The Project Gutenberg eBook of Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. 5 (of 8)
    
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. 5 (of 8)

Editor: Justin Winsor

Release date: March 16, 2016 [eBook #51470]
                Most recently updated: June 14, 2020

Language: English

Credits: E-text prepared by Giovanni Fini, Dianna Adair, Bryan Ness, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made available by Internet Archive/American Libraries (https://archive.org/details/americana)


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK NARRATIVE AND CRITICAL HISTORY OF AMERICA, VOL. 5 (OF 8) ***


E-text prepared by Giovanni Fini, Dianna Adair, Bryan Ness, and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images
generously made available by Internet Archive/American Libraries
(https://archive.org/details/americana)



Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this file
      which includes the more than 270 original illustrations.
      See 51470-h.htm or 51470-h.zip:
      (https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/51470/pg51470-images.html)
      or
      (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/51470/51470-h.zip)


      Images of the original pages are available through
      Internet Archive/American Libraries. See
      https://archive.org/details/narrcrithistory05winsrich


Transcriber’s note:

      Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).

      Text enclosed by equal signs is in bold face (=bold=).

      A carat character is used to denote superscription. A
      single character following the carat is superscripted
      (example: y^e). Multiple superscripted characters
      are enclosed by curly brackets (example: M^{rs}).





NARRATIVE AND CRITICAL HISTORY OF AMERICA

The English and French in North America 1689-1763


[Illustration]


NARRATIVE AND CRITICAL HISTORY OF AMERICA

Edited by

JUSTIN WINSOR

Librarian of Harvard University
Corresponding Secretary Massachusetts Historical Society

VOL. V







Boston and New York
Houghton, Mifflin and Company
The Riverside Press, Cambridge

Copyright, 1887,
By Houghton, Mifflin & Co.
All rights reserved.

The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Mass., U. S. A.
Electrotyped and Printed by H. O. Houghton & Company.




                      CONTENTS AND ILLUSTRATIONS.


 [_The cut on the title shows the medal struck to commemorate the fall
 of Quebec._]

  CHAPTER I.

                                                                    PAGE

  CANADA AND LOUISIANA. _Andrew McFarland Davis_                       1

  ILLUSTRATIONS: La Présentation, 3; Autograph of Callières, 4;
  of Vaudreuil, 5; of Beauharnois, 7; of La Jonquière and of
  La Galissonière, 8; One of Céloron’s Plates, 9; Portrait of
  Lemoyne d’Iberville, with Autograph, 15; Environs du Mississipi
  (1700), 22; Portrait of Bienville, with Autograph, 26;
  Autograph of Lamothe, 29; of Lepinay, 31; Fac-simile of Bill
  of the Banque Royale, 34; Plans of New Orleans, 37, 38; View
  of New Orleans, 39; Map of the Mississippi, near New Orleans,
  41; Fort Rosalie and Environs, 47; Plan of Fort Chartres, 54;
  Autograph of Vaudreuil, 57.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                      63

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Autograph of La Harpe, 63; Portrait of
  Charlevoix, with Autograph, 64; Autograph of Le Page, 65;
  Map of the Mouths of the Mississippi, 66; Autograph of De
  Vergennes, 67; Coxe’s Map of Carolana, 70.

  EDITORIAL NOTES                                                     75

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Portrait of John Law, 75; his Autograph, 76.

  CARTOGRAPHY OF LOUISIANA AND THE MISSISSIPPI BASIN UNDER THE
  FRENCH DOMINATION. _The Editor_                                     79

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Map of Louisiana, in Dumont, 82; Huske’s Map
  (1755), 84; Map of Louisiana, by Le Page du Pratz, 86.


  CHAPTER II.

  NEW ENGLAND, 1689-1763. _The Editor_                                87

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Map of New England (1688), 88; Elisha Cooke,
  the Elder, 89; Seal of Massachusetts Province, 93; Bellomont,
  97; Samuel Sewall, 100; Hertel, Seigneur de Rouville, 106; The
  Four Maquas (Indians), _opp._ 107; Draft of Boston Harbor,
  _opp._ 108; Ground Plan of Castle William, _opp._ 108; British
  Soldiers (1701-1714), 109; Gurdon Saltonstall, with Autograph,
  112; William Dummer, 114; Jeremiah Dummer, 115; Elisha Cooke,
  the Younger, 117; Thomas Prince, 122; Boston Light and Province
  Sloop, 123; Increase Mather, 125; Mather Byles, 128; George
  II., 130; Popple’s Map of New England, 134; An English Fleet,
  136; Benjamin Pollard, 138; Autograph of Benning Wentworth,
  139; Portrait and Autograph of George Berkeley, 140; William
  Shirley, 142; Popple’s Chart of Boston Harbor, 143.

  CRITICAL ESSAY. _The Editor_                                       156

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Hannah Adams, 160; John Gorham Palfrey, 161.

  EDITORIAL NOTES                                                    164

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Rhode Island Twelve-Pence Bill, 172; Rhode
  Island Three-Shillings Bill, 173; New Hampshire Five-Shillings
  Bill, 174; New Hampshire Three-Pounds Bill, 175; Plan of Fort
  Halifax, 182; Autograph of Wm. Lithgow, 182; of Jabez Bradbury,
  183; Flanker of Fort Halifax, 183; Restoration of Fort Halifax,
  184; Block House (1714), 185; Plans of Fort Anson, 187.


  CHAPTER III.

  MIDDLE COLONIES. _Berthold Fernow_                                 189

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Autograph of Jacob Leisler, 189; of Lord
  Cornbury, 192; of Governor Fletcher, with Seal, 194; of
  Lovelace, 196; of Governor Hunter, with Seal, 196; of Rip van
  Dam, 198; of Governor Clinton, with Seal, 202; of Governor
  James De Lancey, with Seal, 205; of Governor Cadwallader
  Colden, with Seal, 206; of Governor Robert Monckton, with Seal,
  206.

  CRITICAL ESSAY. (_Manuscript sources, by Mr. Fernow_)              231

  (_Cartography and Boundaries of the Middle Colonies, by Mr.
  Fernow and the Editor_)                                            233

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Cadwallader Colden’s Map in fac-simile, 237;
  Map of Pennsylvania (1756), 239.

  EDITORIAL NOTES                                                    240

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Autograph of Daniel Horsmanden, 242; Views of
  New York (1732), 250; (1746), 251; (1761), 251; Plans of New
  York City (1695), 253; of New York and Perth Amboy Harbor
  (1732), 254; of New York (1755), 255; (1763), 256; (1764, by
  Bellin), 257; Heap’s East Prospect of Philadelphia (1754-1761),
  258.


  CHAPTER IV.

  MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA. _The Editor_                                259

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Frederick, Lord Baltimore, 262; Alexander
  Spotswood, 266; Robert Dinwiddie, with Autograph, 269.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     270

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Map of Maryland, _opp._ 273; Map of Virginia
  (1738), 274; William Byrd, 275; Map of Northern Neck of
  Virginia (1736-1737), 277; William and Mary College, 279;
  Autograph of Hugh Jones, 280; Map of Part of Colonial Virginia,
  _opp._ 280; Fac-simile of Title of _Apostolic Charity_, by
  Thomas Bray (1700), 283.


  CHAPTER V.

  THE CAROLINAS. _William J. Rivers_                                 285

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Map of North Carolina (1663-1729), 285;
  Autographs of the Lords Proprietors (Clarendon, Ashley,
  Albemarle, G. Carteret, Craven, John Berkeley, Will. Berkeley,
  James Colleton), 287; Map of Cooper and Ashley Rivers, 315;
  Plan of Charlestown, S. C. (1732), 330; View of Charlestown
  (1742), 331.

  CRITICAL ESSAY. _The Editor_                                       335

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Autograph of John Locke, 336; Shapley’s
  Sketch-Map of the Carolina Coast (1662), 337; Map (1666), 338;
  Lederer’s Map (1669-1670), 339; Morden’s Map (1687), 341; Plan
  of Charlestown (1704), 343; Autographs of John Archdale and
  John Oldmixon, 344; Carolina War-Map (1711-1715), 346; Indian
  Map of South Carolina (1730), 349; Moll’s Map of Carolina
  (1730), 351; Autograph of George Chalmers, 353.

  NOTE ON THE LATER HISTORIES OF CAROLINA. _The Editor_              354


  CHAPTER VI.

  THE ENGLISH COLONIZATION OF GEORGIA, 1733-1752. _Charles C.
  Jones, Jr._                                                        357

  ILLUSTRATIONS: General Oglethorpe, 362; Map of South
  Carolina and Georgia (1733), 365; Early View of Savannah,
  368; Tomo-chi-chi Mico, 371; Map of the County of Savannah
  (Urlsperger), 373; Map of Coast Settlements before 1743, 375;
  Map of Coast from St. Augustine to Charlestown, S. C., with
  Map of Simon’s Island (Urlsperger), 379; Plan of St. Augustine
  (1763), 381; Map of Coast of Florida (1742), 382; Map of Harbor
  and Town of St. Augustine (1742), 383; Whitefield, 388.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     392

  ILLUSTRATION: Handwriting of Oglethorpe, 393.


  CHAPTER VII.

  THE WARS ON THE SEABOARD: ACADIA AND CAPE BRETON. _Charles C.
  Smith_                                                             407

  ILLUSTRATION: A French Frigate, 412.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     418

  AUTHORITIES ON THE FRENCH AND INDIAN WARS OF NEW ENGLAND AND
  ACADIA, 1688-1763. _The Editor_                                    420

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Autographs of John Gyles, 421; of Francis
  Nicholson and Samuel Vetch, 422; View of Annapolis Royal, 423;
  Autographs of Vaudreuil, 424; of the Signers of the Conference,
  January 16, 1713-14 (J. Dudley, Francis Nicholson, William
  Tailer, W. Winthrop, Elisha Hutchinson, Samuel Sewall, J.
  Addington, Em. Hutchinson, Penn Townsend, Andrew Belcher, Edw.
  Bromfield, Ichabod Plaisted), 425; Fac-simile of the Title of
  Penhallow’s _History_ (1726), 426; of Church’s _Entertaining
  Passages_ (1716), 427; Bellin’s Map of Port Royal, 428; View
  of Gut of Annapolis, 429; Autograph of Thomas Westbrook,
  430; of John Lovewell, 431; Plan of Lovewell’s Fight, 433;
  Autographs of R. Auchmuty and W. Vaughan, 434; Portrait of
  Sir William Pepperrell, with Autograph, 435; his Arms, 436;
  Autographs of Edward Tyng and John Rous, 437; Gibson’s Picture
  of the Siege of Louisbourg, fac-simile, _opp_. 437; Autograph
  of Peter Warren, 439; of Richard Gridley, 440; Bellin’s Map of
  Cape Breton (1746), 440; Gridley’s Plan of Louisbourg (1745),
  441, 442, 443; Plan of Attack on Louisbourg (1745), 444; Map of
  the Siege (1745), 445; Pepperrell’s Plan of the Siege (1745),
  446; View of Louisbourg, 447; Plan of Island Battery, 448; View
  of the Entrance of Mines Basin, 449; View of Cape Baptist, 449;
  Autograph of Paul Mascarene, 450; Plan of Forts Beauséjour and
  Gaspereau, 451; Autograph of Charles Lawrence, 452; Map of Fort
  Beauséjour and Adjacent Country, 453; Colonel Monckton, with
  Autograph, 454; Autograph of John Winslow, 455; his Portrait,
  456; Autograph of Colonel Murray, 460; Admiral Boscawen, with
  Autograph, 464; Map of Siege of Louisbourg (1758), 465; Views
  of Louisbourg and Harbor, 466; Portrait of General Wolfe, 467;
  Plan of Siege of Louisbourg (1758), 468, 469; Plan of the
  Attack, 470.

  MAPS AND BOUNDS OF ACADIA. _The Editor_                            472

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Lahontan’s Map of Acadia, 473; Map of the French
  Claim (1755), 478; of the English Claim (1755), 479; Jefferys’
  Map of Nova Scotia, 480-481.


  CHAPTER VIII.

  THE STRUGGLE FOR THE GREAT VALLEYS OF NORTH AMERICA. _The
  Editor_                                                            483

  ILLUSTRATIONS: French Soldier (1700), 484; British Infantry
  Soldier (1725), 485; Popple’s Map of Lakes Champlain and George
  (1732), 486; View of Quebec (1732), 488; British Footguard
  (1745), 489; French Soldier (1745), 489; Colden’s Map of the
  Region of the Great Lakes, 491; Autographs of Duquesne, 492;
  of Contrecœur, 493; of Jumonville, 493; of Villiers, 494;
  French Soldiers (1755), 497; Map of Fort Duquesne and
  Vicinity, 497; Contemporary Plan of Braddock’s Defeat, 499;
  Autograph of Sir William Johnson, 502; his Portrait, 503;
  Autograph of Montcalm, 505; Portraits of Lord Loudon, 506,
  507; Plan of Albany, 508; Plan of Fort Frederick at Albany,
  509; Autograph of Loudon, 510; The Forts at Oswego, 511; Fort
  Edward and Vicinity, 512, 513, 514; Fort St. Jean, 515; Fort
  William Henry, 516; View of the Site of Fort William Henry,
  517; Plan of Attack on Fort William Henry, 518; Fort at German
  Flats, 519; Autograph of James Abercromby, 521; Lord Howe,
  522; View of Ticonderoga, 523; Plan of Attack on Ticonderoga
  (1758), 524; Fort Frontenac, 525; Mante’s Map of Lake George,
  526; Autograph of Jeff. Amherst, 527; Fort Stanwix, 528;
  Autographs of Generals Forbes and Vaudreuil, 530; Portrait of
  General Amherst, 531; Fort Pitt, 532; The New Fort Pitt, 533;
  Fort Niagara, 534; Fort George on Lake George, 535; Modern
  Map of Lake George, 536; Plan of Ticonderoga, 537; of Crown
  Point, 537; View of the Ruins of Crown Point, 538; Plan of
  Isle-aux-Noix, 539; Portrait of General Wolfe, 541; Plan of the
  Siege of Quebec (1759), 542; Contemporary Plan of Quebec, 543;
  Bougainville, 546; British Soldiers, 547; Montcalm, 548; Plan
  of Quebec as Surrendered, 549; View of Heights of Abraham, with
  Wolfe’s Monument, 551; Map of the Campaign of Lévis and Murray,
  552; Plan of Quebec (1763), 553; View of Montreal (1761), 554;
  Plans of Montreal (1763, 1758), 555, 556; Map of Routes to
  Canada (1755-1763), 557; Robert Rogers, 558.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     560

  ILLUSTRATIONS: French Soldiers (1710), 562; Bonnecamp’s
  Map, 569; Fort Cumberland and Vicinity, 577; Contemporary Map
  of Dieskau’s Campaign, 585; Clement’s Plan of the Battle of
  Lake George, 586; Map of Forts George and Ticonderoga
  (1749-1760), 588; Crown Point Currency of New Hampshire, 590;
  General Townshend, 607.

  NOTES                                                              611

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Autograph of William Smith, 618; Portrait of
  Garneau, 619; of James Grahame, 620.

  INDEX                                                              623




                     NARRATIVE AND CRITICAL

                       HISTORY OF AMERICA.




CHAPTER I.

CANADA AND LOUISIANA.

BY ANDREW McFARLAND DAVIS,

_American Antiquarian Society_.


THE story of the French occupation in America is not that of a people
slowly moulding itself into a nation. In France there was no state
but the king; in Canada there could be none but the governor. Events
cluster around the lives of individuals. According to the discretion
of the leaders the prospects of the colony rise and fall. Stories
of the machinations of priests at Quebec and at Montreal, of their
heroic sufferings at the hands of the Hurons and the Iroquois, and of
individual deeds of valor performed by soldiers, fill the pages of the
record. The prosperity of the colony rested upon the fate of a single
industry,—the trade in peltries. In pursuit of this, the hardy trader
braved the danger from lurking savage, shot the boiling rapids of the
river in his light bark canoe, ventured upon the broad bosom of the
treacherous lake, and patiently endured sufferings from cold in winter
and from the myriad forms of insect life which infest the forests in
summer. To him the hazard of the adventure was as attractive as the
promised reward. The sturdy agriculturist planted his seed each year
in dread lest the fierce war-cry of the Iroquois should sound in his
ear, and the sharp, sudden attack drive him from his work. He reaped
his harvest with urgent haste, ever expectant of interruption from the
same source, always doubtful as to the result until the crop was fairly
housed. The brief season of the Canadian summer, the weary winter, the
hazards of the crop, the feudal tenure of the soil,—all conspired to
make the life of the farmer full of hardship and barren of promise. The
sons of the early settlers drifted to the woods as independent hunters
and traders. The parent State across the water, which undertook to say
who might trade, and where and how the traffic should be carried on,
looked upon this way of living as piratical. To suppress the crime,
edicts were promulgated from Versailles and threats were thundered
from Quebec. Still, the temptation to engage in what Parkman calls the
“hardy, adventurous, lawless, fascinating fur-trade” was much greater
than to enter upon the dull monotony of ploughing, sowing, and reaping.
The Iroquois, alike the enemies of farmer and of trader, bestowed their
malice impartially upon the two callings, so that the risk was fairly
divided. It was not surprising that the life of the fur-trader “proved
more attractive, absorbed the enterprise of the colony, and drained the
life-sap from other branches of commerce.” It was inevitable, with the
young men wandering off to the woods, and with the farmers habitually
harassed during both seed-time and harvest, that the colony should at
times be unable to produce even grain enough for its own use, and that
there should occasionally be actual suffering from lack of food. It
often happened that the services of all the strong men were required to
bear arms in the field, and that there remained upon the farms only old
men, women, and children to reap the harvest. Under such circumstances
want was sure to follow during the winter months. Such was the
condition of affairs in 1700. The grim figure of Frontenac had passed
finally from the stage of Canadian politics. On his return, in 1689, he
had found the name of Frenchman a mockery and a taunt.[1] The Iroquois
sounded their threats under the very walls of the French forts. When,
in 1698, the old warrior died, he was again their “Onontio,” and they
were his children. The account of what he had done during those years
was the history of Canada for the time. His vigorous measures had
restored the self-respect of his countrymen, and had inspired with
wholesome fear the wily savages who threatened the natural path of
his fur-trade. The tax upon the people, however, had been frightful.
A French population of less than twelve thousand had been called upon
to defend a frontier of hundreds of miles against the attacks of a
jealous and warlike confederacy of Indians, who, in addition to their
own sagacious views upon the policy of maintaining these wars, were
inspired thereto by the great rival of France behind them.

To the friendship which circumstances cemented between the English and
the Iroquois, the alliance between the French and the other tribes
was no fair offset. From the day when Champlain joined the Algonquins
and aided them to defeat their enemies near the site of Ticonderoga,
the hostility of the great Confederacy had borne an important part
in the history of Canada. Apart from this traditional enmity, the
interests of the Confederacy rested with the English, and not with
the French. If the Iroquois permitted the Indians of the Northwest
to negotiate with the French, and interposed no obstacle to the
transportation of peltries from the upper lakes to Montreal and Quebec,
they would forfeit all the commercial benefits which belonged to their
geographical position. Thus their natural tendency was to join with
the English. The value of neutrality was plain to their leaders;
nevertheless, much of the time they were the willing agents of the
English in keeping alive the chronic border war.

[Illustration: LA PRÉSENTATION.

[After a plan in the contemporary Mémoires _sur le Canada_,
1749-1760, published by the Literary and Historical Society of Quebec
(_réimpression_), 1873, p. 13.—ED.]]

Nearly all the Indian tribes understood that the conditions of trade
were better with the English than with the French; but the personal
influence of the French with their allies was powerful enough
partially to overcome this advantage of their rivals. This influence
was exercised not only through missionaries,[2] but was also felt
through the national characteristics of the French themselves, which
were strongly in harmony with the spirit of forest life. The Canadian
bushrangers appropriated the ways and the customs of the natives. They
were often adopted into the tribes, and when this was done, their
advice in council was listened to with respect. They married freely
into the Indian nations with whom they were thrown; and the offspring
of these marriages, scattered through the forests of the Northwest,
were conspicuous among hunters and traders for their skill and courage.
“It has been supposed for a long while,” says one of the officers of
the colony, “that to civilize the savages it was necessary to bring
them in contact with the French. We have every reason to recognize the
fact that we were mistaken. Those who have come in contact with us have
not become French, while the French who frequent the wilds have become
savages.” Prisoners held by the Indians often concealed themselves
rather than return to civilized life, when their surrender was provided
for by a treaty of peace.[3]

[Illustration]

Powerful as these influences had proved with the allies of the French,
no person realized more keenly than M. de Callières, the successor of
Frontenac, how incompetent they were to overcome the natural drift of
the Iroquois to the English. He it was who had urged at Versailles the
policy of carrying the war into the province of New York as the only
means of ridding Canada of the periodic invasions of the Iroquois.[4]
He had joined with Frontenac in urging upon the astute monarch who had
tried the experiment of using Iroquois as galley-slaves, the impolicy
of abandoning the posts at Michilimakinac and at St. Joseph. His
appointment was recognized as suitable, not only by the colonists,
but also by Charlevoix, who tells us that “from the beginning he had
acquired great influence over the savages, who recognized in him a man
exact in the performance of his word, and who insisted that others
should adhere to promises given to him.” He saw accomplished what
Frontenac had labored for,—a peace with the Iroquois in which the
allied tribes were included. The Hurons, the Ottawas, the Abenakis,
and the converted Iroquois having accepted the terms of the peace,
the Governor-General, the Intendant, the Governor of Montreal, and
the ecclesiastical authorities signed a provisional treaty on the 8th
of September, 1700. In 1703, while the Governor still commanded the
confidence of his countrymen, his career was cut short by death.

[Illustration]

The reins of government now fell into the hands of Philippe de
Vaudreuil, who retained the position of governor until his death.
During the entire period of his administration Canada was free from
the horrors of Indian invasion. By his adroit management, with the aid
of Canadians adopted by the tribes, and of missionaries, the Iroquois
were held in check. The scene in which startled villagers were roused
from their midnight slumber by the fierce war-whoop, the report of the
musket, and the light of burning dwellings, was transferred from the
Valley of the St. Lawrence to New England. Upon Vaudreuil must rest the
responsibility for the attacks upon Deerfield in 1704 and Haverhill in
1708, and for the horrors of the Abenakis war. The pious Canadians,
fortified by a brief preliminary invocation of Divine aid, rushed upon
the little settlements and perpetrated cruelties of the same class
with those which characterized the brutal attacks of the Iroquois upon
the villages in Canada. The cruel policy of maintaining the alliance
with the Abenakis, and at the same time securing quiet in Canada by
encouraging raids upon the defenceless towns of New England, not only
left a stain upon the reputation of Vaudreuil, but it also hastened the
end of French power in America by convincing the growing, prosperous,
and powerful colonies known as New England that the only path to
permanent peace lay through the downfall of French rule in Canada.[5]

Aroused to action by Canadian raids, the New England colonies
increased their contributions to the military expeditions by way of
Lake Champlain and the St. Lawrence, which had become and remained,
until Wolfe’s success obviated their necessity, the recognized method
of attack on Canada. During Vaudreuil’s time these expeditions were
singularly unfortunate. Some extraneous incident protected Quebec each
year.[6] It is not strange that such disasters to the English were
looked upon by the pious French as a special manifestation of the
interest taken in Canada by the Deity. Thanks were given in all parts
of the colony to God, who had thus directly saved the province, and
special fêtes were celebrated in honor of Notre Dame des Victoires.

The total population of Canada at this time was not far from eighteen
thousand. The English colonies counted over four hundred thousand
inhabitants. The French Governor, in a despatch to M. de Pontchartrain,
called attention, in 1714, to the great disproportion of strength
between the French and English settlements, and added that there could
be little doubt that on the occasion of the first rupture the English
would make a powerful effort to get possession of Canada. The English
colonies were in themselves strong enough easily to have overthrown
the French in America. In addition, they were supported by the Home
Government; while Louis XIV., defeated, humiliated, baffled at every
turn, was compelled supinely to witness these extraordinary efforts
to wrest from him the colonies in which he had taken such personal
interest. Well might the devout Canadian offer up thanks for his
deliverance from the defeat which had seemed inevitable! Well might
he ascribe it to an interposition of Divine Providence in his behalf!
Under the circumstances we need not be surprised that a learned prelate
should chronicle the fact that the Baron de Longueuil, before leaving
Montreal in command of a detachment of troops, “received from M. de
Belmont, _grand vicaire_, a flag around which that celebrated recluse,
Mlle. Le Ber, had embroidered a prayer to the Holy Virgin,” nor that it
should have been noticed that on the very day on which was finished “a
nine days’ devotion to Notre Dame de Pitié,” the news of the wreck of
Sir Hovenden Walker’s fleet reached Quebec.[7] Such coincidences appeal
to the imagination. Their record, amid the dry facts of history, shows
the value which was attached to what Parkman impatiently terms this
“incessant supernaturalism.” To us, the skilful diplomacy of Vaudreuil,
the intelligent influence of Joncaire (the adopted brother of the
Senecas), the powerful aid of the missionaries, the stupid obstinacy of
Sir Hovenden Walker, and certain coincidences of military movements in
Europe at periods critical for Canada, explain much more satisfactorily
the escape of Canada from subjection to the English during the period
of the wars of the Spanish Succession.

Although Vaudreuil could influence the Iroquois to remain at peace,
he could not prevent an outbreak of the Outagamis at Detroit. This,
however, was easily suppressed. The nominal control of the trade of the
Northwest remained with the French; but the value of this control was
much reduced by the amount of actual traffic which drifted to Albany
and New York, drawn thither by the superior commercial inducements
offered by the English.

The treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, established the cession of Acadia to
the English by its “ancient limits.” When the French saw that the
English pretension to claim by these words all the territory between
the St. Lawrence River and the ocean, was sure to cut them off by water
from their colony at Quebec, in case of another war, they on their part
confined such “ancient limits” to the peninsula now called Nova Scotia.
France, to strengthen the means of maintaining her interpretation,
founded the fortress and naval station of Louisbourg.

About the same time the French also determined to strengthen the
fortifications of Quebec and Montreal; and in 1721 Joncaire established
a post among the Senecas at Niagara.[8]

In 1725 Vaudreuil died. Ferland curtly says that the Governor’s
wife was the man of the family; but so far as the record shows, the
preservation of Canada to France during the earlier part of his
administration was largely due to his vigilance and discretion. Great
judgment and skill were shown in dealing with the Indians. A letter
of remonstrance from Peter Schuyler bears witness that contemporary
judgment condemned his policy in raiding upon the New England colonies;
but in forming our estimate of his character we must remember that the
French believed that similar atrocities, committed by the Iroquois in
the Valley of the St. Lawrence, were instigated by the English.

[Illustration]

The administration[9] of M. de Beauharnois, his successor, who arrived
in the colony in 1726, was not conspicuous. He appears to have been
personally popular, and to have appreciated fairly the needs of Canada.
The Iroquois were no longer hostile. The days of the martyrdom of the
Brebeufs and the Lallemands were over.[10] In the Far West a company
of traders founded a settlement at the foot of Lake Pepin, which
they called Fort Beauharnois. As the trade with the Valley of the
Mississippi developed, routes of travel began to be defined. Three of
these were especially used,—one by way of Lake Erie, the Maumee, and
the Wabash, and then down the Ohio; another by way of Lake Michigan,
the Chicago River, a portage to the Illinois, and down that river; a
third by way of Green Bay, Fox River, and the Wisconsin,—all three
being independent of La Salle’s route from the foot of Lake Michigan to
the Kankakee and Illinois rivers.[11] By special orders from France,
Joncaire’s post at Niagara had been regularly fortified. The importance
of this movement had been fully appreciated by the English. As an
offset to that post, a trading establishment had been opened at Oswego;
and now that a fort was built at Niagara, Oswego was garrisoned. The
French in turn constructed a fort at Crown Point, which threatened
Oswego, New York, and New England.

The prolonged peace permitted considerable progress in the development
of the agricultural resources of the country. Commerce was extended as
much as the absurd system of farming out the posts, and the trading
privileges retained by the governors, would permit. Postal arrangements
were established between Montreal and Quebec in 1721. The population
at that time was estimated at twenty-five thousand. Notwithstanding
the evident difficulty experienced in taking care of what country the
French then nominally possessed, M. Varenne de Vérendrye in 1731 fitted
out an expedition to seek for the “Sea of the West,”[12] and actually
penetrated to Lake Winnipeg.

The foundations of society were violently disturbed during this
administration by a quarrel which began in a contest over the right
to bury a dead bishop. Governor, Intendant, council, and clergy took
part. “Happily,” says a writer to whom both Church and State were
dear, “M. de Beauharnois did not wish to take violent measures to make
the Intendant obey him, otherwise we might have seen repeated the
scandalous scenes of the evil days of Frontenac.”

[Illustration]

After the fall of Louisbourg, in 1745, Beauharnois was recalled, and
Admiral de la Jonquière was commissioned as his successor; but he did
not then succeed in reaching his post. It is told in a later chapter
how D’Anville’s fleet, on which he was embarked, was scattered in 1746;
and when he again sailed, the next year, with other ships, an English
fleet captured him and bore him to London.

[Illustration]

In consequence of this, Comte de la Galissonière was appointed Governor
of Canada in 1747. His term of office was brief; but he made his mark
as one of the most intelligent of those who had been called upon to
administer the affairs of this government. He proceeded at once to
fortify the scattered posts from Lake Superior to Lake Ontario. He
forwarded to France a scheme for colonizing the Valley of the Ohio;
and in order to protect the claims of France to this vast region,
he sent out an expedition,[13] with instructions to bury at certain
stated points leaden plates upon which were cut an assertion of these
claims. These instructions were fully carried out, and depositions
establishing the facts were executed and transmitted to France. He
notified the Governor of Pennsylvania of the steps which had been
taken, and requested him to prevent his people from trading beyond
the Alleghanies,[14] as orders had been given to seize any English
merchants found trading there. An endeavor was made to establish at
Bay Verte a settlement which should offset the growing importance of
Halifax, founded by the English. The minister warmly supported La
Galissonière in this, and made him a liberal money allowance in aid
of the plan. While busily engaged upon this scheme, he was recalled.
Before leaving, he prepared for his successor a statement of the
condition of the colony and its needs.[15]

[Illustration: FAC-SIMILE OF ONE OF CÉLORON’S PLATES, 1749.

[Reduced from the fac-simile given in the _Pennsylvania Archives_,
second series, vi. 80. Of some of these plates which have been found,
see accounts in Parkman, _Montcalm and Wolfe_, i. 62, and _Dinwiddie
Papers_, i. 95, published by the Virginia Historical Society. Cf. also
Appendix A to the _Mémoires sur le Canada depuis 1749 jusqu’à 1760_,
published by the Literary and Historical Society of Quebec, 1873
(_réimpression_).—ED.]]

By the terms of the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, France in 1748 acquired
possession of Louisbourg. La Jonquière, who was at the same time
liberated, and who in 1749 assumed the government under his original
appointment, did not agree with the Acadian policy of his predecessor.
He feared the consequences of an armed collision with the English in
Nova Scotia, which this course was likely to precipitate. This caution
on his part brought down upon him a reprimand from Louis XV. and
positive orders to carry out La Galissonière’s programme. In pursuance
of these instructions, the neck of the peninsula, which according to
the French claim formed the boundary of Acadia, was fortified. The
conservatism of the English officer prevented a conflict. In 1750,
avoiding the territory in dispute, the English fortified upon ground
admitted to be within their own lines, and watched events. On the
approach of the English, the unfortunate inhabitants of Beaubassin
abandoned their homes and sought protection under the French flag.

Notwithstanding the claims to the Valley of the Ohio put forth by
the French, the English Government in 1750 granted to a company six
hundred thousand acres of land in that region; and English colonial
governors continued to issue permits to trade in the disputed
territory. Following the instructions of the Court, as suggested by
La Galissonière, English traders were arrested, and sent to France as
prisoners. The English, by way of reprisal, seized French traders found
in the same region.[16] The treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle had provided
for a commission to adjust the boundaries between the French and the
English possessions. By the terms of the treaty, affairs were to remain
unchanged until the commission could determine the boundaries between
the colonies. Events did not stand still during the deliberations of
the commission; and the doubt whether every act along the border was a
violation of the treaty hung over the heads of the colonists like the
dispute as to the boundaries of Acadia, which was a constant threat of
war. The situation all along the Acadian frontier and in the Valley
of the Ohio was now full of peril. To add to the difficulty of the
crisis in Canada, the flagrant corruption of the Intendant Bigot, with
whom the Governor was in close communication, created distrust and
dissatisfaction. Charges of nepotism and corruption were made against
La Jonquière. The proud old man demanded his recall; but before he
could appear at Court to answer the charges, chagrin and mortification
caused his wounds to open, and he died on the 17th of May, 1752.
Thereupon the government fell to the Baron de Longueuil till a new
governor could arrive.

Bigot, whose name, according to Garneau, will hereafter be associated
with all the misfortunes of France upon this continent, was Intendant
at Louisbourg at the time of its fall. Dissatisfaction with him on
the part of the soldiers at not receiving their pay was alleged as an
explanation of their mutinous behavior. He was afterward attached to
the unfortunate fleet which was sent out to recapture the place. Later
his baneful influence shortened the days and tarnished the reputation
of La Jonquière.

In July, 1752, the Marquis Duquesne de Menneville assumed charge of the
government, under instructions to pursue the policy suggested by La
Galissonière. He immediately held a review of the troops and militia.
At that time the number of inhabitants capable of bearing arms was
about thirteen thousand. There existed a line of military posts from
the St. Lawrence to the Mississippi, composed of Quebec, Montreal,
Ogdensburg, Kingston, Toronto, Detroit, the Miami River, St. Joseph,
Chicago, and Fort Chartres. The same year that Duquesne was installed,
he took preliminary steps toward forwarding troops to occupy the Valley
of the Ohio, and in 1753 these steps were followed by the actual
occupation in force of that region. Another line of military posts was
erected, with the intention of preventing the English from trading in
that valley and of asserting the right of the French to the possession
of the tributaries of the Mississippi. This line began at Niagara,
and ultimately comprehended Erie, French Creek,[17] Venango, and Fort
Duquesne. All these posts were armed, provisioned, and garrisoned.

All French writers agree in calling the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle
a mere truce. If the sessions of the commissioners appointed to
determine the boundaries upon the _ante-bellum_ basis had resulted
in aught else than bulky volumes,[18] their decision would have been
practically forestalled by the French in thus taking possession of all
the territory in dispute. To this, however, France was impelled by the
necessities of the situation. Unless she could assume and maintain this
position, the rapidly increasing population of the English colonies
threatened to overflow into the Valley of the Ohio; and the danger was
also imminent that the French might be dispossessed from the southern
tributaries of the St. Lawrence. Once in possession, English occupation
would be permanent. The aggressive spirit of La Galissonière had led
him to recommend these active military operations, which, while they
tended to provoke collision, could hardly fail to check the movement
of colonization which threatened the region in dispute. On the Acadian
peninsula the troops had come face to face without bloodshed. The
firmness of the French commander in asserting his right to occupy the
territory in question, the prudence of the English officer, the support
given to the French cause by the patriotic Acadians, the military
weakness of the English in Nova Scotia,—all conspired to cause the
English to submit to the offensive bearing of the French, and to avoid
in that locality the impending collision. It was, however, a mere
postponement in time and transfer of scene. The gauntlet thrown down
at the mouth of the St. Lawrence was to be taken up at the headwaters
of the Ohio.

The story of the interference of Lieutenant-Governor Dinwiddie; of
George Washington’s lonely journey in 1753 across the mountains with
Dinwiddie’s letter; of the perilous tramp back in midwinter with
Saint-Pierre’s reply; of the return next season with a body of troops;
of the collision with the detachment of the French under Jumonville; of
the little fort which Washington erected, and called Fort Necessity,
where he was besieged and compelled to capitulate; of the unfortunate
articles of capitulation which he then signed,—the story of all these
events is familiar to readers of our colonial history; but it is
equally a portion of the history of Canada.[19] The act of Dinwiddie
in precipitating a collision between the armed forces of the colonies
and those of France was the first step in the war which was to result
in driving the French from the North American continent. The first
actual bloodshed was when the men under Washington met what was claimed
by the French to be a mere armed escort accompanying Jumonville to an
interview with the English. He who was to act so important a part in
the war of the American Revolution was, by some strange fatality, the
one who was in command in this backwoods skirmish. In itself the event
was insignificant; but the blow once struck, the question how the war
was to be carried on had to be met. The relations of the colonies to
the mother country, and the possibility of a confederation for the
purpose of consolidating the military power and adjusting the expenses,
were necessarily subjects of thought and discussion which tended toward
co-operative movements dangerous to the parent State. Thus in its
after-consequences that collision was fraught with importance. Bancroft
says it “kindled the first great war of revolution.”

The collision which had taken place could not have been much longer
postponed. The English colonies had grown much more rapidly than the
French. They were more prosperous. There was a spirit of enterprise
among them which was difficult to crush. They could not tamely see
themselves hemmed in upon the Atlantic coast and cut off from access
to the interior of the continent by a colony whose inhabitants did
not count a tenth part of their own numbers, and with whom hostility
seemed an hereditary necessity. It mattered not whether the rights of
discovery and prior occupation, asserted by the French, constituted,
according to the law of nations, a title more or less sound than that
which the English claimed through Indian tribes whom the French had by
treaty recognized as British subjects. The title held by the strongest
side would be better than the title based upon international law.
Events had already anticipated politics. The importance of the Ohio
Valley to the English colonies as an outlet to their growing population
had been forced upon their attention. To the French, who were just
becoming accustomed to its use as a highway for communication between
Canada and Louisiana, the growth of the latter colony was a daily
instruction as to its value.

       *       *       *       *       *

The Louisiana which thus helped to bring the French face to face with
their great rivals was described by Charlevoix as “the name which
M. de La Salle gave to that portion of the country watered by the
Mississippi which lies below the River Illinois.” This definition
limits Louisiana to the Valley of the Mississippi; but the French
cartographers of the middle of the eighteenth century put no boundary
to the pretensions of their country in the vague regions of the West,
concerning which tradition, story, and fable were the only sources of
information for their charts. The claims of France to this indefinite
territory were, however, considered of sufficient importance to be
noticed in the document on the Northwestern Boundary question which
forms the basis of Greenhow’s _History of Oregon and California_.
The French were not disturbed by the pretensions of Spain to a large
part of the same territory, although based upon the discovery of the
Mississippi by De Soto and the actual occupation of Florida. Neither
were the charters of those English colonies, which granted territory
from the Atlantic to the Pacific, regarded as constituting valid claims
to this region. France had not deliberately set out to establish a
colony here. It was only after they were convinced at Versailles that
Coxe, the claimant of the grant of “Carolana,” was in earnest in his
attempts to colonize the banks of the Mississippi by way of its mouth,
that this determination was reached. As late as the 8th of April,
1699, the Minister of the Marine wrote: “I begin by telling you that
the King does not intend at present to form an establishment at the
mouth of the Mississippi, but only to complete the discovery in order
to hinder the English from taking possession there.” The same summer
Pontchartrain told the Governor of Santo Domingo[20] that the “King
would not attempt to occupy the country unless the advantages to be
derived from it should appear to be certain.” La Salle’s expedition in
1682 had reached the mouth of the river. His Majesty had acquiesced in
it without enthusiasm, and with no conviction of the possible value of
the discovery. He had, indeed, stated that “he did not think that the
explorations which the Canadians were anxious to make would be of much
advantage. He wished, however, that La Salle’s should be pushed to a
conclusion, so that he might judge whether it would be of any use.”

The presence of La Salle in Paris after he had accomplished the journey
down the river had fired the imagination of the old King, and visions
of Spanish conquests and of gold and silver within easy reach had
made him listen readily to a scheme for colonization, and consent to
fitting out an expedition by sea. When the hopes which had accompanied
the discoverer on his outward voyage gave place to accounts of the
disasters which had pursued his expedition, it would seem that the
old doubts as to the value of the Mississippi returned.[21] It was at
this time that Henri de Tonty, most faithful of followers, asked that
he might be appointed to pursue the discoveries of his old leader.[22]
Tonty was doomed to disappointment. His influence at Court was not
strong enough to secure the position which he desired. In 1697[23] the
attention of the Minister of the Marine was called by Sieur Argoud to
a proposition made by Sieur de Rémonville to form a company for the
same purpose. The memorial of Argoud vouches for Rémonville as a friend
of La Salle, sets forth at length the advantages to be gained by the
expedition, explains in detail its needs, and gives a complete scheme
for the formation of the proposed company. From lack of faith or lack
of influence this proposition also failed. It required the prestige of
Iberville’s name, brought to bear in the same direction, to carry the
conviction necessary for success.

Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville was a native of Canada. He was born on
the 16th of July, 1661,[24] and was reared to a life of adventure.
His name and the names of his brothers, under the titles of their
seigniories, are associated with all the perilous adventure of the
day in their native land. They were looked upon by the Onondagas as
brothers and protectors, and their counsel was always received with
respect. Maricourt, who was several times employed upon important
missions to the Iroquois, was known among them under the symbolic name
of Taouistaouisse, or “little bird which is always in motion.” In 1697,
when Iberville urged upon the minister the arguments which suggested
themselves to him in favor of an expedition in search of the mouth of
the Mississippi, he had already gained distinction in the Valley of
the St. Lawrence, upon the shores of the Atlantic, and on the waters
of Hudson’s Bay.[25] The tales of his wonderful successes on land
and on sea tax the credulity of the reader; and were it not for the
concurrence of testimony, doubts would creep in as to their truth.
It seemed as if the young men of the Le Moyne family felt that with
the death of Frontenac the days of romance and adventure had ended in
Canada; that for the time being, at least, diplomacy was to succeed
daring, and thoughts of trade at Quebec and Montreal were to take the
place of plans for the capture of Boston and New York. To them the
possibility of collision with Spaniards or Englishmen was an inducement
rather than a drawback. Here perhaps, in explorations on the shores
of the Gulf of Mexico, courage and audacity might find those rewards
and honors for which the opportunity was fast disappearing in Canada.
Inspired by such sentiments, the enthusiasm of Iberville overcame the
reserve of the King. The grandeur of the scheme began to attract his
attention. It was clear that the French had not only anticipated the
English in getting possession of the upper waters of the great river,
but their boats had navigated its current from source to mouth.

[Illustration: Le Moyne D’Iberville

This follows an engraving in Margry, vol. iv. J. M. Lemoine
(_Maple Leaves_, 2d series, 1873, p. 1) styles him “The Cid of New
France.”—ED.]

If they could establish themselves at its entrance, and were able to
control its navigation, they could hold the whole valley. Associated
with these thoughts were hopes of mines in the distant regions of the
upper Mississippi which might contribute to France wealth equal to
that which Spain had drawn from Mexico. Visions of pearl-fisheries in
the Gulf, and wild notions as to the value of buffalo-wool, aided
Iberville in his task of convincing the Court of the advantages to be
derived from his proposed voyage.

In June, 1698, two armed vessels were designated for the
expedition,—the “Badine,” which was put under the command of
Iberville, and the “Marin,” under the Chevalier de Surgères. The
correspondence between the Minister of the Marine and Iberville during
the period of preparation shows that the Court earnestly endeavored to
forward the enterprise.

Rumors were rife that summer at Rochelle that an expedition was fitting
out at London[26] for the purpose of establishing a colony of French
Protestants on the banks of the Mississippi. On the 18th of June
Iberville wrote to the Minister to warn him of the fact. He had turned
aside as a joke, he says, the rumors that his expedition was bound to
the Mississippi, and he suggests that orders be sent him to proceed
to the River Amazon, with which he could lay such stories at rest and
deceive the English as to his movements. The instructions with which he
was provided allege that he was selected for the command because of his
previous record. He was left free to prosecute his search for the mouth
of the river according to his own views. After he should have found
it, he was to fortify some spot which should command its entrance. He
was to prevent, at all hazards, any other nation from making a landing
there. Should he find that be had been anticipated in the discovery,
still he was to effect a landing if possible; and in case of inability
to do so, he was to make a careful examination of affairs and report.

On the morning of the 24th of October, 1698,[27] the “Badine” and the
“Marin” sailed from Brest, at which port they had put in after leaving
Rochelle. They were accompanied by two transports, which formed a part
of the expedition. The two frigates and one of the transports arrived
at Santo Domingo on the 4th of December. The other transport arrived
ten days after. The frigate “François,” under Chasteaumorand, was here
added to the fleet as an escort to the American coast. On the 31st of
December they sailed from Santo Domingo, and on the 23d of January,
1699, at half-past four in the evening, land was seen distant eight
leagues to the northeast. In the evening fires were observed on shore.
Pursuing a course parallel with the coast, they sailed to the westward
by day and anchored each night. The shore was carefully reconnoitred
with small boats as they proceeded, and a record of the soundings
was kept, of sufficient accuracy to give an idea of the approach to
the coast. On the 26th they were abreast of Pensacola,[28] where they
found two Spanish vessels at anchor, and the port in possession of an
armed Spanish force, with whom they communicated. Still following the
coast to the westward, they anchored on the 31st off the mouth of the
Mobile River. Here they remained for several days, examining the coast
and the islands. They called one of these islands Massacre Island, on
account of the large number of human bones which they found upon it.
Not satisfied with the roadstead, they worked along the coast, sounding
and reconnoitring; and on the 10th of February came to anchor at a
spot where the shelter of some islands furnished a safe roadstead.
Preparations were at once begun for the work of exploration, and on the
13th Iberville left the ships for the mainland in a boat with eleven
men. He was accompanied by his brother Bienville with two men in a bark
canoe which formed part of their equipment. His first effort was to
establish friendly relations with the natives. He had some difficulty
in communicating with them, as his party was mistaken for Spaniards,
with whom the Indians were not on good terms. His knowledge of Indian
ways taught him how to conquer this difficulty. Leaving his brother
and two Canadians as hostages in their hands, he succeeded on the 16th
in getting some of the natives to come on board his ship, where he
entertained them by firing off his cannons. On the 17th he returned
to the spot where he had left his brother, and found him carrying on
friendly converse with natives who belonged to tribes then living upon
the banks of the Mississippi. The bark canoe puzzled them; and they
asked if the party came from the upper Mississippi, which in their
language they called the “Malbanchia.” Iberville made an appointment
with these Indians to return with them to the river, and was himself
at the rendezvous at the appointed time; but they failed him. Being
satisfied now that he was near the mouth of the Mississippi, and that
he had nothing to fear from the English, he told Chasteaumorand that
he could return to Santo Domingo with the “François.” On the 21st that
vessel sailed for the islands.

On the 27th the party which was to enter the mouth of the river left
the ships. They had two boats, which they speak of as _biscayennes_,
and two bark canoes. Iberville was accompanied by his brother
Bienville, midshipman on the “Badine;” Sauvolle, _enseigne de vaisseau_
on the “Marin;” the Récollet father Anastase, who had been with
La Salle; and a party of men,—stated by himself in one place at
thirty-three, and in another at forty-eight.[29]

On the afternoon of the 2d of March, 1699, they entered the river,—the
Malbanchia of the Indians, the Palissado of the Spaniards, the
Mississippi of to-day.

After a careful examination of the mouth of the river, at that time
apparently in flood, Iberville set his little party at the hard work
which was now before them, of stemming the current in their progress
up the stream. His search was now directed toward identifying the
river, by comparison with the published descriptions of Hennepin, and
also by means of information contained in the Journal of Joutel,[30]
which had been submitted to him in manuscript by Pontchartrain. At the
distance, according to observations of the sun, of sixty-four leagues
from the mouth of the river, he reached the village of the Bayagoulas,
some of whom he had already seen. At this point his last doubt about
the identity of the river was dissipated; for he met a chief of the
Mougoulachas clothed in a cloak of blue serge, which he said was given
to him by Tonty. With rare facility, Iberville had already picked up
enough of the language of these Indians to communicate with them; and
Bienville, who had brought a native up the river in his canoe, could
speak the language passably well. “We talked much of what Tonty had
done while there; of the route that he took and of the Quinipissas,
who, they said, lived in seven villages, distant an eight days’
journey to the northeast of this village by land.” The Indians drew
rude maps of the river and the country, showing that when Tonty left
them he had gone up to the Oumas, and that going and coming he had
passed this spot. They knew nothing of any other branch of the river.
These things did not agree with Hennepin’s account, the truth of which
Iberville began to suspect. He says that he knew that the Récollet
father had told barefaced lies about Canada and Hudson’s Bay in his
Relation, yet it seemed incredible that he should have undertaken to
deceive all France on these points. However that might be, Iberville
realized that the first test to be applied to his own reports would be
comparison with other sources of information; and having failed to find
the village of the Quinipissas and the island in the river, he must
by further evidence establish the truth or the falsity of Hennepin’s
account. This was embarrassing. The “Marin” was short of provisions,
Surgères was anxious to return, the position for the settlement had not
yet been selected, and the labor of rowing against the current was hard
on the men, while the progress was very slow. Anxious as Iberville was
to return, the reasons for obtaining further proof that he was on the
Mississippi, with which to convince doubters in France, overcame his
desires, and he kept on his course up the river. On the 20th he reached
the village of the Oumas, and was gratified to learn that the memory of
Tonty’s visit, and of the many presents which he had distributed, was
still fresh in the minds of the natives. Iberville was now, according
to his reckoning, about one hundred leagues up the river. He had been
able to procure for his party only Indian corn in addition to the
ship’s provisions with which they started. His men were weary. All the
testimony that he could procure concurred to show that the route by
which Tonty came and went was the same as that which he himself had
pursued, and that the division of the river into two channels was a
myth.[31] With bitterness of spirit he inveighs against the Récollet,
whose “false accounts had deceived every one. Time had been consumed,
the enterprise hindered, and the men of the party had suffered in the
search after purely imaginary things.” And yet, if we may accept the
record of his Journal, this visit to the village of the Oumas was the
means of his tracing the most valuable piece of evidence of French
explorations in this vicinity which could have been produced. “The
Bayagoulas,” he says, “seeing that I persisted in wishing to search
for the fork and also insisted that Tonty had not passed by there,
explained to me that he had left with the chief of the Mougoulachas a
writing enclosed for some man who was to come from the sea, which was
similar to one that I myself had left with them.” The urgency of the
situation compelled Iberville’s return to the ships. On his way back he
completed the circuit of the island on which New Orleans was afterward
built, by going through the river named after himself and through Lake
Pontchartrain. The party which accompanied him consisted of four men,
and they travelled in two canoes. The two boats proceeded down the
Mississippi, with orders to procure the letter from the Mougoulachas
and to sound the passes at the mouth of the river.

On the 31st both expeditions reached the ships. Iberville had the
satisfaction of receiving from the hands of his brother[32] the letter
which Tonty had left for La Salle, bearing date, “At the village of
the Quinipissas, April 20, 1685.”[33] The contents of the letter were
of little moment, but its possession was of great value to Iberville.
The doubts of the incredulous must yield to proof of this nature. Here
was Tonty’s account of his trip down the river, of his search along the
coast for traces of his old leader, and of his reluctant conclusion
that his mission was a failure. In the midst of the clouds of treachery
which obscure the last days of La Salle, the form of Tonty looms up,
the image of steadfast friendship and genuine devotion. “Although,”
he says, “we have neither heard news nor seen signs of you, I do not
despair that God will grant success to your undertakings. I wish it
with all my heart; for you have no more faithful follower than myself,
who would sacrifice everything to find you.”

After his return to the ships, Iberville hastened to choose a spot
for a fortification. In this he experienced great difficulty; but
he finally selected Biloxi, where a defence of wood was rapidly
constructed and by courtesy called a fort. A garrison of seventy men
and six boys was landed, with stores, guns, and ammunition. Sauvolle,
_enseigne de vaisseau du roy_, “a discreet young man of merit,” was
placed in command. Bienville, “my brother,” then eighteen years old,
was left second in rank, as _lieutenant du roy_. The main object of
the expedition was accomplished. The “Badine” and the “Marin” set sail
for France on the 3d of May, 1699. For Iberville, as he sailed on the
homeward passage, there was the task, especially difficult for him,
of preparing a written report of his success. For Sauvolle and the
little colony left behind, there was the hard problem to solve, how
they should manage with scant provisions and with no prospect of future
supply. So serious was this question that in a few days a transport was
sent to Santo Domingo for food. This done, they set to work exploring
the neighborhood and cultivating the friendship of the neighboring
tribes of Indians. To add to their discomforts, while still short of
provisions they were visited by two Canadian missionaries who were
stationed among the Tonicas and Taensas in the Mississippi Valley.
The visitors had floated down the river in canoes, having eighteen
men in all in their company, and arrived at Biloxi in the month of
July. Ten days they had lived in their canoes, and during the trip
from the mouth of the river to Biloxi their sufferings for fresh water
had been intense. Such was the price paid to satisfy their craving
for a sight of their compatriots who were founding a settlement at
the mouth of the river. On the 15th of September, while Bienville was
reconnoitring the river at a distance of about twenty-three leagues
from its mouth, he was astonished by the sight of an armed English ship
of twelve guns.[34] This was one of the fleet despatched by Coxe, the
claimant of the grant from the English Government of the province of
Carolana.[35] The rumor concerning which Iberville had written to the
Minister the year before had proved true. Bienville found no difficulty
in persuading the captain that he was anticipated, that the country was
already in possession of the French, and that he had better abandon any
attempt to make a landing. The English captain yielded; but not without
a threat of intention to return, and an assertion of prior English
discovery. The bend in the river where this occurred was named English
Turn. The French refugees, unable to secure homes in the Mississippi
Valley under the English flag, petitioned to be permitted to do so as
French citizens.[36] The most Christian King was not fond of Protestant
colonists, and replied that he had not chased heretics out of his
kingdom to create a republic for them in America. Charlevoix states
that the same refugees renewed their offers to the Duke of Orleans when
regent, who also, rejected them.

Iberville, who had been sent out a second time, arrived at Biloxi Dec.
7, 1699. This time his instructions were, to examine the discoveries
made by Sauvolle and Bienville during his absence, and report
thereon. He was to bring back samples of buffalo-wool, of pearls, and
of ores.[37] He was to report on the products of the country, and to
see whether the native women and children could be made use of to
rear silk-worms. An attempt to propagate buffaloes was ordered to be
made at the fort. His report was to determine the question whether
the establishment should be continued or abandoned.[38] Sauvolle
was confirmed as “Commandant of the Fort of the Bay of Biloxi and
its environs,” and Bienville as _lieutenant du roy_. Bienville’s
report about the English ship showed the importance of fortifying the
entrance of the river. A spot was selected about eighteen leagues from
the mouth, and a fort was laid out. While they were engaged in its
construction Tonty arrived. He had made his final trip down the river,
from curiosity to see what was going on at its mouth.[39]

The colony was now fairly established, and, notwithstanding the
reluctance of the King, was to remain. Bienville retained his position
as second in rank, but was stationed at the post on the river. Surgères
was despatched to France. Iberville himself, before his return, made a
trip up the river to visit the Natchez and the Taensas. He was shocked,
while with the latter tribe, at the sacrifice of the lives of several
infants on the occasion of the temple being struck by lightning. He
reported that the plants and trees that he had brought from France were
doing well, but that the sugar-canes from the islands did not put forth
shoots.

With the return of Iberville to France, in the spring of 1700, the
romantic interest which has attached to his person while engaged in
these preliminary explorations ceases, and we no longer watch his
movements with the same care. His third voyage, which occupied from the
fall of 1701 to the summer of 1702, was devoid of interest. On this
occasion he anchored his fleet at Pensacola, proceeding afterward with
one of his vessels to Mobile. A period of inaction in the affairs of
the colony follows, coincident with the war of the Spanish Succession,
during which the settlement languished, and its history can be told in
few words. Free transportation from France to Louisiana was granted
to a few unfortunate women and children, relatives of colonists. Some
Canadians with Indian wives came down the river with their families.
Thus a semblance of a settlement was formed. Bienville succeeded to the
command, death having removed Sauvolle from his misery in the fall of
1701. The vitality of the wretched troops was almost equally sapped,
whether stationed at the fort on the spongy foothold by the river side,
or on the glaring sands of the gently sloping beach at Biloxi. Fishing,
hunting, searching for pearls, and fitting out expeditions to discover
imaginary mines occupied the time and the thoughts of the miserable
colonists; while the sages across the water still pressed upon their
attention the possibility of developing the trade in buffalo-wool, on
which they built their hopes of the future of the colony. Agriculture
was totally neglected; but hunting-parties and embassies to
Indians explored the region now covered by the States of Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee.

[Illustration: ENVIRONS DU MISSISSIPI, 1700.

[This is figure 3 of plate i. in R. Thomassy’s _Géologie pratique de la
Louisiane_ (1860), called “Carte des environs du Mississipi (envoyée
à Paris en 1700).” He describes it (p. 208) as belonging to the
Archives Scientifiques, and thinks it a good record of the topography
as Iberville understood it. The material of this map and of another,
likewise preserved in the Archives Scientifiques de la Marine, are held
by Thomassy (p. 209) to have been unskilfully combined by M. de Fer in
his _Les Costes aux environs de la Rivière de Misisipi_, 1701.

Thomassy also noted (p. 215) in the Dépôt des Cartes de la Marine, and
found in the Bibliothèque Nationale, a copy of a map by Le Blond de la
Tour of the mouths of the Mississippi in 1722, _Entrée du Mississipi en
1722, avec un projet de fort_, of which Thomassy gives a reproduction
(pl. iii. fig. 1), and he considers it a map of the first importance in
tracing the changes which the river has made in its bed. He next notes
and depicts (pl. iii. fig. 2) a _Plan particulier de l’embouchure du
fleuve Saint-Louis_, which was drawn at New Orleans, May 29, 1724, and
is signed “De Pauger, Royal Engineer.” It assists one in tracing the
early changes, being on the same scale as La Tour’s map.—ED.]]

Le Sueur explored the upper Mississippi in search of mines. In 1700
Bienville and Saint-Denys scoured the Red River country in search of
Spaniards, but saw none. In 1701 Saint-Denys was gone for six months
on a trip to the same region, with the same result.[40] The records
of these expeditions and the Relations of the fathers have preserved
for us a knowledge of the country as it then was, and of the various
tribes which then inhabited the Valley of the Mississippi. From them we
obtain descriptions of the curious temples of the Natchez and Taensas;
of the perpetual fire preserved in them; of the custom of offering as a
sacrifice the first-fruits of the chase and the field; of the arbitrary
despotism of their grand chief, or Sun; of the curious hereditary
aristocracy transmitted through the female Suns;[41] of the strange
custom of sacrificing human lives on the death of a Grand Sun. To be
selected to accompany the chief to the other world was a privilege as
well as a duty; to avoid its performance when through ties of blood or
from other cause the selection was involuntary, was a disgrace and a
dishonor.

We find records of the presence of no less than four of the Le Moyne
brothers,—Iberville, Bienville, Sérigny, and Chateauguay. Iberville
was rewarded in 1699 by appointment as chevalier of the Order of St.
Louis; in 1702 by promotion to the position of _capitaine de vaisseau_;
and in 1703 he was appointed commander-in-chief of the colony, which
Pontchartrain in his official announcement calls “the colony of
Mississippi.” These honors did not quite meet his expectations. He
wanted a concession, with the title of count; the privilege of sending
a ship to Guinea for negroes; a lead mine; in short, he wanted a number
of things. He bore within his frame the seeds of disease contracted in
the south; and in 1706, while employed upon a naval expedition against
the English, he succumbed at Havana to an attack of yellow fever. With
him departed much of the life and hope of the colony. Supplies, which
during his life had never been abundant, were now sure to be scarce;
and we begin to find in the records of the colony the monotonous,
reiterated complaints of scarcity of provisions. These wails are
occasionally relieved by accounts of courtesies exchanged with the
Spanish settlements at Pensacola and St. Augustine. The war of the
Spanish Succession had brought Spain and France close together. The
Spanish forts stood in the pathway of the English and protected Biloxi.
When the Spanish commander called for help, Bienville responded with
men and ammunition; and when starvation fairly stared the struggling
Spanish settlement in the face, he shared with them his scant food.
They in turn reciprocated, and a regular debit and credit account of
these favors was kept, which was occasionally adjusted by commissioners
thereto duly appointed. So few were the materials of which histories
are ordinarily composed, during these years of torpor and inaction,
that one of the historians of that time thus epitomizes a period of
over a year: “During the rest of this year and all of the next nothing
new happened except the arrival of some brigantines from Martinique,
Rochelle, and Santo Domingo, which brought provisions and drinks which
they found it easy to dispose of.”

France was too deeply engaged in the struggle with England to forward
many emigrants. Canada could furnish but a scant population for the
scattered settlements from Cape Breton to the Mississippi. The hardy
adventurers who had accompanied Iberville in his search for the mouth
of the Mississippi, and the families which had drifted down from
Illinois, were as many as could be procured from her, and more than
she could spare. The unaccustomed heat of the climate and the fatal
fevers which lurked in the Southern swamps told upon the health of
the Canadians, and sickness thinned their ranks. In the midst of
the pressure of impending disasters which threatened the declining
years of the most Christian King, the tardy enthusiasm in behalf
of the colony, which his belief in its pearls and its buffalo-wool
had aroused, caused him to spare from the resources of a bankrupt
kingdom the means to equip and forward to the colony a vessel laden
with supplies and bearing seventy-five soldiers and four priests. The
tax upon the kingdom for even so feeble a contribution was enough to
be felt at such a time; but the result was hardly worth the effort.
The vessel arrived in July, 1704, during a period of sickness. Half
of her crew died. To assist in navigating her back to France twenty
soldiers were furnished. During the month of September the prevailing
epidemic carried off the brave Tonty and thirty of the newly arrived
soldiers. Given seventy-five soldiers as an increase to the force of a
colony, which in 1701 was reported to number only one hundred and fifty
persons, deduct twenty required to work the ship back, and thirty more
for death within six weeks after arrival, and the net result which we
obtain is not favorable for the rapid growth of the settlement. The
same ship, in addition to supplies, soldiers, and priests, brought
other cargo; namely, two Gray Sisters, four families of artisans, and
twenty-three poor girls. The “poor girls” were all married to the
resident Canadians within thirty days. With the exception of the visit
of a frigate in 1701, and the arrival of a store-ship in 1703, this
vessel is the only arrival outside of Iberville’s expeditions which is
recorded in the _Journal historique_ up to that date. The wars and
rumors of wars between the Indians soon disclosed a state of things at
the South which in some of its features resembled the situation at the
North. The Cherokees and Chickasaws were so placed geographically that
they came in contact with English traders from Carolina and Virginia.
Penicaut, when on his way up the river with Le Sueur, met one of
these enterprising merchants among the Arkansas, of whom he says, “We
found an English trader here who was of great assistance in obtaining
provisions for us, as our stock was rapidly declining.” Le Sueur says,
“I asked him who sent him here. He showed me a passport from the
governor of Carolina, who, he said, claimed to be master of the river.”
Thus English traders were here stumbling-blocks to the French precisely
as they had been farther north. Their influence appears to have been
used in stirring up the Indians to hostile acts, just as in New York
the Iroquois were incited to attack the Canadians. The Choctaws, a
powerful tribe, were on the whole friendly to the French. The wars in
Louisiana were not so disastrous to the French as the raids of the Five
Nations had proved in the Valley of the St. Lawrence. The vengeance of
the Chickasaws was easily sated with a few Choctaw scalps, and perhaps
with the capture of a few Indian women and children whom they could
sell to the English settlers in Carolina as slaves. Hence the number of
French lives lost in these attacks was insignificant.

The territory of Louisiana was no more vague and indefinite than
its form of government. Even its name was long in doubt. It was
indifferently spoken of as Louisiana or Mississippi in many despatches.
Sauvolle was left as commander of the post when Iberville returned to
France after his first voyage. In this office he was confirmed, and
Bienville succeeded to the same position. True, the post was the colony
then, but when Iberville was in Louisiana it was he who negotiated
with the Indians; it was he of whom the Company of Canada complained
for interfering with the trade in beaver-skins; it was he whom the
Court evidently looked upon as the head of the colony even before he
was formally appointed to the chief command. This chaotic state of
affairs not only produced confusion, but it engendered jealousies and
fostered quarrels. The Company of Canada found fault with Iberville
for interfering with the beaver trade. The Governor of Canada claimed
that Louisiana should be brought under his jurisdiction. Iberville
insisted that the boundaries should be defined; and complained that the
Canadians belittled him with the Indians when the two colonies clashed,
by contrasting Canadian liberality with his poverty.

[Illustration:

This follows an engraving given in Margry’s collection, vol. v.
Other engravings, evidently from the same original, but different in
expression, are in Shea’s _Charlevoix_, vol. i. etc.]

Le Sueur, who by express orders had accompanied Iberville on his
second voyage, was holding a fort on the upper Mississippi at the
same time that “Juchereau de Saint-Denys,[42] lieutenant-général de
la juridiction de Montréal,” was granted permission to proceed from
Canada with twenty-four men to the Mississippi,[43] there to establish
tanneries and to mine for lead and copper. One Nicolas de la Salle,
a purser in the naval service, was sent over to perform the duties
of _commissaire_. The office of _commissaire-ordonnateur_ was the
equivalent of the intendant,—a counterpoise to the governor and a spy
upon his actions. La Salle’s relation to this office was apparently the
same as Bienville’s to the position of governor. A purser performed the
duties of _commissaire_; a midshipman, those of commanding officer.
Of course La Salle’s presence in the colony could only breed trouble;
and we find him reporting that “Iberville, Bienville, and Chateauguay,
the three brothers, are thieves and knaves capable of all sorts of
misdeeds.” Bienville, on his part, complains that “M. de la Salle,
purser, would not give Chateauguay pay for services performed by order
of the minister.” This state of affairs needed amendment. Iberville
had never reported in the colony after his appointment in 1703 as
commander-in-chief. Bienville had continued at the actual head of
affairs. In February, 1708, it was ascertained in the colony that M. de
Muys had started from France to supersede Bienville, but had died on
the way.

M. Diron d’Artaguette, who had been appointed
_commissaire-ordonnateur_,[44] with orders to examine into the conduct
of the officers of the colony and to report upon the condition of its
affairs, arrived in Mobile in February, 1708. An attempt had apparently
been made to organize Louisiana on the same system as prevailed in
the other colonies. Artaguette made his investigation, and returned
to France in 1711. During his brief stay the monotony of the record
had been varied by the raid of an English privateer upon Dauphin
(formerly Massacre) Island, where a settlement had been made in 1707
and fortified in 1709. The peripatetic capital had been driven, by the
manifest unfitness of the situation, from Biloxi to a point on the
Mobile River, from which it was now compelled by floods to move to
higher lands eight leagues from the mouth of the river. No variation
was rung upon the chronic complaint of scarcity of provisions. The
frequent changes in the position of headquarters, lack of faith in
the permanence of the establishment, and the severe attacks of fever
endured each year by many of the settlers, discouraged those who might
otherwise have given their attention to agriculture. To meet this
difficulty, Bienville proposed to send Indians to the islands, there to
be exchanged for negroes. If his plan had met with approval, perhaps
he might have made the colony self-supporting, and thus have avoided
in 1710 the scandal of subsisting his men by scattering them among
the very savages whom he wished to sell into slavery. It is not to be
wondered at that the growth of the colony under these circumstances
was very slow. In 1701 the number of inhabitants was stated at one
hundred and fifty. In 1708 La Salle reported the population as composed
of a garrison of one hundred and twenty-two persons, including
priests, workmen, and boys; seventy-seven inhabitants, men, women,
and children; and eighty Indian slaves. In 1712 there were four
hundred persons, including twenty negroes. Some of the colonists had
accumulated a little property, and Bienville reported that he was
obliged to watch them lest they should go away.

On the 14th day of September, 1712, and of his reign the seventieth
year, Louis, by the grace of God king of France and Navarre, granted
to Sieur Antony Crozat the exclusive right to trade in all the lands
possessed by him and bounded by New Mexico and by the lands of the
English of Carolina; in all the establishments, ports, havens,
rivers, and principally the port and haven of the Isle of Dauphin,
heretofore called Massacre, the River St. Louis, heretofore called the
Mississippi, from the edge of the sea as far as the Illinois, together
with the River of St. Philip, heretofore called the Missouri, and of
the St. Jerome, heretofore called the Ouabache, with all the countries,
territories, lakes within land, and the rivers which fall directly
or indirectly into that part of the River St. Louis. Louisiana thus
defined was to remain a separate colony, subordinate, however, to the
Government of New France. The exclusive grant of trade was to last for
fifteen years. Mines were granted in perpetuity subject to a royalty,
and to forfeiture if abandoned. Lands could be taken for settlement,
manufactures, or for cultivation; but if abandoned they reverted to
the Crown. It was provided in Article XIV., “if for the farms and
plantations which the said Sieur Crozat wishes to carry on he finds it
desirable to have some negroes in the said country of Louisiana, he
may send a ship each year to trade for them directly on the coast of
Guinea, taking a permit from the Guinea Company so to do. He may sell
these negroes to the inhabitants of the colony of Louisiana, and we
forbid all other companies and persons whatsoever, under any pretence
whatsoever, to introduce any negroes or traffic for them in the said
country, nor shall the said Crozat carry any negroes elsewhere.”

Crozat was a man of commercial instinct,—developed, however, only
to the standard of the times. The grant to him of these extensive
privileges was acknowledged in the patent to have been made for
financial favors received by the King, and also because the King
believed that a successful business man would be able to manage the
affairs of the colony. The value of the grant was dependent upon the
extent to which Crozat could develop the commerce of the settlement;
and he seems to have set to work in earnest to test its possibilities.
The journals of the colonists now record the arrivals of vessels with
stores, provisions, and passengers. Supplies were maintained during
this commercial administration upon a more liberal basis. The fear of
starvation was for the time postponed, and the colonists were spared
the humiliation of depending for means of subsistence upon the labor
of those whom they termed savages. Merchandise was imported, and
only purchasers were needed to complete the transaction. There being
no possible legal competition for peltries within the limits of the
colony, the market price was what the monopolist chose to pay. Louis
XIV. had forbidden “all persons and companies of all kinds, whatever
their quality and condition, and whatever the pretext might be, from
trading in Louisiana under pain of confiscation of goods and ships,
and perhaps of other and severer punishments.” Yet so oblivious were
the English traders of their impending fate that they continued to
trade among the tribes which were friendly to them, and at times even
went so far as to encroach upon the trade with the tribes allied to
the French and fairly within French lines. So negligent were the
_coureurs de bois_ of their own interest, that when Crozat put the
price of peltries below what the English and Spanish traders were
paying, they would work their way to Charleston and to Pensacola. So
indifferent were the Spaniards to a commerce not carried on in their
own ships, and so thoroughly did they believe in the principles of the
grant to Crozat, that they would not permit his vessels to trade in
their ports. Thus it happened that La Mothe Cadillac, who had arrived
in the colony in May, 1713, bearing his own commission as governor,
was soon convinced that the commerce of the colony was limited to the
sale of vegetables to the Spaniards at Pensacola, and the interchange
of a few products with the islands. His disappointment early showed
itself in his despatches. His selection for the post was unfortunate.
By persistent pressure he had succeeded while in Canada in convincing
the Court of the necessity for a post at Detroit and of the propriety
of putting La Mothe Cadillac in charge of it. He had upon his hands at
that time a chronic war with the priests, whose work he belittled in
his many letters. His reputation in this respect was so well known that
the inhabitants of Montreal in a protest against the establishment of
the post at Detroit alleged that he was “known not to be in the odor
of sanctity.” He had carried his prejudices with him to that isolated
post, and had flooded the archives with correspondence, memoranda, and
reports stamped with evidence of his impatience and lack of policy. The
vessel which brought him to Louisiana brought also another instalment
of marriageable girls. Apparently they were not so attractive as the
first lot. Some of them remained single so long that the officials were
evidently doubtful about finding them husbands. By La Mothe’s orders,
according to Penicaut, the MM. de la Loire were instructed to establish
a trading-post at Natchez in 1713. A post in Alabama called Fort
Toulouse was established in 1714.

[Illustration]

Saint-Denys in 1714 and again in 1716 went to Mexico. His first
expedition was evidently for the purpose of opening commercial
relations with the Spaniards. No signs of Spanish occupation were met
by the party till they reached the vicinity of the Rio Grande. This
visit apparently roused the Spaniards to the necessity of occupying
Texas, for they immediately sent out an expedition from Mexico to
establish a number of missions in that region. Saint-Denys, who on
his return accompanied this expedition, was evidently satisfied that
the Spanish authorities would permit traffic with the posts in New
Mexico.[45] A trading expedition was promptly organized by him in the
fall of 1716 and despatched within a few months of his return. This
expedition on its way to the presidio on the Rio Grande passed through
several Indian towns in the “province of Lastekas,” where they found
Spanish priests and Spanish soldiers.[46] Either Saint-Denys had been
deceived, or the Spanish Government had changed its views. The goods of
the expedition were seized and confiscated. Saint-Denys himself went to
Mexico to secure their release, if possible. His companions returned to
Louisiana. Meantime La Mothe had in January, 1717, sent a sergeant and
six soldiers to occupy the Island of Natchitoches.

While the French and Spanish traders and soldiers were settling down
on the Red River and in Texas, in the posts and missions which were to
determine the boundaries between Texas and Louisiana, La Mothe himself
was not idle. In 1715 he went up to Illinois in search of silver
mines. He brought back lead ore, but no silver. In 1716 the tribe of
the Natchez showed signs of restlessness, and attacked some of the
French. Bienville was sent with a small force of thirty-four soldiers
and fifteen sailors to bring this powerful tribe to terms. He succeeded
by deceit in accomplishing what he could not have done by fighting,
and actually compelled the Indians, through fear for the lives of some
chiefs whom he had treacherously seized, to construct a fort on their
own territory, the sole purpose of which was to hold them in awe. From
that date a garrison was maintained at Natchez. Bienville, who was then
commissioned as “Commandant of the Mississippi and its tributaries,”
was expected to make this point his headquarters. The jealousy between
himself and La Mothe had ripened into open quarrel. The latter covered
reams of paper with his crisp denunciations of affairs in Louisiana,
until Crozat, worn out with his complaints, finally wrote, “I am of
opinion that all the disorders in the colony of which M. de la Mothe
complains proceed from his own maladministration of affairs.”

No provision was made in the early days of the colony for the
establishment of a legal tribunal; military law alone prevailed. By an
edict issued Dec. 18, 1712, the governor and _commissaire-ordonnateur_
were constituted a tribunal for three years from the day of its
meeting, with the same powers as the councils of Santo Domingo and
Martinique. The tribunal was afterward re-established with increased
numbers and more definite powers.

On the 23d day of August, 1717, the Regent accepted a proposition made
to him by Sieur Antony Crozat to remit the remainder of the term of
his exclusive privilege. Although it must have wounded the pride of
a man like Crozat to acknowledge that so gigantic a scheme, fraught
with such exaggerated hopes and possibilities, was a complete failure,
yet there is no record of his having undertaken to save himself by
means of the annual shipload of negroes which he was authorized,
under Article XIV. of his grant, to import. The late King had simply
granted him permission to traffic in human beings. It remained for the
Regent representing the Grand Monarque’s great-grandson to convert
this permission into an absolute condition in the grant to the Company
to which Crozat’s rights were assigned. The population of the colony
was estimated at seven hundred of all ages, sexes, and colors, not
including natives, when in March, 1717, the affairs of government were
turned over to L’Epinay, the successor of La Mothe.

[Illustration]

The charter of the Company of the West, which succeeded to Crozat’s
rights, was registered on the 6th of September, 1717. The formation of
the Company was based upon an ingenious attempt to fund in the shape of
_rentes_—practically a form of annuity bonds—that portion of the debt
of the kingdom then outstanding as _billets d’état_. Louis XIV., at his
death, had left the nation encumbered with a debt generally estimated
at about 2,500,000,000, but rated above 3,000,000,000 livres[47] by
some writers. His necessities had compelled him to exhaust every
possible means of raising money, even to pledging specifically in
advance large portions of the revenue for several years. A floating
debt of about 600,000,000 livres was arbitrarily scaled down by the
Regent to 250,000,000, and placed in the form known as _billets
d’état_. Even after this reduction the new securities were at a
discount of from 60 to 70 per cent. It was to provide relief from this
condition of affairs that the Company of the West was inaugurated. The
capital stock was divided into shares of five hundred livres each. The
number of shares was not limited in the original edict. Payment for
them was made exclusively in _billets d’état_. For these _billets_,
when surrendered to the Government in sums of one million livres,
there were issued to the Company _rentes_ in perpetuity for forty
thousand livres. The State was relieved from the pressure of so much
of its debt as was thus used, by assuming the payment of 4 per cent
interest upon the principal. To secure this interest money certain
revenues of the Government were pledged. Thus the Company had an
income of 4 per cent upon its capital guaranteed by Government. If the
Louisiana grant was worth anything, all that could be made out of it
was an additional temptation to the investor. That grant consisted of a
monopoly of the commerce of the colony and of the absolute control of
its affairs, the proprietorship of all lands that they should improve,
and the ownership of mines. The privilege of granting lands free from
all feudal obligation was expressly permitted. The protection of the
Government was guaranteed to the servants of the Company. During the
existence of the charter, which was for twenty-five years from the date
of registration, property in Louisiana was to be exempt from taxation.
With the exception of the condition to import six thousand white
persons and three thousand negroes, this vast gift was practically
unencumbered. To these privileges was also added the exclusive right
to purchase beavers in Canada. The more readily to float the capital,
the shares of aliens were exempt from the _droit d’aubaine_ and from
confiscation in time of war.

The name of Law, director-general of the bank, led the list of
directors nominated in the royal edict. On the death of Louis XIV.
this famous Scotchman had offered his services to the Regent, and by
ready wit and plausible arguments had convinced him that measures
could be taken which would help the State carry the heavy load of debt
with which it was burdened. The foundation, on the 2d of May, 1716,
of a private bank of issue with a capital of 6,000,000 livres, was an
experimental step. The shares of this bank were to be paid for, 25 per
cent in coin and 75 per cent in the _billets d’état_. The redemption
of each bank-note was promised in coin of the same weight and standard
as the coinage of its date. At a time when changes were frequent in
the weight and alloy of coin, this feature made the notes of the bank
nominally more stable than the coinage of the realm.

Law’s fundamental idea was that the prosperity of a community was
proportionate to the amount of the circulating medium, and that good
faith would cause paper to be preferred to coin for this purpose.
In his communications to the Regent he recognized the relation of
supply and demand to the subject. His proposition was to establish a
government bank of issue which should act as the royal treasurer. The
distrust of the Regent led him at first to decline this enterprise,
but permission was given to Law to found a private bank. Under
the conservative restrictions with which it was surrounded, the
experimental bank was successful. The withdrawal of Crozat furnished
opportunity to overcome the scruples of the Regent by substituting for
the proposed royal bank a commercial company, whose stock, according
to the original plan, was to be purchased exclusively with _billets
d’état_, which, as before shown, were to be converted into 4 per
cent _rentes_ payable half-yearly. An avenue was thus opened for
the use of the _billets_. If holders availed themselves of it, the
Government would not only be relieved from their pressure, but also
from the discredit of their heavy discount. It was known that Crozat
had abandoned the grant because he could not make money out of it.
It was evident that capital and patience were necessary to develop
the commerce of Louisiana. Of money the Company received none from
original subscriptions to its stock, although by the terms of the
edict the interest for the year 1717 was to be reserved as a working
capital. Doubts as to whether this would be sufficient to develop the
colony made investors wary at first of its subscription lists. It was
soon found necessary to define the amount of capital stock. This was
fixed at 100,000,000 livres by an edict registered in December, 1717.
The grant in August, 1718, of the right to farm the tobacco, and the
extension of this right from six to nine years in September of the same
year, served to quicken popular interest in the Company.

Law’s bank having proved a pronounced success, the Regent was converted
to his scheme, the shareholders of the General Bank were reimbursed,
and it was converted into the Royal Bank. All limit upon the power to
issue bills was by this step practically removed. The character of the
coin in which the bills were to be redeemed was no longer limited to
the livre of the weight and standard of the date of the note, but was
changed to the livre of Tours. The very restraints which had operated
to give that confidence which Law had pronounced essential for a
paper-money circulation were thus removed.

In quick succession the companies of Senegal, of the East Indies,
of China, and of Africa were absorbed by the cormorant Company of
the West. Its title was changed to “the Company of the Indies.” The
profits of the mint and the general farms were purchased, and by a
series of edicts the management of nearly all the financial affairs
of the kingdom were lodged in the Company. Meantime France had been
deluged with a flood of notes[48] from the Royal Bank. The great
abundance of money had lowered interest and revived business. To meet
the various payments which the Company had assumed for the privileges
which it had purchased, as well as to satisfy the increasing demand for
shares, the capital was increased by a series of edicts in the fall
of 1719 to 600,000 shares.[49] Outstanding debts of the Government to
the extent of 1,500,000,000 livres were ordered to be redeemed, and
in place thereof new _rentes_ were to be issued to the Company at 3
per cent. After the first subscription, payment for stock had been
stipulated in coin or bank-notes, in place of _billets d’état_. The
various privileges acquired by the Company had been granted one by one,
and their accumulation had been slow enough to enable the public to
appreciate their value and to comprehend the favor in which the Company
was held by the Regent. Subscribers for new shares were therefore found
with increasing ease after each new grant. The demand for the stock
enabled the Company to place each new issue on the market at premiums.
The later issues were at ten times the par value.

[Illustration: BILL OF THE BANQUE ROYALE OF LAW (1720).

Reduced from a cut in La Croix’s _Dix-huitième siècle_.]

The price of the stock was still further inflated on the market by
requiring as a condition precedent for subscriptions to the new
issues, that persons desiring to subscribe should be holders of a
certain number of shares of the old stock for each share of the new.
Subscriptions were in turn stimulated by spreading the payments over
a protracted period, on the instalment plan, thus enabling persons of
small capital who wished to profit by the upward movement of the stock
to operate on margins. To the competition fostered by these ingenious
and at that time novel devices was now added the pressure for new
shares on the part of those whose investments had been disturbed by the
redemption of the _rentes_. Their demand that some favor be shown them
in the matter of subscriptions was recognized, and edicts were issued
which removed the stipulation that payments should be made in coin or
bank-notes; and in their place _billets d’état_, notes of the common
treasury, and orders on the cashier of the Company given in liquidation
of Government obligations, were ordered to be received. Shares rose
to ten thousand francs,[50] and even higher; and those who paid for
original shares in discredited _billets d’état_ could now realize forty
times their purchase-money. The temptation to those of conservative
disposition to realize their profits and convert them into coin or
property now burst the bubble. For a time the Company, by purchasing
its own stock, was able to check the impending disaster; but in spite
of all efforts of this sort, and notwithstanding edict after edict
ordaining the compulsory circulation of the notes and demonetizing gold
and silver, the bank, which had in the mean time been placed under
control of the Company, collapsed. The promoter of the scheme, in the
same year that he was controller-general of the finances of France, was
a fugitive and almost a pauper.

During the progress of these events Louisiana had become the scene
of active emigration, ludicrously small when compared with its great
domain, but active beyond any preceding movement of population on
the part of the French. On the 9th of February, 1718, three vessels
despatched by the Company arrived at Dauphin Island, bearing troops and
colonists, and also conveying to Bienville[51] the welcome news that he
was appointed _commandant-général_. In September, 1717,[52] Illinois
had been detached from New France and incorporated with Louisiana.
Boisbriant, who was appointed to the command of that province, did
not assume the government until the fall of 1718. The Company set to
work honestly to develop the resources of the country. Engineers were
sent over to superintend the construction of public works. The pass at
the mouth of the river was to be mapped, and two little towers were
ordered to be erected “at the entrance to the river, sufficiently
high to be seen from afar during the day, and upon which fire can be
made at night.” The coast was to be surveyed, and orders were given
to effect a landing at St. Joseph’s Bay,—a step which was taken only
to be followed by its prompt abandonment. Concessions were made to
many distinguished men in France, with conditions attached to each
that a certain number of colonists should be imported. Unfortunately
for the influence of these grants upon the future of the colony, it
was not required that the grantees themselves should live upon their
concessions. The grant to Law, twelve miles square, was situated on
the Arkansas River. By agreement, he undertook to introduce fifteen
hundred settlers. Vessels began now to arrive with frequency, bringing
involuntary as well as voluntary emigrants. The power of the courts
in France was invoked, apparently with success, to secure numbers
for Louisiana, without regard to character. Vagrants and convicts,
considered dangerous for French society, were thought suitable for
colonists. These steps were soon followed by complaints from the colony
of the worthlessness of such settlers and of the little reliance that
could be placed upon them in military service.[53] Raynal, in his
vigorous way, characterizes them as “the scum of Europe, which France
had, as it were, vomited forth into the New World at the time of Law’s
system.”

The new commanding general sent a force of mechanics and convicts
in February, 1718, to clear the territory now occupied by the city
of New Orleans, and to lay the foundations of a new settlement.[54]
The channel at Dauphin Island having been blocked by a storm, the
headquarters of the colony were removed, first to Old Biloxi, and
afterward by order of the Company in 1719, to New Biloxi. During
the fall of 1718 MM. Benard de la Harpe and Le Page du Pratz, whose
names are associated with the annals of Louisiana, both arrived in
the colony. The pages of the chroniclers of colonial events are now
sprinkled with the names of ships which arrived with troops and
emigrants, including young women from the hospitals and prisons of
Paris. On the 6th of June, 1719, two vessels arrived direct from the
coast of Guinea with “five hundred head of negroes.” The Company had
entered with fervor upon the performance of the stipulation imposed by
the charter.

The news of the war between France and Spain reached the colony in the
spring of 1719. The inconvenience of the roadsteads occupied by the
French had made them anxious to possess Pensacola. Iberville had urged
upon the Government the necessity of procuring its cession from Spain
if possible. So forcible were his arguments that negotiations to that
end had been opened by Pontchartrain.

[Illustration: NOUVELLE ORLÉANS.[55]]

Although the settlement had been neglected by the Spanish Government,
yet the proposition to cede it to France was rejected with pompous
arguments, in which the title of Spain was asserted as dating back
to the famous Bull of Alexander VI., dividing the newly discovered
portions of the world between Spain and Portugal.[56] Upon receipt
of the news of hostility between the two nations, Bienville promptly
availed himself of the opportunity to capture the place.

[Illustration: _Plan de la_ Nouvelle Orleans _Capitale de la Louisiane_

[This is the “Plan de la Nouvelle Orléans” (1718-1720) in Dumont’s
_Mémoires historiques de la Louisiane_, ii. 50, made by Le Blond
de la Tour and Pauger. A plan signed by N. B[ellin] in 1744, “Sur
les manuscrits du dépôt des chartes de la marine,” was included in
Charlevoix’s _Nouvelle France_, ii. 433, and reproduced in Shea’s
translation, vi. 40. In November, 1759, Jefferys published a “Plan
of New Orleans, with the disposition of its quarters and canals as
they have been traced by M. de la Tour in the year 1720.” He inserted
this map (which included also a map of the lower Mississippi) in the
_History of the French Dominion in America_ (London, 1760), and in
the _General Topography of North America and West Indies_ (London,
1768).—ED.]]

The episodes of the capture of Pensacola by the French, its recapture
by the Spaniards, the desertion of a large part of the French garrison,
the successful resistance of Sérigny to the siege of Dauphin Island
by a Spanish fleet, the opportune arrival of a French fleet, and the
capture again of Pensacola, furnished occupation and excitement to
the colonists for a few months, but had no other result. The port
was returned to Spain when peace was restored.[57] For several years
the French at Natchitoches, and the Spaniards a few miles off at the
Mission of the Adaes, had lived peacefully side by side. The French
lieutenant in command of the post took advantage of the outbreak
of hostilities to destroy the Spanish Mission. It was, however,
immediately reoccupied by the Spaniards in force, and was permanently
retained by them. In Illinois, through the arrival of a band of
Missouris who had come to chant the calumet bedecked in chasubles and
stoles, and tricked out in the paraphernalia of the altar, Boisbriant
learned that a Spanish expedition from Santa Fé, in 1720, had been
completely annihilated by these savages.

[Illustration: NEW ORLEANS IN 1719.

[This is reproduced from plate ii. of Thomassy’s _Géologie pratique
de la Louisiane_. There is another cut in Gay’s _Popular History of
the United States_, ii. 530. To M. de Vallette Laudun, or Laudreu,
sometimes referred to as the Chevalier de Bonrepos, is ascribed the
authorship of a _Description du Mississipi, écrite de Mississipi en
France à Mademoiselle D._ ... (Paris, 1720), the writer being the
captain of the ship “Toulouse.” It was reprinted as _Relation de
la Louisiane, écrite à une dame par un officier de marine_, in the
_Relations de la Louisiane et du fleuve Mississipi_, published at
Amsterdam in 1720, which corresponds to vol. v. of Bernard’s _Recueil
des voyages au nord_. It was reprinted as _Journal d’un voyage à la
Louisiane fait en 1720 par M. ..., capitaine de vaisseau du roi_,
both at Paris and La Haye in 1768 (Carter-Brown, vol. iii. nos. 280,
1,641).—ED.]]

Far more important in their effect upon the prosperity of the colony
than any question of capture or occupation which arose during these
hostilities were the ordinances passed by the Company of the West, on
the 25th of April, 1719, in which were announced the fixed prices at
which supplies would be furnished to inhabitants at different points,
and the arbitrary amounts that would be paid at the same places for
peltries, tobacco, flour, and such other articles as the Company would
receive. Gayarré summarizes the condition of the colonists under these
rules as follows: “Thus the unfortunates who were sent to Louisiana had
to brave not only the insalubrity of the climate and the cruelty of the
savages, but in addition they were held in a condition of oppressive
slavery. They could only buy of the Company at the Company’s price.
They could only sell to the Company for such sum as it chose to pay;
and they could only leave the colony by permission of the Company.”
Whites brought from Europe and blacks brought from Africa “worked
equally for one master,—the all-powerful Company.”

Through a title based upon La Salle’s occupation in 1685, strengthened
by the explorations of Bienville and Saint-Denys in 1700, the
subsequent journeys of Saint-Denys in 1701, 1714, and 1716, and the
occupation of Natchitoches, the French laid claim to a large part of
what now constitutes Texas. Benard de la Harpe left Dauphin Island
toward the end of August, 1718, with fifty men, to establish a post on
his concession at Cadodaquais. He settled on land of the Nassonites,
eighty leagues in a straight line from Natchitoches. He was instructed
to open up trade with the neighboring Spaniards, and through him
Bienville forwarded a letter to the Spanish Governor. A correspondence
ensued between La Harpe and the Governor at Trinity River, in which
each expressed doubts as to the right of the other to be where he was.
La Harpe closed it with an assurance that he could be found in command
of his fort, and could convince the Governor that he knew how to defend
it. No overt act followed this fiery correspondence, and La Harpe
shortly after went on an extended tour of exploration to the northward
and westward of his concession. We hear no more of this post from
French sources; but Spanish authorities assert that after the Mission
at Adaes was broken up, the Spaniards returned with an armed force and
the French retired to Natchitoches. That post was then put under charge
of Saint-Denys. Great stress was laid at Paris upon the necessity
for occupying the coast to the west of the mouth of the Mississippi,
and positive orders had been issued to that effect by the King on
the 16th of November, 1718. Nothing was done, however, until 1720,
when six men were landed one hundred and thirty leagues west of the
Mississippi and left to perish. In 1721 these orders were reiterated,
and La Harpe was appointed “commandant and inspector of commerce of
the Bay of St. Bernard.” On August 16 he sailed to take possession of
that bay. His equipment and his force were totally inadequate for the
purpose. He made a landing at some point on the coast; but finding the
Indians hostile, he was obliged to abandon the expedition. With this
futile attempt all efforts on the part of the French to occupy any
point on the coast of Texas ceased. On the other hand, they remained
in uninterrupted possession of Natchitoches;[58] and the Spaniards,
though they continued to occupy Adaes as long as the French were at
Natchitoches, never renewed their attempts on the region of the Osage
and the Missouri.

[Illustration: NEW ORLEANS AND THE MISSISSIPPI.

[This is a part of the “Carte de la Côte de la Louisiane, par M. de
Sérigny en 1719 et 1720,” as given in Thomassy’s _Géologie pratique de
la Louisiane_, 1860.—ED.]]

During the year 1721 the mortality of the immigrants on the passage
over seriously affected the growth of the colony. Among other similar
records it is reported that in March two vessels arrived, having on
board forty Germans,—all that remained out of two hundred. The same
month the “Africaine” landed one hundred and eighty negroes out of two
hundred and eighty on board when she sailed, and the “Duc du Maine”
three hundred and ninety-four out of four hundred and fifty-three. The
pains of the poor creatures did not end with the voyage. Some of them
“died of hunger and suffering on the sands of Fort Louis.” Enfeebled
by the confinement and trials of a protracted ocean voyage, immigrants
and slaves alike were landed on the beach at Biloxi, where neither
suitable food nor proper shelter was furnished them.[59] Indeed, so
great was the distress for food in 1721, that the very efforts put
forth to increase the population were a source of embarrassment and
suffering. There were not provisions enough left at Biloxi in September
to maintain the garrison; and once again, after more than twenty years’
occupation by the French, the troops at Biloxi were dispersed among the
Indians for subsistence.

The engineers who were watching the action of the Mississippi kept
a record of their soundings. They attributed the changes which they
observed to the scouring action of the water, and suggested methods[60]
for keeping up the strength of the current by restraining the river
within limits. Their observations confirmed Bienville in the opinion
that New Orleans could be reached directly by vessel; thus avoiding the
wretched anchorage, fifteen miles from shore,[61] and the expensive and
troublesome transfer from ship to barge, and from barge to boat, only
to effect a landing by wading, at a spot which was still several days
of difficult travel from the natural highway of the country.

The news of the collapse of the Royal Bank and of the flight of Law
reached the colony in June, 1721. The expectation that the troubles
of the mother country would react upon the fortunes of the colony
created great excitement; but the immediate result fell short of the
anticipation. Affairs in the territory of Law’s concession were in
great confusion. The Alsatians and Germans whom he had placed upon it,
finding themselves neglected and the future of the grant doubtful,
came down to New Orleans in the expectation of being sent back to
Europe. The colony did not willingly relinquish its hold on any of
its settlers. These industrious laborers, who had been imported to
till the soil, were placated by the grant of concessions along the
Mississippi at a point about twenty miles above New Orleans. By their
skill in market-gardening they secured the control of that business
in the little town which almost in spite of the Company had sprung
up on the banks of the river. Bienville, supported by Pauger, one of
the engineers, had for some time favored New Orleans as headquarters.
The views of the Company on this point had fluctuated. In 1718 the
instructions were, to try to open the river to vessels. In 1720 Ship
Island, the Alibamons, and the Ouabache (Ohio) were the points they
proposed to fortify. In 1721 Pauger prepared a plan for the proposed
city of New Orleans. At that time there were only a few cabins there.
It was necessary to cut down brush and trees to run the lines.
Settlers were attracted by these proceedings, but jealousy stopped the
work for a while. Charlevoix, who visited the place in 1722, says that
the transfer of the stores of the Company from Biloxi to New Orleans
began about the middle of June of that year.

The “Aventurier” arrived in the roadstead in the latter part of May,
1722, bringing orders to make New Orleans the principal establishment
of the colony. She was taken up the river by the engineers La Tour and
Pauger, and orders were given that all ships should thereafter enter
the Mississippi. The “Aventurier” reached New Orleans July 7, and
on the 5th of August the departure of Bienville from Biloxi for New
Orleans is recorded.

Exchange and currency had proved to be serious drawbacks to the
prosperity of Canada. Louisiana was destined to undergo a similar
experience. Paper money and card money were issued by the Company.
Arbitrary ordinances requiring the presentation of these bills for
redemption within a stated time were suddenly promulgated. The price
at which the silver dollar should circulate was raised and lowered by
edict. Copper money was also forced into circulation. The “Aventurier”
had some of this coin on board when she made her famous trip to New
Orleans. It was imported, conformably to the edict of June, 1721. The
inhabitants were enjoined to receive it without demur, as the Company
would take it on the same terms as gold and silver.

To provide for the adjustment of disputes, the colony was divided into
nine districts, and judicial powers were conferred upon the commanders
of the districts. The jurisdiction of the Superior Council was made
exclusively appellate. A similar appellate court, subordinate, however,
to the Superior Council, was provided for Illinois.

By ordinance issued May 16, 1722, by the commissioners of the Council,
with consent of the Bishop of Quebec, the province of Louisiana was
divided into three spiritual jurisdictions. The first comprised the
banks of the Mississippi from the Gulf to the mouth of the Ohio, and
included the region to the west between these latitudes. The Capuchins
were to officiate in the churches and missions of this district, and
their Superior was to reside in New Orleans. The second district
comprised all the territory north of the Ohio, and was assigned to the
charge of the Jesuits, whose headquarters were to be in Illinois. The
district south of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi was assigned to
the Carmelites. The residence of their Superior was ordinarily to be
at Mobile. Each of the three Superiors was to be a grand vicar of the
Bishop of Quebec.

By ordinance of the Bishop of Quebec, issued Dec. 19, 1722, the
district of the Carmelites was added to that of the Capuchins. The
Carmelites then returned to France. In the month of December, 1723, the
northern boundary of this district was changed to Natchez, and all the
country north of that point, to the east and to the west, was put under
charge of the Jesuits.

On the 27th of June, 1725, the Company, to allay the fears of the
Capuchins, issued a new ordinance, in which they declared that the
Capuchins alone should have the right to perform ecclesiastical
functions in their district, and that no priest or monk of other
brotherhood should be permitted to do so except with their consent. By
request of the Capuchins, this was confirmed by patent from the King,
dated the 25th of July, 1725.

The Capuchins had neither the numbers nor the influence essential for
so great a work. For this reason the Company assigned the care of the
French posts of the district to the Capuchins, and the charge of the
Indian missions to the Jesuits; and an agreement was made, Feb. 26,
1726, with the Jesuit fathers, in which the latter undertook to furnish
missionaries for the required work. In consequence of this arrangement
it became necessary for the Jesuits to have an establishment in New
Orleans. Permission to have such establishment was granted by the
Company, on condition that they should exercise no ecclesiastical
function except by consent of the Capuchins. Beaubois, the Jesuit
Superior, disregarded this injunction, and undertook to override
the Capuchins, who would have returned to France if he had not been
recalled.

On the 13th of September, 1726, the Company entered into a contract
with the Ursulines, in which the latter agreed to provide six nuns for
the hospital and to educate the girls of New Orleans. The nuns, who
were furnished in pursuance of this agreement, sailed from France Feb.
23, 1727. After a perilous voyage, five months in length, they arrived
at New Orleans and at once entered on their work.

In 1724 the accumulated complaints of the several officers with whom
Bienville had come into collision produced his downfall. La Harpe came
to his rescue in a memorial upon the importance of the country and
the necessity of maintaining the colony. Louisiana was not to be held
responsible for frauds on the Company, nor for lack of system and bad
management in its affairs. The Company itself had “begun by sending
over convicts, vagrants, and degraded girls. The troops were made up
of deserters and men indiscriminately picked up in the streets of
Paris. The warehouses were openly robbed by clerks, who screened their
knaveries by countless false entries. Disadvantageous bargains were
made with companies of Swiss and Germans, of miners, and manufacturers
of tobacco,[62] which turned out absolutely without value because the
Company did not carry them out. A vast number of burdensome offices
were created. The greater part of the directors who were sent out
thought only of their own interests and of how they could thwart M. de
Bienville, a man more familiar with the country than they were. If he
proposed to bring ships up the river, they obstinately opposed him,
fearing that they would then no longer be able to maintain traffic with
the Spaniards and thus amass fortunes.” La Harpe’s interposition may
have subsequently influenced opinions as to Bienville’s merits, but
at the time it had no apparent result. In February, 1724, Bienville
received positive orders to return to France. The brief interval which
elapsed before he sailed gave him an opportunity to associate his name
with the issue of the harsh and arbitrary code of fifty-four articles
regulating the conduct of the unfortunate slaves in the colony, and
imposing penalties for violations of law.

On his return to France, Bienville presented a memorial in vindication
of his course. Eight years before this he had urged upon the Marine
Council that he was entitled to promotion. The recapitulation of his
services, with which he opened his letter, is used again in substance
in the memorial: “For thirty-four years Sieur de Bienville has had the
honor of serving the King, twenty-seven of them as _lieutenant du roy_
and as commandant of the colony. In 1692 he was appointed midshipman.
He served seven years as such, and made seven sea-voyages in actual
service on armed vessels of the navy. During these seven years he
participated in all the combats waged by his brother, the late Sieur
d’Iberville, upon the shores of New England, at Newfoundland, and at
Hudson’s Bay; and among others in the action in the North against three
English vessels. These three vessels, one of which had fifty-four guns
and each of the others forty-two, attacked the said Sieur d’Iberville,
then commanding a frigate of forty-two guns. In a combat of five hours
he sank the fifty-four-gun ship, and took one of the others; while
the third, disabled, slipped away under cover of the night. The said
Sieur de Bienville was then seriously wounded in the head.”[63] He then
refers to his services in the exploring expedition and in the colony,
closing with the statement that his father was killed by the savages in
Canada, and that seven of his brothers died in the French naval service.

In support of his memorial, and to refute statements that there would
be an Indian outbreak if he should return, several representatives
of the Indian tribes of the colony, moved thereto by Bienville’s
relatives, were admitted to an audience with the Superior Council, and
there pronounced themselves friendly to him. It was thus that the red
men, on whom he had relied for food at some time in nearly every year
since he landed in Louisiana, rewarded him for his friendly interest in
their behalf,—him who had been the advocate of the plan for exiling
them to Santo Domingo, there to be exchanged for negroes; who had
subdued the eight hundred warriors of the Natchez by treacherously
seizing and holding their principal chiefs; who, on the 1st of
February, 1723, wrote that an important advantage over the Chickasaws
had been gained without the loss of a French life, “through the care
that I took to set these barbarians against each other.”

[Illustration]

All efforts of Bienville for reinstatement were thrown away. The
Council were of opinion that much of the wrangling in the colony
was due to the Le Moynes. M. Périer was appointed governor; and in
order that his administration might have a fair chance, several of
Bienville’s relatives were deprived of office in the colony. Under
the new Government, events moved on as before. The quiet of colonial
life was undisturbed except for the wrangling of the officials, the
publication of company orders, and the announcement of royal edicts.
In a memorial forwarded by the commander of Dauphin Island and Biloxi,
a highly colored picture is shown of the chaotic condition of affairs.
“The army was without discipline. Military stores and munitions of
war were not protected. Soldiers deserted at pleasure. Warehouses
and store-ships were pillaged. Forgers, thieves, and murderers went
unpunished. In short, the country was a disgrace to France, being
without religion, without justice, without discipline, without order,
and without police.”

Bienville had steered clear of serious Indian complications. He had
settled by deceit, without a blow and almost without troops, what in
place of more stirring events had been called the “first war of the
Natchez.” On the occasion of a second collision, in 1723, he had simply
appeared upon the scene with a superior force, and dictated terms to
the natives. During Périer’s term of office signs of uneasiness among
the natives and of impending trouble began to show themselves. Warnings
were given to several of the inhabitants of Natchez that danger was to
be apprehended from the neighboring tribe. The commander of the post
wilfully neglected these warnings, which were repeatedly brought to his
knowledge. On the 29th of November, 1729, the Natchez Indians rose,
and slaughtered nearly all the male inhabitants of the little French
village.[64] The scene was attended with the usual ingenious horrors
of an Indian massacre. A prolonged debauch succeeded. The Yazoos,
a neighboring tribe, surprised and slaughtered the little garrison
which held the post in their country. Even the fathers in charge of
the spiritual affairs of the posts were not spared.[65] Except for
this uprising of the Yazoos, the example of the Natchez tribe was not
contagious. News was quickly conveyed up and down the river, and but
little damage happened to travellers between Illinois and Louisiana.

[Illustration: FORT ROSALIE.

[“Plan du Fort Rozalie des Natchez,” in Dumont’s _Mémoires historiques
de la Louisiane_, ii. 94. There is also a plan of Fort Rosalie in
Philip Pittman’s _Present State of European Settlements on the
Mississippi_ (London, 1770), p. 40.—ED.]]

According to Dumont, the Choctaws and Natchez had conspired to attack
the French simultaneously at New Orleans and Natchez, and the attack at
Natchez was made in advance of the day agreed upon for the outbreak.
At this, he says, the Choctaws were exasperated, and announced that
they were willing to move in conjunction with the French upon Natchez.
According to their own professions, however, their friendship for
the French was uninterrupted, and they denied any previous knowledge
of the outbreak at Natchez. Whatever the motive which prompted it, a
joint military campaign against the Natchez was now organized with
the Choctaws. All the credit in the affair was gained by the Indians.
They were first in the field, and they did all the open fighting. When
the French tardily arrived on the spot, instead of the surprise, the
sudden attack, the rapid flight, and the complete victory or defeat
which had hitherto characterized most Indian warfare, they found the
Natchez behind rude fortifications, within which they had gathered all
their people, together with the women and children captured at the
recent attack on the village. The French were compelled to approach
these defences with all the formalities of a siege. At the end of what
Périer bombastically terms “six days of open trenches and ten days of
cannonade,” the Natchez on the 26th of February, 1730, surrendered the
captive women, children, and slaves to the Choctaws, withdrew their
entire force, and fled to the opposite bank of the Mississippi. The
knowledge that the French captives were with the Indians probably
hampered the French in their attack.

The services of tribes friendly to the French were secured during the
summer to harass the miserable Natchez; and on the 1st of August the
Governor could proudly report that by this means he had been able
since their migration to kill a hundred and fifty. “Lately,” he says
in one of his despatches, “I burned four men and two women here, and
the others I sent to Santo Domingo.” Smarting under the disgrace cast
upon their reputation by the fruitless results of this campaign, the
French felt the necessity for subduing the fugitive Natchez, who still
preserved their tribal organization and their independence. An alleged
negro insurrection the next summer furnished opportunity for hanging
“ten or a dozen of the most culpable” of the negroes, and further
demonstrated the necessity for some attempt to recover the prestige of
the French name.

In the month of November, 1730, Périer started on a crusade against
his foes. The force which he ultimately brought together for this
expedition is said to have been a thousand men, of whom seven hundred
were French. In January, 1731,[66] he succeeded in running down the
Natchez in their fort, situated a short distance from the river on the
west side, where he besieged and finally captured—according to his own
account—four hundred and fifty women and children and forty-five men.
Again the greater part of the warriors of the tribe escaped him. The
captives were sent to Santo Domingo, where they were sold as slaves.

The resources of the colony were now better understood. Buffalo-wool,
pearls, and mines were no longer relied upon. Prosperity had eluded
the grasp of the greater part of the settlers; but if agricultural
experiments had not proved remunerative as they had been handled,
they had at least demonstrated the fertility of the soil. The hopes
of commercial success, with so scant a population and under the
restrictions of the monopoly, were shown to be delusive. The climate
had proved a severe trial to the health of the settlers.[67] Perhaps
the character of the immigrants, their improvident habits, and their
reckless exposure had much to do with it, and had made the test an
unfair one. At all events the experience of the Company was but a
repetition of that of Crozat; and in 1731 the rights granted in the
charter were surrendered to the King. During Périer’s administration a
change was made in the character of the girls sent over to the colony.
In 1728 there arrived a ship bearing a considerable number of young
girls who had not been taken from the houses of correction. They were
cared for by the Ursulines until they were married.

It is not easy to follow the growth of the colony. When Crozat turned
matters over to the Company, there were said to be seven hundred
inhabitants; but four years afterward the Company officials, in one of
their reports, put this number at four hundred. The official estimate
in 1721 was five thousand four hundred and twenty, of whom six hundred
were negroes. La Harpe, in his memorial, puts the population in 1724
at five thousand whites and three thousand blacks. At the time of the
retrocession to the King the white population was estimated at five
thousand, and the negroes at over two thousand.

The treasury notes of the Company at that time constituted the
circulating medium of the colony. Fifteen days were allowed, during
which their use could be continued. After that their circulation was
prohibited, with appropriate penalties.

The Government signalized its renewal of the direct charge of the
colony by efforts to build up its commerce. Bienville succeeded
in securing his appointment as governor, and in 1733 returned to
Louisiana. The finances of the colony having undergone the disturbance
of the withdrawal of the paper money of the Company, the Government
consulted the colonial officers as to issuing in its place some card
money. These gentlemen recommended that the issue should be postponed
for two years. The impatience of the Government could, however,
be restrained but a year, when the entering wedge of two hundred
thousand livres was ordered,—the beginning of more inflation. In 1736
Bienville, owing to the unfriendly attitude of the Chickasaws, felt
the necessity of success in some movement against them, if he would
retain the respect and friendship of the Choctaws. He therefore made
an imposing demonstration against the Chickasaw villages. According to
his own account, he had with him over twelve hundred men, who in an
attack on one of the villages were repulsed with such severe loss that
the whole party were glad to get back to the shelter of their permanent
forts, without the satisfaction of knowing that they had either killed
or wounded one of the enemy.

The Chickasaws had apparently learned the value of earthworks as
defences, from their experience, if not from the English traders. Some
of these traders were in the village at the time of the attack, and
hoisted the English flag over their cabins. By throwing up the earth
around their houses, the Indians had converted each habitation into
a fortification. Unfortunately for the objects of the expedition,
Bienville learned, on his return to Mobile, that a coöperating column,
organized in Illinois, and composed mainly of Northern Indians, which
had marched under young Artaguette against the same enemy, had been
completely worsted, and their leader was reported killed.

If the movement against the Chickasaws was demanded by the condition
of affairs before this demonstration, the repulse made a renewal of it
at an early day a positive necessity. A strong force of men was sent
over from France under an officer trusted by the Court, and in 1739 an
advance was made with twelve hundred white soldiers and twenty-four
hundred Indians, by way of the Mississippi instead of the Tombigbee.
They were joined at a point near the present site of Memphis by a
company under Céloron, and by a detachment from Fort Chartres under
Buissonière. Five months were consumed in exploring a road which was
supposed to have been already laid out before they started. During this
time all the provisions of the expedition were consumed, and the main
army was obliged to return without having seen the enemy. The extensive
preparations for the expedition had, however, a moral effect. In March
a company of Canadians and Northern Indians, which had reported at the
appointed rendezvous, penetrated alone to the Chickasaw villages. The
chiefs of that tribe, believing that this corps was supported by the
expedition, sued for peace, which the French gladly granted them.

Every military effort put forth by Bienville since his return to
Louisiana had resulted disastrously. The old story of accusation
and counter-accusation between the resident officials of the colony
continued during his second term as before. Chagrined at his lack of
success, and mortified by evident distrust of his abilities shown
by the Court, he tendered his resignation and pathetically wrote:
“If success proportionate to my application to the business of the
Government and to my zeal in the service of the King had always
responded to my efforts, I should gladly have consecrated the rest
of my days to this work; but a sort of fatality has pursued me for
some time, has thwarted the greater part of my best-laid plans, has
often made me lose the fruit of my labors, and perhaps, also, a part
of the confidence of Your Highness.” On the 10th of May, 1743, he was
relieved by the Marquis de Vaudreuil, and he then returned to France.
He was at that time sixty-two years of age, and never revisited the
scene of nearly forty-four years of active life in the service of the
Government. He was called the “Father of the Colony,” and a certain
romantic affection attaches to his memory, based rather upon his
professed good-will than upon any success shown in his management of
affairs.

During the remainder of the life of the colony, under the
administration of M. de Vaudreuil until he was called to Canada, and
after that under M. de Kerlerec, his successor, there was no material
change in the condition of affairs. All attempts at recapitulation of
events resolve themselves into dreary reiterations of what has already
been told again and again. Tobacco and rice continued to be the staple
products of the colony. Hopes were still maintained that something
might be made by cultivating the indigo-plant. The sugar-cane was
introduced in 1751.

There was more of tampering with the currency. Incredible as it may
seem, there was scarcity of provisions at this late day, and appeals
to France for food.[68] The friendly Choctaws were again incited to
war against their traditional enemies, the Chickasaws, and strife was
also stirred up among themselves. Another warlike expedition boldly
marched to the Chickasaw villages and came back again. Criminations and
recriminations between governor and _commissaire-ordonnateur_ continued
to the end, with few intermissions and with as lively a spirit as
characterized the fiercest days of Bienville’s chronic fights. There
was another shipment of girls as late as 1751. The character of the
troops remained as before, and deserters continued to be a source of
annoyance. Even the children of the colonists were affected by their
surroundings, if we may believe an anonymous writer,[69] who says, “a
child of six years of age knows more of raking and swearing than a
young man of twenty-five in France.”

Illinois, separated from the cabals of the little courts at Quebec and
New Orleans, showed some signs of prosperity.[70] In 1711 Father Marest
wrote: “There was no village, no bridge, no ferry, no boat, no house,
no beaten path; we travelled over prairies intersected by rivulets and
rivers, through forests and thickets filled with briers and thorns,
through marshes where we plunged up to the girdle.” The character of
the returns expected by the French from this country had been shown by
the expeditions of Le Sueur and La Mothe Cadillac. A few boat-loads of
green earth had been sent to France by Le Sueur for assay, but no mines
were opened. La Mothe brought down a few specimens of silver ore which
had been found in Mexico, and some samples of lead from the mines which
were shown him fourteen miles west of the river; but he discovered no
silver mines. Nevertheless, the Company had great faith in this region.
Their estimate of the dangers to which it was exposed may be gathered
from the instructions to Ordonnateur Duvergier in the fall of 1720.
He was told where the principal fortifications were to be maintained.
Illinois, the directors said, being so far inland, would require a much
smaller fort. Communication was to be opened up with that post by land.
Positive commands were given to hold a post on the Ohio River, in order
to occupy the territory in advance of the English, and prevent them
from getting a foothold there. “Illinois is full of silver, copper, and
lead mines, which ought to produce considerable returns if worked. The
Company has sent to the colony a number of miners to open the mines
and to begin work there as an example to the owners of concessions and
to the inhabitants. The troop of Sieur Renault, composed of people
accustomed to work of this sort, went to the colony at the same time;
but the two troops, according to last reports, are not yet at Illinois.”

About the same time it was ordered that “the establishment made
by Boisbriant,” originally a few leagues below the village of the
Kaskaskias, but apparently afterward transferred to a point about
the same distance above the village, should be “called Fort de
Chartres.”[71]

In 1721 Charlevoix traversed this region. Speaking of the so-called
fort at St. Joseph, near the foot of Lake Michigan, he says: “The
commandant’s house, which is but a sorry one, is called a fort from
its being surrounded with an indifferent palisade,—which is pretty
near the case with all the rest.” The route of Charlevoix was up the
St. Joseph across a portage to the Kankakee, and down that river,
the Illinois, and the Mississippi, to Fort Chartres, the next French
station which he mentions.[72] He describes it as standing about a
musket-shot from the river. He heard of mines both copper and lead.
Renault, or Renaud, as he is generally called, who was working the lead
mines, still hoped for silver. Even after this we hear occasionally of
alleged mineral discoveries and revived hopes of mines; but neither the
Company nor the Government were destined to reap any great revenue from
this source.

The duties of Boisbriant and of his successors were almost exclusively
limited to adjudicating quarrels, administering estates, watching
Indians, and granting provisional titles to lands or setting off rights
in the common fields of the villages. The history of these years is
preserved in fragments of church-registers, in mouldy grants of real
estate, or in occasional certificates of marriage which have by chance
been saved. No break occurred in this monotony till the joint movement
against the Chickasaws, of young Artaguette from Fort Chartres and
of Vinsennes from his post on the Wabash in 1736. The troops from
these posts, who were to move from the North at the same time that
Bienville should approach from the South, following their orders, met
and advanced at the appointed time. Their prompt obedience brought
them to the spot in advance of the dilatory Bienville, and enabled
the Chickasaws, as has been previously stated, to meet the columns
separately and defeat them in detail. A column from this fort was also
in the body of troops from the North which co-operated in the second
attack on these Indians.

During this uneventful time the little colony grew, and the settlers
enjoyed a moderate degree of prosperity. A contented population of
about two thousand whites,[73] to whom grants of land had been freely
made for purposes of settlement or cultivation, was mainly engaged in
agricultural pursuits. Side by side with them the natives were gathered
in villages in which were established Jesuit missions. The fertile
soil readily yielded to their efforts at cultivation more than they
could consume, and each year the surplus products were floated down to
New Orleans. Bossu asserted that all the flour for the lower country
came from Illinois. Vaudreuil, before leaving the colony for Canada,
reported[74] that boats came down the river annually with provisions;
but as late as 1744 he still harped on the discovery of new copper and
lead mines. Of the real agricultural value of the country there could
not at that time have been any just appreciation. As a mining region it
had proved to be a failure.

[Illustration: PLAN OF FORT CHARTRES.

[Taken from Lewis C. Beck’s _Gazetteer of the States of Illinois and
Missouri_, (Albany, 1823). The plan was draughted from the ground in
1823. Key: _a,a,a_, etc., exterior wall (1447 feet); _B_, gate; _C_,
small gate; _D,D_, houses of commandant and commissary, 96×30 feet
each. _E_, well; _F_, magazine; _G,G_, etc., barracks, 135×36 feet;
_H,H_, storehouse and guard-house, 90×24 feet. _I_, small magazine;
_K_, furnace; _L,L_, etc., ravine. Area of fort, 4 acres.—ED.]]

The little fort needed repairs;[75] and La Galissonière, with his
usual sagacity, wrote, “The little colony of Illinois ought not to
be left to perish. The King must sacrifice for its support. The
principal advantage of the country is its extreme productiveness;
and its connection with Canada and Louisiana must be maintained.”
Apparently the urgency of La Galissonière produced some results.
Macarty, the officer who had command of the post at the time of the
collision between the French and the English at the headwaters of the
Ohio, arrived at Fort Chartres in the winter of 1751-1752. Bossu,
who accompanied him, writes from the fort: “The Sieur Saussier, an
engineer, has made a plan for constructing a new fort here, according
to the intention of the Court. It will bear the same name with the
old one, which is called Fort de Chartres.” In January, 1755, Bossu
arrived a second time at the post, having in the mean time made a trip
to New Orleans. He says: “I came once more to the old Fort Chartres,
where I lay in a hut till I could get a lodging in the new fort,
which is almost finished. It is built of freestone, flanked with four
bastions, and capable of containing a garrison of three hundred[76]
men.” The construction of this fort was the final effort of France in
the Valley of the Mississippi. It proved to be of even less value than
the fortress at Louisbourg, upon which so much money was wasted, for
it fell into the hands of the enemy without the formality of a siege.
On the other side of the river, Bournion, who in 1721 bore the title
of “Commandant du Missouri,” founded Fort Orleans on an island in the
Missouri, and left a garrison[77] there, which was afterward massacred.
Misère, now known as St. Genevieve, was founded about 1740.

As events drifted on toward the end of the French occupation, the
difficulties of the French Government elsewhere compelled the absolute
neglect of Louisiana. Kerlerec writes in 1757 that he has not heard
from the Court for two years; and in 1761 the French ambassador,
in a memorial to the Court at Madrid, states that for four years
no assistance had been furnished to the colony. An estimate of the
population made in 1745 places the number of inhabitants at six
thousand and twenty, of whom four thousand were white. Compared with
the number at the time of the retrocession by the Company, it shows
a falling off of a thousand whites. It is probable that the white
population was even less at a later day. It is not strange that the
feeble results of this long occupation should have led the Most
Christian King to the determination to present the colony to his very
dear and much-loved cousin, the King of Spain,—an act which was
consummated in 1762, but not made public at the time. Its influence was
not felt until later.

       *       *       *       *       *

The outline of events in Canada which we have previously traced carried
us to a point where the first collision in the Valley of the Ohio
between the troops of the two great nations who were contending for
the mastery of the northern portion of the continent had already taken
place. News of this contest reached New Orleans, and reports of what
was occurring at the North served to fill out the Louisiana despatches.
From this source we learn that the Chevalier de Villiers,[78] a
captain stationed at Fort Chartres, solicited the privilege of
leading an expedition to avenge the death of his brother Jumonville,
who had been killed by the Virginian force under Washington. The
request was granted; and thus the troops from the East and from the
West participated in these preliminary contests in the Valley of the
Ohio.[79]

It is not within the proposed limits of this sketch to follow in
detail the military events with which each of the few remaining years
of French domination in America were marked. The death-struggle was
protracted much longer than could have been anticipated. The white
population of the English colonies is said to have been over ten
times greater than that of Canada in 1755; and yet these odds did
not fairly express the difference between the contending Powers.[80]
The disproportion of the aid which might be expected from the mother
countries was far greater. The situation was the reverse of what it had
been in the past. England began to show some interest in her colonies.
She was prosperous, and the ocean was open to her cruisers. The French
experiments at colonization in America had proved a source of expense
so great as to check the sympathy and crush the hopes of the Court.
The vessels of France could only communicate with her colonies by
eluding the search of the English ships widely scattered over the sea.
Although no formal declaration of war was made until 1756, England did
not hesitate to seize French merchant-vessels and to attack French
men-of-war, and she backed the pretensions of her colonists with solid
arguments clad in red coats and bearing glittering bayonets. France
shipped a few soldiers and some stores to Canada. Some of her vessels
succeeded in running the gauntlet of the English cruisers, but more
were driven ashore or captured. The native Canadians, more French than
Frenchmen themselves, rallied to the support of the Government which
had strangled every sign of independent life in their country. Old men
and children joined the ranks to repel the invader; and again we have
the story repeated of scant crops improperly harvested because of lack
of field hands, and thereafter actual suffering for food in this old
and well-established colony. The experiences of Braddock and of Dieskau
were needed to teach Europeans the value of the opinions of provincial
officers in matters of border warfare. Temporary successes during
several years inspired hopes in the minds of the French and thwarted
the progress of the English. Nevertheless, the strength of the English
began to tell, especially along the seaboard, where their supremacy
was more conspicuous. The line of French forts across the neck of
the Acadian peninsula fell without serious opposition, and it was
determined to remove from the country a population which would neither
take the oath of allegiance to His Britannic Majesty, nor preserve
neutrality in time of war. Their forcible deportation followed; and in
their wanderings some of these “neutral French” even penetrated to the
distant colony of Louisiana, where they settled on the banks of the
Mississippi.[81] Such was the demoralization of the official class of
peculators in Canada that those refugees who escaped to the protection
of its Government were fed with unwholesome food, for which the King
had been charged exorbitant prices by his commissaries. The destruction
of the fort at Oswego postponed for that year the efforts of the
English to interrupt the communication between the valleys of the Ohio
and the St. Lawrence. The destruction of Fort William Henry temporarily
protected Montreal; the check sustained by Abercromby was of equal
military value. But in 1758 Louisbourg, with its garrison and stores
was lost, the little settlements in Gaspé were ravaged, and France was
deprived of the last foot of territory on the North Atlantic seaboard.
Quebec thus became accessible to the enemy by way of the sea without
hindrance.

[Illustration]

Distrust and jealousy pervaded the Government councils in Canada.
Pierre François, Marquis of Vaudreuil, the successor of Duquesne in
1755, and Montcalm, whose cordial co-operation was essential, were
at swords’ points. With each succeeding year the corrupt practices
of Intendant Bigot were more openly carried on. With famine stalking
through the streets of Montreal and Quebec, with the whole population
living on short rations, and bread-stuffs at incredible prices,
the opportunity for this wide-awake Intendant to make money was
never better. If accounts are to be trusted, he availed himself of
his chance; and out of the sufferings and dire necessities of this
sorely pressed people he amassed a fortune.[82] All this was to the
advantage of England. Every point that she gained in the struggle
she kept. From each reverse that she sustained she staggered up,
surprised that the little band of half-starved Canadian troops should
have prevailed again, but with renewed determination to conquer. The
only value of success to Canada was to postpone the invasion, and for
the time being to keep the several columns which threatened Montreal
from co-operation. With so feeble a force the French could not hope to
maintain the widely scattered forts which they held at the beginning of
hostilities. In 1759 they were threatened by hostile columns counting
more than the entire number of Canadians capable of bearing arms. All
hope of aid from France was crushed by the Minister, who wrote: “In
addition to the fact that reinforcements would add to the suffering
for food which you already experience, it is very much to be feared
that they would be intercepted by the English on passage.” Such was the
mournful condition of affairs when Wolfe sailed up the St. Lawrence,
expecting to find Quebec ready to fall into his hands. To his surprise,
the place was held by a force thoroughly capable of defending it
against the combined strength of his soldiers and sailors. Fortune
favored him, and Quebec was gained.

The resistance of the French during one more campaign was probably
justifiable, but was a mere matter of form. Without hope of assistance
from France, without means of open communication with any other French
possession, without supplies of ammunition or of food, there was really
nothing left to fight for. Even the surrounding parishes of Canada
had yielded to the pressure of events, after the failure to recapture
Quebec. When, therefore, the English columns converged upon Montreal
in 1760, the place capitulated, and the French flag disappeared from
Canada.

       *       *       *       *       *

At the mouth of the Mississippi French occupation was not disturbed
until the boundaries were adjusted in accordance with the terms of
the Treaty of Peace signed at Paris in February, 1763. No reference
was made in the treaty nor in the preliminary convention to the fact
that France had already granted to Spain her title to the whole of
Louisiana. Knowledge of this remarkable act was kept secret for a few
years longer. England, by the terms of the treaty of Paris, became the
acknowledged mistress of all that portion of the American continent
which lies east of the middle of the Mississippi River, with the
exception of the island on which was built the city of New Orleans.
Ample provision was made to protect the rights of French citizens who
might wish to remove from the country. The privilege of religious
worship according to the forms of the Roman Catholic Church was
guaranteed to those who should remain, as far as the laws of England
would permit.

       *       *       *       *       *

The era of colonial history which this chapter covers is coincident
with a period of decline in France. The transmission of the throne in
the line of descent was not, however, interfered with, nor were the
traditions of colonial policy changed. The causes of the rise and fall
of the colonies of European Powers at that time are to be found in
the history of European politics; and European politics in turn were
largely influenced by the desire to control territory in the New World.
The life of French colonies was in close contact with European events.
If the pulse of the English settlements did not throb in such sympathy
with the mother country, it was because there was a fundamental
difference in the methods by which English colonies had been formed and
in the conditions of their growth. A colony was not looked upon at that
time as forming a part of the parent State. It was a business venture,
entered into directly by the State itself, or vicariously by means of a
grant to some individual or company. If the colony did not earn money,
it was a failure. Spain had derived wealth from ventures of this sort.
Other nations were tempted into the pursuit of the same policy in the
hope of the same result.

To preserve the proper relations to the parent State, the colony
should have within itself elements of wealth which should enrich
its projectors; it should absorb the productions of the State which
founded it; and in no event ought it to come into competition with its
progenitor. The form of the French government was so logical that its
colonies could be but mimic representations of France. Priests and
nuns, soldiers and peasants, nobles and seigniors, responded to the
royal order, and moved at the royal dictation in the miniature Court
at Quebec much the same as at Paris. There was so little elasticity
in French life that the French peasant, when relieved from the cramp
of his surroundings, still retained the marks of pressure. Without
ambition and without hope, he did not voluntarily break away from his
native village. If transported across the water, he was still the
French peasant, cheerful in spirit, easily satisfied, content with but
little, and not disposed to wrestle for his rights. The priest wore
his shovel-hat through the dense thickets of the Canadian forests, and
clung to his flowing black robe even though torn to a fringe by the
brambles through which it was trailed. Governor and council, soldier,
priest, and peasant, all bore upon their persons the marks that they
were Frenchmen whose utmost effort was to reproduce in the wilds of
America the artificial condition of society which had found its perfect
expression in Versailles. Autocratic as was Frontenac, unlikely as he
was to do anything which should foster popular notions of liberty, or
in any way endanger monarchical institutions,—even he drew down upon
himself a rebuke from the Court for giving too much heed to the people
in his scheme of reorganization.

From his palace in France the Grand Monarque dictated the size and
shape of a Canadian farm. He prescribed the localities which new-comers
ought to select. They must not stray too far from villages; they must
clear lands in spots contiguous to settlements. He could find men who
would go to Canada, but there was no emigration of families. Soldiers
in the colony were offered their discharge and a year’s pay if they
would marry and settle. Premiums were offered the colonists for
marrying, and premiums for children. “The new settler,” says Parkman,
“was found by the King, sent over by the King, and supplied by the King
with a wife, a farm, and sometimes with a house.” Popular meetings
were in such disfavor that not until 1717 were the merchants permitted
to establish an exchange at Quebec. His Majesty, while pulling the
wires which moved the puppets of European politics, still found time
to express his regrets that the “King’s officers had been obliged to
come down from Frontenac to Quebec to obtain absolution,” and to convey
his instructions to the Bishop of Quebec to suppress several fête-days
which interfered with agricultural labors. Cared for thus tenderly,
it would seem that Canada should have thriven. Had the measures put
forth been wisely directed toward the prosperity of the colony, it
might have done so; but Louis XIV. was not working for the benefit of
Canada; his efforts were exclusively in behalf of France. In 1706 his
Minister wrote: “It is not for the interest of the parent State that
manufactures should be carried on in America, as it would diminish
the consumption of those in France; but in the mean time the poor are
not prohibited from manufacturing stuffs in their own houses for the
relief of themselves and their families.” Generous monarch! The use of
the spinning-wheel and the loom was not forbidden in the log-cabins in
Canada, even if this did clash somewhat with French trade. “From this
permission,” says Heriot, “the inhabitants have ever since continued to
fabricate coarse linen and druggets, which has enabled them to subsist
at a very small expense.” Coin was almost unknown much of the time; and
the paper money and bills of exchange, upon which the colony depended
for a circulating medium, were often seriously depreciated.

The spirit of organization and inquisition which infested the
Government pervaded all things temporal and spiritual. Trade in
peltries could only be carried on by those having permits from the
Government or from the firm or company which for the time being had the
monopoly. All trade at outlying posts was farmed out by the governors.
Young men could not stray off into the woods without violating a royal
edict. Such solicitude could only produce two results,—those who
endured it became automatons; those who followed their inclinations and
broke away from it were proscribed as bushrangers. From the day when
Champlain founded the city of Quebec down to the time when the heroic
Montcalm received his death-wound on the Plains of Abraham, the motives
which had influenced the French in their schemes of colonization had
been uniform and their methods identical. Time enough had elapsed to
measure the success of their efforts.

French colonization in America had reached three degrees of prosperity.
In Acadia, under English rule, freed from military service in the
ranks of the country to which they naturally owed allegiance, and
with their rights as neutrals recognized by the English, the French
colonists had prospered and multiplied. Originally a band of hunters
and fishers, they had gradually become an agricultural population,
and had conquered prosperity out of a soil which did not respond
except to the hand of patience and industry. Exempt from the careful
coddling of His Most Christian Majesty, they had evoked for themselves
a government patriarchal in its simplicity and complete for their
needs. In Louisiana, under the hothouse system of commercial companies
and forced immigration, the failure had been so complete that even
those who participated in it could see the cause. In Canada there was
neither the peaceful prosperity of Acadia nor the melancholy failure of
Louisiana. Measured by its own records, the colony shows steady growth.
Compared with its rivals, its laggard steps excite surprise and demand
explanation. The Acadians were French and Catholics. Neither their
nationality nor their religion interfered with their prosperity. They
had, however, been lucky enough to escape from the friendly care of the
French Government. It is but a fair inference that the Canadians also
would have thriven if they could have had a trial by themselves.

       *       *       *       *       *

The history of England during the corresponding period showed no such
uniform motive, no such continuous purpose as to her colonies. From
the time of their foundation the English colonies became practically
independent States, with which the Home Government, during the long
period of political disturbances which intervened, seldom interfered.
The transmission of the crown by descent was interrupted. A parliament
displaced and executed a king. A protector temporarily absorbed his
power. The regular order of the descent of the crown in the restored
royal family was again interrupted. The crowned ruler of England was a
fugitive on the Continent, and Parliament by act prescribed who should
govern England, and afterward how the crown should be transmitted.
The causes that produced English emigration, whether political or
religious, varied with these events, and emigration was correspondingly
affected; but whatever the extent and whatever the character of this
influence, the emigration from England was, as a rule, a voluntary
emigration of families. Young men might be tempted by the fascinating
freedom of a wild life in the woods; but the typical emigrant was the
father of a family. He abandoned a home in the old country. He took
with him his wife, his family, and his household goods. Much of the
furniture brought over by the sturdy emigrants of that time is still
treasured by their descendants. The strong mental individuality which
thus led men with families to cut adrift from the struggles and trials
in England, only to encounter the dangers and difficulties of pioneer
life in a new country, found expression in various ways in the affairs
of the colonies, oftentimes to the vexation of the authorities.

The New France was a reproduction of the Old France, with all, and more
than all, the restrictions which hampered the growth and hindered the
prosperity of the parent State. The New England had inherited all the
elements of prosperity with which the Old England was blessed, and had
even more of that individuality and freedom of action on the part of
its citizens which seems to form so important an element of success.
Out of the heterogeneous mixture of proprietary grants, colonial
charters, and commissions, some of which were granted to bodies which
sought exclusive privileges, while others were based upon broad,
comprehensive, and liberal views; out of the conflicting interests
and divergent opinions of fugitive Congregationalists, Quakers,
and Catholics; out of a scattered, unorganized emigration of men
entertaining widely different views upon politics and religion,—these
aggressive, self-asserting colonists evolved the principle of the right
of the inhabitants to a voice in the affairs of their government; and
whether provision was made for it in the charter or not, houses of
burgesses, general courts, and assemblies were summoned to make laws
for the various colonies. Charters were afterward annulled; laws which
contained offensive assertions of rights were refused the royal assent:
but the great fundamental truth remained,—that the colonies were
self-supporting. They had proved their capacity, and they constantly
showed their determination, to govern themselves. Each movement of
the emigrant away from the coast became a permanent settlement which
required organization and control. Out of the unforeseen and unexpected
conditions which were constantly occurring came the necessity for
local government, to be administered by officers chosen by the little
settlements.

Emerson, in speaking of the first tax assessed upon themselves by
the people of Concord in Massachusetts, accounts for the peculiar
developments of colonial life in New England in the following words:
“The greater speed and success that distinguishes the planting of the
human race in this country over all other plantations in history owe
themselves mainly to the new subdivisions of the State into small
corporations of land and power. It is vain to look for the inventor; no
man made them. Each of the parts of that perfect structure grew out of
the necessities of an instant occasion; the germ was formed in England.”

The pioneer penetrated the forest; he took with him the school-house
and the church. Out of the necessities of instant occasions grew, in
New England at least, the town-meeting,—the complete expression of a
government whose foundations are laid in the people.

Before leaving the colony, in 1754, the Marquis Duquesne summoned
the Iroquois to a council. In the course of an address which he then
delivered he said: “Are you ignorant of the difference between the
King of England and the King of France? Go, see the forts that our
King has established, and you will see that you can still hunt under
their very walls. They have been placed for your advantage in places
which you frequent. The English, on the contrary, are no sooner in
possession of a place than the game is driven away. The forest falls
before them as they advance, and the soil is laid bare so that you can
scarce find the wherewithal to erect a shelter for the night.” No more
powerful contrast of the results in North America of the two methods
of colonization could be drawn than is presented in the words of the
French Governor.


CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF LOUISIANA HISTORY.

CHARLEVOIX’ _Nouvelle France_[83] and the account of his personal
adventures in the _Journal d’un voyage_, etc., have been much quoted by
early writers. The extent and value of Dr. Shea’s work in annotating
his translation of this history can only be appreciated by careful
study. Through this means the translation is more valuable for many
purposes of research than the original work.[84]

[Illustration]

In 1831 the _Journal historique de l’établissement des Français à la
Louisiane_ was published at New Orleans and at Paris. It consists of
an anonymous historical narrative, to which is appended a memorial
signed by Benard de La Harpe. It is generally quoted as “La Harpe.”
The narrative is founded largely upon the journals of Le Sueur and
La Harpe, though it is evident that the author had other sources
of information. Within its pages may be found a record of all the
expeditions despatched by the colony to the Red River region and to the
coast of Texas.[85] The work of compilation was done by a clear-headed,
methodical man. Margry quotes from the work, and attributes its
authorship to “le Chevalier de Beaurain, géographe du roy.”[86]
Manuscript copies of this work, under the title _Journal historique
concernant l’établissement des Français à la Louisiane, tiré des
mémoires de Messieurs D’Iberville et De Bienville, commandants pour le
roy au dit pays, et sur les découvertes et recherches de M. Benard de
la Harpe, nommé aux commandement de la Baye St. Bernard_, are to be
found in some of our libraries.[87]

[Illustration

Following the engraving in Shea’s _Charlevoix_, vol. i. [but now, 1893,
thought to be Le Jeune].]

The historians of Canada give but brief and inaccurate accounts of the
early history of Louisiana. Ferland repeats the errors of Charlevoix
even to the “fourth voyage of Iberville.” Garneau leaves the Natchez in
possession of their fort at the end of the first campaign.[88]

Judge François-Xavier Martin, in the _History of Louisiana from the
Earliest Period_, 2 vols. (New Orleans, 1827-1829), followed closely
the authorities accessible to him when he wrote; his work is a
complete, and in the main accurate, compendium of the materials at his
command. A new edition was published at New Orleans in 1882, entitled:
_The History of Louisiana from the Earliest Period. With a Memoir of
the Author by W. W. Howe. To which is appended, Annals of Louisiana
from 1815 to 1861, by J. F. Condon_.

Charles Gayarré is the author of two distinct works which must not be
confounded. _Louisiana, its Colonial History and Romance_,[89] is a
history of colonial romance rather than a history of the colony. The
_Histoire de la Louisiane_[90] is an essentially different book. It is
mainly composed of transcripts from original documents, woven together
with a slender thread of narrative. He states in his Preface that he
has sought to remove from sight his identity as a writer, and to let
the contemporaries tell the story themselves. References to Gayarré in
this chapter are exclusively made to the _Histoire_, which was brought
down to 1770. His final work (reprinted in 1885) was in English, and
was continued to 1861.[91] In this edition two volumes are given to the
French domination, one to the Spanish, and one to the American.[92]

[Illustration]

A little volume entitled _Recueil d’arrests et autres pièces pour
l’établissement de la compagnie d’occident_ was published in Amsterdam
in 1720. It contains many of the important edicts and decrees which
relate to the foundation and growth of this remarkable Company.

The presence of Le Page du Pratz in the colony for sixteen years (1718
to 1734) gives to his _Histoire de la Louisiane_[93] a value which his
manifest egotism and whimsical theories cannot entirely obscure. It was
an authority in the boundary discussions.[94]

[Illustration: MOUTHS OF THE MISSISSIPPI.

[Part of a map in Le Page du Pratz’ _Histoire de la Louisiane_ (1758),
i. 139. Cf. also the _Carte des embouchures du Mississipi_, by N.
Bellin, given (1744) in Charlevoix’ _Nouvelle France_, iii. 442. In
the same volume (p. 469) is the “Partie de la coste de la Louisiane et
de la Floride,” giving the coast from the mouths of the Mississippi to
Apalache Bay. In 1759 Jefferys gave in the margin of his reproduction
of La Tour’s map of New Orleans a map of the Mississippi from Bayagoula
to the sea, and of the east mouth of the river, with the fort La
Balise.—ED.]]

Dumont, whose _Mémoires historiques sur la Louisiane_[95] were edited
by M. L. Le M. (said to have been L’Abbé Le Mascrier), was in the
military service in the colony. In the _Journal historique_, etc.,
mention is made of a sub-lieutenant Dumont de Montigny[96] at the
post at Yazoo. The author was stationed at this post, and accompanied
La Harpe up the Arkansas. The statement made in biographical works
that Butel Dumont,[97] who was born in 1725, was the author, is
manifestly incorrect. Both Dumont and Le Page were contributors to
the _Journal œconomique_, a Paris periodical of the day. We are able
positively to identify him as Dumont de Montigny, through an article
on the manner in which the Indians of Louisiana dress and tan skins,
in that journal, August, 1752. Dumont had a correspondence with
Buache the cartographer[98] on the subject of the great controversy
of the day,—the sea of the west and the northwest passage. Dumont
was fond of a good-sounding story;[99] and his book, like that of Le
Page depends for its value largely upon the interest of his personal
experiences. Another book of the same class is the _Nouveaux voyages
aux Indes occidentales_,[100] by M. Bossu. The author, an army officer,
was first sent up the Tombigbee, and afterward attached to the forces
which were posted in Illinois, and was there when Villiers marched on
Fort Necessity. He was in the colony twelve years, and bore a good
reputation.

The work entitled _État présent de la Louisiane, avec toutes les
particularités de cette province d’Amérique_, par le Colonel Chevalier
de Champigny (A la Haye, 1776), has been generally quoted as if
Champigny were the author. In an editorial introduction Champigny says
the text and the notes were furnished him in manuscript by an English
officer. In the body of the work the statement is made by the author
that he accompanied the English forces which took possession of the
colony after its cession to England. This work is cited by Mr. Adams in
the boundary discussion.

The _Mémoire historique et politique de la Louisiane_, by M. de
Vergennes, minister of Louis XVI. (Paris, 1802), contains a brief
historical sketch of the colony, intended only for the eye of His
Majesty. Its wholesome comments on the French troops and on French
treatment of the Indians are refreshing to read.[101] They would
not have been so frank, perhaps, if the work had been intended for
publication.

[Illustration]

In his _Early Voyages Up and Down the Mississippi_ (Albany, 1861)
Dr. Shea has collected, translated, and annotated various relations
concerning the voyages of Cavelier, De Montigny de Saint-Cosme, Le
Sueur, Gravier, and Guignas.[102]

A number of the relations in the _Lettres édifiantes et curieuses_
cover portions of the period and territory of this chapter. These
have been collected and translated by Bishop Kip in the _Early Jesuit
Missions_ (Albany, 1866). To avoid repetition, he has made certain
abridgments. Some of the material thus left out has value to the
student of the early history of Illinois.[103]

Major Amos Stoddard, in his _Sketches Historical and Descriptive of
Louisiana_ (Philadelphia, 1812), furnished an unostentatious and modest
book, which has been freely quoted.

The _Relation du voyage des dames religieuses Ursulines de Rouen_,
etc. (Paris, 1872), with an introduction and notes by Gabriel Gravier,
is an exact reprint of a publication at Rouen in 1728 of certain
letters of Marie Madeleine Hachard, sœur Saint-Stanislas, to her
father. The account of the tedious journey of the nuns from Paris
to Orient, and of their perilous voyage to New Orleans, was worth
preservation. M. Gravier has performed his part of the work with the
evident satisfaction which such a task would afford a bibliophile and
an antiquary. His introductory chapter contains a condensed history of
Louisiana down to 1727, and is strongly fortified with quotations. He
acknowledges himself to be indebted to M. Boimare for a great number
of valuable unpublished documents relating to the foundation of New
Orleans. Greater familiarity with his subject would have enabled him to
escape several errors of date and of statement into which he has been
led by authorities whose carelessness he apparently did not suspect.
The memorial concerning the Church in Louisiana (_note_ 1, p. 113 _et
seq._) is a document of great value and interest. M. Gravier (p. lvi)
states that the Relation is substantially the same as the _Relation du
voyage des fondatrices de la Nouvelle Orléans, écrite aux Ursulines
de France, par la première supérieure, la mère St. Augustin_, which
was reprinted by Dr. Shea in an edition of one hundred copies in 1859,
under the general title of _Relation du voyage des premières Ursulines
à la Nouvelle Orléans et de leur établissement en cette ville [1727],
par la Rev. Mère St. A. de Tranchepain; avec les lettres circulaires de
quelquesunes de ses sœurs, et de la dite mère_ (62 pp.).

The _History of the American Indians, particularly those Nations
adjoining to the Mississippi, East and West Florida, Georgia, South
and North Carolina, and Virginia_, etc., by James Adair, who was forty
years in the country, is a work of great value, showing the relations
of the English traders to the Indians, and is of much importance to the
student of Indian customs.[104]

The _Géologie pratique de la Louisiane_, by R. Thomassy (New Orleans
and Paris, 1860), contains copies of some rare documents which were
first made public in this volume.

The _Histoire de la Louisiane_[105] by M. Barbé Marbois is so brief in
its treatment of the period covered by this chapter that very little
can be gained from consulting that portion of the book.

A work entitled _De la puissance Américaine_, by M. Guillaume-Tell
Poussin, was published at Paris in 1843. A translation was printed
at Philadelphia in 1851. The writer, from his familiarity with this
country, was especially fitted to give a French view of our history.
His chapter on Louisiana shows that he had access to the treasures of
the Paris Archives. Its value, however, is diminished by the fact that
he is inexact in his details.

Daniel Coxe, the son of Dr. Coxe, the claimant of the Carolana grant,
published in London in 1722 _A Description of the English Province
of Carolana, by the Spaniards call’d Florida, and by the French La
Louisiane_.[106] The body of the text is devoted to a description of
the attractions of the province to the emigrant. The preface contains
an account of the entrance of the Mississippi by the vessel which
was turned back by Bienville. The appendix is an argument in favor
of the claimant’s title to the grant, and of England’s title to the
Mississippi Valley. It contains a curious story of a Massachusetts
expedition to New Mexico in 1678, and a claim that La Salle’s guides
were Indians who accompanied that expedition.[107]

The official correspondence concerning the Louisiana boundary question
may be found in Waite’s _American State Papers and Public Documents_
(Boston, 1815-1819), vol. xii. The temperate statements of Don Pedro
Cevallos are in strong contrast with the extravagant assumptions
of Luis de Orris, who even cites as authority the mythical Admiral
Fonte.[108] Yoakum, in his _History of Texas_ (New York, 1856), goes
over this ground, and publishes in his appendix an interesting document
from the archives of Bexar.

_Illinois in the Eighteenth Century_, by Edward G. Mason (Fergus
Historical Series, no. 12), Chicago, 1881, has two papers dealing with
the topics of this chapter: “Kaskaskia and its parish records” and
“Old Fort Chartres.” The recital of the grants, the marriages, and the
christenings at Kaskaskia and St. Anne brings us close to Boisbriant,
Artaguette, and the other French leaders whose lives are interwoven
with the narrative of events in Illinois. The description of Fort
Chartres is by far the best extant. The work of rescuing from oblivion
this obscure phase of Illinois history has been faithfully performed.

The following works have been freely used by writers upon the early
history of Illinois and the Illinois villages and forts:—

_The Administration of the Colonies_, by Thomas Pownall, 2d ed.
(London, 1765). The appendix, section 1, deals with the subject of this
chapter.

_A Topographical Description of North America_, by T. Pownall (London,
1776). Appendix, no. 4, p. 4, Captain Harry Gordon’s Journal, describes
the fort and villages.

[Illustration: COXE’S CAROLANA.

[Part of the _Map of Carolana and of the River Meschacebe_, in Daniel
Coxe’s _Description of the English Province of Carolana_, London,
1742—ED.]]

Thomas Hutchins has also published two books,—_An Historical Narrative
and Topographical Description of Louisiana_, etc. (Philadelphia, 1784),
and _A Topographical Description_, etc. (London, 1778).

Captain Philip Pittman prepared a report on _The Present State of the
European Settlements on the Mississippi_. It was published in London,
in 1770. It is embellished with charts of the river and plans of
several of the forts and villages.[109]

Also _Sketches of History, Life and Manners in the West_, by James Hall
(Philadelphia, 1835), who visited the fort in 1829.

The _Early History of Illinois_, by Sidney Breese, contains an
interesting description of French life in Illinois.[110] See also a
chapter on the same subject in Davidson and Stuvé’s _Complete History
of Illinois_ (Springfield, 1874). _The History of the Discovery and
Settlement of the Mississippi Valley_, by John W. Monette (New York,
1846), also has an elaborate sketch of the settlement of Louisiana and
Illinois.[111]

_Mississippi as a Province, Territory, and State_, by J. F. H.
Claiborne (1880), devotes considerable space to the Province.

Extracts from a memoir by M. Marigny de Mandeville may be found in
several of the histories of Louisiana of colonial times. In a note in
Bossu[112] it is stated that such a work was published in Paris in 1765.

The story of Saint-Denys’ experiences in Mexico is told in H. H.
Bancroft’s _North Mexican States_, p. 612 _et seq._, in which the
sources of information are mainly Mexican and Spanish. The hero of
Penicaut’s romances, viewed from this standpoint, becomes a mere
smuggler.

Under the title _Historical Collections of Louisiana_, etc., Mr.
B. F. French, in the years 1846-1875, inclusive, published seven
volumes containing reprints and translations of original documents
and rare books. Mr. French was a pioneer in a class of work the value
of which has come to be fully appreciated. His _Collections_ close
a gap on the shelves of many libraries which it would be difficult
otherwise to fill. The work was necessarily an education to him,
and in some instances new material which came to his hands revealed
errors in previous annotations.[113] The value of the work would have
been increased if abridgments and omissions had been noted.[114]
The translation of the _Journal_ _historique_, etc., given in the
collection was made from the manuscript copy in the library of the
American Philosophical Society at Philadelphia.[115] The Penicaut
relation differs materially from the copy published by Margry.[116]
The labors of Mr. French, as a whole, have been of great service to
students of American history.[117]

The fourth and fifth volumes[118] of Pierre Margry’s _Découvertes et
établissements des Français dans l’ouest et dans le sud de l’Amérique
septentrionale_ contain the material upon which so much of this
chapter as relates to Iberville’s expeditions is founded. We have
here Iberville’s correspondence with the minister, his memorials, the
instructions given to him, and his reports.[119] There are also some
of Bienville’s despatches, and the correspondence with the engineer
about New Orleans and about the bar at the mouth of the river. The
publication of these volumes has enabled us to correct several minor
errors which have been transmitted from the earlier chroniclers.
Interesting as the volumes are, and close as their scrutiny brings
us to the daily life of the celebrated explorer, it is not easy to
understand why their contents should have been shrouded with such a
profound mystery prior to their publication.[120]

The periodicals and tracts of the eighteenth century contain many
historical articles and geographical discussions, from which historical
gleaners may yet procure new facts.[121] The manuscripts in the
Archives at Paris have by no means been exhausted. Harrisse, in his
_Notes pour servir à l’histoire, etc., de la Nouvelle France_ (Paris,
1872), gives an account of the vicissitudes which they have undergone.
He traces the history of the formation of the Archives of the Marine
and of the Colonies and points out the protecting and organizing care,
which Colbert during his ministry devoted through intelligent deputies
to the arranging of those documentary sources, among which the modern
historian finds all that the Revolution of 1789 has left to him.

The copies which from time to time have been procured from France
for the State Archives of Louisiana have so generally disappeared,
particularly during the Federal occupation, that but a small portion of
them still remains in the State Library.[122]

[Illustration]


EDITORIAL NOTES.

[Illustration: JOHN LAW.

Copied from the head of a full-length portrait in _Het Groote Taferel_.
Rigaud’s portrait of Law is engraved in Alphonse Courtois’ _Histoire
des banques en France_, 2d ed. (Paris, 1881). Cf. also the print in
Mouffle d’Angerville’s _Vie privée de Louis XV._ (Londres, 1781), vol.
1. p. 53.]

=I.= LAW AND THE MISSISSIPPI BUBBLE.—The literature of the Mississippi
Scheme is extensive, and includes the relations of Law’s system to
general monetary science. The Mississippi excitement instigated the
South Sea Scheme in England. Holland, also, was largely affected,
and gave, as well as England and France, considerable additions to
the contemporary mass of brochures which grew out of these financial
revolutions. Law’s own pleas and expositions, as issued in pamphlets,
are the central sources of his own views or pretensions, and are
included in the _Œuvres de J. Law_, published at Paris in 1790. These
writings are again found in Daire’s _Économistes financiers;_ where
will also be met the _Essai politique sur le commerce_ of Melon, Law’s
secretary,—a production which Levasseur styles an allegorical history
of the system,—and the _Réflexions politiques sur les finances et le
commerce_ of Dutot, another of Law’s partisans, who was one of the
cashiers of the Company of the Indies, and undertook to correct what he
thought misconceptions in Melon; and he was in turn criticised by an
opponent of Law, Paris Duverney, in a little book printed at the Hague
in 1740, as _Examen du livre intitulé, etc._

Law’s proposal for his Mississippi Company is also included in a Dutch
collection of similar propositions, printed at the Hague in 1721 as
_Verzameling van alle de projecten en conditien van de compagnien van
assuratie_, etc.

There are various _Lettres patentes_, _Édits_, _Arrests_,
_Ordonnances_, etc., issued separately by the French Government,
some of which are included in a volume published at Amsterdam in
1720,—_Recueil d’arrests et autres pièces pour l’établissement de la
compagnie d’occident_. Others will be found, by title at least, in the
_Recueil général des anciennes lois Françoises_ (Paris, 1830), vol.
xxi., with the preambles given at length of some of the more important.
Neither of these collections is complete, nor does that of Duhautchamp
take their place; but all three, doubtless, contain the chief of such
documents.

A few of the contemporary publications may be noted:—

_Some Considerations on the Consequences of the French settling
Colonies on the Mississippi, from a Gentleman_ [Beresford] _of America
to his Friend in London_, London, 1720 (Carter-Brown, vol. iii. no.
275).

_Impartial Inquiry into the Right of the French King to the Territory
west of the Mississippi_ (London, n. d.).

_The Chimera; or, the French way of paying National Debts laid open_
(London, 1720).

_Full and Impartial Account of the Company of the Mississippi ...
projected and settled by Mr. Law_. To which is added a _Description
of the Country of the Mississippi and a Relation of the Discovery of
it, in Two Letters from a Gentleman to his Friend_ (London, 1720). In
French and English (cf. Carter-Brown, vol. iii. no. 276). This is an
incentive to the speculation.

_Historische und geographische Beschreibung des an dem grossen Flusse
Mississippi in Nord America gelegenen herrlichen Landes Louisiana_,
etc. (Leipsic, 1720) 8vo. It has a map of Louisiana. There was a second
edition the same year in 12mo, with _Ausführliche_ beginning a title
otherwise the same (Carter-Brown, vol. iii. nos. 277, 278). It has an
appendix, _Remarques über den Mississippischen Actien-Handel_, which
is a translation of a section on Louisiana in _Aanmerkigen over den
koophandel en het geldt_, published at Amsterdam (Muller, _Books on
America_, 1872, nos. 915, 916; 1877, no. 1817).

_Le banquerotteur en desespoir; Das ist, der versweifflende
Banquerottirer_, etc., with a long explanation in German of the lament
of a victim, dated 1720, without place, and purporting to be printed
from a Dutch copy (cf. Carter-Brown, ii. 258).

_Het Groote Tafereel der Dwaasheid, vertoonende de opkomst, voortgang
en ondergang der Actie, Bubbel en Windnegotie in Vrankryk, Engeland
en de Nederlanden, gepleegt in dem Jaare DDCCXX._ (1720). This is a
folio volume of satire, interesting for its plates, most of which are
burlesques; but among them are a full-length portrait of Law, another
of Mrs. Law in her finery, and a map of Louisiana. There is a copy in
Harvard College Library. Cf. Carter-Brown, vol. iii. no. 270; Muller,
_Books on America_ (1872), no. 1503.

There is in the Boston Public Library a contemporary manuscript
entitled, _Mémoire d’après les voyages par Charles Le Gac, directeur de
la Comp. des Indes à la Louisiane, sur la Louisiane, sa géographie, la
situation de la colonie Française, du 26 aoust 1718 au 6 mars 1721, et
des moyens de l’améliorer. Manuscrit redigé en 1722_. Le Gac was the
agent of Law’s Company during these years.

The earliest personal sketch which we have noted is a _Leven en
character van J. Law_ (Amsterdam, 1722).

_A Sketch of the Life and Projects of John Law_ was published in
Edinburgh in 1791, afterward included in J. P. Wood’s _Ancient and
Modern State of the Parish of Cramond_ (Edinburgh, 1794), and the
foundation of the later _Life of John Law of Lauriston_, published by
Wood at Edinburgh in 1824. This may be supplemented in some points by
Chambers’s _Biographical Dictionary of Eminent Scotsmen_.

[Illustration]

Professor Smyth found, when he assigned one of his _Lectures on Modern
History_ (no. 27) to Law and his exploits, that he got at that time the
best exposition for his system in English from Steuart’s _Political
Economy_. The latest summarized statement in English will be found
in Lalor’s _Cyclopædia of Political Science_, vol. ii. (1883), and
a good one in Mackay’s _Popular Delusions_. The general historians
of England, more particularly Stanhope, do not tell the story of the
great imitatory pageant of the South Sea Scheme without more or less
reference to Law. Those of the United States necessarily recount the
train of events in Paris, of which Louisiana was the background. A few
English monographs, like J. Murray’s _French Financiers under Louis
XV._, and an anonymous book, _Law, the Financier, his Scheme and Times_
(London, 1856), cover specially the great projector’s career; while
the best key to his fate at the hands of magazinists will be found
in Poole’s _Index to Periodical Literature_ (pp. 728, 854), where a
popular exposition by Irving is noted, which having appeared in the
_Knickerbocker Magazine_ (vol. xv. pp. 305, 450), has since been
included in the volume of his works called _Wolfert’s Roost, and other
Papers_.

In France the treatment of the great delusion has been frequent. The
chief source of later writers has been perhaps Duhautchamp’s _Histoire
du systéme des finances_ (à la Haye, 1739), which, with his account
of the Visa, makes a full exposition of the rise and fall of the
excitement by one who was in the midst of it. His fifth and sixth
volumes contain the most complete body of the legislation attending the
movement. Forbonnais’ _Recherches et considérations sur les finances
de France à l’année 1721_ (Basle, 1758) is a work of great research,
and free from prejudice. The _Encyclopédie méthodique_ (1783) in its
essays on commerce and banking contributes valuable aid, and there
is a critical review in Ch. Ganilh’s _Essai sur le revenu public_
(Paris, 1806). To these may be added Bailly’s _Histoire financière de
la France_ (Paris, 1830); Eugène Daire’s “Notice historique sur Jean
Law, ses écrits et les opérations du système,” in his _Économistes
financiers du dix-huitième siècle_ (1843); Théodore Vial’s _Law, et
le système du papier-monnaie de 1716_ (1849); A. Cochut’s _Law, son
système et son époque_ (1853); J. B. H. R. Capefigue’s _Histoire des
grandes opérations financières_ (Paris, 1855), vol. i. p. 116; J. P.
Clément’s _Portraits historiques_ (1856); and le Baron Nervo’s _Les
finances Françaises_ (Paris, 1863). L. A. Thiers’ encyclopedic article
on Law was translated and annotated by Frank S. Fiske as _Memoir of the
Mississippi Bubble_, and published in New York in 1859. This is perhaps
the best single book for an English reader, who may find in an appendix
to it the account of the Darien Expedition from the _Encyclopædia
Britannica_, and one of the South Sea Scheme from Mackay’s _Popular
Delusions_. Thiers’ French text was at the same time revised and
published separately in Paris in 1858. Among other French monographs P.
E. Levasseur’s _Recherches historiques sur le système de Law_ (Paris,
1854, and again, 1857) is perhaps the most complete treatment which the
subject has yet received. We may further add Jules Michelet’s “Paris et
la France sous Law” in the _Revue de deux mondes_, 1863, vol. xliv.;
and the general histories of France, notably Martin’s and Guizot’s,
of which there are English versions; the special works on the reign
of Louis XV., like De Tocqueville’s; P. E. Lémontey’s _Histoire de la
Régence_ (Paris, 1832); J. F. Marmontel’s _Régence du duc de Orléans_
(1805), vol. i. p. 168; and the conglomerate monograph of La Croix,
_Dix-huitième siècle_ (Paris, 1875), chap. viii. Law finds his most
vigorous defender in Louis Blanc, in a chapter of the introduction to
his _Révolution Française_.

The Germans have not made their treatment of the subject very
prominent, but reference may be made to J. Heymann’s _Law und sein
System_ (1853).

The strong dramatic contrasts of Law’s career have served the English
novelist Ainsworth in a story which is known by the projector’s name;
but the reader will better get all the contrasts and extraordinary
vicissitudes of the social concomitants of the time in the _Mémoires_
of St. Simon, Richelieu, Pollnitz, Barbier, Dangeau, Duclos, and others.

The familiarity of Mr. Davis with the subject has been of great
assistance to the Editor in making this survey.


=II.= THE STORY OF MONCACHT-APÉ.—The writer of this chapter has,
in the _Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society_, April 25,
1883, printed a paper on the story of Moncacht-Apé,—an Indian of the
Yazoo tribe, who claimed to have made a journey from the Mississippi
to the Pacific about the year 1700, which paper has also been printed
separately as _The Journey of Moncacht-Apé_. The story, which
first appeared in Le Page du Pratz’ contributions to the _Journal
œconomique_, and first took permanent form in Dumont’s _Mémoires_ in
1753, was made in part to depend for its ethnological interest on the
Yazoo marrying a captive Indian, who tells him a story of bearded white
men being seen on the Pacific coast. That the Yazoo himself encountered
on the Pacific coast a bearded people who came there annually in ships
for dye-wood, is derived from the fuller narrative which Le Page du
Pratz himself gives in his _Histoire de la Louisiane_ published five
years later, in 1758.

Mr. Davis does not find any consideration of the verity of the story
till Samuel Engel discussed it in his _Mémoires et observations
géographiques_, published at Lausanne in 1765, which had a chart
showing what he conceived to be the route of the Indian, as Le Page du
Pratz had traced it, in tracking him from the Missouri to the streams
which feed the Columbia River. The story was later examined by Mr.
Andrew Stewart in _The Transactions of the Literary and Historical
Society of Quebec_, i. 198 (1829), who accepted the tale as truthful;
and Greenhow, in his _History of Oregon_ (Boston, 1844, p. 145),
rejects as improbable only the ending as Dumont gives it. In 1881, when
M. de Quatrefage rehearsed the story in the _Revue d’anthropologie_,
vol. iv., he argued that the bearded men must have been Japanese.
It was this paper of the distinguished French anthropologist which
incited Mr. Davis to the study of the narrative; and it is by his
discrimination that we are reminded how the story grew to have the
suspicious termination, after Le Page had communicated it to Dumont;
so that in Mr. Davis’s judgment one is “forced to the unwilling
conclusion that the original story of the savage suffered changes at Le
Page’s hands.” The story has since been examined by H. H. Bancroft in
his _Northwest Coast_, i. 599 _et seq._, who sees no reason to doubt
the truth of the narrative.

There is an account of the early maps of the country west of Lake
Superior and of the headwaters of the Mississippi in Winchell’s
_Geological Survey of Minnesota, Final Report_, vol. i., with a
fac-simile of one of 1737. Between 1730 and 1740 Verendrye and his
companions explored the country west and northwest of Lake Superior,
and reached the Rocky Mountains. Mills, _Boundaries of Ontario_, p. 75,
says he failed to find in the _Moniteur_, September and November, 1857,
the account of Verendrye’s discoveries by Margry, to which Garneau
refers.


CARTOGRAPHY

OF

LOUISIANA AND THE MISSISSIPPI BASIN UNDER THE FRENCH DOMINATION.

BY THE EDITOR.


THE original spelling of the name Mississippi, the nearest approach to
the Algonquin word, is _Mêché Sébè_,[123] a form still commonly used
by the Louisiana creoles. Tonty suggested _Miche Sepe_; Father Laval,
_Michisepe_, which by Father Labatt was softened into _Misisipi_.
Marquette added the first _s_ in _Missisipi_, and some other explorer a
second in _Mississipi_, as it is spelled in France to-day. No one knows
who added a second _p_ in _Mississippi_, for it was generally spelled
with one _p_ when the United States bought Louisiana.[124]

In Vol. IV. of the present _History_ the earliest maps of the
Mississippi Basin are enumerated, and fac-similes or sketches of the
following may be seen in that volume:—

1672-73 (p. 221). An anonymous map of the course of the Mississippi,
which is also to be found in Breese’s _Early Hist. of Illinois_. Other
early maps, without date, are noted in Vol. IV. at pp. 206, 215.

1673-74 (pp. 208, 212, 214, 218). Joliet’s maps; and (p. 220)
Marquette’s map, which has since been reproduced in Andreas’s
_Chicago_, i. p. 47.

1682-84-88 (pp. 227, 228, 230, 231). Franquelin’s maps,—the last of
which has since been reproduced in Winchell’s _Geological Survey of
Minnesota, Final Report_, i. pl. 2.

1683-97 (pp. 249, 251, 252, 253). Hennepin’s maps, also to be found in
Winchell and Breese.

1685 (p. 237). Minet’s map; and without date (p. 235) the map of
Raudin. The map which accompanied Joutel’s _Journal_ in 1713 also gave
the topography of the time of Lasalle. (See p. 240.)

1688 (p. 232). The map of Coronelli and Tillemon; and (p. 233) that of
Raffeix.

1702 (p. 394). The map in Campanius.

1703-1709 (pp. 258, 259, 260, 261). Maps in Lahontan.

       *       *       *       *       *

It is in continuation of this series, which includes others not
here mentioned, that the following enumeration is offered of the
cartographical results which controlled and developed the maps of the
eighteenth century.

The plates of the maps of Nicolas Sanson, who had died in 1667,[125]
were towards the end of that century in the hands of Hubert Jaillot,
who was later a royal geographer of France.[126] He published in
Paris, in 1692, what passes for Sanson’s _Amérique Septentrionale_,
with adaptations to contemporary knowledge of American geography. It
naturally augments the claims of the French to the disputed areas of
the continent. It was reissued at Amsterdam not long after as “Dressée
sur les observations de M^{rs} de l’Academie Royale des Sciences.” The
plate was long in use in Amsterdam, and I have noticed reissues as late
as 1755 by Ottens.

The English claims to the westward at this time will be seen in “The
Plantations of England in America,” contained in Edward Wells’ _New
Sett of Maps_, London, 1698-99.[127]

The most distinguished French cartographers of the early part of
the eighteenth century were the father and son, Claude and Guillaume
Delisle. The father, Claude, died in 1720 at 76; the son, six years
later, in 1726, at 51.[128] Their maps of _Amérique Septentrionale_
were published at Paris of various dates in the first quarter of the
century, and were reissued at Amsterdam.[129] Their _Carte de la
Louisiane et du Cours du Mississipi_ appeared first at Paris in 1703,
and amended copies appeared at various later dates.[130] Thomassy[131]
refers to an original draft by Guillaume Delisle, _Carte de la rivière
du Mississipi, dressée sur les mémoires de M. Le Sueur_, 1702, which
is preserved in the Archives Scientifiques de la Marine, at Paris.
Thomassy (p. 211) also refers to an edition of Delisle’s _Carte de la
Louisiane_, published in June, 1718, by the Compagnie d’Occident. Gov.
Burnet wrote of this map to the Lords of Trade[132], that Delisle had
taken from the borders of New York and Pennsylvania fifty leagues of
territory, which he had allowed to the English in his map of 1703.

There is an Amsterdam edition (1722) of Delisle’s _Carte du Mexique et
de La Floride, des Terres Angloises et des Isles Antilles, du Cours et
des Environs de la Rivière de Mississipi_, measuring 24 × 19 inches,
which includes nearly the whole of North America.

Nicholas de Fer was at this time the royal geographer of Belgium,
1701-1716.[133] We note several of his maps:—

_Les Costes aux Environs de la Rivière de Misissipi, par N. de Fer_,
1701. This extends from Cape Roman (Carolina) to the Texas coast, and
shows the Mississippi up to the “Nihata” village. There is a copy in
the Sparks MSS., vol. xxviii.

_Le Vieux Mexique avec les Costes de la Floride, par N. de Fer,_ 1705.
This extends south to the Isthmus of Panama. There is a copy in the
Sparks MSS., vol. xxviii.

_Le Canada ou Nouvelle France_, Paris, 1705. There is a copy in the
Sparks MSS., vol. xxviii. It shows North America from Labrador to
Florida, and includes the Mississippi valley. The region west of the
Alleghanies is given to France, as well as the water-shed of the lower
St. Lawrence.

De Fer also published, in 1717, _Le Golfe de Mexique et les provinces
et isles qui l’environne_ [sic].

In 1718 his _Le Cours du Mississipi ou de Saint Louis_ was published by
the Compagnie d’Occident.

Making a part of Herman Moll’s _New and exact Map of the Dominions of
the King of Great Britain on the Continent of North America_, measuring
24 × 40 inches, issued in 1715, was a lesser draft called _Louisiana,
with the indian settlements and number of fighting men according to the
account of Capt. T. Nearn._[134]

When Moll, in 1720, published his _New Map of the North Parts of
America claimed by France under the name of Louisiana, Mississippi,
Canada, and New France, with the adjoining territories of England and
Spain_ (measuring 24 × 40 inches), he said that a great part of it was
taken from “the original draughts of Mr. Blackmore, the ingenious Mr.
Berisford, now residing in Carolina, Capt. Nairn, and others never
before published.” He adds that the southwest part followed a map by
Delisle, published in Paris in June, 1718.[135]

In 1719 the Sieur Diron made observations for a map preserved in
the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris, _Fleuve Saint Louis, ci-devant
Mississipi_, showing the course of the river from New Orleans to
Cahokia, which was not drawn, however, till 1732.[136] About the same
time (1719-20) the surveys of M. De Sérigny were used in another map,
preserved in the Archives Scientifiques de la Marine, _Carte des Côtes
de la Louisiane depuis les bouches du Mississipi jusqu’à la baie de
Saint-Joseph_. Part of the gulf shore of this map is reproduced in
Thomassy (plate ii.).

The year 1719 is also assigned to John Senex’s _Map of Louisiana and
the river Mississipi, most humbly inscribed to Law of Lawreston_,
measuring 22 X 19 inches.[137]

Gerard van Keulen published at Amsterdam, in 1720, a large map, in two
sheets, _Carte de la Nouvelle France ou se voit le cours des grandes
Rivières Mississipi et S. Laurens_, with annotations on the French
fortified posts.

At Paris, in November, 1720, De Beauvilliers took the observations of
La Harpe and drafted a _Carte nouvelle de la parte de l’ouest de la
province de la Louisiane_.[138]

The map of Coxe’s _Carolana, 1722_, is given in fac-simile on an
earlier page (_ante_, p. 70).

The _Memoirs of John Ker of Kersland_ (London, 1726) contain a “new map
of Louisiana, and the river Mississipi.”[139]

The map in La Potherie’s _Histoire de l’Amérique Septentrionale_
(Paris, 1722, vol. ii.), called “Carte généralle de la Nouvelle
France,” retains the misplacement of the mouths of the Mississippi, as
La Salle had conceived them to be on the western shore of the gulf,
giving the name “Baye de Spiritu Sancto” to an inlet more nearly in the
true position of its mouths.

Thomassy[140] points out that William Darby, in his _Geographical
Description of Louisiana_ (2d ed. 1817), in reproducing Jean Baptiste
Homann’s map of Louisiana, published at Nuremberg as the earliest of
the country which he could find, was unfortunate in accepting for such
purpose a mere perversion of the earlier and original French maps.
Homann, moreover, was one of those geographers of easy conscience,
who never or seldom date a map, and the German cartographer seems in
this instance to have done little more than reëngrave the map which
accompanied the Paris publication of Joutel’s _Journal historique_, in
1713. Homann’s map, called _Amplisimæ regionis Mississipi seu Provinciæ
Ludovicianæ a Hennepin detectæ anno 1687_, was published not far from
1730, and extending so as to include Acadia, Lake Superior, and Texas,
defines the respective bounds of the English, French, and Spanish
possessions.[141]

When Moll published his _New Survey of the Globe_, in 1729, he included
in it (no. 27) a map of New France and Louisiana, showing how they
hemmed in the English colonies.

Henry Popple’s _Map of the British Empire in America, with the French
and Spanish Settlements adjacent thereto_, was issued in London in
twenty sheets, under the patronage of the Lords of Trade, in 1732;
and reissued in 1733 and 1740.[142] A reproduction was published at
Amsterdam, about 1737, by Covens and Mortier. Popple’s map was for the
Mississippi valley, in large part based on Delisle’s map of 1718.

Jean Baptiste D’Anville was in the early prime of his activity when the
Delisles passed off the stage, having been born in 1697, and a long
life was before him, for he did not die till 1782, having gained the
name of being the first to raise geography to the dignity of an exact
science.[143] He had an instinct for physical geography, and gained
credit for his critical discrimination between conflicting reports,
which final surveys verified. His principal _Carte de la Louisiane_ was
issued as “Dressée en 1732; publiée en 1752.”[144] His map of _Amérique
Septentrionale_ usually bears date 1746-48; and a new draft of it, with
improvements, was published at Nuremberg in 1756.

A map made by Dumont de Montigny about 1740, _Carte de la province de
la Louisiane, autrefois le Mississipi_, preserved in the Dépôt de la
Marine at Paris, is said by Thomassy (p. 217) to be more valuable for
its historical legends than for its geography.

In 1744 the maps of Nicolas Bellin were attached to the _Nouvelle
France_ of Charlevoix, and they include, beside the map of North
America, a _Carte de la Louisiane, Cours du Mississipi, et pais
voisins_.[145] Bellin’s _Carte des embouchures du fleuve Saint-Louis_
(1744) is based on a draft by Buache (1732), following an original
manuscript (1731) preserved in the Archives Scientifiques de la Marine,
in Paris.

Bellin also dates in 1750 a _Carte de la Louisiane et des pays
voisins_, and in an atlas of his, _Amérique Septentrionale, Atlas
maritime_, published in 1764 by order of the Duc de Choiseul, Bellin
includes various other and even earlier maps of Louisiana.[146]

Thomassy[147] also refers to a MS. map in the Bibliothèque Nationale,
_Carte de la Coste et Province de la Louisiane_, dated at New Orleans,
October 5, 1746, which is not, however, of much value.

There is a “Carte de la Louisiane” in Dumont de Montigny’s _Mémoires
historiques de la Louisiane_, vol. i. (1753), a fac-simile of which is
given herewith. It perhaps follows the one referred to above.

[Illustration: LOUISIANA. (_Dumont._)]

There is on a later page a fac-simile of the map, showing the
carrying-place between the St. Lawrence and Mississippi valleys, which
appeared in the London (1747 and 1755) editions of Cadwallader Colden’s
_History of the Five Indian Nations of Canada_.

The controversy over the bounds of the French and English possessions,
which was so unproductive of results in 1755, caused a large number
of maps to be issued, representing the interests of either side.
The French claimed in the main the water-shed of the St. Lawrence
and the lakes, and that of the Mississippi and its tributaries. The
English conceded to them a southern limit following the St. Lawrence
and the Ottawa, thence across Huron and Michigan, to the Illinois,
descending that river to the Mississippi; and consequently denied them
the southern water-shed of the St. Lawrence and most of the eastern
water-shed of the Mississippi.

On the French side the following maps may be named:—

The great D’Anville map, _Canada, Louisiane, et les terres anglaises_,
which was followed in the next year (1756) by D’Anville’s _Mémoire_ on
the same map; Robert de Vaugondy’s _Partie de l’Amérique Septentrionale
qui comprend le Cours de l’Ohio, la N^{lle} Angleterre, la N^{lle}
York, New Jersey, Pensylvanie, Maryland, Virginie, Caroline; Carte
Nouvelle de l’Amérique Angloise contenant le Canada, la Nouvelle
Ecosse ou Acadie, les treize Provinces unies, avec la Floride, par
Matthieu Albert Lotter_, published at Augsburg, without date; _Carte
des possessions Angloises et Françoises du Continent de l’Amérique
Septentrionale_, published by Ottens at Amsterdam, 1755; _Carte de
l’Amérique Septentrionale, par M. Bellin_, 1755; in the same year the
_Partie Orientale, et partie Occidentale de la Nouvelle France ou du
Canada_, likewise by Bellin;[148] and the _Carte de la Louisiane par
le Sieur Bellin, 1750, sur de nouvelles Observations on a corrigé les
lacs, et leurs environs, 1755; Canada et Louisiane, par le Sieur le
Rouge, ingénieur géographe du Roi_, Paris, 1755, with a marginal map of
the Mississippi River.

In the English interests there were several leading maps: _A new and
accurate map of North America (wherein the errors of all preceding
British, French, and Dutch maps respecting the rights of Great Britain,
France, and Spain, and the limits of each of His Majesty’s Provinces
are corrected), by Huske_. This was engraved by Thomas Kitchin, and
published by Dodsley at London, 1755. It gives the names of the French
trading posts and stations. John Huske also printed _The Present
State of North America, Part I._, London, 1755, which appeared in
a 2d edition the same year with emendations, giving Huske’s map,
colored, leaving the encroachments of the French uncolored. It was also
reprinted in Boston, in the same year.[149]

Another is _A map of the British Colonies in North America, with the
roads, distances, limits, and extent of the settlements_. This is John
Mitchell’s map, in six sheets, engraved by Kitchin, published in London
by Jefferys and Faden, 1755. John Pownall, under date of February 13,
1755, certifies to the approval of the Lords of Trade.[150] It was
reëngraved, with improvements, a year or two later, at Amsterdam, by
Covens and Mortier, under the title _Map of the British and French
Dominions in North America_, on four sheets, with marginal plans of
Quebec, Halifax, Louisbourg, etc.[151]

Lewis Evans issued his _General Map of the Middle British Colonies
in America_ in 1755,[152] and it was forwarded to Braddock after he
had taken the field, for his assistance in entering upon the disputed
territory of the Ohio Valley,—indeed, its publication was hastened by
that event, the preface of the accompanying pamphlet being dated Aug.
9, 1755.

[Illustration: HUSKE’S MAP, 1755.

This is sketched from the colored folding map in John Huske’s _Present
State of North America, &c._, second edition, London, 1755. The
easterly of the two pricked (dots) lines marks the limits within which
the French claimed to confine the English seaboard colonies. Canada,
or the region north of the St. Lawrence, east of the Ottawa, and south
of the Hudson Bay Company and New Britain, together with the islands
in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and the northerly coasts of Newfoundland
(to dry fish upon), constitute all that the British allowed to
France. The stars represent the forts which they had established in
the disputed territory; while the circle and dot show the frontier
fortified posts of the English, as Huske gives them. The English
claimed for the province of New York all the territory north of the
Virginia line, west of Pennsylvania, and west of the Ottawa, and south
of the Hudson Bay Company’s line. Virginia, the two Carolinas, and
Georgia extended indefinitely westward. The northern line of Virginia
was established by the charter of 1606; the southern bounds mark where
the Carolina charter of 1665 begins, and the bounds of Spanish Florida
denote that charter’s southern limit, the territory being divided
by the subsequent grant of Georgia. The space between the pricked
line, already mentioned, and the other pricked line, which follows
the Mississippi River to the north, is the land which is called in a
legend on the map the hereditary and conquered country of the Iroquois,
which had been ceded by them to the British crown by treaties and a
deed of sale (1701), and confirmed by the treaties of Utrecht and
Aix-la-Chapelle. Cf. _Description of the English and French territories
in North America, being an explanation of a new map, shewing the
encroachments of the French, with their Forts and Usurpations on the
English settlements; and the fortifications of the latter._ Dublin,
1755 (Carter-Brown, iii. 1056).]

Jefferys pirated Evans’ map, and published it in 1758, “with
improvements by I. Gibson,” and in this form it is included in
Jefferys’ _General Topography of North America and the West Indies_,
London, 1768. Pownall, who was accused of procuring the dedication of
the original issue by “a valuable consideration” (_Mass. Hist. Coll._,
vii. 136), called Jefferys’ reproduction badly done, and reissued
Evans’ work in 1776, under the following title: _A map of the Middle
British Colonies in North America, first published by Mr. Lewis Evans
of Philadelphia in 1755, and since corrected and improved, as also
extended ... from actual surveys now lying at the Board of Trade, by
T. Pownall, M. P., Printed and published for J. Almon, London, March
25, 1776_. In this form the original plate was used as “Engraved by
James Turner in Philadelphia,” embodying some corrections, while the
extensions consisted of an additional engraved sheet, carrying the New
England coasts from Buzzard’s to Passamaquoddy Bay.

A French copy, with amendments, was published in 1777.[153]

The map was also reëngraved in London, “carefully copied from the
original published at Philadelphia by Mr. Lewis Evans.” It omits
the dedication to Pownall, and is inscribed “Printed for Carrington
Bowles, London; published, Jan. 1, 1771.” It has various legends not
on Evans’ map, and omits some details, notwithstanding its professed
correspondence. Evans had used the Greek character [Greek: ch] to
express the _gh_ of the Indian names, which is rendered in the Bowles
map _ch_.

Another plate of Evans’ map was engraved in London, and published there
by Sayer and Bennett, Oct. 15, 1776, to show the “seat of war.” It
covers the same field as the map of 1755, and uses the same main title;
but it is claimed to have been “improved from several surveys made
after the late war, and corrected from Governor Pownall’s late map,
1776.” The side map is extended so as to include Lake Superior, and
is called “A sketch of the upper parts of Canada.” Smith (1756) says:
“Evans’ map and first pamphlet were published in the summer, 1755, and
that part in favor of the French claim to Frontenac was attacked by
two papers in the _N. Y. Mercury_, Jan. 5, 1756. This occasioned the
publication of a second pamphlet the next spring, in which he endeavors
to support his map.”[154]

Evans’ pamphlet is called _Geographical, historical, political,
philosophical, and mechanical essays. The first, containing an analysis
of a general map of the middle British colonies in America; and of the
country of the confederate Indians_ [etc.]. Philadelphia, 1755. iv. 32
pp. 4º. A second edition, with the title unchanged, appeared the same
year, while “Part ii.” was published in the following year.[155]

By Gen. Shirley’s order N. Alexander made a map of the frontier posts
from New York to Virginia, which is noted in the _Catal. of the King’s
maps_ (British Museum), ii. 24. This may be a duplicate of a MS. map
said by Parkman (i. p. 422) to be in the Public Record office, _America
and West Indies_, lxxxii., showing the position of thirty-five posts
from the James River to Esopus on the Hudson.

Le Page du Pratz gave a “Carte de la Louisiane, par l’Auteur, 1757,” in
his _Histoire de la Louisiane_ (vol. i. p. 138), a part of which map is
reproduced herewith. See also _ante_, p. 66.

In the _Gentleman’s Magazine_, 1757, p. 74, is “A map of that part of
America which was the principal seat of war in 1756,” defining the
Ottawa River as the bounds under the treaty of Utrecht.

Janvier’s _L’Amérique_, in 1760, carried the bounds of Louisiana to the
Pacific.

Pouchot, in a letter dated at Montreal, April 14, 1758, describes a
map, which he gives in his _Mémoires_, vol. iii., where it is called
“Carte des frontières Françoises et Angloises dans le Canada depuis
Montreal jusques au Fort Du Quesne.” It is reproduced in Dr. Hough’s
translation of Pouchot, in the _Pennsylvania Archives_, second series,
vi. p. 409, and in _N. Y. Col. Hist._, vol. x.

In 1760 Thomas Jefferys included a map of Canada and the north part
of Louisiana in _The Natural and Civil History of the French Dominion
in North and South America_, purporting to be “from the French of Mr.
D’Anville, improved with the back settlements of Virginia and course of
the Ohio, illustrated with geographical and historical remarks,” with
marginal tables of “French Incroachments,” and “English titles to their
settlements on the Continent.” This map ran the northern bounds of the
English possessions along the St. Lawrence, up the Ottawa, across the
lakes, and down the Illinois and the Mississippi. The northern bounds
of Canada follow the height of land defining the southern limits of the
Hudson Bay Company.

After the peace of 1763, Jefferys inserted copies of this map (dated
1762) in the _Topography of North America and the West Indies_ (London,
1768), adding to it, “the boundaries of the Provinces since the
Conquest laid down as settled by the King in Council.” The map of 1762
is reproduced in Mills’ _Boundaries of Ontario_.[156]

Jefferys also gave in the same book (1768) a map of the mouths of the
Mississippi and the neighboring coasts, which, he says, was taken from
several Spanish and French drafts, compared with D’Anville’s of 1752
and with P. Laval’s _Voyage à Louisiane_.

[Illustration: LOUISIANA. (_Le Page du Pratz._)]




CHAPTER II.

NEW ENGLAND, 1689-1763.

BY JUSTIN WINSOR,

_The Editor_.


ANDROS, with Joseph Dudley and other satellites, made safe in Castle
William, the revolution in New England was accomplished, and the
veteran Simon Bradstreet was at the head of the old government on its
sudden restoration (1689) to power.

The traditions of the charter-days were still strong among the country
people, and their deputies in the resuscitated assembly brought into
Boston the old spirit of independence to enliven the stifled atmosphere
which the royal governor had spread upon the town. The new government
was proposedly a provisional one to await the result of the revolution
which seemed impending in England. If the policy of unwavering
adherence to the old charter had been pursued with the constancy which
characterized the advocacy of Elisha Cooke, the popular tribune of the
day, the current of the New England history for the next few years
might possibly have been changed. The sturdy assumption of political
power did not follow the bold revolution which had prepared the way for
it, and, professing dependence upon the royal will, all thoughts were
now addressed to placate the new monarch, and regain by law what they
had failed to achieve by a dogged assertion of right. King William,
of whose accession they soon were notified, unhesitatingly, but for
temporary service, confirmed the existing rulers.[157]

A command came for Andros to be sent to England, with a presentation
of charges against him, and it was obeyed.[158] Increase Mather had
already gone there to join Ashurst, the resident agent of the colony,
and the people were not without hope that through the urgency of these
representatives the restitution of the old charter might be confirmed.
Subsequently Elisha Cooke and Thomas Oakes were despatched to reinforce
the others. Mather, either because he felt the project a vain one,
or because he hoped, under a new deal, to be better able to direct
affairs, was favoring a new charter.

[Illustration

This follows the map in the Amsterdam ed. (1688) of Richard Blome’s
_L’Amérique, traduit de l’Anglois_. This is a different map (on a
larger scale) from the one in the original English edition of Blome.
See reference to the map given in Mather’s _Magnalia_ (1702) in Vol.
III. p. 345. This map is reproduced in Cassell’s _United States_, i.
pp. 492, 516.

Douglass, with some excess, again speaks of Mather’s map (_Summary_,
etc., i. 362) “as composed from some old rough drafts of the first
discoverers, with obsolete names not known at this time, and has scarce
any resemblance of the country,” and he calls Cyprian Southack’s maps
and charts even worse. For Southack see _Mem. Hist. of Boston_.]

Plymouth, which had never had a royal charter, was endeavoring, through
the agency of Ichabod Wiswall,[159] the minister of Duxbury, who had
been sent over to protect their interests, to make the most of the
present opportunity and get a favorable recognition from the king.
Between a project of annexation to New York and Mather’s urging of an
alternative annexation to the Bay, the weaker colony fared hard, and
its ultimate fate was fashioned against its will. In the counsels of
the four agents Cooke was strenuous for the old charter at all hazards,
and Oakes sustained him. Mather’s course was professedly a politic
one. He argued finally that a chance for the old charter was gone,
and that it would be wiser to succumb in season to the inevitable,
in order better to direct progress. When it came to a petition for a
new charter, Oakes so far smothered his sentiments as to sign it with
Mather; but Cooke held out to the last.

[Illustration: ELISHA COOKE, THE ELDER.

This follows a red-chalk drawing in the gallery of the American
Antiquarian Society, which had belonged to the Rev. William Bentley, of
Salem, who was born in Boston in 1759, and died in Salem in 1819.]

Meanwhile, Massachusetts was governing itself, and had enough to do
in looking after its frontiers, particularly at the eastward, where
the withdrawal of the troops which Andros had placed there became the
signal for Indian outbreaks. New Hampshire, weak in her isolation,
petitioned to be taken under the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, and
was (March 19, 1690) for the time being annexed.[160] Connecticut,
destined to save her charter by delays and a less fiery spirit, entered
upon a career characterized in the main by dignified quiet. Though she
participated in some of the tumult of the recurrent Indian wars, and
let her bitterness against episcopacy sometimes lead to violent acts,
she had an existence of much more content than fell to the lot of the
other New England colonies.[161]

The first momentous event which the restored governments had to
encounter was the disastrous expedition which Phips led against
Quebec, in 1690. With confident hope, the fleet on the 8th of August
sailed from Boston harbor, and the whole community for three months
waited for news with great solicitude. Scarce three weeks had
passed when Sewall records (August 28) that they got from Albany
intelligence of the Mohawks’ defection, which, as he writes, “puts
a great damp here to think that our fleet should be disappointed of
their expected aid.”[162] Apprehension of some more imminent danger
grew throughout the colony. In September they placed watches at night
throughout Boston, and gave as watchwords “Schenectady” and “Salmon
Falls,”—fearful reminders.[163] One night at Charlestown there was an
alarm because Indians were seen in their back fields,—they proved to
be runaway servants. Again, the home guard, eight companies, trained
another day. At last tidings came from Plymouth of certain losses
which the contingent of that colony, among the forces acting at the
eastward, had suffered, news whereof had reached them. This and other
matters were made the grounds of an attempt to found a regular channel
of communicating the current reports, which in a little sheet called
_Publick Occurrences_ was issued at Boston, Thursday, September 25,
the precursor of the American newspaper. It told the people of various
incidents of their every-day life, and warned them of its purpose to
prevent false reports, and to correct the spirit of lying, “which
prevails among us.” It represented that “the chief discourse of this
month” was the ill-success of the expedition, which, under the command
of Gen. Winthrop, of Connecticut, had attempted to advance on Montreal
by way of Lake Champlain, to distract the enemy’s attention in that
direction while Phips ascended the St. Lawrence.[164]

About six weeks later, on Friday, November 7, word came to the governor
from Salem of the disastrous events in the St. Lawrence and the
discomfiture of Phips.[165]

The unfortunate expedition had cost Massachusetts £50,000, and while
the colony was devising an illusory scheme of paper money as a quick
way of gathering taxes, Phips slipped off to England, with the hope
that his personal explanations would assist in inducing the home
government to lend a helping hand in some future attempt.

When Phips reached England he found that Mather had done good
work in preventing the reinstalling of Andros, as at one time was
threatened.[166]

Memorials and counter-memorials, printed and manuscript, were pressed
upon Parliament, by which that body was now urged to restore, and now
implored to deny, the vacated charter. It was at this juncture that
Mather, with two other agents, petitioned the king for a new charter;
and the law officers reporting favorably, the plan had already been
committed to the Lords of Trade at the time when Phips appeared in
London. With the assent of the king, the framing of a new charter was
entrusted to Sir George Treby, the Attorney General, who was instructed
to fortify the royal prerogative, and to make the jurisdiction include
not only Massachusetts, but the territory of New Plymouth and all that
region, or the better part of it, lying east of the present State of
New Hampshire, and stretching from the St. Lawrence to the Atlantic.

It was the dawn of a new existence, in which the province, as it now
came to be called, was to be governed by a royal governor, sent to
enforce the royal prerogative, to administer the navigation laws in
the interests of British merchants, to gratify the sectaries of the
Established Church, and to embarrass the old-fashioned theocracy. The
chief power reserved to the people was that of the purse,—an important
one in any event, and one that the legislative assembly knew how to
wield, as the years which followed proved.

Mather professed to think the new charter—and it perhaps was—the best
result, under the circumstances, to be attained. He talked about the
colony still having a chance of assuming the old charter at some more
opportune moment. Cooke, the champion of the old conditions, was by no
means backed in his opposition by a unanimity of feeling in the colony
itself; for many of the later comers, generally rich, were become
advocates of prerogative, and lived in the hope of obtaining more
consequence under a changed order of society. Connecticut and Rhode
Island were content, meanwhile, with the preservation of their own
chartered autonomy, such as it was.

Thus affairs were taking a turn which made Phips forget the object of
his visit. Mather seems to have been prepared for the decision, and was
propitiated also by the promise of being allowed to nominate the new
governor and his subordinates. Phips had been Mather’s parishioner in
Boston, and was ambitious enough to become his creature, if by doing
so he could secure preferment. So Sir William Phips was commissioned
Governor; and as a sort of concession to the clerical party, of which
Mather himself was the leader in Boston, William Stoughton was made
Lieutenant-Governor. Isaac Addington became Secretary. Bradstreet was
appointed first assistant. Danforth, Oakes, and Cooke, the advocates of
the old charter, were forgotten in the distribution of offices.

On Tuesday, January 26, 1692, Robin Orchard came to Boston from Cape
Cod, bringing tidings that Capt. Dolberry’s London packet was at anchor
in the harbor now known as Provincetown, and that she had brought the
news of the appointment of Phips under a new charter.[167]

Boston was at this time the most considerable place in the New
World, and she probably had not far from 7,000 inhabitants; while
Massachusetts, as now constituted, included 75 towns, of which 17
belonged to Plymouth. Within this enlarged jurisdiction the population
ranged somewhere between 60,000 and 100,000,—for estimates widely
vary. Out of this number twenty-eight persons had been chosen to
make the governor’s council, but their places were to be made good
at subsequent elections by the assembly, though the governor could
negative any objectionable candidate; and the joint approval of the
governor and council was necessary to establish the members of the
judiciary. The acts of the legislature could for cause be rejected by
the Privy Council any time within three years, and to it they must
be regularly submitted for approval; and this proved to be no merely
formal action. It meant much.

These conditions created a new political atmosphere for Massachusetts.
Religion and politics had in the old days gone hand in hand, and the
little book which Joshua Scottow, one of the old patriarchs, now
printed, _Old Men’s Tears_, forcibly reminded them of the change.
The community was more and more engrossed with trade; and those that
concerned themselves with politics were not near so closely of one
mind as formerly; and there was lacking that invigorating motive of
saving their charter which had so unified the thoughts and banded the
energies of the community in former years.

On the 14th of May, 1692, the “Nonesuch” frigate cast anchor in
Boston harbor. When Phips and Mather disembarked, eight companies of
soldiers received and escorted them to their respective houses. “Made
no volleys, because ‘twas Satterday night,” says Sewall, recording the
event.[168] The ceremony of inauguration was no sooner over than all
parties began to take their bearings; and Mather, not long after,[169]
in an election sermon, took occasion to defend the policy of his recent
mission. It remained to be seen how much the province was to gain from
its closer connection with the home government. Was it to claim and
secure larger assistance in repressing Indian outbreaks and repelling
French encroachments?—for these things were brought home to them by
the arrival of every messenger from the frontiers, by the surveillance
under which they had put all Frenchmen who chanced to be in their
seaports, and by the loads of wine-casks which paraded the streets of
Boston when the “Swan” (September 20, 1692) brought in a French prize.
It was not till October 23d that Cooke and Oakes reached home, and the
old-charter party had once more its natural leaders; Cooke, at least,
bringing to it the influence of wealth.[170]

[Illustration: THE PROVINCE SEAL.

This is the form of the Great Seal of Massachusetts, used in the time
of George I. It was recut, and the name of the monarch changed under
George II. This last design will be found in the _Massachusetts House
Doc._, no. 345 (1885), being a report on the Arms and Great Seal of
Massachusetts. Here, as in the _Heraldic Journal_, vols. i. and ii.,
the private seals of the royal governors are given, which were used in
sealing military commissions.]

In the sermon to which reference has just been made, Mather showed
that, however he had carried many of his own points, he had failed
in some that much troubled him. The change in the qualification of
electors from church membership to the condition of freeholders
was alarming to those of the old theocratic sentiments. It meant a
diminution of their influence, and that the 120 churches in New England
(of which 80 were in Massachusetts) were to direct much less than
formerly the legislation of the people. The possible three years which
a law might live before the home-veto came must be made the most of.
Using his influence with Phips, Mather dictated the choice of the
first corporation of Harvard College, freshly chartered under the new
rule, and without waiting for the confirmation of the Privy Council,
who might well be thought to be opposed to a charter for the college
which did not provide some check in a board of visitors, he caused
himself, very likely in a passive way, to be made its first Doctor of
Divinity, but his admirers and creatures knew the reward he expected.
We think, however, to-day less of the legislation which gave such a
title to their great man than we do of the smaller ambitions by which
the assembly of the province about the same time were originating our
public-school system.

The governor, in his communication to the General Court, reminded them
of the royal recommendation that they should fix by law a fitting
salary for the chief executive. It raised a point that Elisha Cooke
was in wait for. Under his instigation, the plan was devised of
substituting an annual grant, which might be raised or lowered, as
circumstances warranted, and as was necessary to vindicate one of the
few rights left to them by the charter. It was the beginning of a
conflict that recurred with each successive governor as he attempted to
force or cajole the representatives into some recognition of the royal
wish.

The baleful influence of the Mathers—for the son Cotton was now
conspicuous—conduced to commit the unwary Phips to instituting a
court, which disgraced itself by the judicial murders attending the
witchcraft frenzy; and in the midst of all, Sir Francis Wheeler’s
crippled fleet arrived from the West Indies (June 11, 1693), having
lost more than half its men by disease. The fear of infection almost
caused a panic among the inhabitants of Boston when, two days later,
Wheeler anchored his frigates off Noddle’s Island. Ten days afterwards
their commander was entertained at Cambridge by the governor, and by
Mather as president of the college.

Connecticut was in the mean while serving both Massachusetts on
the east and New York on the west. She sent troops to help defend
the eastern dependencies of the Bay. On the retreat of Winthrop’s
expedition, New York appealed to Connecticut for help, and she afforded
it; but when Governor Fletcher, of New York, came to Hartford and
claimed command of her militia, she resisted his pretensions, and, as
the story goes, drowned the reading of his proclamation by a vigorous
beating of drums.[171] Fitz-John Winthrop was sent to England to
compose matters, and it ended in Connecticut placing 120 men at the
disposal of the New York governor, while she retained command of her
home forces, and Winthrop became in turn her governor.

Phips too went to England, but on a mission not so successful. His
testy character had early imperilled his administration. He got into
a quarrel with Fletcher, of New York, and he yielded to passions
which brought undignified encounters even in the public streets.
Representations of such conduct did not fail to reach the king, and
Phips was commanded to appear in his own defence. His friends had
endeavored to force an address through the House of Representatives,
praying the king not to remove him; but it was defeated by the united
action of members from Boston, many of whom represented country towns.
The governor’s friends resorted to a specious device which appealed
to the local pride of the country; and, by the urgency of Mather and
others, a bill requiring the representatives to be residents of the
town they sat for was forced through the House.[172] With an assembly
constituted under the new rule, a bare majority was secured for the
address, and Phips took it with him.

Before much progress could be made in the investigation, after his
arrival in London, he died on February 18, 1694-5.[173] The news did
not reach Boston till early in May. “People are generally sad,” says
Sewall. “Cousin Hall says the talk is Mr. Dudley will be governor,” and
the next day mourning guns were fired at the Castle.[174]

Joseph Dudley’s hour of pride was not yet come, though he had
intrigued for appointment even before Phips’s death. The protests of
Ashurst and Constantine Phipps, the colony’s agents in London, were
effectual; and the king was by no means prepared as yet to alienate the
feelings of his New England subjects in order to gratify the avenging
spirit of Dudley. That recusant New Englander was put off with the
lieutenant-governorship of the Isle of Wight, a position which he held
for nine years.

The government in Boston upon Phips’s leaving had legally fallen
into the hands of that old puritan, the lieutenant-governor, William
Stoughton, and in his charge it was to remain for four years and more
(November, 1694, to May 26, 1699). It was a period which betokened
a future not significant of content. It was not long before Thomas
Maule could call the ministers and magistrates hard names, and with
his quick wit induce a jury to acquit him.[175] But the spirit of
Parliament could not be so easily thwarted. As colonists, they had
long known what restrictive acts the mother country could impose on
their trade in the interests of the stay-at-home merchants, who were
willing to see others break the soil of a new country, whose harvests
they had no objection to reap. The Parliament of the Commonwealth
had first (1651) taken compulsory steps, and the government of the
Restoration was not more sparing of the colonists. King William’s
Parliament increased the burden, and the better to enforce observance
of its laws they established a more efficient agency of espionage than
the Plantation Committee of the Privy Council had been, by instituting
a new commission in the Lords of Trade (1696), and had followed it
up by erecting a Court of Admiralty (1697) to adjudicate upon its
restrictive measures.[176] About the same time (1696) they set up Nova
Scotia, which had been originally included in the Massachusetts charter
of 1691, as a royal province. The war which was waging with France
served somewhat to divert attention from these proceedings. French
privateers were hovering round the coast, and Boston was repairing her
defences.[177] Not a packet came into the Bay from England, but there
was alarm, and alertness continued till the vessel’s peaceful character
was established. News was coming at one time of Frontenac’s invasion
of New York, and at another of Castin’s successes at the eastward. In
August, 1696, when Captain Paxton brought word to Boston of Chub’s
surrender of Pemaquid, five hundred men were mustered, but they reached
Penobscot only to see the French sailing away, and so returned to
Boston unrewarded. The enemy also fell on the Huguenot settlement at
Oxford, Mass., and the inhabitants abandoned it.[178] When the aged
Bradstreet was buried,[179] they had to forego the honor they would pay
his memory in mourning guns, because of the scarcity of powder; and
good people rejoiced and shivered as word came in June of the scalping
exploit of Hannah Dustin at Haverhill, in the preceding March. In
the autumn (November 4) there was nothing in all this to prevent the
substantial loyalty of the people showing itself in a celebration of
the king’s birthday. The Boston town house was illuminated, and the
governor and council went with trumpets to Cotton Hill[180] to see the
fireworks “let fly,” as they said. No word had yet come of the end of
the war, which had been settled by the peace of Ryswick in September.
A month later (December 9, 1697) Captain Gillam arrived at Marblehead
from London, and the next day, amid the beat of drum and the blare of
trumpet, between three and four in the afternoon, the proclamation
of the peace was made in Boston. The terms of that treaty were not
reassuring for New England. A restitution of captured lands and ports
on either side was made by it; but the bounds of Acadia were not
defined, and the Sagadahock country became at once disputed ground. The
French claimed that it had been confirmed to them by the treaties of
St. Germain (1632) and Breda (1668); but the Lords of Trade urged the
province to rebuild the forts at Pemaquid, and maintain an ascendency
on the spot.

[Illustration: BELLOMONT.

This follows a contemporary engraving preserved in Harvard College
library, which is inscribed: “His Excellencie Richard Coote. Earle of
Bellomont, Governour of New England, New York and New Hampshire, and
Vice Admirall of those seas.” Cf. the picture of doubtful authenticity
in the _Memorial History of Boston_, ii. p. 175.]

As early as August, 1695, word had come that Richard Coote, the Earl
of Bellomont, was to be the new governor of Massachusetts. Later
it was said that he would not arrive till spring; and when spring
came the choice had not even been determined upon. It was not till
November, 1697, that he was commissioned governor of New York, New
Jersey, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. He landed in New York on the
2d of April, 1698, and on the 12th a sloop reached Boston, bringing
tidings of his arrival, and three days later the council received a
communication from him. For a year and more he stayed in New York,
sending his instructions to Stoughton, who as lieutenant-governor
directed the council’s action. On the 26th of May, 1699, the governor
reached Boston;[181] and it was not long before he manifested his
sympathy with the party of which Elisha Cooke was the leader. This
gentleman, who was so obnoxious to the Mather party, had been negatived
by Phips, when chosen to the council; but on Phips’s withdrawal, his
election had escaped a veto, and he now sat at the council board.
Mather had succeeded, in 1697, in forcing upon the legislature a
charter, in the main of his own drafting, which gave to Harvard College
the constitution that he liked, but he manœuvred in vain to secure his
own appointment from the General Court to proceed to England to solicit
the sanction of the Privy Council; and it was not long before he found
that the new governor had vetoed his charter, and in 1701 the assembly
legislated him out of office, as the president of the college.

This first blow to the dominance of the Mathers was reassuring, and
Bellomont was a leader for the new life to rally about.[182] He was a
man of complacent air. He liked, if we may believe him, to hear sermons
well enough to go to King’s Chapel on Sundays, and to the meeting-house
for the Thursday lectures. He could patronize the common people with
a sufficient suavity; and when the General Court, after their set
purpose, voted him a present instead of a salary, if he was not much
pleased, he took his £1,000 as the best substitute he could get for the
£1,200 which he preferred.

Boston, with its 7,000 inhabitants, was not so bad a seat of a
viceroyalty, after all, for a poor earl, who had a living to make, and
was debarred the more lucrative methods of trade. He reported back to
the Lords of Trade abundant figures of what he found to be the town’s
resources and those of his government; but the favor which he was
receiving from the good people might have been less had they known that
these same reports of his set forth his purpose to find Englishmen,
rather than New Englanders, for the offices in his gift.

We have also at this time the report which the scurrilous Ned Ward made
of the puritan town and its people;[183] but it is not well to believe
all of his talk about the innocence of doves and the subtile wiles of
serpents, though life in Boston was not without its contrasts, as we
look back upon it now. Samuel Sewall, her first abolitionist, was even
then pointing the finger of doom to the insidious evil in his _Selling
of Joseph_. Not altogether foreign to the thoughts of many were the
political possibilities of the coming century, when on New Year’s Day,
1701, the bellman’s clangor was heard, as he toned Sewall’s memorial
verses through the streets. There was a certain fitness in the century
being ushered in, for New England at least, by the man who was to
make posterity best acquainted with its life, and who as a circuit
judge, coursing statedly the country ways, saw more to portray than
any one else. Sewall was an honest man, if in many respects a petty
one. He had figured in one of the noblest spectacles ever seen in the
self-willed puritan capital, when on a fast day, January 14, 1697, he
had stood up in the meeting-house, and had listened with bowed head to
the reading of his penitential confession for the sin of his complicity
in the witchcraft trials. Stoughton, the lieutenant-governor, and
chief justice of those trials, was quite another type of the puritan
fatalist, from whom it was futile to expect a like contrition; and
when, at a later day (December 25, 1698), Stoughton invited to dinner
the council and omitted Sewall, who was one of them, one might fancy
the cause was in no pleasant associations with the remembrance of that
scene in Parson Willard’s meeting-house. It is characteristic of Sewall
that this social slight oppressed him for fear that Bellomont, who had
not yet come, might hear of it, and count him less! But poor Sewall was
a man whom many things disturbed, whether it was that to mock him some
one scattered a pack of playing-cards in his fore-yard, or that some of
the godly chose to wear a wig![184]

[Illustration: SAMUEL SEWALL.

This follows the steel engraving in _Sewall Papers_, vol. i. There
is another likeness in _N. E. H. & Gen. Reg._, i. 105. Cf. also
Higginson’s _Larger Hist. United States_, p. 208.]

The smiting of the Mathers, to which reference has been made, was a
business of serious moment to those theocrats. Whoever was not in
sympathy with their protests fared badly in their mouths. “Mr. Cotton
Mather,” records Sewall (October 20, 1701), “came to Mr. Wilke’s shop,
and there talked very sharply against me, as if I had used his father
worse than a neger; spoke so loud that people in the street might hear
him.” There is about as near an approach to conscious pleasantry as we
ever find in Sewall when, writing, some days later, that he had sent
Mr. Increase Mather a haunch of very good venison, he adds, “I hope in
that I did not treat him as a negro.”

The Mathers were praised highly and blamed sharply in their lifetime,
and have been since. There can be little dispute about what they did
and what they said; they were outspoken enough to make their motives
and feelings palpable. It is as one makes or refuses allowances for
their times that the estimate of their value to their generation is
scaled. None ever needed allowances more. They had no conception of
those influences which place men in relation to other times than their
own. There was in their minds no plane higher than the existence around
them,—no plane to which the man of all times leads his contemporaries.
Matherism, which was to them their life, was to others a domination,
the long-suffering of which, by their coevals, to us of to-day is a
study. It would be unjust to say that this mighty influence had not
been often of great good; but the gentle observer of an historic
character does not contentedly witness outbursts of selfish arrogance,
canting humiliation, boastful complacency, to say nothing of social
impertinences and public indelicacies, and the bandying of opprobrious
epithets in controversy. With this there was indeed mingled much for
which New England had reason to be grateful. Increase Mather had a
convenient astuteness, which was exerted not infrequently to her no
small gain. He had learning, which usually left his natural ability and
his education free from entanglements. It was too often quite otherwise
with his son Cotton, whose reading smothered his faculties, though he
had a native power that occasionally got the upper hand. Between them
they gathered a library, which, as John Dunton said, was the glory
of New England. The awe which Increase inspired knew little of that
lurking rebellion which the too pitiful arrogance of Cotton incited;
for the father was essentially a strong and politic man, and though his
domination was waning outwardly in 1700, he had the ability to compel
the Boston press into a refusal to print the _Gospel Order Revised_,
which his opponents had written in answer to his _Order of the Gospel_,
and to force his adversaries to flee to New York to find a printer.[185]

The old Mather theocracy was attacked on two sides. There was, in
the first place, the defection within the old New England orthodoxy,
by which an independent spirit had established a church. From the
published manifesto of its principles this came to be known as the
“Manifesto Church,” and it had invited Benjamin Colman home from
England to become its pastor,[186] who, to avoid difficulties, had been
ordained in England. He first preached in November, 1699. In the second
place, the organization of the Church of England, which had begun in
Andros’s time, was gathering strength, though Sewall got what comfort
he could from the fact that Mr. Maccarty’s shop and others were not
closed on Christmas Day. Attempts had been made to divert the funds
of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England from
their application to the needs of the Indians, to strengthen the new
Episcopal movement; and the failure to do this, as well as a spirit to
emulate the missionary enterprise of the French, had instigated the
formation of a new Society in England for Propagating the Gospel in
Foreign Parts; but it was not long before its resources were turned
into channels which nurtured the Episcopal movement and the royal
authority. Strong contrasts to the simplicity of the old order were
increasing; and it was not without misgivings that the old people had
seen Benjamin Wadsworth, the new associate pastor of the First Church,
inducted (1696) into office with an unusual formal parade. Thus the
humble manners of the past were becoming in large degree a memory; and
when, a little later (June 1, 1702), the new queen was proclaimed,
and the representatives were allowed to precede the ministers in the
procession, the wail in Sewall’s diary, as well as when he notices the
raising of colors at the Castle on the Lord’s Day, betokens in another
way the order of things which the new charter was making possible.

While in Massachusetts the defection grew, in Connecticut the old
order was entrenching itself in the founding of Yale College,
first at Saybrook, and later at New Haven, which was destined, as
Harvard declined in the estimation of the orthodox, to become the
rallying-point of the old school.[187]

In Rhode Island matters went on much as the heterogeneous composition
of that colony necessarily determined. Bellomont could find little good
to report of her people, and the burden of his complaint to the Lords
of Trade touched their propensity to piracy, their evasion of the laws
of trade, and the ignorance of the officials.

Bellomont had returned to his government in New York when, on the 5th
of March, 1701, he died. It took ten days for the news to reach Boston
(March 15), and four days later (March 19) word came by the roundabout
channel of Virginia of the declaration of war between England and
France. In the midst of the attendant apprehension, on April 7th,
mourning guns were fired for the dead governor at the Sconce and at the
Castle, and the artillery company gave three volleys in the middle of
the town, Col. Townshend, as Sewall in his antipathy does not fail to
record, wearing a wig!

When Bellomont had left for New York in May, 1700, the immediate charge
of the government had again fallen upon Stoughton. He did not long
survive his chief, and died July 7, 1701, in his seventieth year,[188]
and from this time to the coming of Dudley the council acted as
executive.

It was on Joseph Dudley, to a large party the most odious of all New
Englanders, the ally of Andros, that the thoughts of all were now
turned. It was known that he had used every opportunity to impress upon
the king his fitness to maintain the royal prerogative and protect the
revenue in New England. The people of Boston had not seen him for about
ten years. In 1691 he had landed there on his way to New York, where
he was to serve as a councillor; and during that and the following
year he had made some unobtrusive visits to his home in Roxbury, till,
in 1693, he was recalled to England to be made lieutenant-governor of
the Isle of Wight. With the death of Bellomont his hopes again rose.
Ashurst, as the senior of the Massachusetts agents, still opposed him,
though his associate, Constantine Phipps,[189] was led to believe that
the king might do worse than appoint the aspirant. Dudley was not
deficient in tact, and he got some New Englanders who chanced to be in
England to recommend him; and a letter, which he used to some purpose,
came not surprisingly, considering his lineage, from Cotton Mather,
saying quite enough in Dudley’s praise. Elisha Cooke and his friends
were not ignorant of such events, and secured the appointment of Wait
Winthrop as agent to organize a fresh opposition to Dudley’s purposes.
It was too late. The letters which Dudley offered in testimony were
powerful enough to remove the king’s hesitancy, and Dudley secured his
appointment, which, on the death of the king a few days later, was
promptly confirmed by Anne.[190]

The news of the king’s death and the accession of the queen reached
Boston, by way of Newfoundland, on the 28th of May, 1702.[191] The new
monarch was at once proclaimed from the town house, and volleys of
guns and the merriment of carouse marked a new reign. How New England
was to find the change was soon sharply intimated. Amid it all tidings
came of the capture of three Salem ketches by the Cape Sable Indians.
Later in the same day the eyes of Madam Bellingham, the relict of an
early governor, were closed in death, severing one of the last links
of other days. Her death was to most a suggestive accompaniment of the
mischance which now placed in the governor’s chair the recusant son of
Thomas Dudley, that other early governor.

A fortnight later (June 10, 1702), the ship “Centurion,” having Joseph
Dudley on board, put in at Marblehead, and the news quickly travelled
to Boston. The next day a committee of the council went in Captain
Croft’s pinnace to meet him, and they boarded the “Centurion” just
outside Point Alderton. Dudley received them on deck, arrayed in a
very large wig, as Sewall sorrowfully noted while making him a speech.
They saw another man whom they had not heard of, one Thomas Povey,
who was to be their lieutenant governor, and to have charge of their
Castle. They saw, too, among the passengers, George Keith, the whilom
quaker, who was come over on £200 salary, very likely paid by the
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, to convert
as many as he could to prelacy.[192] Sewall was not happy during that
day of compliments. The party landed at Scarlet’s Wharf amid salvos of
artillery, and under escort of the council and the town regiment they
proceeded to the town house, where the commissions were published and
all “had a large treat,” as Sewall says. Major Hobby’s coach, with six
horses, was at the door, a guard of horsemen wheeled into ranks, and so
Dudley went to that Roxbury home, whence, as many remembered, he had
been taken to be imprisoned.

Dudley was not deficient in confidence and forwardness; but he had no
easy task before him. He naturally inclined to the faction of which
Byfield and Leverett were leaders; but the insidious and envious Cotton
Mather, taking him into his confidence, warned him of these very
people. Dudley told them of the warning, and it was not long before the
sanctimonious Mather was calling his excellency a “wretch.”

When Dudley made his opening address to the General Court,[193]
he could not refrain from saying some things that were not very
conciliatory. There were two points on which he raised issues, which he
never succeeded in compassing. One of these was a demand for a stated
salary. The assembly answered it with a present of £500 against the
£1,000 which they had given to Bellomont. No urgency, no threats, no
picturing the displeasure of the Crown, could effect his purpose.[194]
The war which he waged with the representatives never, as long as the
province existed, ended in a peace, though there was an occasional
truce under pressure of external dangers.

Another of Dudley’s pleas was for the rebuilding of the fort at
Pemaquid, to secure possession of the disputable territory between the
Kennebec and Acadia.[195] The deputies were immovable. If the Crown
wished to secure that region, it must do it by other sacrifices than
those of New England.

