereas no -time should be lost in providing that Canadians, like all other -British subjects, should enjoy it ‘as a matter of right and not as -a grant at the will of the Crown’. There was little evidence among -the speakers that they either knew or cared for the wishes of the -great majority of Canadians, those of French descent: no suspicion -seems to have entered into their minds that institutions which -suited Englishmen might not be the best in the world for men who -were not of English birth: it was assumed that clever speakers in -the House of Commons were better judges of the requirements of a -distant British possession than the man on the spot with unrivalled -knowledge of local conditions. The debate well illustrated the -prejudice and half knowledge with which partisan legislators -in England approach colonial problems, and it afforded a good -explanation of the grounds on which the common sense of England let -the brilliant debaters talk harmlessly in opposition and entrusted -the real work of the country to William Pitt. It ended in a motion, -agreed to by the Prime Minister, that the House would take the -subject into their earnest consideration early next session. - -[Sidenote: Lord Dorchester’s views opposed to division of the -province.] - -[Sidenote: Outline of the Canada Act.] - -Following on the debate, Sydney wrote to Dorchester on the 3rd -of September, asking for the fullest possible information before -the next discussion should take place, and intimating that a -division of the province was contemplated. On the 8th of November -in the same year, Lord Dorchester replied, giving his views on -the political situation. In the districts of Quebec and Montreal, -exclusive of the towns, he estimated the proportion of British -residents to French Canadians as one to forty; including the -towns, as one to fifteen; and including the Loyalist settlements -above Montreal, as one to five. The demand for an Assembly, he -considered, came from the commercial classes, that is to say, from -the towns where the British were most numerous: the seigniors and -country gentlemen were opposed to it, the clergy were neutral, -the uneducated habitants would be led by others. His own opinion -was that a division of the province was at present unadvisable; -but, should a division be decided upon, there was no reason why -the western districts should not have an Assembly and so much of -the English system of laws as suited their local circumstances, -care being taken to secure the property and civil rights of the -French Canadian settlers in the neighbourhood of Detroit, who -had increased in numbers owing to the fur trade. A year later, -on the 20th of October, 1789, he was informed by Grenville, who -had succeeded Sydney as Secretary of State, that the Government -had decided to alter the constitution of Canada and to divide the -province of Quebec, a draft of the Bill which was to be introduced -into Parliament for the purpose being enclosed for an expression -of the governor’s views, with blank spaces to be filled up on -receiving from him information as to certain points of detail. - -[Sidenote: Difficulties of the situation.] - -Curiously complex were the conditions which the Bill was intended -to meet. Assuming that the population of Canada had been -homogeneous and of British descent, and assuming that Canada -had been a single, well-defined colony, so that no question -of subdivision could arise, it would still have remained a -most difficult problem to decide within what limits political -representation should be given and how far it should involve -responsibility and real self-government. The British demand in -Canada was for institutions to which Englishmen had always been -accustomed, and which the old North American colonies of Great -Britain had enjoyed. The petition of November, 1784, showed that -the demand included right of taxation and a certain control over -the Executive. This last point seems subsequently not to have been -pressed, though it involved the essence of self-government, had -been prominent in the disputes between the old colonies and the -mother country, and had been emphasized in Canada by the fact that -on the one hand the Home Government had conspicuously misused its -patronage in making appointments in Canada, and that on the other, -two strong governors, Carleton and Haldimand, in time of war and -in face of disloyalty, had not hesitated so to put forth their -strength as to incur the charge of being arbitrary. - -But the population of Canada was not homogeneous, and the colony -was obviously not one and indivisible. Even among the English -residents there was diversity of interest. Those who lived in -the districts of Quebec and Montreal, and for whom Lymburner -spoke, were opposed to a division of the province, because the -main body of subjects of English birth was to be found in the new -settlements in Upper Canada. These newcomers, on the contrary, had -much to gain by being severed from French Canada and incorporated -into a separate colony. The British minority again in the old -province contended that half the number of the representatives -to be elected should be assigned to the towns where the number -and the influence of the English residents was greatest, Quebec -and Montreal containing at the time one Englishman to every two -Canadians; thus town and country interests were pitted against -each other. Meanwhile the overwhelming majority of the population, -the French Canadians, set little store by the representative -institutions which the English desired to enjoy. They had never -known them and therefore never valued them, and they had reason to -fear that any change might tend to give more power to the English -minority accustomed to a political machinery which was novel to -themselves. The habitants thought only whether their taxes would be -increased, and whether new laws and customs would be substituted -for those which they understood; the seigniors dreaded losing -their feudal rights; the priests their privileges and authority. -There was a very strong element of conservatism in French Canada -running counter to the demand for political reform, and even in -Upper Canada, in the district over against Detroit, and at some -other points, there was a small minority of French settlers whose -interests, as Dorchester had pointed out, could not be overlooked. - -[Sidenote: The question of land tenure.] - -Almost as important and fully as pressing as the question of -political representation was that of land tenure. Was the land -system of the future, especially in Upper Canada, to be the -cumbrous feudal tenure which Louis XIV had imported from the Old -to the New World? or was it to be assimilated to the land laws -of England? Were other laws too, and was the legal procedure, -especially in commercial matters, to be on French or English lines? -Partly through confusion as to what was the law of the land, and -partly because such judicial appointments as that of Livius were -not calculated to inspire respect for the personnel of the judges, -the administration of justice in Canada at this time had been hotly -assailed, and a long local inquiry into the subject began in 1787, -but seems to have produced little or no result in consequence of -the passing of the Canada Act. - -When there were so many difficulties to be faced and met, it was -fortunate that the thorny questions of language and religion were -not added to the number. The religious question had been settled -by the Quebec Act, and all that was required was to make definite -provision for the Protestant clergy, while not interfering with the -rights which had been confirmed to the Roman Catholic priesthood. -As to language, for good or for evil, no attempt seems to have -been made by the Imperial Government to substitute English for -French; the oaths prescribed by the terms of the 1791 Act were to -be administered either in English or in French as the case might -require, and the first elected Assembly of Lower Canada agreed not -to give to either tongue preference over the other.[199] - -[Sidenote: Grenville’s dispatch and letter.] - -[Sidenote: Arguments for a division into two provinces] - -[Sidenote: based upon the grant of representative institutions.] - -The terms of Grenville’s dispatch to Dorchester of the 20th -October, 1789, in which he enclosed the draft of the proposed -Act, and of the Private and Secret letter which he wrote at the -same time, are interesting as showing the grounds on which Pitt’s -Government had come to the decision to divide Canada into two -provinces and to give popular institutions in either case.[200] -Grenville wrote that the general object of the plan adopted by -the Government was to assimilate the constitution of the province -of Quebec to that of Great Britain ‘as nearly as the difference -arising from the manners of the people and from the present -situation of the province will admit’. In trying to effect this -object it was necessary to pay attention to the ‘prejudices and -habits of the French inhabitants’, and most carefully to safeguard -the civil and religious rights which had been secured to them -at or subsequently to the capitulation of the province. This -consideration had largely influenced the Government in favour of -dividing the province into two districts, still to remain under -the administration of a Governor-General, but each to have a -Lieutenant-Governor and separate Legislature. The Government, -Grenville continued, had not overlooked the reasons urged by Lord -Dorchester against a division of the province, and they felt that -great weight would have been due to his suggestions, had it been -intended to continue the existing form of administration and not -to introduce representative institutions; but, the decision having -been taken to establish a provincial legislature to be chosen -in part by the people, ‘every consideration of policy seemed to -render it desirable that the great preponderance possessed in the -upper districts by the King’s ancient subjects, and in the lower -by the French Canadians, should have their effect and operation -in separate legislatures, rather than that these two bodies of -people should be blended together in the first formation of the -new constitution, and before sufficient time has been allowed -for the removal of ancient prejudices by the habit of obedience -to the same government and by the sense of a common interest’. -Grenville’s private letter, which supplemented the public dispatch, -showed that a lesson had been learnt from the late war with the -American colonies. ‘I am persuaded,’ he wrote, ‘that it is a point -of true policy to make these concessions at a time when they may -be received as a matter of favour, and when it is in our own power -to regulate and direct the manner of applying them, rather than to -wait till they shall be extorted from us by a necessity which shall -neither leave us any discretion in the form nor any merit in the -substance of what we give.’[201] The last paragraph of the letter -gave another reason for making the proposed changes without further -delay, and that was that ‘the state of France is such as gives -us little to fear from that quarter in the present moment. The -opportunity is therefore most favourable for the adoption of such -measures as may tend to consolidate our strength, and increase our -resources, so as to enable ourselves to meet any efforts that the -most favourable event of the present troubles can ever enable her -to make’. The letter was written after the taking of the Bastille -and the outbreak of the French Revolution, when Lafayette was in -demand at home and not likely to make further excursions into -American politics; but the words implied that France was still in -the eyes of British statesmen the main source of danger to Great -Britain, especially in connexion with Canada, and that the grant -of representative institutions to British and French colonists -in Canada was likely to strengthen the hands of Great Britain as -against her most formidable rival. - -[Sidenote: Policy of the British Government determined by the -results of the War of American Independence.] - -[Sidenote: Proposed safeguards to the grant of popular -institutions.] - -[Sidenote: Suggestion to give titles to members of the Upper -Chamber.] - -[Sidenote: Lord Dorchester opposed to the suggestion.] - -The correspondence shows clearly that the outcome of the War of -American Independence had inclined the British Government to give -popular representation to the remaining British possessions in -North America. On the other hand there are passages in it which -should be noted, indicating that ministers were anxious at the same -time to introduce certain safeguards against democracy, which -had been wanting in the old North American colonies. Grenville’s -dispatch stated that it was intended to appoint the members of -the Upper Chamber, the Legislative Council, for life and during -good behaviour, provided that they resided in the province. It -also stated that it was the King’s intention to confer upon those -whom he nominated to the Council ‘some mark of honour, such as a -Provincial Baronetage, either personal to themselves or descendible -to their eldest sons in lineal succession’, adding that, if there -was in after years a great growth of wealth in Canada, it might be -possible at some future date to ‘raise the most considerable of -these persons to a higher degree of honour’. The object of these -regulations, he wrote, ‘is both to give to the Upper Branch of the -Legislature a greater degree of weight and consequence than was -possessed by the Councils in the old colonial governments, and to -establish in the provinces a body of men having that motive of -attachment to the existing form of government which arises from the -possession of personal or hereditary distinction.’ In writing as -above, Grenville did not state in so many words that the Government -contemplated making appointment to the Legislative council -hereditary in certain cases, but merely that it was proposed to -give some title to certain members of the Council, which title -might be made hereditary; nor was any clause dealing with the -subject included in the draft of the Bill which was sent to Lord -Dorchester. The latter, however, rightly understood that what Pitt -and his colleagues had in their minds was to give to each of the -two provinces, into which Canada was to be divided, an Upper House -which might develop into a House of Lords; and his answer was that, -while many advantages might result from a hereditary Legislative -Council distinguished by some mark of honour, if the condition of -the country was such as to support the dignity, ‘the fluctuating -state of property in these provinces would expose all hereditary -honours to fall into disregard.’ He recommended, therefore, -that for the time being the members of the Council should merely -be appointed during life, good behaviour, and residence in the -province. - -[Sidenote: Permissive clauses embodied in the Bill.] - -When the Bill was introduced into Parliament, the provisions -dealing with this subject were chiefly attacked by Fox, who -expressed himself in favour of an elected council, though with a -higher property qualification than would be required in the case -of the Lower House or Assembly. The clauses were carried in a -permissive form, empowering the King, whenever he thought fit to -confer upon a British subject by Letters Patent under the Great -Seal of either of the provinces a hereditary title of honour, to -attach to the title at his discretion a hereditary right to be -summoned to the Legislative Council, such right to be forfeited -by the holder for various causes including continual absence from -the province, but to be revived in favour of the heirs. Nothing -came of this attempt to create a hereditary second chamber in the -two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada: no such aristocracy was -brought into being as when the French King and his ministers built -up the French Canadian community on a basis analogous to the old -feudal system of France; but, nevertheless, Pitt’s proposals cannot -be condemned as fantastic or unreal. They were honestly designed to -meet a defect which had already been felt in the British colonies, -and which must always be felt in new countries, the lack of a -conservative element in the Legislature and in the people, the -absence of dignity and continuity with the past, and the want of -some balance against raw and undiluted democracy which has not, as -in older lands, been trained to recognize that the body politic -consists of more than numbers. - -[Sidenote: The Executive Council.] - -The original draft of the Bill contained no provision for the -appointment of an Executive Council distinct from the two houses -of the Legislature. A clause to that effect was inserted by Lord -Dorchester in the amended draft which he sent back, but it did not -appear in the Act in its final form; though there is a reference -in the Act to ‘such Executive Council as shall be appointed by -His Majesty for the affairs’ of either province; and one section -appointed the governor and Executive Council in each province a -court of civil appeal. In his covering dispatch Grenville asked -Lord Dorchester to state the number and names of the persons whom -he might think proper to recommend to the King for seats on the -Executive Council, and added that it was not intended to exclude -members of the Legislative Council from the Executive Council, nor -on the other hand to select the Executive Councillors exclusively -from the Legislative Council. Grenville went on to suggest that it -might be well that some persons should be members of the Executive -Council in both of the two districts or provinces. The net result -was that the Executive was still to remain wholly independent -of the Legislature, or at any rate of the popular house in the -Legislature, and therefore the main element of self-government was -to be withheld. It was left for Lord Durham, after long years of -friction between the Executive and the Legislature, to emphasize -the necessity of giving to the popular representatives the control -of the Executive, making them thereby responsible for the good -government of the people whom they represented. - -[Sidenote: Crown Lands’ funds.] - -In his secret letter to Dorchester, Grenville referred to ‘the -possibility of making such reservations of land adjacent to all -future grants as may secure to the Crown a certain and improving -revenue--a measure which, if it had been adopted when the old -colonies were first settled, would have retained them to this hour -in obedience and loyalty’. Crown land funds are not yet wholly -extinct in the British colonies. For instance, in the Bahamas, -side by side with the revenue voted by the local Legislature, -there is a small fund independent of the Legislature and at the -disposal of the Crown alone; but the revenue derived from the fund -is not sufficient to pay the salaries of the Executive officers, -even if it were thought desirable to apply the money to such a -purpose. Barbados, with its time-honoured constitution, to which -Barbadians are passionately attached, is a good instance of a -colony possessing representative institutions but not responsible -government. Here there are no Crown funds, and the salaries of -the public officers, from the governor downwards, are voted -by the elected representatives, though the higher Executive -appointments, with some exceptions, are in the gift and under the -control not of the Legislature but of the Crown. In this and in -other instances, where local conditions, including the fact of -an overwhelming preponderance of coloured men over white, have -made for a compromise, a system, illogical in theory and unsound -in practice, has, by mutual forbearance, continued to work, -though not always without friction. But on any large scale, and -especially where the majority of the residents in a colony are of -European birth, the position is impossible and can only be defended -as a temporary expedient. Yet, in spite of the War of American -Independence and the lessons which it taught, the world was not in -the days of Pitt old enough for the British ministry to contemplate -colonial self-government in its full expression. Nor, in truth, -were the conditions of Canada sufficiently advanced to have made -the introduction of responsible government either practicable -or desirable. Hence Grenville cast about for an expedient which -might reduce the probability of a conflict between the Executive -and the Legislature, and sought for it in the establishment of a -fund which would belong to the Crown alone and be expended by the -Crown in paying its officers. If his policy had been consistently -carried out, and an adequate revenue, not derived from taxation, -been secured to the Crown, the result would have been greatly to -strengthen the independence of the Executive by making the salaries -of the officers independent of the vote of the Assembly. In the -end the bitterness of the struggle for popular control might have -been thereby increased, but in the meantime the petty squabble -year by year over voting supplies, and the mean withholding of pay -from this or that officer, because he happened to be unpopular at -the moment, might have disappeared. The constitutional troubles -which subsequently became so acute in Lower Canada, connected more -especially with the attempt to obtain a Civil List, were due to -the fact that the revenues of the Crown were not sufficient to -cover the expenses of the public service without the aid of votes -from the popular Assembly. It was this constant friction which had -preluded the War of Independence, and this it was which Grenville -hoped to avoid by establishing an adequate fund in the colony at -the disposal of the Crown alone. - -[Sidenote: Chief Justice Smith.] - -[Sidenote: His proposals for a general Legislature for the British -North American Provinces.] - -But a wider and more statesmanlike safeguard against the evils -of colonial democracy in the eighteenth century was proposed -in connexion with this Canada Act, though not by the Imperial -Government. The post of Chief Justice of Canada, which Livius had -held, was now after a long interregnum filled by the appointment of -William Smith, who had been born in the state of New York, had been -Chief Justice of that state, and, coming to England with Dorchester -after the Peace of 1783, had been appointed to succeed Livius -and had accompanied the Governor-General out to Canada. Invited -by Dorchester to give his views upon the draft of the Bill which -Grenville had sent out, he embodied them in a remarkable letter -which was forwarded to the Home Government. The Bill, he thought, -greatly improved ‘the old mould of our colonial governments, for -even those called the Royal provinces, to distinguish them from -the proprietary and chartered republics of the Stuart kings, had -essential faults and the same general tendency’; but he missed -in it ‘the expected establishment to put what remains to Great -Britain of her ancient dominions in North America under one -general direction, for the united interests and safety of every -branch of the Empire’. It was when the old North American colonies -became prosperous that the evils inherent in their system produced -their full effect, and he dreaded lest the prosperity which he -predicted for the two provinces of Canada might again in time work -ruin, unless what he considered to be the one main safeguard were -provided from the beginning of constitutional government. ‘Native -as I am of one of the old provinces,’ he wrote, ‘and early in the -public service and councils, I trace the late revolt and rent to a -remoter cause than those to which it is ordinarily ascribed. The -truth is that the country had outgrown its government, and wanted -the true remedy for more than half a century before the rupture -commenced.... To expect wisdom and moderation from near a score -of petty parliaments, consisting in effect of only one of the -three necessary branches of a parliament, must, after the light -brought by experience, appear to have been a very extravagant -expectation.... An American Assembly, quiet in the weakness of -their infancy, could not but discover in their elevation to -prosperity, that themselves were the substance, and the governor -and Board of Council were shadows in their political frame. All -America was thus, at the very outset of the plantations, abandoned -to democracy. And it belonged to the administrations of the days -of our fathers to have found the cure, in the erection of a power -upon the continent itself, to control all its own little republics, -and create a partner in the legislation of the Empire, capable of -consulting their own safety and the common welfare.’ - -Such a power the Chief Justice outlined in ‘Proposed Additions to -the New Canada Bill for a General Government’, which he enclosed -in this noteworthy letter, prefacing them as clauses ‘to provide -still more effectually for the government, safety, and prosperity -of all His Majesty’s dominions in North America, and firmly to -unite the several branches of the Empire’. Provision was made in -them for a Legislative Council and General Assembly, which, with -the Governor-General, were to legislate for all or any of ‘His -Majesty’s dominions and the provinces whereof the same do now or -may hereafter consist in the parts of America to the southward -of Hudson’s Bay and in those seas to the Northward of the Bermuda -or Somers Islands’. So many Legislative Councillors were to be -appointed for each province by the Crown for life, subject to the -conditions attached to membership of the Legislative Council in -either of the two Canadas by the proposed Act; while the members -of the General Assembly were to be elected by the provincial -Assemblies. The Crown might appoint an Executive Council, and was -to be confirmed in full Executive authority over all and any of the -provinces, while the acts of the General Legislature were to be -subject to disallowance by the Crown, ‘and the said dominions and -all the provinces into which they may be hereafter divided shall -continue and remain to be governed by the Crown and Parliament -of Great Britain as the supreme Legislature of the whole British -Empire’. - -[Sidenote: Chief Justice Smith’s views supported by Lord -Dorchester.] - -Lord Dorchester forwarded these proposals with a few words -indicating that he was in general sympathy with the views of the -Chief Justice. He wrote of the scheme of a general government for -British North America as one ‘whereby the united exertions of His -Majesty’s North American provinces may more effectually be directed -to the general interest and to the preservation of the unity of -the Empire’. They were the proposals of a trained lawyer, of an -American colonist of standing and position who had thrown in his -lot with the mother country as against the revolting colonies, -and who stated in the letter from which passages have been quoted -above, that for more than twenty years, that is to say through all -or nearly all the years of strife with the colonies, he had held -the same view as to the radical defect in the relations between -Great Britain and her colonies and the remedy which might have been -applied at an earlier date. How far, we may ask, did Chief Justice -Smith truly diagnose the disease, if disease it was, that had -proved fatal to the old British Empire in North America? How far -did he indicate what, if the disease had been taken in time, would -or might have been an adequate remedy? and how far did he outline -the Canadian Dominion of later days and anticipate views which are -widely held at the present time as to the future of the British -Empire? - -[Illustration: - - _to face page 257_ - - =THE TWO CANADAS= - under Constitutional Act of =1791= - and - =THE MARITIME PROVINCES= - - From a map of 1823, in the Colonial Office Library - - B. V. Barbishire, Oxford, 1908. -] - -[Sidenote: Democracy in America was coeval with its colonization.] - -[Sidenote: It should have been controlled from within, not from -without.] - -It has been attempted to show in a previous chapter that the spirit -of independence in the American colonies, which in the end was -embodied in political severance from Great Britain, was as old as -their origin, and drew its strength from the fact that they had -always been practically independent. This was the starting-point of -the Chief Justice’s argument. ‘All America,’ in his words, ‘was, at -the very outset of the plantations, abandoned to democracy’, and -the separate colonies which at the time when he wrote, had been -federated into the United States, were ‘little Republics’. Those -little Republics, according to the ordinary colonial contention, -the mother country had neglected in the weakness of their infancy, -while she had tried to oppress them when they became prosperous and -valuable. Chief Justice Smith read history differently. According -to his view they were quiet until they had grown to strength, and -then they discovered that the ultimate power of government rested -with themselves and not with the mother country. The remedy, he -thought, should have been found not so much by giving greater power -to the Imperial Government as by establishing in America itself -an authority controlling the separate Assemblies of the separate -states, which body would have been a ‘Partner in the legislation of -the Empire’. - -[Sidenote: The grounds on which Chief Justice Smith advocated a -General Legislature for British North America.] - -It was no new conception that the states should have been in -some sense federated while still under the British flag. Various -governors, and men like Franklin, had proposed or contemplated some -such measure, in order to correct the weakness of the separate -provinces as against the common foe in Canada, while Canada -belonged to France, and in order to minimize the difficulties which -the Imperial Government found in dealing with a number of separate -legislatures at least as jealous of each other as they were of the -Home Government. But the Chief Justice’s retrospect was based on -somewhat different grounds. He would have had a federal legislature -in order to control the provincial legislatures. He would have -corrected democracy in America by, in a sense, carrying democracy -further. He would have nothing of the maxim _divide et impera_; -but, as democracy was born on American soil, on American soil -he would have constituted a popular authority wider, wiser, and -stronger than the bodies which represented the single provinces. -It was a very statesmanlike view. He saw that one leading cause -of the rupture between Great Britain and her colonies had been -the pettiness of the American democracies, the narrowness of -provincial politics, the intensity of democratic feeling cooped up -in the small area of a single colony as in a single Greek city, -the personal bitterness thereby produced in local politicians, -and the obvious semblance of oppression when a great country like -England was dealing with one small state and another, not with a -larger federated whole. A federal legislature would have exercised -home-grown American control over the American Assemblies; it -would have given a wider and fuller scope to American democracy, -enlarging the views, making the individual leaders greater and -wider in mind; it would have been the body with which England would -have dealt; and the dealings would have been those of ‘Partners -in the legislation of the Empire’. This was in his mind when he -earnestly recommended that the grant of constitutional privileges -to the Canadian provinces should be from the first accompanied by -the creation of a general government for British North America, -including the maritime provinces as well as Upper and Lower Canada. - -[Sidenote: The General Legislature contemplated by Chief Justice -Smith would have been a subordinate Legislature.] - -[Sidenote: The Chief Justice did not contemplate colonial -self-government in its fullest form.] - -But, if this general government was to be a partner in the -legislation of the Empire, it was clearly to be, in the view -of the Chief Justice, a subordinate partner. The last of his -proposed additions to the Bill began in the following terms: -‘Be it further enacted ... that nothing in this Act contained -shall be interpreted to derogate from the rights and prerogatives -of the Crown for the due exercise of the Royal and Executive -authority over all or any of the said provinces, or to derogate -from the Legislative sovereignty and supremacy of the Crown and -Parliament of Great Britain.’ In other words he re-affirmed the -principle, which the old colonies had rejected, that they were -subordinated to the Parliament of the mother country as well as -to the Crown; and he showed clearly in the clause empowering the -Crown to appoint Executive Councils apart from the Legislature, -that the Executive power was to rest not in British North America -but in Great Britain. The general government of British North -America was to be a partner in the legislation of the Empire, but -not in the Executive, and even in the legislative sphere it was -to take a second place. Theoretically, and to some small extent -practically also, the Dominion Parliament is still a subordinate -partner in legislation, so far as Imperial questions are concerned; -but, since the days of Lord Durham, colonial self-government has -included control of the Executive in the colony. Chief Justice -Smith had therefore not contemplated or foreshadowed the colonial -self-government of the future. - -But that he had not done so was not due to want of statesmanship. -He was rather still intent on seeking after a solution of the -problem which later thinkers and statesmen held to be insoluble. -The grant of responsible government in after times was not so -much an act of constructive wisdom as a wise recognition of what -was at the time impossible. To give to the colonial legislatures -the control of the Executive was to remove them practically from -the control of the mother country, and thereby to concede to -these communities the full right of self-government. The first -corrective of this grant was on similar lines to those which Chief -Justice Smith prescribed, viz., to federate the self-governing -communities in a given area, to place their separate legislatures -under a general legislature, and, as the legislatures controlled -the Executive, to limit the provincial executive authorities by -a general executive authority, the control being exercised from -within not from without, and small democracies being rectified by -creating from among themselves a larger and a stronger democratic -body. It still remains for the wisdom of the coming time to carry -the constructive work further; if human ingenuity can devise a -practical scheme, again to extend the principle of democratic -representation and control; and to constitute a body which, with -the Crown, shall, alike in legislation and in the sphere of the -Executive, make the great self-governing provinces in the fullest -sense partners in the Empire. In short, the point which it is here -wished to emphasize is that whereas self-government was conceded -not as a solution of the problem but as a final recognition that -the problem was insoluble, men have come to realize that after all -what was intended to be final was only a necessary preliminary to -the possible attainment of an object, which had been relegated to -the land of dreams and speculations. - -[Sidenote: The Act of 1791.] - -The views of the Chief Justice were not embodied in the law which -was eventually passed in 1791. Pitt had pledged himself to deal -with the Canadian question in the session of 1790, but in that -year Great Britain was on the brink of war with Spain, owing to -the seizure by the Spaniards in 1789 of British trading vessels in -Nootka Sound, an inlet of what is now known as Vancouver Island. -The matter was adjusted by the Nootka Sound Convention of 28th -October, 1790, after which Vancouver began his voyages of survey -and discovery along the Pacific Coast of North America; and, the -hands of the British Government being free, a Royal Message to the -House of Commons, dated the 25th of January, 1791, announced that -it was the King’s intention to divide the province of Quebec into -two provinces to be called Upper and Lower Canada, whenever His -Majesty was enabled by Act of Parliament to make the necessary -regulations for the government of the said provinces. The message -further recommended that a permanent appropriation of lands should -be made in the provinces for the support of a Protestant clergy. - -[Sidenote: Proceedings in Parliament.] - -On the 4th of March Pitt introduced the Bill. On the 23rd of -March Lymburner was heard at the bar of the House on behalf of -its opponents. He took objections, among other points, to the -division of the province, to the creation of hereditary Legislative -Councillors, to the small number of members who were to constitute -the Assemblies, and to making the Assemblies septennial instead -of triennial. The passage of the Bill through Committee in the -House of Commons was chiefly remarkable for the historic quarrel -between Burke and Fox on the subject of the French Revolution -which was dragged into the debate. There was no real opposition -to the measure, though Fox opposed the division of the province, -the hereditary councillors, the small numbers assigned to the -Assemblies, and the large provision made for the Protestant clergy. -The duration of the Assemblies was reduced from seven years to -four, and the number of members in the Assembly of Lower Canada was -raised from thirty to fifty. Thus amended the Bill was read a third -time in the House of Commons on the 18th of May, and received the -Royal Assent on the following 10th of June, one of its sections -providing that it should take effect before the 31st of December, -1791, and another that the Councils and Assemblies should be called -together before the 31st of December, 1792. It had been intended -that Dorchester should be present in London during the passing of -the Act, in order to advise the Government on points of detail, but -the dispatch informing him that the Act had already been passed -crossed him on his way to England. - -[Sidenote: Omissions from the Act.] - -[Sidenote: It contained no definition of the boundaries of Upper -and Lower Canada.] - -The omissions from the Act are as noteworthy as its contents. -The Bill, both as presented to Parliament and as finally passed -into law, contained no description of the line of division -between Upper and Lower Canada, or of the boundaries of the two -provinces. In the draft which Grenville sent out in 1789 there was -a blank space, in which Dorchester was invited, with the help of -his surveyor-general, to insert a description of the boundaries; -but, wrote Grenville in his covering dispatch, ‘there will be a -considerable difficulty in the mode of describing the boundary -between the district of Upper Canada and the territories of the -United States, as the adhering to the line mentioned in the -treaty with America would exclude the posts which are still in -His Majesty’s possession and which the infraction of the treaty -on the part of America has induced His Majesty to retain, while, -on the other hand, the including them by express words within -the limits to be established for the province by an Act of the -British Parliament would probably excite a considerable degree of -resentment among the inhabitants of the United States.’ Grenville -accordingly suggested that the Upper Province might be described by -some general terms such as ‘All the territories, &c., possessed by -and subject to His Majesty and being to the West or South of the -boundary line of Lower Canada, except such as are included within -the present boundaries of the government of New Brunswick’. - -Uncertainty as to what was or was not British territory affected -among other matters the administration of justice. It was from this -point of view that Dorchester mainly regarded it when he wrote in -reply to Grenville, ‘the attainment of a free course of justice -throughout every part of His Majesty’s possessions in the way least -likely to give umbrage to the United States appears to me very -desirable’. He returned the draft of the Bill with the blank filled -in with a precise description of the dividing line within what was -beyond dispute Canadian territory, and with the addition of some -general words including in the Canadas all lands to the southward -‘now subject to or possessed by His Majesty’, but he reported at -the same time that the Chief Justice was not satisfied that the -terms used would answer the purpose. Eventually the Government -left out the whole clause, omitting also all reference to another -difficult point which had been raised and which had affected the -administration of justice in connexion with the fisheries in the -Gulf of St. Lawrence, viz., the boundary line between Lower Canada -and New Brunswick. Parliamentary debate on a very awkward question -was thus avoided, and the Act contained no provision which could -give offence to the United States. - -[Sidenote: How the boundaries were defined.] - -But it was absolutely necessary to draw some dividing line, and to -give some description of the boundaries, however vague. Accordingly -the following very cautious course was taken. A ‘description of the -intended boundary between the provinces of Upper Canada and Lower -Canada’, being Lord Dorchester’s clause with the omission of the -general words referred to above, was printed as a Parliamentary -Paper,[202] while the Bill was before the House; and this line -of division was embodied in an Order in Council issued on the -following 24th of August, with the addition of the words ‘including -all territory to the Westward and Southward of the said line, -to the utmost extent of the country commonly known as Canada’. -The line of division was set out again in the new commission to -Lord Dorchester, which was issued on the 12th of September, 1791, -the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada being specified as -comprehending all such territories to the Westward and Eastward -of the line respectively ‘as were part of our said province of -Quebec’. - -[Sidenote: Administration of Justice hardly mentioned in the Act,] - -[Sidenote: Nor did it contain any definition of the respective -powers of the two Chambers.] - -On the important subject of administration of justice the Act was -almost silent. One section only had reference to it, constituting -the governor or lieutenant-governor and Executive Council in -either province a court of appeal in civil matters, as had been -the case in the undivided province. Nor was any attempt made to -define the powers of the Legislative Council and Assembly in -relation to each other; but, in sending out the Act, Dundas, who -had succeeded Grenville, reminded Dorchester of ‘the disputes and -disagreements which have at times taken place between the Councils -and Assemblies of the different colonies respecting the right -claimed by the latter that all Bills whatsoever for granting money -should originate with them’, and he laid down in general terms that -the principle, ‘as far as it relates to any question of imposing -burthens upon the subject, is so consistent with the spirit of our -constitution that it ought not to be resisted’. - -[Sidenote: Contents of the Act.] - -Out of the fifty sections which composed the Act, no less than -thirty-two related to the constitution and legislative powers of -the Councils and Assemblies in the two provinces. In Upper Canada -the Legislative Council was to consist of not less than seven -members, and the Assembly of not less than sixteen. In Lower -Canada the minimum fixed for the Council was fifteen, and for the -Assembly fifty. The electoral qualification was, in the country -districts, ownership of real property to the net annual value of -forty shillings, and in the towns of £5, or in the alternative in -the latter case a rental qualification of £10 per annum. - -[Sidenote: Provision for Protestant clergy.] - -Of the remaining sections eight related to the endowment and -maintenance of Protestant clergy and to providing parsonages -and rectories for the Church of England. The wording of these -sections, and the system of clergy reserves which they introduced, -proved a fruitful source of controversy in after years. The Act -continued the existing system by which Roman Catholics paid their -dues to the Roman Catholic Church, while the tithes on lands -held by Protestants were applied to the support of a Protestant -clergy. It then went on, in accordance with the terms of the Royal -Message to the House of Commons, to provide that there should be -a permanent appropriation of Crown lands for the maintenance and -support of a Protestant clergy, bearing a due proportion to the -amount of Crown lands which had already been granted for other -purposes, and that all future grants of Crown land should be -accompanied by an appropriation, for the same object of maintaining -a Protestant clergy, of land equal in value to one-seventh of the -amount which was granted for other purposes. The intention was -that the establishment and endowment of Protestant clergy should -proceed _pari passu_ with the alienation of lands for settlement, -so that each township or parish in either province should have its -Protestant minister. So far the general term Protestant was used, -but provisions followed authorizing the erection and endowment of -parsonages or rectories in every parish or township ‘according to -the Establishment of the Church of England’, the incumbents to -be ministers of the Church of England, and to be subject to the -ecclesiastical authority of the Church of England bishop. It was -also enacted that, while these provisions relating to religion -and to Crown lands might be varied by Acts of the provincial -legislatures, before any such Acts received the Royal Assent, they -were to be laid before the Imperial Parliament, and, if either -House presented an Address to the King praying that His assent -should be withheld, such assent could not be given. The Act, though -obscurely worded, in effect established and endowed the Church -of England in both provinces alike, while confirming the rights -which had already been conceded to the Roman Catholic Church. The -provision made for the Church of England was, at any rate on paper, -very ample, inasmuch as, while Crown lands were being assigned for -its maintenance, the liability of Protestant land-owners to pay -tithes was not abolished. Dundas, however, in his dispatch which -enclosed copies of the Act, intimated to the governor that it was -not desired permanently to continue the burden of the tithe, if -the land-owners would in lieu subscribe to a fund for clearing the -reserve lands and building the parsonage houses. Fox attacked these -sections in the Act, and he also criticized a suggestion which Pitt -made that a Church of England bishop might be given a seat in the -Legislative Council. - -[Sidenote: The first Church of England bishops in British North -America.] - -It may be noted that the Act specifically mentioned the Bishop of -Nova Scotia as the spiritual authority for the time being over -such ministers of the Church of England as might be appointed to -the two Canadas. The Bishopric of Nova Scotia dated from 1787, and -was the first, and in 1791 the only, Church of England bishopric -in British North America, the Bishop--Bishop Inglis, having been -a Loyalist clergyman in the city of New York. In 1793 a separate -Bishop of Quebec was appointed, and in 1799 the Secretary of State -authorized the building of a metropolitan church at Quebec, which -was completed for consecration in 1804, and at the centenary of -which in 1904 the Archbishop of Canterbury was present. There -were indications at this time that the Protestants in Canada, -most of whom were not members of the Church of England, might be -inclined to unite within it, and it was hoped that the building and -endowment of a metropolitan church might tend to such union and to -placing the Church of England in the position of the Established -Church of Canada. - -[Sidenote: Provisions relating to land tenure, and to taxation by -the Imperial Parliament.] - -The provisions in the Act which related to religion were followed -by three very important sections dealing with land tenure. The main -grievance of the settlers in Upper Canada was met by providing that -land grants should there be made on the English system of free and -common soccage. The same system was made optional in Lower Canada -at the will of the grantee, but in that province the seigniors -were not finally abolished until the year 1854. In 1778 an Act -of Parliament had been passed[203]--too late in the day--which -abolished the tea duty in the North American colonies, and laid -down that no duty should in future be imposed by the British -Parliament on any colony in North America or the West Indies for -revenue purposes, but only for the regulation of commerce, and on -the understanding that the net produce of such duties should be at -the disposal of the colonial legislatures. Similar provisions were -inserted in the Canada Act of 1791, and, in introducing the Bill, -Pitt explained that, ‘in order to prevent any such dispute as had -been the cause of separating the thirteen states from the mother -country, it was provided that the British Parliament should impose -no taxes but such as were necessary for the regulation of trade and -commerce; and, to guard against the abuse of this power, such taxes -were to be levied and to be disposed by the Legislature of each -division.’ - -Thus Canada was endowed with representative institutions, and -entered on the second stage in its history as a British possession. -It was divided into an English province and a French province, in -order as far as possible to prevent friction between two races not -yet accustomed to each other. For the English province English -land tenure was made the law of the land, in the French province -it was only made optional. Taxation of members of one religion for -the upkeep of another found no place in the Act, nor did taxation -of a colony by the mother country for the purposes of Imperial -revenue. The popular representatives were in the main given control -of the moneys raised from taxes: and no doubt was left as to who -had the keeping of the people’s purse.[204] On the other hand -the Executive power was left with the Crown, and the waste lands -provided possibilities of a revenue by which the government might -be supported apart from the taxes, and by which an Established -Church might be maintained apart from the tithes. The Imperial -Parliament too retained the power of regulating commerce, while -making no money out of the colony by any commercial regulations. -It was in short a prudent and tolerant half-way Act, wise and -practical in view of the times and the local conditions, and it -was evidence that England and Englishmen had learnt good and not -evil from the War of American Independence. A study of Canadian -history, with special reference to the Quebec Act of 1774 and the -Canada Act of 1791, and the results which flowed from them, leads -to the conclusion that in either case the British Government of -the day tried most honestly and most anxiously to deal with a very -complicated problem on its merits; that every effort was made -by the ministers of the Crown to mete out fair and considerate -treatment to the majority of the resident population in Canada; and -that those who framed and carried the laws guided themselves by -living facts rather than by _a priori_ reasoning. But it is also -impossible to resist the conclusion that at almost any time from -1783 onwards, until the Canadian Dominion came into being, there -was little to choose between the arguments for retaining a single -province, and those for constituting two provinces. In any case it -was inevitable that the provisions of the Act of 1791 should give -rise to new complications of various kinds; and apart from specific -questions, constitutional and otherwise, there were two very -practical difficulties which necessarily arose from the division of -the province of Quebec. The first was an Executive difficulty, of -which more will be said presently. From the date of the Act there -was increasingly divided authority in the Canadas. The second was a -financial difficulty arising from geographical conditions. One of -the two provinces had the keeping of the other, so far as regarded -access from and to the sea. - -[Sidenote: Financial difficulties between the two provinces.] - -As the line of division was drawn, Upper Canada, like the Transvaal -at the present day, was compelled to import all sea-borne articles -through territory under the administration of another government, -either through Lower Canada or through the United States. The -St. Lawrence being the high road of import and export, Lower -Canada commanded the trade of Upper Canada. Therefore, in order -to collect a customs revenue, it was necessary for the Upper -Province either to establish customs houses on the frontier of -Lower Canada--a measure which would probably have been ineffective -and would certainly have involved much inconvenience and expense, -or to come to some arrangement whereby a certain proportion of -the duties levied at Quebec, which was the port of entry of Lower -Canada, would be handed over to the administration of the Upper -Province. The latter course was taken, and in 1795, a provisional -arrangement was made, by which the proportion was fixed for the -time being at one-eighth. The record of what followed is a record -of perpetual friction, of commissions and temporary arrangements -confirmed by provincial Acts. It was suggested that the boundaries -of the provinces should be altered, and that Montreal should be -included in and be made the port of entry of Upper Canada, but -the suggestion was never carried into effect. As the population -of Upper Canada grew, the discontent increased. In 1818 one-fifth -of the duties was temporarily assigned to Upper Canada. Then a -complete deadlock ensued, which ended with the Imperial Canada -Trade Act of 1822. By arbitration under the terms of that Act the -proportion which Upper Canada was to receive was in 1824 raised to -one-fourth; and when Lord Durham reported, it was about two-fifths. -In his report Lord Durham referred to the matter as ‘a source of -great and increasing disputes’, which only came to an end when the -two provinces were once more united under the Imperial Act of 1840. - -[Sidenote: The position in Canada when the new Act came into force.] - -The Canada Act took effect on the 26th of December, 1791. Dorchester -was then in England, and Sir Alured Clarke, Lieutenant-Governor of -the province of Quebec under the old system and Commander of the -Forces in British North America, was acting for him. Under the new -Act Clarke was appointed Lieutenant-Governor of Lower Canada, while -the Lieutenant-Governorship of Upper Canada was conferred upon -Colonel Simcoe, both officers being subordinate to Dorchester as -Governor-in-Chief. Dorchester had left Canada on the 18th of August, -1791, and did not return till the 24th of September, 1793. His -prolonged absence was unfortunate in more ways than one. Technical -difficulties arose owing to the absence of the Governor-in-Chief, -for, as soon as the new Act came into force, Clarke’s authority was -confined by his commission to Lower Canada. The practical effect too -was that Simcoe started on his new charge with a free hand and found -it irksome, when Dorchester returned, to take a second place. Added -to this were the complications caused by the French declaration of -war against Great Britain in February, 1793, the hostilities between -the United States and the Indian tribes on the border land of -Canada, and the persistent and increasing bitterness in the United -States against Great Britain, caused partly by sympathy with the -French Revolution and the intrigues of French agents, and partly by -the British retention of the frontier forts and supposed British -sympathy with the Indians. - -However, the political arrangements in Canada were carried into -effect without any appreciable friction. Clarke, a man of judgement -and discretion, did not hurry matters in Lower Canada. He divided -the province into electoral districts, and summoned the Legislature -for its first session at Quebec on the 17th of December, 1792, -when the Act had been in force for nearly a year. The session then -lasted into May. Simcoe arrived at Quebec on the 11th of November, -1791; but, as no Executive Council had yet been constituted for -Upper Canada, he could not be sworn in as Lieutenant-Governor -and take up his duties until the following midsummer, Upper -Canada being in the meantime left without any governor or -lieutenant-governor. In July, 1792, he issued a proclamation at -Kingston, dividing Upper Canada into districts, and on the 17th of -September the new Legislature met for the first time at Newark, on -the Canadian side of the Niagara river, near where that river flows -into Lake Ontario. The Lieutenant-Governor fixed his head quarters -at ‘Navy Hall’, a building constructed in the late war for the use -of the officers of the naval department on Lake Ontario. It stood -by the water’s edge, nearly a mile higher up the river than Newark; -and on the bank above, in the war of 1812, covering the buildings -below, stood the historic Fort George. The session was a short -one, closing on the 15th of October, but important work was done. -English law and procedure, and trial by jury, were established, -while proposals for taxation and the state of the marriage law gave -a field for difference of opinion and debate. When the session was -over, Simcoe reported that he found the members of the Assembly -‘active and zealous for particular measures, which were soon shown -to be improper or futile’, and the Council ‘cautious and moderate, -a valuable check upon precipitate measures’.[205] - -[Sidenote: Simcoe.] - -John Graves Simcoe, the first Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, -was the son of a naval officer who died when serving under Admiral -Saunders in the fleet which helped to take Quebec. The son, who -derived his second name from another sailor, his godfather Admiral -Graves, was born in 1752. He was born in Northumberland, but after -his father’s death, his mother made her home in Devonshire. He was -educated at Exeter Grammar School, at Eton, and at Merton College, -Oxford, and he joined the army in 1771, when he was nineteen years -old. He served with much distinction in the War of Independence, in -which he commanded a Loyalist Corps, known as the Queen’s Rangers. -When the war ended, he held the rank of lieutenant-colonel. -After his return to England in bad health he spent some years at -his family home in Devonshire, he married, and in 1790 became a -member of Parliament, sitting for the borough of St. Mawes in -Cornwall. His Parliamentary career was very short, for in 1791, -before he was yet forty years of age, Pitt appointed him to be -Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada. He left Canada in 1796, and -soon after he reached England he was sent out as Governor to St. -Domingo. After a few months in the island, the state of his health -compelled him to come home. He became a lieutenant-general, and was -appointed to be Commander-in-Chief in India in succession to Lord -Lake, but he never took up the appointment. Prior to going out he -was sent to Lisbon in 1806 on a special mission, was taken ill, and -brought home to die. He died at Exeter in October, 1806. There is a -monument to him by Flaxman in Exeter Cathedral[206], and in Canada -his name is borne by Lake Simcoe. - -He was not only a good soldier, but a capable, vigorous, -public-spirited man, well suited in many ways to be the pioneer -governor of a new province. He was strong on questions of military -defence and a great road maker. He made Yonge Street, the road from -Toronto north to Lake Simcoe, called after Sir George Yonge then -Secretary of State for War and afterwards for a short time Governor -of the Cape; and he made Dundas Street, christened after the -Secretary of State for the Colonies, which then started from the -point on Lake Ontario where the city of Hamilton now stands and, -running west, connected with the river Thames. - -[Sidenote: York or Toronto.] - -[Sidenote: Simcoe’s views as to the seat of government for Upper -Canada.] - -Toronto owed much to him, but not under its present name. The name -Toronto had been borne in old times by Lake Simcoe, and on the -site of the present city of Toronto the French had in 1749[207] -built a fort, named Fort Rouillé. The place had come to be known -as Toronto, but in 1792[208] the new name of York came into vogue, -and in the autumn of the following year, 1793, Simcoe reported -that that name had been officially adopted ‘with due celebrity’, -in honour of the successful storming of the French camp at Famars -near Valenciennes by the force under the command of the Duke of -York on the 23rd of May, 1793. It was not until 1834, when the -city was incorporated, that the old name of Toronto was restored. -Simcoe wrote of Toronto Harbour as ‘the proper naval arsenal of -Lake Ontario’; but it was not here that he would have placed the -seat of government. Strongly convinced of the necessity of opening -communication between Lake Ontario and the upper lakes, without -making the long round by the waters of Lake Erie and the Straits -of Detroit, in 1793 he explored the peninsula between the three -lakes of Ontario, Erie and Huron; and on a river, running westward -into Lake St. Clair, known at that date as the La Tranche river and -afterwards as the Thames[209], a place which was christened London -and where there is now a city with 40,000 inhabitants, seemed to -him to be the most suitable site for the political centre of Upper -Canada. His view was that the seat of government should be inland, -presumably because it would be more central in respect to the three -lakes, and also because it would be further removed from the danger -of raids from the neighbouring territory of the then unfriendly -republic. It is interesting to note that, in a dispatch expressing -an opinion to the above effect, Simcoe added that sooner or later -the Canadas might be divided into three instead of two provinces -and Montreal be made the centre of an intermediate government. -Dorchester held, as against Simcoe, that Toronto should be the seat -of government, and his view prevailed. The Legislature of Upper -Canada met at Newark for the last time in May, 1796, shortly before -the fort of Niagara on the opposite side of the river was handed -over to the Americans,[210] and from 1797 onwards, Simcoe having -left in the meanwhile, it met at Toronto. - -[Sidenote: Friction between Dorchester and Simcoe.] - -Before Dorchester returned to take up again the duties of -Governor-in-Chief, Simcoe had formed definite views as to the -civil administration and the military defence of Upper Canada; -and it is not surprising that the keen, active-minded soldier and -administrator, who was little more than forty years of age, did -not on all points see eye to eye with the veteran governor now -verging on seventy; or that, when he differed, he was not inclined -to subordinate his opinions to those of Dorchester. Thus we find -Dorchester sending home correspondence with Simcoe with the blunt -remark that the enclosures turned on the question whether he was to -receive orders from Simcoe or Simcoe from him. In his long official -career Dorchester had been much tried. At the time of the War of -Independence, he had been badly treated by his employers in England -and had felt to the full the mischief and inconvenience caused -when those employers divided their confidence and communicated -with one subordinate officer and another, thereby encouraging -disloyalty and intrigue. The correspondence of these later years -points to the conclusion that the iron had entered into his soul -and that, with the weariness of age growing upon him, he had become -somewhat querulous, unduly apprehensive of loss of authority, and -over-sensitive to difference of opinion. There seems to have been -no love lost between him and Dundas, while the latter was Secretary -of State, but all through the last stage of his career the key-note -was dread of divided authority. - -[Sidenote: Dorchester’s views in favour of a Central Legislature -and a strong Executive.] - -We have seen that he had not favoured the policy of dividing the -province of Quebec into two provinces, and that he had shown -sympathy with Chief Justice Smith’s proposals for establishing a -general government for British North America. In the summer of -1793, after the Canada Act had come into force but while he was -still in England on leave, he raised again this question of a -central government for all the King’s provinces in British North -America, receiving an answer from Dundas to the effect that the -measure would require a new Act of Parliament and that in Dundas’ -opinion it would not add to the real strength or happiness of the -different provinces. After his return to Canada Dorchester took up -his text again, laying stress on the necessity of welding together -the different provinces. In existing conditions he saw a revival -of the system which had caused rebellion and the dismemberment -of the Empire. While the United States were pursuing a policy -of consolidation, the aim of the King’s Government seemed to be -to divide and sub-divide and form independent governments. All -power, he continued, was withdrawn from the Governor-General, and -instructions were sent directly from home to inferior officers, -so that the intermediate authority was virtually superseded. -Everything was favourable to insubordination, and the fruits of -it might be expected at an early season. This was in February -1795, when the governor was smarting under what he considered -to be unjust censure by the Home Government; and, though he -remained in Canada for some time longer, he continued to show, -by the tone of his dispatches, that he entirely disapproved of -the existing régime. In November, 1795, he wrote of ‘all command, -civil and military, being disorganized and without remedy’; in -the following May he wrote that ‘this unnatural disorder in our -political constitution, which alienates every servant of the Crown -from whoever administers the King’s Government, leaving only an -alternative still more dangerous, that of offending the mass of -the people, cannot fail to enervate all the powers of the British -Empire on this Continent’; and in June he wrote, that the old -colonial system was being strengthened with ruinous consequences. - -[Sidenote: Relations of the Governor-in-Chief and -Lieutenant-Governors.] - -It is not easy to decide how much ground there was for his -complaints. If the situation was difficult, the difficulty had -partly arisen from the bad custom, of which he had availed -himself, of allowing governors and other holders of posts in the -colonies to remain for an inordinate time at home while still -retaining office and receiving the pay attaching to it. At the -very time when he was most wanted in Canada to carry out the -division of the two provinces, and to make the central authority -of the Governor-in-Chief strongly felt from the first, he had -remained away for fully two years, thereby allowing the new -system to come into being and to make some progress before there -was any Governor-in-Chief on the spot. Coming out to Canada he -found the Lieutenant-Governors corresponding direct with the Home -Government, and it was hardly reasonable to insist that they -should be debarred from doing so, provided that, as the Duke of -Portland, who succeeded Dundas, pointed out, the Governor-in-Chief -was supplied with copies of the correspondence. An analogous case -is that of Australia at the present day. The governors of the -separate states correspond directly with the Colonial Office, -sending copies of important dispatches to the Governor-General -of the Commonwealth. Had Dorchester not been absent, when Simcoe -took up his appointment in Upper Canada, and had his mind not -been prejudiced by bitter memories of the days of Germain, it is -possible that friction might not have arisen. On the other hand -the limits of the authority of the Governor-in-Chief and of the -Lieutenant-Governors in the British North American provinces seem -not to have been clearly defined, with the result that, as years -went on, the Governor-in-Chief gradually became little more than -Governor of Lower Canada, and the Lieutenant-Governor of Upper -Canada became, in civil matters, governor of that province in all -but the name. When Lord Dalhousie was appointed Governor-in-Chief, -Sir Peregrine Maitland, then Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, -asked the Secretary of State for a ruling on the subject; and Lord -Bathurst’s answer, dated the 9th of February, 1821, was that ‘So -long as the Governor-in-Chief is not resident within the province -of Upper Canada, and does not take the oaths of office in Upper -Canada, he has no control whatever over any part of the civil -administration, nor are you bound to comply with his directions -or to communicate with him on any act of your civil government. -To His Majesty you are alone responsible for the conduct of the -civil administration’. If, on the other hand, the Governor-in-Chief -were to take up his residence in Upper Canada and be sworn into -office, the Secretary of State laid down that the functions of the -Lieutenant-Governor would be entirely suspended. By this date, -therefore, the two appointments had become exclusive of each other. -At a later date, when Lord Durham was going out to Canada, Lord -Glenelg, then Secretary of State, emphasized still more strongly -the independence of the Lieutenant-Governors. When sending Lord -Durham his commission, he wrote on the 3rd of April, 1838, of -the position which the Governor-General or Governor-in-Chief had -up to that date held in regard to the other provinces. ‘With the -title of Governor-General, he has, in fact, been Governor of -the province of Lower Canada only, and has been prohibited from -resorting to any of the other provinces, lest his presence should -supersede the authority of the respective Lieutenant-Governors, -to whose administration they have been confided.... Hitherto it -has not been the practice to carry on official correspondence -between the Governor-General and any of the Lieutenant-Governors. -The Governor-General and the Lieutenant-Governors have severally -conducted their separate administrations as separate and -independent authorities, addressing all their communications on -public affairs to the head of this department, and receiving from -the Secretary of State alone instructions for their guidance.’ -The result of dividing Canada into two provinces was necessarily -to create two governors. One was intended to be subordinate -to the other, but the subordination gradually became nominal -only. The political problems of Lower Canada were so difficult -and so important as to absorb the full time and attention of -the Governor-in-Chief; no railways or telegraphs facilitated -communication; and the British North American provinces, instead of -being controlled by a central executive authority, for good or evil -went their own way. - -[Sidenote: Dorchester’s opposition to fees and perquisites.] - -It has been seen that during Dorchester’s first government, he -had experienced no little difficulty in dealing with Livius, the -contumacious Chief Justice of Quebec. In the earlier period of his -second government, he had, on the contrary, a wise and loyal fellow -worker in Chief Justice Smith. Soon after the governor returned to -Canada for the last time, towards the end of 1793, Smith died and -his place was taken by Osgoode, the Chief Justice of Upper Canada, -who did not enjoy Dorchester’s confidence to the same extent as his -predecessor. But Osgoode’s appointment was made the occasion for -putting into practice a reform which Dorchester, to his lasting -honour, had urgently pressed upon the notice of the Imperial -Government, the abolition of fees and perquisites, and the payment -of judges and other public officers by adequate salaries alone. -Dorchester himself, when he first took up the government of Canada -in 1766, had refused to take the fees to which he was legally -entitled; and in the last years of his Canadian service he wrote on -this subject in no measured terms. In a dispatch dated the last day -of December, 1793, and written in connexion with the vacant chief -justiceship, he referred to the system of fees and perquisites -as one which ‘alienates every servant of the Crown from whoever -administers the King’s Government. This policy I consider as coeval -with His Majesty’s Governments in North America, and the cause -of their destruction. As its object was not public but private -advantage, so this principle has been pursued with diligence, -extending itself unnoticed, till all authority and influence of -government on this continent was overcome, and the governors -reduced almost to mere corresponding agents, unable to resist the -pecuniary speculations of gentlemen in office, their connexions -and associates’. He added that whatever tended to enfeeble the -Executive power in British North America tended to sever it for -ever from the Crown of Great Britain. Subsequent dispatches were -to the same effect. In June, 1795, he reported having disallowed -certain small claims by subordinate officers, expressed regret that -gentlemen in Britain should look to America for a reward for their -services, and laid down that officers should be paid sufficient -salaries to place them above pecuniary speculations in the -colonies. The next month he wrote in the same strain with reference -to the Customs officials and the collection of revenue: and a year -later he again insisted that such officers should not receive -indirect emoluments, that the local administration should not be -warped and made subservient to fees, profits, perquisites ‘and all -their dirty train’, and that the national interests should not -be sacrificed to gentlemen who possessed or were looking out for -good places for themselves and their connexions. Running through -the dispatches is insistence on the principle that the Executive -must be strong, that it can be strong only if the officers are -duly subordinate to the representative of the Crown, that loyal -subordination can only be produced by paying proper salaries and -abolishing perquisites, and that the loss of the old North American -colonies had been largely due to abuses which had lowered the -dignity and the authority of the Crown, alienating from it the -confidence and the affections of the people. - -[Sidenote: Dorchester criticized by Dundas for plain speaking as to -the Americans.] - -[Sidenote: War between the Americans and the Indians.] - -The censure, if censure it can be called, which Dundas had -passed on Dorchester, and which caused the latter to tender his -resignation, was connected with the attitude which Dorchester felt -it necessary to take up towards the United States after his return -to Canada in the autumn of 1793. The Treaty of 1783 had settled, or -purported to settle, the boundaries of Canada as against the United -States, but it had not settled the boundaries of the United States -as against the Indians, and the Indians manfully maintained their -right to the territory north of the Ohio river. In November, 1791, -an American force under General St. Clair, who had commanded at -Ticonderoga at the time of Burgoyne’s advance, was badly defeated -in the Miami country to the south-west of Lake Erie. The British -Government and the Canadian authorities made various efforts to -mediate between the contending parties, but the government of the -United States was not disposed to accept such mediation, though -British officers were asked to be present at conferences which were -held in the summer of 1793 between representatives of the various -Indian tribes and commissioners of the United States. No result -came from these negotiations, the Indians demanding that the Ohio -should be the boundary, the Americans definitely refusing to comply -with the demand, and in the following year fighting began again. - -[Sidenote: American sympathy with France.] - -[Sidenote: Genet, French minister to the United States.] - -The French Revolution had for some years been gathering strength. -In the autumn of 1792 France had been declared a Republic; and the -execution of the King on the 21st of January, 1793, was followed -on the 1st of February by a declaration of war against Great -Britain. The French also declared war against Spain, the power -which now held New Orleans and Louisiana west of the Mississippi. -The position in North America became at once very critical and -very dangerous. Popular feeling in the United States ran strongly -in favour of France. The Republicans of the New World were -enthusiastic for the people who had enabled them to gain their -independence and who, having put an end to monarchy in France, -were preparing to insist upon the adoption of a Republican system -elsewhere in Europe. Sympathy with France in the United States -implied enmity to England, and Thomas Jefferson, Washington’s -Secretary of State, was pronounced on the side of the French -alliance, representing the views of the Republican party as -opposed to the Federalists, the latter being headed by Alexander -Hamilton and Jay and supported by the unrivalled influence of -Washington himself. On the 22nd of April, 1793, Washington--with -popular feeling strongly against him in the matter--issued a -declaration of neutrality. At the same time, Genet, sent from -France as representative of the new Republic, reached Charleston. -With complete disregard of international law, which, when the -French Revolution was at its height, had largely lost its meaning, -Genet proceeded to make the United States a base for war against -Great Britain and Spain, fitting out privateers, sending agents -to Canada, planning a campaign against Louisiana. For some months -the popularity of his country and his cause, the unpopularity of -Great Britain, and the sympathy which Jefferson the Secretary of -State had with his views, enabled him, in Washington’s words, to -set the acts of the American Government at defiance with impunity -and to threaten the Executive with an appeal to the people; but -gradually Washington’s firmness and the Frenchman’s own outrageous -pretensions had due effect; and, before a year had passed, Genet -was, early in 1794, on the demand of the American Government, -replaced by another minister. - -[Sidenote: Danger of war between Great Britain and the United -States.] - -[Sidenote: Dorchester’s views.] - -It was while the bitterness of feeling against England in the -United States was most intense that Dorchester returned to Canada. -St. Clair had been replaced in command on the Ohio frontier by -General Anthony Wayne, a soldier who had proved his worth in -the War of Independence, a man of strong words and actions, and -war seemed to be imminent. ‘Soon after my return to America,’ -Dorchester wrote in the following year, ‘I perceived a very -different spirit’ (from that of the British Government) ‘animate -the United States, much heat and enmity, extraordinary exertions, -some open some covert, to inflame the passions of the people, all -things moving as by French impulse rapidly towards hostilities, -and the King’s Government of Lower Canada in danger of being -overwhelmed, so that I considered a rupture as inevitable.’ Yet, -as he said, he knew well that the British Government were anxious -to maintain friendship and peace with the United States; there -was no private inclination of his own to the contrary; nor, if -there was, had he any force in Canada to back his views. In a -previous dispatch, which was dated the 25th of October, 1793, -almost immediately after his return, after having pointed out the -likelihood of war and the necessity for reinforcements, he had -written, ‘The interests of the King’s American dominions require -peace, and I think the interests of the States require it still -more, though their conduct both to us and the Indians has created -many difficulties.’ He looked, he added, to a great future for the -States and for the white race generally in North America, but not -through war. ‘Not war, but a pure and impartial administration of -justice under a mild, firm and wise government will establish the -most powerful and wealthy people.’ - -[Sidenote: His firm attitude towards the United States.] - -[Sidenote: Protest of the American Government against Dorchester.] - -[Sidenote: Dorchester’s resignation.] - -Dorchester then was wholly averse to war; but being on the spot -he saw more clearly than ministers in England that, the people of -the United States being minded for war, want of preparation and -appearance of timidity on the British side were likely to bring it -on, that plain speaking and firm action might have a good effect. -Simcoe, who was responsible under him for the frontier of Upper -Canada, seems to have been of the same mind. Accordingly, in -replying to two Indian deputations, one in the autumn of 1793, the -other on the 10th of February, 1794, Dorchester took occasion to -speak out, condemning the aggression of the United States which, -he said, had nearly exhausted the patience of Great Britain, and -referring to war between the two nations as imminent. At the same -time, as a counterblast to Wayne’s advance in the Ohio territories, -and as an outpost in the case of a movement against Detroit, he -ordered a fort to be constructed and garrisoned on what were called -the Miami rapids on the Maumee river, south-west of Lake Erie, -near the site where a fort had been constructed and held during -the War of Independence. Copies, or what purported to be copies, -of the governor’s speeches, and reports of his action, reached the -American Government in due course, and Randolph, who had succeeded -Jefferson, protested, characterizing them as ‘hostility itself’. -In view of this protest Dundas, in July, 1794, by which time Jay, -Washington’s emissary of peace, had arrived in England, addressed -a mild remonstrance to Dorchester, expressing fear that what had -been said and done might rather provoke hostilities than prevent -them; and upon receipt of this dispatch in the following September -Dorchester tendered his resignation. The Duke of Portland, who -succeeded Dundas, was at pains to retain the old governor’s -services, but, though nearly two years intervened before Dorchester -actually left Canada, the correspondence which passed in the -interval showed his anxiety to be gone, now that the danger of war -between Great Britain and the United States had for the moment -passed away. - -[Sidenote: Jay’s treaty signed.] - -[Sidenote: The border forts transferred to the United States in -1796.] - -The most critical time was in the year 1794. In America the forces -which make for war were strongly in evidence. On the other side of -the Atlantic--to the lasting credit of both the British and the -American Governments--representatives of the two countries were -working hard for peace. In the spring of 1794 Washington nominated -John Jay, Chief Justice of the United States, to be a special -envoy to Great Britain with a view to settling, if possible, the -outstanding points of dispute between the two nations. The Senate -confirmed the nomination, and in June Jay reached England and -entered into negotiations with Lord Grenville. The result was that -on the 19th of November following Jay and Grenville signed the -well-known treaty which is associated with the American statesman’s -name, and which provided for an immediate or prospective settlement -of many if not of most of the questions at issue. The treaty -was bitterly attacked in the United States by the Republican -party and those who sympathized with France. Jay, Hamilton, even -Washington himself were denounced and reviled; but the government -had sufficient backing in the country to procure the assent of -the Senate to the terms of the treaty, with the exception of -one article, in the session of 1795; Washington ratified it in -August, 1795; and in the following year the measures for carrying -it into effect were voted by a small majority in the House of -Representatives. Under its provisions, in that same year, 1796, the -border forts were handed over to the United States. - -[Sidenote: Wayne defeats the Indians.] - -Meanwhile the war between the Americans and Indians ran the normal -course of such wars. The white men suffered some reverses; but, -with a strong body of regular troops supplemented by Kentucky -militia, and with the help of fortified posts constructed along -the line of advance, Wayne by August, 1794, had worn down the -Indians and menaced the British fort on the Maumee river, to whose -commandant, Major Campbell, he addressed threatening letters. -On either side, however, the orders were to abstain from blows, -while Jay and Grenville were negotiating, and the conclusion of -the treaty ensured the abandonment by the British troops of this -outpost of Detroit as well as of Detroit itself. Next year, on the -3rd of August, 1795, Wayne concluded the Treaty of Greenville with -the Western Indians. Under its terms the Americans advanced their -boundary beyond the Ohio, but still left to the Indians on the -south of Lake Erie and in the peninsula of Michigan lands of which -the treaty definitely recognized them to be owners, and where they -were to dwell under the protection of the United States. - -[Sidenote: Dorchester and Simcoe leave Canada.] - -In September, 1795, the Duke of Portland wrote to Lord -Dorchester telling him that General Prescott would be appointed -Lieutenant-Governor of Lower Canada and would leave for Canada in -the spring, so that Dorchester could suit his own convenience as -to returning to England. At the same time the Secretary of State -repeated his regret that Dorchester had determined to retire. -Prescott arrived on the 18th of June, 1796, and on the 9th of July -Dorchester embarked for England. His ship was wrecked on the shore -of Anticosti island, but he reached England in safety in September, -and died in a good old age in the autumn of 1808. Simcoe, in the -meantime, had, in December, 1795, applied for leave of absence on -account of ill health, suggesting that Peter Russell, the senior -councillor, should in his absence administer the government of -Upper Canada, and tendering his resignation if the leave could not -be granted. His wish was complied with, and, after being detained -for some time at Quebec, he came back with the returning ships -of the autumn convoy and was in London in 1796, two months after -Dorchester’s arrival. Canada saw him no more, and, as has been -told, he died at a comparatively early age, outlived by the old -Governor-in-Chief whose control had fretted his impetuous spirit. - -[Sidenote: Lord Dorchester’s services to Great Britain and Canada.] - -In the colonial history of Great Britain Lord Dorchester’s place is -or ought to be second to none. Men should be measured by the times -in which they live, the lands in which they serve, the conditions -which they are called upon to face. It did not fall to Carleton’s -lot to be borne on the flowing tide of British victories, to be -a leader in successful wars, to be remembered as one who struck -down England’s foes and added provinces to her empire. Nor was it -given to him to bear rule in times of settled peace, when wisdom -and statesmanship are called on to gather in and store the harvest, -to consolidate, to develop, to reform, to enrich, to give security -and beneficent measures to trusting and expectant multitudes -of the human race. Providence set the span of his active life -while his country’s fortunes were running out on the ebb-tide of -adversity; his public services were coincident with Great Britain’s -depression; and the part of the Empire in which he served was the -scene of her defeats. No men of good English type cheered and -supported him at home, the patriotism which inspired his life was -unknown alike to the ministers who preceded William Pitt and to an -Opposition which, as embodied in Fox, lost all sense of proportion, -and almost all sense of duty, or principle. Yet he held Quebec and -saved Canada. Men turned to him to gather up the fragments after -the War of Independence; and he reconciled French Canada to British -rule and held the balance even between conflicting races and -creeds. Open warfare, political intrigue, in every form and from -every quarter, from without and from within, beset his path. Those -he served and those by whom he was served were in turn disloyal -to him. Colonial questions, such as in times of profound peace -and goodwill, and after generations of experience, are yet almost -insoluble, confronted him, without precedent, without guidance, -in their most uncompromising form. He faced them, and through -all the mire and mud in which England and English civilians and -soldiers and sailors wallowed in these miserable years, he carried -one name at any rate which stood for dignity, uprightness, and -firm prescient statesmanship. It is not to the credit of English -memories or English perception that his name has outside Canada -passed into comparative oblivion. If ever a man had temptation -to despair of or be untrue to his country, and if ever a man’s -character and work redeemed his country and his country’s cause in -unworthy times, that man was Carleton. - -A great figure in the colonial history of Great Britain as a whole, -in the history of Canada he is very great indeed. His character is -poles apart from that of old Count Frontenac, and yet he filled -in some sort a similar place. Both were soldier-governors; both -came back to rule a second time; in either case the individual -personality of a firm masterful man was the saving feature of -a time of life and death for the colony. Carleton had none of -Frontenac’s ruthlessness and arrogance, he had not his French -quick wit; but either man in his turn, the one at the end of the -seventeenth century, the other towards the end of the eighteenth, -was in the fullest sense the saviour of Canada. - -[Sidenote: General Prescott succeeds Dorchester.] - -Dorchester did not actually cease to be Governor-in-Chief of -Canada until the end of April, 1797, some months after his return -to England. He was then succeeded in the office by Prescott, who -in the meantime had been Lieutenant-Governor of Lower Canada -and Commander-in-Chief of the British forces in North America, -having been sworn in at Quebec on the 12th of July, 1796. Robert -Prescott, of Lancashire descent, was an old man when he was sent -to Canada. Born in 1725, he was seventy-one years of age, only -one year younger than Dorchester. He was a Lieutenant-General in -the army and had seen much fighting, principally in North America -and the West Indies. He had served under Amherst and Wolfe, at -Louisbourg and Quebec. He had fought in the War of American -Independence and been present at the battle of Brandywine. In 1794 -he was in command of the force which took Martinique from the -French and, as civil governor of the island, he earned the goodwill -of French and natives alike by his tact and humanity.[211] Thus he -had a good record when he was chosen to succeed Lord Dorchester, -and, though his rule in Canada was short and stormy, when he left, -there was abundant evidence of his popularity. - -[Sidenote: Intrigues of the French minister in the United States -against Canada.] - -Before his arrival in 1796, and at the time, Adet the French -minister in the United States, was making mischief like his -predecessor Genet, intriguing against Washington’s policy of strict -neutrality as between France and Great Britain, and almost openly -inciting the French Canadians to revolt. He over-reached himself, -however, by supporting Jefferson’s candidature for the Presidency -of the United States in succession to Washington, with the result -that he was recalled. Jefferson’s opponent, John Adams, was elected -President; and the feeling between France and the United States -became strained to the verge of war between the two nations. The -French designs on Canada came to nothing. A man named Maclane, said -to have been of weak intellect, was executed for high treason at -Quebec, and a vessel was seized containing arms, ostensibly for the -state of Vermont, but, as the evidence seemed to show, designed for -use in a raid from Vermont on Canada. There was no actual danger, -but there was anxiety and unrest. England was at war with France; -Lower Canada was the child of France; the United States contained -a strong and very bitter anti-English party; and the armed forces -in Canada were almost a negligible quantity. At this same critical -time Prescott became involved in a quarrel with his Executive -Council over the land question. - -[Sidenote: The land question in Canada. Prescott quarrels with his -Executive Council.] - -A proclamation advertising Crown lands for settlement in Canada, -which was issued in 1792, had called forth a large number of -applications. Surveys had not kept pace with the demand for -allotments, and the result had been that many applicants whose -petitions had been entertained had not actually taken up any land, -while others had settled and occupied land without having any legal -title. As is usual in such cases, land-jobbing was prevalent; and -Prescott, according to his own account, was at pains at once to -frustrate ‘great schemes for accumulating land on principles of -monopoly and speculation’, and to raise the fund which the Imperial -Government had hoped to derive from this source for defraying in -part the cost of civil administration. Prescott’s view, it would -seem, was that those who had actually become occupiers and begun -the work of settlement, should be confirmed in their lands in -full; that, where applications had been recorded but no work done, -the allotments should only be confirmed in part; that purchasers -of claims should be dealt with on their merits, and that, the -outstanding claims having been disposed of, the lands, with the -exception of reserves for the Crown and the clergy, should be -put up for sale at public auction. His Council strongly opposed -him, on the ground that he was giving preference to those who had -occupied land without having been granted any legal title, and that -public sale would bring in a crowd of interlopers from the United -States who would take up the land to the exclusion of Loyalists -who had the first claim on the British Government. Prescott formed -the view, rightly or wrongly, that various members of the Council -were concerned in land-jobbing, and he held that public sale was -the only real preventive of speculation. ‘Industrious farmers,’ -he wrote, ‘who would wish to obtain a grant for the purpose of -actual settlement, but who cannot spend their time in tedious -solicitation, stand little chance of obtaining it, compared with -speculators who can devote their time to the attainment of this -object. By disposing of the land at public sale, industrious -farmers would have an equal chance with any other competitor.’ - -[Sidenote: Benedict Arnold’s claims.] - -[Sidenote: Prescott recalled.] - -[Sidenote: Milnes and Hunter appointed Lieutenant-Governors of -Lower and Upper Canada respectively.] - -The case of Benedict Arnold, though it did not apparently enter -into the controversy, as he was in England at the time, illustrates -the extravagant claims which were put forward to land grants in -Canada. At the beginning of 1797 he wrote to the Duke of Portland, -calling attention to the sacrifices which he had made for the -British Government, and asking for a reward in the shape of a -grant of lands in Canada. A year later he defined his demand. He -stated that the usual grant was 5,000 acres to each field officer -and 1,200 acres for every member of his family; in his own case, -therefore, as his family consisted of a wife, six sons and a -daughter, the total would amount to 14,600 acres; but, as he -had raised and commanded what he called a legion of cavalry and -infantry, he considered that he himself was entitled to 10,000 -acres instead of 5,000, making up the total to 19,600 acres. Even -this amount he had amplified in a previous petition to the King, -and he wished to be allowed to select the land where he pleased and -not to be compelled to reside upon it personally. - -If Arnold’s claims were at all typical of others, it is not to be -wondered at that Prescott took a strong line on the land question, -with a view to putting a stop to speculation. The controversy -which arose between himself and his Council was embittered by -the course which he adopted of making public their proceedings. -Chief Justice Osgoode and other members of the Council ranged -themselves in opposition to him; and the state of feeling was well -summed up in the words of a correspondent, writing from Quebec in -August, 1798, that the Council must either get a new governor or -the governor a new Council. The Duke of Portland, Secretary of -State, preferred the former alternative. On the 10th of April, -1799, he ordered Prescott home. Robert Shore Milnes was sent out -as Lieutenant-Governor of Lower Canada, and General Hunter as -Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada. They reached Quebec on the -13th of June, and on the 29th of July Prescott sailed for England, -having received before he left addresses of confidence from all -classes, British and French residents combining to pay honour to -him, as a man, who, whatever his faults may have been, had won the -respect and esteem of the people. By the evil custom of those days, -though recalled from Canada, he was allowed to retain for years in -England the office of Governor-General and to receive the pay. - -[Sidenote: Close of the eighteenth century.] - -Thus the eighteenth century came to an end, that memorable century, -in all parts of the world fruitful alike for good and for evil to -the British Empire, but nowhere so fruitful as in North America. -It had seen New France severed from its motherland. It had seen -the rival British colonies severed from Great Britain. It had seen -the beginnings of an English province in Canada side by side with -the French, and the grant of the first instalment of political -privileges to Canadians of either race. The maritime provinces, -when the century closed, were four in number, Nova Scotia, New -Brunswick, which owed its separate existence to the incoming of the -Loyalists, Cape Breton, which was later to be incorporated with -Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island. The North-West was beginning -to be a factor in Canadian history, and the exclusive power of -the Hudson’s Bay Company in these regions was challenged by the -formation of the North-West Company. Canada was still the land of -the St. Lawrence and the great lakes, but light was breaking into -the limitless area beyond, and as men’s visions widened, there came -more movement and more unrest. - -[Sidenote: Milnes’ views as to strengthening the Executive.] - -[Sidenote: Independence of the Canadian habitants.] - -[Sidenote: Decay of the Canadian aristocracy.] - -We have no regular census of the two Canadas between the year 1790, -when there was an imperfect enumeration of the inhabitants of the -then undivided province, and the years 1824-5; but in 1800 the -Lieutenant-Governor estimated the population of Lower Canada at -160,000, while in 1806 an estimate of 250,000 is given from another -source, the population of Upper Canada in the same year being -estimated at 70,000. That at the end of the century Lower Canada -was politically and socially in a state of transition is shown by -an interesting dispatch from Milnes written on the 1st of November, -1800,[212] in which, like his predecessors, he laid stress on the -necessity for taking steps to strengthen the Executive Government. -He pointed out causes which in his opinion united ‘in daily -lessening the power and influence of the Aristocratical Body in -Lower Canada’; and, curiously enough, he considered the first and -most important of these to be the manner in which the province -was originally settled, and the independent tenure by which the -cultivators or habitants held their lands. The feudal system had -been introduced with a view to keeping the colonists in leading -strings, and reproducing in the New World a form of society based -upon the fundamental principle of a landed aristocracy. Yet -this English governor wrote of the habitants at the end of the -eighteenth century, that ‘there cannot be a more independent race -of people, nor do I believe there is in any part of the world a -country in which equality of situation is so nearly established’. -The land had passed into the hands of the peasants from those of -the seigniors, who retained only the old-time privileges of a -trifling rent, taking a fourteenth of the corn which the habitants -were still bound to grind at the seigniors’ mills, and a twelfth of -the purchase-money when lands were transferred. The seigniors, the -dispatch stated, showed no disposition to enter into trade; their -position had in many instances sunk below that of their vassals; -and, taken as a whole, the Canadian gentry had nearly become -extinct. - -[Sidenote: Independence of the Roman Catholic Church.] - -The second cause to which Milnes attributed the weakness of the -government was ‘the prevalence of the Roman Catholic religion and -the independence of the priesthood’. The Royal Instructions were -that no one should be admitted to Holy Orders or have the Cure of -Souls without first obtaining a licence from the governor; but the -instructions had not been enforced, and the whole patronage of the -Roman Catholic Church had passed into the hands of the bishops, -with the result that the power of the priests over the people was -entirely independent of the government. This evil Milnes proposed -to remedy by increasing the emoluments which the head of the Roman -Catholic Church in Canada received from government funds, on -condition that the rule requiring the governor’s licences for the -parish priests was strictly observed in future. - -[Sidenote: Disuse of the militia.] - -The third cause which was mentioned as tending to lessen the -influence of the government, was the practical disembodiment of the -militia since Canada had passed under British rule. Under the old -French dominion the government had made itself felt in the various -parishes through the captains of militia and the parish priests, -and the captains of militia had been employed to issue and enforce -the public ordinances. They were, Milnes wrote, chosen from among -the most respectable of the habitants; and though the militia had -not been called out for years past and he did not propose to call -it out, the captains of militia were still in existence and the -government availed itself of their honorary services on public -occasions. He suggested that they should be given some salary or -distinction so that they might consider themselves to be ‘the -immediate officers of the Crown’; and thus he hoped to keep up the -spirit of loyalty among the Canadian people, which ‘for want of an -immediate class to whom they can look up, and from their having -no immediate connexion with the Executive power, is in danger of -becoming extinct’.[213] By attaching to the government the parish -priests and the captains of militia, it might be possible to ensure -a government majority in the House of Assembly and to secure the -election of educated and businesslike representatives, whereas -the main body of the Canadian habitants were, ‘from their want of -education and extreme simplicity, liable to be misled by designing -and artful men’. - -[Sidenote: The Crown Lands.] - -These proposals the Lieutenant-Governor regarded as temporary -remedies. For the future, he looked to increasing the influence -of the Crown by means of the revenue from waste lands, and the -settlement of those lands by ‘a body of people of the Protestant -religion that will naturally feel themselves more immediately -connected with the English Government’. In the mind of Milnes, as -in that of Dorchester, there was a fixed conviction that matters -were tending to democracy, as democracy had shown itself in the -adjoining republic; that such democracy meant disintegration; that -the influence of the Crown and of the Executive Government was -declining and would continue to decline, unless measures were taken -to counteract the evil. He held to the doctrine that well-wishers -of the government should think it matter for congratulation that -there was an annual deficit on the budget of Lower Canada,[214] -which made the province dependent upon the Imperial Government. - -[Sidenote: The close of the eighteenth century was for Canada a -time of transition and division.] - -The records of the time show that in every respect the close of -the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century was -for Canada a time of division and a time of change, though not -yet of dangerous bitterness. There were two provinces instead of -one. There were two Lieutenant-Governors, independent of each -other, while the Governor-in-Chief, recalled to England, was -still holding his post and drawing his pay. There were elected -Assemblies, to which the Executive was not responsible, and the -new century opened in Upper Canada with a complaint that the -Lieutenant-Governor had spent money raised from the taxes without -previously obtaining a vote of the Legislature. There was a -suggestion of difficulties arising from the fact that military and -civil authority for the time was divided. An interesting anonymous -letter written from Quebec on the 28th of July, 1806, and signed -‘Mercator’, called attention to this point, alleging that, since -Prescott’s recall in 1799, Lower Canada had languished owing to the -fact that civil and military powers were not in the same hands. The -result, in the writer’s opinion, was jealousy between the civil and -military departments, weakening of the energy of government and -loss of dignity. ‘The Canadians’ he wrote, ‘a military people and -always accustomed to a military government, hold not in sufficient -estimation a person placed at the head of affairs who does not at -the same time command the troops.’[215] - -There was again undoubted division between the Judicial and the -Executive power. Chief Justice Osgoode in Lower Canada was not at -one with either Dorchester, Prescott, or Milnes; while in Upper -Canada, in the years 1806-7, a judge of the name of Thorpe became -a member of the elected Assembly and was so outrageous in his -opposition to the government that he was by Lord Castlereagh’s -instructions suspended from his office. The Church of England -bishop found cause to deplore the overshadowing pretensions of -the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic dignitaries, on the -other hand, asked for formal recognition of their position by -the civil government. There was a movement, strongly advocated -by the Church of England bishop, for more and better education, -both primary and secondary, so that the French Canadian children -might learn English, and the children of the upper classes might -be educated without being sent to Europe or to the United States. -The Secretary of State authorized free schools on the express -condition that English should be taught in them, and directed -that part of the Crown Lands revenues should be set aside for the -purpose. There was also a strong feeling that the Jesuit estates, -which long ago had been granted by the King to Lord Amherst but -had never been handed over to him, should be applied to education. -But no general system of state education was established--probably -owing to Roman Catholic feeling; and, as against the proposal to -teach English to the coming generation, there came into being in -1806 a French Canadian newspaper, _Le Canadien_, with the motto, -‘Nos institutions, notre langue et nos lois.’ Nothing in short was -settled in Canada. Once more it was to be shown that pressure from -without was necessary to produce full co-operation within; and, -badly equipped as the two provinces were with means of defence, war -was yet to be to them a blessing in disguise, as bringing them a -step further on the path of national development. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[189] In the interval the government was administered (i) from -the date of Haldimand’s departure till November 2, 1785, by Henry -Hamilton; (ii) from the latter date till Dorchester’s arrival, by -Colonel Hope. The command of the troops was at first separated from -the acting governorship, and placed in the hands of St. Leger. -Hamilton, who during the war had come into notice as having been in -command of the expedition to the Illinois posts in 1779, when he -was taken prisoner by George Rogers Clark, subsequently proved to -be unfit to act as governor, and was summarily recalled. - -[190] The Commission given to Carleton as Governor-in-Chief of Nova -Scotia constituted him also Governor-in-Chief of the islands of St. -John (now Prince Edward Island) and Cape Breton; but, though the -terms of the Commission are not very clear, those two islands were -at the time separate both from Nova Scotia and from each other. - -[191] See the _Parliamentary History_, vol. xxvi, pp. 190-5. - -[192] See the _Censuses of Canada_ 1665-1871, given in the -fourth volume of the _Census of Canada_, 1870-1, published in -1876. Introduction pp. xxxviii-xliii, and p. 74. On p. 74 is the -following note: ‘The number of settlers of British origin then -in Lower Canada was estimated at 15,000 souls. The United Empire -Loyalists settled in Canada West, not enumerated in this census, -were estimated at 10,000 souls.’ On p. xxxviii, under the year -1784, it is stated: - -‘There were at that time (1784) in Upper Canada about 10,000 United -Empire Loyalists, according to a memorandum contained in the -Appendices of the _House of Assembly of Upper Canada_ for 1823. -These 10,000 are not included in the preceding census. - -‘1784 British population of Nova Scotia, including Cape Breton and -the mainland, estimated at 32,000 souls, having been increased by -the arrival of about 20,000 United Empire Loyalists (Haliburton, -_Nova Scotia_, vol. ii, p. 275). This estimate of the population of -Nova Scotia, which still included New Brunswick and Cape Breton, -cannot include the Acadians, who then numbered in all about 11,000.’ - -For the numbers of the United Empire Loyalists, see last chapter. -The figures relating to this time are, in most cases, probably -little more than guesswork. - -[193] When the office of Secretary of State for the American -Department was abolished by Burke’s Act of 1782, colonial matters -were placed under the Secretary of State for the Home Department. -This office was in 1787 held by Lord Sydney, who was succeeded by -W. W. Grenville, youngest son of George Grenville, and afterwards -Lord Grenville. When Grenville was raised to the peerage and became -Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he was succeeded in the -Home and Colonies Department by Dundas, afterwards Lord Melville, -and Dundas was succeeded by the Duke of Portland. - -[194] See above, pp. 105-6. - -[195] See above, pp. 88 (note) and 193. - -[196] For these petitions see Mr. Brymner’s _Introductory Report on -Canadian Archives_, 1890, pp. xxi-ii and pp. 146, 150, 157 of the -Calendar, and see Shortt and Doughty, _Documents Relating to the -Constitutional History of Canada_, pp. 502-5, 524-7. - -[197] See Shortt and Doughty, pp. 520-4 and notes; and Debrett’s -_Parliamentary Debates_, vol. xx (1786), pp. 132-49. The statement -that two years had passed since the petition was presented was not -strictly correct, as the petition was dated November 24, 1784. - -[198] See Shortt and Doughty, p. 652, note, and Debrett’s -_Parliamentary Debates_, vol. xxiii (1787-8), pp. 684-707. - -[199] In 1789, Hugh Finlay, Postmaster-General of the province and -member of council, wrote suggesting that ‘We might make the people -entirely English by introducing the English language. This is to be -done by free schools, and by ordaining that all suits in our courts -shall be carried on in English after a certain number of years’. -See Shortt and Doughty, p. 657. He anticipated to some extent Lord -Durham’s views. - -[200] The correspondence is given in full in Mr. Brymner’s _Report -on Canadian Archives_ for 1890, Note B, p. 10. See also Shortt -and Doughty, _Documents Relating to the Constitutional History of -Canada_, 1759-91, and Egerton and Grant, _Canadian Constitutional -Developments_. - -[201] Compare the very similar language used by Carleton in a -private memorandum written in 1786 and quoted in note 3, p. 551, -Shortt and Doughty. - -[202] No. 46 in ‘Papers relative to the province of Quebec ordered -to be printed April 21, 1791’. The Order in Council is referred -to in Lord Dorchester’s Commission as having been made on August -19, 1791; but that was the date on which the report was made upon -which the Order was based. The boundary line sketched out in the -Parliamentary Paper, and adopted almost word for word in the Order -in Council, was again adopted by Sec. 6 of the British North -America Act of 1867, when the Dominion was formed and the provinces -of Ontario and Quebec, i.e. Upper and Lower Canada, were, after -having been re-united by the Act of 1840, again separated from each -other. - -[203] 18 Geo. III, cap. 12: ‘An Act for removing all doubts and -apprehensions concerning taxation by the Parliament of Great -Britain in any of the colonies, provinces, and plantations in North -America and the West Indies, &c.’ The preamble ran as follows: -‘Whereas taxation by the Parliament of Great Britain, for the -purpose of raising a revenue in H.M.’s colonies, provinces and -plantations in North America, has been found by experience to -occasion great uneasiness and disorders among H.M.’s faithful -subjects, who may nevertheless be disposed to acknowledge the -justice of contributing to the common defence of the Empire, -provided such contribution should be raised under the authority of -the general court or general assembly of each respective colony.’ - -[204] The above statement represents the general effect and -intent of the Act, but a long and complicated controversy arose -subsequently as to the disposal of the taxes raised under the -Imperial Act of 1774 (14 Geo. III, cap. 88), ‘to establish a fund -towards further defraying the charges of the Administration of -Justice and support of the Civil Government within the Province -of Quebec in America.’ It was contended that the effect of the -Declaratory Act of 1778, together with the Constitution Act of -1791, was to hand over the proceeds of these taxes to be disposed -of by the provincial legislatures. The contention had no real -basis, and the Law officers of the Crown reported it to be -unfounded, but eventually, by an Act of 1831 (1 and 2 Will. IV, -cap. 23), the legislatures of the two Canadas were empowered to -appropriate the revenues in question. - -[205] _Report on Canadian Archives_, 1891; _State Papers, Upper -Canada_, p. 16. - -[206] The monument is in the North Choir aisle. The inscription -runs as follows: - -‘Sacred to the memory of John Graves Simcoe, Lieutenant-General in -the army and Colonel of the 22nd regiment of Foot, who died on the -26th day of October, 1806, aged 54, in whose life and character -the virtues of the Hero, the Patriot, and the Christian were so -eminently conspicuous that it may be justly said he served his King -and his country with a zeal exceeded only by his piety towards his -God. - -‘During the erection of this monument, his eldest son, Francis -Gwillim Simcoe, lieutenant of the 27th regiment of Foot, born at -Wolford Lodge in this county, June 6, 1791, fell in the breach at -the siege of Badajoz, April 6, 1812, in the 21st year of his age.’ - -[207] See vol. v, part 1, of the _Historical Geography of the -British Colonies_, p. 196 and note. - -[208] Bouchette wrote of York or Toronto in 1815: ‘In the year -1793, the spot on which it stands presented only one solitary -Indian wigwam; in the ensuing spring the ground for the future -metropolis of Upper Canada was fixed upon, and the buildings -commenced under the immediate superintendence of the late General -Simcoe, then Lieutenant-Governor.’ _A Topographical description of -the Province of Lower Canada, with remarks upon Upper Canada, &c._, -by Joseph Bouchette, Surveyor-General of Lower Canada (1st ed.), -London, 1815, pp. 607-8. - -According to this account, therefore, the building did not begin -till 1794. - -[209] The name of the Thames had been previously for a short time -given to another Canadian river, the Gananoque. See Shortt and -Doughty, p. 651 and note. - -[210] Writing in February, 1796, Simcoe stated that the Legislature -would meet at Niagara (Newark) on May 7, but that he proposed to -dissolve the House of Assembly before the fort was evacuated. - -[211] Similarly Sir George Prevost was very popular in St. Lucia -when he was commandant and governor in that island, 1798-1802. - -[212] This dispatch is printed on pp. 111-21 of _Canadian -Constitutional Development_ (Grant and Egerton). - -[213] Cp. the similar views expressed by Carleton at an earlier -date. See pp. 91-4 above. - -[214] The average annual revenue of Lower Canada for the five -years 1795-9 inclusive was calculated at £13,000, p. a., of which -only £1,500 was derived from Crown Lands, and the average annual -expenditure at £25,000, leaving an annual deficit of £12,000. - -[215] Brymner’s _Report on Canadian Archives_ for 1892, Calendar -and Introduction, p. vi. Cp. Murray’s views as given on p. 67 -above, note. - - - - -CHAPTER VI - -SIR JAMES CRAIG - - -[Sidenote: Changes in administration.] - -As has been told in the last chapter, Milnes and Hunter, -Lieutenant-Governors of Lower and Upper Canada respectively, -took up their appointments in the summer of 1799 when the -Governor-General Prescott was recalled to England. General -Hunter was not only Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada but also -Commander of the Forces in both provinces. These two men held -their appointments for six years, until August, 1805. On the 5th -of that month Milnes, who was by this time a baronet, Sir Robert -Shore Milnes,[216] left for England on leave of absence, and on -the 21st of the month General Hunter died at Quebec. For the time -being, two civilians acted as Lieutenant-Governors, Thomas Dunn, -senior Executive Councillor at Quebec, acting in Lower Canada, and -Alexander Grant acting in Upper Canada. Milnes remained on leave of -absence in England and drew his salary for over three years. A new -Lieutenant-Governor of Lower Canada was then appointed, who in his -turn also remained in England for many years and received pay in -respect of an office the duties of which he did not perform.[217] - -[Sidenote: Evils of absenteeism.] - -Thus it resulted that, at a very critical time, two provinces of -the British Empire, whose conditions were specially critical, were -left without a Governor-General, without Lieutenant-Governors, -and without a regular Commander of the Forces, while two men, one -holding the office of Governor-General of the two Canadas and the -other holding the office of Lieutenant-Governor of Lower Canada, -were spending their time and drawing their pay in England. We have -learnt something in the last hundred years, in regard to colonial -administration, and it is now difficult to appreciate a state of -public morality which showed so much indifference to the interests -of the colonies, so much acquiescence in sinecures, and so much -readiness on the part of capable and honourable public officers -to take pay without doing the work to which the pay was nominally -attached. But the fact that such things took place, affords a very -simple explanation of the difficulties which had already arisen and -which subsequently arose in the history of European colonization -between a mother country and her colonies. Men could put two and -two together in those days as in ours. If colonists saw the rulers -of the ruling land treating high offices in the colony as a matter -of individual profit and public indifference, they could only come -to the conclusion that they had better take care of themselves; -and if the answer came that governors and lieutenant-governors -were paid not by the colony but by the mother country, then the -colonists must needs have concluded that they themselves would -prefer to find the money and to have the money’s worth. This may -well have been in the minds of the members of the elected Assembly -in Lower Canada when, at a little later date, in 1810, they passed -uninvited a resolution that the province shall pay the cost of -the civil government, a resolution of which more was heard in the -course of the long constitutional struggle. - -[Sidenote: External dangers which threatened Canada at the -beginning of the nineteenth century.] - -[Sidenote: Hostility of France to Great Britain.] - -What made for keeping up the connexion with the mother country -was not so much what the mother country did for the colonies in -peace, as the need which the colonies had for the mother country -in case of war. An attempt has been made in the preceding chapters -of this book to show that good fortune has attended Canada in her -development into a nation. The conquest by Great Britain tended to -this end, so did the loss by Great Britain of the provinces which -now form the United States. At the beginning of the nineteenth -century the cloud of war hung over Canada, but still her good -fortune did not desert her. There was perpetual danger from two -quarters, from France and from the United States. With France -Canada, as being part of the British Empire, was nominally at open -war throughout the closing years of the eighteenth and the early -years of the nineteenth century, except for the very short interval -which followed the conclusion of the Peace of Amiens in 1802; but -it is noteworthy how the political complications inured to the -preservation of Canada as a British possession. France and the -United States had strong bonds of sympathy. To French intervention -the United States largely owed their independence. Having parted -with their monarchy, the French were more attractive than before -to the citizens of the American republic; and in the days of the -American revolutionary war Congress had pledged itself to defend -for ever the French possessions in America. The bulk of the -Canadians, French in race, tradition, language and religion, might -well be expected to be French in sympathies. How great then might -have seemed the probability that England in war with France would -lose Canada? It was no wonder that such incidents as a visit of -Jerome Bonaparte to the United States caused uneasiness, or again -that a report was spread that Moreau, the French republican general -then living in exile in America, was likely to lead an invasion of -Canada. - -[Sidenote: French Canadians not in sympathy with the French -Revolution.] - -But, as a matter of fact, neither were the Canadians inclined -to return to their French allegiance nor were the people of the -United States in the least likely to permit France to regain -Canada. The Canadians had known forty years of British rule, clean -and just in comparison with what had gone before, and the France -which would reclaim them was widely different from the France to -which they had once belonged. The King was gone; religion was at -a discount; Canadian sympathies, at any rate in the earlier years -of the revolutionary wars, were rather with Royalist _emigrés_ -than with the national armies who went on from victory to victory. -Above all antipathy to the United States, without whose abetting -or connivance, no French projects for regaining Canada could -have effect, tended to keep the Canadians firm in their British -allegiance. Thus the news of the victory of Trafalgar was welcomed -in Canada. - -[Sidenote: The United States not disposed to allow the French to -regain Canada.] - -Nor again were the Americans, however well disposed to France, in -any way or at any time minded to enable her to regain her lost -possessions in North America. A Canadian who had left Canada for -France when Canada was annexed by Great Britain, wrote, before the -conclusion of the Peace of Amiens, expressing the hope that Canada -would be regained by France. He regarded Canada, from the French -point of view, ‘as a colony essential to trade and as an outlet for -merchandize and men’; and he wrote that, if restored to France, -it ‘would constantly furnish the means of speculation which would -improve the future of the citizens whom war and revolution have -reduced to wretchedness’.[218] The words read as those of a man who -had known and still sighed for the days of the old French régime -in Canada, when men grew rich by illicit traffic; but, apart from -the views of individuals, there is no doubt that, as the eighteenth -century closed, France and the French people, after the wars of -the Revolution, with their power consolidated at home, were in the -stage of development favourable to colonial expansion, and mindful -of possessions beyond the seas which had once been French but were -French no longer. - -[Sidenote: Napoleon’s views as to St. Domingo and Louisiana.] - -[Sidenote: Abandonment of his American schemes.] - -Napoleon, as writers have shown, in negotiating for and concluding -the Peace of Amiens which gave him respite from the sea power of -Great Britain, had in view the reconquest of St. Domingo where -Toussaint L’Ouverture had secured practical independence, and the -recovery of Louisiana. By secret bargain with Spain in 1800, he had -secured the retrocession of Louisiana; and, had the arrangement -been carried out and the French power been firmly planted again at -New Orleans and on the Mississippi, a new impetus and a new motive -would have been given for French designs on Canada. But the losses -in the St. Domingo campaigns were heavy, and in regard to Louisiana -Napoleon had to reckon with the American people. Realizing that his -policy, if persisted in, would draw the United States away from -France and towards Great Britain, he came, with some suddenness, to -the conclusion that the game was not worth the candle, and selling -in 1803 to the United States the great territory on the line of -the Mississippi which after all was not his to sell, he put an end -for ever to French aspirations for recovering their North American -dominions. - -[Sidenote: Danger to Canada from the United States.] - -Napoleon’s decision set Canada free from any possible danger of -French conquest; but, at the same time, it set him free also to -renew war with Great Britain, and cut short any tendency to more -cordial relations between Great Britain and the United States. -The danger for Canada now was that, either as the direct result -of friendship between France and the United States, or indirectly -through the incidents to which the maritime war between France -and Great Britain gave rise, war would take place between Great -Britain and the United States, involving American invasion and not -improbably American conquest of Canada. Eventually, in 1812, war -came to pass. Once more England was called upon to fight France -and the United States at the same time; but in this second war the -Canadians, heart-whole in defending their province against their -rivals of old time, themselves largely contributed to the saving of -Canada. - -[Sidenote: The incident of the _Leopard_ and the _Chesapeake_.] - -[Sidenote: Sir James Craig appointed Governor-General of Canada.] - -[Sidenote: His previous career.] - -The causes which led to the war of 1812 have been noted in another -book.[219] One of the incidents which preluded it was the action -of a British ship of war, the _Leopard_, in firing on the American -frigate _Chesapeake_ and carrying off four men, who were claimed -as deserters from the British navy. This high-handed proceeding -naturally caused the strongest resentment in the United States, -and raised the whole question of the right of search. There was -talk of invading Canada, which was answered by calling out the -Canadian militia; the Canadians answered readily to the call; and -shortly afterwards a new Governor-General arrived in Canada, a man -well tried in war, Sir James Craig. On the 10th of August, 1807, -General Prescott, still Governor-General of Canada, though he had -left in July, 1799, was delicately informed by Lord Castlereagh, -then Secretary of State, that it was necessary to appoint a -new Governor-General. The terms of the letter were that Lord -Castlereagh lamented that circumstances required an arrangement -to be made which might interfere with Prescott’s emoluments. Sir -James Craig accordingly received his commission on the last day of -August, 1807, and landed at Quebec on the 18th of October, too ill -to take the oaths of office until the 24th of that month, when he -took them in his bedroom. Craig, though in failing health, governed -Canada for four years. Like his predecessors he was a distinguished -soldier. He was a Scotchman but was born at Gibraltar, where his -father held the post of civil and military judge in the fortress. -He was born in 1748 and was only fifteen years old when he joined -the army in 1763, the year of the great Peace. He was wounded at -Bunker’s Hill; in 1776 he went to Canada and commanded the advanced -guard of the forces which under Carleton’s command drove the -Americans out of Canada. He took part in Burgoyne’s expedition, was -twice wounded, was present at Saratoga, and was chosen to carry -home dispatches.[220] Later in the war he served with distinction -under Lord Cornwallis in North Carolina. In 1794 he became a -major-general, and in 1795 he was sent to the Cape to take it over -from the Dutch. The Netherlands, recently over-run by a French army -under Pichegru, had been transformed into the Batavian republic, -and the Prince of Orange, then a refugee in England, sent orders by -the British fleet under Admiral Elphinstone, which carried Craig -and his troops, that the British force should be admitted as having -come to protect the colony from the French. The Dutch governor, -however, was not prepared to hand over his charge to British -keeping. Craig accordingly landed his troops at Simonstown, and -successfully attacked the Dutch at Muizenberg, but was not able to -occupy Capetown until the arrival of a force from India, which had -been ordered to co-operate, and which was under the command of a -senior officer, Sir Alured Clarke, the late Lieutenant-Governor of -Lower Canada. On Clarke’s arrival the Dutch capitulated, and Craig -became the first British Governor of the Cape, being succeeded in -1797 by a civilian, Lord Macartney. He served about five years in -India, being promoted to be Lieutenant-General in 1801; and, after -returning to England in 1802, was sent in 1805 to the Mediterranean -in charge of an abortive expedition to Naples, in which British and -Russian troops were to combine against the French. It ended in his -transferring his force to Sicily, where the Neapolitan court had -taken refuge. He then went home in ill health, and in 1807 went out -to Canada. His appointment was no doubt mainly due to his military -reputation, for war with the United States seemed close at hand; -but he was well qualified for it also by his wide experience of -the colonies, and by the fact that, like Prescott, he had already -had a short term of colonial administration. He left behind him at -the Cape a good record as governor, and but for the state of his -health seemed clearly the man for Canada. - -[Sidenote: The beginning of his administration.] - -In his first speech to the Legislature of Lower Canada in January, -1808, Craig expressed his gratification at meeting the members of -the two Houses ‘in the exercise of the noblest office to which the -human mind can be directed, that of legislating for a free people’, -and he added that he looked forward to the most perfect harmony -and co-operation between them and himself. His anticipations were -not fulfilled, and during the years of his administration the -inevitable struggle for further power on the part of the elected -representatives of the community became accentuated. The session -of 1808 lasted from January to April. It was the last session of -an existing Parliament. No point of difference arose in this short -time between the Assembly and the Executive; but, the Assembly -having passed a Bill, undoubtedly right in principle though -directed against a particular individual, that judges should be -incapable of being elected to or sitting in the House, the Bill -was thrown out by the Legislative Council. This caused ill feeling -between the two branches of the Legislature, and at the same time -the Assembly came into collision with one of the constituencies, -that of Three Rivers, by passing a resolution which excluded from -the House a Jew who had been duly elected as member for Three -Rivers and was promptly re-elected. At the conclusion of the -session a General Election took place in May, but the Legislature -was not called together till April, 1809, and in the meantime -friction began between the governor and the popular representatives. - -[Sidenote: Friction between the governor and the Assembly.] - -In June, 1808, Craig dismissed certain gentlemen from their -appointments as officers in the town militia on account of their -connexion with the French opposition paper _Le Canadien_. One of -them, M. Panet, had been Speaker of the House of Assembly in the -late Parliament, and when the new House met he was again chosen to -be Speaker, the choice being confirmed by the governor. The House -sat for five weeks in 1809, wrangling over the same questions that -had been prominent in the preceding year, viz. the exclusion from -the House of judges and of members of the Jewish religion: it was -then peremptorily dissolved by the governor, who rated the members -as so many children for wasting time and abusing their functions at -a critical season of national affairs. The election took place in -the following October; and, when the Legislature met in January, -1810, the Assembly was composed of much the same representatives -as before, any change being rather against than in favour of the -governor. In his opening speech the governor intimated that the -Royal approval would be given to any proper Bill passed by both -Houses, rendering the judges ineligible for seats in the Assembly. -The House of Assembly on their side, having passed a resolution to -the effect that any attempt on the part of the Executive or the -other branch of the Legislature to dictate to them or censure their -proceedings was a breach of their privileges, went on to pass loyal -addresses appropriate to the fiftieth year of the King’s reign, -their loyalty being, perhaps, quickened by the strong reference -which had been made in the governor’s speech ‘to the high-sounded -resentment of America’, coupled with an assurance that in the event -of war Canada would receive ‘the necessary support of regular -troops in the confident expectation of a cheerful exertion of the -interior force of the country’. There followed an Address to the -King and the Imperial Parliament, to which reference has already -been made, and in which the Assembly, with many expressions of -gratitude, intimated that the prosperity of Lower Canada was now so -great that they could in that session pay all the expenses of the -civil government. This Address the governor promised to lay before -the King, though he pointed out that it was unconstitutional -in, among other points, ignoring the Legislative Council. A Bill -excluding the judges was then passed and sent up to the Legislative -Council, who amended it by adding a clause which postponed its -effect until the next Parliament, whereupon the Assembly passed a -resolution excluding by name a certain judge who had a seat in the -House, and the governor, rightly deeming their action in the matter -to be unconstitutional, on the 26th of February again dissolved -Parliament. - -[Sidenote: Proceedings taken by the governor against _Le Canadien_.] - -[Sidenote: Craig retires on ill health.] - -[Sidenote: His death and character.] - -[Sidenote: Prosperity of Canada under Sir James Craig.] - -[Sidenote: Growth of the lumber trade.] - -[Sidenote: The first steamer on the St. Lawrence.] - -[Sidenote: Road to the Eastern Townships.] - -The French newspaper, _Le Canadien_, abounded weekly in scurrilous -abuse of the authorities. On the 17th of March Craig took the -strong step of seizing the printing press and all the papers, and -committing to prison various persons connected with the paper, -three of whom had been members of the late House of Assembly. He -justified his action in a proclamation to the country at large. The -prisoners were released in the course of the summer on the score of -ill health or submission, with the exception of one French Canadian -named Bedard, who refused to come to terms with the Executive -and was still in prison when the new Assembly, to which he had -been elected, met on the 12th of December, 1810. The governor, -in his masterful proceedings, had acted under the authority of -a temporary law entitled ‘an Act for the better preservation of -His Majesty’s Government, as by law happily established in this -province’. This Act was now expiring, and in his opening address -he called attention to the necessity for renewing it. He carried -his point, the Act was renewed, and, in addition to resolutions -on the subject of Mr. Bedard’s imprisonment, the Assembly did -some useful legislative work before the Legislature was prorogued -on the 21st of March, 1811. Shortly after the prorogation Mr. -Bedard was released, and on the 19th of June, 1811, Sir James -Craig left Canada. He had long been in failing health, and in the -proclamation, in which he defended his seizure of _Le Canadien_ and -those responsible for it, he had referred pathetically to his life -as ‘ebbing not slowly to its period under the pressure of disease -acquired in the service of my country’. His resignation had been -for some months in the hands of the Government, and it was only in -order to suit their convenience that he put off his departure to -the date when it actually took place. He reached England alive, but -died in the following January in his sixty-second year. He was a -man of conspicuous honesty and of undoubted courage and firmness. -He had a soldier’s view as to discipline and subordination, which -made him peremptory as a governor, and his addresses tended to be -long-winded and dictatorial. But his personal popularity was great, -he was dignified, hospitable, and open-handed, and he commanded -respect even from his political opponents and from those whom he -put into prison. He may well have been forgiven much not only for -his personal qualities, but also because his military reputation -was no small asset to Canada. His dealings with the United States -were fair and courteous, but behind them was the known fact of -his capacity and experience as a soldier. He might dispute with -those whom he governed in the sphere of civil action, but in the -event of war they had in him a leader upon whom they could rely. -The Canadians too had reason to be in the main satisfied with -his rule, in that the years during which Craig was governor were -years of much prosperity. It was at this time that, stimulated -by Napoleon’s attempts to cut off Great Britain from the Baltic -trade and by the Non Intercourse Acts of the United States, lumber -became an important industry of Canada. It was at this time too, -at the beginning of November, 1809, that a citizen of Montreal, -John Molson, put the first steamer on the St. Lawrence, her -passage from Montreal to Quebec taking sixty-six hours, during -thirty of which she was at anchor. Craig himself contributed to -improvement of communication in Lower Canada by constructing sixty -miles of road which bore his name, and which linked the Eastern -Townships, then being settled largely by immigrants from the United -States, to the southern bank of the St. Lawrence over against -Quebec. This road, which was carried out by the troops under the -Quartermaster-General, afterwards Sir James Kempt, Administrator -of Canada, was, as Craig wrote to his friend and secretary Ryland, -much wanted ‘not merely for the purpose of procuring us the -necessary supplies but for the purpose also of bringing the people -to our doors’:[221] and it resulted in the price of beef falling -in the Quebec market from 7½_d._ to 4½_d._ a lb.[222] It gave an -outlet to Quebec to a fine agricultural district, and it opened a -direct route to Boston from the capital of Canada. - -[Sidenote: Ryland’s mission to England.] - -When Craig wrote these letters to Ryland, the latter was in -England. He had been sent by the governor to lay the views of the -latter upon the political situation in Canada before the Home -Government; and, reaching England at the end of July, 1810, he was -active in interviewing ministers and supplying them verbally and -by written memoranda with first-hand information. Ryland had gone -out to America in 1781 as a paymaster in the army during the War -of Independence; and, returning with Carleton at the end of the -war, had been taken by him to Canada as confidential secretary. He -continued to hold that office to successive governors for twenty -years, until 1813, when Sir George Prevost, who followed Craig as -Governor-General and with whom Ryland was not in harmony, suggested -that other arrangements should be made for the secretaryship. -Ryland then resigned his office of governor’s secretary but -remained clerk to the Executive Council, living in the suburbs of -Quebec, until his death in 1838. He seems to have been an able, -honourable man, strongly opposed to the democratic party in Lower -Canada, to the French and Roman Catholic section of the community. -In England he was brought into relations chiefly with Lord -Liverpool, who was Secretary of State for War and the Colonies[223] -in the Percival ministry, having succeeded Lord Castlereagh in that -office, and with the Under-Secretary of State, Robert Peel. Peel -was then beginning his public life, and Ryland’s impression of him -on his first interview was that ‘though a very young man and but -a few days in office [he] appears to be very much _au fait_ in -matters of public business’. A week or two later he wrote of him -as ‘a very elegant young man of fine talents, as I am informed’, -and very pleasing manners.[224] With these two ministers and -with various other public men, including George Canning, Ryland -conferred or corresponded during his stay in England, which lasted -for the better part of two years. On one occasion, soon after his -arrival, he was present at a Cabinet Council, being seated, as -we learn from the full account which he wrote to Craig, between -Percival and Lord Liverpool. He was asked a large number of -questions, including a query as to the number of regular troops in -Canada, and, as the result, he appears to have formed a very poor -opinion of the knowledge and capacity of the ministry. - -[Sidenote: Craig’s views on the political situation in Lower -Canada.] - -He had brought with him to England a very long dispatch in which -Craig had set out his views. Craig estimated the population of -Lower Canada at the time when he wrote, May, 1810, at between -250,000 and 300,000 souls, out of whom he computed that no more -than 20,000 to 25,000 were English or Americans. The remainder, -the French Canadians, he represented as, in the main, wholly -alienated from the British section of the community, French in -religion, laws, language and manners, and becoming more attracted -to France and more alienated from Great Britain, in proportion as -the power of France in Europe became more consolidated. The large -mass of the people were, so he wrote, wholly uneducated, following -unscrupulous men, their leaders in the country and in the House of -Assembly. The Roman Catholic priests were anti-English on grounds -of race and religion; their attachment to France had been renewed -since Napoleon made his concordat with the Pope; and, being largely -drawn from the lower orders of society, and headed by a bishop who -exercised more authority than in the days of the old régime and -who arrogated complete independence of the civil government, they -were hardly even outwardly loyal to the British Crown. The growing -nationalist and democratic feeling was reflected and embodied in -the elected House of Assembly. When the constitution was first -granted, some few Canadian gentlemen had come forward and been -elected; but, at the time when the governor wrote, the Canadian -members of the Assembly, who formed an overwhelming majority, -according to his account consisted of avocats and notaries, -shopkeepers and habitants, some of the last named being unable -either to read or write. The organ of the party was the paper -_Le Canadien_, which vilified the Executive officers as ‘gens en -place’, and aimed at bringing the government into contempt. - -[Sidenote: Constitutional changes recommended.] - -To meet the evils which he deemed so great and emphasized so -strongly, Craig proposed that the existing constitution should be -either cancelled or suspended. His view, as expressed in a letter -to Ryland written in November, 1810,[225] was that it should -be suspended during the continuance of the war with France and -for five years afterwards, and that in this interval the former -government by means of a governor and a nominated Legislative -Council should be revived. He argued that representative -institutions had been prematurely granted, before French Canadians -were prepared for them; that they had been demanded by the English -section of the inhabitants, not the French; and that at the time -the best informed Canadians had been opposed to the change. In -the alternative, he discussed the reunion of the two provinces, -so as to leaven the Assembly with a larger number of British -members, though he did not advocate this course; and the re-casting -of the electoral divisions in Lower Canada, so as to give more -adequate representation to those parts of the province, such as -the Eastern Townships, where the English-speaking element could -hold its own. In any case he pointed out the necessity of enacting -a property qualification for the members of the Assembly, no such -qualification being required under the Act of 1791, although -that Act prescribed a qualification for the voters who elected -the members. Craig went on to urge, as Milnes had urged before -him, that the Royal supremacy should be exercised over the Roman -Catholic priesthood, additional salary being given to the bishop, -in consideration of holding his position under the Crown, and the -curés being given freehold in their livings under appointment from -the Crown. There was a further point. The Sulpician seminary at -Montreal was possessed of large estates, and Craig considered this -clerical body to be dangerous in view of the fact that it consisted -largely of French emigrant priests. He proposed therefore that the -Crown should resume the greater part of the lands. - -[Sidenote: Craig’s views not accepted by the Imperial Government.] - -Ryland soon found that the ministry were not prepared to face -Parliament with any proposals for a constitutional change in -Canada, and that they were more inclined to what he called ‘the -namby-pamby system of conciliation’.[226] They thought that it had -been a mistake in the first instance to divide Canada into two -provinces, but the only step which they now took was to procure -a somewhat superfluous opinion from the Attorney-General to the -effect that the Imperial Parliament could alter the constitution of -the provinces, or could reunite them with one Council and Assembly; -and a rather less self-evident opinion that the governor could not -redistribute the electoral divisions of Lower Canada without being -authorized to do so by an Act either of the Imperial or of the -Colonial Legislature. - -[Sidenote: Critical condition of England at the time of Ryland’s -mission.] - -To Ryland the affairs of Canada were all in all; to the ministry -whom he deemed so weak, they were overshadowed by events and -difficulties at home and abroad, compared with which the political -questions which troubled Lower Canada were insignificant, -noteworthy only as likely, if not carefully handled, to add to -the burden which was laid on the statesmen responsible for the -safe-keeping of the Empire. In 1809 Talavera had been fought and -hardly won, but it was the year also of the disastrous expedition -to Walcheren. In 1810, behind the lines of Torres Vedras, -Wellington was beginning to turn the tide of French invasion in the -Peninsula. The next year saw Massena’s retreat, but at home the -political situation was complicated by the insanity of the old King -and the consequent necessity of declaring a regency. In 1812, the -year of Salamanca, Percival the Prime Minister was assassinated, -his place being taken by Lord Liverpool, who, as long as Ryland was -in England, had been in charge of the colonies. In the same year, -war with the United States long threatened, came to pass. These -years were in England years of financial distress and of widespread -misery. William Cobbett giving voice to the hungry discontent of -the poor was fined and imprisoned, and Ryland hoped that his fate -would have some effect in Canada.[227] - -[Sidenote: Legal opinion as to patronage to appointments in the -Roman Catholic Church in Canada, and as to the Sulpician estates.] - -Lord Liverpool, however, was very loyal to Craig, though he -did not support any such drastic measures as the latter had -suggested. At the end of July, 1811, by which time Craig had left -Canada, he wrote a letter to him expressing the Prince Regent’s -high approbation of his general conduct in the administration -of the government of the North American provinces and the -Prince’s particular regret at the cause which had necessitated -his retirement. He wrote too to Craig’s successor, Sir George -Prevost, highly praising Ryland and expressing a hope that he -would be retained in his appointment. The law officers of the -Crown in England had been consulted as to the Roman Catholic -Church in Canada in view of the governor’s proposals, and advised -that so much of the patronage of Roman Catholic benefices as was -exercised by the Bishop of Quebec under the French Government had -of right devolved on the Crown. On the further question, whether -the Crown had the right of property in the estates of the Sulpician -seminary at Montreal, they advised that legally the Crown had the -right, inasmuch as the Sulpicians who remained in Canada after the -British conquest had no legal capacity to hold lands apart from the -parent body at Paris which had since been dissolved, and had not -obtained a licence from the Crown to hold the estates; but the law -officers, seeing the hardship which would be involved in wholesale -confiscation of the lands after so many years of undisturbed -tenure, suggested that the question was one for compromise or -amicable arrangement. In the end nothing was done in the matter in -the direction of Craig’s and Ryland’s views, and many years later, -in 1840,[228] by an ordinance of Lower Canada, the Sulpicians of -Montreal were incorporated under certain conditions and confirmed -in the possession of their estates. - -[Sidenote: Sir James Craig’s administration.] - -It is not easy to form an accurate estimate of Sir James Craig’s -administration. His views and his methods have been judged in the -light of later history rather than in that of the years which had -gone before. It is somewhat overlooked that at the beginning of -the nineteenth century the normal conditions of the world were -conditions of war not of peace, and that the governors of colonies -were as a rule soldiers whose first duty was the military charge -of possessions held by no very certain tenure. The account usually -given and received is that Craig was an honest but mistaken man, -tactless and overbearing, trying to uphold an impossible system -of bureaucratic despotism, instead of realizing the merits of -representative institutions and giving them full play. The apology -made for him has been that he was guided by and saw with the eyes -of a few rapacious officials, who had no interest in the general -welfare of the community. ‘The government, in fact,’ writes -Christie, ‘was a bureaucracy, the governor himself little better -than a hostage, and the people looked upon and treated as serfs and -vassals by their official lords.’[229] - -[Sidenote: Uniacke.] - -[Sidenote: James Stuart.] - -Constitutions and systems of government are good or bad according -to the kinds of people to which they are applied, the stage -of development which they have reached, and the particular -circumstances existing at a given time inside and outside the land. -It was only with much hesitation that representative institutions -had been given to Canada; and one governor and another, bearing in -mind the conditions which had preceded the War of Independence, -had laid stress on the necessity of having a strong Executive, -and on the growing danger of colonial democracy. They were not -ignorant or shortsighted men; they looked facts in the face and -argued from past experience in America. Again, if the officials -were incompetent placemen, out of sympathy with the people, it was -the governors who laid stress on the necessity of filling official -positions with first-rate men and who occasionally took a strong -line with the men whom they did not consider to be adequate. -Moreover some of the officials, notably the judicial and legal -officers, placed themselves in opposition to the local government -and posed as defenders of the people. Craig dispensed, for the time -at any rate, with the services of two law officers. One of them, -Uniacke, who had been in Nova Scotia, was made Attorney-General -of Lower Canada by Lord Liverpool, and, being considered by the -governor to be unfit for his duties, was sent on leave to England -in 1810 with a request that he should be removed from his office. -He subsequently returned to his work in Canada. The other, James -Stuart, became a notable figure in Canadian history. He was the son -of a United Empire Loyalist, the rector of Kingston in Ontario. -He had been appointed Solicitor-General of Lower Canada by Milnes -in 1801, but after Craig’s arrival ranged himself, as a member -of the Assembly, in opposition to the governor, and in 1809 was -obliged to resign his appointment. After some years of bitter -opposition to the government, he lived to become a leading advocate -of reunion of the two provinces, to be appointed Attorney-General, -to be impeached by the Assembly and again deprived of his office, -and finally to be appointed by Lord Durham Chief Justice of Lower -Canada and to be created a baronet for his public services. - -[Sidenote: Thorpe and Willcocks.] - -Meanwhile in Upper Canada, where a young Lieutenant-Governor, -Francis Gore, from 1807 to 1811 carried on the administration -firmly and well, various holders of offices opposed the government -and tried to play the part of popular leaders. Judge Thorpe has -already been mentioned, on the Bench and in the House of Assembly -a blatant and disloyal demagogue; another man of the same kind -was Wyatt the Surveyor-General, and another Willcocks, sheriff of -one of the districts, and owner or nominal owner of a libellous -newspaper, for the contents of which the House of Assembly -committed him to jail on the ground of breach of privilege. These -three men were suspended from their appointments, and eventually -disappeared from Canada to make their voices heard in England or -in the United States; and the end of Willcocks was to be killed -fighting against his country in the war of 1812. One thing is -certain that in their official positions they were disloyal to the -government, and that in their disloyalty they received no support -from the elected Assembly of Upper Canada. Gore had a difficulty -too with his Attorney-General, Firth, a man sent out from England. -Firth ended by returning to England without leave and joining in -misrepresentations against the Lieutenant-Governor. - -[Sidenote: Craig’s opinion of the French Canadians.] - -[Sidenote: Real attitude of the French Canadians.] - -It may fairly be summed up that in the Canadas many men were found -in office who had been pitchforked into appointments for which -they were unsuited; but that they were by no means invariably -supporters of the Executive against the representatives of the -people, nor were the governors their tools. On the contrary there -were constant cases of such officials opposing the governors, while -the governors in their turn stood out conspicuously in opposition -to the practice of appointing men from outside to offices in -Canada which required special qualifications in addition to good -character and general capacity. But a distinction must be drawn -between Upper and Lower Canada. In Upper Canada the voters and -their nominees, however democratic, were, with the exception of -a few traitorous individuals, intensely loyal to the British -connexion. In Lower Canada, on the other hand, the all-important -race question complicated the situation, and here Craig saw in the -French Canadians, who were also the democratic party, the elements -of disloyalty to Great Britain and _rapprochement_ with France. In -August, 1808, he wrote that the Canadians were French at heart; -that, while they did not deny the advantages which they enjoyed -under British rule, there would not be fifty dissentient voices, -if the proposition was made of their re-annexation to France: and -that the general opinion among the English in Canada was that -they would even join the Americans if the latter were commanded -by a French officer. His views on this point were fully shared by -another man of clear head and sound judgement, Isaac Brock. For -reasons which have been given Craig seems to have exaggerated any -danger of the kind. Republican France, which attracted American -sympathies, repelled those of the French Canadians. France under -Napoleon, brought back to law and order and to at any rate the -outward conventionalities of religion, became more attractive -to the French Canadians, but at the same time, in view of the -Napoleonic despotism, it became less attractive to the United -States. But at no time probably was there any real intention on the -part of the French Canadians to take any active step to overthrow -British supremacy. Certainly at no time was there the slightest -possibility of their changing their status except by becoming -absorbed in the United States. They were as a whole an unthinking -people, to whom representative institutions and a free press were -a novelty; their leaders liked the words and phrases which they -had learnt from English-speaking demagogues or imported from -revolutionary France. Their priesthood was not loyal, because it -claimed to be independent of the civil government, especially when -it was the government of a Protestant Power. The general aim was to -see to what uses the new privileges could be applied and how much -latitude would be given. The elected representatives opposed the -second chamber, the Legislative Council, as much as they opposed -the governor; they played with edged tools, but it may be doubted -whether at this early stage of the proceedings they meant much more -than play. - -Under the circumstances, perhaps a fair judgement upon Sir James -Craig’s administration would be that he took the Parliamentary -situation in Lower Canada too seriously, and did not give -sufficient rope to the local politicians. He reprimanded the -Assembly when they acted unconstitutionally, and dissolved them -when they did not do their work. The strong measures which he -adopted, and the repeated dissolutions, were a bad precedent for -the future: and the course which he recommended, viz. suspension -of the constitution, would, if carried into effect, have been -premature and unwise. But for the moment the steps which he took -were effective. By his summary action in regard to the newspaper -_Le Canadien_, he showed that he had the ultimate power and was -not afraid to use it; and the result was that the very law which -gave the Executive extraordinary powers was renewed by the Assembly -which objected to those powers. Meanwhile Canada thrived, the -governor was personally respected, and repeated elections did no -one any harm. It was a time of danger from without and unrest -within, but many countries with admirable constitutions have fared -much worse than did Lower Canada under the rule of a strong soldier -confronted by a recalcitrant Assembly. - -He was succeeded by a man of wholly different type, Sir George -Prevost, who endeared himself greatly to the French Canadians; -but internal differences were soon to be overshadowed by foreign -invasion, for in one year to the day from the date when Sir James -Craig left Canada, Madison, President of the United States, issued -a proclamation which began the war of 1812. