of provisions,' made Washington 'advise' that they should not have been
excited to a general mutiny and desertion. In May, 1779, he hardly knew
any resource for the American cause _except in reinforcements from
France_, and did not know what might be the consequence if the enemy had
it in their power to press the troops hard in the ensuing campaign. In
December of that year his forces were 'mouldering away daily,' and he
considered that Sir Henry Clinton, with more than twice his numbers,
could 'not justify remaining inactive with a force so superior.' A year
later he was compelled, for want of clothing, to discharge the levies
which he had always so much trouble in obtaining; and 'want of flour
would have disbanded the whole army' if he had not adopted this
expedient.
"In March, 1781, again the crisis was 'perilous,' and though he did not
doubt the happy issue of the contest, he considered that the period for
accomplishment might be too far distant for a person of his years. In
April he wrote: 'We cannot transport provisions from the States in which
they are assessed to the army, because we cannot pay the teamsters, who
will no longer work for certificates. It is equally certain that our
troops are approaching fast to nakedness, and that we have nothing to
clothe them with; that our hospitals are without medicines, and our sick
without nutriment, except such as well men eat; and that all our public
works are at a stand, and the artificers disbanding. * * It may be
declared in a word that we are at the end of our tether, and that now or
never our deliverance must come.' Six months later, when Yorktown
capitulated, the British forces remaining in North America, after the
surrender of that garrison by Cornwallis, were more considerable than
they had been as late as February, 1779, and Sir Henry Clinton even then
declared that with a reinforcement of 10,000 he would be responsible for
the conquest of America.
"_The main hope of success on the English_ side lay in the idea that the
spirit and acts of resistance to the authority of the mother country
were in reality only on the part of a turbulent minority--that the bulk
of the people desired to be loyal. It is certain indeed that the
struggle was, in America itself, much more of a civil war than the
Americans are now generally disposed to admit. In December, 1780, there
were 8,954 'Provincials' among the British forces in America, and on
March 7th, 1781, a letter from Lord George Germaine to Sir H. Clinton,
intercepted by the Americans, says: 'The American levies in the King's
service are more in number than the whole of the enlisted troops in the
service of the Congress.' As late as September 1st, 1781, there were
7,241. We hear of loyal 'associations' in Massachusetts, Maryland, and
Pennsylvania; of 'associated Loyalists' in New York; and everywhere of
'Tories,' whose arrest Washington is found suggesting to Governor
Trumbull, of Connecticut, as early as November 12th, 1775. But New York,
New Jersey, and Pennsylvania remained long full of Tories. By June 28th,
1776, the disaffected on Long Island had taken up arms, and after the
evacuation of New York by Washington a brigade of Loyalists was raised
on the island, and companies were formed in two neighbouring counties to
join the King's troops. During Washington's retreat through New Jersey,
'the inhabitants, either from fear or disaffection, almost to a man
refused to turn out.' In Pennsylvania, the militia, instead of giving
any assistance in repelling the British, exulted at their approach and
over the misfortunes of their countrymen. On the 20th of that month the
British were 'daily gathering strength from the disaffected.' In 1777,
the Tories who joined Burgoyne in his expedition from the North are said
to have doubled his force. In 1778, Tories joined the Indians in the
devastation of Wyoming and Cherry Valley; and although the
indiscriminate ravages of the British, or of the Germans in their pay,
seem to have aroused the three States above mentioned to self-defence,
yet, as late as May, 1780, Washington still speaks of sending a small
party of cavalry to escort La Fayette safely through the 'Tory
settlements' of New York. Virginia, as late as the spring of 1776, was
'alarmed at the idea of independence.' Washington admitted that his
countrymen (of that State), 'from their form of government, and steady
attachment heretofore to royalty,' would 'come reluctantly' to that
idea, but trusted to 'time and persecution.' In 1781, the ground for
transferring the seat of war to the Chesapeake was the number of
Loyalists in that quarter. In the Southern States the division of
feeling was still greater. In the Carolinas, a royalist regiment was
raised in a few days in 1776, and again in 1779. In Georgia and in South
Carolina the bitterest partisan warfare was carried on between Whig and
Tory bands; and a body of New York Tories contributed powerfully to the
fall of Savannah in 1778, by taking the American forces in the rear.
"On the other hand, the British generals did not receive that support
from the Loyalists which they had expected. They seem to have looked
upon the Loyalists as an inferior class of aids to the regular soldiery;
their advice seems to have been unsought, and the mode of war pursued
was European, and not adapted to the peculiar circumstances of America.
The Loyalist volunteers were looked upon as the rivals to rather than
fellow-soldiers of the regular army; and no provincial Loyalist was
promoted to lead any expedition or command any position of importance.
This depreciation of the Loyalists by the English (utterly incompetent)
generals exactly answered the purposes of American writers. _But the
real cause of its protraction_, though it may be hard to an American to
admit the fact, lay in the incapacity of the American politicians, and,
it must be added, in the supineness and want of patriotism of the
American people. If indeed importing into the views of later date, we
look upon it as one between two nations, the mismanagement of the war by
the Americans on all points save one--the retention of Washington in the
chief command--is seen to have been so pitiable, from first to last, as
to be in fact almost unintelligible."
"DESCRIPTION OF THE AMERICAN ARMY, AND THE MANNER OF RAISING IT.
"We can only understand the case when we see there was no such thing as
an American nation in existence, but only a number of revolted colonies,
jealous of one another, and with no tie but that of common danger. Even
in the army divisions broke out. Washington, in a General Order of
August, 1776, says: 'It is with great concern that the general
understands that jealousies have arisen among the troops from the
different provinces, and reflections are frequently thrown out which
can only tend to irritate each other and injure the noble cause in
which we are engaged.'"
"WANT OF PUBLIC SPIRIT AND PATRIOTISM IN THE STATES.
"It was seldom that much help could be obtained in troops from any
State, unless the State were immediately threatened by the enemy; and
even then these troops would be raised by that State for its own
defence, irrespectively of the general or 'continental army.' 'Those at
a distance from the seat of war,' wrote Washington, in April, 1778,
'live in such perfect tranquillity, that they conceive the dispute to be
in a manner at an end, and those near it are so disaffected that they
serve only as embarrassments.' In January, 1779, we find him
remonstrating with the Governor of Rhode Island, because that State had
'ordered several battalions to be raised for the State only; and this
before the proper measures are taken to fill the continental regiments.'
The different bounties and rates of pay allowed by the various States
were a constant source of annoyance to him."
"DECLINE OF CONGRESS.
"After the first year, the best men were not returned to Congress, and
did not return to it. Whole States remained frequently unrepresented. In
the winter of 1777-78, Congress was reduced to twenty-one members. But
even with a full representation it could do little. 'One State will
comply with a requisition,' writes Washington in 1780, 'another neglects
to do it, a third executes by halves, and all differ either in the
manner, the matter, or so much in point of time, that we are always
working up-hill.'
"At first, Congress was really nothing more than a voluntary Committee.
When the Confederation was completed, which was only, be it remembered,
on March 1, 1781, it was still, as Washington wrote in 1785, 'little
more than a shadow without a substance, and the Congress a nugatory
body;' or, as it was described by a late writer, 'powerless for
government, and a rope of sand for union.'"
"DECLINE OF ENERGY AND SPIRIT AMONG THE COLONISTS AND ARMY.
"Like politicians, like people. There was, no doubt, a brilliant display
of patriotic ardour at the first flying to arms of the colonists.
Lexington and Bunker's Hill were actions decidedly creditable to their
raw troops. The expedition to Canada, foolhardy though it proved, was
pursued up to a certain point with real heroism. But with it the heroic
period of the war (individual instances excepted) may be said to have
closed. There seems little reason to doubt that the revolution would
never have been commenced if it had been expected to cost so tough a
struggle. 'A false estimate of the power and perseverance of our
enemies,' wrote James Duane to Washington, 'was friendly to the present
revolution, and inspired that confidence of success in all ranks of the
people which was necessary to unite them in so arduous a cause.' As
early as November, 1775, Washington wrote, speaking of military
arrangements: 'Such a dearth of public spirit, and such want of
virtue--such stock-jobbing and fertility in all the low arts to obtain
advantage of one kind or another, I never saw before, and pray God's
mercy that I may never be witness to it again.' Such a 'mercenary
spirit' pervaded the whole of the troops that he should not have been
'at all surprised at any disaster.' At the same date, besides desertion
of thirty or forty soldiers at a time, he speaks of the practice of
plundering as so rife that 'no man is secure in his effects, and
scarcely in his person.' People were 'frightened out of their houses
under pretence of those houses being ordered to be burnt, with a view of
seizing the goods;' and to conceal the villainy more effectually, some
houses were actually burned down. On February 28th, 1777, 'the
scandalous loss, waste, and private appropriation of public arms during
the last campaign' had been 'beyond all conception.' Officers drew
'large sums under pretence of paying their men, and appropriated them.'
"'Can we carry on the war much longer?' Washington asks in 1778, after
the treaty with France and the appearance of the French fleet off the
coast. 'Certainly not, unless some measures can be devised and speedily
executed to restore the credit of our currency and restrain extortion
and punish forestallers.' A few days later: 'To make and extort money in
every shape that can be devised, and at the same time to decry its
value, seems to have become a mere business and an epidemical disease.'
On December 30th, 1778, 'speculation, peculation, and an insatiable
thirst for riches seems to have got the better of every consideration,
and almost of every order of men; * * party disputes and personal
quarrels are the great business of the day (in Congress), whilst the
momentous concerns of an empire, a great and accumulating debt, ruined
finances, depreciated money, and want of credit, which in its
consequences is the want of everything, are but secondary
considerations."
"DECLINE OF PATRIOTIC FEELING ON THE PART OF THE AMERICANS.
"After the first loan had been obtained from France and spent, and a
further one was granted in 1782, so utterly unpatriotic and selfish was
known to be the temper of the people that the loan had to be kept
secret, in order not to diminish such efforts as might be made by the
Americans themselves. On July 10th of that year, with New York and
Charleston still in British hands, Washington writes: 'That spirit of
freedom which at the commencement of the contest would have gladly
sacrificed everything to the attainment of its object, has long since
subsided, and every selfish passion has taken its place.' But, indeed,
the mere fact that from the date of the battle of Monmouth (July 28th,
1778), Washington was never supplied with sufficient means, even with
the assistance of the French fleets and troops, to strike one blow at
the English in New York--though these were but very sparingly reinforced
during the period--shows an absence of public spirit, one might almost
say of national shame, scarcely conceivable, and in singular contrast
with the terrible earnestness exhibited on both sides, some eighty years
later, in the Secession War."
"INCAPACITY OF ENGLISH GENERALS IN AMERICA.
"Why, then, must we ask on the other side, did the English fail at last?
"The English were prone to attribute their ill success to the
incompetency of their generals. Lord North, with his quaint humour,
would say, 'I do not know whether our generals will frighten the enemy,
but I know they frighten me whenever I think of them.' When, in 1778,
Lord Carlisle came out as Commissioner, in a letter speaking of the
great scale of all things in America, he says, 'We have nothing on a
great scale with us but our blunders, our losses, our disgraces and
misfortunes.' No doubt, it is difficult to account for Gage's early
blunders; for Howe's repeated failure to follow up his own success, or
profit by his enemy's weakness; and Cornwallis's movement, justly
censured by Sir Henry Clinton, in transferring the bulk of his army from
the far south to Virginia, within marching distance of Washington,
opened the way to that crowning disaster at Yorktown, without which it
is by no means impossible that Georgia and the Carolinas might have
remained British."
"INEFFECTIVE MILITARY ARRANGEMENTS IN AMERICA.
"Political incapacity was, of course, charged upon Ministers as another
cause of disaster; and no doubt their miscalculation of the severity of
the struggle was almost childish. But no mistakes in the management of
the war by British statesmen can account for their ultimate failure.
