Dr. Mather's earnestness, ability, and appeals made a favourable

impression on the mind of the King, supported as they were by liberal

Churchmen as well as Nonconformists, and also by the entreaties of the

Queen. The King, on the eve of going to Holland, where he was long

detained--which delayed the issuing of the Massachusetts Charter for

twelve months--directed the Chief Justice, Attorney and

Solicitor-Generals to prepare the draft of a new Charter for

Massachusetts. They did so, embodying the provisions of the old Charter,

with additional provisions to give powers which had not been given but

had been usurped in the administration of the old Charter. The majority

of the King's Council disapproved of this draft of Charter, and directed

the preparation of a second draft. Both drafts were sent over to Holland

to the King, with the reasons for and against each; his Majesty agreed

with the majority of his Council in disapproving of the first, and

approving of the second draft of Charter.[209]

But even before the King and his Council decided upon the provisions of

the new Charter, he determined upon appointing a Governor for

Massachusetts, while meeting their wishes as far as possible in his

selection of the Governor; for, as Mr. Neal says, "Two days after he had

heard Dr. Mather against continuing the Governor and officers appointed

over Massachusetts by King James the Second, but restoring the old

officers, the King inquired of the Chief Justice and some other Lords of

the Council whether, without the breach of law, he might appoint a

Governor over New England? To which they answered that whatever might be

the merits of the cause, inasmuch as the Charter of New England stood

vacated by a judgment against them, it was in the King's power to put

them under that form of government he should think best for them. The

King replied, he believed then it would be for the advantage of the

people of that colony to be under a Governor appointed by himself;

nevertheless, because of what Dr. Mather had spoken to him, he would

consent that the agents of New England should nominate such a person as

would be agreeable to the inclinations of the people there; but,

notwithstanding this, he would have Charter privileges restored and

confirmed to them."[210]

It seems to me that King William was not actuated by any theoretical

notions of high prerogative, as attributed to him by Messrs. Bancroft

and Palfrey, in regard to Massachusetts, but was anxious to restore to

that colony every just privilege and power desired, with the exception

of the power of the Congregationalists of Massachusetts to prosecute and

persecute their fellow-religionists of other persuasions, and of

depriving them and other colonists of the right of appeal to the

protection of England.[211] This continued possession of usurped powers

by the Congregationalists of Massachusetts, of sole legislation and

government under the first Charter, and which they so mercilessly and

disloyally exercised for more than half a century, was manifestly the

real ground of their opposition to a new Charter, and especially to the

second and final draft of it. Their agent in England, Dr. Increase

Mather, who had inflamed and caused the citizens of Boston, and a

majority of the popular Assembly of the Legislature, to reject the

conditions insisted upon by Charles the Second, and contest in a Court

of law the continuance of the first Charter, with their pretensions

under it, said that he would rather die than consent to the provisions

of the second draft of Charter,[212] and sent his objections to it to

King William, who was in Holland. The King disapproved of Dr. Mather's

objections, and approved of the Charter as revised and as was finally

issued, and under which Massachusetts was governed and prospered for

three-fourths of a century, notwithstanding the continued opposition of

a set of separationists and smugglers in Boston, who had always been the

enemies of loyal and liberal government under the first Charter.[213]

But when the new Charter passed the Seals, and the nomination of the

first Governor was left to the agent of Massachusetts, Dr. Mather

changed his language of protest into that of gratitude. He nominated Sir

William Phips; and on being introduced to the King, at parting, by the

Earl of Nottingham, made the following speech:

"Sir, I do, in behalf of New England, most humbly thank your Majesty, in

that you have been pleased by a Charter to restore English liberties

unto them, to confirm them in their properties, and to grant them some

peculiar privileges. I doubt not but your subjects will demean

themselves with that dutiful affection and loyalty to your Majesty, as

that you will see cause to enlarge your Royal favour towards them; and I

do most humbly thank your Majesty that you have been pleased to leave to

those that are concerned for New England to nominate their Governor."

"Sir William Phips has been accordingly nominated by us at the Council

Board. He has done good service to the Crown, by enlarging your

dominions and reducing Nova Scotia to your obedience; I know that he

will faithfully serve your Majesty to the utmost of his capacity; and if

your Majesty shall think fit to confirm him in that place, it will be a

further obligation to your subjects there."

"Hereupon Sir William Phips was admitted to kiss his Majesty's hand; and

was, by commission under the Broad Seal, appointed Captain-General over

the Province of Massachusetts Bay, in New England."[214]

In the preamble of the Charter, the dates, objects and provisions of

previous Charters are recited, and titles to property, etc., acquired

under them confirmed; after which it was provided--

1. That there should be "one Governor, one Lieutenant or Deputy

Governor, one Secretary of the Province, twenty-eight councillors or

members of assembly, to be chosen by popular election, and to possess

and exercise the general powers of legislation and government."

2. That there should be "liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of

God to all Christians (except Papists) inhabiting, or which shall

inhabit or be resident within our said province or territory."

3. That "all our subjects should have liberty to appeal to us, our heirs

and successors, in case either party shall not rest satisfied with the

judgment or sentence of any judicatories or courts within our said

province or territory, in any personal action wherein the matter of

difference doth exceed the value of three hundred pounds sterling,

provided such appeals be made within fourteen days after the sentence or

judgment given."

4. That the Governor and General Assembly should have "full power and

authority, from time to time, to make, ordain and establish all manner

of wholesome and reasonable orders, laws, statutes or ordinances,

directions, and instructions, either with penalties or without (so as

the same be not repugnant or contrary to the laws of this our realm of

England), as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of our said

province or territory."

5. That in the framing and passing of all orders, laws, etc., the

Governor should have "a negative voice, subject also to the approbation

or disallowance of the King within three years after the passing

thereof."

6. That "every freeholder or person holding land within the province or

territory, to the annual value of forty shillings, or other estate of

fifty pounds sterling, should have a vote in the election of members to

serve in the General Court or Assembly."

7. That "the King should appoint, from time to time, the Governor,

Lieutenant-Governor, and Secretary of the Province; but that the

Governor, with the advice and consent of the Council or Assistants, from

time to time should nominate and appoint Judges, Commissioners of Oyer

and Terminer, Sheriffs, Provosts, Marshals, Justices of the Peace," etc.

8. The usual oath of allegiance and supremacy was required to be taken

by all persons appointed to office, free from the restrictions and

neutralising mutilations introduced into the oath of allegiance by the

ecclesiastico-political oligarchy of the Massachusetts Bay Colony under

the first Charter.

9. The new Charter also incorporated "_Plymouth_ and _Maine, and a tract

further east_ in the province of Massachusetts." The Plymouth Colony of

the Pilgrim Fathers had existed from 1620 to 1690 as a separate Colonial

Government, first established by common consent, under seven successive

Governors. It now ceased to exist as a distinct Government, to the great

regret of its inhabitants, after having been administered tolerantly and

loyally for a period of seventy years, as has been narrated above, in

Chap. II.

Such is an abstract of the provisions of the second Massachusetts

Charter--provisions similar to those which have been incorporated into

the constitution and government of every British North American Province

for the last hundred years.[215]

It remains to note how the new Charter was received, and what was the

effect of its operation. A faction in Boston opposed its reception, and

desired to resume the old contests; but a large majority of the deputies

and the great body of the colony cordially and thankfully accepted the

new Charter as a great improvement upon the first Charter in terminating

their disputes and defining their relations with England, in putting an

end to a denominational franchise and tyranny inconsistent with

religious or civil liberty, and in placing the elective franchise,

eligibility to office, legislation and government upon the broad

foundation of public freedom and equal rights to all classes of

citizens.[216]

The influence of the new Charter upon the social state of Massachusetts,

as well as upon its legislation and government, was manifestly

beneficial. Judge Story observes: "After the grant of the provincial

Charter, in 1691, the legislation of the colony took a wider scope, and

became more liberal as well as more exact."[217]

The improved spirit of loyalty was not less conspicuous. Mr. Neal,

writing more than twenty years (1720) after the granting of the new

Charter, says: "The people of New England are a dutiful and loyal

people.... King George is not known to have a single enemy to his

person, family, or government in New England."[218]

The influence of the new state of things upon the spirit of toleration

and of Christian charity among Christians of different denominations,

and on society at large, was most remarkable. In a sermon preached on a

public Fast Day, March 22, 1716 (and afterwards published), by the Rev.

Mr. Coleman, one of the ministers of Boston, we have the following

words:

"If there be any customs in our Churches, derived from our ancestors,

wherein those terms of Church communion are imposed which Christ has not

imposed in the New Testament, they ought to be laid aside, for they are

justly to be condemned by us, because we complain of imposing in other

communions, and our fathers fled for the same. If there ever was a

custom among us, whereby communion in our Churches was made a test for

the enjoyment of civil privileges in the State, we have done well long

since to abolish such corrupt and persecuting maxims, which are a

mischief to any free people, and a scandal to any communion to retain.

If there were of old among our fathers any laws enacted or judgments

given or executions done according to those laws which have carried too

much the face of cruelty and persecution, we ought to be humbled greatly

for such errors of our fathers, and confess them to have been sinful;

and blessed be God for the more catholic spirit of charity which now

distinguishes us. Or if any of our fathers have dealt proudly in

censuring and judging others who differed from them in modes of worship,

let us their posterity the rather be clothed with humility, meekness,

and charity, preserving truth and holiness with the laudable zeal of our

predecessors" (pp. 20, 21, 22).

The Rev. Dr. Cotton Mather, the distinguished son of the famous Rev. Dr.

Increase Mather, but more tolerant than his father, has a passage

equally significant and suggestive with that just quoted from Mr.

Coleman:

"In this capital city of Boston," says Dr. Cotton Mather, "there are ten

assemblies of Christians of different persuasions, who live lovingly and

peaceably together, doing all the offices of good neighbourhood for one

another in such manner as may give a sensible rebuke to all the bigots

of uniformity, and show them how consistent a variety of rites in

religion may be with the tranquillity of human society, and may

demonstrate to the world that such persecution for conscientious

dissents in religion is an _abomination of desolation_--a thing whereof

all wise and just men will say, _cursed be its anger, for it is fierce,

and its wrath, for it is cruel_."[219]

It is not needful that I should trace the legislation and government of

the Province of Massachusetts under the second Charter with the same

minuteness with which I have narrated that of Massachusetts Bay under

the first Charter. The successive Governors appointed by England over

the province were, upon the whole, men of good sense, and were

successful in their administration, notwithstanding the active

opposition of a Boston disaffected party that prevented any salary being

granted to the Judges or Governor for more than one year at a time. Yet,

upon the whole, the new system of government in the Province of

Massachusetts was considered preferable to that of the neighbouring

colonies of Rhode Island and Connecticut, which retained their old

Charters and elected their Governors. Mr. Hutchinson says:

"Seventy years' practice under a new Charter, in many respects to be

preferred to the old, has taken away not only all expectation, but all

desire, of ever returning to the old Charter. We do not envy the

neighbouring Governments which retained and have ever since practised

upon their ancient Charters. Many of the most sensible in those

Governments would be glad to be under the same Constitution that the

Massachusetts Province happily enjoys."[220]

But Massachusetts and other New England colonies had incurred

considerable debts in their wars with the Indians, prompted and aided by

the French, who sought the destruction of the English colonies. But most

of these debts were incurred by loans to individual inhabitants and by

the issue of paper money, which became greatly depreciated and caused

much confusion and embarrassment in the local and Transatlantic

trade.[221]

At the close of the war between England and France by the peace and

treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, 1749, Mr. Hutchinson thus describes the state

of Massachusetts:

"The people of Massachusetts Bay were never in a more easy and happy

situation than at the conclusion of the war with France (1749). By the

generous reimbursement of the whole charge (£183,000) incurred by the

expedition against Cape Breton, the province was set free from a heavy

debt in which it must otherwise have remained involved, and was enabled

to exchange a depreciating paper medium, which had long been the sole

instrument of trade, for a stable medium of silver and gold; the

advantages whereof to all branches of their commerce was evident, and

excited the envy of other colonies; in each of which paper was the

principal currency."[222]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 203: Palfrey's History of New England, Vol. III., B. iii.,

Chap. ix, pp. 396-398.]

