Parkman had already told the story of the Braddock campaign in his

_Conspiracy of Pontiac_,[1302] but, with the aid of some material

not accessible to Sargent, he retold it with greater fulness in his

_Montcalm and Wolfe_ (vol. i. ch. 7), and his story must now stand

as the ripest result of investigations in which Bancroft[1303]

and Sparks[1304] had been, as well as Sargent, his most fortunate

predecessors, for Irving[1305] has done scarcely more than to avail

himself gracefully of previous labors. The story as it first reached

England[1306] will be found in the _Gentleman’s Mag._, and, after it

began to take historic proportions, is given in Mante’s _Hist. of the

Late War in North America_, London, 1772, and in Entick’s _General

History of the Late War_, London, 1772-79.[1307] Braddock himself

was not a man of mark to be drawn by his contemporaries, yet we get

glimpses of his rather unenviable town reputation through the gossipy

pen of Horace Walpole[1308] and the confessions of the actress, George

Anne Bellamy,[1309] which Parkman and Sargent have used to heighten

the color of his portraiture. He did not, moreover, escape in his

London notoriety the theatrical satire of Fielding.[1310] His rise in

military rank can be traced in Daniel MacKinnon’s _Origin and Hist. of

the Coldstream Guards_, London, 1833. His correspondence in America is

preserved in the Public Record Office; and some of it is printed in the

_Colonial Records of Penna._, vi., and in _Olden Time_, vol. ii.[1311]

His plan of the campaign is illustrated in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vi. 942,

954.[1312] Of the council which he held at Alexandria with Shirley

and others, the minutes are given in the _Doc. Hist. New York_, ii.

648.[1313]

From Braddock’s officers we have letters and memoranda of use in the

history of the movement. The Braddock orderly books in the library

of Congress (Feb. 26-June 17, 1755) are printed in the App. of

Lowdermilk’s _Cumberland_, p. 495. The originals are a part of the

Peter Force Collection, and bear memoranda in Washington’s handwriting.

His quartermaster-general, Sir John St. Clair, had arrived as early

as January 10, 1755, to make preliminary arrangements for the march,

and to inspect Fort Cumberland,[1314] which the provincials had been

building as the base of operations.[1315]

From Braddock’s secretary, Shirley the younger, we have a letter dated

May 23, 1755, which, with others, is in the _Col. Rec. of Penna._,

vi. 404, etc. Of Washington, there is a letter used by Parkman in the

Public Record Office.[1316] Of Gage, there is a letter to Albemarle in

Keppel’s _Life of Keppel_, i. 213, and in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._,

xxxiv., p. 367, is a statement which Gage prepared for the use of

Chalmers. A letter of William Johnston, commissary, dated Philadelphia,

Sept. 23, 1755, is in the _Eng. Hist. Review_ (Jan., 1886), vol. i.

p. 150. A letter of Leslie (July 30, 1755), a lieutenant in the 44th

regiment, is printed in _Hazard’s Penna. Reg._, v. 191; and _Ibid._,

vi. 104, is Dr. Walker’s account of Braddock’s advance in the field.

Livingston, in his _Rev. of Military Operations_, 1753-56, gives a

contemporary estimate.[1317] Other letters and traditions are noted in

_Ibid._, iv. pp. 389, 390, 416.[1318] The depositions of some of the

wagoners, who led in the flight from the field, are given in _Col. Rec.

of Penna._, vi. 482.[1319]

The progress of events during the preparation for the march and the

final retreat can be gleaned from the _Dinwiddie Papers_. Sargent

found of use the _Shippen MSS._, in the cabinet of the _Penna. Hist.

Society_. A somewhat famous sermon, preached by Samuel Davies, Aug. 17,

1755, before an independent troop in Hanover County, Va., prophesying

the future career of “that heroic youth Col. Washington,”[1320] shows

what an impression the stories of Washington’s intrepidity on the

field were making upon observers. The list of the officers present,

killed, and wounded, upon which Parkman depends, is in the Public

Record Office.[1321]

The news of the defeat, with such particulars as were first transmitted

north, will be found in the _New Hampshire Provincial Papers_, vi.

413, and in Akins’ _Pub. Doc. of Nova Scotia_, 409, etc. The shock

was unexpected. Seth Pomeroy, at Albany, July 15, 1755, had written

that the latest news from Braddock had come in twenty-five days, by

an Indian a few days before, and it was such that, in the judgment

of Shirley and Johnson, Braddock was at that time in the possession

of Duquesne. (_Israel Williams MSS._, i. p. 154.) Governor Belcher

announced Braddock’s defeat July 19, 1755. _New Jersey Archives_,

viii., Part 2d, 117. In a letter to his assembly, Aug. 1 (_Ibid._, p.

119), he says: “The accounts of this matter have been very various, but

the most authentic is a letter from Mr. Orme wrote to Gov. Morris, of

Pennsylvania.”

Governor Sharp’s letters to Lord Baltimore and Charles Calvert are in

Scharf’s _Maryland_ (i. pp. 465, 466).

The Rev. Charles Chauncy, of Boston, embodied the reports as they

reached him (and he might have had excellent opportunity of learning

from the executive office of Governor Shirley) in a pamphlet printed at

Boston shortly after (1755), _Letter to a friend, giving a concise but

just account, according to the advices hitherto received, of the Ohio

defeat_.[1322]

Two other printed brochures are of less value. One is _The life,

adventures, and surprising deliverances of Duncan Cameron, private

soldier in the regiment of foot, late Sir Peter Halket’s_. _3d ed.,

Phila._, 1756 (16 pp.).[1323] The other is what Sargent calls “a

mere catch-penny production, made up perhaps of the reports of some

ignorant camp follower.” The _Monthly Review_ at the time exposed its

untrustworthiness. It is called _The expedition of Maj.-Gen’l Braddock

to Virginia, ... being extracts of letters from an officer, ...

describing the march and engagement in the woods_. London, 1755.[1324]

Walpole[1325] chronicles the current English view of the time.

There was a young Pennsylvanian, who was a captive in the fort, and

became a witness of the preparation for Beaujeu’s going out and of

the jubilation over the return of the victors. What he saw and heard

is told in _An Account of the Remarkable Occurrences in the life and

travels of Col. James Smith during his captivity with the Indians_,

1755-59.[1326]

Let us turn now to the French accounts. The reports which Sparks used,

and which are among his MSS. in Harvard College library, were first

printed by Sargent in his fourth appendix.[1327] These and other

French documents relating to the campaign have been edited by Dr. Shea

in a collection[1328] called _Relations diverses sur la bataille du

Malangueulé [Monangahela] gagné le 9 juillet 1755, par les François

sous M. de Beaujeu, sur les Anglois sous M. Braddock. Recueillies par

Jean Marie Shea. Nouvelle York_, 1860 (xv. 51 pp.).[1329]

Pouchot[1330] makes it clear that the French had no expectation of

doing more than check the advance of Braddock.

* * * * *

The peculiar difficulties which beset the politics of Pennsylvania

and Virginia at this time are concisely set forth by Sargent in the

introduction of his _Braddock’s Expedition_ (p. 61), and by Parkman

in his _Montcalm and Wolfe_ (vol. i. p. 329). Dulany’s letter gives a

contemporary view of these dissensions.[1331]

The apathy of New Jersey drew forth rebuke from the Lords of

Trade.[1332] Scharf[1333] describes the futile attempts of the governor

of Maryland to induce his assembly to furnish supplies to the army.

The belief was not altogether unpopular in Pennsylvania, as well as in

Virginia, that the story of French encroachments was simply circulated

to make the government support the Ohio Company in their settlement

of the country, and Washington complains that his report of the 1753

expedition failed to eradicate this notion in some quarters.[1334] In

Pennsylvania there were among the Quaker population unreconcilable

views of Indian management and French trespassing, and similar beliefs

obtained among the German and Scotch-Irish settlers on the frontiers

of the province, while the English churchmen and the Catholic Irish

added not a little to the incongruousness of sentiment. The rum of

the traders among the Indians further complicated matters.[1335]

This contrariety of views, as well as a dispute with the proprietary

governor over questions of taxation, paralyzed the power of

Pennsylvania to protect its own frontiers, when, following upon the

defeat of Braddock, the French commander thrust upon the settlements

all along the exposed western limits party after party of French and

Indian depredators.[1336] Dumas, now in command, issued orders enough

to restrain the barbarities of his packs, but the injunctions availed

nothing.[1337] Washington, who was put in command of a regiment of

borderers at Winchester, found it impossible to exercise much control

in directing them to the defence of the frontiers thereabouts.[1338]

Fears of slave insurrection and a hesitating house of burgesses

were quite as paralyzing in Virginia as other conditions were in

Pennsylvania, and the _Dinwiddie Papers_ explain the gloom of the hour.

For the Pennsylvania confusion, the views of the anti-proprietary

party found expression in the _Historical Review of the Constitution

and Government of Pennsylvania_, a “hotly partisan and sometimes

sophistical and unfair”[1339] statement, inspired and partly written by

Franklin, the leader in the assembly against the Penns.[1340] While the

quarrel went on, and the assembly was neglecting the petitions of the

borderers for the organization of a militia to protect them, the two

parties indulged in crimination and recrimination, and launched various

party pamphlets at each other.[1341] The _Col. Records of Penna._

(vol. vi.) chronicle the progress of this conflict. We get the current

comment in Franklin’s letters,[1342] in the histories of Pennsylvania,

and in such monographs as Edmund de Schweinitz’s _Life and Times of

David Zeisberger_ (Philad., 1870),—for the massacre at Gnadenhütten

brought the Moravians within the vortex, while the histories[1343] of

the missions of that sect reiterate the stories of rapine and murder.

Patience ceased to be a virtue, and a “Representation”[1344] to the

House was finally couched in the language of a demand for protection.

The assembly mocked and shirked; but the end came. A compromise was

reached by the proprietaries furnishing as a free gift the money which

they denied as a tax on their estates, and Franklin undertook to manage

the defence of the frontiers, with such force and munitions as were now

under command.[1345]

Any history of the acquisition of lands by the English, particularly by

Pennsylvania, shows why the Indians of the Ohio were induced at this

time to side with the French.[1346]

Pownall, in his treatise[1347] on the colonies, classified the Indian

tribes by their allegiance respectively to the English and French

interests.[1348] It is claimed that the Iroquois were first allured

by the Dutch, through the latter’s policy of strict compensation for

lands, and that the retention of the Iroquois to the English interests

arose from the inheritance of that policy by their successors at Albany

and New York.[1349]

* * * * *

Braddock’s instructions to Shirley for the conduct of the Niagara

expedition are printed in A. H. Hoyt’s _Pepperrell Papers_ (1874), p.

20. This abortive campaign does not occupy much space in the general

histories, and Parkman offers the best account. The _Massachusetts

Archives_ and the legislative _Journal_ of that province, as well as

Shirley’s letters, give the best traces of the governor’s efforts to

organize the campaign.[1350] Some descriptive letters of the general’s

son, John Shirley, will be found in the _Penna. Archives_, vol.

ii.[1351] The best contemporary narratives in print are found in _The

Conduct of Shirley briefly stated_, and in Livingston’s _Review of

Military Operations_.[1352]

* * * * *

The main dependence in the giving of the story of the Lake George

campaign of 1755 is, on the English side, upon the papers of Johnson

himself, and they are the basis of the _Life and Times of Sir William

Johnson_,[1353] which, being begun by William L. Stone, was completed

by a son of the same name, and published in Albany in 1865, in two

volumes.[1354] The preface states that Sir William’s papers, as

consulted by the elder Stone, consist of more than 7,000 letters and

documents, which were collected from various sources, but are in good

part made up of documents procured from the Johnson family in England,

and of the Johnson MSS. presented to the N. Y. State library by Gen.

John T. Cooper.[1355] An account of Johnson’s preparatory conferences

with the Indians (June to Aug., 1755) is printed in _N. Y. Col. Docs._,

vi. 964, etc., and in _Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., vi. 267-99.[1356] On

the 22d of August Johnson held a council of war at the great carrying

place,[1357] whence on the 24th he wrote a letter,[1358] while Col.

Blanchard, of the New Hampshire regiment, a few days later (Aug. 28-30)

chronicled the progress of events.[1359]

The account of the fight (Sept. 8), which Johnson addressed to the

governors of the assisting colonies, was printed in the _Lond. Mag._,

1755, p. 544.[1360]

The sixth volume of the _New York Col. Docs._ (London documents,

1734-1755) contains the great mass of papers preserved in the archives

of the State;[1361] but reference may also be made to vols. ii. 402,

and x. 355. The _Mass. Archives_ supplement them, and show many letters

of Shirley and Johnson about the campaign.[1362] In the _Provincial

Papers of New Hampshire_, vol. vi., there are various papers indicating

the progress of the campaign, particularly (p. 439) a descriptive

letter by Secretary Atkinson, dated Portsmouth, December 9, 1755, and

addressed to the colony’s agent in London. It embodies the current

reports, and is copied from a draft in the Belknap papers.[1363]

The jealousy between Massachusetts and New York is explained in part by

Hutchinson.[1364] The Massachusetts assembly complained that Johnson’s

chief communication was with New York, and, as was most convenient,

he sent his chief prisoners to the seaport of that province, while

they should have been sent, as the assembly said, to Boston, since

Massachusetts bore the chief burden of the expedition.[1365] It was

also complained that the £5,000 given by Parliament to Johnson was

simply deducted from the appropriation for the colonies.[1366]

The jealousy of the two provinces was largely intensified in

their chief men. Shirley did not hide his official eminence, and

had a feeling that by naming Johnson to the command of the Crown

Point expedition he had been the making of him. Johnson was not

very grateful, and gained over the sympathy of De Lancey, the

lieutenant-governor of New York.[1367]

[Illustration: DIESKAU’S CAMPAIGN.

Fac-simile of the map in the _Gentleman’s Mag._, xxv. 525 (Nov.,

1755), which is thus explained: “The French imagined the English army

would have crossed the carrying place from Fort Nicholson at G [B

in southeast corner?] to Fort Anne at F, and accordingly had staked

Wood Creek at C to prevent their navigation; but Gen. Johnson, being

informed of it, continued his route on Hudson’s River to H. The French

marched from C to attack his advanced detachments near the lake.

The dotted lines show their march. A, Lake George, or Sacrament. B,

Hudson’s River. C, Wood Creek. D, Otter Creek. E, Lake Champlain. F,

Fort Anne. G, Fort Nicholson. H, the place where Gen. Johnson beat the

French. H C, the route of the French.”

A copy of the map used by Dieskau on his advance, and found among his

baggage, as well as plans of the fort at Crown Point, are among the

Peter Force maps in the Library of Congress. A MS. “Draught of Lake

George and part of Hudson’s river taken Sept. 1756 by Joshua Loring”

is also among the Faden maps (no. 19); as is also Samuel Langdon’s MS.

_Map of New Hampshire and the Adjacent Country_ (MS.), with a corner

map of the St. Lawrence above Montreal, including observations of

Lieut. John Stark.]

Parkman received copies of the journal of Seth Pomeroy from a

descendant, and Bancroft had also made use of it. A letter of Pomeroy,

written to headquarters in Boston, is preserved in the _Massachusetts

Archives_, “Letters,” iv. 109. He supposed himself at that time the

only field-officer of his regiment left alive. The papers of Col.