However great British mismanagement may have been, it was far surpassed
by the Americans. There was nothing on the British side equal to that
caricature of a recruiting system in which different bounties were
offered by Congress, by the States, by the separate towns, so as to make
it the interest of the intended soldier to delay enlistment as long as
possible, in order to sell himself to the highest bidder; to that
caricature of a war establishment, the main bulk of which broke up every
twelvemonth in front of the enemy, which was only paid, if at all, in
worthless paper, and left continually without supplies. On the whole, no
better idea can be had of the nature of the struggle on the American
side, after the first heat of it had cooled down, than from the words of
Count de Rochambeau, writing to Count de Vergennes, July 10th, 1780:
'They have neither money nor credit; their means of resistance are only
momentary, and called forth when they are attacked in their own homes.
They then assemble for the moment of immediate danger and defend
themselves.'"
"FRENCH MONEY, TROOPS, AND SHIPS TURN THE SCALE IN FAVOUR OF AMERICAN
INDEPENDENCE.
"A far more important cause in determining the ultimate failure of the
British was the aid afforded by France to America, followed by that of
Spain and Holland. It was impossible for England to re-conquer a
continent and carry on a war at the same time with the three most
powerful naval States of Europe. The instincts of race have tended on
both the English and American side to depreciate the value of the aid
given by France to the colonists. It may be true that Rochambeau's
troops, which disembarked on Rhode Island in July, 1780, did not march
till July, 1781; that they were blockaded soon after their arrival,
threatened with attack from New York, and only disengaged by a feint of
Washington's on that city. But more than two years before their arrival,
Washington wrote to a member of Congress: 'France, by her supplies, has
saved us from the yoke thus far.' The treaty with France alone was
considered to afford a 'certain prospect of success' to 'secure'
American independence. The arrival of D'Estaing's fleet, although no
troops joined the American army, and nothing eventually was done,
determined the evacuation of Philadelphia. The discipline of the French
troops, when they landed in 1780, set an example to the Americans;
chickens and pigs walked between the lines without being disturbed. The
recruits of 1780 could not have been armed without fifty tons of
ammunition supplied by the French. In September of that year,
Washington, writing to the French envoy, speaks of the 'inability' of
the Americans to expel the British from the South unassisted, or perhaps
even to stop their career; and he writes in similar terms to Congress a
few days later. To depend 'upon the resources of the country, unassisted
by foreign loans,' he writes to a member of Congress two months later,
'will, I am confident, be to lean upon a broken reed.' In January, 1781,
writing to Colonel Laurens,[121] the American envoy in Paris, he presses
for 'an immediate, ample, efficacious succour in money from France,'
also for the maintenance on the American coasts of 'a constant naval
superiority,' and likewise for 'an additional succour in troops.' And
since the assistance so requested was in fact granted in every shape,
and the surrender of Yorktown was obtained by the co-operation both of
the French army and fleet, we must hold that Washington's words were
justified by the event."[122]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 121: War of American Independence, 1777-1783, by John Malcolm
Ludlow, Chap, vii., pp. 215-227.]
[Footnote 122: Dr. Ramsay says: "Pathetic representations were made to
the Ministers of his Most Christian Majesty by Washington, Dr. Franklin,
and particularly by Lieutenant-Colonel John Laurens, who was sent to the
Court of Versailles as a special Minister on this occasion. The King of
France _gave_ the United States a subsidy [as a present] of six millions
of livres, and became their security for ten millions more, borrowed for
their use in the United Netherlands." (History of the United States,
Vol. II., Chap. xxiii., p. 407.)]
APPENDIX B. TO CHAPTER XXXVII.
REFLECTIONS OF LORD MAHON ON THE AMERICAN CONTEST AND ITS
RESULTS--APOLOGY FOR GEORGE THE THIRD--UNHAPPINESS OF AMERICANS SINCE
THE REVOLUTION--UNITY OF THE ANGLO-SAXON RACE.
At this period (Declaration of Independence), the culminating point in
the whole American war, I may be forgiven for desiring to interrupt its
narrative in order to review its course and its results. That injurious
and oppressive acts of power had been inflicted by England upon America,
I have in many places shown, and do most fully acknowledge. That from
the other side, and above all from Massachusetts, there had been strong
provocation, I must continue to maintain. I should not deem it
consistent with candour to deny that the Americans had sufficient ground
for resisting, as they did resist, the Ministerial and Parliamentary
measures. But whether these had yet attained a pitch to justify them in
discarding and renouncing their allegiance to the Throne is a far more
doubtful question--a question on which perhaps neither an Englishman nor
yet an American could quite impartially decide.
"The time has come, however, as I believe and trust, when it is possible
to do equal justice to the many good and upright men who in this great
struggle embraced the opposite sides. The great mass of the people meant
honestly on both shores of the Atlantic. The two chief men in both
countries were alike pure-minded. On the one side there were deeds that
savoured of tyranny; on the other side there were deeds that savoured of
rebellion; yet at heart George the Third was never a tyrant, nor
Washington ever a rebel. Of Washington I most firmly believe, that no
single act appears in his whole public life proceeding from any other
than public, and those the highest motives. But my persuasion is no
less firm that there would be little flattery in applying the same terms
of respect and commendation to the 'good old king.' I do not deny,
indeed, that some degree of prejudice and pride may, though
unconsciously, have mingled with his motives. I do not deny that at the
outset of these troubles he lent too ready an ear to the glozing reports
of his governors and deputies, the Hutchinsons or Olivers, Gateses,
Dunmores, etc., assuring him that the discontents were confined to a
factious few, and that measures of rigour and repression alone were
needed. For such measures of rigour he may deserve, and has incurred,
his share of censure. But after the insurgent colonies had proclaimed
their independence, is it just to blame King George, as he often has
been blamed, for his steadfast and resolute resistance to that claim?
Was it for him, unless after straining every nerve against it, to
forfeit a portion of his birthright and a jewel of his crown? Was it for
him, though the clearest case of necessity, to allow the rending asunder
his empire--to array for all time to come of several millions of his
people against the rest? After calling on his loyal subjects in the
colonies to rise, after requiring and employing their aid, was it for
him, on any light grounds, to relinquish his cause and theirs, and yield
them over, unforgiven, to the vengeance of their countrymen? Was it for
him to overlook the consequences, not even yet, perhaps in their full
extent unfolded, of such a precedent of victory to popular and colonial
insurrection? May not the King, on the contrary, have deemed that on
such a question, touching as it did both his honour and his rights, he
was bound to be firm--firmer than even the firmest of his Ministers?
Not, of course, that he could be justified for persevering; but in
truth, he did not so persevere after every reasonable hope had failed.
Not, of course, that he could be excused from continuing to demand, or
to expect, unconditional submission; but, as his own letters to Lord
North assure us, such an idea was never harboured in his mind. To do his
duty conscientiously, as he should answer it to God hereafter, and
according to the lights he had received, such was his unceasing aim and
endeavour from the day when, young but superior to the frailties of
youth, he first assumed the reins of government, until that dismal
period, half a century later, when, bowed down by years and sorrows,
and blind, doubly blind, he concluded his reign, though not, as yet, his
life.
"Before the American war had commenced, and during its first period,
nearly all the statesmen and writers of England argued, or rather took
for granted as too plain to stand in need of argument, that separation
from our colonies would most grievously impair, if not wholly ruin, the
parent State. * * It is worthy of note how much our experience has run
counter to the general prognostication--how little the loss was felt, or
how quickly the void was supplied. An historian of high and just
authority--Mr. Macaulay--has observed that England was never so rich, so
great, so formidable to foreign princes, so absolutely mistress of the
sea, as since the alienation of the American colonies. (Essays, Vol.
II.) The true effect of that alienation upon ourselves, as time has
shown, has been not positive, but by comparison it has lain not in the
withdrawal of wealth and population and resources, but in raising up a
rival State from the same race, and with powers and energies not
inferior to our own.
"But how far, and in what degree, has the new form of government
promoted the happiness of the United States themselves? * * It would be
folly, or worse than folly, to deny that since their independence the
prosperity of the United States has advanced with gigantic strides; that
they have grown to be a first-rate power; that immense works of public
utility have been achieved with marvellous speed; that the clearing of
new lands and the building of new cities have been such as to outstrip
the most sanguine calculations; that among them the working classes have
been, in no common degree, well paid and prosperous; that a feeling for
the national honour is in no country stronger; that the first elements
of education have been most widely diffused; that many good and brave
men have been trained and are training to the service of the
Commonwealth. But have their independent institutions made them, on the
whole, a happy and contented people? That, among themselves, is often
proclaimed as undeniable; and certainly among themselves it may not
always be safely denied. That, however, is not always the impression
conveyed to him who only sojourns in their land, by the careworn faces,
by the hurried steps, by the unsocial meals which he sees, or by the
incessant party cries which he hears around him; by the fretful
aspirations and the feverish hopes resulting from the unbounded space of
competition open to them without check or barrier; and by the
innumerable disappointments and heartburnings which in consequence
arise. On the true condition of North America, let us mark the
correspondence between two of the greatest and most highly gifted of her
sons. There is now open before me a letter which, in August, 1837, and
on the annexation of Texas, Dr. Channing wrote to Mr. Clay. In that
letter, as published in Boston, I find the following words (and what Dr
Channing said in 1837 has been illustrated in scores of instances since
that time, and greatly enhanced by the events of the civil war):
"'I cannot do justice to this topic without speaking freely of our
country, as freely as I should of any other; and unhappily we are so
accustomed, as a people, to receive incense, to be soothed by flattery,
and to account reputation a more important interest than morality, that
my freedom may be construed into a kind of disloyalty. But it would be
wrong to make concessions to this dangerous weakness. * * Among us a
spirit of lawlessness pervades the community which, if not repressed,
threatens the dissolution of our present forms of society. Even in the
old States, mobs are taking the government into their hands, and a
profligate newspaper finds little difficulty in stirring up multitudes
to violence. * * Add to all this the invasions of the rights of speech
and of the press by lawless force, the extent and toleration of which
oblige us to believe that a considerable portion of our citizens have no
comprehension of the first principles of liberty. It is an undeniable
fact that, in consequence of these and other symptoms, the confidence of
many reflecting men in our free institutions is very much impaired. Some
despair. That main pillar of public liberty--mutual trust among
citizens--is shaken. That we must seek security for property and life in
a stronger government is a spreading conviction. Men who in public talk
of the ability of our institutions, whisper their doubts, perhaps their
scorn, in private.
"'Whether the people of the United States might have been as thriving
and more happy had they remained British subjects, I will not presume to
say. Certainly not if violent men like Lord Hillsborough, or corrupt men
like Mr. Rigby, had continued to take part in the administration. With
other hands at the helm the case might have been otherwise. Jefferson,
at least, in his first draft of the Declaration of Independence, said of
his countrymen and of the English: "We might have been a free and great
people together." One thing, at all events, is plain, that had these
colonies shared the fate of the other dominions of the British Crown,
the main curse and shame--the plague spot of the system of
slavery--would have been long since removed from them (before it was);
but, as in the case of Jamaica, not without a large compensation in
money to the slave owners. It is also plain that in the case supposed
they would have equally shared in our pride and glory at the wondrous
growth of the Anglo-Saxon race--that race undivided and entire,
extending its branches as now to the furthest regions of the earth, yet
all retaining their connection with the parent stem--all its members
bound by the same laws, all animated by the same loyalty, and all
tending to the same public-spirited aim. How great a nation should we
and they be together!--how great in the arts both of peace and war!
scarcely unequal now to all other nations of the world combined!" * *
"Since 1782 at the latest, views like these are merely day-dreams of the
past. In place of them, let us now indulge the hope and expectation that
the American people may concur with ours in desiring that no further
resentment may be nourished, no further strife be stirred, between the
kindred nations; so that both, mindful of their common origin, and
conscious of their growing greatness, may both alike discard, as
unworthy of them, all mean and petty jealousies, and be ever henceforth
what nature has designed them--friends."[123]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 123: Lord Mahon's History of England, etc., Vol. VI., Chap.
liii., pp. 150-160.]