[Footnote 204: The Plymouth Colony tolerating the proscribed Baptists of

Massachusetts Bay, the Court of Massachusetts Bay admonished them in a

letter, in 1649, saying "that it had come to its knowledge that divers

Anabaptists had been connived at within the Plymouth jurisdiction, and

it appeared that the 'patient bearing' of the Plymouth authorities had

'encreased' the same errors; that thirteen or fourteen persons (it was

reported) had been re-baptized at Sea Cunke, under which circumstances

'effectual restriction' was desired, 'the more as the interests of

Massachusetts were concerned therein.' The infection of such diseases

being so near us, are likely to spread into our jurisdiction, and God

equally requires the suppression of error as the maintenance of truth at

the hands of Christian magistrates."--_British_ (Congregational)

_Quarterly Review_ for January, 1876, pp. 150, 151.

"The Massachusetts did maintain Punham (a petty Sachem in this province

of Rhode Island) twenty years against this colony, and his chief Sachem,

and did by armed soldiers besiege and take prisoners Gorton, Hamden,

Weeks, Green, and others in this province, and carried them away to

Boston, put them in irons, and took eighty head of cattle from them, for

all of which they could never obtain any satisfaction. This colony (of

Rhode Island) could never be acknowledged (by Massachusetts) for a

colony till his Majesty's Charter was published (in 1663), though in the

year 1643 they sent over some in England to procure the King's Charter;

but finding that unnatural war begun, and the King gone from London,

they took a Charter from the Lords and Commons." (Report of the King's

Commissioners, in Hutchinson's Collection of Original Papers relative to

the History of Massachusetts Bay, pp. 415, 416.)]

[Footnote 205: In an audience of King William, obtained by the Duke of

Devonshire, April 28, 1691, Mr. Mather humbly prayed his Majesty's

favour to New England in restoring the old Charter privileges; adding at

the same time these words: "Sir,--Your subjects there have been willing

to venture their lives to enlarge your dominions; the expedition to

Canada was a great and noble undertaking. May it please your Majesty

also to consider the circumstances of that people, as in your wisdom you

have considered the circumstances of England and Scotland. In New

England they differ from other Plantations; they are called

Congregationalists and Presbyterians[206], so that such a Governor as

will not suit with the people of New England, may be very proper for

other English Plantations." (Neal's History of New England, Vol. II.,

Chap. xi., pp. 475, 476.)]

[Footnote 206: This was very ingenious on the part of Dr. Increase

Mather to say that the people of New England were called "Presbyterians"

as well as "Congregationalists," as the Church of Holland, of which King

William as Prince of Orange was Stadtholder, was "Presbyterian." But Dr.

Mather did not inform the King that the Presbyterian worship was no more

tolerated in Massachusetts than was the Baptist or Episcopalian

worship.]

[Footnote 207: "The Rev. Mr. Increase Mather, Rector of Harvard College,

had been at Court in the year 1688, and laid before the King a

representation of their grievances, which the King promised in part to

redress, but was prevented by the revolution. When the Prince and

Princess of Orange were settled on the throne, he, with the rest of the

New England agents, addressed their Majesties for the restoring of their

Charter, and applied to the Convention Parliament, who received a Bill

for this purpose and passed it in the Lower House; but that Parliament

being soon dissolved, the Bill was lost." (Neal's History of New

England, Vol. II., Chap. xi., p. 474.)

Mr. J.G. Barry says: "Anxious for the restoration of the old Charter and

its privileges, under which the colony had prospered so well, the agent

applied himself diligently to that object, advising with the wisest

statesmen for its accomplishment. It was the concurrent judgment of all

that the best course would be to obtain a reversion of the judgment

against the Charter by Act of Parliament, and then apply to the King for

such additional privileges as were necessary. Accordingly in the

(Convention) House of Commons, _where the whole subject of seizing

Charters in the reign of Charles the Second was up, the Charters of New

England were inserted with the rest_, and though enemies opposed the

measure, it was voted with the rest as a grievance, and that they should

be forthwith restored. Thus the popular branch of the Parliament acted

favourably towards the colonies; but as the Bill was yet to be submitted

to the House of Lords, great pains were taken to interest that branch of

the Parliament in the measure; and at the same time letters having

arrived giving an account of the proceedings in Boston, another

interview was held with the King, before whom, in 'a most excellent

speech,' Mr. Mather 'laid the state of the people,' and his Majesty was

pleased to signify his acceptance of what had been done in New England,

and his intention to restore the inhabitants to their ancient

privileges; but 'behold,' adds the narrative, 'while the Charter Bill

was depending, the Convention Parliament was unexpectedly prorogued and

afterwards dissolved, and the Sisyphæan labour of the whole year came to

nothing.' All that was obtained was an order that the Government of the

colony should be continued under the old Charter until a new one was

settled; and a letter from the King was forwarded to that effect, signed

by the Earl of Nottingham, for the delivery of Sir Edmund Andros and the

others detained with him, who were to be sent to England for trial."

(Barry's History of Massachusetts, First Period, Chap. xviii., pp.

508-510.)]

[Footnote 208: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp.

388, 389. But, in addition, Mr. Mather had the countenance of Archbishop

Tillotson and Bishop Burnet, who had not only received him kindly, but

recommended his applications to the favourable consideration of the

King.]

[Footnote 209: The King, on starting for Holland, "left orders with his

Attorney-General to draw up a draft of Charter, according as his Majesty

expressed in Council, to be ready for him to sign at his return. The

Attorney-General presented his draft to the Council Board, June the 8th

(1691), which was rejected, and a new one ordered to be drawn up, which

deprived the people of New England of several essential privileges

contained in their former Charter. Mr. Mather in his great zeal

protested against it; but was told that the agents of New England were

not plenipotentiaries from a foreign State, and therefore must submit to

the King's pleasure. The agents, having obtained a copy of this Charter,

sent over their objections against it to the King, in Flanders, praying

that certain clauses which they pointed out to his Majesty in their

petition might be altered. And the Queen herself, with her own royal

hand, wrote to the King that the Charter of New England might pass as it

was drawn up by the Attorney-General at first, or be deferred till his

return. But, after all, it was his Majesty's pleasure that the Charter

of New England should run in the main points according to the second

draft; and all that the agents could do was to get two or three articles

which they apprehended to be for the good of the country added to it.

The expectations of the people (of the Congregationalists) of New

England were very much disappointed, and their agents were censured as

men not very well skilled in the intrigues of a Court. It was thought

that if they had applied themselves to the proper persons, and in a

right way, they might have made better terms for their country; but they

acted in the uprightness of their hearts, though the success did not

answer their expectations. It was debated among them whether they should

accept of the new Charter or stand a trial at law for reversing the

judgment against the old one; but, upon the advice of some of the best

politicians and lawyers, the majority resolved to acquiesce in the

King's pleasure and accept what was now offered them." (Neal's History

of New England, Vol. II., Chap, xi., pp. 476, 477.)]

[Footnote 210: Neal's History of New England, Vol. II., Chap, xi., p.

476.

Massachusetts would doubtless have retained the election of their

Governor and their first Charter, as did the colonies of Rhode Island

and Connecticut, had her rulers submitted to the conditions on which

Charles the Second proposed to continue their Charter. Mr. Hildreth

says: "The Charters of Connecticut and Rhode Island never having been

formally annulled, and having already been resumed, were pronounced by

the English lawyers to be in full force.... The English lawyers held

that the judgment which Massachusetts had persisted in braving was

binding and valid in law, until renewed by a writ of error, of which

there was little or no hope." (History of the United States, Chap,

xviii., pp. 94, 95.)]

[Footnote 211: The platform of Church government which they settled was

of the Congregational mode, connecting the several Churches together to

a certain degree, and yet exempting each of them from any jurisdiction,

by way of censure or any power extensive to their own.... No man could

be qualified to elect or be elected to office who was not a Church

member, and no Church could be formed but by a license from a

magistrate; so that the civil and ecclesiastical powers were intimately

combined. The clergy were consulted about the laws, were frequently

present at the passing of them, and by the necessity of their influence

in the origination, demonstrated how much the due execution of them

depended on their power.

"But the error of establishing one rule for all men in ecclesiastical

policy and discipline (which experience has proved cannot be maintained,

even in matters of indifference) could not fail of discovering itself in

very serious instances as the Society increased. The great body of the

English nation being of a different persuasion in this respect, numbers

belonging to their Church, who came into the country, necessarily formed

an opposition which, as they had the countenance of the King, could not

be crushed like those other sectaries. It became a constant subject of

royal attention, to allow freedom and liberty of conscience, especially

in the use of the Common Prayer, and the rights of sacrament and baptism

as thereby prescribed. The law confining the rights of freemen to Church

members was at length repealed (in pretence); and pecuniary

qualifications for those who were not Church members, with good morals

and the absurd requisite of orthodoxy of opinion, certified by a

clergyman, were substituted in its place. But the great ascendency which

the Congregationalists had gained over every other sect made the chance

of promotion to office, and the share of influence in general, very

unequal, and was, without doubt, one of the most important causes which

conspired to the loss of the Charter." (Minot's Continuation of the

History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, etc., Vol. I., Chap. i,

pp. 29-31.)]

[Footnote 212: "Mr. Mather was so dissatisfied that he declared that he

would sooner part with his life than consent to them. He was told 'the

agents of Massachusetts were not plenipotentiaries from a sovereign

State; if they declared they would not submit to the King's pleasure,

his Majesty would settle the country, and they might take what would

follow.' Sir Henry Ashurst with Mr. Mather withdrew, notwithstanding,

their objections against the minutes of Council. The objections were

presented to the Attorney-General (Treby), and laid before the Council,

and a copy sent to the King in Flanders; but all had no effect. The King

approved of the minutes and disliked the objections to them, and the

Charter was drawn up by Mr. Blaithwait according to them." (Hutchinson's

History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 409-411.).]

[Footnote 213: "A people who were of opinion that their Commonwealth was

established by free consent (_a_); that the place of their habitation

was their own; that no man had a right to enter into their society

without their permission; that they had the full and absolute power of

governing all the people by men chosen from among themselves, and

according to such laws as they should see fit to establish, not

repugnant to those of England (a restriction and limitation which they

wholly ignored and violated), they paying only the fifth part of the ore

of gold and silver that should be there found for all duties, demands,

exactions, and services whatsoever; of course, that they held the keys

of their territory, and had a right to prescribe the terms of

naturalization to all noviciates; such a people, I say, whatever

alterations they might make in their polity, from reason and conviction

of their own motion, would not be easily led to comply with the same

changes, when required by a king to whom they held themselves subject,

and upon whose authority they were dependent only according to their

Charter; and we shall find that their compliance was accordingly slow

and occasional, as necessity compelled them to make it." (Minot's

Continuation of the History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 42, 43.)

(_a_) _Note_ by the Author.--The Colony of Plymouth was established in

1620, by free consent, by the Pilgrim Fathers on board of the

_Mayflower_, without a Charter; yet that colony was always tolerant and

loyal. But the Colony of Massachusetts Bay was established by the

Puritan Fathers in 1629, under the authority of a Royal Charter; and it

was the pretension to and assumption of independent power and absolute

government, though a chartered colony, that resulted in their disloyalty

to England and intolerance towards all classes of their fellow-colonists

not Congregationalists.]

[Footnote 214: Neal's History of New England, Vol. II., pp. 480, 481.