Israel Williams are in the Mass. Hist. Soc. library,[1368] and give

considerable help. The campaign letters of Surgeon Thomas Williams,

of Deerfield, addressed chiefly to his wife (1755 and 1756), are in

the possession of William L. Stone, and are printed in the _Historical

Magazine_, xvii. 209, etc. (Apr., 1870).[1369] The French found in the

pocket of a captured English officer a diary of the campaign, of which

Parkman discovered a French version in the Archives of the Marine.

The Rev. Samuel Chandler, who joined the camp at Lake George in October

as chaplain of a Massachusetts regiment, kept a diary, in which he

records some details of the previous fights, as he picked them up

in camp, giving a little diagram of the ambush into which Williams

was led.[1370] In it are enumerated (p. 354) the various reasons,

as he understood them, on account of which the further pursuit of

the campaign was abandoned. Johnson’s chief of ordnance, William

Eyre, advised him that his cannon were not sufficient to attack

Ticonderoga.[1371] Parkman speaks of the text accompanying Blodget’s

print[1372] and the _Second Letter to a Friend_ as “excellent for

information as to the condition of the ground and the position of the

combatants.” Some months later, and making use of Blodget, Timothy

Clement also published in Boston another print, which likewise shows

the positions of the regiments after the battle and during the building

of Fort William Henry.[1373]

There are three contemporary printed comments on the campaign.

The first is a sequel to the letter written by Charles Chauncy on

Braddock’s defeat, which was printed at Boston, signed T. W., dated

Sept. 29, 1755, and called _A second Letter to a Friend; giving a more

particular narrative of the defeat of the French army at Lake George by

the New England troops, than has yet been published, ... to which is

added an account of what the New England governments have done to carry

into effect the design against Crown Point, as will show the necessity

of their being helped by Great Britain, in point of money_.[1374] This

and the previous letter were also published together under the title

_Two letters to a friend on the present critical conjuncture of affairs

in North America; with an account of the action at Lake George_,

Boston, 1755.[1375]

[Illustration:

NOTE.

The sketch on the other side of this leaf follows an engraving, unique

so far as the editor knows, which is preserved in the library of

the American Antiquarian Society. It is too defective to give good

photographic results. The print was “engraved and printed by Thomas

Johnston, Boston, New England, April, 1756.”

The key at the top reads thus: “(1.) The place where the brave Coll.

Williams was ambush^{’d} & killed, his men fighting in a retreat to the

main body of our army. Also where Cap^t. McGennes of York, and Cap^t.

Fulsom of New Hampshire bravely attack’d y^e enemy, killing many. The

rest fled, leaving their packs and prisoners, and also (2.) shews the

place where the valiant Col. Titcomb was killed, it being the westerly

corner of the land defended in y^e general engagement, which is

circumscribed with a double line, westerly and southerly; (3.) with the

s^d double line, in y^e form of our army’s entrenchments, which shows

the Gen. and each Col. apartment. (4.) A Hill from which the enemy did

us much harm and during the engagement the enemy had great advantage,

they laying behind trees we had fell within gun-shot of our front. (W.)

The place where the waggoners were killed.”

On the lower map is: “The prick^{’d} line from South bay shews where

Gen. Dieskau landed & y^e way he march^{’d} to attack our forces.”

The two forts are described: “Fort Edward was built, 1755, of timber

and earth, 16 feet high and 22 feet thick & has six cannon on its

rampart.”

“This fort [William Henry] is built of timber and earth, 22 feet

high and 25 feet thick and part of it 32. Mounts 14 cannon, 33 & 18

pounders.”

The dedication in the upper left-hand corner reads: “To his Excellency

William Shirley, esq., Captain general and Gov^r-in-chief in and

over his Majesty’s Province of the Massachusetts Bay in New England,

Major General and Commander-in-chief of all his Majesty’s land forces

in North America; and to the legislators of the several provinces

concerned in the expeditions to Crown Point,—this plan of Hudson River

from Albany to Fort Edward (and the road from thence to Lake George

as surveyed), Lake George, the Narrows, Crown Point, part of Lake

Champlain, with its South bay and Wood Creek, according to the best

accounts from the French general’s plan and other observations (by

scale No. 1) & an exact plan of Fort Edward & William Henry (by scale

No. 2) and the west end of Lake George and of the land defended on the

8^{th} of Sept. last, and of the Army’s Intrenchments afterward (by

scale 3) and sundry particulars respecting y^e late Engagement with the

distance and bearing of Crown Point and Wood Creek from No. 4, by your

most devoted, humble servant, TIM^O. CLEMENT, _Surv^r._ Have^l. Feb.

10, 1756.”]

The second is William Livingston’s _Review of the military operations

in North America from ... 1753 to ... 1756, interspersed with various

observations, characters, and anecdotes, necessary to give light into

the conduct of American transactions in general, and more especially

into the political management of affairs in New York. In a letter to a

nobleman_, London, 1757.[1376]

The third is, like the tract last named, a defence of the commanding

general of all the British forces in America, and is said to have been

written by Shirley himself, and is called _The Conduct of Major-General

Shirley, late General and Commander-in-Chief of his Majesty’s forces in

North America, briefly stated_, London, 1758.[1377]

Dwight, in his _Travels in New England and New York_ (vol. iii. 361),

and Hoyt, in his _Antiquarian Researches on the Indian Wars_ (p. 279),

wrote when some of the combatants were still living. Dwight was the

earliest to do General Lyman justice. Stone claims that the official

accounts discredit the story told by Dwight, that Dieskau was finally

shot, after his army’s flight, by a soldier, who thought the wounded

general was feeling for a pistol, when he was searching for his

watch.[1378]

Daniel Dulany, in a MS. Newsletter after the fashion of the day, gives

the current accounts of the fight.[1379]

The story of the fight had been early told (1851) by Parkman in his

_Pontiac_, revised in his second edition;[1380] and was again recast

by him in the _Atlantic Monthly_ (Oct., 1884), before the narrative

finally appeared in ch. ix. of the first volume of his _Montcalm and

Wolfe_.[1381]

[Illustration: FORT GEORGE AND TICONDEROGA.

After an inaccurate plan in the contemporary _Mémoires sur le

Canada_, 1749-1760, as published by the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec

(réimpression), 1873, p. 98. The French accounts often call Fort

William Henry Fort George. Cf. the map in Moore’s _Diary of the Amer.

Revolution_, i. p. 79.

The _Catal. of the King’s Maps_ (Brit. Mus.), i. 424, shows a drawn map

of the fort at the head of Lake George, under date of 1759, and (p.

425) another of the lake itself.]

On the French side, the official report of Dieskau[1382] was used by

Parkman in a copy belonging to Sparks, obtained from the French war

archives, and this with other letters of Dieskau—one to D’Argenson,

Sept. 14; another to Vaudreuil, Sept. 15—can be found in the _N. Y.

Col. Docs._, vol. x. pp. 316, 318 (Paris Documents, 1745-78),[1383] as

can the reports of Dieskau’s adjutant, Montreuil (p. 335), particularly

those of Aug. 31 and Oct. 1, which, with other papers, are also

preserved in the _Mass. Archives, documents collected in France_

(MSS.), ix. 241, 265.[1384] The report made by Vaudreuil,[1385] as

well as his strictures on Dieskau, is preserved in the Archives de la

Marine, as is a long account by Bigot (Oct. 4, 1755),—both of which

are used by Parkman. Cf. also the French narratives in the _Penna.

Archives_, 2d ser., vi. 320, 324, 330. There is also in this same

collection (p. 316) a Journal of occurrences, July 23 to Sept. 30,

1755, which is also in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. p. 337, where are

other contemporary accounts, like the letter of Doreil to D’Argenson

(p. 360) and those of Lotbinière (pp. 365, 369). The _Mémoires_ of

Pouchot is the main early printed French source; though there was a

contemporary _Gazette_, printed in Paris, which will be found in the

_N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. p. 383.

A paper in the Archives de la Guerre is thought by Parkman to have

been inspired by Dieskau himself, and, in spite of its fanciful form,

to be a sober statement of the events of the campaign. It is called

_Dialogue entre le Maréchal de Saxe et le Baron de Dieskau aux Champs

Elysées_.[1386] Some of the events subsequently related by Dieskau to

Diderot are noticed in the latter’s _Mémoires_ (1830 ed.), i. 402.

Henry Stevens, of London, offered for sale in 1872, in his _Bibliotheca

Geographica_, no. 553, a manuscript record of events between 1755

and 1760, which came from the family of the Chevalier de Lévis. It

purports to be the annual record of the French commanders in the

field, beginning with Dieskau, for six successive campaigns. Stevens,

comparing this record of Dieskau with such of the papers as are printed

in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, where they were copied from the documents as

they reached the government in France, says that the latter are shown

by the collection to have been “cooked up for the home eye in France,”

and that “we lose all sympathy for the unfortunate Dieskau.” Stevens

refers particularly to two long letters of Dieskau, Sept. 1 and 4, sent

to Vaudreuil.[1387]

* * * * *

The feeling was rapidly growing that the next campaign should be

a vigorous one. Gov. Belcher (Sept. 3, 1755) enforces his opinion

to Sir John St. Clair, that “Canada must be rooted out.”[1388] The

_Gentleman’s Magazine_ printed papers of similar import.

In November, 1755, Belcher had written to Shirley, “Things look to me

as if the coming year will be the criterion whereby we shall be able

to conclude whether the French shall drive us into the sea, or whether

King George shall be emperour of North America.”[1389] In December,

Shirley assembled a congress of governors at New York, and laid his

plans before them.[1390] When Shirley returned to Boston in Jan., 1756,

the _Journal_ of the Mass. House of Representatives discloses how

active he was in preparing for his projects.[1391] Stone[1392] portrays

the arrangements.

To Stone,[1393] too, we must turn to learn the efforts of Johnson

to propitiate the Indians,[1394] in which he was perplexed by the

movements in Pennsylvania and Virginia against the tribes in that

region.[1395] The printed contemporary source, showing Johnson’s

endeavors with the Indians, is the _Account of Conferences_, London,

1756, which may be complemented by much in the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._,

vols. i. and iv. Thomas Pownall published in New York, in 1756,

_Proposals for securing the friendship of the Five Nations_. As the

campaign went on, Johnson held conferences at Fort Johnson, July 21

(of which, under date of Aug. 12, he prepared a journal), and attended

later meetings at German Flats, Aug. 24-Sept. 3, and again at Fort

Johnson. These will be found in the _Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., vi.

461-496;[1396] and in the same volume, pp. 365-376, will be found

the conference of deputies of the Five Nations, July 28, 1756, with

Vaudreuil, at Montreal.[1397]

[Illustration: CROWN POINT CURRENCY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.

From an original bill in an illustrated copy of _Historical Sketches of

the Paper Currency of the American Colonies, by Henry Phillips, Jr._,

Roxbury, 1865,—in Harvard College library.]

The early events of the year, like the capture of Fort Bull,[1398] find

illustrations in various papers in the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, vol. i. 509,

and _N. Y. Col. Docs._ x. 403, with some local associations in Benton’s

_Herkimer County_.

The centre of preparation for the campaign during the winter was in

Boston, and Parkman[1399] shows the methods of military organization

which the New England colonies, with some detriment to efficiency

employed. He finds his material for the sketch in the manuscripts of

the _Mass. Archives_ (“Military”), vols. lxxv. and lxxvi., and in

equivalent printed papers in _R. I. Colonial Records_, v., and _N. H.

Provincial Papers_, vi. The latter colony issued bills this year, as

they had the previous season, called Crown Point currency, in aid of

the expedition, a fac-simile of one of which is annexed.[1400]

Another main source for these preliminaries, as well as for the routine

of the campaign later in Albany and at Lake George is the _Journal_ of

General John Winslow, who, after some coquetting with Pepperrell on

Shirley’s part, was finally selected for the command of the expedition

against Crown Point.[1401] The second volume of this journal, which is

in the library of the Mass. Hist. Society, covers Feb.-Aug., and the

third, Aug.-Dec., 1756. They consist of transcripts of letters, orders,

etc., chronologically arranged.

The volumes labelled “Letters” in the _Massachusetts Archives_ (MSS.)

contain various letters, which depict the condition of the camps and

the progress of the campaign. Parkman[1402] refers to them, as well as

to a report of Lieut.-Col. Burton to Loudon on the condition of the

camps,[1403] and to the journal of John Graham, a chaplain in Lyman’s

Connecticut regiment.[1404]

* * * * *

Shirley rightfully understood the value of Oswego to the colonies. As

Parkman[1405] says, “No English settlement on the continent was of such

ill omen to the French. It not only robbed them of the fur-trade, but

threatened them with military and political, no less than commercial

ruin.” The previous French governor, Jonquière, had been particularly

instructed to compass its destruction, above all by inciting the

Iroquois to do it, if possible, for the post was a menace in the eyes

of the Indians. Shirley hoped to redeem the failure of last year, and

he had the satisfaction of hearing of Bradstreet’s success in the midst

of the personal detraction which assailed him.[1406] The military

interest of the year, however, centres in the siege and fall of Oswego

(Aug. 14), introducing Montcalm on the scene.[1407] Capt. John Vicars,

a British officer who was with Bradstreet, gives an account of the

fortifications, which Parkman[1408] uses. The correspondence of Loudon

and Shirley in the English archives marks the progress of events.[1409]

Respecting the siege itself there is a letter, from an officer

present, in the _Boston Evening Post_, May 16, 1757. Stone[1410] uses

MS. depositions of two of the English prisoners who escaped from the

French.[1411] A declaration by soldiers of Shirley’s regiment is

printed in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vii. 126.

Of the contemporary printed sources, note must be made of the “State

of facts” in the _Lond. Mag._, 1757, p. 14; of the _Conduct of General

Shirley_, etc., p. 110; of Livingston’s _Review_; of _The military

history of Great Britain for 1756-57_. _Containing a letter from an

English officer at Canada, taken prisoner at Oswego, exhibiting the

cruelty of the French. Also a journal of the Siege of Oswego_, London,

1757.[1412]

Of somewhat less authority is a popular book, _French and Indian

cruelty exemplified in the life of Peter Wilkinson_, with “accurate

detail of the operations of the French and English forces at the siege

of Oswego.”[1413] Of a more general character are the accounts in

Mante,[1414] Smith,[1415] and Hutchinson.[1416]

Parkman, who sketches the early career of Montcalm,[1417] surveys the

chief French authorities on the siege, as gathered mainly from the

Archives of the Marine and those of War, at Paris;[1418] the _Livre des

Ordres_; Vaudreuil’s instructions to Montcalm, July 21; the journal of

Bougainville; the letters of Vaudreuil, Bigot, and Montcalm. The _N.

Y. Col. Docs._ (vol. x.) contain various translations of these,[1419]

including (p. 440) a journal of the siege transmitted by Montcalm;

other versions are in the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, vol. i.

There was printed at Grenoble, in 1756, a _Relation de la prise des

forts de Choueguen, ou Oswego, & de ce qui s’est passée cette année en

Canada_. A small edition was privately reprinted in 1882, from a copy

belonging to Mr. S. L. M. Barlow, of New York.[1420] Martin, in his _De

Montcalm en Canada_, ch. iii., presents the modern French view, as also

does Garneau, _Hist. du Canada_, 4th ed., vol. ii. 251. Maurault, in

his _Hist. des Abénakis_ (1866), tells the part of the Indians in the

siege.