Thus thwarted, Dudley could make them feel that the royal governor
had some prerogatives; and so he rejected the councillors which the
deputies accredited. All of this thrust and parry was of course
duly reported by Dudley to the home government. The situation was
perplexing in the extreme, quite as much so to the governor as to the
people, who reluctantly received him. It was for the interests of
both that the war against the French should not flag, and money was
necessary, but the governor claimed the direction of expenditures,
while the representatives stood aloof and firm on the “privilege and
right of English subjects to raise and dispose of money, according to
the present exigency of affairs.” With the clergy and the ministers,
Dudley was not less unhappily placed. His interests turned him to the
church people, but they could not find that his profession had any
constancy. His lineage placed him with the Congregationalists, and
he once had the ministry in view, but his sympathies went altogether
with the new school, of which Stoddard, of Northampton, was leader
in the west, while Colman, the Leveretts, and the Brattles were the
spokesmen in Boston. In the election of a president for Harvard,
Dudley favored Leverett, the successful candidate, and made a Latin
speech at his installation,[196] and Cotton Mather writhed at the
disappointment of his own hopes. The governor encountered (1708), for
his decisive opposition to the Mathers, a terrible but overwrought
letter from the father, and a livelier epistle from the son. He showed
in his reply a better temper, if nothing more.[197] In the opinion
of all honest patriots, of whatever party, Dudley was later found in
company which raised suspicions. The conflict with France begat, as
wars do, a band of miscreants ever ready to satisfy their avarice by
trading with the enemy and furnishing them with arms. Dudley did not
escape suspicion, and he experienced some of the bitterest abuse in
talk and pamphlet,[198] though the council and the House, the latter
after some hesitancy, pronounced the charges against him a “scandalous
accusation.” It can hardly be determined that he was implicated, and
Palfrey gives him the benefit of the doubt.[199]

[Illustration: JEAN BAPTISTE HERTEL, SEIGNEUR DE ROUVILLE.

This likeness of the leader of the assault on Deerfield follows one
given in Daniel’s _Nos Gloires Nationales_, i. p. 278, where is an
account of the Hertel family. He was thirty-four at the time of his
attack.]

The war was a fearful one. In 1703, month by month fresh tidings of
its horrors among the frontier towns reached Boston. In January it was
of Berwick, in Maine. In February came sad tidings from Haverhill. In
March there was the story of Deerfield, and how Hertel de Rouville had
dashed upon the village. With the early summer Dudley went to Canso
to confer with the Indians (June 20); and not long after (July 8),
Bombazeen, a noted Indian, appeared in Boston with rumors of the French
landing near Pemaquid. In August there were sad messages from Wells,
and Capt. Southack was sent off by sea with chaplain and surgeon. With
all this need of her troops at home, the colony also despatched two
companies of foot to help the British forces at Jamaica. Samuel Sewall
mourned as ever, when on Sunday (April 23, 1704) great guns at the
Castle signalized the Coronation-Day. “Down Sabbath! Up St. George!” he
says. The very next day the first number of the _Boston News-Letter_
(April 24)[200] brought to the minister’s study and to his neighbor’s
keeping-room the gossip and news of the town which was witnessing this
startling proof of progress. Ten days later Dudley signed Benjamin
Church’s instructions (May 4), and the old soldier, whose exploits
in Philip’s war were not forgotten, set off by land to Piscataqua,
where he was met by Cyprian Southack in his brigantine, who carried
him to the eastern garrisons. In the _News-Letter_, people read of the
tribulations at Lancaster; of the affairs at Port Royal; of the new
cannon which Dudley got from England for the Castle; of the French
captives, whose presence in Boston so disturbed the selectmen that they
petitioned the governor to restrain the strangers, and whose imagined
spiritual needs prompted Cotton Mather to print in his tentative French
his _Le vrai patron des saines paroles_.

News of this sort was varied by a rumor (December 18, 1705), which a
sloop from the English Plymouth had brought, that Sir Charles Hobby
was to be made governor,—which meant that the agents of the colony
in London were trying to oust Dudley with a new man; but in this they
failed.

[Illustration]

The war made little progress. The expedition against Port Royal in
1707 was a failure, and the frontier towns were still harassed. The
news of Marlborough’s victories was inspiriting, and Boston could name
a part of its main thoroughfare after the great soldier; but while
she planted guns on her out-wharves and hoisted a tar-barrel to her
beacon’s top, and while Colonel Vetch marshalled her troops,[201] she
waited in vain for the English army to arrive, in concert with which
the New England forces were to make a renewed attack on Port Royal in
1709. Rhode Island sent her war-vessels and two hundred men, and they
too lay listlessly in Nantasket roads. Schuyler, of Albany, meanwhile
started to conduct four Mohawks or Maqua chiefs to England, where
he hoped to play upon the imagination of the queen; and in August,
while the weary New Englanders were waiting for the signal to embark,
Schuyler brought the savages to Boston, and Colonel Hobby’s regiment
was mustered for their diversion.[202] Very likely they were taken to
see the “celebrated Cotton Mather,” as the man who had not long before
“brought in another tongue to confess the great Saviour of the world,”
as he himself said of a tract in the language of the Iroquois, which
he had printed in Boston (1707) and supplied to the Dutch and English
traders among that people. Distractions and waiting wore away the time;
but the English forces never came, and another Port Royal attempt
proved wretchedly futile.

That autumn (October, 1709) the New England governors met at Rehoboth,
and prepared an address to the queen urging another attempt. In the
face of these events the Massachusetts colony had to change its London
agent. Sir Henry Ashurst died, and the House would have chosen Sir
William Ashurst against Dudley’s protest, if Sir William would have
accepted. They now selected their own Jeremiah Dummer, but against his
desires.

The year 1710 opened with rumors from Albany about preparations in
Canada for an onset along the frontier, and it was not till July
(15) that flags and guns at the Castle and Sconce, with drum-beats
throughout the streets, told the expectant Bostonians that General
Nicholson, who was to head a new expedition, had arrived. It was
candle-light before he landed, and the letters and despatches at once
busied the government. A little later the council (July 24) entertained
that commander, with Vetch and Hobby, at the Green Dragon Tavern; and
four days afterwards Governor Saltonstall, from Connecticut, reached
Boston, and the contingent of that colony, three hundred men, was on
the spot in four weeks from the warning. In September the armament
sailed,—twelve ships-of-war and twenty-four transports, of which
fourteen carried Massachusetts troops, two New Hampshire, three Rhode
Island, and five those of Connecticut. On the 26th of October (1710),
Nicholson and his force were back in Boston, flushed with the triumph
which the capitulation of Port Royal had given them.[203] The town had
need of some such divertissement. There had been a scarcity of grain,
and when Captain Belcher attempted to despatch a ship laden with it
the mob cut her rudder, and the excitement had not passed without more
or less inflaming of the passions. The circle of Matherites had also
disturbed the equanimity of the liberals in theology by an anonymous
document, _Question and Proposals_, which aimed at ecclesiasticising
everybody and everything,—a stroke of a dying cause. There was an
antagonist equal to the occasion in John Wise, of Ipswich, and the
Mather dynasty had less chance of revival after Wise’s book _The
Churches’ Quarrel Espoused_ was launched upon the town.[204]

Nicholson, again in England, had urged the new tory government under
Bolingbroke to make a more determined assault on Canada, and Dummer had
united with him in a petition to the queen[205] for a royal armament to
be sent for the work. Their plea was recognized and what seemed a great
force was despatched. Nicholson, with the van of the fleet, arrived
on the 6th of June, 1711,[206] and a convention of the New England
governors was straightway called at New London to arrange for the
campaign. The plan was for Nicholson to lead four thousand men by way
of Albany, and the Connecticut contingent of three hundred and sixty
men was to make part of this force. The royal ships came straggling
into Boston harbor. On the 24th General Hill, who brought under his
command seven of Marlborough’s veteran regiments, arrived, and the
next day Sewall and others of the council boarded the “Devonshire”
and exchanged courtesies with Hill and the admiral of the fleet, Sir
Hovenden Walker. The Boston regiments mustered and escorted them to
the town house, and the veterans were thrown into a camp on Noddle’s
Island. The next six weeks were busy ones, with preparations and
entertainments. Mr. Borland, a wealthy merchant, took Hill into his
house. The governor offered official courtesies. The transports as they
came up into the inner harbor presented a “goodly, charming prospect,”
as Sewall thought.[207]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

Commencement at Cambridge came on July 4, and all the dignitaries were
there. One day some Connecticut Indians exhibited themselves before the
admiral, and on another some Mohawks danced on board the flag-ship. By
the end of the month, everything was as nearly ready as could be,[208]
and the fleet sailed (July 30). They went proudly away, hastened
somewhat by large desertions, which the patrolling of the roads
leading from Boston had not prevented.

[Illustration: BRITISH SOLDIERS, 1701-1714.

Fac-simile of a cut (pl. xxviii.) in Luard’s _Hist. of the Dress of the
British Soldier_, London, 1852, p. 94. It represents the soldiers of
Marlborough’s wars.]

Nicholson dallied in Boston for a week or two, eating good dinners, and
then started for New York, to take the conduct of the land expedition,
Saltonstall accompanying the Connecticut troops as far as Albany. Much
farther no one of the land forces went, for word reached them of the
sad disaster on the St. Lawrence and of the withdrawal of Walker’s
fleet. The New England part of it came straggling back to Boston in
October to find the town suffering under the loss of a great fire,
which had happened on the night of October 2-3; most unmistakably
the result, as Increase Mather told them in a sermon,—and perhaps
believed,—of the way in which, during the fitting of the fleet, they
had carried bundles on the Lord’s Day, and done other servile work! The
cause of the expedition’s failure can be more reasonably indicated:
delay in starting, an ill-organized method of supplies, bad pilotage,
and incompetent leaders. Walker and Hill sailed direct for England, and
in October, while the deputies of the province were bolstering their
courage in asking the monarch for another attempt, the English mind was
being filled with charges of want of proper coöperation on the part of
the New Englanders as the all-sufficient cause of the disaster. Dummer,
in London, vindicated his people as well as he could in a _Letter to a
Noble Lord concerning the late expedition to Canada_.[209]

In August of the following year (1712) Bolingbroke made a truce with
France, the news of which reached Boston from Newfoundland in October
(24th). It resulted in the following spring (March 31, 1713) in the
Treaty of Utrecht, by which England acquired Acadia with its “ancient
limits,” whatever they might be, for we shall see it was a question.
The news arrived amid another corn panic. Two hundred angry and
perhaps hungry men broke open Arthur Mason’s storehouse and seized the
stock of grain. Capt. Belcher sent off another shipload, despite the
remonstrance of the selectmen; but the mob stopped short of pulling
down Belcher’s house about his ears. “Hardest fend off,” was his word.

Peace secured, Dudley despatched from Boston, November 6, 1713, John
Stoddard and John Williams to proceed to Albany, thence by Lake
Champlain to Quebec, to negotiate with Vaudreuil for the restoration of
prisoners.[210]

       *       *       *       *       *

The Mason claim[211] to the province of New Hampshire had been bought
by Samuel Allen, a London merchant, and he had become its governor;
but the active ruler was his son-in-law, John Usher, who had been the
treasurer of Andros’s government, and also, as lieutenant-governor,
lived in the province. Memories of old political affiliations had
not conduced to make his relations with Sir William Phips, of the
neighboring jurisdiction, very agreeable. When Bellomont came he was
commissioned to take New Hampshire within his government; and it
had fallen in the same way to Dudley’s care. This Boston governor
found himself popular in New Hampshire, whose people had opposed
the reinstatement of Usher, though this had been accomplished
in their spite. Dudley and Usher recriminated, and told their
respective grievances, and both made their counter-charges to the
home government.[212] Affairs went uncomfortably enough till George
Vaughan became the successor of Usher, who now withdrew to Medford, in
Massachusetts, where he died at the age of eighty, in 1726.

Upon Rhode Island, Dudley had looked longingly. She would have been
brought under his commission but for the exertion of William Penn,
then her agent in London. Still, under pretence of consolidating the
military strength of the colonies as occasion might require, there was
a clause in the commission of Dudley which he construed as giving him
command of the Rhode Island militia. Dudley early (September, 1702)
went to Newport, and ordered a parade of the militia. Gov. Cranston
cited their charter as being against any such assumption of power;
and the troops were not paraded.[213] Dudley told the Board of Trade
that the colony was “a receptacle of rogues and pirates;” and the
people of Rhode Island renewed their fortifications, and sent out their
solitary privateer to cruise against French and Spanish. At Dudley’s
instigation the Board of Trade (1705) prepared charges of evading
the revenue against the colony. Dudley gathered evidence to sustain
them, and struggled hard to push the wiry colony to the wall, hoping
to crush her charter, and pave the way for a general government for
New England, to be the head of which he had not a little ambition. In
this Dudley had a confederate in Lord Cornbury, now governor of New
York. To him had been similarly given by his commission the control
of the Connecticut militia, but a timely prudence saved that colony.
Fitz-John Winthrop was now governor,—a second dilution of his race, as
Palfrey rather hazardously calls him,—and blameless in purpose always.
Dudley’s concert with Cornbury, aimed to crush the charters of both
Rhode Island and Connecticut, that each conspirator might get something
from the wreck to add to his jurisdiction, utterly failed. In England
Sir Henry Ashurst labored to thwart the machinations of Dudley’s
friends. In Connecticut Dudley found malcontents who furnished him with
allegations respecting the colony’s appropriating unfairly the lands of
the Mohegans,[214] and getting a commission appointed to investigate
he was made its president. He then proceeded in his own fashion. He
omitted to warn Connecticut of the meeting of the court, judged the
case peremptorily, and ordered the restitution of the lands. The colony
exercised its right of appeal, and prolonging the investigation to
1743 got Dudley’s decision reversed.[215] Gov. Fitz-John Winthrop, of
Connecticut, died in Boston while on a visit, November 27, 1707, and
was commemorated by Cotton Mather in a funeral sermon, called in his
pedantic manner _Winthropi justa_. The vacant chair was now taken by
Gurdon Saltonstall, who did his generation great service and little
harm. The policy of Connecticut soon felt his active nature.[216] Her
frontier towns towards New York were guarded, and Massachusetts found
she had an efficient ally in her warfare at the eastward.

Connecticut, which was steadily rising above 20,000 in population in
Saltonstall’s time,—though estimates vary,—was growing more rigorous
in observance and creed in contrast to the strengthening of liberalism
in Massachusetts. Saltonstall favored the Saybrook platform, which put
the management of church affairs in a “consociation of ministers,”—a
sort of presbytery. Though a general accord in religious views linked
her people together, she harbored some strange sectaries, like the
Rogerenes of New London, who were allied in some respects with the
Seventh Day Baptists of Westerly, just over the Rhode Island line.

[Illustration: GURDON SALTONSTALL.

This follows the original picture at Yale College by an unknown artist.
There is a photograph of it in Kingsley’s _Yale College_, i. 33. There
is another engraving in Hollister’s _Connecticut_, ii. 584. There is an
engraving by Doolittle noted in the _Catal. Cab. Mass. Hist. Soc._, p.
30.]

[Illustration

The annexed autograph is from a MS. in Harvard College library
[5325.23], entitled: _A Memorial offered to the General Assembly of
his Majesties Colony of Connecticut hold in Hartford, May y^e 10th,
1716, By Gurdon Saltonstall, Esq., one of the Trustees in Trust of the
Mohegan Fields in the Township of New London, for the use of Cesar,
Sachem of Mohegan & his Indians, upon the occasion of y^e sd Cesar’s
Complaint to y^e sd Assembly of wrong done him and his Indians in and
upon the sd Fields._]

It was during Dudley’s time that the emission of paper money had begun
to have a portentous aspect. These financial hazards and disputes, as
turning people’s thoughts from old issues, had the effect to soften
some of the asperities of Dudley’s closing years of service.[217] He
ceased to wrangle for a salary, and omitted to reject Elisha Cooke when
again returned by the House in 1715 as a member of the council.[218]
Massachusetts had grown much more slowly than her neighbors, and five
or six thousand of her youth had fallen in the wars. This all meant a
great burden upon the survivors, and in this struggle for existence
there was no comforting feeling for Dudley that he had helped them in
their trials. The puritan class was hardly more content. Sewall’s diary
shows the constant tribulation of his representative spirit: sorrowed
at one time by the rumor of a play in the council chamber; provoked
again on the queen’s birthday at the mocking of his efforts to check
the drinking of healths with which it was celebrated on Saturday night;
and thankful, as he confessed again, that he heard not the salutes on
the Lord’s Day, which were paid to Nicholson when he finally set sail
for England.

It was the 15th of September (1714) when news came of the death of
Queen Anne. A sloop sent from England with orders was wrecked on
Cohasset rocks, and the government was left in ignorance for the
time being of the course which had been marked out for it. Dudley’s
commission legally expired six months after the sovereign’s demise,
if nothing should be done to prolong it. As the time came near, a
committee of the council approached him to provide for the entrance of
the “Devolution government,” as Sewall termed the executive functions,
which then under the charter devolved on the council. Dudley met the
issue with characteristic unbending; and some of his appointees knew
their places well enough to reject the council’s renewal of their
commission, being still satisfied with Dudley’s, as they professed.
His son Paul besought the ministers to pray for his father as still
the chief executive, and intrigued to prevent the proclamation of the
council for a fast being read in the pulpits. In March what purported
to be a copy of an order for his reinstatement reached Dudley by way of
New York. It was quite sufficient; and with an escort of four troops of
horse clattering over Boston neck, he hurried (March 21, 1715) to the
town house, where he displayed and proclaimed his new commission. His
further lease of power, however, was not a long one.

[Illustration: WILLIAM DUMMER.

After a likeness owned by the Misses Loring, of Boston.]

There were new times at the English court when the German George I.
ruled England; when he gave his ugly Killmansegge and Schulenberg
places among the English peeresses, and the new Countess of Darlington
and Duchess of Kendall simpered in their uncouth English. The Whig
lords must now bend their gouty knees, and set forth in poor German or
convenient—perhaps inconvenient—Latin what the interests of distant
New England required. We may well suspect that this German dullard knew
little and cared less when it was explained to him that the opposing
factions of the private and public bank in his American province of
Massachusetts Bay were each manœuvring for a governor of their stripe.
We may well wonder if he was foolish enough to read the address of
the ministers of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, or the address even
of the General Court, which came to him a little later. His advisers
might have rejoiced that Increase Mather, pleading his age, had been
excused from becoming the bearer of these messages, or of that of the
ministers, at least.[219]

[Illustration: JEREMIAH DUMMER.

After a likeness owned by the Misses Loring, of Boston. It was at one
time in the Mass. Hist. Soc. gallery. (Cf. _Proceedings_, ii. 289, 296,
300, 302.) It has been ascribed to Sir Godfrey Kneller.]

The friends of a private bank carried their point far enough to secure
to Col. Elisha Burgess the coveted commission, who, however, was better
satisfied with the thousand pounds which the friends of a public bank
were willing to pay him, and so he declined the appointment. The same
power that paid the money now got the commission issued to Col. Samuel
Shute, and the news which reached Boston (April 21, 1715) of Burgess’
appointment was swiftly followed by the tidings of Shute’s ascendency,
which meant, it was well known, that Jonathan Belcher, of Cambridge,
and Jeremiah Dummer had been successful in their diplomacy in this, as
well as in the displacing of Tailer as lieutenant-governor by William
Dummer. The latter was Dudley’s son-in-law, and the appointment gilded
the pill which the late governor was prepared to swallow.

The good people of Massachusetts had not long got over their
thanksgiving for the suppression of the Scottish rebellion when, just
about sunset, October 3, 1716, a gun in the harbor told of Shute’s
arrival. Two days later, at the town house, he laid his hand on the
Bible, “kissing it very industriously,” as Sewall records, and swore to
do his duty. On the following Sunday he attended King’s Chapel, and on
Thursday he was present at the usual lecture of the Congregationalists,
when he heard Cotton Mather preach.[220] He seemed very docile, and
doubtless smiled when Mather’s fulsome address to him was paraded in
a broadside; very docile, too, when he yielded to Sewall’s entreaty
one evening that he would not go to a dancing-master’s ball and
scandalize his name. But on November 7 (1716), in his set speech to
the legislature, there were signs of trouble. New England had peace
on her frontiers, and that was not conducive to quiet in her domestic
politics. The conflict came, and Shute was hardly equal to it. The
legislature could look to a support nearly unanimous of almost a
hundred thousand people in the province, being not much short of a
quarter of the entire population of the English colonies; and a people
like the New Englanders, who could annually export £300,000 worth of
products, were not deficient at least in business courage.

Shute’s instructions as to the demands he should make were not novel.
It was the old story of a fixed salary, a house to live in, the command
of the Rhode Island militia, the rebuilding of Pemaquid, and the
censorship of the press. The governor brought their financial plight
to the attention of the House, and they voted more bills of credit. He
told them of other things which he and the king expected of them, and
they did nothing. So he prorogued them.

It was incumbent on the Crown governor to encourage the production of
naval stores, as a means of diverting attention from manufactures,
which might injure the market in the colonies for English products.
One Bridger had already made himself obnoxious, and been suspected
of malfeasance as “surveyor-general of woods,” in Dudley’s time, and
it was far from conciliatory to a people who found the Crown’s right
to mast-timber burdensome[221] that Bridger appeared in the train of
Shute with a new commission. The surveyor was arraigned by the younger
Elisha Cooke, who was now succeeding to his father’s leadership, and
Shute defending him, a rather lively contention followed, which was not
quieted till Dummer, in England, finally got Bridger removed.[222] To
one of Shute’s speeches the House made a reply, and Shute threatened he
would prevent their printing it.

[Illustration: ELISHA COOKE, THE YOUNGER.

This follows a red-chalk drawing once owned by the Rev. Wm. Bentley,
of Salem, and now in the gallery of the American Antiquarian
Society. Cooke was born in Boston in 1678, and died in 1737. His
only publication appears to be the following: _Mr. Cook’s just and
seasonable vindication, respecting some affairs transacted in the late
general assembly at Boston_. [Boston, 1720.] The second impression,
corrected. [Boston, 1720.] Sabin, iv. 16,305; Brinley, no. 1,474.]

Its appearance, nevertheless, in the _News-Letter_ established the
freedom of the press in Massachusetts.[223] The governor informed
the Board of Trade that the province was bound to wrest from him as
much of his representative prerogative as it could, and its action
certainly seemed sometimes to have no other purpose than to establish
precedents which might in some turn of fortune become useful. The House
chose the younger Cooke speaker in palpable defiance, and when he was
disapproved the members refused to go into another ballot, and the
governor prorogued them. When the new House assembled they contented
themselves with publishing a protest, and chose another speaker; and
then they diminished the “present” which they voted to the governor. It
seems clear that the House, in a rather undignified way, revelled in
their power, and often went beyond the limits of propriety. The charter
required that all acts should be reviewed by the Crown for approval.
The House dodged the necessity by passing resolves. Dummer in England
knew that such conduct only helped the Board of Trade to push the
plan of confederating all the provinces under a governor-general, and
intimated as much. The House was in no temper to be criticised by its
own agent, and voted to dismiss Dummer. The council in non-concurring
saved him; but the House retaliated by dropping his allowance.

The council was not without its troubles. Shute refused to attend its
meetings on Christmas. Sewall, ever alert at any chance of spurning
the day, “because,” as he chose to think, “the dissenters had come a
great way for their liberties,” broadly intimated that the council
still could pass its bills on that day, and the governor might take
whatever day he chose to sign them. It was certainly not a happy era in
Massachusetts. The legislature was not altogether wise or benign, and
Shute did nothing to make them so.[224]

The frontiers, for a space, had but a hazardous peace. In August, 1717,
Shute had gone to Arrowsick (Georgetown, Me.) to hold a conference
with the Indians, and had learned from a letter received there from
Sebastian Rasle, the Jesuit missionary at Norridgewock, that any
attempt to occupy the lands beyond the Kennebec would lead to war,
and as we shall see the war came.[225] Meanwhile, life in Boston was
full of change and shadow. Pirates beset the people’s shipping, and
when the notorious “Whidaw” was cast away on Cape Cod (1717) they
heard with some satisfaction of the hundred dead bodies which were
washed ashore from the wreck. There was consequently one less terror
for their coasters and for the paltry sloops which were now beginning
to venture out for whales from Cape Cod and Nantucket.[226] There was
occasion, indeed, to foster and protect that and all industries, for
the purchasing power of their paper money was sinking lower and lower,
to the disturbance of all trade. When the province sought to make the
English manufacturers afford some slight contribution to restoration of
prosperity by imposing a duty of one per cent. on their manufactures
sent over, the bill was negatived by the king, with threats of loss
of their charter if any such device were repeated. In the same spirit
Parliament tried to suppress all iron-working in the province;[227] but
after much insistence the people were allowed the boon of making their
own nails![228] Some Scotch Irish had come over in 1718, and though
most of them went to New Hampshire and introduced the potato,[229]
enough remained in Boston to teach the art of linen-making. Spinning
under this prompting became a popular employment, and Boston appointed
a committee to consider the establishment of spinning schools.[230]
Perhaps they could spin, if they could not forge; and Boston, with
her 12,000 to 15,000 inhabitants to be clothed and fed, needed to
do something, if Parliament would permit. Her spirit was not always
subdued. In 1721 she instructed her representatives not to be deterred
by frown or threat from maintaining their charter privileges. “When
you come to grant allowances,” she said, “do not forget the growing
difficulties that we at this day labor under, and that poverty is
coming upon us as an armed man.”[231] The General Court emphasized its
call for frugality by forbidding the extravagant outlay for funerals,
which was becoming the fashion.[232] There might have been some scandal
at the haberdashery trade which the profuse habits of bestowing upon
their parsons gloves and rings made a possible circumstance, to say the
least, in more than one minister’s house. But a little innocent truck
in the study was not the ministers’ most pressing diversion. Cotton, or
rather Doctor Cotton Mather, as he had been called since Glasgow, in
1712, had given him a Doctorate of Divinity, bid for an ally against
the liberals.[233] When he and his father assisted in the ordination of
the new Baptist minister, Elisha Callender, in 1718; and when Dudley,
two years before his death,[234] joined Sewall in open attacks on
Leverett and the government of Harvard College, there is little doubt
where the sympathy of the Mathers lay.[235] They had hopes, too, that
the new Connecticut college would register their edicts, since they
could no longer enforce them at Cambridge. Sewall found the Lord’s
Supper unsuggestive of charity, when the deacon offered the cup to
Madam Winthrop before it was served to him; and we, to-day, had much
rather see him riding about the country on his circuit, distributing
tracts and sermons to squires and hostlers, and astonishing the
children, as he rode into the shire-towns under the escort of the
sheriff and his men.

But Yale College, of which so much was hoped by the lingering
puritanism, soon surprised them, when Timothy Cutler, its rector, with
one of its tutors, and other Connecticut ministers, embraced Episcopacy
in 1722. Governor Saltonstall was powerless to prevent it, when at
Commencement the story of that defection was told. Cutler went to
England, received Episcopal ordination, and came to Boston in 1724 to
take charge of one of its English churches.[236]

But before this the care of the body as well as of souls had proved
a source of dispute with the ministers. Cotton Mather had read in
the _Transactions_ of the Royal Society, to which he was sometimes
a contributor himself, of the method which was employed in Turkey
of disarming the small-pox of some of its terrors by the process
of inoculation.[237] That disease was now raging. While the town
was moving the governor to send the “Seahorse,” man-of-war, down to
Spectacle Island, because she had the pest among her crew, Mather
urged Dr. Zabdiel Boylston to make trial of the Turkish method. The
selectmen of Boston and the town meeting opposed it. The House forbade
it by bill; but the council hesitated. One of the most active of the
physicians of Boston strenuously objected. This was William Douglass,
who had been a student of medicine at Leyden and Paris, and who had
come to Boston three years before. Other physicians were likewise in
opposition. The passions were excited by the controversy; the press was
divided; and Mather, who about this time was finding the people “bloody
and barbarous,” the town “spiteful,” and the country “poisoned,”[238]
had a grenado thrown through his window.[239]

What with the political, financial, theological, and sanitary
disturbances of Shute’s time, and the freedom of the press, which
the governor had been foolish enough to give them the opportunity of
making the most of, the intellectual activity of the people had never
before occasioned so great a fecundity of print. The Boston man of
the early part of the eighteenth century resorted to the type-setter
as readily as he gossiped, and that was easily enough. In 1719 there
were five printing-presses running in Boston,[240] and the Exchange
was surrounded with booksellers’ shops. The practice of sales of books
at auctions had begun in 1717 with the disposing of the library of
the Rev. Ebenezer Pemberton, or at least its catalogue is thought to
be the first of such a sale. Thomas Fleet was selling his doggerel
ballads, and the boys and girls of New England first knew who Mother
Goose was when her nursery tales were published by Fleet in 1719. The
_News-Letter_ had been published for fifteen years, but not three
hundred were yet sold at an impression. Wm. Brooker, succeeding
Campbell as postmaster, felt it necessary to divide the town and give
the _News-Letter_ a chance for an altercation, when in 1719 (Dec. 21)
he began the _Boston Gazette_. James Franklin had printed this paper
for Brooker, but the printing being taken from him he startled the
town with the _New England Courant_, which first appeared on Aug. 17,
1721. The new sheet was bold and saucy,—a sort of free lance, to which
people were not accustomed; and while it gave little news and had
few advertisements, its columns swarmed with what the staid citizens
called impertinences. It wildly attacked the new inoculation theory,
and elicited a public rebuke for its scandalous conduct from Increase
Mather, who was in turn attacked by it.[241]

The Mathers, Elisha Cooke, Sewall, and above all Jeremiah Dummer in his
_Defence of the New England Charters_,[242] published not a little of
a terse and combative strain, which the student to-day finds needful
to read, if he would understand the tides and eddies of the life of
the time. Boston was also nourishing some reputable chroniclers of
her own story. Thomas Prince, who after his graduation had gone to
England, had returned in 1717, yet to live forty years ministering to
his people of the Old South, gathering the most considerable of the
early collections of books and papers, illustrating in good part the
history of New England,[243] and contributing less than we could wish
to such stores from his own writing. Dr. William Douglass, as we have
seen, had dipped into the controversies of the day, practised his pen
in the public journals, not always temperately or with good taste, and
thirty years later was to vent so much prejudice in his _Summary of
the British Settlements_ that, though the book is suggestive, it is
an unsafe guide to the student. Thomas Hutchinson, much the best of
our colonial historians, was now a boy of six or seven in the forms of
Master Bernard’s grammar school.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Illustration: THOMAS PRINCE.

This follows an oil painting in the cabinet of the American Antiquarian
Society at Worcester. There is also of Prince a mezzotint engraving of
a painting, of which there is a heliotype in the _Mem. Hist. Boston_,
ii. 221. A portrait after a painting by John Greenwood is noted in the
_Catal. Cabinet, Mass. Hist._ Soc., no. 26. Cf. _Proceedings_, i. 448.]

But war was again imminent. As early as 1709 it had been considered
advisable to build a line of defences across Boston neck, and up to
1718 much money had been spent upon it. The peaceful aspect of the
affairs at that moment had been an inducement to disband the watch
which they had kept there; but in 1721 it had been again set. Gov.
Phillips, of Nova Scotia, had been in Boston to talk over the situation
at the eastward, for the warnings of Rasle rendered a continuance
of quiet doubtful. The younger Castin had been seized and taken to
Boston,[244] and bloodshed could hardly be averted; for though peace
existed between England and France, there was little question but
the encroachments and ravages of the Indians were instigated from
Quebec. Sewall tried to arrest the progress of events, and published
his _Memorial relating to the Kennebec Indians_,—an argument for
persuasion rather than for force. On July 25, 1722, Gov. Shute and his
council declared war against the eastern Indians, and a harrowing
struggle began.[245] On the 1st of January, 1723, guns at the Castle
before sunrise told the town that Shute had sailed for England, and
when the people were astir Boston Light was sinking behind him. He went
to arraign the colony in person before the Privy Council, and never
returned to his government. The conduct of affairs, meanwhile, fell to
Dummer, the lieutenant-governor, who made Cotton Mather inexpressibly
happy by what the divine called his wise and good administration.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Illustration: BOSTON LIGHT AND THE PROVINCE SLOOP.

Sketched from an old mezzotint, “W. Burgis del. and fecit,” and
inscribed: “To the merchants of Boston this view of the Light House is
most humbly presented By their Humble Serv^t, W^m. Burgis.” Its date is
probably not far from 1712. See _Boston Record Commissioners’ Reports_,
vii. 97.]

New Hampshire had been included in Shute’s commission, but Vaughan, the
lieutenant-governor, claimed that during Shute’s stay in Boston his
direct authority lapsed, and his lieutenant was the resident executive.
The strife and bickering which followed this assumption had been among
Shute’s tribulations, which were somewhat mitigated when influence at
London secured the displacement of Vaughan by John Wentworth.[246]

The charters of Rhode Island and Connecticut did not order their
enactments to be submitted to the royal supervision, a requirement
which at one time there was danger would be made,[247] but which was in
good part prevented by the ready reasoning of Dummer in his _Defence
of the New England Charters_. One act of Rhode Island, published at
this time, seemingly invalidates that colony’s claim for unfailing
toleration. In the edition of her laws printed in 1715 there is one
which disfranchises Romanists. No one is able to find beyond dispute
when, in the chaotic mass of her enactments, it became a law. To
relieve the pride of her people from any imputation so contrary to the
professed purport of all her history, Arnold, the historian of Rhode
Island, has labored to show that the wording of the statute was simply
the interpretation of a committee; but it was an interpretation that
successive editors kept up till after the close of the Revolutionary
War.[248]

       *       *       *       *       *

In Massachusetts matters were not much improved under the rule of
Dummer. An issue soon arose. The House insisted that Walton and Moody,
commanders at the eastward, should be suspended, and refused supplies
till it was done. Dummer claimed that as commander-in-chief he had the
responsibility of such a change. He was forced, however, to yield, and
appointed Thomas Westbrooke in the place of Walton, who, having obeyed
the governor rather than the House, found he must retire without the
pay which he had earned.

In England Shute was presenting to the king his memorial against the
province.[249] When the House heard of it they appropriated £100 to
hire counsel for the defence; but the upper branch gave the resolve a
negative. So the House sent an address to the king,[250] in which the
council would not join. The House would then despatch a new agent; the
council was content with Dummer; a compromise was reached, by which
Elisha Cooke was sent to join Dummer. Shute and his opponents were in
due time heard before the Privy Council. The aspect of affairs grew
threatening. A Boston man, John Colman, wrote home that the charter
was in danger.[251] It ended in the sealing of a new explanatory and
supplemental charter,[252] in which Shute’s demands were fairly met,
in that there was in it an undeniable expression of the right of the
governor to reject a speaker, while the House itself was denied the
right to adjourn beyond two days. With this new order Col. Samuel Vetch
had hopes of succeeding Shute; but the old governor was not displaced.
The General Court prudently accepted the new charter, January 15, 1725.

[Illustration: INCREASE MATHER.

This follows a corresponding likeness in Cotton Mather’s _Parentator_,
Boston, 1724 (Harv. Col. lib., 10397.17). Cf. Edmund Calamy’s ed. of
_Memoirs of the life of the late Rev. Increase Mather_, London, 1725
(Ibid., 10397.16). Engravings are noted in the _Catal. Cab. MS. Hist.
Soc._, p. 35; and of the painted portraits in the same catalogue,
no. 23 is of Mather. There is an original painting in the American
Antiquarian Society at Worcester, which is engraved in the _Mem. Hist.
of Boston_, i. 587.]

While the provincial charter had been thus in jeopardy, the father of
it died. The most conspicuous of New Englanders in his day, though
his fame is somewhat overshadowed by his son’s, breathed his last,
when Increase Mather died, on August 23, 1723, at the advanced age of
eighty-four. When he was buried, a hundred and threescore scholars of
Harvard College walked in such a procession as never before attended
the burial of a New England divine. In most respects he was the
greatest of a race which was born with traits of prowess. His learning
was large, far better assimilated than that of the son, and his power
over men far happier and more consistent. His industry was enormous; he
sometimes worked in his study sixteen hours out of the twenty-four.
What Cotton Mather called the “tonitruous cogency” of his pulpit
discourse was often alarming to the timid, but not always effective
for the mass. The people grew to be disenthralled in large numbers.
There was a growing belief that there could be graces even in dogma,—a
gospel that never a Mather preached. The rude Bay Psalm Book, and the
nasal cadence of the meeting-house, were beginning to pass when the
Franklins, in that obnoxious sheet the _Courant_, were printing the
hymns of Isaac Watts.

A year after the father died, there was a new election of president
of Harvard College. Cotton Mather was as anxious as before. The
governing board picked out in succession three Boston ministers, and
never seem to have considered Cotton Mather. Their first choice was
Joseph Sewall, of the Old South, a son of the Judge; “chosen for his
piety,” as the disappointed man sneeringly wrote in his diary. The
“miserable” college, when Sewall declined, chose the minister of the
Manifesto Church, a direct thrust at Matherism; but no choice was
accepted till Benjamin Wadsworth was elected. The college had another
conflict when Timothy Cutler, after receiving Episcopal ordination
in England, came to Boston, and by virtue of his new position as a
Church of England ministrant set up his claim to a seat in the Board of
Overseers. He sought in vain. Mather meantime was contriving to fortify
himself, and determined to have a synod to organize some resistance
to this increasing antagonism. Dummer entertained a petition to that
end, but John Checkley, one of Cutler’s friends, ferreted out the
scheme, and there followed a sharp rebuke from the lords justices,
who pronounced the calling of such a body the prerogative of the
crown, and the movement came to naught. This same John Checkley, a
polemical churchman, in Boston, who kept a toy shop, united with it the
publishing of tracts, in which the prevailing theology was attacked.
In 1719 he had reprinted Charles Leslie’s _Short and Easy Method with
the Deists_, and later accompanied Cutler and his friends to England.
While there he caused another edition of Leslie to be printed (1723),
but added to it his own Boston imprint, and what was more important,
he appended a _Discourse concerning Episcopacy_, which seems to have
been a refashioning of another of Leslie’s treatises, by which Checkley
had pointedly demonstrated the schism of all ordination except an
Episcopal one. With a stock of this book he came back to Boston, and
at the “Sign of the Crown and Blue gate, over against the west end
of the town house,” he began to sell them. The magistrates found in
some expressions “a false and scandalous libel” on themselves. A trial
followed with an appeal, which dragged its slow length along; and
in the midst of it Checkley delivered a memorable speech in his own
defence. It ended in his being fined fifty pounds.

Checkley left Boston not long after for England; and came back again
to settle in Providence, and administer the rites of the church as he
believed they should be administered.

During all this wearisome contention in Boston, there is a glimpse of
the humaner, and perhaps more godly, spirit in the gathering of men
together under the lead of Joseph Marion to effect the insuring of
neighbors’ worldly possessions from the chances of fire and the sea.
It is not unlikely that this first trial of a system which to-day
contributes so much to the sum of our happiness began then to indicate
that mutual helpfulness might conduce as much to Christian comfort as
keeping eyes alert for “scandalous libels.”

But there was no way yet, except by keeping other eyes alert along
a musket barrel, to meet the dangers of the frontier. When the
authorities erected (1724) Fort Dummer[253] near a spot where
Brattleboro’ now stands, they made the first English settlement in what
is to-day Vermont. On the 22d of August (1724), as Sewall records, “the
‘Sheerness’ comes up and Captain Harmon with his Neridgwack scalps,
at which there is great shouting and triumph. The Lord help us to
rejoice with trembling!” Another diary of the day makes these scalps
twenty-eight, one of them Bombazeen’s, and another that of “fryer
Railes,”—and this is the shape in which the tidings came to Boston of
that quick onset at Norridgewock, when the Jesuit Sebastian Rasle fell
among his Indian neophytes, ten days before this.[254]

In May of the next year, Lovewell the borderer made his last fight
at Fryeburg in Maine, and the news reached Boston on the 13th of the
same month. The ballad of Pigwacket, commemorating that bloody work,
passed into the popular memory, and abided there for many a year.[255]
In the following November four eastern sagamores came to Boston, and
what is known as Dummer’s treaty was signed there on December 16, and
the next summer (August 6) it was ratified at Falmouth (Portland).
There was to be little disturbance of the peace thus consummated for
a score of years to come. The war had borne heavily on Massachusetts.
In such money as they had, it had during its four years’ continuance
cost £240,000, and when the assembly voted an issue of another £50,000
of bills, Dummer, under royal instructions, withheld his approval. His
fidelity cost him his salary for a while, which the House refused to
vote until some compromise was reached.

While this quieting of the eastern frontier was in progress, the
western settlements of Massachusetts were being pushed across the
mountains beyond the Connecticut, and the peopling of Berkshire began
at Sheffield in 1725. The leading agents in this movement were Col.
Jacob Wendell, of Boston, and Col. Jonathan Stoddard, of Northampton.
The occupation proved a barrier against the Dutch of New York, though
it was sixteen years before the next settlement was made in the
Housatonic valley at Pittsfield.[256]

[Illustration: MATHER BYLES.

This follows a red-chalk drawing in the cabinet of the Antiquarian
Society at Worcester, which came to it with other portraits by the
bequest of the Rev. William Bentley, of Salem (b. Boston, June 22,
1759; d. Salem, December 29, 1819). There is another likeness in the
_Mem. Hist. Boston_, ii. 227. Cf. Catal. _Cab. Mass. Hist. Soc._, p.
37.]

During the night of the 29th of October, 1727, New England experienced
one of the severest earthquakes which she had known. The next morning
Cotton Mather made a speech in Boston, and this, with an account of
the earthquake’s effects, was published at once as _The Terror of the
Lord_, followed shortly by his _Boanerges_, intended to strengthen
the impressions of the awful hour in the minds of the people. Haven’s
bibliography shows the affluence of the ministerial mind in the face
of this event.[257] Sermon after sermon was published, and the press
had not ceased issuing the renewed editions of some of them when Cotton
Mather died on the 13th of February, 1728, and gave the preachers
another fruitful theme. Here was a man whose views of a fitting mundane
life were as repulsive as those of Sebastian Rasle, and whose scalp
would have aroused Quebec as Rasle’s did Boston. We have grown to judge
each by a higher standard than the prejudices and doctrines of their
time.[258]

       *       *       *       *       *

After the departure of Shute, Wentworth continued as
lieutenant-governor in the executive chair of New Hampshire. The
assembly tried to insist upon a speaker whom he disapproved, but the
explanatory charter of Massachusetts came to Wentworth’s support, and
he prevailed; and under his lead the province experienced its share
of the Indian warfare. Rhode Island remained all the time under Gov.
Cranston, who had held the office by election thirty successive years
when he died in 1727. Her chief point of contact with her neighbors
was her bills of credit, which had sunk so low that they had become
little better than a pest to herself and to the neighboring colonies.
Connecticut kept her activity and quiet ways within herself. She took
no part in the war beyond putting her border towns in a state of
defence.

       *       *       *       *       *

Shute was pursuing his aim in England. He had succeeded in getting
from the king an explicit threat, under whose pressure it was thought
the Massachusetts assembly would see the advisability of establishing
a fixed salary for the royal governor, when George I. died (June 11,
1727), and Shute’s commission was vacated. He slipped into a pension of
£600 a year, and died an old man. The news of the king’s death reached
Boston in August, and on the 14th George II. was proclaimed with
military parade. The ministers beguiled themselves, as usual, preaching
many sermons on the death of a good king, and Mather Byles published a
poem.

Since 1720 William Burnet, a son of Bishop Burnet, had been governor of
New York and New Jersey, whither he had gone to retrieve a fortune lost
in stock speculations; and with a numerous family to support, he felt
the necessity of it. The new king relieved him of some embarrassment,
occasioned by a growing unpopularity in his government, by directing
his transfer to the vacant chair of Massachusetts, signing his
commission in March. He reached Boston July 13, and as he was escorted
to the Bunch of Grapes tavern[259] the people marked his noticeable
presence and his suave manners, and might have predicted a calmer sway
from him than proved to be in store. He was flattered by his reception,
and even ordered the publication of some eulogistic verses, which
Mather Byles, the clerical wit of the time, addressed to him.[260]

[Illustration: GEORGE II.

From a print in Entick’s _Gen. Hist. of the late War_ (2d ed. 1765)
vol. ii., frontispiece.]

His instructions were of the sort that the province had got used to,
though perhaps they hinted more pointedly of the danger which awaited
the charter, if the salary question was not agreeably settled. Burnet’s
speech opened the legislative war. The assembly answered it by voting
him a larger allowance than was usual,—but still an allowance.
The town of Boston had the speech read to it in town meeting, and
voted _nemine contradicente_, as we read in the records,[261] in the
assembly’s spirit. The House now asked to be prorogued. The governor
refused, thinking the £1,000 a month which the sitting cost might
bring them to terms. This failing, he resorted to manœuvres which even
Chalmers censures. He removed the General Court to Salem, when, in
a sort of grim irony, it recorded a resolve to legalize proceedings
passed in an unaccustomed place, and consequently unconstitutional,
as they claimed. The House now addressed a memorial to the king and
refused the governor a copy of it, and, helped by Boston merchants
to pay the cost, the representatives despatched Jonathan Belcher to
coöperate with Francis Wilks, now the resident agent in London, in
obtaining the king’s favorable attention to their plea. This appeal
gave the governor a pretext for releasing the legislature for three
months,—and perhaps the device of the House had that purpose.

The Board of Trade heard both sides, sustained the governor, and
advised the king to lay the facts before Parliament. The House in turn
ordered a historical summary of all the proceedings relating to the
salary question from the time of Phips to be edited and printed.[262]
The governor dissolved the assembly, and took his revenge in
withholding his signature to the bill for their own pay. A new election
sent to Boston an assembly which was of the same temper. Burnet told
them of the danger from the Board of Trade’s advice to the Crown;
their own agents wrote to them there was no danger; and so the House
continued as bold as ever. The governor directed their reassembling at
Cambridge. Here they voted afresh the allowance, which was scorned as
before. Meanwhile the governor got some literary recreation, for which
his acquirements well fitted him, by printing moral and entertaining
papers in the _New England Journal_; and if this did not bring him an
income, he managed to eke one out by increasing the rate of clearance
fees at the custom house, which all went into his own pockets.

Returning one day from Cambridge to Boston, in August, 1729, he was
thrown into the water by the overturning of his carriage. A fever
ensued, and he died September 7. The legislature gave him an impressive
funeral, and voted £2,000 to his children; and his “character,” by
Parson Colman, was circulated in a folio half-sheet.[263]

Dummer, as lieutenant-governor, again took the executive’s chair, and
fought over the salary question once more; and the council, as before,
steadily refused to join in the payment of the agents of the House.

Jonathan Belcher, lately the agent of the province, was now
commissioned governor. He came of a New England stock, and his
father had gained a fortune in trade, and had secured some political
consideration as a member of the council. His mother was a daughter of
Thomas Danforth, one of the ablest of the leading politicians under the
old charter. The new governor had graduated at Harvard College; and
foreign travel had added ease and attraction, with some of the wiles of
the world, to a presentable person. He had been accustomed to dispense
his fortune in ways to draw attention and give him consequence. He
had thrown out intimations in high quarters in England that the view
he once held on the prerogative had undergone a change, and that he
knew the turbulent spirits of his native province well enough to manage
them. Wilks and Shute had seconded his professions, and his appointment
followed. With instructions pitched to a higher demand than ever
before, he was sent off to try his skill with an intractable people.
Meanwhile Dummer had been superseded by Tailer, a former incumbent
of the lieutenant-governorship, chiefly because the naval office he
was occupying was wanted for another. Tailer was at the time in New
England, and received his commission before Belcher arrived, which
was not till August 10, 1730. So amid the terror, from a new invasion
of small-pox which had withdrawn the town from the observance of its
centenary,[264] and with signs of a new life, as well as a new era, in
the relief which the law was giving to the baptists and the quakers
from the burden of the parish taxes, and with the stranger element of
their population developing a new Irish Presbyterian church under John
Moorhead,[265] the people of Boston received their recusant townsman
as governor. He made his speech in due time to the General Court.
Cato, he told them, went beyond reason in letting his obstinacy lure
him to destruction. This reference to the salary contention did not
intimidate them; for the House had information from its own agents
that the jealousies of the party leaders in England were not likely
to let any issue affecting the continuance of the charter be forced
upon Parliament. In any event there was a disposition rather to accept
parliamentary domination, whatever it might be, than surrender one
jot of their principles. With such a disposition the House became
stubborn,—politely so. It even voted the governor liberal grants for
the services which he had rendered as agent, and he took the gratuities
though he had abandoned the grantors. The allowances for his services
as governor he could not well accept under such instructions as bound
him; and as he needed the pay, his son solicited permission from the
home government for the father to receive the usual grants. The request
was allowed, and the salary contention came virtually to an end. When
Belcher approved a grant of £500 to be placed in the Bank of England
to the credit of the province’s agent, he little suspected he was
furnishing the means to bring about his own overthrow. His conduct
of his office rendered such an overthrow likely. The times, with all
failings, had not seen before such flagrant attempts to serve party
friends with the spoils of office. The public was so sensitive that
even the younger Cooke, accepting a judgeship with some traits of
sycophancy, fell in their good opinion.

The House set up a claim to audit all bills for which they granted
money, and attaching such a proviso to their grants, such votes
successively received the governor’s veto. This denied the public
officers their salaries, and occasioned distress that the home
government was besought to alleviate. The governor’s position was
confirmed, and when the news of it came the House somewhat ludicrously
asked him to appoint a day of fasting and prayer, since they were under
such a “divine displeasure.” The governor thought the matter more
mundane than divine, and refused. So in the autumn of 1733 the House
saved its pride one forenoon by passing a bill with the proviso, and in
the afternoon satisfied its sense of expediency by reversing the vote.
Thus the delegates in their ungraceful way succumbed, as the governor
did two years later, respecting the salary question. Each side was
humbled, and affairs went smoothly for a while, though the depreciation
of the paper in which the governor was paid did not quite fill the
measure of his content.[266]

       *       *       *       *       *

Commercial distress always conduces to emotional disturbance in a
community, and the history of the “Great Awakening,” as it was called,
is no exception to the rule. This religious revival began to make
itself felt in 1734, under an impulse from Jonathan Edwards,[267]
and later, under the ministrations of George Whitefield, the wild
passion—for it became scarce else—spread through the churches and
communities of New England.[268]

[Illustration]

Mather Byles, Judge Danforth, and Thomas Prince supported the movement
in the _New England Weekly Journal_. Thomas Foxcroft and others,
reinforced by a large part of the country ministers, fought the
battle in sermon and pamphlet. Benjamin Colman gave the movement a
qualified commendation. It found various classes of opponents. Charles
Chauncy condemned it for its hot-bed sustenance, its “commotion in the
passions,” and its precarious growth.[269] Thomas Fleet, the publisher
of children’s books, turned the wit which enlivened his evening _vendu_
at the Heart and Crown, in Cornhill, into the columns of the _Boston
Evening Post_, which he had just started. Here he held up Whitefield to
ridicule, just as Joseph Green and other wits held up in the same place
the pomp of Belcher to public derision. Dr. Douglass[270] reckoned up
the thousand pounds sterling that were lost to the families of working
people by what he called a misuse of time in attending the midday
mass-meetings, to which Whitefield ministered. The passion and fervor
swelled, lapsed, returned, dwindled, and died; some counted the wrecks
it left, some wondered at its transient impressiveness, and a few
occasionally struggled to revive it.[271] Amid all the consternation
attending what William Cooper in the election sermon of 1740 called
“an empty treasury, a defenceless country and embarrassed trade,” New
England managed to raise 1,000 men to send off to join the fleet of
Admiral Vernon in the West India waters. Scarce a hundred of them ever
returned.[272]

[Illustration: AN ENGLISH FLEET OF THIS PERIOD.

From Popple’s great map, _The British Empire in North America_, 1732.
Admiral Preble says in his “Vessels of war built at Portsmouth” (_N.
E. Hist. and Gen. Reg._, 1868, p. 393) that the “Falkland” was built
in 1690, and carried 54 guns; but in some MS. emendations in the copy
of his paper in the library of the Mass. Hist. Soc., he says she
was probably built between 1694 and 1696. She is considered to be
the earliest man-of-war built in the colonies. Within a short time
after 1743, three vessels were built in New England for the royal
navy,—the “America,” “Boston,” and “Essex.” The same writer, in _The
United Service_, January, 1884, p. 98, etc., describing the changes in
armament of vessels during the 18th century, defines ships-of-the-line
as carrying 50 guns or more on three decks; frigates, 20 to 50 guns on
two decks. Sloops-of-war with guns on one deck, and corvettes with guns
on the poop and forecastle only, came in later.]

The social life of the chief town of New England passed on, meanwhile,
in the shadow of these ominous uncertainties. Jeremy Gridley had as
early as 1731 started _The Weekly Rehearsal_, and had given the more
scholarly classes this to ponder upon, and that to be entertained with,
in columns more purely literary than they had ever known before. If
such people welcomed the poems of Isaac Watts,—and one which Watts
addressed to Belcher was just now printed in Boston,—they caused
Richard Fry, an English printer, freshly come to Boston, to hold a high
opinion of their literary taste, because they relieved his shelves
of twelve hundred copies of the poems of Stephen Duck, the Wiltshire
bard. In 1731 they listened at a Thursday lecture to Colman’s eulogy
of Thomas Hollis as a patron of learning; and the neighboring college
mourned in him the principal benefactor of this time. Lemercier, the
minister of the Huguenots in Boston, published a Church History of
Geneva (1732), which was a passing talk. Cox, a bookseller near the
town house, got out (1734) a _Bibliotheca Curiosa_, describing his
stock,—enormous for the times. Thomas Prince, the minister of the
Old South, let his antiquarian zeal bring back the early struggles of
the first settlers, when he printed (1731) the homely _Memoirs_ of
Roger Clap, of Dorchester, while the century sermons of Foxcroft in
Boston (1730), and of Callender in Rhode Island (1739), made the pews
slumbrous then, and command big prices to-day. Thomas Prince, moreover,
was in travail with his _Chronological History of New England_. He
published it in 1736, and the General Court paused to take note of
it, and forgot for a moment money schemes and revivals to learn how
in the “year 1, first month, 6th day” Adam appeared, to lead the long
chronology which Prince felt bound to run down before he got to his
proper theme. He had already wearied everybody so much, when he had
gone far enough to embrace two or three years only of the New England
story, that no one longer encouraged him, and “the leading work of
history published in America up to that time” remains a fragment for
the antiquaries to regret.[273]

It was in the year 1741 that the Boston Cadets came into existence
as the governor’s body-guard. It was earlier, that Thomas Hancock,
who had married the daughter of Henchman, the bookseller, by whom he
was indoctrinated with the principles of successful trade, built the
stone mansion on Beacon Hill which John Hancock, his nephew, later
made more famous.[274] It was in this time of commercial distress
that, according to Bennett, an observer, the reputation of the ladies
of Boston suffered if they went to a dancing-assembly lately set up;
but they could drive about with their negro footmen, and “neglect the
affairs of their families with as good a grace as the finest ladies in
London.” And when the finest lady in Boston, his Excellency’s wife,
was buried in 1736, we read of the horses of the hearse covered with
broadcloth and escutcheons, and of other parade and adornment, which
gave tradespeople something to do and money to earn. Artisans needed
then more than now such adventitious help.

[Illustration: BENJAMIN POLLARD.

This likeness of one of the first captains of the Boston Cadets follows
an original by Blackburn in the gallery of the Mass. Hist Society. It
was Pollard who received Shirley on his return from Louisbourg. _Mem.
Hist. Boston_, ii. 119. He died in 1756. Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
i. 498, xvi. 390; _Catal. of the Cabinet_, no. 76.]

Not a hatter might make as many hats as he would, because he injured
by so much the trade of the English hatter, and Parliament interdicted
(1732) any such rivalry. The poor man paid dear for his molasses,
because Parliament compelled the merchant to buy it of the English
sugar islands, instead of the French colonies in the West Indies.[275]
He paid more for his rum, because Parliament protected the English
distillers. The merchant smuggled and had no pangs of conscience; and
what smuggling could do was very likely shown in the stately mansion
that Thomas Hancock built.[276] Can we wonder that the new country did
not attract as many settlers as it might; that town rates in Boston
increased from £8,600 in 1738 to £11,000 in 1741, and the polls fell
off from 3,395 to 2,972; and that Sam. Adams, graduating at Harvard
in 1740, took for his Commencement part the inquiry, “Whether it be
lawful to resist the superior magistrates, if the Commonwealth cannot
be otherwise preserved?”

Belcher played the potentate with the Indians, and made his treaties
with them as his predecessors had done. He met them at Falmouth
(Portland) in 1732, and at Deerfield in 1735. Perhaps he was fairer in
his dealings with them than he was with his fellows of the whiter skin,
for he has passed into history as the least entitled to esteem of all
the line of royal governors in Massachusetts,—a depreciation perhaps
helped by his being born on the soil. His political paths were too
devious. Hutchinson tells us that when Tailer, the lieutenant-governor,
died in 1732, it was Adam Winthrop that Belcher openly favored in New
England as the successor, while he intrigued with the Board of Trade to
secure the appointment of Paul Mascarene; yet to no avail, for Spencer
Phips, the adopted son of Sir William, succeeded to the place.

[Illustration]

New Hampshire had been reunited with Massachusetts under Burnet, and
she had proved much more tractable than the larger colony in yielding
the point of the fixed salary to the governor. She had hopes of
being in some way rewarded for it. Under Belcher matters grew worse.
He quarrelled with the lieutenant-governor, and David Dunbar, the
surveyor-general of the king’s lands, came into the place, but without
healing dissensions. Dunbar had the support of influential persons
like Benning Wentworth and Theodore Atkinson; and Belcher made what he
could out of the friendship of Richard Waldron, the secretary.[277]
Massachusetts, as well as her governor, had grievances against her
neighbor; and she prohibited by legislation the circulation within
her bounds of the promissory notes of New Hampshire whose redemption
was not well secured. New Hampshire and Massachusetts were never
again under a single executive. Wentworth chanced to be in London when
Belcher’s downfall came, and he readily slipped into the executive seat
of his province.[278]

[Illustration: Script

After the picture (in the Mass. Hist. Society’s gallery) painted on
the voyage over by Smybert, who accompanied him. Cf. _Catal. Cabinet
Mass. Hist. Soc._, no. 41. A photograph of the picture of Berkeley and
his family by Smybert, now at Yale College, is given in Noah Porter’s
_Two Hundredth Birthday of Bishop George Berkeley_, N. Y. 1885; and
in Kingsley’s _Yale College_, i. 59. Smybert later painted many
portraits in Boston. Cf. _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iv. 384, with references.
His pictures, together with those of Blackburn, Pelham, and Copley,
richly preserve to us the look and costume of the better classes of
New England during the provincial time. Cf. Wm. H. Whitmore’s _Notes
on Peter Pelham_, Boston, 1867; Arthur Dexter’s paper on the “Fine
Arts in Boston” in _Mem. Hist. Boston_, vol. iv., with references in
the notes; A. T. Perkins on the portraits of Smybert and Blackburn in
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Dec. 1878, p. 385, and May, 1879, p. 93. For
historic costume see Dr. Edward Eggleston’s “Colonists at Home” in
_The Century_, xxix. 882. It was when Copley was most in vogue that
the habits of the upper classes reached in their dress that profusion
of silk and satin, brocaded damask and ruffles, ermine and laces,
velvet and gilt braid, which makes up the descriptions in Mr. Perkins’
enumeration of Copley’s portraits. (A. T. Perkins’ _Life and Works of
J. S. Copley_, Boston, 1873. Cf. also Martha B. Amory’s “John Singleton
Copley” in _Scribner’s Monthly_, March, 1881, and her _Domestic and
Artistic life of Copley_, Boston, 1882.)]

The Rhode Islanders ejected (1732) Jenckes, their governor, because he
tried to stay their wild course in the emission of paper money. The
lieutenant-governor, John Wanton, led the opponents of Jenckes, and
secured the election of his brother, William Wanton, and two years
later succeeded to the chair himself.

George Berkeley, in England, had been pronouncing the age barren of
every glorious theme. Perhaps to transcend this level he conceived
a project of establishing a college in Bermuda for Indians and
missionaries.[279] So he came over to Newport (1729) to buy American
lands, and await or perhaps force a rise on them. The death of George
I. had crossed his pious scheme by drying up his fountains. Newport
was now a thriving town of 5,000 souls, the chief town in a colony
of perhaps 18,000 inhabitants. It had an Episcopal church in which
Berkeley sometimes preached, and to which he gave an organ. He had
brought over with him a Scotch artist, John Smybert, and so the patron
and his family, happy on the whole, though his glorious project had
not fructified, came out of the canvas under Smybert’s pencil; and
the picture went to Yale College, where we may see it now,[280] and
afterwards so did his books, and the deed conveying his Newport
farm,[281] when after two or three years he had gone back to England, a
disappointed man.[282]

Not long afterwards another man with a mission ventured on a different
project in the little colony. James Franklin, who had found it prudent
to leave Massachusetts, when he told the august assembly that they
did not do all they might to catch pirates, came to this nest of
free-booters, and started a newspaper, the _Rhode Island Gazette_, the
first in the colony, and saw it fail within a year.

When the Spanish war was coming on, in 1739, the plucky little colony
put herself on a war footing. She built the “Tartar,” a war-sloop of
115 tons;[283] her merchants, the Wantons, the Malbones, and others,
ran five privateers out to sea; and even her quakers found ways to
help. Seven watch-towers were built along the coast, Fort George was
garrisoned, and a battery frowned on Block Island.[284]

[Illustration: WILLIAM SHIRLEY.

This follows an engraving, “T. Hudson, pinxt.; J. McArdell, fecit,”
reproduced in J. C. Smith’s _Brit. Mezzotint Portraits_, p. 896. Cf.
_Catal. Cab. Mass. Hist. Soc._, p. 26; _Mem. Hist. Boston_, ii.,
frontispiece.]

In Connecticut, on Saltonstall’s death in 1724, Joseph Talcott
succeeded and held office during the rest of Belcher’s time.

[Illustration: BOSTON HARBOR, 1732.

From Popple’s _British Empire in America_ (1732).]

The rule by which good ends sanctified base means came to its limit.
Belcher, who had not been without high support,[285] was removed on the
6th of May, 1741; when he had sufficiently indoctrinated his opponents
in his own wily ways, and they had not hesitated to use them.

William Shirley, the governor who succeeded on the same day, was an
English barrister, who had come to Boston some time before (about
1733-35) to seek his fortune. He looked about for offices in the
gift of the home government, and began soliciting them one after
another. When the Spanish war came on, he busied himself in prompting
enlistment, and took care that the authorities in England should know
it; and Mrs. Shirley, then in that country, had, to her husband’s
advantage as it turned out, the ear of the Duke of Newcastle. Shirley
was in Rhode Island acting upon the boundary question, which was then
raised between Massachusetts and her neighbor, when his commission
arrived, and he hastened to Boston to take the oath.

Shirley had some excellent qualities for political station. He
was courtly and tactful, and when at a later day he entertained
Washington he captivated the young Virginian. He was diligent in his
duties, and knew how to retreat when he had advanced unadvisedly. He
governed his temper, and was commonly wise, though he did not possess
surpassing talents.[286] In his speech to the legislature he urged
the strengthening of the defences of Boston, for the Spanish war
still raged; and he touched without greatly clarifying the financial
problem. He tried in a more civil way than his predecessor had followed
to get his salary fixed; but he could not force a vote, and a tacit
understanding arising that he should be sure annually of £1,000, he
desisted from any further attempts to solve that vexed question. A
month later, he went to Commencement at Cambridge, and delivered a
Latin speech at the proper moment, which was doubtless talked over
round the punch in the chambers, as it added one scholarly feature to
a festival then somewhat riotously kept. There was more dignity at the
Boston lecture, when Benjamin Colman preached, and when his sermon
was printed it had in an appendix the address of the Boston ministers
to the new governor, and his Excellency’s reply. Spencer Phips was
retained in the chair of the lieutenant-governor, but a new collector
of Boston came in with Sir Henry Frankland, the story of whose passion
for the maid of a Marblehead inn is one of the romances of the
provincial history of New England.[287]

Boston was now a vigorous town, and held probably for the next forty
years a larger space in the view which Europe took of the New World
than has belonged to her since. Forty topsail vessels were at this
time building in her ship-yards. She was despatching to sea twice as
many sail as New York, and Newport was far behind her. Fortunes were
relatively large, and that of John Erving, the father of Shirley’s
son-in-law, was perhaps the largest of its day. He earned a few
dollars in ferrying passengers across to Cambridge on a Commencement
Day; put them into fish for Lisbon, there into fruit for London, and
the receipts into other commodities for the return voyages, until the
round of barter, abundantly repeated, made him the rich man that he
became, and one who could give tea to his guests. The privateers of
the merchants brought royal interest on their outlay, as they captured
goods from the French and Spanish traders. Yankee wit turned sometimes
unpromising plunder to a gain. One vessel brought in “a bale of papal
indulgencies,” taken from a Spanish prize. Fleet, the printer, bought
them, and printed his ballads on their backs. Another Boston merchant,
of Huguenot stock, had given the town a public hall. This benevolent
but keen gentleman, of a limping gait, did not live long to add to the
fortune which he inherited. The first use that Faneuil Hall was put
to was when James Lovell, the schoolmaster and a writer in the local
magazines, delivered a eulogy there on this same Peter Faneuil,[288]
while the loyal Bostonians glanced from the speaker to the likeness of
George II., which had already been hung on its walls.

Shirley with the rest saw that war with France could not be far off.
There was preparation for it in the treaty with the Six Nations, which
was made at Philadelphia in July, 1742. In August Shirley himself
had treated with the eastern Indians at Fort St. George’s. The next
year (1743) the line of western settlements in Massachusetts was
strengthened by the occupation, under William Williams, of Poontoosuck,
now Pittsfield, and Williams was later instructed to establish Fort
Shirley (at Heath), Fort Pelham (at Rowe), and Fort Massachusetts (in
Adams, near the Williamstown line).

In 1744 the war came.[289] The French, getting advices from Europe
earlier, attacked Canseau before the English were aware of the hostile
decision. Though France had published her declaration in March, the
news did not reach Boston till the 2d of June. Men’s thoughts passed
from the “Great Awakening” to the stern duties of a war. “The heavenly
shower was over,” said Thomas Prince, who saw with regret what he
thought a warfare with the devil pass by; and Fleet, the wit of the
newspapers, pointed to an opportune comet, and called it “the most
profitable itinerant preacher and friendly New Light that has yet
appeared among us,” while all the pulpit orators viewed it after other
and their own fashions. Perhaps the lingering puritanism saw an omen or
a warning in the chimes just then set in the tower of Christ Church.
A lottery in full success was not heinous enough in those days, it
would seem, to be credited with all the divine rebukes that it might be
now.[290]

There was danger on the coasts. The armed sloops of Rhode Island and
Connecticut were cruising between Martha’s Vineyard and New Jersey,
and the brigantines of Massachusetts watched the coast north of Cape
Cod.[291] But the retaliatory stroke was soon to come in the expedition
against Louisbourg.

Dr. Douglass, who had grown into prominence in Boston, prophesied the
failure of a scheme which had the barest majority in the assembly,
and the chances were certainly on his side: but a desire to show what
could be done without the military aid of England aroused the country,
and not a little unworthy hatred of Romanism helped on the cause. One
parson at least was ready to take along with him a hatchet to hew down
the altars of the papist churches. A company from Plymouth, under
Sylvanus Cobb, was the earliest to reach Boston. Massachusetts mustered
3,250 men, and the transports which sailed out of Boston harbor with
this force made a fleet of a hundred sail, under convoy of nine or ten
armed vessels, the whole carrying not far from 200 cannon.

The reader must turn to another chapter for the progress of the
siege.[292] Good fortune favored this time the bold as well as the
brave. Word coming back to Boston for reinforcements, an express was
sent to Captain Williams, at Fort Shirley, and in six days he reported
in Boston with 74 men, and sailed on the 23d of June. Louisbourg,
however, had already surrendered (June 16), two days after the Rhode
Island sloop “Tartar”[293] and two other war-sloops had dispersed
the flotilla which was speeding from Annapolis to its assistance.
This was the only active force of Rhode Islanders in the campaign;
her contingent of foot, which was intended to join the Connecticut
regiment, did not reach the ground till after the surrender; but her
privateers did good service elsewhere, meanwhile, having sent into
Newport during the year a full score of prizes.

It was on a fast day, July 2d, that the news of the success reached
Boston, and spread throughout the colonies, occasioning[294] exuberant
rejoicing, which the ministers tempered as best they could with
ascribing the conquest to the finger of God, shown “more clearly,
perhaps,” as Charles Chauncy said, “than since the days of Joshua and
the Judges.” Modern historians think that Douglass was right, and that
extraordinary good luck was a chief reason of the success.

The colonies beyond the Hudson were now anxious to be partakers in the
cost and in the burden of the future defence of the captured fortress,
if they had not shared the danger and exhaustion of the victory.[295]
Pennsylvania offered £4,000, New Jersey £2,000, and New York £3,000.

       *       *       *       *       *

The victorious Pepperrell returned to Boston in June, 1746. Cannon
from the batteries saluted the frigate which brought him. The governor
welcomed him at the Castle and escorted him to the landing of the town,
where the Cadets received him and led the way to the council chamber.
Here addresses and congratulations were exchanged, and the successful
general started for his home in Maine, meeting demonstrations of honor
at every town on his way.

Shirley now resolved on further conquest, and plans were being arranged
for an armament sufficient for the conquest of all New France, with
the help this time of veterans from England, when news came of the
speedy arrival of a large French fleet on the coast, with a mission
of reprisals and devastation.[296] In August a thanksgiving for the
victory at Culloden was held, and Thomas Prince spoke in the Old South
in Boston. In September there was little giving of thanks, and there
was much fear of the French admiral, D’Anville. Troops were pouring
into Boston from the country. Douglass says he saw six or seven
thousand of them on Boston Common. The defences of the harbor were
being rapidly strengthened. All the coast lookouts were reëstablished,
and shore batteries were manned. Rhode Island pushed work on her forts.
Connecticut sent promises of large reinforcements, if the attack should
fall on Boston. Every Frenchman was put under surveillance, and the
times inciting to strong language, the General Court issued orders for
greater publicity to be given to the act against profaneness. There
was a fast to supplicate for mercy. Thomas Prince in his pulpit heard
the windows of the meeting-house rattle with a rising storm. He prayed
that it might destroy the French fleet. It did. Divided counsels,
disappointments in plans, the sudden death of D’Anville, its commander,
the suicide of his lieutenant, disorganized the purpose of the enemy;
the waves and the rocks did the rest, and only a fragment of the great
armament went staggering back to France. Boston breathed easily, and
the hasty soldiers marched home to their harvests; and when news came
of the compact which George Clinton had made with the Six Nations at
Albany, in August and September, hope and courage prevailed, though
the tidings from Fort Massachusetts were distressing. Then came
other massacres, and Indians were reported prowling through northern
Hampshire. It had been intended to make a demonstration against Crown
Point in the autumn. Provisions and munitions were hurried from Boston;
Massachusetts men gathered at Albany. Winter came, disconcerting plans,
and discouragement ensued.[297]

The next year Boston had a taste of the old-world despotism to which
it had not been accustomed. Commodore Knowles, commanding a part of
the fleet which had assisted in the capture of Louisbourg, came to
Boston. Some of Knowles’ men deserted, and as enlistments did not bring
what recruits the fleet needed, the commodore sent a press-gang to
town (November 17, 1747), which seized whomever they found about the
wharves. Boston was enraged. A mob gathered, and demanded that some
of the officers of the fleet, who were in town, should be detained
as hostages. The air grew murkier, and Shirley became frightened and
fled to the Castle. The legislature tried to settle the difficulty,
and Knowles threatened to bombard the town, unless his officers were
released. The General Court denounced the riot, but signified to the
commodore the necessity of redress. Under its order, the officers
returned to the fleet, and Knowles, finding the business had become
dangerous, let most if not all of his recruits go, and set sail, but
not till the governor, gathering courage from the control over the mob
which a town meeting had seemed to acquire, had come back to town, when
he was escorted to his house by the same militia that had refused his
summons before.

It was a violent reaction for Shirley from the enthusiasm of the
Louisbourg victory, thus to experience the fickleness of what he called
the “mobbishness” of the people; and his trust in the town meeting and
the assembly was not strengthened when the representatives reduced
his allowance, on pretence of the burdens which the war had brought.
Shirley intimated that the 200,000 population of the province and a
capital with 20,000 inhabitants did not mark a people incompetent to
pay their rulers equably; but his intimations went for little. The
colony was not in very good humor. England, in making the treaty of Aix
la Chapelle (October 7, 1748), had agreed to restore Louisbourg to the
French, and leave the bounds as before the war. There were discordant
opinions among the advisers of the government touching the real value
of Louisbourg as a military post; but it was unfortunate that to
redress the balance in Europe England had to relinquish the conquests
of her colonists. It may not have been wholly without regard to the
quelling of the New England pride, which might become dangerous,—since
Sam. Adams was pluming his political rhetoric in the _Independent
Advertiser_ at this time,—that it was thought best by that treaty to
give to the province an intimation of the superior authority of the
Crown.[298] The province was not without its own power of warning,
for Hugh Orr, a young Scotchman, manufactured about this time at
Bridgewater 500 stands of arms for the province of Massachusetts Bay;
which are said to have been carried off by the British from Castle
William when they evacuated Boston in March, 1776. They are supposed to
have been the first made in America.[299]

Meanwhile, Horatio Walpole, the auditor-general, with an eye to his
own personal advantage, had brought forward a project of the Board of
Trade for overruling the charters of the colonies; but the strenuous
opposition of William Bollan and Eliakim Palmer for Massachusetts
and Connecticut made the advocates of the measure waver, and the
movement failed. Shirley was devising a plan of his own, which looked
to such an extension of the parliamentary prerogative as had not yet
been attempted. His scheme was to build and maintain a line of posts
at the eastward, the expense of which all the colonies should share
under a tax laid by Parliament.[300] In the pursuit of this plan,
Shirley obtained leave of absence, and went to England (1749), while
the conduct of affairs was left in the hands of Spencer Phips, the
lieutenant-governor, a man of experience and good intentions, but
not of signal ability. Thomas Hutchinson, James Otis, and two others
meanwhile went to Falmouth to engage the eastern Indians, who were far
from quiet, in a treaty, which was finally brought to a conclusion on
October 16, 1749. In the following winter (1749-50), Sylvanus Cobb was
in Boston fitting out his sloop for a hostile raid through the Bay of
Fundy; but Cornwallis at Halifax thought the preparations for it had
become known to the French, and the raid was not accomplished.

The next year (1750), Parliament touched the provinces roughly. The
English tanners wished for bark, and they could get it cheap if the
English land-owners could sell their wood to the furnaces, and the
furnaces would buy it if they could find a sufficient market for their
iron and steel, as they could do if they had no rivals in America.
It was a chain of possibilities that Parliament undertook to make
realities, and so passed an act forbidding the running of slitting and
rolling mills in the colonies, and Charles Townshend, who introduced
the bill, found no opposer in Shirley. The bold utterances that
Jonathan Mayhew was making in indignant Boston carried a meaning that
did not warn, as it might, the Board of Trade in England.

Shirley, after four years’ absence, during which he had been employed
in an unsuccessful mission to Paris about the Acadian boundaries, came
back to Boston in 1753, to be kindly received, but to feel in bringing
with him a young Catholic wife, whom he had married in Paris, the
daughter of his landlord, that he gave her the position of the first
lady in the province not without environing himself and her with great
embarrassment, in a community which, though it had departed widely from
the puritanism of the fathers, was still intolerant of much that makes
man urbane and merry. While Shirley had been gone, the good town had
been much exercised over an attempt to introduce the drama, and the
performance of Otway’s _Orphan_ at a coffee-house in King Street had
stirred the legislature to pass a law against stage plays. The journals
of Goelet[301] and others give us some glimpses of life, however, far
from prudish, and show that human nature was not altogether suppressed,
nor all of the good people quite as stiff as Blackburn was now painting
them.

Notwithstanding his hymeneal entanglement, Shirley was unquestionably
the most powerful Englishman at this time in America. The fortuitous
success of his Louisbourg expedition had given him a factitious
military reputation.[302] A test of it seemed imminent. For the sixth
time in eighty years the frontiers were now ravaged by the savages.
Pepperrell was sent to pacify the eastern Indians. The French were
stretching a cordon of posts from the Atlantic to the gulf which
alarmed Shirley, and he doubted if anything was safe to the eastward
beyond the Merrimac, unless the French could be pushed back from Nova
Scotia. He feared New Hampshire would be lost, and with it the supply
of masts for the royal navy. A road had been cut along the Westfield
River through Poontoosuck (Pittsfield) to Albany, and Shirley planned
defences among the Berkshire Hills.

At this juncture a conference of the colonies was called at Albany in
1754, which had been commanded through the governor of New York by the
Board of Trade. The reader will find its history traced on a later
page. Hutchinson in July brought back to Boston a draft of the plan of
action. In the autumn the legislature was considering the question,
while Franklin was in Boston (October-December) conferring with
Shirley and discussing plans. Boston held a town meeting and denounced
the Albany plan, and in December (14th) the legislature definitely
rejected it, as all the other colonies in due time did. Rhode Island,
particularly, was very vigilant, lest an attempt might be made to
abridge her charter-privileges. Connecticut established its first press
in this very year, which with the press of the other colonies, was
lukewarm or hostile to the plan.[303]

Shirley had not attended the congress. He had left Boston in June
(1754) on the province frigate “Massachusetts,” with the forces under
John Winslow to build a fort on the Kennebec, which was completed on
the 3d of September and called Fort Halifax. On his way he stopped
at Falmouth, and on the 28th of June he had a conference with the
Norridgewock Indians, and on July 5th another with the Penobscots.
Accompanied by some young Indians who were entrusted to the English
for education, the governor was once more in Boston on the 9th of
September, where he was received with due honor.

This expedition and the congress were but the prelude to eventful
years. When Henry Pelham died, on the 6th of March of this year, his
king, in remembrance of the wise and peaceful policy of his minister,
exclaimed, “Now I shall have no more peace!” For the struggle which was
impending, New England had grown in strength and preparation, and had
had much inuring to the trials of predatory warfare. She had increased
about sixfold in population, while New York and Virginia had increased
fivefold. The newer colonies of Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey,
and Maryland had fairly outstripped these older ones, and numbered now
nine times as large a population as they had sixty-five years earlier.
The Carolinas and Georgia had increased in a ratio far more rapid.
Massachusetts at this time probably had 45,000 on its alarm list, and
in train-bands over 30,000 stood ready for the call.[304] John Adams,
when teaching a school in Worcester the next year, ventured to write to
a friend, “If we can remove the turbulent Gallicks, our people will in
another century become more numerous than England itself.”

In the spring of 1755 Shirley went to Alexandria, in Virginia, being
on the way from March 30 till April 12, to meet the other governors,
and to confer with General Braddock upon the organization of that
general’s disastrous campaign. When the news of its fatal ending
reached New England it gave new fervor to the attempts, in which she
was participating, of attacking the French on the Canada side,[305]
and the war seemed brought nearer home to her people when, by the
death of Braddock, the supreme command devolved on the Massachusetts
governor.[306] On the 6th of November, at Thomas Hutchinson’s
instigation and in expression of their good-will at Shirley’s
promotion, the General Court passed a vote of congratulation.

The autumn had been one of excitement in Boston.[307] The forces of
nature were conspiring to add to the wonderment of the hour. A part of
the same series of convulsions which overturned Lisbon on November 1st
and buried Sir Henry Frankland in the ruins, to be extricated by that
Agnes Surriage whose romantic story has already been referred to, had
been experienced in New England at four o’clock in the morning of the
18th of the same month, with a foreboding of a greater danger; but the
commotion failed in the end to do great damage to its principal town,
then esteemed, if we may believe the _Gentleman’s Magazine_, finer than
any town in England excepting London. People looked to the leading man
of science in New England of that time for some exposition of this
mighty power, and Prof. John Winthrop gave at Cambridge his famous
lecture on earthquakes, which was shortly printed.[308] The electrical
forces of nature had not long before revealed themselves to Franklin
with his kite, and it was in November or December that the news was
exciting comment in Boston, turning men’s thoughts from the weariness
of the war.

That war had not prospered under Shirley, and with a suspicion that
he had been pushed beyond his military capacity he was recalled to
England, ostensibly to give advice on its further conduct. He had
found that Massachusetts could not be led to tax herself directly for
the money which he needed, and only pledged herself to reimburse, if
required, the king’s military chest for £35,000, which Shirley drew
from it. A scale of bounties had failed to induce much activity in
enlistments, and the forces necessary for the coming campaign were
gathering but slowly.[309] This was the condition of affairs when
Shirley left for England, carrying with him the consoling commendations
of the General Court.

Spencer Phips, the lieutenant-governor, succeeded to the executive
chair in Massachusetts at a time when even Boston was not felt to
be secure, so fortunate or skilful were the weaker French in a
purpose that was not imperilled by the jealousies which misguided
the stronger English. It was now problematical if Loudon, the new
commander-in-chief, was to bring better auguries. In January of the
next year (1757), he came to Boston to confer with the New England
governors. The New England colonies now agreed to raise 4,000 new
troops. Meanwhile Phips had died in April (4th) in the midst of the
war preparations, and Pepperrell, as president of the council, next
directed affairs till Thomas Pownall,[310] who had been commissioned
governor, and who had reached Halifax on the fleet which brought
Lord Howe’s troops, arrived in Boston, August 3d, on the very day
when Montcalm on Lake George was laying siege to Fort William Henry,
which in a few days surrendered. The news did not reach Pownall till
he had pushed forward troops to Springfield on their way to relieve
the fort. He put Pepperrell at once in command of the militia,[311]
and a large body of armed men gathered under him on the line of the
Connecticut;[312] for there was ignorance at the time of Montcalm’s
inability to advance because of desertions, and of the weakening of
his force by reason of the details he had made to guard and transport
the captured stores. Messengers were hurried to the other colonies to
arouse them. John Adams, then a young man teaching in Worcester, kept
from the pulpit by reason of his disbelief in Calvinism, stirred by
the times, with the hope some day of commanding a troop of horse or
a company of foot, was one of these messengers sent to Rhode Island,
and he tells us how struck he was with the gayety and social aspect
of Sunday in that colony, compared with the staid routine which
characterized the day in Massachusetts.[313]

Massachusetts had enrolled 7,000 men for the campaign. Connecticut had
put 5,000 in the field, and Rhode Island and New Hampshire a regiment
each. Massachusetts had further maintained a guard of 600 men along her
frontiers. The cost of all these preparations necessitated a tax of
half the income of personal and landed property.

In a commercial sense almost crushed,[314] in a political sense the
people were as buoyant as ever. When Loudon sent orders to quarter a
regiment of the British troops on the people, the legislature forbade
it, and grew defiant, and nothing could pacify them but the withdrawal
of the order. The commander-in-chief, however he stormed in New York,
found it expedient to yield when he learned of the fury his order was
exciting in a colony upon whose vigor the home government was largely
depending for the successful prosecution of the war. This had now
fallen into the hands of Pitt, and he at once recalled Loudon, who
chanced to be in Boston, parleying with the legislature about raising
troops, when an express brought him his recall. Abercrombie, who
succeeded, was even a worse failure; but there was a burst of light at
the eastward. Amherst had captured Louisbourg in July (1758),[315] and
bringing his troops by water to Boston had landed them on September
13. Never was there so brilliant array of war seen in the harbor
as the war-ships presented, or on Boston Common where the troops
were encamped. Amherst delayed but three days for rest, when on the
16th of September he began his march westward to join the humbled
Abercrombie. At Worcester the troops halted, and John Adams tells us
of the “excellent order and discipline” which they presented, and of
the picturesqueness of the Scotch in their plaids, as this army of four
thousand men filled his ardent gaze.

During the winter recruiting was going on in Boston with success for
the fleet wintering at Louisbourg.[316] In the campaign of the next
year (1759), Massachusetts and Connecticut put at least a sixth of all
their males able to bear arms into the field. They were in part in the
army which Amherst led by way of Lake Champlain to the St. Lawrence,
and among them were some of the veterans which Pepperrell had command
in 1745 at Louisbourg,—Pepperrell who was to die during the progress
of the campaign, on the 6th of July, at Kittery in his sixty-fourth
year. Another portion went with Pownall to the Penobscot region, or
followed him there, and assisted in the building of Fort Pownall, which
was completed in July (1759).[317] The reader must turn to another
chapter[318] for the brilliant success of Wolfe at Quebec, which
virtually ended the war.

George the Second hardly heard of the victories which crowned his
minister’s policy. He died October 25, 1760, but the news of his death
did not reach Boston till December 27th. He had already effected a
change in the government of Massachusetts. Pownall, who had made
interest with the Board of Trade to be transferred to the executive
chair of South Carolina, left Boston in June, taking with him the
good wishes of a people whom he had governed more liberally and
considerately than any other of the royal governors.[319] Two months
later (August 2, 1760), Francis Bernard, who had been governor of New
Jersey,[320] reached Boston as his successor. He showed some want of
tact in his first speech, in emphasizing the advantages of subjection
to the home government, and gave the House opportunity to rejoin
that but for the sacrifice in blood and expense which these grateful
colonies had experienced, Great Britain might now have had no colonies
to defend. Notwithstanding so untoward a beginning, Bernard seems to
have thought well of the people, and reported fair phrases of encomium
to the Lords of Trade.[321]

A few weeks after Bernard’s arrival Stephen Sewall, the chief
justice, died (September 11, 1760). Thomas Hutchinson was now the
most conspicuous man in New England, and he had put all New England
under obligations by his strenuous and successful efforts to better
their monetary condition. A train of events followed, which might
possibly have been averted, if, instead of appointing Hutchinson to
the chief-justiceship, as he did, Bernard had raised one of the other
justices, and filled the vacancy with Col. James Otis, then Speaker of
the House, father of the better known patriot of that name, and whose
appointment had been contemplated, it is said, by Shirley. Hutchinson
was already lieutenant-governor, succeeding Spencer Phips, and was soon
to be judge of probate also for Suffolk,—a commingling of official
power that could but incite remark.

The younger Otis was soon to become conspicuous, in a way that might
impress even Bernard. There were certain moneys forfeited to the king
for the colony’s use, arising from convictions for smuggling under the
Sugar Act; the province had never applied for them, and had neglected
its opportunities in that respect. The House instructed Otis to sue the
custom-house officers. The superior bench under the lead of Hutchinson
decided against the province, and it did not pass without suspicion
that Bernard had placed Hutchinson on that bench to secure this verdict.

An event still more powerful in inciting discontent was approaching.
Charles Paxton, who had been surveyor of Boston since 1752,
had, in his seeking for smuggled goods, used general search
warrants,—unreturnable, known as “writs of assistance,” and of course
liable to great abuse. It seems probable that this process had been so
far sparingly used, and there had been no manifest discontent. Upon
the king’s death, the existing writs had only a six months’ later
continuance, when new applications must be made under the new reign.
These new applications came at a time when the public mind was much
exercised, and there was a determination to question the legality of
such unrestrained power as the writs implied. The hearing was to be
before the court of which Hutchinson was now the chief. Jeremy Gridley
appeared for the king, and the younger Otis with Oxenbridge Thacher
for the petitioners. The court deferred its decision, but in November,
1761, the case was again discussed. The court meanwhile had had advices
from England, and the writs were sustained. In the discontent growing
out of this proceeding, we may find the immediate beginning of the
controversy between the provinces and the Crown, which resulted in
the American Revolution. The subsidence of the war left men time to
think deeply of these intestine griefs, and when the Peace of Paris in
February, 1763, finally dissipated the danger of arms, events had gone
far to shape themselves for bringing another renewal of battle, not
with the French, but with the mother country.


CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

NEW ENGLAND IN GENERAL.—Of Cotton Mather’s _Magnalia Christi
Americana, or the Ecclesiastical History of New England from 1620
to 1698_, mention has been made in another volume,[322] and, as the
title shows, it touches only the few earlier years of the period now
under consideration. The book was published in London in 1702, and
a solitary forerunner of the edition reached Boston, as we know,
October 29 of the same year. It was the most considerable work which
had been produced in the British colonies, and was in large part an
unshapely conglomerate of previous tracts and treatises. Neal, Mather’s
successor in the field, while praising his diligence in amassing the
material of history, expressed the opinion of all who would divest
scholarship of meretriciousness when he criticised its “puns and
jingles,”[323] and said, “Had the doctor put his materials a little
closer together, and disposed them in another method, his work would
have been more acceptable.”[324] But Mather without Matherism would
lose in his peculiar literary flavor; we laugh and despise, while his
books nevertheless find a chief place on the shelves of our New England
library. Mather was still young when the _Magnalia_ was printed, but
he stood by his methods and manner a quarter of a century later, and
in publishing (1726) his _Manuductio ad Ministerium_[325] he defended
his labored and bedizened style against, as he says, the blades of
the clubs and coffee-houses, who set up for critics. He also belabored
Oldmixon in a similar fashion, when that compiler both borrowed the
doctor’s labors and berated his reputation, and Mather called him, in
his inveterate manner, Old Nick’s son.[326] Sibley not unfairly remarks
that these peculiarities of Mather’s style were probably almost as
absurd to his contemporaries as to ourselves;[327] and very likely it
helped to create something of that curiosity respecting him, which
Prince tells us he found in Europe at a later day.

In any estimate of Cotton Mather we may pass by the eulogy of his
colleague Joshua Gee,[328] and the _Life of Cotton Mather_[329] by
his son Samuel, as the efforts of a predisposing and uncritical
friendliness. We are not quite sure how far removed from the fulsome
flattery, if not insincerity, of funeral sermons in those days was the
good word upon his contemporary which came from Benjamin Colman.

With the coming of the present century we might suppose the last
personal resentment of those who knew Cotton Mather had gone, and as
an historical character it might well be claimed that a dispassionate
judgment was due to him. When James Savage edited Winthrop’s journal,
the public were told how Cotton Mather should be contemned; and the
tale was not untruthful, but it was one-sided. Quincy in his _History
of Harvard University_ could give no very laudatory estimate of the
chronic and envious grumbler against the college.[330] When Dr.
Chandler Robbins wrote the _History of the Second Church_ of Boston, he
said all he could, and in a kindly spirit, to qualify the derogatory
estimate then prevalent respecting his predecessor; and W. B. O.
Peabody in his _Life of Cotton Mather_[331] tempered his judgment
by saying, “There is danger lest in our disgust at his fanaticism
and occasional folly we should deny him the credit which he actually
deserves.” His professed defenders, too, lighten their approval with
pointing out his defects. Thus does Samuel G. Drake in a rather feeble
memoir in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._ (vol. vi.), and in the
1855 edition of the _Magnalia_. Dr. A. H. Quint in the _Congregational
Quarterly_, 1859, and Dr. Henry M. Dexter in the _Memorial Hist. of
Boston_, vol. ii., incline to the eulogistic side, but with some
reservations. Mr. Samuel F. Haven in the _Report of the Amer. Antiq.
Soc._, April, 1874, turned away the current of defamation which every
revival of the Salem witchcraft question seems to guide against the
young minister of that day. The estimates of Moses Coit Tyler in his
_Hist. of Amer. Literature_ (vol. ii.), and John Langdon Sibley in his
_Harvard Graduates_ (vol. iii.), show that the disgust, so sweeping
fifty years ago, is still recognized amid all efforts to judge Mather
lightly.[332] Mankind is tender in its judgment of the average man,
when a difference of times exists. The historical sense, however, is
rigid in its scrutiny of those who posture as index-fingers to their
contemporaries; and it holds such men accountable to the judgments of
all time. Great men separate the perennial and sweet in the traits of
their epoch from the temporary and base,—a function Cotton Mather had
no conception of.

       *       *       *       *       *

The next general account of the New England colonies after the
_Magnalia_, and covering the first thirty years of the present period,
was Daniel Neal’s _History of New-England containing an account of the
civil and ecclesiastical affairs of the country to 1700_. _With a map,
and an appendix containing their present charter, their ecclesiastical
discipline, and their municipal-laws_. In 2 vols. (London. 1720.)[333]

Dr. Watts, writing to Cotton Mather, Feb., 1719-20, of Neal’s history,
said that he had hoped to find it “an abstract of the lives and
spiritual experiences of those great and good souls that planted and
promoted the gospel among you, and those most remarkable providences,
deliverances, and answers to prayers that are recorded in your
_Magnalia Christi_, but I am disappointed of my expectations; for he
has written with a different view, and has taken merely the task of an
historian upon him.” Watts took Neal to task personally for his freedom
about the early persecution; but Neal only answered that the fidelity
of an historian required it of him.[334] Neal himself in his preface
(p. iv.) acknowledges his freedom in treating of the mistakes into
which the government fell.

Prince in the preface to his _Chronological History of New England_
says: “In 1720 came out Mr. Neal’s History of New England.... He has
fallen into many mistakes of facts which are commonly known among us,
some of which he seems to derive from Mr. Oldmixon’s account of New
England in his British Empire in America, and which mistakes[335]
are no doubt the reason why Mr. Neal’s history is not more generally
read among us; yet, considering the materials this worthy writer was
confined to, and that he was never here, it seems to me scarce possible
that any under his disadvantages should form a better. In comparing him
with the authors from whence he draws, I am surprised to see the pains
he has taken to put the materials into such a regular order; and to me
it seems as if many parts of his work cannot be mended.”

       *       *       *       *       *

Rogers and Fowle, printers in Boston, who were publishing a new
magazine, begun in 1743, called _The American Magazine_, announced
that they would print in it by instalment a new history of the English
colonies. They changed the plan subsequently so as to issue the book
in larger type, in quarterly numbers, and in this form there appeared
in January, 1747, the first number, with a temporary title, which
read: _A summary, historical and political, of the first planting,
progressive improvements and present state of the British settlements
in North America; with some transient accounts of the bordering French
and Spanish settlements. By W. D., M. D., No. 1. To be continued_.
Boston, 1747.[336] The author soon became known as Dr. William
Douglass, the Scotch physician living in Boston,—“honest and downright
Dr. Douglass,” as Adam Smith later chose to call him. He had drawn
(pp. 235-38), in contrast to Admiral Warren, a severe character of
Admiral Knowles, whose conduct, which occasioned the impressment riot
then recent, was fresh in memory. Knowles seems to have instituted
a suit for libel, which led to a rather strained amend by Douglass
in the preface to the first volume, when the numbers were collected
in 1749, and were issued with a title much the same as before, _A
Summary, historical and political, of the first planting,_ etc.,
_containing_—here follow five heads.[337] The character which he had
given of Knowles, he says, was written out of passionate warmth and
indiscretion, merely “in affection to Boston and the country of New
England, his _altera patria_,” and then adds that he has suppressed
it in the completed volume.[338] The second volume is dated 1751, and
Douglass died in 1752.[339]

To his second volume (1751) he adds what he calls “a supplement to
the first volume and introduction to the second volume,” in which he
hints at the offence he had given Shirley and Knowles—the latter’s
suit for libel forcing him to recant, as we have seen—by saying,
“If facts related in truth offend any governor, commodore, or other
great officer,” the author “will not renounce impartiality and become
sycophant.” He further charges upon “the great man of the province
for the time being,” as he calls Shirley, the “impeding, or rather
defeating, this public-spirited, laborious undertaking,” as he
characterizes his own book.

A large part of the work is given to New England, which he knew best;
but his knowledge was at all times subservient to his prejudices, which
were rarely weak. He is often amusing in his self-sufficiency, and
not unentertaining; but he who consults the book is puzzled with his
digressions and with his disorderly arrangement, and there is no index
to relieve him.[340] Hutchinson struck the estimate which has not since
been disputed: it was his “foible to speak well or ill of men very much
as he had a personal friendship for them, or had a personal difference
with them.”[341] Prof. Tyler in his _Hist. of American Literature_[342]
has drawn his character more elaborately than others.[343] His book,
while containing much that is useful to the student, remains a source
of uncertainty in respect to all statements not elsewhere confirmed,
and yet of his predecessors on New England history Douglass has
the boldness to say that they are “beyond all excuse intolerably
erroneous.”[344]

A wider interest than that of ecclesiastical record attaches to a book
which all students of New England history have united in thinking
valuable. This is the work of Isaac Backus, a Baptist minister in
Middleborough, Mass., who published at Boston in 1777 a first volume,
which was called _A History of New England, with particular reference
to the denomination of Christians called Baptists_.[345] This volume
brought the story down to 1690 only, but an appendix summarized
subsequent history down to the date of the book. In the second volume,
which appeared at Providence in 1784, the title was changed to _A
Church History of New England, vol. ii., extending from 1690 to 1784_.
The same title was preserved in the third volume, which was published
in Boston in 1796, bringing the narrative down to that date. In the
preface to this volume the author complained of the many typographical
errors in the first volume, and professed that though there had been
private dislikes of the work by some “because their own schemes of
power and gain were exposed thereby,” he knew not of any public dispute
about “its truth of facts.” The whole work has been reprinted under the
title of the original first volume, with notes by David Weston, and
published in two volumes by the Backus Historical Society at Newton,
Mass., in 1871.[346]

Miss Hannah Adams published at Dedham, Mass., in 1799, a single
volume, _Summary History of New England_. She does not profess to have
done more than abridge the usual printed sources, as they were then
understood, and to have made some use of MS. material, particularly
respecting the history of Rhode Island.

[Illustration: HANNAH ADAMS.

This follows an oil portrait by Alexander in the cabinet of the
American Antiquarian Society at Worcester. Hannah Adams was born at
Medfield, in 1755, and died at Brookline, Mass., Nov. 15, 1831; and she
was the first person interred at Mount Auburn.]

It is the fourth and last published volume of Dr. Palfrey’s _History
of New England_ (Boston, 1875) which comes within the period of the
present chapter, bringing the story, however, down only to 1741, but
a continuation is promised from a MS. left by the author, and edited
by General F. W. Palfrey, his son, which will complete the historian’s
plan by continuing the narrative to the opening of the war of
independence. This fourth volume is amply fortified with references and
notes, in excess of the limitations which governed the earlier ones.
The author says in his preface that he may be thought in this respect
“to have gone excessively into details, and I cannot dispute [he adds]
the justness of the criticism; such at present is the uncontrollable
tendency of my mind.”

[Illustration: JOHN GORHAM PALFREY.

The editor is indebted to Gen. F. W. Palfrey for the excellent
photograph after which this engraving is made.]

In 1866 Dr. Palfrey published a popular abridgment of his first three
volumes in two smaller ones. These were reissued in August, 1872, with
a third, and in 1873 with a fourth, which completed the abridgment of
his larger work, and carried the story from the accession of Shirley
to power down to the opening of the military history of the American
Revolution. In this admirably concise form, reissued in 1884, with
a thorough index, the work of the chief historian of New England is
known as _A compendious History of New England from the Discovery
by Europeans to the first general Congress of the Anglo-American
Colonies_,—the last summarized chapter in the work not being
recognized in the title.[347]


MASSACHUSETTS.—For this as well as for the period embraced in the
third volume of the present history,[348] Thomas Hutchinson’s _History
of Massachusetts Bay_ is of the highest importance. Hutchinson says
that he was impelled to write the history of the colony from observing
the repeated destruction of ancient records in Boston by fire, and
he complains that the descendants of some of the first settlers will
neither use themselves nor let others use the papers which have
descended to them. He seems, however, to have had the use of the papers
of the elder Elisha Cooke. He acknowledges the service which the Mather
library, begun by Increase Mather, and in Hutchinson’s time owned by
Samuel Mather, who had married Hutchinson’s sister, was to him.

While Hutchinson’s continuation of the story beyond 1749 was as yet
unknown, George Richards Minot planned to take up the narrative and
carry it on. Minot’s _Continuation of the History of the Province of
Massachusetts Bay from 1748_ shows that he made use of the files in
the state house as well as their condition then permitted, but he
was conscious of the assistance which he might have had, and did not
possess, from the papers in the English archives. His first volume was
printed in 1798; and he died before his second volume was published,
in 1803, which had brought the record down to 1765, but stopped
abruptly.[349] Grahame (iii. 446) calls the work “creditable to the
sense and talent of its author,” but considers “his style frequently
careless, and even slovenly and ungrammatical.” His contemporaries
viewed his literary manner much more favorably, and were inclined
to give him a considerable share in placing our native historical
literature upon a scholarly basis. More painstaking research, with
a careful recording of authorities, characterizes the only other
_History of Massachusetts_ of importance, that by John S. Barry, whose
second volume is given to the period now under consideration,—a work,
however, destitute of commensurate literary skill, or its abundant
learning would give it greater reputation. Haliburton, in chapters 2
and 3 of book iii. of _The Rule and Misrule of the English in America_,
traces in a summary way the turbulent politics of the province of
Massachusetts during its long struggle against the royal prerogative.
Emory Washburn’s _Sketches of the judicial history of Massachusetts
from 1630 to the revolution in 1775_, Boston, 1840, contains
biographical notices of the judges of Massachusetts, and traces the
relations of the study of the law to the progress of political events.
William Henry Whitmore’s _Massachusetts civil list for the colonial
and provincial records, 1630-1774_, Albany, 1870, is a list of the
names and dates of appointment of all the civil officers constituted
by authority of the charters or the local government. The general
histories of Maine (during this period a part of Massachusetts) have
been sufficiently characterized in another place.[350]


CONNECTICUT.—The _History of Connecticut_, by Benjamin Trumbull,
becomes not of less value as it approaches his own time. Grahame (ii.
165) says of him that he is “always distinguished by the accuracy of
his statements, but not less distinguished by his partiality for his
own people,” and Palfrey (iv. 226) avers that with all “his gravity
Trumbull had a tendency for sensational traditions,” and both are
right. He had not brought the story down later than 1713, in the volume
published at Hartford in 1797. He says that he availed himself of the
material which the ancient ministers and other principal gentlemen of
Connecticut had communicated to Thomas Prince, when that writer was
engaged upon his _Chronological Hist. of New England_; and in this
collection, he adds, “important information was found, which could
have been obtained from no other source.” Trumbull’s first volume was
reprinted at New Haven in 1818, with a portrait of the author, together
with a second volume, bringing the story down to 1764.


RHODE ISLAND.—Of Rhode Island in the present period, Arnold’s
_History_ is the foremost modern authority.[351] Mr. William E. Foster
has recently prepared, as no. 9 of the _Rhode Island Historical Tracts_
(1884), a careful and well-annotated study of the political history of
the eighteenth century, in a _Memoir of Stephen Hopkins_.


NEW HAMPSHIRE.—Dr. Belknap, as the principal historian of New
Hampshire, has been characterized in another place.[352] The
bibliography of his history may find record here. The first volume,
_The History of New Hampshire, vol. i., comprehending ... one complete
century from the discovery of the Pascataqua_, was read through the
press in Philadelphia (1784) by Ebenezer Hazard.[353] This volume was
reprinted at Boston in 1792, where meanwhile vol. ii. (1715-1790) had
appeared in 1781, and vol. iii., embracing a geographical description,
was issued in 1792. The imprints of these volumes vary somewhat.[354]
There was printed at Dover, N. H., in 1812 (some copies have “Boston,
1813”) a second edition in three volumes, “with large additions and
improvements published from the author’s last manuscript;” but this
assertion is not borne out by the book itself.[355] A copy of his
original edition having such amendments by Belknap had been used in
1810, at Dover, in printing an edition which was never completed, as
the copy and what had been done in type were burned. Before parting
with this corrected copy, the representatives of Dr. Belknap had
transferred his memoranda to another copy, and this last copy is
the one referred to in the edition which was printed by John Farmer
at Dover in 1831, called _The History of New Hampshire by Jeremy
Belknap, from a copy of the original edition having the author’s last
corrections, to which are added notes containing various corrections
and illustrations. By John Farmer._[356] This is called vol. i.,
and contains the historical narrative, but does not include the
geographical portion (vol. iii. of the original ed.), which Farmer
never added to the publication.[357] Belknap says that he had been
educated under the influence of Thomas Prince, and that he had used
Prince’s library before it had been despoiled during the Revolution. Of
Hutchinson—and Belknap was in early manhood before Hutchinson left New
England—he says that while that historian writes many things regarding
New Hampshire which Neal and Douglass have omitted, he himself omits
others, which he did not think it proper to relate. He refers to Mr.
Fitch, of Portsmouth, as having begun to collect notes on New Hampshire
history as early as 1728, and says that he had found in Fitch’s papers
some things not elsewhere obtainable. He also animadverts on errors
into which Chalmers had fallen in his _Political Annals of the American
Colonies_.

[Illustration]


EDITORIAL NOTES.


=A.= THE DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF NEW ENGLAND.—After the lapsing of
the New England Confederacy consequent upon the charter of William
and Mary, the governments which made up that group of colonies had
no collective archives. It is only as we search the archives of the
English Public Record Office, and those of Paris and Canada, including
Nova Scotia, that we find those governments treated collectively. The
_Reports_ of the English Historical Manuscripts Commission have of late
years not only thrown additional light on our colonial history, as
papers touching it preserved in the muniment rooms of leading families
have been calendared, but the commission’s labors have also been the
incentive by which the public depositary of records has been enriched
by the transfer of many papers, which the commission has examined.
Nine of their voluminous reports (up to 1885) have been printed, and
by their indexes clues have been provided to the documents about New
England history. The _Shelburne Papers_, belonging to the Marquis of
Lansdowne, which make a large part of the _Fifth Report_, while of
most interest in connection with the American Revolution, reveal not
a little concerning the colonial history of the earlier part of the
seventeenth century. The volumes enumerated in this _Report_, which
are marked xlv. (1705-1724) and xlvi. (1686-1766), are of particular
interest, referring entirely to the American colonies. We find here
various papers of the Board of Trade and Plantations (or copies of
them), embracing the replies from the provincial governors to their
inquiries. In the volume numbered lxi., there are sundry reports of the
attorney and solicitor-general, to whom had been referred the appeals
of Massachusetts in 1699, and of Connecticut in 1701; his report of
1705 respecting Jesuits and papists in the plantations; that of 1707 on
the acts of Massachusetts fining those trading with the French; that
of 1710 on the reservation of trees in Massachusetts for masts of the
royal navy; that of 1716 on the claim of the governor of Massachusetts
to command the militia of Rhode Island; that of 1720 on the negative
of the governor reserved in the charter of Massachusetts; that of
1722 on the question of the time when the three years that a province
law is open to disapproval properly begins; that of 1725 on the
encroachments of the House of Representatives on the prerogative of the
Crown; that of 1732 relating to the validity of acts in Rhode Island,
notwithstanding the governor’s dissent,—not to name many others.

Another source of documentary help is the manuscripts of the British
Museum, of which there are printed catalogues; and the enumeration of
the documents in the possession of the Canadian government,—of which
the quality can be judged, as they existed in 1858,—in the _Catalogue
of the Library of Parliament_, Toronto, 1858, pp. 1541-1655.

       *       *       *       *       *

The archives of Massachusetts are probably not surpassed in richness by
those of any other of the English colonies. The solicitude which the
colonial and provincial government always felt for their preservation
is set forth by Dr. George H. Moore in appendix v. of his _Final
notes on Witchcraft_ (New York, 1885). In 1821, Alden Bradford, then
secretary of the commonwealth, made a printed statement of “the
public records and documents belonging to the commonwealth” (pp.
19), but the fullest enumeration of them was included in a _Report
to the Legislature of Massachusetts, made by the Commissioners ...
upon the condition of the records, files, papers, and documents in
the Secretary’s department, Jan., 1885_ (pp. 42), drawn up by the
present writer. An indication of such of them as concern the period
of the present volume may be desirable.[358] The series of bound
volumes, arranged in 1836-46, by the Rev. Joseph B. Felt, according
to a classification which was neither judicious nor uniform, but, as
Dr. Palfrey says, betrays “ingenious disorder,”[359] includes not all,
but the chief part of the papers illustrative of legislation in the
secretary’s office which concern us in the present chapter and make
part of one hundred and thirty-one volumes. These come in sequence
through vol. 136,—the omitted volumes being no. 107 (the revolution
of 1689) and nos. 126 to 129 (the usurpation of the Andros period).
The other volumes as a rule begin in the colonial period and come down
to about the beginning of the Revolutionary War. They are enumerated
with their topical characteristics in the _Report_ already referred to
(pp. 8, 9). Four volumes of ancient plans, grants, etc. (1643-1783),
accompany the series.

Of the so-called _French Archives_—documents copied in France—mention
has been elsewhere made, and a considerable portion of them cover the
period now under examination.[360]

The destruction of the town and court house in 1747 carried with it
the loss of many of the original records of the colony and province.
The government had already undertaken a transcript of the records of
the General Court, which had been completed down to 1737; and this
copy, being at the house of Secretary Josiah Willard, was saved. A
third copy was made from this, and it is this duplicate character which
attaches to the records as we now have them. Transcripts of these
records under the charter of William and Mary had by its provisions
been sent to the Lords of Trade, session by session, and orders were
at once given to secure these from 1737 to 1746, or a copy of them,
for the province archives. For some reason this was not accomplished
till 1845, when a commissioner was sent to England for that purpose;
and these years (1737-1746) are thus preserved. None of these records
for the provincial period have been printed.[361] The records of the
upper branch or the council were also burned,[362] and were in a
similar way restored from England. Of the House of Representatives, or
lower branch, we have no legislative records before 1714, nor of the
legislative action of either branch have we any complete record before
1714, since neither the journals of the House nor the legislative part
of the records of the council were sent over to England, but only the
executive part of the latter, which was apparently made up in view
of such transmission, as Moore represents. The preservation of the
journals of the House is due to the jealousy which that body felt of
Dudley when he prorogued them in 1715. Because of their inaction on
the paper-money question, the House, in a moment of indignation, and
to show that they had done something, if not what the governor liked,
voted to have their daily records printed. The set of these printed
journals in the possession of the State is defective.[363] There is
not known to be a perfect set of them in any collection, perhaps not
in all the collections in the state, says Judge Chamberlain,[364] who
adds: “Of their value for historical purposes I have formed a very high
opinion. In many respects they are of more value than the journals of
the General Court, which show results; while the journals of the House
disclose the temper of the popular branch, and give the history of
many abortive projects which never reached the journals of the General
Court.”[365] Of a series of copies called charters, commissions, and
proclamations, the second volume (1677-1774) concerns the present
inquiry. There is a file of bound letters beginning in 1701, and it
would seem they are copies in some, perhaps many, cases of originals in
the archives as arranged by Mr. Felt.

Respecting the French and Indian wars, nine volumes of the so-called
_Massachusetts Archives_ cover muster-rolls from 1710 to 1774,
including the regiments of Sir Chas. Hobby and others (1710), the
frontier garrisons, those of Annapolis Royal (1710-11), the expedition
to the West Indies (1740), the campaigns of Crown Point, Fort William
Henry, and Louisbourg (1758), beside various eastern expeditions and
the service by sea. Of the first Louisbourg (1745) expedition, there
are no rolls, except as made up in copies from the Pepperrell and
Belknap papers in the library of the Mass. Historical Society. In
addition to these bound papers there are many others in packages, laid
aside by Mr. Felt in his labor, in some cases for reasons, and in other
cases by oversight or a varying sense of choice.[366]

The _Colonial Records_ of Connecticut for the present period have come
under the supervision of Mr. C. J. Hoadly, and are carefully edited.
In 1849 about 50,000 documents in the state archives had been bound in
138 volumes, when an index was made to them.[367] The correspondence of
the Connecticut authorities with the home government (1755-58) has been
printed in the _Connecticut Historical Collections_ (vol. i. p. 257).

For Rhode Island, the continuation of the _Colonial Records_, beginning
with vol. iii., covers the period now under consideration. The
sessional papers of 1691-95, however, are wanting, and were probably
sent to England by Bellomont, whence copies of those for May and June,
1691, were procured for the Carter-Brown library. Newport at this time
was a leading community in maritime affairs, and the papers of these
years touch many matters respecting pirates and privateers. The fifth
volume (1741-56) indicates how Rhode Island at that time kept at sea
more ships than any other colony, how she took part in the Spanish war,
and how reckless her assembly was in the authorizing of paper money.
The sixth volume (1757-69) closes the provincial period.

The series of publications of New Hampshire ordinarily referred to as
_Provincial Papers_, from the leading series of documents in what is
more properly called _Documents and records relating to New Hampshire_,
is more helpful in the present period than in the earlier one.[368]
They may be supplemented by the Shute and Wentworth correspondence
(1742-53), and Wentworth’s correspondence with the ministry (1750-60);
and letters of Joseph Dudley and others, contained in the Belknap MSS.
in the cabinet of the Mass. Historical Society.[369] The _Granite
Monthly_ (vol. v. 391) has published a list of the issues of the
press in New Hampshire from 1756 to 1773; and B. H. Hall’s _History
of Eastern Vermont, from its earliest settlement to the close of the
eighteenth century_, with a biographical chapter and appendixes (2
vols., Albany, N. Y., 1858, and on large paper in 1865), supplements
the story as regards the claim of New Hampshire to the so-called New
Hampshire grants.

       *       *       *       *       *

The legislative and judicial methods of the several governments are
of the first importance to the understanding of New England history,
for it was a slow process by which it came to pass that professional
lawyers held any shaping hand in the making or the administering of
laws. The first Superior Court of Massachusetts under the provincial
charter had not a single trained lawyer on the bench, and its assembly
was equipped more with persistency and shrewdness in working out its
struggle with the crown officer who tried to rule them than with legal
acquirements. E. G. Scott, in his _Development of Constitutional
Liberty in the English Colonies_ (N. Y., 1882, pp. 31-58), examines the
forms of the colonial governments and the political relations of the
colonies. No one has better traced their relations to European politics
than Bancroft.

The legislation of the several governments has had special treatment in
Emory Washburn’s _Sketches of the Judicial History of Massachusetts,
1630-1775_ (Boston, 1840); in T. Day’s _Historical Account of the
Judiciary of Connecticut_ (Hartford, 1817); in John M. Shirley’s “Early
Jurisprudence of New Hampshire,” in the New Hampshire Historical
Society’s _Proceedings_, June 13, 1883. Cf. also H. C. Lodge, _Short
Hist. of the English Colonies_, pp. 412-419.

Of the legislation of Massachusetts, Dr. Moore says[370] that it is “a
record which, notwithstanding all its defects, has no parallel in any
other American State.” The first edition of the Province Laws, under
the new charter, was printed in 1699, and it was annually supplemented
by those of the succeeding sessions till 1714, when a second edition
was printed, to which an index was added in 1722, and various later
editions were issued.[371] In 1869 the first volume of a new edition,
of historical importance, was published by the State, with the title
_Acts and Resolves, public and private, of the Province of the
Massachusetts Bay, with historical and explanatory notes, edited by
Ellis Ames and Abner C. Goodell_. Mr. Ames has since died (1884), and
the editing is still going on under Mr. Goodell; five volumes, coming
down to 1780, having been so far published.[372]


=B.= MEN AND MANNERS.—Dr. George E. Ellis, in an address[373] which
he delivered in October, 1884, on the occasion of erecting a tablet to
Samuel Sewall’s memory in the new edifice of the Old South church, in
Boston, of which that last of the puritans had been a member, said:—

“Judge Sewall is better known to us in both his outer and inner being
than any other individual in our local history of two hundred and fifty
years; and this is true not only of himself, but through his pen,
curiously active, faithful, candid, kind, impartial, and ever just,
his own times stand revealed and described to us. His surroundings and
companions, his home and public life, the habits, usages, customs,
and events, and even the food which we can almost smell and taste,
the clothes, and furnishings, the modes of hospitality, of travel,
the style of things,—all in infinite detail; the military service,
the formal ceremonials and courtesies, the excitements, panics,
disasters,—all these have come down to us through Sewall’s pen, with a
fullness and old-time flavor and charm, which we might in vain seek to
gather from many hundred volumes. And all this comes from Sewall having
kept a daily journal from 1674 to 1729, fifty-five years,”—and forty
of these years come within the scope of the present chapter.

These journals had long been known to exist in a branch of Sewall’s
family, but as, Dr. Ellis says, they “had been kept with much reserve,
sparingly yielding to earnest inquirers the information they were
known to contain.” President Quincy had drawn from them in his
_History of Harvard University_, and had called them “curious and
graphic,” as his extracts show. They had also been used by Holmes in
his _American Annals_, by Washburn in his _Judicial History of Mass._,
and by others. In 1868, some friends of the Mass. Historical Society
purchased the diaries and other Sewall papers of the holders, and gave
them to the society.[374] The diaries have since been published, and
make part of the _Collections_ of that society.[375] Despite a good
deal of a somewhat ridiculous conservatism, linked with a surprising
pettiness in some ways, the character of Sewall is impressed upon
the present generation in a way to do him honor. His was a struggle
to uphold declining puritanism, and the contrasts presented by the
viceroyalty of New England at that time to one who was bred under the
first charter must have been trying to Christian virtues, even were
they such as Sewall possessed.[376] Dr. Ellis has pointed out[377]
how universally kindly Sewall was in what he recorded of those with
whom he came in contact. “There are no grudges, no animosities, no
malice, no bitter musings, no aggravating reproaches of those—some
very near him—who caused him loss and grief, but ever efforts to
reconcile, by forbearance, remonstrance, and forgiveness.” All this may
be truly said, and afford a contrast to what the private diaries of
his contemporaries, the two Mathers, would prompt us to say of their
daily records. Those who are more considerate of the good names of
those divines than they were themselves have thus far prevented the
publication of these diaries. Dr. Ellis[378] says of them:—

“The diaries of Increase and Cotton Mather are extant, but only
extracts of them have been printed. Much in them is wisely
suppressed. Increase, though a most faithful, devoted, and eminently
serviceable man, was morbid, censorious sometimes, and suffered as
if unappreciated. The younger Mather was often jealous, spiteful,
rancorous, and revengeful in his daily records, and thus the estimate
of his general worth is so far reduced through materials furnished by
himself.”[379]

There is among the Sparks manuscripts in Harvard College library a
bound quarto volume which is superscribed as follows: “To Mr. Samuel
Savile, of Currier’s Hall, London, attorney-at-law: Dear friend,—I
here present you with an abstracted Historical Account of that part of
America called New England; to which I have added the History of our
voiage thereto, Anno Domini, 1740.” This account presents one of the
best pictures of New England life, particularly of that in Boston, from
a contemporary pen.[380] There are various other diaries of lookers-on,
which are helpful in this study of New England provincial life, like
the journals of Whitefield, the diary of Francis Goelet,[381] the
journal of Madam Knight’s journey, 1704,[382]—not to name others.
Among published personal records, there are George Keith’s _Journal of
Travels from New Hampshire to Caratuck_ (London, 1706); Capt. Nathaniel
Uring’s _Voyages and Travels_, published at London in 1727;[383] and
Andrew Burnaby’s _Travels through the middle settlements in North
America in the years 1759 and 1760_, London, 1775.[384] Burnaby passed
on his way, from Bristol through Providence to Boston. The early part
of the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin is of exceptional value as a
reflex of the life of New England as it impressed a young man.[385]

Among the modern treatises on the social condition of New England, a
chief place must be given to Henry Cabot Lodge’s _Short History of
the English Colonies_, the chapters in which on the characteristics
of the colonies and their life are the essential feature of a book
whose title is made good by a somewhat unnecessary abridgment of the
colonies’ anterior history. Lodge groups his facts by colonies. Dr.
Edward Eggleston in some valuable papers, which are still appearing
in the _Century Magazine_, groups similar, but often much minuter,
facts by their topical rather than by their colonial relations. Mr.
Horace E. Scudder prepared an eclectic presentation of the subject in
a little volume, _Men and Manners a hundred years ago_ (N. Y., 1876),
which surveys all the colonies. The Rev. Jos. B. Felt’s _Customs of New
England_ (1853) has a topical arrangement.[386]

For Massachusetts in particular, most of the local histories[387]
contribute something to the subject; and in the _Memorial History of
Boston_ there are various chapters which are useful,[388] and a survey
is also given in Barry’s _Massachusetts_ (vol. ii. ch. I).

“He that will understand,” says Bancroft,[389] “the political character
of New England in the eighteenth century must study the constitution of
its towns, its congregations, its schools, and its militia.”[390]


=C.= FINANCE AND REVENUE.—Dr. J. Hammond Trumbull in a pamphlet,
_First Essays at Banking and the first paper money in New England_
(Worcester, 1884,—from the Council Report of the American Antiquarian
Society, Oct., 1884), traces more fully than has been done by Jos. B.
Felt, in his _Historical account of Massachusetts Currency_ (Boston,
1839), and by Paine in the Council Report of the same society, April,
1866,[391] the efforts at private banking previous to the province
issue of bills in 1690, and with particular reference to a tract,
which he ascribes to the Rev. John Woodbridge, of Newbury, called
_Severals relating to the fund, printed for divers reasons as may
appear_ (Boston, probably 1681-82).[392] Dr. Trumbull attributes to
Cotton Mather a paper sustaining the policy of issuing paper bills
in 1690, which was published as _Some considerations on the Bills of
Credit now passing in New England_ (Boston, 1691),[393] to which was
appended _Some additional considerations_, which the same writer thinks
may have been the work of John Blackwell, who had been the projector
of a private bank authorized in 1689. Similar views as there expressed
are adopted by Mather in his _Life of Phips_, as printed separately in
1697, and as later included in the _Magnalia_.

In Dec., 1690, the bills of the £7,000 which were first authorized
began to be put forth. Felt (p. 50) gives the style of them, and
though an engraved form was adopted some of the earliest of the issues
were written with a pen, as shown by the fac-simile of one in the
_Proceedings_ of the Massachusetts Hist. Soc. (1863, p. 428). Up to
1702 there had been emissions and repetitions of emissions of about
£110,000, when another £10,000 was put out. A fac-simile of one of
these notes is given in Smith’s _Hist. and Literary Curiosities_, p.
xlv. The issues for the next few years were as follows: 1706, £10,000;
1707, £22,000; 1708, £10,000; 1709, £60,000; 1710, £40,000; 1711,
£65,000,—a total of £207,000.

In the following year (1712), the province bills of Massachusetts were
made legal tender,[394] but the break had come. The public confidence
was shaken, and their decline in value rapidly increased under the
apprehension, which the repeated putting off of the term of redemption
engendered.

In Connecticut the management was more prudent. She issued in the end
£33,500, but all her bills were redeemed with scarce any depreciation.
A fac-simile of one of her three-shilling bills (1709) is given in the
_Connecticut Colony Records_, 1706-1716, p. 111.[395]

Rhode Island managed her issues wildly. The history of her financial
recklessness, by E. R. Potter, was published in 1837, and reprinted by
Henry Phillips, Jr., in his _Historical Sketches_, etc. This paper as
enlarged by S. S. Rider in 1880, constitutes no. viii. of the _Rhode
Island Historical Tracts_, under the title of _Bills of Credit and
Paper Money of Rhode Island, 1710-1786_, with twenty fac-similes of
early bills. In 1741 Gov. Ward made an official report to the Lords
Commissioners of Trade, rehearsing the history of the Rhode Island
issues from 1710 to 1740, and this report, with other documents
relating to the paper money of that colony, is in the _Rhode Island
Col. Records_, vol. v. (1741-56).

Towards the end of Dudley’s time in Massachusetts, the party lines
became sharply drawn on questions of financial policy. The downfall
of credit alarmed the rich and conservative. The active business men,
not many in numbers, but strong in influence, found a flow of paper
money helpful in making the capital of the rich and the labor of the
poor subserve their interests, as Hildreth says. There were those who
supposed some amelioration would come from banks, private and public,
and the press teemed with pamphlets.[396] The aggressive policy was
formulated in _A Projection for erecting a Bank of Credit in Boston,
New England, founded on Land Security_, in 1714.[397] Its abettors
endeavored to promote subscriptions by appealing to the friends of
education, in a promise to devote £200 per annum to the advantage of
Harvard College.[398]

The small minority of hard-money men cast in their lot with the
advocates of a public bank as the lesser evil of the two.

Gov. Dudley was no favorer of the Land-bank scheme[399] and his son,
Paul Dudley, attacked it in a pamphlet, _Objections to the Bank of
Credit lately projected at Boston_[400] (Oct., 1714), to which an
answer came in Dec., from Samuel Lynde and other upholders, called _A
Vindication of the Bank of Credit_.[401] “Of nearly thirty pamphlets
and tracts, printed from 1714 to 1721,[402] for or against a private
bank or a public bank,” says Dr. Trumbull,[403] “that of Dudley was
the first, and is in some respects the ablest;” but he places foremost
among the advocates of the scheme the author of _A Word of Comfort
to a Melancholy Country_ (Boston, 1721), purporting to be by “Amicus
Patriæ,” or, as Trumbull thinks (p. 40) there is little doubt, by the
famous Rev. John Wise, of Chebacco. (Cf. _Brinley Catal._, i. nos.
1,442-45.)

To forestall the action of the private bank, the province, by a law,
issued £50,000 to be let out on mortgages of real estate, and these
bills were in circulation for over thirty years, and the assembly
took other action to prevent the Land-bank scheme being operative.
The subsequent emissions of paper money can be traced in Felt, who
also cites the contemporary tracts, ranged upon opposite sides, and
supporting on the one hand the conservative views of the Council, and
on the other the heedless precipitancy of the House. One of these,
_The Distressed state of the town of Boston considered ... in a letter
from a gentleman to his friend in the country_ (1720), excited the
attention of the council as embodying reflections on the acts of the
government.[404]

In 1722 bills of as small a denomination as one, two, and three
pennies[405] were ordered, to provide small change, which had become
scarce.

The financial situation was rapidly growing worse. In 1710 an ounce of
silver was worth eight shillings in paper, and in 1727 it had risen to
seventeen shillings; and at this time, or near it (1728), there was
afloat about £314,000 of this paper of Massachusetts indebtedness, to
say nothing of a similar circulation issued by the other colonies,
that of Rhode Island showing a much greater depreciation.[406] The
fall in value was still increasing when in 1731 there were plans of
bringing gold and silver into the country for a medium of trade;[407]
but naturally the needy mercantile class opposed it. Thomas Hutchinson
early (1737-38) distinguished himself in the assembly as a consistent
opposer of paper money, and in 1740 he tried to push a scheme to hire
in England 220,000 ounces of gold to meet the province bills, but he
had little success. Another[408] scheme, however, flourished for a
while; and this was one reviving the old name of the Land-bank, though
sometimes called “Manufactory bank,” a bill for which was set afoot
by Mr. John Colman, a needy Boston merchant, as Hutchinson calls him.
Its principal feature consisted in securing the issues of the bank by
a mortgage on the real estate of each associate to the extent of his
subscription. It found its support in the small traders and the people
of the rural districts, and was sustained in general by the House of
Representatives. The leading and well-to-do merchants opposed it, and
set up what was called a “Silver Scheme,”—an issue of notes to be
redeemed in silver after the lapse of ten years.[409] “Mr. Hutchinson,”
as this gentleman himself records, “favored neither, but considered
the silver plan as without fraudulent purpose, which he did not think
could be the case with the Land-bank.”[410]

[Illustration: RHODE ISLAND PAPER,—TWELVE PENCE.

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.

In 1733, Boston instructed its treasurer to refuse the bills of the new
emission of Rhode Island. (_Records_, 1729-42, p. 53.)]

The favoring and the opposing of the popular measure of the Land-bank
drew lines sharply in the current political contests. The governor was
suspected of double dealing, and while he was believed to be personally
interested in it, he carried out openly the opposition which the Board
of Trade instructed him to pursue: rejected the speaker and committees
of the House, who were urging its progress, and displaced justices
and militia officers of that way of thinking. All the while rumors
of riot began to prevail, but they were not sufficient to coerce the
government in a relaxation of their opposition; and the governor on
his side carried espionage to a degree which was novel. It is said
that something over £50,000 of the bank’s bills actually got out; but
some one discovered that an old act of Parliament, which came of the
explosion of the South Sea company, held each partner responsible, and
nothing else was needed to push the adventure out of existence.[411]

Felt gives the main points in the development of this financial scheme,
but here as elsewhere his book is a mere conglomerate of ill-digested
items, referring largely to the five volumes (c.-civ.) of the _Mass.
Archives,_ marked “Pecuniary,” which cover the monetary movements in
Massachusetts between 1629 and 1775. Among the _Shelburne Papers_, vol.
61,[412] there appears a report of the attorney general to the Lords of
Trade on this scheme of erecting a Land-bank in Boston, dated Nov. 10,
1735.

[Illustration: RHODE ISLAND THREE-SHILLINGS BILL, 1738.

From an original bill in the Harvard College copy of Phillips’ _Hist.
Sketches_.]

A leading combatant in the wordy conflict which followed was the
Scotch physician, William Douglass, then living in Boston. His first
publication was _Some observations on the scheme projected for emitting
£60,000 in bills of a new tenor to be redeemed with silver and gold_,
Boston, 1738.[413] In the same year he published without date, _An
Essay concerning silver and paper currencies, more especially with
regard to the British colonies in New England_, Boston.[414] He next
printed in London in 1739 a _Discourse concerning the currencies of the
British plantations in America, especially with regard to their paper
money, more particularly in relation to Massachusetts_.[415]

[Illustration: NEW HAMPSHIRE FIVE-SHILLINGS BILL, 1737.

From an original bill in the Harvard College copy of Phillips’ _Hist.
Sketches of Paper Currency_. Fac-similes of bills of 1727 and 1742
are given in Smith’s _Lit. and Hist. Curiosities_, p. liii. Cf. also
Potter’s _Manchester_.]

[Illustration: NEW HAMPSHIRE THREE-POUNDS BILL, 1740.

From an original bill in the Harvard College copy of Phillips’ _Hist.
Sketches_. There is a fac-simile of a N. H. bill of forty shillings in
Gay’s _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. p. 133; and one of a bill of 1742-43 in
Cassell’s _Hist. United States_, i. p. 486.]

A fortunate plan for withdrawing the debased paper currency of
Massachusetts Bay was finally matured.[416] Though the taking of
Louisbourg had severely taxed the colony with a financial burden, the
loss of it by treaty now made the way clear to throw off the same
burden. William Bollan, the son-in-law of Shirley, had gone over after
the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle to represent how the sacrifices of New
England deserved more recognition than was seemingly paid them in
the surrender of her conquest. This and other reasons prevailed, and
the government agreed to reimburse the province for the cost of the
siege. This was reckoned on the new basis of paper money. Shirley
in 1743 had been allowed to give his assent to an issue called “new
tenor,” in which the value to silver was about ten times as great as
the enormous flood of issues then in circulation bore, and these last
were now known as “old tenor.” On this new basis Louisbourg had cost
£261,700, which was held to be equivalent to £183,600 in London, the
pound sterling equalling now about 30 shillings of the new tenor, and
£11 of the old.[417] This agreement had been reached in 1749,[418] and
the specie was shipped to Boston. Two hundred and seventeen chests of
Spanish dollars and a hundred casks of copper coin were carted up King
Street, in September, the harbinger of new prosperity. It was due most
to Thomas Hutchinson’s skilful urgency that the assembly, of which he
was now speaker, was induced to devote this specie to the redeeming
of the paper bills of the “old tenor,” of which £2,000,000 were in
circulation.[419] It was agreed to pay about one pound in specie for
ten in paper, and the commissioners closed their labors in 1751, the
silver and copper already mentioned paying nine tenths of it, while a
tax was laid to pay the remaining tenth. About £1,800,000 in current
bills were presented; the rest had been destroyed or hid away and
forgotten.[420] Rhode Island had received £6,322 as her share of the
whole; but as she was not wise enough to apply it to the bettering of
her currency, she suffered the evils of a depreciated paper longer than
her neighbors.[421] The same lack of wisdom governed New Hampshire.
Connecticut had always been conservative in her monetary practices.

When the Massachusetts Assembly, in 1754, sought to raise money for the
expenses of the war then impending, its debate upon an inquisitorial
excise bill levying a tax on wines and liquors incited violent
opposition. Samuel Cooper launched at the plan a pamphlet called _The
Crisis_.[422] Another brief attack appeared with nothing on the title
but _The Eclipse, MDCCLIV._[423] Daniel Fowle, however, was accused of
printing another satirical account of the Representatives’ proceedings,
which was published in 1754 as _The Monster of Monsters_, and the
“Thomas Thumb, Esq.,” of the title is supposed to have shielded Samuel
Waterhouse. Fowle was arrested, and the common hangman was directed to
burn the pamphlet in King Street.[424] Sabin says that not more than
three or four copies of the tract escaped, but the _Brinley Catalogue_
shows two.[425] After his release Fowle printed in Boston the next
year (1755) _A total Eclipse of Liberty. Being a true and faithful
account of the arraignment and examination of Daniel Fowle before the
House of Representatives of Massachusetts Bay, Oct. 24, 1754, barely
on suspicion of being concerned in printing and publishing a pamphlet,
entitled The Monster of Monsters. Written by himself._ An _Appendix to
the late Total Eclipse_, etc., appeared in 1756.[426]

In May, 1755, a stamp act went into operation in the province, by which
the Representatives had established duties upon vellum, parchment, and
paper for two years. It yielded towards defraying the charges of the
government about £1,350 for the years in question.[427] Shirley issued
a proclamation of its conditions, one of which is in the Boston Public
Library, and has been reprinted in its _Bulletin_, 1884, p. 163.


=D.= THE BOUNDS OF THE NEW ENGLAND COLONIES.—During the provincial
period, the external limits and internal divisions of New England were
the subject of disagreement. The question as to what constituted the
frontier line towards Acadia was constantly in dispute, as is explained
elsewhere.[428]

On the western side New York had begun by claiming jurisdiction as far
as the Connecticut River. She relinquished this claim in the main, as
to her bounds on Connecticut, when that colony pressed her pretensions
to a line which ran a score of miles from the Hudson, and when she
occupied the territory with her settlers, the final adjustment being
reached in 1731.[429]

On the line of Massachusetts the controversy with New York lasted
longer. The claim of that province was set forth in a _Report_ made in
1753, which is printed in Smith’s _New York_ (1814 ed., p. 283), and
Smith adds that the government of Massachusetts never exhibited the
reasons of its claim in answer to this report, but in the spring of
1755 sold lands within the disputed territory.[430] In 1764 the matter
was again in controversy. Thomas Hutchinson is thought to have been the
author of the Massachusetts argument called _The Case of the Provinces
of Massachusetts Bay and New York, respecting boundary line between the
two provinces_ (Boston, 1764).[431] Three years later (1767) a meeting
of the agents of the two provinces was held at New Haven, by which the
disagreement was brought to a conclusion.[432]

For the region north of Massachusetts New York contended more
vigorously, and the dispute over the New Hampshire grants in the
territory of the present Vermont, which began in 1749, was continued
into the Revolutionary period. When, in 1740, the king in council had
established the northern line of Massachusetts, the commission of Gov.
Benning Wentworth, of New Hampshire, the next year (1741), extended his
jurisdiction westward until it met other grants, which he interpreted
to mean till it reached a line stretched northerly in prolongation
of the westerly boundary of Massachusetts, twenty miles east of the
Hudson, and reaching to the southern extremity of Lake Champlain. On
the 3d of Jan., 1749, Wentworth made a grant of the town of Bennington,
adjacent to such western frontier line. These and other grants of
townships which Wentworth made became known as the New Hampshire
Grants.[433] The wars prevented much progress in the settlement of
these grants, but some of the settlers who were there when the French
war closed assembled, it is said, with the Rev. Samuel Peters in 1763
on Mount Pisgah, and broke a bottle of spirits with him, and named the
country _Verd Mont_.

Gov. Colden, of New York, on Dec. 28, 1763, issued a proclamation
claiming the land thus held under the grants of Wentworth, basing his
rights on the grants in 1664 and 1674 to the Duke of York of “all lands
from the west side of the Connecticut River to the east side of the
Delaware Bay.” On the 20th July, 1764, the king in council confirmed
Colden’s view, and made the Connecticut River the boundary as far as
45° north latitude. When this decision reached Wentworth he had already
granted 128 townships. New York began to make counter-grants of the
same land, and though the king ordered the authorities of New York to
desist, when word reached London of the rising conflict, it was the
angry people of the grants rather than the royal will which induced
the agents of New York to leave the territory. Gov. John Wentworth
continued to make grants till the Revolution, on the New Hampshire
side; but though Gov. Moore, of New York, had been restrained (1767),
his successors had not the same fear of the royal displeasure. As
the war approached, the dispute between New York and the grants grew
warmer.[434] In 1773 James Duane, it is thought, was the champion of
the New York cause in two pamphlets: _A State of the rights of the
Colony of New York with respect to its eastern boundary on Connecticut
River so far as concerns the late encroachments under the Government
of New Hampshire_, published by the assembly (New York, 1773); and
_A Narrative of the proceedings subsequent to the Royal Adjudication
concerning the lands to the westward of Connecticut river, lately
usurped by New Hampshire_ (New York, 1773).[435] The next year (1774)
Ethan Allen answered the first of these tracts in his _Brief narrative
of the proceedings of the government of New York_. Allen dated at
Bennington, Sept. 23, 1774, and his book was published at Hartford.[436]

The war of independence soon gave opportunity for the British
authorities on the Canada side to seek to detach the Vermonters from
their relations to the revolting colonies.[437] The last of the royal
governors of New Hampshire had fled in Sept., 1775, and a congress
at Exeter had assumed executive control in Jan., 1776. The next year
(1777) a convention framed a constitution, and by a stretch of power,
as is told in Ira Allen’s _Hist. of Vermont_, it was adopted without
recurrence to the people’s vote. In March, 1778, the state government
was fully organized. The dispute with New York went on. Gov. Clinton
issued a proclamation. Ethan Allen answered in an _Animadversary
Address_ (Hartford, 1778),[438] and in Dec., 1778, a convention of the
people of the grants was held, and their resolution was appended to
a document prepared by a committee of the assembly, called _A public
defence of the right of the New Hampshire grants (so called) on both
sides Connecticut river, to associate together, and form themselves
into an independent state. Containing remarks on sundry paragraphs
of letters from the president of the Council of New Hampshire to his
Excellency Governor Chittenden, and the New Hampshire delegates at
Congress_.[439]

The same year the legislature of New York directed the preparation of
a _Collection of evidence in vindication of the territorial rights
and jurisdiction of the state of New York, against the claims of the
commonwealth of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and the people of
the grants who are commonly called Vermonters_. It was prepared by
James Duane, James Morrin Scott, and Egbert Benson, and is printed
in the _Fund Publications_ of the New York Historical Society, 1870
(pp. 277-528). On the other side, Ethan Allen published _A vindication
of the opposition of the inhabitants of Vermont to the government of
New York, and of their right to form an independent state_;[440] and
in 1780, in connection with Jonas Fay, and by order of the governor
and council, he published _A concise refutation of the claims of New
Hampshire and Massachusetts Bay, to the territory of Vermont; with
occasional remarks on the long disputed claim of New York to the
same_.[441]

In 1782, Ethan Allen again brought out at Hartford his _The present
state of the controversy between the states of New York and New
Hampshire on the one part, and the state of Vermont on the other_.[442]

The arguments and proofs were rehearsed in 1784, when the question was
to be presented to court, in a brief by James Duane, called _State
of the evidence and argument in support of the territorial rights of
jurisdiction of New York against the government of New Hampshire and
the claimants under it, and against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts_.
An amicable adjustment prevented the publication of this document, and
it was first printed in the _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._ for 1871.[443]

Connecticut claimed certain lands in Northern Pennsylvania, which came
within her jurisdiction by the extension of her lines, as expressed in
her charter of 1662, westward to the South Sea. New York, being then in
the possession of a Christian power, was excepted, but the claim was
preserved farther west. In 1753 a company was formed to colonize these
Connecticut lands in the Susquehanna valley, and lands were bought of
the Indians at Wyoming. The government of Pennsylvania objected, and
claimed the lands to be within the bounds of William Penn’s charter.
(Cf. _Penna. Archives_, ii. 120, etc.) The defeat of Braddock checked
the dispute, but in 1761 it was renewed. In 1763 the home government
required the Connecticut people to desist, on the ground that they had
not satisfied the Indian owners. New bargains were then made, and in
1769 settlements again took place. General Gage, as commander-in-chief
of the British troops on the continent, refused to interfere. In 1774,
William Smith prepared an _Examination of the Connecticut claim to
lands in Pennsylvania, with an appendix and map_ (Philadelphia, 1774);
and Benjamin Trumbull issued _A Plea in vindication of the Connecticut
title to the contested lands west of the Province of New York_ (New
Haven, 1774). See entries in the _Brinley Catalogue_, Nos. 2121, etc.
The dispute was later referred to the Continental Congress, which in
1781 decided in favor of Pennsylvania, and Aug. 8, 1782, commissioners
were appointed. (_Journals of Congress_, iv. 59, 64.) Connecticut still
claimed west of Pennsylvania, and though she retained for a while
the “Western Reserve,” she finally ceded (1796-1800) to the United
States all her claims as far as the Mississippi.[444] The claims of
Massachusetts, on similar grounds, to land in Michigan and Wisconsin
were surrendered to the general government in 1785.

       *       *       *       *       *

The original patent for the Massachusetts Company made its northern
line three miles north of the Merrimac River. New Hampshire claimed
that it should be run westerly from a point on the coast three miles
north of the mouth of that river. When the Board of Trade, in 1737,
selected a commission to adjudicate upon this claim, Massachusetts was
not in favor, and New Hampshire got more than she asked, the line being
run north of the river three miles, and parallel to it, till it reached
the most southerly point of the river’s course, when it was continued
due west.[445]

Respecting the boundaries on the side of Maine, there is a journal of
Walter Bryent, who in 1741 ran the line between New Hampshire and York
County in Maine.[446]

Massachusetts also lost territory in the south. The country of King
Philip on the easterly side of Narragansett Bay had been claimed by
Plymouth, and Massachusetts, by the union under the province charter,
succeeded to the older colony’s claim. An arbitration in 1741 did
not give all she claimed to Rhode Island, but it added the eastern
towns along the bay.[447] On the frontiers of Connecticut, the towns
of Enfield, Suffield, Somers, and Woodstock had been settled by
Massachusetts, and by an agreement in 1713 she had included them in
her jurisdiction.[448] In 1747, finding the taxes in Massachusetts
burdensome from the expenses of the war, these towns applied to
be received by Connecticut, and their wish was acceded to, while
Massachusetts did not dare risk an appeal to the king in council.[449]

The disputes of Connecticut and Rhode Island respecting the
Narragansett country resulted on that side in a loss to
Connecticut.[450]

In an interesting paper on the “Origin of the names of towns in
Massachusetts,” by William H. Whitmore, in the _Proceedings_ (xii.
393-419) of the Mass. Hist. Society, we can trace the loss of towns to
Massachusetts, which she had incorporated, and find some reflection of
political changes. Up to 1732 the names of towns were supplied by the
petitioners, but after that date the incorporation was made in blank,
the governor filling in the name, which may account for the large
number of names of English peers and statesmen which were attached to
Massachusetts towns during the provincial period. The largest class of
the early names seems due to the names of the places in England whence
their early settlers came. Prof. F. B. Dexter presented to the American
Antiquarian Society, in April, 1885, a paper of similar character
respecting the towns of Connecticut.

=E.= FORTS AND FRONTIER TOWNS OF NEW ENGLAND.—The large increase
during recent years in the study of local history has greatly broadened
the field of detail. As scarcely one of the older settlements to the
west, north, and east escaped the horrors of the French and Indian
wars, the student following out the minor phases must look into the
histories of the towns of New England. Convenient finding-lists for
these towns are the _Check-list of Amer. local history_, by F. B.
Perkins; Colburn’s _Bibliog. of Massachusetts_; Bartlett’s _Bibliog.
of Rhode Island_; and A. P. C. Griffin’s “Articles on American local
history in Historical Collections, etc.,” now publishing in the _Boston
Public Library Bulletin_.

For the Maine towns particular reference may be made to Cyrus
Eaton’s _Thomaston, Rockland, and South Thomaston_ (1863), vol. i.;
E. E. Bourne’s _Wells and Kennebunk_; Cushman’s _Ancient Sheepscot
and Newcastle_; Willis’s _Portland_ (2d ed.); Folsom’s _Saco and
Biddeford_; Eaton’s _Warren_ (2d ed.), which gives a map, marking
the sites of the forts about the Georges River; Johnston’s _Bristol,
Bremen, and Pemaquid_, which gives a map of the Damariscotta River
and the Pemaquid region, with the settlements of 1751; R. K. Sewall’s
_Ancient Dominions of Maine_; James W. North’s _Augusta_; G. A. and H.
W. Wheeler’s _Brunswick, Topsham, and Harpswell, including the ancient
territory known as Pejepscot, Boston_, 1878 (ch. iv. and xxiii.).

See the present _History_ (Vol. III. p. 365) for notes on the local
history of Maine, and (Ibid., p. 364) for references to the general
historians,—Sullivan, whose want of perspicuousness Grahame (i. 253)
complains of, and Williamson.

At the present Brunswick (Maine), Fort Andros had been built in 1688,
and had been demolished in 1694. Capt. John Gyles erected there in
August, 1715, a post which was called Fort George. Ruins of it were
noticeable at the beginning of this century. There is a sketch of it in
Wheeler’s _Brunswick, Topsham, and Harpswell_, pp. 624, 629.

The fort at St. Georges (Thomaston, Me.) had been built originally in
1719-20, to protect the Waldo patent; it was improved in 1740, and
again in 1752 was considerably strengthened. (Williamson, i. 287.)

At Pemaquid, on the spot where Andros had established a post, Phips
had built Fort William Henry in 1692, which had been surrendered by
Chubb in 1696. It is described in Dummer’s _Defence of the New England
Charters_, p. 31; Mather’s _Magnalia_, book viii. p. 81. In 1729 Col.
David Dunbar erected a stone fort, perhaps on the same foundations,
which was called Fort Frederick. There is a plan of the latter post in
Johnston’s _Bristol, Bremen, and Pemaquid_, pp. 216, 264. Cf. Eaton’s
_Warren_, 2d ed.

Further down the Kennebec River and opposite the upper end of Swan
Island stood Fort Richmond, which had been built by the Massachusetts
people about 1723. Near the present Augusta the Plymouth Company
founded Forts Shirley and Western in 1754. There are plans and views
of them in J. W. North’s _Augusta_, pp. 47-49. Cf. Nathan Weston’s
_Oration at the Centennial Celebration of the Erection of Fort
Western, July 4, 1854_, Augusta, 1854.

Col. John Winslow planned, in 1754, on a point half a mile below
Teconick Falls, the structure known as Fort Halifax, according to the
extent shown by the dotted line in the annexed cut.[451] Winslow’s
letter to Shirley, with the plan, is in the _Mass. Archives,_ and both
are given in North’s _Augusta,_ pp. 59, 60. The fort was completed
the next year by William Lithgow, as shown by the black part of the
cut, the rear flanker, forming the centre of the original plan,
having been built, however, by Winslow. This block-house measured 20
× 20 feet below, and on the overhang 27 × 27 feet. The narrower of
the large structures was the barracks, also raised by Winslow, but
removed by Lithgow, who built the other portions.

[Illustration: FORT HALIFAX.]

The cut follows a reconstruction-draft, made by Mr. T. O. Paine,
which is given by North (p. 62). The flanker nearest the river is
still standing, and the upright planks on the side, as shown in the
annexed cut, mark the efforts which have been made of late to secure
the timbers. In the Maine Historical Society’s _Collections,_ vol.
viii. p. 198, is a history of the fort by William Goold, as well as
the annexed cut of a restoration of the entire fort, drawn by that
gentleman from descriptions, from the tracings of the foundations,
and from the remaining flanker. The preceding volume (vii.) of the
same _Collections_ had contained “materials for a history” of the
fort, edited by Joseph Williamson,—mainly documents from the _Mass.
Archives._ A journal of the march of Capt. Eleazer Melvin’s company
in Gov. Shirley’s expedition to the Norridgewock country, when Fort
Halifax was erected in 1754, kept by John Barber (May 30, 1754-Aug. 17,
1754), is in _N. E. Hist. and Gen. Reg._, 1873, pp. 281-85. Cf. further
in Williamson’s _Maine_, i. 300; Hutchinson’s _Massachusetts_, iii. 26.
A plan (1754) of the Kennebec River forts, by John Indicott (measuring
3-8/12 × 1-5/12), is noted in the _Catalogue of the King’s Maps_ (i.
580), in the British Museum. The forts on the Kennebec, and the chief
localities of that river, are described by Col. William Lithgow in
1767, in a deposition printed in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._,
1870, p. 21. Lithgow was then fifty-two years old, and had known the
river from childhood.

[Illustration]

In 1752, when there was some prospect of quieting the country, and
truck houses were built at Fort Richmond and St. Georges, William
Lithgow and Jabez Bradbury were put in charge of them.

[Illustration]

A paper by Richard Pike, on the building and occupancy of Fort Pownall,
on the Penobscot, is in the _N. E. Hist. and Gen. Reg._, 1860, p. 4.
In Williamson’s _Belfast_, p. 56, is a conjectural view of the fort,
drawn from the descriptions and from a survey of the site in 1828. _A
Survey of the river and bay of Penobscot, by order of Gov. Pownall_,
1759, is among the king’s maps (Catal., ii. 167) in the British Museum.
A journal of Pownall’s expedition to begin this fort was printed, with
notes, by Joseph Williamson in the _Maine Hist. Coll._, v. 363. Cf.
Williamson’s _Maine_, i. 337. This fort was completed in July, 1759, at
a cost of £5,000, and stood till 1775. Cf. _N. E. Hist. and Geneal._
Reg., 1859, p. 167, with an extract from the _Boston News-Letter_, May
31, 1759.

This enumeration covers the principal fortified posts in the disputed
territory at the eastward; but numerous other garrison posts,
block-houses, and stockades were scattered over the country.[452] A
view of one of these, known as Larrabee’s garrison stockade, is given
in Bourne’s _Wells and Kennebunk_, ch. xxi. The view of a block-house
built in 1714, near the junction of the Kennebec and Sebasticook
rivers, as sketched in 1852, is annexed.

West of Maine the frontier stretched from the Piscataqua to the valley
of the Housatonic.

For the New Hampshire part of this line, Belknap’s _Hist. of New
Hampshire_ must be supplemented for a general survey by B. H. Hall’s
_Eastern Vermont_. So far as the muster-rolls of frontier service show
the activity in New Hampshire, it can be gathered from the second
volume of the _Report of the Adjutant-General of New Hampshire_, 1866,
supplemented by others given in the _N. H. Revolutionary Rolls_, vol.
i. (1886). The volumes of the series of _Provincial Papers_ published
by that State (vols. ix., xi., xii., xiii.), and called “Town Papers,
1638-1784,” give the local records. The principal town histories
detailing the events of the wars are Potter’s _Manchester_; Bouton’s
_Concord_; Runnel’s _Sanbornton_; Little’s _Warren_; C. C. Coffin’s
_Boscawen_; H. H. Saunderson’s _Charlestown_; B. Chase’s Old Chester;
C. J. Fox’s _Dunstable_; Aldrich’s _Walpole_; and Morrison’s _Windham_.

[Illustration: FLANKER, FORT HALIFAX.]

In 1704 the assembly of New Hampshire ordered that every householder
should provide himself with snow-shoes, for the use of winter scouting
parties. (_N. H. Prov. Papers_, iii. 290.) In 1724 Fort Dummer was
built near the modern Brattleboro, in territory then claimed by
Massachusetts. (_Hist. Mag._, x. 109, 141, 178; _N. H. Hist. Soc.
Coll._, i. 143; _N. H. Adj.-Gen. Rept._, 1866, ii. p. 122.) In 1746,
after the alarm over the D’Anville fleet had subsided, Atkinson’s New
Hampshire regiment was sent north to meet any invasion from Canada.
(_N. H. Adj.-Gen. Rept._, 1866, ii. 83.) The next year (1747), Walter
Bryent advanced with his regiment as far as Lake Winnepesaukee. (_N.
E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, July, 1878, p. 297; N. H. Prov. Papers, v.
431, 471; Belknap, ii. 228.)

In 1747 the fort at “no. 4,” or Charlestown, the outpost towards
Canada, was attacked. (Saunderson’s _Charlestown_; Stone’s _Sir
William Johnson_, i. 260.)

In 1752-54 there is record of the hostilities on the New Hampshire
borders in the _N. H. Prov. Papers_, vi. 301, 310-319.

The St. Francis Indians confronted the settlements of the upper
Connecticut, and in 1752 Shirley sent Capt. Phineas Stevens to treat
with them in the presence of the governor of Canada. (_N. Y. Col.
Docs._, x. 252.) For the massacre at Hinsdale in 1755, and attacks
in the Connecticut valley, see _N. H. Prov. Papers_, vi. 412, and
_Adj.-Gen. Report_, 1866, vol. ii. 153.

[Illustration: FORT HALIFAX, 1755.

(_Restoration._)]

In 1694-95, the frontier line of Massachusetts was established by law
as including the towns of Amesbury, Haverhill, Dunstable, Chelmsford,
Groton, Lancaster, Marlborough, and Deerfield. Five years later this
list was increased by Brookfield, Mendon, and Woodstock, with a kind of
inner line, running through Salisbury, Andover, Billerica, Hatfield,
Hadley, Westfield, and Northampton.

For the border troubles of Massachusetts, beside Penhallow and Niles,
Neal and Douglass, and the _Magnalia_, we turn to Hutchinson with
confidence in the facilities which he enjoyed; but John Adams says
(_Works_, x. 361), “When Mr. Hutchinson’s _History of Massachusetts
Bay_ first appeared, one of the most common criticisms upon it was the
slight, cold, and unfeeling manner in which he passed over the Indian
wars.”

The most exposed towns fronting the New Hampshire line were Haverhill,
Andover, and Dunstable. The _History of Haverhill_, by G. W. Chase
(1861), gives the story of the Indian troubles with much detail.[453]
For Andover they may be found in S. L. Bailey’s _Historical Sketches of
Andover_ (Boston, 1880); and for Dunstable in Elias Nason’s _History of
Dunstable_ (1877). Just below Dunstable lay Groton, and Dr. Samuel A.
Green’s _Groton during the Indian Wars_ supplies the want here,—a good
supplement to Butler’s _Groton_. The frontiers for a while were marked
nearly along the same meridian by Lancaster, Marlborough, Brookfield,
and Oxford. The _Early records of Lancaster, 1643-1725_, _edited by
H. S. Nourse_ (Lancaster, 1884), furnishes us with a full reflection
of border experiences during King William’s, Queen Anne’s, and
Lovewell’s wars, and it may be supplemented by A. P. Marvin’s _History
of Lancaster_. The sixth chapter of Charles Hudson’s _Marlborough_
(Boston, 1862), and Nathan Fiske’s _Historical Discourse on Brookfield
and its distresses during the Indian Wars_ (Boston, 1776), illustrate
the period. The struggle of the Huguenots to maintain themselves at
Oxford against the Indians is told in Geo. F. Daniels’ _Huguenots
in the Nipmuck Country_ (1880), and in C. W. Baird’s _Hist. of the
Huguenot Emigration to America_ (1885).

There is in the cabinet of the Mass. Hist. Soc. (_Misc. Papers_, 41.41)
an early plan of the Connecticut and Housatonic valleys, showing the
former from the sea as far north as Fort Massachusetts, and the latter
up to Fort Dummer, and bearing annotations by Thomas Prince.

[Illustration: BLOCK HOUSE, BUILT 1714.]

In the valley of the Connecticut, Northfield held the northernmost post
within the Massachusetts bounds as finally settled. One of the best of
our local histories for the details of this barbaric warfare is Temple
and Sheldon’s _History of Northfield_. Deerfield was just south, and
it is a centre of interest. The attack which makes it famous came Feb.
29, 1704-5, and the narrative of the Rev. John Williams, who was taken
captive to Canada, is the chief contemporary account. Gov. Dudley sent
William Dudley to Quebec to effect the release of the prisoners, and
among those who returned to Boston (Oct. 25, 1706) was Williams, who
soon put to press his _Redeemed Captive_,[454] which was published in
1707,[455] and has been ever since a leading specimen of a class of
books which is known among collectors as “Captivities.”

Further down the Connecticut than Deerfield lies Hadley, which has
been more fortunate than most towns in its historian. Sylvester
Judd’s _History of Hadley, including the early history of Hatfield,
South Hadley, Amherst, and Granby, Mass., With family genealogies, by
L. M. Boltwood_, Northampton, 1863, follows down the successive wars
with much detail.[456] A systematic treatment of the whole subject was
made by Epaphras Hoyt in his _Antiquarian Researches, comprising a
history of the Indian Wars in the Country bordering on the Connecticut
River_, etc., to 1760, published at Greenfield in 1824. There had been
published seventy-five years before, _A short narrative of mischief
done by the French and Indian enemy on the western frontiers of the
Province of Massachusetts Bay, Mar. 15, 1743-44, to Aug. 2, 1748,
drawn up by the Rev. Mr. Doolittle of Northfield, and found among his
manuscripts after his death_. Boston, 1750.[457]

By the time of Shirley’s war (1744-48), the frontier line had been
pushed westerly to the line of the Housatonic,[458] and at Poontoosuck
we find the exposed garrison life repeated, and its gloom and perils
narrated in J. E. A. Smith’s _History of Pittsfield_, 1734-1800
(Boston, 1869). William Williams, long a distinguished resident of
this latter town, had been detailed from the Hampshire[459] militia in
1743 to connect the Connecticut and the Hudson with a line of posts,
and he constructed forts at the present Heath, Rowe, and Williamstown,
known respectively as forts Shirley,[460] Pelham, and Massachusetts. In
August, 1746, the latter post, whose garrison was depleted to render
assistance during the eastward war, was attacked by the French and
Indians, and destroyed.[461]

[Illustration]

Fort Massachusetts was rebuilt, and its charge, in June, 1747,
committed to Major Ephraim Williams.[462] It became the headquarters
of the forts and block-houses scattered throughout the region now the
county of Berkshire, maintaining garrisons drawn from the neighboring
settlers, and at times from the province forces in part. The plans of
one of these fortified posts are preserved in the state archives, and
from the drawings given in Smith’s _Pittsfield_ (p. 106) the annexed
cuts are made.[463]

In 1754 the charge of the western frontier was given to Col. Israel
Williams.[464]

These Berkshire garrisons were in some measure assisted by recruits
from Connecticut, as that colony could best protect in this way its
own frontiers to the northward. Beside the general histories of
Connecticut, this part of her history is treated in local monographs
like Bronson’s _Waterbury_, H. R. Stiles’ _Ancient Windsor_, Cothren’s
_Ancient Woodbury_, Larned’s _Windham County_, and Orcutt and
Beardsley’s _Derby_.[465]




CHAPTER III.

THE MIDDLE COLONIES.

BY BERTHOLD FERNOW,

_Keeper of the Historical MSS., N. Y. State_.


THE thirteenth volume of the New York Colonial Manuscripts contains a
document called “Rolle van t’Volck sullende met het Schip den Otter
na Niēu Nederlandt overvaren,” April 24, 1660, being a list of the
soldiers who were to sail in the ship “Otter” for New Netherland. Among
these soldiers was one Jacob Leisler, from Frankfort, who upon arriving
at New Amsterdam found himself indebted to the West India Company for
passage and other advances to the amount of nearly one hundred florins.

[Illustration]

Twenty-nine years later this same quondam soldier administered
the affairs of the colony of New York as lieutenant-governor, not
appointed and commissioned by the king of England, but called to the
position by the people of the colony. When the first rumors of the
“happy revolution” in England reached New York, Sir Edmond Andros,
the governor-general of New York and New England, was absent in
Boston, where the citizens forcibly detained him. Nicholson, the
lieutenant-governor, and one or two other high officials belonged
to the Church of Rome, and were therefore disliked and suspected
by the predominant Protestant population. Rumors had found their
way, meanwhile, through the northern wilderness, that the French in
Canada were making preparations to invade New York, hoping, with the
assistance of the Catholics in the province, to wrest it from the
English. The major part of the inhabitants were still Dutch or of
Dutch origin, and these were nearly all Protestants. They were easily
led to believe that the papists within and without the government had
concerted to seize Fort James, in New York, and to surrender that post
and the province to a French fleet, which was already on the way from
Europe. The prompting of the Protestant party to anticipate any such
hostile movement was strengthened when they heard the result of the
revolution in England. Leisler, placing himself at the head of this
anticipatory movement, seized the fort, and was shortly afterwards
proclaimed lieutenant-governor, in order to hold the province for
William and Mary until their pleasure should be known. There was little
ground for distrusting the Catholics within the province; but the
danger from the French was more real, and took a shape that was not
expected, in the murderous assault which was made on Schenectady.[466]
Leisler’s adherents, as well as his opponents, felt that this _coup de
main_ of the French might be only the precursor of greater disasters,
if no precautionary steps were taken. Leisler himself believed that
the English colonies would never be safe unless the French were driven
from Canada. He called a congress of the colonies. Their deliberations
led to the naval expedition of Phips against Quebec, and the march of
Winthrop and Livingston against Montreal. Their disastrous failure has
been described in an earlier volume.[467] Governor Sloughter arrived in
New York a few months later, and soon put an end to the hasty revolt.
Leisler and his son-in-law, Milbourne, were hanged for what seemed an
untimely patriotism and still more uncalled-for religious zeal.

The cry was practically a “No Popery” cry upon which Leisler had risen
to such prominence in the affairs of New York. It had appeared scarcely
to attract the notice of the king, and he was prone to believe that
Leisler was more influenced by a hatred of the Established Church than
by zeal for the crown. It was not, however, without some effect. A
few words added to the instruction of the new governor had materially
changed the condition of religious toleration in the province. Earlier
governors had been directed “to permit all persons, of what religion
soever, quietly to inhabit within the government.” Under Governor
Sloughter’s instructions papists were excepted from this toleration.
Was such intolerance really needed for the safety of the English
colonies? They had been so far in the main a refuge for those who in
Europe had suffered because of their liberal and anti-Roman religious
opinions, and had never been much sought by Catholics.[468] The
conditions of life in the colonies were hardly favorable to a church
which brands private reasoning as heresy; and even in Maryland—which
was established, if not as a Catholic colony, yet by a nobleman of
that faith—there were, after fifty years of existence, only about
one hundred Romanists. Public opinion and the political situation in
England had now raised this bugbear of popery. It was but the faint
echo of the cry which prompted those restrictions in the instructions
to King William’s governor which sought to enforce in New York the
policy long in vogue in the mother country. The home government seemed
ignorant of the fact that the natural enemies of the Church of Rome,
the Reformed and Lutheran clergymen of New York, had not only not
shared Leisler’s fears, but, supported by the better educated and
wealthier classes, they had opposed him by every means in their power.
When, however, with Leisler’s death the motive for their dislike
of his cause had been removed, the general assembly, composed to a
great extent of his former opponents, willingly enacted a law, the
so-called Bill of Rights, denying “liberty to any person of the Romish
religion to exercise their manner of worship, contrary to the laws of
England.”[469] After the attempt on the life of King William in 1697,
further laws, expelling Roman Catholic priests and Jesuits from the
province, and depriving papists and popish recusants of their right to
vote, were passed in 1700 and 1701. It was reserved for the Revolution
of 1776 to change the legal status of the Roman Catholics of New
York, and place them on an equal footing with the believers in other
doctrines.

       *       *       *       *       *

In establishing the colony of Pennsylvania on the basis of religious
freedom, Penn declared that every Christian, without distinction of
sect, should be eligible to public employments. But on the accession
of William and Mary it became necessary to adopt and endorse the
so-called “penal laws,” in prosecuting followers of the elder church.
Penn himself was unable to prevent it, although his liberal spirit
revolted at such intolerance, and it seems that the authorities in
Pennsylvania were quite as willing as their chief to treat Romanists
with liberality, notwithstanding the “penal laws,” since in 1708 Penn
was unfavorably criticised in England for the leniency with which this
sect was treated by him. “It has become a reproach,” he writes to his
friend Logan, “to me here with the officers of the crown, that you have
suffered the scandal of the mass to be publicly celebrated.”

Despite all laws, Pennsylvania became of all the colonies the most
favorable and the safest field for the priests and missionaries of
the Church of Rome. It is true, they had to travel about the country
in disguise, but it was known everywhere that Romanists from other
provinces came to Philadelphia or Lancaster at regular intervals to
receive the sacraments according to the rites of their faith. Before
the Revolution, Pennsylvania harbored five Catholic churches, with
about double the number of priests and several thousand communicants,
mostly Irish and Germans.

       *       *       *       *       *

The attempt upon the life of the king in 1697 had much the same effect
in East New Jersey as in New York. The law of 1698, “declaring what
are the rights and privileges of his majesty’s subjects in East New
Jersey,” directed “that no person or persons that profess faith in God
by Jesus Christ, his only Son, shall at any time be molested, punished,
disturbed, or be called in question for difference in religious
opinion, &c., &c., provided this shall not extend to any of the Romish
religion the right to exercise their manner of worship contrary to the
laws and statutes of England.”[470]

[Illustration]

When Lord Cornbury assumed the government of New Jersey in 1701, his
instructions directed him to permit liberty of conscience to all
persons except papists. Matters remained thus with the Romish Church in
New Jersey until the end of British rule.

       *       *       *       *       *

Another incident of Leisler’s brief administration was of greater
importance and farther-reaching consequences than his proscription
of persons differing from his religious opinions. It will be
remembered[471] that a general assembly of the province had been
elected in 1683, holding two sessions that year and another in 1684;
also that it had been dissolved in 1687, pursuant to the instructions
of King James II. to Sir Edmond Andros, directing him “to observe
in the passing of lawes that the Stile of enacting the same by the
Governor and Council be henceforth used and no other.” The laws enacted
by the first assembly, and not repealed by the king, remained in force,
and the government was carried on with the revenues derived from the
excise on beer, wine, and liquors, from the customs duties on exported
and imported goods, and from tax levies; but the people had no voice
in the ordering of this revenue, as they had had none during the Dutch
period and before 1683. Leisler and his party, however, firmly believed
in the Aryan principle of “no taxation without representation,” and
when a necessity for money arose out of the French invasion and the
subsequent plan to reduce Canada, Leisler issued writs of election for
a general assembly, which in the first session, in April, 1690, enacted
a law for raising money by a general tax. Adjourned to the following
autumn, it again ordered another tax levy, and passed an act obliging
persons to serve in civil or military office.

In calling together this general assembly, notwithstanding the repeal
by James II. of the Charter of Liberties of 1683, Leisler assumed for
the colony of New York a right which the laws and customs of Great
Britain did not concede to her as a “conquered or crown” province.
The terms on which New York had been surrendered to the English,
both in 1664 and in 1674, ignored a participation by the people in
the administration of the government, and the king in council could
therefore, without infringing upon any law of England or breaking any
treaty stipulation, deal with the conquered province as he pleased;
while all the other colonies in America were “settled or discovered”
countries, which, because taken possession of as unoccupied lands or
under special charters and settled by English subjects, had thereby
inherited the common law of England and all the rights and liberties
of Englishmen, subject only to certain conditions imposed by their
respective charters, as against the prerogatives of the crown. The
action of Leisler showed to the English ministry the injustice with
which New York had been treated so long, and the instructions given
to Governor Sloughter in November, 1690, directed him “to summon and
call general Assemblies of the Inhabitants, being Freeholders within
your Government, according to the usage of our other Plantations
in America.” This general assembly was to be the popular branch of
the government, while the council, appointed by the king upon the
governor’s recommendation, took the place of the English House of
Lords. The governor had a negative voice in the making of all laws,
the final veto remaining with the king, to whom every act had to be
sent for confirmation. Three coördinate factors of the government—the
assembly, the council, and the governor—were now established in
theory; in reality there were only two, for the governor always
presided at the sessions of the council, voting as a member, and in
case of a tie gave also a casting vote. This state of affairs, by which
the executive branch possessed two votes on every legislative measure,
as well as the final approval, continued until 1733, when, Governor
Cosby having quarrelled with the chief justice and other members of
the council, the question was submitted to the home government. The
law officers now declared that it was inconsistent with the nature of
the English government, the governor’s commission, and his majesty’s
instructions for the governor in any case whatsoever to sit and vote
as a member of the council. Governor Cosby was therefore informed by
the Lords of Trade and Plantations that he could sit and advise with
the council on executive business, but not when the council met as a
legislative body.

The first assembly called by Governor Sloughter enacted, in 1691,
the Bill of Rights, which was the Charter of Liberties of 1683, with
some modifications relative to churches. It met with the same fate as
before, as the Lords of Trade could not recommend it to the king for
approval, because it gave “great and unreasonable privileges” to the
members of the general assembly, and “contained also several large and
doubtful expressions.” The king accordingly vetoed it in 1697, after
the ministry had required six years to discover the objections against
it. They could not very well give the real reason, which was that this
Bill of Rights vested supreme power and authority, under the king, in
the governor, council, and the _people by their representatives_, while
it was as yet undecided whether in New York, a “conquered” province,
the people had any right to demand representation in the legislative
bodies.

[Illustration: GOVERNOR FLETCHER.

From a plate in Valentine’s _N. Y. City Manual_, 1851.]

Governor Sloughter died within a few months after his arrival in New
York (June, 1691), and was succeeded by Colonel Benjamin Fletcher,
“a soldier, a man of strong passions and inconsiderable talent, very
active and equally avaricious,” who, as his successor Bellomont said,
allowed the introduction into the province of a debased coinage (the
so-called dog dollars); protected pirates, and took a share of their
booty as a reward for his protection; misapplied and embezzled the
king’s revenue and other moneys appropriated for special and public
uses; gave away and took for himself, for nominal quit-rents, extensive
tracts of land; and used improper influence in securing the election of
his friends to the general assembly.

A man of such a character could hardly be a satisfactory governor of
a province, the inhabitants of which were still divided between the
bitterly antagonistic factions of Leislerians and anti-Leislerians,
without in a short time gaining the ill-will and enmity of one of
them. The men whose official position, as members of the council,
gave them the first opportunity of influencing the new governor were
anti-Leislerians. Fletcher therefore joined this party, without
perhaps fully understanding the cause of the dissensions. His lack of
administrative abilities, coupled with his affiliation with one party,
gave sufficient cause to the other to make grave charges against him,
which resulted in his recall in 1697.

In the mean time the assembly had begun the struggle for legislative
supremacy which characterizes the inner political life of New York
during the whole period of British dominion.

It enacted two laws which were the principal source of all the party
disputes during the following decades. One of these laws established a
revenue, and thereby created a precedent which succeeding assemblies
did not always consider necessary to acknowledge, while the executive
would insist upon its being followed. The other erected courts of
justice as a temporary measure, and when they expired by limitation,
and a later governor attempted to erect a court without the assent of
the assembly, this law, too, was quoted as precedent, but was likewise
ignored.

In 1694 the assembly discovered that, during the last three years, a
revenue of £40,000 had been provided for, which had generally been
misapplied. Governor Fletcher refused to account for it, as, according
to his ideas of government, the assembly’s business was only to raise
money for the governor and council to spend. This resulted in a
dissolution of the assembly, as in the council’s judgment “there was no
good to be expected from this assembly,” and very little was done by
its successor, elected in 1695. But not satisfied with vetoing the Bill
of Rights, the home authorities tried further to repress the growing
liberal movement in New York by giving to Fletcher’s successor, the
Earl of Bellomont, an absolute negative on the acts of the provincial
legislature, so that no infringement upon the prerogatives of the
crown might become a law. He was further empowered to prorogue the
assembly, to institute courts, appoint judges, and disburse the
revenues. The Bishop of London was made the head of all ecclesiastical
and educational matters in the province, and no printing-press was
allowed to be put up without the governor’s license.

Bellomont, in addressing the first assembly under his administration,
made a bid for popular favor by finding fault with the doings of his
predecessor, who had left him as a legacy “difficulties to struggle
with, a divided people, an empty treasury, a few miserable, naked,
half-starved soldiers, being not half the number the king allowed pay
for, the fortifications, and even the governor’s house, very much out
of repairs, and, in a word, gentlemen (he said), the whole government
out of frame.” The assembly was to find remedies, that is, money
wherewith to repair all these evils. How they did it is shown by a
speech made to them by Bellomont a month later: “You have now sat a
whole month ... and have done nothing, either for the service of his
Majestie or the good of y^e country.... Your proceedings have been
so unwarrantable, wholy tending to strife and division, and indeed
disloyal to his Majestie and his laws, and destructive to the rights
and libertys of the people, that I do think fit to _dissolve_ this
present assembly, and it is _dissolved_ accordingly.”

Having come with the best intentions of curing the evils of Fletcher’s
rule, and being instructed to break up piracy, of which New York had
been represented in England as the very hot-bed, Bellomont soon became
popular, and no doubt grew in favor with the people, both by persuading
the assembly to enact a law of indemnity for Leisler, whose body, with
that of Milbourne, was now granted the honors of a public reinterment,
and by bringing Kidd, the celebrated sea-rover, to justice. To-day that
which was meted out to Kidd might hardly be called justice; for it
seems questionable if he had ever been guilty of piracy.

Bellomont was not allowed to carry out his plans for the internal
improvement of the province, for death put an end to his work at
the end of the third year of his administration, in 1701. His
successor, Lord Cornbury, who entered upon his duties early in 1702
(Lieutenant-Governor Nanfan having had meanwhile a successful contest
with the leaders of the still vigorous anti-Leisler party), was sent
out as governor by his cousin, Queen Anne, in order to retrieve his
shattered fortune. The necessitous condition in which he arrived in
New York and his profligate mode of life soon led him to several
misappropriations of public funds, which resulted in a law, passed
by the disgusted assembly of 1705, taking into their own hands the
appointment of a provincial treasurer for the receipt and disbursement
of all public moneys. The whole of Cornbury’s administration was
occupied with a contest between the assembly and the crown: the
former claiming all the privileges of Englishmen under Magna Charta;
the latter, through its governor, maintaining its prerogatives, and
saying that the assembly had no other rights and privileges “but such
as the queen is pleased to allow.” Lord Cornbury’s recall did not
mend matters.[472] The assembly of 1708, the last under Cornbury’s
administration, had been dissolved, because in its tenacity of the
people’s right it had declared that to levy money in the colony without
consent of the general assembly was a grievance and a violation of
the people’s property; that the erecting of a court of equity without
consent of the general assembly was contrary to law, both without
precedent and of dangerous consequences to the liberty and properties
of the subjects.

[Illustration]

The term of Cornbury’s successor, Lord Lovelace, was very short, death
calling him off within six months, while the lieutenant-governor,
Ingoldsby, was a man too much like his friends, Sloughter, Fletcher,
and Cornbury, to improve the state of affairs. With Governor Robert
Hunter’s commission there came, in 1710, the answer to the declaration
of the assembly of 1708. He received thereby “full power and authority
to erect, constitute, and establish courts of judicature, with the
advice and consent of the council.” The assembly’s remonstrance had
been met by ignoring its author, and this treatment naturally incensed
the representatives of the people so much that all the efforts of
Governor Hunter, a man of excellent qualities, the friend of Addison
and Swift, availed nothing in the way of settling the existing
differences.

[Illustration: GOVERNOR HUNTER.

Follows an engraving in Valentine’s _N. Y. City Manual_, 1851, p. 420.
Cf. on the seals of the colonial governors, _Hist. Mag._, ix. p. 176.]

After two years’ administration, Governor Hunter had to confess to the
Lords of Trade that he could not expect any support of the government
from the assembly, “unless her Majesty will be pleased to put it
entirely into their own hands;” and in 1715 he appointed Lewis Morris,
a wealthy man, as successor to the deceased Chief Justice Mompesson,
“because he is able to live without salary, which they [the assembly]
will most certainly never grant to any in that station.” He found that
he could not carry on the government without yielding, and thereby
acting contrary to his instructions, and during the summer of 1715 came
to an understanding with the assembly. “I asked,” he says, in a letter
to the Lords of Trade, “what they would do for the Government if I
should pass it (the Naturalization Bill) in their way, since they did
not like mine; I asked nothing for myself, tho’ they well knew that I
had offers of several thousands of pounds for my assent; they at last
agreed that they would settle a sufficient Revenue for the space of
five years on that condition; many rubs I met with, but at last with
difficulty carry’d through both parts of the Legislature and assented
to both at the same time. If I have done amiss, I am sorry for’t, but
what was there left for me to do? I have been struggling hard for bread
itself for five years to no effect and for four of them unpitty’d, I
hope I have now laid a foundation for a lasting settlement on this
hitherto unsettled and ungovernable Province.”

In asserting their rights as representatives of the _people_ and
compelling the executive finally to acknowledge them, the assembly had
followed the course which has been shown to be effective in the English
Parliament since the days of William III. But the legislative supremacy
over the executive established by this victory was greater than that
obtained by Parliament. In New York the executive could only collect
taxes when first authorized by the legislature, while the people,
through their representatives, kept the control of the sums collected
in their own hands by appointing the receiving and disbursing officers.

Hunter’s wise course in yielding on several points had a better
effect on the province than at first he was willing to confess.
Fletcher had found the people of New York “generally very poor and
the government much in debt, occasioned by the mismanagement of those
who have exercised the King’s power.” The revenues of the province
were in such deplorable condition that several sums of money had to be
borrowed on the personal credit of members of the council to pay the
most pressing debts of government; the burden of war, unjustly placed
on the shoulders of New York, had impoverished the inhabitants and
almost destroyed their usefulness as taxpayers; while the neighboring
colonies, either refusing to assist in the defence of the frontiers
against the French or being dilatory in sending their quota of money
and men, reaped the advantage of New York’s patriotism by receiving
within their boundaries the bulk of the foreign trade, and by adding
to their population the majority of emigrants. When Hunter left
the province, after ten years’ service as its governor, he could
congratulate the assembly on increased prosperity and on a better state
of public affairs.

His successor was the comptroller of customs at London, William Burnet,
the son of the celebrated bishop, who exchanged places with Hunter.
Smith, the historian, describes him as “a man of sense and polite
breeding, a well-read scholar, sprightly and of social disposition....
He used to say of himself, ‘I act first and think afterwards.’” The
good reports which preceded Burnet made a favorable impression on the
colonial assembly, and the whole period of his administration was
undisturbed by constitutional disputes, even though people opposed to
him tried to create trouble by asserting that the appointment of a new
governor of the province required, like the accession of a new king,
the election of a new assembly, and by representing the continuance of
an assembly under two governors as unconstitutional.

Burnet’s distrust of the neighboring French caused some stir in
mercantile circles. He had an act passed forbidding all trade in Indian
goods with Canada,—an act which would have benefited the province in
general by securing all the Indian trade, a large part of which now
found its way to Canada; but the merchants of New York and Albany,
who disposed of their surplus to Canada traders, would have made less
profits. They consequently opposed Burnet’s plans until the end of his
administration (1728).

[Illustration]

During the three years of John Montgomerie’s rule, which was ended
by his death, in 1731, New York enjoyed some rest, to be violently
disturbed, however, by the claims of his successor. It had been usual
in the royal instructions of the governor to fix the salary of the
president of the council at half the amount allowed to the executive,
and it was customary to provide that in the absence, resignation, or
death of the governor or lieutenant-governor he should assume the
reins of the government. Upon Montgomerie’s death, Rip van Dam, as
eldest member of the council, became president, and then claimed the
full salary of the governor, which the council, after five months’
deliberation, finally allowed. It was upon this decision that the
famous Zenger libel suit of a few years later hinged. Soon after the
arrival of the new governor, William Cosby, Rip van Dam was called
upon (November, 1732) to restore to the treasury a moiety of the
full salary, which, under the decision of the council, he had been
receiving in contravention, as was claimed, of the royal instructions.
On the refusal of the president to comply, the attorney-general of the
province was directed to begin an action in the king’s name “to the
enforcing a Due Complyance with the said Order [to refund] according to
the true Intent thereof and of his Majestie’s Additional Instruction.”

At the trial, the chief justice, Lewis Morris, surprised the governor,
the attorney-general, and the whole aristocratic party (Van Dam and
his friends representing the popular party) by informing the king’s
counsel, in the first place, that the question to be discussed was one
of jurisdiction, involving the right of the court to decide cases of
equity; and in the second place, that he denied such jurisdiction, and
in general the right of the king to establish courts of equity.[473]
Jealous to maintain the royal prerogatives, Cosby removed Morris from
the chief-justiceship, and put De Lancey, the second justice, in his
place. Finding his efforts to be reinstated without result, and having
no other means to avenge himself, Morris had recourse to the press,
and in _Zenger’s New York Weekly Journal_ he attacked the governor
with extreme rancor, and attempted to influence the general assembly,
to which he had been elected, against the king’s authority to erect
courts. Even Cosby’s death, in 1736, could not conciliate him. The
attacks upon his administration continued, and Morris’s vindictiveness
finally even disturbed the council and the assembly. President Clarke,
who had temporarily succeeded Cosby, was deterred from arresting Van
Dam, the younger Morris, Smith the historian, and Zenger the printer,
to be sent to England to be tried for treason, only because the
forty-fifth paragraph of the instructions required positive proof of
the crime in such cases.

The trial of Zenger had, however, already shown that it was not
safe to accuse a man of a crime when a jury had already acquitted
him. The first number of the _Weekly Journal_ appeared on the 5th
of November, 1733; and its editor had from the beginning made war
upon the administration with so much vigor that in January following
the chief justice, De Lancey, “was pleased to animadvert upon the
doctrine of libel in a long charge given in that term to the grand
jury,”[474] hoping to obtain an indictment against Zenger. The jury
did not share the opinions of the chief justice, and failed to indict
Zenger. Nor was the general assembly willing to concur in a subsequent
resolution of the council that certain numbers of the _Journal_ should
be publicly burnt by the hangman, “as containing in them many things
derogatory of the dignity of his majesty’s government, reflecting
upon the legislature and tending to raise seditions and tumults in
the province,” and that the printer should be prosecuted. The burning
of the papers (November 2, 1734), carried out by special order of the
council alone, was in appearance far from the solemn judicial act which
it was meant to be. The sheriff and the recorder of New York, with a
few friends, stood around the pile, while the sheriff’s negro, not
the official hangman, set fire to it. The municipal authorities, who
usually have to attend such ceremonies _ex officio_, and were ordered
to do so in this case, had refused to come, and would not even allow
the order to be entered in the proper records, because they considered
it to be neither a royal mandatory writ nor an order authorized by law.
Zenger’s trial began on the 4th of August, and resulted in a verdict of
“Not guilty.”

The publishing of the alleged libel had been admitted, but it was
claimed to be neither false, nor scandalous, nor malicious. When the
New York lawyers who had been engaged in the defence were disbarred,
Andrew Hamilton, a prominent pleader from Philadelphia, took the
case. He managed it so adroitly, met the browbeating of De Lancey so
courageously, and pleaded the cause of his client so eloquently that
he at once achieved a more conspicuous fame than belonged to any other
practitioner at the bar of that day. The corporation of New York fell
in with the popular applause in conferring upon him the freedom of
their city, enclosing their seal in a box of gold, while they added the
“assurances of the great esteem that the corporation had for his person
and merits.”[475]

The result of Zenger’s trial established the freedom of the press in
the colonies,[476] for it settled here the right of juries to find
a general verdict in libel cases, as was done in England by a law
of Parliament passed many years later, and it took out of the hands
of judges appointed to serve during the king’s pleasure, and not
during good behavior, as in England, the power to do mischief.[477]
It also gave a finishing blow to the Court of Exchequer, which, after
the case of Cosby _versus_ Van Dam, never again exercised an equity
jurisdiction, and it suppressed the royal prerogative in an assumed
right to establish courts without consulting the legislature. The
jurisdiction hitherto exercised by the Supreme Court as a Court of
Exchequer—that is, in all matters relating to his majesty’s lands,
rights, rents, profits, and revenues—had always been called in
question by colonial lawyers, because no act of the general assembly
countenanced it. It was, therefore, a relief to everybody in the
province when the legislature, in 1742, passed an “Act for regulating
the payment of the Quit-Rents,” which in effect, though not in name,
established on a firm basis a branch of the Supreme Court as a Court of
Exchequer. As then instituted, it passed into the courts of the state,
and was only abolished in December, 1828.

The excitement over the Zenger trial had hardly had time to subside
when Rip van Dam again disturbed the public mind by claiming,
after Cosby’s death, that he as eldest councillor was entitled to
be president of the council, and as such to be acting governor,
although he had been removed from the council by Cosby. Before the
quarrel could attain too threatening dimensions, Clarke’s commission
as lieutenant-governor happily arrived, and Van Dam’s claim was
set at rest. Clarke’s administration of the province was in the
main a satisfactory one. He had lived nearly half a century in New
York,[478] and was thoroughly conversant with its resources and its
needs, and, assisted by a good education as a lawyer, he found little
difficulty in managing the refractory assembly and in gaining most of
his important legislative points. His greatest victory was that by
certain concessions he induced the assembly of 1739 to grant again a
revenue to the king equivalent to the civil list in England, which
had been refused since 1736, but was continued during the whole of
Clarke’s administration. Although perhaps never unmindful of his own
interests, he had also the good of the province at heart, and it must
be regretted that a plan, drawn up while he was yet secretary, for
colonizing the Indian country was not fully carried out and bore no
fruits. He proposed to buy from the Iroquois about 100,000 acres of
land, the purchase money to be raised either by subscription or by
the issue of bills of credit. Every Protestant family made acquainted
with the conditions and wishing to settle was to have 200 acres at
nominal quit-rents. All the officials who were entitled to fees from
the issue of land patents agreed to surrender the same, so that it
would have imposed upon the settlers only the cost of improvements.
The neighboring colonies had industriously spread the report that there
were few or no lands ungranted in the province of New York, and that
the expense of purchasing the remainder from the Indians or obtaining a
grant from the crown was greater than the price of land in Pennsylvania
and other colonies. Advertisements were therefore to be scattered over
Europe, giving intending emigrants a clear view of the advantages of
settling in the backwoods of New York. The plan reads very much like
a modern land-scheme. If it could, however, have been carried out in
those days, with all the governmental machinery to help it, the country
from the upper Mohawk to the Genesee would have been settled before the
Revolution, and Sullivan’s expedition might have become unnecessary and
a Cherry Valley massacre impossible.

The only great event of Clarke’s administration was the negro plot
of 1741, which for a while cast the city of New York into a state of
fear and attendant precautions, and these conditions were felt even
throughout the colonies. A close examination of the testimony given
at the trial of the alleged negro conspirators fails to convince
the modern investigator that the slaves, who had been misled by the
counsels of Roman Catholics, had really arranged a plan to murder all
the whites and burn the city. Fires had occurred rather frequently,
suspiciously so, during the spring of 1741, the negro riot of the
earlier years of the century was remembered, reports of negro
insurrections in the West Indies made slave-owners look askance at
their ebony chattels, an invasion of the British colonies in America
by France and Spain seemed imminent, and a rancorous hatred of the
Church of Rome and its adherents prevailed among the English and
Dutch inhabitants of New York, while tradition and the journal of the
proceedings against the conspirators assure us that some sort of a plot
existed; but we must still wonder at the panic occasioned among the ten
or twelve thousand white inhabitants by what, after all, may have been
only the revengeful acts of a few of the 20 whites and 154 negroes who
were indicted on the most insufficient evidence. It is doubtful whether
all who were indicted had anything to do with the fires or the intended
murder, but the judicial proceedings were of a nature to implicate
every one of the two thousand colored people in the county of New
York, and two thirds of the accused were found guilty, and were either
hanged, burnt at the stake, or transported.

Political astuteness, or perhaps a desire to enjoy in quiet his
advancing years, had led Clarke to yield to the popular party on all
important points. He had confined himself to wordy remonstrances in
surrendering several of his prerogatives. His successor, Admiral
George Clinton,—the second son of the Earl of Lincoln, and, as he
acknowledged himself, a friend and cousin of Charles Clinton, father of
Governor George Clinton of a later date,—found that the position of
governor had ceased to be financially desirable. New Jersey had been
again placed under a separate governor, thus reducing the income of the
governor of New York by £1,000. “Former governors,” it is reported,
“had the advantage of one of the four companies, besides the paying of
all the four companies, which made at least £2,000 per annum;” but now
the assembly had placed this in other hands.

[Illustration: GOVERNOR CLINTON.

From a plate in Valentine’s _N. Y. City Manual_, 1851.]

They had also interfered with a former custom, according to which
the governors drew one half of their salary from the date of their
commissions; but under the new arrangement for raising and paying the
salary he could only draw it from the date of his arrival. Clinton
brought with him a prejudice against his lieutenant-governor which
was perhaps justified, for he knew him to have led Cosby into all the
errors which characterized the latter’s administration. But instead
of maintaining an independent position apart from the two political
parties, he threw himself into the arms of the cunning Chief Justice
De Lancey, the leader of the popular faction. Acting under his advice,
Clinton at first was as ready to yield every point to the assembly as
Clarke had done, until he discovered that all the powers of a governor
were gradually slipping into De Lancey’s hand, who hoped to tire out
Clinton’s patience and induce him to resign, thus leaving the field
free to him with a commission of lieutenant-governor.

Clinton, upon his arrival at New York, had found, as Clarke predicted,
the province “in great tranquillity and in a flourishing condition,
able to support the government in an ample and honorable manner.” He
perhaps would have had no difficulty with the general assembly about
money grants, if he had been less distrustful of Clarke and more
willing to acknowledge the rights of the people in such matters. His
first measures of dissolving the old assembly, calling a new one,
and, perhaps for the first time in America, introducing a kind of
civil service reform by continuing in place all officers who had been
appointed by his predecessors, were received with great satisfaction
throughout the province, but they failed to loosen the strings of the
public purse, while the new assembly sought other measures to declare
their independence. Clarke’s advice, given before Clinton’s arrival,
that henceforth the assembly should allow the government a revenue for
a term of years, was not acted upon; but instead they voted the usual
appropriations for one year only. In voting salaries for officers, they
did not recognize the incumbents by name, and the council pronounced
this a device of the assembly to usurp the appointing power, and to
change the stipends of the officers at any time.

Walpole had meanwhile turned over the government in England to his
friend Pelham, a family connection of Governor Clinton. Macaulay
describes Pelham as a man with an understanding like that of Walpole,
“on a somewhat smaller scale.” During Pelham’s administration, a bill
was considered in the House of Commons in 1744, news of which, upon
reaching the colonies, did not fail to arouse their indignation. It
forbade the American colonies to issue bills of credit or paper money.
As these colonies had but little trade, and had to draw upon Europe
for the tools and necessaries of life in the newly opened wilderness,
the small amount of coin which they received from the West Indies and
the Spanish main in exchange for bread-stuffs and lumber, their only
articles of exportation, went across the ocean in part payment of their
debts, leaving no “instrument of association,” no circulating medium,
in their hands. To replace the coin, they had to have recourse to the
issue of paper money, without which all intercolonial and internal
trade would have been impossible. The parliamentary intention of
depriving the colonies of these means of exchange led the New York
assembly to declare that the bill was contrary to the constitution
of Great Britain, inconsistent with the liberties and privileges of
Englishmen, and subjected the British colonies in America to the
absolute will of the crown and its officers.

The efforts of Governor Clinton to reconcile the assembly by giving
his assent to all the bills passed by them in their first session did
not prevent their assuming greater powers than the House of Commons.
He could not obtain from them either money or men for the Cape Breton
expedition, set on foot by Governor Shirley of Massachusetts. Trying
to regain control of colonial politics, he stirred up a bitter feeling
among the popular party men; and after years of struggle, during which
the home government afforded him little comfort and support, Clinton
was willing to throw up his commission as governor of New York in 1751,
and return to England and resume his station as admiral.

The French of Canada had used many artifices and had been indefatigable
in their endeavors to gain over the Six Nations. They had cajoled
many of them to desert their own tribes and remove to Canada, and had
instigated others, whom they could induce to desert, to go to war with
the Catawba Indians, friends of South Carolina, thereby endangering
and weakening the allegiance of the Southern Indians to the British
interest. Commissioners had arrived, or were to come, from all the
other colonies, to meet the Six Nations at Albany and renew the
covenant chain. If Quidor (the Indian name for the governor of New
York) were to be absent on such an occasion, especially a Quidor who
already had made an excellent impression on the king’s red allies, the
council conceived that the meeting would not only be without result,
but that the Indians, considering themselves slighted, would turn a
more willing ear to the French, and thus endanger the existence of
the colonies. Clinton was luckily a man who considered duty higher
than any personal comfort, and on the 1st of July, 1751, opened the
conference with the Indians which may be said to have been one of
the most important in the history of the English colonies. Colonel
William Johnson was induced to withdraw his resignation as Indian
agent, which had made the Six Nations very uneasy, and a peace was
made between the Iroquois, of New York, and the Catawbas, which also
included their friends among the Southern Indians. There is not space
to say much of the Indian policy pursued by Governor Clinton and other
royal governors of New York. To use the Indian explanation, “they took
example from the sun, which has its regular course; and as the sun
is certain in its motion, New York was certain to the Indians in the
course of their mutual affairs, and deviated not in the least.” New
York alone had to bear the expenses (£1,150) of this conference, since
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and South Carolina refused to contribute,
while New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia were not represented. The
other colonies also refused to help New York in keeping the Iroquois
in good humor by supplying smiths to live in the Indian territory and
repair the savages’ guns and hatchets. New York has the benefit of the
Indian trade, they said; let her bear the burden. Pennsylvania, most
interested of all the middle colonies in keeping the Indians friendly,
had soon learned the evils of neglecting them. Armed parties of French
and savages came down into the valley of the Ohio in 1753, creating
great confusion among the Indians of Pennsylvania, and inducing nearly
all, the Delawares alone excepted, to join the French, as their best
recourse in the indifference of the English. At the same time the New
York Indians became dissatisfied at their treatment by the general
assembly, which would not allow the forts in the Indian country, at
Oswego and at Albany, to be maintained, preferring to trust to the
activity of the Indians for keeping the French and their savage allies
from devastating the northern frontier. Disgusted with the constant
struggle which the jealousy of the assembly and their encroachments
upon the royal prerogatives always kept alive, Clinton finally resigned
in October of 1753; astonishing the council, and especially his
political enemy De Lancey, the chief justice, before he surrendered
the office to his newly arrived successor, Sir Danvers Osborn, by the
production of a letter from the Duke of Newcastle, secretary of state,
dated October 27, 1747, which gave Clinton a leave of absence to come
to England, and covered De Lancey’s commission as lieutenant-governor.
This stroke of Clinton’s did not succeed very well. It is true, Sir
Danvers’ presence deprived the new lieutenant-governor of the pleasure
of showing himself as chief magistrate of the province, but it was to
be only for a few days. Sir Danvers, perceiving that the assembly of
New York was not a body easily led by royal commands, exclaimed, “What
have I come here for?” and hanged himself two days after taking the
necessary oath; and thus the lieutenant-governor, De Lancey, came into
power.

[Illustration: GOV. JAMES DE LANCEY.

From a plate in Valentine’s _N. Y. City Manual_, 1851. Cf. Lamb’s _New
York_, i. 543.]

De Lancey soon discovered himself in a dilemma. The oaths which he had
taken when entering upon his new office, and which he must have had
self-respect enough to consider binding, compelled him to maintain the
royal prerogatives and several obnoxious laws made for the colonies by
Parliament. On the other side, his political career and his bearing of
past years forced him to work for the continuation of the popularity
which his opposition to the very things he had sworn to do had gained
him. De Lancey was skilful enough to avoid both horns of this dilemma.
The assembly, rejoicing to see a man of their own thinking at the
head of affairs, passed money and other laws in accordance with the
lieutenant-governor’s suggestions, and quietly pocketed his rebukes,
when he saw fit to administer any. The two most important events during
his term were of such a nature that he could do nothing, or only very
little, to prevent or further action.

On the 11th of January, 1754, a great number of people assembled in
the city of New York, on account of a late agreement of the merchants
and others not to receive or pass copper half-pence in payment at any
other rate than fourteen to the shilling. The crowd kept increasing
until two o’clock in the afternoon, when the arrest of the man beating
the drum and of two others throwing half-pence into the mass quieted
them.

[Illustration: GOV. CADWALLADER COLDEN.

_From a plate in Valentine’s N. Y. City Manual, 1851, p. 420._]

Later there was the conference of commissioners of all the colonies
at Albany in July, 1754, convened to treat anew with the Iroquois,
and also to consider, in obedience to orders from England, a plan of
confederation for all the colonies. The deliberations and conclusions
of the congress in this last respect are made the subject of inquiry
in a later chapter of the present volume.[479] De Lancey was accused
of opposing this plan of union by his machinations. We may say that
such accusation was unjust. The general assembly of the province, to
whom the “representation of the state and plan for union” was referred,
that they might make observations thereupon, said in their report or
address to the lieutenant-governor, on the 22d of August, 1754: “We
are _of opinion with your Honor_, that nothing is more natural and
salutary than a union of the colonies for their own defence.” While
he transmitted the minutes of the congress at Albany to the Lords of
Trade without a word of comment, he may have used his private influence
to defeat the union; but there is no reason to believe that he acted
even in that wise from other than upright motives, and he had already
shown, in the New Jersey boundary question, how personal associations
had restrained him from interfering or giving an opinion. His sense of
duty in office was perhaps exaggerated, and he could not brook censure
by the home authorities. The receiver-general and other officers
entrusted with the collection of the king’s revenue desired the passage
of an act “for the more easy collecting his majesty’s quit-rents, and
for protection of land in order thereto.” The assembly and council
having passed such a bill, it came before the governor for his assent,
which he readily gave, supposing that an act favored by the king’s
officers could not meet with the disapproval of the government in
England. The Lords of Trade, however, rebuked him, and he sent in his
resignation.

[Illustration: GOV. MONCKTON.

From a plate in Valentine’s _N. Y. City Manual_, 1851.]

In the mean time, the appointment of Admiral Sir Charles Hardy as
governor had relieved De Lancey for a time (1755-57) from the cares
of the administration. Sir Charles allowed himself to be led by his
lieutenant-governor, and therefore the affairs of government went on
as smoothly as of late, excepting that the assembly made occasional
issues upon money bills, though that body was little inclined to press
their levelling principles too strongly against their old friend, the
lieutenant-governor, now that he was the adviser of the executive.
Sir Charles proved less fond of the cares of office than of the sea,
and after two years’ service resigned, to hoist his blue admiral’s
flag under Rear Admiral Holbourn at Halifax. De Lancey had therefore
to assume once more the government on the 3d of June, 1757, which he
administered, with little to disturb the relations between the crown
and the assembly, down to the time of his death, on July 30, 1760.
This event placed his lifelong adversary, Cadwallader Colden, in the
executive chair, first as president of the council, and a year later as
lieutenant-governor.

The policy of the royal representative was now very quickly changed.
The acquiescent bearing of De Lancey in his methods with the assembly
gave place to the more peremptory manner which had been used by
Clinton, whose friend Colden had always been. The records of the next
few years, during which Monckton, who was connected with the Acadian
deportation, was governor, show but the beginning of that struggle
between prerogative and the people which resulted in the American
Revolution, and a consideration of the immediate causes of that contest
belongs to another volume.

       *       *       *       *       *

The history of Pennsylvania, down to the appointment of Governor
Blackwell in 1688, has been told in a previous chapter.[480] The
selection of John Blackwell for the governorship was an unfortunate
one. A son-in-law of the Cromwellian General Lambert and a resident
of puritanical New England, he must have shared more or less in the
hatred of the Friends’ religion, so that his appointment to govern a
colony settled principally by this sect most likely arose from Penn’s
respect and friendship for the man and from his inability to find a
suitable Quaker willing to accept the office. Within two months after
his arrival, he had quarrelled with his predecessor, Thomas Lloyd,
then keeper of the broad seal, and the rest of the council. Shortly
after this he succeeded in breaking up the assembly, and before he had
been in the province one year he became convinced that his ideas of
governing did not meet with the approbation of the people, and returned
to England, leaving the administration in the hands of his opponent,
Lloyd.

After having acquired from the Duke of York the Delaware territory,
Penn endeavored to bring his province and the older settlements under
one form of government; but he could not prevent the jealousies,
caused often by difference of religious opinion and by desire for
offices, from raising a conflict which soon after Blackwell’s
departure threatened a dissolution of the nominal union. Lloyd
remained president of Pennsylvania, while Penn’s cousin, Markham, was
made lieutenant-governor of Delaware, under certain restrictions, as
detailed in a letter from Penn, which still left the supremacy to Lloyd
in matters of governing for the proprietary.

In the mean time James II. of England had been forced to give up his
crown to his son-in-law, and this event brought unexpected results to
the proprietary of Pennsylvania. Penn’s intimacy with the dethroned
Stuart, unmarred by their different religious views, made him at once a
suspicious person in the eyes of the new rulers of England. He had been
arrested three times on the charges of disaffection to the existing
government, of corresponding with the late king, and of adhering to
the enemies of the kingdom, but had up to 1690 always succeeded in
clearing himself before the Lords of the Council or the Court of King’s
Bench. At last he was allowed to make preparations for another visit
to his province “with a great company of adventurers,” when another
order for his arrest necessitated his retirement into the country,
where he lived quietly for two or three years. This blow came at a
most critical time for his province, distracted as it was by political
and religious disturbances, which his presence might have done much
to prevent. The necessity of keeping remote from observation did not
give him opportunity to answer the complaints which became current
in England, that a schism among the Quakers had inaugurated a system
of religious intolerance in a province founded on the principles of
liberty of conscience. The result of this inopportune but enforced
inactivity on Penn’s part was to deprive him of his province and
its dependency (Delaware), and a commission was issued to Benjamin
Fletcher, then governor of New York, to take them under his government,
October 21, 1692. Fletcher made a visit to his new territory, hoping,
perhaps, that his appearance might bring the opposing sections into
something like harmony. Quickly disabused of his fond fancy, and
disappointed in luring money from the Quakers, he returned to New
York, leaving a deputy in charge. About the same time, 1694, Penn had
obtained a hearing before competent authority in England, and having
cleared himself successfully of all charges, he was reinvested with his
proprietary rights. Not able to return to Pennsylvania immediately, he
transferred his authority to Markham, who continued to act as ruler of
the colony until 1699, when Penn visited his domain once more.

One of Penn’s first acts was to impress the assembly with the necessity
of discouraging illicit trade and suppressing piracy. He did it with so
much success that the assembly not only passed two laws to this effect,
but also took a further step to clear the government of Pennsylvania
from all imputations by expelling one of its members, James Brown, a
son-in-law of Governor Markham, who was more or less justly accused
of piracy. He was equally successful with his recommendations to the
assembly concerning a new charter, the slave-trade, and the treatment
and education of the negroes already in the province. But when, in
1701, he asked in the king’s name for a contribution of £350 towards
the fortifications on the frontiers of New York, the assembly decided
to refer the consideration of this matter to another meeting, or “until
more emergent occasions shall require our further proceedings therein.”

The evident intention of the ministry in England to reduce the
proprietary governments in the English colonies to royal ones, “under
pretence of advancing the prerogatives of the crown,” compelled Penn
to return to England in the latter part of 1701. But before he could
leave a quarrel broke out in the assembly between the deputies from the
Lower Counties, now Delaware, and those of the province. The former
were accused of having obtained some exclusive powers or rights for
themselves which the others would not allow them, and in consequence
the men of the Lower Counties withdrew from the assembly in high
dudgeon. After long discussions, and by giving promises to agree to a
separation of that district from the province under certain conditions,
Penn at last managed to patch up a peace between the two factions. He
then went to England.

The new charter for the province and territories, signed by Penn,
October 25, 1701, was more republican in character than those of the
neighboring colonies. It not only provided for an assembly of the
people with great powers, including those of creating courts, but to a
certain extent it submitted to the choice of the people the nomination
of some of the county officers. The section concerning liberty of
conscience did not discriminate against the members of the Church of
Rome. The closing section fulfilled the promise already made by Penn,
that in case the representatives of the two territorial districts could
not agree within three years to join in legislative business, the Lower
Counties should be separated from Pennsylvania. On the same day Penn
established by letters-patent a council of state for the province, “to
consult and assist the proprietary himself or his deputy with the best
of their advice and council in public affairs and matters relating
to the government and the peace and well-being of the people; and in
the absence of the proprietary, or upon the deputy’s absence out of
the province, his death, or other incapacity, to exercise all and
singular the powers of government.” The original town and borough of
Philadelphia, having by this time “become near equal to the city of
New York in trade and riches,”[481] was raised, by patent of the 25th
of October, 1701, to the rank of a city, and, like the province, could
boast of having a more liberal charter than her neighbors; for the
municipal officers were to be elected by the representatives of the
people of the city, and not appointed by the governor, as in New York.

The government of the province had been entrusted by Penn to Andrew
Hamilton, also governor for the proprietors in New Jersey, with James
Logan as provincial secretary, to whom was likewise confided the
management of the proprietary estates, thus making him in reality the
representative of Penn and the leader of his party. Hamilton died
in December, 1702; but before his death he had endeavored in vain
to bring the representatives of the two sections of his government
together again. The Delaware members remained obstinate, and finally,
while Edward Shippen, a member of the council and first mayor of
Philadelphia, was acting as president, it was settled that they should
have separate assemblies, entirely independent of each other.

The first separate assembly for Pennsylvania proper met at
Philadelphia, in October, 1703, and by its first resolution showed that
the Quakers, so dominant in the province, were beginning to acquire a
taste for authority, and meant to color their religion with the hue of
political power. According to the new charter, the assembly, elected
annually, was to consist of four members for each county, and was to
meet at Philadelphia on the 14th of October of each year, sitting upon
their own adjournments. Upon the separation of the legislative bodies
of the two sections, Pennsylvania claimed to be entitled to eight
members for each county, which, being duly elected and met, reasserted
the powers granted by the charter; but when the governor and council
desired to confer with them they would adjourn without conference. Upon
the objection from the governor that they could not sit wholly upon
their own adjournment, they immediately decided not to sit again until
the following March, and thus deprive the governor and council of every
chance to come to an understanding on the matter.

Before President Shippen could take any step toward settling
this question, John Evans, a young Welshman, lately appointed
deputy-governor by Penn, arrived in Philadelphia (December, 1703).
The new-comer at once called both assemblies together, directing them
to sit in Philadelphia in April, 1704, in utter disregard of the
agreement of separation. He renewed Hamilton’s efforts to effect again
a legislative union, and also failed, not because the Delaware members
were opposed to it, but because now the Pennsylvania representatives,
probably disgusted with the obstinacy of the former, absolutely
refused to have anything to do with them. Governor Evans took this
refusal very ill and resented it in various ways, by which the state
of affairs was brought to such a pass that neither this nor the next
assembly, under the speakership of David Lloyd, accomplished anything
of importance, but complained bitterly to Penn of his deputy. In the
latter part of the same year the first assembly for the Lower Counties
met in the old town of New Castle, and was called upon by Governor
Evans to raise a militia out of that class of the population who were
not prevented by religious scruples from bearing arms,—soldiers being
then needed for the war against France and Spain. About a year later,
having become reconciled with the Pennsylvania assembly of 1706, Evans
persuaded the Delaware representatives to pass a law “for erecting and
maintaining a fort for her Majesty’s service at the Town of New Castle
upon Delaware.” This law exacted a toll in gunpowder from every vessel
coming from the sea up the river.[482]

These quarrels between the governor and the assemblies were repeated
every year. At one time they had for ground the refusal of the Quakers
to support the war which was waging against the French and Indians on
the frontiers. At another they disagreed upon the establishment of a
judiciary. These disturbances produced financial disruptions, and Penn
himself suffered therefrom to such an extent that he was thrown into
a London prison, and had finally to mortgage his province for £6,600.
The recall of Evans, in 1709, and the appointment of Charles Gookin
in his stead, did not mend matters. Logan, Penn’s intimate friend
and representative, was finally compelled to leave the country; and,
going to England (1710), he induced Penn to write a letter to the
Pennsylvania assembly, in which he threatened to sell the province
to the crown, a surrender by which he was to receive £12,000. The
transfer was in fact prevented by an attack of apoplexy from which Penn
suffered in 1712. The epistle, however, brought the refractory assembly
to terms. After exacting a concession of their right to sit on their
own adjournment, they consented to the establishment of a judiciary,
without, however, a court of appeal, and finally yielded to passing
votes to defray the expenses of government. They even gave £2,000 to
the crown in aid of the war. Affairs went smoothly under Gookin’s
administration until, in 1714, the governor, whose mind is supposed
to have been impaired, began the quarrel again by complaining about
his scanty salary and the irregularity of payments. He also insisted
foolishly upon the illegality of affirmation; foolishly, because the
Quakers, who would not allow any other kind of oath, were the dominant
party in the province.[483] Not satisfied with the commotion he had
stirred up, he suddenly turned upon his friend Logan, and had now not
only the anti-Penn faction, but also Penn’s adherents, to contend
with. The last ill-advised step resulted in his recall (1717) and the
appointment of Sir William Keith, the last governor commissioned by
Penn himself; for the great founder of Pennsylvania died in 1718.

While after Penn’s death his heirs went to law among themselves about
the government and proprietary rights in Pennsylvania, Governor Keith,
who as surveyor of customs in the southern provinces had become
sufficiently familiar with Penn’s affairs, entered on the performance
of his duties under the most favorable conditions. The assembly had
become weary to disgust with the continuous disputes and altercations
forced upon them by the last two governors, and it was therefore
easily influenced by Sir William’s good address and evident effort to
please. Without hesitation it voted a salary of £500 for the governor,
and acted upon his suggestion to examine the state of the laws, some
of which were obsolete or had expired by their own limitations. The
province was somewhat disturbed by the lawsuit of the family for the
succession, finally settled in favor of Penn’s children by his second
wife, and by a war of the southern Indians with the Susquehanna and New
York tribes; but nothing marred the relations between governor and
legislature. Under the speakership of James Trent, later chief justice
of New Jersey (where the city of Trenton was named after him),[484]
an act for the advancement of justice and more certain administration
thereof, a measure of great importance to the province, passed the
previous year (1718), became a law by receiving the royal assent.
Governor Keith’s proposal in 1720 to establish a Court of Chancery met
with unqualified approval by the assembly. Under the next governor this
court “came to be considered as so great a nuisance” that after a while
it fell into disuse.

In 1721 the first great council which the Five Nations ever held with
the white people outside of the province of New York and at any other
place than Albany, N. Y., took place at Conestoga, and the disputes
which had threatened the outlying settlements with the horrors of
Indian war were amicably settled. The treaty of friendship made here
was confirmed the next year at a council held at Albany, as in the mean
time the wanton murder of an Iroquois by some Pennsylvania traders had
somewhat strained the mutual relations.

The commercial and agricultural interests of the province began
to suffer about this time for want of a sufficient quantity of a
circulating medium. Divers means of relief were proposed, among them
the issue of bills of credit. Governor Keith and the majority of the
traders, merchants, and farmers were enchanted with the notion of fiat
money, and overlooked or were unwilling to profit by the experiences
of other provinces which had already suffered from the mischievous
consequences of such a measure. The result was that, after considerable
discussion, turning not so much upon the bills of credit themselves as
upon the mode of issuing them and the method of guarding against their
depreciation, the emission of £15,000 was authorized, despite the order
of the king in council of May 19, 1720, which forbade all the governors
of the colonies in America to pass any laws sanctioning the issue of
bills of credit. It would lead us too far beyond the limits of this
chapter to inquire whether, as Dr. Douglass, of Boston, suggested in
1749, the assembly ordering this emission of £15,000 bills of credit,
and another of £30,000 in the same year, was “a legislature of debtors,
the representatives of people who, from incogitancy, idleness, and
profuseness, have been under a necessity of mortgaging their lands.”
All the safeguards thrown around such a currency to prevent its
depreciation proved in the end futile. The acts creating this debt
of £45,000[485] provided for its redemption a pledge of real estate
in fee simple of double the value, recorded in an office created for
that purpose. The money so lent out was to be repaid into the office
annually, in such instalments as would make it possible to sink the
whole original issue within a certain number of years. In the first
three years the sinking and destruction of the redeemed bills went on
as directed by law; but under its operation the community found itself
suffering from the contraction, although only about one seventh of the
debt had been paid. The legislature, therefore, passed a law (1726)
directing that the bills should not be destroyed, as the former acts
required, but that, during the following eight years, they should be
reissued. The population of the province, growing by natural increase
and by immigration, seeming to require a larger volume of currency, a
new emission of £30,000 was ordered in 1729 under the provisions of
the laws of 1723. In 1731 the law of 1726 was reënacted, to prevent
disasters which threatened the farmer as well as the merchant, and
to avoid making new acts for emitting more bills. In 1739 the amount
of bills in circulation, £68,890, was increased to £80,000, equal to
£50,000 sterling, because the legislature had discovered that the
former sum fell “short of a proper medium for negotiating the commerce
and for the support of the government.” They justified this step, and
tried to explain why a pound of Pennsylvania currency was of so much
less value than a pound sterling by asserting that the difference arose
only from the balance of Pennsylvania’s trade with Great Britain, which
was in favor of the former, since more English goods found their way
here now that bills of credit had become the fashion. The act of 1739
had made the bills then in circulation irredeemable for a short term
of years, which in 1745 was extended to sixteen years more under the
following modifications: the first ten years, up to 1755, no bill was
to be redeemed, or, if redeemed, was to be reissued; after 1755 one
sixth of the whole amount was to be paid in yearly and the bills were
to be destroyed. In 1746 a further issue of £5,000 for the king’s use
was ordered, to be sunk in ten yearly instalments of £500 each, and
in 1749 Pennsylvania currency, valued in 1723 at thirteen shillings
sterling per pound, had, like all other colonial money, so far
depreciated that a pound was equal to eleven shillings and one and one
third pence.[486]

When the limit of the year 1755 was reached many of the bills of credit
had become so torn and defaced that the assembly ordered £10,000 in new
bills to be exchanged for the old ones. In the mean time the French war
had begun, and to support the troops sent over from England £60,000
were issued in bills to be given to the king’s use.

By this time Pennsylvania had become so largely in debt as to make her
taxes burdensome. Notwithstanding a hesitation to increase the volume
of indebtedness, her assembly felt called upon by reason of the war
to contribute her share of the cost of it, and in September, 1756, a
further issue of £30,000 was authorized under a law which provided for
the redemption of the bills in ten years by an excise on wine, liquor,
etc. If this excise should bring in more than was necessary, the
“overplus” was to go into the hands of the king.[487]

Governor Keith took care to increase his popularity with the assembly,
and thereby to advance his own personal interest in a greater degree
than was compatible with his allegiance to the proprietary’s family.
Having managed to free himself from the control of the council, who
were men respecting their oaths and friends of the Penn family, he
incurred the displeasure of the widow of the great Quaker, and in 1726
was superseded by Patrick Gordon. Keith and his friend David Lloyd had
vainly endeavored to persuade Hannah Penn that her views concerning
the council’s participation in legislative matters were erroneous,
and that the council was in fact created for ornamental purposes and
to be spectators of the governor’s actions. This opinion of Keith was
of course in opposition to the instructions which he had received.
Fully to understand the condition of affairs, we must remember that
the government of this colony was as much the private property of the
proprietary as the soil; and that in giving instructions to his deputy
and establishing a council to assist the deputy by their advice, the
proprietary did no more than a careful business man would do when
compelled to absent himself from his place of business,—or at least
such were the views of the Penns.

The even tenor of political life in Pennsylvania, the greater part of
whose inhabitants were either Quakers, religiously opposed to any kind
of strife, or Germans, totally ignorant of the modes of constitutional
government, was somewhat disturbed during the first two or three years
of Gordon’s administration by Keith’s intrigue as a member of the
assembly, to which he was soon chosen. We are told that he endeavored
by “all means in his power to divide the inhabitants, embarrass the
administration, and distress the proprietary family.” He grew, however,
as unpopular as he had been popular; and when he finally returned to
England, where he died about 1749, the colony again enjoyed quiet for
several years.

Governor Gordon had in his earlier life been bred to arms, and he had
served in the army with considerable repute until the end of Queen
Anne’s reign. As a soldier he had learned the value of moderation; and
not forgetting it in civil life, his administration was distinguished
by prudence and a regard for the interests of the province, while
his peaceful Indian policy secured for the colony a period of almost
unprecedented prosperity. Planted in 1682, nearly fifty years later
than her neighbors, Pennsylvania could boast in 1735 that her chief
city, Philadelphia, was the second in size in the colonies, and her
white population larger than that of Virginia, Maryland, and the
Carolinas.