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[216] He belonged to the same family as the Earl of Crewe, -Secretary of State for the Colonies. - -[217] The Lieutenant-Governor in question was Mr., afterwards Sir, -F. Burton. His commission was dated November 29, 1808, but he -did not go out to Canada till 1822. He left Canada in 1828, but -did not cease to be Lieutenant-Governor, as his commission was -renewed on October 25, 1830--the year of King William the Fourth’s -accession. An Act passed in 1782, 22 Geo. III, cap. 75, commonly -known as Burke’s Act, provided against the holding of Patent -offices in the Colonies and Plantations in America and the West -Indies by sinecurists living in England. The operation of this Act -was greatly extended, and the granting of leave restricted by a -subsequent Act of 1814, 54 Geo. III, cap. 61. - -[218] See Brymner’s _Report on Canadian Archives_ for 1892, -Introduction, p. xlix. - -[219] _The Canadian War of 1812._ - -[220] See the _Memoir of Sir James Craig_, quoted at length on -pp. 343-5 of vol. i of Christie’s _History of the Late Province -of Lower Canada_, 1848. The notice of Craig in the _Dictionary of -National Biography_ says that he was sent home with dispatches -after the taking of Ticonderoga, which seems to be incorrect. - -[221] Letter of August 6, 1810, Christie’s _History of Lower -Canada_, vol. vi, p. 129. - -[222] Letter of September 10, 1810, Christie’s _History of Lower -Canada_, vol. vi, p. 157. - -[223] The departments of War and the Colonies were combined under -one Secretary of State in 1801. This lasted till 1854, when a -separate Secretary of State for War was appointed. - -[224] Ryland to Craig, August 4, and September 1, 1810. Christie, -vol. vi, pp. 124, 149. - -[225] Letter of November 9, 1810, Christie, vol. vi, p. 166. The -main dispatch is dated May 1, 1810. - -[226] Letter to Craig, August 23, 1810, Christie, vol. vi, p. 146. - -[227] Letter to Craig, November 9, 1810, Christie, vol. vi, p. 169. - -[228] 3 and 4 Vic., cap. 30. - -[229] _History of Lower Canada_, vol. i, p. 350. - - - - -[Illustration: - - MAP TO ILLUSTRATE THE BOUNDARY OF CANADA _to face page 322_ - -TREATIES - -subsequent to the Treaty of 1783, - - under which the boundary line was fixed either directly or by - Commission or Arbitration - - +---+ _Treaty of Ghent 24 Dec 1814_ - | 1 | _Article 4._ - +---+ - - +---+ _Jay’s Treaty of 19 Nov 1794_ - | 2 | _Article 5._ - +---+ - - +---+ _Treaty of Washington 9 Aug 1842_ - | 3 | _Article 1._ - +---+ - - +---+ _Treaty of Ghent 24 Dec 1814_ - | 4 | _Article 6._ - +---+ - - +---+ { _Treaty of Ghent 24 Dec 1814_ - | 5 | { _Article 7._ - +---+ { _Treaty of Washington 9 Aug 1842_ - { _Article 2._ - - +---+ { _Convention of London 20 Oct 1818_ - | 6 | { _Article 2._ - +---+ { _Treaty of Washington 9 Aug 1842_ - { _Article 2._ - - +---+ _Treaty of Washington 15 June 1846_ - | 7 | _Article 1._ - +---+ - - +---+ _Treaty of Washington 8 May 1871_ - | 8 | _Articles 34 etc._ - +---+ - - B. V. Barbishire, Oxford, 1908. -] - - - - -APPENDIX I - -TREATY OF PARIS, 1783 - - DEFINITIVE TREATY OF PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN HIS - BRITANNIC MAJESTY AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SIGNED AT - PARIS, THE 3RD OF SEPTEMBER, 1783. - - -In the Name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. It having -pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the Most -Serene and Most Potent Prince, George the Third, by the Grace of -God, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the -Faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunenburg, Arch-Treasurer and Prince -Elector of the Holy Roman Empire, &c., and of the United States of -America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that -have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship -which they mutually wish to restore: and to establish such a -beneficial and satisfactory intercourse between the 2 Countries, -upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience, -as may promote and secure to both perpetual Peace and Harmony; and -having for this desirable end already laid the foundation of Peace -and Reconciliation by the Provisional Articles signed at Paris, -on the 30th of November, 1782, by the Commissioners empowered on -each part; which Articles were agreed to be inserted in, and to -constitute, the Treaty of Peace proposed to be concluded between -the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States, but which -Treaty was not to be concluded until terms of Peace should be -agreed upon between Great Britain and France, and His Britannic -Majesty should be ready to conclude such Treaty accordingly; and -the Treaty between Great Britain and France having since been -concluded, His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, -in order to carry into full effect the Provisional Articles -above-mentioned, according to the tenor thereof, have constituted -and appointed, that is to say: - - His Britannic Majesty, on his part, David Hartley, Esq., - Member of the Parliament of Great Britain; and the said - United States, on their part, John Adams, Esq., late a - Commissioner of the United States of America at the Court - of Versailles, late Delegate in Congress from the State - of Massachusetts, and Chief Justice of the said State and - Minister Plenipotentiary of the said United States to - Their High Mightinesses the States General of the United - Netherlands; Benjamin Franklin, Esq., late Delegate in - Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, President of the - Convention of the said State, and Minister Plenipotentiary - from the United States of America at the Court of Versailles; - John Jay, Esq., late President of Congress and Chief Justice - of the State of New York, and Minister Plenipotentiary - from the said United States at the Court of Madrid; to be - the plenipotentiaries for the concluding and signing the - present Definitive Treaty: who, after having reciprocally - communicated their respective Full Powers, have agreed upon - and confirmed the following Articles: - - Art. I. His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United - States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island - and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New - Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North - Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be Free, Sovereign - and Independent States; that he treats with them as such; - and for himself, his Heirs and Successors, relinquishes all - claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of - the same, and every part thereof. - - II. And that all disputes which might arise in future on - the subject of the Boundaries of the said United States may - be prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared, that the - following are and shall be their Boundaries, viz., from the - North-West Angle of Nova Scotia, viz., that Angle which - is formed by a line drawn due North, from the source of - St. Croix River to the Highlands, along the said Highlands - which divide those Rivers that empty themselves into the - River St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic - Ocean, to the North-westernmost head of Connecticut River; - thence down along the middle of that River to the 45th - degree of North latitude; from thence by a line due West - on said latitude until it strikes the River Iroquois or - Cataraquy; thence along the middle of the said River into - Lake Ontario; through the middle of said Lake, until it - strikes the communication by water between that Lake and Lake - Erie; thence along the middle of said communication into - Lake Erie; through the middle of said Lake until it arrives - at the water-communication between that Lake and Lake Huron; - thence along the middle of said water-communication into the - Lake Huron; thence through the middle of said Lake to the - water-communication between that Lake and Lake Superior; - thence through Lake Superior, Northward of the Isles Royal - and Phelipeaux, to the Long Lake; thence through the middle - of said Long Lake, and the water-communication between it - and the Lake of the Woods, to the said Lake of the Woods; - thence through the said Lake to the most North-western point - thereof, and from thence on a due West course to the River - Mississippi; thence by a line to be drawn along the middle - of the said River Mississippi, until it shall intersect the - Northernmost part of the 31st degree of North latitude. South - by a line to be drawn due East from the determination of the - line last mentioned, in the latitude of 31 degrees North - of the Equator, to the middle of the River Apalachicola or - Catahouche; thence along the middle thereof to its junction - with the Flint River; thence straight to the head of St. - Mary’s River, and thence down along the middle of St. Mary’s - River to the Atlantic Ocean, East by a line to be drawn along - the middle of the River St. Croix, from its mouth in the Bay - of Fundy to its source; and from its source directly North to - the aforesaid Highlands, which divide the rivers that fall - into the Atlantic Ocean from those which fall into the River - St. Lawrence: comprehending all islands within 20 leagues - of any part of the shores of the United States, and lying - between lines to be drawn due East from the points where the - aforesaid boundaries between Nova Scotia on the one part, and - East Florida on the other, shall respectively touch the Bay - of Fundy, and the Atlantic Ocean; excepting such Islands as - now are, or heretofore have been, within the limits of the - said Province of Nova Scotia. - - III. It is agreed that the People of the United States - shall continue to enjoy unmolested the right to take Fish - of every kind on the Grand Bank and on all the other Banks - of Newfoundland; also in the Gulph of St. Lawrence, and at - all other places in the Sea, where the Inhabitants of both - Countries used at any time heretofore to fish. And also that - the Inhabitants of the United States shall have liberty - to take fish of every kind on such part of the Coast of - Newfoundland as British Fishermen shall use, (but not to dry - or cure the same on that Island,) and also on the Coasts, - Bays, and Creeks of all other of His Britannic Majesty’s - Dominions in America; and that the American Fishermen shall - have liberty to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled - Bays, Harbours, and Creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands - and Labrador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled; but - so soon as the same, or either of them, shall be settled, it - shall not be lawful for the said Fishermen to dry or cure - fish at such Settlement, without a previous agreement for - that purpose with the Inhabitants, Proprietors, or Possessors - of the ground. - - IV. It is agreed, that Creditors on either side shall meet - with no lawful impedimenta to the recovery of the full - value in sterling money of all bonâ fide debts heretofore - contracted. - - V. It is agreed, that the Congress shall earnestly recommend - it to the legislatures of the respective states to provide - for the restitution of all estates, rights and properties - which have been confiscated, belonging to real British - subjects; and also of the estates, rights and properties - of persons resident in districts in the possession of his - Majesty’s arms, and who have not borne arms against the said - United States; and that persons of any other description - shall have free liberty to go to any part or parts of - any of the Thirteen United States, and therein to remain - twelve months unmolested in their endeavours to obtain the - restitution of such of their estates, rights and properties - as may have been confiscated; and that Congress shall also - earnestly recommend to the several states, a reconsideration - and revision of all acts or laws regarding the premises, so - as to render the said laws or acts perfectly consistent, - not only with justice and equity, but with that spirit of - conciliation, which, on the return of the blessings of peace, - should universally prevail. And that Congress shall also - earnestly recommend to the several states, that the estates, - rights and properties of such last-mentioned persons shall - be restored to them, they refunding to any persons who may - be now in possession the bonâ fide price (where any has been - given) which such persons may have paid on purchasing any of - the said lands, rights or properties, since the confiscation. - - And it is agreed, that all persons who have any interest in - confiscated lands, either by debts, marriage settlements - or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the - prosecution of their just rights. - - VI. That there shall be no future confiscations made, nor any - prosecutions commenced against any person or persons, for or - by reason of the part which he or they may have taken in the - present war; and that no person shall on that account suffer - any future loss or damage either in his person, liberty - or property, and that those who may be in confinement on - such charges at the time of the ratification of the Treaty - in America, shall be immediately set at liberty, and the - prosecutions so commenced be discontinued. - - VII. There shall be a firm and perpetual Peace between His - Britannic Majesty and the said States, and between the - Subjects of the one and the Citizens of the other, wherefore - all hostilities both by sea and land shall from henceforth - cease: all Prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty, - and His Britannic Majesty shall with all convenient speed, - and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any - Negroes or other property of the American Inhabitants, - withdraw all his Armies, Garrisons and Fleets from the said - United States, and from every Port, Place, and Harbour - within the same; leaving in all Fortifications the American - Artillery that may be therein: and shall also order and cause - all Archives, Records, Deeds, and Papers belonging to any of - the said States, or their Citizens which in the course of - the War may have fallen into the hands of his Officers, to - be forthwith restored and delivered to the proper States and - Persons to whom they belong. - - VIII. The navigation of the River Mississippi, from its - source to the Ocean, shall for ever remain free and open to - the Subjects of Great Britain and the Citizens of the United - States. - - IX. In case it should so happen that any Place or Territory - belonging to Great Britain, or to the United States, should - have been conquered by the arms of either, from the other, - before the arrival of the said Provisional Articles in - America, it is agreed that the same shall be restored without - difficulty, and without requiring any compensation. - - X. The solemn Ratifications of the present Treaty, expedited - in good and due form, shall be exchanged between the - Contracting Parties in the space of 6 months, or sooner if - possible, to be computed from the day of the signature of the - present Treaty. - - In witness whereof, we, the undersigned, their Ministers - Plenipotentiary, have in their name, and in virtue of our - Full Powers, signed with our Hands the present definitive - Treaty, and caused the Seals of our Arms to be affixed - thereto, - - Done at Paris, this 3rd day of September, in the year of our - Lord, 1783. - - (L.S.) D. HARTLEY. (L.S.) JOHN ADAMS. - (L.S.) B. FRANKLIN. - (L.S.) JOHN JAY. - - - - -APPENDIX II - -THE BOUNDARY LINE OF CANADA - - -[Sidenote: The North-Eastern boundary.] - -On the North-Eastern side, the Treaty of 1783 prescribed the -boundary as follows:-- - - ‘From the North-West angle of Nova Scotia, viz., that - angle which is formed by a line drawn due North; from the - source of St. Croix river to the Highlands; along the said - Highlands which divide those rivers that empty themselves - into the river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the - Atlantic Ocean, to the North-Westernmost head of Connecticut - river; ... East by a line to be drawn along the middle of - the river St. Croix, from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy - to its source, and from its source directly North to the - aforesaid Highlands, which divide the rivers that fall into - the Atlantic Ocean from those which fall into the river St. - Lawrence; comprehending all islands within twenty leagues - of any part of the shores of the United States, and lying - between lines to be drawn due East from the points where the - aforesaid boundaries between Nova Scotia on the one part, and - East Florida on the other, shall respectively touch the Bay - of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean, excepting such islands as - now are or heretofore have been within the limits of the said - province of Nova Scotia.’ - -So far as these words refer to the sea boundary of the United -States no difficulty arose, except in the Bay of Fundy. East -Florida was ceded to Spain by Great Britain at the same time that -the treaty with the United States was signed, and therefore the -boundary line in the South had no further concern for the English. - -[Sidenote: The border land between Acadia and New England.] - -The North-East had been the border land between Acadia and the New -England States. In old days, as was inevitable, there had been -constant disputes between French and English as to the boundary -between Acadia and New England, while Acadia still belonged to -France; and, after the Treaty of Utrecht had given Acadia to Great -Britain, as to the boundary between Acadia and Canada. When, by the -Peace of 1763, Canada was ceded to Great Britain, the question of -boundaries ceased to have any national importance; and no further -difficulty, except as between British Provinces, arose until -the United States became an independent nation. Then it became -necessary to draw an international frontier line, which as a matter -of fact had never yet been drawn. There seems to have been a more -or less honest attempt, with the help of maps which were, as might -have been expected, inaccurate, to adopt a line for which there -was some authority in the past, instead of evolving a wholly new -frontier; and the result of looking to the past was eventually to -fix a boundary which was in no sense a natural frontier. - -[Sidenote: The river St. Croix taken in 1763 as the boundary of -Nova Scotia and hence adopted as the boundary line in the Treaty of -1783.] - -The river St. Croix had always been a landmark in the history -of colonization in North America. It was the scene of the first -settlement by De Monts and Champlain; and, when Sir William -Alexander in 1621 received from the King the famous grant of Nova -Scotia, the grant was defined as extending to - - ‘the river generally known by the name of St. Croix and to - the remotest springs, or source, from the Western side of the - same, which empty into the first mentioned river’, - -Later, the French claim on behalf of Acadia extended as far as -the Penobscot river, if not to the Kennebec; but after the Treaty -of Utrecht, the claims of Massachusetts to the country up to the -St. Croix river were allowed in 1732;[230] and in 1763, after the -Peace of Paris, the St. Croix river was, in the Commission to -the Governor of Nova Scotia, designated as the boundary of the -province, the following being the terms of the Commission:-- - - ‘Although Our said province has anciently extended, and does - of right extend, so far as the river Pentagoet or Penobscot, - it shall be bounded by a line drawn from Cape Sable across - the entrance of the Bay of Fundy to the mouth of the river - St. Croix, by the said river to its source, and by a line - drawn due North from thence to the Southern boundary of Our - Colony of Quebec.’ - -Accordingly the river St. Croix was designated as the international -boundary in the Treaty of 1783. - -[Sidenote: Doubt as to the identity of the St. Croix river.] - -[Sidenote: Commission appointed under the Treaty of 1794 to -identify the river.] - -But then the question arose which was the St. Croix river. Between -1763 and 1783 attempts had been made to identify it, but without -success, for at least three rivers flowing into Passamaquoddy Bay -were each claimed as the St. Croix. After the Peace of 1783, the -dispute continued, and eventually the further Treaty of 19th of -November, 1794, known from the name of the American statesman who -negotiated it in London as Jay’s Treaty, provided in the Fifth -Article that the question should be left to the final decision -of three Commissioners, one to be appointed by the British -Government, one by that of the United States, and a third by the -two Commissioners themselves. The article provided that - - ‘the said Commissioners shall by a Declaration under their - hands and seals decide what river is the river St. Croix - intended by the treaty. The said Declaration shall contain - a description of the said river and shall particularize the - latitude and the longitude of its mouth and its source.’ - -[Sidenote: The St. Croix river determined in 1798.] - -In August, 1795, the Treaty was ratified by Washington as President -of the United States; and, in 1796, the Commissioners began their -work, the third Commissioner being an American lawyer. The work -was not concluded until another explanatory article had been, on -the 15th of March, 1798, signed on behalf of the two Governments, -relieving the Commissioners from the duty of particularizing the -latitude and longitude of the source of the St. Croix, provided -that they described the river in such other manner as they judged -expedient, and laying down that the point ascertained and described -to be the source should be marked by a monument to be erected and -maintained by the two Governments. Eventually, on the 25th of -October, 1798, the Commissioners, who had discharged their duties -with conspicuous fairness and ability, gave their award. They -identified the Scoodic river, as it was then called, with the St. -Croix of Champlain; they selected the Eastern or Northern branch of -the river as the boundary line in preference to the South-Western, -thereby including in American territory a considerable area which -the English had claimed; they marked beyond further dispute the -point which was thereafter to be held to be the source of the St. -Croix; but they did not demarcate the actual boundary line down the -course of the river. - -[Sidenote: The Maine Boundary question.] - -From the source of the St. Croix, according to the words of the -Treaty of 1783, which have been already quoted, a line was to be -drawn due North to the Highlands which formed the water parting -between the streams running into the St. Lawrence and those running -into the Atlantic Ocean, and this line was supposed to form the -North-West angle of Nova Scotia. No provision was made in the -Treaty of 1794 for determining the boundary North of the source of -the St. Croix river, and the labours of the St. Croix Commission -were confined to identifying that river from the mouth to the -source. A far more serious and more prolonged controversy arose -over the territory to the North of the source, threatening to bring -war between Great Britain and the United States, and not settled -for sixty years. - -[Sidenote: The old definitions of the boundary.] - -As in the case of the St. Croix, the framers of the Treaty of 1783, -in specifying a line drawn due North from the source of that river, -to meet the Highlands which parted the basin of the St. Lawrence -from that of the Atlantic, had recourse to past history and used -definitions already in existence. Nova Scotia, as granted to Sir -William Alexander, was, according to the terms of the charter, -bounded from the source of the St. Croix - - ‘by an imaginary straight line which is conceived to extend - through the land, or run Northward to the nearest bay, river, - or stream emptying into the great river of Canada’. - -The Royal Proclamation of 1763, which constituted the province of -Quebec after the peace signed in that year, defined the Southern -boundary of Quebec as passing - - ‘along the Highlands which divide the rivers that empty - themselves into the said river St. Lawrence from those which - fall into the sea’. - -The Quebec Act of 1774 again defined the Southern boundary of -Quebec as - - ‘along the Highlands which divide the rivers that empty - themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those which fall - into the sea, to a point in 45 degrees of Northern latitude - on the Eastern bank of the River Connecticut’. - -In the Commission to the Governor of Nova Scotia issued in 1763, -the Western boundary of Nova Scotia from the source of the St. -Croix was defined - - ‘by a line drawn due North from thence to the Southern - boundary of Our colony of Quebec’. - -Therefore the Treaty of 1783, in defining the international line as -a line drawn from the source of the St. Croix - - ‘directly North to the aforesaid Highlands which divide the - rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which - fall into the river St. Lawrence’, - -used the previous definitions of the Western boundary of Nova -Scotia and the Southern boundary of Quebec. - -[Sidenote: The ‘North-West angle of Nova Scotia’.] - -There were only two new points in the wording of the Treaty. The -first was that the sea was defined as the Atlantic Ocean, thereby -excluding the Bay of Chaleurs, and possibly the Bay of Fundy also, -which was, in the Treaty, at any rate according to the British -contention, treated as separate from the Atlantic Ocean. The second -was the importation of the words ‘the North-West angle of Nova -Scotia.’ It was obvious that wherever the Western boundary of Nova -Scotia met the Southern boundary of Quebec there must be such an -angle, but the Treaty spoke of it as a fixed starting point from -whence to draw the boundary line; it assumed that this angle rested -on highlands which divided the waters that flowed into the Atlantic -from those which were tributaries of the St. Lawrence; and it -assumed also that it would be reached by a due North line from the -source of the St. Croix river. So the inaccurate maps of the day -testified, and so paper boundaries, already recognized, prescribed. -When, however, the matter was put to the test of actual geography, -it was found that a line drawn due North from the source of the St. -Croix nowhere intersected a water parting between the St. Lawrence -basin and that of the Atlantic Ocean. The sources of the rivers -which run into the Atlantic were found to be far to the West of -the Northern line from the St. Croix river, to the West of that -line even if it had been drawn from the source of the South-Western -branch of the St. Croix, and not, as the St. Croix Commission had -drawn it, from the source of its more easterly branch. It was -evident that the earlier documents, which the Treaty of 1783 had -followed, were based upon inaccurate information and that it had -never been realized that the source of the St. John river, beyond -which would naturally be sought the head waters of the streams -running into the Atlantic, lay so far to the West, as is actually -the case. - -[Sidenote: The terms of the 1783 Treaty were not in accord with -actual facts.] - -It was therefore physically impossible to mark out a boundary in -accordance with the terms of the Treaty. If the due Northern line -was adhered to, the Highlands mentioned by the Treaty could not -be reached. If those Highlands were adhered to, the due Northern -line must be abandoned. In either case the North-Western angle -of Nova Scotia, instead of being a fixed starting point, was an -unknown factor, an abstraction which could only be given a real -existence by bargain and agreement. The matter was one of vital -importance to Great Britain, for it involved the preservation or -abandonment of communication between the Maritime Provinces and -Canada, all important in winter time when the mouth of the St. -Lawrence was closed. The direct North line cut the St. John river -slightly to the west of the Grand Falls on that river; and, had -it been prolonged in the same direction, searching for Highlands -till the St. Lawrence was nearly reached, Canada and New Brunswick -would have been almost cut off from each other. The longer the -controversy went on, the more clearly this result was seen by the -Americans as well as by the English, hence the bitterness of the -dispute and the tenacity with which either party maintained their -position and accentuated their claims. - -[Sidenote: Attempt at settlement in 1803.] - -[Sidenote: The second American war.] - -[Sidenote: The British Contention.] - -On the 12th of May, 1803, a Convention was signed between Great -Britain and the United States providing that the dispute should be -left to the decision of an International Commission constituted -in precisely the same manner as the St. Croix Commission had -been constituted; but the Convention was never ratified, and the -points at issue were still outstanding when the negotiations were -set on foot which ended in the Treaty of Ghent at the close of -the second war between the two nations. During the war formal -possession was taken on behalf of Great Britain of the country -between the Penobscot river and New Brunswick, which included -the area under dispute, a proclamation to that effect being -issued at Halifax on the 21st of September, 1814;[231] but at -the date of the proclamation negotiations for peace were already -proceeding, and the only basis on which the Americans would treat -was the restitution of the status quo ante bellum, proposals -for an adjustment of the boundary between New Brunswick and -Massachusetts,[232] of which Maine then formed part, being treated -as a demand for cession of territory belonging to the United -States. On the British side it was maintained that the line claimed -by the Americans - - ‘by which the direct communication between Halifax and Quebec - becomes interrupted, was not in contemplation of the British - Plenipotentiaries who concluded the Treaty of 1783’,[233] - -and in a later letter, replying to the American representatives, -the British negotiators wrote[234] - - ‘the British Government never required that all that portion - of the State of Massachusetts intervening between the - Province of New Brunswick and Quebec should be ceded to Great - Britain, but only that small portion of unsettled country - which interrupts the communication between Halifax and - Quebec, there being much doubt whether it does not already - belong to Great Britain’. - -The inference to be drawn from the correspondence is that, on the -strict wording of the Treaty of 1783, apart from the intention of -those who negotiated it, the American claim was recognized to be -stronger than the British. - -[Sidenote: The Treaty of Ghent.] - -[Sidenote: A Boundary Commission appointed.] - -[Sidenote: The Commissioners disagree.] - -The Treaty of Ghent was signed on the 24th of December, 1814, -and the Fifth Article provided that two Commissioners should be -appointed to locate the North-West angle of Nova Scotia as well as -the North-Westernmost head of the Connecticut river, between which -two points the Treaty of 1783 provided that the dividing line along -the Highlands was to be drawn. A map of the boundary was to be -made, and the latitude and longitude of the North-West angle and -of the head of the Connecticut were to be particularized. If the -Commissioners agreed, their report was to be final; but if they -disagreed, they were to report to their respective governments, and -some friendly sovereign or state was to arbitrate between them. The -Commission first met in 1816, much time was taken up in surveying -the North line from the source of the St. Croix to the watershed -of the St. Lawrence, and it was not until 1821 that the two -representatives, having failed to agree, gave distinct awards, the -British Commissioner placing the North-West angle at the Highlands -known as Mars Hill nearly 40 miles south of the St. John river, and -the American Commissioner locating it nearly 70 miles north of that -river, either Commissioner adopting the extreme claim put forward -by his side. - -[Sidenote: The Convention of 1827.] - -[Sidenote: Award given by the King of the Netherlands as -Arbitrator.] - -[Sidenote: The award not accepted by the Americans.] - -In view of the divergence between the two reports, it was -necessary, in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Ghent, to -submit the matter to arbitration; but this step was not taken until -yet another Convention had been signed on the 29th of September, -1827, providing that new statements of the case on either side -should be drawn up for submission to the arbitrator. It was laid -down that the basis of the statements should be two specified -maps, one of which was referred to as the map used in drawing -up the original Treaty of 1783. The inaccuracies in this map, -Mitchell’s map, had been the origin of all the difficulties which -had subsequently arisen. The King of the Netherlands was selected -to arbitrate. In 1830 the statements were laid before him, and -in January, 1831, he gave his award. It was to the effect that -it was impossible, having regard either to law or to equity, to -adopt either of the lines proposed by the two contending parties, -and that a compromise should be accepted which was defined in -the award. The line which the king proposed was more favourable -to the Americans than to the English, but the Americans declined -to consent to it, on the ground that, while the arbitrator -might accept either of the two lines which were presented for -arbitration, he was not empowered to fix a third and new boundary. - -[Sidenote: Collision in the Aroostook region.] - -[Sidenote: The Ashburton Treaty.] - -[Sidenote: Final settlement of the Maine boundary question.] - -Thus this troublesome matter was still left outstanding, and yet -the necessity for a settlement was more pressing than ever. The new -state of Maine maintained the American claim with more pertinacity -and less inclination to compromise than the Government of the -United States had shown; the United States Government was ready to -accept a conventional line, but Maine objected, and meanwhile the -result of the uncertainty and delay was that the backwoodsmen of -Maine and New Brunswick were coming to blows. About the beginning -of 1839 the disputes in the region of the Aroostook river nearly -brought on war between the two nations, which was only averted -by the mediation of General Winfield Scott then commanding the -American forces on the frontier. Immediately afterwards two British -Commissioners, Colonel Mudge and Mr. Featherstonhaugh, were deputed -to survey the debatable territory and reported in April, 1840,[235] -their report being followed by a survey on the part of the American -Government. At length, on the 9th of August, 1842, Daniel Webster -then Secretary of State for the United States, and Lord Ashburton, -sent out as special Commissioner from Great Britain, concluded the -Treaty of Washington, which put an end to the long and dangerous -controversy. By the First Article of that Treaty the present -boundary was fixed; the North line from the monument at the head of -the St. Croix river was followed to the point where it intersected -the St. John; the middle of the main channel of that river was then -taken as far as the mouth of its tributary the St. Francis; thence -the middle of the channel of the St. Francis up to the outlet of -the Lake Pohenagamook; from which point the line was drawn in a -South-Westerly direction to the dividing Highlands and the head of -the Connecticut river until the 45th degree of North latitude was -reached. The boundary was subsequently surveyed and marked out, and -upon the 28th of June, 1847, the final results were reported and -the matter was at an end. - -[Sidenote: Settlement of the boundary between the province of -Quebec and that of New Brunswick.] - -The existing boundary is on the whole more favourable to Great -Britain than the line which the King of the Netherlands proposed -and the Americans rejected; but notwithstanding, Lord Ashburton’s -settlement has always been regarded in Canada as having given to -the United States territory to which Great Britain had an undoubted -claim. The fault, however, was not with Lord Ashburton but with the -wording of the original Treaty of 1783; and that treaty, as has -been shown, was based on such geographical information as there -was to hand, accepted at the time in good faith, but subsequently -proved to be incorrect. It should be added that by the Third -Article of the Ashburton Treaty the navigation of the river St. -John was declared to be free and open to both nations, and that -the settlement of the international boundary was followed by an -adjustment of the frontier between Canada and New Brunswick. The -dispute between the two provinces was, at the suggestion of the -Imperial Government, eventually referred to two arbitrators, one -chosen by each province, with an umpire selected by the arbitrators -themselves. The award was given in 1851, and in the same year its -terms were embodied in an Imperial Act of Parliament - - ‘for the settlement of the boundaries between the provinces - of Canada and New Brunswick’. - -[Sidenote: The International boundary in the Bay of Fundy.] - -In the Bay of Fundy the boundary line between British and American -territory was, by the terms of the 1783 Treaty, to be drawn due -East from the mouth of the St. Croix river, assigning to the United -States all islands within twenty leagues of the shore to the South -of the line, - - ‘excepting such islands as now are or heretofore have been - within the limits of the said province of Nova Scotia.’ - -Here was a further ground of dispute, touching the ownership of -the islands in Passamaquoddy Bay. Geographically they would belong -to the United States, unless they could be shown to have been -within the limits of Nova Scotia. The Convention of 1803, which -has already been mentioned as never having been ratified, in the -First Article prescribed the boundary; and the Treaty of Ghent -in the Fourth Article referred the matter to two Commissioners -on precisely the same terms as were adopted by the next Article -of the Treaty in the case of the North-West angle controversy, -i.e., each nation was to appoint an arbitrator, and, if the two -arbitrators failed to agree, separate reports were to be made to -the two governments, and the final decision was to be left to some -friendly sovereign or state. Fortunately the two arbitrators came -to an agreement, delivering their award on the 24th of November, -1817. Three little islands in the Bay of Passamaquoddy, named -Moose Island, Dudley Island, and Frederick Island, were allotted -to the United States, and the rest of the islands in the bay, -together with the island of Grand Manan, lying further out in the -Bay of Fundy, were assigned to Great Britain. The actual channel, -however, was not delimited; and though many years afterwards, under -a Convention of 1892, Commissioners were appointed for the purpose, -they failed to come to a complete agreement; this small question -therefore between the two nations is still awaiting settlement -under the Treaty for the delimitation of International Boundaries -between Canada and the United States which was signed on 11th -April, 1908.[236] - -[Sidenote: The line from the North-Westernmost head of the -Connecticut river to the St. Lawrence.] - -From the point where the boundary line struck the North-Westernmost -head of the Connecticut River, the Treaty of 1783 provided that it -should be carried - - ‘down along the middle of that river to the forty-fifth - degree of North latitude, from thence by a line due West - on said latitude until it strikes the river Iroquois or - Cataraquy’. - -Iroquois or Cataraquy was the name given to the St. Lawrence -between Montreal and Lake Ontario, and the First Article of Lord -Ashburton’s Treaty, identifying the North-Westernmost head of the -Connecticut River with a river called Hall’s Stream, re-affirmed -in somewhat different words the provision of the older Treaty as -to this section of the boundary. Here there was no dispute. The -line had already been laid down in the Proclamation of 1763 and the -Quebec Act of 1774. In the words of the Ashburton Treaty it was the -line - - ‘which has been known and understood to be the line of actual - division between the States of New York and Vermont on one - side and the British province of Canada on the other’. - -[Sidenote: The line up the St. Lawrence and the lakes.] - -From the point where the 45th parallel intersected the St. -Lawrence, the line was, under the Treaty of 1783, to be carried -up the middle of the rivers and lakes to the water communication -between Lake Huron and Lake Superior, with the necessary result -that Lake Michigan was entirely excluded from Canada. By the -Sixth Article of the Treaty of Ghent two Commissioners were to -be appointed to settle doubts as to what was the middle of the -waterway and to which of the two nations the various Islands -belonged: and, as in other cases, if the Commissioners disagreed, -they were to report to their respective governments with a view -to arbitration by a neutral power. A joint award was given,[237] -signed at Utica on the 18th of June, 1822, the boundary being -elaborately specified and the report being accompanied by a series -of maps. - -[Sidenote: The line between Lake Huron and Lake Superior, and to -the most North-Western point of the Lake of the Woods.] - -[Sidenote: Nonexistence of the ‘Long Lake’.] - -[Sidenote: The ‘most North-Western point of the Lake of the Woods’ -determined.] - -[Sidenote: The Ashburton Treaty and the Treaty of 1871.] - -[Sidenote: Navigation of the St. Lawrence.] - -The Treaty of 1783 laid down that the line was to be drawn, as -already stated, through the middle of Lake Huron - - ‘to the water-communication between that lake and Lake - Superior; thence through Lake Superior, Northward of the - Isles Royal and Phelipeaux to the Long Lake; thence through - the middle of said Long Lake and the water communication - between it and the Lake of the Woods to the said Lake of the - Woods, thence through the said lake to the most North-Western - point thereof’. - -Under the Sixth Article of the Treaty of Ghent the Commissioners -defined the frontier line well into the strait between Lakes Huron -and Superior, but stopped short of the Sault St. Marie, at a point -above St. Joseph’s Island and below St. George’s or Sugar Island. -Here they considered that their labours under the Sixth Article -terminated. But the next Article of the Treaty of Ghent provided -that the same two Commissioners should go on to determine - - ‘that part of the boundary between the dominions of the two - powers, which extends from the water communication between - Lake Huron and Lake Superior to the most North-Western point - of the Lake of the Woods’. - -Comparing these words with the terms of the 1783 Treaty, it will -be noticed that mention of the Long Lake is eliminated, as it had -been discovered in the meantime that the Long Lake could not be -identified. On this section of the boundary the Commissioners were -not at one. Accordingly on the 23rd of October, 1826,[238] they -presented an elaborate joint report showing the points on which -they had come to an agreement, and those on which they were at -variance, with their respective recommendations. As to a great -part of the line they were in accord, and especially they defined -by latitude and longitude the most North-Western point of the Lake -of the Woods, but they wholly disagreed as to the ownership of -St. George’s or Sugar Island in the strait between Lake Huron and -Lake Superior, and also as to the line to be taken from a point -towards the Western end of Lake Superior[239] to the Lac de Pluie -or Rainy Lake. They made, however, on either side suggestions for -compromise. The matter was set at rest by the Second Article of -Lord Ashburton’s Treaty, St. George’s Island being assigned to the -United States, and a compromise line being drawn from Lake Superior -to Rainy Lake. The channels along the whole boundary line from the -point where it strikes the St. Lawrence are open to both nations; -and by the Twenty-sixth Article of the Treaty of Washington, dated -the 8th of May, 1871, the navigation of the St. Lawrence, from the -point where it is intersected by the International Boundary down -to the sea is declared to be free and open for the purposes of -Commerce to the citizens of the United States, subject to any laws -and regulations of Great Britain and Canada not inconsistent with -the privilege of free navigation. - -[Sidenote: The line from the most North-Western point of the Lake -of the Woods to the Mississippi.] - -[Sidenote: Mistake as to the source of the Mississippi in the -Treaty of 1783.] - -[Sidenote: Corrected by Jay’s Treaty of 1794.] - -According to the 1783 Treaty the boundary line from the most -North-Western point of the Lake of the Woods was to be drawn - - ‘on a due West course to the river Mississippi’, - -and was then to follow that river Southwards. Here geographical -knowledge was again wanting. The framers of the treaty were under -the impression that the source of the Mississippi was further North -than is actually the case, and they prescribed a geographical -impossibility. It was not long before the mistake was found out, -for the Fourth Article of Jay’s Treaty of 1794[240] began with the -words - - ‘Whereas it is uncertain whether the river Mississippi - extends so far to the Northward as to be intersected by a - line to be drawn due West from the Lake of the Woods.’ - -The same Article provided that there should be a joint survey of -the sources of the river, and, if it was found that the Westward -line did not intersect the river, the boundary was to be adjusted - - ‘according to justice and mutual convenience and in - conformity to the intent of’ - -the 1783 Treaty. - -[Sidenote: The Convention of 1818.] - -[Sidenote: First mention in the boundary agreements of the 49th -Parallel and the Rocky Mountains.] - -The Fifth Article of the unratified Treaty of 1803 provided that a -direct line should be drawn from the North-West point of the Lake -of the Woods to the nearest source of the Mississippi, leaving it -to three Commissioners to fix the two points in question and to -draw the line. A further attempt at adjustment was made in 1806-7, -when the negotiators provisionally agreed to an Article to the -effect that the line should be drawn from the most North-Western -point of the Lake of the Woods to the 49th parallel of latitude, -and from that point due West along the parallel - - ‘as far as the respective territories extend in that quarter’. - -This solution again was not carried into effect; and though the -subject was raised in the negotiations which preceded the Treaty -of Ghent in 1814, no mention was made of it in the Treaty itself. -Eventually, however, on the 20th of October, 1818, a Convention was -signed in London, the Second Article of which ran as follows:-- - - ‘It is agreed that a line drawn from the most North-Western - point of the Lake of the Woods along the 49th parallel of - North latitude or, if the said point shall not be in the - 49th parallel of North latitude, then that a line drawn - from the said point due North or South, as the case may be, - until the said line shall intersect the said parallel of - North latitude, and from the point of such intersection due - West along and with the said parallel, shall be the line - of demarcation between the territories of His Britannic - Majesty and those of the United States, and that the said - line shall form the Southern boundary of the said territories - of His Britannic Majesty and the Northern boundary of the - territories of the United States from the Lake of the Woods - to the Stony Mountains.’[241] - -Here the Rocky Mountains, under the name of the Stony Mountains, -first come in, their existence having been unknown, except by vague -report, when the Peace of 1783 was signed.[242] - -[Sidenote: The boundary line as far as the Rocky Mountains finally -determined by the Ashburton Treaty.] - -[Sidenote: The Ashburton Treaty finally determined the points -arising out of the wording of the Treaty of 1783.] - -Geographical knowledge was creeping on, but the wording of -the Article shows that it was still uncertain whether the -North-Westernmost point of the Lake of the Woods was North or South -of the 49th parallel. This doubt was finally cleared up by the -Commissioners who, as already stated, reported in October, 1826, -and who fixed the point in question in 49° 23′ 55″ North; thus, -when Lord Ashburton negotiated the 1842 Treaty, it was only left -for him, adopting the point which the Commissioners had fixed, to -lay down in the Second Article that the boundary line ran - - ‘thence, according to existing treaties, due South to its - intersection with the 49th parallel of North latitude, and - along that parallel to the Rocky Mountains’. - -The 49th parallel runs through the Lake of the Woods, but the -anterior provision that the boundary line should be carried to the -North-Westernmost point of the lake, coupled with the fact that -that point had been already determined, necessitated an unnatural -and inconvenient diversion of the frontier line first to the -North-West and then due South again, thereby including in American -territory a small corner of land which should clearly have been -assigned to Canada. For this result Lord Ashburton has been blamed, -as he was blamed in the matter of the Maine boundary, but in either -case his hands were tied by previous negotiations and the wording -of existing treaties. A fair review of the whole subject leads to -the conclusion that the Treaty of Washington in 1842 was a not -inadequate compromise of the almost insuperable difficulties which -the wording of the original Treaty of 1783 had left outstanding. - -[Sidenote: Later boundary questions.] - -In tracing the evolution of the boundary between Canada and the -United States we have now reached the point where the 1783 Treaty -ceased to operate, and have seen that the negotiations connected -with the interpretation of the Treaty resulted in the line of -demarcation being carried far beyond that point, viz., the head of -the Mississippi, up to the range of the Rocky Mountains. Meanwhile -the Pacific Coast had begun to attract attention, and a new crop of -international questions had come into existence. - -[Sidenote: The Oregon boundary dispute.] - -The Western territory in dispute between the two nations was known -as the Oregon or Columbia territory, and it lay between the 42nd -degree of North latitude and the Russian line in 54° 40′ North -latitude. The Columbia river took its name from the fact that it -had been entered in May, 1792, by an American ship from Boston -named the _Columbia_, commanded by Captain Gray, who thus claimed -to be the discoverer of the river. In 1805 Lewis and Clark, the -first Americans to cross the continent, reached its head waters and -followed the river down to the sea. In 1811 an American trading -settlement was planted at Astoria near its mouth. This settlement -was voluntarily surrendered to Great Britain in the war which -followed shortly afterwards, but was restored, without prejudice, -to the United States under the general restitution article of the -Treaty of Ghent. The Third Article of the subsequent Treaty of -October 20th, 1818, provided that - - ‘any country that may be claimed by either party on the - North-West coast of America, Westward of the Stony Mountains, - shall, together with its harbours, bays, and creeks and the - navigation of all rivers within the same, be free and open - for the term of 10 years’ - -to both Powers, without prejudice to the claims either of -themselves or of foreign Powers; and this Article was, by a -Convention of 6th of August, 1827, indefinitely prolonged--subject -to one year’s notice on either side--all claims being, as before, -reserved. This last Convention was concluded, as its terms -specified, in order to prevent all hazard of misunderstanding and -to give time for maturing measures for a more definite settlement. - -[Sidenote: The position in 1842.] - -On this basis matters stood in 1842, when the Ashburton Treaty was -signed. There was joint occupation of the Oregon territory by -British and American subjects, and freedom of trade for both. Lord -Ashburton had been empowered to negotiate for a settlement of the -North-Western as well as the North-Eastern frontier line; but the -latter, which involved the question of the Maine--New Brunswick -boundary, being the more pressing matter, it was thought well to -allow the determination of the line West of the Rocky Mountains -to stand over for the moment. As soon as Lord Ashburton’s Treaty -had been signed at Washington in August, 1842, Lord Aberdeen, then -Foreign Secretary in Sir Robert Peel’s Ministry, made overtures -to the United States with a view to an early settlement of the -Oregon question. A long diplomatic controversy ensued, complicated -by changes of government in the United States, and tending, as is -constantly the case in such negotiations, to greater instead of -less divergence of view. - -[Sidenote: The rival claims.] - -The Americans contended that they had a title to the whole -territory up to the Russian line, and they claimed the entire -region drained by the Columbia river. As a compromise, however, -they had already, in the negotiations which ended in the Convention -of 1827, suggested that the boundary line along the 49th parallel -should be continued as far as the Pacific, the navigation of the -Columbia river being left open to both nations. This offer was -repeated as the controversy went on, with the exception that on the -one hand free navigation of the Columbia river was excluded, and on -the other the American Secretary of State proposed - - ‘to make free to Great Britain any port or ports on - Vancouver’s Island, south of this parallel, which the British - Government may desire’.[243] - -The counter British proposal was to the effect that the boundary -line should be continued along the 49th parallel until it -intersected the North-Eastern branch of the Columbia river, and -that then the line of the river should be followed to its mouth, -giving to Great Britain all the country on the north of the river -and to the United States all on the south, the navigation of the -river being free to both nations, and a detached strip of coast -land to the north of the river being also conceded to the United -States, with the further understanding that any port or ports, -either on the mainland or on Vancouver Island, South of the 49th -parallel, to which the United States might wish to have access, -should be constituted free ports. - -[Sidenote: Settlement of the Oregon boundary question by the Treaty -of 1846.] - -The arguments advanced on both sides, based on alleged priority -of discovery and settlement and on the construction of previous -treaties, are contained in the Blue Book of 1846, and are too -voluminous to be repeated here. The controversy went on from 1842 -to 1846; and, when the spring of the latter year was reached, the -Americans had withdrawn their previous offer and had refused a -British proposal to submit the whole matter to arbitration. There -was thus a complete deadlock, but shortly afterwards a debate -in Congress showed a desire on the American side to effect a -friendly settlement of a dispute which had become dangerous, and, -the opportunity being promptly taken by the British Government, a -Draft Treaty was sent out by Lord Aberdeen, which was submitted by -President Polk to the Senate, who by a large majority advised him -to accept it.[244] The Treaty was accordingly signed at Washington -on the 15th of June, 1846. By the First Article the boundary line -was - - ‘continued Westward along the said forty-ninth parallel of - North latitude to the middle of the channel which separates - the continent from Vancouver Island, and thence Southerly, - through the middle of the said channel and of Fuca’s Straits, - to the Pacific Ocean’, - -the navigation of the channel and straits South of the 49th -parallel being left free and open to both nations. By the Second -Article of the same Treaty, the navigation of the Columbia river, -from the point where the 49th parallel intersects its great -Northern branch, was left open to the Hudson’s Bay Company and -to all British subjects trading with the same. The effect of the -Treaty was that Great Britain abandoned the claim to the line of -the Columbia river, and the United States modified its proposal -to adopt the 49th parallel as the boundary so far as to concede -the whole of Vancouver Island to Great Britain. The news that the -treaty had been signed reached England just as Sir Robert Peel’s -ministry was going out of office. - -[Sidenote: The San Juan boundary question.] - -[Sidenote: Arbitration under the Treaty of 1871.] - -The delimitation of the boundary which the Treaty had affirmed -gave rise to a further difficulty. The Treaty having provided that -the sea line was to be drawn southerly through the middle of the -channel which separates Vancouver Island from the continent and of -Fuca’s Straits into the Pacific Ocean, the two nations were unable -to agree as to what was the middle of the channel in the Gulf of -Georgia between the Southern end of Vancouver Island and the North -American coast. The main question at issue was the ownership of -the island of San Juan, and the subject of dispute was for this -reason known as the San Juan boundary question. The British claim -was that the line should be drawn to the Eastward of the island, -down what was known as the Rosario Straits. The Americans contended -that it should be drawn on the Western side, following the Canal -de Haro or Haro Channel. Eventually it was laid down by the 34th -and following Articles of the Treaty of Washington of 8th of -May, 1871--the same Treaty which provided for arbitration on the -_Alabama_ question--that the Emperor of Germany should arbitrate -as to which of the two claims was most in accordance with the true -interpretation of the Treaty of 1846, and that his award should be -absolutely final and conclusive. On the 21st of October, 1872, the -arbitrator gave his award in favour of the United States, and it -was immediately carried into effect, thus completing the boundary -line from the Atlantic to the Pacific. - -[Sidenote: The Alaska boundary question.] - -In a message to Congress on the subject of the San Juan Boundary -Award, President Grant stated - - ‘The Award leaves us, for the first time in the history of - the United States as a nation, without a question of disputed - boundary between our territory and the possessions of Great - Britain on this continent;’ - -and he suggested that a joint Commission should determine the line -between the Alaska territory and the conterminous possessions of -Great Britain, on the hypothesis that here there was no ground of -dispute and that all that was required was the actual delimitation -of an already admitted boundary line. The matter proved to be more -complex than the President’s words implied. - -[Sidenote: Russian America ceded to the United States.] - -[Sidenote: Line of demarcation between British and Russian -possessions in North America drawn in 1825.] - -By a Treaty signed on the 30th of March, 1867, the territory -now known as Alaska was ceded by Russia to the United States. -It was the year in which the Dominion Act was passed; and, when -British Columbia[245] in 1871 joined the Dominion, Canada became, -in respect of that province, as well as in regard to the Yukon -Territory, a party to the Alaska boundary question. The limits of -Russian America, as it was then called, had been fixed as far back -as 1825, when, by a treaty between Great Britain and Russia, dated -the 28th of February in that year, a line of demarcation was fixed -between British and Russian possessions - - ‘upon the coast of the continent and the islands of America - to the North-West’. - -The line started from the Southernmost point of Prince of Wales -Island, which point was defined as lying in the parallel of 54° -40′ North latitude and between the 131st and 133rd degrees of West -longitude. It was carried thence to the North, along the channel -called Portland Channel, up to that point of the continent where it -intersected the 56th parallel of North latitude. From this point it -followed the summit of the mountains parallel to the coast until -it intersected the 141st degree of West longitude, and was carried -along that meridian to the Arctic Ocean. The Treaty provided that -the whole of Prince of Wales Island should belong to Russia, and -that wherever the summit of the mountains running parallel to the -coast between the 56th parallel of North latitude and the point -where the boundary line intersected the 141st meridian was proved -to be at a distance of more than 10 marine leagues from the ocean, -the line should be drawn parallel to the windings of the coast at a -distance from it never exceeding 10 marine leagues. - -[Sidenote: Free navigation of rivers.] - -Free navigation of the rivers which flowed into the Pacific Ocean -across the strip of coast assigned to Russia was conceded in -perpetuity to British subjects; and, after the transfer of Russian -America to the United States, the Twenty-sixth Article of the -Treaty of Washington of 1871 provided that the navigation of the -rivers Yukon, Porcupine, and Stikine should for ever remain free -and open to both British and American citizens, subject to such -laws and regulations of either country within its own territory as -were not inconsistent with the privilege of free navigation. - -[Sidenote: Negotiations for a settlement of the boundary with the -United States.] - -[Sidenote: The Convention of 1892.] - -In 1872, the year after the entry of British Columbia into the -Dominion of Canada, mining being contemplated in the northern -part of British Columbia, overtures were, at the instance of the -Canadian Government, made to the United States to demarcate the -boundary, which had never yet been surveyed and delimited. The -probable cost of a survey caused delay, and no action had been -taken when in 1875 and 1876 disputes arose as to the boundary line -on the Stikine river. The Canadian Government in 1877 dispatched -an engineer to ascertain approximately the line on the river, and -the result of his survey was in the following year provisionally -accepted by the United States as a temporary arrangement, without -prejudice to a final settlement. Negotiations began again about -1884, and, by a Convention signed at Washington on the 22nd of -July, 1892, it was provided that a coincident or joint survey -should be undertaken of the territory adjacent to the boundary -line from the latitude of 54° 40′ North to the point where the -line intersects the 141st degree of West longitude. It was added -that, as soon as practicable after the report or reports had been -received, the two governments should proceed to consider and -establish the boundary line. The time within which the results of -the survey were to be reported was, by a supplementary Convention, -extended to the 31st of December, 1895, and on that date a joint -report was made, but no action was taken upon it at the time. - -[Sidenote: Discovery of gold at Klondyke.] - -[Sidenote: Further negotiations.] - -In 1896 the Klondyke goldfields were discovered in what now -constitutes the Yukon district of the North-West Territories, -and in the following year there was a large immigration into the -district. The goldfields were most accessible by the passes beyond -the head of the inlet known as the Lynn canal, the opening of -which into the sea is within what had been the Russian fringe of -coast. The necessity therefore for determining the boundary became -more urgent than before. In 1898 the British Government proposed -that the matter should be referred to three Commissioners, one -appointed by each government and the third by a neutral power; and -that, pending a settlement, a _modus vivendi_ should be arranged. -A provisional boundary in this quarter was accordingly agreed -upon, but, instead of the Commission which had been proposed, -representatives of Great Britain and the United States alone met in -1898 and 1899 to discuss and if possible settle various questions -at issue between the two nations, among them being the Alaska -boundary. They were to endeavour to come to an agreement as to -provisions for the delimitation of the boundary - - ‘by legal and scientific experts, if the Commission should so - decide, or otherwise’, - -memoranda of the views held on either side being furnished in -advance of the sittings of the Commission. Again no settlement was -effected. - -[Sidenote: The Convention of 1903. Joint Commission appointed.] - -The dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela as to the boundary -between Venezuela and British Guiana, in which the Government of -the United States had intervened, had, by a Convention signed in -February, 1897, been referred to arbitration, the Arbitrators -being five in number, two Englishmen, two Americans, and one -representative of a neutral State. In July, 1899, before the award -in this arbitration had been given, Lord Salisbury proposed to -the American Government that a treaty on identical lines with the -Venezuela boundary Convention should apply arbitration to the -Alaska Boundary question. To this procedure, giving a casting vote -on the whole question to a representative of a neutral power, -the American Government took exception, and suggested instead a -Tribunal consisting of ‘Six impartial Jurists of repute’, three to -be appointed by the President of the United States and three by Her -Britannic Majesty. A suggestion made by the British Government that -one of the three Arbitrators on either side should be a subject of -a neutral state was not accepted; and eventually, on the 24th of -January, 1903, a Convention was signed at Washington, constituting -a tribunal in accordance with the American conditions. The three -British representatives were the Lord Chief Justice of England and -two leading Canadians, one of them being the Lieutenant-Governor of -the Province of Quebec. - -[Sidenote: Points for decision.] - -The preamble of the Convention stated that its object was a -‘friendly and final adjustment’ of the differences which had -arisen as to the ‘true meaning and application’ of the clauses -in the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1825 which referred to the Alaska -boundary. The tribunal was to decide where the line was intended to -begin; what channel was the Portland Channel; how the line should -be drawn from the point of commencement to the entrance to the -Portland Channel; to what point on the 56th parallel and by what -course it should be drawn from the head of the Portland Channel; -what interpretation should be given to the provision in the Treaty -of 1825 that from the 56th parallel to the point where the 141st -degree of longitude was intersected the line should follow the -crest of the mountains running parallel to the coast at a distance -nowhere exceeding ten marine leagues from the ocean; and what were -the mountains, if any, which were indicated by the treaty. - -[Sidenote: Main point at issue.] - -The main point at issue was whether the ten leagues should be -measured from the open sea or from the heads of the inlets, some -of which ran far into the land. If the latter interpretation were -adopted, the result would be to give to the United States control -of the main lines of communication with the Klondyke Mining -district, just as the Maine boundary threatened to cut, and in -large measure did cut, communication between the Maritime Provinces -and Quebec. - -[Sidenote: The Award.] - -The Convention provided that all questions considered by the -tribunal, including the final award, should be decided by a -majority of the Arbitrators. The tribunal was unanimous in deciding -that the point of commencement of the line was Cape Muzon, the -Southernmost point of Dall Island on the Western or ocean side of -Prince of Wales Island. A unanimous opinion was also given to the -effect that the Portland Channel is the channel which runs from -about 55°56′ North latitude and passes seawards to the North of -Pearse and Wales Islands; but on all subsequent points there was -a division of opinion, the three American representatives and the -Lord Chief Justice of England giving a majority award from which -the two Canadian members of the tribunal most strongly dissented. -The majority decided that the outlet of the Portland Channel to the -sea was to be identified with the strait known as Tongass Channel, -and that the line should be drawn along that channel and pass to -the South of two islands named Sitklan and Khannaghunut islands, -thus vesting the ownership of those islands in the United States. -They also decided that the boundary line from the 56th parallel of -North latitude to the point of intersection with the 141st degree -of West longitude should run round the heads of the inlets and not -cross them. One section of the line was not fully determined owing -to the want of an adequate survey. The net result of the award -was to substantiate the American claims, to give to the United -States full command of the sea approaches to the Klondyke Mining -districts, and to include within American territory two islands -hard by the prospective terminus of a new Trans-Canadian Railway. - -[Sidenote: The Behring Sea arbitration.] - -It may be added that the Treaty of 30th March, 1867, by which -Alaska was transferred from Russia to the United States, gave rise -not only to the territorial boundary dispute of which an account -has been given above, but also to a controversy as to American and -British rights in the Behring Sea, more especially in connexion -with the taking of seals. The questions at issue were settled at a -much earlier date than the land boundary, having been, by a treaty -signed at Washington on the 29th of February, 1892, referred to -a tribunal of seven arbitrators, two named by the United States, -two by Great Britain, and one each by the President of the French -Republic, the King of Italy, and the King of Sweden and Norway. -The arbitrators met in Paris and gave their award on the 15th -of August, 1893, the substance of the award, as concurred in -by the majority of the arbitrators, being that Russia had not -exercised any exclusive rights of jurisdiction in Behring Sea or -any exclusive rights to the seal fisheries in that sea outside the -ordinary three-mile limit, and that no such rights had passed to -the United States. - -[Sidenote: The Treaty of April 11, 1908.] - -The last phase in the evolution of the Boundary line between Canada -and the United States is the Treaty of 11th of April, 1908, ‘for -the delimitation of International Boundaries between Canada and -the United States’, by which machinery is provided ‘for the more -complete definition and demarcation of the International Boundary’, -and for settling any small outstanding points such as, e.g., the -boundary line through Passamaquoddy Bay. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[230] See the report of the Lords of the Committee of Council -for Plantation Affairs, October 6, 1763, given at pp. 116-18 of -_Documents Relating to the Constitutional History of Canada, -1759-91_ (Shortt and Doughty). - -[231] See _State Papers_, vol. i, Part II, p. 1369. - -[232] _Note._--The territory in dispute, however, seems partly to -have been claimed by the United States as Federal Territory and -not as belonging to Massachusetts. See the letter from Gallatin to -Monroe, December 25, 1814. _State Papers_ for 1821-2, vol. ix, p. -562. - -[233] See _State Papers_, vol. i, Part II, p. 1603. - -[234] See _State Papers_, vol. i, Part II, p. 1625. - -[235] See the two Blue Books of July, 1840, as to the ‘North -American Boundary’. - -[236] The above account of the boundary disputes between Great -Britain and the United States in the region of Maine and New -Brunswick has been mainly taken from the very clear and exhaustive -_Monograph of the Evolution of the Boundaries of the Province of -New Brunswick_, by William F. Ganay, M.A., Ph.D., 1901, published -in the _Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada_, 1901-2, and -also published separately. - -[237] It will be found in the _State Papers_ for 1821-2, vol. ix, -p. 791. - -[238] The report will be found in the _State Papers_, 1866-7, vol. -lvii, p. 803. - -[239] This point is described in the report as ‘100 yards to the -North and East of a small island named on the map Chapeau and lying -opposite and near to the North-Eastern point of Isle-Royale’. - -[240] _State Papers_, vol. i, Part I (1812-14), p. 784. - -[241] _State Papers_, vol. vi, 1818-19, p. 3--also in Hertslet’s -collection. - -[242] As to the discovery of the Rocky Mountains, see vol. v, Part -I of _Historical Geography of the British Colonies_, p. 214 and -note. - -[243] Correspondence relative to the negotiation of the question of -the disputed right to the Oregon Territory on the North-West coast -of America subsequent to the Treaty of Washington of August 9, -1842. Presented to Parliament in 1846, p. 39. - -[244] A good account of the negotiations is in a _Historical Note_, -1818-46, included in a Blue Book of 1873, C.-692, North America, -No. 5 (1873). - -[245] The boundaries of British Columbia had been fixed by an -Imperial Act of 1863. - - - - -INDEX - - - Abercromby, 51, 102, 126, 189, 203. - - Acadia, 49, 50, 69, 238 n., &c. - - Act of 1791. _See_ Canada Act. - - Adams, John, 289. - - Adet, 289. - - Administration of Justice. _See_ Justice, Administration of. - - Albany, 24, 140, 145-9, 154, 157, 165-72, 174-5, 182, 203. - - Alleghany, the, 9, 19, 59, 83. - - Allen, Ethan, 101, 106, 107, 119 n., 191. - - American Civil War, 228-9. - - Amherst, Lord, 11, 15, 17, 19, 23, 63, 102, 106, 125, 126, 129, 130, - 189, 203, 289. - - Amiens, Peace of. _See_ Treaty. - - Anne, Fort, 164, 166, 167, 188. - - Anticosti Island, 2, 3, 80. - - Arbuthnot, Marriot, 127, 198. - - Arnold, Benedict, 98 n., 101, 108-12, 113, 114, 116-20, 122, 123, - 157, 175, 177, 178, 180 n., 185, 198, 199, 291. - - Ashburton Treaty. _See_ Treaty. - - Assemblies, Legislative, 3, 4, 71-3, 77, 87-9, 241, 243, 245, - 257-65, 295-6, 318-9. - - Australia, 32, 44, 45, 205, 278. - - - Bahamas, 223. - - Barbados, 52 n., 253-4. - - Bathurst, Lord, 278. - - Batten Kill river, 169, 170, 175. - - Baum, Colonel, 169-71, 170 n. - - Baye des Chaleurs, 2, 224. - - Beaver Creek, 27, 83. - - Bedard, 307. - - Bedford or Raestown, 17, 19, 20. - - Belêtre, 12. - - Bemus’ Heights, 174. - - Bennington, 168-72, 171-2 n., 198. - - Bermuda, 257. - - Bird, Lieutenant, 153, 156. - - Bloody Run. _See_ Parents Creek. - - Bonaparte, Jerome, 300. - - Boston, 85, 95, 96, 107, 130-2, 182, 213, 221, 309. - - Bouquet, Henry, 11, 17, 18 n., 19, 20 and n., 21, 22 and n., 23, 24, - 26, 27, 188. - - Bouquet river, 159. - - Braddock, General, 14, 18, 19, 21, 174. - - Bradstreet, Colonel, 23-6, 98 n. - - Brandywine, 134, 289. - - Brant County, 234. - - Brant, Joseph, 97 n., 119 n., 148-58, 150 n., 185-7, 186 n., 232-5. - - Brant, Molly, 58, 149, 155. - - Brantford, 152, 234, 235 n. - - Breyman, Colonel, 170, 171, 176, 178, 179 n. - - Brock, Isaac, 317. - - Bunker’s Hill, 90, 106, 125-6, 130, 131, 150, 303. - - Burgoyne, 116, 122, 125, 126, 129, 130, 131, 138, 139, 144, 145, - 146, 152, 158-85, 160 n., 180 n., 182 n., 187, 188, 203, - 237-8, 303. - - Burke, 54, 83, 89, 117, 128, 135, 216, 244. - - Burke’s Act 1782, 298 n. - - Burnet, Governor, 147. - - Burton, Colonel, 63-5, 67. - - Bushy Run, 21. - - Butler, Colonel John, 152, 155, 156, 185. - - Butler, Walter, 187. - - - Caghnawagas, 148-9 n. - - Cahokia, 10. - - Camden, 174, 197, 198. - - Camden, Lord, 87, 129 n. - - Campbell, Captain, 15. - - Campbell, Colonel, 196. - - Campbell, Major John, 98 n., 286. - - Canada, 4-6, 8-10, 37, 39, 45, 50-3, 59-74, 114-5, 206-7, 210-1, - 238-41, 263-4, 289-319 _et passim_. - - Canada, Lower, 232, 238 and n., 246-319. - - Canada, Upper, 85, 223-5, 232, 238 n., 246-319. - - Canada Act, 239, 242-79, 312. - - Canada Trade Act, 271. - - Canadians. _See_ French Canadians. - - Canals, 191, 239. - - Canning, George, 310. - - Cap François, 199. - - Cap Rouge, 110. - - Cape Breton, 3, 80, 223, 224, 237 n., 238 n., 292. - - Cape Diamond, 112. - - Carignan-Salières Regiment, 230. - - Carleton, 32, 68, 75, 76, 89-100, 94 n., 95 n., 96 n., 102, 103-16, - 118 and n., 119 n., 122-6, 130, 131, 133, 135, 137-44, 152, - 158, 159, 161, 165, 173, 182, 185, 201, 220, 226, 236-88, 250 - n., 295, 303. - - Carleton Island, 185. - - Carleton, Major, 188. - - Carlisle, 19, 20. - - Carlisle, Lord, 214. - - Carolina, 196-9, 218, 220, 222, 304. - - Carroll, 122. - - Castine, 188. - - Castlereagh, Lord, 303, 310. - - Castleton, 164, 167, 169. - - Cataraqui. _See_ Frontenac, Fort. - - Cavendish, Lord John, 215, 216. - - Cayugas, 148, 234. - - Cedars, the, 119 and n., 120, 152. - - Chambly, Fort, 102, 107, 108 and n., 122, 123, 239. - - Champlain, Lake, 2, 52 n., 90, 101, 102, 105, 106, 109, 122-5, 130, - 138, 145, 157, 159, 162-4, 174, 185, 187, 203, 239. - - Charleston, 132, 173 n., 196, 197, 201, 222, 282-3. - - Chartres, Fort, 9, 23, 27, 28. - - Chatham. _See_ Pitt. - - Chaudière river, 109, 185. - - Cherry Valley, 151, 186, 187, 212. - - Chesapeake Bay, 134, 175, 199, 200. - - _Chesapeake_ frigate, 303. - - Choiseul, 31. - - Christie, Ensign, 17. - - Christie, Robert, 315, &c. - - Church of England, 265-7. - - Civil List, 255. - - Clark, George Rogers, 187, 188, 236 n. - - Clarke, Sir Alured, 271, 272, 304. - - Claus, Colonel Daniel, 152. - - Clinton, Sir Henry, 125, 126, 129 and n., 132-4, 175, 177, 181, - 195-201. - - Clive, Lord, 160. - - Cobbett, William, 313. - - Colbert, 64, 71. - - Collier, Admiral, 127, 188. - - Colonies, Relation to Mother Country, 37-59. - - Companies, 40. - - Congress, 60, 95, 97, 101, 106, 120, 184, 190, 191, 211, 213, 214, - 300. - - Connecticut, 101, 164, 166, 167, 186 n., 221. - - Conway, General, 115, 136 n. - - Cornwallis, Lord, 126, 127, 130, 132, 133, 197-201, 304. - - Council of Trade and Plantations. _See_ Trade. - - Councils, Executive, 142-3, 194, 252-65, 272, 296. - - Councils, Legislative, 73, 79, 87, 105, 194-5, 241-3, 249-67. - - Courtenay, 237. - - Cowpens, 113, 198. - - Craig, Sir James, 303-19. - - Cramahé, Lieutenant-Governor, 142. - - Croghan, 28. - - Crown Lands, 95, 253, 266, 290-1, 295, &c. - - Crown Land Funds, 253-5, 290. - - Crown Point, Fort, 90, 101, 102, 123, 124, 161, 163, 167, 173, 185. - - Cumberland, Fort, 19. - - Customs Arrangement, 270-1. - - Cuyler, Lieutenant, 15, 16. - - - Dalhousie, Lord, 278. - - Dalyell, Captain, 17, 18 and n., 20. - - D’Anville, 49. - - Dartmouth, Lord, 104, 124, 135. - - Dayton, Fort, 154, 157, 186. - - Dead river, 109. - - De Barras, 200. - - De Grasse, Admiral, 127, 199-201. - - Delaware river, 59, 132, 133, 139. - - Delawares. _See_ Indians. - - De Puisaye, Count Joseph, 230-2. - - De Rochambeau, 198-200. - - D’Estaing, Admiral, 184, 196. - - Detroit, 9, 12-18, 20, 23, 25, 28, 225, 238, 245, 247, 284, 286. - - Detroit river, 12, 14, 15, 16, 232, 275. - - Diamond Island, 173. - - D’Iberville, 49. - - Dorchester, Lord. _See_ Carleton. - - Drummond, Gordon, 147. - - Du Calvet, 190 and n. - - Dundas, 240 n., 265, 266, 267, 274, 276, 281, 284, 285. - - Dundas Street, 274. - - Dunmore, Lord, 221. - - Dunn, Thomas, 298. - - Dunning, 82. - - Duquesne, Fort. _See_ Pittsburg. - - Durham, Lord, 205, 248 n., 253, 260, 271, 279, 316. - - Dutchman’s Point, 239. - - - Eastern Townships, 308. - - East Florida. _See_ Florida. - - Ecorces river, 14. - - Ecuyer, Captain, 20. - - Edge Hill, 21, 22, 26. - - Education, 296-7. - - Edward, Fort, 146, 164-8, 169, 172, 174, 175, 179-81. - - Egremont, Lord, 5. - - Elphinstone, Admiral, 304. - - Erie. _See_ Presque Isle. - - Erie, Lake, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 23, 83, 84, 233-4, 275, 282, - 284, 286. - - Etherington, Captain, 16. - - Eutaw Springs, 199. - - Executive Council. _See_ Council. - - - Famars, 274. - - Fees and Perquisites, 92, 193, 194, 280-1. - - Ferguson, Major, 198. - - Finlay, Hugh, 248 n. - - Firth, 316. - - Fishing Rights, 3, 80-1 and n. - American, 211, 264. - French, 1. - - Fish Kill Stream, 180, 181. - - Florida, 1, 5, 27, 28, 189, 190, 196, 223. - - Forbes, General John, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 51. - - Forster, Captain, 119 and n., 120, 121. - - Fox, 87, 117, 128, 151, 160, 201, 216, 217, 219, 243, 244, 252, 262, - 267, 287. - - France, Declaration of War, 282. - - Francis, Colonel, 164. - - Franklin, Benjamin, 59, 122, 201, 204, 208, 227, 258. - - Franklin, William, 59, 212. - - Fraser, General, 164, 170, 176-8, 180. - - Frazer, Captain, 171. - - Freehold Court House, 196. - - Freeman’s Farm, 176, 180 n. - - French Canadians, 24, 60, 67 n., 75-8, 81, 91-100, 247, 249, 293-7, - 310-12, 317-18, &c. - - French Creek, 9, 12. - - French designs on Canada, 300-2. - - French Intervention, War of Independence, 184. - - French Royalists Settlement, 230-2, 232 n. - - French Rule in Canada, 8-10, 39, 64-6, 141, 252, 294. - - Frontenac, Count, 8, 147, 185, 288. - - Frontenac, Fort, 9, 24, 225. - - - Gage, General, 4, 23, 25, 63, 64, 90, 95, 96, 97, 104, 107, 125, - 126, 131, 190. - - Gananoque river, 275 n. - - Gansevoort, Colonel, 153. - - Gaspé Peninsula, 2, 224. - - Gates, General, 124, 172, 174, 175, 180 n., 181, 182, 197, 198. - - General Assemblies. _See_ Assemblies. - - Genet, 282, 283. - - George, Fort, 90, 101, 122, 166, 188, 272. - - George, Lake, 52 n., 58, 102, 162, 163, 166, 167, 173, 174, 187. - - Georgia, 1, 196, 222. - - Germain, Lord George, 124, 125, 131, 135-41, 152, 158, 165, 172, - 173, 182, 190, 191, 195, 201, 215, 217. - - German Flatts, 154-5, 186. - - German Regiments, 37, 122, 133, 134, 138, 152, 162, 169, 176, 178. - - Germantown, 134. - - Gibraltar, 69, 201. - - Gladwin, Major, 14, 15, 17, 23, 25. - - Glenelg, Lord, 279. - - Glengarry County, 229. - - Gloucester, 199. - - Gore, Francis, 316. - - Grand river, 233, 234, 235 n. - - Grant, Alexander, 298. - - Graves, Admiral, 107, 127, 200, 273. - - Greek Colonies, 42-3, 45 n., 205. - - Green Bay, Fort, 17, 25. - - Green Mountain Boys, 101, 191. - - Greene, Nathaniel, 128, 198, 199. - - Greenville Treaty. _See_ Treaty. - - Grenada, 1, 88. - - Grenville, George, 53, 54 and n. - - Grenville, Lord, 240 n., 246-55, 265, 285. - - Guildford Court House, 198. - - - Habeas Corpus, 74, 88 and n., 95, 193, 195, 241, 242-3, 244. - - Haldimand County, 234. - - Haldimand, Sir Frederick, 63, 88 n., 143, 147, 150, 185, 188-95, 189 - n., 190 n., 220, 224, 225, 233, 236, 239, 241, 246. - - Half Moon, 174. - - Halifax, 114, 188, 213, 221. - - Hamilton, Alexander, 227, 282, 285. - - Hamilton, Lieutenant-Governor, 187, 236 n. - - Hampshire Grants, 167. - - Hastings, Warren, 160. - - Havana, 1, 68. - - Hawke, Admiral, 127. - - Herkimer, General Nicholas, 154-7. - - Hessians. _See_ German Regiments. - - Hey, Chief Justice, 103 and n., 104, 105 n., 106, 141. - - Highlanders, 20, 22, 28, 229, 230. - - Hillsborough, Lord, 92, 135. - - Hobkirk’s Hill, 199. - - Hood, Sir Samuel, 127, 200. - - Hoosick river, 168, 170. - - Hope, Colonel, 236 n. - - Hope, Mount, 173. - - Howe, Admiral, 127, 129, 130, 132, 133, 139, 196. - - Howe, General, 107, 125, 126, 129 and n., 130-4, 138, 139, 145, 146, - 167, 168, 172, 175, 195, 213, 221, 222. - - Huberton, 164. - - Hudson Bay, 257. - - Hudson Bay Company’s Territories, 6, 7, 70, 80, 82, 210, 292. - - Hudson river, 131, 132, 134, 146, 165-7, 170, 173-83, 196, 200, 203. - - Hudson Straits, 3, 80. - - Hunter, General, 292, 298. - - Huron, Lake, 2, 5, 9, 13, 232 n., 233, 275. - - - Illinois, 4, 27, 84, 187. - - Illinois Indians. _See_ Indians. - - Independence, Mount, 162, 163-5, 175. - - Independence, War of, 90-207 _et passim_. - Causes, 30-63, &c. - Effects, 204-7. - - Indians, 5-29, 53, 57-9, 96-7, 97 n., 119-21, 124, 147-59, 153 n., - 168, 185-7, 281-6. - Delawares, 23-6. - Illinois, 9, 27. - Iroquois. _See_ Six Nations. - Mississaugas, 233. - Mohawks, 148-50, 148-9 n., 152, 232-5, 235 n. - Ojibwas, 16. - Oneidas, 58, 147. - Ottawas, 12, 16. - Pontiac’s War, 10-29, 99. - Senecas, 10, 22, 24, 148, 152. - Shawanoes, 24, 27. - Six Nations, 10, 22, 58 and n., 59, 83, 147-59, 150 n., 187, 232-5. - Tuscaroras, 147-8. - War with United States, 281-6. - Wyandots, 25. - - Indian Territory, 5-7, 58-9, 83, 233-4. - - Inglis, Bishop, 267. - - Isle aux Noix, 106, 123, 124, 185. - - Isle Royale. _See_ Cape Breton. - - - James river, 199. - - Jay, John, 227, 282, 284-5. - - Jay’s Treaty. _See_ Treaty. - - Jefferson, Thomas, 282, 284, 289. - - Jews, exclusion from Quebec Assembly, 305-6. - - Johnson, Colonel Guy, 98 n., 149-51. - - Johnson, Sir John, 149, 152, 155, and n., 156, 242. - - Johnson, Sir William, 24, 27, 28, 57, 58 and n., 59, 71, 97 and n., - 102, 147, 149, 151. - - Johnson’s Royal Greens, 152. - - Judges, exclusion from Quebec Assembly, 305-6. - - Justice, Administration of, 73, 77, 79, 92, 248, 265, 272. - - - Kalm, Peter, 30, 31 and n. - - Kaskaskia, 187. - - Kaskaskia river, 9, 187. - - Kempt, Sir James, 309. - - Kennebec river, 109. - - King’s Mountain, 198. - - Kingston, 9, 225, 232, 233, 242, 272. - - Kirkland, Samuel, 148. - - - Labrador, 2, 3, 80, 81, 80-1 n. - - Lachine, 120. - - Lafayette, 184, 187, 199, 200, 250. - - La Mothe Cadillac, 9. - - Land Tenure, 59, 95, 243, 247, 267, 290, 291, 293. - - Language Question, 248, 297. - - La Prairie, 123. - - La Salle, 8, 9. - - La Tranche river. _See_ Thames. - - Le Bœuf, Fort, 9, 11-12, 17, 20. - - Le Canadien, 297, 305, 307, 311. - - Lecky, Professor, 38, 48, 128. - - Lee, General Charles, 132, 196. - - Legislative Council. _See_ Council. - - Levis, 114. - - Levis, Point, 110, 113. - - Lexington, 90, 101, 125. - - Ligonier, Fort, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. - - Lincoln, Benjamin, 173 and n., 175, 197. - - Liverpool, Lord, 310, 313, 315. - - Liverpool Regiment, the 8th Regiment, 152, 153. - - Livius, Peter, 140-4, 143 n., 194 and n., 195 and n., 237, 248, 255, - 280. - - Loftus, Major, 28. - - Logs Town, 83. - - London, Ontario, 275. - - Long Sault Rapids, 2. - - Loudoun, General, 126. - - Loughborough, Lord, 215. - - Louis XIV, 64, 230, 247. - - Louisbourg, 41, 49, 50, 51, 52 n., 61, 117, 289. - - Louisiana, 1, 10, 37, 50, 230, 282, 283, 302. - - Loyalhannon, 19. - - Loyalists, 36, 61, 106, 130, 135, 152, 169, 170, 171, 185, 191, 196, - 197, 198, 208-35, 218 n., 236, 238 and n., 239, 242, 290, 292. - - Loyalist Corps, 220-1, 273. - - Lumber Trade, 308. - - Luttrell, Captain, 237. - - Lymburner, Adam, 243, 247, 262. - - - Macartney, Lord, 304. - - Macdonells, the, 229, 230 and n. - - Maclane, 289. - - Maclean, Colonel, 108, 111, 188. - - Madelaine Island, 3. - - Madison, President, 319. - - Mahan, Captain, 130. - - Maine, 84, 209. - - Maitland, Sir Peregrine, 278. - - Marion, General, 227. - - Masères, 79. - - Massachusetts, 37, 52 n., 81, 85, 86, 188, 209, 221. - - Maumee river, 9, 13, 16, 284, 286. - - McCrae, Jane, 168. - - Megantic, Lake, 109. - - Melville, Lord. _See_ Dundas. - - Miami, 9, 13, 16, 25, 281, 284, 286. - - Michigan, Lake, 5, 9, 16. - - Michigan Peninsula, 286. - - Michillimackinac, Fort, 9, 13, 16, 25, 239. - - Militia, Canadian, 114, 294-5, 303. - - Miller, Fort, 175. - - Milnes, Robert Shore, 292-6, 298, 316. - - Mississaugas. _See_ Indians. - - Mississippi, 1, 4, 5, 9, 27, 28, 32, 51, 80, 83, 84, 187, 302. - - Mohawk river, 24, 145-58, 168, 169, 174. - - Mohawks. _See_ Indians. - - Molson, John, 308. - - Monckton, General, 12. - - Monmouth, Battle of, 196. - - Monongahela river, 14. - - Montcalm, 31 and n., 41, 42 n., 102, 147, 153. - - Montgomery, Robert, 60, 106-13, 110 n., 114, 116-18, 118 n., 185. - - Montreal, 11, 12, 17, 63, 65, 67, 70, 73, 80, 91, 97, 102, 105, - 106-10, 119, 120, 122, 157, 189, 238, 239, 245, 247, 270, 276, - 308. - - Moreau, 300. - - Morgan, Daniel, 113, 175, 198. - - Morris, Captain, 25. - - Morse, Colonel Robert, 223-4. - - Mulgrave, Lord, 216. - - Murray, General James, 4, 61 and n., 63-8, 67 n., 72, 73, 74, 75, - 77, 78, 93, 100, 109, 114, 193, 296 n. - - Muskingum river, 26. - - - Napoleon, 302, 308, 311, 317. - - Native Question, 56-9. - - Navigation Laws, 41, 47. - - Navy Hall, 272. - - Newark, 272, 275 and n. - - New Brunswick, 80, 84, 209, 223, 224, 237, 238 n., 263, 264, 292. - - New England, 24, 39, 40, 41, 43, 49, 50, 52 and n., 53, 56, 62, 81, - 104, 166-7, 169, 174, 196, 197, 221, 223. - - Newfoundland, 1, 3, 50, 69, 80, 81, 114. - - New Hampshire, 101. - - New Jersey, 59, 132, 186 n., 198, 200, 212, 213. - - New Orleans, 1, 28, 282, 302. - - Newport, 133, 200. - - New York, 13, 24, 40, 50, 59, 63, 69, 90, 101, 129, 130, 132, 133, - 174, 175, 181, 185, 186 n., 189, 191, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, - 221, 222, 223, 224, 229, 236. - - New Zealand, 45, 57. - - Niagara, Fort, 9, 11, 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 185, 239, 275 and n. - - Niagara river, 9, 15, 24, 82, 225, 233, 272. - - Nipissim or Nipissing, Lake, 2. - - Non-intercourse Acts, 308. - - Nootka Sound Convention, 261. - - Norfolk, 221. - - North, Lord, 83, 136, 139, 192, 193, 201, 215, 216, 217, 219, 226, - 227. - - North-west Company, 292. - - Nova Scotia, 3, 80, 209, 219, 220 n., 223, 224, 236, 236-7 n., 238 - n., 267, 292, 315. - - - Ogdensburg, 119, 239. - - Ohio, 9, 13, 18, 20, 23, 24, 28, 41, 51, 58, 59, 80, 83, 84, 239, - 281, 282, 283, 284, 286. - - Ojibwas. _See_ Indians. - - Oneida, 234. - - Oneida County, 59. - - Oneida, Lake, 147. - - Oneidas. _See_ Indians. - - Onondaga, 234, _and see_ Oswego. - - Ontario, 3, 5, 6, 11, 223, 224, 229, 238, _and see_ Upper Canada. - - Ontario, Lake, 5, 9, 11, 45, 80, 83, 146, 147, 185, 225, 233, 272. - - Oriskany, 148, 155-7, 157 n. - - Osgoode, Chief Justice, 280, 291, 296. - - Oswald, Richard, 201, 202, 217, 227. - - Oswegatchie. _See_ Ogdensburg. - - Oswego, 24, 28, 146, 147, 153, 157, 158, 189, 239. - - Ottawa river, 2, 3. - - Ottawas. _See_ Indians. - - Ouatanon, Fort, 9, 16, 28. - - Ours or Ouse, River. _See_ Grand river. - - - Palliser, Sir Hugh, 80. - - Panet, M., 305, 306. - - Parents Creek, 17, 18. - - Peace of Paris. _See_ Treaty. - - Peel, Sir Robert, 310. - - Penns, the, 83, 220. - - Pennsylvania, 18, 19, 20, 26, 27, 53, 56, 57, 59, 83, 84, 85, 172, - 186 and n., 218, 220, 222. - - Penobscot river, 188. - - Pepperell, Sir W., 62. - - Pepperell, Sir W., 212. - - Percival, 310, 313. - - Philadelphia, 13, 20, 26, 95, 129-34, 146, 175, 195, 196, 200, 213, - 222. - - Phillips, General, 199. - - Piquet, Abbé, 119. - - Pitt, the elder, 32, 37, 51, 81, 89, 126, 128, 136 n., 183. - - Pitt, the younger, 201, 220, 237, 244, 245, 248, 252, 261, 262, 267, - 268, 273, 287. - - Pittsburg, 9, 12, 17-22, 23, 26, 51, 59, 83. - - Plattsburg, 123, 124. - - Plymouth Settlement, 43. - - Point au Fer, 162, 239. - - Pointe aux Trembles, 110. - - Point Levis. _See_ Levis, Point. - - Pontiac, 10, 12, 14, 18, 23, 25, 27, 28, 99, 150, 151. - - Pontiac’s War. _See_ Indians. - - Portland, Duke of, 219, 231, 240 n., 278, 285, 286, 292. - - Port Royal, 41, 50. - - Powys, 242, 243. - - Prescott, Robert, 286-92, 296, 303, 305. - - Prés de Ville, 112. - - Presque Isle, 9, 11, 16, 17, 20, 25, 83, 239. - - Preston, Major, 107 and n., 108. - - Prevost, Sir George, 196, 289 n. 309, 314, 319. - - Prideaux, 147. - - Prince Edward Island, 3, 80, 236-7 n., 292. - - Proclamation of 1763, 1-8, 58, 66, 70, 79, 82, 83, 140. - - Protestant Clergy, 265-7. - - Protestants, 68, 74-8, 89, 95 n., 100, 229, &c. - - - Quebec, Province of, 1-4, 70, 79-82, 82 n., 84, 86, 88 n., 225, 236, - 238, 241, 242, 245, 246-64, 270, &c. - - Quebec, Town of, 3, 41, 52 n., 60, 63, 65, 67, 69, 90, 91, 92, 95, - 97, 105, 106-19, 124, 131, 185, 236, 237, 238, 247, 267, 270, - 287, 289, 308, &c. - - Quebec Act of 1774, 8, 37, 60, 68-89, 87 n., 93, 95, 96, 98, 100, - 103-6, 140, 141, 195, 240, 242, 243-4. - - Quebec Revenue Act, 87 n., 269 n. - - Quiberon Bay, 127, 230. - - Quinté, Bay of, 225, 233, 235 n. - - - Raestown. _See_ Bedford. - - Rahl, General, 133, 134. - - Randolph, 282, 284. - - Rawdon, Lord, 199. - - Religion, 72, 74, 76-9, 86, 95 n., 248, 265-9, 294, 296-7, 310-11. - _See also_ Protestants _and_ Roman Catholics. - - Rhode Island, 133, 167, 196, 197, 198, 200. - - Richelieu river, 71, 108, 114, 122, 123, 185, 224, 239. - - Riedesel, Baron, 122, 162, 164, 167, 169, 176, 177. - - Robertson, Colonel, 19. - - Rockingham, Lord, 160, 201. - - Rodney, Admiral, 127, 200, 201. - - Rogers, Major Robert, 11-13, 11 n., 12 n., 13 n., 17, 18, 102. - - Roman Catholics, 61, 72 and n., 74, 76-9, 85-9, 95 n., 265, 266, - 294, 296, 311, 312, 314, 318. - - Rosieres, Cape, 2. - - Ross, Major, 188. - - Roubaud, 31 n. - - Rouillé, Fort. _See_ Toronto. - - Royal American Regiment, 13, 20, 52 n. - - Royal Highland Emigrants, 111. - - Russell, Peter, 286-7. - - Ryland, 309-14, 310 n. - - - Sabine, 227. - - Sackville, Lord George. _See_ Germain. - - Saguenay river, 2 and n. - - St. Charles river, 110, 112. - - St. Clair, General, 163, 281, 283. - - St. Clair, Lake, 9, 14, 275. - - St. Domingo, 273, 302. - - St. Francis, Lake, 119, 225, 239. - - St. Francis river, 185. - - St. Jean _or_ St. John’s Island. _See_ Prince Edward Island. - - St. John, Lake, 2. - - St. John river, 2 and n., 3, 80, 223. - - St. John’s, Fort, 102, 105, 106-8, 107 n., 122, 123, 124, 239. - - St. Joseph, Fort, 16. - - St. Lawrence, River and Gulf, 2, 5, 9, 11, 71, 80, 83, 84, 109, 119, - 120, 122, 174, 185, 225, 239, 264, 270, 308. - - St. Leger, Colonel, 138, 145, 146-58, 157 n., 168, 169, 172, 174, - 187, 236 n. - - St. Louis, Lake, 120, 239. - - St. Luc de la Corne, 189. - - St. Roch, 110, 112. - - Saints, Battle of the, 201. - - Sancoick Mill, 170, 174. - - Sandusky, Fort, 9, 16, 25, 27. - - Sandy Hook, 196. - - Saratoga, 116, 131, 160, 168, 170, 180-4, 201, 304. - - Sault au Matelot, 112. - - Sault St. Marie, 25. - - Saunders, Admiral, 127, 273. - - Savannah, 196, 201, 222. - - Savile, Sir George, 87. - - Schenectady, 149. - - Schuyler, Fort. _See_ Stanwix, Fort. - - Schuyler, General Philip, 106, 107, 153, 174-5. - - Secretary of State for American Department, 135, 240 n. - - Senecas. _See_ Indians. - - Seven Years’ War, 9, 41, 69, 99, 127, 207. - - Shawanoes. _See_ Indians. - - Shelburne, Lord, 74, 91, 94, 201, 214, 216, 217, 219, 220. - - Shelburne, Township, 223-4. - - Sherbrooke, Sir John, 188. - - Sheridan, 216, 243, 244. - - Simcoe, John Graves, 232 n., 234, 271-6, 273-4 n., 275 n., 284, - 286-7. - - Simcoe, Lake, 232 and n., 273, 274. - - Six Nations. _See_ Indians. - - Skenesborough, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 173. - - Smith, Adam, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 51 n., 53, 107 n. - - Smith, Chief Justice, William, 255-61, 276, 280. - - Sorel, 108, 114, 185, 224. - - Spain, 1, 2, 282, 283, 302. - - Spanish America, 38, 39, 48. - - Springfield, 185. - - Stamp Act, 41, 54 and n., 55. - - Stanwix, Fort, 59, 147, 152-8, 157 n., 169, 172, 174, 175. - - Stanwix, Fort, Agreement. _See_ Treaty. - - Stanwix, General, 18, 153. - - Stark, John, 171. - - Staten Island, 132. - - Stillwater, 168, 170 n., 174. - - Stopford, Major, 107, 108 n. - - Stormont, Lord, 215. - - Stuart, Colonel, 199. - - Stuart, James, 316. - - Suffolk, 95. - - Sugar Hill, 163, 173. - - Sullivan, General John, 187, 196. - - Sulpician Seminary, 312, 314. - - Sumter, General, 197. - - Superior, Lake, 5. - - Susquehanna, 59, 151, 185. - - Sydney, Lord, 240 and n., 243, 245, 246. - - - Talon, 64, 71. - - Tarleton, 197, 198. - - Taxation, 41, 42, 267-9, 267-8 and n., 269 n. - - Tea duty, 267-8. - - Tecumseh, 150. - - Telegraphs, 203-4. - - Thames, 274, 275 and n. - - Thayandenegea, 148. _See also under_ Brant. - - Thompson, General, 122. - - Thorpe, Judge, 296, 316. - - Three Rivers, 63, 70, 73, 109, 110, 114, 119, 122, 189, 238, 305. - - Ticonderoga, 51, 90, 101, 123, 124, 125, 138, 140, 161-6, 167, 169, - 172, 173, 174, 185, 281. - - Titles of honour, 251, 252. - - Toronto, 11, 232, 274 and n., 275. - - Toussaint L’Ouverture, 302. - - Townshend, Thomas. _See_ Sydney. - - Trade, Lords of, 3-6, 135, 195, &c. - - Treaty, - Aix la Chapelle, 49. - Amiens, 301. - Ashburton, 84. - Fort Stanwix, 59, 151. - Greenville, 286. - Jay’s, 1794, 218, 285, 286. - Paris, 1763, 1, 5, 10, 27, 30, 33, 66 n., 72 and n. - Paris, 1778, 184 n. - Secret, 1762, 1. - Utrecht, 49, 50, 69. - Versailles, 1783, 33, 201-2, 208-18, 239. - - Trenton, 133, 134, 135, 138, 198, 213. - - Trevelyan, Sir George, 46. - - Tryon County, 117, 151, 154, 187. - - Tuscarawa, 26. - - Tuscaroras. _See_ Indians. - - Tyendenaga, 233. - - - Unadilla river, 59. - - Uniacke, 315. - - United Empire Loyalists. _See_ Loyalists. - - United States, 32, 33, 56, 59, 61, 84, 184, 188, 193, 204-18, 225, - 226, 239, 263, 264, 265, 281-6, 300, 302, 318, &c. - - Upper Canada. _See_ Canada, Upper. - - Utrecht. _See_ Treaty. - - - Valcour Island, 123. - - Vancouver, 261. - - Vancouver Island, 261. - - Vaudreuil, 120. - - Venango, Fort, 9, 17, 20. - - Vermont, 101, 185, 186 n, 191, 192, 239, 289. - - Vincennes, Fort, 9, 28, 187. - - Virginia and Virginians, 18, 20, 26, 27, 53, 59, 84, 85, 196, 198, - 199, 200, 215, 220, 221. - - - Wabash river, 9, 16, 28, 187. - - Walker, Admiral, 49. - - Walker, Magistrate, 67, 97. - - Walpole, Horace, 22 and n., 107 n., 115 and n., 116 and n., 124, - 136, 137, 160 and n., 161, 165, 171-2 n., 180 n., 204 n. - - Walsingham, 215. - - Warner, Seth, 101. - - Warren, Admiral, 50, 62. - - Washington, George, 32, 62, 109, 127, 128, 132, 133, 134, 138, 139, - 172, 184, 187, 196, 199, 200, 208, 212, 221, 282-5. - - Wayne, Anthony, 283, 284, 286. - - Wayne, Fort. _See_ Miami. - - Webb, General Daniel, 126, 153. - - Wedderburn, Solicitor-General, 88 n. - - Western Territories, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86. - - West Florida. _See_ Florida. - - West Indies, 1, 127, 199, 200, 223, 289. - - Wilberforce, 216. - - Willcocks, 316. - - Willett, Colonel, 153-7, 155 n., 157 n. - - William Henry, Fort. _See_ George, Fort. - - Williams, Fort, 153. - - Wills Creek, 19. - - Wilmington, 198. - - Wilmot, John Eardley, 219, 220 n. - - Windham, Township, 232. - - Windham, William, 231. - - Wolfe, 17, 24, 32, 52 and n., 68, 110, 114, 116, 125, 130, 183, 289. - - Wood Creek, 58, 147, 153, 154, 164 n. - - Wood Creek (Lake Champlain), 164 and n., 166. - - Wyandots. _See_ Indians. - - Wyatt, 316. - - Wyoming, 185, 186 and n. 212. - - - Yonge, Sir George, 274. - - Yonge Street, 232 n., 274. - - York. _See_ Toronto. - - York, Duke of, 274-5. - - York river, 199. - - Yorktown, 126, 183, 199, 200, 201, 217. - -[Illustration: - - =MAP OF EASTERN CANADA AND PART OF THE UNITED STATES= - - B. V. Barbishire, Oxford, 1908. -] - - - - -CLARENDON PRESS BOOKS - - - - -HISTORY - - -Greece, Italy, Egypt, etc. - - Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici, from the LVIth to the CXXIIIrd - Olympiad. Third edition. 4to. £1 14s. 6d. net. From the - CXXIVth Olympiad to the Death of Augustus. Second edition. - 4to. £1 12s. net. Epitome. 8vo. 6s. 6d. net. - - Clinton’s Fasti Romani, from the death of Augustus to the - death of Heraclius. Two volumes. 4to. £2 2s. net. Epitome. - 8vo. 7s. net. - - Greswell’s Fasti Temporis Catholici. 4 vols. 8vo. £2 10s. - net. Tables and Introduction to Tables. 8vo. 15s. net. - Origines Kalendariae Italicae. 4 vols. 8vo. £2 2s. net. - Origines Kalendariae Hellenicae. 6 vols. 8vo. £4 4s. net. - - A Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions. By E. L. HICKS. - New edition, revised by G. F. HILL. 8vo. 10s. 6d. net. - - Latin Historical Inscriptions, illustrating the history of - the Early Empire. By G. M^CN. RUSHFORTH. 8vo. 10s. net. - - Sources for Greek History between the Persian and - Peloponnesian Wars. By G. F. HILL. 8vo. Reissue, revised. - 10s. 6d. net. - - Sources for Roman History, B.C. 133-70. By A. H. J. GREENIDGE - and A. M. CLAY. Crown 8vo. 5s. 6d. net. - - A Manual of Ancient History. By G. RAWLINSON. 2nd ed. 8vo. - 14s. - - Finlay’s History of Greece from its Conquest by the Romans - (B.C. 146) to A.D. 1864. A new edition, revised, and in - part re-written, with many additions, by the Author, and - edited by H. F. TOZER. 7 vols. 8vo. 63s. net. - - The History of Sicily from the earliest times. By E. A. - FREEMAN. 8vo. - - Vols. I and II. The Native Nations: The Phoenician - and Greek Settlements to the beginning of Athenian - Intervention. £2 2s. net. - - Vol. III. The Athenian and Carthaginian Invasions. £1 4s. - net. - - Vol. IV. From the Tyranny of Dionysios to the Death of - Agathoklês. Edited from posthumous MSS, by A. J. EVANS. - £1 1s. net. - - Italy and her Invaders (A.D. 376-814). With plates and maps. - Eight volumes. 8vo. By T. HODGKIN. Vols. I-IV in the second - edition. - - I-II. The Visigothic, Hunnish, and Vandal Invasions, and - the Herulian Mutiny. £2 2s. - - III-IV. The Ostrogothic Invasion. The Imperial - Restoration. £1 16s. - - V-VI. The Lombard Invasion, and the Lombard Kingdom. £1 - 16s. - - VII-VIII. Frankish Invasions, and the Frankish Empire. £1 - 4s. - - The Dynasty of Theodosius; or, Seventy Years’ Struggle with - the Barbarians. By the same author. Crown 8vo. 6s. - - Aetolia; its Geography, Topography, and Antiquities. By W. J. - WOODHOUSE. With maps and illustrations. Royal 8vo. £1 1s. - net. - - The Islands of the Aegean. By H. F. TOZER. Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d. - - Dalmatia, the Quarnero, and Istria; with Cettigne and - Grado. By T. G. JACKSON. Three volumes. With plates and - illustrations. 8vo. 31s. 6d. net. - - Cramer’s Description of Asia Minor. Two volumes. 8vo. 11s. - Description of Ancient Greece. 3 vols. 8vo. 16s. 6d. - - The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia. By W. M. RAMSAY. Royal - 8vo. Vol. I, Part I. The Lycos Valley and South-Western - Phrygia. 18s. net. Vol. I, Par. II. West and West Central - Phrygia. £1 1s. net. - - Stories of the High Priests of Memphis, the Sethon of - Herodotus, and the Demotic Tales of Khamnas. By F. LL. - GRIFFITH. With Portfolio containing seven facsimiles. Royal - 8vo. £2 7s. 6d. net. - - The Arab Conquest of Egypt. By A. J. BUTLER. With maps and - plans. 8vo. 16s. net. - - Baghdad during the Abbasid Caliphate, from contemporary - sources. By G. LE STRANGE. With eight plans. 8vo. 16s. net. - - -Archaeology - - Ancient Khotan. Detailed report of Archaeological - explorations in Chinese Turkestan carried out and described - under the orders of H.M. Indian Government by M. AUREL - STEIN. Vol. I. Text, with descriptive list of antiques, - seventy-two illustrations in the text, and appendices. - Vol. II. One hundred and nineteen collotype and other - illustrations and a map. 2 vols. 4to. £5 5s. net. - - Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, - including the Cabinet of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. - (Published for the Trustees of the Indian Museum.) Royal - 8vo, with numerous collotype plates. Vol. I, by V. A. - SMITH, 30s. net; or Part I (Early Foreign Dynasties and - Guptas), 15s. net, Part II (Ancient Coins of Indian Types), - 6s. net, Part III (Persian, Mediaeval, South Indian, - Miscellaneous), 10s. 6d. net. Vol. II, by H. N. WRIGHT (the - first section of Part II by Sir J. BOURDILLON), 30s. net - (Sultáns of Delhi, Contemporary Dynasties in India). Vol. - III, by H. N. WRIGHT, 40s. net (Mughal Emperors). - - Ancient Coptic Churches of Egypt. By A. J. BUTLER. 2 vols. - 8vo. 30s. - - A Catalogue of the Cyprus Museum. By J. L. MYRES and MAX - OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER. 8vo. With eight plates, 7s. 6d. net. - - A Catalogue of the Sparta Museum. By M. N. TOD and A. J. B. - WACE. 8vo. 10s. 6d. net. - - Catalogue of the Greek Vases in the Ashmolean Museum. By P. - GARDNER. Small folio, linen, with 26 plates. £3 3s. net. - - The Cults of the Greek States. By L. R. FARNELL. 8vo. Vols. I - and II, with 61 plates and over 100 illustrations. £1 12s. - net. Vols. III and IV, with 86 plates. £1 12s. net. - - Classical Archaeology in Schools. By P. GARDNER and J. L. - MYRES. 8vo. Second edition. Paper covers, 1s. net. - - Introduction to Greek Sculpture. By L. E. UPCOTT. Second - edition. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d. - - Marmora Oxoniensia, inscriptiones Graecae ad Chandleri - exempla editae, cur. GUL. ROBERTS, 1791. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. - - De Antiquis Marmoribus, Blasii Caryophili. 1828. 7s. 6d. - - Fragmenta Herculanensia. A Catalogue of the Oxford copies of - the Herculanean Rolls, with texts of several papyri. By W. - SCOTT. Royal 8vo. £1 1s. - - Thirty-six Engravings of Texts and Alphabets from the - Herculanean Fragments. Folio. Small paper, 10s. 6d., - large paper, £1 1s. - - Herculanensium Voluminum Partes II, 1824, 8vo. 10s. - - -English History: Sources - - Baedae Opera Historica, edited by C. PLUMMER. Two volumes. - Crown 8vo, leather back. £1 1s. net. - - Asser’s Life of Alfred, with the Annals of St. Neot, edited - by W. H. STEVENSON. Crown 8vo. 12s. net. - - The Alfred Jewel, an historical essay. With illustrations and - a map, by J. EARLE. Small 4to, buckram. 12s. 6d. net. - - Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel; with supplementary - extracts from the others. A Revised Text, edited, with - introduction, notes, appendices, and glossary, by C. - PLUMMER and J. EARLE. Two volumes. Crown 8vo, leather back. - Vol. I. Text, appendices, and glossary. 10s. 6d. Vol. II. - Introduction, notes, and index. 12s. 6d. - - The Saxon Chronicles (787-1001 A. D.). Crown 8vo, stiff - covers. 3s. - - Handbook to the Land-Charters, and other Saxonic Documents, - by J. EARLE. Crown 8vo. 16s. - - The Crawford Collection of early Charters and Documents, now - in the Bodleian Library. Edited by A. S. NAPIER and W. H. - STEVENSON. Small 4to, cloth. 12s. - - The Chronicle of John of Worcester, 1118-1140. Edited by J. - R. H. WEAVER. Crown 4to. 7s. 6d. net. - - Dialogus de Scaccario. Edited by A. HUGHES, C. G. CRUMP, and - C. JOHNSON, with introduction and notes. 8vo. 12s. 6d. net. - - Passio et Miracula Beati Olaui. Edited from the - Twelfth-century MS by F. METCALFE. Small 4to. 6s. - - The Song of Lewes. Edited from the MS, with introduction and - notes, by C. L. KINGSFORD. Extra fcap 8vo. 5s. - - Chronicon Galfridi le Baker de Swynebroke, edited by Sir E. - MAUNDE THOMPSON, K.C.B. Small 4to, 18s.; cloth, gilt top, - £1 1s. - - Chronicles of London. Edited, with introduction and notes, by - C. L. KINGSFORD. 8vo. 10s. 6d. net. - - Gascoigne’s Theological Dictionary (‘Liber Veritatum’): - selected passages, illustrating the condition of Church and - State, 1403-1458. With an introduction by J. E. THOROLD - ROGERS. Small 4to. 10s. 6d. - - Fortescue’s Governance of England. A revised text, edited, - with introduction, etc., by C. PLUMMER. 8vo, leather back. - 12s. 6d. - - Stow’s Survey of London. Edited by C. L. KINGSFORD. 8vo, - 2 vols., with a folding map of London in 1600 (by H. W. - CRIBB) and other illustrations. 30s. net. - - The Protests of the Lords, from 1624 to 1874; with - introductions. By J. E. THOROLD ROGERS. In three volumes. - 8vo. £2 2s. - -The Clarendon Press Series of Charters, Statutes, etc. - -From the earliest times to 1307. By Bishop STUBBS. - - Select Charters and other illustrations of English - Constitutional History. Eighth edition. Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d. - -From 1558 to 1625. - - Select Statutes and other Constitutional Documents of the - Reigns of Elizabeth and James I. Third edition. Crown 8vo. - 10s. 6d. - -From 1625 to 1660. By S. R. GARDINER. - - The Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution. Third - edition. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d. - -Calendars, etc. - - Calendar of Charters and Rolls preserved in the Bodleian - Library. 8vo. £1 11s. 6d. - - Calendar of the Clarendon State Papers preserved in the - Bodleian Library. In three volumes. 1869-76. - - Vol. I. From 1523 to January 1649. 8vo. 18s. Vol. II. - From 1649 to 1654. 8vo. 16s. Vol. III. From 1655 to - 1657. 8vo. 14s. - - * * * * * - -Hakluyt’s Principal Navigations, being narratives of the Voyages of -the Elizabethan Seamen to America. Selection edited by E. J. PAYNE. -Crown 8vo, with portraits. Second edition. Two volumes. 5s. each. - - Also abridged, in one volume, with additional notes, - maps, &c., by C. RAYMOND BEAZLEY. Crown 8vo, with - illustrations. 4s. 6d. Also, separately, ‘The Voyages of - Hawkins, Frobisher, and Drake.’ 2s. 6d. - - Aubrey’s ‘Brief Lives,’ set down between the Years 1669 - and 1696. Edited from the Author’s MSS by A. CLARK. Two - volumes. 8vo. £1 5s. - - Whitelock’s Memorials of English Affairs from 1625 to - 1660. 4 vols. 8vo. £1 10s. - - Ludlow’s Memoirs, 1625-1672. Edited, with Appendices of - Letters and illustrative documents, by C. H. FIRTH. Two - volumes. 8vo. £1 16s. - - Luttrell’s Diary. A brief Historical Relation of State - Affairs, 1678-1714. Six volumes. 8vo. £1 10s. net. - - Burnet’s History of James II. 8vo. 9s. 6d. - - Life of Sir M. Hale, with Fell’s Life of Dr. - Hammond. Small 8vo. 2s. 6d. - - Memoirs of James and William, Dukes of Hamilton. - 8vo. 7s. 6d. - - Burnet’s History of My Own Time. A new edition based on that - of M. J. ROUTH. Edited by OSMUND AIRY. Vol. I. 12s. 6d. - net. Vol. II. (Completing Charles the Second, with Index to - Vols. I and II.) 12s. 6d. net. - - Supplement, derived from Burnet’s Memoirs, Autobiography, - etc., all hitherto unpublished. Edited by H. C. - FOXCROFT, 1902. 8vo. 16s. net. - - The Whitefoord Papers, 1739 to 1810. Ed. by W. A. S. HEWINS. - 8vo. 12s. 6d. - -History of Oxford - -A complete list of the Publications of the Oxford Historical -Society can be obtained from Mr. Frowde. - - Manuscript Materials relating to the History of Oxford; - contained in the printed catalogues of the Bodleian and - College Libraries. By F. MADAN. 8vo. 7s. 6d. - - The Early Oxford Press. A Bibliography of Printing and - Publishing at Oxford, ‘1468’-1640. With notes, appendices, - and illustrations. By F. MADAN. 8vo. 18s. - -Bibliography - - Cotton’s Typographical Gazetteer. First Series. 8vo. 12s. 6d. - - Ebert’s Bibliographical Dictionary. 4 vols. 8vo. £3 3s. net. - -Bishop Stubbs’s and Professor Freeman’s Books - - The Constitutional History of England, in its Origin and - Development. By W. STUBBS. Library edition. Three volumes. - Demy 8vo. £2 8s. Also in three volumes, crown 8vo, price - 12s. each. - - Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Mediaeval and Modern - History and kindred subjects, 1867-1884. By the same. Third - edition, revised and enlarged, 1900. Crown 8vo, half-roan. - 8s. 6d. - - History of the Norman Conquest of England; its Causes and - Results. By E. A. FREEMAN. Vols. I, II and V (English - edition) are out of print. - - Vols. III and IV. £1 1s. each. Vol. VI (Index). 10s. 6d. - - A Short History of the Norman Conquest of England. Third - edition. By the same. Extra fcap 8vo. 2s. 6d. - - The Reign of William Rufus and the Accession of Henry the - First. By the same. Two volumes. 8vo. £1 16s. - -Special Periods and Biographies - - Ancient Britain and the Invasions of Julius Caesar. By T. - RICE HOLMES. 8vo. 21s. net. - - Life and Times of Alfred the Great, being the Ford Lectures - for 1901. By C. PLUMMER. 8vo. 5s. net. - - The Domesday Boroughs. By ADOLPHUS BALLARD. 8vo. 6s. 6d. net. - - Villainage in England. Essays in English Mediaeval History. - By P. VINOGRADOFF. 8vo. 16s. net. - - English Society in the Eleventh Century. Essays in English - Mediaeval History. By P. VINOGRADOFF. 8vo. 16s. net. - - The Gild Merchant: a contribution to British municipal - history. By C. GROSS. Two volumes. 8vo, leather back, £1 4s. - - The Welsh Wars of Edward I; a contribution to mediaeval - military history. By J. E. MORRIS. 8vo. 9s. 6d. net. - - The Great Revolt of 1381. By C. OMAN. With two maps. 8vo. 8s. - 6d. net. - - Lancaster and York. (A.D. 1399-1485.) By Sir J. H. RAMSAY. - Two volumes. 8vo, with Index, £1 17s. 6d. Index separately, - 1s. 6d. - - Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell. By R. B. MERRIMAN. In - two volumes. [Vol. I, Life and Letters, 1523-1535, etc. - Vol. II, Letters, 1536-1540, notes, index, etc.] 8vo. 18s. - net. - - A History of England, principally in the Seventeenth Century. - By L. VON RANKE. Translated under the superintendence of G. - W. KITCHIN and C. W. BOASE. Six volumes. 8vo, £3 3s. net. - Index separately, 1s. - - Sir Walter Ralegh, a Biography, by W. STEBBING. Post 8vo. 6s. - net. - - Biographical Memoir of Dr. William Markham, Archbishop of - York, by Sir CLEMENTS MARKHAM, K.C.B. 8vo. 5s. net. - - The Life and Works of John Arbuthnot. By G. A. AITKEN. 8vo, - cloth extra, with Portrait. 16s. - - Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton. By L. PEARSALL-SMITH. - 8vo. Two volumes. 25s. net. - - Great Britain and Hanover. By A. W. WARD. Crown 8vo. 5s. - - History of the Peninsular War. By C. OMAN. To be completed in - six volumes, 8vo, with many maps, plans, and portraits. - - Already published: Vol. I. 1807-1809, to Corunna. Vol. - II. 1809, to Talavera. Vol. III. 1809-10, to Torres Vedras. - 14s. net each. - - Anglo-Chinese Commerce and Diplomacy: mainly in the - nineteenth century. By A. J. SARGENT. 12s. 6d. net. - - Frederick York Powell. A Life and a selection from his - Letters and Occasional Writings. By OLIVER ELTON. Two - volumes. 8vo. With photogravure portraits, facsimiles, etc. - 21s. net. - - David Binning Monro: a Short Memoir. By J. COOK WILSON. 8vo, - stiff boards, with portrait. 2s. net. - - F. W. Maitland. Two lectures by A. L. SMITH. 8vo. 2s. 6d. net. - -School Books - - Companion to English History (Middle Ages). Edited by F. P. - BARNARD. With 97 illustrations. Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d. net. - - School History of England to the death of Victoria. With - maps, plans, etc. By O. M. EDWARDS, R. S. RAIT, and others. - Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. - -Oxford School Histories - -Crown 8vo, with many illustrations, each 1s. 6d. net. - - Berkshire, by E. A. G. LAMBORN. - - Oxfordshire, by H. A. LIDDELL. - -Others in preparation. - -Also, for junior pupils, illustrated, each 1s. - - Stories from the History of Berkshire. By E. A. G. LAMBORN. - - Stories from the History of Oxfordshire. By JOHN IRVING. - - -History and Geography of America and the British Colonies - -For other Geographical books, see page 12. - - History of the New World called America. By E. J. PAYNE. - Vol. I. 8vo. 18s. Bk. I. The Discovery. Bk. II, Part I. - Aboriginal America. Vol. II. 8vo. 14s. Bk. II, Part II. - Aboriginal America (concluded). - - The Canadian War of 1812. By Sir C. P. LUCAS, K.C.M.G. 8vo. - With eight maps. 12s. 6d. net. - - Historical Geography of the British Colonies. By Sir C. P. - LUCAS, K.C.M.G. Crown 8vo. - - Introduction. New edition by H. E. EGERTON. 1903. (Origin - and growth of the Colonies.) With eight maps. 3s. 6d. - In cheaper binding, 2s. 6d. - - Vol. I. The Mediterranean and Eastern Colonies. With 13 - maps. Second edition, revised and brought up to date, - by R. E. STUBBS. 1906. 5s. - - Vol. II. The West Indian Colonies. With twelve maps. - Second edition, revised and brought up to date, by C. - ATCHLEY, I.S.O. 1905. 7s. 6d. - - Vol. III. West Africa. Second Edition. Revised to the end - of 1899 by H. E. EGERTON. With five maps. 7s. 6d. - - Vol. IV. South and East Africa. Historical and - Geographical. With eleven maps. 9s. 6d. - - Also Part I. Historical. 1898. 6s. 6d. Part II. 1903. - Geographical. 3s. 6d. - - Vol. V. Canada, Part I. 1901. 6s. Part II, by H. E. - EGERTON. 4s. 6d. Part III (Geographical) in preparation. - - Vol. VI. Australasia. By J. D. ROGERS. 1907. With 22 - maps. 7s. 6d. Also Part I, Historical, 4s. 6d. Part II, - Geographical, 3s. 6d. - - History of the Dominion of Canada. By W. P. GRESWELL. Crown - 8vo. 7s. 6d. - - Geography of the Dominion of Canada and Newfoundland. By the - same author. With ten maps. 1891. Crown 8vo. 6s. - - Geography of Africa South of the Zambesi. With maps. 1892. By - the same author. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. - - The Claims of the Study of Colonial History upon the - attention of the University of Oxford. An inaugural lecture - delivered on April 28, 1906, by H. E. EGERTON. 8vo, paper - covers, 1s. net. - - Historical Atlas. Europe and her Colonies, 27 maps. 35s. net. - - Cornewall-Lewis’s Essay on the Government of Dependencies. - Edited by Sir C. P. LUCAS, K.C.M.G. 8vo, quarter-bound, 14s. - -Rulers of India - -Edited by Sir W. W. HUNTER. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. each. - - Asoka. By V. A. SMITH. - Bábar. By S. LANE-POOLE. - Albuquerque. By H. MORSE STEPHENS. - Akbar. By Colonel MALLESON. - Aurangzíb. By S. LANE-POOLE. - Dupleix. By Colonel MALLESON. - Lord Clive. By Colonel MALLESON. - Warren Hastings. By Captain L. J. TROTTER. - Mádhava Ráo Sindhia. By H. G. KEENE. - The Marquis of Cornwallis. By W. S. SETON-KARR. - Haidar Alí and Tipú Sultán. By L. B. BOWRING. - The Marquis Wellesley, K.G. By W. H. HUTTON. - Marquess of Hastings. By Major ROSS-OF-BLADENSBURG. - Mountstuart Elphinstone. By J. S. COTTON. - Sir Thomas Munro. By J. BRADSHAW. - Earl Amherst. By ANNE T. RITCHIE and R. EVANS. - Lord William Bentinck. By D. C. BOULGER. - The Earl of Auckland. By Captain L. J. TROTTER. - Viscount Hardinge. By his son, Viscount HARDINGE. - Ranjit Singh. By Sir L. GRIFFIN. - The Marquess of Dalhousie. By Sir W. W. HUNTER. - James Thomason. By Sir R. TEMPLE. - John Russell Colvin. By Sir A. COLVIN. - Sir Henry Lawrence, the Pacificator. By Lieut.-General J. J. - M^CLEOD INNES. - Clyde and Strathnairn. By Major-General Sir O. T. BURNE. - Earl Canning. By Sir H. S. CUNNINGHAM. - Lord Lawrence. By Sir C. AITCHISON. - The Earl of Mayo. By Sir W. W. HUNTER. - - Sketches of Rulers of India. Abridged from the _Rulers of - India_ by G. D. OSWELL. (In the press.) - - The Imperial Gazetteer of India. New edition. To be completed - in twenty-six volumes. 8vo. Subscription price, cloth, £5 - net; morocco back, £6 6s. net. The four volumes of ‘The - Indian Empire’ separately 6s. net each, in cloth, or 7s. - 6d. net with morocco back; the Atlas separately 15s. net in - cloth, or 17s. 6d. net with morocco back. Subscriptions may - be sent through any bookseller. - - Vol. I. Descriptive. - Vol. II. Historical. - Vol. III. Economic. - Vol. IV. Administrative. - Vol. V-XXIV. Alphabetical Gazetteer. - Vol. XXV. Index. (In the press.) - Vol. XXVI. Atlas. (In preparation.) - -Each volume contains a map of India specially prepared for this -Edition. - -Reprints from the Imperial Gazetteer. - - A sketch of the Flora of British India. By Sir JOSEPH HOOKER. - 8vo. Paper covers. 1s. net. - - The Indian Army. A sketch of its History and Organization. - 8vo. Paper covers. 1s. net. - - A Brief History of the Indian Peoples. By Sir W. W. HUNTER. - Revised up to 1903 by W. H. HUTTON. Eighty-ninth thousand. - 3s. 6d. - - The Government of India, being a digest of the Statute - Law relating thereto; with historical introduction and - illustrative documents. By Sir C. P. ILBERT. Second - edition, 1907. 10s. 6d. net. - - The Early History of India from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan - Conquest, including the invasion of Alexander the - Great. By V. A. SMITH. 8vo. With maps, plans, and other - illustrations. Second edition, revised and enlarged. 14s. - net. - - The Oxford Student’s History of India. By V. A. SMITH. Crown - 8vo. With 7 maps and 10 other illustrations. 2s. 6d. - - The English Factories in India. By W. FOSTER. 8vo. (Published - under the patronage of His Majesty’s Secretary of State for - India in Council.) - - Vol. I. 1618-1621. 12s. 6d. n. Vol. II. 1622-1623. 12s. - 6d. n. - - (The six previous volumes of Letters received by the East - India Company from its Servants in the East (1602-1617) - may also be obtained, price 15s. each volume.) - - Court Minutes of the East India Company, 1635-1639. By E. B. - SAINSBURY. Introduction by W. FOSTER. 8vo. 12s. 6d. net. - - The Court Minutes of the Company previous to 1635 have - been calendared in the Calendars of State Papers, East - Indies, published by the Public Record Office. - - Wellesley’s Despatches, Treaties, and other Papers relating - to his Government of India. Selection edited by S. J. OWEN. - 8vo. £1 4s. - - Wellington’s Despatches, Treaties, and other Papers relating - to India. Selection edited by S. J. OWEN. 8vo. £1 4s. - - Hastings and the Rohilla War. By Sir J. STRACHEY. 8vo. 10s. - 6d. - - -European History - - Historical Atlas of Modern Europe, from the Decline of the - Roman Empire. 90 maps, with letterpress to each: the maps - printed by W. & A. K. JOHNSTON, Ltd., and the whole edited - by R. L. POOLE. - - In one volume, imperial 4to, half-persian, £5 15s. 6d. - net; or in selected sets--British Empire, etc., at - various prices from 30s. to 35s. net each; or in single - maps, 1s. 6d. net each. Prospectus on application. - - Genealogical Tables illustrative of Modern History. By H. B. - GEORGE. Fourth (1904) edition. Oblong 4to, boards. 7s. 6d. - - The Life and Times of James the First of Aragon. By F. D. - SWIFT. 8vo. 12s. 6d. - - The Renaissance and the Reformation. A textbook of European - History, 1494-1610. By E. M. TANNER. Crown 8vo, with 8 - maps. 3s. 6d. - - A History of France, with numerous maps, plans, and tables, - by G. W. KITCHIN. Crown 8vo; Vol. I (to 1453), revised by - F. F. URQUHART; Vols. II (1624), III (1795), revised by A. - HASSALL. 10s. 6d. each volume. - - De Tocqueville’s L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution. Edited, - with introductions and notes, by G. W. HEADLAM. Crown 8vo. - 6s. - - The Principal Speeches of the Statesmen and Orators of the - French Revolution, 1789-1795. Ed. H. MORSE STEPHENS. Two - vols. Crown 8vo. £1 1s. - - Documents of the French Revolution, 1789-1791. By L. G. - WICKHAM LEGG. Crown 8vo. Two volumes. 12s. net. - - Napoleonic Statesmanship: Germany. By H. A. L. FISHER. 8vo, - with maps. 12s. 6d. net. - - Bonapartism. Six lectures by H. A. L. FISHER. 8vo. 3s. 6d. - net. - - Thiers’ Moscow Expedition, edited by H. B. GEORGE. Cr. 8vo. 6 - maps. 5s. - - Great Britain and Hanover. By A. W. WARD. Crown 8vo. 5s. - - History of the Peninsular War. By C. OMAN. To be completed in - six volumes, 8vo, with many maps, plans, and portraits. - - Already published: Vol. I. 1807-1809, to Corunna. - Vol. II. 1809, to Talavera. Vol. III. 1809-10, to Torres - Vedras. 14s. net each. - - -School Geographies - - Relations of Geography and History. By H. B. GEORGE. With two - maps. Crown 8vo. Third edition. 4s. 6d. - - Geography for Schools, by A. HUGHES. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. - - The Oxford Geographies. By A. J. HERBERTSON. Crown 8vo. - - Vol. I. The Preliminary Geography, Ed. 2, 72 maps and - diagrams, 1s. 6d. - - Vol. II. The Junior Geography, Ed. 2, 166 maps and - diagrams, 2s. - - Vol. III. The Senior Geography, Ed. 2, 117 maps and - diagrams, 2s. 6d. - - Practical Geography. By J. F. UNSTEAD. Crown 8vo. Part I, 27 - maps and diagrams. 1s. 6d. - - -Geography and Anthropology - - The Dawn of Modern Geography. By C. R. BEAZLEY. In three - volumes. £2 10s. Vol. I (to A.D. 900). Not sold separately. - Vol. II (A.D. 900-1260). 15s. net. Vol. III. 20s. net. - - Regions of the World. Geographical Memoirs under the general - editorship of H. J. MACKINDER. Large 8vo. Each volume - contains maps and diagrams. 7s. 6d. net per volume. - - Britain and the British Seas. Second edition. By H. J. - MACKINDER. - - Central Europe. By JOHN PARTSCH. - - The Nearer East. By D. G. HOGARTH. - - North America. By J. RUSSELL. - - India. By Sir THOMAS HOLDICH. - - The Far East. By ARCHIBALD LITTLE. - - Frontiers: the Romanes Lecture for 1907. By Lord CURZON OF - KEDLESTON. 8vo. 2s. net. - - The Face of the Earth (Das Antlitz der Erde). By EDUARD - SUESS. Translated by HERTHA SOLLAS. - - Anthropological Essays presented to EDWARD BURNETT TYLOR in - honour of his seventy-fifth birthday; by H. BALFOUR, A. E. - CRAWLEY, D. J. CUNNINGHAM, L. R. FARNELL, J. G. FRAZER, A. - C. HADDON, E. S. HARTLAND, A. LANG, R. R. MARETT, C. S. - MYERS, J. L. MYRES, C. H. READ, Sir J. RHŶS, W. RIDGEWAY, - W. H. R. RIVERS, C. G. SELIGMANN, T. A. JOYCE, N. W. - THOMAS, A. THOMSON, E. WESTERMARCK; with a bibliography by - BARBARA W. FREIRE-MARRECO. Imperial 8vo. 21s. net. - - The Evolution of Culture, and other Essays, by the late - Lieut.-Gen. A. LANE-FOX PITT-RIVERS; edited by J. L. MYRES, - with an Introduction by H. BALFOUR. 8vo, with 21 plates, - 7s. 6d. net. - - Folk-Memory. By WALTER JOHNSON. 8vo. Illustrated. - - Celtic Folklore: Welsh and Manx. By J. RHŶS. 2 vols. 8vo. £1 - 1s. - - Studies in the Arthurian Legend. By J. RHŶS. 8vo. 12s. 6d. - - Iceland and the Faroes. By N. ANNANDALE. With an appendix on - the Celtic Pony, by F. H. A. MARSHALL. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d. - net. - - Dubois’ Hindu Manners, Customs, and Ceremonies. Translated - and edited with notes, corrections, and biography, by H. - K. BEAUCHAMP. Third edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. net. On India - Paper, 7s. 6d. net. - - The Melanesians, studies in their Anthropology and Folk-Lore. - By R. H. CODRINGTON. 8vo. 16s. net. - - The Masai, their Language and Folk-lore. By A. C. HOLLIS. - With introduction by Sir CHARLES ELIOT. 8vo. Illustrated. - 14s. net. - - The Nandi, their Language and Folk-lore. By A. C. Hollis. - With introduction by Sir CHARLES ELIOT. 8vo. Illustrated. - [In the press. - - The Ancient Races of the Thebaid: an anthropometrical study. - By ARTHUR THOMSON and D. RANDALL-MACIVER. Imperial 4to, - with 6 collotypes, 6 lithographic charts, and many other - illustrations. 42s. net. - - The Earliest Inhabitants of Abydos. (A craniological study.) - By D. RANDALL-MACIVER. Portfolio. 10s. 6d. net. - - - - -LAW - - -Jurisprudence - - Bentham’s Fragment on Government. Edited by F. C. MONTAGUE. - 8vo. 7s. 6d. - - Bentham’s Introduction to the Principles of Morals and - Legislation. Second edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d. - - Studies in History and Jurisprudence. By the Right Hon. JAMES - BRYCE. 1901. Two volumes. 8vo. £1 5s. net. - - The Elements of Jurisprudence. By T. E. HOLLAND. Tenth - edition. 1906. 8vo. 10s. 6d. - - Elements of Law, considered with reference to Principles of - General Jurisprudence. By Sir W. MARKBY, K.C.I.E. Sixth - edition revised. 1905. 8vo. 12s. 6d. - - -Roman Law - - Imperatoris Iustiniani Institutionum Libri Quattuor; with - introductions, commentary, and translation, by J. B. MOYLE. - Two volumes. 8vo. Vol. I (fourth edition, 1903), 16s.; Vol. - II, Translation (fourth edition, 1906), 6s. - - The Institutes of Justinian, edited as a recension of the - Institutes of Gaius. By T. E. HOLLAND. Second edition. - Extra fcap 8vo. 5s. - - Select Titles from the Digest of Justinian. By T. E. HOLLAND - and C. L. SHADWELL. 8vo. 14s. - - Also, sold in parts, in paper covers: Part I. - Introductory Titles. 2s. 6d. Part II. Family Law. - 1s. Part III. Property Law. 2s. 6d. Part IV. Law of - Obligations. No. 1. 3s. 6d. No. 2. 4s. 6d. - - Gai Institutionum Iuris Civilis Commentarii Quattuor: with - a translation and commentary by the late E. POSTE. Fourth - edition. Revised and enlarged by E. A. WHITTUCK, with an - historical introduction by A. H. J. GREENIDGE. 8vo. 16s. - net. - - Institutes of Roman Law, by R. SOHM. Translated by J. C. - LEDLIE: with an introductory essay by E. GRUEBER. Third - edition. 8vo. 16s. net. - - Infamia; its place in Roman Public and Private Law. By A. H. - J. GREENIDGE. 8vo. 10s. 6d. - - Legal Procedure in Cicero’s Time. By A. H. J. GREENIDGE. 8vo. - 25s. net. - - The Roman Law of Damage to Property: being a commentary on - the title of the Digest ‘Ad Legem Aquiliam’ (ix. 2), with - an introduction to the study of the Corpus Iuris Civilis. - By E. GRUEBER. 8vo. 10s. 6d. - - Contract of Sale in the Civil Law. By J. B. MOYLE. 8vo. 10s. - 6d. - - * * * * * - - The Principles of German Civil Law. By ERNEST J. - SCHUSTER. 8vo. 12s. 6d. net. - - -English Law - - Principles of the English Law of Contract, and of Agency in - its relation to Contract. By Sir W. R. ANSON. Eleventh - edition. 1906. 8vo. 10s. 6d. - - Law and Custom of the Constitution. By the same. In two - volumes. 8vo. - - Vol. I. Parliament. (Out of print. New edition in - preparation.) - - Vol. II. The Crown. Third edition. Part I, 10s. 6d. net. - Part II, 8s. 6d. net. - - Calendar of Charters and Rolls, containing those preserved in - the Bodleian Library. 8vo. £1 11s. 6d. - - Introduction to the History of the Law of Real Property. By - Sir K. E. DIGBY. Fifth edition. 8vo. 12s. 6d. - - Handbook to the Land-Charters, and other Saxonic Documents. - By J. EARLE. Crown 8vo. 16s. - - Fortescue’s Difference between an Absolute and a Limited - Monarchy. Text revised and edited, with introduction, etc., - by C. PLUMMER. 8vo, leather back, 12s. 6d. - - Legislative Methods and Forms. By Sir C. P. ILBERT, K.C.S.I. - 1901. 8vo, leather back, 16s. - - Modern Land Law. By E. JENKS. 8vo. 15s. - - Essay on Possession in the Common Law. By Sir F. POLLOCK and - Sir R. S. WRIGHT. 8vo. 8s. 6d. - - Outline of the Law of Property. By T. RALEIGH. 8vo. 7s. 6d. - - Villainage in England. By P. VINOGRADOFF. 8vo. 16s. net. - - Law in Daily Life. By RUD. VON JHERING. Translated with Notes - and Additions by H. GOUDY. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. net. - - Cases illustrating the Principles of the Law of Torts, with - table of all Cases cited. By F. R. Y. RADCLIFFE and J. C. - MILES. 8vo. 1904. 12s. 6d. net. - - The Management of Private Affairs. By JOSEPH KING, F. T. R. - BIGHAM, M. L. GWYER, EDWIN CANNAN, J. S. C. BRIDGE, A. M. - LATTER. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. net. - - -Constitutional Documents - - Select Charters and other Illustrations of English - Constitutional History, from the earliest times to Edward - I. Arranged and edited by W. STUBBS. Eighth edition. 1900. - Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d. - - Select Statutes and other Constitutional Documents, - illustrative of the reigns of Elizabeth and James I. Edited - by G. W. PROTHERO. Third edition. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d. - - Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution, selected - and edited by S. R. GARDINER. Third edition. Crown 8vo. - 10s. 6d. - - -International Law - - International Law. By W. E. HALL. Fifth edition by J. B. - ATLAY. 1904. 8vo. £1 1s. net. - - Treatise on the Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction of the - British Crown. By W. E. HALL. 8vo. 10s. 6d. - - The European Concert in the Eastern Question, a collection of - treaties and other public acts. Edited, with introductions - and notes, by T. E. HOLLAND. 8vo. 12s. 6d. - - Studies in International Law. By T. E. HOLLAND, 8vo. 10s. 6d. - - The Laws of War on Land. By T. E. HOLLAND. 8vo. 6s. net. - - Gentilis Alberici de Iure Belli Libri Tres edidit T. E. - HOLLAND. Small quarto, half-morocco. £1 1s. - - The Law of Nations. By Sir T. TWISS. Part I. In time of - peace. New edition, revised and enlarged. 8vo. 15s. - - Pacific Blockade. By A. E. HOGAN. 8vo. 6s. net. - - -Colonial and Indian Law - - The Government of India, being a Digest of the Statute - Law relating thereto, with historical introduction and - illustrative documents. By Sir C. P. ILBERT, K.C.S.I. - Second edition. 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net. - - British Rule and Jurisdiction beyond the Seas. By the late - Sir H. JENKYNS, K.C.B., with a preface by Sir C. P. ILBERT, - and a portrait of the author. 1902. 8vo, leather back, 15s. - net. - - Cornewall-Lewis’s Essay on the Government of Dependencies. - Edited by Sir C. P. LUCAS, K.C.M.G. 8vo, leather back, 14s. - - An Introduction to Hindu and Mahommedan Law for the use of - students. 1906. By Sir W. MARKBY, K.C.I.E. 6s. net. - - Land-Revenue and Tenure in British India. By B. H. - BADEN-POWELL, C.I.E. With map. Second edition, revised by - T. W. HOLDERNESS, C.S.I. (1907.) Crown 8vo. 5s. net. - - Land-Systems of British India, being a manual of the - Land-Tenures, and of the systems of Land-Revenue - administration. By the same. Three volumes. 8vo, with map. - £3 3s. - - Anglo-Indian Codes, by WHITLEY STOKES. 8vo. - - Vol. I. Substantive Law. £1 10s. Vol. II. Adjective Law. - £1 15s. 1st supplement, 2s. 6d. 2nd supplement, to - 1891, 4s. 6d. In one vol., 6s. 6d. - - The Indian Evidence Act, with notes by Sir W. MARKBY, - K.C.I.E. 8vo. 3s. 6d. net (published by Mr. Frowde). - - * * * * * - - Corps de Droit Ottoman: un Recueil des Codes, Lois, - Règlements, Ordonnances et Actes les plus importants du - Droit Intérieur, et d’Études sur le Droit Coutumier de - l’Empire Ottoman. Par GEORGE YOUNG. Seven vols. 8vo. Cloth, - £4 14s. 6d. net; paper covers, £4 4s. net. Parts I (Vols. - I-III) and II (Vols. IV-VII) can be obtained separately; - price per part, in cloth, £2 17s. 6d. net, in paper covers, - £2 12s. 6d. net. - - - - -Political Science and Economy - - -For Bryce’s _Studies_ and other books on general jurisprudence and -political science, see p. 13. - - Industrial Organization in the 16th and 17th Centuries. By G. - UNWIN. 8vo. 7s. 6d. net. - - Relations of the Advanced and Backward Races of Mankind, the - Romanes Lecture for 1902. By J. BRYCE. 8vo. 2s. net. - - Cornewall-Lewis’s Remarks on the Use and Abuse of some - Political Terms. New edition, with introduction by T. - RALEIGH. Crown 8vo, paper, 3s. 6d.; cloth, 4s. 6d. - - Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Edited by J. E. THOROLD - ROGERS. Two volumes. 8vo. £1 1s. net. - - Adam Smith’s Lectures on Justice, Police, Revenue and Arms. - Edited with introduction and notes by E. CANNAN. 8vo. 10s. - 6d. net. - - Bluntschli’s Theory of the State. Translated from the sixth - German edition. Third edition. 1901. Crown 8vo, leather - back, 8s. 6d. - - Co-operative Production. By B. JONES. With preface by A. H. - DYKE-ACLAND. Two volumes. Crown 8vo. 15s. net. - - A Geometrical Political Economy. Being an elementary Treatise - on the method of explaining some Theories of Pure Economic - Science by diagrams. By H. CUNYNGHAME, C.B. Cr. 8vo. 2s. - 6d. net. - - The Elements of Railway Economics. By W. M. ACWORTH. Crown - 8vo. Second impression. 2s. net. - - Elementary Political Economy. By E. CANNAN. Fourth edition. - Extra fcap 8vo, 1s. net. - - Elementary Politics. By Sir T. RALEIGH. Sixth edition - revised. Extra fcap 8vo, stiff covers, 1s. net. - - The Study of Economic History. By L. L. PRICE. 1s. net. - - -Economic Documents - - Ricardo’s Letters to Malthus (1810-1823). Edited by J. BONAR. - 8vo. 7s. 6d. - - Letters to Trower and others (1811-1823). Edited by - J. BONAR and J. H. HOLLANDER. 8vo. 7s. 6d. - - Lloyd’s Prices of Corn in Oxford, 1583-1830. 8vo. 1s. - - The History of Agriculture and Prices in England, A.D. - 1259-1793. By J. E. THOROLD ROGERS. - - Vols. I and II (1259-1400). 8vo. 84s. net. - Vols. III and IV (1401-1582). 8vo. 32s. net. - Vols. V and VI (1583-1702). 8vo. 32s. net. - Vol. VII. In two Parts (1702-1793). 8vo. 32s. net. - - First Nine Years of the Bank of England. By the same. 8vo. - 8s. 6d. - - - - -=TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE= - - - Italic text is denoted by _underscores_. - - Bold text is denoted by =equal signs=. - - Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been - corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within - the text and consultation of external sources. - - Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added, when - a predominant preference was found in the original book. - - Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the - text, and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained. - - Pg 7: ‘the lands abovereserved,’ replaced by ‘the lands above - reserved,’. - - Pg 64: ‘the great dependancies’ replaced by ‘the great - dependencies’. - - Pg 101: ‘held a meeeting’ replaced by ‘held a meeting’. - - Pg 185: ‘town of Springfield; In’ replaced by ‘town of Springfield; - in’. - - Pg 218: ‘their bona fide debts’ replaced by ‘their bonâ fide - debts’. - - Pg 222: ‘were finally withdran’ replaced by ‘were finally - withdrawn’. - - Pg 309: ‘as confidential sercetary’ replaced by ‘as confidential - secretary’. - - Pg 313: ‘Wellington was begining’ replaced by ‘Wellington was - beginning’. - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A HISTORY OF CANADA -1763-1812 *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/old/68336-0.zip b/old/68336-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 00c4d7f..0000000 --- a/old/68336-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68336-h.zip b/old/68336-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 24be31a..0000000 --- a/old/68336-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68336-h/68336-h.htm b/old/68336-h/68336-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 1b160dd..0000000 --- a/old/68336-h/68336-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,19971 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta charset="UTF-8" /> - <title> - A History of Canada: 1763-1812, by C. P. Lucas—A Project Gutenberg eBook - </title> - <link rel="icon" href="images/cover.jpg" type="image/x-cover" /> - <style> /* <![CDATA[ */ - -body { - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; -} - -h1,h2,h3 { - text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ - clear: both; -} - -h1 { - font-weight: normal; - line-height: 3em; -} - -h2 { - margin-top: 4em; - font-weight: normal; -} - -h3 {font-weight: normal;} - -p { - margin-top: .51em; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: .49em; - text-indent: 1em; -} - -.pbot1 {margin-bottom: 1em;} -.pbot2 {margin-bottom: 2em;} -.p1 {margin-top: 1em;} -.p2 {margin-top: 2em;} -.p4 {margin-top: 4em;} - -.fs60 {font-size: 60%;} -.fs80 {font-size: 80%;} -.fs90 {font-size: 90%;} -.fs100 {font-size: 100%;} -.fs120 {font-size: 120%;} -.fs150 {font-size: 150%;} -.fs175 {font-size: 175%;} - -hr { - width: 33%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - margin-left: 33.5%; - margin-right: 33.5%; - clear: both; -} - -hr.tb {width: 30%; margin-left: 35%; margin-right: 35%;} -hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;} - -@media print { hr.chap {display: none; visibility: hidden;} } - -div.chapter {page-break-before: always;} -h2.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;} - -ul.index {list-style-type: none;} - -li.ifrst { - margin-top: 1em; - text-indent: -2em; - padding-left: 1em; -} - -li.indx { - margin-top: .5em; - text-indent: -2em; - padding-left: 1em; -} - -li.isub1 { - text-indent: -2em; - padding-left: 2em; -} - -li.isub2 { - text-indent: -2em; - padding-left: 3em; -} - -table { - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; - width: 90%; -} - -table.autotable {border-collapse: collapse;} - -.tdl {text-align: left;} -.tdr {text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;} -.tdlrr {text-align: right; padding-left: 6em;} -.tdc {text-align: center;} - -/* hanging indents */ -.tdlh {text-align: left; padding-left: 1em; text-indent: -1em;} - -.tdltop {text-align: left; padding-left: 1.5em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: top;} - -.tdrtop {text-align: right; padding-left: 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: top;} - -.tdrbot {text-align: right; padding-left: 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: bottom;} - -.tdcbot {text-align: center; padding-left: 1em; text-indent: -1em; vertical-align: bottom;} - -/* for spacing */ -.pad4 {padding-left: 4em;} -.pad5 {padding-left: 5em;} -.pad6 {padding-left: 6em;} -.pad8 {padding-left: 8em;} -.pad9 {padding-left: 9em;} -.pad10 {padding-left: 10em;} -.pad62 {padding-left: 62%;} -.padr2 {padding-right: 2em;} - -.wsp {word-spacing: 0.3em;} -.lsp {letter-spacing: 0.1em;} -.lht {line-height: 1.5em;} -.wd5 {width: 5em;} - -.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ - /* visibility: hidden; */ - position: absolute; - color: #A9A9A9; - right: 92%; - font-size: 80%; - text-align: right; - font-style: normal; - font-weight: normal; - font-variant: normal; - text-indent: .5em; -} /* page numbers */ - -.blockquot { - margin-left: 5%; - margin-right: 10%; - font-size: 90%; -} - -.blockquota { - margin-left: 6%; - margin-right: 11%; - font-size: 90%; -} - -.blockquotb { - margin-left: 7%; - margin-right: 12%; - font-size: 90%; -} - -.sidenote { - width: 18%; - padding: .2em; - margin: .5em .3em 0 .5em; - float: right; - clear: right; - text-align: left; - text-indent: 0em; - font-size: 60%; - font-style: normal; - font-weight: normal; - color: black; - background: #eeeeee; - border: dashed thin; -} - -.x-ebookmaker .sidenote { - float: right; - clear: right; - width: 18%; -} - -.bb {border-bottom: 2px solid;} -.bl {border-left: 2px solid;} -.bt {border-top: 2px solid;} -.br {border-right: 2px solid;} -.center {text-align: center; text-indent: 0em;} -.hang15 {padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -1.5em;} -.hang1 {padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -1em;} -.noindent {text-indent: 0em;} -.right {text-align: right;} -.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} -.allsmcap {font-variant: small-caps; text-transform: lowercase;} -ul {list-style-type: none;} - -.caption { - font-weight: normal; - font-size: 70%; -} - -img { - max-width: 100%; - height: auto; -} - -img.w100 {width: 100%;} - -.figcenter { - margin: auto; - text-align: center; - page-break-inside: avoid; - max-width: 100%; -} - -/* custom cover (cover.jpg) */ -.x-ebookmaker .customcover {visibility: visible; display: block;} - -/*css for screenonly is*/ -.screenonly { display: block; } -.x-ebookmaker .screenonly { display: none; } - -/* Footnotes */ -.footnotes {border: dashed 1px; margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 3em; padding-bottom: 1em;} -.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 80%;} -.footnote p {text-indent: 0em;} -.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} -.fnanchor {vertical-align: super; font-size: .8em; text-decoration: none;} - -.transnote { - background-color: #E6E6FA; - color: black; - font-size:smaller; - padding:0.5em; - margin-bottom:5em; - font-family:sans-serif, serif; -} - -.illowp30 {width: 30%;} - - /* ]]> */ </style> - </head> -<body> -<p style='text-align:center; font-size:1.2em; font-weight:bold'>The Project Gutenberg eBook of A history of Canada 1763-1812, by Charles Prestwood Lucas</p> -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online -at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you -are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the -country where you are located before using this eBook. -</div> - -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:1em; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Title: A history of Canada 1763-1812</p> -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Author: Charles Prestwood Lucas</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Release Date: June 17, 2022 [eBook #68336]</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Language: English</p> - <p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em; text-align:left'>Produced by: Sonya Schermann, hekula03, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)</p> -<div style='margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:4em'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A HISTORY OF CANADA 1763-1812 ***</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="transnote"> -<a id="TN"></a> -<p><b>TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE</b></p> - -<p>The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.</p> - -<p>Footnotes have been placed at the end of their respective chapters.</p> -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="figcenter illowp30" id="cover" style="max-width: 30em;"> - <img class="w100" src="images/cover.jpg" alt="cover created by the transcriber" /> -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="chapter"></div> -<h1> <span class="pbot1 center fs150 wsp lsp">A</span><br /> -<span class="pbot1 center fs175 wsp lsp">HISTORY OF CANADA<br /> -1763-1812</span></h1> - -<p class="center p4 pbot1 fs80">BY</p> -<p class="center smcap fs120"><span class="smcap">Sir</span> C. P. LUCAS, K.C.M.G., C.B.</p> - -<p class="p4 pbot1 center fs120">OXFORD<br /> -AT THE CLARENDON PRESS</p> - -<p class="center fs80">1909</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="chapter"></div> -<p class="p4 center fs120">HENRY FROWDE, M.A.</p> -<p class="center fs90 lht">PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD<br /> -LONDON, EDINBURGH, NEW YORK<br /> -TORONTO AND MELBOURNE</p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="chapter"></div> -<h2 class="nobreak fs175" id="PREFACE">PREFACE</h2> - -<p class="fs120 lht">My warm thanks are due to Mr. C. T. Atkinson, M.A., -of Exeter College, Oxford, who most kindly read -through the proofs of the chapter on the War -of American Independence and made some valuable -corrections; and also to Mr. C. Atchley, I.S.O., -Librarian of the Colonial Office, who has given -me constant help. Two recent and most valuable -books have greatly facilitated the study -of Canadian history since 1763, viz., <i>Documents -relating to the Constitutional History of Canada, -1759-91</i>, selected and edited with notes by Messrs. -Shortt and Doughty, and <i>Canadian Constitutional -Development</i>, by Messrs. Egerton and Grant. -I want to express my grateful acknowledgements -of the help which these books have given to me.</p> - -<p class="right"><span class="padr2">C. P. LUCAS.</span></p> - -<p><i>December, 1908.</i></p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="chapter"></div> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CONTENTS">CONTENTS</h2> - -<table class="autotable"> -<tr> -<td class="tdc">CHAPTER I</td> -<td class="tdlrr"><span class="allsmcap">PAGE</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdlh"><span class="smcap">The Proclamation of 1763, and Pontiac’s War</span></td> -<td class="tdrbot"><a href="#Page_1">1</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"> </td> -<td class="tdr"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc">CHAPTER II</td> -<td class="tdr"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdlh"><span class="smcap">Causes of the American War of Independence and the Quebec Act</span></td> -<td class="tdrbot"><a href="#Page_30">30</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"> </td> -<td class="tdr"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc">CHAPTER III</td> -<td class="tdr"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdlh"><span class="smcap">The War of American Independence</span></td> -<td class="tdrbot"><a href="#Page_90">90</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"> </td> -<td class="tdr"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc">CHAPTER IV</td> -<td class="tdr"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdlh"><span class="smcap">The Treaty of 1783 and the United Empire Loyalists</span></td> -<td class="tdrbot"><a href="#Page_208">208</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"> </td> -<td class="tdr"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc">CHAPTER V</td> -<td class="tdr"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdlh"><span class="smcap">Lord Dorchester and the Canada Act of 1791</span></td> -<td class="tdrbot"><a href="#Page_236">236</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"> </td> -<td class="tdr"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc">CHAPTER VI</td> -<td class="tdr"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Sir James Craig</span></td> -<td class="tdrbot"><a href="#Page_298">298</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"> </td> -<td class="tdr"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc">APPENDIX I</td> -<td class="tdr"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Treaty of Paris, 1783</span></td> -<td class="tdrbot"><a href="#Page_321">321</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"> </td> -<td class="tdr"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc">APPENDIX II</td> -<td class="tdr"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdlh"><span class="smcap">The Boundary Line of Canada</span></td> -<td class="tdrbot"><a href="#Page_327">327</a></td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="chapter"></div> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="LIST_OF_MAPS">LIST OF MAPS</h2> - -<table class="autotable"> -<tr> -<td class="tdrtop">1.</td> -<td class="tdlh"><span class="smcap">Map to illustrate the Proclamation of 1763</span></td> -<td class="tdcbot wd5"><i>To face</i> p.</td> -<td class="tdrbot"><a href="#i_001">1</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdrtop">2.</td> -<td class="tdlh"><span class="smcap">Canada under the Quebec Act</span></td> -<td class="tdcbot">"</td> -<td class="tdrbot"><a href="#i_082">81</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdrtop">*3.</td> -<td class="tdlh"><span class="smcap">Plan of the City and Environs of Quebec</span></td> -<td class="tdcbot">”</td> -<td class="tdrbot"><a href="#i_111">112</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdrtop">4.</td> -<td class="tdlh"><span class="smcap">Map to illustrate the Border Wars</span></td> -<td class="tdcbot">”</td> -<td class="tdrbot"><a href="#i_146">145</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdrtop">*5.</td> -<td class="tdlh"><span class="smcap">A Map of the Country in which the army under Lieutenant-General Burgoyne acted in the campaign of 1777</span></td> -<td class="tdcbot">”</td> -<td class="tdrbot"><a href="#i_162">161</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdrtop">6.</td> -<td class="tdlh"><span class="smcap">The two Canadas under the Constitutional Act of 1791</span></td> -<td class="tdcbot">”</td> -<td class="tdrbot"><a href="#i_258">257</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdrtop">7.</td> -<td class="tdlh"><span class="smcap">Map to illustrate the Boundary of Canada</span></td> -<td class="tdcbot">”</td> -<td class="tdrbot"><a href="#i_320">321</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdrtop">8.</td> -<td class="tdlh"><span class="smcap">Map of Eastern Canada and part of the United States</span></td> -<td class="tdrbot" colspan="2"><a href="#i_eob"><i>End of book.</i></a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="4">* Reproductions of contemporary maps.</td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="chapter"></div> -<div class="figcenter illowp70" id="i_001" style="max-width: 43.75em;"> -<img class="w100" src="images/i_001.jpg" alt="" /> - <a rel="nofollow" href="images/i_001large.jpg"> - <span class="screenonly fs60 center">click here for larger image.</span></a> -<div class="caption"> -<p class="right"><i>to face page 1</i></p> -<p class="left noindent"><span class="pad8"><b>CANADA</b></span><br /> -<span class="pad9">by the</span><br /> -<span class="pad6">Proclamation of <b>1763</b></span><br /> -From a map of 1776, in the Colonial Office Library</p> -<p class="right">B. V. Barbishire, Oxford, 1908</p> -</div> -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="chapter"></div> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_1"></a>[1]</span></p> - -<p class="center noindent fs175">HISTORY OF CANADA, 1763-1812</p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_I">CHAPTER I<br /> -<span class="fs80">THE PROCLAMATION OF 1763, AND -PONTIAC’S WAR</span></h2> - -<div class="sidenote">The -Peace of -Paris.</div> - -<p>On the 10th of February, 1763, the Peace of Paris was -signed between Great Britain, France, and Spain. Under -its provisions all North America, east of the Mississippi, -which had been owned or claimed by France, was, with -the exception of the city of New Orleans, transferred to -Great Britain, the navigation of the Mississippi being -thrown open to the subjects of both Powers. The English -also received Florida from Spain, in return for Havana -given back to its old owners. Under a treaty secretly -concluded in November, 1762, when the preliminaries of -the general treaty were signed, Spain took over from -France New Orleans and Louisiana west of the Mississippi, -the actual transfer being completed in 1769. Thus -France lost all hold on the North American continent, -while retaining various West Indian islands, and fishing -rights on part of the Newfoundland coast, which were -supplemented by possession of the two adjacent islets of -St. Pierre and Miquelon.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The Proclamation -of 1763.</div> - -<p>In the autumn of the year 1763, on the 7th of October, -King George III issued a proclamation constituting -‘within the countries and islands, ceded and confirmed -to us by the said treaty, four distinct and separate governments, -styled and called by the names of Quebec, East -Florida, West Florida, and Grenada’. Of these four -governments, the first alone requires special notice. The -government of Grenada was in the West Indies, and the -governments of East and West Florida, excluding a -debatable strip of territory which was annexed to the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_2"></a>[2]</span> -State of Georgia, were co-extensive with the new province -which had been acquired from Spain.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Boundaries -of -the -government -of -Quebec.</div> - -<p>The limits assigned by the proclamation to the government -of Quebec were as follows: north of the St. Lawrence, -the new province was ‘bounded on the Labrador coast -by the river St. John, and from thence by a line drawn -from the head of that river, through the Lake St. John, -to the south end of the Lake Nipissim’. The river -St. John flows into the St. Lawrence over against the -western end of the island of Anticosti; Lake St. John is -the lake out of which the Saguenay takes its course; -Lake Nipissim or Nipissing is connected by French river -with Georgian Bay and Lake Huron. The line in question, -therefore, was drawn due south-west from Lake St. John -parallel to the St. Lawrence.<a id="FNanchor_1" href="#Footnote_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> From the southern end of -Lake Nipissim the line, according to the terms of the -proclamation, crossed the St. Lawrence and Lake Champlain -in 45 degrees of north latitude. In other words, it -was drawn due south-east, to the west of and parallel to -the Ottawa river, until it struck the St. Lawrence, where -the 45th parallel of north latitude meets that river at the -foot of the Long Sault Rapids. It then followed the -45th parallel eastward across the outlet of Lake Champlain, -and subsequently, diverging to the north-east, was -carried ‘along the highlands which divide the rivers that -empty themselves into the said river St. Lawrence from -those which fall into the sea’. Further east it skirted -‘the north coast of the Baye des Chaleurs and the coast of -the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Cape Rosieres’, which last -named cape is at the extreme end of the Gaspé peninsula. -The line then again crossed the St. Lawrence by the -western end of the island of Anticosti, and joined the -river St. John.</p> - -<p>Thus, south of the St. Lawrence, the boundary of the -province of Quebec was, roughly speaking, much the same -as it is at the present day. Its westernmost limit was<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_3"></a>[3]</span> -also not far different, the Ottawa river being in the main -the existing boundary between the provinces of Ontario -and Quebec. On the north and north-east, on the other -hand, the government of Quebec in 1763 covered a smaller -area than is now the case. ‘To the end that the open -and free fishery of our subjects may be extended to and -carried on upon the coast of Labrador and the adjacent -islands,’ ran the terms of the proclamation, ‘we have -thought fit, with the advice of our said Privy Council, to -put all that coast from the river St. John’s to Hudson’s -Straits, together with the islands of Anticosti and Madelaine, -and all other smaller islands lying upon the said -coast, under the care and inspection of our Governor of -Newfoundland.’ To the government of Nova Scotia were -annexed the conquered islands of St. Jean or St. John’s, -now Prince Edward Island, and Isle Royale or Cape -Breton, ‘with the lesser islands adjacent thereto.’</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Encouragement -of military -and -naval -settlers.</div> - -<p>It was greatly desired to encourage British settlement -in North America, and special regard was had in this respect -to the soldiers and sailors who in North American lands -and waters had deserved so well of their country. Accordingly -the proclamation contained a special provision -for grants of land, within the old and the new colonies -alike, to retired officers of the army who had served in -North America during the late war; to private soldiers -who had been disbanded in and were actually living in -North America; and to retired officers of the navy who -had served in North America ‘at the times of the reduction -of Louisbourg and Quebec’. It was thought also by the -Lords of Trade that confidence and encouragement would -be given to intending settlers, if at the outset they were -publicly notified of the form of government under which -they would live. <span class="sidenote">Provision for a legislature and for the administration of justice.</span> Hence the proclamation provided, as -regards the new colonies, ‘that so soon as the state and -circumstances of the said colonies will admit thereof,’ the -governors ‘shall, with the advice and consent of the -members of our Council, summon and call General Assemblies -within the said governments respectively, in such<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_4"></a>[4]</span> -manner and form as is used and directed in those colonies -and provinces in America which are under our immediate -government’. The governors, councils, and representatives -of the people, when duly constituted, were empowered -to make laws for the public peace, welfare, and good -government of the colonies, provided that such laws -should be ‘as near as may be agreeable to the laws of -England, and under such regulations and restrictions as -are used in other colonies.’ Pending the constitution of -the legislatures, the inhabitants and settlers were to enjoy -the benefit of the laws of England, and the governors -were empowered, with the advice of their councils, to -establish courts of justice, to hear and decide civil and -criminal cases alike, in accordance as far as possible with -the laws of England, a right of appeal being given in civil -cases to the Privy Council in England. It was not stated -in the proclamation, but it was embodied in the governors’ -instructions, that until General Assemblies could be constituted, -the governors, with the advice of their councils, -were to make rules and regulations for peace, order, and -good government, all matters being reserved ‘that shall -any ways tend to affect the life, limb, or liberty of the -subject, or to the imposing any duties or taxes’.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -Western -territories.</div> - -<p>In June, 1762, James Murray, then military governor -of the district of Quebec, and subsequently the first civil -governor of the province, wrote that it was impossible to -ascertain exactly what part of North America the French -styled Canada. In the previous March General Gage, -then military governor of Montreal, had written that he -could not discover ‘that the limits betwixt Louisiana -and Canada were distinctly described, so as to be publicly -known’, but that from the trade which Canadians had -carried on under the authority of their governors, he -judged ‘not only the lakes, which are indisputable, but -the whole course of the Mississippi from its heads to its -junction with the Illinois, to have been comprehended -by the French in the government of Canada’. In June, -1763, the Lords of Trade, when in obedience to the Royal<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_5"></a>[5]</span> -commands they were considering the terms and the scope -of the coming proclamation, reported that ‘Canada, as -possessed and claimed by the French, consisted of an -immense tract of country including as well the whole lands -to the westward indefinitely which was the subject of -their Indian trade, as all that country from the southern -bank of the river St. Lawrence, where they carried on -their encroachments’.</p> - -<p>After the Peace of Paris had been signed, the King, -through Lord Egremont, who had succeeded Chatham as -Secretary of State for the southern department, referred -the whole subject of his new colonial possessions to the -Lords of Trade. In doing so he called special attention -to the necessity of keeping peace among the North -American Indians—a subject which was shortly to be -illustrated by Pontiac’s war—and to this end he laid -stress upon the desirability of protecting their persons, -their property, and their privileges, and ‘most cautiously -guarding against any invasion or occupation of their -hunting lands, the possession of which is to be acquired -by fair purchase only’. The Lords of Trade recommended -adoption of ‘the general proposition of leaving a large -tract of country round the Great Lakes as an Indian -country, open to trade, but not to grants and settlements; -the limits of such territory will be sufficiently ascertained -by the bounds to be given to the governors of Canada -and Florida on the north and south, and the Mississippi -on the west; and by the strict directions to be given to -Your Majesty’s several governors of your ancient colonies -for preventing their making any new grants of lands -beyond certain fixed limits to be laid down in the instructions -for that purpose’. Egremont answered that the -King demurred to leaving so large a tract of land without -a civil jurisdiction and open, as being derelict, to possible -foreign intrusion; and that, in His opinion, the commission -of the Governor of Canada should include ‘all the lakes, -viz. Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan, and Superior’, and -‘all the country as far north and west as the limits of the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_6"></a>[6]</span> -Hudson’s Bay Company and the Mississippi’. At the -same time He cordially concurred in not permitting grants -of lands or settlements in these regions, which should be -‘for the present left unsettled, for the Indian tribes to -hunt in, but open to a free trade for all the colonies’. -The Lords of Trade were not convinced. They deprecated -annexing this western territory to any colony, and -particularly to Canada, on three grounds: The first was -that annexation to Canada might imply that the British -title to these lands was the result of the late treaty and of -the cession of Canada, whereas it rested on antecedent -rights, and it was important not to let the Indians form -a wrong impression on this head by being brought under -the government of the old French province. The second -ground was that, if the Indian territory was annexed to -one particular province and subjected to its laws, that -province would have an undue advantage over the other -provinces or colonies in respect to the Indian trade, which -it was the intention of the Crown to leave open as far as -possible to all British subjects. The third objection to -annexing the territory to Canada was that the laws of -the province could not be enforced except by means -of garrisons established at different posts throughout the -area, which would necessitate either that the Governor -of Canada should always be commander-in-chief of the -forces in North America, or that there should be constant -friction between the civil governor and the military commanders. -This reasoning prevailed, and the lands which -it was contemplated to reserve for the use of the Indians -were not annexed to any particular colony or assigned to -any one colonial government.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Provisions -for the -protection -of -the -Indians.</div> - -<p>With this great area, covering the present province of -Ontario and the north central states of the American -Republic, the Royal proclamation dealt as follows: -‘Whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our -interest, and the security of our colonies, that the several -nations or tribes of Indians, with whom we are connected, -and who live under our protection, should not be molested<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_7"></a>[7]</span> -or disturbed in the possession of such parts of our dominions -and territories as, not having been ceded to or -purchased by us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as -their hunting grounds ... we do further declare it to be -our Royal will and pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to -reserve under our sovereignty, protection, and dominion, -for the use of the said Indians, all the lands and territories -not included within the limits of our said three new -governments, or within the limits of the territory granted -to the Hudson’s Bay Company, as also all the lands and -territories lying to the westward of the sources of the -rivers which fall into the sea from the west and north-west -as aforesaid; and we do hereby strictly forbid, on pain -of our displeasure, all our loving subjects from making -any purchases or settlements whatever, or taking possession -of any of the lands above reserved, without our especial -leave and licence for that purpose first obtained.’