"Sir William Phips was born, of mean and obscure parents, at a small

plantation in the eastern part of New England, on the banks of the River

Kennebeck, February 2, 1620; his father was a gunsmith, and left his

mother a widow, with a large family of small children. William, being

one of the youngest, kept sheep in the wilderness until he was eighteen

years of age, and was then bound apprentice to a ship carpenter. When he

was out of his time he took to the sea, and after several adventures, at

last made his fortune by finding a Spanish wreck near Port de la Plata,

which got him a great deal of reputation at the English Court, and

introduced him into the acquaintance of the greatest men of the nation.

Though King James II. gave him the honour of knighthood, yet he always

opposed his arbitrary measures, as appears by his refusing the

Government of New England when offered to him by a messenger of the

abdicated King. Sir William joined heartily in the Revolution, and used

his interest at the Court of King William and Queen Mary for obtaining a

Charter for his country, in conjunction with the rest of the agents, for

which, and his other great services, they nominated him to the King as

the most acceptable and deserving person they could think of for

Governor."--_Ib._, pp. 544, 545.]

[Footnote 215: Modern historians of New England generally speak of the

Massachusetts Colony as having been unjustly deprived of its first

Charter, after having faithfully observed it for more than half a

century, and of having been treated harshly in not having the Charter

restored. While Dr. Mather was earnestly seeking the restoration of the

Charter at the hands of King William, Mr. Hampden (grandson of the

famous John Hampden) consulted Mr. Hooke, a counsellor of note of the

Puritan party, and friend of New England. Mr. Hooke stated that "a bare

restoration of the Charter of Massachusetts would be of no service at

all," as appears both from the Charter itself and the practice of that

colony, who have hardly pursued the terms thereof in any one instance,

which has given colour to evil-minded men to give them disturbance.

"I. As to the Charter itself, that colony, should they have their

Charter, would want--

"1. Power to call a Parliament, or select assembly; for their many

thousand freemen have, thereby, an equal right to sit in their General

Assembly.

"2. Power to levy taxes and raise money, especially on inhabitants not

being of the company, and strangers coming to or trading thither.

"3. They have not any Admiralty.

"4. Nor have they power to keep a Prerogative Court, prove wills, etc.

"5. Nor to erect Courts of Judicature, especially Chancery Courts.

"II. The deficiency of their Charter appears from their practice,

wherein they have not had respect thereto; but having used the aforesaid

powers without any grant, they have exercised their Charter powers,

also, otherwise than the Charter directed:

"1. They have made laws contrary to the laws of England.

"2. Their laws have not been under their seal.

"3. They have not used their name of corporation.

"4. They have not used their seal in their grants.

"5. They have not kept their General Courts, nor

"6. Have they observed the number of assistants appointed by the

Charter." (Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 410,

411, in a note.)

It is clear from the legal opinion, as has been shown in the foregoing

pages, that the first Puritans of Massachusetts, though only a chartered

company, set up an independent government, paid no attention whatever to

the provisions of the Charter under which they held their land and had

settled the colony, but acted in entire disregard and defiance of the

authority, which had granted their Charter. Mr. Neal very candidly says:

"The old Charter was, in the opinion of persons learned in the law,

defective as to several powers which are absolutely necessary to the

subsistence of the Plantation: for example, it gave the Government no

more power than every corporation in England has; power in capital cases

was not expressed in it; it mentioned no House of Deputies, or Assembly

of Representatives; the Government had thereby no legal power to impose

taxes on the inhabitants that were not freemen (that is, on

_four-fifths_ of the male population), nor to erect Courts of Admiralty,

so that if the judgment against this Charter should be reversed, yet if

the Government of New England should exercise the same powers as they

had done before the _quo warranto_, a new writ of _scire facias_ might

undoubtedly be issued out against them. Besides, if the old Charter

should have been restored without a grant of some other advantages, the

country would have been very much incommoded, because the provinces of

_Maine_ and _New Hampshire_ would have been taken from Massachusetts,

and _Plymouth_ would have been annexed to New York, whereby the

Massachusetts Colony would have been very much straitened and have made

a mean figure both as to its trade and influence.

"The new Charter grants a great many privileges to New England which it

had not before. The colony is now made a province, and the General Court

has, with the King's approbation, as much power in New England as the

King and Parliament have in England. They have all English liberties,

and can be touched by no law, by no tax, but of their own making. All

the liberties of their religion are for ever secured, and their titles

to their lands, once, for want of some form of conveyance, contested,

are now confirmed for ever." (History of New England, Vol. II., pp. 478,

479.)]

[Footnote 216: Although a party was formed which opposed submission to

the Charter, yet the majority of the Court wisely and thankfully

accepted it, and appointed a day of solemn thanksgiving to Almighty God

for "granting a safe arrival to His Excellency the Governor and the Rev.

Mr. Increase Mather, who have industriously endeavoured the service of

the people, and have brought over with them 'a settlement of government,

in which their Majesties have graciously given us distinguishing marks

of their Royal favour and goodness.'" (Hutchinson's History of

Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 416.)

Judge Story remarks: "With a view to advance the growth of the province

by encouraging new settlements, it was expressly provided 'that there

should be liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God to all

Christians, except Papists;' and that all subjects inhabiting in the

province, and their children born there, or on the seas going and

returning, should have all the liberties and immunities of free and

natural subjects, as if they were born within the realm of England. And

in all cases an appeal was allowed from the judgments of any Courts of

the province to the King in the Privy Council in England, where the

matter of difference exceeded three hundred pounds sterling. And finally

there was a reservation of the whole Admiralty jurisdiction to the

Crown, and of the right to all subjects to fish on the coasts.

Considering the spirit of the times, it must be acknowledged that, on

the whole, the Charter contains a liberal grant of authority to the

province and a reasonable reservation of royal prerogative. It was

hailed with sincere satisfaction by the colony after the dangers which

had so long a time menaced its liberties and peace." (Story's

Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Vol. I., Book i.,

Chap. iv., p. 41.)]

[Footnote 217: _Ib._, Vol. I., Book i., Chap. iv., p. 45.]

[Footnote 218: History of New England, Vol. II., p. 616.]

[Footnote 219: Fellowship of the Churches: Annexed to the Sermon

preached on the Ordination of Mr. Prince, p. 76; Boston, 1718; quoted in

Neal's History of New England, Vol. II., pp. 610, 611.

But the spirit of the old leaven of bigotry and persecution remained

with not a few of the old Congregational clergy, who were jealous for

the honour of those days when they ruled both Church and State, silenced

and proscribed all dissenters from their own opinions and forms of

worship. They could not endure any statements which reflected upon the

justice and policy of those palmy days of ecclesiastical oligarchy, and

were very much stung by some passages in Neal's History of New England.

The celebrated Dr. Isaac Watts seems to have been written to on the

subject. His letter, apparently in reply, addressed to the Rev. Dr.

Cotton Mather, dated February 19, 1720, is very suggestive. The sweet

poet and learned divine says:

"Another thing I take occasion to mention to you at this time is my good

friend Mr. Neal's History of New England. He has been for many years

pastor of a Congregational Church in London--a man of valuable talents

in the ministry. I could wish indeed that he had communicated his design

to you, but I knew nothing of it till it was almost out of the press....

He has taken merely the task of an historian upon him. Considered as

such (as far as I can judge), most of the chapters are well written, and

in such a way as to be very acceptable to the present age.

"But the freedom he has taken to expose the persecuting principles and

practices of the first Planters, both in the body of his history and his

abridgment of their laws, has displeased some persons here, and perhaps

will be offensive there. I must confess I sent for him this week, and

gave him my sense freely on this subject. I could wish he had more

modified some of his relations, and had rather left out those laws, or

in some page had annexed something to prevent our enemies from insulting

both us and you on that subject. His answer was, that 'the fidelity of

an historian required him to do what he had done;' and he has, at the

end of the first and second volumes, given such a character of the

present ministers and inhabitants of the country as may justly secure

this generation from all scandal; and that it is a nobler thing to tell

the world that you have rectified the errors of your fathers, than if

mere education had taught you so large a charity. He told me likewise

that he had shown in the preface that all such laws as are inconsistent

with the laws of England are, _ipso facto_, repealed by your new

Charter. But methinks it would be better to have such cruel and

sanguinary statutes as those under the title of 'Heresy' repealed in

form, and by the public authority of the nation; and if the appearance

of this book in your country shall awaken your General Assembly to

attempt to fulfil such a noble piece of service to your country, there

will be a happy effect of that part of the history which now makes us

blush and be ashamed.

"I have taken the freedom to write a line or two to your most excellent

Governor on this subject, which I entreat you to deliver, with my

salutation; and I assure myself that Dr. Mather will have a zealous hand

in promoting so gracious a work if it may be thought expedient to

attempt it." (Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, First

Series, Vol. V., pp. 200, 201.)

The "glorious work" advised by Dr. Watts was not "attempted," and the

"cruel and persecuting statutes passed by the Congregational Court of

Massachusetts Bay were never repealed by any "public authority" of that

colony, but were tacitly annulled and superseded by the provisions of

the "new Charter" of King William and Mary in favour of toleration and

civil liberty."]

[Footnote 220: History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 415.]

[Footnote 221: The effect of so much paper was to drive all gold and

silver out of circulation, to raise the nominal prices of all

commodities, and to increase the rate of exchange on England. Great

confusion and perplexity ensued, and the community was divided in

opinion, the most being urgent for the issue of more paper money. For

this purpose a project was started for a Land-Bank, which was

established in Massachusetts, the plan of which was to issue bills upon

the pledge of lands. All who were in difficulty advocated this, because

they hoped that in the present case they might shift their burdens on to

some one else. It was then resisted, and another plan was devised and

carried (1714), namely, the issuing of £50,000 of bills of credit by

Government, to be loaned to individuals at 5 per cent. interest, to be

secured by estates, and to be repaid one-fifth part yearly. This quieted

the Land-Bank party for a while. But the habit of issuing bills of

credit continued, and was very seductive.

"In 1741, Rhode Island issued £40,000 in paper money, to be loaned to

the inhabitants. In 1717, New Hampshire issued £15,000 paper money. In

1733, Connecticut issued £20,000 on the loan system for the first time,

Rhode Island made another issue of £100,000." (Elliott's New England

History, Vol. II., Chap, xii., p. 230.)]

[Footnote 222: History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay from 1749 to

1774, p. 1.]

CHAPTER VIII.

MASSACHUSETTS AND OTHER COLONIES DURING THE SECOND WAR BETWEEN GREAT

BRITAIN AND FRANCE, FROM THE PEACE OF AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, 1748, TO THE

PEACE OF PARIS IN 1763.

By the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, France and England retained their

respective possessions as they existed before the war. Louisburg, which

had been captured from the French in 1745 by the skill of the British

Admiral Warren, aided most courageously by the Massachusetts volunteers,

was therefore restored to the French, much to the regret and

mortification of the New England colonies, by whom the enterprise

against that powerful and troublesome fortress had first been devised

and undertaken. By the treaty between France and England, the boundaries

of their possessions in America were left undefined, and were to be

settled by Commissioners appointed by the two countries. But the

Commissioners, when they met at Paris, could not agree; the questions of

these boundaries remained unsettled; and the French in Canada, with the

Indians, nearly all of whom were in alliance with them, were constantly

making aggressions and committing cruel outrages upon the English

colonists in the back parts of New England, New York, Pennsylvania, and

Virginia, who felt that their only security for life, property, and

liberty was the extinction of French power in America, and the

subjection of the Indians by conquest or conciliation. The six years

which followed the peace of 1748 witnessed frequent and bloody

collisions between the English colonists and their French and Indian

Canadian neighbours, until, in 1756, England formally declared war

against France--a war which continued seven years, and terminated in the

extinction of French power in Canada, and in the enlargement of the

British possessions from Labrador to Florida and Louisiana, and from the

Atlantic to the Pacific. This war, in its origin and many scenes of its

conflicts and conquests, was an American-Colonial war, and the American

colonies were the gainers by its results, for which British blood and

treasure had been lavishly expended. In this protracted and eventful

conflict, the British Government were first prompted and committed, and

then nobly seconded by the colonies, Massachusetts acting the most

prominent part.