The death of Hannah Penn, the widow of the first proprietor, in
1733, threatened to put a sudden stop to Gordon’s rule, since the
assembly, deeming his authority to be derived from Hannah Penn, and
to end with her death, refused him obedience. The arrival of a new
commission, executed by John, Thomas, and Richard Penn, quickly settled
this question, as well as another point. The king’s approval of it
reserved specially to the crown the government of the Lower Counties,
if it chose to claim it. Of the progress in Gordon’s time towards the
settlement of the disputed boundary with Maryland, the recital is given
in another chapter.[488]

Upon Gordon’s death, in 1736, James Logan, the lifelong friend of
Penn, succeeded as president of the council, but gave place, after two
uneventful years, to the new governor, George Thomas, who had been
formerly a planter in the island of Antigua.

A promise of continued quiet was harshly disturbed when the governor
authorized the enrolment of bought or indented servants in the militia.
Opposed to the use of military arms under all conditions, the Quakers
who owned these enrolled servants, of whom 276 had been taken, were
still more aggrieved by having their own property appropriated to such
uses. The assembly finally voted the sum of £2,588 to compensate the
owners for the loss of their chattels, but the feeling engendered by
the governor’s action was not soothed. The relations between governor
and assembly became strained; the governor refusing to give his assent
to acts passed by the assembly, and the latter neglecting to vote
a salary for the governor. This condition of affairs may have led
to the serious election riots which disturbed Philadelphia in 1742.
The governor, who had only received £500 of his salary, began to be
embarrassed, and was in the end induced by his straits to assent to
bills beyond the pale of his instructions, while the assembly soothed
him by no longer withholding his salary. In this way good feeling and
quiet were restored, and when, in 1747, he decided to resign, the
regret of the assembly was unfeigned.

After a short interregnum, during which Anthony Palmer, as president
of the council, ruled the province, James Hamilton was appointed
deputy-governor by the proprietors, Richard and Thomas Penn. He entered
upon his duties with good omens. He was born in the country, and his
father had somewhat earlier enjoyed an eminence from the result of
the Zenger trial such as no lawyer in America had enjoyed before. For
a while the assembly and Hamilton were mutually pleased; but as, in
time, he withheld his assent to bills that infringed the proprietary’s
right to the interest of loans, the assembly was arrayed against
him, and rendered his position so unpleasant that in 1753 he sent to
England his resignation, to take effect in a year. His place was taken
by Robert Hunter Morris, son of the chief justice of New Jersey, who
was, like Hamilton, a man thoroughly conscientious and conversant with
the political life in the colonies. Very early in his term he came in
conflict with the assembly on a money bill, which his instructions
would not allow him to sign. Hampered by these orders, he was unable
to rely upon his judgment or feelings and to act independently; hence
very soon, in 1756, he resigned, and retired to New Jersey, where he
died in 1764.

The state of affairs under the next governor, William Denny, is shown
by a passage in one of his early messages. “Though moderation is most
agreeable to me,” he says to the assembly, “there might have been a
governor who would have told you, the whole tenor of your message
was indecent, frivolous, and evasive.” Again the instructions were
the cause of all trouble. The governor was in duty bound to withhold
his assent from every act for the emission of bills of credit that
did not subject the money to the joint disposal of the governor and
assembly, and from every act increasing the amount of bills of credit
or confirming existing issues, unless a provision directed that the
rents of proprietary lands were to be paid in sterling money, while
the taxes on these lands could not become a lien on the same. The
treasury of the province was on the verge of complete bankruptcy,
when the governor rejected a bill levying £100,000 on all real and
personal property, including the proprietary lands. Seeing no other
way out of the dilemma, the assembly amended their bill by exempting
the proprietary interests from taxation, but they sought their revenge
by sending an agent, Benjamin Franklin, to England to represent their
grievances to the crown. Franklin reached London in July, 1757, and
entered immediately upon a quarrel with the proprietors respecting
their rights, from which he issued as victor. Denny, tired of the
struggle, and in need of money, finally disobeyed his instructions,
gave his assent to obnoxious bills, and was recalled, to give way to
Hamilton, who in 1759 was again installed.

Hamilton went through his second term without strife. There were too
many external dangers to engage the assembly’s attention. Parliament,
in anticipation of a Spanish war, had appropriated £200,000 for
fortifying the colony posts; the assembly took the province’s share of
it, £26,000, and made ready to receive the Spanish privateers, to whose
attacks by the Delaware the country lay invitingly open. The danger
was not so great as it seemed. In 1763 Hamilton was superseded by John
Penn, the son of Richard and grandson of William Penn.

       *       *       *       *       *

During these later years, Pennsylvania could justly be called the
most flourishing of the English colonies. A fleet of four hundred
sail left Philadelphia yearly with the season’s produce. The colony’s
free population numbered 220,000 souls, and of these possibly half
were German folk, who had known not a little of Old World oppression;
one sixth were Quakers, more than a sixth were Presbyterians, another
sixth were Episcopalians, and there were a few Baptists. The spirit
and tenets of the first framers of its government, as the Quakers
had been, were calculated to attract the attention of oppressed
sectaries everywhere, and bodies of many diversified beliefs, from
different parts of Europe, flocked to the land, took up their abodes,
and are recognized in their descendants to-day. Conspicuous among
these immigrants were those of the sect called Unitas Fratrum, United
Brethren, or Moravians, who settled principally in the present county
of Northampton. Though they labored successfully among the Indians in
making converts, it was rare that they succeeded in uniting to their
communion any of their Christian neighbors. The Moravians had been
preceded by a sect of similar tenets, the adherents of Schwenckfeld.
They had come to Pennsylvania in 1732 and mostly settled in the present
county of Montgomery. Still earlier a sort of German Baptists, called
Dunkers, Tunkers, or Dumplers, coming to America between 1719 and 1729,
had found homes in Lancaster County. Another sect of Baptists, the
followers of Menno Simon, or Mennonists,—like the Friends, opposed to
taking oaths and bearing arms,—had begun to make their way across the
ocean as early as 1698, induced thereto by information derived from
Penn himself. Like the Dunkers, they chose Lancaster County for their
American homes.

But there were other motives than religious ones. There came many
Welsh, Irish, and Scotch farmers. The Welsh were a valuable stock;
the same cannot be said of the Irish, who began to come in 1719, and
continued to arrive in such large numbers that special legislation in
regard to them was required in 1729. An act laying a duty on foreigners
and Irish servants imported into the province was passed May 10, 1729.
This act was repealed, but many features of it were embodied in an act
of the following year, imposing a duty on persons convicted of heinous
crimes, and preventing poor and impotent persons being imported into
the province. It must be acknowledged that the Catholic religion,
professed by these immigrants, had not a little to do with the temper
of the legislation which restrained them, in a colony which had been
modelled on the principles of religious freedom. It was not assuring,
on the other hand, for the legislators to discover that the sympathy
which the Roman priests showed for the French enemies of the province
foreboded mischief.

       *       *       *       *       *

It has been told in a previous chapter how New Jersey passed from the
state of a conquered province to that of a proprietary or settled
colony, and how little the change of dynasty in England affected the
public affairs of this section of the middle colonies. The proprietors
of East New Jersey had grown weary of governing the province, and
in April, 1688, had drawn up an act surrendering their share. The
revolutionary disturbances in England which soon followed prevented
action upon this surrender; but when, at the beginning of the next
century, the proprietors of West New Jersey also showed themselves
willing to surrender the burden and cares of government to the crown,
the Lords of Trade gave it as their opinion that no sufficient form of
government had ever been formed in New Jersey, that many inconveniences
and disorders had been the result of the proprietors’ pretence of
right to govern, and advised the Law Lords to accept the surrender.
The proprietors reserved to themselves all their rights in the soil of
the province, while they abandoned the privilege of governing. East
and West New Jersey, now become again one province, was to be ruled
by a governor, a council of twelve members appointed by the crown, and
twenty-four assembly-men elected by the freeholders. The governor was
given the right of adjourning and dissolving the assembly at pleasure,
and of vetoing any act passed by council and assembly, his assent being
subject to the approval or dissent of the king.

When surrendering in 1701 their rights of government, the proprietors
recommended, for the office of royal governor, Andrew Hamilton, their
representative in the colony, in whose ability and integrity they had
the fullest confidence, and who during his previous terms as governor
had also won the admiration and reverence of the governed. Intrigues
against Hamilton, instituted by two influential proprietors, Dockwra
and Sonmans, and by Colonel Quary, of Pennsylvania, resulted in
Hamilton’s defeat and the appointment of Edward Hyde, Lord Cornbury,
who was already governor of New York. Cornbury published his commission
in New Jersey on the 11th of August, 1703, and inaugurated, by his
way of dealing with the affairs of the colony, the same series of
violent contests between the governor and the people, represented by
the assembly, that had served under him to keep New York unsettled.
Complaints made by the proprietors against him in England had no
effect, although he had clearly violated his instructions, by
unseating three members of the assembly; by making money the proper
qualification for election to the same, instead of land; and by
allowing an act taxing unprofitable and waste land to become a law.
His successor, John, Lord Lovelace, appointed early in 1708, arrived
in New York early in December of the same year. He had various schemes
for the improvement of both colonies, but it is doubtful whether his
previous position of cornet in the royal horse-guards had fitted
him for administrative and executive work. A disease was, moreover,
already fastened upon him, which in a few months carried him off. His
successor, Major Richard Ingoldsby, is best described by Bellomont,
under whom he had previously served in New York. “Major Ingoldesby
has been absent from his post four years,” says Bellomont in a letter
to the Lords of Trade, October 17, 1700, “and is so brutish as to
leave his wife and children here to starve. Ingoldesby is of a worthy
family, but is a rash, hot-headed man, and had a great hand in the
execution of Leisler and Milburn, for which reason, if there were no
other, he is not fit to serve in this country, having made himself
hatefull to the Leisler party.” Cornbury understood the man so fully
that he would not allow him to act as lieutenant-governor of either
New York or New Jersey, to which office he had been appointed in 1704.
Ingoldsby’s commission as lieutenant-governor was revoked in 1706, but
he was admitted as a member of the council for New Jersey. It seems
that the order revoking the commission was not sent out to New York in
1706, for upon Lord Lovelace’s death he assumed the government, and
acted so brutally that, when news of it reached England, a new order
of revocation was issued. In the short interval before the arrival of
his successor, Governor Robert Hunter, who published his commission
in New Jersey in the summer of 1710, Ingoldsby had managed to get
into conflict with the assembly, largely formed of members from the
Society of Friends, and brought about the state of affairs which
we may call usual in all the British colonies ruled by a governor
appointed by the king, and by an assembly elected by the people. Hunter
must be termed the first satisfactory governor of New Jersey. Early
in his administration he met with opposition from those who so far
had slavishly followed the royal governor. These opponents were the
council of the province, who objected to every measure which Governor
Hunter, advised by Lewis Morris and other influential members of the
Quaker or country party, deemed necessary for the public good. The
council was entirely under the thumb of Secretary Jeremiah Basse, who,
having been an Anabaptist minister, agent in England for the West
Jersey Society, governor of East and West Jersey, had shared in the
obloquy attached to Lord Cornbury’s administration. Public business
threatened to come to a standstill, as the home authorities were slow
in acting on recommendations to remove the obnoxious members of the
council. Hunter constantly prorogued the assembly of New Jersey; “it
being absolutely needless to meet the assembly so long as the council
is so constituted,” he writes to the Lords of Trade, June 23, 1712,
“for they have avowedly opposed the government in most things, and by
their influence obstructed the payment of a great part of the taxes.”
But it was not until August, 1713, that the queen approved of the
removal of William Pinhorn, Daniel Coxe, Peter Sonmans, and William
Hall from the council, in whose places John Anderson, a wealthy trader
and farmer of Perth Amboy, John Hamilton, postmaster-general of North
America, and John Reading, of West Jersey, were appointed. William
Morris, recommended in place of Sonmans, had died meanwhile. Sonmans
stole and took out of the province all public records, and, having
gone to England with his booty, he used the papers to injure Governor
Hunter in the estimation of the people of New Jersey, while “our men
of noise” agitated against him in the province and in its assembly.
No effort was spared to prevent a renewal of Hunter’s commission in
1714, and when he was reappointed notwithstanding, Coxe, Sonmans, and
their friends had so inflamed the “lower rank of people that only time
and patience, or stronger measures, could allay the heat.” At last it
became an absolute necessity to summon the assembly again, and an act
“for fixing the sessions of assembly in the Jersies at Burlington” was
passed in 1715, which became the cause of incessant attacks upon the
governor by Coxe and his party. Hunter, seeing the wheels of government
stopped by the factious absence of Coxe and his friends from the
legislative sessions, said to the assembly, May 19, 1716: “Whereas,
it is apparent and evident that there is at present a combination
amongst some of your members to disappoint and defeat your meetings as
a house of representatives by their wilful absenting themselves from
the service of their country ... I have judged it absolutely necessary
... to require you forthwith to meet as a house of representatives, and
to take the usual methods to oblige your fellow members to pay their
attendance.” The assembly, like a sensible body, aware that Governor
Hunter had always acted with justice and moderation, answered his
appeal to them by expelling on the 23d of May their speaker, Coxe, as
a man whose study it had been to disturb the quiet and tranquillity of
the province, and such other members as did not attend and could not be
found by the sergeant-at-arms of the house.

Coxe did not consider himself vanquished. An appeal to the king
followed. Coxe charged Hunter with illegal acts of every kind, and
his petition was numerously signed; but the council certified that
his subscribers were “for the most part the lowest and meanest of the
people,” and the king sustained and commended the governor. When, a few
years later, Hunter resolved to return to Europe to recover his health
at the baths of Aix-la-Chapelle, he could with pride assert that the
provinces governed by him “were in perfect peace, to which both had
long been strangers.”

William Burnet, who succeeded his friend Hunter, was not so amiable a
man, and showed the airs of personal importance too much to suit the
Quaker spirit which prevailed among the New Jersey people. He needed
money to live upon, however, and there was something of the Jacobite
opposition in the province for him to suppress. He had difficulty at
first in getting the assembly to pass other than temporary bills; but
in 1722 the governor and assembly had reached an understanding, and
Burnet passed through the rest of his term without much conflict with
the legislature, and when transferred to the chair of Massachusetts, in
1728, he turned over the government in a quiet condition, and with few
or no wounds unhealed.

The most notable event during the three years’ term of his successor,
Montgomerie, was the renewal of an effort, already attempted in
Burnet’s time, but defeated by him, to have New Jersey made again a
government separate from New York. “By order of the house 4th 5mo,
1730,” John Kinsey, Junr., speaker, signed a petition to the king for
a separate governor. Montgomerie died July 1, 1731, and Lewis Morris,
as president of the council, governed till September, 1732, when Cosby,
the new governor, arrived. The grand jury of Middlesex tried to further
the attempt for a separate government in 1736, but nothing was done
till Cosby died, when Morris, whom Cosby had shamefully maligned,
received the appointment from a grateful king, and New Jersey was again
possessed of a separate governor.

Governor Morris published his commission at Amboy on the 29th of
August, 1738; at Burlington a few days later. The council, with the
assembly, expressed the thanks and joy of the people in unmeasured
terms, prophetically seeing trade and commerce flourish and justice
more duly and speedily administered under the new rule. The pleasant
relations between the governor and the representatives of the people
which these expressions of satisfaction seemed to foreshadow were not
to be of long duration. “There is so much insincerity and ignorance
among the people, ... and so strong an inclination in the meanest
of the people to have the sole direction of all the affairs of the
government,” writes Morris to his friend Sir Charles Wager, one of
the treasury lords, May 10, 1739, “that it requires much more temper,
skill, and constancy to overcome these difficulties than fall to every
man’s share.” Under these influences, Morris, the former leader of the
popular party, betrayed them, and tried to obey his instructions to the
very letter. Following the example set by Cosby, of New York, in regard
to the salary of an absent governor and a present lieutenant-governor
or president of the council, he began to quarrel with John Hamilton,
who as president had temporarily acted as governor. Fortunately
for Morris’s reputation, this case did not grow into such a public
scandal as the Cosby-Van Dam case, mentioned above, and was quietly
settled in the proper way. The assembly, having early discovered that
Morris was not an easy man to deal with, tried to discipline him by
interfering with the disposal of the revenue granted for the support
of the government, and finally refused to pass supply bills unless the
governor disobeyed his instructions and assented to bills enacted by
them. The wheels of the governmental machinery threatened to come to
a standstill for want of money, when Morris, after an illness of some
weeks, died at Trenton on the 21st of May, 1746, leaving the government
of the province to his whilom adversary. John Hamilton, as president of
the council, who was then already suffering from ill health, prorogued
the assembly, then sitting at Trenton, and reconvened them at Perth
Amboy, his own home. Relieved of their political enemy, Morris, the
assembly became more amenable to reason, and during Hamilton’s brief
administration “chearfully made provision for raising 500 men” for the
Canada expedition, and lent the government £10,000 to arm and equip
the New Jersey contingent. Hamilton soon succumbed to his disease, and
died June 17, 1747. When John Reading, another member of the council,
succeeded to power, his administration of a few months was mainly
signalized by riots at Perth Amboy,—in which Reading was roughly
handled. These disturbances were caused by an act to vacate and annul
grants of land and to divest owners of property which had been bought
some years before from the Indians.

Jonathan Belcher, after being removed in 1741[489] from the executive
office of Massachusetts, had gone to England, where, with the
assistance of his brother-in-law, Richard Partridge, the agent at
court for New Jersey, he obtained the appointment of governor of this
province. When he first met the council and assembly of New Jersey, on
the 20th of August, 1747, he said to them, “I shall strictly conform
myself to the king’s commands and to the powers granted me therein,
as also to the additional authorities contained in the king’s royal
orders to me, and from these things I think you will not desire me
to deviate.” Belcher had not yet had occasion to arouse the anger of
the assembly, when the latter, at their first session, of unusual
long duration (fourteen weeks), already showed their distrust of him
by voting his salary for one year only, and not “a penny more” than
to the late governor, who had “harast and plagued them sufficiently.”
Belcher was too well inured to colonial politics openly to manifest his
anger at such treatment, or to tell the assembly that he considered
them “very stingy,” as he called them in a letter to Partridge. His
administration gave evidence of his ability to yield gracefully up to
the limits of his instructions; but when a conflict with his assembly
could not be avoided, he faced it stubbornly. On the whole, his rule
resulted in a much-needed quiet for the province, which was only
briefly disturbed by the riots already mentioned, which had begun
before Belcher’s arrival. The members of the assembly, who depended
largely for their election on the votes of these rioters, sympathized
with the lawless element in Essex and other counties; but in the end
wiser counsels prevailed, and the disturbances ceased.

In another part of the province the dispute over the boundary line
with New York, as it affected titles of land, was also a source
of agitation, which in Belcher’s time was the cause of constant
remonstrance and appeal and of legislative intervention, but he left
the question unsettled, a legacy of disturbance for later composition.

Age and a paralytic disorder, which even the electrical apparatus
that Franklin sent to Belcher could not remove, ended Belcher’s life
on the 31st of August, 1757, leaving the government in the hands of
Thomas Pownall, who, on account of Belcher’s age and infirmity, had
been appointed lieutenant-governor in 1755. Pownall was at the time of
Belcher’s death also governor of Massachusetts. After a short visit to
New Jersey he found “that the necessity of his majesty’s service in the
government of the Massachusetts Bay” required his return to Boston, and
his absence brought the active duties of the executive once more upon
Reading, as senior counsellor, who, through age and illness, was little
disposed towards the burden.

The arrival, on the 15th of June, 1758, of Francis Bernard, bearing
a commission as governor, relieved Reading of his irksome duties.
Bernard had, during his short term, the satisfaction of pacifying the
Indians by a treaty made at Easton in October, 1758. The otherwise
uneventful term of his administration was soon ended by his transfer
to Massachusetts. His successor, Thomas Boone, after an equally short
and uneventful term, was replaced by Josiah Hardy, and the latter by
William Franklin, the son of the great philosopher. The latter had
secured his appointment through Lord Bute, but nothing can be said in
this chapter of his administration, which, beginning in 1762, belongs
to another volume.[490]

       *       *       *       *       *

The possible injury which a development of the manufacturing interests
in the colonies might inflict on like interests in Great Britain
agitated the mind of the English manufacturer at an early date.
Already in Dutch times this question of manufactures in the province
of New Netherland had been settled rather peremptorily by an order
of the Assembly of the Nineteen, which made it a felony to engage
in the making of any woollen, linen, or cotton cloth. The English
Parliament, perhaps influenced by the manufacturers among their
constituents, or not willing to appear as legislating in the interest
of money, declared, in 1719, “that the erecting of manufactories in
the colonies tends to lessen their dependence on Great Britain,” and
a prohibition similar to that of the Dutch authorities was enacted.
During the whole colonial period this feeling of jealousy interfered
with the development of industries and delayed their growth. Whatever
England could not produce was expected to be made here, such as naval
stores, pearlash and potash, and silks; but the English manufacturer
strenuously set himself in opposition to any colonial enterprise which
affected his own profits.

Shipbuilding and the saw-mill had early sprung from the domestic
necessities of the people. The Dutch had made the windmill a striking
feature in the landscape of New York. The people of Pennsylvania had
been the earliest in the middle colonies to establish a press, and it
had brought the paper-mill in its train, though after a long interval;
for it was not till 1697 that the manufacture of paper began near
Philadelphia, and not till thirty years later (1728) was the second
mill established at Elizabethtown in New Jersey. The Dutch had begun
the making of glass in New York city, near what is now Hanover Square,
and in Philadelphia it was becoming an industry as early as 1683;
though if one may judge from the use of oiled paper in the first houses
of Germantown, the manufacture of window-glass began later. Wistar,
a palatine, erected a glass-house near Salem, in West New Jersey, in
1740, and Governor Moore, of New York, in 1767, says of a bankrupt
glass-maker in New York that his ill success had come of his imported
workmen deserting him after he had brought them over from Europe at
great cost.

The presence of iron ore in the hills along the Hudson had been known
to the Dutch, but they had made no attempt to work the mines, relying
probably to some extent upon Massachusetts, where “a good store of
iron” was manufactured from an early date. Towards the end of the
seventeenth century, when the ore was tried, the founders discovered
the iron to be too brittle to encourage its use. Lieutenant-Governor
Clarke tried to arouse interest for the iron industry in 1737,
and induced the general assembly to consider the advisability of
encouraging proprietors of iron-works; but the movement came to
nothing, and Parliament did what it could to thwart all such purposes
by enacting a law “to encourage the importation of pig and bar iron
from his Majesty’s Colonies in America, and to prevent the erection
of any Mill or other Engine for Slitting or Rolling of Iron; or any
plating Forge to work with a Tilt Hammer; or any Furnace for making
Steel in any of the said Colonies.” When this act was passed in 1750
only a single plating-forge existed in the province of New York, at
Wawayanda, Orange County, which had been built about 1745, and was
not in use at the time. Two furnaces and several blomaries had been
established about the same time in the manor of Cortland, Westchester
County, but a few years had sufficed to bring their business to a
disastrous end.

In 1757 the province could show only one iron-work at Ancram, which
produced nothing but pig and bar iron. At this same establishment,
owned by the Livingstons, in the present Columbia County, many a cannon
was cast some years later to help in the defence of American liberties.
In 1766 we find a little foundry established in New York for making
small iron pots, but its operations had not yet become very extensive.

The first iron-works in New Jersey seem to have been opened by an
Englishman, James Grover, who had become dissatisfied with the rule
of the Dutch and the West India Company, and had removed from Long
Island to Shrewsbury, New Jersey, where he and some iron-workers from
Massachusetts set up one of the first forges in the province.

In 1676 the Morris family, which later became so prominent in colonial
politics, was granted a large tract of land near the Raritan River,
with the right “to dig, delve, and carry away all such mines for iron
as they shall find” in that tract. The smelting-furnace and forge
mentioned in an account of the province by the proprietors of East
New Jersey, in 1682, employing both whites and blacks, was probably
on the Morris estate. The mineral treasures of the province, however,
remained on the whole undiscovered at the end of the century; but in
the following century several blomary forges and one charcoal-furnace
were erected in Warren County, the latter of which was still running
twenty-five years ago. Penn had early learned of the richness of his
province in iron and copper, though no attempt was made to mine them
till 1698. At this early period Gabriel Thomas mentions the discovery
of mineral ores, which were probably found in the Chester County of
that day, and the first iron-works in the province were built in that
region. Governor Keith owned iron-works in New Castle County (Delaware)
between 1720 and 1730, and had such good opinion of the iron industry
in the colonies that he considered them capable of supplying, if
sufficiently encouraged, the mother country with all the pig and bar
iron needed.

In 1718 we read of iron-works forty miles up the Schuylkill River,
probably the Coventry forge, on French Creek, in Chester County; also
of a forge in Berks or Montgomery County, which in 1728 became the
scene of an Indian attack. The mineral wealth of Lancaster County
soon attracted the attention of the thrifty Germans who had settled
there. In 1728 this county had two or more furnaces in blast, and the
number of them in the province increased rapidly up to the time of the
Revolution.

Upon the Delaware, the Dutch and Swedes seem to have neglected the ores
of silver, copper, iron, and other minerals, which they did not fail to
discover existed in that region; but an Englishman, Charles Pickering,
who lived in Charlestown, Chester County, Pennsylvania, appears to
have been the earliest to mine copper, and was on trial in 1683 on the
charge of uttering base coin. A letter written by Governor Morris, of
New Jersey, to Thomas Penn in 1755, speaks of a copper-mine at the Gap
in Lancaster County, which had been discovered twenty years previous by
a German miner.

It was New Jersey, however, which led in the working of copper ore.
Arent Schuyler, belonging to a Dutch family of Albany, New York,
prominent in politics and in other matters, had removed in 1710 to
a farm purchased at New Barbadoes Neck, on the Passaic River, near
Newark. There one of his negroes re-discovered a copper-mine, known
to the Dutch and probably worked before by them, asking as a reward
for it all the tobacco he could smoke, and the permission “to live
with massa till I die.” The ore taken from this mine proved to be so
very rich in metal, copper and silver, that Parliament placed it on
the list of enumerated articles, in order to secure it for the British
market. Arent Schuyler’s son John introduced into the middle colonies
the first steam-engine, requiring it to keep his copper-mine free from
water. The copper-mining industry found another adherent about 1750
in Elias Boudinot, who opened a pit near New Brunswick, and erected
there a stamping-mill, the products of which were sent to England and
highly valued there. When Governor Hunter, in a letter to the Lords
of Trade, November 12, 1715, speaks of “a copper mine here brought to
perfection,” he undoubtedly refers to a New Jersey or Pennsylvania
undertaking, for five years later he answers the question, “What mines
are in the province of New York?” with, “Iron enough, copper but rare,
lead at a great distance in the Indian settlement, coal mines on Long
Island, but not yet wrought.” The coal mines, which have added so much
to the wealth of Pennsylvania during the present century, had not been
discovered during the period preceding the Revolution.

It has been said above that the colonies were expected to engage in
the production of potash and pearlash. This was an industry already
recommended as profitable by the secretary of New Netherland in 1650.
The dearness of labor, however, interfered with its development, for
“the woods were infinite,” and supplied all the necessary material.
The attempt, about 1700, to employ Indians at this work failed, for
“the Indians are so proud and lazy.” About 1710 a potash factory was
established in the province of New York at the expense of an English
capitalist, who found it, however, a losing investment. Not discouraged
by previous failures, John Keble, of New Jersey, proposed to set up a
manufacture of potash. He petitioned for authority to do so, and from
his statements we learn that in 1704 Pennsylvania alone of the middle
colonies exported potash, and only to the amount of 630 pounds a year.
There is no information as to Keble’s success, but a memorial of London
merchants to the Lords of Trade in 1729, asking that the manufacture of
this important staple in the colonies might be encouraged, drew forth
the opinion that not enough was thought of this industry to “draw the
people from employing that part of their time (winter) in working up
both Wooling and Linen Cloth.”

Tradition points to many a house, in the region originally settled by
the Dutch, as having been built with bricks imported from Holland. That
such was not the rule, but only an exception, in the days of the West
India Company’s rule, is proved by the frequent allusion to brick-kilns
on the Hudson, near Albany and Esopus, and on the Lower Delaware. For
the convenience of transportation, the trade has centred in these
localities to this day.

The making of salt, either by the solar process or by other means, was
a necessity which appealed to the colonists at an early period. The
Onondaga salt-springs had been discovered by a Jesuit about 1654, but,
being then in the heart of the Indian country, they could not be worked
by the French or Dutch. Coney Island had been selected in 1661 as a
proper place for salt-works, but the political dissensions of the day
did not allow operations to go on there. The Navigation Act of 1663,
prohibiting the importation into the colonies of any manufactures of
Europe except through British ports, made an exception in favor of
salt. The result was that this industry was carried on in the middle
colonies during the colonial period only in a few small establishments,
furnishing not enough for local consumption.

When the palatines began to emigrate, and there was fear that they
would carry with them the art of making woollens, Parliament in 1709
forbade such manufactures in the colonies. In 1715 the towns-people
of New York and Albany, probably also of Perth Amboy, Burlington, and
Philadelphia, are reported as wearing English cloth, while the poor
planters are satisfied with a coarse textile of their own make. Nearly
two thirds of such fabrics used in the colonies were made there, and
the Lords of Trade were afraid that, if such manufacture was not
stopped, “it will be of great prejudice to the trade of this kingdom.”
Governor Hunter very sensibly opposed any legislation which would
force the people to wear English cloth, as it would be equivalent to
compelling them to go naked. A report of the Board of Trade, made in
1732, tells us that “they had no manufactures in the province of New
York that deserve mentioning;... no manufactures in New Jersey that
deserve mentioning.” “The deputy-governor of Pennsylvania does not know
of any trade in that province that can be considered injurious to this
kingdom. They do not export any woollen or linen manufactures; all that
they make, which are of a coarse sort, being for their own use.”

The statements embodied in reports of this kind were made upon
information acquired with difficulty, for the crown officers in the
colonies interrogated an unwilling people, who saw no virtue in
affording the grounds of their own business repression, and concealed
or disguised the truth without much compunction of conscience; and in
Massachusetts the legislative assembly had gone so far as to call to
account a crown officer who had divulged to the House of Commons the
facts respecting the exportation of beaver hats.

An address of the British House of Commons to the king, presented on
the 27th of March, 1766, called forth a description of the textile
manufactures in the province of New York at the close of the period of
which this chapter treats. The Society of Arts and Agriculture of New
York City had about this date established a small manufactory of linen,
with fourteen looms, to give employment to several poor families,
hitherto a charge upon the community. No broadcloth was then made
in the province, and some poor weavers from Yorkshire, who had come
over in the expectation of finding remunerative work, had been sadly
disappointed. But coarse woollen goods were extensively made. One of
these native textile fabrics, called linsey-woolsey, and made of linen
warp and woollen woof, became a political sign during the Stamp Act
excitement. People “desirous of distinguishing themselves as American
patriots” would wear nothing else. The manufacture of these coarse
woollens became an ordinary household occupation, and what was made in
excess of family needs found its way to market. Governor Moore says,
“This I had an opportunity of seeing during my late tour;... every
house swarms with children, who are set to work as soon as they are
able to spin and card; and as every family is furnished with a loom,
the itinerant weavers, who travel about the country, put the finishing
hand to the work.”

The making of beaver hats was an industry in which the colonial
competition with the English hatters led to most oppressive legislation
in Parliament. The middle colonies, particularly from their connection
with the beaver-hunting Indians, had carried the art to a degree which
produced a cheaper if not a better covering for the head than was
made in England, and they found it easy to market them in the West
Indies, where they excluded the English-made article. Accordingly the
export of hats from England fell off so perceptibly that in 1731 the
“Master Wardens and Assistants of the Company of Feltmakers of London”
petitioned the Lords of Trade to order that the inhabitants of the
colonies should wear no hats but such as were made in Great Britain.
The prayer was denied, but Parliament was induced, in 1732, to forbid
the exportation of hats from American ports.

But most trades in the colonies failed of the natural protection which
arises from cheap labor, while the opportunities of acquiring lands
and establishing homes with ample acres about them served further to
increase the difficulties of competition with the Old World, in that
artisans were attracted by lures of this kind to the new settlements,
and away from the shops of the towns.

       *       *       *       *       *

The commerce of the colonies easily fell into four different channels:
one took produce to England, or to such foreign lands as the navigation
laws permitted; the second bound the colonies one with the other in the
bonds of reciprocal trade; a third was opened with the Indians; and
the fourth embraced all that surreptitious venture which was known as
smuggling.

The ports of New York and Philadelphia absorbed the foreign and
transatlantic trade of the middle colonies, notwithstanding the efforts
which New Jersey made to draw a share of it to Perth Amboy. Before
Governor Dongan’s time, ships coming to Amboy had to make entry at New
York, as it was feared that goods brought to the New Jersey port and
not paying New York duties might be smuggled to New York by way of
Staten Island. “Two or three ships came in there [at Amboy] last year,”
writes Governor Dongan in 1687, “with goods, and I am sure that country
cannot, even with West Jersey, consume £1,000 in goods in 2 years, so
that the rest must have been run into this colony.” Some years later
the Lords of Trade decided that the charter did not give to either West
or East Jersey the right to a port of entry, but she, nevertheless, in
due time obtained the right to open such ports at Amboy and Burlington.
The displeasure of the New York authorities was manifest in the refusal
of their governor to make proclamation of such decree, and the larger
province was strong enough occasionally to seize a vessel bound for
Amboy. New Jersey could protest; but her indignation was in vain, and
she never succeeded in establishing a lucrative commerce. How steadily
the commerce of her neighbor increased is shown in the record that in
1737 New York had 53 ships with an aggregate of 3,215 tons; in 1747,
there were 99 ships of 4,313 tons; and in 1749, 157 with a capacity
of 6,406 tons. The records of the New York custom-house show that the
articles imported from abroad or from the other British colonies on
this continent and from the West Indies were principally rum, madeira
wine, cocoa, European goods, and occasionally a negro slave,[491] while
the exports of the colonies were fish and provisions.

New Jersey had little Atlantic trade, since New York and Philadelphia
could import for her all the European and West India goods which she
needed. In intercolonial trade, however, she had a large share, and she
supplied her neighbors with cereals, beef, and horses. New York, on
the contrary, was sometimes pressed to prevent certain exportations,
when she needed all her productions herself, as was sometimes the case
with cereals. This intercolonial trade naturally grew in the main out
of the products of the several colonies; while for their Indian trade,
they were compelled to use what the avidity of the natives called
for,—blankets, weapons, rum, and the trinkets with which the Indian
was fond of adorning his person, and for all which he paid almost
entirely in furs. The nature of this traffic was such, particularly in
respect to the sale of arms and spirits, that legislation was often
interposed to regulate it in the interest of peace and justice.

As respects the illegal or last class of commercial channels, we find
that before Bellomont’s time there had grown up, as he found, “a
lycencious trade with pyrats, Scotland and Curaçao,” out of which no
customs revenue was obtained. As a consequence, the city and province
of New York “grew rich, but the customes, they decreased.” Certain Long
Island harbors became “a great Receptacle for Pirates.” The enforcement
of the law gave Bellomont a chance to say, in 1700, that an examination
of the entries in New York and Boston had shown him that the trade of
the former port was almost half as much as that of the other, while New
Hampshire ports had not the tenth part of New York, except in lumber
and fish. The Philadelphia Quakers objected to fight the West Indian
enemies of the crown; but they had little objection to trade with them,
and to grow rich on such more peaceful intercourse.

Towards the end of the period spoken of in this chapter, a “pernicious
trade with Holland” had sprung up, which the colonial governors found
hard to suppress, but which was successfully checked in 1764 by the
English cruisers; but shortly before the War of Independence it began
again to flourish.

A diversity of trade brought in its train a great variety in the
coin, which was its medium, and a generation now living can remember
when the great influx of Spanish coin poured into the colonies in the
last century was still in great measure a circulating medium. The
indebtedness to the mother country which colonists always start with
continued for a long while to drain the colonies of its specie in
payment of interest and principal. As soon as their productions were
allowed to find openly or clandestinely a market in the Spanish main
and the West Indies, the return came in the pieces of eight, the Rix
dollars, and all the other varieties of Spanish or Mexican coinage
which passed current in the tropics. So far as these went to pay debts
in Europe, the colonies were forced to preserve primitive habits of
barter in wampum, beaver, and tobacco. By the time of Andros, foreign
trade and the increasing disuse of these articles of barter had begun
to familiarize the people with coin of French and Spanish mintage,
and at that time pieces of eight went for six shillings, double reals
for eighteen pence, pistoles for twenty-four shillings. Soon after
this the metal currency began to be very much diminished in intrinsic
value by the practice of clipping. Both heavy and light pieces were
indiscriminately subjected to this treatment, and the price of the
heavier pieces of eight advanced in consequence, so that in 1693 a
standard of weight had to be established, and it was determined by
a proclamation that “whole pieces of eight of the coins of Sevill,
Mexico, and Pillar pieces of 15 pennyweight not plugg’d” should pass at
the rate of 6 shillings; pieces of more weight to increase or lose in
value 4-1/2 pence for each pennyweight more or less. Pieces of eight
of Peru were made current at fourpence for each pennyweight, and Dog
dollars at five shillings sixpence. English coin was of course current
in the colonies, and the emigrants of that day brought their little
hoard in the mintage of their European homes, instead of buying, as
to-day, letters of exchange or drafts payable in a currency unknown
to them. In 1753 it became necessary to enact, in New York, a law to
prevent the passing of counterfeit English half-pence and farthings,
and in the second half of the last century the coins mostly current,
besides English ones, were the gold Johannis of eighteen pennyweight,
six grains; Moidores of six pennyweight, eighteen grains; Carolines
of six pennyweight, eight grains; Double Loons (Doubloons) or four
Pistoles of seventeen pennyweight, eight grains; double and single
Pistoles; French Guineas (louis d’ors) of five pennyweight, four
grains; and Arabian Chequins of two pennyweight, four grains.

Of the middle colonies, New Jersey was the first to follow
Massachusetts in issuing paper money, which she did by authorizing the
issue of £3,000 in bills for the expedition against Canada in 1709.

       *       *       *       *       *

The people of the Netherlands and the Belgic provinces had profited
as little under religious persecution as the puritans and separatists
of New England, to become tolerant of other faiths when in the New
World they had the power of control. The laws of New Netherland were
favorable only to the Protestant Reformed Dutch Church, although Swedes
and Finns, who had come to New Sweden on the Delaware, were allowed to
worship according to the Lutheran ritual. The directors of the West
India Company, the supreme authority, did not approve of any religious
intolerance, and expressed themselves forcibly to that effect when
Stuyvesant tried to prosecute members of the Society of Friends. When
New York and New Jersey became English provinces, complete freedom
of religion was granted to them. This drew to them members of all
established churches and of nearly every religious sect of Europe,
the latter class largely increased by such as fled to New York from
Massachusetts to enjoy religious toleration. In 1686, in New York at
least, “the most prevailing opinion was that of the Dutch Calvinists.”
How the Roman Catholics were treated has been shown above. The same
reasons which had led to their proscription tried to impose upon the
colonies the Church of England, by directing the governors not to
prefer any minister to an ecclesiastical benefice unless he was of this
order. This royal command to the governors of New York and New Jersey
produced results which its originators probably did not contemplate.
It led to the incorporation of Trinity Church in New York, with the
celebrated and ever-reviving Anneke Jans trials growing out of it as
a fungus, and to the creating a demand for ministers of the Anglican
or Episcopal church which necessitated a school to educate them. This
was the King’s College, known to us of the present day as Columbia
College, chartered in 1754. The non-Episcopalians saw in this movement
the fulfillment of their fears, first aroused by the Ministry Act under
Governor Fletcher in 1693, tending towards the establishment of a
state church. Out of this dread and out of the difficulty in obtaining
ministers for the Dutch Reformed Church grew another educational
institution, the Queen’s College, now known as Rutgers College, in New
Brunswick, N. J. Another institution preceded it, the College of New
Jersey at Princeton. This was first founded by charter from President
Hamilton in 1746, and enlarged by Governor Belcher in 1747, who left,
by will, to its library a considerable number of books. The proprietors
of Pennsylvania, always thoughtful of the weal of their subjects, gave,
in 1753, $15,000 to a charitable school and academy, founded four
years before in Philadelphia by public subscription. Two years later,
in 1755, it grew into the “College, Academy, and Charitable School
of Philadelphia,” by an act of incorporation, and to-day it is the
“University of Pennsylvania.”

Urged thereto by the founder of the independence of the Netherlands,
William the Silent, Prince of Orange, the states-general had adopted
in the sixteenth century the system of universal education, which, in
our days, the New England States claim as their creation. Hence we find
schools mentioned and schoolmasters at work from the beginning of the
New Netherland; and though at first no classics were taught, even at so
early a date as 1663 we read of a government schoolmaster who taught
Greek and Latin. The assembly of New York passed, in 1702, an act for
the encouragement of a free grammar school, and favored generally the
primary education of the children of their constituents. New Jersey
did not lag in the good work. In 1765 she had 192 churches of all
denominations except the Roman Catholic, and we may safely suppose
that a school was connected with nearly every church. The Moravians of
Pennsylvania imitated the example set to them at home, and established
boarding-schools at Nazareth, Bethlehem, and Litiz. The small number
of schools among the “Dissenters,” as the Rev. Samuel Johnson calls
all non-Episcopalians, induced him, however, to say, in 1759, that
“ministers and schools are much wanted in Pennsylvania.”


CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

I. THE MANUSCRIPT SOURCES OF NEW YORK HISTORY. (_By Mr. Fernow._)—New
York has taken the lead among the American States in the extent of the
printed records of her history.[492] In the archives at Albany there
are certain manuscript documents illustrating the period now under
consideration deserving mention.

“When first his Royall Highnesse, the Duke of York, took possession of
this Province [New York], he ... gave him [Gov^r Nicolls] certain Laws,
by which the Province was to be governed.” Several copies of these,
_Duke’s Laws_ (1674), were made, and they were sent to the different
districts, Long Island, Delaware, the Esopus, and Albany, into which
the province was then divided.[493]

The so-called _Dongan’s Laws_ (1683 and 1684) make a manuscript
volume, containing the laws enacted by the first general assembly of
the province during the years 1683 and 1684. It has upon its original
parchment cover a second title, evidently written at a later date: “The
Duke of York’s Charter of Liberty & Priviledges to the Inhabitants of
New York, anno 1683, with Acts of Assembly of that year & the year
1684.” The laws are mainly a reënactment of the Duke’s Laws, and are
now deposited in the State library. They have never been printed.

The _Original Colonial Laws_ (1684-1775) make nineteen volumes of
manuscripts, now in the office of the secretary of state at Albany, of
which such as had not in the mean time expired by their own limitation
were printed in 1694,[494] 1710, and 1726, by William Bradford; in 1719
by Baskett; in 1762 by Livingston and Smith; in 1768 by Parker, and in
1773 by Van Schaack. The Bradford edition of 1710 contains also the
journal of the general assembly, etc.

Those _Bills which failed to become Laws_ (1685-1732) make three
volumes of manuscript, and though the measures proposed never became
operative they show the drift of public opinion during the period
covered by them. Several of these bills have been bound into the
volumes of laws.

The student of colonial commerce and finances will find much to
interest him in other manuscript volumes, now in the State library at
Albany, to wit: _Accounts of the Treasurer of the Province_, under
various titles, and covering the period from 1702 to 1776, eight
volumes, and _Manifest Books and Entry Books of the New York Custom
House_, 1728 to 1774, forty-three volumes. Much information coveted by
the genealogist is hidden in the _Indentures of Palatine Children_,
1710 and 1711, two volumes; in forty volumes of _Marriage Bonds_, 1752
to 1783, of which an index was published in 1860 under the title _New
York Marriages_; and in the records kept in the office of the clerk
of the Court of Appeals,—_Files of Wills_, from 1694 to 1800, and of
_Inventories_, 1727 to 1798.

Out of the 28 volumes of _Council Minutes_, 1668 to 1783, everything
relating to the legislative business before the council has been
published by the State of New York in the _Journal of the Provincial
Council_. The unpublished parts of these records—the seven volumes of
“Warrants of Survey, Licenses to Purchase Indian Lands,” 1721 to 1766,
the fourteen “Books of Patents,” 1664 to 1770, the nineteen “Books of
Deeds,” 1659 to 1774, and the thirty-four volumes of “Land Papers,”
from 1643 to 1775—give as complete a history of the way in which the
colony of New York gained its population as at this day it is possible
to obtain without following the many private histories of real estate.
The above-mentioned “Books of Deeds” contain papers of miscellaneous
character, widely differing from deeds, such as commissions, letters
of denization, licenses of schoolmasters, etc. Of the “Land Papers” a
_Calendar_ was published by the State in 1864.[495]

A public-spirited citizen of Albany, General John Tayler Cooper,
enriched in 1850 the State library with twenty-two volumes of
manuscripts, containing the correspondence of Sir William Johnson, the
Indian commissioner. This correspondence covers the period from 1738 to
1774, and is important for the political, Indian, social, and religious
history of New York. Extracts from it appeared in Dr. O’Callaghan’s
_Documentary History of New York_ (vol. ii.).[496]

Less important for the period treated of in this chapter are the
_Clinton Papers_, especially the later series; but of the first
importance in the study of the French wars are the _Letters of Colonel
John Bradstreet_, deputy quartermaster-general, and _The Letters of
General Sir Jeffrey Amherst_, commander-in-chief in America, dated New
York, Albany, etc., from 1755 to 1771, a manuscript volume presented to
the State library by the Rev. Wm. B. Sprague, D. D.[497]

An _Abridgment of the Records of Indian Affairs, transacted in the
Colony of New York from 1678 to 1751_, with a preface by the compiler,
is the work of Peter Wraxall, secretary for Indian affairs. It is a
manuscript of 224 pages, dated at New York, May 10, 1754.[498] It is to
be regretted that Wraxall’s complete record of these transactions has
not been preserved, as the few extracts of them handed down to us in
the _Council Minutes_ and in the _Documents relating to the Colonial
History of New York_ give us a great deal of curious and interesting
information.[499]

The religious life in the colony of New York during the early part of
the eighteenth century, as seen from the Episcopal point of view, is
well depicted in a manuscript volume (107 pp. folio), _Extracts from
Correspondence of the Venerable Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel in Foreign Parts with the Missionaries T. Payer, S. Seabury, and
others, from 1704 to 1709_.[500] The history of trade and business is
likewise illustrated in the _Commercial Letters_ of the firm P. & R.
Livingston, New York and Albany, from 1733 to 1738, and of Boston and
Philadelphia merchants during the same period, giving us a picture of
mercantile transactions at that time which a number of account-books
of N. De Peyster, treasurer of the colony and merchant in the city
of New York, and of the firm of Beverley Robinson & Morrison Malcom,
in Fredericksburg, now Patterson, Putnam County, N. Y., help to fill
out.[501]


II. CARTOGRAPHY AND BOUNDARIES OF THE MIDDLE COLONIES. (_By Mr. Fernow
and the Editor._)—The following enumeration of maps includes, among
others, those of a general character, as covering the several middle
colonies jointly, and they run parallel in good part with the sequence
named in an earlier section[502] on the “Cartography of Louisiana and
the Mississippi Basin under the French Domination,” so that many of the
maps mentioned there may be passed over or merely referred to here.[503]

There was little definite knowledge of American geography manifested by
the popular gazetteers of the early part of the last century,[504] to
say nothing of the strange misconceptions of some of the map-makers of
the same period.[505]

A German geographer, well known in the early years of the eighteenth
century, was Johann Baptist Homann, who, having been a monk, turned
Protestant and cartographer, and at nearly forty years of age set up,
in 1702, as a draftsman and publisher of maps at Nuremberg,[506] giving
his name till his death, in 1724, to about two hundred maps.[507]
Homann’s career was a successful one; he became, in 1715, a member of
the Academy of Science at Berlin, and was made the official geographer
of the Emperor Charles of Germany and of Peter the Great of Russia. A
son succeeded to the business in 1724, and, on his death in 1730, the
imprint of the family was continued by “the heirs of Homann,” at the
hands of some university friends of the son. Under this authority we
find a map, _Die Gross Britannischen Colonial Laender in Nord-America
in Special Mappen_ (_Homannsche Erben_, Nuremberg), in which nearly the
whole of New York is called “Gens Iroquois,” or “Irokensium.”

Contemporary with the elder Homann, the English geographer Herman Moll
was publishing his maps in London;[508] and of his drafting were the
maps which accompanied Thomas Salmon’s _Modern History or the State of
all Nations_, first issued between 1725 and 1739.[509] His map of New
England and the middle colonies is not carried farther west than the
Susquehanna.[510]

Mention has already been made of the great map of Henry Popple in
1732,[511] and of the maps of the contemporary French geographer
D’Anville;[512] but their phenomenal labors were long in getting
possession through the popular compends of the public mind. We find
little of their influence, for instance, in the _Gazetteer’s or
Newsman’s Interpreter, being a geographical Index of all the Empires,
Kingdoms, Islands, etc., in Africa, Asia, and America_. _By Laurence
Echard, A. M., of Christ’s College, Cambridge_ (London, 1741).[513]
In this New York is made to adjoin Maryland, and is traversed by the
Hudson, Raritan, and Delaware rivers; New Jersey lies between 39 and
40° N. L., and is bounded on the east by Hudson’s Bay; and Pennsylvania
lies between 40 and 43° N. L., but no bounds are given.

The French geographer’s drafts, however, were made the basis in
1752 of a map in Postlethwayt’s _Dictionary of Commerce_, which was
entitled _North America, performed under the patronage of Louis, Duke
of Orleans, First Prince of the Blood, by the Sieur d’Anville, greatly
improved by M. Bolton_.

The maps which, three years later (1755), grew out of the controversies
in America on the boundary claims of France and England have been
definitely classified in another place,[514] and perhaps the limit of
the English pretensions was reached in _A New and Accurate Map of the
English Empire in North America, representing their Rightful Claim,
as confirmed by Charters and the formal Surrender of their Indian
Friends, likewise the Encroachments of the French, etc. By a Society
of Anti-Gallicans. Published according to Act of Parliament, Decbr.,
1755, and sold by W^m. Herbert on London Bridge and Robert Sayer over
against Fetter Lane in Fleet Street_. This map is of some importance in
defining the location of the Indian tribes and towns.

The English influence is also apparent in a reissue of D’Anville, made
at Nuremberg by the Homann publishing house the next year: _America
Septentrionalis a Domino D’Anville in Gallia edita, nunc in Anglia
Coloniis in Inferiorem Virginiam deductis nec non Fluvii Ohio cursu
aucta, etc., Sumptibus Homanniorum Heredum, Noribergiæ, 1756_.[515] It
makes the province of New York stretch westerly to Lake Michigan.

       *       *       *       *       *

Respecting the special maps of New York province, a particular interest
attaches to _The Map of the Country of the Five Nations_, printed
by Bradford in 1724, which was the first map engraved in New York.
The _Brinley Catal._ (ii. no. 3,384, 3,446) shows the map in two
states, apparently of the same year (1724). It originally accompanied
Cadwallader Colden’s _Papers relating to an Act of the Province of New
York for the encouragement of the Indian trade_. It was reëngraved from
the first state for the London ed. of Colden’s Five Nations, in 1747,
and from this plate it has been reproduced on another page (chapter
viii.).[516]

[Illustration: CADWALLADER COLDEN’S MAP OF THE MANORIAL GRANTS ALONG THE
HUDSON.]

Another of Colden’s maps, made by him as surveyor-general of the
province, exists in a mutilated state in the State library at Albany,
showing the regions bordering on the Hudson and Mohawk rivers. It
was drafted by him probably at the end of the first quarter of the
eighteenth century,[517] and fac-similes of parts of it are annexed
(pp. 236, 237).

A map of the northern parts of the province, called _Carte du Lac
Champlain depuis le Fort Chambly jusqu’au Fort St. Frédéric, levée
par le Sieur Anger, arpenteur du Roy en 1732, faite à Québec, le 10
Octobre, 1748, signé de Lery_, indicates the attempted introduction of
a feudal system of land tenure by the French. The map is reproduced in
O’Callaghan’s _Doc. Hist. of New York_.

The province of New York to its western bounds is shown in _A Map of
New England and ye Country adjacent, by a gentleman, who resided in
those parts_. _Sold by W. Owen_ (London, 1755).

The New York State library has also a manuscript _Map of part of the
province of New York on Hudson’s River, the West End of Nassau Island,
and part of New Jersey. Compiled pursuant to order of the Earl of
Loudoun, Septbr. 17, 1757_. _Drawn by Captain [Samuel J.] Holland._
This is a map called by the Lords of Trade in 1766 “a very accurate and
useful survey, ... in which the most material patents are marked and
their boundaries described.”

Something of the extension of settlements in the Mohawk Valley at this
period can be learned from a manuscript _Map of the Country between
Mohawk River and Wood Creek, with the Fortifications and buildings
thereon in 1758_, likewise preserved in the State library.[518]

A drawn map of New York province and adjacent parts (1759), from Maj.
Christie’s surveys, is noted in the _King’s Maps_ (Brit. Mus.), ii. 527.

The boundary controversy between New York and New Jersey has produced
a long discussion over the successive developments of the historical
geography of that part of the middle colonies. An important map on
the subject is a long manuscript roll (5 × 2-6/12 feet), preserved in
Harvard College library, which has been photographed by the regents
of the University of the State of New York, and entitled _A copy of
the general map, the most part compiled from actual survey by order of
the commissioners appointed to settle the partition line between the
provinces of New York and New Jersey_. 1769. _By Ber^d. Ratzer._ [New
York, 1884.] 7-5/8 × 12-3/4 in.[519]

Respecting the controversy over the New Hampshire grants, see the
present volume (ante, p. 177), and Isaac Jennings’s _Memorials of a
Century_ (Boston, 1869), chapters x. and xi.

Of the special maps of Pennsylvania, the Holme map a little antedates
the period of our survey.[520] The Gabriel Thomas map of Pennsylvania
and New Jersey appeared near the end of the century (1698), and has
already been reproduced.[521] In 1728 we find a map of the Delaware and
Chesapeake bays in the _Atlas Maritimus et Commercialis_, published
at London. In 1730 we note the map of Pennsylvania which appeared in
Humphrey’s _Historical Account of the Society for the Propagation of
the Gospel in Foreign Parts_.[522]

[Illustration]

About 1740, in a tract printed at London, _In Chancery. Breviate.
John Penn, Thomas Penn, and Richard Penn, plaintiffs; Charles
Calvert, defendant_,[523] appeared _A map of parts of the provinces
of Pennsylvania and Maryland, with the counties of Newcastle, Kent,
and Sussex in Delaware, according to the most exact surveys yet made,
drawn in the year 1740_. The controversy over this boundary is
followed in chapter iv. of the present volume.

_A map of Philadelphia and parts adjacent, by N. Scull and G. Heap_,
was published in 1750, of which there is a fac-simile (folding) in
Scharf and Westcott’s _Philadelphia_, vol. i.

The annexed fac-simile (p. 239) is from a plate in the _London Mag._,
Dec., 1756.

A map to illustrate the Indian purchases, made by the proprietary, is
given in _An Enquiry into the Causes of the Alienation of the Delaware
and Shawanese Indians_ (London, 1759).[524]

Surpassing all previous drafts was a _Map of the Improved Part of
Pennsylvania, by Nicholas Scull, published in 1759, and sold by the
author in Second Street, Philadelphia. Engraved by Jas. Turner_. It was
reproduced in Jefferys’ _General Topography of North America_ (Nos.
40-42), and was reissued in London in 1770, and again as _A Map of
Pennsylvania, exhibiting not only the improved parts of the Province,
but also its extensive frontiers, laid down from actual surveys, and
chiefly from the late Map of N. Scull, published in 1770. Robert Sayer
& Bennett_ (London, 1775). The edition of 1770 was reëngraved in Paris
by Le Rouge.

Upon the boundary controversy between Pennsylvania and Virginia
respecting the “Pan handle,” see N. B. Craig’s _Olden Time_ (1843), and
the _St. Clair Papers_, vol. i. (_passim_).


EDITORIAL NOTES.

THE Leisler Papers constitute the first volume of the Fund Publications
of the _N. Y. Hist. Society’s Collections_, and embrace the journal
of the council from April 27 to June 6, 1689 (procured from the
English State Paper Office), with letters, etc., and a reprint of a
tract in defence of Leisler, issued at Boston in 1698, and called
_Loyalty Vindicated, being an answer to a late false, seditious, and
scandalous pamphlet, entitled “A letter from a Gent,” etc._[525] The
_Sparks Catal._ (p. 217) shows a MS. copy made of a rare tract in the
British Museum, printed in New York and reprinted in London, 1690,
called _A modest and impartial narrative of the great oppressions that
the inhabitants of their majestie’s Province of New York lye under
by the extravagant and arbitrary proceedings of Jacob Leisler and
his accomplices_. Sparks endorsed his copy as “written by a violent
enemy to Leisler; neither just, candid, nor impartial.”[526] Various
papers relating to the administration of Leisler make a large part of
the second volume of the _Documentary History of New York_, showing
the letters written by Leisler to Boston, the papers connected with
his official proceedings in New York, and his communications with the
adjacent colonies; the council minutes in Dec., 1689; proceedings
against the French and Indians; the papers relating to the transfer
of the fort and arrest of Leisler; the dying speeches of Leisler and
Milbourne; with a reprint of _A letter from a gentleman of the city
of New York to another_ (New York, 1698). There are a few original
letters of Leisler in the_ Prince Letters_ (MSS.), 1686-1700, in Mass.
Hist. Soc. cabinet.

The career of Leisler is traced in the memoir by C. F. Hoffman in
Sparks’s _Amer. Biog._, xiii. (1844), and in G. W. Schuyler’s _Colonial
New York_ (i. 337). Peleg W. Chandler examines the records of the
prosecution in his _American Criminal Trials_ (i. 255). Cf. also
_Historical Magazine_, xxi. 18, and the general histories, of which
Dunlap’s gives the best account among the earlier ones.[527]

       *       *       *       *       *

The student must, of necessity, have recourse to the general histories
of New York for the successive administrations of the royal governors,
and H. B. Dawson, in his _Sons of Liberty_ (printed as manuscript,
1859), has followed the tracks of the constant struggle on their part
to preserve their prerogatives.[528] Schuyler (_Colonial New York_, i.
394-460) follows pretty closely the administration of Fletcher. The
chapter on New England (_ante_, no. ii.) will need to be parallelized
with this for the career of Bellomont.

Under Nanfan, who succeeded Bellomont temporarily, Col. Bayard, who
had brought Leisler to his doom, was in turn put on trial, and the
narrative of the proceedings throws light on the factious political
life of the time.[529]

One of the most significant acts of Cornbury’s rule (1702-1708) was the
prosecution in 1707 of Francis Mackemie, a Presbyterian minister, for
preaching without a license.[530]

J. R. Brodhead, who gives references in the case (_Hist. Mag._, Nov.,
1863), charges Cornbury with forging the clause of his instructions
under which it was attempted to convict Mackemie, and he says that
the copy of the royal instructions in the State Paper Office contains
no such paragraph. “History,” he adds, “has already exhibited Lord
Cornbury as a mean liar, a vulgar profligate, a frivolous spendthrift,
an impudent cheat, a fraudulent bankrupt, and a detestable bigot. He is
convicted of having perpetrated one of the most outrageous forgeries
ever attempted by a British nobleman.”[531]

The few months of Lovelace’s rule (1708-9) were followed by a funeral
_Sermon_ when he died, in May, 1709, preached by William Vesey (New
York, 1709), which is of enough historical interest to have been
reprinted in the _N. Y. Hist. Coll._ (1880).

During 1720-1722, the Shelburne Papers (_Hist. MSS. Commission Report_,
v. 215) reveal letters of Peter Schuyler and Gov. Burnet, with various
other documentary sources.

There is a portrait of Rip van Dam, with a memoir, in Valentine’s
_Manual_ (1864, p. 713).

In 1732 and 1738 we have important statistical and descriptive papers
on the province from Cadwallader Colden.[532]

The narrative of the trial of Zenger was widely scattered, editions
being printed at New York, Boston, and London; while the principles
which it established were sedulously controverted by the Tory
faction.[533]

[Illustration]

The main printed source respecting the Negro Plot of 1741 is the very
scarce book by the recorder of the city of New York, Daniel Horsmanden,
_A Journal of the proceedings in the Detection of the Conspiracy formed
by some white people in conjunction with negro and other slaves for
burning the City of New York, and murdering the inhabitants, etc.,
containing_, I., _a narrative of the trials, executions, etc._; II.,
_evidence come to light since their execution_; III., _lives of the
several persons committed, etc._ (New York, 1744).[534]

The history of Pennsylvania during this period is a tale of the trials
of Penn,[535] the misgovernment of the province by representatives of
the proprietors, the struggles of the proprietary party against the
people, the apathy of the Quakers in the face of impending war, and the
determination of the assembly to make the proprietors bear their share
of the burdens of defence. The published _Pennsylvania Archives_ give
much of the documentary evidence, and the general histories tell the
story.

The Pennsylvania Hist. Soc., in vols. ix. and x. of their _Memoirs_,
published the correspondence of Penn with Logan, his secretary in the
colony, beginning in 1700. This collection also embraced the letters
of various other writers, all appertaining to the province, and was
first arranged by the wife of a grandson of James Logan in 1814; but
a project soon afterwards entertained by the American Philosophical
Society of printing the papers from Mrs. Logan’s copies was not
carried out, and finally this material was placed by that society at
the disposal of the Penna. Hist. Society. The correspondence was used
by Janney in his _Life of Penn_, and liberal extracts were printed in
_The Friend_ (Philadelphia, July, 1842-Apr., 1846) by Mr. Alfred Cope.
Mr. Edward Armstrong, the editor of the Historical Society’s volumes,
gathered additional materials from other and different sources. A
portrait of Logan is given in the second volume, which brings the
correspondence down to 1711. The material exists for continuing the
record to 1750, though Logan ceased to hold official connection with
the province in 1738.

Sparks (_Franklin’s Works_, vii. 25) says that “a history of James
Logan’s public life would be that of Pennsylvania during the first
forty years of the last century.” See the account of Logan in the _Penn
and Logan Correspondence_, vol. i.

The correspondence of Thomas and Richard Penn with a later agent
in Philadelphia, Richard Peters, is also preserved. In 1861 this
correspondence was in the possession of Mr. John W. Field, of
Philadelphia, when Mr. Charles Eliot Norton gave transcripts of a
portion of it (letters between 1750 and 1758) to the Mass. Hist.
Society.[536]

Of an earlier period, when Evans was deputy-governor, there are some
characteristic letters (1704, etc.) in a memoir of Evans communicated
by E. D. Neill to the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, Oct., 1872 (p.
421).

There is a biographical sketch of Sir William Keith in the Penna.
Historical Society’s _Memoirs_ (vol. i.).

There is a pencil-drawn portrait of Sir William Keith, with a painting
made from it, in the gallery of the Penna. Hist. Society. Cf. _Catal.
of Paintings, etc._ (nos. 77, 162), and Scharf and Westcott’s
_Philadelphia_ (i. 177). Some of the rare tracts in the controversy of
Governor Keith and Logan are noted in the _Brinley Catal._, ii. pp.
197-8. Cf. Hildeburn’s _Century of Printing_.

As to the position of the Quakers upon the question of defensive war,
there is an expressive letter, dated in 1741, of James Logan, who was
not in this respect a strict constructionist of the principles of his
sect, which is printed in the _Penna. Mag. of History_ (vi. 402).
Much of this controversy over military preparation is illustrated
in the autobiography and lives of Benjamin Franklin; and the issues
of Franklin’s _Plain Truth_ (1747) and Samuel Smith’s _Necessary
Truth_, the most significant pamphlets in the controversy, are noted
in the bibliographies.[537] Sparks, in a preliminary note to a
reprint of _Plain Truth_, in _Franklin’s Works_ (vol. iii.), states
the circumstances which were the occasion and the sequel of its
publication. In _Ibid._ (vii. 20) there is a letter of Richard Peters
describing the condition of affairs.

A mass of papers, usually referred to as the Shippen Papers, and
relating to a period in the main antedating the Revolution, have been
edited privately by Thomas Balch as _Letters and Papers relating
chiefly to the Provincial History of Pennsylvania, with some notices of
the writers_. (Philad., 1855, one hundred copies.)

       *       *       *       *       *

First of importance among the published travels of this period is the
narrative of an English Quaker, Thomas Story, who came over in 1697.
From that time to 1708 he visited every part of the colonies from
New Hampshire to Carolina, dwelling for much of the time, however,
in Pennsylvania, where he became, under Penn’s persuasion, a public
official. The _Journal of the life of Thomas Story, containing an
account of his remarkable convincement of and embracing the principles
of truth, as held by the people called Quakers, and also of his travels
and labours in the service of the Gospel, with many other occurrences
and observations_, was published at Newcastle-upon-Tyne in 1747.[538]

George Clarke, born in 1676, was made secretary of the province of
New York in 1703, and came to America, landing in Virginia. We have
an account of his voyage, but unfortunately the book does not follow
his experiences after his arrival;[539] but we have the _Letters_ of
his private secretary, Isaac Bobin, which, under the editing of Dr.
O’Callaghan, were printed in a small edition (100 copies) at Albany in
1872.

George Keith’s _Journal of Travels from New Hampshire to Caratuck,
on the Continent of North America_, London, 1706, is reprinted in
the first volume (1851) of the _Collections of the Prot. Episc.
Hist. Society_, together with various letters of Keith[540] and John
Talbot.[541]

Benjamin Holme, another Quaker, came to the colonies in 1715, and
extended his missionary wandering to New England, and southward beyond
the middle colonies,[542] as did, some years later, 1736-1737, still
another Quaker, John Griffeth, whose _Journal of his life, labours,
and travels in the work of the ministry_ passed through many editions,
both in America and Great Britain.[543]

The records of missionary efforts at this time are not wholly confined
to the Quakers. The narrative of the Rev. Thomas Thompson reveals
the perplexities of the adherents of the Established Church in the
communities through which he travelled in the Jerseys.[544] Similar
records are preserved in the journals of Whitefield[545] and his
associates, like the _Journal of a Voyage from Savannah to Philadelphia
and from Philadelphia to England, MDCCXL., by William Seward, Gent.,
Companion in Travel with the Reverend Mr. George Whitefield_ (London,
1740).

We have a few German experiences, among them Gottlieb Mittelberger’s
_Reise nach Pennsylvanien im Jahr 1750 und Rŭkreise nach Teutschland
im Jahr 1754_ (Stuttgart, 1756)[546]—which is the record of a German
teacher and organist, who was in the province for three years. He had
no very flattering notion of the country as an asylum for such Germans
as, having indentured themselves for their passage, found on their
arrival that they could be passed on from master to master, not always
with much regard to their happiness.

Michael Schlatter, a Dutch preacher, published his observations of
the country and population, and particularly as to the condition of
the Dutch Reformed churches. He was in the country from 1746 to 1751,
and made his report to the Synod of Holland. Though the book pertains
mostly to Pennsylvania, his experiences extended to New York and New
England.[547]

We have the reports of a native observer in the _Observations on the
inhabitants, climate, soil, rivers, productions, animals, and other
matters worthy of notice, made by Mr. John Bartram in his travels from
Pensilvania to Onondago, Oswego, and the lake Ontario in Canada_. _To
which is annexed a curious account of the Cataracts at Niagara, by Mr.
Peter Kalm_ (London, 1751).[548] Bartram was born in Pennsylvania,
and made this journey in company with Conrad Weiser, the agent sent
by Pennsylvania to hold friendly conference with the Iroquois, as
explained in another chapter.[549] Bartram’s principal object was the
study of the flora of the country, in which pursuit he acquired such a
reputation as to attract the notice of Linnæus, but his record throws
light upon the people which came in his way, and enable us in some
respects to understand better their manners and thoughts. Evans’ map,
already mentioned,[550] was in part the outgrowth of this journey.

We also owe to the friendly interest of the great Swedish botanist
the observations of Peter Kalm, a countryman of Linnæus, whom the
Swedish government sent to America on a botanical tour in 1748-1751.
He extended his journeys to Pennsylvania, New York, and Canada, and we
have in his three volumes, beside his special studies, not a little
of his comment on men and events. He published his _En risa til Norra
America_ at Stockholm, 1753-1761. (Sabin, ix. 36,986.)[551]

The Rev. Andrew Burnaby’s _Travels through the middle settlements in
North America in 1759-1760, with observations upon the state of the
Colonies_, was published in London, 1775.[552] Burnaby was an active
observer and used his note-book, so that little escaped him, whether
of the people’s character or their manners, or the aspect of the towns
they dwelt in, or of the political and social movements which engaged
them.

       *       *       *       *       *

The relations of the middle colonies to the Indians will be
particularly illustrated in a later chapter on the military aspects of
the French wars,[553] but there are a few special works which may be
mentioned here: Colden’s _Five Indian Nations_ (only to 1697); Morgan’s
_League of the Iroquois_; Wm. L. Stone’s _Life of Sir William Johnson_;
and Geo. W. Schuyler’s _Colonial New York—Peter Schuyler and his
family_ (Albany, 1885). The successive generations of the Schuylers had
for a long period been practical intermediaries between the colonists
and the Indians. Something of the Indian relations in Bellomont’s time
is indicated elsewhere.[554] For the agreement between William Penn and
the Susquehanna Indians in 1701, see the _Penna. Archives_ (i. 145). Of
similar records in Cornbury’s time, Schuyler (ii. 17) says the remains
are meagre, but he gives more for Hunter’s time (ii. pp. 42-79) and
Burnet’s (ii. p. 83). The Shelburne Papers (_Hist. MSS. Commission
Report_, v.) reveal various documents from 1722 to 1724, and there is
a MS. of a treaty between the governors of New York, Virginia, and
Pennsylvania (Albany, Sept., 1722) in the library of Harvard College.

For the treaty of 1735, see the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._ (vii. 215).

For 1742 there was a treaty with the Six Nations at Philadelphia, and
its text was printed at London.[555]

In 1747 there were treaties in July at Lancaster, Penna., with the Six
Nations, and on Nov. 13 with the Ohio Indians at Philadelphia. (Haven
in Thomas, ii. 497.) Again, in July, 1753, Johnson had a conference
with the Mohawks (2 _Penna. Archives_, vi. 150); and in Oct. a treaty
with the Ohio Indians was made at Carlisle (Hildeburn, i. 1328; Haven,
p. 517). There exist also minutes of conferences held at Easton, Oct.,
1758, with the Mohawks;[556] at Easton, Aug., 1761, with the Five
Nations; and in Aug., 1762, at Lancaster, with the northern and western
Indians. (Hildeburn, i. 1593, 1634, 1748, 1908.)

The Moravians, settling first in Georgia, had founded Bethlehem in
Pennsylvania in 1741, and soon extended the field of their labors
into New York;[557] and in no way did the characteristics of this
people impress the life of the colonies so much as in the intermediary
nature of their missions among the Indians. David Zeisberger was a
leading spirit in this work, and left a manuscript account (written in
1778 in German) of the missions, which was discovered by Schweinitz
in the archives of the Moravian church at Bethlehem. (Schweinitz’s
_Zeisberger_, p. 29.) It proved to be the source upon which Loskiel
had depended for the first part of his _History of the Mission of the
United Brethren among the Indians in North America, in three parts,
by Geo. H. Loskiel, translated from the German by Christian Ignatius
Latrobe_ (London, 1794);[558] and Schweinitz found it of invaluable
use to him in the studies for his _Life of David Zeisberger_ (Philad.,
1870). The other principal authority on the work of the Moravians among
the Indians is Rev. John Heckewelder, whose _Narrative of the Mission
of the United Brethren_ (Philad., 1820) has been elsewhere referred
to,[559] and who also published _An account of the History, Manners,
and Customs of the Indian Nations who once inhabited Pennsylvania and
the neighboring States_ (Philad., 1818).[560] Schweinitz also refers
to another manuscript upon the Indians, preserved in the library of the
American Philosophical Society, by Christopher Pyrlaeus, likewise a
Moravian missionary.[561] We have again from Spangenberg an _Account of
the manner in which the Protestant Church of the Unitas Fratrum preach
the Gospel and carry on their missions among the heathen_ (English
transl., London, 1788); and his notes of travel to Onondaga, in 1745,
which are referred to in the original MS. by Schweinitz (_Zeisberger_,
p. 132), have since been printed in the _Penna. Mag. of History_ (vol.
iii.).[562]

Perhaps the most distinguished of the English missionaries was David
Brainerd, a native of Connecticut, of whose methods and their results,
as he went among the Indians of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, we have
the record in his life and diaries.[563]

       *       *       *       *       *

The question of the population of the middle colonies during the
eighteenth century is complicated somewhat by the heterogeneous
compounding of nationalities, particularly in Pennsylvania. In New
Jersey the people were more purely English than in New York. We
find brought together the statistics of the population of New York,
1647-1774, in the _Doc. Hist. of N. Y._ (i. 687), and Lodge (_English
Colonies_, p. 312) collates some of the evidence. The German element in
New York is exemplified in F. Kapp’s _Die Deutschen im Staate New York
während des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts_. (New York, 1884.)

In Pennsylvania the Swedes were beginning to lose in number when the
century opened, and the Dutch were also succumbing to the English
preponderance; but there were new-comers in the Welsh and Germans in
sufficient numbers to keep the characteristics of the people very
various.[564] Religion had brought the earliest Germans,—Dunkers[565]
and Mennonists,[566] all industrious, but ignorant. By 1719 the
Irish began to come, in part a desirable stock, the Scotch-Irish
Presbyterians; but in large numbers they were as unpromising as the
dregs of a race could make them. The rise of Presbyterianism in
Pennsylvania is traced in C. A. Briggs’s _Amer. Presbyterianism_ (New
York, 1885).[567]

The influx of other than English into Pennsylvania in the eighteenth
century had an extent best measured by _A collection of upwards of
30,000 names of German, Swiss, Dutch, French, and other immigrants in
Pennsylvania, 1727-1776, with notes and an appendix containing lists of
more than one thousand German and French in New York prior to 1712_, by
Professor I. Daniel Rupp (2d enlarged ed., Philad., 1876).

Respecting the Welsh immigrants, compare the _Pennsylvania Mag. of
Hist._, i. 330; Howard M. Jenkins’s _Historical collections relating
to Gwynedd, a township of Montgomery County, Penn., settled, 1698, by
Welsh immigrants, with some data referring to the adjoining township
of Montgomery, also a Welsh settlement_ (Phila., 1884), and J. Davis’s
_History of the Welsh Baptists_ (Pittsburgh, 1835).

The Huguenot emigration to the middle colonies, particularly to New
York, is well studied in C. W. Baird’s _Huguenot Emigration to America_
(1885). Cf. references _ante_, p. 98; and for special monographs, W.
W. Waldron’s _Huguenots of Westchester and Parish of Fordham, with an
introduction by S. H. Tyng_ (New York, 1864), and G. P. Disosway on the
Huguenots of Staten Island, in the _Continental Monthly_, i. 683, and
his app. on “The Huguenots in America” to Samuel Smiles’s _Huguenots_
(N. Y., 1868).

       *       *       *       *       *

The best summary of the manners and social and intellectual life of
the middle colonies will be found in Lodge’s _Short History of the
English Colonies_ (New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania), and he
fortifies his varied statements with convenient references. For New
York specially the best known picture of life is Mrs. Anne Grant’s
_Memoirs of an American Lady_,[568] but its recollections, recorded
in late life, of experiences of childhood, have nearly taken it out
of the region of historical truth. For Pennsylvania there is a rich
store of illustration in Watson’s _Annals of Philadelphia_, and much
help will be derived from the _Penn and Logan Letters_, printed by the
Penna. Hist. Soc.;[569] from the journal of William Black, a Virginian,
who recorded his observations in 1744, printed in the _Penna. Mag. of
Hist._ (vols. i. and ii.).[570]

The exigencies of the Indian wars, while they colored the life and
embroiled the politics of the time, induced the search for relief from
pecuniary burdens, here as in New England, in the issue of paper money,
which in turn in its depreciation grew to be a factor of itself in
determining some social conditions.[571]

The educational aspects of the middle colonies have been summarily
touched by Lodge in his _English Colonies_. Each of them had founded a
college. An institution begun at Elizabethtown in 1741, was transferred
to Princeton in 1757, and still flourishes.[572] In 1750 the Academy
of Philadelphia made the beginning of the present University of
Pennsylvania. In 1754 King’s College in New York city began its
mission,—the present Columbia College.[573]

The development of the intellectual life of the middle colonies, so
far as literary results—such as they were—are concerned, is best
seen in Moses C. Tyler’s _History of American Literature_ (vol. ii.
ch. 16).[574] The list by Haven in Thomas’s _Hist. of Printing_
(vol. ii.) reveals the extent of the publications of the period; but
for Pennsylvania the record is made admirably full in Charles R.
Hildeburn’s _Century of Printing,—issues of the press in Pennsylvania,
1685-1784_.[575]

William Bradford, the father of printing in the middle colonies,
removed to New York in 1693, where he died in 1752, having maintained
the position of the leading printer in that province, where he started,
in 1725, the _N. Y. Gazette_, the earliest New York newspaper.[576]
His son, Andrew Bradford (born 1686, died 1742), was the founder of
the newspaper press in Pennsylvania, and began the _American Weekly
Mercury_ in 1719, and the _American Magazine_ in 1741.[577]

The records of the publication of Franklin and his press have been more
than once carefully made,[578] and Col. William Bradford, grandson of
the first William, has been fitly commemorated in the _Life_ of him by
Wallace.[579]

       *       *       *       *       *

The general histories of New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey
have been sufficiently described elsewhere.[580] The documentary
collections of New York State have likewise been explained;[581] but
the historical literature respecting the province and State has never
been bibliographically arranged. The city of New York has some careful
histories of its own.[582] The capital, Albany, by reason of the
attention of its devoted antiquarian publishers, has recently had its
own bibliography traced.[583] The extent of the other local histories
of the State, particularly as far as the Dutch period was represented
in it, has been already indicated;[584] but the list as touching the
period covered by the present chapter could be much enlarged.[585]

       *       *       *       *       *

The several official and documentary collections published by
Pennsylvania have been described elsewhere.[586] Something of her local
history has been also indicated, but the greater part of the interest
of this class of historical records falls within the period of the
present volume.[587]

Respecting the histories of Philadelphia, since the memoranda were
noted in Vol. III. (p. 509), the material gathered by Thompson Westcott
has been augmented by the labors of Col. J. Thomas Scharf, and the
elaborate _History of Philadelphia_ (Philad., 1884) with this joint
authorship has been issued in three large volumes. Two chapters (xiii.
and xv.) in the first volume cover in the main the period now dealt
with. There is still a good deal to be gleaned from the old _Annals of
Philadelphia_, by John F. Watson, of which there is a new edition, with
revisions and additions by Willis P. Hazard.[588] It is a work somewhat
desultory in character and unskilful in arrangement, but it contains a
great body of facts.[589]

[Illustration: NEW YORK]

[Illustration:

The views of New York here annexed (pp. 250, 251) are the principal
ones of the earlier half of the seventeenth century. The larger (New
York, on the scroll) is from the great map of Popple, _British Empire
in America_, published in 1732. The upper of the two (p. 251) is
reduced from a large panoramic _South Prospect of y^e Flourishing City
of New York_ (6-6/12 × 2-4/12 ft.), dedicated to Gov. George Clinton by
Thomas Blakewell, which was published March 25, 1746. A lithographic
reproduction appeared in Valentine’s _N. Y. City Manual_, 1849, p.
26, and in his _Hist. of N. Y. City_, p. 290. (Cf. Cassell’s _United
States_, i. 480.) Originals are reported to be in the N. Y. Society
library and in the British Museum (King’s _Maps_, ii. 329, and _Map
Catal._, 1885, col. 2,975).

The reduced fac-simile view, called a “South Prospect,” follows a
copperplate engraving in the _London Magazine_, Aug., 1761.

KEY: 1, the fort; 2, the chapel in the fort; 3, the secretary’s
office; 4, the great dock, with a bridge over it; 5, the ruins of
Whitehall, built by Gov. Duncan [Dongan]; 6, part of Nutten Island; 7,
part of Long Island; 8, the lower market; 9, the Crane; 10, the great
flesh-market; 11, the Dutch church; 12, the English church; 13, the
city hall; 14, the exchange; 15, the French church; 16, upper market;
17, the station ship; 18, the wharf; 19, the wharf for building ships;
20, the ferry house on Long Island side; 21, a pen for cattle designed
for the market; 22, Colonel Morris’s “Fancy,” turning to windward,
with a sloop of common mould.

This print is clearly based on the one placed above it.]

The official documentary collections of New Jersey have already been
indicated,[590] as well as some traces of its local history.[591]

       *       *       *       *       *

A view of New York about 1695 is no. 39 in the gallery of the N. Y.
Hist. Society. Cf. Mrs. Lamb’s _New York_, i. p. 455, for one assigned
to 1704.

A view purporting to be taken in 1750 is found in Delisle’s _Atlas_
(1757).

A collection of views of towns, which was published by Jan Roman at
Amsterdam in 1752, included one of _Nieu Amsterdam, namaels Nieu York_.
(Muller’s _Catal. of American Portraits_, etc., no. 310.)[592]

The earliest plan of New York of the period which we are now
considering is one which appeared in the Rev. John Miller’s
_Description of the Province and City of New York, with the plans of
the City and several forts, as they existed in the year 1695, now first
printed from the original MS._ (London, Rodd, 1843), and in a new ed.,
with introd. and notes by Dr. Shea (N. Y., Gowans, 1862). See Vol. III.
p. 420, of the present _History_, and Mrs. Lamb’s _New York_ (i. 421).

A fac-simile of this plan, marked “New York, 1695,” is annexed. It
is reproduced several times in Valentine’s _New York City Manual_
(1843-44, 1844-45, 1845-46, 1847, 1848, 1850, 1851, 1852), and is
explained by the following:

[Illustration:

KEY: 1, the chapel in the fort of New York; 2, Leysler’s half-moon; 3,
Whitehall battery of 15 guns; 4, the old dock; 5, the cage and stocks;
6, stadt-house battery of 5 guns; 7, the stadt or state house; 8, the
custom-house; 8, 8, the bridge; 9, Burgher’s or the slip battery of 10
guns; 10, the fly block-house and half-moon; 11, the slaughter-house;
12, the new docks; 13, the French church; 14, the Jews’ synagogue; 15,
the fort well and pump; 16, Ellet’s alley; 17, the works on the west
side of the city; 18, the northwest block-house; 19, 19, the Lutheran
church and minister’s house; 20, 20, the stone points on the north
side of the city; 21, the Dutch Calvinists’ church, built 1692; 22,
the Dutch Calvinists’ minister’s house; 23, the burying-ground; 24, a
windmill; 25, the king’s farm; 26, Col. Dungan’s garden; 27, 27, wells;
28, the plat of ground designed for the E. minister’s house; 29, 29,
the stockado, with a bank of earth on the inside; 30, the ground proper
for the building an E. church; 31, 31, showing the sea flowing about
New York; 32, 32, the city gates; 33, a postern gate.]

There is a MS. plan of this date (1695) in the British Museum. A
plan of the fort in New York (1695) is also given by Miller, and is
reproduced in Gowan’s ed. of Miller, p. 264. (Cf. _Appleton’s Journal_,
viii. p. 353.)

The _Brit. Mus. Map Catal._ (1885), col. 2,972, notes a map by J.
Seller, London; and a _Novum Amsterdamum_, probably by Vander Aa, at
Leyden, in 1720.

A large _Plan of the City of New York, from an actual survey, made by
Iames Lyne_, was published by William Bradford, and dedicated to Gov.
Montgomerie, while Col. Robt. Lurting was mayor, in 1728. It has been
reproduced wholly or in part at various times.[593]

Popple’s plan of New York (1733) was later re-engraved in Paris. His
map of the harbor, from his great map _The British Empire in America_
(inscribed on a scroll, “New York and Perth Amboy harbours”), is
annexed (p. 254) in fac-simile.

[Illustration:

KEY: A, the fort; B, Trinity Church; C, old Dutch church; D, French
church; E, new Dutch church; F. Presbyterian meeting; G, Quakers’
meeting; H, Baptist meeting; J, Lutheran church; L, St. George’s
Chapel; M, Moravian meeting; N, new Lutheran meeting; 1, governor’s
house; 2, secretary’s office; 3, custom-house; 4, Peter Livingston &
Co., supg. hu.; 5, city hall; 6, Byard’s sugar-house; 7, exchange;
8, fish market; 9, old slip market; 10, meal market; 11, fly market;
12, Burtin’s market; 13, Oswego market; 14, English free school; 15,
Dutch free school; 16, Courtland’s sugar-house; 17, Jas. Griswold;
18, stillhouse; 19, Wileys Livingstone; 20, Laffert’s In. Comp.;
21, Thomas Vatar Distilhouse; 22, Robert Griffeth’s Distilhouse;
23, Jno. Burling’s Distilhouse; 24, Jas. Burling’s Distilhouse; 25,
Jno. Leake’s Distilhouse; 26, Benj. Blagge’s Distilhouse; 27, Jews’
burial-ground; 28, poor house; 29, powder-house; 30, block-house; 31,
gates.]

Other drafts of New York harbor during the first half of the last
century will be found in Southack’s _Coast Pilot_, and in Bowen’s
_Geography_ (1747). A chart of the Narrows is in a _Set of Plans and
Forts in America_, London, 1763, no. 12.

A large plan of _The City and environs of New York, as they were in the
years 1742-1744_, drawn by David Grim in the 76th year of his age, in
Aug., 1813, as it would seem from recollection, is in the N. Y. Hist.
Society’s library, and is engraved in Valentine’s_ N. Y. City Manual_,
1854.

The plan of 1755 (also annexed), made after surveys by the city
surveyor, and bearing the arms of New York city, follows a lithograph
in Valentine’s _N. Y. City Manual_, 1849, p. 130, after an original
plate belonging to Trinity Church, N. Y.

Cf. Valentine’s _New York_, p. 304, and the _Hist. of the Collegiate
Reformed Dutch Church in New York_ (New York, 1886). It was also given
in 1763 in a _Set of plans and forts in America_ (no. 1), published in
London.

A plan of the northeast environs of New York, made for Lord Loudon, in
1757, is in Valentine’s _Manual_, 1859, p. 108.

The plan of 1755 (p. 255) needs the following

[Illustration:

KEY: A, the fort; B, Trinity Church; C, old Dutch church; D, French
church; E, new Dutch church; F, Presbyterian meeting; G, Quakers’
meeting; H, Baptist meeting; I, Lutheran church; K, Jews’ synagogue;
L, St. George’s Chapel; M, Moravian meeting; N, new Lutheran meeting;
O, custom-house; P, governor’s house; Q, secretary’s office; R, city
house; S, exchange; T, fish market; V, old slip market; X, meal
market; Y, fly market; Z, Burtin’s market; 1, Oswego market; 2,
English free school; 3, Dutch free school; 4, block-house; 5, gates.]

Maerschalck’s plan of 1755 was used as the basis of a new plan, with
some changes, which is here reproduced (p. 256) after the copy in
_Valentine’s Manual_ (1850), and called a _Plan of the City of New
York, reduced from an actual survey, by T. Maerschalkm_ [sic], 1763.
The following key is in the upper right-hand corner of the original
(where the three blanks are in the fac-simile), of a lettering too
small for the present reduction:—


[Illustration: BELLIN’S PLAN, 1764.

KEY: A, shipping port; B, bridge for discharging vessels; C, fountain
or wells; D, house of the governor; E, the temple or church; F, parade
ground; G, meat-market; H, slaughter-house; J, lower town; K, city
hall; L, custom-house and stores; M, powder-magazine.[594]]

The latest of the plans here reproduced is one which is given in
Valentine’s _Manual_ (1861, p. 596), and was made by Bellin by order of
the Duke de Choiseul, in 1764:—

The view of Philadelphia (reproduced, p. 258) is the larger part of
George Heap’s “East Prospect,” as reduced from the _London Mag._, Oct.,
1761:—

[Illustration: _The East Prospect of the City of PHILADELPHIA in the
Province of PENNSYLVANIA_

KEY: 1, Christ Church; 2, state-house; 3, academy; 4, Presbyterian
church; 5, Dutch Calvinist church; 6, the court-house; 7, Quakers’
meeting-house; 8, High Street wharf; 9, Mulberry Street; 10, Sassafras
Street; 11, Vine Street; 12, Chestnut Street (the other streets
are not to be seen from the point of sight); 13, draw-bridge; 14,
corn-mill.

The style of the domestic buildings in Pennsylvania during this
period may be seen from specimens delineated in Scharf and Westcott’s
_Philadelphia_ (particularly the Christopher Saur house in Germantown,
in vol. iii. p. 1964); Egle’s _Pennsylvania_; Watson’s _Annals of
Philadelphia_; Smith’s _Delaware County_, Rupp’s _Lancaster County_;
and other local histories, especially Thompson Westcott’s _Historic
buildings of Philadelphia, with notices of their owners and occupants_
(Philad., 1877). The _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, July, 1886, p. 164,
gives a view of the first brick house built in New Jersey, that of
Christopher White, in 1690.]

The original was first published in London in 1754, and was engraved
by Jefferys, and reissued in his _General Topog. of N. America_, etc.,
1768, no. 29. It was reproduced on the same scale in Philadelphia, in
1854. In 1857, through the instrumentality of George M. Dallas, then
minister to England, a large oil-painting, measuring eight feet long
and twenty inches high, was received by the Philadelphia library;
and attached to it was an inscription, _The southeast prospect of
the City of Philadelphia, by Peter Cooper, painter_, followed by a
key to the public and private buildings. Confidence in its literal
fidelity is somewhat shaken by the undue profusion of a sort of cupola
given to buildings here and there,—one even surmounting the Quaker
meeting-house. Antiquaries are agreed that it must have been painted
about 1720. Among the private houses prominent in the picture are that
of Edward Shippen, at that time occupied by Sir William Keith, then
governor of the province, and that of Jonathan Dickinson. (Cf. _Hist.
Mag._, i. 137.) It has been reëngraved on a small scale in Scharf and
Westcott’s _Hist. of Philadelphia_, vol. i., where will also be found
(p. 187) a view of the old court-house, from an ancient drawing (1710).
Cf. view of 1744 in _Ibid._, p. 207.




CHAPTER IV.

MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA.

BY JUSTIN WINSOR,

_The Editor_.


MARYLAND began its career as a crown province with conditions similar
to those which had regulated its growth under the Proprietary. There
was nothing within its limits worthy the name of a town, though there
were certain places where the courts met. The people were planters,
large and small. They, with their servants, were settled, each with
land enough about him, along the extensive tide-water front of the
Chesapeake and its estuaries. Each plantation had a wharf or landing
of its own, and no commercial centre was necessary to ship or receive
merchandise. The Indians were friendly, and no sense of mutual
protection, such as prevailed farther north, compelled the settlers
to form communities. They raised tobacco,—too much of it,—and saw
hardly enough of one another to foster a stable, political union. Local
disturbances were accordingly not very promptly suppressed. Because one
was independent in his living, he came to have too little sympathy with
the independence of the mass.

Life was easy. Land and water yielded abundantly of wild game, while
swine and cattle strayed about the woods, with ear-marks and brands
to designate their owners. The people, however, had mainly to pound
their corn and do without schools, for it needs villages to institute
the convenient mill-wheel and build the school-house. The condition of
the people had hardly changed from what it was during the seventeenth
century. When the eighteenth came in, a political change had already
been wrought by the revolution which placed William and Mary on the
throne,[595] for in 1692 the Marylanders had welcomed Sir Lionel
Copley as the first royal governor. In his train came a new spirit,
or rather his coming engendered one, or gave activity to one which
had been latent. The assembly soon ordained the Protestant Episcopal
church to be the established order of a colony which before had had a
Catholic master. In time the exclusiveness relaxed a little, enough in
some fashion to exempt from restraint those who were Protestant, but
dissenters; but the Romanists soon found to their cost that there was
no relief for them. The fear of a Jacobite ascendency in the mother
country easily kept the assembly alert to discern the evils supposed to
harbinger its advent.

Down to 1715 there was a succession of royal governors, but only one
among them made any impress upon the time. This was Francis Nicholson,
a man of vigor, who was felt during a long career in America in
more than one colony. He was by commission the lieutenant-governor
under Copley; but when that governor died, Nicholson was in England.
On returning he followed his predecessor’s way in studying the
Protestants’ interests. In pursuance of this he made the Puritan
settlement at Anne Arundel, later to be known as Annapolis, the
capital,[596] and left the old Catholic St. Mary’s thereby to become a
name and a ruin.

There grew up presently an unseemly quarrel between Nicholson and
Coode, a reprobate ecclesiastic, who had earlier been a conspicuous
character in Maryland history.[597] The breach scandalized everybody;
and charge and counter-charge touching their respective morals
contaminated the atmosphere. Indeed, the indictment of Nicholson by his
enemies failed of effect by its excess of foulness. In face of all this
the governor had the merit, and even the courage, to found schools. He
also acquired with some a certain odor of sanctity, when he sent Bibles
to the sick during an epidemic, and appointed readers of them to attend
upon a sanitarium which had been established at a mineral spring in
St. Mary’s county. There was not a little need of piety somewhere, for
the church in Maryland as a rule had little of it. When Nicholson was
in turn transferred to Virginia, Nathaniel Blakiston (1699) and John
Seymour (1703) succeeded in the government. Under them there is little
of moment to note, beyond occasional inroads of the French by land and
of the pirates along the Chesapeake. Events, however, were shaping
themselves to put an end to the proprietary sway.

Charles, the third Lord Baltimore, died February 20, 1714-15, and
his title and rights descended to Benedict, his son, who had already
in anticipation renounced Catholicism. In becoming Protestant he had
secured from the Crown and its supporters an increased income in place
of the allowance that his Catholic father now denied him, out of the
revenues of the province, which were still preserved to the family.
Benedict had scarce been recognized when he also died (April 5, 1715),
and his minor son, Charles, the fifth lord, succeeded. The young
baron’s guardian, Lord Guilford, took the government, and finding to
his liking John Hart, who was then ruling the province for the king, he
recommissioned him as the representative of the Proprietary, who was
now one in religious profession with the vast majority of his people.
The return of the old master was to appearances a confirmation of the
old charter; but an inevitable change was impending.

Meanwhile the laws were revised and codified (1715), and a few years
later (1722), by solemn resolution, the lower house of the assembly
declared that the people of Maryland were entitled to all the rights
and immunities of free Englishmen, and were of necessity inheritors of
the common law of England, except so far as the laws of the province
limited the application of that fundamental right.[598] This manifesto
was the signal of a conflict between the ways that were and those
that were to be. The Proprietary and the upper house made a show of
dissenting to its views; but the old conditions were doomed. The
methods of progress, however, for a while were gentle, and on the whole
the rule of succeeding governors, Charles Calvert (1720), Benedict
Leonard Calvert (1726), and Samuel Ogle (1731), was quiet.

The press meanwhile was beginning to live, and the _Maryland Gazette_
was first published at Annapolis in 1727. A real town was founded,
though it seemed at the start to promise no more than St. Mary’s,
Annapolis, or Joppa.[599] This was Baltimore, laid out in 1730, which
grew so leisurely that in twenty years it had scarce a hundred people
in it. From 1732 to 1734 the Proprietary himself was in the province
and governed in his own person.

The almost interminable controversy with the Penns over the northern
bounds of Maryland still went on, the latter province getting the worst
of it. Even blood was shed when the Pennsylvania Germans, crossing
the line which Maryland claimed, refused to pay the Maryland taxes.
During this border turmoil, Thomas Cresap, a Maryland partisan, made
head against the Pennsylvanians, but was finally caught and carried
to Philadelphia. A truce came in the end, when, pending a decision in
England, a provisional line was run to separate settlers in actual
possession.

Maryland had other troubles beside in a depreciated paper currency, and
was not singular in it. She sought in 1733 to find a remedy by making
tobacco a legal tender.

In 1751 the rights of the Proprietary again passed, this time to
an unworthy voluptuary, destined to be the last Baron Baltimore,
Frederick, the sixth in succession, who was not known to his people
and did nothing to establish a spirit of loyalty among them. They had
now grown to be not far from a hundred and thirty thousand in number,
including multitudes of redemptioners, as immigrants who had mortgaged
their labor for their ocean passage were called, and many thousands
of transported convicts. This population paid the Proprietary in
quit-rents and dues not far from seventy-five hundred pounds annually.

[Illustration: FREDERICK, LORD BALTIMORE.

From an engraving in the _London Magazine_, June, 1768, after an
original painting of the sixth baron. He was born Feb. 6, 1731;
succeeded to the title on the death of the fifth baron, April 24, 1751.
Some accounts make him erroneously the seventh baron.]

The beginning of the French war found Horatio Sharpe[600] fresh in
office (1753) as the representative of the man to whom the people
paid this money. There was need of resources to push the conflict, in
which Maryland had common interests with Virginia and Pennsylvania.
The delegates were willing to vote grants, provided the revenue of
the Proprietary would share in the burden. This the governor refused
to consider; but as the war went on, and the western settlements were
abandoned before the Indian forays, Sharpe conceded the point, and
£40,000 were raised, partly out of a double tax upon Catholics, who
were in the main of the upper classes of the people. The question of
supplying the army lasted longer than the £40,000, and each renewal of
the controversy broadened the gulf between the governor and the lower
house. It soon grew to be observed that the delegates planned their
manœuvres with a view to overthrowing, under the stress of the times,
the government of the Proprietary. Occasionally a fit of generosity
would possess the delegates, as when they voted £50 a scalp to some
Cherokee rangers, and £1,500 to the Maryland contingent in Forbes’s
expedition against Du Quesne. It was never difficult, meantime, for
them to lapse into their policy of obstruction. So Maryland did little
to assist in the great conflict which drove the French from North
America.

When the war was practically closed, in 1760, the long dispute over the
boundary with Pennsylvania was brought to an end, substantially, upon
the agreement of 1732, by which the Proprietary of that day had been
over-reached. This fixed the limits of the present State of Delaware,
and marked the parallel which is now known as Mason and Dixon’s line.
The most powerful colony south of that line was Virginia, with whom
Maryland was also destined to have a protracted boundary dispute,
that has extended to our own time, and has been in part relegated to
the consideration of the new State, which the exigencies of the civil
war caused to be detached from the Old Dominion. What was and is the
most westerly of the head fountains of the Potomac (so the charter
described the point from which the meridian of Maryland’s western
line should run) depended on seeking that spot at the source of the
northern or southern fork of the river. The decision gave or lost to
Maryland thirty or forty square miles of rich territory. A temporary
concession on Maryland’s part, which entailed such a loss, became a
precedent which she has found it difficult to dislodge. Again, as the
line followed down the Potomac, whether it gave the bed of that river
to Virginia or to Maryland, has produced further dispute, complicated
by diversities in the maps and by assumptions of rights, but in 1877
arbitration confirmed the bed to Maryland. Changing names and shifting
and disappearing soil along the banks of the Chesapeake have also made
an uncertainty of direction in the line, as it crosses the bay to the
eastern shore. A decision upon this point has in our day gained new
interest from the values which attach to the modern oyster-beds.

       *       *       *       *       *

The history of Virginia was left in an earlier chapter[601] with the
suppression of Bacon’s Rebellion. The royal governors who succeeded
Berkeley held office under Lord Culpepper, who himself assumed the
government in 1679,[602] bringing with him a general amnesty for the
actors in the late rebellion.[603] But pardon did not stop tobacco
falling in price, nor was his lordship chary of the state, to maintain
which involved grinding taxes. Towns would not grow where the people
did not wish them, and even when the assembly endeavored to compel
such settlements to thrive at fixed landing places, by what was called
a Cohabitation Act (1680), they were not to be evoked, and existed
only as ghosts in what were called “paper towns.” Tobacco, however,
would grow if only planted, and when producers continued to plant
it beyond what the mob thought proper to maintain fit prices, the
wayward populace cut off the young plants, going about from plantation
to plantation.[604] Culpepper kept up another sort of destruction
in hanging the leaders of the mob, and in telling the people that a
five-shilling piece, if it went for six, would make money plentier.
When the people insisted that his salary should be paid in the same
ratio, he revoked his somewhat frantic monetary scheme.

When Culpepper ceased to be the Proprietary, in 1684, Virginia became
a royal province, and Charles II. sent out Lord Howard of Effingham
to continue the despotic rule. The new governor had instructions not
to allow a printing-press.[605] He kept the hangman at his trade,
for plant-cutting still continued. The assembly managed to despatch
Ludwell to England to show how cruelly matters were going, and he got
there just after William and Mary were proclaimed. The representations
against Effingham sufficed to prevent the continuance of his personal
rule, but not to put an end to his commission, and he continued to
draw his salary as governor, despite his adherence to James, and after
Francis Nicholson had been sent over as his deputy (1690). The new
ruler was not unskilled in governing; but he had a temper that impelled
him sometimes in wrong ways, and an ambition that made the people
distrust him. He could cajole and domineer equally well, but he did not
always choose the fit occasion. He was perhaps wiser now than he was
when he nearly precipitated New York into a revolution; and he showed
himself to the people as if to win their affections. He encouraged
manufactures. He moved the capital from Jamestown, and created a small
conspicuousness for Williamsburg[606] as he did for Annapolis, in
Maryland. He followed up the pirates if they appeared in the bay. He
tried to induce the burgesses to vote money to join the other colonies
in the French war; but they did not care so much for maintaining
frontier posts in order to protect the northern colonies as one might
who had hopes to be one day the general governor of the English
colonies. They intrigued in such a way that he lost popularity, when
he had none too much of it. He seemed generous, if we do not narrowly
inspect his motives, when he said he would pay the Virginia share of
the war money, if the assembly did not care to, and when he gave half
of a gratuity which the assembly had given him, to help found the
college of William and Mary. This last act had a look of magnanimity,
for James Blair, who had been chiefly instrumental in getting the
college charter, and who also in a measure, as the commissary of the
Bishop of London, disputed Nicholson’s executive supremacy, had laughed
at his Excellency for his truculent ways. The governor had opposed the
“Cohabitation” policy as respects towns, and a certain Burwell affair,
in which as a lover he was not very complacent in being worsted, had
also made him enemies powerful enough to prefer charges in England
against him, and he was recalled,—later to be met in New England and
Acadia, and as Sir Francis Nicholson to govern in Carolina.

His service in Virginia was interrupted by his career in Maryland,
ending in 1698, during which Sir Edmund Andros ruled in the larger
colony. This knight’s New England experience had told on him for the
better; but it had not wholly weaned him from some of his pettish ways.
He brought with him the charter of the College of William and Mary, and
had the infelicity to find in Blair, its first president, the adversary
who was to throw him. This Scotchman was combative and stubborn
enough for his race, and equally its representative in good sense and
uprightness. Blair insisted upon his prerogatives as the representative
of the bishop, and taking the grounds of quarrel with the governor to
England he carried his point, and Nicholson was recalled from Maryland
to supply the place of Andros.

The new college graduated its first class in 1700, and at about the
same time Claude Philippe de Richebourg and his Huguenots introduced a
new strain into the blood of Virginia.

The accession of Queen Anne led to the conferring of the titular
governorship in 1704 upon George Hamilton, the Earl of Orkney, who
was to hold the office nominally for forty years. For five years the
council ruled under Edward Jenings, their president, and when, December
15, 1704, he made his proclamation of the victory of Blenheim, it was
a satisfaction to record that Colonel Parke, of Virginia, had been the
officer sent by Marlborough to convey the news to the queen.[607]

In 1710 the ablest of the royal governors came upon the scene,
Alexander Spotswood, a man now in his early prime, since he was born
in 1676. He bore a wound which he had got at this same Blenheim, for
he had a decisive, soldierly spirit. It was a new thing to have a
governor for whom the people could have any enthusiasm. He came with
a peace-offering in the shape of the writ of _habeas corpus_, a boon
the Virginians had been thus far denied. The burgesses reciprocated in
devoting £2,000 to build him a palace, as it was called, as perhaps
well they might, considering that their annual tobacco crop was now
about 20,000,000 pounds.

The happy relations between the governor and his people did not
continue long without a rupture. The executive needed money to fortify
the frontiers, and the assembly tightened the purse-strings; but they
did pass a bill to appoint rangers to scour the country at the river
heads.[608] Spotswood did the best he could with scant funds. He
managed to prevent the tributary Indians from joining the Tuscaroras
in their forays in Carolina,[609] and he induced the burgesses to take
some action on the appeals of Governor Pollock.[610] He also gave his
energy scope in developing the manufacture of iron and the growing of
vineyards, and in the stately march which he made to find out something
about the region beyond the Blue Ridge.[611] He was indeed always ready
for any work which was required.

[Illustration: ALEXANDER SPOTSWOOD.

After the engraving in the _Spotswood Letters_, vol. i., with a note
on the portraits on p. viii. His arms are on p. vii. Cf. the _Century
Magazine_, xxvii. 447.]

If his burgesses revolted, he dissolved them with a sledge-hammer kind
of rhetoric.[612] If Blackbeard, the pirate, appeared between the
capes, he sent after him men whom he could trust, and they justified
his measure of them when they came home with a bloody head on their
bowsprit.[613] He had no sooner concluded a conference with the Five
Nations, in August and September, 1722,[614] than the opposition to an
assumption which he, like the other governors, could not resist, to be
the head of the church as well as of the state, made progress enough to
secure his removal from office.[615]

During Spotswood’s time, Virginia attained to as much political
prominence as the century saw for her prior to the Revolution. The
German element, which gathered away from tide-water,[616] began to
serve as a balance to the Anglican aristocracy, which made the river
banks so powerful. The tobacco fields, while they in one sense made
that aristocracy, in another made them, in luckless seasons, slaves
of a variable market. This relation, producing financial servitude,
enforced upon them at times almost the abjectness of the African
slaves whom they employed. Above it all, however, arose a spirit of
political freedom in contrast with their monetary subjection. The
burgesses gradually acquired more and more power, and the finances
of the province which they controlled gave them opportunities which
compensated for their personal cringing to the wilful imperialism of
the tobacco market. The people lacked, too, the independence which
mechanical ingenuity gives a race. A certain shiftlessness even about
the great estates, a laziness between crops, the content to import the
commonest articles instead of making them,—all indicate this. The
amenities of living which come from towns were wanting, with perhaps
some of the vices, for an ordinary or a public house generally stood
even yet for all that constituted a settlement of neighbors. In 1728
Byrd, of Westover, speaks of Norfolk as having “most the air of a town
of any in Virginia.”

Spotswood remained in Virginia, and was a useful man after his fall
from office. He was made the deputy postmaster-general of the colonies
(1730-39), and he carried into the management of the mails the same
energy which had distinguished his earlier service, and brought
Philadelphia and Williamsburg within eight or ten days of each other.
On his estates, whether on the Rapidan near his Germans at Germanna,
or in his house at Yorktown, he kept the courtly state of his time and
rank, and showed in his household his tenderest side. His old martial
spirit arose when he was made a major-general to conduct an expedition
to the West Indies; but he died (1740) just as he was about to embark,
bequeathing his books, maps, and mathematical instruments to the
College of William and Mary.

Meanwhile, after a short service in the governor’s office by Hugh
Drysdale (1722)[617] and Robert Carter, in 1727 William Gooch took the
chair, and held it for twenty-two years. It was a time of only chance
excitement, and the province prospered in wealth and population. The
governor proved conciliatory and became a favorite of the people. He
granted toleration to the Presbyterians, who were now increasing on the
frontiers, where Mackemie and the Scotch-Irish were beginning to gain
influence, and the sturdy pioneers were thinking of the country beyond
the mountains.[618] Some of the tide-water spirit was pushing that way,
and in 1745 Lord Fairfax settled in the valley, built his Greenway
Court, and passed his life in chasing game and giving it to his guests,
with other hospitable cheer.[619] Tall and gaunt of person, sharp in
his visage and defective in his eyesight, if he had little of personal
attraction for strangers, he had the inheritance of some of the best
culture of England, and could hand to his guests a volume of the
_Spectator_, open at his own essays. Disappointed in love at an early
day, Fairfax added a desire for seclusion to a disposition naturally
eccentric. He had come to America for divertisement, and, enamored of
the country and its easy life, he had finally determined on settling on
his property. The mansion, which he had intended to erect with all the
dignity of its manorial surroundings, was never begun; but he built a
long one-story building, with sloping roof and low eaves. Here he lived
on through the Revolution, a pronounced Tory, but too respected to be
disturbed, until the news of Yorktown almost literally struck him dead
at ninety-two.

Along the river bottoms of the lowlands, while Major Mayo[620] was
laying out Richmond (1733), and while all tradition was scorned in the
establishment of the _Virginia Gazette_ (1736),[621] the ruling classes
of the great estates felt that they were more rudely jostled than ever
before, when Whitefield passed that way, harrying the church,[622] and
even splitting the communions of the Presbyterians as he journeyed in
other parts.

When Governor Gooch returned to England, in 1749, he left the council
in power, who divided (1751) the province into four military districts,
and to the command of one of them they assigned a young man of
nineteen, George Washington by name. Late in the same year (November
20, 1751) a notable character presented himself in Robert Dinwiddie,
and the College of William and Mary welcomed the new executive with
a formal address.[623] Dinwiddie had been unpopular as a surveyor
of customs, as such officers almost invariably are; and he came to
his new power in Virginia at a trying time, just as a great war was
opening, and he and the burgesses could not escape conflict on the
question of the money needed to make Virginia bear a creditable part
in that war. When it was the northern frontiers towards Canada which
were threatened, neither Maryland nor Virginia could be made to feel
the mortification that their governors felt, if the northern colonies
were left to fight alone the battles in which all the English of the
continent were interested.

[Illustration]

But the struggle was now for the thither slope of the Alleghanies and
the great water-shed of the Ohio. In this conflict Virginia presented
a frontier to be ravaged, as she soon learned to her cost. The story
of that misfortune is told in another chapter,[624] as well as of the
outbreak which Dinwiddie forced, when he sent Washington to Le Bœuf.
The exigencies of the conflict, however, were not enough to prevent
the assembly from watching jealously every move of the governor for
asking money from them; and he in turn did little to smooth the way for
their peaceable acquiescence, when he exacted unusual fees for his own
emolument. The aristocracy were still powerful, and, working upon the
fears entertained by the masses that their liberties were in danger,
all classes contrived to keep Dinwiddie in a pretty constant turmoil of
mind, a strain that, though past sixty, he bore unflinchingly. If, by
his presentation of the exigencies, he alarmed them, they would vote,
somewhat scantily, the money which he asked for: but they embarrassed
him by placing its expenditure in the hands of their own committee.
Dinwiddie was often compelled to submit to their exasperating
requirements, and was obliged to inform the Lords of Trade that there
was no help for it.

It was war indeed, but this chapter is concerned chiefly with civil
affairs. Nothing, therefore, can be said here of the disaster of
Braddock and its train of events down to the final capture of DuQuesne.
Forts were built,[625] and the Indians were pursued[626], and Virginia
incurred a debt during it all of £400,000, which she had to bear with
the concomitants of heavy taxes and a depreciated paper money. At the
end of the war, Norfolk, with its 7,000 inhabitants, was still the only
considerable town.

Dinwiddie had ruled as the deputy of Lord Albemarle. When Lord Loudon
came over in July, 1756, to assume the military command in the
colonies, he became the titular governor of Virginia; but he was never
in his province in person, and Dinwiddie ruled for him till January,
1758, when he sailed for England.


CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

SINCE the enumeration of the records of Maryland was made in another
volume,[627] the Maryland Historical Society, having now in custody
the early archives of the province, has begun the printing of them,
under the editorship of Mr. William Hand Browne, three volumes of which
having been thus far published.[628] The publication committee of
that society have also made to the legislative assembly of the State
a printed report,[629] dated November 12, 1883, in which they give an
account of the efforts made in the past to care for the documents. To
this they append a _Calendar of State Archives_, many of which come
within the period covered by the present chapter.[630]

The general histories of Maryland have been characterized in another
place.[631] Of one of them, Chalmers’s, some further mention is made
in the present volume.[632] Two works of a general character have
been published since that enumeration was made. One of these is the
_Maryland_ (Boston, 1884) of William Hand Browne, a well-written
summary of the history of the palatinate prior to the Revolutionary
period.[633] Mr. Browne’s familiarity with the Maryland archives was
greatly helpful in this excellent condensation of Maryland’s history.
Mr. John A. Doyle has made special use of the colonial documents in
the Public Record Office, in the chapters (x. and xi.) which he gives
to the province in his _English in America, Virginia, Maryland and the
Carolinas_, London, 1882.

There have been some valuable papers of late embraced in the _Johns
Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science_, edited
by Professor Herbert B. Adams, which touch Maryland, particularly its
institutional history. Such are Edward Ingle’s _Parish Institutions
of Maryland_ (_Studies_, 1st series, no. vi.); John Johnson’s _Old
Maryland Manors_ (no. vii.);[634] Herbert B. Adams’s _Maryland’s
influence upon land cessions to the United States, with minor papers
on George Washington’s interest in Western lands, the Potomac Company
and a National University_ (3d series, no. 1);[635] Lewis W. Wilhelm’s
_Maryland Local Institutions, the Land System, Hundred, County, Town_
(nos. v., vi., and vii.).

The one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the foundation of
Baltimore, occurring in 1880, has produced several records. The city
commemorated the event, and printed the next year a _Memorial Volume,
1730-1880_, edited by Edward Spencer;[636] and the _Proceedings of the
Historical Society, October 12, 1880_, constitutes no. 16 of their
Publication Fund series. Mr. J. Thomas Scharf, who had published his
_Chronicles of Baltimore_ in 1874, elaborated the matter into the more
extensive _History of Baltimore City and County_, in 1881, published
at Philadelphia. There is a plan of the city showing its original
and present bounds in this last book (p. 62), as well as in the same
writer’s _History of Maryland_ (i. 416). In 1752 there was printed a
_List of families and other persons residing in Baltimore_, and this
has been thought to be the earliest directory of an American town. In
the same year there was a view of Baltimore by John Moales, engraved by
Borgum, which is the earliest we have.[637]

The coarse, hearty, and somewhat unappetizing life of the colony, as it
appeared to a London factor, who about the beginning of the eighteenth
century sought the country in quest of a cargo of tobacco, is set forth
amusingly, as well as in a warning spirit, in a rough Hudibrastic poem,
_The Sot-weed Factor, by Eben Cook, Gent._[638] (London, 1708.)

There are modern studies of the life of the last century in Lodge’s
_Short History of the English Colonies_, in the seventh chapter of
Neill’s _Terra Mariæ_, and in the last chapter of Doyle’s _English
Colonies_; but the most complete is that in the first chapter of the
second volume of Scharf’s _History of Maryland_, whose foot-notes and
those of Lodge will guide the investigator through a wide range of
authorities.[639]

Illustrations of the religious communions are given in Perry’s
_History of the American Protestant Episcopal Church_ (i. 137), in the
_Historical Collections of the American Colonial Church_ (vol. iv.),
in Anderson’s _American Colonial Church_, in Hawks’s _Ecclesiastical
Contributions_ (section on “Maryland”), and in Theodore C. Gambrall’s
_Church Life in Colonial Maryland_ (Baltimore, 1885).[640] The
spread of Presbyterianism is traced in C. A. Briggs’s _American
Presbyterianism_, p. 123.

[Illustration: MAP OF MARYLAND]

The literature of the controversy over the bounds of Maryland, so
far as it relates to the northern lines, has already been indicated
in another volume.[641] The dispute was ably followed by McMahon in
his _History of Maryland_ (vol. i. pp. 18-59), among the earlier of
the general historians, and the whole question has been surveyed by
Johnston in his _History of Cecil County_ (ch. xix.). He traces the
course of the Cresap war,[642] the progress of the chancery suit of
1735-1750.[643] The diary of one of the commissioners for running the
line in accordance with the decision, being the record of John Watson,
is preserved in the library of the Pennsylvania Historical Society.
Mr. Johnston (p. 307) also describes the line of 1760,[644] and tells
the story of the work and methods adopted by Mason and Dixon in 1763,
referring to their daily journal, one copy of which is, or was,
preserved in the Land Office, the other in the library of the Maryland
Historical Society.[645] The scientific aspects of this famous survey
are considered in the _Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society_
(1769); and a running sketch of the history of the line, by William
Darlington, is reprinted in the _Historical Magazine_ (ii. p. 37).
Another, by T. Edwards, is in _Harper’s Monthly_ (vol. liii. p. 549),
and one by A. T. McGill in the _Princeton Review_ (vol. xxxvii. p. 88).
Dunlap’s “Memoir” (see Vol. III. p. 514) is also contained in _Olden
Time_ (vol. i. p. 529).

The most recent and one of the most careful surveys of the history of
the dispute between Baltimore and Penn and of the principles involved
is in Walter B. Scaife’s “Boundary Dispute between Maryland and
Pennsylvania,” in _Pennsylvania Magazine of History_ (October, 1885, p.
241).

Chief among the maps bearing upon the question of the bounds are the
following:—

_A map of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and East and West New
Jersey, by John Thornton_, which is without date, but probably from
1695 to 1700.[646]

_A new map of Virginia and Maryland and the improved parts of
Pennsylvania and New Jersey, revised by I. Senex, 1719._[647]

_A short account of the first settlement of the Provinces of Virginia,
Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania by the English, to which is
annexed a map of Maryland, according to the bounds mentioned in the
charter and also of the adjacent country, anno 1630_, London, 1735.
This map is a large folding one called “A map of Virginia, according
to Capt. John Smith’s map, published anno 1606; also of the adjacent
county, called by the Dutch Niew Nederlant, anno 1630, by John Senex,
1735.”[648]

The map accompanying the agreement of July 4, 1760, between Baltimore
and Penn, is reproduced, with the text of that document, in the
_Pennsylvania Archives_, iv. (1853), p.3.

Respecting the bounds in dispute between Maryland and Virginia, the
fullest summary of claims and evidence is in the _Report and Journal
of Proceedings of the joint Commissioners to adjust the boundary
line of the States of Maryland and Virginia_, Annapolis, 1874. This
volume gives statements of the Maryland (p. 63) and Virginia (p. 233)
claims, with depositions of witnesses. The volume as deposited in
public libraries is accompanied by a coast survey chart, in which the
determined bounds are marked, with the attestation of the governor of
Maryland.[649]

[Illustration: VIRGINIA. 1738.]

It may be collated with the _Report and accompanying documents of
the Virginia Commissioners on the boundary line between Maryland
and Virginia_, Richmond, 1873, which contains the statements
of the Maryland Commissioners as well as those of the Virginia
Commissioners, the latter having a voluminous appendix of historical
documents, including a large number copied from the British Archives,
and depositions taken in 1872. The _Final Report of the Virginia
Commissioners_ (Richmond, 1874), includes a memorandum of their journal
and their correspondence (1870-72), as well as the journal of the joint
commissions of Virginia and Maryland (1872).

[Illustration: WILLIAM BYRD.

After a cut in _Harper’s Magazine_, April, 1885, p. 712, from the
original painting now at Brandon, on James River. Byrd was b. 1674, and
d. 1744.]

Respecting the bounds of Virginia and North Carolina, commissioners
on the part of both colonies were appointed in 1710,[650] but the
line was not run in its easterly portion till 1728, by commissioners
and surveyors of both governments. Col. William Byrd, one of the
commissioners of Virginia, prepared a sort of diary of the progress of
the work, which is known as a _History of the Dividing Line between
Virginia and North Carolina, as run in 1728-29_. This and other of
Byrd’s writings which have come down to us are in manuscript, in the
hand of a copyist, but interlined and corrected by Byrd himself. The
volume containing them was printed at Petersburg in 1841 (copyrighted
by Edmund Ruffin) with an anonymous editor’s preface, which states that
the last owner of it was George E. Harrison, of Brandon, and that the
family had probably been prevented from publishing the papers because
of the writer’s “great freedom of expression and of censure, often
tinctured by his strong church and state principles and prejudices;”
for Colonel Byrd was “a true and worthy inheritor of the opinions and
feelings of the old cavaliers of Virginia.” These papers were again
privately printed at Richmond, in 1866, under the editing of Thomas
H. Wynne, in two volumes, entitled _History of the Dividing Line and
other tracts, from the papers of William Byrd of Westover_. Mr. Wynne
supplies an historical introduction, and his text is more faithful
than that of 1841, since some of the asperities of the manuscript were
softened by the earlier editor. Byrd had been particularly severe on
the character of the North Carolinians, as he saw it in his intercourse
with them,[651] and not the worst of his characterizations touched
their “felicity of having nothing to do.” Byrd at the time of his
commission was a man of four and fifty, and he lived for some years
longer, not dying till 1744. He was a good specimen of the typical
Virginian aristocrat, not blind to the faults of his neighbors, and
the best sample of such learning and wit as they had,[652] while he
was not forgetful of some of the duties to the community which a large
estate imposed upon him. Among other efforts to relieve the Virginians
from their thraldom to a single staple were his attempts to encourage
the raising and manufacture of hemp.[653] One of Byrd’s companions in
the boundary expedition of 1728-29 was the Rev. Peter Fontaine, who
acted as chaplain to the party, and a draft of the line as then marked
is made in connection with some of his letters in Ann Maury’s _Memoirs
of a Huguenot Family_ (New York, 1852, 1872, p. 356).[654] In 1749 the
line was continued westerly beyond Peter’s Creek, by Joshua Fry and
Peter Jefferson, the father of Thomas Jefferson; and was still further
continued to the Tennessee River in 1778.[655]

Another question of bounds in Virginia, which it took some time to
settle, was the western limits of the northern neck, as the wedge-like
tract of territory was called which lay between the Rappahannock and
the Potomac. It had been granted by Charles II. to Lord Hopton and
others, but when bought by Lord Thomas Culpepper a new royal grant of
it was made to him in 1688.[656] It passed as a dower with Culpepper’s
daughter Catharine to Thomas, Lord Fairfax, and from him it passed
to the sixth lord, Thomas, who petitioned (1733) the king to have
commissioners appointed to run the line between the rivers. Of this
commission was William Byrd, and an account of their proceedings is
given in the second volume of the _Byrd Manuscripts_ (p. 83) as edited
by Wynne. A map of the tract was made at this time, which was called
_The Courses of the Rivers Rappahannock and Potowmack in Virginia,
as surveyed according to order in the years 1736-1737_. The bounds
established by this commission were not confirmed by the king till
1745, and other commissioners were appointed the next year to run the
line in question. The original journal of the expedition for this
purpose, kept by Maj. Thomas Lewis, is now in the possession of John
F. Lewis, lieutenant-governor of Virginia.[657] The plate of the map
already referred to was corrected to conform, and this additional title
to it was added: _A Survey of the Northern Neck of Virginia, being
the lands belonging to the Rt. Honourable Thomas Lord Fairfax, Baron
Cameron, bounded by and within the Bay of Chesapoyocke, and between
the Rivers Rappahannock and Potowmack_. Along the line which is dotted
to connect the head-spring of the southern branch of the Rappahannock
with the head-spring of the Potomac is a legend, noting that it was
determined by the king in council, April 11, 1745, that this line
should be the westerly limit of the Fairfax domain. A section of the
second state of the plate of this map is annexed in fac-simile from a
copy in Harvard College library.[658]

[Illustration: NORTHERN NECK OF VIRGINIA. 1736-1737.]

An account has been given elsewhere[659] of what has been lost and
preserved of the documentary records of Virginia.

The introduction to W. P. Palmer’s _Calendar of Virginia State Papers_,
1652-1781, summarizes the documents for the period of our present
survey which are contained in the body of that book, and they largely
concern the management of the Indians on the borders.[660] Among the
Sparks MSS. in Harvard College library are various notes and extracts
respecting Maryland and Virginia from the English records (1727-1761)
in the hand of George Chalmers, as made for his own use in writing his
_Revolt of the American Colonies_.[661]

There were various editions of the laws during the period now under
consideration. What is known as the Purvis collection, dedicated to
Effingham, was published in London in 1686; and a survey, giving _An
abridgement of the Laws in force and use in her majesty’s plantations_,
including Virginia, was printed in London in 1704. The acts after 1662
were published in London in 1728; while the first Virginia imprint on
any edition was that of W. Parks, of Williamsburg, in 1733; and John
Mercer’s _Abridgment_, published in Williamsburg four years later
(1737), was reprinted in Glasgow in 1759. The acts since 1631 were
again printed at Williamsburg in 1752.[662]

The earliest description of the country coming within the present
survey is John Clayton’s _Account of the several Observables in
Virginia_ (1688), which Force has included in the third volume of his
Tracts. A paper on the condition of Virginia in 1688 is the first
chapter in W. H. Foote’s _Sketches of Virginia_ (1850). An “Account of
the present state and government of Virginia” is in the fifth volume
(p. 124) of the _Massachusetts Hist. Soc. Collections_. The document
was presented to that society by Carter B. Harrison, of Virginia.
It seems to have been written in England in 1696-98, in the time of
Andros’ governorship, and by one who was hostile to him and who had
been in the colony.

Professor M. C. Tyler[663] speaks of the commissary, James Blair,
as “the creator of the healthiest and most extensive intellectual
influence that was felt in the Southern colonies before the
Revolution.” This influence was chiefly felt in the fruition of his
efforts to found the College of William and Mary.[664] _The Present
State of Virginia and the College, by Messieurs Hartwell, Blair and
Chilton_ (London, 1727), contains an account, in which Blair, in
Tyler’s opinion, had the chief hand. Blair’s relations to the college
have had special treatment in Foote’s _Sketches of Virginia_ (ch. ix.);
in Bishop Meade’s _Old Churches and Families of Virginia_ (vol. i.
art. xii.); and in the _Hist. of the American Episcopal Church_ (vol.
i. ch. 7), by Bishop Perry, who gives two long letters from Blair to
the governor of Virginia, after the originals preserved at Fulham
Palace. Additional material is garnered by Perry in his _Historical
Collections of the Amer. Colonial Church_, which includes a large mass
of Blair’s correspondence.[665]

[Illustration]

[Illustration: WILLIAM AND MARY COLLEGE.

After the picture given in Meade’s _Old Churches_, etc., i. 157. Cf.
Perry’s _Amer. Episc. Church_, i. 123; Gay’s _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii.
60.

The original building was burned in 1705. The next building, which by
scarcity of funds was long in erecting, was not completed till 1723.
The above cut is of this second building. In _Scribner’s Monthly_,
Nov., 1875, are views of the building before and after rebuilding in
1859.]

While Francis Makemie was entering the lists in the interest of
“cohabitation,” gaining thereby not much respect from the tide-water
great-estate owners, and printing in London (1705) his _Plain and
friendly perswasive to the inhabitants of Virginia and Maryland for
promoting towns and cohabitation_, setting forth the loss to virtue
by the dispersal of sympathizers in religion, Robert Beverley was
publishing anonymously in London (1705) his _History and Present State
of Virginia, in four parts_. 1. _The History of the First Settlement
of Virginia, and the Government thereof, to the present time._ 2. _The
Natural Productions and Conveniences of the Country, suited to Trade
and Improvement._ 3. _The Native Indians, their Religion, Laws, and
Customs, in War and Peace._ 4. _The Present State of the Country, as to
the Polity of the Government, and the Improvements of the Land_,[666]
which, as will be seen in the last section of the title, particularly
sets forth the condition of the colony at that time, offering some
foundation for Mackemie’s arguments.[667]

[Illustration]

About twenty years later we have another exposition of the condition
of the colony in Hugh Jones’s _Present State of Virginia, giving
a particular and strict account of the Indian, English, and negro
inhabitants of that colony_, published in London in 1724.[668] Jones
was rector of Jamestown and a professor in the college at Williamsburg,
and his book was a missionary enterprise to incite attention among the
benevolent in the mother country to the necessities of the colony. “His
book,” says Tyler,[669] is one “of solid facts and solid suggestions,
written in a plain, positive style, just sufficiently tinctured with
the gentlemanly egotism of a Virginian and a churchman.”

The single staple of Virginia was the cause of constant concern,
whether of good or bad fortune, and the case was summed up in 1733,
in a tract published at London, _Case of the planters of tobacco in
Virginia, as represented by themselves, with a vindication_.[670]
Bringing the history of the colony down to about the date of the
period when Jones made his survey, Sir William Keith in 1738 published
his _History of the British Plantations in America, containing the
History of Virginia: with Remarks on the Trade and Commerce of that
Colony_.[671] Nine years later (1747) Stith published his history, but
it pertained only to the early period, and in his preface, dated at
Varina, December 10, 1746, he acknowledged his indebtedness to William
Byrd.[672]

When Burk published his _History of Virginia_ in 1804,[673] the days
of the Revolution had separated him from those that were in reality
the formative period of the Virginian character, which had grown out
of conditions, then largely a mere record. One would have expected to
find the eighteenth century developed in Burk better than it is. The
more recent authorities have studied that period more specifically,
though Bancroft does not much enlarge upon it.[674] Lodge[675] is
chiefly valuable for the conspectus he affords of the manners of the
time. Doyle in his _English in America_ (London, 1882) depends on
the “Colonial Entry Books” and “Colonial Papers” of the State Paper
Office in London. Since Howison’s,[676] the latest history is that by a
Virginian novelist, John Esten Cooke, and styled _Virginia, a history
of the people_ (Boston, 1883),[677] in which he aims to show, through
succeeding generations of Virginians, how the original characteristics
of their race have been woven into the texture of the population
from the Chesapeake to the Mississippi, as those of New England have
controlled the north from the Atlantic to the Lakes. He laments that
there has never been a study of the Southern people to the same extent
as of the Northern, and says that some of the greatest events in the
annals of the whole country need, to understand them, a contemplation
of the Virginian traits, losing sight, as he expresses it, of “the
fancied dignity of history.” Guided somewhat by this canon, the author
has modelled his narrative, dividing the periods into what he calls the
Plantation, the Colony, and the Commonwealth,—the second more than
covering the years now under consideration. He places first among his
authorities for this period _The Statutes at Large, being a Collection
of all the Laws of Virginia_, by William Walter Hening, in thirteen
volumes, as the most important authority on social affairs in Virginia.
He speaks of its unattractive title failing to suggest the character of
the work, and says, with perhaps an excess of zeal, that “as a picture
of colonial time, it has no rival in American books.”

[Illustration]

The institutional history of Virginia has of late received some
particular attention at the hands of Mr. Edward Ingle, who printed in
the _Mag. of Amer. History_ (Dec., 1884, p. 532) a paper on “County
Government in Virginia,” which he has reprinted with other papers on
the Land Tenure, the Hundreds, the English Parish in America, and the
Town, in a contribution called _Local Institutions of Virginia_, which
makes parts ii. and iii. of the third series (1885) of the _Johns
Hopkins University Studies in History and Political Science_.[678]

We are fortunate in possessing the official correspondence of the two
most notable royal governors of the eighteenth century. The letters
of Alexander Spotswood were used by Bancroft, and were then lost
sight of till they were recovered in England in 1873.[679] They are
now published in two volumes (Richmond, 1882, 1885) as _The official
letters of Alexander Spotswood, lieutenant-governor of Virginia,
1710-1722; now first printed from the manuscript in the collections
of the Virginia Historical Society, with an introduction and notes by
R. A. Brock_, constituting the initial volumes of a new series of the
_Collections_ of the Virginia Historical Society. Spotswood’s official
account of his conflict with the burgesses is printed in the _Virginia
Hist. Register_; and we best see him as a man in William Byrd’s
“Progress to the Mines,” included in Wynne’s edition of the _Byrd
Manuscripts_. Palmer draws Spotswood’s character in the introduction to
his _Calendar of Virginia State Papers_, p. xxxix.[680]

Of the other collection of letters, _The official records of Robert
Dinwiddie, lieutenant-governor of Virginia, 1751-1758; now first
printed from the manuscript in the collections of the Virginia
Historical Society, with an introduction and notes by R. A. Brock_,
Richmond, Va., 1883-84, being vols iii. and iv. of the new series of
the same _Collections_, a more special account is given in another
place.[681]

The valley of Virginia has been more written about locally than the
eastern parts. Beside the old history of Kercheval,[682] W. H. Foote
has embraced it in the second series of his _Sketches of Virginia_
(Philad., 1855), and it has recently been treated in J. Lewis Peyton’s
_History of Augusta County, Va._ (Staunton, Va., 1882), a region once
embracing the territory from the Blue Ridge to the Mississippi.

Norfolk has been made the subject of historical study, as in W. S.
Forrest’s _Norfolk and Vicinity_ (1853), but with scant attention to
the period back of its rise to commercial importance.

The ecclesiastical element forms a large part of Virginia history
in the earlier times. Some general references have been given in
another place.[683] At the opening of our present period, there
were of the established church in Virginia fifty parishes, with one
hundred churches and chapels and thirty ministers,—according to
Bray’s _Apostolic Charity_ (London, 1700).[684] The church history
has been well studied by Dr. Hawks,[685] Bishop Perry,[686] and Dr.
De Costa,[687] in this country, and by Anderson in his _History of
the Colonial Church_ (1856),—a book which Doyle calls “laborious
and trustworthy on every page.” Bishop Meade has treated the subject
locally in his _Old Churches and Families of Virginia_,[688] as has Dr.
Philip Slaughter in his _Saint George’s Parish_, _Saint Mark’s Parish_
and _Bristol Parish_,[689] and he has given a summary of the leading
churches of colonial Virginia in a section of Bishop Perry’s _Amer.
Episc. Church_ (vol. i. p. 614).

The dissenting element was chiefly among the Presbyterians, whose later
strongholds were away from the tide-water among the mountains. The
Reverend Francis Mackemie[690] had been principal leader among them,
and he was the first dissenter who had leave to preach in Virginia.
Their story is best told in C. A. Briggs’ _American Presbyterianism_
(p. 109), and in both series of W. H. Foote’s _Sketches of Virginia_
(Phil., 1850, 1855).

The Baptists in Virginia did not attain numerical importance till
within the decade preceding the American Revolution, and they had
effected scarcely any influence among the opponents of establishment
during the period now under consideration.[691] The Huguenots brought
good blood, and affected religious life rather individually than as a
body.[692]

[Illustration]

In depicting the society of Virginia during this period, we must get
what glimpses we can from not very promising sources. The spirit
which despised literature and schools was in the end dispelled, in
part at least, but it was at this time dominant enough to prevent
the writing of books; and consequently the light thrown upon social
life by literature is wanting almost entirely. The Virginians were
apparently not letter-writers and diarists, as the New Englanders
were, and while we have a wealth of correspondence in Massachusetts
to help us comprehend the habits of living, we find little or nothing
in Virginia. We meet, indeed, with some letters of the Byrds[693] and
the Fontaines,[694] and the official correspondence of Spotswood and
Dinwiddie; but the latter touch only in a casual way upon the habits
of living. A few descriptive and political tracts, like Hugh Jones’
_Present State_,[695] give us small glimpses. Later Virginia writers
like Bishop Meade[696] and Dr. Philip Slaughter,[697] have gathered up
whatever of tradition has floated down in family gossip; and Foote[698]
and Esten Cooke[699] have drawn the picture from what sources they
could command, as Irving has in his _Life of Washington_.[700] The most
elaborate survey of the subject, with philosophic impulses, has been
made by Eben Greenough Scott in his _Development of Constitutional
Liberty in the English Colonies of America_ (New York, 1882),[701]
in which he contrasts the manners of the lowland aristocracy with
those of the farmers of the valley and with the wilder life of the
frontiers.[702] The most elaborate composite of data derived from every
source is the chapter on “Virginia in 1765,” in Henry Cabot Lodge’s
_Short History of the English Colonies_, in which he depends very
largely on the survival of manners in the days when Burnaby, Anburey,
Robin, Smyth, Brissot de Warville, Rochefoucauld-Liancourt, and Weld
travelled in the country,—material which has the great disadvantage
of being derived from chance observation, with more or less of
generalization based on insufficient instances, as Dr. Dwight has
pointed out in the case of Weld at least.[703]




CHAPTER V.

THE CAROLINAS.

BY PROFESSOR WILLIAM J. RIVERS.


NORTH CAROLINA: PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT.—It was certainly manifest to
England that her claim to vast regions of valuable territory would
be substantiated, and her commerce and political power augmented,
by the settling of her subjects in North America. Yet the history
of her colonies bears, on many pages, evidence of the indifference
and inexcusable neglect of the mother country. Instead of a liberal
contribution of arms and munitions of war, the means of sustenance, and
the protection of her ever-present sovereignty to all who were willing
to leave the comforts of home and risk their lives in her service,
far away across the Atlantic, enough appeared to have been done if
lavish gifts of land were bestowed upon companies, individuals, or
proprietors, for their especial emolument, and through them some paltry
acres offered to emigrants, with promises of a little more religious
freedom and a little larger share of political privileges than they
were permitted to enjoy at home. The genesis of a new and potent
nationality may be said to have been involved in the acceptance, by the
colonists, of these conditions, as inducements to emigration, with all
else dependent on their own manly courage.

[Illustration: NORTH CAROLINA.

[This is a sketch of the map in Hawks’ _North Carolina_, ii. 570,
showing the grants and divisions from 1663 to 1729.

Quaritch in his _Catal._ for 1885, no. 29,516, prices at £25 a MS. map
of the south part of Virginia (North Carolina), showing the coast line
from Cape Henry to Cape Fear, and signed “Nicholas Comberford, fecit
anno 1657.” It measures 18¾ × 14 inches.—ED.]]

One of the colonies that struggled, through neglect and almost
insurmountable hardships, into permanent existence was Carolina. Before
its settlement, other colonies had successfully established themselves
in New England, and in Maryland and Virginia. In 1663, Charles II.,
in the second year after his restoration, granted the region south of
Virginia and extending from 31° to 36° north latitude, and westward
within these parallels across the continent, to some of his adherents,
to whom he was indebted for distinguished services. It is stated in
the grant that this extensive region is called “Carolina,” a name used
before, and now, no doubt, retained in honor of the king.[704] The
favored noblemen are thus introduced to us: “our right trusty and right
well-beloved cousins and counsellors, Edward, Earl of Clarendon, our
High Chancellor of England, and George, Duke of Albemarle, Master of
our Horse and Captain-General of all our Forces, our right trusty and
well-beloved William Lord Craven, John Lord Berkeley, our right trusty
and well-beloved counsellor, Anthony Lord Ashley, Chancellor of our
Exchequer, Sir George Carteret, Knight and Baronet, Vice-Chamberlain of
our Household, and our trusty and well-beloved Sir William Berkeley,
Knight, and Sir John Colleton, Knight and Baronet;” who, we are
deliberately informed, “being excited with a laudable and pious zeal
for the propagation of the Christian faith, and the enlargement of”
the British dominions, humbly besought leave of the king, “by their
industry and charge, to transport and make an ample colony” of his
subjects, “in the parts of America not yet cultivated or planted,
and only inhabited by some barbarous people who have no knowledge of
Almighty God.”[705] Had these high functionaries of the realm acted in
accordance with this solemn announcement of their pious zeal for the
propagation of Christianity, the blessing of Heaven would, no doubt,
have rested more largely upon their noble enterprise.

An adverse claim was soon made to the same territory under a grant
obtained in 1629,[706] by Sir Robert Heath, attorney-general of Charles
I. But he had failed to form a colony, and the claims of those to
whom he had conveyed his rights were on that account set aside. The
Proprietors under the new charter began to make immediate exertions to
form a settlement, that the king might see they did not “sleep with his
grant, but were promoting his service and his subjects’ profit.”[707]

[Illustration: AUTOGRAPHS OF THE LORDS PROPRIETORS.

These follow fac-similes given in the _Charleston Year Book_, 1883.]

Before this, settlers from Virginia had moved at various times
southward and taken up their residence on some good lands on and
near the river Chowan, in what is now the northeastern part of North
Carolina. Among these was a considerable number of Quakers, at that
time subject to religious persecution. It happened that Sir William
Berkeley, one of the new Proprietors, was governor of Virginia. He
was empowered by the other Proprietors to form a government forthwith
in this settlement, and appoint its officers; the appointment of
surveyor and secretary alone being reserved to the Proprietors in
England. “We do likewise send you proposals to all that will plant,
which we prepared upon receipt of a paper from persons that desired to
settle near Cape Fear, in which our considerations are as low as it is
possible for us to descend. This was not intended for your meridian,
where we hope to find more facile people, who, by your interest, may
settle upon better terms for us, which we leave to your management,
with our opinion that you grant as much as is possible rather than
deter any from planting there.” Sir William, it is inferred, followed
these instructions. William Drummond was appointed governor;[708] the
tract of land, at first forty miles square, was named Albemarle in
honor of the duke, and a council of six was constituted to make laws
with the consent of the delegates of the freemen. These laws were to
be transmitted to England for approval by the Proprietors. Lands were
granted to all free of rent for three years; and such lands as had been
taken by previous settlers were confirmed to them.

Almost simultaneously another colony (Clarendon) was settled in
what is now North Carolina. As early as 1660 some adventurers from
Massachusetts had gone to the Cape Fear, sometimes called the Charles,
River, and purchased lands from the Indians; but in a few years
abandoned the situation, leaving their cattle and swine in care of
the natives. To the same locality the attention of the inhabitants
of Barbadoes[709] was directed on the grant of the territory to the
powerful noblemen whose names are given in the charter. The passage
already quoted from the letter to Sir William Berkeley had reference to
them and their proposal. Explorers, employed by “several gentlemen and
merchants” of Barbadoes, were sent out (1663) under command of Hilton,
who ascended the Cape Fear far inland, and formed a more favorable
opinion of the country than the New Englanders had been enabled to form
near the mouth of the river. They purchased from the Indians “the river
and land of Cape Fair,” as they express it, and returned to Barbadoes
on January 6, 1664. An account of their exploration was published the
same year, to which were appended proposals from the Proprietors,
through their commissioners, Thomas Mudyford and Peter Colleton, to
all who should settle, at their own hazard and expense, south and west
of Cape Romano, sometimes called Cape Carteret. This was a bid for
volunteer settlers south of the Cape Fear settlement. Nothing whatever,
it appears, was accomplished under this offer of the commissioners.
In a _Description of the Province_, with liberal privileges offered
to settlers, issued also in London (1666), it is stated that a new
plantation had been begun by the English at Cape Fear on the 29th of
May, 1664. In the following November, Robert Sandford was appointed
secretary and John Vassall surveyor of “Clarendon County.”[710] It was
time the Proprietors should agree upon some definite and satisfactory
terms for settlement in their territory. While they did not sanction
the purchase of lands from Indians, as they had also disallowed the
claims of the New England adventurers, they made to all colonists,
from Barbadoes and elsewhere, liberal offers for settlement; and under
“concessions and agreement” a method of government was framed, and
John Yeamans of Barbadoes was knighted by the king (through means of
Sir John Colleton), and commissioned, in January, 1665, governor of the
newly formed Clarendon County[711] and of the territory southward as
far as Florida; for in this direction the Proprietors designed to place
a third colony or county.

The two counties, Albemarle and Clarendon, were formed under the
charter of 1663. Another charter was granted by the good-natured king
in June, 1665, enlarging the limits of the province to 36° 30´ on the
north, and on the south to 29°. This extension may be ascribed to the
desire of the Proprietors to secure beyond doubt the section on which
the Chowan colony happened to be formed near Virginia, and to embrace,
southwardly, the limits claimed with respect to Spanish Florida.

We have very little knowledge concerning the administrations of
Drummond and of Yeamans. It is said that the latter, being near the
sea, began at once to export lumber and opened a trade with Barbadoes;
and reports so favorable were carried thither, and so many were
induced to follow the first emigrants, that the authorities of the
island interposed, and forbade, under severe penalties, “the spiriting
off” of their people. In Albemarle, Drummond was succeeded by Samuel
Stephens as governor in 1667. In Clarendon, the colony soon ceased to
prosper, and most, if not all, of the colonists had abandoned it in
1667. We shall understand better why they did so if we bear in mind
that the territory of the Lords Proprietors was very extensive. There
were other places, not yet explored, more convenient for commerce,
more defensible, more fruitful, more desirable in all respects; the
advantages of which would naturally draw off settlers from the less
favorable localities selected before a thorough knowledge of the
country was obtained. The Proprietors, as we have said, thought of
forming, with larger preparations, a colony still further south. The
famous harbor of Port Royal, in what is now South Carolina, was the
locality they desired to occupy and (with unusual display of wisdom)
to fortify. For reasons, however, which will appear hereafter, when
we treat of South Carolina, the colonists, after visiting Port Royal,
and after a temporary settlement at Albemarle Point on the western
bank of the Ashley River, finally settled down on the opposite side,
at the confluence of the Ashley and Cooper rivers, and founded the
present city of Charleston. There was, indeed, enough to discourage the
settlers at Cape Fear independently of the more extensive preparation
by the Proprietors to place a colony in a better situation. Secretary
Sandford (in his _Relation_ of his voyage in 1666) incidentally
mentions: “Wee were in actuall warre with the natives att Clarendon,
and had killed and sent away many of them, for they [the more southern
Indians] frequently discoursed with us concerning the warre, told us
the natives were noughts, their land sandy and barren, their country
sickly.” Surveyor-General Vassall, in a letter from Virginia (Oct.
6, 1667), speaks of the loss of the plantation on Charles River and
his furnishing shipping to carry away “such weak persons as were not
able to go by land.” And a letter from Boston (Dec. 16, 1667) states
that Cape Fear was deserted, and the settlers “come hither, some to
Virginia.”[712]

Here let us notice the policy and plans of the Proprietors with
respect to their distant colonies. The two charters differ only in a
few particulars. The second increases the extent of territory, its
main object, gives power to subdivide the province into distinct
governments, and is a little more explicit with regard to religious
toleration. No person was to be molested for difference of religious
opinion or practice who did not actually disturb the peace of the
community. With regard to political privileges, there is an important
clause in both charters conferring upon the Proprietors power to ordain
any laws and constitutions whatsoever (if consonant to reason and, as
far as possible, to the laws and customs of England), but only “by
and with the advice, assent, and approbation of the freemen,” or the
majority of them, or of their delegates or deputies, who, for enacting
such ordinances, were to be duly assembled from time to time. These
privileges, we shall see in the history of the colony, were maintained
by the people with a pertinacity commensurate with their importance,
whenever their lordships attempted to control the colonists without
due regard to their approbation and consent. The charter reserved to
the king only allegiance and sovereignty; in all other respects the
Proprietors were absolute lords, with no other service or duty to their
monarch than the annual payment of a trifling sum of money, and in case
gold or silver should be found a fourth part thereof.

On August 6, 1663, a letter to the Proprietors, from members of a
Cape Fear company of New England adventurers, claimed full liberty
to choose their governors, make and confirm laws, and to be free
from taxes, except such as they might impose on themselves, and
deprecated “discouragement in reference to their government” as to
the accustomed privileges of English colonists. While their claims
were not conceded, this letter was answered generally by their
lordships, on August 25th, announcing their concessions to all wishing
to settle in Carolina.[713] The New England claim of privileges is
worthy of notice for what we now call “advanced ideas.” And if we
compare the charters of Connecticut (1662) and Rhode Island (1663)
with that of Carolina (1663), it will appear that the self-interest of
Clarendon[714] and his associates stood in the way of their securing
to their colony some civil privileges which it would not have seemed
strange at that time to concede. And it may as well be stated here,
at once, that besides considerations of self-interest it was also
the express policy of their lordships to “avoid erecting a numerous
democracy” in their province. To carry out this policy, a grand scheme
of government, called the Fundamental Constitutions, was framed by
Shaftesbury and the philosopher Locke, and solemnly confirmed as a
compact among themselves,—the Proprietors,—and which was to be
unalterable forever. A scheme more utopian, more unsuited to the actual
condition of the colonists, could hardly have been devised. Yet its
adoption by the people was recommended, ordered, stubbornly insisted
on by their lordships at the risk of balking—as, for a while, it did
balk—the prosperity of their colony. The first set of the unalterable
Constitutions is dated 21st July, 1669; the second was issued in March,
1670,—and so on till a fifth set had been constructed. Under the right
conferred by the charter, respecting the consent of the freemen, or
their delegates, in establishing laws and constitutions, such consent
was never formally given; and the code was, at least in South Carolina,
again and again rejected. It was a gage of political contention
foolishly thrown down; but in taking it up, the colonists were made
ardent students of political rights.

By these Constitutions, the eldest Proprietor was made Palatine,—a
sort of king of the province. The other seven Proprietors were to be
high functionaries: admiral, chamberlain, constable, chief justice,
chancellor, high steward, and treasurer.[715] There was to be a
Parliament: eight superior courts, one to each Proprietor according
to his high office; county and precinct courts; and a grand Executive
Council, among whose duties was the preparation and first enactment
of all matters to be submitted to Parliament. Among the carefully
composed articles in these Constitutions should be noticed such as
enjoin that no person above seventeen years of age could have the
benefit and protection of the law who was not a member of some church;
and no one could hold an estate or become a freeman of the province,
or have any habitation in it, who did not acknowledge a God and that
He is publicly and solemnly to be worshipped. Moreover, in the set of
the Constitutions printed and sent over for adoption, the Church of
England[716] was made the established church, and “it alone shall be
allowed to receive a public maintenance by grant of Parliament.” It was
also enjoined that no one seventeen years old should have any estate
or possession or the protection of the law in the province, unless he
subscribed the Fundamental Constitutions and promised in writing to
defend and maintain them to the utmost of his power.

Their lordships in England, and most, if not all, of their appointed
officers in the colonies, as in duty bound, contended strenuously for
the adoption of this preposterous form of government till the year
1698; and hardly then did the incontrovertible logic of events convince
them of their folly. A late historian of North Carolina remarks,
“Their lordships theorized, the colonists felt; the Proprietors drew
pictures, but the hardy woodsmen of Carolina were grappling with stern
realities. Titles of nobility, orders of precedence, the shows of an
empty pageantry, were to them but toys which might amuse children; but
there was no romance in watching the savage, or felling the forest, or
planting the corn, or gathering the crop, with the ever-present weapon
in reach of the laboring hand.”

There was another cause of irritation on the part of the colonists,
both in North and South Carolina. The terms of the tenure of land
were of paramount interest to them and their children. The quantity
offered in 1663 was augmented in 1666, and two years later, by the
“Great Deed of Grant,” the fear of forfeiture was removed for not
clearing and planting a specified portion of the land; in other
words, settlers were permitted to hold lands as they were held in the
adjoining royal province of Virginia. At first each freeman received
one hundred acres, the same for his wife, each child and manservant,
and fifty for each woman-servant; paying a half-penny per acre.
After the expiration of servitude, each servant received a liberal
quantity of land with implements for tillage.[717] In 1669, in the
settling of the colony at Ashley River, one hundred and fifty acres
were offered to all free persons above sixteen years of age, and
the same for able-bodied men-servants; and a proportionate increase
for others, if they arrived before the 25th of March, 1670; then a
less number of acres for subsequent arrivals. The annual rent was a
penny or _the value of a penny_ per acre (as also announced in the
unalterable Constitutions); payments to begin September, 1689.[718]
When Governor Sayle died (a year after settling on Ashley River), Sir
John Yeamans came from Barbadoes to the new settlement; and having been
made a landgrave claimed the government as vice-palatine under the
Fundamental Constitutions. Such claim was denied by the colonists;[719]
but he soon received a commission, and his first measure, on assuming
control, was to have an accurate survey made and a record of lands
held by settlers in South Carolina, with a view to the collection of
quit-rents for the Proprietors. When ten years of outlay for their
province had brought them no pecuniary return, they began to think
“the country was not worth having at that rate.” They removed their
former favorite Yeamans, because further outlays were incurred, and
placed West in authority, who had attended more successfully to their
interests. In November, 1682, all prior terms for granting land were
annulled, and if a penny an acre (the words “or the value of a penny”
being omitted) was not paid, a right of reëntry was claimed: “to enter
and distraine, and the distress or distresses then and there found to
take, lead, and carry and drive away and impound, and to detain and
keep until they shall be fully satisfied and paid all arrears of the
said rent.” This produced inequality of tenure, or operated to the
injury of many who had previously taken up, on more liberal terms, only
part of the lands they were entitled to.[720] Their lordships were too
just to interfere with the stability of titles, but the alteration of
the tenure for new grants or of the mode of conveyance, from time to
time, was at least unwise. Besides, there was scarcely any coin in the
province, and the people found it hard that they could no longer pay
in merchantable produce. To their reasonable request for relief and a
better encouragement to new settlers came the reply, “We insist to sell
our lands our own way.” With this reply a peremptory order was sent
that the third set of the unalterable Constitutions should be put in
force.

A part of this manifest diminution of the generosity of the Proprietors
and their unwillingness to bestow further concessions may be accounted
for by the opposition their favorite scheme of government had
encountered in both colonies, and especially by a rebellious outbreak
which had just occurred in Albemarle County. Clarendon County at Cape
Fear had broken up and disappeared, as we have related; and henceforth
our attention must be directed to Albemarle at the northern end of
the province and the Ashley River colony at the south, remote from
each other, with a vast forest intervening, the dwelling place of
numerous tribes of Indians. Before the province was authoritatively
divided (1729), it had divided itself, as it were, into North and South
Carolina; and it is best that, in this narrative, we should begin to
call them so.

In North Carolina, the Quakers, who were in close association and
unison, and so far influential in action,[721] opposed the Fundamental
Constitutions and the Church of England establishment; and all the
settlers looked upon the enforcement of the recent orders of the
Proprietors—the displacement of an easy and liberal method of
government without asking their assent—as a violation of the terms
of settlement, and of the inducements at first held out to them.[722]
Governor Stephens endeavored to enforce the orders of the Proprietors,
but he died soon after receiving them, and was succeeded by Carteret,
president of the council, till an appointment should be made.
Carteret appears not to have been of a nature to contend against the
disaffection and turbulence which had arisen, and, in 1675, went to
England to make known personally, it is said, the distracted condition
of the colony. But two of the colonists, Eastchurch and Miller,
had also gone over to represent, personally, the grievances of the
people. They seemed, to the Proprietors, the ablest men to carry out
their instructions; and the former was made governor and the latter
deputy of Earl Shaftesbury and secretary of the province; he was also
made, by the commissioners of the king’s revenue, collector of such
revenue in Albemarle. They sailed for Carolina in 1677, but the new
governor remained a long while in the West Indies (winning “a lady
and her fortune”), and died soon after reaching Albemarle. Miller as
representing Eastchurch, but really without legal authority to act
as governor, ruled with a high hand. He had gone to represent the
grievances of his fellow colonists; he returned to harass them still
more. The new “model” of government, the denial of “a free election
of an assembly” (as the Pasquotank people complained), the attempt to
enforce strictly the navigation laws, the collection of the tax on
tobacco at their very doors,[723] his drunkenness and “putting the
people in general by his threats and actions in great dread of their
lives and estates,” as the Proprietors themselves express it, became
intolerable to the colonists.

The New Englanders, with their characteristic enterprise, had long
been sailing through the shallow waters of the Sound in coasting
vessels, adapted to such navigation, and had largely monopolized the
trade of North Carolina; buying or trafficking for lumber and cattle,
which they sold in the West Indies, and bringing back rum, molasses,
salt, and sugar, they exchanged these for tobacco, which they carried
to Massachusetts, and shipped thence to Europe without much regard
to the navigation laws. Miller, according to instructions sent to
Governor Eastchurch, sought to break up this thriving and lucrative
business, and to introduce a more direct trade with England. The
populace generally, including the Quakers, had their own grievances,
and fraternized with the New England skippers. Gillam, one of these
bold captains, arrived with his vessel laden with the commodities the
people needed, and armed, this time, with cannon. A wealthy Quaker,
Durant, was on board with him. On land, John Culpepper, who had lately
left South Carolina, where he had created commotions, became a leader
of the malcontents. Influenced, no doubt, by the recent rebellion of
Bacon in Virginia, some participators in which had taken refuge among
them, and led on by men of courage whose hard-earned emoluments were
threatened with ruin, the insurgents seized and imprisoned Miller and
seven of the proprietary deputies, and took from the former a large
amount of money which he had collected for the king. They had won over
to their side the remaining deputy, the president of the council; and
together they now governed the colony as seemed best to them. But they
were aware that violence and usurpation could not be passed over with
impunity by higher authority; and as Miller and some of his adherents
had escaped and gone to England, Culpepper and Holden were also sent
to the Proprietors on a mission of explanation. The explanation of
neither party was entirely satisfactory. Miller lost his offices, and
Culpepper, though he was unpunished by the Proprietors, was seized by
the Commissioners of the Customs to answer for the revenue money which
had been used in the time of the disorders. He was put on trial, in
1680, for “treason committed without the realm.” It is said by Chalmers
that the judges ruled that taking up arms against the proprietary
government was treason against the king. Notwithstanding this view
of the case, Culpepper was acquitted of treason, because Shaftesbury
asserted that the county of Albemarle had not a regular government, and
the offence of the prisoner amounted to no more than a riot.[724]

At this time the Earl of Clarendon sold his proprietary share to Seth
Sothel, who was appointed governor. Mr. John Harvey, as president of
the council at Albemarle, was to exercise the functions of governor
till Sothel’s arrival. The latter, on his voyage, was captured by an
Algerine corsair; Harvey died; Jenkins was made governor, and was
deposed by the people without reprimand from the Proprietors; and
in February, 1681, Wilkinson was appointed. These sudden changes in
executive authority were unfortunate for the prestige of proprietary
power in the colony; for all this while and until Sothel came in 1683,
the old adherents of the Culpepper party, or the popular party, held
control in Albemarle. But still more unfortunate for the Proprietors
was the coming of Sothel. He seems to have purchased his place as
Proprietor and to have come as governor in order to have a clear field
for the exercise of his rapacity. If he was “a sober, moderate man,”
as his colleagues thought when they intrusted their interests and the
welfare of the county to his hands, his association with the Algerines
must have materially changed his character. In 1688, the outraged
colonists seized him, intending to send him to England for trial. On
his appeal this was not done, but the case referred to the colonial
assembly, who condemned him. His sentence, however, amounted only to
banishment for twelve months and perpetual deposition from authority,
Proprietor though he was. He went to South Carolina, and his further
career will be noticed when we review the history of that colony.

The next year Philip Ludwell, of Virginia, was made governor, and after
four years was transferred to South Carolina and appointed governor of
both colonies. For more than twenty years North Carolina was governed
by a deputy of the governor at Charleston, or (when there was no deputy
appointed) by the president of her own council. The Albemarle colony
had become to the Proprietors only a source of vexation. At any rate,
they acted wisely in leaving its management, in some measure, under the
control of those more conversant with its affairs than their lordships
in England could possibly be. Their own mismanagement, in truth, was
the principal cause of the turbulent spirit of the people.[725]

After Sothel’s banishment the executive authority belonged, as a rule,
to the president of the council till Ludwell received it in 1689.
On the latter’s removal to Charleston, S. C., Lillington acted as
deputy in Albemarle. In 1695, Thomas Harvey became deputy governor by
appointment from Archdale, the Quaker Proprietor (who was sent over
to heal grievances in both colonies), and was followed in 1699 by
Henderson Walker, president of the council. In 1704, Robert Daniel was
appointed deputy by Governor Johnson, of South Carolina. John Porter, a
Quaker, or sympathizer with the Quakers (sent to England to complain of
Daniel and legislation in favor of the Church of England in the colony
by “The Vestry Act”), with the assistance of Archdale, prevailed
on the Proprietors to order Daniel’s removal, and Governor Johnson
appointed (1705) Thomas Carey in his place. He was as little acceptable
to the Quakers in North Carolina as his predecessor had been, and
through their influence in England at this conjuncture the appointment
of a deputy by the executive in South Carolina was suspended, Carey
was removed, and a new Proprietary Council formed, including Porter
and several Quakers. Porter returned to North Carolina in 1707, and
called together the new council, who chose William Glover, a Churchman,
president, and, as such, acting governor. He, however, as Carey had
done, required conformity to the English laws respecting official
oaths, which were displeasing to the Quakers; and Porter in opposition
declared Glover’s election as president illegal, formed a coalition
with Carey, whom he had before caused to be displaced, and secured his
election to the presidency of the council. There were now two claimants
for executive authority, and no power at hand to decide between them.
Carey and Glover sat in opposite rooms with their respective councils.
Daniel, being a landgrave, and having thereby a right to a seat in
the Upper House,—as the council with the governor was styled,—sat
alternately with one and the other, and no doubt enjoyed their
altercations.

A new rebellion, so-called, now broke out, based apparently on local
party strife. At first Carey and his Quaker supporters opposing Glover
and his party sought and obtained control of the assembly; and when
Edward Hyde came from England with letters on authority of which he
claimed executive power,[726] the Carey party, at first favorable to
him, finally, on losing control of the next assembly, directed itself
against him. Hyde’s life was endangered by Carey’s armed opposition;
and Spotswood, the energetic governor of Virginia, sent him military
aid and put down his opponents.[727] Carey, on his way through
Virginia, was arrested by Spotswood and sent to England for trial.
This was the occasion of Lord Dartmouth’s circular letter to all the
colonies “to send over no more prisoners for crimes or misdemeanors
without proof of their guilt.”

According to the latest history,—that of Rev. Dr. Hawks,—another
result of this acrimonious contest was the deplorable massacre of
hundreds of defenceless white settlers, men, women, and children,
by the Tuscarora Indians. This is doubtless merely _post hoc ergo
propter hoc_. We must ascribe hostilities solely to encroachments on
the lands of the natives; to ill treatment by traders and others; and
to the killing of one of their number, which called for revenge. The
Tuscaroras, it was thought, could muster 1,200 warriors. They suddenly
made their onslaught at daybreak, September 22, 1711. Their special
task in the diabolical conspiracy was to murder all the whites along
the Roanoke, while other tribes conducted a simultaneous attack upon
other sections. The wielding of the blood-dripping knife and tomahawk,
the conflagration of dwellings and barns, the murderous rush upon the
victims who, here and there, had hidden themselves and who ran out from
the blazing fires to a fate scarcely less dreadful, with other horrors
we are unwilling to relate, continued for three days. One hundred and
fifty were slain on the Roanoke, more than sixty at Newbern, an unknown
number near Bath; and the carnage was stopped only by the exhaustion
and besotted drunkenness of the bloodstained savages. Governor Hyde was
powerless to confront the foe. He could not raise half the number of
men the enemy had. The Quakers were non-combatants; and with them were
affiliated many others who opposed the government. Governor Hyde was
compelled to resort to arbitrary measures in impressing vessels and in
procuring provisions for such troops as he could muster; and these were
so inadequate, and so wide-spread was the Indian combination, that he
called for assistance from Virginia and South Carolina. Both responded
with alacrity. While Spotswood could not supply troops, he checked the
further combination of tribes in his direction. South Carolina sent
troops onward through the forests, under Colonel Barnwell, who defeated
the Tuscaroras and put an end to the war for the time being. But after
he retired to South Carolina, suffering with wounds, the Indians
treacherously renewed hostilities; and it was believed they would soon
be joined by more powerful northward tribes. To add to the calamities
of the people, an epidemic (said to be yellow fever) broke out. The
mortality was fearful, and among the victims was the governor of the
colony. The council elected Colonel Pollock as their president and to
act as commander-in-chief. The following mournful picture is given us
from manuscripts left by Colonel Pollock: “The government was bankrupt,
the people impoverished, faction abundant, the settlements on Neuse and
Pamlico destroyed, houses and property burned, plantations abandoned,
trade in ruins, no cargoes for the few small vessels that came, the
Indian war renewed, not men enough for soldiers, no means to pay them,
the whole available force under arms but one hundred and thirty or
forty men, and food for the whole province to be supplied from the
northern counties of Albemarle only.” South Carolina, being again
called on for help, sent Colonel James Moore, eldest son to Colonel
James Moore, late governor of the colony. On the 20th of March, 1713,
he conquered the last stronghold of the savages, who soon after, broken
and disheartened, left the province in large numbers, and joined
themselves with the Iroquois in what is now the State of New York. Such
of them as remained in North Carolina entered into a treaty of peace
with the whites. During these exhausting calamities the Proprietors
were appealed to; and it was a poor response to refer the matter to
General Nicholson “to enquire into the disorders of North Carolina.”

The next year (May, 1714) Charles Eden, an excellent officer, was
appointed governor. The adherents of Carey, or the popular party,
however, seemed to be actuated against all who were sent to rule the
colony. What grievances they had to palliate or justify their conduct,
on this occasion, we know not; but soon their active opposition had
to be dealt with by the constituted authorities. We shall see, when
we treat of South Carolina, that a few years later the colonists, in
that section, threw off, effectually, the inefficient rule of the
Proprietors, and placed themselves under the immediate control of the
Crown; deposing the last proprietary governor, and electing Colonel
Moore governor in the king’s name. It is probable that the same
spirit actuated the people in North Carolina. Yet her historians have
not made it evident that the continued disaffection and turbulence
and rebellion of the people are indications of their readiness to
act as their more southern brethren acted. Perhaps they had not, at
that conjuncture, the same amount of provocation. When we read the
letter of the Lords Proprietors to the council and assembly (June 3,
1723),[728] “We received an address from you, transmitted some time
since by our late governor, Mr. Eden, wherein you signified to us
your great dislike to the rebellious and tumultuous proceedings of
several of the inhabitants of South Carolina, and your constant and
steady adherence to our government and the present constitution,” we
are to bear in mind that this governor and council were the appointed
officers of their lordships. We are to ask, Where are the records
of the assembly,[729]—records of the thoughts and actions of the
representatives of the people? These, no doubt, will show, if they can
be found, that a spirit of local self-government actuated the people,
and is the thread of development to be followed by the future historian
of the State. We need the testimony of Porter, of Carey, of the able
and virtuous Edward Moseley (chief justice from 1707 to 1711), and of
other leaders of the people against the repressive policy of their
lordships in England and their governors and councils.

Some interesting subjects, indicative of the condition of the colony
in these early times, must be briefly noticed: the emission of paper
money consequent upon the expenses of the Indian war; the occasional
rating of commodities for exchange; the indigenous products of the
soil and staples of export; the forwarding of tobacco abroad through
Virginia, and troubles about boundary lines; the customs and modes of
life among the gentry or planters and the humbler classes, and among
their close neighbors, the Indian tribes; the visits of pirates to the
coast, both in North and South Carolina, notably Teach or Blackbeard,
and the romantic defeat of him in Pamlico Sound; the settling, at
first, along the streams, which became the principal highways for
travel and commerce; the ill effects necessarily resulting from the
habitations being far apart, and from the fact that there was very
little social intercourse; the transmission of letters only by special
messengers; the disadvantageous nature of the coast section, retarding
the prosperity of the colony.

During the proprietary period, or the first sixty-six years of the
colony, the people clung to the seaboard and that part of it which
had no good port of entry. This was as great a misfortune as it was
to cling to the border line of Virginia. The accession of population,
including foreigners, came chiefly through that border. In 1690 and
again in 1707, bodies of French Protestants arrived, and settled in
Pamlico and on the Neuse and Trent; and three years after some Swiss
and Germans settled at Newbern. The whites in the province numbered at
this time about 5,000. Large tracts of unoccupied land lay between the
selected points of settlement. A few towns had been begun: the first,
forty-two years after the first settling in the province. If a good
harbor had been selected and a town properly fortified built there for
exports, the progress of North Carolina might have been more rapid and
substantial. The metropolis was Edenton (founded 1715) on the Chowan.
The legislature met there. It contained forty or fifty houses. There
was no church there. The Rev. Dr. Hawks says: “For long, long years
there were no places of worship. They never amounted to more than some
half dozen of all sorts, while the Proprietors owned Carolina; and when
their unblessed dominion ended, there was not a minister of Christ
living in the province.” There had been, however, missionaries sent
out by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel; and there were
some pious gentlemen in the colony who gave them welcome and all the
assistance in their power. But while a few of the missionaries were
exemplary and accomplished much good, others were a positive hindrance
to “the propagation of the gospel.”

Among the misfortunes of the colonists we must not fail to notice the
incompetent governors sent from England. Favoritism, and not fitness
for office, dictated the selection. Archdale, Hyde, and Eden are
considered the only governors sent to the province who did it much
service. The last two whom their lordships favored with the dignity
of executive authority were Burrington, pronounced “a profligate
blackguard,” and Sir Richard Everard, whom his superseded rival railed
against as “a noodle and an ape,” and “no more fit to be a governor
than Sancho Panza.” It was in the administration of Sir Richard that
the colony passed by purchase under the immediate control of the king.
Two thousand five hundred pounds sterling were paid for each of seven
shares; Lord Carteret declining to dispose of his, as it had come to
him by inheritance.[730] The claims for arrears of quit-rent due from
settlers were also purchased. Before the surrender of the charter
many changes had occurred in the ownership of shares in the province;
and not one of the original Proprietors remained alive to witness the
failure of their successors in the noble enterprise committed to their
management by the munificence of Charles II.

ROYAL GOVERNMENT.—The method of the royal government will be noticed
when we come to write of South Carolina. The more thoughtful in North
Carolina no doubt felt relieved in escaping from the negligent rule of
the Proprietors; but the transition from the old to the new form of
administration appears to have been a matter of indifference to the
people at large. All they saw in 1731 was that George Burrington, who
had been displaced for Everard in 1725, came back with a commission
as the first royal governor, to displace in turn his former rival.
Burrington, favored for his father’s services to the king, was
unsuited for his position, and soon became involved in disputes with
his council, the assembly, and the judges. He appeared to think
the foremost duty of the assembly was to provide for him a salary
suitable to his new dignity, to raise money for other royal officers
and an adequate and permanent revenue for the king. The assembly was
prorogued for declining to do so. His violence and tyranny caused
complaints against him to be sent, through Chief Justice Smith, to
the authorities in the mother country. One service, however, he
rendered, in conciliating the Indians on the western border. To this
end he sent Dr. John Brickell with a party of ten men and two Indian
hunters to assist them.[731] The account of the expedition adds to our
knowledge of the condition of that remote section of the province, as
the interesting work of Lawson does with respect to other sections.
In 1734, on the return of the chief justice, the governor retired to
Charleston and sailed thence to England. Soon afterwards he was found
murdered in St. James’ Park, in London.[732] Nathaniel Rice, secretary
of the province, and the first named of the councillors, administered
the government from April till November, when Gabriel Johnston, a
Scotchman and man of letters, received, through the influence of his
patron, Lord Wilmington, the royal appointment. For nearly twenty years
he prudently administered the affairs of the colony. At first he found
a formidable obstacle to a successful management of the people in their
disregard of laws and of gubernatorial dignitaries, imposed upon them
by foreign authority. Many hard things have been said of the people
by those who, perhaps, did not consider the neglect, mismanagement,
and tyrannical provocation under which they lived for two generations,
and the increasing intercolonial influences in behalf of popular
sovereignty. One of the Virginia commissioners, for laying off (in
1727) the northern boundary, states that the borderers preferred to
belong to the Carolina side, “where they pay no tribute to God or to
Cæsar.” Governor Johnston, at this time, was in need of the latter
kind of tribute. The salaries of the crown officers were to be paid
from quit-rents due to the Crown, the collection of which depended on
enactments of the assembly. The governor, finding great difficulty in
having a satisfactory enactment passed, prorogued the assembly and
attempted to collect the rents on his own authority. Not only was
this resisted by the people, but the assembly, being again convened,
denied the legality of the acts of the governor, and imprisoned his
officers who had distrained for the rents.[733] The assembly was
consequently dissolved (March, 1736). At the next session, in the
following September, the governor addressed the representatives of the
people on the general condition of the province, the lack of moral
and educational advancement, and of proper regard for law and good
order, and assured them “that while he was obliged by his instructions
to maintain the rights of the Crown, he would show a regard to the
privileges, liberties, and happiness of the people.” In the spirit of
compromise a law was passed with the concurrence of the governor, but
which the authorities in England rejected as yielding too much to the
demands of the popular assembly.

At this time (1738) commissioners were empowered to run the boundary
between North and South Carolina, and completed the work from the
Atlantic as far westward as the Pee Dee. The original division of
the coast section into three counties—Albemarle with six precincts,
Bath with four precincts, and Clarendon with one (New Hanover)—was
altered, and the precincts were denominated counties. The very names
of the original counties disappeared. Soon other counties westward or
inland were formed as the population increased, chiefly by overland
immigration. To each county the governor appointed a sheriff, selected
from three persons recommended by the county court. The judiciary
system was modified to suit the new administration and augmentation
of population. The governor had before (1736) deplored the fact that
no provision had been made “or care taken to inspire the youth with
generous sentiments, worthy principles, or the least tincture of
literature;” but not until 1754 was an act passed to establish a public
seminary. It did not receive the royal assent. That there were not many
schools is doubtless due to the sparseness of settlements, and not
to any general indifference to education.[734] During the period of
the royal government there were two schools that we read of,—those at
Newbern and Edenton. In the building of the former, a wooden structure,
the lower house of assembly occasionally held its sessions. In 1749,
printing was introduced at Newbern, from Virginia; and a weekly paper
styled the _North Carolina Gazette_, issued “on a sheet of post-sized
folio,”—“with freshest advices, foreign and domestic.” In 1752
appeared the first edition of the _Provincial Laws_.

At the town of Wilmington, so named in honor of the Governor’s patron,
and sometimes at Newbern, the assembly now met instead of at Edenton,
near the Virginia boundary. A new assembly was convened at Wilmington,
and an attempt was made to establish an equalization of representation,
with a consequent diminution of the number of representatives from
the old and more northern counties,—from five members each to two
members.[735] Dissatisfaction was the result; and the six northern
counties would neither recognize the assembly at Wilmington nor pay
taxes, nor would the jurors attend the courts. The colony, however,
was more thriving than it had been at any previous period. It was
favored by the mother country with bounties on its exports; and the
general prosperity was augmented by the coming in of the banished
Highlanders and of emigrants from Ireland, and especially by the
beginning of the great flow of overland immigration into the central
and more western section of the province. Under the prudent management
of Johnston, harmony at last prevailed, and such laws were enacted as
were necessary. On the declaration of war between England and France,
the defences of the coast received legislative attention, and a fort
mounting twenty-four cannon was erected on the south bank of the Cape
Fear, and called Fort Johnston, in honor of the governor.[736]

Governor Johnston died in August, 1752. What he had written to the
Duke of Newcastle, in 1739, was now even more applicable, that after
years of effort he had brought the colony “to system, where disorder
had before reigned, and placed it on a firmer foundation.” The
administration again devolved on Nathaniel Rice; and on his decease in
January, Matthew Rowan, the next councillor, acted as governor till
the arrival of Arthur Dobbs, in 1754. Rowan’s short term of service
was distinguished by liberal contributions for building churches and
purchasing glebe lands for the support of ministers of the gospel;
and by the convening of the assembly to provide for aiding Governor
Dinwiddie, of Virginia, by whose order George Washington had gone to
examine the alarming movements of the French on the Ohio. The militia
of North Carolina amounted at that time, as stated by Rowan, to 15,400
men.

Besides the early coast-line settlements, and those along the
bottom lands of the northeastern streams, there came, mainly after
Braddock’s defeat, a remarkable tide of immigration from the western
frontiers of Virginia and Pennsylvania into central and western North
Carolina. Between 1750 and 1790 the accession to the population is
computed[737] to be as much as 300,000. Many seeking fertile lands
moved over into the “Up Country” of South Carolina, and westward into
Tennessee. These hardy and liberty-loving German and Scotch-Irish
settlers formed a section of North Carolina which for a long time was
“distinct in population, religion, and material interests.” Their final
fraternization and blending in political union with the people of the
eastern section is a subject for the later history of the province and
State.

Governor Dobbs, a native of Ireland, and who had been a member of
its Parliament, brought to the colony cannon and firelocks, as a
present from the king; and, as a present from himself, “a number of
his relations, who had hopes of offices and preferments.”[738] While,
on the one hand, he sought to conciliate the Indian tribes, on the
other he continuously embroiled himself in contests with the assembly
and on trivial matters. It was, however, the irrepressible conflict
of that day,—the conflict we have been expecting all along in this
history,—the outgrowth of antagonism between the royal prerogatives
and the rights and privileges of the representatives of the people.
Contributions of men and money were called for by the governor for the
general defence of the provinces, and for fortifications within the
limits of North Carolina. The assembly were ever ready to defend their
frontiers and render aid to the neighboring colonies. But in the acts
for founding new counties, they disallowed “the royal prerogative of
granting letters of incorporation, ordering and regulating elections,
and establishing fairs and markets.” In enactments for a new court
system, the further emission of paper money, and the appointment of
an agent in England to solicit the affairs of the province, disputes
ensued between the assembly and the executive. A new assembly being
convened was equally jealous of its rights and privileges, and ably
maintained them in lengthy communications to the governor, but without
moving him from his convictions of duty under the royal instructions.
The assembly was prorogued after appointing, by resolution, the agent
to England, whom the governor had rejected. Upon reassembling, and
again in a new assembly, on various bills the struggle for legislative
rights was continued with the Upper House or council.

Two very different events here arrest our attention: the grant of the
king, through Parliament, of £50,000 to indemnify Virginia, North
and South Carolina, for their war expenses, and the proposal to the
colonies to form a union for common defence against general attacks of
the French and Indians; the one fostering attachment to the Crown, the
other teaching the method of effectual resistance.

Governor Dobbs was now infirm and over eighty years of age, and, having
obtained leave of absence, there was sent over, as Lieutenant-Governor,
the able and energetic William Tryon, a colonel in the Queen’s Guards,
who became, on the decease of Dobbs, in 1765, governor of North
Carolina. He was succeeded by Martin, the last royal governor. We
close this brief narrative, pondering upon the province’s progress
in wealth, population, and political stability; on the intercolonial
influences developing union and constitutional self-government; and on
the portentous shadow of the approaching Revolution.[739]


SOUTH CAROLINA.

PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT.—In 1665 the Lords Proprietors placed in charge
of Sir John Yeamans—whom they had, in January, commissioned governor
of Clarendon county at Cape Fear—the further discovery of the Carolina
coast southward of the portion embraced in the report of Hilton, Long,
and Fabian in 1663. Yeamans and his party left Barbadoes in three
vessels in October. After separation by a storm, they all reached the
Cape Fear or Charles River. But there a violent gale wrecked the vessel
containing the greater part of their provisions, arms, and ammunition.
Being in distress for supplies, their sloop was despatched to Virginia
for aid, and Yeamans himself returned to Barbadoes, leaving Robert
Sandford in commission to obtain a vessel and complete the exploration
of the southern coast. Sandford appears to have first entered the North
Edisto River, where he met the Cassique of Kiawah, who had traded with
the settlers in Clarendon county, and who now invited Sandford to his
country. But the explorers sailed on to Port Royal, arriving there
early in July. Their reception was apparently very friendly, and Dr.
Henry Woodward remained among the Indians to learn their language,
while a nephew of the chief accompanied Sandford. They designed, on
their return, to visit Kiawah; but by a mistake of the Indian who acted
as guide, they passed beyond the entrance (now Charleston harbor) which
led to that country, and the wind not being favorable for putting back,
the voyagers proceeded northward and returned to Cape Fear.[740]

In 1667, the Proprietors took measures to found, in the region reported
on by Sandford, a colony worthy of themselves and of the munificence
of the king in granting them almost royal authority in the extensive
territory lavishly bestowed by the charter. The elaborate plan of
government which Locke assisted in maturing was devised for this new
enterprise, and was solemnly agreed upon as a contract among the
Proprietors. Twelve thousand pounds sterling, a large sum at that
day, were expended in preparation for founding, in what is now South
Carolina, a colonial government calculated to bring both glory and
emolument to their lordships. In August, 1669, three vessels were
ready to sail from England: the “Carolina” frigate, the “Port Royall,”
and the sloop “Albemarle.” On board the first-named were ninety-three
passengers. How many were in the other vessels is not at present
known; but the intention appears to have been to begin the settlement
with at least two hundred. They stopped at Kinsale in Ireland to take
in other emigrants, receiving, however, only seven; and according
to instructions sailed thence to Barbadoes, which they reached in
October. They were to obtain there such plants as the vine, olive,
ginger, cotton, and indigo, and some swine for the new colony; and, no
doubt, as many emigrants as could be induced to join the expedition.
The fleet was consigned to Thomas Colleton, brother of the Proprietor,
Sir Peter Colleton. It seems that the Proprietors were not pleased
with the management of Sir John Yeamans in the previous expedition
and his leaving the perils of exploration to Secretary Sandford; yet
his experience and ability rendered his coöperation desirable, and
power was given him to fill a blank commission sent to him for the
governorship of the new colony. Living in Barbadoes, and familiar
with projects of colonization, he acted on this occasion on behalf
of their lordships, with authority as their lieutenant-general, and
assisted and encouraged the adventurers. But many disasters occurred:
at Barbadoes the “Albemarle” was driven ashore in a gale and lost,
in November; and in January the “Port Royall” suffered the same
fate at the Bahama Islands. A sloop obtained at Barbadoes in place
of the “Albemarle” became separated in a storm, and the “Carolina,”
in a damaged condition, put in at Bermuda for repairs. A part of the
equipments was lost by the wrecks; and Yeamans, to the discontent and
indignation of the colonists, withdrew from further participation in
their fortunes, saying he was obliged to return to Barbadoes as one of
the commissioners appointed to negotiate “with French commissioners
the affair at St. Christopher’s.” He persuaded the colonists to take
Colonel William Sayle, and inserted his name as governor in the blank
commission sent to him by the Proprietors. He describes Sayle as “a man
of no great sufficiency, yet the ablest I could then meet with.”[741]

The expedition sailed again on the 26th of February, 1670, in the
“Carolina” and a sloop bought at Bermuda (where Sayle had, twenty years
before, founded a colony of Presbyterians).[742] The Barbadoes sloop,
with about thirty persons on board, had gone to Nansemond, Virginia,
and joined the rest of the expedition at Kiawah in the month of May.
The other two vessels, about a fortnight after leaving Bermuda, had
reached the coast at a place called Sewee,[743] in March, and proceeded
thence to Port Royal harbor, their point of destination, and where the
instructions of the Proprietors directed them to go. They remained
there a few days. Governor Sayle summoned the _freemen_, according to
instructions annexed to his commission, and they elected Paul Smith,
Robert Donne, Ralph Marshall, Samuel West, and Joseph Dalton their
representatives in the council, which consisted of ten, the other five
being deputies named by the Proprietors. The governor and council, by
the same instructions, were to select the place for building a fort
and a town. Upon examination the land at Kiawah was judged better, and
a more defensible position could there be found than at Port Royal.
A discussion was held, and, the governor favoring Kiawah, it was
determined to remove and settle there permanently. Weighing anchor,
they sailed northward as to their home at last, and in the month of
April selected for their residence a bluff which they named Albemarle
Point, on the western bank of Kiawah River, now called the Ashley,
and began to build a town which they named Charles Town, and to erect
fortifications. Safely settled after a perilous voyage, when now, borne
down with daily toil, they sank to rest, soothing dreams of prosperity
and happiness, no doubt, renewed their courage for the labors and
dangers of the morrow.[744]

The administration of the colony devolved on the governor,
representing the Palatine (the Duke of Albemarle),[745] and the
council, representing partly the other Lords Proprietors and partly
the people. On the 4th July, 1670, the governor and council—because
the freeholders were “nott neere sufficient to elect a Parliament,”
as the instructions required—promulgated certain orders for the
better observance of the Sabbath; and a certain William Owens, arguing
that a parliament was necessary for such legislation, persuaded the
people to elect one among themselves, “which they did and returned
to said governor.” But this 4th July spirit of independence was not
persisted in, the members elect receding from their own “election
into dignity.”[746] The council continued to exercise all necessary
legislative and judicial as well as executive power, till a parliament
was formed.

Sayle was about eighty years of age and in feeble health, and died
on 4th March, 1671, transferring his authority, as he was empowered
to do, on the man of his choice. He selected Joseph West, his able
assistant, who had brought the colonists from England under commission
as “Governor and Commander in Chief of the Fleet.”

Scarcely had the English entrenched themselves when the jealous
Spaniards sent a party to attack them; but finding them stronger than
they expected, they returned to St. Augustine. The chief reason for
not settling at Port Royal, as they were directed to do, was evidently
the exposure of that situation to attacks, both from hostile Indians
and the Spaniards who instigated them, and who, from their early
exploration and settlement, claimed the noble harbor, of which Ribault
had said, a century before, the largest ships of France, “yea, the
argosies of Venice,” might enter therein.[747]

Sayle’s nomination of West, to act with all the authority conferred
upon himself, was of force only till the pleasure of the Proprietors
could be known. When they were informed of Sayle’s decease, they
gave the position of governor to Sir John Yeamans (commission dated
August, 1671); continuing West, however, as superintendent of important
interests in the colony. He was made governor when Yeamans was
displaced (1674); and in December, 1679, their lordships wrote to him,
“We are informed that the Oyster Point is not only a more convenient
place to build a town on than that formerly pitched on by the first
settlers, but that people’s inclinations tend thither; we let you
know the Oyster Point is the place we do appoint for the port town,
of which you are to take notice and call it Charles Town.” The public
offices were removed thither and the council summoned to meet there,
and, in 1680, thirty houses were erected. Even before this, some
settlers had left old Charles Town and taken up their residence at
Oyster Point. Great interest was aroused in all that pertained to the
colony by the active exertions and liberal offers of the Proprietors.
Every vessel that sailed to Charles Town brought new-comers. The
Proprietors’ trading-ship “Blessing” followed the first expedition,
its “main end” and chief employment being to transport emigrants from
Barbadoes, where Yeamans and Thomas Colleton were to advise and help
Captain Halsted in this work of emigration. The “Carolina,” in a return
voyage from the same island, had brought sixty-four settlers, and the
“John and Thomas” forty-two. In the “Phœnix” from New York a number of
German families arrived, who began to build James Town on the Stono
River. When Sir John Yeamans came to reside at Charles Town (April,
1672) he brought the first negro slaves into the colony. In 1680,
the date of the removal to Oyster Point, the settlers numbered about
1,200; in 1686, they were estimated at 2,500, English, Irish, Scotch,
French, and Germans. It is of significance, with respect to the first
political acts of these settlers, to bear in mind that they were mostly
dissenters. Boone, agent in London for a large portion of the people,
stated in his petition to the House of Lords (in 1706) that after the
reëstablishment of the Church of England by the Act of Uniformity, many
subjects of the Crown, “who were so unhappy as to have some scruples
about conforming to the rites of said Church, did transplant themselves
and families into said Colony, by means whereof the greatest part of
the inhabitants there were Protestant Dissenters from the Church of
England.” We must remember, too, that religious freedom was promised
as an inducement to emigrate. As Governor Archdale said, the charter
“had an overplus power to grant liberty of conscience, although at home
was a hot persecuting time.” And this overplus power was at first very
fairly used. All denominations lived harmoniously together, till Lord
Granville became Palatine, whose tyrannical disruption of the religious
privileges of the colonists (by excluding dissenters from the colonial
legislature) nearly cost the Proprietors their charter. The felling
of forests, clearing of plantations, experimenting in agricultural
products, establishing stock farms, building habitations, opening a
peltry trade with the Indians, forming military companies for mutual
defence against hostile tribes, and against the French at times, and at
times against the Spaniards, exploring the adjacent country, caring for
and nursing the sick who succumbed to the malarial influences of the
sultry low country along the coast, where the settlers were for many
years compelled to reside,[748]—amidst such circumstances there was no
disposition for religious dissension and none for political differences
among themselves. And when political opposition did arise, it was for
civil rights, and between the colonists as one party and the Lords
Proprietors and their official representatives as the other party. The
rights for which they contended against irritating obstacles engendered
a persistent spirit of political advancement which led to the overthrow
of the proprietary government in 1719, and in further development
through the royal administration culminated in constitutional
self-government. In this respect, the history of no other colony
presents a more interesting and instructive record. The awakening
of the people to a determined maintenance of what they deemed right
and just began with the stubborn efforts of the Proprietors to force
the colonists to adopt their scheme of government, the Fundamental
Constitutions. The people declared the charter of Charles II. to be
fundamental enough for them. The facts involved in this contention are
now to be related.

Locke and Shaftesbury’s elaborate and cumbrous system, solemnly adopted
by the Proprietors, suited only (if it could be made to suit) a large
population. A copy was sent out for the first governor, but not to be
immediately put in force. He was to govern by “instructions” annexed
to his commission, and prefaced with the words “In regard the number
of the people which will at first be set down at Port Royal will be so
small, together with want of Landgraves and Cassiques, that it will
not be possible to put our Grand Model of government in practice at
first;” the instructions, coming as nigh as practicable to the Grand
Model, must be used instead. The same “paucity of nobility” and people
is given as the reason for two sets of Temporary Laws (1671, 1672)
and the Agrarian Laws (1672). The governor and council are told to
follow always the latest instructions; a prudent order, for they came
in so quick succession, and with so many alterations, that they may
have confused the wisest of governors. In these official papers two
principles are prominent: one that nothing should be debated or voted
in the parliament (the majority representing the people) “but what
is proposed to them by the council” (the majority representing their
lordships); the other “that the whole foundation of the government
is settled upon a right and equal distribution of land,”—for the
Proprietors and provincial aristocracy, first; then the common people
could have their subordinate little share.[749]

Contrast with these official regulations framed in London the actions
of Governor West and his council as recorded in the “Council Journals”
for 1671-72, still preserved in the office of the secretary of state.
They were exercising, on account of the “paucity of nobility,” all
executive, judicial, and legislative powers with promptness and energy,
and were fully supported by the people. They proclaimed war against the
Kussoe Indians, had all fire-arms repaired, began to construct a fort,
raised military companies, commissioned their officers, and reduced
the enemy to submission. They heard and decided complaints and legal
issues, and punished criminals, distributed lands, and provided for the
health and security of the community. They denied to Sir John Yeamans,
Landgrave though he was, any claim to gubernatorial authority, under
the Fundamental Constitutions, and had him before their tribunal for
cutting timber not his own. It is said he retired again to Barbadoes.
But he was commissioned governor and reappeared in the colony, and was
“disgusted that the people did not incline to salute him as governor.”
In obedience to instructions, he immediately summoned, by proclamation,
the freemen to assemble and elect a parliament of twenty members, and
to select five of their number to be members of the grand council. This
legislative body (April, 1672), the first we have knowledge of in the
colony, had at this time very little power, compared with the council;
but it was destined to become, as the representative of the people,
the most potent factor in the political development of subsequent
years. Sir John Yeamans, two years later, gave place again (as before
stated) to his rival, Colonel West, whom the Proprietors declared the
“fittest man” to be governor.[750] He had, more than any other in
the province, promoted the best interests both of the people and of
their lordships. There was some scarcity of provisions at the close
of Yeamans’ administration, and he was charged with exporting, for
his own advantage, too great a quantity of the agricultural products
of the colony. Commotions ensued, and John Culpepper, surveyor, was
engaged in them or instigated them; and having left Charles Town, he
found in North Carolina popular discontents more ready for rebellious
activity. The cause of the commotions at Charles Town does not clearly
appear. The settlement was so prolific in all that sustains life—in
forest, in fields, in a harbor abounding in fish, in herds of swine
and cattle—that it is strange to hear of a scarcity of food; even in
1673, when want is said to have threatened the people, provisions were
exported to Barbadoes.

Governor Sayle, for reasons already stated, was not to put in force
altogether the Fundamental Constitutions; there was, however, a copy
“sent under our hands and seales,” as is mentioned in his commission.
The project of founding the new colony was based on this special scheme
of government. It is positively stated by the colonists, in their
letter to Sothel (1691), that this set originally sent bore date July
21, 1669; was “fairly engrossed in parchment, and signed and sealed”
by six of the Proprietors; and as all persons were required to swear
submission to them _before they could take up land_, “several hundred
of the people arriving here did swear accordingly.” A MS. copy[751] of
this set, but without signatures, is in the Charleston library. It does
not contain the article establishing the Church of England. In other
respects it is as favorable to settlers as the revised set bearing date
March 1, 1669-70, and containing that article. That many colonists (the
majority being dissenters) preferred the first set sent with Sayle’s
commission may thus be reasonably accounted for. It was afterwards
repudiated by the Proprietors (those who were then Proprietors) as “but
a copy of an imperfect original,” to use the words ascribed to them in
the letter to Sothel; and they say themselves in their letter to the
Grand Council, May 13, 1691, “The Constitution, so-called, and dated
21 July, 1669, we do not nor cannot own as ours.” The second set was
printed, and, it is said, was not known at Ashley River till February,
1673.[752]

In 1687, under Governor Colleton, the endeavor to force the adoption of
the Constitutions occasioned such contention between their lordships’
officers and the representatives of the people that no laws were
passed for two years; and as all laws were limited to twenty-three
months, there was in 1690 _not one statute law in force_ in the
colony. A new position was taken and with boldness. “The people
having not, according to the royal charters, assented or approved
of any fundamental constitutions in parliament, have unanimously
declared that the government now is to be directed and managed wholly
and solely according to said charters.” Their revolutionary spirit
went still further. The representatives in Parliament denied “that
any bill must necessarily pass the grand council before it be read
in parliament.” They maintained this position, and in consequence
were dissolved. The Proprietors instructed their favorite, Landgrave
Colleton, brother of one of themselves, to call no more parliaments
“unless some very extraordinary occasion should require it.” Colleton
proclaimed martial law. The Proprietors thought he did right. In
his arrogance, he imprisoned a clergyman and fined him £100 for
preaching what he considered a seditious sermon. The Proprietors
thought it best to remit the fine. The people, however, raised a cry
against his “illegal, tyrannical, and oppressive way of government.”
Fortunately for him, Seth Sothel, a Proprietor by purchase of
Clarendon’s share, arrived,—having been turned out of North Carolina
by its assembly,—and assumed control of affairs in the more southern
colony, and acted pretty much as he pleased, till he was turned out
of his new position by his colleagues in London. The Proprietors, by
their aristocratic folly, had kept the people continually studying
and maintaining their rights. A new policy began, about this time,
in England,—to revoke proprietary charters. The spirit, too, of the
colonists, demanded from the Proprietors some conciliatory concession.
Yet it cannot but appear a triumph for the people, and not a good-will
concession, when “the true and absolute” lords wrote to the Grand
Council (1691), almost in the words which they had written to Andrew
Percival and to the provincial authorities,—as if they wished to
make an emphatic apology,—that there had been “no alteration made in
any of the Constitutions, but for the greater security of the people
of Carolina from oppression, either by ourselves or our officers,
as any one that will please to peruse the several alterations may
plainly perceive; the last in date still bounding our own power most,
and putting more into the hands of the people.” But they were forced
soon—and it must have been with some little feeling of vexation—to
acknowledge the failure of their Grand Model, and to write to their
next governor, Ludwell (who could not conciliate the “factious”
assembly), that they now thought it best for themselves and the
colonists to govern by all the powers of the charter; but that they
would part with no power till the people were disposed to be more
orderly. This was written to Ludwell; but to the public it was at
last definitely announced “that as the people have declared they
would rather be governed by the powers granted by the charter without
regard to the Fundamental Constitutions, it will be for their quiet
and the protection of the well-disposed to grant their request.” The
Proprietors, however, still held to the Constitutions as a compact
among themselves and as a regulation of their mutual interests; and
even endeavored once more to tempt the people to adopt some part of
them in the fifth set, reduced to 41 Articles. They were then laid
aside entirely.

The assembly (we shall no longer call them parliament), not yet aware
of the action of the Proprietors, prepared a summary of grievances:
that the latest form of conveying land was not satisfactory; that
courts ought to be regulated by laws made by the assent of the people;
that the representatives of the people are too few in the assembly and
not appointed according to the charter; that the power of enacting
necessary laws should not be obstructed; that the application of the
laws of England to the province ought not to be by authority of a
Palatine Court (established by their lordships), but such laws are
applicable of their own force, or are to be so by act of the assembly;
that the powers of the assembly and the validity of their enactments
are not to be judged by inferior courts, but by the next succeeding
General Assembly; that martial law should not be resorted to except in
case of rebellion, tumult, sedition, or invasion; that there should be
more commoners in the council; that the deputies of the Proprietors
were forbidden to confirm a certain set of laws (necessary at times
for the immediate welfare of the people) until their lordships’ assent
should be given, which could not be known in the province “in less time
than one year, sometimes two,” and they do not conceive the Patent of
Carolina gives any such powers to their lordships.

There was a further principle announced by the people: that the
Proprietors could send what “instructions” they pleased, but they
certainly could never have intended that they should have the force of
statute laws without the assent and approbation of the people, except
in such matters as wholly belonged to their direction according to the
charter. With so intelligent and progressive a people to control, the
almost impotent “absolute lords” on the other side of the Atlantic
might well have written to Ludwell as they did to Morton, “Are you to
govern the people, or the people you?” Yet a further signal triumph
for the people was at hand. The Proprietors had already seen fit to
modify their rule that the assembly of the people should neither debate
nor vote on any matter except what the Grand Council should propose
to them; but their modification at that time amounted to very little,
namely, that if a necessary law was delayed by the council, and “the
majority of the grand juries of the counties” presented the matter for
legislation, then only might “any of the chambers” take cognizance of
it. It was now the good fortune of Governor Smith,[753] successor to
Ludwell, to announce that “the Proprietors have consented that the
proposing power for the making of laws, which was heretofore lodged
in the governor and council only, is now given to you as well as the
present council.”[754] Henceforth the assembly claimed the privileges
and usages of the House of Commons in England.

[Illustration: COOPER AND ASHLEY RIVERS.

[This is a side-map in a large folding one called _A new map of
Carolina, by Philip Lea, at the Atlas and Hercules, in Cheapside,
London_. Courtenay considers it to be of a date before 1700. There is
a fac-simile of the whole in _Charleston Year Book_, 1883. For the
associations and landmarks of these rivers see C. F. Woolson’s “Up the
Ashley and Cooper,” in _Harper’s Monthly_, Dec., 1875; and P. D. Hay’s
“Relics of Old South Carolina,” in _Appleton’s Journal_, xix. 498. In
the _Charleston Year Book_ (1883) there is a large map, showing the
town and the early farms on the west bank of the Ashley; the present
site of the city up to near the Clements’ Ferry road, with all lines of
fortifications and historic points. Cf. W. G. Simms’ “Description of
Charleston,” in _Harper’s Monthly_, June, 1857.

Moll’s map of South Carolina (1730) is given in fac-simile in
_Cassell’s United States_, i. 439.—ED.]]

When there was no longer any reasonable expectation for the adoption
of the Grand Model of government, a carefully prepared set of
Instructions, in 43 Articles, became the rules for the colony, all
former Instructions and Temporary Laws being abrogated, except such
as related to lands. These rules continued as long as the Proprietors
owned the province. It is not necessary to explain them. They were
for the interest of their lordships; simple enough, but establishing
a proprietary oligarchy. The Palatine and three other Proprietors,
and, in the colony, the governor and three other deputies, constituted
the governing power, with, apparently, a complete check upon the
representatives of the people. The people could not complain if their
lordships carried out what they wrote to Ludwell, that “they would
part with no power” conferred on them by the charter “till the people
were disposed to be more orderly;” for the people had demanded to be
governed solely by the charter. The prominent question now would be:
Do their lordships properly interpret and apply the powers granted them
in the charter?

But fresh political subjects engaged attention: the tenure of lands,
naturalization of the French Huguenots, payment of quit-rents, now
for some years due, the jury laws, and that relating to elections.
Governor Smith lost courage; he could be no champion for their
lordships against his friends and neighbors. The only way out of the
difficulties occasioned by the maladministration of the Proprietors was
that some Proprietor should be sent over “with full power” to heal all
grievances. This plan was adopted. The grandson of Earl Shaftesbury was
appointed, but declined to come. A pious, benevolent Quaker came, John
Archdale, whose policy was a smiling patience, but a strict requisition
of every penny that was due to the “true and absolute lords” of the
province,—himself among them. He thought his patience would, as
he expressed it, allay their heats. But this could only be done by
concessions. He yielded to their request to have thirty representatives
in the assembly. He also remitted, after a struggle, arrears of
quit-rents to Michaelmas, 1695, on condition that the remaining debts
were secured, rents for the future strictly provided for, and the town
fortified by taxation. Some political advancement was gained by the
assembly;[755] the repeal of any law not infringing on the rights of
the Crown or of the Proprietors, or relating to land, was not to be
made without the consent of the General Assembly. The council, too, was
so constituted by the pious Quaker as to be more in harmony with the
dissenters. But he seemed to fear that he might be prevailed upon to
grant too much, and appointing his friend, Joseph Blake, in his place,
hastened away (1696). He lived to see the peace and tranquillity vanish
which he hoped he had firmly established. Two years later the “House of
Commons” petitioned (among other things) for the privilege of coining;
and for the removal of duties on the chief exports from the colony.
They also prayed that no more than 1,000 acres be in future granted in
one piece; that an authenticated copy of the charter be sent them; and
that the colonial authorities have power to repeal laws (if expedient
to do so) which had been confirmed by the Proprietors: and though some
of these things (they said) were beyond their lordships’ power to
grant, their interest with the king was great enough to secure them for
their colonists. Their lordships, as might have, been expected, were
astonished that Blake, himself a Proprietor,[756] should allow such an
address to be issued,—a precedent for so much future evil.

The century now closed. Governor Blake died in 1700. As required under
the 43 Articles, the deputies elected a Landgrave to succeed Blake,
till the Proprietors could be heard from. At first they chose Morton.
He was set aside afterwards by the council, as were all the Landgraves
in the colony, and Colonel James Moore, a deputy, appointed. This
competition gave origin, for the first time in the history of the
colony, to what may be denominated party strife. Besides Moore, several
able leaders now appeared,—among them, Major Daniel, Colonel William
Rhett, and Sir Nathaniel Johnson; while to Nicholas Trott the foremost
place must be assigned for distinguished learning and ability. On his
arrival he espoused the popular cause; but with numerous offices and
honors bestowed upon him by the Proprietors, he and his brother-in-law,
Colonel Rhett, became their zealous champions. These able men so
largely influenced their lordships that at a word from them governors
and councils were sometimes set at naught.

At the opening of the new century, we must cease to look upon South
Carolina as the home of indigent emigrants, struggling for subsistence.
While numerous slaves cultivated the extensive plantations, their
owners, educated gentlemen, and here and there of noble families in
England, had abundant leisure for social intercourse, living as they
did in proximity to each other, and in easy access to Charles Town,
where the governor resided, the courts and legislature convened, and
the public offices were kept. The road that led up from the fortified
town between the two broad rivers so enchanted Governor Archdale that
he believed no prince in Europe, with all his art, could make a walk
for the whole year round so pleasant and beautiful. From the road, to
the right and to the left, avenues of water-oaks in mossy festoons, and
in spring-time redolent with jasmines, gave the passer-by glimpses of
handsome residences, from whose spacious verandas could be seen on the
east the beautiful waters of the Bay, on the west the Ashley River.
Hospitality, refinement, and literary culture distinguished the higher
class of gentlemen.[757]

Governor Moore and his party gained control of the council by filling
vacancies with those of whose good-will they were assured. But they
ineffectually sought, by every means in their power, to elect a
majority of assembly-men in their interest. Even violence was resorted
to, and some estimable gentlemen, opponents of the party in power,
were set upon and maltreated in the streets. The assembly resolved
to investigate the abuses at the election, and were, therefore,
prorogued from time to time; and it was reported that martial law would
be proclaimed. When at last the assembly convened, they began with
recriminations. If the public welfare had required their counsels, why
had the governor, through pique, prorogued them? And was it true that
he designed to menace them with coercion? “Oh! how is that sacred word
Law profaned when joined with Martial! Have you forgotten your Honor’s
own noble endeavor to vindicate our liberties when Colleton set up this
arbitrary rule?”[758] But further disputation was averted. The governor
had planned a secret and sudden attack on St. Augustine. The assembly
joined in the scheme. They requested him to go as commander instead
of Colonel Daniel, whom he nominated. They voted £2,000; and thought
ten vessels and 350 men, with Indian allies, would be a sufficient
force. The doors are closed. Men, and even women, who had been to St.
Augustine, are interrogated concerning its defences. An embargo is laid
on the shipping in the harbor. Moore with about 400 men sets sail, and
Daniel with 100 Carolina troops and about 500 Yemassee Indians march by
land. But the inhabitants of St. Augustine had heard of their coming,
and had sent to Havana for reinforcements. Retreating to their castle,
they abandoned the town to Colonel Daniel, who pillaged it before
Moore’s fleet arrived. Governor Moore and Colonel Daniel united their
forces and laid siege to the castle; but they lacked the necessary
artillery for its reduction, and were compelled to send to Jamaica for
it. Unfortunately the agent sent put back to Charles Town, and the
governor sent Colonel Daniel himself to Jamaica. Before he returned,
two Spanish ships appeared off St. Augustine. Moore instantly burned
the town and all his own ships, and hastened back by land. Colonel
Daniel, coming from Jamaica with the artillery, narrowly escaped
the Spanish ships, and was convoyed to Charles Town by an English
man-of-war which he met at sea. The expense entailed on the colony was
£6,000.

When this attack on St. Augustine was planned, it must have been
anticipated in the colony that war would be declared against Spain
and France. The impending danger to South Carolina, a frontier to
Spanish Florida, induced the Proprietors to appoint as governor
the soldierly Sir Nathaniel Johnson (June, 1702). James Moore was
made receiver-general; Nicholas Trott, attorney-general; Job Howes,
surveyor-general; and Rhett, Broughton, and other men of ability,
adhering to the government in its hour of peril, increased thereby the
power of the dominant party. Colonel Moore, being sent out by Johnson
(December, 1703) with fifty Carolinians and one thousand Indians,
ravaged the country of the Apalatchees, allies of the Spaniards,
and utterly defeated them and a body of Spanish troops that came to
their assistance. Three years later, in August, when yellow fever was
prevalent and five or six deaths a day, in the small population of
Charles Town, was not a rare occurrence, a French fleet of five vessels
under Le Feboure, aided by the Spanish governor at Havana, suddenly
appeared off the harbor. Troops were disembarked at several points. A
council of war was held, and the Carolinians determined to go out and
meet the enemy. Colonel Rhett, Captains Fenwicke, Cantey, Watson, and
others, with many gentlemen as volunteers, defeated the invaders, and
brought 230 French and Spanish prisoners into town. Thus perished the
first attempt to take Charles Town by a naval force, a feat which never
yet has been accomplished. The governor, handsomely rewarded by the
Proprietors, thanked the troops for their valor and their unanimity at
a time when violent estrangements existed between political parties in
the colony.

We must now revert to 1704, and relate the occasion of these
estrangements. The governor and dominant faction favored Episcopacy.
Lord Granville, the new Palatine, was an uncompromising zealot for
the Church of England. It was determined to establish that Church in
South Carolina. This was not contrary to the charter; but most of the
colonists were dissenters, and it would be useless at that juncture
to endeavor to win over a majority of the assembly to the support of
such a project. The assembly stood prorogued to the 10th of May. They
were summoned earlier; and on the 4th a bill was proposed and read,
requiring “all persons that shall hereafter be chosen members of the
Commons House of Assembly, and sit in the same, to take the oaths and
subscribe the declaration appointed by this bill, and to conform to
the religious worship of this Province, according to the Church of
England, and to receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper according
to the rites of said Church.”[759] Some of the members called for the
reading of the charter: but the opposition was soon overcome; the bill
passed and was ordered to the governor and council, who passed it and
returned it to the House; Landgrave Morton, of the council, being
denied leave to enter his protest against it. It was pushed through
the requisite proceedings and ratified under date of the 6th. It was
passed by one majority,—twelve for it and eleven against it; seven
members being absent. Some who voted in the negative are said to have
been Episcopalians. The assembly was then prorogued till October.
It was required by this law that in case a representative elected
refused to qualify as directed, the next on the sheriff’s return should
be entitled to the seat, or the next, and so on till the list was
exhausted; then only should a new writ be issued. The effect was not
only to exclude dissenters, but ten men could elect a member against
the votes of a thousand. Another tyrannical abuse of party power was
exhibited in an Act establishing Religious Worship (passed on the
reassembling of the Commons), which authorized a lay commission for the
trial of ecclesiastical causes. Dalcho says in his _Church History_,
that they “were authorized to sit in the judgment-seat of spiritual
officers, and thus to wrest the ecclesiastical authority out of the
hands of the Bishop of London.” This gave offence to Churchmen. The
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, by whose liberality the
colony had been greatly benefited, resolved not to send or support any
missionaries in South Carolina, till the law, or at least that clause
of it, should be repealed. The dissenters, already elected members
of assembly, were not allowed (on reassembling in October) to enter
their protests against the conduct of the Church party. The Rev. Mr.
Marston was called to account by the commission and deprived of his
benefice, for opposing the action of the oligarchy. But the case was
carried to a higher tribunal, the House of Lords in England. Upon an
able representation of the matter, redress having been refused by the
Proprietors (under lead of Granville), a report was made to the queen,
which caused the annulment of these two provincial laws. Nor was this
all; the Board of Trade recommended the annulment of the proprietary
charter (April, 1706). Since the accession of James II. there had been
a disposition in the English authorities to revoke the charters to
companies or individuals, and bring all the American colonies into a
closer dependence on the Crown. Though the surrender of the Carolina
charter was not on this occasion effected, yet it was manifest to the
colony that an authority more potent than that of their lordships was
interested in their welfare.

Lord Granville was succeeded in the Palatinate by Lord William Craven,
and Colonel Edward Tynte was made governor. The once dominant faction,
which had been transmuted, said Archdale, by Johnson’s “chemical
wit, zeal, and art” into a High Church party, now fell asunder. Much
attention had been awakened in England to the fortunes of the colony
by the publications of Archdale and of Oldmixon and the “Case of the
Protestant Dissenters;” and Governor Tynte entered upon his duties
with kindly assurances and the wish to “render Carolina the most
flourishing colony in all America.” He did not live long, and Colonel
Charles Craven, brother of the Palatine, and previously an officer in
the colony, was appointed in his place (December, 1710). Since the days
of Joseph West, “moderate, just, pious, valiant” (says Archdale), no
man more capable and beloved than Charles Craven had governed South
Carolina. A sentence from an address of his to the Commons (April,
1712) shows the spirit of his administration. However great the honor
of this office might be, “yet I shall look on it as a greater glory
if, with your assistance, I could bring to pass so noble designs as
the safety of this province, the advancement of its riches, and, what
is more desirable” than riches, the unanimity and quiet of its people.
“To what a prodigious height hath the united provinces risen in less
than a century of years, to be able to create fear in some, envy in
others, and admiration in the whole world!” The people, aroused by the
expectation or apparent reality of their increasing importance, voted
£1,500 for the erection of a State House and £1,000 for a residence for
the governor. Unparliamentary altercations gave place to a generous
emulation for the public welfare. The governor expressed the “greatest
tenderness” towards all dissenters and assured them that nothing
should ever be done by him injurious to their liberties. Though the
law excluding them from the assembly was repealed, yet the Episcopal
party retained ascendency and the public support of the Church (by
a new Church Act) was continued. The parish system was inaugurated,
and the representatives were increased to thirty-six. The turbulence
of elections at Charles Town gave place to unmolested elections in
the respective parishes. Libraries and a free school were open to
all, and religious and educational advancement was promoted. Under
Craven’s prosperous administration, it even seemed likely that the
public debt would be liquidated, which had begun with the unlucky
expedition against St. Augustine. But fresh expenditures were demanded
in assisting North Carolina in her conflicts with the Tuscaroras; and
scarcely had Barnwell and Moore rested from that campaign, when the
most disastrous Indian war that South Carolina ever had to encounter
broke suddenly upon her unsuspecting inhabitants. The Yemassees had
been employed against the Apalatchees, and, at a later date, against
the Tuscaroras. Being enticed by the Spaniards, whom their chiefs
often visited, and being largely in debt to the English traders and
irritated by their oppressive misconduct, they turned their experience
in war against those who had taught them to fight, and, hoping for help
from St. Augustine, began an indiscriminate slaughter on the line of
settlements westward from Charles Town. Knowing the colonists to be
formidable opponents, they had allured into conspiracy with them other
Indian nations, notably the Creeks. So wide-spread was the combination
formed that the governor asked assistance from other colonies. North
Carolina in response sent aid under Colonel Maurice Moore (brother of
James Moore), a friendly service which was gratefully appreciated and
acknowledged by the assembly. But “expedition is the life of action,”
said Craven; and not awaiting assistance, he fought the foe at once,
and Colonel Mackay, in another direction, surprised their town, in
which they had vast quantities of provisions and plunder, and attacking
a fort to which they had betaken themselves carried it by assault and
completely routed them. This effectually checked the Yemassees, and
dispirited the tribes engaged to assist them. The assembly met, and,
despatching such business as was necessary, adjourned to take up their
muskets. All available forces were raised and placed under command
of Lieutenant-General James Moore and Colonels John Barnwell and
Alexander Mackay. The Yemassees, though joined by the Apalatchees, were
forced beyond the Savannah, and took up their residence in Florida.
We have not space to narrate the heart-rending or romantic incidents
of this contest. The Yemassees had acted prematurely; otherwise the
disasters to the colony would have been far greater. Many lives were
lost (estimated at 400), an immense amount of cattle, produce, and
other valuable property destroyed, and it was said that the traders
alone lost £10,000 in debts due them. But the invincibility of the
colonists was so forcibly impressed upon the minds of the Indians that
they entered into no more combinations, and never again, except in
straggling parties, penetrated to the vicinity of the fortified English
settlements.

On account of the death of Sir Anthony Craven, the governor returned
to England, leaving Colonel Robert Daniel to be deputy (1716) till the
arrival of Robert Johnson (son of Sir Nathaniel), who was appointed
to succeed him. At this time the French were extending their cordon
of forts from Canada down to Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico, and
courting the alliance of the Indians who dwelt on the outskirts of
the whole line of English colonies. In view of these new dangers and
of the deserted condition of the westward parishes of the colony, the
Carolinians were compelled to keep up garrisons and troops of rangers
from the Santee to the Savannah. The expense of defending themselves
and their great losses in the recent Indian war caused an application
to the Proprietors for relief. Lord Carteret, Palatine in place of
the Duke of Beaufort (who, before, had offered on his part to give
up the colony rather than have it in need of adequate relief and
protection), wrote to the Board of Trade, “We, the Proprietors, having
met on this melancholy occasion, to our great grief find that we are
utterly unable of ourselves to afford our colony suitable assistance
in this conjuncture; and unless his majesty will graciously please
to interpose, we can foresee nothing but the utter destruction of
his majesty’s faithful subjects in those parts.” The board asked if
such of the Proprietors as were not minors were “willing to surrender
the government to the king.” There was no king upon the throne now
gratefully sensible of the distinguished services of a Clarendon,
Monk, Berkeley, Carteret, or Craven. It was not, on the other hand,
the influences of a Danson, Amy, Blake, or even the descendants of the
original Proprietors, that formed a barrier to the manifest interests
of the whole British nation; but it was the admirable love of justice
in the rulers of England that saved to the Proprietors the lavish gift
of Charles II., even after their confession of utter inability to help
their colonists. It was evident, however, that the termination of the
proprietary authority must come. The colonists made it come. We shall
now relate how this was done.