Of the partisan warfare conducted by Rogers and Putnam, we have the

best accounts in the reports which the former made to his commanding

officer.[1421] These various reports constitute the volume which was

published in London in 1765 “for the author,” called _Journals of Major

Robert Rogers, containing an account of the several excursions he made

under the generals who commanded, during the late war_.[1422] Rogers’

Journals are written in a direct way, apparently without exaggeration,

but sometimes veil the atrocities which he had not screened in the

original reports.[1423] Parkman points out that the account of his

scout of Jan. 19, 1756, is much abridged in the composite _Journals_.

The exploits of Rogers are frequently chronicled in Winslow’s

_Journal_, and there are other notes in the _Mass. Archives_, vol.

lxxvi. Parkman cites Bougainville’s _Journal_ as giving the French

record.[1424] There is a contemporary account of one of Rogers’

principal actions, in what Trumbull[1425] calls “perhaps the rarest of

all narratives of Indian captivities.” The edition which is mentioned

is a second one, published at Boston in 1760, and Sabin[1426] does

not record the first. It is called _A plain narrative of the uncommon

sufferings and remarkable deliverance of Thomas Brown, of Charlestown

in New England, who returned to his father’s house the beginning of

Jan., 1760, after having been absent three years and about eight

months; containing an account of the engagement, Jan., 1757, in which

Captain Spikeman was killed and the author left for dead_.

Of Putnam’s exploits there is a report (Oct. 9, 1755) in the _Doc.

Hist. N. Y._, iv. p. 172. The _Life_ of Putnam by Humphreys chronicles

his partisan career, while that by Tarbox passes it over hurriedly.

Hollister’s and other histories of Connecticut give it in outline.

* * * * *

The circulars of Pitt to the colonies, asking that assistance be

rendered to Loudon, and (Feb. 4, 1757) urging the raising of additional

troops, is in _New Jersey Archives_, viii. Pt. ii. pp. 209, 241. There

are in the _Israel Williams MSS._ (Mass. Hist. Soc.) letters of Loudon,

dated Boston, Jan. 29 and Feb., 1757, respecting the organization of

the next campaign.

For the attack on Fort William Henry (1757) conducted by Rigaud,

Parkman[1427] cites, as usual, his MS. French documents,[1428] but

gives for the English side a letter from the fort (Mar. 26, 1757), in

the _Boston Gazette_, no. 106, and in the _Boston Evening Post_, no.

1,128; with notes of other letters in the _Boston News-Letter_, no.

2,860.

The best account yet published of Montcalm’s later campaign against

Fort William Henry (the Fort George of the French) is contained in

the last chapter of the first volume of Parkman’s _Montcalm and

Wolfe_.[1429]

On the French side there is the work of Pouchot, and Dr. Hough’s

translation of it (i. 101). The _Rough List_ of Mr. Barlow’s library

(no. 941) shows, as the only copy known, a _Relation de la prise du

Fort Georges, ou Guillaume Henry, situé sur le lac Saint-Sacrement, et

de ce qui s’est passé cette année en Canada_ (12 pp.), Paris, 1757.

Of the documentary evidence of the time Parkman makes full use. He

secured from the Public Record Office in London the correspondence

of Webb and a letter and journal of Colonel Frye, who commanded the

Massachusetts troops, and from these he gives extracts in his Appendix

F.[1430]

In the Paris documents as gathered (copies) in the archives at

Albany,[1431] and in the copies of other documents from France,

supplementing these, and contained in the series of MSS. given by Mr.

Parkman to the Mass. Historical Society, there are the _Journal_ of

Bougainville, “a document,” says Parkman, “hardly to be commended too

much,” the diary of Malartic, the correspondence of Montcalm, Lévis,

Vaudreuil, and Bigot. In adding to the graphic details of the theme,

there is a long letter of the Jesuit Roubaud, which is printed in the

_Lettres Edifiantes et Curieuses_.[1432]

Jonathan Carver, who was a looker-on, has given an account in his

_Travels_, which Parkman thinks is trustworthy so far as events came

under Carver’s eye.[1433]

The journals of the Montresors, father and son, Colonels James and

John, during their stay in 1757-59 in the neighborhood of Forts William

Henry and Edward, throw light upon the spirit of the time.[1434] They

are preserved in the family in England, and, edited by G. D. Scull,

have been printed in the _N. Y. Hist. Coll._, 1881, accompanied by

heliotypes of portraits of the two engineers.[1435]

Living at the time, and enjoying good advantages for acquiring

knowledge, Hutchinson, in his _Massachusetts_ (vol. iii. p. 60), might

have given us more than he does, but his purpose was mainly to show the

effect of the campaign upon that colony. It is noticeable, however,

that he says the victims of the massacre were not many in number. Most

later writers on the English side add little or nothing not elsewhere

obtainable.[1436]

Bancroft[1437] made use of a considerable part of the material

available to Parkman; but his latest revision does not add to his

earlier account.

Dwight, in his _Travels in New England and New York_,[1438] who

remembered the event as a child, expresses the view which long

prevailed in New England, that Montcalm made no reasonable effort to

check the Indians, and emphasizes the timidity and imbecility of Webb,

who lay at Fort Edward with 6,000 men, doing nothing. Dwight narrates

as from Captain Noble, who was present, that when Sir William Johnson

would gather volunteers from Webb’s garrison to proceed to Munro’s

assistance Webb forbade it.[1439]

Respecting the attack in the autumn (Nov. 28, 1757) on German Flats,

there are the despatches of Vaudreuil, the _Journal_ of Bougainville,

and papers in _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, i. 520, and _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x.

672, the latter being a French summary of M. de Belêtre’s campaign.

Loudon’s despatch to Pitt, Feb. 14, 1758, is the main English

source.[1440]

* * * * *

While Webb held the chief command at Albany, Stanwix was organizing,

with the help of Washington, the defence along the Pennsylvania and

Virginia borders, and Bouquet further south.[1441] The lives of

Washington and the histories of those provinces trace out the events

of the summer in that direction. The main thread of this history

is the precarious relation of the provinces with the Indians, and

much illustrative of this connection is found in the _Penna. Col.

Rec._, vol. vii. Dr. Schweinitz’s _Life of Zeisberger_ and the

various Moravian chronicles show how that people strove to act as

intermediaries.

The Delawares had not forgotten the deceit practised upon them at

Albany in 1754, in inveigling them into giving a deed of lands, and Sir

William Johnson was known to be in favor of revoking that fraudulent

purchase. Conferences with the Indians were numerous, even after the

spring opened.[1442] Johnson received the deputies of the Shawanese

and Delawares at Fort Johnson in April, and concluded a treaty with

them.[1443]

It boded no good that the Six Nations also, in April, had sent deputies

to Vaudreuil, and all through the spring the region north of the

Mohawk was the scene of rapine.[1444] The truth was, the successes of

the French had driven the westerly tribes of the Six Nations into a

neutrality, which might turn easily into enmity, and to confirm them in

their passiveness, and to incite the Mohawks and the easterly tribes

into active alliance, Johnson, who knew his life to be in danger,

summoned the deputies of the confederacy to meet him at Johnson Hall on

the 10th of June. His journal for some time previous to the meeting is

printed by Stone.[1445] Johnson accomplished all he could hope for. His

answer to the Senecas of June 16 is in the _Penna. Archives_, vi. 511.

Under his counsel, the final conclusion with the Indians farther south

was reached in a conference at Easton, in Pennsylvania, in July and

August.[1446]

* * * * *

Of the defeat of Rogers in March, which opened the campaign of 1758,

his own report after he got into Fort Edward, printed at the time in

the newspapers, is mainly given in his _Journals_, together with a long

letter of two British regular officers who accompanied him, and who in

the fight escaped capture, but wandered off in the woods, till hunger

compelled them to seek the French fort, whence by a flag of truce they

despatched (Mar. 28) their narrative. The French accounts are derived

from the usual documentary sources as indicated by Parkman (ii. p. 16).

* * * * *

The English historians of the war in Europe all describe the change

in political feeling which brought Pitt once more into power, with

popular sympathy to sustain him.[1447] The public had aroused to the

incompetency of the English military rule in America, and upon the

importance of making head there against the French, as a vantage

for any satisfactory peace in Europe.[1448] This revulsion is best

described in Parkman[1449] and in Bancroft.[1450] The letter of

Pitt recalling Loudon (who was not without his defenders[1451]), as

addressed to the governor of Connecticut, is in the Trumbull MSS., vol.

i. p. 127.

The condition of the camp at Lake George in the spring and early summer

is to be studied in the official papers, as well as in letters printed

in the _Boston News-Letter_ and in the _Boston Evening Post_.[1452]

Parkman describes from the best sources the fort and the outer

entrenchments.[1453]

* * * * *

The official reports on the English side of the fight on July 8th are

in the Public Record Office. The letter which Abercrombie addressed to

Pitt from Lake George, July 12, as it appeared in the _London Gazette

Extraordinary_, Aug. 22, is printed in the _N.Y. Col. Docs._, x. 728.

Dwight represents the opinions of Abercrombie’s generalship as current

in the colonies,[1454] and we read in Smith’s _New York_, vol. ii. p.

264, that the difficulty “appeared to be more in the head than the

body.” The diary of William Parkman, a youth of seventeen, who was in

a Massachusetts regiment, reflects the charitable criticism of his

troops, when the diarist calls their commander “an aged gentleman,

infirm in body and mind.”[1455] We have various other descriptions and

diaries from officers engaged.[1456]

Parkman[1457] collates the different authorities as respects the

losses on the two sides,[1458] and his details are the best of all

the later historians.[1459] Of the French contemporary accounts, which

are numerous, there are several from the Paris Archives in the Parkman

MSS., which have been used for the first time in his _Montcalm and

Wolfe_. Some of the more important ones are printed in the _N. Y. Col.

Docs._ x.[1460]

There is an account in Pouchot, and Chevalier Johnstone’s “Dialogue in

Hades” is in the _Transactions_ of the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec,

and summarized accounts in Martin’s _De Montcalm en Canada_, ch. vii.,

and in Garneau’s _Canada_, p. 279.[1461] For the life of the camp later

established at the head of Lake George, there are items to be drawn,

not only from the official reports, but from the _Israel Williams MSS._

Parkman (ii. 117) uses a diary of Chaplain Cleaveland. An orderly

book of Col. Jonathan Bagley, of a Connecticut regiment, covering

Aug. 20-Sept. 11, 1758, is in the library of the American Antiq.

Society.[1462] It indicates that the celebration at Lake George of

the victory at Louisbourg took place Aug. 28, as does an orderly book

of Rogers’ Rangers, covering Aug.-Nov., 1758, at Lake George and Fort

Edward.[1463]

Of the autumn scouting, there are letters in the _Boston Weekly

Advertiser_, the centre of interest being the fight between Rogers and

Morin.[1464]

Of the Frontenac expedition, Bradstreet’s own report to Abercrombie is

in the Public Record Office. Parkman uses it, as well as letters in the

_Boston Gazette_, no. 182; _Boston Evening Post_, no. 1,203; _Boston

News-Letter_, no. 2,932; _N. H. Gazette_, no. 104. The articles of

capitulation are in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 826. Smith (_New York_,

ii. 266), speaking of Bradstreet’s expedition, says he “rather flew

than marched.”[1465]

On the French side, there are the official documents, the _Mémoire sur

la Canada_, 1749-60 (published by the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec),

and Pouchot, i. 162.

The loss of Frontenac gave rise to a disagreement between Vaudreuil and

Montcalm as to the dispositions to be made upon Lake Ontario, and the

papers which passed between them are in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 866,

etc., as well as others on the conflict of their opinions respecting

the defence of Ticonderoga (_Ibid._, p. 873, etc.).

* * * * *

The main sources for the Duquesne expedition of 1758 are in the Public

Record Office, _America and West Indies_, including the correspondence

of Forbes.[1466] There are also papers in the _Col. Records of Penna._

and _Pennsylvania Archives_. The letters of Washington in Sparks’

_Washington_ (vol. ii.) may be supplemented by the fuller text of the

same, and by others, in _Bouquet and Haldimand Papers_, in the British

Museum. Washington’s letters to Bouquet are in _Additional MSS._, vol.

21, 641, of the British Museum, and there is a copy of them among the

Parkman MSS.[1467] There is a letter of a British officer in the _Gent.

Mag._, xxix. 171. For the new route made by Forbes, see Lowdermilk’s

_Cumberland_, p. 238. The routes of Braddock and Forbes are marked on

the map given in Sparks’ _Washington_, ii. 38, and Washington’s opinion

of their respective advantages is in _Ibid._, ii. 302.

Of Grant’s defeat, the principal fight of the campaign, there are

contemporary accounts in the _Penna. Gazette_,[1468] _Boston Evening

Post_, _Boston Weekly Advertiser_, _Boston News-Letter_, etc.; in

Hazard’s _Penna. Reg._, viii. 141; in _Olden Time_, i. p. 179. Grant’s

imprudence met with little consideration in England. (_Grenville

Correspondence_, i. 274.)

The account of Post’s embassy, July 15 to Sept., 1758, appeared

in London in 1759, as the _Second Journal of Christian Frederick

Post_.[1469]

Parkman,[1470] Bancroft,[1471] and Irving,[1472] of course, tell

the story of Forbes’s campaign,—the first with the best help to

sources.[1473]

* * * * *

The concomitants of the winter of 1758-59 in Canada must be studied

in order to comprehend the inequality of the two sides in the signal

campaign which was to follow. Parkman finds the material of this study

in the documents of the Archives de la Marine et de la Guerre in

Paris; in the correspondence of Montcalm, of which he procured copies

from the present representative of his family, including the letters

of Bougainville[1474] and Doreil[1475] on their Paris mission; and

in the letters of Vaudreuil, in the Archives Nationales.[1476] Much

throwing light on the strained relations between the general and

the governor will be found in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vol. x.[1477]

French representations of the situation in Canada are given in the

_Considérations sur l’État présent du Canada_, published by the

Literary and Historical Society of Quebec in 1840, sometimes cited as

Faribault’s _Collection de Mémoires_, no. 3. Further use may be made

of _Mémoire sur le Canada_, 1749-1760, _en trois parties_, Quebec,

1838.[1478]

The comparative inequality of the two combatants was a fruitful subject

of inquiry then, especially upon the French side. There is in the

_Penna. Archives_, 2d series, vi. 554, a French _Mémoire_, setting

forth their respective positions, needs, and resources, dated January,

1759, and similar documents are given in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x.

897, 925, 930.

Later writers, with the advantage of remoteness, have found much

for comment in the several characteristics, experiences, aims,

and abilities of the two warring forces. These are contrasted in

Warburton’s _Conquest of Canada_.[1479] Judge Haliburton[1480] points

out the great military advantages of the paternal and despotic

government of Canada. Viscount Bury, in his _Exodus of the Western

Nations_,[1481] compares the outcome of their opposing systems. Parkman

gives the last chapter of his _Old Régime in Canada_ to a vigorous

exposition of the subject. The institutional character of the English

colonists, developed from the circumstances of their life, is compared

with the purpose of the French colonists to reproduce France, in E. G.

Scott’s _Development of Constitutional Liberty in the English Colonies

of America_.[1482]

Among the later French authors, Rameau, in his _France aux Colonies_

(Paris, 1859), writes in full consciousness of the limitations and

errors of policy which deprived France of her American colonies.[1483]

The efforts which were made to propitiate the Indians before the

campaign opened are explained in Stone’s _Life of Johnson_, ii. ch. v.,

and in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vii. 378.