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
TREATMENT OF THE LOYALISTS BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT AND PARLIAMENT
AFTER THE REVOLUTION.
PART I.
PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT--REFUSAL OF THE STATES TO COMPENSATE THE
LOYALISTS.
It has been seen, by the fact stated in the last preceding chapter, that
the promised recommendations of Congress to the several States, as
agreed upon by the English and American Commissioners of the peace
negotiations at Paris, were, as had been expected and predicted by Dr.
Franklin at the time, without any result, the State Legislatures passing
Acts to proscribe rather than compensate the Loyalists. In justification
of these Acts, the American writers of that period, and largely down to
the present time, assailed the character of the Loyalists in the
grossest language of calumny and abuse; but the most respectable
American writers of the present age bear testimony to the intelligence,
wealth, and respectability of the Loyalists; and the fact, no longer
questionable, that they sacrificed wealth, liberty, country, and chose
poverty and exile, in support of their principles, has fully vindicated
their character and presented their conduct in advantageous contrast
with that of those who deprived them of their liberty, and largely
profited by the confiscation of their immense property, while they and
their families were pining in exile and want.
The only resource of the exiled and impoverished Loyalists, under such
circumstances, was the Government and Parliament of the mother country
to which they had so faithfully adhered, and nothing could be more
honourable than the testimony borne in the British Parliament to their
character and merits, and the consideration given to their wants and
claims. The fifth Article of the Treaty of Paris, leaving the Loyalists
to the recommendation of the Congress to the Legislatures of the several
States, was severely reprobated in both Houses of Parliament. In the
House of Commons, Mr. Wilberforce said that "when he considered the case
of the Loyalists, he confessed he felt himself conquered; there he saw
his country humiliated; he saw her at the feet of America; still he was
induced to believe that Congress would religiously comply with the
Article, and that the Loyalists would obtain redress from America.
Should they not, this country was bound to afford it them. They _must be
compensated_; Ministers, he was persuaded, meant to keep _the faith of
the nation with them_."
Lord North (who had been Prime Minister during twelve years, including
the war) said:
"And now let me, Sir, pause on a part of the treaty which awakens human
sensibility in a very irresistible and lamentable degree. I cannot but
lament the fate of those unhappy men, who, I conceive, were in general
objects of our _gratitude_ and _protection_. The Loyalists, from their
attachments, surely had some claim to our affection. But what were not
the claims of those who, in conformity to their _allegiance_, their
_cheerful obedience_ to the _voice of Parliament_, their confidence in
the proclamation of our generals, invited under every assurance of
_military, parliamentary, political, and affectionate protection,_
espoused with the hazard of their lives, and the forfeiture of their
properties, the cause of Great Britain? _I cannot but feel for men thus
sacrificed for their bravery and principles_--men who have sacrificed
all the dearest possessions of the human heart. They have exposed their
lives, endured an age of hardships, deserted their interests, forfeited
their possessions, lost their connections, and ruined their families _in
our cause_. Could not all this waste of human enjoyment excite one
desire of protecting them from a state of misery, with which the
implacable resentment of the States has desired to punish their loyalty
to their Sovereign and their attachment to their mother country? Had we
not espoused their cause from a _principle of affection and gratitude_,
we should, at least, have _protected_ them _to have preserved our own
honour_. If not tender of _their feelings_, we should have been tender
_of our own character_. Never was the _honour_, the _principles_, the
policy of a nation so grossly abused as in the desertion of those men,
who are now exposed to _every punishment_ that _desertion_ and _poverty_
can inflict, _because they were not rebels_."
Lord Mulgrave said: "The Article respecting the Loyalists he never could
regard but as a lasting monument of _national disgrace_. Nor was this
Article, in his opinion, more reproachful and derogatory to the _honour
and gratitude_ of Great Britain than it appeared to be wanton and
unnecessary. The honourable gentleman who had made the motion had asked
if those gentlemen who thought the present peace not sufficiently
advantageous to Great Britain, considering her circumstances, could
consent to pay the amount which another campaign (twenty millions) would
have put us to, for the degree of advantage they might think we had a
right to expect? In answer to this, he declared, for one, he had rather,
large as the estimated sum in question was, have had it stipulated in
the treaty, _that Great Britain should apply it to making good the
losses of the Loyalists_, than that they should have been so _shamefully
deserted and the national honour so pointedly disgraced_ as it was by
the fifth Article of the treaty with the United States."
_Mr. Secretary Townsend_ (afterwards Lord Sydney) said "he was ready to
admit that many of the Loyalists had the strongest claims upon the
country; and he trusted, should the recommendation of Congress to the
American States prove unsuccessful, which he flattered himself would not
be the case, _this country_ would feel itself bound _in honour to make
them full compensation for their losses_."
_Mr. Burke_ said: "At any rate, it must be agreed on all hands that a
vast number of Loyalists had been deluded by this country, and had
risked everything in our cause; to such men the _nation owed protection,
and its honour was pledged for their security at all hazards_."
_The Lord Advocate_ said: "With regard to the Loyalists, they merited
_every possible effort on the part of this country_."
_Mr. Sheridan_ "execrated the treatment of those unfortunate men, who,
without the least notice taken of their civil and religious rights, were
handed over as subjects to a power that would not fail to take
vengeance on them for their zeal and attachment to the religion and
government of this country. This was an instance of _British degradation
not inferior_ to the unmanly petitions to Congress for the wretched
Loyalists. Great Britain at the feet of Congress, suing in vain, was not
a humiliation or a stigma greater than the infamy of consigning over the
loyal inhabitants of Florida, as we had done, without any conditions
whatsoever."
"_The Honourable Mr. Norton_ said that 'Under the circumstances, he was
willing to approve of the two former (European treaties with France and
Spain); but on account of the Article relating to the Loyalists, he felt
it impossible to give his assent to the latter."
_Sir Peter Burrell_ said: "The fate of the Loyalists claimed the
compassion of every human breast. These helpless, forlorn men, abandoned
by the Ministers of a people on whose _justice, gratitude_, and
_humanity_ they had the best-founded claims, were left at the mercy of a
Congress highly irritated against them. He spoke not from party zeal,
but as an independent country gentleman, who, unconnected with party,
expressed the emotions of his heart and gave vent to his honest
indignation."
_Sir William Bootle_ said: "There was one part of the treaty at which
his heart bled--the Article relative to the Loyalists. Being a man
himself, he could not but feel for men so cruelly abandoned to the
malice of their enemies. It was scandalous; it was disgraceful. Such an
Article as that ought scarcely on any condition to have been admitted on
our part. They had fought for us and run every hazard to assist our
cause; and when it most behoved us to afford them protection, we
deserted them."
Several other members spoke to the same effect. The treaty recognizing
the Independence of America could not be reversed, as an Act passed the
previous session had expressly authorized the King and his Cabinet to
make it; but it was denied that a treaty sacrificing the Loyalists and
making the concessions involved had been authorized; in consequence of
which an express vote of censure was passed by the Commons by a majority
of seventeen. The Earl of Shelburne, the Prime Minister, forthwith
resigned in consequence of this vote of censure, and it was nearly three
months before a new Administration could be formed; and during this
administrative interregnum affairs were in great confusion.
In the _House of Lords, Lord Walsingham_ said that "he could neither
think nor speak of the dishonour of leaving these deserving people to
their fate with patience." _Lord Viscount Townsend_ considered that "to
desert men who had constantly adhered to loyalty and attachment, was a
circumstance of such cruelty as had never before been heard of." _Lord
Stormont_ said that "Britain was bound in justice and honour, gratitude
and affection, and by every tie, to provide for and protect them." _Lord
Sackville_ regarded "the abandonment of the Loyalists as a thing of so
atrocious a kind, that if it had not been painted in all its horrid
colours he should have attempted the ungracious task but never should
have been able to describe the cruelty in language as strong and
expressive as were his feelings;" and again, that "peace on the
sacrifice of these unhappy subjects must be answered in the sight of God
and man." _Lord Loughborough_ said that "the fifth Article of the treaty
had excited a general and just indignation, and that neither in ancient
nor modern history had there been so shameful a desertion of men who had
sacrificed all to their duty and to their reliance on British faith."
In reply, _Lord Shelburne_, the Prime Minister, frankly admitted that
the Loyalists were left without better provision being made for them
"from the unhappy _necessity_ of public affairs, which induced the
extremity of submitting the fate of their property to the discretion of
their enemies;" and he continued: "I have but one answer to give the
House--it is the answer I gave my own bleeding heart--a _part_ must be
wounded, that the whole of the empire may not perish. If better terms
could be had, think you, my lords, that I would not have embraced them?
_I had but the alternative either to accept the terms proposed or
continue the war._" The _Lord Chancellor_ held that the stipulations of
the treaty were "specific," and said: "My own conscious honour will not
allow me to doubt the good faith of others, and my good wishes to the
Loyalists will not let me indiscreetly doubt the disposition of
Congress, since the understanding is that all these unhappy men shall be
provided for; yet, if it were not so, Parliament could take cognizance
of their case, and impart to each suffering individual that relief
which reason, perhaps policy, certainly virtue and religion, required."
Such were the sentiments of members in both Houses of Parliament, and of
both parties, as to the character and merits of the Loyalists. But there
were no prospects of the States compensating them for their losses.
Indeed, this idea was entertained by Lord Shelburne himself, and that
compensation would have to be made to the Loyalists by Parliament when,
in the speech above quoted, he said that "without one drop of blood
spilt, and without one-fifth of the expense of one year's campaign,
happiness and ease can be given to them in as ample a manner as these
blessings were ever in their enjoyment." This was certainly a very low
and mercenary view of the subject. It was one thing for the Loyalists to
have their rights as British subjects maintained while they were obeying
the commands of the King and maintaining their allegiance to the empire,
and another thing for them to become pensioners upon the bounty of the
British Parliament, to be paid in pounds, shillings, and pence for the
rights and privileges which should have been secured to them by national
treaty as British subjects. The House of Commons had adopted a
resolution against continuing the American war for the _purpose of
enforcing the submission of the colonies_; but it had not resolved
against continuing the war to protect the rights and property of British
subjects in the colonies. A campaign for this purpose, on the refusal of
the American Commissioners to recognize what was sanctioned by the laws
and usages of nations, would have been honourable to the British
Government, would have been popular in England, and would have divided
America; for there were many thousand "Whigs" in America, who believed
in the equity of treating the Loyalists after the war as all others were
treated who conformed to the laws, as has been the case in Holland,
Ireland, and Spain. England was then mistress of the seas, held New
York, Charleston, Rhode Island, Penobscot, and other military posts, and
could soon have induced the Americans to do what their Peace
Commissioners at Paris had refused to do--place British subjects in
America upon the same footing as to property that they possessed before
the war, and that they possess in the United States at this day. England
could have easily and successfully refused granting to the United
States a foot of land beyond the limits of the thirteen colonies, and
thus have secured those vast western territories now constituting the
larger part of the United States, and retained the garrisons of New
York, Rhode Island, and Charleston as guarantees until the stipulated
conditions in regard to the Loyalists should be fulfilled. A joint
Commission in America could have settled upon equitable grounds all
disputed claims in much less time than the six years occupied by a
Parliamentary Commission in examining into and deciding upon the
individual claims of Loyalist claimants. If the war to reduce the
colonies to absolute submission had been unpopular in England, the peace
upon the terms submitted to by the English Commissioners and the
Ministry was equally unpopular. If England had been wrong in its war of
coercion against the revolting colonists, was she not equally wrong, and
more than wrong, in abandoning to their enemies those who had abided
faithful to her laws and commands? The language of the speeches of
members of both Houses of Parliament, above quoted, is as just as it is
severe; although much could be and was said in justification of the
policy of the Government in promoting peace upon almost any terms,
seeing that England was at war with the three most powerful naval
nations of Europe, besides that in America.