The assembly had been forced to issue bills of credit; at first to
meet the debts incurred by Moore’s expedition against St. Augustine.
This easy method of making money was continued, and of course the
bills depreciated. The London merchants complained, and the bills were
ordered to be called in and cancelled. To do this required £80,000.
This large sum the assembly undertook to pay in three years by a
tax on the lands and negroes of the colonists. Before this could be
effected the colonial income, applicable to other expenses, was reduced
by a royal order to cease the tax of ten per cent on importations of
British manufactures; and at the same time an expensive expedition
became necessary to suppress the pirates who infested the coasts,
and at times seized every ship leaving the harbor of Charles Town.
If the Proprietors were unwilling “to expend their English estates
to support much more precarious ones in America,”[760] whom were the
colonists to ask for aid, except the king? When Governor Johnson met
his first assembly, he inveighed against addresses sent to England
without consulting the Proprietors as “disrespectful,” “unjustifiable
and impolitic.” He then offered the distressed colonists a “donative”
from their lordships of a small remission of quit-rents. The assembly
declined the donative. They instructed their committee “to touch
slightly (but not by way of argument or submission) on what the last
two assemblies have done heretofore in addressing his majesty to take
this province under his protection.” The governor was anxious they
should accept the donative; and equally anxious they should, in return,
order a rent-roll for the benefit of the Proprietors. He said, “As the
assembly is to pass wholesome laws even to private persons, much more
to the Lords Proprietors, who are our masters.” The assembly replied,
“We cannot but approve of your honor’s care of their lordships’
interest, who are, as you say, _your_ masters.” “If you look over their
charters,” was the answer, “you will find them to be your masters
likewise.” (December, 1717.)

The assembly elected Colonel Brewton powder-receiver. The governor,
as military chief, required the assembly to order forthwith the keys
to be delivered to Major Blakeway, whom he had commissioned. The
House refused. The governor offered a compromise: “My officer shall
keep the magazines and give receipts to your officer for all powder
delivered into his keeping.” “What is the use,” replied the House,
“of a powder-receiver who does not keep the powder?” “But I insist
upon keeping it,” said the governor, “for I am his majesty the king’s
lieutenant.” He soon saw an advertisement by the House, signed by their
Speaker, declaring their right to appoint “all officers who receive a
settled salary out of the public treasury of this province,” and to
“put out, call to account, and put in place,” at discretion, all such
officers; and commanding, under penalty, the powder-tax to be paid by
all ships to the officer elected by the assembly.

The people, however, were fond of Governor Johnson. They did not
always harmonize with strangers sent over to govern them. But Johnson
was almost one of themselves, and they admired him for his conspicuous
bravery. He had gone personally in pursuit of the pirate Worley, and
after a desperate encounter brought in alive only the chief and one
of his crew, they having been smitten down with dangerous wounds;
and he had immediately caused them to be tried and executed. At this
time, too, Colonel Rhett had captured Bonnet, pursuing him into Cape
Fear River, and brought him and about thirty of his crew to Charles
Town, for speedy execution. The people knew that the governor was in
duty bound to promote the cause of the Proprietors. But some of his
adherents they justly regarded with ill-will. There had been, as before
mentioned, a change, very acceptable to the people, in the mode of
electing their representatives. Trott and Rhett had had great control
in elections while the ballot was in Charles Town; and the former had
been writing to their lordships against the new method of election by
parishes. To the surprise of the governor and of all but Trott, orders
came from London to disallow that method, to dissolve the assembly, and
to summon another to be chosen by the old method; to repeal also the
act for electing the powder-receiver, and other laws, such as that for
the rehabitation of the Yemassee lands by bringing over Irish settlers
to live there, which the people deemed of great importance to the
welfare of the colony.[761] The argument was, with their lordships,
What right have the assembly to alter anything determined by us? It is
true our deputies sanctioned these laws; but we are not bound by what
our deputies do, being ourselves the head and source of legislative
power in our colony. The people thought, on the other hand, that an
enactment by the assembly ratified by the governor and council, the
appointed agents of the Proprietors, should not be set aside by the
mere whim of a few persons on the other side of the Atlantic, or by
the dictation of a man like Nicholas Trott. This gentleman had now to
confront the long-delayed denunciation of Whittaker, Allein, and other
prominent lawyers, who had for years endured his arrogance and tyranny
in court. Thirty-one articles of complaint against him were presented
to the assembly, and by them communicated to the governor and council.
They knew the allegations to be well founded, and united with the
assembly in requesting the Proprietors to restrict their favorite’s
power. It had even been ordered from London that no quorum of the
council should sanction a law unless Trott was one of the quorum. For a
time, too, the whole judicial power was in his hands. Francis Yonge, a
member of the council, deputy of Lord Carteret, and surveyor-general,
was deputed, with suitable instructions, to proceed to London and
confer with the Proprietors (May, 1719). Lord Carteret was absent on
an embassy. The others kept Mr. Yonge waiting, without conference, for
three months; then sent him back with sealed orders. In fact, some
of the Proprietors were minors; others lived away from London; the
few who exercised authority left many matters to their secretary: and
thus, says Yonge, “a whole province was to be governed by the caprice
of one man.” If the secretary managed the Proprietors, Trott and
Rhett managed him. When the sealed orders were opened, it was found
that Chief Justice Trott was thanked, the governor reprimanded, his
brother-in-law, Colonel Broughton, turned out of the council, together
with Alexander Skene and James Kinloch; Mr. Yonge alone being permitted
to remain, in courtesy to the absent Palatine (Carteret) whose deputy
he was. A new council was appointed, and the governor again ordered
to dissolve the assembly and call a new one under the old method of
election.

The deputies excluded from the council and other prominent gentlemen
now became active among the people. The arguments they used must
have been: Have not the Proprietors, spurning all appeals, protected
a tyrannical judge, and continued him in power over the lives and
property of the people? Have they not refused to part with an acre of
their immense uncultivated domains for public use in supporting the
garrisons? Have they not obstructed our efforts to bring an increase
of settlers here for the strengthening of our frontiers, and divided
out the land, by thousands of acres, for their own emolument? To foster
the power of a few favorites, have they not annulled our laws for the
equitable representation of the people by fair and peaceful elections?
Have they helped the colony in its distress, beat back the Spaniards,
resisted the invasion of the French, suppressed the pirates, or quelled
at any time an Indian horde? Can they now, masters as they claim to
be, protect us in any emergency? And if, after all these provocations,
we choose to rebel and throw off their vaunted absolutism, where are
their forces to check our revolt? Will King George, our sovereign, to
whom we appeal for protection, furnish them with an army to reduce us
to submission? Influenced by such sentiments, the people came again
to the polls at Charles Town, to elect their last assembly under the
proprietary government. Mr. Yonge, who was there, tells us, “Mr.
Rhett and Mr. Trott found themselves mistaken, in fancying they could
influence the elections when in town, so as to have such members chosen
as they liked, for it proved quite the contrary; they could not get so
much as a man chosen that they desired. The whole people in general
were prejudiced against the Lords Proprietors to such a degree that it
was grown almost dangerous to say anything in their favor.”

It happened at this conjuncture that war was again declared by England
against Spain, and an attack from Havana was in preparation either
on Charles Town or the island of Providence. Advices being sent to
the colony, the governor called together the council and such members
elect of the assembly as he could collect, to provide for repairing
the fortifications; and as the recent repeals had left him without
adequate funds, he proposed an immediate voluntary subscription. The
members of the assembly whom he consulted told him the duties provided
by law would suffice. “But the Act raising these duties is repealed by
the Proprietors.” They replied, “They did not and would not look on
_their_ repeal as anything,” and dispersed to their homes. The governor
then ordered a muster of all the provincial troops. This afforded an
admirable opportunity for a complete combination. An association of
leading citizens was secretly formed; the people assembled at the
muster; they almost unanimously signed the resolutions submitted to
them by the association, and agreed to support whatever measures they
should adopt. The first notice the governor had of these proceedings
was a letter signed by Mr. Skene, Colonel Logan, and Major Blakeway
(28th November), telling him the whole province had entered into an
agreement “to stand by their rights and privileges, and to get rid of
the oppression and arbitrary dealings of the Lords Proprietors,” and
inviting him to hold his office in behalf of the king. The members
elect of the assembly, in the mean while, held private conferences and
matured their plans.

On meeting at the time required by their writs (December 17), they
waited upon the governor, as was customary; and Mr. Middleton, in their
name, informed him that they did not look upon his present council as
a legal one (the Proprietors having appointed twelve members, instead
of seven, the usual number of deputies), and would not act with them
as a legal council. Anticipating, it appears, a dissolution, they
had resolved themselves into a convention, delegated by the people,
and passed resolutions so revolutionary in character as to alarm the
governor and his few adherents, who resorted to every menace and
means of persuasion without moving the assembly or convention from
their fixed purposes. The governor, therefore, issued a proclamation
dissolving them. The proclamation was torn from the marshal’s hands;
and the convention issued a proclamation, in their own names, ordering
all officers, civil and military, to hold their offices till further
orders from them. Having failed to win Johnson to their interest, they
elected their own governor, Colonel James Moore.

Johnson, who had gone up to his plantation, hearing that the people
intended to proclaim Moore governor in the king’s name, hastened back
and used every effort to prevent it. But he found the militia drawn
up, colors flying at the forts and on all the ships in the harbor,
drums beating, and every preparation made for proclaiming the new
governor. An eye-witness says it would be tedious to tell all the
frantic ex-governor did. But the leaders of the revolution had sent
Mr. Lloyd to keep with him under pretence of friendship and adherence,
and prevent any rash action on his part. The troops began their march,
inspirited by patriotic harangues, and escorted the members of the
convention to the fort: where, by the united acclamations of the
people, James Moore was proclaimed governor of South Carolina in the
name of the king of England (December 21, 1719).

A council of twelve was chosen, as in other colonies under the royal
government; and the convention then resumed its functions as a
legislative assembly, and proceeded to enact such laws as the state
of the province required. They addressed a letter to the Board of
Trade explanatory of their action, and their agent in England (Mr.
Boone, with whom also Colonel Barnwell was sent to act) laid before
the king an account of the misrule of the Proprietors and implored
his protection. Johnson and the Proprietors were equally active, and
the decision of the English government was anxiously awaited by both
parties. During nearly a year such anxiety continued; and as the
clergy in the province were unwilling to perform the marriage ceremony
without, as previously, a license from Johnson as governor, and a
large number of people followed his advice and example in not paying
taxes until executions were issued against them, he supposed he had
a party ready to reinstate him. But it was not till he received aid
from the crews of several English men-of-war that he formed a plan of
seizing the government. The Spanish fleet (to resist which the people
had been mustered) had not come to Charlestown, but had gone to the
island of Providence, and had been there repulsed by Governor Rogers.
The “Flamborough,” Captain Hildesley, and “Phœnix,” Captain Pearce,
arrived in Charlestown harbor in May, 1721; and chiefly, it appears,
by the advice of Hildesley, Johnson appeared in arms with about 120
men, mostly sailors from the “Flamborough,” and marched against the
forts, whose garrisons were obeying the orders of Governor Moore. The
forts opened fire upon them. Whereupon, Captain Pearce was deputed
by Johnson, together with some of his council, to negotiate with
the revolutionists. They refused to negotiate; for they knew from
their agents that the regency in England had determined to protect
the colony, and that General Francis Nicholson had been appointed
provisional royal governor. Johnson requested to see the orders of
the regency and the despatches from the agents. As soon as he read
them, he disbanded his men and gave up all opposition to the existing
government. Nicholson’s commission is dated 26th September, 1720.
He arrived in the colony 23d May, 1721, and was gladly received by
Governor Moore, the assembly, and the people. The revolution was now
complete; although the surrender of the proprietary charter, for such a
sum of money as was finally agreed upon, was not effected till 1729.


ROYAL GOVERNMENT.—We have before us the ninety-six articles of
instruction to Nicholson (30th August, 1720) and the additional ones to
Governor Johnson (1730), detailing the method of the royal government,
and which continued in force, with some modifications, till the
separation of the colony from the mother country. It is not necessary
to give a full synopsis of this method. The enacting clause is “by the
governor, council, and assembly;” and the assembly had the same powers
and privileges as were allowed to the House of Commons in England.
The Episcopal was the established Church, under jurisdiction of the
Bishop of London. School-masters were licensed by the bishop or by the
governor. If the governor died or left the province, and there was no
commissioned lieutenant-governor, the eldest councillor, as president,
acted in his stead. Special care was enjoined for the encouragement
of the Royal African Company for the importation of negro slaves. If
any part of the instructions was distasteful to the people, it was
that which conferred equal legislative authority with the assembly
upon the council; a council of twelve, nominated (or suspended) by the
governor, and three of whom, with the governor, could form a quorum,
in emergencies. On this point contests soon arose, the assembly
thinking that the governor and three or more of their own neighbors
or relatives, who happened to be councillors, ought not to have the
power to counteract the deliberate will of the entire body of the
representatives of the people; that is, of the freeholders who alone
voted for members of the assembly.

But, for the time being, all were happy at their release from “the
confused, negligent, and helpless government of the Lords Proprietors.”
Governor Nicholson, on his arrival, found in all parties a cheerful
allegiance to the king and zeal for the advancement of the colony.[762]
Ex-Governor Moore was made Speaker of the assembly, with Nicholson’s
cordial approbation, and all laws demanded by the condition of the
province were promptly enacted. Peace having been declared between
England and Spain, the new governor applied himself to the regulation
of Indian affairs, and succeeded in bringing the tribes on the
frontier into alliance with British interests. With peace and security
everywhere, he addressed himself to forming new parishes, building
churches and obtaining clergymen by the help of the London Society for
the Propagation of the Gospel. Additional free schools were established
by bequests from three benevolent citizens, and the people generally
emulated the public spirit of their good governor. In 1725 he returned
to England, and the administration of his office devolved upon Arthur
Middleton as president of the council. He had it not in his power to be
the generous benefactor Nicholson had been, and his views of duty to
the royal authority placed him in opposition to the progressive spirit
of those with whom he had been associated in the recent revolution. His
stubborn contest with the assembly prevented the enactment of any laws
for three years. They thought it necessary for the good of the people
to pass a bill for promoting the currency of gold and silver in the
province. The council rejected it as contravening an act of Parliament
in the reign of Queen Anne; and insisted on the passage of a supply
bill by the assembly, to meet the expenses of the government. This
the assembly refused unless their bill was first agreed to. Middleton
resorted to prorogations and dissolutions. This availed nothing; for
the people supported their representatives by reëlecting them. From
1727 to 1731 the same bill was eight times sent up to the president and
his council, and always rejected. He prorogued them six times, and six
times ordered new elections. Among other things in this contest, the
assembly claimed the right to elect their clerk without consulting the
council;[763] ordered an officer of the council to their bar, and put
him under arrest for delay in making his appearance; and maintained
that—as in Nicholson’s time—members elect should qualify by holding
up the hand in taking the oath before the council, if they thought that
best, instead of swearing on the Holy Evangelists, as the governor
required them to do. The contest was not terminated until the arrival
of Governor Johnson (December, 1730) as successor to Nicholson.

Sir Alexander Cumming had been sent to form a treaty with the Cherokees
who lived near the head of the Savannah River and far westward,—a
powerful nation with 6,000 warriors. They sent a deputation of their
chiefs to England with Cumming to visit King George. It was important
to secure the friendship of these Indians before the French should
allure them to their interest. The chiefs returned from England in
company with Governor Johnson. Middleton had before sent agents among
the Creeks and Cherokees, to avert, if possible, the influence of
the French, whose enterprise and energy were likely to become more
formidable to the English settlements than the hostility of the
Spaniards had been. While guarding against danger in this direction,
they had to contend against molestations from their inveterate enemy
in Florida. Runaway slaves were always welcomed there, were made free,
and formed into military companies. Roving bands of the defeated
Yemassees from the same refuge-place plundered the plantations on
the frontier. No compensation could be obtained for such ruthless
spoliation. At length Colonel Palmer was sent to make reprisals; and
with about 300 men, militia and friendly Indians, he completely laid
waste the enemy’s country up to the gates of St. Augustine, and taught
them their weakness and the superior power of the English colonists.
Unfortunately, no definite boundaries were settled upon between the
claims of Spain and England.

[Illustration: PLAN OF CHARLESTOWN, S. C., 1732.

(From Popple’s _British Empire in America_.)

[This was reëngraved in Paris in 1733, “avec privilège du Roi.” There
is a fac-simile of a plan of Charleston (1739) in the _Charleston Year
Book_, 1884, p. 163-4.—ED.]]

The colonial government, however, had erected in Governor Nicholson’s
time Fort King George on the Altamaha, and were determined to keep
the Spaniards to the westward of that river. A Spanish embassy came
to Charlestown to confer with President Middleton about the erection
of this fort. But the only definite understanding reached was in the
avowal by the ambassadors that his Catholic majesty would never consent
to deliver up runaway slaves, because he desired to save their souls
by converting them to the Christian faith. Cunning emissaries from St.
Augustine continued to tamper with the slaves, and rendered many of
them dangerous malcontents. Not long after (1738) an armed insurrection
was attempted in the heart of the English settlement; the negroes
on Stono River marching about plundering, burning farm-houses, and
murdering the defenceless. The planters at that time went to church
armed. It was Sunday. Lieutenant-Governor Bull, riding alone on the
road, met the insurgents, and escaping them by turning off on another
road gave the alarm. The male part of the Presbyterian congregation
at Wiltown—notified of the insurrection by a Mr. Golightly—left the
women in church, and hastening after the murderous horde found them
drinking and dancing in a field, within sight of the last dwelling they
had pillaged and set on fire. Their leader was shot, some were taken
prisoners and the rest dispersed. More than twenty persons had been
murdered. It might have been an extensive massacre, if so many armed
planters had not attended divine service that day.[764]

[Illustration: CHARLESTOWN IN 1742.

[This follows a steel plate, “The city of Charleston one hundred years
ago, after an engraving done by Canot from an original picture by T.
Mellish, Esq.” A long panoramic view of Charlestown in 1762 is given in
the _Charleston Year Book_, 1882; and in Cassell’s _United States_, i.
355. The name “Charleston” was substituted for “Charlestown” in the act
of incorporation of 1783.—ED.]]

There were in the colony above 40,000 negro slaves. The necessity for
increasing the number of white inhabitants had long been apparent
to the English authorities. Some of the German Palatines in England
(1729) and more of them in 1764 were sent over to the colony. Mr.
Purry, of Neufchatel, and his Swiss were granted (1732) an extensive
tract of land near the Savannah River. Some Irish colonists settled at
Williamsburgh (1733). Colonel Johnson, before he came over as royal
governor, proposed to the Board of Trade a plan for forming a number
of townships at convenient points, with great inducements to both
foreigners and Englishmen to remove to the province. Above all, the
proposal by Lord Percival (1730) to establish the colony of Georgia
(between the Savannah and Altamaha), and the carrying of the project
into effect under General Oglethorpe (1733), gave promise of adding
materially to the security and strength of South Carolina. With a new
fort at Beaufort (Port Royal), and abundant artillery and ammunition
furnished by his majesty, and ships of war protecting the harbor, we
have but to look forward a few years to the settlement and improvement
of the healthy and fertile “up country” by overland immigration
from Virginia and Pennsylvania, and the moving up of population
from the coast, to reach the period of permanent prosperity and the
greater development of the material resources of the province. Many
families moved to the upper part of South Carolina when Governor Glen
established peace with the Cherokees; many came when Braddock’s defeat
exposed the frontiers of the more northern colonies to the French and
Indians; while by way of Charlestown Germans came up to Saxegotha and
the forks of the Broad and Saluda—as the Scotch-Irish had come to
Williamsburg.

From 200 to 300 ships now annually left Charlestown. In addition to
rice, indigo, pitch, turpentine, tar, rosin, timber of various kinds,
deer-skins, salted provisions, and agricultural products grown along
the coast, the interior plantations raised wheat, hemp, flax, and
tobacco; fruits, berries, nuts, and many kinds of vegetables were
abundant; and fish from the rivers, and turkeys and deer and other game
from the forest, furnished luxuries for the table, without counting the
ever-present supplies from swine, sheep, and cattle. But we must now go
back a few years.

Governor Johnson died 3d May, 1735, and Lieutenant-Governor Thomas
Broughton on 22d November, 1737. William Bull, president of the
council, succeeded to the administration till the arrival of Governor
James Glen (December, 1743).[765] The lieutenant-governor was a prudent
ruler. He assisted in the settlement of Savannah and in the war of
Georgia upon St. Augustine (sending the Carolina regiment under Colonel
Vanderdussen), and managed wisely in every emergency. Governor Glen
with greater energy and activity extended the fortification of the
province,—visiting every portion of his government, going among the
Cherokees, obtaining a surrender of their lands for the erection of
forts, and erecting them; as Prince George on the upper part of the
Savannah, 170 miles above Fort Moore, and Fort Loudon on the Tennessee
among the Upper Cherokees, 500 miles from Charlestown. These forts
and those at Frederica and Augusta in Georgia were garrisoned by his
majesty’s troops for the protection of both provinces. When Glen, in
1756, was superseded by Governor William Henry Lyttleton, war was
declared between England and France. On the termination of hostilities,
the Cherokees, who had aided the British troops in the more northern
colonies, were returning home through Western Virginia, and committed
depredations, appropriating to their use such horses as came in their
way, and were set upon and some of them murdered. In retaliation they
killed the whites wherever they could, indiscriminately. Among their
victims in Carolina were a few of the garrison of Fort Loudon. This
was done by roving bands of headstrong young Indians. The troops at
Prince George despatched the news to Governor Lyttleton, who instantly
began preparations for war. The Cherokees sent thirty-two of their
chiefs to settle the difficulty, as the nation at large desired
peace and the continuation of their old friendship with the English.
Lyttleton kept the chiefs under arrest, and took them with him along
with his troops. His ill-usage of them and his folly involved the
province in a disastrous war with the whole Cherokee nation. Then,
being appointed Governor of Jamaica, he left the calamities he had
caused to the management of Lieutenant-Governor Bull. Not till 1761
were hostilities ended by the help of Colonel Grant, of the British
army. Dr. Hewatt, who had the advantage of the acquaintance of the
last Lieutenant-Governor Bull, and probably his assistance in the
compilation of his history, gives a detailed and graphic narrative of
this deplorable conflict, carried on in pathless forests, hundreds
of miles from Charlestown. So wasted were Colonel Grant’s men “by
heat, thirst, watching, danger, and fatigue” that when peace was
made “they were utterly unable to march farther.” In the provincial
regiment assisting Grant were Middleton, Laurens, Moultrie, Marion,
Huger, Pickens, and others who became distinguished in the war of the
Revolution.

The Peace of Paris (1763) happily put an end forever to hostilities
arising from French possessions in America. The succeeding royal
governors of South Carolina were Thomas Boone (1762), Lord Charles
Greville Montague (December, 1765), and Lord William Campbell (1773).

The most interesting and continuous thread of events running through
all the colonial history of South Carolina is the development of the
power of the assembly or representatives of the people. Taking up this
subject where we left it at the close of Middleton’s contest with the
assembly, we observe that the choice of their clerk was conceded to
them by the succeeding governor. In the policy both of the proprietary
and royal government, the elective franchise was granted to the people
or freeholders only in choosing members of the assembly. We do not find
that they balloted for any executive or other officer. The success of
the assembly in electing a few administrative officers and holding
them accountable to themselves was an important acquisition, and was
followed by a further gain of power in the same direction. Governor
Glen, addressing the authorities in England (October 10, 1748),
said in substance “that a new modelling[766] of their constitution,”
in South Carolina, “would add to the happiness of the province and
preserve their dependence upon the Crown, any weakening [of the] power
of which and deviation from the constitution of the mother country is
in his opinion dangerous. Almost all the places of profit or of trust
are disposed of by the general assembly.” “Besides the treasurer they
appoint also the commissary, the Indian commissioner, the comptroller
of the duties upon imports and exports, the powder-receiver, etc.
The executive part of the government is lodged in different sets of
commissioners,” “of the market, the workhouse, of the pilots, of
the fortifications, etc. Not only civil posts, but ecclesiastical
preferment, are in the disposal or election of the people, although
by the king’s instructions to the governor” this should belong to the
king or his representative. The governor is not prayed for, while the
assembly is, during its sittings, the only instance in America where
it is not done. “The above officers and most of the commissioners are
named by the general assembly, and are responsible to them alone; and
whatever be their ignorance, neglect, or misconduct, the governor
has no power to reprove or displace them. Thus the people have the
whole of the administration in their hands, and the governor, and
thereby the Crown, is stripped of its power.” In the next place, the
assembly claimed, and with success, the sole power of originating tax
bills, notwithstanding instructions to the contrary. They refused to
the council even the power to amend such bills. In the words of the
Journals of the House (no. 21, 1745), they asserted their “sole right
of introducing, framing, and amending subsidy bills,”—which they based
on the English Constitution as _paramount to the royal instructions_.
It was furthermore intimated that the council had no right to
legislative functions at all,—a view soon after ably advocated by Mr.
Drayton. It was contended that the council was not a counterpart of the
House of Lords, but simply a body advisory to the governor. It was even
argued that, similarly with the mother country, colonial usages and
precedents were to be regarded as constitutional in South Carolina.

The last development of the power of the assembly tended to check the
governor’s prerogative of dissolution and prorogation. In a contest
with Governor Boone, beginning in 1762 and continued to May, 1763,
dissolution and prorogation failed entirely as a means of controlling
the actions or sentiments of the representatives of the people, where
the people were of one mind with the assembly. The subject of dispute
involved the assembly’s sole right to judge of the validity of the
election of its own members, and the argument on the part of the House
was conducted chiefly by Rutledge and Gadsden. But about this time came
proposals that committees from all the colonial assemblies should meet
to consider the British Stamp Act. We conclude this brief narrative
with the remark that in the Continental Congress that ensued the
leading statesmen of the South Carolina popular assembly stepped as
veterans to new battlefields with the dust of recent victories still
upon them.[767]

[Illustration]


CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

BY THE EDITOR.

IT is claimed that Sir Robert Heath conveyed his rights under the
grant of 1630 to the Earl of Arundel, and that these eventually became
invested in Dr. Coxe, as presented in a memorial to William III., and
assumed in the _Carolana_ of his son, Daniel Coxe.[768] The Heath
grant,[769] however, was formally annulled August 12, 1663.[770]
De Laet’s map, showing the coast of what was subsequently North
Carolina at the period of Heath’s grant, 1630, is given in fac-simile
elsewhere.[771]

Dr. Hawks, in his _North Carolina_, prints from Thurloe’s _State
Papers_ (ii. p. 273) a letter dated at Linnehaven, in Virginia, May
8, 1654, from Francis Yardley to John Farrar, giving an account of
explorations during the previous year along the seaboard. In 1662
(March) the king granted the first charter, and this was printed the
same year, but without date, as _The first Charter granted by the King
to the Proprietors of Carolina, 24 March_.[772] In 1665 (June 30) the
second charter extended the limits of the grant. Both charters are
found in a volume printed in London, but without date, and called _The
two Charters granted by King Charles to the Proprietors of Carolina,
with the first and last Fundamental Constitutions of that Colony_.
Issues of this book seem to have been made in 1698, 1705, 1706, 1708,
etc.[773]

[Illustration]

Mr. Fox Bourne, who in his _Life of John Locke_ (London, 1876,
vol. i. pp. 235, etc.) gives the most satisfactory account of
Locke’s connection with the new colony, writes of the Fundamental
Constitutions that Locke had a large share in it, though there can
be hardly any doubt that it was initiated by Lord Ashley, modified
by his fellow-proprietors. He adds: “The original draft, a small
vellum-covered volume of seventy-five pages, neatly written, but with
numerous erasures and corrections, is preserved among the Shaftesbury
Papers (series viii. no. 3), and this interesting document has been
printed, _verbatim et literatim_, by Mr. Sainsbury, in the Appendix to
the _Thirty-third report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records_
(1872), pp. 258-269.”

The same author refers to a draft extant in Locke’s handwriting, dated
21 June, 1669, which varies in some respects from that later issued by
the Proprietors, in print.

There is, or was, in 1845, in the Charleston Library, presented to it
by Robert Gilmor, of Baltimore, in 1833, a MS. copy in Locke’s own
handwriting, dated July 14, 1669; but the earliest printed copy is one
entitled thus: _The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, in number a
Hundred and Twenty, agreed upon by the Palatine and Lords Proprietors,
to remain the sacred and unalterable form and rule of government of
Carolina forever_. _March 1, 1669._[774] Printed first in 1670, the
document was reissued, with some modifications, in 1682, and again,
with more important modifications, in 1698.[775] It is also contained
in _A Collection of several pieces of Mr. John Locke, never before
printed, and not extant in his works_. London, 1720.[776]

It would seem from a map which is given in fac-simile in the
_Proceedings_ of the Massachusetts Historical Society, December, 1883
(p. 402), that it describes the “Discovery made by William Hilton of
Charles Towne in New England, Marriner, from Cape Hatteraske, Lat: 35°
30′, to the west of Cape Roman in Lat. 32° 30′, In y^e yeare 1662,
And laid down in the forme as you see by Nicholas Shapley of the
town aforesaid, November, 1662.” A small sketch of the map, which is
annexed, shows that he passed along the islands which form a barrier to
Pamlico Sound, without noticing, or at least indicating, that interior
water, and then entering Cape Fear River tracked its shores up to a
point where he designated three branches, which he called East, North,
and West. The fac-simile given in the _Proceedings_ by Mr. Hassam, from
a photograph of the original in the British Museum,[777] is too obscure
to make out all the names which occur along the river, while only
“Hatterask” and “C. Romana” are noted on the coast. The intervening
points, Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, are not named.

Hilton had come to Plymouth (Mass.) while a child, in 1623, whence
he followed his father to Piscataqua, but later settled in Newbury
and Charlestown, and in the latter place he died in 1675. Shapley
is supposed to have been the same who was clerk of the writs in
Charlestown in 1662, dying in that town in May, 1663. Although the
New England antiquary, James Savage, and others have not supposed
this Massachusetts Hilton to have been the same who led the Barbadoes
party to Cape Fear the next year, this map and its record would seem
to indicate that when the merchants of that island determined to
accept the proposals of the Proprietors of Carolina to furnish them
with colonists, they placed the expedition which they sent out in
August, 1663, under the charge of one who had already explored parts
of this coast,—no other than this William Hilton of New England.
This exploring party landed at St. Helena and Edisto, and returned to
Barbadoes after an absence of five months. Hilton’s _True Relation_ was
published in London in 1664.[778]

[Illustration: SHAPLEY’S DRAFT.]

The year before (1663), according to Hawks,[779] the Proprietors had
issued proposals for the encouragement of settlers within their grant,
and we have, as Mr. Rivers has stated, the outcome of the Sandford
expedition (1665) preserved in a manuscript among the Shaftesbury
Papers, and the results of this seem to have been embodied in what is
considered a second and expanded edition of their original proposals,
which was now published in London, in 1666,—a mere tract of twelve
pages, called _A brief description of the Province of Carolina, on
the coasts of Floreda; and more perticularly of a New Plantation
begun by the English at Cape Feare on that river now by them called
Charles-River, the 29th of May, 1664. Together with a most accurate map
of the whole province_.[780]

[Illustration: A SKETCH OF THE 1666 MAP.

As indicative of the changes in the North Carolina coast since it was
first explored, Mr. Wm. L. Welsh (_Bulletin Essex Institute_, xvii.
nos. 1, 2, and 3, and separately Salem, 1885), in a paper called _An
Account of the cutting through of Hatteras Inlet, Sept. 7, 1846_, says
that the present inlet of that name was made by the storm of that date,
and that the explorers of 1584 entered through Caffey inlet, since
disappeared, and that all the inlets of that day are closed, except the
little-used Ocracoke inlet.]

It was under the incentive of Sandford’s explorations and this
districting of the country that the Proprietors entered upon the
expedition which reached the Ashley River in 1670, for whose guidance
Locke had prepared his plan of government. The more common knowledge
of the geography of the Carolina coast at this time is seen in the map
of North Carolina in Ogilby’s _America_ (1671), which is reproduced in
Hawks’ _North Carolina_ (ii. p. 53).

In 1671 Sir Peter Colleton wrote to Locke that Ogilby was printing a
“Relation of the West Indies,” and desired a map of Carolina, and asked
Locke to get the drafts of Cape Fear and Albemarle from “my lord,” and
suggest to him also “to draw up a discourse to be added to this map, in
the nature of a description such as might invite people without seeming
to come from us, as would very much conduce to the speedy settlement.”
There remains, in Locke’s handwriting, a list of books to be consulted
for this task, but otherwise he does not seem to have done anything to
produce such a description.

Meanwhile another explorer had approached this region from the north,
entering a country which no European had visited since the incursions
of Lane’s company in the preceding century. We have record of this
expedition in a tract of the following title: _The discoveries of
John Lederer in three several marches from Virginia to the west of
Carolina, March, 1669-Sept., 1670_. _Collected out of the latine from
his discourse and writings by Sir William Talbot._ London, 1672.[781]

[Illustration: LEDERER’S MAP (1669-1670).

Fac-simile of the original in the Harvard College library copy. There
is a sketch of it in Hawks’ _North Carolina_, ii. 52.]

Lederer was a German, and was sent out by Governor Berkeley, of
Virginia. He seems to have penetrated westward “to the top of the
Apalatœan mountains.” He announced his disbelief in the views of such
as held the distance from the Atlantic to the Pacific to be but eight
or ten days’ journey, as shown in the “Mapp of Virginia discovered to
the Hills,”[782] but was nevertheless inclined to believe that the
Indian ocean may indeed stretch an arm into the continent as far as the
Appalachian range.

It was on the second of Lederer’s expeditions, going west and southwest
from the falls of the James, that he extended his course into North
Carolina, and Hawks has endeavored to trace his track. Following him by
his names of places, as Ogilby adopted them in his map of 1671, Lederer
would appear to have traversed the breadth of South Carolina. “We
cannot believe this,” says Dr. Hawks. “The time occupied would not have
been sufficient for it. Lederer’s itinerary presents difficulties which
we confess we cannot satisfactorily solve.” It seems at least certain
that Lederer did not penetrate far enough to encounter the new-comers
who were about founding the commonwealth of Locke.

The earliest account which we have of the English settlers at Port
Royal, before their removal to the west bank of the Ashley River, is in
Thomas Ash’s _Carolina, or a description of the present state of that
country_. London, 1682. The author was clerk on board his majesty’s
ship “Richmond,” which was on the coast 1680-82, “with instructions to
enquire into the state of the country.”[783]

During the next few years several brief accounts of the new settlements
were printed which deserve to be named: Samuel Wilson’s anonymous
_Account of the Province of Carolina in America; together with
an abstract of the Patent and several other necessary and useful
particulars, to such as have thoughts of transporting themselves
thither_. London, 1682 (text, 26 pp.).[784] John Crafford’s anonymous
_New and most exact Account of the fertile and famous Colony of
Carolina.... The whole being a compendious account of a voyage made
by an ingenious person, begun Oct., 1682, and finished 1683_. Dublin,
1683.[785] Crafford is called supercargo of the ship “James of Erwin.”

_Carolina described more fully than heretofore ... from the several
relations, ... from divers letters from the Irish settled there
and relations of those who have been there several years._ Dublin,
1684.[786]

The first edition of Blome’s _Present state of his majesty’s isles
and territories in America_, London, 1687,[787] gave “A new map of
Carolina by Robert Morden” (p. 150), and through translations it became
a popular book throughout Europe, and did something to bring the new
colony to their attention.

Courtenay, in the _Charleston Year Book_, 1883, p. 377, gives a
fac-simile of a map (with a corner map of Charlestown and vicinity)
which marks the lots of settlers, and is thought by him to be earlier
than 1700.

For the next fifteen years there is little in print about the history
of Carolina; but not long after 1700, the attempt of the High-Church
party, led by Nicholas Trott, the chief justice, and James Moore, to
enforce conformity produced a controversy not without results.

[Illustration: MORDEN’S CAROLINA (1687.)

Cf. “A Generall Mapp of Carolina describeing its Sea Coast and Rivers.
London, printed for Ric. Blome,” which appeared in Blome’s _Description
of the Island of Jamaica, with the other Isles and Territories in
America, to which the English are related_. London, 1678.]

The establishment of the “Society for the Propagation of the Gospel
in Foreign Parts,” which had been chartered June 16, 1701, had
given a certain impulse to the movement; and the society had its
historiographer in David Humphreys, who in 1730 published at London his
_Historical Account_[788] of it. This and the abstracts of the early
reports of the society, published with their anniversary sermons,
afford data of its work in the colonies.

The first Episcopal church had been built in Charlestown about 1681-2,
and its history and that of those later founded in the province, as
well as of the movement at this time in progress, can be followed in
Frederick D. Dalcho’s _Historical Account of the Protestant Episcopal
Church in South Carolina, from the First Settlement of the Province to
the War of the Revolution; with Notices of the Present State of the
Church in each Parish, and some Account of the Early Civil History of
Carolina never before published_. (Charleston, 1820.)[789]

The early years of the century were distinguished by the sharp
retaliatory attacks of the Carolinians and the neighboring Spanish.
The letter which Colonel Moore sent to the governor respecting his
plundering incursion into Florida is fortunately printed in the
_Boston News-Letter_, May 1, 1704, whence Carroll copied it for his
_Hist. Collections_ (ii. 573). Of this and of later attacks, we can
add something from the _Report_ of the committee of the South Carolina
Assembly, in 1740, on Oglethorpe’s subsequent failure, and from the
narratives of Archdale and Oldmixon, later to be mentioned. Of the
French and Spanish naval attack on Charlestown in 1706,[790] Mr. Doyle,
in his _English in America_, says that the MS. reports preserved
in the Colonial Papers confirm the contemporary account (Sept. 13,
1706) printed in the _Boston News-Letter_, and the statements in the
_Report_ of 1740 on Oglethorpe’s later defeat at St. Augustine. The
_News-Letter_ account was reprinted in the _Carolina Gazette_, at a
later day.

[Illustration: PLAN OF CHARLESTOWN, 1704. (_Survey of Edward Crisp._)

The Key: A, Granville bastion. B, Craven bastion. C, Carteret
bastion. D, Colleton bastion. E, Ashley bastion. F, Blake’s bastion.
G, Half-moon. H, Draw-bridge. I, Johnson’s covered half-moon. K,
Draw-bridge. L, Palisades. M, Lieut.-Col. Rhett’s bridge. N. Smith’s
bridge. O, Minister’s house. P, English Church. Q, French Church. R,
Independent Church. S, Anabaptist Church. T, Quaker meeting-house. V,
Court of guard. W, First rice patch in Carolina.—Owners of houses as
follows: 1, Pasquero and Garret. 2, Landsack. 3, Jno. Crosskeys. 4,
Chevelier. 5, Geo. Logan. 6, Poinsett. 7, Elicott. 8, Starling. 9, M.
Boone. 10, Tradds. 11, Nat. Law. 12, Landgrave Smith. 13, Col. Rhett.
14, Ben. Skenking. 15, Sindery.

This same map is one of the three side maps given in H. Moll’s _Map
of the Dominions of the King of Great Britain in America_, 1715. It
is repeated in Ramsay’s _South Carolina_, vol. ii., and in Cassell’s
_United States_, i. 432.]


Rivers points out that Ramsay (i. 135) adds a few details, perhaps
from tradition. Professor Rivers had earlier contributed to _Russell’s
Mag._ (Charleston, Aug., 1859, p. 458) a paper from the London State
Paper Office, entitled “An impartial narrative of y^e late invasion of
So. Carolina by y^e French and Spanish in the month of August, 1706.”
Governor John Archdale printed at London, in 1707, _A new Description
of that fertile and pleasant province of Carolina, with a brief account
of its discovery, settling, and the government thereof_ (pp. 32).[791]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

The next year (1708) we have an account of the condition of the colony
in a letter signed by Sir Nathaniel Johnson, and dated September 17.
It is quoted in large part by Rivers in his _Sketches_.[792] The name
of John Oldmixon (died in England in 1742) is signed to the dedication
of the _British Empire in America_, London, 1708, and it passes under
his name. A second corrected and amended edition appeared in 1741.[793]
Herman Moll made the maps which it contains, including one of Carolina,
and some have supposed that he wrote the text. Dr. Hawks says of the
book that it contains almost as many errors as pages, and unsupported
is not to be trusted (ii. p. 481).

In 1708 John Stevens began in London to issue in numbers a work, which
when completed in 1710 and 1711 (copies have both dates) was called
_A new Collection of Voyages and Travels into several parts of the
world, none of which ever before printed in English_. The second of
this series, “printed in the year 1709,” was _A new Voyage to Carolina,
containing the exact description and natural history of that country,
together with the present state thereof and a Journal of a thousand
miles travel’d thro’ several nations of Indians, giving a particular
account of their customs, manners, etc., by John Lawson, Gent.,
Surveyor-General of North Carolina_. Other issues of the same sheets,
with new title-pages, are dated 1714 and 1718.[794]

Lawson was a young Englishman, who arrived in Charleston in September,
1700. After a few months’ tarry in that settlement, he started with
five white men and four Indians, and went by canoe to the Santee, where
he turned inland afoot, and as he journeyed put down what he saw and
experienced. In North Carolina he was made Surveyor-General, and this
appointment kept him roaming over the country, during which he came
much in contact with the Indians, and made, as Field says,[795] acute
and trustworthy observations of them. With this life he practised a
literary craft, and wrote out his experiences in a book which was
taken to London to be printed,—an “uncommonly strong and sprightly
book,” as Professor Tyler calls it.[796] His vocation of land-surveyor
was not one calculated to endear him to the natives, who saw that the
compass and the chain always harbingered new claims upon their lands.
Three years after his book had been printed he was on a journey (1712)
through the wilds with the Baron de Graffenreid, when the two were
seized by the Tuscaroras, who suffered the German to agree for his
release. The Englishman, however, was burned with pine splinters stuck
in his flesh, as is generally believed, though Colonel Byrd, in his
_History of the dividing line between Virginia and Carolina_, says he
was waylaid and his throat cut.[797]

[Illustration: WAR MAP, 1711-1715.]

Of about this time we also find a number of tracts, incentives to and
records of German and Swiss emigration.[798] For the Carey rebellion
and the Indian war of 1711,[799] Hawks used a transcript from an early
copy of Governor Spotswood’s letter-book, which had been in his family
and was placed by him in the State Department of North Carolina, where
it had apparently originally belonged. In 1882, the Virginia Historical
Society published the first volume of the Spotswood letters, and the
student finds this material easily accessible now.[800]

In 1715 the General Assembly of North Carolina revised and reënacted
the body of statute law then in force,[801] and twelve MS. copies were
made, one for each precinct court. About a quarter of a century ago,
says Mr. Swain, the State Historical Agent, in his _Report_ of 1857,
two of these copies, moth-eaten and mutilated, were discovered, and
about 1854 a third copy, likewise imperfect, was found. From these
three copies the body of laws was reconstructed for the State Library.

The authorities for the Yamassee war of 1715-16, so far as printed,
are the account in the _Boston News-Letter_ (June 13, 1715), reprinted
in Carroll (ii. 569), where (ii. 141) as well as in Force’s _Tracts_
(vol. ii.) is one of the chief authorities for this and for that other
struggle which shook off the rule of the Proprietors, published in
London in 1726, under the title of _A narrative of the Proceedings
of the People of South Carolina in the year 1719, and of the true
causes and motives that induced them to renounce their obedience to
the Lords Proprietors, as their governors, and to put themselves under
the immediate government of the Crown_.[802] Yonge, who professes to
write in this tract from original papers, is thus made of importance
as an authority, since in 1719 the records of South Carolina seem to
have been embezzled, as Rivers infers from an act of February, 1719-20,
whose purpose was to recover them “from such as now have the custody
thereof,” and they are not known to exist. We get the passions of the
period in _The liberty and property of British subjects asserted: in
a letter from an assembly-man in Carolina to his friend in London_.
London, 1726.[803] It is signed N., and is dated at Charleston, January
15, 1725, and sustains the discontents, in their criticism of the
Proprietary government. The preface, written in London, gives a history
of the colony.

In 1729 all of the Proprietors, except Lord Granville, surrendered
their title in the soil to the Crown;[804] and in 1744 his eighth part
was set off to him,[805] being a region sixty-six miles from north to
south, adjoining the southern line of Virginia and running from sea to
sea. Lord Granville retained this title down to the Revolution, and
after that event he endeavored to reëstablish his claim in the Circuit
and Supreme Courts, till his death, during the continuance of the war
of 1812, closed proceedings.

Meanwhile some sustained efforts were making to induce a Swiss
immigration to South Carolina. Jean Pierre Purry, a leader among
them, printed in London in 1724 a tract, which is very rare: _Mémoire
presenté à sa Gr. Mylord Duc de Newcastle sur l’état présent de la
Caroline et sur les moyens de l’ameliorer_. Londres, 1724.[806] In
1880 Colonel C. C. Jones, Jr., privately printed an English version of
it at Augusta, Georgia, as a _Memorial ... upon the present condition
of Carolina and the means of its amelioration by Jean Pierre Purry of
Neufchâtel, Switzerland_.

The _Gentleman’s Magazine_ of August, September, and October, 1732,
contained an English rendering of a description of Carolina, drawn up
by Purry and others, at Charlestown in September, 1731. This last paper
has been included by Carroll in his _Historical Collections_ (vol.
ii.), and by Force in his _Tracts_ (vol. ii.).[807] Purry’s tracts
were in the interest of immigration, and his and their influence seem
to have induced a considerable number of Swiss to proceed to Carolina,
where they formed a settlement called Purrysburg on the east side of
the Savannah River. Hardships, malaria, and unwonted conditions of life
discouraged them, and their settlement was not long continued.[808]

Bernheim, _German Settlements in Carolina_ (p. 99), points out how the
busy distribution of the rose-colored reports of Purry doubtless also
led to the German and Swiss settlement at Orangeburg, S. C., in 1735,
the history of which he derives from the journals of the council of the
province in the state archives, and from those church record-books,
which are preserved. It is to Bernheim we must look for the best
accounts of the other German settlements in different parts of the
province.

In 1851 the Lutheran synod of South Carolina put the Rev. G. D.
Bernheim in charge of its records, and in 1858 he began to collect
the minutes of the synod of North Carolina, and to interest himself
generally in the history of the German settlements of both States. From
1861 to 1864 he printed much of the material which he had gathered
in the _Southern Lutheran_. He found that the writers in English of
the histories of the Carolinas had largely neglected this part of the
story, perhaps from unacquaintance with the tongue in which the records
of the early German settlers are written. The settlements of these
people at Newbern and Salem had not indeed been overlooked; but their
plantations in the central and western parts of the State, comprising
more than three fourths of the German population, had been neglected.
In the histories of South Carolina the settlements of Purrysburg and
Hard Labor Creek had alone been traced with attention. In 1872 Mr.
Bernheim recast his material into a _History of the German settlements
and of the Lutheran church in North and South Carolina, from the
earliest period_ [to 1850], and published it at Philadelphia. It may be
supplemented by a little volume, _The Moravians in North Carolina_, by
Rev. Levin T. Reichell, Salem, N. C. 1857.[809]

We find some assistance in fixing for this period the extent of the
domination of the English Church in a map which accompanies David
Humphreys’ _Historical Account of the Society for the Propagation of
the Gospel in Foreign Parts_, London, 1730, which is called “Map of
the Province of Carolina, divided into its parishes, according to the
latest accounts, 1730, by H. Moll, geographer.” It has a corner “map of
the most improved parts of [South] Carolina,” which shows the parish
churches and the English and Indian settlements. A fac-simile of this
lesser map is annexed. George Howe’s _History of the Presbyterian
Church in South Carolina, from 1685 to 1800_, Columbia, S. C., 1870, is
another local monograph of interest in the religious development of the
province.[810]

[Illustration: INDIAN MAP, 1730.

In the Kohl collection (no. 220). The original is in the British
Museum, describing the situation of the Indian tribes in the northwest
parts of South Carolina, and drawn by an Indian chief on a deer-skin,
and presented to Gov. Nicholson.]

The Huguenot element in Carolina became an important one, and as
early as 1737 these French founded in Charleston the “South Carolina
Society,” a benevolent organization, which in 1837 celebrated its
centennial, the memory of which is preserved in a descriptive pamphlet
published at Charleston in that year, containing an oration by J.
W. Toomer, and an appendix of historical documents. There is no
considerable account yet published of these Carolina Huguenots, and the
student must content himself with the scant narrative by Charles Weiss,
as given in the translation of his book by H. W. Herbert, _History
of the French Protestant Refugees_ (New York, 1854), which has, in
addition to the narrative in Book iv. on refugees in America, an
appendix on American Huguenots, not, however, very skilfully arranged.
There is a similar appendix by G. P. Disosway[811] at the close of
Samuel Smiles’ _Huguenots_ (New York, 1868); and briefer accounts in
Mrs. H. F. S. Lee’s _Huguenots in France and America_ (Cambridge,
1843, vol. ii. ch. 29), and in Reginald Lane Poole’s _History of the
Huguenots of the Dispersion_ (London, 1880).[812]

Professor Rivers contributed to _Russell’s Magazine_ (Charleston,
Sept., 1859) a paper on “The Carolina regiment in the expedition
against St. Augustine in 1740.”

The natural aspects of the country, as they became better known, we
get from Mark Catesby’s _Natural History of Carolina, Florida, and
the Bahama Islands_, etc., which was published in London, from 1732
to 1748, and again in 1754;[813] and a German translation appeared at
Nuremberg in 1755. The English text was revised in the second edition
by Edwards, and again printed at London in 1771.

The files of the early newspapers of the Carolinas afford needful, if
scant, material. Thomas, in his _History of Printing_, records all
there was. The _South Carolina Gazette_, beginning in January, 1731-2,
was published for little more than a year as a weekly; but this title
was resuscitated in new hands in February, 1734, when the new journal
of this name continued its weekly issues up to the Revolutionary
period. No other paper was begun in that province till 1758, when a new
weekly, the _South Carolina and American General Gazette_, was started.
Three years before this, the first paper had been established at
Newbern, _The North Carolina Gazette_, which lived for about six years.

To Governor Glen is attributed _A description of South Carolina_, which
was printed in London in 1761,[814] and is reprinted in Carroll’s
_Historical Collections_, vol. ii. It gives the civil, natural, and
commercial history of the colony. It is the completest survey which had
up to this time been printed.

In the war with the Cherokees some imputations were put upon the South
Carolina rangers, under Henry Middleton, by Grant, the commander
of the expeditions against those Indians; and this charge did not
pass unchallenged, as would seem from a tract published in 1762 at
Charleston, entitled _Some Observations on the two Campaigns against
the Cherokee Indians in 1760 and 1761_.[815]

For the geography of this period we have two maps in the _New and
complete History of the British Empire in America_, an anonymous
publication which was issued in parts in London, beginning in 1757.
One is a map of Virginia and North Carolina, the other of South
Carolina and Georgia, both stretching their western limits beyond the
Mississippi.

[Illustration: THE SOUTH CAROLINA COAST.

Cf. the Carolina of Moll in his _New Survey_, no. 26 (1729), and a
reproduction of Moll in Cassell’s _United States_, i. 439. A map of
Carolina and Charlestown harbor (1742) is in the _English Pilot_, no.
19.]

At the very end of the period of which we are now writing the MS.
description of South Carolina by the engineer William De Brahm,
which is preserved in the library of Harvard University, becomes of
importance for its topographical account, and its plans and maps,
executed with much care. It is included in a volume, containing also
similar descriptions of Georgia and Florida, which portions are noticed
in the following chapter. There are transcripts of this document which
have an early date,[816] and some at least have a title different from
the Harvard one, and are called _A Philosophico-historico-Hydrography
of South Carolina, Georgia, and East Florida_. From such a one, which
is without the drawings, that portion relating to South Carolina was
printed in London in 1856, by Mr. Plowden Charles Jennett Weston, in a
volume of _Documents connected with the History of South Carolina_. An
engraved map by De Brahm, _Map of South Carolina and a part of Georgia,
composed from surveys taken by Hon. Wm. Bull, Capt. Gascoigne, Hugh
Bryan, and William De Brahm_, published in four sheets by Jefferys,
also appeared in the _General Topography of North America and the West
Indies_, London, 1768. The map itself is dated Oct. 20, 1757, and gives
tables of names of proprietors of land in Georgia and Carolina.[817]

       *       *       *       *       *

The earliest account of the history of South Carolina cast in a
sustained retrospective spirit is the anonymous _Historical Account of
the rise and progress of the Colonies of South Carolina and Georgia_
(London, 1779), which is known to have been prepared by Dr. Alexander
Hewatt,—as his signature seems to fix the spelling of his name, though
in the bibliographical records it appears under various forms.[818]
Carroll, in reprinting the book in the first volume of his _Historical
Collections_, added many emendatory notes.[819] The next year (1780)
produced a far more important book, in respect to authority, in George
Chalmers’ _Political Annals of the Present United Colonies, from their
Settlement to the Peace of 1763_ (London), the first volume of which,
however, was the only one published.[820] Chalmers, who was born in
1742, had practised law in Maryland, but he could not sympathize with
the revolution, and at the outbreak returned to England, where in time
(August, 1786) he became the clerk of the Board of Trade and died in
office, May 31, 1825, at the age of eighty-two.

When Williamson was engaged on his _History of North Carolina_ (i. p.
9), he applied for assistance to Chalmers, whose _Political Annals_
shows that he had access to papers not otherwise known at that time,
but was refused. Grahame, in his _Colonial History of the United
States_ (i. p. xii.), says he got ready access to Chalmers’ papers,
but as he disclosed in his text little new, it was conjectured that
before Grahame’s opportunity much had passed out of Chalmers’ hands.
Sparks, in a letter (1856) to Mr. Swain, the historical agent of
North Carolina, says of Chalmers that “he undoubtedly procured nearly
the whole of his materials from the archives of the Board of Trade.
His papers, after having been bound in volumes, were sold by his
nephew a few years ago (1843) in London. I purchased six volumes
of them, relating mostly to New England. They are not important,
being memoranda, references, and extracts, used in writing his
_Annals_.”[821] Two large volumes of Chalmers’ notes and transcripts
also came into the hands of George Bancroft, and were entrusted by him
to the care of Dr. Hawks and Mr. Rivers, when they were at work upon
their histories of North and South Carolina. Bancroft, from his own use
of them, and of Chalmers’ printed _Annals_, and speaking particularly
of the Culpepper revolution (1678), in the original edition (ii. p.
162) of his _United States_, says: “Chalmers’ account in all cases
of the kind must be received with great hesitancy. The coloring is
always wrong; the facts usually perverted. He writes like a lawyer
and disappointed politician, not like a calm inquirer. His statements
are copied by Grahame,[822] obscured by Martin, and, strange to say,
exaggerated by Williamson.” Dr. William Smyth, in his _Lectures on
Modern History_, calls the work of Chalmers an “immense, heavy, tedious
book, to explain the legal history of the different colonies; it should
be consulted in all such points, but it is impossible to read it.”[823]

[Illustration]

Near the close of the Revolutionary War Chalmers began the printing
of another work, a succinct sketch of the history of the colonies. A
very few copies exist of the first volume, which is without title or
preliminary matter, and in the copy before us a blank leaf contains
a manuscript title in Chalmers’ own handwriting as follows: _An
Introduction to the History of the Colonies, giving from the State
Papers a comprehensive view of the origin of their Revolt. By George
Chalmers, Vol. I. Printed in 1782, But suppressed_. This volume,
beginning with the reign of James I. and ending with that of George
I., was the only one printed. The present copy[824] is marked as being
the one from which Mr. Sparks printed an edition published in Boston
in 1845,[825] in which the preface says that the original issue was
suppressed, “owing to the separation of the colonies, which happened
just at the season for publication, December, 1782, or the prior cause
in April precedent, the dismission of a tory administration.”[826]

When Chalmers’ papers were sold, a manuscript continuation of this
_Introduction_ in the handwriting of the author was found, completely
revised and prepared for the press. When Sparks reprinted the single
volume already referred to, he added this second part to complete the
work, and it was carefully carried through the press by John Langdon
Sibley. Sparks in his introductory statements speaks of the book
as “deduced for the most part from the State Papers in the British
offices, or to speak with more precision, from the confidential
correspondence of the governors and other officers of the Crown in the
colonies.” In regard to its suppression he adds that “no political ends
could now be answered by its publication, and it is probable that he
thought it more politic to sacrifice the pride and fame of authorship
than to run the hazard of offending the ministers.”[827]

Of the later histories it is most convenient to treat each province
separately, as will be done in the annexed note.


NOTE.

THE LATER HISTORIES OF THE CAROLINAS.


=I.= NORTH CAROLINA.—The first published of the general accounts
of this State was the _History of North Carolina_, by Hugh
Williamson,[828] at Philadelphia, in 1812, in two volumes. Dr. Hawks,
the later historian, says (ii. p. 540) that North Carolinians do
not recognize Williamson’s work as a history of their State. It is
inaccurate in a great many particulars, and sometimes when there is
proof that the original record was lying before him. Sparks calls it
“meagre and unsatisfactory,” and adds that it contains but few facts,
and these apparently the most unimportant of such as had fallen in his
way.[829] More care and discrimination, though but little literary
interest, characterized another writer. François Xavier Martin had
a singular career. He was born in Marseilles, became a bankrupt in
Martinique, went friendless to Newbern, in North Carolina, and rose to
distinction as a jurist, after beginning his career in the State as a
translator and vendor of French stories. He had removed to Louisiana,
when he published at New Orleans his _History of North Carolina_, in
1829 (two volumes), and in that State he rose to be chief justice, and
published a history of it, as we have seen. Martin’s accumulation of
facts carries no advantage by any sort of correlation except that of
dates. A painstaking search, as far as his opportunities permitted,
and a perspicuous way of writing stand for the work’s chief merits.
He stops at the Declaration of Independence. Up to Martin’s time
Bancroft[830] might well speak of the carelessness with which the
history of North Carolina had been written.

Next came John H. Wheeler’s _Historical Sketches of North Carolina from
1584 to 1851, compiled from original records, official documents, and
traditional statements, with biographical sketches of her distinguished
Statesmen, Jurists, Lawyers, Soldiers, etc._, Philadelphia, 1851. It
is not unfairly characterized by Mr. C. K. Adams, in his _Manual of
Historical Reference_ (p. 559), as “a jumble of ill-digested material,
rather a collection of tables, lists, and facts than a history.”

David L. Swain,[831] who had been governor of the State, had done much
to collect transcripts of documents from the archives of the other
States and from England, and in 1857, as historical agent of the State,
he made a report, which was printed at Raleigh, in which, speaking of
the statutes at large, which Virginia and South Carolina had published,
he referred to “both of these collections, especially the former, the
earlier and better work, as deeply interesting in connection with North
Carolina history.”

Of the _History of North Carolina_, by Francis Lister Hawks, D. D.,
LL. D., the second volume, published at Fayetteville in 1858, covers
the period of the Proprietary government from 1663 to 1729, the first
volume being given to the Raleigh period, etc. He availed himself of
the fullest permission by state and local authorities to profit by
the records within his own State; and he had earlier himself procured
in London many copies of documents there. The author claims that more
than three fourths of this volume has been prepared from original
authorities, existing in manuscript. He tells at greater length than
others the story of the law and its administration, of the industrial
and agricultural arts, navigation and trade, religion and learning.

The latest local treatment is that of Mr. John W. Moore’s _History of
North Carolina from the earliest discoveries to the present time_,
Raleigh, 1880, in two volumes. There is not much attempt at original
research, and he does not reprint documentary material, as Hawks did,
in too great profusion to make a popular book. Mr. Moore aims to give a
better literary form to the story; but his style somewhat overlays his
facts.


=II.= SOUTH CAROLINA.—To turn to the more southern province,—Dr.
David Ramsay, who was a respectable physician from Pennsylvania,
domiciled and married in Charleston, gained some reputation in his
day as a practised writer, and as an historical scholar of zeal and
judgment. He published first, in 1796, a _Sketch of the Soil, Climate,
etc., of South Carolina_; and later, in 1809, at Charleston, a _History
of South Carolina_, 1670-1808, in which he made good use of Hewatt, as
far as he was available.

In 1836 Carroll republished many of the early printed tracts upon
South Carolina history in his two volumes of _Historical Collections_.
Referring to this publication, a writer in the _Southern Quarterly
Review_, Jan., 1852, p. 185, says: “But for a timely appropriation by
the legislature of two thousand dollars for his relief, Carroll would
have been seriously the sufferer by his experiment on public taste and
sectional patriotism.”

Grahame in 1836 had published the first edition of his _Colonial
History of the United States_, including the early history of the
Carolinas, and Bancroft, in 1837, published the second volume of his
_History of the Colonization of the United States_, and in chapter
xiii. he discussed how Shaftesbury and Locke legislated for South
Carolina,—a chapter considerably changed in his last edition (1883).

The South Carolina novelist, William G. Simms, first published a small
history of the State in 1840, which served for school use. This he
revised in 1860 as a _History of South Carolina_, which was published
in New York. It was spirited, but too scant of detail for scholarly
service.[832]

The South Carolina Historical Society was formed in 1855, Mr. Rivers,
the writer of the preceding chapter, being one of the originators. The
first volume of their _Collections_, published in 1857, contained,
beside an opening address by Professor F. A. Porcher, the beginning
of a list and abstracts of papers in the State Paper Office, London,
relating to South Carolina. This enumeration was continued in the
second and third volumes.[833] There are also in the second volume,
beside Petigru’s oration, a paper on the French Protestants of the
Abbeville district, an oration by J. B. Cohen, and O. M. Lieber’s
vocabulary of the Catawba language. In vol. iii. we find an oration by
W. H. Trescott. No further volumes have been printed.

Mr. Rivers’ _Sketch of the History of South Carolina to the Close of
the Proprietary Government by the Revolution of 1719_, published in
Charleston in 1856, was continued by him in _A Chapter in the Early
History of South Carolina_, published at Charleston in 1874, which
largely consists of explanatory original documents. This section of
a second volume of his careful history was all that the author had
accomplished towards completing the work, when the civil war of 1861
“rendered him unable to continue its preparation.” Mr. Rivers says,
in a note in this supplementary chapter, that an examination of the
records at Columbia has shown him that, to perfect this additional
task, it would be necessary to make examination among the records of
the State-Paper Office in London.

Of these latter records Mr. Fox Bourne, in his _Life of John Locke_
(London, 1876), says: “Locke’s connection with the affairs of the
colony lasted only through its earliest infancy. Down to the autumn of
1672 he continued his informal office of secretary to the Proprietors.
Nearly every letter received from the colony is docketed by him; and
of a great number that have disappeared there exist careful epitomes
in his handwriting. We have also drafts, entered by him, of numerous
letters sent out from England, and his hand is plainly shown in other
letters. Out of this material it would be easy to construct almost the
entire history of the colony during the first years of its existence.”

It was some time before the period of Mr. Fox Bourne’s writing that
the Earl of Shaftesbury deposited with the deputy keeper of the Public
Records the collection of documents known as the _Shaftesbury Papers_,
the accumulation which had been formed in the hands of his ancestor,
and which yield so much material for the early history of the Carolina
government.[834]

The latest use made of these and other papers of the State-Paper
Office is found in _The English in America, Virginia, Maryland, and
the Carolinas_ (London, 1882), written by Mr. John A. Doyle, librarian
of All Souls, Oxford. In a note to his chapter on the “Two Carolinas,”
Doyle says (p. 427), respecting the material for Carolinian history
in the English archives: “To make up for the deficiency of printed
authorities, the English archives are unusually rich in papers
referring to Carolina. There are letters and instructions from the
Proprietors, individually and collectively, and reports sent to them by
successive governors and other colonial officials. It is remarkable,
however, that while we have such abundant material of this kind, there
is a great lack of records of the actual proceedings of the local
legislatures in North and South Carolina. In North Carolina we have
no formal record of legislative proceedings during the seventeenth
century. In South Carolina they are but few and scanty till after the
overthrow of the Proprietary government.[835] Moreover, the early
archives of Carolina, though abundant, are necessarily somewhat
confused. The northern and southern colonies, while practically
distinct, were under the government of a single corporation, and
thus the documents relating to each are most inextricably mixed up.
Again, while the Proprietors were the governing body, the colonies
in some measure came under the supervision of the Lords of Trade and
Plantations, and at a later day of the Board of Trade. Thus much which
concerns the colony is to be found in the entry books of the latter
body, while the Proprietary documents themselves are to be found
partly among the colonial papers,[836] partly in a special department
containing the Shaftesbury Papers.”

In the _Fifth Report of the Historical Manuscripts Commission_ there
is a calendar of the Shelburne Papers, belonging to the Marquis of
Lansdowne, which shows a considerable number of documents of interest
in the history of Carolina: as, for instance (p. 215), Governor
Barrington’s account of the State of North Carolina, January 1,
1732-33; Governor Glen’s answers with respect to inquiries about
South Carolina; an offer (p. 218) of a treaty for the sale of Lord
Granville’s district in North Carolina to the Crown, signed by the
second Lord Granville; and (p. 228, etc.) various reports of law
officers of the Crown on questions arising in the government of the
colonies.




CHAPTER VI.

THE ENGLISH COLONIZATION OF GEORGIA.

1733-1752.

BY CHARLES C. JONES, JR., LL. D.


ACTING under the orders of Admiral Coligny, Captain Ribault, before
selecting a location for his fort and planting his Huguenot colony
near the mouth of Port Royal, traversed what is now known as the
Georgia coast, observed its harbors, and named several of the principal
rivers emptying into the Atlantic Ocean.[837] “It was a fayre coast,
stretchyng of a great length, couered with an infinite number of high
and fayre trees.” The waters “were boyling and roaring, through the
multitude of all kind of fish.” The inhabitants were “all naked and
of a goodly stature, mightie, and as well shapen and proportioned
of body as any people in ye world; very gentle, courteous, and of
a good nature.” Lovingly entertained were these strangers by the
natives, and they were, in the delightful spring-time, charmed with
all they beheld. As they viewed the country they pronounced it the
“fairest, fruitfullest, and pleasantest of all the world, abounding in
hony, venison, wilde foule, forests, woods of all sorts, Palm-trees,
Cypresse, and Cedars, Bayes ye highest and greatest; with also the
fayrest vines in all the world, with grapes according, which, without
natural art and without man’s helpe or trimming, will grow to toppes of
Okes and other trees that be of a wonderfull greatness and height. And
the sight of the faire medowes is a pleasure not able to be expressed
with tongue: full of Hernes, Curlues, Bitters, Mallards, Egrepths,
Wood-cocks, and all other kinds of small birds; with Harts, Hindes,
Buckes, wilde Swine, and all other kindes of wilde beastes, as we
perceiued well, both by their footing there, and also afterwardes in
other places by their crie and roaring in the night.... Also there
be Conies and Hares, Silk Wormes in merueilous number, a great deale
fairer and better than be our silk wormes. To be short, it is a thing
vnspeakable to consider the thinges that bee scene there and shal be
founde more and more in this incomperable lande, which, neuer yet
broken with plough yrons, bringeth forth al things according to his
first nature wherewith the eternall God indued it.”

Enraptured with the delights of climate, forests, and waters, and
transferring to this new domain names consecrated by pleasant
associations at home, Captain Ribault called the River St. Mary the
_Seine_, the Satilla the _Somme_, the Alatamaha the _Loire_, the
Newport the _Charante_, the Great Ogeechee the _Garonne_, and the
Savannah the _Gironde_. Two years afterward, when René de Laudonnière
visited Ribault’s fort, he found it deserted. The stone pillar
inscribed with the arms of France, which he had erected to mark the
farthest confines of Charles IX.’s dominion in the Land of Flowers, was
garlanded with wreaths. Offerings of maize and fruits lay at its base;
and the natives, regarding the structure with awe and veneration, had
elevated it into the dignity of a god.

As yet no permanent lodgment had been effected in the territory
subsequently known as Georgia. The first Europeans who are known to
have traversed it were Hernando de Soto and his companions, whose
story has been told elsewhere.[838] The earliest grant of the lower
part of the territory claimed by England under the discovery of Cabot,
was made by His Majesty King Charles I., in the fifth year of his
reign, to Sir Robert Heath, his attorney-general. In that patent it
is called _Carolina Florida_, and the designated limits extended from
the river Matheo in the thirtieth degree, to the river Passa Magna in
the thirty-sixth degree of north latitude. There is good reason for
the belief that actual possession was taken under this concession, and
that, in the effort to colonize, considerable sums were expended by
the proprietor and by those claiming under him. Whether this grant was
subsequently surrendered, or whether it was vacated and declared null
for _non user_ or other cause, we are not definitely informed. Certain
it is that King Charles II., in the exercise of his royal pleasure,
issued to the Lords Proprietors of Carolina two grants of the same
territory with some slight modifications of boundaries. The latter of
these grants, bearing date the 30th of June in the seventeenth year
of his reign, conveys to the Lords Proprietors that portion of the
New World lying between the thirty-sixth and the twenty-ninth degrees
of north latitude. While the English were engaged in peopling a part
of the coast embraced within these specified limits, the Spaniards
contented themselves with confirming their settlements at St. Augustine
and a few adjacent points.

Although in 1670 England and Spain entered into stipulations for
composing their differences in America,—stipulations which have since
been known as the _American Treaty_,—the precise line of separation
between Carolina and Florida was not defined. Between these powers
disputes touching this boundary were not infrequent. In view of this
unsettled condition of affairs, and in order to assert a positive claim
to, and retain possession of, the debatable ground which neither party
was willing either to relinquish or clearly to point out, the English
established and maintained a small military post on the south end of
Cumberland Island, where the river St. Mary empties its waters into the
Atlantic.

Apprehending that either the French or Spanish forces would take
possession of the Alatamaha River, King George I. ordered General
Nicholson, then governor of Carolina, with a company of one hundred
men, to secure that river, as being within the bounds of South
Carolina; and, at some suitable point, to erect a fort with an eye to
the protection of His Majesty’s possessions in that quarter and the
control of the navigation of that stream. That fort was placed near the
confluence of the Oconee and Ocmulgee rivers, and was named Fort George.

Although by the treaty of Seville commissioners were appointed to
determine the northern boundary line of Florida, which should form the
southern limit of South Carolina, no definite conclusion was reached,
and the question remained open and a cause of quarrel until the peace
of 1763, when Spain ceded Florida to Great Britain.

In recalling the instances of temporary occupancy, by Europeans, of
limited portions of the territory at a later period conveyed to the
trustees for establishing the Colony of Georgia, we should not omit
an allusion to the mining operations conducted by the Spaniards at an
early epoch among the auriferous mountains of upper Georgia. Influenced
by the representations made by the returned soldiers of De Soto’s
expedition of the quantity of gold, silver, and pearls in the province
of Cosa, Luis de Velasco dispatched his general, Tristan de Luna, to
open communication with Cosa by the way of Pensacola Bay. Three hundred
Spanish soldiers, equipped with mining tools, penetrated beyond the
valley of the Coosa and passed the summer of 1560 in northern Georgia
and the adjacent region. Juan Pardo was subsequently sent by Aviles,
the first governor of Florida, to establish a fort at the foot of the
mountains northwest of St. Augustine and in the province of the chief
Coabá. It would seem, therefore, that the Spaniards at this early
period were acquainted with, and endeavored to avail themselves of, the
gold deposits in Cherokee Georgia.

By the German traveller Johannes Lederer[839] are we advised that these
peoples in 1669 and 1670 were still working gold and silver mines in
the Appalachian mountains; and Mr. James Moore assures us that twenty
years afterward these mining operations were not wholly discontinued.

Thus, long before the advent of the English colonists, had the
Spaniards sojourned, in earnest quest for precious metals, among the
valleys and mountains of the Cherokees. Thus are we enabled to account
for those traces of ancient mining observed and wondered at by the
early settlers of upper Georgia,—operations of no mean significance,
conducted by skilled hands and with metallic tools,—which can properly
be referred neither to the Red Race nor to the followers of De Soto.

In June, 1717, Sir Robert Mountgomery secured from the Palatine and
Lords Proprietors of the Province of Carolina a grant and release
of all lands lying between the rivers Alatamaha and Savannah, with
permission to form settlements south of the former stream. This
territory was to be erected into a distinct province, “with proper
jurisdictions, privileges, prerogatives, and franchises, independent
of and in no manner subject to the laws of South Carolina.” It was
to be holden of the Lords Proprietors by Sir Robert, his heirs and
assigns forever, under the name and title of the Margravate of Azilia.
A yearly quit rent of a penny per acre for all lands “occupied,
taken up, or run out,” was to be paid. Such payment, however, was
not to begin until three years after the arrival of the first ships
transporting colonists. In addition, Sir Robert covenanted to render
to the Lords Proprietors one fourth part of all the gold, silver, and
royal minerals which might be found within the limits of the ceded
lands. Courts of justice were to be organized, and such laws enacted
by the freemen of the Margravate as might conduce to the general good
and in no wise conflict with the statutes and customs of England. The
navigation of the rivers was to be free to all the inhabitants of the
colonies of North and South Carolina. A duty similar to that sanctioned
in South Carolina was to be laid on skins, and this revenue was to be
appropriated to the maintenance of clergy. In consideration of this
cession, Sir Robert engaged to transport at his own cost a considerable
number of families, and all necessaries requisite for the support and
comfort of settlers within the specified limits. It was understood that
if settlements were not formed within three years from the date of the
grant, it should become void.

In glowing terms did Sir Robert unfold the attractions of his future
Eden “in the most delightful country of the Universe,” and boldly
proclaim “that Paradise with all her virgin beauties may be modestly
supposed at most but equal to its native excellencies.” After
commending in the highest terms the woods and meadows, mines and
odoriferous plants, soil and climate, fruits and game, streams and
hills, flowers and agricultural capabilities, he exhibited an elaborate
plan of the Margravate, in which he did not propose to satisfy
himself “with building here and there a fort,—the fatal practice of
America,—but so to dispose the habitations and divisions of the land
that not alone our houses, but whatever we possess, will be inclosed by
_military lines_ impregnable against the _savages_, and which will make
our whole plantation one continued fortress.”

Despite all efforts to induce immigration into this favored region, at
the expiration of the three years allowed by the concession Sir Robert
found himself without colonists. His grant expired and became void by
the terms of its own limitations. His Azilia remained unpeopled save
by the red men of the forest. His scheme proved utterly Utopian. It
was reserved for Oglethorpe and his companions to wrest from primeval
solitude and to vitalize with the energies of civilization the lands
lying between the Savannah and the Alatamaha.

Persuaded of their inability to afford suitable protection to the
colony of South Carolina, and moved by the wide-spread dissatisfaction
existing in that province, the Lords Proprietors, with the exception
of Lord Carteret, taking advantage of the provisions of an act of
Parliament, on the 25th of July in the third year of the reign of His
Majesty King George II., and in consideration of the sum of £22,500,
surrendered to the Crown not only their rights and interest in the
government of Carolina, but also their ownership of the soil. The
outstanding eighth interest owned by Lord Carteret, Baron of Hawnes,
was by him, on the 28th of February, 1732, conveyed to the “Trustees
for establishing the Colony of Georgia in America.”

The scheme which culminated in planting a colony on the right bank
of the Savannah River at Yamacraw Bluff originated with James Edward
Oglethorpe, a member of the English House of Commons, and “a gentleman
of unblemished character, brave, generous, and humane.” He was the
third son of Sir Theophilus, and the family of Oglethorpe was ancient
and of high repute.[840] Although at an early age a matriculate of
Corpus Christi College, Oxford, he soon quitted the benches of that
venerable institution of learning for an active military life. With
him a love of arms was an inheritance, for his father attained the
rank of major-general in the British service, and held the office
of first equerry to James II., who intrusted him with an important
command in the army assembled to oppose the Prince of Orange. Entering
the English army as an ensign in 1710, young Oglethorpe continued
in service until peace was proclaimed in 1713. The following year
he became captain-lieutenant of the first troop of the Queen’s
Life-Guards. Preferring active employment abroad to an idle life at
home, he soon repaired to the continent that he might perfect himself
in the art of war under the famous Prince Eugene of Savoy, who, upon
the recommendation of John, Duke of Argyle, gave him an appointment
upon his staff, at first as secretary and afterward as aid-de-camp.
It was a brave school, and his alertness, fidelity, and fearlessness
secured for him the good-will, the confidence, and the commendation of
his illustrious commander. Upon the conclusion of the peace of 1718
Oglethorpe returned to England, versed in the principles of military
science, accustomed to command, inured to the shock of arms, instructed
in the orders of battle, the management of sieges and the conduct
of campaigns, and possessing a reputation for manhood, executive
ability, and warlike knowledge not often acquired by one of his years.
His brother Theophilus dying, he succeeded to the family estate at
Westbrook, and in October, 1732, was elected a member for Haslemere
in the county of Surrey. This venerable borough and market-town he
continued to represent, through various changes of administration, for
two-and-thirty years.

[Illustration: OGLETHORPE.

(See a Note on the Portraits of Oglethorpe on a later page.)]


While he was chairman of the committee raised by the House of Commons
to visit the prisons, examine into the condition of the inmates, and
suggest measures of reform, the idea had occurred to Oglethorpe,—whose
“strong benevolence of soul” has been eulogized by Pope,—that not a
few of these unfortunate individuals confined for debt, of respectable
connections, guilty of no crime, and the victims of a legal thraldom
most vile and afflictive, might be greatly benefited by compromising
the claims for the non-payment of which they were suffering the penalty
of hopeless incarceration, upon the condition that when liberated they
would become colonists in America. Thus would opportunity be afforded
them of retrieving their fortunes; thus would England be relieved of
the shame and the expense of their imprisonment, and thus would her
dominion in the New World be enlarged and confirmed. Not the depraved,
not felons who awaited the approach of darker days when graver
sentences were to be endured, not the dishonest who hoped by submitting
to temporary imprisonment to exhaust the patience of creditors and
emerge with fraudulently acquired gains still concealed, but the
honestly unfortunate were to be the beneficiaries of this benevolent
and patriotic scheme. Those also in the United Kingdom who through want
of occupation and lack of means were most exposed to the penalties
of poverty, were to be influenced in behalf of the contemplated
colonization. It was believed that others, energetic, ambitious of
preferment, and possessing some means, could be enlisted in aid of
the enterprise. The anxiety of the Carolinians for the establishment
of a plantation to the South which would serve as a shield against
the incursions of the Spaniards, the attacks of the Indians, and the
depredations of fugitive slaves was great. This scheme of colonization
soon embraced within its benevolent designs not only the unfortunate
of Great Britain, but also the oppressed and persecuted Protestants
of Europe. Charity for, and the relief of, human distress were to
be inscribed upon the foundations of the dwellings which Oglethorpe
proposed to erect amid the Southern forests. Their walls were to be
advanced bulwarks for the protection of the Carolina plantations,
and their aspiring roofs were to proclaim the honor and the dominion
of the British nation. In the whole affair there lingered no hope of
personal gain, no ambition of a sordid character, no secret reservation
of private benefit. The entire project was open, disinterested,
charitable, loyal, and patriotic. Such was its distinguishing
peculiarity. Thus was it recognized by all; and Robert Southey did but
echo the general sentiment when he affirmed that no colony was ever
projected or established upon principles more honorable to its founders.

As the accomplishment of his purpose demanded a larger expenditure
than his means justified, and as the administration of the affairs
of the plantation would involve “a broader basis of managing power”
than a single individual could well maintain, Oglethorpe sought and
secured the co-operation of wealthy and influential personages in the
development of his beneficent enterprise.

That proper authority, ample cession, and royal sanction might be
obtained, in association with Lord Percival and other noblemen and
gentlemen of repute he addressed a memorial to the Privy Council, in
which, among other things, it was stated that the cities of London and
Westminster, and the adjacent region, abounded with indigent persons
so reduced in circumstances as to become burdensome to the public, who
would willingly seek a livelihood in any of His Majesty’s plantations
in America if they were provided with transportation and the means
of settling there. In behalf of themselves and their associates the
petitioners engaged, without pecuniary recompense, to take charge
of the colonization, and to erect the plantation into a proprietary
government, if the Crown would be pleased to grant them lands lying
south of the Savannah River, empower them to receive and administer
all contributions and benefactions which they might influence in
encouragement of so good a design, and clothe them with authority
suitable for the enforcement of law and order within the limits of
the province. After the customary reference, this petition met with a
favorable report, and by His Majesty’s direction a charter was prepared
which received the royal sanction on the 9th of June, 1732.

By this charter, Lord John, Viscount Percival, Edward Digby, George
Carpenter, James Oglethorpe, George Heathcote, Thomas Tower, Robert
Moor, Robert Hucks, Roger Holland, William Sloper, Francis Eyles, John
Laroche, James Vernon, William Beletha, John Burton, Richard Bundy,
Arthur Beaford, Samuel Smith, Adam Anderson, and Thomas Coram and their
successors were constituted a body politic and corporate by the name
of “The Trustees for establishing the Colony of Georgia in America.”
Ample were the powers with which this corporation was vested. Seven
eighths “of all those lands lying and being in that part of South
Carolina in America which lies from the most northern part of a stream
or river there commonly called the Savannah, all along the sea-coast
to the southward unto the most southern stream of a certain other
great water or river called the Alatamaha, and westerly from the heads
of the said rivers respectively in direct lines to the South Seas,”
were conveyed to the trustees for the purposes of the plantation. The
province was named Georgia, and was declared separate and distinct from
South Carolina. To all, save Papists, was accorded a free exercise of
religious thought and worship. For a period of twenty-one years were
these corporators and their successors authorized to administer the
affairs of the province. At the expiration of that time it was provided
that such form of government would then be adopted, and such laws
promulgated for the regulation of the colony and the observance of its
inhabitants, as the Crown should ordain. Thereafter the governor of the
province and all its officers, civil and military, were to be nominated
and commissioned by the home government.

[Illustration: MAP OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND GEORGIA, 1773.

[Fac-simile of a map in _Some Account of the Design of the Trustees
for establishing the Colony of Georgia in America_, 1733, in Harvard
College Library [Tract vol. 536]. This tract is appended to Smith’s
Sermon (1733). This map also appeared the same year in _Reasonsf for
Establishing the Colony of Georgia_, etc. Cf. also the “New Map of
Georgia” in the French version of Martyn’s tracts published in the
_Recueil de Voyages au Nord_, Amsterdam, 1737; Harvard College Library,
shelf-no. 3621. 9, vol. ix.—ED.]]

In July, 1732, the corporators convened, accepted the charter, and
perfected an organization in accordance with its provisions.[841]
Commissions were issued to leading citizens and charitable corporations
empowering them to solicit contributions in aid of the trust.
Generously did the Trustees subscribe. To prevent any misappropriation
of funds, an account was opened with the Bank of England. There a
register was kept of the names of all benefactors and of the amounts of
their several donations. Liberal responses were received in furtherance
of the charitable scheme both from individuals and from corporations;
and, as an honorable indorsement of the project and its managers,
Parliament gave the sum of £10,000. Tracts commending the colonization
to the favorable notice of the public were prepared,—notably by
Oglethorpe, and by Benjamin Martyn, secretary to the Trustees,—and
widely circulated.

In framing regulations for the observance of the colonists, and in
maturing plans most conducive to the prosperity and permanence of the
contemplated settlement, the trustees regarded each male inhabitant
both as a planter and as a soldier. Hence, provision was made for
supplying him with arms and with agricultural tools. Towns, in
their inception, were reckoned as garrisons. Consequently the lands
allotted for tillage were to be in their immediate neighborhood,
so that in seasons of alarm the inhabitants might speedily betake
themselves thither for safety and mutual protection. Fifty acres were
adjudged sufficient for the support of a planter and his family.
Grants in tail-male were declared preferable to any other tenure. The
introduction and use of spirituous liquors were forbidden. Unless
sanctioned by special license, traffic with the natives was prohibited.
The trustees saw fit also to forbid the importation, ownership, and use
of negro slaves within the limits of the province of Georgia. Provision
was made for the cultivation of the mulberry tree and the breeding of
silk-worms.

Keeping in view the benevolent objects of the association and the
character of the settlement to be formed, it was manifest that only fit
persons should be selected for colonization, and that due care should
be exercised in the choice of emigrants. Preference was accordingly
given to applicants who came well recommended by the ministers,
church-wardens, and overseers of their respective parishes. That the
Trustees might not be deceived in the characters and antecedents of
those who signified a desire to avail themselves of the benefits of the
charity, a committee was appointed to visit the prisons and examine the
applicants there confined. If they were found to be worthy, compromises
were effected with their creditors and consents procured for their
discharge. Another committee sat at the office of the corporation to
inquire into the circumstances and qualifications of such as there
presented themselves. It has been idly charged that in the beginning
Georgia colonists were impecunious, lawless, depraved, and abandoned;
that the settlement at Savannah was a sort of Botany Bay, and that
Yamacraw Bluff was peopled by runagates from justice. The suggestion is
without foundation. The truth is that no applicant was admitted to the
privilege of enrolment as an emigrant until he had been subjected to a
preliminary examination, and had furnished satisfactory evidence that
he was fairly entitled to the benefits of the charity. Other American
colonies were founded and augmented by individuals coming at will,
without question for personal gain, and furnishing no certificate of
either past or present good conduct. Georgia, on the contrary, exhibits
the spectacle, at once unique and admirable, of permitting no one to
enter her borders who was not, by competent authority, adjudged worthy
the rights of citizenship. Even those colonists who proposed to come at
their own charge, and who brought servants with them, were required,
as a condition precedent to their embarkation, to prove that they had
obtained permission from the committee selected by the Trustees to pass
upon the qualification of applicants. Upon receiving the approbation
of the committee, and until the time fixed for sailing, adult male
emigrants passing under the bounty of the Trust were drilled each day
by the sergeants of the Royal Guards.

By the 3d of October, 1732, one hundred and fourteen
individuals—comprising men, women, and children—had been enrolled for
the first embarkation. The “Anne,” a galley of some two hundred tons
burden, commanded by Captain Thomas, was chartered to convey them to
Georgia. She was furnished not only with necessaries for the voyage,
but also with arms, agricultural implements, tools, munitions, and
stores for the use and support of the colonists after their arrival
in America. At his own request, Oglethorpe was selected to conduct
the colonists and establish them in Georgia. He volunteered to bear
his own expenses, and to devote his entire time and attention to the
consummation of the important enterprise. Himself the originator and
the most zealous advocate of the scheme,—this offer on his part placed
the seal of consecration upon his self-denial, patriotism, and enlarged
philanthropy. Most fortunate were the Trustees in securing the services
of such a representative. To no one could the power to exercise the
functions of a colonial governor have been more appropriately confided.

On the 17th of November, 1732, the “Anne” departed from England, having
on board about one hundred and thirty persons. Thirty-five families
were represented. Among them were carpenters, brick-layers, farmers,
and mechanics, all able-bodied and of good repute. Shaping her course
for the island of Madeira, the vessel there touched and took on board
five tuns of wine. After a protracted voyage the “Anne” dropped anchor
off Charlestown bar on the 13th of January, 1733. Two delicate children
had died at sea. With this exception, no sorrow darkened the passage,
and the colonists were well and happy.

[Illustration: EARLY SAVANNAH.

This print, published in London, 1741, is called “A View of the Town of
Savannah in the Colony of Georgia, in South Carolina, humbly inscribed
to his Excellency General Oglethorpe.” References: _A._ Part of an
island called Hutchinson’s Island. _B._ The stairs and landing-place
from the river to the town. _C._ A crane and bell to draw up any goods
from boats and to land them. _D._ A tent pitched near the landing for
General Oglethorpe. _E._ A guard-house with a battery of cannon lying
before it. _F._ The parsonage house. _G._ A plot of ground to build a
church. _H._ A fort or lookout to the woodside. _I._ The House for all
stores. _K._ The court house and chapel. _L._ The mill-house for the
public. _M._ A house for all strangers to reside in. _N._ The common
bake-house. _O._ A draw-well for water. _P._ The wood covering the back
and sides of the town with several vistas cut into it.

It is reproduced in Jones’s _History of Georgia_, i. 121; and a small
cut of it is given in Gay’s _Popular History of the United States_,
iii. 140, and in Cassell’s _United States_, i. 487. There is also a
print (15-3/4 × 21-3/4 inches) dedicated to the Trustees by Peter
Gordon, which is inscribed “A view of Savanah [_sic_] as it stood the
29th of March, 1734. P. Gordon, inv., P. Fourdrinier, sculp,” of which
there is a copy in the Boston Public Library [B. H. 6270, 52, no. 38].
Impressions may also be found in the British Museum, in the Mayor’s
office in Savannah, and in the library of Dr. C. C. Jones, Jr., in
Augusta, Ga.]

Oglethorpe was warmly welcomed and hospitably entreated by the governor
and council of South Carolina. The King’s pilot was detailed to conduct
the “Anne” into Port Royal harbor. Thence the colonists were conveyed
in small craft to Beaufort-town, where they landed and refreshed
themselves; while their leader, accompanied by Colonel William Bull,
proceeded to the Savannah River and made choice of a spot for the
settlement. Ascending that stream as far as Yamacraw Bluff, and
deeming it an eligible situation, he went on shore and marked out the
site of a town which, from the river flowing by, he named Savannah.
This bluff, rising some forty feet above the level of the river, and
presenting a bold frontage on the water of nearly a mile,—quite ample
for the riparian uses of a settlement of considerable magnitude,—was
the first high ground abutting upon the stream encountered by him in
its ascent. To the south a high and dry plain, overshadowed by pines
interspersed with live-oaks and magnolias, stretched away for a mile
or more. On the east and west were small creeks and swamps affording
convenient drainage for the intermediate territory. The river in front
was capable of floating ships of ordinary tonnage, and they could lie
so near the shore that their cargoes might with facility be discharged.
Northwardly, in the direction of Carolina, lay the rich delta of the
river, with its islands and lowlands crowned with a dense growth of
cypress, sweet-gum, tupelo, and other trees, many of them vine-covered
and draped in long gray moss swaying gracefully in the ambient air.
The yellow jessamine was already mingling its delicious perfume with
the breath of the pine, and the forest was vocal with the voices of
singing birds. Everything in this semi-tropical region was quickening
into life and beauty under the influences of returning spring. In its
primeval repose it seemed a goodly land. The temperate rays of the
sun gave no token of the heat of summer. There was no promise of the
tornado and the thunder-storm in the gentle winds. In the balmy air
lurked no suspicion of malarial fevers. Its proximity to the mouth of
the river rendered this spot suitable alike for commercial purposes and
for maintaining easy communication with the Carolina settlements.

Near by was an Indian village peopled by the Yamacraws, whose chief, or
mico, was the venerable Tomo-chi-chi. Having, through the intervention
of Mary Musgrove,—a half-breed, and the wife of a Carolina trader who
had there established a post,—persuaded the natives of the friendly
intentions of the English and secured from them an informal cession
of the desired lands, Oglethorpe returned to Beaufort. Thence, on the
30th of January, 1733, the colonists, conveyed in a sloop of seventy
tons and in five periaguas, set sail for Yamacraw Bluff, where, on
the afternoon of the second day afterward, they arrived in safety
and passed their first night upon the soil of Georgia. The ocean had
been crossed, and the germ of a new colony was planted in America.
Sharing the privations and the labors of his companions, Oglethorpe
was present planning, supervising, and encouraging. In marking out the
squares, lots, and streets of Savannah, he was materially assisted
by Colonel William Bull. Early and acceptable aid was extended by
the authorities of Carolina, and this was generously supplemented by
private benefactions. Well knowing that the planting of this colony
would essentially promote the security of Carolina, shielding that
province from the direct assaults and machinations of the Spaniards in
Florida, preventing the ready escape of fugitive slaves, guarding her
southern borders from the incursions of Indians, increasing commercial
relations, and enhancing the value of lands, the South Carolinians
were eager to further the prosperity of Georgia. Sensible of the
courtesies and assistance extended, Oglethorpe repaired at an early
day to Charlestown to return thanks in behalf of the colony and to
interest the public still more in the development of the plantation.
In this mission he was eminently successful. He was cheered also by
congratulations and proffers of aid from other American colonies.

In nothing were the prudence, wisdom, skill, and ability of the founder
of the colony of Georgia more conspicuous than in his conduct toward
and treatment of the Indians. The ascendency he acquired over them,
the respect they entertained for him, and the manly, generous, and
just policy he ever maintained in his intercourse with the native
tribes of the region are remarkable. Their favor at the outset was
essential to the repose of the settlement; their friendship, necessary
to its existence. As claimants of the soil by virtue of prior
occupancy, it was important that the title they asserted to these their
hunting grounds should at an early moment be peaceably and formally
extinguished. Ascertaining from Tomo-chi-chi the names and abodes of
the most influential chiefs dwelling within the territory ceded by the
charter, Oglethorpe enlisted the good offices of this mico in calling
a convention of them at Savannah. In May, 1733, the Indians assembled,
and on the 21st of that month a treaty was solemnized, by which the
Creeks ceded to the Trustees all lands lying between the Savannah
and the Alatamaha rivers, from the ocean to the head of tide-water.
In this cession were also embraced the islands on the coast from
Tybee to St. Simon inclusive, with the exception of Ossabau, Sapelo,
and St. Catharine, which were reserved for the purposes of hunting,
fishing, and bathing. A tract of land between Pipe-maker’s Bluffs
and Pally-Chuckola Creek was also retained as a place of encampment
whenever it should please the natives to visit their white friends
at Savannah. Stipulations were entered into regulating the price of
goods, the value of peltry, and the privileges of traders. It was
further agreed that criminal offences should be tried and punished in
accordance with the laws of England. In due course the provisions of
this treaty were formally ratified by the Trustees.

Thus happily, in the very infancy of the colony, was the title of the
Aborigines to the lands south of the Savannah amicably extinguished.
This treaty compassed the pacification of the Lower Creeks, the
Uchees, the Yamacraws, and of other tribes constituting the Muskhogee
confederacy.

[Illustration: TOMO-CHI-CHI MICO.

[This head is taken from a German print, engraved at Augsburg,
purporting to follow an original issued in London. The full print also
represents Tooanahowi, his brother’s son, a lad, holding an eagle as
he stands beside his uncle. The entire print on a smaller scale is
reproduced in Jones’s _History of Georgia_; in Gay’s _Popular History
of the United States_, iii. 147; and in Dr. Eggleston’s papers on “Life
in the English Colonies” in the _Century Magazine_.—ED.]]

Nor did the influences of this convocation rest with them only. They
were recognized by the Upper Creeks; and at a later date similar
stipulations were sanctioned by the Cherokees. For years were they
preserved inviolate; and the colony of Georgia, thus protected,
extended its settlements up the Savannah River and along the coast,
experiencing neither opposition nor molestation, but receiving on
every hand valuable assurance of the good-will of the children of
the forest. Probably the early history of no plantation in America
affords so few instances of hostility on the part of the natives,
or so many acts of kindness extended by the red men. Potent was the
influence of Tomo-chi-chi in consummating this primal treaty of amity
and commerce. Had this chief, turning a deaf ear to the advances of
Oglethorpe, refused his friendship, denied his request, and, inclining
his authority to hostile account, instigated a combined and determined
opposition on the part of the Yamacraws, the Uchees, and the Lower
Creeks, the perpetuation of this English settlement would have been
either most seriously imperilled or abruptly terminated amid smoke and
carnage. When therefore we recur to the memories of this period, and
as often as the leading events in the early history of the colony of
Georgia are narrated, so often should the favors experienced at the
hands of this mico be gratefully acknowledged. If Oglethorpe’s proudest
claim to the honor and respect of succeeding generations rests upon the
fact that he was the founder of the colony of Georgia, let it not be
forgotten that in the hour of supreme doubt and danger the right arm
of this son of the forest, his active intervention, and his unswerving
friendship were among the surest guarantees of the safety and the very
existence of that province. Tomo-chi-chi will be remembered as the firm
ally of the white man, the guide and protector of the colonist, the
constant companion and faithful confederate of Oglethorpe.

Accessions occurred as rapidly as the means of the Trust would allow.
Among some of the early comers were Italians from Piedmont, who were
engaged to develop the silk industry, from the pursuit of which
considerable gain was anticipated. As the immigrants multiplied, and
the defences at Savannah were strengthened, Fort Argyle was built on
the Great Ogeechee River, the villages of Highgate and Hampstead were
laid out, Thunderbolt and Skidoway Island were occupied, Joseph’s Town
and Abercorn were peopled, and plantations formed on Augustine Creek,
on the Little Ogeechee, and as far south as the Great Ogeechee River.
On the 7th of July, 1733, occurred a general allotment of town lots,
garden lots, and farms among the inhabitants of Savannah; and this was
confirmed by deed executed on the 21st of the following December. The
town lot contained sixty feet in front and ninety feet in depth; the
garden lot embraced five acres. Forty-four acres and one hundred and
forty-one poles constituted the farm; so that the grant aggregated
fifty acres,—thus conforming to the instructions of the Trustees, and
furnishing land sufficient for the support of the colonist who came at
the charge of the Trust and brought no servants. The conveyance was
in tail-male. Of the moneys realized from the sale of lands in the
island of St. Christopher, the sum of £10,000 was, in pursuance of a
resolution of the House of Commons, paid over to the “Trustees for
establishing the Colony of Georgia in America,” to be by them applied
“towards defraying the charges of carrying over and settling foreign
and other Protestants in said colony.” This timely relief enabled the
Trustees to accomplish a purpose from the execution of which they had
been prevented by a want of funds. In the administration of the Trust
preference had been accorded to English Protestants seeking homes in
the New World. Now, however, they were justified in enlarging the scope
of their charity, because the resolution in obedience to which this
liberal benefaction was made, contemplated in terms the colonization of
foreign Protestants.

[Illustration: COUNTY OF SAVANNAH.

This is a portion of a map in the Urlsperger Tracts, the whole of which
is reproduced in Jones’s _History of Georgia_, i. 148.]

As the first fruits of this expanded charity, on _Reminiscere
Sunday_, according to the Lutheran Calendar, in March, 1734, the ship
“Purisburg” entered the Savannah River having on board seventy-eight
Salzburgers under the conduct of Baron von Reck, and accompanied by
their spiritual advisers the Rev. John Martin Bolzius and the Rev.
Israel Christian Gronau. They came from the town of Berchtolsgaden
and its vicinity, had taken the oath of loyalty to the British Crown,
and were conveyed at the charge of the Trust. “Lying in fine and calm
weather under the Shore of our beloved _Georgia_, where we heard the
Birds sing melodiously, every Body in the Ship was joyful,”—so wrote
the Rev. Mr. Bolzius, the faithful attendant and religious teacher
of this Protestant band. He tells us that when the ship arrived at
the wharf, “almost all the inhabitants of the Town of Savannah were
gather’d together; they fired off some Cannons and cried Huzzah!...
Some of us were immediately fetch’d on shore in a Boat, and carried
about the City, into the woods, and the new Garden belonging to the
Trustees. In the mean time a very good Dinner was prepared for us.” The
inhabitants “shewing them a great deal of kindness, and the Country
pleasing them,” the new-comers “were full of Joy and praised God for
it.”

By the 7th of April all these Salzburgers had been conducted to
the spot designated as their future home. Although sterile and
unattractive, and situated in the midst of a pine barren, to these
peoples, tired of the sea and weary of persecutions, the locality
appeared blessed, redolent of sweet hope, teeming with bright promise,
and offering charming repose. The little town which they built in what
is now Effingham County, they called Ebenezer. Early in the following
year this settlement was reinforced by fifty-seven Salzburgers sent
over by the Trustees in the ship “Prince of Wales.” Accessions occurred
from time to time; and thus was introduced into the colony a population
inured to labor, sober, of strong religious convictions, conservative
in thought and conduct, obedient to rulers, and characterized by
intelligent industry. Disappointed in their anticipations with regard
to the fertility of the soil and the convenience of their location,
these peoples, with the consent of Oglethorpe, in a few years abandoned
their abodes and formed a new settlement on the Savannah River near the
confluence of Ebenezer Creek with that stream.

And now the Moravians, accompanied by the Rev. Gottlieb Spangenberg,
sought freedom of religious thought and worship in the province of
Georgia. To them were assigned lands along the line of the Savannah
River between the Salzburgers and the town of Savannah. With the
Salzburgers they associated on terms of the closest friendship. In
subduing the forests, in erecting comfortable dwellings, and in
cultivating the soil, they exhibited a most commendable zeal.

[Illustration: COAST SETTLEMENTS BEFORE 1743.

[This is the map given by Robert Wright in his _Memoir of General
James Oglethorpe_, London, 1867. There is a similar map in Harris’s
_Oglethorpe._ Cf. Gay’s _Popular History of the United States_, iii.
156.—ED.]]

Encouraged by the development of the plantation, desiring a personal
conference with the Trustees, and rightly judging that the advantage
and security of the province would be materially promoted by taking
with him to England some of the most intelligent of his Indian
neighbors, that they might by personal observation acquire a definite
conception of the greatness and the resources of the British empire,
and, moved by the kindnesses and attentions which he was quite sure
would be extended to them on every hand, imbibe memories that would
tend to cement the alliances and perpetuate the amicable relations
which had been so auspiciously inaugurated,—Oglethorpe, in March,
1734, persuaded Tomo-chi-chi with a selected retinue to accompany him
to London. The reception accorded to these Indians in the English
capital and its environs was cordial and appropriate. This visit of
Tomo-chi-chi and his companions, and the interest awakened by their
presence in London, materially assisted Oglethorpe and the Trustees
in enlisting the renewed and earnest sympathies of the public, not
only in behalf of the colonists, but also in aid of the education
and religious instruction of the natives. Widely disseminated among
the Indian nations was the knowledge of this sojourn of the mico of
the Yamacraws and his companions in the home of the white man. The
novel and beautiful presents which the Indians brought back with them
afforded ocular proof of the liberality of the English, and produced a
profound impression upon the natives, who, grateful for the kindness
shown to members of their race, were encouraged in the perpetuation of
the amicable relations existing between themselves and the colonists.

Through the influence of Oglethorpe the regulations of the Trustees
prohibiting the importation and sale of rum, brandy, and other
distilled liquors within the limits of Georgia, and forbidding the
introduction and use of negro slaves in the province, received the
sanction of Parliament. Commenting upon this legislation, Edmund
Burke remarked that while these restrictions were designed to bring
about wholesome results, they were promulgated without a sufficient
appreciation of the nature of the country and the disposition of the
people to be affected by them. Long and earnestly did many of the
colonists petition for the removal of these prohibitions, which placed
the province at a disadvantage when its privileges were contrasted
with those of sister plantations, and beyond doubt, so far at least
as the employment of slave-labor was concerned, retarded its material
development.

The peopling and fortification of the southern confines of Georgia
engaged the earnest thought of the Trustees. The Spaniards regarded
with a jealous eye the confirmation of this new English colony upon
the borders of Florida. Moved by urgent memorials on the subject,
Parliament granted £26,000 for “the settling, fortifying, and
defending” Georgia. Their treasury being thus replenished, and anxious
to enlist colonists of acknowledged strength and valor, the Trustees,
through Lieutenant Hugh Mackay, recruited among the Highlands of
Scotland one hundred and thirty men, with fifty women and children.
They were all of excellent character, and were carefully selected for
their military qualities. Accompanied by a clergyman of their own
choice,—the Rev. John McLeod, of the Isle of Skye,—this hardy company
was conveyed to Georgia and assigned to the left bank of the Alatamaha,
about sixteen miles above the island of St. Simon. Here these
Highlanders landed, erected a fort, mounted four pieces of cannon,
built a guard-house, a store, and a chapel, and constructed huts for
temporary accommodation preparatory to putting up more substantial
structures. To their little town they gave the name of New Inverness,
and the district which they were to hold and cultivate they called
Darien. These Scots were brave and hardy; just the men to occupy this
advanced post. In their plaids, and with their broadswords, targets,
and fire-arms, they presented a most manly appearance. Previous to
their departure from Savannah in periaguas, some Carolinians endeavored
to dissuade them from going to the south by telling them that the
Spaniards from the houses in their fort would shoot them upon the
spot selected by the Trustees for their abode. Nothing daunted, these
doughty countrymen of Bruce and Wallace responded, “Why, then, we
will beat them out of their fort, and shall have houses ready built
to live in.” This valiant spirit found subsequent expression in the
efficient military service rendered by these Highlanders during the
wars between the colonists and the Spaniards, and by their descendants
in the American Revolution. Augmented at intervals by fresh arrivals
from Scotland, this settlement, although placed in a malarial region,
steadily increased in wealth and influence.

At an early date a road was constructed to connect New Inverness with
Savannah.

On the morning of Feb. 5, 1736, the “Symond” and the “London Merchant,”
with the first of the flood, passed over the bar and came to anchor
within Tybee Roads. On board were two hundred and two persons conveyed
on the Trust’s account. Among them were English people, German
Lutherans under the conduct of Baron von Reck and Captain Hermsdorf,
and twenty-five Moravians with their bishop the Rev. David Nitschman.
Oglethorpe was present, accompanied by the brothers John and Charles
Wesley, the Rev. Mr. Ingham, and by Charles Delamotte, the son of
a London merchant and a friend of the Wesleys. Coming at their own
charge were Sir Francis Bathurst, with family and servants, and some
relatives of planters already settled in the province. Ample stores of
provisions, small arms, cannon, ammunition, and tools were transported
in these vessels. The declared object of this large accession of
colonists was the population of the southern confines of the province
and the building of a military town on the island of St. Simon, to be
called Frederica.

It was not until the 2d of March that the fleet of periaguas and boats,
with the newly arrived on board, set out from Tybee Roads for the mouth
of the Alatamaha. The voyage to the southward was accomplished in five
days. So diligently did the colonists labor, and so materially were
they assisted by workmen drawn from other parts of the province and
from Carolina, that by the 23d of the month Frederica had been laid
out, a battery of cannon commanding the river had been mounted, and a
fort almost completed. Its ditches had been dug, although not to the
required depth or width, and a rampart raised and covered with sod. A
storehouse, having a front of sixty feet, and designed to be three
stories in height, was finished as to its cellar and first story. The
main street which “went from the Front into the Country was 25 yards
wide. Each Freeholder had 60 Feet in Front by 90 Feet in depth upon the
high Street for their House and Garden; but those which fronted the
River had but 30 Feet in Front by 60 Feet in Depth. Each Family had a
Bower of Palmetto Leaves finished upon the back Street in their own
Lands. The Side towards the front Street was set out for their Houses.
These Palmetto Bowers were very convenient shelters, being tight in the
hardest Rains; they were about 20 Feet long and 14 Feet wide, and in
regular Rows looked very pretty, the Palmetto Leaves lying smooth and
handsome, and of a good Colour. The whole appeared something like a
Camp; for the Bowers looked like Tents, only being larger and covered
with Palmetto Leaves instead of Canvas. There were 3 large Tents, two
belonging to Mr. Oglethorpe and one to Mr. Horton, pitched upon the
Parade near the River.” Such is the description of Frederica in its
infancy as furnished by Mr. Moore, whose _Voyage to Georgia_ is perhaps
the most interesting and valuable tract we possess descriptive of the
colonization of the southern portion of Georgia. That there might be
no confusion in their labors, Oglethorpe divided the colonists into
working parties. To some was assigned the duty of cutting forks,
poles, and laths for building the bowers; others set them up; others
still gathered palmetto leaves; while “a fourth gang,” under the
superintendence of a Jew workman, bred in Brazil and skilled in the
matter, thatched the roofs “nimbly and in a neat manner.”

Men accustomed to agriculture instructed the colonists in hoeing and
preparing the soil. Potatoes, Indian corn, flax, hemp-seed, barley,
turnips, lucern-grass, pumpkins, and water-melons were planted. Labor
was common, and inured to the general benefit of the community. As it
was rather too late in the season to till the ground fully and sow a
crop to yield sufficient to subsist the settlement for the current
year, many of the men were put upon pay and set to work upon the
fortifications and the public buildings.

Frederica, situated on the west side of St. Simon’s Island, on a bold
bluff confronting a bay formed by one of the mouths of the Alatamaha
River, was planned as a military town, and constructed with a view
to breasting the shock of hostile assaults. Its houses were to be
substantially built, not of wood as in Savannah, but of tabby. At an
early period its streets by their names proclaimed the presence of
men-at-arms, while its esplanade and parade-ground characterized it
as a permanent camp.[842] Including the camp on the north, the parade
on the east, and a small wood on the south which was to serve as a
blind in the event of an attack from ships coming up the river, the
settlement was about a mile and a half in circumference.

[Illustration

NOTE.—The map opposite, showing the coast from St. Augustine to
Charlestown (S. C.), is copied from one in vol. v. of the _Urlsperger
Tracts_. There is another plan of St. Simon’s Island in W. B. Stevens’s
_Georgia_. i. 186.]

The town proper was to be protected by embankment and ditch, and
places for two gates, called respectively the Town and Water posts,
were indicated. The citadel was to be made of tabby, and formidably
armed. In front, a water battery, mounting several eighteen-pounder
guns, was designed to command the river. It was contemplated to guard
the town on the land side by a formidable intrenchment, the exterior
ditch of which could be filled with water. As Savannah was intended
as the commercial metropolis of the province, so was Frederica to
constitute its southern outpost and strong defence. It soon became the
Thermopylæ of the southern Anglo-American Colonies, the headquarters of
Oglethorpe’s regiment, the depot of military supplies for the dependent
forts built at the south, and the strong rallying point for British
colonization in the direction of Florida. In the history of the colony
there is no brighter chapter, and in the eventful life of Oglethorpe
no more illustrious epoch, than that which commemorates the protracted
and successful struggle with the Spaniards for the retention of the
charming island of St. Simon. In 1737 Oglethorpe kissed His Majesty’s
hand on receiving his commission as colonel. He was also appointed
general and commander-in-chief of all His Majesty’s forces in South
Carolina and Georgia, that he might the more readily wield the military
power of the two provinces in their common defence.

The finances of the Trust were now in a depressed condition, and the
General was compelled to draw largely upon his private fortune and to
pledge his individual credit in conducting the operations necessary
for the security of the southern frontier, and in provisioning the
settlers. Matters were further complicated by the defalcation of Thomas
Causton, the first Magistrate of Savannah and Keeper of the public
stores. Silk culture, from which so much was anticipated, proved a
positive expense. There was no profit in the vine. Enfeebled by the
hot suns of summer, and afflicted with fevers and fluxes engendered by
malarial exhalations from the marish grounds, many of the inhabitants
lost heart and cried aloud for the introduction of African slavery.
Disappointed in their plans for the religious instruction of the
colonists and the conversion of the natives, the brothers John and
Charles Wesley had quitted the province. In the consummation of
his benevolent and educational scheme, the Rev. George Whitefield
was compelled to rely upon foreign aid. With the exception of the
Highlanders at Darien, the Salzburgers at Ebenezer, and the Indian
traders at Augusta, Georgia could not boast that her inhabitants were
either contented or prosperous. There was general clamor for fee-simple
title to lands, and permission to buy slaves was constantly urged.
The disaffected hesitated not to malign the authorities, to disquiet
the settlers, and to exaggerate the unpleasantness of the situation.
Fortunately the Indian nations remained peaceful; and in general
convention held at Coweta-town in August, 1739, in the presence of
Oglethorpe, they renewed their fealty to the King of Great Britain, and
in terms most explicit confirmed their previous grants of territory.

[Illustration: [Fac-simile of a plan of St. Augustine in Roberts’s
_Account of Florida_, London, 1763.—ED.]]

And now the Spanish war-cloud which had so long threatened the southern
confines of the province, seemed about to descend in wrath and power.
Acting under the discretionary powers confided to him, General
Oglethorpe resolved to anticipate the event by an invasion of Florida
and the reduction of St. Augustine,—the stronghold of Spanish dominion
in that province.

[Illustration: COAST OF FLORIDA.

Fac-simile of the plan in _An Impartial Account of the late Expedition
against St. Augustine under General Oglethorpe_. London, 1742.]

[Illustration: HARBOR AND TOWN OF ST. AUGUSTINE.

[Fac-simile of part of the map in _An Impartial Account of the late
Expedition against St. Augustine under General Oglethorpe, occasioned
by the suppression of the Report of the General Assembly of South
Carolina, with an exact plan of St. Augustine and the adjacent coast of
Florida, showing the disposition of our Forces_. London, 1742.—ED.]]

Collecting his regiment, summoning to his assistance forces from South
Carolina, and calling in his Indian allies, in May, 1740, with a mixed
army of rather more than two thousand men, he moved upon the capital
of Florida. In this expedition Sir Yelverton Peyton, with the British
vessels of war,—the “Flamborough,” the “Phœnix,” the “Squirrel,” the
“Tartar,” the “Spence,” and the “Wolf,”—was to participate. The castle
of St. Augustine consisted of a fort built of soft stone. Its curtain
was sixty yards in length, its parapet nine feet thick, and its rampart
twenty feet high, “casemated underneath for lodgings, and arched over
and newly made bombproof.” Its armament consisted of fifty cannon,
sixteen of brass, and among them some twenty-four pounders. For some
time had the garrison been working upon a covered way, but this was
still in an unfinished condition. The town was protected by a line of
intrenchments, with ten salient angles, in each of which field-pieces
were mounted. In January, 1740, the Spanish forces in Florida,
exclusive of Indians and one company of militia, were estimated at
nine hundred and sixty-five men of all arms. As foreshadowed in his
dispatch of the 27th of March, 1740, it was the intention of General
Oglethorpe to advance directly upon St. Augustine, and attack by sea
and land the town and the island in its front. Both, he believed, could
be taken “sword in hand.” Conceiving that the castle would be too small
to afford convenient shelter for the two thousand one hundred men,
women, and children of the town, he regarded the capitulation of the
fortress as not improbable. Should it refuse to surrender, he proposed
to shower upon it “Granado-shells from the Coehorns and Mortars,”
and other projectiles. If it should not yield under the bombardment,
he was resolved to open trenches and reduce it by a regular siege.
The result was a disastrous failure. This miscarriage may be fairly
attributed,—first, to the delay in inaugurating the movement, caused
mainly, if not entirely, by the tardiness on the part of the South
Carolina authorities in contributing the troops, munitions, and
provisions for which requisition had been made; in the second place, to
the reinforcement of men and supplies from Havana introduced into St.
Augustine just before the English expedition set out, thereby repairing
the inequality previously existing between the opposing forces; again,
to the injudicious movements against Forts Francis de Papa and Diego,
which put the Spaniards upon the alert, encouraged concentration on
their part, and foreshadowed an immediate demonstration in force
against their stronghold; and to the inability on the part of the
fleet to participate in the assault previously planned, and which was
to have been vigorously undertaken so soon as General Oglethorpe with
his land forces came into position before the walls of St. Augustine.
Finally, the subsequent surprise and destruction of Colonel Palmer’s
command, thereby enabling the enemy to communicate with and draw
supplies from the interior; the lack of heavy ordnance with which to
reduce the castle from the batteries planted on Anastasia island;
the impossibility of bringing up the larger war vessels that they
might participate in the bombardment; the inefficiency of Colonel
Vanderdussen’s command; the impatience and disappointment of the Indian
allies, who anticipated early capture and liberal spoils; as well
as hot suns, heavy dews, a debilitating climate, sickness among the
troops, and the arrival of men, munitions of war, and provisions from
Havana through the Matanzas River,—all conspired to render futile
whatever hopes at the outset had been entertained for a successful
prosecution of the siege.

Although this attempt—so formidable in its character when we consider
the limited resources at command, and so full of daring when we
contemplate the circumstances under which it was prosecuted—resulted
in disappointment, its effects were not without decided advantage to
Georgia and her sister colonies. For two years the Spaniards remained
on the defensive. During that time General Oglethorpe enjoyed an
opportunity for strengthening his fortifications and increasing his
army; so that when the counter blow was delivered by his adversary, he
was the better prepared not only to parry it, but also to punish the
uplifted arm.

During the preceding seven years, which constituted the entire life
of the colony, Oglethorpe had enjoyed no respite from his labors.
Personally directing all movements; supervising the location and
providing for the comfort, safety, and good order of the colonists
as they arrived from time to time; reconciling their differences,
encouraging and directing their labors; propitiating the aborigines,
influencing necessary supplies, inaugurating suitable defences, and
enforcing the regulations of the Trustees,—he had passed constantly
from point to point, finding no rest. Upon his shoulders, as the
Trustees’ representative and as a _de facto_ colonial governor, did
the administration of the affairs of the province rest. Now in tent
at Savannah; now in open boat reconnoitring the coast, now upon the
southern islands, his only shelter the wide-spreading live-oak,
designating sites for forts and lookouts, and with his own hands
planning military works and laying out villages; again journeying
frequently along the Savannah, the Great Ogeechee, the Alatamaha, the
St. John, and far off into the heart of the Indian country; often
inspecting his advanced posts; undertaking voyages to Charlestown and
to England in behalf of the Trust, and engaged in severe contests
with the Spaniards,—his life had been one of incessant activity and
solicitude. But for his energy, intelligence, watchfulness, valor,
and self-sacrifice, the important enterprise must have languished. As
we look back upon this period of trial, uncertainty, and poverty, our
admiration for his achievements increases the more closely we scan his
limited resources and opportunities, the more thoroughly we appreciate
the difficulties he was called upon to surmount.

There was a lull in the storm; but the skies were still overcast. In
the distance were heard ominous mutterings portending the advent of
another and a darker tempest. Anxious but calm, Oglethorpe scanned
the adverse skies and prepared to breast their fury. In alluding to
the expected invasion from St. Augustine, he thus writes to the Duke
of Newcastle: “If our men-of-war will not keep them from coming in by
sea, and we have no succor, but decrease daily by different accidents,
all we can do will be to die bravely in His Majesty’s service.... I
have often desired assistance of the men-of-war, and continue to do
so. I go on in fortifying this town [Frederica], making magazines, and
doing everything I can to defend the province vigorously; and I hope my
endeavors will be approved of by His Majesty, since the whole end of my
life is to do the duty of a faithful subject and grateful servant.”

Late in June, 1742, a Spanish fleet of fifty-one sail, with nearly five
thousand troops on board, under the command of Don Manuel de Monteano,
governor of St. Augustine, bore down upon the Georgia coast with a view
to the capture of the island of St. Simon and the destruction of the
English plantation south of the Savannah. To resist this formidable
descent, General Oglethorpe could oppose only a few small forts, about
six hundred and fifty men, a guard schooner, and some armed sloops.
With a bravery and dash almost beyond comprehension, by strategy most
admirable, Oglethorpe by a masterly disposition of the troops at
command, coupled with the timidity of the invaders and the dissensions
which arose in their ranks, before the middle of July put the entire
Spanish army and navy to flight. This “deliverance of Georgia,” said
Whitefield, “is such as cannot be paralleled but by some instances out
of the Old Testament.” The defeat of so formidable an expedition by
such a handful of men was a matter of astonishment to all. The memory
of this defence of St. Simon’s Island and the southern frontier is one
of the proudest in the annals of Georgia. Never again did the Spaniards
attempt to put in execution their oft-repeated threat to extirpate all
the English plantations south of Port-Royal Sound. Sullenly and with
jealous eye did they watch the development of Georgia, until twenty-one
years afterwards all disputes were ended by the cession of Florida
to the Crown of Great Britain. Upon the confirmation of the Peace of
Aix-la-Chapelle most of the English troops were withdrawn from the
island of St. Simon, and its fortifications soon began to fall into
decay.

Georgia at this time consisted of only two counties, Savannah and
Frederica. In April, 1741, Colonel William Stephens, who for several
years had been acting in the colony as secretary to the Trustees,
was by them appointed president of the county of Savannah. In the
administration of public affairs he was aided by four assistants. As
General Oglethorpe, who was charged with the direction and management
of the entire province, spent most of his time at Frederica, the
designation of a presiding officer for that division of Georgia was
regarded as superfluous. Bailiffs were constituted, whose duty it
was, under the immediate supervision of the General, to attend to
the concerns of that county. At Augusta, Captain Richard Kent acted
as “conservator to keep the peace in that town and in the precincts
thereof.” Upon the return of General Oglethorpe to England, in order to
provide for the government of the entire colony the Trustees decided
that the president and assistants who had been appointed for the county
of Savannah should be proclaimed president and assistants for the
whole province, and that the bailiffs at Frederica should be considered
simply as local magistrates. They further advised that the salary of
the recorder at Frederica be raised, and that he correspond regularly
with the president and assistants in Savannah, transmitting to them
from time to time the proceedings of the town court, and rendering an
account of such transactions and occurrences in the southern part of
the province as it might be necessary for them to know. Thus, upon
the departure of General Oglethorpe, the honest-minded and venerable
Colonel William Stephens succeeded to the office of colonial governor.
It was during his administration that the Trustees, influenced by
repeated petitions and anxious to promote the prosperity of the
province, removed the restrictions hitherto existing with regard
to the introduction, use, and ownership of negro slaves, and the
importation of rum and other distilled liquors. They also permitted
existing tenures of land “to be enlarged and extended to an absolute
inheritance.”

In bringing about the abrogation of the regulation which forbade the
ownership or employment of negro slaves in Georgia, no two gentlemen
were more influential than the Rev. George Whitefield and the Hon.
James Habersham. The former boldly asserted that the transportation of
the African from his home of barbarism to a Christian land, where he
would be humanely treated and required to perform his share of toil
common to the lot of humanity, was advantageous; while the latter
affirmed that the colony could not prosper without the intervention
of slave-labor. Georgia now enjoyed like privileges with those
accorded to the sister American provinces. Lands could now be held in
fee-simple, and the power of alienation was unrestricted. The ownership
and employment of negro slaves were free to all, and the New England
manufacturer could here find an open market for his rum.

The Trustees had up to this point seriously misinterpreted the
capabilities of the climate and soil of Georgia. Although substantial
encouragement had been afforded to Mr. Amatis, to Jacques Camuse,
to the Salzburgers at Ebenezer, and to others; although copper
basins and reeling-machines had been supplied and a filature
erected; although silk-worm eggs were procured and mulberry trees
multiplied,—silk-culture in Georgia yielded only a harvest of
disappointment. The vine also languished. Olive trees from Venice,
barilla seeds from Spain, the kali from Egypt, and other exotics
obtained at much expense, after a short season withered and died in the
public garden. Hemp and flax, from the cultivation of which such rich
yields were anticipated, never warranted the charter of a single vessel
for their transportation, and indigo did not then commend itself to
public favor. Exportations of lumber were infrequent. Cotton was then
little more than a garden plant, and white laborers could not compete
successfully with Carolina negroes in the production of rice. Up to
this point the battle had been with Nature for life and subsistence.
Upon the stores of the Trust did many long rely for food and clothing.
Of trade there was little, and that was confined to the procurement
of necessaries. With the exception of occasional shipments of copper
money for circulation among the inhabitants, sola bills constituted the
chief currency of the province. Now, however, all restrictions removed,
Georgia entered upon a career of comparative prosperity.

[Illustration: WHITEFIELD.

This cut (see also the _Memorial History of Boston_, ii. 238) follows a
painting in Memorial Hall, Cambridge, Mass. The portraits of Whitefield
are numerous. J. C. Smith (_British Mezzotint Portraits_, i. 442, 443;
iii. 601, 692, 939; iv. 1545) enumerates various ones in that style,
giving a photo-reproduction of one. The Lives of him usually give
likenesses.]

On the 8th of April, 1751, Mr. Henry Parker was appointed president of
the colony in the room of Colonel Stephens, who retired upon a pension
of £80. During his administration the first Provincial Assembly of
Georgia convened at Savannah. It was composed of sixteen delegates,
and was presided over by Francis Harris. As the privilege of enacting
laws was by the terms of the charter vested exclusively in the
Trustees, this assembly could not legislate. Its powers were limited
to discussing and suggesting such measures as its members might deem
conducive to the welfare of particular communities and important for
the general good of the province.

The “Trustees for establishing the Colony of Georgia in America”
resolved to surrender their charter and relieve themselves from the
further execution of a trust which had grown quite beyond their
management. For twenty years they had supported its provisions with
an earnest solicitude, a philanthropic zeal, a disinterested purpose,
and a loyal devotion worthy of every commendation. They had seen a
feeble plantation upon Yamacraw Bluff expand year by year, until it
now assumed the proportions of a permanent colony and disclosed the
potentialities of a future nation. The English drum-beat on the banks
of the Savannah is answered by the Highland bagpipe on the Alatamaha,
and the protecting guns of Frederica are supplemented by the sentinel
field-pieces at Augusta. At every stage of progress and in every act,
whether trivial or important, these Trustees, capable and worthy,
evinced a clear conception of duty, a patience of labor, a singleness
of purpose, an unselfish dedication of time and energy, and a rigid
adherence to all that was pure, elevated, and humanizing, which become
quite conspicuous when their proceedings are minutely and intelligently
scanned. That they erred in their judgment in regard to the best method
of utilizing many of these marish lands, smitten by sun and storms
and pregnant with fevers and fluxes, may not now be doubted; that the
theory upon which they administered the trust was in some respects
narrow and retarding in its influences, is equally certain; that they
were unfortunate in the selection of some of their agents excites no
surprise,—but that they were upright, conscientious, observant, and
most anxious to promote the best interests of the colony, as they
comprehended them, will be freely admitted.

The surrender of the charter was formally concluded on the 23d of June,
1752; and Georgia, no longer the ward of the Trustees, passed into
the hands of the Crown. Until clothed with the attributes of State
sovereignty by the successful issue of the American Revolution, she was
recognized as one of the daughters of England under the special charge
of the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations. By the terms of
the surrender, her integrity as an independent province, separate from
South Carolina, was fully assured, and all grants of land, hitherto
made to the inhabitants, were recognized and respected.

Upon the death of Mr. Parker, Patrick Graham succeeded to the
presidency of Georgia. Until a plan for establishing a civil government
could be perfected, all officers, both civil and military, holding
appointments from the Trustees, were continued in their respective
places of trust, with such emoluments, salaries, and fees as were
incident thereto. The population of the colony now consisted of two
thousand three hundred and eighty-one whites, and one thousand and
sixty-six negro slaves. This estimate did not include His Majesty’s
troops and boatmen, or a congregation of two hundred and eighty whites,
with negro slaves aggregating five hundred and thirty-six, coming
from South Carolina and partially settled in the Midway District, or
Butler’s Colony with sixty slaves.

The plan suggested by the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations
for the establishment of a civil government in Georgia contemplated the
appointment of a governor, by commission under the Great Seal, with
the title of _Captain-General and Governor-in-chief of His Majesty’s
Province of Georgia, and Vice-Admiral of the same_. He was to be
addressed as _Your Excellency_, and was, within the colony, to be
respected as the immediate and highest representative of His Majesty.
His functions, as well as those of the two Houses of the Assembly, were
well defined.[843]

The plan thus submitted for the government of the Province of Georgia
received royal sanction; and His Majesty, upon the nomination of the
Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, was pleased, on the
6th of August, 1754, to appoint Captain John Reynolds governor of the
Province of Georgia; William Clifton, Esq., attorney-general; James
Habersham, Esq., secretary and register; Alexander Kellet, Esq.,
provost-marshal; William Russel, Esq., naval officer; Henry Yonge and
William De Brahm joint surveyors; Sir Patrick Houstoun, Bart., register
of grants and receiver of quit rents; and Patrick Graham, Sir Patrick
Houstoun, James Habersham, Alexander Kellet, William Clifton, Noble
Jones, Pickering Robinson, Francis Harris, Jonathan Bryan, William
Russell, and Clement Martin members of Council.

When during the same year (1754) the other English colonies sent
delegates to represent them at the Congress of Albany, in order to
draft a plan of union against the French, Georgia filled so narrow a
space in the regard of the other colonies that her failure to join in
the proposed league was hardly remarked.

Only three Royal Governors did Georgia have. The terms of service
of Captain Reynolds and of Henry Ellis were short. Assuming the
reins of government in 1760, the third and last Royal Governor, Sir
James Wright, encountered the storms of the Revolution, and in a
brave adherence to the cause of his royal master suffered arrest,
mortification, and loss. It was his lot to preside at an epoch full of
doubt and trouble. During his administration the political ties which
united Georgia to the mother country were violently sundered, and a
union of American colonies was formed, which in after years developed
into the great Republic. The rapid development of Georgia under the
conduct of these royal governors will be admitted when it is remembered
that in 1754 her exports did not amount to £30,000 a year; while,
at the opening of the Revolutionary War, they did not fall short of
£200,000 sterling.


CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

GEORGIA was named in honor of the reigning king of England, George II.,
who graciously sanctioned a charter, liberal in its provisions, and who
granted to the Trustees a territory, extensive and valuable, for the
plantation.

In a report submitted to Congress by the Hon. Charles Lee,
attorney-general of the United States (Philadelphia, 1796), will be
found a valuable collection of charters, treaties, and documents
explanatory of the original cession to the “Trustees for establishing
the Colony of Georgia in America,” and of the modifications and
enlargements to which the same was later subjected. The territory
which, in 1733, became the Province of Georgia at an earlier day
formed a part of ancient Florida, which stretched in the Spanish
conception from the Gulf of Mexico to the far north and westward to the
Mississippi and indefinitely beyond.

It has fallen to the lot of another writer in the present work to
mention the authorities on the primitive peoples of this region; and
by still another an enumeration is made of the archæological traces of
their life.[844]

       *       *       *       *       *

The project of Sir Robert Mountgomery for planting a colony in the
territory subsequently ceded to the Georgia Trustees is fully unfolded
in his _Discourse concerning the design’d Establishment of a New
Colony to the South of Carolina in the most delightful Country of
the Universe_, London, 1717.[845] Accompanying this _Discourse_ is
an engraved “plan representing the Form of Settling the Districts
or County Divisions in the Margravate of Azilia.”[846] Although
extensively advertised, this scheme failed to attract the favor of the
public, and ended in disappointment.

The true story of the mission of Sir Alexander Cuming, of
Aberdeenshire, Scotland, to establish a trade with the Cherokees, and
confirm them in their friendship with and allegiance to the British
crown, has been well told by Samuel G. Drake in his _Early History of
Georgia, embracing the Embassy of Sir Alexander Cuming to the Country
of the Cherokees in the year 1730_, Boston, 1872. A reproduction of
the rare print giving the portraits of the Indians who accompanied
Sir Alexander on his return to London might have been advantageously
employed in lending additional attraction to this publication.[847]

[Illustration: HANDWRITING OF OGLETHORPE.]

Of the memoirs of Oglethorpe,—whose life Dr. Johnson desired to
write, and whom Edmund Burke regarded as the most extraordinary
person of whom he had read, because he founded a province and lived
to see it severed from the empire which created it and erected into
an independent State,—those best known are _A Sketch of the Life of
General James Oglethorpe, presented to the Georgia Historical Society
by Thomas Spalding, Esq., resident member of the same_, printed in
1840; _Biographical Memorials of James Oglethorpe, Founder of the
Colony of Georgia in North America, by Thaddeus Mason Harris, D. D._,
Boston, 1841;[848] _Life of James Oglethorpe, the Founder of Georgia,
by William B. O. Peabody_, constituting a part of volume ii. of the
second series of _The Library of American Biography, conducted by Jared
Sparks_, Boston, 1847, and based mainly upon Dr. Harris’ work; and _A
Memoir of General James Oglethorpe, one of the earliest Reformers of
Prison Discipline in England and the Founder of Georgia in America, by
Robert Wright_, London, 1867. The advantages enjoyed by Mr. Wright were
exceptionally good, and until the appearance of his memoir that by Dr.
Harris was justly regarded as the best.[849]

That the public might be advised of the benevolent character and scope
of the undertaking, and might be made acquainted with the designs of
the Trustees with regard to the proposed colonization of Georgia, two
tracts were published with their sanction: one of them, prepared by
Oglethorpe, entitled _A New and Accurate Account of the Provinces of
South Carolina and Georgia, with many curious and useful Observations
on the Trade, Navigation, and Plantations of Great Britain compared
with her most powerful Maritime Neighbors in ancient and modern Times_,
printed in London in 1732;[850] and the other, written by Benjamin
Martyn, Secretary of the Board, entitled _Reasons for establishing
the Colony of Georgia with regard to the Trade of Great Britain,
the Increase of our People, and the Employment and Support it will
afford to great numbers of our own Poor as well as Foreign persecuted
Protestants, with some account of the Country and the Designs of the
Trustees_, London, 1733.[851] Well considered and widely circulated,
these tracts were productive of results most beneficial to the
Trust.[852]

The development of the province down to 1741 is described and the
regulations promulgated by the Trustees for the conduct of the
plantation and for the observance of its inhabitants are preserved in
_An Account shewing the Progress of the Colony of Georgia in America
from its First Establishment_, London, 1741. This publication was by
authority, and must be accepted as of the highest importance.[853]

Of like interest and value are _An Impartial Enquiry into the State
and Utility of the Province of Georgia_, London, 1741,—appearing
anonymously,[854] but with the sanction of the Trustees, and intended
to correct certain mischievous reports circulated with regard to the
health of the plantation, the fertility of the soil, the value of the
products, and the disabilities under which Georgia labored because of
restricted land tenures, and by reason of the regulations prohibiting
the introduction and use of spirituous liquors and negro slaves; and
_A State of the Province of Georgia attested upon Oath in the Court
of Savannah, November 10, 1740_, London, 1742,—in which the superior
advantages of Georgia, her resources and capabilities, are favorably
considered and proclaimed.

The history of the Salzburgers in Georgia may be learned from _An
Extract of the Journals of Mr. Commissary Von Reck, who conducted the
First Transport of Salzburgers to Georgia; and of the Reverend Mr.
Bolzius, one of their Ministers, giving an Account of their Voyage to
and happy Settlement in the Province, published by the Directors of
the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge_, London, 1734;[855]
from _Neuste und richtigste Nachricht von der Landschaft Georgia
in dem Engelländischen America, etc., von J. M. R._, Göttingen,
1746;[856] from _De Præstantia Coloniæ Georgico-Anglicanæ præ
Coloniis aliis_,[857] et seq., by Joannes Augustus Urlspergerus;
from the _Urlsperger Tracts_, which present with wonderful fidelity
and minuteness of details all events connected with the Salzburger
settlements in America;[858] and from the _Salzburgers and their
Descendants, being the history of a Colony of German Lutheran
Protestants who emigrated to Georgia in 1734, and settled at Ebenezer,
twenty-five miles above the City of Savannah, by P. A. Strobel_,
Baltimore, 1855.[859]

To the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ and to the _London Magazine_ must
recourse be had for valuable letters and contemporaneous documents
descriptive of the colonization of Georgia and the development of the
plantation.

There is in Section xxi. of Chapter iii. of the second volume of
_Navigantium atque Itinerantium Bibliotheca, or a Complete Collection
of Voyages and Travels_, etc., by John Harris (London, 1748), a
“History of the Rise, Progress, and Present State of the Colony of
Georgia.” It is prefaced by an excellent map of the province, and is
fortified by illustrative documents. In its twenty-five quarto pages
are embraced all the noted incidents connected with the early life
of the colony and the successful efforts of General Oglethorpe in
defending the southern frontier of Georgia against the assaults of the
Spaniards. The value of this contribution cannot well be overestimated.

Another work of genuine merit, acquainting us specially with the
condition of Savannah and the adjacent region, with the settlement of
Frederica, and with those preliminary negotiations which resulted in a
postponement of impending hostilities between Georgia and Florida, is
_A Voyage to Georgia begun in the year 1735_, etc., by Francis Moore,
London, 1744.[860]

A most detailed statement of the affairs and events of the province
will be found in the three octavo volumes constituting the diary
of Colonel William Stephens, for some time resident Secretary
in Georgia of the Trustees, and, upon the departure of General
Oglethorpe, advanced to the responsible position of President of the
colony,—entitled _A Journal of the Proceedings in Georgia beginning
October 20th, 1737_, which was printed in London in 1742.[861] Of
this work but a limited edition was published by the Trustees, and a
complete copy is very difficult to find. While its pages are cumbered
with many trivial matters, this rare _Journal_ is remarkable for
accuracy of statement and minuteness of details. Its author was at
the time far advanced in years, and his narrative is not infrequently
colored by his peculiar religious and political notions. He was a firm
friend of the colony, an honest servant of the Trust, and in all things
most obedient and loyal to his king. Retired upon a pension of £80, he
spent his last years on his plantation, near the mouth of Vernon River,
which he called Bewlie [Beaulieu] because of a fancied resemblance to
the manor of the Duke of Montague in the New Forest. There, about the
middle of August, 1753, he died.

In the Executive Department of the State of Georgia may be seen the
original MS. folio volume containing _A general account of all monies
and effects received and expended by the Trustees for establishing the
Colony of Georgia in America_ (June 9, 1732-June 9, 1752), the names
of the benefactors, and the sums contributed and the articles given by
them in aid of the Trust. This carefully written and unique volume,
the entries, charges, and discharges of which are certified by Harman
Verelst,—accountant to the Trustees,—exhibits a complete statement
of the finances of the Trust from its inception to the time of the
surrender of the charter.[862]

The fullest reports of the demonstration of General Oglethorpe against
St. Augustine are contained in _An Impartial Account of the Expedition
against St. Augustine under General Oglethorpe, occasioned by the
suppression of the Report made by a Committee of the General Assembly
in South Carolina, transmitted under the great seal of that Province
to their Agent in England in order to be printed: with an exact Plan
of the Town, Castle, and Harbour of St. Augustine and the adjacent
Coast of Florida; shewing the Disposition of our Forces on that
Enterprize_, London, 1741;[863] in _The Report of the Committee of
both Houses of Assembly of the Province of South Carolina appointed to
enquire into the causes of the Disappointment of success in the late
Expedition against St. Augustine under command of General Oglethorpe,
published by the order of both Houses_, Charlestown, S. C., and London,
1743;[864] and in _The Spanish Hireling detected, being a Refutation
of the Several Calumnies and Falsehoods in a late Pamphlet entitul’d
An Impartial Account of the Late Expedition against St. Augustine
under General Oglethorpe, by George Cadogan, Lieutenant in General
Oglethorpe’s Regiment_, etc., London, 1743.[865] Grievous was the
disappointment at the failure of the expedition; unjust and harsh
were the criticisms upon its leader. “One man there is, my Lords,”
said the Duke of Argyle in the British House of Peers, “whose natural
generosity, contempt of danger, and regard for the public prompted him
to obviate the designs of the Spaniards and to attack them in their own
territories: a man whom by long acquaintance I can confidently affirm
to have been equal to his undertaking, and to have learned the art of
war by a regular education, who yet miscarried in the design only for
want of supplies necessary to success.”[866]

Of his successful repulse of the Spanish attack upon the island of
St. Simon, the most spirited narratives are furnished in General
Oglethorpe’s official report of the 30th of July, 1742, printed in
the 3d volume of the _Collections of the Georgia Historical Society_;
in the letter of John Smith (who, on board the war vessel “Success,”
participated in the naval engagement), written from Charlestown,
South Carolina, on the 14th of July, 1742, and printed in the _Daily
Advertiser_; and in a communication on file in the Public Record Office
in London among the Shaftesbury Papers.[867]

That harmony did not always obtain among the Georgia colonists,
and that disagreements between the governing and the governed were
sometimes most pronounced, must be admitted. While the Trustees
endeavored to promote the development of the plantation and to
assure the public of the progress of the province, malcontents there
were, who thwarted their plans, questioned the expediency of their
regulations, and openly declared that their misrule and the partiality
of the Trust’s servants were the prolific causes of disquietude and
disaster. That General Oglethorpe may, at times, have been dictatorial
in his administration of affairs is quite probable; and yet it must
be admitted that, amid the dangers which environed and the disturbing
influences which beset the development of the province, an iron will
and a strong arm were indispensable for its guidance and protection.

The publication, in the interest of the Trust, of the two pamphlets
to which we have alluded, one entitled _An Impartial Inquiry into the
State and Utility of the Province of Georgia_, London, 1741,[868] and
the other, _A State of the Province of Georgia attested upon Oath in
the Court of Savannah, November 10, 1740_, London, 1742,[869]—both
exhibiting favorable views of the condition of the colony and
circulated in furtherance of the scheme of colonization,—so irritated
these malcontents that they indulged in several rejoinders, among which
will be remembered _A Brief Account of the Causes that have retarded
the Progress of the Colony of Georgia in America, attested upon oath:
being a proper Contrast to A State of the Province of Georgia attested
upon oath and some other misrepresentations on the same subject_,
London, 1743.[870] The magistrates, both at Savannah and Frederica,
were therein declared to be oppressors of the inhabitants. General
Oglethorpe was accused of tyranny and partiality. It will be observed
that most of the supporting affidavits were verified outside the limits
of Georgia. A desire to sell forbidden articles, and to ply trades for
which special licenses had been issued to others; opposition to the
regulation which prohibited the owners of cattle and hogs from allowing
them to run at large on the common and in the streets of Frederica;
alleged misfeasance in the conduct of bailiffs and magistrates in the
discharge of their duties; the unprofitableness of labor, overbearing
acts committed by those in authority, and similar matters, formed
the burthen of these sworn complaints. While they tended to distract
the public mind and to annoy those upon whose shoulders rested the
provincial government, they fortunately failed in producing any serious
impression either within the colony or in the mother country.

Another Jacobinical tract was that prepared and published at the
instigation of Dr. Patrick Tailfer,—a thorn in the side of General
Oglethorpe, to whom, under the signature of “The Plain Dealer,” he
addressed a communication upon colonial affairs full of complaint,
condemnation, and sarcasm. He was the chief of a club of malcontents
in Savannah, whose conduct became so notorious that they were forced,
in September, 1740, to quit the province and seek refuge in South
Carolina. When thus beyond the jurisdiction of Georgia, in association
with Hugh Anderson, David Douglass, and others, he caused to be printed
a scurrilous tract entitled _A True and Historical Narrative of the
Colony of Georgia in America from the first Settlement thereof until
the present period_, etc., Charles-Town, South Carolina, 1741.[871]
The epistle dedicatory is addressed to General Oglethorpe, and is full
of venom. Craving rum, negro slaves, and fee-simple titles to land,
such disaffected colonists hesitated not to malign the authorities,
disquiet the settlers, and belie the true condition of affairs. Georgia
was then in an embarrassed and impoverished situation. Her population
was increasing but slowly. Labor was scarcely remunerative. Onerous
were some of the regulations of the Trustees, and the Spanish war cloud
was darkening the southern confines of the province. The impression,
however, which Dr. Tailfer and his associates sought to convey of
the status of the colony was exaggerated, spiteful, and without
warrant.[872]

The visit of Tomo-chi-chi and his retinue to England is described
in contemporaneous numbers of the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ and of the
_London Magazine_. It was also commemorated in what is now rarely seen,
_Georgia a Poem_; _Tomo-cha-chi, an Ode_; _A copy of verses on Mr.
Oglethorpe’s second voyage to Georgia_, “_Facies non omnibus una, nec
diversa tamen_,” London, 1736. Twenty-two years afterwards appeared
_Tombo-chi-qui or The American Savage, a Dramatic Entertainment
in Three Acts_, London, 1758. Although printed anonymously, it is
generally attributed to Cleland. The poet Freneau, at a later date,
composed an ode to _The Dying Indian Tomo-chequi_. In the _Gentleman’s
Magazine_, vol. x. p. 129, is an interesting letter describing the last
moments and sepulture of this noted Mico. In his _Historical Sketch of
Tomo-chi-chi, Mico of the Yamacraws_, Albany, 1868, the author of these
notes endeavored to present all that is known of this distinguished
chief, to whose friendship and aid the Colony of Georgia was indebted
in a remarkable degree.

It was the custom of the Trustees to assemble annually and listen to
a sermon delivered in commendation of the benevolent scheme in which
they were engaged. Some of these discourses possess historical value,
although most of them are simply moral essays.[873]

In December, 1837, the General Assembly of Georgia empowered the
governor of the State to select a competent person to procure from
the government offices in London copies of all records and documents
respecting the settlement and illustrating the colonial life of
Georgia. The Rev. Charles Wallace Howard was entrusted with the
execution of this mission. He returned with copies of documents filling
twenty-two folio volumes. Fifteen of these were made from the originals
on file in the office of the Board of Trade, six from those in the
State Paper Office, and the remaining volume consisted of copies of
important documents included in the king’s library.[874] These MS.
volumes are preserved in the state library at Atlanta. While they
embrace many of the communications, regulations, reports, treaties,
and documents illustrative of the colonial life of Georgia, they do
not exhaust the treasures of the Public Record Office and the British
Museum.

In private hands in England are several original MS. volumes, connected
with the colonization of Georgia and detailing the acts and resolutions
of the Trustees. Prominent among them are two quarto volumes, closely
written in the neat, small, round hand of John Percival, the first Earl
of Egmont and the first president of the Board of Trustees, containing
the original manuscript records of the meetings of the Trustees for
establishing the Colony of Georgia in America from June 14th, 1738, to
the 24th of May, 1744.[875] They contain also an index of proceedings,
June, 1737, to June, 1738, together with some memoranda relating to
the proceedings of 1745-46. It is probable that there were antecedent
volumes, but they are not now known.

In the Department of State, and in the Executive Department of Georgia,
are some documents of great historical interest connected with the
English colonization of Georgia. The _Historical Collections_ of the
Georgia Historical Society,[876] in four volumes, contain reprints
of many of the early tracts already referred to, and other papers
illustrative of Georgia history.[877]

In the library of Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, there
is a folio MS. in excellent preservation, entitled _History of the
three Provinces, South Carolina, Georgia, and East Florida_, by John
Gerard William de Brahm, surveyor-general of the southern provinces
of North America, then under the dominion of Great Britain, and
illustrated by over twenty maps and plans. The portion relating to
Georgia was, in 1849, edited and printed with extreme accuracy and
typographical elegance by Mr. George Wymberley-Jones, of Savannah.
The edition was limited to forty-nine copies. Six of the eight
maps appertaining to Georgia were engraved.[878] This publication
constitutes the second of Mr. Jones’ “Wormsloe quartos,”[879] and is
justly esteemed not only for its typography and rarity, but also for
its historical value. To the engineering skill of Captain de Brahm was
Georgia indebted for many important surveys and military defenses.
Through his instrumentality were large accessions made to the German
population between Savannah and New Ebenezer.

Of the legislative acts passed by the general assemblies of Georgia
during the continuance of the royal government, many are retained in
the digests of Robert and George Watkins (Philadelphia, 1800), and
of Marbury and Crawford. Aware of the fact that numerous omissions
existed, Mr. George Wymberley-Jones De Renne caused diligent search
to be made in the Public Record Office in London for all acts
originating in Georgia which, having received royal sanction, were
there filed. Exact copies of them were then obtained; but Mr. De
Renne’s death occurred before he had compassed his purpose of printing
the transcripts. His widow, Mrs. Mary De Renne, carried out his design
and committed the editing of them to Charles C. Jones, Jr., LL. D.
The result was a superb quarto, entitled _Acts passed by the General
Assembly of the Colony of Georgia, 1755 to 1774, now first printed_.
_Wormsloe._ 1881. The edition was limited to forty-nine copies. In
this volume appears no act which had hitherto found its way into type.
During the period covered by this legislation, James Johnston was the
public printer in Savannah. By him were many of the acts, passed by the
various assemblies, first printed,—sometimes simply as broadsides, and
again in thin quarto pamphlets. William Ewen, who, at a later date, was
president of the Council of Safety, carefully preserved these printed
acts, and caused them to be bound in a volume which lies before us.
The MS. index is in his handwriting. It is the only complete copy of
these colonial laws, printed contemporaneously with their passage,
of which we have any knowledge. James Johnston was also the editor
and printer of the _Georgia Gazette_, the only newspaper published
in Georgia prior to and during the Revolution. In the office of the
Secretary of State in Atlanta are preserved the engrossed original acts
passed by the colonial General Assemblies of Georgia. The sanction of
the home government was requisite to impart vitality to such acts. As
soon, therefore, as they had received the approval of the Governor in
Council, the seal of the colony was attached to duplicate originals.
One was lodged with the proper officer in Savannah, and the other was
forwarded for the consideration of the Lords Commissioners for Trade
and Plantations. When by them approved, this duplicate original,
properly indorsed, was filed in London. Detaching the colonial seal
seems to have been the final attestation of royal sanction. Of the
action of the home government the colonial authorities were notified in
due course.

       *       *       *       *       *

With regard to the sojourn of Rev. John Wesley in Georgia, of
his designs and anticipations in visiting the colony, and of the
disappointments there experienced, we have perhaps the fullest
memoranda in a little undated volume entitled _An extract of the
Rev. Mr. John Wesley’s Journal from his embarking for Georgia to his
return to London_, Bristol; printed by S. and F. Farley. It gives his
own interpretation of the events, trials, and disappointments which
induced him so speedily to abandon a field of labor in which he had
anticipated much pleasure and success.[880] In a tract published in
London in 1741, called _An Account of money received and disbursed
for the Orphan House in Georgia_, the Rev. George Whitefield submits a
full exhibit of all expenditures made up to that time in the erection
and support of that institution. To it is prefixed a plan of the
building.[881] His efforts to convert it into a college are unfolded
in _A Letter to his Excellency Governor Wright_, printed in London,
1768. Appended to this is the correspondence which passed between him
and the Archbishop of Canterbury. This tract is illustrated by plans
and elevations of the present and intended structures, and by a plat of
the Orphan House lands. There are sermons of this eloquent divine in
aid of this charity, and journals of journeys and voyages undertaken
while employed in soliciting subscriptions. His friend and companion,
the Hon. James Habersham, has left valuable letters explanatory of the
scope and administration of this eleemosynary project. William Bartram,
who visited Bethesda in 1765, wrote a pleasant description of it.[882]

Among the histories of Georgia we may mention:—

_An Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of the Colonies of
South Carolina and Georgia_, London, 1779,[883] in two volumes, octavo.
Although published anonymously, these volumes are known to have been
written by the Rev. Alexander Hewitt,[884] a Presbyterian clergyman and
a resident of Charlestown, South Carolina, who returned to England when
he perceived that an open rupture between the Crown and the thirteen
American Colonies was imminent. While in this work the colonial history
of Georgia is given at some length, the attention of the author was
mainly occupied with the establishment and growth of the Province of
Carolina. His labors ended with the dawn of the Revolution.

To _A View of the Constitution of the British Colonies in North
America and the West Indies at the time the Civil War broke out on the
Continent of America_, by Anthony Stokes, his Majesty’s Chief Justice
in Georgia, London, 1783, we must refer for the most intelligent
history of the civil and judicial conduct of affairs in Georgia during
the continuance of the royal government.

Soon after the formation of the general government Mr. Edward
Langworthy—at first a pupil and then a teacher at Whitefield’s Orphan
House, afterwards an enthusiastic “Liberty Boy,” Secretary of the
Provincial Congress of Georgia, and one of the early representatives
from that State in the Confederated Congress—conceived the design
of writing a history of Georgia. Of fair attainments, and personally
acquainted with the leading men and transactions of the period, he
was well qualified for the task, and addressed himself with energy
to the collection of materials requisite for the undertaking. From a
published prospectus of the work, printed in the _Georgia Gazette_, we
are led to believe that this history was actually written. Suitable
encouragement not having been extended, the contemplated publication
was never made. Mr. Langworthy died at Elkton, in Maryland, early in
the present century, and all efforts to recover both his manuscripts
and the supporting documents which he had amassed have thus far failed.

From the press of Seymour and Williams, of Savannah, was issued,
in 1811, the first volume of Major Hugh McCall’s _History of
Georgia_,[885] and this was followed, in 1816, by the second
volume published by William Thorne Williams. Oppressed by physical
infirmities, and a martyr to the effects of exposures and dangers
experienced while an officer in the army of the Revolution; now
confined to his couch, again a helpless cripple moving only in an
easy-chair upon wheels; dependent for a livelihood upon the slender
salary paid to him as city jailer of Savannah; often interrupted in his
labors, and then, during intervals of pain, writing with his portfolio
resting upon his knees; without the preliminary education requisite
for the scholarly accomplishment of such a serious undertaking, and
yet fired with patriotic zeal, and anxious to wrest from impending
oblivion the fading traditions of the State he loved so well, and whose
independence he had imperilled everything to secure,—Major McCall,
in the end, compassed a narrative which is highly prized, and which,
in its recital of events connected with the Revolutionary period and
the part borne by Georgians in that memorable struggle, is invaluable.
He borrowed largely from Mr. Hewitt in depicting the colonial life of
Georgia.[886]

As early as March, 1841, the Georgia Historical Society invited Dr.
William Bacon Stevens to undertake, under its auspices, the preparation
of a new and complete _History of Georgia_. Liberal aid was extended to
him in his labor, and of its two octavo volumes, one was published in
1847 and the other in 1859.[887] This author brings his history down to
the adoption of the constitution of 1798.

In 1849 the Rev. George White published in Savannah his _Statistics of
the State of Georgia_, and this was followed, six years afterwards,
by his more comprehensive and valuable work entitled the _Historical
Collections of Georgia_, illustrated with nearly one hundred
engravings, and published by Pudney and Russell, of New York. In
this volume a vast mass of statistical, documentary, and traditional
information is presented; and for his industry the author is entitled
to much commendation.

_The History of Georgia_, by T. S. Arthur and W. H. Carpenter,
published in Philadelphia in 1854, and constituting one of Lippincott’s
cabinet histories, is a meagre compendium of some of the leading
events in the life of the Colony and State, and does not claim special
attention.

In his _History of Alabama, and incidentally of Georgia and
Mississippi_ (Charleston, S. C., 1851) Colonel Albert James Pickett
furnishes abundant and interesting material illustrative of the
aboriginal epoch; and, in a manner both intelligent and attractive,
traces the colonization of the territory indicated down to the year
1820.[888]

The present writer has already printed [1883] the first two volumes of
_History of Georgia_; and his preface unfolds his purpose to tell the
story from the earliest times down to a period within the memory of the
living. The two volumes thus far issued embrace the aboriginal epoch, a
narrative of discovery and early exploration, schemes of colonization,
the settlement under Oglethorpe, and the life of the province under
the guidance of the Trustees, under the control of the President and
Assistants, under the supervision of royal governors, and during the
Revolutionary War. They conclude with the erection of Georgia into
an independent State. All available sources of information have been
utilized. The two concluding volumes, which will deal with Georgia as a
Commonwealth, are in course of preparation.

We refrain from an enumeration of gazetteers, historical essays, and
publications, partial in their character, which relate to events
subsequent to what may be properly termed the period of colonization.

[Illustration]




CHAPTER VII.

THE WARS ON THE SEABOARD: THE STRUGGLE IN ACADIA AND CAPE BRETON.

BY CHARLES C. SMITH,

_Treasurer of the Massachusetts Historical Society_.


ALL through its early history Acadia, or Nova Scotia, suffered from the
insecurity to life and property which arose from its repeated changes
of masters. Neither France nor England cared much for a region of so
little apparent value; and both alike regarded it merely as debatable
ground, or as a convenient make-weight in adjusting the balance of
conquests and losses elsewhere. Nothing was done to render it a safe
or attractive home for immigrants; and at each outbreak of war in
the Old World its soil became the scene of skirmishes and massacres
in which Indian allies were conspicuous agents. Whatever the turn of
victory here, little regard was paid to it in settling the terms of
peace. There was hardly an attempt at any time to establish a permanent
control over the conquered territory. In spite of the capture of Port
Royal by Phips in 1690, and the annexation of Acadia to the government
of Massachusetts in 1692, it was only a nominal authority which England
had. In 1691, the French again took formal possession of Port Royal
and the neighboring country. In the next year an ineffectual attempt
was made to recover it; and this was followed by various conflicts,
of no historical importance, in different parts of this much-harassed
territory. In August, 1696, the famous Indian fighter, Captain Benjamin
Church, left Boston on his fourth eastern expedition. After skirting
the coast of Maine, where he met with but few Indians and no enemies,
he determined to proceed up the Bay of Fundy. There he captured and
burned Beaubassin, or Chignecto, and then returned to St. John.
Subsequently he was superseded by Colonel John Hathorne, a member of
the Massachusetts council, and an attack was made on the French fort
at Nachouac, or Naxoat, farther up the river; but for some unexplained
reason the attack was not pressed, and the English retreated shortly
after they landed. “No notice,” says Hutchinson in his _History of
Massachusetts Bay_, “was taken of any loss on either side, except the
burning of a few of the enemy’s houses; nor is any sufficient reason
given for relinquishing the design so suddenly.”[889] By the treaty of
Ryswick in the following year (1697) Acadia was surrendered to France.

The French were not long permitted to enjoy the restored territory.
In May, 1704, Church was again placed in command of an expedition
fitted out at Boston against the French and Indians in the eastern
country. He had been expressly forbidden to attack Port Royal, and
after burning the little town of Mines nothing was accomplished by him.
Three years later, in May, 1707, another expedition, of one thousand
men, sailed from Boston under command of Colonel March. Port Royal
was regularly invested, and an attempt was made to take the place by
assault; but through the inefficiency of the commander it was a total
failure. Reëmbarking his little army, March sailed away to Casco Bay,
where he was superseded by Captain Wainwright, the second in command.
The expedition then returned to Port Royal; but in the mean time the
fortifications had been diligently strengthened, and after a brief
view of them Wainwright drew off his forces. In 1710 a more successful
attempt for the expulsion of the French was made. In July of that year
a fleet arrived at Boston from England to take part in a combined
attack on Port Royal. In pursuance of orders from the home government,
four regiments were raised in the New England colonies, and sailed from
Boston on the 18th of September. The fleet numbered thirty-six vessels,
exclusive of hospital and store ships, and on board were the four
New England regiments, respectively commanded by Sir Charles Hobby,
Colonel Tailer, of Massachusetts, Colonel Whiting, of Connecticut, and
Colonel Walton, of New Hampshire, and a detachment of marines from
England. Francis Nicholson, who had been successively governor of New
York, Virginia, and Maryland, had the chief command. The fleet, with
the exception of one vessel which ran ashore and was lost, arrived off
Port Royal on the 24th of September. The garrison was in no condition
to resist an enemy, and the forces were landed without opposition. On
the 1st of October three batteries were opened within one hundred yards
of the fort; and twenty-four hours afterward the French capitulated.
By the terms of the surrender the garrison was to be transported to
France, and the inhabitants living within cannon-shot of Port Royal
were to be protected in person and property for two years, on taking
an oath of allegiance to the queen of England, or were to be allowed
to remove to Canada or Newfoundland.[890] The name of Port Royal was
changed to Annapolis Royal in compliment to the queen, and the fort
was at once garrisoned by marines and volunteers under the command of
Colonel Samuel Vetch, who had been selected as governor in case the
expedition should prove successful. Its whole cost to New England was
upward of twenty-three thousand pounds, which sum was afterward repaid
by the mother country. Acadia never again came under French control,
and by the treaty of Utrecht (1713) the province was formally ceded to
Great Britain “according to its ancient limits.” As a matter of fact,
those limits were never determined; but the question ceased to have
any practical importance after the conquest of Canada by the English,
though it was reopened long afterward in the boundary dispute between
Great Britain and the United States.

By the treaty of Utrecht, France was left in undisputed possession of
Cape Breton; and in order to establish a check on the English in Nova
Scotia, the French immediately began to erect strong fortifications
at Louisbourg, in Cape Breton, and invited to its protection the
French inhabitants of Acadia and of Newfoundland, which latter had
also been ceded to Great Britain. Placentia, the chief settlement in
Newfoundland, was accordingly evacuated, and its inhabitants were
transferred to Cape Breton; but such great obstacles were thrown in the
way of a voluntary removal of the Acadians that very few of them joined
their fellow countrymen. They remained in their old homes, to be only a
source of anxiety and danger to their English masters. At the surrender
of Acadia to Great Britain, it was estimated by Colonel Vetch, in a
letter to the Board of Trade, that there were about twenty-five hundred
French inhabitants in the country; and even at that early date he
pointed out that their removal to Cape Breton would leave the country
entirely destitute of inhabitants, and make the new French settlement
a very populous colony, “and of the greatest danger and damage to
all the British colonies, as well as the universal trade of Great
Britain.”[891] Fully persuaded of the correctness of this view, the
successive British governors refused to permit the French to remove to
Canada or Cape Breton, and persistently endeavored to obtain from them
a full recognition of the British sovereignty. In a single instance—in
1729—Governor Phillips secured from the French inhabitants on the
Annapolis River an unconditional submission; but with this exception
the French would never take the oath of allegiance without an express
exemption from all liability to bear arms. It is certain, however, that
this concession was never made by any one in authority; and in the two
instances in which it was apparently granted by subordinate officers,
their action was repudiated by their superiors. The designation
“Neutral French,” sometimes given to the Acadians, has no warrant in
the recognized facts of history.

Meanwhile the colony remained almost stationary, and attracted very
little notice from the home government. In August, 1717, General
Richard Phillips was appointed governor, which office he retained
until 1749, though he resided in England during the greater part
of the time. During his absence the small colonial affairs were
successively administered by the lieutenant-governor of Annapolis, John
Doucette, who held office from 1717 to 1726,[892] and afterward by the
lieutenant-governors of the province, Lawrence Armstrong (1725-1739)
and Paul Mascarene (1740-1749). Phillips was succeeded by Edward
Cornwallis; but Cornwallis held the office only about three years, when
he resigned, and General Peregrine Thomas Hopson was appointed his
successor. On Hopson’s retirement, within a few months, the government
was administered by one of the members of the council, Charles
Lawrence, who was appointed lieutenant-governor in 1754, and governor
in 1756.

In 1744 war again broke out between England and France, and the next
year it was signalized in America by the capture of Louisbourg.
Immediately on learning that war had been declared, the French
commander despatched a strong force to Canso, which captured the
English garrison at that place and carried them prisoners of war to
Louisbourg. A second expedition was sent to Annapolis for a similar
purpose, but through the prompt action of Governor Shirley, of
Massachusetts, it failed of success. Aroused, no doubt, by these
occurrences, Shirley formed the plan of capturing Louisbourg; and early
in January, 1745, he communicated his design to the General Court of
Massachusetts, and about the same time wrote to Commodore Warren,
commanding the British fleet in the West Indies, for coöperation. His
plans were favorably received, not only by Massachusetts, but also by
the other New England colonies. Massachusetts voted to raise 3,250
men; Connecticut 500; and New Hampshire and Rhode Island each 300. The
chief command was given to Sir William Pepperrell, a wealthy merchant
of Kittery in Maine, of unblemished reputation and great personal
popularity; and the second in command was Samuel Waldo, a native of
Boston, but at that time also a resident of Maine.[893] The chief of
artillery was Richard Gridley, a skilful engineer, who, in June, 1775,
marked out the redoubt on Bunker Hill. The undertaking proved to be so
popular that the full complement of men was raised within two months.
The expedition consisted of thirteen armed vessels, under the command
of Captain Edward Tyng, with upward of two hundred guns, and of about
ninety transports. They were directed to proceed to Canso, where a
block house was to be built, the stores landed, and a guard left to
defend them. The Massachusetts troops sailed from Nantasket on the 24th
of March, and reached Canso on the 4th of April. The New Hampshire
forces had arrived four days before; the Connecticut troops reached the
same place on the 25th. Hutchinson adds, with grim humor, “Rhode Island
waited until a better judgment could be made of the event, their three
hundred not arriving until after the place had surrendered.”[894]

The works at Louisbourg had been twenty-five years in construction,
and though still incomplete had cost between five and six millions
of dollars. They were thought to be the most formidable defences in
America, and covered an area two and a half miles in circumference.
A space of about two hundred yards toward the sea was left without a
rampart; but at all other accessible points the walls were from thirty
to thirty-six feet in height, with a ditch eighty feet in width.
Scattered along their line were six bastions and three batteries with
embrasures for one hundred and forty-eight cannon, of which only
sixty-five were mounted, and sixteen mortars. On an island at the
entrance of the harbor was a battery mounted with thirty guns; and
directly opposite the entrance of the harbor was the grand battery,
mounting twenty-eight heavy guns and two eighteen-pounders. The
entrance to the town on the land-side was over a draw-bridge defended
by a circular battery mounting sixteen cannon. It was these strong and
well-planned works which a handful of New England farmers and fishermen
undertook to capture with the assistance of a small English fleet.

Pepperrell was detained by the ice at Canso for nearly three weeks,
at the end of which time he was joined by Commodore Warren with four
ships, carrying one hundred and eighty guns. The combined forces
reached Gabarus Bay, the place selected for a landing, on the morning
of the 30th of April; and it was not until that time that the French
had any knowledge of the impending attack. Two days later the grand
battery fell into Pepperrell’s hands through a fortunate panic which
seized the French. Thus encouraged, the siege was pressed with
vigor under very great difficulties. The first battery was erected
immediately on landing, and opened fire at once; but it required the
labor of fourteen nights to draw all the cannon and other materials
across the morass between the landing-place and Louisbourg, and it
was not until the middle of May that the fourth battery was ready.
On the 18th of May, Tyng in the “Massachusetts” frigate captured a
French ship of sixty-four guns and five hundred men, heavily laden with
military stores for Louisbourg. This success greatly raised the spirits
of the besiegers, who, slowly but steadily, pushed forward to the
accomplishment of their object. Warren’s fleet was reinforced by the
arrival of three large ships from England and three from Newfoundland;
the land-gate was demolished; serious breaches were made in the walls;
and by the middle of June it was determined to attempt a general
assault. The French commander, Duchambon, saw that further resistance
would be useless, and on the 16th he capitulated with the honors of
war, and the next day Pepperrell took possession of Louisbourg.

By the capitulation six hundred and fifty veteran troops, more than
thirteen hundred militia, and other persons, to the number in all
of upward of four thousand, agreed not to bear arms against Great
Britain during the war, and were transported to France in fourteen
ships. Seventy-six cannon and mortars fell into the hands of the
conquerors, with a great quantity of military stores and provisions.
The number killed on the side of the French was three hundred, and
on the side of the English one hundred and thirty; but subsequently
the latter suffered heavily by disease, and at one time so many as
fifteen hundred were sick from exposure and bad weather. Tidings of the
victory created great joy in New England, and the news was received
with no small satisfaction in the mother country. Pepperrell was
made a baronet, Warren an admiral, and both Shirley and Pepperrell
were commissioned as colonels. Subsequently, after a delay of four
years, Great Britain reimbursed the colonies for the expenses of the
expedition to the amount of £200,000.

[Illustration: A FRENCH FRIGATE.

[After a cut in Paul Lacroix’s _XVIII^{me} Siècle_, p. 129.—ED.]]

The capture of Louisbourg was by far the most important event in the
history of Nova Scotia during the war, and the loss of so important a
place was a keen mortification to France. As soon as news of the fall
of Louisbourg reached the French government, steps were taken with a
view to its recapture and to the punishment of the English colonists by
destroying Boston and ravaging the New England coast. In June, 1746, a
fleet of eleven ships of the line, twenty frigates, thirty transports,
and two fire-ships was despatched for this purpose under command of
Admiral D’Anville; but the enterprise ended in a disastrous failure.
Contrary winds prevailed during the voyage, and on nearing the American
coast a violent storm scattered the fleet, driving some of the ships
back to France and others to the West Indies, and wrecking some on
Sable Island. On the 10th of September D’Anville cast anchor with the
remaining vessels—two ships and a few transports—in Chebucto; and six
days later he died, of apoplexy, it is said. At a council of war held
shortly afterward it was determined to attack Annapolis, against the
judgment of Vice-Admiral D’Estournelle, who had assumed the command.
Exasperated, apparently, at this decision, he committed suicide in
a fit of temporary insanity. This second misfortune was followed by
the breaking out of the small-pox among the crews; and finally after
scuttling some of the vessels the officer next in command returned to
France without striking a single blow. In the spring of the following
year another expedition, of smaller size, was despatched under command
of Admiral De la Jonquiere; but the fleet was intercepted and dispersed
off Cape Finisterre by the English, who captured nine ships of war and
numerous other vessels.

Meanwhile, and before the capture of Louisbourg, the French had made
an unsuccessful attempt on Annapolis, from which the besieging force
was withdrawn to aid in the defence of Louisbourg, but they did not
arrive until a month after its surrender. In the following year another
army of Canadians appeared before Annapolis; but the place seemed
to be so strong and well defended that it was not thought prudent
to press the attack. The French accordingly withdrew to Chignecto
to await the arrival of reinforcements expected from France. While
stationed there they learned that a small body of New England troops,
under Colonel Noble, were quartered at Grand Pré, and measures were
speedily adopted to cut them off. The attack was made under cover of
a snow-storm at an early hour on the morning of the 4th of February,
1747. It was a complete surprise to the English. Noble, who was in bed
at the time, was killed fighting in his shirt. A desperate conflict,
however, ensued from house to house, and at ten o’clock in the forenoon
the English capitulated with the honors of war.[895] This terminated
active hostilities in Nova Scotia, from which the French troops shortly
afterward withdrew. By the disgraceful peace of Aix la Chapelle (1748)
England surrendered Louisbourg and Cape Breton to the French, and all
the fruits of the war in America were lost.

After the conclusion of peace it was determined by the home government
to strengthen their hold on Nova Scotia, so as to render it as far
as possible a bulwark to the other English colonies, instead of a
source of danger to them. With this view an advertisement was inserted
in the _London Gazette_, in March, 1749, setting forth “that proper
encouragement will be given to such of the officers and private men,
lately dismissed his Majesty’s land and sea service, as are willing
to accept of grants of land, and to settle with or without families
in Nova Scotia.” Fifty acres were to be allotted to every soldier
or sailor, free from the payment of rents or taxes for the term of
ten years, after which they were not to be required to pay more than
one shilling per annum for every fifty acres; and an additional
grant of ten acres for each person in a family was promised. Larger
grants, with similar conditions, were to be made to the officers; and
still further to encourage the settlement of the province the same
inducements were offered to “carpenters, shipwrights, smiths, masons,
joiners, brickmakers, brick-layers, and all other artificers necessary
in building or husbandry, not being private soldiers or seamen,” and
also to surgeons on producing certificates that they were properly
qualified. These offers were promptly accepted by a large number of
persons, but apparently by not so many as was anticipated.

In the following May Edward Cornwallis, then a member of Parliament,
and uncle of the first Marquis of Cornwallis, was appointed
captain-general and governor in chief, and at once embarked for Nova
Scotia with the new settlers. On the 21st of June he arrived in
Chebucto harbor, which all the officers agreed was the finest harbor
they had ever seen; and early in July he was joined by the transports,
thirteen in number, having on board upward of twenty-five hundred
immigrants. The shores of the harbor were wooded to the water’s edge,
“no clear spot to be seen or heard of.”[896] But by the 23d of the
month more than twelve acres were cleared, and preparations were made
for building. A month later the plan of the town was fully laid out,
and subsequently a line of palisades was erected around the town,
a square fort was built on the hill, and a space thirty feet wide
cleared outside of the defensive line. By the end of October three
hundred houses had been completed, a second fort had been built, and
an order had been sent to Boston for lamps to light the streets in the
winter nights. Halifax, as the new town was called, had already begun
to wear the appearance of a settled community; and in little more
than a year its first church was opened for religious services. From
the first, the growth of Halifax was strong and healthy; and it soon
became a place of considerable importance. So early as 1752 the number
of inhabitants amounted to more than four thousand. Stringent rules
were adopted to insure public order and morality; and very soon the
governor and council proceeded to exercise legislative authority.[897]
But their right to do this was expressly denied by the law officers at
home.[898] Accordingly, in the early part of 1757 a plan was adopted
for dividing the province into electoral districts, for the choice
of a legislative body, and was sent to England for approval. Some
exceptions, however, were taken to the plan; and it was not until
October, 1758, that the first provincial assembly met at Halifax,
nineteen members being present.

In the mean time, in 1755, occurred the most memorable and tragic
event in the whole history of Nova Scotia. Though England and France
were nominally at peace, frequent collisions took place between their
adherents in Nova Scotia and elsewhere in America. Early in 1755 it
was determined to dispossess the French of the posts which they had
established on the Bay of Fundy, and a force of eighteen hundred men
was raised in New England, for that purpose, under Lieutenant-Colonels
Scott and John Winslow. The chief command of the expedition was given
to Colonel Robert Monckton, an officer in the English army. The first
and most honorable fruits of the expedition were the capture of the
French forts at Beauséjour and at Gaspereau, both of which surrendered
in June. A few weeks later Winslow became a chief instrument in the
forcible removal of the French Acadians, which has given his name an
unenviable notoriety. It was a task apparently at which his whole
nature relucted; and over and over again he wrote in his letters at the
time that it was the most disagreeable duty he had had to perform in
his whole life. But he did not hesitate for a moment, and carried out
with unfaltering energy the commands of his superior officers.

For more than a generation the French inhabitants had refused to take
the oath of allegiance to the king of England, except in a qualified
form. Upon their renewed refusal, in July, 1755, it was determined to
take immediate steps for their removal, in accordance with a previous
decision, “to send all the French inhabitants out of the province, if
they refused to take the oath;” and at a meeting of the provincial
council of Nova Scotia, held July 28th, “after mature consideration,
it was unanimously agreed that, to prevent as much as possible their
attempting to return and molest the settlers that may be set down on
their lands, it would be most proper to send them to be distributed
amongst the several colonies on the continent, and that a sufficient
number of vessels should be hired with all possible expedition for
that purpose.”[899] Accordingly orders were sent to Boston to charter
the required number of transports; and on the 11th of August Governor
Lawrence forwarded detailed instructions to Lieutenant-Colonel Winslow,
commanding at Mines, and to Major John Handfield, a Nova Scotia
officer, commanding at Annapolis, to ship off the French inhabitants in
their respective neighborhoods. As the crops were not yet harvested,
and there was delay in the arrival of the transports, the orders could
not be executed until the autumn. At that time they were carried
out with a sternness and a disregard of the rights of humanity for
which there can be no justification or excuse. On the same day on
which the instructions were issued to Winslow and Handfield, Governor
Lawrence wrote a circular letter to the other English governors in
America, expressing the opinion that there was not the least reason
to doubt of their concurrence, and his hope that they would receive
the inhabitants now sent “and dispose of them in such manner as may
best answer our design in preventing their reunion.” According to the
official instructions five hundred persons were to be transported to
North Carolina, one thousand to Virginia, five hundred to Maryland,
three hundred to Philadelphia, two hundred to New York, three hundred
to Connecticut, and two hundred to Boston.

On the 4th of September Winslow issued a citation to the inhabitants
in his immediate neighborhood to appear and receive a communication
from him. The next day, he recorded in his journal, “at three in
the afternoon, the French inhabitants appeared, agreeably to their
citation, at the church in Grand Pré, amounting to four hundred and
eighteen of their best men; upon which I ordered a table to be set
in the centre of the church, and, having attended with those of my
officers who were off guard, delivered them by interpreters the king’s
orders.” After a brief preamble he proceeded to say, “The part of duty
I am now upon is what, though necessary, is very disagreeable to my
natural make and temper, as I know it must be grievous to you who are
of the same species. But it is not my business to animadvert, but to
obey such orders as I receive, and therefore without hesitation shall
deliver you his Majesty’s orders and instructions.” He then informed
them that all their lands, cattle, and other property, except money and
household goods, were forfeited to the Crown, and that all the French
inhabitants were to be removed from the province. They were, however,
to have liberty to carry their money and as many of their household
goods as could be conveniently shipped in the vessels; and he added,
“I shall do everything in my power that all those goods be secured
to you, and that you are not molested in carrying them off, and also
that whole families go in the same vessel, and make this remove, which
I am sensible must give you a great deal of trouble, as easy as his
Majesty’s service will admit, and hope that in whatever part of the
world you may fall you may be faithful subjects, a peaceable and happy
people.”[900] Meanwhile they were to remain under the inspection of the
troops. Toward night these unhappy victims, “not having any provisions
with them, and pleading hunger, begged for bread,” which was given
them, and orders were then issued that for the future they must be
supplied from their respective families. “Thus ended the memorable 5th
of September,” Winslow wrote in his journal, “a day of great fatigue
and trouble.”[901]

Shortly afterward the first prisoners were embarked; but great delay
occurred in shipping them off, mainly on account of the failure of the
contractor to arrive with the provisions at the expected time, and it
was not until November or December that the last were shipped. The
whole number sent away at this time was about four thousand. There
was also a great destruction of property; and in the district under
command of Winslow very nearly seven hundred buildings were burned.
The presence of the French was nowhere welcome in the colonies to
which they were sent; and they doubtless experienced many hardships.
The governors of South Carolina and Georgia gave them permission to
return, much to the surprise and indignation of Governor Lawrence;[902]
and seven boats, with ninety unhappy men who had coasted along shore
from one of the Southern colonies, were stopped in Massachusetts. In
the summer of 1762 five transports with a further shipment of these
unfortunate people were sent to Boston, but the General Court would not
permit them to land, and they were ordered to return to Halifax.[903]

The removal of the French Acadians from their homes was one of the
saddest episodes in modern history, and no one now will attempt to
justify it; but it should be added that the genius of our great poet
has thrown a somewhat false and distorted light over the character of
the victims. They were not the peaceful and simple-hearted people they
are commonly supposed to have been; and their houses, as we learn from
contemporary evidence, were by no means the picturesque, vine-clad, and
strongly built cottages described by the poet. The people were notably
quarrelsome among themselves, and to the last degree superstitious.
They were wholly under the influence of priests appointed by the French
bishops, and directly responsible to the representatives of the Roman
Catholic Church at Quebec. Many of these priests were quite as much
political agents as religious teachers, and some of them fell under
the censure of their superiors for going too much outside of their
religious functions. Even in periods when France and England were at
peace, the French Acadians were a source of perpetual danger to the
English colonists. Their claim to a qualified allegiance was one which
no nation then or now could sanction. But all this does not justify
their expulsion in the manner in which it was executed, and it will
always remain a foul blot on the history of Nova Scotia. The knowledge
of these facts, however, enables us to understand better the constant
feeling of insecurity under which the English settlers lived, and which
finally resulted in the removal and dispersion of the French under
circumstances of such heartless cruelty.

In May of the following year, war was again declared between France
and England; and two years later Louisbourg again fell into the hands
of the English. In May, 1758, a powerful fleet under command of
Admiral Boscawen arrived at Halifax for the purpose of recapturing a
place which ought never to have been given up. The fleet consisted
of twenty-three ships of the line and eighteen frigates, beside
transports, and when it left Halifax it numbered one hundred and
fifty-seven vessels. With it was a land force, under Jeffery Amherst,
of upward of twelve thousand men. The French forces at Louisbourg were
much inferior, and consisted of only eight ships of the line and three
frigates, and of about four thousand soldiers. The English fleet set
sail from Halifax on the 28th of May, and on the 8th of June a landing
was effected in Gabarus Bay. The next day the attack began, and after
a sharp conflict the French abandoned and destroyed two important
batteries. The siege was then pushed by regular approaches; but it was
not until the 26th of July that the garrison capitulated. By the terms
of surrender the whole garrison were to become prisoners of war and to
be sent to England, and the English acquired two hundred and eighteen
cannon and eighteen mortars, beside great quantities of ammunition and
military stores. All the vessels of war had been captured or destroyed;
but their crews, to the number of upward of twenty-six hundred men,
were included in the capitulation. Two years later, at the beginning of
1760, orders were sent from England to demolish the fortress, render
the harbor impracticable, and transport the garrison and stores to
Halifax. These orders were carried out so effectually that few traces
of its fortifications remain, and the place is inhabited only by
fishermen.

A year after the surrender of Louisbourg a fatal blow was struck at
the French power in America by the capture of Quebec; and by the
peace of Paris, in February, 1763, the whole of Canada was ceded to
Great Britain. The effects of this cession, in preparing the way for
the independence of the principal English colonies, cannot easily be
overestimated; but to Nova Scotia it only gave immunity from the fear
of French incursions, without in the slightest degree weakening the
attachment of the inhabitants to England.


CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

IN recent years much attention has been given to the study of
Acadian history by local investigators, and important documents for
its elucidation have been obtained from England and France, and
the provincial archives have been put in excellent order by the
commissioner of public records. To his intelligent interest in the
subject we are indebted for one of the most important contributions
to our knowledge of it, his _Selections from the Public Documents of
the Province of Nova Scotia_.[904] This volume comprises a great mass
of valuable papers illustrative of the history of Nova Scotia in the
eighteenth century, systematically arranged. The first part consists of
papers relating to the French Acadians, 1714-1755; the second part, of
papers relating to their forcible removal from the province, 1755-1768;
the third, of papers relating to the French encroachments, 1749-1754,
and the war in North America, 1754-1761; the fourth, of papers relating
to the first settlement of Halifax, 1749-1756; and the last part, of
papers relating to the first establishment of a representative assembly
in Nova Scotia. Mr. Akins has added a sufficient number of biographical
and other notes, and has inserted a conveniently arranged Index.

Next in importance to this volume are the publications of the Nova
Scotia Historical Society, which was formed in 1878, and incorporated
in 1879. Since that time it has printed four small volumes of
_Collections_, comprising many valuable papers. Of these the most
important is the journal of Colonel Winslow at the time of the
expulsion of the Acadians, printed (vol. iii. p. 114) from the original
manuscript in the possession of the Massachusetts Historical Society.
There are also (vol. i. p. 119) the diary of the surgeon, John Thomas,
at the same time,[905] beside a journal of the capture of Annapolis
in 1710, a history of St. Paul’s Church, Halifax, and other papers of
historical interest and value. The fourth volume contains a Memoir
of Samuel Vetch, the first English governor of Nova Scotia, with
illustrative documents, and the journal of Colonel John Winslow, during
the Siege of Beauséjour, in 1755.[906]

Another work of great authority, as well for the later as for the early
history of Nova Scotia, is Murdoch’s _History of Nova Scotia_.[907]
Written in the form of annals, it is somewhat confused in arrangement,
and a reader or student is under the necessity of picking out important
facts from a great mass of chaff; but it is a work of wide and thorough
research, and should be carefully studied by every one who wishes to
learn the minute facts of Nova Scotia history.

The early history of Nova Scotia, from its first settlement down to the
peace of Paris in 1763, is treated with much fulness by James Hannay
in a well-written narrative, which is not, however, entirely free from
prejudice, especially against the New England colonies.[908] But, for
thoroughness of investigation and general accuracy of statement, Mr.
Hannay must hold a high place among local historians. Fortunately his
labors are well supplemented by Duncan Campbell’s _History of Nova
Scotia_,[909] which was, indeed, published at an earlier date, but
which is, however, very meagre for the period when Acadia was a French
colony.

Beside these, there are several county and town histories, of which
the best is Dr. Patterson’s _History of Pictou_.[910] It is a work
of diligent and faithful research, gathering up much traditional
knowledge, and especially full in details respecting the origin and
later fortunes of Pictou Academy. There are also a considerable number
of local histories in manuscript in the archives of the Nova Scotia
Historical Society.

[Illustration]


AUTHORITIES

ON THE FRENCH AND INDIAN WARS OF NEW ENGLAND AND ACADIA, 1688-1763.

BY THE EDITOR.


=A.= KING WILLIAM’S WAR.—This was begun Aug. 13, 1688. A truce
was concluded by Captain John Alden at Sagadahock, Nov. 19, 1690.
(Hutchinson’s _Massachusetts_, i. 404; _Mass. Hist. Collections_, xxi.
p. 112, from the Hutchinson papers.)

Pike and Hutchinson’s instructions for making a truce, Nov. 9, 1690,
are given in James S. Pike’s _New Puritan_ (p. 128), and (p. 131) the
agreement at Wells, May 1, 1691.

Sewall (_Letter Book_, p. 119) writes Aug. 1, 1691, “The truce is over
and our Indian war renewed. The enemy attempted to surprise Wells, but
were disappointed by a party of ours [who] got into the town but about
half an hour before.”

Submission and agreement of eastern Indians at Fort William Henry,
in Pemaquid, Aug. 11, 1693. (_Mass. Archives_, xxx. 338; Mather’s
_Magnalia_; _New Hampshire Provincial Papers_, ii. 110; Johnston’s
_Bristol, Bremen, and Pemaquid_, p. 193.)

Accounts of the French capturing vessels in Massachusetts Bay
(1694-95), correspondence between Stoughton and Frontenac (1695),
and various plans for French expeditions to attack Boston (1696-97,
1700-1704), are in _Collection de manuscrits relatifs à l’histoire de
la Nouvelle France_ (Quebec, 1884), vol. ii.

A bill to encourage the war against the enemy is in the _Mass.
Archives_, xxx. 358. Details of Church’s expedition in 1696 to Nova
Scotia are given in Murdoch’s _Nova Scotia_, i. 233. Cf. also J. S.
Pike’s _Life of Robert Pike, the New Puritan_.

Nicholas Noyes, _New England’s Duty and Interest to be a Habitation
of Justice and a Mountain of Holiness_, an election sermon, Boston,
1698 (Sabin’s _Dictionary_, xiii. no. 56,229; Haven’s list in Thomas’s
_History of Printing_, ii. p. 343; Carter-Brown, ii. 1,546), has in
an appendix (pp. 89-99) an account of a visit of Grindall Rawson and
Samuel Danforth to the Indians within the province, in 1698.

Submission of the eastern Indians at Pejebscot (Brunswick), Jan. 7,
1699. (_New Hampshire Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii. 265; _N. H. Provincial
Papers_, ii. 299; E. E. Bourne’s _Wells and Kennebunk_, ch. xv.; _Mass.
Archives_, xxx. 439.)

Submission of the eastern Indians, Sept. 8, 1699. (_Mass. Archives_,
xxx. 447.)

Various documents concerning the making of a treaty with the eastern
Indians, 1700-1701, are also in _Mass. Archives_, vol. xxx.

The events of this war are covered in Cotton Mather’s _Decennium
Luctuosum, an history of remarkable occurrences in the long war ...
from 1688 to 1698_, Boston, 1699. (Sibley’s _Harvard Graduates_, iii.
p. 67.) It was reprinted in the _Magnalia_.

A detail of the sources on the different attacks and fights of this war
is given in Vol. IV. of the present work, pp. 159-161.


=B.= QUEEN ANNE’S OR GOVERNOR DUDLEY’S WAR.—One of the first acts of
the ministry of Queen Anne was to issue a declaration of war against
France, May 15, 1702, opening what is known in Europe as the “War
of the Spanish Succession.” Governor Dudley in June, 1703, went to
Casco, to avert by a conference the Indian participancy in the war,
if possible. Campbell, the Boston postmaster, in one of his _Public
Occurrences_ says that Dudley found the Indians at the eastward “two
thirds for peace, and one third for war.” (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
ix. 495.) These latter were the more easterly tribes, who came
under French influence, and in Aug., 1703, Dudley issued at Boston
a broadside declaration against the Penicooke and eastern Indians.
(Haven’s list, p. 351.) Plunder and massacre along the frontier
settlements at the eastward soon convinced the people of New England
that they must prepare for another murderous war. (Cf. “Indian Troubles
on the Coast of Maine,” documents in _Maine Hist. Coll._, iii. 341.)

The first organized retaliatory assault was the maritime expedition to
the Bay of Fundy, led in 1704 by Col. Benjamin Church.

Church’s own part in this expedition is set forth in the _Entertaining
Passages_,[911] where will be found Governor Dudley’s instructions to
Church (p. 104). John Gyles, who in his youth had been a captive among
the French and Indians, when he learned to speak French, served as
interpreter and lieutenant.[912] Church’s conduct of the expedition,
which had promised much and had been of heavy cost to the province,
had not answered public expectation, and crossed the judgment of such
as disapproved the making of retaliatory cruelties the object of
war. This view qualifies the opinions which have been expressed upon
Church’s exploits by Hutchinson (_Hist. Mass._, ii. 132); Williamson
(_Hist. Maine_, ii. 47); and Palfrey (_Hist. N. Eng._, iv. 259). Hannay
(_Acadia_, 264) calls Church “barbarous.” It is his own story and that
of Penhallow which have given rise to these opinions.

[Illustration]

Church’s instructions had not contemplated the risks of an attack on
Port Royal, and in ignorance of this Charlevoix accuses the assailants
of want of courage, and Dr. Shea, in editing that writer,[913]
stigmatizes the devastations as “inhuman and savage,” and refers to a
French account in _Canada Documents_[914] (III. ii. pp. 648-652) called
“Expeditions faites par les Anglois de la Nouvelle Angleterre au Port
Royal, aux Mines et à Beaubassin de l’Acadie.”

The French early the next year, under Subercase, inflicted similar
devastation upon the Newfoundland coast, though the forts at St.
John resisted an attack. There is an original account by Pastour de
Costebelle, dated at Plaisance, Oct. 22, 1705, in the possession of Dr.
Geo. H. Moore, which has been printed in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._,
Feb., 1877. Charlevoix (Shea’s translation, iv. 172) naturally relishes
the misery of these savages better than he does the equally brutal
business of Church.

Palfrey (iv. 269) found in the British Colonial Office a paper dated
Quebec, Oct. 20, 1705, containing proposals for a peace between New
England and Canada, in which Vaudreuil[915] suggested that both sides
should “hinder all acts of hostility” on the part of the Indians.

Cf. for this attempted truce and for correspondence at this time
between Dudley and Vaudreuil, _Collection de manuscrits relatifs à
l’histoire de la Nouvelle France_ (Quebec, 1884), vol. ii. pp. 425-28,
435-40, 452.

The Abenakis continuing to disturb the borders,[916] Dudley planned an
attack on Port Royal, which should be carried out, and be no longer
a threat;[917] and Subercase, then in command there, was in effect
surprised in June, 1707, at the formidable fleet which entered the
basin. Inefficiency in the English commander, Colonel March, and
little self-confidence and want of discipline in his force, led to the
abandonment of the attack and the retirement of the force to Casco
Bay, where, reinforced and reinspirited by a commission of three
persons[918] sent from angry Boston, it returned to the basin, but
accomplished no more than before.[919]

These successive disappointments fell at a time when the two Mathers
were defeated (through Dudley’s contrivances, as was alleged) in the
contest for the presidency of Harvard College. This outcome made for
Dudley two bitter and unscrupulous enemies, and any abuse they might
shower upon him gained a ready hearing in a belief, prevalent even
with fair people, that Dudley was using his own position for personal
gain in illicit trade with Acadia. There have been reprinted in the
second volume of the _Sewall Papers_ three testy tracts which grew out
of this conjunction of affairs. In them Dudley is charged with the
responsibility of these military miscarriages, and events are given
a turn which the careful historian finds it necessary to scrutinize
closely.[920]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

Palfrey (iv. 273) pictures the universal chagrin and details the
efforts to shift the blame for the failure of this expedition.
Charlevoix gives a pretty full account, but his editor claims that
the English chroniclers resort to vagueness in their stories. In some
copies of Diéreville’s _Relation du voyage du Port Royal de l’Acadie_
(Amsterdam, 1710) there is an appendix on the 1707 expedition, taken
from the _Gazette_ of Feb. 25, 1708.[921]

Events were tending towards a more strenuous effort at the reduction of
Acadia. Jeremiah Dummer, in London, had in 1709 presented a memorial
to the ministry arguing that the banks of the St. Lawrence belonged
of right to New England.[922] It is printed in _The Importance and
Advantage of Cape Breton_, London, 1746.[923] In April, 1709, the home
government despatched orders to the colonies[924] for an extended
movement on Montreal by way of Lake Champlain, and another on Quebec by
water,—the latter part of the plan falling to the lot of Massachusetts
and Rhode Island, who were promised the coöperation of a royal fleet
and a force of veterans.[925] Colonel Vetch, who was a prime mover in
the proceeding, brought the messages of the royal pleasure, and was
made the adjutant-general of the commander, Francis Nicholson; but the
promised fleet did not come, and the few king’s ships which were in
Boston were held aloof by their commanders, and a project to turn the
troops, already massed in Boston, against Port Royal, since there was
no chance of success against Quebec unaided, was abandoned for want of
the convoy these royal ships might have afforded.[926] Nicholson, the
companion of Vetch, returned to England,[927] and the next year (1710)
came back with a small fleet, which, with an expeditionary force of New
Englanders, captured Port Royal,[928] and Vetch was left governor of
the country.[929]

[Illustration: ANNAPOLIS ROYAL.

One of Des Barres’ coast views (in Harvard College library).

The key of the fort at Annapolis, taken at this time, is in the cabinet
of the Mass. Hist. Society. (Cf. _Catal. Cab. M. H. Soc._, p. 112;
_Proceedings_, i. 101.)]

Col. William Dudley under date of Nov. 15, 1710, sent to the Board of
Trade a communication covering the journal of Col. Nicholson during
the siege, with correspondence appertaining, and these papers from
the Record Office, London, are printed in the _Nova Scotia Hist. Soc.
Collections_, i. p. 59, as (p. 64) is also a journal from the _Boston
News-Letter_ of Nov. 6, 1710. Sabin (ix. no. 36,703) notes a very
rare tract: _Journal of an Expedition performed by the forces of our
Soveraign Lady Anne, Queen, etc., under the command of the Honourable
Francis Nicholson in the year 1710, for the reduction of Port Royal in
Nova Scotia_, London, 1711. A journal kept by the Rev. Mr. Buckingham
is printed from the original MS., edited by Theodore Dwight, in
the _Journals of Madam Knight and Rev. Mr. Buckingham_ (New York,
1825).[930]

The war was ended by a treaty at Portsmouth, July 11, 1713. (_Mass.
Archives_, xxix. p. 1; _N. H. Hist. Soc. Coll._, i. p. 83; _N. H. Prov.
Papers_, iii. 543; _Maine Hist. Soc. Coll._, vi. 250; Penhallow, 78;
Williamson’s _Maine_, ii. 67.)

There was a conference with five of the leading eastern Indians at
Boston, Jan. 16, 1713-14, and this treaty is in the _Mass. Archives_,
xxix. 22. A fac-simile of its English signatures is annexed. Another
conference was held at Portsmouth, July 23-28, 1714; and this document
is also preserved. (_Mass. Archives_, xxix. 36; _Maine Hist. Soc.
Coll._, vi. 257.)

Dr. Shea (_Charlevoix_, v. 267) says that no intelligent man will
believe that the Indians understood the law-terms of these treaties,
adding that Hutchinson (ii. 246) admits as much.

The papers by Frederick Kidder in the _Maine Hist. Soc. Collections_
(vols. iii. and vi.) were republished as _Abnaki Indians, their
treaties of 1713 and 1717, and a vocabulary with an historical
introduction_, Portland, 1859. (Field, _Indian Bibliog._, no. 829;
_Hist. Mag._, ii. p. 84.) It gives fac-similes of the autographs of the
English signers and witnesses; and of the marks or signs of the Indians.

A later conference to ratify the treaty of 1713 was published under the
title of _Georgetown on Arrowsick island, Aug. 9, 1717.... A conference
of Gov. Shute with the sachems and chief men of the eastern Indians_,
Boston, 1717. (Harvard Col. library, no. 5325.24; Brinley, i. no. 431.)
This tract is reprinted in the _Maine Hist. Soc. Coll._, iii. 361,
and in the _N. H. Prov. Papers_, iii. 693. See further in Penhallow,
p. 83; Niles, in _Mass. Hist. Coll._, xxxv. 338; Hutchinson, ii. 199;
Williamson’s _Maine_, ii. 93; Belknap’s _New Hampshire_, ii. 47; Shea’s
_Charlevoix_, v. 268; Palfrey’s _New England_, iv. 420.

Shute was accompanied to Arrowsick by the Rev. Joseph Baxter, and his
journal of this period, annotated by Elias Nason, is printed in the _N.
E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, Jan., 1867, p. 45.

Of chief importance respecting this as well as other of the wars,
enumerated in this section, are the documents preserved in the State
House at Boston. The _Mass. Archives_, vol. xxix., covers Indian
conferences, etc., from 1713 to 1776; vol. xxxiv. treaties with the
Indians from 1645 to 1726; and vols. xxx. to xxxiii. elucidate by
original documents relations of all sorts with the Indians of the east
and west, as well as those among the more central settlements between
1639 and 1775.

The chief English authority for Queen Anne’s and Lovewell’s wars is
_The History of the wars of New England with the eastern Indians, or
a narrative of their continued perfidy from the 10th of August, 1703,
to the peace renewed 13th of July, 1713; and from the 25th of July,
1722, to their submission, 15th December, 1725, which was ratified
August 5th, 1726_. _By Samuel Penhallow._ Boston, 1726. The author
was an Englishman, who in 1686, at twenty-one, had come to America to
perfect his learning in the college at Cambridge, designing to acquire
the Indian tongue, and to serve the Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel among the Indians. Trade and public office, however, diverted
his attention, and he became a rich tradesman at Portsmouth and a man
of consideration in the public affairs of New Hampshire. His book is
of the first value to the historian and the object of much quest to
the collector, for it has become very rare. Penhallow died Dec., 1726,
shortly after its publication. It has been reprinted in the first
volume of the _N. H. Hist. Society’s Collections_, and again in 1859
at Cincinnati, with a memoir and notes by W. Dodge.[931]

[Illustration: SIGNERS OF THE CONFERENCE.

(_January 16, 1713-14._)]

A more comprehensive writer is Samuel Niles, in his _French and Indian
Wars_, 1634-1760. Niles was a Rhode Islander, who came to Harvard
College the first from that colony to seek a liberal education, and,
having graduated in 1699, he settled in Braintree, Mass., in 1711,
where he continued till his death in 1762. Palfrey (vol. iv. 256) has
pointed out that Niles did little more than add a sentence, embody
a reflection, and condense or omit in the use which he made of the
_Memorial_ of Nathaniel Morton, the _Entertaining Passages_ of Church,
the _Indian Wars_ of Hubbard, the _Magnalia_ of Mather, and the
_History_ of Penhallow; so that for a period down to about 1745, Niles
is of scarcely any original value.

[Illustration: _Fac-simile from a copy in Harvard College library._]

John Adams (_Works_, x. 361), who knew the author, lamented in 1818
that no printer would undertake the publication of his history. The
manuscript of the work was neglected till some time after 1830 it was
found in a box of papers belonging to the Mass. Hist. Society, and was
subsequently printed in their _Collections_, vols. xxvi. and xxxv.[932]

[Illustration: _Fac-simile slightly reduced from the copy in Harvard
College library._]

There are two other important contemporary printed accounts of this war.

Col. Benjamin Church furnished the memoranda from which his son Thomas
constructed a book, very popular in its day, and which was published in
Boston in 1716, as _Entertaining Passages_,[933] etc.

Cotton Mather, on the restoration of peace, reviewed the ten years’
sorrows of the war in a sermon before the governor and legislature,
which was published as _Duodecennium Luctuosum—the History of a
long war with Indian savages and their directors and abettors_,
1702-1714.[934]

[Illustration: GUT OF ANNAPOLIS.

NOTE.—The above cut represents the entrance to the Annapolis basin,
as it would appear to a spectator at the position corresponding to
the letter B in the words “Baye Françoise” in the northwest corner
of the map on the opposite page. It follows on a reduced scale one
of the coast scenes made by the British engineers to accompany the
hydrographic surveys, published by Des Barres, just before the American
Revolutionary War, and which frequently make part of the _Atlantic
Neptune_. A modern drawing of the view looking outward through the gut
is given in E. B. Chase’s _Over the Border_ (Boston, 1884), where will
be found a view of the old block house in Annapolis (p. 64), which
stood till 1882.

The map (on the opposite page) is by the royal (French) engineer
Nicolas Bellin, and was published by Charlevoix in his _Histoire de
la Nouvelle France_, and is reproduced in Dr. Shea’s translation of
Charlevoix, v. p. 170; and on a reduced scale in Gay, _Pop. Hist. U.
S._, iii. p. 125. A MS. plan (1725) is noted in the _Catalogue of the
King’s Maps in the British Museum_, i. p. 38; as also are other plans
of 1751, 1752, 1755. One of date 1729 by Nathaniel Blackmore is plate
no. 27 in Moll’s _New Survey of the Globe_. One of 1733 is in the North
collection of maps in Harvard College library, vol. ii. pl. 11. One of
1779, after a manuscript in the Dépôt des Cartes in Paris, is no. 11 in
the _Neptune Americo-Septentrional_. This Bellin map may be compared
with the draughts of the basin made in the early part of the preceding
century by Lescarbot, published in his _Histoire de la Nouvelle France_
(1609), and by Champlain as given in his _Voyages du Sieur de Champlain
Xaintongeois_ (1613),—both of which maps are produced in the present
_History_, Vol. IV. pp. 140, 141.

There is on a previous page a view of the town and fort of Annapolis at
the upper end of the basin. Various papers respecting Annapolis Royal,
as it was called after coming into English possession, can be found
in the _Belknap Papers_ (MSS.) in the library of the Massachusetts
Historical Society, including letters from Governor Richard Phillips,
Lieutenant-Governor John Doucett, and Paul Mascarene. The history of
Nova Scotia so much centres in Annapolis, previous to the founding of
Halifax, that all the histories of Acadia and Nova Scotia tell the
story of the picturesque and interesting region in which the town is
situated. (Cf. Vol. IV. p. 156.)

Jacques Nicolas Bellin, the maker of the opposite map, as he was of all
the maps given by Charlevoix, was born in Paris in 1703, and died in
1772. He was one of the principal hydrographers of his time in France,
and was the earliest to hold a governmental position in the engineer
department of the Marine. He has left a large mass of cartographical
work, chiefly given on a large scale in his _Neptune Français_ (1753 in
folio) and his _Hydrographie Française_ (1756 in folio). The same, with
other maps reproduced on a smaller scale, constitute his _Petit Atlas
Maritime_ (1764, five volumes in quarto). All of these publications
contain maps of American interest, and in 1755 he printed a special
contribution to the study of American cartography, _Mémoires sur les
cartes des côtes de l’Amérique septentrionale_.]

The uneasy disposition of the times upon the conclusion of the peace
may be followed in Gov. Shute’s letter to the Jesuit Father Rasle,
Feb. 21, 1718 (_Mass. Hist. Coll._, v. 112); in the conference with
the Penobscots[935] and Norridgewocks, at Georgetown, Oct. 12, 1720
(_Mass. Archives_, xxix. 68); and in the letter of the eastern Indians
(in French) to the governor, July 27, 1721 (_Mass. Hist. Coll._, xviii.
259).


=C.= LOVEWELL’S OR GOV. DUMMER’S WAR.—There are documents from the
Penhallow Papers relative to the Indian depredations at the eastward in
the _N. E. Hist. and Gen. Register_, 1878, p. 21. Some of them antedate
the outbreak of the war. Charlevoix (Shea’s ed., vol. v. 268) tells
the story of the counter-missions of the French and English; and the
Indians, incited by the French, made demands on the English, who held
some of their chiefs as hostages in Boston. (_Mass. Hist. Coll._, 2d
ser., viii. 259; _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 903; Kip, _Jesuit Missions_,
13.) The seeming truce with the Abenakis was further jeopardized by
the act of seizing (Dec., 1721) the younger Baron de St. Castin, when
he was taken to Boston for examination. After a detention of five
months he was set at liberty.[936] A more serious source of complaints
with the Indians before the war was the attempt to seize Father Rasle
in Jan., 1722, by an expedition sent to Norridgewock under Col.
Westbrook, but in the immediate charge of Capt. Harmon. (_N. Y. Col.
Docs._, ix. 910; Rasle in Kip, 15.) Rasle was warned and escaped, but
the party found letters from Vaudreuil in his cabin, implicating the
Quebec governor as having incited the increasing depredations of the
Indians.[937]

The war began in the summer of 1722. Gov. Shute made his declaration,
July 25, 1722 (_Mass. Archives_, xxxi. 106), and the Rev. Benjamin
Wadsworth, at the Thursday lecture, Aug. 16, made it the subject of his
discourse. (Brinley, i. no. 429.)

[Illustration]

In March, 1723, Col. Thos. Westbrook made a raid along the Penobscot.
(_Mass. Hist. Coll._, xxii. 264; _N. Y. Col. Docs._, ix. 933.)

Capt. Jeremiah Moulton, under orders of Col. Westbrook, made a scouting
expedition in the early summer of 1723, and dated at York, July, 4, his
report to Lieut.-Gov. William Dummer, which is printed in the _Maine
Hist. and Genealog. Recorder_, i. p. 204. (Cf. Penhallow, 96; Niles in
_Mass. Hist. Coll._, xxxv. 345; Williamson, ii. 120.) In 1723 there
was an Indian raid on Rutland, in which the Rev. Joseph Willard and
two children were killed, and two others were carried off. (Cf. Israel
Loring’s _Two Sermons_, Boston, 1724, cited in Brinley, i. no. 1,928.)

A conference was held at Boston, August 22, 1723, of which there is a
printed account among the _Belknap Papers_ (MSS.), in the Mass. Hist.
Soc. library.

On the 21st July, 1724, there was another conference with the Indians
held at St. Georges fort. (_Mass. Archives_, xxix. 154.)

In Aug., 1724, Moulton and Harmon were sent to make an end of Rasle’s
influence. They surprised the Norridgewock settlement, and Rasle was
killed in the general slaughter. The opposing chroniclers do not agree
as to the manner of his death. Charlevoix (Shea’s ed., v. 279) says he
was shot and mutilated at the foot of the village cross. The English
say they had intended to spare him, but he refused quarter, and had
even killed a captive English boy in the confusion. His scalp and
those of other slain were taken to Boston.[938]

[Illustration]

In Nov., 1724, Capt. John Lovewell and two others had petitioned to be
equipped to scour the woods to the eastward after Indians, and, the
legislature acceding (Nov. 17) to their request, Lovewell enrolled
his men and made three campaigns in quick succession. The journal of
his second expedition (Jan.-Feb., 1724-5) is in the _Mass. Archives_,
vol. lxxxvi., and is printed by Kidder in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal.
Reg._, Jan., 1853, and in his _Expeditions of Capt. John Lovewell_.
It was on the third of these expeditions, May 9, 1725, that Lovewell
encountered the Indians near a pond in Fryeburg, Maine, now known as
Lovewell’s pond, upon whose wood-girt surface the summer tourist to-day
looks down from the summit of the Jockey-Cap. Their leader was killed
early in the action, which lasted all day, and only nine of the English
who remained alive were unwounded when the savages drew off.

The news reached Boston on the 13th of May. Kidder gives the despatches
received by the governor, with the action of the council upon them.
On the 17th an account was printed in the _Boston Gazette_, which is
also in Kidder. The day before (May 16) the Rev. Thomas Symmes, of
Bradford, who had gathered his information from some of those who had
escaped, delivered a sermon in that town, which, when printed with an
“historical preface or memoirs of the battle at Piggwacket,” became
popular, and two editions were printed at Boston during the same
year. Both editions are of the greatest rarity. The first is called:
_Lovewell lamented, or a Sermon occasion’d by the fall of the brave
Capt. John Lovewell and several of his valiant company in the late
heroic action at Piggwacket_. Boston, 1725.[939] The other edition was
entitled: _Historical memoirs of the late fight at Piggwacket; with
a sermon occasion’d by the fall of the brave Capt. John Lovewell and
several of his valiant company.... The second edition, corrected_.
Boston, 1725.[940] A third edition was printed at Fryeburg, with some
additions, in 1799. The narrative, but not the sermon, was later
printed in Farmer and Moore’s _Historical Collections_, i. 25. At
Concord (N. H.), in 1861, it was again issued by Nathaniel Bouton, as
_The original account of Capt. John Lovewell’s Great Fight with the
Indians at Pequawket, May 8, 1725_.[941] Mr. Frederic Kidder, in _N. E.
Hist. and Geneal. Reg._,[942] Jan., 1853 (p. 61), printed an account
of Lovewell’s various expeditions, with sundry documents from the
_Massachusetts Archives_, which, together with the second edition of
Symmes, were later, in 1865, embodied in his _Expeditions of Capt. John
Lovewell and his encounters with the Indians, including a particular
account of the Pequauket battle_.[943] This is a faithful reprint of
the Symmes tract, while those of Farmer and Moore, and of Bouton,
introduce matters from other sources. The bibliography of Symmes’s
sermon is traced in Dr. S. A. Green’s _Groton during the Indian Wars_,
p. 134.

The relations of the French to the Abenaki war during 1724-25 are shown
in various documents printed in the _N. Y. Coll. Docs._, vol. ix., as
when the French ministry prompts the governor of Canada to sustain
the savages in their struggle with the English (p. 935); a memoir is
registered upon their condition (p. 939); Intendant Begon reports on
the war (p. 941); other letters are written (p. 945); and the ministry
again counsel the governor to instigate further hostilities (p. 956).

A journal of a scout by Westbrook, beginning June 23, 1725, is among
the _Belknap Papers_ (MSS.).

Four eastern sagamores came to Boston, Nov. 10, 1725 (_Mass. Archives_,
xxix. 191; Murdoch’s _Nova Scotia_, i. 429), and a treaty with them was
signed Dec. 15, 1725, known as “Dummer’s treaty” (_Mass. Archives_,
xxxiv.), which was ratified at Falmouth, Aug. 6, 1726. (_Mass.
Archives_, xxix. 230; xxxiv. See also Penhallow, 117; _N. H. Hist.
Coll._, i. 123; _N. H. Prov. Papers_, iv. 188; Niles in _Mass. Hist.
Coll._, xxxv. 360; Williamson, ii. 145, 147; Palfrey, iv. 443.)

This treaty was separately printed under the title of _Conference with
the Indians at the ratification of peace held at Falmouth, Casco Bay,
by Governour Dummer, in July and August, 1726_. Boston, 1726, pp. 24.
It was reprinted in 1754. (Cf. Brinley, i. 432, 434; Harvard College
library, 5325.32.)

There was another Indian treaty at Casco Bay, July 25, 1727. (_Mass.
Archives_, xxix. 256.) In Akins’s _Pub. Doc. of Nova Scotia_ is a
fac-simile of a copy of this treaty, attested by Dummer, evidently made
to be used by Cornwallis in 1749, in negotiating another treaty. (Cf.
_N. H. Hist. Coll._, ii. 260, where the treaty is printed; and the
explanation of the Indians in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, ix. 966.)

This treaty of 1727 was separately printed as _Conference with the
Eastern Indians at the further ratification of the peace, held at
Falmouth, in Casco Bay, in July, 1727_. Boston, 1727, pp. 31. It was
reprinted in 1754. (Cf. Brinley, i. 433, 434.)

Cf. also _Conferences of Lieut.-Gov. Dummer with the Eastern Indians
in 1726 and 1727_. Boston, 1754. For the treaties of 1726-27, see also
_Maine Hist. Coll._, iii. 377, 407; _N. H. Prov. Papers_, iv. 255-258;
Palfrey, iv. 444.

There is in the _Mass. Archives_ (xxix. 283) the document which
resulted from a conference with the Eastern Indians in the council
chamber in Boston, Dec. 9-Jan. 15, 1727-28.

Dr. Colman’s memoir of the troubles at the eastward in 1726-27 is in
the _Mass. Hist. Coll._, vi. 108. (Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, x.
324.)

The French were disconcerted by the treaty of 1727, as sundry papers in
the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vol. ix., show. They reiterate their complaints
of the English encroachments on the Indians’ lands (p. 981); observe
great changes in the Abenakis since they made peace with the English
(p. 990); and the king of France tells the Canadians he does not see
how the Indians could avoid making the treaty with the English (p.
995).[944]

The letters of caution, which Belcher was constantly writing
(1731-1740) to Capt. Larrabee, in command at Fort George, Brunswick,
indicate how unstable the peace was. (_N. E. Hist. & Gen. Reg._,
Apr., 1865, p. 129.) The continued danger from French intrigue is
also shown in Colman’s memoir, etc., in _Mass. Hist. Coll._, vi. 109,
and in the repeated conferences of the next few years: _Conference
of his Excellency Governor Belcher with the chiefs of the Penobscot,
Norridgewock, and Ameriscoggin tribes at Falmouth, July, 1732_. Boston,
reprinted at London. (Haven in Thomas, ii. p. 428; Carter-Brown, iii.
482; Harv. Coll. lib., 5325.33; Brinley, i. no. 435.)

_A Conference held at Deerfield, the 27th of August_ [to Sept. 1],
1735, _by his Excellency, Jonathan Belcher, and Ountaussoogoe and
others_, etc. [Boston, 1735]. (Brinley, i. no. 437.) This tract is
reprinted in the _Maine Hist. Coll._, iv. 123.

[Illustration: LOVEWELL’S FIGHT.

From the map in Bouton and Kidder.]

Conference with the Penobscots at the council chamber in Boston, June,
1736. (_Mass. Archives_, xxix. 317.)

The nine Penobscot chiefs who held this conference were lodged with
one John Sale in Boston, who renders an account of his charges for
twenty-four days’ entertainment of them, which is suggestive. He
charges for three half-pints of wine, per day, each; for twelve pence
worth of rum per day, each; for 120 gallons of cider; for damage
done in breaking of sash doors, frames of glass, China bowl, double
decanter, and sundry glasses and mugs; for two gross of pipes and
tobacco; for candles all night; for showing them the rope-dancers; for
washing 49 of their “greasy shirts;” and “for cleaning and whitewashing
two rooms after them.” The following “memorandum” is attached: “They
eat for the most part between 50 and 60 pounds of meat per day, beside
milk, cheese, etc. The cider which they drank I sold for twelve
shillings per quart. Besides, they had beer when they pleased. And as
for meat, they had the best, as I was ordered.”

Conference with the Penobscots and Norridgewocks, June 28-July 6, 1738.
(_Mass. Archives_, xxix. 336.)

Conference with the Penobscots at the council chamber in Boston, Aug.
25-Sept. 2, 1740. (_Mass. Archives_, xxix. 364.)

Conference with the Penobscots, Dec. 3, 1741. (Mass. Archives, xxix.
376.)

“Projets sur la prise de l’Acadie, 1741.” (Parkman MSS. in Mass. Hist.
Soc., _New France_, i. p. 1.)

_Conference held at the Fort at St. George in the County of York, the
4th of August, 1742, between William Shirley, Governor, and the Chief
Sachems and Captains of the Penobscott, Norridgewock, Pigwaket or
Amiscogging or Saco, St. John’s, Bescommonconty or Amerescogging and
St. Francis tribes of Indians, August, 1742._ (Carter-Brown, iii. no.
703; Brinley, i. no. 440. Cf. Williamson, ii. 209.)


=D.= KING GEORGE’S, SHIRLEY’S, OR FIVE YEARS’ WAR.—France had declared
war against England, Mar. 15, 1744 (_Coll. de Manuscrits_, Quebec,
iii. p. 196), and the capitulation of Canso had taken place, May 24.
(_Ibid._, iii. p. 201.) In July, 1744, Pepperrell and others, including
some chiefs of the Five Nations, met the Penobscots at St. Georges
and agreed to join in a treaty against the Cape Sable Indians. The
Penobscots did not keep the appointment. War was declared against the
Cape Sable and St. John’s Indians, Oct. 19, 1744. The General Court
of Massachusetts offered a reward for scalps; and a proclamation was
made for the enlistment of volunteers, Nov. 2, 1744. (_Mass. Archives_,
xxxi. 506, 514; printed in W. W. Wheildon’s _Curiosities of History_,
Boston, 1880, pp. 107, 109.)

The most brilliant event of the war was impending.

The French had begun the construction of elaborate defences at
Louisbourg in 1720. A medal struck in commemoration of this beginning
is described in the _Transactions_ (1872-73, p. 75) of the Literary and
Historical Society of Quebec.

[Illustration]

It has always been open to question from whom came the first suggestion
of the expedition of 1745. The immediate incentive seems to have been a
belief, prompted by the reports of prisoners released from Canso, that
Louisbourg could be captured, if attacked before relief could reach it
from France. Judge Robert Auchmuty, of Roxbury, developed a plan for
the capture in the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ for July, 1745,—the same
number in which was also printed the news of the attack and capture.
When the paper was reprinted in a thin folio tract shortly afterwards,
he or some one for him emphasized his claim to the suggestion in the
title itself as follows: _The importance of Cape Breton to the British
Nation, humbly represented by Robert Auckmuty_ [sic], _Judge, &c., in
New England. N. B. Upon the plan laid down in this representation the
island was taken by Commodore Warren and General Pepperill the 14th of
June, 1745_. London, 1745.[945]

[Illustration]

It is claimed on behalf of William Vaughan that he suggested the
expedition to Governor Wentworth, of New Hampshire, who in turn
referred him to Governor Shirley. An anonymous tract, published in
London in 1746, _The Importance and Advantage of Cape Breton truly
stated and impartially considered_,[946] often assigned to William
Bollan, and believed by some to have been inspired by Vaughan, says
that Vaughan had “the honor of reviving, at least, if not of having
been the original mover or projector,” of the expedition, since it
is claimed that Lieutenant-Governor Clarke, of New York,[947] had
suggested the attack to the Duke of Newcastle as early as 1743.
Douglass (_Summary_, etc., i. 348) says that Shirley was taken with the
“hint or conceit” of Vaughan, “a whimsical, wild projector.” Hutchinson
says that Vaughan “was called the projector of the expedition,” and
Belknap accords him the priority in common report.[948] When Thomas
Prince came to dedicate his sermon, preached on the Thanksgiving day
following the triumph, he inscribed it to Shirley as the “principal
former and promoter of the expedition;” but the language hardly claims
the origination, though Shirley was generally recognized as the moving
spirit in its final determination.[949]

[Illustration: PEPPERRELL.