The last act of the British Government, pursuant to the treaty of

Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748, was to restore to the French Government Louisburg,

in return for the strongly fortified fort of Madras, which had been

wrested from the French by the colonists, assisted by Admiral Warren

with a few English ships in 1745; and the first act of the French

Government, after the restoration to them of Louisburg, was to prepare

for wresting from Great Britain all her American colonies.[223] They

dispatched soldiers and all kinds of military stores; encroached upon

and built fortresses in the British province of Nova Scotia, and in the

provinces of Pennsylvania and Virginia,[224] and erected a chain of

forts, and planted garrisons along the line of the British provinces,

from the St. Lawrence to the Ohio river, and thence to the

Mississippi.[225]

The only means at the command of Great Britain to counteract and defeat

these designs of France to extinguish the English colonies in America

was to prevent them from carrying men, cannon, and other munitions of

war hither, by capturing their ships thus laden and employed; but the

French Government thought that the British Government would not proceed

to such extremities, for fear that the former would make war upon the

German possessions of the latter, the King of England being the Elector

of Hanover. Besides, the proceedings of the French in America were

remote and concealed under various pretexts; the French Government could

oppose a general denial to the complaints made as to its encroachments

on British territory and settlements in the distant wilderness of

America; while any attack by England upon French ships at sea would be

known at once to all Europe, and excite prejudice against England for

such an act in time of peace against a neighbouring nation. The designs

and dishonesty of the French Government in these proceedings are thus

stated by Rapin:

"Though the French in all their seaports were making the greatest

preparations for supporting their encroachments in America, yet the

strongest assurances came to England from that Ministry that no such

preparations were making, and that no hostility was intended by France

against Great Britain or her dependencies. These assurances were

generally communicated to the British Ministry by the Duke of Mirepoix,

the French Ambassador to London, who was himself so far imposed upon

that he believed them to be sincere, and did all in his power to prevent

a rupture between the two nations. The preparations, however, were so

notorious that they could be no longer concealed, and Mirepoix was

upbraided at St. James's with being insincere, and the proofs of his

Court's double-dealing were laid before him. He appeared to be struck

with them; and complaining bitterly of his being imposed upon, he went

in person over to France, where he reproached the Ministry for having

made him their tool. They referred him to their King, who ordered him to

return to England with fresh assurances of friendship; but he had

scarcely delivered them when undoubted intelligence came that a French

fleet from Brest and Rochefort was ready to sail, with a great number of

land forces on board. The French fleet, which consisted of twenty-five

ships of the line, besides frigates and transports, with a vast number

of warlike stores, and between three and four thousand land forces,

under Baron Dieskau, were ready to sail from Brest, under Admiral

Macnamara. Upon this intelligence, Admiral Holbourne was ordered to

reinforce Boscawen with six ships of the line and one frigate; and a

great number of capital ships were put into commission. It was the 6th

May (1755) before Macnamara sailed; but he soon returned with nine of

his capital ships, and ordered the rest to proceed under the command of

M. Bois de la Mothe.

"When news of so strong a squadron sailing from Brest was confirmed, the

people of England grew extremely uneasy for the fate of the squadron

under Boscawen and Holbourne; and it was undoubtedly owing to the bad

management of the French that one or both of those squadrons were not

destroyed."[226]

The King, in proroguing Parliament, the 27th of May, 1755, among other

things said:

"That he had religiously adhered to the stipulations of the treaty of

Aix-la-Chapelle, and made it his care not to injure or offend any Power

whatsoever; but never could he entertain the thoughts of purchasing the

name of peace at the expense of suffering encroachments upon, or

yielding up, what justly belongs to Great Britain, either by ancient

possession or solemn treaties. That the vigour and firmness of his

Parliament on this important occasion have enabled him to be prepared

for such contingencies as may happen. That, if reasonable and honourable

terms of accommodation can be agreed upon, he will be satisfied, and in

all events rely on the justice of his cause, the effectual support of

his people, and the protection of Divine Providence."[227]

This speech to Parliament was delivered a year before war was formally

declared between England and France; and a year before that, in 1754, by

royal instructions, a convention of delegates from the Assemblies of the

several Colonies was held at Albany, in the Province of New York. Among

other things relative to the union and defence of the Colonies which

engaged the attention of this Convention, "a representation was agreed

upon in which were set forth the unquestionable designs of the French to

prevent the colonies from extending their settlements, a line of forts

having been erected for this purpose, and many troops transported from

France; and the danger the colonies were in of being driven by the

French into the sea, was urged." The representation of the imminent

danger to the colonies from the French encroachments probably

accelerated the measures in England which brought on the war with

France.[228]

Mr. Bancroft endeavours again and again to convey the impression that

this seven years' war between England and France was a European war, and

that the American colonies were called upon, controlled, and attempted

to be taxed to aid Great Britain in the contest; yet he himself, in one

place, admits the very reverse, and that Great Britain became involved

in the war in defence of the American Colonies, as the facts above

stated show, and as will appear more fully hereafter. Mr. Bancroft

states the whole character and objects of the war, in both America and

Europe, in the following words:

"The contest, which had now (1757) spread into both hemispheres, _began

in America. The English Colonies, dragging England into their strife_,

claimed to advance their frontier, and to include the great central

valley of the continent in their system. The _American_ question

therefore was, shall the continued colonization of North America be made

under the auspices of English Protestantism and popular liberty, or

shall the tottering legitimacy of France, in its connection with Roman

Catholic Christianity, win for itself a new empire in that hemisphere?

The question of the _European_ continent was, shall a Protestant

revolutionary kingdom, like Prussia, be permitted to rise up and grow

strong within its heart? Considered in its unity as interesting

_mankind_, the question was, shall the Reformation, developed to the

fulness of Free Inquiry, succeed in its protest against the Middle Age?

"The war that closed in 1748 had been a mere scramble for advantages,

and was sterile of results; the present conflict, which was to prove a

seven years' war, was against the unreformed; and this was so profoundly

true, that all the predictions or personal antipathies of Sovereign and

Ministers could not prevent the alliances, collisions, and results

necessary to make it so."[229]

The object and character of such a war for Protestantism and liberty, as

forcibly stated by Mr. Bancroft himself, was as honourable to England,

as the results of it have been beneficial to posterity and to the

civilization of mankind; yet Mr. Bancroft's sympathies throughout his

brilliant but often inconsistent pages are clearly with France against

England, the policy and character of whose statesmen he taxes his utmost

ingenuity and researches to depreciate and traduce, while he admits they

are engaged in the noblest struggle recorded in history.

From 1748 to 1754, the contests in America were chiefly between the

colonists and the French and their Indian allies (except at sea), and

were for the most part unsuccessful on the part of the colonists, who

lost their forts at Oswego and Niagara, and suffered other defeats and

losses. "But in the year 1755," says Dr. Minot, "the war in America

being now no longer left to colonial efforts alone, the plan of

operations consisted of three parts. The first was an attack on Fort du

Quesne, conducted by troops from England under General Braddock; the

second was upon the fort at Niagara, which was carried on by American

regulars and Indians (of the Six Nations); and the third was an

expedition against Crown Point, which was supported by militia from the

northern colonies, enlisted merely for that service."[230]

The expedition against Fort du Quesne ended in the disgraceful defeat

and death of Braddock and one-third of his men, hundreds of whom were

shot down by ambushed foes whom they never saw. The contemplated attack

upon Niagara was never prosecuted; the expedition against Crown Point

was a failure, and exhaustive of the resources of Massachusetts; but,

as a compensation, Colonel Johnson defeated and took prisoner the French

general, Baron Dieskau, for which the King made him a baronet, and the

House of Commons voted him a grant of £5,000 sterling.[231]

The most was made in England as well as the colonies of this decisive

victory over a famous French general and his troops, as the year

otherwise was disastrous to the English, and "the French, with the

assistance of their Indian allies, continued their murders, scalping,

capturing, and laying waste the western frontiers of Virginia and

Pennsylvania during the whole winter."[232]

Nor were the years 1756 and 1757 more successful on the part of the

English than the year 1755. Some of the principal events are as follows:

War was formally declared by England against France in May, and declared

by France against England in August. The expenses incurred by

Massachusetts and other colonies in the unfortunate Crown Point

expedition were compensated by a parliamentary grant of £115,000

sterling.[233]

The Earl of Loudoun arrived from England as Governor of Virginia, to

take command of the British troops in America; but did little more than

consult with the Governors of the several provinces as to military

operations for the ensuing year, the relations of provincial and regular

officers, the amount of men and means to be contributed by each province

for common defence. He gave much offence by his haughty and imperious

demands for the quartering of the troops in New York and in

Massachusetts. Additional troops were sent from England, under

Major-General Abercrombie, who superseded the Earl of Loudoun as

Commander-in-Chief. The fortress at Oswego was taken and destroyed by

the French.[234]

The French, led by Montcalm, took Fort William Henry.[235]

The Massachusetts Assembly refused to allow British troops to be

quartered upon the inhabitants.[236]

At the close of the year 1757, the situation of the colonies was

alarming and the prospects of the war gloomy. The strong statements of

Mr. Bancroft are justified by the facts. He says: "The English had been

driven from every cabin in the basin of the Ohio; Montcalm had destroyed

every vestige of their power within the St. Lawrence. France had her

forts on each side of the lakes, and at Detroit, at Mackinaw, at

Kaskaskia, and at New Orleans. The two great valleys of the Mississippi

and the St. Lawrence were connected chiefly by three well-known

routes--by way of Waterford to Fort du Quesne, by way of Maumee to the

Wabash, and by way of Chicago to the Illinois. Of the North American

continent, the French claimed and seemed to possess twenty parts in

twenty-five, leaving four only to Spain, and but one to Britain. Their

territory exceeded that of the English twenty-fold. As the men composing

the garrison at Fort Loudoun, in Tennessee, were but so many hostages in

the hands of the Cherokees, the claims of France to the valleys of the

Mississippi and the St. Lawrence seemed established by possession.

America and England were humiliated."[237]

The colonies had shown, by their divided and often antagonistic

counsels, their divided resources and isolated efforts, how unable they

were to defend themselves even when assisted at some points by English

soldiers, commanded by unskilful generals, against a strong and united

enemy, directed by generals of consummate skill and courage. The

colonies despaired of future success, if not of their own existence,

after incurring so heavy expenditures of men and money, and wished

England to assume the whole management and expenses of the war.[238]

The colonies had done much for their own defence, but they acted as so

many petty independent Governments, and could not be brought to combine

their resources of men and money in any systematical method, under some

central authority as the same colonies did twenty years later in the

American Revolution; and the first proceedings of Abercrombie and

Loudoun rendered them powerless to command the confidence and united

action of the colonies. General Abercrombie was appointed

Commander-in-Chief, to supersede General Shirley, until the arrival of

the Earl of Loudoun. Abercrombie landed in New York the 12th of June,

with two regiments, and forty German officers, who were to raise and

train recruits for Loudoun's Royal American regiment of four thousand--a

most impolitic proceeding, which offended and discouraged the colonists.

On his arrival at New York he received letters from the shrewd and able

Governor of Virginia, Dinwiddie, recommending Washington as "a very able

and deserving gentleman," who "has from the beginning commanded the

forces of this Dominion. He is much beloved, has gone through many

hardships in the service, has great merit, and can raise more men here

than any one," and urged his promotion in the British army. But

Washington's services and rank were never recognized in the British

army. A week after Abercrombie's arrival in New York, he wrote (June 19,

1756) a letter to Governor Colden: "I find you never will be able to

carry on anything to any purpose in America, till you have a viceroy or

superintendent over all the provinces." He stated that Lord Loudoun's

arrival would produce "a great change in affairs."

The 25th of June Abercrombie arrived at Albany, and forthwith insisted

that the regular officers should take precedence of the provincial

officers, and that the troops should be quartered in private houses,

which he accomplished two days afterwards; for on the 27th, "in spite

of every subterfuge, the soldiers were at last billeted upon the town,"

to the great indignation of the Mayor, who wished all the soldiers back

again, "for" said he, "we can defend our frontiers ourselves."