Upon the movement to render secure the new fort at Pittsburgh, Parkman

found in the Public Record Office, in London, letters of Col. Hugh

Mercer (who commanded), January-June, 1759; letters of Brigadier

Stanwix, May-July;[1484] and a narrative of John Ormsby, beside a

letter in the _Boston News-Letter_, no. 3,023. In the Wilkes Papers, in

the _Historical MSS. Commission Report, No. IV._, p. 400, are long and

interesting accounts of affairs at this time in Pennsylvania, written

from Philadelphia to Wilkes by Thomas Barrow (May 1, 1759).

The Niagara expedition was a mistake, in the judgment of some military

critics, since the troops diverted to accomplish it had been used more

effectually in Amherst’s direct march to Montreal. More expedition on

that general’s part in completing his direct march would have rendered

the fall of Niagara a necessity without attack. Perhaps the risk of

leaving French forces still west of Niagara, ready for a siege of Fort

Pitt, is not sufficiently considered in this view.[1485]

The Public Record Office yields Amherst’s instructions and letters to

Prideaux, and the letters of Johnson to Amherst. Stone[1486] prints

Johnson’s diary of the expedition, and the Haldimand Papers in the

British Museum throw much light.[1487] Letters of Amherst are in the N.

Y. State Library at Albany.

On the French side, the account in Pouchot’s _Mémoires sur la dernière

guerre_[1488] is that of the builder and defender of the fort.[1489]

His narrative is given in English in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 977, etc.,

as well as in Hough’s ed. of Pouchot. The letters of Vaudreuil from the

French Archives are in the Parkman MSS. The English found in the fort

a French journal (July 6-July 24, 1759), of which an English version

was printed in the _N. Y. Mercury_, Aug. 20, 1759. It is also given in

English in the _Hist. Mag._ (March, 1869), xv. p. 199.

For the Oswego episode, beside Pouchot,[1490] see _Mémoire sur le

Canada_, 1749-60, and a letter in the _Boston Evening Post_, no. 1,248.

The best recent accounts are in Parkman’s _Montcalm and Wolfe_, ii. ch.

26; Warburton’s _Conquest of Canada_, ii. ch. 9, and Stone’s _Life of

Johnson_, vol. ii.

Johnson’s diary, as given by Stone,[1491] shows how undecided, under

Amherst’s instructions, Gage was about attacking the French at La

Galette, on the St. Lawrence.

Gage, who, in August and September, 1759, was at Oswego, was much

perplexed with the commissary and transportation service, but got

relief when Bradstreet undertook to regulate matters at Albany.[1492]

* * * * *

While the expeditions of Stanwix and Prideaux constituted the left wing

of the grand forward movement, that conducted by Amherst himself was

the centre.

The letters of Amherst to Pitt and Wolfe are in the Public Record

Office in London,[1493] as well as a journal of Colonel Amherst,

a brother of the general. Mante and Knox afford good contemporary

narratives.[1494]

The best general historians are Parkman (ii. 235, etc.), Bancroft

(orig. ed., iv. 322; final revision, ii. 498); Warburton’s _Conquest

of Canada_, ii. ch. 8. For local associations, see Holden’s _Hist. of

Queensbury_, p. 343.[1495]

Bourlamaque’s account of his retreat is in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x.

1,054. Pitt’s letter, when he learned that Amherst had abandoned the

pursuit, is in _Ibid._, vii. 417.

Rogers sent to Amherst a letter about his raid upon the St. Francis

village, which was written the day after he reached the settlements on

the Upper Connecticut, and it makes part of his _Journals_. The story

was the subject of recitals at the time in the provincial newspapers,

like the _New Hampshire Gazette_ and the _Boston Evening Post_. Hoyt,

in his _Antiquarian Researches_ (p. 302), adds a few particulars from

the recollections of survivors.[1496]

In coming to the great victory which virtually closed the war on the

Heights of Abraham, we can but be conscious of the domination which

the character of Wolfe holds over all the recitals of its events, and

the best source of that influence is in the letters which Wright has

introduced into his life of Wolfe.[1497]

To the store of letters in Wright, Parkman sought to add others from

the Public Record Office, beside the secret instructions given by

the king to Wolfe and Saunders. The despatches of Wolfe, as well as

those of Saunders, Monckton, and Townshend, are found, of course, in

the contemporary magazines. A few letters of Wolfe, not before known,

preserved among the Sackville Papers, have recently been printed in

the _Ninth Report_ of the Hist. MSS. Commission, Part iii. pp. 74-78.

(_Brit. Doc. Reports_, 1883, vol. xxxvii.)[1498]

There is a printed volume which is known as _Wolfe’s instructions to

young officers_ (2d ed., London, 1780), which contains his orders

during the time of his service in Canada. Manuscript copies of it,

seemingly of contemporary date, are occasionally met with, and usually

begin with orders in Scotland in 1748, and close with his last order

on the “Sutherland,” Sept. 12, 1759.[1499] The general orders of the

Quebec campaign, given at greater length than in these _Instructions_,

have been printed in the _Hist. Docs., 4th ser._, published by the Lit.

and Hist. Soc. of Quebec. Various orders are given in the _Address_ of

Lorenzo Sabine, on the centennial of the battle.[1500]

A large number of contemporary journals and narratives of the siege of

Quebec, both on the English and French sides, have been preserved, most

of which have now been printed.[1501]

The letters of Montcalm in the Archives de la Marine mostly pertain to

events antecedent to the investment of Quebec. The letters of Vaudreuil

are in the Archives Nationales,[1502] while those of Bigot, Lévis, and

Montreuil are in the Archives de la Marine et de la Guerre.[1503]

Parkman has a note[1504] on the contemporary accounts of Montcalm’s

death[1505] and burial, and in the _Mercure Français_ is an _éloge_ on

the French general, which is attributed to Doreil. Some recollections

of Montcalm in his last hours are given in a story credited to Joseph

Trahan, as told in the _Revue Canadienne_, vol. iv. (1867, p. 850) by

J. M. Lemoine, in a paper called “Le régiment des montagnards écossais

devant Quebec, en 1759,” which in an English form, as “Fraser’s

Highlanders before Quebec,” is given in Lemoine’s _Maple Leaves_, new

series, p. 141.

There is a story, told with some contradictions, that Montcalm

entrusted some of his letters to the Jesuit Roubaud. Parkman, in

referring to the matter, cites[1506] Verreau’s report on the Canadian

Archives (1874, p. 183), and the “Deplorable Case of M. Roubaud,” in

_Hist. Mag._, xviii. 283.[1507]

Referring to the principal English contemporary printed sources,

Parkman (ii. 194) says that Knox, Mante, and Entick are the best.

Knox’s account is reprinted by Sabine in an appendix. Using these

and other sources then made public, Smollett has told the story very

intelligently in his _History of England_, giving a commensurate

narrative in a general way, and has indicated the military risks

which the plan of the campaign implied. The summary of the _Annual

Register_[1508] is well digested.

In the _Public Documents of Nova Scotia_ there are papers useful to the

understanding of the fitting out of the expedition.

Jefferys intercalated in 1760, in his _French Dominions in North

America_, sundry pages, to include such a story of the siege as he

could make at that time.[1509]

Of the later English writers on the siege, it is enough barely to

mention some of them.[1510]

Parkman first told the story in his _Pontiac_ (vol. i. 126), erring

in some minor details, which he later corrected when he gave it more

elaborate form in the _Atlantic Monthly_ (1884), and engrafted it

(1885) in final shape in his _Montcalm and Wolfe_ (vol. ii.).

The recent histories of Canada, like Miles’, etc., and such general

works as Beatson’s _Naval and Mil. Memoirs_ (ii. 300-308), necessarily

cover the story; and there is an essay on Montcalm by E. S. Creasy,

which originally appeared in _Bentley’s Magazine_ (vol. xxxii.

133).[1511] Carlyle repeats the tale briefly, but with characteristic

touches, in his _Friedrich II._ (vol. v. p. 555).

On the French side the later writers of most significance, beside the

general historian of Canada, Garneau,[1512] are Felix Martin in his_

De Montcalm en Canada_ (1867), ch. 10, which was called, in a second

edition, _Le Marquis de Montcalm et les dernières années de la colonie

Française au Canada_, 1756-1760 (3d ed., Paris, 1879); and Charles de

Bonnechose in his _Montcalm et le Canada Français_, which appeared in a

fifth edition in 1882.[1513]

As to the forces in the opposing armies, and the numbers which the

respective generals brought into opposition on the Heights of Abraham,

there are conflicting opinions. Parkman[1514] collates the varying

sources. Cf. also Martin’s _De Montcalm en Canada_, p. 196; Miles’

_Hist. of Canada_, app., etc.; _Collection de Manuscrits_ (Quebec), iv.

229, 230.

The record of the council of war (Sept. 15) which Ramezay held after he

found he had been left to his fate by Vaudreuil is given in Martin’s

_De Montcalm en Canada_ (p. 317), and in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._,

x. 1007. Ramezay prepared a defence against charges of too easily

succumbing to the enemy, and this was printed in 1861 by the Lit. and

Hist. Soc. of Quebec, as _Mémoire du Sieur de Ramezay, Commandant à

Quebec, au sujet de la reddition de cette ville, le 18 septembre, 1759,

d’après un manuscrit aux Archives du Bureau de la Marine à Paris_. The

paper is accompanied by an appendix of documentary proofs, including

the articles of capitulation, which are also to be found in the

appendix of Warburton’s _Conquest of Canada_ (vol. ii. p. 362), _N. Y.

Col. Docs._, x. 1011, and in Martin (p. 317).

[Illustration: TOWNSHEND.

From Doyle’s _Official Baronage_, iii. 543.]

It has been kept in controversy whether Vaudreuil really directed

Ramezay to surrender,[1515] but the note sent by Vaudreuil to Ramezay

at nine in the evening, Sept. 13, instructing him to hoist the white

flag when his provisions failed, is in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 1004.

General Townshend returned to England, and when he claimed more than

his share of the honors[1516] a _Letter to an Honourable Brigadier

General_ (London, 1760) took him sharply to task for it, and rehearsed

the story of the fight.[1517] This tract was charged by some upon

Charles Lee, but when it was edited by N. W. Simons, in 1841, an

attempt by parallelisms of language, etc., was made to prove the

authorship of Junius in it. It was answered by _A refutation of a

letter to an Hon. Brigadier by an officer_.[1518] Parkman calls it

“angry, but not conclusive.” There were other replies in the _Imperial

Magazine_, 1760. Sabine, in his address, epitomizes the statements of

both sides.

On the 17th of January, 1760, Pitt addressed Amherst respecting the

campaign of the following season,[1519] and on April 27th Amherst

addressed the Indians in a paper dated Fort George, N. Y., April

27.[1520] Letters had passed between Amherst and Johnson in March,

about the efforts which were making by a conference at Fort Pitt to

quiet the Indians in that direction.[1521] Later there were movements

to scour the country lying between Fort Pitt and Presqu’isle, as shown

in the Aspinwall Papers,[1522] where[1523] there is a fac-simile of a

sketch of the route from Fort Pitt, passing Venango and Le Bœuf, which

Bouquet sent to Monckton in August, 1760.

The earliest description of this country after it came into English

hands is in a journal (July 7-17, 1760) by Capt. Thomas Hutchins, of

the Sixtieth Regiment, describing a march from Fort Pitt to Venango,

and from thence to Presqu’isle, which is printed in the _Penna. Mag. of

Hist._ (ii. 849).

Bourlamaque, in a _Mémoire sur Canada_, which he wrote in 1762,

presents Quebec as the key to the military strength of the

province.[1524]

The interest of the winter and spring lies in the vigorous efforts of

Lévis to recover Quebec. The English commander, Murray, kept a journal

from the 18th of September till the 25th of May. The original was in

the London War Office, and Miles used a copy from that source. Parkman

records it as now being in the Public Record Office,[1525] and says

it ends May 17; and the reprint of the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec

credits it to the same source, in their third series (1871).

Parkman[1526] refers to a plan among the King’s Maps (Brit. Mus.) of

the battle and situation of the British and French on the Heights of

Abraham, 28 April, 1760.

This engagement is sometimes called the battle of Sillery, though the

more common designation is the battle of Ste. Foy.

Murray’s despatch to Amherst, April 30, is among the Parkman Papers,

and that to Pitt, dated May 25, 1760, is in Hawkins’ _Picture of

Quebec_, and in W. J. Anderson’s _Military Operations at Quebec from

Sept. 18, 1759, to May 18, 1760_, published by the Lit. and Hist. Soc.

of Quebec (1869-70), and also separately. It is a critical examination

of the sources of information respecting the battle, particularly as to

the forces engaged. Parkman (ii., app., p. 442) examines this aspect

also.

We have on the English side the recitals of several eye-witnesses.

Knox[1527] was such. So were Mante, Fraser, and Johnson; the journals

of the last two are those mentioned on a preceding page. Parkman, who

gives a list of authorities,[1528] refers to a letter of an officer of

the Royal Americans at Quebec, May 24, 1760, printed in the _London

Magazine_, and other contemporary accounts are in the _Gentleman’s_ and

_English Magazine_ (1760). There is also a letter in the _N. Y. Geneal.

and Biog. Record_, April, 1872, p. 94.

The principal French contemporary account is that of Lévis, _Guerre

du Canada, Relation de la seconde Bataille de Québec et du Siége de

cette ville_,—a manuscript which, according to Parkman, has different

titles in different copies, and some variations in text. Vaudreuil’s

instructions to Lévis are in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 1069. There is

a journal of the battle annexed to Vaudreuil’s letter to Berryer, May

3, 1760, in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 1075, 1077. The Parkman MSS. have

also letters of Bourlamaque and Lévis, and there is something to be

gleaned from Chevalier Johnston and the _Relation_ of the hospital nun,

already referred to.

Of the modern accounts by the Canadian historians, Lemoine[1529] calls

that of Garneau[1530] the best, and speaks of it as collated from

documents, many of which had never then (1876) seen the light. Smith

takes a view quite opposite to Garneau’s, and Lemoine[1531] charges him

with glossing over the subject “with striking levity.”[1532]

Col. John Montresor was in the force which Murray led up the river to

Montreal, and we have his journal, July 14-Sept. 8, 1760, in the _N. Y.

Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1881, p. 236.

For the progress of the converging armies of Amherst and Haviland,

there are the histories of Mante and Knox and the journals of Rogers.

Parkman adds a tract printed in Boston (1760), _All Canada in the hands

of the English_. Beside the official documents of the Parkman MSS.,

he also cites a _Diary of a sergeant in the army of Haviland_, and a

_Journal of Colonel Nathaniel Woodhull_.[1533] There is a glimpse of

the condition of the country to be got from the _Travels and Adventures

of Alexander Henry in Canada and the Indian territory_, 1760-1776 (New

York, 1809).

Amherst’s letter to Monckton on the capture of Fort Lévis is in the

Aspinwall Papers (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xxxix. 307), and reference

may be made to Pouchot (ii. 264), Mante (303), and Knox (ii. 405).[1534]

Parkman uses the _Procès verbal_ of the council of war which Vaudreuil

held in Montreal; and the terms of the capitulation (Sept. 8, 1760)

can be found in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 1107; Miles’ _Canada_, 502;

Bonnechose’s _Montcalm et le Canada_ (app.); and Martin’s _De Montcalm

en Canada_ (p. 327), and his _Marquis de Montcalm_ (p. 321).

The protest which Lévis uttered against the terms of the capitulation

is in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 1106, with his reasons for it (p.

1123).