After a painting, now owned by Mrs. Anna H. C. Howard, of Brooklyn,
N. Y., and which has descended from Pepperrell. (Cf. _Penna. Mag. of
Hist._, iii. p. 358.) This likeness, painted in London in 1751 by
Smibert, is also engraved in Parsons’ _Life of Pepperrel_l, in Drake’s
_Boston_, and in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, Jan., 1866,
where Dr. Parsons gives a genealogy of the Pepperrell family. There
is in the _Memorial Hist. of Boston_ (ii. 114) an engraving after an
original full-length picture in the hall of the Essex Institute at
Salem,—artist unknown. See also Higginson’s _Larger History_, p. 188.]

[Illustration:

A sword of Pepperrell is shown in the group of weapons engraved in
Vol. III. p. 274. (Cf. _Catal. Cab. Mass. Hist. Soc._, p. 123; _Proc.
Mass. Hist. Soc._, v. 373; and Parsons’ _Life of Pepperrell_.) Views of
the Pepperrell mansion at Kittery, where considerable state was kept,
are given in Parsons (p. 329), and in a paper on Pepperrell by J. A.
Stevens in the _Mag. of Amer. History_, vol. ii. 673. Cf. also Lamb’s
_Homes of America_ (1879), and _Appleton’s Journal_, xi. 65.]

The earliest account of this mettlesome enterprise, which showed
special research and opportunities, was that of Dr. Belknap in his
_History of New Hampshire_, which was written in 1784, less than
forty years after the event, and when he might have known some of the
participants. The most important of the _Pepperrell Papers_ had fallen
into his hands, and he made good use of them, after which he deposited
them in the cabinet of the Massachusetts Historical Society, where
they now are, bound in two volumes, covering the years 1699-1779, but
chiefly concerning the Louisbourg expedition.

[Illustration: PEPPERRELL ARMS.

This cut of the Pepperrell arms is copied from one in the _Mag. of
Amer. Hist._, Nov., 1878, p. 684.]

With them in the same depository are the _Belknap Papers_, three
volumes,[950] as well as a composite volume, _Louisbourg Papers_,
devoted entirely to the expedition.[951] Others of the scattered papers
of Pepperrell have since been found elsewhere. Dr. Usher Parsons, in
his _Life of Pepperrell_,[952] beside using what Belknap possessed,
sifted a mass of papers found in an old shed on the Pepperrell estate.
This lot covered the years 1696-1759, and some of them were scarcely
legible. The mercantile letters and accounts among them yielded little,
but there was a smaller body of Pepperrell’s own letters and those of
his correspondents, which proved of more or less historical value.

[Illustration]

Unremitting search yielded gain to Dr. Parsons in other directions.
Some manuscripts coming from a Kittery house into the hands of Capt.
Luther Dame, of Newburyport, were reported upon by Col. A. H. Hoyt in
the _New England Hist. and Geneal. Reg._ (Oct., 1874, p. 451), in a
paper afterwards reprinted by him, separately, with revision; but they
throw no considerable light upon the Louisbourg siege. They would add
little to what Parsons presents in chronologically arranged excerpts
from letters and other records which make up his account of the
expedition.[953]

Of all other contemporary accounts and aids, most, so far as known,
have been put into print, though George Bancroft quotes a journal of
Seth Pomeroy,[954] not yet in type; and there are papers which might
still be gleaned in the _Mass. Archives_. There are in print the
instructions of Shirley, and a correspondence between Pepperrell and
Warren (_Mass. Hist. Collections_, i. 13-60); letters of Wentworth
and Shirley on the plan of attack, and other letters of Shirley
(_Provincial Papers of New Hampshire_, vol. v. pp. 931, 949, etc.);
and many others of Pepperrell, Warren, Shirley, etc. (_Rhode Island
Colonial Records_, vol. v.). The _Colonial Records of Connecticut_
(vol. ix.) for this period give full details of the legislative
enactment regarding the part that colony bore in the expedition; but
the absence of most of the illustrative documents from her archives
during that interval deprives us, doubtless, of a correspondence
similar to that which is included in the Rhode Island printed _Records_.

Shirley’s letters to Governor Thomas, of Penna., respecting the
preparations for the Louisbourg expedition, are in _Penna. Archives_,
i. 667, etc.

Stray letters and documents of some interest, but throwing no essential
light upon historical events, are found in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal.
Reg._, v. 88; xii. 263; xix. 225, etc.

Various accounts of the siege, of no great extent were published
soon after its close. Chief among them was an _Accurate journal and
account of the proceedings of the New England land forces, during
the late expedition against the French settlements on Cape Breton
to the time of the surrender of Louisbourg_, Exon, 1746 (40 pp.).
The manuscript of this journal was sent to England by Pepperrell to
his friend Capt. Henry Stafford; and as printed it was attested by
Pepperrell, Brig.-General Waldo, Col. Moore, Lieut.-Col. Lothrop,
and Lieut.-Col. Gridley.[955] This journal was printed, with some
curious verbal differences, as an appendix to a _Letter from William
Shirley, Esq., to the Duke of Newcastle, with a Journal of the Siege
of Louisbourg_, London, 1746. It was by vote of the legislature, Dec.
30, 1746, reprinted in Boston, once by Rogers and Fowle, and again by
J. Draper.[956] An account by Col. James Gibson, published in London in
1745, as a _Journal of the late siege by the troops of North America
against the French at Cape Breton_,[957] contained a large engraved
plan of the siege, of which a reduced fac-simile is annexed.[958]
The narrative was edited in Boston in 1847 by Lorenzo D. Johnson,
under the misleading title _A Boston merchant of 1745_. Other diaries
of the siege, of greater or less extent, have been printed, like
Wolcott’s,[959] in the _Collections_ (vol. i.) of the Connecticut
Historical Society; Curwen’s in his letters (_Hist. Collections Essex
Institute_, vol. iii. 186), and in his _Journal_, edited by Ward (p.
8); Craft’s journal (_Hist. Coll. Essex Inst._, iv. p. 181); that of
Adonijah Bidwell, the chaplain of the fleet (_N. E. Hist. and Geneal.
Reg._, April, 1873); and the folio tract entitled _A particular
Account of the taking of Cape Breton by Admiral Warren and Sir William
Pepperell, with a description of the place ... and the articles of
capitulation, By Philip Durell, Esq., Capt. of his majesty’s ship
“Superbe_.” _To which is added a letter from an officer of marines_,
etc., etc., London, 1745. Durell’s account is dated June 20, 1745, in
Louisbourg harbor. Douglass gives the force by sea and land before
Louisbourg. _Summary_, etc., i. 350.

A list of the commissioned officers of the expedition, drawn from the
_Belknap Papers_, is edited by Charles Hudson in the _N. E. Hist. and
Geneal. Reg._, Oct., 1870.[960] In _Ibid._, April, 1868, a list of 221
names of the common soldiers had been printed; but in July, 1871, a
much longer enumeration is made out by Mr. Hudson from the Pepperrell
papers, the Council Records, and other sources. Potter in the _N. H.
Adj.-General’s Report_, ii. (1866, pp. 61-76), afterwards published
as _Mil. Hist. of N. H._, gives the New Hampshire rolls of Louisbourg
soldiers.

On the occasion of a Thanksgiving (July 18, 1745) in Boston, two
sermons preserve to us some additional if slight details. That of
Thomas Prince, _Extraordinary events the doings of God and marvellous
in pious eyes_, Boston and London, 1745 (Harv. Coll. lib., 4375.42
and 43), is mainly reprinted in S. G. Drake’s _Five Years’ French
and Indian Wars_, p. 187; and that of the Rev. Charles Chauncy, the
brother-in-law of Pepperrell, _Marvellous Things done by the right hand
and holy arm of God in getting him the victory_, was printed both in
Boston and London.[961]

       *       *       *       *       *

The capture of Louisbourg and the question of the disposition of the
island at the peace led to several expositions of its imagined value to
the British Crown, among which may be named:—

_The importance and advantage of Cape Breton considered, in a letter
to a member of Parliament from an inhabitant of New England_, London,
1746. (Brinley, no. 69.) This is signed “Massachusettensis.”[962]

_Two letters concerning some farther advantages and improvements
that may seem necessary to be made on the taking and keeping of Cape
Breton_, London, 1746. (Carter-Brown, iii. no. 822.)

_The importance and advantage of Cape Breton, truly stated and
impartially considered. With proper maps_, London, 1746. (Carter-Brown,
iii. no. 823.) The maps follow those of Bellin in Charlevoix. Its
authorship is usually ascribed to William Bollan. (Sabin, ii. 6,215.)

_The great importance of Cape Breton demonstrated and exemplified by
extracts from the best writers, French and English_, London, 1746.
This is a plea against the surrender of it to the French. It is
dedicated to Governor Shirley, and contains Charlevoix’s map and plan.
(Carter-Brown, iii. no. 821.)

_An accurate description of Cape Breton, Situation, Soil, Ports, etc.,
its Importance to France, but of how much greater it might have been to
England; with an account of the taking of the city by the New England
forces under General Pepperell in 1745_, London, 1755.

_Memoir of the principal transactions of the last war between the
English and French in North America, from 1744 to the conclusion of the
treaty at Aix-la-Chapelle, containing in particular an account of the
importance of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton to both nations_ (3d ed.,
London, reprinted, Boston, 1758.)

Douglass (_Summary_, etc.), the general historian nearest the time,
was an eager opponent of Shirley, and in his account of the expedition
he ascribes to good luck the chief element in its success. He calls
it “this infinitely rash New England Corporation adventure, though
beyond all military or human probability successful.” (_Summary_,
etc., 1751, ii. p. 11.) “Fortified towns are hard nuts to crack, and
your teeth have not been accustomed to it,” wrote Benjamin Franklin
from Philadelphia to his brother in Boston. (_Franklin’s Works_, vii.
16.)[963]

Accounts of the expedition enter necessarily into the more general
narratives, like those of Hutchinson (_Mass. Bay_); Chalmers (_Revolt_,
etc.); Minot (_Massachusetts_); Gordon (_Amer. Rev._); Marshall
(_Washington_); Bancroft (_United States_); Grahame (_United States_);
Williamson (_Hist. of Maine_); Murdoch (_Nova Scotia_, ii. ch. 5);
Haliburton (_Nova Scotia_); Stone (_Sir Wm. Johnson_, vol. i.); Palfrey
(_Compendious Hist. of New England_, iv. ch. 9); Bury (_Exodus of
the Western Nations_, ii. ch. 6); Gay (_Pop. Hist. United States_);
Drake (_Boston_). The _Memorial Hist. Boston_ (ii. 117) and Barry’s
_Massachusetts_ (ii. 140, etc.) give numerous references. Joel T.
Headley has a popular narrative in _Harper’s Monthly_, xxviii. p. 354.
Garneau (_Hist. du Canada_, 4th ed., ii. 190) offers the established
French account. Cf. _Lettre d’un habitant de Louisbourg contenant une
relation exacte de la prise de l’Ile Royale par les Anglais_, Quebec,
1745. (Sabin, x. no. 40,671.)[964]

The present condition of the site of Louisbourg is described by Parsons
(_Life of Pepperrell_, 332); by Parkman (_Montcalm and Wolfe_); by J.
G. Bourinot in his “The old forts of Acadia” in _Canadian Monthly_, v.
369; and in the _Canadian Antiquarian_, iv. 57.

       *       *       *       *       *

Maps, both French and English, showing the fortifications and harbor of
Louisbourg are numerous.

Both editions of Charlevoix’s _Histoire de la Nouvelle France_, the
duodecimo in six volumes, and the quarto in three volumes issued in
1744, the year before the siege, have plans of Louisbourg and its
fortifications, and the same are reproduced in Dr. Shea’s translation
of Charlevoix. They are the work of Nicholas Bellin, and to the same
draughtsman belongs _Le Petit Atlas Maritime_, 1764, in the volume of
which devoted to North America, there are other (nos. 23, 24) plans of
the harbor and fortifications.

Following French sources is a _Plan des fortifications de Louisbourg_,
published at Amsterdam by H. de Leth about 1750. A “Plan special de
Louisbourg” is also to be found on the map published by N. Visscher at
Amsterdam, called “_Carte Nouvelle contenant la partie de l’Amérique la
plus septentrionale_.”

Among the French maps is one “levé en 1756,” after a plan of
Louisbourg, preserved in the Dépôt des Cartes de la Marine in Paris.
This appeared in 1779 in the _Neptune Americo-Septentrional_, “publiée
par ordre du Roi;” and another, dated 1758, “levé par le ch^{ev.} de la
Rigaudiere,” was accompanied by a view, of which there is a copy in the
_Mass. Archives; Docs. collected in France, Atlas_, ii. 5. In this last
(composite) Atlas (ii. nos. 44, 45) are maps of the town and harbor,
and a large plan of the fortifications, marked “Tome i. no. 23,” which
can probably be identified.

[Illustration]

[Illustration: CAPE BRETON, 1746.

Reduced fac-simile of the “Map of the Island of Cape Breton as laid
down by the Sieur Bellin, 1746,” annexed to _The Importance and
Advantage of Cape Breton, truly stated and impartially considered_,
London, 1746. A general map of the island of Cape Breton, with Bellin’s
name attached, is found in the several editions of Charlevoix and in
the _Petit Atlas maritime, par le S. Bellin_, 1764. The earliest more
elaborate survey of this part of the coast was the one published by J.
F. W. Des Barres, in 1781, in four sheets, _The South East Coast of
Cape Breton Island, surveyed by Samuel Holland_. A map by Kitchen was
published in the _London Mag._, 1747.]

Richard Gridley,[965] of Massachusetts Bay, who was present as an
officer of the artillery, made a plan of the fortifications after the
surrender, and this, called a _Plan of the City and Fortifications of
Louisbourg from surveys made by Richard Gridley in 1745_, was engraved
and published by Jefferys, in 1758, and was used by him in his _History
of the French Dominions in America_, London, 1760 (p. 124), and in his
_General Topography of North America and the West Indies_, London, 1768
(no. 25).[966]

[Illustration: GRIDLEY’S PLAN AS REDUCED IN BROWN’S CAPE BRETON.]

[Illustration]

[Illustration: LOUISBOURG, 1745.

From a survey made by Richard Gridley, lieut.-col. of the train of
artillery. A fac-simile of part of the plate in Jeffery’s _French
Dominions in America_, p. 125.]

[Illustration: LOUISBOURG (_Set of Plans, etc._)]

Gridley’s surveys have been the basis of many of the subsequent English
plans. The draught reduced from Gridley in Richard Brown’s _History
of the Island of Cape Breton_ (London, 1869) is herewith given in
fac-simile, and is understood by the following key:—

            A. Dauphin bastion and circular battery.
            B. King’s bastion and citadel.
            C. Queen’s bastion.
            D. Princess’ bastion.
            E. Bourillon bastion.
            F. Maurepas bastion.
            G. Batterie de la Gréve.
    1, 1, etc. Glacis.
    2, 2, etc. Covered way.
    3, 3, etc. Traverses.
    4, 4, etc. Ditch.
    5, 5, etc. Parapet.
    6, 6, etc. Ramparts.
    7, 7, etc. Slopes of same.
    8, 8, etc. Places of arms.
    9, 9, etc. Casemates.
  10, 10, etc. Guard houses.
  11, 11, etc. Wooden bridges.
          12. Governor’s apartments.
          13. Church.
          14. Barracks.
          15. Powder magazine.
          16. Fortification house.
          17. Arsenal and bake-house.
          18. Ordnance.
          19. General storehouse.
          20. West gate.
          22. East gate.
          23. Gates in quay curtain (_b. b. b._).
          24. Parade.
          25. Nunnery.
          26. Hospital and church.
       _a. a._ Palisade, with ramparts for small arms.
       _c. c._ Picquet (raised during the siege).

Another plan of an early date is one, likewise annexed, which appeared
in _A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual surveys_,
1763, and published in London.[967] The plan which George Bancroft
added to his _History of the United States_, in one of the early
editions, was used again by Parsons in his _Life of Pepperrell_.

[Illustration: FROM BROWN’S CAPE BRETON.]

[Illustration]

[Illustration: VIEW OF LOUISBOURG.

A reduced sketch from a painting owned by Mrs. Anna H. C. Howard
of Brooklyn, N. Y., which came to her by descent from Sir William
Pepperrell. The canvas is very dark and obscure, and the artist may
have missed some of the details, particularly of the walls along the
shore. The point of view seems to be from the northwest side of the
interior harbor, near the bridge (seen in the foreground), which spans
one of the little inlets, as shown in some of the maps. This position
is near what are called “Hale’s Barracks” in the draft of the town and
harbor on the preceding page. The dismantled ships along the opposite
shore are apparently the French fleet, while an English ship is near
the bridge.

The following letter describes the present condition of the ground:—

  BOSTON, June 4, 1886.

MY DEAR MR. WINSOR,—It gives me great pleasure to comply with your
request, and to give my recollections of Louisburg as seen in September
last.

The historical town of that name, or rather the ruin of the old
fortress, lies perhaps three miles from the modern town, which is
a small village, situated on the northeasterly side of the bay or
harbor. The inhabitants of the neighborhood live, for the most part,
by fishing and other business connected with that branch of industry,
eking out their livelihood by the cultivation of a rocky and barren
soil. The road from the village to the old fortress runs along the
western shore of the bay, passing at intervals the small houses of
the fishermen and leaving on the left the site of the Royal Battery,
which is still discernible. This was the first outpost of the French
taken at the siege, and its gallant capture proved subsequently to be
of the greatest service to the English. From this point the ruins of
the fortress begin to loom up and show their real character. Soon the
walls are reached, and the remains of the former bastions on the land
side are easily recognized. This land front is more than half a mile
in length, and stretches from the sea on the left to the bay on the
right, forming a line of works that would seem to be impregnable to
any and all assaults. From its crown a good idea can be gained of the
size of the fortifications, which extend in its entire circuit more
than a mile and a half in length, and inclose an area of a hundred and
twenty acres, more or less. The public buildings within the fortress
were of stone, and, with the help of a guide, their sites can easily
be made out. The burying-ground, on the point of land to the eastward,
where hundreds of bodies were buried, is still shown; and the sheep and
cattle graze all unconscious of the great deeds that have been done
in the neighborhood. Taken all in all, the place is full of the most
interesting associations, and speaks of the period when the sceptre
of power in America was balancing between France and England; and
Louisburg forms to-day the grandest ruin in this part of the continent.

  Very truly yours,

  SAMUEL A. GREEN.]

It follows an English plan procured by Mr. Bancroft in London, and
closely resembles the sketch owned by a descendant of Pepperrell,
and herewith given. Haliburton in his _History of Nova Scotia_ gives
a similar plan, as well as a draught of the harbor. The plan of the
town and the vicinity which is given by Brown in his _Cape Breton_ is
also reproduced herewith. The earliest of the more elaborate charts
of the harbor is that published by Des Barres in Oct., 1781. We find
a rude sketch of the Island battery in _Curwen’s Journal_ as edited
by Ward (Boston, 4th ed. 1864), which was sent by that observer from
Louisbourg, July 25, 1745. A reproduction of this sketch, herewith
given, needs the following key:—

[Illustration: PLAN OF ISLAND BATTERY.]

“The embrasures in the front are not more than three feet above the
ground.

  1. Fronting mouth of harbor: 22 embrasures;
  21 guns, 36 and 48 pounders.

  2. Barracks.

  3. Sally-ports.

  4. Wall framed of timber, and covered with
  plank, and filled with stone and lime,
  in which is an embrasure with a 48
  pounder.

  5. Wall, defended with two small swivels.

  6. The place at which whale-boats might
  easily land 500 men.

  7. One entire rock, perpendicular on the face,
  and absolutely impossible to be climbed.

  8. Piquet of large timber, fastened by iron
  clamps, drilled into the solid rock.

  9. Commandant’s apartment, five feet high.

  10. The gate under the wall, about four feet
  wide, formed like a common sally-port;
  not straight, but made an angle of 160
  degrees. Ten men can prevent ten hundred
  making their way; this wall has but
  four guns and two swivels.

“I paced the island, and judged it to be about 56 yards wide and 150
long at the widest part, nearly.”

There is in the _Collections_ of the Maine Hist. Soc. (viii. p. 120) a
life of Lieut.-Col. Arthur Noble, who, by order of Brigadier Waldo, led
on May 23 the unsuccessful attack on this battery.

The _Catalogue of the king’s maps in the British Museum_ (vol. i. 718,
etc.) shows plans of the town and fortifications (1745) in MS. by
Durell and Bastide; others of the town and harbor (1755) by William
Green; with views by Bastide (1749), Admiral Knowles (1756), Ince
(1758, engraved by Canot, 1762), and Thomas Wright (1766).

Jefferys also published in copperplate _A view of the landing of the
New England forces in the expedition against Cape Breton_, 1745.
(Carter-Brown, iii. p. 335.) A copy of this print belongs to Dr. John
C. Warren of Boston.

       *       *       *       *       *

Three months after the fall of Louisbourg there was another treaty with
the eastern Indians, Sept. 28-Oct. 22, 1745. (_Mass. Archives_, xxix.
386.) The renewed activity of the French is shown in the _N. Y. Col.
Docs_., x. p. 3.

A little later, Dec. 12, 1745, Shirley made his first speech to the
Massachusetts Assembly after his return to Boston, and communicated the
King’s thanks for “setting on foot and executing the late difficult and
expensive enterprise against Cape Breton.”[968]

       *       *       *       *       *

The next event of importance in the Acadian peninsula was the attack
of the French upon an English post, which is known as the “battle of
Minas.”

The English _accounts (Boston Weekly Post Boy_, March 2 and 9, 1747),
which give the date Jan. 31, old style, and the French (official
report), Feb. 11, new style, are edited by Dr. O’Callaghan with the
articles of capitulation, in the _New Eng. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._,
April, 1855, p. 107. For general references see Haliburton’s _Nova
Scotia_, ii. 132; Williamson’s _Maine_, ii. 250; Hannay (p. 349) and
the other histories of Nova Scotia.

[Illustration: ENTRANCE OF MINES BASIN.

One of Des Barres’ coast views 1779. (In Harvard College library.)]

Douglass (_Summary_, etc., i. 316) says: “Three companies from Rhode
Island were shipwrecked near Martha’s Vineyard; two companies of New
Hampshire went to sea, but for some trifling reason put back and never
proceeded. The want of these five companies was the occasion of our
forces being overpowered by the Canadians at Minas with a considerable
slaughter.”

[Illustration: CAPE BAPTIST.

One of Des Barres’ coast views, marked _A view of Cate Baptist in the
entrance into the basin of Mines, bearing W. by N., two miles distant_.
(In Harvard College library.)]

The French account of these transactions of the command of Ramezay
is in a “Journal de la compagne du détachement de Canada à l’Acadie
et aux Mines en 1746 et 1747” (June, 1746, to March, 1747). It is in
the Parkman MSS. in the Mass. Hist. Society, _New France_, i. pp.
59-153. For the attack at Minas in particular see the “Relation d’une
expédition faite sur les Anglois dans les pays de l’Acadie, le 11 Fév.,
1747, par un détachement de Canadiens,” dated at Montreal, 28 Sept.,
1747, and signed Le Chev. de la Corne. (_Ibid._, pp. 155-163.) Cf. also
_N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 78, 91.

The treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, Oct., 1748, was proclaimed in Boston,
May 10, 1749, and a reprint of it issued there.

Shirley (June 3, 1749) writes to Gov. Wentworth that he had agreed with
nine Indian chiefs, then in Boston, to hold a conference at Casco bay,
Sept. 27. (_N. H. Prov. Papers_, v. 127.)

Meanwhile the English government, in pursuance of an effort to
anglicize the peninsula,[969] had planned the transportation to Nova
Scotia of an equipped colony under Edward Cornwallis, which arrived at
Chebucto harbor in the summer of 1749, and founded Halifax. A treaty
with the Indians was held there Aug. 15, 1749. (_Mass. Hist. Coll._,
ix. 220.) There is a full-size fac-simile of the document in Akins’s
_Public Doc. of Nova Scotia_. It was in confirmation of the Boston
treaty of Dec. 15, 1725, which is embodied in the new treaty.

Another treaty with the eastern Indians was made at Falmouth, Oct. 16,
1749. (_Mass. Archives_, xxix. 427; xxxiv.; _Mass. Hist. Coll._, ix.
220; _N. H. Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii. 264; Williamson’s _Maine_, i. 259,
taken from Mass. Council Records, 1734-57, p. 108; Hutchinson, iii. 4.)

This treaty was proclaimed in Boston, Oct. 27. Cf. _Journal of the
proceedings of the commissioners appointed for managing a treaty of
peace at Falmouth, Sept. 27, 1749, between Thomas Hutchinson, John
Choate_ [and others], _commissioned by Gov. Phips, and the eastern
Indians_, Boston [1749]. (Brinley, i. no. 441; Harv. Col. lib.
5325.39.) This tract is reprinted in _Maine Hist. Coll._, iv. 145.

There was another conference with the Penobscots and Norridgewocks,
Aug. 3-8, 1750. (_Mass. Archives_, xxix. 429.)

A tract to encourage emigration to the new colony at Halifax was
printed in London in 1750, and reprinted in Dublin: _A genuine account
of Nova Scotia, to which is added his majesty’s proposals as an
encouragement to those who are willing to settle there_. Cf. the German
tract: _Historische und Geographische Beschreibung von Neu-Schottland_,
Franckfurt, 1750. (Carter-Brown, iii. no. 935.) Counter-statements not
conducive to the colony’s help, appeared in John Wilson’s _Genuine
narrative of the transactions in Nova Scotia since the settlement,
June, 1749, till Aug. 5, 1751 ... with the particular attempts of the
Indians to disturb the colony_, London, 1751. (Carter-Brown, iii. no.
966.)

There are papers relating to the first settlement of Halifax in Akins’s
_Documents_, 495; and a paper on the first council meeting at Halifax,
by T. B. Akins, in the _Nova Scotia Hist. Soc. Coll._, vol. ii. See
also Murdoch’s _Nova Scotia_, ii. ch. 11. Various maps of Halifax and
the harbor were made during the subsequent years. The _Catalogue of the
king’s maps_ (i. 483) in the British Museum shows several manuscript
draughts. A small engraved plan was published in the _Gentleman’s
Magazine_, 1750, p. 295. A large map, dedicated to the Earl of Halifax,
is called: _Carte du havre de Chibucto avec le plan de la ville de
Halifax sur la coste de l’Accadie ou Nova Scotia, publiée par Jean
Rocque, Charing Cross_, 1750.[970]

A smaller _Plan des havens von Chebucto und der stadt Halifax_ was
published at Hamburg, 1751. Jefferys issued a large _Chart of the
Harbor of Halifax_, 1759, which was repeated in his _General Topography
of North America and West Indies_, London, 1768. A “Plan de la Baye de
Chibouctou nommée par les Anglois Halifax,” bears date 1763. Another is
in the _Set of plans and forts_ (No. 7) published in London in 1763. In
the Des Barres series of coast charts of a later period (1781) there is
a large draft of the harbor, with colored marginal views of the coast.

       *       *       *       *       *

In 1752-54 there were other conferences with the eastern Indians.

_Instructions for treating with the eastern Indians given to the
commissioners appointed for that service by the Hon. Spencer Phips
... in 1752_, Boston, 1865. Fifty copies printed from the original
manuscript, for Samuel G. Drake. (Sabin, xv. 62,579; Brinley, i. no.
443.)

_Journal of the proceedings of Jacob Wendell, Samuel Watts, Thomas
Hubbard, and Chamber Russel, commissioners to treat with the eastern
Indians, held at St. Georges, Oct. 13, 1752, in order to renew and
confirm a general peace_, Boston, 1752. (Sabin, ix. 36,736; Brinley, i.
no. 442.) The original treaty is in the _Mass. Archives_, xxxiv.

_A conference held at St. George’ s on the 20th day of September, 1753,
between commissioners appointed by_ [Gov.] _Shirley and the Indians of
the Penobscot_ [and Norridgewock] _tribes_, Boston, 1753. (Brinley,
i. no. 444; Sabin, no. 15,436; Harv. Coll. lib., 5325.42.) Cf. the
treaty in _Maine Hist. Coll._, iv. 168. The original treaties with the
Penobscots at St. Georges (Sept. 21) and the Norridgewocks at Richmond
(Sept. 29) are in the _Mass. Archives_, xxxiv.

[Illustration]

_A journal of the proceedings at two conferences begun to be held at
Falmouth_, 28_th June_, 1754, _between William Shirley, Governor, etc.,
and the Chiefs of the Norridegwock Indians, and on the 5th of July with
the Chiefs of the Penobscot Indians_, Boston, 1754. (Brinley, i. no.
444; Sabin, ix. 36,730; _N. H. Prov. Papers_, vi. 292.) The original
treaties with the Norridgewocks, July 2, and Penobscots, July 6, 1754,
are in the _Mass. Archives_, xxxiv.

[Illustration: THE NECK OF THE ACADIAN PENINSULA.]


=E.= OLD FRENCH WAR.—This was begun in April, 1755. There was a
declaration of war against the Penobscots, Nov. 3, 1755. (_Mass.
Archives_, xxxii. 690.)

[Illustration]

Meanwhile, towards the end of April, 1755, Cornwallis at Halifax
had sent Lawrence[971] to the neck of the peninsula[972] of Nova
Scotia to fortify himself on English ground, opposite the French
post at Beauséjour. Instigated by the French priest, Le Loutre, the
Micmacs[973] were so threatening and the French were so alarmingly near
that the English, far outnumbered, withdrew; but they returned in the
autumn, better equipped, and began the erection of Fort Lawrence. The
French attempted an “indirect” resistance through the Indians and some
indianized Acadians, and were, in the end, driven off; but not until
the houses and barns of neighboring settlers had been burned, with the
aim of compelling the Acadians to fly to the French for shelter and
sustenance.[974] The French now began a fort on the Beauséjour hill.
A petty warfare and reprisals, not unmixed with treachery, became
chronic, and were well set off with a background of more portentous
rumors.[975] It happened that letters crossed each other, or nearly
so, passing between Lawrence (now governor) and Shirley, suggesting
an attack on Beauséjour. So the conquest was easily planned. Shirley
commissioned Col. John Winslow to raise 2,000 men, and but for delay in
the arrival of muskets from England this force would have cast anchor
near Fort Lawrence on the first of May instead of the first of June.
Monckton, a regular officer, who had been Lawrence’s agent on the
Boston mission, held the general command over Winslow, a provincial
officer. The fort surrendered before the siege trains got fairly to
work. Parkman, who gives a vivid picture of the confusion of the
French, refers for his authorities to the _Mémoires sur le Canada_,
1749-1760; Pichon’s _Cape Breton_, and the journal of Pichon, as cited
by Murdoch in his_ Hist. of Nova Scotia_.[976] The captured fort became
Fort Cumberland; Fort Gaspereau, on the other side of the isthmus,
surrendered without a blow. Rouse, the Boston privateersman, who had
commanded the convoy from Boston, was sent to capture the fort at the
mouth of the St. John, and the Indians, whom the French had deserted on
Rouse’s approach, joyfully welcomed him.

[Illustration: FORT BEAUSÉJOUR AND ADJACENT COUNTRY.

Part of a folding map, “Fort Beauséjour and adjacent country, taken
possession of by Colonel Monckton, in June, 1755;” in Mante’s _Hist. of
the Late War_ (London, 1772), p. 17. Cf. Des Barres’ Environs of Fort
Cumberland, 1781, and various drawn maps in _Catal. King’s Library_
(Brit. Mus.), i. 281.]

Three hundred of the young Acadians, the so-called “neutral French,”
were found among the defenders of Beauséjour.[977] The council at
Halifax had no easy question to solve in determining the next step to
be taken.

[Illustration: COLONEL MONCKTON.

After a mezzotint preserved in the Amer. Antiq. Soc. library, in which
he is called “Major-General, and Colonel of the Seventeenth Foot, and
Governor of New York,” as he later was. Cf. other mezzotints noted in
J. C. Smith’s _Brit. Mezzotint Portraits_, ii. 883; iv. 1,525, 1739.
There is a portrait in Entick’s _Hist. of the Late War_, v. 355. See
account of Monckton in Akins’s _Nova Scotia Docs._, 391.]

[Illustration]

With the documentary evidence now in hand, chiefly the records of the
French themselves, we can clearly see the condition which the English
rather suspected than knew in detail.[978] They indeed were aware
that the neutrals of Chignecto in 1750 had been in effect coerced to
crossing the lines at the neck, while the burning of their houses and
barns had been accomplished to prevent their return. They further knew
that this gave an increased force of desperate and misguided men to be
led by priests like Le Loutre, and encouraged by the French commanders,
acting under orders of the central government at Quebec. They had good
reason to suspect, what was indeed the fact, that the emissaries of the
Catholic church and the civil powers in Canada were confident in the
use they could in one way and another make of the mass of Acadians,
though still nominally subjects of the British king.[979] Their loyalty
had always been a qualified one. A reservation of not being obliged
to serve in war against the French had been in the past allowed in
their oath; but such reservation had not been approved by the Crown,
though it had not been practically disallowed. It was a reservation
which in the present conjunction of affairs Governor Lawrence thought
it inexpedient to allow, and he required an unqualified submission
by oath. He had already deprived them of their arms. The oath was
persistently refused and the return of their arms demanded. This act
was in itself ominous. The British plans had by this time miscarried in
New York and Pennsylvania, and under Braddock the forces had suffered
signal defeat. The terms of the New England troops in Acadia were
fast expiring. With these troops withdrawn, and others of the Acadian
garrisons sent to succor the defeated armies farther west, and with
the Canadian government prompted to make the most of the disaffection
toward the English and of the loyalty to the French flag which existed
within the peninsula, there could hardly have been a hope of the
retention of the country under the British flag, unless something
could be done to neutralize the evil of harboring an enemy.[980] “In
fact,” says Parkman, “the Acadians, while calling themselves neutrals,
were an enemy encamped in the heart of the province.”[981] Colonel
Higginson (_Larger History_, etc.) presents the antithesis in a milder
form, when he says, “They were as inconvenient as neighbors as they
are now picturesque in history.” It has been claimed that the cruelty
of deportation might have been avoided by exacting hostages of the
Acadians. That involves confidence in the ability of an abjectly
priest-ridden people to resist the threats of excommunication, should
at any time the emissaries of Quebec find it convenient to sacrifice
the hostages to secure success to the French arms. Under such a plan
the English might too late learn that military execution upon the
hostages was a likely accompaniment of a military disaster which it
would not avert. The alternative of deportation was much surer, and
self-preservation naturally sought the securest means. Simply to drive
the Acadians from the country would have added to the reckless hordes
allured by the French in 1750, which had fraternized with the Micmacs,
and harassed the English settlements. To deport them, and scatter them
among the other provinces, so that they could not combine, was a safer
and, as they thought, the only certain way to destroy the Acadians
as a military danger. It was a terrible conclusion, and must not be
confounded with possible errors in carrying out the plan. The council,
taking aid from the naval commanders, decided upon it.[982]

[Illustration]

The decision and its execution have elicited opinions as diverse as the
characters of those who have the tender and the more rigid passions
mixed in them in different degrees. The question, however, is simply
one of necessity in war to be judged by laws which exclude a gentle
forbearance in regard to smaller for the military advantages of larger
communities.

[Illustration: GEN. JOHN WINSLOW.

After an original formerly in the gallery of the Mass. Hist. Soc., but
now in Pilgrim Hall, Plymouth. Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xx. 192,
and _Mem. Hist. Boston_, ii. 123. The sword of General Winslow, shown
in the cut (Vol. III. p. 274), has also been transferred to Plymouth,
as well as the portraits of Governor Edward and Governor Josiah
Winslow. (_Ibid._, pp. 277, 282.) Other engravings of General Winslow
are given in Raikes’ _Hon. Artillery Co. of London_ (1878), i. p. 348,
and in Gay’s _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 276.]

Writers of the compassionate school have naturally sought to heighten
the enormity of the measure by pictures of the guilelessness of the
people, who were the sufferers. It was not long after the event
when the Abbé Raynal played upon such sympathetic responses in his
description[983] of the Acadians, setting forth an ideal simplicity
and content to which Longfellow in his _Evangeline_ has added the
unbounded charms of his verse. That the Acadians were a prolific people
might argue content, but Hannay (_Acadia_, ch. xvi.), who best traces
their mutations and growth, shows evidences that this fruitfulness
had not been without some admixture, at least, with the Micmacs.[984]
Though it is the usual assertion that bastardy was almost unknown among
them, Hannay adduces testimony to their licentiousness which he deems
sufficient.[985] We may pick out the most opposite views regarding the
comforts of their daily life. A French authority describes their houses
as “wretched wooden boxes, without ornament or convenience;”[986]
but George Bancroft[987] and many others tell us, after the Raynal
ideal, that these same houses were “neatly constructed and comfortably
furnished.”

A simple people usually find it easy to vary the monotony of their
existence by bickerings and litigations; and if we may believe the
French authorities whom Hannay quotes, the Acadians were no exception
to the rule, which makes up for the absence of excitements in a
diversified life by a counterbalance of such evils as mix and obscure
the affections of society.

Their religious training prompted them to place their priests in the
same scale of infallibility with their Maker, while the machinations
of Le Loutre[988] ensnared them and became, quite as much as that
“scrupulous sense of the indissoluble nature of their ancient
obligation to their king,”[989] a great cause of their misfortunes.
To glimpses of the character of the Acadians which we get in the
published documents, French and English, of their own day, we can add
but few estimates of observers who were certainly writing for the eye
of the public. There is a rather whimsical, but, as Parkman thinks, a
faithful description of them, earlier in the century, to be found in
the _Relation_ of Diéreville.

Let us now observe some of the mutations of opinion to which
allusion has been made. Gov. Lawrence, in his circular letter to the
other colonies, naturally set forth the necessity of the case in
justification. Edmund Burke, not long after, judged the act a most
inhumane one, and “we did,” he says, “upon pretences not worth a
farthing, root out this poor, innocent, deserving people, whom our
utter inability to govern or to reconcile gave us no sort of right to
extirpate.” But this was in the guise of a running commentary from a
party point of view, and in ignorance of much now known. The French,
English, and American historians nearest the event take divergent
positions. Raynal started the poetic ideal, to which reference has been
made. It must not be forgotten, however, that the Abbé had a purpose
in his picture, aiming as he did to set off by a foil the condition of
the French peasantry at a period preceding the French Revolution.[990]
Entick[991] commends the measure, but not the method of its execution.
A pamphlet published in London in 1765, setting forth the sacrifices
of the province during the French and Indian wars, referring to the
deportation, says: “This was a most wise step,” but the exiles “have
been and still remain a heavy bill of charge to this province.”[992]
Hutchinson[993] simply allows that the authors of the movement
supposed that self-preservation was its sufficient excuse. When
Minot[994] surveyed the subject, he was quite as chary of an opinion.
He probably felt, as indeed was the case, that no one at that time had
access to the documents on which a safe judgment could be based. The
first distinct defence of the English came when Raynal’s views were
printed, in translation, in Nova Scotia in 1791. Secretary Bulkely and
Judge Deschamps now published a vindication of the English government,
but it was necessarily inadequate in the absence of proof. It served
not much purpose, however, in diverting the general opinion from the
channels of compassion. In 1787, the Rev. Andrew Brown, a Scotchman,
was called to settle over a church in Halifax. He remained till 1795,
when he returned to Scotland, where he lived till 1834, a part of the
time occupying the chair of rhetoric in the University of Edinburgh,
which had been previously filled by Dr. Blair. During his sojourn
in Nova Scotia, and down to so late a period as 1815, he collected
materials for a history of the province. His papers, including original
documents, were discovered serving ignoble purposes in a grocer’s shop
in Scotland, and bought for the collections of the British Museum.
Transcripts from the most interesting of them relating to the expulsion
of the Acadians have been made at the instance of the Nova Scotia
Record Commission, and have been printed in the second volume of the
_Collections_ of the Nova Scotia Historical Society. They consist of
letters and statements from people whom Brown had known, and who had
taken part in the expulsion, with other contemporary papers regarding
the condition of the Acadians just previous to their removal. Brown’s
own opinion of the act classed it, for atrocity, with the massacre of
St. Bartholomew.

Robert Walsh, in his _Appeal from the Judgment of Great Britain_ (2d
ed. 1819, p. 86), says: “It has always appeared to me that the reason
of state was never more cheaply urged or more odiously triumphant than
on this occasion.” He follows Minot in his account.

Judge Thomas C. Haliburton approached the subject when he might have
known, among the very old people of the province, some whose earliest
recollections went back to the event, or to its train of succeeding
incidents. Haliburton’s sympathy is unmistakably aroused, and failing
to find in the records of the secretary’s office at Halifax any
traces of the deportation, his deduction is that the particulars
were carefully concealed. For such an act he finds no reason, save
that the parties were, “as in truth they well might be,” ashamed of
the transaction. “I have therefore,” he adds, “had much difficulty
in ascertaining the facts.” He seems to have depended almost wholly
upon Hutchinson, Raynal, and Minot, and through the latter he got
track of the journal of Winslow. Haliburton’s _Nova Scotia_ was
published in 1829,[995] and Hutchinson’s third volume had only the
year before (1828) been printed in England from his manuscript. Of
Winslow’s journal he seems to have made but restricted use.[996]
Haliburton’s allegations in respect to the archives of Halifax were
founded on a misconception. The papers which he sought in vain in
fact existed, but were stored away in boxes, and the archive-keepers
of Haliburton’s day apparently had little idea of their importance.
A recent writer (Smith’s _Acadia_, p. 164) hastily infers that this
careless disposition of them was intentional. Parkman says that copies
of the council records were sent at the time to England and are now
in the Public Record Office; but it does not appear that Haliburton
sought them; and had he done so, if we may judge from the printed copy
which we now have of them, he would have discovered no essential help
between July, 1755, and January, 1756. It was not till 1857 that the
legislative assembly of Nova Scotia initiated a movement for completing
and arranging the archives at Halifax, and for securing in addition
copies of documents at London and Quebec,—the latter being in fact
other copies from papers in the archives at Paris.

Between 1857 and 1864, Thomas B. Akins, Esq., acting as record
commissioner of the province, bound and arranged, as appears by his
_Report_ of Feb. 24, 1864, and deposited in the legislative library of
the province, over 200 volumes of historical papers. The most important
of these volumes for other than the local historian, and covering the
period of the present volume appear to be the following:—

  Despatches from the Lords of Trade to the governor at
    Annapolis, 1714-48; and to the governor at Halifax,
    1749-99.

  Despatches from the governors of Nova Scotia to the
    Lords of Trade, 1718-1781; and to the Secretaries of
    State, 1720-1764 (all from the State Paper Office).

  Despatches from the governor at Louisbourg to the Sec.
    of State, 1745-48 (from State Paper Office).

  Despatches from the governor of Mass. to the Sec. of
    State, 1748-51 (State Paper Office).

  Documents from the files of the legislative council, 1760-1829;
    and of the assembly, 1758-1831, with

  Miscellaneous papers, 1748-1841.

  Acadia under French rule, 1632-1748 (copied from the
    transcripts in Canada from the Paris archives[997]).

  Tyrell’s (Pichon’s) paper relating to Monckton’s capture
    of Fort Cumberland, 1753-1755.

  Council minutes at Annapolis, 1720-49.

  Crown prosecutions for treason, 1749-88.

  Royal instructions to the governors, 1720-1841.

  Royal proclamations, 1748-1807.

  Orders of the Privy Council, 1753-1827.

  Indians, 1751-1848.

But before this arranging of the Halifax Archives was undertaken,
Bancroft in his _United States_[998] had used language which he has
allowed to stand during successive revisions: “I know not if the annals
of the human race keep the records of sorrows so wantonly inflicted,
so bitter and so perennial, as fell upon the French inhabitants of
Acadia.” About the same time the Canadian historian, Garneau,[999]
simply quotes the effusions of Raynal. The publication of the _Neutral
French_, by Catharine R. Williams, in 1841, a story in which the
writer’s interest in the sad tale had grown with her study of the
subject on the spot,[1000] followed by the _Evangeline_ of Longfellow
in 1847, which readily compelled attention, drew many eyes upon the
records which had been the basis of these works of fiction. The most
significant judgment, in consequence, made in America was that of the
late President Felton, of Harvard University, in the _North American
Review_ (Jan., 1848, p. 231), wherein he called the deportation “a most
tyrannical exercise of superior force, resting for its justification
not upon sufficient proofs, but upon an alleged inevitable state
necessity.” This gave direction to current belief.[1001] Barry
(_Massachusetts_, ii. 200) wrote as if Raynal had compassed the truth.
_Chambers’ Journal_ (xxii. 342, or _Living Age_, xliv. 51) called an
article on the subject “The American Glencoe.” In 1862, Mr. Robert
Grant Haliburton, a son of Judge Haliburton, gave token of a new
conception in the outline of a defence for the British government,
which he drew in an address, _The Past and the Future of Nova Scotia_
(Halifax, 1862). A more thorough exposition was at hand. Mr. Akins
had been empowered to prepare for publication a selection of the more
important papers among those which he had been arranging. In 1869 a
volume of _Selections_, etc., appeared. In his preface Mr. Akins says:
“Although much has been written on the subject, yet until lately it has
undergone little actual investigation, and in consequence the necessity
for their removal has not been clearly perceived, and the motives
which led to its enforcement have been often misunderstood.” The views
which he enforces are in accord with this remark. Mr. W. J. Anderson
followed up this judgment in the _Transactions_[1002] of the Literary
and Historical Society of Quebec, and termed the act “a dreadful
necessity.” The old view still lingered. It was enforced by Célestin
Moreau in his _Histoire de l’Acadie Françoise de 1598 à 1755_ (Paris,
1873), and Palfrey, in the _Compendious Hist. of New England_ (1873),
which carried on the story of his larger volumes, leaves his adhesion
to a view adverse to the English to be inferred. As to the character of
the Acadians, while he allows for “a dash of poetry” in the language of
Raynal, he mainly adopts it.[1003]

In 1879 Mr. James Hannay, perceiving the necessity of a well-ordered
history, to embody in more readable shape the vast amount of material
which Beamish Murdoch in his _History of Nova Scotia_[1004] had
thrown into the form of annals, published his _History of Acadia from
its first discovery to its surrender to England by the Treaty of
Paris_ (St. John, N. B., 1879). Hannay embodied in this book the most
elaborate account which had yet been written of the deportation, and
referring to it in his preface he says: “Very few people who follow the
story to the end will be prepared to say that it was not a necessary
measure of self-preservation on the part of the English authorities in
Nova Scotia.”

Still the old sympathies were powerful. Henry Cabot Lodge in his _Short
History of the English Colonies_[1005] (1881) finds the Acadians
“harmless.” Hannay’s investigations were not lost, however, on Dr.
George E. Ellis, who in his _Red Man and White Man in North America_
(Boston, 1882) prefigured the results which two years later were to be
adduced by Parkman.

Meanwhile, Mr. Philip H. Smith published at Pawling, N. Y., a book,
doubly his own, for he inserted in it rude wood-cuts of his own
graving. The book, which was coarsely printed on an old Liberty job
press, was called _Acadia, a lost chapter in American history_,—why
lost is not apparent, in view of the extensive literature of the
subject. He refers vaguely to fifty authorities, but without giving
us the means to track him among them, as he in an uncompromising way
condemns the course of the British government. He is found, however,
to draw largely from Judge Haliburton, and to adopt that writer’s
assertion of the loss or abstraction of records. A few months later
Mr. Parkman published the first volume of his _Montcalm and Wolfe_,
using some material, particularly from the French Archives, which his
predecessors had not possessed.[1006] In referring to the deportation,
he says that its causes have not been understood[1007] by those who
follow or abet the popular belief. Though he does not suggest any
alternative action, he sets forth abundantly the reasons which palliate
and explain a measure “too harsh and indiscriminate to be wholly
justified.”[1008]

[Illustration]

Widely different statements as to the number of those deported have
been made. Lawrence in his circular letter,[1009] addressed (Aug.
11, 1755) to the governors of the English colonies, says that about
7,000 is the number to be distributed, and it is probably upon his
figures that the Lords of Trade in addressing the king, Dec. 20, 1756,
place the number at near 7,000. “Not less than 6,000 at least” is
the language of a contemporary letter.[1010] That these figures were
approximately correct would appear from the English records, which
foot up together for the several centres of the movement—Beaubassin,
Fort Edward, Minas, and Annapolis—a little over 6,000, as Parkman
shows. The Canadian government in making a retrospective census in
1876, figured the number of Acadians within the peninsula in 1755 at
8,200. In giving 18,000 as the number of Acadians in 1755, Haliburton
must have meant to include all of that birth in the maritime provinces,
for he accepts Lawrence’s statement that 7,000 were deported. P. H.
Smith[1011] uses these figures (18,000) so loosely that he seems to
believe that all but a few hundred of them were removed. Rameau, a
recent French authority, makes the number 6,000.[1012] Hannay, a late
New Brunswick writer, allows only 3,000, but this number seems to have
been reached by ignoring some part of the four distinct movements, as
conducted by Monckton, Winslow, Murray, and Handfield. Minot accepts
this same 3,000, and he is followed by Gay in the _Popular Hist. of the
United States_, and by Ellis in his _Red Man and White Man in North
America_.

Gov. Lawrence agreed with some Boston merchants, Apthorp and Hancock,
to furnish the transports for conveying the exiles away.[1013] These
contractors furnished the necessary flour, bread, pork, and beef for
the service. The delay of the vessels to arrive seems to have arisen
from Lawrence’s not giving timely notice to the contractors, for fear
that the Acadians might learn of the intention.[1014] Winslow had told
those who came under his supervision, that he would do everything in
his power to transport “whole families in the same vessel.” Parkman
thinks (i. 279) that the failures in this respect were not numerous.
Smith, with little regard for the confusion which the tardy arrival of
the transports occasioned, thinks they indicate that Winslow violated
his word as a soldier. One of the actors in the movement, as reported
in the Brown Papers (_Nova Scotia Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii. 131), says
that “he fears some families were divided, notwithstanding all possible
care was taken to prevent it.”

Hutchinson (iii. 40) says: “Five or six families were brought to
Boston, the wife and children only, without the husbands and fathers,
who by advertisements in the newspapers came from Philadelphia to
Boston, being till then utterly uncertain what had become of their
families.”

Miss Caulkins (_New London_, p. 469) says more were landed at New
London than at any other New England port. The _Connecticut Colony
Records_ (vol. x. pp. 452, 461, 615) show how the Acadians were
distributed throughout the towns, and that some were brought there from
Maryland.

The journals of the House of Representatives in Massachusetts (1755-56)
note the official action which was taken in that province respecting
them. There are two volumes in the _Mass. Archives_ (vols. xxiii.,
xxiv.) marked “French Neutrals,” which explain that for fifteen years
(1755-1769) the charge of their support entered more or less into the
burdens of the towns among which they were then scattered.[1015] A
committee was in charge of benefactions which were bestowed upon them,
and papers relating to their doings make part of the collection of old
documents in the Charity Building in Boston.

Hutchinson (iii. 40), who had personal knowledge of the facts, says
of their sojourn in Massachusetts: “Many of them went through great
hardships; but in general they were treated with humanity.” He also
tells us (iii. 41) that he interested himself in drafting for them a
petition to the English king to be allowed to return to their lands or
to be paid for them; but they refused to sign it, on the ground that
they would thereby be cut off from the sympathy of the French king.

When in the spring of 1756 Major Jedediah Preble returned with some of
the New England troops to Boston, he was directed by Lawrence to stop
at Cape Sable and seize such Acadians as he could find.[1016] Though
Smith (p. 252) says he did not see fit to obey the order, a letter
from him, dated April 24, 1756, printed in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal.
Reg._, 1876, p. 19, shows that he carried out the order and burnt the
houses. When these newer exiles arrived at Boston, the provincial
authorities declined to receive them. A vessel was hired to convey them
to North Carolina, but the captives refused (May 8, 1756) to reëmbark.
(_Ibid._, p. 18.) In 1762 the work of deportation was still going on,
and five more transports arrived in Boston, but these seem largely to
have been gathered outside the peninsula. They were returned by the
Massachusetts authorities to Halifax, with the approval of the Lords of
Trade and General Amherst, who thought there was no longer occasion to
continue the deportation.[1017]

The _Pennsylvania Gazette_ of Sept. 4, 1755, the day before the action
of Winslow at Minas, informed that province of the intended action in
Nova Scotia. The exiles were hardly welcome when they came. Governor
Morris wrote to Shirley (_Penna. Archives_, ii. 506; _Col. Rec._, vi.
712) that he had no money to devote to their support, and that he
should be obliged to retain, for guarding them, some recruits which
he had raised for the field.[1018] There were kind people, however,
in Philadelphia, of kindred blood, among the descendants of Huguenot
emigrants, and their attention to the distresses of the exiles renders
it possible for Akins to say: “They appear to have received better
treatment at the hands of the government of Philadelphia than was
accorded to them in some of the other provinces.” (_Select. from Pub.
Docs. of Nova Scotia_, p. 278.) Haliburton (i. 183), averred that
the proposition was made in Pennsylvania to sell the neutrals into
slavery. Mr. William B. Reed, in a paper on “The Acadian exiles, or
French neutrals in Pennsylvania (1755-57),” published in Memoirs (vol.
vi. p. 283) of the Penna. Hist. Soc.,[1019] refutes the assertion. The
poor people seem to have had less fear of provoking the ill-will of
France than their brethren in Massachusetts had shown, and a petition
to the king of Great Britain is preserved, apparently indited for
them, as Robert Walsh, Jr., in his _Appeal from the Judgment of Great
Britain respecting the United States_ (Philadelphia, 1829, p. 437),
printed it “from a draft in the handwriting of Benezet,” one of the
Philadelphia Huguenots. It is reprinted in the appendix of Smith’s
_Acadia_ (p. 369). Another document is preserved to us in _A Relation
of the Misfortunes of the French Neutrals as laid before the Assembly
of the Province of Pennsylvania by John Baptist Galerm, one of the
said People_. It constitutes a broadside extra of the Pennsylvania
Gazette of about February, 1756,—the document being dated Feb. 11.
It sets forth the history of their troubles, but did not specifically
ask for assistance, which was, however, granted when the neutrals were
apportioned among the counties. It is reprinted in the _Memoirs_ (vi.
314) of the Penna. Hist. Soc., in Smith’s _Acadia_ (p. 378), and in
_Penna. Archives_; iii. 565. Walsh (p. 90) says that, notwithstanding
charitable attentions, more than half of those in Pennsylvania died in
a short time.

Daniel Dulany, writing of the Acadians arriving in Maryland in 1755,
says that they insist on being treated as prisoners of war,—thereby
claiming to be no subjects. “They have almost eat us up,” he adds; “as
there is no provision for them, they have been supported by private
subscription. Political considerations may make this [the deportation]
a prudent step, for anything I know, and perhaps their behavior
may have deservedly brought their sufferings upon them; but ‘t is
impossible not to compassionate their distress.”[1020]

In Virginia Governor Dinwiddie received them with alarm, at a time when
their countrymen were scalping the settlers on the western frontiers.
He seemed to suppose from Lawrence’s letter that 5,000 were coming,
but only 1,140 actually arrived. He writes that they proved lazy and
contentious, and caballed with the slaves, and tried to run away with
a sloop at Hampton. He managed to maintain them till the assembly met,
when he recommended that provision should be made for their support;
but the clamor against them throughout the colony was so great that the
legislature directed their reshipment to England at a cost of £5,000.
When Governor Glen, of Carolina, sent fifty more of them to Virginia,
Dinwiddie sent them north.[1021]

In the Carolinas and Georgia they were not more welcome. Jones[1022]
says that the 400 received in Georgia went scattering away. Dinwiddie
reports[1023] that in these southern colonies vessels were given them,
and that at one time several hundreds of them were coasting north in
vessels and canoes, so that the shores of the Dominion were opened to
their descents for provision as they voyaged northward. When Dinwiddie
sent a sloop after some who had been heard of near the capes, they
eluded the search. When Lawrence learned of this northern coursing,
he sent another circular letter to the continental governors, begging
them to intercept the exiles and destroy their craft.[1024] Some such
destruction did take place on the Massachusetts coast,[1025] and others
were intercepted on the shores of Long Island.[1026]

In Louisiana many of them ultimately found a permanent home, and 50,000
“Cajeans,” as they are vulgarly called, constitute to-day a separate
community along the “Acadian coast” of the Mississippi, in the western
parts of the State.[1027] After the peace and during the next few years
they wandered thither through different channels: some came direct from
the English colonies,[1028] others from Santo Domingo, and still others
passed down the Mississippi from Canada, where their reception had been
even worse than in the English colonies.[1029]

Until recent years have given better details, the opinions regarding
the ultimate fate of most of the Acadians have remained erroneous. So
little did Hutchinson know of it that he speaks (iii. 42) of their
being in a manner extinct, the few which remained being mixed with
other subjects in different parts of the French dominions. Later New
England writers have not been better informed. Hildreth (_United
States_, ii. 459) says that “the greater part, spiritless, careless,
helpless, died in exile.” Barry (ii. 204) says, “They became extinct,
though a few of their descendants, indeed, still live at the South!”
The later Nova Scotia authorities have come nearer the truth. Murdoch
says very many of them returned within a few years. Rameau, in his _Une
Colonie féodale_, speaks of 150 families from New England wandering
back by land. Some of them, pushing on past their old farms, reached
the bay of St. Mary’s, and founded the villages which their descendants
now occupy. Those which returned, joined to such as had escaped the
hunt of the English, counted 2,500, and in 1871 their numbers had
increased to 87,740 souls. Rameau, in an earlier work, _La France aux
Colonies: Études sur le développement de la race française hors de
l’Europe: Les Français en Amérique, Acadiens et Canadiens_ (Paris,
1859), had reached the same conclusion (p. 93) about the entire number
of Acadians within the peninsula (16,000) as already mentioned, and
held that while 6,000 were deported (p. 144), about 9,000 escaped the
proscription (p. 62). He traces their wanderings and enumerates the
dispersed settlements.

A more recent writer, Hannay (pp. 406, 408), says: “The great bulk of
the Acadians, however, finally succeeded in returning to the land of
their birth.... At least two thirds of the 3,000 (?) removed eventually
returned.”

The guide-books and a chapter in Smith’s _Acadia_ tell of the numerous
settlements now existing along the Madawaska River, partly in New
Brunswick and partly in Maine, which are the villages of the progeny of
such as fled to the St. John, and removed to these upper waters of that
river when, after the close of the American Revolution, they retired
before the influx of the loyalists which settled in the neighborhood of
the present city of St. John.[1030]

[Illustration

After an engraving by Ravenet. Cf. David Ramsay’s _Mil. Memoirs of
Great Britain, or a History of the War_, 1755-1763 (Edinburgh, 1779),
p. 192; and John Entick’s _Hist. of the Late War_, iii. p. 443.]

Lord Loudon’s abortive attempt on Louisbourg has been mentioned in
another place.[1031] Parkman gives the authorities. (_Montcalm and
Wolfe_, i. 473; cf. Barry’s _Massachusetts_, ii. 223.)

       *       *       *       *       *

An agreement (Sept. 12) for the supply of arms, etc., between sundry
merchants and others of Maine and certain men, “for an intended scout
or cruise for the killing and captivating the Indian enemy to the
eastward,” to be under the command of Joseph Bayley, Jr., for sixty
days from Sept. 20, 1757, is in the _Maine Hist. and Geneal. Recorder_,
i. p. 11.

The journal (1758) of Captain Gorham’s rangers and other forces under
Major Morris, in a marauding expedition to the Bay of Fundy, is given
in the Aspinwall Papers, in Mass. Hist. Coll., xxxix. 222.

       *       *       *       *       *

Franquet, who a year or two before the war began was sent by the French
to strengthen Louisbourg and inspect the defences of Canada, kept a
journal, which Parkman uses in his _Montcalm and Wolfe_.

Admiral Knowles, in the memorial for back pay which he presented in
1774 to the British government, claimed the credit of having planned
the movements for this second capture of Louisbourg.

The most authoritative contemporary account of the siege of 1758,
on the English side, is contained in the despatches of Amherst and
Boscawen sent to Pitt, extracts from which were published as _A journal
of the landing of his majesty’s forces on the island of Cape Breton,
and of the siege and surrender of Louisbourg_ (22 pp.). What is called
a third edition of this tract was printed in Boston in 1758.[1032] The
so-called journal of Amherst was printed in the _London Magazine_, and
is included in Thomas Mante’s _Hist. of the Late War in North America_
(London, 1772).

Of the contemporary French accounts, Parkman says he had before him
four long and minute diaries of the siege. The first is that of
Drucour, the French commander, containing his correspondence with
Amherst, Boscawen, and Desgouttes, the naval chief of the French.
Tourville, who commanded the “Capricieux,” one of the French fleet,
kept a second of these diaries. A third and fourth are without
the names of their writers. They agree in nearly all essential
particulars.[1033] The _Parkman MSS._, in the Mass. Hist. Society’s
library, contain many letters from participants in the siege, which
were copied from the Paris Archives de la Marine. The manuscript of
Chevalier Johnstone, a Scotch Jacobite serving with the French, gives
an account of the siege, which is described elsewhere (_post_, in
chapter viii.) and has been used by Parkman. The _Documents Collected
in France—Massachussetts Archives_ (vol. ix. p. i.) contains one of
the narratives.

[Illustration: FROM BROWN’S CAPE BRETON.]

[Illustration: VIEW OF LOUISBOURG.

From the northeast. One of Des Barres’ coast views. (In Harvard College
library.) Dr. A. H. Nichols, of Boston, possesses a plan of Louisbourg
made by Geo. Follings, of Boston, a gunner in the service. He has also
a contemporary sketch of the fort at Canso.]

[Illustration: ENTRANCE TO LOUISBOURG HARBOR.

One of Des Barres’ coast views, 1779. (In Harvard College library.) A
contemporary view showing the town from a point near the light-house is
given in _Cassell’s United States_, i. 528.]

The printed materials on the French side are not nearly so numerous
as on the English. Of importance is Thomas Pichon’s[1034] _Lettres et
Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire du Cap Breton_ (a la Haye, 1760), of
which there is an English translation, of the same year, purporting to
be copied from the author’s original manuscript.[1035]

[Illustration: WOLFE.

After the print in Entick’s _Gen. Hist. of the Late War_, 3d ed., vol.
iv. p. 90. See the engraving from Knox’s journal, on another page, in
ch. viii.]

Of individual experiences and accounts there are, on the English side,
John Montresor’s journal, in the _Coll. of the N. Y. Hist. Soc._, 1881
(p. 151);[1036] _An Authentic Account of the Reduction of Louisbourg
in June and July, 1758, by a Spectator_ (London, 1758),[1037] which
Parkman calls excellent, and says that Entick, in his _General History
of the Late War_ (London, 1764),[1038] used it without acknowledgment.
The same authority characterizes as admirable the account in John
Knox’s _Historical Journal of the Campaigns in North America_,
1757-1760[1039] (vol. i. p. 144), with its numerous letters and orders
relating to the siege. Wright, in his _Life of Wolfe_, gives various
letters of that active officer. Parkman also uses a diary of a captain
or subaltern in Amherst’s army, found in the garret of an old house
at Windsor, Nova Scotia. Some contemporary letters will be found in
the _Grenville Correspondence_ (vol. i. pp. 240-265);[1040] and other
views of that day respecting the event can be gleaned from Walpole’s
_Memoirs of George the Second_ (2d ed., vol. iii. 134).[1041] Of
the modern accounts, the most considerable are those in Warburton’s
_Conquest of Canada_ (N. Y., 1850, vol. ii. p. 74), Brown’s _History of
Cape Breton_, and the story as recently told with unusual spirit and
acquaintance with the sources in Parkman’s _Montcalm and Wolfe_ (vol.
ii. chap. xix).

Amherst had wished to push up to Quebec immediately upon the fall
of Louisbourg, but the news from Abercrombie and some hesitancy of
Boscawen put an end to the hope. _Chatham Correspondence_, i. 331-333.

The reports of the capture reached London August 18. (_Grenville
Correspondence_, i. p. 258.)

Jenkinson writes (Sept. 7, 1758), “Yesterday the colours that were
taken at Louisbourg were carried in procession to Saint Paul’s; the mob
was immense.” (_Grenville Corresp._, i. 265.)

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

Speaking of Amherst’s success at Louisbourg, Burrows, in his _Life
of Lord Hawke_ (London, 1883, p. 340), says: “So entirely has the
importance of this place receded into the background that it requires
an effort to understand why the success of Boscawen and Amherst should
have been thought worthy of the solemn thanks of Parliament, and why
the captured colors of the enemy should have been paraded through the
streets of London.”

Mr. William S. Appleton, in the _Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc_., vol. xi. pp.
297, 298, describes three medals struck to commemorate the siege of
1758. Cf. also _Trans. Quebec Lit. and Hist. Soc._, 1872-73, p. 79.

_A view of Louisburg in North America, taken from near the light-house,
when that city was besieged in 1758_, is the title of a contemporary
copperplate engraving published by Jefferys. (Carter-Brown, iii. p.
335.) Cf. the view in Cassell’s _United States_, i. 528.

       *       *       *       *       *

The plan of the siege, here presented, is reproduced from Brown’s
_Hist. of Cape Breton_ (p. 297):—

KEY: The French batteries to oppose the landing were as follows:—

  C. One swivel.
  D. Two swivels.
  E. Two six-pounders.
  F. One twenty-pounder and two six-pounders.
  G. One seven-inch and one eight-inch mortar.
  H. Two swivels.
  I. Two six-pounders.
  K. Two six-pounders.
  N. Two twelve-pounders.
  O. Two six-pounders.
  P. Two twenty-four pounders.
  Q. Two six-pounders.
  R. Two twelve-pounders.

       *       *       *       *       *

The points of attack were as follows:—

  A. Landing of the first column.
  B. Landing of the second column.

These troops carried the adjacent batteries and pursued their defenders
towards the city. The headquarters of the English were now established
at H Q, while the position of the various regiments is marked by the
figures corresponding to their numbers. Three redoubts (R 1, 2, 3) were
thrown up in advance, and two block-houses (B H 1, 2) were built on
their left flank; and later, to assist communication with Wolfe, who
had been sent to the east side of the harbor, a third block-house (B H
3) was constructed. Then a fourth redoubt was raised at Green Hill (G
H R 4) to cover work in the trenches. Meanwhile the English batteries
at the light-house had destroyed the island battery, and the French had
sunk ships in the channel to impede the entrance of the English fleet.
The first parallel was opened at T, T1, T2, and a rampart was raised,
E P, to protect the men passing to the trenches. Wolfe now erected a
new redoubt at R 5, to drive off a French frigate near the Barachois,
which annoyed the trenches; and another at R 6, which soon successfully
sustained a strong attack. The second (T 3, 4) and third (T 5, 6)
parallels were next established. A boat attack from the English fleet
outside led to the destruction and capture of the two remaining French
ships in the harbor, opening the way for the entrance of the English
fleet. At this juncture the town surrendered.

Cf. also the plans in Jefferys’ _Natural and Civil Hist. of the French
Dominions in North America_ (1760), and in Mante’s _Hist. of the War_
(annexed). Parkman, in his _Montcalm and Wolfe_, ii. 52, gives an
eclectic map. _Father Abraham’s Almanac_, published at Philadelphia and
Boston in 1759, has a map of the siege.

       *       *       *       *       *

Treaty at Halifax of Governor Lawrence with the St. John and
Passamaquoddy Indians, Feb. 23, 1760. (_Mass. Archives_, xxxiv.;
Williamson, i. 344.)

Conference with the Eastern Indians at Fort Pownall, Mar. 2, 1760.
(_Mass. Archives_, xxix. 478.)

Pownall’s treaty of April 29, 1760. Brigadier Preble’s letter, April
30, 1760, respecting the terms on which he had received the Penobscots
under the protection of the government. (_Mass. Archives_, xxxiii.)
Conference with the Penobscots at the council chamber in Boston, Aug.
22, 1763. (_Mass. Archives_, xxix. 482.) Cf. on the Indian treaties,
_Maine Hist. Soc. Collections_, iii. 341, 359. The treaty of Paris had
been signed Feb. 10, 1763.


THE MAPS AND BOUNDS OF ACADIA.

BY THE EDITOR.

THE cartography of Acadia begins with that coast, “discovered by
the English,” which is made a part of Asia in the map of La Cosa in
1500.[1042] The land is buried beneath the waves, west of the land
of the king of Portugal, in the Cantino map of 1502.[1043] It lies
north of the “Plisacus Sinus,” as a part of Asia, in the Ruysch map
of 1508.[1044] It is a vague coast in the map of the Sylvanus Ptolemy
of 1511.[1045] For a long time the eastern coast of Newfoundland and
neighboring shores stood for about all that the early map-makers
ventured to portray; called at one time Baccalaos, now Corterealis,
again Terra Nova; sometimes completed to an insular form, occasionally
made to face a bit of coast that might pass for Acadia, often doubtless
embracing in its insularity an indefinite extent that might well
include island and main together, vaguely expressed, until in the
end the region became angularly crooked as a part of a continental
coast line. The maps which will show all this variety have been given
in previous volumes. The Homem map of 1558[1046] is the earliest to
give the Bay of Fundy with any definiteness. There was not so much
improvement as might be expected for some years to come, when the
map-makers followed in the main the types of Ruscelli and Ortelius, as
will be seen by sketches and fac-similes in earlier volumes.

In 1592 the Molineaux globe of the Middle Temple[1047] became a little
more definite, but the old type was still mainly followed. In 1609
Lescarbot gave special treatment to the Acadian region[1048] for the
first time, and his drafts were not so helpful as they ought to have
been to the more general maps of Hondius, Michael Mercator, and Oliva,
all of 1613, but Champlain in 1612[1049] and 1613[1050] did better.
The Dutch and English maps which followed began to develop the coasts
of Acadia, like those of Jacobsz (1621),[1051] Sir William Alexander
(1624),[1052] Captain Briggs in Purchas (1625),[1053] Jannson’s of
1626, and the one in Speed’s _Prospect_, of the same year.[1054] The
Dutch De Laet began to establish features that lingered long[1055]
with the Dutch, as shown in the maps of Jannson and Visscher; while
Champlain, in his great map of 1632,[1056] fashioned a type that the
French made as much of as they had opportunity, as, for instance,
Du Val in 1677. Dudley in 1646[1057] gave an eclectic survey of the
coast. After this the maps which pass under the names of Covens and
Mortier,[1058] and that of Visscher with the Dutch, and the Sanson
epochal map of 1656[1059] among the French, marked some, but not much,
progress. The map of Heylin’s _Cosmographie_ in 1663, the missionary
map of the same year,[1060] and the new drafts of Sanson in 1669 show
some variations, while that of Sanson is followed in Blome (1670). The
map in Ogilby,[1061] though reëngraved to take the place of the maps in
Montanus and Dapper,[1062] does not differ much.

[Illustration: ACADIA.]

To complete the two centuries from La Cosa, we may indicate among the
French maps a missionary map of 1680,[1063] that of Hennepin,[1064]
the great map of Franquelin (1684),[1065] the “partie orientale” of
Coronelli’s map of 1688-89,[1066] and the one given by Leclercq in the
_Établissement de la Foy_ (1691). The latest Dutch development was seen
in the great Atlas of Blaeu in 1685.[1067]

With the opening of the eighteenth century, we have by Herman Moll, a
leading English geographer of his day, a _New Map of Newfoundland,
New Scotland, the isles of Breton, Anticoste, St. Johns, together with
the fishing bancks_, which appeared in Oldmixon’s _British Empire in
America_, in 1708,[1068] and by Lahontan’s cartographer the _Carte
générale de Canada_, which appeared in the La Haye edition (1709) of
his travels, repeated in his _Mémoires_ (1741, vol. iii.). A section
showing the southern bounds as understood by the French to run on the
parallel of 43° 30′, is annexed.

From 1714 to 1722 we have the maps of Guillaume Delisle, which embody
the French view of the bounds of Acadia.

In 1718 the Lords of Trade in England recognized the rights of
the original settlers of the debatable region under the Duke of
York,—which during the last twenty years had more than once changed
hands,—and these claimants then petitioned to be set up as a province,
to be called “Georgia.”[1069]

In 1720, Père Anbury wrote a _Mémoire_, which confines Acadia to
the Nova Scotia peninsula, and makes the region from Casco Bay to
Beaubassin a part of Canada.[1070]

In March, 1723, M. Bohé reviewed the historical evidences from 1504
down, but only allowed the southern coast of the peninsula to pass
under the name of Acadia.[1071]

In 1731 the crown took the opinion of the law-officers as to the right
of the English king to the lands of Pemaquid, between the Kennebec and
the St. Croix, because of the conquest of the territory by the French,
and reconquest causing the vacating of chartered rights; and this
document, which is long and reviews the history of the region, is in
Chalmers’ _Opinions of Eminent Lawyers_, i. p. 78, etc.

In 1732 appeared the great map of Henry Popple, _Map of the British
Empire in America and the French and Spanish settlements adjacent
thereto_. It was reproduced at Amsterdam about 1737. Popple’s large
MS. draft, which is preserved in the British Museum,[1072] is dated
1727. When in 1755 some points of Popple told against their claim,
the English commissioners were very ready to call the map inaccurate.
We have the Acadian region on a small scale in Keith’s _Virginia_, in
1738. The Delisle map of North America in 1740 is reproduced in Mills’
_Boundaries of Ontario_ (1873). The _English Pilot_ of 1742, published
at London, gives various charts of the coast, particularly no. 5,
“Newfoundland to Maryland,” and no. 13, “Cape Breton to New York.”

Much better drafts were made when Nicolas Bellin was employed to draw
the maps for Charlevoix’s _Nouvelle France_,[1073] which was published
in 1744. These were the _Carte de la partie orientale de la Nouvelle
France ou du Canada_ (vol. i. 438), a _Carte de l’Accadie dressée sur
les manuscrits du dépost des cartes et plans de la marine_ (vol. i.
12),[1074] and a _Carte de l’Isle Royale_ (vol. ii. p. 385), beside
lesser maps of La Heve, Milford harbor, and Port Dauphin. These are
reproduced in Dr. Shea’s English version of Charlevoix. Bellin’s
drafts were again used as the basis of the map of Acadia and Port
Royal (nos. 26, 27) in _Le petit atlas maritime_, vol. i., _Amérique
Septentrionale, par le S. Bellin_ (1764).

The leading English and French general maps showing Acadia at this
time are that of America in Bowen’s _Complete System of Geography_
(1747)[1075] and D’Anville’s _Amérique Septentrionale_ (Paris), which
was reëngraved, with changes, at Nuremberg in 1756, and at Boston
(reprinted, London) 1755, in Douglass’s _Summary of the British
Settlements in North America_. It is here called “improved with the
back settlements of Virginia.”[1076]

The varying territorial claims of the French and English were
illustrated in a _Geographical History of Nova Scotia_, published at
London in 1749; a French version of which, as _Histoire géographique
de la Nouvelle Écosse_, made by Étienne de Lafargue, and issued
anonymously, was published at Paris in 1755, but its authorship was
acknowledged when it was later included in Lafargue’s _Œuvres_.[1077]
The _Mémoire_ which Galissonière wrote in December, 1750, claimed for
France westward to the Kennebec, and thence he bounded New France on
the water-shed of the St. Lawrence and Mississippi.[1078] In 1750-51
Joseph Bernard Chabert was sent by the French king to rectify the
charts of the coasts of Acadia, and his _Voyage fait par ordre du
Roi en 1750 et 1751 dans l’Amérique Septentrionale pour rectifier
les cartes des côtes de l’Acadie, de l’îsle Royale, et de l’îsle de
Terre Neuve_, Paris, 1753, has maps of Acadia and of the coast of Cape
Breton.[1079]

In 1753 the futile sessions of the commissioners of England and France
began at Paris. Their aim was to define by agreement the bounds of
Acadia as ceded to England by the treaty of Utrecht (1713),[1080] under
the indefinite designation of its “ancient limits.” What were these
ancient limits? On this question the French had constantly shifted
their grounds. The commission of De Monts in 1603 made Acadia stretch
from Central New Brunswick to Southern Pennsylvania, or between the
40th and 46th degrees of latitude; but, as Parkman says, neither side
cared to produce the document. When the French held without dispute
the adjacent continent, they never hesitated to confine Acadia to the
peninsula.[1081] Equally, as interest prompted, they could extend it to
the Kennebec, or limit it to the southern half of the peninsula. Cf.
the _Mémoire sur les limites de l’Acadie_ (joint à la lettre de Begon,
Nov. 9, 1713), in the Parkman MSS. in Mass. Hist. Soc., _New France_,
i. p. 9.

In July, 1749, La Galissonière, in writing to his own ministry, had
declared that Acadia embraced the entire peninsula; but, as the English
knew nothing of this admission, he could later maintain that it was
confined to the southern shore only. Cf. again _Fixation des limites de
l’Acadie, etc._, 1753, among the Parkman MSS. in Mass. Hist. Soc., _New
France_, i. pp. 203-269.

On this question of the “ancient limits,” the English commissioners
had of course their way of answering, and the New England claims were
well sustained in the arguing of the case by Governor Shirley, of
Massachusetts,[1082] who with William Mildmay was an accredited agent
of the English monarch. The views of the opposing representatives were
irreconcilable,[1083] and in 1755 the French court appealed to the
world by presenting the two sides of the case, as shown in the counter
memoirs of the commissioners, in a printed work, which was sent to
all the foreign courts. It appeared in two editions, quarto (1755)
and duodecimo (1756), in three and six volumes respectively, and was
entitled _Mémoires des Commissaires du Roi et de ceux de sa Majesté
Britannique_. Both editions have a preliminary note saying that the
final reply of the English commissioners was not ready for the press,
and so was not included.[1084] This omission gave occasion to the
English, when, the same year (1755), they published at London their
_Memorials of the English and French commissaries concerning the limits
of Nova Scotia or Acadia_, to claim that, by including this final
response of the English commissioners, their record of the conference
was more complete. This London quarto volume[1085] contained various
documents.[1086]

In 1757 a fourth volume was added to the quarto Paris edition,
containing the final reply of the English commissioners, and completing
the record of the two years’ conference. The four volumes are a very
valuable repository of historical material; and, from printing at
length the documents offered in evidence, it is a much more useful
gathering than the single English volume, which we have already
described. The points of difference between the two works are these:—

The memorial of Shirley and Mildmay (Jan. 11, 1751), given in French
only in the Paris edition, and accompanied by observations of the
French commissioners in foot-notes, is here given in French and
English, but without the foot-notes. The English memorial of Jan.
23, 1753, lacks the observations of the French commissioners which
accompany it in their vol. iv.[1087]

Among the “pièces justificatives” in the London edition, various papers
are omitted which are given in the Paris edition. The reason of the
omission is that they already existed in print. Such are the texts of
various treaties, and extracts from printed books.

The London edition prints, however, the MS. sources among these proofs,
but does not give the observations of the French commissioners which
accompany them in the Paris edition. Among the papers thus omitted in
the London edition are the provincial charter of Massachusetts Bay and
Gen. John Hill’s manifesto, printed at Boston from Charlevoix.

Vol. iv. of the Paris edition has various additional “pièces produites
par les commissaires du Roi,” including extracts from Hakluyt, Peter
Martyr, Ramusio, Gomara, Fabian, Wytfliet, as well as the English
charters of Carolina (1662-63, 1665) and of Georgia (1732).

The Paris edition was also reprinted at Copenhagen, with a somewhat
different arrangement, under the title _Mémoires des commissaires de
sa Majesté très chrétienne et de ceux de sa Majesté Britannique. À
Coppenhague, 1755._

[Illustration: THE FRENCH CLAIM, 1755.

KEY OF THE FRENCH MAP: Limits proposed by English commissaries, Sept.
21, 1750, and Jan. 11, 1751 (exclusive of Cape Breton),------

By the treaty of Utrecht, ++++++

Port Royal district, by the same treaty,——————

Grant to Sir William Alexander, Sept. 10, 1621, ...........

Cromwell’s grant to La Tour, Crown, and Temple, Aug. 9, 1656, ══════

What was restored to France by the treaty of Breda includes Cromwell’s
grant and the country from Mirlegash to Canseau.

Denys’ government (1654), _shaded horizontally_.

Charnesay’s government (1638), _shaded obliquely_.

La Tour’s government (1638), _shaded perpendicularly_.]

[Illustration: THE ENGLISH CLAIM, 1755.

KEY OF THE ENGLISH MAP: Claim of the English under the treaty of
Utrecht (1713), marked ———

Grant to Sir William Alexander (1621), and divided by him into
Alexandria and Caledonia, being all east of line marked ·─·─·─·─

According to Champlain (1603-1629), all, excepting Cape Breton, east of
this line, ......

Grants of Louis XIII. and XIV. (1632-1710), the same as the claim of
the English for Nova Scotia or Acadia.

Nova Scotia, enlarged westward to the Kennebec, as granted to the Earl
of Sterling (Alexander).

Acadia proper, as defined by Charlevoix in accordance with the
tripartite division, _shaded perpendicularly_.

Charnesay’s government (1638), ══════

La Tour’s government (1638), +++++++

Cromwell’s grant to La Tour, Crown, and Temple, being the same ceded to
France by the treaty of Breda (1667), ———

Norembega, according to Montanus, Dapper, and Ogilby, is the country
between the Kennebec and Penobscot.

The Etechemin region, as defined by Champlain and Denys, _shaded
obliquely_.]

[Illustration: JEFFERYS’ NOVA SCOTIA.]

All three of the editions in French have a map, marking off the limits
of Acadia under different grants, and defining the claims of France. It
is engraved on different scales, however, in the two Paris editions,
and shows a larger extent of the continent westerly in the Copenhagen
edition. The fourth volume of the quarto Paris edition has also a map,
in which the bounds respectively of the charters of 1620, 1662, 1665,
and 1732 (Virginia, Carolina, and Georgia), claimed by the English to
run through to the Pacific, are drawn.[1088]

Thomas Jefferys, the English cartographer, published at London in 1754
his _Conduct of the French with regard to Nova Scotia from its first
settlement to the present time. In which are exposed the falsehood and
absurdity of their arguments made use of to elude the force of the
treaty of Utrecht, and support their unjust proceedings. In a letter to
a member of Parliament._[1089]

The map of the French claims and another of the English claims are
copied herewith from Jefferys’ reproduction of the former and from his
engraving of the latter, both made to accompany his later _Remarks
on the French Memorials concerning the limits of Acadia, printed at
the Royal Printing-House at Paris, and distributed by the French
ministers at all the foreign courts of Europe, with two maps exhibiting
the limits: one according to the system of the French, the other
conformable to the English rights. To which is added An Answer to the
Summary Discussion_,[1090] _etc._ London, T. Jefferys, 1756.[1091]

Both of these Jefferys maps were included by that geographer in his
_General Topography of North America and the West Indies_, London,
1768, and one of them will also be found in the _Atlas Amériquain_,
1778, entitled “Nouvelle Écosse ou partie orientale du Canada,
traduitte de l’Anglais de la Carte de Jefferys publiée à Londres en
May, 1755. A Paris par Le Rouge.” Jefferys also included in the London
edition of the _Memorials_ (1755) a _New map of Nova Scotia and Cape
Britain, with the adjacent parts of New England and Canada_,[1092]
which is also found in his _History of the French Dominion in
North and South America_, London, 1760, and also in his _General
Topography_, etc. A section of this map, showing Acadia, is reproduced
herewith.[1093]

       *       *       *       *       *

The great map of D’Anville in 1755[1094] enforced the extreme French
claim, carrying the boundary line along the height of land from the
Connecticut to Norridgewock, thence down the Kennebec to the sea. The
secret instructions to Vaudreuil this same year (1755) allow that the
French claim may be moved easterly from the Sagadahock to the St.
Georges, and even to the Penobscot, if the English show a conciliatory
disposition, but direct him not to waver if the water-shed is called in
question at the north.[1095]

A German examination of the question appeared at Leipzig in 1756,
in _Das Brittische Reich in Amerika ... nebst nachricht von den
Gränzstreitigkeiten und Kriege mit den Franzossen_. It is elucidated
with maps by John Georg Schrübers.[1096]




CHAPTER VIII.

THE STRUGGLE FOR THE GREAT VALLEYS OF NORTH AMERICA.

BY JUSTIN WINSOR,

_The Editor_.


THE death of Frontenac[1097] and the peace of Ryswick (September,
1697) found France in possession of the two great valleys of North
America,—that of the St. Lawrence, with the lakes, and that of the
Mississippi, with its affluents.[1098] In 1697 the Iroquois were
steadfast in their adherence to Corlear, as they termed the English
governor, while they refused to receive French missionaries. In
negotiations which Bellomont was conducting (1698) with the Canadian
governor, he tried ineffectually to induce a recognition of the Five
Nations as subjects of the English king.[1099] Meanwhile, the French
were omitting no opportunity to force conferences with these Indians,
and Longueil was trying to brighten the chain of amity with them as
far west as Detroit, where in July, 1701, La Motte Cadillac began a
French post. Within a month the French ratified at Montreal (August
4, 1701) a treaty with the Iroquois just in time to secure their
neutrality in the war which England declared against France and Spain
the next year (1702). So when the outbreak came it was the New England
frontiers which suffered (1703-4),[1100] for the Canadians were careful
not to stir the blood of the Iroquois. The French jealously regarded
the English glances at Niagara, and proposed (1706) to anticipate
their rivals by occupying it. When, in 1709, it was determined to
retaliate for the ravages of the New England borders, the Iroquois,
at a conference in Albany[1101] (1709), were found ready to aid in
the expedition which Francis Nicholson tried to organize, but which
proved abortive. Already Spotswood, of Virginia, was urging the home
government to push settlers across the Alleghanies into the valley of
the Ohio.[1102] But attention was rather drawn to the petty successes
in Acadia,[1103] and the spirit of conquest seethed again, when Sir
Hovenden Walker appeared at Boston,[1104] and a naval expedition in
the summer of 1711 was well under way to capture the great valley of
the St. Lawrence. Stupidity and the elements sent the fleet of the
English admiral reeling back to Boston, leaving Quebec and Canada
once more safe. The next year (1712) the distant Foxes tried to wrest
Detroit from the French; but its garrison was too enduring. France had
maintained herself all along her Canadian lines, and she was in fair
hopes of gaining the active sympathy of the Iroquois, when the treaty
of Utrecht (1713) brought the war to a close.

[Illustration: FRENCH SOLDIER (1700).

After a water-color sketch in the _Mass. Archives: Documents collected
in France_, v. p. 271. The coat is red, faced with brown.]

The language of this treaty declared that the “Five Nations[1105] were
subject to the dominion of England.” The interpretation of this clause
was the occasion of diplomatic fence at once. The French claimed a
distinction between the subjectivity of the Indians and domination
over their lands. The English insisted that the allegiance of the Five
Nations carried not only their own hereditary territory, but also
the regions of Iroquois conquests, namely, all west of the Ottawa
River and the Alleghany Mountains to the Mississippi River.[1106]
The peace of Utrecht was but the prelude to a struggle for occupying
the Ohio Valley, on the part of both French and English. Spotswood
had opened a road over the Blue Ridge from Virginia in 1716, and he
continued to urge the Board of Trade to establish a post on Lake Erie.
Governor Keith, of Pennsylvania, reported to the board (1718) upon
the advances of the French across the Ohio Valley, and the English
moved effectually when, in 1721, they began to plant colonists on the
Oswego River. By 1726 they had completed their fort on the lake, and
Montreal found its Indian trade with the west intercepted. Meanwhile,
New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia strengthened their alliance with
the Iroquois by a conference at Albany in September, 1722, and in 1726
the Indians confirmed the cession of their lands west and north of Lake
Erie.

When Vaudreuil, in 1725, not long before his death (April 10) suggested
to the ministry in Paris that Niagara should be fortified, since, with
the Iroquois backing the English, he did not find himself in a position
openly to attack them, the minister replied that the governor could at
least craze the Indians by dosing them with brandy. Shortly afterwards
the commission of his successor, Beauharnois, impressed on that
governor the necessity of always having in view the forcible expulsion
of the Oswego garrison. In 1727 the French governor tried the effect of
a summons of the English post, with an expressed intention “to proceed
against it, as may seem good to him,” in case of refusal; but it was
mere gasconade, and the minister at home cautioned the governor to let
things remain as they were.

[Illustration: BRITISH INFANTRY SOLDIER (1725).

Fac-simile of a cut in Grant’s _British Battles_, i. p. 564.]

NOTE TO ANNEXED MAP.—In the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, ix. 1021, is a
fac-simile of a map in the Archives of the Marine and Colonies, called
_Carte du lac Champlain avec les rivières depuis le fort de Chambly
jusques à Orangeville_ [Albany] _de la Nouvelle Angleterre, dressé sur
divers mémoires_. It is held to have been made about 1731. There is
in the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, vol. i. p. 557, a _Carte du lac Champlain
depuis le fort Chambly jusqu’au fort St. Frederic, levée par le Sr.
Anger, arpenteur du Roy en 1732, fait à Quebec le 10 Oct., 1748,—Signé
de Lery_.

Nicolas Bellin made his _Carte de la rivière de Richelieu et du lac
Champlain_ in 1744, and it appeared in Charlevoix’s _Nouvelle France_,
i. 144, reproduced in Shea’s ed., ii. 15. There is also a map of Lake
Champlain in Bellin’s _Petit Atlas Maritime_, 1764.

There were surveys made of Lake Champlain, in 1762, by William
Brassier, and of Lake George by Captain Jackson, in 1756. These were
published by order of Amherst in 1762, and reproduced in 1776. (Cf.
_American Atlas_, 1776.) The original drawings are noted in the _Catal.
of the King’s Maps_ (Brit. Mus.), i. 223. The Brassier map is also
given in Dr. Hough’s edition of Rogers’s _Journals_. The same British
Museum _Catalogue_ (i. 489) gives a drawn _Map of New Hampshire_
(1756), which shows the route from Albany by lakes George and Champlain
to Quebec. Cf. the _Map of New Hampshire_, by Col. Joseph Blanchard and
Rev. Samuel Langdon, engraved by Jefferys, and dated 21 Oct., 1761,
which shows the road to Ticonderoga in 1759.

[Illustration: FROM POPPLE’S BRITISH EMPIRE IN AMERICA, 1732.]

A few years later a sort of flank movement was made on Oswego, as
well as on New England, by the French pushing up Lake Champlain, and
establishing themselves in the neighborhood of Crown Point (1731),
where they shortly after built Fort St. Frederick. The movement alarmed
New England more than it did New York.

The French persisted in seeking conferences with the Six Nations,—as
they had been called since the Tuscaroras joined them about 1713,—and
in 1734 succeeded in obtaining a meeting with the Onondagas. They
ventured in 1737 to ask the Senecas to let them establish a post at
Irondequot, farther west on Lake Ontario than Oswego. The Iroquois
would not permit, however, either side to possess that harbor. For some
years Oswego was the burden of the French despatches, and the English
seemed to take every possible occasion for new conferences with the
fickle Indians.

The most important of these treaties was made at Lancaster,
Pennsylvania, in 1744, when an indefinite extent of territory beyond
the mountains was ceded to the English in the form of a confirmation
of earlier implied grants. A fresh war followed. The New Englanders
took Louisbourg,[1107] but New York seemed supine, and let French
marauding parties from Crown Point fall upon and destroy the fort
at Saratoga without being aroused.[1108] Oswego was in danger, but
still the New York assembly preferred to quarrel with the governor;
and tardily at best it undertook to restore the post at Saratoga,
while the Albanians were suspected of trading clandestinely through
the Caughnawagas with the French in Canada. Both sides continued in
their efforts to propitiate the Iroquois, while a parade of arming was
made for an intended advance on Crown Point and Montreal. Governor
Shirley, from Boston, had urged it, since a demonstration which had
been intended by way of the St. Lawrence had to be given up, because
the promised fleet did not arrive from England. To keep the land levies
in spirits, Shirley had written to Albany that he would send them to
join in an expedition by the Lakes, and had even despatched a 13-inch
mortar by water to New York.[1109] Before the time came, however, the
rumors of D’Anville’s fleet frightened the New Englanders, and they
thought they had need of their troops at home.[1110] It was some time
before Governor Clinton knew of this at Albany, and preparations went
on. Efforts to enlist the Iroquois in the enterprise halted, for the
inaction of the past year had had its effect upon them, and it needed
all the influence of William Johnson, who now first appears as Indian
commissioner, to induce them to send a sufficient delegation to a
conference at Albany.

[Illustration: VIEW OF QUEBEC, 1732.

From Popple’s _British Empire in America_. It is repeated in fac-simile
in Cassell’s _United States_, p. 372; and in Gay’s _Pop. Hist. U.
S._, iii. 307. Cf. The view from La Potherie in Vol. IV. p. 320; also
reproduced in Shea’s _Charlevoix_, vol. v. Kalm described the town in
1749 (_Travels_, London, 1771, ii. p. 258). See views under date of
1760 and 1761, noted in the _Cat. of the King’s Maps_ (Brit. Mus.), ii.
220. Cf. De Lery’s report on the fortifications of Quebec in 1716, in
_N. Y. Col. Docs._, ix. 872.]

The business still further dragged; the withdrawal of New England
became in the end known, and by September 16 Clinton had determined to
abandon the project, and the French governor had good occasion to twit
old Hendrick, the Mohawk chief, when he ventured with more purpose than
prudence to Montreal in November.[1111]

[Illustration: BRITISH FOOTGUARD, 1745.

This sketch of a footguard, with grenade and match, is taken from
Grant’s _British Battles_, ii. 60. Cf. _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, i.
462; and the uniform of the forty-third regiment of foot (raised in
America), represented from a drawing in the British Museum, in _The
Century_, xxix. 891.]

[Illustration: FRENCH SOLDIER, 1745. After a water-color sketch in the
_Mass. Archives: Documents collected in France_, viii. p. 129. The coat
is red, faced with blue; the breeches are blue.]

Early the next summer (June, 1747) the French had some experience of
a foray upon their own borders, when a party of English and Indians
raided upon the island of Montreal,—a little burst of activity
conspicuous amid the paralysis that the quarrels of Clinton and De
Lancey had engendered. Shirley had formed the plan of a winter attack
upon Crown Point, intending to send forces up the Connecticut, and from
Oswego towards Frontenac, by way of distracting the enemy’s councils;
but the New York assembly refused to respond.

The next year (1748) the French, acting through Father Picquet, made
renewed efforts to enlist Iroquois converts, while Galissonière was
urging the home government to send over colonists to occupy the Ohio
Valley. A number of Virginians, on the other hand, formed themselves
into the Ohio Company, and began to send explorers into the disputed
valley. In order to anticipate the English, the French governor had
already despatched Céloron de Bienville to take formal possession
by burying lead plates, with inscriptions, at the mouths of the
streams.[1112]

For the present, there was truce. The treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle,
entered upon in May, and signed in October (1748), had given each side
time to manœuvre for an advantage. Picquet established a new barrier
against the English at La Presentation, where Ogdensburg now is;[1113]
and in 1749 Fort Rouillé was built at the present Toronto.[1114]

The Virginians, meanwhile, began to push their traders farther and
farther beyond the mountains. The Pennsylvanians also sent thither
a shrewd barterer and wily agent in George Croghan, and the French
emissaries whom he encountered found themselves outwitted.[1115] The
Ohio Company kept out Christopher Gist on his explorations. Thus it
was that the poor Ohio Indians were distracted. The ominous plates of
Céloron meant to them the loss of their territory; and they appealed
to the Iroquois, who in turn looked to the government of New York.
That province, however, was apathetic, while Picquet and Jean Cœur,
another Romish priest, who believed in rousing the Indian blood, urged
the tribes to maraud across the disputed territory and to attack the
Catawbas. William Johnson, on the one side, and Joncaire, on the other,
were busy with their conferences, each trying to checkmate the other
(1750); while the English legislative assemblies haggled about the
money it cost and the expense of the forts. The Iroquois did not fail
to observe this; nor did it escape them that the French were building
vessels on Ontario and strengthening the Niagara fort (1751).

While Charles Townshend was urging the English home government (1752)
to seize the Ohio region forcibly, the French were attacking the
English traders and overcoming the allied Indians, on the Miamis.
Virginia, by a treaty with the Indians at Logstown, June 13, 1752,
got permission to erect a fort at the forks of the Ohio; but the
undertaking was delayed.

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

In the spring of 1753 Duquesne, the governor of Canada, sent an
expedition[1116] to possess by occupation the Ohio Valley, and the
party approached it by a new route.[1117] They landed at Presquisle,
built a log fort,[1118] carried their munitions across to the
present French Creek, and built there another defence called Fort Le
Bœuf.[1119] This put them during high water in easy communication by
boat with the Alleghany River. French tact conciliated the Indians, and
where that failed arrogance was sufficient, and the expedition would
have pushed on to found new forts, but sickness weakened the men, and
Marin, the commander now dying, saw it was all he could do to hold
the two forts, while he sent the rest of his force back to Montreal
to recuperate. Late in the autumn Legardeur de Saint-Pierre arrived
at Le Bœuf, as the successor of Marin. He had not been long there,
when on the 11th of December a messenger from Governor Dinwiddie, of
Virginia, with a small escort, presented himself at the fort. The
guide of the party was Christopher Gist; the messenger was George
Washington, then adjutant-general of the Virginia militia.[1120] Their
business was to inform the French commander that he was building forts
on English territory, and that he would do well to depart peaceably.
Washington had been made conscious of the aggressive character of the
French occupation, as he passed through the Indian town of Venango,
at the confluence of French Creek and the Alleghany River, for he
there had seen the French flag floating over the house of an English
trader, Fraser, which the French had seized for an outpost of Le
Bœuf, and there he had found Joncaire in command.[1121] Washington
had been received by Joncaire hospitably, and over his wine the
Frenchman had disclosed the unmistakable purpose of his government.
At Le Bœuf Washington tarried three days, during which Saint-Pierre
framed his reply, which was in effect that he must hold his post, while
Dinwiddie’s letter was sent to the French commander at Quebec. It was
the middle of January, 1754, when Washington reached Williamsburg on
his return, and made his report to Dinwiddie.

The result was that Dinwiddie drafted two hundred men from the Virginia
militia, and despatched them under Washington to build a fort at the
forks of the Ohio. The Virginia assembly, forgetting for the moment its
quarrel with the governor, voted £10,000 to be expended, but only under
the direction of a committee of its own. Dinwiddie found difficulty
in getting the other colonies to assist, and the Quaker element in
Pennsylvania prevented that colony from being the immediate helper,
which it might from its position have become.

Meanwhile, some backwoodsmen had been pushed over the mountains and
had set to work on a fort at the forks. A much larger French force
under Contrecœur soon summoned them,[1122] and the English retired. The
French immediately began the erection of Fort Duquesne.

[Illustration]

While this was doing, Dinwiddie was toiling with tardy assemblies and
their agents to organize a regiment to support the backwoodsmen. Joshua
Fry was to be its colonel, with Washington as second in command. The
latter, with a portion of the men, had already pushed forward to Will’s
Creek, the present Cumberland. Later he advanced with 150 men to Great
Meadows, where he learned that the French, who had been reinforced, had
sent out a party from their new fort, marching towards him. Again he
got word from an Indian—who, from his tributary character towards the
Iroquois, was called Half-King, and who had been Washington’s companion
on his trip to Le Bœuf—that this chieftain with some followers had
tracked two men to a dark glen, where he believed the French party were
lurking. Washington started with forty men to join Half-King, and under
his guidance they approached the glen and found the French. Shots were
exchanged. The French leader, Jumonville, was killed, and all but one
of his followers were taken or slain.

[Illustration]

The mission of Jumonville was to scour for English, by order of
Contrecœur, now in command of Duquesne, and to bear a summons to any
he could find, warning them to retire from French territory. The
precipitancy of Washington’s attack gave the French the chance to
impute to Washington the crime of assassination; but it seems to have
been a pretence on the part of the French to cover a purpose which
Jumonville had of summoning aid from Duquesne, while his concealment
was intended to shield him till its arrival. Rash or otherwise, this
onset of the youthful Washington began the war.

The English returned to Great Meadows, and while waiting for
reinforcements from Fry, Washington threw up some entrenchments, which
he called Fort Necessity. The men from Fry came without their leader,
who had sickened and died, and Washington, succeeding to the command of
the regiment, found himself at the head of three hundred men, increased
soon by an independent company from South Carolina.

Washington again advanced toward Gist’s settlement, when, fearing an
attack, he sent back for Mackay, whom he had left with a company of
regulars at Fort Necessity. Rumors thickening of an advance of the
French, the English leader again fell back to Great Meadows, resolved
to fight there. It was now the first of July, 1754. Coulon de Villiers,
a brother of Jumonville, was now advancing from Duquesne. The attack
was made on a rainy day, and for much of the time a thick mist hung
between the combatants. After dark a parley resulted in Washington’s
accepting terms offered by the French, and the English marched out with
the honors of war.[1123]

[Illustration]

The young Virginian now led his weary followers back to Will’s Creek.
It was a dismal march. The Indian allies of the French, who were only
with difficulty prevented from massacring the wounded English, had
been allowed to kill the cattle and horses of the little army; and
Washington’s men had to struggle along under the burdens of their
own disabled companions. Thus they turned their backs upon the great
valley, in which not an English flag now waved.

       *       *       *       *       *

Appearances were not grateful to Dinwiddie. His house of burgesses
preferred to fight him on some domestic differences rather than to
listen to his appeals to resist the French. He got little sympathy
from the other colonies. The Quakers and Germans of Pennsylvania cared
little for boundaries. New York and Maryland seemed slothful.[1124]
Only Shirley, far away in Massachusetts, was alive, but he was busy
at home.[1125] The Lords of Trade in London looked to William Johnson
to appease and attach the Indians; but lest he could not accomplish
everything, they directed a congress of the colonial representatives
to be assembled at Albany, which talked, but to the liking neither of
their constituents nor of the government in England.[1126]

Dinwiddie, despairing of any organized onset, appealed to the home
government. The French king was diligently watching for the English
ministry’s response. So when Major-General Braddock and his two
regiments sailed from England for Virginia, and the Baron Dieskau and
an army, with the Marquis of Vaudreuil[1127] to succeed Duquesne as
governor, sailed for Quebec, the diplomates of the two crowns bowed
across the Channel, and protested to each other it all meant nothing.

The English thought that with their superiority on the sea they could
intercept the French armament, and Admiral Boscawen was sent to hover
about the Gulf of St. Lawrence. He got only three ships of them,—the
rest eluding him.

The two armies were to enter the great valleys, one of the St.
Lawrence, the other of the Ohio, but not in direct opposition. Dieskau
was hurled back at Lake George; Braddock on the Monongahela. We must
follow their fortunes.

In February, 1755, Braddock landed at Hampton, Virginia, and presently
he and Dinwiddie were living “in great harmony.” A son of Shirley of
Massachusetts was serving Braddock as secretary, and he was telling
a correspondent how “disqualified his general was for the service he
was employed in, in almost every respect.” This was after the young
man had seen his father, for Braddock had gone up to Alexandria[1128]
in April, and had there summoned for a conference all the governors
of the colonies, Shirley among the rest, the most active of them all,
ambitious of military renown, and full of plans to drive the French
from the continent. The council readily agreed to the main points of an
aggressive campaign. Braddock was to reduce Fort Duquesne; Shirley was
to capture Niagara. An army of provincials under William Johnson was
to seize Crown Point. These three movements we are now to consider; a
fourth, an attack by New Englanders upon the Acadian peninsula, and the
only one which succeeded, is chronicled in another chapter.[1129]

Braddock’s first mistake was in moving by the Potomac, instead of
across Pennsylvania, where a settled country would have helped him;
but this error is said to have been due to the Quaker merchant John
Hanbury. He cajoled the Duke of Newcastle into ordering this way,
because Hanbury, as a proprietor in the Ohio Company, would profit by
the trade which the Virginia route would bring to that corporation.
Dinwiddie’s desire to develop the Virginia route to the Ohio had
doubtless quite as much to do with the choice. While plagued with
impeded supplies and the want of conveyance as he proceeded, Braddock
chafed at the Pennsylvanian indifference which looked on, and helped
him not. He wished New England was nearer. The way Pennsylvania finally
aided the doomed general was through Benjamin Franklin, whom she had
borrowed of New England. He urged the Pennsylvania farmers to supply
wagons, and they did, and Braddock began his march. On the 10th of
May he was at Will’s Creek,[1130] with 2,200 men, and as his aids
he had about him Captains Robert Orme and Roger Morris, and Colonel
George Washington. Braddock invested the camp with an atmosphere little
seductive to Indian allies. There were fifty of them present at one
time, but they dwindled to eight in the end.[1131] Braddock’s disregard
had also driven off a notorious ranger, Captain Jack, who would have
been serviceable if he had been wanted.

On the 10th of June the march was resumed,—a long, thin line,
struggling with every kind of difficulty in the way, and making perhaps
three or four miles a day. By Washington’s advice, Braddock took his
lighter troops and pushed ahead, leaving Colonel Dunbar to follow more
deliberately. On the 7th of July this advance body was at Turtle
Creek, about eight miles from Fort Duquesne.

[Illustration: FRENCH SOLDIER, 1755.

After a water-color sketch in the _Mass. Archives: Documents collected
in France_, vol. ix. p. 425. The coat is blue, faced with red.

Parkman (vol. i. 368), speaking of the troops which came with Dieskau
and Montcalm, says that their uniform was white, faced with blue, red,
yellow, or violet, and refers to the plates of the regimental uniforms
accompanying Susane’s _Ancienne Infanterie Française_. Parkman (i. p.
370) also says that the _troupes de la marine_, the permanent military
establishment of Canada, wore a white uniform faced with black. He
gives (p. 370, _note_) various references.]

[Illustration: FORT DUQUESNE AND VICINITY.

From _Father Abraham’s Almanac_, 1761. Key: 1, Monongahela River; 2,
Fort Du Quesne, or Pittsburgh; 3, the small fort; 4, Alleghany River;
5, Alleghany Indian town; 6, Shanapins; 7, Yauyaugany River; 8, Ohio,
or Alleghany, River; 9, Logs Town; 10, Beaver Creek; 11, Kuskaskies,
the chief town of the Six Nations; 12, Shingoes Town; 13, Alleguippes;
14, Sennakaas; 15, Tuttle Creek; 16, Pine Creek. The arrows show the
course of the river.

A “Plan of Fort le Quesne, built by the French at the fork of the Ohio
and Monongahela in 1754,” was published by Jefferys, and is included in
his _General Topography of North America and the West Indies_, London,
1768. I suppose this to be based upon the MS. plan noted in the _Catal.
of the King’s Maps_ (Brit. Mus.), ii. 184. Cf. the plan (1754) in the
_Memoirs_ of Robert Stobo, Pittsburgh, 1854, which is repeated in
Sargent’s _Braddock’s Exped._, p. 182, who refers to a plan published
in London in 1755, mentioned in the _Gentleman’s Mag._, xxv. P. 383.
Stobo’s plan is also engraved in _Penna. Archives_, ii. 147, and the
letters of Stobo and Croghan respecting it are in _Penna. Col. Rec._,
vi. 141, 161. Parkman refers (i. 208) to a plan in the Public Record
Office, London, and (p. 207) describes the fort as does Sargent (p.
182). See the plan in Bancroft, orig. ed., iv. 189, and Gay’s _Pop.
Hist. U. S._, iii. 260.

Duquesne was finished in May, 1755. Cf. Duquesne’s Memoir on the Ohio
and its dependencies, addressed to Vaudreuil, dated Quebec, July 6,
1755, and given in English in _Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., vi. 253.
M’Kinney’s Description of Fort Duquesne (1756) is in Hazard’s _Penna.
Reg._, viii. 318; and letters of Robert Stobo, who was a hostage there
after the surrender of Fort Necessity, are in _Col. Rec. of Penna._,
vi. 141, 161. Cf. notice of Stobo by L. C. Draper in _Olden Time_, i.
369. Parkman also refers to a letter of Captain Hazlet in _Olden Time_,
i. 184.

Sargent says (p. 184) that in 1854 the magazine was unearthed, which at
that time was all remaining visible of the old fort. (Hazard’s _Penna.
Register_, v. 191; viii. 192.) There is a view of the magazine in John
Frost’s _Book of the Colonies, N. Y._, 1846.]

The enemy occupying the fort consisted of a few companies of French
regulars, a force of Canadians, and about 800 Indians,—all under
Contrecœur, with Beaujeu, Dumas, and Ligneres as lieutenants. They knew
from scouts that Braddock was approaching, and Beaujeu was sent out
with over 600 Indians and 300 French, to ambush the adventurous Briton.

As Braddock reached the ford, which was to put him on the land-side of
the fort, Colonel Thomas Gage, some years later known in the opening
scenes of the American Revolution,[1132] crossed in advance, without
the opposition that was anticipated. Beaujeu had intended to contest
the passage, but his Indians, being refractory, delayed him in his
march.

Gage, with the advance, was pushing on, when his engineer, laying out
the road ahead, saw a man, apparently an officer, wave his cap to his
followers, who were unseen in the woods. From every vantage ground of
knoll and bole, and on three sides of the column, the concealed muskets
were levelled upon the English, who returned the fire. Beaujeu soon
fell.[1133] Dumas, who succeeded in command, thought the steady front
of the redcoats was going to carry the day, when he saw his Canadians
fly, followed by the Indians, after Gage had wheeled his cannon upon
the woods. A little time, however, changed all. The Indians rallied and
poured their bullets into the massed, and very soon confused, British
troops.

[Illustration: A Sketch of the field of battle.]

Braddock, when he spurred up, found everybody demoralized except the
Virginians, who were firing from the tree-trunks, as the enemy did. The
British general was shocked at such an unmilitary habit, and ordered
them back into line. No one under such orders could find cover, and
every puff from a concealed Indian was followed by a soldier’s fall. No
exertion of Braddock, or of Washington, or of anybody, prevailed.[1134]
The general had four horses shot under him; Washington had two. Still
the hillsides and the depths of the wood were spotted with puffs of
smoke, and the slaughter-pen was in a turmoil. Young Shirley fell,
with a bullet in his brain.[1135] Horatio Gates and Thomas Gage were
both wounded. Scarce one Englishman in three escaped the bullets. The
general had given the sign to retreat, and was wildly endeavoring to
restore order, when a ball struck him from his horse. The flight of
the survivors became precipitous, and when the last who succeeded in
fording the river stopped to breathe on the other side, there were
thirty Indians and twenty Frenchmen almost upon them. The French,
however, pursued no farther. They had enough to do to gather their
plunder, while the Indians unchecked their murderous instincts as
they searched for the wounded and dying Britons. The next morning a
large number of the Indians left Contrecœur for their distant homes,
laden with their booty. The French general feared for a while that
Braddock, reinforced by Dunbar, would return to the attack. He little
knew the condition of his enemy. The British army had become bewildered
fugitives. Scarce a guard could be kept for the wounded general, as he
was borne along on a horse or in a litter. When they met Dunbar the
fright increased. Wagons and munitions were destroyed, for no good
reason, and the mass surged eastward. The sinking Braddock at last
died, and they buried him in the road, that the tramp of the men might
obliterate his grave.[1136] Nobody stopped till they reached Fort
Cumberland, which was speedily turned into a disordered hospital. The
campaign ended with gloomy forebodings. Dunbar, the surviving regular
colonel, instead of staying at Cumberland and guarding the frontier,
retreated to Philadelphia, leaving the Virginians to hold Cumberland
and its hospitals as best they could.

       *       *       *       *       *

By the death of Braddock Shirley became the ranking officer on
the continent, and we must turn to see how the tidings of his new
responsibilities found him.

The Massachusetts governor was at Albany when the bad news reached him,
and Johnson being taken into the secret, the two leaders tried to keep
it from the army. Shirley immediately pushed on the force destined
for Fort Niagara, at the other end of Lake Ontario; while Johnson as
speedily turned the faces of his men towards Lake George. Shirley’s
army found the path to Oswego, much of the way through swamp and
forest; and the young provincials sorrowfully begrimed their regulation
bedizenments, assumed under the king’s orders, as with the Jersey Blues
they struggled along the trail and tugged through the watercourses.
It was easier to get the men to their destination than to transport
the supplies, and many stores that were on the way were abandoned at
the portages when the wagoners heard the fearful details from the
Monongahela. Short rations and discouragements harried the men sorely.
The axe and spade were put in requisition, and additional forts were
planned and constructed as the army pursued its way. Across the lake at
Fort Frontenac the enemy held a force ready to be sent against Oswego
if Shirley went on, for the capture of Braddock’s papers had revealed
all the English plans. Shirley put on a brave face, with all his
bereavement, for the death of his son, with Braddock, was a heavy blow.
A council of war, on the 18th of September, determined him to take to
the lake with his bateaux as soon as provisions arrived. He had now got
word of Dieskau’s defeat,[1137] and he tried to use it to inspirit the
braves at his camp. It seemed to another council, on the 27th, that the
attempt to trust their river bateaux on the lake was foolhardy, and
so the purpose of the campaign was abandoned. At the end of October he
left the garrison to strengthen the forts, and returned to Albany. He
did not get much comfort there. Johnson showed no signs of following
up the victory of Lake George, and as late as November Shirley was
still at Albany, where he had received his new commission, advising a
movement on Crown Point for the winter;[1138] and in December he was
exciting the indignant jealousy of Johnson[1139] by daring to instruct
him about his Indian management, for Johnson had now been made Indian
superintendent.[1140] Shirley had despatched these orders from New
York, where he was laying before a congress of governors his schemes
for a new campaign.

       *       *       *       *       *

We need now to see how Dieskau’s defeat had been the result of the
third of the expeditions of the campaign just brought to a close.

[Illustration]

Before the arrival of Braddock, Shirley had begun (January, 1755)
arrangements for an attack on Crown Point,—a project confirmed, as we
have seen, by the council at Alexandria, where William Johnson, whom
Shirley had already named, was approved as the commander. Johnson, as
a young Irishman of no military experience, had been sent over twenty
years before by his uncle, Sir Peter Warren, the admiral, to look after
some lands of his in the Mohawk Valley. Settling here and building a
house, about ten years earlier than this, he had called it first Mount
Johnson, though when it was fortified, at a later day, it was usually
called Fort Johnson.[1141] It was the seat of numerous conferences
with the Indians, over whom Johnson gained an ascendency, which he
constantly turned to the advantage of the English.

The provincials who assembled, first at Albany and then at the
carrying place between the Hudson and Lake George, were mostly New
Englanders, and a Connecticut man, General Phineas Lyman, was placed
second in command. The French were not without intelligence of their
enemy’s purpose, derived, as already said, from the captured papers
of Braddock. So Dieskau, who had come over, as we have seen, with
reinforcements, was ordered to Lake Champlain instead of Oswego, as had
been the original intention.

[Illustration: SIR WILLIAM JOHNSON.

From a plate in the _London Mag._, Sept., 1756; which is also the
original of prints in the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, ii. 545, and in Hough’s
_Pouchot_, i. 181. Cf. also Stone’s _Life of Johnson_; Simms’s
_Trappers of N. Y._; Perry’s _Amer. Episc. Church_, i. 331; Entick’s
_General Hist. of the Late War_ (London, 1765); J. C. Smith’s _Brit.
Mezzotint Portraits_, iii. 1342 (by Adams, engraved by Spooner).]

Johnson found among those who joined his camp some who knew much
better what war was than he did: such were Colonel Moses Titcomb and
Lieutenant-Colonel Seth Pomeroy, of Massachusetts; and Colonel Ephraim
Williams, who had just made his will, by which the school was founded
which became Williams College. He also was a Massachusetts man, as was
Israel Putnam by birth, though now a Connecticut private. The later
famous John Stark was a lieutenant of the New Hampshire forces. There
were also others in command who knew scarce more of war than Johnson
himself, and such was Colonel Timothy Ruggles, of a Massachusetts
regiment, who was a college-bred lawyer and an innkeeper, destined to
be president of the Stamp Act congress.

At the carrying place Lyman began a fort, which was named after him,
but all preparations for the campaign proceeded very leisurely, the
fault rather of the loosely banded union and hesitating purpose that
existed among the colonies which had undertaken the movement; and
matters were not mended by a certain incompatibility of temper existing
between Johnson and Shirley, now commander-in-chief.

Leaving a garrison at Fort Lyman, the main body marched to the lake,
to which Johnson had, out of compliment to the king, given the name
of George. Meanwhile Dieskau had pushed up in his canoes to the very
head of Lake Champlain, and had started through the wilderness to
attack Fort Lyman. An Indian brought the news to Johnson, and Ephraim
Williams and Hendrick, the Mohawk chief, were sent out to intercept
the enemy. Dieskau, gaining information by capturing a messenger bound
to Fort Lyman, and finding his Indians indisposed to assail a fort
armed with cannon, turned towards the lake. Scouts informed him of
the approach of the party under Williams, and an ambush was quickly
planned. The English scout was badly managed, and fell into the trap.
The commander and Hendrick were both killed. Nathan Whiting, of
Connecticut, extricated the force skilfully, and a reinforcement from
Johnson rendered it possible to hold the French somewhat in check.
Could Dieskau have controlled his savages, however, he might have
followed close enough to enter the English camp with the fugitives.
As he did not, Johnson was given time to form a defence of his wagons
and bateaux, mixed with tree-trunks, and when the French came on the
English fought vigorously behind their barricade. Johnson was wounded
and was borne to his tent. Lyman brought the day to a successful issue,
and at its end his men leaped over the breastworks and converted the
defeat of the French into a rout.

Meanwhile, a part of Dieskau’s Canadians and Indians had broken away
from him, and had returned to the field where Williams had been killed,
in order to strip the slain. There, near a pond, known still as Bloody
Pond,[1142] a scouting party from Fort Lyman attacked them and put them
to flight.[1143]

The French, routed by Lyman, were not followed far, and in gathering
the wounded on the field Dieskau was discovered. He was borne to
Johnson’s tent, and the English commander found it no easy task to
protect him from the vengeance of the Mohawks. He was, however, in the
end taken to New York, whence he sailed for England, and eventually
reached France, but so shattered from his wounds that he died, though
not till several years afterwards.

The defeat of the French had taken place on the 8th of September,
and an active general would have despatched a force to intercept
the fugitives before they reached their canoes, at the head of Lake
Champlain; but timidity, the fear of a fresh onset, or a dread of a
further tension of the weakening power of the army induced Johnson to
tarry where he was, and to erect a fort, which in compliment to the
royal family he named Fort William Henry, while in a similar spirit he
changed the name of the post at the carrying place from Fort Lyman to
Fort Edward. Of Lyman he seems to have been jealous, and in writing his
report on the fight he makes no mention of the man to whose leadership
the success was largely due. In this way Lyman’s name failed to obtain
recognition in England, while the commander received a gift of £5,000
from Parliament and became Sir William Johnson, Baronet.

If Lyman’s advice had been followed, Ticonderoga might have been
seized; but the French who reached it had so strongly entrenched
themselves in a fortnight that attack was out of the question, and
though Shirley, writing from Oswego, urged an advance, nothing was
done. A council of war finally declared it inexpedient to proceed,
and on the 27th of November Johnson marched the main part of his army
southerly to their winter quarters.

[Illustration]

British and French diplomates finally ceased bowing to each other,
while their ships and armies fought together, and in May and June
(1756), respectively, the two governments declared a war which was
now nearly two years old.[1144] The French at once sent the Marquis
de Montcalm, now about forty-four years of age, to succeed Dieskau.
With him went the Chevalier de Lévis and the Chevalier de Bourlamaque
as the second and third in command, and Bougainville as his principal
aide-de-camp. By the middle of May the French general was in Quebec,
and soon proceeded to Montreal to meet Vaudreuil, who was not at
all pleased to share the responsibility of the coming campaign with
another. The French troops were now divided, being mainly placed at
Carillon (Ticonderoga), Fort Frontenac, and Niagara, and these posts
had been during the winter severally strengthened,—Lotbinière[1145]
superintending at Ticonderoga, Pouchot at Niagara, and two French
engineers at Frontenac.

Already in February the French, by sending a scouting party, had
captured and destroyed Fort Bull, a station of supplies at the carrying
place on the way from Albany to Oswego; but the intervening time till
June was spent in preparation. Word now coming of an English advance
on Ticonderoga, Montcalm proceeded thither, and found the fort of
Carillon, as the French termed it, which was now completed, much as he
would wish it.

[Illustration: LOUDON.

This follows a painting by Ramsay, engraved by Spooner, which is
reproduced in J. C. Smith’s _Brit. Mezzotint Portraits_, p. 1343.]

Shirley, on his part, was preparing to carry out such of the lordly
plans which he had suggested at New York as proved practicable. He
would repeat the Niagara movement himself, with a hope of better
success. For the command in the campaign on Lake Champlain he named
Gen. John Winslow, and the New England colonies eagerly furnished the
troops.

[Illustration: LORD LOUDON.

From a print in the _London Magazine_, Oct., 1757. Cf. the full-length
portrait in Shannon’s _N.Y. City Manual_, 1869, p. 767, given as a
fac-simile of an old print.]

The eastern colonies and the Massachusetts governor were not fully
aware how the cabal of Johnson and De Lancey, the lieutenant-governor
of New York, against Shirley was making head with the home government,
and so were not well prepared for the tidings which came in June,
while Shirley was in New York, that Colonel Webb, Major-General
Abercrombie, and the Earl of Loudon were to be sent over successively
to relieve Shirley of the chief command.[1146]

[Illustration: ALBANY.

From _A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual
surveys_, 1763, published in London. (Copy in Harvard College
library,—5325.67.) A map of the region about Albany and Schenectady,
from Sauthier’s map (1779), is given in Pearson’s _Schenectady Patent_
(1883), p. 290. Cf. _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ Feb., 1886.]

While Winslow was employed in pushing forward from Albany his men
and supplies, French scouting parties constantly harassed him. Col.
Jonathan Bagley was making ready sloops and whale-boats at Lake George;
and the English were soon as active as the French in their scouting
forays, Capt. Robert Rogers particularly distinguishing himself.

[Illustration: FORT FREDERICK AT ALBANY.

From _A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual
surveys_, 1763, published in London. An old view of the fort is given
in Holden’s _Queensbury_, p. 313. There is an early plan of Albany
and its fort (1695) in Miller’s _Description of the Province and City
of New York_, of which a fac-simile is given in Weise’s _Albany_, pp.
257-8. The _Catal. of the King’s Maps_, i. 13 (Brit. Mus.), shows a MS.
plan of Albany of the 18th century. There is a plan dated 1765 in the
_Annals of Albany_, vol. iv. 2d ed.

Mrs. Grant’s _Memoirs of an American Lady_ gives a picture of Albany
and its life at this time, which may be compared with the description
in Kalm’s _Travels_. (London, 1771, vol. ii. p. 98; also in _Annals
of Albany_, vol. i. 2d ed., 1869.) Parkman (i. p. 319), who sketches
the community from these sources, speaks of Mrs. Grant’s book as “a
charming book, though far from being historically trustworthy;” while
it affords a “genuine picture of colonial life.” Grahame (_United
States_, ii. 256) considers the picture of manners “entirely fanciful
and erroneous.”

Mrs. Grant herself says “I certainly have no intention to relate
anything that is not true;” yet it must be remembered that she wrote in
1808, forty years after she, a girl of thirteen, had left the country.
The book was published at Edinburgh in 1808; again in 1809, also in
New York and in Boston the same year; in London in 1817, and again in
New York in 1836 and 1846. The last edition is one printed at Albany
in 1876, with notes by Joel Munsell and a memoir by Gen. J. G. Wilson.
Cf. Munsell’s _Bibliog. of Albany_; Lossing’s _Schuyler_ (1872), i. 34;
Tuckerman’s _America and her Commentators_, p. 171.

The most extensive repository of historical data respecting Albany is
in Joel Munsell’s _Annals of Albany_ (1850-59), 10 vols. Vol. i. to iv.
were issued in a second edition, 1869-71. (See Vol. IV. p. 435.)]

Johnson, who had now got his commission as sole Indian superintendent,
was busily engaged in conferences with the Six Nations, whom he secured
somewhat against their will to the side of the English. He extended his
persuasions even to the Delawares and Shawanoes. Some of these tribes
were coquetting, however, with Vaudreuil at Montreal, and it was too
apparent that nothing but an English success would confirm any Indian
alliance.

Shirley also carried out a plan of his own in organizing a body of
New England whalemen and boatmen for the transportation service,
who, being armed, could dispense with an escort. These were placed
under the command of Lieut.-Col. John Bradstreet. In May, before
Montcalm’s arrival, a party had been sent by Vaudreuil to cut off the
communications of Oswego, and Bradstreet encountered and beat them.

This was the state of affairs in June, 1756, when Abercrombie and Webb
arrived with reinforcements, and Pitt was writing in England, “I dread
to hear from America.”[1147] Shirley went to New York and received them
as well as Loudon, who followed the others on the 23d of July. The new
governor proceeded to Albany, and countermanded the orders for the
Niagara expedition, and stirred up the New Englanders by promulgating
a royal direction which in effect made a provincial major-general
subordinate to a regular major.[1148]

[Illustration]

Affairs were stagnating in the confusion consequent upon the change
of command, and Albany was telling other towns what it was to have
foreign officers billeted upon its people. Not till August did some
fresh troops set off for Oswego, when apprehension began to be felt for
the safety of that post. It was too late. The reinforcement had only
reached the carrying place when they heard of the capture of the forts.

Montcalm had suddenly returned from Ticonderoga to Montreal, and had
hastened to Niaouré Bay (Sackett’s Harbor), where Villiers was with the
force which had escaped Bradstreet’s attack. Here Montcalm gathered
about three thousand men, and then appeared without warning before
the entrenchments at Oswego. Fort Ontario was soon abandoned by its
defenders, and gave Montcalm a place to plant his cannon against the
other fort, while he sent a strong force by a ford for an attack on
the other bank. Colonel Mercer, the commander, was soon killed by a
cannon-shot from Ontario. The enemy’s approach in the rear discouraged
the garrison, and they surrendered. Montcalm did what he could to
prevent a slaughter of the prisoners, which was threatened when his
Indian allies became infuriated by the rum among the plunder.[1149]

While the French were destroying what they could not remove, and were
later retiring to Montreal, Webb, who commanded the relief which never
came, fell back to German Flats, and orders were sent to Fort William
Henry to suspend preparations for a movement down the lake.[1150]

[Illustration: THE FORTS AT OSWEGO.

After a plan in the contemporary _Mémoires sur le Canada_, 1749-1763,
as published in 1838 by the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec, and
(réimpression) 1873, p. 77. It is also reproduced in Dr. Hough’s
transl. of Pouchot, i. 65, and in _Doc. Hist. of N. York_, i. 482.

There was a contemporary English draft of the forts “Ontario and
Oswego,” published in the _Gentleman’s Mag._, 1757, which is reproduced
in Dr. Hough’s _Pouchot_, i. 64, and in the _Doc. Hist. N. York_, i.
447, 483, where will be found various papers relating to the first
settlement and capture of Oswego, 1727-1756.

The _Catal. of the King’s Maps_ (Brit. Mus.), ii. 118, shows a plan
made in 1756 for Gov. Pownall, and others of dates 1759, 1760, 1762,
1763, with a view in 1761.

In the _New York Col. Docs._, ix. p. 996, is what is called a plan of
the mouth of the Chouaguen, showing the English redoubt,—an outline
sketch found by Brodhead in the Archives de la Marine at Paris. Martin,
_De Montcalm en Canada_, p. 35, gives a plan, “_D’après un MS. du dépôt
des Colonies_”, in Paris.

Parkman speaks (_Montcalm and Wolfe_, i. 416) of the published plans
and drawings of Oswego at this time as very inexact. There is a French
description of the country between Oswego and Albany, 1757, in _Doc.
Hist. N. Y._, vol. i.; cf. also _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 674. Another map
showing the communication between Albany and Oswego is given in Mante’s
_Hist. of the Late War_, London, 1772, p. 60.

A view of Oswego, looking towards the lake between the high banks,
appeared in the _London Magazine_ (1760), p. 232. It has been
reproduced on different scales in Smith’s _Hist. of N. York_,
4^o, Lond. 1767; _Doc. Hist. New York_, i. 495; Hough’s transl.
of _Pouchot_, i. 68, Gay’s _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 49; Clark’s
_Onondaga_, P. 353; _The Century_, xxviii. 240.]

[Illustration: FORT EDWARD.

From Mante’s _Hist. of the Late War_, London, 1772. The _Catalogue of
the King’s Maps_ (Brit. Museum), i. 336, shows various drawn plans of
the fort, dated 1755; and another of the same date, marked no. 15,535,
is among the _Brit. Mus. MSS._ John Montresor’s Journal at Fort Edward,
in 1757, is in _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1881, p. 148. He gives a
profile of the work (_Ibid._, p. 36).]

Montcalm was soon back at Carillon, watching Winslow’s force at Fort
William Henry, while the rest of Loudon’s army was divided between Fort
Edward and Albany. Neither opponent moved, and, leaving garrisons at
their respective advanced posts, they retired to winter quarters. The
regulars were withdrawn to Boston, Philadelphia, and New York; and not
a little bad blood was produced by Loudon’s demand for free quarters
for the officers.[1151]

The French had the advantage in Indian allies; and during the autumn
and winter the forays of the prowling savage and the adventurous scout
over the territory neighboring to Lake George and Lake Champlain
were checked by the English as best they could. Foremost among their
partisans was the New Hampshire ranger, Robert Rogers, whose exploits
and those of the Connecticut captain, Israel Putnam, fill a large space
in the records of this savage warfare.

[Illustration: FORT EDWARD.

From _A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual
surveys_, 1763, published in London. Cf. the plan in Lossing’s
_Field-Book of the Revolution_, i. p. 95.]

The campaign of the next year (1757) opened in March with an attempt
to surprise Fort William Henry. The French under Rigaud came up on the
ice, 1,600 strong, by night. The surprise failed. They burned, however,
two sloops and some bateaux. The next day they summoned Major Eyre, the
English commander, but he felt that his four hundred men were enough
to hold the fort, and declined to surrender. Rigaud now made a feint
of storming the work, but it was only to approach the storehouses,
saw-mill, and other buildings outside the entrenchments, which he
succeeded in firing, and then withdrew.

Montcalm, when he heard the details, was not over-pleased; and if he
had had his way, De Lévis or Bougainville would have led the attack.
As it was, Rigaud was a brother of the governor, and Vaudreuil was
tenacious of his superiority. The news broke in upon a round of
festivities at Montreal, stayed only by Lent. At this season Montcalm
prayed, as he had before feasted, with no full recognition of the
feelings which Vaudreuil entertained for him. But the minister in
France knew it, and he was not, perhaps, so ready to doubt the numbers
of the English, exaggerated in Vaudreuil’s report, as he was the
prowess of the Canadians in comparison with the timidity of Montcalm
and his regulars, which was also reported to him. In Montreal, however,
the mutual distrust and dislike of the governor and the general were
cloaked with a politeness that was not always successful, when they
were apart, in keeping their feelings from their neighbors.

[Illustration: ENVIRONS OF FORT EDWARD.

From _A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual
surveys_, 1763, published in London.]

Loudon had resolved on attacking Louisbourg, with the aid of a
fleet from England.[1152] Withdrawing a large part of the force on
the northern frontier, he departed for Halifax, where everything
miscarried. But before he returned to New York, crestfallen, the French
had profited by his absence.

The English general had left the line of the approach by the lakes
from Canada to be watched by Webb, who was at Fort Edward, while Col.
Munro, with a small force, held Fort William Henry, at the head of
Lake George. This was the most advanced post of the English, and the
opportunity for Montcalm had come.

[Illustration: FORT ST. JEAN.

After a plan in the contemporary _Mémoires sur le Canada_, 1749-1760,
as published by the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec (réimpression), 1873,
p. 95. Kalm describes the fort in 1749. _Travels_, London, 1771, ii.
216.]

At Montreal the French general was gathering his Indian allies from
points as distant as Acadia and Lake Superior. He pushed forward his
commingled forces, and they rallied at Fort St. John on the Sorel. On
again they swept in a fleet of bateaux and canoes to Ticonderoga. They
were prepared for quick work, and Montcalm set an example by discarding
the luxuries of personal equipments.

[Illustration: FORT WILLIAM HENRY.

From _A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual
surveys_, 1763, published in London. A plan of this fort is in the
_Brit. Mus. MSS._, no. 15,355, and various plans of 1756 and 1757 are
noted in the _King’s Maps_ (Brit. Mus.), ii. 475. Plans are also given
in Martin’s _Montcalm et les dernières années de la colonie Française
au Canada_, and in Hough’s ed. of Pouchot, p. 48.

A sketch of the fort preserved on a powderhorn is engraved in Stone’s
_Life of Johnson_, i. p. 553, and in Holden’s _Queensbury_, 306.]

At the portage, and before launching his flotilla on Lake George,
Montcalm held a grand council, and bound his Indian allies by a mighty
belt of wampum. Up the smaller lake the main body now went by boat, but
some Iroquois allies led De Lévis, with 2,500 men, along its westerly
bank. The force on the lake disembarked under cover of a point of
land, which hid them from the English.

[Illustration: THE SITE OF FORT WILLIAM HENRY, 1851.

From a sketch made in 1851. The fort was on the bluff at the left, now
the position of the Fort William Henry hotel. Montcalm’s trenches were
where the modern village of Caldwell is built, seen beyond the water.
The way to the entrenched camp started along the gravelly beach in the
foreground, towards the spectator.]

The extent of the demonstration was first made known to Munro when the
savages spread out across the lake in their bark canoes. Montcalm soon
pushed forward La Corne and De Lévis till they cut the communications
of the English with Fort Edward, and then the French general began
his approaches from his own encampment. When he advanced his lines to
within gun-shot of the ramparts, he summoned the fort. Munro declined
to surrender, hoping for relief from Webb; but the timid commander at
Fort Edward only despatched a note of advice to make terms. This letter
was intercepted by Montcalm, who sent it into the fort, and it induced
Munro to agree to a capitulation.

On the 9th of August the English retired to the entrenched camp, and
the French entered the fort. Munro’s men were to be escorted to Fort
Edward, being allowed their private effects, and were not to serve
against the French for eighteen months. Montcalm took the precaution
to explain the terms to his Indian allies, and received their seeming
assent; but the savages got at the English rum, and, with passions
roused, they fell the next day upon the prisoners. Despite all
exertions of Montcalm and the more honorable of his officers, many
were massacred or carried off, so that the line of march became a
disorderly rout, beyond all control of the escort, and lost itself in
the woods. Not more than six hundred in a body reached Fort Edward, but
many others later straggled in. Another portion, which Montcalm rescued
from the clutch of the Indians, was subsequently sent in under a strong
escort.

[Illustration: ATTACK ON FORT WILLIAM HENRY.

From _A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual
surveys_, 1763, published in London.

KEY.—A, dock. B, garden. C, Fort William Henry. D, morass. E, French
first battery of nine guns and two mortars. F, French second battery
of ten guns and three mortars. G, French approaches. H, two intended
batteries. I, landing-place of French artillery. K, Montcalm’s camp,
with main body. L, De Lévis’ camp, with regulars and Canadians. M,
De la Corne, with Canadians and Indians. N, where the English first
encamped. O, bridge over morass. P, English entrenchments, where Fort
George later stood.

Cf. the plans in Parkman’s _Montcalm and Wolfe_, i. 494, and in
Palmer’s _Lake Champlain_, p. 73, based on this, and the reproduction
of it in Bancroft’s _United States_, orig. ed., iv. p. 263. There is a
rough contemporary sketch given in J. A. Stoughton’s _Windsor Farms_,
1884, showing the lines of the attacking force, and endorsed, “Taken
Oct. 22, 1757, by John Stoughton.” There is another large plan of the
attack preserved in the New York State Library, and this is given in
the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 602. Martin, _De Montcalm en Canada_, p.
81, gives a “Plan du siège de Fort George [William Henry was often so
called by the French] dressé par Fernesic de Vesour le 12 Septembre,
1757,” preserved in the Dépôt des Fortifications des Colonies, no. 516,
at Paris.]


The French destroyed the fort, throwing the bodies of the slain on the
fire which was made of its timber, and, lading their boats with the
munitions and plunder, they followed the savages, who had already
started on their way to Montreal.

[Illustration: FORT AT GERMAN FLATS.

After a plan in the _Doc. Hist. New York_, ii. 732. In Benton’s
_Herkimer County_, p. 53, is also a “plan and profile of the entrenched
works round Harkemer’s house at y^e German Flats, 1756.” Cf. _Set of
Plans_, etc., no. 13.]

Loudon reached New York on the last of August,[1153] but he had already
heard of the Lake George disaster from a despatch-boat which met him on
the way. On landing he learned from Albany that Montcalm had retired.
Webb, who was much perplexed with the hordes of militia which all too
late began to pour in upon him, was now bold enough to think there was
no use of retreating to the passes of the Hudson. The necessity of
allowing the Canadians to gather their crops, as well as Montcalm’s
inability to transport his cannon, had influenced that general to
retreat. At Montreal he learned the stories of the fiendish cruelty
practised upon their prisoners by the Indians who had preceded him, and
who had not been restrained by Vaudreuil,—so Bougainville said; for
the governor’s policy of buying some of the captives with brandy led to
the infuriation which wreaked itself on the rest.

The campaign closed in November with an attack on the post at German
Flats, a settlement of Palatine Germans, by a scouting body of French
and Indians under one of Vaudreuil’s Canadians, Belêtre. Everything
disappeared in the havoc, which a detachment sent by Colonel Townshend
from Fort Herkimer, not far off, was powerless to check. Before Lord
Howe, with a larger force from Schenectady,[1154] could reach the
scene, the French had departed.

       *       *       *       *       *

The winter of 1757-58 at Montreal and Quebec passed with the usual
official gayety and bureaucratic peculation. The passions of war were
only aroused as occasional stories of rapine and scalps came in from
the borders. Good hearty rejoicing took place, however, in March, over
the report that a scouting party from Ticonderoga had encountered
Rogers, and that the dreaded partisan had been killed and his followers
annihilated. The last part of the story was too true, but Rogers had
escaped, leaving behind his coat, which he had thrown off in the fray,
and in its pocket was his commission, the capture of which had given
rise to the belief in his death. Meanwhile, on the English side a new
spirit of control was preparing to give unaccustomed vigor to the
coming campaign. In England’s darkest hour William Pitt had come to
power, thrown up by circumstances. He was trusted in the country’s
desperation, and proved himself capable of imparting a momentum that
all British movements had lacked since the war began. He developed his
plans for America, and made his soldiers and sailors spring to their
work. Loudon was recalled. The provincial officer was made the equal
of the regular, by conferring upon him the same right of seniority by
commission. The whole colonial service felt that they were thereby
made equal sharers of the honors as well as of the burdens of the
times. Pitt put his finger upon the three vulnerable gaps in the French
panoply. He would reach Quebec by taking Louisbourg; and singling out
a stubborn colonel who had shown his mettle in Germany, he made him
Major-General Amherst, and sent him with a fleet to take Louisbourg, as
we may see in another chapter.[1155] Circumstances, or a mischance in
judgment, made him retain Abercrombie for the Crown Point campaign, but
a better decision named Brigadier John Forbes to attack Fort Duquesne.
It belongs to this place to tell the story of these last two campaigns.

In June, Abercrombie had assembled at the head of Lake George a force
of 15,000 men, of whom 6,000 were regulars. Montcalm was at Ticonderoga
with scarce a quarter as many; but Vaudreuil was tardily sending
forward some scant reinforcements under De Lévis. The French general
got tidings early in July of the embarkation in England, but had done
nothing up to that time to protect his army, which was lying on the
peninsula of Ticonderoga, mainly outside the fort. In fact, he was at
a loss what to do; no help had reached him, and the approaching army
was too numerous to hope for success. He thought of retreating to Crown
Point, but some of his principal officers opposed it. He now began a
breastwork of logs on the high ground before the fort, and, felling the
trees within musket range, he covered the ground with a dense barrier.

[Illustration]

All the while, the English were in a heydey of assurance. Pitt was
waiting anxiously in London for the first tidings. Abercrombie, now
a man of fifty-two years, did not altogether inspire confidence.
His heavy build and lethargic temperament made lookers-on call him
“aged.” There was, however, a proud expectation of success from the
vigorous, companionable Earl Howe, the brigadier next in command,
whom Pitt hoped to prove the real commander, because of the trust
which Abercrombie put in him. On the 5th of July the immense flotilla,
which bore the English army and its train, started down Lake George.
To a spectator it completely deadened the glare of the water for
miles away. The next morning at daybreak the army was passing Rogers’
Slide, whence a French party under Langy watched them. By noon it had
disembarked at the extreme north end of Lake George, and near the
river conducting to Ticonderoga they built an entrenchment, to protect
their bateaux. Rogers, with his rangers, was sent into the woods to
lead the way, while the army followed; but the denseness of the forest
soon brought the column into confusion. Meanwhile, the French party
under Langy, finding the English had got between them and their main
body, endeavored to pass around the head of the English column, and,
in doing so, got equally confused in the thickness of the wood, and
suddenly encountered that part of the English force where Lord Howe and
Major Putnam were. A skirmish ensued, Howe fell,[1156] and the army was
practically without a head. Rogers, who was in advance, turned back
upon Langy, and few of the Frenchmen escaped.

[Illustration: LORD HOWE.

From an engraving in Entick’s _Hist. of the Late War_, 3d ed., 1765,
vol. iii. p. 209. For the impression made by Howe’s character on the
colonists, see Mrs. Grant’s _American Lady_, Wilson’s ed., p. 222.]

In the morning Abercrombie withdrew the army to the landing.
Bradstreet, with his watermen, having rebuilt the bridges destroyed by
the French, the original intention of skirting the river on the west
was abandoned, and the army now started to follow the ordinary portage
across the loop of the river, which held the rapids. The French had
already deserted their positions at either end of this portage. At
the northerly end, near a saw-mill, the English general halted his
army. He was at one base-corner of the triangular peninsula of which
Ticonderoga was the apex. He had now to encounter, not far from the
fort, the entrenchment which Montcalm was busily constructing out of
the forest-trees which had been laid along its front as by a hurricane.
Scorning all measures which might have spared his army great losses,
and thoughtless of movements which could have intercepted Montcalm’s
reinforcements,[1157] the English general undertook, from the distant
mill, to direct repeated assaults in front. His soldiers made a deadly
push through the entanglements of the levelled trees and against the
barricade, behind which the defenders were almost wholly protected. He
could have done nothing to help Montcalm so much. The stores of the
French were sufficient for eight days only, and the chief dread of the
French general was that Abercrombie would cut his communications with
Crown Point.

[Illustration: TICONDEROGA, 1851.

After a sketch made in 1851. The ruins of Ticonderoga and the
landing-wharf are seen on the right. The high hill on the left is Mount
Defiance, on whose side Johnson and his Indians were posted during
Abercrombie’s attack. At its base is the outlet leading to Lake George.
The ruins in the foreground are a part of Fort Independence.]

As it was, De Lévis, with a considerable force, arrived in the night.
Sir William Johnson and some Indians opened fire in the morning across
the river from the sides of Mount Defiance; but accomplished nothing,
and took no further part in the day’s work. About noon the attack began
in front, and all day long—now here, now there—the French repelled
assaults which showed prodigies of valor and brought no reward. Some
rafts, with cannon sent by Abercrombie to enfilade the French line,
were driven back by the guns of the fort. At twilight the cruel work
ceased. Abercrombie had lost nearly 2,000 men, and Montcalm short of
400.

[Illustration: ABERCROMBIE’S ATTACK ON TICONDEROGA, 1758.

From Almon’s _Remembrancer_, London, 1778, where it is called “Sketch
of Cheonderoga or Ticonderoga, taken on the spot by an English officer,
in 1759.”

A plan of the approaches and attack by Lieut. Meyer, of the 60th regt.,
is given in Parkman, ii. p. 94. Cf. other plans in Bancroft, orig. ed.
iv.; Palmer’s _Lake Champlain_, p. 79, etc.]

Montcalm was still anxious. He knew that Abercrombie had cannon, and
had not used them. The most natural thing in the world for the English
general would be to occupy the night in bringing the cannon up. In the
morning Montcalm sent out to reconnoitre, and it was found that the
English, still 13,000 strong, had reëmbarked, and all the signs showed
the great precipitancy of their flight.

The French general could well rejoice, but he exaggerated his
enemy’s strength to 25,000 and their losses to 5,000, which last was
considerably more than the victor’s whole force.

[Illustration: FORT FRONTENAC.

From _A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual
surveys_, 1763, published in London. The fort was at the modern
Kingston, Canada. There is a view or plan of it in _Mémoires sur les
affaires du Canada_, 1749-60, p. 115.]

[Illustration: NOTE.—The annexed map is from Mante’s _Hist. of the
Late War_, Lond., 1772. A map of the lake, from surveys made in 1762, is
given in Parkman, i. 285. It is also reproduced in De Peyster’s
_Wilson’s Orderly Book_.

Holden (_Hist. Queensbury_, 302, 303) mentions several MS. maps of Lake
George of this period, preserved in the State Library at Albany. A map
of the military roads (1759) from the Hudson to Lake George is given in
_Ibid._, p. 341.

There is in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 721, a sketch map copied from an
original in the Archives de la Guerre at Paris, called _Frontiers du
lac St. Sacrement, 1758, 8 Juillet_. It shows Lake Champlain from below
Crown Point, together with Lake George and the country towards Albany,
marking the routes, forts, etc.

Cf. the section giving Lake George in Jefferys’ _Map of the most
inhabited part of New England_, published November 29, 1755, and
contained in his _General Topography of North America and the West
Indies_, Lond., 1768, no. 37; and the separate map of Lake George,
1756, in Sayer and Bennet’s _American Military Pocket Atlas_, 1776.
This I suppose to be the survey made in 1756 by Captain Jackson, of
which a tracing is given in F. B. Hough’s ed. of _Rogers’s journals_,
Albany, 1883. The map in Gay’s _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 284, is a
modern one.

Views of historic interest on Lake George, by T. A. Richards, are given
in _Harper’s Mag._, vii. 161.]

Abercrombie apparently magnified beyond belief an enemy whom he had not
seen, and went up the lake in trepidation, lest he should be pursued.
Safe on his old camping-ground at the head of the lake, he made haste
to entrench himself, while Montcalm, lucky to escape as he did,
prepared for a new campaign by rebuilding his lines. So the two armies
still watched each other at a safe distance.[1158]

Montcalm for a while tried to harass the English communications with
Fort Edward, by sending out his leading partisan, Marin; but Rogers
was more than his match, and gave the English general some grains of
comfort by his successes. Putnam, however, was captured and carried
to Canada. Meanwhile, much greater relief came to the army’s spirits
in September when the news of Bradstreet’s success at Fort Frontenac
reached them.

[Illustration]

A council of war had forced Abercrombie to give Bradstreet 3,000 men,
and with these he made his way to Oswego, whence, towards the end of
August, his whale-boats and bateaux pushed out upon the lake, and in
three days he was before Frontenac. The fort quickly surrendered.
Bradstreet levelled it, ruined seven armed vessels, put as much of
the plunder as he could carry on two others, and returned to Oswego
unmolested. Here he landed his booty, destroyed the vessels, and the
French naval power on Ontario was at an end. He began his march for
Albany, and, passing the great carrying place where Brigadier Stanwix
was building a fort for the protection of the valley, left there a
thousand men for its garrison. In October Amherst came overland from
Boston, with some of his victorious regiments from Louisbourg. It was
too late for further campaigning; and each side left garrisons at their
camps, and retired to winter quarters.

[Illustration: FORT STANWIX.

From _A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual
surveys_, 1763, published in London. The _Catal. of the King’s Maps_
(Brit. Mus.), ii. 354-55, shows drawn plans (1758, 1759, 1764) of Fort
Stanwix, built by I. Williams, engineer.

A large map of the neighborhood of Fort Stanwix is in the _Doc. Hist.
New York_ (iv. p. 324), with a plan of the fort itself (p. 327),
accompanied by a paper on the history of the fort. A map of the siege
of the fort, presented to Col. Gansevoort by L. Flury, is given with
a plan of the modern city of Rome superposed, in Dr. Hough’s ed. of
_Pouchot_, i. 207. Cf. the chapter on Fort Schuyler (Stanwix) in
Bogg’s _Pioneers of Utica_, 1877. The fort was originally called Fort
Williams. It was begun on July 23, 1758, by Brig.-Gen. John Stanwix.
Cf. note on Stanwix in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vii. 280.

There is in Harvard College library a copy of a MS. journal of Ensign
Moses Dorr, from May 25 to Oct. 28, 1758, including an account of
the building of Fort Stanwix. The original MS. was in 1848 in the
possession of Lyman Watkins, of Walpole, N. H.]

The destruction of Frontenac and the French fleet on Ontario had cut
off Fort Duquesne from its sources of supply, and to the substantial,
if not brilliant, success of Brigadier John Forbes[1159] we must now
turn. It is a story of a stubborn Scotch purpose. Forbes had no dash,
and purposely dallied with the forming and marching of his army to
weary the Indian allies of the French, and to secure time to gain over
all of the savages that he could. The English general got upon his
route by June, but soon fell sick, and was carried through the marches
in a litter; but he breasted every discomfort and harassing complexity
of the details, which he had to manage almost in every particular, with
a courage that might have done credit to a man in vigor. He had made
up his mind to open a new road over the mountains more direct than
Braddock’s. Lieutenant-Colonel Henry Bouquet, a Swiss officer of the
Royal Americans, sustained him in this purpose; but Washington argued
for the older route,—not without inciting some distrust, for Forbes
was not blind to the rival interests of Pennsylvania and Virginia, and
suspected that Washington was influenced by a greater loyalty for his
colony than for the common cause.

Forbes did not fail, however, to recognize the young Virginian’s merit
in the kind of warfare which was before them; and there exists in
Washington’s hand a plan of a line of march for forces in a forest,
with diagrams for throwing the line into order of battle, which Forbes
had requested him to make.[1160] Braddock’s defeat was not lost on
Forbes, and in his marches and preparations he availed himself of
all the arts of woodcraft and partisanship which Washington could
teach him. He did not, nevertheless, have a very high opinion of the
provincials in his train, and, with the exception of some of their
higher officers, they were, no doubt, a sorry set. As he pushed on he
established fortified posts for supplies; but all the help he ought to
have got from his quartermaster-general, Sir John Sinclair, stood him
in poor stead, for that officer was “a very odd man,” and only added
to his general’s perplexities. The advice of Washington about taking
the other route had so far unsettled Forbes’s faith in him, that,
though he told his subordinates among the advance to consult with the
Virginia colonel, it might not be best, he suggested, to follow his
advice. While the march went on he had little success in attaching some
Cherokees and Catawbas, for they stayed no longer than the gifts held
out. An occasional scout brought him intelligence of the enemy, and
he felt that their numbers were not great, and that the weariness of
delays would drive the Indian allies of the French into desertion,—as
it did.

At Raystown he built Fort Bedford, to protect his supplies, and pushed
on to Loyalhannon[1161] Creek, and there founded his last depot, fifty
miles away from Duquesne.

In August Forbes was planning for a general convention with the Indians
at Easton. The treaty of the previous year had secured the Delawares
and Shawanoes, and a further conference had been held with them in
April.[1162] Sir William Johnson was bullied, as Forbes says, into
bringing into the compact the eastern tribes of the Six Nations, while
other influences induced the Senecas and the western tribes also to
join, despite the labors of Joncaire to retain them in the French
interests. The chief difficulty was to inspire the Ohio Indians with a
distrust of the French; while the failure of French presents, thanks
to British cruisers on the ocean, was beginning to dispose them for
a change. A Moravian brother, Christian Frederick Post, was sent to
the tribes on a hazardous mission, and his confidence and fearlessness
carried him through it alive; for he had to confront French officers
at the conferences, one of which was held close by Fort Duquesne. As
a result of his mission, the convention of the allied tribes which
met the English at Easton in October decided confidently to send a
wampum belt, in the name of both the whites and the red men, to the
Ohio Indians, and Post, with an escort, was commissioned to bear it,
the party setting out from Loyalhannon. It became a struggle for
persuasion between the English messenger and a French officer, who
again confronted Post and offered the Indians a belt of wampum of his
own. The French won the young warriors; but Post impressed the sages of
the Indian councils, and the old men carried the day. The overtures of
peace from the English were accepted, and this happened notwithstanding
that the garrison of Duquesne had but just badly used a reconnoitring
party of the English under Major Grant, of the Scotch Highlanders.

It was a success of forest diplomacy that encouraged and rendered
despondent the respective sides. The French scouting parties were
hanging about Loyalhannon, while the little army at Duquesne kept
dwindling under the prospect of famine, now that Bradstreet’s raid on
Frontenac had checked their supplies. A rough and weltering October
made the bringing up of provisions very difficult for the English, and
their weakening general found his time, on his litter, disagreeably
spent, as he says, “between business and medicine;” but in early
November he himself reached Loyalhannon. He would have stopped here
for winter quarters, but scouts brought in word that the French were
defenceless; so a force was hurriedly pushed forward in light order,
which, when it reached Turkey Creek, heard a heavy boom to the west. It
was the explosion of the French mines, as the garrison of Duquesne blew
up the fort and fled.

[Illustration]

Forbes hutted a portion of his troops within a stockade, which he
called Pittsburg, and early in December began his march eastward.
The debilitated general reached Philadelphia, but died in March. Few
campaigns were ever conducted so successfully from a litter of pain.

[Illustration]

The winter of 1758-59 was an unquiet one in Canada. Vaudreuil and
Montcalm disputed over the results of the last campaign, and the
governor was doing all he could to make the home government believe
that Montcalm neither deserved, nor could profit by, success. All his
intrigue to induce the general’s recall only resulted in the ministry
sending him orders to defer to Montcalm in all matters affecting the
war.

[Illustration: GENERAL AMHERST.

From an engraving in John Knox’s _Historical Journal of the Campaigns
in North America (1757-60)_. London, 1769. There is also an engraving
in Entick’s _Hist. of the Late War_, iv. 129. Reynolds painted three
likenesses of Amherst, and sketched a fourth one, begun May, 1765, and
finished February, 1768, which gave his army in the background, passing
the rapids of the St. Lawrence. This was engraved in mezzotint by James
Watson. (Hamilton’s _Engraved Works of Reynolds_, pp. 1, 163; J. C.
Smith’s _Brit. Mezzotint Portraits_, London, 1878-83, iii. 1008, and
iv. 1488; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, vii. 101; _Catal. Cab. M. H. Soc._,
p. 45.) Amherst was born in 1717, and died in 1797.]

There was never more need of strong counsel in Canada. The gasconade of
Vaudreuil had reached the limit of its purpose. The plunder
by officials, both of the people and of the king, was an enormity
that could not last much longer. It seemed to the wisest that food
and reinforcements, and those in no small amounts, could alone save
Canada, unless, indeed, some kind of a peace could be settled upon
in Europe. To claim help and to learn, Bougainville and Doreil were
sent to France. Nothing they said could gain much but what was easily
given,—promotion in rank to Montcalm and the rest. They represented
that the single purpose which now animated the English colonies was
quite a different thing from the old dissensions among them, the
existence of which had favored the French in the past. The demand in
Europe was, however, inexorable; and all that France could promise was
a few hundred men and a campaign’s supplies of munitions.

[Illustration: FORT PITT OR PITTSBOURG.

From Mante’s _Hist. of the Late War_, London, 1772, p. 158. Cf. also
the plan in Egle’s _Pennsylvania_, p. 98; and the corner sketch of the
plate in Bancroft, _United States_ (orig. ed.), iv. 189.]

In the spring of 1759 Bougainville came back with the little which was
precious to those who had nothing, as Montcalm said. But the returning
soldier brought word of the great fleet which England was fitting out
to attack Quebec, and that fifty thousand men would constitute the
army with which Canada was to be invaded. Vaudreuil could hardly count
twenty thousand men to meet it, and to do this he had to reckon the
militia, _coureurs de bois_, and Indians. If the worst came, Montcalm
thought he could concentrate what force he had, and retreat by way of
the Ohio to the Mississippi, and hold out in Louisiana.[1163]

[Illustration: NEW FORT AT PITTSBURGH.

From _A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual
surveys_, 1763, published in London.]

On the English side matters looked encouraging. Amherst, a sure and
safe soldier, without any dash, was made commander-in-chief, and was to
direct in person the advance over the old route from Lake George,[1164]
while at the same time he took measures to reëstablish Oswego and
reinforce Duquesne. To the latter point General Stanwix was sent, where
in the course of the summer he laid out and strengthened a new fort,
called after the prime minister. Fort Pitt was not, however, wholly
secure till success had followed Brigadier Prideaux’s expedition to
Niagara, the reduction of which was also a part of Amherst’s plans.
Prideaux seated Haldimand at Oswego, and made good its communications
with the Mohawk Valley. It was an open challenge to the French, and
after Prideaux had proceeded to Niagara, Saint-Lac de la Corne came
down with a force from the head of the St. Lawrence rapids to attack
Haldimand, but the English cannon sent the French scampering to their
boats, and the danger was over.

[Illustration: FORT NIAGARA.

From _A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual
surveys_, 1763, published in London. This same plan is given in _Doc.
Hist. N. Y._, ii, p. 868, and in Hough’s edition of Pouchot’s _History
of the Late War_, ii. p. 153. There is another plan on a large scale,
showing less of the neighboring ground, in the latter book, i. p. 161,
and in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. p. 976.

A plan of Fort Niagara, 1759, is noted among the _Brit. Mus. MSS._, no.
15,535; and in the _King’s Maps_, ii. 92, are plans of the fort dated
1766, 1768, 1769, 1773, and a view of the falls in 1765.

O’Callaghan, in the _Doc. Hist. of New York_, ii. 793, gives a map of
the Niagara River, 1759, showing the landing place of Prideaux and the
path around the cataract. For the track of the Niagara portage, see O.
H. Marshall’s “Niagara Frontier,” in _Buffalo Hist. Soc. Publ._, ii.
412-13.]

At Niagara, in the angle formed by the lake and the Niagara
River, stood the strong fort which Pouchot had rebuilt. It had a
dependency[1165] some distance above the cataract, commanded by
Joncaire; but that officer withdrew from this outwork on the approach
of Prideaux, and reinforced the main work. It was the same Joncaire who
had formerly resisted successfully, but of late less so, the efforts
of Johnson to secure the alliance to the English of the Senecas and
the more westerly tribes of the Six Nations; and now Johnson with a
body of braves was in Prideaux’s camp. The English general advanced his
siege lines, and had begun to make breaches in the walls of the fort,
when new succor for the French approached. Their partisan leaders at
the west had gathered such bushrangers and Indians as they could from
Detroit and the Illinois country, and were assembling at Presquisle and
along the route to the Monongahela for a raid on the English there,
in the hopes of recapturing the post. They got word from Pouchot of
his danger, and immediately marched to his assistance, under Aubry and
Ligneris.

[Illustration: FORT GEORGE.

From _A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual
surveys_, 1763, published in London. This plan is reproduced in De
Costa’s _Hist. of Fort George_. For the ruins of the fort and the view
from them, see the cuts in Lossing’s _Field-Book of the Rev._, i. 112;
and _Scribnner’s Monthly_, Mar., 1879, p. 620.]

[Illustration: LAKE GEORGE.]

Early in the siege, Prideaux had been killed by the bursting of one of
his own shells, and the command fell on Johnson, who now went with a
part of his force to meet the new-comers, already showing themselves up
the river. He beat them, and captured some of their principal officers,
while those who survived led the panic-stricken remainder to their
boats above the cataract. Thence they fled to Presquisle, which they
burned. Here the garrisons of LeBœuf and Venango joined them, and the
fugitives continued on to Detroit, leaving the Upper Ohio without a
fighting Frenchman to confront the English.

On the same day of the defeat, negotiations for a surrender of Fort
Niagara began, and Pouchot, being convinced of the reverses which his
intending succorers had experienced, finally capitulated. Johnson
succeeded in preventing any revengeful onset of his Indians, who had
not forgotten the massacre of William Henry.

The extreme west of Canada was now cut off from the central region,
which was threatened, as we shall see, by Amherst and Wolfe, and
Vaudreuil could have little hope of preserving it. To press this
centre on another side, Amherst now sent General Thomas Gage to
succeed Johnson in the command of the Ontario region, and, gathering
such troops as could be spared from the garrisons, to descend the St.
Lawrence and capture the French post at the head of the rapids. Gage
had little enterprise, and was not inclined to undertake a movement in
which dash must make up for the lack of men, and he reported back to
Amherst that the movement was impossible.

When this disappointment came to the commander-in-chief he was at Crown
Point,—but we must track his progress from the beginning.

At the end of June, Amherst had at Lake George about 11,000 men, one
half regulars. He set about the campaign cautiously. He had fortified
new posts in his rear, and began the erection of Fort George at the
head of the lake, of which only one bastion was ever finished. On the
21st of July he embarked his army on the lake, and, landing at the
outlet, he followed the route of Abercrombie’s approach to Ticonderoga
during the previous year. The disparity of the opposing armies was
much like that when Montcalm so successfully defended that post; but
Bourlamaque, who now commanded, had orders to retire, and was making
his arrangements. Amherst brought up his cannon, and protected his
men behind the outer line of entrenchments, which Bourlamaque had
abandoned. On the night of the 23d, Bourlamaque escaped down the lake,
but a small force under Hebecourt still held the fort, which kept up
a show of resistance till the evening of the 26th, when the remaining
French, leaving a match in the magazine, also fled. In the night one
bastion was hurled to the sky, and the barracks were set on fire.

[Illustration: TICONDEROGA.

From _A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual
surveys_, 1763, published in London. Various plans and views are noted
in the _Catal. of the King’s Maps_ (Brit. Mus.), ii. 395. Cf. plans in
Palmer’s _Lake Champlain_, 85; Lossing’s _Field-Book of the Rev._, i.
118, and views and descriptions of the ruins in Lossing, i. 127, 131;
Watson’s _County of Essex_, 112. Lieut. Brehm’s description of the fort
after its capture is in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1883, p.
21.]

[Illustration: CROWN POINT.

From a small vignette on a map by Kitchin of the Province of New York,
in the _London Magazine_, Sept., 1756. There is a similar map in the
_Gentleman’s Mag._, vol. xxv. p. 525.

Various MS. plans and views of Crown Point are noted in the _Catal. of
the King’s Maps_ (Brit. Mus.), i. 277, under date of 1759. The _Brinley
Catal._, ii. 2,939, shows a MS. “Plan of Crown Point Fort, March,
1763,” on a scale of 90 feet to the inch.

There was published in Boston in 1762 a _Plan of a part of Lake
Champlain and the large new fort at Crown Point, mounting 108 cannon,
built by Gen. Amherst_. (Haven’s _Bibliog._, in Thomas, ii. p. 560.)
Cf. the plans, nos. 24, 25, in _Set of plans_, etc. (London, 1763).

For the ruins of Crown Point, see Lossing, _Field-Book of the
Revolution_, i. 150-152; Watson’s _County of Essex_, pp. 104, 112.
These are a part, however, of the fort built by Amherst. Kalm describes
the previous fort (_Travels_, London, 1771, ii. 207), and it is
delineated in _Mémoires sur les affaires du Canada_, p. 53.]

Amherst began to repair the works, with his army now succumbing
somewhat to the weather,[1166] and was about advancing down the lake,
when scouts brought in word that Bourlamaque had also abandoned Crown
Point. So Amherst again advanced. He knew nothing of the progress Wolfe
was making in his attack on Quebec by water, but he did know that it
was a part of Pitt’s plan that success on Lake Champlain should inure
to Wolfe’s advantage, and this could only be brought about by an active
pursuit of the enemy down the lake. Amherst was, however, not a general
of the impetuous kind, and believed beyond all else in securing his
rear. So he began to build at Crown Point the new fort, whose massive
ruins are still to be seen, and sent out parties to open communication
with the Upper Hudson on the west and with the Connecticut River on the
east.

The French, as he knew, were strongly posted at Isle-aux-Noix, in the
river below the lake, and they had four armed vessels, which would
render dangerous any advance on his part by boat. So Captain Loring,
the English naval commander, was ordered to put an equal armament
afloat for an escort to his flotilla.

Bourlamaque, meanwhile, was confident in his position, for he knew
that, in addition to his own strength, Lévis had been sent up to
Montreal with 800 men to succor him, if necessary, and all the militia
about Montreal was alert.

Amherst, on his part, was anxious to know how the campaign was going
with Wolfe. In August he sent a messenger with a letter by the
circuitous route of the Kennebec, which Wolfe received in about a
month, but it helped that general little to know of the building going
on at Crown Point. Amherst then tried to pass messengers through the
Abenaki region, but they were seized. Upon this, Major Rogers was
sent with his rangers to destroy the Indian village of St. Francis,
which he did, and then, to elude parties endeavoring to cut him off,
he retreated by Lake Memphremagog to Charlestown, on the Connecticut,
enduring as he went the excruciating horrors of famine and exhaustion.

[Illustration: CROWN POINT, 1851.

From a sketch made in 1851, showing in the foreground a slope of the
embankment, with part of the ruins of the barracks, the lake beyond,
looking to the north.]

[Illustration: ISLE-AUX-NOIX.

After a plan in the contemporary _Mémoires sur le Canada_, 1749-1760,
as published by the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec (réimpression), 1873,
p. 154. See the view in Lossing’s _Field-Book of the Rev._, i. 167.]

It was near the middle of October when Loring pronounced the armed
vessels ready, and Amherst embarked; but the autumn gales soon
convinced him that the risks of the elements were too great to be
added to those of the enemy, and after his demonstration had caused
the destruction of three of the enemy’s vessels, and one had reached
their post on the Richelieu River, the English general, still ignorant
of Wolfe’s luck, withdrew to Crown Point, and gave himself to the
completion of its fortress.

       *       *       *       *       *

We must now turn to the most brilliant part of the year’s work. This
was the task assigned to General Wolfe, who had already shown his
quality in the attack on Louisbourg the previous year.[1167] Late
in May he was at Louisbourg, with his army under three brigadiers,
Monckton, Townshend, and Murray, and the fleet of Saunders, who had
come direct from England, combined with that of Holmes, who had been
first at New York to take troops on board. A third fleet under Durell
was cruising in the gulf to intercept supplies for Quebec, but that
officer largely failed in his mission, for all but three of the French
supply ships eluded him, and by the 6th of June, when the last of
Wolfe’s fleet sailed out of Louisbourg, Quebec had received all the
succor that was expected.

The French had done their best to be prepared for the blow. Their
entire force at Quebec was congregated in the town defences and in a
fortified camp, which had been constructed along the St. Lawrence,
beginning at the St. Charles, opposite Quebec, and extending to the
Montmorenci, and on this line about 14,000 men, beside Indians, manned
the entrenchments. A bridge connected the camp with Quebec, and a boom
across the St. Charles at its mouth was intended to stop any approaches
to the bridge by boats; while earthworks along the St. Charles formed
a camp to fall back upon in case the more advanced one was forced.
Beside the 106 cannon mounted on the defences of the city, there were
gun-boats and fire-ships prepared for the moment of need. In the town
the Chevalier de Ramezay commanded a garrison of one or two thousand
men. Montcalm had his headquarters[1168] in the rear of the centre of
the entrenched line along the St. Lawrence, and Vaudreuil’s flag was
flying nearer the St. Charles.

On the 21st of June the masts of the advanced ships of the English
were first seen, and one of the fire-ships was ineffectually sent
against them. There was a difficult passage between the north shore of
the river and the lower end of the Island of Orleans; but the English
fleet managed to pass it without loss, much to the disappointment
of the French, who had failed to plant a battery on the side of Cape
Tourmente, whence they could have plunged shot into the passing
vessels. Past the dangers of the stream, the English landed their
army on the island,[1169] less than 9,000 in all, for Wolfe could
count little on the sailors who were needed for the management of the
fleet.[1170]

[Illustration: GENERAL JAMES WOLFE.

From an engraving in John Knox’s _Hist. Journal of the Campaigns in
North America_ (1757-1760), London, 1769. An engraving from Entick is
given in the preceding chapter. There is a head of Wolfe in _London
Mag._ (1759), p. 584.

J. C. Smith, in his _Brit. Mezzotint Portraits_, notes four different
prints (vol. ii. 783; iii. 1027, 1345, the last by H. Smith, engraved
by Spooner; and iv. 1750), but he does not reproduce either.

Parkman (_Montcalm and Wolfe_, ii.) gives a picture of Wolfe in early
youth—weak enough in aspect—which follows a photograph from an
original portrait owned by Admiral Warde.

Wright, in his _Life of Wolfe_, gives a photograph of the same. See
_Ibid._, p. 604, for an account of various portraits and memorials.

The common picture representing him standing and in profile is engraved
in Parkman’s _Historical Handbook of the Northern Tour_; in the Eng.
ed. of Warburton’s _Conquest of Canada_, etc.]

[Illustration: SIEGE OF QUEBEC, 1759.

Reproduced from the map in Miles’s _Canada_, called “Plan of the St.
Lawrence River from Sillery to the Fall of Montmorency, with the
operations of the siege of Quebec, 1759,” which has a corner “View of
the action gained by the English, Sept. 13, 1759, near Quebec.” This
map is a reduction of one engraved by Jefferys, and dedicated to Pitt,
entitled “Authentic plan of the River St. Lawrence from Sillery to
the Fall of Montmorenci, with the operations of the siege of Quebec,
under the command of Vice-Admiral Saunders and Major-General Wolfe,
down to the fifth of September, 1759, drawn by a captain in his
Majesty’s navy.” The sideplan is called “View of the action gained by
the English Sept. 13, 1759, near Quebec, brought from thence by an
officer of distinction.” This was also inserted by Jefferys in his
_History of the French Dominion in America_, London, 1760, p. 131.
The same map is given in Entick’s _General Hist. of the Late War_,
London, 1770 (3d ed.), iv. 107; and a similar one is in the _American
Atlas_. Jefferys repeats this map in his _General Topography of North
America and the West Indies_, London, 1768 (no. 18), and adds another
(no. 21), called “A correct plan of the environs of Quebec and the
battle fought 13 Sept., 1759,” which is accompanied by a superposed
“second plate,” showing the disposition of the forces on the Plains of
Abraham. This plan had already appeared separately in _Journal of the
siege of Quebec, to which is annexed a correct plan of the environs of
Quebec, and of the battle fought on the 13th September, 1759, together
with a particular detail of the French lines and batteries, and also
of the encampments, batteries, and attacks of the British army, etc.
Engraved from original survey by Thomas Jefferys_ [London, 1760], 16
pp. (Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,276.)

The maps given in James Grant’s _British Battles_, ii. 91, and in
Cassell’s _United States_, are seemingly based on Jefferys’.

The _London Magazine_ for 1759 has a plan of Quebec (Apr.) and of the
siege (Nov.), with a map of the river (Sept.); and for 1760, a view of
the taking of Quebec (p. 280), and a view of the town from the basin
(p. 392).

There is a large folding plan, showing the fleet and the landing of
the boats, in Mante’s _Hist. of the Late War_, 1772, p. 233. Alfred
Hawkins published at London, in 1842, _A Plan of the Naval and Military
Operations before Quebec_, accompanied by an engraving of West’s “Death
of Wolfe.” (H. J. Morgan, _Bibliotheca Canadensis_, no. 179.)

In the _Atlantic Neptune_ (Additional Plates, no. 1) is a plan of three
sheets, called “A plan of Quebec and environs, with its defences and
the occasional entrenched camps of the French, commanded by the Marquis
of Montcalm, showing likewise the principal works and operations of the
British forces under the command of Maj.-Gen. Wolfe, during the siege
of that place, 1759.” It is accompanied by a key. In the same, Part ii.
no. 16, there is a map of the St. Lawrence from Quebec to the gulf,
which shows the region of Quebec on a large scale.

Among existing MS. plans of Wolfe’s attack may be noted one in the
Faden Collection of maps in the library of Congress (E. E. Hale’s
_Catal. of the Faden Maps_); others in the _Catal. of the King’s Maps_
(Brit. Mus.), ii. 220, under date of 1755, 1759, 1760; also _Brit.
Mus. MSS._, no. 15,535; and _Additional MSS._, no. 31,357; this last
is a large plan in four sheets. Parkman (ii. 440) refers to a large
MS. plan, 800 feet to an inch, belonging to the Royal Engineers, which
was made by three engineers of Wolfe’s army, and of which he says that
he possesses a fac-simile. In his _Montcalm and Wolfe_ (ii. 200) he
gives an eclectic plan; and other plans are in Lemoine’s _Picturesque
Quebec_, p. 301 (being Jefferys’ on a small scale); Bancroft’s _United
States_, orig. ed., iv. 315, etc., repeated in vol. i. of his _Hist. of
the Amer. Revolution_ (English edition).

A plan was published at Amsterdam in 1766.

Dussieux, in _Le Canada sous la domination Française_, gives a map of
the siege, “D’après un manuscrit Anglais du Dépôt de la Guerre.”]

[Illustration: PLAN OF THE CITY OF QUEBEC.

From _Father Abraham’s Almanac_ (by Abraham Weatherwise, Gent.), 1761.
Key: A, the west part of the Island of Orleans, on which General
Wolfe landed. B, Point Leveé, on which one grand battery was erected.
C, Wolfe’s camp to the east of Montmorency Falls. D, the river St.
Charles. E E E, the river St. Lawrence, with some of the English ships
going up. F, the lower town, to the right of which is a cross (in the
middle of the passage to the upper town), and a man kneeling before it,
saying his Ave Maria. G, the upper town and passage to the castle. H,
Montcalm’s camp and entrenchments, to the west of Montmorency Falls,
from whence he marched when Wolfe recrossed the river to Point Leveé,
in order to get above the city, where they luckily met, and fought it
out bravely. I, Montmorency Falls and Saunders’ ships playing upon the
town.

This cut has interest as a contemporary sketch for popular instruction.]

He knew also that he must place little reliance on the cannon of the
ships, for the high rocks and bluffs of the defences were above the
elevation which could be given to the guns, and a broad stretch of
mud-flats kept the vessels from a near approach to that portion of
the French camp which was low and lay nearest the St. Charles. Cape
Diamond, the promontory of Quebec, so jutted out that Wolfe could not
inspect at present the banks of the river above the town.

Montcalm had determined on a policy of wearing out his assailants,—and
he came very near doing it,—and when a gale sprang up he hoped that
its power of devastation would be his best ally. When he saw that fail,
he tried his fire-ships; but the British sailors grappled them and
towed them aground, where they were harmless.

Wolfe’s next movement was to occupy Point Levi, opposite the
city,[1171] whence he showered shot and shell into the town, and drove
the non-combatants out. The French tried to dislodge him, but failed.
The English army was now divided by the river, and ran some risk of
attack in detail. Montcalm, however, was not tempted; nor was he later,
when Wolfe next landed a force below him, beyond the Montmorenci, and
began to entrench himself, though the English general was interrupted
in the beginning of this movement by an attack of Canadians, who had
crossed the Montmorenci by an upper ford. The attack was not persisted
in, however, and Wolfe was soon well entrenched. The cannonading was
incessant. Night after night the sky was streaked with the shells from
the vessels, and from each of Wolfe’s three camps.

The dilatory policy of Montcalm soon began to tell on his force, and
then weariness and ominous news from Bourlamaque and Pouchot hastened
the desertion of his Canadians. Wolfe tried to affect the neighboring
peasantry by proclamations more and more threatening, and felt himself
obliged at last to enforce his authority by the destruction of crops
and villages.

On the 18th of July, in the night, the “Sutherland” and some smaller
vessels pushed up the river beyond the town, while a fleet of boats was
dragged overland back of Point Levi and launched above, out of gun-shot
from the town. A force was sent by a détour to operate with them. Thus
Wolfe, in defiance of the French general, had made a fourth division of
his troops, each liable to separate attack. The English vessels above
the town made descents along the north shore, and took some prisoners,
but did little else. The French made their final attempt with a huge
fire-raft, but it was as unsuccessful as the earlier ones.

Wolfe now determined to provoke Montcalm to fight, and under cover
of a cannonade from Point Levi and from some of his ships[1172] he
landed a force from boats beneath the precipice at the lower end of
the French camp. An additional body at the same time crossed by a
ford, in front of the falls of Montmorenci, which was traversable at
low tide. The impetuosity of the grenadiers, who were in advance, not
waiting for support, and a tempest which at the moment broke over them,
convinced the quick eye of Wolfe that the attempt was to fail, and he
recalled his men. The French let them retire in good order, and began
to think their Fabian policy was to be crowned with success. Wolfe was
correspondingly shaken and rebuked the grenadiers. He began to think,
even, that the season might wear away with no better results, and that
he should have to abandon the campaign.

There was one plan yet, which might succeed, and he sought to push
more ships and march more troops above the town. Murray, who now
took command at that point, began to raid upon the shore, but with
poor success. Montcalm sent Bougainville with 1,500 men to patrol
the shore, and incessant marching they had, as the English by water
flitted up and down the river with the tides, threatening to land.
The English restlessness was too oppressive, however, for the French
camp at Beaufort, which felt that its supplies from Three Rivers
and Montreal might be cut off at any moment by an English descent.
Desertions increased, and rapidly increased when in August the French
got decisive and unfavorable news from Lake Champlain and Ontario. The
French fearing an approach of Amherst down the St. Lawrence, Quebec was
further weakened by the despatch of Lévis to confront the English in
that direction. By the end of August there were no signs of immediate
danger at Montreal, and the French took heart.

Wolfe was now ill,—not so prostrate, however, but he could propose
various new plans to a council of his brigadiers, but his suggestions
were all rejected as too hazardous. They recommended, in the end,
an attempt to gain the heights somewhere above the town, and force
Montcalm to fight for his communications. Wolfe was ready to try it;
but it was the first of September before he was able to undertake
it.[1173] He saw no other hope, slight as this one was. The letter
which Amherst had sent to him by the Kennebec route had just reached
him, and he felt there was to be no assistance from that quarter. On
the 3d of September he evacuated the camp at Montmorenci, Montcalm
being prevented from molesting him by a feint which was made by boats
in front of his Beaufort lines. Other troops were now marched above
Quebec, and when Wolfe himself joined Admiral Holmes, who commanded
that portion of the fleet which was above the town, he found he had
almost 3,600 men, beside what he might draw from Point Levi, for his
adventurous exploit. The French were deceived, and thought that the
English were to go down the river, as indeed, if the scheme to scale
the banks failed on the first attempt, they were. Bougainville’s corps
of observation was increased, and it was its duty to patrol a long
stretch of the river shore.

[Illustration: BOUGAINVILLE.

After a cut in Bonnechose’s _Montcalm_, 5th ed., 1882, p. 138.]

Wolfe with a glass had discovered a ravine,[1174] up which it seemed
possible for a forlorn hope to mount, and the number of tents at
its top did not indicate that there was a numerous guard there to
be overcome. Robert Stobo, who had been a prisoner in Quebec after
the fall of Fort Necessity, had recently joined the camp, and his
biographer says that his testimony confirmed Wolfe in the choice, or
rather directed him to it.[1175] While the preparations were going on,
the English ships perplexed Bougainville by threatening to land troops
some distance up the river, near his headquarters; and by floating up
and down with the tide, the English admiral kept the French on the
constant march to be abreast of them.

The plan was now ripe. Wolfe was to drop down the river in boats
with the turn of the tide, having with him his 3,600 men, and 1,200
were to join him by boat from Point Levi. As night came on, Admiral
Saunders, who commanded the fleet in the basin below Quebec, made every
disposition as if to attack the Beauport lines, and Montcalm thought
the main force of the British was still before him.

As the ships opposite Bougainville began to swing downward with the
tide, the French general took pity on his weary men, and failed to
follow the moving vessels. This kept the main part of his troops well
up the river. This French general had, as it happened, informed the
shore guards and batteries towards the town that he should send down by
water a convoy with provisions, that night, which was to creep along to
Montcalm’s camp under the shadow of the precipice. Wolfe heard of this
through some deserters, and he seized the opportunity to cast off his
boats and get ahead of the convoy, in order that he might answer for
it if hailed. He was hailed, and answered in the necessary deceitful
French. This quieted the suspicion of the sentries as he rowed gently
along in the gloom.

[Illustration: BRITISH SOLDIERS.

Reduced fac-simile of a cut in J. Luard’s _Hist. of the Dress of the
British Soldier_, London, 1852, p. 95. This shows a heavy and light
dragoon and two guardsmen of about the time of Wolfe’s attack, 1759.
The cap of the guardsmen is of German origin, and was in general use
by the English grenadiers of this period. The heavy dragoon is on the
right. The one on the left is a light dragoon of the 15th regiment. The
breeches are of leather; the coat is of scarlet.]

As it happened, the Canadian officer, Colonel de Vergor, who commanded
the guard at the top of the ravine, where Wolfe’s advanced party
clambered up, was asleep in his tent, and many of his men had gone
home, by his permission, to hoe their gardens. The English forlorn hope
made, therefore, quick work, when they reached the top, as they rushed
on the tents. Their shots and huzzas told Wolfe, waiting below, that
a foothold was gained, and he led his army up the steeps with as much
haste as possible. While the line of battle was forming, detachments
were sent to attack the batteries up the river, which, alarmed by the
noise, were beginning to fire on the last of the procession of boats.
The celerity of the movement accomplished its end, and the French were
driven off and the batteries taken.

Sheer good luck, quite as much as skill and courage, had at last placed
Wolfe in an open field, where Montcalm must fight him, if he would save
his communications and prevent the guns of Quebec, in the event of its
capture,[1176] being turned upon his camp.

Not a mile from Quebec, and fronting its walls, Wolfe had formed his
final line, but he had turned its direction on the left, and there the
line faced the St. Charles. In the early morning he saw the French form
on a ridge in front of him, when some skirmishing ensued, as also in
his rear, where a detachment sent by Bougainville began to harass him.
With a foe before and behind, quick and decisive work was necessary.

[Illustration: MONTCALM.

After a portrait, “une gravure du temps,” in Charles de Bonnechose’s
_Montcalm et le Canada Français_, 5th ed., Paris, 1882. Cf. the
likeness in Daniel, _Nos Gloires_, ii. 273, and in Martin, _De Montcalm
en Canada_.

The portrait given in Parkman (_Montcalm and Wolfe_, vol. i.) is after
a photograph from an original picture, representing him at 29, now in
the possession of the present Marquis de Montcalm. Cf. the likeness in
Higginson’s _Larger Hist. of the United States_, p. 190.]

Montcalm, whom Admiral Saunders had been deceiving all night, hurried
over to Vaudreuil’s headquarters in the morning to learn what the
firing above the town meant. From this position he saw the seriousness
of the situation at once. The red coats of the British line were in
full view beyond the St. Charles. He hastened across the bridge, and
was soon on the ground, bringing the regiments into line as they came
up. But all the help he had a right to expect did not come. Ramezay
made excuses for not sending cannon. Vaudreuil kept back the left wing
at Beaufort, for fear that Saunders meant something, after all.

Montcalm’s impetuosity, now that it was unshackled, could not brook
delay. It would take time to concert with Bougainville an attack on the
front and rear of the British simultaneously, and that time would give
Wolfe the chance to entrench and bring up reinforcements, if he had
any. So the decision in Montcalm’s council was for an instant onset.

It was ten o’clock when Wolfe saw it coming. He advanced his line to
meet it, and when the French were close upon them the fire burst from
the English ranks. Another volley followed; and as the smoke passed
away, Wolfe saw the opportunity and gave the word to charge. As he
led the Louisbourg grenadiers he was hit twice before a shot in the
breast bore him to the ground. He was carried to the rear, and as he
was sinking he heard those around him cry that the enemy was flying. He
turned, praised God, and died.[1177]

[Illustration: QUEBEC AS IT SURRENDERED, 1759.

After a plan in Miles’s _Hist. of Canada_, p. 363, which is mainly the
same as the large folding map by Jefferys, published Jan. 15, 1760,
which also makes part of the _Hist. of the French Dominion in America_,
London, 1760, and of his _General Topog. of North America and the West
Indies_, London, 1768, no. 19. There is another plan in the _Nouvelle
Carte de la Province de Québec selon l’edit du Roi d’Angleterre du
8 Sep^{bre}, 1763, par le Capitaine Carver et autres, traduites de
l’Anglois, à Paris_, 1777. One is annexed to Joseph Hazard’s _Conquest
of Quebec_, a poem, London, 1769; and another to Lemoine’s _Picturesque
Quebec_, 1882. Cf. _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Apr., 1884, p. 280.

Richard Short made some drawings of the condition of Quebec after the
bombardment, which were engraved and published in 1761.

The French plans of Quebec of this period, to be noted, are those
of Bellin in Charlevoix, viz.: _Plan du bassin de Québec et de les
environs_, 1744 (vol. iii. p. 70); _Plan de la ville de Québec_, 1744
(_Ibid._, p. 72); and _Carte de l’isle d’Orléans, et du passage de la
traverse dans le Fleuve St. Laurent_, 1744 (_Ibid._, p. 65); beside the
plan of Quebec in Bellin’s _Petit Atlas Maritime_, vol. i., 1764.

In vol. lxiv. of the _Shelburne MSS._ there are various plans of the
fortifications and citadel, made after the surrender. Edw. Fitzmaurice
reported on these in the _Hist. MSS. Commission’s Fifth Report_, p. 231.

Such books as Hawkins’s _Picturesque Quebec_ and Lossing’s paper in
_Harper’s Magazine_, xviii. 176, give pictures of most of the points of
historical interest in and about the town. Cf. J. M. Lemoine’s “Rues de
Québec,” in the _Revue Canadienne_, xii. 269.

Various views connected with the siege of Quebec are given in
_Picturesque Canada_, Toronto, 1884, showing the present condition of
Wolfe’s Cove and the ascent from it (pp. 25, 47), the martello towers
(p. 27), as well as the monuments to commemorate Wolfe and Montcalm
(pp. 27, 46).]

Montcalm, mounted, borne on by the panic, was shot through the breast
just before he entered the town, and was taken within to die.

Part of the fugitives got into Quebec with their wounded general;
part fled down the declivity towards the St. Charles, and, under
cover of a stand which some Canadian bushrangers made in a thicket,
succeeded in getting across the river to the camp, where everything
was in the confusion which so easily befalls an army without a head.
It was necessary for the English to cease from the pursuit, for
Townshend,[1178] who had come to the command (Monckton being wounded),
feared Bougainville was upon his rear, as indeed he was. When that
general, however, found that the English commander had recalled his
troops, and was forming to receive him, he withdrew, for he had
only 2,000 men,—probably all he could collect from their scattered
posts,—and seeing the English were twice as many, he did not dare
attack. So Townshend turned to entrenching, and working briskly he soon
formed a line of protection, and had a battery in position confronting
the horn-work beyond the St. Charles, which commanded the bridge.

Vaudreuil was trying to get some decision, meanwhile, out of a council
of war at Beaufort. They sent to Quebec for Montcalm’s advice, and the
dying man told them to fight, retreat, or surrender. The counsel was
broad enough, and the choice was promptly made. It was retreat. That
night it began. Guns, ammunition, provisions,—everything was left. The
troops by a circuitous route flocked along like a rabble, and on the
15th they went into camp on the hill of Jacques Cartier, thirty miles
up the St. Lawrence.

The morning after the fight, the tents still standing along the
Beaufort lines were a mockery; for Ramezay knew that Vaudreuil had
gone, since he had received word from him to surrender the town when
his provisions failed.

Bougainville was still at Cap Rouge, and undertook to send provisions
into Quebec. Lévis had joined Vaudreuil at Jacques Cartier,[1179] and
inspired the governor with hope enough to order a return to his old
camp. On the evening of the 18th the returning army had reached St.
Augustine, when they learned that Ramezay had surrendered and the
British flag waved over Quebec.

Preparations for the departure of the fleet were soon made, and
munitions and provisions for the winter were landed for the garrison,
which under Murray was to hold the town during the winter. The middle
of October had passed, when Admiral Saunders, one of his ships bearing
the embalmed body of Wolfe, sailed down the river. Montcalm lay in a
grave, which, before the altar of the Ursulines, had been completed out
of a cavity made by an English shell.[1180]

The winter passed with as much comfort as the severe climate and a
shattered town would permit. There were sick and wounded to comfort,
and the sisters of the hospitals devoted themselves to French and
English alike. A certain rugged honesty in Murray won the citizens who
remained, and the hours were beguiled in part by the spirits of the
French ladies. There was an excitement in November, when a fleet of
French ships from up the river tried to run the batteries, and seven
or eight of them which did so carried the first despatches to France
which Vaudreuil had succeeded in transmitting. There was rough work in
December, in getting their winter’s wood from the forest of Sainte-Foy,
for they had no horses, and the merriment of companionship, checkered
with the danger of the skulking enemy, was the only lightening of
the severities of the task. Deserters occasionally brought in word
that Lévis was gathering and exercising his forces for an attack, so
vigilance was incessant. Both sides preserved the wariness of war in
onsets and repulses at the outposts, and the English usually got the
better of their enemies. Captain Hazen and some New England rangers
merited the applause which the regular officers gave them when they
buffeted and outwitted the enemy in a series of skirmishes.

By April it became apparent that Lévis was only waiting for the ice
in the river to break up, when he could get water carriage for his
advance. Murray knew that the enemy could bring much greater numbers
against him, for his 7,000 men of the autumn, by sickness and death,
had been reduced to about 3,000 effectives, and the spies of Lévis
kept the French general well informed of the constant weakening of the
English forces.

[Illustration: CAMPAIGN OF LÉVIS AND MURRAY.

This follows a map in Miles’s _Hist. of Canada_, p. 427; also in
Lemoine’s _Picturesque Quebec_, p. 419.]

The French placed their cannon and stores on the frigates and smaller
vessels which had escaped up the river in the autumn, and with their
army in bateaux they started on the 21st April for the descent from
Montreal. With the accessions gained on the way, by picking up the
scattered garrisons, Lévis landed between eight and nine thousand men
at Cap Rouge, and advanced on Sainte-Foy. The English at the outposts
fell back, and the delay on the part of the French was sufficient for
Murray to learn of their approach. He resolved to meet them outside
the walls. It must be an open-field fight for Murray, since the frozen
soil still rendered entrenching impossible in the time which he had. He
led out about three thousand men, and at first posted himself on the
ridge, where Montcalm had drawn up his lines the year before. He pushed
forward till he occupied Wolfe’s ground of the same morning, when,
with his great superiority of cannon, he found a position that gave
him additional advantage, which he ought to have kept. The fire of the
English guns, however, induced Lévis to withdraw his men to the cover
of a wood, a movement which Murray took for a retreat, and, emulous of
Wolfe’s success in seizing an opportune moment, he ordered a general
advance. His cannon were soon stuck in some low ground, and no longer
helped him. The fight was fierce and stubborn; but after a two hours’
struggle, the greater length of the enemy’s line began to envelop
the English, and Murray ordered a retreat. It was rapid, but not so
disordered that Lévis dared long to follow.

[Illustration: QUEBEC, 1763.

From _A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual
surveys_, 1763, published in London.]

The English had lost a third of their force; the French loss was
probably less. Murray got safely again within the walls, and could
muster about 2,400 men for their defence.[1181] There was sharp work,
and little time left further to strengthen the walls and gates. Officer
and man worked like cattle. A hundred and fifty cannon were soon
belching upon the increasing trenches of Lévis, who finally dragged
some artillery up the defile where Wolfe had mounted, and was thus
enabled to return the fire.

Both sides were anxiously waiting expected reinforcements from the
mother country. On the 9th of May a frigate beat up the basin, and
to the red flag which was run up at Cape Diamond she responded with
similar colors. It was ominous to Lévis, for he felt she was the
advanced ship of a British squadron, as she proved to be. It was a week
before others arrived, when some of the heavier vessels passed up the
river and destroyed the French fleet. As soon as the naval result was
certain, Lévis deserted his trenches, left his guns and much else, with
his wounded, and hastily fled. This was in the night; in the morning
the French were beyond Murray’s reach.

[Illustration: VIEW OF MONTREAL.

A sample of the popular graphic aids of the day, which is taken from
_Father Abraham’s Almanac_, 1761 (Philadelphia). “Key: A, river St.
Lawrence; B, the governor’s house and parade; C, arsenal and yard
for canoes and battoes; D, Jesuits’ Church and Convent; E, the fort,
a cavalier, without a parapet; F, the Parish Church; G, the nunnery
hospital and gardens; H, Sisters of the Congregation, and gardens; I,
Recollects’ convents and gardens; K, the Seminary; L, the wharf.”

Cf. view and plan published in _London Mag._, Oct., 1760. Parkman (ii.
371) refers, as among the king’s maps in the Brit. Mus., to an east
view of Montreal, drawn on the spot by Thomas Patten. Cf. Lossing’s
_Field-Book of the Revolution_, i. 179.]

Their loss of cannon and munitions was a serious one, and the stores
from France which might have replaced them were already intercepted
by the English cruisers. Vaudreuil and Lévis made their dispositions
to defend Montreal, their last hope; yet it was not a place in itself
capable of successful defence, for its lines were too weak. It soon
became evident that it was to be attacked on three sides; and the
French had hopes that so dangerous a combination of armies, converging
without intercommunication, would enable them to crush the enemy in
detail.

Amherst was directing the general advance on the English side. He kept
the largest force with him, and passed from Oswego, across Ontario, and
down the St. Lawrence. If Lévis sought to escape westward and hold out
at Detroit, Amherst intended to be sure to intercept him. He had about
11,000 men, including a body of Indians under Johnson. Near the head
of the rapids he stopped long enough to capture Fort Lévis, now under
Pouchot, and because they could not kill the prisoners, three fourths
of Johnson’s Indians mutinied and went home. Amherst now shot the
rapids with his flotilla, not without some loss, and on September 6th
he reached Lachine, nine miles above Montreal.

[Illustration: MONTREAL.

From _A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual
surveys_, 1763, published in London. There is a plan of Montreal,
and of Isle Montreal in a _Carte de la Province de Quebec ... par le
Capitaine Carver, etc., traduites de l’Anglois, à Paris_, 1777. The
isle of Montreal as surveyed by the French engineers is mapped in the
_London Mag._, Jan., 1761.]

Meanwhile, the other commanders had already approached the city so near
as to open communication with each other. Murray had sailed up the
river with about 2,500 men, but was soon reinforced by Lord Rollo with
1,300 others from Louisbourg. The English had some skirmishes along
the banks, but Bourlamaque, who was opposing them, fell back with a
constantly diminishing force, as the Canadians, despite all threats and
blandishments, deserted him. Murray was ahead of the others, when he
stopped just before reaching Montreal, and encamped on an island in
the river. He was not without apprehension that he might have to bear
the brunt of an attack alone.

Bougainville, meanwhile, was trying to resist Haviland’s advance at
the Isle-aux-Noix, for this English general now commanded on the
Champlain route. The two sides were not ill-matched as to numbers;
but the English advance was skilfully conducted, and the French
found themselves obliged to retreat down the river and unite with
Bourlamaque. It was now that Haviland, pushing on, opened communication
by his right with Murray, and both stood on the defensive, waiting to
hear of Amherst’s approach above the town.

[Illustration: MONTREAL, 1758.

Follows a plan in Miles’s _Hist. of Canada_, p. 297. It is mainly the
same as the large folding map by Thomas Jefferys, published Jan. 30,
1758, and making part of the _Hist. of the French Dominion in America_,
London, 1760, p. 12. This last is in the F. North Collection in Harvard
College Library, vol. iii. no. 22; and was again used by Jefferys in
his _General Topog. of No. America and the West Indies_, London, 1768,
no. 22.

These other plans belonging to the 18th century may be noted:—

MS. plans of 1717 and 1721 recorded in the _Catalogue of the Library of
Parliament_, Toronto, 1858, p. 1618, nos. 58 and 59.

Map of 1729, made by Chaussegros de Léry, in the Paris Archives.

_Carte de l’isle de Montreal et de ses environs, par N. Bellin_, 1744,
in Charlevoix, i. p. 227, and reproduced in Dr. Shea’s edition of
Charlevoix; as well as the plan of the town, in Charlevoix, ii. 170.

A MS. plan of 1752, giving details not elsewhere found, is noted in the
_Library of Parliament Catal._, p. 1620, no. 81.

A plan of 1756, and one of 1762 by Patten, engraved by Canot, are
marked in the _Catal. of the King’s Maps_ (Brit. Mus.), ii. 54.

A plan of Montreal and its neighborhood by Bellin, in his _Petit Atlas
Maritime_, 1764.]

The delay was brief. Amherst, advancing from Lachine, encamped before
Montreal, above it, while Murray ferried his men from the island
and encamped below. What there was left of the force which opposed
Haviland withdrew across the river into the town, and Haviland’s tents
dotted the shore which the French had left. The combined French army
now numbered scarce 2,500; Amherst held them easily with a force of
17,000.

[Illustration: ROUTES TO CANADA, 1755-1763.

Follows map in Miles’s _Hist. of Canada_, p. 293.

Other contemporary maps showing the country, brought within the
campaigns about Lakes Champlain and Ontario, are the following:—

_A chorographical map of the country between Albany, Oswego, Fort
Frontenac, and Les Trois Rivières, exhibiting all the grants by the
French on Lake Champlain_, which was included by Jefferys in his
_General Topog. of North America and the West Indies_, London, 1768. It
is, in fact, the northerly sheet of Jefferys’ _Provinces of New York
and New Jersey, with part of Pensilvania, drawn by Capt. Holland_. The
same _General Topography_, no. 32, etc., contains also in Blanchard
and Langdon’s _Map of New Hampshire_ (Oct. 21, 1761) a corner map,
showing “The River St. Lawrence above Montreal to Lake Ontario, with
the adjacent country on the west from Albany and Lake Champlain.”]

Vaudreuil saw there was no time for delays, and at once submitted a
plan of capitulation. A few notes were exchanged to induce less onerous
conditions; but Amherst was not to be moved. On September 8th the
paper was signed, and all Canada passed to the English king; the whole
garrison to be sent as prisoners to France in British ships.

[Illustration: ROBERT ROGERS.

From the _Geschichte der Kriege in und ausser Europa, Elfter Theil_,
Nürnberg, 1777. This follows a print published in London, Oct. 1, 1776,
described in Smith’s _Brit. Mezzotint Portraits_, and in Parkman’s
_Pontiac_, i. p. 164.]

This stipulation was adhered to, and during the autumn the principal
French officers were on their way to France. The season for good
weather on the ocean was passed, and the transportation was not
accomplished without some wrecks, accompanied by suffering and death.
Vaudreuil, Bigot, Cadet, and others found a dubious welcome in France
after they had weathered the November storms. The government was not
disposed that the loss of Canada should be laid wholly to its account,
and the ministry had heard stories enough of the peculations of its
agents in the colony to give a chance of shifting a large part of the
responsibility upon those whose bureaucratic thefts had sapped the
vitals of the colony. Trials ensued, the records of which yield much to
enable us to depict the rotten life of the time; and though Vaudreuil
escaped, the hand of the law fell crushingly on Bigot and Cadet, and
banishment, restitution, and confiscation showed them the shades of a
stern retribution. They were not alone to suffer, but they were the
chief ones.

The war was over, and a new life began in Canada. The surrender of
the western posts was necessary to perfect the English occupancy, and
to receive these Major Rogers was despatched by Amherst on the 13th
of September. On the way, somewhere on the southern shore of Lake
Erie,[1182] he met (November 7) Pontiac, and, informing him of the
capitulation at Montreal, the politic chief was ready to smoke the
calumet with him. Rogers pushed on towards Detroit.[1183] There was
some apprehension that Belêtre, who commanded there, would rouse his
Indians to resist, but the French leader only blustered, and when
(November 29) the white flag came down and the red went up, his 700
Indians hailed the change of masters with a yell; and it was with
open-eyed wonder that the savages saw so many succumb to so few, and
submit to be taken down the lake as prisoners. An officer was sent
along the route from Lake Erie to the Ohio to take possession of the
forts at Miami and Ouatanon; but it was not till the next season
that a detachment of the Royal Americans pushed still farther on to
Michillimachinac and the extreme posts.[1184]

English power was now confirmed throughout all the region embraced in
the surrender of Vaudreuil.


CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

THE ninth volume of the _N. Y. Col. Docs._ richly illustrates the
French movements near the beginning of the century to secure Indian
alliances.[1185]

A number of papers from the archives of the Marine, respecting the
founding of Detroit (1701), is given by Margry (_Découvertes_, etc.) in
his fifth volume (pp. 135-250), as well as records of the conferences
held by La Motte Cadillac with the neighboring Indians (p. 253, etc.).
These papers come down to 1706.[1186]

The contracts made at Quebec in 1701 and later, respecting the right
to trade at the straits, are given in Mrs. Sheldon’s _Early Hist. of
Michigan_ (N. Y., 1856, pp. 93, 138). In Shea’s _Relation des affaires
du Canada, 1696-1702_ (N. Y., 1865), there is a “Relation du Destroit,”
and other papers touching these Western parts.[1187]

Mrs. Sheldon’s _Early History of Michigan_ contains various documents
on the condition of the colony at Detroit and Michilimackinac.[1188]

On the attack on Detroit in 1712, made by the Foxes, in which, as
confederates of the Iroquois, they acted in the English interest, we
find documents in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, ix. pp. 857, 866; and the
Report of Du Buisson, the French commander, is in W. R. Smith’s _Hist.
of Wisconsin_, iii. 316.[1189]

The report of Tonti, on affairs at Detroit in 1717, is given by Mrs.
Sheldon (p. 316).

In Margry’s _Découvertes et Établissements des Français dans l’Amérique
Septentrionale_ (vol. v. p. 73) is a “Relation du Sieur de Lamothe
Cadillac, capitaine en pied, ci-devant commandant de Missilimakinak et
autres postes dans les pays élorgnés, où il a été pendant trois années”
(dated July 31, 1718).

In the third volume of the _Wisconsin Historical Collections_ there are
other documents among the Cass papers.[1190]

       *       *       *       *       *

There is in another chapter some account of preparations at Boston
for the fatal expedition of 1711, under Admiral Sir Hovenden Walker,
with its contingent of Marlborough’s veterans.[1191] An enumeration
of the forces employed was printed in the _Boston Newsletter_, no.
379 (July 16-23, 1711), and is reprinted in what is the authoritative
narrative, the _Journal or full account of the late expedition to
Canada_, which Walker printed in London in 1720,[1192] partly in
vindication of himself against charges of peculation and incompetency.
The failure of the expedition was charged by constant reports in
England to the dilatoriness of Massachusetts in preparing the outfit.
Walker does not wholly share this conviction, it is just to him to
say; but Jeremiah Dummer, then the agent of the province in London,
thought it worth while to defend the provincial government by printing
in London, 1712 (reprinted, Boston, 1746), a _Letter to a noble lord
concerning the late expedition to Canada_,[1193] in which he contended
that this expedition was wisely planned, and that its failure was
not the fault of New England. There is another tract of Dummer’s to
a similar purpose: _A letter to a friend in the country, on the late
expedition to Canada_, London, 1712.[1194] Palfrey[1195] says that he
found various letters and documents among the British Colonial Papers,
including a “Journal of the expedition, by Col. Richard King.”[1196]

[Illustration: FRENCH SOLDIER, 1710.

After a water-color sketch in the _Mass. Archives: Documents collected
in France_, vi. p. 1. The coat is red, faced with blue.]

[Illustration: FRENCH SOLDIER, 1710.

After a water-color sketch in the _Mass. Archives: Documents collected
in France_, viii. p. 1. The coat is blue, faced with red. Cf. sketches
in Gay’s Pop. _Hist. United States_, ii. 545.]

We have the French side in Charlevoix (Shea’s),[1197] with annotations
and references by that editor. Walker, in his _Journal_, gives a rough
draft in English of a manifesto intended to be distributed in Canada.
Charlevoix gives the French into which it was translated for that
use.[1198]

The recurrent interest taken, during Alexander Spotswood’s term of
office (1710-1722) as governor of Virginia, in schemes for occupying
the region beyond the mountains is traceable through his _Official
Letters_, published by the Virginia Historical Society in 1882-5.[1199]

The journey of Spotswood over the mountains in 1716 is sometimes called
the “Tramontane Expedition;” it was accomplished between Aug. 20 and
Sept. 17.[1200]

At the time when Spotswood was urging, in 1718, that steps should be
taken to seize upon the Ohio Valley,[1201] James Logan was furnishing
to Gov. Keith, to be used as material for a memorial to the Board of
Trade, a report on the French settlements in the valley (dated Dec.,
1718).[1202]

Previous to 1700 the Iroquois had scoured bare of their enemies a
portion, at least, of the Ohio country; but during the first half of
the last century, the old hunting grounds were reoccupied in part by
the Wyandots, while the Delawares centred upon the Muskingum River, and
the Shawanoes, or Shawnees, coming from the south, scattered along the
Scioto and Miami valleys,[1203] and allied themselves with the French.
The Ottawas were grouped about the Sandusky and Maumee rivers in the
north.[1204]

Respecting the Indians of the Ohio Valley we have records of the
eighteenth century, in a _Mémoire_ on those between Lake Erie and the
Mississippi, made in 1718.[1205]

Among the Cass MSS. is a paper on the life and customs of the
Indians of Canada[1206] in 1723, which has been translated by Col.
Whittlesey.[1207]

A report (1736) supposed to be by Joncaire, dated at Missilimakinac, is
called, as translated, “Enumeration of the Indian tribes connected with
the government of Canada.”[1208]

Conrad Weiser’s notes on the Iroquois and the Delawares (Dec., 1746)
have been also translated.[1209]

An account of the Miami confederacy makes part of a book published
at Cincinnati in 1871, _Journal of Capt. William Trent from Logstown
to Pickawillany in 1752_, edited by Alfred T. Goodman, secretary of
the Western Reserve Hist. Soc. It includes papers from the English
archives, secured by John Lothrop Motley.[1210] In 1759 Capt. George
Croghan made “a list of the Indian nations, their places of abode and
chief hunting.”[1211]

The subject of the dispersion and migrations of the Indians of the
Ohio Valley has engaged the attention of several of the Western
antiquaries.[1212] The most exhaustive collation of the older
statements regarding these tribal movements is in Manning F. Force’s
lecture before the Historical and Philosophical Soc. of Ohio, which was
printed at Cincinnati in 1879 as _Some Early Notices of the Indians
of Ohio_. “In the latter half of the seventeenth century, after the
destruction of the Eries in 1656 by the Five Nations,” he says, “the
great basin, bounded north by Lake Erie, the Miamis, and the Illinois,
west by the Mississippi, east by the Alleghanies, and south by the
headwaters of the streams that flow into the Gulf of Mexico, seems to
have been uninhabited except by bands of Shawnees, and scarcely visited
except by war parties of the Five Nations.” He then confines himself
to tracing the history of the Eries and Shawnees. He tells the story
of the destruction of the Eries, or “Nation du Chat,” in 1656; and
examines various theories about remnants of the tribe surviving under
other names. The Chaouanons of the French, or Shawanoes of the English
(Shawnees), did not appear in Ohio till after 1750. Parkman[1213]
says: “Their eccentric wanderings, their sudden appearances and
disappearances, perplex the antiquary and defy research.” Mr. Force
adds to the investigations of their history, but still leaves, as he
says, the problem unsolved. The earliest certain knowledge places them
in the second half of the seventeenth century on the upper waters of
the Cumberland, whence they migrated northwest and northeast, as he
points out in tracking different bands.

The claim of the English to the Ohio Valley and the “Illinois
country,” as for a long series of years the region east of the upper
Mississippi and north of the Ohio was called,[1214] was based on a
supposed conquest of the tribes of that territory by the Iroquois
in 1672 or thereabouts. No treaty exists by which the Iroquois
transferred this conquered country to the English, but the transaction
was claimed to have some sort of a registry,[1215] as expressed, for
instance, in a legend on Evans’ map[1216] (1755), which reads: “The
Confederates [Five Nations], July 19, 1701, at Albany surrendered
their beaver-hunting country to the English, to be defended by them
for the said Confederates, their heirs and successors forever, and the
same was confirmed, Sept. 14, 1728 [1726], when the Senecas, Cayugaes,
and Onondagoes surrendered their habitations from Cayahoga to Oswego
and six miles inland to the same for the same use.” The same claim is
made on Mitchell’s map[1217] of the same year (1755), referring to the
treaty with the Iroquois at Albany, Sept., 1726, by which the region
west of Lake Erie and north of Erie and Ontario, as well as the belt of
land from Oswego westward, was confirmed to the English.[1218]

Not much is known of the Indian occupation of the Ohio Valley before
1750,[1219] and any right by conquest which the Iroquois might have
obtained, though supported at the time of the struggle by Colden,[1220]
Pownall,[1221] and others,[1222] was first seriously questioned, when
Gen. W. H. Harrison delivered his address on the _Aborigines of the
Ohio Valley_.[1223] He does not allow that the Iroquois pushed their
conquests beyond the Scioto.

The uncertainty of the English pretensions is shown by their efforts
for further confirmation, which was brought about as regards westerly
and northwesterly indefinite extensions of Virginia and Pennsylvania
by the treaty of Lancaster in 1744 (June 22-July 4).[1224]

In 1748 Bollan in a petition to the Duke of Bedford on the French
encroachments, complains that recent English maps had prejudiced the
claims of Great Britain.[1225] Since Popple’s map in 1732, of which
there had been a later edition, maps defining the frontiers had
appeared in Keith’s _Virginia_ (1738), in Oldmixon’s _British Empire_
(1741) by Moll, and in Bowen’s _Geography_ (1747).

There is in the _Penna. Archives_ (2d series, vi. 93) a paper dated
Dec., 1750, on the English pretensions from the French point of view.
On the English side the claims of the French are examined in the
_State of the British and French Colonies in North America_, London,
1755.[1226]

J. H. Perkins, in the _North American Review_, July, 1839, gave an
excellent sketch of the English effort at occupation in the Ohio Valley
from 1744 to 1774, which later appeared in his _Memoir and Writings_
(Boston, 1852, vol. ii.) as “English discoveries in the Ohio Valley.”
His sketch is of course deficient in points, where the publication of
original material since made would have helped him.

       *       *       *       *       *

The rivalry in the possession of Oswego and Niagara, beginning in 1725,
is traced in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._ (ix. 949, 954, 958, 974), and in
a convenient form an abstract of the French despatches for 1725-27
is found in _Ibid._, ix. 976, with a French view (p. 982) of the
respective rights of the rivals.[1227]

There had been a stockade at Niagara under De Nonville’s rule, and the
fort bore his name; but it was soon abandoned.[1228] The place was
reoccupied in 1725-26, and the fort rebuilt of stone.[1229]

       *       *       *       *       *

In 1731 the French first occupied permanently the valley of Lake
Champlain,[1230] but not till 1737 did they begin to control its water
with an armed sloop, and to build Fort St. Frederick.[1231]

Beauharnois’ activity in seeking the Indian favor is shown in his
conference with the Onondagas in 1734 and in his communications with
the Western tribes in 1741.[1232] The condition of the French power at
this time is set forth in a _Mémoire sur le Canada_, ascribed to the
Intendant Gilles Hocquart (1736).[1233]

In 1737 Conrad Weiser was sent to the Six Nations to get them to agree
to a truce with the Cherokees and Catawbas, and to arrange for a
conference between them and these tribes.[1234]

The expedition to the northwest, which resulted in Vérendrye’s
discovery of the Rocky Mountains in Jan., 1743, is followed with more
or less detail in several papers by recent writers.[1235]

The first settlement in Wisconsin took place in 1744-46 under Charles
de Langlade.[1236]

The Five Years’ War (1744-48) so far as it affected the respective
positions of the combatants in the two great valleys was without
result. The declaration of war was in March, 1744, on both sides.[1237]

In 1744 the Governor of Canada sent an embassy to the Six Nations,
assuring them that the French would soon beat the English.[1238]

In 1744 Clinton proposed the erection of a fort near Crown Point, and
of another near Irondequot “to secure the fidelity of the Senecas, the
strongest and most wavering of all the six confederated tribes.”[1239]

The scalping parties of the French are tracked in the _N. Y. Col.
Docs._, x. 32, etc., with the expedition against Fort Clinton in 1747
(p. 78) and a retaliating incursion upon Montreal Island by the English
(p. 81).

In 1745 both sides tried by conferences to secure the Six Nations. In
July, August, and September. Beauharnois met them.[1240] Delegates from
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania convened under the New
York jurisdiction at Albany, in October, 1745, and did what they could
by treaty to disabuse the Indian mind of an apprehension which the
French are charged with having raised, that the English had proposed to
them to dispossess the Iroquois of their lands.[1241]

Upon the abortive Crown Point expedition of 1746,[1242] as well as the
other military events of the war, we have _Memoirs of the Principal
Transactions of the last War between the English and French in North
America_, London, 1757 (102 pp.).[1243] It is attributed sometimes to
Shirley, who had a chief hand in instigating the preparations of the
expedition. This will be seen in the letters of Shirley and Warren,
in the _R. I. Col. Rec._, v. 183, etc.; and in _Penna. Archives_, i.
689, 711, as in an _Account of the French settlements in North America
... and the two last unsuccessful expeditions against Canada and the
present on foot_. _By a gentleman._ Boston, 1746.[1244]

A letter of Col. John Stoddard, May 13, 1747, to Governor Shirley,
showing how the Six Nations had been enlisted in the proposed
expedition to Canada, and deprecating its abandonment, is in _Penna.
Archives_, i. 740; as well as a letter of Shirley, June 1, 1747 (p.
746).

A letter of Governor Shirley (June 29, 1747) respecting a congress
of the colonies to be held in New York in September is in _Penna.
Archives_, i. 754; and a letter of Conrad Weiser, doubting any success
in enlisting the Six Nations in the English favor, is in _Ibid._, p.
161.

Clinton (November 6, 1747) complains to the Duke of Bedford of De
Lancey’s efforts to thwart the government’s aims to secure the
assistance of the Six Nations for the invasion of Canada.[1245]

[Illustration: BONNECAMP’S MAP, AFTER THE KOHL COPY.]

In February, 1749-50, a long report was made to the Lords Commissioners
of the Treasury on the expenses incurred by the colonies during the war
for the attempts to invade Canada. It is printed in the _New Jersey
Archives_, 1st ser., vii. 383-400. The annual summaries on the French
side, 1745-48, are in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 38, 89, 137.

A stubborn fight in 1748 with some marauding Indians near Schenectady
is chronicled in Pearson’s _Schenectady Patent_, p. 298.