The fallacy of the argument employed by the advocates of the treaty,
that the Americans would honourably fulfil the recommendations of
Congress, was illustrated by the following facts:
"The province of Virginia, a short time before the peace, had come to an
unanimous conclusion 'that all demands or requests of the British Court
for the restoration of property confiscated by the State were wholly
impossible; and that their delegates should be instructed to move
Congress that they should direct the deputies for adjusting peace not to
agree to any such restitution.'"
_The State of New York_ resolved, "That it appears to this Legislature
that divers of the inhabitants of this State have continued to adhere to
the King of Great Britain, after these States were declared free and
independent, and persevered in aiding the said king, his fleets and
armies, to subjugate the United States to bondage: Resolved, That as on
the one hand the scales of justice do not require, so on the other the
public tranquillity will not permit, that such adherents who have been
attainted should be restored to the rights of citizens, and that there
can be no reason for restoring property which has been confiscated or
forfeited."
PART II.
AGENTS OF LOYALISTS--PROCEEDINGS OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSION--RESULTS.
Of course all hope of obtaining relief under the stipulations of the
treaty was abandoned by the Loyalists, who "now applied to the
Government which they had ruined themselves to serve, and many of them,
who had hitherto been 'refugees' in different parts of America, went to
England to state and recover payment for their losses. They organized an
agency, and appointed a Committee composed of one delegate or agent from
each of the thirteen States,[124] to enlighten the British public, and
adopt measures of proceeding in securing the attention and action of the
British Ministry in their behalf. In a tract printed by order of these
agents (which now lies before us, entitled _The Case and Claim of
American Loyalists impartially Stated and Considered_, published in
1783), it is maintained that 'it is an established rule, that all
sacrifices made by individuals for the benefit and accommodation of
others shall be equally sustained by all those who partake of it,' and
numerous cases are cited from Puffendorf, Burlamaqui and Vattel, to show
that the 'sacrifices' of the Loyalists were embraced in this principle.
As a further ground of claim, it is stated that in case of territory
alienated or ceded away by one sovereign power to another, the rule is
still applicable; for that in the treaties of international law it is
held, 'The State ought to indemnify the subject for the loss he has
sustained beyond his proportion.' And in the course pursued at the close
of the civil war in Spain, when the States of Holland obtained their
independence, under the Treaty of Utrecht, and at various other periods,
proved that the _rights_ of persons similarly situated had been
respected and held inviolate. The conclusion arrived at from the
precedents in history, and diplomacy, and in the statute-books of the
realm, is, that as the Loyalists were as 'perfectly subjects of the
British State as any man in London or Middlesex, they were entitled to
the same protection and relief.' The claimants had been 'called by their
sovereign, when surrounded by tumult and rebellion, to defend the
supreme rights of the nation, and to assist in suppressing a rebellion
which aimed at their destruction. They have received from the highest
authority the most solemn assurances of protection, and even reward, for
their meritorious services;' and that 'His Majesty and the two Houses of
Parliament having thought it necessary, as the _price of peace_, or to
the interest and safety of the empire, or from some other motive of
public convenience, to ratify the Independence of America, _without
securing any restitution whatever to the Loyalists_, they conceive that
the nation is bound, as well by the fundamental laws of society as by
the invariable and external principles of natural justice, to make them
compensation.'"[125]
Though the treaty of peace left the Loyalists to the mercy--rather to
the resentment (as the result proved)--of the American States, and as
such received the censure of the House of Commons, British justice and
honour recognized the claims of the Loyalists to compensation for their
losses, as well as to gratitude for their fidelity to the unity of the
empire. The King, at the opening of the session of Parliament, said: "I
have ordered inquiry to be made into the application of the sum to be
voted in support of the American sufferers; and I trust you will agree
with me, that a due and generous attention ought to be shown to those
who have relinquished their properties or professions from motives of
loyalty to me, or attachment to the mother country." Accordingly, a
Bill was introduced and passed without opposition in June, 1783,
entitled "An Act Appointing Commissioners to Inquire into the Losses and
Services of all such Persons who have Suffered in their Rights,
Properties, and Professions, during the late Unhappy Dissensions in
America, in consequence of their Loyalty to his Majesty and Attachment
to the British Government."
The Commissioners named were John Wilmot, M.P., Daniel Parker Coke,
M.P., Esquires, Col. Robert Kingston, Col. Thomas Dundas, and John
Marsh, Esquire, who, after preliminary preparations, began their inquiry
in the first week of October, and proceeded, with short intermissions,
through the following winter and spring. The time for presenting claims
was first limited by the Act to the 20th of March, 1784; but the time
was extended by the renewal of the Act, from time to time, until 1789,
when the Commissioners presented their _twelfth_ and last report, and
Parliament finally disposed of the whole matter in 1790, seven years
after its commencement.
The Commissioners, according to their first report, divided the
Loyalists into _six_ classes, as follows: 1. Those who had rendered
service to Great Britain. 2. Those who had borne arms for Great Britain.
3. Uniform Loyalists. 4. Loyal English subjects resident in Great
Britain. 5. Loyalists who had taken oaths to the American States, but
afterwards joined the British. 6. Loyalists who had borne arms for the
American States, but afterwards joined the British navy or army. The
reason for this classification is not very apparent; for all showed
alike who were able to establish their losses, without reference to
differences of merit, or the time or circumstances of their adhering to
the Crown.
Every applicant was required to furnish proof of his loyalty, and of
every species of loss for which he claimed compensation; in addition to
which each claimant was put upon his oath as to his alleged losses; and
if in any case _perjury_ or _fraud_ were believed to have been
practised, the claimant was at once cut off from his whole claim. The
rigid rules which the Commissioners laid down and enforced in regard to
claimants, examining each claimant and the witnesses in his behalf
separately and apart, caused much dissatisfaction, and gave the
proceeding more the character of an Inquisition than of Inquiry. It
seemed to place the claimants almost in the position of criminals on
whom rested the burden of proof to establish their own innocence and
character, rather than in that of Loyalists who had faithfully served
their King and country, and lost their homes and possessions in doing
so. Very many, probably the large majority of claimants, could not
possibly prove the exact value of each species of loss which they had
sustained years before, in houses, goods, stocks of cattle, fields with
their crops and produce, woods with their timber, etc., etc. In such a
proceeding the most unscrupulous would be likely to fare the best, and
the most scrupulous and conscientious the worst; and it is alleged that
many false losses were allowed to persons who had suffered no loss,
while many other sufferers received no compensation, because they had
not the means of bringing witnesses from America to _prove_ their
losses, in addition to their own testimony.
The chairman of the Commission admits the delay and difficulty caused by
the mode of proceeding adopted by the Commissioners. He says: "The
investigation of the property of each claimant, and of the value of each
article of that property, real and personal, could not but be attended
with a good deal of time as well as much caution and difficulty, each
claim in fact branching out into so many articles, or rather distinct
causes, in which the Commissioners were obliged to execute the office of
both judge and jury, or rather of arbitrators between the nation on one
side, and the individual on the other, whose whole patrimony as well as
character depended on their verdict."[126]
The Act passed in 1783, authorizing the inquiry, being limited to two
years, expired in July, 1785, but was renewed with some additions, one
of which was a clause to empower the Commissioners to appoint proper
persons to repair to America "to inquire into such circumstances as they
might think material for better ascertaining the several claims which
had been or should be presented to them under this or the former Act of
Parliament." The Commissioners appointed John Anstey, Esq., a
barrister-at-law, as agent to the United States, "to obtain information
as to the confiscation, sale, and value of landed estates, and the total
loss of the property of the claimants," respecting which he procured
much valuable and authentic information and testimony. They sent Colonel
Thomas Dundas and Mr. Jeremy Pemberton, two members of the Board, to
visit Nova Scotia and Canada, "to inquire into the claims of such
persons as could not without great inconvenience go over to Great
Britain."
Before the 25th of March, 1784, the latest period allowed by the first
Act for presenting claims, the number of claimants was 2,063, and the
property alleged by them to have been lost, according to their
schedules, amounted to £7,046,278, besides debts to the amount of
£2,354,135. The sum was very large, but the losses were undoubtedly very
great. The Commissioners made their first report in July, 1784; and
after having detailed their assiduous proceeding in the fulfilment of
their trust, and care in examining and deciding on individual cases,
reported on the part of the cases submitted, and awarded £201,750 for
£534,705 claimed, reducing the amount by more than half the amount
claimed.
The _second_ report of the Commissioners was made in December of the
same year, and states that 128 additional cases had been examined and
disposed of, the amount claimed being £693,257, and the amount allowed
was £150,935--less than one-fourth the amount claimed.
One hundred and twenty-two (122) cases were examined into and disposed
of in May and July, 1785, according to the third and fourth reports--the
amount claimed being £898,196, and the amount allowed being
£253,613--less than one-third of the amount claimed.
In April, 1786, the fifth report of the Commissioners was presented,
announcing that 142 other claims had been considered and decided, the
claims amounting to £733,311, on which the Commissioners allowed
£250,506--a little more than one-third of the amount claimed.
The Commissioners proceeded in the same manner with their
investigations, and with about the same results, in 1786 and 1787.[127]
On the 5th of April, 1788, the Commissioners reported that they had
examined into and declared upon 1,680 claims, and had allowed the sum of
£1,887,548 for their payment.
Under all the circumstances, it appears scarcely possible that the
Commissioners could have proceeded with more despatch than they did. But
the delay caused much dissatisfaction among the Loyalists, whose agents
petitioned both King and Parliament on the delay, or on the course
pursued by the Commissioners, or on some subject connected with the
claims of the Loyalists. Essays and tracts were published; letters and
communications appeared in the newspapers on the subject; in 1786, the
agents of the Loyalists presented a petition to Parliament, which
contained among other things the following touching words: "It is
impossible to describe the poignant distress under which many of these
persons now labour, and which must daily increase should the justice of
Parliament be delayed until all the claims are liquidated and reported;
* * ten years have elapsed since many of them have been deprived of
their fortunes, and with their helpless families reduced from
independent affluence to poverty and want; some of them now languishing
in British jails; others indebted to their creditors, who have lent them
money barely to support their existence, and who, unless speedily
relieved, must sink more than the value of their claims when received,
and be in a worse condition than if they had never made them; others
have already sunk under the pressure and severity of their misfortunes;
and others must, in all probability, soon meet the same melancholy fate,
should the justice due them be longer postponed. But, on the contrary,
should provision be now made for payment of those whose claims have been
settled and reported, it will not only relieve them from their distress,
but give credit to others whose claims remain to be considered, and
enable all of them to provide for their wretched families, and become
again useful members of society."
Two years later, in 1788, a tract was published by a Loyalist, entitled
"The Claim of the American Loyalists Reviewed and Maintained upon
Incontrovertible Principles of Law and Justice." The writer of that
tract thus forcibly states the situation of the Loyalists: "It is well
known that this delay of justice has produced the most melancholy and
shocking events. A number of sufferers have been driven into insanity
and become their own destroyers, leaving behind them their helpless
widows and orphans to subsist upon the cold charity of strangers. Others
have been sent to cultivate the wilderness for their subsistence,
without having the means, and compelled through want to throw themselves
on the mercy of the American States, and the charity of former friends,
to support the life which might have been made comfortable by the money
long since due by the British Government; and many others with their
families are barely subsisting upon a temporary allowance from
Government, a mere pittance when compared with the sum due them."
Shortly after the publication of the pamphlet containing these
statements, the Commissioners submitted their eleventh report, April,
1788, and Mr. Pitt, Chancellor of the Exchequer, yielded the following
month to the pressing entreaties of the claimants to allow their
grievances to be discussed in Parliament. "Twelve years had elapsed
since the property of most of them had been alienated under the
Confiscation Acts, and five since their title to recompense had been
recognized by the law under which their claims had been presented and
disposed of."