The next day after Abercrombie's arrival, Shirley (now relinquishing the

office of Commander-in-Chief) informed General Abercrombie of the

exposed and unsafe state of Oswego, advising that two battalions be sent

forward for its protection; that 200 boats were ready, and every

magazine along the passage plentifully supplied. But Abercrombie decided

to wait the arrival of Loudoun, who at length reached Albany the 29th of

July, and joined Abercrombie in the policy of hesitation and delay,

though having 10,000 men at his disposal--the New England regiments,

with the provincials from New York and New Jersey, amounting to more

than 7,000 men, besides 3,000 soldiers of British regular regiments.

In the meantime the French generals were more active and energetic,

taking places of defence between Albany and Oswego, strengthening the

defences and garrison of Ticonderaga (then in possession of the French,

and called by them Fort Carillon), making a palisaded camp near the

mouth of Sandy Creek, close to Oswego, and at length attacking Oswego

itself, the enterprising Montcalm making forced marches day and night,

marching on foot, living and sleeping like his soldiers, and taking the

fort the 9th of August, after a week's siege, capturing 1,600 prisoners,

120 cannon, six vessels of war, 300 boats, stores of ammunition and

provisions, and three chests of money.

Loudoun had sufficient forces and time to penetrate to the heart of

Canada, had he possessed the qualities of Montcalm; but he preferred to

place obstacles to prevent the enemy from attacking him; and after

having spent some weeks in busy inactivity at Albany, he dismissed the

provincials to their homes, and the regulars to winter quarters.[239]

Loudoun never fought a battle in America; and the only battle in which

Abercrombie commanded he kept out of reach of personal danger, was

defeated, and retreated[240] after losing 1,942 men, among whom was

General Lord Howe, who had been selected by Pitt to be Commander-in-Chief

in America, had not succeeded to it, but had become a favourite with the

army and colonists of all classes.

The General Assembly of Massachusetts appropriated out of the public

treasury the sum of £250 for erecting a monument to his memory in

Westminster Abbey, as a testimony to the sense which the Province had of

the services and military virtues of the late Lord Viscount Howe, who

fell in the last campaign fighting in the cause of the colonies, and

also to express the affection which their officers and soldiers have to

his command.

After the disgraceful defeat and still more disgraceful retreat of

Abercrombie, the last of the incompetent English generals, General

Amherst was appointed Commander-in-Chief, assisted by General Wolfe, and

the fortunes of war turned in favour of England and her colonies, and

the French power began to wane in America.

This change in the colonies from defeat to victory, from disgrace to

honour, from distrust to confidence, from fear to triumph, was owing to

a change of councillors and councils in England, and the rousing of the

colonies from the shame and defeat of the past to a supreme and combined

effort with the English armies for the expulsion of the French from

America, and the consequent subjugation and alliance of the Indian

tribes, whose hostilities had been all along and everywhere prompted and

aided by the French, who paid the Indians large bounties for English

scalps.[241]

"But," says Hutchinson, "in the interval between the repulse at

Ticonderaga and the arrival of General Amherst, Colonel Bradstreet (a

provincial officer of New York), with 3,000 provincials and 150

regulars, stole a march upon Montcalm, and before he could send a

detachment from his army to Lake Ontario by way of the St. Lawrence,

went up the Mohawk river. About the 25th of August they arrived at Fort

Frontenac; surprised the garrison, who were made prisoners of war; took

and destroyed nine small vessels and much merchandise; but having

intelligence of a large body of the enemy near, they made haste back to

Albany. The men complained of undergoing greater hardship than they had

ever undergone before, and many sickened and died from the fatigue of

the march."[242]

After the arrival of Lord Amherst, three expeditions were proposed for

the year 1758--the first against Louisburg, the second against

Ticonderaga, and the third against Fort du Quesne--all of which were

successful.

On the first expedition against Louisburg, Admiral Boscawen sailed from

Halifax the 28th of May, with a fleet of 20 ships of the line and 18

frigates, and an army of 14,000 men, under the command of General

Amherst, assisted by General Wolfe, and arrived before Louisburg the 2nd

of June. The garrison was composed of 2,500 regulars, aided by 600

militia, commanded by the Chevalier de Drucourt, an officer of courage

and experience. The harbour was secured by five ships of the line, one

50-gun ship, and five frigates; three of which were sunk across the

mouth of the basin. The landing of the troops, artillery, and stores had

therefore to be effected some distance from the town, and was extremely

difficult and hazardous; but General Wolfe, who led the 2,000 men

detached for that purpose, was equal to the occasion, and displayed

qualities which designated him as the future conqueror of Quebec. After

an obstinate siege from the 8th of June to the 26th of July, the

fortress was surrendered at discretion, and the whole of Cape Breton,

including St. John Island (since Prince Edward Island), came into

possession of Great Britain. The loss on the part of the English was

about 400 killed and wounded; the garrison lost upwards of 1,500 men,

and the town was reduced to a heap of ruins. The conquerors took 221

pieces of cannon, 16 mortars, and an immense quantity of stores and

ammunition, and 5,637 prisoners, including naval officers, sailors, and

marines.[243]

Admiral Boscawen, after taking possession of the Island of St. John,

included in the capitulation of Louisburg, sailed with the fleet for

England, with General Wolfe, conveying the French prisoners to England,

and the trophies of victory. General Amherst embarked, with about

thirty transports filled with the victorious troops, and encamped on the

common at Boston near the end of August, on his march, which he pursued

after three days' rest, to the western forts; for a part of the plan of

operations was, after the conquest of Cape Breton, for General Amherst,

with 12,000 men, to destroy the enemy's fort at Ticonderaga (so

unsuccessfully attacked by Abercrombie the year before), in order to

open a way into Canada by the Lakes George and Champlain, and the River

Sorell down to Quebec, the capture of which, by advancing up the St.

Lawrence, was assigned to the fleet under Admiral Saunders, and to

General Wolfe, in command of 9,000 men. It was intended that the armies

under Generals Amherst and Wolfe should meet and join in the taking of

Quebec; but the junction was not effected, and the two armies operated

separately and successfully. The taking of the fortress of Niagara,

which was regarded as "the throat of the north-western division of the

American continent," was assigned to Brigadier-General Prideaux, aided

by Sir William Johnson, who commanded the Provincials and Indians.

General Prideaux conducted the expedition and planned the mode of

attack; but on the 19th of July, while walking in his trenches, he was

killed by the carelessness of his own gunner in firing a cannon.

"Luckily," says Hutchinson, "for Sir William Johnson, who, as next

officer, took the command on Prideaux's death, a body of 1,200 men from

Detroit, etc., making an attempt, on the 24th of July, to throw

themselves into the fort as a reinforcement, were intercepted and

killed, taken, or dispersed, and the next day the garrison capitulated."

(History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. III., p. 77.)

The expedition against the French Fort du Quesne, on the Ohio river, so

fatal to General Braddock, was entrusted to General Forbes, with

Washington, colonel of the Virginia regulars, as second in command.

Forbes, though wasting under the disease of consumption, heroically

superintended and endured for three months the difficulties and fatigues

of the same line of march pursued by Braddock three years before,

leaving Philadelphia in command of 8,000 men early in July, but not

reaching Fort du Quesne until late in November. On the evening preceding

his arrival, the French garrison, deserted by their Indians, abandoned

the fort, and escaped in boats down the Ohio. Hutchinson says: "The

expedition for dispossessing the French of Fort du Quesne, near the

Ohio, had at first a very unfavourable prospect. The English forces met

with a variety of obstructions and discouragements; and when they had

advanced to within thirty or forty miles of the fort, they were at a

stand deliberating whether they should go forward or not. Receiving

intelligence that the garrison was in a weak condition, they pushed on.

Upon their arrival at the fort they met with no opposition. The enemy

had deserted it, for want of provisions, as was generally believed; and

it was added that the provisions intended to supply that fort were

destroyed by Bradstreet at Fort Frontenac.[244] Thus the gallant and

laborious exploit of Bradstreet in demolishing Fort Frontenac

contributed to the reduction of Fort du Quesne without firing a shot."

"The English now took possession of that important fortress, and, in

compliment to the popular Minister, called it Pittsburg. No sooner was

the English flag erected on it, than the numerous tribes of the Ohio

Indians came in and made their submission to the English. General Forbes

having concluded treaties with the natives, left a garrison of

provincials in the fort and built a block-house near Loyal Hannah, but,

worn out with fatigue, he died before he could reach Philadelphia."[245]

In the same month of July that Sir William Johnson dispossessed the

French of Niagara, General Amherst took possession of the enemy's lines

at Ticonderaga, which the French abandoned after having set fire to the

fort. A few days afterwards, in the beginning of August, General Amherst

obtained possession of the fort at Crown Point, it having also been

abandoned by the French. About the middle of the month General Amherst

received information at Crown Point that General Bourlamarque was

encamped at Isle aux Noix with 3,500 men and 100 cannon, and that the

French had four vessels on the lake under the command of the captain of

a man-of-war. He therefore judged it necessary to build a brigantine, a

radeau, and a sloop of 16 guns. Such a fleet could not be got ready

before the beginning of October; on the 11th of which month General

Amherst embarked in batteaux, under the convoy of armed vessels, and

proceeded down the lake; but encountering cold and stormy weather and

contrary winds, he resolved, on the 19th, to return to Crown Point and

go into winter quarters. No communications could be opened between the

armies of Amherst and Wolfe; but the withdrawal of a great part of the

French force from Quebec, to watch and counteract the movements of

General Amherst, doubtless contributed to General Wolfe's success. The

fleet under Sir Charles Saunders, and the army of five thousand men

under General Wolfe, arrived before Quebec the latter part of June, and

from that time to the 13th of September a series of daring but

unsuccessful attempts were made to get possession of the city. How

unyielding perseverance and heroic courage, against apparently

insurmountable obstacles, effected the capture of that Gibraltar of

America, with the fall of the leaders of both armies in the bloody

struggle, has often been vividly described and variously illustrated,

which I need not here repeat.

The British and colonial arms were completely successful this year.[246]

Bradstreet destroyed Fort Frontenac; Sir William Johnson captured

Niagara; Forbes, aided by Washington, retook Fort du Quesne, and named

it Pittsburg; Lord Amherst took possession of Ticonderaga and Crown

Point; and Wolfe became the conqueror of Quebec. In each of these

expeditions the provincial troops rendered essential service. The

several provinces were prompted to put forth their utmost efforts from

their impending perils by the successive victories of the French and

Indians the previous year, and encouraged by the appeal of the Prime

Minister, Pitt, who assured them of the strong forces by sea and land

from England, and that they would be compensated for the expense they

might incur.

The heart of Massachusetts had for many years been set upon the conquest

of Canada, both for her own security and for the extension of her

northern limits, and she had sacrificed much treasure and many lives

for that purpose, but had failed in each attempt. The taking of Quebec

did not complete the conquest of Canada. On the fall of that city,

Montreal became the seat of the French Government; the inhabitants of

Canada remained subjects of the King of France; the French military

forces within the province, were still very considerable;[247] and M. de

Levi, who succeeded Montcalm as Commander-in-Chief of the army, made a

very formidable attempt to recover Quebec.[248] On the reduction of that

city, the fleet under Sir Charles Saunders returned to England, and

General Murray was left in command at Quebec with a garrison of 5,000

men, which, during the ensuing winter, owing to the extreme cold, and

the want of vegetables and fresh provisions, was reduced to 3,000 men

fit for service, when in April M. de Levi, with a superior force,

attacked the city, drove General Murray's little army from the Plains of

Abraham within the walls, and closely besieged the city, which was

relieved, and M. de Levi compelled to raise the siege, by the opportune

arrival of the English fleet.

