diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/68336-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68336-0.txt | 16639 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 16639 deletions
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. |