</p> - -<p>Thus North America, outside the recognized limits of -the old or new colonies, was for the time being constituted -a great native reserve; and even within the limits of -the colonies it was provided ‘that no private person do -presume to make any purchase from the said Indians of -any lands reserved to the said Indians within those parts -of our colonies where we have thought proper to allow -settlement: but that, if at any time any of the said -Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said lands, the -same shall be purchased only for us, in our name, at some -public meeting or assembly of the said Indians, to be held -for that purpose by the governor or commander-in-chief -of our colony respectively within which they shall lie’. -Trade with the Indians was to be free and open to all -British subjects, but the traders were to take out licences, -and, while no fees were to be charged for such licences, -the traders were to give security that they would observe -any regulations laid down for the benefit of the trade.<a id="FNanchor_2" href="#Footnote_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_8"></a>[8]</span></p> - -<p>It is impossible to study the correspondence which -preceded the Proclamation of 1763, without recognizing -that those who framed it were anxious to frame a just -and liberal policy, but its terms bear witness to the almost <span class="sidenote">Difficulties of the situation.</span> -insuperable difficulties which attend the acquisition of -a great borderland of colonization, difficulties which in -a few years’ time were largely responsible for the American -War of Independence. How to administer a new domain -with equity and sound judgement; how to give to new -subjects, acquired by conquest, the privileges enjoyed by -the old colonies; how to reconcile the claims of the old -colonies, whose inland borders had never been demarcated, -with the undoubted rights of native races; how to promote -trade and settlement without depriving the Indians of -their heritage;—such were the problems which the British -Government was called upon to face and if possible to -solve. The proclamation was in a few years’ time followed -up by the Quebec Act of 1774, in connexion with -which more will be said as to these thorny questions. In -the meantime, even before the proclamation had been -issued, the English had on their hands what was perhaps -the most dangerous and widespread native rising which -ever threatened their race in the New World.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">French -policy in -North -America.</div> - -<p>The great French scheme for a North American dominion -depended upon securing control of the waterways and -control of the natives. Even before the dawn of the -eighteenth century, Count Frontenac among governors, -La Salle among pioneers, saw clearly the importance of -gaining the West and the ways to the West; and they -realized that, in order to attain that object, the narrows -on the inland waters, and the portages from one lake or -river to another, must be commanded; that the Indians -who were hostile to France must be subdued, and that -the larger number of red men, who liked French ways -and French leadership, must be given permanent evidence -of the value of French protection and the strength of -French statesmanship.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -French -posts in -the West.</div> - -<p>Along the line of lakes and rivers in course of years<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_9"></a>[9]</span> -French forts were placed. Fort Frontenac, first founded -in 1673 by the great French governor whose name it bore, -guarded, on the site of the present city of Kingston, the -outlet of the St. Lawrence from Lake Ontario. Fort -Niagara, begun by La Salle in the winter of 1678-9, on -the eastern bank of the Niagara river, near its entrance -into Lake Ontario, covered the portage from that lake to -Lake Erie. Fort Detroit, dating from the first years of -the eighteenth century, stood by the river which carries -the waters of Lake Huron and Lake St. Clair into Lake -Erie. Its founder was La Mothe Cadillac. The post at -Michillimackinac was at the entrance of Lake Michigan. -From Lake Erie to the Ohio were two lines of forts. The -main line began with Presque Isle on the southern shore -of the lake, and ended with Fort Duquesne, afterwards -renamed Pittsburg, the intermediate posts being Fort -Le Bœuf at the head of French Creek, and Venango where -that stream joins the Alleghany. Further west, past -the intermediate fort of Sandusky, which stood on the -southern shore of Lake Erie, there was a second series of -outposts, of which we hear little in the course of the Seven -Years’ War. The Maumee river flows into the south-western -end of Lake Erie, and on it, at a point where there -was a portage to the Wabash river, was constructed Fort -Miami, on or near the site of the later American Fort -Wayne. On the Wabash, which joins the Ohio not very -far above the confluence of the latter river with the -Mississippi, were two French posts, Fort Ouatanon and, -lower down its course, Fort Vincennes. On the central -Mississippi the chief nucleus of French trade and influence -was Fort Chartres. It stood on the eastern bank of the -river, eighty to ninety miles above the confluence of the -Ohio, and but a few miles north of the point where -the Kaskaskia river flows into the Mississippi. On the -Kaskaskia, among the Illinois Indians, there was a French -outpost, and settlement fringed the eastern side of the -Mississippi northwards to Fort Chartres. Above that fort -there was a road running north on the same side to<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_10"></a>[10]</span> -Cahokia, a little below and on the opposite side to the -confluence of the Missouri; and in 1763 a French settler -crossed the Mississippi, and opened a store on the site of -the present city of St. Louis. The posts on the Mississippi -were, both for trading and for political purposes, connected -with Louisiana rather than with Canada; and, though the -Peace of Paris had ceded to Great Britain the soil on which -they stood, the French had not been disturbed by any -assertion of British sovereignty prior to the war which -is associated with the name of the Indian chief Pontiac.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -rising of -Pontiac.</div> - -<p>The rising which Pontiac headed came too late for the -Indians to be permanently successful. In any case it -could have had, eventually, but one ending, the overthrow -of the red men: but, while it lasted, it seriously delayed -the consolidation of English authority over the West. -After most wars of conquest there supervene minor wars -or rebellions, waves of the receding tide when high-water -is past, disturbances due to local mismanagement and -local discontent; but the Indian war, which began in 1763, <span class="sidenote">Its special characteristics.</span> -had special characteristics. In the first place, the rising -was entirely a native revolt. No doubt it was fomented -by malcontent French traders and settlers, disseminating -tales of English iniquities and raising hopes of a French -revival; but very few Frenchmen were to be found in -the fighting line; the warriors were red men, not white. -In the second place it was a rising of the Western Indians, -of the tribes who had not known in any measure the -strength of the English, and who had known, more as -friends than as subjects, the guidance and the spirit of -the French. Of the Six Nations, the Senecas alone, the -westernmost members of the Iroquois Confederacy, joined -in the struggle, and the centre of disturbance was further -west. In the third place the rising was more carefully -planned, the conception was more statesmanlike, the -action was more organized, than has usually been the -case among savage races. There was unity of plan and -harmony in action, which betokened leadership of no -ordinary kind. The leader was the Ottawa chief Pontiac.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_11"></a>[11]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Indian -suspicions -of the -English.</div> - -<p>‘When the Indian nations saw the French power, as -it were, annihilated in North America, they began to -imagine that they ought to have made greater and earlier -efforts in their favour. The Indians had not been for a -long time so jealous of them as they were of us. The -French seemed more intent on trade than settlement. -Finding themselves infinitely weaker than the English, -they supplied, as well as they could, the place of strength -by policy, and paid a much more flattering and systematic -attention to the Indians than we had ever done. Our -superiority in this war rendered our regard to this people -still less, which had always been too little.’<a id="FNanchor_3" href="#Footnote_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> The Indians -were frightened too, says the same writer, by the English -possession of the chains of forts: ‘they beheld in every -little garrison the germ of a future colony.’ Ripe for -revolt, and never yet subdued, as their countrymen further -east had been, they found a strong man of their own race -to lead them, and tried conclusions with the dominant -white race in North America.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Rogers’ -mission -to -Detroit.</div> - -<p>In the autumn of 1760, after the capitulation of Montreal, -General Amherst sent Major Robert Rogers, the -New Hampshire Ranger, to receive the submission of the -French forts on the further lakes. On the 13th of September -Rogers embarked at Montreal with two hundred of -his men: he made his way up the St. Lawrence, and -coasted the northern shore of Lake Ontario, noting, as he -went, that Toronto, where the French had held Fort -Rouillé, was ‘a most convenient place for a factory, and -that from thence we may very easily settle the north side -of Lake Erie’.<a id="FNanchor_4" href="#Footnote_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> He crossed the upper end of Lake -Ontario to Fort Niagara, already in British possession; -and, having taken up supplies, carried his whale boats -round the falls and launched them on Lake Erie. Along -the southern side of that lake he went forward to Presque -Isle, where Bouquet was in command of the English garrison; -and, leaving his men, he went himself down by Fort<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_12"></a>[12]</span> -le Bœuf, the French Creek river, and Venango to Fort -Pitt, or Pittsburg, as Fort Duquesne had been renamed -by John Forbes in honour of Chatham. His instructions -were to carry dispatches to General Monckton at Pittsburg, -and to take orders from him for a further advance. -Returning to Presque Isle at the end of October, he went -westward along Lake Erie, making for Detroit. No -English force had yet been in evidence so far to the West. -On the 7th of November he encamped on the southern -shore of Lake Erie, at a point near the site of the present -city of Cleveland, and there he was met by a party of -Ottawa Indians ‘just arrived from Detroit’.<a id="FNanchor_5" href="#Footnote_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">His -meeting -with -Pontiac.</div> - -<p>They came, as Rogers tells us in another book,<a id="FNanchor_6" href="#Footnote_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> on an -embassy from Pontiac, and were immediately followed by -that chief himself. Pontiac’s personality seems to have -impressed the white backwoodsman, though he had seen -and known all sorts and conditions of North American -Indians. ‘I had several conferences with him,’ he writes, -‘in which he discovered great strength of judgement and -a thirst after knowledge.’ Pontiac took up the position -of being ‘King and Lord of the country’, and challenged -Rogers and his men as intruders into his land; but he -intimated that he would be prepared to live peaceably -with the English, as a subordinate not a conquered potentate; -and the result of the meeting was that the Rangers -were supplied with fresh provisions and were escorted -in safety on their way, instead of being obstructed and -attacked, as had been contemplated, at the entrance of -the Detroit river. On the 12th of November Rogers set -out again; on the 19th he sent on an officer in advance -with a letter to Belêtre, the French commander at Detroit, -informing him of the capitulation of Montreal and calling <span class="sidenote">Surrender of Detroit to the English.</span> -upon him to deliver up the fort. On the 29th of November -the English force landed half a mile below the fort, and -on the same day the French garrison laid down their arms.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_13"></a>[13]</span> -Seven hundred Indians were present; and, when they -saw the French colours hauled down and the English -flag take their place, unstable as water and ever siding at the -moment with the stronger party, they shouted that ‘they -would always for the future fight for a nation thus favoured -by Him that made the world’.<a id="FNanchor_7" href="#Footnote_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Detroit.</div> - -<p>There were at the time, Rogers tells us,<a id="FNanchor_8" href="#Footnote_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> about 2,500 -French Canadians settled in the neighbourhood of Detroit. -The dwelling-houses, near 300 in number, extended on -both sides of the river for about eight miles. The land -was good for grazing and for agriculture, and there was -a ‘very large and lucrative’ trade with the Indians.</p> - -<p>Having sent the French garrison down to Philadelphia, -and established an English garrison in its place, Rogers -sent a small party to take over Fort Miami on the Maumee -river, and set out himself with another detachment for -Michillimackinac. But it was now the middle of December; <span class="sidenote">Return of Rogers.</span> -floating ice made navigation of Lake Huron dangerous; -after a vain attempt to reach Michillimackinac he -returned to Detroit on the 21st of December; and, -marching overland to the Ohio and to Philadelphia, he <span class="sidenote">Michillimackinac occupied by the English.</span> -finally reached New York on the 14th of February, 1761. -In the autumn of that year a detachment of Royal -Americans took possession of Michillimackinac.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Indian -discontent.</div> - -<p>Throughout 1761 and 1762 the discontent of the Indians -increased; they saw the English officers and soldiers in -their midst in strength and pride; they listened to the -tales of the French voyageurs; they remembered French -friendship and address, and contrasted it with the grasping -rudeness of the English trader or colonist; a native prophet -rose up to call the red men back to savagery, as the -one road to salvation; and influenced at once by superstition -and by the present fear of losing their lands, the -tribes of the West made ready to fight.</p> - -<p>For months the call to war had secretly been passing -from tribe to tribe, and from village to village; and on<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_14"></a>[14]</span> -the 27th of April, 1763, Pontiac held a council of Indians -at the little river Ecorces some miles to the south of <span class="sidenote">The fort at Detroit.</span> -Detroit, at which it was determined to attack the fort. -Fort Detroit stood on the western side of the Detroit -river, which runs from Lake St. Clair to Lake Erie, at -about five miles distance from the former lake and a little -over twenty miles from Lake Erie. The river is at its -narrowest point more than half a mile wide, and, as already -stated, Canadian settlement fringed both banks. The -fort, which stood a little back from the bank of the river, -consisted of a square enclosure surrounded by a wooden -palisade, with bastions and block-houses also of wood, -and within the palisade was a small town with barracks, -council house, and church. The garrison consisted of -about 120 soldiers belonging to the 39th Regiment; and, -in addition to the ordinary Canadian residents within the -town, there were some 40 fur-traders present at the -time, most of whom were French. The commander was <span class="sidenote">Major Gladwin.</span> -a determined man, Major Gladwin, who, under Braddock -on the Monongahela river, had seen the worst of Indian -fighting. Before April ended Gladwin reported to Amherst -that there was danger of an Indian outbreak; -and, when the crisis came, warned either by Indians or by -Canadians, he was prepared for it. For some, at any -rate, of the Canadians at Detroit, though they had no -love for the English, and though Pontiac was moving in -the name of the French king, were men of substance and -had something to lose. They were therefore not inclined -to side with the red men against the white, or -to lend themselves to extermination of the English -garrison.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Pontiac’s -attempt -to surprise -the -garrison.</div> - -<p>On the 1st of May Pontiac and forty of his men came -into the fort on an outwardly friendly visit, and took stock -of the ways of attack and the means of defence. Then -a few days passed in preparing for the blow. A party of -60 warriors were once more to gain admittance, hiding -under their blankets guns whose barrels had been filed -down for the purpose of concealment: they were to hold<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_15"></a>[15]</span> -a council with the English officers, and at a given signal to -shoot them down. The 7th of May was the day fixed for -the deed, but Gladwin was forewarned and forearmed. -The Indian chiefs were admitted to the fort, and attended -the council; but they found the garrison under arms, -and their plot discovered. Both sides dissembled, and -the Indians were allowed to leave, disconcerted, but -saved for further mischief. On the 9th of May they again -applied to be admitted to the fort, but this time were -refused, and open warfare began. Two or three English, <span class="sidenote">The fort openly attacked.</span> -who were outside the palisade at the time, were murdered, -and on the 10th, for six hours, the savages attacked the -fort with no success.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Siege of -Detroit.</div> - -<p>There was little danger that Detroit would be taken -by assault, but there was danger of the garrison being -starved out. Gladwin, therefore, tried negotiation with -Pontiac, and using French Canadians as intermediaries, -sent two English officers with them to the Indian camp. -The two Englishmen, one of them Captain Campbell, an -old officer of high character and repute, were kept as -captives, and Campbell was subsequently murdered. -The surrender of the fort was then demanded by Pontiac, -a demand which was at once refused; and against the -wishes of his officers Gladwin determined to hold the post -at all costs. Supplies were brought in by night by friendly -Canadians, and all immediate danger of starvation passed -away.</p> - -<p>Amherst, the commander-in-chief, far away at New -York, had not yet learnt of the peril of Detroit or of the -nature and extent of the Indian rising, but in the ordinary -course in the month of May supplies were being sent up -for the western garrisons. The convoy intended for <span class="sidenote">British convoy cut off.</span> -Detroit left Niagara on the 13th of that month, in charge -of Lieutenant Cuyler with 96 men. Coasting along the -northern shore of Lake Erie, Cuyler, towards the end of -the month, reached a point near the outlet of the Detroit -river, and there drew up his boats on the shore. Before -an encampment could be formed the Indians broke in upon<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_16"></a>[16]</span> -the English, who fled panic-stricken to the boats; only -two boats escaped, and between 50 and 60 men out of the -total number of 96 were killed or taken. The survivors, -Cuyler himself among them, made their way across the -lake to Fort Sandusky, only to find that it had been burnt -to the ground, thence to Presque Isle, which was shortly -to share the fate of Sandusky, and eventually to Niagara. -The prisoners were carried off by their Indian captors, -up the Detroit river; two escaped to the fort to tell the -tale of disaster, but the majority were butchered with all -the nameless tortures which North American savages could -devise.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Destruction -of -the -Western -outposts -by the -Indians.</div> - -<p>While Detroit was being besieged, at other points in the -West one disaster followed another. Isolated from each -other, weakly garrisoned, commanded, in some instances, -by officers of insufficient experience or wanting in determination, -the forts fell fast. On the 16th of May Sandusky -was blotted out; on the 25th Fort St. Joseph, at -the south-eastern end of Lake Michigan, was taken; and -on the 27th Fort Miami, on the Maumee river. Fort -Ouatanon on the Wabash was taken on the 1st of June; -and on the 4th of that month the Ojibwa Indians overpowered <span class="sidenote">They take Michillimackinac.</span> -the garrison of Michillimackinac, second in -importance to Detroit. Captain Etherington, the commander -at Michillimackinac, knew nothing of what was -passing elsewhere, though he had been warned of coming -danger, and he lost the fort through an Indian stratagem. -The English were invited outside the palisades to see an -Indian game of ball; and, while the onlookers were off -their guard, and the gates of the fort stood open, the -players turned into warriors; some of the garrison and -of the English traders were murdered, and the rest were -made prisoners. The massacre, however, was not wholesale. -Native jealousy gave protectors to the English -survivors in a tribe of Ottawas who dwelt near: a French -Jesuit priest used every effort to save their lives; and -eventually the survivors, among whom was Etherington, -were, with the garrison of a neighbouring and subordinate<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_17"></a>[17]</span> -post at Green Bay, sent down in safety to Montreal by -the route of the Ottawa river.</p> - -<p>Next came the turn of the forts which connected Lake -Erie with the Ohio. On the 15th of June Presque Isle -was attacked; on the 17th it surrendered. It was a -strong fort, and in the opinion of Bouquet—a competent -judge—its commander, Ensign Christie, showed little -stubbornness in defence. Fort le Bœuf fell on the 18th, -Venango about the same date, and communication between <span class="sidenote">Fort Pitt isolated.</span> -the lakes and Fort Pitt was thus cut off. Fort Pitt itself -was threatened by the Indians, and towards the end of -July openly attacked, while on Forbes’ and Bouquet’s -old route from that fort to Bedford in Pennsylvania, Fort -Ligonier was also at an earlier date assailed, though -fortunately without success.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Dalyell -sent to -the -relief of -Detroit.</div> - -<p>Amherst now realized the gravity of the crisis, and his -first care was the relief of Detroit. A force of 280 men, -commanded by Captain Dalyell, one of his aides de camp, -and including Robert Rogers with 20 Rangers, was sent -up from Niagara, ascended on the 29th of July the Detroit -river by night, and reached the fort in safety. Long -experience in North American warfare had taught the -lesson which Wolfe always preached, that the English -should, whenever and wherever it was possible, take the -offensive. Accordingly Dalyell urged Gladwin, against -the latter’s better judgement, to allow him to attack -Pontiac at once; and before daybreak, on the morning -of the 31st, he led out about 250 men for the purpose. -Less than two miles north-east of the fort, a little stream, <span class="sidenote">The fight at Parents Creek.</span> -then known as Parents Creek and after the fight as Bloody -Run, ran into the main river; and beyond it was Pontiac’s -encampment, which Dalyell proposed to surprise. Unfortunately -the Indians were fully informed of the intended -movement, and there ensued one more of the many disasters -which marked the onward path of the white men in North -America. The night was dark: the English advance took -them among enclosures and farm buildings, which gave -the Indians cover. As the leading soldiers were crossing<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_18"></a>[18]</span> -the creek they were attacked by invisible foes; and, when -compelled to retreat, the force was beset on all sides and -ran the risk of being cut off from the fort. <span class="sidenote">Death of Dalyell.</span> Dalyell<a id="FNanchor_9" href="#Footnote_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> was -shot dead; and, before the fort was reached, the English -had lost one-fourth of their whole number in killed and -wounded. The survivors owed their safety to the steadiness -of the officers, to the fact that Rogers and his men -seized and held a farmhouse to cover the retreat, and to -the co-operation of two armed boats, which moved up -and down the river parallel to the advance and retreat, -bringing off the dead and wounded, and pouring a fire -from the flank among the Indians.</p> - -<p>Pontiac had achieved a notable success, but Detroit -remained safe, and meanwhile in another quarter the tide -set against the Indian cause.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Fort Pitt.</div> - -<p>After General Forbes, in the late autumn of 1758, had -taken Fort Duquesne, a new English fort, Fort Pitt, was -in the following year built by General Stanwix upon the -site of the French stronghold. The place was, as it had -always been, the key of the Ohio valley, and on the maintenance -of the fort depended at once the safety of the -borderlands of Virginia and Pennsylvania, and the possibility -of extending trade among the Indian tribes of the -Ohio. In July, 1763, Fort Pitt was in a critical position. -The posts which connected it with Lake Erie had been -destroyed: the road which Forbes had cut through -Pennsylvania on his memorable march was obstructed -by Indians; and the outlying post along it, Fort Ligonier, -about fifty-five miles east of Fort Pitt, was, like Fort Pitt -itself, in a state of siege. The Indians were, as in the dark -days after Braddock’s disaster, harrying the outlying -homesteads and settlements, and once more the colonies -were exhibiting to the full their incapacity for self-defence,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_19"></a>[19]</span> -or rather, the indifference of the residents in the -towns to the safety of their fellows who lived in the -backwoods.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -route to -Fort Pitt.</div> - -<p>Forbes’ road to Fort Pitt ran for nearly 100 miles from -Bedford or Raestown, as it had earlier been called, in a -direction rather north of west, across the Alleghany -Mountains and the Laurel Hills. The intermediate post, -Fort Ligonier, stood at a place which had been known in -Forbes’ time as Loyalhannon, rather nearer to Bedford -than to Fort Pitt. Bedford itself was about thirty miles -north of Fort Cumberland on Wills Creek, which Braddock -had selected for the starting-point of his more southerly -march. It marked the limit of settlement, and 100 -miles separated it from the town of Carlisle, which lay -due east, in the direction of the long-settled parts of -Pennsylvania.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Insecurity -of the -frontier.</div> - -<p>There was no security in the year 1763 for the dwellers -between Bedford and Carlisle: ‘Every tree is become an -Indian for the terrified inhabitants,’ wrote Bouquet to -Amherst from Carlisle on the 29th of June.<a id="FNanchor_10" href="#Footnote_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> Pennsylvania -<span class="sidenote">Difficulties with the Pennsylvanian legislature.</span> -raised 700 men to protect the farmers while gathering -their harvest, but no representations of Amherst would -induce the cross-grained Legislature to place them under -his command, to allow them to be used for offensive purposes, -or even for garrison duty. The very few regular -troops in the country were therefore required to hold the -forts, as well as to carry out any expedition which the -commander-in-chief might think necessary. A letter from -one of Amherst’s officers, Colonel Robertson, written to -Bouquet on the 19th of April, 1763, relates how all the -arguments addressed to the Quaker-ridden government -had been in vain, concluding with the words ‘I never saw -any man so determined in the right as these people are -in their absurdly wrong resolve’;[11] and in his answer -Bouquet speaks bitterly of being ‘utterly abandoned by -the very people I am ordered to protect’.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_20"></a>[20]</span><a id="FNanchor_11" href="#Footnote_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Henry -Bouquet.</div> - -<p>Henry Bouquet had reason to be bitter. He had rendered -invaluable service to Pennsylvania and Virginia, -when under Forbes he had driven the French from the -Ohio valley. The colonies concerned had been backward -then, they were now more wrong-headed than ever, and -this at a time when the English army in America was sadly -attenuated in numbers. All depended upon one or two -men, principally upon Bouquet himself. Born in Canton -Berne, he was one of the Swiss officers who were given -commissions in the Royal American Regiment, the ancestors -of the King’s Royal Rifles, another being Captain -Ecuyer, who was at this time commander at Fort Pitt. -Bouquet was now in his forty-fourth year, a resolute, high-minded -man, a tried soldier, and second to none in knowledge -of American border fighting. In the spring of 1763 he -was at Philadelphia, when Amherst, still holding supreme -command in North America, ordered him to march to the -relief of Fort Pitt, while Dalyell was sent along the lakes -to bring succour to Detroit. At the end of June Bouquet -was at Carlisle, collecting troops, transport, and provisions -for his expedition; on the 3rd of July he heard the bad -news of the loss of the forts at Presque Isle, Le Bœuf, and -Venango; on the 25th of July he reached Bedford.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">He -marches -to the -relief of -Fort Pitt.</div> - -<p>He had a difficult and dangerous task before him. -The rough road through the forest and over the mountains -had been broken up by bad weather in the previous winter, -and the temporary bridges had been swept away. His -fighting men did not exceed 500, Highlanders of the 42nd -and 77th Regiments, and Royal Americans. The force -was far too small for the enterprise, and the commander -wrote of the disadvantage which he suffered from want -of men used to the woods, noting that the Highlanders -invariably lost themselves when employed as scouts, and -that he was therefore compelled to try and secure 30 -woodsmen for scouting purposes.<a id="FNanchor_12" href="#Footnote_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a></p> - -<p>On the 2nd of August he reached Fort Ligonier, and<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_21"></a>[21]</span> -there, as on the former expedition, he left his heavy transport, -moving forward on the 4th with his little army on a -march of over fifty miles to Fort Pitt. On that day he advanced -twelve miles. On the 5th of August he intended to <span class="sidenote">The fight at Edgehill.</span> -reach a stream known as Bushy Creek or Bushy Run, -nineteen miles distant. Seventeen miles had been passed -by midday in the hot summer weather, when at one -o’clock, at a place which in his dispatch he called Edgehill, -the advanced guard was attacked by Indians. The -attack increased in severity, the flanks of the force and the -convoy in the rear were threatened, the troops were -drawn back to protect the convoy, and circling round it -they held the enemy at bay till nightfall, when they were -forced to encamp where they stood, having lost 60 -men in killed and wounded, and, worst of all, being in -total want of water. Bravely Bouquet wrote to Amherst -that night, but the terms of the dispatch told his anxiety -for the morrow. At daybreak the Indians fell again upon -the wearied, thirsty ring of troops: for some hours the -fight went on, and a repetition of Braddock’s overthrow -seemed inevitable. At length Bouquet tried a stratagem. -Drawing back the two front companies of the circle, he -pretended to cover their retreat with a scanty line, and -lured the Indians on in mass, impatient of victorious -butchery. Just as they were breaking the circle, the men -who had been brought back and had unperceived crept -round in the woods, gave a point blank fire at close quarters -into the yelling crowd, and followed it with the -bayonet. Falling back, the Indians came under similar -fire and a similar charge from two other companies who -waited them in ambush, and leaving the ground strewn -with corpses the red men broke and fled. Litters were -then made for the wounded: such provisions as could -not be carried were destroyed; and at length the sorely -tried English reached the stream of Bushy Run. Even -there the enemy attempted to molest them, but were -easily dispersed by the light infantry.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Victory -of the -English -and -relief of -Fort Pitt.</div> - -<p>The victory had been won, but hardly won. The<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_22"></a>[22]</span> -casualties in the two days’ fighting numbered 115. That -the whole force was not exterminated was due to the -extraordinary steadiness of the troops, notably the Highlanders, -and to the resolute self-possession of their leader. -‘Never found my head so clear as that day,’ wrote Bouquet -to a friend some weeks later, ‘and such ready and cheerful -compliance to all the necessary orders.’<a id="FNanchor_13" href="#Footnote_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> On the 10th -of August the expedition reached Fort Pitt without -further fighting, and relieved the garrison, whose defence -of the post had merited the efforts made for their -rescue.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Importance -of -Bouquet’s -victory.</div> - -<p>Bouquet’s battles at Edgehill were small in the -number of troops employed, and were fought far away in -the American backwoods. They attracted little notice -in England—to judge from Horace Walpole’s contemptuous -reference to ‘half a dozen battles in miniature with -the Indians in America’;<a id="FNanchor_14" href="#Footnote_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> but none the less they were of -vital importance. Attacking with every advantage on -their side, with superiority of numbers, in summer heat, -among their own woods, the Indians had been signally -defeated, and among the dead were some of their best -fighting chiefs. In Bouquet’s words, ‘the most warlike -of the savage tribes have lost their boasted claim of being -invincible in the woods;’<a id="FNanchor_15" href="#Footnote_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> and he continued to urge the -necessity of reinforcements in order to follow up the blow -and carry the warfare into the enemy’s country. But -the colonies did not answer, the war dragged on, and at the -beginning of October Bouquet had the mortification of -hearing of a British reverse at Niagara.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">British -reverse at -Niagara.</div> - -<p>The date was the 14th of September, and the Indians -concerned were the Senecas, who alone among the Six<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_23"></a>[23]</span> -Nations took part in Pontiac’s rising. A small escort -convoying empty wagons from the landing above the -falls to the fort below was attacked and cut off; and -two companies sent to their rescue from the lower landing -were ambushed at the same spot, the ‘Devil’s Hole’, -where the path ran by the precipice below the falls. -Over 80 men were killed, including all the officers, -and 20 men alone remained unhurt. Nor was this -the end of disasters on the lakes. In November a strong -force from Niagara, destined for Detroit, started along -Lake Erie in a fleet of boats; a storm came on: the fleet -was wrecked: many lives were lost: and the shattered -remnant gave up the expedition and returned to Niagara. -Detroit, however, was now safe. When October came, <span class="sidenote">Ending of the siege of Detroit.</span> -various causes induced the Indians to desist from the -siege. The approach of winter warned them to scatter -in search of food: the news of Bouquet’s victory had due -effect, and so had information of the coming expedition -from Niagara, which had not yet miscarried. Most of all, -Pontiac learnt by letter from the French commander at -Fort Chartres that no help could be expected from France. -Accordingly, in the middle of October, Pontiac’s allies -made a truce with Gladwin, which enabled the latter to -replenish his slender stock of supplies; at the end of the -month Pontiac himself made overtures of peace: and the -month of November found the long-beleaguered fort comparatively -free of foes. In that same month Amherst <span class="sidenote">Amherst succeeded by Gage.</span> -returned to England, being succeeded as commander-in-chief -by General Gage, who had been Governor of -Montreal.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Plan of -campaign -for 1764.</div> - -<p>Before Amherst left he had planned a campaign for the -coming year. Colonel Bradstreet was to take a strong -force along the line of the lakes, and harry the recalcitrant -Indians to the south and west of that route, as far as they -could be reached, while Bouquet was to advance from Fort -Pitt into the centre of the Ohio valley, and bring to terms -the Delawares and kindred tribes, who had infested the -borders of the southern colonies.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_24"></a>[24]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Bradstreet.</div> - -<p>Colonel John Bradstreet had gained high repute by his -well-conceived and well-executed capture of Fort Frontenac -in the year 1758— which earned warm commendation -from Wolfe. He was regarded as among the -best of the colonial officers, and as well fitted to carry war -actively and aggressively into the enemy’s country. In -this he conspicuously failed: he proved himself to be a -vain and headstrong man, and was found wanting when -left to act far from head quarters upon his own responsibility. -In June, 1764, he started from Albany, and made -his way by the old route of the Mohawk river and Oswego -to Fort Niagara, encamping at Niagara in July. His force -seems to have eventually numbered nearly 2,000 men, -one half of whom consisted of levies from New York and -New England, in addition to 300 Canadians. The latter -were included in the expedition in order to disabuse -the minds of the Indians of any idea that they were -being supported by the French population of North -America.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Indian -conference -at -Niagara.</div> - -<p>Before the troops left Niagara, a great conference of -Indians was held there by Sir William Johnson, who -arrived early in July. From all parts they came, except -Pontiac’s own following and the Delawares and Shawanoes -of the Ohio valley. Even the Senecas were induced by -threats to make an appearance, delivered up a handful of -prisoners, bound themselves over to keep peace with the -English in future, and ceded in perpetuity to the Crown -a strip of land four miles wide on both sides of the Niagara -river. About a month passed in councils and speeches; -on the 6th of August Johnson went back to Oswego, and -on the 8th Bradstreet went on his way.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Bradstreet’s -abortive -expedition.</div> - -<p>His instructions were explicit, to advance into the -Indian territory, and, co-operating with Bouquet’s movements, -to reduce the tribes to submission by presence in -force. Those instructions he did not carry out. Near -Presque Isle, on the 12th of August, he was met by -Indians who purported to be delegates from the Delawares -and Shawanoes: and, accepting their assurances, he<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_25"></a>[25]</span> -engaged not to attack them for twenty-five days when, -on his return from Detroit, they were to meet him at -Sandusky, hand over prisoners, and conclude a final peace. -He went on to Sandusky a few days later, where messengers -of the Wyandots met him with similar protestations, -and were bidden to follow him to Detroit, and there make -a treaty. He then embarked for Detroit, leaving the -hostile tribes unmolested and his work unaccomplished. -From Sandusky he had sent an officer, Captain Morris, -with orders to ascend the Maumee river to Fort Miami, no -longer garrisoned, and thence to pass on to the Illinois -country. Morris started on his mission, came across -Pontiac on the Maumee, found war not peace, and, barely -escaping with his life, reached Detroit on the 17th of -September, when Bradstreet had already come and -gone.</p> - -<p>Towards the end of August Bradstreet reached Detroit. -He held a council of Indians, at which the Sandusky -Wyandots were present, and, having proclaimed in some -sort British supremacy, thought he had put an end to the -war. The substantive effect of his expedition was that -he released Gladwin and his men, placing a new garrison in -the fort, and sent a detachment to re-occupy the posts at -Michillimackinac, Green Bay, and Sault St. Marie. He -then retraced his steps to Sandusky. Here the Delawares, -with whom he had made a provisional treaty at Presque -Isle, were to meet him and complete their submission; -and here he realized that Indian diplomacy had been -cleverer than his own. Only a few emissaries came to -the meeting-place with excuses for further delay, and -meanwhile he received a message from General Gage -strongly disapproving his action and ordering an immediate -advance against the tribes, whom he had represented -as brought to submission. He made no advance, loitered -a while where he was, and finally came back to Niagara at -the beginning of November after a disastrous storm on -Lake Erie, a discredited commander, with a disappointed -following.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_26"></a>[26]</span></p> - -<p>If Bradstreet had any excuse for failure, it was that he -did not know the temper of the Western Indians, and -had not before his eyes perpetual evidence of their ferocity -and their guile. Bouquet knew them well, and great was -his indignation at the other commander’s ignorance or -folly. After the relief of Fort Pitt in the preceding <span class="sidenote">Bouquet’s operations.</span> -autumn he had gone back to Philadelphia, and throughout -the spring and summer of 1764 was busy with preparations -for a new campaign. On the 18th of September he was -back at Fort Pitt, ready for a westward advance, with -a strong force suitable for the work which lay before him. -He had with him 500 regulars, mostly the seasoned men -who had fought at Edgehill. Pennsylvania, roused at -last to the necessity of vigorous action, had sent 1,000 -men to join the expedition; and, though of these last -a considerable number deserted on the route to Fort Pitt, -700 remained and were supplemented by over 200 Virginians. -In the first days of October the advance from -Fort Pitt began, the troops crossed the Ohio, followed -its banks in a north-westerly direction to the Beaver -Creek, crossed that river, and, marching westward through -the forests, reached in the middle of the month the valley -of the Muskingum river, near a deserted Indian village -known as Tuscarawa or Tuscaroras. Bouquet was now -within striking distance of the Delawares and the other -Indian tribes who had so long terrorized the borderlands -of the southern colonies. Near Tuscarawa Indian deputies -met him, and were ordered—as a preliminary to peace—to -deliver up within twelve days all the prisoners in their -hands.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Submission -of the -Western -Indians.</div> - -<p>The spot fixed for the purpose was the junction of the -two main branches of the Muskingum, forty miles distant -to the south-west, forty miles nearer the centre of the -Indians’ homes. To that place the troops marched on, -strong in their own efficiency and in the personality of -their leader, although news had come that Bradstreet, -who was to threaten the Indians from Sandusky, was -retreating homewards to Niagara. At the Forks of the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_27"></a>[27]</span> -Muskingum an encampment was made, and there at -length, at the beginning of November, the red men brought -back their captives. The work was fully done: north to -Sandusky, and to the Shawano villages far to the west, -Bouquet’s messengers were sent; the Indians saw the -white men in their midst ready to strike hard, and they -accepted the inevitable. The tribes which could not -at the time make full restoration gave hostages of their -chiefs, and hostages too were taken for the future consummation -of peace, the exact terms of which were left -to be decided and were shortly after arranged by Sir -William Johnson. With these pledges of obedience, and -with the restored captives, Bouquet retraced his steps, -and reached Fort Pitt again on the 28th of November.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Bouquet’s -success.</div> - -<p>He had achieved a great victory, bloodless but complete; -and at length the colonies realized what he had done. -A vote of thanks to him was passed by the Pennsylvanian -Assembly in no grudging terms. The Virginians, too, -thanked him, but with rare meanness tried to burden him -with the pay of the Virginian volunteers, who had served -in the late expedition. This charge Pennsylvania took -upon itself, more liberal than the sister colony; and the -Imperial Government showed itself not unmindful of -services rendered, for, foreigner as he was, Bouquet was -promoted to be a brigadier-general in the British army. -He was appointed to command the troops in Florida, and <span class="sidenote">His death.</span> -died at Pensacola in September, 1765, leaving behind him -the memory of a most competent soldier, and a loyal, -honourable man.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -Illinois -country -and the -Mississippi.</div> - -<p>Beyond the scene of Bouquet’s operations—further still -to the west—lay the Illinois country and the settlements -on the eastern bank of the Mississippi. Ceded to Great -Britain by the Treaty of 1763, they were still without -visible sign of British sovereignty; and, when the year -1764 closed, Pontiac’s name and influence was all -powerful among the Indians of these regions, while the -French flag still flew at Fort Chartres. By the treaty, -the navigation of the Mississippi was left open to both<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_28"></a>[28]</span> -French and English; and in the spring of 1764 an English -officer from Florida had been dispatched to ascend the -river from New Orleans, and take over the ceded forts. -The officer in question—Major Loftus—started towards -the end of February, and, after making his way for some -distance up-stream, was attacked by Indians and forced -to retrace his steps. Whether or not the attack was -instigated by the French, it is certain that Loftus received -little help or encouragement from the French commander -at New Orleans, and it is equally certain that trading -jealousy threw every obstacle in the way of the English -advance into the Mississippi valley. It was not until the <span class="sidenote">British occupation of Fort Chartres.</span> -autumn of 1765 that 100 Highlanders of the 42nd Regiment -made their way safely down the Ohio, and finally -took Fort Chartres into British keeping.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Croghan’s -mission.</div> - -<p>The way had been opened earlier in the year by Croghan, -one of Sir William Johnson’s officers, who in the summer -months went westward down the Ohio to remind the tribes -of the pledges given to Bouquet, and to quicken their -fulfilment. He reached the confluence of the Wabash -river, and a few miles lower down was attacked by a band -of savages, who afterwards veered round to peace and -conducted him, half guest, half prisoner, to Vincennes and -Ouatanon, the posts on the Wabash. Near Ouatanon he -met Pontiac, was followed by him to Detroit, where it was -arranged that a final meeting to conclude a final peace -should be held at Oswego in the coming year. The -meeting took place in July, 1766, under the unrivalled -guidance of Sir William Johnson, and with it came the end -of the Indian war.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">End of -the -Indian -war and -death of -Pontiac.</div> - -<p>The one hope for the confederate Indians had been help -from the French. Slowly and reluctantly they had been -driven to the conclusion that such help would not be -forthcoming, and that for France the sun had set in the -far west of North America. Pontiac himself gave in his -submission to the English; he took their King for his -father, and, when he was killed in an Indian brawl on the -Mississippi in 1769, the red men’s vision of independence<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_29"></a>[29]</span> -or of sovereignty in their native backwoods faded away. -The two leading white races in North America, French and -English, had fought it out; there followed the Indian -rising against the victors; and soon was to come the -almost equally inevitable struggle between the British -colonists, set free from dread of Frenchman or of Indian, -and the dominating motherland of their race.</p> - - -<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_1" href="#FNanchor_1" class="label">[1]</a> The <i>Annual Register</i> for 1763, p. 19, identified the St. John river -with the Saguenay, and the mistake was long perpetuated.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_2" href="#FNanchor_2" class="label">[2]</a> All the quotations made in the preceding pages are taken from the -<i>Documents relating to the Constitutional History of Canada 1759-1791</i>, -selected and edited by Messrs. Shortt and Doughty, 1907.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_3" href="#FNanchor_3" class="label">[3]</a> <i>Annual Register</i> for 1763, p. 22.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_4" href="#FNanchor_4" class="label">[4]</a> <i>Journals of Major Robert Rogers</i>, London, 1765, p. 207.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_5" href="#FNanchor_5" class="label">[5]</a> <i>Journals of Major Robert Rogers</i>, London, 1765, p. 214.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_6" href="#FNanchor_6" class="label">[6]</a> <i>A Concise Account of North America</i>, by Major Robert Rogers, -London, 1765, pp. 240-4.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_7" href="#FNanchor_7" class="label">[7]</a> <i>Rogers’ Journals</i>, p. 229.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_8" href="#FNanchor_8" class="label">[8]</a> <i>A Concise Account of North America</i>, p. 168.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_9" href="#FNanchor_9" class="label">[9]</a> Dalyell seems to have been a good officer. Bouquet on hearing -of his death about two months’ later wrote, ‘The death of my good -old friend Dalyell affects me sensibly. It is a public loss. There are -few men like him.’ Bouquet to Rev. M. Peters, Fort Pitt, September -30, 1763. See Mr. Brymner’s <i>Report on Canadian Archives</i>, -1889, Note D, p. 70.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_10" href="#FNanchor_10" class="label">[10]</a> Brymner’s Report on <i>Canadian Archives</i>, 1889, note D, p. 59.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_11" href="#FNanchor_11" class="label">[11]</a> Ibid., Note D, pp. 60, 62.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_12" href="#FNanchor_12" class="label">[12]</a> Bouquet to Amherst, July 26, 1763: <i>Canadian Archives</i>, as above, -pp. 61-2.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_13" href="#FNanchor_13" class="label">[13]</a> Bouquet to Rev. Mr. Peters, September 30, 1763: <i>Canadian -Archives</i>, as above, p. 70.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_14" href="#FNanchor_14" class="label">[14]</a> ‘There have been half a dozen battles in miniature with the Indians -in America. It looked so odd to see a list of killed and wounded just -treading on the heels of the Peace.’ Letter of October 17 and 18, -1763, to Sir Horace Mann.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_15" href="#FNanchor_15" class="label">[15]</a> Bouquet to Hamilton, Governor of Pennsylvania, Fort Pitt, -August 11, 1763: <i>Canadian Archives</i>, as above, p. 66.</p> -</div> -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="chapter"></div> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_30"></a>[30]</span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER II<br /> -<span class="fs80">CAUSES OF THE AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE -AND THE QUEBEC ACT</span></h2> - -<p>It was said of the Spartans that warring was their -salvation and ruling was their ruin. The saying holds -true of various peoples and races in history. A militant -race has often proved to be deficient in the qualities which -ensure stable, just, and permanent government; and in -such cases, when peace supervenes on war, an era of -decline and fall begins for those whom fighting has made -great. But even when a conquering race has capacity -for government, there come times in its career when -Aristotle’s dictum in part holds good. It applied, to some -extent, to the English in North America. As long as they -were faced by the French on the western continent, -common danger and common effort held the mother -country and the colonies together. Security against a -foreign foe brought difficulties which ended in civil war, -and the Peace of 1763 was the beginning of dissolution.</p> - -<p>In the present chapter, which covers the history of -Canada from the Peace of Paris to the outbreak of the -War of Independence, it is proposed, from the point of -view of colonization, to examine the ultimate rather than -the immediate causes which led to England losing her -old North American colonies, while she retained her new -possession of Canada.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Prophecies -that the -British -conquest -of Canada -would be -followed -by the -loss of the -North -American -colonies. -Peter -Kalm.</div> - -<p>It had been abundantly prophesied that the outcome -of British conquest of Canada would be colonial independence -in British North America. In the years 1748-50 -the Swedish naturalist, Peter Kalm, travelled through the -British North American colonies and Canada, and left -on record his impressions of the feeling towards the -mother country which existed at the time in the British<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_31"></a>[31]</span> -provinces. Noting the great increase in these colonies of -riches and population, and the growing coolness towards -Great Britain, produced at once by commercial restrictions -and by the presence among the English colonists of -German, Dutch, and French settlers, he arrived at the -conclusion that the proximity of a rival and hostile power -in Canada was the main factor in keeping the British -colonies under the British Crown. ‘The English Government,’ -he wrote, ‘has therefore sufficient reason to consider -the French in North America as the best means of -keeping the colonies in their due submission.’<a id="FNanchor_16" href="#Footnote_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a></p> - -<p>Others wrote or spoke to the same effect. Montcalm -was credited with having prophesied the future before he -shared the fall of Canada,<a id="FNanchor_17" href="#Footnote_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> and another prophet was the -French minister Choiseul, when negotiating the Peace of -Paris. To keen, though not always unprejudiced, observers -the signs of the times betokened coming conflicts between -Great Britain and her colonies; and to us now looking -back on history, wise after the event, it is evident that -the end of foreign war in North America meant the -beginning of troubles within what was then the circle of -the British Empire.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Incorrect -view of -the conflict -between -Great -Britain -and her -colonies -in North -America.</div> - -<p>Until recent years most Englishmen were taught to -believe that the victory of the American colonists and the -defeat of the mother country was a striking instance of -the power of right over might, of liberty over oppression; -that the severance of the American colonies was a net -gain to them, and a net loss to England; that Englishmen -did right to stand in a white sheet when reflecting on these -times and events, as being citizens of a country which -grievously sinned and was as grievously punished. All -this was pure assumption. The war was one in which<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_32"></a>[32]</span> -there were rights and wrongs on both sides, but, whereas -America had in George Washington a leader of the noblest -and most effective type, England was for the moment in -want both of statesmen and of generals, and had her -hands tied by foreign complications. We can recognize -that Providence shaped the ends, without going beyond -the limits of human common sense. Had Pitt been what he <span class="sidenote">Great Britain failed for want of leaders.</span> -was in the years preceding the Peace of Paris, had Wolfe -and the eldest of the brothers Howe not been cut off in early -manhood, the war might have been averted, or its issue -might have been other than it was. One of Wolfe’s best -subordinates, Carleton, survived, and Carleton saved -Canada; there was no human reason why men of the same -stamp, had they been found, should not have kept for -England her heritage. The main reason why she lost her -North American colonies was not the badness of her cause, -but rather want of the right men when the crisis came.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -result of -the War -of Independence -was not -wholly a -loss to -Great -Britain -nor -wholly -a gain -to the -United -States.</div> - -<p>Equally fallacious with the view that England failed -because wrong-doing never prospers, is, or was, the view -that the independence of the United States was wholly -a loss to England and wholly a gain to the colonists. -What would have happened if the revolting provinces had -not made good their revolt must be matter of speculation, -but it is difficult to believe that, if the United States had -remained under the British flag, Australia would ever -have become a British colony. There is a limit to every -political system and every empire, and, with the whole -of North America east of the Mississippi for her own, it is -not likely that England would have taken in hand the -exploiting of a new continent. At any rate it is significant -that, within four years of the date of the treaty which -recognized the independence of the United States, the -first English colonists were sent to Australia. The -success or failure of a nation or a race in the field of -colonization must not be measured by the number of -square miles of the earth’s surface which the home government -owns or claims at any given time. To judge aright, -we must revert to the older and truer view of colonizing<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_33"></a>[33]</span> -as a planting process, replenishing the earth and subduing -it. If the result of the severance of the United -States from their mother country was to sow the English -seed in other lands, then it may be argued that the defeat -of England by her own children was not wholly a loss to -the mother country.</p> - -<p>Nor was it wholly a gain to the United States. Such -at least must be the view of Englishmen who believe in -the worth of their country, in its traditions, in the character -of the nation, in its political, social, moral, and religious -tendencies. The necessary result of the separation was to -alienate the American colonists from what was English; to -breed generations in the belief that what England did must -be wrong, that the enemies of England must be right; to -strengthen in English-speaking communities the elements -which were opposed to the land and to the race from which -they had sprung. With English errors and weaknesses -there passed away, in course of years and in some measure, -English sources of strength; the sober thinking, the slow -broadening out, the perpetually leavening sense of responsibility. -Had the American provinces remained under -the British flag it is difficult to see why they should not -have been in the essence as free and independent as they -now are; it is at least conceivable that their commercial -and industrial prosperity would have been as great; -assuredly, for good or for evil, they would have been -more English.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Shortcomings -of the -English -in foreign -and -colonial -policy.</div> - -<p>The faults and shortcomings of the English, which -throughout English history have shown themselves mainly -in foreign and colonial matters, seem all to have combined -and culminated in the interval of twenty years between -the Peace of 1763, which gave Canada to Great Britain, -and the Peace of 1783, which took from her the United -States; and in addition there were special causes at work -in England, which at this more than at any other time -militated against national success.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -party -System.</div> - -<p>The shortcomings in question are, in part, the result -of counterbalancing merits, fair-mindedness, and freedom<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_34"></a>[34]</span> -of thought, speech, and action. Love of liberty among -the English has begotten an almost superstitious reverence -for Parliamentary institutions. Parliamentary institutions -have practically meant the House of Commons; and -the House of Commons has for many generations past -implied the party system. In regard to foreign and -colonial policy the party system has worked the very -serious evil that Great Britain has in the past rarely -spoken or acted as one nation. The party in power at -times of national crisis is constantly obliged to reckon on -opposition rather than support, from the large section of -Englishmen whose leaders are not in office; and ministers -have to frame not so much the most effective measures, -as those which can under the circumstances be carried -with least friction and delay. The result has been weakness -and compromise in action; among the friends of -England, suspicion and want of confidence; among her -foes, waiting on the event which prolongs the strife. The -English have so often gone forward and then back, they -have so often said one thing and done another, that their -own officers, their friends and allies, their native subjects, -and their open enemies, cannot be sure what will be the -next move. If the Opposition in Parliament and outside, -by speech and writing, attacks the Government, the -natural inference to be drawn is that a turn of the electoral -tide will reverse the policy.</p> - -<p>Apart too from this more or less necessary result of -party government, the element of cross-grained men and -women, who, when their own country is at issue with -another, invariably think that their country must be -wrong and its opponent must be right, has always been -rather stronger, or, at any rate, rather more tolerated in -the United Kingdom than among continental nations. -This is due not merely to the habit of free criticism, but -also to a kind of conceit familiar enough in private as in -public life. Englishmen, living apart from the continent -of Europe, are, as a whole, more wrapped up in themselves -than are other nations; and in this self-satisfied whole<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_35"></a>[35]</span> -there is a proportion of superior persons who sit in judgement -on the rest, and who, having in reality a double dose -of the national Pharisaism, think it their duty to belittle -their countrymen.</p> - -<p>Fault-finders of this kind, or political opponents of the -Government for the time being, are apt, as a rule, to make -light of any minority in the hostile or rival country, who -may be friendly to England: they tend to misrepresent -them as being untrue to their own land and people, as -wanting to domineer over the majority, as seeking their own -interests: and, if they have suffered losses for England’s -sake, the tale of the losses is minimized. But it is not only -the opponents of the Government who take this line; too -often in past history it has been to a large extent the line -of the Government itself. The perpetual seeking after -compromise, and trying to see two sides after the choice of -action has been made, has lost many friends to our country -and nation, and made none: while the retracing of steps, -unmindful of claims which have arisen, of property which -has been acquired, and of responsibilities which have -been incurred has, as the record of the past abundantly -shows, brought bitterness of spirit to the friends of -England, and bred distrust of the English and their -works.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Want of -preparation -for -war.</div> - -<p>The element of uncertainty in British policy and action -towards foreign nations or towards British colonies has -been in part due to ignorance: and to ignorance and want -of preparation have been due most of the disasters in war -which have befallen Great Britain. Here again something -must be attributed to the fact of the island home. -The rulers of continental peoples have been driven by -the necessities of their case to learn the conditions of their -rivals, by secret service and intelligence agents to ascertain -all that is to be known, and at the same time to keep their -own arms up to date, and their own powder dry. They -have prepared for war. England has prepared for peace. -Her policy has paid in the long run, but it would not have -been a possible policy for other nations; and at certain<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_36"></a>[36]</span> -times in English history it has wrought terrible mischief. -England does not always muddle through, as the English -fondly hope she does; notably, she did not muddle -through when the United States proclaimed their independence.</p> - -<p>In these years, 1763-83, there was the party system in -England with all its mischievous bitterness; there was a -weak Executive at home, and a still weaker Executive in -the colonies; there was ignorance of the real conditions -in America, unwise handling of the colonial Loyalists, -threatening talk coupled with vacillation in action, laws -made which gave offence, and, when they had given offence, -not quite repealed. All the normal English weaknesses -flourished and abounded at this period, and were supplemented -by certain sources of danger which were the -outcome of the particular time.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Special -evils at -work in -England -in the -years -1763-83.</div> - -<p>It was a special time, a time of reaction. England had -lately gone through a great struggle, made a great effort, -incurred great expense, and won great success. She was -for the moment vegetating, not inclined or ready for a <span class="sidenote">A time of reaction.</span> -second crisis. Second-rate politicians were handling -matters, and the influence of the new King was all in -favour of their being and remaining second-rate; for -George the Third intended, by meddling in party politics, <span class="sidenote">Partisan attitude of the Crown.</span> -and by Parliamentary intrigues, to rule Parliament. Thus -the Crown became a partisan in home politics, and in -colonial politics was placed in declared opposition to the -colonies, instead of remaining the great bond between -the colonies and the mother country.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Sympathy -in -England -with the -colonists -and their -cause.</div> - -<p>The result was, that throughout the years of the -American quarrel, and in a growing degree, the colonies -found powerful support in this country, because they -were, after all, not foreigners but Englishmen—Englishmen -who compared favourably with Englishmen at home -and whom patriotic Englishmen at home could admire -and uphold; because they were apparently the weaker -side, attracting the sympathy which in England the weaker -side always attracts; and because, through the attitude<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_37"></a>[37]</span> -of the King, their cause was associated with the cause of -political liberty at home. Add to this that the one great -English statesman of world-wide reputation, Chatham, -had warmly espoused the colonial side, and it may well be -seen that, unless some able general, as Wellington in later -days, by military success, saved his country from the -results of political blunders, the position was hopeless.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Ultimate -causes -of the -severance -of the -North -American -colonies.</div> - -<p>But for the special purpose of determining what place -the episode of the severance of the British North American -colonies holds in the history of colonization we must -look still further afield. The constitutional question as -to whether the colonies were subject to the Parliament -of the mother country or to the Crown alone may, from -this particular point of view, be omitted, for the story -of the troubled years abundantly shows that theories -would have slept, if certain practical difficulties had -not called them into waking existence, and if lawyers -had not been so much to the front, holding briefs on either -side. Nor is it necessary to dwell upon the specific and -immediate causes of the strife, except so far as they were -ultimate causes also. Among such immediate causes, -some of which have been already noted, were the personal -character of the English king for the time being, the corruption -and jobbery of public life in England, the weakness -of the Executive in the colonies, the enforcing of -commercial restrictions already placed by the mother -country on the colonies, the kind of new taxes which -the Home Government imposed, the method of imposing -them, and the object with which they were devised; the -outrageous laws of 1774 for penalizing Massachusetts, the -Quebec Act, and the employment of German mercenaries -against the colonists, which gave justification to the -colonists for calling in aid from France. All these and -other causes might have been powerless to affect the issue, -if England had possessed statesmen and generals, and -if the growing plant of disunion had not been deeply rooted -in the past.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Comparison -of -Spanish -and -British -colonization -in -America.</div> - -<p>When France lost Canada and Louisiana, two European<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_38"></a>[38]</span> -nations, other than the Portuguese in Brazil, practically -shared the mainland of America. They were Spain and -Great Britain. Spain won her American empire not far -short of a hundred years before Great Britain had any -strong footing on the American continent; she kept it for <span class="sidenote">Spain held her American -possessions for a longer time than Great Britain held the North American colonies.</span> -some thirty or forty years after the United States had -achieved their independence. The Spanish-American -empire was therefore much longer-lived than the first -colonial dominion of Great Britain in North America, -and the natural inference is, either that the Spaniards -treated their colonies or dependencies better than the -English treated theirs, or that the English colonies were in -a better position than the Spanish dependencies to assert -their independence, or that both causes operated simultaneously.</p> - -<p>It is difficult to compare Spain and Great Britain as -regards their respective colonial policies in America, for -their possessions differed in kind. Spain owned dependencies -rather than colonies, Great Britain owned colonies -rather than dependencies. Spanish America was the -result of conquest: English America, not including -Canada, was the result of settlement. But, so far as a -comparison can be instituted, it will probably not be -seriously contended that the British colonies suffered -more grievously at the hands of the mother country than -did the colonial possessions of Spain. The main charge -brought against England was that she neglected her -colonies and left them to themselves. Whether the -charge was true or not—as to which there is more to be -said—neglect is not oppression; and within limits the -kindest and wisest policy towards colonies, which are -colonies in the true sense, is to leave them alone. -‘The wise neglect of Walpole and Newcastle,’ writes -Mr. Lecky, ‘was eminently conducive to colonial interests.’<a id="FNanchor_18" href="#Footnote_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a></p> - -<p>The real, ultimate reasons why England held her North<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_39"></a>[39]</span> -American colonies, which now form the United States -of America, for a shorter time than Spain retained her -Central and South American possessions were two: first, <span class="sidenote">Absence of system in British colonial policy in North America.</span> -that the English colonies were in a better position than -the Spanish dependencies to assert their independence; -secondly, that—largely because she owned dependencies -rather than colonies—Spain was more systematic than -England in her dealings with her colonial possessions. -These two reasons are in truth one and the same, looked -at from different sides. The English colonies were able to -assert their independence, because they had on the whole -always been more or less independent. They had always -been more or less independent, because the mother -country had never adopted any definite system of colonial -administration. The Spanish system was not good—quite -the contrary; but it was a system, and those who -lived under it were accustomed to restrictions and to rules -imposed by the home government. Similarly in Canada, -under French rule, there was a system, kindlier and better -than that of Spain, but one which had the gravest defects, -which stunted growth and precluded freedom: yet there -it was, clear and definite; the colonists of New France had -grown up under it; they knew where they were in relation -to the mother country; it had never occurred to them to -try and make headway against the King of France and -his regulations. Widely different was the case of the -English colonies in North America. All these settlements -started under some form of grant or charter, derived -ultimately from the Crown: the Crown from time to -time interfered and made a show of its supremacy; but -there was no system of any sort or kind, and communities -grew up, which in practice had never been governed from -home but governed themselves. Most of all, the New -England colonies embodied to the full the spirit of colonial -independence. Their founders, men of the strongest -English type, went out to live in their own way, to be -free from restrictions which trammelled them at home, -to found small English-speaking commonwealths which<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_40"></a>[40]</span> -should be self-governing and self-supporting, ordered from -within, not from without.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">When the -English -colonies -were -planted -in North -America -there was -the most -complete -absence -of system -at home.</div> - -<p>The English have never been systematic or continuous -in their policy throughout their history; but the period -of English history when North America was colonized -was the one of all others when system and continuity -were most conspicuously absent. It was a time of violent -political changes at home, of strife between king and -people. A line of kings was brought in from Scotland, -they were overturned, they were restored, and they were -finally driven out again. This was the condition of the -Crown to which the newly-planted colonies owed allegiance, -and which was supposed to exercise supreme authority -over the colonies. Under the Crown were Proprietors and -Companies, whose charters, being derived from a perpetually -disputed source, were a series of dissolving views; -and under the Proprietors and Companies were a number -of strong English citizens who, caring little for the theoretical -basis of their position, cared very much for practical -independence, and ordered their ways accordingly, becoming -steadily and stubbornly more independent through -perpetual friction and perpetual absence of systematic -control. Thus it was that the North American colonies -drank in, as their mother’s milk, the traditions and the -habits of independence. They carried with them English -citizenship, but the privileges of such citizenship rather -than the responsibilities; and, in so far as the mother -country was inclined to ignore the privileges, the colonies -were glad to disclaim the responsibilities.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Absence -of collective -responsibility -in the -British -North -American -colonies.</div> - -<p>They were separate and distinct, not only from the -mother country, but also from each other, and they could -not in consequence from first to last be held collectively -responsible. In the wars with Canada, New England -and New York, though alike exposed to French invasion, -and from time to time co-operating to repel the invaders -or to organize counter-raids, yet acted throughout as -entirely separate entities, in no way inclined to bear -each other’s burdens as common citizens of a common<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_41"></a>[41]</span> -country. The southern colonies, until the French, -shortly before the beginning of the Seven Years’ War, -came down into the valley of the Ohio, took no part whatever -in the fight between Great Britain and France for -North America. The New Englanders, most patriotic of -the colonists, beyond all others went their own ways in -war and peace; uninvited and unauthorized from home -they formed a confederation among themselves: early in -their history they tried to make a treaty with Canada on -the basis that, whatever might be the relations between -France and England in Europe, there should be peace -between French and English in North America: they -took Port Royal: they attacked Quebec: they captured -Louisbourg: and the anonymous French eye-witness of -the first siege and capture of Louisbourg commented as -follows on the difference between the colonial land forces -and the men of the small Imperial squadron which Warren -brought to the colonists’ aid: ‘In fact one could never -have told that these troops belonged to the same nation -and obeyed the same prince. Only the English are capable -of such oddities, which nevertheless form a part of -that precious liberty of which they show themselves so -jealous.’<a id="FNanchor_19" href="#Footnote_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -colonies -had never -been -taxed for -revenue -purposes.</div> - -<p>Most of all it should be remembered that, though subject -to the Navigation laws imposed by the mother country -and to that extent restricted in their commercial dealings, -no English colony in North America, before the days of the -Stamp Act, had ever been taxed by Crown or Parliament -for revenue purposes. In the year 1758 Montcalm was -supposed to have written on this subject in the following -terms: ‘As to the English colonies, one essential point -should be known, it is that they are never taxed. They -keep that to themselves, an enormous fault this in -the policy of the mother country. She should have -taxed them from the foundation. I have certain advice -that all the colonies would take fire at being taxed<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_42"></a>[42]</span> -now.’<a id="FNanchor_20" href="#Footnote_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> This judgement was probably sound. It might -have been well if from the first, when charters were -issued and colonial communities were formed, some small -tax had been levied for Imperial purposes upon the -British colonies, if some contribution of only nominal -amount had been exacted as a condition of retaining -British citizenship. There would then have been a precedent, -such as Englishmen always try to find, and -there would have been in existence a reminder that all -members of a family should contribute to the household -expenses.<a id="FNanchor_21" href="#Footnote_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -political -separation -of -the North -American -colonies -was the -natural -result of -their geographical -separation.</div> - -<p>We are accustomed to think and to read of the separation -of the American colonies from the mother country as -wholly an abnormal incident, the result of bad handiwork, -not the outcome of natural forces. This view is incorrect. -History ultimately depends on geography. When two -members of the same race, nation, or family pass their -lives at a long distance from each other, in different lands, -in different climates, under different conditions, the -natural and inevitable result is that they diverge from -each other. The centrifugal tendency may be counteracted -by tact and clever statesmanship, and still more by sense -of common danger; but it is a natural tendency. Men -cannot live at a distance from each other without becoming -to some extent estranged. The Greeks, with their instinctive -love of logic and of symmetry, and with their fundamental -conception of a city as the political unit, looked -on colonization as separation, and called a colony a departure -from home. The colonists carried with them -reverence for the mother state, but not dependence upon -it; and, if there was any political bond, it was embodied -in the words that those who went out went out on terms<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_43"></a>[43]</span> -of equality with, not of subordination to, those who -remained behind. The English, in fact, though not in -principle, planted colonies on the model of the Greek -settlements; their theories and their practice collided; -and, being a practical race, their theories eventually went -by the board.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Conflicting -tendencies. -Distance -and sentiment.</div> - -<p>When an over-sea colony is founded, the new settlement -is in effect most distant from the old country; that -is to say, means of communication between the one point -and the other are least frequent and least developed. -The tendency to separation—as far as geography is concerned—is -therefore strongest at the outset. On the -other hand, in the foundation of a colony, unless the -foundation is due to political disruption at home, the sentiment -towards the mother country is warmer and closer than -in after years, for the founders remember where they were -born and where they grew to manhood. As generations go -on, the tie of sentiment becomes necessarily weaker, but, -with better communication, distance becomes less; there -is therefore a competition between the opposing tendencies. -Many of the Greek colonies were the result of <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">στάσις</span> <span class="sidenote"><span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">στάσις</span> and colonization.</span> -or division in the mother cities. The unsuccessful party -went out and made a separate home. In a very modified -form the same cause was at work in the founding of the -Puritan colonies of North America. Notably, the emigrants -on the <i>Mayflower</i> were already exiles from England, -political refugees, who had found a temporary home in -the Netherlands. These founders of the Plymouth settlement -were by no means the chief colonizers of North -America, or even of New England, but their story—the -story of the ‘Pilgrim fathers’—became a nucleus of -Puritan tradition; and from it after generations deduced -that New England was the home of English citizens whom -England had cast out. Thus one group, at any rate, of -North American colonies traced their origin to separation. -Then came the element of distance. ‘The European -colonies in America,’ wrote Adam Smith, with some -exaggeration, ‘are more remote than the most distant<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_44"></a>[44]</span> -provinces of the greatest empires which had ever been -known before.’<a id="FNanchor_22" href="#Footnote_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> The Atlantic Ocean lay between them -and the motherland, and cycles went by before that -distance was perceptibly modified. In our own time, -steam and telegraphy have been perpetually counteracting -the effects of distance. It was not so in the -seventeenth or eighteenth centuries. Navigation was -improved, but was still the humble handmaid of wind -and tide; and on the very eve of the American War of -Independence the remoteness of the North American -colonies, and the prevailing ignorance in England about -the North American colonies were, though no doubt -much exaggerated, a commonplace among the speakers -and writers of the time.</p> - -<p>We start then with colonies planted from a land which -had no thought of systematic control over colonies or -dependencies, whose government was at the time of -colonization in a chaotic state, whose colonists went out -in part, at any rate, intent on practical separation, and -who all settled themselves or were settled in a remote -region at a time when distance did not grow less.</p> - -<p>The next point to notice is that it has always been held -that, as between a mother country and its colonies, if they -are colonies in the true sense and not merely tributary -states, it is rather for the mother country to give and her -colonies to take, than vice versa. This is a view which has -been held at all times and among all races, but especially -among members of the English race. Other nations and <span class="sidenote">General view of the duty of a mother country towards its colonies.</span> -races have, it is true, felt as strongly as, or more strongly -than, the English the duty of protecting their outlying -possessions: they have in some cases lavished more -money directly upon them at the expense of the taxpayers -at home; but, on the other hand, they have almost -invariably regarded their colonies as dependencies pure -and simple, constrained to take the course of the dominant -partner in preference to their own. The English alone in<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_45"></a>[45]</span> -history have bred communities protected by, but in practice -not subject to, the mother country. They have given, -without exacting toll in return.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Adam -Smith -on the -subject.</div> - -<p>No writer has laid greater stress on this view of the -relations between the mother country and the colonies -than Adam Smith, who published the <i>Wealth of Nations</i> -just as the American colonies were breaking away from -Great Britain. ‘The English colonists,’ he wrote, ‘have -never yet contributed anything towards the defence of the -mother country, or towards the support of its civil government. -They themselves, on the contrary, have hitherto -been defended almost entirely at the expense of the -mother country;’ and again, ‘Under the present system of -management, Great Britain derives nothing but loss from -the dominion which she has assumed over her colonies.’ -‘Great Britain is, perhaps, since the world began, the -only state which, as it has extended its empire, has only -increased its expense without once augmenting its resources.’<a id="FNanchor_23" href="#Footnote_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> -His opinion would have been modified could -he have foreseen the help given to the mother country -in our own day by the self-governing colonies of Canada, -Australia, and New Zealand in a war far removed from their -shores; but even in our own day the old view, against -which he contended, largely holds the field, that more is -due from the mother country to the colonies than from -the colonies to the mother country, that what the mother -country spends on the Empire is payment of a debt, while -what the colonies spend on the Empire is a free gift.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -mother -country, -being -usually -greater -than the -colony, is -expected -to give -rather -than to -receive.</div> - -<p>This view of the relations between a mother country -and its colonies takes its ultimate source largely from the -fact that the mother country is nearly always<a id="FNanchor_24" href="#Footnote_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> greater -and stronger than any one colony or group of colonies;<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_46"></a>[46]</span> -and in the English mind the instinct of fair play invariably -makes in favour of the party to a contract which is or -appears to be the weaker party. It is in the light of the -fact that the American colonies were numerically the -weaker party in their contention with the mother country, -and with the misleading deduction that any demand -made upon them was therefore unjust, that the story of -the War of Independence has over and over again been -wrongly told. In one of the more recent books on the -subject, Sir George Trevelyan’s <i>American Revolution</i>, it -is stated that all the colonies asked of the King was to -be let alone.<a id="FNanchor_25" href="#Footnote_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> That is all that any man or any community -asks, when called upon to pay a bill; and the question at -issue between the mother country and the colonies in the -eighteenth century was the eternal question, which vexes -every community and every federation of communities, -who ought to pay. The bill was one for defence purposes; -but, when it was presented, the colonists’ answer was in -effect, first, that it was the duty of the mother country to <span class="sidenote">Contentions of the colonists.</span> -defend the colonies; secondly, that that duty had been -neglected; and thirdly, that, assuming that it had been -performed, it was for the colonies and not for the mother -country to determine what proportion of the expense, if -any, should be defrayed by the colonies.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">(1) It was -the duty -of the -mother -country -to bear -the expense -of -defending -the -colonies.</div> - -<p>The first of these three contentions may not have been -fully avowed, but deep down in the minds of men there -lay the conviction that the mother country ought to pay for -defending the colonies, and there it has remained, more or -less, ever since. It is true that the grant of self-government -in its fullest sense to the present great provinces of the -British Empire has been coupled with the withdrawal of the -regular forces from all but a few points of selected Imperial -vantage, and to that extent the colonies have taken up, <span class="sidenote">This view still prevails.</span> -and well taken up, the duty of self-defence; but the burden -of the fleet, the great defensive force of the Empire as -a whole, is still borne in the main, and was till recently<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_47"></a>[47]</span> -entirely borne, by the mother country. When colonies -or foreign possessions are in a condition of complete -political dependence upon the mother country, it may -fairly be argued that the latter, in insisting upon dependence, -should, as the price of supremacy, undertake to -some extent the duty of defence. And yet a survey of -the British Empire at the present day shows that no self-governing -province of the Empire is so highly organized -or so fully charged for the purposes of defence as is -the great dependency of India.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Independence -implies -self-defence.</div> - -<p>The first and most elementary duty of an independent -community, the one condition without which it cannot -be independent, is providing for its own defence. The -American colonies claimed in reality political independence, -at any rate as far as internal matters were concerned; -but they did not admit, except to a limited extent, -that it was their duty to provide against foreign invasion. -That duty, in their eyes, devolved upon the mother country -because it was the mother country; because it was -held that the mother country derived more advantage -from the colonies than—apart from defence—the colonies -derived from her; and because the mother country dictated -the foreign policy of the Empire; in common parlance, -it called the tune and therefore, it was argued, -should pay the piper.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -Navigation -Acts -an inadequate -return for -the -charge -imposed -on the -mother -country -for defending -the -colonies.</div> - -<p>The Navigation laws, the commercial restrictions imposed -by Great Britain on her colonies, were assumed -to represent the price which the colonies paid in return -for the protection which the mother country gave or -professed to give to the colonies; and these same laws -and restrictions, viewed in the light of later times, have -been held to be the burden of oppression which was -greater than the colonies could bear. Adam Smith, the -writer who most forcibly exposed the unsoundness of the -old mercantile system, also demonstrated most conclusively -that that system was universal in the eighteenth -century; that it was less oppressively applied by England -than by other countries which owned colonies; that under<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_48"></a>[48]</span> -it, if the colonies were restricted in trade, they were also -in receipt of bounties; and lastly, that the undoubted -disadvantages which were the result of the system were -shared by the mother country with the colonies, though -they weighed more heavily upon the colonies than on the -mother country, and were to the colonies ‘impertinent -badges of slavery’. The conclusion to be drawn is that, -assuming Great Britain to have adequately discharged -the duty of protecting the colonies, she was not adequately -paid for doing so by the results of the mercantile system.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">(2) Did -Great -Britain -neglect -the -defence -of the -North -American -colonies?</div> - -<p>But it was further contended that the duty of protecting -her colonies was one which Great Britain neglected. -While the colonies were poor and insignificant, the mother -country, it was alleged, neglected them. When they -became richer and more valuable she tried to oppress -them. If the charge of neglect in the general sense was -true, we may refer to Mr. Lecky’s words already quoted, -as showing that it may well be argued that the colonies -profited by it.<a id="FNanchor_26" href="#Footnote_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> Mr. Lecky writes of conditions in the -eighteenth century, but Adam Smith used similar terms -with reference to the earlier days of the colonies. Contrasting -the Spanish colonies in America with those owned -by other European nations on that continent, he wrote: -‘The Spanish colonies’ (in consequence of their mineral -wealth) ‘from the moment of their first establishment -attracted very much the attention of their mother country; -while those of the other European nations were for a long -time in a great measure neglected. The former did not -perhaps thrive the better in consequence of this attention, -nor the latter the worse in consequence of their neglect.’<a id="FNanchor_27" href="#Footnote_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> -It may be answered, however, that the neglect here -referred to was neglect of the colonies in their internal -concerns, leaving them, as Adam Smith puts it, to pursue -their interest in their own way. This was an undeniably -beneficial form of neglect, wholly different from the -neglect which leaves distant dependencies exposed to<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_49"></a>[49]</span> -foreign invasion and native raids. Was then the British -Government guilty of the latter form of neglect in the -case of the American colonies?</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -attitude -of the -mother -country -in the -earlier -history -of the -colonies.</div> - -<p>There were many instances in the history of these -colonies, while they were still under the British flag, of -the Imperial Government promising assistance which was -never sent, or only sent after months of delay: there were -instances of gross incapacity on the part of leaders of -expeditions sent out from home, notably in the case -of Walker and Hill, who commanded the disgracefully -abortive enterprise against Quebec in 1711. The state -of Acadia, when nominally in British keeping after the -Treaty of Utrecht, was a glaring illustration of English -supineness and procrastination. There was, at any rate, -one notable instance of the mother country depriving the -colonies of a great result of their own brilliant enterprise, -viz. when Louisbourg, taken by the New Englanders -in 1745, was restored by Great Britain to France under -the terms of the Treaty of Aix la Chapelle in 1748. Undoubtedly -Great Britain on many occasions disappointed -and disheartened the colonies, and especially the most -patriotic of the colonies, the New England states. On -the other hand, it is beyond question that the colonies -were never seriously attacked by sea. They were threatened, -sometimes badly threatened, as by d’Anville’s fleet -in 1746; they were liable to the raids of daring partisan -leaders, such as d’Iberville; but either good fortune or the -British fleet, supplemented no doubt by a wholesome -respect for the energy and activity of the New England -sailors themselves, kept the coasts and seaports of the -American colonies in comparative security through all the -years of war. It must be noted too that, while the colonies -suffered because Great Britain had interests elsewhere -than in America; while, for instance, a fleet designed for -the benefit of the colonies in 1709 was sent off to Portugal, -and the New Englanders’ prize of Louisbourg was forfeited -in order to secure Madras for the British Empire, the -colonies at the same time shared in the results of victories<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_50"></a>[50]</span> -won in other parts of the world than America. The Peace -of Utrecht, with what it gave to the English in America, -was entirely the outcome of Marlborough’s victories on -the continent of Europe. Nothing that was done in -America contributed to it. The failures of England were -under the colonies’ eyes; her successes, the fruits of which -they shared, were often achieved at the other side of the -world.</p> - -<p>But, taking the main events which contributed to the -security and greatness of the American colonies, how far -should they be credited to Great Britain and how far to -the colonies themselves? In earlier days, nothing was -more important to the future of the English in America -than securing a continuous seaboard and linking the -southern to the northern colonies. This object was obtained -by taking New York from the Dutch, the result of -action initiated in Europe, not in America. The final -reduction of Port Royal was effected with the assistance -of troops and ships from England. The Peace of Utrecht, -which deprived the French of Acadia and their settlements -in Newfoundland, was, as already stated, wholly the -result of Marlborough’s fighting in Europe. Though the <span class="sidenote">The conquest of Canada was mainly due to the mother country.</span> -New Englanders took Louisbourg, and England gave it -back to France, the colonists’ success was largely aided -by Warren’s squadron of Imperial ships. But, most of -all, the final conquest of Canada was due far more to -the action of the mother country than to that of the -colonies.</p> - -<p>The great, almost the only, foreign danger to the English -colonies in North America was from the French in Canada -and Louisiana, but it is not generally realized how enormously -the English on the North American continent -outnumbered the French. At the time of the conquest -of Canada, the white population of the English colonies -in North America was to that of the French colonies as -thirteen to one. It is true that the English did not form -one community, whereas the French were united; but -it is also true, on the other hand, that the several English<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_51"></a>[51]</span> -communities were more concentrated than the French, -and that they held the base of the triangle, which base -was the sea. A single one of the larger English colonies -had a white population equal to or surpassing the whole -French population in North America. Under these circumstances -it might fairly be asked why the English -colonists required any help at all from the mother country -to conquer Canada. The war was one in which they -were vitally concerned. Its object was to give present -security to their frontiers, to rid them once for all from -the raids of French and Indians, which had for generations -desolated their villages, farms, and homesteads, and to -leave the West as a heritage to their children’s children, -instead of allowing the valleys of the Mississippi and the -Ohio to remain a French preserve. No doubt it was to -the interest of Great Britain, as an Imperial Power, that -France should be attacked and, if possible, overthrown -in the New World as in the Old. The conquest of Canada -was part of Pitt’s general scheme of policy, and English -regiments were not sent to America for the sake of the -American colonists alone.<a id="FNanchor_28" href="#Footnote_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> But the allegation made in -after years, that the campaigns in America were of great -concern to the mother country and of little concern to the -American colonies, was on the face of it untrue. To the -English colonists in North America the French in Canada -were the one great present danger, and the conquest of -Canada was the one thing needful. Yet we find that, in -1758, the troops, nearly 12,000 in number, which achieved -the second capture of Louisbourg were nearly all regulars; -that in the force which Abercromby led against Ticonderoga -about one-half of the total fighting men were -soldiers of the line, and that even Forbes’ little army, -which took Fort Duquesne, contained 1,600 regulars out<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_52"></a>[52]</span> -of a total of 6,000 men. In the following year, Wolfe’s -army, which took Quebec, was almost entirely composed of -Imperial troops. Nor was this all. Although, in 1758, -the colonies, or rather the New England colonies, readily -answered to Pitt’s call for a levy of 20,000 men, a considerable -part of the expense which was thus incurred -was recouped from the Imperial exchequer.<a id="FNanchor_29" href="#Footnote_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> The conclusion -of the whole matter is that to the mother country, -rather than to the colonies themselves, was it due that -the great danger which had menaced the latter for a -century and a half was finally removed. England gave -the best of her fighting men, and loaded her people at -home with a debt of many millions, in order that her great -competitor might be weakened, and that her children on -the other side of the Atlantic might be for all time secure -on land from foreign foes, while her fleets kept them safe<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_53"></a>[53]</span> -from attack by sea; and, inasmuch as the French in -America were numerically insignificant as compared with -the English colonists, the only real justification for the -colonists requiring aid from the mother country to overcome -the difficulty was, that the English colonies were -by geography and interest divided from each other and -consequently indifferent to each other’s burdens and perils; -while Canada, united in aim and organization, received -also assistance, though niggardly assistance, from France.</p> - -<p>The French were the main enemies to the English in -North America. The native Indians were the only other -human beings against whom the colonists had to defend -themselves, and here clearly it was their concern alone. <span class="sidenote">Aid given by the mother country against the Indians.</span> -The New Englanders took the burden on themselves manfully, -so far as related to their own borders, but they were -not prepared to fight the battles of the Pennsylvanians -and Virginians; and the Pennsylvanians and Virginians -were slow to help themselves. The result was, as told in -the last chapter, that the brunt of the war with Pontiac -and his confederates fell largely on the mother country, -her officers, and her troops, and this fact alone was -sufficient justification for Grenville’s contention, that a -small Imperial force ought to be maintained in, and be -in part paid by, the American colonies.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">(3) Argument -that -because -the -mother -country -dictated -the policy -she ought -to bear -the -expense.</div> - -<p>But then comes the last and the strongest argument of -the colonies. The mother country dictated the policy; -distant and without direct representation, though their -agents were active in England, the colonies could only -follow where the mother country led: the mother country, -therefore, should pay the cost of defending the outlying -provinces; or, if the latter contributed at all to the cost, -it was for them and not for the mother country to determine -the amount and the method of the contribution. -The real answer to this argument was, as Adam Smith <span class="sidenote">Question of colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament.</span> -saw,<a id="FNanchor_30" href="#Footnote_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> that the colonies should be represented in the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_54"></a>[54]</span> -Imperial Parliament. He allowed that such a proposal -was beset by difficulties, but he did not consider, as Burke -considered, that the difficulties were insurmountable. -Yet the problem, infinitely easier in the days of steam -and telegraphy, has not yet been solved, and the preliminary -task of combining a group of self-governing -colonies into a single confederation had, in the eighteenth -century, only been talked of and never been seriously -attempted in North America.</p> - -<p>In theory, English citizens, who had never been taxed -directly for Imperial purposes, might fairly claim not to -be taxed, unless and until they were taken into full partnership -and given a voice in determining the policy of the -Empire. But the actual facts of the case made the demand -of the mother country on the American colonies in itself -eminently reasonable. It was true that England had <span class="sidenote">Moderation of the English demand on the colonies.</span> -dictated the policy; but it was also true that the policy -had been directly in the interests of the colonies, and such -as they warmly approved. They were asked for money, -but only for their own protection, and to preclude the -possibility of a further burden falling on the mother -country, already overweighted with debt incurred on -behalf of these particular provinces of the Empire. The -demand was a small one; the money to be raised would -clearly defray but a fraction of the cost of defending the -North American colonies. To the amount no reasonable -exception could be taken; and as to the method of raising -it the colonies were, as a matter of fact, consulted, for -Grenville, the author of the Stamp Act, gave a year’s -notice, before the Act was finally passed,<a id="FNanchor_31" href="#Footnote_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> in order that -the colonies might, in the meantime, if they could, agree -upon some more palatable method of providing the sum -required.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">England -suffered -for her -merits as -well as for -her -defects.</div> - -<p>The merits of England, no less than her defects, tended -to alienate the North American colonies. It is possible<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_55"></a>[55]</span> -that, if she had made a larger and more sweeping demand, -she would have been more successful. Her requisition -was so moderate, that it seemed to be petty, and might -well have aroused suspicion that there was more behind; -that what was actually proposed was an insidious preliminary -to some far-reaching scheme for oppressing the -colonies and bringing them into subjection. It has been -held, too, that, if the Stamp Act had been passed without -delay, there would have been less opposition to it than -when it had been brooded over for many months. In -other words, the fairness of dealing, which gave full -warning and full time for consideration of a carefully -measured demand, was turned to account against the -mother country. But after all what was in men’s minds, -when the American colonies began their contest for <span class="sidenote">The analogy of family life in the case of a mother country and its colonies.</span> -independence was, speaking broadly, the feeling, right or -wrong, that a mother country ought to pay and colonies -ought not. Men argued then, and they still argue, from -the analogy of a family. The head of the family should -provide, as long as the children remain part of the household.</p> - -<p>The analogy of family life suggests a further view of -the relations between a mother country and its colonies, -which accounts for the possibilities of friction. A colonial -empire consists of an old community linked to young ones. -The conditions, the standards, the points of view, in -politics, in morals, in social and industrial matters, are not -identical in old and young communities. Young peoples, -like young men, do not count the cost, and do not feel -responsibility to the same extent as their elders. They -are more restive, more ready to move forward, more -prompt in action. Their horizon is limited, and therefore -they see immediate objects clearly, and they do not -appreciate compromise. The problems which face them -are simple as compared with the complicated questions -which face older communities, and they are impatient -of the caution and hesitation which come with inherited -experience in a much wider field of action. The future<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_56"></a>[56]</span> -is theirs rather than the past, they have not yet accumulated -much capital and draw bills on the coming time. -Most of all, being on promotion, they are sensitive as to -their standing, keenly alive to their interests, and resent -any semblance of being slighted. It is impossible to -generalize as to the comparative standards of morality in -old and young communities, either in public or in private -life, but, as a matter of fact, political life, in the middle -of the eighteenth century, was much purer in the North -American colonies than in England: whereas at the present -day, in this respect, England compares favourably with -the United States. The North American colonies were -a group of young communities, whose citizens were, at -any rate in New England and Pennsylvania, of a strong, -sober, and very tenacious type: the late war had taught -them to fight: its issue had given them a feeling of -strength and security: there had been no extraordinary -strain upon their resources: they had reached a stage in -their history when they were most dangerous to offend and -not unlikely to take offence unless very carefully handled, -and careful handling on the part of the mother country, -as all the world knows, was conspicuous by its absence.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -Native -question.</div> - -<p>One more point may be noted as having an important -bearing upon the general question of the relations between -a mother country and its colonies, one which in particular -contributed to ill-feeling between England and the North -American states. Colonization rarely takes place in an -empty land. The colonists on arrival find native inhabitants, -strong or weak, few or many, as the case may be. -In North America there were strong fighting races of -Indians, and the native question played an all-important -part in the early history of European settlement in this -part of the world. It is almost inevitable that white men -on the spot, who are in daily contact with natives, should, -unless they hold a brief as missionaries or philanthropists, -take a different view of native rights and claims from -that which is held at a distance. It is true that in our -own time, to take one instance only, the Maori question<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_57"></a>[57]</span> -in New Zealand has been well handled by the colonial -authorities, when thrown on their own resources, with -the result that there are no more loyal members of the -British Empire at the present day than the coloured -citizens of New Zealand; but in the earlier days of -colonization the general rule has been that native races -fare better under Imperial than under colonial control, -for the twofold reason that the distant authority is less -influenced by colour prejudice, and that white men who -go out from Europe to settle among native races are, in -the ordinary course, of a rougher type than those who -stay at home, and that they tend to become hardened -by living among lower grades of humanity. The Quaker -followers of Penn, in the state which bears his name, were -conspicuous for just and kindly treatment of the Indians, -but in the back-lands of Pennsylvania the traders and -pioneers of settlement were to the full as grasping as their -neighbours. The North American Puritan, like the South -African Dutchman, looked on the coloured man much as -the Jewish race regarded the native tribes of Canaan. -The colonists came in and took the land of the heathen -in possession. Indian atrocities, stimulated by French -influence and French missionary training, were not -calculated to soften the views of the English settlers. -They saw their homes burned: their wives and children -butchered: to them arguments as to the red men’s rights -were idle words.</p> - -<p>The only authority which could and would hold the -balance even between the races was the Imperial Government; -and in the hands of that Government, represented -for the purpose in the middle of the eighteenth century -by a man of rare ability and unrivalled experience, Sir -William Johnson, the superintendence of native affairs -was placed. But this duty, and the attempt to carry it -out justly and faithfully, involved friction with the more -turbulent and the less scrupulous of the colonists. Colonization -is a tide which is always coming in; and, unless restrictions -are imposed upon the colonists by some superior<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_58"></a>[58]</span> -authority, the native owners are gradually expropriated. -‘Your people,’ said the representatives of the Six Nations -to Sir William Johnson in 1755, ‘when they buy a small -piece of land of us, by stealing they make it large;’<a id="FNanchor_32" href="#Footnote_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> and -Johnson amply corroborated this view. In October, -1762, he wrote: ‘The Indians are greatly disgusted at -the great thirst which we all seem to show for their lands.’<a id="FNanchor_33" href="#Footnote_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Sir -William -Johnson.</div> - -<p>A word must be said of Sir William Johnson, for he -was one of the men who, in the long course of British -colonial history, have rendered memorable service to -their country by special aptitude for dealing with native -races. In this quality the French in North America, as -a rule, far excelled the English, and at the particular -place and time, Johnson’s character and influence were -an invaluable asset on the British side. An Irishman by -birth, and nephew of Sir Peter Warren, he had come out -to America in 1738 to manage his uncle’s estates on the -confines of the Six Nation Indians, and some eleven years -later he was made Superintendent of Indian Affairs for -the Northern division. He lived on the Mohawk river, -as much Indian as white man, his second wife being -Molly Brant, sister of the subsequently celebrated Mohawk -leader, and among the Iroquois his influence was unrivalled. -In the wars with France he did notable work, -especially at the battle of Lake George in 1755, and at -the taking of Fort Niagara in 1759; and, when he died in -July, 1774, on the eve of the War of Independence, his -death left a gap which could not be filled, for no one -among his contemporaries could so persuade and so control -the fiercest native fighters in North America.</p> - -<p>As has been seen, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 -carefully safeguarded the Indians’ lands, and in 1765 -a line was drawn from the Ohio valley to Wood Creek in<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_59"></a>[59]</span> -the Oneida country, dividing the country which should in -future be open to white settlers from that which the Six -Nations were to hold for their own. This boundary was, -through Johnson’s influence, confirmed by an agreement -signed at Fort Stanwix on the 5th of November, 1768, in <span class="sidenote">The Fort Stanwix line.</span> -the presence of Johnson himself as well as of Benjamin -Franklin’s son, who was at the time Governor of New -Jersey. The signatories were representatives of the -colonies of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia on the -one hand, and deputies of the Six Nations on the other; and -the Indians were described as ‘true and absolute proprietors -of the lands in question’. The line diverged from -the Alleghany branch of the Ohio some miles above -Pittsburg; it was carried in a north-easterly direction -to the Susquehanna; from the Susquehanna it was taken -east to the Delaware; and from the Delaware it was -carried north along the course of the Unadilla river, ending -near Fort Stanwix, now the town of Rome, in Oneida -county of the state of New York. Under the terms of -the agreement all the land east of the line was, for a sum -of £10,460 7<i>s.</i> 3<i>d.</i> sold to the King, except such part as -was within the province of Pennsylvania.<a id="FNanchor_34" href="#Footnote_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> It was a -definite recognition of the Indians as being owners of -land, and a definite pronouncement that what they sold -should be sold to the Crown. Neither tenet was likely to -commend itself to the border colonists. They would find -it hard to believe that a savage’s tenure of land was as -valid as that of a white man, nor would they welcome the -Imperial Government as landlord of the hinterland. The -red man thought otherwise. The power from over the -seas, which the colonists soon learnt to denounce as the -enemy of liberty, was to them the protector of life and -land: and, when the struggle was over, many of the -Six Nation Indians were to be found in Canada, not in -their old homes under the flag of the United States.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attitude -of the -Canadians.</div> - -<p>Nor were the Indians the only inhabitants of North<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_60"></a>[60]</span> -America who did not see eye to eye with the colonists in -their contest with the mother country. In October, 1774, -the General Congress of the recalcitrant colonies issued -a long manifesto to their ‘friends and fellow subjects’ in -Canada, inviting them to ‘unite with us in one social -compact formed on the generous principles of equal -liberty’. The manifesto appealed to the writings of ‘the -immortal Montesquieu’, the ‘countryman’ of the French -Canadians, and warned the latter not to become the -instruments of the cruelty and despotism of English -ministers, but to stand firm for their natural liberties, -alleged to be threatened by the Quebec Act which had -just been passed. But the high-sounding appeal missed -its mark. It is true that at the beginning of the war, when -Canada was left almost undefended, and when, in consequence, -Montgomery and the Congress troops overran the -country up to the walls of Quebec, a considerable number -of the French Canadians, together with the British -malcontents in Canada, openly or secretly made common -cause with the invaders; but even then the large majority -of the French Canadians remained neutral, and, if some -joined the ranks of the invaders, others, including especially -the higher ranks of the population, supported her -cause. Here was a people lately conquered, under the rule -of an alien race. A golden opportunity was given them, -it seemed, to recover their freedom. Why did the French -colonists not throw in their lot wholehearted with the -English settlers in North America? Why did they prefer -to remain under the British Crown?</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -Canadians -were not -oppressed -under -English -rule.</div> - -<p>The first reason was that they were not oppressed. On -the contrary they had already enjoyed more liberty under -the British Government than under the old French -régime. There were complaints, no doubt, as will be -seen, but the Canadians were free to make them; there -was no stifling of discontent, no stamping out of inconvenient -pleas for liberty. With British rule came in the -printing press. The <i>Quebec Gazette</i> was first issued in -June, 1764, and in it the ordinances were published in<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_61"></a>[61]</span> -French as well as in English. Even under military -administration a formerly submissive people learnt their -privileges and their rights, and General Murray, whose -recall was due to allegations that he had unduly favoured -the French population at the expense of the Protestant -Loyalists, wrote of the Canadians as a ‘frugal, industrious, -moral race of men who, from the just and mild treatment -they met with from His Majesty’s military officers, who -ruled the country four years, until the establishment of civil -government, had greatly got the better of the natural -antipathy they had to their conquerors’.<a id="FNanchor_35" href="#Footnote_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> Canada was -not anxious to overturn a system under which Canadians -were being trained to be free. If England oppressed, she -oppressed Englishmen rather than Frenchmen or natives, -and one element in the alleged oppression of her own -people consisted in safeguarding the rights of other races.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">They preferred -the -English -in and -from -England -to the -English -colonists -in -America.</div> - -<p>The second and the main reason why Canada did not -combine with the United States was that, though Canadians -did not love the English from England, they loved less -their English neighbours in America. Charles the Second -told his brother that the English would not kill himself to -make James king. Similarly the Canadians, on reflection, -were not prepared to turn out the British Government -in order to substitute the domination of the English -colonies. Generalities as to natural rights and equal -liberties, borrowed from the writings of European philosophers, -could not cover up the plain facts of the case. -Canada, united to the English colonies, would have been -submerged, and French Roman Catholics would have been -permanently subject to English Protestants, far less -tolerant than Englishmen at home. The colonists who -had issued the high-sounding manifesto had done so -with strong resentment at the extension of the limits of -the province of Quebec, at the widening of the field in -which the Canadian system and the religion of Canada -should hold its own. They were speaking with two<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_62"></a>[62]</span> -voices at one and the same time; calling on the Canadians -not to submit to British tyranny, and denouncing -as tyranny a measure which favoured Canada. Many -years back the Canadians and their friends had differentiated -between the English from England, who came out -to fight, and the English colonists in America. The eye-witness -of the siege and capture of Louisbourg in 1745 -favourably, and probably unfairly, contrasted Warren and -his British sailors with Pepperell and the New England -levies. To the men from a distance, better disciplined, -less prejudiced, less imbued with provincial animosity, -there was no such aversion as to the enemy who was ever -under their eyes. At all times and in all parts of the -world there has been the same tale to tell; if one race -must be subordinated to another, it prefers that its rulers -should not be those who for generations have been their -immediate neighbours and their persistent rivals.</p> - -<p>It was written in the book of fate that New France -should sooner or later become incorporated in the British -Empire; it was written too that, when that time came, -the British provinces in North America would assert and -win complete independence. It is impossible to estimate -aright the loss except in the light of the gain which preceded -it. Only consummate statesmanship or military -genius could have averted the severance of the North -American colonies, for the very qualities which had -brought success alike to them and to the motherland, -dogged persistence, sense of strength, all the instincts and -the principles which have made the English great, were -ranged on either side in the civil war between England -and her children: and that war was the direct, almost -the inevitable result of their recent joint effort and their -united victory. Friction began: years went on: bitterness -was intensified: the noisier and less scrupulous -partisans silenced the voice of reason: in the mother -country the Sovereign and his advisers made a good cause -bad: the revolting colonies were ennobled by Washington. -Success justified the action of the colonists. England<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_63"></a>[63]</span> -was condemned because she failed. Yet the story, if read -aright, teaches only this: that the defeat of England by -her own children was due to the simple fact that partly by -her action, partly by her inaction, the children in wayward -and blundering fashion had grown to greatness.</p> - -<p>After the capitulation of Montreal, in September, 1760, -Canada was, for the time being, under military rule. <span class="sidenote">Canada under military rule.</span> -There were three military governors, General Murray at -Quebec, Colonel Burton at Three Rivers, and General -Gage at Montreal. All three were subordinate to Amherst, -the Commander-in-Chief in North America, whose head -quarters were usually at New York. Amherst left for -England in 1763, and was succeeded by General Gage, -whose place was filled by the transfer of Burton from -Three Rivers, while the military governorship of Three -Rivers was entrusted to Colonel Haldimand, one of the -Swiss officers who deserved so well of England in North -America.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -French -Canadians -at -the time -of the -British -conquest -of -Canada.</div> - -<p>While Canada was still under military rule, and before -the Peace of Paris was signed, the British Government -took steps to collect full information as to their newly-acquired -possession, with a view to determining the lines -on which it should be administered in future. At the end -of 1761 Amherst was instructed to obtain the necessary -reports, which were in the following year duly supplied -by Murray, Burton, and Gage in respect of Quebec, Three -Rivers, and Montreal respectively.<a id="FNanchor_36" href="#Footnote_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a></p> - -<p>Canada at this time contained little more than 70,000 -white inhabitants. The population, Murray thought, had -tended to decrease for twenty years past, owing to war, to -the strictness of the marriage laws, and to the prohibition -of marriages between Protestants and Roman Catholics; -but he looked for a large increase from natural causes in -the next twenty years, the men being strong and the -women extremely prolific.</p> - -<p>The Canadians, Murray wrote, were ‘mostly of a Norman<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_64"></a>[64]</span> -race’ and, ‘in general, of a litigious disposition’. He -classified them into the gentry, the clergy, the merchants, -and the peasantry or habitants. The gentry or seigniors, -descendants of military or civil officers, the creation -largely of Louis XIV, Colbert, and Talon, he described as -for the most part men of small means, unless they had -held one or other of the distant posts, where they could -make their fortunes. ‘They are extremely vain, and -have an utter contempt for the trading part of the colony, -though they made no scruple to engage in it, pretty deeply -too, whenever a convenient opportunity served. They -were great tyrants to their vassals, who seldom met with -redress, let their grievances be ever so just. This class will -not relish the British Government, from which they can -neither expect the same employments or the same douceurs -they enjoyed under the French.’ Of the clergy he -wrote that the higher ranks were filled by Frenchmen, -the rest being Canadian born, and in general Canadians of -the lower class. Similarly the wholesale traders were -mostly French, and the retail traders natives of Canada. -The peasantry he described as ‘a strong, healthy race, -plain in their dress, virtuous in their morals, and temperate -in their living’, extremely ignorant, and extremely tenacious -of their religion. At the time of writing, Murray and -his colleagues evidently anticipated more loyalty from -the peasantry than from the higher classes of Canadians. -Protected in their religion, given impartial justice, freed -from class oppression and official corruption, they seemed -likely to develop into happy and contented subjects of -the British Crown. The sequel was, however, to show -that more support would accrue to the new rulers of -Canada from the classes which had something to lose -than from the credulous habitants.</p> - -<p>‘The French,’ so ran Murray’s report, ‘bent their -whole attention in this part of the world to the fur-trade.’ -They neglected agriculture and the fisheries. ‘The -inhabitants are inclinable enough to be lazy, and not -much skilled in husbandry, the great dependencies they<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_65"></a>[65]</span> -have hitherto had on the gun and fishing-rod made -them neglect tillage beyond the requisites of their own -consumption and the few purchases they needed.’ Gage -wrote that ‘the only immediate importance and advantage -the French king derived from Canada was the -preventing the extension of the British colonies, the consumption -of the commodities and manufactures of France, -and the trade of pelletry’. He noted how common it was -‘for the servants, whom the merchants hired to work -their boats and assist in their trade, through a long habit -of Indian manners and customs, at length to adopt their -way of life, to intermarry with them, and turn savages’. -Burton’s report was to the same effect: ‘The laziness of -the people, and the alluring and momentary advantages -they reaped from their traffic with the Indians in the -upper countries, and the counterband trade they carried -on with the English colonies, have hitherto prevented -the progress of husbandry;’ and again, ‘The greatest -part of the young men, allured by the debauched and -rambling life which always attend the Indian trade in the -upper countries, never thought of settling at home till they -were almost worn out with diseases or premature old age.’</p> - -<p>It was a country and a people of strong contrasts, -wholly unlike their own colonies, that the English were -called upon to rule. At head quarters and near it there -was a cast-iron system in Church and State, trade monopoly, -an administration at once despotic and corrupt. -Behind there was a boundless wild, to which French -restlessness, French adaptability for dealing with native -races, and the possibilities of illicit wealth called the -young and enterprising, who were impatient of control, and -who could not share the gains of corruption at Montreal -and Quebec. In Canada there was no gradual and continuous -widening of settlement, such as marked the English -colonies in North America. In those colonies development -was spontaneous but, in the main, civilized; not -according to fixed rule, but not contrary to law, the law -being home-made and not imposed from without.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_66"></a>[66]</span></p> - -<p>In Canada extreme conservatism existed side by side -with complete lawlessness. At one pole of society were -a certain number of obedient human beings, planted out -in rows; at the other were the wandering fur-traders, who -knew no law and had no fixed dwelling-place. Excluding -the officials from France, ill paid and intent on perquisites -alone, and excluding French or Canadian merchants, the -main constituents in the population of Canada were the -seignior, the priest, the habitant, and the voyageur; of -these four elements it would be hard to say which was -farthest removed from citizenship, as it was understood -in England and the English colonies. Yet all these elements -were to be combined and moulded into a British -community.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Beginning -of -civil -government.</div> - -<p>The beginning of civil administration in Canada under -British rule was the Royal Proclamation of 7th October, -1763, which has been noticed in the preceding chapter. -Before it was issued, an intimation was sent to Murray -that he had been selected as the first civil governor of the -new British province of Quebec. His commission as -governor was dated 21st November, 1763; and the Royal -Instructions, which accompanied the Commission, bore the -date of 7th December, 1763; but it was not until August, -1764, that he took up his new position and military rule -came to an end.<a id="FNanchor_37" href="#Footnote_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">General -Murray.</div> - -<p>James Murray was still under forty years of age. He -proved himself a stanch, loyal, and capable soldier, -resolute in critical times, as when he defended Quebec -through the trying winter of 1759-60, and later, in 1781-2, -held Minorca until his handful of troops, stricken with -famine and disease, surrendered their arms, as they said,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_67"></a>[67]</span> -to God alone. His words and his actions alike testified -that he was a humane and just man. Like other soldiers, -before and since, having seen war face to face, he was -more ready than civilians who had not risked their lives, -but breathed threatenings and slaughter from a safe -distance, to treat the conquered with leniency.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Difficulties -of the -situation.</div> - -<p>He had many difficulties to contend with. Military -matters did not run smoothly. In September, 1763, -there had been a dangerous mutiny among the troops at -Quebec. It was caused by an ill-timed order sent out -from home to the effect that the soldiers should pay for -their rations; and serious consequences might have -followed but for the prompt and firm attitude of the -general and his officers. At Quebec, Murray combined -civil and military powers; but after civil administration -had been proclaimed, though his government included -the whole of the province as constituted by the Royal -proclamation, he was left without authority over the -troops at Montreal, where Burton jealously retained an -independent military command. The inevitable result -was to fetter his action to a great extent, to give to the -Canadians the impression of divided authority,<a id="FNanchor_38" href="#Footnote_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> and to -accentuate friction between soldiers and civilians, which <span class="sidenote">Ill feeling between soldiers and civilians.</span> -culminated in an assault at Montreal in December, 1764, -on a magistrate named Walker, who had made himself -specially obnoxious to the officers of the garrison. Two -years later the supposed perpetrators of the outrage were -tried and acquitted, but the affair left ill feeling behind it, -and Walker remained an active and pertinacious opponent -of the British Government in Canada.</p> - -<p>Among the Canadian population there were various -causes of unrest. The priesthood were anxious as to -their position and privileges. The depreciation of the -paper money, which had been issued under the French -régime, gave trouble. The law was in a state of chaos;<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_68"></a>[68]</span> -and, most of all, the first Governor of Canada had to withstand -the pretensions of the handful of Protestants, in <span class="sidenote">The Protestant minority.</span> -1764 about 200 in number, in 1766 about 450, who wished -to dominate the French Canadians, alien in religion and -in race.</p> - -<p>Against the claims of this small but noisy and intriguing -minority Murray resolutely set his face, but the difficulties -which arose led to his being summoned home. He left <span class="sidenote">Murray leaves for England and is succeeded by Carleton.</span> -Canada for England towards the end of June, 1766, and -though he retained the post of Governor till April, 1768, -he never returned to Quebec.</p> - -<p>His successor was Guy Carleton, who arrived in Canada -in September, 1766, and carried on the administration as -Lieutenant-Governor till 1768, when he became Governor-in-chief. -Like Murray, he was a soldier of distinction, -and had been a warm personal friend of Wolfe, who made -him one of the executors of his will. He was born in -1724, at Strabane in the north of Ireland, the third son of -General Sir Guy Carleton. He went into the Guards, -was transferred to the 72nd Regiment, and served in -Germany, at Louisbourg, and, as Quartermaster-General, -with Wolfe at Quebec. He remained at Quebec with -Murray during the eventful winter of 1759-60; and, -after further active service at Belle Isle and Havana, he -came back to Quebec in 1766, to do more than any one -man in war and peace for the safety and well-being of -Canada as a British possession.</p> - -<p>The difficulties which Murray had been called upon to -meet confronted him also, and, like Murray, he saw the -necessity as well as the justice of resisting the extravagant -claims of the minority, and conciliating to British rule the -large body of the Canadian population. For nearly four -years he remained at his post, forming his views as to the -lines on which Canada should be remodelled. In August, -1770, he left for England on leave of absence, and in -England he remained until the Quebec Act had been -passed. The Act was passed in June, 1774, taking effect -from the 1st of May in the following year; and in the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_69"></a>[69]</span> -middle of September, 1774, Carleton arrived again at Quebec. <span class="sidenote">Conditions which led to the passing of the Quebec Act.</span> -It is now proposed to review the conditions which -led to the passing of the Act, and the policy which was embodied -in it, omitting as far as possible minor incidents -and dealing only with the main features, which illustrate -the general course of British colonial history.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The Conquest -of -Canada -presented -a new -problem -in British -colonial -history.</div> - -<p>The acquisition of Canada presented to British statesmen -a wholly new problem. The British Empire had -hitherto widened mainly by means of settlement, for the -seventeenth century, as far as Great Britain was concerned, -was a time of settlement, not of conquest. Jamaica, -it is true, had been taken from the Spaniards, and New -York from the Dutch; but, great as was the importance -of securing those two dependencies in the light of subsequent -history, the conquest or cession of both the one and -the other was rather an incident than the result of an -era of war and conquest. Such an era came with the -eighteenth century; and, when the Peace of Utrecht in -1713 secured Great Britain in undivided possession of -Newfoundland, and confirmed to her the possession of -the Acadian peninsula, and of the Rock of Gibraltar, a -notable outpost of the future Empire, there was a beginning, -though a small beginning, of territorial expansion -as the result of war.</p> - -<p>The Seven Years’ War brought with it British conquest -alike in East and West; but in India the British advance -was in some sort a repetition on a wider scale of what other -European nations had done in the same regions. It was -the natural outcome of trade rivalry, and of white men -coming among Eastern races. The conquest of Canada, <span class="sidenote">Canada was: (1) a continental area; -(2) colonized by another European race; (3) bordering on a sphere of British colonization; (4) the home of a coloured race.</span> -on the other hand, differed in kind from all that had gone -before in British history. The Imperial Government of -Great Britain took over a great expanse of continent, and -became, by force of arms, proprietor of a country which -another colonizing race had acquired by settlement. The -new problems were how to administer and to develop not -a small island or peninsula but a very large continental -area, and how to rule a rival white race which from the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_70"></a>[70]</span> -beginnings of colonization in North America had made -that area, or part of it, its own. To these two most -difficult problems was added a third, how to administer -the new territory and to rule the French colonists, so as -to work in harmony with the adjacent British colonies. -Conquest and settlement, so to speak, overlapped. If -Canada had not been a French colony, and had been -inhabited by coloured men alone, or if Canada, as a French -colony, had been in a different continent from the British -North American colonies, the task of construction or -re-construction would have been infinitely easier. It -would have been easier, too, if the French Canadians had -been the only inhabitants of Canada. But, as it was, one -white race conquered another white race, which in its -turn had secured mastery over a coloured race, and in -the land of that coloured race had not merely conquered -or traded, but settled and colonized; and the new conquerors -were of the same kith and kin as settlers in the -adjoining territories, whose traditions were all traditions -not of ruling nor of conquering so much as of gradually -acquiring by settlement at the expense of the coloured -race.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Conditions -which -guided -British -policy in -Canada -as embodied -in -the Proclamation -of 1763.</div> - -<p>What had British statesmen to guide them in dealing -with the question, and what considerations led to the -provisions which were embodied in their first measure, the -Royal Proclamation of 7th October, 1763? It was evident, <span class="sidenote">Geographical division between the settled districts and the hinterland.</span> -in the first place, that a line could, if it was thought advisable, -be drawn between the settled parts of Canada and -the Western territories, where the French had only maintained -outposts and trading stations. The government of <span class="sidenote">The Indian question.</span> -Quebec, therefore, which was the new colony, was, as has -been seen, limited to the districts of Quebec, Three Rivers, -and Montreal, and did not include the regions of the lakes, -or the territories of the Hudson’s Bay Company. In the -second place, past experience had proved that English -dealings with the Indians had been very much less successful -than French management, the characteristic features -of which were personal relations with a despotic governor<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_71"></a>[71]</span> -and his authorized agents and representatives; and that -the Indians enjoyed more protection and were likely to -develop greater loyalty and contentment under a central -authority—the Imperial Government—represented and -advised by Sir William Johnson, than if left to bargain -with and to resent encroachments by the various British -colonies. Consequently the proclamation reserved the -western hinterland ‘under our sovereignty, protection, -and dominion for the use of the said Indians’, in addition -to safeguarding the existing rights and lands of the natives -within the borders of the colonies. In the third place it <span class="sidenote">Necessity for attracting British colonists</span> -was obviously desirable to introduce into Canada a leaven -of colonists of English race, and more especially of colonists -who had been trained to arms and already knew the land -and the people. Hence, just as in bygone days Colbert -and Talon, when colonizing Canada on a definite system, -planted time-expired soldiers along the St. Lawrence and -the Richelieu rivers, so the Proclamation of 1763 empowered -free land grants to be given in Canada, as well -as in the other American possessions of Great Britain, -to officers and soldiers who had served in the late war; -and it also encouraged British settlers generally by providing -that, as soon as circumstances allowed, a General -Assembly was to be summoned ‘in such manner and form -as is used and directed in those colonies and provinces in -America which are under our immediate government.’<a id="FNanchor_39" href="#Footnote_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">and for -conciliating -the -French -Canadians.</div> - -<p>But most of all it was necessary to mete out fair and -liberal treatment to the new subjects, the French Canadians, -and make them contented citizens of the British Empire. -This object, Englishmen naturally argued, could best be attained, -first, by securing ‘the ancient inhabitants in all the -titles, rights, and privileges granted to them by Treaty’<a id="FNanchor_40" href="#Footnote_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a>; -and secondly, by giving the Canadians as soon as possible<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_72"></a>[72]</span> -the laws and institutions which British subjects valued -and under which they had thrived, by assimilating -Canada as far as possible in these respects to the neighbouring -British colonies. Accordingly the Canadians were <span class="sidenote">Desire to give British privileges to Canada.</span> -from the first to enjoy the benefit of the laws of England, -and courts of justice were to be established with power to -determine all causes criminal and civil ‘as near as may be -agreeable to the laws of England’. The question of religion -was ignored in the proclamation; freedom of worship had -already been guaranteed to the Roman Catholics by the -4th Article of the Peace of Paris,<a id="FNanchor_41" href="#Footnote_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> and Murray’s instructions -were that he should ‘in all things regarding the said -inhabitants, conform with great exactness to the stipulations -of the said treaty in this respect’. There the matter -was left for the moment, though Murray’s commission -provided that the persons who should be elected as -members of the future Assembly were to subscribe the -declaration against Popery, enacted in Charles the -Second’s reign, which provision would have excluded -Roman Catholics from sitting in the Assembly.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Liberal -intention -of the -Proclamation -of -1763.</div> - -<p>There is no question that the proclamation itself was -conceived in a wise and tolerant spirit. There was every -intention to safeguard the best interests alike of the French -Canadians and of the Indians; to give to the latter the -protection of Imperial rule, to give to the former the -benefits of British laws, and as far as possible the privileges -of British citizenship. The proclamation, too, was not -drawn on hard and fast lines. As soon as circumstances -permitted, and not before, representative institutions were -to be introduced, and the laws were not to be necessarily -the laws of England, but ‘as near as may be agreeable to’ -the laws of England.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_73"></a>[73]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Murray’s -Commission.</div> - -<p>Murray’s commission as governor empowered him, ‘so -soon as the situation and circumstances of our said -province under your government will admit thereof, and -when and as often as need shall require, to summon and -call General Assemblies of the freeholders and planters -within your government.’ But by the terms of the -commission a council was joined with the governor and -Assembly as the authority for making laws and ordinances, -and the Royal Instructions provided that, pending the -calling of a General Assembly, the governor was to act -on the advice of his council in making regulations, which -would have the force of law, and which were, as a matter -of fact, styled ordinances, certain important subjects, -such as taxation, being excluded from their scope. Thus, -until representative institutions could be given to Canada, -legislative and executive authority was placed in the hands -of the governor acting on the advice of a nominated -council. But the council, again, was constituted on liberal <span class="sidenote">The Council of government.</span> -lines, as its members were to be the Lieutenant-Governors -of Montreal and Three Rivers, the Chief Justice of the -province of Quebec, the Surveyor-General of Customs in -America for the Northern district, and ‘eight other persons -to be chosen by you from amongst the most considerable -of the inhabitants of, or persons of property in, our said -province’. From the first, therefore, it was intended -that the unofficial element in the council should outnumber -the officials—evidence, if evidence were wanted, that it -was desired to govern Canada in accordance with the -wishes of the people.</p> - -<p>Immediately after civil government had taken the place -of military rule, an ordinance was, in September, 1764, -promulgated, constituting courts of justice, the law to <span class="sidenote">Courts of justice established.</span> -be administered being in the main the law of England, -and trial by jury being introduced without any religious -qualification for jurymen. One provision in the ordinance, -it may be noticed in passing, abolished the district of -Three Rivers, which had hitherto been, like Montreal, in -charge of a Lieutenant-Governor. Thus Canada was<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_74"></a>[74]</span> -started on its course as a British colony, with the best -intentions, the prospect of such self-government as other -American colonies enjoyed, British law and justice, and -above all a governor who was in sympathy with the <span class="sidenote">Causes of the difficulties which arose.</span> -people, and earnestly worked for their good; but difficulties -arose almost immediately, and the causes of them -are not far to seek.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -religious -question.</div> - -<p>It was the honest desire of the British Government to -give liberty to Canada, to treat it, not as a conquered -country, but as a British colony. Liberty, as the English -understand it, has connoted three things, representative -institutions, British law and justice, including especially -trial by jury and the Habeas Corpus Act, and freedom of -conscience. But in past times to Protestants freedom -of conscience meant practical exclusion from the political -sphere of those, like Roman Catholics, whose creed was -in principle an exclusive creed; and therefore, in a Roman -Catholic country under Protestant supremacy, like Ireland -or Canada in the eighteenth century, representative -institutions from the strong Protestant point of view -meant institutions which did not represent the bulk of -the population. In this matter, as in others, in the case -of Canada, English statesmen and English governors, -though not at once prepared to dispense with religious -tests, were more liberally inclined towards the ‘new -subjects’, the French Canadians, than were the English -colonists in America; and the soldier Murray had far -more breadth of mind than the local lawyers and politicians -who prated of liberties which they had no intention -of granting to others.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Murray’s -letter to -Lord -Shelburne.</div> - -<p>Shortly after his return to England, in 1766, Murray -expressed his views as to the small Protestant minority in -Canada in plain outspoken terms. In a letter addressed -to Lord Shelburne on the 20th of August in that year, <span class="sidenote">His opinion of the Protestant minority in Canada.</span> -he wrote, ‘most of them were followers of the army, of -mean education, or soldiers disbanded at the reduction of -the troops. All have their fortunes to make, and I fear -few of them are solicitous about the means when the end<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_75"></a>[75]</span> -can be obtained. I report them to be in general the most -immoral collection of men I ever knew, of course little -calculated to make the new subjects enamoured with our -laws, religion, and customs, far less adapted to enforce -these laws and to govern.’ As the Canadian peasantry, -he continued, ‘have been taught to respect their superiors -and not get intoxicated with the abuse of liberty, they -are shocked at the insults which their noblesse and the -King’s officers have received from the English traders and -lawyers, since the civil government took place.... Magistrates -were to be made and juries to be composed from -four hundred and fifty contemptible sutlers and traders ... -the Canadian noblesse were hated because their birth -and behaviour entitled them to respect, and the peasants -were abhorred because they were saved from the oppression -they were threatened with.’ Equally severe was his -judgement on ‘the improper choice and the number of -the civil officers sent out from England’, ignorant of the -law and language, rapacious, and lowering the dignity -of government. In short his letter<a id="FNanchor_42" href="#Footnote_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> was a wholesale -condemnation of the representatives of the party which -claimed to represent British civic life in a newly-acquired -possession.</p> - -<p>These men had bitterly attacked Murray, and no doubt -Murray was bitter in turn; but his strictures were largely -justified. He had lived for some years among the -Canadians; he had commanded the King’s troops; himself -a man of high principle and good breeding, he resented -the mischief wrought by a low class of domineering interlopers -who, in the name of freedom, meant to oppress, and -painted as tyranny the policy which prevented oppression. -A continuance of military rule, which the Canadians understood, -would have been infinitely preferable to representative -institutions in which the overwhelming majority of -the population would have had no share.</p> - -<p>Carleton’s view was much the same as Murray’s. His<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_76"></a>[76]</span> -sympathies too were with Canada and the Canadians, and -yet the forces and the instincts on the other side are at -least intelligible. It was natural that, when war was over, -in the train of the conquering army there should drift -into the conquered country a certain number of adventurers, -eager for official and professional gain, exploiting -the land and the people, indifferent to higher objects, for -they had not known them. They were an inevitable evil, -such as must be reckoned with in similar circumstances -at all times and in all places. It was natural too that -Protestantism, when ascendant, should be aggressive; <span class="sidenote">Character of American Protestantism.</span> -and Protestantism in Canada was borrowed from the -New England States; it was the Puritanism of past days, -hardened by memories of the evil wrought by Roman -Catholic teaching among the natives of North America, -the fruits of which had been, times without number, a -series of savage crusades against the border villages of -the British colonies. But the British Government, with -all its kindly intentions, was at fault too; and the -fault was the same evil which was poisoning political -life at home. Unfit men were being sent out from home, <span class="sidenote">Unfit men sent out from England.</span> -and the subordinate instruments for carrying out a new -policy, and making a new régime congenial to those who -were to live under it, were not well chosen. Men were -wanted at first rather than institutions. The soldier -governors were good, but the same could not be said of the -civilians and lawyers.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Pouring -new wine -into old -bottles.</div> - -<p>Once more, too, it must be noticed that the actual merits -of British statesmanship and policy militated against its -success. It was so keenly desired to give the new subjects all -the privileges enjoyed by the old, that too little account was -taken of the training, the wishes, and the present needs of -the new subjects. The Canadians were politically children. -They had never known even the semblance of representative -institutions. They had from all time been born and -bred under authority—under the King, under the Church, -under the seigniors. They had learnt unquestioning -obedience, and could not at once be re-cast in a democratic<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_77"></a>[77]</span> -mould. The printing press, the Assembly for law-making -and debate, the standing quarrels with governors, the -withholding of supplies, the aggressive freedom in every -form which characterized the English communities in -North America, all were alien to the French Canadian. -The wine might be good, but it was new, and pouring it -into old bottles could only have one result, the loss of the -wine and the bursting of the bottles. So also with British -law and justice: that too was new and largely unintelligible; -the language puzzled and confused, and the -lawyers who came in found the confusion profitable. -Premature attempts or proposals to assimilate only served -to emphasize differences, and for the moment good intentions -paved the way to something like anarchy.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Presentment -of the -Grand -Jury in -October, -1764.</div> - -<p>In September, 1764, the ordinance constituting courts -of justice was promulgated, and in the following month -the Grand Jury at Quebec made a presentment, enumerating -a number of alleged grievances, concerned not merely -with the administration of justice, but also with various -matters which lay wholly outside their sphere. ‘We -represent,’ so the framers of the presentment wrote, ‘that -as the Grand Jury must be considered at present as the -only body representative of the colony, they, as British -subjects, have a right to be consulted, before any ordinance -that may affect the body that they represent be passed -into a law.’ It was an impertinent document, a kind of -manifesto against the Government; and, taken by itself -alone, gave ample evidence of the class and the temper of -the men who were determined to make trouble in Canada. -It was signed by some French jurors as well as English, but -a supplement to it, signed by the English, or, at any rate, -by the Protestant members alone, protested against Roman -Catholics being admitted as jurors, and it soon appeared -that the French jurors had signed the main document in -ignorance of its contents.<a id="FNanchor_43" href="#Footnote_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> ‘Little, very little,’ wrote -Murray, ‘will content the new subjects, but nothing will -satisfy the licentious fanatics trading here, but the expulsion<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_78"></a>[78]</span> -of the Canadians who are perhaps the bravest and the -best race upon the globe, a race who, could they be -indulged with a few privileges which the laws of England -deny to Roman Catholics at home, would soon get the -better of every national antipathy to their conquerors and -become the most faithful and most useful set of men in -this American Empire.’<a id="FNanchor_44" href="#Footnote_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a></p> - -<p>The Grand Jury’s presentment was followed by a -petition for the recall of Murray, drawn up in the next <span class="sidenote">Petition for recall of Murray.</span> -year and signed by twenty-one persons, which accused -him of military prejudice against civil liberties, and of discouraging -the Protestants and their religion. It asked for -a new governor of a less military type, and for a House -of Representatives composed of Protestants alone, though -Roman Catholics might be allowed to vote for Protestant -members. Never did a small minority make more extravagant -claims, or attack with greater want of scruple those -who were trying to hold the balance even.