In the meantime, General Amherst was energetically pursuing the most

effective measures for the complete extinction of French power in

Canada. At the commencement of the year 1760, he applied to the northern

colonies for men and means equal to what they had provided for

1759,[249] and during the winter he made arrangements to bring the

armies from Quebec, Lake Champlain, and Lake Ontario, to act against

Montreal. Colonel Haviland, by his orders, sailed early in the spring

with a detachment from Crown Point, took possession of the Isle aux

Noix, which he found abandoned by the enemy, and proceeded thence to

Montreal; while Lord Amherst, with his own division, consisting of about

10,000 regulars and provincials, left the frontier of New York and

advanced to Oswego, where he was joined by 1,000 Indians of the Six

Nations, under Sir William Johnson. Embarking with his entire army on

Lake Ontario, and taking the fort of Isle Royale in his way, he arrived

at Montreal, after a difficult and dangerous passage, on the same day

that General Murray landed near the place from Quebec. The two generals

met with no opposition in disembarking their troops; and by a happy

concurrence in the execution of a well-concerted plan, Colonel Haviland

joined them with his detachment the next day. The strength of these

combined armies, and the masterly disposition made by the commanders,

convinced M. de Vaudreuil that resistance would be ineffectual, and he

demanded a capitulation; and on the 8th of September, 1760, Montreal,

Detroit, Michili-Mackinac, and all other places within the government of

Canada, were surrendered to his Britannic Majesty. The destruction of an

armament ordered out from France in aid of Canada completed the

annihilation of French power on the continent of America.[250]

But though the conquest of Canada was thus completed, and the American

colonies thus secured from the encroachments and dangers which had

disturbed their peace and caused much sacrifice of life for one hundred

and thirty years, yet the war between England and France was not ended,

and in 1762 Spain joined France in the war against the former; but the

actual scene of the war was chiefly the West Indies, and the series of

naval and other battles fought there were successive victories on the

part of England. "The progress of the British conquests, which

threatened all the distant possessions of the enemy, was arrested by

preliminary articles of peace, which were signed and interchanged at

Fontainebleau between the Ministers of Great Britain, France, Spain, and

Portugal, on the 3rd day of November. On the 10th of February, 1763, a

definite treaty was signed at Paris, and soon after ratified."[251]

The joy was general and intense throughout England and North America at

such a conclusion of a seven years' open war, preceded by several years

of hostile and bloody encroachments on the settlements of the English

provinces by the French and Indians. It was a war prompted and commenced

by the colonies, and in which their very existence as well as liberties

were involved. No one of the American colonies had a deeper, if as deep

a stake in the results of this protracted struggle as the province of

Massachusetts; no one had more suppliantly and importunately solicited

the aid of money and men from England; and no colony had benefitted so

largely in its commerce and resources during the successive years of the

contest, as Massachusetts. As early as 1755 (the year before war was

formally declared between England and France), the Legislature of

Massachusetts adopted an address to the King, in which, after referring

to their large expenditure in their unsuccessful expedition against

Crown Point, they stated their services and prayed to be relieved from

the burden incurred by means of them. They pleaded the precedent of the

Cape Breton invasion (for expenses incurred in which, in 1745, the

British Parliament had granted them compensation), and prayed that his

Majesty would give orders for the support of such forts and garrisons as

they hoped to establish, and aid them in the further execution of their

designs. And in another address, adopted in October of the same year,

the Massachusetts Court said that the design of securing his Majesty's

territories against the invasions of the French was what his Majesty

alone was equal to project and execute, and the nation to support; and

that unless they could obtain the relief which they were soliciting from

the royal bounty, they should be so far from being able to remove

encroachments that they would be unable to defend themselves.[252]

Massachusetts having succeeded, with the other colonies, to "drag," as

Mr. Bancroft expresses it, "England into a war with France," was thus

importunate in soliciting aid and compensation from England for her

self-originated expenses, and was so successful in her applications as

to make the war a pecuniary benefit as well as a means of securing and

enlarging her boundaries; for, in the words of the historian quoted

above, in a previous page, "The generous compensations which had been

made every year by Parliament not only alleviated the burden of taxes,

which otherwise would have been heavy, but, by the importation of such

large sums of specie, increased commerce; and it was the opinion of some

that the war added to the wealth of the province, though the

compensation did not amount to half the charges of the government."[253]

The monies raised by the colonies were expended in them and upon their

own citizens--monies passing from hand to hand, and for provisions

provided and works done in the colonies; but the large sums appropriated

by Parliament for the war in the colonies was so much money abstracted

from England, sent across the Atlantic, and added to the resources and

wealth of the colonies.

After the close of the war, in 1763, Massachusetts acknowledged her

obligations to England for her protection and safety. In an address of

both Houses of her Legislature to the Governor that year, they

acknowledge that "the evident design of the French to surround the

colonies was the immediate and just cause of the war; that without the

protection afforded them during the war, they must have been a prey to

the power of France; that without the compensation made them by

Parliament, the burden of the expense of the war must have been

insupportable." In their address to the King they make the same

acknowledgments, and at the conclusion promise to evidence their

gratitude by every expression of duty and loyalty in their power.[254]

Mr. Otis, afterwards the most eloquent agitator against England, and

advocate of independence, at the first town meeting of Boston after the

peace, having been chosen chairman, addressed the inhabitants in the

following words, which he caused to be printed in the newspapers:

"We in America have certainly abundant reasons to rejoice. The heathen

are not only driven out, but the Canadians, much more formidable

enemies, are conquered and become our fellow-subjects. The British

dominion and power may be said literally to extend from sea to sea, and

from the great river to the ends of the earth. And we may safely

conclude, from his Majesty's wise administration hitherto, that liberty

and knowledge, civil and religious, will be co-extended, improved, and

preserved to the latest posterity. No other constitution of civil

government has yet appeared in the world so admirably adapted to these

great purposes as that of Great Britain. Every British subject in

America is of common right, by Act of Parliament, and by the laws of God

and nature, entitled to all the essential privileges of Britons. By

particular Charters, there are peculiar privileges granted, as in

justice they might and ought, in consideration of the arduous

undertaking to begin so glorious an empire as British America is rising

to. Those jealousies that some weak and wicked minds have endeavoured to

infuse with regard to the colonies, had their birth in the blackness of

darkness, and it is a great pity they had not remained there for ever.

The true interests of Great Britain and her plantations are mutual; and

what God in His providence has united, let no man dare attempt to pull

asunder."[255]

Such were the official acknowledgments and professed feelings of

Massachusetts herself in regard to the conduct of England towards her at

the close of the seven years' war with France, which was ratified by the

Peace of Paris, 1763, and which secured the American colonies from the

hostilities of the French and their Indian allies for more than a

hundred years. The language of Massachusetts was but the language of all

the American colonies in regard to Great Britain at this period--the

language of gratitude and affection.

Down, therefore, to within thirteen years of the American Declaration of

Independence, the conduct of England to her American colonies is

acknowledged upon the highest authority to have been just and generous.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 223: "The French, upon recovering Louisburg, had laid the

scheme (the particulars of which shall be exhibited in their due place)

for engrossing the whole empire of North America, and in a manner for

extirpating the English interest there. Notice of this was, soon after

the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, given to the English Government by their

Governors in America, and proper instructions were dispatched to them to

resist all encroachments attempted to be made upon the English

territories. The Earl of Albemarle (British Ambassador in Paris) had

orders from his Court to remonstrate on this occasion; but his

remonstrances had so little effect that the French seemed rather

encouraged in than deterred from their usurpations. The English

Governors in America daily sent over complaints of the French

encroachments there, which were too little regarded, in hopes of matters

being compromised." (Rapin's History of England, Vol. XXI., p. 418.)]

[Footnote 224: "But their encroachments went further (than Nova Scotia),

and this year (1754) they began to make settlements upon the River Ohio,

within the limits of the British possessions in the western parts of

Virginia. They had likewise committed many hostilities against British

subjects in other parts of America."

"All the while the French were multiplying their hostilities and

strengthening their usurpations by new recruits of men, money,

provisions of all kinds, and ammunition, and some of the best officers

in France."

"When the Government of England complained to the French Court of those

encroachments, the Ministry gave evasive answers, and promised that

everything should be amicably adjusted; but without desisting from their

usurpations, which became every day more and more intolerable. The

English, perceiving this, sent general orders to all their Governors in

America to repel force by force, and to drive them from all the

settlements which they had made contrary to the faith of treaties, and

especially along the Ohio." (Rapin's History of England, Vol. XXI., pp.

478-491.)]

[Footnote 225: "They had been incessantly making settlements upon the

English property since the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, and at last they

made a settlement on the western part of Virginia, upon the River Ohio.

Mr. Dinwiddie (Governor of Virginia) having intelligence of this, sent

an officer, Major Washington, with a letter to the French commandant

there, requiring him to desist, and with orders, if possible, to bring

the Indians over to the British interest. Washington had but indifferent

success with the Indians; and when he arrived with some of the Indians

at the French settlements, he found the French by no means inclined to

give over their undertaking, and that the Indians, notwithstanding all

their fair promises, were much more in their interest than in that of

England. Upon further inquiry it was found that the Indians called the

Six Nations, who, by the treaty of Utrecht, were acknowledged to be

subject to Great Britain, had been entirely debauched by the French, who

had likewise found means to bring over to their interest those vast

tracts that lie along the great lakes and rivers to the west of the

Apalachian (or Allegany) mountains.

"Having thus got the friendship of those Indians, they next contrived

how they could cut them off from all communication with the English, and

for that purpose they seized the persons and effects of all the English

whom they found trading with the Indians; and they erected a chain of

forts from Canada to Mississippi, to prevent all future communication

between the English and those Indians; at the same time destroying such

of the Indians as discovered any affection or regard for the British

subjects: so that in a very few years all the eastern as well as the

western colonies of Great Britain were in danger of being

ruined."--_Ib._, pp. 290, 291.

"Though the several provinces belonging to Great Britain, in the

neighbourhood of the French encroachments, raised both men and money

against them, yet the forms of their legal proceedings in their

assemblies were so dilatory that the French always had the start of

them, and they surprised a place called Log's Town, belonging to the

Virginians, on the Ohio. This was a place of great importance, and the

French made themselves masters of the block-house and the truck-house,

with skins and other commodities to the amount of £20,000, besides

cutting off all the English traders in those parts but two, who found

means to escape. About the same time, near 1,000 French, under the

command of Monsieur de Carstrecoeur, and 18 pieces of cannon, came in

300 canoes from Venango, a fort that they had usurped upon the banks of

the Ohio, and surprised an English fort on the forks of the

Monongahella. After this, a great many skirmishes happened between the

English and the French with various success.

"In the meanwhile, orders came from England to the Governors of the

British settlements in America to form a kind of political confederacy,

to which every province was to contribute a quota. Though the scheme of

political confederacy was the best measure that could be pursued in the

situation of the British settlements, yet it had not all the effect that

was expected from it." (Rapin's History of England, Vol. XXI., pp. 491,

492.)]

[Footnote 226: Rapin's History of England, Vol. XXI., pp. 520, 521.

Rapin adds:--"While all Europe was in suspense about the fate of the

English and French squadrons, the preparations for a vigorous sea war

were going on in England with unparalleled spirit and success.

Notwithstanding, the French Court still flattered itself that Great

Britain, out of tenderness to his Majesty's German dominions, would

abstain from hostilities. Mirepoix (the French Ambassador at London)

continued to have frequent conferences with the British Ministry, who

made no secret that their admirals, particularly Boscawen, had orders to

attack the French ships wherever they should meet them; on the other

hand, Mons. de Mirepoix declared that his master would consider the

first gun fired at sea, in a hostile manner, as a declaration of war.

This menace, far from intimidating the English, animated them to

redouble their preparations for war."--_Ib._, p. 521.]