The circular letter about the capitulation which Amherst sent to the

governors of the colonies is in the _Aspinwall Papers_.[1535]

Parkman’s[1536] is the best recent account of this campaign, though it

is dwelt upon at some length by Smith and Warburton.

Gage was left in command at Montreal; Murray returned to Quebec

with 4,000 men; while Amherst, by the last of September, was in New

York.[1537]

Rogers’s own _Journals_ make the best account of his expeditions

westward[1538] to receive the surrender of Detroit and the extremer

posts. Parkman, who tells the story in his _Pontiac_ (ch. 6), speaks

of the journals as showing “the incidents of each day, minuted down in

a dry, unambitious style, bearing the clear impress of truth.” Rogers

also describes the interview with Pontiac in his _Concise Account of

North America_, Lond., 1765. Cf. _Aspinwall Papers_ (_Mass. Hist. Soc.

Coll._, xxxix. 362) for Croghan’s journal[1539] and (_Ibid._, pp. 357,

387) for letters on the surrender of Detroit.[1540]

Later Lieutenant Brehm was sent as a scout from Montreal to Lake Huron,

thence to Fort Pitt, and his report to Amherst, dated Feb. 23, 1761, is

in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg., 1883_, p. 22.

Philippe Aubert de Gaspé, in _Les Anciens Canadiens_ (1863), attempts,

as he says, to portray the misfortunes which the conquest brought on

the greater portion of the Canadian _noblesse_.[1541] There is a sad

story of the shipwreck on Cape Breton of the “Auguste,” which in 1761

was bearing a company of these expatriated Canadians to France, and one

of them, M. de la Corne Saint-Luc, has left a _Journal du Naufrage de

l’Auguste_, which has been printed in Quebec.[1542]

The trials of Bigot and the others in Paris elicited a large amount

of details respecting the enormities which had characterized the

commissary affairs of Canada during the war. Cf. “Observations on

certain peculations in New France,” in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 1129.

There is in Harvard College library a series of the printed reports and

judgments in the matter.[1543]

Mr. Parkman has published in _The Nation_ (Apr. 15, 1886) an account

of a MS. lately acquired by the national library at Paris, _Voyage au

Canada dans le Nord de l’Amérique Septentrionale fait depuis l’an 1751

à 1761 par T. C. B._, who participated in some of the battles of the

war; but the account seems to add little of consequence to existing

knowledge, having been written (as he says, from notes) thirty or forty

years after his return. It shows, however, how the army store-keepers

of the French made large fortunes and lost them in the depreciation of

the Canadian paper money.

NOTES.

=A.= INTERCOLONIAL CONGRESSES AND PLANS OF UNION.—The confederacy

which had been formed among the New England colonies in 1643 had

lasted, with more or less effect, during the continuance of the

colonial charter of Massachusetts.[1544] As early as 1682 Culpepper,

of Virginia, had proposed that no colony should make war without the

concurrence of Virginia, and Nicholson, eight or ten years later,

had advocated a federation. In 1684 there had been a convention at

Albany, at which representatives of Massachusetts, New York, Maryland,

and Virginia had met the sachems of the Five Nations.[1545] In 1693

Governor Fletcher, by order of the king, had called at New York a

meeting of commissioners of the colonies, which proved abortive.

Those who came would not act, because others did not come. In 1694

commissioners met at Albany to frame a treaty with the Five Nations,

and Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey were

represented. A journal of Benjamin Wadsworth, who accompanied the

Massachusetts delegates, is printed in the _Mass. Hist. Collections_,

xxii. 102. This journal was used by Holmes in his _Amer. Annals_, 2d

ed., i. p. 451.

Such were the practical efforts at consolidating power for the common

defence, which the colonies had taken part in up to the end of the

seventeenth century. We now begin to encounter various theoretical

plans for more permanent unions.[1546] In 1698 William Penn devised a

scheme which is printed in the _New York Colonial Documents_, iv. 296.

In the same year Charles Davenant prepared a plan which is found in

Davenant’s _Political and Commercial Works_, vol. ii. p. 11.[1547] In

1701 we find a plan, by a Virginian, set forth in an _Essay upon the

government of the English plantations_;[1548] and one of the same year

(May 13, 1701) by Robert Livingston, suggesting three different unions,

is noted in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, iv. 874.

In 1709 another temporary emergency revived the subject. Colonel Vetch

convened the governors of New England at New London (Oct. 14) for a

concert of action in a proposed expedition against Canada, but the

failure of the fleet to arrive from England cut short all effort.[1549]

Again in 1711 (June 21) the governors of New England assembled at the

same place, to determine the quotas of their respective colonies for

the Canada expedition, planned by Nicholson; and later in the year, the

same New England governments invited New York to another conference,

but it came to naught.

In 1721 there was a plan to place a captain-general over the colonies.

(Cf. a Representation of the Lords of Trade to the King, in _N. Y. Col.

Docs._, v. p. 591.)

On Sept. 10, 1722, Albany was the scene of another congress, at which

Pennsylvania and New York joined to renew a league with the Five

Nations; and a few days later (Sept. 14), Virginia having joined them,

they renewed the conference. (Cf. _N. Y. Col. Docs._, v. 567.)

The same year, 1722, Daniel Coxe,[1550] in his _Carolana_, offered

another theory of union.

In June, 1744, George Clinton, of New York, submitted to a convocation

of deputies from Massachusetts a plan of union something like the

early New England confederacy. The Six Nations sent their sachems.

On July 23, 1748, there was another conference for mutual support at

Albany, at which the Six Nations met the deputies of New York and

Massachusetts.

In 1751, Clinton, of New York, invited representatives of all the

colonies from New Hampshire to South Carolina to meet the Six Nations

for compacting a league. The journal of the commissioners is in the

_Mass. Archives_, xxxviii. 160.[1551]

In 1751, Archibald Kennedy, in his tract _The importance of gaining

and preserving the friendship of the Indians to the British interest

considered_, N. Y., 1751, and London, 1752 (Carter-Brown, iii. 955,

975), developed a plan of his own.[1552]

In 1752 Governor Dinwiddie advocated distinct northern and southern

confederacies.

In June, 1754, the most important of all these congresses convened

at Albany,[1553] under an order from the home government. The chief

instigator of a union was Shirley,[1554] and the most important

personage in the congress was Benjamin Franklin, who was chiefly

instrumental in framing the plan finally adopted, though it failed

in the end of the royal sanction as too subversive of the royal

prerogative, while it lost the support of the several assemblies in the

colonies because too careful of the same prerogative. Franklin himself

later thought it must have hit a happy and practicable mean, from this

diversity of view in the crown and in the subject.

This plan, as it originally lay in Franklin’s mind, is embodied in his

“Short Hints towards a Scheme for uniting the Northern Colonies,” which

is printed in _Franklin’s Works_.[1555] This draft Franklin submitted

to James Alexander and Cadwallader Colden, and their comments are given

in _Ibid._, pp. 28, 30, as well as Franklin’s own incomplete paper (p.

32) in explanation.

It was Franklin’s plan, amended a little, which finally met with the

approval of all the commissioners except those from Connecticut.

This final plan is printed, accompanied by “reasons and motives for

each article,” in Sparks’s ed. of _Franklin’s Works_, i. 36.[1556]

An original MS. journal of the congress is noted in the _Carter-Brown

Catalogue_, iii. no. 1,067. The proceedings have been printed in

O’Callaghan’s _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, ii. 545; in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._,

vi. 853; in _Pennsylvania Col. Records_, vi. 57; and in the _Mass.

Hist. Soc. Collections_, xxv. p. 5, but this last lacks the last day’s

proceedings. Cf. rough drafts of plans in _Mass. Hist. Coll._, vii.

203, and _Penna. Archives_, ii. 197; also see _Penna. Col. Rec._, v.

30-97. There are some contemporary extracts from the proceedings of the

congress of 1754 in a volume of _Letters and Papers_, iv. (1721-1760),

in Mass. Hist. Soc. Library.

We have four accounts of the congress from those who were

members.[1557]

Pownall read (July 11, 1754) at the congress a paper embracing

“Considerations towards a general plan of measures for the colonies,”

which is printed in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vi. 893, and in _Penna.

Archives_, 2d ser., vi. 197.

At the same time William Johnson brought forward a paper suggesting

“Measures necessary to be taken with the Six Nations for defeating the

designs of the French.” It is printed in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vi. 897;

_Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., vi. 203.

Shirley (Oct. 21, 1754) wrote to Morris, of Pennsylvania, urging him to

press acquiescence in the plan of union. (_Penna. Archives_, ii. 181.)

Shirley’s own comments on the Albany plan are found in his letter,

dated Boston, Dec. 24, 1754, and directed to Sir Thos. Robinson, which

is printed in the _Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., vi. 213, and in _N. Y.

Col. Docs._, vi. 930. During this December Franklin was in Boston, and

Shirley showed to him the plan, which the government had proposed,

looking to taxing the colonies for the expense of maintaining the

proposed union. Franklin met the scheme with some letters, afterwards

brought into prominence when taxation without representation was

practically enforced. These Franklin letters were printed in a London

periodical in 1766, and again in _Almon’s Remembrancer_ in 1776. They

can best be found in Sparks’s ed. of _Franklin’s Works_, vol. iii. p.

56.[1558]

Livingston’s references to the congress are in his _Review of Military

Operations_ (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, vii. 76, 77).

A list of the delegates to the congress is given in _Franklin’s Works_,

iii. 28, in Foster’s _Stephen Hopkins_, ii. 226, and elsewhere.

The report of the commissioners on the part of Rhode Island is printed

in the _R. I. Col. Records_, v. 393. The report of the commissioners of

Connecticut, with the reasons for rejecting the plan of the congress,

is in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, vii. 207, 210.

There is much about the congress in the _Doc. Hist. New York_, i.

553-54; ii. 545, 564, 570-71, 589-91, 605, 611-15, 672.

Of the later accounts, that given by Richard Frothingham in his _Rise

of the Republic_ is the most extensive and most satisfactory.[1559]

After the Albany plan had been rejected by the Massachusetts

assembly, another plan, the MS. of which in Hutchinson’s hand exists

in the _Mass. Archives_, vi. 171,[1560] was brought forward in the

legislature. It was intended to include all the colonies except Nova

Scotia and Georgia. It failed of acceptance. It is printed in the

appendix of Frothingham’s _Rise of the Republic_.

Pownall suggested, in his _Administration of the Colonies_, a plan

for establishing barrier colonies beyond the Alleghanies, settling

them with a population inured to danger, so that they could serve as

protectors of the older colonies, in averting the enemy’s attacks.

Franklin shared his views in this respect. (Cf. _Franklin’s Works_,

iii. 69, and also _Pennsylvania Archives_, ii. 301, vi. 197.)

Among the Shelburne Papers (_Hist. MSS. Commissioners’ Report_, no.

5, p. 218) is a paper dated at Whitehall, Oct. 29, 1754, commenting

upon the Albany congress, and called “A Representation[1561] to the

King of the State of the Colonies,” and “A Plan for the Union of the

Colonies,” signed August 9, 1754, by Halifax and others.[1562] This

was the plan already referred to, presented by the ministry in lieu of

the one proposed at Albany, which had been denied. Bancroft (_United

States_, orig. ed., iv. 166) calls it “despotic, complicated, and

impracticable.” It is named in the draft printed in the _New Jersey

Archives_, 1st ser., viii., Part 2d, p. 1, as a “Plan by the Lords of

Trade of general concert and mutual defence to be entered into by the

colonies in America.”

In the interval before it became a serious question of combining

against the mother country, two other plans for union were urged. John

Mitchell (_Contest in America_) in 1757 proposed triple confederacies,

and in 1760 a plan was brought forward by Samuel Johnson. (_N. Y. Col.

Docs._, vii. 438.)

=B.= CARTOGRAPHY OF THE ST. LAWRENCE AND THE LAKES IN THE EIGHTEENTH

CENTURY.—Various extensive maps of the St. Lawrence River were made in

the eighteenth century. Chief among them may be named the following:—

There is noted in the _Catal. of the Lib. of Parliament_ (Toronto,

1858, p. 1619, no. 65) a MS. map of the St. Lawrence from below

Montreal to Lake Erie, which is called “excellent à consulter,” and

dated 1728.

Popple’s, in 1730, of which a reduction is given in Cassell’s _United

States_, i. 420.

A “Carte des lacs du Canada, par N. Bellin, 1744,” is in Charlevoix,

iii. 276.

A map of Lake Ontario by Labroguerie (1757) is noted in the _Catal. of

the King’s Maps_ (Brit. Mus.), ii. 112.

General Amherst caused sectional maps to be made by Captain Holland

and others, which are noted in the _Catal. of the King’s Maps_ (Brit.

Mus.), i. 608.

Subsequent to the conquest of 1760, General Murray directed Montresor

to make a map of the St. Lawrence from Montreal to St. Barnaby Island.

This is preserved. (_Trans. Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec_, 1872-73, p.

99.)

Maps in Bellin’s _Petit Atlas Maritime_, 1764 (nos. 4 to 8).

Jefferys’ map of the river from Quebec down, added to a section above

Quebec, based on D’Anville’s map of 1755, is in Jefferys’ _Gen. Topog.

of North America, etc._, 1768, nos. 16, 17.

The edition of 1775 is called _An exact Chart of the River St. Lawrence

from Fort Frontenac to Anticosti (and Part of the Western Coast of

the Gulf of St. Lawrence), showing the Soundings, Rocks, and Shoals,

with all necessary Instructions for navigating the River, with Views

of the Land, etc., by T. Jefferys_. It measures 24 × 37 inches, and

has particular Charts of the Seven Islands; St. Nicholas, or English

Harbor; the Road of Tadoussac; Traverse, or Passage from Cape Torment.

A map engraved by T. Kitchen, in Mante’s _Hist. of the Late War_,

London, 1772, p. 30, shows the river from Lake Ontario to its mouth,

defining on the lake the positions of Forts Niagara, Oswego, and

Frontenac; and (p. 333) is one giving the course of the river below

Montreal.

In the _Atlantic Neptune_ of Des Barres, 1781, Part ii. no. 1, is the

St. Lawrence in three sheets, from Quebec to the gulf; Part ii., no.

16, has the same extent, on a larger scale, in four sheets; Part ii.,

Additional Charts, no. 8, gives the river from the Chaudière to Lake

St. Francis, in six sheets, as surveyed by Samuel Holland.

Moll made a survey of the Gulf of St. Lawrence in 1729. The most

elaborate map is that of Jefferys (1775), which measures 20 × 24

inches, and is called _Chart of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, composed from

a great number of Actual Surveys and other Materials, regulated and

connected by Astronomical Observations_.

There is a chart of Chaleur Bay in the _North American Pilot_ (1760),

nos. 14, 15; and of the Saguenay River, by N. Bellin, in Charlevoix,

iii. 64.