</p> - -<p>Carleton succeeded Murray, and soon after his arrival -showed that he was as little disposed, as Murray had been, -to submit to dictation. A side issue had arisen as to the -appointment and precedence of members of the council, -and, in answer to a protest addressed to him by some of -the councillors, he laid down that ‘I will ask the advice -and opinion of such persons, though not of the council, as -I shall find men of good sense, truth, candour, and impartial -justice; persons who prefer their duty to the King, -and the tranquillity of his subjects to unjustifiable -attachments, party zeal, and to all selfish mercenary -views.... I must also remind you that His Majesty’s -service requires tranquillity and peace in his province of -Quebec, and that it is the indispensable duty of every -good subject, and of every honest man, to promote so -desirable an end.’<a id="FNanchor_45" href="#Footnote_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> Still intrigue went on: religious -bitterness did not abate, as men spoke and wrote on either -side: legal confusion became worse confounded, and<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_79"></a>[79]</span> -reports were made on what was and what ought to be the -state of the law, by the English law officers of the Crown, -by a delegate sent out from England, and by Masères, -the Attorney-General in Canada. One crying evil, however, <span class="sidenote">The ordinance of 1770.</span> -arising from the proceedings for the recovery of debts, -which were enriching magistrates and bailiffs and reducing -Canadian families to beggary, was remedied by Carleton -in an ordinance dated 1st February, 1770, which among -other provisions deprived the justices of the peace of -jurisdiction in cases affecting private property.<a id="FNanchor_46" href="#Footnote_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> It was -a righteous ordinance, and those who had profited by the -old system raised an outcry against it, but in vain. Eventually <span class="sidenote">The Quebec Act.</span> -the Quebec Act was passed in 1774, the provisions -of which must now be considered.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Its -objects.</div> - -<p>‘The principal objects of the Quebec Bill,’ we read in -the <i>Annual Register</i> for 1774,<a id="FNanchor_47" href="#Footnote_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> ‘were to ascertain the -limits of that province, which were extended far beyond -what had been settled as such by the King’s Proclamation -of 1763. To form a legislative council for all the affairs -of that province, except taxation, which council should -be appointed by the Crown, the office to be held during -pleasure; and His Majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects -were entitled to a place in it. To establish the French -laws, and a trial without jury, in civil cases: and the -English laws, with a trial by jury, in criminal; to secure -to the Roman Catholic clergy, except the Regulars, the -legal enjoyment of their estates, and of their tythes from -all who were of their own religion. These were the chief -objects of the Act.’</p> - -<p>It has been seen that, under the Proclamation of 1763, -the province of Quebec included the settled part of Canada,<span class="sidenote">Extension of the boundaries of the province of Quebec.</span> -as far as the point where the 45th parallel of latitude<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_80"></a>[80]</span> -intersected the St. Lawrence, midway between Montreal -and Lake Ontario. Outside the province were the -Labrador coast from the river St. John to Hudson Straits, -which, with the island of Anticosti and other small islands -in the estuary of the St. Lawrence, was placed ‘under the -care and inspection’ of the Governor of Newfoundland; -the government of Nova Scotia, including at the time Cape -Breton Island, the territory now forming the province of -New Brunswick, and the island of St. John, afterwards -Prince Edward Island; the territories of the Hudson’s -Bay Company; and the great undefined region of the -lakes and the Ohio as far as the Mississippi. The Quebec -Act restored to Canada or, as it was still styled, the province -of Quebec, the Labrador coast and Anticosti, and -included in it, within the lines which the Act prescribed, -the Western territories for which England and France -had fought so hard.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -Labrador -coast -added to -the province -of -Quebec.</div> - -<p>The reason for re-annexing the Labrador coast to Canada -was that since 1763, when it had been placed under the -Governor of Newfoundland, there had been constant -disputes and difficulties as to the fishing rights on that -coast. It was the old story, so well known in the case of -Newfoundland itself, of a perpetual struggle between -those who lived on or near the spot, and the fishermen -who came over the Atlantic from English ports, and who -wanted the fisheries and the landing-places reserved for -their periodical visits. The Governor of Newfoundland -in the years 1764-8 was an energetic man, Sir Hugh -Palliser, who built a fort in Labrador, and set himself to -enforce the fishing rules which prevailed in Newfoundland. -But the Labrador fisheries, it was contended, were of a -more sedentary nature than those of the Newfoundland -Banks, sealing was as prominent an occupation as cod-fishing;<a id="FNanchor_48" href="#Footnote_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> -the regulations which kept Newfoundland for<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_81"></a>[81]</span> -the Dorset and Devon fishing fleets could not fairly be -applied to the mainland, and the coast of Labrador should -be placed under regular civil government, and not be left -in the charge of the sea captains who held authority in -Newfoundland.</p> - -<p>It was really a case, on a very small scale, of England -against America; and the interesting point to notice is -that the opponents of the Newfoundland régime included -alike French Canadians and New Englanders. The few -settlers on the Labrador coast, and the fishermen and -sealers who came either from Canada or from the New -England states, were all concerned to prevent Labrador -from being kept, like Newfoundland, as a preserve for -Englishmen, and a nursery for English sailors; and it -illustrates the confusion of thought which existed among -the opponents of the Quebec Act that, in the debate on -the Act, we find Chatham, the champion of the rights of -the American colonists, denouncing the provision which -gave back Labrador to Quebec, on the ground that it -would become a nursery for French instead of English -sailors, forgetful that the system which he wished to perpetuate, -had been persistently obstructed by the men of -Massachusetts, forgetful too that true statesmanship conceived -of the French Canadians, on sea or land, as future -loyal citizens of the British Crown.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Inclusion -of the -western -hinterland -in -the province -of -Quebec.</div> - -<p class="pbot1">But the extension of the boundaries of the province of -Quebec on the Atlantic side was after all a small matter, -though the most was made of it for party purposes. -Nor could exception be taken to the enlargement of the -province to the north and north-west, until it reached<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_82"></a>[82]</span> -the territories which had been granted to, or were claimed -by, the Hudson’s Bay Company. Far more important -and more debatable was the inclusion of the western and -south-western regions, which had been left outside the -government of Quebec by the Proclamation of 1763.</p> - -<div class="figcenter illowp70" id="i_082" style="max-width: 43.75em;"> -<img class="w100" src="images/i_082.jpg" alt="" /> - <a rel="nofollow" href="images/i_082large.jpg"> - <span class="screenonly fs60 center">click here for larger image.</span></a> -<div class="caption"><p class="noindent"><b>Canada under the Quebec Act 1774.</b> from T. Pownall’s map of the Middle British Colonies of N. America, -London <b>1775</b>. <span class="pad6"><i>to face page 81</i></span></p> -<p class="left noindent">B. V. Barbishire, Oxford, 1908</p> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="p1">It will be remembered<a id="FNanchor_49" href="#Footnote_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a> that these territories had not -been included in the province of Quebec for three reasons: -that their incorporation with the conquered province -might have been held to be an admission that the British -title to them only dated from the conquest of Canada, -that their annexation to any particular province would -have given to that province a preponderating advantage -in regard to trade with the Indians, and that the extension -to them of the laws and administration of the province of -Quebec would have necessitated the establishment of a -number of military garrisons throughout the territories. -The first of these three objections was, in fact, taken in the -debates on the Quebec Bill. ‘The first object of the Bill,’ -said Mr. Dunning in the House of Commons on the 26th -of May, 1774, ‘is to make out that to be<a id="FNanchor_50" href="#Footnote_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> Canada, which -it was the struggle of this country to say, was not Canada.’ -The second objection was clearly potent in the minds of -the partisans of the old British colonies, who opposed the -Bill. It would seem that when the Proclamation of 1763 -was issued, the British Government had contemplated -passing an Act of Parliament, constituting a separate -administration for the Western territories, but the plan, -whatever it was, never came to the birth;<a id="FNanchor_51" href="#Footnote_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a> and, as the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_83"></a>[83]</span> -King had foreseen, ‘great inconvenience’ had arisen ‘from -so large a tract of land being left, without being subject to -the civil jurisdiction of some governor’.<a id="FNanchor_52" href="#Footnote_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> This inconvenience -the Quebec Act tried to rectify by bringing -these western lands under the government of Canada.</p> - -<p>The line now laid down, on the motion of Burke in the -House of Commons, was carried from the point where -the 45th parallel of latitude intersected the St. Lawrence -to Lake Ontario, up Lake Ontario and the Niagara river -into Lake Erie, and along the southern or eastern shore of -Lake Erie, until it met the alleged frontier of the state -of Pennsylvania, or, if that frontier was found not to -touch the lake, up to the point nearest to the north-western -angle of Pennsylvania. From that angle it -skirted the western boundary of Pennsylvania down to -the Ohio, which river it followed to the Mississippi.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Claims of -Pennsylvania.</div> - -<p>In the debate in the House of Commons a petition was -presented from the Penns, claiming that part of the -province of Pennsylvania was situated to the north-west -of the Ohio, and Lord North offered no opposition to the -petition, on the ground that the Bill was not intended -to affect existing rights. On a map of 1776, after the -passing of the Act, Pennsylvania was shown as jutting -out at an acute angle into Lake Erie, and the boundary -line, identical with the western frontier of the state, started -from the lake near Presque Isle, and struck the Ohio at -Logs Town, west of Fort Duquesne and slightly east of -Beaver Creek, leaving to Pennsylvania the whole course -of the Alleghany, and Fort Duquesne or Pittsburg. It -will be noted that, further east, the line, being drawn -along the St. Lawrence and the lakes, excluded from -Canada the whole country of the Six Nations, which had -been demarcated as Indian Territory by the Agreement -of 1768.<a id="FNanchor_53" href="#Footnote_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> The net result was to leave the boundary line<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_84"></a>[84]</span> -south of the St. Lawrence, where it had been drawn in -1763, as far as the intersection of the 45th parallel with -the river, and thence to follow the waterways up to the -point in the southern shore of Lake Erie where the old -French route to the Ohio left the lake. From the Atlantic -up to this point the present international line between -Canada and the United States is not far different at the -present day, though more favourable to the United States, -especially where, since the Ashburton Treaty of 1842, the -state of Maine runs northward into the provinces of -Quebec and New Brunswick. But, by carrying the boundary -from Lake Erie to the Ohio and down the Ohio to -the Mississippi, all the Illinois country and all the western -lands, for which English and French had contended, were -confirmed to Canada.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Reasons -for the -extension -of the -province.</div> - -<p>There were good reasons for taking this step. Eleven -years had passed since the territories in question had been -left as an Indian reserve. Events move quickly in a -border land, and encroachments grow apace. The time -had come for some defined system, some recognized law -and government. As far as there were permanent settlers -in these regions, they were, it would seem, although the -contrary was averred in the House of Commons, French -rather than English; and it would be more palatable for -colonists of French origin to be incorporated with Canada -than to be absorbed by the purely English colonies. The -native population would unquestionably be better cared -for under the government of Quebec than under the -legislatures of Pennsylvania and Virginia. The waterways -still, as in old times, made communication easier -from Canada than from the southern colonies; and to -those colonies, on the brink of war against the mother -country, the mother country could hardly be expected to -entrust the keeping of the West.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Arguments -urged -against it.</div> - -<p>On the other hand there was bitter and intelligible -opposition to the annexation to Canada of ‘immense -territories, now desert, but which are the best parts of -that continent and which run on the back of all your<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_85"></a>[85]</span> -ancient colonies’.<a id="FNanchor_54" href="#Footnote_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a> The decision which was now taken -meant cutting off the existing English colonies from the -West; and, in view of the other provisions of the Act, the -incorporation of the new territories with Canada placed -them under an administration in which there was at the -time no element of self-government and which gave -formal recognition to the Roman Catholic Church. It was, -in short, or seemed to be, an admission that the old claim -of Canada to the regions of the Ohio, against which, -while Canada was still a French possession, the British -Government and the British colonies had alike contended, -was after all a valid claim; and it was, or seemed to be, -a pronouncement that in years to come the future of the -Western lands was to be shaped on Canadian principles -and Canadian traditions, rather than on those which had -moulded and inspired the ever-growing colonies of the -British race.</p> - -<p>It has been argued that true statesmanship would, in -accordance with the plan which had been at one time -contemplated, have constituted the territories beyond the -45th parallel a separate province under the Crown, -separate alike from Canada on the one hand, and from -Pennsylvania and Virginia on the other. This might -possibly have been a preferable course; but, as subsequent -experience showed in the case of Upper Canada, an inland -colony, whose only outlet is through other provinces, is -always in a difficult position; and the multiplication of -communities in North America had already borne a crop -of difficulties. Moreover, the particular circumstances of -the time accounted for the decision which was taken, as -they accounted also for the strong antagonism which that -decision called forth. In the same session in which the -Quebec Act was passed, the British Parliament had already -enacted three punitive laws against the recalcitrant -colony of Massachusetts; one closing the harbour of -Boston; another altering the legislature, and giving to -the governor the power of appointing and removing the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_86"></a>[86]</span> -judges, magistrates, and sheriffs; and a third empowering -the trial of persons accused of capital offences in the -discharge of their public duties to be held outside the -limits of the province. If it was thought necessary thus -to limit the liberties of one of the English colonies by -Imperial legislation, it would have been hopelessly illogical -to enlarge the borders of others among the sister communities; -and if the only possible alternative was to keep -the Western territories directly under the Crown, it was -simpler, and involved less friction and debate, to attach -them by a single clause in a Bill to the existing province -of Quebec, than to treat them as a separate unit and to -provide them with an administration and a legislature by -a separate law. Furthermore, their annexation to Canada -outwardly, at any rate, strengthened at a critical time the -one province in America where the Crown still held undivided -sway.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Sections -in the -Act -which -dealt -with the -religious -question.</div> - -<p>The fifth, sixth, and seventh sections of the Act dealt -with religion. They provided for the free exercise of -the Roman Catholic faith by the members of that Church, -subject to the King’s supremacy as established by the -Act passed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth; but they -substituted a simple oath of allegiance for the oath required -by Queen Elizabeth’s statute, and they confirmed -to the Roman Catholic clergy ‘their accustomed dues -and rights’. Protestants were expressly exempted from -these payments; but the Act provided that, from such -dues as they would otherwise have paid, provision might be -made for the encouragement of the Protestant religion -and the maintenance of a Protestant clergy. In other -words, freedom of religion was guaranteed, the establishment -of the Roman Catholic Church was recognized -by law, and the principle of concurrent endowment was -introduced.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Other -provisions -of -the Act.</div> - -<p>The eighth section of the Act restored Canadian law -and custom in civil matters, and confirmed existing rights -to property, with the exception of the property of the -religious orders. The eleventh section continued the law<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_87"></a>[87]</span> -of England in criminal matters. The twelfth, laying down -that it was at present inexpedient to call an Assembly, provided -for a nominated Legislative Council, consisting of -not more than twenty-three and not less than seventeen -members, no religious test being imposed. The next -section withheld from the council the power of taxation, -such additional taxes as were deemed necessary being -imposed by a separate Act of the Imperial Parliament.<a id="FNanchor_55" href="#Footnote_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">The Act -embodied -a compromise.</div> - -<p>Such were the principal provisions of the Quebec Act. -It embodied a fair and reasonable compromise. In part -the Government retraced their steps; they restored -Canadian civil law, they postponed indefinitely a representative -legislature, but they gave what could under the -circumstances be suitably and prudently given, religious -toleration, trial by jury in criminal matters, and a council -to which the Crown could call representatives of all creeds -and interests. The Bill was attacked in the House of <span class="sidenote">Opposition to it.</span> -Lords, and in the House of Commons; and, even after it -had become law, in 1775, Lord Camden in the House of -Lords, and Sir George Savile in the House of Commons, -presented petitions from the British inhabitants of the -province of Quebec against the Act and moved for its -repeal. The corporation of London petitioned against it. -The American colonists made it the text of the manifesto -to the people of Canada, which has already been noticed.<a id="FNanchor_56" href="#Footnote_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a> -In the debates in Parliament various points were taken. -Fox argued that, as the Bill gave tithes to the Roman -Catholic clergy, it was a money Bill, and should not have -originated, as it did originate in the House of Lords. -Others criticized the absence of any provision for the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_88"></a>[88]</span> -rights of Habeas Corpus,<a id="FNanchor_57" href="#Footnote_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a> and the abolition of trial by -jury in civil cases; but the main attack was on the lines -that the law gave formal recognition to the Roman -Catholic Church, that it withheld popular representation, -and that it extended these two unsound principles to new -territories whose lot should rather have been cast with -the English colonies. Reference was made to the case of -the colony of Grenada, in which limited representation -in the popular Assembly had been given to Roman<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_89"></a>[89]</span> -Catholics; but the opponents of the Quebec Act had not -the courage to declare for a popular Assembly for Canada, -without any religious test, for it would have meant an -almost exclusively Roman Catholic legislature. They <span class="sidenote">Inconsistency of the opponents.</span> -were at one and the same time fighting for the Protestant -minority and contending for popular representation, but -Protestant claims and popular representation in Canada -were hopelessly at variance. This made the case of the -opposition weak, and this was the justification of the Act. -Lord Chatham denounced it as a most cruel, oppressive, -and odious measure. Burke tried to appeal to popular -prejudice against the Canadian seigniors. He attacked -them, and he pressed the claims of the Protestant minority -on the ground of their commercial importance, descending -to such clap-trap as that in his opinion, in the case in point, -one Englishman was worth fifty Frenchmen. The tone -of the opposition was unworthy of the men, but minds had -been so embittered and judgements so clouded by years of -wrangle and debate on the American question, that the -Act for the better government of Canada was viewed by -the opponents of the ministry and the partisans of the -colonies mainly as a case of French against English, and -Papists against Protestants. None the less, the Act was -a just and generous measure, and, when Carleton returned -to Canada in September, 1774, his reception by the leading -French Canadians showed that they appreciated it. -Because, when war came, the Canadians as a whole stood -aloof in a quarrel which was no concern of theirs, and -some of them joined the revolting colonies, it was argued -in the English Parliament that the Act had not conciliated -them, and therefore stood condemned; but history has -proved that this view was not true. No one measure or -series of measures can at once obliterate differences of race, -language, and creed; but, passed as it was at a time of -failures, recrimination, and bitterness, the Quebec Act -stood and will to all times stand to the credit of English -good sense, in dealing with the actual facts of a difficult -position, and the feelings and prejudices of an alien people.</p> - -<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_16" href="#FNanchor_16" class="label">[16]</a> <i>Travels into North America</i>, by Peter Kalm, Eng. Transl.; 1770, -vol. i, pp. 264-5.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_17" href="#FNanchor_17" class="label">[17]</a> Montcalm’s letters, however, to which reference is here made, are -held to have been forged by a Jesuit or ex-Jesuit named Roubaud. -See Mr. Brymner’s <i>Report on Canadian Archives</i> for the year 1885, -p. xiii, &c., and Note E, p. cxxxviii. See also Parkman’s <i>Montcalm -and Wolfe</i>, 1884 ed., vol. ii, pp. 325-6, Note.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_18" href="#FNanchor_18" class="label">[18]</a> <i>History of England in the Eighteenth Century</i>, 1882 ed., vol. iii, -chap. xii, p. 272.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_19" href="#FNanchor_19" class="label">[19]</a> From the anonymous <i>Lettre d’un habitant de Louisbourg</i>, edited -and translated by Professor Wrong, Toronto, 1897, p. 58.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_20" href="#FNanchor_20" class="label">[20]</a> As to the authenticity of Montcalm’s letters, see above, note to p. 31.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_21" href="#FNanchor_21" class="label">[21]</a> Sir G. Cornewall Lewis, in the <i>Essay on the Government of Dependencies</i>, -chap. vi, writes that the North American colonies ‘had not been required -at any time since their foundation to contribute anything to the -expenses of the Supreme Government, and there is scarcely any habit -which it is so difficult for a government to overcome in a people as -a habit of not paying’.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_22" href="#FNanchor_22" class="label">[22]</a> <i>Wealth of Nations</i>: chapter on the ‘Causes of the Prosperity of -New Colonies’.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_23" href="#FNanchor_23" class="label">[23]</a> <i>Wealth of Nations</i>: chapters on the ‘Causes of the Prosperity of -New Colonies’, and on the ‘Advantages which Europe has derived -from the Discovery of America and from that of a Passage to the -East Indies by the Cape of Good Hope’.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_24" href="#FNanchor_24" class="label">[24]</a> The Greek colonies will be remembered to the contrary. Some -of them speedily outgrew the mother cities in wealth and population, -but then they were wholly independent.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_25" href="#FNanchor_25" class="label">[25]</a> <i>The American Revolution</i>, 1899 ed., Part I, chap. ii, p. 101.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_26" href="#FNanchor_26" class="label">[26]</a> See above, p. 38.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_27" href="#FNanchor_27" class="label">[27]</a> Chapter on ‘Causes of the Prosperity of New Colonies’.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_28" href="#FNanchor_28" class="label">[28]</a> The above, however, was not Adam Smith’s view. In the chapter -‘Of the Advantages which Europe has derived from the Discovery of -America, &c. &c.’ he writes, ‘The late war was altogether a colony -quarrel, and the whole expense of it, in whatever part of the world -it may have been laid out, whether in Germany or the East Indies, ought -justly to be stated to the account of the colonies.’</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_29" href="#FNanchor_29" class="label">[29]</a> It is very difficult to state the case quite fairly as between the -mother country and the colonies. In the first place a broad distinction -must be drawn between the New England colonies and the more -southern colonies. The New Englanders, who had the French on their -borders, made far more sacrifices in men and money than the southern -colonies, some of which, owing to remoteness, took no part in the -war. The efforts of Massachusetts, and the military expenditure -incurred by that colony, are set out by Mr. Parkman in his <i>Montcalm -and Wolfe</i>, 1884 ed., vol. ii, chap. xx, pp. 83-6. In the next place, -the regular regiments, though the whole expense of them was borne -by the mother country, were to a considerable extent recruited in -the colonies. The Royal Americans, e.g. were entirely composed of -colonists. At the second siege of Louisbourg the English force consisted, -according to Parkman, of 11,600 men, of whom only 500 were -provincial troops, and according to Kingsford of 12,260, of whom five -companies only were Rangers. The expedition against Ticonderoga, -excluding bateau men and non-combatants, included, according to -Kingsford, 6,405 regulars and 5,960 provincials. Parkman gives 6,367 -regulars and 9,034 provincials; this was before the actual advance -began, and probably included bateau men, &c. Forbes’ army contained -1,630 regulars out of a total of 5,980 (Kingsford). Wolfe’s -force at Quebec, in 1759, numbered 8,535 combatants, out of whom -the provincial troops only amounted to about 700 (Kingsford. See -also Parkman’s <i>Montcalm and Wolfe</i>, Appendix H). Amherst, in the -same year, in the campaign on Lakes George and Champlain, commanded -6,537 Imperial troops and 4,839 provincials. [The respective -numbers in the different forces are well summed up in the fifth volume -of Kingsford’s <i>History of Canada</i>, pp. 273-4.]</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_30" href="#FNanchor_30" class="label">[30]</a> It is interesting to notice that as early as 1652 a proposal emanated -from Barbados that colonial representatives from that island should -sit in the Imperial Parliament.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_31" href="#FNanchor_31" class="label">[31]</a> Grenville carried a resolution in the House of Commons in favour -of the Stamp Act in 1764. The Act received the Royal Assent in -March, 1765, and came into operation on November 1, 1765.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_32" href="#FNanchor_32" class="label">[32]</a> O’Callaghan’s <i>Documentary History of New York</i>, vol. ii (1849), -MSS. of Sir William Johnson; this was at a public meeting of the -Six Nations with Sir William Johnson, July 3, 1755.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_33" href="#FNanchor_33" class="label">[33]</a> Sir W. Johnson to the Rev. Mr. Wheelock, October 16, 1762. -<i>Documentary History of New York</i>, vol. iv. Paper relating principally -to the conversion and civilization of the Six Nations of Indians.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_34" href="#FNanchor_34" class="label">[34]</a> See O’Callaghan’s <i>Documentary History of New York</i>, 1849, vol. i, -Paper No. 20, pp. 587-91.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_35" href="#FNanchor_35" class="label">[35]</a> General Murray to Lord Shelburne, London, August 20, 1766. -See Kingsford’s <i>History of Canada</i>, vol. v, p. 188.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_36" href="#FNanchor_36" class="label">[36]</a> See <i>Documents Relating to the Constitutional History of Canada</i>, -1759-91 (Shortt and Doughty), pp. 37-72.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_37" href="#FNanchor_37" class="label">[37]</a> The delay was probably due to the provisions of the fourth clause -of the Treaty of Paris, by which eighteen months were to be allowed -to the subjects of the French king in Canada, who wished to leave -the country, to do so. The treaty was signed on February 10, 1763, -and was ratified by England on February 21, 1763; the eighteen -months were to run from the date of ratification, but civil government -in Canada began on August 10, 1764, i.e. eighteen months from the -date of the treaty itself.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_38" href="#FNanchor_38" class="label">[38]</a> ‘The Canadians are to a man soldiers, and will naturally conceive -that he who commands the troops should govern them.’ Murray to -Halifax, October 15, 1764. Shortt and Doughty, p. 153.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_39" href="#FNanchor_39" class="label">[39]</a> The words, ‘under our immediate government,’ did not connote -what would now be called Crown colonies as opposed to self-governing -colonies, but colonies which held under the Crown and not under -proprietors.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_40" href="#FNanchor_40" class="label">[40]</a> The Lords of Trade to Lord Egremont, June 8, 1763. Shortt and -Doughty, p. 104.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_41" href="#FNanchor_41" class="label">[41]</a> Part of the 4th Article of the Peace of Paris in 1763 ran as -follows: ‘His Britannic Majesty, on his side, agrees to grant the -liberty of the Catholic religion to the inhabitants of Canada; he will -in consequence give the most precise and most effectual orders, that -his new Roman Catholic subjects may profess the worship of their -religion according to the rites of the Romish Church, as far as the laws -of Great Britain permit.’</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_42" href="#FNanchor_42" class="label">[42]</a> The letter is printed in full in the fifth volume of Kingsford’s -<i>History of Canada</i>, pp. 188-90.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_43" href="#FNanchor_43" class="label">[43]</a> For these documents see Shortt and Doughty, pp. 153, &c.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_44" href="#FNanchor_44" class="label">[44]</a> October 29, 1764. See Shortt and Doughty, p. 167.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_45" href="#FNanchor_45" class="label">[45]</a> October, 1766: Shortt and Doughty, pp. 194-5.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_46" href="#FNanchor_46" class="label">[46]</a> For this ordinance see Shortt and Doughty, p. 280. Carleton’s -dispatch of March 28, 1770, which enclosed the ordinance, explained the -reasons for passing it, and submitted in evidence of the abuses which -had sprung up a letter from an ex-captain of Canadian militia, will be -found printed in Mr. Brymner’s <i>Report on Canadian Archives</i> for 1890 -(published in 1891), Note A.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_47" href="#FNanchor_47" class="label">[47]</a> p. 75</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_48" href="#FNanchor_48" class="label">[48]</a> A French Canadian petition to the King, drawn up about the end -of 1773, referred in the following terms to the Labrador question: -‘We desire also that His Majesty would be graciously pleased to -re-annex to this province the coast of Labrador, which formerly belonged -to it, and has been taken from it since the peace. The fishery for -seals, which is the only fishery carried on upon this coast, is carried -on only in the middle of winter, and sometimes does not last above -a fortnight. The nature of this fishery, which none of His Majesty’s -subjects but the inhabitants of this province understand; the short -time of its continuance; and the extreme severity of the weather, -which makes it impossible for ships to continue at that time upon -the coasts; are circumstances which all conspire to exclude any -fishermen from old England from having any share in the conduct -of it.’ (Shortt and Doughty, pp. 358-9.)</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_49" href="#FNanchor_49" class="label">[49]</a> See above, p. 6, and Shortt and Doughty, p. 111.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_50" href="#FNanchor_50" class="label">[50]</a> See <i>Canadian Constitutional Development</i>, Egerton and Grant, p. 28.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_51" href="#FNanchor_51" class="label">[51]</a> See Shortt and Doughty, p. 381. Paper as to Proposed extension -of Provincial Limits: ‘The King’s servants were induced to confine -the government of Quebec within the above limits, from an apprehension -that there were no settlements of Canadian subjects, or lawful -possessions beyond those limits, and from a hope of being able to -carry into execution a plan that was then under consideration for -putting the whole of the interior country to the westward of our -colonies under one general control and regulation by Act of Parliament.... -The plan for the regulation of the interior country proved -abortive, and in consequence thereof an immense tract of very valuable -land, within which there are many possessions and actual colonies -existing under the faith of the Treaty of Paris, has become the theatre -of disorder and confusion....’</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_52" href="#FNanchor_52" class="label">[52]</a> See above, p. 5, and Shortt and Doughty, p. 108.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_53" href="#FNanchor_53" class="label">[53]</a> See above, p. 59.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_54" href="#FNanchor_54" class="label">[54]</a> <i>Annual Register</i> for 1774, p. 77.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_55" href="#FNanchor_55" class="label">[55]</a> The Quebec Act was 14 Geo. III, cap. 83, and its full title was -‘An act for making more effectual provision for the government of -the Province of Quebec in North America’. The Quebec Revenue Act -was 14 Geo. III, cap. 88, and its full title was ‘An act to establish -a fund towards further defraying the charges of the Administration -of Justice and support of the Civil Government within the Province -of Quebec in America’. Much was heard of this latter Act in the -constitutional wrangles of later years in Lower Canada.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_56" href="#FNanchor_56" class="label">[56]</a> See above, p. 60.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_57" href="#FNanchor_57" class="label">[57]</a> The opponents of the Quebec Act maintained that it took away -the right of Habeas Corpus. Thus petitions from English residents -in Quebec, dated November 12, 1774, complained, in respect to the -Quebec Act, ‘That in matters of a Criminal Nature the Habeas Corpus -Act is dissolved:’ and again, ‘That to their inexpressible grief they -find, by an Act of Parliament entitled an act for making more effectual -provision for the government of the province of Quebec in North -America, they are deprived of the Habeas Corpus Act and trial by -juries:’ and again, ‘an Act of Parliament which deprives His Majesty’s -ancient subjects of all their rights and franchises, destroys the Habeas -Corpus Act and the inestimable privilege of trial by juries’ (Shortt -and Doughty, pp. 414-18). The Government on the other hand contended -that before the Quebec Act, the Statute of Habeas Corpus was -not in force in Canada, although, both before and after the Act, the -Common Law right existed. Thus Wedderburn, the Solicitor-General, -before the Quebec Act was drafted but while the subject matter was -being considered by the Government, reported, ‘It is recommended -by the Governor, the Chief Justice, and the Attorney-General, in -their report, to extend the provisions of the Habeas Corpus Act to -Canada. The inhabitants will, of course, be entitled to the benefit -of the writ of Habeas Corpus at Common Law, but it may be proper -to be better assured of their fidelity and attachment, before the provisions -of the statute are extended to that country’ (Ib. 300); and -in November, 1783, Governor Haldimand reported that he was going -to propose an ordinance for introducing the Habeas Corpus Act, ‘which -will remove one of the ill-grounded objections to the Quebec Act, for -though that law had never been introduced into the province, people -were taught to believe that the Quebec Act had deprived the inhabitants -of the benefit of it’ (Ib. 499). The point at issue, and it is not free -from doubt, was whether the introduction <i>en bloc</i> of the English criminal -law into Canada, brought with it <i>ipso facto</i> the introduction of the -Habeas Corpus statute. Haldimand passed his ordinance in 1784 -under the title of an ‘Act for securing the liberty of the subject and -for the prevention of imprisonments out of this province’. The preamble -stated that ‘The Legislature could not follow a better example -than that which the Common Law of England hath set in the provision -made for a writ of Habeas Corpus which is the right of every British -subject in that kingdom’.</p> -</div> -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="chapter"></div> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_90"></a>[90]</span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_III">CHAPTER III<br /> -<span class="fs80">THE WAR OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE</span></h2> - -<div class="sidenote">Ticonderoga -and -Crown -Point.</div> - -<p>The War of American Independence began with the -skirmish at Lexington on the 19th of April, 1775. The -battle of Bunker’s Hill was fought on the following 16th -of June. Between these two dates a forward move was -made towards Canada by the American colonists, and the -forts of Ticonderoga and Crown Point on Lake Champlain -were surprised and taken.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Carleton -urges the -upkeep of -strong -forts in -North -America.</div> - -<p>Years before, shortly after taking over the administration -of Canada, Carleton had called attention to the -dilapidated condition of these forts. In a letter, dated -the 15th of February, 1767,<a id="FNanchor_58" href="#Footnote_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a> he wrote to General Gage, -then Commander-in-Chief in North America—‘the forts of -Crown Point, Ticonderoga, and Fort George are in a very -declining condition, of which, I believe, your Excellency -is well informed. Should you approve of keeping up -these posts, it will be best to repair them as soon as -possible.’ The letter went on to suggest that, in addition -to repairing the forts in question, there should be ‘a -proper place of arms near the town of New York and a -citadel in or near the town of Quebec’, the object being to -secure communication with the mother country and to -link the two provinces together. Written in view of -‘the state of affairs on this continent’, the letter was -statesmanlike and farseeing in a high degree. The writer -argued that ‘the natural and political situation of the -provinces of Quebec and New York is such as must for -ever give them great influence and weight in the American -system’. He pleaded, therefore, for strong forts at -Quebec and New York, and strong posts on the line -between New York and Canada. Thus, in the event of -war breaking out, the King’s magazines would be kept<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_91"></a>[91]</span> -secure, the northern colonies would be separated from the <span class="sidenote">Carleton’s policy: (1) adequate defences -and garrisons: (2) attachment of the Canadians to the British Crown especially by giving them employment under the government.</span> -southern, and delay in transport and difficulty of communication, -so dangerous, especially in the early stages -of a war, would be averted. In the years which preceded -the War of American Independence, Carleton had constantly -in view the twofold contingency of war with -France and war with the British colonies in America; -and there were two cardinal points in his policy, which he -never ceased to impress upon the Home Government, on -the one hand the necessity for adequate military forces, -and adequate forts in America, on the other the necessity -for taking such steps as would attach the Canadians to -the British Crown.</p> - -<p>In November, 1767,<a id="FNanchor_59" href="#Footnote_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> he wrote to Shelburne, ‘The town -of Quebec is the only post in this province that has the -least claim to be called a fortified place; for the flimsy -wall about Montreal, was it not falling to ruins, could only -turn musketry.’ He went on to show how the French -officers who still remained in Canada, and the Canadian -seigniors who had served France, had lost their employment -through the conquest of Canada, and, not having -been taken into the English King’s service, had no motive -to be ‘active in the defence of a people that has deprived -them of their honours, privileges, profits, and laws’; -and again he urged the importance of building a citadel, -for which he enclosed a plan, within the town of Quebec. -‘A work of this nature,’ he wrote, ‘is not only necessary -as matters now stand, but supposing the Canadians -could be interested to take a part in the defence of the -King’s Government, a change not impossible to bring -about, yet time must bring forth events that will render it -essentially necessary for the British interests on this continent -to secure this port of communication with the -mother country.’</p> - -<p>In January, 1868,<a id="FNanchor_60" href="#Footnote_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a> he wrote again to Shelburne, and -referring to his previous letter and to the scheme for constructing<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_92"></a>[92]</span> -a citadel at Quebec, he said—‘Was this already -constructed, and I could suppose it impossible for any -foreign enemy to shake the King’s dominion over the -province, still I shall think the interests of Great Britain -but half advanced, unless the Canadians are inspired with -a cordial attachment and zeal for the King’s Government.’ -Once more he urged that the Canadians had no motive -of self-interest to attach them to British rule. The laws -and customs which affected their property had been overturned. -Justice was slow and expensive. The different -offices claimed ‘as their right, fees calculated for much -wealthier provinces’; and the leading Canadians were -excluded from all places of trust and profit. Give the -people back their old laws and customs in civil matters, let -them feel thereby secure in their property, take a few -Canadians into the service of the Crown, enlist in the -King’s forces ‘a few companies of Canadian foot, judiciously -officered’, ‘hold up hopes to the gentlemen, that -their children, without being bred up in France, or in the -French service, might support their families in the service -of the King their master,’ and, at any rate, some proportion -of the French Canadians would be found loyally attached -to the British Government.</p> - -<p>Another letter, written to Lord Hillsborough in -November, 1768,<a id="FNanchor_61" href="#Footnote_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a> was in similar terms. It referred to -rumours of French intrigues and of a contemplated rising -on the part of the Canadian gentry. Carleton discredited -the rumours, but added, ‘Notwithstanding this, and their -decent and respectful obedience to the King’s Government -hitherto, I have not the least doubt of their secret attachment -to France, and think this will continue, as long as -they are excluded from all employments under the British -Government.’ He reflected ‘that France naturally has -the affections of all the people: that, to make no mention -of fees of office and of the vexations of the law, we have -done nothing to gain one man in the province, by making -it his private interest to remain the King’s subject’. He<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_93"></a>[93]</span> -went on to point out that ‘the King’s dominion here is -maintained but by a few troops, necessarily dispersed, -without a place of security for their magazines, for their -arms, or for themselves, amidst a numerous military -people, the gentlemen all officers of experience, poor, -without hopes that they or their descendants will be -admitted into the service of their present Sovereign’, and -he argued that, were a war with France to coincide with a -rising of the British colonies in North America, the danger -to the British power would be great. ‘Canada, probably, -will then become the principal scene, where the fate of -America may be determined.’ On the other hand he urged—‘How -greatly Canada might for ever support the -British interests on this continent, for it is not united in -any common principle, interest, or wish with the other -provinces, in opposition to the supreme seat of government, -was the King’s dominion over it only strengthened by -a citadel, which a few national troops might secure, and -the natives attached by making it their interest to remain -his subjects.’</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Carleton’s -sympathy -with the -French -Canadians.</div> - -<p>In the second of these letters<a id="FNanchor_62" href="#Footnote_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a> from which quotations -have been made, Carleton said that he would endeavour -to represent the true situation of the province to the -ministers at home, who were already engaged in considering -‘the improvement of the civil constitution of -Quebec’, lest the King’s servants, with all their ability, -should be at a disadvantage in forming their conclusions -‘for want of having truly represented to them objects at -so great a distance, and in themselves so different from -what is to be found in any other of his dominions’. But -it was not merely a case of the man on the spot advising -the men at a distance; the value of Carleton’s advice was -largely due to the fact of his being a soldier. To this -fact must be attributed, in great measure, the strong -sympathy which the soldier-governors felt with the French -Canadians, and on Carleton’s part more especially with -the French Canadian gentry. As Murray had pointed<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_94"></a>[94]</span> -out,<a id="FNanchor_63" href="#Footnote_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a> the Canadians were a people of soldiers; they were -<span class="sidenote">The French Canadians were a people of soldiers accustomed to personal rule.</span> -accustomed to personal rule and attachment rather than -to the rule of the law. To high minded English officers, -themselves brought up in the King’s service, trained to -discipline, to well ordered grades of obedience, the old -Canadian system with its feudal customs was congenial -and attractive, and they resented attempts to substitute -for it the beginnings of undisciplined democracy. Hence -Carleton laid stress on taking Canadian gentlemen into -the government service, and on enlisting companies of -Canadian soldiers, in other words, on making the Canadians -feel that they were, as they had been in past times, the -King’s men. Hence, too, we find him in a letter to -Shelburne of April, 1768,<a id="FNanchor_64" href="#Footnote_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a> recommending full recognition -and continuance of the old feudal tenures of Canada, -including ‘a formal requisition of all those immediately -holding of the King, to pay faith and homage to him at -his castle of St. Lewis’. If left to himself, he would have -liked to repeal entirely the Ordinance of September, 1764, -which introduced English laws into Canada, ‘and for the -present leave the Canadian laws almost entire;’<a id="FNanchor_65" href="#Footnote_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a> and, -though he assented to the compromise embodied in the -Quebec Act, whereby the criminal law was to be that of -England, while in civil matters Canadian law and custom -were in the main to prevail, we find him in June, 1775,<a id="FNanchor_66" href="#Footnote_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a> -after war had begun, writing to Dartmouth, ‘For my part, -since my return to this province I have seen good cause<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_95"></a>[95]</span> -to repent my ever having recommended the Habeas -Corpus Act and English criminal laws.’</p> - -<p>It was due to Carleton that the Ordinance of 1770, to -which reference has already been made,<a id="FNanchor_67" href="#Footnote_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a> was passed, -taking away from the justices of the peace jurisdiction -in matters of private property which had been exercised -to the detriment of the French Canadians. It was due to -him that in 1771 a new Royal Instruction was issued, -authorizing the governor to revert to the old French -system of grants of Crown lands ‘in Fief or Seigneurie’;<a id="FNanchor_68" href="#Footnote_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a> -and his influence was all in favour of the clauses in the -Quebec Act which were favourable to the ‘new subjects’, -the French Canadians, who, at the time when the War of -American Independence began, seem to have numbered -under 100,000.<a id="FNanchor_69" href="#Footnote_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Carleton -returns -from -England -in September, -1774, and -sends two -regiments -to Boston.</div> - -<p>As has been told, Carleton came back from England to -Quebec in the middle of September, 1774, finding the -French Canadians in great good humour at the passing of -the Quebec Act. Twenty hours after his arrival an -express letter reached him from General Gage, still Commander-in-Chief -in North America, who was then at -Boston.<a id="FNanchor_70" href="#Footnote_70" class="fnanchor">[70]</a> In it Gage asked his colleague to send at once -to Boston, if they could be spared, the 10th and 52nd -Regiments, which formed a large part of the scanty garrison -of Canada. The transports which brought the letter -were to take back the troops. September, 1774, was a -critical month in the North American provinces. The -first continental Congress met at Philadelphia; and at -Suffolk, near Boston, on the 9th September, a public<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_96"></a>[96]</span> -meeting passed resolutions,<a id="FNanchor_71" href="#Footnote_71" class="fnanchor">[71]</a> boldly advocating resistance -to the recent Acts of Parliament.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Proposals -to -raise -Canadian -and -Indian -forces.</div> - -<p>Accordingly, in addition to his request for the two -regiments, Gage wrote—‘As I must look forward to the -worst, from the apparent disposition of the people here, -I am to ask your opinion, whether a body of Canadians -and Indians might be collected and confided in, for the -service in this country, should matters come to extremities.’ -Carleton promptly replied: ‘Pilots are sent down the -river, the 10th and 52nd shall be ready to embark at a -moment’s notice;’ and the regiments were sent to Boston, -as in later years Lord Lawrence, at the time of the Indian -Mutiny, denuded the Punjaub of soldiers, in order to -strengthen the force which was besieging Delhi. Carleton’s -letter continued: ‘The Canadians have testified to me -the strongest marks of joy and gratitude, and fidelity to -the King, and to his Government, for the late arrangements -made at home in their favour: a Canadian regiment would -complete their happiness, which in time of need might be <span class="sidenote">Carleton strongly favours raising a Canadian regiment.</span> -augmented to two, three, or more battalions ... the -savages of this province, I hear, are in very good humour, -a Canadian battalion would be a great motive and go far -to influence them, but you know what sort of people they -are.’ Here was the opportunity which Carleton desired, -of taking the Canadians into the King’s service. Following -on the Quebec Act, he looked to such a measure as -likely to rivet Canadian loyalty to the British Crown, -and evidently took himself, and inspired the Home Government -with, too hopeful a view of the amount of support -to be expected from the Canadians, looking to and sympathizing -with the seigniors rather than the lower classes -of the people of Canada. It will be noted that both Gage -and he contemplated employing Indians, in the event of -war between the mother country and the North American -colonies. Indians had been used on either side in the -wars with the French, but it seems strange that there is no<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_97"></a>[97]</span> -hint or suggestion in these letters of the danger and impolicy -of employing them against the British colonists.<a id="FNanchor_72" href="#Footnote_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a></p> - -<p>In November, 1774, writing to Dartmouth,<a id="FNanchor_73" href="#Footnote_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a> Carleton -still spoke of the gratitude and loyalty of the French -Canadians, but there was a warning note in his letter. -While the respectable members of the English community -at Quebec supported the Government, there was much -disloyalty among the British residents at Montreal. -The resolutions of the Philadelphia Congress, and their -address to the people of Canada, had reached that place. -Walker was much in evidence, embittered by the outrage -which he had suffered some years before,<a id="FNanchor_74" href="#Footnote_74" class="fnanchor">[74]</a> and, with others, -was organizing meetings and petitions both at Montreal -and at Quebec. These proceedings, Carleton wrote, were -causing uneasiness to the Canadians, and he concluded -that ‘Government cannot guard too much, or too soon, -against the consequences of an infection, imported daily, -warmly recommended, and spread abroad by the colonists -here, and indeed by some from Europe, not less violent -than the Americans’.</p> - -<p>The year 1774 ended in anxiety and suspense, and the -year 1775 opened, memorable and disastrous to Great -Britain. On Christmas Day, 1774, Gage had written again -to Carleton on the subject of Canadian and Indian levies, -and on the 4th of February, 1775, Carleton answered the -letter.<a id="FNanchor_75" href="#Footnote_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a> Political matters relating to the Indians, he said, -<span class="sidenote">Canadian feeling at the beginning of 1775.</span> -he had always considered to be the special charge of the -late Sir William Johnson, and outside the sphere of his -own authority, but his intelligence was to the effect that -the Indians would be ready for service if called upon.<a id="FNanchor_76" href="#Footnote_76" class="fnanchor">[76]</a> Of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_98"></a>[98]</span> -the Canadians Carleton wrote that they had in general -been made very happy by the passing of the Quebec Act, -but he reminded Gage that that Act did not come into -force until the 1st of May following, that the new commissions -and instructions expected in connexion with it -had not yet arrived, and that the whole machinery for -carrying out the new system of government had still to be -created. ‘Had the present settlement taken place,’ he <span class="sidenote">Carleton strongly urges employing the Canadian gentry in the regular army.</span> -added, ‘when first recommended, it would not have -aroused the jealousy of the other colonies, and had the -appearance of more disinterested favour to the Canadians.’ -He pointed out that the gentry, ‘well disposed and heartily -desirous as they are, to serve the Crown, and to serve it -with zeal, when formed into regular corps, do not relish -commanding a bare militia.’ They had not been used to -act as militia officers under the French Government, and -they were further deterred from taking such employment -by recollection of the sudden disbandment of a Canadian -regiment, which had been raised in 1764, and subsequently -broken up, ‘without gratuity or recompense to officers, -who engaged in our service almost immediately after the -cession of the country, or taking any notice of them since, -though they all expected half pay.’<a id="FNanchor_77" href="#Footnote_77" class="fnanchor">[77]</a> The habitants, -again, had since the introduction of civil government into -Canada, and in consequence of the little authority which -had been exercised, ‘in a manner emancipated themselves.’ -Time and good management would be necessary ‘to recall -them to their ancient habits of obedience and discipline’, -and meanwhile they would be slow to allow themselves to -be suddenly and without preparation embodied into a -militia. Carleton accordingly deprecated attempting to -raise a militia force in Canada and recommended enlisting<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_99"></a>[99]</span> -one or two regular battalions of Canadian soldiers. ‘Such -a measure might be of singular use, in finding employment -for, and consequently firmly attaching the gentry to our -interests, in restoring them to a significance they have -lost, and through their means obtaining a further influence -upon the lower class of people, a material service to the -state, besides that of effectually securing many nations of -savages.’</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Summary -of the -political -conditions -of -Canada -at the beginning -of the -War of -American -Independence.</div> - -<p>From the above correspondence we can form some -impression of the state of political feeling in Canada, when -the great revolt of the American colonies began. We -have the picture of a conquered people, accustomed to -a military system, to personal rule, and to feudal laws -and customs. This people had been brought by the fortune -of war under the same flag as covered very democratic -communities, which communities were their immediate -neighbours and had been their traditional rivals. The -few years which had passed since the conquest of Canada -had, with the exception of the Indian rising under Pontiac, -been years of uncomfortable peace and administrative -weakness. The government of the country, which was -the mother country of the old colonies and the ruler of -the new possession, was anxious to curtail expenses as -much as possible, in view of the great expenditure which -had been caused by the Seven Years’ War; to maintain -and, if possible, to emphasize its precarious authority over -the democratic communities of the Atlantic seaboard; and, -on the other hand, in a sense to relax its authority over -Canada, by modifying in the direction of English institutions -the despotism which had prevailed under the old -French régime. The net result was that on the American -continent the Executive, having insufficient force behind -it and in the old colonies no popular goodwill, was -increasingly weak, and the people were more and more -unsettled. The democratic communities became more -democratic, and from those communities individuals -brought themselves and their ideas into the sphere of -French conservatism, adding to the uncertainty and confusion<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_100"></a>[100]</span> -which attempts to introduce English laws and -customs had already produced in Canada. The Canadian -gentry under British rule found their occupation gone, -their importance minimized, and no outlet for their military -instincts and aspirations. The peasantry found old -rules relaxed and unaccustomed freedom. Strength was -nowhere in evidence in Canada. The forts were falling -into ruin; the English soldiers were few; there was the -King’s Government without the backing of the King’s men; -the old subjects were a small number of men, of whom a -large proportion were noisy, disloyal, adventurers; the -new subjects were not held in submission, but not admitted -to confidence. On the other hand, the French Canadians -had recent and undeniable evidence of the goodwill of -the British Government in the passing of the Quebec Act. -Their governors, Murray and Carleton, had transparently -shown their sympathies with the French Canadian race, -its traditions, and even its prejudices. Amid many inconveniences, -and with some solid grounds for discontent, the -Canadians had none the less tasted British freedom since -the cession of Canada; and they had not yet imbibed it to -such an extent as to overcome their traditional animosity -to, and their inveterate suspicion of, the militant Protestants -of the old colonies who were rising against the King.</p> - -<p>It is unnecessary for the purposes of this book to give -a full account of the War of American Independence, -except so far as Canada was immediately concerned. -Here the Americans appeared in the character of invaders, -and the issue really depended upon the attitude of the -French Canadians. Would they rise against their recent -conquerors and join hands with the rebellious colonists, -or would their confidence in Carleton, coupled with their -long standing antipathy to the British settlers in America, -keep them in allegiance to the British Crown? For the -moment all went well for the Americans.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -Green -Mountain -rising.</div> - -<p>It was characteristic of the state of unrest which prevailed -at this time in America that, while the colonies -as a whole were quarrelling with the mother country, one<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_101"></a>[101]</span> -portion of a colony was declaring its independence of the -state to which it was supposed to belong. On the eastern -side of Lake Champlain were a number of settlers who -had come in under grants issued by the Governor of New -Hampshire, but over whom the government and legislature -of New York claimed jurisdiction, the New York -claim having moreover been upheld by the Imperial -Government. These settlers were known at the time as -the ‘Green Mountain Boys’, and they were the nucleus -of the present state of Vermont. In April, 1775, they -held a meeting to declare their independence of New -York, their leaders being Ethan Allen, who had been proclaimed <span class="sidenote">Ethan Allen.</span> -an outlaw by the Governor of New York in the -previous year, and Seth Warner. They had already -apparently in their minds the possibility of taking possession -of the forts on Lake Champlain. There were few men <span class="sidenote">Capture of Ticonderoga and Crown Point.</span> -at Ticonderoga and Crown Point, only about fifty at the -former and half a dozen or so at the latter, belonging to the -26th Regiment, enough and no more than sufficient to guard -the guns and the stores. The garrison apprehended no -attack and had made no preparations for defence.</p> - -<p>The news of Lexington suggested to the Green Mountain -Boys to commend themselves to Congress by at once -securing these two forts. If they had any instructions -in planning their expedition, those instructions seem to -have come from Connecticut; and though, before a start -was made, Benedict Arnold was sent up by Congress to -take the matter in hand, the insurgents refused his -leadership; and, while he accompanied the expedition, -it was Allen who mainly carried out the enterprise. -Under Allen’s command, on the night of the 9th of May, -a band of armed men, variously estimated at from under -100 to over 200 in number, marched to the shore of the -Lake Champlain, where it narrows to little more than -a river immediately opposite Ticonderoga; and, crossing -over in two parties, early on the morning of the 10th were -admitted to the fort on pretence of bringing a message -to the commandant, overpowered the guard, and surprised<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_102"></a>[102]</span> -the rest of the little garrison in their beds. Two -days later Crown Point was secured by Seth Warner; -and shortly afterwards, under the command of Arnold, -part of the expedition made their way in a captured -schooner to the northern end of the lake, took prisoners -a dozen men who represented the garrison at the fort of -St. John’s, seized a vessel belonging to the Government -which was lying off the fort, and retreated up the lake -on the approach of a detachment from Montreal.<a id="FNanchor_78" href="#Footnote_78" class="fnanchor">[78]</a></p> - -<p>Thus the old fighting route by the way of Lakes George -and Champlain, the scene of numberless raids and counter-raids, -where Robert Rogers, William Johnson, Montcalm, -Abercromby, Amherst, and many others had played their -parts, passed into the hands of the revolutionary party, -and only the forts of St. John’s and Chambly, beyond -the outlet of Lake Champlain, barred the way to Montreal. -The British power in Canada seemed gone to nothingness, -and at the beginning of June, in reporting to Dartmouth -what had taken place, Carleton wrote: ‘We are equally -unprepared for attack or defence; not six hundred rank -and file fit for duty upon the whole extent of this great<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_103"></a>[103]</span> -river,<a id="FNanchor_79" href="#Footnote_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a> not an armed vessel, no place of strength; the -ancient provincial force enervated and broke to pieces; -all subordination overset, and the minds of the people -poisoned by the same hypocrisy and lies practised with -so much success in the other provinces.’<a id="FNanchor_80" href="#Footnote_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a></p> - -<p>The gentry and clergy, he reported, had shown zeal and -loyalty in the King’s service, but they had lost much of -their influence over the people, and the Indians had been -as backward as the peasantry in rallying to the defence -of Canada. The crisis had come, and Carleton’s warnings -of past years had been amply justified. Absence of military -preparations, and neglect to take measures to attach -the Canadians to the British Crown had resulted in a situation -full of danger, a province open to invasion, a government -without material for defence, and a confused and -half-hearted people. Even Carleton’s forecast had not -been wholly accurate. He seems to have over-rated the <span class="sidenote">Miscalculations as to Canadian feeling.</span> -good effects of passing the Quebec Act, and not to have -fully realized the strength of class feeling in Canada, or -the extent to which the peasantry, under the influence of -the disloyal British minority and of emissaries from the -revolting colonies, had emancipated themselves from the -control of the seigniors and the gentry. It was even suggested -that the lower orders in the province, instead of -being grateful for the Quebec Act, regarded it with suspicion -and dislike, as intended to restore a feudal authority -which they had repudiated, and such no doubt would have -been the doctrine taught by the British malcontents inside -and outside the province. ‘What will be your lordship’s -astonishment,’ wrote Hey, the Chief Justice of Canada, to -the Lord Chancellor, towards the end of the following -August,<a id="FNanchor_81" href="#Footnote_81" class="fnanchor">[81]</a> ‘when I tell you that an Act passed for the -express purpose of gratifying the Canadians, and which<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_104"></a>[104]</span> -was supposed to comprehend all that they either wished -or wanted, is become the first object of their discontent -and dislike. English officers to command them in time -of war, and English laws to govern them in time of peace, -is the general wish. The former they know to be impossible -(at least at present), and by the latter, if I understand -them right, they mean no laws and no government whatsoever. -In the meantime, it may be truly said that -General Carleton has taken an ill measure of the influence -of the seigniors and clergy over the lower order of people.’ -If Carleton had misjudged the feelings of the Canadians, -the Chief Justice frankly admitted that he himself had -been fully as much deceived.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Mistakes -of the -Home -Government.</div> - -<p>The mischief was that the Government in England had -imbibed the confident anticipations of Canadian loyalty -which had been formed by the men on the spot immediately -after the passing of the Quebec Act; and, instead of -sending reinforcements to Canada, they expected Carleton -to reinforce Gage’s army in New England. On the 1st of -July, Dartmouth wrote to Carleton, instructing him to -raise a body of 3,000 Canadians to co-operate with Gage; -on the 24th of July, having had further news from America, -he doubled the number and authorized a levy of 6,000 -Canadians; and no hope was given of sending British -troops to Canada until the following spring. At the beginning -of the American war the greatest danger to the -British Empire consisted in the utter weakness of the -position in Canada. It was some excuse, no doubt, for -the ministers at home that the Governor of Canada had -latterly over-estimated the loyalty of the Canadians; -and it may well have been too that the dispatch of troops -to the St. Lawrence was delayed in order not to alarm the -American colonies, before they openly revolted, and while -there was still some faint hope of peace, by a measure which -might have been interpreted as a threat of war. But those -who were responsible for the safe keeping of British interests -in America stand condemned in the light of the repeated -warnings which Carleton had given in previous years.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_105"></a>[105]</span> -As a skilled soldier, he had pointed out, and history confirmed, -the vital importance of Canada in the event of war -in America, its commanding position for military purposes -in relation to the other<a id="FNanchor_82" href="#Footnote_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a> provinces. He had urged the -necessity of military strength in Canada, of strength -which was both actual and apparent; of forts strong -enough to be defended and of British soldiers numerous -enough to defend them; moreover, of forts strong enough -and British soldiers numerous enough to at once compel -and attract the attachment of a military people. As a -statesman, he had recommended more than a Quebec Act, -years before the Quebec Act was passed. Political and -financial exigencies outside Canada may have made it -impossible to take his guidance, but had it been followed, -the whole course of history might have been changed.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Carleton -moves -troops to -St. John’s.</div> - -<p>On hearing of the capture of the forts on Lake Champlain, -Carleton took what measures he could. He moved -all his available troops, including some Canadian volunteers,<a id="FNanchor_83" href="#Footnote_83" class="fnanchor">[83]</a> -to St. John’s, and strengthened its defences. He -went up himself from Quebec to Montreal, where he -arrived on the 26th of May. On the 9th of June he called -out the Canadian militia under the old French law, with -little effect beyond causing irritation and discontent, -which American emissaries and sympathizers turned to -account; and on the 2nd of August he went back to -Quebec, to summon the first Legislative Council which<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_106"></a>[106]</span> -was constituted under the Quebec Act, that Act having -now come into operation. Meanwhile, after the battle of -Bunker’s Hill, the American Congress had resolved on -invading Canada in force; General Philip Schuyler was -placed in charge of the expedition, but, his health giving -way, the command devolved upon Richard Montgomery, <span class="sidenote">The Americans under Richard Montgomery invade Canada.</span> -who had served under Amherst throughout the campaign -which ended with the conquest of Canada, and had subsequently -settled in the state of New York and married an -American lady.</p> - -<p>At the beginning of September, the American troops -moved northward down Lake Champlain, and took up a -position at the Isle aux Noix, twelve miles from the fort -at St. John’s, preparatory to besieging that fort. ‘The -rebels are returned into this province in great numbers, -well provided with everything, and seemingly resolved to -make themselves masters of this province. Hardly a -Canadian will take arms to oppose them, and I doubt all -we have to trust to is about 500 men and two small forts -at St. John’s. Everything seems to be desperate,’ so -wrote Chief Justice Hey from Quebec to the Lord Chancellor -on the 11th of September.<a id="FNanchor_84" href="#Footnote_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a> On the 17th he added, -‘The rebels have succeeded in making peace with the -savages who have all left the camp at St. John’s, many -of the Canadians in that neighbourhood are in arms against -the King’s troops, and not one hundred except in the -towns of Montreal and Quebec are with us. St. John’s -and Montreal must soon fall into their hands, and I doubt -Quebec will follow too soon.’</p> - -<p>There was skirmishing between scouts and outposts, and -on the night of the 24th of September, a party of about -150 Americans under Ethan Allen crossed over into the -island of Montreal and penetrated to the suburbs of the -town. Their daring attempt, however, miscarried: they -were driven out: Allen was taken prisoner and sent in -irons to England: and his failure gave for the moment -some encouragement to the Loyalists’ cause.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_107"></a>[107]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Carleton -applies to -Gage for -reinforcements.</div> - -<p>On hearing of Schuyler’s and Montgomery’s advance -Carleton at once hurried back from Quebec to Montreal. -There were two possibilities of saving the town, and with -it, perhaps, the whole of Canada. One was by obtaining -reinforcements from the British army at Boston, the other -by contriving, even without reinforcements, to hold the -forts at St. John’s and Chambly until winter drove the -invaders back whence they had come. Early in September -Carleton applied to Boston for two regiments, the same -number that in the previous autumn he had sent to Boston -at Gage’s request; his message came to hand on the 10th -of October, just as Gage was leaving for England, and -Howe, who took over the command of the troops, at once -prepared to send the men. But there was a blight on -English sailors as on English soldiers in America in these -days. Admiral Graves, who commanded the ships, refused <span class="sidenote">Admiral Graves refuses to move.</span> -to risk the dangers of the passage from Boston to -Quebec at the season of the year, and Carleton in his sore -straits was left unaided. All, therefore, turned on the -defence of the forts.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The siege -of St. -John’s -and -Chambly.</div> - -<p>St. John’s fort was manned by between 600 and 700 -men, 120 of whom were Canadian volunteers, the rest being -regulars. Chambly was held by some 80 men of the -line. A few men were stationed at Montreal, but Quebec -was almost emptied of its garrison. Major Preston,<a id="FNanchor_85" href="#Footnote_85" class="fnanchor">[85]</a> of the -26th Regiment, commanded at St. John’s, and Chambly -was in charge of Major Stopford. On the 18th of September -Montgomery laid siege to the former fort, cutting off communication -between the defenders and the outside world; -but, notwithstanding, news reached Preston of Allen’s -unsuccessful attempt on Montreal, and he held out bravely, -helped by the fact that Montgomery had hardly any<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_108"></a>[108]</span> -artillery, and could only rely on starving out the garrison, -while his own men were suffering from exposure, privations, -and want of ammunition. But in the middle of October -the outlook was changed, for, after less than two days’ siege, -the fort at Chambly, said to have been well provisioned, <span class="sidenote">The two forts taken.</span> -and with ample means of defence, was on the 17th of that -month surrendered,<a id="FNanchor_86" href="#Footnote_86" class="fnanchor">[86]</a> providing Montgomery with supplies, -guns, and ammunition to be used against the main fort. -Preston’s condition was now desperate. An attempt -made by Carleton to cross from Montreal to his relief on -the 30th of October was beaten back, and on the 2nd of -November, St. John’s surrendered, after having held out -for forty-five days.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Carleton -leaves -Montreal,</div> - -<p>The fall of St. John’s made the defence of Montreal -impossible. Carleton dismissed such of the militia as -were in arms to their homes, and with the few Imperial -troops in the town, rather over 100 in number, and -any arms and supplies that he could carry away, embarked -on the afternoon of the 11th of November to -make the best of his way to Quebec. On the 13th, Montgomery <span class="sidenote">which is occupied by the Americans.</span> -and his men entered Montreal. Already advanced -parties of the Americans were heading down the river -banks. Colonel Maclean, who had come up from Quebec -as far as the Richelieu river with a small body of Canadians -and Scotchmen, to co-operate with Carleton for the -relief of St. John’s, had fallen back, Benedict Arnold was -threatening Quebec itself, and it became a question whether -Carleton would ever reach the city to take charge of its -defence. His vessels and boats sailed down the river to -a point some miles above Sorel at the confluence of the -Richelieu river. There one of them grounded; the wind<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_109"></a>[109]</span> -veered round and blew up-stream; for three days the <span class="sidenote">Carleton narrowly escapes capture and reaches Quebec.</span> -little flotilla remained stationary; the enemy overtook -them on the land, raised batteries in front to bar their -progress, and summoned them to surrender. On the -night of the 16th Carleton went on board a whale boat; -silently, with muffled oars, and at one point propelled only -by the rowers’ hands, she dropped down-stream, undetected -by the watchers on the banks. On the 17th Carleton -reached Three Rivers, with the American troops close -behind him, and lower down he met an armed British ship, -which carried him in safety to Quebec. He entered the -city on the 19th. On the same day the vessels in which -he had started from Montreal surrendered with all on board, -and, being brought back to Montreal, were used to carry -Montgomery and his men down to Quebec.</p> - -<p>Quebec was already threatened by a small force under -Benedict Arnold. In the year 1761, while General Murray -was in military command of the city and district, an -engineer officer, acting under his instructions, had marked <span class="sidenote">Arnold’s march from the mouth of the Kennebec to Quebec.</span> -out a trail along the route from the Atlantic coast, at the -mouth of the Kennebec river, to the confluence of the -Chaudière with the St. Lawrence over against Quebec. -In 1775, when the American colonists determined to invade -Canada, Washington decided to send an expedition by -this route to co-operate with the main advance by Lake -Champlain and the St. Lawrence. The enterprise required -a daring, resourceful leader, and the command was given -to Arnold. In the middle of September, Arnold embarked -with 1,100 men at Newbury port at the mouth of the -Merrimac, and sailed for the Kennebec. In the latter -days of September he began his march: some 200 batteaux -were taken up the Kennebec, carrying arms, ammunition, -and supplies; the troops were partly on board the boats, -partly kept pace with them on the banks. The expedition -followed the course of the Kennebec and its tributary, the -Dead River, crossed the height of land, reached the headwaters -of the Chaudière in Lake Megantic, and descended -the Chaudière to the St. Lawrence. It was a march of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_110"></a>[110]</span> -much danger and privation, no easy task for a skilled backwoodsman -to accomplish, and full of difficulty when it -was a case of transporting a small army. All through -October and into November the men toiled in the wilderness, -boats were lost, provisions were scarce, the sick and -ailing were left behind, the rearguard turned back, but -eventually Arnold brought two-thirds of his men through, -and, with the goodwill and assistance of the Canadians -on the southern bank of the St. Lawrence, emerged at -Point Levis on the 8th of November, having achieved a -memorable exploit in the military history of America. -On the 14th he crossed the river by night, landed where -Wolfe had landed before his last memorable fight, and, -after summoning the city to surrender without effect, -retreated to Pointe aux Trembles, nearly twenty miles up -the river, to await Montgomery’s arrival. Meanwhile, -Carleton passed by and entered Quebec.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Montgomery -arrives -before -Quebec.</div> - -<p>On the 5th of December, Montgomery came upon the -scene, having landed his guns at Cap Rouge, about nine -miles above the city.<a id="FNanchor_87" href="#Footnote_87" class="fnanchor">[87]</a> A threatening letter which he sent -to Carleton on the day after his arrival summoning the -British general to surrender, received no answer, and he -took up his position and planted batteries within reach -of the walls on the western side—the side of Wolfe’s attack, -while Arnold occupied the suburb of St. Roch, on the -north of the city, with the river St. Charles behind him. -So far the American advance had been little more than a -procession. Montreal had received Montgomery without -fighting. Three Rivers had given in its adhesion to the -revolutionary cause, without requiring the general’s -presence, as he passed down the river. Nearly all the -British regulars were prisoners; and, with the help of the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_111"></a>[111]</span> -disloyal element in the population, Montgomery had good -reason to expect that Quebec would forthwith pass into -his hands and the Imperial Government be deprived of its -last foothold in Canada. He was soon undeceived, however, -and found the task beyond his strength.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -siege of -Quebec.</div> - -<p class="pbot1">His whole force, when united to Arnold’s and including -some Canadians, seems not to have exceeded 2,000 men; -his artillery was inadequate, and winter was coming on. -On the other hand, Carleton’s garrison was a nondescript <span class="sidenote">Number of the garrison.</span> -force of some 1,600 to 1,800 men. Nearly one-third of the -number were Canadians. About 400 were seamen and -marines from the ships in the harbour, including the <i>Lizard</i> -ship of war, which, with one convoy ship containing -stores and arms, represented all the aid that had come -from England. There were less than 300 regulars, including -about 200 of a newly-raised corps under Colonel Maclean’s -command, Scotch veterans who were known as the -Royal Highland Emigrants; and there were about 300 -militia of British birth. But the city was well provisioned; -the disloyal citizens had been ejected; Carleton himself had -been through the famous winter siege of 1759-60; and the -preparations which had been made during his recent -absence at Montreal, showed that he had capable officers -serving under him. The upper classes of Canada had -from the first sided with the British Government, and -now that Quebec, the hearth and home of Canada, was in -deadly peril, some spirit of Canadian citizenship was -stirred in its defence.</p> - -<div class="figcenter illowp70" id="i_111" style="max-width: 43.75em;"> -<img class="w100" src="images/i_111.jpg" alt="" /> - <a rel="nofollow" href="images/i_111large.jpg"> - <span class="screenonly fs60 center">click here for larger image.</span></a> -<div class="caption"><p class="noindent center">PLAN OF QUEBEC IN 1775-6</p> - -<p class="center">Reduced from Plan in Colonial Office Library</p> - -<p class="left"><i>To face p. 112</i></p> -</div> -</div> - -<div class="sidenote">Montgomery -plans -a night -attack.</div> - -<p class="p1">Montgomery’s army was too small in numbers, without -the support of powerful artillery which he did not possess, -to justify a direct assault upon the town walls, and a prolonged -siege in the depth of winter meant severe strain on -the American resources with no sure hope of ultimate -success. Moreover, many of the men had enlisted only -for a specified term, which expired at the end of the year. -Before the year closed, therefore, the general determined -to attempt a night surprise, and laid his plans not to -attack the city from the plateau, but to storm the barricades<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_112"></a>[112]</span> -which guarded the lower town by the water’s edge, -and thence to rush the heights above.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -attack of -December -31, -1775.</div> - -<p>Before dawn on the morning of Sunday the 31st of -December,<a id="FNanchor_88" href="#Footnote_88" class="fnanchor">[88]</a> 1775, between the hours of two and seven, in -darkness and driving snow, the attempt was made. -From Montgomery’s batteries on the Heights of Abraham -the guns opened fire on the town. At Arnold’s camp at -St. Roch, troops placed themselves in evidence under -arms; and, while this semblance of attack was made, the -two leaders led two separate columns from opposite -directions, intended to converge in the centre of the lower -town, so that the combined parties might force the steep -ascent from the port to the city on the cliff.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Repulse -of Montgomery -and his -death.</div> - -<p>About two in the morning Montgomery led his men, -according to one account, 900 in number, down to the -river side at Wolfe’s landing-place; and signalling with -rockets to Arnold to begin his march, started about four -o’clock along a rough pathway which skirted the river -under Cape Diamond and led to the lower town. Unnoticed, -it would seem, by an outpost on Cape Diamond, -and by an advance picket, he came at the head of his force -within thirty yards of a barricade, which had been constructed -where the houses began at Prés de Ville. Up to -this point the defenders had given no sign, but now every -gun, large and small, blazed forth: the general fell dead -with 12 of his following, and the whole column beat -a hasty retreat.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Repulse -of -Arnold’s -column.</div> - -<p>Meanwhile, on the other side, in the angle between the -St. Charles and the St. Lawrence, Arnold led forward 700 -men, passing below Palace Gate, and fired at from the -walls where the garrison were all on the alert, for Carleton -had for some days past been warned of a coming attack. -The Americans crossed a small projecting point, known as -the Sault au Matelot, and reached one end of the narrow<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_113"></a>[113]</span> -street which bore the same name. Here there was a -barricade, a second barricade having been erected at the -other end of the street. The first barrier was forced, but -not until Arnold himself had been disabled by a wound; -and led by the Virginian, Daniel Morgan, who was second -in command, and who, later in the war, won the fight at -Cowpens, the assailants pressed boldly on to take the -second barricade and effect a junction with Montgomery. -But Montgomery was no more; the garrison grew constantly -stronger at the threatened point; the way of -retreat was blocked; and caught in a trap, under fire -from the houses, the attacking party surrendered to the -number of 431, in addition to 30 killed, including those -who fell with Montgomery. The day had hardly broken -when all was over, the result being an unqualified success -for the English, a crushing defeat for the American forces. -Quebec was saved, and with Quebec, as events proved, -the whole of Canada.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Continuance -of the -siege.</div> - -<p>The English, according to a letter from Carleton to -General Howe, written on the 12th of January, only lost -7 killed and 11 wounded on this memorable night; but, -notwithstanding, in view of the small numbers of the -garrison, the governor did not follow up his success by -any general attack on the American lines; he contented -himself with bringing in five mortars and a cannon from -Arnold’s position, and settled down with his force to wait -for spring. The Americans, from time to time reinforced -by way of Montreal, continued the blockade, but it was -somewhat ineffective, as firewood and even provisions -were at intervals brought into the town. On the 25th of -March a party of Canadians, who attempted to relieve -Quebec by surprising an American battery at Point Levis, -on the other side of the St. Lawrence, were themselves surprised -and suffered a reverse; on the 4th of April the -battery in question opened on the town with little effect: -on the 3rd of May a fire ship was directed against the <span class="sidenote">Quebec relieved on May 6, 1776.</span> -port and proved abortive. On the 6th of May English -ships once more came up the river with reinforcements,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_114"></a>[114]</span> -and the siege was at an end. The Congress troops retreated -in hot haste, as Levis’s men had fled when Murray was -relieved: artillery, ammunition, stores, were left behind; -and the retreat continued beyond Three Rivers, as far as -Sorel, at the mouth of the Richelieu.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Carleton’s -Report.</div> - -<p>‘After this town had been closely invested by the rebels -for five months and had defeated all their attempts, the -<i>Surprise</i> frigate, <i>Isis</i> and sloop <i>Martin</i> came into the -Basin the 6th instant.... Thus ended our siege and -blockade, during which the mixed garrison of soldiers, -sailors, British and Canadian militia, with the artificers -from Halifax and Newfoundland, showed great zeal and -patience under very severe duty and uncommon vigilance.’ -So wrote Carleton to Lord George Germain on the 14th of -May, 1776, having conducted a singularly successful -defence of an all important point. Murray’s defence of -Quebec had been marked by a severe reverse, great sickness, -privation, and loss. Nothing of the kind happened under -Carleton. He had, it is true, a far smaller army against -him than besieged Murray, and he had the inestimable -advantage of personal experience of the former siege, but -on the other hand the force which he commanded was infinitely -weaker, numerically and in training, than Murray’s. -He made no mistakes, incurred no risks, his one aim was -to save Quebec, and he saved it.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Importance -of -holding -Quebec.</div> - -<p>The more the history of these times is studied, the greater -importance will be attached to Carleton’s successful defence -of Quebec, and his defeat of the American forces -beneath its walls; the more clearly too it will be seen that -the net result of the American war was due at least as -much to the agency of individual men as to any combination -of moral or material forces. Whoever held Quebec -held Canada; and, if Great Britain had lost Quebec in -the winter of 1775-6, she would in all probability have -lost Canada for all time. Wolfe’s victory before Quebec, -and the surrender of the city which followed, determined -that Canada should become a British possession. Carleton’s -defeat of Montgomery and Arnold in the suburbs<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_115"></a>[115]</span> -of Quebec, and the holding of the city which followed, determined -that Canada should remain a British possession. -It was not merely a question of the geographical position -of Quebec, great as was its importance from a strategical -point of view. It was a question of the effect of its -retention or its loss upon the minds of men. The Canadians -were wavering: the tide was flowing against the -English: one rock alone was not submerged: the waves -beat against it and subsided. Thenceforward Canada -was never in serious danger. The Americans were not -liked in Canada. They carried many of the Canadians -with them in the first impulse, but, when once they were -checked and driven back, the Canadians were given time -to think, and they inclined to the cause personified by the -man who had stemmed the tide of invasion and held -Quebec.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Carleton -as a -general,</div> - -<p>When the news of what had taken place reached England -at the beginning of June, Horace Walpole wrote to -his friend Sir Horace Mann. ‘The provincials have again -attempted to storm Quebec and been repulsed with great -loss by the conduct and bravery of Carleton, who, Mr. -Conway has all along said, would prove himself a very -able general.’<a id="FNanchor_89" href="#Footnote_89" class="fnanchor">[89]</a> Two months later he wrote again to the -same friend: ‘You have seen by the public newspapers -that General Carleton has driven the provincials out of all -Canada. It is well he fights better than he writes. -General Conway has constantly said that he would do -great service.’<a id="FNanchor_90" href="#Footnote_90" class="fnanchor">[90]</a> Of Carleton’s merits as a soldier there -can be no question. No one ever gauged a military situation -better. No one ever displayed more firmness and -courage at a time of crisis, made more of small resources, -or showed more self-restraint. But he was more than a -good military leader; he was also a statesman of high <span class="sidenote">and as a statesman.</span> -order, and, had he been given a free hand and supreme<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_116"></a>[116]</span> -control of the British forces and policy in America, he -might well have kept the American colonies as he kept -Quebec. For Carleton was an understanding man. No <span class="sidenote">Carleton’s character.</span> -Englishman in America, or who dealt with America, was -of the same calibre. He knew the land: he knew the -people: he had the qualities which were conspicuously -wanting in other English leaders of the time, firmness, foresight, -breadth of view, sound judgement as to what was -possible and what was not; above all, he had a character -above and beyond intrigue. Had he not been ousted by -malign influence, but been given wider powers and a more -extensive command, the British cause in North America -might have had the one thing needful, a personality to -stand in not unworthy comparison with that of Washington.</p> - -<p>Carleton was a little over fifty years old at the time of the -siege of Quebec. The two American generals who confronted -him were younger men. Montgomery was just -under forty years of age when he was killed; Arnold at -the time was not thirty-five. It would have been well for -Arnold’s reputation had he shared Montgomery’s fate. -A New Englander by birth, a native of Connecticut, he <span class="sidenote">Benedict Arnold.</span> -seems to have been a restless, adventurous man, with no -strong sense of principle. His name is clouded by his -grievous treachery at West Point, but his military capacity -was as great as his personal courage, and of all the American -leaders in the earlier stages of the war, he was the man -who dealt the hardest blows at the British cause in Canada. -From the capture of the forts on Lake Champlain till the -fights before Burgoyne’s surrender at Saratoga, at almost -every point on the frontier he was in evidence, leading -attack, covering retreat, invaluable as a leader in -border war.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Richard -Montgomery.</div> - -<p>Of Montgomery, Horace Walpole wrote that he ‘was -not so fortunate as Wolfe to die a conqueror, though very -near being so’.<a id="FNanchor_91" href="#Footnote_91" class="fnanchor">[91]</a> He was so far fortunate in his death, -that his name has passed into American history as that<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_117"></a>[117]</span> -of a martyr to the cause of liberty. He was known to -Burke, Fox, and the leaders of the Opposition in England; -and he seems to have been an attractive man in private -life as well as a capable soldier. We read in the <i>Annual -Register</i> for 1776 that ‘The excellency of his qualities and -disposition had procured him an uncommon share of -private affection, as his abilities had of public esteem; -and there was probably no man engaged on the same side, -and few on either, whose loss would have been so much -regretted both in England and America’.<a id="FNanchor_92" href="#Footnote_92" class="fnanchor">[92]</a> In America -addresses and monuments commemorated his name, -Tryon county of New York was renamed Montgomery -county in honour to his memory, and in 1818 his remains -were exhumed and taken to New York for public burial. -In England leading politicians bore tribute to his merits, -and as late as the year 1791, in the House of Commons, -Fox called to Burke’s remembrance how the two friends -had ‘sympathized almost in tears for the fall of a Montgomery.’<a id="FNanchor_93" href="#Footnote_93" class="fnanchor">[93]</a> -He died fighting for what proved to be the -winning cause, and men spoke well of him. But there is -another side to the picture which should not be overlooked. -Montgomery was not, like Arnold, born and bred on New -England soil. He was ‘a gentleman of good family in the -kingdom of Ireland’,<a id="FNanchor_94" href="#Footnote_94" class="fnanchor">[94]</a> and educated at Trinity College, -Dublin. He had worn the King’s uniform from 1756 to -1772; he had served as a subaltern at the capture of -Louisbourg, under Amherst again on Lake Champlain, and -with Haviland’s division in the final British advance on -Montreal, by the line by which in 1775 he led the American -troops into Canada. After the British conquest of Canada -he had seen active service in the West Indies. His connexion -with the North American colonies consisted in -having bought an estate in New York, having married -a lady of the well-known Livingston family in that state,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_118"></a>[118]</span> -and having made his home there after retirement from -the army. That retirement took place in 1772. In 1775 -he was a brigadier-general in the American army, not -concerned to defend house and home against unprovoked -attack, but to lead an army of invasion into a neighbouring -British province, endeavouring to wrest from Great Britain -what he himself had fought to give her, and identifying -oppression with one whose worth he must well have -known, with a fellow British soldier of Carleton’s high -character and name. Montgomery was an Irishman. In -his case, as in that of Arnold, the wife’s influence probably -counted for much; and the time was one when what were -called generous instincts were at a premium and principles -were at a discount. But the terms<a id="FNanchor_95" href="#Footnote_95" class="fnanchor">[95]</a> in which he summoned -Carleton to surrender suggest unfavourable contrast -between his own words and actions on the one hand, -and on the other the stern old-fashioned views of loyalty -and military honour which Carleton held, and which forbade -him to pay to Montgomery in his lifetime the respect -which was ensured by a soldier’s death.</p> - -<p>Montgomery had charged Carleton with inhumanity. -Carleton was a soldier who did not play with war and -rebellion, but he was also a humane man, and the charge, -if it needed any contradiction, is belied by a proclamation -which he issued on the 10th of May, four days after the -relief of Quebec. In it search was directed to be made for -sick and wounded Americans, reported to be ‘dispersed -in the adjacent woods and parishes, and in great danger -of perishing for want of proper assistance’. They were -to be given relief and brought in to the General Hospital -at Quebec, a promise being added that, as soon as their -health was restored, they should be at liberty to return -to their homes.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_119"></a>[119]</span><a id="FNanchor_96" href="#Footnote_96" class="fnanchor">[96]</a></p> - -<p>Quebec was relieved on the 6th of May. Some ships -were sent up the river, but Carleton waited for the reinforcements -which were fast coming in from England before -making a decided move, and it was not until the beginning -of June that Three Rivers was re-occupied by the Royal -troops. Meanwhile, the American head quarters at Montreal -had been alarmed by a diversion from another -quarter. The invading forces had broken into Canada at <span class="sidenote">The affair of the Cedars.</span> -two points only. Montgomery’s advance had been direct -to Montreal: Arnold had marched straight on Quebec. -The British outposts above Montreal and in the west had -been left undisturbed. One of them, very small in -numbers, was stationed at Ogdensburg, then known as -Oswegatchie, a few years previously the scene of the Abbé -Piquet’s mission of La Présentation. The commander -was Captain Forster of the 8th Regiment of the line, the -same regiment which in the later war of 1812 played so -conspicuous a part in the defence of Canada. Towards -the end of the second week in May, Forster, with about -50 regulars and volunteers and some 200 Indians,<a id="FNanchor_97" href="#Footnote_97" class="fnanchor">[97]</a> -started down the St. Lawrence, his objective being the -Cedars, a place on the northern bank of the St. Lawrence -below Lake St. Francis in that river, and a few miles above<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_120"></a>[120]</span> -Lake St. Louis and the island of Montreal. Here an -American force was stationed, numbering nearly 400 men. -On the 18th and 19th of May Forster attacked the post, -which surrendered on the second day; and on the 20th -another small party of Americans, rather under 100 in -number, which was advancing from Vaudreuil, seven miles -to the north of the Cedars, surrendered to a mixed body -of Canadians and Indians. By these two successes -Forster secured between 400 and 500 prisoners, and -crossing over to the island of Montreal, he advanced against -Lachine, where a considerable force of Americans was -encamped. These men were under the command of -Arnold who, on recovering from the wound which he -had received at Quebec, had been placed in charge of the -Congress troops at Montreal. Forster found the position -and the numbers defending it too strong to attack, although -he had been reinforced by a large party of Canadians. -Accordingly, he retired to the mainland. Arnold then -attempted to cross and make a counter attack, but was in -turn obliged to recross to the island. There then followed -negotiations for the release of the prisoners, who were -handed over to Arnold on condition that British prisoners -should be subsequently released in exchange, and at the -end of the month Forster returned to Oswegatchie.</p> - -<p>His exploit had been a notable one. With a very insignificant -following he had defeated superior numbers and -had threatened Montreal. History repeated itself; and, -as in the days of New France, the Canadians and Indians -showed themselves formidable in sudden raids, supplementing -the regular plan of campaign. The affair of the -Cedars proved that, as long as Quebec and the mouth of -the St. Lawrence were in British keeping, the American -army of occupation would be troubled on the western side -by home-bred combatants, stiffened by British outposts -which could only be dislodged as the result of a general -conquest of Canada. Canada was in fact far from conquered, -and in a very short time the country was cleared -of its foes.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_121"></a>[121]</span></p> - -<p>But Forster’s enterprise obtained notoriety for another -and a different reason. The Congress of the revolting <span class="sidenote">Dispute with Congress as to the exchange of prisoners.</span> -states refused to ratify the agreement to which Arnold -had consented. The American prisoners, with the exception -of a few hostages, were sent back, but the promised -exchanges were not made, and the reason given for not -fulfilling the engagement was that some of Forster’s -prisoners had been murdered and others maltreated and -plundered. Congress therefore resolved not to give back -the requisite number of British prisoners, until the authors -and abettors of the alleged crimes had been handed over -and compensation made for the plunder. The allegations -seem in the main not to have been substantiated, as is -shown by a letter from one of the American hostages themselves.<a id="FNanchor_98" href="#Footnote_98" class="fnanchor">[98]</a> -That the Indians looted some of the prisoners’ -property was undeniable, but Forster appears to have used -every effort to secure the safety and good treatment of -those who were in his hands, and the charges of murder -were not made good. Carleton wrote strongly on the -subject,<a id="FNanchor_99" href="#Footnote_99" class="fnanchor">[99]</a> attributing the action of the American Congress -to a desire to embitter their people against the English -and to prolong the war; but at this distance of time it is -unnecessary to revive the controversy. What is worth -noting is the feeling aroused when coloured men are enlisted, -or even alleged to be enlisted, on either side in white men’s -quarrels, the exaggerated reports which are spread abroad, -and the credence which is given to them. The record of -Indian warfare in North America was a terrible one, and -it is no matter for surprise if, when Indians were found -fighting on the British side, the barbarities of the past -were reported to have been reproduced at a later -date.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">American -delegates -sent to -Montreal.</div> - -<p>Before Quebec had been relieved, the weakness of the -American hold on Canada, and the condition of the army -of occupation, had given anxiety to Congress, who sent<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_122"></a>[122]</span> -special commissioners to Montreal. The commissioners -were three in number. One was Benjamin Franklin, and -another was Carroll, a Roman Catholic, who was accompanied -by his brother, a Jesuit priest. The object was to -ascertain the actual position of matters military and -political, and to conciliate Canadian feeling. What was -ascertained was depressing enough, and the efforts at -conciliation came to nothing. While the commissioners -were at Montreal, they received news of the relief of -Quebec, and events soon swept away recommendations. -The American army fell back from Quebec to the Richelieu; <span class="sidenote">Retreat of the American army.</span> -and, as the troops came in from England, including -some German regiments under Baron Riedesel, Carleton -sent them up the St. Lawrence by land and water, Burgoyne -being in command. In the first days of June Three -Rivers was garrisoned; and within a week, on the 8th of -June, an American general, Thompson, who made an -attempt to regain the position, crossing over by night from -the southern shore, was cut off and taken prisoner with -over 200 of his men. This completed the discomfiture of -the Americans: small-pox and other diseases were rife in <span class="sidenote">Montreal re-occupied by the English, and preparations made for an advance up Lake Champlain.</span> -their ranks: their posts on the line of the Richelieu were -hastily abandoned; Arnold barely had time to evacuate -Montreal; and, before the last week of June began, Montreal, -Chambly, and St. John’s were all again in British -possession, and the invasion of Canada was at an end.</p> - -<p>The Americans, however, still retained their hold on -Lake Champlain. It was impossible to dislodge them -without organizing transport by water as well as by land, -and building armed vessels to overpower the ships with -which they commanded the lake. For when they overran -Canada as far as Quebec, they secured all the sailing craft -and bateaux on the Upper St. Lawrence. ‘The task -was indeed arduous,’ says a contemporary writer, ‘a fleet -of above thirty fighting vessels, of different kinds and -sizes, all furnished with cannon, was to be little less than -recreated.’<a id="FNanchor_100" href="#Footnote_100" class="fnanchor">[100]</a> Three months, therefore, were taken up in<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_123"></a>[123]</span> -boat-building, the material being in large measure sent out -from England, in making roads, constructing entrenchments, -drilling the troops, and collecting supplies. The -troops, over 10,000 in number, were stationed at La -Prairie on the St. Lawrence, immediately opposite Montreal, -at Chambly, St. John’s, and the Isle aux Noix, with -detachments lower down the Richelieu river than Chambly -in order to keep all the communications open; and in -September, when the preparations were nearly completed, -advanced parties were moved forward to the opening of -Lake Champlain.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Fighting -on Lake -Champlain.</div> - -<p>In October the newly-constructed gunboats ascended -the Richelieu river from St. John’s, and entered the lake. -On the 11th they came into touch with the American -vessels, which were then stationed, under Arnold’s command, -between Valcour Island and the western shore of -the lake. The place was about five miles south of Plattsburg, -about twenty-five miles south of what is now the -boundary line of Canada, and a little less than fifty -miles to the north of Crown Point. The strait between -the island and the mainland is about a mile wide, and -across it was the American line of battle. The English -had the superiority in numbers and, as the result of the -first day’s fighting, being carried to the south of the enemy’s -ships, were at the close of the day drawn up in line to -intercept their retreat. At night, however, Arnold, bold -and skilful as ever, found a passage through and sailed off -to the south, hotly pursued by Carleton’s squadron. On -the 13th fighting began again, and ended with the capture <span class="sidenote">Destruction of the American flotilla.</span> -or destruction of twelve American vessels, out of a total of -fifteen, over 100 prisoners being taken including the second -in command to Arnold. Crown Point was set on fire and <span class="sidenote">Crown Point abandoned by the Americans.</span> -abandoned by the Americans, and on the 14th Carleton -wrote from his ship off that place reporting his success. -In his dispatch he expressed doubts whether anything -further could be done at that late season of the year, and -he subsequently came to the conclusion that an attack on -Ticonderoga, which was held by a strong force under<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_124"></a>[124]</span> -Gates, must be postponed till the following spring. Nor -did he think it prudent to occupy Crown Point, which -was in a dismantled and ruined condition, through the <span class="sidenote">Close of the campaign.</span> -winter, and by the middle of November, he had withdrawn -all his forces to the Isle aux Noix and St. John’s, whence -he had started.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Carleton -censured -by Germain.</div> - -<p>It was a good summer’s work. Quebec had been relieved, -the whole of Canada had been recovered, and on -the main line of invasion, Lake Champlain, the English -had obtained the upper hand by the destruction of Arnold’s -vessels. This last part of the campaign stands out in -bright contrast to the abortive Plattsburg expedition in -the later war of 1812. If there had been any delay, it -was largely due to the fact that Carleton had not received -from England all the boats and materials for boat-building -for which he had requisitioned; and, to judge from Horace -Walpole, intelligent observers in England were not disappointed -with the outcome of the autumn fighting. ‘You -will see the particulars of the naval victory in the <i>Gazette</i>,’ -he wrote to Sir Horace Mann on the 26th of November, -1776, ‘It is not much valued here, as it is thought Carleton -must return to Quebec for the winter.’ Nevertheless, the -British Government, as represented by Lord George -Germain, professed to be dissatisfied that more had not -been achieved, and that, having reached Crown Point, -the general had not made a further advance against -Ticonderoga, or at least held his ground where he was -through the winter. Germain, who in January, 1776, had -succeeded Dartmouth in charge of colonial matters, had -begun by finding fault with Carleton, complaining that -the latter had left the Home Government in the dark as to -his plan of operations after the relief of Quebec, and as -to the position in Canada. The result was, Germain -wrote, that it was impossible at the time to send Carleton -any further instructions.<a id="FNanchor_101" href="#Footnote_101" class="fnanchor">[101]</a> It would have been well if the -impossibility had continued. He found new ground for<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_125"></a>[125]</span> -criticism in Carleton’s temporary retreat from Lake -Champlain, but the criticism was wholly without justification. -Carleton was a cautious leader; he had shown -caution in the defence of Quebec, where events had justified -his attitude; but the whole record of the 1776 campaign -had proved him to be at the same time a man of -energy, firmness, and resource, unwearied in organizing, -prompt in action. Wolfe, it might be said, would at all -hazards have attacked Ticonderoga, but it must be -remembered that Wolfe in America, where he always -preached and practised forward aggressive movement, -was fighting Frenchmen and Indians, not soldiers of the -same race as his own. If we compare Amherst, on the -other hand, with Carleton, we find that Amherst in 1759, -having taken Ticonderoga and Crown Point by the -beginning of August, made no further move till the middle -of October, and then, after an abortive start down Lake -Champlain, gave up active operations for the winter. -There is no valid reason to suppose that Carleton’s judgement -was otherwise than sound. At any rate, to quote -his own words to Germain in a letter written on the 20th -of May, 1777, ‘Any officer entrusted with the supreme -command ought, upon the spot, to see what was most -expedient to be done, better than a great general at 3,000 -miles distance.’<a id="FNanchor_102" href="#Footnote_102" class="fnanchor">[102]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -English -generals -in -America.</div> - -<p>Less capable than Carleton were the other British officers -in America, and far less satisfactory were the results of -their efforts. In the early days of 1775, before fighting -actually began, Amherst, the former Commander-in-Chief -in North America, was invited by the King to resume his -command, but declined the invitation, and General Gage -was accordingly retained in that position. To support -him, three generals were sent out from England, Howe, -Burgoyne, and Clinton. They arrived towards the end -of May, 1775, after the fight at Lexington had taken -place, and before the battle of Bunker’s Hill. Early in<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_126"></a>[126]</span> -1776 Lord Cornwallis also appeared upon the scene. -After the battle of Bunker’s Hill, Gage was recalled to -England, and Howe was placed in command of the troops -on the Atlantic seaboard, while Carleton was given independent -command in Canada. Gage left in October, -1775, and Howe, his successor, remained in America -till May, 1778, having sent in his resignation a few -months previously. Clinton succeeded Howe, and held -the command until the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown -in October, 1781, turned out the ministry and -practically finished the war. Then, when it was too late, -Carleton was named as commander-in-chief, and arrived -at New York in May, 1782, by which time the fighting -was practically over.</p> - -<p>These men, who commanded the armies of England in -America during a disastrous war, were by no means -hopelessly incompetent. Howe had been one of the best <span class="sidenote">Howe.</span> -of Wolfe’s officers. He had led the advanced party -which stormed the Heights of Abraham on the memorable -morning of the 13th of September, 1759. In the revolutionary -war, though found wanting in some of the -qualities which make a great general, he none the less -showed firmness, courage, and skill in various actions -from Bunker’s Hill onwards, and he achieved several -notable successes. Clinton proved himself to be at least <span class="sidenote">Clinton.</span> -an average commander. Burgoyne, in a subordinate -position, was apparently a good soldier; and the subsequent <span class="sidenote">Burgoyne.</span> -career of Lord Cornwallis showed that he was a -man of capacity. Comparing them with the predecessors -of Wolfe and Amherst in the late French war, with <span class="sidenote">Cornwallis.</span> -Loudoun, Webb, and Abercromby, and bearing in mind -that they had a far more difficult task, they stand in no -unfavourable light. But they were not leaders of men -themselves, and there was no man in power in England, -such as Chatham had been, who was a leader of men, strong -enough to break down political intrigue and court influence, -to find the best men and send them out, superseding the -second best, encouraging and supporting his soldiers and<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_127"></a>[127]</span> -sailors, but not worrying them with ill-timed and ignorant -interference.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -English -admirals.</div> - -<p>On the sea England was even less fortunate in the men -who served her than on land, whereas, as events proved, -the possibility of success in the war depended entirely on -keeping command of the sea. In the time of the Seven -Years’ War, the English admirals were at their best. -Hawke, in his brilliant fight at Quiberon, did hardly better -service than the less known Admiral Saunders, who co-operated -heart and soul with Wolfe at Quebec. Widely -different was the naval record of the War of American -Independence. The French navy, it is true, was stronger -than in former years, but the naval commanders on the -English side were also less adequate. The competent men -were superseded by, or had to serve under, senior and less -competent officers. Sir George Collier, who showed -energy and ability, was succeeded by an inferior man, -Marriot Arbuthnot; and, at the most critical point of the -campaign, when the French admiral, de Grasse, combined -with Washington to procure the surrender of Cornwallis, -Sir Samuel Hood, one of the best, had to take his orders -from Admiral Graves, one of the least competent of -British naval officers. Even Rodney, who had not yet -won the great victory in the West Indies, by which he is -best remembered, seems to have been remiss in regard to -North America; and, if Hood be excepted, Lord Howe -alone among the famous seamen of England, during a short -period of the war, showed something of the skill and -energy which, at other times, and in other than American -waters, characterized the leaders of the British navy.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Military -science -was not -conspicuous -in the -American -War of -Independence.</div> - -<p>Apart altogether from its causes and its results, and -dealing only with the actual operations, the War of -American Independence was a most unsatisfactory, and -for the English, a most inglorious war. It might well -have resulted in a far more crushing defeat for England, -and yet have left a much better impression on English -minds. Though the war lasted for fully seven years, on -neither side, with one exception, were very great military<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_128"></a>[128]</span> -reputations made. The American Civil War of later days -was marked by notable military achievements, and extraordinarily -stubborn fighting. It was a terrible but a -heart-whole struggle, fought hard to the bitter end under -men, among winners and losers alike, whose names will live -to all time in military history. In the American War of -Independence, on the other hand, though good soldiers -were engaged on either side and some, such as the American -general, Nathaniel Greene, deservedly attained high -reputation, yet the only name which lives for the world at -large because of the war itself, is that of Washington; and -it lives not so much because of brilliant feats of generalship, -as because he led a murmuring people through the wilderness -with statesmanship, rare nobility of character, and -unconquerable patience. ‘Few of the great pages of -history,’ writes Mr. Lecky, ‘are less marked by the -stamp of heroism than the American Revolution.’<a id="FNanchor_103" href="#Footnote_103" class="fnanchor">[103]</a> The -Americans muddled through, because the English made -more mistakes, and because, though the American people -were divided among themselves, their leaders, at any rate, -knew their own minds, and were not half-hearted like the -majority of leading men at the time in the United Kingdom.</p> - -<p>For neither the English nation nor the English Government -were wholehearted in the war. It was of the nature -of a civil war, with little to appeal to on the English side. -It is true that it was for a time popular in England, that the -intervention of France prolonged its popularity, and that -the outrageous extravagances of Fox and other extreme -Whigs also tended to provoke honest patriotism in favour -of the Government and their policy; but it was not truly a -nation’s war, guided by the nation’s chosen leaders. Not -only was there strong opposition to it in England, for reasons -which have already been given, strong especially in the -personality of men like Chatham and Burke who opposed it, -but the ministry themselves showed that their heart was <span class="sidenote">Wavering attitude of the English Government</span> -not in their work. Twice in the middle of the struggle they<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_129"></a>[129]</span> -tried to make peace. In 1776, the brothers Howe at New -York, Whigs themselves, were commissioned to open -negotiations with the colonists: but their powers in -granting concessions were far too limited to satisfy -opponents, who had already, on the 4th of July in that -year, declared for independence. Again in 1778, under an -Act of Parliament, specially passed for the purpose, commissioners -were appointed to negotiate for peace. They -were five in number, two being, as before, the brothers -Howe,<a id="FNanchor_104" href="#Footnote_104" class="fnanchor">[104]</a> and the other three being delegates specially sent -out from home. This time ample powers were given to -make concessions, but the situation was wholly changed. -Burgoyne had surrendered in the preceding autumn, the -French had joined hands with the colonists, and Philadelphia -was being evacuated by the British troops. Had -the commissioners been sent out after some striking -success on the side of England, offering generous terms -from a strong and resolute nation, they might have gained -a hearing, and the proffered concessions might have been -accepted. Under the circumstances the mission was -interpreted as a sign of weakness, and the messages which -were brought were treated with contempt.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">and of the -generals.</div> - -<p>As it was with the Government, so it was also with -the military men. Amherst would not serve because of -his old friendly relations with the Americans. General -Howe, for similar reasons, was at first loth to serve, and -his delays and shortcomings in prosecuting the war may -perhaps be in part attributed to the same cause. Howe, -Burgoyne, and Clinton all came out in 1775 from the -House of Commons, politicians as well as soldiers.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_130"></a>[130]</span><a id="FNanchor_105" href="#Footnote_105" class="fnanchor">[105]</a> -Burgoyne was brought home towards the end of 1775. He -went out again to Canada in the spring of 1776, again went -home in the autumn of that year, and again went out in -1777 for his last disastrous campaign. Cornwallis went -to England twice in the course of the war. It was probably -a mere coincidence, but the fact remains that the -two commanders who suffered the greatest disasters, were -the two who went back and fore between England and -America, and presumably came most under the influence -of the mischievous ministry at home. It is true that -Wolfe had gone home in 1758 after the taking of Louisburg, -discontented with the tardiness of Amherst’s movements, -and that he went out again in 1759 to his crowning victory -and death; but Wolfe went home to Chatham, Burgoyne -and Cornwallis to Lord George Germain.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Want of -continuity -in the -military -operations -on the -English -side.</div> - -<p>Take again the spasmodic operations of the war. -Boston, held when war broke out, and for the retention -of which Bunker’s Hill was fought, was subsequently -abandoned. Philadelphia was occupied and again evacuated. -The southern colonies were over-run but not held. -At point after point the Loyalists were first encouraged -and then left to their fate. Everything was attempted -in turn but nothing done, or what was done was again -undone. The vacillation and infirmity of purpose, which -has so often marred the public action of England, was -never more manifest than in the actual campaigns of the -War of American Independence. The great difficulty to -contend with was the large area covered by the revolting -colonies; and the one hope of subduing them lay in -blockading the coasts and concentrating instead of dispersing -the British land forces. Lord Howe and Lord -Amherst are credited with the view that the only chance -of success for England lay in a purely naval war; and -it is said to have been on Amherst’s advice that Philadelphia -was abandoned and the troops concentrated at -New York. The true policy was, as Captain Mahan has -pointed out,<a id="FNanchor_106" href="#Footnote_106" class="fnanchor">[106]</a> and as Carleton had seen before the war<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_131"></a>[131]</span> -came,<a id="FNanchor_107" href="#Footnote_107" class="fnanchor">[107]</a> to cut the colonies in two by holding the line of -the Hudson and Lake Champlain; and the object of -sending Burgoyne down from Canada by way of Lake -Champlain in 1777 was that he might join hands with the -British forces on the Atlantic coast, as they moved up the -Hudson from New York. But, while Burgoyne was -marching south, Howe carried off the bulk of the troops -from New York to attack Philadelphia; and there followed, -as a direct consequence, the ruin of Burgoyne’s -force and its surrender at Saratoga. No positive instructions -had reached Howe as to co-operating with Burgoyne, -and the well-known story goes<a id="FNanchor_108" href="#Footnote_108" class="fnanchor">[108]</a> that this oversight was -due to Lord George Germain, who had fathered the enterprise, -going out of town at the moment when the dispatches -should have been signed and sent. At any rate, it is -clear that, even when the British Government had formed -a right conception of the course to be followed, they failed -to take ordinary precautions for ensuring that it was -carried into effect. In Canada alone did the English rise -to the occasion. Here, and here only, was a man among -them in the early stages of the war who moved on a higher -plane altogether than his contemporaries in action, a statesman-general -of dignity, foresight and prudence. Here -alone too the English were repelling invasion, and keeping -for the nation what the nation had won. In this wrong-headed -struggle the one and only ray of brightness for -England shone out from Canada.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Operations -on the -Atlantic -seaboard.</div> - -<p>After the battle of Bunker’s Hill, in June, 1775, the -British army of occupation at Boston spent the year in -a state of siege. Gage was recalled to England in October, -the command of the troops being handed over to Howe. -Burgoyne too went home, returning to Canada in the -following spring. The autumn and the winter went by, -Carleton being beleaguered in Quebec, and Howe cooped -up in Boston, while British ships bombarded one or two of -the small seaport towns on the American coast, causing<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_132"></a>[132]</span> -misery and exasperation, without effecting any useful -result. Early in 1776, Clinton and Cornwallis were sent -to carry war into the southern states, and towards the -end of June made an unsuccessful attack on Charleston -Harbour.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Howe -evacuates -Boston -and occupies -New -York.</div> - -<p>In March Howe evacuated Boston, and brought off his -troops to Halifax. In June he set sail for New York, which -was held by Washington; established himself on Staten -Island, where he was joined by his brother, the admiral, -with strong reinforcements; and, having now ample troops -under his command, he took action in the middle of August. -Crossing over to Long Island, he inflicted a heavy blow on -Washington’s army on the 27th of August, but did not -follow up his success, with the result that Washington two -days later carried over his troops to New York. In the -middle of September New York was evacuated by the -Americans and occupied by the English, and through -October and November, Washington was driven back -with loss, until by the beginning of the second week in -December, he had retreated over the Delaware to Philadelphia, -and the whole of the country between that river -and the Hudson, which forms the State of New Jersey, was -in British hands. The American cause was further -depressed by the temporary loss of General Charles Lee, -who had been surprised and taken prisoner. He was one -of the few American leaders who was a practised soldier, -having been before the war a half-pay officer of the British -army; at the time of his capture he stood second only to -Washington.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Howe’s -delays.</div> - -<p>Howe had been almost uniformly successful, but at each -step he had been slow to follow up his successes. In all -wars in which trained soldiers are pitted against untrained -men, it must be of the utmost importance to give -as little breathing space as possible to the latter, for delay -gives time for learning discipline, regaining confidence, -and realizing that defeat may be repaired. Easy to check -and to keep on the run in the initial stages of such a war, -the untried levies gradually harden into seasoned soldiers,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_133"></a>[133]</span> -taking repulses not as irreparable disasters, but as incidents -in a campaign. For those who set out to subdue -a stubborn race it is a fatal mistake to give their enemies -time to learn the trade of war. Especially is it a mistake -when, as in the case of the Americans, the causes of the -war and the ultimate objects are at the outset not yet -clearly defined, when there are misgivings and hesitations -as to the rights and wrongs, the necessities of the case, the -most desirable issue: most of all when one side represents -a loose confederation of jealous states, and not one single-minded -nation. Howe seems to have lost sight of these -considerations, and not to have wished to press matters -too far. While engaged in taking New York, he was also -busy with his brother in trying vainly to negotiate terms -of peace; and subsequently, while mastering New Jersey, -instead of completing his success by sending ships and -troops round to the Delaware to attack Washington in -Philadelphia, he dispatched Clinton to the north to occupy -Newport in Rhode Island, a point of vantage for the -naval warfare, but held at the cost of dispersing instead -of concentrating the British forces.</p> - -<p>Yet, as the year 1776 drew towards its close, all seemed -going well for the English in America. Carleton from -Canada, Howe from New York, had uninterrupted progress -to report. With Christmas night there came another -tale. In fancied security after the late campaign, Howe’s <span class="sidenote">Washington’s victory at Trenton.</span> -troops in New Jersey were quartered at different points, -the commander-in-chief remaining at New York, and -Cornwallis, who had commanded in New Jersey, being on -the point of leaving for England. The village of Trenton -on the Delaware, through which passed the road from -New York to Philadelphia, was held by a strong detachment -of Hessians under General Rahl, whose whole force, -including a few British cavalry, numbered about 1,400 -men. No entrenchments had been constructed, few precautions -had been taken against attack, and Christmas -time and Christmas weather made for want of vigilance. -Crossing the Delaware with 2,500 men, Washington broke<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_134"></a>[134]</span> -in upon the position in the early morning of December 26th, -amid snow and rain, and the surprise was complete: -General Rahl was mortally wounded; between 900 and -1,000 of his men were killed, wounded, or taken prisoners; -and not many more than 400 made good their escape. -Returning with his prisoners to Philadelphia, Washington -again re-crossed the Delaware, and during the rest of the -winter and the first six months of the year 1777 continually -harassed the English in New Jersey, avoiding a general -engagement, which Howe vainly endeavoured to bring on. -At length, towards the end of July, Howe evacuated the <span class="sidenote">Howe retreats from the Jerseys, and occupies Philadelphia.</span> -territory, and, leaving Clinton with over 8,000 men at New -York, shipped the rest of his army for Chesapeake Bay, -resolved to attack the enemy from the opposite direction -and to take Philadelphia. Washington gave him battle -on the Brandywine river early in September and was -defeated. On the 26th of September Howe entered -Philadelphia: and on the 4th of October at Germantown, -five miles distant from the city, he successfully repelled -a sudden attack by which Washington attempted to repeat -the success of Trenton. At Brandywine, Washington -lost some 1,300 men, at Germantown over 1,000; but, -while Germantown was being fought, Burgoyne’s army on -the upper reaches of the Hudson was nearing its final -disaster.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Far-reaching -consequences -of the -fight at -Trenton.</div> - -<p>The War of American Independence, to quote the words -of the <i>Annual Register</i> for 1777,<a id="FNanchor_109" href="#Footnote_109" class="fnanchor">[109]</a> was ‘a war of posts, -surprises, and skirmishes, instead of a war of battles’. -The disaster to the Hessians at Trenton was what -would have been called in the late South African war -a regrettable incident, but it had far-reaching consequences. -The German troops employed by the British -Government were not unnaturally regarded by the -American colonists with special dislike and apprehension. -They were foreigners and professional soldiers, alien in -sympathies and in speech, partisans in a quarrel with -which they had no concern, fighting for profit not for<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_135"></a>[135]</span> -principle. The citizen general, at the darkest time of the -national cause, came back to Philadelphia, bringing a -number of them prisoners, and broke at once the spell of ill -success. There followed, as a direct consequence, the -abandonment of the Jerseys by the English, the rising -again of colonial feeling throughout the region, and -corresponding depression of the Loyalists. But almost -more important was the effect on the side of Canada; for -the Trenton episode led to the supersession of Carleton -and to his eventual resignation.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -Secretary -of State -for the -American -Department.</div> - -<p>In the year 1768 the office of Secretary of State for the -American Department was created in England, to deal -especially with colonial matters. The Council of Trade -and Plantations, which in one form or another had hitherto -taken charge of the colonies, was not superseded, but to -the new Secretary of State it fell to handle questions of -war and peace with the American colonies. The appointment -was not long lived, being abolished, together with -the Council of Trade and Plantations, by Burke’s Act in -1782. The first Secretary of State for the American -Department was Lord Hillsborough; the second, appointed -in 1772, was Lord Dartmouth, in character and sympathy, -a pleasing exception to the type of politicians who at the -time had power in Great Britain; the third, appointed at -the beginning of 1776, was Lord George Germain who, -when he took office, was about sixty years of age.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Lord -George -Germain.</div> - -<p>No name in English political history during the last -150 years is less loved than that of Lord George Sackville, -or, as he was known in later years, Lord George Germain. -He was born in 1716, a younger son of the first Duke of -Dorset. Lady Betty Germain, who died in 1769, left him -the Drayton estate<a id="FNanchor_110" href="#Footnote_110" class="fnanchor">[110]</a> in Northamptonshire, and he took<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_136"></a>[136]</span> -her name. Ten years before, he had been cashiered for -disobedience to an order to charge at the battle of Minden -in 1759, laying himself open by his conduct in that battle -to what was no doubt an unfounded charge of cowardice. -He took to political life, and has been commonly regarded -as in a special manner the evil genius of the British -ministry during the war with America. Yet he was not -a man without parts. In his early life he had some -reputation as a soldier, being highly spoken of by Wolfe. -After he was dismissed from the army, he pertinaciously -demanded a court-martial, though warned that more -serious results even than dismissal might follow from -re-opening the case. The inquiry was held, and the -dismissal confirmed; but, helped no doubt by his family -connexions, he held up his head in public life, and became, -in Horace Walpole’s opinion, one of the five best speakers -in the House of Commons.<a id="FNanchor_111" href="#Footnote_111" class="fnanchor">[111]</a> Walpole, and probably others -also, disbelieved the charge of cowardice;<a id="FNanchor_112" href="#Footnote_112" class="fnanchor">[112]</a> and certainly -in politics, whatever may have been the case on the battlefield, -Germain cannot be denied the merits of courage and -tenacity, though he may well have been embittered by his -past, and hardened into fighting narrowly for his own -hand. He became a follower of Lord North, and under -him was appointed a Lord Commissioner of Trade and -Plantations and Secretary of State for the American<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_137"></a>[137]</span> -Department. He was an unbending opponent of the -colonists and their claims. ‘I don’t want you to come -and breathe fire and sword against the Bostonians like -that second Duke of Alva, the inflexible Lord George -Germain,’ wrote Horace Walpole in January, 1775,<a id="FNanchor_113" href="#Footnote_113" class="fnanchor">[113]</a> before -Germain had taken office. To use Germain’s own words, he -would be satisfied with nothing less from the Americans -than ‘unlimited submission’.<a id="FNanchor_114" href="#Footnote_114" class="fnanchor">[114]</a></p> - -<p>Germain seems to have been deeply imbued with the -great political vice of the time, that of dealing with national -questions from a personal and partisan point of view. It -was a vice inculcated by George the Third. The King was -a narrow man: his school bred narrow men: and one of -the narrowest was Lord George Germain. Such men are -fearful of power passing from their hands, and are consequently -prone to be constantly interfering with their -officers. Hence it was that the evil of ministers trying -to order the operations of generals, and of men in one -continent purporting to regulate movements in another, -was more pronounced at this time than at almost any -other period in English history. Moreover, Lord George -Germain having been a soldier, though a discredited one, -no doubt thought that he could control armies; and, -mixing military knowledge with political intrigue, he communed -with the generals who came home, and formulated -plans with slight regard to the views of the responsible -men in America. The result was disastrous, in spite of -the fact that he seems to have formed a true conception -of the campaign, viz., that the one army in Canada and -the other at New York should co-operate and cut in -two the revolting colonies. The immediate outcome -of his arrogant meddling was the loss of Carleton’s -services.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">His correspondence -with -Carleton.</div> - -<p>On the 22nd of August, 1776, while Carleton was busy<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_138"></a>[138]</span> -making preparations to drive the Americans back up Lake -Champlain, Germain wrote to him, commending what had -been done, expressing a hope that the frontiers of Canada -would soon be cleared of the rebel forces, and giving -instructions that, when this task had been accomplished, -Carleton should return to Quebec, to attend to civil duties -and the restoration of law and order, while detaching -Burgoyne with any troops that could be spared to co-operate -with Howe’s army acting from New York. Written -when it was, the letter could hardly have been received in -any case before the year’s campaign was drawing to its -close, and before events had already determined what -could or could not be done. It might have been received, -wrote Carleton in a dignified and reasoned reply, at the -beginning of November,<a id="FNanchor_115" href="#Footnote_115" class="fnanchor">[115]</a> and coming to hand then could -only have caused embarrassment. As a matter of fact, -the ship which carried Germain’s letter, was driven back -three times, and Carleton only received a duplicate in -May, 1777, under cover of a second letter from Germain -which was dated the 26th of March in that year. This <span class="sidenote">Carleton censured and superseded in command of the army on the side of Canada.</span> -second letter attributed the disaster to the Hessians at -Trenton, which had happened in the meantime, in part -to the fact that by retreating from before Ticonderoga in -the preceding autumn Carleton had relaxed the pressure -on the American army in front of him, which had thereby -been enabled to reinforce Washington; and it announced -that two expeditions were in the coming campaign to be -sent from Canada, one under Colonel St. Leger, the other -under Burgoyne, while Carleton himself was to remain -behind in Canada and devote his energies to the defence of -the province, and to furnishing supplies and equipment -for the two expeditions in question. It will be remembered -that Burgoyne had in the meantime returned to England, -reaching Portsmouth about the 9th of December, 1776, -and had brought with him Carleton’s plans for the operations<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_139"></a>[139]</span> -of 1777, which were therefore well known to Germain -when he wrote in March.</p> - -<p>It is difficult to imagine how a responsible minister could -have been at once so ignorant and so unfair as Germain -showed himself to be in this communication. To suppose -that the movement or want of movement on Lake Champlain -could have had any real connexion with the cutting -off of a detachment on the Delaware river, which was -within easy reach of the rest of Howe’s forces, overpowering -in numbers as compared with Washington’s, was at best -wilful blindness to facts. To supersede Carleton in the -supreme command of the troops on the Canadian side was -an act of unwisdom and injustice. It is true that, already -in the previous August, while Carleton was still on the full -tide of success, it had been determined to confine his -authority to Canada, and apparently, in order that his -commission might not clash with that of Howe, to place -under a subordinate officer the troops which were intended -to effect a junction with Howe’s army. But in any case <span class="sidenote">Personal relations of Germain and Carleton.</span> -it is not easy to resist the conclusion that Germain had -some personal grudge against the governor.<a id="FNanchor_116" href="#Footnote_116" class="fnanchor">[116]</a> From a -letter written by the King to Lord North in February, -1777, it would seem that, had Germain been given his way, -Carleton would have been recalled, and, writing to -Germain on the 22nd of May, Carleton did not hesitate to -refer to the reports which were set abroad when Germain -took office, to the effect that he intended to remove Carleton -from his appointment, and in the meantime to undermine -his authority. In his answer, dated the 25th of July, 1777, -Germain gave the lie to these allegations, assuring Carleton -that ‘whatever reports you may have heard of my having -any personal dislike to you are without the least foundation. -I have at no time received any disobligation from -you’; he stated categorically that the action which had -been taken for giving Burgoyne an independent command -was by ‘the King’s particular directions’, and he added<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_140"></a>[140]</span> -that the hope that Carleton would in his advance in the -previous autumn penetrate as far as Albany was based -upon the opinions of officers who had served in the country, -and was confirmed by intelligence since received to the -effect that the Americans had intended to abandon Ticonderoga, -if Carleton had attacked it.<a id="FNanchor_117" href="#Footnote_117" class="fnanchor">[117]</a> But, whatever -may have been the facts as to the personal relations of -Carleton and Germain, it seems clear that the small-minded -minister in England was bent on ridding himself of the best -man who served England in America.<a id="FNanchor_118" href="#Footnote_118" class="fnanchor">[118]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">The case -of Chief -Justice -Livius.</div> - -<p>As Germain superseded Carleton in his military command, -so he set aside his advice, and over-rode his appointments -in civil matters. Reference has already been made -to the evil effects produced by appointing unfit men to -legal and judicial offices in Canada. The climax was -reached when Germain in August, 1776, appointed to the -Chief Justiceship of Canada a man named Livius, whose -case attained considerable notoriety in the annals of the -time. Peter Livius seems to have been a foreigner by -extraction. Before the war broke out, he had been a -judge in New Hampshire; and, his appointment having -been abolished, he came back to England with a grievance -against the governor and council, with whom he had been -on bad terms while still holding his judgeship. A provision -in the Quebec Act had annulled all the commissions -given to the judges and other officers in Canada under the -Royal Proclamation of 1763, which that Act superseded: -and the English ministry seems to have taken advantage -of this provision to displace men who had done their work -well, and whose services Carleton desired to retain, substituting -for them unfit nominees from England.</p> - -<p>One of the men thus substituted was Livius, for whom -they saw an opportunity of providing in Canada. Lord<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_141"></a>[141]</span> -Dartmouth wrote to Carleton in May, 1775, notifying the -appointment of Livius as a judge of Common Pleas for -the district of Montreal; and in August of the following -year he was promoted by Germain to be Chief Justice -of Canada. Livius succeeded Chief Justice Hey, who had -held the office since 1766, and had in August, 1775, requested -to be allowed to retire after ‘ten years honest, -however imperfect, endeavours to serve the Crown in an -unpleasant and something critical situation’.<a id="FNanchor_119" href="#Footnote_119" class="fnanchor">[119]</a> Hey was -a man of high standing and character, and had been much -consulted by the Government in passing the Quebec Act. -Livius was a man of a wholly different class. Carleton’s <span class="sidenote">Carleton’s description of Livius.</span> -unflattering description of him in a letter written on the -25th of June, 1778,<a id="FNanchor_120" href="#Footnote_120" class="fnanchor">[120]</a> was that he was ‘greedy of power -and more greedy of gain, imperious and impetuous in his -temper, but learned in the ways and eloquence of the New -England provinces, valuing himself in his knowledge how -to manage governors, well schooled, it seems, in business -of this sort’. ‘’Tis unfortunate,’ he wrote in another and -earlier letter, referring apparently to Livius, ‘that your -Lordship should find it necessary for the King’s service -to send over a person to administer justice to this people, -when he understands neither their laws, manners, customs, -nor their language.’<a id="FNanchor_121" href="#Footnote_121" class="fnanchor">[121]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">He dismisses -him from -office.</div> - -<p>Livius’ appointment as Chief Justice apparently did -not take effect till 1777, and he lost no time in making -difficulties. Though paid better than his predecessor, he -protested as to his emoluments and position; he claimed -the powers which had been enjoyed by the Intendant -under the old French régime, and both in his judicial -capacity and as a member of the council, constituted -himself an active opponent of the government. As Chief -Justice, he espoused the cause of a Canadian who had<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_142"></a>[142]</span> -been arrested and sent to prison for disloyalty by the -Lieutenant-Governor Cramahé, and in the council, in -April, 1778, he brought forward motions directed against -what he held to be illegal and irregular proceedings on -the part of the governor. The result of his attitude was -that on the 1st of May, 1778, Carleton, before he left -Canada, summarily, and without giving any reason, dismissed -him from office.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Livius -appeals -to the -King.</div> - -<p>Both Livius and Carleton went back to England, and -in September Livius appealed to the King. His appeal -was referred to the Lords Commissioners of Trade and -Plantations, whose report on the case was in turn referred -to the Lords of the Committee of Council for Plantation -Affairs, and with their recommendation was brought -before the King in Privy Council, Livius having in the -course of the inquiry stated his case fully both in person -and in writing, while Carleton declined to appear, and -contented himself with referring to his dispatches and -to the minutes of council. On technical grounds Livius -had a strong case. Appointed by the King, he had been <span class="sidenote">Merits of the case.</span> -dismissed by the governor without any reason being -assigned in the letter of dismissal. His conduct in a -judicial capacity had not been specifically impugned, and -the two motions directed against Carleton, which he had -brought forward in the Legislative Council immediately -prior to his dismissal, had, at any rate, some show of -reason. The first was to the effect that the governor -should communicate to the council the Royal Instructions -which had been given him with respect to legislation, and -which by those instructions he was to communicate so far -as it was convenient for the King’s service. The second -referred to a committee of five members of the council, -which Carleton had constituted in August, 1776, a kind -of Privy Council for the transaction of executive, as -opposed to legislative business, in which Livius was not -included. Livius contended, and his contention was -upheld, that the instruction under which the governor had -appointed this board or committee, did not contemplate<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_143"></a>[143]</span> -the formation of a standing committee of particular members -of council, but only authorized the transaction of -executive business by any five councillors, if more were -not available at the time.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -appeal -upheld -and -Livius -restored -to office. -His subsequent -career.</div> - -<p>The result of the inquiry was that the Chief Justice -was restored to his office, but he never returned to Canada. -In July, 1779, a mandamus for his re-appointment as -Chief Justice was sent to Governor Haldimand, Carleton’s -successor, and in the same month he was ordered to go -back at once to Quebec. But he remained on in England -on one pretext or another. In March, 1780, he was still -in London asking for further extension of leave, to see -his brother who was coming home from India. Two years -later, in April, 1782, he had not gone, though he alleged -that he had attempted to cross the Atlantic and had been -driven back by stress of weather; and he pleaded with -rare audacity that it was advisable that he should still -prolong his absence from Canada, as otherwise it would -be his duty to oppose the high-handed proceedings, as he -deemed them to be, of General Haldimand. So matters -went on until Carleton, now Lord Dorchester, returned to -govern Canada in the autumn of 1786, when a new Chief -Justice was at once appointed, and Livius finally disappeared -from history.<a id="FNanchor_122" href="#Footnote_122" class="fnanchor">[122]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Moral of -the case.</div> - -<p>It has been worth while to give at some length the details -of this somewhat squalid incident, because it is a good -illustration of the difficulties which may arise from one -of the most valued and valuable of English principles, the -independence of the judicature. In the distant possessions -of Great Britain, even more than at home, a great<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_144"></a>[144]</span> -safeguard and a strong source of confidence is and -always has been that the judges are in no way dependent -on the Executive; and yet the case of Livius is by no -means the only case in which serious mischief to the public -service has resulted from this very cause. There can be -no doubt that on technical grounds the Privy Council were -right in upholding Livius’ appeal. What weighed with -them most of all was that Livius had not been dismissed -for judicial misconduct; and short of such misconduct, -flagrant and proved beyond all shadow of doubt, it would -still be held that a judge should not be removed from -office by the King himself, much less by the governor. -Carleton, like other men cast in a large mould, did not -sufficiently safeguard his action. A mischief-making -adventurer was placed in high office for which he was -clearly unfit. At a time of national crisis he used his -powers of making mischief, and feeling secure in the independence -of his judicial position, sought to undermine -the authority of the Government. Unwilling to leave -the difficulty for his successor to solve, the outgoing -governor, fearless of responsibility, summarily dismissed -the man, and contemptuously refused to justify the -grounds of dismissal. He acted in the best interests of -the public service, but, in doing so, he placed himself in -the wrong, and the restoration of Livius to his office must -be held to be justified, while his original appointment admits -of no excuse.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Carleton -resigns.</div> - -<p>In June, 1777, Carleton sent in his resignation, but a -year passed before he was able to leave Canada, and a -bitter year it was for the English cause in America. Germain’s -letter to him of the 26th of March, to which reference -has already been made, gave a minute account of <span class="sidenote">Germain’s plan of campaign for 1777.</span> -the plans for the year’s campaign. Carleton was to -remain behind in Canada with 3,770 men. He was to -place under command of General Burgoyne 7,173 men, in -addition to Canadians and Indians, and after providing -him with whatever artillery, stores, and provisions he -might require, and rendering him every assistance in his<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_145"></a>[145]</span> -power, ‘to give him orders to pass Lake Champlain and -from thence, by the most vigorous exertion of the force -under his command, to proceed with all expedition to -Albany, and put himself under the command of Sir William -Howe.’ In an earlier part of the same letter the phrase -is used that Burgoyne was ‘to force his way to Albany’, -leaving no doubt of the writer’s intention that at all -hazards Burgoyne was to effect a junction with Howe. -Carleton was further to place under Lieutenant-Colonel -St. Leger 675 men, also to be supplemented by Canadians -and Indians, to give him all the necessaries for his expedition, -and to instruct him to advance to the Mohawk river, -and down that river to Albany, where he was to place -himself under Sir William Howe. St. Leger’s force was -to be supplementary to Burgoyne’s: as phrased elsewhere -in the same letter, he was ‘to make a diversion on the -Mohawk river’.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Minuteness -of -the instructions.</div> - -<p class="pbot1">It is noteworthy how this remarkable letter purported -to settle all the details. The exact number of men for -each service are counted, the particular regiments and -companies of regiments are told off, no discretion is left -to Carleton or to Burgoyne as to whom they should send -forward to Lake Champlain or the Mohawk, and whom -they should keep in Canada. No mention is made of the -reinforcements which Carleton had written were necessary. -Nothing is allowed apparently for sick or ineffectives. -All is on paper, concocted by the man at a distance who -persisted in knowing better than the far more capable man -on the spot. But the most damning passage in the letter -is as follows, ‘I shall write to Sir William from hence by <span class="sidenote">Germain fails to communicate with Sir W. Howe.</span> -the first packet, but you will nevertheless endeavour to -give him the earliest intelligence of this measure, and -also direct Lieutenant-General Burgoyne and Lieutenant-Colonel -St. Leger to neglect no opportunity of doing the -same, that they may receive instructions from Sir William -Howe.’ Sir William Howe’s Narrative of his operations, -given to a Committee of the House of Commons in April, -1779, states explicitly that the promised letter was never<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_146"></a>[146]</span> -sent to him by Germain; that it was not until the 5th of -June that he received from Carleton a copy of the letter -which has been quoted above, unaccompanied by any -instructions; and that, before Burgoyne left England, -Germain had received Howe’s plans for the Philadelphia -expedition, and had written approving them. Such was -Lord George Germain’s conduct of the war in America.</p> - -<div class="figcenter illowp70" id="i_146" style="max-width: 43.75em;"> -<img class="w100" src="images/i_146.jpg" alt="" /> - <a rel="nofollow" href="images/i_146large.jpg"> - <span class="screenonly fs60 center">click here for larger image.