[Footnote 227: Rapin, Vol. XXI., p. 521. It was during this interval

that the unfortunate expedition, death, and defeat of General Braddock

took place, on the banks of the Ohio river, at Fort du Quesne,

afterwards called Pittsburg. "The naval expedition, under Admiral

Boscawen, was somewhat more fortunate (than that of Braddock), though

far from answering the expectations of the public. He made a prosperous

voyage till he came to the banks of Newfoundland, where his rendezvous

was; and in a few days the French fleet, under De la Mothe, came to the

same station. But the thick fogs which prevail on those coasts,

especially at that time of the year, kept the two squadrons from seeing

one another; and part of the French squadron escaped up the River St.

Lawrence, while some of them went round and got into the same river by

the Straits of Belleisle, by a way which had never been attempted before

by ships of war. While Boscawen's fleet, however, lay before Cape Race,

on the banks of Newfoundland, which was thought to be the proper station

for intercepting the enemy, two French ships--the _Alcide_, of 60 guns

and 480 men; and the _Lys_, pierced for 64 guns, but mounting only 22,

and having eight companies of land forces on board--fell in with the

_Dunkirk_, Captain Howe, and the _Defiance_, Captain Andrews, two 60-gun

ships of the English squadron, and were, both of them, after a smart

engagement, in which Captain (afterwards Lord) Howe behaved with the

greatest skill and intrepidity, taken, with about £8,000 on board.

Though this action was far from answering the grand destination of the

fleet, yet when the news reached England it was of infinite service to

the public credit of every kind; as the manner in which it was conducted

was a plain proof that the English Government was resolved to observe no

further measures with the French, but to take or destroy their ships

wherever they could be met with."--_Ib._, pp. 525, 526.

Yet, in the face of these facts, that the French Government had been

encroaching upon the colonies for six years--ever since the treaty of

Aix-la-Chapelle; had been transporting soldiers and all the munitions of

war to America to exterminate the English colonies; had put to death

British subjects; and that complaints of these outrages had been made to

England year after year by the Governors and representatives of the

Colonies, and that the French Government had at this time, by fair words

and false pretences, deceived the Government of England, which had

warned the French Government that the English admirals had orders to

attack and take all the French ships, public and private, that should be

met with at sea; yet, in the face of such facts, Mr. Bancroft, with his

habitual hostility to England and endless perversions of historical

facts, says in 1755: "France and England were still at peace, and their

commerce was mutually protected by the sanctity of treaties. _Of a

sudden_, hostile orders were issued to all British vessels of war to

take all French vessels, private as well as public," and "eight thousand

French seamen were held in captivity. All France resented the perfidy.

'Never,' said Louis the Fifteenth, 'will I forgive the piracies of this

insolent nation.' And in a letter to George the Second he demanded ample

reparation for the insult to the flag of France by Boscawen, and for the

piracies of the English men-of-war, committed in defiance of

international law, the faith of treaties, the usages of civilized

nations, and the reciprocal duties of kings." (History of the United

States, Vol. IV., pp. 217, 218.)

Among the eight thousand French seamen held in captivity were the

soldiers destined for America, to invade the British colonies in time of

protracted peace and against "the faith of treaties." Mr. Bancroft also

ignores the fact that a year before this the Commissioners from the

Legislative Assemblies of the several colonies, assembled at Albany, had

represented to the British Government the alarming encroachments of the

French, and imploring aid, and that the French authorities in America

had offered the Indians bounties on English scalps.]

[Footnote 228: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. III., pp.

21-23.

"While the Convention was sitting, and attending principally to the

frontiers of the colonies, in the western parts, Mr. Shirly (Governor of

Massachusetts) was diligently employed in the east, prosecuting a plan

for securing the frontiers of Massachusetts Bay."--_Ib._, p. 25.

"In the beginning of this year (1755) the Assembly of Massachusetts Bay,

in New England, passed an Act prohibiting all correspondence with the

French at Louisburg; and early in the spring they raised a body of

troops, which was transported to Nova Scotia, to assist

Lieutenant-Governor Lawrence in driving the French from the

encroachments they had made upon that province." (Hume and Smollett's

History of England, Vol. VII., p. 7.)]

[Footnote 229: History of the United States, Vol. IV., pp. 276, 277.]

[Footnote 230: Minot's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 228.

Dr. Minot adds: "The whole number assigned for this expedition against

Crown Point was 3,700, of which Massachusetts voted to raise 1,560,

besides 500 by way of reinforcement, if judged necessary by the

Commander-in-Chief, with the advice of the Council; and to these 300

more were added after the defeat of General Braddock. The General Court

also voted £600 to be applied towards engaging the Indians of the Six

Nations in the enterprise, and supporting their families. In short, this

became a favourite enterprise both with the General Court and the people

of Massachusetts Bay, not only because it originated with them, but

because it was directed against a quarter (considering the French in

Nova Scotia were subdued and dispersed) whence they had the most to

fear."--_Ib._, pp. 229, 230.]

[Footnote 231: Before Johnson could attack Crown Point, he was himself

attacked in his own quarters, at what was called Carrying Place, near

Lake George, by Dieskau, at the head of 200 regular troops, 600

Canadians, and 600 savages. Johnson's force consisted of 3,400

provincial soldiers and 300 Indians, "regularly enlisted under the

English flag and paid from the English treasury." Among the New England

men was Israel Putman, of Connecticut, then a private soldier,

afterwards famous. Mr. Bancroft, as might be expected, depreciates the

services of Sir William Johnson in this important and successful battle.

But he cannot deny that Johnson selected the most advantageous position

for his camp; sent out scouts on all sides, and obtained timely

information of the approach of the enemy, and was fully prepared for it;

directed the order of battle, in the early part of which he was wounded,

causing his removal from the field, when for five hours the provincial

soldiers, good marksmen, under their own officers, "kept up the most

violent fire that had yet been known in America." The House of Lords, in

an address to the King, praised the colonists as "brave and faithful,"

and Johnson was honoured with a title and money. "But," says Mr.

Bancroft, "he did little to gain the victory, which was due to the

enthusiasm of the New England men. 'Our all,' they cried, 'depends on

the success of this expedition.' 'Come,' said Pomeroy, of Massachusetts,

to his friends at home, 'Come to the help of the Lord against the

mighty; you that value our holy religion and our liberties will spare

nothing, even to the one-half of your estate.' And in all the villages

'the prayers of God's people' went up that 'they might be crowned with

victory, to the glory of God;' _for the war with France seemed a war for

Protestantism and freedom_." (History of the United States, Vol. IV., p.

212.) Dr. Minot justly observes: "Such a successful defence made by the

forces of the British colonists against a respectable army, with which

the regular troops of France were incorporated, was an honourable

instance of firmness, deliberation, and spirit." (History of

Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 254.)]

[Footnote 232: Hume and Smollett's History of England, Vol. XII., p. 25.

"Thus," says Minot, "ended the transactions of the year 1755--'a year,'

says a well-informed writer of that time, 'never to be forgotten in

America.' It opened with the fairest prospects to these distant

possessions of the British empire. Four armies were on foot to remove

the encroachments of a perfidious neighbour, and our coasts honoured

with a fleet for their security, under the command of the brave and

vigilant Boscawen. We had everything to hope--nothing to fear. The enemy

was dispersed; and we only desired a proclamation of war for the final

destruction of the whole country of New France. But how unlooked-for was

the event! General Winslow (great-grandson of Edward Winslow, one of the

patriarchs of the Plymouth Colony), indeed succeeded in Nova Scotia; but

Braddock was defeated; Niagara and Crown Point remained unreduced; the

savages were let loose from the wilderness; many thousand farms were

abandoned; the King's subjects inhumanly butchered or reduced to

beggary. To all which might be added an impoverishment of finances to a

desperate state, the Crown Point expedition having cost, on the part of

Massachusetts Bay alone, £76,618 8s. 9-1/2d., besides unliquidated

accounts to a large amount for the charge of the sick and wounded, the

garrisons at the two forts of William Henry and Edward, and the great

stock of provisions laid in for their support." (History of

Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 259-261.)]

[Footnote 233: "Mr. Fox, on the 28th of January, presented to the House

of Commons a message from the King, desiring them to take into

consideration the faithful services of the people of New England and

some other parts of North America; upon which £115,000 were voted, and

£5,000 as a reward to Sir William Johnson in particular." (Hume and

Smollett's History of England, Vol. XII., p. 42.)

"The sum granted by Parliament was £115,000 sterling, which was

apportioned in the following manner: Massachusetts Bay,£54,000;

Connecticut, £26,000; New York, £15,000; New Hampshire, £8,000; Rhode

Island, £7,000; New Jersey, £5,000. This money arriving in New York with

the troops from England, enabled the Government (of Massachusetts) to

pay off by anticipation the sums borrowed of the Commander-in-Chief, and

to replenish the public treasury. They had also the satisfaction to find

that the Province had not only anticipated the King's expectations in

raising men, but had furnished them with provisions, which he had

ordered to be found at the national expense." (Minot's History of

Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 288.)]

[Footnote 234: "The loss of the two small forts, called Ontario and

Oswego, was a considerable national misfortune. They were erected on the

south side of the great Lake Ontario, standing on the opposite sides, at

the mouth of Onondaga river, that discharges itself into the lake, and

constituted a port of great importance, where vessels had been built to

cruise upon the lake, which is a kind of inland sea, and interrupt the

commerce as well as the motions and designs of the enemy. The garrison

consisted of 1,400 men, chiefly militia and new-raised recruits, under

the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Mercer, an officer of courage and

experience; but the situation of the forts was very ill-chosen; the

materials mostly timber or logs of wood; the defences wretchedly

contrived and unfurnished; and, in a word, the place altogether

untenable against any regular approach. Such were the forts which the

enemy wisely resolved to reduce. They assembled a body of troops,

consisting of 1,300 regulars, 1,700 Canadians, and a considerable number

of Indian auxiliaries, under the command of the Marquis de Montcalm, a

vigilant and enterprising officer, to whom the conduct of the siege had

been entrusted by the Marquis de Vaudreuil, Governor and

Lieutenant-General of New France. The garrison having fired away all

their shells and ammunition from Fort Ontario, spiked up the cannon,

and, deserting the fort, retired next day across the river into Fort

Oswego, which was even more exposed than the other, especially when the

enemy had taken possession of Fort Ontario, from whence they immediately

began to fire without intermission. Colonel Mercer being on the 13th

killed by a cannon ball, the fort destitute of all cover, the officers

divided in opinion and the garrison in confusion, they next day demanded

capitulation, and surrendered themselves prisoners of war, on condition

that they should be exempted from plunder, conducted to Montreal, and

treated with humanity. These conditions, however, the Marquis did not

punctually observe. The British officers were insulted by the savage

Indians, who robbed them of their clothes and baggage, massacred several

of them as they stood defenceless on parade, and barbarously scalped all

the sick people in the hospital. Finally, Montcalm, in direct violation

of the articles as well as in contempt of common humanity, delivered up

above twenty men of the garrison to the Indians in lieu of the same

number they had lost during the siege; and in all probability these

miserable captives were put to death by those barbarians, with the most

excruciating tortures, according to the execrable custom of the country.

"The prisoners taken at Oswego, after having been thus barbarously

treated, were conveyed in batteaux to Montreal, where they had no reason

to complain of their reception; and before the end of the year they were

exchanged. The victors immediately demolished the two forts (if they

deserved that denomination), in which they found one hundred and

twenty-one pieces of artillery, fourteen mortars, with a great quantity

of ammunition, warlike stores and provisions, besides two ships and two

hundred batteaux, which likewise fell into their hands." (Hume and

Smollett's History of England, Vol. XII., pp. 92-94.)

"The policy of the French was no less conspicuous than the superiority

of their arms. Instead of continuing the fort at Oswego, they demolished

it in presence of the Indians of the Five Nations, to whom they

represented that the French aimed only at enabling them to preserve

their neutrality, and therefore destroyed the fortress which the English

had erected in their country to overawe them, disdaining themselves to

take the same advantage, although put in their hands by the right of

conquest." (Minot's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 285,

286.)]