We will give an abridged account of the proceedings in Parliament and by
the Commissioners in their own words:
"The business came on in the House of Commons on the 6th of June, 1788,
which Mr. Pitt opened in a very handsome and eloquent speech respecting
the merits of the American Loyalists, and which, he did not doubt, would
meet with the unanimous acknowledgment of the House; and he trusted,
therefore, there would be no difference of opinion as to the principle,
though there might be as to the mode of compensation and the
distribution which he thought it his duty to propose.
"The first principle he laid down was, that however strong their claims
might be on the generosity of the nation, the compensation could not be
considered as _a matter of right and strict justice_;[129] in the mode,
therefore, he had pursued, he had marked the principle in the various
quotas of compensation he should propose to be made to the various
classes of the American Loyalists.
"He considered the three first classes of them, stated by the
Commissioners in their reports as the most meritorious, and who were
likewise the most numerous, viz.:
"1st. Loyalists who had rendered services to Great Britain. Number, 204.
"2nd. Loyalists who had borne arms in the service of Great Britain--481.
"3rd. Zealous and uniform Loyalists--626.
"Total number of these three classes--1,311.
"The number of the remaining classes were much fewer, viz.:
"4th. Loyal British subjects resident in Great Britain--20.
"5th. Who took the oath to the Americans, but afterwards joined the
British--27.
"6th. Who bore arms for the Americans, but afterwards joined the
British--23.
"7th. Ditto, losses under the Prohibitory Act--3.
"8th. Loyal British proprietors--2.
"9th. Subject or settled inhabitants of the United States--25.
"10th. Claims disallowed and withdrawn--313.
"11th. Loyal British subjects who appear to have relief by the Treaty of
Peace, but state the impossibility of procuring it--4.
"Mr. Pitt proposed to pay classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, whose liquidated
losses did not amount to more than £10,000 each, the full amount of
their losses; and if they should exceed the sum of £10,000, to deduct
the sum of ten per cent. from excess only of £10,000, provided such
losses did not exceed £35,000; and if they exceeded £35,000, then
fifteen per cent. from the excess of £10,000, and not above £50,000; and
if they exceeded £50,000, then to deduct twenty per cent. from the
excess of £10,000; and which principle, he informed the Committee, he
meant to follow in every other class.
"With regard to the 4th and 8th classes, viz., of loyal British subjects
and loyal British proprietors resident in Great Britain during the war,
he did not mean to propose any deduction from the losses under £10,000;
but from the losses which amounted from £10,000 to £50,000 he proposed a
deduction of twenty per cent. should be made; and a further deduction
from those losses amounting to above £50,000, and a still further
deduction of seventy per cent. from those from £50,000 to £200,000; and
so on in proportion.
"He next considered the case of those Loyalists whose losses
principally, if not solely, arose from their loss of office or
profession, by which they had been deprived of their livelihood, or
means of support, both for themselves or families. These persons were
distinct from those who had been in trade or other branches of business,
or gained their livelihood by their manual labour. Though these losses
were not of so substantial a nature as those who lost property real or
personal, yet they could not be easily reinstated in the same lucrative
professions which they had enjoyed--civil employment, in the law, in the
Church, or in physic--and therefore he thought them entitled to a
liberal compensation. But as they were not precluded from exercising
their industry and talents in this country, he proposed that all those
persons who were reported by Commissioners to have lost incomes not
exceeding £400 _per annum_, should receive pensions at the rate of £50
_per cent._ of such income, and £40 _per cent._ for every £100 above
£400 per annum; where the value did not exceed £1,500 _per annum_, £30
_per cent._ for every £100 per annum exceeding £400; thus the
_percentage_ would be governed by and diminish in proportion to the
increase of the income lost.
"Having expatiated on these various classes of claimants, Mr. Pitt said
he meant to propose that the amount of these various sums should be
issued in debentures bearing interest at three and a half per cent.,
which would be nearly equal to a money payment, and that the whole
should be paid off by instalments.
"He began, therefore, by moving 'that provision should be made
accordingly.'
"This plan met with general approbation and applause from all sides of
the House; not only from the friends of the Minister, but from leaders
of the Opposition, particularly from Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke; and Mr. Pitt
congratulated the House on their concurrence with him in the plan he
laid before the Committee.
"Soon after a motion was made for continuing the Act another year, for
the purpose principally of enabling the Commissioners to inquire into
claims of certain other persons therein specified, who, it was stated,
appeared to have been prevented by particular circumstances from
preferring their claims before; provided the Commissioners were
satisfied, by proof made on oath, with the reasons assigned by those
persons for not having before preferred their respective claims; and the
Act passed, including these and other purposes.
"As the Commissioners who had gone to Nova Scotia and Canada had by this
time returned to England, and Mr. Anstey was daily expected from the
United States, there was more than sufficient to employ the
Commissioners, independent of the Act for carrying into effect the plan
of relief and compensation into execution.
"The Commissioners immediately, viz., in August, 1788, proceeded with
the various matters referred to them.
"Colonel Dundas and Mr. Pemberton, having returned from Nova Scotia and
Canada, made a separate report of the proceedings to the Board of
Treasury and the Secretaries of State;[130] but the Commissioners,
before they finished their deliberations, united the proceedings of both
Boards in order to give a comprehensive view of the whole.
"Mr. Anstey also having returned from the United States in September,
the Commissioners took a general review of the whole of their
proceedings from the commencement of the inquiry, and were thus enabled
to supply any defects, to correct any mistakes, and to reconsider any
points in which, perhaps, too great humanity to the individuals on the
one hand, or too great anxiety to reduce claims which appeared
exaggerated on the other, might have led them into error.
"Having thus wound up the business in the spring of 1789, they presented
their twelfth and last Report on the 15th of May; and likewise, pursuant
to the order of the House of Commons of the 10th of June, 1789,
presented a statement of them to that House, comprising the whole of
their proceedings in one view, specifying what had been granted by
Parliament and what still remained for consideration; but as the
inquiring into these claims was not completed, and the Minister thought
proper to give way once more to strong applications from various
persons, who had been still prevented from preferring or prosecuting
their claims under the former Acts of Parliament, the Commission was
renewed once more, and it was not till the spring of 1790 that the
business was finally settled and adjusted by Parliament. In the
beginning of April, in consequence of an order of the House of Commons,
on the 31st of March, 1790, the Commissioners laid before the House a
statement of the claims and losses of the American Loyalists up to the
25th of March, 1790, with the terms already granted, and of what
remained for the consideration of Parliament.
"The general result of this was, that the number of claims preferred in
England and Nova Scotia was 3,225--
"Of which were examined 3,225
"Disallowed 343 }
"Withdrawn 38 } 934
"Not prosecuted 553 }
"The amount of the claims preferred was £10,358,413.
"The amount of the claims examined was £8,216,126.
"The amount allowed in liquidation thereof amounted to £3,033,091.
"Of which had been provided £2,096,326.
"There remained for consideration of Parliament £936,764.[131]
"The amount of pensions paid to 204 Loyalists, on account of losses of
office or profession, was £25,785 _per annum_, besides annual allowances
to 588 persons, chiefly widows, orphans, and merchants, who had no means
of livelihood, but had lost no real or personal estate except debts due
them,[132] and which had not been gone into for reasons before given.
"As many of the Loyalists who had received pensions or allowances are
since deceased, the Lords of the Treasury, by his Majesty's direction,
have continued some part of those annual payments to their widows.
"Thus had the nation extended an inquiry for seven successive years into
the losses of those who, from motives of loyalty to his Majesty and
attachment to the British Government, had risked their lives and
sacrificed their fortunes in support of the constitutional dependence of
the colonies on Great Britain.
"Whatever may be said of this unfortunate war, either to account for, to
justify, or to apologize for the conduct of either country, all the
world has been unanimous in applauding the virtue and humanity of Great
Britain in rewarding the services, and in compensating, with a liberal
hand, the losses of those who suffered so much for their firm and
faithful adherence to the British Government."
We will conclude these extracts by giving the Commissioners' account of
their mode of proceeding and the reasons for it, together with the
acknowledgment of the agents of the claimants in a formal address to the
King:
"The principle which has directed our mode of conducting the inquiry,"
say the Commissioners, "has been that of requiring the very best
evidence which the nature and circumstances of the case would admit. We
have in no instance hitherto thought fit to dispense with the personal
appearance and examination of the claimant, conceiving the inquiry would
be extremely imperfect and insecure against fraud and misrepresentation
if we had not the advantage of cross-examining the party himself, as
well as his witnesses; nor have we, for the same reason, allowed much
weight to any testimony that has not been delivered on oath before
ourselves. We have investigated with great strictness the titles to real
property, wherever the necessary documents could be exhibited to us; and
where they have not been produced we have required satisfactory evidence
of their loss, or of the inability of the claimant to procure
them."[133]
The Commissioners conclude their twelfth and last Report in the
following words:
"Great as is the length of time which hath been consumed in the
prosecution of this inquiry, it may without difficulty be accounted for
by a survey of the multiplicity and complicated nature of the objects to
which the Acts of Parliament extended our scrutiny; and when to these
are added the investigation (delegated to us by your lordships) of the
numerous claims for present relief and temporary support (which alone
formed a heavy branch of business, demanding daily attention), the
several reviews and modifications of pension lists, and the various
other extraneous matters which have incidentally devolved upon us, we
trust we shall, on due consideration of this extensive scene of
employment, at least stand exculpated by your lordships of inactivity
and unnecessary delay. We have felt with anxious solicitude the urgency
as well as the importance and delicate nature of the trust reposed in
us, and to this impression our exertions towards the speedy, faithful,
and honourable execution of it have been proportioned. We cannot flatter
ourselves that no errors have been committed; but we have this
consolation, that the most assiduous endeavours have not been wanting on
our part to do justice to the individuals and to the public. Supported
by this reflection in our retirement from this arduous and insidious
employment, we shall feel no inconsiderable satisfaction in having been
instrumental towards the completion of a work which will ever reflect
honour on the character of the British nation.
(Signed) "JOHN WILMOT.
"ROBERT KINGSTON.
"JOHN MARSH.
"Office of American Claims,
"Lincoln's Inn Fields,
"May 15th, 1789."
A proper sequel to this whole proceeding will be the following Address
of the Agents for the American Loyalists, presented to the King by Sir
William Pepperell, Bart., and the other agents, being introduced by the
Lord of his Majesty's Bedchamber in waiting; which address his Majesty
was pleased to receive very graciously, and they all had the honour to
kiss his Majesty's hand:
"_To the King's Most Excellent Majesty._
"The Humble Address of the Agents for the American Loyalists.
"Most Gracious Sovereign,--
"Your Majesty's ever dutiful and loyal subjects, the agents of the
American Loyalists, who have heretofore been the suppliants of your
Majesty in behalf of their distressed constituents, now humbly beg leave
to approach your Throne, to pour forth the ardent effusions of their
grateful hearts for your most gracious and effectual recommendation of
their claims to the just and generous consideration of Parliament.
"To have devoted their fortunes and hazarded their lives in defence of
the just rights of the Crown and the fundamental principles of the
British Constitution, were no more than their duty demanded of them, in
common with your Majesty's other subjects; but it was their peculiar
fortune to be called to the trial, and it is their boast and their glory
to have been found equal to the task.
"They have now the distinguished happiness of seeing their fidelity
approved by their Sovereign, and recompensed by Parliament, and their
fellow-subjects cheerfully contributing to compensate them for the
forfeiture their attachment to Great Britain incited them to incur;
thereby adding dignity to their own exalted character among the nations
of the world, and holding out to mankind the glorious principles of
justice, equity, and benevolence as the firmest basis of empire.
"We should be wanting in justice and gratitude if we did not upon this
occasion acknowledge the wisdom and liberality of the provisions
proposed by your Majesty's servants, conformable to your Majesty's
gracious intentions for the relief and accommodation of the several
classes of sufferers to whose cases they apply; and we are convinced it
will give comfort to your royal heart to be assured they have been
received with the most general satisfaction.