=C.= THE PEACE OF 1763.—The events in Europe which led to the downfall

of Pitt and to the negotiations for peace are best portrayed among

American historians in Parkman[1563] and Bancroft.[1564]

The leading English historians (Stanhope, etc.) can be supplemented by

the _Bedford Correspondence_, vol. iii. Various claims and concessions,

made respectively by the English and French governments, are printed

from the official records in Mills’ _Boundaries of Ontario_ (App.,

p. 209, etc.). See also the _Mémoire historique sur la négociation

de la France et de l’Angleterre depuis le 26 Mars, 1761, jusqu’au 20

septembre de la même année, avec les pièces justificatives_, Paris,

1761.[1565]

As soon as Quebec had surrendered there grew a party in England who put

Canada as a light weight in the scales, in comparison with Guadaloupe,

in balancing the territorial claims to be settled in defining the terms

of a peace. The controversy which followed produced numerous pamphlets,

some of which may be mentioned.[1566]

The surrender of Canada was insisted upon in 1760 in a _Letter

addressed to two great men on the prospect of peace, and on the terms

necessary to be insisted upon in the negotiation_ (London); and the

arguments were largely sustained in William Burke’s _Remarks on the

Letter addressed to two great men_ (London, 1760), both of which

pamphlets passed to later editions.[1567]

Franklin, then in London, complimented the writers of these tracts

on the unusual “decency and politeness” which they exhibited amid

the party rancor of the time. This was in a voluminous tract, which

he then issued, called _Interest of Great Britain considered with

regard to her colonies and the acquisition of Canada and Guadaloupe_,

London, 1760.[1568] In this he repelled the intimation that there

was any disposition on the part of the Americans to combine to throw

off their allegiance to the crown, though such views were not wholly

unrife in England or in the colonies.[1569] He also advocated, in a way

that Burke called “the ablest, the most ingenious, the most dexterous

on that side,” for the retention of Canada, insisting that peace in

North America, if not in Europe, could only be made secure by British

occupancy of that region.[1570]

The preliminaries of peace having been agreed upon in November,

1762, and laid before Parliament, the discussion was revived.[1571]

The ratification, however, came in due course,[1572] and the royal

proclamation was made Oct. 7, 1763.[1573]

=D.= THE GENERAL CONTEMPORARY SOURCES OF THE WAR, 1754-1760.—During

the war and immediately following it, there were a number of English

reviews of its progress and estimates of its effects, which either

reflect the current opinions or give contemporary record of its events.

Such are the following:—

John Mitchell’s _Contest in America between Great Britain and France,

with its consequences and importance_, London, 1757.[1574] It was

published as by “an impartial hand.”

W. H. Dilworth’s _History of the present War to the conclusion of the

year 1759_, London, 1760.[1575]

Peter Williamson’s _Brief account of the War in North America,

containing several very remarkable particulars relative to the natural

dispositions, tempers, and inclinations of the unpolished savages,

not taken notice of in any other history_, Edinburgh, 1760,[1576]—a

book of no value, except as incidentally illustrating the dangers of

partisan warfare.

_A review of Mr. Pitt’s Administration, second edition, with

alterations and additions_, London, 1763. This particularly concerns

that minister’s policy in America.

John Dobson’s _Chronological Annals of the War_ (Apr. 2, 1755, to the

signing of the preliminaries of peace), Oxford, 1763.[1577]

John Entick’s _General History of the late War ... in Europe, Asia,

Africa, and America_, London, 1764, 5 vols.[1578] The author was a

schoolmaster and maker of books. Some contemporary critics speak

disparagingly of the book. It includes numerous portraits and maps.

_History of the late War from 1749 to 1763._ Glasgow, 1765.

J. Wright’s _Complete History of the late War, or Annual Register of

its rise, progress, and events in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America_.

_Illustrated with heads, plans, maps, and charts._ London, 1765.[1579]

Capt. John Knox’s _Historical Journal of the campaigns in North

America for the years 1757, 1758, 1759, and 1760, containing the

most remarkable occurrences, the orders of the admirals and general

officers, descriptions of the country, diaries of the weather,

manifestos, the French orders and disposition for the defence of the

colony_, London, 1769, 2 vols.[1580]

_The beginning, progress, and conclusion of the late War_, London,

1770.[1581]

Thomas Mante’s _History of the late War in North America, including

the campaign of 1763 and 1764 against his Majesty’s Indian enemies_,

London, 1772. Mante was an engineer officer in the service, but he

did not share in the war till the last year of it.[1582] The book has

eighteen large maps and plates. It has been praised by Bancroft and

Sparks.

As a supplement to the accounts of the war, we may place Major Robert

Rogers’s _Concise account of North America_, London, 1765;[1583] a

description of the country, particularly of use as regards the region

beyond the Alleghanies, with accounts of the Indians.

The best contemporary English monthly record before 1758 is to be found

in the _Gentleman’s Mag._, but occasional references should be made to

other magazines.[1584] After 1758 the monthly accounts yield in value

to the yearly summary of Dodsley’s _Annual Register_.

Respecting the French territory of North America, the readiest English

account is Thomas Jefferys’ _Natural and Civil History of the French

Dominions in North and South America_, London, 1760.[1585] Charlevoix

is largely used in the compilation of this work, without acknowledgment.

Foremost among the special histories of the war, which were

contemporary on the French side, is the _Mémoires sur la dernière

guerre de l’Amérique Septentrionale_, written by Pouchot, of the

regiment of Bearn, who twice surrendered his post, at Niagara and

Lévis. The book bears the imprint of Yverdon, 1781,[1586] is in

three volumes, and has been published in an English version with the

following title:—

_Memoir upon the late war in North America, between the French and

English, 1755-60, followed by observations upon the theatre of

actual war, and by new details concerning the manners and customs of

the Indians, with topographical maps, by M. Pouchot, translated by

Franklin B. Hough, with additional notes and illustrations._ Roxbury,

Massachusetts. 1866.[1587] 2 vols.

The Literary and Historical Society of Quebec[1588] published in 1838

contemporary _Mémoires sur le Canada, 1749-1760, avec cartes et plans_.

It was reprinted in 1876. The original MS. has a secondary title,

“Mémoires du S—— de C——, contenant l’histoire du Canada durant la

guerre et sous le gouvernement anglais.” The introduction to it as

printed suggests that its author was M. de Vauclain, an officer of

marine in 1759.

Concerning the _Histoire de la guerre contre les Anglois_, Geneva,

1759-60, two volumes, Rich[1589] says it relates almost entirely to

the war in America, and cites Barbier as giving the authorship to

Poullin de Lumina.[1590]

There is a contemporary account of the campaigns, 1754-58, preserved in

the Archives de la Guerre at Paris, which is ascribed to the Chevalier

de Montreuil, and is given in English in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x.

912. In the _Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., vi. 439, it is made a part of

an extensive series of documents relating to the period of the French

occupation of western Pennsylvania.

Among the Parkman MSS. is a series called _New France_, 1748-1763,

in twelve volumes, mainly transcripts from the French Archives, with

copies of some private papers, all supplementing the selection which

Dr. O’Callaghan printed in his _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vol. x.

The papers of this period make a part of the review given by Edmond

Lareau in his “Nos Archives,” in the _Revue Canadienne_, xii. 208, 295,

347. A paper on the “Archives of Canada,” by a former president of the

Lit. and Hist. Society of Quebec, Dr. W. J. Anderson, describes the

labors of that society, which have been aided by an appropriation from

the government to collect and arrange the historical records.[1591]

Of a collection made by Papineau from the Paris Archives, in ten

volumes, six were burned in the destruction of the Parliament House

in 1849. The transcripts of Paris documents in the Mass. Archives,

having been copied for the Province of Quebec, have been included in

the publication, issued in four quarto volumes, under the auspices

of that province, and called _Collection de manuscrits contenant

lettres, mémoires, et autres documents historiques relatifs à la

Novvelle-France, recueillis aux archives de la province de Québec,

ou copiés à l’étranger_. _Mis en ordre et édités sous les auspices

de la législature de Québec._ [Edited by J. Blanchet.] (Quebec.

1883-85.)[1592]

It was a stipulation of the capitulation at Montreal in 1760 that all

papers held by the French which were necessary for the prosecution of

the government should be handed over by the French officials to the

victors. These are now supposed to be at Ottawa.[1593]

The papers from the Public Record Office (London) from 1748 to 1763,

and referring to Canada, occupy five volumes of the Parkman MSS., in

the cabinet of the Mass. Historical Society.[1594]

The State of New York, in its _Documentary Hist. of New York_ and its

_New York Col. Docs._; New Jersey, in its _New Jersey Archives_; and

Pennsylvania in its _Colonial Records_ and _Pennsylvania Archives_,

have done much to help the student by printing their important

documents of the eighteenth century.

In New England, Massachusetts has done nothing in printing; but a

large part of her important papers are arranged and indexed, and a

commission has been appointed, with an appropriation of $5,000 a

year,[1595] to complete the arrangement, and render her documents

accessible to the student, and carry out the plan recommended by the

same commission,[1596] whose report (Jan., 1885) was printed by the

legislature. It gives a synopsis of the mass of papers constituting

the archives of Massachusetts. Dr. Geo. H. Moore, in Appendix 5 of his

_Final Notes on Witchcraft_, details what legislative action has taken

place in the past respecting the care of these archives.

The other New England States have better cared for their records of

the provincial period; New Hampshire having printed her _Provincial

Papers_, Rhode Island and Connecticut their _Colonial Records_.[1597]

* * * * *

Certain historical summaries—contemporary or nearly so—of the English

colonies are necessary to the study of their conditions at the outbreak

and during the progress of the war.

First, we have an early French view in George Marie Butel-Dumont’s

_Histoire et Commerce des Colonies Angloises dans l’Amérique

Septentrionale_, 1755. A portion of it was issued in London in a

translation, as _The Present State of North America_, Part i.[1598]

The Summary of Douglass has been mentioned elsewhere,[1599] and it

ends at too early a date to include the later years of the wars now

under consideration.

The work of Edmund Burke, _An Account of the European Settlements in

America_, though published in 1757, was not able to chronicle much of

the effects of the war. It has passed through many editions.[1600]

M. Wynne’s _General History of the British Empire in America_, London,

1770,[1601] 2 vols., is in some parts a compilation not always

skilfully done.

Smith’s _History of the British Dominions in America_ was issued

anonymously, and Grahame (ii. 253) says of it that it “contains more

ample and precise information than the composition of Wynne, and, like

it, brings down the history and state of the colonies to the middle of

the eighteenth century. It is more of a statistical than a historical

work.”

_A History of the British Dominions in North America_ (London, 1773, 2

vols. in quarto) was a bookseller’s speculation, of no great authority,

as Rich determined.[1602]

William Russell, the author of a _History of America from its discovery

to the conclusion of the late war_ [1763], London, 1778, 2 vols. in

quarto, was of Gray’s Inn,[1603]—the same who wrote the _History of

Modern Europe_, which, despite grave defects, has had a long lease

of life at the hand of continuators. His _America_ has had a trade

success, and has passed through later editions.

_A New and Complete History of the British Empire in America_ (London)

is the running-title of a work issued in numbers in London about 1756.

It was never completed, and has no title-page.[1604]

Jefferys’ _General Topography of North America and the West Indies_,

London, 1768, has a double title, French and English. It is the

earliest publication of what came later to be known as _Jefferys’

Atlas_, in the issues of which the plates are inferior to the

impression in this book.[1605]

[Illustration]

The special histories of two of the colonies deserve mention, because

their authors lived during the war, and they wrote with authority

on some of its aspects. These are Thomas Hutchinson’s _Hist. of

Massachusetts Bay_,[1606] and William Smith’s _History of the Province

of New York_.[1607] The latter book, as published by its author,

came down only to 1736, though, being written during the war, he

anticipated in his narrative some of its events. He, however, prepared

a continuation to 1762, and this was for the first time printed as

the second volume of an edition of the work published by the New York

Hist. Society in 1829-30. In editing this second volume, the son of

the author says that his father was “a prominent actor in the scenes

described,” which are in large part, however, the endless quarrels

of the executive part of the government of the province with its

assembly. Parkman characterizes Smith as a partisan in his views. Smith

acknowledges his obligations to Colden for “affairs with the French

and Indians, antecedent to the Peace of Ryswick;” and while he follows

Colden in matters relating to the English, he appeals to Charlevoix for

the French transactions.[1608]

Two special eclectic maps of the campaigns of the war may be

mentioned:—

Bonnechose, in his _Montcalm et le Canada Français_, 5th ed., Paris,

1882, gives a “Carte au théâtre des opérations militaires du M^{r.} de

Montcalm, d’après les documents de l’époque.”

In L. Dussieux’s _Le Canada sous la domination française_ (Paris, 1855)

is a general map “pour servir a l’histoire de la Nouvelle France, ou du

Canada, jusqu’en 1763, dressées principalement d’après des matériaux

inédits conservés dans les Archives du ministère de la Marine, par L.

Dussieux, 1851.”

As an instance of the curious, perverse error which could be made to do

duty for cartographical aids, reference may be made to a publication of

Georg Cristoph Kilian, of Augsburg, in 1760, entitled _Americanische

Urquelle derer innerlichen Kriege des bedrängten Teutschlands ...

historisch verfasset durch L. F. v. d. H._

=E.= THE GENERAL HISTORIANS OF THE FRENCH AND ENGLISH COLONIES.—The

bibliography of the general histories of Canada has been already

attempted,[1609] and to the sources of such bibliography then given may

be added M. Edmond Lareau’s _Histoire de la Littérature Canadienne_

(Montreal, 1874), for its chapter (4th) on Canadian historians; and

Mr. J. C. Dent’s _Last forty years of Canada_ (1881), for its review

of the historians in its chapter on “Literature and Journalism.” New

France and her New England historians is the subject of a paper in the

_Southern Review_ (new series, xviii. 337).

It is not necessary here to repeat in detail the enumeration of the

historians, both French and English, which have been thus referred to.

[Illustration: GARNEAU.

After a likeness in Daniel’s _Nos Gloires Nationales_, ii. p. 107.

There is another portrait in his _Hist. du Canada_, 4th ed., Montreal,

1883, in connection with a memoir of its author.]

The leading historian of Canada in the French interests is, without

question, François Xavier Garneau, the earlier editions of whose

_Histoire du Canada depuis sa découverte jusqu’à nos jours_ have been

mentioned elsewhere;[1610] the final revision of which, however, has

since appeared at Montreal (1882-83) in a fourth edition in four

volumes, accompanied by a “notice biographique” by Chauveau.[1611]

English writers question his clearness of vision, when his national

sympathies are evoked by his story, and there are some instances

in which they accuse him of garbling his authorities. It must be

confessed, however, that the disasters of the French do not always

elicit Garneau’s sympathy, and his own compatriots have not all

approved his reflections upon Montcalm for his last campaign.

Among the later of the French writers on the closing years of the

French domination, Mr. J. M. Lemoine, of Quebec, is conspicuous.

Such of his writings as are in English have been gathered in part

from periodicals, and principal among them are his _Quebec Past and

Present_, and its sequel, _Picturesque Quebec_, beside his collection

of _Maple Leaves_, in two series (Quebec, 1863, 1873).[1612]

Jean Langevin delivered at the Canadian Institute, in Quebec, a series

of lectures on “Canada sous la domination française” (1659-1759), which

have appeared in the _Journal de Québec_.

The latest of the French chronicles are Eugène Réveillaud’s _Histoire

du Canada et des Canadiens français de la découverte jusqu’à nos

jours_, Paris, 1884 (pp. 551, with map), and Benjamin Sulte’s _Histoire

des Canadiens français_, 1608-1880 (Montreal, 1882-1884), in eight thin

quarto volumes, with illustrations, including portraits of the Canadian

historians and antiquaries, Pierre Boucher, Jacques Viger, Garneau, L.

J. Papineau, Michel Bibaud, Aubert de Gaspé, Ferland, Abbé Casgrain,

and E. Rameau.

The Abbé J. A. Maurault’s _Histoire des Abénakis depuis 1605 jusqu’à

nos jours_, Quebec, 1866, covers portions of the wars of Canada in

which those Indians took part.