[Footnote 235: Fort William Henry was situated on the southern coast of

Lake George, and was built with a view to protect the frontiers of the

English colonies--especially New York and Massachusetts. The

fortifications were good, defended by a garrison of three thousand men,

and covered by an army of four thousand, under the command of General

Webb, posted at no great distance at Fort Edward. The Marquis de

Montcalm had, early in the season, made three different attacks upon

Fort William Henry, in each of which he was repulsed by the resolute and

courageous garrison. But Montcalm at length assembled all his forces

from Crown Point, Ticonderaga, and other parts, amounting to nearly

10,000, including a considerable body of Canadians and Indians; attacked

and invested the fort, which sustained the siege from the 3rd to the 9th

of August, when, having burst most of their cannon, and expended their

own ammunition, and receiving no relief or assistance from General Webb,

at Fort Edward, fourteen miles distant, with 4,000 men, Col. Monro

surrendered upon the conditions that the garrison should march out with

arms, the baggage of the officers and men, and all the usual necessaries

of war, escorted by a detachment of French troops to Fort Edward, and

interpreters attached to the savages. But, as in the case of the

surrender of Oswego, the articles of capitulation were not observed, but

were perfidiously broken; the savages fell upon the British troops as

they were marched out, despoiled them of their few remaining effects,

dragged the Indians in the English service out of their ranks, and

assassinated them under circumstances of unheard-of barbarity. Some

soldiers with their wives and children are said to have been savagely

murdered by these brutal Indians. The greater part of the garrison,

however, arrived at Fort Edward under the protection of the French

escort. The enemy demolished the fort, carried off the effects,

provisions, and everything else left by the garrison, together with the

vessels preserved in the lake, and departed without pursuing their

success by any other attempt. "Thus ended," continues the historian,

"the third campaign in America (1757), where, with an evident

superiority over the enemy, an army of 20,000 regular troops, a great

number of provincial forces, and a prodigious naval power--not less than

twenty ships of the line--we abandoned our allies, exposed our people,

suffered them to be cruelly massacred in sight of our troops, and

relinquished a large and valuable tract of country, to the eternal

reproach and disgrace of the British name." (Hume and Smollett's History

of England, Vol. XII., pp. 207-211.)

Mr. Hildreth remarks: "In America, after three campaigns, and

extraordinary efforts on the part of the English, the French still held

possession of almost all the territory in dispute. They had been

expelled indeed from the Bay of Fundy, but they held Louisburg,

commanding the entrance to the St. Lawrence, Crown Point, and

Ticonderaga, on Lake Champlain; Frontenac and Niagara, on Lake Ontario;

Presque Isle, on Lake Erie; and the chains of forts thence to the head

of the Ohio were still in their hands. They had expelled the English

from their ancient fort at Oswego, had driven them from Lake George, and

compelled the Six Nations to a treaty of neutrality. A devastating

Indian war was raging along the whole north-western frontier of the

British colonies, and Indian scalping parties penetrated into the very

centre of Massachusetts, approached within a short distance of

Philadelphia, and kept Maryland and Virginia in constant alarm."

(History of the United States, Vol. II., p. 479.)]

[Footnote 236: "The Massachusetts General Court had provided barracks at

the castle for such British troops as might be sent to the province. But

some officers (from Nova Scotia) on a recruiting service, finding the

distance (three miles) inconvenient, demanded to be quartered in the

town. They insisted on the provisions of the Mutiny Act; but the

magistrates to whom they applied denied that Act to be in force in the

colonies. Loudoun warmly espoused the cause of his officers; he declared

'that in time of war the rules and customs must go, and threatened to

send troops to Boston to enforce the demand if not granted within 48

hours. To avoid this extremity, the General Court passed a law of their

own, enacting some of the principal provisions of the Mutiny Act; and

Loudoun, through Governor Pownall's persuasions, consented to accept

this partial concession. The General Court did not deny the power of

Parliament to quarter troops in America. Their ground was, that the Act,

in its terms, did not extend to the colonies. A similar dispute occurred

in South Carolina, where great difficulty was encountered in finding

winter quarters for the Royal Americans." (Hildreth's History of the

United States, Vol. II., pp. 476, 477.)]

[Footnote 237: Bancroft's History, Vol. IV., p. 267.]

[Footnote 238: "As the General Court of Massachusetts Bay had been

foremost in promoting the Crown Point expedition, and become

proportionally exhausted of money, so they lost no time in making such

use of the success of the troops in beating off the French as their

necessities dictated. They drew up an address to his Majesty, in which

they stated their services, and prayed to be relieved from the burden

incurred by means of them. They pleaded the precedent of the Cape Breton

expedition (for the expenses of which Parliament had compensated them),

and prayed that his Majesty would give orders for the support of such

forts and garrisons as they hoped to establish, and aid them in the

further execution of their designs.

"When the Commander-in-Chief urged upon them to join in the plan of the

Assembly of New Jersey, who proposed a meeting of Commissioners from all

his Majesty's colonies at New York, to consult what might further be

done for the security of his Majesty's territories against the invasion

of the French, the same impoverishment constrained the General Court to

reply, that the design of securing those territories was what his

Majesty alone was equal to project and execute and the nation to

support, and that unless they could obtain the relief which they were

soliciting of the royal bounty, they should be as far from being able to

remove encroachments as to be unable to defend themselves." (Minot's

History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 256, 257.)]

[Footnote 239: A thousand of the regulars were sent to New York, where

free quarters for the officers were demanded of the city. Upon its being

objected to by the authorities of the city, as contrary to the laws of

England and the liberties of America, the Viceroy, Loudoun, replied to

the Mayor with an oath, "If you do not billet my officers upon free

quarters this day, I'll order here all the troops in North America under

my command, and billet them myself upon the city." "So," says Bancroft,

"the magistrates got up a subscription, and the officers, who had done

nothing for the country but waste its resources, were supported at free

quarters during the winter."

The same threats were used, with the same results, to the magistrates of

Boston and Philadelphia, to obtain free quarters for the officers.

Bancroft remarks somewhat bitterly: "The arbitrary invasion of private

rights and the sanctity of domestic life by the illegal and usurped

authority of a military chief, was the great result of the campaign. The

frontiers had been left open to the French; but the tempting example had

been given, so dangerous in times of peace, of quartering troops in the

principal towns, at the expense of the inhabitants," (History of United

States, Vol. IV., pp. 240, 241.)]

[Footnote 240: The army consisted of between nine and ten thousand

provincials--seven thousand raised by Massachusetts--and between six and

seven thousand regulars and rangers in the King's pay, where Abercrombie

in person was in command. Lord Howe arrived in Boston from England after

the forces had left the Province, and immediately upon his landing began

his journey, and joined the army before any action took place.

"This body, the greatest which had ever assembled in arms in America

since it was settled by the English, embarked on Lake George the 5th of

July, for the French fortress at Ticonderaga (called Carillon by the

French), and arrived next day at a cove and landing-place, from whence a

way led to the advance guard of the enemy. Seven thousand men, in four

columns, then began a march through a thick wood. The columns were

necessarily broken; their guides were unskilful; the men were bewildered

and lost; and parties fell in one upon another. Lord Howe, the life of

the army, at the head of a column, which was supported by light

infantry, being advanced, fell in with a party of the enemy, consisting

of about four hundred regulars and some Indians. Many of them were

killed, and one hundred and forty-eight taken prisoners. This, however,

was a dearly purchased victory, for Lord Howe was the first who fell on

the English side. The report of his death caused consternation as well

as grief through the army, which had placed much confidence in him.

"About five hundred regulars were killed upon the spot, and about one

thousand two hundred wounded. Of the provincials, one hundred were

killed, and two hundred and fifty wounded.

"The army still consisted of thirteen or fourteen thousand. The enemy

was much inferior in number. The retreat, nevertheless, was precipitate.

Early in the morning of the 9th the whole army embarked in their boats,

and arrived at the other end of the lake in the evening (no enemy

pursuing). Provisions, entrenching tools, and many stores of various

kinds, fell into the hands of the enemy. The English arms have rarely

suffered greater disgrace.

"The ill success of General Abercrombie at Ticonderaga caused his

recall. He seemed to expect and desire it. He was succeeded by General

Amherst." (Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. III., pp.

70-75.)]

[Footnote 241: "The successes of the French the last year (1757) left

the colonies in a gloomy state. By the acquisition of Fort William

Henry, they obtained full possession of the Lakes Champlain and George;

and by the destruction of Oswego, they had acquired the dominion of

those other lakes which connect the St. Lawrence with the Mississippi.

The first afforded the easiest admission from the northern colonies into

Canada, or from Canada into those colonies; the last united Canada to

Louisiana. By the continual possession of Fort du Quesne, they preserved

their ascendency over the Indians, and held undisturbed possession of

all the country west of the Allegany mountains.

"In this adverse state of things, the spirit of Britain rose in full

proportion to the occasion; and her colonies, instead of yielding to

despondency, resumed fresh courage, and cheerfully made the preparations

for the coming campaign. Mr. Pitt had, the last autumn, been placed at

the head of a new Administration, which conciliated the contending

interests in Parliament; and while the wisdom of that extraordinary

statesman devised great and judicious plans, his active spirit infused

new life into all, whether at home or abroad, whose province it was to

execute them. In a circular to the Colonial Governors, he assured them

of the determination to send a large force to America, to operate by sea

and land against the French; and called upon them to raise as large

bodies of men as the number of the inhabitants would allow. The northern

colonies were prompt and liberal in furnishing requisite supplies. The

Legislature of Massachusetts voted to furnish 7,000 men; Connecticut,

5,000; New Hampshire, 3,000. These troops were ready to take the field

very early in May, previous to which time Admiral Boscawen had arrived

in Halifax with a formidable fleet, and about 12,000 British troops

under the command of General Amherst. The Earl of Loudoun had returned

to England, and General Abercrombie, on whom the chief command of the

entire forces of the American war had devolved (until the arrival of

Lord Amherst), was now at the head of 50,000 men, the most powerful army

ever seen in America." (Holmes' Annals of America, Vol. II., pp. 79,

80.)]

[Footnote 242: History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. II., p. 74. Holmes

gives the following account of this brilliant achievement: "On the

proposition of Col. Bradstreet, for an expedition against Fort

Frontenac, relinquishing for the present his designs against Ticonderaga

and Crown Point, Abercrombie sent that able and gallant officer on this

service, with a detachment of 3,000 men, chiefly provincials, and two

mortars. Bradstreet having marched to Oswego, embarked on Lake Ontario,

and on the evening of the 25th of August landed within a mile of the

fort. Within two days his batteries were opened within so short a

distance that almost every shell took effect; and the French commandant,

finding the place untenable, surrendered at discretion. The Indians

having previously deserted, the prisoners were but 110. The captors

found in the fort 60 pieces of cannon, 16 small mortars, a large number

of small arms, a vast quantity of provisions, military stores and

merchandise; and nine armed vessels fell into their hands. Col.

Bradstreet having destroyed the fort and vessels, and such stores as

could not be brought off, returned to the main army." (Annals, Vol. II.,

p. 83.)]

[Footnote 243: "The extraordinary rejoicings in England at this victory

seemed to revive the honour of the northern British colonies as the

former conquerors of Cape Breton. The trophies taken were brought in

procession from Kensington to St. Paul's, and a form of thanksgiving was

ordered to be used in all the churches." (Minot's History of

Massachusetts Bay, Vol. II., p. 38.)]

[Footnote 244: History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. III., p. 75.]

[Footnote 245: Holmes' Annals, Vol. II., p. 84.]

[Footnote 246: "The distant and important operations in Canada almost

wholly relieved the suffering inhabitants of the frontiers of the

Province; and, indeed, by a train of successes, gave a pledge of the

future ease and security which was about to spread over all the British

colonies. The fall of Crown Point, Ticonderaga, Niagara, and, above all,

the capture of Quebec, closed the year with universal rejoicing and

well-founded hope that the toils of war would shortly cease throughout

the land." (Minot's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. II., p. 55.)]