"Professions of the unalterable attachment of the Loyalists to your
Majesty's person and government we conceive to be unnecessary; they
have preserved it under persecution, and gratitude cannot render it less
permanent. They do not presume to arrogate to themselves a more fervent
loyalty than their fellow-subjects possess; but distinguished as they
have been by their sufferings, they deem themselves entitled to the
foremost rank among the most zealous supporters of the British
Constitution. And while they cease not to offer up their most earnest
prayers to the Divine Being to preserve your Majesty and your
illustrious family in the peaceful enjoyment of your just rights, and in
the exercise of your royal virtues in promoting the happiness of your
people, they humbly beseech your Majesty to continue to believe them at
all times, and upon all occasions, equally ready, as they have been, to
devote their lives and properties to your Majesty's service and the
preservation of the British Constitution.
"W. Pepperell, for the Massachusetts Loyalists.
"J. Wentworth, for the New Hampshire Loyalists.
"George Rowe, for the Rhode Island Loyalists.
"Ja. Delancey, for the New York Loyalists.
"David Ogden, for the New Jersey Loyalists.
"Joseph Galloway, for the Pennsylvania and Delaware
Loyalists.
"Robert Alexander, for the Maryland Loyalists.
"John R. Grymer, for the Virginia Loyalists.
"Henry Eustace McCulloch, for the North Carolina
Loyalists.
"James Simpson, for the South Carolina Loyalists.
"William Knox, for the Georgia Loyalists.
"John Graham, late Lieutenant-Governor of Georgia,
and joint agent, for the Georgia Loyalists."
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 124: The names of the agents, or delegates, are as follows: W.
Pepperell, for the Massachusetts Loyalists; J. Wentworth, jun., for the
New Hampshire Loyalists; George Rowe, for the Rhode Island Loyalists;
Ja. Delancey, for the New York Loyalists; David Ogden, for the New
Jersey Loyalists; Joseph Galloway, for the Pennsylvania and Delaware
Loyalists; Robert Alexander, for the Maryland Loyalists; John R. Grymes,
for the Virginia Loyalists; Henry Eustace McCulloch, for the North
Carolina Loyalists; James Simpson, for the South Carolina Loyalists;
William Knox, for the Georgia Loyalists.]
[Footnote 125: Another very able pamphlet was issued some time
afterwards, entitled "Claims of the American Loyalists Reviewed and
Maintained upon the Incontrovertible Principles of Law and Justice;"
printed in London, 1788.]
[Footnote 126: "Historical View of the Commission for Inquiry into the
Losses, Services, and Claims of the American Loyalists, at the Close of
the War between Great Britain and her Colonies in 1783; with an Account
of the Compensation granted to them by Parliament in 1785 and 1788." By
John Eardley Wilmot, Esq., London, 1815. Dedicated "To His Most Gracious
Majesty George the Third, equally distinguished for justice and
beneficence to his subjects and for humanity to his enemies."]
[Footnote 127: It has already been mentioned that the Legislature of
South Carolina (the only State of the American Republic) had taken steps
to restore the estates of several of her Loyalists. This "caused the
withdrawal of the claims of their owners (before the English
Commissioners), except that in instances of alleged strip and waste,
amercements, and similar losses, inquiries were instituted to ascertain
the value of what was taken compared with that which was returned."
The English Commissioners, in their twelfth and last report, remark on
this subject as follows:
"We thought it our duty to state, in our second report of the 24th
December, 1784, that the State of South Carolina had, by an Act of the
24th March, 1784, restored the confiscated property of certain
Loyalists, subject to the restrictions therein mentioned; and that in
consequence thereof many had withdrawn the claims they had before
presented to us. We find, however, that in many instances the parties
have not been able to reap that advantage they had expected, and which
the Act above-mentioned held out to them. In some instances the property
restored has been so wasted and injured as to be of little value; in
others, the amercements and charges have been nearly equal to the value
of the fee simple of the estates; and in many, where the indents[128]
being the species of money received by the State, have been restored to
the former proprietors, an inevitable and considerable loss has been
sustained by the depreciation. In all these cases we have made minute
inquiry into the real benefit that has been derived from such
restitution, whether of the property itself, or of the _indents_ in lien
of it; and having endeavoured to ascertain, as nearly as the
circumstances would admit, the value of what was lost and the value of
what was restored, we have considered the difference as the real loss of
the party."]
[Footnote 128: _Indent_--A certificate, or indented certificate, issued
by the Government of the United States at the close of the revolution,
for the principal or interest of the public debt.--Webster.]
[Footnote 129: The principle thus laid down was neither just, nor true,
nor generous. The claimants had not asked for _charity_, but for
_compensation_, and that not as a favour, but upon the principles of
"right and of strict justice." The British Ministry and Parliament alone
originated and were responsible for the policy and measures which had
led to the calamities so ruinous to the Loyalists, who now claimed
compensation. The claimants had had nothing to do with passing the Stamp
Act; with imposing duties on tea and other articles imported into the
colonies; with making naval officers collectors of customs; with
erecting courts of admiralty, and depriving the trading colonists of
trial by jury, and of rendering the officers of the admiralty courts,
and the complainants before them, the recipients of the first
confiscations imposed by such events; with the acts to close the Port of
Boston, and supersede the chartered constitution of Massachusetts, all
of which, separately and collectively, with other like measures, roused
and united the colonists to resistance, from Maine to Georgia, and in
consequence of which a majority of the General Congress of the colonists
seized the opportunity to renounce their allegiance to the British
Throne, and to declare their separation from the mother country. And
even after the character of the contest became thus changed from one for
British constitutional rights to one for Republican independence, the
Loyalists had nothing to do with the selection of British generals, or
with their incapacity, their want of tact and energy, their mistakes and
rapacity, together with that of their officers and soldiers, from all
which the Loyalists grievously suffered. In the camp, on the march, and
in the field of battle, the Loyalists were always on the alert, and
performed the severest and most perilous services. No class of men had
stronger claims on the nation, upon the principles of right and strict
justice, than the Loyalist claimants before Parliament. This was
acknowledged by all the speakers on both sides, and in both Houses of
Parliament, and even by Mr. Pitt himself, and the objectionable and
offensive principle which he laid down at the outset was contravened by
the whole tenor and spirit of his speech.]
[Footnote 130: The number of claims examined by the Commissioners in
Nova Scotia and Canada was 1,272; the amount of claims was £975,310; the
losses allowed were £336,753.]
[Footnote 131: What remained for consideration, and which was afterwards
granted by Parliament, consisted of seven Articles, and was as follows:
"1. Additional claims liquidated since 1788, to the
amount of £224,406
"2. The proprietary claims of Messrs. Pennes £500,000
"3. Do. Do. Trustees under the will of
Lord Granville, North Carolina 60,000
"4. The proprietary claims of Robert Lord Fairfax, proprietor
of Virginia 60,000
"5. Claims of subjects, settled inhabitants of the United
States, many of which were cases of great merit and peculiar
hardship 32,462
"6. Claims of persons who appeared to have relief under
the Treaty of Peace 14,000
"7. Claims of creditors on ceded lands in Georgia 45,885"]
[Footnote 132: The case of such merchants was peculiarly distressing. In
the "Historical Review of the Commission," the Commissioners state:
"The claims for debts due from subjects of the United States, as well
from the magnitude of their amount as the peculiar hardship and
injustice under which the claimants labour respecting them, form a
subject which appears strongly to press for the attention and
interposition of Government. The Treaty of Peace having provided that
'Creditors on either side should meet with no lawful impediment to the
recovery of the full value of their debts in sterling money,' losses of
this nature have not been considered as within the inquiry directed by
the Act, because we cannot consider any right or property as lost to the
party where the Government of the country has expressly provided and
stipulated for a remedy by a public treaty. We think it, however,
incumbent upon us to represent that the claimants uniformly state to us
the insuperable difficulties they find themselves under, as individuals,
in seeking the recovery of their debts according to the provision of the
treaty, whilst themselves are the objects of prosecution in courts of
justice here for debts due to the subjects of the United States. Under
such circumstances, the situation of this class of sufferers appears to
be singularly distressing--disabled on the one hand by the laws or
practice of the several States from recovering the debts due them, yet
compellable on the other to pay all demands against them; and though the
stipulation in the treaty in their favour has proved of no avail to
procure them the redress it holds out in one country, yet they find
themselves excluded by it from all claims to relief in the other."]
[Footnote 133: It is certain that but a small proportion of the American
Loyalists presented claims before the Parliamentary Commissioners in
England for compensation for services or loss of property; and many of
those who presented claims did not prosecute them. The Commissioners
give the following explanation on this point:
"It may, perhaps, appear singular that so many claims presented, viz.,
448, have been withdrawn; but it may be owing, in the first place, to
the circumstance of many of these claimants having recovered possession
of their estates, and, in the next place, to the uncertainty, at the
commencement of the inquiry, as to the nature of the Commission, and the
species of loss which was the object of it, and perhaps to the
consciousness of others that they were not able to establish the claims
they had presented."]
CHAPTER XXXIX.
THE LOYALISTS DRIVEN FROM THE UNITED STATES TO THE BRITISH PROVINCES.
The Loyalists, after having been stripped of their rights and property
during the war, and driven from their homes, and hunted and killed at
pleasure, were exiled from all right of residence and citizenship at the
close of the war; and though the Treaty of Peace engaged that Congress
should recommend the several States to compensate them for the losses of
their property, the Legislatures of the several States (with one
exception) refused any compliance with this stipulation of the national
treaty; and the Legislature of New York actually ordered the punishment
of those Loyalists who applied for compensation. At the close of the
war, therefore, instead of witnessing, as in the case of all other
civilized nations at the termination of a civil war, however rancorous
and cruel, a general amnesty and the restoration of all parties to the
rights and property which they enjoyed at the commencement of the
strife, the Loyalists found themselves exiled and impoverished, and
their enemies in possession of their homes and domains. It is true about
3,000 of the Loyalists were able to employ agents, or appear personally,
to apply to the English Government and Parliament for compensation for
their losses; and the preceding chapter records the noble appreciation
of their character and services by British statesmen, and the liberality
of Parliament in making them compensation for their losses and
sufferings in maintaining their fidelity to the mother country. But
these 3,000 constituted not one-tenth of the Loyalists who had suffered
losses and hardships during the civil war; upwards of 30,000 of them
were driven from the homes of their birth, and of their forefathers, to
wildernesses of everlasting snow. It was a policy as inhuman and
impolitic as that of Spain in expelling upwards of 600,000 Moors, the
most skilful and profitable of their manufacturers and artizans; or of
France, in compelling the escape of above 500,000 of the best workers in
the finest manufactures to other countries where they laid the
foundation of industries which have proved a source of boundless wealth
to England at the expense of the commerce and manufactures of France.
The Democrats were then the ruling party in most of the States; the more
moderate voice and liberal policy of the Conservative Republicans were
hushed and fanned down by the Democratic leaders, who seemed unable to
look beyond the gratification of their resentment and avarice; they
seemed to fear the residence and presence of men of intelligence,
ability, and energy, who might in the future rival if not eclipse them.
The maxim of the Loyalists was, obedience to law; heretofore they looked
upon the enactments of the States and of Congress as usurpation; those
enactments were now recognized as law by England herself, in the
acknowledgment of American Independence; and the Loyalists would have
been among the most obedient and law-abiding citizens had they been
allowed to remain in the land of their nativity and forefathers, and
would have largely added to its social advancement, literature, and
wealth, and would undoubtedly, before now, have led to the unity of the
Anglo-Saxon race under one free and progressive government. Historians
and statesmen have long since condemned this resentful and narrow-minded
policy of the States against the Loyalists after the close of the
revolutionary war, as do now even American historians.[134]
The Americans inaugurated their Declaration of Independence by enacting
that all adherents to connection with the mother country were rebels and
traitors; they followed the recognition of Independence by England by
exiling such adherents from their territories. But while this wretched
policy depleted the United States of some of their best blood, it laid
the foundation of the settlement and institutions of the then almost
unknown and wilderness provinces which have since become the
wide-spread, free and prosperous Dominion of Canada.