</span></a> -<div class="caption">Map to illustrate <b>THE BORDER WARS</b><br /> -<p class="right"><i>to face page 145</i></p> -<p class="left noindent">B. V. Barbishire, Oxford, 1908</p> -</div> -</div> - -<div class="sidenote">Burgoyne -and -Carleton.</div> - -<p class="p1">On the 27th of March Burgoyne left London. On the -6th of May he arrived at Quebec. There was no friction -between him and Carleton. He had made no attempt to -supplant Carleton, and, bitterly as Carleton resented his -own treatment by Germain, he gave Burgoyne the utmost -assistance for the coming campaign. ‘Had that officer -been acting for himself or for his brother, he could not -have shown more indefatigable zeal than he did to comply -with and expedite my requisitions and desires.’ Such -was Burgoyne’s testimony to Carleton, in his Narrative -of the ‘state of the Expedition from Canada’ as given to -the House of Commons.<a id="FNanchor_123" href="#Footnote_123" class="fnanchor">[123]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">St. -Leger’s -expedition -to -the -Mohawk -river.</div> - -<p>Before following the fortunes of Burgoyne and his -army, it will be well to give an account of how St. Leger -fared in the ‘diversion on the Mohawk river’. As in -the days of the French and English wars, the twofold -British advance from Canada followed the course of the -waterways. While the main army moved up Lake Champlain -to strike the Hudson at Fort Edward and thence -move down to Albany, St. Leger’s smaller force was dispatched -up the St. Lawrence to Oswego on Lake Ontario, -in order by lake and stream to reach and overpower Fort -Stanwix on the upper waters of the Mohawk river, and -then to follow down that river to the Hudson, and reach -the meeting-point with Burgoyne’s troops at Albany. -At Albany both Burgoyne and St. Leger were to place -themselves under Sir William Howe’s command. Oswego, -the starting-point of St. Leger’s expedition, owing to its -geographical position always played a prominent part in -the border wars of Canada and the North American colonies.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_147"></a>[147]</span> -From this point Count Frontenac started when, in 1696, <span class="sidenote">Oswego.</span> -he led his men to Onondaga, burnt the villages of the -Iroquois, and laid waste their cornfields. The first fort -at Oswego was built in 1727 by Governor Burnet of New -York, who reported that he had built it with the consent -of the Six Nations. It was built on the western bank of -the mouth of the Onondaga or Oswego river, which here -runs into Lake Ontario, and it was still the main fort in -1756, when Oswego was taken by Montcalm, although -a subsidiary fort had also lately been built upon the -opposite—the eastern side of the river. The effect produced -both in England and in America by the French -general’s brilliant feat of arms marked the importance -which was attached to the position. The place was re-occupied -by Prideaux and Haldimand with Sir William -Johnson in 1759; and subsequently a new fort was constructed -on the high ground which forms a promontory -on the eastern side of the estuary. This fort, which -after the War of Independence passed into American -hands, was stormed and taken by Gordon Drummond in -the war of 1812.</p> - -<p>The Oswego river, or one branch of it, runs out of Lake -Oneida: and into that lake, at the eastern end, runs the -stream which was known as Wood Creek. From the Wood -Creek there was a portage to the Mohawk river, and at -the end of the portage stood Fort Stanwix, held by an -American garrison, and barring St. Leger’s way to the -Mohawk valley and the Hudson. All this was the country <span class="sidenote">The Six Nations.</span> -of the Six Nation Indians, Six Nations instead of Five -since the early part of the eighteenth century, when the -Tuscaroras, driven up from the south by the white men, -had been admitted to the Iroquois Confederacy. The <span class="sidenote">Allies of the English.</span> -people of the Long House, as the Iroquois called themselves, -had always been, in the main, allies of the English -as against the French. From the time when the state -of New York became a British possession, these Indians, -who had had friendly trading relations with the Dutch, -transferred their friendship to the English, and the chain<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_148"></a>[148]</span> -of the covenant, though often strained, was never completely -broken. When the War of American Independence -began, and the English were divided, the Six Nations, -though confused by the issue and by the competing appeals -of the two parties, adhered as a whole to the Royalist -cause. The majority of the Oneidas, and possibly the -Tuscaroras, inclined to the American side, the Oneidas -having come under the strong personal influence of a New -England missionary, Samuel Kirkland, but the other -members of the league were for the King. After the -battle of Oriskany, where, among others, the powerful -clan of Senecas suffered heavily, the enmity between these -Indians and the colonists became more pronounced, and -took the form of a blood feud, accompanied by all the -horrors of militant savagery.</p> - -<p>There were various reasons why the Iroquois should -espouse the side of England against America. They -looked to the Great King beyond the sea as their father -and protector. The English colonists on their borders -had shown little respect for their lands: and in 1774, in -one of the inevitable conflicts between white men and red -on the Virginian frontier, which was known as Cresap’s -war, some of the Six Nation warriors had been involved, -and the family of a friendly Cayuga chief had been murdered -by the whites, bringing bitterness into the hearts of -the western members of the Iroquois Confederacy. But, -most of all, the Mohawks shaped the policy of the league, -and they in turn were guided by the Johnson family, and -by their famous fighting chief Thayandenegea, more -commonly known by his English name of Joseph -Brant.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -Mohawks.</div> - -<p>The Mohawks had always been the leaders among the -Six Nation Indians, though, by the time when war broke -out between England and America, they were comparatively -few in number, worn down by constant fighting, and -by other causes.<a id="FNanchor_124" href="#Footnote_124" class="fnanchor">[124]</a> Of all the Iroquois, they had been most<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_149"></a>[149]</span> -consistently loyal to the English, and the most determined -foes of the French. Their homes were at the eastern end -of the Long House, in the valley of the Mohawk river, and -they had therefore always been in close touch with the -settlements at Albany, Schenectady, and along the course -of the river to which they gave their name. They had -mingled much and intermarried with their white neighbours; -and for thirty-five years they had had living -among them the Englishman, or rather the Irishman, -who above all others won the confidence of the North -American Indians, Sir William Johnson. They adopted <span class="sidenote">Sir William Johnson.</span> -him and he adopted them, taking to wife in his later years, -a Mohawk girl, Mary or Molly Brant. If Johnson in large -measure lived down to the Indians, he also endeavoured -to make the Indians live up to the white men’s level. -He encouraged missionary effort, and promoted education, -sending, among others, Joseph Brant, brother of Molly -Brant, to a school for Indian boys at Lebanon in the -state of Connecticut. Johnson represented the authority -of the King, and he used his authority and his influence -for the protection of the Indians against the inroads of the -white men into their lands. The Mohawks, from their -position, were more exposed than the other members of -the confederacy to white land-jobbers, whose aggressiveness -increased after Johnson’s death in 1774. Accordingly, -while their traditional sympathies had always been -with the English, when the civil war came, they had no -hesitation in attaching themselves to the King’s cause. It -was the cause of their protector; it was the cause of the -Johnson family; it was the cause to which both interest -and sentiment bade them to adhere. When Sir William -Johnson died, he left as his political representative, his -nephew and son-in-law, Colonel Guy Johnson: the heir -of his estates was his own son, Sir John Johnson. Both -the one and the other were pronounced Loyalists: they -drew the Mohawks after them; and when, in the summer<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_150"></a>[150]</span> -of 1775, after hearing of the fight at Bunker’s Hill, Guy -Johnson left the Mohawk Valley for Oswego and crossed -over to Canada, the majority of the Mohawks left their -homes and followed him. In Canada, it was said, they -received assurances from Carleton, which were confirmed -by Haldimand, that they should not be allowed to suffer -for their loyalty to the King.<a id="FNanchor_125" href="#Footnote_125" class="fnanchor">[125]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Joseph -Brant.</div> - -<p>The leader of these Mohawk friends of England was -Joseph Brant, who was born, the son of a full-blooded -Mohawk, in 1742. He was therefore a man of between -thirty and forty years of age at the time of the American -Revolution. In the period intervening between the -British conquest of Canada and the battle of Waterloo, -North America produced three very remarkable men of -pure Indian descent. Pontiac was one, Joseph Brant was -the second, the third was Tecumseh, who fought and fell -in the war of 1812. Of these three, Joseph Brant alone -sprang from the famous Iroquois stock. Pontiac was to -a greater extent than the others a leader of the red men -against the whites. So far as he had sympathies with white -men, they were with the French as against the English. -Brant, in the main, and Tecumseh played their parts when -French rule had ceased to exist in North America; -they were fast allies of the English as against the -Americans or, to put it more accurately, of the English -controlled from home as against the English installed in -their own right in America. But all these three Indian -chiefs had, in one form or another, the same main motive -for action, to prevent what the red man had being taken -from him by the white man. Of the three, Brant was by -far the most civilized. He was an educated man and a -Christian. He was, as has been seen, sent to school in<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_151"></a>[151]</span> -Connecticut, he was a friend of the missionaries, he visited -England twice, went to Court, had interviews and correspondence -with Secretaries of State, made acquaintance -with Boswell, was painted by Romney, and was presented -by Fox with a silver snuff-box. He was poles asunder -from the ordinary native inhabitant of the North American -backwoods. He had known war from early boyhood, had -borne arms under Sir William Johnson against the French, -and had apparently fought against Pontiac. At the outbreak -of the revolution he followed Guy Johnson to -Canada, and seems to have taken part in opposing the -American advance on Montreal. He paid his first visit to -England towards the end of 1775, returned to New York -in July 1776, and before the year closed made his way back -up country to the lands belonging to or within striking -distance of the Six Nations. Throughout the coming years -of the war his name was great and terrible in the borderland, -the main scene of his warfare being what was then -known as the Tryon county of New York, the districts -east of the Fort Stanwix treaty line, which were watered -by the Mohawk river and its tributaries, and by the streams -which flow south and south-west to form the Susquehanna. -Once portrayed as the embodiment of ruthless ferocity, -Brant was afterwards given a place in history as a hero. -He was present at the Cherry Valley massacre, but in his -fighting he seems to have been beyond question more -humane than most Indian warriors, and at least as -humane as some white men in these border wars, while his -courage, his skill in bush-fighting, and his rapidity of -movement were never surpassed. He was not a devil, and -not an angel. Like other men, both coloured and white, -he no doubt acted from mixed motives. His friendship -for the English, and his patriotism for the native races, -may well have been coupled with personal ambition. But -he fought heart-whole and with no little chivalry for the -cause which he espoused; and in war, as in peace, he was -above and beyond the normal level of the North American -Indian. After the war was over, he settled with his people<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_152"></a>[152]</span> -in Canada, where he died in 1807, and the town of Brantford -preserves his name.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">St. -Leger’s -force too -small for -the task.</div> - -<p>St. Leger’s expedition had been suggested to Germain -by Burgoyne, while the latter was in England: indeed, -some enterprise of the kind had been contemplated by -Carleton. In view alike of past history and of the general -plan of the summer’s campaign, it had much to recommend -it; but the opposition which the English were likely to -encounter, and actually did encounter, was under-rated, -and the force was too small for the task imposed upon it. -The total number has usually been given at 1,700 men, -including Indians; but this seems to have been an over-estimate, -at any rate when the fighting came. The white -troops probably did not in any case exceed 650 in number. -There were only 200 British regulars, half of whom -were a detachment of the 8th, now the King’s (Liverpool -Regiment), the same regiment which had furnished a company -for the attack on the Cedars. There were a few -German troops, who had just arrived in Canada, and -some of whom did not reach Oswego until the expedition -was over. The Germans, being wholly ignorant of the -country, were quite unsuited for bush-fighting and -bateau-work. There was a corps of New York Loyalists -under the command of Sir John Johnson, and known as -Johnson’s Royal Greens. Colonel John Butler led a company -of the Rangers, and a small body of Canadians also -took part in the expedition. The Indian contingent -numbered over 800 men. Brant joined at Oswego at the -head of 300 Indian warriors, mostly Mohawks, and the -Senecas were much in evidence. The Indians, as a whole, -were under the command of Colonel Daniel Claus, Johnson’s -brother-in-law, who for many years was one of the -officers charged by the British Government with the -superintendence of Indian affairs. Thus St. Leger had -with him most of the men whose names are best known -on the British side in the annals of the border warfare in -these troubled times. Guns were taken with the force, -though of too small calibre to overpower a well-built fort;<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_153"></a>[153]</span> -and, when the advance began towards the end of July, no -precautions were neglected, a detachment was sent on a -day’s march or so in front of the main column, and the -latter was led and flanked on either side by Indians.</p> - -<p>Fort Stanwix had at the time been renamed Fort -Schuyler by the Americans, presumably in honour of -General Schuyler, who commanded the American forces -in the Northern Department. The older and better known -name was subsequently restored. The fort stood on the -Mohawk river, not actually on the bank of the river, but -about 300 yards distant, guarding the end of the portage -from Wood Creek. The length of the portage where the -two rivers were nearest to each other, was rather over a -mile.<a id="FNanchor_126" href="#Footnote_126" class="fnanchor">[126]</a> The old blockhouse, Fort Williams, which had -been the predecessor of the existing fort, and the ruins of -which were standing at the time of St. Leger’s expedition, -was destroyed by the English general, Daniel Webb, in -1756, as he retreated in hot haste on hearing of the capture -of Oswego by Montcalm. Two years later General Stanwix -built a new fort, which bore his own name. The -town of Rome now covers the site on which Fort Stanwix -stood. The fort was square in form. It had evidently -been carefully designed by a trained soldier and strongly -constructed, but during the years of peace, in this case as -in those of the other border forts, the defences had fallen -more or less into decay, and had not been fully repaired or -rebuilt when the siege began. None the less, they proved -to be too strong to be overpowered by St. Leger’s light -guns. The garrison consisted of 750 men, 200 of whom -came in, bringing stores and provisions, on the very day -on which the forerunners of St. Leger’s force appeared on -the scene. The commander of the garrison was Colonel -Gansevoort, the second in command was Colonel Willett, <span class="sidenote">Fort Stanwix.</span> -both thoroughly competent men.</p> - -<p>St. Leger’s advanced guard, consisting of a detachment -of 30 men of the 8th Regiment, under Lieutenant Bird,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_154"></a>[154]</span> -with 200 Indians under Brant, arrived before the fort on <span class="sidenote">The siege of Fort Stanwix begins.</span> -the 2nd of August. They had been sent on, as is told in -St. Leger’s dispatch, ‘to seize fast hold of the lower landing-place, -and thereby cut off the enemy’s communication -with the lower country.’<a id="FNanchor_127" href="#Footnote_127" class="fnanchor">[127]</a> It had been hoped that they -would be in time to intercept the reinforcements which -were due at the fort, but they arrived too late for this -purpose. They took up their position at the point named, -below and due south of the fort, on the bank of the -Mohawk river, athwart the road to Albany. On the -following day, the 3rd of August, St. Leger came up himself, -sent a proclamation into the fort, and began to -invest it, fixing his main encampment about half a mile -to the north-east of the fort, and higher up the river, -which here runs in a curving course, so that a straight line -drawn from the main British camp to the post at the lower -landing-place would cross and recross the river, forming -the base of a semi-circle. The Americans had blocked up -Wood Creek with fallen timber, and St. Leger reported -that it took nine days and the work of 110 men to clear -away the obstructions, while two days were spent in -making several miles of track through the woods in order -in the meantime to bring up stores and guns. The siege, -therefore, began long before the necessary preparations -had been made, and long before the besieging force had -been concentrated and duly entrenched. On the evening -of the 5th of August there were not 250 of the white troops -in camp, and at this juncture St. Leger was threatened by -a strong body of Americans who had gathered for the -relief of the fort.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The fight -at Oriskany.</div> - -<p>When news came to the New York settlements of the -British advance, the militia of Tryon county were called -out by their commander, General Nicholas Herkimer. -The rendezvous was Fort Dayton, at the German Flatts,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_155"></a>[155]</span> -lower down the Mohawk valley than Fort Stanwix. The -German Flatts were so named after settlers from the -Palatinate, who had come out early in the eighteenth -century, and from this stock Herkimer was himself -descended. On the 4th of August he moved forward, the -number of his force being usually given at from 800 to 1,000 -men. St. Leger reported that they were 800 strong, and -assuming that the total was between 700 and 800, the -relief force and the garrison together equalled, if they did -not outnumber, the whole of St. Leger’s army, the majority -of which moreover consisted, as has been seen, of Indians. -On the 5th Herkimer encamped near a place called -Oriskany, about eight<a id="FNanchor_128" href="#Footnote_128" class="fnanchor">[128]</a> miles short of Fort Stanwix, where -a stream called the Oriskany Creek flowed into the Mohawk -river. From this point he sent on messengers to the fort -to secure the co-operation of the garrison. Meanwhile -intelligence had reached St. Leger, sent it was said by -Molly Brant, of the coming relief force, and at five o’clock -on the evening of the 5th he dispatched 80 white -troops, being all that he could spare, with 400 Indians, to -intercept the advancing Americans before they came into -touch with the fort, and ambush them among the woods. -Sir John<a id="FNanchor_129" href="#Footnote_129" class="fnanchor">[129]</a> Johnson was placed in command of the detachment, -and with him were Butler and Joseph Brant. It -was work for which Brant was eminently suited, and he -seems to have been the leading spirit in planning the -ambuscade. Very early on the morning of the 6th of -August, urged on by his impatient followers, and against -his own better judgement, Herkimer, without waiting for -reinforcements or for a sign from the beleaguered fort,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_156"></a>[156]</span> -continued his advance. He reached a point between two -and three miles beyond Oriskany, and within six miles of -the fort, where the path descended into a semi-circular -ravine, with swampy ground at the bottom and high -wooded ground at the sides. Here the Americans were -caught in a trap, which would have been more complete -had not the Indians begun fighting before the plan of -ambush had been fully developed. The American rearguard, -which had not yet entered the ravine, broke and -fled: the main body were surrounded, Johnson barring -their way in front, Brant falling on their rear, while others -of the Indians and Butler’s rangers fought on the flanks. -There followed a confused fight among the trees, gradually -becoming a hand to hand struggle, with a brief interlude -caused by a heavy storm of rain. Herkimer was mortally -wounded, many, if not most, of the other leading American -officers were killed; while, on the British side, the Indians -suffered heavy losses. In the end the remnant of the -American force seem to have beaten off or tired out their -assailants, and made good their retreat, but according -to St. Leger’s report only 200 of them escaped. Butler -estimated the total American casualties in killed, wounded, -and prisoners, at 500, and, according to American accounts, -the total was about 400. The white casualties on the -British side were very small, but the casualties among the -Indians seem to have numbered from 60 to 100.</p> - -<p>While the engagement was going on, a sortie was made -from the fort, and it was probably news of this movement, -coupled with the Indian losses, which put an end to the -fight at Oriskany. Bird, the commander of the post at -the lower landing-place, had been misled by a rumour that -Johnson was hard pressed, and led out his men to support -him, leaving the post undefended. Meanwhile, Willett -at the head of 250 men marched out of the fort, apparently -in ignorance of the ambuscade and designing to join hands -with Herkimer’s force. Willett found the post practically -deserted, mastered it, and carried off its contents, eluding -an attempt which St. Leger made to cut him off on his<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_157"></a>[157]</span> -return to the fort.<a id="FNanchor_130" href="#Footnote_130" class="fnanchor">[130]</a> This ended the day’s work. Herkimer’s -force had been blotted out, but it must have become -increasingly evident that St. Leger’s men and resources -were hopelessly inadequate for the task which had been -set him, to force his way to Albany.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">St. Leger -fails to -take Fort -Stanwix -and retreats -to -Oswego.</div> - -<p>After the battle of Oriskany, St. Leger summoned the -fort to surrender, but without effect. He continued the -siege, but made little or no impression upon the defences. -On the night of the 10th of August Willett made his way -out of the fort, reached Fort Dayton, and went on to -Albany where he met Benedict Arnold who had been -charged with the duty of relieving Fort Stanwix. Arnold -gathered troops for the purpose and in the meantime, -with his usual cleverness, contrived to send on rumours -which caused alarm in the British camp. A thousand -men were reported to be coming, then 2,000, then 3,000, -and Arnold’s own name may well have been a potent -source of apprehension. The Indians, already depressed -by their losses at Oriskany, and by the prolonging of -the siege, became more and more out of hand, deserting, -marauding, and spreading exaggerated tales; and -at length, on the 22nd or 23rd of August, St. Leger -beat a hasty retreat by night, leaving behind him most -of his stores and guns, and returned to Oswego, whence -he went back to Montreal and on to Lake Champlain in -the wake of Burgoyne’s army. Joseph Brant took a less -circuitous route. When St. Leger retreated from Fort -Stanwix, Brant made one of his marvellous flying marches<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_158"></a>[158]</span> -down the Mohawk Valley: and, after passing for over -a hundred miles through the heart of the enemy’s country, -which was also his own, in two or three days’ time joined -Burgoyne’s force on the banks of the Hudson river.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Misconduct -of the -Indians.</div> - -<p>When he returned to Oswego, St. Leger, on the 27th of -August, wrote a dispatch to Burgoyne, giving details of -his expedition, but not punctuating his failure. The -failure was due to insufficiency of numbers and artillery -in the first place, and in the second, beyond question, to -the misconduct of his Indian allies. The employment of <span class="sidenote">Bad effects of employing them in the war.</span> -Indians in this war with British colonists may have been -inevitable, but it was certainly politically inexpedient, -notwithstanding the fact that the colonists themselves -were ready to avail themselves of similar aid. Indians -had been engaged on the English side in the wars with the -French, but sparingly and under strict supervision. -Carleton, as long as he directed operations in the War of -Independence, had been equally careful in using these -savage tools.<a id="FNanchor_131" href="#Footnote_131" class="fnanchor">[131]</a> In St. Leger’s expedition the disadvantages -of enlisting Indian fighting men came fully to light. -They became, St. Leger wrote to Burgoyne, ‘more formidable -than the enemy we had to expect.’ Disappointed -of looting the enemy, they plundered their friends and -endangered, if they did not in some cases take, their lives. -Unstable as friends, ferocious as foes, they were not fit -helpmates for Englishmen in fighting Englishmen, even -their value as scouts was diminished by their incurable -habit of believing and exaggerating any report. As in the -war with the French in Canada, the English gained ground -by the scrupulous care which they took to prevent outrages -on the part of the savages who accompanied their armies, -so in the later war with their own countrymen, they distinctly -lost ground through calling out the coloured men -of America against colonists of British birth.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Burgoyne’s -address -to the -Indians.</div> - -<p>Burgoyne’s instructions from Lord George Germain -included the employment of Indians under due precautions; -and he formally addressed his Indian followers in<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_159"></a>[159]</span> -his camp at the river Bouquet, on the western side of Lake -Champlain, on the 21st of June, 1777. ‘The collective -voices and hands of the Indian tribes over this vast continent,’ -were, he told them, with a few exceptions, ‘on the -side of justice, of law, and the King.’ He bade them ‘go -forth in might of your valour and your cause: strike at -the common enemies of Great Britain and America’. -On the other hand, he sternly forbade bloodshed except in -battle, and enjoined that ‘aged men, women, children, and -prisoners must be held sacred from the knife or hatchet, -even in the time of actual conflict’. Compensation would -be given for the prisoners taken, but the Indians would -be called to account for scalps. His listeners replied, -through an old chief of the Iroquois—‘We have been -tried and tempted by the Bostonians, but we have loved -our father, and our hatchets have been sharpened upon -our affections.’ They promised with one voice obedience -to the general’s commands.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Burgoyne.</div> - -<p>At this date, in the year 1777, Burgoyne was fifty-five -years of age, having been born in 1722, two years before -Carleton was born. He was clearly a man of ability, -and unusually versatile. He was also, as times went, an -honourable man. In his relations to Carleton, at any -rate, he seems to have been open to no reproach. But -he tried too many things to be first-rate in anything; he -was not adequate to a great crisis and to heavy responsibility: -and because he was not of the first class, and also -because he had much dramatic instinct, he seems to have -had more eye for present effect than for the root of -matters. He was educated at Westminster School, and, -when he died in 1792, he was buried in the northern -cloister of Westminster Abbey. He was a soldier, a -politician, a dramatist, and a man of society. He entered -the army in 1740, again two years before Carleton’s -military service began. He became so involved in debt -that he had to sell his commission. He rejoined the army -in 1756, and in 1762 he distinguished himself in Portugal, -where the English supported the Portuguese against Spain<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_160"></a>[160]</span> -and France. A few years later, however, in 1769, Junius -referred to him as ‘not very conspicuous in his profession’.<a id="FNanchor_132" href="#Footnote_132" class="fnanchor">[132]</a> -He went into the House of Commons in 1761 as member -for Midhurst. In 1768, through the influence of his father-in-law, -Lord Derby, he became member for Preston, and, -in connexion with his election, was attacked by Junius -for corruption and also for his gambling propensities. -As a politician he was, before he went to America, more or -less of a free-lance. He spoke on foreign and Indian -questions, and in 1773 made a speech in the House of -Commons, attacking Clive. After the catastrophe at -Saratoga, and his return to England, he threw in his lot -with the Whigs, having been befriended by Fox and his -followers; he became Commander-in-Chief in Ireland -under Rockingham; and in 1787 he managed the impeachment -of Warren Hastings. Before the American war -broke out, he produced in 1774 a play called <i>The Maid of -the Oaks</i>, of which Horace Walpole wrote: ‘There is a -new puppet show at Drury Lane as fine as scenes can make -it, called <i>The Maid of the Oaks</i>, and as dull as the author -could not help making it.’<a id="FNanchor_133" href="#Footnote_133" class="fnanchor">[133]</a> At a later date, however, -Walpole had to confess that ‘General Burgoyne has -written the best modern comedy’.<a id="FNanchor_134" href="#Footnote_134" class="fnanchor">[134]</a> This was <i>The Heiress</i>, -which was brought out in the beginning of 1786, and -achieved a great success. Walpole had no love for -Burgoyne, at any rate at the time when the latter served -in America. ‘You ask the history of Burgoyne the pompous,’ -he wrote in October, 1777,<a id="FNanchor_135" href="#Footnote_135" class="fnanchor">[135]</a> the month in which the -surrender at Saratoga took place; and after describing -<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_161"></a>[161]</span>him as ‘a fortunate gamester’, he continued, ‘I have -heard him speak in Parliament, just as he writes: for all -his speeches were written and laboured, and yet neither -in them nor in his conversation did he ever impress me -with an idea of his having parts.’ Burgoyne’s affectation -and mannerism may have been due to the fact that he -was essentially a man of society, as society was then. He -had eloped in early life with Lord Derby’s daughter, and, -like Charles Fox, was a confirmed gambler. The world -of London was his world, and the standard by which he -measured things was not the standard of all time. When -he went out in 1777 to command the expedition from -Canada, he was on the flowing tide of fortune, and the -tone of his proclamations gave Walpole cause for sarcastic -comment. ‘Have you read General Burgoyne’s rhodomontade, -in which he almost promises to cross America -in a hop, step, and a jump?’[136] ‘Burgoyne has sent over -a manifesto that if he was to over-run ten provinces would -appear too pompous.’[136] ‘I heard to-day at Richmond -that Julius Caesar Burgonius’s Commentaries are to be -published in an Extraordinary Gazette of three-and-twenty -pages in folio to-morrow—a counterpart to the -<i>Iliad</i> in a nutshell.’<a id="FNanchor_136" href="#Footnote_136" class="fnanchor">[136]</a> All these three passages were written -in August, 1777, while Burgoyne’s expedition was proceeding. -The writer of them did not like Burgoyne, and did -not like the war in which Burgoyne was engaged; but, -though Burgoyne lent himself to criticism and lacked the -qualities which the time and place demanded, his story is -by no means the story either of a bad soldier or of a bad -man; it is rather the story of a second-rate man set -with inadequate means to solve a problem of first-rate -importance.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Burgoyne’s -advance -against -Ticonderoga.</div> - -<p class="pbot1">Having completed his preparations, Burgoyne reached -Crown Point on the 26th of June, preparatory to attacking -Ticonderoga. The full control of the operations had -passed into his own hands, for, by Germain’s instructions, -Carleton’s authority was limited by the boundary<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_162"></a>[162]</span> -line of Canada, and that line was drawn far north of Crown -Point and Ticonderoga, cutting the outlet of Lake Champlain -near the point of land named Point au Fer. The -total force amounted to rather over 7,000 men, nearly half -of whom were Germans under the command of Baron -Riedesel. The advance was made on both sides of the -lake, the Germans being on the eastern shore, the British -on the western—the side on which were Crown Point -and Ticonderoga. The Americans, too, held positions on <span class="sidenote">The American position at Ticonderoga.</span> -both sides of the lake, for, over against the peninsula on -which Ticonderoga stood, there jutted out another point -of land, described in Burgoyne’s dispatch as ‘high and -circular’, but in reality rather oblong in form, rising well -above the level of the lake and skirted in part on the land -side by a rivulet. It was called Mount Independence, -and was strongly held and fortified. The lake, here -narrowed to a river, is about a quarter of a mile across, -and between Ticonderoga and Mount Independence a -bridge had been constructed, consisting of sunken timber -piers connected by floating timber, the whole being guarded -in front by a heavy boom of wood strengthened by iron -rivets and chains.</p> - -<div class="figcenter illowp70" id="i_162" style="max-width: 43.75em;"> -<img class="w100" src="images/i_162.jpg" alt="" /> - <a rel="nofollow" href="images/i_162large.jpg"> - <span class="screenonly fs60 center">click here for larger image.</span></a> -<div class="caption"> <p class="center">MAP TO ILLUSTRATE BURGOYNE’S CAMPAIGN</p> - -<p class="center p1">Reduced from the Map published in ‘A State of the Expedition from Canada as -laid before the House of Commons by Lieutenant-General Burgoyne, -London, 1780’</p> - -<p class="center p2">London, published as the Act directs, Feb. 1st 1780, by <span class="smcap">Wm. Faden</span>, Charing Cross</p> - -<p class="left p2"><i>To face p. 161</i></p> -</div> -</div> - -<p class="p1">The Indian name Ticonderoga signified the confluence -of three waters. At this point the long narrow southern -arm of Lake Champlain, coming in from the south-east, -meets the stream which carries out the waters of Lake -George into the third water, the main lake Champlain. -The outlet of Lake George describes a complete semi-circle, -and runs into Lake Champlain due west and east. The -direct route therefore from Lake Champlain to Lake -George runs well to the west of and inside the peninsula -of Ticonderoga, cutting the semi-circular stream without -touching the peninsula. In this consisted the weakness -of the American position: unless the works were extended -further afield than they had men to hold them, part of -the attacking force could pass them by and invest Ticonderoga -on the southern as well as on the northern -side, blocking retreat by the line of Lake George. So<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_163"></a>[163]</span> -it happened when Burgoyne’s army came on the -scene.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Burgoyne’s -operations -against -Ticonderoga.</div> - -<p>After three days’ stay at Crown Point to bring up all his -forces, the general on the 30th of June moved forward his -leading corps on either side of the lake, and on the next -day the whole army followed. On the 2nd of July the -Americans were reported to have abandoned the post -which guarded the bridge over the river from Lake George, -to the west of Ticonderoga, where saw-mills stood and -which was the starting-point of the ‘carrying place’ -from Lake Champlain to Lake George. They abandoned -it, in order to concentrate their strength against the -English advance on the north-west. Burgoyne immediately -moved forward his troops and, driving the enemy -back, on the night of the 2nd occupied the high ground on -the west which commanded the communications with -Lake George, and thereby cut off the possibility of retreat -in that direction. On the 3rd and 4th the attacking -forces drew nearer to the two beleaguered forts, in spite -of cannonade; and on the night of the 4th, a party of -light infantry occupied a height called Sugar Hill, which -stood on the southern bank of the outlet from Lake George, -in the angle between that stream and the southern arm -of Lake Champlain, overlooking and commanding both -Ticonderoga and Mount Independence at an estimated -distance of about 1,400 and 1,500 yards respectively. -On the 5th guns were being brought up to the hill, but, <span class="sidenote">The Americans evacuate their position,</span> -when the morning of the 6th came, it was found that the -American general, St. Clair, had carried his troops across -by the bridge from Ticonderoga, and, having evacuated -both that post and Mount Independence, was retreating -by land and water.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">and are -followed -up by the -English.</div> - -<p>By land and water Burgoyne’s men followed on the -same day, the bridge and boom being broken for the -gunboats to pass through. At Skenesborough, where the -navigation of Lake Champlain ends, the enemy’s vessels -were taken or destroyed by the British squadron, and the -detachment of Americans who held the fort set fire to it<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_164"></a>[164]</span> -and retreated to Fort Anne. Meanwhile, diverging to the -east in the direction of Castleton on the road to Connecticut, -General Fraser, commanding the van of the troops -who pursued by land, followed hard throughout the 6th -upon the American rearguard; Riedesel came up behind -him with supports; but, by agreement between the two -commanders, Fraser, when night fell, bivouacked three -miles in front of his colleague. Early on the 7th he -attacked the Americans, who outnumbered his own troops, -near a place named Huberton, and was on the point of -being beaten back when the arrival of Riedesel converted -a repulse into a victory. The colonists were broken, their -leader, Colonel Francis, and some 200 of his men were -killed, about the same number were taken prisoners, and -a large number of wounded were supposed to have lost -their lives in the woods. Having completed the rout, on -the 8th and 9th Riedesel and Fraser came into touch with -the main army at Skenesborough.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Fight -near Fort -Anne.</div> - -<p>At Skenesborough there was a portage from Lake -Champlain to Wood Creek,<a id="FNanchor_137" href="#Footnote_137" class="fnanchor">[137]</a> a stream which flows into -the lake from the south. While boats were being dragged -across from the lake to the river with a view to further -advance, the 9th Regiment was sent on by land to Fort -Anne, twelve miles distant in a due southerly direction. -By the evening of the 7th the English drew near to the -fort, and on the following day they were attacked and -hard pressed by a stronger body of Americans. They took -up a position on a hill, and held their ground resolutely, -until the whoop of Indians told that reinforcements were -coming up: the Americans then gave way, and, setting -fire to Fort Anne, fell back to Fort Edward. The English -in their turn returned to Skenesborough, in the neighbourhood -of which, on the 9th and 10th of July, the whole -army, excluding the troops required to garrison Ticonderoga, -was concentrated, the line extending eastward -from the head of Lake Champlain towards Castleton.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_165"></a>[165]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Result -of the -operations.</div> - -<p>‘General Burgoyne has taken Ticonderoga, and given -a new complexion to the aspect of affairs, which was very -wan indeed,’ wrote Horace Walpole, when the news -reached England.<a id="FNanchor_138" href="#Footnote_138" class="fnanchor">[138]</a> So far the operations had been -triumphantly successful. Hardly an attempt had been -made by the Americans to hold their ground at Ticonderoga -and Mount Independence, although months had been -spent in strengthening the positions, and the number of -the defenders was variously estimated at from 3,000 to -5,000 men. Great quantities of stores, of boats, of guns -had fallen into British hands: the enemy’s loss on the -retreat had been heavy, and the rapidity with which the -retreat had been followed up had caused widespread -alarm. For the moment there seemed nothing to check -the tide of British victory, but time, place, and insufficiency -of numbers gradually told against Burgoyne’s -enterprise. He, too, had suffered some losses, though -small when compared with those of the Americans; and -his army, already inadequate in numbers for the expedition, -was further weakened by the necessity of garrisoning -Ticonderoga with some 900 men. He applied to Carleton -to supply the requisite number of soldiers for the garrison -from the troops who, in accordance with the instructions -from home, were retained for the defence of Canada, but -Carleton felt himself bound to refuse the request. It was -Germain who had given the orders, and yet the same man, -writing from England in the following September, on -receipt of Burgoyne’s account of the capture of Ticonderoga, -stated that he presumed that the post would be -garrisoned from Canada.<a id="FNanchor_139" href="#Footnote_139" class="fnanchor">[139]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">The two -routes -to the -Hudson.</div> - -<p>Burgoyne’s objective was the Hudson river and Albany. -Fort Edward stood on the left or eastern bank of the -Hudson, a little below the point where that river curves to -the south, to flow direct to the Atlantic. It was twenty-six -miles distant from Skenesborough, and due south of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_166"></a>[166]</span> -that place. The first twelve miles of the route from -Skenesborough lay along Wood Creek, until Fort Anne -was reached, and from Fort Anne to Fort Edward was an -interval of fourteen miles. Three miles short of Fort -Edward the road joined the road to Fort Edward from -Fort George, previously known as Fort William Henry, at -the head of Lake George, which was at much the same -distance from Fort Edward as Fort Anne, viz., fourteen -to sixteen miles. The more obvious route of advance -towards the Hudson from Ticonderoga, and the one -originally contemplated, was along Lake George, and <span class="sidenote">Burgoyne’s line of advance.</span> -Burgoyne was criticized for not taking that line—without -good reason, because the American retreat had already -determined the choice of routes. Having immediately -followed the enemy up as far as Skenesborough, Burgoyne, -as he justly pointed out, would have been unwise to make -a retrograde movement in order to adopt the alternative -line of advance by Lake George. Moreover, while the -troops were moving forward from Skenesborough viâ -Wood Creek and Fort Anne, supplies were being forwarded -along Lake George in order to meet him when he reached -Fort Edward. But there was a further reason, which in <span class="sidenote">His object was to threaten the New England States.</span> -Burgoyne’s mind made for the more easterly of the two -routes. His own scheme for the campaign had inclined -to carrying war to the east into Connecticut and the New -England states, in preference to a direct advance to the -Hudson and Albany; and, though his instructions prevented -his carrying out the plan which he preferred, he -might yet, as he advanced, threaten New England, and at -the same time gather supplies from a more promising -country than would be found in the Adirondack region on -the west of Lake George. Thus in a private letter to -Germain, which accompanied his dispatch from Skenesborough, -detailing the success of his recent operations, -he wrote: ‘I a little lament that my orders do not give -me the latitude I ventured to propose in my original -project for the campaign, to make a real effort instead of -a feint upon New England. As things have turned out,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_167"></a>[167]</span> -were I at liberty to march in force immediately by my -left, instead of by my right, I should have little doubt -of subduing before winter the provinces where the rebellion -originated.’ It must be remembered that at this time -British troops were in occupation of Rhode Island, and -that Sir William Howe had originally planned a campaign -in New England in 1777, only giving up the scheme -when he found that sufficient reinforcements from Europe -would not be forthcoming.</p> - -<p>It was with the object of keeping the New England -States in fear of invasion, or, as he himself phrased it, -‘of giving jealousy to Connecticut, and keeping in check -the whole country called the Hampshire Grants,’<a id="FNanchor_140" href="#Footnote_140" class="fnanchor">[140]</a> that -Burgoyne, while encamped at Skenesborough, detached -Riedesel to occupy Castleton about fourteen miles to <span class="sidenote">Riedesel sent to Castleton.</span> -the east. Castleton was an important point, because -through it ran a road which connected Skenesborough by -land with the shore of Lake Champlain opposite Ticonderoga -and Crown Point. Riedesel was absent for about -twelve days, and in the meantime preparations were -pressed forward for a further advance of the main army, -the road to Fort Anne and the parallel waterway of Wood -Creek being cleared of obstructions. Simultaneous preparations -were made at Ticonderoga for forwarding supplies -by Lake George. On the 23rd of July the advanced -guard moved forward to Fort Anne: on the 25th the -whole army had reached that point; on the 29th, the -van arrived at Fort Edward, which the Americans had -already evacuated, and on the 30th Burgoyne arrived -at the same place. A large convoy of provisions sent -by Lake George reached the head of that lake by the -29th, Fort George like Fort Edward having been abandoned <span class="sidenote">The army arrives at Fort Edward on the Hudson river.</span> -by the enemy, who had carried off their stores. -Thus the end of July found Burgoyne on the Hudson, -well on his way to Albany; the main difficulties of the -expedition seemed to be past; but as a matter of fact the -most trying time was yet to come. His communications<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_168"></a>[168]</span> -were insecure, for he could not spare men to guard them. -His transport was inadequate, and so were his supplies. -Delay in bringing up stores meant time to the Americans -to recover their spirits and gather in his front: he had -no tidings from Howe, and no sure knowledge of St. -Leger’s progress. He only knew that at all hazards -he was expected to make his way to Albany.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The beginning -of misfortunes. -Murder -of Jane -McCrae -by the -Indians.</div> - -<p>While he halted at Fort Edward, two untoward incidents -took place. The first was a brutal murder by Indians -of a young white woman named Jane McCrae, who had -remained behind at or near Fort Edward, when the -Congress troops fell back before Burgoyne’s advance. -The story went that she was engaged and about to be -married to an officer in Burgoyne’s army. Falling into -the hands of the Indians, she was murdered with purposeless, -savage fury, and the tale of the outrage, embellished -with horrors, was spread far and wide through the land. -Colonists hitherto inclined to the loyal cause, felt that -their homes and womenkind would not be safe, if they -awaited the coming of the English and their savage -allies: the opponents of England found additional -justification for the stand which they had taken up; -the sympathizers with the American cause in England -were given a new text for denouncing the war; and -Burgoyne lost Indian support by taking steps to prevent -a recurrence of such enormities.</p> - -<p>The second misfortune which happened—a most grave -misfortune—was an unsuccessful expedition in the direction -of Bennington. Bennington is in the state of Vermont, <span class="sidenote">The expedition to Bennington.</span> -to the south-east of Fort Edward, lying about twenty-four -miles due east of the stretch of the Hudson river, between -Saratoga on the north and the confluence of the Mohawk -on the south, which was known as Stillwater. It is in -the forks of the two streams which combine to form -the Hoosick river, a tributary of the Hudson, flowing <span class="sidenote">Objects aimed at by the expedition.</span> -into the main river from the east. Burgoyne’s information -was to the effect, quoting his own words, that it was -‘the great deposit of corn, flour, and store cattle’,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_169"></a>[169]</span> -intended for the use of the Congress troops, which he -designed to secure for his own army in view of the difficulty -and delay experienced in bringing up supplies from Canada. -The German general, Riedesel, seems to have originally -suggested such an expedition, from knowledge gained -while he was stationed at Castleton. He was anxious to -obtain horses to mount his men and to carry the baggage; -there was evidence of a considerable Loyalist element -in the population, and little reason to apprehend strong -opposition from the colonial militia. Above all Burgoyne -had constantly in his mind the object of threatening the -New England states: and, having by this time received -intelligence that St. Leger was before Fort Stanwix, -he wished to make a diversion to the east, in order to -prevent reinforcements being sent up the Mohawk river -to the relief of that post. The instructions which he -issued for the expedition show that he contemplated -that the detached force, if things went well, would -penetrate far beyond Bennington, up to the Connecticut -river, and possibly not rejoin the main army until the -latter had reached Albany.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Strength -and composition -of the -force.</div> - -<p>About 500 men, according to his dispatch, were detailed -for the enterprise, but the number appears to have been -larger.<a id="FNanchor_141" href="#Footnote_141" class="fnanchor">[141]</a> It was a mixed body. There was a strong contingent -of Germans, chiefly dismounted dragoons, ill suited -for a cross-country march, and there were also picked -marksmen from the British regiments, Canadians, provincials, -and about 100 Indians. Out of compliment -to Riedesel, the command was given to Colonel Baum, <span class="sidenote">Colonel Baum in command.</span> -one of his officers, and in selecting German troops for -the expedition, Burgoyne marked his appreciation of -the good service which those regiments had rendered -in following up the retreat of the Americans from Ticonderoga. -The starting-point was the Batten Kill stream, -running into the Hudson on its eastern side, ten miles -lower down than Fort Edward. From this point to<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_170"></a>[170]</span> -Bennington, by the route which Baum was finally -instructed to take, was a distance of under thirty miles. -The advance guard of Burgoyne’s army had already -been moved down the Hudson to the Batten Kill, and, -on the 14th of August, after Baum had started, they -were thrown across the main river a little higher up -under the command of General Fraser, and moved forward -on the western bank as far as Saratoga, with the object -of a further advance to Stillwater in the event of Baum’s -expedition proving successful. The temporary bridge of -rafts, however, by which they had crossed, being carried -away, the troops were recalled and passed back in boats -to the eastern side.</p> - -<p>Baum started from the Batten Kill early on the morning -of the 13th of August, reached a place called Cambridge -in the afternoon of that day, and on the following day -arrived at Sancoick Mill near the confluence of the two -branches of the Hoosick river, about four miles short -of Bennington. There he found that the enemy in front -of him were more numerous than had been anticipated, -and he sent back to Burgoyne for reinforcements. Colonel <span class="sidenote">Reinforcements sent under Colonel Breyman.</span> -Breyman, another German officer, was dispatched to his -support with nearly 700 men: he started early on the -morning of the 15th, but, owing to the difficulties of -the route, and want of horses and forage, he made slow -way, and was far short of Baum when evening came. -On the 16th a number of men, as from the country side, <span class="sidenote">Baum’s force surprised and cut up.</span> -came to where Baum was encamped: they were taken -to be friends and Loyalists, and made their way within -his lines. On a sudden, while beginning to move forward,<a id="FNanchor_142" href="#Footnote_142" class="fnanchor">[142]</a> -he found himself attacked on all sides: the component -parts of his little force were separated from each other, -and only the German soldiers held together, fighting -bravely, as long as they had powder left, and then vainly<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_171"></a>[171]</span> -endeavouring to cut their way out with their swords. -The end was inevitable. The Indians dispersed in the -woods: some of the British contingent with their commander, -Captain Frazer, escaped, and so did a good many -of the Canadians and provincials: but Baum was mortally <span class="sidenote">Baum mortally wounded.</span> -wounded, and nearly all of his Brunswickers were killed -or captured. On the afternoon of the same day, ignorant -of what had happened, Breyman’s force was coming <span class="sidenote">Breyman attacked and forced to retreat with heavy loss.</span> -up and was in turn suddenly attacked. Again the -men fought hard until their ammunition gave out, and -eventually the main body made good their retreat, though -they suffered heavy losses and had to leave their guns behind. -John Stark was the leader of the Americans in these -hard fought engagements.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Consequences -of the -disaster.</div> - -<p>The immediate result of the fighting was the loss -to the English of over 500 men and four guns,<a id="FNanchor_143" href="#Footnote_143" class="fnanchor">[143]</a> and the -total failure of the expedition. The ultimate effect was -much more serious. Burgoyne’s small army was still -further reduced: his hope of securing supplies and -horses from the surrounding country was entirely gone; -his expectation of Loyalist support, upon which the -English had counted, was shown to be groundless; the -chance of facilitating the main operations by a successful -diversion was lost; the enemy were put in good heart; -and such fickle allies as the Indians were further alienated. -The enterprise was subsequently made the subject of -much hostile criticism, and blame was variously assigned. -Burgoyne considered that the failure was due to the -fact that Baum had not taken up a position in the open -in accordance with instructions, to the chance co-operation -of bodies of the enemy who happened to be near, and to -undue slowness on Breyman’s part. The truth seems -to have been that the expedition was not badly conceived, -but imperfect knowledge of the country and faulty -intelligence as to the enemy’s strength and movements -in this, as in many similar cases, procured disaster.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_172"></a>[172]</span><a id="FNanchor_144" href="#Footnote_144" class="fnanchor">[144]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Burgoyne’s -views on -the situation.</div> - -<p>Burgoyne’s anxiety as to the future was expressed -in a private letter which he wrote to Germain on the -20th of August, accompanying the public dispatch of -the same date in which he reported the failure of the -Bennington expedition. He wrote that, in spite of -St. Leger’s victory, Fort Stanwix was holding out obstinately, -that no operation had been taken in his favour, -and that the American forces under Gates in his front -had been strengthened and now outnumbered his own. -Only one letter had reached him from Sir William Howe. -That letter was written from New York on the 17th of -July, and in it Howe stated that he had heard of Burgoyne’s -victory at Ticonderoga, adding ‘My intention is -for Pennsylvania, where I expect to meet Washington, but -if he goes to the northward contrary to my expectations -and you can keep him at bay, be assured I shall soon -be after him to relieve you’. As has been already stated, -no instructions from Germain had reached Howe on the -subject of Burgoyne and his army, though he had received -from Carleton a copy of Germain’s dispatch of March -26th, 1777, in which the programme of the expedition -from Canada had been detailed. Situated as Burgoyne -was, knowing that further advance would entail cutting -of his communications with Ticonderoga, it is no wonder -that in his letter to Germain he wrote that, had he latitude -in his orders, he would have thought it his duty to remain -where he was encamped opposite Saratoga, or further -back at Fort Edward where his communications would -be secure, until events in other quarters facilitated a -forward movement. But his instructions were ‘to force -a junction with Sir William Howe’, or at any rate to -make his way to Albany; and, as he sadly wrote, when -the catastrophe was over and he was a prisoner, ‘The -expedition I commanded was evidently meant at first -to be hazarded. Circumstances might require it should<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_173"></a>[173]</span> -be devoted.’ A very strong man in his position would -have taken the responsibility of temporary retreat, but, -good soldier as he was, he was not a commanding character. -He knew the power which Germain possessed of making -and unmaking men, he had before his eyes the harsh -treatment of Carleton, because Carleton had exercised -wise discretion in falling back from Crown Point in the -preceding autumn. His instructions freed him from -responsibility if he went forward, the blame would be -his alone if he fell back. The evil influence of Germain -blighted loyal commanders and soldiers in America. -George the Third’s system was working itself out, and -the British Empire was being sacrificed to the ‘King’s -Friends’.</p> - -<p>The first necessity was to bring up supplies from -Lake George for the further advance, enough to last -for twenty-five to thirty days, inasmuch as crossing the -Hudson and moving south meant the loss of communication -with Canada. This Burgoyne anticipated, and his -apprehensions proved true. Shortly after he crossed the <span class="sidenote">Burgoyne’s communications attacked by the colonists.</span> -Hudson and began his southward march, a force of -colonists, assembling at Skenesborough, on the 18th of -September attacked the British garrisons at Ticonderoga -and Mount Independence. They were repulsed after -four or five days’ fighting, but not until they had taken -outposts at the saw-mills, Mount Hope, and Sugar Hill, -captured three companies of British soldiers, and taken -or destroyed a large amount of stores and a number of -boats. Retreating up Lake George, they attacked a -detachment on an island in the lake named Diamond -Island and, though they were again beaten off, their -operations served the purpose of making Burgoyne’s -communications utterly insecure.<a id="FNanchor_145" href="#Footnote_145" class="fnanchor">[145]</a></p> - -<p>From the 16th of August to the 13th of September,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_174"></a>[174]</span> -the British army remained on the eastern bank of the -Hudson over against Saratoga. The reinforcements which -joined them apparently amounted to only 300 men. -News seems to have reached the army, before they moved -onward, that St. Leger was retreating from Fort Stanwix, -so that hope of co-operation in the direction of the -Mohawk river was at an end; on the other hand there -was a possibility that St. Leger’s men, brought down -the St. Lawrence and up Lake Champlain and Lake -George, might be able to join the main force. It is not -clear what was the exact number of men who crossed -the Hudson under Burgoyne’s command. According to -the evidence given at the subsequent Parliamentary -inquiry, the regulars, British and German, were rather -short of 5,000 men, but, if the Canadians and provincials -were included, the total fighting force must have reached -6,000. From Fort Edward to Albany is a distance of -over forty miles and to the confluence of the Mohawk -river about thirty-four; but Burgoyne was already -encamped ten miles south of Fort Edward and the -Americans, who had previously fallen back to what was <span class="sidenote">The Americans under Gates take up a position at Bemus’ Heights.</span> -known as the Half Moon at the mouth of the Mohawk -river, after the British defeat at Sancoick Mills and the -relief of Fort Stanwix, moved up the Hudson a little way -above Stillwater, and took up a strong position on high -ground called Bemus’ Heights, where they were within -ten miles’ distance of the point where Burgoyne crossed -the river.</p> - -<p>General Philip Schuyler had been in command of the -Congress troops on the side of Canada. He was a man -of the highest character, and apparently a perfectly -competent soldier, whose Fabian tactics were beginning -to achieve success when he was superseded. After the -abandonment of Ticonderoga and the rout which followed, -the tide of public opinion set against him—without any -adequate reason. The New Englanders were jealous of -a general from New York state; and, under a resolution -of Congress, Schuyler was in the middle of August replaced<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_175"></a>[175]</span> -by Horatio Gates, a godson of Horace Walpole, who, like -Richard Montgomery, had been born in the United -Kingdom and had served in the British army, having -been badly wounded in Braddock’s disastrous expedition. -Gates, who in the previous year had commanded the -garrison at Ticonderoga, was a self-seeking, intriguing -man. His subsequent disloyalty to Washington, and his -defeat at Camden, clouded what reputation he gained -through receiving Burgoyne’s surrender. When he took -over the command of the troops opposing Burgoyne, his -task was comparatively easy. He had good men with -him, among others Arnold, who had returned from the -march to relieve Fort Stanwix and between whom and -Gates there was no love lost, he had also Daniel Morgan -and Lincoln; while the army under their command had -received an accession to its numbers in consequence of -Howe having moved off from New York to Philadelphia. -The Americans now largely outnumbered Burgoyne’s -force, and behind them, lower down the Hudson, the -Highlands were held against a possible movement on the -part of Clinton, who commanded the troops left behind -at New York when Howe sailed for Chesapeake Bay.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Burgoyne -crosses -the -Hudson -and -advances -South.</div> - -<p>About six miles below Fort Edward, between that -fort and the Batten Kill stream, at a place named Fort -Miller, there were rapids in the Hudson, where a portage -was necessary for the boats descending the river; below -it navigation was unimpeded, and the stores and baggage -of the army could be carried by water. A bridge of -boats was thrown over the river about half a mile above -the Batten Kill, and by this bridge the whole army -crossed the Hudson on the 13th and 14th of September -from the eastern to the western shore. Burgoyne was -subsequently criticized for crossing, but the criticism had -no sound foundation. If he was to reach Albany at all, -he must cross the river at some point or other, and the -further he went down stream the more difficult the -crossing was likely to be. Moreover the high road ran -along the western bank, while on the opposite shore<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_176"></a>[176]</span> -swamp and mountain would have made it impossible at -certain points to march close to the river bank, and the -army would therefore have been separated from the -boats. On the western side of the Hudson the country, -through which the troops advanced, was wooded and -broken, the road and bridges over the intervening creeks -had been cut up by the enemy, and progress was slow; -but by the 17th less than four miles intervened between -the two armies. On the 18th there was skirmishing, -while the British force were repairing bridges and cutting -a way through the bush: and on the 19th a general -action took place.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Action of -September -19.</div> - -<p>The British army advanced in three divisions. On -the right under General Fraser were the 24th Regiment, -the light infantry and the grenadiers, accompanied by -Indian and Canadian scouts and supported by some -German troops under Colonel Breyman. The centre -column, entirely composed of British regiments, was -under Burgoyne’s immediate command. The left wing -was in charge of Riedesel, and included the main body -of the German soldiers with most of the artillery. The -left marched along the high road on the lowland following -the course of the river, and one British regiment, the -47th, on the bank of the river, guarded the boats which -carried the stores. There was a deep ravine between -the armies, and Fraser’s division made a wide circuit -to the right in order to keep on the high ground. The -movement was successfully carried out, and Fraser -established himself in a strong position while the centre -column moved forward, crossed the ravine, formed on -the other side, and bearing to the right became engaged -with the enemy. The centre of the battle was a clearing -in the woods, where there was a homestead known as -Freeman’s farm; from this farm the Americans had -molested Burgoyne’s advance, and being dislodged by -artillery fell back into the cover behind. Their intention -had been to turn the British right, but, finding that -Fraser was too strongly posted, they counter-marched and<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_177"></a>[177]</span> -placed their full force in front of the centre column. -Here the battle was fought, and for four hours, from -three o’clock in the afternoon till seven, the brunt of the -fighting fell upon three British regiments, the 20th, the -21st and the 62nd, a fourth regiment, the 9th, being held -in reserve. Some help came from Fraser’s men, but -the safety of the army depended upon his holding his -ground on the right, so that he could not bring up his -whole division in support of the centre. Constantly -reinforced and covered by the woods, the Americans, led -by Arnold, who commanded the left wing of their army, -pressed hard upon the fighting regiments, until, late in -the day, Riedesel, having pushed forward his troops -along the line of the river, wheeled them sharp to the right -and struck in on the flank. This decided the battle, and, -as darkness fell, the forces of the Congress drew off, -leaving Burgoyne’s army in possession of the field.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Result of -the fight—Burgoyne’s -losses.</div> - -<p>The fight was won, but, as Burgoyne wrote in his -subsequent dispatch, ‘it was soon found that no fruits, -honour excepted, were attained by the preceding victory.’ -He had lost about 500 men, the 62nd Regiment having -especially suffered, and though the losses of the Americans -had possibly been heavier, reinforcements were available -for them and their position grew stronger and stronger. -On the day after the battle the English moved forward -slightly until they were almost within cannon shot of -their enemies, at a distance of about half a mile, and -in turn threw up entrenchments. On the 21st Burgoyne -received a message from Clinton, dated the 12th, to the <span class="sidenote">Message from Clinton.</span> -effect that in about ten days’ time he intended to move -up the Hudson and attack the American forts in the -Highlands. Burgoyne sent back word, urging the necessity -of some such operation in his favour in order to -divert part of the American force which was barring his -way, and he stated that he would hold his ground if -possible, till the 12th of October. The days went on: <span class="sidenote">Scarcity of provisions.</span> -provisions began to run short: on the 3rd of October it -was found necessary to reduce the soldiers’ rations:<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_178"></a>[178]</span> -and, some movement having become inevitable, Burgoyne <span class="sidenote">Further movement necessary.</span> -determined on the 7th to make a reconnaissance on the -enemy’s left—the side furthest removed from the Hudson, -in order definitely to ascertain whether there was a -possibility of either forcing a passage or at any rate so -far dislodging the enemy as to enable the British army -to retreat unmolested. At the same time it was hoped -that under cover of the reconnaissance, forage, badly -needed, might be collected for the horses.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Action of -October -7.</div> - -<p>Only about 1,500 regular soldiers were available for -the movement, with ten pieces of artillery: and, small -as the number was, hardly enough men were left behind -to guard the lines. The detachment advanced, and -was formed within about three-quarters of a mile of the -enemy’s left, waiting for some of the marksmen with -Canadians and Indians to make a detour through the -woods still further to the right and take the enemy in -the rear. On a sudden the Americans in superior numbers -made a determined attack on the left wing of the little -force, where were the grenadiers and a German regiment. -At the same time the flank of the right wing was in -imminent danger of being turned: and, while the troops -on this side were being drawn back and reformed in order -to secure the retreat, the Americans redoubled the -attack on the grenadiers and the Germans. The German -regiment gave way, the grenadiers were overpowered, -and complete disaster was averted only by the stanch -fighting of the gunners and by bringing up supports <span class="sidenote">The English heavily defeated and their corps partly taken.</span> -from the right under General Fraser who, in carrying -out the movement, was mortally wounded. Hard pressed -and heavily defeated, leaving six guns behind them, the -force regained their lines, but the Americans, who fought -with conspicuous boldness and resolution, followed on, -broke through the entrenchments, and eventually stormed -the post in the rear of the right which was held by Colonel -Breyman and the scanty German reserve. The position -was taken, but night came on, Arnold who had led the fight -was wounded, and the Congress troops drew off, content<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_179"></a>[179]</span> -with the success which they had already gained. Under -cover of the same night Burgoyne fell back, and took up -a new position on high ground in the rear of his former -camp.<a id="FNanchor_146" href="#Footnote_146" class="fnanchor">[146]</a></p> - -<p>Up to this point in the campaign General Burgoyne -may have made mistakes, but at any rate he had not -shown himself to be either irresolute or incompetent. -He had been sent to achieve the impossible: he had -loyally attempted to carry out his instructions, even -when opposed to his own views; and, bearing in mind -the small number of his troops and the difficulty of securing -provisions and supplies, it is not easy to find ground <span class="sidenote">Burgoyne’s fatal delay.</span> -for criticism either in his delays or in his fighting. But -now his duty was clear, to retreat at once on Fort Edward -and save the remnant of the expedition. Every hour -was of importance, for every hour numbers greater than -his own, emboldened by success, were gathering round him -and threatening his retreat. The position in which he -was placed after the battle of the 7th of October was no -doubt one of great difficulty, but at any rate there was -only one practical course to be taken, and a firm resolute -man, intent only on the public good, would have taken -it at once. Burgoyne acted otherwise, his movements -were leisurely and almost invited the final catastrophe. -Reading the account of what took place, and his own -defence, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the -personal element was strong in him, that there was -a theatrical strain in his character, and that he was<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_180"></a>[180]</span> -concerned with public opinion and effect, instead of -simply gripping the nettle in manful fashion, neglecting -no chance, and fighting out hard to the last.<a id="FNanchor_147" href="#Footnote_147" class="fnanchor">[147]</a></p> - -<p>All day on the 8th the army remained in their new -position offering battle, and burying General Fraser -with the honour due to a brave and much loved man, -while parties of the enemy crossed the Hudson, and fired -on the British camp from the opposite side. A day <span class="sidenote">Beginning of the retreat.</span> -was lost, the Americans were beginning to turn the right -or inland flank, and on the night of the 8th the retreat -began, the wounded being left behind in hospital. The -weather was bad, the baggage encumbered the army, it -was necessary to guard the boats on the river, yet the -distance to be traversed to Fort Edward was less than -twenty miles and a hurried retreat would have saved -the army. When the morning of the 9th came, however, -Burgoyne called a halt for his wearied men, and through -the greater part of that day no further movement was -made. Late in the afternoon the march was resumed, -when darkness came, the troops passed through Saratoga -and crossed the Fish Kill stream, and on the morning -of the 10th the artillery was brought over. Meanwhile<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_181"></a>[181]</span> -the Americans had pressed forward up the eastern bank -of the Hudson, and, when the British troops neared -Saratoga, they found a party of the enemy already in -front of them on the western side, who were beginning to -throw up entrenchments, but withdrew as the British -came up, leaving the road still open for retreat. On -the 10th some troops were sent forward by Burgoyne -to hold the ford opposite Fort Edward and to cover the -work of repairing the bridges, but were recalled when -the main American force attacked the rear of the British -army on the line of the Fish Kill. The boats could now <span class="sidenote">Loss of the boats.</span> -no longer be adequately defended against the American -guns, the provisions were taken out of them, and they <span class="sidenote">Burgoyne’s irresolution.</span> -drifted into the enemy’s hands. Through the next three -days, the 11th, the 12th and the 13th, Burgoyne remained -inactive. Councils of war were held, and it was contemplated -to make a night march and try to cross the -river near Fort Edward, but the procrastination and -indecision of the general put off the movement until it -was too late. ‘The army’, wrote Burgoyne in his subsequent -dispatch, ‘took the best position possible and -fortified, waiting till the 13th at night, in the anxious -hope of succours from our friends or, the next desirable -expectation, an attack from our enemy’. On the 14th <span class="sidenote">Negotiations with Gates.</span> -negotiations were begun with General Gates, they continued -for three days, terms were signed late on the 16th, -and on the 17th the English surrendered to the American <span class="sidenote">The final surrender.</span> -general and his army, kindly and generous in the hour -of victory as they had been strong and stubborn in -fighting.</p> - -<p>The delay in the conclusion of the matter was due at -first to the wording of the terms which Gates dictated, -and subsequently to intelligence which reached both <span class="sidenote">Clinton’s movements.</span> -armies of Clinton’s movements up the Hudson. On the -4th of October Clinton started up the river from New -York with some ships of war, carrying 3,000 men, and -on the 6th stormed two American forts which barred -the passage of the river about fifty miles from the sea;<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_182"></a>[182]</span> -some of the ships went higher up stream but did not -come within many miles of Albany; and, brilliant as -the operation was, it could not in any case have affected -the main issue and only served, with the help of rumour -and report, to make Gates anxious to conclude the negotiations -of surrender and Burgoyne for a few hours reluctant -to sign the terms. At length the inevitable was -accepted and the remains of the English army, under -5,000 in number, of whom about 3,500 were fighting -men, were taken as prisoners of war to Albany and -Boston.<a id="FNanchor_148" href="#Footnote_148" class="fnanchor">[148]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Causes -of the -disaster.</div> - -<p>The ultimate cause of the disaster was Lord George -Germain. Here is Carleton’s judgement upon the matter, -contained in a letter to Burgoyne dated the following <span class="sidenote">Carleton on Lord George Germain.</span> -12th of November, ‘This unfortunate event, it is to be -hoped, will in future prevent ministers from pretending -to direct operations of war, in a country at 3,000 miles -distance, of which they have so little knowledge as not -to be able to distinguish between good, bad, or interested -advices, or to give positive orders in matters which from -their nature are ever upon the change.’ The more <span class="sidenote">Character of Burgoyne.</span> -immediate cause was the character of Burgoyne. His -condemnation is written in his own dispatch.</p> - -<p>‘The bulk of the enemy’s army was hourly joined by -new corps of militia and volunteers, and their numbers -together amounted to upwards of 16,000 men. After -the execution of the treaty General Gates drew together -the force that had surrounded my position, and I had -the consolation to have as many witnesses as I had men -under my command, of its amounting to the numbers -mentioned above.’</p> - -<p>Why had the 16,000 men gathered round him? Because<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_183"></a>[183]</span> -he had given them time to do so, because in the hour of -need his thought was rather of saving his own reputation -than of saving the force under his command. Would -Wolfe, weakly and suffering, have waited helplessly for -something to turn up, looking for co-operation from -Amherst in the far distance, as Burgoyne looked for it -from Clinton? Would he have found consolation in -allowing the enemy’s numbers to grow and counting up -how far superior they were to his own? Would he have -been at pains to make the story plausible and dramatic, -so that he might hold up his head thereafter in London -circles and retain the favour of those who were in high -places? It was not English to court surrender, and -to cast about for excuse for surrender. Had Chatham -been in Germain’s place, no such foolhardy expedition -would have been ordered cut and dried from England. -Had Wolfe been in Burgoyne’s, if success was possible -he would have achieved it, if it was impossible he -would have redeemed failure or died. Military skill, -daring, manhood, self-reliance, leadership of soldiers and -of men, were the qualities which less than twenty years -before had shone out in dark days round Quebec; the -same qualities seemed dead or numbed, when Burgoyne -bade his men lay down their arms by the banks of the -Hudson river.</p> - -<p>The story of this ill-fated expedition has been told at -some length because it is part and parcel of the history -of Canada. The scene of the later years of the War of -Independence was the Atlantic seaboard; and Canada, -except on her western borders, though threatened, was -unmolested. The surrender of Burgoyne’s army by no -means finished the fighting, the English were still to win <span class="sidenote">Consequences of the disaster.</span> -barren successes before the final catastrophe at Yorktown; -but after Saratoga the war entered upon a wholly new -stage. The surrender in itself was serious enough. No -colonists had in modern history achieved so great a -triumph, no such disaster had ever clouded British arms -in the story of her colonization. The Preface of the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_184"></a>[184]</span> -<i>Annual Register</i> for 1777 refers to the ‘awful aspect of -the times’, awful indeed to a country whose best men -had no faith in her cause. But the great practical result -which followed on the reverse of Saratoga, the result -which eventually decided the war, was that the French <span class="sidenote">The French intervene in the war.</span> -now joined hands with the Americans, and the latter -thereby secured the help of a fleet, strong enough, when -the Spaniards at a later date also entered the ranks of -England’s enemies, to compete with the British navy on -the western seas.</p> - -<p>While, however, the intervention of France greatly -increased the difficulties with which Great Britain had to -contend at this critical time of her history, for the moment -it made the war more popular in England, inasmuch as -Englishmen were now called upon to fight against their <span class="sidenote">The French alliance with the Americans tended to protect Canada from invasion.</span> -old rivals and not merely against their kinsfolk. In -another respect too it was of distinct advantage to the -British Empire, in that it brought to Canada immunity -from invasion. The American colonists welcomed French -aid in securing their independence, but they had no mind -to restore Canada to France, and they looked with -suspicion on any proposal or utterance which might -seem to point in that direction. Though the French in -their treaty with the United States disclaimed any intention -of national aggrandizement in America,<a id="FNanchor_149" href="#Footnote_149" class="fnanchor">[149]</a> Admiral -D’Estaing, in October, 1778, a few months after his -arrival in American waters, issued a proclamation to the -Canadians, appealing to their French nationality; and -Lafayette proposed a scheme for an invasion of Canada -which Congress accepted but Washington set aside.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_185"></a>[185]</span> -There was sufficient uneasiness in American minds with -regard to French designs to restrict French co-operation -in the main to the Atlantic side; and, though the -Canadians were excited by their countrymen’s appeal, -they did not rise in arms themselves, nor did the Americans -attempt to repeat the movement by which Montgomery -had over-run the country up to the walls of Quebec.</p> - -<p>It would not indeed have been easy for them to do so, -for Carleton and his successor Haldimand, though badly -in need of reinforcements, were yet better prepared and -had more men at their command than when the war -first broke out. Immediately after Burgoyne’s capitulation <span class="sidenote">Precautions taken in Canada against invasion.</span> -Ticonderoga and Crown Point were abandoned, and -the troops were withdrawn to the northern end of Lake -Champlain. A year later Haldimand directed the whole -country round the lake to be cleared of settlement and -cultivation, as a safeguard against American invasion. -At various points, where such invasion might take place, -he established posts, on an island at the opening of Lake -Ontario, which was named Carleton Island; at the -Isle aux Noix at the head of the Richelieu river, and at -Sorel at its mouth: on the river St. Francis which joins -the St. Lawrence below Sorel, flowing from the direction -of Vermont: and on the Chaudière river over against -Quebec, lest Arnold’s inroad by the line of that river -should be repeated.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Border -War.</div> - -<p>Nor was this all. As in Count Frontenac’s time, and -with much the same ruthlessness as in those earlier days, -Canada was defended by counter attacks upon the border -settlements of the revolting colonies, Loyalists and Indians -dealing the blows and bearing the penalties. In May -and June of 1778, Brant harried the New York frontier -and burnt the town of Springfield; in July, in order, -it was said, to counteract American designs against -Niagara, Colonel John Butler, with a force of Rangers -and Indians, carried war far into the enemy’s country -and uprooted the settlements at Wyoming, on the eastern -branch of the Susquehanna river within the borders of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_186"></a>[186]</span> -Pennsylvania. Fact and fiction have combined to keep -alive the memories of the massacre at Wyoming; and, -together with the even more terrible tragedy of Cherry -Valley which followed, it stands to the discredit of -England in the story of these most barbarous border -wars.<a id="FNanchor_150" href="#Footnote_150" class="fnanchor">[150]</a> In September the Mohawk leader burnt to the -ground the houses and barns at the German Flatts, -though the settlers had been warned in time to take -refuge in Fort Dayton. In November Brant joined<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_187"></a>[187]</span> -forces with Walter Butler, son of the raider of Wyoming; -and together they carried death and desolation into the -Cherry Valley settlement in Tryon county. In the -following year the Americans took a terrible revenge -for these doings, and a strong force under General John -Sullivan turned the country of the Six Nation Indians -into a wilderness. ‘General Sullivan,’ wrote Washington -to Lafayette, ‘has completed the entire destruction of -the country of the Six Nations, driven all the inhabitants, -men, women, and children out of it’.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">George -Rogers -Clark in -the West.</div> - -<p>Further west, in 1778 and 1779, the Illinois region -and the settlements on the middle Mississippi fell into -American hands, never to be regained, the leader of the -backwoodsmen in this quarter being George Rogers -Clark, a young Virginian, one of the pioneers of settlement -in Kentucky, a most able leader and a hard determined -man. In July, 1778, Clark surprised and took -the fort and settlement of Kaskaskia standing on the -river of that name a little above its junction with the -Mississippi, and immediately afterwards he received the -submission of the post at Vincennes on the Wabash river. -A few months later, in December, 1778, Vincennes was -re-occupied by Hamilton, Lieutenant-Governor of Detroit, -with a handful of men. Before the following February -ended, Hamilton was in turn attacked and overpowered -by Clark who carried out a daring winter march; and, -being forced to surrender at discretion, the English -commander was, according to English accounts, treated -through long months of imprisonment with unmerited -harshness. The truth was that, as the war went on, -bitterness increased, and when, as in the West and on -the border the combatants were backwoodsmen, Rangers -and Indians, the fighting became a series of ruthless -reprisals.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Later -raids -from -Canada.</div> - -<p>Later again, in 1780 and 1781, parties sent out from -Canada retraced the routes taken by Burgoyne and -St. Leger, harried the country at the southern end of -Lakes George and Champlain, and laid waste the settlements<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_188"></a>[188]</span> -in the Mohawk valley. In one, commanded by -Major Carleton, brother of the late governor of Canada, -Fort Anne and Fort George were taken with their -garrisons; in another, on the line of the Mohawk, Major -Ross, advancing from Oswego, inflicted heavy loss on -the Americans. In all these expeditions on either side -there was the same object, to prevent invasion by counter -invasion, to destroy stores, and to terrorize the adherents -of the enemy; but none of them, except the exploits -of Clark, contributed materially to the issue of the war.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Fighting -on the -Penobscot.</div> - -<p>On or near the Atlantic coast-line of Canada, in 1779, -fighting took place which might well have had lasting -results. An expedition was sent in that year from -Halifax to the Penobscot river, commanded by Maclean, -who had done good service under Carleton at the time -of the American invasion. In June he established himself -at Castine at the mouth of the Penobscot; and, inasmuch -as the place was then within the borders of -Massachusetts, he was towards the end of July attacked -by a small squadron and a force of militia sent from -and paid for by that state. For between two or three -weeks the Americans besieged the British post until, -towards the end of the second week in August, British -ships under Sir George Collier appeared on the scene, -and all the American vessels were taken or destroyed. -Maclean’s expedition was repeated with equal success by -Sir John Sherbrooke in the war of 1812, but neither -enterprise produced the permanent result of making the -Penobscot river, as it should have been, the boundary -between Canada and the United States.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Carleton -succeeded -by -Haldimand.</div> - -<p>It has been seen that in June, 1777, Carleton sent in -his resignation of the governorship of Canada. Burgoyne -wrote privately to Germain at the end of July, before he -started on his expedition, to decline the appointment in -case it should be offered to him; and in August, 1777, -General Haldimand, who was then at home in Switzerland, -was nominated as Carleton’s successor. He was -ordered to go out as soon as possible in a ship which, as<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_189"></a>[189]</span> -Germain wrote to Carleton on the 19th of October, was -to bring the latter home, but did not leave England till -the end of April or beginning of May following, arriving -at Quebec at the end of June, 1778. Carleton then -immediately returned to England, and was received with -honour by the King to the disgust of Lord George -Germain.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Haldimand’s -government.</div> - -<p>General Haldimand, Sir Frederick Haldimand as he -afterwards was, governed Canada till the end of 1784, -and he governed it, in thankless times, strongly and well. -In the year 1778 he was sixty years of age, having been -born in 1718. Like his great friend Henry Bouquet, he -was a Swiss. His birthplace was Yverdon at the south-western -end of the lake of Neuchâtel, and there he died -in 1791, the year in which the Canada Act was passed. -There is a tablet to his memory in Henry VII’s Chapel -in Westminster Abbey. His career was that of a soldier -of fortune. With Bouquet, he served the Stadtholder of -the Netherlands in a regiment of Swiss Guards; and in -1754<a id="FNanchor_151" href="#Footnote_151" class="fnanchor">[151]</a> the two officers entered the British service as -lieutenant-colonels of the newly-raised regiment of -Royal Americans. He fought under Abercromby at -Ticonderoga, and afterwards served under Amherst; -and in 1759, while rebuilding the fort at Oswego, he beat -off a force of Canadians and Indians commanded by -St. Luc de la Corne, who in later days was a member -of his Legislative Council at Quebec. After the capitulation -of Montreal, being a French-speaking officer, he was -selected by Amherst to take possession of the city. He -subsequently acted as governor of Three Rivers, and -when to his great grief Bouquet died at Pensacola in 1765, -Haldimand, in 1767, succeeded his friend in the command<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_190"></a>[190]</span> -in Florida. In 1773 he went to New York to act for -General Gage while the latter was on leave in England. -In 1775 he was brought back to England, and in 1778 -he went out to govern Canada.</p> - -<p>Haldimand was a man of the Carleton type; and, -before he left London to take up his appointment, he -wrote to Germain to the effect that he should be given -full discretion in military matters, and, as civil governor, -have the nomination to all appointments. Like Carleton, -he was attacked by the partisans of Congress in Canada -as a military despot, the enemy of civil liberties, the -best known case against him being that of Du Calvet,<a id="FNanchor_152" href="#Footnote_152" class="fnanchor">[152]</a> -a French Protestant, who was in 1780 arrested and -imprisoned for encouraging and abetting treason, and -who subsequently published his case against the governor -in London. That Du Calvet was a traitor there seems -to have been no doubt, but his charges against the -governor coloured the view which was commonly taken -in after years of Haldimand’s administration. None the -less, whatever may have been the technical merits of this -and other individual cases, it is beyond question that, -at a time when England was badly served both at home -and abroad, in the most critical years, and in Canada -where the position was most difficult, she was conspicuously -well served by Carleton and Haldimand. -Haldimand governed a community, in which the minority, -as in Carleton’s time, was largely disaffected, and the -loyalty of the majority was undermined by French -appeals. From day to day the danger of attack at this -point or at that was imminent, while there was constant -risk that the supplies which came over the sea would be -intercepted by French ships or American privateers. -In England Haldimand’s master was still the same self-willed,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_191"></a>[191]</span> -half-informed minister Germain. In Canada there -were few that he could trust. Yet solitary in public as -in private life—for he had no wife or child—he held the -reins of government with a firm and an honest hand, -a good servant of England though of foreign birth. If -Canada at the present day be compared with the province -of Quebec which the Peace of 1763 gave into British -keeping, the three main elements in the evolution of the -great Dominion will be found to have been British immigration, -canals, and railways. Railways, opening the -North-West and linking the two oceans, date from long -after Haldimand’s time; but he was governor when the -first steps were taken to improve the waterways of -Canada, and he watched over the incoming of the United -Empire Loyalists.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -Vermont -negotiations.</div> - -<p>Not the least of Haldimand’s difficulties was that he -had to negotiate peace and wage war at the same time, -for, while directing or controlling border raids at other -points on the Canadian frontier, he had on his hands, -from 1779 onwards, troublesome and in the end abortive -negotiations with the settlers in the present state of -Vermont. Of the character of these settlers he seems -to have had but a poor opinion, their lawless antecedents -no doubt not being to his mind. Ethan Allen and the -Green Mountain Boys had not been animated by American -patriotism alone when at the beginning of the war they -took Ticonderoga. They had in their minds to put -themselves in evidence and to vindicate their claim to -be free of New York. While the war went on, and after -it ended, their determination to be an independent state -was as strong as ever; and their negotiations with -Canada were an intimation to Congress that the price of -their continued adhesion to the continental cause must -be recognition of their local independence. The policy -had the immediate merit of giving them a respite from -Canadian raids, and it left open a choice of future issues. -The Vermont men knew the value or the weakness of -their geographical position as regards Canada. It was<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_192"></a>[192]</span> -patent then as it was in the later war of 1812. In a -private letter to Lord North, dated the 24th of October, -1783,<a id="FNanchor_153" href="#Footnote_153" class="fnanchor">[153]</a> Haldimand wrote, ‘Since the provisional treaty -has been made public, several persons of influence in the -state of Vermont have been here at different times, -they all agree in describing these people as very averse -to Congress and its measures.... They made no scruple -of telling me that Vermont must either be annexed to -Canada or become mistress of it, as it is the only channel -by which the produce of their country can be conveyed -to a market, but they assured me that they rather wished -the former.’ The Vermont settlers were, in short, like -many states and many individuals before and since, -on the fence; but in the end they were neither annexed -to Canada nor did they become mistress of her, for in 1791 -Vermont became a state of the American Union, and -Canada worked out her own salvation.</p> - -<p>Haldimand’s dispatches might have been written by -Carleton. There is the same point of view, almost the -same turn of expression. On the 25th of October, 1780, -in a long dispatch to Lord George Germain, giving an -account of the general conditions of men and things in -Canada, he wrote, ‘As it is my duty, it has been my -business to inform myself of the state of the country, -and I coincide with the majority of the Legislative -Council in considering the Canadians as the people of -the country, and think that in making laws and regulations -for the administration of these laws, regard is to -be paid to the sentiments and manner of thinking of -60,000 rather than of 2,000—three-fourths of whom are -traders and cannot with propriety be considered as -residents of the province. In this point of view the -Quebec Act was both just and politic, though unfortunately -for the British Empire it was enacted ten years -too late. It requires but little penetration to discover -that, had the system of government solicited by the old -subjects been adopted in Canada, this colony would in<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_193"></a>[193]</span> -1775 have become one of the United States of America.’<a id="FNanchor_154" href="#Footnote_154" class="fnanchor">[154]</a> -Three years later, when the war was over, in his letter -to Lord North referred to above, he wrote ‘This province -can only be preserved by bringing back the Canadians -to a regular subordination, and by rendering them useful -as a well-disciplined militia. In order to effectuate -this, the authority of government must be strengthened -and not diminished’.<a id="FNanchor_155" href="#Footnote_155" class="fnanchor">[155]</a></p> - -<p>Like Carleton and like Murray, Haldimand had it at -heart to provide the people of Canada with an upright -and kindly administration. Among the various grievances, -real or alleged, which were ventilated from time -to time, one of the most substantial, so far as the French -Canadians were concerned, was the excessive amount -which was exacted from them by officials and lawyers -in the form of fees of office. In 1780 Haldimand assented -to an ordinance regulating the fees for two years, at -the expiration of which time he hoped that the Legislature -would, from the experience gained in the meantime, -be able to draw up ‘a more perfect list of fees, more -permanent and less burthensome to the people’ for, he -wrote, ‘the fees in general are by far too high and more -than the people of this province can bear.’<a id="FNanchor_156" href="#Footnote_156" class="fnanchor">[156]</a> A favourite -complaint of the British minority, who had as little to -complain of as they were loud and persistent in complaining, -was that there was no statutory provision for -the right of Habeas Corpus, which was supposed to have -been abolished by the Quebec Act. When peace was -restored and the step could safely be taken, Haldimand met -this grievance by passing, in 1784, an ordinance ‘for -securing the liberty of the subject and for the prevention -of imprisonments out of this province’.<a id="FNanchor_157" href="#Footnote_157" class="fnanchor">[157]</a> When reporting -the passing of the fees ordinance Haldimand wrote, ‘Sir<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_194"></a>[194]</span> -Guy Carleton had in the sessions 1775 proposed to -regulate the fees of office, and had that business very -much at heart. Committees were appointed for that -salutory purpose and, though many obstacles were -thrown in the way, great progress was made. The -ordinance was lost for that time by Sir Guy Carleton’s -putting an end to the session in consequence of motions -made in council by Mr. Livius and others’.<a id="FNanchor_158" href="#Footnote_158" class="fnanchor">[158]</a> He himself -suffered from similar obstruction; his dispatch goes -on to refer to members of his council, ‘who, however -willing they may be to circumscribe the King’s authority -in measures of general utility to his service and the -welfare of his people, are for carrying on to the greatest -height his prerogative to grant Letters Patent for the -emolument of individuals though to the oppression of -the people’. As the outcome of the Livius case, two -additional Royal Instructions had been issued to Haldimand, -dated the 29th of March, 1779. The first prohibited -him from interpreting the words in the general instructions -‘It is our further Will and Pleasure that any five of -the said council shall constitute a board of council -for transacting all business in which their advice and -consent may be requisite, acts of legislation only excepted’, -as Carleton had interpreted them, namely, as authorizing -the governor to select five particular members of the -Legislative Council to form an Executive or Privy Council; -and it instructed him to communicate this decision to -the council. The second instructed him to communicate -to the council ‘such and so many of our said instructions, -wherein their advice and consent are made requisite, -with such others from time to time as you shall judge -for our service to be imparted to them’.<a id="FNanchor_159" href="#Footnote_159" class="fnanchor">[159]</a> Haldimand -did not at once communicate these additional instructions -to his council. He thought that at the time it was not<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_195"></a>[195]</span> -for the public interest to do so, and he wrote to Germain -to that effect, but only brought upon himself a severe -reprimand alike from Germain and from the Board of -Trade. Equally he thought it inadvisable, under existing -circumstances, to communicate to his council certain -clauses in the general instructions, in which the Home -Government practically invited the Quebec Legislative -Council to modify the Quebec Act, recommending the -introduction to some extent of English civil law and also -statutory provision for Habeas Corpus. Like Carleton he -saw things face to face, as a soldier not as a constitutional -lawyer, and he gave advice according to existing conditions, -which were those of war and not of peace. These two -governors may have been technically wrong in this point or -in that, but they had the root of the matter in them, they -governed with a single eye, a firm hand, and with most -generous and humane intent. ‘Party spirit,’ Haldimand -wrote to Germain, ‘is the enemy of every private as well -as public virtue. Since my arrival in the province I have -steered clear of all parties and have taken great care -not to enter into the resentments of my predecessor or -his friends, but this present occasion obliges me to declare -to your lordship that in general Mr. Livius’ conduct has -not impressed people with a favourable idea of his moderation.’<a id="FNanchor_160" href="#Footnote_160" class="fnanchor">[160]</a> -There was no party spirit about Carleton, -nor yet about Haldimand. In a bad time, when partisanship -was rife, they stood for the good name of England, -and for the substance of sound and honest administration.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Clinton -succeeds -Howe at -Philadelphia -and -retreats -to New -York.</div> - -<p>At the same time that Haldimand relieved Carleton, -Sir Henry Clinton took over from Howe the command -of the army at Philadelphia. He arrived there at the -beginning of May, 1778, and at the end of the month -Howe left for England. The abandonment of Philadelphia -had been ordered from home, in view of the new -complications produced by the intervention of France -in the war. All the available ships carried off to New<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_196"></a>[196]</span> -York, stores, baggage, and numbers of Loyalists, while -Clinton retreated with his army overland through New -Jersey. On the 18th of June he left Philadelphia, which -was immediately re-occupied by the Americans, and for -a fortnight, closely followed by Washington, he slowly -made his way in the heat of the summer through the -enemy’s country. On the 28th of June in what is known -as the battle of Monmouth, near Freehold Court House, -he fought a rearguard action with Lee, who commanded -the advance of Washington’s army: and, thereby covering -his retreat, reached Sandy Hook, and on the 5th of July -carried over his troops to New York.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -French -fleet.</div> - -<p>D’Estaing and a French squadron had now appeared -on the scene, threatened New York, and in co-operation -with the American general Sullivan attacked the English -in Rhode Island. Bad weather, the skill and seamanship -of Admiral Howe, and the preparations made by the -English commander on shore, rendered the expedition -abortive, and the summer closed without decisive success -on either side.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Operations -in -the south.</div> - -<p>Later in the year, an expedition under Colonel Campbell, -was dispatched to the south, and landing at the end of -December near Savannah, the capital of the colony of <span class="sidenote">Savannah taken by the English.</span> -Georgia, by a skilful movement took the town and -captured the whole of the garrison and stores. General -Prevost, who arrived from Florida shortly afterwards -and took over command of the British troops in Georgia, -advanced into South Carolina and, in May, 1779, threatened -Charleston, but was compelled to retreat. In September -D’Estaing’s fleet appeared before Savannah; on the -9th of October a combined French and American force -attempted to re-take the town, but were beaten off with -heavy loss: and in the spring of 1780 Clinton arrived with <span class="sidenote">Clinton takes command in the south.</span> -a large body of troops from New York to direct operations -in the southern states. A year and a half had passed -since he had brought off his army from Philadelphia, -and little had been done. There had been fighting on -the Hudson, the coasts of Virginia and the New England<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_197"></a>[197]</span> -colonies had been harried, small towns had been sacked -and burnt, and stores and ships destroyed, causing -damage and distress to the Americans but also unwisely -embittering the war. Now the English garrison at -Rhode Island had been withdrawn and, while New -York was still strongly held, the main efforts on the -British side were directed to re-conquering the southern -states, where Loyalist sympathies were strong and -widely spread.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Taking of -Charleston.</div> - -<p>Charleston was the main point of attack. It was -bravely defended for several weeks by General Lincoln, -but his communications were cut by Clinton’s stronger -force, the investment was gradually completed, and on -the 12th of May, 1780, the town was surrendered and -the garrison became prisoners of war. This success was -followed by the annihilation of another small body of -American troops, on which occasion Tarleton, the British -commander, was accused of indiscriminate slaughter. -Clinton having returned to New York, the command in <span class="sidenote">Cornwallis.</span> -the south devolved on Cornwallis, whose campaigns in -1780 and 1781 were the closing scenes of the war. He -began with a great success. General Gates had been sent -south to take command of the American forces in the -Carolinas, and, having collected an army which largely -outnumbered the troops at the disposal of Cornwallis, <span class="sidenote">The battle of Camden.</span> -marched to attack the latter at Camden to the north-west -of Charleston. Cornwallis resolved on a counter attack; -and, after a night march on either side, the two forces -came into collision near Camden at dawn on the 16th -of August. After hard fighting the Americans gave -way before a British bayonet charge and a rout -ensued, which was supplemented by a further small -victory gained by Tarleton over the American general -Sumter, who had previously intercepted Cornwallis’ -communications and captured a convoy and some -prisoners. Cornwallis now advanced into North Carolina, -but behind him the backwoodsmen gathered, and on the -7th of October overwhelmed, after heavy fighting, a strong<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_198"></a>[198]</span> -detachment of Loyalists under Major Ferguson at a place -called King’s Mountain. This reverse had the same <span class="sidenote">King’s Mountain.</span> -effect as the fights at Trenton or Bennington. Cornwallis -had to fall back, the American cause revived in the -south, and the extraordinary difficulty of dealing with -guerilla warfare in an immense territory was once more -effectively illustrated. In December Gates was superseded -by an abler and more trustworthy general, Nathaniel -Greene.</p> - -<p>In the north no decisive action took place during -the year. The English made an incursion into New -Jersey, without producing any effect. A French fleet and -army under de Rochambeau arrived at Rhode Island, -where Clinton would have attacked them in force but -for want of co-operation on the part of the English -admiral Arbuthnot. The American cause received a heavy -blow in the treachery of Arnold, and on the other hand, -before the close of the year, the Dutch were added to -the long list of enemies against whom England was -maintaining an unequal struggle.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The campaign -of 1781, -Cornwallis -moves -north.</div> - -<p>With the opening of the new year, 1781, Cornwallis -moved northwards. In the middle of January the light -troops from his force, who were under Tarleton’s command, -were heavily defeated by the American general Morgan, -at Cowpens near the border line between South and North -Carolina. Having received reinforcements, Cornwallis <span class="sidenote">Cowpens.</span> -still advanced, Greene falling back before him until he -had collected a larger number of men than the English -general had at his disposal. The two forces met near -Guilford Court House on the 15th of March, under much <span class="sidenote">Guilford Court House.</span> -the same conditions as had preceded the fight at Camden; -and after an even fight the English were victorious, though -with a loss of about one-third of their small army. After -the battle, Cornwallis fell back for a while towards -Wilmington, and, as the Americans were again active -behind him in South Carolina, debated whether to -continue his efforts to stamp out resistance in the south, -or to march forward into Virginia where there was now<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_199"></a>[199]</span> -a strong British force, commanded at first by Arnold and <span class="sidenote">Cornwallis in Virginia.</span> -afterwards by Burgoyne’s colleague General Phillips, who -were opposed by Lafayette. He determined on the -northward movement and effected a junction with -Phillips’ troops, their commander having in the meantime -died at Petersburg in Virginia late in May.</p> - -<p>The fighting went on in the Carolinas with varying -success. On the 25th of April Lord Rawdon, who was -then in command, defeated Greene at Hobkirk’s Hill. -In September his successor Colonel Stuart fought a drawn -battle at Eutaw Springs, but the Americans secured one -point and another, and the balance of the campaign -was against the British cause. In Virginia Cornwallis -and Lafayette manœuvred against each other, the British -operations being hampered by the apprehension of a -combined attack in force by the French and Americans -on New York, which led Clinton to order the return of -a part of the army in Virginia. The order was countermanded, -but Cornwallis was instructed to take up a <span class="sidenote">Cornwallis takes up a position at Yorktown.</span> -defensive position in touch with the sea, and in August -he concentrated his troops at Yorktown on the bank of -the York river, where a peninsula is formed by that river -and the James flowing into the mouth of Chesapeake -Bay; the village of Gloucester on the opposite side of -the York river was also held. It was not a strong position, -and all depended on keeping command, of the water. For -once the English lost the command, and the consequence -was the loss of the army.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Naval -operations. -The -French -fleet -under de -Grasse -comes -into -touch -with -Washington -and -Lafayette.</div> - -<p>At the end of March a strong French fleet under de -Grasse sailed from Brest for the West Indies. After -a few weeks’ operations among the islands, and taking -Tobago, de Grasse made for Cap François in Hayti and -found dispatches from Washington. Taking on board -3,500 French soldiers, he sailed for the North American -coast and reached the Chesapeake at the end of August. -The object was to co-operate with Washington and -de Rochambeau in blockading Cornwallis and compelling -him to surrender. Meanwhile a French squadron at<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_200"></a>[200]</span> -Newport in Rhode Island, under de Barras, put out to -sea with a convoy containing the siege train, making -a wide circuit in order to escape detection by the English -ships and join de Grasse in Chesapeake Bay. On land -Lafayette, strengthened by a body of Pennsylvanians, -already harassed Cornwallis, especially charged to prevent -as far as possible a retreat to the south; while de Rochambeau -from Rhode Island joined Washington who was -facing New York, and the combined army, after threatening -an attack on Clinton, crossed the Hudson in August, -marched through New Jersey to Philadelphia, and -passing on to Virginia, with the help of French transports -appeared before Yorktown in the latter end of September. <span class="sidenote">Cornwallis besieged at Yorktown.</span> -Cornwallis was now besieged by 16,000 men on land and -an overwhelming fleet at sea.</p> - -<p>The movement had been well planned and skilfully -executed. Clinton at New York had been misled by -a feint of attack, and on the sea the English had been -found wanting. When Rodney learnt that de Grasse -had left the West Indies for the North American coast, -in ill health himself and about to leave for England, -he dispatched Sir Samuel Hood in pursuit with fourteen -ships of the line. A stronger force was needed and had -apparently been intended by Rodney. Hood reached -the Chesapeake three or four days before de Grasse -arrived, and passing on to New York came under the <span class="sidenote">Ineffective movements of the English fleet.</span> -orders of a senior officer, Admiral Graves, who had at -the time but five ships with him. The combined squadron -sailed for the Chesapeake, and found that de Grasse -had forestalled them with a stronger fleet. They attacked -on the 5th of September, with no decisive result on either -side: for three or four days longer the two fleets faced -each other, then Graves returned to New York and de -Grasse went back to block Cornwallis, his manœuvres -having enabled de Barras in the meantime to bring in -his ships in safety to the Chesapeake.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Cornwallis -surrenders -at Yorktown.</div> - -<p>Cornwallis was now in hopeless case, unless Clinton -could relieve him. Expectation of relief was given,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_201"></a>[201]</span> -the 5th of October being named as the day on which -the relieving force would probably leave New York. On -the night of the 5th the Americans began their trenches, -on the 9th the guns opened fire: after a week’s fighting, -on the 17th, Cornwallis treated for surrender; and on the -19th, the day on which Clinton actually sailed from New -York to bring the promised aid, the British army laid down -their arms, sickness having reduced the number of fighting -men from 7,000 to barely 4,000.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Consequences -of the surrender.</div> - -<p>Four years had passed almost to the day since the -similar disaster at Saratoga. The second surrender -practically finished the war, though there was still some -small fighting in the south, the English being driven -back to Charleston and Savannah. Savannah was -eventually evacuated in July, 1782, and Charleston in -the following December, by which date terms of peace -between Great Britain and the United States had already -been signed. Meanwhile in England Carleton had been <span class="sidenote">Carleton succeeds Clinton.</span> -nominated to take the place of Clinton as Commander-in-Chief -in America, Germain resigned, and in March, 1782, -Lord North’s ministry came to an end. The Whigs came -in pledged to make peace, Rockingham being Prime -Minister and Shelburne and Fox Secretaries of State. -Within four months Lord Rockingham died, and Shelburne <span class="sidenote">Negotiations for peace.</span> -became Prime Minister, Fox leaving the Government, -and the younger Pitt joining it as Chancellor of the -Exchequer. Already negotiations for peace were proceeding -at Paris, where Richard Oswald, a nominee of -Shelburne’s, had been treating with Franklin, complaisantly -entertaining every American demand. Rodney’s -great victory over de Grasse in the battle of the Saints, -on the 12th of April, 1782, enabled England to speak -with a firmer voice. The failure in September of the -combined efforts of France and Spain to take Gibraltar -again added strength: and Shelburne’s ministry was -enabled to conclude a peace, which, if it contrasted sadly -with the triumphant Treaty of 1763, was at least far -from being the capitulation of a ruined Power. On the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_202"></a>[202]</span> -30th of November, 1782, articles were signed between <span class="sidenote">Peace concluded and the Independence of the United States recognized.</span> -Oswald, on behalf of Great Britain, and the Commissioners -of the United States, ‘to be inserted in and to constitute -the treaty of Peace’ which was to be concluded when -Great Britain and France had come to terms. On the -20th of January, 1783, Preliminary Articles of Peace were -signed between Great Britain and France on the one hand -and between Great Britain and Spain on the other; -and on the following 3rd of September the Peace of -Versailles was finally concluded, treaties being made -by Great Britain with France, Spain, and the United -States, a treaty with the Netherlands having been signed -on the previous day. Under the first article of the treaty -with the United States the King of England acknowledged -the thirteen colonies then forming the United States -to be ‘free sovereign and Independent States’.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Comparison -of the -American -War of -Independence -with the -late war -in South -Africa.</div> - -<p>At the time of the late war in South Africa an -analogy was sometimes drawn between that war and the -War of American Independence. In some respects there -was similarity. In either case a group of British colonies -was primarily concerned, and in either case the British -Government was faced with the difficulty of transporting -large bodies of troops across the sea to a distant scene -of war, America in the eighteenth century before the days -of steam being for all practical purposes more remote than -South Africa in our own time. There were two distinct -spheres of operations in America in the earlier years of -the war, Canada and the Atlantic states, just as in -South Africa the war was divided between Natal and -the Cape Colony; and the Boer invasion of Natal and -investment of Ladysmith to some extent recalls the overrunning -of Canada by Montgomery’s troops and the -hemming up of Carleton inside Quebec. In both cases -there was the same kind of half knowledge of the country -and its conditions in the public mind in Great Britain, -and, curiously enough, in either case the estimate seems -to have been most at fault where fighting had been most -recent; in Natal, where less than twenty years had<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_203"></a>[203]</span> -elapsed since the previous Boer war, and on the line -of Lake Champlain and the Hudson, presumed to be -well known to many who had served at a somewhat -shorter interval of time under Abercromby and Amherst, -and who encouraged Germain to give his confident instructions -to Burgoyne for a march to Albany. Distance, -transport, supplies, communications, rather than hard -fighting, were the main elements of either war; and the -description of the American war given in the <i>Annual -Register</i> for 1777, which has been already quoted,<a id="FNanchor_161" href="#Footnote_161" class="fnanchor">[161]</a> that -it was ‘a war of posts, surprises, and skirmishes instead -of a war of battles’, would apply equally to the South -African war. But here the likeness ceases, and no -real parallel can be drawn between the two contests. -The American war was a civil war, Englishmen were -fighting Englishmen. The war in South Africa was -a war between two rival races. In the earlier war the -great forces which have been embodied in British colonization, -mental and physical vigour, forwardness and -tenacity, the forces of youth, which have the keeping -of the future, were in the main ranged against the mother -country: in the later war they contributed, as never -before, to the sum of national patriotism. In the earlier -war foreign nations intervened, with fatal effect, and -the sea power of England was crippled. In the later, -the struggle was kept within its original limits and -British ships went unmolested to and from South Africa. -Not least of all, while on the former occasion ministers -at home tried to do the work of the generals on the spot, -Carleton’s bitter comments on the disastrous result, -which have been quoted above<a id="FNanchor_162" href="#Footnote_162" class="fnanchor">[162]</a>, could in no sense be -applied to the later crisis. As bearing on this last point, <span class="sidenote">Effect on war of submarine cables.</span> -it is interesting to speculate what would have happened -had submarine cables existed in the days of King George -the Third. The telegraph invites and facilitates interference -from home. It tends to minimize the responsibility, -and to check the initiative, of the men on the spot: and<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_204"></a>[204]</span> -if the cables which now connect England and America, -had been in existence in the years 1776 and 1777, it -might be supposed that the commanders in America -would have been even more hampered than they were -by the meddling of the King, and his ministers. But -the evil was that, in the absence of the telegraph, interference -could not be corrected, and co-operation could -not be ensured. Germain laid down a rigid plan: a -second-rate man received precise instructions which he -felt bound to follow against his own judgement; and -for want of sure and speedy communication the cause -was lost. It is impossible to suppose that even the -King and Germain would have refused to modify their -plans, had they known what was passing from day to -day or from week to week: in other words, the invention -which more than any other has opened a door to undue -interference, would probably in the case in point have done -most to remedy the ignorant meddling which was the -prime cause of the disaster at Saratoga.</p> - -<p>The War of American Independence was ‘by far the -most dangerous in which the British nation was ever -involved’.<a id="FNanchor_163" href="#Footnote_163" class="fnanchor">[163]</a> It was seen at the time that its issues would -colour all future history and modify for ever political -and commercial systems, but no prophet seemed to -contemplate a colonial future for Great Britain, and -Benjamin Franklin said ‘he would furnish Mr. Gibbon -with materials for writing the history of the Decline of -the British Empire’.<a id="FNanchor_164" href="#Footnote_164" class="fnanchor">[164]</a> Yet the present broad-based -Imperial system of Great Britain was for two reasons -the direct outcome of that war. While the United States -were still colonial possessions of Great Britain, they <span class="sidenote">Effects of the American War of Independence on the British Empire as a whole.</span> -overshadowed all others; and, had they remained -British possessions, their preponderance would in all -probability have steadily increased. It is quite possible -that the centre of the Empire might have been shifted -to the other side of the Atlantic; it is almost certain<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_205"></a>[205]</span> -that the colonial expansion of Great Britain would have -been mainly confined to North America. Nothing has -been more marked and nothing sounder in our recent -colonial history than the comparative uniformity of -development in the British Empire. In those parts of -the world which have been settled and not merely -conquered by Europeans, and which are still British -possessions, in British North America, Australasia, and -South Africa, there has been on the whole parity of -progress. No one of the three groups of colonies has in -wealth and population wholly out-distanced the others. -This fact has unquestionably made for strength and -permanence in the British Empire, and it is equally beyond -question that the spread of colonization within the -Empire would have been wanting, had Great Britain -retained her old North American colonies. Unequalled -in history was the loss of such colonies, and yet by that -loss, it may fairly be said, Great Britain has achieved -a more stable and a more world-wide colonial dominion.</p> - -<p>But this result would not have been attained had not -the lesson taught by the American war sunk deep into -the minds of Englishmen. It is true that for a while -the moral drawn from this calamitous war was that -self-governing institutions should not be given to colonies -lest they should rebel, as did the Americans, and win -their independence: but, as the smart of defeat passed -away and men saw events and their causes in true perspective, -as Englishmen again multiplied out of England but -in lands which belonged to England, and as the old -questions again pressed for solution, the answer given -in a wiser and a broader age was dictated by remembrance -of the American war, and Lord Durham’s report embodied -the principles, on which has been based the present -colonial system of Great Britain. It was seen—but it -might not have been seen had the United States not won -their independence—that English colonists, like the -Greek colonists of old, go out on terms of being equal -not subordinate to those who are left behind, that when<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_206"></a>[206]</span> -they have effectively planted another and a distant -land, they must within the widest limits be left to rule -themselves; that, whether they are right or whether -they are wrong, more perhaps when they are wrong -than when they are right, they cannot be made amenable -by force; that mutual good feeling, community of interest, -and abstention from pressing rightful claims to their -logical conclusion, can alone hold together a true colonial -empire.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Its effects -on -Canada.</div> - -<p>Though the United States, in the war and in the treaty -which followed it, attained in the fullest possible measure -the objects for which they had contended, it is a question -whether, of all the countries concerned in the war, Canada -did not really gain most, notwithstanding the hardship -which she suffered in respect of the boundary line between -the Dominion and the United States. For Canada to -have a future as a nation, it was necessary, in the first -place, that she should be cut adrift from the French -colonial system as it existed in the eighteenth century. -This was secured as the result of the Seven Years’ War. -In the second place, it was necessary that she should not -be absorbed by and among the British colonies in North -America. This end was attained, and could only be -attained by what actually happened, viz., by the British -colonies in North America ceasing to belong to Great -Britain, while Canada was kept within the circle of the -British Empire. Had the United States remained -British possessions, Canada must eventually have come -into line with them, and been more or less lost among -the stronger and more populous provinces. The same -result would have followed, had the British Government -entertained, as their emissary Oswald did, Franklin’s -proposal that Canada should be ceded to the United -States. It would have followed too, in all probability, -if Canada had been left at the time independent both -of Great Britain and of the United States, for she would -have been too weak to stand alone. The result of the -war was to give prominence and individuality to Canada<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_207"></a>[207]</span> -as a component part of the British Empire; to bring -in a strong body of British colonists not displacing but -supplementing the French Canadians and antagonistic -to the United States from which they were refugees; -to revive the instinct of self-preservation which in old -days had kept Canada alive, and which is the mainspring -of national sentiment, by again directly confronting her -with a foreign Power; and at the same time to give her -the advantage of protection by and political connexion -with what was still to be the greatest sea-going and -colonizing nation of the world. The result of the War of -American Independence was to make the United States -a great nation; but it was a result which, whether with -England or without, they must in any case have achieved. -The war had also the effect, and no other cause could have -had a like effect, of making possible a national existence -for Canada, which possibility was to be converted into -a living and a potent fact by the second American war, -the war of 1812.</p> - -<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_58" href="#FNanchor_58" class="label">[58]</a> Shortt and Doughty, p. 195.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_59" href="#FNanchor_59" class="label">[59]</a> Shortt and Doughty, pp. 196-9.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_60" href="#FNanchor_60" class="label">[60]</a> Ib., pp. 205-7.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_61" href="#FNanchor_61" class="label">[61]</a> Shortt and Doughty, pp. 227-8.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_62" href="#FNanchor_62" class="label">[62]</a> Shortt and Doughty, p. 196.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_63" href="#FNanchor_63" class="label">[63]</a> See above, p. 67 note.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_64" href="#FNanchor_64" class="label">[64]</a> Shortt and Doughty, pp. 208-10.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_65" href="#FNanchor_65" class="label">[65]</a> Letter to Shelburne, December 24, 1767, Shortt and Doughty, -p. 203.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_66" href="#FNanchor_66" class="label">[66]</a> Shortt and Doughty, p. 454. See also note to p. 377. Carleton -had a much better opinion than most people of the administration -of justice under the old French régime. In his examination before -the House of Commons on the Quebec Bill, he was asked, ‘Do you -know from the Canadians themselves, what sort of administration of -justice prevailed under the French Government, whether pure or -corrupt?’ His answer was, ‘Very pure in general. I never heard -complaints of the administration of justice under the French Government.’ -Egerton and Grant, pp. 56-7.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_67" href="#FNanchor_67" class="label">[67]</a> See above, p. 79.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_68" href="#FNanchor_68" class="label">[68]</a> Shortt and Doughty, p. 295.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_69" href="#FNanchor_69" class="label">[69]</a> In 1775 the population of the whole of Canada was according -to Bouchette’s estimate 90,000 (see the <i>Census of Canada</i>, 1870-1, -vol. iv, <i>Statistics of Canada</i>). On the other hand Carleton, in his -evidence given before the House of Commons at the time when the -Quebec Act was being passed in 1774, estimated the number of the -‘new subjects’ at ‘about 150,000 souls all Roman Catholics’ as -against less than 400 Protestants, excluding in the latter case women -and children. Egerton and Grant, pp. 51-2.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_70" href="#FNanchor_70" class="label">[70]</a> Shortt and Doughty, pp. 410-11.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_71" href="#FNanchor_71" class="label">[71]</a> Referred to by Carleton as ‘The Suffolk County Resolves in the -Massachusetts’. Shortt and Doughty, p. 413.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_72" href="#FNanchor_72" class="label">[72]</a> Carleton, however, after the war broke out, sternly repressed any -attempt of the Indians to act except under close supervision of white -officers. See Colonel Cruikshank’s paper on Joseph Brant in the -American Revolution, April 3, 1897. <i>Transactions of the Canadian -Institute</i>, vol. v, p. 243, &c.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_73" href="#FNanchor_73" class="label">[73]</a> Shortt and Doughty, pp. 412-14.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_74" href="#FNanchor_74" class="label">[74]</a> See above, p. 67.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_75" href="#FNanchor_75" class="label">[75]</a> Shortt and Doughty, pp. 450-2.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_76" href="#FNanchor_76" class="label">[76]</a> See the letter and the note to it at p. 451 of Shortt and Doughty. -Sir William Johnson had died in July, 1774; his nephew and son-in-law, -Colonel Guy Johnson, had acted as his deputy for Indian affairs, and -continued to do so for a while after his death, but in 1775 Major John -Campbell was appointed Superintendent of Indian affairs.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_77" href="#FNanchor_77" class="label">[77]</a> The reference is to the raising of a body of 300 Canadians in 1764 -for service under Bradstreet in Pontiac’s war. See above p. 24. It -seems doubtful whether the complaint to which Carleton refers had -any foundation. See Kingsford, vol. v, p. 76.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_78" href="#FNanchor_78" class="label">[78]</a> Carleton’s account of the above, given in a letter to Dartmouth, -dated Montreal, June 7, 1775, is that on May 19 he received news -from Gage of the outbreak of hostilities, i.e. the fight at Lexington, -coupled with a request that he would ‘send the 7th Regiment with -some companies of Canadians and Indians to Crown Point, in order -to make a diversion and favour his (Gage’s) operations’. The next -morning news reached Quebec ‘that one, Benedict Arnold, said to -be a native of Connecticut, and a horse jockey, landed a considerable -number of armed men at St. John’s: distant from this town (Montreal) -eight leagues, about eight in the morning of the 18th, surprised the -detachment of the 26th doing duty there, consisting of a sergeant and -ten men, and made them prisoners, seized upon the King’s sloop, -batteaus, and every other military store, and a few hours after departed, -carrying off the craft, prisoners, and stores they had seized. From -this party we had the first information of the rebels being in arms -upon the lakes, and of their having, under the command of said -Arnold, surprised Ticonderoga, Crown Point, the detachment of the -26th doing duty at these two places, and all the craft employed upon -those lakes’.... ‘The same evening another express brought an -account of the rebels having landed at St. John’s a second time, in -the night, between the 18th and 19th.’ Shortt and Doughty, pp. 453-5.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_79" href="#FNanchor_79" class="label">[79]</a> This seems to have been an under-estimate. There were apparently -at the time three British regiments in Canada, the 7th, the 8th, and -the 26th.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_80" href="#FNanchor_80" class="label">[80]</a> Shortt and Doughty, pp. 453-5.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_81" href="#FNanchor_81" class="label">[81]</a> Chief Justice Hey to the Lord Chancellor, August 28, 1775. Shortt -and Doughty, pp. 456-9.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_82" href="#FNanchor_82" class="label">[82]</a> Chief Justice Hey saw what a strong position Canada held, from -a military point of view, in regard to the other North American colonies. -In his letter to the Lord Chancellor of August 28, 1775, he wrote, -‘It appears to me that while England has a firm hold of this country, -which a good body of troops and nothing else will give her, her cause -with the colonies can never be desperate, though she should not have -an inch of ground in her possession in any one of them: from this -country they are more accessible, I mean the New England people -(paradoxical as it may seem), than even from Boston itself.’ Shortt -and Doughty, p. 457.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_83" href="#FNanchor_83" class="label">[83]</a> ‘A few of the gentry, consisting principally of the youth, residing -in this place (Montreal) and its neighbourhood, formed a small corps -of volunteers under the command of Mr. Samuel Mackay, and took -post at St. John’s.’ (Letter from Carleton to Dartmouth as above. -Shortt and Doughty, p. 454.)</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_84" href="#FNanchor_84" class="label">[84]</a> Shortt and Doughty, p. 459.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_85" href="#FNanchor_85" class="label">[85]</a> This may probably have been the Major Preston referred to in -Horace Walpole’s letter to the Countess of Upper Ossory, December -27, 1775. ‘Adam Smith told us t’other night at Beauclerk’s, that -Major Preston, one of two, but he is not sure which, would have been -an excellent commander some months since, if he had seen any service.’</p> - -<p>This and other quotations from Horace Walpole’s letters are taken -from Mrs. Paget Toynbee’s edition, Clarendon Press, 1904.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_86" href="#FNanchor_86" class="label">[86]</a> The general view seems to have been that Chambly might have -held out longer, and that the commander, Major Stopford, was shielded -by his aristocratic connexions, but the <i>Annual Register</i> for 1776 (p. 5) -says that it ‘was in no very defensible condition’, and Carleton seems -to have found no fault with its surrender. See the entry on p. 110 -of Parliamentary Paper, Cd. 2201, 1904, <i>Historical MS. Commission, -Report on American manuscripts in the Royal Institution of Great Britain</i>, -vol. i. Sir Guy Carleton to (Lord Barrington), May 21, 1777, ‘has -nothing to charge either the garrison of Chamblee or St. John’s with.’</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_87" href="#FNanchor_87" class="label">[87]</a> The <i>Annual Register</i> for 1776, p. 12, makes Montgomery’s advance -from Montreal to Quebec a kind of repetition of Arnold’s march. -‘Their march was in winter, through bad roads, in a severe climate, -beneath the fall of the first snows, and therefore made under great -hardships.’ He seems, on the contrary, to have come down the river -in the captured British vessels.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_88" href="#FNanchor_88" class="label">[88]</a> There is or was a dispute about the date. Kingsford makes it -the night of December 31 to January 1, but there seems no doubt -that the attack took place on the previous night, that of December -30-1. See Sir James Le Moyne’s Paper on the Assault on Quebec in -1775, in the <i>Proceedings of the Royal Society of Canada</i>, 1899.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_89" href="#FNanchor_89" class="label">[89]</a> Letter to Sir Horace Mann, June 5, 1776.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_90" href="#FNanchor_90" class="label">[90]</a> Letter to Sir Horace Mann, August 11, 1776. It is not clear why -Horace Walpole thought poorly of Carleton’s writing. His dispatches -are as clear and straightforward as could be wished.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_91" href="#FNanchor_91" class="label">[91]</a> Horace Walpole to Sir H. Mann, March 22, 1776.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_92" href="#FNanchor_92" class="label">[92]</a> p. 15.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_93" href="#FNanchor_93" class="label">[93]</a> <i>Parliamentary History of England</i>, vol. xxix, p. 379. Debate of -May 6, 1791.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_94" href="#FNanchor_94" class="label">[94]</a> <i>Annual Register</i> as above.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_95" href="#FNanchor_95" class="label">[95]</a> The letter, in which Montgomery complained of personal ill-treatment -of himself by Carleton, concluded—‘Beware of destroying stores -of any kind, public or private, as you have done in Montreal and in -the river; if you do, by Heavens there will be no mercy shown.’</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_96" href="#FNanchor_96" class="label">[96]</a> <i>Annual Register</i> for 1776; <i>State Papers</i>, p. 255. Carleton’s kindness -to the American prisoners was so great that when some of them -returned on parole, they were not allowed to communicate with the -American troops serving at Crown Point for fear that they might -cause disaffection. See Stone’s <i>Life of Brant</i> (1838), vol. i, p. 165.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_97" href="#FNanchor_97" class="label">[97]</a> There is an interesting account of the incident at the Cedars in -Stone’s <i>Life of Brant</i> (1838 ed.), vol. i, p. 153, &c. Stone says that -Forster had with him one company of regulars and nearly 600 Indians, -led by Joseph Brant, the celebrated Mohawk chief. But in spite -of the note to p. 151 there seems no doubt that Brant, who had gone -to England on a visit in the previous autumn, did not start on his -return voyage till late in May or June, and did not arrive at New -York till July, long after the event at the Cedars. See Colonel Cruikshank’s -paper on ‘Joseph Brant in the American Revolution’, April, -1897, <i>Transactions of the Canadian Institute</i>, vol. v, pp. 243, &c., -Colonel Cruikshank says that Brant sailed from Falmouth early in -June, 1776, and reached New York on July 29, where he fought under -Howe. Probably the affair of the Cedars was confounded with the -fighting at St. John’s and the attack on Montreal when Ethan Allen -was taken prisoner in 1775. Brant seems to have been present in -these actions.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_98" href="#FNanchor_98" class="label">[98]</a> See the letter of Ebenezer Sullivan abstracted in the 1890 <i>Report -on Canadian Archives, State Papers</i>, p. 78.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_99" href="#FNanchor_99" class="label">[99]</a> Ibid. p. 74.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_100" href="#FNanchor_100" class="label">[100]</a> <i>Annual Register</i> for 1777, p. 2.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_101" href="#FNanchor_101" class="label">[101]</a> See Carleton’s letter to Germain of September 28, 1776, quoting -Germain’s of June 21, 1776. Shortt and Doughty, pp. 459-60.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_102" href="#FNanchor_102" class="label">[102]</a> The letter is quoted in extenso at pp. 129-32 of the sixth volume -of Kingsford’s <i>History of Canada</i>.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_103" href="#FNanchor_103" class="label">[103]</a> <i>History of England in the Eighteenth Century</i>, vol. iii, 1882 ed., -chap. xii, p. 447.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_104" href="#FNanchor_104" class="label">[104]</a> Clinton was named to act instead of Sir William Howe, in the -event of his succeeding Howe in command of the army; this contingency -happened, and he, and not Howe, acted as commissioner. -Under the Act any three of the five commissioners were empowered -to treat with the Americans.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_105" href="#FNanchor_105" class="label">[105]</a> Howe was a pronounced Whig. Burgoyne was more or less -neutral until his later years, when he threw in his lot with Fox and -his friends. Clinton belonged to a Whig family, but seems to have -been a supporter of the Ministry; Cornwallis had voted with Lord -Camden against taxing the colonists.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_106" href="#FNanchor_106" class="label">[106]</a> <i>Influence of Sea Power on History</i>, chap. ix, pp. 342-3.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_107" href="#FNanchor_107" class="label">[107]</a> See above, pp. 90-1.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_108" href="#FNanchor_108" class="label">[108]</a> It is given in Lord E. Fitzmaurice’s <i>Life of Lord Shelburne</i>.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_109" href="#FNanchor_109" class="label">[109]</a> p. 20.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_110" href="#FNanchor_110" class="label">[110]</a> As to Lady Betty Germain’s bequest of Drayton to Lord George -Sackville, see the letter from Lord Vere to Earl Temple of December -19, 1769, in the <i>Grenville Papers</i> (edited by W. J. Smith, 1853, John -Murray), vol. iv, p. 491. See also various references in Horace Walpole’s -<i>Letters</i> (Mrs. Paget Toynbee’s edition, Clarendon Press, 1904). -In a letter to George Montagu, July 23, 1763, Walpole gives a description -of Drayton, and refers to Lady Betty Germain as ‘its divine -old mistress’. Drayton belonged to the Earls of Peterborough, the -Mordaunt family. The daughter and heiress of the last earl married -Sir John Germain, and left him the property. He married, as his -second wife, Lady Elizabeth Berkeley, the Lady Betty Germain in -question, and left Drayton to her, expressing a wish that if she had -no children, she should leave it to one of the Sackvilles, which she -accordingly did. Lady Betty Germain, whose father was Viceroy of -Ireland, was a friend of Swift.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_111" href="#FNanchor_111" class="label">[111]</a> Letter to Sir H. Mann, February 20, 1764. The other four were -Pitt (Lord Chatham), Charles Townshend, Conway, and Charles Yorke.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_112" href="#FNanchor_112" class="label">[112]</a> ‘I think nobody can doubt of Lord George’s resolution since he -has exposed himself to the artillery of the whole town. Indeed I -always believed him brave and that he sacrificed himself to sacrifice -Prince Ferdinand.’ Letter to the Countess of Upper Ossory, November -23, 1775. The letter was written just as Germain was about to take -office.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_113" href="#FNanchor_113" class="label">[113]</a> To the Honourable Henry Seymour Conway and the Countess of -Ailesbury, January 15, 1775.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_114" href="#FNanchor_114" class="label">[114]</a> Quoted by Horace Walpole in his letter to Sir Horace Mann of -March 5, 1777.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_115" href="#FNanchor_115" class="label">[115]</a> Carleton’s letter was dated May 20, 1777. It is quoted in full at -p. 129 of the sixth volume of Kingsford’s <i>History of Canada</i>, as well -as in the <i>Report on the Canadian Archives</i> for 1885.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_116" href="#FNanchor_116" class="label">[116]</a> One reason alleged is that Carleton had given evidence against -Germain at the latter’s court-martial.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_117" href="#FNanchor_117" class="label">[117]</a> This letter, with Carleton’s letter of May 20, 1777, will be found -in Mr. Brymner’s <i>Report on the Canadian Archives</i> for 1885, pp. cxxxii-vii, -Note D.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_118" href="#FNanchor_118" class="label">[118]</a> The note to p. 474 of <i>Documents relating to the Constitutional -History of Canada</i> (Shortt and Doughty) condemns Carleton’s conduct -to Germain.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_119" href="#FNanchor_119" class="label">[119]</a> Chief Justice Hey to the Lord Chancellor, August 28, 1775. Shortt -and Doughty, p. 458.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_120" href="#FNanchor_120" class="label">[120]</a> Quoted in full at pp. 457-9 of the sixth volume of Kingsford’s <i>History -of Canada</i>.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_121" href="#FNanchor_121" class="label">[121]</a> October 15, 1777. See <i>Canadian Archives Report</i> for 1890, p. 101. -It is not absolutely clear that the reference is to Livius.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_122" href="#FNanchor_122" class="label">[122]</a> The records as to the dates of Livius’ appointment are somewhat -confusing. There is a printed pamphlet in the Colonial Office -Library giving Livius’ petition and the proceedings which followed -in England. It is dated 1779, and entitled ‘Proceedings between -Sir Guy Carleton, K.B., late Governor of the Province of Quebec, -and Peter Livius Esq., Chief Justice of the said Province, &c. &c.’. -The note to p. 476 of <i>Documents relating to the Constitutional History -of Canada</i> (Shortt and Doughty) is favourable to Livius and unfavourable -to Carleton.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_123" href="#FNanchor_123" class="label">[123]</a> See also below, p. 238.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_124" href="#FNanchor_124" class="label">[124]</a> One cause which reduced their numbers was that in the seventeenth -century the Jesuits converted a considerable number of Mohawks and -induced them to settle in Canada. They were known as the Caghnawagas.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_125" href="#FNanchor_125" class="label">[125]</a> As regards the Six Nation Indians, Joseph Brant, and the Border -forays in the War of Independence, see Stone’s <i>Life of Brant</i>, and -two papers by Lt.-Col. Ernest Cruikshank, on ‘Joseph Brant in the -American Revolution’, in the <i>Transactions of the Canadian Institute</i>, -vol. v, 1898, p. 243, and vol. vii, 1904, p. 391. The papers were read -in April, 1897, and April, 1902. See also <i>The Old New York Frontier</i>, -by F. W. Halsey. Scribners, New York, 1902.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_126" href="#FNanchor_126" class="label">[126]</a> On Pownall’s map of 1776 is marked at the spot ‘The great portage -one mile’, but the distance between the two rivers was rather greater.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_127" href="#FNanchor_127" class="label">[127]</a> St. Leger’s dispatch to Burgoyne, dated Oswego, August 27, 1777, -and written after his retreat, forms Appendix No. XIII to <i>A State of -the Expedition from Canada as laid before the House of Commons by -Lieutenant-General Burgoyne</i>. London, 1780.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_128" href="#FNanchor_128" class="label">[128]</a> St. Leger reported it to be twelve miles distant.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_129" href="#FNanchor_129" class="label">[129]</a> St. Leger says definitely, ‘Sir John Johnson put himself at the -head of this party.’ Stone, on the other hand, makes out that Sir -John Johnson remained behind in the camp and was at that part of -it which was surprised by Willett (See Stone’s <i>Life of Brant</i>, 1838 ed., -vol. i, p. 235, note). St. Leger says that he ‘could not send above -80 white men, Rangers and troops included, with the whole corps of -Indians’, but all the accounts seem to agree in placing the number -of Indians at 400 and no more.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_130" href="#FNanchor_130" class="label">[130]</a> The details of the fighting at Oriskany, and Willett’s sortie from -the fort, are more confusing and contradictory even than those of -most battles and sieges. The American accounts make Oriskany an -American victory, and Willett’s sortie a taking possession of the whole -British camp, the contents of which, after the defenders had been put -to flight, were carried off to the fort in seven wagons which made three -trips between the fort and the camp. St. Leger, no doubt minimizing -what happened, reported that the sortie resulted in no ‘further advantage -than frightening some squaws and pilfering the packs of the -warriors which they left behind them’. From the contemporary plan of -the operations at Fort Stanwix it seems clear that Willett surprised only -the post at the lower landing-place and not the whole British camp.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_131" href="#FNanchor_131" class="label">[131]</a> See above pp. 96-7 and note.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_132" href="#FNanchor_132" class="label">[132]</a> Junius to the Duke of Grafton, December 12, 1769.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_133" href="#FNanchor_133" class="label">[133]</a> Walpole to the Honourable Henry Synan Conway, November 12, -1774.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_134" href="#FNanchor_134" class="label">[134]</a> Letter to the Countess of Upper Ossory, June 14, 1787. See also -letter to the same, January 16, 1786. ‘General Burgoyne’s <i>Heiress</i>, -I hear, succeeded extremely well, and was besides excellently acted.’</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_135" href="#FNanchor_135" class="label">[135]</a> Letter to the Rev. William Mason, October 5, 1777. In this letter -Horace Walpole, apparently without real ground, says that Burgoyne -was the natural son of Lord Bingley.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_136" href="#FNanchor_136" class="label">[136]</a> Letters of August 8, August 11, and August 24, 1777.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_137" href="#FNanchor_137" class="label">[137]</a> Not to be confounded with the Wood Creek mentioned above, -p. 147, &c., which was a feeder of Lake Oneida.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_138" href="#FNanchor_138" class="label">[138]</a> Letter to Sir H. Mann, September 1, 1777.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_139" href="#FNanchor_139" class="label">[139]</a> See <i>State Papers</i>, p. 97, in Mr. Brymner’s <i>Report on Canadian -Archives</i> for 1890.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_140" href="#FNanchor_140" class="label">[140]</a> <i>State of the Expedition from Canada Narrative</i>, p. 12.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_141" href="#FNanchor_141" class="label">[141]</a> Kingsford makes the number to have been 746: <i>History of Canada</i>, -vol. vi, p. 216, note.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_142" href="#FNanchor_142" class="label">[142]</a> From Burgoyne’s dispatch it appears that Baum was beginning -a further advance when the attack was made. His words are, ‘Colonel -Baum was induced to proceed without sufficient knowledge of the -ground.’</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_143" href="#FNanchor_143" class="label">[143]</a> The American accounts put the British casualties at nearly 1,000.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_144" href="#FNanchor_144" class="label">[144]</a> It may probably have been to the disaster at Bennington that -Horace Walpole referred when he wrote to the Countess of Upper -Ossory on September 29, 1777: ‘General Burgoyne has had but bad -sport in the woods.’</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_145" href="#FNanchor_145" class="label">[145]</a> Benjamin Lincoln was the American commander charged with the -duty of attacking Burgoyne’s communications. He was afterwards -in command at Charleston when it was taken by the English in May, -1780.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_146" href="#FNanchor_146" class="label">[146]</a> It is not easy to make out the details of the fighting. After the -battle of September 19, the two armies were said to be only about -half a mile distant from each other, but on October 7, according to -Burgoyne’s dispatch, after advancing for some time he formed his -troops within three-quarters of a mile of the enemy. The advance -was apparently not direct but diagonal against the extreme left of -the Americans. The main English camp near the river, where there -was a bridge of boats, does not seem to have been at all molested, -though it was presumably drawn back in the following night. Breyman’s -camp which was stormed is shown on the plan appended to -the <i>State of the Expedition from Canada</i>, as well in the rear of the -extreme right of the English line.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_147" href="#FNanchor_147" class="label">[147]</a> Horace Walpole, writing to the Countess of Upper Ossory on -November 3, 1777, seems to be referring to reports of the battle at -Freeman’s Farm. ‘If your angel would be seeing, why did he not -put on his spectacles and hover over Arnold, who has beaten the -vapouring Burgoyne and destroyed his magazines? Carleton, who -was set aside for General Hurlothrumbo, is gone to save him and the -remains of his army if he can.’ On November 13 he writes to the -same, ‘General Swagger is said to be entrenched at Saratoga, but -I question whether he will be left at leisure to continue his Commentaries: -one Arnold is mighty apt to interrupt him.’ Authentic news -of Burgoyne’s surrender did not reach England till December 1. -Writing to Sir Horace Mann on December 4, Walpole says: ‘On -Tuesday night came news from Carleton at Quebec, which indeed had -come from France earlier, announcing the total annihilation (as to -America) of Burgoyne’s army.... Burgoyne is said to be wounded -in three places, his vanquisher, Arnold, is supposed to be dead of his -wounds.’ It will be noted that Arnold is made the hero on the American -side, and that there is no mention of Walpole’s godson, Gates. Walpole -contemplated invasion of Canada and possible loss of Quebec as the -result of the disaster.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_148" href="#FNanchor_148" class="label">[148]</a> The above account has been taken almost entirely from the original -dispatches, documents, and evidence published in <i>A State of the Expedition -from Canada as laid before the House of Commons by Lieutenant-General -Burgoyne</i>. London, 1780. Burgoyne, in a private letter to -Howe of 20th October, attributed the surrender in part to the fact that -his troops were not all British. See <i>Report on American Manuscripts -in the Royal Institution</i> (1904), vol. i, p. 140.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_149" href="#FNanchor_149" class="label">[149]</a> Article 6 of the Treaty of Paris between France and the United -States, dated February 6, 1778, ran as follows: ‘The most Christian -King renounces for ever the possession of the islands of Bermudas as -well as of any part of the continent of America which before the -Treaty of Paris in 1763 or in virtue of that treaty were acknowledged -to belong to the Crown of Great Britain or to the United States heretofore -called British colonies or which are at this time or have lately -been under the Power of the King and Crown of Great Britain.’ -(<i>Annual Register</i>, 1778, p. 341.)</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_150" href="#FNanchor_150" class="label">[150]</a> Stone’s <i>Life of Brant</i>, and among recent books, Halsey’s <i>Old New -York Frontier</i>, give good accounts of this border war from the American -side. Fortunately the subject lies in the main outside the scope of -the present book. It would probably be fair to say that there were -undoubtedly great and horrible barbarities, not confined to one side -only, and on the other hand that there was much exaggeration as, -e.g. when Campbell in <i>Gertrude of Wyoming</i> made Joseph Brant, -who never took any part at all in the raid, one of the monsters of the -story.</p> - -<p>The Wyoming valley had been colonized from Connecticut and was -claimed by and at the time actually incorporated with Connecticut, -though geographically within the state of Pennsylvania. The settlers -had sent a considerable contingent to Washington’s army and their -homes were in consequence but slenderly guarded.