* * * * *

The _American Annals_ of Dr. Abiel Holmes was published in Cambridge

(Mass.) in 1805. It is a book still to inspire confidence, and “the

first authoritative work from an American pen which covered the whole

field of American history.”[1613] Libraries in America were then scant,

but the annalist traced where he could his facts to original sources,

and when he issued his second edition, in 1829, its revision and

continuation showed how he had availed himself of the stores of the

Ebeling and other collections which in the interval had enriched the

libraries of Harvard College and Boston. Grahame[1614] gives the book

no more than just praise when he calls it perhaps “the most excellent

chronological digest that any nation has ever possessed.”

The history of the colonies, which formed an introduction to Marshall’s

_Life of Washington_, was republished in Philadelphia in 1824, as

_History of the Colonies planted by the English on the Continent of

North America to the commencement of that war which terminated in their

independence_.

[Illustration: JAMES GRAHAME.

After the engraving in the Boston ed. of his _History_.]

James Grahame was a Scotchman, born in 1790, an advocate at the

Scottish bar, and a writer for the reviews. By his religious and

political training he had the spirit of the Covenanters and the

ideas of a republican. In 1824 he began to think of writing the

history of the United States, and soon after entered upon the work,

the progress of which a journal kept by him, and now in the library

of Harvard College, records. In Feb., 1827, the first two volumes,

bringing the story down to the period of the English revolution, were

published,[1615] and met with neglect from the chief English reviews.

As he went on he had access to the material which George Chalmers

had collected. He finished the work in Dec., 1829; but before he

published these closing sections a considerate notice of the earlier

two volumes appeared in January, 1831, in the _North American Review_,

the first considerable recognition which he had received. It encouraged

him in the more careful revision of the later volumes, which he was

now engaged upon, and in Jan., 1836, they were published.[1616] His

health prevented his continuing his studies into the period of the

American Revolution. In 1837 Mr. Bancroft had in his _History_ (ii.

64) animadverted on the term “baseness,” which Grahame in his earliest

volumes had applied to John Clarke, who had procured for Rhode Island

its charter of 1663, charging Grahame with having invented the

allegations which induced him to be so severe on Clarke. Mr. Robert

Walsh and Mr. Grahame himself repelled the insinuation in _The New York

American_, and a later edition of Mr. Bancroft’s volume changed the

expression from “invention” to “unwarranted misapprehension,” and Mr.

Grahame subsequently withdrew the term “baseness,” which had offended

the local pride of the Rhode Islanders, and wrote “with a suppleness of

adroit servility.” It is not apparent that either historian sacrificed

much of his original intention. Josiah Quincy defends Grahame’s view

in a note to his memoir of the historian prefixed to the Boston

edition of his _History_, in which Grahame had said he was incapable

of such dishonesty as Bancroft had charged upon him. Bancroft wrote in

March, 1846, a letter to the _Boston Courier_, calling the retort of

Grahame a “groundless attack,” and charging Quincy, who had edited the

new edition of Grahame, with giving publicity to Grahame’s personal

criminations. Quincy replied in a pamphlet, _The Memory of the late

James Grahame, Historian, vindicated from the charges of Detraction

and Calumny, preferred against him by Mr. George Bancroft, and the

Conduct of Mr. Bancroft towards that Historian stated and exposed_, in

which use was also made of material furnished by the Grahame family,

and thought to implicate Mr. Bancroft in literary jealousy of his

rival.[1617] Grahame was not better satisfied with the view which Mr.

Quincy had taken of the character of the Mathers in his _History of

Harvard University_. “The Mathers are very dear to me,” Grahame wrote

to Quincy, “and you attack them with a severity the more painful to

me that I am unable to demur to its justice. I would fain think that

you do not make sufficient allowance for the spirit of their times.”

This difference, however, did not disturb the literary amenities

of their relations; and Grahame, in 1839, demurred against Walsh’s

proposition to republish his _History_ in Philadelphia, for fear he

might be seeming to seek a rivalry with Mr. Bancroft on his own soil.

Three years later, July 3, 1842, Mr. Grahame died, leaving behind him

a corrected and enlarged copy of his _History_. Subsequently this copy

was sent by his family for deposit in the library of Harvard College,

and from it, under the main supervision of Josiah Quincy, but with the

friendly countenance of Judge Story and of Messrs. James Savage, Jared

Sparks, and William H. Prescott, an American edition of _The History of

the United States of North America, from the Plantation of the British

Colonies till their Assumption of National Independence_, in four

volumes, was published in Boston in 1845, accompanied by an engraved

portrait after Healy.

Excluding Parkman’s series of histories, upon which it is not necessary

to enlarge here after the constant use made of them in the critical

parts of the present volume, the most considerable English work to be

compared with his is Major George Warburton’s _Conquest of Canada_,

edited by Eliot Warburton, and published in London in two volumes in

1849, and reprinted in New York in 1850. He surveys the whole course

of Canadian history, but was content with its printed sources, as they

were accessible forty years ago.

Among the other general American historians it is enough to mention in

addition Bancroft,[1618] Hildreth,[1619] and Gay;[1620] and among the

English, Smollett,[1621] who had little but the published despatches,

as they reached England at the time, and Mahon (Stanhope), who availed

himself of more deliberate research, but his field did not admit

of great enlargement.[1622] The _Exodus of the Western Nations_,

by Viscount Bury, is not wholly satisfactory in its treatment of

authorities.[1623]

Henry Cabot Lodge’s _Short History of the English Colonies_ (N. Y.,

1881) has for its main purpose a presentation of the social and

institutional condition of the English colonies at the period of the

Stamp Act Congress in 1765; and the condensed sketches of the earlier

history of each colony, which he has introduced, were imposed on the

general plan, rather unadvisedly, to fill the requirements of the

title. He says of these chapters: “They make no pretence to original

research, but are merely my own presentation of facts, which ought to

be familiar to every one.”

=F.= BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE NORTHWEST.—Concerning the historical

literature of the States of the upper lake region and the upper

Mississippi, a statement is made in Vol. IV. p. 198, etc. Since

that was written some additions of importance have been made. The

_Northwest Review, a biographical and historical monthly_, was begun at

Minneapolis in March, 1883; but it ceased after the second number. In

Nov., 1884, there appeared the first number of the _Magazine of Western

History_, at Cleveland.

The two most important monographs to be added to the list are:—

S. Breese’s _Early history of Illinois, from 1673 to 1763, including

the narrative of Marquette’s discovery of the Mississippi. With a

biographical memoir by M. W. Fuller. Edited by T. Hoyne_. Chicago,

1884; and Silas Farmer’s _History of Detroit and Michigan: a

chronological cyclopædia of the past and present, including a record

of the territorial days in Michigan and the annals of Wayne county_.

Detroit, 1884,—the latter the most important local history yet

produced in the West. The first volume of the _Final Report of the

Geological Survey of Minnesota_, by Winchell, adds something to the

early cartography of the region, and gives an historical chart of

Minnesota, showing the geographical names and their dates, since 1841.

The Historical Society of Minnesota has added a fifth volume (1885)

to the _Collections_, which is largely given to the history of the

Ojibways.

The Historical Society of Iowa having ceased to publish the _Annals

of Iowa_ in 1874 (1863-1874, in 12 vols.), a new series was begun in

1882 by S. S. Howe, but the society declined to make it an official

publication, and began the issue of a quarterly _Iowa Historical

Record_ in 1885.

On the Canada side the Historical and Scientific Society of Manitoba

have been issuing since 1882, at Winnipeg, its Reports, Publications,

and Transactions.

INDEX.

[Reference is commonly made but once to a book, if repeatedly mentioned

in the text; but other references are made when additional information

about the book is conveyed.]

Abbott, J. S. C., _Maine_, 163.

Abenakis, 421;

memoir on, 430.

Abercorn (Georgia), 372, 373, 379, 401.

Abercrombie, General, 154;

to succeed Webb, 508;

autog., 521;

to attack Crown Point, 521;

blunders in his attack on Ticonderoga, 522;

does not bring up his cannon, 523;

retreats, 523 (_see_ Ticonderoga);

his letters, 597;

authorities on his defeat, 597.

Abington (Mass.), history of, 461;

Acadians in, 461.

Acadia, power of England nominal, 407;

in French hands, 407;

harassed by Benj. Church, 407;

restored to France, 407;

ceded to England by treaty of Utrecht (1713), 408;

wars in, 407;

the English settlers ask to be set up as the province of Georgia,

474;

Anburey’s view of bounds, 474;

maps of the eighteenth century, 474;

_Geographical History of Nova Scotia_, 475;

sessions of commissioners in Paris (1755) to define bounds, 475;

earliest grant to De Monts, 475;

the French constantly shifted their ground, 475;

French policy in, under Jonquière, 9;

under Galissonière, 11;

French population, 409;

critical essay on sources of its history, 418;

authorities on its wars, 420;

contemporary French _Mémoires_ on the French claim, 473;

correspondence of Albemarle with Newcastle, 475;

_Mémoires des Commissaires du Roi_, etc., 475;

two editions of it, 475;

the French view in _A Summary View of Facts_, 475;

_Memorials of the English and French Commissaries_, 476;

memorial of Shirley and Mildmay (1750), 476;

_Mémoires_ of the French (1750), 476;

maps and bounds of, 472;

map by Lahontan, 473;

_Memorial_ (1751), 476;

_Mémoire_ (1751), 476;

_Memorial_ (1753) signed by Mildmay and Ruvigny de Cosne, 476;

concession to Thomas Gates (1606), 476;

to Sir Wm. Alexander (1621), 476;

other early papers, 476;

act ceding Acadia to France (1667-68), 476;

reports of the French and English commissioners (1755) compared,

477;

reprints of the French edition at Copenhagen, 477;

papers (1632-1748) from French archives, 459;

papers in library at Ottawa, 459;

manuscripts quoted in the French report, 477;

_Répliques des Commissaires anglois_, 477;

map of French claim, 478;

of English claim, 479;

early grants mapped out, 478, 479;

_Conduct of the French with regard to Nova Scotia_, 482;

_A fair representative_, 482;

French readiness to yield the Kennebec if pressed, 482.

Acadian coast (Mississippi River), 463.

Acadians in Canada, 57;

captured at Beauséjour, 452;

were they neutral? 455;

their qualified loyalty, 455;

unqualified submission required by Lawrence, 455;

the French depend on their assistance, 455;

could hostages have been taken? 455;

deportation resolved upon, 455;

their lands coveted, 455;

necessity in war, 455;

guilelessness claimed for them, 456;

Raynal and other sympathizers, 456;

their mixed blood, 457;

migrations of families, 457;

their houses, 457;

their habits, 457;

religious training, 457;

influenced by Le Loutre, 457;

mutations of opinion respecting them, 457, etc.;

“Evangeline and the Archives of Nova Scotia”, 459;

diverse views of the number deported, 460, 461;

method of their transportation, 461;

families separated, 461;

ports where they were landed, 461;

the colonies which received them, 461, etc.;

refused in Boston to sign petition to the king, 461;

signed one in Philadelphia, 462;

not received (1762) in Boston, 462;

Governor Bernard’s estimate of them, 462;

Galerm’s _Relation_, 462;

became widely scattered, 463;

erroneous views of their fate, 463;

many returned to Nova Scotia, 463;

the Madawaska settlements, 463;

intercepted in endeavoring to return, 463.

_See_ French Neutrals, Nova Scotia.

Acquia Creek, 277.

_Acta Upsaliensia_, 241.

Adaes, missions, 39, 40.

Adair, Jas., _History American Indians_, 68.

Adams, Amos, _Concise History of New England_, 435.

Adams, C. K., 354.

Adams, Hannah, _New England_, 159;

portrait, 160.

Adams, Herbert B., _Germanic Origin of New England Towns_, 169;

edits _Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political

Science_, 271;

_Maryland’s Influence upon Land Sessions to the United States_, 271;

_Maryland’s Influence in founding a National Commonwealth_, 271.

Adams, John, _Novanglus_, 613;

in Rhode Island, 153;

on Shirley, 144.

Adams, Sam., his Commencement part, 139.

Addington, Isaac, 92;

autog., 425.

Addison, Jas., _Spectator_, 107.

Admiralty, Court of, 96.

Aigrement, Sieur d’, 560.

Ainsworth, _John Law_, 77.

Aix-la-Chapelle, treaty of, 10, 11, 148, 449, 476, 490;

Bedford correspondence, 476.

Akins, Thomas B., arranges records of Nova Scotia, 458;

edits _Public Documents of Nova Scotia_, 418, 459;

on the first council at Halifax, 450.

Alatamaha river, 359, 375.

Albach, James R., _Annals of the West_, 53.

Albany, 236;

bibliog. of, 249;

history by Weise, 249;

congress at in 1748, 612;

congress of 1754, 150, 205, 495;

its plan rejected, 150;

congress of 1754, authorities on, 612;

instigated by Shirley, 612;

journal, 612;

proceedings printed, 612;

accounts of by members, 612;

Shirley urged acquiescence, 613;

list of delegates, 613;

reports of the commissioners of the colonies, 613;

the minister’s plan proposed in lieu, 613;

the society pictured in Mrs. Grant’s _American Lady_, 509;

in Kalm’s _Travels_, 509;

officers billeted on the people, 510;

plans of the town, 508, 509;

other maps, 508;

Fort Frederick at, 509;

Schuyler house at, 252;

Van Rensselaer house, 252;

trade with Montreal, 567;

treaty at (1701) surrendering Iroquois country to the English, 564;

treaty (Sept., 1722), 245, 485, 563, 611.

Albee, John, _Newcastle_ (N. H.), 140.

Albemarle, Duke of, 286;

autog., 287.

Alden, Capt. John, 420.

Aldrich, P. E., 169.

Alexander, James, on the congress of 1754, 612.

Alexander, N., map of frontier posts, 85.

Alexander, S. D., 247.

Alexander, W., letters to Shirley on the Niagara campaign, 583.

Alexander, Sir Wm., Earl of Sterling, 587;

claims in Acadia (1621), 476, 479;

his grant in Acadia as defined by English and French, 478, 479.

Alexandria (Acadia), 479.

Alexandria (Virginia), Braddock’s conference at, 495;

his headquarters, 495.

Alibamons, 42, 66, 70, 86.

_All Canada in the hands of the English_, 609.

_All the Year Round_, 394.

Allard, _Minor Atlas_, 234.

Alleghany Mountains, spelling of the name, 8.

Allegheny city, 8.

Allen, Ethan (Maryland), 271.

Allen, Ethan (Vermont), _Concise Refutation_, etc., 179;

_Present State of the Controversy_, 179;

_Proceedings of the Government of New York_, 178;

_Animadversary Address_, 178;

_Vindication, etc._, 178, 179.

Allen, Ira, _History of Vermont_, 178, 179.

Allen, J. A., _Bibliog. of Cetacea_, 345.

Allen, Samuel, 110.

Allen, Wm., _Norridgewock_, 431.

Allsop, Geo., 603.

Almon, John, _Anecdotes_, 613.

Amelia Sound, 375.

America, maps of, 234.

_American Architect_, 169.

_American Commonwealths_, a series of histories, 271.

_American Magazine_ (Boston), 158.

_American Magazine_ (Philadelphia) (published 1741), 248;

(1757-58), 248.

_American Military Pocket Atlas_, 527.

_American Weekly Mercury_, 248.

Ames, Ellis, edits _Massachusetts Province Laws_, 167;

on the Vernon expedition, 135.

_Ames’s Almanac_, 455.