Until very recently, the early history of the Loyalists of America has
never been written, except to blacken their character and misrepresent
their actions; they were represented as a set of idle office-seekers--an
imputation which has been amply refuted by their braving the forests of
northern countries, and converting them into fruitful fields, developing
trade and commerce, and establishing civil, religious, and educational
institutions that are an honour to America itself. Yet, when exiled from
their native land, they were bereft of the materials of their true
history. A living American writer truly observes:
"Of the reasons which influenced, of the hopes and fears which agitated,
and of the miseries and rewards which awaited the Loyalists--or, as they
were called in the politics of the time, the Tories--of the American
Revolution, but little is known. The most intelligent, the best informed
among us, confess the deficiency of their knowledge. The reason is
obvious. Men who, like the Loyalists, separate themselves from their
friends and kindred, who are driven from their homes, who surrender the
hopes and expectations of life, and who become outlaws, wanderers, and
exiles--such men leave few memorials behind them. Their papers are
scattered and lost, and their very names pass from human recollection.
* * Of several of the Loyalists who were high in office, of others who
were men of talents and acquirements, and of still others who were of
less consideration, I have been able, after long and extensive
researches, to learn scarcely more than their names, or the single fact
that for their political opinions or offences they were proscribed and
banished."[135]
The circumstances under which the Loyalists were banished from the
States and deprived of their property will largely account for the
alienation of feeling which long existed between the Americans and
Canadians, which gave intensity to the war of 1812-15, which exists to
some extent at this day, but which is gradually subsiding, and is being
gradually superseded by feelings of mutual respect and friendship,
strengthened by large commercial and social relations, including many
intermarriages.
To understand the sacrifices which the Loyalists made, and the courage
and energy they evinced, in leaving their old homes and associations in
the sunny parts of America, and in seeking a refuge and a home in the
wilds of the remaining British Provinces, it will be necessary to notice
what was then known, and the impression then existing, as to the
climate, productions, and conditions of these provinces.[136]
At that time New Brunswick formed a part of Nova Scotia, and was not
organized into a separate province until 1784. The impressions then
entertained as to the climate of Nova Scotia (including New Brunswick)
may be inferred from the following extracts from a pamphlet published in
England in 1784:
"It has a winter of almost insufferable length and coldness; * * there
are but a few inconsiderable spots fit to cultivate, and the land is
covered with a cold spongy moss in place of grass. * * Winter continues
at least seven months in the year; the country is wrapt in the gloom of
a perpetual fog; the mountains run down to the sea coast, and leave but
here and there a spot to inhabit." Some of the officers, embarking at
New York for Nova Scotia, are said to have remarked that they were
"bound for a country where there were nine months of winter and three
months of cold weather every year." Lower Canada was known as a region
of deep snow, intense cold, and little fertility; a colony of the
French; its capital, Quebec, the scene of decisive battles between the
English and French under Wolfe and Montcalm, and afterwards between
Murray and Montgomery, the latter the leader of the American revolters
and invaders. Montreal was regarded as the place of transit of the fur
trade from the Hudson's Bay Company to England.
Upper Canada was then unknown, or known only as a region of dense
wilderness and swamps, of venomous reptiles and beasts of prey, the
hunting grounds and encampments of numerous Indian tribes, intense cold
of winter, and with no other redeeming feature except abundance of game
and fish.[137]
The entire ignorance of the climate of Upper Canada which prevailed at
the close of the revolutionary war, may be inferred from the facts
stated in a succeeding chapter, when the British commander of New York,
being unable to transport any more Loyalists to Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick, sent for a Mr. Grass, who had been a prisoner during the
French war for two or three years at Kingston, then Frontenac, to
inquire of him what sort of a country Upper Canada was, and whether
people could live there. Grass replied that he thought Upper Canada was
a good country, and that people could live there. The British commander
expressed much joy at the reply, and asked Mr. Grass if he would
undertake to conduct a colony of Loyalists to Canada; the vessels,
provisions, etc., would be furnished for that purpose. Mr. Grass asked
three days to consider the proposal, and at length consented to
undertake the task. It appears that five vessels were procured and
furnished to convey this first colony of banished refugee Loyalists to
Upper Canada; they sailed around the coast of New Brunswick and Nova
Scotia, and up the St. Lawrence to Sorel, where they arrived in October,
1783, and where they built themselves huts or shanties and wintered; and
in May, 1784, they prosecuted their voyage in boats, and reached their
destination, Cataraqui, afterwards Kingston, in July. The manner of
their settlement and providing for their subsistence is described in a
succeeding chapter.
Other bands of Loyalists made their way to Canada by land; some by the
military highway to Lower Canada, Whitehall, Lake Champlain,
Ticonderoga, Plattsburg, and then turning northward proceeded to
Cornwall; then ascending the St. Lawrence, along the north side of which
many of them settled. This Champlain route was the common one to Lower
Canada, descending the River Richelieu from St. John's to Sorel.
But the most common land route from New York to Upper Canada, chosen by
the Loyalists at the close of the war, was to Albany 180 miles up the
Hudson river, which divides into two branches about ten miles north of
Albany. The western branch is called the Mohawk, leading to Rome,
formerly Fort Stanwix. A branch of the Mohawk, called Wood Creek, leads
towards the Oneida lake, which was reached by a portage. From Oneida
Lake, Lake Ontario was reached by the Oswego river. Flat-bottom boats,
specially built or purchased for the purpose by the Loyalists, were used
in this journey. The portages over which the boats had to be hauled, and
all their contents carried, are stated to be thirty miles. On reaching
Oswego, some of the Loyalists coasted along the eastern shore of Lake
Ontario to Kingston, and thence up the Bay of Quinté; others went
westward, along the south shore of the lake to Niagara and Queenston;
some pursued their course to the head of the lake at Burlington; others
made their way up the Niagara river to Queenston, conveyed their boats
over the portage of ten or twelve miles to Chippewa, thence up the river
and into Lake Erie, settling chiefly in what was called the "Long Point
Country," now the county of Norfolk. This journey of hardship,
privation, and exposure occupied from two to three months. The parents
and family of the writer of this history were from the middle of May to
the middle of July, 1799, in making this journey in an open boat.
Generally two or more families would unite in one company, and thus
assist each other in carrying their boats and goods over the portages.
A considerable number came to Canada from New Jersey and the
neighbourhood of Philadelphia on foot through the then wilderness of New
York, carrying their little effects and small children on pack horses,
and driving their cattle, which subsisted on herbage of the woods and
valleys. Some of the families of this class testified to the relief and
kindness they received in their extreme exigencies from the Indians.
The hardships, exposures, privations and sufferings which the first
Loyalists endured in making their way from their confiscated homes to
Canada, were longer and more severe than anything narrated of the
Pilgrim and Puritan Fathers of New England in their voyages from England
to Massachusetts Bay; and the persecutions to which the emigration of
the Puritans from England is attributed were trifling indeed in
comparison of the persecutions, imprisonments, confiscations, and often
death, inflicted on the loyal adherents to the Crown of England in the
United States, and which drove the survivors among them to the
wilderness of Canada. The privations and hardships experienced by many
of these Loyalist patriots for years after the first settlement in
Canada, as testified by the papers in the subsequent chapter, were much
more severe than anything experienced by the Pilgrim Fathers during the
first years of their settlement in Massachusetts. These latter could
keep a "Harvest Home" festival of a week, at the end of the first year
after their landing in the Bay of Massachusetts; but it was years after
their arrival in Canada before the Loyalists could command means to keep
any such festival. The stern adherence of the Puritans to their
principles was quite equalled by the stern adherence of the Loyalists to
their principles, and far excelled by their sacrifices and sufferings.
Canada has a noble parentage, the remembrance of which its inhabitants
may well cherish with respect, affection, and pride.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 134: "Had we pursued a wise course, people of our own stock
would not have become our rivals in ship-building, in the carriage of
our great staples, in the prosecution of the fisheries, and in the
production of wheat and other breadstuffs. Nor is this all: we should
not have had the hatred, the influence and the talents of persons of
Loyalist origin to contend against in the questions which have and may
yet come up between us and England.
"Thus, as it seems to me, humanity to the adherents of the Crown, and
prudent regard for our own interests, required a general amnesty; as it
was, we not only dealt harshly with many, and unjustly with some, but
doomed to misery others, whose hearts and hopes had been as true as
those of Washington himself. Thus in the divisions of families which
everywhere occurred, and which formed one of the most distressing
circumstances of the conflict, there were wives and daughters, who,
although bound to Loyalists by the holiest ties, had given their
sympathies to the right from the beginning, and who now, in the triumph
of the cause which had their prayers, went meekly--as woman ever meets a
sorrowful lot--into hopeless, interminable exile." (Introductory
Historical Essay to Sabine's Sketches of the Loyalists of the American
Revolution, pp. 90, 91.)]
[Footnote 135: Preface to Colonel Sabine's Biographical Sketches of the
American Loyalists, or Adherents to the British Crown, in the War of the
Revolution.]
[Footnote 136: The Loyalists who were attached to military corps raised
in the extreme South were principally of the Southern States, and a
large portion of them settled in the Bahamas, Florida, and the British
West Indies. "Some of the officers who belonged to the 'Maryland
Loyalists,' and some of the privates of that corps, embarked for Nova
Scotia, but were wrecked in the Bay of Fundy, and a part perished."
(Sabine.)]
[Footnote 137: "The western part of Canada, abandoned after the conquest
_as an Indian hunting ground_, or occupied at its western extremity on
Lake Erie by a few of the ancient French colonists, began now to assume
importance, and its capability of supporting a numerous population along
the Great River and the lakes became evident. Those excellent men, who,
preferring to sacrifice life and fortune rather than forego the enviable
distinction of being British subjects, saw that this vast field afforded
a sure and certain mode of safety and of honourable retreat, and
accordingly, in 1783, ten thousand (10,000) were enumerated in that
portion of Canada, who, under the proud title of United Empire
Loyalists, had turned their backs for ever upon the new-fangled
republicanism and treason of the country of their birth.
"The obstacles, privations, and miseries these people had to encounter
may readily be imagined in a country where the primeval forest covered
the earth, and where the only path was the river or the lake. They
ultimately were, however, blessed with success; and to this day the
original letters U.E., after the name of an applicant for land, ensure
its grant." (Sir Richard Bonnycastle's Canada Before 1837, Vol. I., pp.
24, 25.)]
CHAPTER XL.
BRIEF SKETCHES OF SOME INDIVIDUAL LOYALISTS--FIRST SETTLERS IN CANADA
AND OTHER BRITISH PROVINCES.
It is not possible to give biographical sketches of all the old
Loyalists, officers and soldiers. To do justice to their character and
merits would require a massive volume. Besides, the data for such a
volume are for the most part wanting. It is not the object of this
history to give a biography of the Loyalists; that must be done by
others, if attempted at all. The Loyalists were not writers, but
workers. Almost the only history of them has been written by their
enemies, whose object was to conceal the treatment they received, to
depreciate their merits and defame their character, for the vindication
of which it is only of late years that materials have been procured. It
is the object of this history to vindicate their character as a body, to
exhibit their principles and patriotism, and to illustrate their
treatment and sufferings.
The best, and indeed only biography of the Loyalists extant is Sabine's
"_American Loyalists, or Biographical Sketches of Adherents to the
British Crown in the War of the Revolution_,"--especially the first, not
the second edition. The author has more than once quoted the excellent
historical essay introductory to the sketches of this work, and from
which Dr. Canniff has enriched the pages of his valuable "_History of
the Settlement of Upper Canada, with special reference to the Bay of
Quinté_." From these sources we will condense brief notices of some of
the early Loyalists, preliminary to the information in regard to others
furnished us in the interesting letters and papers which follow. These
notices will further illustrate the character and sacrifices of the
Loyalist combatants--the treatment they received and the courage they
displayed.