</p> - -<p>On Pownall’s ‘map of the Middle British Colonies in North America’, -published March 25, 1776, on the western side of the east branch of -the Susquehanna river, appears the following: ‘Colony from Wioming -Connecticut.’</p> - -<p>In the ‘Topographical Description’ attached to the above map -there is the following note at pp. 35-6: ‘This Place and the District -is now settled by a populous Colony, which swarmed and came forth -from Connecticut. The People of Connecticut say, that their Charter and -the grant of Lands under it was prior to that of Pennsylvania; that -the grant of Lands to them extended within the Latitudes of their -Grant (except where possessed by other powers at that Time) to the -South Seas. They allow New York and New Jersey to have been so -possessed at the time of their Grant, but say, that their right emerges -again at the West boundary of those Provinces. Mr. Penn and the -People of Pennsylvania who have taken Grants under him say, that -this District is in the very Heart of the Province of Pennsylvania. -On this State of Claims the Two Colonies are in actual war, which -they have not even remitted against each other here, although united -in arms against Great Britain 1775.’</p> - -<p>The note is interesting as showing how very far from amicable were -the relations of the colonies to each other when the War of Independence -broke out, cf. the case of the Vermont settlers and New York -referred to at the beginning of this chapter.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_151" href="#FNanchor_151" class="label">[151]</a> This is the date given on p. 10 of <i>Sir Frederick Haldimand</i>, by -Jean N. McIlwraith in the ‘Makers of Canada’ series. The notice -in the <i>Dictionary of National Biography</i> gives the date as 1756. The -life states that Haldimand as a young man possibly took service with -the King of Sardinia, and certainly served under Frederick the Great. -The <i>Dictionary of National Biography</i> states that there is no record -of his having been in the Prussian army.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_152" href="#FNanchor_152" class="label">[152]</a> For Du Calvet’s case see Mr. Brymner’s Introduction to the <i>Report -on Canadian Archives</i>, 1888, p. xv, &c., and also Note D. This valuable -Introduction and the equally valuable Introduction to the 1887 volume -should be consulted for an estimate of Haldimand and his administration, -the Haldimand papers being catalogued in these volumes.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_153" href="#FNanchor_153" class="label">[153]</a> Shortt and Doughty, p. 497.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_154" href="#FNanchor_154" class="label">[154]</a> Shortt and Doughty, p. 488.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_155" href="#FNanchor_155" class="label">[155]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 498.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_156" href="#FNanchor_156" class="label">[156]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 486. See also above, p. 92.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_157" href="#FNanchor_157" class="label">[157]</a> 24 Geo. III, cap. 1, see Shortt and Doughty, pp. 499, 501 and notes. -See also above, p. 88, note.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_158" href="#FNanchor_158" class="label">[158]</a> Shortt and Doughty, p. 486. ‘The session’ must have been a later -session than that of 1775, as Livius was not in the Council in that year. -See above, p. 141.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_159" href="#FNanchor_159" class="label">[159]</a> Shortt and Doughty, pp. 476-7 and notes, also 487, 488-9 and notes.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_160" href="#FNanchor_160" class="label">[160]</a> Shortt and Doughty, p. 488. It will be remembered that Livius -was not in Canada at this time.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_161" href="#FNanchor_161" class="label">[161]</a> See above, p. 134.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_162" href="#FNanchor_162" class="label">[162]</a> See above, p. 182.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_163" href="#FNanchor_163" class="label">[163]</a> Preface to <i>Annual Register</i> for 1782.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_164" href="#FNanchor_164" class="label">[164]</a> Horace Walpole to the Rev. William Mason, April 25, 1781.</p> -</div> -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="chapter"></div> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_208"></a>[208]</span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IV">CHAPTER IV<br /> -<span class="fs80">THE TREATY OF 1783 AND THE UNITED EMPIRE -LOYALISTS</span></h2> - -<p>In the War of American Independence the English -had no one to match against Washington. In the negotiations -for the peace which ended the war they had no <span class="sidenote">The Treaty of 1783.</span> -one to match against Benjamin Franklin. The outcome -of Franklin’s astuteness was the Treaty of 1783,<a id="FNanchor_165" href="#Footnote_165" class="fnanchor">[165]</a> -by which Great Britain acknowledged the independence -of the thirteen United States, and which alike for Great -Britain and for Canada was rather the beginning than -the end of troubles.</p> - -<p>The first words of the second article of the treaty, -which purported to determine the boundaries of the -United States, were as follows, ‘That all disputes which -might arise in future on the subject of the boundaries -of the said United States may be prevented, it is hereby -agreed and declared that the following are and shall -be their boundaries.’</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -boundary -disputes.</div> - -<p>The words were no doubt used in good faith; but, -as a matter of fact, nowhere in the world has there been -such a long series of boundary disputes between two -nations, as in North America between Great Britain and -the United States.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">In 1783 -the geography -of -North -America -was little -known.</div> - -<p>The disputes were to a certain extent inevitable. -When the Treaty of 1783 was signed, half North America -was unknown; while within the colonized or semi-colonized -area, the coast-line, the courses of the rivers, -the lie of the land, had never been accurately mapped -out. There were well-known names and phrases, but -the precise points which they designated were uncertain. -It was easy to use geographical expressions in drawing<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_209"></a>[209]</span> -up a treaty, but exceedingly difficult, when the treaty -had been signed, to decide what was the correct interpretation -of its terms. The matter was further complicated -by the fact that in 1783, and for many years afterwards, -until the Dominion Act was passed, Nova Scotia -was a separate colony from Canada; while in the year <span class="sidenote">The disputes were between provinces as well as nations.</span> -after the treaty, 1784, New Brunswick was carved out -of Nova Scotia and also became a separate colony. -Similarly the United States, though federated, were still -separate entities, and Maine was in 1820 separated from -Massachusetts, just as New Brunswick had been cut -off from Nova Scotia. Thus on either side there were -provincial as well as national claims to be considered -and adjusted; and it resulted that the Treaty of 1783, -which was to have been a final settlement of the quarrel -between Great Britain and her old North American -colonies, left an aftermath of troublesome questions, -causing constant friction, endless negotiations, and a -succession of supplementary conventions. A summary -of the controversies and conventions, out of which the -International Boundary was evolved, will be found in -the Second Appendix to this book. There is more than -one reason why such a multiplicity of disputes arose, -why the disputes were so prolonged and at times so -dangerous, and why the issues were as a rule unfavourable -to Great Britain and to Canada.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -Treaty -of 1783 -made a -precedent -for future -American -successes -in diplomacy.</div> - -<p>First and foremost, not only was the original Treaty -of 1783, in the then state of geographical knowledge, -or rather of geographical ignorance, necessarily both inadequate -and inaccurate, but in addition those who negotiated -it on the British side, in their anxiety to make -peace, were, as has been stated, completely outmatched -in bargaining by the representatives of the United States. -The result was that the weak points of the treaty, and -the conspicuous success of the Americans in securing it, -infected all subsequent negotiations. The wording of -the document was played for all and more than it was -worth, and there grew up something like a tradition that,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_210"></a>[210]</span> -as each new issue arose between the two nations, -the Americans should take and the English should -concede.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Great -Britain -was more -weighted -by foreign -complications -than the -United -States.</div> - -<p>In the second place, Great Britain was always at a -disadvantage in negotiating with the United States, -owing to her many vulnerable interests and her complicated -foreign relations. The American Government was, -so to speak, on the spot, concentrating on each point -exclusive attention and undivided strength. The British -Government was at a distance, with its eyes on all parts -of the world, and remembering only too well how the -first great quarrel with the United States had resulted -in a world in arms against Great Britain. At each -step in the endless chaffering British Ministers had to -count the cost more anxiously than those who spoke -for a young and strong nation, as a rule untrammeled -by relations to other foreign Powers and as a rule, though -not always, assured of public support in America in -proportion to the firmness of their demands and the -extent of their claims.</p> - -<p>Lastly, it has often been said that Canada has grievously -suffered through British diplomacy. This is to a -large extent true, but one great reason has been that -Canada, as it exists to-day, was not in existence when <span class="sidenote">Canada was not one nation.</span> -most of the boundary questions came up for settlement. -The interests of a Dominion—except in potentiality—were -not at stake, and there was no Canadian nation -to make its voice heard. For two-thirds of a century -after the United States became an independent nation, -in the North-West the Hudson’s Bay Company or its -rivals in the fur trade, on the Pacific coast the beginnings -of a small separate British colony, were nearly all that -was in evidence. Boundary questions in North America -between Great Britain and the United States could be -presented, and were presented, as of unequal value to -the two parties. Any given area in dispute was portrayed -as of vital importance to the United States, on the ground -that it involved the limits of their homeland and their<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_211"></a>[211]</span> -people’s heritage. The same area, it would be plausibly -argued, was of little consequence to Great Britain as -affecting only a distant corner of some one of the most -remote and least known of her many dependencies. -This was inevitable while Canada was in the making. -Yet in spite of errors in diplomacy, and in spite of what -on a review of all the conditions must fairly be judged -to have been great and singular difficulties, the net -result has been to secure for the Canadian nation a -territory which most peoples on the world’s surface would -regard as a great and a goodly inheritance.</p> - -<p>The second article of the Treaty of 1783, which attempted -to define the boundaries of the United States and therefore -of Canada also, was by no means the only provision -of the treaty which affected Canada. The third article -was of much importance, giving to American fishermen -certain fishing rights on the coasts of British North -America; but the fourth, fifth and sixth articles require -more special notice, inasmuch as, though Canada was not -actually mentioned in them, their indirect effect was -to create a British population in Canada, to make <span class="sidenote">Provisions in the 1783 treaty which referred to the Loyalists.</span> -Canada a British colony instead of a foreign dependency -of Great Britain, and to strongly accentuate -the severance between those parts of North America -which held to the British connexion and the provinces -which had renounced their allegiance to the British -Crown.</p> - -<p>The fourth article provided ‘that creditors on either -side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery -of the full value in sterling money of all bonâ fide debts -heretofore contracted’.</p> - -<p>The fifth article, while discriminating between those -who had and those who had not borne arms against -the United States, was to the effect that Congress should -‘earnestly recommend’ to the several states restitution -of confiscated property and rights, and a revision of -the laws directed against the Loyalists of America. -The sixth article prohibited future confiscations and<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_212"></a>[212]</span> -prosecutions in the case of persons who had taken part -in the late war.<a id="FNanchor_166" href="#Footnote_166" class="fnanchor">[166]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Bitter -feeling -in the -United -States -against -the -Loyalists.</div> - -<p>In the negotiations, which preceded the conclusion of -peace, no point was more strongly debated between the -commissioners of the two countries than the question -of the treatment to be awarded to those who had adhered -to the British cause in the American states during the -war. The British Government was bound in common -honesty to use every effort to safeguard the lives and -interests of those who had remained loyal under every -stress of persecution. On the American side, on the -other hand, there was the most bitter feeling against -the Tories, as they were called, a feeling generally shared -by the members of the revolutionary party from Washington -downwards. As in all cases of the kind, Loyalists -included good and bad, worthy and unworthy, interested -placemen or merchants as well as men who acted on -and suffered for principle alone. There were men among -them of high standing and reputation, such as William -Franklin the Loyalist Governor of New Jersey, only son -of Benjamin Franklin, and Sir William Pepperell, grandson -of the man who besieged and took Louisbourg in 1745. -There were also men of the type of Arnold, who deserved -to be held as traitors. Many of the Loyalists had fought -hard, and barbarities could be laid, directly or indirectly, -to their charge. Their record was associated with the -memories of the border war, of Wyoming and Cherry -Valley; but equally on the American side could be found -instances of cruelty and ruthlessness. The war had been -a civil war, long drawn out, spasmodic, fought through -largely by guerilla bands. It did not lie with either -side to monopolize claims to righteousness or to perpetuate -bitterness against their foes.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -sufferings -of the -Loyalists -were -increased -by the -spasmodic -operations -of the -English -in the -war,</div> - -<p>There were two special causes which made the hard -lot of the Loyalists harder than it might otherwise have -been. The first was the unfortunate action of the English -in occupying cities or tracts of country and then again<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_213"></a>[213]</span> -abandoning them. When Howe evacuated Boston, over -900 Loyalists are said to have left with him for Halifax. -When the British army was withdrawn from Philadelphia -in June, 1778, 3,000 Loyalists followed in its train. -But the misery caused by the uncertain policy of the -British Government or the British generals cannot be -measured merely by the actual number of refugees on -each occasion. A very large proportion of the American -population was at heart neutral, and they suffered from -not knowing whom to trust and whom to obey at a given -time and place. In the autumn of 1776 New Jersey -was brought under complete British control. The disaster -at Trenton supervened, and in about six months the -whole country was given up. Much the same happened -in the southern states; at one time the English, at another -the Americans were masters of this or that district. The -result was that bitterness was intensified by prolonged -uncertainty and suspicion. Numbers of citizens, who -only asked which master they should serve, suffered at -the hands of both. There would have been far less -misery and far better feeling if from the beginning to -the end of the war certain areas and no more had always -remained in British occupation, instead of towns and provinces -being bandied about from one side to the other.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">and by -the separate -action -of the -several -States.</div> - -<p>The second special cause of suffering to the Loyalists -was the separate action of the several states. England -was not fighting one nation but thirteen different communities; -and it may be said that in each of the thirteen -there was civil war. The smaller the area in which -there is strife, the meaner and more bitter the strife -will be. With a great national struggle were intertwined -petty rivalries, local jealousies, family dissensions. -Men remembered old grudges, paid off old scores, reproduced -in the worst forms the features which in quieter -times had disfigured the narrow provincial life of the -separate states. Had the states been one instead of -many, there would have been a wider patriotism and -a broader outlook, for Congress with all its faults was<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_214"></a>[214]</span> -a larger minded body than a state legislature. Had -they again been all one, there would not have been a -series of unwholesome precedents for persecution of the -minority. As it was, each state passed law after law -against the Loyalists, and each in its turn could point -to what its neighbour had done, in the hope of making -a further exhibition of patriotism, more extravagant -and more unjust.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Powerlessness -of Congress -in the -matter.</div> - -<p>How helpless the central body was in the matter, -as compared with the separate sovereign states, is shown -by the wording of the fifth article of the Peace. All that -the American commissioners could be induced to sign -was that Congress should ‘earnestly recommend to the -legislatures of the respective states’ a policy of amnesty -and restitution. It does not seem to have been anticipated -that the state legislatures would comply with the recommendation. -At any rate it appears that the emissaries -of the United States who conducted the peace negotiations -were reluctant to consent even to this small concession; -that it was in after years represented on the -American side as a mere form of words, necessary to -bring matters to a conclusion and to save the face of -the British Government; that its inadequacy was -hotly assailed in both Houses of the British Parliament; -and that it proved to be as a matter of fact in the main -a dead letter.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Debates -in Parliament -on the -question -of the -Loyalists.</div> - -<p>Very bitter were the comments made in Parliament -upon these provisions in the treaty by the opponents -of Shelburne’s ministry. On the 17th of February, 1783, -the Preliminary Articles of Peace were discussed in either -House. In the House of Lords Lord Carlisle led the -attack, moving an amendment in which the subject of the <span class="sidenote">The debate in the House of Lords.</span> -Loyalists was prominently mentioned. The terms of -the amendment lamented the necessity for subscribing -to articles ‘which, considering the relative situation of -the belligerent Powers, we must regard as inadequate -to our just expectations and derogatory to the honour -and dignity of Great Britain’. Various strong speeches<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_215"></a>[215]</span> -followed, Lord Walsingham did not mince his words, -nor did Lord Townshend. Lord Stormont spoke of the -Loyalists as ‘men whom Britain was bound in justice -and honour, gratitude and affection, and every tie to -provide for and protect. Yet alas for England as well -as them they were made a price of peace’. Lord George -Germain, now Lord Sackville, who had so largely contributed -to the calamitous issue of the war, was to the -front in condemning the cruel abandonment of the -Loyalists. In order to prove the futility of the terms -intended to safeguard their interests, he referred to -a resolution passed by the Legislature of Virginia as late -as the 17th of December previously, to the effect that -all demands for restitution of confiscated property were -wholly inadmissible. Lord Loughborough in a brilliant -speech spoke out that ‘in ancient or in modern history -there cannot be found an instance of so shameful a -desertion of men who have sacrificed all to their duty -and to their reliance upon our faith’. The House sat -until 4.30 on the following morning, the attendance -of peers being at one period of the debate larger than -on any previous occasion in the reign of George the Third; -and the division gave the Government a majority of -thirteen.</p> - -<p>Meanwhile the House of Commons were also engaged -in discussing the Peace, and here Lord John Cavendish <span class="sidenote">The Debate in the House of Commons.</span> -moved an amendment to the Address, which was supplemented -by a further amendment in which Lord North -raised the case of the Loyalists. The Government -fared ill at the hands of the best speakers in the House, -of all shades of opinion. ‘Never was the honour, the -humanity, the principles, the policy of a nation so grossly -abused,’ said Lord North now happy in opposition, -‘as in the desertion of those men who are now exposed -to every punishment that desertion and poverty can -inflict because they were not rebels,’ and he denounced -the discrimination made in the fifth article of the Peace -against those who had borne arms for Great Britain.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_216"></a>[216]</span> -Lord Mulgrave spoke of the Peace as ‘a lasting monument -of national disgrace’. Fox was found in opposition to -Shelburne with whom he had parted company, and on -the same side as his old opponent Lord North with -whom he was soon to join hands. Burke spoke of the -vast number of Loyalists who ‘had been deluded by this -country and had risked everything in our cause’. Sheridan -used bitter words to the same effect; and even Wilberforce, -who seconded the Address on the Government side, had <span class="sidenote">The Government defeated.</span> -to own that, when he considered the case of the Loyalists, -‘there he saw his country humiliated.’ The debate -went on through the night, and when the division was -taken at 7.30 the next morning, the ministers found -themselves beaten by sixteen votes.</p> - -<p>But the House of Commons had not yet done with -the Peace, or with the ministry. Four days later, on <span class="sidenote">Resolutions by Lord John Cavendish.</span> -the 21st of February, Lord John Cavendish moved five -resolutions in the House. The first three resolutions -confirmed the Peace and led to little debate, but the -fourth and fifth were a direct attack on the Government. -The fourth resolution was as follows, ‘The concessions -made to the adversaries of Great Britain, by the said -Provisional Treaty and Preliminary Articles, are greater -than they were entitled to, either from the actual situation -of their respective possessions, or from their comparative -strength.’ The terms of the fifth resolution were, ‘that -this House do feel the regard due from this nation to -every description of men, who, with the risk of their -lives and the sacrifice of their property, have distinguished -their loyalty, and been conspicuous for their fidelity -during a long and calamitous war, and to assure His -Majesty that they shall take every proper method to -relieve them, which the state of the circumstances of this -country will permit.’ A long debate on the fourth -resolution ended in the defeat of the Government by -seventeen votes; and, the Opposition being satisfied <span class="sidenote">Shelburne’s ministry defeated.</span> -by carrying this vote of censure, the fifth resolution -was withdrawn. The result of the night’s work was to<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_217"></a>[217]</span> -turn out Shelburne and his colleagues, and to make -way for the famous coalition of Fox and North, which -had been amply foreshadowed in the debates.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Unnecessary -concessions -made on -the English -side -in the -Peace of -1783.</div> - -<p>It will be noted that, though the case of the Loyalists -was made a text for denouncing the terms of the Peace, -the Government was defeated avowedly not so much on -the ground of dishonourable conduct to the friends of -England as on that of having made unnecessary concessions. -The case of the Opposition was strong, and the -case of the Government was weak, because sentiment -was backed by common sense. The Loyalists had been -shabbily treated, without any adequate reason either -for sacrificing them or for making various other concessions. -That was the verdict of the House of Commons -then, and it is the verdict of history now. England had -become relatively not weaker but stronger since the -disaster at Yorktown, and the United States were at -least as much in need of peace as was the mother country. -The Americans had done more by bluff than by force, -and the wholesale cession of territory, the timorous -abandonment of men and places, was an unnecessary -price of peace. The case of the Opposition was overwhelming, -and it carried conviction in spite of the antecedents -of many of those who spoke for it. North and -Sackville, who declaimed against the terms which had -been conceded, were the men who had mismanaged the -war. Fox was to the front in attacking the Peace, and -with reason, for he had been the chief opponent in the -Rockingham cabinet of Shelburne and his emissary -Oswald, but Fox beyond all men had lent his energies -to supporting the Americans against his own country -in the time of her trial.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Excuses -made for -the policy -of the -British -Government -with -regard -to the -Loyalists.</div> - -<p>What the Government pleaded in defence of the articles -which related to the Loyalists was first, that they could -not secure peace on any other terms; secondly, that the -Americans would carry out the terms honourably and -in good faith; and thirdly that, if the terms were not -carried out, England would compensate her friends.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_218"></a>[218]</span> -The first plea, as we have seen, was rejected. The second -plea events proved to be ill founded. Congress made -the recommendation to the state legislatures which the <span class="sidenote">Persecution of the Loyalists in the various states.</span> -fifth article prescribed, but no attention was paid to it. -‘Confiscation still went on actively, governors of the -states were urged to exchange lists of the proscribed -persons, that no Tory might find a resting-place in the -United States, and in nearly every state they were disfranchized’.<a id="FNanchor_167" href="#Footnote_167" class="fnanchor">[167]</a> -The Acts against the Loyalists were not -repealed, and in some cases were supplemented. In -some states life was not safe any more than property, -and the revolution closed with a reign of terror. South -Carolina stood almost alone in passing, in March, 1784, -an Act for restitution of property and permitting Loyalists -to return to the state. In Pennsylvania Tories were -still disfranchized as late as 1801.</p> - -<p>In retaliation for the non-fulfilment of the fifth and -sixth articles of the treaty relating to the Loyalists, -as well as of the fourth article by which creditors on -either side were to meet with no lawful impediment in -recovering their bonâ fide debts,<a id="FNanchor_168" href="#Footnote_168" class="fnanchor">[168]</a> the British Government, -in their turn, refused to carry out in full the -seventh article under which all the places which were -occupied by British garrisons within the borders of -the United States were to be evacuated ‘with all -convenient speed’; and it was not until the year 1796, -after further negotiations had taken place and a new -treaty, Jay’s Treaty of 1794, had been signed, that the -inland posts were finally given up. Meanwhile the -Government took in hand compensation for the sorely -tried Loyalists, redeeming the pledges which had been -given and the honour of the nation.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Compensation -given -to the -Loyalists -from -Imperial -Funds.</div> - -<p>A full account of the steps which were taken to compensate<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_219"></a>[219]</span> -in money the American Loyalists is given in -a <i>Historical view of the Commission for inquiry into -the losses, services and claims of the American Loyalists</i> -which was published in London in 1815, by John Eardley -Wilmot, one of the commissioners. Compensation or relief -had been going on during the war, for, as has been -seen, each stage of the war and each abandonment of -a city implied a number of refugees with claims on the -justice or the liberality of the British Government. Thus -Wilmot tells us that in the autumn of 1782 the sums -issued by the Treasury amounted to an annual amount -of £40,280 distributed among 315 persons, over and -above occasional sums in gross to the amount of between -£17,000 and £18,000 per annum for the three last years, -being payments applied to particular or extraordinary -losses or services. Shelburne named two members of -Parliament as commissioners to inquire into the application -of these relief funds; and they reduced the amount -stated above to £25,800, but by June, 1783, added another -£17,445, thus bringing up the total to £43,245.</p> - -<p>In July, 1783, the Portland administration, which had -taken the place of Shelburne’s ministry and which -included Fox and North, passed an Act ‘appointing -commissioners to inquire into the losses and services -of all such persons who have suffered in their rights, -properties and professions during the late unhappy -dissensions in America, in consequence of their loyalty to -His Majesty and attachment to the British Government’.<a id="FNanchor_169" href="#Footnote_169" class="fnanchor">[169]</a> -The Act was passed for two years only, expiring in July, -1785; and the 25th of March, 1784, was fixed as the -date by which all claims were to be sent in. But the time -for settlement was found to be too short. In the session -of 1785 the Act was renewed and amplified, and the time -for receiving claims was extended under certain conditions -till May 1st, 1786. In that year the Act was again renewed, -and it was further renewed in 1787. Commissioners -were sent out to Nova Scotia, to Canada, and to the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_220"></a>[220]</span> -United States. On the 6th of June, 1788, there was a -debate in Parliament on the subject of compensation, -which was followed by passing a new Act<a id="FNanchor_170" href="#Footnote_170" class="fnanchor">[170]</a>, the operation -of which was again twice extended, and in 1790 the -long inquiry came to an end. The total grant allowed was -£3,112,455, including a sum of £253,000 awarded to the -Proprietaries or the trustees of the Proprietaries of -Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland, -the Penn family receiving the sum of £100,000 converted -into an annuity of £4,000 per annum.</p> - -<p>It was a long drawn out inquiry, and the unfortunate -Loyalists chafed at the delay; but the outcome was -not illiberal and showed that England had not forgotten -her friends. William Pitt, who as Prime Minister carried -the matter through, had been Chancellor of the Exchequer -in Shelburne’s ministry which was responsible for the -articles of the Peace, and his subsequent action testified -that amid the many liabilities of England which he -was called upon to face, he well remembered the pledges -given in respect of the Loyalists of America.</p> - -<p>The number of claimants who applied for money -compensation was 5,072: 954 claims were withdrawn -or not prosecuted, and the number of claims examined -was 4,118.<a id="FNanchor_171" href="#Footnote_171" class="fnanchor">[171]</a> The very large majority of the Loyalists -therefore did not participate in the grant, but for a great -many of them homes, grants of land and, for the time -being, rations were found in Canada, where General -Haldimand and after him Guy Carleton, then Lord -Dorchester, cared for the friends of England. Among -the most deserving and the most valuable of the refugees <span class="sidenote">The Loyalist soldiers.</span> -were the members of ‘His Majesty’s Provincial Regiments’, -the various Loyalist corps raised in America, the commanding<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_221"></a>[221]</span> -officers of which, on the 14th of March, 1783, presented -a touching and dignified memorial to Carleton while still -Commander-in-Chief at New York. They set out their -claims and services. They asked that provision should -be made for the disabled, the widows, and the orphans; -that the rank of the officers might be permanent in -America and that they might be placed on half pay upon -the reduction of their regiments; and ‘that grants of -land may be made to them in some of His Majesty’s -American provinces, and that they may be assisted -in making settlements, in order that they and their -children may enjoy the benefits of the British Government’.<a id="FNanchor_172" href="#Footnote_172" class="fnanchor">[172]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Numbers, -with -places, -and destinations -of the -Loyalists.</div> - -<p>Where did the Loyalists come from, where did they -go, and what was their number? The questions are -difficult to answer. In all the states there were many -Loyalists, though the numbers were much larger in some -than in others, and varied at different times according -to special circumstances or the characters and actions -of local leaders on either side. New England and Virginia -were to the front on the Patriot, Whig, or Revolutionary -side. In New England Massachusetts, as always, took -the lead. Here the Loyalist cause was weakened and -depressed by the early evacuation of Boston and the -departure of a large number of Loyalist citizens who -accompanied Howe’s army when it left for Halifax. -Of the other New England states, Connecticut, though -it supplied a large number of men to Washington’s army, -seems to have contained relatively more Loyalists than -the other New England states, probably because it -bordered on the principal Loyalist stronghold, New -York. In Virginia Washington’s personal influence -counted for much, and the King’s governor Lord Dunmore, -by burning down the town of Norfolk, would seem to have -alienated sympathies from the British side. New York <span class="sidenote">New York the principal Loyalist state.</span> -was the last state to declare for independence. Throughout -the war it contained a stronger proportion of Loyalists<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_222"></a>[222]</span> -than any other state, and of the claims to compensation -which were admitted by the commissioners quite one-third -were credited to New York. The commercial -interests of the port, traditional jealousy of New England, -neighbourhood to Canada, made for the British connexion. -Family and church interests were strong, the De Lanceys -leading the Episcopalian party on the side of the King, -as against the Livingstons and the Presbyterians and -Congregationalists who threw in their lot with the Revolution. -Most of all, after Howe occupied New York, it -was held strongly as the British head quarters till the end -of the war, and became the resort of Loyalist refugees -from other parts of America. In Pennsylvania the -Loyalists were numerous. Here the Quaker influence -was strong, opposed to war and to revolution. As -already stated, when Philadelphia was abandoned, 3,000 -Loyalists left with the British army. In the south the -Loyalists were strong, but in the back country where -there were comparatively new settlers, many of Scotch -descent, rather than on the coast. In North Carolina -parties are said to have been evenly divided. In South -Carolina, and possibly in Georgia also, the Loyalists -seem at one time to have preponderated. When the -British garrisons at Charleston and Savannah were -finally withdrawn, 13,271 Loyalists were enumerated as -intending to leave also, including 8,676 blacks. But any -calculation is of little avail, for Loyalists were made and -unmade by the vicissitudes of the war. In America, as -in other countries in revolutionary times, it must be -supposed that the stalwarts on either side were very far -from including the whole population.</p> - -<p>If it is not easy to trace where the Loyalists came -from, it is equally difficult with any accuracy to state, -except in general terms, where they all went. It was -not a case of a single wave of emigration starting from -a given point and directed to a given point. For years -refugees were drifting off in one direction and another. -Many went during the war overland to Canada. Many<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_223"></a>[223]</span> -were carried by sea to Nova Scotia. A large number -went to England. Before and after the conclusion of the -Peace there was considerable emigration from the southern -states to Florida, the Bahamas, and the West Indies. -But Canada, including Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, <span class="sidenote">The Loyalists in Canada.</span> -became the chief permanent home of the Loyalists. -It was the country which wanted them most, and where -they found a place not as isolated refugees but as a -distinct and an honoured element in the population. -The coming of the Loyalists to Canada created the -province of New Brunswick and that of Ontario or Upper -Canada.</p> - -<p>As far as dates can be given for an emigration which, -was spread over a number of years, 1783 may be taken -as the birth year of the Loyalist settlements in Nova -Scotia and New Brunswick, and 1784 as that of Upper -Canada. We have an accurate official account of the -Loyalists in the maritime provinces in the year 1784, <span class="sidenote">Loyalist colonization of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.</span> -entitled a report on Nova Scotia by Colonel Robert Morse, -R.E.<a id="FNanchor_173" href="#Footnote_173" class="fnanchor">[173]</a> The scope of the report included New Brunswick, -which was in that year separated from Nova Scotia; -and it is noteworthy that the writer recommended union -of the maritime provinces with Canada, placing the -capital for the united colony in Cape Breton. The -Loyalists in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick or, as -Colonel Morse styled them, the ‘new inhabitants, viz., -the disbanded troops and Loyalists who came into this -province since the Peace’, were mustered in the summer -of 1784 and were found to number 28,347, including -women, children and servants. Among them were 3,000 -negroes, largely from New York. As against these newcomers -there were only 14,000 old British inhabitants, -of whom a great part had been disaffected during the -war owing to their New England connexion. Of the -refugees 9,000 were located on the St. John river, and -nearly 8,000 at the new township of Shelburne in the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_224"></a>[224]</span> -south-west corner of Nova Scotia. Morse gave a pitiable -account of the condition of the immigrants at the time -when he wrote. Very few were as yet settled on their -lands; if not fed by the Government they must perish. -‘They have no other country to go to—no other asylum.’ -There had been the usual emigration story in the case -of Nova Scotia, supplemented by exceptional circumstances. -Glowing accounts had been circulated of its -attractions as a home and place of refuge. Thousands -who left New York after the Peace had been signed, -and before the port was finally evacuated by the British -troops, went to Nova Scotia, having to find homes -somewhere. Then ensued disappointment, hardship and -deep distress; and the country and its climate were -maligned, as before they had been unduly praised. Nova -Scotia was christened in the United States Nova Scarcity, -and the climate was described as consisting of nine months -winter and three months cold weather.<a id="FNanchor_174" href="#Footnote_174" class="fnanchor">[174]</a> In the end -many of the emigrants drifted off again. Some succumbed -to their troubles; but the strong ones held on, and the -Loyalists made of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia -sound and thriving provinces of the British Empire.</p> - -<p>In addition to the refugees who have been enumerated -above, some 3,000 settled in Cape Breton Island, others -found homes in the Gaspé peninsula on the Bay of -Chaleurs, others again on the seignory of Sorel at the <span class="sidenote">Loyalist colonization of the province of Ontario.</span> -mouth of the Richelieu river, which Haldimand had -bought for the Crown in 1780<a id="FNanchor_175" href="#Footnote_175" class="fnanchor">[175]</a> and which had a special -value from a military point of view; but more important -was the emigration to Upper Canada and the settlement -of the present province of Ontario. Through the -war the Loyalists had been coming in from the revolting -states, many of them on arrival in Canada taking service -for the Crown in the provincial regiments. When peace -came, more arrived and, with the disbanded soldiers,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_225"></a>[225]</span> -became colonists of Canada. In July, 1783, an additional -Royal Instruction was given to Haldimand to allot lands -to such of the ‘inhabitants of the colonies and provinces, -now in the United States of America’, as were ‘desirous -of retaining their allegiance to us and of living in our -dominions and for this purpose are disposed to take -up and improve lands in our province of Quebec’, and -also to such non-commissioned officers and privates as -might be disbanded in the province and be inclined to -become settlers in it. The lands were to be divided into -distinct seignories or fiefs, in each seignory a glebe was to be -reserved, and every recipient of land was to make a declaration -to the effect that ‘I will maintain and defend to the -utmost of my power the authority of the King in his Parliament -as the supreme legislature of this province’.<a id="FNanchor_176" href="#Footnote_176" class="fnanchor">[176]</a> Along -the St. Lawrence from Lake St. Francis upwards; in the -neighbourhood of Cataraqui or Fort Frontenac, near the -outlet of Lake Ontario, where the name of Kingston -tells its own tale; on the Bay of Quinté in Lake Ontario; -near the Niagara river; and over against Detroit, the -Loyalists were settled. The strength of the settlements -was shown by the fact that by the Imperial Act of -1791 Upper Canada was constituted a separate province. -About that date there seem to have been some 25,000 -white inhabitants in Upper Canada, but the number of -Loyalists who came into the province before or immediately -after the Peace was much smaller.<a id="FNanchor_177" href="#Footnote_177" class="fnanchor">[177]</a> It is impossible -to give even the roughest estimate of the total number -of emigrants from the United States in consequence of -the war, or even of the total number of Loyalist settlers -in British North America. A census report estimates -that in all about 40,000 Loyalists took refuge in British<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_226"></a>[226]</span> -North America.<a id="FNanchor_178" href="#Footnote_178" class="fnanchor">[178]</a> Mr. Kingsford<a id="FNanchor_179" href="#Footnote_179" class="fnanchor">[179]</a> thinks that the original -emigration to the British American provinces did not -exceed 45,000; a modern American writer<a id="FNanchor_180" href="#Footnote_180" class="fnanchor">[180]</a> places the -number of those who came to Canada and the Maritime -Provinces within the few years before and succeeding -the Peace at 60,000. Whatever were their numbers, -the refugees from the United States leavened the whole -history of the Dominion; and from the date of their -arrival Canada entered on a new era of her history and -made a long step forward to becoming a nation.</p> - -<p>The British Government and the nation on the whole did -their duty by the Loyalists in Canada. They gave money, -they gave lands, they gave food and clothing, and they -gave them a title of honour. At a council meeting held -at Quebec on the 9th of November, 1789, Lord Dorchester -said that it was his wish to put a mark of honour upon the -families who had adhered to the unity of the Empire -and joined the Royal Standard in America before the -Treaty of Separation in the year 1783; and it was ordered -that the land boards should keep a registry of them -‘to the end that their posterity may be discriminated -from future settlers’. From that time they were known -as the United Empire Loyalists; and when in the year <span class="sidenote">The United Empire Loyalists.</span> -1884 the centenary of their arrival in Canada was kept, -the celebration showed that the memory of their sufferings -and of their loyalty was still cherished, that their descendants -still rightfully claimed distinction as bearing the -names and inheriting the traditions of those who through -good and evil report remained true to the British cause.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">American -persecution -of the -Loyalists -a political -mistake.</div> - -<p>In the debate in the House of Commons on the terms -of the Peace, Lord North, speaking of the attitude of -the Americans toward the Loyalists, said, ‘I term it -impolitic, for it will establish their character as a vindictive -people. It would have become the interests as well as<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_227"></a>[227]</span> -the character of a newly-created people to have shown -their propensity to compassion’. The record of the treatment -of the Loyalists by their compatriots in the United -States is not the brightest page in American history. The -terrible memory of the border war was not calculated to -make the victorious party lean to the side of compassion -when the fighting was over, but when all allowance has -been made for the bitterness which was the inevitable -result of the long drawn out struggle, the Americans -cannot be said to have shown much good faith or generosity -in their dealings with the Loyalists or much political -wisdom. There were exceptions among them. Men like -Jay and Alexander Hamilton and the partisan leader -in the south, General Marion, gave their influence for -justice and mercy; but on the whole justice and mercy -were sadly wanting. The newly-created people, as Lord -North styled the Americans, did not show themselves -wise in their generation. Their policy towards the Loyalists -was not that of men confident in the strength and the -righteousness of their cause; nor, if they wished to -drive the English out of America and, as Franklin tried -in his dealings with Oswald, to secure Canada for the -United States, did they take the right course to achieve -their end. This point is forcibly put by the American -writer Sabine, whose book published in 1847 is not -wanting in strong patriotic bias. He shows how British -colonization in Canada and Nova Scotia was the direct -result of the persecution of the Loyalists, and sums up -that ‘humanity to the adherents of the Crown and prudent -regard for our own interests required a general amnesty’.<a id="FNanchor_181" href="#Footnote_181" class="fnanchor">[181]</a> -The Americans, for their own future, would have done -well to conciliate rather than to punish, to retain citizens -by friendly treatment not to force them into exile. Their -policy bore its inevitable fruit, and the most determined -opponents of the United States in after years were the -men and the children of the men who were driven out -and took refuge in Canada.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_228"></a>[228]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Reasons -for the -persecution -of the -Loyalists.</div> - -<p>The policy was unwise, but it was intelligible; and it -is the more intelligible when viewed in the light of the -contrast furnished by the sequel to the great civil war -between the Northern and the Southern states. As time -goes on and the world becomes more civilized, public -and private vendettas tend to go out of fashion and -individuals and nations alike find it a little easier to -forgive, though possibly not to forget. In any case, -therefore, the outcome of a war eighty years later than -the American War of Independence might have been <span class="sidenote">The American War of Independence as contrasted with the later war between the North and the South.</span> -expected to bear traces of kindlier feeling and broader -humanity. But there were other reasons for the contrast -between the attitude taken up by the victorious Northern -states towards the defeated Southern confederacy and -that of the successful Revolutionary party towards their -Loyalist opponents. The cause for which the Northerners -fought and conquered was the maintenance of the Union; -the cause for which the partisans of the Revolution -fought and conquered was separation. It was therefore -logical and consistent, when the fighting was over, in -the former case to do what could be done to cement the -Union, in the latter to do all that would accentuate -and complete separation. Amnesty was in a sense the -natural outcome of the later war, proscription was in -a sense the natural outcome of the earlier. Slowly -and reluctantly the revolting states came to the determination -to part company with the mother country. -Having made their decision and staked their all upon -carrying it to a successful issue, they were minded also to -part company for all time with those among them who -held the contrary view. They were a new people, not -wholly sure of their ground; they would not run the -risk, as it seemed, of trying to reconcile men whose -hearts were not with theirs.</p> - -<p>Furthermore, in contrasting the two wars it will be -noted that in the later there was a geographical division -between the two parties which did not exist in the earlier -case. The great civil war was a fight between North and<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_229"></a>[229]</span> -South; there was not fighting in each single state of -the Union. The result, broadly speaking, was a definite -conquest of a large and well-defined area where the -feeling had been solidly hostile, and the only practical -method of permanently retaining the conquered states -was by amnesty and reconciliation. The War of Independence, -as already pointed out, was not thus geographically -defined. In each separate state there was civil -war, local, narrow, and bitter; and, when the end came, -the solution most congenial to the victorious majority -in each small community was also a practicable though -not a wise or humane solution, viz., to weed out the -malcontents and to make good the Patriots’ losses at -the expense of the Loyalists. Union was accepted by -the thirteen states as a necessity; it was not the principle -for which they contended. They fought for separation, -they jealously retained all they could of their local -independence, and each within its own limits carried -out the principle of separation to its bitter end by proscribing -the adherents to the only Union which they had -known before the war, that which was produced by -common allegiance to the British Crown.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The Glengarry -settlers.</div> - -<p>The main result of the incoming of the Loyalists was -to give to Canada a Protestant British population by -the side of a Roman Catholic French community; but -among the immigrants were Scottish Highlanders from the -back settlements of the province of New York, Gaelic -speaking and Roman Catholic in religion, who had -served in the war and who were very wisely settled in -what is now Glengarry county on the edge of the French -Canadian districts. Here their religion was a bond -between them and the French Canadians, while their -race and traditions kept them in line with the other -British settlers of Ontario. They brought with them -the honoured name of Macdonell, and in the early years -of the nineteenth century another body of Macdonells, -also disbanded soldiers, joined them from the old country. -It needs no telling how high the record of the Macdonells<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_230"></a>[230]</span> -stands in the annals of Canada, or how the Glengarry -settlers proved their loyalty and their worth in the war -of 1812.<a id="FNanchor_182" href="#Footnote_182" class="fnanchor">[182]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Scheme -for a -settlement -of -French -Royalists -in Upper -Canada.</div> - -<p>Side by side with this Macdonell immigration, may -be noted an abortive immigration scheme for Upper -Canada, which was not British and was later in time -than the War of American Independence, but which had -something in common with the advent of the Loyalists. -This was an attempt to form a French Royalist settlement -in Upper Canada under Count Joseph de Puisaye, ‘ci -devant Puisaye the much enduring man and Royalist’,<a id="FNanchor_183" href="#Footnote_183" class="fnanchor">[183]</a> -a French <i>emigré</i> who had taken a leading part in the -disastrous landing at Quiberon Bay in 1795. In or about -1797 he seems to have made a proposal to the British -Government that they should send out a number of the -Royalist refugees to Canada. The projected settlement -was to be on military and feudal lines. ‘The same -measure must be employed as in founding the old colony -of Canada.... It was the soldiery who cleared -and prepared the land for our French settlements of -Canada and Louisiana.’ The writer of the above had -evidently in mind the measures taken in the days of -Louis XIV to colonize New France, and the planting -out of the Carignan-Salières Regiment.<a id="FNanchor_184" href="#Footnote_184" class="fnanchor">[184]</a> The scheme, -it was anticipated, would commend itself to the Canadians -in view of the community of race, language and religion, -while to the British Government its value would consist -in placing ‘decided Royalists in a country where republican -principles and republican customs are becoming -leading features’, i. e. on the frontiers of the United States.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_231"></a>[231]</span> -In July, 1798, the Duke of Portland wrote to the Administrator -of Upper Canada on the subject, evidently contemplating -the possibility of a considerable emigration to -Canada of French refugees then living in England, of -whom de Puisaye and about forty others, who were to -embark in the course of the summer, would be the forerunners. -The Duke laid down that de Puisaye and -his company were to be treated as American Loyalists -in the matter of allotment of land. William Windham, -Pitt’s Secretary for War, also wrote, introducing de -Puisaye to the Administrator as being personally well-known -to himself, and explaining that the object of the -scheme was ‘to provide an asylum for as many as possible -of those whose adherence to the ancient laws, religion, -and constitution of their country has rendered them -sacrifices to the French Revolution’, to select by preference -those who had served in the Royalist armies, to allow -them to have a settlement of their own ‘as much as -possible separate from any other body of French, or of -those persons speaking French, who may be at present -in America, or whom Government may hereafter be -disposed to settle there’, and by this comparative isolation, -as well as by giving them some element of military -and feudal discipline, to preserve to them the character -‘of a society founded on the principles of reverence for -religion and attachment to monarchy’. The scheme -was born out of due time. The coming century and the -New World were not the time and place for reviving -feudal institutions. But on paper it was an attractive -scheme. Side by side with the British Loyalists who -had been driven out of the newly-formed American -republic, would be settled French Loyalists whom the -Revolution had hunted from France. Their loyalty -and their sufferings for their cause would commend them -to their British fellow colonists: their kinship in race, -religion, and language would commend them to the French -Canadians, who in turn had little sympathy with a France -that knew not Church or King.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_232"></a>[232]</span></p> - -<p>The place selected for the settlement was between -Toronto and Lake Simcoe. It was chosen as being -roughly equidistant from the French settlements in -Lower Canada and those on the Detroit river, and as -being near the seat of government, Toronto then York, -and consequently within easy reach of assistance and -well under control. Here a township was laid out and -called Windham. De Puisaye and his party arrived at -Montreal in October, 1798, and in the middle of November -de Puisaye himself was at York, while his followers -remained through the winter at Kingston. It was a bad -time of year for starting a new settlement in Upper -Canada, and possibly this was one of the reasons why -it failed from the first. Another was that de Puisaye, -who seems to have formed a friendship with Joseph -Brant,<a id="FNanchor_185" href="#Footnote_185" class="fnanchor">[185]</a> divided the small band of emigrants and went -off himself to form a second settlement on or near the -Niagara river. The scheme in short never took root: -the emigrants or most of them went elsewhere; the name -Windham went elsewhere and is now to be found in -Norfolk county of Ontario. De Puisaye went back to -London after the Peace of Amiens, and the project for -a French Royalist colony in Upper Canada passed into -oblivion.<a id="FNanchor_186" href="#Footnote_186" class="fnanchor">[186]</a></p> - -<p>White Loyalists were not the only residents within the -present boundaries of the United States who expatriated -themselves or were expatriated in consequence of the -War of Independence, and who settled in Canada. It -has been seen that the Six Nation Indians had in the <span class="sidenote">Loyalty of the Six Nation Indians and their settlement in Canada.</span> -main been steadily on the British side throughout the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_233"></a>[233]</span> -war, and that prominent among them were the Mohawks -led by Joseph Brant. When peace was signed containing -no recognition or safeguard of the country of the Six -Nations or of native rights, the Indians complained -with some reason that their interests had been sacrificed -by Great Britain. Under these circumstances Governor -Haldimand offered them lands on the British side of -the lakes; and a number of them—more especially the -Mohawks—permanently changed their dwelling-place -still to remain under their great father, the King of -England.</p> - -<p>There were two principal settlements. One was on the -Bay of Quinté, west of Kingston, where some of the -Mohawks took up land side by side with the disbanded -Rangers, in whose company they had fought in the war, -and where the township Tyendenaga recalled the Indian -name of Brant. A larger and more important settlement -was on the Grand river, also called Ours or Ouse, flowing -into Lake Erie due west of the Niagara river. Here -Haldimand, by a proclamation dated the 25th of October, -1784, found homes for these old allies of England, the -land or part of it having, by an agreement concluded -in the previous May, been bought for the purpose from -the Mississauga Indians. The proclamation set forth -that His Majesty had been pleased to direct that, ‘in consideration -of the early attachment to his cause manifested -by the Mohawk Indians, and of the loss of their settlement -which they thereby sustained, a convenient tract -of land under his protection should be chosen as a safe -and comfortable retreat for them and others of the Six -Nations who have either lost their settlements within -the territory of the American states or wish to retire -from them to the British;’ and that therefore, ‘at the -desire of many of these His Majesty’s faithful allies’, -a tract of land had been purchased from the Indians -between the Lakes Ontario, Huron and Erie, possession -of which was authorized to the Mohawk nation and -such other of the Six Nation Indians as wished to settle<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_234"></a>[234]</span> -in that quarter, for them and their posterity to enjoy -for ever.</p> - -<p>The lands allotted were defined in the proclamation -as ‘six miles deep from each side of the river, beginning -at Lake Erie and extending in that proportion to the -head of the said river’. Here, in the present counties -of Brant and Haldimand, many tribesmen of the Six -Nations settled. Brant county and its principal town -Brantford recall the memory of the Mohawk leader, -and such villages as Cayuga, Oneida, and Onondaga -testify that other members of the old confederacy, in -addition to the Mohawks, crossed over to British soil. -Within a few years difficulties arose as to the intent of -the grant, the Indians, headed by Brant, wishing to sell -some of the lands; a further and more formal document, -issued by Governor Simcoe in 1793, did not settle the -question; and eventually a large part of the area included -in the original grant was parted with for money payments -which were invested for the benefit of the Indians. A -report made in July, 1828, and included in a Parliamentary -Blue Book of 1834<a id="FNanchor_187" href="#Footnote_187" class="fnanchor">[187]</a>, stated that the number of the Indian -settlers on the Grand river was at that date under 2,000 -souls: that ‘they are now considered as having retained -about 260,000 acres of land, mostly of the best quality. -Their possessions were formerly more extensive, but -large tracts have been sold by them with the permission -of H. M.’s Government, the moneys arising from which -sales were either funded in England or lent on interest -in this country. The proceeds amount to about £1,500 -p.a.’.</p> - -<p>Thus a large number of the Six Nation Indians adhered -to the English connexion and left their old homes for ever: -most of them became members of the Church of England, -and the first church built in the Province of Ontario is<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_235"></a>[235]</span> -said to have been one for the Mohawks.<a id="FNanchor_188" href="#Footnote_188" class="fnanchor">[188]</a> In the second -American war, as in the first, they remained faithful -as subjects and allies; and to this day the descendants -of the once formidable confederacy hold fast to the old-time -covenant which their forefathers made with the -English King.</p> - -<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_165" href="#FNanchor_165" class="label">[165]</a> The text of the treaty is given in Appendix I.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_166" href="#FNanchor_166" class="label">[166]</a> See the text of the treaty in Appendix I.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_167" href="#FNanchor_167" class="label">[167]</a> From <i>The Loyalists in the American Revolution</i>, by C. H. Van -Tyne. Macmillan & Co., 1902, p. 295. The author gives in the -Appendices to his book a list of the laws passed against the Loyalists -in the various states.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_168" href="#FNanchor_168" class="label">[168]</a> American creditors sued Loyalist debtors in England, while the -Loyalists’ property in America was confiscated.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_169" href="#FNanchor_169" class="label">[169]</a> Act 23 Geo. III, cap. 80.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_170" href="#FNanchor_170" class="label">[170]</a> 28 Geo. III, cap. 40.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_171" href="#FNanchor_171" class="label">[171]</a> Wilmot’s account of the claimants and of the money awarded is -most confusing. The figures are taken from the last Appendix, No. IX, -which says the ‘claims including those in Nova Scotia and Canada’ -were 5,072. It is difficult to reconcile these figures with those given -on pp. 90-1 of the book, unless in the latter case the claims made in -Canada are omitted.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_172" href="#FNanchor_172" class="label">[172]</a> See the <i>Annual Register</i> for 1783, p. 262.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_173" href="#FNanchor_173" class="label">[173]</a> Printed in Mr. Brymner’s <i>Report on the Archives of Canada</i> for -the year 1884, Note C, pp. xl, xli.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_174" href="#FNanchor_174" class="label">[174]</a> See <i>The American Loyalists</i>, by Lorenzo Sabine. Boston, 1847, -Historical Essay, p. 62, note.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_175" href="#FNanchor_175" class="label">[175]</a> See Shortt and Doughty, p. 495, note.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_176" href="#FNanchor_176" class="label">[176]</a> Shortt and Doughty, pp. 494-5.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_177" href="#FNanchor_177" class="label">[177]</a> In the volume for 1891 of Mr. Brymner’s <i>Report on Canadian -Archives</i>, p. 17, the ‘Return of Disbanded Troops and Loyalists settled -upon the King’s Lands in the Province of Quebec in the year 1784’ -is given as 5,628, including women, children, and servants. The -province of Quebec at this time included both Lower and Upper -Canada.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_178" href="#FNanchor_178" class="label">[178]</a> <i>Census of Canada</i> for 1871, vol. iv; <i>Censuses of Canada</i>, pp. xxxviii-xlii. -See also p. 238, note below.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_179" href="#FNanchor_179" class="label">[179]</a> vol. vii, p. 223.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_180" href="#FNanchor_180" class="label">[180]</a> Mr. Van Tyne, <i>The Loyalists in the American Revolution</i>, p. 299.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_181" href="#FNanchor_181" class="label">[181]</a> <i>The American Loyalists</i>, Preliminary Historical Essay, p. 91.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_182" href="#FNanchor_182" class="label">[182]</a> See the <i>Canadian War of 1812</i> (Lucas) pp. 11-15. More than -one book has been written on the Macdonells in Canada. Reference -should be made to the <i>Report on the Canadian Archives</i> for 1896, -Notes B and C.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_183" href="#FNanchor_183" class="label">[183]</a> Carlyle’s <i>French Revolution</i>, Book 4, chap. ii. Carlyle evidently -thought lightly of de Puisaye. For this French Royalist scheme see -Mr. Brymner’s <i>Report on Canadian Archives</i> for 1888, pp. xxv-xxxi, -and Note F.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_184" href="#FNanchor_184" class="label">[184]</a> See Parkman’s <i>The Old Régime in Canada</i>, and see above, p. 71.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_185" href="#FNanchor_185" class="label">[185]</a> See the <i>Canadian Archives Report</i> for 1888, Note F, p. 85, and -Stone’s <i>Life of Brant</i>, vol. ii, p. 403 and note.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_186" href="#FNanchor_186" class="label">[186]</a> On ‘A map of the Province of Upper Canada, describing all the -new settlements, townships, &c., with the countries adjacent from -Quebec to Lake Huron, compiled at the request of His Excellency Major-General -John G. Simcoe, first Lieutenant-Governor, by David William -Smyth, Esq., Surveyor-General’, and published by W. Faden, London, -April 12, 1800, ‘French Royalists’ is printed across Yonge Street -between York and Lake Simcoe. The map is in the Colonial Office -Library.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_187" href="#FNanchor_187" class="label">[187]</a> Entitled <i>Aboriginal Tribes</i>. Printed for the House of Commons, -617, August 14, 1834, pp. 28-9. See also the House of Commons -Blue Book 323, June 17, 1839, entitled, <i>Correspondence Respecting the -Indians in the British North American Provinces</i>.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_188" href="#FNanchor_188" class="label">[188]</a> Before the War of American Independence, the Mohawks had -a church built for them in their own country in the present state of -New York by the British Government, to which Queen Anne in 1712 -presented silver Communion plate and a Bible. The plate was inscribed -with the Royal Arms, in 1712, of ‘Her Majesty Anne by the -Grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland and Her Plantations -in North America, Queen, to Her Indian Chapel of the Mohawks -1712’; and the Bible was inscribed, ‘To Her Majesty’s Church of -the Mohawks 1712.’ After the War of Independence, two churches -were built in Canada for the Mohawks who had emigrated to remain -under British rule, one begun in 1785 on the Grand River at the present -town of Brantford, and one on the bay of Quinté. The Communion -plate and Bible, which had been buried by the Indians for safety -during the war, were divided, four pieces of the plate and the Bible -being brought to the Brantford Church, and three to the church on -the bay of Quinté. The Brantford Church was the first Protestant -church in Canada, and a bell, said to be the first bell to call to prayer -in Ontario, and a Royal Coat of Arms were sent out to it by the British -Government in 1786. This church, known as ‘St. Paul’s Church of -the Mohawks’, and in common parlance as the old Mohawk Church, -was in 1904, on a petition to the King, given by His Majesty the title -of ‘His Majesty’s Chapel of the Mohawks’, in order to revive the -old name of Queen Anne’s reign.</p> -</div> -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="chapter"></div> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_236"></a>[236]</span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_V">CHAPTER V<br /> -<span class="fs80">LORD DORCHESTER AND THE CANADA ACT OF -1791</span></h2> - -<p>Sir Frederick Haldimand, who had succeeded -Carleton and had governed Canada with conspicuous -ability during the later years of the American War of -Independence, left on the 15th of November, 1784. After <span class="sidenote">Carleton’s second term as Governor of Canada.</span> -an interval of nearly two years Carleton succeeded him.<a id="FNanchor_189" href="#Footnote_189" class="fnanchor">[189]</a> -Carleton had been Commander-in-Chief at New York from -May, 1782, till November, 1783, refusing to evacuate the -city until he had provided for the safe transport of the large -number of Loyalists who wished to leave. In April, 1786, -he was appointed for the second time Governor of Canada. -He was created Lord Dorchester in the following August, -and he arrived at Quebec on the 23rd of October in the -same year, being then sixty-two years of age. He remained -in Canada till August, 1791, when he took leave -of absence until September, 1793, and he finally left in -July, 1796. The whole term of his second government -thus lasted for ten years. During his first government -he had been Governor of the province of Quebec alone, -but in April, 1786, he was appointed ‘Captain-General and -Governor-in-Chief’ not only of the province of Quebec—the -boundaries of that province being now modified by -the terms of the Peace of 1783—but also of Nova Scotia,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_237"></a>[237]</span><a id="FNanchor_190" href="#Footnote_190" class="fnanchor">[190]</a> -and of the newly-created province of New Brunswick, -receiving three separate commissions in respect of the -three separate provinces. Thus he was, or was intended -to be, in the fullest sense Governor-General of British -North America.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">House of -Commons -debate -on Carleton’s -pension.</div> - -<p>Before he went out, a debate in the House of Commons, -towards the end of June, 1786, gave evidence of the high -repute in which he was held. William Pitt, Prime -Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, presented -a Royal Message, asking the House, in consideration -of Carleton’s public services, to enable His Majesty to -confer a pension of £1,000 per annum upon Carleton’s -wife, Lady Maria Carleton, and upon his two sons for their -several lives. The pension, it was explained, had been -promised by the King in 1776, but partly by accident -and partly by Carleton’s own wish the grant had been -postponed. It was recounted by one of the speakers -that ‘when all our other colonies had revolted, he -(Carleton) by his gallantry, activity, and industry saved -the city of Quebec, and by that means the whole province -of Canada’; and when one malcontent—the only one—Courtenay -by name, denied that Carleton had rendered -any services, asserting with wonderful hardihood, that -‘Sir Guy had by no means protected Quebec. It was -the inhabitants in conjunction with Chief Justice Livius -(whom General Carleton afterwards expelled from his -situation) that protected it’, another member, Captain -Luttrell, rejoined that ‘In the most brilliant war we -ever sustained, he was foremost in the most hard earned -victories, and in the most disgraceful contest in which -we ever were engaged, he alone of all our generals was -unconquered’. But the most delightful tribute to -Carleton was paid by Burgoyne, when the resolution -had been agreed to and was being reported. Referring<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_238"></a>[238]</span> -to the help which Carleton had given him in his fateful -expedition, he said ‘Had Sir Guy been personally employed -in that important command, he could not have fitted -it out with more assiduity, more liberality, more zeal, -than disappointed, displeased, and resentful against the -King’s servants, he employed to prepare it for a junior -officer’. Burgoyne then went on to testify to the uprightness -of Carleton’s administration, ‘the purity of hand -and heart with which he had always administered the -expenditure of the public purse.’ The pension was -sanctioned unanimously, to date from the 1st of January, -1785.<a id="FNanchor_191" href="#Footnote_191" class="fnanchor">[191]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Population -of -Canada -in 1784.</div> - -<p>In 1784, before the full tale of Loyalist immigration -was yet complete, Canada, including the three districts -of Quebec, Three Rivers, and Montreal, had a population -of 113,000,<a id="FNanchor_192" href="#Footnote_192" class="fnanchor">[192]</a> the towns of Quebec and Montreal containing -in either case between 6,000 and 7,000 residents. This -was really the population of what was afterwards the -province of Lower Canada, exclusive of Ontario and the -Maritime Provinces which were the main scenes of -Loyalist settlement. The overwhelming majority of the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_239"></a>[239]</span> -population in the province of Quebec, as Canada, other -than the Maritime Provinces, was styled prior to the Act -of 1791, consisted of French Canadians, and the citizens -of British birth were still comparatively few in number: -but, as has been seen, the incoming of British citizens -was actively in process under Haldimand’s administration; -and during the same administration a beginning was <span class="sidenote">The first canals in Canada.</span> -made of the canals which have played so great a part in -the history of Eastern Canada. Between the years 1779 -and 1783, mainly for military reasons, Royal Engineers -under Haldimand’s directions constructed canals with -locks round the rapids between Lake St. Francis and -Lake St. Louis above Montreal, and in 1785 proposals -were first made—though not at the time carried into -effect—for a canal to rectify the break in navigation -on the Richelieu river, caused by the rapids between -St. John’s and Chambly, and so to give unimpeded water-communication -between Lake Champlain and the St. -Lawrence. This latter project was of great importance -to Vermont, which had not yet been admitted as a state -to the American Union.</p> - -<p>Thus Dorchester came back to the land of the St. -Lawrence and the great lakes amid indications of a new -era with wider developments and corresponding difficulties. -He came back as the man who had saved Canada -in war, had given to the French Canadians the Quebec -Act, and had stood firm at New York for protection of -the Loyalists.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -political -situation -in 1786.</div> - -<p>It was not an easy time for any man, however popular, -who was responsible for the security and the welfare of -Canada. British garrisons still held the frontier posts -which, by the Treaty of 1783, Great Britain was bound -to hand over to the United States, viz., Detroit, Michillimackinac, -Erie or Presque Isle, Niagara, Oswego, Oswegatchie, -and, on Lake Champlain, Point au Fer and -Dutchman’s Point. The Indians were at open war with -the Americans down to the year 1794, claiming as their -own the lands to the north of the Ohio; and they were<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_240"></a>[240]</span> -embittered against the English, because no provision had -been made in the treaty to safeguard their rights, their -homes and their hunting grounds. The Americans in -their turn were irritated by the withholding of the forts, -and suspected the English of instigating Indian hostilities -and encouraging Indian claims. Meanwhile the internal -affairs of Canada were rapidly growing more complicated, -and the constitutional question pressed for solution.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Lord -Dorchester -on the -Quebec -Act.</div> - -<p>Writing on the 13th of June, 1787, to Thomas Townshend, -Lord Sydney, who was then Secretary of State,<a id="FNanchor_193" href="#Footnote_193" class="fnanchor">[193]</a> Lord -Dorchester pointed out that the Quebec Act had been -introduced at a time when nothing could be thought of -in Canada but self-defence. It came into force at the -outbreak of the war, and the first Council held under its -provisions was overshadowed by American invasion.<a id="FNanchor_194" href="#Footnote_194" class="fnanchor">[194]</a> -The Act, therefore, owing to circumstances, had never -really been given a fair trial; yet it may be questioned -whether the very great difficulty of adjusting conflicting -interests in Canada, of bringing the old and the new -into harmony, and of devising a system of government, -which would ensure comparative contentment at the -time and give facilities for future development, was -really increased by the fact that wars and threats and -rumours of wars clouded the first half century of the history -of Canada as a British possession. The evil of distracting -attention from internal problems, of interrupting and -foreshortening political and social reforms was counterbalanced -by the wholesome influence of common danger. -As the removal of that influence had led to the severance -of the old North American colonies from Great Britain,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_241"></a>[241]</span> -so the actual or possible hostility of the United States made -the task of holding Canada together easier than it would -otherwise have been, and, by preventing constitutional -questions from absorbing the whole energies of the -government and the public, tended to produce slow and -gradual changes in lieu of reforms so complete as possibly -to amount to revolution.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Petition -for a free -constitution.</div> - -<p>On the 24th of November, 1784, immediately after -Haldimand’s departure, a petition for a free constitution -was addressed to the King by his ‘ancient and new -subjects, inhabitants of the province of Quebec’. The -petitioners asked, among other points, for a House of -Representatives or Assembly, with power to impose taxes -to cover the expense of civil government; for a Council -of not less than 30 members, without whose advice no -officer should be suspended and no new office be created -by the governor; for a continuance of the criminal law -of England, and of the ancient laws of the country as to -landed estates, marriage settlements and inheritances; for -the introduction of the commercial laws of England; and -for the embodiment in the constitution of the Habeas -Corpus Act. It will be remembered that an ordinance -had lately been passed by the Legislative Council, on the -29th of April, 1784, ‘For securing the liberty of the -subject and for the prevention of imprisonments out of -this province,’<a id="FNanchor_195" href="#Footnote_195" class="fnanchor">[195]</a> but the petitioners wished to have the -right of Habeas Corpus laid down as a fundamental rule -of the constitution. The petition purported to be from -the ‘New Subjects’, i. e. the French Canadians, as well -as from those of British extraction; but among the signatories -hardly any French Canadian names appeared, and -a counter petition was signed by French Canadian seigniors <span class="sidenote">Counter petition from French Canadian seigniors.</span> -and others, deprecating the proposed change in the -system of government. ‘This plan’, they wrote, ‘is so -much more questionable, as it appears to us to aim at -innovations entirely opposed to the rights of the King -and of his Government and to detach the people from the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_242"></a>[242]</span> -submission they have always shown to their Sovereign.’ -In April, 1785, a petition was presented in London by <span class="sidenote">Petition from disbanded Loyalist soldiers for a separate province.</span> -Sir John Johnson on behalf of the disbanded soldiers -and other Loyalists settled above Montreal, asking for -the creation of a new district separate from the province -of Quebec, whose capital should be Cataraqui, now -Kingston, and that ‘the blessings of the British laws -and of the British Government, and an exemption from -the (French) tenures, may be extended to the aforesaid -settlements’.<a id="FNanchor_196" href="#Footnote_196" class="fnanchor">[196]</a></p> - -<p>On the 28th of April, 1786, Mr. Powys, a private member -of the House of Commons called attention in the House <span class="sidenote">Debate on Mr. Powys’ Bill in the House of Commons April, 1786.</span> -to the petition of 1784;<a id="FNanchor_197" href="#Footnote_197" class="fnanchor">[197]</a> and, in view of the fact that -two years had passed since it was presented, and that the -Government had taken no action upon it, he moved for -permission to bring in a Bill to amend the Quebec Act -and ‘for the better securing the liberties of His Majesty’s -subjects in the province of Quebec in North America’. -The object of the Bill, which had been drafted in the -previous year, was to limit the power of the governor, -for the mover complained that the Quebec Act had -‘established as complete a system of despotism as ever -was instituted’, and stated that the aim of his measure -was ‘to give the inhabitants of the province of Quebec -a system of government in the particulars he had mentioned, -founded on known and definitive law. At present -the government of that province rested altogether on -unfixed laws, and was a state of despotism and slavery’. -The Bill purported to give to the Canadians in the fullest -measure the right of Habeas Corpus, except in case of rebellion -or of foreign invasion, when it might be suspended,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_243"></a>[243]</span> -but only for three months at a time, and only by ordinance -of the Legislative Council; to give trial by jury -in civil cases at the option of either of the parties; to -take from the governor the power of committing to prison -by his own warrant, and of suspending judges and members -of the Legislative Council; while the last clause increased -the numbers of the council. It was supported by Fox, -who took the opportunity to denounce the Quebec Act -‘as a Bill founded upon a system of despotism’, and by -Sheridan; but the majority in a very thin House rejected -it, agreeing with Pitt that, in view of the contradictory -petitions which came from Canada, it would be well -to wait until Carleton went out and reported upon the -feeling of the country.</p> - -<p>Petitions continued to come in. In June, 1787, Lord -Dorchester wrote to Lord Sydney that with the increase -of the English population the desire for an Assembly -would increase, but that he himself was at a loss for a -plan, and that a more pressing matter was a change in -the tenure of land. In the following September Lord -Sydney replied, in somewhat similar terms, that there -was no present intention to alter the constitution, but -that the King would be advised to make a change in -the system of land tenure.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Adam -Lymburner -heard -before the -House -of Commons.</div> - -<p>In 1788 Adam Lymburner, a merchant of good position -in Quebec, was sent as a delegate to London, to represent -the views of the British minority in the province; and -on Friday, the 16th of May, 1788, he was heard at the bar -of the House of Commons, in support of the petitions -which had been presented. He called attention mainly -to the confused state of the law in Canada, and to the -defects and anomalies in the administration of justice. -A debate followed on a motion by Mr. Powys<a id="FNanchor_198" href="#Footnote_198" class="fnanchor">[198]</a> to the effect -that the petitions deserved the immediate and serious consideration -of Parliament. The mover once more attacked -the Quebec Act of 1774, characterizing it ‘as a rash and<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_244"></a>[244]</span> -fatal’ measure and, when challenged to state what he -considered to be the points of greatest urgency, specified -‘the rendering the writ of Habeas Corpus a matter of -right, the granting independence to the judges, the lessening -of the servility and dependence of the superior officers -of justice, and the establishing a House of Assembly’. -Fox, Sheridan and Burke spoke as usual against the <span class="sidenote">Fox and Burke on the Quebec Act.</span> -Government, denouncing Pitt for pleading that, in view -of the divergent views held in Canada, the Government -should be given more time to obtain further information -from Lord Dorchester. The whole of Lord Dorchester’s -evidence on the Quebec Bill, said Fox, who professed -great respect for Lord Dorchester himself, ‘contained -opinions wholly foreign to the spirit and uncongenial -with the nature of the English constitution. Lord Dorchester, -therefore, was the last man living whose opinion -he would wish to receive upon the subject.’ Burke spoke -of the Quebec Act as ‘a measure dealt out by this country -in its anger under the impulse of a passion that ill-suited -the purposes of wise legislation’.</p> - -<p>It was true that two years had passed since the previous -discussion on the subject in the House of Commons, -and that nothing had been done in the meantime; but -the hollowness of the debate was shown by the stress -laid by the Opposition speakers on the subject of Habeas -Corpus. The recently passed ordinance had given to -Canadians the right of Habeas Corpus, but it was argued -that the grant was temporary only and that the Crown -which had given the right and confirmed the ordinance -might take it away, whereas no time should be lost in -providing that Canadians, like all other British subjects, -should enjoy it ‘as a matter of right and not as a grant -at the will of the Crown’. There was little evidence -among the speakers that they either knew or cared for -the wishes of the great majority of Canadians, those of -French descent: no suspicion seems to have entered -into their minds that institutions which suited Englishmen -might not be the best in the world for men who were not<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_245"></a>[245]</span> -of English birth: it was assumed that clever speakers in -the House of Commons were better judges of the requirements -of a distant British possession than the man on -the spot with unrivalled knowledge of local conditions. -The debate well illustrated the prejudice and half knowledge -with which partisan legislators in England approach -colonial problems, and it afforded a good explanation -of the grounds on which the common sense of England -let the brilliant debaters talk harmlessly in opposition -and entrusted the real work of the country to William -Pitt. It ended in a motion, agreed to by the Prime -Minister, that the House would take the subject into their -earnest consideration early next session.</p> - -<p>Following on the debate, Sydney wrote to Dorchester -on the 3rd of September, asking for the fullest possible -information before the next discussion should take place, -and intimating that a division of the province was -contemplated. On the 8th of November in the same -year, Lord Dorchester replied, giving his views on the <span class="sidenote">Lord Dorchester’s views opposed to division of the province.</span> -political situation. In the districts of Quebec and -Montreal, exclusive of the towns, he estimated the -proportion of British residents to French Canadians as -one to forty; including the towns, as one to fifteen; -and including the Loyalist settlements above Montreal, -as one to five. The demand for an Assembly, he considered, -came from the commercial classes, that is to say, -from the towns where the British were most numerous: -the seigniors and country gentlemen were opposed to it, -the clergy were neutral, the uneducated habitants would -be led by others. His own opinion was that a division -of the province was at present unadvisable; but, should -a division be decided upon, there was no reason why -the western districts should not have an Assembly and -so much of the English system of laws as suited their -local circumstances, care being taken to secure the -property and civil rights of the French Canadian settlers -in the neighbourhood of Detroit, who had increased in -numbers owing to the fur trade. A year later, on the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_246"></a>[246]</span> -20th of October, 1789, he was informed by Grenville, -who had succeeded Sydney as Secretary of State, that -the Government had decided to alter the constitution -of Canada and to divide the province of Quebec, a draft -of the Bill which was to be introduced into Parliament <span class="sidenote">Outline of the Canada Act.</span> -for the purpose being enclosed for an expression of the -governor’s views, with blank spaces to be filled up on -receiving from him information as to certain points of -detail.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Difficulties -of the -situation.</div> - -<p>Curiously complex were the conditions which the Bill -was intended to meet. Assuming that the population -of Canada had been homogeneous and of British descent, -and assuming that Canada had been a single, well-defined -colony, so that no question of subdivision could arise, -it would still have remained a most difficult problem to -decide within what limits political representation should -be given and how far it should involve responsibility -and real self-government. The British demand in Canada -was for institutions to which Englishmen had always -been accustomed, and which the old North American -colonies of Great Britain had enjoyed. The petition of -November, 1784, showed that the demand included right -of taxation and a certain control over the Executive. -This last point seems subsequently not to have been -pressed, though it involved the essence of self-government, -had been prominent in the disputes between the -old colonies and the mother country, and had been -emphasized in Canada by the fact that on the one hand -the Home Government had conspicuously misused its -patronage in making appointments in Canada, and that -on the other, two strong governors, Carleton and Haldimand, -in time of war and in face of disloyalty, had not -hesitated so to put forth their strength as to incur the -charge of being arbitrary.</p> - -<p>But the population of Canada was not homogeneous, -and the colony was obviously not one and indivisible. -Even among the English residents there was diversity of -interest. Those who lived in the districts of Quebec and<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_247"></a>[247]</span> -Montreal, and for whom Lymburner spoke, were opposed -to a division of the province, because the main body of -subjects of English birth was to be found in the new -settlements in Upper Canada. These newcomers, on the -contrary, had much to gain by being severed from French -Canada and incorporated into a separate colony. The -British minority again in the old province contended -that half the number of the representatives to be elected -should be assigned to the towns where the number and -the influence of the English residents was greatest, -Quebec and Montreal containing at the time one Englishman -to every two Canadians; thus town and country -interests were pitted against each other. Meanwhile the -overwhelming majority of the population, the French -Canadians, set little store by the representative institutions -which the English desired to enjoy. They had never -known them and therefore never valued them, and they -had reason to fear that any change might tend to give -more power to the English minority accustomed to a -political machinery which was novel to themselves. -The habitants thought only whether their taxes would -be increased, and whether new laws and customs would -be substituted for those which they understood; the -seigniors dreaded losing their feudal rights; the priests -their privileges and authority. There was a very strong -element of conservatism in French Canada running -counter to the demand for political reform, and even -in Upper Canada, in the district over against Detroit, -and at some other points, there was a small minority of -French settlers whose interests, as Dorchester had pointed -out, could not be overlooked.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -question -of land -tenure.</div> - -<p>Almost as important and fully as pressing as the -question of political representation was that of land -tenure. Was the land system of the future, especially -in Upper Canada, to be the cumbrous feudal tenure which -Louis XIV had imported from the Old to the New World? -or was it to be assimilated to the land laws of England? -Were other laws too, and was the legal procedure,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_248"></a>[248]</span> -especially in commercial matters, to be on French or -English lines? Partly through confusion as to what was -the law of the land, and partly because such judicial -appointments as that of Livius were not calculated to -inspire respect for the personnel of the judges, the administration -of justice in Canada at this time had been hotly -assailed, and a long local inquiry into the subject began -in 1787, but seems to have produced little or no result in -consequence of the passing of the Canada Act.</p> - -<p>When there were so many difficulties to be faced and -met, it was fortunate that the thorny questions of -language and religion were not added to the number. -The religious question had been settled by the Quebec -Act, and all that was required was to make definite -provision for the Protestant clergy, while not interfering -with the rights which had been confirmed to the Roman -Catholic priesthood. As to language, for good or for -evil, no attempt seems to have been made by the Imperial -Government to substitute English for French; the oaths -prescribed by the terms of the 1791 Act were to be administered -either in English or in French as the case might -require, and the first elected Assembly of Lower Canada -agreed not to give to either tongue preference over the -other.<a id="FNanchor_199" href="#Footnote_199" class="fnanchor">[199]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Grenville’s -dispatch -and -letter.</div> - -<p>The terms of Grenville’s dispatch to Dorchester of the -20th October, 1789, in which he enclosed the draft of -the proposed Act, and of the Private and Secret letter -which he wrote at the same time, are interesting as showing -the grounds on which Pitt’s Government had come -to the decision to divide Canada into two provinces and -to give popular institutions in either case.<a id="FNanchor_200" href="#Footnote_200" class="fnanchor">[200]</a> Grenville<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_249"></a>[249]</span> -wrote that the general object of the plan adopted by the -Government was to assimilate the constitution of the -province of Quebec to that of Great Britain ‘as nearly -as the difference arising from the manners of the people <span class="sidenote">Arguments for a division into two provinces</span> -and from the present situation of the province will admit’. -In trying to effect this object it was necessary to pay -attention to the ‘prejudices and habits of the French -inhabitants’, and most carefully to safeguard the civil -and religious rights which had been secured to them -at or subsequently to the capitulation of the province. -This consideration had largely influenced the Government -in favour of dividing the province into two districts, still to -remain under the administration of a Governor-General, -but each to have a Lieutenant-Governor and separate -Legislature. The Government, Grenville continued, had <span class="sidenote">based upon the grant of representative institutions.</span> -not overlooked the reasons urged by Lord Dorchester -against a division of the province, and they felt that -great weight would have been due to his suggestions, -had it been intended to continue the existing form of -administration and not to introduce representative institutions; -but, the decision having been taken to establish -a provincial legislature to be chosen in part by the people, -‘every consideration of policy seemed to render it desirable -that the great preponderance possessed in the upper -districts by the King’s ancient subjects, and in the -lower by the French Canadians, should have their effect -and operation in separate legislatures, rather than that -these two bodies of people should be blended together -in the first formation of the new constitution, and before -sufficient time has been allowed for the removal of ancient -prejudices by the habit of obedience to the same government -and by the sense of a common interest’. Grenville’s -private letter, which supplemented the public dispatch, -showed that a lesson had been learnt from the late war<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_250"></a>[250]</span> -with the American colonies. ‘I am persuaded,’ he -wrote, ‘that it is a point of true policy to make these -concessions at a time when they may be received as -a matter of favour, and when it is in our own power to -regulate and direct the manner of applying them, rather -than to wait till they shall be extorted from us by a -necessity which shall neither leave us any discretion in -the form nor any merit in the substance of what we -give.’<a id="FNanchor_201" href="#Footnote_201" class="fnanchor">[201]</a> The last paragraph of the letter gave another -reason for making the proposed changes without further -delay, and that was that ‘the state of France is such as -gives us little to fear from that quarter in the present -moment. The opportunity is therefore most favourable -for the adoption of such measures as may tend to consolidate -our strength, and increase our resources, so as -to enable ourselves to meet any efforts that the most -favourable event of the present troubles can ever enable -her to make’. The letter was written after the taking -of the Bastille and the outbreak of the French Revolution, -when Lafayette was in demand at home and not likely -to make further excursions into American politics; but -the words implied that France was still in the eyes of -British statesmen the main source of danger to Great -Britain, especially in connexion with Canada, and that -the grant of representative institutions to British and -French colonists in Canada was likely to strengthen the -hands of Great Britain as against her most formidable -rival.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Policy -of the -British -Government -determined -by the -results -of the -War of -American -Independence.</div> - -<p>The correspondence shows clearly that the outcome -of the War of American Independence had inclined the -British Government to give popular representation to -the remaining British possessions in North America. On -the other hand there are passages in it which should be -noted, indicating that ministers were anxious at the same -time to introduce certain safeguards against democracy,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_251"></a>[251]</span> -which had been wanting in the old North American -colonies. Grenville’s dispatch stated that it was intended -to appoint the members of the Upper Chamber, the -Legislative Council, for life and during good behaviour, <span class="sidenote">Proposed safeguards to the grant of popular institutions.</span> -provided that they resided in the province. It also -stated that it was the King’s intention to confer upon -those whom he nominated to the Council ‘some mark -of honour, such as a Provincial Baronetage, either personal -to themselves or descendible to their eldest sons in lineal <span class="sidenote">Suggestion to give titles to members of the Upper Chamber.</span> -succession’, adding that, if there was in after years a -great growth of wealth in Canada, it might be possible -at some future date to ‘raise the most considerable of -these persons to a higher degree of honour’. The object -of these regulations, he wrote, ‘is both to give to -the Upper Branch of the Legislature a greater degree -of weight and consequence than was possessed by the -Councils in the old colonial governments, and to establish -in the provinces a body of men having that motive of -attachment to the existing form of government which -arises from the possession of personal or hereditary -distinction.’ In writing as above, Grenville did not state -in so many words that the Government contemplated -making appointment to the Legislative council hereditary -in certain cases, but merely that it was proposed to give -some title to certain members of the Council, which title -might be made hereditary; nor was any clause dealing -with the subject included in the draft of the Bill which -was sent to Lord Dorchester. The latter, however, <span class="sidenote">Lord Dorchester opposed to the suggestion.</span> -rightly understood that what Pitt and his colleagues -had in their minds was to give to each of the two provinces, -into which Canada was to be divided, an Upper House -which might develop into a House of Lords; and his -answer was that, while many advantages might result -from a hereditary Legislative Council distinguished by -some mark of honour, if the condition of the country -was such as to support the dignity, ‘the fluctuating state -of property in these provinces would expose all hereditary -honours to fall into disregard.’ He recommended, therefore,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_252"></a>[252]</span> -that for the time being the members of the Council -should merely be appointed during life, good behaviour, -and residence in the province.</p> - -<p>When the Bill was introduced into Parliament, the -provisions dealing with this subject were chiefly attacked -by Fox, who expressed himself in favour of an elected -council, though with a higher property qualification than -would be required in the case of the Lower House or -Assembly. The clauses were carried in a permissive form, -empowering the King, whenever he thought fit to confer -upon a British subject by Letters Patent under the Great <span class="sidenote">Permissive clauses embodied in the Bill.</span> -Seal of either of the provinces a hereditary title of honour, -to attach to the title at his discretion a hereditary right -to be summoned to the Legislative Council, such right -to be forfeited by the holder for various causes including -continual absence from the province, but to be revived -in favour of the heirs. Nothing came of this attempt -to create a hereditary second chamber in the two provinces -of Upper and Lower Canada: no such aristocracy -was brought into being as when the French King and his -ministers built up the French Canadian community on -a basis analogous to the old feudal system of France; -but, nevertheless, Pitt’s proposals cannot be condemned -as fantastic or unreal. They were honestly designed to -meet a defect which had already been felt in the British -colonies, and which must always be felt in new countries, -the lack of a conservative element in the Legislature and -in the people, the absence of dignity and continuity with -the past, and the want of some balance against raw -and undiluted democracy which has not, as in older -lands, been trained to recognize that the body politic -consists of more than numbers.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The Executive -Council.</div> - -<p>The original draft of the Bill contained no provision -for the appointment of an Executive Council distinct -from the two houses of the Legislature. A clause to -that effect was inserted by Lord Dorchester in the -amended draft which he sent back, but it did not appear -in the Act in its final form; though there is a reference<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_253"></a>[253]</span> -in the Act to ‘such Executive Council as shall be appointed -by His Majesty for the affairs’ of either province; and -one section appointed the governor and Executive Council -in each province a court of civil appeal. In his covering -dispatch Grenville asked Lord Dorchester to state the -number and names of the persons whom he might think -proper to recommend to the King for seats on the Executive -Council, and added that it was not intended to -exclude members of the Legislative Council from the -Executive Council, nor on the other hand to select the -Executive Councillors exclusively from the Legislative -Council. Grenville went on to suggest that it might be -well that some persons should be members of the Executive -Council in both of the two districts or provinces. The -net result was that the Executive was still to remain -wholly independent of the Legislature, or at any rate -of the popular house in the Legislature, and therefore the -main element of self-government was to be withheld. -It was left for Lord Durham, after long years of friction -between the Executive and the Legislature, to emphasize -the necessity of giving to the popular representatives the -control of the Executive, making them thereby responsible -for the good government of the people whom they -represented.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Crown -Lands’ -funds.</div> - -<p>In his secret letter to Dorchester, Grenville referred -to ‘the possibility of making such reservations of land -adjacent to all future grants as may secure to the Crown -a certain and improving revenue—a measure which, if it -had been adopted when the old colonies were first settled, -would have retained them to this hour in obedience and -loyalty’. Crown land funds are not yet wholly extinct -in the British colonies. For instance, in the Bahamas, -side by side with the revenue voted by the local Legislature, -there is a small fund independent of the Legislature -and at the disposal of the Crown alone; but the revenue -derived from the fund is not sufficient to pay the salaries -of the Executive officers, even if it were thought desirable -to apply the money to such a purpose. Barbados, with<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_254"></a>[254]</span> -its time-honoured constitution, to which Barbadians are -passionately attached, is a good instance of a colony -possessing representative institutions but not responsible -government. Here there are no Crown funds, and the -salaries of the public officers, from the governor downwards, -are voted by the elected representatives, though -the higher Executive appointments, with some exceptions, -are in the gift and under the control not of the Legislature -but of the Crown. In this and in other instances, where -local conditions, including the fact of an overwhelming -preponderance of coloured men over white, have made -for a compromise, a system, illogical in theory and -unsound in practice, has, by mutual forbearance, continued -to work, though not always without friction. -But on any large scale, and especially where the majority -of the residents in a colony are of European birth, the -position is impossible and can only be defended as a -temporary expedient. Yet, in spite of the War of -American Independence and the lessons which it taught, -the world was not in the days of Pitt old enough for the -British ministry to contemplate colonial self-government -in its full expression. Nor, in truth, were the conditions of -Canada sufficiently advanced to have made the introduction -of responsible government either practicable or desirable. -Hence Grenville cast about for an expedient which might -reduce the probability of a conflict between the Executive -and the Legislature, and sought for it in the establishment -of a fund which would belong to the Crown alone and -be expended by the Crown in paying its officers. If his -policy had been consistently carried out, and an adequate -revenue, not derived from taxation, been secured to the -Crown, the result would have been greatly to strengthen -the independence of the Executive by making the salaries -of the officers independent of the vote of the Assembly. -In the end the bitterness of the struggle for popular -control might have been thereby increased, but in the -meantime the petty squabble year by year over voting -supplies, and the mean withholding of pay from this<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_255"></a>[255]</span> -or that officer, because he happened to be unpopular at -the moment, might have disappeared. The constitutional -troubles which subsequently became so acute in Lower -Canada, connected more especially with the attempt to -obtain a Civil List, were due to the fact that the revenues -of the Crown were not sufficient to cover the expenses of -the public service without the aid of votes from the -popular Assembly. It was this constant friction which -had preluded the War of Independence, and this it was -which Grenville hoped to avoid by establishing an -adequate fund in the colony at the disposal of the Crown -alone.</p> - -<p>But a wider and more statesmanlike safeguard against -the evils of colonial democracy in the eighteenth century -was proposed in connexion with this Canada Act, though -not by the Imperial Government. The post of Chief <span class="sidenote">Chief Justice Smith.</span> -Justice of Canada, which Livius had held, was now after -a long interregnum filled by the appointment of William -Smith, who had been born in the state of New York, -had been Chief Justice of that state, and, coming to -England with Dorchester after the Peace of 1783, had -been appointed to succeed Livius and had accompanied -the Governor-General out to Canada. Invited by Dorchester <span class="sidenote">His proposals for a general Legislature for the British North American Provinces.</span> -to give his views upon the draft of the Bill -which Grenville had sent out, he embodied them in -a remarkable letter which was forwarded to the Home -Government. The Bill, he thought, greatly improved -‘the old mould of our colonial governments, for even -those called the Royal provinces, to distinguish them -from the proprietary and chartered republics of the -Stuart kings, had essential faults and the same general -tendency’; but he missed in it ‘the expected establishment -to put what remains to Great Britain of her ancient -dominions in North America under one general direction, -for the united interests and safety of every branch of -the Empire’. It was when the old North American -colonies became prosperous that the evils inherent in -their system produced their full effect, and he dreaded<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_256"></a>[256]</span> -lest the prosperity which he predicted for the two provinces -of Canada might again in time work ruin, unless -what he considered to be the one main safeguard were -provided from the beginning of constitutional government. -‘Native as I am of one of the old provinces,’ he wrote, ‘and -early in the public service and councils, I trace the late -revolt and rent to a remoter cause than those to which it -is ordinarily ascribed. The truth is that the country had -outgrown its government, and wanted the true remedy -for more than half a century before the rupture commenced.... -To expect wisdom and moderation from -near a score of petty parliaments, consisting in effect of -only one of the three necessary branches of a parliament, -must, after the light brought by experience, appear to -have been a very extravagant expectation.... An -American Assembly, quiet in the weakness of their infancy, -could not but discover in their elevation to prosperity, -that themselves were the substance, and the governor -and Board of Council were shadows in their political -frame. All America was thus, at the very outset of the -plantations, abandoned to democracy. And it belonged -to the administrations of the days of our fathers to have -found the cure, in the erection of a power upon the -continent itself, to control all its own little republics, -and create a partner in the legislation of the Empire, -capable of consulting their own safety and the common -welfare.’</p> - -<p>Such a power the Chief Justice outlined in ‘Proposed -Additions to the New Canada Bill for a General Government’, -which he enclosed in this noteworthy letter, -prefacing them as clauses ‘to provide still more effectually -for the government, safety, and prosperity of all His -Majesty’s dominions in North America, and firmly to -unite the several branches of the Empire’. Provision -was made in them for a Legislative Council and General -Assembly, which, with the Governor-General, were to -legislate for all or any of ‘His Majesty’s dominions and -the provinces whereof the same do now or may hereafter<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_257"></a>[257]</span> -consist in the parts of America to the southward of -Hudson’s Bay and in those seas to the Northward of the -Bermuda or Somers Islands’. So many Legislative -Councillors were to be appointed for each province by -the Crown for life, subject to the conditions attached to -membership of the Legislative Council in either of the -two Canadas by the proposed Act; while the members -of the General Assembly were to be elected by the -provincial Assemblies. The Crown might appoint an -Executive Council, and was to be confirmed in full -Executive authority over all and any of the provinces, -while the acts of the General Legislature were to be subject -to disallowance by the Crown, ‘and the said dominions -and all the provinces into which they may be hereafter -divided shall continue and remain to be governed by the -Crown and Parliament of Great Britain as the supreme -Legislature of the whole British Empire’.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Chief -Justice -Smith’s -views -supported -by -Lord -Dorchester.</div> - -<p>Lord Dorchester forwarded these proposals with a few -words indicating that he was in general sympathy with -the views of the Chief Justice. He wrote of the scheme -of a general government for British North America as -one ‘whereby the united exertions of His Majesty’s -North American provinces may more effectually be -directed to the general interest and to the preservation -of the unity of the Empire’. They were the proposals -of a trained lawyer, of an American colonist of standing -and position who had thrown in his lot with the mother -country as against the revolting colonies, and who -stated in the letter from which passages have been -quoted above, that for more than twenty years, that is -to say through all or nearly all the years of strife with -the colonies, he had held the same view as to the radical -defect in the relations between Great Britain and her -colonies and the remedy which might have been applied -at an earlier date. How far, we may ask, did Chief -Justice Smith truly diagnose the disease, if disease it -was, that had proved fatal to the old British Empire in -North America? How far did he indicate what, if the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_258"></a>[258]</span> -disease had been taken in time, would or might have -been an adequate remedy? and how far did he outline -the Canadian Dominion of later days and anticipate -views which are widely held at the present time as to -the future of the British Empire?</p> - -<div class="figcenter illowp70" id="i_258" style="max-width: 43.75em;"> -<img class="w100" src="images/i_258.jpg" alt="" /> - <a rel="nofollow" href="images/i_258large.jpg"> - <span class="screenonly fs60 center">click here for larger image.</span></a> -<div class="caption"><p class="right"><i>to face page 257</i></p> - -<p> <span class="pad5"><b>THE TWO CANADAS</b></span><br /> -<span class="pad4">under</span> Constitutional Act of <b>1791</b><br /> -<span class="pad10">and</span><br /> -<span class="pad4"><b>THE MARITIME PROVINCES</b></span></p> - -<p>From a map of 1823, in the Colonial Office Library</p> - -<p class="left">B. V. Barbishire, Oxford, 1908.</p> -</div> -</div> - - -<div class="sidenote">Democracy -in -America -was -coeval -with its -colonization.</div> - -<p>It has been attempted to show in a previous chapter -that the spirit of independence in the American colonies, -which in the end was embodied in political severance -from Great Britain, was as old as their origin, and drew -its strength from the fact that they had always been -practically independent. This was the starting-point of -the Chief Justice’s argument. ‘All America,’ in his -words, ‘was, at the very outset of the plantations, abandoned -to democracy’, and the separate colonies which -at the time when he wrote, had been federated into the -United States, were ‘little Republics’. Those little -Republics, according to the ordinary colonial contention, -the mother country had neglected in the weakness of -their infancy, while she had tried to oppress them when -they became prosperous and valuable. Chief Justice -Smith read history differently. According to his view -they were quiet until they had grown to strength, and -then they discovered that the ultimate power of government -rested with themselves and not with the mother -country. The remedy, he thought, should have been <span class="sidenote">It should have been controlled from within, not from without.</span> -found not so much by giving greater power to the -Imperial Government as by establishing in America -itself an authority controlling the separate Assemblies -of the separate states, which body would have been -a ‘Partner in the legislation of the Empire’.</p> - -<p>It was no new conception that the states should have -been in some sense federated while still under the British -flag. Various governors, and men like Franklin, had -proposed or contemplated some such measure, in order -to correct the weakness of the separate provinces as against -the common foe in Canada, while Canada belonged to -France, and in order to minimize the difficulties which -the Imperial Government found in dealing with a number<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_259"></a>[259]</span> -of separate legislatures at least as jealous of each other -as they were of the Home Government. But the Chief -Justice’s retrospect was based on somewhat different <span class="sidenote">The grounds on which Chief Justice Smith advocated a General Legislature for British North America.</span> -grounds. He would have had a federal legislature in -order to control the provincial legislatures. He would -have corrected democracy in America by, in a sense, -carrying democracy further. He would have nothing of -the maxim <i>divide et impera</i>; but, as democracy was -born on American soil, on American soil he would have -constituted a popular authority wider, wiser, and stronger -than the bodies which represented the single provinces. -It was a very statesmanlike view. He saw that one -leading cause of the rupture between Great Britain and -her colonies had been the pettiness of the American -democracies, the narrowness of provincial politics, the -intensity of democratic feeling cooped up in the small -area of a single colony as in a single Greek city, the -personal bitterness thereby produced in local politicians, -and the obvious semblance of oppression when a great -country like England was dealing with one small state -and another, not with a larger federated whole. A -federal legislature would have exercised home-grown -American control over the American Assemblies; it -would have given a wider and fuller scope to American -democracy, enlarging the views, making the individual -leaders greater and wider in mind; it would have been -the body with which England would have dealt; and -the dealings would have been those of ‘Partners in the -legislation of the Empire’. This was in his mind when -he earnestly recommended that the grant of constitutional -privileges to the Canadian provinces should be -from the first accompanied by the creation of a general -government for British North America, including the -maritime provinces as well as Upper and Lower Canada.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -General -Legislature -contemplated -by Chief -Justice -Smith -would -have been -a subordinate -Legislature.</div> - -<p>But, if this general government was to be a partner -in the legislation of the Empire, it was clearly to be, in -the view of the Chief Justice, a subordinate partner. -The last of his proposed additions to the Bill began in<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_260"></a>[260]</span> -the following terms: ‘Be it further enacted ... that -nothing in this Act contained shall be interpreted to -derogate from the rights and prerogatives of the Crown -for the due exercise of the Royal and Executive authority -over all or any of the said provinces, or to derogate -from the Legislative sovereignty and supremacy of the -Crown and Parliament of Great Britain.’ In other -words he re-affirmed the principle, which the old colonies -had rejected, that they were subordinated to the Parliament -of the mother country as well as to the Crown; -and he showed clearly in the clause empowering the -Crown to appoint Executive Councils apart from the -Legislature, that the Executive power was to rest not in -British North America but in Great Britain. The -general government of British North America was to be -a partner in the legislation of the Empire, but not in -the Executive, and even in the legislative sphere it -was to take a second place. Theoretically, and to some -small extent practically also, the Dominion Parliament -is still a subordinate partner in legislation, so far as <span class="sidenote">The Chief Justice did not contemplate colonial self-government in its fullest form.</span> -Imperial questions are concerned; but, since the days -of Lord Durham, colonial self-government has included -control of the Executive in the colony. Chief Justice -Smith had therefore not contemplated or foreshadowed -the colonial self-government of the future.</p> - -<p>But that he had not done so was not due to want of -statesmanship. He was rather still intent on seeking -after a solution of the problem which later thinkers and -statesmen held to be insoluble. The grant of responsible -government in after times was not so much an act of -constructive wisdom as a wise recognition of what was -at the time impossible. To give to the colonial legislatures -the control of the Executive was to remove them -practically from the control of the mother country, and -thereby to concede to these communities the full right of -self-government. The first corrective of this grant was on -similar lines to those which Chief Justice Smith prescribed, -viz., to federate the self-governing communities in a given<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_261"></a>[261]</span> -area, to place their separate legislatures under a general -legislature, and, as the legislatures controlled the Executive, -to limit the provincial executive authorities by a -general executive authority, the control being exercised -from within not from without, and small democracies -being rectified by creating from among themselves a larger -and a stronger democratic body. It still remains for the -wisdom of the coming time to carry the constructive -work further; if human ingenuity can devise a -practical scheme, again to extend the principle of democratic -representation and control; and to constitute -a body which, with the Crown, shall, alike in legislation -and in the sphere of the Executive, make the great self-governing -provinces in the fullest sense partners in the -Empire. In short, the point which it is here wished -to emphasize is that whereas self-government was conceded -not as a solution of the problem but as a final -recognition that the problem was insoluble, men have -come to realize that after all what was intended to be -final was only a necessary preliminary to the possible -attainment of an object, which had been relegated to -the land of dreams and speculations.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The Act -of 1791.</div> - -<p>The views of the Chief Justice were not embodied in -the law which was eventually passed in 1791. Pitt had -pledged himself to deal with the Canadian question in -the session of 1790, but in that year Great Britain was -on the brink of war with Spain, owing to the seizure by -the Spaniards in 1789 of British trading vessels in Nootka -Sound, an inlet of what is now known as Vancouver -Island. The matter was adjusted by the Nootka Sound -Convention of 28th October, 1790, after which Vancouver -began his voyages of survey and discovery along the -Pacific Coast of North America; and, the hands of the -British Government being free, a Royal Message to the -House of Commons, dated the 25th of January, 1791, -announced that it was the King’s intention to divide -the province of Quebec into two provinces to be called -Upper and Lower Canada, whenever His Majesty was<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_262"></a>[262]</span> -enabled by Act of Parliament to make the necessary -regulations for the government of the said provinces. -The message further recommended that a permanent -appropriation of lands should be made in the provinces -for the support of a Protestant clergy.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Proceedings -in -Parliament.</div> - -<p>On the 4th of March Pitt introduced the Bill. On the -23rd of March Lymburner was heard at the bar of the -House on behalf of its opponents. He took objections, -among other points, to the division of the province, to -the creation of hereditary Legislative Councillors, to the -small number of members who were to constitute the -Assemblies, and to making the Assemblies septennial -instead of triennial. The passage of the Bill through -Committee in the House of Commons was chiefly remarkable -for the historic quarrel between Burke and Fox on -the subject of the French Revolution which was dragged -into the debate. There was no real opposition to the -measure, though Fox opposed the division of the province, -the hereditary councillors, the small numbers assigned to -the Assemblies, and the large provision made for the -Protestant clergy. The duration of the Assemblies was -reduced from seven years to four, and the number of -members in the Assembly of Lower Canada was raised -from thirty to fifty. Thus amended the Bill was read -a third time in the House of Commons on the 18th of -May, and received the Royal Assent on the following -10th of June, one of its sections providing that it should -take effect before the 31st of December, 1791, and -another that the Councils and Assemblies should be -called together before the 31st of December, 1792. It -had been intended that Dorchester should be present -in London during the passing of the Act, in order to -advise the Government on points of detail, but the -dispatch informing him that the Act had already been -passed crossed him on his way to England.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Omissions -from the -Act.</div> - -<p>The omissions from the Act are as noteworthy as its -contents. The Bill, both as presented to Parliament -and as finally passed into law, contained no description<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_263"></a>[263]</span> -of the line of division between Upper and Lower Canada, <span class="sidenote">It contained no definition of the boundaries of Upper and Lower Canada.</span> -or of the boundaries of the two provinces. In the draft -which Grenville sent out in 1789 there was a blank space, -in which Dorchester was invited, with the help of his -surveyor-general, to insert a description of the boundaries; -but, wrote Grenville in his covering dispatch, ‘there will -be a considerable difficulty in the mode of describing the -boundary between the district of Upper Canada and the -territories of the United States, as the adhering to the -line mentioned in the treaty with America would exclude -the posts which are still in His Majesty’s possession and -which the infraction of the treaty on the part of America -has induced His Majesty to retain, while, on the other -hand, the including them by express words within the -limits to be established for the province by an Act of the -British Parliament would probably excite a considerable -degree of resentment among the inhabitants of the -United States.’ Grenville accordingly suggested that -the Upper Province might be described by some general -terms such as ‘All the territories, &c., possessed by and -subject to His Majesty and being to the West or South -of the boundary line of Lower Canada, except such as -are included within the present boundaries of the government -of New Brunswick’.</p> - -<p>Uncertainty as to what was or was not British territory -affected among other matters the administration of justice. -It was from this point of view that Dorchester -mainly regarded it when he wrote in reply to Grenville, -‘the attainment of a free course of justice throughout -every part of His Majesty’s possessions in the way least -likely to give umbrage to the United States appears to -me very desirable’. He returned the draft of the Bill -with the blank filled in with a precise description of the -dividing line within what was beyond dispute Canadian -territory, and with the addition of some general words -including in the Canadas all lands to the southward -‘now subject to or possessed by His Majesty’, but he -reported at the same time that the Chief Justice was not<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_264"></a>[264]</span> -satisfied that the terms used would answer the purpose. -Eventually the Government left out the whole clause, -omitting also all reference to another difficult point -which had been raised and which had affected the administration -of justice in connexion with the fisheries in the -Gulf of St. Lawrence, viz., the boundary line between -Lower Canada and New Brunswick. Parliamentary -debate on a very awkward question was thus avoided, -and the Act contained no provision which could give -offence to the United States.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">How the -boundaries -were -defined.</div> - -<p>But it was absolutely necessary to draw some dividing -line, and to give some description of the boundaries, -however vague. Accordingly the following very cautious -course was taken. A ‘description of the intended boundary -between the provinces of Upper Canada and Lower -Canada’, being Lord Dorchester’s clause with the omission -of the general words referred to above, was printed as -a Parliamentary Paper,<a id="FNanchor_202" href="#Footnote_202" class="fnanchor">[202]</a> while the Bill was before the -House; and this line of division was embodied in an -Order in Council issued on the following 24th of August, -with the addition of the words ‘including all territory -to the Westward and Southward of the said line, to the -utmost extent of the country commonly known as Canada’. -The line of division was set out again in the new commission -to Lord Dorchester, which was issued on the -12th of September, 1791, the two provinces of Upper -and Lower Canada being specified as comprehending -all such territories to the Westward and Eastward of -the line respectively ‘as were part of our said province -of Quebec’.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_265"></a>[265]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Administration -of Justice -hardly -mentioned -in -the Act,</div> - -<p>On the important subject of administration of justice -the Act was almost silent. One section only had reference -to it, constituting the governor or lieutenant-governor -and Executive Council in either province a court of appeal -in civil matters, as had been the case in the undivided <span class="sidenote">Nor did it contain any definition of the respective powers of the two Chambers.</span> -province. Nor was any attempt made to define the -powers of the Legislative Council and Assembly in relation -to each other; but, in sending out the Act, Dundas, -who had succeeded Grenville, reminded Dorchester of ‘the -disputes and disagreements which have at times taken -place between the Councils and Assemblies of the different -colonies respecting the right claimed by the latter that -all Bills whatsoever for granting money should originate -with them’, and he laid down in general terms that the -principle, ‘as far as it relates to any question of imposing -burthens upon the subject, is so consistent with the spirit -of our constitution that it ought not to be resisted’.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Contents -of the -Act.</div> - -<p>Out of the fifty sections which composed the Act, no -less than thirty-two related to the constitution and -legislative powers of the Councils and Assemblies in the -two provinces. In Upper Canada the Legislative Council -was to consist of not less than seven members, and the -Assembly of not less than sixteen. In Lower Canada -the minimum fixed for the Council was fifteen, and for -the Assembly fifty. The electoral qualification was, in -the country districts, ownership of real property to the -net annual value of forty shillings, and in the towns of -£5, or in the alternative in the latter case a rental qualification -of £10 per annum.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Provision -for Protestant -clergy.</div> - -<p>Of the remaining sections eight related to the endowment -and maintenance of Protestant clergy and to providing -parsonages and rectories for the Church of England. -The wording of these sections, and the system of clergy -reserves which they introduced, proved a fruitful source -of controversy in after years. The Act continued the -existing system by which Roman Catholics paid their -dues to the Roman Catholic Church, while the tithes -on lands held by Protestants were applied to the support<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_266"></a>[266]</span> -of a Protestant clergy. It then went on, in accordance -with the terms of the Royal Message to the House of -Commons, to provide that there should be a permanent -appropriation of Crown lands for the maintenance and -support of a Protestant clergy, bearing a due proportion -to the amount of Crown lands which had already been -granted for other purposes, and that all future grants -of Crown land should be accompanied by an appropriation, -for the same object of maintaining a Protestant -clergy, of land equal in value to one-seventh of the amount -which was granted for other purposes. The intention -was that the establishment and endowment of Protestant -clergy should proceed <i>pari passu</i> with the alienation of -lands for settlement, so that each township or parish -in either province should have its Protestant minister. -So far the general term Protestant was used, but provisions -followed authorizing the erection and endowment of parsonages -or rectories in every parish or township ‘according -to the Establishment of the Church of England’, -the incumbents to be ministers of the Church of England, -and to be subject to the ecclesiastical authority of the -Church of England bishop. It was also enacted that, -while these provisions relating to religion and to Crown -lands might be varied by Acts of the provincial legislatures, -before any such Acts received the Royal Assent, they -were to be laid before the Imperial Parliament, and, -if either House presented an Address to the King praying -that His assent should be withheld, such assent could -not be given. The Act, though obscurely worded, in -effect established and endowed the Church of England -in both provinces alike, while confirming the rights which -had already been conceded to the Roman Catholic Church. -The provision made for the Church of England was, at -any rate on paper, very ample, inasmuch as, while Crown -lands were being assigned for its maintenance, the liability -of Protestant land-owners to pay tithes was not abolished. -Dundas, however, in his dispatch which enclosed copies -of the Act, intimated to the governor that it was not<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_267"></a>[267]</span> -desired permanently to continue the burden of the tithe, -if the land-owners would in lieu subscribe to a fund for -clearing the reserve lands and building the parsonage -houses. Fox attacked these sections in the Act, and he -also criticized a suggestion which Pitt made that a -Church of England bishop might be given a seat in the -Legislative Council.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The first -Church of -England -bishops in -British -North -America.</div> - -<p>It may be noted that the Act specifically mentioned -the Bishop of Nova Scotia as the spiritual authority -for the time being over such ministers of the Church of -England as might be appointed to the two Canadas. -The Bishopric of Nova Scotia dated from 1787, and was -the first, and in 1791 the only, Church of England bishopric -in British North America, the Bishop—Bishop Inglis, -having been a Loyalist clergyman in the city of New York. -In 1793 a separate Bishop of Quebec was appointed, and -in 1799 the Secretary of State authorized the building -of a metropolitan church at Quebec, which was completed -for consecration in 1804, and at the centenary of which -in 1904 the Archbishop of Canterbury was present. -There were indications at this time that the Protestants -in Canada, most of whom were not members of the Church -of England, might be inclined to unite within it, and it -was hoped that the building and endowment of a metropolitan -church might tend to such union and to placing -the Church of England in the position of the Established -Church of Canada.</p> - -<p>The provisions in the Act which related to religion -were followed by three very important sections dealing -with land tenure. The main grievance of the settlers <span class="sidenote">Provisions relating to land tenure, and to taxation by the Imperial Parliament.</span> -in Upper Canada was met by providing that land grants -should there be made on the English system of free and -common soccage. The same system was made optional -in Lower Canada at the will of the grantee, but in that -province the seigniors were not finally abolished until -the year 1854. In 1778 an Act of Parliament had been -passed<a id="FNanchor_203" href="#Footnote_203" class="fnanchor">[203]</a>—too late in the day—which abolished the tea<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_268"></a>[268]</span> -duty in the North American colonies, and laid down -that no duty should in future be imposed by the British -Parliament on any colony in North America or the West -Indies for revenue purposes, but only for the regulation -of commerce, and on the understanding that the net -produce of such duties should be at the disposal of the -colonial legislatures. Similar provisions were inserted -in the Canada Act of 1791, and, in introducing the Bill, -Pitt explained that, ‘in order to prevent any such dispute -as had been the cause of separating the thirteen states -from the mother country, it was provided that the -British Parliament should impose no taxes but such as -were necessary for the regulation of trade and commerce; -and, to guard against the abuse of this power, such taxes -were to be levied and to be disposed by the Legislature -of each division.’</p> - -<p>Thus Canada was endowed with representative institutions, -and entered on the second stage in its history as -a British possession. It was divided into an English -province and a French province, in order as far as possible -to prevent friction between two races not yet accustomed -to each other. For the English province English land -tenure was made the law of the land, in the French -province it was only made optional. Taxation of members -of one religion for the upkeep of another found no place -in the Act, nor did taxation of a colony by the mother -country for the purposes of Imperial revenue. The -popular representatives were in the main given control of -the moneys raised from taxes: and no doubt was left as<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_269"></a>[269]</span> -to who had the keeping of the people’s purse.<a id="FNanchor_204" href="#Footnote_204" class="fnanchor">[204]</a> On the -other hand the Executive power was left with the Crown, -and the waste lands provided possibilities of a revenue -by which the government might be supported apart from -the taxes, and by which an Established Church might be -maintained apart from the tithes. The Imperial Parliament -too retained the power of regulating commerce, -while making no money out of the colony by any commercial -regulations. It was in short a prudent and tolerant -half-way Act, wise and practical in view of the times and -the local conditions, and it was evidence that England -and Englishmen had learnt good and not evil from the -War of American Independence. A study of Canadian -history, with special reference to the Quebec Act of 1774 -and the Canada Act of 1791, and the results which flowed -from them, leads to the conclusion that in either case -the British Government of the day tried most honestly -and most anxiously to deal with a very complicated -problem on its merits; that every effort was made by -the ministers of the Crown to mete out fair and considerate -treatment to the majority of the resident population in -Canada; and that those who framed and carried the -laws guided themselves by living facts rather than by -<i>a priori</i> reasoning. But it is also impossible to resist -the conclusion that at almost any time from 1783 onwards, -until the Canadian Dominion came into being, there was -little to choose between the arguments for retaining<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_270"></a>[270]</span> -a single province, and those for constituting two provinces. -In any case it was inevitable that the provisions of the -Act of 1791 should give rise to new complications of -various kinds; and apart from specific questions, constitutional -and otherwise, there were two very practical -difficulties which necessarily arose from the division of the -province of Quebec. The first was an Executive difficulty, -of which more will be said presently. From the date -of the Act there was increasingly divided authority in -the Canadas. The second was a financial difficulty arising -from geographical conditions. One of the two provinces -had the keeping of the other, so far as regarded access -from and to the sea.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Financial -difficulties -between -the two -provinces.</div> - -<p>As the line of division was drawn, Upper Canada, -like the Transvaal at the present day, was compelled -to import all sea-borne articles through territory under -the administration of another government, either through -Lower Canada or through the United States. The -St. Lawrence being the high road of import and export, -Lower Canada commanded the trade of Upper Canada. -Therefore, in order to collect a customs revenue, it was -necessary for the Upper Province either to establish -customs houses on the frontier of Lower Canada—a -measure which would probably have been ineffective -and would certainly have involved much inconvenience -and expense, or to come to some arrangement whereby -a certain proportion of the duties levied at Quebec, -which was the port of entry of Lower Canada, would -be handed over to the administration of the Upper -Province. The latter course was taken, and in 1795, -a provisional arrangement was made, by which the -proportion was fixed for the time being at one-eighth. -The record of what followed is a record of perpetual -friction, of commissions and temporary arrangements -confirmed by provincial Acts. It was suggested that the -boundaries of the provinces should be altered, and that -Montreal should be included in and be made the port of -entry of Upper Canada, but the suggestion was never<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_271"></a>[271]</span> -carried into effect. As the population of Upper Canada -grew, the discontent increased. In 1818 one-fifth of -the duties was temporarily assigned to Upper Canada. -Then a complete deadlock ensued, which ended with the -Imperial Canada Trade Act of 1822. By arbitration -under the terms of that Act the proportion which Upper -Canada was to receive was in 1824 raised to one-fourth; -and when Lord Durham reported, it was about two-fifths. -In his report Lord Durham referred to the matter as ‘a -source of great and increasing disputes’, which only -came to an end when the two provinces were once more -united under the Imperial Act of 1840.</p> - -<p>The Canada Act took effect on the 26th of December, -1791. Dorchester was then in England, and Sir Alured -Clarke, Lieutenant-Governor of the province of Quebec -under the old system and Commander of the Forces in -British North America, was acting for him. Under the <span class="sidenote">The position in Canada when the new Act came into force.</span> -new Act Clarke was appointed Lieutenant-Governor of -Lower Canada, while the Lieutenant-Governorship of -Upper Canada was conferred upon Colonel Simcoe, both -officers being subordinate to Dorchester as Governor-in-Chief. -Dorchester had left Canada on the 18th of August, -1791, and did not return till the 24th of September, -1793. His prolonged absence was unfortunate in more -ways than one. Technical difficulties arose owing to -the absence of the Governor-in-Chief, for, as soon as the -new Act came into force, Clarke’s authority was confined -by his commission to Lower Canada. The practical -effect too was that Simcoe started on his new charge -with a free hand and found it irksome, when Dorchester -returned, to take a second place. Added to this were -the complications caused by the French declaration -of war against Great Britain in February, 1793, the -hostilities between the United States and the Indian -tribes on the border land of Canada, and the persistent -and increasing bitterness in the United States against -Great Britain, caused partly by sympathy with the French -Revolution and the intrigues of French agents, and<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_272"></a>[272]</span> -partly by the British retention of the frontier forts and -supposed British sympathy with the Indians.</p> - -<p>However, the political arrangements in Canada were -carried into effect without any appreciable friction. -Clarke, a man of judgement and discretion, did not hurry -matters in Lower Canada. He divided the province -into electoral districts, and summoned the Legislature -for its first session at Quebec on the 17th of December, -1792, when the Act had been in force for nearly a year. -The session then lasted into May. Simcoe arrived at -Quebec on the 11th of November, 1791; but, as no -Executive Council had yet been constituted for Upper -Canada, he could not be sworn in as Lieutenant-Governor -and take up his duties until the following midsummer, -Upper Canada being in the meantime left without any -governor or lieutenant-governor. In July, 1792, he issued -a proclamation at Kingston, dividing Upper Canada into -districts, and on the 17th of September the new Legislature -met for the first time at Newark, on the Canadian side -of the Niagara river, near where that river flows into -Lake Ontario. The Lieutenant-Governor fixed his head -quarters at ‘Navy Hall’, a building constructed in the -late war for the use of the officers of the naval department -on Lake Ontario. It stood by the water’s edge, nearly -a mile higher up the river than Newark; and on the -bank above, in the war of 1812, covering the buildings -below, stood the historic Fort George. The session was -a short one, closing on the 15th of October, but important -work was done. English law and procedure, and trial -by jury, were established, while proposals for taxation -and the state of the marriage law gave a field for difference -of opinion and debate. When the session was over, -Simcoe reported that he found the members of the -Assembly ‘active and zealous for particular measures, -which were soon shown to be improper or futile’, and -the Council ‘cautious and moderate, a valuable check -upon precipitate measures’.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_273"></a>[273]</span><a id="FNanchor_205" href="#Footnote_205" class="fnanchor">[205]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Simcoe.</div> - -<p>John Graves Simcoe, the first Lieutenant-Governor -of Upper Canada, was the son of a naval officer who died -when serving under Admiral Saunders in the fleet which -helped to take Quebec. The son, who derived his second -name from another sailor, his godfather Admiral Graves, -was born in 1752. He was born in Northumberland, -but after his father’s death, his mother made her home -in Devonshire. He was educated at Exeter Grammar -School, at Eton, and at Merton College, Oxford, and he -joined the army in 1771, when he was nineteen years -old. He served with much distinction in the War of -Independence, in which he commanded a Loyalist Corps, -known as the Queen’s Rangers. When the war ended, -he held the rank of lieutenant-colonel. After his return -to England in bad health he spent some years at his -family home in Devonshire, he married, and in 1790 -became a member of Parliament, sitting for the borough -of St. Mawes in Cornwall. His Parliamentary career was -very short, for in 1791, before he was yet forty years of -age, Pitt appointed him to be Lieutenant-Governor of -Upper Canada. He left Canada in 1796, and soon after -he reached England he was sent out as Governor to St. -Domingo. After a few months in the island, the state -of his health compelled him to come home. He became -a lieutenant-general, and was appointed to be Commander-in-Chief -in India in succession to Lord Lake, but he never -took up the appointment. Prior to going out he was -sent to Lisbon in 1806 on a special mission, was taken -ill, and brought home to die. He died at Exeter in October, -1806. There is a monument to him by Flaxman in Exeter -Cathedral<a id="FNanchor_206" href="#Footnote_206" class="fnanchor">[206]</a>, and in Canada his name is borne by Lake -Simcoe.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_274"></a>[274]</span></p> - -<p>He was not only a good soldier, but a capable, vigorous, -public-spirited man, well suited in many ways to be -the pioneer governor of a new province. He was strong -on questions of military defence and a great road maker. -He made Yonge Street, the road from Toronto north -to Lake Simcoe, called after Sir George Yonge then -Secretary of State for War and afterwards for a short -time Governor of the Cape; and he made Dundas Street, -christened after the Secretary of State for the Colonies, -which then started from the point on Lake Ontario where -the city of Hamilton now stands and, running west, -connected with the river Thames.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">York or -Toronto.</div> - -<p>Toronto owed much to him, but not under its present -name. The name Toronto had been borne in old times -by Lake Simcoe, and on the site of the present city of -Toronto the French had in 1749<a id="FNanchor_207" href="#Footnote_207" class="fnanchor">[207]</a> built a fort, named -Fort Rouillé. The place had come to be known as -Toronto, but in 1792<a id="FNanchor_208" href="#Footnote_208" class="fnanchor">[208]</a> the new name of York came into -vogue, and in the autumn of the following year, 1793, -Simcoe reported that that name had been officially -adopted ‘with due celebrity’, in honour of the successful -storming of the French camp at Famars near Valenciennes -by the force under the command of the Duke<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_275"></a>[275]</span> -of York on the 23rd of May, 1793. It was not until -1834, when the city was incorporated, that the old name -of Toronto was restored. Simcoe wrote of Toronto <span class="sidenote">Simcoe’s views as to the seat of government for Upper Canada.</span> -Harbour as ‘the proper naval arsenal of Lake Ontario’; -but it was not here that he would have placed the seat -of government. Strongly convinced of the necessity of -opening communication between Lake Ontario and the -upper lakes, without making the long round by the -waters of Lake Erie and the Straits of Detroit, in 1793 -he explored the peninsula between the three lakes of -Ontario, Erie and Huron; and on a river, running -westward into Lake St. Clair, known at that date as the -La Tranche river and afterwards as the Thames<a id="FNanchor_209" href="#Footnote_209" class="fnanchor">[209]</a>, a place -which was christened London and where there is now -a city with 40,000 inhabitants, seemed to him to be the -most suitable site for the political centre of Upper Canada. -His view was that the seat of government should be -inland, presumably because it would be more central in -respect to the three lakes, and also because it would be -further removed from the danger of raids from the neighbouring -territory of the then unfriendly republic. It is -interesting to note that, in a dispatch expressing an opinion -to the above effect, Simcoe added that sooner or later -the Canadas might be divided into three instead of two -provinces and Montreal be made the centre of an intermediate -government. Dorchester held, as against Simcoe, -that Toronto should be the seat of government, and his -view prevailed. The Legislature of Upper Canada met -at Newark for the last time in May, 1796, shortly before -the fort of Niagara on the opposite side of the river was -handed over to the Americans,<a id="FNanchor_210" href="#Footnote_210" class="fnanchor">[210]</a> and from 1797 onwards, -Simcoe having left in the meanwhile, it met at Toronto.</p> - -<p>Before Dorchester returned to take up again the duties<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_276"></a>[276]</span> -of Governor-in-Chief, Simcoe had formed definite views <span class="sidenote">Friction between Dorchester and Simcoe.</span> -as to the civil administration and the military defence -of Upper Canada; and it is not surprising that the keen, -active-minded soldier and administrator, who was little -more than forty years of age, did not on all points see -eye to eye with the veteran governor now verging on -seventy; or that, when he differed, he was not inclined -to subordinate his opinions to those of Dorchester. Thus -we find Dorchester sending home correspondence with -Simcoe with the blunt remark that the enclosures turned -on the question whether he was to receive orders from -Simcoe or Simcoe from him. In his long official career -Dorchester had been much tried. At the time of the -War of Independence, he had been badly treated by his -employers in England and had felt to the full the mischief -and inconvenience caused when those employers divided -their confidence and communicated with one subordinate -officer and another, thereby encouraging disloyalty and -intrigue. The correspondence of these later years points -to the conclusion that the iron had entered into his soul -and that, with the weariness of age growing upon him, -he had become somewhat querulous, unduly apprehensive -of loss of authority, and over-sensitive to difference of -opinion. There seems to have been no love lost between -him and Dundas, while the latter was Secretary of State, -but all through the last stage of his career the key-note -was dread of divided authority.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Dorchester’s -views in -favour of -a Central -Legislature -and -a strong -Executive.</div> - -<p>We have seen that he had not favoured the policy of -dividing the province of Quebec into two provinces, and -that he had shown sympathy with Chief Justice Smith’s -proposals for establishing a general government for -British North America. In the summer of 1793, after -the Canada Act had come into force but while he was -still in England on leave, he raised again this question -of a central government for all the King’s provinces -in British North America, receiving an answer from -Dundas to the effect that the measure would require -a new Act of Parliament and that in Dundas’ opinion it<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_277"></a>[277]</span> -would not add to the real strength or happiness of the -different provinces. After his return to Canada Dorchester -took up his text again, laying stress on the necessity -of welding together the different provinces. In existing -conditions he saw a revival of the system which had -caused rebellion and the dismemberment of the Empire. -While the United States were pursuing a policy of consolidation, -the aim of the King’s Government seemed to -be to divide and sub-divide and form independent governments. -All power, he continued, was withdrawn from -the Governor-General, and instructions were sent directly -from home to inferior officers, so that the intermediate -authority was virtually superseded. Everything was -favourable to insubordination, and the fruits of it might -be expected at an early season. This was in February -1795, when the governor was smarting under what he -considered to be unjust censure by the Home Government; -and, though he remained in Canada for some -time longer, he continued to show, by the tone of his -dispatches, that he entirely disapproved of the existing -régime. In November, 1795, he wrote of ‘all command, -civil and military, being disorganized and without remedy’; -in the following May he wrote that ‘this unnatural -disorder in our political constitution, which alienates -every servant of the Crown from whoever administers the -King’s Government, leaving only an alternative still -more dangerous, that of offending the mass of the -people, cannot fail to enervate all the powers of the British -Empire on this Continent’; and in June he wrote, that -the old colonial system was being strengthened with -ruinous consequences.</p> - -<p>It is not easy to decide how much ground there was -for his complaints. If the situation was difficult, the -difficulty had partly arisen from the bad custom, of -which he had availed himself, of allowing governors and -other holders of posts in the colonies to remain for an -inordinate time at home while still retaining office and -receiving the pay attaching to it. At the very time when<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_278"></a>[278]</span> -he was most wanted in Canada to carry out the division -of the two provinces, and to make the central authority of -the Governor-in-Chief strongly felt from the first, he had -remained away for fully two years, thereby allowing the -new system to come into being and to make some progress -before there was any Governor-in-Chief on the spot. -Coming out to Canada he found the Lieutenant-Governors -corresponding direct with the Home Government, and -it was hardly reasonable to insist that they should be -debarred from doing so, provided that, as the Duke of -Portland, who succeeded Dundas, pointed out, the -Governor-in-Chief was supplied with copies of the correspondence. -An analogous case is that of Australia at -the present day. The governors of the separate states -correspond directly with the Colonial Office, sending -copies of important dispatches to the Governor-General -of the Commonwealth. Had Dorchester not been absent, <span class="sidenote">Relations of the Governor-in-Chief and Lieutenant-Governors.