Amherst, General Jeffrey, 154;

autog., 527;

portraits, 531;

as a soldier, 533;

siege of Louisbourg, 464;

at Lake George (1759), 536;

builds Fort George, 536;

occupies and repairs Ticonderoga, 536;

his army sick, 537;

occupies and strengthens Crown Point, 537;

communicates with Wolfe by way of the Kennebec, 538;

advances on the lake, but returns to Crown Point for winter

quarters, 540;

advances on Montreal, 556;

surrounds it, 558;

captures it, 558;

his campaign of 1759, 601;

letters, 233, 601;

his family, 601;

his campaign of 1760, 608;

on the capture of Fort Lévis, 609;

causes maps of the St. Lawrence to be made, 614;

correspondence with Johnson on the campaign of 1760, 608;

made Knight of the Bath, 610;

his instructions to Prideaux, 601;

orders to Rogers (1760), 610;

reasons for taking the St. Lawrence route (1760), 610;

his correspondence with the Nova Scotia authorities, 610.

Amory, M. B., _Copley_, 141.

Anastase, Father, 17.

Anburey, T., _Travels_, 284.

Anbury, Père, on bounds of Acadia (1720), 474.

Ancram, 224.

Andastes, 484.

Anderson, Adam, 364.

Anderson, Hugh, 399.

Anderson, John, 219.

Anderson, W. J., on the Acadians, 459;

“Archives of Canada”, 617;

_Military Operations at Quebec_, 1759-1760, 608.

Anderson, W. T., 574.

Anderson, _American Colonial Church_, 272, 282.

Andover (Mass.), histories of, 184, 461;

Acadians in, 461.

Andros, Sir Edmund, imprisoned, 87;

sent to England, 87;

in Virginia, 91, 265, 278;

papers on his period in Massachusetts, 165.

Andros, Fort, 181.

Anger, Sieur, 238.

Anger, map of Lake Champlain, 485.

Angerville, Mouffle d’, _Vie privée de Louis XV._, 75.

Annapolis Basin, map by Bellin, 429;

other maps, 429.

Annapolis Royal (_see_ Port Royal),

garrison at, 165;

under Samuel Vetch, 408;

threatened by the French, 410, 413;

journal of capture (1710) 419;

view of, 423;

map of vicinity, 428;

view of Annapolis Gut, 429;

old block house at, 429;

papers concerning, 429;

governor at (1714-1748), 459.

Annapolis (Md.), 260.

Anne Arundel (Annapolis), 260.

Anne, Queen, dies, 103, 113.

_Annual Register_, 606.

_See_ Dodsley.

Anson, Fort, 187.

Anthony’s Nose (Hudson), 237.

Apalache (Palachees) Bay, 70.

Apalatchees, 319.

Appleton, William S., 186;

medals on Siege of Quebec, 603;

on the medals of Louisbourg, 471.

Apthorp and Hancock (Boston), 461.

Archdale, John, autog., 344;

_Carolina_, 344;

sent to pacify Carolina, 316.

Argoud, 14, 16.

Arkansas (Arcanças), 82.

Armor, W. C., _Governors of Pennsylvania_, 249.

Armstrong, Edw., 242.

Armstrong, John, 581.

Armstrong, Lawrence, 409.

Arnold, R. D., 401.

Arnold, S. G., _Rhode Island_, 163.

Arnold, Theodore, 344.

Arrowsick Island, 118;

Indian conference at (1717), 424.

Arthur, T. S. (with W. H. Carpenter), _History of Georgia_, 406.

Arthur, W., on Wesley, 403.

Arundel, Earl of, 335.

Ash, Thomas, _Carolina_, 340.

Ashley Lake, 340, 341.

Ashmead, H. G., _Chester_, 249.

Ashurst, Sir Henry, dies, 107, 111.

Ashurst, Sir Wm., 107.

Aspinwall Papers, 608.

Atkins’s _America’s Messenger_, 248.

Atkinson, Sec., letter on Lake George battle (1755), 584.

Atkinson, Theo., 139, 180.

Atkinson, T. C., on Braddock’s march, 500.

_Atlantic Souvenir_, 431.

_Atlas Amériquain_, 83.

_Atlas Maritimus_, 239.

Atwood, William, case of, 241.

Aubry, 535.

Auchmuty, Robt., autog., 434;

_Importance of Cape Breton to the British Nation_, 434;

letters, 436.

Azilia, margravate of, 360.

Babson, J. J., _Gloucester_, 169.

Backus, Isaac, _New England_, 159;

his life by Hovey, 159.

Bacon’s rebellion in Virginia, authorities on the penal proceedings,

263.

Bagley, Colonel Jonathan, 508, 585;

orderly book, 598.

Baie Verte, 9, 451

Bailey, S. L., _Andover_, 184, 461.

Bailly, _Histoire Financière de la France_, 77.

Baird, C. W., _Huguenots’ Emigration to America_, 98, 247.

Baird, R., _Religions in America_, 246.

Baker, Margaret, 186.

Baker, Captain Thomas, 186.

Balch, Thomas, _Les Français en Amérique_, 574;

_Paper on Provincial History of Pennsylvania_, 243.

Baldwin, C. C., _Indian Migrations in Ohio_, 564.

Baldwin, S. E., 177.

Balise, 66.

Baltimore, Charles, third lord, dies, 260;

fourth lord, Benedict, 260;

fifth lord, Charles, 260;

sixth lord, Frederick, 261;

his portrait, 262;

notes on the family, 271.

Baltimore (city), commemoration of its founding, 261, 271;

_Memorial Volume_, 271;

plans, 272;

the earliest directory, 272;

earliest view, 272.

Bancroft, Geo., controversy with Grahame, 620;

owns Chalmers’s paper on Carolina, 352, 354;

on the relations of European politics, 166;

on Carolina history, 355;

gives plan of siege of Louisbourg (1745), 444;

used by Parsons, 444.

Bancroft, H. H., on Moncacht Apé, 78.

_Bangor Centennial_, 430.

Banks, projects to found, in Mass., 170.

Banque Royale of Law, 34.

Banyar, Goldsbrow, his diary, 594.

Baptists in New England, 159;

in Pennsylvania, 246;

In Virginia, 282.

Barbadoes, explorers from, on the Carolina coast, 288;

map in Ogilby, 472;

relations with Carolina, 306.

Barbé Marbois, _Louisiane_, 68.

Barber, John, 182.

Barlow, S. L. M., 592.

Barnes, Albert, _Life and Times of Davies_, 578.

Barnwell, Colonel, 322;

his march (1711), 345;

defeats Tuscaroras, 298.

Barré, Isaac, at Quebec, 543.

Barrington, Geo., governor of Carolina, 300, 301;

account of North Carolina, 356.

Barrow, Thomas, 600.

Barry, John S., _Massachusetts_, 162.

Barry, Wm., 424.

Bartlett, J. R., “Naval History of Rhode Island”, 410.

Barton, Ira M., 98.

Bartram, John, _Observations_, 244.

Bartram, William, 244;

describes Whitefield’s Orphan House (1765), 404.

Basire, Jas., 337.

Bass, Benj., _Journal of Expedition against Fort Frontenac_, 599.

Basse, Jeremiah, 219.

Bassett, Wm., _Richmond, N. H._, 179.

Bastide, J. F., _Mémoire Historique_, 614;

views and plans of Louisbourg, 448.

Bateman, Edmund, 400.

Bathurst, Sir Francis, 377.

Baton Rouge, 82.

Battles, K. P., _History of Raleigh_ (N. C.), 355.

Baxter, Rev. Jos., journal, 424.

Bay of Fundy, earliest shown in maps, 472.

_Bay State Monthly_, 432.

Bay Verte. _See_ Baie.

Bayagoulas, 18, 19, 66, 70.

Bayard, Nicholas, _Account of his trial_, 241.

Bayley, Jos., Jr., 464.

Beaford, Arthur, 364.

Bearcroft, Philip, 400.

Beardsley, E. E., 120;

on Yale College, 102;

on the Mohegan land controversy, 111;

his _Wm. Sam. Johnson_, 111, 601;

on Dean Berkeley, 142.

Beatson, _The Plains of Abraham_, 606.

Beatty, Charles, _Journal_, 246.

Beaubois, 44.

Beaufort (S. C.), fort at, 332.

Beauharnois, Governor, 7;

autog., 7;

confers with the Onondagas, 567;

letter (1726), 561;

meets the Six Nations (1745), 568;

on Oswego, 567.

Beauharnois, Fort, 7.

Beaujeu at Duquesne, 497;

sent against Braddock, 497;

notice of by Shea, 498, 580;

pictures of, 498;

his family, 498;

killed, 498.

Beaumont, J. B. J. E. de, 610.

Beaurain, 36.

Beaurain, Jean de, _Journal Historique_, 63;

MS. copies of it, 63, 64.

Beauséjour, Fort, map of, 451;

built, 452; attacked, 452;

taken, 415, 452;

renamed Fort Cumberland, 452;

French neutrals captured at, 452;

plan of, 453;

papers on the capture, 459.

Beauvilliers, De, his map, 81.

Beaver Creek (Ohio), 497.

Beck, L. C., _Gazetteer of Illinois_, 54.

Beckford, Wm., 601.

Beckwith, Bishop, 404.

Beckwith, H. W., _Illinois and Indiana Indians_, 564.

Bédard, T. P., 560.

Bedford, Duke of, on the reduction of Canada, 568.

Beekman, Henry, his lands, 237.

_Beginning, Progress, and Conclusion of the Late War_, 616.

Belcher, Andrew, autog., 425.

Belcher, Governor, 589;

on Braddock’s defeat, 579;

letter-books, 166;

letters to Larrabee, 432.

Belcher, Jona., 109, 116;

sent by Massachusetts to England, 131;

made governor of Massachusetts, 131;

governor of New Jersey, 221;

dies, 222;

and the Indians, 139;

his character, 139.

Beletha, Wm., 364.

Belêtre at Detroit, 559;

attacks German Flats, 520.

Belknap, Jeremy, his account of the Louisbourg expedition, 436;

his papers, 166, 436;

_New Hampshire_, 163;

portraits, 163;

forms Massachusetts Historical Society, 163;

his life, 163;

_Belknap Papers_, 163;

correspondence with Hazard, 163.

Bellamy, George Anne, _Apology_, 577.

Bellin, J. N., and his maps, 429;

his maps in Charlevoix, 81, 474;

favors the French claims, 82, 83;

maps of Cape Breton, 440;

of Lake Champlain, 485;

of Louisbourg, 439;

of Montreal, 556;

of Saguenay River, 614;

of the St. Lawrence, 614;

of Quebec, 549;

_Neptune Français_, 429;

_Hydrographie Française_, 429;

_Petit Atlas Maritime_, 429;

_Mémoires_, 429;

_Remarques_, 83.

Bellingham, Governor, his widow dies, 103.

Bellomont, governor of New York, 194;

his negative, 194;

portrait, 97;

governor of Massachusetts, etc., 97;

in Boston, 98;

character, 98;

life by De Peyster, 98;

dies, 102, 195;

and the Iroquois, 483;

_Propositions by the Five Nations_, 483, 560;

correspondence with the French governor, 560.

Belmont, grand vicaire, 6.

Benezet, Huguenot in Philadelphia, 462.

Bennett, D. K., _Chronology of North Carolina_, 355.

Bennett, James, 404.

Bennett, account of New England (MS.), 168.

Bennington (Vt.), 178.

Benson, Eugene, 179.

Bentley, Rev. Wm., 89, 128.

_Bentley’s Magazine_, 603.

Benton, N. S., _Herkimer County_, 587.

Beresford, 76, 80.

Berkeley, George (Dean), 140, 141;

portrait, 140;

autog., 140;

in Newport, 141;

favors Yale College, 141;

returns to England, 141;

authorities on, 141;

his letters, 141.

Berkeley, John, Lord, 286;

autog., 287.

Berkely, Sir Wm., 286, 287;

autog., 287.

Berkshire County (Mass.), histories, 188.

Bermuda, colony of Presbyterians at, 307;

proposed college at, 141.

Bernard, Francis, governor of Massachusetts, 155;

governor of New Jersey, 222;

on the Indian conference, (1758), 245.

Bernetz on Montcalm’s death, 605.

Bernheim, G. D., _German Settlements in Carolina_, 345, 348.

Berniers, letters, 608.

Berriman, Wm., 400.

Berwick, Me., 105.

Best, Wm., 400.

Beverley, Robt., _History of Virginia_, 279.

Beverley family, 280;

their mansion, 275.

Bexar archives, 69.

Bibaud, M., portrait, 619.

Bidwell, A., chaplain of the fleet at Louisbourg, 438.

Bienville, midshipman, 17, 18, 20;

meets the English on the Mississippi, 20;

at Biloxi, 21;

on the Red River, 23;

portrait and autog., 26, 73;

would enslave Indians, 27;

attacks the Natchez, 30;

quarrels with Lamothe, 30;

made commandant, 35;

his titles, 35;

arrives at New Orleans, 43;

his downfall, 44;

defended by La Harpe, 45;

his memorial, 45;

returns to Louisiana, 49;

attacks the Chickasaws, 49;

resigns, 50;

correspondence, 72.

Bigot, J., 561;

account of the Lake George battle (1755), 588;

in France, 559;

intendant, 57;

his corruption, 10;

at siege of Quebec (1759), 605.

Biloxi, deserted, 27;

again deserted, 41, 43;

fortified by Iberville, 19;

position of, 22;

sites of the two, 82.

_See_ New Biloxi.

Biloxi bay, 66.

Binneteau, J., 561.

Bishop, J. L., _American Manufactures_, 118.

Black, Wm., journal, 247, 268, 566.

Blackbeard. _See_ Teach.

Blackburn, 150.

Blackman, E. C., _Susquehanna County_, 249.

Blackmoe, Nath., map of Annapolis Basin, 429.

Blackmore, 80.

Blackwell, John, 170;

governor of Pennsylvania, 207.

Blagg, Benj., 257.

Blaikie, _Presbyterianism in New England_, 98, 132.

Blair, James, character of, 278;

_Present State of Virginia_, 278;

autog., 279;

correspondence, 279;

gets charter for William and Mary College, 264;

character, 265.

Blake, Jos., in Carolina, 316;

dies, 316.

Blakiston, Nathaniel, governor of Maryland, 260.

Blanc, Louis, _Révolution Française_, 77.

Blanchard, Jos., _Map of New Hampshire_, 485;

his New Hampshire regiment at Lake George (1755), 584.

Blanchet, J., 459, 617.

Blodgett, Saml., _Prospective plan of the battle near Lake George_,

586;

_Account of the Engagement_, 586;

reëngraved in London, 586.

Blome, Richard, _Jamaica and Other Isles_, 341;

_L’Amérique_, 88;

_Present State_, 340.

Bloody Pond (Lake George), fight at, 504.

Board of Trade and Plantations, papers, 164.

Boardman, G. B., on printing in the middle colonies, 248.

Bobin, Isaac, _Letters_, 243.

Bogart, W. S., 361.

Bogue, David (with James Bennett), _History of Dissenters_, 404.

Bohé, on Acadia’s limits, 474.

Boimore, 68.

Boisbriant, 35, 52.

Boishebert, 610.

Boismare, MSS., 72.

Boismont, 55.

Bollan, Wm., 149;

goes to England, 176;

_Importance and Advantage of Cape Breton_, 434, 475;

on the value of Cape Breton, 438.

Bolton, improves D’Anville’s maps, 235.