In 1749 came Céloron’s expedition to forestall the English by burying
his plates at the mouths of the streams flowing into the Ohio. A
fac-simile of the inscription on one of these plates has been given
already (_ante_, p. 9).[1246]

While Céloron was burying his plates, and La Galissonière was urging
the home government to settle 10,000 French peasants on the Ohio,
the kinsmen of Washington and others were forming in 1748 the Ohio
Company, which received a royal grant of half a million acres between
the Monongahela and the Kenawha rivers, on condition of settling
the territory;[1247] “which lands,” wrote Dinwiddie,[1248] “are his
Majesty’s undoubted right by the treaty of Lancaster and subsequent
treaties at Logstown[1249] on the Ohio.” Colonel Thomas Cresap was
employed to survey the road over the mountains,—the same later
followed by Braddock.

Of the subsequent exploration by Christopher Gist, in behalf of the
Ohio Company, and of George Croghan and Montour for the governor of
Pennsylvania, note has been taken on an earlier page.[1250] A paper
on Croghan’s transactions with the Indians previous to the outbreak
of hostilities has been printed.[1251] Referring to the Ohio region
in 1749, Croghan wrote: “No people carry on the Indian trade in so
regular a manner as the French.”[1252]

Reference has already been made (_ante_, pp. 3, 4) to the movement in
1749 of Father Piquet to influence the Iroquois through a missionary
station near the head of the rapids of the St. Lawrence, on the New
York side, at the site of the present Ogdensburg. The author of the
_Mémoires sur le Canada_, whence the plan of La Présentation (_ante_,
p. 3)[1253] is taken, gives an unfavorable account of Piquet.[1254]

The new French governor, Jonquière, had arrived in Quebec in August,
1749. Kalm[1255] describes his reception, and it was not long before he
was having a conference with the Cayugas,[1256] followed the next year
(1751) by another meeting with the whole body of the Iroquois.[1257]
His predecessor, La Galissonière,[1258] was busying himself on a
memoir, dated December, 1750,[1259] in which he shows the great
importance of endeavoring to sustain the posts connecting Canada with
Louisiana, and the danger of English interference in case of a war.

William Johnson, meanwhile, was counteracting the French negotiation
with the Indians as best he could;[1260] and both French and English
were filing their remonstrances about reciprocal encroachments on the
Ohio.[1261] Cadwallader Colden was telling Governor Clinton how to
secure (1751) the Indian trade and fidelity,[1262] the Privy Council
was reporting (April 2, 1751) on the condition of affairs in New York
province,[1263] and the French government was registering ministerial
minutes on the English encroachments on the Ohio.[1264]

What instructions Duquesne had for his treatment of the Indians on the
Ohio and for driving out the English may be seen in the _N. Y. Col.
Docs._, x. 242.

Edward Livingston, in 1754, writing of the French intrigues with the
Indians, says, “They persuade these people that the Virgin Mary was
born in Paris, and that our Saviour was crucified at London by the
English.”[1265]

The English trading-post of Picktown, or Pickawillany, at the junction
of the Great Miami River and Loramie’s Creek, was destroyed by the
French in 1752.[1266] This English post and the condition of the
country are described in the “Journal of Christopher Gist’s journey
... down the Ohio, 1750, ... thence to the Roanoke, 1751, undertaken
on account of the Ohio Company,” which was published in Pownall’s
_Topographical Description of North America_, app. (London, 1776). Gist
explored the Great Miami River.[1267]

Parkman[1268] tells graphically the story of the incidents, in which
Washington was a central figure, down to the retreat from Fort
Necessity.[1269] The journal of Gist, who accompanied Washington to Le
Bœuf,[1270] is printed in the _Mass. Hist. Coll._, xxv. 101.[1271]

The _Dinwiddie Papers_ (vol. i. pp. 40-250) throw full light on the
political purposes and other views during this interval. Parkman had
copies of them, and partial use had been made of them by Chalmers.
Sparks copied some of them in 1829, when they were in the possession of
J. Hamilton, Cumberland Place, London, and these extracts appear among
the Sparks MSS. in Harvard College library as “Operations in Virginia,
1754-57,” accompanied by other copies from the office of the Board of
Trade, “Operations on the Frontier of Virginia, 1754-55.”[1272]

The Dinwiddie papers later passed into the hands of Henry Stevens, and
are described at length in his _Hist. Collections_, i. no. 1,055; and
when they were sold, in 1881, they were bought by Mr. W. W. Corcoran,
of Washington, and were given by him to the Virginia Historical
Society, under whose auspices they were printed in 1883-4, in two
volumes, edited, with an introduction and notes, by R. A. Brock.[1273]

Very soon after Washington’s return to Williamsburgh from Le Bœuf,
his journal of that mission was put to press under the following
title: _The Journal of Major George Washington, sent by the Hon.
Robert Dinwiddie, Esq., his Majesty’s Lieutenant-Governor and
Commander-in-Chief of Virginia, to the Commandant of the French forces
in Ohio; to which are added the Governor’s letter and a translation
of the French Officer’s answer_, Williamsburgh, 1754. This original
edition is so rare that I have noted but two copies.[1274] It has been
used by all the historians,—Sparks, Irving, Parkman, and the rest.

Sparks[1275] says he found the original sworn statement of Ensign
Ward, who surrendered to Contrecœur, in the Plantation Office in
London, which had been sent to the government by Dinwiddie. The French
officer’s summons is in De Hass’s _West. Virginia_, p. 60, etc.

There is another journal of Washington, of use in this study of what
a contemporary synopsis of events, 1752-54, calls the “weak and small
efforts” of the English.[1276] It no longer exists as Washington wrote
it. It fell into the hands of the French at Braddock’s defeat the next
year (1755), and, translated into French, it was included in a _Mémoire
contenant le précis des faits, avec leurs pièces justificatives
pour servir de réponse aux Observations envoyées par les ministres
d’Angleterre dans les cours de l’Europe_.[1277] There were quarto and
duodecimo editions of this book published at Paris in 1756;[1278]
and the next year (1757) appeared a re-impression of the duodecimo
edition[1279] and an English translation, which was called _The Conduct
of the late ministry, or memorial containing a summary of facts, with
their vouchers, in answer to the observations sent by the English
ministry to the Courts of Europe_, London, 1757.[1280] Sparks says that
the edition appearing with two different New York imprints (Gaine;
Parker & Weyman), as _Memorial, containing a summary of the facts, with
their authorities, in answer to the observations sent by the English
ministry to the Courts of Europe_, was translated from a copy of the
original French brought by a prize ship into New York. He calls the
version “worthy of little credit, being equally uncouth in its style
and faulty in its attempts to convey the sense of the original.”[1281]
Two years later (1759) the English version again appeared in London,
under the title of _The Mystery revealed, or Truth brought to Light,
being a discovery of some facts, in relation to the conduct of the late
ministry.... By a patriot_.[1282]

This missing journal of Washington, and other of these papers, are
given in their re-Englished form in the second Dublin edition (1757)
of a tract ascribed to William Livingston: _Review of the military
operations in North America from the commencement of the French
hostilities on the frontiers of Virginia in 1753 to the surrender of
Oswego, 1756 ... to which are added Col. Washington’s journal of his
expedition to the Ohio in 1754, and several letters and other papers
of consequence found in the cabinet of General Braddock after his
defeat_.[1283]

There is also in this same volume, _Précis des Faits_, a “Journal de
compagne de M. de Villiers (en 1754),” which Parkman[1284] says is
not complete, and that historian used a perfected copy taken from
the original MS. in the Archives of the Marine.[1285] The summons
which Jumonville was to use, together with his instructions, are
in this same _Précis des Faits_. The French view of the skirmish,
of the responsibility for it, and of the sequel, was industriously
circulated.[1286] On the English side, the _London Magazine_ (1754) has
the current reports, and the contemporary chronicles of the war, like
Dobson’s _Chronological Annals of the War_ (1763) and Mante’s _Hist.
of the Late War_ (1772), give the common impressions then prevailing.
Sparks, in his _Washington_ (i. p. 46; ii. pp. 25-48, 447), was the
first to work up the authorities. Irving, _Life of Washington_, follows
the most available sources.[1287]

The Indian side of the story was given at a council held at
Philadelphia in December, 1754.[1288] The transaction, in its
international bearings, is considered as Case xxiv. by J. F. Maurice,
in his _Hostilities without Declaration of War_, 1700-1870, London,
1883.

       *       *       *       *       *

For the battle of Great Meadows and surrender at Fort Necessity,[1289]
the same authorities suffice us in part, particularly Sparks;[1290]
and Parkman points out the dependence he puts upon a letter of
Colonel Innes in the _Colonial Records of Pennsylvania_, vi. 50, and
a letter of Adam Stephen in the _Pennsylvania Gazette_ (no. 1,339),
1754, part of which he prints in his Appendix C.[1291] The provincial
interpreter,[1292] Conrad Weiser, kept a journal, which is printed in
the _Col. Rec. of Penna._, vi. 150; and Parkman found in the Public
Record Office in London a _Journal_ of Thomas Forbes, lately a private
soldier in the French service, who was with Villiers.[1293] That the
French acted like cowards and the English like fools is given as the
Half-King’s opinion, by Charles Thomson, then an usher in a Quaker
grammar-school in Philadelphia, and later the secretary of Congress,
in his _Enquiry into the Causes of the Alienation of the Delaware and
Shawanese Indians_, London, 1759,—a volume of greater rarity than of
value, in Sargent’s opinion.[1294]

_A map of the most inhabited part of Virginia, drawn by Joshua Fry and
Peter Jefferson in 1751_, as published later by Jefferys, and included
by him in his _General Topography of North America and the West
Indies_, 1768 (no. 53), shows the route of Washington in this campaign
of 1754.

In Pittsburgh, 1854, was published _Memoirs of Major Robert Stobo of
the Virginia Regiment_,[1295] with an introduction by Neville B. Craig,
following a copy of a MS., procured by James McHenry from the British
Museum. The publication also included, from the Pennsylvania Archives,
copies of letters (July 28, 1754), with a plan of Duquesne which Stobo
sent to Washington while himself confined in that fort as a hostage,
after the capitulation at Fort Necessity, as well as a copy of the
articles of surrender.[1296] These letters of Stobo were published by
the French government in their _Précis des Faits_, where his plan of
the fort is called “exact.”

       *       *       *       *       *

The most extensive account of the battle of Monongahela and of the
events which led to it is contained in a volume published in 1855,
by the Pennsylvania Historical Society, as no. 5 of their _Memoirs_,
though some copies appeared independently. It is ordinarily quoted as
Winthrop Sargent’s _Braddock’s Expedition_.[1297] The introductory
memoir goes over the ground of the rival territorial claims of France
and England, and the whole narrative, including that of the battle
itself (p. 112, etc.), is given with care and judgment. Then follow
some papers procured in England for the Penna. Historical Society by
Mr. J. R. Ingersoll. The first of these is a journal of Robert Orme,
one of Braddock’s aids, which is no. 212 of the King’s MSS., in the
British Museum.[1298] It begins at Hampton on Braddock’s arrival, and
ends with his death, July 13. It was not unknown before, for Bancroft
quotes it. Parkman later uses it, and calls it “copious and excellent.”
It is accompanied by plans, mentioned elsewhere. There is also a letter
of Orme, which Parkman quotes from the Public Record Office, London,
in a volume marked _America and West Indies_, lxxiv.[1299]

It will be remembered that Admiral Keppel,[1300] who commanded the
fleet which brought Braddock over, had furnished four cannon and a
party of sailors to drag them. An officer of this party seems to have
been left at Fort Cumberland during the advance, and to have kept a
journal, which begins April 10, 1755, when he was first under marching
orders. What he says of the fight is given as “related by some of the
principal officers that day in the field.” The diary ends August 18,
when the writer reëmbarked at Hampton. It is this journal which is
the second of the papers given by Sargent. The third is Braddock’s
instructions.[1301]

The Duke of Cumberland, as commander-in-chief, directed through Colonel
Napier a letter (November 25, 1754) to Braddock, of which we have
fragments in the _Gent. Mag._, xxvi. 269, but the whole of it is to be
found only in the French version, as published by the French government
in the _Précis des Faits_. Sargent also gives a translation of this,
collated with the fragments referred to.

[Illustration: FORT CUMBERLAND AND VICINITY.

Reduced—but not in fac-simile—from a sketch among the Sparks maps
in the library of Cornell University, kindly submitted to the editor
by the librarian. The original is on a sheet 14 × 12 inches, and is
endorsed on the back in Washington’s handwriting, apparently at a later
date, “Sketch of the situation of Fort Cumberland.”]

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.

  Boltwood, L. M., 187.

  Bolzius, J. M., 374;
    portrait, 396.

  Bombazeen, 106;
    killed, 127.

  Bond, Rev. S., 308.

  Bonnecamps, accompanies Céloron, 8;
    map of Céloron’s route, 570.

  Bonnechose, C. de, _Montcalm et le Canada Français_, 607.

  Bonnet, the pirate, 323.

  Bonrepos, Chevalier de, 39.
    _See_ Vallette Laudun.

  Book Auctions, early, in Boston, 121.

  Boone, Thomas, 333;
    governor of New Jersey, 222.

  Borgue, lake, 41.

  Borland, John, 423.

  Boscawen, Admiral Edward, sent to intercept Dieskau, 495;
    portrait and autog., 464.

  Bossu, _Nouveaux Voyages_, 67;
    English translation, 67.

  Boston, in 1692, 92;
    described by Bellomont, 99;
    by Ned Ward, 99;
    Acadians in, 461, 462;
    its centenary, 132;
    conferences with Indians at (1723, 1727), 430, 432;
    corn panic at, 110;
    fire in (1711), 109;
    fortified (1709), 122;
    picture of the light-house, 123;
    French plans for attacking, 420;
    printing in, 120;
    social life, (1730), 137;
    corps of Cadets, 137;
    town rates, 139;
    cost of maintaining the town’s affairs (1735), 139;
    importance of in Shirley’s time, 144;
    fear of D’Anville’s fleet, 147, 413;
    drama introduced, 150;
    Amherst’s army in, 154;
    town house burned (1747), 165;
    _Memorial History of Boston_, 169;
    _Distressed State of the Town of Boston_, 171;
    _News from Robinson Crusoe’s Castle_, 171;
    specie for the cost of the Louisbourg siege received, 176;
    views of, 108.

  _Boston Gazette_, 121.

  Boston Harbor, in Popple’s map, 134;
    on a larger scale, 143.

  _Boston News Letter_, 106.

  Bostwick, David, 579.

  Boucher, Pierre, 619.

  Boudinot, Elias, 225.

  Bougainville, comes over with Montcalm, 505;
    sent to France, 532;
    above Quebec, 545, 546, 547;
    harasses Wolfe’s rear, 548;
    retires, 550;
    at Cap Rouge, 550;
    at Isle-aux-Noix, 556;
    unites with Bourlamaque, 556;
    letters, 599, 608;
    letter on attack on Fort William Henry, 594;
    his journal, 592, 594;
    on Montcalm’s death, 605.

  Boulaix, fort, 41.

  Bouquet, Colonel Henry, 595;
    with Forbes, 529;
    his map, 608.

  Bourdonnais, 610.

  Bourgmont, 55.

  Bourinot, J. G., “Old Forts of Acadia”, 439.

  Bourlamaque, comes over, 505;
    at Ticonderoga (1759), 536;
    evacuates, 536;
    abandons Crown Point, 537;
    at Isle-aux-Noix, 538;
    falls back before Murray, 555;
    on the battle of Ste. Foy, 609;
    his retreat before Amherst, 602;
    _Mémoire sur Canada_, 608;
    his letters, 608;
    papers, 605.

  Bourmont, 55.

  Bourne, E. E., _Garrison Houses_, 183.

  Bournion, 55.

  Bouton, Nath., _The Original Account of Lovewell’s Great Fight_, 431.

  Bowen, Clarence W., _Boundary Disputes of Connecticut_, 177, 181.

  Bowen, Daniel, _History of Philadelphia_, 252.

  Bowen, Emanuel, _Geography_, 234, 352;
    _Map of Carolina_, 352.

  Bowles, Carrington, 85.

  Bownas, Samuel, 186.

  Boylston, Dr. Zabdiel, and inoculation, 120.

  Bradbury, Jabez, autog., 183.

  Braddock, General, sent to Virginia, 494;
    landed, 495;
    holds conference at Alexandria, 495, 578;
    his mistake in moving by the Potomac, 495;
    finds the Pennsylvanians apathetic, 495;
    alienates the Indians, 496;
    his march, 496;
    plans of his march, 500;
    ambushed, 498;
    MS. plan of the battle, 498, 499;
    other plans, 498;
    Braddock’s horses shot, 500;
    views of the battle-field, 500;
    wounded, 500;
    dies, 500;
    his remains discovered, 501;
    his sash, 501;
    view of his grave, 501;
    his papers captured by the French, 501;
    his instructions, 575, 576;
    story of his defeat in England, 577;
    his early character, 577;
    his plan of campaign, 578;
    used Evans’s map, 84, 578;
    letters of his officers, 578;
    his orderly books, 578;
    contemporary accounts, 578;
    court of inquiry, 578;
    list of his officers, 579;
    his loss, 579;
    news of the defeat as sent north, 579;
    _The Expedition of Maj.-Gen. Braddock_, 579;
    French accounts of his defeat (_see_ Monongahela), 580;
    list of captured munitions, 580.

  Bradford, Alden, 164.

  Bradford, Andrew, printer, 248;
    authorities on, 248.

  Bradford, Wm., father of printing in the middle colonies, 248;
    his publications, 248;
    his genealogy, 248;
    prints New York Laws, 232.

  Bradford, Colonel Wm., life by Wallace, 248.

  Bradley, S. R., _Vermont’s Appeal_, 179.

  Bradstreet, Colonel John, 436, 591;
    his report on his capture of Fort Frontenac, 527, 598;
    with Abercrombie, 522;
    letters, 233;
    commissary at Albany, 601;
    head of transportation service, 510;
    beats a French party, 510.

  Bradstreet, Simon, restored to power, 87;
    dies, 96.

  Brainerd, David, 246;
    life, by Jonathan Edwards, 246.

  Brandon house, 275.

  Brassier, Wm., survey of Lake Champlain, 485.

  Brattleboro’ (Vt.), 127, 183.

  Bray, Thomas, _Apostolic Charity_, 282;
    fac-simile of title, 283.

  Breard, 610.

  Breda, treaty at (1667), 476;
    part of Acadia restored to France, 478.

  Breese, S., _Early History of Illinois_, 71, 622.

  Brehm, Lieutenant, describes Ticonderoga, 537;
    sent to Lake Huron, 610;
    report to Amherst, 610.

  Brevoort, J. C., 68.

  Brewster, _Portsmouth, N. H._, 169.

  Brickell, John, 301;
    _Natural History of North Carolina_, 344.

  Bricks, imported, 226;
    made in America, 226.

  Bridger, 116.

  Briggs, C. A., _American Presbyterianism_, 132, 247.

  Brinley, Francis, 176.

  Brissot de Warville, _Nouveau Voyage_, 284.

  British footguard (1745), 489.

  British Museum, _Catalogue of prints, etc._, 114;
    _Catalogue of printed maps_, 233;
    MSS. in, 164, 617.

  British soldier, 485;
    (1701-14), picture of, 109;
    of Wolfe’s time, 547.

  Brock, R. A., edits Spotswood’s letters, 281;
    edits Dinwiddie’s letters, 281, 572;
    on Black’s journal, 566.

  Brockland (Brooklyn), 254.

  Brodhead, J. R., on Cornbury, 241.

  Bromfield, Edw., autog., 425.

  Bronson, Henry, _Connecticut Currency_, 170.

  Brooker, Wm., 121.

  Brookfield (Mass.), 184.

  Brooklyn. _See_ Brockland.

  Brooks, Noah, 424.

  Broughton, Sampson, 237.

  Broughton, Thomas, 332.

  Brown, Andrew, on the Acadians, 458;
    intending a history of Nova Scotia, 458.

  Brown, James, 208.

  Brown, Richard, _Cape Breton_, 44;
    maps from, 441, 445.

  Brown, Thomas, _Plain Narrative_, 186;
    _Sufferings and Deliverances_, 593.

  Browne, Fox, _Life of John Locke_, 336.

  Browne, Wm. Hand, edits Maryland records, 270;
    his _Maryland_, 271.

  Bruce, Lewis, 400.

  Brunswick (Me.), 181;
    _Remarks on the plan_ (1753), 474.

  Bryan, Hugh, 352.

  Bryan, Jona., 391.

  Bryent, Walter, journal, 180;
    his regiment, 183.

  Buache, 67, 82.

  Buchanan, Geo., 353.

  Buchanan, John, 603;
    _Glasgow_, 603.

  Buckingham, Rev. Mr., journal of siege of Port Royal (1710), 423.

  Buffalo Historical Society, 249.

  Buffaloes, to be propagated, 21.

  Buissonière, 50.

  Bulkely, Secretary, 458.

  Bull, Wm., 332, 352, 367, 370.

  Bullard, H. A., 72.

  Bundy, Richard, 364.

  Burd, Colonel James, journal, 270.

  Burgess, Colonel Elisha, 115.

  Burgis, W., 123.

  Burgiss, Wm., engraver, 252.

  Burk, John, 593;
    _Virginia_, 280.

  Burke, Edmund, on the Acadians, 457;
    _European Settlements in America_, 618;
    _Works_, 618;
    _Comparative Importance of the Commercial Principles_, 615.

  Burke, Wm., _Remarks on the Letter addressed to Two Great Men_, 615.

  Burling, Jas., 257.

  Burling, Jno., 257.

  Burlington (N. J.), 228.

  Burnaby, Andrew, _Travels_, 168, 245, 284;
    various editions, 245.

  Burnet, Governor Wm., _Answer to a Romish Priest_, 186;
    governor of New Jersey, 220;
    transferred to Massachusetts, 129, 220;
    governor of New York, 197;
    quarrels with the Massachusetts Assembly, 131;
    as a literary man, 131;
    dies, 131.

  Burnwell, John, _Settlement on the Golden Islands_, 392.

  Burrows, _Life of Lord Hawke_, 438.

  Burton, General, 57.

  Burton, John, 364, 400.

  Burton, Lieutenant-Colonel, 591.

  Bury, Viscount, on Braddock’s defea, 577;
    _Exodus of the Western Nations_, 138, 439, 621.

  Bushrangers, 4.

  Busk, H. W., _New England Company_, 169.

  Butel-Dumont, G. M., _Histoire et Commerce des Colonies Angloises_,
        617;
    _Present State of North America_, 617;
    notes on Jeffrey’s _Conduct of the French_, 482.

  Butler, _Kentucky_, 265.

  Byfield, Colonel, 113.

  Byles, Mather, portrait, 128;
    poem on George II., 129;
    on Burnet, 130;
    and the Great Awakening, 135.

  Bynner, E. L., 169.

  Byrd, Wm., helps Stith in his Virginia, 280;
    on quit-rents of Virginia, 280;
    _Progress to the Mines_, 281;
    his character, 276;
    his library, 276;
    _History of Dividing Line_, 275;
    portrait, 275;
    Westover Papers, 275;
    letters, 282;
    runs line of Northern Neck, 276;
    _Byrd Manuscripts_, 276.
    _See_ Burd.


  Cadet, Joseph, 57;
    in France, 559.

  Cadillac, accounts of, 560;
    statue, 560;
    letters, 561.

  Cadodaquais, 40.

  Cadogan, George, _The Spanish Hireling_, 397.

  Caffey Inlet, 338.

  Cahokia, 80, 566.

  Cajeans, 463.
    _See_ Acadians.

  Calamy, Edmund, his _Increase Mather_, 125.

  Caledonia (Acadia), 479.

  Callender, Elisha, 119.

  Callender, John, _Rhode Island Century Sermon_, 137.

  Callières, 4;
    autog., 4.

  Calvert, Benedict Leonard, 267.

  Calvert, Charles, 261;
    on the boundary dispute of Maryland, 239.

  Calvert, Sir George, 271.

  Cameron, Baron, 276.

  Cameron, Duncan, _Life and Adventures_, 579.

  Campbell, Alex., letter from Quebec, 604.

  Campbell, C., _Spotswood Family_, 281.

  Campbell, D., _Nova Scotia_, 419.

  Campbell, Major Duncan, 597.

  Campbell, G. L., _Journal of Expedition by Oglethorpe_, 398.

  Campbell, Lord Wm., 333.

  Campbell, _Tryon County_, 587.

  Camuse, Jacques, 387.

  Canada in the eighteenth century, 5;
    population, 5, 7;
    commerce, 7, 60;
    postal service, 7;
    military posts (1752), 11;
    dual government, 57;
    controlled in France, 60;
    errors of historians, 64;
    attack on ordered (1709), 422;
    expedition (1710), 107;
    (1711), 108;
    military routes to, 557;
    surrendered, 558;
    cost of the invasion, 569;
    French summaries of events, 569;
    resources in 1759 failed, 600;
    paternal government, 600;
    compared with the English colonies, 600;
    her plunderers tried in France, 610;
    their trials, 610;
    her importance in settling the terms of peace (1763), 614;
    tracts cited, 615;
    Acadians in, 463;
    archives, 617;
    papers in public record office, 617;
    copies at Quebec, 459;
    list of them in _Réponse à un Ordre_, 459;
    _Collection de Manuscrits_, etc., 617;
    Chalmers’s papers, 354;
    _Mémoire_ (1682, etc.), 561;
    Warburton’s _Conquest of Canada_, 621;
    _Picturesque Canada_, 549;
    _Royal Society Transactions_, 452.

  _Canadian Antiquarian_, 279.

  _Canadian Monthly_, 439.

  Canso, fort at, plan, 467;
    surprised by the French, 145, 410, 434.

  Canzes, 55.

  Cap Rouge (near Quebec), 550, 552.

  Cape Baptist, view of, 449.

  Cape Breton, _Importance and Advantage of Cape Breton truly stated_,
        422, 438;
    _The Great Importance of Cape Breton_, 439;
    _Accurate Description of Cape Breton_, 439;
    _Memoir of the Principal Transactions_, 439;
    map of, 481;
    by Bellin, 440;
    by Des Barres, 440;
    by Kitchin, 440;
    map of coast (1753), 475;
    tracts for and against retaining it at the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle,
        438;
    _Importance and Advantage of Cape Breton considered_, 438;
    _Two Letters_, 438;
    wars in, 407.

  Cape Carteret, 288.

  Cape Cod, in Popple’s map, 134.

  Cape Diamond (Quebec), 544.

  Cape Fear River, 288;
    settlement at, 288;
    fort at, 303;
    English at, 338;
    on early map, 338.

  Cape Hatterash (Hatteras), 338.

  Cape Hope (N. C.), 338.

  Cape Romano, 288, 338.

  Cape Sable Indians, 103, 434.

  Cape Tourmente, 542.

  Cape. _See_ names of capes.

  Capefigue, J. B. H. R., _Opérations Financières_, 77.

  Captivities (class of books), 186, 590.

  Capuchins in Louisiana, 43, 44.

  Carew, Bampfylde Moore, 252.

  Carey, Thomas, 297.

  Carillon. _See_ Ticonderoga.

  Carleton, Guy, 603;
    at Quebec, 543.

  Carlisle, Pa., treaty at (1753), 245.

  Carlyle, _Frederick the Great_, 606;
    on Wolfe’s victory, 607.

  Carmelites in Louisiana, 43.

  Carmichael, Sir James, 608.

  Carmichael-Smyth, Sir James, _Précis of the Wars in Canada_, 608.

  Carolinas, history of, 285;
    proprietary government, 285;
    grants (1663-1729), shown in a map, 285;
    Comberford’s map (1657), 285;
    this region variously called, 286;
    origin of name “Carolina” or “Carolana”, 286;
    names of proprietors, 286, 287;
    Clarendon County, 288;
    it disappears, 293;
    Craven County, 289;
    Albemarle County, 289;
    Chowan Colony, 289;
    purposes of the proprietors, 290;
    their charters, 290, 477;
    they oppose democratic tendencies, 291;
    fundamental constitutions, 291;
    their provisions, 291;
    titles, 291;
    Church of England established, 292;
    land tenure in, 292;
    surrendered to the crown, 361;
    Acadians in, 463.
    _See_ North and South Carolina.

  Carolines (coin), 230.

  Carpenter, Geo., 364.

  Carpenter, J. C., “Old Maryland”, 272.

  Carpenter, W. H., 405.

  Carr, Lucian, on the mounds of the Mississippi and on women among the
      Iroquois, 23.

  Carr’s Fort, 375.

  Carroll, B. R., _Historical Collections of South Carolina_, 355, 404.

  Carroll, Chas., _Journal to Canada_, 594;
    his mansion, 272.

  Carter, C. W., _York County, Pa._, 249.

  Carter, Robert, 267.

  Carteret, Lord, his share of Carolina not sold to the crown, 301.

  Carteret, Sir George, 286;
    autog., 287.

  Carteret, conveys land to the trustees of Georgia, 361.

  Carthagena, taken, 69.

  Caruthers, W. A., _Knights of the Horseshoe_, 563.

  Carver, Jona., _Travels_, 594.

  Casco Bay, Indian treaty at, 432.

  Casgrain, Abbé, portrait, 619.

  Cass papers, 561.

  Cassell, _United States_, 239.

  Cassiques, in Carolina, 291.

  Castin, the younger, 122.

  Castle William (Boston), plan of, 108.

  Catawbas, 490, 567;
    language, 356.

  Catesby, Mark, _Natural History of Carolina_, 350.

  Cathcart papers, 604.

  Catholics excluded from Georgia, 364;
    in Maryland, 259, 260, 262;
    and the treaty of 1763, 615.

  Caton family mansion, 272.

  Catskill Creek, 237.

  Caughnawaga, 4, 186, 487.

  Causton, Thomas, 380.

  Cayuga Historical Society, 249.

  Céloron de Bienville, his expedition, 8, 490, 569;
    authorities, 8;
    inscription on his plates, 9;
    his plates found, 9, 570;
    map showing where they were buried, 569, 570.

  Cerisier, A. M., _Remarques sur les Erreurs de Raynal_, 457.

  Cevallos, Pedro, 69.

  Chabert, Joncaire, 610.

  Chabert, J. B., _Voyage_, 475.

  Chaigneau, L., 561.

  Chaleur Bay, map, 614.

  Chalmers, Geo., _Opinions of Eminent Lawyers_, 261;
    _Political Annals_, 352, 354;
    refuses aid to Williamson, 352;
    Grahame’s use of his papers, 352, 353, 354, 620;
    his papers, 352;
    _Introduction to the History of the Colonies_, 353;
    edited by Sparks, 353;
    autog., 353;
    on Virginia, 278;
    on Maryland, 271, 278.

  Chamberlain, Mellen, on the Massachusetts Records, 165.

  Chambers, G., _Irish and Scotch in Pennsylvania_, 249.

  Chambers, _Eminent Scotsmen_, 76.

  Champigny, Chev. de, 73;
    _Etat Présent de la Louisiane_, 67.

  Champlain, his notion of bounds of Acadia, 479.

  Champlain, Lake, misplaced in the Dutch maps, 88, 234;
    French grants on, 238;
    first occupied by the French, 567;
    maps of, 485;
    surveys, 485;
    Popple’s map, 486.

  Chandler, P. W., _American Criminal Trials_, 241.

  Chandler, Rev. Sam., diary at Lake George, 586.

  Channing, Edw., _Town and County Government_, 169, 281.

  Chaouanons, 564.
    _See_ Shawnees.

  Chaouchas, 41.

  Chapais, Thomas, _Montcalm et le Canada_, 607.

  Chapman, T. J., 563, 572;
    on Connecticut claims in Pennsylvania, 180.

  Charlestown (N. H.), 183.

  Charlestown (S. C.), _later Charleston_, plan by Crisp, 343;
    “South Carolina Society”, 349;
    map of vicinity, 351;
    of harbor, 351;
    founded, 290, 307;
    first site, 308;
    threatened by the Spaniards, 308;
    Albemarle Point, 308;
    town removed to Oyster Point, 308, 309;
    map of vicinity, 315;
    other early maps, 315;
    descriptions, 315;
    plantations on the rivers, 317;
    commerce, 317, 332;
    population, 317;
    slaves, 317;
    religion in, 317;
    attacked by the Spanish, 319;
    Popple’s plan of the town (1732), 330;
    view of town (1742), 331;
    name changed to “Charleston” (1783), 331;
    Oglethorpe at, 367;
    Spanish attack on, 342.

  Charlevoix, on the bounds of Acadia, 473, 479;
    used by Jefferys, 616;
    his historical journal, 72;
    used in Smith’s _New York_, 618;
    _Nouv. France,_ 63;
    editions and translations, 63, 474;
    at New Orleans, 63;
    annotated by Dr. Shea, 63;
    portrait, 64; autog., 64;
    his maps (by Bellin), 474.

  Charnock, _Biographia Navalis_, 437.

  Chartres, Fort, 52, 69;
    visited by Charlevoix, 52;
    plan, 54;
    position, 55;
    described, 71.

  Chase, E. B., _Over the Border_, 429.

  Chase, G. W., _Haverhill_, 184.

  Chasse, Father de la, 431.

  Chasteaumorand, 16.

  Chateauguay, 23.

  Chatham, Lord, _Correspondence_, 467.

  Chatkas, 66.

  Chauncey, Chas., sermon on Louisbourg victory, 435, 438;
    and the Great Awakening, 135;
    _Seasonable Thoughts_, 135;
    _Letter to Whitefield_, 135;
    _Letter to a Friend_, 579;
    S_econd Letter to a Friend_, 586;
    _Two Letters to a Friend_, 587.

  Chauncey, Isaac, 185.

  Chaussegros de Léry, 556.

  Chautauqua, 570.

  Chauveau, on Garneau, 619.

  Chebucto harbor. _See_ Halifax.

  Chebuctou. _See_ Halifax. 450.

  Checkley, John, 126;
    prints Leslie’s _Method_, 126;
    _Discourse concerning Episcopacy_, 126;
    in Providence, 126.

  Chequins (coin), 230.

  Cherokees, 25, 86, 345, 350, 359, 484, 567;
    Sir Alex, Cuming’s visit to, 392;
    maps of their country, 393, 484;
    depredating (1756), 333;
    make war, 333;
    forts built among, 332;
    _Some Observations on Campaigns_, 350;
    treaty with, 329.

  Chesapeake Bay, maps of, 273, 472.

  Chiaha River, 70.

  Chickasaws, 25;
    (Chicazas), 70;
    (Chicachas), 82;
    attacked, 49, 50, 51, 52;
    _Journal de la Guerre contre les Chicachas_, 68.

  Chignectou, plans, 452.

  Child, Josiah, _New Discourse of Trade_, 119.

  _Chimera_, 76.

  Choate, John, 450, 591.

  Choctaws, 25, 47;
    (Chactas), 83;
    (Chatkas), 86.

  Chogage, 559.

  Chouaguen, 511.

  Chowan, river, 287.

  Christ Church (Cambridge) chimes, 145.

  Christie’s Surveys of New York, 238.

  Christmas Day, 101;
    observance in New England, 118.

  Chubb, surrenders Pemaquid, 96.

  Church, Benj., _Entertaining Passages_, 420, 427;
    fac-simile of title, 427;
    his eastward expedition (1704), 420;
    divers estimates of his conduct, 421;
    at the eastward again, 106, 407, 408;
    sources on his career, 420.

  Church, Thomas, prepares his father’s narrative, 427;
    edited by H. M. Dexter, 427.

  Church of England in the colonies, 230.

  Claiborne, J. F. H., _Mississippi_, 48, 71.

  Clap, Roger, _Memoirs_, 137.

  Clap, Thomas, _Yale College_, 102.

  Clarendon, Earl of, 286;
    autog., 287.

  Clarendon Historical Society, _Reprints_, 135.

  Clark, H. A., 278.

  Clarke, George, _Voyage to America_, 243.

  Clarke, John, and the Rhode Island charter, 620.

  Clarke, R. H., 271.

  Clarke, Wm. (Boston), 490.

  Clarke, Wm., _Observations on the Conduct of the French_, 430, 475.

  Clarke, lieutenant-governor of New York, 200;
    suggests attack on Louisbourg, 434.

  Clarke, _Wesley family_, 404.

  Clavarack Creek, 237.

  Clayton, John, _Observables in Virginia_, 278.

  Cleaveland, Chaplain, 598.

  Cleland, _Tombo-chi-qui_, 399.

  Clement, J. P., _Portraits Historiques_, 77.

  Clement, Thomas, plan of the Lake George battle (1755), reduced
      fac-simile, 586a, 586b.

  Clérac, 44.

  Cleveland, 559.

  Clifton, Wm., 390, 391.

  Clinton, Admiral Geo., 201;
    governor of New York, 201;
    autog. and seal, 202;
    retires, 203, 204;
    and the Six Nations, 147;
    his plan of union (1744), 611;
    invites (1751) a conference of the colonies, 612.

  Clinton, De Witt, 570.

  Clos, 610.

  Coal mines, 225.

  Cobb, Sylvanus, 146;
    projects a raid, 149.

  Cochrane, J., 238.

  Cochut, John, _Law, son système_, 77.

  Cod-fish, emblem of Massachusetts, 177.

  Cœur, Jean, 490.

  Cohen, J. B., 356.

  Cohoes fall, 236.

  Coin, in use, 229;
    Spanish, 229;
    clipped, 229;
    counterfeit, 230.

  Coke and Moore, _John Wesley_, 403.

  Colburn, Jere., _Bibliography of Massachusetts_, 181.

  Colden, Cadwallader, account of Lancaster treaty (1744), 566;
    on the congress of 1754, 612;
    on the Indian trade, 571;
    letters, 107;
    map of the Lakes and the Iroquois country, 83, 235, 238, 491;
    on Smith’s _New York_, 618;
    governor of New York, 206;
    autog. and seal, 206;
    _Papers on the Encouragement of the Indian Trade_, 235;
    his _Five Nations_, 235;
    his surveys of the Hudson river lands, 235-237;
    papers on New York, 241;
    a botanist, 241;
    his likeness, 241;
    his papers, 241;
    printed, 241;
    on the capture of Fort Lévis, 609.

  Coleman, _Lyman Family_, 585.

  Colleton, Sir John, 286;
    autog., 287.

  Colleton, Sir Peter, 288, 306.

  Colleton, Thos., 306.

  Collins, _Kentucky_, 565.

  Colman, Benj., 101, 126, 396;
    and the Great Awakening, 135;
    on Governor Burnet, 131;
    on the Indian wars, 432;
    on C. Mather, 157;
    letters, 168, 436;
    papers, 436;
    sermon before Shirley, 144;
    life by Turell, 168.

  Colman, John, 124, 171;
    _Distressed State of Boston_, etc., 171.

  Colonies, as understood by France and England, 59, 600;
    French method described, 61;
    English method, 61.

  Columbia College, 248.

  Comberford, Nicholas, his map of North Carolina coast (1657), 285.

  Commerce, 118;
    in the colonies, 227;
    MS. sources, 232.

  Common law, carried by English emigrants, 261.

  Company of the Indies, 33 (_see_ Company of the West);
    surrenders its right, 49.

  Company of the West, 31;
    absorbs other companies, 33 (_see_ Law, John; and “Company of the
        Indies”);
    _Recueil d’arrests_, etc., 65, 76.

  Conant, H. C., _New England Theocracy_, 159.

  Condon, F. F., 65.

  Conestoga, 484;
    council at, 212.

  Coney Island, 226, 254.

  Congress of 1754, Georgia not represented, 391.
    _See_ Albany.

  Connecticut, Chalmers papers on, 354;
    _Colonial Record_, 166, 617;
    legislative history, 166;
    financial history, 170;
    New London Society for trade, etc., 171;
    conservative in finances, 176;
    boundary controversies, 177;
    claims in Pennsylvania, 180;
    bounds on Massachusetts, 180;
    names of her towns, 181;
    local histories, 188;
    report of her commissioners on the Albany congress, 612, 613;
    defends her borders, 129;
    quiet career, 90;
    the Great Awakening in, 135;
    Governor Saltonstall dies, 143;
    Joseph Talcott succeeds, 143;
    her first press, 151;
    condition (1755), 151;
    authorities on her history, 163;
    her appeal in 1705, 164;
    map of, 88;
    sends troops to Massachusetts, 94;
    refuses Fletcher of New Jersey command of her militia, 94;
    her orthodoxy, 102;
    on Port Royal expedition, 107;
    her militia, 111;
    Fitz-John Winthrop, governor, 111;
    Mohegan case, 111;
    Gurdon Saltonstall, governor, 111;
    the Saybrook platform, 111.

  Connecticut River, in Popple’s map, 134;
    the bounds of New York, 178;
    the Versche River of the Dutch, 234.

  Connecticut Valley in the Indian wars, 184;
    plan, 184.

  _Continental Monthly_, 268.

  Contrecœur, autog., 493;
    commanding at Duquesne, 493;
    his official report on Braddock’s defeat, 580;
    letter, 574.

  Convicts in Louisiana, 36.

  Conyngham, Redmond, _Dunkers at Ephrata_, 246.

  Coode, his quarrel with Nicholson, 260.

  Cook, Eben, _Sot-weed Factor_, 272;
    _Sot-weed Redivivus_, 272.

  Cook, Fort, 134.

  Cook, the navigator, at Quebec, 543;
    _Life of Cook_, 545.

  Cooke, Elisha, the elder, popular tribune, 87;
    in England, 87;
    his likeness, 89;
    champion of old conditions, 92;
    returns to Boston, 93;
    devises grants to the governors, 94;
    and Bellomont, 98;
    opposes Jos. Dudley, 103;
    who is finally reconciled, 113;
    dies, 113;
    his papers, 162.

  Cooke, Elisha, the younger, 116;
    his portrait, 117;
    his _Just and Reasonable Vindication_, 117;
    sent to England, 124;
    loses favor, 133.

  Cooke, J. E., _History of Virginia_, 280;
    _Stories of the Old Dominion_, 563;
    on the Westover mansion, 275.

  Cooper, Sir Anthony Ashley, 286;
    autog., 287.

  Cooper, J. F., _Mohicans_, 595.

  Cooper, General J. T., 232, 584.

  Cooper, Peter, his view of Philadelphia, 258.

  Cooper, Samuel, 586;
    _The Crisis_, 177.

  Cooper, Wm., 135.

  Coosa River, 359.

  Coote, Richard. _See_ Bellomont.

  Cope, Alfred, edits Penn and Logan letters, 242.

  Copley, J. S., 169;
    life and works by Perkins, 141;
    by Martha B. Amory, 141.

  Copley, Sir Lionel, 259.

  Copper, in New Jersey, 225.

  Coram, Thos., 364.

  Corcoran, W. W., buys the Dinwiddie Papers, 572.

  Cornbury, Lord, 111;
    autog., 192;
    in New Jersey, 192, 218;
    in New York, 195;
    his grant of land to Rip Van Dam, 236;
    in women’s clothes, 241;
    portrayed by Brodhead, 241;
    a profligate, 195;
    in prison, 196;
    recalled, 196;
    made Earl of Clarendon, 196.

  Cornwallis, Edw., 410, 450;
    settles Halifax (N. S.), 414.

  Coronelli and Tillemon’s map, 79, 473.

  Corter’s Kill, 237.

  Corvettes, 136.

  Cosa, province of, 359.

  Cosby, governor of New York, 193, 198;
    governor of New Jersey, 220;
    dies, 198.

  Costebelle, Pastour de, 421.

  Costume, preserved in portraits, 141.

  _Cotton Papers_, 166.

  Counties, origin of, 281.

  County histories, 249.

  Courtenay, W. A., 306;
    _Charleston Year Books_, 340.

  Courtois, Alphonse, _Banques en France_, 75.

  Coventry forge (Pennsylvania), 224.

  Cox, W. W., 253.

  Cox, _Bibliotheca Curiosa_, 137.

  Coxe, Daniel, 335;
    _Carolana_, 13, 69, 72, 81, 611;
    his portrait, 611;
    plan of union for the colonies, 611;
    _Collection of Voyages_, 69;
    his map of Carolana, 69, 70;
    in New Jersey, 219, 220;
    his ship on the Mississippi, 20.

  Cozas, 70.

  Crafford, John, _Carolina_, 340.

  Craft, journal of siege of Louisbourg, 438.

  Craig, N. B., edits Stobo’s _Memoirs_, 575;
    _Olden Time_, 576;
    on Braddock’s defeat, 576;
    _Pittsburg_, 249;
    plan of Braddock’s march, 500.

  Craven, Sir Anthony, dies, 322.

  Craven, Colonel Chas., 320.

  Craven, William, Lord, 286;
    autog., 287;
    palatine, 320.

  Creasy, E. S., Essay on Montcalm, 607.

  Creek Indians, 321;
    cede lands to Oglethorpe, 370;
    upper and lower, 370, 371;
    their country, 401.

  Creigh, Alfred, _Washington County, Pennsylvania_, 249.

  Cresap, Thomas, 261, 490;
    surveys a road over the mountains, 570;
    lives of, 272.

  Cresap war, 272.

  Crèvecœur, French at, 566.

  Crisp, Edw., plan of Charlestown (S. C.), 343.

  Croatoan, 338.

  Croghan, Geo., explorer, 10, 490, 570;
    his journals, 10, 596, 610;
    list of Indian nations, 564;
    his statement, 575;
    transactions with the Indians, 570;
    his letter on Duquesne, 498.

  Cromwell, his grant in Acadia according to English and French view,
      478, 479.

  Crown Point expeditions, 165;
    Massachusetts troops in, 585;
    French fort at, 7;
    occupied by the French (1731), 487;
    strengthened by Amherst, 537;
    fort built in 1731, plan of, 537;
    view of ruins at, 538;
    other plans and views, 538.

  Crowne, _Memoirs_, 476.

  Cross, _An Answer_, 582.

  Crozat, Antony, permitted to trade, 28;
    his character, 28;
    his plans fail, 31.

  Cullum, Geo. W., _Defences of Narragansett Bay_, 142.

  Culpepper, John, 295;
    his rebellion, 311;
    tried, 295.

  Culpepper, Lord Thomas, in Virginia, 263;
    portrait, 263;
    his financial schemes, 263;
    receives the northern neck, 276;
    his daughter marries Fairfax, 276;
    his letters, 282;
    proposes federation, 611.

  Cumberland (Maryland), 493.

  Cumberland, Fort (Acadia), 452;
    Des Barres’s map, 453.

  Cumberland Island, 358.

  Cuming, Sir Alexander, 329;
    aimed to establish trade with the Cherokees (1730), 392.

  Cummings, C. A., 169.

  Curren, Benj., 418.

  Curteis, _Bampton Lectures_, 403.

  Curwen, diary of siege of Louisbourg, 438.

  Cusick, David, 233.

  Custis family, 276.

  Cutler, Timothy, 102;
    becomes Episcopalian, 120;
    in Boston, 120;
    and Harvard College, 126.

  Cutter, A. R., 436.


  Dabney, W. P., 282.

  Daine, on Abercrombie’s defeat, 598.

  Daire, Eugène, _Économistes Financiers_, 75, 77.

  Dalcho, F. D., _Episcopal Church in South Carolina_, 341.

  Dale, James W., _Presbyterians on the Delaware_, 247.

  Dalhousie, Earl, 616;
    governor of Canada, 551.

  Dallas, Geo. M., 258.

  Dalton, Jos., 307.

  Damariscotta River, 181.

  Dame, Luther, 437.

  Danforth, Samuel, 420.

  Danforth, Thomas, 92, 131.

  Daniel, Geo. F., _Huguenots in the Nipmuck Country_, 98, 184.

  Daniel, Major, 317, 318.

  Daniel, Colonel Robt., 296, 322.

  Daniel, _Nos Gloires_, 14, 106.

  Daniels, R. L., 463.

  D’Anville, Admiral, sent to attack Boston, 147, 413, 487.

  D’Anville, J. B., as geographer, 81;
    his map of Louisiana, 81;
    his _Œuvres Géog._, 81;
    _Amérique Septentrionale_, 81, 474;
    improved on Douglass, 475;
    map of 1746, 11;
    map of the St. Lawrence, 614;
    his map showing the claims of France, 83, 482;
    his _Mémoire_, 83;
    map of North America, improved by Bolton, 235;
    published by Homann, 235.

  Dapper, Olfert, _Die unbekante Neue Welt_, 472;
    its maps, 472.

  Darby, Wm., _Louisiana_, 81.

  Darien Expedition, 77.

  Darien (Georgia), 375, 377.

  Darlington, Wm., 273.

  Darlington, W. M., edits Smith’s _Remarkable Occurrences_, 579.

  Darlington, Countess of, 113.

  D’Aulnay, his territory in Acadia, 478, 479;
    his _Lettres-patentes_, 476.

  Dauphin Island, 27, 28, 66, 70 (_see_ Massacre Island);
    siege of, 37.

  Davenant, Charles, _Works_, 611;
    plan of uniting the colonies, 611.

  Davidson and Struvé, _Illinois_, 71.

  Davies, Samuel, _Sermon_, 578;
    account of, 578;
    _Works_, 579;
    on death of George II., 579.

  Davis, Andrew McF., “Canada and Louisiana”, 1;
    _Journey of Moncacht-Apé_, 77.

  Davis, Geo. T., on the St. Regis bell, 186.

  Davis, J., _Welsh Baptists_, 247.

  Davis, S., on the Moravians, 246.

  Dawes, E. C., edits _Journal of Rufus Putnam_, 594.

  Dawson, H. B., on the New Hampshire grants, 179;
    _Papers on the Boundary of New York and New Jersey_, 238;
    _Sons of Liberty_, 241.

  Day, Mrs. C. M., _Eastern Townships_, 602.

  Day, T., _Judiciary of Connecticut_, 166.

  De Bow, J. D. W., 72;
    _Political Annals of South Carolina_, 355.

  De Brahm, J. G. W., 391;
    (MS.) _History of the Three Provinces_, 401;
    account of South Carolina, 350;
    _Philosophico-Historico Hydrography_, 350;
    _Map of South Carolina_, 352;
    _Province of Georgia_, 401.

  De Chambon, account of siege of Louisbourg (1745), 439.

  De Costa, B. F., _History of Fort George_, 535;
    introduction to White’s _Episcopal Church_, 244;
    early Episcopacy in Virginia, 282;
    on the Shapley map, 337;
    on St. Regis, 186.

  D’Estournelle, Vice-Admiral, 413.

  De Fer, Nicholas, his maps, 80.

  De Foe, Daniel, _Party Tyranny_, 342;
    _Case of Protestant Dissenters_, 342;
    _Captain Jack_, 284.

  De Forest, _Indians of Connecticut_, 111.

  De Haas, Wells, _Western Virginia_, 581.

  D’Hébécourt, letters, 608.

  De la Coone, 449.

  De la Jonquière, Admiral, 413.

  De Laet’s map of Carolina, 336.

  De Lancey, E. F., on James De Lancey, 241.

  De Lancey, James, memoir of, by E. F. De Lancey, 241;
    made chief justice of New York, 198;
    leader of popular faction, 202;
    becomes governor, 204;
    autog. and seal, 205;
    on the Congress of 1754, 205;
    resigns, 206;
    dies, 207;
    thwarts the New York government (1767), 569.

  De Mille, on the Evangeline Country, 459.

  De Peyster, J. W., on the French war, 621.

  De Peyster, N., 233.

  De Renne (_see_ Wymberley-Jones), 401.

  De Voe, T. F., _Public Markets of New York_, 249.

  Deane, Chas., on the bibliography of Hutchinson, 162;
    edits _Trumbull Papers_, 181;
    on Mather’s _Magnalia_, 156;
    on the Montcalm forgeries, 606;
    owns Vaughan’s Journal, 500.

  Decanver’s bibliography of Methodism, 403.

  Deerfield, 105; attacked, 185, 186;
    conference (1735) with Indians at, 433.

  Delamotte, Charles, 377.

  Delaville, Abbé, _État Présent_, 582.

  Delaware, bounds of, fixed, 263;
    acquired by Penn, 207;
    “lower counties”, 209.

  Delaware River, its source, 234.

  Delawares on the Muskingum, 563;
    treaty (1757), 596.

  Delisle, Claude, 80, 233;
    his maps, 80.

  Delisle, Guillaume, 80;
    his maps, 80;
    map of Louisiana, 72;
    his map shows the French claims in Acadia, 474.

  Denny, Wm., governor of Pennsylvania, 216.

  Dent, J. C., _Last Forty Years of Canada_, 619.

  Denys, his government in Acadia (1654), 478.

  Derby, E. H., on the landbank, etc., 376.

  Des Barres, _Atlantic Neptune_, 429;
    map of the St. Lawrence, 614.

  Deschamps, Chas., 610.

  Deschamps, Judge, 458.

  Desgouttes, 464.

  Detroit (1706), 561;
    attacked (1712), 561;
    attacked by the Foxes, 484;
    conferences at, 560;
    founded, 483;
    the French flee to (1759), 535;
    maps, 559, 560;
    accounts of, 560;
    French families, 560;
    papers on its founding, 560;
    surrendered (1760), 559, 610.

  Dexter, Arthur, 141.

  Dexter, F. B., _Founding of Yale College_, 102;
    _Biographical Sketches of Graduates_, 102;
    on names of Connecticut towns, 181.

  Dexter, H. M., on Cotton Mather, 157;
    edits Church’s _Entertaining Passages_, 427;
    on John Wise, 108.

  Dickinson, Jonathan, his house in Philadelphia, 258.

  Didier, E. L., on the Baltimores, 271.

  Diéreville, on the Acadians, 457;
    _Relation_, 422.

  Dieskau, sent to Canada, 494;
    ordered to Lake George, 502;
    his line of march, 526;
    defeated by Johnson and Lyman, 504;
    wounded and taken, 504, 587;
    his map of his campaign (1755), 585;
    official report, 588;
    letters, 588, 589;
    commission and instructions, 588;
    thought to have inspired the _Dialogue entre le Maréchal Saxe et le
        Baron Dieskau_, 589;
    his statements in Diderot’s _Mémoires_, 589;
    his despatches said to be falsified, 589.

  Digby, Edw., 364.

  Dilworth, W. H., _History of the Present War_, 615.

  Dinwiddie, Robt., governor of Virginia, 268;
    portrait and autog., 269;
    goes to England, 270;
    advocated (1752) northern and southern unions of the colonies, 612;
    his papers, 572;
    use of them by historians, 572;
    Sparks’s copies, 572;
    described by Henry Stevens, 572;
    bought by W. W. Corcoran, 572;
    given to Virginia Historical Society, 572;
    edited by R. A. Brock, 572;
    _Official Records_, 572, 281;
    precipitates conflict on the Ohio, 12;
    sends Washington’s expedition to Le Bœuf, 492;
    the disaster at Fort Necessity, 494.

  Diron d’Artaguette, 27.

  Diron, his map, 80.

  Disosway, G. P., on the Huguenots, 247, 349.

  Ditchley House, 275.

  Dobbs, Arthur, 303;
    portrait, 304;
    governor of North Carolina, 304.

  Dobson, John, _Chron. Annals of the War_, 574, 616.

  Dockwa, 218.

  Doddridge, Jos., _Notes of Virginia and Pennsylvania_, 581.

  Dodge, W., edits Penhallow, 425.

  Dodsley’s _Annual Register_, 616.

  Dog dollars, 194, 229.

  Dolberry, Capt., 92.

  Dongan, Governor, a Catholic, 190.

  Dongan’s laws, 232.

  Donne, Robt., 307.

  Doolittle, Rev. Mr., _Short Narrative_, 189.

  Dorchester (S. C.), 379.

  Doreil on Abercrombie’s defeat, 578;
    _Éloge sur Montcalm_, 605;
    sent to France, 532;
    Lake George battle (1755), 588;
    letters on his Paris mission, 600.

  Dorr, Moses, 528.

  Doubloons, 230.

  Doucette, John, 409.

  Douglass, David, 399.

  Douglass, Captain James, 438.

  Douglass, John, supposed author of _Letter Addressed to Two Great
      Men_, 615.

  Douglass, Dr. William, on Dean Berkeley, 142;
    on the Great Awakening, 135;
    his map, 474, 475;
    on the maps of New England, 133;
    his _Summary_, 121, 158;
    on finances, 173;
    _Some Observations_, etc., 173;
    _Essay concerning Silver and Paper Currencies_, 174;
    _Discourse concerning the Currencies_, 174;
    rejoinders, 174;
    quarrel with Knowles, 158;
    with Shirley, 159;
    his character, 159;
    his style, 159;
    opposes inoculation, 120;
    on the siege of Louisbourg (1745), 146, 438, 439.

  Doyle, John A., on Maryland history, 271;
    his _English in America_, 271, 356.

  Drake, Samuel A., _Old Landmarks of Boston_, 169;
    _Old Landmarks of Middlesex_, 169;
    _Nooks and Corners of New England Coast_, 169.

  Drake, Samuel G.. on Cotton Mather, 156, 157;
    _Early History of Georgia_, 392;
    edits Norton’s _Redeemed Captive_, 187;
    _Five Years’ French and Indian Wars_, 438;
    prints Phips’s instruction to commissioners, 450;
    _Tragedies of the Wilderness_, 421.

  Drama, interdicted in Massachusetts, 150.

  Draper, Lyman C., 74;
    on the expedition against the Shawanoes, 589;
    _Recollections of Grignon_, 580;
    on Stobo, 498.

  Draper, Richard, 586.

  Drucour, account of defences of Louisbourg, 467;
    diary of Louisbourg (1758), 464.

  Drummond, Wm., governor of Albemarle in Carolina, 288.

  Drysdale, Hugh, speeches in Virginia, 267.

  Du Buisson, 561.

  Du Guay, 16.

  Du Poisson, 46.

  Duane, Jas., _Rights of the Colony of New York_, 178;
    _Royal Adjudication concerning Lands_, etc., 178;
    _Collection of Evidence_, etc., 179;
    _State of the Evidence_, 179.

  Duck, Stephen, 137.

  Dudley, Jos., autog., 425;
    correspondence for a peace with Vaudreuil, 421;
    charged with trading illicitly with the French, 422;
    bitter tracts against, 422;
    _Memorial of the Present Deplorable State of New England_, 422;
    _A Modest Inquiry_, 422;
    _Deplorable State of New England_, 422;
    his letters, 166;
    made governor of Massachusetts, 103;
    his instructions, 103;
    comes to Boston, 104;
    his character, 104;
    quarrels with the Mathers, 104, 422;
    with the legislature, 105;
    conspires with Cornbury, 111;
    reappointed governor, 113;
    attacks Leverett, 119;
    imprisoned, 87;
    in New York, 91;
    would be governor, 95;
    at Isle of Wight, 95;
    opposed landbank, 170;
    on Walker’s expedition (1711), 561;
    instructions to Colonel Church, 420;
    at Casco, 420.

  Dudley, Paul, 113;
    _Banks of Credit_, 171;
    his diary, 135.

  Dudley, Wm., 185.

  Dudley, Colonel Wm., 423.

  Duhautchamp, 76;
    _Systéme des Finances_, 77.

  Duke’s Laws, 231.

  Dulany, Daniel, 578;
    on the Acadians, 462;
    on the Lake George battle (1755), 587.

  Dumas, commands the French in Pennsylvania, 581;
    at Duquesne, 497;
    letter on Braddock’s defeat, 580.

  Dummer, Jeremy, _Letter to a Friend_, 109, 562;
    _Defence of the New England Charters_, 121;
    made London agent, 107;
    _Letter to a Noble Lord_, etc., 109, 562;
    his portrait, 115;
    in England, 116;
    on the salary question in Massachusetts, 131;
    urged that the St. Lawrence was the proper boundary of New England,
        422.

  Dummer, Wm., lieutenant-governor of Massachusetts, 116;
    portrait, 114;
    in power, 131;
    his treaty, 127, 432.

  Dummer, Fort, 183.

  Dummer’s war, 430.

  Dumont, Butel, 67.

  Dumont de Montigny, 73;
    his identity, 66;
    _Mémoires Historiques sur la Louisiane_, 65;
    his MS. map of Louisiana, 81;
    fac-simile of his engraved map, 82.

  Dumplers. _See_ Dunkers.

  Dunbar, Colonel, 496.

  Dunbar, Colonel David, 139, 181.

  Dunkers (Dunkards), 217, 246;
    authorities on, 246;
    their press, 246.

  Duquesne de Menneville, Marquis, governor of Canada, 11, 566;
    his instructions, 571;
    _Mémoire_ on the Ohio, 498;
    sent expedition into the Ohio region (1753), 490;
    autog., 492.

  Duquesne, Fort, _Registre du Fort_, 580;
    _Registres des Baptesmes_, etc., 589;
    expedition against (1758), 599.

  Durell, Philip, _Particular Account of the taking of Cape Breton_,
        438;
    cruising on the St. Lawrence Gulf, 540.

  Dussieux, L., map of the old French war, 618.

  Dustin, Hannah, 96.

  Dutisné, 55.

  Dutot, _Réflexions Politiques_, 75.

  Duverger de Saint Blin, 610.

  Duvergier, 51.

  Duverney, P., _Examen_, 76.

  Dwight, Sereno E., edits life of Brainerd, 246.

  Dwight, Theodore, edits _Madam Knight’s Journal_, 423.

  Dwight, Theo. F., 30.

  Dwight, Timothy, _Travels_, 587, 594.


  Earle, J. C., _English Premiers_, 596.

  Earthquake (1755), 152;
    in New England (1727), 128;
    literature of, 128.

  Eastburn, Robt., _Faithful Narrative_, 591.

  Eastchurch, governor of Carolina, 294.

  _Eastern Chronicle_ (New Glasgow, N. S.), 423.

  Easton (Pa.), conference (1767), 596;
    (1758), 530;
    MS. records, 596;
    treaties at, 227, 245.

  Eaton, S. J. M., _Venango County_, 249, 492.

  Ebeling, C. D., translates Burnaby’s _Travels_, 245.

  Ebenezer (Georgia), founded, 374, 375;
    referred to, 379, 401;
    plan of, 396, 401.

  Echard, Lawrence, _Gazetteer_, 235.

  Echols, John, journal, 270.

  _Eclectic Magazine_, 603.

  Eden, Charles, governor of Carolina, 299.

  Edenton (N. C.), 300.

  Education, common school, 237;
    in the middle colonies, 247.

  Edwards, Jonathan, 133;
    his _Faithful Narrative_, 133;
    _Some Thought_, etc., 133;
    _Life of David Brainerd_, 246;
    edited by Sereno E. Dwight, 246.

  Edwards, Morgan, _Baptists in Philadelphia_, 247.

  Edwards, T., 273.

  Effingham. _See_ Howard.

  Eggleston, Edward, on colonial life, 118, 168, 371;
    _Colonists at Home_, 141.

  Egle’s _Notes and Queries_, 249;
    _Historical Register_, 249.

  Egleston, N. H., _Williamstown_, 187.

  Egmont MSS., 141.

  Eliot tracts, 169.

  Elliott, Benj., _Report of Historical Commission of Charleston
      Library Association_, 312.

  Ellis, Geo. E., on the Massachusetts royal governors, 147;
    on Judge Sewall, 167;
    on the Mather diaries, 168;
    _Red Man and White Man_, 460.

  Ellis, Henry, 391.

  Elizabeth, N. J., 254.

  _Encyclopédie Méthodique_, 77.

  Endress, Christian, _History of the Dunkers_, 246.

  Enfield, Conn., 180.

  Engel, Samuel, _Mémoires Géographiques_, 77.

  English claims in North America, 235;
    maps of, 235.

  English Colonies, the plan of union, 611;
    proposed by the ministry, 613 (_see_ Albany, Congress of);
    a triple confederacy proposed, 613;
    compared with the French, 56;
    copies of their charters, 394;
    _Essay upon the Government of the English Plantations_, 611;
    general historians of, 619;
    populations (1755), 151;
    books on their condition, 617.
    _See_ Colonies.

  _English Historical Review_, 578.

  _English Pilot_, 234, 474.

  English traders in the Mississippi Valley, 25.

  Entick, John, _General History of the Late War_, 616;
    on the Acadians, 457;
    on the siege of Louisbourg (1758), 467.

  Ephrata, Dunkers at, 246.

  Episcopacy in the colonies, Chalmers’s paper on, 354.

  Episcopal church in Carolina, 341, 342;
    in the middle colonies, 244.

  Erie (Pennsylvania), 492.

  Erie Indians destroyed, 564;
    history of, 564.

  Errett, Russel, 564.

  Erving, John, 144.

  Esopus, 237.

  Etechemin territory, 479.

  Ethier, _La Prise de Deerfield_, 186.

  Evans, John, deputy governor of Pennsylvania, 210;
    memoirs by Neill, 243.

  Evans, Captain John, his lands, 237.

  Evans, Lewis, Essays, 85;
    _Map of Middle Colonies_, 83, 244;
    pirated by Jefferys, 84;
    as issued by Jefferys, denounced by Pownall, 565;
    enlarged by Pownall, 85, 564;
    used by Braddock, 578;
    the best of the Ohio region, 565.

  Everard, Sir Richard, 301.

  Everett, Edward, on the army of the French war, 154;
    on Harrison’s address, 565;
    on the Seven Years’ War as a school of the Revolution, 437;
    _Orations_, 437.

  Ewen, Wm., 402.

  _Examen sobre los Límites de la Acadie_, 235.

  Eyles, Francis, 364.

  Eyma, Xavier, _La Légende du Meschacébè_, 79.

  Eyre, Major, defends Fort William Henry, 513.

  Eyre, Wm., 586.


  Faillon, notice by Lemoine, 619.

  Fairfax, Lord Thomas, at Greenway court, 268;
    his character, 268;
    marries Culpepper’s daughter and inherits the Northern Neck, 276.

  Falmouth (Portland, Me.), 105;
    treaty at (1726, 1727, 1732), with Indians, 432;
    (1749), 450.

  Faneuil, Peter, 109, 145;
    his portraits, 145.

  Farmer, John, edits Belknap’s _New Hampshire_, 163.

  Farmer, Silas, _Detroit_, 560, 622.

  Farrar, John, 336.

  _Father Abraham’s Almanac_, 471, 497, 543, 554.

  Fay, Jonas, 179.

  Felt, Jos. B., arranges Massachusetts archives, 165;
    _Customs of New England_, 169;
    _Eccles. Hist. of New Eng._, 169;
    _Mass. Currency_, 170, 173.

  Felton, C. C., on the Acadians, 459.

  Ferland, Abbé, portrait, 619;
    notice of, by Lemoine, 619.

  Fernow, B., on “MS. sources of New York history”, 331;
    on the Boundary Controversies of New York, 238;
    “The Middle Colonies”, 189.

  Field, John W., 242.

  Fielding, H., _Covent Garden Tragedy_, 577.

  Fisher, G. H., 595.

  Fisher, _American Political Ideas_, 169.

  Fishkill, 237.

  Fiske, Frank S., _Mississippi Bubble_, 77.

  Fiske, John, _American Political Ideas_, 169, 533;
    on North Carolina history, 355;
    on the town-meeting, 169.

  Fiske, Nathan, _Brookfield_, 184.

  Fitch, Asa, 593.

  Fitzhugh, George, 276.

  Fitzhugh, Wm., his letters, 282.

  Five Nations, claimed as subjects by the English king, 483;
    conference (1722), 266;
    country of, on Colden’s map, 235, 491;
    their various designations, 484.
    _See_ Iroquois.

  Five years’ war, 434;
    declared, 568.

  Flatbush, 254.

  Fleet, Thomas, 145;
    his ballads, 121;
    on the comet, 145;
    ridicules the Great Awakening, 135.

  Fleming, Wm., and Eliz., _Narrative of Sufferings_, 590.

  Fletcher, Benj., governor of New York, 193;
    autog. and seal, 194;
    recalled, 194;
    governor of Pennsylvania, 208;
    called meeting of the colonies (1693), 611.

  Fletcher’s manor, 237.

  Florida, bounds undefined, 358, 359;
    documents on, 73;
    map of, 615;
    (1753), 365;
    name applied by the French to Carolina, 286.

  _Flying Post_, 118.

  Foligny, M. de, at siege of Quebec (1759), 605.

  Follings, Geo., 467.

  Fontaine, John, his diary, 563.

  Fontaine, Peter, his map of the Virginia and North Carolina line, 276;
    on Sir Wm. Johnson, 584.

  Fonte, Admiral, 69.

  Foote, H. W., King’s Chapel, 169.

  Foote, W. H., _Sketches of Virginia_, 278;
    on the valley of Virginia, 281.

  Forbes, General John, letters on his expedition (1758), 599;
    his route, 599;
    advances on Fort Duquesne, 528;
    suspicious of Washington, 529;
    treats with the Indians, 529;
    occupies Duquesne, 530;
    dies, 530;
    autog., 530.

  Forbes, Thomas, journal, 574.

  Forbonnais, _Finances de France_, 77.

  Force, M. F., _Indians of Ohio_, 564.

  Ford, Paul L., 248.

  Forrest, W. S., _Norfolk_, 281.

  Forstall, Edmund, 74.

  Forster, J. R., translates Bossu’s _Travels_, 67;
    translates Kalm’s _Travels_, 245.

  Fort Anne (New York), 486, 585.

  Fort Argyle (Georgia), 372, 375, 379.

  Fort Augusta, 214, 270, 333, 375, 379;
    (Shamokin), plan, 581.

  Fort Barrington, plan and view of, 401.

  Fort Bedford, 464, 529;
    (Raystown) plan, 581.

  Fort Bull, its situation, 595;
    captured, 505, 590.

  Fort Byrd, 564.

  Fort Chartres, old and new, 564.

  Fort Clinton, 568;
    (1746), 487.

  Fort Cumberland (Maine), 578;
    plans, 578;
    view, 578.

  Fort Cumberland (Maryland), 464, 495;
    plan of, 495;
    Washington’s plan of the vicinity, 577.

  Fort Diego, 375.

  Fort Dummer, 127.

  Fort Duquesne, begun by the French, 493;
    French force at, 497;
    rude contemporary map of the vicinity, 497;
    plans of, 497, 498;
    ruins, 498;
    threatened by Forbes, 529;
    supplies cut off, 530;
    blown up, 530;
    name changed by Forbes to Pittsburg, 530.

  Fort Edward, plans of, 512, 513;
    John Montressor’s journal at, 512;
    plan of environs, 514;
    situation, 526.
    _See_ Fort Lyman.

  Fort François, 86.

  Fort Frederick (Albany), 509.

  Fort Frederick (Maryland), built, 590;
    ruins, 590.

  Fort Frontenac, 614;
    authorities on Bradstreet’s capture of, 527, 598;
    _Impartial Account_, 598;
    articles of capitulation, 598;
    plans of, 525.

  Fort George (Coxpur Island, Georgia), plan of, 401.

  Fort George (Lake George), plan, 535;
    begun by Amherst, 536;
    described (1775), 594.
    _See_ Fort William Henry.

  Fort George (South Carolina), 359.

  Fort Halifax (Maine), 151.

  Fort Herkimer, 520.

  Fort James (New York), 190.

  Fort King George, 379.

  Fort Le Bœuf, 492.

  Fort Lévis captured, 555, 609;
    plan of the attack, 609.

  Fort Ligonier, 464;
    (Loyalhannon) plan, 581.

  Fort Littleton, 564.

  Fort Loudon, 270, 332, 564.

  Fort Louis, 86.

  Fort Lyman, 504;
    renamed Fort Edward, 505.

  Fort Massachusetts, 145.

  Fort Moore, 332, 345.

  Fort Necessity, authorities on the surrender, 494, 574;
    view of the fort, 574;
    plans, 574;
    remains, 574;
    Washington at, 493.

  Fort Niagara, 614.

  Fort Nicholson (New York), 486, 585.

  Fort No. 4, 183.

  Fort Ontario (Oswego), 510, 511.

  Fort Pelham, 145.

  Fort Pepperell (Oswego), 511.

  Fort Pitt, 564;
    plan, 581.
    _See_ Fort Duquesne.

  Fort Ponchartrain (Detroit), 560.

  Fort Pownall built, 154;
    conference at, 471.

  Fort Prince George, 332.

  Fort Rouillé (Toronto), 490.

  Fort Schlosser, 534.

  Fort Shirley, 145;
    (Virginia), 564.

  Fort Sorel, 486.

  Fort St. Francis (Florida), 375.

  Fort St. Frederick (Crown Point), 487, 567.

  Fort St. George, 375.

  Fort St. Jean, or St. John (Sorel), 486, 575.

  Fort St. Louis (Illinois River), 566.

  Fort St. Louis (Quebec), 553.

  Fort St. Thérèse, 486.

  Fort William (Cumberland Island), 375.

  Fort William Henry, situation, 526;
    attacked by Montcalm (1757), 165, 515;
    plans of, 516;
    view of site, 517;
    plan of attack, 518;
    other plans, 518;
    surrenders, 517;
    often called Fort George by the French, 518;
    attempted surprise by Rigaud, 513;
    built, 505;
    described (1775), 594;
    massacre at, 517, 595;
    Montcalm charged the fury of the Indians upon the English rum, 595;
    Rigaud’s attack, authorities, 593;
    Montcalm’s attack, authorities, 593;
    _Relation de la Prise de Fort George_, 593;
    articles of capitulation, 594;
    forces engaged, 594.
    _See_ Montcalm.

  Fort Williams, its situation, 595.

  Fort. _See_ names of forts and places having forts.

  Foster, Nath., 584.

  Foster, W. E., “Statesmanship of the Albany Congress”, 613;
    _Stephen Hopkins_, 139, 163, 612;
    _Reference Lists_, 169.

  Fowle, Daniel, _Monster of Monsters_, 177;
    _Total Eclipse_, 177.

  Fowler, _Durham, Conn._, 585.

  Fox River, 566.

  Foxcroft, Thomas, 132;
    and the Great Awakening, 135.

  Foxes (Indians), 564;
    attack Detroit, 484, 560.

  _Foyer, Canadien, le_, 581.

  France, collections of ancient laws, 76;
    debt of, 31;
    John Law’s scheme, 32;
    decline of, 59;
    her claims in the New World, 83;
    maps showing them, 83, 84;
    forts established, 84.

  Francis, Convers, _Life of Rasle_, 431.

  Frankland, Sir Henry, 144;
    his marriage, 144;
    at Lisbon, 152.

  Franklin, Benjamin, _Autobiography_, 168;
    in the Congress of 1754, 612;
    _Short Hints_, 612;
    drew the plan adopted, 612;
    in his _Works_, 612;
    other plans considered, 612;
    his account of the Congress, 612;
    in Boston conferring with Shirley, 613;
    his letters on taxing the colonies to support the union, 613;
    writes (with Wm. Smith) _A Brief State of the Province of
        Pennsylvania_, 582;
    helps Braddock, 495, 576;
    _Historical Review_, 582;
    question of his authorship, 582;
    _Interest of Great Britain Considered_, 615;
    argues for the retention of Canada, 615;
    prints paper money, 247;
    records of his press, 248;
    buys _Pennsylvania Gazette_, 248;
    _Poor Richard’s Almanac_, 248;
    upon Shaftesbury, 119;
    prints matter on the Penn-Baltimore dispute, 272;
    sent to England by Pennsylvania, 216;
    _True and Impartial State_, 582;
    in command of the frontiers of Pennsylvania, 583;
    on inoculation, 120;
    his kite, 152;
    _Plain Truth_, 243.

  Franklin, James, 121;
    _New England Courant_, 121;
    in Rhode Island, 141.

  Franklin, Thos., 400.

  Franklin, Wm., governor of New Jersey, 222.

  Franklin (Pa.), 570.

  Franquelin, his maps, 79.

  Franquet, 464.

  Fraser, A. C., _Works of Berkeley_, 141;
    lives of Berkeley, 141.

  Fraser, Colonel Malcolm, _Siege of Quebec_, 604.

  Frederica, 333, 375, 401;
    authorities on Oglethorpe’s repulse of the Spaniards, 398;
    plan of, 379, 398;
    founded, 377;
    appearance of the town, 377.
    _See_ St. Simon’s Island.

  Frederick, Fort (Me.), 181.
    _See_ Fort.

  Freeman, Milo, _Word in Season_, 176.

  Freeman, _Cape Cod_, 169.

  French, B. F., _Historical Collection Louisiana_, 71;
    described, 71;
    contents given, 72;
    title changed to _Historical Memoirs_, 72;
    second series, 73.

  French captures in Massachusetts Bay (1694), 420.

  French colonies, general historians of, 619.

  French Creek, 11, 492.

  French encroachments in Acadia, 419.

  French frigate, cut of, 412.

  French neutrals and the British government, 409;
    expelled from Nova Scotia, 415;
    the numbers assigned to the several colonies, 416;
    Longfellow’s picture of them a false one, 417;
    their character, 417;
    jealousies between them and the English, 450;
    papers on, 419.
    _See_ Acadians.

  French soldier, costume of, 497;
    (1700), 484;
    (1710), 562;
    (1745), 489;
    (1755), 496, 497.

  French and Spanish in the Gulf of Mexico, 24.

  Freneau, _The Dying Indian Tomo-chi-chi_, 399.

  Fresenius, 396.

  Frigates, 136.

  Frontenac, dies, 2;
    on the English colonies, 91.

  Frontenac, Fort, 85.
    _See_ Fort.

  Frost, H. W., 169.

  Frost, John, _Book of the Colonies_, 498.

  Frothingham, Richard, _Rise of the Republic_, 613;
    on the Albany congress, 613.

  Fry, Joshua, made Colonel, 493.

  Fry, Joshua, and Peter Jefferson, _Map of Virginia_, 272.

  Fry, Richard, 137.

  Frye, Colonel, journal of attack on Fort William Henry, 594.

  Fryeburg, fight at, 431.

  _Fryeburg Webster Memorial_, 432.

  Fuller, M. W., 71, 622.

  Fundamental constitutions of Carolina, 336.

  Funeral sermons, 105.

  Funerals, costly, 119.

  Fur trade. _See_ Peltries.


  Gabarus (Chapeau Rouge) Bay, 411, 469.

  Gage, Thomas, letter on Braddock’s campaign, 578;
    his statement, 578;
    papers, 233;
    in command at Lake Ontario (1759), 536;
    (1760), 610;
    leads Braddock’s advance, 498.

  Gagnon, D., _Drapeau de Carillon_, 598.

  Galerm, J. B., _French Neutrals_, 462.

  Galissonière, Comte de la, 8;
    autog., 8;
    occupies the Ohio Valley, 8;
    on the importance of posts connecting Canada and Louisiana, 571;
    map of Vérendrye, 568;
    his _Mémoire_ on the limits of New France, 475;
    urges occupation of Ohio Valley, 489.

  Galley, a kind of vessel, 438.

  Galloway, G., 604.

  Galt, _Life of Benjamin West_, 500.

  Gambrall, Theo. C., _Church Life in Colonial Maryland_, 272.

  Gandastogues, 484.

  Ganilh, Ch., _Le Revenue Publique_, 77.

  Gansevoort, Colonel, 528.

  Garden, Alex., opposes Whitefield, 404.

  Gardenier, Andrew, 236.

  Gardiner, Captain Richard, _Memoirs of the Siege of Quebec_, 603.

  Garneau, F. X., his portrait, 619;
    _Histoire du Canada_, 619;
    memoir, 619;
    on Montcalm, 619;
    on the Acadians, 459;
    on the battle of Sainte-Foy, 609;
    on the Jumonville affair, 574;
    on the siege of Louisbourg (1745), 439.

  Gaspé, P. Aubert de, portrait, 619;
    _Anciens Canadiens_, 574, 610.

  Gaspereau, 451;
    captured, 415, 452.

  Gates, Horatio, with Braddock, 498.

  Gates, Thomas, claims in Acadia (1606), 476.

  Gayangos, Pascual de, 74.

  Gayarré, Chas., books on Louisiana, 65;
    and the Louisiana archives, 74.

  Gee, Joshua, on C. Mather, 157;
    _Trade and Navigation_, 119.

  Gemisick, fort at, 476.

  _Gentleman’s Magazine_, 616.

  George I., 113;
    dies, 129.

  George II., his likeness in Boston, 145;
    proclaimed in Boston, 129;
    likeness, 130;
    dies, 154.

  George, Lake, Popple’s map of, 486;
    prisoners taken at, 186.

  George’s River, 181.

  Georgia, Heath’s patent, 358;
    early occupations, 359;
    mining in, 359;
    Montgomery’s grant, 358;
    “Azilia”, 360;
    land granted to trustees of Georgia, 361;
    names of proprietors, 352;
    principles of the founding of the colony, 363 (_see_ Oglethorpe);
    charter, 364;
    Catholics excluded, 364;
    seal, 364;
    _Some Account of the Design of the Trustees_, 365;
    _Reasons for Establishing the Colony of Georgia_, 365, 401;
    slaves forbidden, 366;
    provisions for settlers, 366;
    _New Map of Georgia_ (1737), 366;
    character of settlers, 366;
    first arrivals, 367 (_see_ Savannah _and_ Oglethorpe);
    Salzburgers’ arrival, 374;
    foundation of Ebenezer, 374;
    Moravians arrive, 374;
    absence of slaves impedes the colony’s growth, 376;
    Scotch immigration, 376;
    the Wesleys arrive, 377;
    depressed condition, 380;
    Whitefield in, 380;
    slavery introduced, 387;
    silk culture fails, 387;
    agricultural failures, 387;
    the Trustees surrender their charter, 389;
    population, 390;
    Butler’s colony, 390;
    organization as a royal province, 390;
    its seal, 391;
    origin of name, 392;
    critical essay on the sources of her history, 392;
    Cuming and the Cherokees, 392;
    tracts and magazine articles to induce settlements, 394, 396;
    charter printed, 394;
    _Account showing the Progress of Georgia_ (1741), 395, 401;
    _State and Utility of Georgia_, 395;
    _State of the Province of Georgia_, 395;
    Germans in (_see_ Salzburgers);
    _New Voyage_, 396, 401;
    _Description of Famous New Colony_, 396;
    _Description by a Gentleman_, 396;
    Stephens’s _Journal_, 397;
    _Account of Moneys_, etc. (MS.), 397;
    printed financial statements, 397;
    discontent in the colony, 398;
    _Impartial Inquiry into the State and Utility of the Province_, 398,
        401;
    _Resolution Relating to Grants of Lands_, 398;
    _State of the Province_, 398, 401;
    _Brief Account of the Causes which have Retarded the Progress of the
        Colony_, 398, 401;
    _Hard Case of the Distressed People_, 398;
    Tailfer’s tracts against, 399;
    _Georgia, a Poem_, etc., 399;
    sermons before the Trustees, 400;
    copies of records from the English archives secured (1837), 400;
    MSS. in private hands in England, 400;
    records by Percival, 400;
    given by J. S. Morgan to the State, 400;
    Stephens’s records, 400;
    attorney-general’s report of the surrender of the Trustees, 400;
    opinions of the king’s attorney, 400;
    historical society founded, 400;
    its hall, 400;
    its _Collections_, 400;
    _Itinerant Observations on America_ (1745), 401;
    De Brahm’s MS. (_see_ De Brahm);
    _Observation on the Effects of Certain Late Political Suggestions_,
        401;
    Acadians in, 463;
    _Acts of the Assembly_ (1755-74), 402;
    engrossed acts, 402;
    John Wesley in Georgia, 402;
    Whitefield’s Orphan House, 404;
    civil and judicial history, 405;
    history of, projected by Langworthy, 405;
    history by McCall, 405;
    Chalmers’s papers, 354;
    charters of, 477;
    English colonization of, 357;
    maps of, 350, 352 (1733), 365;
    (1737), 366;
    (1743), 375;
    (Urlsperger), 378, 379;
    (Harris’s _Voyages_), 396;
    the same name proposed for an English province in Acadia, 474.

  _Georgia Gazette_, 402.

  Gerard, J. W., _Peace of Utrecht_, 475.

  German Flats, attack on, authorities, 595;
    its situation, 595;
    plan of fort at, 519;
    attacked, 520.

  Germanna, Va., 267, 274.

  Germans in Carolina, 309, 331, 332, 345;
    in Virginia, 607.

  Gibson, Hugh, _Captivity_, 590.

  Gibson, James, _Journal of Siege of Louisbourg_, 437;
    _A Boston Merchant_, 438;
    on the siege of Quebec, 604.

  Gibson, improves Evans’s map, 84.

  Gillam, Captain, 96.

  Gillett, E. H., _Presbyterian Church_, 132.

  Gilman, D. C., on Berkeley, 141.

  Gilman, M. D., on bibliography of Vermont, 179.

  Gilman, Colonel Peter, 585.

  Gilmer, G. R., 405.

  Gilmor, Geo., letters, 282.

  Gilmor, Robt., 312, 336.

  Gist, Christopher, 490, 570;
    conducts Washington to Le Bœuf, 492;
    his expedition, 10;
    his journal, 10;
    journal (1750), 571;
    explores Great Miami River, 571;
    journal with Washington (1753), 572.

  Glass-making, 223.

  Gleig, G. R., _Eminent British Military Commanders_, 602.

  Glen, James, answer about South Carolina, 356;
    _South Carolina_, 350;
    governor of South Carolina, 332.

  Glossbrener, A. J., _York County, Pa._, 249.

  Glover, Wm., 297.

  Gnadenhütten, massacre, 582.

  Goddard, D. A., 168, 169.

  Godefroy, on Braddock’s defeat, 580.

  Godfroy, Claude, 592.

  Goelet, Francis, diary, 168.

  Gold mining in Georgia, 359.

  Golden Islands (Georgia) described, 392.
    _See_ St. Simon, St. Catharine, etc.

  Goldsmith, O., “Fanny Braddock”, 575.

  Gooch, governor of Virginia, 267;
    _Researches_, 280.

  Goodell, A. C., edits _Massachusetts Province Laws_, 167;
    on Mark and Phillis, 152;
    on Thomas Maule, 95.

  Goodloe, D. P., 355.

  Goodman, Alf. T., 563.

  Gookin, Charles, 211.

  Goold, William, on Colonel Wm. Vaughan, 434;
    on Fort Halifax, 182.

  Gordon, Harry, journal, 69.

  Gordon, Patrick, _Geography_, 234;
    governor of Pennsylvania, 214.

  Gordon, Peter, 369.

  Gordon-Cumming, C. F., 597.

  Gorham, Captain, his rangers, 464.

  Gorham, John, 436.

  Gorrie, _Eminent Methodist Ministers_, 404.

  Gospel, distinct societies for propagating the, 169.

  Grace, Henry, _Life and Sufferings_, 452.

  Graffenreid, baron de, 345.

  Graham, John, chaplain, 591.

  Graham, Patrick, 389, 391, 395.

  Grahame, Jas., on Cotton Mather, 157, 621;
    his portrait, 620;
    _United States_, 620, 621;
    controversy with Bancroft, 620;
    defended by Josiah Quincy, 621;
    on Carolina history, 355;
    his use of Chalmers, 352.

  Grand Pré, French neutrals at, 417;
    view of, 459.

  _Granite Monthly_, 166.

  Grant, Anne, _American Lady_, 247, 509;
    editions, 509.

  Grant, Major, defeated near Duquesne, 530, 599.

  Grant, Sir Wm., 597.

  Grant, _British Battles_, 589.

  Granville, Lord, retains his share of Carolina, 347;
    his sale of it, 356.

  Graveline, 30.

  Gravesend, 254.

  Gravier, Gabriel, edits Ursuline letters, 36, 68.

  Gravier, Jacques, 73.

  Gravier, Père, on the missions, 561.

  Gray Sisters, 24.

  Great Awakening, 123;
    literature of, 135.

  Great Meadows, Washington at, 493.

  Great Miami River, 570.

  Green, Bartholomew, 121.

  Green, Joseph, 135;
    _Death of Old Tenor_, 176.

  Green, S. A., _Groton during the Indian Wars_, 184, 432;
    on the site of Louisbourg, 447.

  Green, Wm., 448;
    “Genesis of Counties”, 281;
    memoir of, 281.

  Green Bay (Michigan), 566.

  Green Briar Company, 570.

  Green Island, 127.

  Greene, G. W., _Historical View American Revolution_, 613.

  Greenhow, _History of Oregon_, 77.

  Greenway Court, 268.

  Greenwood, Isaac J., “First American built vessels in the British
      navy”, 438.

  Greenwood, John, 122.

  Grenville, Lord, _Correspondence_, 467.

  Gridley, Jeremy, 156;
    _Weekly Rehearsal_, 137.

  Gridley, Richard, at Louisbourg, 410, 440;
    autog., 440;
    plan of Louisbourg (1745), 440, 441, 442, 443.

  Griffeth, John, _Journal_, 244.

  Griffeth, Robert, 254.

  Griffin, A. P. C., _American Local History_, 181.

  Griffin, H. A., 560.

  Grim, David, plan of New York, 254.

  Gronan, I. C., 374.

  Groton (Mass.), 184.

  Grove, Jos., _Glorious Success at Quebec_, 604.

  Grover, James, 224.

  Guild, E. P., _Heath, Mass._, 187.

  Guilford, Lord, 260.

  Guinea Company, 28.

  Gunston Hall, 275.

  Gyles, Captain John, 181.

  Gyles, John, 420;
    autog., 421;
    notes on, 421;
    _Memoirs_, 421;
    reprints, 421.


  Habersham, James, 387, 390, 391, 404.

  Hachard, Madeline, letters, 68.
    _See_ Ursulines.

  Hack, Wm., his map, 340.

  Hackensack, 254.

  Hacks, Robt., 364.

  Hadley, 186, 187.

  Hagany, J. B., 404.

  Haldimand at Oswego, 534;
    attacked, 534.

  Hale, E. E., _Catalogue of the Faden Maps_, 500.

  Hale, Geo. S., on Boston charities, 169.

  Hales, Stephen, 400.

  Half-King, 493;
    his opinion of the affair of Fort Necessity, 575.

  Half-way Brook, 186.

  Haliburton, R. G., on the Acadians, 459;
    _Past and Future of Nova Scotia_, 459.

  Haliburton, Judge T. C., charged the British authorities with
        concealing the records of the Acadian deportation, 458;
    _Nova Scotia_, 458;
    _Rule and Misrule_, 162.

  Halifax, Fort, description, plans, and

  views, 182-184;
    account of, by Wm. Goold, 182;
    and by Joseph Williams, 182.
    _See_ Fort.

  Halifax (N. S.), founded, 414, 450;
    treaty with Indians at, 450;
    governor at (1749, etc.), 459;
    papers respecting its founding, 419, 450;
    maps of, 83, 450;
    views of, 450.

  Hall, B. H., _Bibliography of Vermont_, 179;
    _Eastern Vermont_, 166.

  Hall, C. H., _Dutch and the Iroquois_, 583.

  Hall, Hiland, 178;
    replies to Dawson, 179;
    _Early History of Vermont_, 179.

  Hall, James, _The West_, 71.

  Hall, Jos., Bishop of Exeter, 308.

  Hall, Wm., 219.

  Halsted, Captain, 309.

  Hamersley, _Philadelphia Illustrated_, 252.

  Hamilton, Andrew, 218;
    conducts the Zenger trial, 199;
    his standing, 242;
    his portrait, 242.

  Hamilton, Geo., Earl of Orkney, 265.

  Hamilton, governor of Pennsylvania, 209.

  Hamilton, John, 215, 216;
    postmaster-general, 219, 221;
    governor of New Jersey, 221;
    dies, 221.

  Hamlin, M. C. W., _Legends of Detroit_, 560.

  Hammond, on Wesley, 403.

  Hampstead (Georgia), 372.

  Hampton, on Wesley, 403.

  Hanbury, John, 495.

  Hancock, John, his house, 137.

  Hancock, Thomas, builds his mansion, 137, 139;
    denounced, 149;
    letter book, 149.

  Handfield, Major John, 416.

  Hannay, James, on the Acadians, 457, 460;
    confronted by Catholics, 457;
    _Acadia_, 419, 460.

  Hanson, Eliz., _Captivity_, 186.

  Hanson, J. H., _The Lost Prince_, 186.

  Hanway, Jos., _Account of Society for the Encouragement of the British
      Troops_, 606.

  Hardlabor Creek (S. C.), 348.

  Hardwick (Georgia), 401.

  _Hardwick Papers_, 475.

  Hardy, Josiah, governor of New Jersey, 222.

  Hardy, Sir Chas., governor of New York, 206.

  Harmon, Captain, 127;
    Colonel, 430.

  Harper’s _Cyclopædia of United States History_, 252.

  Harris, Alex., _Lancaster County_, 249.

  Harris, Benj., 92.

  Harris, Francis, 391.

  Harris, John, _Voyages_, 234, 396;
    account and map of Georgia, 396.

  Harris, T. M., edits Rasle’s letters, 431;
    _Memorials of Oglethorpe_, 394.

  Harrison, Carter B., 278.

  Harrison, Geo. E., 275.

  Harrison, W. H., _Aborigines of the Ohio Valley_, 568.

  Hart, John, governor of Maryland, 260.

  Harvard College to gain by the landbank, 170;
    under the provincial charter of Massachusetts, 94;
    new charter of, 98;
    Cotton Mather and, 105, 126;
    attacked by Dudley, 119;
    Joseph Sewall and Benj. Colman decline the presidency, 126;
    Benj. Wadsworth accepts, 126;
    Timothy Cutler would be an overseer, 126;
    and Thomas Hollis, 137;
    _Pietas et Gratulatio_, 155.

  Harvey, John, 296.

  Harvey, Thomas, 296.

  Hassam, John T., 337.

  Hathorne, John, attacks Nachouac, 407.

  Hats of beaver, 227;
    making of, prohibited, 138.

  Hatteras, Cape, 337.
    _See_ Cape.

  Haven, S. F., on Cotton Mather, 157.

  Haverhill, 105.

  Haviland, General, advances on Montreal, 556, 609;
    opens communication with Murray, 556.

  Hawkes, Colonel John, 186.

  Hawkes, Sergeant, 187.

  Hawkins, Alfred, _Operations before Quebec_, 543.

  Hawkins, Benj., _Creek Country_, 401.

  Hawkins, his map, 83.

  Hawkins, _Missions of the Church of England_, 342,

  Hawks, F. L., _North Carolina_, 355.

  Hawley, Gideon, journey among the Mohawks, 246.

  Hawnes, Baron of, 361.

  Hay, P. D., 315.

  Hayward, G., 253.

  Hazard, Eben, 163.

  Hazard, Jos., _Conquest of Quebec_, 549.

  Hazard, Willis P., 249.

  Hazen, Captain, 552.

  Hazlet, Captain, 498.

  Hazzen, Richard, Journal, 180.

  Headley, Joel T., 439;
    on Philadelphia, 252.

  Heap, George, view of Philadelphia, 257, 258.

  Heath, Sir Robert, 69, 335;
    his claim in Carolina, 287;
    his patent, 358.

  Heath (Mass.), fort at, 187.

  Heathcote, Caleb, 124;
    grants to, 237.

  Heathcote, Geo., 364.

  Hebecourt at Ticonderoga, 536.

  Heckewelder, John, _Mission of the United Brethren_, 245, 582;
    _History of the Indians of Pennsylvania_, 245, 583;
    on Indian names, 246.

  Hell Gate, 254.

  Hemenway, Abby M., _Vermont Historical Gazetteer_, 179.

  Hemp manufacture, 276.

  Henchman, Daniel, 137.

  Hendrick, the Mohawk chief, 489, 504, 587.

  Hening, W. W., _Statutes at Large of Virginia_, 281.

  Hennepin, his maps, 79;
    suspected by Iberville, 18, 19.

  Henry, Alex., _Travels_, 609.

  Henry, John, map of Virginia, 565.

  Herbert, H. W., translates Weiss’s _French Protestant Refugees_, 349.

  Herkimer’s house at German Flats, 519.

  Hermsdorf, Captain, 377.

  Hertel de Rouville, 105;
    portrait, 106.

  Hewitt (Hewatt, Hewat, Hewit), Alex., _South Carolina and Georgia_,
      333, 352, 404.

  Heymann, J., _Law und sein System_, 77.

  Hickcox, J. H., _Bills of Credit in New York_, 247.

  Higginson, John, 422.

  Higginson, T. W., _Larger History of the United States_, 435.

  Highgate (Georgia), 372.

  Hildeburn, Charles R., _Century of Printing_, 248;
    Philadelphia titles, 249;
    on Sir John St. Clair, 578.

  Hildreth, S. P., _Pioneer History of Ohio Valley_, 570.

  Hill, Gen., in Boston, 108.

  Hill, G. M., _Church in Burlington_, 243.

  Hilton, Wm., discoveries on Carolina coast, 337;
    map, 337;
    his career, 337;
    _True Relation_, 337;
    at Cape Fear River, 288.

  _Hinckley Papers_ (Plymouth colony), 166.

  Hinsdale (N. H.), massacre, 184.

  Historical MSS. Commission, its _Reports_, 164.

  _History of the British Dominions in North America_, 618.

  _History of the Late War_, 616.

  Hoadly, C. J., edits _Connecticut Colonial Records_, 166.

  Hobart, Aaron, _Abington_, 461.

  Hobby, Sir Chas., 104, 106, 408;
    his regiment, 165.

  Hocquart, Gilles, 58;
    _Mémoire_, 567.

  Hodge, Chas., _Presbyterian Church_, 132.

  Hodgson, W. B., 401.

  Hoffman, C. F., _Life of Leisler_, 241.

  Holbourn, Admiral, 206.

  Holbrook, Mrs. H. P., 402.

  Holden, _Queensbury, N. Y._, 179, 509, 602.

  Holderness authorizes force to be used against the French, 573.

  Holland, Edw., 255.

  Holland, Roger, 364.

  Holland, Sam., disowned a map of New York and New Jersey, published as
        his, by Jefferys, 565;
    surveys of Cape Breton, 440;
    surveys of the St. Lawrence, 614;
    map of New York, 238.

  Holland, trade with, 229.

  Holland, _Western Massachusetts_, 587.

  Hollis, Thomas, 137.

  Hollister, H., _Lackawanna Valley_, 249.

  Hollister, _Connecticut_, 169.

  Holme, Benj., _Epistles and Works_, 243.

  Holmes, Abiel, _American Annals_, 619;
    on the Huguenots, 98.

  Holmes, Alex., writes tract against Jos. Dudley, 422.

  Holmes, O. W., _Agnes_, 144.

  Homann, J. B., his maps, 234;
    map of Louisiana, 81;
    _Atlas Novus_, 234;
    _Atlas Methodicus_, 234;
    map of _Nova Anglia_, 133, 234.

  Hopkins, Stephen, 176;
    _True Representation of the Plan formed at Albany_, 612.

  Hopson, General, 603.

  Hopson, P. T., 410.

  Hopton, Lord, 276.

  Horsey, Samuel, 332.

  Horsmanden, Daniel, autog., 242;
    _Journal_, etc., 242;
    various editions, 242.

  Horwood, A. J., on the Shaftsbury Papers, 356.

  Hough, F. B., edits Pouchot, 616;
    edits Rogers’s _Journals_, 527, 592;
    _St. Lawrence and Franklin Counties_, 608.

  Housatonic River in the Indian wars, 187.

  Housatonic Valley plan, 184.

  Houstoun, Sir Patrick, 391.

  Hovey, Alvah, _Isaac Backus_, 159.

  How, Nehemiah, _Captivity_, 186.

  Howard, Mrs. A. H. C., 435, 447.

  Howard, C. W., historical agent of Georgia, 400.

  Howard, G. W., _Monumental City_, 271.

  Howard, John, on Kentucky, 565.

  Howard of Effingham, in Virginia, 264.

  Howe, Geo., _Presbyterian Church in South Carolina_, 348.

  Howe, Lord, at Schenectady, 520;
    with Abercrombie, 521;
    portrait, 522;
    killed, 522;
    burial and remains, 522;
    his character, 522;
    place of his death, 524.

  Howe, S. S., 622.

  Howe, Sir William, at Quebec, 543.

  Howe, W. W., 65.

  Howell, R. B. C., “Early Baptists in Virginia”, 282.

  Howell’s _State Trials_, 241.

  Howes, Job, 318.

  Hoyne, Thomas, 71, 622.

  Hoyt, A. H., _Pepperrell Papers_, 147, 437.

  Hoyt, Epaphras, _Antiq. Researches_, 187.

  Hoyt, W. C., on Wesley, 403.

  Hubbard, F. M., 345.

  Hubbard, Thomas, 450;
    autog., 427.

  Hudson, Chas., _Marlborough_ (Mass.), 184;
    on the siege of Louisbourg, 438.

  Hudson, F., _American Journalism_, 90, 248.

  Hudson Bay Co., bounds, 85.

  Hudson River, called “Groote Esopus”, 234;
    military roads from, to Lake George, 527.

  Huguenots, intending for Carolina, stop in Virginia, 335;
    in Massachusetts, 96, 98, 184;
    in the middle colonies, 247;
    settlements in America before 1787, 350;
    society of, 98, 349;
    C. W. Baird on them, 98;
    writers on, 98;
    in Rhode Island, 98;
    in South Carolina, 349, 355;
    in Virginia, 265, 282.

  Humphreys, David, _Works_, 609;
    _Historical Account_, 169, 239, 341;
    map of New England, 133.

  Hunnewell, J. F., _Bibliography of Charlestown_, 177.

  Hunter, Robert, governor of New York, 196;
    autog. and seal, 196;
    retires, 197;
    governor of New Jersey, 218.

  Huntoon, D. T. V., 167.

  Huske, John, his map of North America, 83;
    sketched, 84;
    _Present State of North America_, 83, 84.

  Hutchins, Captain Thomas, describes the country from Fort Pitt to
        Presque Isle, 608;
    books on Louisiana, 71;
    _Environs du Fort Pitt et la Nouvelle Province Indiana_, 564;
    plan of Illinois villages, 564;
    _Topographical Description of Virginia_, 564.

  Hutchinson, Eliakim, autog., 425.

  Hutchinson, Elisha, autog., 425.

  Hutchinson, Thos., 450;
    account of the congress of 1754, 612;
    _Case of Massachusetts Bay and New York_, 177;
    as a financier, 171, 176;
    _Dissertation on the Currencies_, 172;
    _Massachusetts Bay_, 162, 184, 618;
    bibliography of, 162;
    on the massacre at Fort William Henry, 594;
    the most conspicuous man in New England, 155;
    made chief justice, 155;
    holds other offices, 155;
    plan of union, 613;
    treats with Indians, 149;
    his youth, 122;
    on the Acadians, 457.

  Hyde, Edw., governor of Carolina, 297, 298.

  Hyde, Edw. _See_ Clarendon.

  Hyde, Edw. _See_ Cornbury.


  Iberville, Pierre le Moyne d’, his career, 14;
    portrait, 15;
    the Louisiana coast, 16;
    enters the Mississippi, 18;
    at Biloxi, 19;
    sails to France, 20;
    returns to Biloxi, 20;
    third voyage, 21;
    at Mobile, 21;
    rewarded, 23;
    dies, 23;
    his wife, 26;
    his narrative, 73;
    voyage of 1698, 73;
    sources in Margry, 73.

  Ichicachas, 86.

  Illinois, country of, 83;
    annexed to Louisiana, 35;
    bounds of, 564;
    plan of villages, by Thomas Hutchins, 564;
    histories of, 71;
    by Breese, 621;
    Indians of, 564;
    visited by Lamothe, 30;
    prosperous (1711), 51, 52;
    mines, 52;
    sources of history, 69.

  Illinois River, fort on, 82.

  _Imperial Magazine_, 607.

  _Importance of the British Plantations_, 276.

  Indian charity school, 246.

  Indian geographical names, 564.

  Indian tribes near Lake Erie, 565;
    tribes and their numbers in the southern colonies (1733), 365.

  Indiana, Indians of, 564;
    old province of, 564.

  Indians in the battle on the Monongahela, 580;
    of Canada, 563;
    Chalmers’s papers on, 354;
    classified by their English or French leanings, 583;
    conferences with, records in Massachusetts archives, 424;
    hold conferences only in their own tongue, 574;
    conferences with (1757), 596;
    councils (1707), 561;
    French movement to secure alliance with, 560;
    of Maine, conference at Boston (1713-14), 424;
    fac-simile of signatures, 425;
    conference at Portsmouth, 424;
    at Georgetown, 424;
    conferences (1752-54), 450;
    sign Dummer’s treaty in Boston, 432;
    treaties with, 420;
    (1745), 448;
    make massacre at Fort William Henry, 594;
    in the middle colonies, 245;
    relations with the Schuyler family, 245;
    treaties, 245;
    names given by them to streams, etc., 246;
    in Nova Scotia, papers concerning, 459;
    in Ohio, 564;
    relations with Moravians, 245;
    repelled by Braddock, 496;
    treaties with, 471, 612;
    in Virginia, 278, 279.

  Indicott, John, 182.

  Ingersoll, Jared, on Pitt, 601.

  Ingersoll, J. R., 575.

  Ingle, Captain Richard, 271.

  Ingle, Edw., _Captain Richard Ingle_, 271;
    “County Government in Virginia”, 281;
    _Local Institutions of Virginia_, 281;
    _Parish Institutions of Maryland_, 271.

  Ingoldsby, Lieutenant-governor of New York, 196.

  Ingoldsby, Major Richard, governor of New Jersey, 218.

  Innes, Colonel, 574.

  Insurance, method of, established, 127.

  _International Review_, 272.

  _Iowa Historical Record_, 622.

  Iowa, Historical Society, its _Annals_, 622.

  Irish in Carolina, 331;
    in Pennsylvania, 217, 247.

  Iron forging in Virginia, 265;
    mining, 223;
    working, 223;
    works suppressed, 118.

  Irondequot, 568;
    coveted by French and English, 487.

  Iroquois, called “Confederate Indians”, 83;
    conquer the Ohio Valley, 564;
    noted in Evans’s map, 564;
    conquests of, 484;
    extent of their conquests in the Ohio Valley, 565;
    their friendships, 2;
    peace with, in 1700, 4;
    their hereditary and conquered territories, 84;
    ceded to the English, 84, 565;
    allured by the Dutch, 583;
    incited by the English and French equally, 584;
    Morgan’s map of their distribution, 583;
    missions, 561;
    mythology of, 233;
    treaties with, 245;
    women among, 23.
    _See_ Five Nations, Six Nations.

  Irving, W., on John Law, 76.

  Isle-aux-Noix, plan of, 539;
    Bourlamaque at, 539.

  Italians in Georgia, 372.


  Jackson, R., 169.

  Jackson, Rich., 615.

  Jacob, _Life of Cresap_, 272.

  Jacques Cartier, hill of, Vaudreuil at, 550.

  Jaillot, Hubert, royal geographer, 79.

  Jalot, 72.

  Jamaica, map in Ogilby, 472.

  James, Captain Thomas, voyage, 69.

  James, G. P. R., _Great Commanders_, 603.

  James River, 274.

  Jamestown (Stono River) founded, 309.

  Janes, _Wesley his own Historian_, 403.

  Jans, Anneke, 230.

  Janvier, _L’Amérique_, 85.

  Jay, John, 349.

  Jefferson, Peter. _See_ Fry, Joshua.

  Jefferson, Thomas, _Notes on Virginia_, 273;
    its map, 273.

  Jefferys, T., _General Topography of North America_, 38, 85, 444, 618;
    _Atlas_, 618;
    _History of the French Dominion_, etc., 38, 85, 444, 616;
    his map in it, 85;
    maps of Louisbourg (1745 and 1758), 442, 443, 444, 468, 469;
    his issue of Evans’s map, 565;
    his maps of the Acadian bounds, 482;
    maps of _Montreal_, 556;
    of _Lake Champlain_, 557;
    of _New York and New Jersey_, 557;
    map of Nova Scotia, 480, 481;
    map of Quebec, 549;
    map of the St. Lawrence River, 614;
    gulf, 614;
    maps of Virginia and New York, 565;
    plan of Ticonderoga, 525;
    plans of the siege of Quebec (1759), 542;
    publishes Fry and Jefferson’s _Virginia_, 575;
    publishes plans of Braddock’s defeat, 500;
    reëngraves Blodgett’s plan of the battle at Lake George, 586;
    republishes Evans’s map, 84;
    on the siege of Quebec (1759), 606;
    _Conduct of the French_, 482;
    _Conduite des François_, 482;
    _Remarks on the French Memorials_, 482.

  Jenckes of Rhode Island, 141.

  Jenings, Edw., 265.

  Jenkins, Howard M., _Gwynedd_, 247.

  Jenning, Isaac, _Memorials of a Century_, 238.

  Jennings, David, _Dr. Cotton Mather_, 157.

  _Jésuites Martyrs du Canada_, 431.

  Jesuits in the English colonies, 164;
    in Louisiana, 43, 44.

  Joannes, Major de, _La Campagne de 1759_, 605.

  Jogues, Jesuit, in New York, 190.

  Johannis, a coin, 230.

  _Johns Hopkins University Studies in History and Political Science_,
      271.

  Johnson, B. T., _Foundation of Maryland_, 271.

  Johnson, John, _Old Maryland Manors_, 271.

  Johnson, Mrs., _Captivity_, 186.

  Johnson, Lorenzo D., 438.

  Johnson, Robt., 322.

  Johnson, Samuel, plan of union, 614.

  Johnson, Sir Nath., 317;
    governor of Carolina, 318;
    on the condition (1708) of Carolina, 344.

  Johnson, Sir Wm., with Abercrombie, 523;
    _Treaty with the Shawanese_ (1757), 581;
    with Amherst (1760), 555;
    campaign of 1760, 608;
    his circular letter on the Lake George battle, 584;
    _Letter dated at Lake George_, 584;
    letters in the _Massachusetts Archives_, 584;
    his commission and instructions for Shirley, 584;
    jealous of Shirley, 585;
    received £5,000 from parliament, 585;
    favored revoking the purchase of lands from the Delawares (1754),
        595;
    Niagara expedition (1759), 535, 601;
    his life, by Stone, 584;
    minor characteristics of him, 584;
    in fiction, 584;
    attached to Clinton in his feuds with De Lancey, 584;
    his papers, 232, 584;
    partly printed, 584;
    his council of war (Aug.), 584;
    his views on measures necessary to defeat the designs of the French,
        571, 584, 613;
    sought to relieve Monro at Fort William Henry, 595;
    at the Albany congress (1754), 613;
    autog., 502;
    portrait, 503;
    his house, 503;
    views of it, 503;
    leads campaign to capture Crown Point (1755), 503;
    fights Dieskau, 504;
    wounded, 504;
    fails to follow up the victory, 505;
    builds Fort William Henry, 505;
    rewarded and made a baronet, 505;
    goes into winter-quarters, 505;
    Indian conferences (1753), 245;
    (1755-56), 581, 584, 589, 590;
    (1757), 596;
    propitiates the Indians, 581, 589;
    resigned as Indian agent, 204;
    sole Indian superintendent, 508;
    relations with the Indians, 487.

  Johnson, governor of South Carolina, dies, 332.

  Johnston, Gabriel, governor of Carolina, 301;
    dies, 303.

  Johnston, James, 402.

  Johnston, Thomas, 586.

  Johnston, Wm., 578.

  Johnston, _Cecil County_, 272.

  Johnstone, Chevalier, on the siege of Louisbourg (1758), 464;
    _Memoirs of a French Officer_, 604.

  Joliet, his maps, 79.

  Joncaire, 6, 7;
    on the Canada Indians, 490, 563;
    near Niagara, 534;
    at Venango, 492.

  Jones, C. C., on Count Pulaski, 401;
    _Dead Towns of Georgia_, 401;
    on the Georgia Historical Society, 400;
    _History of Georgia_, 406;
    edits _Acts of the Assembly of Georgia_ (1755-1774), 402;
    edits Purry’s tract, 347;
    “English Colonization of Georgia”, 357;
    _Tomo-chi-chi_, 399.

  Jones, Hugh, _Present State_, 250;
    autog., 278.

  Jones, H. G., _Andrew Bradford_, 248;
    on the Dublin (Pa.) Baptist church, 247.

  Jones, M. M., 592.

  Jones, Nobel, 391.

  Jones, U. J., _Juniata Valley_, 249.

  Jonquière, Adm. de la, 8;
    autog., 8;
    captured, 8;
    assumes the government of Canada, 9;
    dies, 10;
    in Quebec, 571;
    confers with the Cayugas, 571.

  Joppa (Md.), 261.

  Jordan, river, 338.

  Joseph’s Town (Georgia), 372, 373, 379.

  _Journal de Québec_, 619.

  _Journal Historique_ (Louisiana), 55, 63.
    _See_ Beaurain.

  _Journal Œconomique_, 67.

  Joutel, _Journal Historique_, 81.

  Juchereau, _Hôtel Dieu_, 562.

  Judd, Sylvester, _Hadley_, 187.

  Jumonville, 574;
    autog., 493;
    killed, 493.

  Juniata, Indian depredations, 590.


  Kalbfleisch, C. H., 93.

  Kalm, Peter, on Niagara, 244;
    _En Risa tel Norra America_, 244;
    translation, 244.

  Kankakee River, 52.

  Kaokia, 53.

  Kapp, F., _Deutschen in New York_, 246.

  Kaskaskia, 53, 67, 69, 566.

  Kaskaskias, 52.

  _Katholische Kirche in den Vereinigten Staaten_, 431.

  Kearsarge, name of, 180.

  Keble, John, 225.

  Keith, Chas. P., _Councillors of Pennsylvania_, 249.

  Keith, Geo., in Boston, 103;
    his _Journal_, 104, 168, 243;
    portraits, 243.

  Keith, Sir Wm., _British Plantations_, 280;
    _Present State of the Colonies_, 280;
    his house in Philadelphia, 258;
    notice of, 243;
    portrait, 243;
    tracts on his controversy, 243;
    governor of Pennsylvania, 211-214;
    dies, 214;
    treaty with Five Nations, 563;
    map in his _Virginia_, 272.

  Kellet, Alex., 391.

  Kendall, Duchess of, 113.

  Kennebec, forts on, 151, 181, 182;
    marked as western bounds of Acadia, 475, 482;
    Plymouth claims upon, 474;
    _A Patent for Plymouth_, 474;
    survey of, 474;
    westerly limit of grant to Alexander, 479.

  Kennedy, Archibald, _Importance of Gaining the Indians_, 612;
    his plan of union, 612;
    _Serious Considerations_, 612.

  Kennedy, John P., _Swallow Barn_, 284.

  Kent, Captain Richard, 356.

  Kentucky, early explorers, 565;
    histories, 565.

  Keppel, Admiral, 576;
    journal of one of his officers, 576;
    letter, 576;
    _Life of Keppel_, 578.

  Ker, John, of Kersland, his _Memoirs_, 81;
    map, 81.

  Kercheval, _Valley of Virginia_, 581.

  Kerlerec, governor of Louisiana, 51.

  Keulen, Gerard van, his map of New France, 81.

  Kiawah, cassique of, 305;
    settled, 307.
    _See_ Charlestown, S. C.

  Kickapoos, 564.

  Kidd, pirate, 195.

  Kidder, Fred., _Abnaki Indians_, 424;
    _Expeditions of Lovewell_, 431.

  Kilby, Christopher, 147;
    his letters, 149.

  Kilian, G. C., _Americanische Urquelle derer innerlichen Kriege_, 618,
      619.

  Kinderhook township, map, 236.

  King, Colonel Richard, 562.

  King George’s war, 434.

  King, James, 400.

  King William’s war (1688, etc.), 420.

  Kingsley on Yale College, 102.

  Kingston (Canada), 525.

  Kingston (N. Y.), 237.

  Kinlock, James, 325.

  Kinsey, John, 220.

  Kip, _Early Jesuit Missions_, 68.

  Kirk, Louis, occurrences in Acadia, 476.

  Kitchin, Thos., his maps, 83;
    map of Acadia, 474;
    map of the Cherokee country, 484;
    map of the St. Lawrence, 614;
    map of province of Quebec, 615;
    map of French settlement, 566;
    map of Nova Scotia, 482;
    of New England, 482.

  Kleinknecht, C. D., _Nachrichten von den Colonisten zu Eben-Ezer_,
      396.

  Knight, Madam, her _Journey_, 168.

  Knowles, Com., in Boston, 148;
    causes riot, 148;
    quarrel with Douglass, 158.

  Knox, Captain John, _Historical Journal_ (1757-1760), 467, 616;
    account of siege of Louisbourg (1758), 467.

  Knox, J. J., _United States Notes_, 176.

  Kohl, J. G., his maps described in _Harvard University Bulletin_, 473.

  Kussoe Indians, 311.


  L’Assumption, Fort de, 82.

  La Corne, in attack on Fort William Henry, 517.

  La Croix, Paul, _Dix-huitième Siècle_, 34, 77, 412.

  La Grange de Chessieux, _La Conduite des François justifiée_, 482.

  La Harpe, B. de, 36, 63;
    autog., 63;
    defends Bienville, 44;
    at Cadadoquais, 40;
    at St. Bernard Bay, 40;
    translated, 72.

  La Lande, de, account of Piquet, 571.

  La Loire, MM., 29.

  La Mothe Cadillac, 483;
    governor of Louisiana, 29;
    autog., 29.
    _See_ Cadillac.

  La Prairie, 486.

  La Presentation, 490.

  La Salle, Nic. de, 27.

  La Salle’s explorations, 13.

  La Tour, his _Lettres Patentes_, 476;
    his territory in Acadia, 478, 479.

  Labat, M., 421.

  Labroguerie, map of Lake Ontario, 614.

  Lachine, 555.

  Lafargue, E. de, on Nova Scotia, 475;
    _Œuvres_, 475.

  Lahontan, map of Acadia, 473;
    of Canada, 474.

  Lahoulière’s account of siege of Louisbourg (1758), 467.

  Lake. _See_ names of lakes.

  Lake George, battle (1755), _A Ballad Concerning the Fight_, 557;
    three contemporary printed comments, 586;
    French accounts, 588;
    map, 585, 586, 589;
    view, 586;
    authorities, 583;
    Johnson’s letters, 584;
    various contemporary letters, etc., 584, 585;
    expense largely borne by Massachusetts, 585;
    men sent by Massachusetts, 585;
    rude map from _Gentleman’s Magazine_, 585;
    Dieskau’s map, 585;
    list of killed and wounded, 586;
    reasons for abandoning the campaign, 586;
    plan of the ambuscade, 586;
    contemporary French map, 388;
    other maps of, 526, 527;
    (1759), 589;
    modern map, 536;
    “Rogers’s Slide”, 593.

  Lake St. Sacrement. _See_ Lake George.

  Lalor, _Cyclopædia of Political Science_, 76.

  Lamb, Martha J., _Homes of America_, 252.

  Lamberville, Jac. de, 561.

  Lambing, A. A., 580.

  Lancaster (Mass.), 184;
    Acadians in, 461.

  Lancaster (Pa.), treaty (1744), 487, 566;
    Colden’s account, 566;
    (1747), 245;
    (1748), 569;
    (1762), 245.

  Land-bank schemes, 170, 173;
    _Model for Erecting a Bank of Credit_, 170.

  Landgraves in Carolina, 291.

  Lane, Daniel, 604.

  Lane, John, 438.

  Langdon, Sam., _Map of New Hampshire_ (MSS.), 485, 585.

  Langevin, Jean, “Canada sous la Domination française”, 619.

  Langlade, Chas. de, 568;
    at Monongahela, 580;
    papers on, 568.

  Langworthy, Edw., projected a history of Georgia, 405.

  Langy watches Abercrombie, 521, 522.

  Lansdowne MSS., 475.

  Lareau, Edmond, _Littérature Canadienne_, 619;
    “Nos Archives”, 617.

  Laroche, John, 364.

  Larrabee, Captain, 432;
    his garrison house, 183.

  Larrabee, _Wesley and his Coadjutors_, 404.

  Lastekas, 30.

  Latimer, E. W., on Maryland colonial life, 272.

  Latrobe, C. I., translates Loskiel’s _Moravian Missions_, 245, 582.

  Laudonnière, _Histoire Notable_, 73.

  Laval, P., _Voyage à Louisiane_, 86.

  Law, John, and his schemes, 32;
    his bank, 33;
    fac-simile of note, 34;
    a fugitive, 35;
    grant on Arkansas River, 35;
    literature of, 75;
    portraits, 75, 76;
    _Œuvres_, 75;
    his proposal in _Verzameling_, etc., 76;
    contemporary publications, 76;
    laments of victims, 76;
    _Het Groote Tafereel_, etc., 76;
    satires, 76;
    lives of, 76;
    autog., 76;
    _Law, the Financier_, 76;
    account by Irving, 76;
    by many others, 77;
    in fiction, 77;
    in _Mémoires_, 77.

  Law, Wm., on Georgia history, 401.

  Lawrence, Governor Charles, 410;
    autog., 452;
    and the French neutrals, 416.

  Lawrence, Wm. B., 68.

  Lawrence, fort, map, 451, 452, 453.
    _See_ Fort.

  Lawson, John, _New Voyage to Carolina_, 344;
    translations, 345;
    murdered, 345;
    his map, 345.

  Lawyers, late in New England legislatures, 166.

  Le Beau, Christine, 186.

  Le Ber, Mdlle., 6.

  Le Bœuf, 566.

  L’Epinay, governor of Louisiana, 31;
    autog., 31.

  Le Gac, _Mémoire_, 76.

  Le Loutre, Abbé de, 146;
    his station 451, 452;
    letter to Lawrence, 453;
    character of, 457.

  Lemoyne, Catholic missionary, 190.

  Le Moyne family, 23.
    _See_ Lemoine.

  Le Page du Pratz, 36;
    autog., 65;
    _Histoire de la Louisiane_, 65;
    translations, 65.

  Le Petit, 46;
    narrative, 72.

  Le Sueur, 80;
    account of, 67;
    on the upper Mississippi, 25;
    his explorations, 22.

  Lea, Philip, map of Carolina, 315.

  Leake, John, 257.

  Lecky, _England in the Eighteenth Century_, 615.

  Leddel, Henry, 458.

  Lederer, John, 359;
    his _Discoveries_, 338;
    his map, 339;
    his travels, 340.

  Lediard, _Naval History_, 562.

  Lee, Chas., 607;
    at Abercrombie’s defeat, 597;
    letters on the siege of Niagara, 601;
    goes to Duquesne, 601.

  Lee, Hon. Charles, Attorney-General U. S. A., 392.

  Lee, Hannah F., on the _Huguenots in France and America_, 98, 349.

  Lee, J. S., _Colonel Hawkes_, 186.

  Lee family, their mansion, 275.

  Leisler, Jacob, arrives in New Netherland, 189;
    autog., 189;
    proclaimed lieutenant-governor, 190;
    hanged, 190;
    his legislation, 192;
    authorities on, 241;
    his body reinterred, 195;
    _Letter from a Gentleman of New York_, 240;
    his attainder reversed, 240;
    papers, 240;
    _Loyalty Vindicated_, 240;
    _Modest and Impartial Narrative_, 240.

  Lelièvre on John Wesley and the English translation, 403.

  Lemercier, _Church History of Geneva_, 137.

  Lemoine, J. M., on Garneau, 619;
    “Nos quatre historiens modernes”, 619;
    _Quebec Past and Present_, 619;
    _Picturesque Quebec_, 619;
    _Glimpses of Quebec_, 600;
    “Fraser’s Highlanders before Quebec”, 604, 605, 606;
    _Maple Leaves_, 604;
    on the death of Montcalm, 605;
    _Le régiments des Montagnards écossais_, 606;
    _La Mémoire de Montcalm vergée_, 594;
    “Les Archives du Canada”, 617;
    _Maple Leaves_, 15, 619;
    _Rues de Québec_, 549;
    “Sur les dernières années de la domination française en Canada”,
        610.
    _See_ Le Moyne.

  Lemoine brothers, 71.

  Lémontey, P. E., _Histoire de la Régence_, 77.

  Lery, Macdonald, A. C., de, 495.

  Léry, his map, 238;
    plan of Detroit, 559;
    plan of Oswego, 567.

  Lesdignierres, 63.

  Leslie, Chas., _Short and Easy Method_, 126.

  Leslie, letter on Braddock’s campaign, 578.

  _Lettres édifiantes_, 68.

  Levasseur, P. E., _Le Système de Law_, 77.

  Leverett, Captain John, 421;
    orders from Cromwell (1656), 476.

  Leverett, C. E., _John Leverett_, 421.

  Lévis, Chevalier de, comes over with Montcalm, 505;
    in attack on Fort William Henry (1757), 516;
    attacks Murray, 552;
    plan of the campaign, 552;
    battle of Sainte-Foy, 552;
    attacks Quebec, 553;
    retreats, 554;
    his efforts to recover Quebec, 608;
    _Guerre du Canada_, 608;
    his instructions, 609;
    at Jacques Cartier, 550;
    letters, 608;
    his MS. record (1755-60), 589;
    sent from Quebec to confront Amherst, 545;
    in the siege of Quebec (1759), 605;
    at Ticonderoga (1758), 521, 523.

  Lewis, John F., 276.

  Lewis, Major Thomas, 276.

  Libraries in Virginia, 276.

  Lieber, O. M., 356.

  Ligneres at Duquesne, 497;
    at Niagara, 535.

  Lignery, De, treaty by (1726), 561.

  Lindsey’s _Unsettled Boundaries of Ontario_, 80.

  Linen-making, 119, 227.

  Linn, J. B., _Buffalo Valley_, 249.

  Linsey-woolsey, 227.

  Lithgow, Wm., autog., 182.

  Livingston, Edw., on the Albany congress, 613;
    on French intrigues with the Indians, 571.

  Livingstone, Major, sent to Canada, 424;
    his journal, 424.

  Livingston, Peter, & Co., 254.

  Livingston, P. & R., 233.

  Livingston, Robt., plan of a triple confederacy, 611.

  Livingston, Wm., on Braddock’s campaign, 578;
    defends Shirley, 508;
    edits Mackemie’s trial, 241;
    _Review of the Military Operations_, 587.
    _See_ Smith, Wm.

  Livingston family, 252.

  Livingston manor, map, 237;
    other maps, 238.

  _Livre d’Ordres_, 589.

  Lloyd, David, 210, 214.

  Lloyd, Thomas, 207;
    governor of Pennsylvania, 207.

  Löber, M. C., tract on Georgia, 396.

  Locke, John, 336;
    autog., 336;
    _Several Pieces_, 336;
    works, 337;
    his connection with Carolina, 356;
    the fundamental constitutions, 291;
    intended description of Carolina, 338;
    portrait, 337;
    _Familiar Letters_, 337.

  Lodge, H. C., _Short History of the English Colonies_, 168, 247, 280,
        621;
    on Virginia life, 284.

  Lodge, _Portraits_, 337.

  Logan, James, 209;
    goes to England, 211;
    president of the council, 215;
    his correspondence with Penn, 242;
    his portrait, 242;
    on defensive war, 243;
    on the French settlement in the Ohio Valley, 563.

  Logan, J. H., _Upper Country of South Carolina_, 350.

  Logan Historical Society, 576.

  Logstown, 497, 564;
    treaty at (1752), 490, 570;
    position of, 570.

  London, treaty at (1686-87), 476;
    bishop of, made head of the American church, 195.

  _London Spy_, 99.

  Londonderry (N. H.), 119.

  Longfellow, H. W., verses on Lovewell’s fight, 432;
    _Evangeline_, 456, 459.

  Longueil, at Detroit, 483;
    letter (1726), 561;
    governor of Montreal, 7;
    governor of Canada, 10.

  Loomis, A. W., 599.

  Lord, Rev. Joseph, 342.

  Lords of Trade, 96.

  Loring, Captain, on Lake Champlain, 538, 540.

  Loring, Israel, 430.

  Loring, Joshua, draught of Lake George, 585.

  Loskiel, G. H., _Geschichte der Mission_, etc., 582;
    English version, 245, 582.

  Lossing, B. J., _Cyclopædia of United States History_, 252;
    edits Washington’s diary (1789-91), 573;
    _Military Journals of two Private Soldiers_, 597;
    on Princeton College, 248.

  Lotbinière, letter on Braddock’s defeat, 580;
    letter on Lake George battle (1755), 589;
    at Oswego, 592;
    at Ticonderoga, 505.

  Lotteries, 145.

  Loudon, Earl of, 153;
    autog., 510;
    portraits, 506, 507;
    sent over to assume command, 508, 591;
    correspondence with Shirley, 591;
    his despatches, 593, 595;
    his dilatoriness, 575;
    his intended attack on Louisbourg (1757), 515;
    returns, 520;
    his military orders as to rank, 510;
    his demand for officers’ quarters, 513;
    Pitt asks assistance for him, 593;
    recalled, 154, 596;
    _Conduct of a Noble Commander_, 596.

  Louis XIV., baffled, 5.

  Louis XV., De Tocqueville on, 77.

  Louisbourg, fortified, 409, 434;
    cost of, 410;
    medal commemorating, 434;
    suggestions for the attack (1745), 434, 435;
    expedition to and siege of (1745), 146, 410;
    rolls of, 165;
    share of the different New England colonies, 437;
    offers of other colonies, 147;
    expenses ultimately borne by Great Britain, 412;
    which repays the colonies, 176;
    surrenders, 411;
    the news reaches Boston, 146;
    papers on the siege, 436;
    sermons on, 438;
    councils of war, 436;
    diaries, 438;
    (Pomeroy), 437;
    (Pepperrell), 437;
    letters, 437;
    other contemporary accounts, 437;
    _Accurate and Authentic Account_, 437;
    list of officers, 438;
    New Hampshire troops, 438;
    great risk of the attempt, 439;
    credit given to Warren, 439;
    accounts in the general histories, 439;
    French accounts, 439;
    _Lettre d’un Habitant_, 439;
    the town restored to France (1748), 148, 413;
    governors of (1745-1748), 459;
    attempted attack by Loudon (1757), 464, 515;
    the town strengthened, 464;
    siege by Amherst (1758), 165, 418, 464, 471, 604;
    planned by Knowles, 464, 467;
    English accounts, 464;
    diaries, 464;
    _Journal of the Siege_, 464;
    _Authentic Account_, 467;
    letters of Wolfe, 467;
    Wolfe at, 540;
    French accounts, 464, 467;
    papers in Parkman MSS., 464;
    account of defences, by Drucour, 467;
    colors taken to London, 467;
    present condition of the site, 439;
    maps of the town and sieges, 83, 439-448;
    _Set of Plans_, 444;
    siege of 1745 maps (Pepperrell’s), 446;
    (Gibson’s), 437;
    siege of 1758 maps, 465, 468, 469, 470, 471;
    (Folling’s), 467;
    chart of  the harbor, 448;
    plan of island battery, 448;
    medals (1758), 471;
    views of the town, 466, 467, 471;
    of harbor, 466;
    (Pepperrell’s), 447, 448;
    (Jefferys), 448.

  Louisiana, history of, 1, 13;
    limits of, 13, 28;
    French claims to, 13;
    Spanish claims to, 13;
    English claims to, 13;
    La Salle in, 13;
    Tonty in, 14;
    immigrants from Canada, 24;
    English traders, 25;
    Indian wars, 25;
    its name, 25;
    its government under Sauvolle, 25;
    Iberville held it to be distinct from Canada, 25;
    government of, 27;
    grants to Crozat, 28;
    English traders in, 29;
    legal tribunals in, 31, 43;
    population, 27, 31, 49, 55;
    under L’Epinay, 31;
    Company of the West, 31;
    absorbs Illinois, 35;
    convicts sent to, 36;
    effect of Law’s collapse, 42;
    currency of the company, 43;
    ecclesiastical government, 43;
    Company of the Indies ceases, 49;
    sold to Spain, 58;
    descriptions occasioned by Law’s scheme, 76;
    geographical names in, 79;
    frontier posts of the French and the English, 84;
    the encroachments of the French, 84;
    papers in Spanish archives, 74;
    papers from the Paris archives, 74;
    sources of history, 63;
    histories, 64;
    separate papers, 65;
    boundary question, 69;
    historical society, 72;
    help from Paris archives, 73;
    archives of the state despoiled, 74;
    maps of, 79;
    (1720), 76;
    (1763), 615;
    (Dumont’s), 82;
    (of the rival claims), 83;
    (Delisle’s), 72;
    (German), 345;
    Acadians in, 463.

  Louvigny, 14.

  Lovelace, John, governor of New York, autog., 195;
    governor of New Jersey, 218;
    dies, 196;
    sermon on his death, 241.

  Lovell, James, 145.

  Lovewell, John, 127;
    his fight and death, 431;
    autog., 431;
    sources, 431;
    map of his fight, 433.

  Lovewell’s war, 430.

  Lowdermilk, _Cumberland_, 574, 577.

  Lowry, Jean, _Captivity_, 590.

  Loyalhannon Creek, 529;
    variously spelled, 529.

  Luard, _Dress of British Soldiers_, 109, 547.

  Lucas, Jonathan, 308.

  Ludwell, Philip, 296.

  Luna, Tristan de, 359.

  Lurting, Colonel, Robt., 253.

  Lyman, General Phineas, at Lake George, 502;
    builds Fort Lyman, 504;
    defeats Dieskau, 504;
    letter to his wife, 585;
    overlooked by Johnson, 585;
    defended by President Dwight, 587.

  Lynde, Samuel, _Bank of Credit_, 171.

  Lyne, James, plan of New York, 253.

  Lyon, Lemuel, journal, 597.

  Lyttleton, Wm. H., governor of Carolina, 333;
    letters, 350.

  Lyttleton papers, 350.


  M’Cluny, J. A., _Western Adventure_, 579, 581.

  M’Kinney describes Fort Duquesne, 498.

  MacMasters, J. B., on a free press in the middle colonies, 248.

  MacMurray, J. W., edits Pearson’s _Schenectady Patent_, 249.

  Macaulay, _Chatham_, 596.

  Mackay, Alex., 322.

  Mackay, Hugh, 376.

  Mackay, _Popular Delusions_, 76.

  Mackellar, Patrick, 498.

  Mackemie, Francis, authorities on, 282;
    _Narrative of his Imprisonment_, 282;
    in Virginia, 268;
    favors towns in Virginia, 279;
    _Plain and Friendly Persuasive_, 279;
    prosecuted by Cornbury, 241;
    his _Trial_ edited by Wm. Livingston, 241.

  Mackenzie, Alex., 169.

  Mackenzie, G., 459.

  Mackinnon, D., _Coldstream Guards_, 577.

  Macleod, Daniel, _Memoirs_, 549.

  Macy, _Nantucket_, 118.

  Madawaska River, Acadians upon, 463.

  Maerschaick, F., surveyor of New York, 255;
    his plan of New York, 257.

  _Magazine of Western History_, 621.

  Magne, 74.

  Mahon, _England_, 621;
    on Wolfe, 603.

  Maine, Province of, bounds, 134;
    garrison houses in, 183;
    histories of, 163, 181;
    Indian wars in, 420;
    plan of the coast, by Jos. Heath (1719), 474;
      by Phineas Jones (1751), 474;
      by John North (1752), 474;
    towns in, 181.

  Malartic, diary, 594; letters, 608.

  Malbranchia (Mississippi), 17.

  _Manhattan Magazine_, 247.

  Manifesto Church in Boston, 101.

  Manitoba, 86;
    historical and scientific society of, 622.

  Mante, Thomas, _History of the Late War_, 616.

  Manufactory Bank, 171, 173.

  Manufactures in the colonies, 222;
    opposed by England, 223.

  Maps, _Catalogue of Printed Maps in British Museum_, 233;
    incorrectness of early, a useful element for the historian, 338.

  Maquas in Boston, 107;
    pictures of, 107.
    _See_ Five Nations.

  March, Colonel, before Port Royal, 408, 421.

  Marcou, Mrs. Jules, _Belknap_, 163.

  Marest, Gabriel, 561.

  Margry, Pierre, _Découvertes et Établissements_, 73;
    titles of separate volumes, 73;
    on Vérendrye’s discovery, 567.

  Maricheets, 452.

  Maricourt, 14.

  Marietta (Ohio), 570.

  Marigny de Mandeville, memoirs, 71.

  Marin, 57, 492, 527;
    journal of, 16.

  Marion, Joseph, 127.

  Markham, governor of Delaware, 207;
    rules for Penn in Pennsylvania, 208.

  Marlborough, Duke of, his victories, 106.

  Marmontel, J. F., _Régence du Duc de Orleans_, 77.

  Marquette and Joliet’s account of discovery, 72.

  Marquette’s maps, 79.

  Marsh, Perez, 586.

  Marshall, John, diary (1707), 421.

  Marshall, John (Va.), _History of the Colonies_, 620.

  Marshall, O. H., on Céloron, 570;
    on the Niagara frontier, 534.

  Marshall, Ralph, 307.

  Marshe, Wm., journal of conference at Lancaster, 566.

  Martel, T. B., 610.

  Martin, Clement, 391.

  Martin, E. K., _Mennonites_, 246.

  Martin, Felix, _De Montcalm en Canada_, 607;
    _Le Marquis de Montcalm au Canada_, 607.

  Martin, F. X., account of, 72, 354;
    _Louisiana_, 65;
    _North Carolina_, 354.

  Martin, J. H., _Bethlehem_, 249.

  Martin, governor of North Carolina, 305.

  Martyn, Benj., _Reasons for Establishing Georgia_, 394;
    _Progress of Georgia_, 395;
    secretary of trustees of Georgia, 366.

  Martyn, Henry, 395.

  Marvin, A. P., _Lancaster_, 184.

  Maryland, Acadians in, 461, 462;
    archives, 617;
    papers in the Maryland Historical Society, 617;
    _Calendar of State Archives_, 270;
    _Archives of Maryland_, 270;
    histories of, 259, 271;
    editions of laws, 260, 271;
    views on the early Toleration Act, 271;
    life of the province, 272;
    religion, 272; Chalmers’s papers on, 354;
    Copley the first royal governor, 259;
    Episcopal Church established, 259;
    Francis Nicholson, governor, 260;
    John Hart ruled for the proprietary, 260;
    the assembly claim the common law, 261;
    currency troubles, 261;
    as a crown province, 259;
    tobacco crop, 259;
    life in, 259;
    absence of towns, 259;
    boundary disputes with Pennsylvania, 239, 261, 263, 272, 273;
    map used, 272;
    disputes with Virginia, 263, 273;
    map showing present and charter boundaries, 273;
    _Report of Commissioners on the Maryland and Virginia Bounds_, 273;
    population, 261;
    institutional life, 261;
    Horatio Sharpe, governor, 262;
    money voted for the French war, 262;
    Catholics, 262;
    war on the proprietary, 262;
    her records, 270;
    history of their preservation, 270;
    refuses to assist Braddock, 580.

  _Maryland Gazette_, 261.

  Mascarene, Paul, 139, 409;
    autog., 450;
    description of Nova Scotia, 409;
    his “Events at Annapolis” (1710-1711), 423.

  Mason, Arthur, 110.

  Mason, Edw. G., 69;
    _Illinois in the Eighteenth Century_, 52.

  Mason, _Newport_, 141.

  Mason and Dixon’s line, 263, 273;
    their journals, 273;
    authorities on, 273.

  Massachusetts, expedition from, to New Mexico (1678), 69;
    provincial charter, 91, 477;
      printed, 92;
      original of, 92;
    population, 92;
    seal of, 93;
    seals of governors, 93;
    document on the arms of, 93;
    quarrels with the governors over their salaries, 94, 104, 116, 130,
        131, 132, 133;
    witchcraft court, 94;
    bill making representatives necessarily residents of towns
        represented by them, 95;
    London agents, 106, 107;
    paper money, 113;
    loss in Indian wars, 113;
    Burgess commissioned governor, 115;
    Shute, governor, 115;
    Wm. Dummer, lieutenant-governor, 116;
    freedom of press, 117;
    tracts on her depressed condition (1717, etc.), 119;
    picture of the province sloop, 123;
    under Dummer, 124;
    explanatory charter, 124;
    cost of the war (1723), 127;
    Burnet removes General Court to Salem, 130;
    sends Jona. Belcher to England, 131;
      made governor, 132;
    Spencer Phips, governor, 139;
    Shirley, governor, 143;
    exhausted by the Louisbourg expedition, 146;
    Brief State of the Services, etc., 147;
    relations with its agents, 147;
    Spencer Phips governor in Shirley’s absence, 149, 153;
    capital offences in, 152;
    Pownall, governor, 153;
    cost of the war, 153;
    refuse to have troops quartered on the people, 154;
    her troops (1759), 154;
    Bernard, governor, 155;
    authorities on her history, 162;
    documentary history, 164;
    her appeal in 1699, 164;
    fines traders with the French, 164;
    trees reserved for royal navy, 164;
    negative of the governor, 164;
    encroachments on the royal prerogative, 164;
    her archives cared for, 164;
      report on them, 165;
    papers on the revolution of 1689, 165;
      on the Andros period, 165;
    French archives, 165, 617;
      copies from England, 165;
    council records, 165;
    records of House of Representatives, 165;
      their printed journals, 165;
    muster rolls of French and Indian wars, 165;
    legislative history, 166;
    _Province Laws_, 166, 167;
    _Acts and Resolves_, edited by Ames and Goodell, 167;
    cost of printing Massachusetts Colony Records, Plymouth Colony
        Records, and provincial laws, 167;
    histories of manners, 169;
    financial history, 170;
      banks, 170;
      penny bills, 171;
      manufactory bank, 171;
      silver scheme, 171;
      volumes marked “Pecuniary” in her archives, 173;
      pamphlets on the subject, 174, 175;
      old tenor v. new tenor, 176;
      depreciation table, 176;
    emblems of Massachusetts, 177;
    towns in, 92;
    names of her towns, 181;
    frontier towns, 184, 187;
    border wars, 184;
    massacres, 187;
    _Brief State of the Services_, etc., 457;
    despatches of the governor to the secretary of state (1745-51), 459;
    troops in Crown Point expedition, 585;
    Acadians in, 461;
      papers on them in the archives, 461;
      town histories referring to them, 461;
      declined to receive others, 462;
      intercepted, 463;
      expense of supporting Acadians, 462;
      Bernard refuses to receive them, 462;
    bounds on Popple’s map, 134;
    boundary disputes, 177;
    claims land at the west, 180;
    bounds on New Hampshire, 180;
      on Rhode Island, 180, 232;
      on Connecticut, 180;
    map of, 88.

  Massachusetts, fort, 187.
    _See_ Fort.

  “Massachusetts”, frigate, 437.

  Massacre Island, 17.

  Mather, Cotton, _Bills of Credit_, 170;
    _Life of Phips_, 170;
    his character, 101, 129;
    his library, 101, 162;
    favors Jos. Dudley’s appointment, 103;
      quarrels with him, 104;
    disappointed in not being president of Harvard College, 105;
    his _Le Vrai Patron_, 106;
    his Iroquois tract, 107;
    _Question and Proposal_, 108;
      answered by John Wise, 108;
    his _Winthropi Justa_, 212;
      and Governor Shute, 116;
    _Decennium Luctuosum_, 420;
    diary, 168;
    _Duodecennium Luctuosum_, 430;
    incites or writes _Memorial_ against Jos. Dudley, 422;
    _Magnalia_, 156;
    _Manuductio ad Ministerium_, 156;
    his style, 157;
    lives of, 157;
    map in his _Magnalia_, 88;
    his _Parentator_, 125;
    tries to have a synod, 126;
    on Sebastian Rasle, 127;
    _Waters of Marah_, 127;
    praises Shute, 118;
    receives a doctorate, 119;
    _Testimony against Evil Customs_, 119;
    favors inoculation, 120;
    attacked, 120;
    despised by Douglass, 120;
    and Wm. Dummer, 123;
    his reputation in successive generations, 157;
    his literary fecundity, 157;
    authorities, 157;
    _The Terror of the Lord_, 128;
    _Boanerges_, 128;
    dies, 129;
    judged by James Savage, 129.

  Mather, Increase, diary, 168;
    his character, 101, 125, 126;
    goes to England, 87;
    and the new charter of Massachusetts Bay, 91;
    returns to Boston, 93;
    laments the decline of theocratic views, 93;
    made D. D. by Harvard, 94;
    relations to the college, 98;
    relations with Sam. Sewall, 100;
    _Order of the Gospel_, 101;
    attacked by the Manifesto Church party, 101;
    declines to go to England, 114;
    and the _New England Courant_, 121;
    dies, 125;
    portrait, 125;
    memoirs, 125.

  Mather, Samuel, _Life of Cotton Mather_, 157.

  Mathers, the, Quincy and Grahame upon, 621.

  _Mather Papers_, 166.

  Mathews, Alfred, 565.

  Matler’s Rock, 237.

  Matthews, A., 577.

  Mauduit, Jasper, 462.

  Maule, Thomas, 95;
    _Truth Held Forth_, 95;
    _New England Persecutors_, 95;
    genealogy of, 95;
    _Tribute to Cæsar_, 562.

  Maurault, Abbé, J. A., _Histoire des Abénakis_, 421, 619.

  Maurepas, lake, 41.

  Maurice, J. F., _Hostilities without Declaration of War_, 574.

  Maury, Ann, _Huguenot Family_, 276.

  Maury, Jas., on Evans’s map, 564.

  Maxwell, Thomson, 598, 602.

  Maxwell, _Virginia Register_, 284.

  Mayer, Brantz, edits _Sot-Weed Factor_, 272;
    _Logan and Cresap_, 272.

  Mayer, F. B., 271;
    _Old Maryland Manners_, 272.

  Mayer, Lewis, _Ground Rents in Maryland_,271;
    on Maryland Papers, 617.

  Mayhew, Jona., his bold utterances, 150.

  Mayo, John, lays out Richmond, 268.

  Mayo, Colonel William, 268.

  McCall, Hugh, _History of Georgia_, 405.

  McGill, A. T., 273.

  McHenry, James, 575.

  McLeod, Rev. John, 376.

  Meade, _Old Churches, etc., of Virginia_, 279, 282, 284.

  Mease, James, _Picture of Philadelphia_, 252.

  Mecklenburg declaration of independence, 304.

  Meginness, J. F., _Valley of the Susquehanna_, 249.

  Melchers, Julius, 560.

  Melish, John, _Description of United States_, 53.

  Mellish, T., 331.

  Melon, _Essai politique_, 75.

  Melvin, Eleazer, 182.

  _Mémoires sur le Canada_, 57;
    MS. of, 57.

  _Memoirs of the Principal Transactions of the Last War_, 568.

  Mennonists, 217, 246;
    authorities on, 246.

  Menwe. _See_ Five Nations.

  Mercer, Colonel, killed at Oswego, 510.

  Mercer, Colonel Hugh, at Pittsburgh, 600.

  Mercer, John, 278.

  Merrimac River, 88;
    in Popple’s map, 134.

  Merriman, Sergeant, diary, 602.

  _Methodist Quarterly_, 403.

  Meursius, Jacob, map, 472.

  Mexico, St. Denys in, 71.

  Miami Confederacy, 563.

  Miami, fort at, 559.

  Miamis, 564.

  Miamis, French on the, 490, 566.

  Michelet, Jules, _La France sous Law_, 77.

  Michilimackinac, French at, 566;
    map, 559.

  Micmacs, country of, 480;
    threatening, 452;
    accounts of, 452;
    _Customs and Manners of the Micmakis_, 452.

  Middle Colonies in the eighteenth century, 189;
    life in, 247;
    literature of, 248;
    publications in, 248;
    population of, 246.

  Middleton, Arthur, governor of Carolina, 328;
    conflicts with the Assembly, 329.

  Middleton, Henry, 350.

  Middleton, map of Braddock’s march, 500.

  Mildmay, Wm., 475.

  _Military History of Great Britain, 1756-57_, 592.

  Miller, John, _Province and City of New York_, 253.

  Miller, secretary of Carolina, 294.

  Mills, _Boundaries of Ontario_, 86.

  Mills, rolling, prohibited, 149.

  Minas, basin of, view of entrance, 449;
    battle of, 448;
    English and French accounts, 448, 449.

  Minet, his maps, 79.

  Mingoes, 484.
    _See_ Five Nations.

  Minnesota, historical chart of, 622;
    historical society of, 622.

  Minot, G. R., on the Acadians, 458;
    _Massachusetts Bay_, 162;
    portrait, 162.

  Minquas, 484.

  Misère, 55.

  Mississippi Bubble, 75.
    _See_ Law, John.

  Mississippi River, mouths of, map (1700), 22;
    called St. Louis, 86;
    entered by Iberville, 18;
    maps of, by De Fer, 23;
    by Le Blond de la Tour, 23;
    by De Pauger, 23;
    by Sérigny (1719), 41;
    its scouring action, 42;
    map of lower parts, by Le Page, 66;
    by Bellin, 66;
    other maps, 66;
    explored by the English, 69;
    name of,  70;
    spelling of name, 79.

  Mississippi Valley, maps of, 79;
    maps supporting the English and French claims, 83.

  Missouri Indians, 39.

  Missouri River, French on the, 566.

  Mistasin, lake, 84.

  Mitchell, John, _Contest in America_, 83, 615;
    his _Map of the British Colonies_, 83.

  Mittelberger, Gottlieb, _Reise_, 244.

  Moales, John, 271.

  Mobile Bay, 17, 66;
    plan, 71;
    visited by Iberville, 21.

  Mobilians, 86.

  Mohawk River, 236;
    map, 595.

  Mohawk Valley, map, 238.

  Mohawks, 484;
    conference with (1753), 245;
    (1758), 245;
    missions among, 246.

  Mohegan case, 111, 232;
    authorities on, 111;
    Cæsar, a Mohegan sachem, 112.

  Moidores (coin), 230.

  Moll, Herman, his maps, 80, 234;
    map of South Carolina, 315;
    map of Virginia and Maryland, 273;
    survey of St. Lawrence Gulf, 614;
    map of New England, 133, 234;
    _New Survey_, 81, 133, 351;
    _World Displayed_, 474;
    _Carolina, divided into Parishes_, 348;
    _Map of Dominions of the King of Great Britain in America_, 344;
    made maps for Oldmixon, 344, 474;
    view of Niagara Falls (1715), 567.

  Mombert, J. I., _Lancaster County_, 249, 566.

  Mompesson, chief justice, 196.

  Moncacht-Apé, story of, 77.

  Monckton, Robert, governor of New York, autog. and seal, 206;
    commands in expedition against Beauséjour, 452;
    in Nova Scotia, 415;
    portrait and autog., 454;
    account of, 454;
    wounded at Quebec, 550;
    at Fort Pitt (1760), 610.

  Moncrief, Major, _Expedition against Quebec_, 604.

  Monette, J. W., _Mississippi Valley_, 71.

  Monk, George. _See_ Albemarle.

  Monongahela, battle of, authorities on, 575;
    French reports, 575;
    ballads, 575.
    _See_ Braddock.

  Montague, Captain Wm., 437.

  Montague, Lord Chas. Greville, 333.

  Montanus, _Nieuwe en Onbekende Weereld_, 472;
    its maps, 472.

  Montbeillard, Potot de, _Mémoires_, 605.

  Montcalm, Marquis de, autog., 505;
    succeeds Dieskau, 505;
    at Ticonderoga, 505;
    suddenly attacks Oswego, 510;
    captures it, 510;
    again at Ticonderoga, 511;
    goes into winter-quarters, 512;
    jealousies of Vaudreuil, 514;
    advances (1757) on Fort William Henry, 516;
    retreats to Canada, 520;
    again at Ticonderoga awaiting Abercrombie’s attack, 521;
    repels it, 523 (_see_ Ticonderoga);
    strengthens Ticonderoga, 527;
    disputes with Vaudreuil, 530;
    promoted, 532;
    apprehensive, 533;
    at Quebec, 540;
    his headquarters, 540;
    his policy of delay, 544;
    on the Plains of Abraham, 548;
    portraits, 548;
    advances on Wolfe, 548;
    killed, 550;
    buried, 550;
    his remains disturbed, 550;
    monuments to his memory, 551;
    his early career, 592;
    his despatches to the department of war, 592;
    his instructions as to Oswego, 592;
    on Rigaud’s attack on Fort William Henry, 593;
    his letter on his own attack on Fort William Henry, 594;
    his instructions, 594;
    letter to Webb, 594;
    contemporary English view of his conduct during the massacre, 595;
    Cooper’s view in the _Last of the Mohicans_, 595;
    his conduct respecting the massacre at Fort William Henry, variously
        considered, 595;
    letters on Abercrombie’s defeat, 598;
    dispute with Vaudreuil respecting the loss of Fort Frontenac, 599,
        600;
    disheartened (1759), 600;
    at siege of Quebec (1759), 604;
    letters, 604;
    contemporary accounts of death and burial, 605;
    letters owned by the present Marquis de Montcalm, 605;
    correspondence with Bourlamaque, 605;
    letters entrusted to Roubaud, 606;
    _Lettres de Montcalm à Messieurs de Berryer et de la Molé_, 606;
    known to be forgeries, 606;
    have deceived many, 606;
    essay on M. by Creasy, 607;
    books by Martin, 607;
    by Bonnechose, 607;
    his commission (1756), 591;
    map of his campaigns, 618;
    his papers, 599.
    _See_ Quebec, Wolfe, etc.

  Monteano, Manuel de, 386.

  Montgomerie, John, governor of New York, 198;
    governor of New Jersey, 220.

  Montgomery, Richd., on Wolfe’s attack on Quebec, 547.

  Montigni, 561.

  Montour, Andrew, interpreter, 10, 490, 570;
    his family, 490.

  Montreal, 486;
    defended by Vaudreuil, 534;
    threatened by Amherst, 555;
    surrounded, 556;
    surrender, 558, 609;
    raided upon, 489, 568;
    trade with Albany, 567;
    Gage at, 610;
    treaty at (1701), 560;
    views of, 554;
    plans of, 555, 556.

  Montresor, James, his journal, 594;
    portrait, 594.

  Montresor, Colonel John, plan for the campaign (1759), 533, 601;
    at siege of Quebec, 604;
    traverses the Kennebec route (1760) with despatches, 609;
    his map, 609;
    accompanied Murray up the St. Lawrence, 609;
    journal of Louisbourg (1758), 467;
    his journals, 594, 609;
    portrait, 594;
    map of the St. Lawrence, 614.

  Montreuil, Chevalier de, 617.

  Montreuil, Dieskau’s adjutant, 588;
    letter, 588, 605.

  Moor, Robt., 364.

  Moore, Colonel James, his march (1712), 345;
    defeats the Apalatchees, 319;
    defeats the Tuscaroras, 299;
    governor of South Carolina (1700), 316.

  Moore, Colonel Maurice, his march (1713 and 1715), 345;
    sent against the Yemassees, 321.

  Moore, Francis, _Voyage to Georgia_, 396, 401.

  Moore, Geo. H., 117;
    _Final Notes on Witchcraft_, 164, 617;
    on Massachusetts legislation, 166.

  Moore, James, 318, 341, 359;
    his account of his incursion into Florida, 342;
    fights the Yemassees, 322;
    made governor of South Carolina by the people, 327.

  Moore, James (jr.), dies, 332.

  Moore, J. W., _North Carolina_, 355.

  Moore, on Wesley, 403.

  Moorhead, John, 132.

  Moravians, their historical society, 246;
    its publications, 246;
    monuments erected by it, 246;
    in Connecticut, 246;
    at Shekomeko in New York, 246;
    at Wechquodnach, 246;
    in Philadelphia, 246;
    their _Manual_, 246;
    intermediate in the war with the Indians, 595;
    in Georgia, 374;
    in New York, 257;
    in North Carolina, 348;
    in Pennsylvania, 217;
    their schools, 231;
    founded Bethlehem, 245;
    in New York, 245, 246;
    relations with Indians, 245;
    sources of their history, 245.

  Morden, Robert, _New Map of Carolina_, 340, 341.

  Moreau, C., 610;
    _L’Acadie française_, 424.

  Morgan, Daniel, with Braddock, 498.

  Morgan, Geo., 564.

  Morgan, Geo. H., _Harrisburg_, 249.

  Morgan, L. H., _League of the Iroquois_, 235.

  Morilon du Bourg, 476.

  Morris, Colonel, his sloop “Fancy”, 252.

  Morris, F. O., 575.

  Morris, Lewis, 196, 219, 220;
    chief justice of New York, 198;
    governor of New Jersey, 220;
    dies, 221.

  Morris, Major, marauding expedition to Bay of Fundy (1758), 464.

  Morris, Robt. Hunter, governor of Pennsylvania, 215.

  Morris, Roger, 496;
    his house, 252.

  Morris, Wm., 219.

  Moseley, Edw., 299.

  Moss, L., _Baptists and the National Centenary_, 282.

  Mother Goose, 121.

  Motley, John L., 563.

  Mougoulachas, 18, 19.

  Moulton, Captain Jere., scouting expedition, 430.

  Mount Defiance (Ticonderoga), 523.

  Mountgomery, Sir Robt., _Discourse_, 392;
    plan of Azilia, 392;
    _Golden Islands_, 392;
    his grant in Georgia, 359.

  Mt. Pleasant (Va.), 570.

  Mudyford, Thomas, 288.

  Munro, Colonel, at Fort William Henry (1757), 515;
    surrenders, 517.

  Munsell, Frank, _Bibliography of Albany_, 249.

  Munsell, Joel, notes on Mrs. Grant’s _American Lady_, 509;
    _Annals of Albany_, 509.

  Murdoch, B., _Nova Scotia_, 419, 460.

  Murphy, A. D., projected history of North Carolina, 354.

  Murray, Colonel A., autog., 460.

  Murray, F., _French Financiers_, 76.

  Murray, General James, his campaign against Lévis, 552;
    plan of the campaign, 552;
    his retreat, 553;
    commands above Quebec, 545;
    holds Quebec, 550;
    approaches Montreal, 555;
    journal at Quebec, 608;
    his despatches, 608;
    letters, 608.

  Musgrove, Mary, 369.

  Muskets, first made in America, 149.

  Muskhogee Confederacy, 370.

  Muskingum, river, 563.

  Muys, M. de, 27.


  Nanfan, lieutenant-governor of New York, 195.

  Nansemond, Va., 307.

  Nantucket, her whalers, 118.

  Napier, letter to Braddock, 575, 576.

  Narragansetts, 342.

  Narragansett Bay, fortifications of, 142.

  Narragansett country claimed by Rhode Island and Connecticut, 181.

  Nason, Elias, annotates Baxter’s journal, 424;
    _Dunstable_, 184;
    _Frankland_, 144.

  Nassau, isle of, 70.

  Nassonites, 40.

  Natchez, fort, 66, 82;
    trading post, 29.
    _See_ Rosalie.

  Natchez Indians, 21, 23;
    attack the French, 30;
    massacre, 46 (_see_ St. André);
    wars, 46;
    defeated by Choctaws, 48;
    authorities, 68.

  Natchitoches, 40;
    island, occupied, 30.

  Navigation laws, 138.

  Neal, Daniel, _New England_, 157;
    judged by Watts, 158;
    by Prince, 158.

  Nearn, T., 80.

  Negro plot in New York city, 201.
    _See_ New York.

  Neill, E. D., on the Calverts, 271;
    on Governor Evans, 243;
    _Vérendrye and his Sons_, 568;
    _Virginia Carolorum_, 335;
    _Virginia Colonial Clergy_, 279.

  Nelson, John, 476.

  _Neptune Americo-Septentrional_, 429.

  Nervo, _Les Finances françaises_, 77.

  _Neu-gefundenes Eden_, 348.

  _New American Magazine_, 597.

  _New and Complete History of the British Empire in America_, 350, 618.

  New Biloxi, 36.

  New England (1689-1763), chapter on, 87;
    restrictive acts in, 95;
    her politics little cared for in England, 114;
    her exports (1716), 116;
    the king’s rights to the woods, 116;
    oppressed by acts of parliament, 118;
    industries, 118;
    war declared (1722), 122;
    earthquake (1727), 128;
    the Great Awakening, 133;
    Catholic view of modifications of faith in, 133;
    sends troops to the West Indies, 135;
    smuggling, 138;
    war of 1744, 145;
    population (1745), 145;
    expedition against Canada (1746), 148;
    frontier forts, 149;
    population (1755), 151;
    earthquake (1755), 152;
    their lead in military matters, 152;
    sources of her history, 156;
    legislative history, 166;
    manners of, 167;
    authorities on, 167, 168;
    Chalmers’s notes on, 352, 354;
    coast life, 169;
    town system, 169;
    religious history, 169;
    organizations for propagating the gospel, of similar names, 169;
    financial history, 170;
    reimbursed for the cost of siege of Louisbourg, 176;
    disputed bounds, 177;
    forts and frontiers, 181;
    local histories, 181;
    earliest discussion of the Catholic question in, 186;
    her people on the Carolina coast, 295;
    her territory ravaged by Indians (1703-4), 5, 7, 420, 483;
    her military system, 591;
    confederacy (1643), 611;
    maps, 133;
    (1688), 88;
    (Moll’s), 133;
    (1732, Popple’s), 134;
    (1755), 238;
    Douglass on maps, 133;
    (Salmon’s), 234;
    (Pownall’s), 565;
    (Kitchin’s), 482.
    _See_ names of New England States.

  _New England Courant_, 121.

  _New England Journal_, 131.

  _New England Weekly Journal_, 135.

  New France, _Collection de Manuscrits relatifs à l’Histoire de la
        Nouvelle France_, 473;
    general historians, 619;
    English writers on, 619.

  New Hampshire, annexed to Massachusetts, 90;
    without political government, 90;
    the Mason claim, 110;
    John Usher, governor, 110;
    George Vaughan, governor, 110;
    Vaughan, ruling, 123;
    John Wentworth, governor, 123, 129;
    united with Massachusetts under Burnet, 139;
    Waldron, secretary, 139;
    his correspondence with Belcher, 139;
    authorities on her history, 163;
    _Provincial Papers_, 166, 167;
    Chalmers’s papers on, 354;
    issues of the press, 166;
    judicial history, 166;
    fac-similes of her five-shillings bill, 174;
    three-pounds bill, 175;
    Crown Point currency, 590, 591;
    failed to use the Louisbourg money to help her bills, 176;
    Stevens’s _Books on New Hampshire_, 180;
    frontier posts of, 183;
    Acadians in, 46;
    Indian wars, 183;
    regiments at Lake George, 585;
    troops in the field, 591;
    men killed at Fort William Henry, 595;
    towns of, 183;
    bounds and boundary disputes, 134, 180;
    maps (1756), 485;
    (1761), 485.

  New Hampshire Grants, and the controversy over them, 166, 178, 179,
      238.

  New Inverness (Georgia), 377.

  New Jersey, Alexander’s drafts used by Pownall, 565;
    apathy of, at the time of Braddock’s expedition, 580;
    finally alarmed, 580, 583;
    boundary disputes with New York, 222, 238;
    Catholics in, 191;
    _Celebration of the Proprietors_, 238;
    population, 246;
    Baptists in, 247;
    paper money in, 230, 247;
    laws, 252;
    first brick house in, 258;
    Chalmers’s papers on, 354;
    copper ore in, 225;
    divided into East and West, 217;
    surrendered by the proprietors, 217;
    united, 217;
    history of, 217, etc.;
    education in, 231;
    Governor Belcher’s papers on, 166;
    Rutgers College, 230;
    Princeton College, 230;
    trade of, 228;
    treaty with Indians (1756), 590.

  New London, Acadians at, 461;
    governors at, 108.

  New Orleans founded, 36;
    map by Le Page du Pratz, 37;
    in Dumont, 38;
    by N. Bellin, 38;
    by Jefferys, 38;
    view of (1719), 39;
    by Pauger, 42;
    Ursulines in, 44.

  New York City, negro plot in, 201, 242;
    smuggling in, 229;
    Trinity Church, 230;
    King’s College, 230;
    Columbia College, 230;
    monographs on phases of New York, 248;
    its police, 249;
    old coffee houses, 249;
    its markets, 249;
    its ferries, 248;
    Catholic churches, 248;
    views of, engraved, 250-252;
    Popple’s, 250, 252;
    Blakewell’s, 251, 252;
    from _London Magazine_, 251, 252;
    keys to landmarks, 252-254;
    other views, 252;
    City Hall, 252;
    Fort George, 252;
    Broadway and its history, 252;
    Wall Street and its history, 252;
    tombs of Trinity, 252;
    domestic architecture, 252;
    Dutch houses, 252;
    Rutgers mansion, 252;
    Cortelyou house, 252;
    Van Cortland house, 252;
    Roger Morris house, 252;
    Beekman house, 252;
    Livingston house, 252;
    Verplanck house, 252;
    plans of the city, 253;
    Miller’s, 253;
    key to, 253;
    other plans, 253;
    Lyne’s plan, 253;
    Popple’s, 253;
    map of harbor, 253, 254;
    fac-simile, 254;
    Grim’s plan, 254;
    _Collegiate Reformed Dutch Church_, 254;
    plan of environs made for Lord Loudon, 254;
    city arms, 255;
    Maerschalk’s plan (1755), 255;
    Bellin’s, 257.

  _New York Gazette_, 248.

  _New York Mercury_, 85, 601.

  New York Province, threatened by the Catholics, 189;
    Papists not tolerated, 190, 191;
    early Catholics in, 190;
    Bill of Rights (1691), 191, 193;
    money raised by a general tax, 192;
    charter of liberties, 192;
    a crown province, 192;
    form of government, 193;
    legislative struggle for supremacy, 194;
    courts established, 194;
    seals of governors, 196;
    oppressed by war, 197;
    trade with Canada, 198;
    courts of equity, 198;
    court of exchequer, 200;
    MS. sources of her history, 231;
    Duke’s laws, 231;
    Dongan’s laws, 232;
    other laws, 232;
    Bradford’s editions of, 232;
    council minutes, 232;
    land records, 232;
    _Calendar_ of them, 232;
    records of Indian affairs, 233;
    sources on religious life, 233;
    papers on trade and manufactures, 233;
    sources of the rules of the different governors, 241;
    Bayard trial, 241;
    Episcopal Church in, 244;
    population of, 246;
    German element in, 246;
    French and German names in, 247;
    life in, 247;
    paper money in, 247;
    no bibliography   of its historical literature, 248;
    local histories, 249;
    local historical societies, 249;
    education in, 241;
    manufactures in, 226;
    Huguenots in, 247;
    Chalmers’s papers on, 354;
    and the New Hampshire Grants, 178;
    bounds of, 84, 177, 238;
    _Report of the Regents of the University on the Bounds_, 238;
    maps, 88, 234, 235, 238;
    (manorial grants), 236, 237;
    (French grants), 238;
    (New York harbor), 235.

  New lights, 135, 145.

  Newbern (N. C.), 303.

  Newcastle, Del., fort at, 210.

  Newfoundland, map of, 482;
    naval engagement at, 452.

  Newport, R. I. (1729), 141;
    privateers, 166.

  Newspapers, 90.

  Newton, J. H., _History of the Panhandle_, 570.

  Niagara (cataract), view by Moll, 567;
    described by Kalm, 244;
    (Jagara on Colden’s map), 491.

  Niagara (fort), plans, 534, 567;
    strengthened, 490;
    French at, 483;
    Joncaire at, 6, 7;
    project to seize (1706), 560;
    attacked by Prideaux, 533, 600;
    taken, 536;
    articles of capitulation, 601;
    letters, 601;
    French accounts, 601;
    rivalry for, 566.

  Niagara (river), map (1759), 534.

  Niaouré Bay (Sackett’s Harbor), 510.

  Nicholas, a Huron, 568.

  Nichols, A. H., 467, 604.

  Nichols, Timothy, 604.

  Nichols, _Literary Anecdotes_, 367.

  Nicholson, Gen. Francis, in Boston, 107, 108;
    goes to New York, 109;
    governor of Maryland, 260;
    sent to Virginia, 264;
    his character, 260, 264;
    his ambition, 264;
    helps to found William and Mary College, 264;
    in the “Burwell affair”, 264;
    recalled, 264;
    made royal governor of Carolina, 327;
    attacks Port Royal (1710), 107, 408;
    autog., 422, 425;
    his journal of the siege of Port Royal, with other papers, 423;
    plan by which the fleet sailed, 424;
    advocates a union of the colonies, 611.

  Nihata, 80.

  Niles, Samuel, _French and Indian Wars_, 425;
    poem on Louisbourg, 438.

  Nimégue, treaty at (1678), 476.

  Nitschman, David, 377.

  Noble, Arthur, 436;
    account of, 448;
    attacked at Grand Pré, 413.

  Norfolk, Va., 267.

  Norridgewock, 118;
    conference at, 430.

  North, John, survey of the coast of Maine (1752), 474.

  North Carolina, history of, 294;
    at first known as Albemarle County, 294;
    Quakers in, 294;
    New Englanders monopolizing the trade, 295;
    Culpepper rebellion, 295;
    Seth Sothel, governor, 296;
    sent to England, 296;
    Philip Ludwell, governor, 296;
    Carey’s rebellion, 297;
    aims of the popular party, 297;
    murders by Tuscaroras, 298;
    Virginia and South Carolina send help, 298;
    journals of the lower house missing, 299;
    causes operating to check the prosperity of the colony, 300;
    population, 297, 300, 303;
    bad governors, 300;
    the crown buys out seven of the proprietors, 301;
    under royal government, 301;
    bounds upon South Carolina, 302;
    Bath County, 302;
    educational failure, 303;
    printing introduced, 303;
    laws, 303;
    commerce, 303, 305;
    immigration from Pennsylvania and Virginia, 304;
    indemnified for war expenses, 305;
    sources of her history, 335;
    charters, 336;
    printed with the fundamental constitutions, 336;
    seal of the proprietors, 336;
    _Revised Statutes_, 336;
    Hilton’s discoveries, 337;
    _Brief Description of the Province of Carolina_, 337;
    changes in the coast line, 338;
    boundary with Virginia, first shown, 340;
    _Carolina described more fully than heretofore_, 340;
    laws, 345;
    surrender of title, 347;
    German settlements, 348;
    Moravians in, 348;
    Swiss in, 348;
    Chalmers’s notes on, 352;
    Culpepper revolution, 352;
    Chalmers’s papers on, 354;
    later histories of, 354;
    Williamson’s, 354;
    Martin’s, 354;
    Wheeler’s, 354;
    Hawks’s, 355;
    Moore’s, 355;
    maps, 336, 337, 338, 340, 350;
    bounds on Virginia, absence of legislative records, 356;
    Barrington’s account, 356;
    Byrd’s estimate of the people, 275.

  _North Carolina Gazette_, 303, 350.

  North (Hudson) River, map, 236, 237.
    _See_ Hudson.

  Northern Neck of Virginia, its bounds, 276;
    _Survey of the Northern Neck_, 276;
    fac-simile of it, 277.

  Northumberland Papers, 603.

  _Northwest Review_, 621.

  Norton, Charles Eliot, 242.

  Norton, John, _Redeemed Captive_, 187.

  Norumbega defined by Montanus, Dapper, and Ogilby, 479.

  Nourse, H. S., on the Acadians, 461;
    _Lancaster_, 184.

  _Nouvelles des Missions_, 68.

  _Nouvelles Soirées canadiennes_, 607.

  Nova Belgica, map of, 234.

  Nova Scotia, separated from Massachusetts, 96;
    governors of, 409;
    emigrants invited to settle, 414;
    Halifax founded, 414;
    first assembly, 415;
    expulsion of Acadians, 415 (_see_ French Neutrals);
    _Public Documents_, 418;
    histories of, 419;
    tracts to encourage settlers, 450;
    _Genuine Account_, 450;
    _Beschreibung von Neu-Schottland_, 450;
    counter statements in Wilson’s _Genuine Narrative_, 450;
    _Account of the Present State of Nova Scotia_, 452;
    _French Policy defeated_, 452;
    papers of Andrew Brown upon, 458;
    council records sent to England, 458;
    records arranged, 458;
    T. B. Akins as record commissioner, 458;
    synopsis of records, 459;
    royal instructions, 459;
    proclamations, 459;
    _Historical Society Collections_, 419;
    _Letter from a Gentleman_, 460;
    Chalmers’s papers on, 354;
    maps of, 482;
    (Jefferys) 480, 481;
    maps made by order of Lawrence, 482;
    Montresor’s surveys, 482;
    map, by Kitchin, 482;
    of the coasts, by Des Barres, 482.
    _See_ Acadia.

  Noyes, Nic., _New England’s Duty_, 420.


  O’Callaghan, E. B., on the battle of Minas, 449;
    edits _Clarke’s Voyage_, 243;
    edits _Voyage of Sloop Mary_, 422;
    annotates Wilson’s _Orderly Book_, 602;
    edits Bobin’s _Letters_, 243.

  O’Reilley, governor of Louisiana, 73.

  O’Sullivan, D. A., 615.

  Oakes, Thomas, 87.

  _Occasional Reflections on the Importance of the War_, 596.

  Ochagach, 568.

  Ocmulgee River, 359.

  Oconee River, 359.

  Ogden, John C., _Excursion to Bethlehem_, 245.

  Ogdensburg, 490, 571.

  Ogeechee River, 373, 375, 379.

  Ogilby, his map of Carolina, 338;
    assistance sought from Locke, 338;
    _America_, 472;
    its map, 472.

  Ogle, Samuel, 261.

  Oglethorpe, General James Edward, his attack on the Spanish, 342;
    _Report_ on its failure, 342;
    his origin, 361;
    his early life, 361;
    portrait, 362, 406;
    named in charter of Georgia, 364;
    reached Georgia with the first settlers, 367;
    in Charlestown (S. C.), 370;
    meets the Indians, 370;
    goes to England with Tomo-chi-chi, 376;
    made colonel, 380;
    commander-in-chief of forces in Georgia and Carolina, 380;
    attacks St. Augustine, 381, 385;
    maps of, 382, 383;
    opposes Spanish attack on St. Simon, 386;
    departs, 387;
    fac-simile of his handwriting, 393;
    lives of, 394;
    notices in general histories and periodicals, 394;
    his _New and Accurate Account_, 394, 401;
    letter of, 394;
    _Curious Account of the Indians_, 396;
    _Poem to, on his arrival_, 396 (_see_ St. Augustine _and_ St. Simon
        Island);
    tracts against him, 398;
    attacked by Tailfer, 399;
    Spalding’s _Oglethorpe_, 401;
    letters of, 401.

  Ohio Company, 10, 490;
    charged with circulating stories of French encroachments, 580;
    founded (1748), 570;
    sends out Gist, 570;
    grants to, 570.

  Ohio, Indians in, 564;
    desert the French, 529;
    distracted, 490;
    migrations, 564;
    side with the French after Braddock’s defeat, 583;
    treaties, 245, 566.

  Ohio River, held to be the main stream with the Mississippi, 483;
    Indian names along the, 564;
    divides Canada from Louisiana, 563;
    English claim on, based on the Iroquois conquest, 564;
    forks of the, 273;
    fort at, 493;
    Ward surrenders the post, 573;
    the French officer’s summons, 573;
    the French building a fort (1732) on, 563;
    the Indians in the country, 563.

  Ohio Valley, prehistoric axe-cuts in, 565;
    English in, 566;
    their knowledge of it derived from the French, 566;
    grants made by them, 10;
    their traders seized, 10;
    French in, 9, 484, 566, 571, 572;
    Céloron’s plates, 9;
    (Duquesne), 11, 490;
    French and English conflict in, precipitated by Dinwiddie, 12;
    _Wisdom and Policy of the French_, 566;
    _French Encroachments Exposed_, 564;
    _Present State of North America_, 566;
    statement of English claim (Franklin), 565;
    as viewed by the French, 566;
    English view in _State of the British and French Colonies_, 566;
    maps of (Evans), 565;
    (Pownall’s), 566;
    (showing English claims), 566.

  _Ohio Valley Historical Series_, 579.

  Ojibways, history of, 622.

  Old French war, 453;
    general contemporary accounts of, 615;
    maps of, 618.

  Old lights, 135.

  Oldmixon, John, autog., 344;
    _British Empire in America_, 273, 344, 474;
    German edition, 344.

  Oldschool, Oliver (Dennie), _Portfolio_, 594.

  Oliphant, Mrs., on Wesley, 403;
    _Historical Sketches of the Reign of George II._, 403.

  Oneida Historical Society, 249.

  Onondaga, salt springs, 226.

  Onondagas, conference (1734), 567;
    French treaty with, 487.

  Ontario, French vessels on, 490;
    map (1757), 614.

  Orangeburg (S. C.), 348.

  Orchard, Robin, 92.

  Orleans, Fort, founded, 55.

  Orleans, Island of, map of, 549;
    Wolfe at, 543;
    history of, 543.

  Orme, Robt., 496;
    his letters, 575, 576, 579;
    plan of Braddock’s field, 500;
    journal, 575.

  Ormsby, John, 600.

  Orr, Hugh, 149.

  Orris, Luis de, 69.

  Osages, 55.

  Osborn, Sir Danvers, governor of New York, 204.

  Ossabaw Island, 279, 370.

  Ossoli, _Methodism at its Fountain_, 404;
    _Art, Literature, and Drama_, 404.

  Oswego, 186, 601, 614;
    a bone of contention, 487, 566;
    garrisoned, 7;
    summoned by the French (1727), 485;
    captured, 510, 511, 591;
    Gage’s failure, 601;
    letters, 601;
    Indians at, 592;
    authorities on, 591, 592;
    French sources, 592;
    despatches, 567;
    Beauharnois on, 567;
    _La Prise des Forts_, 592;
    English sources, 511;
    Walpole’s paper, 567;
    plan of (1727), 567;
    (1757), 511, 512;
    situation, 567;
    description, 512;
    view, 512;
    importance of, 591.

  Otis, Christine, 186.

  Otis, James, sues the custom-house officers for the province, 155;
    treats with Indians, 149;
    writs of assistance, 156.

  Otis, Colonel James, 155.

  Ottawa River, bounds of Canada under treaty of Utrecht, 85.

  Ottawas on the Sandusky and Maumee rivers, 563.

  Ottens, _Atlas_, 235;
    his maps, 79.

  Otter Creek, 585.

  Ouabache (Ohio River), 26.

  Ouatanon, 559.

  Oumas, 18.

  Outagamis, 6.

  Owens, Wm., 308.

  Oxford, Mass., abandoned, 96.

  Oyster beds, and the Virginia boundary line, 263.


  Paddock, Ichabod, 118.

  Padoucahs, 55.

  Page du Pratz, map of Louisiana, 85;
    fac-simile, 86.

  Paine, Nath., _Early Paper Currency_, 170.

  Paine, T. O., 182.

  Palfrey, F. W., 160.

  Palfrey, J. G., _New England_, 160;
    his details, 161;
    portrait, 161;
    abridged edition of his _New England_, 161;
    on the Acadians, 459.

  Palissado (Mississippi), 18.

  Palmer, Anthony, 215.

  Palmer, Eliakim, 149.

  Palmer, W. P., 278.

  Palmer, _Lake Champlain_, 587.

  Pan Handle, boundary of, 240.

  Panet, Jean Claude, journal at Quebec (1759), 605.

  Panionassas, 55.

  Paper manufacture, 223.

  Paper money, 112;
    in Carolina, 323;
    forbidden in the colonies by Parliament, 203;
    in Maryland, 261;
    in Massachusetts, 170;
    in the middle colonies, 247;
    in New Jersey, 230;
    in Pennsylvania, 212.

  Papineau, L. J., portrait, 619;
    and the archives of Canada, 617.

  Papists not tolerated in New York, 190.
    _See_ Catholics.

  Pardo, Juan, 359.

  Paris, treaty of (1712), 476;
    treaty of (1763), _see_ Peace of 1763.

  Parke, Colonel, of Virginia, 265.

  Parker, Henry, 388.

  Parker, J., on New Jersey boundaries, 238.

  Parker, _Londonderry_, 119.

  Parkman, Francis, _Historical Handbook of the Northern Tour_, 541;
    _Montcalm and Wolfe_, 460;
    on the Acadians, 460;
    controversy with P. H. Smith, 460;
    on Washington’s expedition to Le Bœuf, 572;
    on the battle of Lake George (1755), 584, 587;
    on Braddock’s defeat, 576;
    on the campaign of 1760, 609;
    on the comparative resources of the French and English colonies,
        600;
    on the siege of Louisbourg (1758), 467;
    his MSS., 617;
    on the Montcalm forgeries, 606;
    on the Quaker and anti-Quaker quarrels in Pennsylvania, 582;
    on the siege of Quebec (1759), 607.

  Parkman, G. F., 604.

  Parkman, Wm., 597.

  Parks, W., 278.

  Parsons, Usher, _Life of Pepperrell_, 437.

  Partridge, Oliver, on Abercrombie’s defeat, 597;
    on Robt. Rogers, 598.

  Partridge, Richard, 221.

  Partridge, Saml., 187.

  Pasquotank (North Carolina), 295.

  Passamaquoddy Indians, treaty with (1760), 471.

  Pastorius, _Continuatio_, etc., 239.

  Patten, Thos., 554;
    map of Montreal, 556.

  Patterson, Dr. Geo., _History of Pictou_, 419;
    on Samuel Vetch, 423.

  Pattin, John, 490.

  Paulding, J. K., _Sketches_, 284.

  Paxton, Captain, 96.

  Paxton, Chas., 155.

  Payer, T., 233.

  Peabody, W. B. O., _Cotton Mather_, 157;
    on Cotton Mather’s diary, 168;
    _Life of Oglethorpe_, 394.

  Peace of 1763, 58, 156, 471;
    authorities, 614;
    boundary claims, 614;
    _Mémoire Historique_, 614;
    _Appeal to Knowledge_, 615;
    royal proclamation, 615;
    map of the acquired territory, 615.
    _See_ Paris.

  Pean, M. T. H., 610.

  Pearce, S., _Luzerne County_, 249.

  Pearlash, 225.

  Pearson, Jonathan, _Schenectady Patent_, 190, 249.

  Pejebscot (Brunswick, Me.), 181;
    Indian conference (1699), 420.

  Pelham, Henry, his administration in England, 203.

  Pelham, Peter, 141.

  Pelham, Fort (Mass.), 187.

  Peltries, trade in, 1.

  Pemaquid, 181;
    fort, 96, 104;
    Indian conference at (1693), 420;
    rights of the English to, 474;
    surrendered by Chubb, 96.

  Pemberton, Ebenezer, 121.

  Penhallow, Samuel, _Wars of New England_, 424;
    fac-simile of title, 424;
    edited by W. Dodge, 425;
    his papers, 430;
    his mission to the Penobscots, 425;
    his family, 425;
    letters, 425.

  Penicaut, 25, 71;
    _Annals of Louisiana_, 67, 73;
    relation, 72.

  Penicooke Indians, 420.

  Penn, Hannah, 214.

  Penn, John (son of Richard), 216.

  Penn, John (son of Wm.), 215.

  Penn, Richard, 215.

  Penn, Thomas, 215;
    his correspondence with Richard Peters, 242.

  Penn, Wm., agent of Rhode Island, 110;
    arrested in England, 207;
    regains his province, 208;
    in prison, 210;
    dies, 211;
    correspondence with Logan, 242, 247;
    used and printed, 242;
    _Essay upon Government_, 611;
    the Catholics, 191;
    his view of his rights, 214;
    and the Susquehannas, 245.

  Pennoyer, Jesse, 602.

  Pennsylvania in the eighteenth century, 207;
    put under Governor Fletcher of New York, 208;
    charter of 1701 from Penn, 209;
    Quaker influence in politics, 209;
    mortgaged by Penn, 210;
    votes money for the war, 211, 213;
    court of chancery, 212;
    sends Franklin to England, 216;
    dreads Spanish attacks, 216;
    most flourishing of the colonies, 216;
    its mines, 224;
    smuggling in, 228;
    penal laws in, 191;
    Penn’s leniency to Catholics, 191;
    overrun by Indians (1753), 204;
    French occupation of the western part, 617;
    sources of her history, 242;
    correspondence of Penn and Logan, 242;
    travels in, 243;
    Swedes in, 246;
    Welsh in, 246;
    Germans in, 246;
    Baptists in, 246, 247;
    foreign names in, 247;
    life in, 247;
    Presbyterians in, 247;
    paper money in, 212, 247;
    university of, 231, 248;
    publications in, 248;
    local history, 249;
    governors and councillors, 249;
    domestic architecture in, 258;
    tracts to induce German immigration, 348;
    Indian forays within, after Braddock’s defeat, 581, 582, 583;
    authorities, 581;
    records of her troops, 581;
    defences erected, 581;
    list of forts, 581;
    plans of some, 581;
    _Etat présent_, 582;
    frontiers defended by Franklin, 583;
    Franklin drafts militia act, 583;
    politics at the time of Braddock’s expedition, 580, 582;
    held back in the war by the Quakers, 493;
    movement against the Indians (1755-56), 589;
    conferences at Easton, 589;
    _Several Conferences of the Quakers_, etc., 589;
    _A True Relation_, etc., 590;
    narratives of captivities, 590;
    Acadians in, 462;
    Chalmers’s papers on, 354;
    maps of, 239, 582;
    Kitchin’s map (1761), 239;
    map of Indian purchases, 240;
    land claimed by Connecticut, 180;
    “Walking Purchase”, 240;
    boundary disputes, 278.
    _See_ Maryland, Quakers, etc.

  _Pennsylvania Gazette_, 248.

  _Pennsylvania Magazine of History_, 249.

  Pennypacker, S. W., _Phœnixville_, 249;
    translates Scheffer’s Mennonite Emigration, 246;
    his _Sketches_, 246.

  Penobscots, conferences with, 430, 433, 434, 450;
    their conduct in Boston, 433;
    received under protection (1760-63), 471;
    war with, 452.

  Penobscot River forts, 183.

  Pensacola, 70, 86;
    captured, 36;
    founded, 17;
    Spanish at, 17;
    plans of, 39.

  Pentagoet, wines seized at (1687), 476.

  Pepin, Lake, 7.

  Pepperrell, Sir Wm., attacks Louisbourg, 410, 436;
    portrait, 435;
    autog., 435;
    genealogy, 435;
    his sword, 435;
    his house, 435;
    his papers, 436;
    correspondence with Shirley, 436;
    with Commodore Warren, 436;
    his arms, 436;
    his life by Parsons, 436;
    other accounts, 437;
    his plan of siege of Louisbourg, 446;
    returns to Boston from Louisbourg, 147;
    dies, 154;
    in command (1757) of Massachusetts militia, 153.

  Pequods, 342.

  Percival, Andrew, 313.

  Percival, John, Earl of Egmont, 363, 364, 395;
    MS. records of Georgia, 400.

  Perier, governor of Louisiana, 46;
    autog., 46;
    fights the Natchez, 48.

  Periwigs, 99.

  Perkins, A. T., _Copley_, 141, 169;
    on portraits of Smybert, etc., 141.

  Perkins, F. B., _Check-list Local History_, 181.

  Perkins, John, 74.

  Perkins, J. H., “English Discoveries in the Ohio Valley”, 566;
    _Memoir and Writings_, 565.

  Perles, Rivière aux (Louisiana), 41.

  Perry, A. L., on Fort Shirley, 187;
    proposed _History of Williamstown_, 188.

  Perry, W. S., _American Episcopal Church_, 169, 272;
    on Wesley and Whitefield, 404;
    _Historical Collection of the American Colonial Church_, 272.

  Perth Amboy, 228;
    harbor, map of, 253, 254.

  Peters, Richard, 597;
    correspondence with Thomas Penn, 242;
    his letter, 243.

  Peters, Samuel, gives name to Vermont, 178.

  Petersburg (Georgia), 401.

  Peyster, F. de, _Life of Bellomont_, 98.

  Peyster, J. W. de, 602;
    edits _Wilson’s Orderly Book_, 527.

  Peyton, J. L., _Augusta County, Va._, 281.

  Peyton, Sir Yelverton, 384.

  Philadelphia, 214;
    election riots (1742), 215;
    commerce of, 216;
    _Sylvan City_, 252;
    early organized government in, 252;
    views of, 257;
    Heap’s, 258;
    view of state-house, 258;
    Bellin’s plan, 257;
    Chalmers’ papers on, 354;
    conferences at (1747), 569;
    histories of, 249, 252;
    Westcott and Scharf’s, 249;
    made a city, 209;
    population, 216;
    college of Philadelphia, 231;
    map, by Scull and Heap, 240;
    Indian treaty at (1742), 245;
      (1747), 245;
    Moravians in, 246;
    Watson’s _Annals_, 247.

  _Philadelphia American_, 462.

  Philips manor house, 252.

  Philipse, Adolph, his lands, 237.

  Phillips, Henry, Jr., _Historical Sketches_, 170;
    _Paper Money in Pennsylvania_, 247;
    _Paper Currency of the American Colonies_, 247.

  Phillips, Richard, governor of Acadia, 122, 409.

  Phipps, Constantine, 95, 103.

  Phips, Spencer, 152, 450;
    lieutenant-governor of Massachusetts, 139, 144;
    dies, 153.

  Phips, Sir Wm., expedition to Quebec, 90;
    cost of, 91;
    goes to England, 91;
    made governor of Massachusetts, 92;
    returns to Boston, 93;
    goes to England, 94;
    dies, 95;
    lives, 95;
    his will, 95.

  Pichon, _Cape Breton_, 452;
    his journal, 452;
    _Lettres_, 467;
    papers, 467.
    _See_ Tyrrell.

  Pickawillany. _See_ Picktown.

  Pickering, Charles, mines copper, 224.

  Pickett, A. J., _History of Alabama_, 406.

  Picktown (Pickawillany), 571.

  Picquet. _See_ Piquet.

  _Picturesque Canada_, 459.

  Pidansat de Mairobert, M. F., _Discussion Sommaire_, 482.

  Pieces of eight, 229.

  Pierrepont, H. E., _Fulton Ferry_, 249.

  Pigwacket fight, 127, 431.
    _See_ Lovewell, Symmes.

  Pike, Jas. S., _New Puritan_, 420.

  Pike, Richard, 183.

  Pike, Robert, _Life_ of, by J. S. Pike, 420.

  Pinckney, Mrs. E. L., _Journal and Letters_ (1739-1762), 402.

  Pine-tree, emblem of Massachusetts, 177.

  Pinhorn, Wm., 219.

  Piquet, 4; intrigues with the Iroquois, 489;
    at La Présentation, 571;
    plan of his mission, 571;
    account of it, 571;
    accounts of him, 571.

  Piracy, action on, in Pennsylvania, 208;
    in Rhode Island, 102.

  Pirates on Cape Cod, 118;
    on the Carolina coast, 323;
    in the Chesapeake, 260.

  Pistoles (coin), 230.

  Pitkin, _Civil and Political History of the United States_, 613.

  Pitt, Wm., _A Review of Mr. Pitt’s Administration_, 616;
    his influence on the French war, 520;
    rehabilitates  provincial officers in rank, 521;
    sends Amherst to take Louisbourg, 521;
    on Amherst’s delays, 602;
    his plan of campaign (1759) criticised, 601;
    his letter to the governors, 601;
    to Amherst, 601;
    on the campaign of 1760, 608;
    his rise to power, 596;
    recalls Loudon, 596.

  Pittman, Philip, _European Settlements on the Mississippi_, 47, 71.

  Pittsburg, named by Forbes, 530;
    plan of fort, 532;
    threatened (1759), 535.
    _See_ Fort Duquesne.

  Pittsfield (Mass.), 128, 187.

  Placentia (Newfoundland), 409.

  Plains of Abraham. _See_ Quebec.

  Plaisted, Ichabod, autog., 425.

  Plymouth Colony, 88; annexed to Massachusetts, 89;
    records, printed, cost of, 167.

  Point Leveé (Quebec), 543.

  Point-aux-Trembles, 552.

  Poirier, Pascal, 457.

  _Politique danois, Le_, 574.

  Pollard, Benj., his portrait, 137.

  Pollock, Colonel, 298.

  Pomeroy, Seth, 579;
    his journal of the Lake George campaign (1755), 502, 585;
    letter, 585;
    his account of the fight of July 8, 585;
    journal of the siege of Louisbourg, 437;
    his letter, 437.

  Pont le Roy, 525.

  Pontbriand, Bishop, _Jugement sur le Campagne de 1759_, 605;
    _Lettres_, 605.

  Pontchartrain, 18.

  Pontchartrain, Fort (Detroit), 566.

  Pontchartrain, Lake, 22, 41.

  Pontiac meets Rogers, 559.

  Poole, R. Lane, _Huguenots of the Dispersion_, 349.

  Poontoosuck (Pittsfield, Mass.), 145, 187.

  Pope, F. L., 177.

  Popple, Henry, _Map of British Empire in America_, 81, 235, 474;
    the French edition, 235;
    map of New England, 134;
    map of Lake Champlain and vicinity, 486;
    map of the St. Lawrence River, 614;
    his view of Quebec, 488.

  Porcher, F. A., 355.

  Port Royal (Carolina), 289, 307, 375.
    _See_ Beaufort.

  Port Royal (Nova Scotia, _later called_ Annapolis) surrendered (1670),
        476;
    attacked (1707) by March, 106, 408, 421;
    expedition to (1709), 107;
    taken by Nicholson (1710), 108, 408, 423;
    articles of capitulation, 408;
    English authorities, 424;
    _Journal of an Expedition_, 423;
    documents, 408;
    French authorities, 423;
    defined by the treaty of Utrecht, 478;
    becomes Annapolis Royal, 408, maps (Bellin), 428.

  Portages between the lakes and the Mississippi Valley, 7, 71, 570;
    shown on Colden’s map, 491;
    accounts of, 492.

  Porter, John, 296.

  Porter, Noah, _Bishop Berkeley_, 140.

  Post, C. F., sent to the Ohio Indians, 530;
    his _Second Journal_, 575, 599.

  Post office in the colonies, 267.

  Postlethwayt, _Dictionary of Commerce_, 235.

  Potash, 225.

  Potato introduced, 119.

  Potherie, La, _Histoire de l’Amérique_, 81.

  Potomac Company, 271.

  Potomac River, maps of, 274, 276, 277.

  Pottawatomies, 564.

  Potter, C. E., _Military History of New Hampshire_, 438, 584.

  Potter, E. R., on Rhode Island paper money, 170;
    _French Settlements in Rhode Island_, 98.

  Pouchot, on Braddock’s defeat, 580;
    his map, 85;
    _Mémoires sur la dernière Guerre_, 85, 616;
    English translation edited by Hough, 616;
    at Niagara, 505;
    on the siege of Niagara, 601;
    rebuilds Niagara, 534;
    surrenders it, 536;
    plan of attack on Fort Lévis, 609;
    surrenders Fort Lévis, 555.

  Poughkeepsie, 237.

  Poullin de Lumina, _Histoire de la Guerre_, 616, 617.

  Poussin, G. T., _De la puissance Américaine_, 51, 69.

  Povey, Thomas, 103.

  Powhatan seat (mansion), 275.

  Pownall, John, 83.

  Pownall, Thomas, _Administration of the Colonies_, 69, 565;
    _Topographical Description of North America_, 69, 565;
    at the Albany Congress, 1754, 613;
    governor of Massachusetts, 153;
    portraits, 153;
    letter books, 153;
    governor of New Jersey, 222;
    plan for barrier colonies, 613;
    _Proposals for securing the Friendship of the Five Nations_, 590;
    reissues Evans’s map, 85, 565;
    view of Boston, 108;
    treaty with Indians, 471.

  Pownall, Fort, 183.

  Prairie du Rôcher, 53.

  Preble, G. H., notes on early ship-building, 437.

  Preble, Major Jed, brings off Acadians, 461.

  Presbyterianism, histories of, 132;
    in Pennsylvania, 247;
    in Virginia, 267, 282.

  Prescott, Wm. H., 621.

  _Present State of Louisiana_, 73.

  Présentation, La, plan of, 3.

  Presque Isle (Lake Erie), 492, 535.

  Press, freedom of, established by the Zenger trial, 199.

  Prideaux, his instructions for the Niagara campaign, 601;
    sent against Niagara (1759), 533;
    killed, 535.

  Prince, Thomas, 121, 474;
    _Christian History_, 135;
    _Chronological History of New England_, 137, 163;
    his other publications, 137;
    and the D’Anville fleet, 147;
    and the Great Awakening, 135;
    his library, 121, 164;
    portraits, 122;
    prints _Memoirs of Roger Clap_, 137;
    sermon on the Louisbourg victory, 438.

  Prince Papers (Plymouth Colony), 166.

  Princeton College, 231, 247;
    _Account of_, 247;
    _Princeton Book_, 247.

  Printing in the middle colonies, 223;
    forbidden in Virginia, 264;
    presses to be licensed, 195.

  Prisoners, exchanges of (1713), 110.

  Pritt, J., _Mirror of Olden Time Border-Life_, 579.

  Privateers of Boston, 144.

  _Proposals for Uniting the English Colonies_, 596.

  _Publick Occurrences_, 90.

  Puellin de Lumina, _Guerre contre les Anglois_, 574.

  Pulteney, Wm. (Earl of Bath), perhaps author of _Letter Addressed to
        two Great Men_, 615;
    _Thoughts on the Present State of Affairs_, 613.

  Punshon, W. M., _Lectures_, 404.

  Purry, I. P., _Mémoire_, 347;
    description of Carolina, 348;
    _Proposals_, 348.

  Purrysbourg, 348, 373, 375, 379.

  Putnam, Israel, captured (1758), 527;
    at Lake George, 503;
    his partisan exploits, 593;
    his scouts (1756), 513.

  Putnam, Rufus, his _Journal_, 594.

  Pyrlæus, Christopher, his MS. on the Indians, 246.


  Quakers, make affirmations, 211;
    smugglers, 229;
    bibliography of, 243;
    on defensive war, 243;
    _Several Conferences between the Quakers and the Six Nations_
        (1756), 575;
    in North Carolina, 287, 294;
    _A True and Impartial State_, 582;
    Parkman’s view of the authorities on this quarrel, 582;
    made obnoxious in the _Brief State_, 582;
    _An Answer_, 582;
    _A Brief View_, 582;
    _État Présent_, 582;
    defended in _An Humble Apology_, 582.

  Quarry, Colonel Robt., 104, 210, 218.

  Quatrefage, M. de, on Moncacht-Apé, 77.

  Quebec, attacked by Phips, 90;
    De Lery’s report on the fortifications, 488;
    Montcalm at, 540;
    the French camp, 540;
    the English fleet approaches (1759), 540;
    fire-ships, 540, 544;
    plans of the siege, 83, 542, 543, 549, 604;
    views of the town, 488, 542, 549;
    rude plan of the town, 543;
    length of the conflict on the Plains of Abraham, 549;
    captured by Wolfe, 58;
    held by Murray, 550, 551;
    French ships run the batteries, 551;
    threatened by Lévis, 552; map of the vicinity, 552;
    plan of the town (1763), 553;
    attacked by Lévis, 553 (_see_ Ste. Foy);
    authorities on the siege of 1759: _Memoirs of a French Officer_,
        604;
    _Dialogue in Hades_, 604;
    English printed authorities, 606;
    French, 607;
    forces engaged, 607;
    council of war held by Ramezay, 607;
    articles of capitulation, 607;
    the key to the defence of Canada, 608;
    journals of the siege, French and English, 603, 604, 605;
    letters on, 604;
    monument to Wolfe and Montcalm, 605;
    Literary and Historical Society of, 616;
    _Mémoires sur le Canada_, 616.
    _See_ Montcalm _and_ Wolfe.

  Queen Anne’s war (1702, etc.), 420.

  Querdisien-Trémais, 58.

  Quidor, 203.

  Quincy, Josiah, the elder, 149.

  Quincy, Josiah (d. 1864), _History of Harvard University_, 157;
    _Grahame Vindicated_, 621;
    his view of the Mathers, 157, 621;
    republishes Grahame’s _History_, 621.

  Quinipissas, 18.

  Quint, A. H., on Cotton Mather, 157.


  Raffeix, his map, 79.

  Raikes’s _Honorable Artillery Company of London_, 456.

  Raleigh, Sir Walter, story of his being in Georgia, 395.

  Ramage, B. J., _Local Government, etc., in South Carolina_, 355.

  Rameau, E., _Une Colonie Féodale_, 424;
    portrait, 619;
    _La France aux Colonies_, 463;
    on Cadillac, 560;
    _Notes sur Détroit_, 560;
    _La Race française en Canada_, 600.

  Ramezay at the battle of Minas, 449;
    in Quebec, 540;
    his council of war, 607;
    _Mémoire_, 607.

  Ramsay, David, _South Carolina_, 355;
    _Soil, Climate, etc., of South Carolina_, 355.

  Randall, O. E., _Chesterfield_, N. H., 179.

  Randolph, E., on William and Mary College, 278.

  Rapidan River, 274;
    map, 277.

  Rappahannock River, 274;
    map, 276, 277.

  Raritan River, 254.

  Rasle, Sebastian, letter to Shute, 118;
    his warnings, 122;
    attempts to seize, 430;
    alleged letters, 430;
    killed, 430;
    his scalp in Boston, 127;
    diverse French and English accounts, 430;
    letters edited by T. M. Harris, 431;
    lives of, 431;
    his character, 431.

  Ratzer, Bernard, map of New York and New Jersey boundary (1769), 238.

  Raudin, his map, 79.

  Rawson, Grindall, 420.

  Ray, F. M., 597.

  Raynal, G. T., _Histoire Philosophique_, 456;
    on the Acadians, 457, 458.

  Raystown, 529.

  Rea, Caleb, _Journal_, 597.

  Reading, John, 219, 221, 222.

  Reck, P. G. F. von, 374;
    _Nachricht_, 395.

  Red River, explored by Bienville, 22;
    (Riv. Rouge), 66.

  Redemptioners, 261.

  Reed, W. B., on the Acadians in Pennsylvania, 462;
    _Contributions to American History_, 462.

  Reichel, W. C., on the Moravians, 246;
    on Indian names, 246;
    edits Heckewelder’s _Indian Nations_, 583;
    _Memorials of the Moravian Church_, 583.

  Reichell, L. T., _Moravians in North Carolina_, 348.

  Religion, intolerance in, 230.

  Rémonville, Sieur de, 14;
    memoir, 73.

  Renault (Renaud), 52.

  Reveillaud, E., _Histoire du Canada_, 619.

  _Revue d’Anthropologie_, 77.

  _Revue Canadienne_, 549.

  _Revue Contemporaine_, 79.

  Reynolds, John, 390.

  Reynolds, Sir Joshua, his portraits of Amherst, 531.

  Rhett, Wm. (the elder), dies, 332.

  Rhett, Colonel Wm., 317.

  Rhode Island, her heterogeneous population, 102;
    and the Port Royal expedition, 107;
    her militia, 110;
    Governor Cranston, 110, 129;
    Dudley’s enmity, 111;
    act against Romanists, 124;
    in Popple’s map, 134;
    Callender’s _Century Sermon_, 17;
    ejects Governor Jenckes, 141;
    Wm. Wanton, governor, 141;
    John Wanton, governor, 141;
    Dean Berkeley in, 141;
    James Franklin in, 141;
    in the war with Spain, 142;
    at the siege of Louisbourg, 146, 410;
    fear of D’Anville, 147;
    rejects the Albany plan (1754), 151, 613;
    Sunday in, 153;
    Hannah Adams on her history, 160;
    authorities on, 163;
    claim of the governor of Massachusetts to command her militia, 164;
    validity of acts, 164;
    _Colonial Records_, 166, 617;
    pirates and privateers, 111, 166;
    reckless in issuing paper money, 129, 166, 171, 172;
    financial history, 170;
    _Money the sinews of trade_, 171;
    fac-simile of her twelve-pence bill, 172;
    her arms, 172, 173;
    her three-shillings bill, 173;
    failed to use the Louisbourg payment to help her bills, 176;
    boundary disputes with Massachusetts, 180, 232;
    Chalmers’s papers on, 354.

  _Rhode Island Gazette_, 141.

  Ribault in Georgia, 357.

  Rice, J. H., 578.

  Rice, John L., 178.

  Rice, Nath., 301, 303.

  Richards, T. A., 527.

  Richardson, C. F., and H. A. Clark, _College Book_, 102, 278.

  Richebourg, Claude Philippe de, 265;
    on the Natchez war, 68.

  Richmond, Fort, 181.

  Richmond, portraits of some people of, 268.

  Rickson, Colonel, 602.

  Rider, S. S., 612;
    _Bills of Credit_, 170.

  Ridgley, David, 271.

  Ridley, Gloucester, 400.

  Rigaud’s attack on Fort William Henry, 513.

  Rigaudière, plan of siege of Louisbourg (1745), 439.

  Rigg, James H., _Relations of Wesley and of Wesleyan Methodism_, 403;
    _Living Wesley_, 403.

  Ritter, Abraham, _Moravian Church in Philadelphia_, 246.

  Rivers, W. J., “The Carolinas”, 285;
    on the expedition against St. Augustine (1740), 350;
    _Sketch of the History of South Carolina_, 356;
    _Chapter in the Early History_, 356.

  Rivière-aux-Bœufs. _See_ French Creek.

  Rix dollar, 229.

  Robbins, Chandler, _Second Church in Boston_, 157.

  Roberts, _History of Florida_, 39.

  Robin, C. C., _Nouveau Voyage_, 284.

  Robinson, Beverley, and Morrison, Malcom, 233.

  Robinson, Pickering, 391.

  Robinson, Sir Thomas, urges resistance to French encroachments, 573.

  Robjohns, Sydney, 606.

  Rochefoucauld-Liancourt, _Voyage_, 284.

  Rocky Mountains discovered, 567.

  Rocque, Jean, 450.

  Rocque, Mary Ann, _Set of Plans_, 444.

  Rogerenes, 112.

  Rogers, Robt., 186;
    his scouts (1756), 508, 513;
    report of his capture, 520;
    with Abercrombie, 521;
    attacks Langy, 522;
    opposes Marin, 527;
    his expedition against the St. Francis Indians, 540, 602;
    portrait, 558;
    sent to receive surrender of Detroit, 559, 610;
    meets Pontiac, 559, 610;
    at Fort William Henry, 585;
    his reports, 592;
    his _Journals_, 592, 610;
    editions of, 592;
    edited by Hough, 527;
    proposed memoir, 592;
    his atrocities, 593;
    other accounts of his scouts, 593;
    his defeat (1758), 596;
    orderly book, 598;
    authorities on his fight with Marin, 598;
    _Concise Account of North America_, 610, 616.

  Rollo, Lord, 555.

  Rolof Johnston’s kill, 237.

  Romana, Cape, 337.

  Romer, Wolfgang, 108.

  Rosalie, Fort, map of, 47.

  Roubaud (Jesuit), his letter on Montcalm’s attack on Fort William
        Henry, 594;
    his “Deplorable Case”, 594.

  Rouge, Sieur le, his map, 83.

  Rous, John, 146, 436;
    at Louisbourg, 437;
    autog., 437;
    his career, 438;
    at St. John, 452.

  Rouse, Wm., 423.

  Rouville, Hertel de, 105.

  Rowan, Matthew, 303.

  Rowlandson, Mrs., _Narrative_, 185.

  Royal African Company, 328.

  Royal Americans (soldiers), 559.

  Royce, C. C., 563.

  Ruffin, Edmund, 275.

  Ruggles, Timothy, at Lake George, 504.

  Rundle, Thos., 400.

  Rupp, I. D., _Names of Germans_, etc., 247;
    his local histories, 249;
    _Early History of Western Pennsylvania_, 572, 573.

  Russel, Wm., 391.

  _Russell’s Magazine_, 344.

  Russell, Chamber, 450.

  Russell, Wm., _History of America_, 618;
    _History of Modern Europe_, 618.

  Rutgers College, 230.

  Rutland, attacked by Indians, 430.

  Ryswick, peace of, 96, 407, 476, 483.


  Sabbath-day Point (Lake George), 526.

  Sabine, Lorenzo, on Robert Rogers, 593;
    address on Wolfe’s victory, 603.

  Sacks, 564.

  Sackville Papers, 603.

  Sagadahock country, disputed bounds of, 96;
    truce at, 420.

  Saguenay River, map, 614.

  Sainsbury, W. N., 335;
    _Report of the Department Keeper of the Public Records_, 336.

  St. André, massacre, 68.
    _See_ Natchez.

  St. Andrews, Fort (Cumberland Island), 375.

  St. Augustin (near Quebec), 552.

  St. Augustine, 375, 379;
    attacked, 318, 381;
    Spaniards at, 358;
    plans and maps, 381, 382, 383;
    described, 384;
    _Impartial Account of the Expedition under Oglethorpe_, 397;
    _Report of the Committee of Assembly of South Carolina_, 397;
    _The Spanish Hireling_, 397;
    _A Full Reply_, 397;
    _Both Sides of the Question_, 397;
    _The Hireling Artifice_, 398;
    Campbell’s _Journal_, 398.

  St. Bernard Bay, 40.

  St. Castin, Baron de, 424.

  St. Castin family, 430.

  St. Castin (the younger), seized in Boston, 430.

  St. Catharine’s Island (Georgia), 370, 375, 379.

  St. Christopher Island (Georgia), 372.

  St. Clair’s expedition (1791), 402.

  St. Clair, Sir John, account of, 578;
    portrait, 578.

  St. Denys, Juchereau, 25;
    his identity, 25;
    in Mexico, 29, 71;
    his goods seized, 30;
    on the Red River, 22;
    memoirs, 65.

  St. Francis Indians, 183;
    their village destroyed, 540.

  St. Genevieve, 55.

  St. George’s, Fort (Georgia), 382.

  St. George’s (Me.), conference with Indians at (1724), 430.

  St. Germain-en-Laye, treaty at (1632), 476.

  St. Jerome River, 28.
    _See_ Ouabache.

  St. John’s Indians, 434;
    treaty with (1760), 471.

  St. Joseph’s (Lake Michigan), 566.

  St. Joseph’s Bay, 35.

  St. Lawrence River, maps of, 542, 543, 557, 614.

  St. Louis, Fort, 66, 70.

  St. Louis, river, 28.
    _See_ Mississippi.

  St. Luc, De la Corne, 534;
    _Naufrage de l’Auguste_, 610.

  St. Lucia Island, 476.

  St. Mary River, 358.

  St. Mary, Straits of, map, 559.

  St. Mary’s (Md.), 260, 274.

  St. Mary’s (Nova Scotia), returned Acadians at, 463.

  St. Mary’s River (Md.), 277.

  St. Philip River, 28.
    _See_ Missouri.

  St. Philippe, village, 53.

  St. Pierre, island, 462.

  St. Pierre, Legardeur de, at Le Bœuf, 492;
    letter to Dinwiddie, 573.

  St. Regis Chapel bell, 186.

  St. Simon Island, 370;
    map of, 379;
    attacked by the Spanish, 386.

  St. Vincent, Earl, at Quebec, 543.

  Sainte-Foye, battle of, 552;
    plan of, 608;
    accounts of, 608;
    eye-witnesses of, 608;
    monument, 609.

  Sale, John, 433.

  Salisbury, E. E., _Family Memorials_, 168.

  Salmon, Thomas, _History of all Nations_, 234;
    _Modern Gazetteer_, 234;
    _Geographical and Historical Grammar_, 159;
    _Modern History_, 394.

  Salt-making, 226.

  Saltonstall, Gurdon, 111, 424;
    his house, 102;
    in Boston, 107;
    portrait, 112;
    autog., 112;
    dies, 143.

  Salzburgers in Georgia, 374;
    authorities, 395;
    _Journals of Von Reck and Bolzius_, 395;
    _Urlsperger Tracts_, 395.

  Sandford, Robt., 288;
    explores South Carolina coast, 305;
    _Relation of his Voyage_, 306.

  Sandusky, French at, 566.

  Sandy Hook, 254.

  Sanson, Nic., his maps, 79.

  Santa Rosa Island, 39.

  Sapelo Island, 370.

  Saratoga, fort at, destroyed by the French, 487;
    called Fort St. Frederick, 487;
    site of, 487;
    lake, 236.

  Sargent, Hon. Daniel, 436.

  Sargent, Henry, 163.

  Sargent, L. M., on the Huguenots, 98;
    _Dealings with the Dead_, 98.

  Sargent, W., _Diary_, 402.

  Sargent, Winthrop, _Braddock’s Expedition_, 575.

  Saunders, Admiral, at Quebec, 546;
    sails, 550.

  Saunders, Romulus, 74.

  Saunders, W. L., 294;
    _North Carolina_, 304.

  Saunderson, _Charlestown, N. H._, 179.

  Saussier, 54.

  Sauvolle, 17;
    _Journal_, 72.

  Savage, Jas., on C. Mather, 157;
    the antiquary, 337, 621.

  Savannah laid out, 367;
    bird’s-eye view of, 368;
    situation of, 369, 375, 379;
    lots granted, 372;
    map of the county of Savannah from the _Urlsperger Tracts_, 373;
    view of, 394;
    De Brahm’s plan of, 401;
    chart of Savannah Sound, 401.

  Savile, Samuel, 168.

  Saw-mills, 223.

  Sayle, Sir Wm., governor of Carolina, 293, 307;
    dies, 308.

  Scaife, W. B., on the bounds of Maryland and Pennsylvania, 273.

  Schaeffer Eugene, translates Zinzendorf’s diaries, 246.

  Scharf, J. Thomas, _History of Philadelphia_ (with Westcott), 249;
    _Chronicles of Baltimore_, 271;
    _History of Baltimore City_, 272;
    _History of Maryland_, 272.

  Scheffer, J. G., De Hoop, on the Mennonites in Pennsylvania, 246.

  Schele de Vere, on a Protestant Convent, 246.

  Schenectady attacked (1690), 190;
    fort at, plans of, 520;
    fight near (1748), 569.

  Schlatter, Michael, his travels in Pennsylvania, 244.

  Schoolcraft, _Notes on the Iroquois_, 587.

  Schooner, origin of, 177.

  Schrübers, J. G., map on Acadia, 482.

  Schuyler, Arent, 225;
    his estate shown on map, 254.

  Schuyler, G. W., _Colonial New York_, 560.

  Schuyler, John, 186.

  Schuyler, John (son of Arent), 225.

  Schuyler, Peter, 7;
    map of his patent, 236;
    holds Magdalen Island, 237;
    letters, 241.

  Schuyler, Philip, 560;
    and the Moquas, 107.

  Schweinitz, _David Zeisberger_, 245, 582.

  Schwenckfeld, 217.

  _Scot in British North America_, 423.

  Scotch-Irish, 118.

  Scotch in Georgia, 376;
    to settle near Lake George, 241;
    in Pennsylvania, 217.

  Scott, E. G., _Development of Constitutional Liberty_, 119, 166, 247,
      284.

  Scott, J. M., 179.

  Scottow, Joshua, _Old Men’s Tears_, 92.

  Scudder, H. E., _Men and Manners_, 169;
    edits _American Commonwealths_, 271.

  Scull, G. D., on the corporation for propagating the gospel, 169;
    account of Daniel Coxe, 335;
    edits the Montresor Journals, 594.

  Scull, N. (with Heap, G.), map of Philadelphia, 240;
    map of Pennsylvania, 240;
    assists Evans in his map, 565.

  Scutter, M., his maps, 234.

  Sea of the West, 8.

  Seabury, S., 233.

  Searing, Dr. James, 597.

  Sedgwick, Theo., _Edw. Livingston_, 241.

  Seguenot, Francis, 186.

  Semple, _Baptists_, 282.

  Senecas, 568;
    in Ohio, 484, 497.

  Senex, John, map of Louisiana, 81;
    _Map of Virginia_, 273;
    based on Smith’s, 273.

  Sérigny, 23, 80.

  Seventh-day Baptists, 112.

  Seville, treaty of, 359.

  Sewall, Jos., 126.

  Sewall, Samuel, _Selling of Joseph_, 99;
    portrait, 100;
    his relations with the Mathers, 100;
    his political tribulations, 113;
    and Shute, 116;
    riding the circuit, 120;
    on the _Kennebec Indians_, 122;
    his character, 99;
    drawn by Dr. Ellis, 167;
    his diary, 167, 168;
    used by historians, 167, 168;
    bought for Massachusetts Historical Society, 167;
    printed, 167;
    his letter-books, 167;
    his autog., 425;
    his family, 168.

  Sewall, Stephen, dies, 155.

  Seward, Wm., _Journal_, 244.

  Seymour, John, governor of Maryland, 260.

  Shaftsbury, Earl of, 291.

  Shaftsbury papers, 306, 356;
    account of them by Horwood, 356.