</span> -when Simcoe took up his appointment in Upper Canada, -and had his mind not been prejudiced by bitter memories -of the days of Germain, it is possible that friction might -not have arisen. On the other hand the limits of the -authority of the Governor-in-Chief and of the Lieutenant-Governors -in the British North American provinces seem -not to have been clearly defined, with the result that, -as years went on, the Governor-in-Chief gradually became -little more than Governor of Lower Canada, and the -Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada became, in civil -matters, governor of that province in all but the name. -When Lord Dalhousie was appointed Governor-in-Chief, -Sir Peregrine Maitland, then Lieutenant-Governor of -Upper Canada, asked the Secretary of State for a ruling -on the subject; and Lord Bathurst’s answer, dated the -9th of February, 1821, was that ‘So long as the Governor-in-Chief -is not resident within the province of Upper -Canada, and does not take the oaths of office in Upper -Canada, he has no control whatever over any part of the -civil administration, nor are you bound to comply with -his directions or to communicate with him on any act<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_279"></a>[279]</span> -of your civil government. To His Majesty you are alone -responsible for the conduct of the civil administration’. -If, on the other hand, the Governor-in-Chief were to take -up his residence in Upper Canada and be sworn into -office, the Secretary of State laid down that the functions -of the Lieutenant-Governor would be entirely suspended. -By this date, therefore, the two appointments had become -exclusive of each other. At a later date, when Lord -Durham was going out to Canada, Lord Glenelg, then -Secretary of State, emphasized still more strongly the independence -of the Lieutenant-Governors. When sending -Lord Durham his commission, he wrote on the 3rd of -April, 1838, of the position which the Governor-General -or Governor-in-Chief had up to that date held in regard -to the other provinces. ‘With the title of Governor-General, -he has, in fact, been Governor of the province of -Lower Canada only, and has been prohibited from resorting -to any of the other provinces, lest his presence should -supersede the authority of the respective Lieutenant-Governors, -to whose administration they have been -confided.... Hitherto it has not been the practice -to carry on official correspondence between the Governor-General -and any of the Lieutenant-Governors. The Governor-General -and the Lieutenant-Governors have severally -conducted their separate administrations as separate and -independent authorities, addressing all their communications -on public affairs to the head of this department, and -receiving from the Secretary of State alone instructions for -their guidance.’ The result of dividing Canada into two -provinces was necessarily to create two governors. One -was intended to be subordinate to the other, but the -subordination gradually became nominal only. The -political problems of Lower Canada were so difficult and -so important as to absorb the full time and attention of -the Governor-in-Chief; no railways or telegraphs facilitated -communication; and the British North American -provinces, instead of being controlled by a central executive -authority, for good or evil went their own way.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_280"></a>[280]</span></p> - -<p>It has been seen that during Dorchester’s first government, -he had experienced no little difficulty in dealing -with Livius, the contumacious Chief Justice of Quebec. -In the earlier period of his second government, he had, -on the contrary, a wise and loyal fellow worker in Chief -Justice Smith. Soon after the governor returned to -Canada for the last time, towards the end of 1793, Smith -died and his place was taken by Osgoode, the Chief -Justice of Upper Canada, who did not enjoy Dorchester’s -confidence to the same extent as his predecessor. But -Osgoode’s appointment was made the occasion for putting -into practice a reform which Dorchester, to his lasting <span class="sidenote">Dorchester’s opposition to fees and perquisites.</span> -honour, had urgently pressed upon the notice of the -Imperial Government, the abolition of fees and perquisites, -and the payment of judges and other public -officers by adequate salaries alone. Dorchester himself, -when he first took up the government of Canada in 1766, -had refused to take the fees to which he was legally -entitled; and in the last years of his Canadian service -he wrote on this subject in no measured terms. In a -dispatch dated the last day of December, 1793, and -written in connexion with the vacant chief justiceship, -he referred to the system of fees and perquisites as one -which ‘alienates every servant of the Crown from whoever -administers the King’s Government. This policy I consider -as coeval with His Majesty’s Governments in North -America, and the cause of their destruction. As its -object was not public but private advantage, so this -principle has been pursued with diligence, extending -itself unnoticed, till all authority and influence of government -on this continent was overcome, and the governors -reduced almost to mere corresponding agents, unable to -resist the pecuniary speculations of gentlemen in office, -their connexions and associates’. He added that whatever -tended to enfeeble the Executive power in British -North America tended to sever it for ever from the -Crown of Great Britain. Subsequent dispatches were -to the same effect. In June, 1795, he reported having<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_281"></a>[281]</span> -disallowed certain small claims by subordinate officers, -expressed regret that gentlemen in Britain should look -to America for a reward for their services, and laid down -that officers should be paid sufficient salaries to place -them above pecuniary speculations in the colonies. The -next month he wrote in the same strain with reference -to the Customs officials and the collection of revenue: -and a year later he again insisted that such officers -should not receive indirect emoluments, that the local -administration should not be warped and made subservient -to fees, profits, perquisites ‘and all their dirty -train’, and that the national interests should not be -sacrificed to gentlemen who possessed or were looking -out for good places for themselves and their connexions. -Running through the dispatches is insistence on the -principle that the Executive must be strong, that it -can be strong only if the officers are duly subordinate to -the representative of the Crown, that loyal subordination -can only be produced by paying proper salaries -and abolishing perquisites, and that the loss of the old -North American colonies had been largely due to abuses -which had lowered the dignity and the authority of -the Crown, alienating from it the confidence and the -affections of the people.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Dorchester -criticized -by -Dundas -for plain -speaking -as to the -Americans.</div> - -<p>The censure, if censure it can be called, which Dundas -had passed on Dorchester, and which caused the latter -to tender his resignation, was connected with the attitude -which Dorchester felt it necessary to take up towards -the United States after his return to Canada in the -autumn of 1793. The Treaty of 1783 had settled, or purported -to settle, the boundaries of Canada as against -the United States, but it had not settled the boundaries -of the United States as against the Indians, and the -Indians manfully maintained their right to the territory <span class="sidenote">War between the Americans and the Indians.</span> -north of the Ohio river. In November, 1791, an American -force under General St. Clair, who had commanded at -Ticonderoga at the time of Burgoyne’s advance, was -badly defeated in the Miami country to the south-west<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_282"></a>[282]</span> -of Lake Erie. The British Government and the Canadian -authorities made various efforts to mediate between -the contending parties, but the government of the United -States was not disposed to accept such mediation, though -British officers were asked to be present at conferences -which were held in the summer of 1793 between representatives -of the various Indian tribes and commissioners -of the United States. No result came from these negotiations, -the Indians demanding that the Ohio should be -the boundary, the Americans definitely refusing to -comply with the demand, and in the following year -fighting began again.</p> - -<p>The French Revolution had for some years been gathering -strength. In the autumn of 1792 France had been -declared a Republic; and the execution of the King <span class="sidenote">American sympathy with France.</span> -on the 21st of January, 1793, was followed on the 1st of -February by a declaration of war against Great Britain. -The French also declared war against Spain, the power -which now held New Orleans and Louisiana west of the -Mississippi. The position in North America became at -once very critical and very dangerous. Popular feeling -in the United States ran strongly in favour of France. -The Republicans of the New World were enthusiastic -for the people who had enabled them to gain their independence -and who, having put an end to monarchy in -France, were preparing to insist upon the adoption of a -Republican system elsewhere in Europe. Sympathy with -France in the United States implied enmity to England, -and Thomas Jefferson, Washington’s Secretary of State, -was pronounced on the side of the French alliance, representing -the views of the Republican party as opposed -to the Federalists, the latter being headed by Alexander -Hamilton and Jay and supported by the unrivalled -influence of Washington himself. On the 22nd of April, -1793, Washington—with popular feeling strongly against -him in the matter—issued a declaration of neutrality. -At the same time, Genet, sent from France as representative <span class="sidenote">Genet, French minister to the United States.</span> -of the new Republic, reached Charleston. With<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_283"></a>[283]</span> -complete disregard of international law, which, when the -French Revolution was at its height, had largely lost -its meaning, Genet proceeded to make the United States -a base for war against Great Britain and Spain, fitting -out privateers, sending agents to Canada, planning a -campaign against Louisiana. For some months the -popularity of his country and his cause, the unpopularity -of Great Britain, and the sympathy which Jefferson -the Secretary of State had with his views, enabled him, -in Washington’s words, to set the acts of the American -Government at defiance with impunity and to threaten -the Executive with an appeal to the people; but gradually -Washington’s firmness and the Frenchman’s own outrageous -pretensions had due effect; and, before a year -had passed, Genet was, early in 1794, on the demand of -the American Government, replaced by another minister.</p> - -<p>It was while the bitterness of feeling against England -in the United States was most intense that Dorchester <span class="sidenote">Danger of war between Great Britain and the United States.</span> -returned to Canada. St. Clair had been replaced in -command on the Ohio frontier by General Anthony -Wayne, a soldier who had proved his worth in the War -of Independence, a man of strong words and actions, -and war seemed to be imminent. ‘Soon after my return to -America,’ Dorchester wrote in the following year, ‘I perceived <span class="sidenote">Dorchester’s views.</span> -a very different spirit’ (from that of the British -Government) ‘animate the United States, much heat -and enmity, extraordinary exertions, some open some -covert, to inflame the passions of the people, all things -moving as by French impulse rapidly towards hostilities, -and the King’s Government of Lower Canada in danger -of being overwhelmed, so that I considered a rupture as -inevitable.’ Yet, as he said, he knew well that the -British Government were anxious to maintain friendship -and peace with the United States; there was no -private inclination of his own to the contrary; nor, if -there was, had he any force in Canada to back his views. -In a previous dispatch, which was dated the 25th of -October, 1793, almost immediately after his return,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_284"></a>[284]</span> -after having pointed out the likelihood of war and the -necessity for reinforcements, he had written, ‘The interests -of the King’s American dominions require peace, and -I think the interests of the States require it still more, -though their conduct both to us and the Indians has -created many difficulties.’ He looked, he added, to -a great future for the States and for the white race -generally in North America, but not through war. ‘Not -war, but a pure and impartial administration of justice -under a mild, firm and wise government will establish -the most powerful and wealthy people.’</p> - -<p>Dorchester then was wholly averse to war; but being -on the spot he saw more clearly than ministers in England -that, the people of the United States being minded for -war, want of preparation and appearance of timidity -on the British side were likely to bring it on, that -plain speaking and firm action might have a good effect. <span class="sidenote">His firm attitude towards the United States.</span> -Simcoe, who was responsible under him for the frontier of -Upper Canada, seems to have been of the same mind. -Accordingly, in replying to two Indian deputations, one -in the autumn of 1793, the other on the 10th of February, -1794, Dorchester took occasion to speak out, condemning -the aggression of the United States which, he said, had -nearly exhausted the patience of Great Britain, and -referring to war between the two nations as imminent. -At the same time, as a counterblast to Wayne’s advance -in the Ohio territories, and as an outpost in the case of -a movement against Detroit, he ordered a fort to be -constructed and garrisoned on what were called the -Miami rapids on the Maumee river, south-west of Lake -Erie, near the site where a fort had been constructed -and held during the War of Independence. Copies, or -what purported to be copies, of the governor’s speeches, <span class="sidenote">Protest of the American Government against Dorchester.</span> -and reports of his action, reached the American Government -in due course, and Randolph, who had succeeded -Jefferson, protested, characterizing them as ‘hostility -itself’. In view of this protest Dundas, in July, 1794, -by which time Jay, Washington’s emissary of peace,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_285"></a>[285]</span> -had arrived in England, addressed a mild remonstrance to -Dorchester, expressing fear that what had been said and -done might rather provoke hostilities than prevent them; -and upon receipt of this dispatch in the following September -Dorchester tendered his resignation. The Duke of Portland, -who succeeded Dundas, was at pains to retain the old -governor’s services, but, though nearly two years intervened -before Dorchester actually left Canada, the correspondence <span class="sidenote">Dorchester’s resignation.</span> -which passed in the interval showed his -anxiety to be gone, now that the danger of war between -Great Britain and the United States had for the moment -passed away.</p> - -<p>The most critical time was in the year 1794. In -America the forces which make for war were strongly -in evidence. On the other side of the Atlantic—to the -lasting credit of both the British and the American -Governments—representatives of the two countries were -working hard for peace. In the spring of 1794 Washington -nominated John Jay, Chief Justice of the United States, -to be a special envoy to Great Britain with a view to -settling, if possible, the outstanding points of dispute -between the two nations. The Senate confirmed the -nomination, and in June Jay reached England and entered -into negotiations with Lord Grenville. The result was -that on the 19th of November following Jay and Grenville <span class="sidenote">Jay’s treaty signed.</span> -signed the well-known treaty which is associated with -the American statesman’s name, and which provided -for an immediate or prospective settlement of many -if not of most of the questions at issue. The treaty -was bitterly attacked in the United States by the Republican -party and those who sympathized with France. -Jay, Hamilton, even Washington himself were denounced -and reviled; but the government had sufficient backing -in the country to procure the assent of the Senate to the -terms of the treaty, with the exception of one article, -in the session of 1795; Washington ratified it in August, -1795; and in the following year the measures for carrying <span class="sidenote">The border forts transferred to the United States in 1796.</span> -it into effect were voted by a small majority in the House<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_286"></a>[286]</span> -of Representatives. Under its provisions, in that same -year, 1796, the border forts were handed over to the -United States.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Wayne -defeats -the -Indians.</div> - -<p>Meanwhile the war between the Americans and Indians -ran the normal course of such wars. The white men -suffered some reverses; but, with a strong body of -regular troops supplemented by Kentucky militia, and -with the help of fortified posts constructed along the line -of advance, Wayne by August, 1794, had worn down the -Indians and menaced the British fort on the Maumee -river, to whose commandant, Major Campbell, he addressed -threatening letters. On either side, however, the orders -were to abstain from blows, while Jay and Grenville -were negotiating, and the conclusion of the treaty ensured -the abandonment by the British troops of this outpost -of Detroit as well as of Detroit itself. Next year, on -the 3rd of August, 1795, Wayne concluded the Treaty of -Greenville with the Western Indians. Under its terms the -Americans advanced their boundary beyond the Ohio, -but still left to the Indians on the south of Lake Erie -and in the peninsula of Michigan lands of which the -treaty definitely recognized them to be owners, and where -they were to dwell under the protection of the United -States.</p> - -<p>In September, 1795, the Duke of Portland wrote to -Lord Dorchester telling him that General Prescott would <span class="sidenote">Dorchester and Simcoe leave Canada.</span> -be appointed Lieutenant-Governor of Lower Canada and -would leave for Canada in the spring, so that Dorchester -could suit his own convenience as to returning to England. -At the same time the Secretary of State repeated his -regret that Dorchester had determined to retire. Prescott -arrived on the 18th of June, 1796, and on the 9th of July -Dorchester embarked for England. His ship was wrecked -on the shore of Anticosti island, but he reached England in -safety in September, and died in a good old age in the -autumn of 1808. Simcoe, in the meantime, had, in -December, 1795, applied for leave of absence on account -of ill health, suggesting that Peter Russell, the senior<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_287"></a>[287]</span> -councillor, should in his absence administer the government -of Upper Canada, and tendering his resignation if -the leave could not be granted. His wish was complied -with, and, after being detained for some time at Quebec, -he came back with the returning ships of the autumn -convoy and was in London in 1796, two months after -Dorchester’s arrival. Canada saw him no more, and, as -has been told, he died at a comparatively early age, -outlived by the old Governor-in-Chief whose control had -fretted his impetuous spirit.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Lord -Dorchester’s -services -to Great -Britain -and -Canada.</div> - -<p>In the colonial history of Great Britain Lord Dorchester’s -place is or ought to be second to none. Men should -be measured by the times in which they live, the lands -in which they serve, the conditions which they are called -upon to face. It did not fall to Carleton’s lot to be -borne on the flowing tide of British victories, to be a -leader in successful wars, to be remembered as one who -struck down England’s foes and added provinces to her -empire. Nor was it given to him to bear rule in times -of settled peace, when wisdom and statesmanship are -called on to gather in and store the harvest, to consolidate, -to develop, to reform, to enrich, to give security and -beneficent measures to trusting and expectant multitudes -of the human race. Providence set the span of his -active life while his country’s fortunes were running -out on the ebb-tide of adversity; his public services were -coincident with Great Britain’s depression; and the -part of the Empire in which he served was the scene of -her defeats. No men of good English type cheered and -supported him at home, the patriotism which inspired -his life was unknown alike to the ministers who preceded -William Pitt and to an Opposition which, as embodied -in Fox, lost all sense of proportion, and almost all sense -of duty, or principle. Yet he held Quebec and saved -Canada. Men turned to him to gather up the fragments -after the War of Independence; and he reconciled -French Canada to British rule and held the balance -even between conflicting races and creeds. Open warfare,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_288"></a>[288]</span> -political intrigue, in every form and from every -quarter, from without and from within, beset his path. -Those he served and those by whom he was served were -in turn disloyal to him. Colonial questions, such as in -times of profound peace and goodwill, and after generations -of experience, are yet almost insoluble, confronted him, -without precedent, without guidance, in their most uncompromising -form. He faced them, and through all the -mire and mud in which England and English civilians and -soldiers and sailors wallowed in these miserable years, -he carried one name at any rate which stood for dignity, -uprightness, and firm prescient statesmanship. It is not -to the credit of English memories or English perception -that his name has outside Canada passed into comparative -oblivion. If ever a man had temptation to despair of or -be untrue to his country, and if ever a man’s character -and work redeemed his country and his country’s cause in -unworthy times, that man was Carleton.</p> - -<p>A great figure in the colonial history of Great Britain -as a whole, in the history of Canada he is very great -indeed. His character is poles apart from that of old -Count Frontenac, and yet he filled in some sort a similar -place. Both were soldier-governors; both came back -to rule a second time; in either case the individual -personality of a firm masterful man was the saving feature -of a time of life and death for the colony. Carleton -had none of Frontenac’s ruthlessness and arrogance, he -had not his French quick wit; but either man in his -turn, the one at the end of the seventeenth century, -the other towards the end of the eighteenth, was in the -fullest sense the saviour of Canada.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">General -Prescott -succeeds -Dorchester.</div> - -<p>Dorchester did not actually cease to be Governor-in-Chief -of Canada until the end of April, 1797, some months -after his return to England. He was then succeeded -in the office by Prescott, who in the meantime had been -Lieutenant-Governor of Lower Canada and Commander-in-Chief -of the British forces in North America, having -been sworn in at Quebec on the 12th of July, 1796.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_289"></a>[289]</span> -Robert Prescott, of Lancashire descent, was an old man -when he was sent to Canada. Born in 1725, he was -seventy-one years of age, only one year younger than -Dorchester. He was a Lieutenant-General in the army -and had seen much fighting, principally in North America -and the West Indies. He had served under Amherst -and Wolfe, at Louisbourg and Quebec. He had fought -in the War of American Independence and been present -at the battle of Brandywine. In 1794 he was in command -of the force which took Martinique from the French and, -as civil governor of the island, he earned the goodwill -of French and natives alike by his tact and humanity.<a id="FNanchor_211" href="#Footnote_211" class="fnanchor">[211]</a> -Thus he had a good record when he was chosen to succeed -Lord Dorchester, and, though his rule in Canada was -short and stormy, when he left, there was abundant -evidence of his popularity.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Intrigues -of the -French -minister -in the -United -States -against -Canada.</div> - -<p>Before his arrival in 1796, and at the time, Adet the -French minister in the United States, was making mischief -like his predecessor Genet, intriguing against Washington’s -policy of strict neutrality as between France and Great -Britain, and almost openly inciting the French Canadians -to revolt. He over-reached himself, however, by supporting -Jefferson’s candidature for the Presidency of the -United States in succession to Washington, with the result -that he was recalled. Jefferson’s opponent, John -Adams, was elected President; and the feeling between -France and the United States became strained to the -verge of war between the two nations. The French -designs on Canada came to nothing. A man named -Maclane, said to have been of weak intellect, was executed -for high treason at Quebec, and a vessel was seized -containing arms, ostensibly for the state of Vermont, -but, as the evidence seemed to show, designed for use -in a raid from Vermont on Canada. There was no -actual danger, but there was anxiety and unrest. England -was at war with France; Lower Canada was the child of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_290"></a>[290]</span> -France; the United States contained a strong and -very bitter anti-English party; and the armed forces -in Canada were almost a negligible quantity. At this -same critical time Prescott became involved in a quarrel -with his Executive Council over the land question.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The land -question -in -Canada. -Prescott -quarrels -with his -Executive -Council.</div> - -<p>A proclamation advertising Crown lands for settlement -in Canada, which was issued in 1792, had called forth -a large number of applications. Surveys had not kept -pace with the demand for allotments, and the result -had been that many applicants whose petitions had been -entertained had not actually taken up any land, while -others had settled and occupied land without having any -legal title. As is usual in such cases, land-jobbing was -prevalent; and Prescott, according to his own account, -was at pains at once to frustrate ‘great schemes for accumulating -land on principles of monopoly and speculation’, -and to raise the fund which the Imperial Government had -hoped to derive from this source for defraying in part -the cost of civil administration. Prescott’s view, it -would seem, was that those who had actually become -occupiers and begun the work of settlement, should be -confirmed in their lands in full; that, where applications -had been recorded but no work done, the allotments -should only be confirmed in part; that purchasers of -claims should be dealt with on their merits, and that, -the outstanding claims having been disposed of, the -lands, with the exception of reserves for the Crown and -the clergy, should be put up for sale at public auction. -His Council strongly opposed him, on the ground that -he was giving preference to those who had occupied land -without having been granted any legal title, and that -public sale would bring in a crowd of interlopers from -the United States who would take up the land to the -exclusion of Loyalists who had the first claim on the -British Government. Prescott formed the view, rightly -or wrongly, that various members of the Council were -concerned in land-jobbing, and he held that public -sale was the only real preventive of speculation. ‘Industrious<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_291"></a>[291]</span> -farmers,’ he wrote, ‘who would wish to obtain -a grant for the purpose of actual settlement, but who -cannot spend their time in tedious solicitation, stand -little chance of obtaining it, compared with speculators -who can devote their time to the attainment of this object. -By disposing of the land at public sale, industrious -farmers would have an equal chance with any other -competitor.’</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Benedict -Arnold’s -claims.</div> - -<p>The case of Benedict Arnold, though it did not apparently -enter into the controversy, as he was in England -at the time, illustrates the extravagant claims which -were put forward to land grants in Canada. At the -beginning of 1797 he wrote to the Duke of Portland, -calling attention to the sacrifices which he had made for -the British Government, and asking for a reward in the -shape of a grant of lands in Canada. A year later he -defined his demand. He stated that the usual grant -was 5,000 acres to each field officer and 1,200 acres for -every member of his family; in his own case, therefore, -as his family consisted of a wife, six sons and a daughter, -the total would amount to 14,600 acres; but, as he had -raised and commanded what he called a legion of cavalry -and infantry, he considered that he himself was entitled -to 10,000 acres instead of 5,000, making up the total -to 19,600 acres. Even this amount he had amplified in a -previous petition to the King, and he wished to be -allowed to select the land where he pleased and not to -be compelled to reside upon it personally.</p> - -<p>If Arnold’s claims were at all typical of others, it is -not to be wondered at that Prescott took a strong line -on the land question, with a view to putting a stop to -speculation. The controversy which arose between himself -and his Council was embittered by the course which -he adopted of making public their proceedings. Chief -Justice Osgoode and other members of the Council -ranged themselves in opposition to him; and the state -of feeling was well summed up in the words of a correspondent, -writing from Quebec in August, 1798, that the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_292"></a>[292]</span> -Council must either get a new governor or the governor -a new Council. The Duke of Portland, Secretary of State, <span class="sidenote">Prescott recalled.</span> -preferred the former alternative. On the 10th of April, -1799, he ordered Prescott home. Robert Shore Milnes -was sent out as Lieutenant-Governor of Lower Canada, -and General Hunter as Lieutenant-Governor of Upper -Canada. They reached Quebec on the 13th of June, and <span class="sidenote">Milnes and Hunter appointed Lieutenant-Governors of Lower and Upper Canada respectively.</span> -on the 29th of July Prescott sailed for England, having -received before he left addresses of confidence from all -classes, British and French residents combining to pay -honour to him, as a man, who, whatever his faults may -have been, had won the respect and esteem of the people. -By the evil custom of those days, though recalled from -Canada, he was allowed to retain for years in England -the office of Governor-General and to receive -the pay.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Close of -the eighteenth -century.</div> - -<p>Thus the eighteenth century came to an end, that -memorable century, in all parts of the world fruitful -alike for good and for evil to the British Empire, but -nowhere so fruitful as in North America. It had seen -New France severed from its motherland. It had seen -the rival British colonies severed from Great Britain. -It had seen the beginnings of an English province in -Canada side by side with the French, and the grant of -the first instalment of political privileges to Canadians -of either race. The maritime provinces, when the -century closed, were four in number, Nova Scotia, New -Brunswick, which owed its separate existence to the -incoming of the Loyalists, Cape Breton, which was later -to be incorporated with Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward -Island. The North-West was beginning to be a factor -in Canadian history, and the exclusive power of the -Hudson’s Bay Company in these regions was challenged -by the formation of the North-West Company. Canada -was still the land of the St. Lawrence and the great lakes, -but light was breaking into the limitless area beyond, -and as men’s visions widened, there came more movement -and more unrest.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_293"></a>[293]</span></p> - -<p>We have no regular census of the two Canadas between -the year 1790, when there was an imperfect enumeration -of the inhabitants of the then undivided province, and -the years 1824-5; but in 1800 the Lieutenant-Governor -estimated the population of Lower Canada at 160,000, -while in 1806 an estimate of 250,000 is given from -another source, the population of Upper Canada in the -same year being estimated at 70,000. That at the end -of the century Lower Canada was politically and socially -in a state of transition is shown by an interesting dispatch -from Milnes written on the 1st of November, 1800,<a id="FNanchor_212" href="#Footnote_212" class="fnanchor">[212]</a> -in which, like his predecessors, he laid stress on the -necessity for taking steps to strengthen the Executive <span class="sidenote">Milnes’ views as to strengthening the Executive.</span> -Government. He pointed out causes which in his opinion -united ‘in daily lessening the power and influence of -the Aristocratical Body in Lower Canada’; and, curiously -enough, he considered the first and most important of -these to be the manner in which the province was originally <span class="sidenote">Independence of the Canadian habitants.</span> -settled, and the independent tenure by which the -cultivators or habitants held their lands. The feudal -system had been introduced with a view to keeping -the colonists in leading strings, and reproducing -in the New World a form of society based upon the -fundamental principle of a landed aristocracy. Yet -this English governor wrote of the habitants at the end -of the eighteenth century, that ‘there cannot be a more -independent race of people, nor do I believe there is in -any part of the world a country in which equality -of situation is so nearly established’. The land had -passed into the hands of the peasants from those of the -seigniors, who retained only the old-time privileges of a <span class="sidenote">Decay of the Canadian aristocracy.</span> -trifling rent, taking a fourteenth of the corn which the -habitants were still bound to grind at the seigniors’ mills, -and a twelfth of the purchase-money when lands were -transferred. The seigniors, the dispatch stated, showed no -disposition to enter into trade; their position had in many<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_294"></a>[294]</span> -instances sunk below that of their vassals; and, taken as -a whole, the Canadian gentry had nearly become extinct.</p> - -<p>The second cause to which Milnes attributed the -weakness of the government was ‘the prevalence of the -Roman Catholic religion and the independence of the <span class="sidenote">Independence of the Roman Catholic Church.</span> -priesthood’. The Royal Instructions were that no one -should be admitted to Holy Orders or have the Cure -of Souls without first obtaining a licence from the -governor; but the instructions had not been enforced, -and the whole patronage of the Roman Catholic Church -had passed into the hands of the bishops, with the -result that the power of the priests over the people was -entirely independent of the government. This evil Milnes -proposed to remedy by increasing the emoluments which -the head of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada -received from government funds, on condition that the -rule requiring the governor’s licences for the parish -priests was strictly observed in future.</p> - -<p>The third cause which was mentioned as tending to -lessen the influence of the government, was the practical -disembodiment of the militia since Canada had passed <span class="sidenote">Disuse of the militia.</span> -under British rule. Under the old French dominion the -government had made itself felt in the various parishes -through the captains of militia and the parish priests, -and the captains of militia had been employed to issue -and enforce the public ordinances. They were, Milnes -wrote, chosen from among the most respectable of the -habitants; and though the militia had not been called -out for years past and he did not propose to call it out, -the captains of militia were still in existence and the -government availed itself of their honorary services on -public occasions. He suggested that they should be -given some salary or distinction so that they might -consider themselves to be ‘the immediate officers of the -Crown’; and thus he hoped to keep up the spirit of -loyalty among the Canadian people, which ‘for want of -an immediate class to whom they can look up, and from -their having no immediate connexion with the Executive<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_295"></a>[295]</span> -power, is in danger of becoming extinct’.<a id="FNanchor_213" href="#Footnote_213" class="fnanchor">[213]</a> By attaching -to the government the parish priests and the captains of -militia, it might be possible to ensure a government -majority in the House of Assembly and to secure the -election of educated and businesslike representatives, -whereas the main body of the Canadian habitants were, -‘from their want of education and extreme simplicity, -liable to be misled by designing and artful men’.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -Crown -Lands.</div> - -<p>These proposals the Lieutenant-Governor regarded as -temporary remedies. For the future, he looked to increasing -the influence of the Crown by means of the revenue -from waste lands, and the settlement of those lands by -‘a body of people of the Protestant religion that will -naturally feel themselves more immediately connected -with the English Government’. In the mind of Milnes, -as in that of Dorchester, there was a fixed conviction -that matters were tending to democracy, as democracy -had shown itself in the adjoining republic; that such -democracy meant disintegration; that the influence of -the Crown and of the Executive Government was declining -and would continue to decline, unless measures were -taken to counteract the evil. He held to the doctrine -that well-wishers of the government should think it matter -for congratulation that there was an annual deficit on -the budget of Lower Canada,<a id="FNanchor_214" href="#Footnote_214" class="fnanchor">[214]</a> which made the province -dependent upon the Imperial Government.</p> - -<p>The records of the time show that in every respect -the close of the eighteenth and the beginning of the <span class="sidenote">The close of the eighteenth century was for Canada a time of transition and division.</span> -nineteenth century was for Canada a time of division -and a time of change, though not yet of dangerous bitterness. -There were two provinces instead of one. There -were two Lieutenant-Governors, independent of each -other, while the Governor-in-Chief, recalled to England,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_296"></a>[296]</span> -was still holding his post and drawing his pay. There -were elected Assemblies, to which the Executive was not -responsible, and the new century opened in Upper Canada -with a complaint that the Lieutenant-Governor had spent -money raised from the taxes without previously obtaining -a vote of the Legislature. There was a suggestion of -difficulties arising from the fact that military and civil -authority for the time was divided. An interesting -anonymous letter written from Quebec on the 28th of -July, 1806, and signed ‘Mercator’, called attention to -this point, alleging that, since Prescott’s recall in 1799, -Lower Canada had languished owing to the fact that -civil and military powers were not in the same hands. -The result, in the writer’s opinion, was jealousy between -the civil and military departments, weakening of the -energy of government and loss of dignity. ‘The Canadians’ -he wrote, ‘a military people and always accustomed -to a military government, hold not in sufficient -estimation a person placed at the head of affairs who does -not at the same time command the troops.’<a id="FNanchor_215" href="#Footnote_215" class="fnanchor">[215]</a></p> - -<p>There was again undoubted division between the -Judicial and the Executive power. Chief Justice Osgoode -in Lower Canada was not at one with either Dorchester, -Prescott, or Milnes; while in Upper Canada, in the -years 1806-7, a judge of the name of Thorpe became -a member of the elected Assembly and was so outrageous -in his opposition to the government that he was by -Lord Castlereagh’s instructions suspended from his office. -The Church of England bishop found cause to deplore -the overshadowing pretensions of the Roman Catholic -Church. The Roman Catholic dignitaries, on the other -hand, asked for formal recognition of their position by -the civil government. There was a movement, strongly -advocated by the Church of England bishop, for more -and better education, both primary and secondary, so -that the French Canadian children might learn English,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_297"></a>[297]</span> -and the children of the upper classes might be educated -without being sent to Europe or to the United States. -The Secretary of State authorized free schools on the -express condition that English should be taught in them, -and directed that part of the Crown Lands revenues should -be set aside for the purpose. There was also a strong -feeling that the Jesuit estates, which long ago had been -granted by the King to Lord Amherst but had never -been handed over to him, should be applied to education. -But no general system of state education was established—probably -owing to Roman Catholic feeling; and, -as against the proposal to teach English to the coming -generation, there came into being in 1806 a French -Canadian newspaper, <i>Le Canadien</i>, with the motto, ‘Nos -institutions, notre langue et nos lois.’ Nothing in short -was settled in Canada. Once more it was to be shown -that pressure from without was necessary to produce -full co-operation within; and, badly equipped as the -two provinces were with means of defence, war was yet -to be to them a blessing in disguise, as bringing them a -step further on the path of national development.</p> - -<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_189" href="#FNanchor_189" class="label">[189]</a> In the interval the government was administered (i) from the -date of Haldimand’s departure till November 2, 1785, by Henry -Hamilton; (ii) from the latter date till Dorchester’s arrival, by Colonel -Hope. The command of the troops was at first separated from the -acting governorship, and placed in the hands of St. Leger. Hamilton, -who during the war had come into notice as having been in command -of the expedition to the Illinois posts in 1779, when he was taken -prisoner by George Rogers Clark, subsequently proved to be unfit to -act as governor, and was summarily recalled.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_190" href="#FNanchor_190" class="label">[190]</a> The Commission given to Carleton as Governor-in-Chief of Nova -Scotia constituted him also Governor-in-Chief of the islands of St. John -(now Prince Edward Island) and Cape Breton; but, though the terms -of the Commission are not very clear, those two islands were at the -time separate both from Nova Scotia and from each other.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_191" href="#FNanchor_191" class="label">[191]</a> See the <i>Parliamentary History</i>, vol. xxvi, pp. 190-5.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_192" href="#FNanchor_192" class="label">[192]</a> See the <i>Censuses of Canada</i> 1665-1871, given in the fourth volume -of the <i>Census of Canada</i>, 1870-1, published in 1876. Introduction -pp. xxxviii-xliii, and p. 74. On p. 74 is the following note: ‘The -number of settlers of British origin then in Lower Canada was estimated -at 15,000 souls. The United Empire Loyalists settled in Canada West, -not enumerated in this census, were estimated at 10,000 souls.’ On -p. xxxviii, under the year 1784, it is stated:</p> - -<p>‘There were at that time (1784) in Upper Canada about 10,000 -United Empire Loyalists, according to a memorandum contained in the -Appendices of the <i>House of Assembly of Upper Canada</i> for 1823. -These 10,000 are not included in the preceding census.</p> - -<p>‘1784 British population of Nova Scotia, including Cape Breton -and the mainland, estimated at 32,000 souls, having been increased -by the arrival of about 20,000 United Empire Loyalists (Haliburton, -<i>Nova Scotia</i>, vol. ii, p. 275). This estimate of the population of Nova -Scotia, which still included New Brunswick and Cape Breton, cannot -include the Acadians, who then numbered in all about 11,000.’</p> - -<p>For the numbers of the United Empire Loyalists, see last chapter. -The figures relating to this time are, in most cases, probably little -more than guesswork.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_193" href="#FNanchor_193" class="label">[193]</a> When the office of Secretary of State for the American Department -was abolished by Burke’s Act of 1782, colonial matters were -placed under the Secretary of State for the Home Department. This -office was in 1787 held by Lord Sydney, who was succeeded by W. W. -Grenville, youngest son of George Grenville, and afterwards Lord -Grenville. When Grenville was raised to the peerage and became -Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he was succeeded in the Home -and Colonies Department by Dundas, afterwards Lord Melville, and -Dundas was succeeded by the Duke of Portland.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_194" href="#FNanchor_194" class="label">[194]</a> See above, pp. 105-6.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_195" href="#FNanchor_195" class="label">[195]</a> See above, pp. 88 (note) and 193.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_196" href="#FNanchor_196" class="label">[196]</a> For these petitions see Mr. Brymner’s <i>Introductory Report on -Canadian Archives</i>, 1890, pp. xxi-ii and pp. 146, 150, 157 of the -Calendar, and see Shortt and Doughty, <i>Documents Relating to the -Constitutional History of Canada</i>, pp. 502-5, 524-7.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_197" href="#FNanchor_197" class="label">[197]</a> See Shortt and Doughty, pp. 520-4 and notes; and Debrett’s -<i>Parliamentary Debates</i>, vol. xx (1786), pp. 132-49. The statement -that two years had passed since the petition was presented was not -strictly correct, as the petition was dated November 24, 1784.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_198" href="#FNanchor_198" class="label">[198]</a> See Shortt and Doughty, p. 652, note, and Debrett’s <i>Parliamentary -Debates</i>, vol. xxiii (1787-8), pp. 684-707.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_199" href="#FNanchor_199" class="label">[199]</a> In 1789, Hugh Finlay, Postmaster-General of the province and -member of council, wrote suggesting that ‘We might make the people -entirely English by introducing the English language. This is to be -done by free schools, and by ordaining that all suits in our courts -shall be carried on in English after a certain number of years’. See -Shortt and Doughty, p. 657. He anticipated to some extent Lord -Durham’s views.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_200" href="#FNanchor_200" class="label">[200]</a> The correspondence is given in full in Mr. Brymner’s <i>Report on -Canadian Archives</i> for 1890, Note B, p. 10. See also Shortt and -Doughty, <i>Documents Relating to the Constitutional History of Canada</i>, -1759-91, and Egerton and Grant, <i>Canadian Constitutional Developments</i>.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_201" href="#FNanchor_201" class="label">[201]</a> Compare the very similar language used by Carleton in a private -memorandum written in 1786 and quoted in note 3, p. 551, Shortt -and Doughty.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_202" href="#FNanchor_202" class="label">[202]</a> No. 46 in ‘Papers relative to the province of Quebec ordered to -be printed April 21, 1791’. The Order in Council is referred to in -Lord Dorchester’s Commission as having been made on August 19, -1791; but that was the date on which the report was made upon -which the Order was based. The boundary line sketched out in the -Parliamentary Paper, and adopted almost word for word in the Order -in Council, was again adopted by Sec. 6 of the British North America -Act of 1867, when the Dominion was formed and the provinces of -Ontario and Quebec, i.e. Upper and Lower Canada, were, after having -been re-united by the Act of 1840, again separated from each other.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_203" href="#FNanchor_203" class="label">[203]</a> 18 Geo. III, cap. 12: ‘An Act for removing all doubts and apprehensions -concerning taxation by the Parliament of Great Britain in -any of the colonies, provinces, and plantations in North America and -the West Indies, &c.’ The preamble ran as follows: ‘Whereas taxation -by the Parliament of Great Britain, for the purpose of raising -a revenue in H.M.’s colonies, provinces and plantations in North -America, has been found by experience to occasion great uneasiness -and disorders among H.M.’s faithful subjects, who may nevertheless -be disposed to acknowledge the justice of contributing to the common -defence of the Empire, provided such contribution should be raised -under the authority of the general court or general assembly of each -respective colony.’</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_204" href="#FNanchor_204" class="label">[204]</a> The above statement represents the general effect and intent of -the Act, but a long and complicated controversy arose subsequently -as to the disposal of the taxes raised under the Imperial Act of 1774 -(14 Geo. III, cap. 88), ‘to establish a fund towards further defraying -the charges of the Administration of Justice and support of the Civil -Government within the Province of Quebec in America.’ It was -contended that the effect of the Declaratory Act of 1778, together -with the Constitution Act of 1791, was to hand over the proceeds of -these taxes to be disposed of by the provincial legislatures. The -contention had no real basis, and the Law officers of the Crown reported -it to be unfounded, but eventually, by an Act of 1831 (1 and 2 Will. IV, -cap. 23), the legislatures of the two Canadas were empowered to appropriate -the revenues in question.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_205" href="#FNanchor_205" class="label">[205]</a> <i>Report on Canadian Archives</i>, 1891; <i>State Papers, Upper Canada</i>, p. 16.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_206" href="#FNanchor_206" class="label">[206]</a> The monument is in the North Choir aisle. The inscription runs -as follows:</p> - -<p>‘Sacred to the memory of John Graves Simcoe, Lieutenant-General -in the army and Colonel of the 22nd regiment of Foot, who died on -the 26th day of October, 1806, aged 54, in whose life and character -the virtues of the Hero, the Patriot, and the Christian were so eminently -conspicuous that it may be justly said he served his King and his -country with a zeal exceeded only by his piety towards his God.</p> - -<p>‘During the erection of this monument, his eldest son, Francis -Gwillim Simcoe, lieutenant of the 27th regiment of Foot, born at -Wolford Lodge in this county, June 6, 1791, fell in the breach at -the siege of Badajoz, April 6, 1812, in the 21st year of his age.’</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_207" href="#FNanchor_207" class="label">[207]</a> See vol. v, part 1, of the <i>Historical Geography of the British Colonies</i>, -p. 196 and note.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_208" href="#FNanchor_208" class="label">[208]</a> Bouchette wrote of York or Toronto in 1815: ‘In the year 1793, -the spot on which it stands presented only one solitary Indian wigwam; -in the ensuing spring the ground for the future metropolis of -Upper Canada was fixed upon, and the buildings commenced under -the immediate superintendence of the late General Simcoe, then -Lieutenant-Governor.’ <i>A Topographical description of the Province of -Lower Canada, with remarks upon Upper Canada, &c.</i>, by Joseph -Bouchette, Surveyor-General of Lower Canada (1st ed.), London, 1815, -pp. 607-8.</p> - -<p>According to this account, therefore, the building did not begin -till 1794.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_209" href="#FNanchor_209" class="label">[209]</a> The name of the Thames had been previously for a short time -given to another Canadian river, the Gananoque. See Shortt and -Doughty, p. 651 and note.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_210" href="#FNanchor_210" class="label">[210]</a> Writing in February, 1796, Simcoe stated that the Legislature -would meet at Niagara (Newark) on May 7, but that he proposed to -dissolve the House of Assembly before the fort was evacuated.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_211" href="#FNanchor_211" class="label">[211]</a> Similarly Sir George Prevost was very popular in St. Lucia when -he was commandant and governor in that island, 1798-1802.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_212" href="#FNanchor_212" class="label">[212]</a> This dispatch is printed on pp. 111-21 of <i>Canadian Constitutional -Development</i> (Grant and Egerton).</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_213" href="#FNanchor_213" class="label">[213]</a> Cp. the similar views expressed by Carleton at an earlier date. See -pp. 91-4 above.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_214" href="#FNanchor_214" class="label">[214]</a> The average annual revenue of Lower Canada for the five years -1795-9 inclusive was calculated at £13,000, p. a., of which only £1,500 -was derived from Crown Lands, and the average annual expenditure -at £25,000, leaving an annual deficit of £12,000.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_215" href="#FNanchor_215" class="label">[215]</a> Brymner’s <i>Report on Canadian Archives</i> for 1892, Calendar and -Introduction, p. vi. Cp. Murray’s views as given on p. 67 above, note.</p> -</div> -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="chapter"></div> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_298"></a>[298]</span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_VI">CHAPTER VI<br /> -<span class="fs80">SIR JAMES CRAIG</span></h2> - - -<p>As has been told in the last chapter, Milnes and Hunter, -Lieutenant-Governors of Lower and Upper Canada respectively, -took up their appointments in the summer of -1799 when the Governor-General Prescott was recalled <span class="sidenote">Changes in administration.</span> -to England. General Hunter was not only Lieutenant-Governor -of Upper Canada but also Commander of the -Forces in both provinces. These two men held their -appointments for six years, until August, 1805. On the -5th of that month Milnes, who was by this time a baronet, -Sir Robert Shore Milnes,<a id="FNanchor_216" href="#Footnote_216" class="fnanchor">[216]</a> left for England on leave of -absence, and on the 21st of the month General Hunter -died at Quebec. For the time being, two civilians acted -as Lieutenant-Governors, Thomas Dunn, senior Executive -Councillor at Quebec, acting in Lower Canada, and -Alexander Grant acting in Upper Canada. Milnes -remained on leave of absence in England and drew his -salary for over three years. A new Lieutenant-Governor -of Lower Canada was then appointed, who in his turn -also remained in England for many years and received -pay in respect of an office the duties of which he did -not perform.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_299"></a>[299]</span><a id="FNanchor_217" href="#Footnote_217" class="fnanchor">[217]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Evils of -absenteeism.</div> - -<p>Thus it resulted that, at a very critical time, two -provinces of the British Empire, whose conditions were -specially critical, were left without a Governor-General, -without Lieutenant-Governors, and without a regular -Commander of the Forces, while two men, one holding -the office of Governor-General of the two Canadas and -the other holding the office of Lieutenant-Governor of -Lower Canada, were spending their time and drawing -their pay in England. We have learnt something in -the last hundred years, in regard to colonial administration, -and it is now difficult to appreciate a state of public -morality which showed so much indifference to the interests -of the colonies, so much acquiescence in sinecures, -and so much readiness on the part of capable and honourable -public officers to take pay without doing the work -to which the pay was nominally attached. But the -fact that such things took place, affords a very simple -explanation of the difficulties which had already arisen -and which subsequently arose in the history of European -colonization between a mother country and her colonies. -Men could put two and two together in those days as in -ours. If colonists saw the rulers of the ruling land -treating high offices in the colony as a matter of individual -profit and public indifference, they could only come to -the conclusion that they had better take care of themselves; -and if the answer came that governors and -lieutenant-governors were paid not by the colony but -by the mother country, then the colonists must needs -have concluded that they themselves would prefer to -find the money and to have the money’s worth. This -may well have been in the minds of the members of the -elected Assembly in Lower Canada when, at a little later -date, in 1810, they passed uninvited a resolution that the -province shall pay the cost of the civil government, a -resolution of which more was heard in the course of the -long constitutional struggle.</p> - -<p>What made for keeping up the connexion with the -mother country was not so much what the mother country<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_300"></a>[300]</span> -did for the colonies in peace, as the need which the -colonies had for the mother country in case of war. -An attempt has been made in the preceding chapters -of this book to show that good fortune has attended -Canada in her development into a nation. The conquest -by Great Britain tended to this end, so did the loss -by Great Britain of the provinces which now form the -United States. At the beginning of the nineteenth -century the cloud of war hung over Canada, but still -her good fortune did not desert her. There was perpetual <span class="sidenote">External dangers which threatened Canada at the beginning of the nineteenth century.</span> -danger from two quarters, from France and from the -United States. With France Canada, as being part of -the British Empire, was nominally at open war throughout -the closing years of the eighteenth and the early years -of the nineteenth century, except for the very short -interval which followed the conclusion of the Peace of -Amiens in 1802; but it is noteworthy how the political -complications inured to the preservation of Canada as <span class="sidenote">Hostility of France to Great Britain.</span> -a British possession. France and the United States had -strong bonds of sympathy. To French intervention the -United States largely owed their independence. Having -parted with their monarchy, the French were more -attractive than before to the citizens of the American -republic; and in the days of the American revolutionary -war Congress had pledged itself to defend for ever the -French possessions in America. The bulk of the Canadians, -French in race, tradition, language and religion, might -well be expected to be French in sympathies. How great -then might have seemed the probability that England -in war with France would lose Canada? It was no -wonder that such incidents as a visit of Jerome Bonaparte -to the United States caused uneasiness, or again that -a report was spread that Moreau, the French republican -general then living in exile in America, was likely to -lead an invasion of Canada.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">French -Canadians -not -in sympathy -with the -French -Revolution.</div> - -<p>But, as a matter of fact, neither were the Canadians -inclined to return to their French allegiance nor were -the people of the United States in the least likely to<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_301"></a>[301]</span> -permit France to regain Canada. The Canadians had -known forty years of British rule, clean and just in comparison -with what had gone before, and the France -which would reclaim them was widely different from -the France to which they had once belonged. The -King was gone; religion was at a discount; Canadian -sympathies, at any rate in the earlier years of the revolutionary -wars, were rather with Royalist <i>emigrés</i> than with -the national armies who went on from victory to victory. -Above all antipathy to the United States, without whose -abetting or connivance, no French projects for regaining -Canada could have effect, tended to keep the -Canadians firm in their British allegiance. Thus the -news of the victory of Trafalgar was welcomed in -Canada.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -United -States -not disposed -to -allow the -French to -regain -Canada.</div> - -<p>Nor again were the Americans, however well disposed -to France, in any way or at any time minded to enable -her to regain her lost possessions in North America. -A Canadian who had left Canada for France when Canada -was annexed by Great Britain, wrote, before the conclusion -of the Peace of Amiens, expressing the hope -that Canada would be regained by France. He regarded -Canada, from the French point of view, ‘as a colony -essential to trade and as an outlet for merchandize and -men’; and he wrote that, if restored to France, it ‘would -constantly furnish the means of speculation which would -improve the future of the citizens whom war and revolution -have reduced to wretchedness’.<a id="FNanchor_218" href="#Footnote_218" class="fnanchor">[218]</a> The words read -as those of a man who had known and still sighed for -the days of the old French régime in Canada, when men -grew rich by illicit traffic; but, apart from the views -of individuals, there is no doubt that, as the eighteenth -century closed, France and the French people, after the -wars of the Revolution, with their power consolidated -at home, were in the stage of development favourable -to colonial expansion, and mindful of possessions beyond<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_302"></a>[302]</span> -the seas which had once been French but were French -no longer.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Napoleon’s -views as -to St. -Domingo -and -Louisiana.</div> - -<p>Napoleon, as writers have shown, in negotiating for -and concluding the Peace of Amiens which gave him -respite from the sea power of Great Britain, had in view -the reconquest of St. Domingo where Toussaint L’Ouverture -had secured practical independence, and the recovery -of Louisiana. By secret bargain with Spain in 1800, -he had secured the retrocession of Louisiana; and, had -the arrangement been carried out and the French power -been firmly planted again at New Orleans and on the -Mississippi, a new impetus and a new motive would have -been given for French designs on Canada. But the losses -in the St. Domingo campaigns were heavy, and in regard -to Louisiana Napoleon had to reckon with the American -people. Realizing that his policy, if persisted in, -would draw the United States away from France and -towards Great Britain, he came, with some suddenness, -to the conclusion that the game was not worth the candle, <span class="sidenote">Abandonment of his American schemes.</span> -and selling in 1803 to the United States the great territory -on the line of the Mississippi which after all was not his -to sell, he put an end for ever to French aspirations for -recovering their North American dominions.</p> - -<p>Napoleon’s decision set Canada free from any possible -danger of French conquest; but, at the same time, it <span class="sidenote">Danger to Canada from the United States.</span> -set him free also to renew war with Great Britain, and -cut short any tendency to more cordial relations between -Great Britain and the United States. The danger for -Canada now was that, either as the direct result of friendship -between France and the United States, or indirectly -through the incidents to which the maritime war between -France and Great Britain gave rise, war would take -place between Great Britain and the United States, -involving American invasion and not improbably American -conquest of Canada. Eventually, in 1812, war came to -pass. Once more England was called upon to fight -France and the United States at the same time; but in -this second war the Canadians, heart-whole in defending<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_303"></a>[303]</span> -their province against their rivals of old time, themselves -largely contributed to the saving of Canada.</p> - -<p>The causes which led to the war of 1812 have been -noted in another book.<a id="FNanchor_219" href="#Footnote_219" class="fnanchor">[219]</a> One of the incidents which -<span class="sidenote">The incident of the <i>Leopard</i> and the <i>Chesapeake</i>.</span> -preluded it was the action of a British ship of war, the -<i>Leopard</i>, in firing on the American frigate <i>Chesapeake</i> -and carrying off four men, who were claimed as deserters -from the British navy. This high-handed proceeding -naturally caused the strongest resentment in the United -States, and raised the whole question of the right of search. -There was talk of invading Canada, which was answered -by calling out the Canadian militia; the Canadians -answered readily to the call; and shortly afterwards -a new Governor-General arrived in Canada, a man well -tried in war, Sir James Craig. On the 10th of August, <span class="sidenote">Sir James Craig appointed Governor-General of Canada.</span> -1807, General Prescott, still Governor-General of Canada, -though he had left in July, 1799, was delicately informed -by Lord Castlereagh, then Secretary of State, that it -was necessary to appoint a new Governor-General. The -terms of the letter were that Lord Castlereagh lamented -that circumstances required an arrangement to be made -which might interfere with Prescott’s emoluments. Sir -James Craig accordingly received his commission on the -last day of August, 1807, and landed at Quebec on the -18th of October, too ill to take the oaths of office until -the 24th of that month, when he took them in his bedroom. -Craig, though in failing health, governed Canada for four -years. Like his predecessors he was a distinguished -soldier. He was a Scotchman but was born at Gibraltar, <span class="sidenote">His previous career.</span> -where his father held the post of civil and military judge -in the fortress. He was born in 1748 and was only fifteen -years old when he joined the army in 1763, the year of -the great Peace. He was wounded at Bunker’s Hill; -in 1776 he went to Canada and commanded the advanced -guard of the forces which under Carleton’s command -drove the Americans out of Canada. He took part in -Burgoyne’s expedition, was twice wounded, was present<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_304"></a>[304]</span> -at Saratoga, and was chosen to carry home dispatches.<a id="FNanchor_220" href="#Footnote_220" class="fnanchor">[220]</a> -Later in the war he served with distinction under Lord -Cornwallis in North Carolina. In 1794 he became a -major-general, and in 1795 he was sent to the Cape to -take it over from the Dutch. The Netherlands, recently -over-run by a French army under Pichegru, had been -transformed into the Batavian republic, and the Prince -of Orange, then a refugee in England, sent orders by the -British fleet under Admiral Elphinstone, which carried -Craig and his troops, that the British force should be -admitted as having come to protect the colony from -the French. The Dutch governor, however, was not -prepared to hand over his charge to British keeping. -Craig accordingly landed his troops at Simonstown, and -successfully attacked the Dutch at Muizenberg, but was -not able to occupy Capetown until the arrival of a force -from India, which had been ordered to co-operate, and -which was under the command of a senior officer, Sir -Alured Clarke, the late Lieutenant-Governor of Lower -Canada. On Clarke’s arrival the Dutch capitulated, and -Craig became the first British Governor of the Cape, -being succeeded in 1797 by a civilian, Lord Macartney. -He served about five years in India, being promoted to -be Lieutenant-General in 1801; and, after returning to -England in 1802, was sent in 1805 to the Mediterranean -in charge of an abortive expedition to Naples, in which -British and Russian troops were to combine against the -French. It ended in his transferring his force to Sicily, -where the Neapolitan court had taken refuge. He then -went home in ill health, and in 1807 went out to Canada. -His appointment was no doubt mainly due to his military -reputation, for war with the United States seemed -close at hand; but he was well qualified for it also by his<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_305"></a>[305]</span> -wide experience of the colonies, and by the fact that, -like Prescott, he had already had a short term of colonial -administration. He left behind him at the Cape a good -record as governor, and but for the state of his health -seemed clearly the man for Canada.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -beginning -of his administration.</div> - -<p>In his first speech to the Legislature of Lower Canada -in January, 1808, Craig expressed his gratification at -meeting the members of the two Houses ‘in the exercise -of the noblest office to which the human mind can be -directed, that of legislating for a free people’, and he -added that he looked forward to the most perfect harmony -and co-operation between them and himself. His anticipations -were not fulfilled, and during the years of his -administration the inevitable struggle for further power -on the part of the elected representatives of the community -became accentuated. The session of 1808 lasted from -January to April. It was the last session of an existing -Parliament. No point of difference arose in this short -time between the Assembly and the Executive; but, -the Assembly having passed a Bill, undoubtedly right in -principle though directed against a particular individual, -that judges should be incapable of being elected to or -sitting in the House, the Bill was thrown out by the -Legislative Council. This caused ill feeling between the -two branches of the Legislature, and at the same time -the Assembly came into collision with one of the constituencies, -that of Three Rivers, by passing a resolution -which excluded from the House a Jew who had been -duly elected as member for Three Rivers and was promptly -re-elected. At the conclusion of the session a General -Election took place in May, but the Legislature was not -called together till April, 1809, and in the meantime -friction began between the governor and the popular -representatives.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Friction -between -the -governor -and the -Assembly.</div> - -<p>In June, 1808, Craig dismissed certain gentlemen from -their appointments as officers in the town militia on -account of their connexion with the French opposition -paper <i>Le Canadien</i>. One of them, M. Panet, had been<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_306"></a>[306]</span> -Speaker of the House of Assembly in the late Parliament, -and when the new House met he was again chosen to be -Speaker, the choice being confirmed by the governor. -The House sat for five weeks in 1809, wrangling over the -same questions that had been prominent in the preceding -year, viz. the exclusion from the House of judges and -of members of the Jewish religion: it was then peremptorily -dissolved by the governor, who rated the -members as so many children for wasting time and -abusing their functions at a critical season of national -affairs. The election took place in the following October; -and, when the Legislature met in January, 1810, the -Assembly was composed of much the same representatives -as before, any change being rather against than in -favour of the governor. In his opening speech the -governor intimated that the Royal approval would be -given to any proper Bill passed by both Houses, rendering -the judges ineligible for seats in the Assembly. The -House of Assembly on their side, having passed a resolution -to the effect that any attempt on the part of the Executive -or the other branch of the Legislature to dictate to them -or censure their proceedings was a breach of their -privileges, went on to pass loyal addresses appropriate -to the fiftieth year of the King’s reign, their loyalty -being, perhaps, quickened by the strong reference which -had been made in the governor’s speech ‘to the high-sounded -resentment of America’, coupled with an assurance -that in the event of war Canada would receive ‘the -necessary support of regular troops in the confident -expectation of a cheerful exertion of the interior force -of the country’. There followed an Address to the -King and the Imperial Parliament, to which reference -has already been made, and in which the Assembly, -with many expressions of gratitude, intimated that the -prosperity of Lower Canada was now so great that they -could in that session pay all the expenses of the civil -government. This Address the governor promised to -lay before the King, though he pointed out that it was<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_307"></a>[307]</span> -unconstitutional in, among other points, ignoring the -Legislative Council. A Bill excluding the judges was -then passed and sent up to the Legislative Council, who -amended it by adding a clause which postponed its -effect until the next Parliament, whereupon the Assembly -passed a resolution excluding by name a certain judge -who had a seat in the House, and the governor, rightly -deeming their action in the matter to be unconstitutional, -on the 26th of February again dissolved Parliament.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Proceedings -taken by -the -governor -against -<i>Le Canadien</i>.</div> - -<p>The French newspaper, <i>Le Canadien</i>, abounded weekly -in scurrilous abuse of the authorities. On the 17th of -March Craig took the strong step of seizing the printing -press and all the papers, and committing to prison -various persons connected with the paper, three of -whom had been members of the late House of Assembly. -He justified his action in a proclamation to the country -at large. The prisoners were released in the course of -the summer on the score of ill health or submission, with -the exception of one French Canadian named Bedard, -who refused to come to terms with the Executive and -was still in prison when the new Assembly, to which he -had been elected, met on the 12th of December, 1810. -The governor, in his masterful proceedings, had acted -under the authority of a temporary law entitled ‘an Act -for the better preservation of His Majesty’s Government, -as by law happily established in this province’. This -Act was now expiring, and in his opening address he -called attention to the necessity for renewing it. He -carried his point, the Act was renewed, and, in addition -to resolutions on the subject of Mr. Bedard’s imprisonment, -the Assembly did some useful legislative work -before the Legislature was prorogued on the 21st of March, -1811. Shortly after the prorogation Mr. Bedard was <span class="sidenote">Craig retires on ill health.</span> -released, and on the 19th of June, 1811, Sir James Craig -left Canada. He had long been in failing health, and in -the proclamation, in which he defended his seizure of -<i>Le Canadien</i> and those responsible for it, he had referred -pathetically to his life as ‘ebbing not slowly to its period<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_308"></a>[308]</span> -under the pressure of disease acquired in the service of -my country’. His resignation had been for some months -in the hands of the Government, and it was only in order -to suit their convenience that he put off his departure -to the date when it actually took place. He reached -England alive, but died in the following January in his <span class="sidenote">His death and character.</span> -sixty-second year. He was a man of conspicuous honesty -and of undoubted courage and firmness. He had a -soldier’s view as to discipline and subordination, which -made him peremptory as a governor, and his addresses -tended to be long-winded and dictatorial. But his -personal popularity was great, he was dignified, hospitable, -and open-handed, and he commanded respect even from -his political opponents and from those whom he put into -prison. He may well have been forgiven much not only -for his personal qualities, but also because his military -reputation was no small asset to Canada. His dealings -with the United States were fair and courteous, but -behind them was the known fact of his capacity and -experience as a soldier. He might dispute with those -whom he governed in the sphere of civil action, but in -the event of war they had in him a leader upon whom -they could rely. The Canadians too had reason to be <span class="sidenote">Prosperity of Canada under Sir James Craig.</span> -in the main satisfied with his rule, in that the years during -which Craig was governor were years of much prosperity. -It was at this time that, stimulated by Napoleon’s -attempts to cut off Great Britain from the Baltic trade -and by the Non Intercourse Acts of the United States, <span class="sidenote">Growth of the lumber trade.</span> -lumber became an important industry of Canada. It -was at this time too, at the beginning of November, 1809, -that a citizen of Montreal, John Molson, put the first -steamer on the St. Lawrence, her passage from Montreal <span class="sidenote">The first steamer on the St. Lawrence.</span> -to Quebec taking sixty-six hours, during thirty of which -she was at anchor. Craig himself contributed to improvement -of communication in Lower Canada by constructing <span class="sidenote">Road to the Eastern Townships.</span> -sixty miles of road which bore his name, and which -linked the Eastern Townships, then being settled largely -by immigrants from the United States, to the southern<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_309"></a>[309]</span> -bank of the St. Lawrence over against Quebec. This -road, which was carried out by the troops under the -Quartermaster-General, afterwards Sir James Kempt, -Administrator of Canada, was, as Craig wrote to his -friend and secretary Ryland, much wanted ‘not merely -for the purpose of procuring us the necessary supplies -but for the purpose also of bringing the people to our -doors’:<a id="FNanchor_221" href="#Footnote_221" class="fnanchor">[221]</a> and it resulted in the price of beef falling in -the Quebec market from 7½<i>d.</i> to 4½<i>d.</i> a lb.<a id="FNanchor_222" href="#Footnote_222" class="fnanchor">[222]</a> It gave an -outlet to Quebec to a fine agricultural district, and it -opened a direct route to Boston from the capital of -Canada.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Ryland’s -mission -to -England.</div> - -<p>When Craig wrote these letters to Ryland, the latter -was in England. He had been sent by the governor to -lay the views of the latter upon the political situation -in Canada before the Home Government; and, reaching -England at the end of July, 1810, he was active in interviewing -ministers and supplying them verbally and by -written memoranda with first-hand information. Ryland -had gone out to America in 1781 as a paymaster in the -army during the War of Independence; and, returning -with Carleton at the end of the war, had been taken by -him to Canada as confidential secretary. He continued -to hold that office to successive governors for twenty -years, until 1813, when Sir George Prevost, who followed -Craig as Governor-General and with whom Ryland was -not in harmony, suggested that other arrangements -should be made for the secretaryship. Ryland then -resigned his office of governor’s secretary but remained -clerk to the Executive Council, living in the suburbs of -Quebec, until his death in 1838. He seems to have been -an able, honourable man, strongly opposed to the democratic -party in Lower Canada, to the French and Roman -Catholic section of the community. In England he was<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_310"></a>[310]</span> -brought into relations chiefly with Lord Liverpool, who -was Secretary of State for War and the Colonies<a id="FNanchor_223" href="#Footnote_223" class="fnanchor">[223]</a> in the -Percival ministry, having succeeded Lord Castlereagh in -that office, and with the Under-Secretary of State, Robert -Peel. Peel was then beginning his public life, and -Ryland’s impression of him on his first interview was -that ‘though a very young man and but a few days in -office [he] appears to be very much <i>au fait</i> in matters -of public business’. A week or two later he wrote of -him as ‘a very elegant young man of fine talents, as I am -informed’, and very pleasing manners.<a id="FNanchor_224" href="#Footnote_224" class="fnanchor">[224]</a> With these -two ministers and with various other public men, including -George Canning, Ryland conferred or corresponded -during his stay in England, which lasted for the better -part of two years. On one occasion, soon after his -arrival, he was present at a Cabinet Council, being seated, -as we learn from the full account which he wrote to -Craig, between Percival and Lord Liverpool. He was -asked a large number of questions, including a query -as to the number of regular troops in Canada, and, as -the result, he appears to have formed a very poor opinion -of the knowledge and capacity of the ministry.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Craig’s -views -on the -political -situation -in Lower -Canada.</div> - -<p>He had brought with him to England a very long -dispatch in which Craig had set out his views. Craig -estimated the population of Lower Canada at the time -when he wrote, May, 1810, at between 250,000 and -300,000 souls, out of whom he computed that no more -than 20,000 to 25,000 were English or Americans. The -remainder, the French Canadians, he represented as, in -the main, wholly alienated from the British section of -the community, French in religion, laws, language and -manners, and becoming more attracted to France and -more alienated from Great Britain, in proportion as the -power of France in Europe became more consolidated.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_311"></a>[311]</span> -The large mass of the people were, so he wrote, wholly -uneducated, following unscrupulous men, their leaders -in the country and in the House of Assembly. The -Roman Catholic priests were anti-English on grounds of -race and religion; their attachment to France had been -renewed since Napoleon made his concordat with the Pope; -and, being largely drawn from the lower orders of society, -and headed by a bishop who exercised more authority than -in the days of the old régime and who arrogated complete -independence of the civil government, they were hardly -even outwardly loyal to the British Crown. The growing -nationalist and democratic feeling was reflected and -embodied in the elected House of Assembly. When the -constitution was first granted, some few Canadian gentlemen -had come forward and been elected; but, at the -time when the governor wrote, the Canadian members of -the Assembly, who formed an overwhelming majority, -according to his account consisted of avocats and -notaries, shopkeepers and habitants, some of the last -named being unable either to read or write. The organ -of the party was the paper <i>Le Canadien</i>, which vilified -the Executive officers as ‘gens en place’, and aimed at -bringing the government into contempt.</p> - -<p>To meet the evils which he deemed so great and -emphasized so strongly, Craig proposed that the existing -constitution should be either cancelled or suspended. -His view, as expressed in a letter to Ryland written in <span class="sidenote">Constitutional changes recommended.</span> -November, 1810,<a id="FNanchor_225" href="#Footnote_225" class="fnanchor">[225]</a> was that it should be suspended -during the continuance of the war with France and for -five years afterwards, and that in this interval the former -government by means of a governor and a nominated -Legislative Council should be revived. He argued that -representative institutions had been prematurely granted, -before French Canadians were prepared for them; that -they had been demanded by the English section of the -inhabitants, not the French; and that at the time the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_312"></a>[312]</span> -best informed Canadians had been opposed to the change. -In the alternative, he discussed the reunion of the two -provinces, so as to leaven the Assembly with a larger -number of British members, though he did not advocate -this course; and the re-casting of the electoral divisions -in Lower Canada, so as to give more adequate representation -to those parts of the province, such as the -Eastern Townships, where the English-speaking element -could hold its own. In any case he pointed out the necessity -of enacting a property qualification for the members of -the Assembly, no such qualification being required under -the Act of 1791, although that Act prescribed a qualification -for the voters who elected the members. Craig -went on to urge, as Milnes had urged before him, that -the Royal supremacy should be exercised over the Roman -Catholic priesthood, additional salary being given to the -bishop, in consideration of holding his position under -the Crown, and the curés being given freehold in their -livings under appointment from the Crown. There was -a further point. The Sulpician seminary at Montreal -was possessed of large estates, and Craig considered this -clerical body to be dangerous in view of the fact that -it consisted largely of French emigrant priests. He -proposed therefore that the Crown should resume the -greater part of the lands.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Craig’s -views not -accepted -by the -Imperial -Government.</div> - -<p>Ryland soon found that the ministry were not prepared -to face Parliament with any proposals for a constitutional -change in Canada, and that they were more inclined -to what he called ‘the namby-pamby system of conciliation’.<a id="FNanchor_226" href="#Footnote_226" class="fnanchor">[226]</a> -They thought that it had been a mistake in the -first instance to divide Canada into two provinces, but -the only step which they now took was to procure a -somewhat superfluous opinion from the Attorney-General -to the effect that the Imperial Parliament could alter -the constitution of the provinces, or could reunite them -with one Council and Assembly; and a rather less self-evident -opinion that the governor could not redistribute<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_313"></a>[313]</span> -the electoral divisions of Lower Canada without being -authorized to do so by an Act either of the Imperial or -of the Colonial Legislature.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Critical -condition -of -England -at the -time of -Ryland’s -mission.</div> - -<p>To Ryland the affairs of Canada were all in all; to -the ministry whom he deemed so weak, they were overshadowed -by events and difficulties at home and abroad, -compared with which the political questions which -troubled Lower Canada were insignificant, noteworthy -only as likely, if not carefully handled, to add to the -burden which was laid on the statesmen responsible for -the safe-keeping of the Empire. In 1809 Talavera had -been fought and hardly won, but it was the year also -of the disastrous expedition to Walcheren. In 1810, -behind the lines of Torres Vedras, Wellington was beginning -to turn the tide of French invasion in the Peninsula. -The next year saw Massena’s retreat, but at home the -political situation was complicated by the insanity of -the old King and the consequent necessity of declaring -a regency. In 1812, the year of Salamanca, Percival the -Prime Minister was assassinated, his place being taken -by Lord Liverpool, who, as long as Ryland was in England, -had been in charge of the colonies. In the same year, -war with the United States long threatened, came to pass. -These years were in England years of financial distress -and of widespread misery. William Cobbett giving voice -to the hungry discontent of the poor was fined and -imprisoned, and Ryland hoped that his fate would have -some effect in Canada.<a id="FNanchor_227" href="#Footnote_227" class="fnanchor">[227]</a></p> - -<p>Lord Liverpool, however, was very loyal to Craig, -though he did not support any such drastic measures -as the latter had suggested. At the end of July, 1811, -by which time Craig had left Canada, he wrote a letter -to him expressing the Prince Regent’s high approbation -of his general conduct in the administration of the government -of the North American provinces and the Prince’s -particular regret at the cause which had necessitated -his retirement. He wrote too to Craig’s successor, Sir<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_314"></a>[314]</span> -George Prevost, highly praising Ryland and expressing -a hope that he would be retained in his appointment. <span class="sidenote">Legal opinion as to patronage to appointments in the -Roman Catholic Church in Canada, and as to the Sulpician estates.</span> -The law officers of the Crown in England had been -consulted as to the Roman Catholic Church in Canada -in view of the governor’s proposals, and advised that so -much of the patronage of Roman Catholic benefices as -was exercised by the Bishop of Quebec under the French -Government had of right devolved on the Crown. On -the further question, whether the Crown had the right -of property in the estates of the Sulpician seminary at -Montreal, they advised that legally the Crown had the -right, inasmuch as the Sulpicians who remained in -Canada after the British conquest had no legal capacity -to hold lands apart from the parent body at Paris which -had since been dissolved, and had not obtained a licence -from the Crown to hold the estates; but the law officers, -seeing the hardship which would be involved in wholesale -confiscation of the lands after so many years of undisturbed -tenure, suggested that the question was one -for compromise or amicable arrangement. In the end -nothing was done in the matter in the direction of Craig’s -and Ryland’s views, and many years later, in 1840,<a id="FNanchor_228" href="#Footnote_228" class="fnanchor">[228]</a> -by an ordinance of Lower Canada, the Sulpicians of -Montreal were incorporated under certain conditions and -confirmed in the possession of their estates.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Sir James -Craig’s -administration.</div> - -<p>It is not easy to form an accurate estimate of Sir -James Craig’s administration. His views and his methods -have been judged in the light of later history rather than -in that of the years which had gone before. It is somewhat -overlooked that at the beginning of the nineteenth -century the normal conditions of the world were conditions -of war not of peace, and that the governors of -colonies were as a rule soldiers whose first duty was the -military charge of possessions held by no very certain -tenure. The account usually given and received is that -Craig was an honest but mistaken man, tactless and -overbearing, trying to uphold an impossible system of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_315"></a>[315]</span> -bureaucratic despotism, instead of realizing the merits -of representative institutions and giving them full play. -The apology made for him has been that he was guided -by and saw with the eyes of a few rapacious officials, -who had no interest in the general welfare of the community. -‘The government, in fact,’ writes Christie, -‘was a bureaucracy, the governor himself little better -than a hostage, and the people looked upon and treated -as serfs and vassals by their official lords.’<a id="FNanchor_229" href="#Footnote_229" class="fnanchor">[229]</a></p> - -<p>Constitutions and systems of government are good or -bad according to the kinds of people to which they are -applied, the stage of development which they have -reached, and the particular circumstances existing at -a given time inside and outside the land. It was only -with much hesitation that representative institutions -had been given to Canada; and one governor and -another, bearing in mind the conditions which had -preceded the War of Independence, had laid stress on -the necessity of having a strong Executive, and on the -growing danger of colonial democracy. They were not -ignorant or shortsighted men; they looked facts in the -face and argued from past experience in America. Again, -if the officials were incompetent placemen, out of sympathy -with the people, it was the governors who laid -stress on the necessity of filling official positions with first-rate -men and who occasionally took a strong line with -the men whom they did not consider to be adequate. -Moreover some of the officials, notably the judicial and -legal officers, placed themselves in opposition to the -local government and posed as defenders of the people. -Craig dispensed, for the time at any rate, with the services -of two law officers. One of them, Uniacke, who had <span class="sidenote">Uniacke.</span> -been in Nova Scotia, was made Attorney-General of -Lower Canada by Lord Liverpool, and, being considered -by the governor to be unfit for his duties, was sent on -leave to England in 1810 with a request that he should -be removed from his office. He subsequently returned<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_316"></a>[316]</span> -to his work in Canada. The other, James Stuart, became <span class="sidenote">James Stuart.</span> -a notable figure in Canadian history. He was the son -of a United Empire Loyalist, the rector of Kingston in -Ontario. He had been appointed Solicitor-General of -Lower Canada by Milnes in 1801, but after Craig’s arrival -ranged himself, as a member of the Assembly, in opposition -to the governor, and in 1809 was obliged to resign -his appointment. After some years of bitter opposition -to the government, he lived to become a leading advocate -of reunion of the two provinces, to be appointed Attorney-General, -to be impeached by the Assembly and again -deprived of his office, and finally to be appointed by -Lord Durham Chief Justice of Lower Canada and to be -created a baronet for his public services.</p> - -<p>Meanwhile in Upper Canada, where a young Lieutenant-Governor, -Francis Gore, from 1807 to 1811 carried on the -administration firmly and well, various holders of offices -opposed the government and tried to play the part of -popular leaders. Judge Thorpe has already been mentioned, <span class="sidenote">Thorpe and Willcocks.</span> -on the Bench and in the House of Assembly -a blatant and disloyal demagogue; another man of the -same kind was Wyatt the Surveyor-General, and another -Willcocks, sheriff of one of the districts, and owner or -nominal owner of a libellous newspaper, for the contents -of which the House of Assembly committed him to jail -on the ground of breach of privilege. These three men -were suspended from their appointments, and eventually -disappeared from Canada to make their voices heard in -England or in the United States; and the end of Willcocks -was to be killed fighting against his country in the -war of 1812. One thing is certain that in their official -positions they were disloyal to the government, and that -in their disloyalty they received no support from the -elected Assembly of Upper Canada. Gore had a difficulty -too with his Attorney-General, Firth, a man sent out -from England. Firth ended by returning to England -without leave and joining in misrepresentations against -the Lieutenant-Governor.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_317"></a>[317]</span></p> - -<p>It may fairly be summed up that in the Canadas -many men were found in office who had been pitchforked -into appointments for which they were unsuited; -but that they were by no means invariably supporters -of the Executive against the representatives of the people, -nor were the governors their tools. On the contrary -there were constant cases of such officials opposing the -governors, while the governors in their turn stood out -conspicuously in opposition to the practice of appointing -men from outside to offices in Canada which required -special qualifications in addition to good character and -general capacity. But a distinction must be drawn -between Upper and Lower Canada. In Upper Canada -the voters and their nominees, however democratic, were, -with the exception of a few traitorous individuals, -intensely loyal to the British connexion. In Lower -Canada, on the other hand, the all-important race question -complicated the situation, and here Craig saw in the -French Canadians, who were also the democratic party, -the elements of disloyalty to Great Britain and <i>rapprochement</i> -with France. In August, 1808, he wrote <span class="sidenote">Craig’s opinion of the French Canadians.</span> -that the Canadians were French at heart; that, while -they did not deny the advantages which they enjoyed -under British rule, there would not be fifty dissentient -voices, if the proposition was made of their re-annexation -to France: and that the general opinion among the -English in Canada was that they would even join the -Americans if the latter were commanded by a French -officer. His views on this point were fully shared by -another man of clear head and sound judgement, Isaac -Brock. For reasons which have been given Craig seems <span class="sidenote">Real attitude of the French Canadians.</span> -to have exaggerated any danger of the kind. Republican -France, which attracted American sympathies, repelled -those of the French Canadians. France under Napoleon, -brought back to law and order and to at any rate the -outward conventionalities of religion, became more -attractive to the French Canadians, but at the same -time, in view of the Napoleonic despotism, it became<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_318"></a>[318]</span> -less attractive to the United States. But at no time -probably was there any real intention on the part -of the French Canadians to take any active step to -overthrow British supremacy. Certainly at no time was -there the slightest possibility of their changing their -status except by becoming absorbed in the United States. -They were as a whole an unthinking people, to whom -representative institutions and a free press were a novelty; -their leaders liked the words and phrases which they -had learnt from English-speaking demagogues or imported -from revolutionary France. Their priesthood was not -loyal, because it claimed to be independent of the civil -government, especially when it was the government of -a Protestant Power. The general aim was to see to -what uses the new privileges could be applied and how -much latitude would be given. The elected representatives -opposed the second chamber, the Legislative Council, -as much as they opposed the governor; they played with -edged tools, but it may be doubted whether at this early -stage of the proceedings they meant much more than -play.</p> - -<p>Under the circumstances, perhaps a fair judgement -upon Sir James Craig’s administration would be that he -took the Parliamentary situation in Lower Canada too -seriously, and did not give sufficient rope to the local -politicians. He reprimanded the Assembly when they -acted unconstitutionally, and dissolved them when they -did not do their work. The strong measures which he -adopted, and the repeated dissolutions, were a bad precedent -for the future: and the course which he recommended, -viz. suspension of the constitution, would, if -carried into effect, have been premature and unwise. -But for the moment the steps which he took were effective. -By his summary action in regard to the newspaper -<i>Le Canadien</i>, he showed that he had the ultimate power -and was not afraid to use it; and the result was that -the very law which gave the Executive extraordinary -powers was renewed by the Assembly which objected to<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_319"></a>[319]</span> -those powers. Meanwhile Canada thrived, the governor -was personally respected, and repeated elections did no -one any harm. It was a time of danger from without -and unrest within, but many countries with admirable -constitutions have fared much worse than did Lower -Canada under the rule of a strong soldier confronted by -a recalcitrant Assembly.</p> - -<p>He was succeeded by a man of wholly different type, -Sir George Prevost, who endeared himself greatly to the -French Canadians; but internal differences were soon to -be overshadowed by foreign invasion, for in one year to -the day from the date when Sir James Craig left Canada, -Madison, President of the United States, issued a proclamation -which began the war of 1812.</p> - -<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_216" href="#FNanchor_216" class="label">[216]</a> He belonged to the same family as the Earl of Crewe, Secretary -of State for the Colonies.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_217" href="#FNanchor_217" class="label">[217]</a> The Lieutenant-Governor in question was Mr., afterwards Sir, -F. Burton. His commission was dated November 29, 1808, but he -did not go out to Canada till 1822. He left Canada in 1828, but did -not cease to be Lieutenant-Governor, as his commission was renewed -on October 25, 1830—the year of King William the Fourth’s accession. -An Act passed in 1782, 22 Geo. III, cap. 75, commonly known as -Burke’s Act, provided against the holding of Patent offices in the -Colonies and Plantations in America and the West Indies by sinecurists -living in England. The operation of this Act was greatly extended, -and the granting of leave restricted by a subsequent Act of 1814, -54 Geo. III, cap. 61.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_218" href="#FNanchor_218" class="label">[218]</a> See Brymner’s <i>Report on Canadian Archives</i> for 1892, Introduction, -p. xlix.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_219" href="#FNanchor_219" class="label">[219]</a> <i>The Canadian War of 1812.</i></p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_220" href="#FNanchor_220" class="label">[220]</a> See the <i>Memoir of Sir James Craig</i>, quoted at length on pp. 343-5 -of vol. i of Christie’s <i>History of the Late Province of Lower Canada</i>, -1848. The notice of Craig in the <i>Dictionary of National Biography</i> -says that he was sent home with dispatches after the taking of Ticonderoga, -which seems to be incorrect.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_221" href="#FNanchor_221" class="label">[221]</a> Letter of August 6, 1810, Christie’s <i>History of Lower Canada</i>, -vol. vi, p. 129.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_222" href="#FNanchor_222" class="label">[222]</a> Letter of September 10, 1810, Christie’s <i>History of Lower Canada</i>, -vol. vi, p. 157.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_223" href="#FNanchor_223" class="label">[223]</a> The departments of War and the Colonies were combined under -one Secretary of State in 1801. This lasted till 1854, when a separate -Secretary of State for War was appointed.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_224" href="#FNanchor_224" class="label">[224]</a> Ryland to Craig, August 4, and September 1, 1810. Christie, vol. vi, -pp. 124, 149.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_225" href="#FNanchor_225" class="label">[225]</a> Letter of November 9, 1810, Christie, vol. vi, p. 166. The main -dispatch is dated May 1, 1810.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_226" href="#FNanchor_226" class="label">[226]</a> Letter to Craig, August 23, 1810, Christie, vol. vi, p. 146.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_227" href="#FNanchor_227" class="label">[227]</a> Letter to Craig, November 9, 1810, Christie, vol. vi, p. 169.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_228" href="#FNanchor_228" class="label">[228]</a> 3 and 4 Vic., cap. 30.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_229" href="#FNanchor_229" class="label">[229]</a> <i>History of Lower Canada</i>, vol. i, p. 350.</p> -</div> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_320"></a>[320]</span></p> - -<div class="figcenter illowp70" id="i_320" style="max-width: 43.75em;"> -<img class="w100" src="images/i_320.jpg" alt="" /> - <a rel="nofollow" href="images/i_320large.jpg"> - <span class="screenonly fs60 center">click here for larger image.</span></a> -<div class="caption"><p>MAP TO ILLUSTRATE THE BOUNDARY OF CANADA <span class="pad10"><i>to face page 322</i></span></p> - -<p class="right">TREATIES<br /> -subsequent to the Treaty of 1783,</p> - -<p class="p1 right">under which the boundary line<br /> -was fixed either directly or by<br /> -Commission or Arbitration</p> - -<table class="p1 fs100 right autotable"> - -<tr> -<td class="tdcbot bt br bl bb">1</td> -<td class="tdltop"><i>Treaty of Ghent 24 Dec 1814</i> <i>Article 4.</i></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdcbot bt br bl bb">2</td> -<td class="tdltop"><i>Jay’s Treaty of 19 Nov 1794</i> <i>Article 5.</i></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdcbot bt br bl bb">3</td> -<td class="tdltop"><i>Treaty of Washington 9 Aug 1842</i> <i>Article 1.</i></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdcbot bt br bl bb">4</td> -<td class="tdltop"><i>Treaty of Ghent 24 Dec 1814</i> <i>Article 6.</i></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdcbot bt br bl bb">5</td> -<td class="tdltop"><i>Treaty of Ghent 24 Dec 1814</i> <i>Article 7.</i><br /> - <i>Treaty of Washington 9 Aug 1842</i> <i>Article 2.</i></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdcbot bt br bl bb">6</td> -<td class="tdltop"><i>Convention of London 20 Oct 1818 Article 2.</i><br /> - <i>Treaty of Washington 9 Aug 1842 Article 2.</i></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdcbot bt br bl bb">7</td> -<td class="tdltop"><i>Treaty of Washington 15 June 1846</i> <i>Article 1.</i></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="2"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdcbot bt br bl bb">8</td> -<td class="tdltop"><i>Treaty of Washington 8 May 1871</i> <i>Articles 34 etc.</i></td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>B. V. Barbishire, Oxford, 1908.</p> -</div> -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="chapter"></div> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_321"></a>[321]</span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="APPENDIX_I">APPENDIX I<br /> -<span class="fs80">TREATY OF PARIS, 1783</span></h2> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang15 fs80">DEFINITIVE TREATY OF PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP -BETWEEN HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY AND THE -UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SIGNED AT PARIS, -THE 3<span class="allsmcap">RD</span> OF SEPTEMBER, 1783.</p> -</div> - -<p>In the Name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. -It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the -hearts of the Most Serene and Most Potent Prince, George -the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France -and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Brunswick and -Lunenburg, Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy -Roman Empire, &c., and of the United States of America, -to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that -have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and -friendship which they mutually wish to restore: and to -establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse between -the 2 Countries, upon the ground of reciprocal advantages -and mutual convenience, as may promote and secure to both -perpetual Peace and Harmony; and having for this desirable -end already laid the foundation of Peace and Reconciliation by -the Provisional Articles signed at Paris, on the 30th of November, -1782, by the Commissioners empowered on each part; -which Articles were agreed to be inserted in, and to constitute, -the Treaty of Peace proposed to be concluded between the -Crown of Great Britain and the said United States, but -which Treaty was not to be concluded until terms of Peace -should be agreed upon between Great Britain and France, -and His Britannic Majesty should be ready to conclude such -Treaty accordingly; and the Treaty between Great Britain -and France having since been concluded, His Britannic -Majesty and the United States of America, in order to carry -into full effect the Provisional Articles above-mentioned, -according to the tenor thereof, have constituted and appointed, -that is to say:</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_322"></a>[322]</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p>His Britannic Majesty, on his part, David Hartley, Esq., -Member of the Parliament of Great Britain; and the said United -States, on their part, John Adams, Esq., late a Commissioner -of the United States of America at the Court of Versailles, -late Delegate in Congress from the State of Massachusetts, -and Chief Justice of the said State and Minister Plenipotentiary -of the said United States to Their High Mightinesses -the States General of the United Netherlands; Benjamin -Franklin, Esq., late Delegate in Congress from the State of -Pennsylvania, President of the Convention of the said State, -and Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States of -America at the Court of Versailles; John Jay, Esq., late -President of Congress and Chief Justice of the State of New -York, and Minister Plenipotentiary from the said United -States at the Court of Madrid; to be the plenipotentiaries -for the concluding and signing the present Definitive Treaty: -who, after having reciprocally communicated their respective -Full Powers, have agreed upon and confirmed the following -Articles:</p> - -<p>Art. I. His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said -United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, -Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New -York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, -Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be -Free, Sovereign and Independent States; that he treats -with them as such; and for himself, his Heirs and Successors, -relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and -territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof.</p> - -<p>II. And that all disputes which might arise in future -on the subject of the Boundaries of the said United States -may be prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared, that the -following are and shall be their Boundaries, viz., from the -North-West Angle of Nova Scotia, viz., that Angle which is -formed by a line drawn due North, from the source of St. Croix -River to the Highlands, along the said Highlands which -divide those Rivers that empty themselves into the River -St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, -to the North-westernmost head of Connecticut River; thence -down along the middle of that River to the 45th degree of -North latitude; from thence by a line due West on said -latitude until it strikes the River Iroquois or Cataraquy;<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_323"></a>[323]</span> -thence along the middle of the said River into Lake Ontario; -through the middle of said Lake, until it strikes the communication -by water between that Lake and Lake Erie; -thence along the middle of said communication into Lake -Erie; through the middle of said Lake until it arrives at the -water-communication between that Lake and Lake Huron; -thence along the middle of said water-communication into -the Lake Huron; thence through the middle of said Lake -to the water-communication between that Lake and Lake -Superior; thence through Lake Superior, Northward of the -Isles Royal and Phelipeaux, to the Long Lake; thence -through the middle of said Long Lake, and the water-communication -between it and the Lake of the Woods, to the -said Lake of the Woods; thence through the said Lake to -the most North-western point thereof, and from thence on -a due West course to the River Mississippi; thence by a line -to be drawn along the middle of the said River Mississippi, -until it shall intersect the Northernmost part of the 31st -degree of North latitude. South by a line to be drawn due -East from the determination of the line last mentioned, in -the latitude of 31 degrees North of the Equator, to the middle -of the River Apalachicola or Catahouche; thence along the -middle thereof to its junction with the Flint River; thence -straight to the head of St. Mary’s River, and thence down -along the middle of St. Mary’s River to the Atlantic Ocean, -East by a line to be drawn along the middle of the River -St. Croix, from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source; -and from its source directly North to the aforesaid Highlands, -which divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from -those which fall into the River St. Lawrence: comprehending -all islands within 20 leagues of any part of the shores of the -United States, and lying between lines to be drawn due -East from the points where the aforesaid boundaries between -Nova Scotia on the one part, and East Florida on the other, -shall respectively touch the Bay of Fundy, and the Atlantic -Ocean; excepting such Islands as now are, or heretofore -have been, within the limits of the said Province of Nova -Scotia.</p> - -<p>III. It is agreed that the People of the United States -shall continue to enjoy unmolested the right to take Fish<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_324"></a>[324]</span> -of every kind on the Grand Bank and on all the other Banks -of Newfoundland; also in the Gulph of St. Lawrence, and -at all other places in the Sea, where the Inhabitants of both -Countries used at any time heretofore to fish. And also -that the Inhabitants of the United States shall have liberty -to take fish of every kind on such part of the Coast of Newfoundland -as British Fishermen shall use, (but not to dry -or cure the same on that Island,) and also on the Coasts, -Bays, and Creeks of all other of His Britannic Majesty’s -Dominions in America; and that the American Fishermen -shall have liberty to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled -Bays, Harbours, and Creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands -and Labrador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled; -but so soon as the same, or either of them, shall be settled, -it shall not be lawful for the said Fishermen to dry or cure -fish at such Settlement, without a previous agreement for -that purpose with the Inhabitants, Proprietors, or Possessors -of the ground.</p> - -<p>IV. It is agreed, that Creditors on either side shall meet -with no lawful impedimenta to the recovery of the full -value in sterling money of all bonâ fide debts heretofore -contracted.</p> - -<p>V. It is agreed, that the Congress shall earnestly recommend -it to the legislatures of the respective states to provide -for the restitution of all estates, rights and properties which -have been confiscated, belonging to real British subjects; -and also of the estates, rights and properties of persons resident -in districts in the possession of his Majesty’s arms, and who -have not borne arms against the said United States; and -that persons of any other description shall have free liberty -to go to any part or parts of any of the Thirteen United -States, and therein to remain twelve months unmolested in -their endeavours to obtain the restitution of such of their -estates, rights and properties as may have been confiscated; -and that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the -several states, a reconsideration and revision of all acts or -laws regarding the premises, so as to render the said laws -or acts perfectly consistent, not only with justice and equity, -but with that spirit of conciliation, which, on the return of -the blessings of peace, should universally prevail. And that<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_325"></a>[325]</span> -Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states, -that the estates, rights and properties of such last-mentioned -persons shall be restored to them, they refunding to any -persons who may be now in possession the bonâ fide price -(where any has been given) which such persons may have -paid on purchasing any of the said lands, rights or properties, -since the confiscation.</p> - -<p>And it is agreed, that all persons who have any interest -in confiscated lands, either by debts, marriage settlements or -otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the -prosecution of their just rights.</p> - -<p>VI. That there shall be no future confiscations made, nor -any prosecutions commenced against any person or persons, -for or by reason of the part which he or they may have taken -in the present war; and that no person shall on that account -suffer any future loss or damage either in his person, liberty -or property, and that those who may be in confinement on -such charges at the time of the ratification of the Treaty in -America, shall be immediately set at liberty, and the prosecutions -so commenced be discontinued.</p> - -<p>VII. There shall be a firm and perpetual Peace between -His Britannic Majesty and the said States, and between the -Subjects of the one and the Citizens of the other, wherefore -all hostilities both by sea and land shall from henceforth -cease: all Prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty, -and His Britannic Majesty shall with all convenient speed, -and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any -Negroes or other property of the American Inhabitants, -withdraw all his Armies, Garrisons and Fleets from the said -United States, and from every Port, Place, and Harbour -within the same; leaving in all Fortifications the American -Artillery that may be therein: and shall also order and -cause all Archives, Records, Deeds, and Papers belonging -to any of the said States, or their Citizens which in the course -of the War may have fallen into the hands of his Officers, -to be forthwith restored and delivered to the proper States -and Persons to whom they belong.</p> - -<p>VIII. The navigation of the River Mississippi, from its source -to the Ocean, shall for ever remain free and open to the Subjects -of Great Britain and the Citizens of the United States.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_326"></a>[326]</span></p> - -<p>IX. In case it should so happen that any Place or Territory -belonging to Great Britain, or to the United States, should -have been conquered by the arms of either, from the other, -before the arrival of the said Provisional Articles in America, -it is agreed that the same shall be restored without difficulty, -and without requiring any compensation.</p> - -<p>X. The solemn Ratifications of the present Treaty, expedited -in good and due form, shall be exchanged between -the Contracting Parties in the space of 6 months, or sooner -if possible, to be computed from the day of the signature -of the present Treaty.</p> - -<p>In witness whereof, we, the undersigned, their Ministers -Plenipotentiary, have in their name, and in virtue of our -Full Powers, signed with our Hands the present definitive -Treaty, and caused the Seals of our Arms to be affixed thereto,</p> - -<p class="pbot2">Done at Paris, this 3rd day of September, in the year of -our Lord, 1783.</p> - -<table class="autotable"> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">(L.S.) D. HARTLEY.</td> -<td class="tdc"> </td> -<td class="tdl">(L.S.) JOHN ADAMS.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr"> </td> -<td class="tdc"> </td> -<td class="tdl">(L.S.) B. FRANKLIN.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr"> </td> -<td class="tdc"> </td> -<td class="tdl">(L.S.) JOHN JAY.</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="chapter"></div> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_327"></a>[327]</span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="APPENDIX_II">APPENDIX II<br /> -<span class="fs80">THE BOUNDARY LINE OF CANADA</span></h2> - -<div class="sidenote">The -North-Eastern -boundary.</div> - -<p>On the North-Eastern side, the Treaty of 1783 prescribed -the boundary as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p>‘From the North-West angle of Nova Scotia, viz., that -angle which is formed by a line drawn due North; from -the source of St. Croix river to the Highlands; along the -said Highlands which divide those rivers that empty -themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those which -fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the North-Westernmost -head of Connecticut river; ... East by a line to be -drawn along the middle of the river St. Croix, from its -mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source, and from its -source directly North to the aforesaid Highlands, which -divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from -those which fall into the river St. Lawrence; comprehending -all islands within twenty leagues of any part of the shores -of the United States, and lying between lines to be drawn -due East from the points where the aforesaid boundaries -between Nova Scotia on the one part, and East Florida -on the other, shall respectively touch the Bay of Fundy -and the Atlantic Ocean, excepting such islands as now -are or heretofore have been within the limits of the said -province of Nova Scotia.’</p> -</div> - -<p>So far as these words refer to the sea boundary of the -United States no difficulty arose, except in the Bay of Fundy. -East Florida was ceded to Spain by Great Britain at the -same time that the treaty with the United States was signed, -and therefore the boundary line in the South had no further -concern for the English.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -border -land -between -Acadia -and New -England.</div> - -<p>The North-East had been the border land between Acadia -and the New England States. In old days, as was inevitable, -there had been constant disputes between French and English -as to the boundary between Acadia and New England, while -Acadia still belonged to France; and, after the Treaty of -Utrecht had given Acadia to Great Britain, as to the boundary -between Acadia and Canada. When, by the Peace of 1763, -Canada was ceded to Great Britain, the question of boundaries<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_328"></a>[328]</span> -ceased to have any national importance; and no further -difficulty, except as between British Provinces, arose until -the United States became an independent nation. Then it -became necessary to draw an international frontier line, -which as a matter of fact had never yet been drawn. There -seems to have been a more or less honest attempt, with the help -of maps which were, as might have been expected, inaccurate, -to adopt a line for which there was some authority in the -past, instead of evolving a wholly new frontier; and the -result of looking to the past was eventually to fix a boundary -which was in no sense a natural frontier.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The river -St. Croix -taken in -1763 as -the -boundary -of Nova -Scotia -and hence -adopted -as the -boundary -line in the -Treaty of -1783.</div> - -<p>The river St. Croix had always been a landmark in the -history of colonization in North America. It was the scene -of the first settlement by De Monts and Champlain; and, -when Sir William Alexander in 1621 received from the King -the famous grant of Nova Scotia, the grant was defined as -extending to</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="noindent">‘the river generally known by the name of St. Croix -and to the remotest springs, or source, from the Western -side of the same, which empty into the first mentioned -river’,</p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">Later, the French claim on behalf of Acadia extended as far -as the Penobscot river, if not to the Kennebec; but after the -Treaty of Utrecht, the claims of Massachusetts to the country -up to the St. Croix river were allowed in 1732;<a id="FNanchor_230" href="#Footnote_230" class="fnanchor">[230]</a> and in 1763, -after the Peace of Paris, the St. Croix river was, in the Commission -to the Governor of Nova Scotia, designated as the -boundary of the province, the following being the terms of -the Commission:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p>‘Although Our said province has anciently extended, -and does of right extend, so far as the river Pentagoet or -Penobscot, it shall be bounded by a line drawn from Cape -Sable across the entrance of the Bay of Fundy to the -mouth of the river St. Croix, by the said river to its source, -and by a line drawn due North from thence to the Southern -boundary of Our Colony of Quebec.’</p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">Accordingly the river St. Croix was designated as the international -boundary in the Treaty of 1783.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_329"></a>[329]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Doubt as -to the -identity -of the -St. Croix -river.</div> - -<p>But then the question arose which was the St. Croix river. -Between 1763 and 1783 attempts had been made to identify -it, but without success, for at least three rivers flowing into -Passamaquoddy Bay were each claimed as the St. Croix. -After the Peace of 1783, the dispute continued, and eventually -the further Treaty of 19th of November, 1794, known from -the name of the American statesman who negotiated it in -London as Jay’s Treaty, provided in the Fifth Article that <span class="sidenote">Commission appointed under the Treaty of 1794 to identify the river.</span> -the question should be left to the final decision of three -Commissioners, one to be appointed by the British Government, -one by that of the United States, and a third by -the two Commissioners themselves. The article provided -that</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="noindent">‘the said Commissioners shall by a Declaration under -their hands and seals decide what river is the river -St. Croix intended by the treaty. The said Declaration -shall contain a description of the said river and shall -particularize the latitude and the longitude of its mouth -and its source.’</p> -</div> - -<p>In August, 1795, the Treaty was ratified by Washington -as President of the United States; and, in 1796, the Commissioners -began their work, the third Commissioner being an -American lawyer. The work was not concluded until another -explanatory article had been, on the 15th of March, 1798, -signed on behalf of the two Governments, relieving the -Commissioners from the duty of particularizing the latitude -and longitude of the source of the St. Croix, provided that -they described the river in such other manner as they judged -expedient, and laying down that the point ascertained and -described to be the source should be marked by a monument -to be erected and maintained by the two Governments. -Eventually, on the 25th of October, 1798, the Commissioners, -who had discharged their duties with conspicuous fairness -and ability, gave their award. They identified the Scoodic <span class="sidenote">The St. Croix river determined in 1798.</span> -river, as it was then called, with the St. Croix of Champlain; -they selected the Eastern or Northern branch of the river -as the boundary line in preference to the South-Western, -thereby including in American territory a considerable area -which the English had claimed; they marked beyond -further dispute the point which was thereafter to be held<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_330"></a>[330]</span> -to be the source of the St. Croix; but they did not demarcate -the actual boundary line down the course of the river.</p> - -<p>From the source of the St. Croix, according to the words of -the Treaty of 1783, which have been already quoted, a line -was to be drawn due North to the Highlands which formed <span class="sidenote">The Maine Boundary question.</span> -the water parting between the streams running into the -St. Lawrence and those running into the Atlantic Ocean, -and this line was supposed to form the North-West angle -of Nova Scotia. No provision was made in the Treaty of -1794 for determining the boundary North of the source of the -St. Croix river, and the labours of the St. Croix Commission -were confined to identifying that river from the mouth to -the source. A far more serious and more prolonged controversy -arose over the territory to the North of the source, -threatening to bring war between Great Britain and the -United States, and not settled for sixty years.</p> - -<p>As in the case of the St. Croix, the framers of the Treaty -of 1783, in specifying a line drawn due North from the source -of that river, to meet the Highlands which parted the basin -of the St. Lawrence from that of the Atlantic, had recourse -to past history and used definitions already in existence. <span class="sidenote">The old definitions of the boundary.</span> -Nova Scotia, as granted to Sir William Alexander, was, -according to the terms of the charter, bounded from the -source of the St. Croix</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="noindent">‘by an imaginary straight line which is conceived to -extend through the land, or run Northward to the nearest -bay, river, or stream emptying into the great river of -Canada’.</p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">The Royal Proclamation of 1763, which constituted the -province of Quebec after the peace signed in that year, defined -the Southern boundary of Quebec as passing</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="noindent">‘along the Highlands which divide the rivers that empty -themselves into the said river St. Lawrence from those -which fall into the sea’.</p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">The Quebec Act of 1774 again defined the Southern boundary -of Quebec as</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="noindent">‘along the Highlands which divide the rivers that empty -themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those which -fall into the sea, to a point in 45 degrees of Northern latitude -on the Eastern bank of the River Connecticut’.</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_331"></a>[331]</span></p> - -<p class="noindent">In the Commission to the Governor of Nova Scotia issued -in 1763, the Western boundary of Nova Scotia from the source -of the St. Croix was defined</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="noindent">‘by a line drawn due North from thence to the Southern -boundary of Our colony of Quebec’.</p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">Therefore the Treaty of 1783, in defining the international -line as a line drawn from the source of the St. Croix</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="noindent">‘directly North to the aforesaid Highlands which divide -the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those -which fall into the river St. Lawrence’,</p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">used the previous definitions of the Western boundary of -Nova Scotia and the Southern boundary of Quebec.</p> - -<p>There were only two new points in the wording of the -Treaty. The first was that the sea was defined as the Atlantic -Ocean, thereby excluding the Bay of Chaleurs, and possibly -the Bay of Fundy also, which was, in the Treaty, at any rate -according to the British contention, treated as separate from -the Atlantic Ocean. The second was the importation of -the words ‘the North-West angle of Nova Scotia.’ It was <span class="sidenote">The ‘North-West angle of Nova Scotia’.</span> -obvious that wherever the Western boundary of Nova Scotia -met the Southern boundary of Quebec there must be such an -angle, but the Treaty spoke of it as a fixed starting point from -whence to draw the boundary line; it assumed that this -angle rested on highlands which divided the waters that -flowed into the Atlantic from those which were tributaries -of the St. Lawrence; and it assumed also that it would be -reached by a due North line from the source of the St. Croix -river. So the inaccurate maps of the day testified, and so -paper boundaries, already recognized, prescribed. When, -however, the matter was put to the test of actual geography, -it was found that a line drawn due North from the source -of the St. Croix nowhere intersected a water parting between -the St. Lawrence basin and that of the Atlantic Ocean. The -sources of the rivers which run into the Atlantic were found -to be far to the West of the Northern line from the St. Croix -river, to the West of that line even if it had been drawn from -the source of the South-Western branch of the St. Croix, -and not, as the St. Croix Commission had drawn it, from the -source of its more easterly branch. It was evident that the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_332"></a>[332]</span> -earlier documents, which the Treaty of 1783 had followed, -were based upon inaccurate information and that it had -never been realized that the source of the St. John river, -beyond which would naturally be sought the head waters of -the streams running into the Atlantic, lay so far to the West, -as is actually the case.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -terms of -the 1783 -Treaty -were not -in accord -with -actual -facts.</div> - -<p>It was therefore physically impossible to mark out a -boundary in accordance with the terms of the Treaty. If -the due Northern line was adhered to, the Highlands mentioned -by the Treaty could not be reached. If those Highlands -were adhered to, the due Northern line must be abandoned. -In either case the North-Western angle of Nova Scotia, -instead of being a fixed starting point, was an unknown -factor, an abstraction which could only be given a real -existence by bargain and agreement. The matter was one -of vital importance to Great Britain, for it involved the -preservation or abandonment of communication between -the Maritime Provinces and Canada, all important in winter -time when the mouth of the St. Lawrence was closed. The -direct North line cut the St. John river slightly to the west -of the Grand Falls on that river; and, had it been prolonged -in the same direction, searching for Highlands till the St. -Lawrence was nearly reached, Canada and New Brunswick -would have been almost cut off from each other. The longer -the controversy went on, the more clearly this result was -seen by the Americans as well as by the English, hence the -bitterness of the dispute and the tenacity with which either -party maintained their position and accentuated their claims.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attempt -at settlement -in -1803.</div> - -<p>On the 12th of May, 1803, a Convention was signed between -Great Britain and the United States providing that the -dispute should be left to the decision of an International -Commission constituted in precisely the same manner as the -St. Croix Commission had been constituted; but the Convention -was never ratified, and the points at issue were still -outstanding when the negotiations were set on foot which <span class="sidenote">The second American war.</span> -ended in the Treaty of Ghent at the close of the second war -between the two nations. During the war formal possession -was taken on behalf of Great Britain of the country between -the Penobscot river and New Brunswick, which included the -area under dispute, a proclamation to that effect being issued<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_333"></a>[333]</span> -at Halifax on the 21st of September, 1814;<a id="FNanchor_231" href="#Footnote_231" class="fnanchor">[231]</a> but at the date -of the proclamation negotiations for peace were already -proceeding, and the only basis on which the Americans -would treat was the restitution of the status quo ante bellum, -proposals for an adjustment of the boundary between New -Brunswick and Massachusetts,<a id="FNanchor_232" href="#Footnote_232" class="fnanchor">[232]</a> of which Maine then formed -part, being treated as a demand for cession of territory -belonging to the United States. On the British side it was <span class="sidenote">The British Contention.</span> -maintained that the line claimed by the Americans</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="noindent">‘by which the direct communication between Halifax and -Quebec becomes interrupted, was not in contemplation of -the British Plenipotentiaries who concluded the Treaty of -1783’,<a id="FNanchor_233" href="#Footnote_233" class="fnanchor">[233]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">and in a later letter, replying to the American representatives, -the British negotiators wrote<a id="FNanchor_234" href="#Footnote_234" class="fnanchor">[234]</a></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="noindent">‘the British Government never required that all that -portion of the State of Massachusetts intervening between -the Province of New Brunswick and Quebec should be -ceded to Great Britain, but only that small portion of -unsettled country which interrupts the communication -between Halifax and Quebec, there being much doubt -whether it does not already belong to Great Britain’.</p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">The inference to be drawn from the correspondence is that, -on the strict wording of the Treaty of 1783, apart from the -intention of those who negotiated it, the American claim was -recognized to be stronger than the British.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -Treaty of -Ghent.</div> - -<p>The Treaty of Ghent was signed on the 24th of December, -1814, and the Fifth Article provided that two Commissioners -should be appointed to locate the North-West angle of Nova -Scotia as well as the North-Westernmost head of the Connecticut -river, between which two points the Treaty of 1783 -provided that the dividing line along the Highlands was to -be drawn. A map of the boundary was to be made, and the -latitude and longitude of the North-West angle and of the -head of the Connecticut were to be particularized. If the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_334"></a>[334]</span> -Commissioners agreed, their report was to be final; but if -they disagreed, they were to report to their respective governments, -and some friendly sovereign or state was to arbitrate -between them. The Commission first met in 1816, much <span class="sidenote">A Boundary Commission appointed.</span> -time was taken up in surveying the North line from the source -of the St. Croix to the watershed of the St. Lawrence, and it -was not until 1821 that the two representatives, having -failed to agree, gave distinct awards, the British Commissioner <span class="sidenote">The Commissioners disagree.</span> -placing the North-West angle at the Highlands known as -Mars Hill nearly 40 miles south of the St. John river, and the -American Commissioner locating it nearly 70 miles north of -that river, either Commissioner adopting the extreme claim -put forward by his side.</p> - -<p>In view of the divergence between the two reports, it -was necessary, in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of -Ghent, to submit the matter to arbitration; but this step -was not taken until yet another Convention had been signed -on the 29th of September, 1827, providing that new statements <span class="sidenote">The Convention of 1827.</span> -of the case on either side should be drawn up for submission -to the arbitrator. It was laid down that the basis -of the statements should be two specified maps, one of which -was referred to as the map used in drawing up the original -Treaty of 1783. The inaccuracies in this map, Mitchell’s -map, had been the origin of all the difficulties which had -subsequently arisen. The King of the Netherlands was <span class="sidenote">Award given by the King of the Netherlands as Arbitrator.</span> -selected to arbitrate. In 1830 the statements were laid -before him, and in January, 1831, he gave his award. It -was to the effect that it was impossible, having regard either -to law or to equity, to adopt either of the lines proposed by -the two contending parties, and that a compromise should be -accepted which was defined in the award. The line which -the king proposed was more favourable to the Americans <span class="sidenote">The award not accepted by the Americans.</span> -than to the English, but the Americans declined to consent -to it, on the ground that, while the arbitrator might accept -either of the two lines which were presented for arbitration, -he was not empowered to fix a third and new boundary.</p> - -<p>Thus this troublesome matter was still left outstanding, -and yet the necessity for a settlement was more pressing -than ever. The new state of Maine maintained the American -claim with more pertinacity and less inclination to compromise<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_335"></a>[335]</span> -than the Government of the United States had -shown; the United States Government was ready to accept -a conventional line, but Maine objected, and meanwhile the -result of the uncertainty and delay was that the backwoodsmen -of Maine and New Brunswick were coming to blows. -About the beginning of 1839 the disputes in the region of the <span class="sidenote">Collision in the Aroostook region.</span> -Aroostook river nearly brought on war between the two -nations, which was only averted by the mediation of General -Winfield Scott then commanding the American forces on -the frontier. Immediately afterwards two British Commissioners, -Colonel Mudge and Mr. Featherstonhaugh, were -deputed to survey the debatable territory and reported in -April, 1840,<a id="FNanchor_235" href="#Footnote_235" class="fnanchor">[235]</a> their report being followed by a survey on the -part of the American Government. At length, on the 9th of -August, 1842, Daniel Webster then Secretary of State for the -United States, and Lord Ashburton, sent out as special <span class="sidenote">The Ashburton Treaty. - -Final settlement of the Maine boundary question.</span> -Commissioner from Great Britain, concluded the Treaty of -Washington, which put an end to the long and dangerous -controversy. By the First Article of that Treaty the present -boundary was fixed; the North line from the monument at -the head of the St. Croix river was followed to the point -where it intersected the St. John; the middle of the main -channel of that river was then taken as far as the mouth of -its tributary the St. Francis; thence the middle of the channel -of the St. Francis up to the outlet of the Lake Pohenagamook; -from which point the line was drawn in a South-Westerly -direction to the dividing Highlands and the head of the -Connecticut river until the 45th degree of North latitude was -reached. The boundary was subsequently surveyed and -marked out, and upon the 28th of June, 1847, the final results -were reported and the matter was at an end.</p> - -<p>The existing boundary is on the whole more favourable to -Great Britain than the line which the King of the Netherlands -proposed and the Americans rejected; but notwithstanding, -Lord Ashburton’s settlement has always been regarded in -Canada as having given to the United States territory to which -Great Britain had an undoubted claim. The fault, however, -was not with Lord Ashburton but with the wording of the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_336"></a>[336]</span> -original Treaty of 1783; and that treaty, as has been shown, -was based on such geographical information as there was to -hand, accepted at the time in good faith, but subsequently -proved to be incorrect. It should be added that by the -Third Article of the Ashburton Treaty the navigation of the -river St. John was declared to be free and open to both -nations, and that the settlement of the international boundary -was followed by an adjustment of the frontier between Canada -and New Brunswick. The dispute between the two provinces <span class="sidenote">Settlement of the boundary between the province of Quebec and that of New Brunswick.</span> -was, at the suggestion of the Imperial Government, eventually -referred to two arbitrators, one chosen by each province, -with an umpire selected by the arbitrators themselves. The -award was given in 1851, and in the same year its terms were -embodied in an Imperial Act of Parliament</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="noindent">‘for the settlement of the boundaries between the provinces -of Canada and New Brunswick’.</p> -</div> - -<div class="sidenote">The -International -boundary -in the -Bay of -Fundy.</div> - -<p>In the Bay of Fundy the boundary line between British -and American territory was, by the terms of the 1783 Treaty, -to be drawn due East from the mouth of the St. Croix river, -assigning to the United States all islands within twenty -leagues of the shore to the South of the line,</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="noindent">‘excepting such islands as now are or heretofore have been -within the limits of the said province of Nova Scotia.’</p> -</div> - -<p>Here was a further ground of dispute, touching the ownership -of the islands in Passamaquoddy Bay. Geographically -they would belong to the United States, unless they could -be shown to have been within the limits of Nova Scotia. -The Convention of 1803, which has already been mentioned -as never having been ratified, in the First Article prescribed -the boundary; and the Treaty of Ghent in the Fourth Article -referred the matter to two Commissioners on precisely the -same terms as were adopted by the next Article of the Treaty -in the case of the North-West angle controversy, i.e., each -nation was to appoint an arbitrator, and, if the two arbitrators -failed to agree, separate reports were to be made to the two -governments, and the final decision was to be left to some -friendly sovereign or state. Fortunately the two arbitrators -came to an agreement, delivering their award on the 24th of -November, 1817. Three little islands in the Bay of Passamaquoddy,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_337"></a>[337]</span> -named Moose Island, Dudley Island, and Frederick -Island, were allotted to the United States, and the rest of -the islands in the bay, together with the island of Grand -Manan, lying further out in the Bay of Fundy, were assigned -to Great Britain. The actual channel, however, was not -delimited; and though many years afterwards, under a Convention -of 1892, Commissioners were appointed for the purpose, -they failed to come to a complete agreement; this small -question therefore between the two nations is still awaiting -settlement under the Treaty for the delimitation of International -Boundaries between Canada and the United States which -was signed on 11th April, 1908.<a id="FNanchor_236" href="#Footnote_236" class="fnanchor">[236]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">The line -from the -North-Westernmost -head of -the Connecticut -river to -the -St. Lawrence.</div> - -<p>From the point where the boundary line struck the North-Westernmost -head of the Connecticut River, the Treaty of -1783 provided that it should be carried</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="noindent">‘down along the middle of that river to the forty-fifth -degree of North latitude, from thence by a line due West -on said latitude until it strikes the river Iroquois or -Cataraquy’.</p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">Iroquois or Cataraquy was the name given to the St. Lawrence -between Montreal and Lake Ontario, and the First -Article of Lord Ashburton’s Treaty, identifying the North-Westernmost -head of the Connecticut River with a river -called Hall’s Stream, re-affirmed in somewhat different words -the provision of the older Treaty as to this section of the -boundary. Here there was no dispute. The line had already -been laid down in the Proclamation of 1763 and the Quebec -Act of 1774. In the words of the Ashburton Treaty it was -the line</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="noindent">‘which has been known and understood to be the line of -actual division between the States of New York and -Vermont on one side and the British province of Canada on -the other’.</p> -</div> - -<div class="sidenote">The line -up the -St. Lawrence -and -the lakes.</div> - -<p>From the point where the 45th parallel intersected the -St. Lawrence, the line was, under the Treaty of 1783, to be<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_338"></a>[338]</span> -carried up the middle of the rivers and lakes to the water -communication between Lake Huron and Lake Superior, -with the necessary result that Lake Michigan was entirely -excluded from Canada. By the Sixth Article of the Treaty -of Ghent two Commissioners were to be appointed to settle -doubts as to what was the middle of the waterway and to -which of the two nations the various Islands belonged: -and, as in other cases, if the Commissioners disagreed, they -were to report to their respective governments with a view -to arbitration by a neutral power. A joint award was given,<a id="FNanchor_237" href="#Footnote_237" class="fnanchor">[237]</a> -signed at Utica on the 18th of June, 1822, the boundary -being elaborately specified and the report being accompanied -by a series of maps.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The line -between -Lake -Huron -and Lake -Superior, -and to -the most -North-Western -point of -the Lake -of the -Woods.</div> - -<p>The Treaty of 1783 laid down that the line was to be drawn, -as already stated, through the middle of Lake Huron</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="noindent">‘to the water-communication between that lake and Lake -Superior; thence through Lake Superior, Northward of the -Isles Royal and Phelipeaux to the Long Lake; thence -through the middle of said Long Lake and the water communication -between it and the Lake of the Woods to the -said Lake of the Woods, thence through the said lake to -the most North-Western point thereof’.</p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">Under the Sixth Article of the Treaty of Ghent the Commissioners -defined the frontier line well into the strait between -Lakes Huron and Superior, but stopped short of the Sault -St. Marie, at a point above St. Joseph’s Island and below -St. George’s or Sugar Island. Here they considered that -their labours under the Sixth Article terminated. But the -next Article of the Treaty of Ghent provided that the same -two Commissioners should go on to determine</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="noindent">‘that part of the boundary between the dominions of the -two powers, which extends from the water communication -between Lake Huron and Lake Superior to the most North-Western -point of the Lake of the Woods’.</p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">Comparing these words with the terms of the 1783 Treaty, -it will be noticed that mention of the Long Lake is eliminated, <span class="sidenote">Nonexistence of the ‘Long Lake’.</span> -as it had been discovered in the meantime that the Long -Lake could not be identified. On this section of the boundary -the Commissioners were not at one. Accordingly on the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_339"></a>[339]</span> -23rd of October, 1826,<a id="FNanchor_238" href="#Footnote_238" class="fnanchor">[238]</a> they presented an elaborate joint -report showing the points on which they had come to an -agreement, and those on which they were at variance, with -their respective recommendations. As to a great part of -the line they were in accord, and especially they defined by -latitude and longitude the most North-Western point of the <span class="sidenote">The ‘most North-Western point of the Lake of the Woods’ determined.</span> -Lake of the Woods, but they wholly disagreed as to the -ownership of St. George’s or Sugar Island in the strait between -Lake Huron and Lake Superior, and also as to the line to be -taken from a point towards the Western end of Lake Superior<a id="FNanchor_239" href="#Footnote_239" class="fnanchor">[239]</a> -to the Lac de Pluie or Rainy Lake. They made, however, on -either side suggestions for compromise. The matter was set -at rest by the Second Article of Lord Ashburton’s Treaty, -St. George’s Island being assigned to the United States, and -a compromise line being drawn from Lake Superior to Rainy -Lake. The channels along the whole boundary line from the <span class="sidenote">The Ashburton Treaty and the Treaty of 1871.</span> -point where it strikes the St. Lawrence are open to both -nations; and by the Twenty-sixth Article of the Treaty of -Washington, dated the 8th of May, 1871, the navigation -of the St. Lawrence, from the point where it is intersected <span class="sidenote">Navigation of the St. Lawrence.</span> -by the International Boundary down to the sea is declared to be -free and open for the purposes of Commerce to the citizens of -the United States, subject to any laws and regulations of Great -Britain and Canada not inconsistent with the privilege of -free navigation.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The line -from the -most -North-Western -point of -the Lake -of the -Woods to -the Mississippi.</div> - -<p>According to the 1783 Treaty the boundary line from the -most North-Western point of the Lake of the Woods was to -be drawn</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="noindent">‘on a due West course to the river Mississippi’,</p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">and was then to follow that river Southwards. Here geographical -knowledge was again wanting. The framers of the -treaty were under the impression that the source of the -Mississippi was further North than is actually the case, and <span class="sidenote">Mistake as to the source of the Mississippi in the Treaty of 1783.</span> -they prescribed a geographical impossibility. It was not long<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_340"></a>[340]</span> -before the mistake was found out, for the Fourth Article of <span class="sidenote">Corrected by Jay’s Treaty of 1794.</span> -Jay’s Treaty of 1794<a id="FNanchor_240" href="#Footnote_240" class="fnanchor">[240]</a> began with the words</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p>‘Whereas it is uncertain whether the river Mississippi -extends so far to the Northward as to be intersected by -a line to be drawn due West from the Lake of the Woods.’</p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">The same Article provided that there should be a joint survey -of the sources of the river, and, if it was found that the Westward -line did not intersect the river, the boundary was to be -adjusted</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="noindent">‘according to justice and mutual convenience and in -conformity to the intent of’</p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">the 1783 Treaty.</p> - -<p>The Fifth Article of the unratified Treaty of 1803 provided -that a direct line should be drawn from the North-West point -of the Lake of the Woods to the nearest source of the Mississippi, -leaving it to three Commissioners to fix the two points -in question and to draw the line. A further attempt at -adjustment was made in 1806-7, when the negotiators provisionally -agreed to an Article to the effect that the line -should be drawn from the most North-Western point of the -Lake of the Woods to the 49th parallel of latitude, and from -that point due West along the parallel</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="noindent">‘as far as the respective territories extend in that quarter’.</p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">This solution again was not carried into effect; and though -the subject was raised in the negotiations which preceded -the Treaty of Ghent in 1814, no mention was made of it in -the Treaty itself. Eventually, however, on the 20th of October, <span class="sidenote">The Convention of 1818.</span> -1818, a Convention was signed in London, the Second Article -of which ran as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p>‘It is agreed that a line drawn from the most North-Western -point of the Lake of the Woods along the 49th -parallel of North latitude or, if the said point shall not be -in the 49th parallel of North latitude, then that a line -drawn from the said point due North or South, as the case -may be, until the said line shall intersect the said parallel -of North latitude, and from the point of such intersection -due West along and with the said parallel, shall be the line -of demarcation between the territories of His Britannic<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_341"></a>[341]</span> -Majesty and those of the United States, and that the said <span class="sidenote">First mention in the boundary agreements of the 49th Parallel and the Rocky Mountains.</span> -line shall form the Southern boundary of the said territories -of His Britannic Majesty and the Northern boundary of -the territories of the United States from the Lake of the -Woods to the Stony Mountains.’<a id="FNanchor_241" href="#Footnote_241" class="fnanchor">[241]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">Here the Rocky Mountains, under the name of the Stony -Mountains, first come in, their existence having been unknown, -except by vague report, when the Peace of 1783 -was signed.<a id="FNanchor_242" href="#Footnote_242" class="fnanchor">[242]</a></p> - -<p>Geographical knowledge was creeping on, but the wording -of the Article shows that it was still uncertain whether the -North-Westernmost point of the Lake of the Woods was -North or South of the 49th parallel. This doubt was finally -cleared up by the Commissioners who, as already stated, -reported in October, 1826, and who fixed the point in question -in 49° 23′ 55″ North; thus, when Lord Ashburton negotiated <span class="sidenote">The boundary line as far as the Rocky Mountains finally determined by the Ashburton Treaty.</span> -the 1842 Treaty, it was only left for him, adopting the point -which the Commissioners had fixed, to lay down in the Second -Article that the boundary line ran</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="noindent">‘thence, according to existing treaties, due South to its -intersection with the 49th parallel of North latitude, and -along that parallel to the Rocky Mountains’.</p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">The 49th parallel runs through the Lake of the Woods, but -the anterior provision that the boundary line should be -carried to the North-Westernmost point of the lake, coupled -with the fact that that point had been already determined, -necessitated an unnatural and inconvenient diversion of the -frontier line first to the North-West and then due South again, -thereby including in American territory a small corner of land -which should clearly have been assigned to Canada. For <span class="sidenote">The Ashburton Treaty finally determined the points arising out of the wording of the Treaty of 1783.</span> -this result Lord Ashburton has been blamed, as he was -blamed in the matter of the Maine boundary, but in either -case his hands were tied by previous negotiations and the -wording of existing treaties. A fair review of the whole -subject leads to the conclusion that the Treaty of Washington -in 1842 was a not inadequate compromise of the almost -insuperable difficulties which the wording of the original -Treaty of 1783 had left outstanding.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_342"></a>[342]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Later -boundary -questions.</div> - -<p>In tracing the evolution of the boundary between Canada -and the United States we have now reached the point where -the 1783 Treaty ceased to operate, and have seen that the -negotiations connected with the interpretation of the Treaty -resulted in the line of demarcation being carried far beyond -that point, viz., the head of the Mississippi, up to the range -of the Rocky Mountains. Meanwhile the Pacific Coast had -begun to attract attention, and a new crop of international -questions had come into existence.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -Oregon -boundary -dispute.</div> - -<p>The Western territory in dispute between the two nations -was known as the Oregon or Columbia territory, and it lay -between the 42nd degree of North latitude and the Russian -line in 54° 40′ North latitude. The Columbia river took its -name from the fact that it had been entered in May, 1792, -by an American ship from Boston named the <i>Columbia</i>, -commanded by Captain Gray, who thus claimed to be the -discoverer of the river. In 1805 Lewis and Clark, the first -Americans to cross the continent, reached its head waters and -followed the river down to the sea. In 1811 an American -trading settlement was planted at Astoria near its mouth. -This settlement was voluntarily surrendered to Great Britain -in the war which followed shortly afterwards, but was restored, -without prejudice, to the United States under the general -restitution article of the Treaty of Ghent. The Third Article -of the subsequent Treaty of October 20th, 1818, provided that</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="noindent">‘any country that may be claimed by either party on the -North-West coast of America, Westward of the Stony Mountains, -shall, together with its harbours, bays, and creeks and -the navigation of all rivers within the same, be free and -open for the term of 10 years’</p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">to both Powers, without prejudice to the claims either of -themselves or of foreign Powers; and this Article was, by -a Convention of 6th of August, 1827, indefinitely prolonged—subject -to one year’s notice on either side—all claims -being, as before, reserved. This last Convention was concluded, -as its terms specified, in order to prevent all hazard -of misunderstanding and to give time for maturing measures -for a more definite settlement.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -position -in 1842.