1. _Samuel Anderson_, of New York, entered the service of the Crown, and
was a captain in the regiment of Sir John Johnson. In 1783 he settled
near Cornwall, Upper Canada, and received half-pay; held several civil
offices, such as those of Magistrate, Judge of the District Court,
Associate Justice of King's Bench, etc. He continued to reside on his
property near Cornwall until his decease in 1836, at the age of one
hundred and one. His property in New York was abandoned and lost.
2. _Rev. John Bethune_ (father of the late Bishop of Toronto), of North
Carolina, was chaplain to the Loyal Militia; was taken prisoner at the
battle of Cross Creek; was confined in jail, first at Halifax and
finally in Philadelphia. After his release, his continued loyalty
reduced him to great distress. He was appointed to the 84th Regiment and
restored to comfort. At the peace, he settled in Upper Canada, at
Williamston, near Cornwall, and died in 1815, at the age of sixty-five.
3. _Doane_, of Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Of this family there were
five brothers--Moses, Joseph, Israel, Abraham, and Mahlon. They were men
of fine figure and address, elegant horsemen, great runners and leapers,
and excellent at stratagems and escapes. Their father was respectable,
and possessed a good estate. The sons themselves, prior to the war, were
men of reputation and proposed to remain neutral; but harassed
personally, their property sold by the Whigs, because they would not
submit to the exactions of the time, they determined to avenge
themselves by a predatory warfare upon their persecutors, and to live in
the open air as best they could. They became the terror of the
surrounding country; they spared the weak, the poor, and the peaceful;
they aimed at public property and at public men. Generally their
expeditions were on horseback. Sometimes the five went together; at
other times separately, with accomplices. Whoever of them was
apprehended, broke jail; whoever of them was assailed, escaped. In a
word, such was their course, that a reward of £300 was offered for the
head of each. Ultimately, three were slain; Moses, after a desperate
fight, was shot by his captor; and Abraham and Mahlon were living at
Philadelphia. Joseph, before the revolution, taught school. During the
war, while on a marauding expedition, he was shot through the cheeks,
and was taken prisoner. He was committed to await his trial, but escaped
to New Jersey. A reward of $800 was offered for his apprehension, but
without success. He resumed his former employment in New Jersey and
lived there under an assumed name for nearly a year, but finally fled to
Canada. The only mention of Israel is that "in February, 1783, he
appealed to the Council of Pennsylvania to be released on account of his
own sufferings and the destitute condition of his family, and that his
petition was dismissed."
4. _Stephen Jarvis_, in 1782 was a lieutenant of cavalry in the South
Carolina Royalists; was in several battles; was in New Brunswick; after
the revolution came to Upper Canada, and died at Toronto in 1840, aged
eighty-four.
5. _William Jarvis_ was an officer of cavalry in the Queen's Rangers;
was wounded at the siege of Yorktown. At the Peace he settled in Upper
Canada, became Secretary of the Province, and died at York (Toronto) in
1817.
6. _David Jones_ was captain in the royal service, and the reputed
spouse or husband of the "beautiful and good Jane McCrea," whose cruel
death in 1777, by the Indians, on her way to join him, is so universally
known and lamented. He lived in Canada to an old age, but never married.
Jane McCrea was the daughter of the Rev. James McCrea, a Loyalist.
7. _Jonathan Jones_, of New York, was brother of Captain David Jones,
and assisted in the latter part of 1776 in raising a company in Lower
Canada, and joined the British garrison at Crown Point. Later in the war
he was captain under General Frazer.
8. _Captain Richard Lippincott_ was born in Shrewsbury, New Jersey, on
the 2nd of January, 1745. He was descended from an old colonial family,
and served during the revolution as a captain in the New Jersey
volunteers. He was married on the 4th of March, 1770, to Esther Borden,
daughter of Jeremiah and Esther Borden, of Bordentown, New Jersey. On
the outbreak of the revolution he warmly espoused the side of the Crown,
and was early in the war captured and confined in Burlington jail, from
which he escaped in the year 1776, and made his way to the British army
at Staten Island. During the remainder of the war he served with his
regiment. His connection with the execution of Captain Joshua Huddy, of
the rebel service, attracted a great deal of attention both in Europe
and America. Captain Huddy was a partisan officer of some repute in New
Jersey, and had been concerned in the murder of a Loyalist named Philip
White, who was a relative of Lippincott, and a resident of Shrewsbury.
One Edwards of the same neighbourhood had also been put to death about
the same time. Shortly after, Captain Huddy was captured and taken as
prisoner to New York. The "Board of Associated Loyalists of New York"
sent Captain Lippincott to Middleton Point, or Sandy Hook, with Captain
Huddy and two other prisoners, to exchange them for prisoners held by
the rebels. He was authorized to execute Huddy in retaliation for White,
who had already been put to death. Therefore, on the 12th of April,
1782, having exchanged the two other prisoners, Captain Lippincott hung
Huddy on a tree by the beach, under the Middleton Heights. In 1867 the
tree was still to be seen, and tradition keeps alive in the
neighbourhood the story connected with it. Captain Lippincott, who was
evidently only obeying orders, pinned a paper on Huddy's breast with the
following inscription:
"We, the Refugees, having long with grief beheld the cruel murders of
our brethren, and finding nothing but such measures carrying into
execution,--we therefore determine not to suffer without taking
vengeance for the numerous cruelties, and thus begin, having made use of
Captain Huddy as the first object to present to your view, and further
determine to hang man for man while there is a refugee existing.
"UP GOES HUDDY FOR PHILIP WHITE."
Washington, upon hearing of Huddy's death, demanded the surrender of
Captain Lippincott from the Royalist authorities, in order that he might
be put to death. This demand was refused, and Washington then ordered
the execution of one officer of equal rank to be chosen by lot from
among the prisoners in his hands. The lot fell upon Captain Asgill, of
the Guards, who was only nineteen years of age. The British authorities
secured a respite under promise of trying Captain Lippincott by
court-martial. After a full inquiry, Lippincott was honourably
acquitted. In the meantime, Lady Asgill, Captain Asgill's mother,
appealed to the Count de Vergennes, the French Minister, and, in
response to her most pathetic appeal, the Count was instructed by the
King and Queen of France, in their joint names, to ask of Washington the
release of Captain Asgill "as a tribute to humanity." Washington, after
a long delay, granted this request, but Asgill and Lippincott were not
set at liberty till the close of the war. Asgill lived to become a
general, and to succeed to his father's baronetcy.
After the war Captain Lippincott moved to New Brunswick, to a place
called Pennfield, where he lived till the fall of 1787, when he went to
England, where he remained till the end of 1788. He was granted half pay
as a captain of the British army, and in 1793 he moved from New
Brunswick to Canada, when he was granted for his U.E. Loyalist services
3,000 acres of land in the township of Vaughan, near Toronto.
He lived near Richmond Hill for many years. His only surviving child,
Esther Borden Lippincott, was married in 1806 to the late Colonel George
Taylor Denison, of Bellevue, Toronto, at whose house Captain Lippincott
died in 1826, aged eighty-one years. The family of Denisons of Toronto
are all descendants of Captain Lippincott through this marriage.
9. _McDonald._--There were many of this name who took part with the
loyal combatants, and of whom several settled in Canada.
Alexander McDonald was a major in a North Carolina regiment, and was the
husband of the celebrated Flora McDonald, who was so true and devoted to
Prince Charles Edward, the last of the Stuarts who sought the throne of
England. They had emigrated to North Carolina; and when the revolution
broke out, he, with two sons, took up arms for the Crown. Those who
settled in Canada were Donald McDonald, of New York, who served under
Sir John Johnson for seven years, and died at Wolfe Island, Upper
Canada, aged 97; and Allan McDonald, of Tryon (afterwards Montgomery),
New York, who was associated with Sir John Johnson in 1776, and died at
a great age, at Three Rivers, in Lower Canada, 1822.
10. _John McGill_ was, in 1782, an officer of infantry in the Queen's
Rangers, and at the close of the war went to New Brunswick; removed
thence to Upper Canada, became a man of note and member of the
Legislative Council, and died at Toronto, in 1834, at the age of
eighty-three.
11. _Donald McGillis_ resided at the beginning of the revolution on the
Mohawk river, New York. Embracing the royal side in the contest, he
formed one of a "determined band of young men," who attacked a Whig
post, and, in the face of a superior force, cut down the flag-staff and
tore in strips the stars and stripes attached to it. Subsequently he
joined a grenadier company called the Royal Yorkers, and performed
efficient service throughout the war. At the peace he settled in Canada;
and entering the British service again in 1812, was appointed captain in
the colonial corps by Sir Isaac Brock. He died at River Raisin, Canada,
in 1844, aged eighty years.
12. _Thomas Merrit_, of New York (father of the late Hon. W. Hamilton
Merrit), was in 1782 cornet of cavalry in the Queen's Rangers. He
settled in Upper Canada, and held the office of high sheriff of the
Niagara district. He died at St. Catharines, May, 1842, at the age of
eighty years.
_The Robinson family_ was one of the distinguished families in America
before, during, and after the revolution, and its members have filled
some of the most important offices in the provinces of Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, Lower and Upper Canada.
13. _Beverley Robinson_, of New York, was the son of the Honourable John
Robinson, of Virginia, who was President of that colony on the
retirement of Governor Gooch. He removed to New York, and married
Susanna, daughter of Frederick Phillipse, Esquire, who owned an immense
landed estate on the Hudson river. By this connection Mr. Robinson added
greatly to his wealth and became very rich. When the revolutionary
controversy commenced, he was living on that portion of the Phillipse
estate which had been given to his wife, and there he desired to remain
in the quiet enjoyment of country life, and in the enjoyment of his
large domains. That such was his inclination is asserted by the late
President Dwight, and is fully continued by circumstances and by his
descendants. He _was opposed to the measures of the British Ministry,
gave up the use of imported merchandize, and clothed himself and family
in fabrics of domestic manufacture_.
_But he was opposed to the separation of the colonies from the mother
country._ Still he wished to take no part in the conflict of arms. The
importunity of friends overruled his own judgment, and he entered the
military service of the Crown. Of the Loyal American Regiment, raised
principally in New York by himself, he was commissioned the colonel. He
also commanded the corps called Guides and Pioneers. Of the former, or
the Loyal Americans, his son Beverley was lieutenant-colonel, and Thomas
Barclay, major. He and Washington had been personal friends until
political events produced separation between them.
At the peace, Colonel Robinson, with a part of his family, went to
England. His name appears as a member of the first Council of New
Brunswick; but he never took his seat at the Board. His wife, with
himself, was attainted for high treason; in order to secure her property
to the Americans, she was included in the Confiscation Act of New York,
and the whole of the estate derived from her father passed from the
family. The value of her interest may be estimated from the fact that
the British Government granted her and her husband the sum of £17,000
sterling, which, though equal to $80,000, _was considered only a partial
compensation_.
Colonel Robinson has highly respectable descendants in New Brunswick as
well as in Canada. William Henry, who was afterwards King William the
Fourth, enjoyed Colonel Robinson's hospitality in New York at a later
date. The Robinsons were unquestionably immediate sufferers from the
events which drove them into exile. But though Colonel Robinson was not
amply compensated in money by the Government for which he sacrificed
fortune, home, and his native land, yet the distinction obtained by his
children and grand-children in the colonies, though deprived of their
inheritance, has not been without other and substantial recompense, as
no persons of the Loyalist descent have been more favoured in official
stations and powerful family alliances than the heirs of the daughters
of Frederick Phillipse, Susanna Robinson, and Mary Morris (see under the
names of Colonel Roger Morris and Colonel Thomas Barclay).