  Shaler, N. S., _Kentucky_, 565.

  Shamokin, 270.

  Shanapins, 497.

  Shapley, Nicholas, his map of Carolina coast, 337.

  Sharpe, Horatio, on Braddock’s council, 578;
    his letter on Braddock’s defeat, 579;
    governor of Maryland, 261;
    portrait, 262.

  Shawanoes, expedition against, 270, 589;
    treaty with (1757), 596.
    See Shawnees.

  Shawnees, 563, 564;
    in the Scioto and Miami Valleys, 563;
    history of, 564.

  Shea, John G., _Early Voyages up and down the Mississippi_, 67;
    reprints _Relation du Voyage_, 68;
    _Discovery and Exploration of the Mississippi Valley_, 72;
    on Puritanism in New England, 162;
    _Catholic Question in New England_, 186;
    edits Miller’s New York, 253;
    _Early Southern Tracts_, 272;
    on Wesley, 403;
    edits _Relation sur la bataille du Malangueulé_, 498, 580;
    on Beaujeu, 498;
    _Relation du Canada_ (1696), 561;
    notes on Washington’s diary, 573;
    _Registres des Baptesmes au Fort Duquesne_, 580.

  Sheffield (Mass.), settled, 127.

  Sheffield, _Privateersmen of Newport_, 142.

  _Shelburne Papers_, 164, 241, 245, 356, 549, 612, 613, 615.

  Sheldon, Mrs., _Early History of Michigan_, 560.

  Shenandoah River, 274.

  Sherburn, Jos., 436.

  Ship Island, 42
    (Isles-aux-Vaisseaus), 66.

  Shipbuilding, 223.

  Shippen, Edw., mayor of Philadelphia, 209;
    his house in Philadelphia, 258.

  Shippen Papers, 243, 578.

  Ships, English, of the seventeenth century, 136;
    earliest man-of-war built in America, 136;
    built for the royal navy in America, 136;
    style of (1732), 488.

  Ships-of-the-line, 136.

  Shingoes, town, 497.

  Shirley, John, letters, 583.

  Shirley, J. M., _Jurisprudence in New Hampshire_, 186.

  Shirley, Wm., governor of Massachusetts, 143;
    portrait, 142;
    his character, 144;
    defamed by Douglass, 159, 439;
    treaties with Indians, 145;
    plans eastern defences, 149;
    returns to Boston (1753), 150;
    his marriage, 150;
    plans defences to the westward, 150;
    confers with Franklin, 150;
    commissioned to raise a regiment, 150;
    on the Kennebec, 151;
    goes to confer with Braddock 151, 495;
    goes to England, 152;
    correspondence with Governor Wentworth, 436;
    with Pepperrell, 436;
    organizes the Louisbourg expedition (1745), 146, 435;
    letters, 437;
    _Letter to Duke of Newcastle_, 437;
    his speech on his return from the siege, 448;
    his portrait given to Boston, 448;
    commissioner to consider the bounds of Acadia, 475;
    a winter attack upon Crown Point, 487, 489;
    his son with Braddock, is killed, 495, 500;
    his son’s letters, 578;
    succeeds Braddock in general command, 152, 501;
    hears news of Braddock’s defeat, 501;
    pushes for Oswego, 501;
    abandons the campaign, 502;
    quarrels with Johnson, 502, 585;
    plans a new campaign, 502;
    still aiming at Niagara (1756), 506;
    cabal against him, 507;
    superseded, 508;
    his campaign of 1755 defended, 508;
    Franklin’s opinion, 508;
    Loudon countermands his Niagara plans, 510;
    _Memoirs of the Principal Transactions_, 568;
    letters, 568;
    _Account of the French Settlements_, 568;
    correspondence with Stoddard (1746), 569;
    his instructions for the Niagara campaign, 583;
    his letters on it, 583;
    _The Conduct of Shirley briefly stated_, 583;
    council of war decides to abandon the Niagara campaign, 583;
    defends Livingston, 586;
    _Conduct of Major-General Shirley_, 587;
    assemblesa congress of governors (Dec., 1755), 589;
    proposes a winter attack on Ticonderoga, 589;
    explains his views, 589;
    correspondence with Loudon, 591;
    understands the value of Oswego, 591;
    selects John Winslow for the Crown Point expedition, 591;
    on a plan of union, 612;
    instigates the congress of 1754, 612;
    urges acceptance of the plan of the Albany congress, 613;
    his own comments, 613;
    confers with Franklin, 613.

  Shirley, Fort (Mass.), 187;
    (Me.), 181.

  “Shirley galley”, 437.

  Shirley’s war, 434.

  Short, Richard, 549.

  Shrewsbury (N. J.), iron works, 224.

  Shute, Chaplain, 597.

  Shute, Colonel Samuel, 115;
    governor of Massachusetts, 115;
    goes to England, 123, 124, 129;
    meets the Indians (1717), 424;
    letter to Rasle, 430;
    correspondence with Wentworth, 166;
    his _Memorial_, 124;
    correspondence with Vaudreuil, 430;
    declares war against the Indians (1722), 430.

  Sibley, J. L., on Cotton Mather, 157;
    carries Chalmers’s _Introduction_ through the press, 353.

  Sicily Island (Arkansas), 48.

  Silk industry in Georgia, 372, 387.

  Sillery, battle of. _See_ Sainte-Foye.

  Silver scheme in banking, 171, 173.

  Simms, J. R., _Trappers of New York_, 584;
    _Scoharie County_, 584;
    _Frontiersmen of New York_, 249, 584.

  Simms, W. G., on Charleston (S. C.), 315;
    _South Carolina_, 355.

  Simon, J., 107.

  Simons, N. W., 607.

  Sinclair, Sir John, 529.
    _See_ St. Clair.

  Six Nations and the Catawbas, 203;
    conference with them (1751), 204;
    (after 1713), 487;
    truce with the Cherokees, 567;
    conference at Albany (1745), 568.
    _See_ Five Nations.

  Skene, Alex., 325; dies, 332.

  Skidoway Island, 372.

  Slade, Wm., _Vermont State Papers_, 179.

  Slaughter, Philip, _Memorial of William Green_, 281;
    _Saint George’s Parish_, 282;
    _St. Mark’s Parish_, 282, 284;
    _Bristol Parish_, 282.

  Slavery in the middle colonies, 228;
    in Carolina, 309;
    permitted in Louisiana, 28, 36, 45.

  Sloops-of-war, 136.

  Sloper, Wm., 364.

  Sloughter, governor, arrives in New York, 190;
    calls a general assembly, 193;
    dies, 193.

  Small-pox, inoculation for, 120;
    literature of, 120.

  Smibert, the artist, 435.
    _See_ Smybert.

  Smiles, Samuel, _Huguenots_, 247.

  Smith, C. C., on the Huguenots, 98;
    “Wars on the Seaboard”, 407.

  Smith, Geo., on English Methodism and Wesley, 403.

  Smith, Colonel James, _Remarkable Occurrences_, 579;
    _Treatise of Indian War_, 579;
    sketch of, 579.

  Smith, Jos., _Bibliotheca Quakeristica_, 243.

  Smith, J. E. A., _Pittsfield_, 187.

  Smith, Paul, 307.

  Smith, Philip H., _Green Mountain Boys_, 179;
    _Acadia_, 460;
    controversy with Parkman, 460.

  Smith, Samuel, _Necessary Truth_, 243.

  Smith, Samuel (of Georgia), 364, 400; Sermon, 394;
    _Design of the Trustees of Georgia_, 394.

  Smith, Wm., _Connecticut Claims in Pennsylvania_, 180;
    the historian, 199;
    on the French enterprise, 571;
    said to have had a share in Livingston’s _Military Operations_, 587;
    account of the congress of 1754, 612;
    New York, 618;
    _Histoire de la Nouvelle York_, 618;
    autog., 618.
    _See_ Franklin, B.

  Smith, _British Dominions in America_, 618.

  Smollett, _England_, 606, 621;
    on Wolfe’s victory, 606.

  Smucker, Isaac, 565.

  Smuggling, 227, 228, 229;
    in New England, 138.

  Smybert, John, 140.
    _See_ Smibert.

  Smyth, J. F. D., _Travels_, 284;
  praised by John Randolph, 284.

  Smyth, Wm., on John Law, 76; _Lectures on Modern History_, 353.

  Snelling, Captain, 438.

  Snow, Captain, 578.

  Snow, a kind of vessel, 438.

  Snow-shoes, 183.

  Society for the propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts, 341;
    its history, 341;
    its MS. correspondence, 233.

  Society for the propagation of the Gospel in New England, 101.

  Sola bills, 388.

  _Some Considerations on the Consequences of the French Settling on the
      Mississippi_, 80.

  Somers (Conn.), 180.

  Sonmans, Peter, 218, 219.

  Sothel, Seth, 296, 313.

  Soto, papers on, 72.

  South Carolina, proprietary government, 305;
    Kiawah settled, 307;
    named Charlestown, 307;
    the Palatine, 308;
    first slaves, 309;
    population, 309, 310, 335;
    religious harmony, 309;
    Granville Palatine, 309
    struggle of the popular party against the fundamental constitutions,
        310, 312;
    laws, 310;
    landgraves and cassiques, 310, 311;
    different sets of the fundamental constitutions, 311, 312;
    popular demands, 314;
    rules of the proprietors, 315;
    map of Cooper and Ashley rivers, showing settlers’ names, 315;
    map of Carolina by Philip Lea, 315;
    Archdale, governor, 316;
    conditions of living (1700), 317;
    expedition against St. Augustine, 318;
    Episcopacy to be established, 319;
    act establishing religious worship, 320;
    dissenters, 320;
    the laws for Episcopacy annulled, 320;
    the proprietary charter threatened, 320;
    High-Church party fails, 320;
    peaceful times under Craven, 321;
    parish system, 321;
    war with the Yemassees, 321;
    the frontiers garrisoned, 322;
    end of proprietary rule, 323-327;
    issue of paper money, 323;
    cupidity of the proprietors, 324;
    struggles of the popular party, 325;
    war with Spain, 325;
    the people elect Moore governor, 326;
    the king commissions Francis Nicholson, 327;
    under royal government, 327;
    scheme of government, 328;
    Middleton’s rule, 329;
    intrigues to prevent French alliances with the Indians, 329;
    campaign against the Spaniards, 329;
    dispute about Fort King George, 330;
    slaves tampered with by the Spaniards, 331;
    negro insurrection, 331;
    immigration of Germans and Swiss, 331;
    war with Cherokees, 333;
    development of the people’s power, 333;
    essay on the sources of South Carolina history, 335;
    _Statutes at Large_, 336;
    descriptions of the country, 340;
    Wilson’s map, 340;
    Episcopacy in, 342;
    contemporary tracts, 342;
    French and Spanish invasion (1706), 344;
    tracts to induce German and Swiss immigration, 345;
    map of the campaigns of 1711-1715, 345, 346;
    Yamassee war (authorities), 347;
    laws, 347;
    records disappear, 347;
    tracts on the struggle with the proprietors, 347;
    _Liberty and Property Asserted_, 347;
    surrender of title, 347;
    German settlements, 348;
    tracts to induce Swiss immigration, 348;
    Presbyterians in, 348;
    Episcopacy in, 348;
    map showing parishes, 348, 351;
    Huguenots in, 349;
    Indian map of, 349;
    expedition against St. Augustine (1740), 350;
    _South Carolina Gazette_, 350;
    _South Carolina and American General Gazette_, 350;
    maps of, 350, 351;
    De Brahm’s MS. account, 350;
    names of proprietors, 352;
    Chalmers’s papers on, 352;
    Statutes at Large, 355;
    modern histories, 355; Ramsay’s, 355;
    Carroll’s _Historical Collection_, 355;
    Simms’s, 355;
    De Bow’s, 355;
    Historical Society, 355;
    their _Collections_, 355;
    abstracts of papers in State Paper Office, 355, 356;
    _Review of Documents and Records in the Archives of South Carolina_,
        356;
    _Topics in the History of South Carolina_, 356;
    absence of legislative records, 356;
    map of (1733), 365;
    shows Huguenot settlement, 365;
    westerly extension of, 365;
    north bounds of, 365;
    map from Urlsperger Tracts, 379.
    _See_ Charlestown.

  South Sea Scheme, 76, 77.

  Southack, Cyprian, his maps, 88, 106;
    _Coast Pilot_, 254.

  _Southern Lutheran_, 348.

  _Southern Quarterly Review_, 355.

  Southey, Robert, _Wesley_, 403;
    proposed life of Wolfe, 602.

  Souvolle, 19;
    left in Biloxi, 20;
    dies, 21.

  Spangenberg, Gottlieb, 374;
    _Account of Missions among the Indians_, 246;
    travels through Onondaga, 246.

  Sparhawk, N., 436.

  Sparks, Jared, 621;
    on Braddock’s march, 500, 576;
    as an editor, 572.

  Spaulding, Thos., _Life of Oglethorpe_, 394.

  Spencer, Edw., 271.

  Spikeman, Capt., 593.

  Spinning-schools, 119.

  Spiritu Sancto Bay, 81.

  Spotsilvania, 277.

  Spotswood, Alex., governor of Virginia, 265;
    conciliates the Indians, 265;
    his speeches, 266;
    portrait, 266;
    his arms, 266;
    removed, 267;
    made department postmaster-general, 267;
    dies, 267;
    his _Official Letters_, 281, 563;
    his character, 267, 281;
    his journey over the mountains, 563;
    known as “Tramontane Expedition”, 563;
    Knights of the Golden Horseshoe, 563;
    map of their route, 563;
    his family, 281;
    his letter-book, 345;
    urging the settlement of the Ohio Valley, 483;
    his marks in the Valley, 570.

  Sprague, W. B., 233;
    _American Pulpit_, 246.

  Stafford, Captain Henry, 437.

  Stamp Act (of 1755), 177;
    (of 1765), 227.

  Stanhope, Earl, on Methodism, 403.
    _See_ Mahon.

  Stanley, A. P., 597.

  Stanwix, General, builds a fort, 527, 528;
    at Duquesne, 533;
    on the Pennsylvania border, 595;
    at Pittsburgh, 600.

  Stanwix, Fort, plan of, 528;
    map of its vicinity, 528;
    its history, 528.

  Staple, _Providence_, 169.

  Staples, H. B., _Province Laws_, 167, 176.

  Stark, Caleb, _French War_, 592;
    _John Stark_, 592;
    Robert Rogers, 592, 593;
    his officers, 593.

  Stark, John, with Abercrombie, 522;
    at Lake George, 503;
    observations on Langdon’s map, 585.

  Staten Island, Huguenots of, 247;
    map of, 254.

  Steam-engine, first one in the colonies, 225.

  Stephen, Adam, 574.

  Stephens, Samuel, 289, 294.

  Stephens, Thomas, _Brief Account_, 398;
    _Hard Case_, 398.

  Stephens, Colonel Wm., 386;
    governor of Georgia, 387;
    _State of the Province of Georgia_, 395;
    _Journal_, 397, 398;
    dies, 397;
    records of Georgia (MS.), 400.

  Sternhold and Hopkins’s psalms, 126.

  Stevens, Abel, on Methodism, 403.

  Stevens, Henry (G. M. B.), _Books on New Hampshire_, 180;
    on Georgia records, 400;
    on the Dinwiddie Papers, 572;
    on Dieskau’s despatches, 589;
    on the Montcalm forgeries, 606.

  Stevens, Hugh, Sr., 179.

  Stevens, John, _Voyages and Travels_, 344.

  Stevens, J. A., on Pepperrell, 435;
    on New York coffee-houses, 249.

  Stevens, Captain Phineas, 183.

  Stevens, Simon, 597.

  Stevens, Wm. B., _Discourse_, 401;
    _History of Georgia_, 405;
    _Observations on Stevens’s History_, 405.

  Stewart, Andrew, on Moncacht-Apé, 77.

  Stewart, _Political Economy_, 76.

  Stickney, M. A., 594.

  Stillé, C. J., “Religious Tests in Provincial Pennsylvania”, 243.

  Stith, _Virginia_, 280.

  Stobo, Robert, plan of Duquesne, 498, 575;
    letters, 498;
    notice of, 498, 575;
    with Wolfe at Quebec, 546;
    _Memoirs_, 575.

  Stoddard, Amos, _Sketches of Louisiana_, 68.

  Stoddard, Captain, 185.

  Stoddard, Colonel John, 110, 188, 569.

  Stoddard, Jonathan, 128.

  Stokes, Anthony, _Constitution of the British Colonies_, 405.

  Stone, W. L., _Life and Times of Sir Wm. Johnson_, 584;
    on the Lake George campaign (1755), 584.

  Stoner, Nicholas, 584.

  Stony Point, 237.

  Story, Joseph, 621.

  Story, Thomas, his _Journal_, 243.

  Stoughton, Governor, correspondence with Frontenac, 420.

  Stoughton, John, plan of siege of Fort William Henry, 518.

  Stoughton, J. A., _Windsor Farms_, 518.

  Stoughton, Wm., lieutenant-governor of Massachusetts, 92;
    rules Massachusetts, 95;
    his character, 99;
    dies, 103.

  Streatfield, Thomas, 602.

  Strobel, P. A., _Salzburgers and their Descendants_, 396.

  Strong, M. M., _Territory of Wisconsin_, 568.

  Subercase, 476;
    attacks Newfoundland, 421;
    character of, 423.

  Suffield, Conn., 180.

  Sufflet de Berville, 610.

  Sugar Act, 155.

  Sugar cane in Louisiana, 51.

  Sunbury (Georgia), 401.

  Sullivan, James, on the Penobscots, 430.

  Sulte, Benj., _Histoire des Canadiens_, 619;
    _La Vérendrye_, 567;
    _Champlain et le Vérendrye_, 567;
    _Le Nom de Vérendrye_, 568.

  Sumner, W. G., _American Currency_, 176.

  Surgères, Chevalier de, 16, 18, 21.

  Surriage, Agnes, 152.

  Susane, _Ancienne Infanterie française_, 497.

  Susquehanna River, fort on, 80.

  _Susquehanna Title Stated_, 240.

  Susquehanna Valley lands, claimed by Connecticut, 180.

  Susquehannas, 484.

  Suze, treaty at (1629), 476.

  Swain, D. L., historical agent of North Carolina, 355.

  Swedes in Pennsylvania, 246.

  Sweet, J. D., 264.

  Swiss in Carolina, 331, 345, 347.

  Symmes, Thomas, _Lovewell Lamented_, 431, 432;
    _Historical Memoirs_, 431;
    _Original Account_, 431.


  Tache, E. P., 609.

  Taensas, 20, 66.

  Tailer, Wm., 408;
    lieutenant-governor of Massachusetts, 132;
    dies, 139;
    autog., 425.

  Tailfer, Patrick, _True and Historical Narrative of the Colony of
      Georgia_, 399, 401.

  _Tait’s Magazine_, 603.

  Talbot, John, 243.

  Talbot, Sir Wm., 338.

  Talcott, Jos., 143.

  Tamoroa, 53.

  Tanguay, Abbé, _Dictionnaire Généalogique_, 14, 186.

  Tassé, Jos., _Langlade_, 568, 580;
    _Canadiens de l’Ouest_, 568;
    on Piquet, 571;
    _Sur un Point d’Histoire_, 598.

  Taylor, A. W., _Indiana County, Pennsylvania_, 249.

  Taylor, H. O., _Constitutional Government_, 281.

  Taylor, John, 185.

  Taylor, _Wesley and Methodism_, 403.

  Teach, the pirate, captured, 266.

  Teedyuskung, king, 596.

  Temple and Sheldon, _Northfield_, 185.

  _Temple Bar_, 394.

  Temple, letters on Acadia, 476;
    order from Charles II., 476;
    to Captain Walker, 476;
    surrender of Acadia, 476.

  Texas occupied by the Spanish, 29;
    claimed by the French, 40;
    history of, by Yoakum, 69.

  Thacher, Oxenbridge, 156.

  Thackeray, W. M., _The Virginians_, 284.

  _The Eclipse_, 177.

  Thiers, on John Law, 77.

  Thomas, Gabriel, map of Pennsylvania, 239.

  Thomas, George, governor of Pennsylvania, 215, 437.

  Thomas, John, diary, 419.

  Thomas, _Jumonville_, 574;
    _Œuvres_, 574.

  Thomassy, R., _Géol. prat. de la Louisiane_, 22, 68.

  Thomaston, Me., 181.

  Thomlinson, John, correspondence, 180.

  Thompson, Jas., _Expedition against Quebec_, 604.

  Thompson, Thos., _Missionary Voyages_, 244.

  Thomson, Chas., _Alienation of the Delaware and Shawanese Indians_,
        245, 575;
    its map, 577;
    annotated by Governor Hamilton, 575;
    at Easton conference (1757), 596.

  Thornton, John, _Map of Virginia_, 273.

  Thorpe, Thos., _Catalogue of MSS._, 354.

  Three Rivers, 486.

  Thunderbolt Island, 372, 373.

  Thurloe, _State Papers_, 336.

  Ticonderoga, road to (1759), 485;
    attacked by Abercrombie (1758), 523;
    his defeat, 523;
    view of its ruins, 523;
    map of the attack, 524;
    called “Cheonderoga”, 524;
    other plans, 524, 525;
    accounts of the fort (1758), 525;
    its situation, 526;
    attacked by Amherst (1759), 536;
    abandoned, 536;
    plan of the fort, 537;
    described after its capture, 537;
    contemporary French map, 588;
    descriptions of defences, 597;
    authorities on Abercrombie’s attack, 597, 598;
    losses, 597;
    _Journal de l’Affaire du Canada_, 598.

  Tiddeman, Mark, map of New York harbor, 235.

  Tilden, _Poems_, 587.

  Timberlake, Henry, _Draught of the Cherokee Country_, 393;
    _Memoirs_, 393.

  Timlow, H. R., 248.

  Titcomb, Moses, 502.

  Tobacco in Maryland, 259;
    a legal tender, 261;
    in Virginia, 263, 265, 267, 280;
    the plants cut by mobs, 263;
    method of cultivating, 280;
    _Present State of Plantations_ (1709), 280;
    in North Carolina, 303.

  Tomachees, 70.

  Tomo-chi-chi, chief of the Yamacraws, 369;
    portrait, 371;
    in England, 376, 399;
    portrait in _Urlsperger Tracts_, 395;
    _Tombo-chi-qui, or the American Savage_, 399.

  Tonicas, 20, 66.

  Tonti, Henri de, 14, 18, 19, 21;
    on affairs at Detroit, 561;
    his remonstrance, 561;
    search for La Salle, 19;
    dies, 24.

  Toomer, J. W., 349.

  Toronto, 490.

  Torrey, H. W., 167.

  Toulouse, Fort, 29.

  Tourville, diary of Louisbourg (1758), 464.

  Tower, Thos., 364.

  Town system of New England, 169.

  Townsend, Chas., urges the seizure of the Ohio, 490;
    said to have arranged the English _Memorials_, 476.

  Townshend, General, succeeds Wolfe at Quebec, 550;
    his portrait, 607;
    criticised in a _Letter to an Hon. Brigadier-General_, 607;
    _A Refutation_, 607.

  Townshend, Penn, 102;
    autog., 425.

  Tracy, _Great Awakening_, 135.

  Trahan, Jos., recollections of Montcalm, 605.

  Travelling, 244.

  Treby, Sir Geo., 91.

  Trent, James, 212.

  Trent, Wm., 564.

  Trent, _Journal_, 563.

  Trenton, New Jersey, 212.

  Trescott, W. H., 356.

  Trinity River (La.), 40.

  Trott, Nicholas, 317, 318, 324, 341;
    charges against, 324;
    chief justice of South Carolina, 347;
    edits laws, 347;
    _Laws relating to Church and Clergy_, 347;
    dies, 332.

  Truck-houses in Maine, 182.

  Trumbull, Benj., Connecticut, 163;
    _Connecticut Title to Lands_, etc., 180.

  Trumbull, Jonathan, his papers, edited by C. Deane, 181.

  Trumbull, J. H., _First Essays at Banking_, 170.

  Tryon, Wm., governor of North Carolina, 305.

  Tuckerman, H. T., _America and her Commentators_, 141, 244.

  Tunkers. _See_ Dunkers.

  Turcotte, _L’île d’Orléans_, 543.

  Turell, _Benj. Colman_, 168.

  Turner, Dawson, his sale, 602.

  Turner, James, 85.

  Turtle Creek, 497.

  Tuscaroras commit murder (1711), 298;
    defeated by Barnwell, 298;
    by Moore, 299;
    join the Five Nations, 299, 583.

  Tuttle, C. W., 90.

  Twightwees, 491, 569.

  Tybee Island, 370, 373, 375.

  Tyerman, his _Whitefield_, 135, 404;
    _Life and Times of Wesley_, 403;
    _Oxford Methodists_, 404.

  Tyler, M. C., on Dean Berkeley, 141;
    on Cotton Mather, 157;
    on Sam. Sewall, 168.

  Tyng, Edw., at Louisbourg (1745), 410, 437;
    autog., 437;
    at Annapolis, 146.

  Tyng, S. H., on the Huguenots, 247.

  Tynte, Colonel Edw., governor of Carolina, 320.

  Tyrell papers, 459.

  Tyrrell, T. S. (Pichon), 467.

  Tyson, Job R., _Social and Intellectual State of Pennsylvania_, 248.


  Uchees, 370, 371.

  Uhden, H. F., _Geschichte der Congregationalisten_, 159.

  Ulster County Historical Society, 249.

  Universalists, beginning of, 135.

  Uring, Nath., _Travels_, 168.

  Urlin, _Wesley’s Place in Church History_, 403.

  Urlsperger, J. A., his _Tracts_, 395;
    edited by Samuel Urlsperger, 395;
    details of the publication, 395, 396;
    supplement called _Americanisches Ackerwerk Gottes_, 396.

  Urlsperger, Samuel, edits _Urlsperger Tracts_, 396;
    correspondence with Fresenius, 396.

  Urmstone, Rev. John, 297.

  Ursuline Nuns in New Orleans, 44;
    _Relation du Voyage_, 68.
    _See_ Hachard.

  Usher, John, 110.

  Utrecht, treaty of (1713), 6, 110, 409, 476, 484;
    its intended limits of Acadia a question, 475, 478, 479;
    _Actes, Mémoires_, etc., 475;
    considered by J. W. Gerard, 475.


  Valentine’s _Manual of the City of New York_, 252;
    his _History of New York_, 252.

  Vallette, Laudun, 35;
    _Relation de la Louisiane_, 39;
    reprinted as _Journal d’un Voyage_, etc., 39.

  Van Braam, 494.

  Van Cortlandt, Stephen, his manor, 237;
    family, 252.

  Van Dam, Rip, autog., 198;
    Zenger libel suit, 198;
    claims to act as governor of New York, 200;
    his grants of land, 236;
    likeness, 241.

  Van Keulen, _Paskart van Carolina_, 336.

  Van Rensselaer, Cortlandt, _Sermons_, 587, 602.

  Van Rensselaer, Kilian, map of his manor, 236;
    its addition, 237;
    other maps, 238.

  Van Rensselaer family, 252.

  Vander Aa, map of Virginia and Florida, 336.

  Vanderdussen, Colonel, 332.

  Vandyke, Elizabeth, her patent, 237.

  Vassal, John, 288.

  Vatar, Thomas, 254.

  Vauclain, 616.

  Vaudreuil, Philippe de, 5, 421;
    autog., 5, 424;
    dies, 6, 485.

  Vaudreuil, Pierre François, Marquis de, governor of Louisiana, 50;
    correspondence, 53;
    marquis (1755), 57;
    autog., 57, 530;
    letters, 73;
    letters captured, 430;
    succeeds Duquesne, 495;
    disputes with Montcalm, 530;
    at Quebec, 540, 548, 604;
    holds council of war, 550;
    retreats, 550;
    tries to return, 550;
    in France, 559;
    report on the Lake George battle (1755), 588;
    conferences (1756), 590;
    instructions for his conduct towards the English, 590;
    letters about siege of Oswego, 592;
    letters on Montcalm’s attack on Fort William Henry, 594;
    palliates the Fort William Henry massacre, 595;
    reproaches Montcalm after Abercrombie’s defeat, 598;
    on the siege of Niagara, 601;
    plan of the campaign (1759), 601;
    and the surrender by Ramezay, 607;
    letters, 608;
    on the battle of Sainte-Foy, 609;
    council of war in Montreal (1760), 609;
    defence in Paris, 610.

  Vaughan, George, 110.

  Vaughan, Sam., on Braddock’s march, 500;
    sketch of plan of Fort Pitt, 599.

  Vaughan, Wm., autog., 434;
    suggests the Louisbourg expedition, 434;
    account of, 434; letters, 436.

  Vaugondy, Robt. de, his map of North America, 83.

  Velasco, Luis de, 359.

  Venango, 11, 492, 566;
    fort at, 492;
    ruins of, 492;
    plan of, 492.

  Venning, W. M., 169.

  Vérendrye’s explorations, 78.

  Vérendrye, discovers Rocky Mountains, 8, 567;
    papers on, 567, 568;
    his maps, 568.

  Verelst, Harman, 397.

  Vergennes, _Mémoire Historique et Politique de la Louisiane_, 67;
    autog., 67.

  Vergor, Colonel de, 547.

  Vermont first settled, 127;
    constitution formed, 178;
    bibliography of, 179.

  Vernon, Admiral, 135.

  Vernon, James, 364.

  Vernon to Lord Lexington (1700), 476.

  Vernon River, 373.

  Verplanck family, 252.

  Verreau, Abbé, 589, 603;
    _Canadian Archives_, 594.

  Vertue, George, 80.

  Vesey, Wm., on Lovelace, 241.

  Vesour, Fernesic de, 518.

  Vetch, Colonel Samuel, 107, 124;
    and a union of the New England governors, 611;
    at Annapolis Royal, 408, 423;
    memoir, 419;
    autog., 422;
    _Voyage of the Sloop Mary_, 422;
    arrested, 423;
    accounts of, 423;
    governor of Port Royal, 423.

  Veulst, J., 107.

  Vial, Theo., _Law et le Système du Papier Monnaie_, 77.

  Vicars, Captain John, 591.

  “Vigilant”, French frigate, captured, 438.

  Viger, D. B., 605.

  Viger, Jacques, portrait, 619.

  Villebon, letter to Stoughton (1698), 476.

  Villiers, Chevalier de, 56.

  Villiers, Coulon de, 494.

  Villiers, journal, 574.

  Vincennes (town), 566;
    founded, 53;
    (Vinsennes), 53.

  Vinton, J. A., _Gyles Family_, 421.

  Virginia, history of, 259, 263;
    boundary disputes with Maryland, 263;
    Lord Culpepper, 263;
    Cohabitation Act, 263;
    “paper towns”, 263;
    becomes a royal province, 264;
    printing forbidden, 264;
    Williamsburg made the capital, 264;
    Spotswood, governor, 265;
    _Habeas Corpus_ introduced, 265;
    character of the people, 267;
    Presbyterians in, 267;
    morals of the people, 268;
    laws, 268, 278;
    part in the French war, 269;
    Dinwiddie as governor, 269;
    debt, 270;
    Loudon, governor, 270;
    maps of, 272;
    map (1738), 274;
    limits under the charters, 84, 275;
    _Report of Commissioners on the Bounds of Virginia and Maryland_,
        275;
    _Final Report_, 275;
    bounds upon North Carolina, 275;
    early mansion houses, 275;
    eastern peninsula of, 276;
    libraries in, 276;
    grant of the Northern Neck, 276;
    boundary disputes with Pennsylvania, 278;
    documentary records, 278;
    _Calendar of Virginia State Papers_, 278;
    Indians of, 278;
    successive seals, 278;
    Purvis collection of laws, 278;
    descriptions of the country, 278;
    map of colonial Virginia, 280;
    her single staple, 280;
    _Case of the Planters_, 280;
    histories of Virginia, 280;
    Doyle’s account, depends on documents in England, 280;
    spread of her population, 280;
    historical society, its new series of collections, 281;
    _Statutes at Large_, 281, 355;
    institutional history, 281;
    Valley of, and its illustrative literature, 281;
    contrasted with Massachusetts, 281;
    ecclesiasticism in, 282;
    parish registers, 282;
    Huguenots in, 282;
    society in, 282;
    dearth of letter-writers, 282;
    Presbyterians in, 282;
    Baptists in, 282;
    map of, 350;
    Chalmers’s papers on, 354;
    Acadians in, 462, 463;
    Fry and Jefferson’s map used by Evans, 565;
    John Henry’s map, 565;
    politics at the time of Braddock’s expedition, 580, 581;
    forts in the backwoods described, 581;
    Indian forays within after Braddock’s defeat, authorities upon, 581,
        583;
    movements against the Indians (1755-56), 589.

  _Virginia Gazette_, 268.

  Virginians remove to Carolina, 287.

  Vivier, Father, 53.

  Volney, C. F., _États-Unis_, 53.

  _Voyage au Canada, 1751-1761, par T. C. B._, 611.


  Wabash, French on the, 566.
    _See_ Ouabache.

  Wade, Captain Robert, 270.

  Wadsworth, Benj., 102;
    _King William Lamented_, 103;
    chosen president of Harvard College, 126;
    on the Indian war (1722), 430;
    his journal, 611.

  Wainwright, Captain, 408.

  Waite, _American State Papers_, 69.

  Waldo, Samuel, at Louisbourg, 410;
    letters, 436.

  Waldo patent (Me.), 181.

  Waldron, Richd., 139.

  Waldron, W. W., _Huguenots of Westchester_, 247.

  Walker, C. I., _Detroit_, 560.

  Walker, Dr., on Braddock’s advance, 578.

  Walker, Henderson, 296.

  Walker, Sir Hoveden, 108, 483;
    his fleet shattered, 6, 109, 561;
    his _Journal_, 109, 561;
    _Letter from an Old Whig_, 562;
    Dudley’s proclamation, 562.

  Walker, J. B., 593.

  Walker, N. McF., 79.

  Walker, Timothy, 579.

  Walking Purchase, 240.

  Walpole, Horace, _George the Second_, 467.

  Wallace, _Life of William Bradford_, 248.

  Waller, Henry, 581.

  Walsh, Robt., _Appeal from the Judgment of Great Britain_, 458, 462;
    on the Acadians, 458;
    defends Grahame, 620.

  Walton, Captain, 124.

  Walton, Colonel, 408.

  Wanton, John, 141.

  Wanton, Wm., 141.

  War of the Spanish Succession, 420.

  Warburton, Geo., _Conquest of Canada_, 467, 621.

  Ward, Ensign, 573.

  Ward, Ned, in Boston, 99;
    _Trip to New England_, 99.

  Warde, Admiral Geo., 602.

  Warde, General, 602.

  Warner, C. D., _Baddeck_, 459.

  Warner, Seth, journal, 602.

  Warren, Commodore Peter, correspondence with Pepperrell, 436;
    admiral, 176;
    at Louisbourg, 439;
    autog., 439;
    accounts of, 439;
    owns lands on the Mohawk, 502.

  Warren (Pa.), 570.

  Washburn, Emory, _Judicial History of Massachusetts_, 162.

  Washington, George, on the Ohio (1753-54), 12;
    given command of a district (1751) in Virginia, 268;
    his interest in Western lands, 271;
    at Le Bœuf, 492, 572;
    attacks Jumonville, 493;
    at Fort Necessity, 493;
    sent to build fort at the forks of the Ohio, 493;
    charged with assassinating Jumonville, 494;
    accompanies Braddock, 496;
    on Forbes’ expedition (1758), 529;
    his plan for a line of battle in a forest, 529;
    _Monuments of Washington’s Patriotism_, 529;
    Gist’s journal, 572;
    his French war letters revised by him, 572;
    his _Journal to the Commandant of the French on the Ohio_, 572;
    the London edition has a map, 572;
    reprints, 572;
    original MS., 573;
    diary (1789-91), 573;
    his journal of events (1752-54), captured by the French, 573;
    known only in a French version, 573;
    included in _Mémoire Contenant le Précis des Faits_, 573;
    translated as _The Conduct of the Late Ministry_, 573;
    two editions in New York, 573;
    appeared in London as _The Mystery Revealed_, 573;
    given in re-Englished form in Livingston’s _Review of Military
        Operations_, 573;
    route in 1754, 575;
    mentioned in Davies’s sermon, 578;
    letter on Braddock’s campaign, 578;
    commands borderers at Winchester, 581;
    map of this region, 581;
    on the Virginia border (1757), 595;
    his letters to Bouquet on the Duquesne expedition (1758), 599;
    his opinion of the Forbes and Braddock routes, 599.

  Waterford (Pennsylvania), 492.

  Waterhouse, Samuel, _Monster of Monsters_, 177.

  Waters, H. F., 337.

  Watkins, Lyman, 528, 599.

  Watson, James, 531.

  Watson, John, 273.

  Watson, John F., _Annals of Philadelphia_, 247, 249;
    _Annals of New York_, 252.

  Watson on Wesley, 403.

  Watson, _County of Essex, New York_, 522.

  Watts, Geo., 400.

  Watts, Isaac, 137;
    his hymns, 126;
    and Cotton Mather, 157;
    on Neal’s _New England_, 158.

  Watts, Samuel, 450.

  Wawayanda, 223.

  Webb, Colonel, succeeds Shirley, 508;
    at German Flats, 510;
    at Fort Edward, 515;
    fails to relieve Fort William Henry, 517;
    his correspondence, 594;
    his reports, 594.

  Webster, Richard, _Presbyterian Church_, 132, 282.

  Wedgwood, Julia, _John Wesley_, 403.

  Wedgwood, W. B., edits Horsmanden’s Journal, etc., 242.

  _Weekly Rehearsal_, 137.

  Weise, A. J., _History of Albany_, 249.

  Weiser, Conrad, 244;
    on the Indians, 563;
    journals, 563, 567, 574;
    on Indian characteristics, 566;
    letters, 566, 568, 569;
    sent to the Six Nations, 567.

  Weiss, Charles, on the Huguenots, 349.

  Weld, _Travels_, 284.

  Wells, Edw., _New Sett of Maps_, 79.

  Wells (Me.), Indian conference at, 420.

  Welsh, W. L., _Cutting through Hatteras Inlet_, 338.

  Welsh in Pennsylvania, 217, 246;
    authorities, 247.

  Wendell, Jacob, 128.

  Wentworth, Benning, 139, 436;
    autog., 139;
    governor of New Hampshire, 140;
    his house, 140;
    correspondence, 166, 436.

  Wentworth, John, governor of New Hampshire, 123;
    his genealogy, 123.

  Werner, E. A., _Civil List of New York_, 248.

  Wesley, Charles, in Georgia, 377.

  Wesley, John, in Georgia, 402;
    _Extract of his Journal_, 402;
    lives of, 403;
    his literary executors, 403;
    his journals, 403;
    _Narrative of a Remarkable Transaction_, 404;
    troubles with Oglethorpe, 404;
    portraits, 404.

  West, Joseph, governor of Carolina, 308.

  West, Samuel, 307.

  West Indies, expedition to, 165.

  West Point, 237.

  Westbrook, Colonel Thomas, 124, 430;
    raids on the Penobscots, 430;
    autog., 430;
    journal of his scout, 432.

  Westcott, Thompson, _Historic Buildings of Philadelphia_, 258;
    on Philadelphia history, 249.

  Western, Fort (Me.), 181.

  Western Reserve, 180.

  _Western Review_, 580.

  Westminster, treaty at (1655), 476.

  Weston, David, 159.

  Weston, Nathan, _Fort Western_, 181.

  Weston, P. C. T., _Documents_, 350.

  Westover papers, 275;
    mansion, 275;
    library, 276.

  Whale-fishery, 118.

  Wharton, Samuel, 564.

  Whately, Richard, on the Fairfaxes of Virginia, 268.

  Wheeler, J. H., _North Carolina_, 354;
    _Reminiscences and Memoirs_, 355.

  Wheeler, Sir Francis, 94.

  Wheildon, W. W., _Curiosities of History_, 434.

  White, Jos., 587.

  White, Christopher, his brick house in New Jersey, 258.

  White, Geo., _Statistics of Georgia_, 405;
    _Historical Collections_, 405.

  White, R. G., on old New York, 252.

  White, Bishop, _Memoir of the Protestant Episcopal Church_, 341.

  White men barbarized, 4.

  Whitefield, George, 133;
    his _Journals_, 135, 168, 244, 404;
    literature respecting, 135;
    in Virginia, 268;
    in Georgia, 380, 404;
    favors slavery in Georgia, 387;
    his portrait, 288;
    lives of, 404;
    opposed by Alex. Garden, 404;
    _Orphan House in Georgia_, 404;
    plan of the building, 404;
    _Letter to Governor Wright_, 404.

  Whitehead, W. A., on New Jersey boundaries, 238;
    _Eastern Boundary of New Jersey_, 238.

  Whitehead, on Wesley, 403.

  Whiting, Colonel, 408.

  Whiting, Nathan, at Lake George, 504, 594.

  Whitmore, W. H., 586;
    _Peter Pelham_, 141;
    _Massachusetts Civil List_, 162;
    assistant editor of Sewall papers, 167;
    on the Virginia Cavaliers, 268.

  Whittemore’s _Universalism_, 135.

  Whittier, J. G., on _Border War_ (1708), 184;
    edits Woolman’s _Journal_, 244.

  Whittlesey, Colonel Chas., _Early History of Cleveland_, 559;
    on the customs of the Indians, 563.

  Wier, Robt., 549.

  Wilberforce, _Protestant Episcopal Church in America_, 342.

  _Wilbraham Centennial_, 602.

  Wilhelm, L. W., _Local Institutions of Maryland_, 261, 271;
    _Sir George Calvert_, 271.

  Wilkes papers, 600.

  Wilkinson, Peter, _French and Indian Cruelty Exemplified_, 592.

  Wilks, Francis, 131.

  Willard, Jos., on the Huguenots, 98.

  Willard, Rev. Joseph, 430.

  Willard, Josiah, 165.

  Willard, Samuel, on Stoughton, 103.

  William, King, his death, 103;
    sermons on, 103;
    his influence in America, 103.

  William and Mary, accession of, 87.

  William and Mary College founded, 264, 265;
    a bequest to it from Spotswood, 267;
    authorities on, 278;
    _Present State of the College_ (1727), 278;
    _History of the College_ (1874), 278;
    oration by E. Randolph, 278;
    view of the college, 279;
    its successive buildings, 279.

  William Henry, Fort (Me.), 181.

  William Henry, Fort (N. Y.), 186.

  Williams, Alfred, 581.

  Williams, Catharine R., _Neutral French_, 459;
    account of, 459.

  Williams, Eleazer, 185;
    “the Lost Dauphin”, 185.

  Williams, Colonel Eph., 187;
    at Lake George, 503, 504;
    killed, 504;
    grave and monument, 587.

  Williams, Israel, 188;
    his papers. 188;
    his correspondence with Hutchinson, 188;
    efforts to found a college in Hampshire, 188;
    papers, 585;
    on Abercrombie’s campaign, 597.

  Williams, I., engraver, 528.

  Williams, John, 110;
    _Redeemed Captive_, various editions, 185;
    his house, 185;
    at Quebec, 604.

  Williams, Joseph, on Fort Halifax, 182.

  Williams, J. S., _The American Pioneer_, 526.

  Williams, Stephen W., 185.

  Williams, Surgeon Thomas, his letters (1755-56), 586.

  Williams, Colonel Wm., 145, 187;
    his papers, 188;
    on Abercrombie’s defeat, 597.

  Williams, Wm. Thorne, 405.

  Williams College, 188.

  Williamsburg, Va., account of, 264.

  Williamson, Hugh, _North Carolina_, 354.

  Williamson, Joseph, 183.

  Williamson, Peter, _Occasional Reflections_, 596;
    _Some Considerations_, 596;
    _Brief Account of the War_, 615.

  Williamson, W. D., _Orono_, 154;
    _Maine_, 163.

  Wills Creek (Cumberland), 493, 495.

  Wilmington, Lord, 301.

  Wilmington (N. C.), 303.

  Wilson, D., on Wolfe, 603.

  Wilson, Jas. Grant, edits Mrs. Grant’s _American Lady_, 247;
    on Samuel Vetch, 423.

  Wilson, John, _Genuine Narrative_, 450.

  Wilson, Samuel, _Carolina_, 340;
    its map, 340.

  Wilson, commissary, orderly-book, 602.

  Wimer, Jas., _Events in Indian History_, 580.

  Winchell, _Final Report of Geological Survey of Minnesota_, 78, 622.

  Wind-mills, 223.

  Winnebagoes, 564.

  Winnepeesaukee, Lake (Wenipisiocho), 134.

  Winslow, Edward, governor of Plymouth, portrait carried to Plymouth,
      456.

  Winslow, John, on the Kennebec, 151;
    plans Fort Halifax, 181;
    sent to Nova Scotia, 415;
    his speech to the Acadians, 417;
    journal of siege of Beauséjour, 419;
    sent against Beauséjour, 452, his journal, 452;
    autog., 455;
    portrait, 455;
    his sword, 456;
    his journal in Acadia, 458;
    printed, 419, 458;
    other papers, 458;
    to lead the expedition on Lake Champlain (1756), 506;
    his journal of the expedition against Crown Point, 591;
    his letter, 591;
    in England, 601.

  Winslow, Josiah (killed, 1724), 127.

  Winslow, Josiah (Governor), portrait carried to Plymouth, 456.

  Winsor, Justin, maps of Louisiana and the Mississippi, 79;
    “New England”, 87;
    writes _Report on Massachusetts Archives_, 165;
    sketch of block-house, 185;
    “Cartography and Bounds of the Middle Colonies”, 233;
    notes on the middle colonies, 240;
    on “Maryland and Virginia”, 259;
    “Sources of Carolina History”, 335;
    “Authorities on the French and Indian Wars of New England and
        Acadia”, 420;
    on maps and bounds of Acadia, 472;
    “Struggle for the Great Valleys of North America”, 483;
    “Intercolonial Congress and Plans of Union”, 611;
    “Cartography of the St. Lawrence and the Lakes”, 614;
    “General Contemporary Sources of the War, 1754-1760”, 615;
    “General Historians of the French and English Colonies”, 619;
    “Bibliography of the Northwest”, 621.

  Winthrop, Adam, 139.

  Winthrop, Fitz-John, 111;
    his advance on Montreal, 90;
    in England, 94.

  Winthrop, Prof. John, on earthquakes, 152.

  Winthrop, Wait, 103;
    autog., 425.

  Wisconsin, settled, 568.

  Wise, John, 422;
    _Church’s Quarrel Espoused_, 108;
    address on, by Dexter, 108;
    _Word of Comfort_, 171.

  Wishart, George, 135.

  Wistar, 223.

  Wiswall, Ichabod, 89.

  Witchcraft in Massachusetts, 94.

  Wittmeyer, A. V., on the Huguenots, 350.

  Wococon, 338.

  Wolcott, Governor, on the siege of Louisbourg, 438.

  Wolfe, General James, portrait, 541;
    other likenesses, 541;
    leaves Louisbourg for Quebec, 540;
    at Island of Orleans, 543;
    at Point Levi, 544;
    entrenches at Montmorenci, 544;
    his proclamations and devastations, 544;
    goes above the town, 544, 545;
    attacks at Montmorenci, 545;
    ill, 545;
    his phrase, “Choice of difficulties”, 545;
    evacuates Montmorenci, 545;
    lands at Wolfe’s Cove, 546, 547;
    on the Plains of Abraham, 547;
    his good-luck, 547;
    attacks and is killed, 549;
    accounts of his death, 549;
    his body sent to England, 550;
    monuments to his memory, 551;
    lives of, 602;
    letters, 602, 603;
    correspondence with Amherst, 603;
    his secret instructions, 603;
    despatches, 603;
    his _Instructions to Young Officers_, 603;
    his orders before Quebec, 603;
    imaginary conversation in Hades with Montcalm, 604.
    _See_ Quebec and Montcalm.

  Wolfe’s Cove, 546;
    views of, 546, 549.

  Wood, J. P., _Parish of Cramond_, 76;
    his _Life of Law_, 76.

  Wood Creek, 486, 526, 585;
    map of, 595.

  Woodbridge, John, _Severals_, etc., 170.

  Woodbridge, Tim., 597.

  Woodhull, Colonel Nath., his _Journal_, 609.

  Woodstock, Conn., 180.

  Woodward, Dr. Henry, 306.

  Woodward and Safery’s line, 180.

  Woolen manufactures forbidden, 226.

  Woolman, John, _Journal_, 244.

  Woolsey, Theo., on Yale College, 102.

  Woolsey, Colonel, 597.

  Woolson, C. F., 315.

  _Worcester Magazine_, 432.

  Worley, the pirate, 323.

  Wormley, Miss, _Cousin Veronica_, 284.

  Wormsloe quartos, 401.

  Wraxall, Peter, secretary for Indian affairs, 233, 590.

  Wright, Sir Jas., governor of Georgia, report and letters (1773-1782),
      391, 401.

  Wright, J., _Complete History of the Late War_, 616.

  Wright, Robert, _Memoir of Oglethorpe_, 394;
    _Life of Wolfe_, 602.

  Wright, Thomas, 448.

  Writs of assistance, 155.

  Wyandots on the Ohio, 563.

  Wymberley-Jones, Geo., prints De Brahm, 401.

  Wynne, M., _British Empire in America_, 618.

  Wynne, Thos. H., edits Byrd’s _Dividing Line_, 275.


  Yale, Elihu, portrait, 102.

  Yale College founded, 102;
    authorities on, 102;
    and Episcopacy, 120;
    and Dean Berkeley, 141.

  Yamacraw Bluff, 361, 367.

  Yamacraws, 369;
    pacified, 370, 371.

  Yardley, Francis, 336.

  Yazoo (Yasoue), 70.

  Yazoos, 46.

  Yeamans, Sir John, 289;
    in Carolina, 289, 293;
    governor, 308;
    goes to Barbadoes, 311;
    explores South Carolina coast, 305.

  Yeates, Judge, visits Braddock’s field, 500.

  Yemassee Indians, 318;
    make war, 321.

  Yoakum, _History of Texas_, 69.

  Yonge, Francis, 324;
    _Proceedings of the People of South Carolina_ (1719), 347;
    _Trade of South Carolina_, 347.

  Yonge, Henry, 391.

  Yonkers, Philipse, manor house, 252.


  Zeisberger, David, 245;
    life by Schweinitz, 245.

  Zenger libel suit, 198, 199;
    reports of, 242;
    collection of material by Zenger, 242.

  Zinzendorf, _Diary of his Journeys_, 246.




                              FOOTNOTES:

[1] [See Vol. IV. p. 351.—ED.]

[2] [There were two stations established to draw off by missionary
efforts individual Iroquois from within the influences of the English.
One of them was at Caughnawaga, near Montreal, and the other was later
established by Picquet at La Présentation, about half-way thence to
Lake Ontario, on the southern bank of the St. Lawrence river. Cf.
Parkman, _Montcalm and Wolfe_, i. 65.—ED.]

[3] [“Hundreds of white men have been barbarized on this continent for
each single red man that has been civilized.” Ellis, _Red Man and White
Man in North America_, p. 364.—ED.]

[4] [See Vol. IV. p. 195.—ED.]

[5] [See _post_, chap. ii.—ED.]

[6] [See chapters vii. and viii.—ED.]

[7] [See _post_, chap. viii.—ED.]

[8] [The treaty of Utrecht, made in 1713, had declared the Five Nations
to be “subject to the dominion of Great Britain,” and under this clause
Niagara was held to be within the Province of New York; and Clinton
protested against the French occupation of that vantage-ground.—ED.]

[9] While waiting until the Court should name a successor to M. de
Vaudreuil, M. de Longueuil, then governor of Montreal, assumed the
reins of government.

[10] [See Vol. IV. p. 307.—ED.]

[11] [See the map in Vol. IV. p. 200.—ED.]

[12] [See Vol. II. p. 468.—ED.]

[13] [Parkman (_Montcalm and Wolfe_, vol. i. chap. ii.) tells the story
of this expedition under Céloron de Bienville, sent by La Galissonière
in 1749 into the Ohio Valley to propitiate the Indians and expel the
English traders, and of its ill success. He refers, as chief sources,
to the Journal of Céloron, preserved in the Archives de la Marine,
and to the Journal of Bonnecamp, his chaplain, found in the Dépôt de
la Marine at Paris, and to the contemporary documents printed in the
_Colonial Documents of New York_, in the _Colonial Records_, and in the
_Archives_ (second series, vol. vi.) of Pennsylvania.—ED.]

[14] [There is some confusion in the spelling of this name. A hundred
years ago and more, the usual spelling was _Allegany_. The mountains
are now called _Alleghany_; the city of the same name in Pennsylvania
is spelled _Allegheny_. Cf. note in _Dinwiddie Papers_, i. 255.—ED.]

[15] [_Mémoire sur les colonies de la France dans l’Amérique
septentrionale._—ED.]

[16] [Céloron’s expedition was followed, in 1750, by the visit of
Christopher Gist, who was sent, under the direction of this newly
formed Ohio Company, to prepare the way for planting English colonists
in the disputed territory. The instructions to Gist are in the appendix
of Pownall’s _Topographical Description of North America_. He fell
in with George Croghan, one of the Pennsylvania Scotch-Irish, then
exploring the country for the Governor of Pennsylvania; and Croghan was
accompanied by Andrew Montour, a half-breed interpreter. The original
authorities for their journey are in the _New York Colonial Documents_,
vol. vii., and in the _Colonial Records of Pennsylvania_, vol. v.;
while the Journals of Gist and Croghan may be found respectively in
Pownall (_ut supra_) and in the periodical _Olden Time_, vol. i. Cf.
also _Dinwiddie Papers_, index. In the _Pennsylvania Archives_, second
series, vol. vi., are various French and English documents touching the
French occupation of this region.—ED.]

[17] Prior to this time there had been such an occupation of some of
these posts as to find recognition in the maps of the day. See map
entitled “_Amérique septentrionale_, etc., par le S^r. D’Anville,
1746,” which gives a post at or near Erie, and one on the “Rivière aux
Beuf” (French Creek).

[18] [See, _post_, the section on the “Maps and Bounds of Acadia,” for
the literature of this controversy.—ED.]

[19] [See _post_, chap. viii.—ED.]

[20] Minister of Marine to M. Ducasse (Margry, iv. 294); Same to same
(Margry, iv. 297). See also despatches to Iberville July 29 (Margry,
iv. 324) and August 5 (Margry, iv. 327).

[21] [See the section on La Salle in Vol. IV. p. 201.—ED.]

[22] Margry, iv. 3.

[23] In 1697 the Sieur de Louvigny wrote, asking to complete La Salle’s
discoveries and invade Mexico from Texas (Lettre de M. de Louvigny, 14
Oct. 1697). In an unpublished memoir of the year 1700, the seizure of
the Mexican mines is given as one of the motives of the colonization of
Louisiana. Parkman’s _La Salle and the Discovery of the Great West_, p.
327, _note_. The memorial of Louvigny is given in Margry, iv. 9; that
of Argoud in Margry, iv. 19.

[24] Daniel’s _Nos gloires_, p. 39; he was baptized at Montreal, July
20, 1661. (Tanguay’s _Dictionnaire généalogique_.)

[25] [See Vol. IV. pp. 161, 226, 239, 243, 316.—ED.]

[26] The Minister in a letter alludes to the reports of Argoud from
London, August 21, about a delay in starting (Margry, iv. 82).

[27] Charlevoix says the expedition was composed of the “François”
and “Renommée,” and sailed October 17. According to Penicaut the
vessels were the “Marin” and “Renommée.” The _Journal historique_
states that they sailed from Rochefort September 24. This work is
generally accurate. Perhaps there was some authority for that date.
The vessels had come down from Rochefort to the anchorage at Rochelle
some time before this, and the date may represent the time of sailing
from Rochelle. Margry (iv. 213) in a syllabus of the contents of the
Journal of Marin, which he evidently regarded as a part of the original
document, gives the date of that event as September 5. In the same
volume (p. 84) there is a despatch from the Minister to Du Guay, dated
October (?) 16, in which he says that “he awaits with impatience the
news of Iberville’s sailing, and fears that he may be detained at
Rochelle by the equinoctial storms.”

[28] The French accounts all say that Pensacola had been occupied by
the Spaniards but a few months, and simply to anticipate Iberville.
Barcia in his _Ensayo cronológico_ (p. 316) says it was founded in 1696.

[29] Report in Margry, iv. 118, and Journal in Ibid., iv. 157. A third
account of the Journal of the “Marin” says there were twenty-two in one
_biscayenne_, twenty-three in the other; fifty-one men in all (Journal
in Margry, iv. 242). The six men in excess in the total are probably
to be accounted for as the force in the canoes. These discrepancies
illustrate the confusion in the accounts.

[30] Despatch of the Minister, July 23, 1698, in Margry, iv. 72;
Iberville’s Report, in Margry, iv. 120

[31] [See Hennepin’s maps in Vol IV. pp. 251, 253.—ED.]

[32] Margry, iv. 190.

[33] The date of this letter is given in the Journal “1686” (Margry,
iv. 274). This is probably correct. [See Vol. IV. p. 238.—ED.].

[34] Ten guns, says the Journal, in Margry, iv. 395. One of
twenty-four, one of twelve guns; the latter alone entered the river,
says Iberville to the Minister, February 26, 1700, in Margry, vol. iv.
p. 361. See also Coxe’s _Carolana_, preface.

[35] [See _post_, chap. v.—ED.]

[36] Journal, in Margry, iv. 397.

[37] Instructions, in Margry, iv. 350.

[38] Minister to Iberville, June 15, 1699, in Margry, iv. 305; Same to
same, July 29, 1699, in Ibid., iv. 324; Same to same, Aug. 5, 1699, in
Ibid., iv. 327.

[39] [See Vol. IV. p. 239.—ED.]

[40] _Journal historique_, etc., pp. 30, 34.

[41] The language used in the text is fully justified by the accounts
referred to. Students of Indian habits dispute the despotism of the
Suns, and allege that the hereditary aristocracy does not differ
materially from what may be found in other tribes. See Lucien
Carr’s paper on “The Mounds of the Mississippi Valley historically
considered,” extracted from _Memoirs of the Kentucky Geological
Survey_, ii. 36, _note_. See also his “The Social and Political
Position of Woman among the Huron Iroquois Tribes,” in the _Report of
Peabody Museum_, iii. 207, _et seq_.

[42] Pontchartrain to Callières and Champigny, June 4, 1701, in Margry,
v. 351. Charlevoix speaks of Saint-Denys, who made the trip to Mexico,
as Juchereau de Saint-Denys. Dr. Shea, in the _note_, p. 12, vol. vi.
of his _Charlevoix_, identifies Saint-Denys as Louis Juchereau de
Saint-Denys. The founder of the settlement on the “Ouabache” signed
the same name to the Memorial in Margry, v. 350. The author of _Nos
gloires nationales_ asserts (vol. i. p. 207 of his work) that it was
Barbe Juchereau who was sent to Mexico. Spanish accounts speak of the
one in Mexico as Louis. Charlevoix says he was the uncle of Iberville’s
wife. Iberville married Marie-Thérèse Pollet, granddaughter of Nicolas
Juchereau, Seigneur of Beauport and St. Denis (see Tanguay). This
Nicolas Juchereau had a son Louis, who was born Sept. 18, 1676. Martin
says the two Juchereaus were relatives.

[43] The establishment was apparently made on the Ouabache (Ohio),
_Journal historique_, etc., pp. 75-89. Iberville, writing at Rochelle,
Feb. 15, 1703, says “he will go to the ‘Ouabache,’” in letter of
Iberville to Minister (Margry, iv. 631). Penicaut speaks of it as on
the Ouabache (Margry, v. 426-438).

[44] _Journal historique_, etc., p. 106. Charlevoix (vol. ii. liv.
xxi. p. 415) says: “It could not be said that there was a colony in
Louisiana—or at any rate it did not begin to shape itself—until
after the arrival of M. Diron d’Artaguette with an appointment as
_commissaire-ordonnateur_.”

[45] _Journal historique_, etc., p. 129, and Le Page du Pratz, i.
15, 16. Saint-Denys was evidently duped by the Spaniards. Crozat was
anxious for trade. Saint-Denys arranged matters with the authorities at
Mexico, and joined in the expedition which established Spanish missions
in the “province of Lastekas.” In these missions he saw only hopes of
trade; but the title to the province was saved to Spain by them, and no
trade was ever permitted.

[46] The following itinerary of this expedition is copied, through
the favor of Mr. Theodore F. Dwight, from a rough memorandum in the
handwriting of Thomas Jefferson,—which memorandum is now in the
Department of State at Washington.

“Oct. 25. Graveline and the other arrived at Rio Bravos at Ayeches,
composed of 10 cabbins, they found a Span. Mission of 2 Peres
Recollets, 3 souldiers and a woman; at Nacodoches they found 4
Recollets, with a Frere, 2 souldiers and a Span. woman; at Assinays or
Cenis 2 Peres Recollets, 1 souldier, 1 Span. woman. The presidio which
had been 17 leagues further off now came and established itself at 7
leagues from the Assinayes; it was composed of a Capt^n, ensign and
25 souldiers. They reached the presidio 2 leagues W. of the Rio Bravo
where there was a Capt. Lieut. and 30 souldiers Span. and 2 missions
of St. Jean Baptiste and St. Bernard. All the goods of St. Denys were
seized and in the end lost. On the return of Graveline and the others
they found a Span. Mission at Adayes, founded Jan. 29, 1717.”

[47] The livre is substantially the same as the franc, and by some
writers the words are used interchangeably.

[48] There were outstanding, when the bank collapsed, notes of the
nominal value of 1,169,072,540 livres. Statements of the amounts in
hand, of those which had been burned, etc., showed that there had been
emitted more than 3,000,000,000 livres (Forbonnais, ii. 633).

[49] This is exclusive of an issue of 24,000 shares by the Regent. The
par value of the 600,000 shares was 300,000,000 livres; but the value
represented by them on the basis of the premiums at which they were
respectively issued, amounted to 1,677,500,000 livres.

[50] Forbonnais, _Recherches et considérations sur les finances de
France_, ii. 604, says shares rose as high as eighteen to twenty
thousand francs.

[51] The commanders of the post in the early days of the colony have
been generally spoken of as governors. Gayarré (i. 162) says, “The
government of Louisiana was for the second time definitely awarded to
Bienville.” He was, as we have seen, _lieutenant du roy_. As such he
was at the head of the colony for many years, and he still held this
title when he was by letter ordered to assume command after La Mothe
left and until L’Epinay should arrive (Margry, v. 591). In 1716 he was
“commandant of the Mississippi River and its tributaries” (_Journal
historique_, etc., pp. 123, 141). His power as _commandant-général_ was
apparently for a time shared with his brother Sérigny. In a despatch
dated Oct. 20, 1719, quoted by Gayarré, he says, “Mon frère Sérigny,
chargé comme moi du commandement de cette colonie.” M. de Vallette
Laudun, in the _Journal d’un voyage_ (Paris, 1768), on the 1st of July,
1720, says, M. de Bienville “commands in chief all the country since
the departure of his brother, Monsieur de Sérigny.” In 1722 Bienville
applied for the “general government” (Margry, v. 634).

[52] Margry, v. 589; Shea’s _Charlevoix_, vi. 37.

[53] Vergennes, p. 161. “The inhabitants trembled at the sight of this
licentious soldiery.”

[54] The Penicaut narrative apparently assigns the year 1717 as the
date of the original foundation of New Orleans. Margry (v. 549)
calls attention in a note to the fact that the _Journal historique_,
which he attributes to Beaurain, gives 1718 as the date. Gravier, in
his Introduction to the _Relation du voyage des dames religieuses
Ursulines_, says that New Orleans was founded in 1717. He cites in a
note certain letters of Bienville which are in the Archives at Paris;
but as he does not quote from them, we cannot tell to what point of the
narrative they are cited as authority.

[55] [From Le Page du Pratz, _Histoire de la Louisiane_, ii. 262.—ED.]

[56] [Cf. Vol. II. _index_.—ED.]

[57] [There is a “Plan de la Baye de Pansacola,” by N. B., in
Charlevoix, iii. 480. Jefferys’s “Plan of the Harbor and Settlement
of Pensacola,” and the view of Pensacola as drawn by Dom Serres, are
contained in Roberts’s _Account of the First Discovery and Natural
History of Florida_ (London, 1763), and in the _General Topography of
North America and the West Indies_ (London, 1768), no. 67. The map
shows Pensacola as destroyed in 1719, and the new town on Santa Rosa
Island.—ED.]

[58] For the points involved in the discussion of the Louisiana
boundary question, see Waite’s _American State Papers_ (Boston, 1819),
vol. xii.

[59] Vergennes, p. 153; Champigny, p. 16.

[60] Thomassy, p. 31.

[61] Champigny, p. 127, _note_ 5. “They were obliged to change boats
from smaller to smaller three times, in order to bring merchandise to
Biloxi, where they ran carts a hundred feet into the ocean and loaded
them, because the smallest boats could not land.”

[62] “Clérac” is thus translated by authority of Margry, v. 573,
_note_. He says it means a workman engaged in the manufacture
of tobacco, and is derived from the territory of Clérac
(Charcute-Inférieure). With this interpretation we can understand why
one of the grants was “Celle des Cléracs aux Natchez” (Dumont, ii. 45).

[63] [See Vol. IV. p. 161.—ED.]

[64] Natchez is never mentioned by the French writers except with
expressions of admiration for its soil, climate, and situation. Dumont
(vol. ii. p. 63) says “the land at Natchez is the best in the province.
This establishment had begun to prosper.” The number of killed at
the massacre is stated at “more than two hundred” by Father Le Petit
(_Lettres édifiantes_, xx. 151). Writers like Dumont and Le Page du
Pratz state the number at more than seven hundred. Even the smaller
number is probably an exaggeration. The value of the tobacco produced
at Natchez is alluded to in Champigny; but the place does not seem to
have rallied from this blow. Bossu, in 1751, speaks of the fertility of
its soil, “if it were cultivated.”

[65] The Capuchin in charge of the post at Natchez was away. The Jesuit
Du Poisson, from the Akensas, happened to be there, and was killed.

[66] Clairborne in his _Mississippi as a Province, Territory, and
State_, places the fort of the Natchez in Arkansas, at a place known as
“Sicily Island,” forty miles northwest from Natchez.

[67] “I am the only one of the French who has escaped sickness since we
have been in this country.” Du Poussin from the Akensas, in Kip, p. 263.

[68] Poussin (_De la puissance Américaine_, Paris, 1843, i. 262)
says: “Nevertheless, about this time (1751) the inhabitants began
to understand the necessity of seriously occupying themselves with
agricultural pursuits.”

[69] _The Present State of the Country and Inhabitants, European and
Indians, of Louisiana_ (London, 1744).

[70] [Cf. Breese, _Early History of Illinois_, and Vol. IV., p.
198.—ED.]

[71] “The minute of the surrender of Fort Chartres to M.
Sterling, appointed by M. de Gage, governor of New York, commander
of His Britannic Majesty’s troops in North America, is preserved in
the French Archives at Paris. The fort is carefully described in it
as having an arched gateway fifteen feet high; a cut stone platform
above the gate, and a stair of nineteen stone steps, with a stone
balustrade, leading to it; its walls of stone eighteen feet in height,
and its four bastions, each with forty-eight loop-holes, eight
embrasures, and a sentry-box; the whole in cut stone. And within was
the great storehouse, ninety feet long by thirty wide, two stories
high, and gable-roofed; the guard-house, having two rooms above for the
chapel and missionary quarters; the government house, eighty-four by
thirty-two feet, with iron gates and a stone porch, a coach-house and
pigeon-house adjoining, and a large stone well inside; the intendant’s
house, of stone and iron, with a portico; the two rows of barracks,
each one hundred and twenty-eight feet long; the magazine thirty-five
feet wide and thirty-eight feet long, and thirteen feet high above the
ground, with a door-way of cut stone, and two doors, one of wood and
one of iron; the bake-house, with two ovens and a stone well in front;
the prison, with four cells of cut stone, and iron doors; and one large
relief gate to the north; the whole enclosing an area of more than four
acres.”—_Illinois in the Eighteenth Century_, by Edward G. Mason,
being No. 12 of the _Fergus Historical Series_, p. 39.

[72] [See map, Vol. IV. p. 200.—ED.]

[73] _Lettres édifiantes et curieuses_ (Paris, 1758), xxviii. 59. Father
Vivier says that five French villages situated in a long prairie,
bounded at the east by a chain of mountains and by the River Tamaroa,
and west by the Mississippi, comprised together one hundred and forty
families. These villages were (Bossu, seconde édition, Paris, 1768,
i. 145, _note_) Kaskaskia, Fort Chartres, St. Philippe, Kaokia, and
Prairie du Rocher. There were other posts on the lines of travel, but
the bulk of the agricultural population was here. The picture of their
life given by Breese is interesting.

Vincennes is said by some authorities to have been founded as early as
1702. See Bancroft (New York, 1883), ii. 186; also _A Geographical
Description of the United States_ by John Melish. C. F. Volney, the
author of _Tableau du climat et du sol des États-Unis d’Amérique_ (Paris,
1803), was himself at Poste Vincennes in 1796. He says (p. 401): “I
wished to know the date of the foundation and early history of Poste
Vincennes; but spite of the authority and credit that some attribute to
tradition, I could scarcely get any exact notes about the war of 1757,
notwithstanding there were old men who dated back prior to that time.
It is only by estimate that I place its origin about 1735.” In _Annals
of the West_, compiled by James R. Albach, the authorities for the
various dates are given. The post figures in some of the maps about the
middle of the century.

[74] “We receive from the Illinois,” he says, “flour, corn,
bacon, hams both of bear and hog, corned pork and wild beef, myrtle and
bees-wax, cotton, tallow, leather, tobacco, lead, copper, buffalo-wool,
venison, poultry, bear’s grease, oil, skins, fowls, and hides”
(Martin’s _History of Louisiana_, i. 316).

[75] Pownall in his _Administration of the Colonies_ (2d
ed., London, 1765, appendix, section 1, p. 24) gives a sketch of
the condition of the colonies, derived mainly from Vaudreuil’s
correspondence. He says that Vaudreuil (May 15, 1751) thought that
Kaskaskia was the principal post, but that Macarty, who was on the
spot (Jan. 20, 1752), thought the environs of Chartres a far better
situation to place this post in, provided there were more inhabitants.
“He visited Fort Chartres, found it very good,—only wanting a few
repairs,—and thinks it ought to be kept up.”

[76] Fort Chartres is stated by Mr. Edward G. Mason, in
_Illinois in the Eighteenth Century_ (Fergus Historical Series, no.
12, p. 25), to be sixteen miles _above_ Kaskaskia. In the _Journal
historique_, etc. (Paris and New Orleans, 1831), p. 221, the original
establishment of Boisbriant is stated to have been “eight leagues
below Kaskaskia,” and (p. 243) it is stated that it was transferred
“nine leagues _below_” the village. French, in his _Louisiana
Historical Collections_, published a translation of a manuscript copy
of the _Journal historique_ which is deposited in Philadelphia. His
translation reads that the transfer was made to a point “nine leagues
_above_ Kaskaskia.” Martin, who worked from still another copy of the
_Journal historique_, states that the establishment was transferred
to a point twenty-five miles _above_ Kaskaskia. The “au dessous” (p.
243 of _Journal historique_, or, as ordinarily cited, “La Harpe”) was
probably a typographical error.

[77] This ground was partly prospected by Dutisné, who,
Nov. 22, 1719, wrote to Bienville an account of an expedition to the
Missouris by river and to the Osages and Paniouassas by land. Bournion,
whose appointment was made, according to Dumont, in 1720, went up the
river to the Canzes, and thence to the Padoucahs in 1724. Le Page du
Pratz gives an account of the expedition. The name of this officer is
variously given as Bournion in the _Journal historique_, Bourgmont by
Le Page du Pratz, Bourmont by Bossu, and Boismont by Martin.

[78] Neyon de Villiers.

[79] [See _post_, chap. viii.—ED.]

[80] [“The English colonies ... at the middle of the century numbered
in all, from Georgia to Maine, about 1,160,000 white inhabitants. By
the census of 1754 Canada had but 55,000. Add those of Louisiana and
Acadia, and the whole white population under the French flag might
be something more than 80,000.” Parkman, _Montcalm and Wolfe_, i.
20.—ED.]

[81] [See _post_, chap. vii.—ED.]

[82] [“In the dual government of Canada the governor represented
the king, and commanded the troops; while the intendant was charged
with trade, finance, justice, and all other departments of civil
administration. In former times the two functionaries usually
quarrelled; but between Vaudreuil and Bigot there was perfect harmony”
(Parkman, _Montcalm and Wolfe_, ii. 18). Foremost among the creatures
of Bigot, serving his purposes of plunder, were Joseph Cadet, a
butcher’s son whom Bigot had made commissary-general, and Marin, the
Intendant’s deputy at Montreal, who repaid his principal by aspiring
for his place. It was not till February, 1759, when Montcalm was
given a hand in civil affairs, that the beginning of the end of this
abandoned coterie appeared (see Ibid., ii. 37, for sources). Upon the
interior history of Canada, from 1749 to 1760, there is a remarkable
source in the _Mémoires sur le Canada_, which was printed and reprinted
(1873) by the Literary and Historical Society of Quebec. It reached
the committee from a kinsman of General Burton, of the army of General
Amherst, who presumably received it from its anonymous author, and
took it to England for printing. Smith, in his _History of Canada_
(1815), had used a manuscript closely resembling it. Parkman refers to
a manuscript in the hands of the Abbé Verreau of Montreal, the original
of which he thinks may have been the first draught of these _Mémoires_.
This manuscript was in the Bastille at the time of its destruction, and
being thrown into the street, fell into the hands of a Russian and was
carried to St. Petersburg. Lord Dufferin, while ambassador to Russia,
procured the Verreau copy, which differs, says Parkman, little in
substance from the printed _Mémoires_, though changed in language and
arrangement in some parts (Parkman, _Montcalm and Wolfe_, ii. 37). The
second volume of the first series of the _Mémoires_ of the Literary and
Historical Society of Quebec also contains a paper, evidently written
in 1736, and seemingly a report of the Intendant Hocquart to Cardinal
Fleury, the minister of Louis XV. In the same collection is a report,
_Considérations sur l’état présent du Canada_, dated October, 1758,
which could hardly have been written by the Intendant Bigot, but is
thought to have been the writing of a Querdisien-Trémais, who had been
sent as commissioner to investigate the finances, and who deals out
equal rebuke upon all the functionaries then in office.—ED.]

[83] [_Histoire et description générale de la Nouvelle France, avec le
journal historique d’un voyage fait par ordre du roi dans l’Amérique
septentrionale_ (Paris, 1744). It is in three volumes, the third
containing the _Journal_ (cf. Vol. IV. p. 358), of which there are two
distinct English translations,—one, _Journal of a Voyage to North
America_, in two volumes (London, 1761; reprinted in Dublin, 1766);
the other, _Letters to the Duchess of Lesdiguierres_ (London, 1763),
in one volume. A portion of the _Journal_ is also given in French’s
_Historical Collections of Louisiana_ part iii. (Cf. Sabin, no.
12,140, etc.; Carter-Brown, vol. iii. nos. 1,285, 1,347, 1,497.) The
Dublin edition of the _Journal_ has plates not in the other editions
(_Brinley Catalogue_, vol. i. no. 80). There is a paper on “Charlevoix
at New Orleans in 1721” in the _Magazine of American History_, August,
1883.—ED.]

[84] [_History and General Description of New France_,
translated, with Notes, by John Gilmary Shea (New York, 1866), etc.,
6 vols. (See Vol. IV. of the present work, p. 358.) Charlevoix’s
_Relation de la Louisiane_ is also contained in Bernard’s _Recueil de
voyages au nord_ (Amsterdam, 1731-1738).—ED.]

[85] Upon these expeditions the United States partly based their claims,
in the discussions with Spain in 1805 and 1818, on the Louisiana
boundary question.

[86] Jean de Beaurain, a geographical engineer, was born in
1696, and died in 1772. He was appointed geographer to the King in
1721. His son was a conspicuous cartographer (_Nouvelle biographie
générale_).

[87] The libraries of the American Philosophical Society
(Philadelphia) and of the Department of State (Washington) each have a
copy of this manuscript. A copy belonging to the Louisiana Historical
Society is deposited in the State Library at New Orleans. [From the
Philadelphia copy the English translation in French’s _Historical
Collections of Louisiana_, part iii., was made. A. R. Smith, in his
London _Catalogue_, 1874, no. 1,391, held a manuscript copy, dated
1766, at £7 17_s._ 6_d._, and another is priced by Leclerc (_Bibl.
Amer._, no. 2,811) at 500 francs. This manuscript has five plans and
a map, while the printed edition of 1831 has but a single map. The
manuscripts are usually marked as “Dédié et présenté au roi par le
Chevalier Beaurain,” who is considered by Leclerc as the author of the
drawings only.—ED.]

[88] Ferland, ii. 343; Garneau, ii. 94. For characterizations of these
and other authorities on Canada, see Vol. IV. of this History, pp. 157,
360.

[89] [It consists of two series of lectures, the first entitled _The
Poetry, or the Romance of the History of Louisiana_, and the second,
_Louisiana, its History as a French Colony_. He says in a preface to a
third series, printed separately in 1852 at New York,—_Louisiana, its
History as a French Colony, Third Series of Lectures_ (Sabin, vol. vii.
nos. 26,793, 26,796),—that the first series was given to “freaks of
the imagination,” the second was “more serious and useful” in getting
upon a basis more historic; while there was a still further “change
of tone and manner” in the third, which brings the story down to
1769. This was published at New York in 1851. Mr. Gayarré had already
published, in 1830, an _Essai historique sur Louisiane_ in two volumes
(Sabin vol. vii. nos. 26,791, 26,795), and _Romance of the History of
Louisiana, a Series of Lectures_, New York, 1848 (Sabin, vol. vii. nos.
26,795, 26,797, 26,799).—ED.]

[90] This was published at New Orleans in 1846-1847 in two volumes
(Sabin, vol. vii. no. 26,792).

[91] Published as _History of Louisiana: the Spanish Domination, the
French Domination, and the American Domination_,—the three parts
respectively in 1854, 1855, and 1866.

[92] [There are many papers on Louisiana history in _De Bow’s Review_,
and for these, including several reviews of Gayarré, see Poole’s _Index
to Periodical Literature_, p. 772, where other references will be found
to the _Southern Literary Messenger_, etc.—ED.]

[93] [The original edition was published at Paris in 1758. An English
version, _The History of Louisiana, or the Western Parts of Virginia
and Carolina; containing a Description of the Countries that lie on
both sides of the River Mississippi_, appeared in London in 1763
(two vols.) and 1774 (one vol.), in an abridged and distorted form
(Carter-Brown, vol. iii. no. 1,352; Sabin, x. 223; Field, _Indian
Bibliography_, nos. 910-912). H. H. Bancroft (_Northwest Coast_, i.
598) mentions a different translation published in 1764; but I have
not seen it. Field says of the original: “It is difficult to procure
the work complete in all the plates and maps, which should number
forty-two.”—ED.]

[94] The authorities upon which are based the statements of most
writers upon the history of Louisiana have been exhumed from the
archives in Paris, but there are French sources for narratives of the
adventures of Saint-Denys which are still missing. Le Page du Pratz
(i. 178) says: “What I shall leave out will be found some day, when
memoirs like these of M. de Saint-Denis and some others concerning the
discovery of Louisiana, which I have used, shall be published.”

[95] [It was issued in two volumes at Paris in 1753 (Carter-Brown,
vol. iii. no. 996; Leclerc, no. 2,750, thirty francs; Field, _Indian
Bibliography_, no. 463).—ED.]

[96] _Journal historique_, etc., p. 310.

[97] _Nouvelle biographie générale, sub_ “Butel Dumont.”

[98] _Considérations géographiques, etc., par Philippe Buache_ (Paris,
1753), p. 36. See Vol. II. p. 461.

[99] He tells of a rattlesnake twenty-two feet long, in vol. i. p. 109;
and of frogs weighing thirty-two pounds, in vol. ii. p. 268.

[100] [It was published at Paris in 1768, and an English translation,
_Travels through that part of North America formerly called Louisiana_
(by J. R. Forster), was printed in London, in 2 vols., in 1771, and a
Dutch version at Amsterdam in 1769. The original French was reprinted
at Amsterdam in 1769 and 1777.—ED.]

[101] Vergennes, p. 157. “In considering the savages who were drawn
into an alliance with us by our presents, and who received us into
their houses, would it have been difficult to attach them to us if
we had acted toward them with the candor and rectitude to which they
were entitled? We gave them the example of perfidy, and we are doubly
culpable for the crimes they committed and the virtues they did not
acquire.”

[102] [See Vol. IV. pp. 199, 316. The book forms no. 8 of Munsell’s
_Historical Series_. See accounts of Le Sueur and other explorers of
the Upper Mississippi in Neill’s _Explorers and Pioneers of Minnesota_.
There are extracts from Le Sueur’s Journal in La Harpe’s _Journal
historique_ and in French’s _Historical Collections of Louisiana_,
part iii.; and in the new series (p. 35 of vol. vi.) of the same
_Collections_ is a translation of Penicaut’s _Annals of Louisiana
from 1698 to 1722_. The translation was made from a manuscript in the
National Library at Paris. Kaskaskia in Illinois is looked upon as the
earliest European settlement in the Mississippi Valley; it was founded
by Jacques Gravier in 1700. Cf. _Magazine of American History_, March,
1881. There had been an Indian town on the spot previously, and Father
Marquette made it his farthest point in 1675.—ED.]

[103] [On these books see Vol. IV. pp. 294, 316, where Dr. Shea gives
reasons for supposing the earliest publication of the _Lettres_ to
have been in 1702. Cf. Sabin’s _American Bibliopolist_ (1871), p. 3;
H. H. Bancroft’s _Mexico_, ii. 191; and the _Nouvelles des missions,
extraites des lettres édifiantes et curieuses: Missions de l’Amérique,
1702-1743_ (Paris, 1827).—ED.]

[104] [It was first printed in London in 1775, and afterward
appeared in 1782 at Breslau, in a German translation. Cf. Field,
_Indian Bibliography_, no. 11. The _Mémoire de M. de Richebourg sur
la première guerre des Natchez_ is given in French’s _Collections_,
vol. iii. A paper on the massacre of St. André is in the _Magazine of
American History_ (April, 1884), p. 355. Dr. Shea printed in 1859, from
a manuscript in the possession of Mr. J. Carson Brevoort (as no. 9 of
his series, one hundred copies), a _Journal de la guerre du Micissippi
contre les Chicachas, en 1739 et finie en 1740, le 1er d’avril_.
_Par un officier de l’armée de M. de Nouaille._ Cf. Field, _Indian
Bibliography_, no. 807.—ED.]

[105] [The original was published at Paris in 1829; in 1830 it was
printed in English at Philadelphia as _The History of Louisiana,
particularly of the Cession of that Colony to the United States of
America_. It is said to be translated by the publicist, William Beach
Lawrence.—ED.]

[106] [It was reprinted in 1726, again in 1727, and with a lengthened
title in 1741 (Carter-Brown, vol. iii. nos. 315, 372, 376, 679; Sabin,
vol. v. nos. 17, 276, etc.). The edition of 1741 made part of _A
Collection of Voyages and Travels_, edited by Coxe, which contained:
“1. The dangerous voyage of Capt. Thomas James in his intended
discovery of a northwest passage into the South sea (in 1631-1632). 2.
An authentick and particular account of the taking of Carthagena by
the French in 1697 by Sieur Pointis. 3. A description of the English
province of Carolana; by the Spaniards call’d Florida, and by the
French La Louisiane. By Daniel Coxe.” Coxe’s narrative of explorations
is also included in French’s _Historical Collections of Louisiana_,
vol. ii. Coxe’s map, which is repeated in the various editions, is
called: “Map of Carolana and the River Meschacebe.” A section of it is
given on the next page.—ED.]

[107] Coxe’s _Carolana_, p. 118. The writer of an article in the _North
American Review_, January, 1839, entitled “Early French Travellers,”
says: “An examination of contemporary writers and the town records has
failed to lend a single fact in support of the Doctor’s tale.” Cf. H.
H. Bancroft, _Northwest Coast_, i. 122, 123. [The French as traders
and missionaries easily gained a familiarity with the Valley of the
Mississippi, before agricultural settlers like the English had passed
the Alleghanies. There had, however, been some individual enterprises
on the part of the English. Coxe claims that under the grant to Sir
Robert Heath, in 1630, of the region across the continent between 31°
and 36°, Colonel Wood and a Mr. Needham explored the Mississippi Valley
between 1654 and 1664, and that during the later years of that century
other explorers had thridded the country.—ED.].

[108] [See Vol. II. p. 462.—ED.]

[109] His account of Fort Chartres is quoted in the appendix of Mills’s
_Boundaries of Ontario_, p. 198. His plan of Mobile Bay (p. 55), may
be compared with one in Roberts’s _Account of the First Discovery and
Natural History of Florida_ (London, 1763), p. 95.

[110] [_The Early History of Illinois, from its Discovery by the
French, in 1673, until its Cession to Great Britain in 1763, including
the Narrative of Marquette’s Discovery of the Mississippi. With a
Biographical Memoir by Melville W. Fuller._ Edited by Thomas Hoyne
(Chicago, 1884). It has three folded maps.—ED.]

[111] [Cf., for these and other titles, Vol. IV. pp. 198, 199. The
routes of Marquette by Green Bay, and of La Salle by the St. Joseph
River, had been the established method of communication of the French
in Canada with Louisiana in the seventeenth century; but as they felt
securer in the Ohio Valley, in 1716, they opened a route by the Miami
and Wabash, and later from Presqu’ Isle on Lake Erie to French Creek,
thence by the Alleghany and Ohio.—ED.]

[112] Bossu, ii. 151.

[113] French (part iii. p. 12, _note_) says: “The two brothers
met in deep mourning, and after mutual embraces the brave D’Iberville
sought the tomb of his brother Sauvolle, where he knelt for hours in
silent grief.” All this is purely imaginary; and in French’s second
series (vol. ii. p. 111, _note_) he concludes that Sauvolle would
appear from the text not to have been Iberville’s brother. This doubt
whether Sauvolle was a brother of Iberville penetrates even such a work
as _Nos gloires nationales_. The author not finding such a seigniory,
says of François Le Moyne, “We do not know if he followed his brother
to Louisiana, and is the same to whom the name Sieur de Sauvole was
given,”—all this in face of the record in the previous paragraph
of his burial in 1687 (_Nos gloires_, i. 53). To the account of the
massacre at Natchez, in his translation of Dumont, French appends a
note (vol. v. p. 76), in which he identifies a ship-carpenter, whose
life was spared by the Indians, as “Perricault, who, after his escape,
wrote a journal of all that passed in Louisiana from 1700 to 1729.”
Penicaut, the spelling of whose name puzzled writers and printers, left
the colony in 1721. There was no foundation whatever for the note.

[114] The reader might easily be misled by the title given
to the translation of a portion of the second volume of Dumont into
the belief that the whole work was before him. There is no mention in
French of the preface, or of the appendix to Coxe’s Carolana. Both
preface and appendix are full of interesting material.

[115] In this translation French (iii. 83) says: “But
notwithstanding these reports, they now create him [Bienville]
brigadier-general of the troops, and knight of the military order of
St. Louis,” etc. Compare this with the faithful rendering of Martin
(i. 229),—“The Regent ... so far from keeping the promise he had made
of promoting him to the rank of brigadier-general, and sending him the
broad ribbon of the order of St. Louis, would have proceeded against
him with severity if he had not been informed that the Company’s agents
in the colony had thwarted his views.”

[116] It has all the substantial portions of the copy given in Margry,
but there are occasional abridgments and occasional additions. The
story of the Margry relation is continuous and uninterrupted; but in
the copy given by French items of colonial news are interspersed, and
sometimes repeated with variations. It would seem as if the copyist
had been unable properly to separate the manuscript from that of
some other Relation of colonial affairs, and in the exercise of his
discretion had made these mistakes. A comparison of the two accounts
will readily disclose their differences. A single example will
explain what is meant by repetitions which may have been occasioned
by confusion of manuscripts. On p. 145 of vol. vi., or second series
vol. i. of French’s _Historical Collections of Louisiana_ occurs the
following: On the 17th of March, 1719, “the ship of war ‘Le Comte de
Toulouse’ arrived at Dauphin Island.” On p. 146 we find, “On the 19th
of April the ships ‘Maréchal de Villars,’ ‘Count de Toulouse,’ and the
‘Phillip,’ under the command of M. de Sérigny, the brother of M. de
Bienville, arrived at Dauphin Island.” These two paragraphs, with their
contradictory statements about the “Comte de Toulouse,” do not occur
in Margry. They are evidently interpolated from some outside source.
Thomassy (1860) quotes _Annales véritables des 22 premières années
de la colonisation de la Louisiane par Pénicaut_, as from the “MSS.
Boismare, dans la Bibliothèque de l’État à Bâton-Rouge.”

The camp-fire yarn of Jalot, with its marvellous details about
Saint-Denys’ romantic love-affair, the gorgeous establishment of the
Mexican viceroy, and the foolhardy trip of Saint-Denys to see his wife,
are omitted in French’s translation. They are worthless as history,
but they reveal the simplicity of Penicaut, who yielded faith to his
fellow-voyagers, in the belief that it was his good fortune to be
chosen to tell the story to the world.

[117] [_Historical Collections of Louisiana, ... compiled with
Historical and Biographical Notes and an Introduction by B. F. French.
Part I. Historical Documents from 1678 to 1691_ (New York, 1846). This
volume contains a discourse before the Historical Society of Louisiana
by Henry A. Bullard, its president (originally issued at New Orleans,
1836; cf. Sabin, vol. iii. no. 9,116), and sundry papers relating to La
Salle, Tonty, and Hennepin, specially referred to in Vol. IV. of the
present History.

_Same. Part II._ (Philadelphia, 1850). This volume contains a
fac-simile of Delisle’s “Carte de la Louisiane et du Cours du
Mississipi;” an account of the Louisiana Historical Society, by
James Dunwoody Brownson De Bow; a discourse on the character of
François-Xavier Martin; an analytical index of the documents in the
Paris Archives relating to Louisiana; papers relating to De Soto
(which are referred to in Vol. II. chap. iv. of the present History);
a reprint of Coxe’s _Carolana_ (omitting, however, the preface and
appendix); and Marquette and Joliet’s account of their journey in 1673
(referred to in Vol. IV. of the present History).

_Same. Part III._ (New York, 1851). This volume includes a memoir of H.
A. Bullard; translations of La Harpe, of Bienville’s correspondence,
of Charlevoix’s Historical Journal; accounts of the aborigines,
including Le Petit’s narratives regarding them; De Sauvolle’s _Journal
historique, 1699-1701_; with other documents relating to the period
treated of in the present volume of this History, as well as papers
relating to the Huguenots and Ribault (referred to in Vol. II. of this
History).

_Same. Part IV._ (New York, 1852). This volume has a second
title-page,—_Discovery and Exploration of the Mississippi Valley, with
the Original Narratives of Marquette, Allouez, Membré, Hennepin, and
Anastase Douay_, by John Gilmary Shea, with a fac-simile of the newly
discovered map of Marquette (New York, 1852). The contents of this
volume are referred to in Vol. IV. of the present History.

_Same. Part V._ The title in this part is changed to _Historical
Memoirs of Louisiana, from the First Settlement of the Colony to
the Departure of Governor O’Reilly in 1770, with Historical and
Biographical Notes_ (New York, 1853). It includes translations of
Dumont’s memoir, another of Champigny, with an appendix of historical
documents and elucidations; and all parts of the volume mainly cover
the period of the present chapter. It also contains the usual portrait
of Bienville, purporting to be engraved from a copy belonging to J.
D. B. DeBow, of an original painting in the family of Baron Grant, of
Longueil in Canada.

A second series of Mr. French’s publications has the title, _Historical
Collections of Louisiana and Florida, including Translations of
Original Manuscripts relating to their Discovery and Settlement, with
Numerous Historical and Biographical Notes_. New Series, vol. i. (New
York, 1869). This volume contains translations of De Remonville’s
memoir (Dec. 10, 1697), of D’Iberville’s narrative of his voyage
(1698), of Penicaut’s Annals of Louisiana (1698 to 1722),—all of
which pertain to the period of the present volume. It contains also
translations of Laudonnière’s _Histoire notable de Floride_, being that
made by Hakluyt (referred to in Vol. II. of the present History).

_Same_, vol. ii. (New York, 1875). This volume contains, in regard
to Louisiana, translations relating to La Salle, Joliet, Frontenac,
and New France, which are referred to in Vol. IV. of the present
History, as well as the Journal of D’Iberville’s voyage (1698, etc.),
and the letter of Jacques Gravier, who descended the Mississippi to
meet D’Iberville,—all referred to in the present chapter. In regard
to Florida, there are documents of Columbus, Narvaez, Las Casas,
Ribault, Grajales, Solis de las Meras, Fontenade, Villafane, Gourgues,
etc.,—(all of which are referred to in Vol. II. of the present
History).

It is to be regretted that French sometimes abridges the documents
which he copies, without indicating such method,—as in the case of
Charlevoix and Dumont.—ED.]

[118] Vol. IV. has the specific title: _Découverte par mer des bouches
du Mississipi et établissements de Lemoyne d’Iberville sur le golfe
du Mexique, 1694-1703_, Paris, 1880. Vol. V. is called: _Première
formation d’une chaîne de postes entre le fleuve Saint-Laurent et le
golfe du Mexique, 1683-1724_, Paris, 1883.

[119] [Particularly in Vol. IV. pp. 213-289, the _Journal du voyage
fait à l’embouchure de la rivière du Mississipi_ (etc.). Cf. the
_Journal du voyage fait par deux frégattes du roi, La Badine, commandée
par M. d’Iberville, et Le Marin, par M. E. Chevalier de Surgères, qui
partirent de Brest le 24 octobre, 1698, où elles avaient relâché,
étant parties de Larochelle, le 5 septembre précédent_, in _Historical
Documents_, third series, of the Literary and Historical Society of
Quebec (48 pp.), published at Quebec in 1871. See also the _Catalogue
of the Library of Parliament (1858)_, p. 1613.—ED.]

[120] [See Vol. IV. p. 242.—ED.]

[121] [For example, _The Present State of the Country ... of Louisiana.
By an Officer at New Orleans to his Friend at Paris. To which are added
Letters from the Governor_ [Vaudreuil] _on the Trade of the French and
English with the Natives_, London, 1744 (Carter-Brown, vol. iii. no.
773; Field, _Indian Bibliography_, no. 955; Sabin, no. 42,283).—ED.

[122] Gayarré, in his preface, says: “Mr. Magne (one of the editors
of the _New Orleans Bee_) inspected with minute care, and with a
discretion which did him honor, the portfolios of the Minister of the
Marine in France, and extracted from them all the documents relating
to Louisiana, of which he made a judicious choice and an exact copy.
Governor Mouton, having learned of this collection, hastened, in his
position as a clear-headed magistrate whose duty it was to gather
together what might cast light upon the history of the country, to
acquire it for account of the State.” It is understood that this Magne
Collection was purchased for a thousand dollars at the instance of Mr.
Gayarré. It was then deposited in the State Library; but is no longer
to be found. A similar disappearance has happened in the case of some
other copies which were made for Mr. Edmund Forstall, and were likewise
in the State Library; and the same fate has befallen two bound volumes
of copies which were made for the Hon. John Perkins while in Europe,
and which were by him likewise given to the State Library. Many of
these documents were included by Gayarré in his _Histoire_.

It was also by the influence of Gayarré that the Louisiana Legislature
appropriated $2,000 to secure copies of papers from the Spanish
Archives. It was committed to the Hon. Romulus Saunders of North
Carolina, then the American minister in Madrid, to propitiate the
Spanish Government in an application for permission to make copies.
He failed, though zealous to accomplish it. Through the medium of
Prescott recourse was then had to Don Pascual de Gayangos, who, after
difficulties had been overcome, succeeded in getting copies of a mass
of papers, which greatly aided Gayarré in his _Spanish Domination_.
These papers, like the rest, found their way to the State Library at
Baton Rouge, but disappeared in turn during the Civil War. A small
part of them was discovered by Mr. Lyman Draper, of Wisconsin, in the
keeping of the widow of a Federal officer, and through Mr. Draper’s
instrumentality was restored to the Library. The correspondence
of Messrs. Saunders, Gayangos, and Gayarré makes one of the State
documents of Louisiana.

A few years since, another movement was made by Mr. Gayarré to get
other papers from Spain, impelled to it by information of large
diaries (said to be four hundred and fifty-two large bundles) still
unexamined in the Spanish Archives, pertaining to Louisiana. The State
of Louisiana was not in a condition to incur any outlay; and by motion
of General Gibson a Bill was introduced into the National House of
Representatives, appropriating $5,000 to procure from England, France,
and Spain copies of documents relating to Florida and Louisiana.
Nothing seems to have come of the effort beyond the printing of a
letter of Mr. Gayarré, with his correspondence with Saunders and
Gayangos, which was done by order of a committee to whom the subject
was referred. The facts of this note are derived from a statement
kindly furnished by Mr. Gayarré.

[There is among the Sparks manuscripts in Harvard College Library
a volume marked _Papers relating to the Early Settlement of
Louisiana, copied from the Originals in the Public Offices of Paris_
(1697-1753).—ED.]

[123] Xavier Eyma adopts another form in “La légende du Meschacébé,”—a
paper in the _Revue Contemporaine_ (vol. xxxi. pp. 277, 486, 746), in
which he traces the history of the explorations from Marquette to the
death of Bienville.

[124] Norman McF. Walker on the “Geographical Nomenclature of
Louisiana,” in the _Mag. of Amer. History_, Sept., 1883, p. 211.

[125] See Vol. IV. p. 375.

[126] There is an account of him in the _Allg. Geog. Ephemeriden_, vol.
x. p. 385. See Vol. IV. p. 375.

[127] There are issues of later dates, 1722, etc.

[128] There are portraits and notices of the two in the _Allg. Geog.
Ephemeriden_, published at Weimar, 1802 (vol. x.).

[129] An _Atlas Nouveau_ of forty-eight maps was issued at Amsterdam,
with the name of Guillaume Delisle, in 1720, and with later dates. The
maps measure 25 × 21 inches.

[130] There are modern reproductions of it in French’s _Hist. Coll.
of Louisiana_, vol. ii., as dated 1707; in Cassell’s _United States,_
i. 475; and for the upper portion in Winchell’s _Geol. Survey of
Minnesota, Final Report,_ vol. i. p. 20. The lower part of it is given
in the present work, Vol. II. p. 294.

[131] _Géol. practique de la Louisiane_, p. 209.

[132] _N. Y. Col. Docs._, v. 577.

[133] Cf. _Bulletin de la Soc. de Géog. d’Anvers_, vii. 462. De Fer
was born in 1646; died in 1720. His likeness is in _Allg. Geog.
Ephemeriden_, Sept., 1803, p. 265.

[134] This map is worth about $10.00. Moll also published in 1715 a
_Map of North America_, with vignettes by Geo. Vertue,—size 38 × 23
inches. Moll’s maps at this time were made up into collections of
various dates and titles.

[135] This map of North America is reproduced in Lindsey’s _Unsettled
Boundaries of Ontario_, Toronto, 1873. It shows a view of the Indian
fort on the “Sasquesahanoch.” Moll’s _Minor Atlas, a new and curious
set of sixty-two maps_, eighteen of which relate to America, was issued
in London, without date, ten or fifteen years later. Cf. also “A new
map of Louisiana and the river Mississipi,” in _Some Considerations on
the consequences of the French settling Colonies on the Mississippi,
from a gentleman of America to his friend in London_. London, 1720.

[136] Thomassy, p. 212.

[137] Senex issued a revision of a map of North America this same year,
size 22 X 19 inches. Between 1710 and 1725 Senex’s maps were often
gathered into atlases, containing usually about 36 maps.

[138] Thomassy, p. 214.

[139] Sabin, ix. 37,600. Ker was a secret agent of the British
government, and Curl, the publisher, was pilloried for issuing the book.

[140] _Géologie practique de la Louisiane_, p. 2.

[141] Homann, b. 1663; d. at Nuremberg, 1724. There is an account of
him in the _Allg. Geog. Ephemeriden_, Nov., 1801. There are extracts
from the despatches of the Governors of Canada, 1716-1726, respecting
the controversy over the bounds between the French and English in _N.
Y. Col. Docs._, ix. 960.

[142] Sabin, xv. 64,140.

[143] His _Œuvres Géographiques_ were published collectively at Paris
in five volumes in 1744-45. The atlases which pass under his name bear
dates usually from 1743 to 1767, the separate maps being distinctively
dated, as those of North America in 1746; those of South America in
1748; those of Canada and Louisiana, 1732, 1755, etc.

[144] The upper part of it is reproduced in Andreas’s _Chicago_, i. 59.

[145] These maps are reproduced in Dr. Shea’s translation of
Charlevoix. The map showing the respective possessions of the
French, English, and Spanish is reproduced in Bonnechose’s _Montcalm
et le Canada français_, 5th ed., Paris, 1882. By this the English
are confined from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Florida between the
Appalachian range and the sea.

[146] Thomassy, p. 219. It is said that the maps first published by
Bellin were not thought by the French government sufficiently favorable
to their territorial claims, and accordingly he published a new set,
better favoring the French. When Shirley, speaking with Bellin,
referred to this, Bellin is said to have answered, “We in France must
obey the King’s command.”

[147] Page 218.

[148] Cf. his _Remarques sur la Carte de l’Amérique_, Paris, 1755.

[149] Sabin, xv. 34,027; and xv. p. 448.

[150] Referring to the maps (1756), Smith, the New York historian
(_Hist. N. York_, Albany, 1814, p. 218), says: “Dr. Mitchell’s is the
only authentic one extant. None of the rest concerning America have
passed under the examination or received the sanction of any public
board, and they generally copy the French.” Cf. C. C. Baldwin’s _Early
Maps of Ohio_, p. 15.

[151] It is also contained in the _Atlas Amériquain_, 1778, no. 335,
where it is described as “traduit de l’Anglais par le Rouge,” and is
dated 1777, “Corigée en 1776 par M. Hawkins.” A section of this map is
also included in the blue book, _North American Boundary, Part I._,
1840.

Parkman (_Montcalm and Wolfe_, i. 126) says: “Mitchell pushed the
English claim to its utmost extreme, and denied that the French were
rightful owners of anything in North America, except the town of Quebec
and the trading post of Tadoussac.” This claim was made in his _Contest
in America between Great Britain and France, with its consequences and
importance_, London, 1757.

[152] Thomson’s _Bibliog. of Ohio_, no. 384; Sabin, vi. p. 272;
Baldwin’s _Early Maps of Ohio_, 15; Haven in Thomas’ _Printing_, ii.
p. 525. The main words of the title are: _A General Map of the Middle
British Colonies in America ... of Aquanishuonîgy, the country of the
Confederate indians, Comprehending Aquanishuonîgy proper, their place
of residence; Ohio and Tïiughsoxrúntie, their deer-hunting countries;
Coughsaghráge and Skaniadaráde, their beaver-hunting Countries ...
wherein is also shewn the antient and present seats of the Indian
Nations_. _By Lewis Evans_, 1755.

The map extends from the falls of the Ohio to Narragansett Bay, and
includes Virginia in the south, with Montreal and the southern end of
Lake Huron in the north. It is dedicated to Pownall, and has a side
map of “The remaining part of Ohio R., etc.,” which shows the Illinois
country. In the lower right-hand corner it is announced as “Published
by Lewis Evans, June 23, 1755, and sold by Dodsley, in London, and the
author in Philadelphia.” The map measures 20-1/2 X 27-1/2 inches.

[153] Harv. Coll. Atlases, no. 354, pp. 3-6.

[154] _Hist. New York_ (1814), p. 222. Evans says: “The French being
in possession of Fort Frontenac at the peace of Ryswick, which
they attained during their war with the Confederates, gives them
an undoubted title to the acquisition of the northwest side of St.
Lawrence river, from thence to their settlement at Montreal.” (p. 14.)

[155] Harv. Col. lib’y, 6371.8; Boston Pub. lib’y [K. 11.7], and
Carter-Brown, iii. 1059, 1113.

[156] The occasion of Mills’ _Report on the boundaries of Ontario_
(1873) was an order requiring him to act as a special commissioner
to inquire into the location of the western and northern bounds of
Ontario,—the Imperial Parliament having set up (1871), as it was
claimed, the new Province of Manitoba within the legal limits of
Ontario, which held by transmission the claims westward of the Province
of Quebec and later those of Upper Canada.

[157] They might well have gone on under this confirmation till the
king supplanted them, but they suffered themselves to be continued in
office by the popular vote in three successive annual elections.

[158] This Order of King William, with fac-simile of the signature, is
in the _Mass. Hist. Coll._, xxxviii. 711, the original being in the
cabinet of that society.

[159] John Marshall’s diary notes under July 20, 1700, the death of
Ichabod Wiswall at Duxbury, “a man of eminent accomplishment for the
service of the Sanctuary.” _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, April, 1884, p.
154. Cf. Winsor’s _Duxbury_, p. 180.

[160] Mr. Chas. W. Tuttle’s paper, “New Hampshire without provincial
government, 1689-90,” in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, October, 1879,
was also printed (50 copies) separately.

[161] Palfrey, iv. 375.

[162] _Diary_, i. 329.

[163] Vol. IV. p. 364.

[164] Hudson’s _Amer. Journalism_, p. 45; _Mem. Hist. Boston_, ii.
387; Haven’s _Pre-Revolutionary Bibliog._, 333 (in _Amer. Antiq. Soc.
Collections_). This innocent attempt to correct the floating rumors
gave offence to the magistrates, as a license that should be resisted,
or much worse might happen. Sewall refers to it as giving “much
distaste, because not licensed, and because of passage referring to the
French king and Maquas.” On the 1st of October the governor and council
“disallowed” it. Mather attacked its impudence in a sharp letter the
next day; and the little over-ambitious chronicle never came to a
second issue. (Sewall’s _Diary_, i. 332.)

[165] See Vol. IV. p. 357; and for sources, p. 361. Sewall, under
date of December 29, 1690 (_Letter book_, p. 115), writes, “I have
discoursed with all sorts, and find that neither activity nor courage
were wanting in him [Phips], and the form of the attack was agreed
on by the Council of War.” A significant utterance of Frontenac is
instanced in the same letter: “When the French injuries were objected
to Count Frontenack by ours at Canada, his answer was that we were all
one people; so if Albany or Hartford provoke them, they hold it just
to fall on Massachusetts, Plimouth, Rode Island, or any other English
plantation. In time of distress the Massachusetts are chiefly depended
on for help;” and Sewall urges Mather to procure the sending of three
frigates,—one to be stationed in the Vineyard Sound, another at
Nantasket, and a third at Portsmouth.

[166] The charges against Andros were by this time practically
abandoned, and he was commissioned governor of Virginia (see _post_,
ch. iv.), while Joseph Dudley was made a councillor of New York.

[167] The charter was at once printed in Boston by Benj. Harris, 1692.
It was reprinted by Neal in his _New England_, 2d ed. ii. App., and
is included in various editions of the _Charter and Laws_, published
since. The original parchment is at the State House, and a heliotype
of its appearance, as it hangs in a glass case on the walls of the
Secretary’s office, is given in the _Memorial Hist. of Boston_, vol.
ii. The explanatory charter of a later year is similarly cared for. The
boxes in which they originally came over are also preserved.

[168] _Diary_, i. 360. Printed copies of a proclamation by the General
Court have come down to us, expressing joy at their arrival. F. S.
Drake sale, no. 1126, bought by C. H. Kalbfleisch, of New York.

[169] May 31, 1693. _The Great Blessing of primitive Counsellors_; an
appendix “To the inhabitants of the Province, &c.,” containing the
vindication. It is reprinted in the _Andros Tracts_, ii. 301. Cf.
Sibley, _Harvard Graduates_, i. p. 452.

[170] Sibley’s _Grad. of H. Univ._, i.

[171] This story is doubted. Cf. _Conn. Col. Rec. 1689-1706_. Their
majesties’ letter touching the command of the militia (1694) is in the
_Trumbull Papers_, p. 176.

[172] _Sewall Papers_, i. p. 386.

[173] His will is given in the _N. E. H. & G. Reg._, 1884, p. 205.
Cotton Mather published in 1697 his life of Phips, as _Pietas in
Patriam_; it was subsequently included in his _Magnalia_, after it
had passed a second edition separately in 1699. Sibley’s _Harvard
Graduates_, iii. p. 64.

[174] _Diary_, i. 404.

[175] The occasion was his tract _Truth held forth_, published in New
York in 1695, for which he was tried at Salem in 1696. His success did
not soften him, and he again assailed them in _New England Persecutors
mauled with their own Weapons_ (1697). Cf. A. C. Goodell in _Essex
Institute Collections_, iii.; _Sewall Papers_, i. 414-16; Dexter’s
_Bibliog._, nos. 2458, 2472; _Maule Genealogy_, Philad. 1868.

[176] Bancroft, final revision, ii. 238.

[177] _Report Rec. Com._, vii. pp. 224, 228, 230.

[178] The fort had been built there in 1690. After this attack the
farms were again occupied, but finally abandoned in 1704. C. W. Baird’s
_Huguenot Emigration to America_, ii. 264, 278.

[179] April 2, 1697; he had died March 27.

[180] Pemberton Square, then elevated considerably higher than now.

[181] John Marshall’s diary, printed in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
April, 1884, p. 153, describes the parade on Bellomont’s reception,
May, 1699.

[182] Haliburton (_Rule and Misrule of the English in America_,
232) praises him, and calls him “a true specimen of a great liberal
governor.”

Cf. Frederic de Peyster’s _Life and Administration of Richard, Earl of
Bellomont, governor of the provinces of N. Y., Mass., and N. H., from
1697 to 1701_. N. Y.: 1879,—an address delivered before the N. Y.
Hist. Society.

Bellomont, in his speech to the General Court, advised them to succor
the Huguenot clergyman of Boston, his congregation being reduced in
numbers. It was five years before that (1695) the Huguenot Oxford
settlement had been broken up by the Indian depredations, and nine
years earlier (1686) they had first come to Massachusetts with their
minister. We have lately had an adequate account of their story in
Charles W. Baird’s _Huguenot Emigration to America_ (N. Y., 1885, two
vols.), and the “Huguenot Society of America” was established in 1884,
when the first part of their _Proceedings_ was published. The earliest
treatment of the subject is Dr. Abiel Holmes’s _Memoir of the French
Protestants_, published in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Collections_ (vol.
xxii. p. 1). This was largely about the Oxford settlement, which has
since been further illustrated by Geo. T. Daniels in his _Huguenots in
the Nipmuck Country_. Next after Holmes came Hannah F. Lee’s _Huguenots
in France and America_ (Cambridge, 1843), but it is scant in matter.
Somewhat later (1858, etc.), Mr. Joseph Willard considered them in
his paper, “Naturalization in the American Colonies,” printed in the
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ (iv. 337), showing they were not naturalized
till 1731; and Lucius Manlius Sargent recalled many associations with
their names in his _Dealings with the Dead_ (vol. ii. pp. 495-549).
Cf. further, Ira M. Barton, in _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Ap., 1862,
Ap., 1864; _Mem. Hist. of Boston_ (chap. by C. C. Smith), ii. p. 249;
Blaikie’s _Presbyterianism in New England_ (Boston, 1881), where
their church is considered the forerunner of the Presbyterian method
of government; Palfrey’s _New England_, iv. p. 185. The Huguenot
society recognizes by their vice-presidents two other settlements of
the Huguenots before 1787, in New England, beside those of Oxford and
Boston, namely, one in Maine and another in Rhode Island,—the latter
being commemorated by Elisha R. Potter’s _French Settlements in Rhode
Island_, being no. 5 of the _Rhode Island Historical Tracts_, published
by S. S. Rider in Providence, R. I.

[183] _Trip to New England, with a character of the country and people,
both English and Indian_, Anonymous, London, 1699; second edition in
_Writings of the Author of the London Spy_, London, 1704; third edition
in _The London Spy_, London, 1706. (The present _History_, Vol. III. p.
373; Carter-Brown, ii. no. 2,580; Brinley, i. no. 371; Stevens, _Bibl.
Hist._, 1870, no. 2,278; Shurtleff’s _Desc. of Boston_, p. 53.)

[184] As a corrective of periwigs he advised the good people to read
Calvin’s _Institutions_, book iii. ch. 10.

[185] Cf. Sabin, _Dictionary_, xv. 65,689.

[186] _Mem. Hist. Boston_, ii. 211, and references.

[187] As to the part Massachusetts discontents, like Sewall and
Addington, took in the founding of Yale College, compare the views
of Quincy, _Harvard University_, i. 198, etc.; and of Prest. Woolsey
in his _Hist. Discourse_ of Aug. 14, 1850; and Prof. Kingsley in the
_Biblical Repository_, July and Oct., 1841.

The principal sources of the history of Yale College are the following:
Thomas Clap’s _Annals or History of Yale College_, New Haven, 1766. F.
B. Dexter on “The founding of Yale College,” in the _New Haven Hist.
Soc. Papers_, vol. ii., and his _Biographical sketches of the graduates
of Yale College, with annals of the college history. October, 1701-May,
1745_. N. Y. 1885. E. E. Beardsley on “Yale College and the Church,” in
Perry’s _Amer. Episc. Church_, vol. i., monograph 6. The most extensive
work is: _Yale College; a sketch of its history, with notices of its
several departments, instructors, and benefactors; together with some
account of student life and amusements. By various authors_. 2 vols.
New York. 1879. Edited by W. L. Kingsley. In this will be found a
photograph of the original portrait of Gov. Elihu Yale (i. p. 37); the
house of Saltonstall in 1708 (p. 48), a likeness of Timothy Cutler (p.
49) and his house (p. 49), with a plan of New Haven in 1749, and the
college buildings (p. 76). A less extended account is in _The College
Book_, edited by C. F. Richardson and H. A. Clark.

[188] John Marshall, in his diary, July 15, 1701, records the funeral
of William Stoughton at Dorchester, “with great honor and solemnity,
and with him much of New England’s glory.” _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
April, 1884, p. 155. On July 17, Samuel Willard preached a sermon on
his death, which was published. (Haven in Thomas, ii. 349.)

[189] For a portrait of Phipps, see _Brit. Mez. Portraits_, iii. 1109.

[190] Dudley’s commission is in Harvard Coll. library (Sibley’s
_Graduates_, ii. 176). His instructions (1702) are in the Mass. Hist.
Soc., and printed in their _Collections_, xxix. 101. Haliburton (_Rule
and Misrule_, etc., 235), while he praises Dudley, questions the wisdom
of the ministry which selected him to govern such a province. Cf.
Sibley, _Harvard Graduates_, ii. 166.

[191] On the 4th of June, Benj. Wadsworth preached a sermon, _King
William lamented in America_ (Harv. Col. lib., 10396.74). There is
a portrait in the Mass. Hist. Soc. gallery (_Proceedings_, vi. 33).
Cf. _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, May, 1884, for a paper on his influence in
America.

[192] Keith journeyed from New England to Carolina in 1702-4, indulging
in theological controversies which produced a crop of tracts, and in
1706 he published at London _Journal of travels from New Hampshire to
Caratuck_.

[193] This was printed in 1702, together with the House’s answer, and
the address of the ministers to Dudley. (Haven in Thomas, ii. p. 349.)

[194] Col. Quarry, who was reporting on the colonies to the home
government, said of New England: “A governor depending on the people’s
humors cannot serve the Crown.” _Mass. Hist. Coll._, iii. p. 229.

[195] Falmouth (Portland) was the most easterly seaboard port of the
English at this time.

[196] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, ix. 502.

[197] These letters are in the _Mass. Hist. Coll._, iii. 126, etc.
Cotton Mather took his accustomed satisfaction in calling the governor
“the venom of Roxbury.” _Mass. Hist. Coll._, xxxviii. 418.

[198] See _post_, ch. vii.

[199] Referring to one source of information, common enough in New
England, Palfrey (iv. 342), says: “Funeral sermons are a grievous snare
to the historian.”

[200] _Mem. Hist. Boston_, ii. 389; Palfrey, iv. 304.

[201] 1709, May. “About the tenth of this month a general impress for
soldiers ran through the Colony. Some say every tenth man was taken to
serve in this expedition.” John Marshall’s diary in _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc._, April, 1884, p. 160.

[202] Phototypes of contemporary prints of the Four Maquas are annexed.
They are reduced from originals (engraved by J. Simon after J. Veulst)
in the Amer. Antiq. Society’s Gallery. Cf. _Catal. Cab. Ms. Hist.
Soc._, p. 59; Smith’s _Brit. Mezzotint Portraits_, iii. 1,095, 1692;
Gay, _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 44, etc. Cf. also Carter-Brown, iii. 136;
Brinley, no. 5,395; Field, _Indian Bibliog._, no. 553; _Mag. of Amer.
Hist._, ii. 151, 313, 372; Sabin’s _Dictionary_, vi. p. 543; Colden’s
letters in _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1868; Addison’s _Spectator_, April
27, 1711. There was published in London at the time _The Four Indian
Kings’ Speech to her Majesty on the 20th April, translated into verse,
with their effigies, taken from the life_. In _Mass. Archives_, xxxi.,
are various papers concerning these Indians,—an order for £30 for
their use, the charges of a dinner given to them August 6, 1709, and
other accounts (nos. 62, 76, 80-83, 87).

[203] November 16, 1710. “A day of Thanksgiving on account of success
at Port Royall.” John Marshall’s diary, _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
April, 1884, p. 161.

[204] First ed. 1710; second, in 1715. Cf. Stevens’ _Bibl. Geog._, no.
3,039; _Mem. Hist. Boston_, ii. p. 216; H. M. Dexter’s address on Wise
in the _Two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Church in Essex_,
Salem, 1884, p. 113; and Sibley’s _Harvard Graduates_, ii. 429.

[205] Various petitions to the queen during 1710-11 are in the _Mass.
Archives_, xx. pp. 133, 145, 152, 164, 170.

[206] Dudley on the 9th issued a proclamation for an embargo on
outward-bound vessels. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xi. 206.

[207] Annexed are engravings of a contemporary print, “Exact draft of
Boston harbor,” and of a ground plan of Castle William from originals
in the British Museum. See notes on the construction and history of
this fortress in _Mem. Hist. Boston_, ii. 101, 127. The _Catal. of the
King’s Maps in the Brit. Mus._ (i. p. 216) shows a drawn plan of the
Castle, by Colonel Romer, 1705, four sheets, with a profile. Pownall’s
view of Boston (1757) shows the Castle in the foreground. (_Mem. Hist.
Boston_, ii. 127; _Columbian Mag._, Dec., 1787; Drake’s _Boston_, folio
ed.). The plan of the island as given in Pelham’s map is sketched in
_Mem. Hist. Boston_, ii. 127.

[208] The fleet had not been provisioned in England, in order to
conceal its destination. Walker’s _Journal_ shows that in Boston
Jonathan Belcher was the principal contractor for provisions, and Peter
Faneuil for military stores.

[209] Published in London, 1712. (Cf. Carter-Brown, iii. no. 166.)
Dummer, referring to Walker’s charges, says, “They can’t do us much,
if any, harm.” _Mass. Hist. Coll._, xxi. 144. Cf. also Dummer’s
_Letter to a friend in the country on the late expedition to Canada,
with an account of former enterprises, a defence of that design and
the share the late M——rs had in it_. Lond. 1712. (Sabin, v. 21,199;
Carter-Brown, iii. no. 167.)

[210] A journal of this negotiation is printed in the _New Eng. Hist. &
Gen. Reg._, January, 1854, p. 26.

[211] See Vol. III., chapter on New England.

[212] Cf. papers on the Usher difficulty in _N. E. H. & G. Reg._, 1877,
p. 162.

[213] This recusant act occasioned a report from the attorney-general
to the queen, cited in _Shelburne Papers_, vol. 61. Cf. _Reports Hist.
MSS. Commission_, v. 228.

[214] Cf. Memoir of the Mohegans in _Mass. Hist. Coll._, viii. 73, etc.

[215] But this was not the end. It was finally settled in favor of the
colony in 1771. Cf. Trumbull’s Connecticut, i. 410, 421; De Forest’s
_Indians of Conn._, 309; _The Governor and Company of Connecticut
and Mohegan Indians by their guardians: Certified Copy of Book of
Proceedings before the Commissioners of Review_, 1743 (usually called
_The Mohegan Case_, published in 1769,—copies in Harvard College
library; Brinley, no. 2,085; Menzies, no. 1,338; Murphy, no. 660). Cf.
Palfrey, iv. 336, 364; _Trumbull Papers_ (_Mass. Hist. Coll._, vol.
xlix., index), and E. E. Beardsley on the “Mohegan land controversy,”
in _New Haven Hist. Soc. Papers_, iii. 205, and his _Life and Times of
Wm. Samuel Johnson_.

[216] Palfrey, _New Eng._, iv. 489, 495; Sibley’s _Harvard Graduates_,
iii. 277.

[217] Jeremiah Dummer, however, writes, January, 1714, of Col. Byfield,
then in England, that he is “so excessively hot against Col. Dudley
that he cannot use anybody civilly who is for him.” _Mass. Hist.
Coll._, v. 198.

[218] This tribune of the people, however, did not long survive his
victory, but died October 31, 1715, aged seventy-eight.

[219] Dr. Palfrey amply illustrates the reciprocal influence of the
old and new politics. Cf. Dr. Ellis in _Sewall Papers_, iii. 46. There
is no more pointed evidence, however, of the scant interest taken by
the wits of London in the current politics and customs of the American
colonies than the fact that among the multitudinous pictorial satires
of the period, preserved in the British Museum and noted in its _Catal.
of prints, Satires_ (ii., iii., and iv., 1689-1763), there is scarce
a single purely American subject. One or two about the confronting of
the English and French in the Ohio valley, and incidentally touching
English successes in American waters, are the only ones noted in a
somewhat careful examination. _Catal. of prints in the Brit. Mus.
Satires_, iii. pp. 927, 972, 1100.

[220] Mather was very complacent over this event, and called Shute of a
“very easy, candid, gentlemanly temper.” _Mass. Hist. Coll._, xxxviii.
420.

[221] Discussions of the king’s rights to the woods of Maine and New
England are in the documents (1718-1726, etc.) collected in Chalmers’s
_Opinions of Eminent Lawyers_, i. 110, 115, 118, 136, 138.

[222] Cf. Barry, _Mass._, ii. 109.

[223] But compare a paper by Geo. H. Moore in _Boston Daily
Advertiser_, May 12, 1882.

[224] Cotton Mather would have it that the governor was not at fault,
when he called him “a person born to make every one easy and happy,
that his benign rays can reach unto,” as he said in a letter of Nov.
4, 1758, printed in the _Flying Post_ of May 14-16, 1719. (Harv. Coll.
lib., 10396.92.)

[225] See _post_, ch. vii., Shute’s letter to “Ralleé,” Feb. 21, 1718,
in which he says that if war occurs it will be because of the urging of
the popish missionaries. (_Mass. Hist. Col._, v.)

[226] Cf. Edw. Eggleston on “Commerce in the Colonies” in _The
Century_, xxviii. 236; also Macy’s _Nantucket_. The practice of taking
whales in boats from the shore is said to have been introduced into
Nantucket by Ichabod Paddock from Cape Cod. “Nantucket men are the only
New England whalers at present,” says Douglass (_Summary_, etc., 1747,
vol. i. p. 59; also p. 296).

[227] J. L. Bishop’s _Hist. of Amer. Manuf._ (1861), i. p. 491.

[228] Cf. on parliamentary restrictions of their trade, Edw. Eggleston
in _The Century_, vol. xxviii. p. 252, etc. See on industries of the
province, Palfrey, iv. 429; Lodge’s _Eng. Colonies_, 410, 411; also
the tracts: _Brief account of the state of the Province of Mass. Bay,
civil and ecclesiastical_, _by a lover of his country_ (1717), and
_Melancholy circumstances of the Province_ (1719). Cf. Haven in Thomas,
ii. p. 382. Sir Josiah Child in 1677 had expounded for the first time
the restrictive system in his _New Discourse of Trade_, which was
not, however, published in London till 1694, but was various times
reprinted later. He called New England “the most prejudicial plantation
to the kingdom of England,” inhabited as it was “by a sort of people
called puritans.” Cf. John Adams’ _Works_, x. 328, 330, 332; Scott,
_Development of Constitutional Liberty_, 208. Otis in his speech on the
Writs of Assistance cites Child, as well as Joshua Gee’s _Trade and
Navigation of Great Britain Considered_ (London, 1729), which was the
first to make evident the policy of making the colonies subserve the
public revenue, as they already under the navigation acts bettered the
private trade of the mother country. This book was reprinted at London
in 1730, 1738, and at Glasgow in 1735, 1760, and in “a new edition,
with many interesting notes and additions by a merchant,” in 1767. Cf.
John Adams’ _Works_, x. 335, 350; Scott, _Development of Constitutional
Liberty_ (1882), 216.

[229] They settled on the left bank of the Merrimac, and gave the name
of Londonderry (whence in Ireland they came) to the new town. Cf.
Parker’s _Hist. of Londonderry, N. H._; and _Maine Hist. Soc. Coll._,
vi. p. 1.

[230] Cf. Bishop’s _Hist. of Amer. Manufactures_, i. 331.

[231] _Record Com. Rept._, viii. 157.

[232] The Boston ministers, Mather, Wadsworth, and Colman, issued a
flying sheet in 1719, _A Testimony against Evil Customs_, in which they
regretted that ordinations, weddings, trainings, and huskings were
made the occasion of unseemly merriment, and that lectures were not
more generally attended. (Harv. Coll. lib., 10396.92.) Lodge (_Short
Hist. Eng. Colonies_, 463) indicates the change which converted the
simple burial of the early colonists to an ostentatious display in the
provincial period.

[233] When young men like Franklin were pondering on Collins and
Shaftesbury, liberalism was alarming.

[234] April 2, 1720.

[235] Josiah Quincy’s _History of Harvard University_, i. ch. xi.

[236] Cf. Perry’s _Amer. Episc. Church_, i. ch. xiv.; and monograph vi.
by E. E. Beardsley in the same. Sprague’s _Amer. Annals_, v. 50.

[237] Douglass claims that it was he who drew the attention of that
“credulous vain creature, Mather, jr.,” to the account of inoculations
in the _Philosophical Transactions_, xxxii. 169.

[238] _Mass. Hist. Coll._, xxxviii. 448, 449.

[239] The inoculation controversy produced a crowd of tracts. Cf.
Haven’s bibliog. in Thomas, ii. pp. 388-393, 395, 420-422, 444, 456,
515,—extending over thirty years; _Brinley Catal._, no. 1,645, etc.;
Hutchinson, ii. 248; Barry, ii. 115; _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iv. 535.
Franklin wrote _Some account of the success of inoculation for the
small-pox in England and America_, which was printed in London in 1758
(8 pp.), and is reprinted in the _Mass. Hist. Coll._, xvii. 7.

[240] The most distinguished of the Boston printers was Bartholomew
Green, who died in 1733. Cf. Thomas’ _Hist. of Printing_, and ch. vii.
and viii. of Bishop’s _Hist. of Amer. Manufactures_ (1861).

[241] Franklin’s paper, however, did much to arouse the ministers to
the conception of the fact that there was a force in the public press
to direct the public sense, superior to the power of the pulpit, which
must perforce be content with a diminishing power.

[242] This was published in London and Boston, 1721 (again Boston,
1721, 1768, and London, 1765). Sabin, v. no. 21,197; Carter-Brown, iii.
300. Tyler (_Am. Lit._, ii. 119) is in error in placing its publication
in 1728. The tract has been greatly praised. James Otis referred to
it with commendation in his great Writs-of-Assistance speech. John
Adams (_Works_, x. 343) calls it “one of our most classical American
productions.” Tudor (_Life of Otis_, ch. vi.) thinks that in point
of style it vies with any writing before the Revolution. Grahame
(iii. 72) says it has a great deal of interesting information and
ingenious argument. Bancroft (revised ed., ii. 247) gives it credit for
influence, and makes a synopsis.

[243] Sabin, xv. 65,582.

[244] See _post_, ch. vii.

[245] See _post_, ch. vii.

[246] Of John Wentworth (b. 1672), lieut.-gov. of N. H. from 1717
to his death, in 1730, there is a portrait in the gallery of the
Mass. Hist. Soc. Cf. _Catal. Cabinet, Mass. Hist. Soc._, no. 16;
_Proceedings_, i. 124. Blackburn’s portrait of him is engraved in
the _Wentworth Genealogy_, which gives a full account of the family,
embracing the genealogical material earlier published in the _N. E. H.
& G. Reg._, 1850, p. 321; 1863, p. 65; 1868, p. 120; also, 1878, p. 434.

[247] Cf. Caleb Heathcote’s charges (1719) on this point in _R. I. Col.
Rec._, iv. 258; _R. I. Hist. Mag._, April, 1885, p. 270^a.

[248] See Vol. III. p. 379.

[249] Papers relating to the governor’s memorial are noted in _Brit.
Mus. MSS._, no. 15,486. _The Report of the Lords of the Committee
upon Governor Shute’s Memorial with his Majesty’s Order in Council
thereupon_, was printed in Boston in 1725. (Harv. Col. lib., 10352.4;
Haven in Thomas, ii. p. 402.)

[250] It is spread on the Boston Records. Cf. _Rec. Com. Rept._, viii.
178.

[251] See _Mass. Hist. Coll._, i. 32.

[252] This document is in the _Mass. State Archives_. It was printed
in Boston in 1725 (pp. 8), and has been since included in the several
collections of Charters and Laws. The original parchment hangs in
the office of the secretary of the commonwealth. Cf. _Report to the
Legislature of Massachusetts upon the Condition of the Records, Files,
Papers and Documents in the Secretary’s Department, January, 1885_, pp.
15, 16.

[253] Fort Dummer was repaired in 1740. On determining the bounds
between Massachusetts and New Hampshire, it was brought within the
latter province. (B. H. Hall, _Eastern Vermont_, i. 15, 27; Temple and
Sheldon, _Northfield_, 199; Shirley, letter, Nov. 30, 1748, in _Mass.
Hist. Coll._, iii. 106; _N. H. Prov. Papers_, vol. v.)

[254] It seems to have been a satisfaction to Cotton Mather, that “the
hairy scalp of Father Rallee paid for what hand he had in the rebellion
into which he infuriated his proselytes.” Cf. Cotton Mather’s _Waters
of Marah Sweetened_ (Boston, 1725), an essay on the death of Capt.
Josiah Winslow in a fight with the Indians at Green Island, May 1, 1724.

[255] See post, ch. vii.

[256] It was not till 1773 that a compromise fixed the western line of
Massachusetts, and not till 1787 was it finally run.

[257] Cf. Dr. Douglass, _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xxxii. 172.

[258] “The great misery of Cotton Mather was his vanity; and this
gangrene, first applying to his literary, then to his social, may
ultimately have tainted his moral, reputation, in the judgment of his
fellow citizens.” Jas. Savage in _Mass. Hist. Coll._, xxxii. 129.

[259] Corner of Kilby and State streets, according to present names.

[260] A Poem, _presented to his excellency William Burnet [t], Esq.; on
his arrival at Boston_ [Boston, 1728?] 5 pp., is not to be confounded
with this poem by Mather Byles.

[261] _Rec. Com. Report_, viii. 226. (Sept. 30, 1728.)

[262] _A Collection of the Proceedings of the Great and General Court
or Assembly of His Majesty’s Province of the Massachusetts Bay in
New England, containing several instructions from the Crown, to the
Council and Assembly of that province, for fixing a salary on the
governour, and their determinations thereon, as also the methods taken
by the Court for supporting the several Governours, since the arrival
of the present charter._ Boston, 1729. (Harv. Col. lib., 10352.6;
Carter-Brown, iii. no. 434). Cf. Jeremiah Dummer’s _Letter dated Aug.
10, 1729, on the Assembly fixing the governor’s salary_. (Sabin, v.
21,200; Haven in Thomas, ii. p. 418.) Year after year the effusive
arguments on the House’s side are spread upon the town records, in the
instructions given to the members from Boston.

[263] Haven in Thomas, ii. 418.

[264] Thomas Foxcroft, however, delivered (Aug. 23, 1730) a century
sermon, to commemorate the founding of Boston, which is printed.
(Haven’s list in Thomas, ii. p. 421.)

[265] Alexander Blaikie’s _Hist. of Presbyterianism in New England_,
Boston, 1881,—a book unskilful in literary form and unwise in spirit.
A far better book is Chas. A. Briggs’s _Amer. Presbyterianism,
its Origin and Early History_, New York, 1885,—a book showing
more research than any of its predecessors. Cf. also Chas. Hodge’s
_Constitutional Hist. of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S._ (Phil.
1851); Richard Webster’s _Hist. of the Presbyterian Church in America
to 1760_ (Phil. 1857); E. H. Gillett, _Hist. of the Presbyterian Church
in the U. S._ revised ed. (Phil. 1864), etc.

[266] “Belcher was not a paper money governor,” says Douglass
(_Summary_, etc., i. 377); “he was well acquainted in the commercial
world.”

[267] Cf. his _Faithful narrative of the surprising work of God in the
conversion of many hundred souls, etc. Written on November 6, 1736,
with a preface by Dr. Watts_, etc., London, 1737 (two editions); and
“with a shorter preface added by some of the ministers of Boston,”
third ed., Boston, 1738. (Cf. _Prince Catal._, p. 22; and Carter-Brown,
iii. nos. 563, 577, 578.) After the coming of Whitefield, he published
_Some thoughts concerning the present revival of Religion_ (Boston,
1742; Edinburgh, 1743; Worcester, 1808),—perhaps the strongest
presentation of the revivalists’ side. Cf. Dexter’s _Bibliography_,
no. 3092; Quincy’s _Harvard University_, ii.; _Poole’s Index_, p. 393.
A Catholic view of the successive New England modifications of faith
since Jonathan Edwards is in the _Amer. Cath. Quart. Rev._, x. 95
(1885).

[268] Cf. annexed extract from Popple’s _British Empire in America_.
The maps of Herman Moll are the chief ones, immediately antecedent to
Popple’s. One of Moll’s, called “New England, New York, New Jersey,
and Pennsylvania,” is in Oldmixon’s _Brit. Empire in America_, 1708.
In 1729 he included what he called a “Map of New England, New York,
New Jersey, and Pennsylvania” in his _New Survey of the Globe_. It
singularly enough omits the Kennebec and Penobscot rivers. A somewhat
amusing transformation of names is found in a map published by Homann,
at Nuremberg, _Nova Anglia Anglorum Coloniis florentissima_. David
Humphrey’s _Hist. Acc. of the Society for the propagation of the Gospel
in Foreign Parts_ has also a “Map of New England, New York, New Jersey,
and Pennsylvania, by H. Moll, geographer,” in which the towns are
marked to which missionaries had been sent. It is dated 1730.

Douglass in 1729, referring to maps of New England, wrote, “There is
not one extant but what is intolerably and grossly erroneous.” In the
same letter Douglass gives some notion of the uncertain cartography of
that day. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xxxii. 186.

[269] Chauncy is claimed by the modern Universalists as prefiguring
their faith. Cf. Whittemore’s _Modern Hist. of Universalism_; and _Mem.
Hist. Boston_, iii. 488. See the characterization of Chauncy in Tyler’s
_Amer. Literature_, ii. 200; and his portrait in _Mem. Hist. Boston_,
ii. 226.

[270] _Summary_, etc., i. p. 250.

[271] The expostulatory and polemical literature of the “Great
Awakening in New England” is abundantly set forth in Haven’s list
appended to the Antiq. Soc. ed. of Thomas’s _History of Printing_, vol.
ii., and in the _Collections towards a bibliog. of Congregationalism_,
appended by Dr. H. M. Dexter to his _Congregationalism as seen in its
Literature_, to be found in chronological order in both places between
1736 and 1750; and in the _Prince Catalogue_, p. 65. Thomas Prince
supported, and his son published, during the excitement, a periodical
called _The Christian History, containing accounts of the revival
and propagation of religion in Great Britain, America, etc._ (March
5, 1743, to February 23, 1744-5, in 104 numbers). Cf. Thomas, _Hist.
Printing_, Am. Antiq. Soc. ed., ii. 66. A letter of Chas. Chauncy to
Mr. George Wishart, concerning the state of religion in New England
(1742), is printed in the _Clarendon Hist. Soc. Reprints_, no. 7
(1883). Chauncy’s _Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in
New England_, Boston, 1743, is the main expression of his position
in the controversy, followed up by a _Letter to the Rev. Mr. George
Whitefield_, (Boston, 1743), in vindication of passages in the
_Seasonable Thoughts_ which Whitefield had controverted. (Carter-Brown,
iii. no. 813, for this and other tracts of that year.) Whitefield’s
journals were frequently issued (Carter-Brown, iii. nos. 631-34,
669-70), and the most comprehensive of the modern Lives of Whitefield
is that by Tyerman (London, 1876). _Poole’s Index_ (p. 1406) gives the
clues to the mass of periodical literature on Whitefield. Cf. Tracy’s
_Great Awakening_ (1842). In Connecticut the controversy between the
New Lights (revivalists) and the Old Lights took on a more virulent
form than in Massachusetts. (Cf. Trumbull, Hollister, etc.) About the
best of the condensed narratives of the “Great Awakening” is that of
Dr. Palfrey in his _Compendious Hist. of New England_, iv. ch. 7 and 8,
the latter chapter outlining the course of the commotion in Connecticut.

[272] Cf. Ellis Ames’ paper on the part taken by Massachusetts in this
expedition, with extracts from the Council Records. _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc._, 1881, vol. xviii. p. 364.

“1740, Apr. 17. Orders arrived [in Boston] to declare the warr in
form against Spain, and accordingly it was proclaimed with the usual
solemnity at Boston the twenty-first.” “Oct. 1740. Five companies, the
quota of Massachusetts for the West Indian expedition, sailed.” Paul
Dudley’s diary in _N. E. H. & G. Reg._, 1881, pp. 29, 30.

[273] Sabin, xv. 65,585, with a long list of Prince’s other
publications.

[274] See. _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. p. 202; _Amer. Mag._ (1834), i. p.
81.

[275] Cf. sketch of the history of the Navigation Laws in Viscount
Bury’s _Exodus of the Western Nations_, ii. ch. 2.

[276] Cf. ch. viii. of W. E. Foster’s _Stephen Hopkins_ (_Rhode Island
Tracts_, no. 19), tracing these restrictions of trade as a proximate
cause of the Amer. Revolution, and his references. A petition of the
town of Boston in 1735, to the General Court, asking for relief from
taxation, sets forth the condition of trade at this time, and gives the
following schedule of the cost of maintaining the town’s affairs: For
the poor, £2,069; the watch, £1,200; ministry, £8,000; other purposes,
£4,630; county tax, £1,682; imposts, £1,400. _Boston Town Records_
(1729-1742), p. 120.

[277] The correspondence between Belcher and Waldron is in the keeping
of the N. H. Hist. Soc., and some of it is printed in the _N. H. Prov.
Papers_, iv. 866, etc.

[278] There is a view of the Wentworth house at Newcastle in Gay’s
_Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 199; and in John Albee’s _Newcastle historic
and picturesque, Boston_, 1884, p. 70. For the old “Province House,”
see Ibid. p. 36.

[279] _A proposal for the better supplying of churches in our foreign
plantations, and for converting the savage Americans to Christianity,
by a college to be erected in the Summer islands, otherwise called
the isles of Bermuda._ London. 1725. Berkeley published this tract
anonymously.

[280] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xvii. 94.

[281] Cf. D. C. Gilman on Berkeley’s gifts to Yale College in _New
Haven Col. Hist. Soc. Papers_, vol. i. See the house in Mason’s
_Newport_, p. 73, and in Kingsley’s _Yale College_, i. p. 60. Cf. also
Perry’s _Hist. of the American Episcopal Church_, i. pp. 532, 545

[282] Cf. Moses Coit Tyler’s “Dean Berkeley’s sojourn in America”
in Perry’s _Hist. of the Amer. Episcopal Church_, i. p. 519; A. C.
Fraser’s _Works of Berkeley_, with _Life and Letters of Berkeley_,
Oxford, 1871, and his subsequent _Berkeley_, 1881. Some letters of
Berkeley from Newport, among the Egmont MSS., are printed in _Hist.
MSS. Com. Report_, vii. 242. Cf. also D. C. Gilman in _Hours at
Home_, i. 115; Tuckerman’s _America and her Commentators_, p. 162; E.
E. Beardsley in _Amer. Church Rev._, Oct. 1881; Bancroft’s _United
States_, final revision, ii. 266; Noah Porter’s _Two Hundredth Birthday
of Bishop Berkeley_ (New York, 1885); Sprague’s _Amer. Pulpit_, v.
63, and references in _Poole’s Index_, p. 114. Douglass poked fun at
Berkeley in his own scattering way. _Summary_, i. p. 149.

[283] Cf. Sheffield’s address on _The Privateersmen. of Newport_.

[284] Cf. _Hist. Sketch of the fortification Defences of Narragansett
Bay_, by Gen. Geo. W. Cullum (Washington, 1884).

[285] The ministers of Boston in a memorial, Dec. 5, 1737, did what
they could to counteract the machinations of Belcher’s enemies. _Mass.
Hist. Coll._, xxii. 272.

[286] John Adams, with something of the warring politician’s onset,
says of Shirley that he was a “crafty, busy, ambitious, intriguing,
enterprising man; and having mounted to the chair of this province,
he saw in a young, growing country vast prospects of ambition opening
before his eyes, and conceived great designs of aggrandizing himself,
his family, and his friends.” _Novanglus_, in _Works_, iv. 18, 19.

[287] Cf. Elias Nason’s _Life of Sir Henry Frankland_; Dr. O. W.
Holmes’ Poem of “Agnes;” _Mem. Hist. Boston_, ii. p. 526; and the
Appendix to the _Boston Evacuation Memorial_.

[288] His portrait in the Mass. Hist. Soc. Gallery is engraved in the
_Mem. Hist. Boston_, ii. 260. There is a steel engraving in the _Mag.
of Am. Hist._, Aug., 1882. Cf. _Catal. Cab. Mass. Hist. Soc._, no. 77.

[289] New England had under 400,000 population at this time, of whom
200,000 were in Mass., 100,000 in Conn., and Rhode Island and New
Hampshire had about 30,000 each.

[290] Lotteries were becoming in Massachusetts a favorite method of
raising money in the latter half of the eighteenth century. Cf. H. B.
Staples on the _Province Laws_ (1884), p. 9; _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iv.
503.

[291] A Boston fisherman, who had seen the burning fort at Canseau,
gave the colonies notice of the outbreak of the war. Shirley at once
sent a message to Gov. Mascarene at Annapolis to hold out till he could
be reinforced. The messenger being captured, the French vessels had
time to escape before Capt. Edward Tyng, who left Boston July 2d with a
force, could arrive. He reached Annapolis July 4, to find Le Loutre and
his Indians besieging the town. The enemy withdrew; Tyng threw men into
the fort, and by the 13th was back in Boston. Capt. John Rouse, the
Boston privateersman, had also been sent off during the summer, and had
made havoc among the French fishing stations on the Newfoundland shore.

[292] See _post_, ch. vii.

[293] _R. I. Col. Record_, v. 100, 102.

[294] Shirley despatched expresses the next day. His letter to Wanton,
of Rhode Island, urged him to store up powder. A few weeks later,
Phips, the lieutenant-governor, writes to the governor of Rhode
Island, Aug. 14, 1745: “This province is exhausted of men, provisions,
clothing, ammunition, and other things necessary for the support of the
garrison at Louisbourg. If his Majesty’s other provinces and colonies
will not do something more than they have done for the maintaining of
this conquest, we apprehend great danger that the place will fall into
the enemy’s hands again.” _R. I. Col. Records_, v. p. 142.

[295] Cf. _A brief state of the services and expences of the Province
of Massachusetts Bay in the common cause._ London, 1765. (Carter-Brown,
iii. 1467.)

[296] Christopher Kilby, the agent of the province, had, July 1, 1746,
memorialized the home government to send succor to the colonies, in
case a French fleet was sent against them. _Pepperrell Papers_, ed.
by A. H. Hoyt (Boston, 1874), p. 5. Cf. _Mem. Hist. Boston_, ii. 119.
Kilby was the province’s agent from Feb. 20, 1744, to Nov. 1748. Cf.
_Mass. Archives_, xx. 356, 409, 469. The relations of the province with
its agents are set forth in vols. xx.-xxii. of the _Archives_. Cf. the
chapter on the Royal Governors, by Geo. E. Ellis, in the _Mem. Hist.
Boston_, ii. The apprehension was strong in England that D’Anville
would succeed in recovering Acadia and establish himself at Chebuctou,
“which it is evident they design by their preparations.” _Bedford
Corresp._, i. 156.

[297] The Duke of Bedford, who was the chief English patron of the
expedition of 1746, recognized how great the exhaustion of the colonies
had been in doing their part to bring the movement about. _Bedford
Corresp._, i. 182.

[298] War was burdensome; but it had some relief. A Boston ship
belonging to Josiah Quincy had, by exposing hats and coats on
handspikes above her rail, allured a heavier Spanish ship into a
surrender; and when the lucky deceiver brought her prize into Boston,
the boxes of gold and silver which were carted through the streets
required an armed guard for their protection. Other profits were less
creditable. Governor Cornwallis writes from Halifax (November 27,
1750) to the Lords of Trade: “Some gentlemen of Boston who have long
served the government, [and] because they have not the supplying of
everything, have done all the mischief they could. Their substance,
which they have got from the public, enables them to distress and
domineer. Without them they say we can’t do, and so must comply with
what terms they think proper to impose. These are Messrs. Apthorp and
Hancock, the two richest merchants in Boston,—made so by the public
money, and now wanton in their insolent demands.” Akins’ _Pub. Doc.
of Nova Scotia_, 630. Thomas Hancock’s letter book (April, 1745-June,
1750), embracing many letters to Kilby, in London, is now in the Mass.
Hist. Society’s Cabinet. It is a sufficient exposure of the mercenary
spirit affecting the operations of these contractors of supplies.

[299] _Mass. Hist. Coll._, ix. 264; Bishop, _Amer. Manuf._, i. 486-7.

[300] Douglass (_Summary_, i. 552-3) enumerates the frontier forts and
cantonments maintained against the French and the Indians, to the west
and to the east.

[301] _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1870.

[302] Shirley was commissioned in 1754, as was Pepperrell also, to
raise a regiment in America for the regular service. His instructions
are in the _Penna. Archives_, ii. 178. Cf. Sir Thomas Robinson’s letter
about enlistments in Shirley’s regiment, in _New Jersey Archives_,
viii. Part 2d, p. 17.

[303] Cf. various pamphlets on the state of Conn. at this time, noted
by Haven (in Thomas), ii. p. 524-5.

[304] What seem to be the best figures to be reached regarding the
population of the English colonies at the opening of the war would
place the total at something over a million. This sum is reached
thus: In 1749 Maryland had 100,000. In 1752, Georgia had 3,000, and
South Carolina 25,000. In 1754, Nova Scotia had 4,000. In 1755, North
Carolina had 50,000; Virginia, 125,000; New Jersey, 75,000; New
Hampshire, 75,000. Estimates must be made for the others: Pennsylvania,
220,000 (including 100,000 German and other foreign immigrants);
Connecticut, 100,000; Rhode Island, 30,000; New York, 55,000, and
Massachusetts, 200,000. This foots up 1,062,000.

[305] Quite in keeping with the fervor of the hour was a pamphlet which
the last London ship had brought, _A scheme to drive the French out
of all the Continent of America_ [by T. C.], which Fowle, the Boston
printer, immediately reissued. (Harv. Coll. lib., 4376.31.)

[306] For his military conduct during the following campaign, the
reader must turn to chapters vii. and viii.

[307] While they were watching at Boston every tidings of the war from
the east and from the west, the gossips were weaving about the trial of
Phillis and Mark for the poisoning of their master all the suspicions
which unsettle the sense of social security; and when in September the
common law of England asserted its dominance, the man was hanged, while
the woman was burned, the last instance in our criminal history of this
dread penalty for petit treason was recorded. Cf. A. C. Goodell, Jr.,
in _Proceedings Mass. Hist. Soc._ (March, 1883), and in a separate
enlarged issue of the same paper. It is well not to forget that while
in old England at this time there were 160 capital offences, there were
less than one tenth as many in Massachusetts. These are enumerated by
H. B. Staples in his paper on the _Province Laws_ (1884), p. 10.

[308] _A lecture on earthquakes; read in Cambridge, November 26th,
1755, on occasion of the earthquake which shook New-England the
week before._ Boston, 1755. 38 pp. 8^o. Haven’s Ante-Revolutionary
bibliography in Thomas’s _Hist. of Printing_ (Amer. Antiq. Soc. ed.),
ii. pp. 524-532, 549, shows numerous publications occasioned by this
earthquake. Cf. Drake’s _Boston_, p. 640.

[309] It is not unlikely that enlistments were impeded by a breach of
faith with the New England troops, for they had been detained at the
eastward beyond their term of enlistment. Shirley remonstrated about
it to Gov. Lawrence, of Nova Scotia. Cf. Akins’ _Pub. Doc. of Nov.
Scotia_, 421, 428. Gov. Livingston in 1756 wrote: “The New England
colonies take the lead in all military matters.... In these governments
lies the main strength of the British interests upon this continent.”

[310] For a portrait of Pownall see _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, ii. 63.
Cf. _Catal. Cabinet Mass. Hist. Soc._, no. 6. Pownall’s private letter
book, covering his correspondence during the war, was in a sale at
Bangs’s in New York, February, 1854 (no. 1342).

[311] He took the oath June 16. His commission is printed in the _N. E.
Hist. and Gen. Reg._, July, 1867, p. 208.

[312] Parsons’ _Sir William Pepperrell_, p. 307.

[313] H. C. Lodge, _Short Hist. of the Eng. Colonies_, p. 429; _Mem.
Hist. Boston_, ii. p. 467; J. G. Shea in _Am. Cath. Quart. Rev._, viii.
144.

[314] “I am here,” writes Pownall, September 6, 1757, “at the head of
what is called a rich, flourishing, powerful, enterprising colony,—’t
is all puff, ’t is all false; they are ruined and undone in their
circumstances.” (_Pownall’s Letter Book._) _A brief State of the
Services and Expences of the Province of the Massachusett’s Bay in the
Common Cause_, London, 1765, sets forth the charges upon the province
during the wars since 1690. Cf. Parkman, _Montcalm and Wolfe_, ii.
84; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xx. 53; _Collections_, vi. 44, 47.
Walsh in his _Appeal_ (p. 131) says that it was asserted in the House
of Commons in 1778 that 10,000 of the seamen in the British navy in
1756 were of American birth. “From the year 1754 to 1762, there were
raised by Massachusetts, 35,000 men; and for three years successively
7,000 men each year.... An army of seven thousand, compared with the
population of Massachusetts in the middle of the last century, is
considerably greater than an army of one million for France in the time
of Napoleon.” Edw. Everett on “The Seven Years’ War the School of the
Revolution,” in his _Orations_, i. p. 392.

[315] See _post_, ch. vii.

[316] _Grenville Corresp._, i. 305.

[317] The establishment of Fort Pownall effectually overawed the
neighboring Indians. Cf. W. D. Williamson’s _Notice of Orono_ in Mass.
Hist. Coll., xxix. 87.

[318] Cf. _post_, ch. viii.

[319] “Pownall thought there ought to be a good understanding
between the capital and country, and a harmony between both and the
government.... Pownall was the most constitutional and national
governor, in my opinion, who ever represented the Crown in this
province.” _John Adams’ Works_, x. 242, 243.

[320] Whitehead’s _Perth Amboy_.

[321] It was through his suggestion that Harvard College published in
1761 a collection of Greek, Latin, and English verses, commemorating
George II. and congratulating George III., called _Pietas et
Gratulatio_. Cf. _Mem. Hist. Boston_, ii. 431, and references.

[322] Vol. III. p. 345. Sibley’s _Harvard Graduates_, iii. 79.
Typographical errors in the book are very numerous, as Mather did not
have a chance to correct the type. A page of “errata” was printed,
but is found in few copies. Some copies have been completed by a
fac-simile of the page, which Mr. Charles Deane has caused to be made.
Some copies of the book exist on large paper. (_Hist. Mag._, ii. 123;
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, ii. 37.) The Hartford ed. of 1820 was printed
from a copy without this list of errata, and so preserves the original
crop of errors. So did the edition of 1853; but the sheets of this,
with a memoir by S. G. Drake added, were furnished with a new title in
1855, in which it is professed that the errors have been corrected;
but the profession is said not to be true. (_Hist. Mag._, i. 29.) An
exceptionally fine copy of the original edition, well bound, will
bring $40 to $50. Holmes (_Amer. Annals_, 2d ed., i. 544) says of the
_Magnalia_ that its “author believed more and discriminated less than
becomes a writer of history.”

[323] _Mass. Hist. Coll._, v. 200.

[324] Preface to Neal’s _History_, p. vii.

[325] Cf. Sibley, _Harvard Graduates_, for editions (iii. 151).

[326] See Vol. III. p. 345.

[327] _Harvard Graduates_, iii. 32.

[328] _Sermon on Mather’s Death._

[329] Out of this book was published in London, in 1744, _An abridgment
of the life of the late Reverend and learned Dr. Cotton Mather, taken
from the account of him published by his son, by David Jennings_.
_Recommended by I. Watts, D. D._

[330] Grahame (i. 425), taking his cue from Quincy, says of Cotton
Mather that “a strong and acute understanding, though united with real
piety, was sometimes corrupted by a deep vein of passionate vanity and
absurdity.”

[331] In Sparks’s _Amer. Biog._, vol. vi.

[332] Sibley, _Harvard Graduates_, iii. 158, gives a list of
authorities on Mather, which may be supplemented by the references
in Poole’s _Index to Periodical Literature_. Sibley’s count of his
printed and manuscript productions (456 in all) is the completest yet
made. Samuel Mather gives 382 titles as the true number of his distinct
printed books and tracts.

[333] It is usually priced at figures ranging from $7.00 to $10.00.

[334] _Mass. Hist. Coll._, v. 201.

[335] Douglass, with his usual swagger, points out (_Summary_, etc., i.
362-3) various errors of Neal.

[336] Harvard Col. lib., no. 6372.12.

[337] Carter-Brown, iii. 899; Sabin, v. 20,726. Cf. present _History_,
Vol. III. p. 346.

[338] The suppression, however, was incomplete. The numbers already out
could not be recalled, and it is these bound up which constitute volume
i. in many copies of the book, and the preface in which the suppression
is promised is often bound with them. Rich (_Catal._, 1832, p. 94)
had seen none of the proper independent issues of vol. i., in which
the suppression was made, and in these copies, sig. Ff. (pp. 233-40)
is reset, as well as other parts of the volume, though not all of it.
A note in vol. i. (pp. 254-5), not bearing gently on Knowles, was
suffered to stand.

[339] Sabin (vol. v. 20,726) says that some copies of vol. ii., which
have an appendix from Salmon’s _Geog. and Hist. Grammar_, are dated
1753. The Sparks (no. 780) and Murphy (no. 814) catalogues note
Boston editions in 1755. In the last year (1755) and in 1760 the book
was reprinted in London, with a map; but Rich and the Carter-Brown
catalogue seem to err in saying that the 1760 edition was one with a
new title merely. Sabin (vol. v. 20,727-28) says the edition of 1760
has a few alterations and corrections.

[340] Douglass loftily says (i. p. 310), in defence of his digressions:
“This Pindarick or loose way of writing ought not to be confined to
lyric poetry; it seems to be more agreeable by its variety and turns
than a rigid, dry, connected account of things.”

[341] _Mass. Bay_, ii. 78. Cf. Grahame, ii. 167. Douglass himself says
with amusing confidence (_Summary_, etc., i. 356): “I have no personal
disregard or malice, and do write of the present times, as if these
things had been transacted 100 years since.”

[342] Vol. ii. pp. 151-157.

[343] Cf. Tuckerman’s _America and her Commentators_, p. 184.

[344] _Summary_, etc., i. 362.

[345] See Vol. III. p. 377.

[346] Cf. Alvah Hovey’s _Life and Times of Isaac Backus_, 1858, p.
281; and Sprague’s _Annals of the Amer. Pulpit_. It was while mainly
depending on the _Magnalia_ and Backus that H. F. Uhden wrote his
_Geschichte der Congregationalisten in Neu England bis 1740_, of which
there is an English version by H. C. Conant, _New England Theocracy_,
Boston, 1858.

[347] An eminent Catholic authority, John G. Shea, in the _Amer. Cath.
Q. Rev._, ix. (1884) p. 70, on “Puritanism in New England,” has said:
“New England has framed not only her own history, but to a great extent
the whole history of this country as it is generally read and popularly
understood.... Schools made New Englanders a reading and writing
people, and no subject was more palatable than themselves.... The
consequence is that the works on New England history exceed those of
all other parts of the country.... The general histories of the United
States, like those of Bancroft and Hildreth, are written from the New
England point of view, and Palfrey embodies in an especial manner the
whole genius and development of their distinctive autonomy, with all
the extenuating circumstances, the deprecating apologies, the clever
and artistic arrangement in the background, of all that might offend
the present taste.”

[348] See Vol. III. p. 344. Cf. also Chas. Deane’s _Bibliog. Essay on
Gov. Hutchinson’s historical publications_ (privately printed, 1857, as
well as in the _Hist. Mag._, Apr., 1857, and _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._)
and Sabin’s _Dictionary_, xi. p. 22. Cf. Bancroft, _United States_,
orig. ed., v. 228.

[349] Vol. III. p. 344. There is a rather striking portrait of Judge
Minot (b. 1758; d. 1802), which is reproduced in heliotype in the
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, i. p. 42.

[350] Vol. III. p. 364. The MS. of Williamson’s _History_ is in Harvard
College library. Mr. John S. C. Abbott published a popular _History of
Maine_ at Boston in 1875.

[351] Cf. Vol. III. p. 376.

[352] Vol. III. p. 368. There are two portraits of Belknap by Henry
Sargent in the gallery of the Mass. Hist. Soc. (cf. _Catal. Cab. M.
H. Soc._, nos. 34, 35, with engravings, p. 37), and the introduction
to the first volume of the _Proceedings_ of that society gives his
portrait and tells the story of his chief influence in forming that
society. Cf. also the index to _Belknap Papers_, 2 vols., published by
that society in 1877, and reissued with an app. in 1882; and the _Life
of Jeremy Belknap, with selections from his correspondence and other
writings, collected and arranged by his granddaughter_ [Mrs. Marcou],
N. Y., 1847.

[353] Cf. the Belknap-Hazard correspondence in the _Belknap Papers_,
published by the Mass. Hist. Soc., in _Collections_, vol. xlii.; and
_N. H. Hist. Coll._, vol. i.

[354] Sabin, ii. 4,434.

[355] Sabin, ii. 4,435-36.

[356] Sabin, ii. 4,437.

[357] Cf. John Le Bosquet’s _Memorial of John Farmer_, Boston, 1884.

[358] See Vol. III. p. 343.

[359] _Hist. New Eng._, iv. p. xi.

[360] Vol. IV. p. 366.

[361] _Report_, etc., p. 17; Moore, _Final notes_, etc., p. 114; Ellis
Ames in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xviii. 366.

[362] Hutchinson, ii. 213.

[363] _Report of Commissioners on the records, files_, etc., 1885, p.
21.

[364] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xx. p. 34.

[365] _Report_, etc., ut supra, on “General Court Records,” p. 17.

[366] _Report_, etc., p. 24. Beside the “Mather Papers,” which refer
to the colonial period, the _Prince Catalogue_ shows the “Cotton and
Prince Papers” (p. 153) and the “Hinckley Papers” (p. 154), which
extend beyond the colonial into the provincial period. Gov. Belcher’s
letter-books are preserved in the cabinet of the Mass. Hist. Soc. Vol.
i. begins with Sept., 1731, and his connection with Boston ceases
in vol. v., where also his letters from New Jersey begin and are
continued to Dec., 1755. (Cf. _Mem. Hist. Boston_, ii. 60.) Dr. Belknap
(_Papers_, ii. 169) speaks of them as having been sold “at Russell’s
vendue for waste paper; some of them were torn up.” Various letters of
Belcher are printed in the _N. H. Provincial Papers_, iv. 866-880. The
list of MSS. in the cabinet of the Mass. Historical Society (_Proc._,
x., April, 1868) gives various ones of interest in the study of the
last century in New England history.

[367] _N. E. Hist. and Gen. Reg._, 1849, p. 167. Cf. references in
Poole’s _Index_, p. 292.

[368] Vol. III. p. 367. Of this series, vols. ii. (1686-1691), iii.
(1692-1722), iv. (1722-1737), v. (1738-1749), vi. (1749-1763), concern
the provincial period. Vols. ix., x., xi., xii., xiii., give the local
documents pertaining to the towns.

[369] _Proc._, x. 160, 324.

[370] _Final notes_, etc., p. 120.

[371] The first and second editions are extremely rare. (Brinley, i.
818, 1392.) A third edition was printed in London, coming down to
1719, for the Lords of Trade, the charter being dated 1721 and the
laws 1724. Other editions were printed in Boston in Jan., 1726-27
(Brinley, i. 1,394); 1742 (Ibid. i. 1,398); 1755 (Temporary Laws);
1759-61 (Perpetual Laws); 1763 (Temporary Laws). These had supplements
in needful cases as the years went on. Such of the Province Laws as
remained in force after the province became a State were printed as an
appendix to the State Laws in 1801, 1807, 1814. (Ames and Goodell’s
edition, preface.)

[372] A summary of the work done by the Commissioner on the Province
Laws is set forth in D. T. V. Huntoon’s _Province Laws, their value and
the progress of the new edition_, Boston, 1885 (pp. 24), which also
contains a history of the various editions. From this tract it appears
that Massachusetts, for what printing of her early records she has so
far done, for historical uses solely, has expended as follows:—

  _Mass. Colony Records_, five vols.       $41,834.44
  _Plymouth Colony Records_, twelve vols.   47,117.66
  _Provincial Laws_, five vols. (to date)   77,505.75
                                          ———————————
                                          $166,457.85

A synopsis of the contents of these volumes of the Province Laws is
contained in H. B. Staples’ _Province Laws of Massachusetts_, in _Proc.
Amer. Antiq. Soc._, Apr., 1884, and separately.

[373] _An address on the life and character of Chief-Justice Samuel
Sewall, Oct. 26, 1884. Boston, printed for the author, 1885._ It also
appeared in the volume which the occasion prompted, when its early
ministers, with Samuel Adams and other worthies of its membership, were
commemorated.

[374] _Proceedings_, x. 316, 411; xi. 5, 33, 43.

[375] Vols. xlv., xlvi., and xlvii. (1878, 1879, 1882). They are richly
annotated with notes under the supervision of Dr. Ellis, as chairman
of the committee of publication, who was assisted by Professor H. W.
Torrey and Mr. Wm. H. Whitmore, the latter being responsible for the
topographical and genealogical notes, of which there is great store.
Dr. Ellis communicated to the society in 1873 (_Proc._, xii. 358)
various extracts from the letter-book, which accompanied the diary when
it was transferred to the society; but these with other letters and
papers will be included in a fourth and fifth volume of the _Sewall
Papers_, now in press.

[376] Probably no personal record of the provincial period of New
England history has excited so much interest as the publication
of Sewall’s diary. The judgments on it have been kindly, with few
exceptions. Cf. D. A. Goddard, _Mem. Hist. Boston_, ii. 417; Sibley’s
_Harvard Graduates_, ii. 345, 364; H. C. Lodge, _Short Hist. of the
Eng. Colonies_, 426; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, ii. 641; Poole, _Index to
Period. lit._, p. 1181. Tyler (_Hist. Amer. lit._, ii. 99) gives a
generous estimate of Sewall’s character, written before the publication
of his diary. Palfrey in his vol. iv. made use of the diary after it
came into the society’s library. (_Proc._, xviii. 378.)

There are genealogical records of the Sewalls in _Family Memorials,
a series of genealogical and biographical monographs on the families
of Salisbury, Aldworth-Elbridge, Sewall, etc. ... by Edward Elbridge
Salisbury, privately printed_, 1885, two folio volumes. Cf. also volume
i. of _Sewall Papers_.

[377] _Address_, etc., p. 5.

[378] _Address_, etc., p. 5.

[379] Cf. W. B. O. Peabody on Cotton Mather’s diary in the
_Knickerbocker Mag._, viii. 196. With the exception of a year’s record
preserved in the Congregational library in Boston, what remains of
the diary of Cotton Mather is now in the libraries of the American
Antiquarian Society at Worcester, and of the Mass. Hist. Soc.,—as
follows (A. meaning the Am. Antiq. Soc.; M., the Mass. Hist. Soc.; C.,
the Cong. lib.):—

1681, 83, 85, 86, M.; 1692, A.; 1693, M.; 1696, A.; 1697, 98, M.; 1699,
A.; 1700, 1, 2, M.; 1703, A.; 1705, 6, M.; 1709, 11, 13, A.; 1715, 16,
C.; 1717, A.; 1718, 21, 24, M. Cf. Sibley, _Harvard Graduates_, iii.
42; _Mem. Hist. Boston_, i. p. xviii.; ii. p. 301.

[380] Parts of it are printed in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Jan.,
1861.

[381] _N. E. Hist. and Gen. Reg._, 1870.

[382] Tuckerman’s _America and her Commentators_, p. 386; _Historical
Magazine_, iii. 342.

[383] Reprinted in _N. H. Hist. Coll._, iii. He was in Boston in 1709,
1717, and 1720. Drake’s _Boston_, p. 537. The date of Uring’s book is
sometimes 1726.

[384] There was a later edition in 1798 (much enlarged). Tuckerman’s
_America and her Commentators_, p. 175.

[385] Quincy (_Harv. Univ._) calls Turell’s _Life of Benj. Colman_
“the best biography of any native of Massachusetts written during its
provincial state.” Letters to and from Rev. Benj. Colman are preserved
among the MSS. of the Mass. Hist. Society. _Proc._, x. 160-162.

[386] A cursory glance is given in H. W. Frost’s “How they lived before
the Revolution” in _The Galaxy_, xviii. 200.

[387] Judd’s _Hadley_; Ward’s _Shrewsbury_, etc.

[388] Particularly vol. ii. ch. 16, “Life in Boston in the Provincial
Period.” In the same work other aspects of social and intellectual
life are studied in Dr. Mackenzie’s chapter on the religious life
(in vol. ii,), in Mr. D. A. Goddard’s on the literary life (in vol.
ii.), and in Mr. Geo. S. Hale’s on the philanthrophic tendency (in
vol. iv.). Incidental glimpses of the ways of living are presented
in several of Mr. Samuel A. Drake’s books, like _The Old Landmarks
of Boston_, _Old Landmarks of Middlesex_, and _Nooks and Corners of
the New England Coast_. The coast life is depicted in such local
histories as Babson’s _Gloucester_, and Freeman’s _Cape Cod_. The
colonial house and household, beside being largely illustrated in the
papers of Dr. Eggleston already mentioned, are discussed in Mr. C. A.
Cummings’ chapter on “Architecture,” and Mr. E. L. Bynner’s chapter on
“Landmarks” in the _Mem. Hist. Boston_. Cf. also Lodge, pp. 446, 458;
and “Old Colonial houses _versus_ old English houses,” by R. Jackson,
in _Amer. Architect_, xvii. 3. Copley’s pictures and the description
of them in A. T. Perkins’s _Life and Works of John Singleton Copley_
(privately printed, 1873), with such surveys as are given in the
Eggleston papers in _The Century_, present to us the outer appearance
of the governing classes of that day.

For the other New England colonies, the local histories are still the
main dependence, and principal among them are Hollister’s _Hist. of
Connecticut_, Brewster’s _Rambles about Portsmouth_, and Staple’s _Town
of Providence_.

[389] _United States_, ii. 401.

[390] For the town system of New England and its working, compare
references in Lodge (p. 414), _Mem. Hist. Boston_, i. 454, and W. E.
Foster’s _Reference lists_, July, 1882: to which may be added Herbert
B. Adams’s _Germanic Origin of the New England Towns_ (1882), and
Edward Channing’s _Town and County government in the English colonies
of North America_ (1884),—both published in the “Johns Hopkins
University studies;” Judge P. E. Aldrich in _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._,
April, 1884; “Town Meeting,” by John Fiske, in _Harper’s Magazine_,
Jan., 1885 (also in his _American Political Ideas_, N. Y., 1885);
Scott’s _Development of Constitutional Liberty_, p. 174; Fisher’s
_American Political Ideas_, ch. i. (1885).

For the characteristics of its religious congregations the reader
may consult Felt’s _Ecclesiastical History of New England_; the
“Ecclesiastical Hist. of Mass. and Plymouth Colonies,” in _Mass. Hist.
Coll._, vols. vii., viii., ix., etc.; Lodge’s _English Colonies_ (pp.
423-434); the chapters by Dr. Mackenzie in vol. ii., and those on the
various denominations in vol. iii., of the _Mem. Hist. of Boston_,
with their references; William Stevens Perry’s _Hist. of the American
Episcopal Church_ (2 vols. 1885); H. W. Foote’s _King’s Chapel_
(Boston); M. C. Tyler’s _Hist. of American Literature_; H. M. Dexter’s
_Congregationalism as seen in its literature_ (particularly helpful is
its appended bibliography); Dr. W. B. Sprague’s _Annals of the American
Pulpit_; with the notices of such as were ministers in Sibley’s
_Harvard Graduates_; the lives of preachers like Jonathan Edwards; and
among the general histories of New England, particularly that of Backus.

One encounters in studying the ecclesiastical history of New England
frequent references to organizations for propagating the gospel,
and their similarity of names confuses the reader’s mind. They can,
however, be kept distinct, as follows:—

I. “Corporation for promoting and propagating the gospel among the
Indians of New England.” Incorporated July 27, 1649. Dissolved 1661.
There is a history of it by Scull in the _New Eng. Hist. and Geneal.
Reg._, xxxvi. 157. What are known as the “Eliot tracts” were its
publications. (Cf. Vol. III. p. 355.)

II. “Corporation for the propagation of the gospel in New England
and parts adjacent in America.” Incorporated April 7, 1662. It still
exists. The history of it is given by W. M. Venning in the _Roy. Hist.
Soc. Trans._, 2d ser., ii. 293. Its work in New England was broken up
by the American Revolution, but it later (1786) began anew its labors
in New Brunswick. Cf. also Henry William Busk’s _Sketch of the Origin
and the Recent History of the New England Company_, London, 1884.

III. “Society for the propagation of the gospel in foreign parts.”
Chartered June 16, 1701. _Historical Account_ by Humphreys, London,
1730. The printed annual reports present a reflex of the religious and
even secular society of the colonies in the eighteenth century. The
_Murphy Catalogue_, no. 2,334, shows an unusual set from 1701 to 1800.
The set in the Carter-Brown library is complete for these years.

IV. “Society for propagating the gospel among the Indians and others in
North America.” Incorporated by Massachusetts in 1787.

[391] Separately as _Remarks on the early paper Currency of Mass._,
with photographs of Mass. bills. Cambridge, 1866.

[392] Brinley, i. no. 857.

[393] Haven in Thomas, ii. p. 333; Brinley, i. no. 726.

[394] _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Apr., 1866, p. 88; Palfrey, iv. 333,
with references; _Province Laws_ (Ames and Goodell), i. 700; _Sewall
Papers_, ii. 366.

[395] Cf. Henry Bronson’s “Hist. Acc. of Connecticut Currency” in the
_N. Haven Hist. Soc. Papers_, i. p. 171.

[396] What has been called “the first gun fired in the Land-bank war
of 1714-1721” was a reprint in Boston, in 1714, of a tract which was
originally published in London in 1688, called _A Model for erecting
a Bank of Credit. Adapted especially for his majesties Plantations
in America._ (_Prince Catal._, p. 45.) The Boston preface, dated Feb.
26, 1713-14, says that “a scheme of a bank of credit, founded upon a
land security, ... will be humbly offered to the consideration of the
General Assembly at their next session.” (Sabin, no. 49,795; Brinley,
i. no. 1,430.)

[397] Sabin, ii. no. 6,710; _Prince Catal._, p. 51. But see Ibid.,
under “Bank of Credit,” p. 4, for other titles.

[398] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1884, p. 226.

[399] Hutchinson’s _Massachusetts_, ii. 207, 208.

[400] Brinley, i. no. 1,431.

[401] Sabin, ii. no. 6,711.

[402] Cf. Haven in Thomas, ii. pp. 370-392; Brinley, i. pp. 188-191;
Carter-Brown, iii. nos. 184, 185, 302.

[403] _First Essays at Banking in New England._

[404] This tract (Brinley, i. no. 1,434; Sabin, iv. 14,536) was the
work of John Colman, who followed it later in the same year with _The
distressed state of the town of Boston once more considered_, etc.
(Brinley, no. 1,439; Sabin, iv. no. 14,537), which was induced by an
answer to his first tract, called _A letter from one in the Country to
his friend in Boston_, 1720 (Brinley, i. no. 1,435, and nos. 1,436-37
for the sequel; also Sabin, iv. 14,538). There were further attacks on
the council in _News from Robinson Crusoe’s island_, with attendant
criminations (Brinley, i. nos. 1,440-42).

[405] Fac-similes in _The Century_, xxviii. 248; Gay’s _Pop. Hist. U.
S._, iii. p. 132.

[406] In a tract, _Money the Sinews of Trade_, Boston, 1731 (Brinley,
i. no. 1,447), there is a wail over the disastrous effect of Rhode
Island bills in Massachusetts. Rhode Island, in 1733, issued a large
amount of paper money for circulation, chiefly in Massachusetts; and
the elder colony suffered from the infliction in spite of all she could
do. There is in the _Connecticut Col. Records_, 1726-35, p. 421, a
fac-simile of a three-shilling bill of the “New London Society united
for trade and commerce in New England.”

[407] _Trade and Commerce inculcated ... with some proposals for the
bringing gold and silver into the country._ Boston, 1731. (Brinley, i.
no. 1,448.)

[408] Bennett, an English traveller, who was in New England at this
time, gives an account of the currency in vogue, and he says that the
merchants informed him that “the balance of trade with England is so
much against them that they cannot keep any money [coin] amongst them.”
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1860-62, pp. 123-24.

[409] Cf. description of the notes of the “Silver Scheme” in _N. E.
Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1860, pp. 263-64.

[410] P. O. Hutchinson’s _Thomas Hutchinson_, p. 51. _A Dissertation
on the Currencies of the British plantations in North America, and
Observations on a paper currency_ (Boston, 1740), is ascribed to
Hutchinson.

[411] _An Account of the Rise, Progress, and Consequences of the two
late Schemes commonly call’d the Land-bank or Manufactory Scheme and
the Silver Scheme in the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, wherein
the Conduct of the late and present G——r during their Ad——ns is
occasionally consider’d and compar’d. In a letter [Apr. 9, 1744] from a
gentleman in Boston to his friend in London._ 1744. The reader of the
life of Sam. Adams remembers how the closing days of his father’s life
and the early years of his own were harassed by prosecutions on account
of the father’s personal responsibility as a director of the Land-bank
Company. (Cf. Wells’ _Life of Sam. Adams_, vol. i. pp. 9, 26; _N. E.
Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1860, p. 262.) The names of the “undertakers”
of the Land-bank are given in Drake’s _Boston_, p. 613.

[412] _Historical MSS. Commission’s Report_, v. 229.

[413] Sabin, v. no. 20,725; Carter-Brown, iii. no. 589; _Boston Pub.
Lib. Bull._, 1884, p. 138.

[414] Sabin, v. 20,723.

[415] It was reprinted in Boston in 1740; again in London, 1751, with
a postscript; and once more, London, 1757. Sabin, v. no. 20,721;
Carter-Brown, iii. 608, 660; Brinley, i. no. 1,450; Harvard Col. lib’y,
10352.3. Douglass reiterated his views with not a little feeling in
various notes, sometimes uncalled for, through his _Summary_, etc., in
1747. Two rejoinders to Douglass’s views appeared, entitled as follows:
_An inquiry into the nature and uses of money, more especially of the
bills of public credit, old tenor.... To which is added a Reply to a
former Essay on Silver and Paper Currencies_. _As also a Postscript
containing remarks on a late Discourse concerning the Currencies_,
Boston, 1740. (Carter-Brown, iii. no. 659; Boston Pub. Liby. H. 94.53;
Brinley, i. 1,451.) _Observations occasioned by reading a pamphlet
intituled, A discourse concerning the currencies, etc._, London, 1741.
(Brinley, i. no. 1,453.)

Other tracts in the controversy were these: _A letter to —— ——,
a merchant in London concerning a late combination in the Province
of Massachusetts Bay to impose or force a private currency called
Land-bank money_. [Boston] 1741. (Brinley, i. no. 1,454.) _A letter to
a merchant in London to whom is directed the printed letter_ [as above]
_dated Feb. 21, 1740_. [Boston] 1741. (_Boston Pub. Liby. Bull._, 1884,
p. 138.) These and other titles can be found in Haven’s Bibliography
in Thomas, ii. pp. 444-508; in Carter-Catal., Brown, vol. iii.; in
the _Prince Catalogue_, under “Land-bank” and “Letter,” pp. 34, 35; in
the _Brinley_ i. pp. 191-192. The general histories like Bancroft (last
revision, ii. 263), Hildreth (ii. 380), Palfrey (iv. 547), Williamson
(ii. 203), Barry (ii. 132), take but a broad view of the subject.
Hutchinson (ii. 352) is an authoritative guide, and W. G. Sumner in his
_Hist. of Amer. Currency_, and J. J. Knox in _U. S. Notes_ (1884), have
summarized the matter. Cf. a paper on the Land-bank and Silver Scheme
read before the Amer. Statistical Association in 1874 by E. H. Derby;
and one by Francis Brinley in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_, Sept. 4,
1856. There is a fac-simile of a Mass. three-shillings bill of 1741 and
a sixpence of 1744 in Gay’s _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. pp. 131, 134.

[416] In 1749 Douglass said (_Summary_, i. 535), “The parties in
Massachusetts Bay at present are not the Loyal and Jacobite, the
Governor and Country, Whig and Tory, but the debtors and creditors. The
debtor side has had the ascendant ever since 1741, to the almost utter
ruin of the country.”

[417] P. O. Hutchinson (_Diary and Letters of Thomas Hutchinson_, p.
53) gives a table of depreciation which the governor made:—

_Rates of Silver in_

  1714                 8½
  1715                 9⅙
  1716-17             12
  1721                13
  1722                14
  1724-25             16
  1725-26             15½
  1730                18
  1731                19
  1733                21
  1734                25
  1737                26½
  1738                27
  1739                28½
  1744                30
  1745                36
  1746    36, 38, 40, 41
  1747        50, 55, 60

Felt (p. 83) begins his table in 1710-1711, at 8; for 1712-13 he gives
8-1/2; and (p. 135) he puts the value in 1746-48 at 37, 38, 40; and in
1749-52 at 60. Cf. table in Judd’s _Hadley_, ch. xxvii.

[418] Admiral Warren was authorized to receive the money. _Mass.
Archives_, xx. 500, 508.

[419] See a humorous contemporary ballad on the Death of Old Tenor,
in 1750, reprinted in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xx. p. 30. It is
ascribed to Joseph Green in the _Brinley Catal._, no. 1,459. Cf. _Some
observations relating to the present circumstances of the Province
of the Mass. Bay; humbly offered to the consideration of the General
Assembly_, Boston, 1750. (Carter-Brown, iii. no. 934; Brinley, i. no.
1,457.) Hutchinson’s plan was opposed in _A Word in Season to all true
lovers of their liberty and their country, by Mylo Freeman_, Boston,
1748. (Brinley, i. no. 1,456.) Cf. Minot’s _Massachusetts_, i. ch. v.

[420] Judge H. B. Staples in his _Province Laws of Mass._, Worcester,
1884 (p. 13, etc.), gives a synopsis of Massachusetts legislation
on the subject of paper money during the whole period; but Ames and
Goodell’s ed. of the _Laws_ is the prime source.

[421] Stephen Hopkins was the chairman of the committee reporting to
the assembly on the paper-money question, Feb. 27, 1749 (_R. I. Col.
Rec._, v. 283, and _R. I. Hist. tracts_, viii. 182; and June 17, 1751,
_R. I. Col. Rec._, v. 130).

[422] Brinley, i. 1,493; ii. 2,655.

[423] Harv. Col. Lib., no. 16352.7; Brinley, ii. 2,656.

[424] Thomas, _Hist. of Printing_, i. 129; Minot, i. 208; Drake’s
_Boston_, p. 635; _Mem. Hist. Boston_, ii. 404.

[425] Nos. 1,494-95.

[426] Brinley, nos. 1,497-98; Hunnewell’s _Bibliog. of Charlestown_, p.
9. Various other pamphlets on the Excise Bill are noted by Haven (in
Thomas), ii. pp. 520-21.

[427] The act is printed and a description of the stamps is given in
the _N. E. Hist. and Gen. Reg._, July, 1860, p. 267. One of the stamps
shows a schooner, another a cod-fish, and a third a pine-tree,—all
proper emblems of Massachusetts. The vessel with a schooner rig was
a Massachusetts invention, being devised at Gloucester in 1714, and
the story goes that her name came from some one exclaiming, “How she
schoons!” as she was launched from the ways. Cf. Babson’s _Gloucester,_
p. 251; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Nov., 1884, p. 474, and (by Admiral
Preble), Feb., 1885, p. 207; and _United Service_ (also by Preble),
Jan., 1884, p. 101. The earliest mention of the fish as an emblem I
find in Parkman’s statement (_Frontenac_, p. 199, referring to Colden’s
_Five Nations_) that one was sent to the Iroquois in 1690 as a token of
alliance. A figure of a cod now hangs in the chamber of the Mass. House
of Representatives, and the legislative records first note it in 1784,
but lead one to infer that it had been used earlier. Cf. _Essex Inst.
Hist. Coll._, Sept., 1866; _Hist. Mag._, x. 197. The pine-tree appeared
on the coined shilling piece in 1652, which is known by its name. Cf.
_Hist. Mag._, i. 225, iii. 197, 317; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xi.
293; _Mem. Hist. Boston_, i. 354, with references; _Amer. Jour. of
Numismatics_; _Coin Collector’s Journal_, etc.

[428] Cf. _post_, ch. vii.

[429] Clarence W. Bowen’s _Boundary Disputes of Connecticut_, part iv.;
S. E. Baldwin on the “Boundary line between Connecticut and New York,”
in the _New Haven Hist. Soc. Collections_, iii.; Smith’s _New York_
(1814), p. 275.

[430] Cf. further in Smith’s posthumous second volume, p. 250; and in
papers by F. L. Pope in the _Berkshire Courier_, May 13, 20, 27, 1885.
Cf. G. W. Schuyler’s _Colonial New York_, i. 281.

[431] Cf. _Brinley Catal._, no. 1,464; Deane’s _Bibliog. Essay on Gov.
Hutchinson’s hist. publications_ (1857), p. 37.

[432] _Journal of the Proceedings of the Commissaries of New York at
a Congress with the Commissaries of the Massachusetts Bay, relating
to the establishment of a partition line of jurisdiction between the
two provinces_, New York, 1767. _Conference between the Commissaries
of Massachusetts Bay and the Commissaries of New York_, Boston,
1768. _Statement of the case respecting the controversy between New
York and Massachusetts respecting their boundaries_, London, Boston,
Philadelphia, 1767.

[433] The form of these charters is given in the _N. E. Hist. and Gen.
Reg._. 1869, p. 70.

[434] H. Hall in _Hist. Mag._, xiii. pp. 22, 74.

[435] Brinley, ii. no. 2,799; Sabin, x. p. 413.

[436] _Brinley Catal._, nos. 2,510, 2,622; _Sparks’ Catal._, nos.
47, 50. Allen’s argument in this tract was reprinted in 1779 in his
_Vindication of the opposition of the inhabitants of Vermont to the
government of New York_ (Dresden, 1779).

[437] John L. Rice, in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, viii. p. 1. Cf. _Journals
of Prov. Cong. etc._ (Albany, 1842).

[438] Brinley, i. no. 2,511. Cf. for the proclamation, Sabin, xiii. 53,
873.

[439] Printed at Dresden, Vt., 1779, and reprinted in the _Records of
the Governor and Council of Vermont_ (Montpelier, 1877), vol. v. pp.
525-540. Brinley, i. no. 2,512; Boston Pub. Library, 2338.10.

[440] Printed at Dresden, 1779, and reprinted in the _Records of the
Council of Safety of Vermont_ (Montpelier, 1873), vol. i. p. 444. Cf.
Brinley, i. no. 2,513.

[441] Printed at Hartford, 1780, and reprinted in the _Records of the
Gov. and Council of Vermont_ (Montpelier 1874), vol. ii. p. 223. Cf.
Brinley, i. no. 2,514. Stephen R. Bradley published the same year
_Vermont’s appeal to the candid and impartial world_ (Hartford, 1780).
Brinley, i. no. 2,515. The _Journals of Congress_ (iii. 462) show how,
June 2, 1780, that body denounced the claims of the people of the New
Hampshire grants. The same journals (iv. pp. 4, 5) give the Vermont
statement of their case, dated Oct. 16, 1781; and New York’s rejoinder,
Nov. 15, 1781.

[442] It is reprinted in the _Records of the Gov. and Council of
Vermont_ (Montpelier, 1874), vol. ii. p. 355. Brinley, i. no. 2,516. It
was published anonymously. Cf. under date of March 1, 1782, the Report
on the history of the N. H. grants in the _Journals of Congress_,
iii. 729-32. The pardon by New York of those who had been engaged in
founding Vermont is in Ibid. iv. 31 (April 14, 1782); and a report to
Congress acknowledging her autonomy is in Ibid. iv. p. ii. (April 17,
1782).

[443] Documentary sources respecting this prolonged controversy will
be found in William Slade, Jr.’s _Vermont State Papers, being a
collection of records and documents connected with the assumption and
establishment of government by the people of Vermont_ (Middlebury,
1823); in _Documents and Records relating to New Hampshire_, vol. x.;
in O’Callaghan’s _Doc. Hist. New York_, vol. iv. pp. 329-625, with a
map; in the _Fund Publications_ of the N. Y. Hist. Society, vol. iii.,
and in the _Historical Magazine_ (1873-74), vol. xxi. Henry Stevens,
in the preface (p. vii.) of his _Bibliotheca Historica_ (1870), refers
to a collection of papers formed by his father, Henry Stevens, senior,
of Barnet, Vermont. The first volume of the _Collections of the
Vermont Hist. Soc._ had other papers, the editing of which was sharply
criticised by H. B. Dawson in the _Historical Magazine_, Jan., 1871;
with a reply by Hiland Hall in the July number (p. 49). The controversy
was continued in the volume for 1872, Mr. Hall issuing fly leaves of
argument and remonstrance to the editor’s statements.

The earliest general survey of the subject, after the difficulties
were over, is in Ira Allen’s _Natural and political History of the
State of Vermont_ (London, 1798, with a map), which is reprinted
in the first volume of the _Collections of the Vermont Hist. Soc._
(Montpelier, 1870). It is claimed to be “the aim of the writer to lay
open the source of contention between Vermont and New York, and the
reasons which induced the former to repudiate both the jurisdiction and
claims of the latter, before and during the American Revolution, and
also to point out the embarrassments the people met with in founding
and establishing the independence of the State against the intrigues
and claims of New York, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts.” The most
extensive of the later accounts is in Hiland Hall’s _Early Hist. of
Vermont_ (1868), ch. v. and vi., with a part of Mitchell’s map of 1755.
Smith’s _History of New York_ (ii. 149) gives the New York side of the
controversy. Cf. also Bancroft’s _United States_, final revision, ii.
361; and Philip H. Smith’s _Green-Mountain Boys, or Vermont and the New
York land jobbers_ (Pawling, N. Y., 1885).

The controversy enters more or less into local histories, like
Holden’s _Queensbury, N. Y._ (p. 393); William Bassett’s _Richmond, N.
H._ (ch. iii.); O. E. Randall’s _Chesterfield, N. H._; Saunderson’s
_Charlestown, N. H._ All the towns constituting these early grants
are included in Abby Maria Hemenway’s _Vermont Historical Gazetteer,
a local history of all the towns in the State_ (Burlington and
Montpelier, 1867-1882), in four volumes.

The bibliography of Vermont to 1860, showing 250 titles, was printed
by B. H. Hall in _Norton’s Lit. Register_, vol. vi.; a more extended
list of 6,000 titles by Marcus D. Gilman was printed in the _Argus and
Patriot_, of Montpelier, Jan., 1879, to Sept. 15, 1880. (Boston Public
Library. 6170.14.)

[444] “Early Connecticut Claims in Pennsylvania,” by T. J. Chapman in
_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Aug., 1884.

[445] Cf. documents mentioned in Henry Stevens’s _Catal. of books and
pamphlets relating to New Hampshire_ (1885, p. 15), which documents
were sold by him to the State of New Hampshire. Stevens says regarding
these papers: “Dear fussy old Richard Hakluyt, the most learned
geographer of his age, but with certain crude and warped notions of the
South Sea ‘down the back side of Florida,’ which became worked into
many of King James’s and King Charles’s charters, and the many grants
that grew out of them, was the unconscious parent of many geographical
puzzles.... All these are fully illustrated in the numerous papers
cited in these cases.” The Thomlinson correspondence (1733-37) in the
Belknap papers (Mass. Hist. Soc.), which is printed in the _N. H. Prov.
Papers_, iv. 833, etc., relates to the bounds with Massachusetts, and
chiefly consists of letters which passed between Theodore Atkinson, of
Portsmouth, and Capt. John Thomlinson, the province agent in London.
Cf. Hiland Hall’s _Vermont_, ch. iv.; Palfrey’s _New England_, iv. 554;
Belknap, Farmer’s ed., p. 219; and the Report of the Committee on the
name Kearsarge, in the _N. H. Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1876-84, p. 136. The
journal of Richard Hazzen (1741), in running the bounds of Mass. and
New Hampshire, is given in the _N. E. Hist. and Gen. Reg._, xxxiii. 323.

[446] _Historical Mag._, 2d ser. vol. ix. 17; _N. H. Prov. Papers_, vi.
349. Cf. Belknap’s _New Hampshire_, iii. 349; and Farmer’s ed. of same,
p. 245. Douglass (_Summary_, i. 261) points out how inexact knowledge
about the variation of the needle complicated the matter of running
lines afresh upon old records. Cf. also Ibid., p. 263.

[447] The original MS. award of the commissioners is in the State-paper
office in London. The _Carter-Brown Catal._, iii. no. 692, shows a
copy of it. The Egerton MSS. in the British Museum have, under no.
993, various papers on the bounds of Massachusetts, 1735-54. Cf. also
Douglass, _Summary_, i. 399.

[448] Mr. Waters reports in the British Museum an office copy of the
“Bounds between Massachusetts Bay and Connecticut,” attested by Roger
Wolcott, 1713; and also a plan of the south bounds of Massachusetts Bay
as it is said to have been run by Woodward and Safery in 1642. Douglass
(_Summary_, i. 415) has some notes on the bounds of Massachusetts Bay;
and on those with Connecticut there are the original acts of that
province in the _Conn. Col. Records_, iv. (1707-1740).

[449] Bowen’s _Boundary Disputes of Connecticut_, part iii.; Palfrey’s
_New England_, iv. 364. The report of the joint committee on the
northern boundary of Conn. and Rhode Island, April 4, 1752, is printed
in _R. I. Col. Rec._, v. 346. Cf. Foster’s _Stephen Hopkins_, i. 145.

[450] Bowen, parts ii. and iii., with maps of Connecticut (1720) and
Rhode Island (1728); _Rhode Island Col. Records_, iv. 370; Palfrey, iv.
232; _R. I. Hist. Mag._, July, 1884, p. 51; and the map in Arnold’s
_Rhode Island_, ii. 132, showing the claims of Connecticut. Cf.
Foster’s _Stephen Hopkins_, i. 144. Since Vol. III. was printed some
light has been thrown on the earlier disputes over the Rhode Island
and Connecticut bounds through the publication by the Mass. Hist. Soc.
of the _Trumbull Papers_, vol. i. (pp. 40, 76), edited by Chas. Deane,
who gives references. Rhode Island’s answer to Connecticut about their
bounds in 1698, and other papers pertaining, are also printed with
references in the _Trumbull Papers_, i. p. 196, etc.

[451] The cuts of this fort have been kindly furnished by the Maine
Historical Society.

[452] Cf. “Frontier Garrisons reviewed by order of the Governor, 1711,”
in _Maine Hist. and Geneal. Recorder_, i. p. 113; and “Garrison Houses
in Maine,” by E. E. Bourne, in _Maine Hist. Coll._, vii. 109.

[453] Chapters xii. (1688-95), xiv. (1700-1710), xvi. (1713-1725), xxi.
(1756-1763). Whittier tells the story of the “Border War of 1708” in
his _Prose Works_, ii. p. 100. Cf. Sibley’s _Harvard Graduates_, iii.
313.

[454] _Sewall Papers_, ii. 182; _Hist. Mag._, viii. 71.

[455] The original edition is called _The Redeemed Captive, returning
to Zion_. _A faithful history of remarkable occurrences in the
captivity and deliverance of Mr. John Williams, minister of the gospel
in Deerfield, who, in the desolation which befel that plantation, by
an incursion of the French and Indians, was by them carried away with
his family into Canada,_ [with] _a sermon preached by him on his return
at Boston, Dec. 5, 1706_. Boston, 1707. (Harv. Col. lib., 4375.12;
Brinley, i. no. 494; Carter-Brown, iii. no. 103.) A second edition was
issued at Boston in 1720; a third in 1738, with an appendix of details
by Stephen Williams and Thomas Prince; a fourth without date [1773];
a fifth in 1774; another at New London without date [1780?]; one at
Greenfield in 1793, with an additional appendix by John Taylor,—the
same who delivered a _Century Sermon_ in Deerfield, Feb. 29, 1804,
printed at Greenfield the same year; what was called a fifth edition
at Boston in 1795; sixth at Greenfield, with additions, in 1800;
again at New Haven in 1802, following apparently the fifth edition,
and containing Taylor’s appendix. United with the narrative of Mrs.
Rowlandson’s captivity, it made part of a volume issued at Brookfield
in 1811, as _Captivity and Deliverance of Mr. John Williams and of
Mrs. Rowlandson, written by themselves_. The latest edition is one
published at Northampton in 1853, to which is added a biographical
memoir [of John Williams] with appendix and notes by Stephen W.
Williams. (Brinley, i. nos. 495-505; Cooke, 2,735-37; Field, _Indian
Bibliog., 1672-75_.) The memoir thus mentioned appeared originally as
_A Biographical Memoir of the Rev. John Williams, first minister of
Deerfield, with papers relating to the early Indian wars in Deerfield_,
Greenfield, 1837. The author, Stephen W. Williams, was a son of the
captive, and he gives more details of the attack and massacre than his
father did. Jeremiah Colburn (_Bibliog. of Mass._) notes an edition
dated 1845. This book has an appendix presenting the names of the
slain and captured, and Captain Stoddard’s journal of a scout from
Deerfield to Onion or French River in 1707. (Field, no. 1,674.) John
Williams died in 1729, and a notice of him from the _N. E. Weekly
Journal_ is copied in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, April, 1854,
p. 174; and Isaac Chauncey’s _Sermon_ at his funeral was printed in
Boston in 1729. (Brinley, no. 508.) The house in Deerfield in which
Williams lived, showing the marks of the tomahawk which beat in the
door, stood till near the middle of this century. An unsuccessful
effort was made in 1847 to prevent its destruction. (_N. E. Hist. and
Gen. Reg._, ii. 110.) There are views of it in Hoyt’s _Antiquarian
Researches_, and in Gay’s _Pop. Hist. United States_, iii. 122. Eleazer
Williams, the missionary to the Indians at the west, was supposed
to be a great grandson of the captive, through Eunice Williams, one
of the captive’s daughters, who adopted the Indian life during her
detention in Canada, and married, refusing afterwards to return to
her kindred. A claim was set up late in Eleazer Williams’ life that
the was the lost dauphin, Louis XVII., and he is said to have told
stories to confirm it, some of which gave him a name for questionable
veracity. In 1853, a paper in _Putnam’s Magazine_ (vol. i. 194), called
“Have we a Bourbon among us?” followed by a longer presentation of the
claim by the same writer, the Rev. J. H. Hanson, in a book, _The Lost
Prince_, attracted much attention to Williams, who died a few years
later in 1858, aged about 73. There is a memoir of Mr. Williams in
vol. iii. of the _Memorial Biographies_ of the N. E. Hist. and Geneal.
Society. The question of his descent produced a number of magazine
articles (cf. _Poole’s Index_, p. 1411, and appendix to the _Longmeadow
Centennial Celebration_), the outcome of which was not favorable to
Williams’ pretension, whose truthfulness in other matters has been
seriously questioned. Hoyt, the author of the _Antiquarian Researches_,
represented on the authority of Williams that there were documents in
the convents of Canada showing that the French, in their attack on
Deerfield, had secured and had taken to Canada a bell which hung in the
belfry of the Deerfield meeting-house, and that this identical bell was
placed upon the chapel of St. Regis. Benjamin F. De Costa (_Galaxy_,
Jan., 1870, vol. ix. 124) and others have showed that the St. Regis
settlement did not exist till long after. This turned the allegation
into an attempt to prove that the place of the bell was St. Louis
instead, the present Caughnawaga. Geo. T. Davis, who examines this
story, and gives some additional details about the attack on the town,
has reached the conclusion, in his “Bell of St. Regis,” that Williams
deceived Hoyt by a fabrication. (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ (1870), xi.
311; Hough’s _St. Lawrence and Franklin Counties_, ch. 2.)

There is in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, ix. 478 (March, 1867), a
contemporary account of the destruction of Deerfield, with a table
of losses in persons and property; and a letter by John Schuyler in
the _Mass. Archives_, lxxii. 13. Cf. also Penhallow’s _Indian Wars_;
Hutchinson’s _Massachusetts_, ii. 127, 141; Belknap’s _New Hampshire_,
ch. 12; Holmes, _Amer. Annals_, with notes; Hoyt, _Antiq. Researches on
Indian Wars_, 184; Drake’s _Book of the Indians_, iii. ch. 2; Holland’s
_Western Mass._, i. ch. 9; Barry’s _Mass._, ii. 92; Palfrey’s _New
England_, iv. 262; Sibley’s _Harvard Graduates_, iii. 251, 261; and on
the French side, Charlevoix, ii. 290, and a paper by M. Ethier, “Sur la
prise de Deerfield, en 1704,” in _Revue Canadienne_, xi. 458, 542. John
Stebbins Lee’s _Sketch of Col. John Hawkes of Deerfield, 1707-1784_,
has details of the Indian wars of this region.

[456] King William’s war, 1688-98, in ch. xxiii.; Queen Anne’s, ch.
xxiv.; the wars of 1722-26, 1744-49, 1754-63, in ch. xxx. A competent
authority calls Mr. Judd’s history “one of the best local histories
ever written in New England.” H. B. Adams, _Germanic Origin of New
England Towns_, p. 30.

[457] Harv. Col. lib., 5325.40; _H. C. Murphy Catal._, no. 811. Drake’s
_Particular Hist. of the Five Years’ French and Indian War_ (Albany,
1870), pp. 10, 12. There is a genealogical memoir of the Doolittles in
the _N. E. Hist. and Gen. Reg._, vi. 294. Dr. S. W. Williams printed
in the _New Eng. Hist. and Gen. Reg._, April, 1848, p. 207, some
contemporary Deerfield papers of this war of 1745-46. The Hampshire
County recorder’s book contains in the handwriting of Samuel Partridge
an account of the border Indian massacres from 1703 to 1746. It is
printed in the _N. E. Hist. and Gen. Reg._, April, 1855, p. 161.

[458] See French documents for this period in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 32.

[459] Then embracing, to 1761, the four western counties of
Massachusetts as now marked.

[460] A. L. Perry on the history and romance of Fort Shirley, in the
_Bay State Monthly_, Oct., 1885; and in the _Centennial Anniversary of
Heath, Mass., Aug. 19, 1885, edited by Edward P. Guild_, p. 94.

[461] The contemporary narrative of this disaster is that of John
Norton, the chaplain of the fort, who was carried into captivity, and
whose _Redeemed Captive_, as he called the little tract of forty pages
which gave his experiences, was printed in Boston in 1748, after his
return from Canada. (Haven’s bibliog. in Thomas, ii. p. 498.) In 1870
it was reprinted, with notes (edition, 100 copies), by Samuel G. Drake,
and published at Albany under the title of _Narrative of the capture
and burning of Fort Massachusetts_. (Field, _Indian Bibliog._, no.
1,139; Brinley, i. 483; Drake’s _Five Years’ French and Indian Wars_,
p. 251; Sabin, xiii. 55,891-92.) Cf. Nathaniel Hillyer Egleston’s
_Williamstown and Williams College_, Williamstown, 1884; Stone (_Life
of Sir William Johnson_, i. 225), in his account of the attack, uses a
MS. journal of Serjeant Hawkes. The French documents are in _N. Y. Col.
Docs._, x. 65, 67, 77.

[462] Life and character of Col. Ephraim Williams, in _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Coll._, viii. 47.

[463] The fort will be seen to consist of a house (A in ground plan,
40 × 24), nine-feet walls of four-inch white ash plank, surmounted by
a gambrel roof, the pitches of which are seen (E, F) in the profile,
while the limits of the house are marked (X X) in the prospect. Sills
(H) on the ground gave support to pillars (I, K, in ground plan, A, C,
in profile), which held a platform (B in profile) which was reached
by doors (K in profile), and protected towards the enemy by a bulwark
of plank pierced with loop-holes, as the doors and window-shields of
the house were. One corner of this surrounding breastwork had a tower
for lookout, as seen in the prospect. At one end a wall (E, F, G, in
ground plan) with a bastion (D) enclosed a yard (L in ground plan, G
in profile), which was planked over. In this was a well (C in ground
plan) and a storehouse (B, size 35 × 10, in ground plan), with a roof
inclining inward (H, in profile).

[464] Hall’s _Eastern Vermont_, i. 67. The papers of Col. Williams are
preserved in two volumes in the cabinet of the Mass. Hist. Soc., having
come into their possession in 1837. (_Proceedings_, ii. 95, 121.) The
papers are few before 1744, and the first volume comes down to 1757,
and concerns the warfare with the French and Indians in the western
part of the province. The second volume ends in the main with 1774,
though there are a few later papers, and continues the subject of the
first, as well as grouping the papers relating to Williams College and
Williams’ correspondence with Gov. Hutchinson. It was this same Col.
Israel Williams who took offence in 1762 that his son’s name was put
too low in the social scale, as marked on the class-lists of Harvard,
and tried to induce the governor to charter a new college in Hampshire
County. (_Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc._, xx. 46.)

The MS. index to the _Mass. Archives_ will reveal much in those papers
illustrative of this treacherous warfare, and the _Report of the
Commissioners on the Records, etc._ (1885), shows (p. 24) that there
is a considerable mass of uncalendared papers of the same character.
Various letters from Gov. Shirley and others addressed to Col. John
Stoddard during 1745-47, respecting service on the western frontiers
of Massachusetts, are preserved in the cabinet of the Mass. Hist.
Society. These, as well as the Israel Williams papers, the Col.
William Williams’ papers (in the Pittsfield Athenæum), and much else,
will be availed of thoroughly by Prof. A. L. Perry in the _History
of Williamstown_, which he has in progress. A coöperative _Memorial
History of Berkshire County_, edited by the historian of Pittsfield,
is also announced, but a _History of Berkshire County_, issued under
the auspices of the Berkshire Historical Society, seems likely to
anticipate it.

[465] There is an account of Mason’s expedition from New London to
Woodstock in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, ix. 473.

[466] [This is described in Vol. IV. p. 364, with authorities, to
which add Pearson’s _Schenectady Patent_, 1883, p. 244; _Mag. of Amer.
Hist._, July, 1883; Palfrey’s _New England_, iv. 45; _Mass. Archives_,
xxxvi. 111.—ED.]

[467] See Vol. IV. pp. 353, 361, 364. Cf. _Connecticut Col.
Records_, iv. 38; and the present volume, _ante_, p. 90.

[468] During the Dutch occupation of New York there were only
two Catholics in New Amsterdam, and according to Father Jogues, the
Jesuit missionary, they had no complaint to make that they suffered
on account of their faith. Father Le Moyne, another missionary, was
allowed to come to New Netherland a few years later, and administer the
rites of the church to the few Romanists then in the province, and in
1686 Governor Dongan, himself of the Church of Rome, reports that there
were still only “a few” of his co-religionists in the government.

[469] Vetoed by the king in 1697.

[470] Leamer and Spicer.

[471] See Vol. III. ch. x.

[472] He remained in the debtors’ prison in New York until
his accession to the earldom of Clarendon furnished the means for his
release.

[473] A court of equity had been erected in the Supreme Court
of New York by an ordinance of Gov. Cosby, in 1733.

[474] From Zenger’s narrative of his trial.

[475] _Hist. Mag._, xiv. 49.

[476] Cf. Bancroft, final revision, ii. 254.

[477] The chief justice’s commission was made for “during good
behavior” in Sept., 1744, so as to conform with the practice in New
Jersey.

[478] He came to New York in 1703 as secretary of the
province, and was connected by marriage with the royal house of Stuart.
He returned to England in 1745, and died in 1759.

[479] See ch. viii.

[480] [Cf. Vol. III. p. 495.—ED.]

[481] _Col. Doc._, iv. 159.

[482] The state of affairs in Pennsylvania and Delaware resulting from
it is best described in a letter written in June, 1707, by Col. Robert
Quary, the judge of the admiralty in New York and Pennsylvania, to the
Lords of Trade.

[483] Being the first settlers of the province, the Quakers had very
naturally made affirmation instead of an oath a matter of great
importance. Upon a revision of the laws following the resumption of the
government by Penn, a law concerning the manner of giving evidence,
passed in 1701, was repealed by the queen in 1705, not because the
English government intended to deprive the Quakers of Pennsylvania of
their cherished privilege, but because it punished false affirming with
more severity than the law of England required for false swearing.
Hence Gookin’s objections. The whole question was not satisfactorily
settled until the passage of a law, and its approval by the king,
prescribing the forms of declaration of fidelity, abjuration, and
affirmation.

[484] He was a considerable trader there when the place was first laid
out for a town. Proud’s _Pennsylvania_.

[485] These £45,000 Pennsylvania currency represented only £29,090
sterling, gold being sold then at £6 6_s._ 6_d._ p. oz., and silver at
8_s._ 3_d._ p. oz.

[486] East New Jersey the same; New York and West New Jersey ten
shillings and sixpence.

[487] During the following year, and as long as the war lasted, the
same £100,000 were yearly voted, and bills to that amount emitted,
secured by a tax on property. Again, in 1764, the Indian troubles about
Fort Augusta caused another emission of £55,000. The war with Spain
threatened Philadelphia, and £23,500 more were voted. Again, in 1769,
bills to the amount of £14,000 were granted towards the relief of the
poor in Philadelphia, and £60,000 for the king’s use.

[488] Chapter iv.

[489] See _ante_, p. 143.

[490] Vol. VI.

[491] How rarely slaves were imported is shown by the fact that of
1,062 entries for duty (a negro imported for sale was taxed £4) during
the period from the 11th of March, 1746, to the 31st of March, 1749,
only 29 entries were of 49 slaves, and 5 of these were brought on
speculation, the others being servants or seamen, and thus exempted
from duty. Slavery and the slave traffic were never countenanced in New
York, and much less in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, where the Quakers
early declared themselves opposed to this institution.

[492] See Vol. IV. p. 410. [Mr. Fernow assisted Geo. W. Schuyler in the
account of the records given in his _Colonial New York_ (1885).—ED.]

[493] Only two of these copies are now known: one is in the manuscript
department of the State library at Albany, the other is in the library
of the Long Island Historical Society. These laws were printed in the
_Collection of the New York Historical Society_, vol. i. [Cf. Sabin,
xiii. p. 178, for editions of early New York laws; and the present
_History_, Vol. III. pp. 391, 414, 510.—ED.]

[494] The Bradford copy of 1694, in the State library
(Albany), not being considered complete, the legislature of 1879
appropriated $1,600 to purchase a better copy at the Brinley sale
in 1880. [This was the first book printed in New York. Sabin (xiii.
53,726, etc.; cf. x. p. 371, and _Menzies Catal._, no. 1,250) gives the
successive editions. For the proceedings of the assembly in various
forms, see _Ibid._, xiii. 53,722, 54,003, etc.—ED.]

[495] It may be here noted that there are also in the State library
at Albany the “Minutes of the Proceedings of the Commissioners for
settling the Boundaries of the Colony of Rhode Island eastwards towards
the Massachusetts Bay,” 1741, one volume; and the “Minutes of the
Commissioners appointed to examine, etc., the Controversy between
Connecticut and the Mohegan Indians,” 1743, one volume.

[496] [The Johnson papers are further described in chapter viii. of the
present volume.—ED.]

[497] [Dr. Sprague gave also to Harvard College library the
papers of Gen. Thomas Gage during his command in New York; but they
relate mainly to a later period.—ED.]

[498] [This is probably the manuscript sold at an auction sale in New
York (Bangs, Feb. 27, 1854, _Catal._, no. 1,330). In an introduction,
Wraxall gives an account of his office and its difficulties. He says
the originals were somewhat irregularly arranged in four folio volumes,
and in part in Dutch, “of which I was my own translator.”—ED.]

[499] The State library also possesses a small MS., _The Mythology of
the Iroquois or Six Nations of Indians_, by the Hon’ble James Deane,
Senior, of Westmoreland, Oneida County, who represented his county
in the assembly of New York, in 1803 and 1809, and probably obtained
his material from the Oneida Indians in his neighborhood. His account
differs very little from that given by the Indian David Cusick. [See
Vol. IV. p. 298.—ED.]

[500] [See _ante_, p. 169.—ED.]

[501] Papers relative to the trade and manufactures of New York,
1705-1757, are in _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, i.

[502] [Page 79, _ante_. Since that other description of maps
in this volume was finally made, there has been issued (1885), in two
large volumes, a _Catal. of the printed maps, plans, and charts in
the British Museum_, in which, under the heads of America, New York,
etc., will be found extensive enumerations of maps of the eighteenth
century.—ED.]

[503] The drafts of Delisle particularly were the bases of many maps a
long way into the eighteenth century. See _Catal. Maps, Brit. Mus._,
1885.

[504] For example, the _Geography anatomiz’d or the
Geographical Grammar, by Pat. Gordon_ (London, 1708), makes the St.
Lawrence divide “Terra Canadensis” into north and south parts, of which
last section New York (discovered by Hudson in 1608) is a subdivision,
as are New Jersey (discovered by the English, “under the conduct of
the Cabots,” in 1497) and Pennsylvania, of which it is blindly said
that it was discovered “at the same time with the rest of the adjacent
continent.” The western limit of these provinces bounds on “Terra
Arctica.”

[505] For example, the map without date or imprint, called
_Pennsylvania, Nova Jersey et Nova York cum Regionibus ad Fluvium
Delaware in America sitis. Nova Delineatione ob oculos posita per
Matth. Scutterum, Sanctae Caes. Maj. Geographum, Aug. Vind._ It places
“Dynastia Albany,” “St. Antoni Wildniss,” or “Desertum orientale,”
near the junction of the two branches of the Susquehanna River. New
York city is on the mainland, from which Long Island is separated by a
narrow watercourse.

Another, equally wild in its license, is a _Carte Nouvelle de l’Amérique
Angloise, etc., Dressée sur les Relations les plus Nouvelles_. _Par le
Sieur S. à Amsterdam chez Pierre Mortier, Libraire, avec Privilége de
nos Seigneurs._ Lake Erie (Lac Fells) is misshapen, and the Ohio River
is ignored.

A common error in the maps of this period, based on Dutch notions, is
to place Lakes Champlain and George east of the Connecticut, as is
shown in the _Nova Belgica et Anglia Nova_ of Allard’s _Minor Atlas_,
usually undated, but of about 1700. The same atlas also contains (no.
32) a map showing the country from the Penobscot to the Chesapeake,
called _Totius Neobelgii nova tabula_.

[506] [He was born in 1664, and had since 1687 been occupied
in his art. During 1701-06 he was at Leipzig, at work on the maps in
Cellarius; then he contributed to the geography of Scherer, which
appeared in 1710. Homann published what he called an _Atlas Novas_ in
1711, and an _Atlas Methodicus_ in 1719.—ED.]

[507] Including one without date: _Nova Anglia Septentrionali Americae
implantata Anglorumque Coloniis florentissima, Geographiae exhibita
a Joh. Baptista Homann, Sac. Caes. Maj. Geographo, Norimbergae, cum
Privilegio Sac. Caes. Maj._ “Novum Belgium, Nieuw Nederland nunc New
Jork,” occupies the territory bounded by a north and south line from
Lac St. Pierre (St. Lawrence River) through Lakes Champlain and George
to about Point Judith on the Sound. In the northwest corner of New
York we find “Le Grand Sault St. Louis;” in the southwest, “Sennecaas
Lacus,” from which the Delaware River and a tributary of the Hudson,
“Groote Esopus River,” emerge. The “Versche River,” the Dutch name for
the Connecticut, runs west of Lake George.

[508] See _ante_, pp. 80, 133. Sabin gives editions of his _Atlas_
in 1701, 1709, 1711, 1717, 1719, 1723, 1732. Moll’s map of the New
England and middle colonies in 1741 is in Oldmixon’s _British Empire_.
His drafts were the bases of the general American maps of Bowen’s
_Geography_ (1747) and Harris’s _Voyages_ (1764). Cf. _Catal. Maps,
Brit. Mus._ (1885), under Moll, and pp. 2969-70.

[509] Second ed. 1739; third, 1744.

[510] He makes the Mohawk, or western branch of the Delaware River,
empty into the eastern branch below Burlington. The same writer’s
_Modern Gazetteer_ (London, 1746) is only an abbreviation of his
history.

The charts of _The English Pilot_ of about this time give the
prevailing notions of the coast. The dates vary from 1730 through the
rest of the century,—the plates being in some parts changed. In the
edition of 1742 (Mount and Page, London) the maps of special interest
are: No. 14, New York harbor and vicinity, by Mark Tiddeman; and No.
15, Chesapeake and Delaware bays. The Dutch _Atlas van Zeevaert_ of
Ottens may be compared.

[511] _Ante_, p. 81. The French reproduction is called _Nouvelle Carte
Particulière de l’Amérique, où sont exactement marquées ... la Nouvelle
Bretagne, le Canada, la Nouvelle Écosse, la Nouvelle Angleterre, la
Nouvelle York, Pennsylvanie, etc._ This is sometimes dated 1756.

[512] _Ante_, p. 81.

[513] This is the title of the second part of the volume; the first
title calls it an _Index of all the considerable Provinces, etc., in
Europe_.

[514] _Ante_, p. 83. Stevens also notes a little Spanish _Exámen
sucincto sobre los antiguos Limites de la Acadia_, as having a map of
about this time. _Bibl. Hist._ (1870) no. 679.

[515] Cf. _ante_, p. 81; and the _Carte des Possessions Françoises et
Angloises dans le Canada et Partie de la Louisiane. À Paris chez le
Sieur Longchamps, Geographe_ (1756).

[516] Morgan’s _League of the Iroquois_ has an eclectic map of their
country in 1720.