</div> - -<p>On this basis matters stood in 1842, when the Ashburton -Treaty was signed. There was joint occupation of the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_343"></a>[343]</span> -Oregon territory by British and American subjects, and -freedom of trade for both. Lord Ashburton had been empowered -to negotiate for a settlement of the North-Western -as well as the North-Eastern frontier line; but the latter, which -involved the question of the Maine—New Brunswick boundary, -being the more pressing matter, it was thought well to -allow the determination of the line West of the Rocky Mountains -to stand over for the moment. As soon as Lord Ashburton’s -Treaty had been signed at Washington in August, -1842, Lord Aberdeen, then Foreign Secretary in Sir Robert -Peel’s Ministry, made overtures to the United States with a -view to an early settlement of the Oregon question. A long -diplomatic controversy ensued, complicated by changes of -government in the United States, and tending, as is constantly -the case in such negotiations, to greater instead of -less divergence of view.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The rival -claims.</div> - -<p>The Americans contended that they had a title to the -whole territory up to the Russian line, and they claimed -the entire region drained by the Columbia river. As a compromise, -however, they had already, in the negotiations -which ended in the Convention of 1827, suggested that the -boundary line along the 49th parallel should be continued -as far as the Pacific, the navigation of the Columbia river -being left open to both nations. This offer was repeated as -the controversy went on, with the exception that on the -one hand free navigation of the Columbia river was excluded, -and on the other the American Secretary of State proposed</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="noindent">‘to make free to Great Britain any port or ports on Vancouver’s -Island, south of this parallel, which the British -Government may desire’.<a id="FNanchor_243" href="#Footnote_243" class="fnanchor">[243]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">The counter British proposal was to the effect that the -boundary line should be continued along the 49th parallel -until it intersected the North-Eastern branch of the Columbia -river, and that then the line of the river should be followed -to its mouth, giving to Great Britain all the country on the -north of the river and to the United States all on the south,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_344"></a>[344]</span> -the navigation of the river being free to both nations, and -a detached strip of coast land to the north of the river being -also conceded to the United States, with the further understanding -that any port or ports, either on the mainland -or on Vancouver Island, South of the 49th parallel, to which -the United States might wish to have access, should be constituted -free ports.</p> - -<p>The arguments advanced on both sides, based on alleged -priority of discovery and settlement and on the construction -of previous treaties, are contained in the Blue Book of 1846, -and are too voluminous to be repeated here. The controversy -went on from 1842 to 1846; and, when the spring of the -latter year was reached, the Americans had withdrawn their -previous offer and had refused a British proposal to submit -the whole matter to arbitration. There was thus a complete -deadlock, but shortly afterwards a debate in Congress showed -a desire on the American side to effect a friendly settlement -of a dispute which had become dangerous, and, the opportunity -being promptly taken by the British Government, a Draft -Treaty was sent out by Lord Aberdeen, which was submitted -by President Polk to the Senate, who by a large majority -advised him to accept it.<a id="FNanchor_244" href="#Footnote_244" class="fnanchor">[244]</a> The Treaty was accordingly -<span class="sidenote">Settlement of the Oregon boundary question by the Treaty of 1846.</span> -signed at Washington on the 15th of June, 1846. By the -First Article the boundary line was</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="noindent">‘continued Westward along the said forty-ninth parallel -of North latitude to the middle of the channel which -separates the continent from Vancouver Island, and thence -Southerly, through the middle of the said channel and of -Fuca’s Straits, to the Pacific Ocean’,</p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">the navigation of the channel and straits South of the 49th -parallel being left free and open to both nations. By the -Second Article of the same Treaty, the navigation of the -Columbia river, from the point where the 49th parallel intersects -its great Northern branch, was left open to the Hudson’s -Bay Company and to all British subjects trading with the -same. The effect of the Treaty was that Great Britain -abandoned the claim to the line of the Columbia river, and -the United States modified its proposal to adopt the 49th<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_345"></a>[345]</span> -parallel as the boundary so far as to concede the whole of -Vancouver Island to Great Britain. The news that the -treaty had been signed reached England just as Sir Robert -Peel’s ministry was going out of office.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The San -Juan -boundary -question.</div> - -<p>The delimitation of the boundary which the Treaty had -affirmed gave rise to a further difficulty. The Treaty having -provided that the sea line was to be drawn southerly through -the middle of the channel which separates Vancouver Island -from the continent and of Fuca’s Straits into the Pacific -Ocean, the two nations were unable to agree as to what was -the middle of the channel in the Gulf of Georgia between the -Southern end of Vancouver Island and the North American -coast. The main question at issue was the ownership of the -island of San Juan, and the subject of dispute was for this -reason known as the San Juan boundary question. The -British claim was that the line should be drawn to the Eastward -of the island, down what was known as the Rosario -Straits. The Americans contended that it should be drawn -on the Western side, following the Canal de Haro or Haro -Channel. Eventually it was laid down by the 34th and <span class="sidenote">Arbitration under the Treaty of 1871.</span> -following Articles of the Treaty of Washington of 8th of May, -1871—the same Treaty which provided for arbitration on the -<i>Alabama</i> question—that the Emperor of Germany should -arbitrate as to which of the two claims was most in accordance -with the true interpretation of the Treaty of 1846, and that -his award should be absolutely final and conclusive. On -the 21st of October, 1872, the arbitrator gave his award in -favour of the United States, and it was immediately carried -into effect, thus completing the boundary line from the -Atlantic to the Pacific.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -Alaska -boundary -question.</div> - -<p>In a message to Congress on the subject of the San Juan -Boundary Award, President Grant stated</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="noindent">‘The Award leaves us, for the first time in the history -of the United States as a nation, without a question of -disputed boundary between our territory and the possessions -of Great Britain on this continent;’</p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">and he suggested that a joint Commission should determine -the line between the Alaska territory and the conterminous -possessions of Great Britain, on the hypothesis that here -there was no ground of dispute and that all that was required<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_346"></a>[346]</span> -was the actual delimitation of an already admitted boundary -line. The matter proved to be more complex than the -President’s words implied.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Russian -America -ceded to -the -United -States.</div> - -<p>By a Treaty signed on the 30th of March, 1867, the territory -now known as Alaska was ceded by Russia to the United -States. It was the year in which the Dominion Act was -passed; and, when British Columbia<a id="FNanchor_245" href="#Footnote_245" class="fnanchor">[245]</a> in 1871 joined the -Dominion, Canada became, in respect of that province, as -well as in regard to the Yukon Territory, a party to the -Alaska boundary question. The limits of Russian America, -as it was then called, had been fixed as far back as 1825, -when, by a treaty between Great Britain and Russia, dated <span class="sidenote">Line of demarcation between British and Russian possessions in North America drawn in 1825.</span> -the 28th of February in that year, a line of demarcation was -fixed between British and Russian possessions</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="noindent">‘upon the coast of the continent and the islands of America -to the North-West’.</p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">The line started from the Southernmost point of Prince of -Wales Island, which point was defined as lying in the parallel -of 54° 40′ North latitude and between the 131st and 133rd -degrees of West longitude. It was carried thence to the -North, along the channel called Portland Channel, up to that -point of the continent where it intersected the 56th parallel -of North latitude. From this point it followed the summit -of the mountains parallel to the coast until it intersected -the 141st degree of West longitude, and was carried along -that meridian to the Arctic Ocean. The Treaty provided -that the whole of Prince of Wales Island should belong to -Russia, and that wherever the summit of the mountains -running parallel to the coast between the 56th parallel of -North latitude and the point where the boundary line intersected -the 141st meridian was proved to be at a distance of -more than 10 marine leagues from the ocean, the line should -be drawn parallel to the windings of the coast at a distance -from it never exceeding 10 marine leagues.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Free -navigation -of -rivers.</div> - -<p>Free navigation of the rivers which flowed into the Pacific -Ocean across the strip of coast assigned to Russia was conceded -in perpetuity to British subjects; and, after the transfer<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_347"></a>[347]</span> -of Russian America to the United States, the Twenty-sixth -Article of the Treaty of Washington of 1871 provided that -the navigation of the rivers Yukon, Porcupine, and Stikine -should for ever remain free and open to both British and -American citizens, subject to such laws and regulations of -either country within its own territory as were not inconsistent -with the privilege of free navigation.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Negotiations -for -a settlement -of the -boundary -with the -United -States.</div> - -<p>In 1872, the year after the entry of British Columbia into -the Dominion of Canada, mining being contemplated in the -northern part of British Columbia, overtures were, at the -instance of the Canadian Government, made to the United -States to demarcate the boundary, which had never yet been -surveyed and delimited. The probable cost of a survey -caused delay, and no action had been taken when in 1875 -and 1876 disputes arose as to the boundary line on the Stikine -river. The Canadian Government in 1877 dispatched an -engineer to ascertain approximately the line on the river, -and the result of his survey was in the following year provisionally -accepted by the United States as a temporary -arrangement, without prejudice to a final settlement. Negotiations -began again about 1884, and, by a Convention signed <span class="sidenote">The Convention of 1892.</span> -at Washington on the 22nd of July, 1892, it was provided -that a coincident or joint survey should be undertaken of -the territory adjacent to the boundary line from the latitude -of 54° 40′ North to the point where the line intersects the -141st degree of West longitude. It was added that, as soon -as practicable after the report or reports had been received, -the two governments should proceed to consider and establish -the boundary line. The time within which the results of -the survey were to be reported was, by a supplementary -Convention, extended to the 31st of December, 1895, and -on that date a joint report was made, but no action was -taken upon it at the time.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Discovery -of -gold at -Klondyke.</div> - -<p>In 1896 the Klondyke goldfields were discovered in what -now constitutes the Yukon district of the North-West Territories, -and in the following year there was a large immigration -into the district. The goldfields were most accessible by the -passes beyond the head of the inlet known as the Lynn canal, -the opening of which into the sea is within what had been -the Russian fringe of coast. The necessity therefore for<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_348"></a>[348]</span> -determining the boundary became more urgent than before. -In 1898 the British Government proposed that the matter <span class="sidenote">Further negotiations.</span> -should be referred to three Commissioners, one appointed -by each government and the third by a neutral power; and -that, pending a settlement, a <i>modus vivendi</i> should be arranged. -A provisional boundary in this quarter was accordingly -agreed upon, but, instead of the Commission which had -been proposed, representatives of Great Britain and the -United States alone met in 1898 and 1899 to discuss and if -possible settle various questions at issue between the two -nations, among them being the Alaska boundary. They -were to endeavour to come to an agreement as to provisions -for the delimitation of the boundary</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="noindent">‘by legal and scientific experts, if the Commission should -so decide, or otherwise’,</p> -</div> - -<p class="noindent">memoranda of the views held on either side being furnished -in advance of the sittings of the Commission. Again no -settlement was effected.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The Convention -of 1903. -Joint -Commission -appointed.</div> - -<p>The dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela as to -the boundary between Venezuela and British Guiana, in -which the Government of the United States had intervened, -had, by a Convention signed in February, 1897, been referred -to arbitration, the Arbitrators being five in number, two -Englishmen, two Americans, and one representative of a -neutral State. In July, 1899, before the award in this -arbitration had been given, Lord Salisbury proposed to the -American Government that a treaty on identical lines with -the Venezuela boundary Convention should apply arbitration -to the Alaska Boundary question. To this procedure, giving -a casting vote on the whole question to a representative of -a neutral power, the American Government took exception, -and suggested instead a Tribunal consisting of ‘Six impartial -Jurists of repute’, three to be appointed by the President -of the United States and three by Her Britannic Majesty. -A suggestion made by the British Government that one of -the three Arbitrators on either side should be a subject of -a neutral state was not accepted; and eventually, on the -24th of January, 1903, a Convention was signed at Washington, -constituting a tribunal in accordance with the American<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_349"></a>[349]</span> -conditions. The three British representatives were the Lord -Chief Justice of England and two leading Canadians, one of them -being the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Quebec.</p> - -<p>The preamble of the Convention stated that its object was -a ‘friendly and final adjustment’ of the differences which -had arisen as to the ‘true meaning and application’ of the -clauses in the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1825 which referred -to the Alaska boundary. The tribunal was to decide where <span class="sidenote">Points for decision.</span> -the line was intended to begin; what channel was the Portland -Channel; how the line should be drawn from the point -of commencement to the entrance to the Portland Channel; -to what point on the 56th parallel and by what course it -should be drawn from the head of the Portland Channel; -what interpretation should be given to the provision in the -Treaty of 1825 that from the 56th parallel to the point where -the 141st degree of longitude was intersected the line should -follow the crest of the mountains running parallel to the -coast at a distance nowhere exceeding ten marine leagues -from the ocean; and what were the mountains, if any, which -were indicated by the treaty.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Main -point at -issue.</div> - -<p>The main point at issue was whether the ten leagues should -be measured from the open sea or from the heads of the -inlets, some of which ran far into the land. If the latter -interpretation were adopted, the result would be to give to -the United States control of the main lines of communication -with the Klondyke Mining district, just as the Maine boundary -threatened to cut, and in large measure did cut, communication -between the Maritime Provinces and Quebec.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -Award.</div> - -<p>The Convention provided that all questions considered by -the tribunal, including the final award, should be decided -by a majority of the Arbitrators. The tribunal was unanimous -in deciding that the point of commencement of the -line was Cape Muzon, the Southernmost point of Dall Island -on the Western or ocean side of Prince of Wales Island. A -unanimous opinion was also given to the effect that the -Portland Channel is the channel which runs from about -55°56′ North latitude and passes seawards to the North of -Pearse and Wales Islands; but on all subsequent points -there was a division of opinion, the three American representatives -and the Lord Chief Justice of England giving<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_350"></a>[350]</span> -a majority award from which the two Canadian members -of the tribunal most strongly dissented. The majority -decided that the outlet of the Portland Channel to the sea -was to be identified with the strait known as Tongass Channel, -and that the line should be drawn along that channel and -pass to the South of two islands named Sitklan and Khannaghunut -islands, thus vesting the ownership of those islands -in the United States. They also decided that the boundary -line from the 56th parallel of North latitude to the point of -intersection with the 141st degree of West longitude should -run round the heads of the inlets and not cross them. One -section of the line was not fully determined owing to the -want of an adequate survey. The net result of the award -was to substantiate the American claims, to give to the -United States full command of the sea approaches to the -Klondyke Mining districts, and to include within American -territory two islands hard by the prospective terminus of -a new Trans-Canadian Railway.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -Behring -Sea -arbitration.</div> - -<p>It may be added that the Treaty of 30th March, 1867, -by which Alaska was transferred from Russia to the United -States, gave rise not only to the territorial boundary dispute -of which an account has been given above, but also to a controversy -as to American and British rights in the Behring -Sea, more especially in connexion with the taking of seals. -The questions at issue were settled at a much earlier date -than the land boundary, having been, by a treaty signed at -Washington on the 29th of February, 1892, referred to a -tribunal of seven arbitrators, two named by the United -States, two by Great Britain, and one each by the President -of the French Republic, the King of Italy, and the King of -Sweden and Norway. The arbitrators met in Paris and -gave their award on the 15th of August, 1893, the substance -of the award, as concurred in by the majority of the arbitrators, -being that Russia had not exercised any exclusive rights of -jurisdiction in Behring Sea or any exclusive rights to the -seal fisheries in that sea outside the ordinary three-mile limit, -and that no such rights had passed to the United States.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">The -Treaty of -April 11, -1908.</div> - -<p>The last phase in the evolution of the Boundary line -between Canada and the United States is the Treaty of -11th of April, 1908, ‘for the delimitation of International<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_351"></a>[351]</span> -Boundaries between Canada and the United States’, by -which machinery is provided ‘for the more complete definition -and demarcation of the International Boundary’, and for -settling any small outstanding points such as, e.g., the boundary -line through Passamaquoddy Bay.</p> - -<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_230" href="#FNanchor_230" class="label">[230]</a> See the report of the Lords of the Committee of Council for Plantation -Affairs, October 6, 1763, given at pp. 116-18 of <i>Documents Relating -to the Constitutional History of Canada, 1759-91</i> (Shortt and Doughty).</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_231" href="#FNanchor_231" class="label">[231]</a> See <i>State Papers</i>, vol. i, Part II, p. 1369.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_232" href="#FNanchor_232" class="label">[232]</a> <i>Note.</i>—The territory in dispute, however, seems partly to have -been claimed by the United States as Federal Territory and not as -belonging to Massachusetts. See the letter from Gallatin to Monroe, -December 25, 1814. <i>State Papers</i> for 1821-2, vol. ix, p. 562.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_233" href="#FNanchor_233" class="label">[233]</a> See <i>State Papers</i>, vol. i, Part II, p. 1603.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_234" href="#FNanchor_234" class="label">[234]</a> See <i>State Papers</i>, vol. i, Part II, p. 1625.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_235" href="#FNanchor_235" class="label">[235]</a> See the two Blue Books of July, 1840, as to the ‘North American -Boundary’.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_236" href="#FNanchor_236" class="label">[236]</a> The above account of the boundary disputes between Great Britain -and the United States in the region of Maine and New Brunswick -has been mainly taken from the very clear and exhaustive <i>Monograph -of the Evolution of the Boundaries of the Province of New Brunswick</i>, -by William F. Ganay, M.A., Ph.D., 1901, published in the <i>Transactions -of the Royal Society of Canada</i>, 1901-2, and also published separately.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_237" href="#FNanchor_237" class="label">[237]</a> It will be found in the <i>State Papers</i> for 1821-2, vol. ix, p. 791.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_238" href="#FNanchor_238" class="label">[238]</a> The report will be found in the <i>State Papers</i>, 1866-7, vol. lvii, -p. 803.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_239" href="#FNanchor_239" class="label">[239]</a> This point is described in the report as ‘100 yards to the North and -East of a small island named on the map Chapeau and lying opposite -and near to the North-Eastern point of Isle-Royale’.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_240" href="#FNanchor_240" class="label">[240]</a> <i>State Papers</i>, vol. i, Part I (1812-14), p. 784.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_241" href="#FNanchor_241" class="label">[241]</a> <i>State Papers</i>, vol. vi, 1818-19, p. 3—also in Hertslet’s collection.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_242" href="#FNanchor_242" class="label">[242]</a> As to the discovery of the Rocky Mountains, see vol. v, Part I of -<i>Historical Geography of the British Colonies</i>, p. 214 and note.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_243" href="#FNanchor_243" class="label">[243]</a> Correspondence relative to the negotiation of the question of the -disputed right to the Oregon Territory on the North-West coast of -America subsequent to the Treaty of Washington of August 9, 1842. -Presented to Parliament in 1846, p. 39.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_244" href="#FNanchor_244" class="label">[244]</a> A good account of the negotiations is in a <i>Historical Note</i>, 1818-46, -included in a Blue Book of 1873, C.-692, North America, No. 5 (1873).</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_245" href="#FNanchor_245" class="label">[245]</a> The boundaries of British Columbia had been fixed by an Imperial -Act of 1863.</p> -</div> -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="chapter"></div> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_352"></a>[352]</span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="INDEX">INDEX</h2> - -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst">Abercromby, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_203">203</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Acadia, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a> n., &c.</li> - -<li class="indx">Act of 1791.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Canada Act.</li> - -<li class="indx">Adams, John, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Adet, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Administration of Justice. </li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Justice, Administration of.</li> - -<li class="indx">Albany, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145-9</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165-72</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174-5</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_203">203</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Alleghany, the, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Allen, Ethan, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a> n., <a href="#Page_191">191</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">American Civil War, <a href="#Page_228">228-9</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Amherst, Lord, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_203">203</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Amiens, Peace of. </li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Treaty.</li> - -<li class="indx">Anne, Fort, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Anticosti Island, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Arbuthnot, Marriot, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Arnold, Benedict, <a href="#Page_98">98</a> n., <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108-12</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116-20</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Page_180">180</a> n., <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Ashburton Treaty.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Treaty.</li> - -<li class="indx">Assemblies, Legislative, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71-3</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87-9</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>, <a href="#Page_257">257-65</a>, <a href="#Page_295">295-6</a>, <a href="#Page_318">318-9</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Australia, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_278">278</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Bahamas, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Barbados, <a href="#Page_52">52</a> n., <a href="#Page_253">253-4</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bathurst, Lord, <a href="#Page_278">278</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Batten Kill river, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Baum, Colonel, <a href="#Page_169">169-71</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Baye des Chaleurs, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Beaver Creek, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bedard, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bedford or Raestown, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Belêtre, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bemus’ Heights, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bennington, <a href="#Page_168">168-72</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171-2</a> n., <a href="#Page_198">198</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bermuda, <a href="#Page_257">257</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bird, Lieutenant, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bloody Run.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Parents Creek.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bonaparte, Jerome, <a href="#Page_300">300</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Boston, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130-2</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bouquet, Henry, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a> n., <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a> and n., <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a> and n., <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bouquet river, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Braddock, General, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bradstreet, Colonel, <a href="#Page_23">23-6</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Brandywine, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Brant County, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Brant, Joseph, <a href="#Page_97">97</a> n., <a href="#Page_119">119</a> n., <a href="#Page_148">148-58</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a> n., <a href="#Page_185">185-7</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a> n., <a href="#Page_232">232-5</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Brant, Molly, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Brantford, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, <a href="#Page_235">235</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Breyman, Colonel, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Page_179">179</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Brock, Isaac, <a href="#Page_317">317</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bunker’s Hill, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125-6</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_303">303</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Burgoyne, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158-85</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a> n., <a href="#Page_180">180</a> n., <a href="#Page_182">182</a> n., <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_203">203</a>, <a href="#Page_237">237-8</a>, <a href="#Page_303">303</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Burke, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_244">244</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Burke’s Act 1782, <a href="#Page_298">298</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Burnet, Governor, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Burton, Colonel, <a href="#Page_63">63-5</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bushy Run, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Butler, Colonel John, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Butler, Walter, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Caghnawagas, <a href="#Page_148">148-9</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Cahokia, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Camden, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Camden, Lord, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Campbell, Captain, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Campbell, Colonel, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Campbell, Major John, <a href="#Page_98">98</a> n., <a href="#Page_286">286</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Canada, <a href="#Page_4">4-6</a>, <a href="#Page_8">8-10</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50-3</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59-74</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114-5</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206-7</a>, <a href="#Page_210">210-1</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238-41</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263-4</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289-319</a> <i>et passim</i>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Canada, Lower, <a href="#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a> and n., <a href="#Page_246">246-319</a>.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_353"></a>[353]</span></li> - -<li class="indx">Canada, Upper, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223-5</a>, <a href="#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a> n., <a href="#Page_246">246-319</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Canada Act, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242-79</a>, <a href="#Page_312">312</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Canada Trade Act, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Canadians.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> French Canadians.</li> - -<li class="indx">Canals, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Canning, George, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Cap François, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Cap Rouge, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Cape Breton, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_237">237</a> n., <a href="#Page_238">238</a> n., <a href="#Page_292">292</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Cape Diamond, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Carignan-Salières Regiment, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Carleton, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89-100</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a> n., <a href="#Page_95">95</a> n., <a href="#Page_96">96</a> n., <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_103">103-16</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a> and n., <a href="#Page_119">119</a> n., <a href="#Page_122">122-6</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137-44</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>, <a href="#Page_226">226</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236-88</a>, <a href="#Page_250">250</a> n., <a href="#Page_295">295</a>, <a href="#Page_303">303</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Carleton Island, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Carleton, Major, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Carlisle, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Carlisle, Lord, <a href="#Page_214">214</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Carolina, <a href="#Page_196">196-9</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>, <a href="#Page_222">222</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Carroll, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Castine, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Castlereagh, Lord, <a href="#Page_303">303</a>, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Castleton, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Cataraqui.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Frontenac, Fort.</li> - -<li class="indx">Cavendish, Lord John, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Cayugas, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Cedars, the, <a href="#Page_119">119</a> and n., <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Chambly, Fort, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a> and n., <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Champlain, Lake, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a> n., <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122-5</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162-4</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_203">203</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Charleston, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a> n., <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_222">222</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282-3</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Chartres, Fort, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Chatham.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Pitt.</li> - -<li class="indx">Chaudière river, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Cherry Valley, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Chesapeake Bay, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Chesapeake</i> frigate, <a href="#Page_303">303</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Choiseul, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Christie, Ensign, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Christie, Robert, <a href="#Page_315">315</a>, &c.</li> - -<li class="indx">Church of England, <a href="#Page_265">265-7</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Civil List, <a href="#Page_255">255</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Clark, George Rogers, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Clarke, Sir Alured, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, <a href="#Page_272">272</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Claus, Colonel Daniel, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Clinton, Sir Henry, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a> and n., <a href="#Page_132">132-4</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195-201</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Clive, Lord, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Cobbett, William, <a href="#Page_313">313</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Colbert, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Collier, Admiral, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Colonies, Relation to Mother Country, <a href="#Page_37">37-59</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Companies, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Congress, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, <a href="#Page_214">214</a>, <a href="#Page_300">300</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Connecticut, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a> n., <a href="#Page_221">221</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Conway, General, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Cornwallis, Lord, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197-201</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Council of Trade and Plantations.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Trade.</li> - -<li class="indx">Councils, Executive, <a href="#Page_142">142-3</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252-65</a>, <a href="#Page_272">272</a>, <a href="#Page_296">296</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Councils, Legislative, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194-5</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241-3</a>, <a href="#Page_249">249-67</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Courtenay, <a href="#Page_237">237</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Cowpens, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Craig, Sir James, <a href="#Page_303">303-19</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Cramahé, Lieutenant-Governor, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Croghan, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Crown Lands, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_253">253</a>, <a href="#Page_266">266</a>, <a href="#Page_290">290-1</a>, <a href="#Page_295">295</a>, &c.</li> - -<li class="indx">Crown Land Funds, <a href="#Page_253">253-5</a>, <a href="#Page_290">290</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Crown Point, Fort, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Cumberland, Fort, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Customs Arrangement, <a href="#Page_270">270-1</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Cuyler, Lieutenant, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Dalhousie, Lord, <a href="#Page_278">278</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Dalyell, Captain, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a> and n., <a href="#Page_20">20</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">D’Anville, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Dartmouth, Lord, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Dayton, Fort, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Dead river, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">De Barras, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">De Grasse, Admiral, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199-201</a>.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_354"></a>[354]</span></li> - -<li class="indx">Delaware river, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Delawares.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Indians.</li> - -<li class="indx">De Puisaye, Count Joseph, <a href="#Page_230">230-2</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">De Rochambeau, <a href="#Page_198">198-200</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">D’Estaing, Admiral, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Detroit, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12-18</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Detroit river, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Diamond Island, <a href="#Page_173">173</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">D’Iberville, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Dorchester, Lord.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Carleton.</li> - -<li class="indx">Drummond, Gordon, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Du Calvet, <a href="#Page_190">190</a> and n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Dundas, <a href="#Page_240">240</a> n., <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_266">266</a>, <a href="#Page_267">267</a>, <a href="#Page_274">274</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Dundas Street, <a href="#Page_274">274</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Dunmore, Lord, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Dunn, Thomas, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Dunning, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Duquesne, Fort.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Pittsburg.</li> - -<li class="indx">Durham, Lord, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_248">248</a> n., <a href="#Page_253">253</a>, <a href="#Page_260">260</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_316">316</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Dutchman’s Point, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Eastern Townships, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">East Florida.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Florida.</li> - -<li class="indx">Ecorces river, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Ecuyer, Captain, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Edge Hill, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Education, <a href="#Page_296">296-7</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Edward, Fort, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164-8</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_179">179-81</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Egremont, Lord, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Elphinstone, Admiral, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Erie.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Presque Isle.</li> - -<li class="indx">Erie, Lake, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233-4</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Etherington, Captain, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Eutaw Springs, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Executive Council.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Council.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Famars, <a href="#Page_274">274</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Fees and Perquisites, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_280">280-1</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Ferguson, Major, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Finlay, Hugh, <a href="#Page_248">248</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Firth, <a href="#Page_316">316</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Fishing Rights, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80-1</a> and n.</li> -<li class="isub1">American, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">French, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Fish Kill Stream, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Florida, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Forbes, General John, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Forster, Captain, <a href="#Page_119">119</a> and n., <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Fox, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_217">217</a>, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_244">244</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_267">267</a>, <a href="#Page_287">287</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">France, Declaration of War, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Francis, Colonel, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Franklin, Benjamin, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>, <a href="#Page_258">258</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Franklin, William, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Fraser, General, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176-8</a>, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Frazer, Captain, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Freehold Court House, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Freeman’s Farm, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_180">180</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">French Canadians, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a> n., <a href="#Page_75">75-8</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91-100</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_249">249</a>, <a href="#Page_293">293-7</a>, <a href="#Page_310">310-12</a>, <a href="#Page_317">317-18</a>, &c.</li> - -<li class="indx">French Creek, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">French designs on Canada, <a href="#Page_300">300-2</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">French Intervention, War of Independence, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">French Royalists Settlement, <a href="#Page_230">230-2</a>, <a href="#Page_232">232</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">French Rule in Canada, <a href="#Page_8">8-10</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64-6</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_294">294</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Frontenac, Count, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_288">288</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Frontenac, Fort, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Gage, General, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Gananoque river, <a href="#Page_275">275</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Gansevoort, Colonel, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Gaspé Peninsula, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Gates, General, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_180">180</a> n., <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">General Assemblies.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Assemblies.</li> - -<li class="indx">Genet, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_283">283</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">George, Fort, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_272">272</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">George, Lake, <a href="#Page_52">52</a> n., <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Georgia, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_222">222</a>.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_355"></a>[355]</span></li> - -<li class="indx">Germain, Lord George, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135-41</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="#Page_217">217</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">German Flatts, <a href="#Page_154">154-5</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">German Regiments, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Germantown, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Gibraltar, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Gladwin, Major, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Glenelg, Lord, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Glengarry County, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Gloucester, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Gore, Francis, <a href="#Page_316">316</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Grand river, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, <a href="#Page_235">235</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Grant, Alexander, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Graves, Admiral, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Greek Colonies, <a href="#Page_42">42-3</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a> n., <a href="#Page_205">205</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Green Bay, Fort, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Green Mountain Boys, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Greene, Nathaniel, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Greenville Treaty.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Treaty.</li> - -<li class="indx">Grenada, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Grenville, George, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a> and n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Grenville, Lord, <a href="#Page_240">240</a> n., <a href="#Page_246">246-55</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Guildford Court House, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Habeas Corpus, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a> and n., <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242-3</a>, <a href="#Page_244">244</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Haldimand County, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Haldimand, Sir Frederick, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a> n., <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188-95</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a> n., <a href="#Page_190">190</a> n., <a href="#Page_220">220</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_246">246</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Half Moon, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Halifax, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hamilton, Alexander, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hamilton, Lieutenant-Governor, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hampshire Grants, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hastings, Warren, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Havana, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hawke, Admiral, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Herkimer, General Nicholas, <a href="#Page_154">154-7</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hessians.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> German Regiments.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hey, Chief Justice, <a href="#Page_103">103</a> and n., <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_105">105</a> n., <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Highlanders, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hillsborough, Lord, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hobkirk’s Hill, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hood, Sir Samuel, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hoosick river, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hope, Colonel, <a href="#Page_236">236</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hope, Mount, <a href="#Page_173">173</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Howe, Admiral, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Howe, General, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a> and n., <a href="#Page_130">130-4</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>, <a href="#Page_222">222</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Huberton, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hudson Bay, <a href="#Page_257">257</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hudson Bay Company’s Territories, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_292">292</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hudson river, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165-7</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173-83</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_203">203</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hudson Straits, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hunter, General, <a href="#Page_292">292</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Huron, Lake, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_232">232</a> n., <a href="#Page_233">233</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Illinois, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Illinois Indians.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Indians.</li> - -<li class="indx">Independence, Mount, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163-5</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Independence, War of, <a href="#Page_90">90-207</a> <i>et passim</i>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Causes, <a href="#Page_30">30-63</a>, &c.</li> -<li class="isub1">Effects, <a href="#Page_204">204-7</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Indians, <a href="#Page_5">5-29</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57-9</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96-7</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a> n., <a href="#Page_119">119-21</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147-59</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a> n., <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185-7</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281-6</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Delawares, <a href="#Page_23">23-6</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Illinois, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Iroquois.</li> -<li class="isub2"><i>See</i> Six Nations.</li> -<li class="isub1">Mississaugas, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Mohawks, <a href="#Page_148">148-50</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148-9</a> n., <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_232">232-5</a>, <a href="#Page_235">235</a> n.</li> -<li class="isub1">Ojibwas, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Oneidas, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Ottawas, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Pontiac’s War, <a href="#Page_10">10-29</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Senecas, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Shawanoes, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Six Nations, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a> and n., <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147-59</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a> n., <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_232">232-5</a>.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_356"></a>[356]</span></li> -<li class="isub1">Tuscaroras, <a href="#Page_147">147-8</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">War with United States, <a href="#Page_281">281-6</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Wyandots, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Indian Territory, <a href="#Page_5">5-7</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58-9</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233-4</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Inglis, Bishop, <a href="#Page_267">267</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Isle aux Noix, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Isle Royale.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Cape Breton.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">James river, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Jay, John, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284-5</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Jay’s Treaty.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Treaty.</li> - -<li class="indx">Jefferson, Thomas, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Jews, exclusion from Quebec Assembly, <a href="#Page_305">305-6</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Johnson, Colonel Guy, <a href="#Page_98">98</a> n., <a href="#Page_149">149-51</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Johnson, Sir John, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, and n., <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Johnson, Sir William, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a> and n., <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a> and n., <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Johnson’s Royal Greens, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Judges, exclusion from Quebec Assembly, <a href="#Page_305">305-6</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Justice, Administration of, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_272">272</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Kalm, Peter, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_31">31</a> and n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Kaskaskia, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Kaskaskia river, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Kempt, Sir James, <a href="#Page_309">309</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Kennebec river, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">King’s Mountain, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Kingston, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>, <a href="#Page_272">272</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Kirkland, Samuel, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Labrador, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80-1</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Lachine, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Lafayette, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_250">250</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">La Mothe Cadillac, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Land Tenure, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_267">267</a>, <a href="#Page_290">290</a>, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>, <a href="#Page_293">293</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Language Question, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_297">297</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">La Prairie, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">La Salle, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">La Tranche river.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Thames.</li> - -<li class="indx">Le Bœuf, Fort, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11-12</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Le Canadien, <a href="#Page_297">297</a>, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>, <a href="#Page_311">311</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Lecky, Professor, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Lee, General Charles, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Legislative Council.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Council.</li> - -<li class="indx">Levis, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Levis, Point, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Lexington, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Ligonier, Fort, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Lincoln, Benjamin, <a href="#Page_173">173</a> and n., <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Liverpool, Lord, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>, <a href="#Page_313">313</a>, <a href="#Page_315">315</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Liverpool Regiment, the 8th Regiment, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Livius, Peter, <a href="#Page_140">140-4</a>, <a href="#Page_143">143</a> n., <a href="#Page_194">194</a> and n., <a href="#Page_195">195</a> and n., <a href="#Page_237">237</a>, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_255">255</a>, <a href="#Page_280">280</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Loftus, Major, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Logs Town, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">London, Ontario, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Long Sault Rapids, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Loudoun, General, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Loughborough, Lord, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Louis XIV, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Louisbourg, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a> n., <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Louisiana, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_283">283</a>, <a href="#Page_302">302</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Loyalhannon, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Loyalists, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>, <a href="#Page_208">208-35</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218</a> n., <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a> and n., <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>, <a href="#Page_290">290</a>, <a href="#Page_292">292</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Loyalist Corps, <a href="#Page_220">220-1</a>, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Lumber Trade, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Luttrell, Captain, <a href="#Page_237">237</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Lymburner, Adam, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Macartney, Lord, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Macdonells, the, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a> and n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Maclane, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Maclean, Colonel, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Madelaine Island, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Madison, President, <a href="#Page_319">319</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Mahan, Captain, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Maine, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Maitland, Sir Peregrine, <a href="#Page_278">278</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Marion, General, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Masères, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Massachusetts, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a> n., <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Maumee river, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">McCrae, Jane, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Megantic, Lake, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Melville, Lord.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Dundas.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_357"></a>[357]</span></li> - -<li class="indx">Miami, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Michigan, Lake, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Michigan Peninsula, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Michillimackinac, Fort, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Militia, Canadian, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_294">294-5</a>, <a href="#Page_303">303</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Miller, Fort, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Milnes, Robert Shore, <a href="#Page_292">292-6</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_316">316</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Mississaugas.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Indians.</li> - -<li class="indx">Mississippi, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_302">302</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Mohawk river, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145-58</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Mohawks. <i>See</i> Indians.</li> - -<li class="indx">Molson, John, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Monckton, General, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Monmouth, Battle of, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Monongahela river, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Montcalm, <a href="#Page_31">31</a> and n., <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a> n., <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Montgomery, Robert, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106-13</a>, <a href="#Page_110">110</a> n., <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116-18</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a> n., <a href="#Page_185">185</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Montreal, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106-10</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Moreau, <a href="#Page_300">300</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Morgan, Daniel, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Morris, Captain, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Morse, Colonel Robert, <a href="#Page_223">223-4</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Mulgrave, Lord, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Murray, General James, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a> and n., <a href="#Page_63">63-8</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a> n., <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_296">296</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Muskingum river, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Napoleon, <a href="#Page_302">302</a>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>, <a href="#Page_311">311</a>, <a href="#Page_317">317</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Native Question, <a href="#Page_56">56-9</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Navigation Laws, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Navy Hall, <a href="#Page_272">272</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Newark, <a href="#Page_272">272</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a> and n.</li> - -<li class="indx">New Brunswick, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_237">237</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a> n., <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_292">292</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">New England, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a> and n., <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166-7</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Newfoundland, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">New Hampshire, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">New Jersey, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a> n., <a href="#Page_198">198</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">New Orleans, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_302">302</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Newport, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">New York, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a> n., <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>, <a href="#Page_222">222</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">New Zealand, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Niagara, Fort, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a> and n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Niagara river, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>, <a href="#Page_272">272</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Nipissim or Nipissing, Lake, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Non-intercourse Acts, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Nootka Sound Convention, <a href="#Page_261">261</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Norfolk, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">North, Lord, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_217">217</a>, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, <a href="#Page_226">226</a>, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">North-west Company, <a href="#Page_292">292</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Nova Scotia, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a> n., <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236-7</a> n., <a href="#Page_238">238</a> n., <a href="#Page_267">267</a>, <a href="#Page_292">292</a>, <a href="#Page_315">315</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Ogdensburg, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Ohio, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_283">283</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Ojibwas.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Indians.</li> - -<li class="indx">Oneida, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Oneida County, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Oneida, Lake, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Oneidas.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Indians.</li> - -<li class="indx">Onondaga, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, <i>and see</i> Oswego.</li> - -<li class="indx">Ontario, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <i>and see</i> Upper Canada.</li> - -<li class="indx">Ontario, Lake, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>, <a href="#Page_272">272</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Oriskany, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155-7</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Osgoode, Chief Justice, <a href="#Page_280">280</a>, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>, <a href="#Page_296">296</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Oswald, Richard, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_217">217</a>, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Oswegatchie.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Ogdensburg.</li> - -<li class="indx">Oswego, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Ottawa river, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Ottawas.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Indians.</li> - -<li class="indx">Ouatanon, Fort, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_358"></a>[358]</span></li> - -<li class="indx">Ours or Ouse, River.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Grand river.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Palliser, Sir Hugh, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Panet, M., <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, <a href="#Page_306">306</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Parents Creek, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Peace of Paris. </li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Treaty.</li> - -<li class="indx">Peel, Sir Robert, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Penns, the, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Pennsylvania, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a> and n., <a href="#Page_218">218</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>, <a href="#Page_222">222</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Penobscot river, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Pepperell, Sir W., <a href="#Page_62">62</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Pepperell, Sir W., <a href="#Page_212">212</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Percival, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>, <a href="#Page_313">313</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Philadelphia, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129-34</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, <a href="#Page_222">222</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Phillips, General, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Piquet, Abbé, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Pitt, the elder, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a> n., <a href="#Page_183">183</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Pitt, the younger, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>, <a href="#Page_237">237</a>, <a href="#Page_244">244</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_261">261</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_267">267</a>, <a href="#Page_268">268</a>, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>, <a href="#Page_287">287</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Pittsburg, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17-22</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Plattsburg, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Plymouth Settlement, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Point au Fer, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Pointe aux Trembles, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Point Levis.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Levis, Point.</li> - -<li class="indx">Pontiac, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Pontiac’s War.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Indians.</li> - -<li class="indx">Portland, Duke of, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, <a href="#Page_231">231</a>, <a href="#Page_240">240</a> n., <a href="#Page_278">278</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>, <a href="#Page_292">292</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Port Royal, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Powys, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Prescott, Robert, <a href="#Page_286">286-92</a>, <a href="#Page_296">296</a>, <a href="#Page_303">303</a>, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Prés de Ville, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Presque Isle, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Preston, Major, <a href="#Page_107">107</a> and n., <a href="#Page_108">108</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Prevost, Sir George, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289</a> n. 309, <a href="#Page_314">314</a>, <a href="#Page_319">319</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Prideaux, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Prince Edward Island, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236-7</a> n., <a href="#Page_292">292</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Proclamation of 1763, <a href="#Page_1">1-8</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Protestant Clergy, <a href="#Page_265">265-7</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Protestants, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74-8</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a> n., <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, &c.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Quebec, Province of, <a href="#Page_1">1-4</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79-82</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a> n., <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a> n., <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>, <a href="#Page_246">246-64</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, &c.</li> - -<li class="indx">Quebec, Town of, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a> n., <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106-19</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_237">237</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_267">267</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_287">287</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>, &c.</li> - -<li class="indx">Quebec Act of 1774, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68-89</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a> n., <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_103">103-6</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>, <a href="#Page_243">243-4</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Quebec Revenue Act, <a href="#Page_87">87</a> n., <a href="#Page_269">269</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Quiberon Bay, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Quinté, Bay of, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>, <a href="#Page_235">235</a> n.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Raestown.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Bedford.</li> - -<li class="indx">Rahl, General, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Randolph, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Rawdon, Lord, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Religion, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76-9</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a> n., <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265-9</a>, <a href="#Page_294">294</a>, <a href="#Page_296">296-7</a>, <a href="#Page_310">310-11</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also</i> Protestants <i>and</i> Roman Catholics.</li> - -<li class="indx">Rhode Island, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Richelieu river, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Riedesel, Baron, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Robertson, Colonel, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Rockingham, Lord, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Rodney, Admiral, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Rogers, Major Robert, <a href="#Page_11">11-13</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a> n., <a href="#Page_12">12</a> n., <a href="#Page_13">13</a> n., <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Roman Catholics, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a> and n., <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76-9</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85-9</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a> n., <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_266">266</a>, <a href="#Page_294">294</a>, <a href="#Page_296">296</a>, <a href="#Page_311">311</a>, <a href="#Page_312">312</a>, <a href="#Page_314">314</a>, <a href="#Page_318">318</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Rosieres, Cape, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Ross, Major, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Roubaud, <a href="#Page_31">31</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Rouillé, Fort.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Toronto.</li> - -<li class="indx">Royal American Regiment, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Royal Highland Emigrants, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Russell, Peter, <a href="#Page_286">286-7</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Ryland, <a href="#Page_309">309-14</a>, <a href="#Page_310">310</a> n.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Sabine, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Sackville, Lord George.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Germain.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_359"></a>[359]</span></li> - -<li class="indx">Saguenay river, <a href="#Page_2">2</a> and n.</li> - -<li class="indx">St. Charles river, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">St. Clair, General, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>, <a href="#Page_283">283</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">St. Clair, Lake, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">St. Domingo, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>, <a href="#Page_302">302</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">St. Francis, Lake, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">St. Francis river, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">St. Jean <i>or</i> St. John’s Island.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Prince Edward Island.</li> - -<li class="indx">St. John, Lake, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">St. John river, <a href="#Page_2">2</a> and n., <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">St. John’s, Fort, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106-8</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a> n., <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">St. Joseph, Fort, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">St. Lawrence, River and Gulf, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">St. Leger, Colonel, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146-58</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a> n., <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">St. Louis, Lake, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">St. Luc de la Corne, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">St. Roch, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Saints, Battle of the, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Sancoick Mill, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Sandusky, Fort, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Sandy Hook, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Saratoga, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_180">180-4</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Sault au Matelot, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Sault St. Marie, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Saunders, Admiral, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Savannah, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_222">222</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Savile, Sir George, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Schenectady, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Schuyler, Fort.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Stanwix, Fort.</li> - -<li class="indx">Schuyler, General Philip, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174-5</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Secretary of State for American Department, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_240">240</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Senecas.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Indians.</li> - -<li class="indx">Seven Years’ War, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_207">207</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Shawanoes.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Indians.</li> - -<li class="indx">Shelburne, Lord, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_214">214</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_217">217</a>, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Shelburne, Township, <a href="#Page_223">223-4</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Sherbrooke, Sir John, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Sheridan, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_244">244</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Simcoe, John Graves, <a href="#Page_232">232</a> n., <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271-6</a>, <a href="#Page_273">273-4</a> n., <a href="#Page_275">275</a> n., <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286-7</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Simcoe, Lake, <a href="#Page_232">232</a> and n., <a href="#Page_273">273</a>, <a href="#Page_274">274</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Six Nations.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Indians.</li> - -<li class="indx">Skenesborough, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Smith, Adam, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a> n., <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Smith, Chief Justice, William, <a href="#Page_255">255-61</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>, <a href="#Page_280">280</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Sorel, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Spain, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_283">283</a>, <a href="#Page_302">302</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Spanish America, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Springfield, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Stamp Act, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a> and n., <a href="#Page_55">55</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Stanwix, Fort, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152-8</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a> n., <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Stanwix, Fort, Agreement.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Treaty.</li> - -<li class="indx">Stanwix, General, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Stark, John, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Staten Island, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Stillwater, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a> n., <a href="#Page_174">174</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Stopford, Major, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Stormont, Lord, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Stuart, Colonel, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Stuart, James, <a href="#Page_316">316</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Suffolk, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Sugar Hill, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Sullivan, General John, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Sulpician Seminary, <a href="#Page_312">312</a>, <a href="#Page_314">314</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Sumter, General, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Superior, Lake, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Susquehanna, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Sydney, Lord, <a href="#Page_240">240</a> and n., <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>, <a href="#Page_246">246</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Talon, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Tarleton, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Taxation, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_267">267-9</a>, <a href="#Page_267">267-8</a> and n., <a href="#Page_269">269</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Tea duty, <a href="#Page_267">267-8</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Tecumseh, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Telegraphs, <a href="#Page_203">203-4</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Thames, <a href="#Page_274">274</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a> and n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Thayandenegea, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also under</i> Brant.</li> - -<li class="indx">Thompson, General, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Thorpe, Judge, <a href="#Page_296">296</a>, <a href="#Page_316">316</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Three Rivers, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Ticonderoga, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161-6</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Titles of honour, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_360"></a>[360]</span></li> - -<li class="indx">Toronto, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="#Page_274">274</a> and n., <a href="#Page_275">275</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Toussaint L’Ouverture, <a href="#Page_302">302</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Townshend, Thomas.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Sydney.</li> - -<li class="indx">Trade, Lords of, <a href="#Page_3">3-6</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, &c.</li> - -<li class="indx">Treaty,</li> -<li class="isub1">Aix la Chapelle, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Amiens, <a href="#Page_301">301</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Ashburton, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Fort Stanwix, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Greenville, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Jay’s, 1794, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Paris, 1763, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a> n., <a href="#Page_72">72</a> and n.</li> -<li class="isub1">Paris, 1778, <a href="#Page_184">184</a> n.</li> -<li class="isub1">Secret, 1762, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Utrecht, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">Versailles, 1783, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201-2</a>, <a href="#Page_208">208-18</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Trenton, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Trevelyan, Sir George, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Tryon County, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Tuscarawa, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Tuscaroras.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Indians.</li> - -<li class="indx">Tyendenaga, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Unadilla river, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Uniacke, <a href="#Page_315">315</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">United Empire Loyalists.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Loyalists.</li> - -<li class="indx">United States, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204-18</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_226">226</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281-6</a>, <a href="#Page_300">300</a>, <a href="#Page_302">302</a>, <a href="#Page_318">318</a>, &c.</li> - -<li class="indx">Upper Canada.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Canada, Upper.</li> - -<li class="indx">Utrecht.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Treaty.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Valcour Island, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Vancouver, <a href="#Page_261">261</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Vancouver Island, <a href="#Page_261">261</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Vaudreuil, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Venango, Fort, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Vermont, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a> n, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Vincennes, Fort, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Virginia and Virginians, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Wabash river, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Walker, Admiral, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Walker, Magistrate, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Walpole, Horace, <a href="#Page_22">22</a> and n., <a href="#Page_107">107</a> n., <a href="#Page_115">115</a> and n., <a href="#Page_116">116</a> and n., <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a> and n., <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171-2</a> n., <a href="#Page_180">180</a> n., <a href="#Page_204">204</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Walsingham, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Warner, Seth, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Warren, Admiral, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Washington, George, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282-5</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Wayne, Anthony, <a href="#Page_283">283</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Wayne, Fort.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Miami.</li> - -<li class="indx">Webb, General Daniel, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Wedderburn, Solicitor-General, <a href="#Page_88">88</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Western Territories, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">West Florida.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Florida.</li> - -<li class="indx">West Indies, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Wilberforce, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Willcocks, <a href="#Page_316">316</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Willett, Colonel, <a href="#Page_153">153-7</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a> n., <a href="#Page_157">157</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">William Henry, Fort.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> George, Fort.</li> - -<li class="indx">Williams, Fort, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Wills Creek, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Wilmington, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Wilmot, John Eardley, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Windham, Township, <a href="#Page_232">232</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Windham, William, <a href="#Page_231">231</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Wolfe, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a> and n., <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Wood Creek, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">Wood Creek (Lake Champlain), <a href="#Page_164">164</a> and n., <a href="#Page_166">166</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Wyandots.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Indians.</li> - -<li class="indx">Wyatt, <a href="#Page_316">316</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Wyoming, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a> and n. 212.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Yonge, Sir George, <a href="#Page_274">274</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Yonge Street, <a href="#Page_232">232</a> n., <a href="#Page_274">274</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">York.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Toronto.</li> - -<li class="indx">York, Duke of, <a href="#Page_274">274-5</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">York river, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Yorktown, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_217">217</a>.</li> -</ul> - -<div class="figcenter illowp70" id="i_eob" style="max-width: 43.75em;"> -<img class="w100" src="images/i_eob.jpg" alt="" /> - <a rel="nofollow" href="images/i_eoblarge.jpg"> - <span class="screenonly fs60 center">click here for larger image.</span></a> -<div class="caption"><p class="left noindent"><b>MAP OF EASTERN CANADA AND PART OF THE UNITED STATES</b></p> - -<p class="left noindent">B. V. Barbishire, Oxford, 1908.</p> - -</div> -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="chapter"></div> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Ad1"></a>[Ad1]</span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CLARENDON_PRESS_BOOKS">CLARENDON PRESS BOOKS</h2> - -<p class="center fs120">HISTORY</p> - -<p class="center fs100 p1">Greece, Italy, Egypt, etc.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici, from the LVIth to the CXXIIIrd Olympiad. -Third edition. 4to. £1 14s. 6d. net. From the CXXIVth Olympiad to the Death -of Augustus. Second edition. 4to. £1 12s. net. Epitome. 8vo. 6s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Clinton’s Fasti Romani, from the death of Augustus to the death of -Heraclius. Two volumes. 4to. £2 2s. net. Epitome. 8vo. 7s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Greswell’s Fasti Temporis Catholici. 4 vols. 8vo. £2 10s. net. -Tables and Introduction to Tables. 8vo. 15s. net. Origines Kalendariae Italicae. -4 vols. 8vo. £2 2s. net. Origines Kalendariae Hellenicae. 6 vols. 8vo. £4 4s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">A Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions. By <span class="smcap">E. L. Hicks</span>. -New edition, revised by <span class="smcap">G. F. Hill</span>. 8vo. 10s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Latin Historical Inscriptions, illustrating the history of the Early -Empire. By <span class="smcap">G. M<sup>c</sup>N. Rushforth</span>. 8vo. 10s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Sources for Greek History between the Persian and Peloponnesian -Wars. By <span class="smcap">G. F. Hill</span>. 8vo. Reissue, revised. 10s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Sources for Roman History, <span class="allsmcap">B.C.</span> 133-70. By <span class="smcap">A. H. J. Greenidge</span> -and <span class="smcap">A. M. Clay</span>. Crown 8vo. 5s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">A Manual of Ancient History. By <span class="smcap">G. Rawlinson</span>. 2nd ed. 8vo. 14s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Finlay’s History of Greece from its Conquest by the Romans (<span class="allsmcap">B.C.</span> 146) -to <span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span> 1864. A new edition, revised, and in part re-written, with many -additions, by the Author, and edited by <span class="smcap">H. F. Tozer</span>. 7 vols. 8vo. 63s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The History of Sicily from the earliest times. By <span class="smcap">E. A. Freeman</span>. 8vo.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquota"> -<p class="hang1">Vols. I and II. The Native Nations: The Phoenician -and Greek Settlements to the beginning of Athenian -Intervention. £2 2s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Vol. III. The Athenian and Carthaginian Invasions. £1 4s. -net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Vol. IV. From the Tyranny of Dionysios to the Death of -Agathoklês. Edited from posthumous MSS, by <span class="smcap">A. J. -Evans</span>. £1 1s. net.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Italy and her Invaders (<span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span> 376-814). With plates -and maps. Eight volumes. 8vo. By <span class="smcap">T. Hodgkin</span>. Vols. -I-IV in the second edition.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquota"> -<p class="hang1">I-II. The Visigothic, Hunnish, and Vandal Invasions, and the Herulian -Mutiny. £2 2s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">III-IV. The Ostrogothic Invasion. The Imperial Restoration. £1 16s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">V-VI. The Lombard Invasion, and the Lombard Kingdom. £1 16s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">VII-VIII. Frankish Invasions, and the Frankish Empire. £1 4s.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">The Dynasty of Theodosius; or, Seventy Years’ Struggle with the -Barbarians. By the same author. Crown 8vo. 6s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Aetolia; its Geography, Topography, and Antiquities. -By <span class="smcap">W. J. Woodhouse</span>. With maps and illustrations. Royal 8vo. £1 1s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Islands of the Aegean. By <span class="smcap">H. F. Tozer</span>. Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Dalmatia, the Quarnero, and Istria; with Cettigne and Grado. -By <span class="smcap">T. G. Jackson</span>. Three volumes. With plates and illustrations. 8vo. 31s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Cramer’s Description of Asia Minor. Two volumes. 8vo. 11s.<br /> -<span class="pad5">Description</span> of Ancient Greece. 3 vols. 8vo. 16s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Ad2"></a>[Ad2]</span></p> - -<p class="hang1">The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia. By <span class="smcap">W. M. Ramsay</span>. -Royal 8vo. Vol. I, Part I. The Lycos Valley and South-Western Phrygia. -18s. net. Vol. I, Par. II. West and West Central Phrygia. £1 1s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Stories of the High Priests of Memphis, the Sethon of -Herodotus, and the Demotic Tales of Khamnas. By <span class="smcap">F. Ll. Griffith</span>. With -Portfolio containing seven facsimiles. Royal 8vo. £2 7s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Arab Conquest of Egypt. By <span class="smcap">A. J. Butler</span>. With maps and -plans. 8vo. 16s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Baghdad during the Abbasid Caliphate, from contemporary -sources. By <span class="smcap">G. Le Strange</span>. With eight plans. 8vo. 16s. net.</p> -</div> - -<p class="center fs120 p2">Archaeology</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Ancient Khotan. Detailed report of Archaeological explorations -in Chinese Turkestan carried out and described under the orders of H.M. -Indian Government by <span class="smcap">M. Aurel Stein</span>. Vol. I. Text, with descriptive list -of antiques, seventy-two illustrations in the text, and appendices. Vol. II. -One hundred and nineteen collotype and other illustrations and a map. -2 vols. 4to. £5 5s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, including -the Cabinet of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. (Published for the Trustees of -the Indian Museum.) Royal 8vo, with numerous collotype plates. Vol. I, -by <span class="smcap">V. A. Smith</span>, 30s. net; or Part I (Early Foreign Dynasties and Guptas), -15s. net, Part II (Ancient Coins of Indian Types), 6s. net, Part III (Persian, -Mediaeval, South Indian, Miscellaneous), 10s. 6d. net. Vol. II, by <span class="smcap">H. N. -Wright</span> (the first section of Part II by Sir <span class="smcap">J. Bourdillon</span>), 30s. net (Sultáns -of Delhi, Contemporary Dynasties in India). Vol. III, by <span class="smcap">H. N. Wright</span>, -40s. net (Mughal Emperors).</p> - -<p class="hang1">Ancient Coptic Churches of Egypt. By <span class="smcap">A. J. Butler</span>. 2 vols. -8vo. 30s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">A Catalogue of the Cyprus Museum. By <span class="smcap">J. L. Myres</span> and -<span class="smcap">Max Ohnefalsch-Richter</span>. 8vo. With eight plates, 7s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">A Catalogue of the Sparta Museum. By <span class="smcap">M. N. Tod</span> and -<span class="smcap">A. J. B. Wace</span>. 8vo. 10s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Catalogue of the Greek Vases in the Ashmolean -Museum. By <span class="smcap">P. Gardner</span>. Small folio, linen, with 26 plates. £3 3s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Cults of the Greek States. By <span class="smcap">L. R. Farnell</span>. 8vo. -Vols. I and II, with 61 plates and over 100 illustrations. £1 12s. net. -Vols. III and IV, with 86 plates. £1 12s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Classical Archaeology in Schools. By <span class="smcap">P. Gardner</span> and <span class="smcap">J. L. -Myres</span>. 8vo. Second edition. Paper covers, 1s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Introduction to Greek Sculpture. By <span class="smcap">L. E. Upcott</span>. Second -edition. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1"><span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Marmora Oxoniensia, inscriptiones Graecae ad Chandleri exempla -editae, cur.</span> <span class="smcap">Gul. Roberts</span>, 1791. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1"><span lang="la" xml:lang="la">De Antiquis Marmoribus, Blasii Caryophili.</span> 1828. 7s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1"><span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Fragmenta Herculanensia.</span> A Catalogue of the Oxford copies of the -Herculanean Rolls, with texts of several papyri. By <span class="smcap">W. Scott</span>. Royal 8vo. £1 1s.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquota"> -<p class="hang1">Thirty-six Engravings of Texts and Alphabets from the Herculanean -Fragments. Folio. Small paper, 10s. 6d., large paper, £1 1s.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1"><span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Herculanensium Voluminum Partes</span> II, 1824, 8vo. 10s.</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Ad3"></a>[Ad3]</span></p> - -<p class="center fs120 p2">English History: Sources</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1"><span lang="it" xml:lang="it">Baedae Opera Historica</span>, edited by <span class="smcap">C. Plummer</span>. Two volumes. -Crown 8vo, leather back. £1 1s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Asser’s Life of Alfred, with the Annals of St. Neot, -edited by <span class="smcap">W. H. Stevenson</span>. Crown 8vo. 12s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Alfred Jewel, an historical essay. With illustrations and a map, -by <span class="smcap">J. Earle</span>. Small 4to, buckram. 12s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel; with supplementary -extracts from the others. A Revised Text, edited, with introduction, notes, -appendices, and glossary, by <span class="smcap">C. Plummer</span> and <span class="smcap">J. Earle</span>. Two volumes. -Crown 8vo, leather back. Vol. I. Text, appendices, and glossary. 10s. 6d. -Vol. II. Introduction, notes, and index. 12s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Saxon Chronicles (787-1001 <span class="allsmcap">A. D.</span>). Crown 8vo, stiff covers. 3s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Handbook to the Land-Charters, and other Saxonic Documents, -by <span class="smcap">J. Earle</span>. Crown 8vo. 16s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Crawford Collection of early Charters and Documents, now in -the Bodleian Library. Edited by <span class="smcap">A. S. Napier</span> and <span class="smcap">W. H. Stevenson</span>. -Small 4to, cloth. 12s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Chronicle of John of Worcester, 1118-1140. Edited by -<span class="smcap">J. R. H. Weaver</span>. Crown 4to. 7s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1"><span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Dialogus de Scaccario.</span> Edited by <span class="smcap">A. Hughes</span>, <span class="smcap">C. G. Crump</span>, and -<span class="smcap">C. Johnson</span>, with introduction and notes. 8vo. 12s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1"><span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Passio et Miracula Beati Olaui.</span> Edited from the Twelfth-century -MS by <span class="smcap">F. Metcalfe</span>. Small 4to. 6s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Song of Lewes. Edited from the MS, with introduction and -notes, by <span class="smcap">C. L. Kingsford</span>. Extra fcap 8vo. 5s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Chronicon Galfridi le Baker de Swynebroke, edited by Sir -<span class="smcap">E. Maunde Thompson</span>, K.C.B. Small 4to, 18s.; cloth, gilt top, £1 1s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Chronicles of London. Edited, with introduction and notes, by -<span class="smcap">C. L. Kingsford</span>. 8vo. 10s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Gascoigne’s Theological Dictionary (‘Liber Veritatum’): selected -passages, illustrating the condition of Church and State, 1403-1458. With -an introduction by <span class="smcap">J. E. Thorold Rogers</span>. Small 4to. 10s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Fortescue’s Governance of England. A revised text, edited, -with introduction, etc., by <span class="smcap">C. Plummer</span>. 8vo, leather back. 12s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Stow’s Survey of London. Edited by <span class="smcap">C. L. Kingsford</span>. 8vo, 2 vols., -with a folding map of London in 1600 (by <span class="smcap">H. W. Cribb</span>) and other illustrations. -30s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Protests of the Lords, from 1624 to 1874; with introductions. -By <span class="smcap">J. E. Thorold Rogers</span>. In three volumes. 8vo. £2 2s.</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Ad4"></a>[Ad4]</span></p> - -<p class="center fs100 p2">The Clarendon Press Series of Charters, -Statutes, etc.</p> - -<p class="center fs90 p1">From the earliest times to 1307. By Bishop <span class="smcap">Stubbs</span>.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Select Charters and other illustrations of English Constitutional History. -Eighth edition. Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d.</p> -</div> - -<p class="center fs90 p1">From 1558 to 1625.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Select Statutes and other Constitutional Documents of -the Reigns of Elizabeth and James I. Third edition. -Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.</p> -</div> - -<p class="center fs90">From 1625 to 1660. By <span class="smcap">S. R. Gardiner</span>.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">The Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution. -Third edition. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.</p> -</div> - -<p class="center fs100 p2">Calendars, etc.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Calendar of Charters and Rolls preserved in the Bodleian Library. -8vo. £1 11s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Calendar of the Clarendon State Papers preserved in the -Bodleian Library. In three volumes. 1869-76.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquota"> -<p class="hang1">Vol. I. From 1523 to January 1649. 8vo. 18s. Vol. II. From 1649 to -1654. 8vo. 16s. Vol. III. From 1655 to 1657. 8vo. 14s.</p> -</div> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Hakluyt’s Principal Navigations, being narratives of the Voyages -of the Elizabethan Seamen to America. Selection edited by <span class="smcap">E. J. Payne</span>. -Crown 8vo, with portraits. Second edition. Two volumes. 5s. each.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquota"> -<p>Also abridged, in one volume, with additional notes, maps, &c., by -<span class="smcap">C. Raymond Beazley</span>. Crown 8vo, with illustrations. 4s. 6d. Also, -separately, ‘The Voyages of Hawkins, Frobisher, and Drake.’ 2s. 6d.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Aubrey’s ‘Brief Lives,’ set down between the Years 1669 and 1696. -Edited from the Author’s MSS by <span class="smcap">A. Clark</span>. Two volumes. 8vo. £1 5s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Whitelock’s Memorials of English Affairs from 1625 to 1660. 4 vols. -8vo. £1 10s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Ludlow’s Memoirs, 1625-1672. Edited, with Appendices of Letters -and illustrative documents, by <span class="smcap">C. H. Firth</span>. Two volumes. 8vo. £1 16s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Luttrell’s Diary. A brief Historical Relation of State Affairs, 1678-1714. -Six volumes. 8vo. £1 10s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Burnet’s History of James II. 8vo. 9s. 6d.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquotb"> -<p class="hang1">Life of Sir M. Hale, with Fell’s Life of -Dr. Hammond. Small 8vo. 2s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Memoirs of James and William, Dukes of -Hamilton. 8vo. 7s. 6d.</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Ad5"></a>[Ad5]</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Burnet’s History of My Own Time. A new edition based on -that of <span class="smcap">M. J. Routh</span>. Edited by <span class="smcap">Osmund Airy</span>. Vol. I. 12s. 6d. net. -Vol. II. (Completing Charles the Second, with Index to Vols. I and II.) -12s. 6d. net.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquota"> -<p class="hang1">Supplement, derived from Burnet’s Memoirs, Autobiography, etc., all -hitherto unpublished. Edited by <span class="smcap">H. C. Foxcroft</span>, 1902. 8vo. 16s. net.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">The Whitefoord Papers, 1739 to 1810. Ed. by <span class="smcap">W. A. S. Hewins</span>. -8vo. 12s. 6d.</p> -</div> - -<p class="center fs100 p2">History of Oxford</p> - -<p class="center p1">A complete list of the Publications of the Oxford Historical Society -can be obtained from Mr. Frowde.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Manuscript Materials relating to the History of Oxford; -contained in the printed catalogues of the Bodleian and College Libraries. -By <span class="smcap">F. Madan</span>. 8vo. 7s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Early Oxford Press. A Bibliography of Printing and Publishing -at Oxford, ‘1468’-1640. With notes, appendices, and illustrations. By -<span class="smcap">F. Madan</span>. 8vo. 18s.</p> -</div> - -<p class="center fs100 p2">Bibliography</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Cotton’s Typographical Gazetteer. First Series. 8vo. 12s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Ebert’s Bibliographical Dictionary. 4 vols. 8vo. £3 3s. net.</p> -</div> - -<p class="center fs100 p2">Bishop Stubbs’s and Professor Freeman’s Books</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">The Constitutional History of England, in its Origin and -Development. By <span class="smcap">W. Stubbs</span>. Library edition. Three volumes. Demy -8vo. £2 8s. Also in three volumes, crown 8vo, price 12s. each.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Mediaeval and Modern History -and kindred subjects, 1867-1884. By the same. Third edition, revised and -enlarged, 1900. Crown 8vo, half-roan. 8s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">History of the Norman Conquest of England; its Causes -and Results. By <span class="smcap">E. A. Freeman</span>. Vols. I, II and V (English edition) are -out of print.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquota"> -<p class="hang1">Vols. III and IV. £1 1s. each. Vol. VI (Index). 10s. 6d.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">A Short History of the Norman Conquest of England. -Third edition. By the same. Extra fcap 8vo. 2s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Reign of William Rufus and the Accession of Henry the -First. By the same. Two volumes. 8vo. £1 16s.</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Ad6"></a>[Ad6]</span></p> - -<p class="center fs100 p2">Special Periods and Biographies</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Ancient Britain and the Invasions of Julius Caesar. By -<span class="smcap">T. Rice Holmes</span>. 8vo. 21s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Life and Times of Alfred the Great, being the Ford Lectures -for 1901. By <span class="smcap">C. Plummer</span>. 8vo. 5s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Domesday Boroughs. By <span class="smcap">Adolphus Ballard</span>. 8vo. 6s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Villainage in England. Essays in English Mediaeval History. By -<span class="smcap">P. Vinogradoff</span>. 8vo. 16s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">English Society in the Eleventh Century. Essays in -English Mediaeval History. By <span class="smcap">P. Vinogradoff</span>. 8vo. 16s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Gild Merchant: a contribution to British municipal history. By -<span class="smcap">C. Gross</span>. Two volumes. 8vo, leather back, £1 4s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Welsh Wars of Edward I; a contribution to mediaeval -military history. By <span class="smcap">J. E. Morris</span>. 8vo. 9s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Great Revolt of 1381. By <span class="smcap">C. Oman</span>. With two maps. 8vo. -8s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Lancaster and York. (<span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span> 1399-1485.) By Sir <span class="smcap">J. H. Ramsay</span>. Two -volumes. 8vo, with Index, £1 17s. 6d. Index separately, 1s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell. By <span class="smcap">R. B. Merriman</span>. -In two volumes. [Vol. I, Life and Letters, 1523-1535, etc. Vol. II, Letters, -1536-1540, notes, index, etc.] 8vo. 18s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">A History of England, principally in the Seventeenth Century. By -<span class="smcap">L. von Ranke</span>. Translated under the superintendence of <span class="smcap">G. W. Kitchin</span> -and <span class="smcap">C. W. Boase</span>. Six volumes. 8vo, £3 3s. net. Index separately, 1s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Sir Walter Ralegh, a Biography, by <span class="smcap">W. Stebbing</span>. Post 8vo. 6s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Biographical Memoir of Dr. William Markham, Archbishop -of York, by Sir <span class="smcap">Clements Markham</span>, K.C.B. 8vo. 5s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Life and Works of John Arbuthnot. By <span class="smcap">G. A. Aitken</span>. -8vo, cloth extra, with Portrait. 16s.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Ad7"></a>[Ad7]</span></p> - -<p class="hang1">Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton. By <span class="smcap">L. Pearsall-Smith</span>. -8vo. Two volumes. 25s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Great Britain and Hanover. By <span class="smcap">A. W. Ward</span>. Crown 8vo. 5s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">History of the Peninsular War. By <span class="smcap">C. Oman</span>. To be completed -in six volumes, 8vo, with many maps, plans, and portraits.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquota"> -<p>Already published: Vol. I. 1807-1809, to Corunna. Vol. II. 1809, to -Talavera. Vol. III. 1809-10, to Torres Vedras. 14s. net each.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Anglo-Chinese Commerce and Diplomacy: mainly in the -nineteenth century. By <span class="smcap">A. J. Sargent</span>. 12s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Frederick York Powell. A Life and a selection from his Letters -and Occasional Writings. By <span class="smcap">Oliver Elton</span>. Two volumes. 8vo. With -photogravure portraits, facsimiles, etc. 21s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">David Binning Monro: a Short Memoir. By <span class="smcap">J. Cook Wilson</span>. -8vo, stiff boards, with portrait. 2s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">F. W. Maitland. Two lectures by <span class="smcap">A. L. Smith</span>. 8vo. 2s. 6d. net.</p> -</div> - -<p class="center fs100 p2">School Books</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Companion to English History (Middle Ages). Edited by <span class="smcap">F. P. -Barnard</span>. With 97 illustrations. Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">School History of England to the death of Victoria. With maps, -plans, etc. By <span class="smcap">O. M. Edwards</span>, <span class="smcap">R. S. Rait</span>, and others. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d.</p> -</div> - -<p class="center fs100 p2">Oxford School Histories</p> - -<p class="center pbot1">Crown 8vo, with many illustrations, each 1s. 6d. net.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Berkshire, by <span class="smcap">E. A. G. Lamborn</span>.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Oxfordshire, by <span class="smcap">H. A. Liddell</span>.</p> -</div> - -<p class="center">Others in preparation.</p> - -<p class="center p1">Also, for junior pupils, illustrated, each 1s.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Stories from the History of Berkshire. By <span class="smcap">E. A. G. -Lamborn</span>.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Stories from the History of Oxfordshire. By <span class="smcap">John Irving</span>.</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Ad8"></a>[Ad8]</span></p> - -<p class="center fs120 p2">History and Geography of America -and the British Colonies</p> - -<p class="center pbot1">For other Geographical books, see page 12.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">History of the New World called America. By <span class="smcap">E. J. Payne</span>. -Vol. I. 8vo. 18s. Bk. I. The Discovery. Bk. II, Part I. Aboriginal America. -Vol. II. 8vo. 14s. Bk. II, Part II. Aboriginal America (concluded).</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Canadian War of 1812. By Sir <span class="smcap">C. P. Lucas</span>, K.C.M.G. 8vo. -With eight maps. 12s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Historical Geography of the British Colonies. By Sir <span class="smcap">C. P. -Lucas</span>, K.C.M.G. Crown 8vo.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquota"> -<p class="hang1">Introduction. New edition by <span class="smcap">H. E. Egerton</span>. 1903. (Origin and -growth of the Colonies.) With eight maps. 3s. 6d. In cheaper binding, -2s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Vol. I. The Mediterranean and Eastern Colonies. -With 13 maps. Second edition, revised and brought up to date, by -<span class="smcap">R. E. Stubbs</span>. 1906. 5s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Vol. II. The West Indian Colonies. With twelve -maps. Second edition, revised and brought up to date, by <span class="smcap">C. Atchley</span>, -I.S.O. 1905. 7s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Vol. III. West Africa. Second Edition. Revised to the -end of 1899 by <span class="smcap">H. E. Egerton</span>. With five maps. 7s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Vol. IV. South and East Africa. Historical and Geographical. -With eleven maps. 9s. 6d.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquotb"> -<p class="hang1">Also Part I. Historical. 1898. 6s. 6d. Part II. 1903. Geographical. -3s. 6d.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquota"> -<p class="hang1">Vol. V. Canada, Part I. 1901. 6s. Part II, by <span class="smcap">H. E. Egerton</span>. -4s. 6d. Part III (Geographical) in preparation.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Vol. VI. Australasia. By <span class="smcap">J. D. Rogers</span>. 1907. With 22 maps. -7s. 6d. Also Part I, Historical, 4s. 6d. Part II, Geographical, 3s. 6d.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">History of the Dominion of Canada. By <span class="smcap">W. P. Greswell</span>. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Geography of the Dominion of Canada and Newfoundland. By the same author. -With ten maps. 1891. Crown 8vo. 6s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Geography of Africa South of the Zambesi. With maps. 1892. By the same -author. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Claims of the Study of Colonial History upon the -attention of the University of Oxford. An inaugural lecture -delivered on April 28, 1906, by <span class="smcap">H. E. Egerton</span>. 8vo, paper covers, 1s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Historical Atlas. Europe and her Colonies, 27 maps. 35s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Cornewall-Lewis’s Essay on the Government of Dependencies. -Edited by Sir <span class="smcap">C. P. Lucas</span>, K.C.M.G. 8vo, quarter-bound, 14s.</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Ad9"></a>[Ad9]</span></p> - -<p class="center fs120 p2">Rulers of India</p> - -<p class="center">Edited by Sir <span class="smcap">W. W. Hunter</span>. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. each.</p> - -<div class="blockquota"> -<p class="hang1">Asoka. By <span class="smcap">V. A. Smith</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">Bábar. By <span class="smcap">S. Lane-Poole</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">Albuquerque. By <span class="smcap">H. Morse Stephens</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">Akbar. By Colonel <span class="smcap">Malleson</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">Aurangzíb. By <span class="smcap">S. Lane-Poole</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">Dupleix. By Colonel <span class="smcap">Malleson</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">Lord Clive. By Colonel <span class="smcap">Malleson</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">Warren Hastings. By Captain <span class="smcap">L. J. Trotter</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">Mádhava Ráo Sindhia. By <span class="smcap">H. G. Keene</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">The Marquis of Cornwallis. By <span class="smcap">W. S. Seton-Karr</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">Haidar Alí and Tipú Sultán. By <span class="smcap">L. B. Bowring</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">The Marquis Wellesley, K.G. By <span class="smcap">W. H. Hutton</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">Marquess of Hastings. By Major <span class="smcap">Ross-of-Bladensburg</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">Mountstuart Elphinstone. By <span class="smcap">J. S. Cotton</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">Sir Thomas Munro. By <span class="smcap">J. Bradshaw</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">Earl Amherst. By <span class="smcap">Anne T. Ritchie</span> and <span class="smcap">R. Evans</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">Lord William Bentinck. By <span class="smcap">D. C. Boulger</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">The Earl of Auckland. By Captain <span class="smcap">L. J. Trotter</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">Viscount Hardinge. By his son, Viscount <span class="smcap">Hardinge</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">Ranjit Singh. By Sir <span class="smcap">L. Griffin</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">The Marquess of Dalhousie. By Sir <span class="smcap">W. W. Hunter</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">James Thomason. By Sir <span class="smcap">R. Temple</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">John Russell Colvin. By Sir <span class="smcap">A. Colvin</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">Sir Henry Lawrence, the Pacificator. By Lieut.-General <span class="smcap">J. J. M<sup>c</sup>Leod Innes</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">Clyde and Strathnairn. By Major-General Sir <span class="smcap">O. T. Burne</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">Earl Canning. By Sir <span class="smcap">H. S. Cunningham</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">Lord Lawrence. By Sir <span class="smcap">C. Aitchison</span>.</p> -<p class="hang1">The Earl of Mayo. By Sir <span class="smcap">W. W. Hunter</span>.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Sketches of Rulers of India. Abridged from the <i>Rulers of India</i> -by <span class="smcap">G. D. Oswell</span>. (In the press.)</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Ad10"></a>[Ad10]</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">The Imperial Gazetteer of India. New edition. To be completed -in twenty-six volumes. 8vo. Subscription price, cloth, £5 net; -morocco back, £6 6s. net. The four volumes of ‘The Indian Empire’ -separately 6s. net each, in cloth, or 7s. 6d. net with morocco back; the -Atlas separately 15s. net in cloth, or 17s. 6d. net with morocco back. -Subscriptions may be sent through any bookseller.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquotb"> -<p class="hang1">Vol. I. Descriptive.</p> -<p class="hang1">Vol. II. Historical.</p> -<p class="hang1">Vol. III. Economic.</p> -<p class="hang1">Vol. IV. Administrative.</p> -<p class="hang1">Vol. V-XXIV. Alphabetical Gazetteer.</p> -<p class="hang1">Vol. XXV. Index. (In the press.)</p> -<p class="hang1">Vol. XXVI. Atlas. (In preparation.)</p> -</div> - -<p class="center">Each volume contains a map of India specially prepared for this Edition.</p> - -<p class="center p2">Reprints from the Imperial Gazetteer.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">A sketch of the Flora of British India. By Sir <span class="smcap">Joseph Hooker</span>. 8vo. Paper -covers. 1s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Indian Army. A sketch of its History and Organization. 8vo. Paper -covers. 1s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">A Brief History of the Indian Peoples. By Sir <span class="smcap">W. W. Hunter</span>. -Revised up to 1903 by <span class="smcap">W. H. Hutton</span>. Eighty-ninth thousand. 3s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Government of India, being a digest of the Statute Law relating -thereto; with historical introduction and illustrative documents. By Sir -<span class="smcap">C. P. Ilbert</span>. Second edition, 1907. 10s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Early History of India from 600 <span class="allsmcap">B.C.</span> to the Muhammadan -Conquest, including the invasion of Alexander the -Great. By <span class="smcap">V. A. Smith</span>. 8vo. With maps, plans, and other illustrations. -Second edition, revised and enlarged. 14s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Oxford Student’s History of India. By <span class="smcap">V. A. Smith</span>. -Crown 8vo. With 7 maps and 10 other illustrations. 2s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The English Factories in India. By <span class="smcap">W. Foster</span>. 8vo. (Published -under the patronage of His Majesty’s Secretary of State for India in Council.)</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquota"> -<p class="hang1">Vol. I. 1618-1621. 12s. 6d. n. Vol. II. 1622-1623. 12s. 6d. n.</p> - -<p class="hang1">(The six previous volumes of Letters received by the East India Company -from its Servants in the East (1602-1617) may also be obtained, price -15s. each volume.)</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Court Minutes of the East India Company, 1635-1639. -By <span class="smcap">E. B. Sainsbury</span>. Introduction by <span class="smcap">W. Foster</span>. 8vo. 12s. 6d. net.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquota"> -<p class="hang1">The Court Minutes of the Company previous to 1635 have been calendared -in the Calendars of State Papers, East Indies, published by the Public -Record Office.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Wellesley’s Despatches, Treaties, and other Papers relating to his -Government of India. Selection edited by <span class="smcap">S. J. Owen</span>. 8vo. £1 4s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Wellington’s Despatches, Treaties, and other Papers relating to -India. Selection edited by <span class="smcap">S. J. Owen</span>. 8vo. £1 4s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Hastings and the Rohilla War. By Sir <span class="smcap">J. Strachey</span>. 8vo. 10s. 6d.</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Ad11"></a>[Ad11]</span></p> - -<p class="center fs120 p2">European History</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Historical Atlas of Modern Europe, from the Decline of the -Roman Empire. 90 maps, with letterpress to each: the maps printed by -<span class="smcap">W. & A. K. Johnston</span>, Ltd., and the whole edited by <span class="smcap">R. L. Poole</span>.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquota"> -<p class="hang1">In one volume, imperial 4to, half-persian, £5 15s. 6d. net; or in selected -sets—British Empire, etc., at various prices from 30s. to 35s. net each; -or in single maps, 1s. 6d. net each. Prospectus on application.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Genealogical Tables illustrative of Modern History. By <span class="smcap">H. B. -George</span>. Fourth (1904) edition. Oblong 4to, boards. 7s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Life and Times of James the First of Aragon. By -<span class="smcap">F. D. Swift</span>. 8vo. 12s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Renaissance and the Reformation. A textbook of European -History, 1494-1610. By <span class="smcap">E. M. Tanner</span>. Crown 8vo, with 8 maps. 3s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">A History of France, with numerous maps, plans, and tables, by -<span class="smcap">G. W. Kitchin</span>. Crown 8vo; Vol. I (to 1453), revised by <span class="smcap">F. F. Urquhart</span>; -Vols. II (1624), III (1795), revised by <span class="smcap">A. Hassall</span>. 10s. 6d. each volume.</p> - -<p class="hang1">De Tocqueville’s L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution. -Edited, with introductions and notes, by <span class="smcap">G. W. Headlam</span>. Crown 8vo. 6s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Principal Speeches of the Statesmen and Orators -of the French Revolution, 1789-1795. Ed. <span class="smcap">H. Morse Stephens</span>. Two vols. -Crown 8vo. £1 1s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Documents of the French Revolution, 1789-1791. By -<span class="smcap">L. G. Wickham Legg</span>. Crown 8vo. Two volumes. 12s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Napoleonic Statesmanship: Germany. By <span class="smcap">H. A. L. Fisher</span>. -8vo, with maps. 12s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Bonapartism. Six lectures by <span class="smcap">H. A. L. Fisher</span>. 8vo. 3s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Thiers’ Moscow Expedition, edited by <span class="smcap">H. B. George</span>. Cr. 8vo. -6 maps. 5s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Great Britain and Hanover. By <span class="smcap">A. W. Ward</span>. Crown 8vo. 5s.</p> - -<p>History of the Peninsular War. By <span class="smcap">C. Oman</span>. To be completed -in six volumes, 8vo, with many maps, plans, and portraits.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquota"> -<p>Already published: Vol. I. 1807-1809, to Corunna. Vol. II. 1809, to -Talavera. Vol. III. 1809-10, to Torres Vedras. 14s. net each.</p> -</div> - -<p class="center fs120 p2">School Geographies</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Relations of Geography and History. By <span class="smcap">H. B. George</span>. -With two maps. Crown 8vo. Third edition. 4s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Geography for Schools, by <span class="smcap">A. Hughes</span>. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Oxford Geographies. By <span class="smcap">A. J. Herbertson</span>. Crown 8vo.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquota"> -<p class="hang1">Vol. I. The Preliminary Geography, Ed. 2, 72 maps and diagrams, 1s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Vol. II. The Junior Geography, Ed. 2, 166 maps and diagrams, 2s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Vol. III. The Senior Geography, Ed. 2, 117 maps and diagrams, 2s. 6d.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Practical Geography. By <span class="smcap">J. F. Unstead</span>. Crown 8vo. Part I, -27 maps and diagrams. 1s. 6d.</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Ad12"></a>[Ad12]</span></p> - - -<p class="center fs120 p2">Geography and Anthropology</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="hang1">The Dawn of Modern Geography. By <span class="smcap">C. R. Beazley</span>. In three -volumes. £2 10s. Vol. I (to <span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span> 900). Not sold separately. Vol. II (<span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span> -900-1260). 15s. net. Vol. III. 20s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Regions of the World. Geographical Memoirs under the general -editorship of <span class="smcap">H. J. Mackinder</span>. Large 8vo. Each volume contains maps -and diagrams. 7s. 6d. net per volume.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquota"> -<p class="hang1">Britain and the British Seas. Second edition. By <span class="smcap">H. J. Mackinder</span>.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Central Europe. By <span class="smcap">John Partsch</span>.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Nearer East. By <span class="smcap">D. G. Hogarth</span>.</p> - -<p class="hang1">North America. By <span class="smcap">J. Russell</span>.</p> - -<p class="hang1">India. By Sir <span class="smcap">Thomas Holdich</span>.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Far East. By <span class="smcap">Archibald Little</span>.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Frontiers: the Romanes Lecture for 1907. By Lord <span class="smcap">Curzon of Kedleston</span>. -8vo. 2s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Face of the Earth (Das Antlitz der Erde). By -<span class="smcap">Eduard Suess</span>. Translated by <span class="smcap">Hertha Sollas</span>.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Anthropological Essays presented to <span class="smcap">Edward Burnett Tylor</span> in -honour of his seventy-fifth birthday; by <span class="smcap">H. Balfour</span>, <span class="smcap">A. E. Crawley</span>, -<span class="smcap">D. J. Cunningham</span>, <span class="smcap">L. R. Farnell</span>, <span class="smcap">J. G. Frazer</span>, <span class="smcap">A. C. Haddon</span>, <span class="smcap">E. S. -Hartland</span>, <span class="smcap">A. Lang</span>, <span class="smcap">R. R. Marett</span>, <span class="smcap">C. S. Myers</span>, <span class="smcap">J. L. Myres</span>, <span class="smcap">C. H. Read</span>, -Sir <span class="smcap">J. Rhŷs</span>, <span class="smcap">W. Ridgeway</span>, <span class="smcap">W. H. R. Rivers</span>, <span class="smcap">C. G. Seligmann</span>, <span class="smcap">T. A. Joyce</span>, -<span class="smcap">N. W. Thomas</span>, <span class="smcap">A. Thomson</span>, <span class="smcap">E. Westermarck</span>; with a bibliography by -<span class="smcap">Barbara W. Freire-Marreco</span>. Imperial 8vo. 21s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Evolution of Culture, and other Essays, by the late -Lieut.-Gen. <span class="smcap">A. Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers</span>; edited by <span class="smcap">J. L. Myres</span>, with an -Introduction by <span class="smcap">H. Balfour</span>. 8vo, with 21 plates, 7s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Folk-Memory. By <span class="smcap">Walter Johnson</span>. 8vo. Illustrated.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Celtic Folklore: Welsh and Manx. By <span class="smcap">J. Rhŷs</span>. 2 vols. 8vo. £1 1s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Studies in the Arthurian Legend. By J. <span class="smcap">Rhŷs</span>. 8vo. 12s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Iceland and the Faroes. By <span class="smcap">N. Annandale</span>. With an appendix -on the Celtic Pony, by <span class="smcap">F. H. A. Marshall</span>. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Dubois’ Hindu Manners, Customs, and Ceremonies. Translated -and edited with notes, corrections, and biography, by <span class="smcap">H. K. Beauchamp</span>. -Third edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. net. On India Paper, 7s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Melanesians, studies in their Anthropology and Folk-Lore. By -<span class="smcap">R. H. Codrington</span>. 8vo. 16s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Masai, their Language and Folk-lore. By <span class="smcap">A. C. Hollis</span>. -With introduction by Sir <span class="smcap">Charles Eliot</span>. 8vo. Illustrated. 14s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Nandi, their Language and Folk-lore. By A. C. Hollis. -With introduction by Sir <span class="smcap">Charles Eliot</span>. 8vo. Illustrated. [In the press.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Ancient Races of the Thebaid: an anthropometrical study. -By <span class="smcap">Arthur Thomson</span> and <span class="smcap">D. Randall-MacIver</span>. Imperial 4to, with 6 collotypes, -6 lithographic charts, and many other illustrations. 42s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Earliest Inhabitants of Abydos. (A craniological study.) -By <span class="smcap">D. Randall-MacIver</span>. Portfolio. 10s. 6d. net.</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Ad13"></a>[AdAd13]</span></p> - -<p class="center fs120 p2">LAW</p> - -<p class="center fs100 p1">Jurisprudence</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Bentham’s Fragment on Government. Edited by <span class="smcap">F. C. -Montague</span>. 8vo. 7s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Bentham’s Introduction to the Principles of Morals and -Legislation. Second edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Studies in History and Jurisprudence. By the Right Hon. -<span class="smcap">James Bryce</span>. 1901. Two volumes. 8vo. £1 5s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Elements of Jurisprudence. By <span class="smcap">T. E. Holland</span>. Tenth -edition. 1906. 8vo. 10s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Elements of Law, considered with reference to Principles of General -Jurisprudence. By Sir <span class="smcap">W. Markby</span>, K.C.I.E. Sixth edition revised. 1905. -8vo. 12s. 6d.</p> -</div> - -<p class="center fs100 p2">Roman Law</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Imperatoris Iustiniani Institutionum Libri Quattuor; -with introductions, commentary, and translation, by <span class="smcap">J. B. Moyle</span>. Two -volumes. 8vo. Vol. I (fourth edition, 1903), 16s.; Vol. II, Translation -(fourth edition, 1906), 6s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Institutes of Justinian, edited as a recension of the Institutes -of Gaius. By <span class="smcap">T. E. Holland</span>. Second edition. Extra fcap 8vo. 5s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Select Titles from the Digest of Justinian. By <span class="smcap">T. E. Holland</span> -and <span class="smcap">C. L. Shadwell</span>. 8vo. 14s.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquota"> -<p>Also, sold in parts, in paper covers: Part I. Introductory Titles. 2s. 6d. -Part II. Family Law. 1s. Part III. Property Law. 2s. 6d. Part IV. -Law of Obligations. No. 1. 3s. 6d. No. 2. 4s. 6d.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1"><span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Gai Institutionum Iuris Civilis Commentarii Quattuor</span>: -with a translation and commentary by the late <span class="smcap">E. Poste</span>. Fourth edition. -Revised and enlarged by <span class="smcap">E. A. Whittuck</span>, with an historical introduction -by <span class="smcap">A. H. J. Greenidge</span>. 8vo. 16s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Institutes of Roman Law, by <span class="smcap">R. Sohm</span>. Translated by <span class="smcap">J. C. -Ledlie</span>: with an introductory essay by <span class="smcap">E. Grueber</span>. Third edition. -8vo. 16s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Infamia; its place in Roman Public and Private Law. By <span class="smcap">A. H. J. -Greenidge</span>. 8vo. 10s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Legal Procedure in Cicero’s Time. By <span class="smcap">A. H. J. Greenidge</span>. -8vo. 25s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Roman Law of Damage to Property: being a commentary -on the title of the Digest ‘<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Ad Legem Aquiliam</span>’ (ix. 2), with an introduction -to the study of the Corpus Iuris Civilis. By <span class="smcap">E. Grueber</span>. 8vo. 10s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Contract of Sale in the Civil Law. By <span class="smcap">J. B. Moyle</span>. 8vo. 10s. 6d.</p> -</div> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">The Principles of German Civil Law. By <span class="smcap">Ernest J. Schuster</span>. -8vo. 12s. 6d. net.</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Ad14"></a>[Ad14]</span></p> - -<p class="center fs100 p2">English Law</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Principles of the English Law of Contract, and of Agency in -its relation to Contract. By Sir <span class="smcap">W. R. Anson</span>. Eleventh edition. 1906. 8vo. -10s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Law and Custom of the Constitution. By the same. In two -volumes. 8vo.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquota"> -<p class="hang1">Vol. I. Parliament. (Out of print. New edition in preparation.)</p> - -<p class="hang1">Vol. II. The Crown. Third edition. Part I, 10s. 6d. net. Part II, -8s. 6d. net.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Calendar of Charters and Rolls, containing those preserved in the -Bodleian Library. 8vo. £1 11s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Introduction to the History of the Law of Real Property. -By Sir <span class="smcap">K. E. Digby</span>. Fifth edition. 8vo. 12s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Handbook to the Land-Charters, and other Saxonic Documents. -By <span class="smcap">J. Earle</span>. Crown 8vo. 16s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Fortescue’s Difference between an Absolute and a Limited -Monarchy. Text revised and edited, with introduction, etc., by <span class="smcap">C. -Plummer</span>. 8vo, leather back, 12s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Legislative Methods and Forms. By Sir <span class="smcap">C. P. Ilbert</span>, K.C.S.I. -1901. 8vo, leather back, 16s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Modern Land Law. By <span class="smcap">E. Jenks</span>. 8vo. 15s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Essay on Possession in the Common Law. By Sir <span class="smcap">F. -Pollock</span> and Sir <span class="smcap">R. S. Wright</span>. 8vo. 8s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Outline of the Law of Property. By <span class="smcap">T. Raleigh</span>. 8vo. 7s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Villainage in England. By <span class="smcap">P. Vinogradoff</span>. 8vo. 16s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Law in Daily Life. By <span class="smcap">Rud. von Jhering</span>. Translated with Notes -and Additions by <span class="smcap">H. Goudy</span>. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Cases illustrating the Principles of the Law of Torts, -with table of all Cases cited. By <span class="smcap">F. R. Y. Radcliffe</span> and <span class="smcap">J. C. Miles</span>. 8vo. -1904. 12s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Management of Private Affairs. By <span class="smcap">Joseph King</span>, <span class="smcap">F. T. R. -Bigham</span>, <span class="smcap">M. L. Gwyer</span>, <span class="smcap">Edwin Cannan</span>, <span class="smcap">J. S. C. Bridge</span>, <span class="smcap">A. M. Latter</span>. -Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. net.</p> -</div> - -<p class="center fs100 p2">Constitutional Documents</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Select Charters and other Illustrations of English Constitutional History, -from the earliest times to Edward I. Arranged and edited by <span class="smcap">W. Stubbs</span>. -Eighth edition. 1900. Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Select Statutes and other Constitutional Documents, -illustrative of the reigns of Elizabeth and James I. Edited by <span class="smcap">G. W. -Prothero</span>. Third edition. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution, selected and -edited by <span class="smcap">S. R. Gardiner</span>. Third edition. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Ad15"></a>[Ad15]</span></p> - -<p class="center fs100 p2">International Law</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">International Law. By <span class="smcap">W. E. Hall</span>. Fifth edition by <span class="smcap">J. B. Atlay</span>. -1904. 8vo. £1 1s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Treatise on the Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction of the -British Crown. By <span class="smcap">W. E. Hall</span>. 8vo. 10s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The European Concert in the Eastern Question, a collection -of treaties and other public acts. Edited, with introductions and notes, by -<span class="smcap">T. E. Holland</span>. 8vo. 12s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Studies in International Law. By <span class="smcap">T. E. Holland</span>, 8vo. 10s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Laws of War on Land. By <span class="smcap">T. E. Holland</span>. 8vo. 6s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Gentilis Alberici de Iure Belli Libri Tres edidit <span class="smcap">T. E. -Holland</span>. Small quarto, half-morocco. £1 1s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Law of Nations. By Sir <span class="smcap">T. Twiss</span>. Part I. In time of peace. -New edition, revised and enlarged. 8vo. 15s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Pacific Blockade. By <span class="smcap">A. E. Hogan</span>. 8vo. 6s. net.</p> -</div> - -<p class="center fs100 p2">Colonial and Indian Law</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">The Government of India, being a Digest of the Statute Law relating -thereto, with historical introduction and illustrative documents. By Sir <span class="smcap">C. P. -Ilbert</span>, K.C.S.I. Second edition. 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">British Rule and Jurisdiction beyond the Seas. By the late -Sir <span class="smcap">H. Jenkyns</span>, K.C.B., with a preface by Sir <span class="smcap">C. P. Ilbert</span>, and a portrait -of the author. 1902. 8vo, leather back, 15s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Cornewall-Lewis’s Essay on the Government of Dependencies. -Edited by Sir <span class="smcap">C. P. Lucas</span>, K.C.M.G. 8vo, leather back, 14s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">An Introduction to Hindu and Mahommedan Law for -the use of students. 1906. By Sir <span class="smcap">W. Markby</span>, K.C.I.E. 6s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Land-Revenue and Tenure in British India. By <span class="smcap">B. H. -Baden-Powell</span>, C.I.E. With map. Second edition, revised by <span class="smcap">T. W. -Holderness</span>, C.S.I. (1907.) Crown 8vo. 5s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Land-Systems of British India, being a manual of the Land-Tenures, -and of the systems of Land-Revenue administration. By the same. -Three volumes. 8vo, with map. £3 3s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Anglo-Indian Codes, by <span class="smcap">Whitley Stokes</span>. 8vo.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquota"> -<p>Vol. I. Substantive Law. £1 10s. Vol. II. Adjective Law. £1 15s. -1st supplement, 2s. 6d. 2nd supplement, to 1891, 4s. 6d. In one vol., 6s. 6d.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">The Indian Evidence Act, with notes by Sir <span class="smcap">W. Markby</span>, K.C.I.E. -8vo. 3s. 6d. net (published by Mr. Frowde).</p> -</div> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1"><span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Corps de Droit Ottoman: un Recueil des Codes, Lois, Règlements, -Ordonnances et Actes les plus importants du Droit Intérieur, et d’Études -sur le Droit Coutumier de l’Empire Ottoman.</span> Par <span class="smcap">George Young</span>. Seven -vols. 8vo. Cloth, £4 14s. 6d. net; paper covers, £4 4s. net. Parts I (Vols. -I-III) and II (Vols. IV-VII) can be obtained separately; price per part, -in cloth, £2 17s. 6d. net, in paper covers, £2 12s. 6d. net.</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Ad16"></a>[Ad16]</span></p> - -<p class="center fs120 p2">Political Science and Economy</p> - -<p class="center fs90">For Bryce’s <i>Studies</i> and other books on general jurisprudence and political -science, see p. 13.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Industrial Organization in the 16th and 17th Centuries. -By <span class="smcap">G. Unwin</span>. 8vo. 7s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Relations of the Advanced and Backward Races of -Mankind, the Romanes Lecture for 1902. By <span class="smcap">J. Bryce</span>. 8vo. 2s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Cornewall-Lewis’s Remarks on the Use and Abuse -of some Political Terms. New edition, with introduction by -<span class="smcap">T. Raleigh</span>. Crown 8vo, paper, 3s. 6d.; cloth, 4s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Edited by <span class="smcap">J. E. Thorold -Rogers</span>. Two volumes. 8vo. £1 1s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Adam Smith’s Lectures on Justice, Police, Revenue and Arms. -Edited with introduction and notes by <span class="smcap">E. Cannan</span>. 8vo. 10s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Bluntschli’s Theory of the State. Translated from the sixth -German edition. Third edition. 1901. Crown 8vo, leather back, 8s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Co-operative Production. By <span class="smcap">B. Jones</span>. With preface by <span class="smcap">A. H. -Dyke-Acland</span>. Two volumes. Crown 8vo. 15s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">A Geometrical Political Economy. Being an elementary -Treatise on the method of explaining some Theories of Pure Economic -Science by diagrams. By <span class="smcap">H. Cunynghame</span>, C.B. Cr. 8vo. 2s. 6d. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Elements of Railway Economics. By <span class="smcap">W. M. Acworth</span>. -Crown 8vo. Second impression. 2s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Elementary Political Economy. By <span class="smcap">E. Cannan</span>. Fourth edition. -Extra fcap 8vo, 1s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Elementary Politics. By Sir <span class="smcap">T. Raleigh</span>. Sixth edition revised. Extra -fcap 8vo, stiff covers, 1s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The Study of Economic History. By <span class="smcap">L. L. Price</span>. 1s. net.</p> -</div> - -<p class="center fs100 p2">Economic Documents</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Ricardo’s Letters to Malthus (1810-1823). Edited by <span class="smcap">J. Bonar</span>. -8vo. 7s. 6d.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquotb"> -<p class="hang1">Letters to Trower and others (1811-1823). Edited -by <span class="smcap">J. Bonar</span> and <span class="smcap">J. H. Hollander</span>. 8vo. 7s. 6d.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">Lloyd’s Prices of Corn in Oxford, 1583-1830. 8vo. 1s.</p> - -<p class="hang1">The History of Agriculture and Prices in England, -<span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span> 1259-1793. By <span class="smcap">J. E. Thorold Rogers</span>.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquotb"> -<p class="hang1">Vols. I and II (1259-1400). 8vo. 84s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Vols. III and IV (1401-1582). 8vo. 32s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Vols. V and VI (1583-1702). 8vo. 32s. net.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Vol. VII. In two Parts (1702-1793). 8vo. 32s. net.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="hang1">First Nine Years of the Bank of England. By the same. 8vo. -8s. 6d.</p> -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="chapter"></div> -<div class="transnote"> -<p><b>TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE</b></p> - -<p>Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been -corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within -the text and consultation of external sources.</p> - -<p>Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added, when -a predominant preference was found in the original book.</p> - -<p>Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the -text, and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.</p> - -<p>Pg <a href="#Page_7">7</a>: ‘the lands abovereserved,’ replaced by ‘the lands above reserved,’.</p> - -<p>Pg <a href="#Page_64">64</a>: ‘the great dependancies’ replaced by ‘the great dependencies’.</p> - -<p>Pg <a href="#Page_101">101</a>: ‘held a meeeting’ replaced by ‘held a meeting’.</p> - -<p>Pg <a href="#Page_185">185</a>: ‘town of Springfield; In’ replaced by ‘town of Springfield; in’.</p> - -<p>Pg <a href="#Page_218">218</a>: ‘their bona fide debts’ replaced by ‘their bonâ fide debts’.</p> - -<p>Pg <a href="#Page_222">222</a>: ‘were finally withdran’ replaced by ‘were finally withdrawn’.</p> - -<p>Pg <a href="#Page_309">309</a>: ‘as confidential sercetary’ replaced by ‘as confidential secretary’.</p> - -<p>Pg <a href="#Page_313">313</a>: ‘Wellington was begining’ replaced by ‘Wellington was beginning’.</p> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin-top:4em'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A HISTORY OF CANADA 1763-1812 ***</div> -<div style='text-align:left'> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will -be renamed. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. -</div> - -<div style='margin-top:1em; font-size:1.1em; text-align:center'>START: FULL LICENSE</div> -<div style='text-align:center;font-size:0.9em'>THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE</div> -<div style='text-align:center;font-size:0.9em'>PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person -or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the -Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when -you share it without charge with others. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work -on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the -phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: -</div> - -<blockquote> - <div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most - other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions - whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms - of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online - at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you - are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws - of the country where you are located before using this eBook. - </div> -</blockquote> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg™ License. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format -other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain -Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -provided that: -</div> - -<div style='margin-left:0.7em;'> - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation.” - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ - works. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. - </div> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right -of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread -public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state -visit <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/donate/">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. -</div> - -</div> -</body> -</html> diff --git a/old/68336-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/68336-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 18e02f8..0000000 --- a/old/68336-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68336-h/images/i_001.jpg b/old/68336-h/images/i_001.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 63d8bc9..0000000 --- a/old/68336-h/images/i_001.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68336-h/images/i_001large.jpg b/old/68336-h/images/i_001large.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 6e53909..0000000 --- a/old/68336-h/images/i_001large.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68336-h/images/i_082.jpg b/old/68336-h/images/i_082.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 9fac47b..0000000 --- a/old/68336-h/images/i_082.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68336-h/images/i_082large.jpg b/old/68336-h/images/i_082large.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 88fcdb1..0000000 --- a/old/68336-h/images/i_082large.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68336-h/images/i_111.jpg b/old/68336-h/images/i_111.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 1c51d21..0000000 --- a/old/68336-h/images/i_111.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68336-h/images/i_111large.jpg b/old/68336-h/images/i_111large.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index bb9837e..0000000 --- a/old/68336-h/images/i_111large.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68336-h/images/i_146.jpg b/old/68336-h/images/i_146.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 1fd4407..0000000 --- a/old/68336-h/images/i_146.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68336-h/images/i_146large.jpg b/old/68336-h/images/i_146large.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 8251d28..0000000 --- a/old/68336-h/images/i_146large.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68336-h/images/i_162.jpg b/old/68336-h/images/i_162.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 0cecefc..0000000 --- a/old/68336-h/images/i_162.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68336-h/images/i_162large.jpg b/old/68336-h/images/i_162large.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 8890e73..0000000 --- a/old/68336-h/images/i_162large.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68336-h/images/i_258.jpg b/old/68336-h/images/i_258.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 1cb6ab1..0000000 --- a/old/68336-h/images/i_258.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68336-h/images/i_258large.jpg b/old/68336-h/images/i_258large.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 5337d18..0000000 --- a/old/68336-h/images/i_258large.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68336-h/images/i_320.jpg b/old/68336-h/images/i_320.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 600885b..0000000 --- a/old/68336-h/images/i_320.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68336-h/images/i_320large.jpg b/old/68336-h/images/i_320large.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 5e51a07..0000000 --- a/old/68336-h/images/i_320large.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68336-h/images/i_eob.jpg b/old/68336-h/images/i_eob.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 83bee98..0000000 --- a/old/68336-h/images/i_eob.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68336-h/images/i_eoblarge.jpg b/old/68336-h/images/i_eoblarge.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index ee522f3..0000000 --- a/old/68336-h/images/i_eoblarge.jpg +++ /dev/null |