[517] Governor Burnet, in his letter of December 16, 1723, perhaps
alludes to it when he says: “I have likewise enclosed a map of this
province, drawn by the surveyor Gen^{ll}, Dr. Colden, with great
exactness from all surveys that have been made formerly and of late
in this province;” ... but more probably Colden refers to it, in his
letter of December 4, 1726, to Secretary Popple, as “a Map of this
Province, which I am preparing by the Governor’s Order.” As this last
letter (_N. Y. Col. Docs._, v. 806) treats mainly of quit-rents, and as
this map illustrates the same as fixed in the various patents, it is
most likely that the latter is the map now under consideration. There
is a map of the Livingston manor (1714) in the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, iii.
414, and papers concerning it (1680-1795) are in the same. A map of the
Van Rensselaer manor (1767) is in _Idem._, iii. 552. Cf. _Mag. of Amer.
Hist._, Jan., 1884, with views and portraits.

[518] [This map is further mentioned in chapter viii.—ED.]

[519] Cf. _Report of the Regents of the University on the
Boundaries of the State of New York_ (Albany, 1883-84), two large
vols., with historical documents; and the _Bicentennial Celebration
of the Board of American Proprietors of East New Jersey_ (1884). [The
history of the controversy as given in the _Report of the Regents_ is
by Mr. Fernow, whose references are mainly to the _N. Y. Col. Doc._,
iii., iv., vi., vii., xiii., and the _New Jersey Archives_, ii., iii.,
vi., viii. H. B. Dawson published at Yonkers, N. Y., 1866, _Papers
concerning the boundary between the States of New York and New Jersey,
written by several hands_. On the New Jersey side, see W. A. Whitehead
and J. Parker in _New Jersey Hist. Soc. Proc._, vols. viii. and x.,
and second series, vol. i.; and also Whitehead’s _Eastern boundary of
New Jersey: a review of a paper by Hon. J. Cochrane and rejoinder to
reply of_ [H. B. Dawson] (1866). The _Brinley Catal._, ii. 2,745-2,750,
shows various printed documents between 1752 and 1769. Cf. note on the
sources of the boundary controversies, in Vol. III. p. 414.—ED.]

[520] Cf. Vol. III. p. 116.

[521] [Vol. III. p. 501. It is also in Cassell’s _United States_, i.
282. Respecting Thomas’s _Historical Description_, see Vol. III. pp.
451, 501-2. Cf. also Menzies ($120); Murphy, no. 2,470; Brinley, no.
3,102; Barlow, no. 739; F. S. Ellis (1884), no. 284, £35. The text was
translated and the map reproduced in the _Continuatio der Beschreibung
der Landschaffts Pennsylvaniæ_, with foot-notes, probably by Pastorius,
Frankfort and Leipzig, 1702 (_Boston Pub. Lib. Bulletin_, July, 1883,
p. 60).—ED.]

[522] It has been reproduced in Egle’s _Pennsylvania_ (p. 92)
and in Cassell’s _United States_ (i. 450).

[523] Stevens, _Hist. Coll._, ii. no. 399.

[524] [In Hazard’s _Register of Penna._, Oct. 2, 1830, there
is an account of the “long walk” and the so-called “Walking Purchase”
acquired in Pennsylvania in 1736, by terms which embraced a distance
to be walked in a day and a half, which, by reason of plans devised
to increase the distance, was the cause later of much indignation
among the Indians. This paper is reprinted in W. W. Beach’s _Indian
Miscellany_ (Albany, 1877), p. 86. See further, on troublesome
purchases of lands from the Indians, the papers in _Doc. Hist. N. Y._,
on the Susquehanna River, where reference is made to the _Susquehanna
Title Stated and Examined_ (Catskill, 1796).—ED.]

[525] Haven in Thomas, ii. p. 343.

[526] Sparks has bound with it a copy of the act of Parliament, 1696,
for reversing the attainder of Leisler and others, and refers to
Smith’s _New York_, p. 59, etc., and Hutchinson’s _Massachusetts Bay_,
i. 392.

[527] For a view of Leisler’s house, see Vol. III. 417.

[528] Cf. Edw. F. De Lancey, ed. of Jones’s _N. Y. during the Rev._,
and his memoir of James De Lancey in _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, iv., and also
Sedgwick’s _Wm. Livingston_.

[529] _An account of the commitment, arraignment, tryal, and
condemnation of Nicholas Bayard, Esq., for high treason in endeavoring
to subvert the government of the province of New York ... collected
from several memorials taken by divers persons privately, the
commissioners having strictly prohibited the taking of the tryal in
open Court._ New York, and reprinted in London, 1703. (Cf. Brinley, ii.
no. 2,743.)

_Case of William Atwood, Esq., Chief Justice of New York ... with
a true account of the government and people of that province,
particularly of Bayard’s faction, and the treason for which he and
Hutchins stand attainted, but reprieved before the Lord Cornbury’s
arrival._ (London, 1703.) It is reprinted in the _N. Y. Hist. Soc.
Coll._, 1880.

These original reports are both rare, and cost about $5.00 each.

P. W. Chandler examines the evidence on the Bayard trial (_Amer.
Criminal Trials_, i. 269), and the proceedings are given at length in
Howell’s _State Trials_, vol. xiv.

[530] The report of his trial was printed at the time, and reprinted
with an introduction by William Livingston in 1755, and again in
Force’s _Tracts_. See Critical Essay of chap. iv., _post_.

[531] Cornbury is said to have paraded in woman’s clothes. Cf. _Hist.
Mag._, xiii. 71; Shannon’s _N. Y. City Manual_, 1869, p. 762.

[532] _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, i. 377; iv. 109. Colden was a Scotchman
(born in 1688), who, after completing his studies at the University
of Edinburgh, came to Pennsylvania in 1708, where he practised as
a physician, and gathered the material for describing in the _Acta
Upsaliensia_ several hundred American plants. For a few years after
1715 he was in England; but when Hunter came to New York as governor
in 1720, he made Colden surveyor-general and councillor, and ever
after he was actively identified with New York. There is a likeness of
Colden in _Ibid._, iii. 495. The Colden Papers are in the library of
the N. Y. Historical Society. A portion of them are the correspondence
of Colden with Smith, the historian of New York, and with his father,
respecting alleged misstatements in Smith’s _History_, particularly
as regards a scheme of Gov. Clarke to settle Scotch Highlanders near
Lake George. These letters were printed in the _Collections_ of that
society, second series, vol. ii. (1849) p. 193, etc., and another group
of similar letters makes part of vol. i. (p. 181) of the _Publication
Fund Series_ of the same _Collections_. (See Vol. III. p. 412.) The
main body, however, of the Colden Papers occupy vols. ix. and x. of
this last series (1876 and 1877). The earlier of these volumes contains
his official letter-books, 1760-1775, which “throw a flood of light
upon the measures which were steadily forcing New York into necessary
resistance to arbitrary government.” The succeeding volume takes the
next ten years down to 1775.

[533] Haven in Thomas, ii., _sub anno_ 1735, 1738; Carter-Brown, iii.
593, 594. Chandler cites editions in New York, 1735, 1756, 1770,
and London, 1764. Franklin printed _Remarks on Zenger’s Trial_ in
1737. _Remarks on the Trial of John Peter Zenger_ (London, 1738) is
signed by Indus Britannicus, who calls Hamilton’s speech a “wild and
idle harangue,” and aims to counteract “the approval of the paper
called Common Sense.” Cf. for Hamilton the chapter on the Bench and
Bar in Scharf and Westcott’s _Philadelphia_ (ii. 1501). “Andrew
Hamilton was the first American lawyer who gained more than a local
reputation, and the only one who did so in colonial times.” Lodge,
_Short History_, 233, gives references on the courts and bar of
Pennsylvania and New York (pp. 232, 233, 316, 317). There is a portrait
of Andrew Hamilton in the Penn. Hist. Soc., and a photograph of it in
Etting’s _Independence Hall_. The trial is canvassed in Chandler’s
_Amer. Criminal Trials_, i. 151; and the narrative of the trial and
the _Remarks_, etc., are reprinted in Howell’s _State Trials_, vol.
xvii. Cf. also Hudson’s _Journalism_, p. 81, and Lossing in _Harper’s
Monthly_, lvii. p. 293. The New York State library possesses a
collection made by Zenger himself of all the printed matter on the case
appearing in his day.

[534] See the full title in Sabin’s _Dictionary_, viii. no. 33,058.
Copies were sold in the Rice sale ($140); Menzies, no. 971 ($240);
Strong ($300); Brinley, no. 2,865 ($330); Murphy, no. 1,260; Quaritch
(£45). There are copies in Harvard College library, Philadelphia
library, Carter-Brown (iii. no. 779), and Barlow (_Rough List_, no.
878). It was reprinted in London in 1747 (Sabin, viii. no. 33,059), and
in New York in 1810 as _The New York Conspiracy, or a history of the
negro plot, with the journal, etc._ (Harvard College library, Boston
Public library, Brinley, Cooke, etc.), and was again reprinted in New
York in 1851, edited by W. B. Wedgwood, as _The Negro Conspiracy in the
City of New York in 1741_.

All the histories touch the story, but for original or distinctive
treatment compare Smith’s _New York_, ii. 58; Stone’s _Sir William
Johnson_, i. 52; Williams’ _Negro Race in America_, i. p. 144; and the
legal examination of the case in Peleg W. Chandler’s _American Criminal
Trials_ (i. 211).

[535] See Lives of Penn noted in Vol. III.

[536] _Proceedings_, v. 312. They are now in the library of the
Pennsylvania Hist. Society.

[537] Hildeburn, _Century of Printing; Catal. of Works rel. to B.
Franklin in Boston Pub. Library_, pp. 26, 32, 38.

[538] Stevens, _Bibl. Hist._ (1870), no. 1,995.

[539] G. Clarke’s _Voyage to America, with introduction and notes by
E. B. O’Callaghan_ (Albany, 1867), being no. 2 of a series of _N.
Y. Colonial Tracts_. Clarke remained in the province till 1745. The
original MS. of his _Voyage_ is in the State library at Albany.

[540] Portraits of Keith are in G. M. Hill’s _Hist. of the Church in
Burlington, New Jersey_, and in Perry’s _Amer. Episcopal Church_, i. p.
209.

[541] The bibliography of the Quakers has been given in Vol. III.
p. 503. Since that notice was made, Joseph Smith has added to his
series of books on Quaker literature _Bibliotheca quakeristica: a
bibliography of miscellaneous literature relating to the friends
(quakers), and biographical notices_ (London, 1883). Quaker
publications in Pennsylvania can best be followed in Hildeburn’s
_Century of Printing in Penna._, while entries more or less numerous
will be found in Haven’s list (Thomas’s _Hist. of Printing_, ii.), and
particularly respecting the tracts of George Keith, in Sabin, ix. p.
403; Carter-Brown, ii. and iii.; Brinley, ii. 3,406, etc.; Cooke, iii.
1,342, etc.

Mr. C. J. Stillé has printed a paper on “Religious Tests in Provincial
Pennsylvania” in the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, Jan., 1885.

[542] _Collection of the Epistles and Works of Benjamin Holme, to
which is prefixed an account of his life and travels in the work of
the ministry, through several parts of Europe and America, written by
himself_ (London, 1753). Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,000.

[543] London, 1779. There were editions in Philad., 1780; York, 1830;
and the book makes vol. v. of the Friends’ Library, Philad., 1841.
Sabin (vii. 28,825) gives it as earlier printed with _Some brief
remarks on sundry important subjects_, London, 1764, 1765; Dublin,
1765; London, 1768; Philad., 1781; London, 1805.

These books do not add much to our knowledge of other than the
emotional experiences prevalent among this sect at this period. The
_Journals_ of John Woolman reveal the beginnings of the anti-slavery
agitation among his people. The journals have passed through numerous
editions, and John G. Whittier added an introduction to an edition in
1871 (Boston). Cf. Allibone, iii. 2,834.

[544] _An Account of Two Missionary Voyages by the Appointment of the
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, etc., by
Thomas Thompson, A. M., Vicar of Reculver in Kent_ (London, 1758).

For the history of the Episcopal Church in the middle colonies during
the eighteenth century, see Perry’s _Amer. Episc. Church_, i. chapters
9, 11, 12, 13; and for the non-juring bishops, p. 541. Cf. De Costa’s
introduction to Bishop White’s _Memoirs of the Prot. Episc. Church_, p.
xxxii. A statement of the condition of the church in New York in 1704-5
is in the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, iii. 74.

[545] Sec Crit. Essay of chap. vi.

[546] Brinley, ii. 3,073; Stevens, _Hist. Coll._, ii. no. 336.

[547] Muller, _Books on America_, 1872, no. 1,211; 1877, no. 2,903:
Brinley, _Catal._, ii. no. 3,093. His book is called _Getrouw Verhaal
van den waren toestant der meest Herderloze Gemeentens in Pensylvanien,
etc._ (Amsterdam, 1751.)

[548] Stevens, _Bibl. Geog._, no. 268; Tuckerman’s _America and her
Commentators_, p. 274; Sabin, i. no. 3,868. This traveller must not be
confounded with William Bartram, the son, whose travels belong to a
period forty years later.

[549] Chap. viii.

[550] _Ante_, p. 83. There is a chapter on the modes of travel of this
time in Scharf and Westcott’s _Philadelphia_ (vol. iii.).

[551] A German version, _Reise nach dem nördlichen America_, was
published at Göttingen in 1754-64,—some copies having the imprint
Leipzig and Stockholm. (Sabin, ix. 36,987.) A Dutch translation,
_Reis door Noord Amerika_, has for imprint Utrecht, 1772. (Sabin, ix.
36,988.) An English version by J. R. Forster, _Travels into North
America_, appeared in three volumes at Warrington and at London, in
1770-71, with a second edition at London in 1772. (Sabin, ix. 36,989;
Rich, _Bib. Am. Nova_, p. 178.) Cf. the present _History_, IV. p. 494,
and Tuckerman’s _America and her Commentators_, p. 295.

[552] Two editions, 1775; Dublin, 1775; third edition, London, 1798,
revised, corrected, and greatly enlarged by the author. It is reprinted
in Pinkerton’s _Voyages_, vol. xiii. A French version was published
at Lausanne and at the Hague in 1778, and a German one, made by C. D.
Ebeling, at Hamburg, in 1776. (Sabin, iii. pp. 142-3.)

[553] Chapter viii. Particularly may reference be made to Charles
Thomson’s _Enquiry into the Causes of the Alienation of the Delaware
and Shawanese Indians from the British Interests_.

[554] Chap. viii.—critical part.

[555] Cf. Brinley, iii. 5,486.

[556] Gov. Bernard’s letter in this conference is in _N. Jersey
Archives_, ix. p. 139.

[557] There are in the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._ (vol. iii. p. 613, etc.)
various papers indicative of the opposition the Moravians encountered
within the province of New York.

[558] Cf. the Critical Essay of chap. viii. One of the earlier
historical treatments is John C. Ogden’s _Excursion to Bethlehem and
Nazareth, in 1799, with a succinct history of the Society of United
Brethren_. (Philad., 1800.)

[559] Crit. Essay of chap. viii.

[560] See Vol. III. p. 515.

[561] _Life of Zeisberger_, pp. 37, 98, 120.

[562] The Moravian Historical Society (Nazareth, Penna.) has taken
active measures to preserve the records of their missionary work. In
1860 it published at Philadelphia _A memorial of the dedication of
monuments erected by the Moravian Historical Society, to mark the sites
of ancient missionary stations in New York and Connecticut_ [by W. C.
Reichel], which contains an account of the Moravians in New York and
Connecticut; [Mission of] Shekomeko [N. Y.], by S. Davis; Visit of the
committee [to Shekomeko and Wechquadnach], and the proceedings of the
society and dedication of the monuments.

The society also began a series of transactions in 1876, whose first
volume included _Extracts from Zinzendorf’s Diary of his second, and in
part of his third journey among the Indians, the former to Shekomeko,
and the other among the Shawanese, on the Susquehanna. Transl. from
a German MS. in the Bethlehem archives. By Eugene Schaeffer_ (1742),
and _Names which the Lenni Lenape or Delaware Indians gave to rivers,
streams, and localities, within the States of Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Maryland, and Virginia, with their significations_. _Prepared from a
MS. by J. Heckewelder, by William C. Reichel._

For the Moravians in Philadelphia, see Scharf and Westcott’s _Hist. of
Philad._ (vol. ii. p. 1320, etc.), and Abraham Ritter’s _Hist. of the
Moravian Church in Philad. from its foundation in 1742_ (Phil., 1857).
Poole’s _Index_, p. 870, will enable the reader to trace the literature
of which the Moravians have been the subject. The sect publish at
Bethlehem a _Manual_, which is convenient for authoritative information.

[563] Jonathan Edwards wrote Brainerd’s life, using his diaries in
part. In 1822 a new edition, by Sereno Edwards Dwight, included
journals (June, 1745, to June, 1746) that had been published
separately, which had been overlooked by Edwards. (Sabin, ii. nos.
7,339-7,346.) The _Journal of a two months’ tour with a view of
promoting religion among the frontier inhabitants of Pennsylvania,
and introducing Christianity among the Indians west of the Alegh-geny
Mountains, by Charles Beatty_ (London, 1768), is the result of a
mission planned in England, and is addressed to the Earl of Dartmouth
and other trustees of the Indian Charity School. In Perry’s _Amer.
Episcopal Church_, chapter 19, is given an account of missionary labors
among the Mohawks and other Indian tribes. Gideon Hawley’s account of
his journey among the Mohawks in 1753 is in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._,
iv., and _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, iii.

[564] Lodge (p. 227) has epitomized this immigration. See references in
Vol. III. p. 515.

[565] Cf. Redmond Conyngham, _An account of the settlement of the
Dunkers at Ephrata, in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania_. _Added a short
history of that religious society, by the late Rev. Christian Endress,
of Lancaster_, which makes part of the _Historical Society of Penn.
Memoirs_. (1828, vol. ii. 133-153.) Cf. further _Penna. Mag. of Hist._,
v. 276; _Century_, Dec., 1881; Schele de Vere on a “Protestant Convent”
in _Hours at Home_, iv. 458. For their press see Thomas’s _Hist. of
Printing_, i. 287; _Catal. of Paintings in the Penna. Hist. Soc._,
1872, p. 6; and Muller’s _Books on America_, 1877, no. 3,623.

[566] The Dutch of J. G. De Hoop Scheffer’s historical account of the
friendly relations between the Dutch and Pennsylvania Baptists was
printed at Amsterdam in 1869 (Muller, _Books on America_, 1872, no.
1,296), and, translated with notes by S. W. Pennypacker, it appeared
as the “Mennonite Emigration to Pennsylvania” in the _Penna. Mag. of
Hist._, ii. 117; also see S. W. Pennypacker’s _Historical and Biog.
Sketches_ (Philad., 1883); cf. further in R. Baird’s _Religions in
America_ (1856), E. K. Martin’s _Mennonites_ (Philad., 1883), and
M’Clintock and Strong’s _Cyclopædia_, vi. 98.

On the Baptists in general in Pennsylvania, see Sprague’s _Amer.
Pulpit_, vol. vi.; _Hist. Mag._ (xiv. 76), for an account by H. G.
Jones of the lower Dublin Baptist Church (1687), the mother church
of the sect in Pennsylvania, and Morgan Edwards’s _Materials towards
a history of the Baptists in Pennsylvania, both British and German,
distinguished into First-day Baptists, Keithian Baptists, Seventh-day
Baptists, Tunker Baptists, Mennonist Baptists_ (Philad., 1770-1792), in
two volumes; but the second volume applies to New Jersey. (Sabin, vi.
21,981.)

[567] Cf. James W. Dale’s _Earliest settlement by Presbyterians on the
Delaware River in Delaware County_. (Philad., 1871; 28 pp.)

[568] Annotated ed. of 1876 (Albany), by Jas. Grant Wilson.

[569] _Memoirs_, vols. ix. and x. They cover the years 1700-1711. “Much
of the correspondence is taken up with business and politics; but it
is also a great storehouse of information respecting men and manners.”
Tyler, _Amer. Lit._, ii. 233.

[570] Cf. E. G. Scott, _Development of Constitutional Liberty in the
English Colonies_ (New York, 1882), ch. vi.; Scharf and Westcott’s
_Philadelphia_ (ii. chapters 18, 29, 30, etc.). Scott says,
“Pennsylvania had a greater diversity of nationalities than any other
colony, and offered consequently a greater variety of character” (p.
162).

[571] The history of the paper-money movement in Pennsylvania is traced
in Henry Phillips, Jr.’s _Hist. sketch of the paper money issued by
Pennsylvania, with a complete list of the dates, issues, amounts,
denominations, and signers_ (Philad., 1862), and his _Hist. sketches of
the paper currency of the American colonies_ (Roxbury, 1865). A list
of the Pennsylvania and New Jersey currency, printed by Franklin, is
given in the _Catal. of works relating to Franklin in the Boston Pub.
Library_ (p. 42).

For New York paper money see J. H. Hickcox’s _Hist. of the bills of
credit or paper money issued by New York from 1709 to 1780_ (Albany,
1866—250 copies).

For the New Jersey currency Phillips will suffice. These monographs
must be supplemented by the general histories and comprehensive
treatises on financial history.

[572] Cf. _An account of the College of New Jersey, with a prospect
of the College neatly engraved. Published by order of the Trustees_,
Woodbridge, N. J., 1764 (_Brinley Catal._, ii. 3,599); _Princeton
Book_, a history of the College of New Jersey; “Princeton College,” an
illustrated paper in the _Manhattan Mag._, ii. p. 1; S. D. Alexander
in _Scribner’s Monthly_, xiii. 625; H. R. Timlow in _Old and New_, iv.
507; B. J. Lossing in _Potter’s Amer. Monthly_, v. 482.

[573] For these last two colleges, see chapter 23 of Perry’s _Amer.
Episcopal Church_, vol. i.

[574] Cf. Job R. Tyson’s _Social and intellectual state of Pennsylvania
prior to 1743_; and Scharf and Westcott’s _Philadelphia_ (ii. ch.
35). An enumeration of American books advertised in the _Pennsylvania
Gazette_, 1728-1765, is given in _Hist. Mag._, iv. 73, 235, 328.

[575] Vol. i. was issued in 1885, bringing the record down to 1763.
Trial specimens of the list were earlier issued in the _Bulletin_ of
the Philadelphia Library, and separately. The first book printed was by
Bradford, in 1685, being Atkins’s _America’s Messenger_ (an almanac).
An interesting list of books, printed in Philadelphia and New York
previous to 1750, is given in the _Brinley Catal._, ii. nos. 3,367, etc.

[576] See list of his publications in _Hist. Mag._, iii. 174; his
genealogy in _N. Y. General and Biog. Record_, Oct., 1873; a recent
account of him in Scharf and Westcott’s _Philadelphia_ (iii. 1965). Cf.
G. D. Boardman on “Early printing in the middle colonies” in _Penna.
Mag. of Hist._, Apr., 1886, p. 15; Lodge’s _English Colonies_, 255. See
further references in Vol. III. p. 513.

[577] His career is commemorated by Horatio Gates Jones in an address,
_Andrew Bradford, the founder of the newspaper press in the Middle
States_ (Philad., 1869). Cf. Scharf and Westcott’s _Philadelphia_
(vol. iii. ch. 48), on the press of Philadelphia; Thomas’s _Hist.
of Printing_ (Worcester, 1874), ii. p. 132; and Frederic Hudson’s
_Journalism in the United States_ (N. Y., 1873), p. 60. The best
known of the early Philadelphia papers was, however, _The Universal
Instructor in all Arts and Sciences and Pennsylvania Gazette_, which,
begun Dec. 24, 1728, passed with the fortieth number into the control
of Benj. Franklin, who retained only the secondary title for the paper.
Cf. “History of a newspaper—the Pennsylvania Gazette,” in _Mag. of
Amer. Hist._, May, 1886, by Paul L. Ford; a long note by Hildeburn in
_Catal. of works relating to Franklin in Boston Pub. Library_, p. 37.

Of the _American Magazine_, published at Philadelphia in 1741, and the
earliest magazine printed in the British colonies, probably only three
numbers were issued (Hildeburn, no. 688). It must not be confounded
with a later _American Magazine_, printed by W. Bradford, which lived
through thirteen monthly numbers, Oct., 1757, to Oct., 1758. It
purported to be edited “by a society of gentlemen,” and Tyler (_Amer.
Literature_, ii. 306) calls it “the most admirable example of our
literary periodicals in the colonial time.” Cf. Wallace’s _Col. Wm.
Bradford_, pp. 64, 73.

[578] Hildeburn’s _Century of Printing_; the _Catal. of books relating
to Franklin in the Boston Public Library_; _Brinley Catal._, nos.
3,197, etc., 4,312, etc. Cf. Parton’s _Franklin_; Thomas’s _Hist. of
Printing_. The series of _Poor Richard’s Almanacks_ was begun in 1733
(fac-simile of title in Smith’s _Hist. and lit. curios._, pl. ix., and
Scharf and Westcott’s _Philadelphia_, i. 237). Cf. _Catal. of works
relating to Franklin in Boston Pub. Library_, p. 14. In 1850-52 a
publication at New York, called _Poor Richard’s Almanac_, reprinted the
Franklin portion of the original issues for 1733-1741.

[579] He gives in an appendix the publications of the younger
Bradford’s press, 1742-1766. Cf. J. B. MacMasters on “A free Press in
the Middle Colonies,” in the _Princeton Review_, 1885.

[580] New York, in Vol. III. p. 412, IV. p. 430, and particularly on
Smith’s _History_, see Tyler’s _Amer. Lit._, ii. 224; Pennsylvania, in
Vol. III. p. 507; New Jersey, in Vol. III. pp. 453, 455. The general
histories of the English colonies are characterized in the notes at the
end of chapter viii. of the present volume.

[581] Vol. IV. p. 410, etc. Cf. E. A. Werner’s _Civil list and
constitutional history of the Colony and State of New York_. (Albany,
1884.)

[582] See Vol. III. pp. 411, 414; IV. 440. Some special aspects are
treated in _Our Police Protectors; Hist. of the N. Y. Police_ (New
York, 1885, ch. 2, “British occupancy, 1664-1783”); J. A. Stevens on
old coffee houses, in _Harper’s Mag._ (Mar., 1882), also illustrated
in Wallace’s _Col. Wm. Bradford_; T. F. De Voe’s _Hist. of the Public
Markets of N. Y. from the first settlement_ (N. Y., 1862); H. E.
Pierrepont’s _Historical Sketch of the Fulton Ferry and its Associated
Ferries_ (Brooklyn, 1879); the Catholic Church on N. Y. Island, in
_Hist. Mag._, xvi. 229, 271.

[583] Frank Munsell’s_ Bibliog. of Albany_ (1883). See Vol. IV. p. 435.
Its own story has been freshly told in A. J. Weise’s _Hist. of the City
of Albany_ (1884).

[584] See Vol. IV. p. 441.

[585] A method, prevailing widely at present, of forcing local pride
and business enterprise into partnership has produced in New York, as
it has in other States, a series of county histories which may find in
future antiquaries more respect than historical students at present
feel for them. The work of some of the local historical societies, like
those of Ulster, Oneida, Cayuga, and Buffalo, is conducted in general
in a better spirit, and its genuine antiquarian zeal is exemplified in
such books as J. R. Simms’s _Frontiersmen of New York_ (1882-83), and
in the conglomerate _History of the Schenectady patent in the Dutch and
English times; being contributions toward a history of the lower Mohawk
Valley, by Jonathan Pearson and others; edited by J. W. MacMurray_.
(Albany, 1883.)

[586] Vol. III. p. 510. For record of the governors from 1682 to
1863, see _Hist. Mag_., viii. 266; and the summarized _Governors of
Pennsylvania_, 1609-1873, by Wm. C. Armor. (Norwich, Conn., 1874.)
Another official enumeration is Charles P. Keith’s _Provincial
Councillors of Pennsylvania who held office between 1733 and 1776, and
those earlier Councillors who were some time chief magistrates of the
province, and their descendants_. (Philadelphia, 1883.)

[587] In addition to those named in Vol. III. p. 510, and as coming
more particularly within the period under consideration, a few may be
named:—

From 1844 to 1846 Mr. I. Daniel Rupp issued various books of local
interest: _Hist. of Lancaster Co._ (Lancaster, 1844); _History
of Northampton, Lehigh, Monroe, Carbon, and Schuylkill Counties_
(Harrisburg, 1845); _History of Dauphin, Cumberland, Franklin, Bedford,
Adams, and Perry Counties_ (Lancaster, 1846); and _Early Hist. of
Western Pennsylvania_ (Pittsburgh, 1846).

The others may be arranged in order of publication: C. W. Carter and A.
J. Glossbrener’s _York County_ (1834); Neville B. Craig’s _Pittsburg_
(1851); George Chambers’s _Tribute to Irish and Scotch early settlers
of Pennsylvania_ (Chambersburg, 1856); U. J. Jones’s _Juniata Valley_
(1856); H. Hollister’s _Lackawanna Valley_ (1857); J. F. Meginness’s
_West Branch Valley of the Susquehanna_ (1857); Geo. H. Morgan’s
_Annals of Harrisburg_ (Harrisburg, 1858); Stewart Pearce’s _Annals
of Luzerne County, from the first settlement of Wyoming to 1860_
(Philad., 1860); J. I. Mombert’s _Lancaster County_ (1869); Alfred
Creigh’s _Washington County_ (1870); Alexander Harris’s _Biog. Hist. of
Lancaster County_ (1872); S. W. Pennypacker’s _Annals of Phœnixville
to 1871_ (Philad., 1872); Emily C. Blackman’s _Susquehanna County_
(Philad., 1873); John Hill Martin’s _Bethlehem, with an account of
the Moravian Church_ (Philad., 1873); A. W. Taylor’s _Indiana County_
(1876); S. J. M. Eaton’s _Venango County_ (1876); John Blair Linn’s
_Annals of Buffalo Valley, Pa._, 1755-1855 (Harrisburg, 1877); H. G.
Ashmead’s _Hist. sketch of Chester_ (1883).

The histories of Wyoming, deriving most of their interest from later
events, will be mentioned in Vol. VI. The local references can be
picked out of F. B. Perkins’s _Check List of Amer. Local History_. The
_Pennsylvania Mag. of History_ and _Egle’s Notes and Queries_ (1881,
etc.), with its continuation, the _Historical Register_, make current
records of local research.

[588] Vol. III. p. 509.

[589] Cf. the long list of titles under Philadelphia, prepared by C.
R. Hildeburn, in Sabin’s _Dict. of books relating to America_ (vol.
xiv. p. 524), and lesser monographs, like James Mease’s _Picture of
Philadelphia_ (1811); Daniel Bowen’s _Hist. of Philadelphia_ (1839);
_Harper’s Monthly_ (Apr., 1876); J. T. Headley in _Scribner’s Monthly_
(vol. ii.); _A Sylvan City, or quaint corners in Philadelphia_
(Philad., 1883); Hamersley’s _Philad. Illustrated_ (1871).

The evidence of an organized government in Philadelphia prior to the
charter of incorporation given by Penn in 1701 is presented in the
_Penna. Mag. of History_ (Apr., 1886, p. 61). There is a graphic
description of Philadelphia about 1750 in the _Life of Bampfylde Moore
Carew_.

[590] Vol. III. pp. 454-55. Some of the earlier collections of New
Jersey laws are noted in the _Brinley Catal._, ii. no. 3,583, etc. Cf.
titles in Sabin, vol. xiii.

[591] Vol. III. p. 455.

[592] Chief among the architectural landmarks of old New York was the
City Hall, on Wall Street, built in 1700, and taken down in 1812. (Cf.
views in Valentine’s _Manual_, 1847 and 1866; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._,
ix. 322; and Watson’s _Annals of New York_, p. 176.) Valentine’s
_Manual_ and his _Hist. of N. York_ contain various views of buildings
and localities belonging to the early part of the eighteenth century.
Particularly in the _Manual_, see the views of early New York in
the volume for 1858, with a view of Fort George and the city from
the southwest (1740). (Cf. _Appleton’s Journal_, viii. p. 353.) The
_Manual_ for 1862 contains a view of the battery (p. 503); others of
the foot of Wall Street (p. 506), of the great dock (p. 512), and of
the East River shore (p. 531),—all of 1746; and of the North River
shore in 1740 (p. 549). The volume for 1865 contains a history of
Broadway, with historical views; that for 1866 a history of Wall
Street, to be compared with the treatment of the same subject by Mrs.
Lamb in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._

An engraving from Wm. Burgiss’s view of the Dutch church in New York,
built 1727-37, is given in Valentine’s _Hist. of N. Y. City_, p. 279.

A paper on the old tombs of Trinity is in _Harper’s Mag._, Nov., 1876.

The _Manual_ also preserves samples of the domestic architecture of the
period. Old houses, especially Dutch ones, are shown in the volumes
for 1847, 1850, 1853, 1855. In that for 1858 we have in contrast
the Dutch Cortelyou house (1699) and the Rutgers mansion. Of famous
colonial houses in New York city and province, cuts may be noted of the
following among others:—

Van Cortland House, in Mrs. Lamb’s _Homes of America_ (1879), p. 696;
Harper’s Mag., lii. 645; _Appleton’s Journal_, ix. 801; _Mag. of Amer.
Hist._, xv. (Mar., 1883). Philipse Manor House at Yonkers, in Lamb;
Appleton’s, xi. 385; _Harper’s Mag._, lii. 642. Roger Morris House,
in Lamb. See further on this house when Washington’s headquarters,
in Vol. VI. Beekman House, in Lamb; Valentine’s _Manual_, 1854, p.
554; Appleton’s, viii. 310. Livingston House, in Lamb; _Mag. of Amer.
Hist._, 1885, p. 239. Verplanck House, in Lamb; Potter’s _Amer.
Monthly_, iv. 242. Van Rensselaer House at Albany, in Lamb. Schuyler
Mansion in Albany, in Lamb.

Many of these houses are also conveniently depicted in _Harper’s
Cyclopædia of U.S. Hist._ (ed. by Lossing).

Cf. “Old New York and its Houses,” by R. G. White, in _The Century_,
Oct., 1883. Geo. W. Schuyler’s _Colonial New York_ epitomizes the
histories of several of the old families,—Van Cortlandt, Van
Rensselaer, Livingston, Verplanck, etc. (vol. i. 187, 206, 243, 292).

[593] Cf. Valentine’s _Hist. of New York City_, p. 263; his _N. Y. City
Manual_, 1841-42, 1844-45, 1850, and 1851; Dunlap’s _New York_, i. 290;
Mrs. Lamb’s _New York_, i. 524; Lossing’s New York, i. 14; Weise’s
_Discoveries of America_, p. 358. It was also republished in fac-simile
by W. W. Cox, of Washington; and in lithograph by G. Hayward. Cf. _Map
Catal. Brit. Mus._ (1885), _sub_ “New York City.”

[594] Cf. the “Ville de Manathe ou Nouvelle York,” in Bellin’s
_Petit Atlas Maritime_, vol. i. (1764). The same atlas has a plan of
Philadelphia of that date.

[595] Cf. Vol. III. p. 551.

[596] There is a print of the old capitol at Annapolis. Cf. Gay, _Pop.
Hist. U. S._, iii. 51.

[597] Vol. III. p. 551.

[598] See the arguments on the question of the king’s subjects carrying
with them, when they emigrate, the common and statute law, in Chalmers’
_Opinions of Eminent Lawyers_, i. 194. Cf. also note in E. G. Scott’s
_Constitutional Liberty_, p. 40.

[599] “A few neglected grave-stones, several heaps of brick and
rubbish, and a solitary mansion, belonging to one of the oldest
families in the State, are about all that remain of the once famous
seaport town [Joppa] of provincial Maryland.” Lewis W. Wilhelm’s _Local
Institutions of Maryland_ (1885), p. 128. This paper is parts v., vi.,
and vii. of the third series of the _Johns Hopkins University Studies_,
and covers a history of the land system, the hundreds, the county and
towns of the province. The institutional life of the town began in
1683-85.

[600] See a portrait of Sharpe after an old print in Scharf’s
_Maryland_, i. 443.

[601] Vol. III. p. 153.

[602] There is a cut of Culpepper, after an old print, in Gay, _Pop.
Hist. U. S._, iii. 54.

[603] Grahame, _United States_, i. p. 126, has a note on the
authorities concerning the penal proceedings following the rebellion.

[604] See Brock’s _Hist. of Tobacco_, cited in Vol. III. p. 166.

[605] Cf. _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1872, p. 30.

[606] Cf. James Drew Sweet on Williamsburg, as the “ancient vice-regal
capital of Virginia,” in _Mag. of Western Hist._, Oct., 1885, p. 117.

[607] Palmer’s _Calendar_, p. 86.

[608] Palmer’s _Calendar_, p. 152.

[609] _Official Letters_, i. 116, 134; _Byrd MSS._, Wynne’s ed., ii.
192.

[610] Palmer’s _Calendar_, p. 162.

[611] See _post_, ch. viii. Iron was first forged in 1714.

[612] Spotswood’s speeches to the assembly in 1714 and 1718 are in
Maxwell’s _Virginia Register_, vol. iv.

[613] February, 1718-19. _Official Letters_, ii. 273. “Capt. Teach,
alias Blackbeard, the famous Pyrate, came within the Capes of this
Colony in a Sloop of six Guns and twenty Men; whereof our Governor
having Notice, ordered two Sloops to be fitted out, which fortunately
met with him. When Teach saw they were resolv’d to fight him, he leap’d
upon the Round-House of his Sloop, and took a Glass of Liquor, and
drank to the Masters of the two Sloops, and bid Damnation seize him
that should give Quarter; but notwithstanding his Insolence the two
Sloops soon boarded him, and kill’d all except Teach and one more, who
have been since executed. The head of Teach is fix’d on a Pole erected
for that Purpose.” (1719.) _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Sept., 1878.

[614] Account in _Byrd MSS._, Wynne’s ed., ii. 249-63.

[615] West, the crown counsel in 1719, interpreted the law as leaving
in the hands of the king the right to present to vacant benefices
in Virginia. Chalmers’ _Opinions of Eminent Lawyers concerning the
Colonies_, etc. London, 1814, i. p. 17. Blair was still the champion of
the ecclesiastical supremacy. Cf. Spotswood’s _Official Letters_, ii.
292; Perry’s _Church Papers of Va._, pp. 199, 247.

[616] Meade, _Old Churches_, etc., ii. 75.

[617] Speeches of Gov. Drysdale to the assembly in 1723 and 1726 are
printed in Maxwell’s _Virginia Reg._, vol. iv.

[618] We have the journal of William Black, who was sent by the
province in 1744 to treat with the Iroquois, with reference to these
shadowy lands. _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, vols. i. and ii.

[619] See the view of this mansion in _Appleton’s Journal_, July 19,
1873; in Mrs. Lamb’s _Homes of America_, N. Y., 1879; and in the paper
on the Fairfaxes in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (Mar., 1885), vol. xiii.
p. 217, by Richard Whateley. Fairfax’s stone office, which was near the
mansion, is still standing.

[620] There is no portrait of Maj. William Mayo known to be in
existence. Mayo came to Virginia in 1723, and in 1728 was one of those
who ran the dividing line between Virginia and North Carolina. In 1737
he planned Richmond, and died in 1744. See the paper, “Some Richmond
Portraits,” in _Harper’s Magazine_, 1885.

[621] The speeches and papers respecting the opening of the assembly
under Gooch in 1736 are reprinted from the _Virginia Gazette_ in
Maxwell’s _Virginia Reg._, iv. p. 121.

[622] Byrd, of Westover, in comparing the New Englanders with the
Southrons of Virginia, says that the latter “thought their being
members of the established church sufficient to sanctifie very loose
and profligate morals.” Wynne’s ed. _Westover MSS._, i. p. 7. Cf. the
collation of the laws and traits of Virginia and New England in “Old
Times in Virginia,” in _Putnam’s Mag._, Aug., 1869. A paper by W. H.
Whitmore on “The Cavalier Theory refuted,” in the _Continental Monthly_
(1863), vol. iv. p. 60, was written in the height of feeling engendered
by the civil war.

[623] Given in the _Dinwiddie Papers_, i. p. 3.

[624] _Post_, ch. viii.

[625] The journal of Col. James Burd, while building Fort Augusta, at
Shamokin, 1756-57, is in the _Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., ii. p. 743.
Loudon caused Fort Loudon to be built on the Tennessee in 1756. There
is a MS. plan of it in the De Brahm MS. in Harvard College library.

[626] John Echols’s journal about “a march that Capt. Robert Wade took
to the New River” in search of Indians, Aug.-Oct., 1758, is in Palmer’s
_Calendar_, p. 254; and papers on the expedition against the Shawnee
Indians in 1756 are in Maxwell’s _Virginia Register_, vol. v. pp. 20,
61.

[627] Vol. III. p. 555.

[628] _Archives of Maryland. Proceedings and acts of the general
assembly, January, 1617-38-September, 1664. Published by authority of
the State, under the direction of the Maryland Historical Society.
William Hand Browne, editor._ Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society.
1883. Two other volumes have since been published.

[629] _Archives of Maryland: Calendar and Report by the Publication
Committee of the Maryland Hist. Society_, 1883.

[630] This _Calendar_ shows that the Proprietary records, with few
gaps, exist from 1637 to 1658; the council proceedings from 1636 to
1671, with some breaks; the assembly proceedings from 1637 to 1658
(included in the published volume, with continuation from the Public
Record Office in London to 1664); the Upper House Journals from 1659
to 1774; the Senate Journals, 1780-83; the Lower House Journals, 1666
to 1774; the Revolutionary journals, 1775-1780; the Laws from 1638
to 1710 (those to 1664 are continued in the published volume, and
the commissioners say that the full text probably exists of these
from 1692 to 1774; and while Bacon in his edition of the Laws had
given only six of the 300 laws, and none before 1664 in full, the
commissioners in the printed volume have supplied the full text of the
others from the Public Record Office); the Court Records, 1658-1752;
Letters, 1753-1771; Council of Safety Correspondence, 1775-77; Council
Correspondence, 1777-93; Commission books, 1726-1798; Commission on the
Public Records, 1724-1729; Minutes of the Board of Revenue, 1768-1775;
the David Ridgely copies of important papers (1682-1785), made in 1838;
and Ethan Allen’s Calendar of Maryland State Papers, 1636-1776, made in
1858. (See Vol. III. p. 556.)

The laws of Maryland, 1692-1718, were printed in Philadelphia by
Bradford. (Hildeburn’s _Penna. Publications_, no. 150.) The charter of
Maryland, with the debates of the assembly in 1722-24, was printed in
Philadelphia in 1725. (Ibid. no. 255.)

[631] Vol. III. p. 559.

[632] Ch. v. Bancroft (_History of the United States_, orig. ed., ii.
244) says: “The chapters of Chalmers on Maryland are the most accurate
of them all.”

[633] One of the _American Commonwealths_, edited by Mr. Horace E.
Scudder.

[634] Also in Lewis Mayer’s _Ground Rents in Maryland_, Baltimore, 1883.

[635] Cf. Mr. Adams’s _Maryland’s influence in founding a national
commonwealth_, published as no. 11 of the Fund Publications of the
Maryland Historical Society.

Since Volume III. of the present History was printed, there have
been added to these Fund Publications, as no. 18, B. T. Johnson’s
_Foundation of Maryland and the origin of the act concerning religion,
of April 21, 1649_; no. 19, E. Ingle’s _Capt. Richard Ingle, the
Maryland pirate and rebel, 1642-1653_; no. 20, L. W. Wilhelm’s _Sir
George Calvert, Baron of Baltimore_.

Beside Mr. Johnson’s monograph on the Toleration Act, Mr. R. H. Clarke
in the _Catholic World_, October, 1883, has replied to the views held
by Bancroft.

Beside Mr. Wilhelm’s paper on Calvert, see E. L. Didier on the family
of the Baltimores in _Lippincott’s Magazine_, vi. 531. Scharf gives
portraits of the fifth and sixth lords (vol. i. pp. 381, 441). Neill
traces the line’s descent in the eighth chapter of his _Terra Mariæ_.

[636] _Memorial Volume, 1730-1880. An account of the municipal
celebration of the 150th anniversary of the settlement of Baltimore,
October 11-19, 1880. With a sketch of the history, and summary of the
resources of the city. Illus. by Frank B. Mayer._ (Baltimore, 1881.)
328 pp. 4^o. Cf. also G. W. Howard, _Monumental City, its past history
and present resources_. Baltimore, 1873-[83].

[637] There is a copy in the library of the Pennsylvania Historical
Society. It is reproduced in Scharf’s _Maryland_ (i. 421), and in his
_City and County of Baltimore_ (p. 58).

[638] Neill’s _Terra Mariæ_, p. 200; Sabin, _Dictionary_, iv. 16,234.
M. C. Tyler, _Hist. Amer. Literature_, ii. 255, epitomizes it. In 1730
there appeared at Annapolis, _Sot-weed Redivivus, or the Planter’s
Looking-glass, in burlesque verse, calculated for the meridian of
Maryland, by E. C., Gent_. Mr. Tyler throws some doubt upon the
profession of the same authorship conveyed in the title, because it
is destitute of the wit shown in the other. The next year (1731) the
earlier poem is said to have been reprinted at Annapolis with another
on Bacon’s Rebellion. (_Hist. Mag._, iv. 153.) The _Sot-weed Factor_
was again reprinted with a glossary in Shea’s _Early Southern Tracts_,
1866, edited by Brantz Mayer. There is a copy of the original edition
in Harvard College library [12365.14].

[639] Cf. E. W. Latimer’s “Colonial Life in Maryland, 1725-1775” in
the _International Review_, June, 1880; Frank B. Meyer’s “Old Maryland
Manners” in _Scribner’s Monthly_, xvii. 315; and J. C. Carpenter’s “Old
Maryland, its Homes and its People,” in _Appleton’s Journal_, Mar. 4,
1876, with a view of the Caton mansion. The Carroll house is pictured
in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, ii. 105.

[640] A view of All-Hallows Church, built 1692, is given in Perry, ii.
613.

[641] Vol. III. p. 513. In the Ellis sale, London, Nov., 1885, no. 232,
was a map, _Novi Belgii, Novæque Angliæ necnon partis Virginiæ tabulæ,
multis in locis emendata a Nicolas Visschero_ (Amsterdam, about 1651),
which had belonged to William Penn, and was indorsed by him, “The map
by which the Privy Council, 1685, settled the bounds between Lord
Baltimore and I, and Maryland, Pennsylvania and Territorys or annexed
Countys.—W. P.” Franklin printed (1733) the articles of agreement
between Maryland and Pennsylvania, and again (1736) with additional
matter. In 1737 and 1742 he printed the proclamations against the armed
invaders from Maryland. Cf. _Catal. of Works relating to B. Franklin,
in Boston Public Library_ (1883), pp. 29, 36.

[642] Cf. also Jacob’s _Life of Cresap_, p. 25; B. Mayer’s _Logan and
Cresap_, p. 25; Gordon’s _Pennsylvania_, p. 221; Egle’s _Pennsylvania_,
p. 824; Rapp’s _York County, Pa._, p. 547; Hazard’s _Reg. of Penna._,
i. 200, ii. 209. The statement of the government of Maryland,
respecting the border outrages, which was addressed to the king in
council, is printed in Scharf’s _Hist. of Maryland_, i. p. 395.

[643] A map showing the temporary bounds as fixed by the king in
council, 1738, is in _Penna. Archives_, i. 594.

[644] The report on this line is given in Scharf’s _Maryland_, p. 407.
Cf. map in _Penna. Arch._, iv.

[645] Cf. Vol. III. p. 489. Extracts from Mason’s field-book are given
in the _Hist. Mag._, v. 199. A view of one of the stones erected by
them, five miles apart, and bearing the arms of Penn and Baltimore,
is given in the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, vi. 414, in connection with
accounts respectively of Baltimore and Markham in 1681-82. See Vol.
III. p. 514. The line was continued farther west in 1779, giving to
Pennsylvania the forks of the Ohio, which Dinwiddie had claimed for
Virginia. _Olden Time_, i. 433-524.

[646] _Report of the Boundary Commission_ (1874), pp. 21, 129. Cf.
Moll’s map of Virginia and Maryland in Oldmixon’s _Brit. Empire in
America_, 1708, which shows Chesapeake and Delaware bays and their
affluents.

[647] “A new map of Virginia, humbly dedicated to ye Right Hon^{ble}
Thomas Lord Fairfax, 1738,” in Keith’s Virginia. The _Map of the most
inhabited part of Virginia by Joshua Fry and Peter Jefferson_, 1751,
published in London by Jeffreys, is the best known map of this period.
The map which was engraved for Jefferson’s _Notes on Virginia_, 1787,
which showed the country from Albemarle Sound to Lake Erie, was for
the region east of the Alleghanies, based on Fry and Jefferson, and
on Scull’s _Map of Pennsylvania_, “which was constructed chiefly on
actual survey,” while that portion west of the mountains is taken from
Hutchins. A fac-simile of this map is in the _Notes_ which accompany
the second volume of the _Dinwiddie Papers_.

There is a map of the Chesapeake and Delaware bays in Bowen’s
_Geography_, 1747.

[648] There are two copies of this in Harvard College library. Cf. map
of Maryland in _London Mag._, 1757.

[649] See further in Vol. III. p. 159. There is in Maxwell’s _Virginia
Register_, vol. i. p. 12, a paper on the limits of Virginia under the
charters of James I.

[650] _Spotswood Letters_, ii. 26.

[651] The Westover Papers also contain a journey to a tract that Byrd
owned near the river Dan, which he called a “Journey to the land of
Eden.” See the view of the Westover mansion in _Harper’s Magazine_,
May, 1871 (p. 801); in _Appleton’s Journal_, Nov. 4, 1871, with notes
by J. E. Cooke; and in Mrs. Lamb’s _Homes of America_, 1879, where are
views of other colonial houses like Powhatan Seat, Gunston Hall, etc.
Cf. references on country houses in Lodge, _Short History_, p. 79.
There are views of Ditchley House, the home of the Lees of the Northern
Neck, and of Brandon House, the seat of the Beverleys in Middlesex, in
_Harper’s Mag._, July, 1878 (pp. 163, 166). For some traces of family
estates in the eastern peninsula, see _Harper’s Mag._, May, 1879.
It was the cradle of the Custises. There is a paper on the ancient
families of Virginia and Maryland by George Fitzhugh in _De Bow’s
Review_ (1859), vol. xxvi. p. 487, etc.

[652] Cf. M. C. Tyler, _Hist. Amer. Literature_, ii. 270; J. Esten
Cooke’s _Virginia_, 362. Stith speaks of Byrd’s library (3,625
vols.) as “the best and most copious collection of books in our
part of America.” Byrd possessed the MS. of the Virginia Company
Records, already referred to (Vol. III. p. 158). See some account
of the Westover library in Maxwell’s _Virginia Hist. Reg._, iv. 87,
and _Spotswood Letters_, i. p. x., where something is said of other
Virginia libraries of this time. Grahame (_United States_, i. 148)
evidently mistakes these manuscripts of Byrd’s for something which he
supposed was published in the early part of that century on the history
of Virginia, and which he says Oldmixon refers to.

[653] _The importance of the British plantations in America to this
kingdom_, London, 1731, p. 75.

[654] This sketch is reproduced in Hawks’ _No. Carolina_, ii. 102. The
journal of the commissioners is given in Martin’s _No. Carolina_, vol.
i. App.

[655] Williamson’s _North Carolina_, App., for documents reprinted in
Maxwell’s _Virginia Reg._, iv. p. 80.

[656] _Grant of the Northern Neck in Virginia to Lord Culpepper by
James II._, in Harvard College library.

[657] _Spotswood Letters_, i. 152.

[658] This grant, from conflicting interests, has been the subject of
much later litigation. Cf. Kercheval’s _History of the Valley_, 2d ed.,
1850, pp. 138-152. Cf. on the boundary disputes between Pennsylvania
and Virginia, _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Feb., 1885, p. 154.

[659] Vol. III. 160, 161.

[660] In his introduction, p. xxxv., he discusses the successive seals
of Virginia.

[661] _Sparks’ Catal._, p. 214.

[662] _Spotswood Letters_, ii. 16.

[663] _Hist. Amer. Lit._, ii. 260. Cf. Sprague’s _Annals of the Amer.
Pulpit_, v. p. 7.

[664] One of the earliest accounts of the college is in the paper
of 1696-98 (_Mass. Hist. Coll._, vol. v. section xii.). Palmer
(_Calendar_, p. 61) gives a bill for facilitating the payment of
donations to the college (1698). Its charter is given in _The Present
State_, etc., by Blair and others, was printed at Williamsburg in
1758, and is found in the _History of the College of William and Mary_
(1660-1874), printed with the general catalogue at Richmond in 1874.
An oration by E. Randolph on the founders of William and Mary College
was printed at Williamsburg in 1771. Jones in 1724 gave a rather
melancholy picture of the institution, then a quarter of a century old.
It is, he says, “a college without a chapel, without a scholarship, and
without a statute; a library without books, comparatively speaking,
and a president without a fixed salary, till of late.” (Hugh Jones’s
_Present State_, 83.) Other sketches are _Historical Sketch of the
College of William and Mary_, Richmond, 1866 (20 pp.); _History of
William and Mary College from the foundation_, Baltimore, 1870; and
Mr. C. F. Richardson’s “Old Colonial College” in the _Mag. of Amer.
History_, Nov., 1884. Richardson, together with Henry Alden Clark, also
edited _The College Book_, which includes an account of the college,
as of others in the United States. Doyle (_English in America_, 363)
says, “We may well doubt if the college did much for the colony....
It is evident it was nothing better than a boarding-school, in which
Blair had no small difficulty in contending against the extravagance
engendered by the home training of his pupils.”

[665] The _Canadian Antiquarian_ (iv. 76) describes an old MS.
concerning the government of the English plantations in America, which
is preserved in the library at Ottawa, and is supposed to have been
written “by a Virginian in 1699, Mr. Blaire or B. Hamson [? Harrison],
Jr.” Cf. on Blair, E. D. Neill’s _Virginia Colonial Clergy_. Can this
be the account elsewhere referred to, and printed in the _Mass. Hist.
Collections_, vol. v.? See _Scribner’s Monthly_, Nov., 1875, p. 4.

[666] See Vol. III. 164. Lodge, _Short Hist. Eng. Colonies_, speaks
of this book as “inaccurate but not uninteresting.” Cf. Cooke’s
_Virginia_, p. 361. Beverley’s family is traced in the _Dinwiddie
Papers_, ii. 351.

[667] In Maxwell’s _Virginia Register_, iii. p. 181, etc., there is
a paper, “Some observations relating to the revenue of Virginia, and
particularly to the place of auditor,” written early in the 18th
century; and extracts from “A general accompt of the quit-rents of
Virginia, 1688-1703, by William Byrd, Rec’r Gen’ll,” etc.

[668] There is a copy in Harvard College library. Sabin (ix. 36,511)
says it is not so rare as Rich represents. It was reprinted in 1865 as
no. 5 of Sabin’s Reprints (New York).

[669] _Hist. Amer. Lit._, ii. 268. Cf. Perry’s _Amer. Episc. Church_,
i. 307; Sprague’s _Annals_, v. p. 9.

[670] Lodge (_Short History_, etc., p. 65) refers, on the modes of
cultivating tobacco, to sundry travellers’ accounts of the last
century: Anburey, ii. 344; Brissot de Warville, 375; Weld, 116;
Rochefoucauld, 80; Smyth, i. 59.

Cf. _The present state of the tobacco plantations in America_ (about
1709), folio leaf (Sabin, xv. 65,332).

[671] See Vol. III. p. 165. A paper by Sir William Keith on “The
Present State of the Colonies in America with respect of Great Britain”
is in Wynne’s ed. of the _Byrd MSS._, ii. 214, with (p. 228) Gov.
Gooch’s “Researches” on the same. Walsh in his _Appeal_ (part i. sect.
5) shows the benefits reaped by Great Britain from the American trade,
making use of an essay on the subject by Sir William Keith (1728) which
will be found in Burk’s _Virginia_ (vol. ii. ch. 2).

[672] See Vol. III. p. 165; Cooke’s _Virginia_, 361.

[673] The four volumes, 1804-16, which make up a complete set of Burk
are now rather costly. Stevens, _Bibl. Amer._, 1885, no. 59, prices
them at £18 18_s._ See Vol. III. p. 165.

[674] _United States_, orig. ed., ii. 248; iii. 25; and later eds.

[675] _Short Hist._, 23, etc.

[676] Vol. III. p. 166.

[677] It forms one of the _American Commonwealths_, edited by H. E.
Scudder.

[678] Cf. Wm. Green’s “Genesis of Counties” in Philip Slaughter’s
_Memoir of Hon. Wm. Green_; and Edward Channing’s _Town and County
Government in the English Colonies of North America_, being no. x.
of the 2d series of the same _Johns Hopkins University Studies_. Cf.
also Henry O. Taylor’s “Development of Constitutional Government in
the American Colonies,” in the _Mag. of Amer. History_, Dec., 1878,—a
summary contrasting Massachusetts and Virginia.

[679] Cf. article from _Richmond Enquirer_, Dec. 9, 1873, copied in _N.
E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1874, p. 257.

[680] Cf. C. Campbell’s _Genealogy of the Spotswood Family_, published
in 1868.

[681] _Post_, ch. viii.

[682] See ch. viii.

[683] Vol. III. p. 166.

[684] There is a copy of this rare discourse in Harvard College
library. Perry in his _Amer. Episc. Church_, i. 139, gives a rude
drawing of the title, as if it were a fac-simile of it. Cf. Dexter’s
_Bibliog. of Congregationalism_, no. 2,530, and the notice of Thomas
Bray, in Sprague’s _Annals_, v. 17. See the views of old churches in
Meade, Perry, and _Appleton’s Monthly_, vol. vi. 701; xii. 193, etc.

[685] _Ecclesiastical Contributions_, vol. i.

[686] W. S. Perry’s Hist. _Coll. of the American Colonial Church_, and
his _Hist. of the Amer. Episc. Church_ (1885).

[687] “Early Episcopacy in Virginia,” in his introduction to White’s
_Memoirs of the Episc. Church_, p. xxiv., etc.

[688] It is said that the collection of parish registers and vestry
books which Meade gathered was finally bestowed by him upon the
theological seminary near Alexandria. _Spotswood Letters_, i. p. 166.

[689] See Vol. III. p. 160.

[690] An episode of Mackemie’s history is recorded in a _Narrative of
a new and unusual American imprisonment of two Presbyterian ministers,
and prosecution of Mr. Francis Mackemie, one of them, for preaching a
sermon at New York_, 1707, in _Force’s Tracts_, vol. iv. Cf. Sprague’s
_Annals_, iii. p. 1; Richard Webster’s _Hist. of the Presbyterian
Church_.

[691] Semple’s _Hist. of the Baptists;_ R. B. C. Howell’s “Early
Baptists of Virginia” in L. Moss’s _Baptists and the National
Centenary_, Philadelphia, 1874 (pp. 27-48).

[692] Meade’s _Old Churches_, etc., i. 463; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._,
viii. 31 (Jan., 1882), by Wm. P. Dabney.

[693] A private letter-book of Captain William Byrd, Jan. 7, 1683, to
Aug. 3, 1691, is preserved by the Virginia Hist. Soc.; Maxwell’s _Va.
Reg._, i. and ii., where some of the letters are printed. Some letters
of a certain William Fitzhugh (1679-1699) are preserved in _Ibid._, i.
165. Two letters of Culpepper’s on Virginia matters, dated at Boston,
on his way to England in 1680, are in _Ibid._, iii. p. 189.

[694] _Virginia Hist. Soc. Coll.; The Huguenot Family_, 260, 333. See
Vol. III. p. 161. MS. letters of the second William Byrd and of Dr.
George Gilmor are also preserved.

[695] Tyler, _Hist. Amer. Lit._, ii. 269.

[696] _Old Churches and Families of Virginia._ Philad., 1857. It takes
up the older parishes in succession.

[697] _A history of St. Mark’s parish, Culpepper County, Virginia;
with notes of old churches and old families, and illustrations of the
manners and customs of the olden time._ [Baltimore, Md.?] 1877.

[698] _Sketches of Virginia._

[699] His chapter on “The golden age of Virginia” in his _Virginia_.

[700] Vol. I. ch. 26.

[701] Chap. v., “Manners in the southern provinces.”

[702] On Virginia social classes, see Lodge, p. 67, and references.

[703] A. Burnaby, _Travels through the middle settlements in North
America_, 1759-60, London, 1775. Extracts from Burnaby relating to
Virginia are given in Maxwell’s _Virginia Register_, vol. v.

T. Anburey, _Travels through the interior parts of America_, two vols.,
London, 1789. He was an officer of Burgoyne’s army.

C. C. Robin, _Nouveau Voyage dans l’Amérique Septentrionale en 1781_.
Philad., 1782. He was one of Rochambeau’s officers.

J. F. D. Smyth, _Travels in the United States_, London, 1784. Extracts
from Smyth on Virginia are in Maxwell’s _Virginia Reg._, vi. p. 11,
etc. John Randolph said of this book in 1822: “Though replete with
falsehood and calumny, it contains the truest picture of the state of
society and manners in Virginia (such as it was about half a century
ago) that is extant. Traces of the same manners could be found some
years subsequent to the adoption of the federal constitution, say to
the end of the century. At this moment not a vestige remains.”

Brissot de Warville, _Nouveau Voyage dans les États Unis_, Paris, 1791.

Rochefoucauld-Liancourt, _Voyage dans les États-Unis_, 1795-97.

Weld, _Travels through the States of North America_, 1795-97, London,
1799.

In fiction reference may be made to De Foe’s _Captain Jack_; Paulding’s
_Sketches_; Kennedy’s _Swallow Barn_; Miss Wormley’s _Cousin Veronica_;
and Thackeray’s _Virginians_.

[704] All the country of which North and South Carolina form a part was
known for a long time by the name of Florida, a name given by early
Spanish explorers. The English, after the settlement of Virginia,
called the region in that direction South Virginia. From 1629, in the
reign of Charles I., the name Carolana (as in Heath’s claim), and at
times Carolina, began to be used (see _S. C. Hist. Soc. Coll._, i. p.
200). At length, when the new charter was obtained, the name as it now
stands was definitely applied to the region granted to the Proprietors.
If they had wished, they could have adopted some other name. It
happened that the fort built by the French in Florida was called in
Latin “arx Carolina”; a Charles fort was also built by them in what is
now South Carolina,—both so named in honor of Charles IX. of France;
yet they did not apply the name to the territory, which they continued
to call Florida. Gov. Glen in his _Description of South Carolina_
(1761) says: “The name Carolina, still retained by the English, is
generally thought to have been derived from Charles the Ninth of
France, in whose reign Admiral Coligny made some settlements on the
Florida coast.”

[705] Clarendon was the companion of Charles II. in his exile, and
rendered great service in his restoration. We all know the services
of General Monk (preëminently the restorer of the king), afterwards
created Duke of Albemarle. Sir George Carteret, governor of the Isle
of Jersey, opposed Cromwell, and gave refuge to Charles, the Duke of
York, the Earl of Clarendon, and others. Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper
(Earl of Shaftesbury) was particularly commended to the king by
General Monk as one of the council, and his abilities raised him to
the chancellor-ship. Sir John Colleton had impoverished himself in the
royal cause; and after Cromwell’s success retired to Barbadoes, till
the Restoration. Lord Berkeley had faithfully followed Charles in his
exile; and his brother, Sir William, as governor of Virginia, caused
that colony to adhere to the king, as their rightful sovereign. The
Earl of Craven was of the Privy Council, and held a military command
under the king. For authorities, see _Sketch of the Hist. of S. C._, p.
64.

[706] _N. Carolina, Abstracts of Records_, etc., p. 2. In the letter
of the Proprietors, 8th September, it is said the patent was “granted
in the 5th year of King Charles I.” A subsequent copy, under the Great
Seal, bears date August 4, 1631.

[707] Letter of the Lords Proprietors to Sir William Berkeley,
September 8, 1663.

[708] He was commissioned by the Proprietors in 1664.

[709] For the prosperous state of Barbadoes, see Martin’s _Brit.
Colonies_, ii. pp. 324-328.

[710] _Abstracts, etc., North Carolina_, p. 4.

[711] January 7, 1664-5. “Minute: although the county of Clarendon,
etc., be, for the present, under the government of Sir J. Yeamans, yet
it is purposed that a part of it, south and west of Cape Romania, shall
be a distinct government and be called Craven County.” _Abstracts,
Coll. S. C. Hist. Soc._, i. p. 97.

Chalmers (“Annals,” in Carroll’s _Hist. Coll._, ii. p. 289) says
Yeamans and his colonists arrived at Cape Fear “during the autumn of
1665.” Dr. Hawks gives May, 1664, on p. 83 (vol. ii.), and 1665 on
pp. 181 and 453. From the _Charleston Year Book_, 1883, p. 359, it
appears Yeamans had ample powers in 1665 to explore the coast south and
west of Cape Roman. He did sail from Barbadoes for that purpose, in
October, and did go at that time to Cape Fear, of which he was governor
by appointment nine months before. He may have been at Barbadoes
merely for the purpose of making ready for that exploration. We have
no reason to doubt the settling at Cape Fear in May, 1664, whether
Yeamans was or was not, at that time, the leader of the colonists. In
Sandford’s _Relation_ (1666) the expression “the great and growing
necessityes of the English colony in Charles river,” when Yeamans
arrived (November, 1665), seems to refer to colonists already there.
It was for the interests of the Proprietors to secure—as they did in
1665—the services of such a man not only for Clarendon, but as their
“lieutenant-general” for further services southward in their policy
above indicated. The difficulty appears to be that Sir John had a
policy of his own,—to grow rich; and that his real home was all the
while in Barbadoes. He did not sacrifice himself for the emolument of
their lordships either at Cape Fear or at Ashley River, as will be
apparent in our subsequent narrative.

[712] Sandford’s _Relation_, and information from papers in London now
being received by the authorities in North Carolina.

[713] See _Abstracts, etc., relating to Colonial Hist. of N. C._,
p. 3; also for this letter, Hawks, ii. p. 23; and for a copy of the
declaration, etc., of 25th August, Rivers’ _Sketch of the Hist. of So.
Carolina_, p. 335.

[714] See Chalmers’ “Annals” in Carroll’s _Collections_, ii. p. 288,
with respect to charges against Clarendon.

[715] Under their charter they could grant titles of honor, provided
they were not like those of England. A provincial nobility was
accordingly created under the titles of Landgraves and Cassiques. The
province was divided into counties; each county into eight signories,
eight baronies, and four precincts, and each precinct into six
colonies for the common people. Each of the other divisions (that is,
excluding the precincts) was to contain 12,000 acres; the signories
for the Proprietors, the baronies for the provincial nobility, to
be perpetually annexed to the hereditary title. These nobles were,
in the first instance, to be appointed by their lordships. In their
subsequent endeavors to establish this scheme of government quite a
large number of provincial nobles were created: the philosopher Locke,
James Carteret, Sir John Yeamans to begin with, and many others, from
time to time, till the title of Landgrave—and there were Cassiques
also—must have appeared to the recipient as ridiculous as it was to
Albemarle to be first Palatine, Craven first High Constable, Berkeley
first Chancellor, Ashley Chief Justice, Carteret Admiral, and Colleton
High Steward, of Carolina.

[716] This, it is true, was not contrary to the charter, but there
is no doubt that the majority of the early settlers were dissenters,
and the establishment of this Church, to be supported by taxation,
occasioned much dissatisfaction and active opposition.

[717] _A Brief Description_, etc.; also Hawks, ii. p. 149.

[718] Instructions for Gov. Sayle, July 27, 1669.

[719] They said, “Sir John intended to make this a Cape Feare
Settlement.” _Charleston Year Book_, p. 376.

[720] Letter of the people in South Carolina to Sothel, 1691; _Sketch
of Hist. of S. C._, p. 429. See also memorial from members of the
assembly in Clarendon County, probably in 1666, asking for better terms
of land than in the agreement with Yeamans; otherwise the county may be
abandoned. See _Abstracts, etc._, p. 6 (N. Carolina).

[721] Towards 1700, “about half of the Albemarle settlement was
composed of Quakers.” (Hawks, ii. p. 89.) They had been, at an earlier
day, driven from Massachusetts and Virginia. (Ib. p. 362.) They did
not, however, at any time amount to 2,000, and constituted a small
minority of the whole population in the colony (p. 369).

[722] It is said by historians that a sort of constitution had been
given the colony at Albemarle, in 1667, when Stephens became governor.
It is explained by Chalmers (“Political Annals,” p. 524, as cited by
Dr. Hawks, ii. p. 147), and said not to be now extant, and that the
provisions were simple and satisfactory to the colony. The Hon. W.
L. Saunders, the present Secretary of State of North Carolina, has
discussed this subject, and shows from the Shaftesbury Papers, which
were unknown to Chalmers, that what has been considered a constitution
was merely the “Concessions of January 7th, 1665,” a transcript of
which had been sent to Governor Stephens. See pamphlet, 1885, p. 31,
_et seq._

[723] The revenue, collected by Miller in six months after he arrived,
was about 5,000 dollars and 33 hogsheads of tobacco. Hawks’ _North
Carolina_, ii. p. 471

[724] Bancroft, ii. pp. 161, 162, ed. 1856, views the Culpepper
rebellion as an outgrowth of the spirit of freedom, not mere
lawlessness. See documents in Hawks’ _North Carolina_, ii. pp. 374-377;
also the “Answer of the Lords Proprietors,” p. 38 of _North Carolina
under the Proprietary Government_, pamphlet, 1884. Compare this
self-excusatory answer with the manly “remonstrance of the inhabitants
of Pasquotank,” who wanted, first of all, “a free Parliament.” This
manifesto has been ridiculed by Chalmers and Hawks; Wheeler appears to
have the right conception of it.

[725] The histories of North Carolina—through lack of records—are
deficient in explaining the political aims of the people. The lack of
records of the popular assembly will be noticed hereafter.

[726] His commission as deputy governor was to come from the Executive
in South Carolina. The governor there—Tynte—was dead, and Hyde’s
formal commission delayed. In December, 1710, it was proposed among
the Proprietors to appoint a separate governor for North Carolina.
Hyde received the appointment, and was sworn in—the first “Governor
of North Carolina”—in 1712. _Abstracts, etc., N. C._, p. 23. The
population of the colony was at this time about 7,000, white and black.

[727] We can, to some extent, understand the aim, at this time, of the
popular party, from letters of Gov. Spotswood (July 28th and 30th). The
people demanded _the repeal of certain laws_. One of these was probably
that which excluded Quakers from all offices for which oaths were a
prerequisite, as no reservation was made for conscientious scruples;
and another, that which imposed a fine of £5 on any one promoting his
own election or not qualifying as prescribed. Perhaps the disaffection
was more deeply seated. In 1717 the Rev. John Urmstone said the people
_acknowledged no power not derived from themselves_. This opinion, at
any rate, appears to be consistent with the tenor of events. See Hawks,
ii. pp. 423, 426, 509, and 512; and _N. Carolina under the Proprietary
Government_, p. 36 (pamphlet), 1884.

[728] _Coll. of S. C. Hist. Soc._, i. p. 176. This letter may be
sarcastic, if the “great dislike” of rebellion applies to the people,
but we are sure it is untrue in saying that the almost unanimous action
of South Carolina was the action of “several of the inhabitants.” It
is likely, also, to be untrue in intimating that the assembly joined
in such an address. Hawks, ii. p. 561. See Yonge’s account of the way
in which the affairs of the Proprietors were often transacted by their
secretary. Some Proprietors lived away from London; others were minors
and represented by proxy.

[729] Legislative document no. 21, 1883, informs us that among the
historical material especially needed are “the Journals of the Lower
House of the legislature prior to 1754.”

[730] About 1743, John Lord Carteret (Earl of Granville) was allotted
his eighth part of the land, all other rights being conveyed to the
Crown. This strip of land was just below the Virginia line, and
extended from the Atlantic to the Pacific. From notices in Hewat’s
“South Carolina” in Carroll’s _Collections_, p. 360, and _S. C. Hist.
Soc. Coll._, ii. p. 284.

[731] Martin’s _North Carolina_, ii. p. 10.

[732] Wheeler’s _Sketches, North Carolina_, i. pp. 42, 43.

[733] Hildreth, ii. p. 340. Wheeler, i. p. 43.

[734] It is probable there were in North and South Carolina many
“private tutors” for families or neighborhoods, though few “public
schools” supported by taxation.

[735] Martin, ii. p. 48.

[736] At the close of the proprietary government the population
numbered 10,000; it numbered in 1750 about 50,000. Its exports were
61,528 barrels of tar, 12,055 barrels of pitch, 10,429 barrels of
turpentine, 762,000 staves, 61,580 bushels of corn, 100,000 hogsheads
of tobacco, 10,000 bushels of peas, 3,300 barrels of pork and beef,
30,000 pounds of deer-skins, besides wheat, rice, bread, potatoes,
bees-wax, tallow, bacon, lard, lumber, indigo, and tanned leather.
Cf. Martin and Wheeler. The former says 100 hogsheads of tobacco; but
he had given 800 hogsheads as the crop about 1677, when the whole
population amounted to only 1,400; the latter is authority for changing
this item to 100,000 hogsheads.

[737] _North Carolina; its Settlement and Growth_, by Hon. W. L.
Saunders (1884). See also Foote’s _Sketches of North Carolina_.
From these settlers came the celebrated Mecklenburg Declaration of
Independence.

[738] Wheeler, i. p. 46. There is a good mezzotint portrait of Dobbs,
of which an excellent reproduction is given in Smith’s _British
Mezzotint Portraits_.

[739] The following estimates of population in North Carolina are
from the Secretary of State, 1885: 1663, 300 families, Oldmixon.
1675, 4,000 population, Chalmers. 1677, 1,400 tithables, Chalmers.
1688, 4,000 population, Hildreth. 1694, 787 tithables, General Court
Records (Albemarle). 1700, not 5,000 population, Martin. 1711, not
7,000 population, Hawks; not 2,000 “Fensibles,” Williamson. 1714, 7,500
population, Hawks. 1715, 11,200 population, Chalmers. 1716, not 2,000
taxables, Martin. 1717, 2,000 taxables, Pollock. 1720, 1,600 taxables,
Memorial of S. C. Assembly. 1729, 10,000 population, Martin, Wiley;
13,000 population, Martin. 1735, about 50,000 population, McCulloch.
1752, over 45,000 population, Martin. 1760, about 105,000 population,
Gov. Dobbs. 1764, about 135,000 population, Gov. Dobbs. 1776, 150,000
population, Martin; not less than 210,000 population, Gov. Swain. 1790,
393,751 population, U. S. Census.

[740] The city council of Charleston (S. C.) have obtained copies of
some of the Shaftesbury Papers recently given by the family to the
State Paper Office in London. Among them is a MS. of 36 pp., being
“_A Relation of a Voyage on the Coast of the Province of Carolina,
formerly called Florida, in the Continent of Northern America, from
Charles River, neare Cape Feare, in the County of Clarendon, and the
lat. of 34 deg: to Port Royall in North Lat. of 32 deg: begun 14th
June, 1666—performed by Robert Sandford, Esq., Secretary & Chief
Register for the Right Hon’ble the Lords Proprietors of their County of
Clarendon, in the Province aforesaid_.” For a copy of this narrative we
are indebted to the Hon. W. A. Courtenay, mayor of Charleston. From the
new facts brought to light in these Shaftesbury Papers we must alter,
in some particulars, the extant history of the first English settlement
in South Carolina.

[741] In the _Sketch of the History of South Carolina_ published
in 1856 is a copy of Sayle’s commission, obtained from London, and
it bears date 26th July, 1669. At the same time West’s commission,
dated 27th July, confers such power upon him as “Governor and
Commander-in-Chief,” _till the arrival of the fleet at Barbadoes_,
that we cannot suppose Sayle was on board at that time. The difficulty
is removed in the Shaftesbury MSS., and by the filling up of the
commission with the name of Sayle at Bermuda.

[742] See Winthrop’s _Hist. of New England_, ii. p. 335.

[743] I make the date of their arrival 17th March. See _Sketch of the
Hist. of So. Carolina_, p. 94.

[744] Of the first site of Charlestown on the west side of the Ashley
River there is said to be no trace left, or was not fifty years ago,
except a depression, which may have been a ditch, then traceable across
the plantation of Jonathan Lucas, as Carroll says (i. p. 49).

[745] The duke was dead when the colony was founded, and the new
duke, Christopher, was represented by proxy at the meeting of the
Proprietors, January 20, 1670. Lord Berkeley was then Palatine by
seniority.

[746] From the Shaftesbury Papers. We should not fail to notice here
that the aged governor had written, on 25th June, to Earl Shaftesbury
for the procurement of Rev. S. Bond, of Bermuda (who had been ordained
by Joseph Hall, Bishop of Exeter), to settle in the colony; and that
their lordships authorized an offer to Mr. Bond of five hundred acres
of land and £40 per annum. It is not known that he came.

[747] [See Vol. II. ch. 4.—ED.] The writer of this narrative has
examined Albemarle Point, the spot selected by the English for their
settlement: a high bluff, facing the east and the entrance of the bay,
and running out between a creek and an impassable marsh, and easily
defended by cutting a deep trench across the tongue of land. Precisely
the same defensible advantages, with the additional one of a far better
harbor, lay opposite at a tongue of land called Oyster Point, between
the Ashley and Cooper rivers.

[748] The earliest notice we have of the population is from the
Shaftesbury Papers, under date 20 January, 1672 [N. S.]: “By our
records it appears that 337 men and women, 62 children or persons under
16 years of age, is the full number of persons who have arrived in
this country in and since the first fleet out of England to this day.”
Deducting for deaths and absences at the above date, there remained of
the men 263 able to bear arms. Though the colony increased in wealth
and importance, there was for many years but a slow increase in the
number of white inhabitants.

[749] How pompous is article 7: “Any Landgrave or Cassique, when it is
his right to choose, shall take any of the Barronies appropriated to
the Nobility, which is not already planted on by some other Nobleman.”
These provincial nobles, made so, in the first instance, by appointment
of the Proprietors, were to be legislators by right. Yet in this same
year (1672), their lordships issued an offer to settlers from Ireland
and promised that whoever carried or caused to go to Carolina 600
men should be a Landgrave with four baronies; and if 900 he should
be Landgrave and also nominate a Cassique; and if 1,200, should also
nominate two Cassiques. This was scattering at random the hereditary
right of legislating over the freemen of the colony.

[750] See letter of the Proprietors, May 8, 1674, in _Sketch_, etc., p.
332.

[751] In the _Reports of the Historical Committee of the Charleston
Library Society_, prepared by Benj. Elliott, Esq., and published
1835, this MS. is spoken of as a present from Robert Gilmor, Esq.,
of Baltimore, but is not accurately described in the report of the
committee. My copy of it is dated 21st July, and is not divided into
numbered sections.

[752] A third set was sent out (dated January 12, 1682), and to
please the Scots who were willing to emigrate, further alterations
were made, and a fourth set (dated August 17, 1682, and containing
126 articles) was despatched to Governor Morton. Last of all, a fifth
set (dated April 11, 1698, and containing only 41 articles), was sent
out by the hands of Major Daniel, and with it, as an inducement for a
favorable reception, six blank patents for landgraves and eight for
cassiques. When the third set was sent, the sentiments of the people
with regard to the whole subject may be fairly represented as in the
letter to Sothel in 1691,—that, inasmuch as their lordships, under
their hands and seals, had ordered that no person should be a member
of the council nor of parliament, nor choose lands due to him, unless
he subscribed his submission to this last set of the Constitutions;
“the people remembering their oaths to the first, and deeming these
not to be agreeable to the royal charters, which direct the assent and
approbation of the people to all laws and constitutions, did deny to
receive the said Fundamental Constitutions.” Governor Morton, in 1685,
actually turned out of parliament the majority of the representatives
for refusing to sign the third set, though they had sworn to the first
set. In consequence, the laws that year enacted were enacted by only
seven representatives and by eight of the deputies of the Proprietors.

[753] A fac-simile of Smith’s commission is given in _Harper’s
Monthly_, Dec., 1875.

[754] MS. Journal of the Commons, May 15, 1694.

[755] As inferred from the _Statutes_ (ii. p. 101, sec. 16).

[756] Archdale in Carroll’s _Hist. Collections_, ii. p. 109.

[757] At this time, one passed, in riding up the road, the plantations
of Matthews, Green, Starkey, Gray, Grimball, Dickeson, and Izard, on
the Cooper River; and further up, those of Sir John Yeamans, Landgrave
Bellinger, Colonel Gibbes, Mr. Schenking, Colonel Moore, Colonel
Quarry, and Sir Nathaniel Johnson. On the left, Landgrave West,
Colonel Godfrey, Dr. Trevillian, and Mr. Colleton, had plantations.
Westward from Charlestown lived Col. Paul Grimball, Landgrave Morton,
Blake (a Proprietor), and Landgrave Axtel; while many residences in
the town, as those of Landgrave Smith and Colonel Rhett, were said
to be “very handsome buildings,” with fifteen or more “which deserve
to be taken notice of.” From these residences could be seen entering
the harbor vessels from Jamaica, Barbadoes, and the Leeward Isles,
from Virginia and other colonies, and the always welcome ships from
England. An active and lucrative commerce employed many ships to
various ports in North America, and also twenty-two ships between
Charles Town and England; about twelve were owned by the colonists;
half of these had been built by themselves. The inhabitants (1708)
numbered nearly 10,000; the whites and negroes being about equal, with
1,400 Indian slaves. (Letter of Governor and Council, Sept. 17, 1708,
in _S. C. Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii. p. 217.) For a few years the whites
had decreased in number on account of epidemics and disaffection with
regard to the tenure of lands (the nature of this disaffection may be
noticed in what is recorded in the preceding narrative sketch of North
Carolina); while negroes were regularly imported by the English traders
and by Northern ships, as the plantation work extended, particularly
the culture of rice, which had become the most valuable export. A
little later (1710) the whites were computed at .12 of the whole
inhabitants, negro slaves .22, and Indian subjects .66. Of the whites,
the planters were .70, merchants about .13, and artisans .17. With
respect to religion, the Episcopalians were then computed to be .42,
the Presbyterians, with the French Huguenots, .45, Anabaptists .10, and
the Quakers .03. (Inserted in Governor Glen’s _Description of South
Carolina_.)

[758] _MS. Journals of the House._

[759] Rev. Mr. Marston says, “Many of the members of the Commons House
that passed this disqualifying law are constant absentees from the
Church, and eleven of them were never known to receive the Sacrament
of the Lord’s Supper,” though for five years past he had administered
it in his church at least six times a year. (“Case of Dissenters;”
and Archdale.) The same assembly had passed an act against blasphemy
and profaneness, “which they always made a great noise about,” wrote
Landgrave Smith, “although they are some of the most profanest in the
country themselves.” See _Sketch of the Hist. of S. C._, p. 220.

[760] Yonge’s _Narrative_.

[761] The folly, or grasping cupidity, of the Proprietors plainly
appears in their action respecting these lands (_S. C. Hist. Soc.
Coll._, i. p. 192), 21 Nov., 1718: “Lots drawn this day for the 119,000
acres of land in South Carolina; that 48,000 acres should be taken up
in South Carolina by each Proprietor for the use of himself and heirs,
24,000 of which may be of the Yemassee land if thought fit, ... at a
pepper corn rent, etc.”

[762] We should add along with this avowal of loyalty, which was no
doubt sincere, the prophetic language of Colonel Rhett, in December,
1719, as mentioned in Chalmers, ii. p. 93: If this “revolt is not cropt
in the bud, they will set up for themselves against his majesty.” And
in the same strain we understand the extract of a letter (Nov. 14,
1719, in _S. C. Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii. p. 237), concluding, “I must
tell you, sir, if the much greater part of the most substantial people
had their choice, they would not choose King George’s government.”

[763] In _S. C. Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii. p. 119, is an abstract (from
state papers, London) of a “draft” for new instructions, that the
governor should approve or disapprove of the speaker and clerk, and
refuse assent to any law appointing civil officers; and that money
bills should be framed by a committee of the council joined with a
committee of the “Lower House of Assembly,” as they should in future be
called. We are not aware that such instructions were ever sent. Johnson
allowed them to appoint their clerk (1731), they pleading _custom_, and
giving instances of the same in other colonies.

[764] Details are given by Hewatt in Carroll’s _Hist. Coll._, ii. pp.
331 _et seq._

[765] Samuel Horsey was made governor in July, 1738, but died before
he left England. Glen was appointed in his place in October, 1738.
We may state here that the elder William Rhett died 1723, the second
James Moore 1724, President Middleton 1737, Nicholas Trott 1740,
Alexander Skene 1741. Lieutenant-Governor Bull was father of the later
lieutenant-governor of the same name (Ramsay, preface).

[766] We quote from the abstract of his communication in the record
office in London. _S. C. Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii. p. 303.

[767] ESTIMATES OF POPULATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA. 1672. Joseph Dalton,
secretary to Lord Ashley. Whites, 391: men 263, women 69, children
under 16 years 59. 1680. T. A. in _Carroll’s Coll._, 2d, p. 82, about
1,200. 1682. Same, about 2,500. 1699. E. Randolph to Lords of Trade
(_Sketch of Hist. S. C._, p. 443) gives white militia not above 1,500
and four negroes to one white; and 1,100 families, English and French.
1700. Hewatt, _Carroll’s Coll._, 1st, p. 132, computes whites from
5,000 to 6,000. 1701. Humphreys’ _Hist. Account_, etc., p. 25, computes
whites above 7,000. 1703. By estimate for five years, allowable from
statements of the governor and council (_Sketch, Hist. S. C._, p.
232), we may put the population in 1703 at 8,160. 1708. Governor
Johnson and council compute 9,580: freemen 1,360, freewomen 900, white
servant men 60, white servant women 60, white free children 1,700, in
all 4,080; negro men slaves 1,800, negro women slaves, 1,100, negro
children slaves 1,200, in all 4,100; Indian men slaves 500, Indian
women slaves 600, Indian children slaves 300, in all 1,400. 1708.
Oldmixon, _Carroll’s Coll._, ii. p. 460, computes total 12,000. 1720.
Governor Johnson, whites 6,400; at same date the Revolutionary governor
and council report whites 9,000; militiamen not over 2,000. From a
sworn statement the taxpayers of the eleven parishes were 1,305, and
their slaves 11,828 (see _A Chapter in Hist.S. C._, p. 56). Chalmers
multiplies 1,305 by four, and makes total white and black 17,048; but
9,000 whites and 11,828 blacks give 20,828. 1724. Hewatt, p. 266,
computes whites 14,000. In Glen’s _Description_, etc., in _Carroll’s
Coll._, ii. p. 261, the same number is given; also slaves, mostly
negroes, 32,000; total 46,000. 1743. Chalmers’ papers in possession
of Mr. George Bancroft, letter of McCulloch, comptroller, computes
negroes at 40,000. 1751. Same authority; letter from Glen; also
_Carroll’s Coll._, ii. p. 218; whites 25,000, negro taxables 39,000;
say total 64,000. 1756. Same authority; Governor Lyttleton says the
militia amounted to 5,500 men. Computing negro increase at 1,000 per
annum, we estimate a total of 72,500. 1763. In a _Short Description_,
etc., _Carroll’s Coll._, ii. p. 478. Whites between 30,000 and 40,000,
negroes about 70,000; say total 105,000. 1765. Hewatt, p. 503. Militia
between 7,000 and 8,000, from which he computes the whites near 40,000,
negroes “not less than” 80,000 or 90,000; say total 123,000. 1770.
Chalmers’ MSS.; Lieutenant-Governor Bull gives negroes returned in last
tax 75,178; militiamen 10,000; say 125,178. 1770. Wells’ _Register_
says negroes 81,728, and free blacks 159. 1773. Wells’ _Register and
Almanac_ for 1774. Whites 65,000, negroes 110,000 (militiamen 13,000);
total 175,000. Chalmers’ MSS.; Dr. George Milligan gives for 1775,
whites 70,000, negroes 104,000, militiamen 14,000, which makes 174,000.
1790. U. S. Census. Whites 140,178, free blacks 1,801, slaves 107,094;
total 249,073.

[768] There is an account of Coxe, by G. D. Scull, in the _Penna. Mag.
of Hist._, vii. 317.

[769] Cf. E. D. Neill’s “Virginia Carolorum” in _Penna. Mag. of Hist._,
Oct., 1885, p. 316.

[770] W. Noel Sainsbury (_Antiquary_, London, March, 1881, p. 100)
refers to documents in the colonial series of State Papers in the
Public Record office, showing that a company of French Protestants had
been inveigled into a voyage to undertake a settlement under the Heath
patent, and reached Virginia; but as transportation was not provided
they never went further.

[771] Vol. III. p. 125. The map of Florida in the 1618 edition of
Lescarbot, in which the Rivière de May is made to flow from a “Grand
Lac” in the interior, is said to have afforded in part the groundwork
of De Laet’s map. Cf. also the map of Virginia and Florida (1635) in
_Mercator’s Atlas_; the map “Partie meridionale de la Virginie et de la
Floride,” published by Vander Aa. Johannis van Keulen’s _Paskart van de
Kust van Carolina_, in his Atlas, is very rude.

[772] Sabin, iii. no. 10,969. The seal of the Proprietors is shown
in Lawson’s map, and is reproduced in Dr. Eggleston’s papers in the
_Century Magazine_, vol. xxviii. p. 848, and in _The Charleston Year
Book_, 1883.

[773] Sabin, iii. no. 10,980; Carter-Brown, ii. no. 1,526, iii. no. 75;
Murphy, no. 481; Harvard College library, nos. 6374.26 and 12352.2.
Carroll, in printing the second charter granted by Charles II. (_Hist.
Coll._, ii. 37), speaks of the original as being in the possession of
Harvard University; but he must refer to the early printed copy, not
the parchment. Both charters may be found in the _Revised Statutes
of North Carolina_, 1837, and in the _Statutes at Large of South
Carolina_, 1836. Hawks (vol. ii. p. 107) gives a synopsis of the two in
parallel columns; and they are given in French and English in _Mémoires
des Commissaires du Roi_, etc., vol. iv. (Paris, 1757) p. 554; and on
p. 586, the second charter of June 13 (24), 1665. The second is also
given in Dr. Wynne’s edition of the _Byrd MSS._, i. p. 197.

[774] Sabin, iii. no. 10,970; Carter-Brown, ii. no. 1,016.

[775] The original Fundamental Constitutions (81 articles) were signed
July 21, 1669; a second form (120 articles), Mar. 1, 1669-70; a third
(120 articles), Jan. 12, 1681-2; a fourth (121 articles), Aug. 17,
1682; a fifth and last (41 articles), Apr. 11, 1698.

[776] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 271; Sabin, x. no. 41,726. There was
a second edition in 1739. The Fundamental Constitutions will also
be found in Carroll’s _Hist. Coll._, ii. 361; in Martin’s _North
Carolina_, App. i.; in Hewatt’s _South Carolina and Georgia_, i. 321,
etc.

The most familiar portrait of Locke is Kneller’s, which has been often
engraved. It was painted in 1697, and the several engravings by Vertue
(1713, etc.) appeared in the _Works_ of Locke, published in folio in
London, in 1722 and 1727, and elsewhere, sometimes with different
framework, and of reduced size, in the _Familiar Letters_ of 1742
(fourth edition). The same likeness is the one given in editions of
_Lodge’s Portraits_. There is also a folio mezzotint by John Smith (J.
C. Smith, _Brit. Mezzotint Portraits_, iii. 1190). A different head is
that engraved by James Basire in the London editions of the _Works_,
1801 and 1812.

[777] Mr. Henry F. Waters sent the photograph from London, but the map
had already been noticed inquiringly by Dr. De Costa in the _Mag. of
Amer. Hist._, Jan., 1877 (vol. i. p. 55).

[778] _Brinley Catalogue_, ii. no. 3,869; Harvard College library, no.
12355.7. It is reprinted in _Force’s Tracts_, vol. iv., and in the
_Charleston Year Book_ for 1884.

[779] _North Carolina_, ii. p. 78.

[780] Carter-Brown, ii. no. 972; Griswold, no. 982; Barlow’s _Rough
List_, no. 593; Brinley, ii. no. 3,842; Sabin, iii. no. 10,961; Rich
(1832), no. 338, £1 16_s._; Menzies, no. 334. Quaritch priced it in
1885 (no. 29,505) at £12 12_s._, and it has since been placed at £18
18_s._ The map referred to is reproduced by Dr. Hawks in his _North
Carolina_ (i. p. 37) with a reprint of the tract itself; but a better
reproduction is in Gay’s _Popular Hist. of the United States_ (ii.
285). Carroll also reprints the text in his _Historical Collections_
(ii. p. 9), but he omits the map as “very incorrect,” not appreciating
the fact that the incorrectness of early maps is an index of
contemporary ideas, with which the historian finds it indispensable to
deal.

[781] Lederer’s tract is very rare. There is a copy in Harvard College
library. It was priced $200 in Bouton’s catalogue in 1876, and brought
$305 at the Griswold sale the same year. The Sparks copy (at Cornell)
lacks the map; but the Murphy (no. 1,456) copy had it. Cf. Rich (1832),
no. 358; Brinley, ii. no. 3,875; Barlow’s _Rough List_, no. 625. A copy
was sold in London in Dec., 1884.

[782] See fac-simile of this map in Vol. III. p. 465.

[783] Carter-Brown, ii. no. 1,633; Barlow’s _Rough List_, nos. 668-70;
Brinley, ii. no. 3,840; _Harvard Coll. Library Catalogue_, nos. 12352.4
and 6; Menzies, no. 83. It is reprinted in Carroll’s _Hist. Coll._, ii.
59.

[784] Carter-Brown, ii. no. 1,261; Barlow’s _Rough List_, no. 675-76;
_Harvard Col. Lib. Catalogue_, no. 12352.4. It is reprinted in
Carroll’s _Hist. Coll._, ii. 19. The book should be accompanied by
a map called “A new description of Carolina by order of the Lords
Proprietors,” which shows the coast from the Chesapeake to St.
Augustine. The book throws no light on the sources of the map; but
Kohl, who has a sketch of the map in his Washington collection (no.
211), thinks White’s map served for the North Carolina coast, and
Wm. Sayle’s surveys for the more southerly parts. Kohl says that the
boundary line here given between Virginia and Carolina is laid down for
the first time on a map. The river May flows from a large “Ashley lake.”

A printed map, very nearly resembling this of Wilson, is signed, “Made
by William Hack at the signe of Great Britaine and Ireland, near New
Stairs in Wapping. Anno Domini, 1684.” There is a sketch of it in
Kohl’s Washington collection (no. 213).

[785] Sabin, v. no. 17,334.

[786] Sabin, iii. no. 10,963.

[787] Carter-Brown, ii. no. 1,333; and for editions of 1678 and 1697,
nos. 1,177 and 1,508.

[788] Extracts touching Carolina are given in Carroll’s _Collections_,
ii. 537, etc. The details are scant in the sketch of the history of the
colonial church, which B. F. De Costa added to the edition of Bishop
White’s _Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church_, New York, 1880;
but more considerable in “The State of the Church in America, at the
beginning of the eighteenth century and the foundation of the Society
for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts,”—being ch. xi. of
Perry’s _Amer. Episcopal Church_.

[789] Sabin, no. 18,298. “Dalcho is very useful for the early history
of South Carolina, and is more scrupulous than Ramsay.” (Bancroft,
orig. ed., ii. 167.) The movement in South Carolina is necessarily
treated more scantily in Hawkins’ _Missions of the Church of England;_
Wilberforce’s _Hist. of the Prot. Episc. Church in America_; Bishop
White’s _Memoirs of the Prot. Episc. Church in the United States_;
and Dr. W. B. Sprague’s _American Pulpit_, vol. v. The publications
directly bearing at the time on this controversy are:—

_An act for the more effectual preservation of the government of the
Province of Carolina, by requiring all persons that shall be hereafter
chosen members of the Commons House of Assembly to take oaths ... and
to conform to the Religious Worship according to the Church of England.
Ratified 6th of May, 1704._ (Sabin, iii. no. 10,956.)

_Another act for the establishment of religious worship in the Province
of Carolina according to the Church of England. Ratified Nov. 4, 1704._
(Sabin, iii. no. 10,958.)

_The case of the Church of England in Carolina ... with resolves of the
House of Lords._ (Sabin, iii. no. 10,967.)

_The copy of an act pass’d in Carolina and sent over to be confirmed by
the Lord Granville, Palatine, etc._ (Sabin, iii. no. 10,968.)

_The representation and address of several members of this present
assemble, returned for Colleton County ... to the Right honourable John
Grenville, Esq., etc. 26 June, 1705._ (Sabin, iii. no. 10,978.)

_The humble address of ... Parliament presented to her majesty, 13
March, 1705, relating to Carolina, and the petition therein mentioned,
with her majesty’s most gracious answer thereunto._ London, 1705.
(Sabin, iii. no. 10,972.)

_Party-Tyranny, or an occasional bill in miniature as now practised in
Carolina. Humbly offered to the consideration of Parliament._ London,
1705 (30 pp.). (Carter-Brown, iii. no. 64; Sabin, v. no. 19,288;
_Harvard College Lib. Catalogue_, no. 12352.17; Brinley, ii. no. 3,882.
It is ascribed to Daniel De Foe, and the exclusive act of 1704 is
severely denounced in it. Stevens, _Bibl. Amer._, 1885, no. 72, prices
it at £6 6_s._, and gives a second title-edition of the same year, no.
74, £5 5_s._)

_The case of the protestant dissenters in Carolina, shewing how a
law to prevent occasional conformity there, has ended in the total
subversion of the Constitution in Church and State._ London, 1706.
(Carter-Brown, iii. no. 76; Sabin, iii. no. 10,966. The copy of this
tract in Harvard College Library has an appendix of documents paged
separately. It is also sometimes attributed to De Foe.)

Rivers (_Sketches_, etc., p. 220) thinks it is an error to represent
the body of the Dissenters as favoring the Fundamental Constitutions.
Dalcho’s _Protestant Episcopal Church in South Carolina_ (p. 58, etc.)
examines the legislation on this movement to an enforced religion.

[790] In the spring before this attack a New England man, Rev. Joseph
Lord, then ministering not far from Charlestown, was congratulating
himself by letter to Samuel Sewall, of Boston (writing from Dorchester,
in South Carolina, March 25, 1706), on “freedom from annoyance by y^e
Spaniards, especially considering all, so soon after the proclamation
of war, began with them.” He then goes on to inform his correspondent
that he believed some of the neighboring tribes to be wandering
remnants of the Narragansetts and Pequods. _N. E. Hist. and Geneal.
Reg._, xiii. p. 299.

[791] It was reprinted at Charleston in 1822, and is included in
Carroll’s _Hist. Collections_ (ii. 85). Cf. Brinley, ii. no. 3,839;
_Harvard Coll. Lib’y Cat._, no. 13352.6; Barlow’s _Rough List_, no.
779; Stevens, _Bib. Am._, 1885, no. 18, £5 5_s._ Doyle (_The English
in America_, p. 437) fitly calls it “confused and rambling.” The same
judgment was earlier expressed by Rivers; but Grahame (ii. p. 140),
touching it more generously on its human side, calls it replete with
good sense, benevolence, and piety.

[792] Pages 207, 231.

[793] A German version of the first edition was printed at Hamburg in
1715 as _Das Gros-Britannische Scepter in der Neuen Welt_; and Theodor
Arnold published in 1744 a translation of the second edition, called
_Das Britische Reich in America_, reproducing Moll’s map, but giving
the names in German. Carroll’s _Hist. Collections_ (ii. 391) gives the
essential extracts from Oldmixon.

[794] It was reprinted at Raleigh in 1860. A work called _The Natural
History of North Carolina by John Brickell, M. D._, Dublin, 1737,
is Lawson’s book, with some transpositions, changes, and omissions.
(Carter-Brown, iii. no. 560; Brinley, ii. no. 3,843.) This last book
is sufficiently changed not to be considered a mere careless reprint
of Lawson, as J. A. Allen points out in his _Bibliog. of Cetacea and
Sirenia_, no. 208. Brickell was a physician settled in North Carolina.
A German translation of Lawson by M. Vischer, _Allerneuste Beschreibung
der Provinz Carolina in West Indien_, was printed at Hamburg in 1712;
and again in 1722. (Sabin, iii. no. 10,957; v. no. 39,451, etc.;
Carter-Brown, iii. nos. 119, 125, 158, 169, 233; Cooke, no. 1,409;
Murphy, nos. 1,448-49; Barlow’s _Rough List_, no. 787; O’Callaghan,
no. 1,349; J. A. Allen’s _Bibliography of Cetacea_, etc., nos. 165,
167, 170, 174; Field, _Indian Bibliog._, nos. 896-899; Brinley, ii. no.
3,873.) Quaritch (1885) priced the original 1709 edition at £5, and I
find it also quoted at £6 6_s._ The German version repeats Lawson’s
map, and also has one called “Louisiana am Fluss Mississippi.”

[795] _Indian Bibliog._, p. 228.

[796] _Hist. of Amer. Literature_, ii. p. 282.

[797] Lawson’s book was accompanied by a map, and a part of it, giving
the North Carolina coast, is reproduced by Dr. Hawks (ii. 103). Mr.
Deane’s copy has the map. Prof. F. M. Hubbard, writing in 1860 in the
_North American Review_, said, “We know after much inquiry of the
existence of only four copies in this country. About 1820, a copy then
thought to be unique was offered for sale at auction in North Carolina
and brought nearly sixty dollars.” The book now is less rare than this
writer supposed.

[798] _Auszfuhrlich und umstandlicher Bericht von der berühmten
Landschaft Carolina, in dem Engelländischen America gelegen. An Tag
gegeben von Kocherthalern. Dritter Druck, mit einem Anhang, ... nebst
einer Land-Charte._ Frankfort a. M. 1709. (Sabin, iii. no. 10,959;
Stevens, Bib. Amer., 1885, no. 75, £5 5_s._) _Das verlangte, nicht
erlangte Canaan, oder ausführliche Beschreibung der unglücklichen Reise
derer jüngsthin aus Teutschland nach Carolina und Pensylvania wallenden
Pilgrim, absonderlich dem Kochenthalerischen Bericht entgegen gesetzt._
Frankfort, 1711. This is a rare tract about the emigration from the
Pfälz. (Sabin, iii. no. 10,960; Harrassowitz, _Americana_ (81), no.
114 at 50 marks; _Harvard Coll. Lib’y Catalogue_, no. 12352.10;
Stevens, _Bib. Amer._, 1885, no. 77, £4 14_s._ 6_d._) _A Letter from
South Carolina giving an account of the soil, etc.... Written by a
Swiss gentleman to his friend at Bern._ London, 1710. There were
other editions in 1718, 1732. (Carter-Brown, iii. nos. 143, 239, 493;
_Harvard College Lib’y Catalogue_, nos. 12354.4 and 5.)

Bernheim’s _German Settlements_, later to be mentioned, is the best
modern summary of these Swiss and German immigrations.

[799] The map on the next page is sketched from a draft in the Kohl
collection (219) of a map preserved in the British State Paper Office,
bearing no date, but having the following legends in explanation of the
lines of march:—

“1. — — — — The way Coll. Barnwell marched from Charlestown, 1711,
with the forces sent from S. Carol. to the relief of N. Carolina.

“2. —·—· The way Coll. J. Moore marched in the 1712 with the forces
sent for the relief of North Carolina.

“3. —··—·· The way Corol. Maurice Moore marched in the year 1713 with
recruits from South Carolina.

“4. ···· The way Corol. Maurice Moore went in the year 1715, with the
forces sent from North Carolina to the assistance of S. Carolina. His
march was further continued from Fort Moore up Savano river, near a
N. W. course, 150 miles to the Charokee indians, who live among the
mountains.”

[800] Cf. vol. i. 44-46, 100, 102, 105-7, 115, 118, 121, 160. See
_post_ ch. viii. and _ante_ ch. iv. of the present volume.

[801] Cf. _An abridgment of the laws in force and use in her majesty’s
plantations_, London, 1702. (Harvard College lib’y, 6374.20.) Chief
Justice Trott—“a great man in his day,” says De Bow,—published a
folio edition of South Carolina laws in 1736; and the _Laws of South
Carolina_, published by Cooper (Columbia, S. C.), give by title only
those enacted before 1685. Trott also published in London (1721) _Laws
of the British Plantations in America relating to the Church and the
Clergy_. (Harvard College lib’y, 6371.1.)

[802] H. C. Murphy, _Catalogue_, no. 2,344; Brinley, ii. no. 3,893.
It is attributed to F. Yonge, whose _View of the Trade of South
Carolina_, addressed to Lord Carteret, was printed about 1722 and 1723.
Carter-Brown, iii. nos. 321, 337.

[803] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 371.

[804] _An Act for establishing an Agreement with seven of the lords
proprietors of Carolina for the surrender of their title and interest
in that province to his Majesty._ London, 1729. Brinley, no. 3,831.

[805] _Grant and Release of one eighth part of Carolina from his
Majesty to Lord Cartaret_ [1744] with a map. Sabin, iii. no. 10,971.

[806] Brinley, ii. no. 3,883.

[807] This description is usually accompanied by what is called
_Proposals of Mr. Peter Purry of Neufchatel for the encouragement of
Swiss Protestants settling in Carolina_, 1731, and this document is
also included in Carroll’s _Hist. Collections_ (ii. 121), and will
be found in Bernheim’s _German Settlements_, p. 90, in Col. Jones’
publication, already mentioned, and in other places. Bernheim gives a
summarized history of the colony.

[808] Among the publications instigating or recording this immigration,
the following are known: _Der nunmehro in dem neuen Welt vergnügt und
ohne Heimwehe Schweitzer, oder Beschreibung des gegenwärtigen Zustands
der Königlichen Englischen Provinz Carolina_. Bern, 1734. (Sabin, iii.
no. 10,975; Stevens, _Bib. Am._, 1885, no. 76, £4 14_s._ 6_d._) _Neue
Nachricht alter und neuer Merkwürdigkeiten, enthaltend ein vertrautes
Gespräch und sichere Briefe von dem Landschafft Carolina und übrigen
Englishchen Pflantz-Städten in Amerika._ Zurich, 1734. (Sabin, iii. no.
10,974.) The _Carter-Brown Catalogue_ (iii. no. 566) mentions a tract,
evidently intended to influence immigration to Pennsylvania and the
colonies farther south, which was printed in 1737 as _Neu-gefundenes
Eden_.

[809] Martin, in his _North Carolina_, vol. i., has an appendix on the
Moravians.

[810] Cf. Chapter on Presbyterianism in South Carolina in C. A. Briggs’
_Amer. Presbyterianism_, p. 127.

[811] This gentleman has contributed to the periodical press various
papers on Huguenots in America. Cf. Poole’s _Index_, p. 612.

[812] In April, 1883, there was formed in New York a Huguenot Society
of America, under the presidency of John Jay, with vice-presidents to
represent each of the distinct settlements of French Protestants prior
to 1787,—Staten Island, Long Island, New Rochelle, New Paltz, New
Oxford, Boston, Narragansett, Maine, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
and South Carolina. Their first report has been printed. Monograph
iv. of Bishop Perry’s _American Episcopal Church_ is “The Huguenots
in America, and their connection with the Church,” by the Rev. A. V.
Wittmeyer.

[813] Carter-Brown, iii. nos. 1,046, 1,778.

[814] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,306. There is a copy in Harvard College
library [12353.2]. The _Dinwiddie Papers_ throw some light on Glen’s
career. The _Second Report of the Historical Manuscripts Commission_,
p. 38, notes a collection of letters sent from South Carolina during
Gov. Lyttleton’s term, 1756-1765, as being in Lord Lyttleton’s archives
at Hagley, in Worcestershire.

[815] Brinley, ii. no. 3,989; Haven, “Ante-Revolutionary Bibliog.”
(Thomas’ _Hist. of Printing_, ii. 559). Cf. Bancroft’s _United States_,
original ed. iv. ch. 15. Cf. also John H. Logan’s _History of the Upper
Country of South Carolina, from the earliest periods to the close of
the War of Independence_, Charleston, 1859, vol. i. It largely concerns
the Cherokee country.

[816] A MS. copy of De Brahm appears (no. 1,313) in a sale catalogue of
Bangs, Brother & Co., New York, 1854.

[817] Cf. Emanuel Bowen, in his _Complete System of Geography_, ii.
1747 (London), who gives a _New and accurate map of the Provinces of
North and South Carolina, Georgia, etc._, showing the coast from the
Chesapeake to St. Augustine.

[818] See _post_, ch. vi.

[819] The latest writer on the theme, Doyle, in his _English in
America_, thinks Hewatt “may probably be trusted in matters of
notoriety.” Grahame (iii. 78) says: “Hewit is a most perplexing writer.
A phrase of continual recurrence with him is ‘about this time,’—the
meaning of which he leaves to the conjecture of readers and the
laborious investigation of scholars, as he scarcely ever particularizes
a date.” Again he adds (ii. p. 110): “While he abstains from the
difficult task of relating the history of North Carolina, he selects
the most interesting features of its annals, and transfers them to the
history of the southern province. His errors, though hardly honest,
were probably not the fruit of deliberate misrepresentation.” Cf.
Sprague’s _Annals of the Amer. Pulpit_, iii. p. 251.

[820] That portion about South Carolina, ending with the revolution of
1719, is printed in Carroll, ii. 273.

[821] These volumes are described in the _Sparks Catalogue_, pp.
214-215, and are now in Harvard College library.

[822] Grahame (ii. 167) says of Chalmers that “he seems to relax
his usual attention to accuracy, when he considers his topics
insignificant; and from this defect, as well as from the peculiarities
of his style, it is sometimes difficult to discover his meaning or
reconcile his apparent inconsistency in different passages.”

[823] Cf. _Belknap Papers_ (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._), ii. 218, 219.

[824] Harvard College library.

[825] _An introduction to the history of the revolt of the American
colonies, derived from the state papers in the public offices of Great
Britain._ Boston, 1845. 2 v.

[826] The copy referred to is also marked in Mr. Chalmers’ autograph
as “from the author to Mr. Strange as an evidence of his respect
and kindness.” It is also noted in it that it is the identical copy
described by Rich in his _Bibliotheca Americana Nova_ (under 1782),
no. 2, where it is spoken of as “apparently entirely unknown,” and
having the bookplate of George Buchanan with a manuscript note, “Not
published, corrected for the press by me, G. B.” No such evidences of
Buchanan’s ownership are now in the volume, and the title as given
by Rich is more extended than that written by Chalmers. A slightly
different title too is given in the only other copy of which trace has
been found, that given in the _Murphy Catalogue_, no. 534.

[827] A large number of the Chalmers manuscripts relating to America
are enumerated in Thomas Thorpe’s _Supplement to a Catalogue of
Manuscripts_, 1843. Such as relate to periods not of the Revolution are
somewhat minutely described under the following numbers:—

No. 616. Copies of papers, 1493-1805, two volumes, £12 12_s._

No. 617. Papers relating to New England, 1625-1642, one volume, £2 2_s._

No. 618. Papers relating to Maryland, 1627-1765, one volume, £3 3_s._

No. 619. Papers relating to New York and Pennsylvania, 1629-1642, £1
11_s._ 6_d._

No. 620. Short account of the English plantations in America, about
1690, MS., £2 2_s._

No. 666. Papers on Canada, 1692-1792, one volume, £4 4_s._

No. 669. Letters and State Papers relating to Carolina, 1662-1781,
two volumes, £12 12_s._ [I suppose these to be the volumes now in Mr.
Bancroft’s hands.]

No. 673. The manuscript of vol. ii. of the Annals, £7 7_s._

No. 707. Papers on Connecticut, 15_s._

No. 726. Papers on the ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the colonies,
1662-1787, one volume, £2 2_s._

No. 745. Papers on Georgia, 1730-1798, one volume, £5 5_s._

No. 782. Papers on the Indians, 1750-1775, one volume, £10 10_s._

No. 823. Papers on Maryland, 1619-1812, two volumes, £15 15_s._

No. 838. Papers on New England, 1635-1780, four volumes, £21.

No. 842. Papers on New Hampshire, 1651-1774, two volumes, £10 10_s._

No. 843. Papers on New Jersey, 1683-1775, one volume, £6 6_s._

No. 845. Papers on New York, 1608-1792, four volumes, £52 10_s._

No. 857. Papers on Nova Scotia, 1745-1817, one volume, £7 7s.

No. 867. Papers on Pennsylvania, 1620-1779, two volumes, £10 10_s._

No. 869. Letters from and Papers on Philadelphia, 1760-1789, two
volumes, £15 15_s._

No. 891. Papers on Rhode Island, 1637-1785, one volume, £5 5_s._

No. 949. Papers on Virginia, 1606-1775, four volumes, £31 10_s._

[828] He was born in 1735, and was a Pennsylvanian, whom commercial
aims brought to Edmonton, in North Carolina, where he practised
medicine, and as a representative of the district sat in Congress. He
had removed, however, to New York when he published his history. He
died in 1819. Cf. Scharf and Westcott’s _Hist. of Philadelphia_, ii.
1146.

[829] _North Amer. Rev._, xii. 37. In 1829 Judge A. D. Murphy sought,
unsuccessfully, to induce the legislature to aid him in publishing
a history of North Carolina in six or eight volumes. _North Amer.
Review_, xxiv. p. 468.

[830] Orig. ed., i. p. 135.

[831] Cf. _N. Eng. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, Oct., 1870.

[832] J. D. B. DeBow’s _Political Annals of South Carolina_, prepared
for the _Southern Quarterly Review_, was printed separately as a
pamphlet, at Charleston, in 1845. A writer in this same _Review_ (Jan.,
1852) deplores the apathy of the Southern people and the indifference
of Southern writers to the study of their local history. In the series
of the _Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political
Science_, Mr. B. J. Ramage has published an essay on “Local government
and free schools in South Carolina.”

[833] There is also a list of papers prior to 1700 in the appendix of
Rivers’ _Sketch_, etc., p. 313.

[834] The _Third Report_ (1872) _of the Commission on Historical
signified his wish to present his valuable collection of manuscripts
Manuscripts_ (p. xi.) says: “In April, 1871, the Earl of Shaftesbury
to the Public Record Office. These papers have been arranged and
catalogued by Mr. Sainsbury.” The same _Report_ (p. 216) contains Mr.
Alfred J. Horwood’s account of these papers, the ninth section of
which is described as comprising letters and papers about Carolina,
and many letters and abstracts of letters in Locke’s handwriting. Cf.
_Charleston Year Book_, 1884, p. 167.

[835] _A review of documents and records in the archives of the State
of South Carolina, hitherto inedited_ (Columbia, 1852), points out
the gaps in its public records. Of the Grand Council’s Journal, only
two years (1671, etc.) are preserved, as described by Dalcho and in
_Topics in the History of South Carolina_, a pamphlet. Cf. also Rivers’
_Sketch_, etc., p. 370.

[836] Abstracts of many of them are necessarily included in Sainsbury’s
_Calendars_.

[837] [This story is told in Vol. II. chap. iv.—ED.]

[838] [Vol. II. p. 244.—ED.]

[839] [See Vol. III. p. 157, and chap. v., _ante_.—ED.]

[840] [He was born in 1698; but see W. S. Bogart on “the mystery of
Oglethorpe’s birthday,” in _Magazine of American History_, February,
1883, p. 108. There is a statement as to his family in Nichols’s
_Literary Anecdotes_, ii. 17; copied by Harris, in his _Life of
Oglethorpe_.—ED.]

[841] The corporate seal adopted had two faces. That for the
authentication of legislative acts, deeds, and commissions contained
this device: two figures resting upon urns, from which flowed streams
typifying the rivers forming the northern and southern boundaries of
the province. In their hands were spades, suggesting agriculture as the
chief employment of the settlers. Above and in the centre was seated
the genius of the Colony, a spear in her right hand, the left placed
upon a cornucopia, and a liberty cap upon her head. Behind, upon a
gentle eminence, stood a tree, and above was engraven this legend,
_Colonia Georgia Aug_. On the other face,—which formed the common
seal to be affixed to grants, orders, and certificates,—were seen
silk-worms in the various stages of their labor, and the appropriate
motto, _Non sibi sed aliis_. This inscription not only proclaimed
the disinterested motives and intentions of the trustees, but it
suggested that the production of silk was to be reckoned among the most
profitable employments of the colonists,—a hope not destined to be
fulfilled.

[842] There is in Lossing’s _Field Book of the Revolution_, ii. 722, a
sketch of the remains of the barracks as they appeared in 1851.

[843] As Captain-General he was entitled to command all the land and
naval forces of the province, and by him were all officers of the
militia to be appointed. As Governor-in-chief he was a constituent part
of the General Assembly, and possessed the sole power of adjourning,
proroguing, convening, and dissolving that body. It rested with him to
approve or to veto any bill passed by the Council and the Assembly.
All officers who did not receive their warrants directly from the
Crown were appointed by him: and if vacancies occurred, by death or
removal, in offices usually filled by the immediate nomination of the
King, the appointees of the governor acted until the pleasure of the
home government was signified. He was the custodian of the Great Seal,
and as Chancellor exercised within the province powers of judicature
similar to those reposed in the High Chancellor of England. He was to
preside in the Court of Errors, composed of himself and the members
of Council as judges, hearing and determining all appeals from the
superior courts. As Ordinary, he collated to all vacant benefices,
granted probate of wills, and allowed administration upon the estates
of those dying intestate. By him were writs issued for the election
of representatives to sit in the Commons House of Assembly. As
Vice-Admiral, while he did not sit in the court of vice-admiralty,—a
judge for that court being appointed by the Crown,—in time of war he
could issue warrants to that court empowering it to grant commissions
to privateers. With him resided the ability to pardon all crimes except
treason and murder. It was optional with him to select as his residence
such locality within the limits of the province as he deemed most
convenient for the transaction of the public business, and he might
direct the General Assembly to meet at that point. He was invested with
authority, for just cause, to suspend any member of Council, and, in a
word, might “do all other necessary and proper things in such manner
and under such regulations as should, upon due consideration, appear to
be best adapted to the circumstances of the colony.” The King’s Council
was to consist of twelve members in ordinary and of two extraordinary
members. They were to be appointed by the Crown, and were to hold
office during His Majesty’s pleasure. In the absence of the governor
and lieutenant-governor, the senior member of the Council in Ordinary
administered the government. When sitting as one of the three branches
of the legislature the Council was styled the Upper House of Assembly.
It also acted as Privy Council to the governor, assisting him in the
conduct of public affairs. In this capacity the members were to convene
whenever the governor saw fit to summon them. When sitting as an Upper
House, the Council met at the same time with the Commons House of
Assembly, and was presided over by the lieutenant-governor, or, in his
absence, by the senior member present. The forms of procedure resembled
those observed in the House of Lords in Great Britain.

The qualification of an elector was the ownership of fifty acres of
land in the parish or district in which he resided and voted; that
of a representative, was the proprietorship of five hundred acres of
land in any part of the province. Writs of election were issued by
order of the Governor in Council under the Great Seal of the province,
were tested by him, and were returnable in forty days. When convened,
the Representatives were denominated the Commons House of Assembly.
Choosing its own speaker, who was presented to the governor for
approbation, this body,—composed of the immediate representatives of
the people, and conforming in its legislative and deliberative conduct
to the precedents established for the governance of the English House
of Commons,—when convened, continued its session until dissolved by
the governor. It claimed and enjoyed the exclusive right of originating
bills for the appropriation of public moneys. Thus constituted, the
Upper and Lower Houses formed the General Assembly of the province and
legislated in its behalf. Bills which passed both Houses were submitted
to the governor for his consideration. If approved by him, the Seal of
the Colony was attached, and they were duly filed. Authenticated copies
were then prepared and transmitted for the information and sanction of
the Home Government.

Provision was also made for the establishment of a “General Court,” of
a “Court of Session of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery,”
and of courts of inferior jurisdiction. There was also a “Court of
Admiralty.”

The presiding judge was styled Chief-Justice of Georgia. He was a
“barrister at law” who had attended at Westminster, was appointed by
warrant under His Majesty’s sign-manual and signet, and enjoyed a
salary of £500, raised by annual grant of Parliament. The assistant
justices were three in number. They received no salaries except on
the death or in the absence of the chief-justice, and held their
appointments from the governor.

Arrangements were also made for appointment of Collectors of
Customs, of a Register of Deeds, of a Receiver of Quit Rents, of
a Surveyor-General, of a Secretary of the Province, of a Clerk of
Council, of a Provost Marshal, of an Attorney-General, and of other
necessary officers.

The device approved for a public seal was as follows: On one face was
a figure representing the Genius of the Colony offering a skein of
silk to His Majesty, with the motto, “Hinc laudem sperate Coloni,” and
this inscription around the circumference: “Sigillum Provinciæ nostræ
Georgiæ in America.” On the other side appeared His Majesty’s arms,
crown, garter, supporters, and motto, with the inscription: “Georgius
II. Dei Gratia Britanniæ, Franciæ, et Hiberniæ Rex, Fidei Defensor,
Brunsvici et Luneburgi Dux, Sacri Romani Imperii Archi Thesaurarius et
Princeps Elector.”

[844] Cf. Chapter IV., on “Ancient Florida,” by Dr. John G. Shea, in
Vol. II.; and a chapter in Vol. I.

[845] [Sabin, xii. no. 51194; Barlow, no. 809; Carter-Brown, iii. no.
224; Brinley, no. 3911; Murphy, no. 1743; Rich (1835), p. 25. This
tract is reprinted with the plan in Force’s _Tracts_, vol. i. There is
a copy in Harvard College library [12354.7]. Coming within the grant to
Mountgomery and lying “within a day’s rowing of the English habitations
in South Carolina” are certain islands called by Sir Robert, St. Symon,
Sapella, Santa Catarina, and Ogeche, which were described in a tract
printed in London in 1720, called _A description of the Golden Islands
with an account of the undertaking now on foot for making a settlement
there_. (Cf. Carter-Brown, iii. no. 266.)

There is in Harvard College library a tract attributed to John
Burnwell, published also in 1720 in London: _An account of the
foundation and establishment of a design now on foot for a settlement
on the Golden Islands to the south of Port Royal, in Carolina_. (Sabin,
iii. no. 10955.)—ED.]

[846] [This plan is reproduced in Jones’ _History of Georgia_, vol. i.
p. 72; and in Gay’s _Pop. Hist. of the U. S._, iii. 142.—ED.]

[847] [In this separate shape this tract was a reprint with
additions from the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1872. It has a
“new map of the Cherokee nation” which it is claimed was drawn by
the Indians about 1750, with the names put in by the English. A
later map of the region about the Tennessee River above and below
Fort Loudon appeared as “A draught of the Cherokee country on the
west side of the 24 mountains, commonly called Over the hills, taken
by Henry Timberlake, when he was in that country in March, 1762:
likewise the names of the principal herdsmen of each town and what
number of fighting men they send to war” [809 in all], which appeared
in Timberlake’s _Memoirs_, 1765; and again in Jefferys’ _General
Topography of North America and West Indies_, London, 1768. A copy
of Timberlake with the map is in Harvard College library. The above
fac-simile is from Harris’s _Oglethorpe_.—ED.]

[848] [This was reviewed by Sparks in _No. Amer. Rev._, liii. p.
448.—ED.]

[849] [The story of the founding of Georgia is necessarily told in
general histories of the United States (Bancroft, Hildreth, Gay, etc.),
and in articles on Oglethorpe like those in the _Southern Quart. Rev._,
iii. 40, _Temple Bar_, 1878 (copied into _Living Age_, no. 1797), and
_All the Year Round_, xviii. 439.—ED.]

[850] [It was reprinted in London in 1733. Both editions are in
Harvard College library. It was again reprinted in the _Georgia Hist.
Soc. Collections_, i. p. 42. Cf. Carter-Brown, iii. no. 494. Grahame
(iii. 182) calls it “most ingenious and interesting, though somewhat
fancifully colored.” Sabin (_Dictionary_, xiii. nos. 56, 846) says
it is mostly taken from Salmon’s _Modern History_, 4th ed., iii. p.
700.—ED.]

[851] [It was issued in two editions in 1733; to the second was added,
beginning p. 43, among other matters a letter of Oglethorpe dated “camp
near Savannah, Feb. 10, 1732-3,” with another from Gov. Johnson, of
South Carolina. It has a plate giving a distant view of the projected
town, with emblematic accompaniments in the foreground, and the map
referred to on a previous page. There is a copy of the second issue
in Charles Deane’s collection. Cf. also Carter-Brown, iii. 511-12. A
French translation was issued at Amsterdam in 1737 in the _Recueil de
Voyages au Nord_, vol. ix., with the new map of Georgia, copied from
the English edition. The original English was reprinted in the _Georgia
Hist. Soc. Coll._, i. 203.—ED.]

[852] [When the sermon of Samuel Smith, Feb. 23, 1730-31, was printed
in 1733, he added to it _Some account of the design of the Trustees for
establishing the Colony of Georgia in America_, which was accompanied
by the map referred to in the preceding note (Carter-Brown, iii.
no. 516). The charter of Georgia, as well as those of Maryland,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts Bay, is
given in _A list of Copies of Charters from the Commissioners for Trade
and Plantations, presented to the House of Commons_, 1740 (London,
1741). It is given in English in _Mémoires des Commissaires du Roi_,
vol. iv. p. 617 (London, 1757). Cf. _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Feb.,
1883, in “The Sesqui-Centennial of the founding of Georgia.” There is
an appendix of documents in a _Report of the Committee appointed to
examine into the proceedings of the people of Georgia with respect to
South Carolina and the disputes subsisting between the two Colonies_.
Charlestown, 1737. (Carter-Brown, iii. no. 570; Brinley, ii. no. 3886
with date, 1736; the Harvard College copy is also dated, 1736.)—ED.]

[853] [It is also ascribed to Benj. Martyn. It was reprinted at
Annapolis in 1742, and is included in Force’s _Tracts_, vol. i., and
in the _Georgia Hist. Soc. Collections_, ii. p. 265. Cf. Carter-Brown,
iii. no. 685. The original is in Harvard College library. One passage
in this tract (Force’s ed., p. 37) reads: “Mr. Oglethorpe has with
him Sir Walter Rawlegh’s written journal, and by the latitude of the
place, the marks and traditions of the Indians, it is the very first
place where he went on shore, and talked with the Indians, and was the
first Indian they ever saw; and about half a mile from Savannah is a
high mount of earth, under which lies their chief king. And the Indians
informed Mr. Oglethorpe that their king desired, before he died,
that he might be buried on the spot where he talked with that great
good man.” The fact that Ralegh was never in North America somewhat
unsettles this fancy.—ED.]

[854] [It has an appendix of documents, and is reprinted in the
_Georgia Hist. Soc. Collections_, i. 153. Cf. Carter-Brown, iii. no.
686; Barlow, no. 857. A MS. note by Dr. Harris in one of the copies in
Harvard College library says that, though usually ascribed to Henry
Martyn, he has good authority for assigning its authorship to John
Percival, Earl of Egmont.—ED.]

[855] [This little volume is in Harvard College library; as is also
_Kurzgefasste Nachricht von dem Etablissement derer Salzburgischen
Emigranten zu Ebenezer, von P. G. F. von Reck_. Hamburg, 1777.—ED.]

[856] [Sabin, xiii. no. 56848.—ED.]

[857] [This tract is assigned to 1747 in the _Carter-Brown Catalogue_,
iii. no. 849, and in the Harvard College library catalogue.—ED.]

[858] [This important series of tracts, edited at Halle, in Germany,
by Samuel Urlsperger, was begun in 1734, with the general title,
_Ausführliche Nachricht von den Saltzburgischen Emigranten_. It was
reissued in 1735. Judging from the copies in Harvard College library,
both editions had the engraved portrait of Tomo-cachi, with his nephew,
and the map of Savannah County. The 1735 edition had a special title
(following the general one), _Der Ausführlichen Nachrichten von der
Königlich-Gross-Britannischen Colonie Saltzburgischer Emigranten in
America, Erster Theil_. In the “vierte continuation” of this part
there is at p. 2073 the large folding map of the county of Savannah.
With the sixth continuation a “Zweyter Theil” begins, with a general
title (1736), and a “Dritter Theil” includes continuations no. 13 to
18. This thirteenth continuation has a large folding plan of Ebenezer,
showing the Savannah River at the bottom, with a ship in it, and it
was published by Seutter in Augsburg, with a large map of the coast.
The set is rare, and the _Carter-Brown Catalogue_ (iii. no. 541) gives
a collation, and adds that “only after many years’ seeking and the
purchase of several imperfect copies” was its set completed. Harvard
College library has a set which belonged to Ebeling. (Turell’s _Life
of Colman_, 152.) Urlsperger was a correspondent of Benjamin Colman,
of Boston. Calvary, of Berlin, had for sale in 1885 the correspondence
of Samuel Urlsperger with Fresenius, 1738-56 (29 letters), held at 100
marks.

There is a supplemental work in four volumes, printed at Augsburg in
1754-60, bringing the journal down to 1760, _Americanisches Ackerwerk
Gottes_. It is also in Harvard College library, and contains the
mezzotint portrait of Bolzius, the senior minister of Ebenezer, which
is engraved on wood in Gay’s _Pop. Hist. of the U. S._, iii. 155.
Harvard College library has also a part of the journal, with the same
title (Augsburg, 1760), which seems to belong chronologically after the
third part. (Cf. _Brinley Catalogue_, no. 3926.)

Other illustrative publications may be mentioned: _Kurtze Relation aus
denen aus Engelland erhaltenen Briefen von denen nach Georgien gehenden
zweyten Transport Saltzburgischer Emigranten_ (cf. Leclerc, _Bibl.
Americana_, 1867, no. 1512; Harrassowitz, ‘81, no. 119). _Auszug der
sichern und nützlichen Nachrichten von dem Englischen America besonders
von Carolina und der fruchtbaren Landschaft Georgia_, etc. ... von D.
Manuel Christian Löber, Jena, without year.

Fred. Muller (_Books on America_, 1877, no. 1679) notes C. D.
Kleinknecht’s _Zuverlässige Nachricht von der schwarzen Schaaf-
und Lämmer-Heerde_, Augsburg, 1749, as containing in an appendix
_Nachrichten von den Colonisten Georgiens zu Eben-Ezer in
America_.—ED.]

[859] [This has a lithograph of the Bolzius likeness in the
Urlsperger Tracts. Dr. Sprague (_American Pulpit_, vol. ix. p. vi.)
calls the Salzburger settlement the fourth in order of the Lutheran
immigrations into the English colonies. The same volume contains a
notice of Bolzius by Strobel.—ED.]

[860] [Cf. Field, _Ind. Bibliog._, no. 1085; Sabin, xii. p. 336;
Carter-Brown, iii. no. 776. It is reprinted in the _Georgia Hist.
Soc. Collections_, vol. i. A London dealer, F. S. Ellis (1884, no.
204), priced a copy at £7 10_s._ Three other contemporaneous tracts of
no special historical value may here be mentioned: _A New Voyage to
Georgia, by a Young Gentleman_, etc., to which are added, _A Curious
Account of the Indians, by an Honourable Person_ [Oglethorpe], and _A
Poem to James Oglethorpe, Esq., on his arrival from Georgia_, London,
1735, with a second edition in 1737; _A Description of the famous
new Colony of Georgia in South Carolina_, etc., Dublin, 1734; and _A
Description of Georgia by a Gentleman who has resided there upwards
of seven years, and was one of the first settlers_, London, 1741.
This last (8 pp. only) is included in Force’s _Tracts_, vol. ii. Cf.
Carter-Brown, iii. nos. 536, 562. It is in Harvard College library.—ED.]

[861] [The work is in three volumes, the second containing “A state of
that Province [Georgia] as attested upon oath in the Court of Savannah,
Nov. 10, 1740.” (Cf. Carter-Brown, iii. 720.) There is a copy in
Harvard College library.—ED.]

[862] [For some years at least yearly statements of the finances were
printed, as noted in a later note in connection with Burton’s sermon.
A single broadside giving such a statement is preserved in Harvard
College library [12343.4]; and in the same library is a folio tract
called _The General Account of all Monies and Effects_, etc., London,
1736. This is in good part reprinted in Bishop Perry’s _Hist. of the
American Episcopal Church_, i. 360.—ED.]

[863] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 714.

[864] [Haven’s _Ante-Revolutionary Publications_ in Thomas’s _Hist.
of Printing_, ii. p. 478. The main portion of this report is given in
Carroll’s _Hist. Coll. of So. Carolina_, ii. p. 348.—ED.]

[865] [The author of this tract was George Cadogan, a lieutenant in
Oglethorpe’s regiment. It induced the author of the _Impartial Account_
to print _A Full Reply to Lieut. Cadogan’s Spanish Hireling, and Lieut.
Mackay’s Letter concerning the Action at Moosa_, London, 1743. Cf.
Carter-Brown, iii. nos. 731-32; Sabin, xiii. no. 56845. Both tracts
are in Harvard College library. Two other tracts pertain to this
controversy: _Both sides of the question: an inquiry_] _into a certain
doubtful character_ [Oglethorpe] lately whitened by a C——t M——l,
which passed to a second edition; and _The Hireling Artifice detected_,
London, 1742.—ED.

[866] [There are various references to this expedition in Jones’
_Georgia_, i. p. 335, and in his _Dead Towns_, p. 91. Watt mentions a
_Journal of an Expedition to the gates of St. Augustine conducted by
General Oglethorpe_, by G. L. Campbell, London, 1744.—ED.]

[867] [Cf. references in the _Dead Towns of Georgia_, p. 114, and
more at length in Jones’ _Georgia_, i. 335, 353. There is a plan of
Frederica in the _Dead Towns_, p. 45.—ED.]

[868] [Carter-Brown, iii. no. 686. No. 707 of the same catalogue
is a _Journal received Feb. 4, 1741, by the Trustees, from William
Stevens, Secretary_; and in Harvard College library is the _Resolution
of the Trustees, March 8, 1741, relating to the grants and tenure of
lands_.—ED.]

[869] [Carter-Brown, iii. no. 706. Harvard College library catalogue
ascribes this to Patrick Graham.—ED.]

[870] [Reprinted in the _Georgia Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii. p. 87; cf.
Barlow’s _Rough List_, nos. 873-74. This book, which has an appendix
of documents, is assigned to Thomas Stephens in the Harvard College
library catalogue. A two-leaved folio tract in Harvard College library,
called _The Hard Case of the distressed people of Georgia_, dated at
London, Apr. 26, 1742, is signed by Stephens.—ED.]

[871] [It was reprinted in London, 1741, and is included in Force’s
_Tracts_, vol. i., and in _Georgia Hist. Coll._, vol. ii. p. 163. Cf.
Carter-Brown, iii. no. 696; Brinley, no. 3922; Barlow, no. 859. There
is a copy in Harvard College library. F. S. Ellis, of London (1884, no.
106), prices it at £3 5_s._—ED.]

[872] [Tyler (_Amer. Lit._, ii. 292), on the contrary, says of this
book: “Within a volume of only one hundred and twelve pages is
compressed a masterly statement of the author’s alleged grievances at
the hands of Oglethorpe. The book gives a detailed and even documentary
account of the rise of the colony, and its quick immersion in suffering
and disaster, through Oglethorpe’s selfishness, greed, despotism, and
fanatic pursuit of social chimeras.... Whatever may be the truth or the
justice of this book, it is abundantly interesting, and if any one has
chanced to find the prevailing rumor of Oglethorpe somewhat nauseating
in its sweetness, he may here easily allay their unpleasant effect.
Certainly as a polemic it is one of the most expert pieces of writing
to be met with in our early literature. It never blusters or scolds. It
is always cool, poised, polite, and merciless.”—ED.]

[873] Among those which have been preserved are sermons, by Samuel
Smith, LL. B., 1731; by John Burton, B. D., 1732; by Thomas Rundle,
LL. D., 1733; by Stephen Hales, D. D., 1734; by George Watts, 1735; by
Philip Bearcroft, D. D., 1737; by William Berriman, D. D., 1738; by
Edmund Bateman, D. D., 1740; by William Best, D. D., 1741; by James
King, D. D., 1742; by Lewis Bruce, A. M., 1743; by Philip Bearcroft, D.
D., 1744; by Glocester Ridley, LL. B., 1745; and by Thomas Francklin,
M. A., 1749. [Cf. Carter-Brown, iii. nos. 515, 528, 530, 572, 598.
Burton’s sermon (London, 1733) has appended to it, beginning p. 33,
“The general account of all the monies and effects received and
expended by the trustees for establishing the Colony of Georgia ... for
one whole year, 1732-33.” A list of these sermons is given in Perry’s
_American Episcopal Church_, vol. i.—ED.]

[874] [They are described in a report of the Georgia Historical
Society.—ED.]

[875] They were sold in London in July, 1881, by Mr. Henry Stevens;
and, although the State of Georgia was importuned to become the
purchaser of them, the General Assembly declined to act, and the
volumes passed into other hands, but have recently been given to the
State by Mr. J. S. Morgan, the London banker. [Cf. Stevens, _Hist.
Collections_, i. p. 34. Mr. Stevens also gives in his _Bibliotheca
Geographica_, no. 2618, some curious information about other MSS. in
England, being records kept by William Stephens, the Secretary of the
Colony, which are now at Thirlstane House, Cheltenham. A Report of the
Attorney and Solicitor General to the Lords of Trade, on the proposal
of the Trustees of Georgia to surrender their trust to the Crown, dated
Feb. 6, 1752, is noted in vol. 61 of the Shelburne MSS., as recorded
in the _Fifth Report of the Hist. MSS. Commission_, p. 230; and also,
a Report of the same officer on the properest method of administering
the government after the surrender. The opinion of the attorney and
solicitor-general on the king’s prerogative to receive the charter of
Georgia (1751) is given in Chalmers’ _Opinions of Eminent Lawyers_, i.
p. 34.—ED.]

[876] [This Society was organized in Dec., 1839. Cf. _Amer. Quart.
Reg._, xii. 344; _Southern Quart. Rev._, iii. 40; _The Georgia Hist.
Soc., its founders, patrons, and friends_, an address by C. C. Jones,
Jr., Savannah, 1881; _Proceedings at the dedication of Hodgson Hall_,
1876.—ED.]

[877] Volume I. (1840) contains the anniversary address of the
Hon. William Law, February 12, 1840, reviewing the early history of the
province; reprints of Oglethorpe’s _New and Accurate Account of the
Provinces of South Carolina and Georgia_; of Francis Moore’s _Voyage
to Georgia begun in the year 1735_; of _An Impartial Inquiry into the
State and Utility of the Province of Georgia_, and of _Reasons for
Establishing the Colony of Georgia with regard to the Trade of Great
Britain_; together with the Hon. Thomas Spalding’s _Sketch of the life
of General James Oglethorpe_.

Volume II. (1842) contains the Historical Discourse of William Bacon
Stevens, M. D., and reprints of _A New Voyage to Georgia_, &c.; of
_A State of the Province of Georgia attested upon Oath in the Court
of Savannah, November 10, 1740_; of _A Brief Account of the causes
that have retarded the progress of the Colony of Georgia_, &c.; of _A
true and historical Narrative of the Colony of Georgia in America_,
&c., by Patrick Tailfer, M. D., Hugh Anderson, M. A., David Douglass,
and others; and of _An Account showing the Progress of the Colony of
Georgia in America from its first establishment_, &c.

Volume III., part i., consists of _A Sketch of the Creek Country in
the years 1798 and 1799_, by Colonel Benjamin Hawkins, with a valuable
introduction by the late William B. Hodgson.

Volume III. (1873) contains letters from General Oglethorpe to the
Trustees and others, covering a period from October, 1735, to August,
1744,—a report of Governor Sir James Wright to Lord Dartmouth,
dated September 20th, 1773, exhibiting the condition of the Colony
of Georgia,—letters from Governor Wright to the Earl of Dartmouth
and Lord George Germain, from August 24th, 1774, to February 16th,
1782:—an Anniversary Address of Colonel Charles C. Jones, Jr., on the
life, services, and death of Count Casimir Pulaski,—and an Address by
Dr. Richard D. Arnold commemorative of the organization of the Georgia
Historical Society and of the Savannah Library Association.

Volume IV. (1878) contains _The Dead Towns of Georgia_, by Charles C.
Jones, Jr. (also published separately), and _Itinerant Observations in
America_, reprinted from the London Magazine of 1745-6. In the _Dead
Towns of Georgia_ the author perpetuates the almost forgotten memories
of Old and New Ebenezer, of Frederica, of Abercorn, of Sunbury, of
Hardwick, of Petersburg, and of lesser towns and plantations, once
vital and influential, but now covered with the mantle of decay. This
contribution embraces a large portion of the early history of the
province, and recounts the vicissitudes and the mistakes encountered
during the epoch of colonization. It is illustrated with engraved plans
of New Ebenezer, Frederica, Sunbury, Fort Morris, and Hardwick, and
revives traditions and recollections of persons and places which had
become quite forgotten.

To the _Itinerant Observations in America_ the student will turn with
pleasure for early impressions of the province, and especially of its
southern confines.

[878]

  1. Plan of Ebenezer and its fort.
  2. Plan of Savannah and fortifications.
  3. Chart of Savannah Sound.
  4. Plan and profile of Fort George on Coxpur Island.
  5. Environs of Fort Barrington.
  6. Plan and view of Fort Barrington.

[The plan of Ebenezer is also reproduced by Col. Jones in his _Dead
Towns_ and in his _Hist. of Georgia_.—ED.]


[879] [This series is thus entered in the Harvard College library
catalogue:—

Wormsloe quartos. Edited by G. Wymberley-Jones De Renne. 5 vol.
Wormsloe, Ga. 1847-81. 4^o; and sm. f^o, _large paper_. _Namely_:—

i. [WALTON, G., _and others_.] Observations upon the effects of certain
late political suggestions. By the delegates of Georgia [G. Walton, W.
Few, R. Howly]. 1847. 4^o. First printed at Philadelphia in 1781. 21
copies reprinted: with a reproduction of the original title-page.

ii. DE BRAHM, J. G. W. History of the province of Georgia. 1849. 4^o.
6 _maps_. 49 copies privately printed from a part of a manuscript in
Harvard College library, entitled: “History of the three provinces,
South Carolina, Georgia, and east Florida.”

iii. PINCKNEY, _Mrs._ E. (L.). Journal and letters [July 1, 1739-Feb.
27, 1762. Edited by Mrs. H. P. Holbrook.] Now first printed. 1850. 4^o.
“Privately printed. Limited to 19 copies.”

iv. SARGENT, W. Diary [relating to St. Clair’s expedition. 1791]. Now
first printed. 1851. “Privately printed. Limited to 46 copies.”

v. GEORGIA (_Colony of_)—_General Assembly._ Acts passed by the
assembly. 1755-74. Now first printed. [Prepared for publication by C.
C. Jones, Jr.] 1881. f^o. “Privately printed. Limited to 49 copies.”
“The materials for this work were obtained from the public record
office in London, by the late G. Wymberley-Jones De Renne, who intended
himself to prepare them for the press.”

Cf. Sabin, ii. no. 7325.—ED.]

[880] [The lives of Wesley as touching this early experience of his
life, as well as illustrating a moral revolution, which took within its
range all the English colonies during the period of the present volume,
may properly be characterized here:—

The introduction to Rigg’s _Living Wesley_ is devoted to a criticism
of the different accounts of John Wesley, and the student will
find further bibliographical help in a paper on “Wesley and his
biographers,” by W. C. Hoyt in the _Methodist Quarterly_, vol. viii.;
in the article in Allibone’s _Dict. of Authors_; in Decanver’s
[Cavender _pseud._] list of books, written in refutation of Methodism;
and in the list of authorities given by Southey in his _Life of Wesley_.

Wesley left three literary executors,—Coke, Moore, and Whitehead, his
physician; and his journals and papers were put into the hands of the
last named. Coke and Moore, however, acting independently, were the
first to publish a hasty memoir, and Whitehead followed in 1793-96;
but his proved to be the work of a theological partisan. A memoir by
Hampton was ready when Wesley died, but it turned out to be very meagre.

Next came the life by Southey in 1820. He had no sources of information
beyond the printed material open to all; but he had literary skill
to make the most of it, and appreciation enough of his subject to
elevate Wesley’s standing in the opinion of such as were outside of his
communion. He accordingly made an account of a great moral revolution,
which has been by no means superseded in popular usefulness.

Now followed a number of lives intended to correct the representations
of previous biographers, and in some cases to offer views more
satisfactory to the Methodists themselves. Moore, in 1824, found
something to correct in the accounts of both Whitehead and Southey.
Watson, in 1831, aimed to displace what Southey had said unsatisfactory
to the sect, and to correct Southey’s chronological order; but he made
his narrative slight and incomplete. Southey was, however, chiefly
relied upon by Mrs. Oliphant in her sketch, first in _Blackwood’s
Mag._, Oct., 1868, and later in her _Hist. Sketches of the Reign of
George II._; but while Dr. Rigg acknowledges it to be clever, he calls
it full of misconceptions. Mrs. Julia Wedgwood, in her _John Wesley and
the Evangelical Reaction of the Eighteenth Century_ (London, 1870),
relied so much on Southey, as the Methodists say, that she neglected
later information; but she so far accorded with the general estimation
of Wesley in the denomination as to reject Southey’s theory of his
ambition.

In the general histories of English Methodism, Wesley necessarily plays
a conspicuous part, and their authors are among the most important
of his biographers. The first volume of George Smith’s history was
in effect a life of Wesley, though somewhat incomplete as such; but
in Abel Stevens’s opening volumes the story is told more completely
and with graphic skill. There is an excellent account of these days
in chapter 19 of Earl Stanhope’s _History of England_, and a careful
summary is given in the fourth volume of the _Pictorial History of
England_.

The relations which Wesley sustained throughout to the Established
Church have been discussed in the _London Quarterly Review_ by the Rev.
W. Arthur, and by Dr. James H. Rigg, the contribution by the latter
being subsequently enlarged in a separate book, _The relations of John
Wesley and of Wesleyan Methodism to the Church of England, investigated
and determined_. 2d edition, revised and enlarged. London, 1871.
See also _British Quarterly Review_, Oct., 1871, and the _Contemp.
Review_, vol. xxviii. Curteis, in his Bampton lectures, goes over the
ground also. Urlin, _John Wesley’s place in Church History_ (1871),
prominently claimed that Wesley was a revivalist in the church, and not
a dissenter, and aimed to add to our previous knowledge. A Catholic
view of him is given by Dr. J. G. Shea in the _Amer. Cath. Quart.
Rev._, vii. p. 1.

The most extensive narrative, considering Wesley in all his relations,
private as well as public, the result of seventeen years’ labor, with
the advantage of much new material, is the _Life and Times of Wesley_,
by Tyerman. It is, however, far too voluminous for the general reader.
He is not blind to Wesley’s faults, and some Methodists say he is not
in sufficient sympathy with the reformer to do him justice.

Those who wish compacter estimates of the man, with only narrative
enough to illustrate them, will find such in Taylor’s _Wesley and
Methodism_, where the philosophy of the movement is discussed; in
Rigg’s _Living Wesley_, which is a condensed generalization of his
life, not without some new matter; and in Dr. Hamilton’s article in
the _North British Review_, which was kindly in tone, but not wholly
satisfactory to the Methodists.

There is a well-proportioned epitome of his life by Lelièvre in French,
of which there is an English translation, _John Wesley, his Life and
Work_, London, 1871. Janes has made _Wesley his own historian_, by a
collocation of his journals, letters, etc., and his journals have been
separately printed. There is a separate narrative of Wesley’s early
love, _Narrative of a remarkable Transaction_, etc. A paper on his
character and opinions in earlier life is in the _London Quart. Rev._,
vol. xxxvii. On his mission to Georgia, see David Bogue and James
Bennett’s _History of Dissenters from 1688 to 1808,_ London, 1808-12,
in 4 volumes, vol. iii.; and the note on his trouble with Oglethorpe in
Grahame’s _United States_ (Boston ed., iii. p. 201).

Lesser accounts and miscellaneous material will be found in Clarke’s
_Memoirs of the Wesley Family_; in Gorrie’s _Eminent Methodist
Ministers_; in Larrabee’s _Wesley and his Coadjutors_; in Sprague’s
_Annals of the American Pulpit_, v. 94; in J. B. Hagany’s paper in
_Harper’s Magazine_, vol. xix.; in the _Galaxy_, Feb., 1874; in the
_Contemporary Review_, 1875 and 1876; in Madame Ossoli’s _Methodism
at the Fountain_, in her _Art, Literature, and Drama_; and in W. M.
Punshon’s _Lectures_.

See also Nichols’s _Literary Anecdotes_, vol. v.; Malcolm’s _Index_,
and numerous references in Poole’s _Index to Periodical Literature_, p.
1398.

Tyerman’s _Oxford Methodists_ uses the material he was forced to leave
out of his Life of Wesley.

The portraits of Wesley are numerous. Tyerman gives the earliest known;
and it was taken (1743) nearer the time of his Georgia visit than any
other which we have. J. C. Smith in his _British Mezzotint Portraits_
enumerates a series (vol. i. pp. 64, 442; ii. 600, 692, 773; iii. 1365;
iv. 1545, 1748).—ED.]

[881] [Cf. the view of the building given in Stevens’ _Georgia_, p.
352.—ED.]

[882] [Whitefield’s labors in Georgia are summarized in Tyerman’s
_Life of Whitefield_, London, 1876, with references; and other
references are in Poole’s _Index to Periodical Lit._, p. 1406. Bishop
Perry, in his _Hist. of the American Episcopal Church_, gives the
bibliography of Whitefield’s Journals, and a chapter on “The Wesleys
and George Whitefield in Georgia.” An account by Bishop Beckwith of
the Orphan House is contained in the same work. Foremost among the
opponents of Whitefield was Alexander Garden, an Episcopal clergyman
in Charleston, who lived in the colony from 1720 to his death in
1756. As the Commissary of the Bishop of London, the constructive
ecclesiastical head of the colonies, he brought much power to aid his
pronounced opinions, and he prosecuted Whitefield with vigor both in
the ecclesiastical court and in the desk. In 1743 Garden reviewed his
course in a letter [_N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, xxiv. 117] in which
he says: “Bad also is the present state of the poor Orphan House in
Georgia,—that land of lies, and from which we have no truth but what
they can neither disguise nor conceal. The whole Colony is accounted
here one great lie, from the beginning to this day; and the Orphan
House, you know, is a part of the whole,—a scandalous bubble.”—ED.]

[883] [Reprinted with editorial annotations and corrections of errors
in B. R. Carroll’s _Hist. Collections of South Carolina_, New York,
1836, vol. i.—ED.]

[884] [This name is variously spelled Hewatt, Hewat, Hewitt, and Hewit.
Cf. Drayton’s _View of So. Carolina_, p. 175.—ED.]

[885] [Cf. Sabin, x. no. 42973; Field, _Indian Bibliog._, no. 972.—ED.]

[886] [Mr. Geo. R. Gilmer, in an address in 1851 on the _Literary
Progress of Georgia_, said of McCall’s history, “A few actors in the
scenes described read it on its first appearance; it was then laid
upon the shelf, seldom to be taken from it. Ten years afterwards Bevan
collected materials for the purpose of improving what McCall had
executed indifferently. He received so little sympathy or aid in his
undertaking that he never completed it.”—ED.]

[887] [A severe criticism appeared in _Observations on Dr. Stevens’s
History of Georgia_, Savannah, 1849. C. K. Adams’ _Manual of Historical
Reference_, p. 559, takes a favorable view. Hildreth (ii. 371) speaks
of Stevens as a “judicious historian, who has written from very full
materials.”—ED.]

[888] [In two volumes. It passed to a second and third edition. Pickett
is spoken of as a private gentleman and planter of Alabama, in the
enjoyment of wealth and leisure when he wrote his history, bringing to
his task a manly industry and generous enthusiasm. He was fortunate in
being able to procure much material which had been hitherto inedited;
manuscripts of early adventurers in the territory, who were traders
among the red men, and in some cases the testimony of the red men
themselves. _Southern Quarterly Review_, Jan., 1852.—ED.]

       *       *       *       *       *

PORTRAITS OF OGLETHORPE. The likeness given on a preceding page
follows a print by Burford, after a painting by Ravenet, of which a
reduction is given in John C. Smith’s _British Mezzotint Portraits_,
p. 128. There is a note on the portrait of Oglethorpe in the _Magazine
of American History_, 1883, p. 138. See the cut in Bishop Perry’s
_American Episcopal Church_, i. 336.

The head and shoulders of this Burford print are given in the histories
of Georgia by Stevens and Jones; and in Gay’s _Popular History of
the United States_, iii. 143; Cassell’s _United States_, i. 481.
The expression of the face seems to be a hard one to catch, for the
engravings have little likeness to one another.

The medal-likeness is given in Harris’s _Oglethorpe_, together with the
arms of Oglethorpe.

There is beside the very familiar full-length profile view,
representing Oglethorpe as a very old man, sitting at the sale of
Dr. Johnson’s library, which is given in some editions of Boswell’s
_Johnson_; in White’s _Historical Collections of Georgia_, 117; in
Harris’s _Oglethorpe_; in Gay’s _Popular History of the United States_,
iii. 165; in the _Magazine of American History_, February, 1883, p.
111; in Dr. Edward Eggleston’s papers on the English Colonies in the
_Century Magazine_, and in various other places.—ED.

[889] Hutchinson, _History of Massachusetts Bay_, ii. 95.

[890] The articles of capitulation are in Hutchinson’s _History
of Massachusetts Bay_, ii. 182-184; and the first volume of the
_Collections of the Nova Scotia Historical Society_ contains an ample
collection of documents connected with the capture of Port Royal,
obtained from the State-Paper Office in London, and covering forty-six
printed pages.

[891] _Selections from the Public Documents of the Province of Nova
Scotia_, pp. 5, 6.

[892] [A description of Nova Scotia in 1720 was transmitted to the
Lords of Trade by Paul Mascarene, engineer. It is given in the
_Selections from the Pub. Docs. of Nova Scotia_, p. 39.—ED.]

[893] [There is a portrait of Waldo in Jos. Williamson’s _Hist. of
Belfast, Me._, p. 44.—ED.]

[894] _History of Massachusetts Bay_, ii. 371.

[Views of this sort regarding the prudence or apathy of Rhode Island
were current at the time, and Gov. Wanton, in a letter to the agent of
that colony in London, Dec. 20, 1745 (_R. I. Col. Records_, v. 145),
sets forth a justification. Mr. John Russell Bartlett, in a chapter of
his naval history of Rhode Island (_Historical Mag._, xviii. 24, 94),
claims that the position of the colony has been misrepresented.—ED.]

[895] [For authorities, see _post_, p. 448.—ED.]

[896] Letter to the Duke of Bedford in _Selections from the Public
Documents of the Province of Nova Scotia_, p. 560.

[897] July 17, 1750, a proclamation was ordered to be published
“against the retailing of spirituous liquors without a license.” August
28th, a second proclamation was ordered to be published, and “a penalty
be added of 20 shillings sterling for each offence, to be paid to the
informers, and that all retailers of liquors be forbid on the same
penalty to entertain any company after nine at night.” In the following
February, it was “Resolved, that over and above the penalties declared
by former Acts of council, any person convicted of selling spirituous
liquors without the governor’s license, shall for the first offence sit
in the pillory or stocks for one hour, and for the second offence shall
receive twenty lashes.”—_Selections from the Public Documents_, pp.
570, 579, 603.

[898] _Ibid._, p. 710.

[899] _Selections from the Public Documents of Nova Scotia_, p. 266.

[900] Winslow’s Journal in _Collections of Nova Scotia Historical
Society_, iii. 94, 95.

[901] Winslow’s Journal in _Collections of Nova Scotia Historical
Society_, iii. 98.

[902] _Selections from the Public Documents of Nova Scotia_, pp. 302,
303.

[903] _Ibid._, pp. 329-334.

[904] _Selections from the Public Documents of the Province of Nova
Scotia. Published under a Resolution of the House of Assembly, passed
March 15, 1865. Edited by Thomas B. Akins, D. C. L., Commissioner of
Public Records. The Translations from the French by Benj. Curren, D. C.
L._ Halifax, N. S., 1869. 8vo, pp. 755. [See further in Editorial Notes
following the present chapter.—ED.]

[905] [This journal had already been printed in the _N. E. Hist. and
Geneal. Reg._, Oct., 1879, p. 383.]

[906] _Report and Collections of the Nova Scotia Historical Society._
Vols. i.-iv. Halifax: Printed at the Morning Herald Office. 1879-1885.
8vo, pp. 140, 160, 208, 258.

[907] _A History of Nova Scotia, or Acadie._ By Beamish Murdoch, Esq.,
Q. C. Halifax, N. S. 1865-1867. 3 vols. 8vo, pp. xv. and 543, xiv. and
624, xxiii. and 613.

[908] _The History of Acadia, from its first Discovery to its Surrender
to England by the Treaty of Paris._ By James Hannay. St. John, N. B.,
1879. 8vo, pp. vii. and 440.

[909] _Nova Scotia, in its Historical, Mercantile, and Industrial
Relations._ By Duncan Campbell. Halifax, N. S. Montreal, 1873. 8vo, pp.
548.

[910] _A History of the County of Pictou, Nova Scotia._ By the Rev.
George Patterson, D. D. Montreal, 1877. 8vo, pp. 471.

[911] See _post_ for fac-simile of title-page.

[912] We encounter Gyles frequently as commander of posts in the
eastern country. He lived latterly at Roxbury, Mass., and published at
Boston, in 1736, _Memoirs of the odd adventures, strange deliverances,
etc., in the captivity of John Gyles, Esq., Commander of the garrison
on St. George’s River_. This book is of great rarity. There is a copy
in Harvard College library [5315.14] and a defective one in the Mass.
Hist. Soc. library (_Catalogue_, p. 553). One is noted in S. G. Drake’s
_Sale Catalogue_, 1845, which seems also to have been imperfect. Drake
in reprinting the book in his _Tragedies of the Wilderness_, Boston,
1846 (p. 73), altered the text throughout. It was perhaps Drake’s copy
which is noted in the _Brinley Catalogue_, i. no. 476, selling for $37.
It was again reprinted in Cincinnati, by William Dodge, in 1869, but
he followed Drake’s disordered text. (Cf. Carter-Brown, iii. no. 547;
_Mem. Hist. Boston_, ii. 336; Church, _Entertaining Passages_, Dexter’s
ed., ii. 163, 203; Johnston, _Bristol, Bremen, and Pemaquid_, 183; J.
A. Vinton’s _Gyles Family_, 122; _N. E. Hist. Geneal. Reg._, Jan.,
1867, p. 49; Oct., 1867, p. 361.)

[913] Shea’s _Charlevoix_, iv. 171.

[914] See Vol. IV. p. 62.

[915] There were two governors of Canada of this name, who must not be
confounded. This was the earlier.

[916] L’Abbé J. A. Maurault, _Histoire des Abénakis_, 1866; chapters
9-15 cover “Les Abénakis en Canada et en Acadie, 1701-1755.”

[917] John Marshall’s diary under March, 1707, notes the disinclination
of the people to agree with the determination of the General Court to
make a descent on Port Royal. (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, April, 1884,
p. 159.) There are in the _Collection de Manuscrits_, etc. (Quebec,
1884), two papers on this matter: one dated Port Royal, June 26, 1707,
“Entreprise des Anglois contre l’Acadie” (vol. ii. p. 464); the other
dated July 6, “Entreprise des Bastonnais sur l’Acadie par M. Labat” (p.
477).

[918] Colonels Hutchinson and Townsend, and John Leverett. Letters from
the latter respecting the expedition are in C. E. Leverett’s _Memoir of
John Leverett_, and in Quincy’s _Hist. of Harvard Univ._ Cf. Sibley’s
_Harvard Graduates_, iii. 185, 197; Marshall’s diary in _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, April, 1884, p. 159.

[919] Hannay (_Acadia_, 269) judges Charlevoix’s stories of
hand-to-hand fighting as largely fabulous. Hutchinson (ii. 134) prints
a letter from Wainwright, who had succeeded March in command, in which
the sorry condition of the men is set forth.

[920] These tracts are: _A Memorial of the Present Deplorable State
of New England, with the many disadvantages it lyes under by the
mall-administration of their present Governor, Joseph Dudley, Esq.,
and his son Paul ... to which is added a faithful but melancholy
account of several barbarities by the French and Indians in the east
and west parts of New England, Printed in the year 1707, and sold ...
in Boston_. Two things seem clear: that Cotton Mather incited, perhaps
wrote, this tract, and that the printing was done in London. It is not
known that there is a copy in this country, and the reprint was made
from one in the British Museum.

Dudley or some friend rejoined in the second tract, not without
violent recriminations upon Mather: _A modest enquiry into the grounds
and occasions of a late pamphlet intituled a Memorial, etc. By a
disinterested hand_. London, 1707. (Carter-Brown, iii. no. 99; Murphy,
i. 327.)

The third tract touches particularly the present expedition: _The
Deplorable State of New England, by reason of a covetous and
treacherous Governor and pusillanimous Counsellors, ... to which is
added an account of the shameful miscarriage of the late expedition
against Port Royal_. London, 1708. (Harv. Coll. library, 10396.80; and
Carter-Brown, iii. no. 115.) This tract was reprinted in Boston in
1720. _The North Amer. Rev._ (iii. 305) says that this pamphlet was
thought to have been written by the Rev. John Higginson, of Salem,
at the age of ninety-two; but the “A. H.” of the preface is probably
Alexander Holmes. (Sabin, v. 19,639.) Palfrey (iv. 304, etc.) thinks
that its smartness and pedantry indicate rather Cotton Mather or John
Wise (Brinley, i., no. 285) as the author.

[921] Stevens, _Bibliotheca Geog._, no. 887; Field, _Indian Bibliog._,
no. 428; Brinley, i. no. 83; Sabin, v. 20,128. The Boston Public
Library has a Rouen edition of 1708. The Carter-Brown (iii. 109, 137)
has both editions, as has Mr. Barlow (_Rough List_, nos. 784, 789,
790). The full title of the Rouen edition is: _Relation du voyage du
Port Royal de l’Acadie ou de la Nouvelle France, dans laquelle on
voit un détail des divers mouvements de la mer dans une traversée de
long cours; la description du Païs, les occupations des François qui
y sont établis, les manières des différentes nations sauvages, leurs
superstitions et leurs chasses, avec une dissertation exacte sur le
Castor. Ensuite de la relation, on y a ajouté le détail d’un combat
donné entre les François et les Acadiens contre les Anglois_.

[922] Jeremiah Dummer’s memorial, Sept. 10, 1709, setting forth that
the French possessions on the river of Canada do of right belong to the
Crown of Great Britain. (_Mass. Hist. Coll._, xxi. 231.)

[923] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 823.

[924] Cf. _Doc. Col. Hist. N. Y._, v. 72; _N. E. H. and Gen. Reg._,
1870, p. 129, etc.

[925] Palfrey, iv. 275, quotes Sunderland’s instructions to Dudley from
the British Colonial Papers. The proclamation which the British agents
issued on their arrival, with Dudley’s approval, is in the _Mass.
Archives_. Vetch had as early as 1701 been engaged in traffic up the
St. Lawrence. Cf. _Journal of the voyage of the sloop Mary from Quebec,
1701, with introduction and notes by E. B. O’Callaghan_, Albany, 1866.
Through this and other adventures he had acquired a knowledge of the
river; and in pursuance of such traffic he had gained some enmity, and
had at one time been fined £200 for trading with the French. It was in
1706 that William Rouse, Samuel Vetch, John Borland, and others were
arrested on this charge. (_Mass. Hist. Coll._, xviii. 240.)

[926] Hutchinson, ii. 161; Barry, _Mass._, ii. 98, and references;
Charlevoix (Shea’s), v. 222.

[927] Bearing an address to the queen, asking for assistance in another
attempt the next year. (_Mass. Archives_, xx. 119, 124.)

[928] Some documents relative to the equipment are given in the _N. E.
Hist. and Gen. Reg._, 1876, p. 196. Dudley (July 31, 1710) notified the
New Hampshire assembly of the provisions to be made for the expedition.
_N. H. Prov. Papers_, iii. p. 435.

[929] The Rev. George Patterson, D. D., of New Glasgow, N. S.,
contributed in 1885 to the _Eastern Chronicle_, published in that
town, a series of papers on “Samuel Vetch, first English governor of
Nova Scotia.” Cf. also J. G. Wilson on “Samuel Vetch, governor of
Acadia” in _International Review_, xi. 462; and _The Scot in British
North America_ (Toronto, 1880), i. p. 288. There is also in the _Nova
Scotia Historical Collections_, vol. iv., a memoir of Samuel Vetch by
Dr. Patterson, including papers of his administration in Nova Scotia,
1710-13, with Paul Mascarene’s narrative of events at Annapolis, Oct.,
1710 to Sept., 1711, dated at Boston, Nov. 6, 1713; as also a “journal
of a voyage designed to Quebeck from Boston, July, 1711,” in Sir
Hovenden Walker’s expedition. (See the following chapter.)

[930] Sabin, ix. p. 525; Harv. Col. lib., 6374.12. The general
authorities on the French side are Charlevoix (Shea’s), v. 224, 227,
etc., with references, including some strictures on Charlevoix’s
account, by De Gannes. An estimate of Subercase by Vaudreuil is in
_N. Y. Col. Doc._, ix. 853. Cf. Garneau’s _Canada_ (1882), ii. 42;
E. Rameau, _Une Colonie féodale en Amerique—L’Acadie_, 1604-1710
(Paris, 1877); Célestin Moreau, _L’Acadie Française_, 1598-1755, ch.
10 (Paris, 1873). The English side is in Penhallow, p. 59; Hutchinson,
ii. 165; Haliburton, i. 85; Williamson, ii. 59; Palfrey, iv. 277;
Barry, ii. 100, with references; Hannay, 272; _Mem. Hist. Boston_,
ii. 105. Nicholson’s demand for surrender (Oct. 3), Subercase’s reply
(Oct. 12), the latter’s report to the French minister, and a paper,
“Moyens de reprendre l’Acadie” (St. Malo, Jan. 10, 1711), are in
_Collection de Manuscrits_ (Quebec, 1884), ii. pp. 523, 525, 528,
532. There is in the cabinet of the Mass. Hist. Soc. (_Misc. Papers_,
41.41) a diagram showing the plan of sailing for the armed vessels
and the transports on this expedition, with a list of the signals
to be used, and instructions to the commanders of the transports.

[Illustration]

Major Livingstone, accompanied by the younger Castine, was soon sent
by way of the Penobscot to Quebec to acquaint Vaudreuil, the French
governor, on behalf of both Nicholson and Subercase, with the capture
of Port Royal, and to demand the discontinuance of the Indian ravages.
Livingstone’s journal is, or was, in the possession of the Chicago
Historical Society, when William Barry (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Oct.,
1861, p. 230) communicated an account of it, showing how the manuscript
had probably been entrusted to Governor Gurdon Saltonstall, and had
descended in his family. (_N. Y. Col. Docs._, v. 257.) Cf. Palfrey, iv.
278; Williamson, ii. 60; a paper on the Baron de St. Castin, by Noah
Brooks, in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, May, 1883; Charlevoix (Shea’s),
v. 233. Penhallow seems to have had Livingstone’s journal; Hutchinson
(ii. 168) certainly had it. Cf. account in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, ix. 854.
Castine’s instructions are in _Collection de Manuscrits_, ii. p. 534.

[931] Field, _Indian Bibliog._, nos. 1,202-3; Brinley, i. nos.
414, 415; Palfrey, _New England_, iv. 256; Haven in Thomas, ii. p.
407; Tyler, _Amer. Literature_, ii. 141; Hunnewell’s _Bibliog. of
Charlestown_, p. 7. Mr. Henry C. Murphy (_Catalogue_, no. 1,924) refers
to the original MS. of this book as being in the Force collection,
and as showing some occasional variations from the printed copy. (Cf.
_Catalogue of the Prince Collection_, p. 49; Carter-Brown, iii. no.
384.) Penhallow had been engaged, during the April preceding the August
in which he began his history, on a mission to the Penobscots, the
reports of which are in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1880, p.
90. There is a sketch of him and his family in _Ibid._, 1878, p. 28.
There are many letters of Samuel Penhallow among the _Belknap Papers_
in the Mass. Hist. Society (61. A).

[932] Tyler, _Amer. Lit._, ii. 143.

[933] Cf. Vol. III. p. 361; also Tyler’s _Amer. Lit._, ii. 140;
Brinley, i. nos. 383-4. Quaritch priced it in 1885 at £50. The best
working edition is that edited by Dr. H. M. Dexter.

[934] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 186; Haven in Thomas, ii. p. 371; Sibley,
_Harvard Graduates_, iii. p. 117.

[935] Cf. James Sullivan’s _Hist. of the Penobscots_ in _Mass. Hist.
Coll._, ix. 207; and a memoir respecting the Abenakis of Acadia (1718)
in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, ix. 879.

[936] Hutchinson, ii. 246; Palfrey, iv. 423. For the Castin family, see
_Bangor Centennial_, 25; Shea’s _Charlevoix_, v. 274, and references
in Vol. IV. p. 147. Williamson (ii. 71, 144) seems to confound the two
sons of the first Baron de Castin, judging from the letter of Joseph
Dabadis de St. Castin, dated at Pentagouet, July 23, 1725, where he
complains of the treachery of the commander of an English vessel. (_N.
E. Hist. and Gen. Reg._, Ap., 1860, p. 140, for a letter from _Mass.
Archives_, lii. p. 226.) See also _Maine Hist. Coll._, vii., and
Wheeler’s _Hist. of Castine_, 24.

[937] Penhallow, 90; Vaudreuil and Begon in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, ix.
933. Dr. Shea (_Charlevoix_, v. 278) thinks some rude translations of
letters of Rasle (_Mass. Hist. Coll._, xviii. 245, 266), alleged to
have been found at Norridgewock, are suspicious. Cf. Palfrey, iv. 422,
423; Farmer and Moore’s _Hist. Coll._, ii. 108. A distinct asseveration
of the incitement of the French authorities and their priests is in
the _Observations on the late and present conduct of the French_,
published by Dr. Clarke in Boston in 1755, quoted by Franklin in his
Canada pamphlet (1760), in _Works_, iv. p. 7. Cf. on the French side
a “Mémoire sur l’entreprise que les Anglois de Baston font sur les
terres des Abenakis sauvages alliés des François” in _Collection de
manuscrits_ (Quebec, 1882), ii. p. 68, where are various letters which
passed between Vaudreuil and Shute.

[938] On the French side we have Charlevoix (Shea’s ed., v. 280), and
the _Lettres Edifiantes_, sub anno 1722-1724 (cf. Vol. IV. p. 316),
with the _Nouvelles des Missions; Missions de l’Amérique_, 1702-43,
Paris, 1827, both giving Father de la Chasse’s letter, dated Quebec,
Oct. 29, 1724, which is also given in English by Kip, p. 69. Cf.
_Les Jésuites Martyrs du Canada_, Montreal, 1877, p. 243. There is a
letter of Vaudreuil in _N. Y. Col. Doc._, ix. 936. These and on the
English side the letters of Rasle, edited by Thaddeus Mason Harris, in
the _Mass. Hist. Coll._, vol. xviii., are the chief authorities; but
Harmon’s journal and a statement by Moulton were used by Hutchinson
(ii. 281). Upon this material the _Life of Rasle_, by Convers Francis
in Sparks’s _Amer. Biog._, vol. 17, and that in _Die Katholisches
Kirche in dem Vereinigten Staten_ (Regensburg, 1864) are based.

The estimates of Rasle’s character are as diverse as the Romish and
Protestant faiths can make them. The times permitted and engendered
inhumanity and perfidy. There is no sentimentality to be lost over
Rasle or his adversaries. Cf. Shea’s _Charlevoix_, v. 280; Palfrey’s
_New England_, iv. 438; Hannay, _Acadia_, 320. Hutchinson (ii. 238)
says the English classed him “among the most infamous villains,” while
the French ranked him with “saints and heroes.”

Cf. further Dr. Shea, in Vol. IV. p. 273, with note; Williamson’s
_Maine_, ii. 130; Bancroft, _United States_, final revision, ii. 218,
etc.; Drake, _Book of the Indians_, iii. 127; _Atlantic Souvenir,
1829_; Murdoch’s _Nova Scotia_, i. 412; _Mem. Hist. Boston_, ii. 109;
William Allen, _Hist. of Norridgewock_ (1849); _Hist. Magazine_, vi.
63; Hanson’s _Norridgewock and Canaan_, with a view of the Rasle
monument.

[939] An uncut copy was in the Brinley sale, no. 422. Cf. Haven in
Thomas, p. 404; Hunnewell’s _Bibliog. of Charlestown_, p. 7.

[940] Brinley, i. no. 423; Harv. Coll. lib., 5325.27; Haven’s Bibliog.
in Thomas, p. 404. Field (_Indian Bibliog._, no. 1,527) says the copy
sold in the Menzies sale (no. 1,940) is the only perfect copy sold at
public auction in many years, and this one had passed under the hammer
four times, bringing once $175, and again $132.50 when it was last sold.

[941] Field, no. 1,527. This edition has a map of the scene of action
which is repeated in Kidder and reproduced herewith. _N. E. Hist. &
Geneal. Reg._, Oct., 1861, p. 354. Only extracts of the sermon are
given.

[942] A small number of copies was printed separately.

[943] There were copies on large and small paper, and a few on drawing
paper. Brinley, nos. 406, 407; _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, Jan.,
1866, p. 93; also see _Ibid._, 1880, p. 382.

[944] Other accounts are in Penhallow, 107, and the edition of Dodge,
app.; Niles in _Mass. Hist. Coll._, xxxv. 255, etc.; _N. Hampshire
Prov. Papers_, iv. 168; _Worcester Mag._, i. 20; _New Hampshire Book_
(1844); Williamson’s _Maine_, ii. 135; Davies’ _Centennial Address_
(1825); _Drake’s Book of the Indians_, book iii. ch. 9; Belknap, _New
Hampshire_, 209; Palfrey, iv. 440; _Maine Hist. Coll._, iv. 275,
290; Mason’s _Dunstable_; Fox’s _Dunstable_, p. 111; C. E. Potter,
_Manchester, N. H._, p. 145; S. A. Green, _Groton in the Indian Wars;
Bay State Monthly_, Feb., 1884, p. 80. Dr. Belknap describes a visit to
Lovewell’s Pond in 1784 in _Belknap Papers_, i. 397-98; ii. 159. A list
of the men making up Lovewell’s company is in the _N. H. Adj. Genl.
Rept._, 1866, p. 46.

Various popular ballads commemorating the fight were printed in Farmer
and Moore’s _Hist. Coll._, ii. 64, 94, and they are repeated in whole
or in part in the Cincinnati (1859) edition of Penhallow, and in
Kidder, Palfrey, etc.

Longfellow wrote a poem in the measure of Burns’ _Bruce_, for the
centennial celebration of the fight, May 19, 1825, and this was his
first printed poem. It has been reprinted in connection with Daniel
Webster’s youthful Fourth of July oration, delivered at Fryeburg, July
4, 1802, in the _Fryeburg Webster Memorial_.

[945] A tract of seven pages,—in Harvard College library. A paper of
this title, as printed in the _Mass. Hist. Coll._, v. 202, is dated
“From my lodgings in Cecil Street, 9 April, 1744.” An early MS. copy is
in a volume of Louisbourg Papers in the Mass. Hist. Soc. library.

[946] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 823; Brinley, i. no. 70.

[947] See on the contribution of New York to the expedition, _N. Y.
Col. Docs._, vi. 284.

[948] Cf. William Goold on “Col. William Vaughan of Matinicus and
Damariscotta,” in the _Collections_ (viii. p. 291) of the Maine
Historical Society. S. G. Drake’s _Five Years’ French and Indian War_
(Albany, 1870). Palfrey (_Compendious History of New England_, iv.
257) gives Vaughan the credit. Cf. Johnston’s _Bristol, Bremen, and
Pemaquid_, p. 290.

[949] Cf. Chauncy’s _Sermon_ on the victory, p. 9; _Mass. Hist. Coll._,
vii. 69. The Rev. Amos Adams, or Roxbury, in his _Concise History of
New England_, etc. (Boston, reprinted in London, 1770), written at
a time when “many of us remember the readiness with which thousands
engaged themselves in that hazardous enterprise,” credits Shirley with
the planning of it.

[950] A memorandum of Dr. Belknap, printed in the _Proceedings_ of the
Mass. Hist. Soc. (x. p. 313) shows as being in the cabinet of that
society in 1792 the following sets of papers: Correspondence between
Shirley and Wentworth, 1742-1753; between Shirley and Pepperrell,
1745-1746; between Pepperrell and Warren, 1745; between these last and
the British ministry, 1745-1747; and between Pepperrell and persons of
distinction throughout America, 1745-1747. These papers as now arranged
cover the preparations for the siege, as well as its progress, and the
events immediately succeeding. Pepperrell’s letters are mostly drafts,
in his own hand. The instructions from Shirley are dated Mar. 19 (p.
13). We find here “A register of all the Commissions” (p. 26); the
notification of the capitulation, June 20 (p. 63). There are letters
of Benning Wentworth, Com. Warren, Gen. Waldo, John Gorham, John
Bradstreet, Arthur Noble, William Vaughan, John Rous, Robert Auchmuty,
Ammi R. Cutter, N. Sparhawk, etc. There are also various letters of
Benj. Colman, who from his relations to Pepperrell took great interest
in the movement. (Cf. the Colman papers, 1697-1747, presented to the
same society in 1793.) The editor of _N. H. Prov. Papers_, vol. v.,
prints various papers as from the “Belknap Papers” in the N. H. Hist.
Society library. Cf. _Belknap Papers_ (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._), i.
120.

[951] It contains manuscript books, bound together, which were in part
the gift of the Hon. Daniel Sargent, and in part came from the heirs
of Dr. Belknap. These books contain copies of the leading official
papers of the expedition and capitulation, the records of the councils
of war from Apr. 5, 1745, at Canso, to May 16, 1746, at Louisbourg,
the letters of Pepperrell, Shirley, Warren, and others between Mar.
27, 1745, and May 30, 1746; records of consultation on board the
“Superbe,” Warren’s flag-ship; with various other letters of Warren;
several narratives and journals of the siege and later transactions
at Louisbourg, some of them bearing interlineations and erasures as
if original drafts; and papers respecting pilots and deserters. The
writer of the diaries and narrative is given in one case only, that of
an artillerist who records events between May 17 and June 16, 1745, and
signs the name of Sergeant Joseph Sherburn. There are also some notes
made at the battery near the Light-house beginning June 11.

[952] Boston and London, 1855-56, three editions. Sabin, xiv. no.
58,921.

[953] Other special accounts of Pepperrell are by Ward in the appendix
of _Curwen’s Journal_ and in _Hunt’s Merchants’ Mag._, July, 1858;
_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Nov., 1878; Potter’s _Amer. Monthly_, Sept.,
1881.

[954] Seth Pomeroy’s letter to his wife from Louisbourg, May 8, 1745,
was first printed by Edward Everett in connection with his oration on
“The Seven Years’ War a School of the Revolution.” Cf. his _Orations_,
i. p. 402.

[955] Harv. Coll. library, 4375.46; Boston Pub. Library, 4417.27;
Carter-Brown, iii. no. 824.

[956] Harv. Coll. lib., 4375.41, 5316.38; Haven in Thomas, ii. p. 489;
Carter-Brown, iii. no. 585; Stevens, _Hist. Coll._, i. nos. 815, 816.
It again appeared as _An accurate and authentic account of the taking
of Cape Breton in the year 1745_, London, 1758 (cf. Carter-Brown, iii.
no. 1,175; Stevens, _Bibl. Amer._, 1885, £3 13s. 6d.), and in the
_American Magazine_, 1746.

[957] Carter-Brown, iii. 801, 805. Gibson accompanied the prisoners as
cartel-agent when they sailed for France, July 4, 1745.

[958] Of the vessels shown in this view the “Massachusetts” frigate
(no. 20) was under the command of Edward Tyng, the senior of the
provincial naval officers, who, acting under Shirley’s commission,
had found a merchantman on the stocks, which under Tyng’s direction
was converted into this cruiser of 24 guns. (_Mass. Hist. Coll._,
x. 181; Williamson’s _Maine_, ii. 223; Preble’s “Notes on Early
Ship-Building,” in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, Oct., 1871, p. 363;
Alden’s _Epitaphs_, ii. 328; Drake’s _Five Years’ War_, 246.) Tyng had
been a successful officer. The previous year he had captured a French
privateer which, sailing from Louisbourg, had infested the bay, and on
May 24, 1744, the town of Boston had thanked him.

[Illustration]

The next ranking provincial naval officer was Capt. John Rous, or
Rouse, who commanded the “Shirley Galley,” a snow, or two-masted
vessel, of 24 guns. Rouse had the previous year, in a Boston privateer,
spread some consternation among the French fishing-fleet on the Grand
Banks. It was this provincial craft and the royal ship the “Mermaid,”
of 40 guns, Capt. James Douglas, which captured the French man-of-war
the “Vigilant,” 64 guns (no. 15), as she was approaching the coast.
(Drake’s _Five Years’ War_, App. C.) Douglas was transferred to
the captured ship, and a requisition was made upon the colonies to
furnish a crew to man her. (Corresp., etc., in _R. I. Col. Rec._,
v.) Capt. William Montague was put in command of the “Mermaid,” and
after the surrender she sailed, June 22, for England with despatches,
arriving July 20. Duplicate despatches were sent by Rouse in the
“Shirley Galley,” which sailed July 4. The British government took the
“Shirley Galley” into their service and commissioned Rouse as a royal
post-captain. This vessel disappears from sight after 1749, when Rouse
is found in command of a vessel in the fleet which brought Cornwallis
to Chebucto (Halifax). At the time of Rouse’s death at Portsmouth, Apr.
3, 1760, he was in command of the “Sutherland,” 50 guns. (Charnock,
_Biographia Navalis_; Isaac J. Greenwood’s “First American built
vessels in the British navy,” in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._,
Oct., 1866, p. 323. There are notes on Rouse, with references, in
_Hist. Mag._, i. 156, and _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 59; cf. also Drake’s
_Five Years’ French and Indian War_, p. 240, and _Nova Scotia Docs._,
ed. by Akins, p. 225.) Preble (_N. E. H. and Gen. Reg._, 1868, p.
396) collates contemporary authorities for a precise description of a
“galley.” Such a ship was usually a “snow,” as the largest two-masted
vessels were often called, and would seem to have carried all her guns
on a continuous deck, without the higher tiers at the ends, which was
customary with frigates built low only at the waist.

The “Cæsar,” of 20 guns, was commanded by Capt. Snelling, the third
ranking provincial officer.

[959] Gov. Wolcott, of Connecticut, wrote to Gov. Hamilton, of
Pennsylvania, that the secret of the success of the Louisbourg
expedition lay in the fact that the besiegers were freeholders and the
besieged mercenaries. (_Pa. Archives_, ii. p. 127.)

[960] Petitions of one Capt. John Lane, who calls himself the first man
wounded in the siege, are in the Mass. Archives, and are printed in the
_Hist. Mag._, xxi. 118.

[961] Carter-Brown, iii. nos. 796, 805. Cf. Samuel Niles, _A brief and
plain essay on God’s wonder-working Providence for New England in the
reduction of Louisbourg_. N. London (T. Green), 1747. This is in verse.
(Sabin, xiii. 55,330.)

[962] Burrows (_Life of Lord Hawke_, p. 341) says of this tract: “Few
papers convey a more accurate description of contemporary opinion on
the colonial questions disputed between Great Britain and France in the
last century.”

[963] “A train of favorable, unforeseen, and even astonishing events
facilitated the conquest,” says Amos Adams in his _Concise Hist. of
New England_, etc. Palfrey in his review of Mahon speaks of it as “one
of the wildest undertakings ever projected by sane people.” Whatever
the fortuitous character of the conquest, there was an attempt made in
England to give the chief credit of it to Warren, who never landed a
marine during its progress.

[Illustration]

This assumption was violently maintained in the debates in Parliament
at the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. The question is examined
by Stone in his _Life of Johnson_, i. 152, who also, p. 58, gives an
account of Warren and his residence in New York. English statesmen
were not so instructed later, but that Lord John Russell, in his
introduction to the _Bedford Correspondence_, i. p. xliv., could say:
“Commodore Warren, having been despatched by the Duke of Bedford for
that purpose, took Louisbourg.”

[964] The French record of some of the principal official documents
is in the _Collection de Manuscrits_ (Quebec), vol. iii., such as
the summons of May 7, the declination of May 18 (pp. 220, 221), the
papers of the final surrender and exchange of prisoners (pp. 221-236,
265, 314, 377), and Du Chambon’s account of the siege, written from
Rochefort, Sept. 2, 1745 (p. 237).

[965] Inquiry has not disclosed that any portrait of Gridley exists.

[966] Both of these works contain another map, _Plan of the City and
Harbour of Louisbourg, showing the landing place of the British in 1745
and 1758, and their encampment in 1758_.

[967] The _Carter-Brown Catalogue_ (iii. no. 1,469) gives the date of
publication 1765, and assigns its publication to “Mary Ann Rocque,
topographer to his Royal Highness, the Duke of Gloucester.”

[968] _Amer. Magazine_ (Boston), Dec., 1745. Some of Shirley’s admirers
caused his portrait to be painted, and some years later they gave it to
the town of Boston, and it was hung in Faneuil Hall. _Town Records_,
1742-57, p. 26.

[969] Mascarene in a letter to Shirley, April 6, 1748, undertakes
to show the difficulties of composing the jealousies of the English
towards the Acadians. _Mass. Hist. Coll._, vi. 120.

[970] In Harv. Coll. library “Collection of Nova Scotia maps.”

[971] Cf. Lawrence to Monckton, 28 March, 1755, in _Aspinwall Papers_
(_Mass. Hist. Coll._, xxxix. 214).

[972] The annexed plan is from the _Mémoires sur le Canada_, 1749-1760,
as published by the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec (re-impression),
1873, p. 45. The same _Mémoires_ has a plan (p. 40) of Fort Lawrence.
Various plans and views of Chignectou are noted in the _Catalogue of
the King’s Maps_ (British Museum), i. 239. A “Large and particular
plan of Shegnekto Bay and the circumjacent country, with forts and
settlements of the French till dispossessed by the English, June, 1755,
drawn on the spot by an officer,” was published Aug. 16, 1755, by
Jefferys, and is given in his _General Topography of North America and
West Indies_, London, 1766. Cf. J. G. Bourinot’s “Some old forts by the
sea,” in _Trans. Royal Soc. of Canada_, i. sect. 2, p. 71.

[973] A contemporary account of these Indians, by a French missionary
among them, was printed in London in 1758, as _An account of the
customs and manners of the Micmakis and Maricheets savage nations now
dependent on the government of Cape Breton_. (Field, _Ind. Bibliog._,
no. 1,062; Quaritch, 1885, no. 29,984, £4 4_s._)

[974] _The Life and Sufferings of Henry Grace_, Reading, 1764 [Harv.
Coll. lib. 5315.5], gives the experience of one of Lawrence’s men,
captured by the Indians at this time.

[975] The French ministry were advising Vaudreuil, “Nothing better can
be done than to foment this war of the Indians on the English, which at
least delays their settlements.” (_N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 949.)

[976] Cf. references in Barry’s _Mass._, ii. 199. The journal of
Winslow during the siege in the summer and autumn of 1755 is printed
from the original MS. in the Mass. Hist. Soc. library, in the _Nova
Scotia Hist. Soc. Coll._, vol. iv. Tracts of the time indicate the
disparagement which the provincial men received during these events
from the regular officers. Cf. _Account of the present state of Nova
Scotia in two letters to a noble lord,—one from a gentleman in the
navy lately arrived from thence; the other from a gentleman who long
resided there_, London, 1756. Cf. also _French policy defeated, being
an account of all the hostile proceedings of the French against the
British colonies in North America for the last seven years, ... with
an account of the naval engagement of Newfoundland and the taking of
the forts in the Bay of Fundy_, London, 1755. (Carter-Brown, iii. no.
1,060.)

[977] On the 10th of Aug., 1754, Lawrence had sent a message to the
Acadians, who had gone over to the French, that he should still hold
them to their oaths, and this, as well as a letter of Le Loutre to
Lawrence, Aug. 26, 1754, will be found in the Parkman MSS. in the Mass.
Hist. Society, _New France_, i. pp. 271, 281.

[978] Minot, without knowledge of these documents, says: “They [the
Acadians] maintained, with some exceptions, the character of neutrals.”

[979] Cf. Bury’s _Exodus of the Western Nations_, vol. ii. ch. 7.

[980] “They call themselves neutrals, but are rebels and traitors,
assisting the French and Indians at all opportunities to murder and cut
our throats.” Ames’s _Almanac_, 1756,—a household authority.

[981] This condition was thoroughly understood by the French
authorities. Cf. Vaudreuil’s despatch when he heard of the deportation,
Oct. 18, 1755. _Doc. Col. Hist. N. Y._, x. 358. On Nov. 2, 1756,
Lotbinière, addressing the French ministry on a contemplated movement
against Nova Scotia, says: “The English have deprived us of a great
advantage by removing the French families.”

[982] Winslow’s instructions, dated Halifax, Aug. 11, 1755, are printed
in Akins’s _Selections_, etc., 271. It has sometimes been alleged
that a greed to have the Acadian lands to assign to English settlers
was a chief motive in this decision. Letters between Lawrence and the
Board of Trade (Oct. 18, 1755, etc.) indicate that the hope of such
succession to lands was entertained after the event; but it was several
years before the hope had fruition.

[983] Guillaume Thomas Raynal’s _Histoire philosophique et politique
des Etablissemens et du Commerce des Européens dans les deux Indes_,
Paris, 1770; Geneva, 1780 (in 5 vols. 4to, and 10 vols. 8vo.); revised,
Paris, 1820. (Rich, after 1700, p. 290; H. H. Bancroft, _Mexico_, iii.
648.)

[984] M. Pascal Poirier in the _Revue Canadienne_ (xi. pp. 850, 927;
xii. pp. 71, 216, 310, 462, 524) discusses the question of mixed blood,
and gives reasons for the mutual attachments of the Acadians and
Abenakis, confronting the views of Rameau. He follows the Acadian story
down, and traces the migrations of families.

[985] A writer in the _Amer. Cath. Q. Rev._ (1884), ix. 592, defends
the “Acadian confessors of the faith,” and charges Hannay with
“monstrous and barefaced perversions of history.” Cf. among the
Parkman MSS. (Mass. Hist. Society, _New France_, i. p. 165) a paper
called “Etat présent des missions de l’Acadie. Efforts impuissants des
gouverneurs anglois pour détruir la religion catholique dans l’Acadie.”

[986] _Doc. Col. Hist. N. Y._, x. p. 5.

[987] _United States_, final revision, ii. 426.

[988] These are set forth in Hannay’s _Acadia_, ch. xx.; _Doc. Col.
Hist. N. Y._, x. p. 11, etc.; Parkman’s _Montcalm and Wolfe_, i. 114,
266, etc.; Akins’s _Selections from the Pub. Docs. of Nova Scotia_
(with authorities there cited); _Mémoires sur le Canada_, 1749-1760
(Quebec, 1838). Le Loutre was a creature of whom it is difficult to
say how much of his conduct was due to fanaticism, and how much to a
heartless villainy. The French were quite as much inclined as any one
to consider him a villain. The Acadians themselves had often found that
he could use his Micmacs against them like bloodhounds.

[989] Minot, i. 220.

[990] Rameau (_La France aux Colonies_, p. 97) allows Raynal’s
description to be a forced fantasy to point a moral; but he contends
for a basis of fact in it. Cf. Antoine Marie Cerisier’s _Remarques sur
les erreurs de l’histoire philosphique et politique de Mr. Guillaume
Thomas Raynal, par rapport aux affaires de l’Amérique septentrionale_,
Amsterdam, 1783.

[991] _The General History of the Late War_, London, 1763, etc.

[992] _A Brief State of the Services and Expenses of the Massachusetts
Bay_, London, 1765, p. 17.

[993] _Hist. of Mass. Bay_, iii. 39.

[994] _Massachusetts_, ch. i. x.

[995] Vol. IV. p. 156. Cf. Morgan, _Bibliotheca Canadensis_, p. 168.

[996] Cf. _Mem. Hist. Boston_, ii. 123. This journal is in three
volumes, the first opening with a letter of proposals by Winslow,
addressed to Shirley, followed by a copy of Winslow’s commission
as lieutenant-colonel, Feb. 10, 1755. Transcripts then follow of
instructions, letters, accounts, orders, rosters, log-books, reports,
down to Jan., 1756. This volume is mostly, if not wholly, in Winslow’s
own hand. It has been printed in vol. iii. of the _Nova Scotia Hist.
Soc. Collections_, beginning with a letter from Grand Pré, Aug. 22,
1755. The second volume (Feb.-Aug., 1756) has a certificate that it
is, “to the best of my skill and judgment, a true record of original
papers committed to my care for that purpose.” This is signed “Henry
Leddel, Secretary to General Winslow.” The third volume (Aug.-Dec.,
1756) is similarly certified. There is in the Mass. Hist. Soc. another
collection of Winslow’s papers (cf. _Proc._, iii. 92) covering
1737-1766, being mostly of a routine military character.

[997] Compare the enumeration of MSS. on Acadia, as indexed in the
_Catalogue of the Library of Parliament_, Toronto, 1858, p. 1451.
There are preserved in the office of the registrar of the Province of
Quebec ten volumes of MS. copies of documents relating to the history
of Canada, covering many pertaining to Acadia. A list of their contents
was printed in 1883, entitled _Réponse à un ordre de la chambre,
demandant copie de la liste des documents se rapportant à l’histoire
du Canada, copiés et conservés au département du régistraire de la
Province de Québec_. _J. Blanchet, Secrétaire._ Cf. “Evangeline and the
Archives of Nova Scotia,” in _Trans. Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec_,
1869-70.

[998] Orig. ed. (1852), iv. 206. In writing his first draft of the
transaction in 1852, Bancroft, referring seemingly to Haliburton’s
statement, says: “It has been supposed that these records of the
council are no longer in existence; but I have authentic copies of
them.” (Orig. ed., iv. 200).

[999] Ed. 1882, vol. ii. 225.

[1000] “The publications of C. R. Williams, with notes concerning
them,” in _R. I. Hist. Tracts._ no. xi. For other accounts concerning
the condition of the “Evangeline Country,” see E. B. Chase’s _Over the
Border, Acadia, the home of Evangeline_ (Boston, 1884), with various
views; J. De Mille in _Putnam’s Magazine_, ii. 140; G. Mackenzie in
_Canadian Monthly_, xvi. 337; C. D. Warner’s _Baddeck_ (Boston, 1882);
and the view of Grandpré in _Picturesque Canada_, ii. 789.

[1001] There is a sample of this purely sympathetic comment in
Whittier’s _Prose Works_, ii. 64.

[1002] New series, vol. vii. (1870).

[1003] Palfrey (_Compend. Hist. New England_, iv. 209) says: “There
appears to be no doubt that they were a virtuous, simple-minded,
industrious, unambitious, religious people. They were rich enough for
all their wants. They lived in equality, contentment, and brotherhood;
the priest or some trusted neighbor settled whatever differences arose
among them.”

[1004] Halifax, 1865-67, vol. ii. ch. 20. Cf. Vol. IV. p. 156.

[1005] Page 369.

[1006] Ch. iv. and viii.

[1007] _Montcalm and Wolfe_, i. 90.

[1008] He does intimate, in some later published letters, that a taking
of hostages might perhaps have sufficed. The controversy of which these
letters are a part began with the anticipatory publication by Mr.
Parkman of his chapter on the Acadians in _Harper’s Monthly_, Nov.,
1884. This drew out from Mr. Philip H. Smith a paper in the _Nation_,
Oct. 30, 1884, in which incautiously, and depending on Haliburton, he
charged the English with rifling their archives to rid them of the
proofs of the atrocity of the deportation. Parkman exposed his error,
in the same journal, Nov. 6, 1884, and also in the _N. Y. Evening
Post_, Jan. 20, 1885, and _Boston Evening Transcript_, Jan. 22. Smith
transferred his challenge to the _Boston Evening Transcript_ of Feb.
11, 1885, making a good point in quoting the Philadelphia Memorial
of the Acadians, which affirmed that papers which could show their
innocence had been taken from them; but he unwisely claimed for the
exiles the literary skill of that memorial, which seems to have been
prepared by some of their Huguenot friends in Philadelphia. A few more
letters appeared in the same journal from Parkman, Akins, and Smith,
but added nothing but iteration to the question. (Cf. _Transcript_,
Feb. 25, by Parkman; March 19 by Akins; March 23, April 3, by Smith.)

[1009] Akins’ _Select. from Pub. Doc._, 277; Smith’s _Acadia_, 219.

[1010] _A letter from a gentleman in Nova Scotia to a person of
distinction in the continent, describing the present state of
government in that colony_, 1736, p. 7.

[1011] _Boston Transcript_, Feb. 11, 1885. In his _Acadia_, p. 256, he
says 15,000 were “forcibly extirpated” [sic], but he probably includes
later deportations, mainly from the northern side of the Bay of Fundy.

[1012] _Une Colonie féodale en Amérique_ (Paris, 1877). To this 6,000
Rameau adds 4,000 as the number previously removed to the islands
of the gulf, 4,000 as having crossed the neck to come under French
protection, and 2,000 as having escaped the English,—thus making a
total of 16,000, which he believes to have been the original population
of the peninsula. Cf. on Rameau, Daniel’s _Nos Gloires_, ii. 345

[1013] See Lawrence’s letter to Monckton in the “Aspinwall Papers,”
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xxxix. 214

[1014] Lawrence’s letter to Hancock, Sept. 10, 1755, in _N. E. Hist.
and Gen. Reg._, 1876, p. 17.

[1015] There are large extracts from these Archives in the _Winslow
Papers_ (Mass. Hist. Soc.). _North Amer. Rev._, 1848, p. 231. There is
usually scant, if any, mention of them in the published town histories
of Massachusetts. In Bailey’s _Andover_ (p. 297) there is some account
of those sent to that town, and a copy of a petition (_Mass. Archives_,
xxiii. 49) from those in Andover and adjacent towns to the General
Court, urging that their children should not be bound out to service.
Cf. also Aaron Hobart’s _Abington_, App. F., and “Lancaster in Acadie
and Acadiens in Lancaster,” by H. S. Nourse, in _Bay State Monthly_,
i. 239; _Granite Monthly_, vii. 239. More came to Boston in the first
shipment than were expected, and New Hampshire was asked to receive the
excess. _N. H. Prov. Records_, vi. 445, 446.

[1016] _N. E. Hist. and Gen. Reg._, 1862, p. 142.

[1017] Jasper Mauduit’s letter to the House of Representatives,
relating to a reimbursement of the expense of supporting the French
neutrals, 1763. _Mass. Hist. Coll._, vi. 189. Among the Bernard
Papers (_Sparks MSS._), ii. 279, is a letter from Bernard to Capt.
Brookes, dated Castle William, Sept. 26, 1762, forbidding the landing
of Acadians from his “transports.” There is also in _Ibid._, ii. 83,
a letter of Gov. Bernard, July 20, 1763, in which he speaks of a
proposition which had been made to the French neutrals then in the
province, to go to France on invitation of the French government. “Many
of these people,” he adds, “are industrious, and would, I believe,
prefer this country and become subjects of Great Britain in earnest, if
they were assured of liberty of conscience.” The governor accordingly
asks instructions from the Lords of Trade. The number of such people
intending to go was, as he says, 1,019 in all, which he considers very
near if not quite the whole number in the province. Bernard expressed
a hope that he could induce them to settle rather at Miramichi, as he
had formed a high opinion of their industry and frugality (p. 86). When
some of them wished to migrate to Saint Pierre, the small island near
the St. Lawrence Gulf, then lately confirmed to France, the governor
and council tried to persuade them to remain.

[1018] See further in _Penna. Archives_, ii. 513, 581; _Penna. Col.
Recs._, vii. 45, 55, 239-241, 408-410.

[1019] Cf. also his _Contributions to Amer. History_ (1858), and
_Philad. American and Gazette_, Mar. 29, 1856.

[1020] _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, iii. 147. Cf. also Scharf’s _Maryland_,
i. 475-79; Johnston’s _Cecil County_ (1881), p. 263.

[1021] _Dinwiddie Papers_, ii. 268, 280, 293, 306, 347, 360, 363, 379,
380, 396, 408, 444, 538.

[1022] _Hist. Georgia_, i. 505.

[1023] _Dinwiddie Papers_, ii. 410, 412, 417, 463, 479, 544.

[1024] Akins’ _Selections_, etc., 303; R. I. _Col. Rec._, v. 529.

[1025] In July, 1756, Governor Spencer Phips gave orders to detain
seven boats, containing ninety persons.

[1026] _Doc. Col. Hist. N. Y._, vii. 125.

[1027] R. L. Daniels in _Scribner’s Monthly_, xix. 383.

[1028] From January to May, 1765, 650 arrived from the English
colonies. Gayarré, _Louisiana, its history as a French colony_ (N. Y.,
1852), pp. 122, 132.

[1029] Parkman, i. 282-3. There are various papers of uncertain value
in the Parkman MSS. in the Mass. Hist. Society, _New France_, vol.
i., respecting the fate and numbers of the exiles. One paper dated at
London in 1763 says there were 866 in England, 2,000 in France, and
10,000 in the English colonies. Another French document of the same
year places the number in France at from three thousand to thirty-five
hundred. There are among these papers plans for establishing some at
Guiana, with letters from others at Miquelon and at Cherbourg.

[1030] Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiii. 77.

[1031] See chapter viii.

[1032] Sabin, ix. 36,727; Boston Public Library, 4426.17; Harvard Coll.
lib., 4375.39; Haven, _Ante Rev. Bibliog._, p. 540. Parkman (_Montcalm
and Wolfe_, ii. 81) refers to five letters from Amherst to Pitt,
written during the siege, which he got from the English Public Record
Office, copies of which are in the Parkman MSS. in the Mass. Hist. Soc.
Library. Cf. _Proc._, 2d ser., i. p. 360.

[1033] There is an abstract in English of the journal of a French
officer during the siege, in _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1881, p. 179.

[1034] He sometimes called himself Thomas Signis Tyrrell, after his
mother’s family. Cf. Akins’ _Select. from Pub. Doc. of N. Scotia_, p.
229, where some of Pichon’s papers, preserved at Halifax, are printed.

[1035] Sabin, xv. 62,610-11; Brinley, i. no. 71; Carter-Brown, iii.
nos. 1,274-75. There are in the _Collection de Manuscrits_ (Quebec,
1883, etc.) Drucour’s account of the defences of Louisbourg (iv. 145);
Lahoulière’s account of the siege, dated Aug. 6, 1758 (iv. 176), and
other narratives (iii. 465-486).

[1036] Also, _Ibid._, p. 188, is a journal of a subsequent scout of
Montresor’s through the island.

[1037] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,184.

[1038] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,389.

[1039] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,680.

[1040] Particularly letters of Nathaniel Cotton, a chaplain on one of
the ships.

[1041] Cf. references in Barry’s _Massachusetts_, ii. p. 230. There are
some letters in the _Penna. Archives_, ii., 442, etc.

[1042] Vol. III. p. 8.

[1043] Vol. II. p. 108.

[1044] Vol. III. p. 9.

[1045] Vol. II. p. 122.

[1046] Vol. IV. p. 92.

[1047] Vol. III. p. 213.

[1048] Vol. IV. pp. 107, 152. This is the earliest map given in the
blue book, _North American boundary_, Part i. London, 1840.

[1049] Vol. IV. p. 380.

[1050] Vol. IV. p. 382.

[1051] Vol. IV. p. 383.

[1052] Vol. III. p. 306.

[1053] Vol. IV. p. 383.

[1054] Vol. IV. p. 384.

[1055] Vol. IV. p. 384.

[1056] Vol. IV. p. 386.

[1057] Vol. IV. p. 388.

[1058] Vol. IV. p. 390.

[1059] Vol. IV. p. 391.

[1060] Vol. IV. p. 148.

[1061] Vol. IV. p. 393.

[1062] The cartography of these three books deserves discrimination. In
_De Nieuwe en onbekende Weereld_ of Montanus (Amsterdam, 1670-71) the
map of America, “per Gerardum a Schagen,” represents the great lakes
beyond Ontario merged into one. The German version, _Die unbekante Neue
Welt_, of Olfert Dapper has the same map, newly engraved, and marked
“per Jacobum Meursium.” Ogilby’s English version, _America, being an
accurate description of the New World_ (London, 1670), though using
for the most part the plates of Montanus, has a wholly different map
of America, “per Johannem Ogiluium.” This volume has an extra map of
the Chesapeake, in addition to the Montanus one, beside English maps
of Jamaica and Barbadoes, not in Montanus. These maps are repeated
in the second edition, which is made up of the same sheets, to which
an appendix is added, and a new title, reading, _America, being the
latest and most accurate description of the new world_. It will be
remembered that Pope, in the _Dunciad_ (i. 141), mocked at Ogilby for
his ponderous folio,—

“Here swells the shelf with Ogilby the Great.”


[1063] Vol. III. p. 383.

[1064] Vol. IV. p. 249.

[1065] Vol. IV. p. 228.

[1066] See Vol. IV. p. 229. This map was also reproduced in the _North
American boundary_, Part i. London, 1840.

[1067] For further references, see sections v. and vi. of “The Kohl
Collection of Maps,” published in _Harvard Univ. Bulletin_, 1884-85.
Cf. also the _Mémoire pour les limites de in Nouvelle France et de
la Nouvelle Angleterre_ (1689) in _Collection de Manuscrits relatifs
à l’histoire de la Nouvelle France_, Quebec, 1883, vol. i. p. 531.
In later volumes of this _Collection_ will be found (vol. iii. p.
49) “Mémoire sur les limites de l’Acadie envoyé à Monseigneur le Duc
d’Orléans par le Père Charlevoix,” dated at Quebec, Oct. 29, 1720 (iii.
p. 522); “Mémoire sur les limites de l’Acadie,” dated 1755. here is an
historical summary of the French claim (1504-1706) in the _N. Y. Col.
Docs._, ix. 781.

[1068] Moll’s maps were used again in the 1741 edition of Oldmixon.
Moll combined his maps of this period in an atlas called _The world
displayed, or a new and correct set of maps of the several empires_,
etc., the maps themselves bearing dates usually from 1708 to 1720.

[1069] This memorial was printed by Bradford in Philadelphia about
1721. Hildeburn’s _Century of Printing_, no. 170. There was a claim
upon the Kennebec, arising from certain early grants to Plymouth
Colony, and in elucidation of such claims _A patent for Plymouth in
New England, to which is annexed extracts from the Records of the
Colony, etc._, was printed in Boston in 1751. There is a copy among the
_Belknap Papers_, in the Mass. Hist. Soc. (61, c. 105, etc.), where
will be found a printed sheet of extracts from deeds, to which is
annexed an engraved plan of the coast of Maine between Cape Elizabeth
and Pemaquid, and of the Kennebec valley up to Norridgewock, which is
called _A true copy of an ancient plan of E. Hutchinson’s, Esq^r., from
Jos. Heath, in 1719, and Phin^s. Jones’ Survey in 1751, and from John
North’s late survey in 1752_. _Attest, Thomas Johnston_. The Belknap
copy has annotations in the handwriting of Thomas Prince, and with it
is a tract called _Remarks on the plan and extracts of deeds lately
published by the proprietors of the township of Brunswick_, dated at
Boston, Jan. 26, 1753. This also has Prince’s notes upon it.

[1070] _N. Y. Col. Docs._, ix. 894. Cf. _Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., vi.
93.

[1071] _N. Y. Col. Docs._, ix. 915.

[1072] _Brit. Mus. MSS._, no. 23,615 (fol. 72).

[1073] Charlevoix was brought to the attention of New England in 1746,
by copious extracts in a tract printed at Boston, _An account of the
French settlements in North America ... claimed and improved by the
French king_. _By a gentleman_.

[1074] Jefferys reproduced this map in the _Gentleman’s Mag._ in 1746.

[1075] Among the more popular maps is that of Thomas Kitchin, in the
_London Mag._, 1749, p. 181.

[1076] Sabin, xii. no. 47,552.

[1077] See Vol. IV. p. 154.

[1078] _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 220.

[1079] Rich, _Bibl. Amer._ (after 1700), p. 103; Leclerc, no. 691.

[1080] The articles of the treaty of Utrecht touching the American
possessions of England are cited and commented upon in William
Bollan’s _Importance and Advantage of Cape Breton_, etc. (London,
1746.) The diplomacy of the treaty of Utrecht can be followed in the
_Miscellaneous State Papers_, 1501-1726, in two volumes, usually cited
by the name of the editor, as the _Hardwicke Papers_. Cf. also _Actes,
mémoires et autres pièces authentiques concernant la paix d’Utrecht,
depuis l’année 1706 jusqu’à présent_. Utrecht, 1712-15, 6 vols. J. W.
Gerard’s _Peace of Utrecht, a historical review of the great treaty
of 1713-14, and of the principal events of the war of the Spanish
succession_ (New York, etc., 1885) has very little (p. 286) about the
American aspects of the treaty.

[1081] _N. Y. Col. Docs._, ix. 878, 894, 913, 932, 981.

[1082] To Shirley was dedicated a tract by William Clarke, of Boston,
_Observations on the late and present conduct of the French, with
regard to their encroachments upon the British colonies in North
America; together with remarks on the importance of these colonies to
Great Britain_, Boston, 1755, which was reprinted in London the same
year. Cf. Thomson’s _Bibliog. of Ohio_, nos. 234, 235; Hildeburn’s
_Century of Printing_, no. 1,407; _Catal. of works rel. to Franklin in
Boston Pub. Lib._, p. 13. The commissioners seem also to have used an
account of Nova Scotia, written in 1743, which is printed in the _Nova
Scotia Hist. Coll._, i. 105.

[1083] The correspondence of the Earl of Albemarle, the British
minister at Paris, with the Newcastle administration, to heal the
differences of the conflicting claims, is noted as among the Lansdowne
MSS. in the _Hist. MSS. Com. Report_, iii. 141.

[1084] The three quarto volumes were found on board a French prize
which was taken into New York, and from them the French claim was set
forth in _A memorial containing a summary view of facts with their
authorities in answer to the Observations sent by the English ministry
to the courts of Europe. Translated from the French._ New York, 1757.
The 2d volume of the original 4to ed. and the 3d volume of the 12mo
edition contain the following treaties which are not in the London
edition, later to be mentioned:—

1629, Apr. 24, between Louis XIII. and Charles I., at Suze.

1632, Mar. 29, between Louis XIII. and Charles I., at Saint
Germain-en-Laye.

1655, Nov. 3, between France and England, at Westminster.

1667, July 21-31, between France and England, at Breda; and one of
alliance between Charles II. and the Netherlands.

1678, Aug. 10, between Louis XIV. and the Netherlands, at Nimégue.

1686, Nov. 16. Neutrality for America, between France and England, at
London.

1687, Dec. 1-11. Provisional, between France and England, concerning
America, at Whitehall.

1697, Sept. 20, between France and England, at Ryswick. [This treaty
is also in the _Collection de Manuscrits relatifs à l’histoire de la
Nouvelle France_ (Quebec, 1884), vol. ii.]

1712, Aug. 19. Suspension of arms between France and England, at Paris.

1713, Mar. 31-11 Apr. Peace between France and England, and treaty of
navigation and commerce, at Utrecht.

1748, Oct. 18, between France, England, and the Netherlands, at
Aix-la-Chapelle.

The _Bedford Correspondence_ (3 vols., 1842) is of the first
importance in elucidating the negotiations which led to the treaty of
Aix-la-Chapelle. The _Mémoires_ of Paris and the _Memorials_ of London
also track the dispute over the St. Lucia (island) question, but in the
present review that part need not be referred to.

[1085] It is said to have been arranged by Charles Townshend. Cf. Vol.
IV. index.

[1086]

1. Memorial describing the limits, etc. (in French and English), signed
Sept. 21, 1750, by W. Shirley and W. Mildmay.

2. “Mémoires sur l’Acadie” of the French commissioners, Sept. 21 and
Nov. 16, 1750.

3. Memorial of the English commissioners (in French and English), Jan.
11, 1751.

4. Memoir of the French commissioners (en réponse), Oct. 4, 1751. The
“preuves” are cited at the foot of each page.

5. Memorial of the English commissioners (in French and English) in
reply to no. 4. The “authorities” are given at the foot of the page. It
is signed at Paris, Jan. 23, 1753, by William Mildmay and Ruvigny de
Cosne.

6. “Pièces justificatives,” supporting the memoir of the English
commissioners, Jan. 11, 1751, viz.:—

Concession of James I. to Thomas Gates, Apr., 1606 (in French and
English).

Concession of James I. to Sir Wm. Alexander, Sept., 1621 (in Latin),
being the same as that of Charles I., July 12, 1625.

Occurrences in Acadia and Canada in 1627-28, by Louis Kirk, as found in
the papers of the Board of Trade (in French and English).

Lettres patentes au Sieur d’Aulnay Charnisay, Feb., 1647.

Lettres patentes au Sieur de la Tour, 1651. [There are various papers
on the La Tour-D’Aulnay controversy in _Collection de Manuscrits_,
Quebec, 1884, ii. 351, etc.]

Extract from Memoirs of Crowne, 1654 (in French and English).

Orders of Cromwell to Capt. Leverett, Sept. 18, 1656 (in French and
English).

Acte de cession de l’Acadie au Roi de France, 17 Feb., 1667-8 (in
French and English).

Letters of Temple, 1668 (in French and English).

Lettre du Sieur Morillon du Bourg, dated “à Boston, le 9 Nov., 1668.”

Order of Charles II. to Temple to surrender Acadia, Aug. 6, 1669 (in
French and English).

Temple’s order to Capt. Walker to surrender Acadia, July 7, 1670 (in
French and English).

Act of surrender of Pentagoet by Walker, Aug. 5, 1670 (in French and
English).

Procès verbal de prise de possession du fort de Gemisick, Aug. 27, 1670.

Certificate de la redition de Port Royal, Sept. 2, 1670.

Ambassadeur de France au Roi d’Angleterre, Jan. 16, 1685.

Vins saisis à Pentagoet, 1687.

John Nelson to the lord justices of England, 1697 (in French and
English).

Gouverneur Villebon à Gouverneur Stoughton, Sept. 5, 1698.

Vernon to Lord Lexington, Ap. 29, 1700 (in French and English).

Board of Trade to Queen Anne, June 2, 1709 (in French and English).

Promesse du Sieur de Subercase, Oct. 23, 1710.

Premières Propositions de la France, Ap. 22, 1711.

Réponses de la France, Oct. 8, 1711, aux demands de la Grand Bretagne
(in French and English).

Instruction to British plenipotentiaries for making a treaty with
France, Dec. 23, 1711 (in French and English).

Mémoire de M. St. Jean, May 24, 1712 (in French and English).

Réponses du Roi au mémoire envoyé de Londres, June 5-10, 1712.

Offers of France, Demands for England, the King’s Answers, Sept. 10,
1712 (in French and English).

Treaty of Utrecht, art. xii. (in Latin and French).

Acte de cession de l’Acadie par Louis XIV., May, 1713.

7. Table des Citations, etc., dans le mémoire des Com. Français, Oct.
4, 1751, viz.—

_Ouvrages imprimés_: Traités, 1629-1749; Mémoires, etc., par les Com.
de sa Majesté Britannique; Titres et pièces communiquées aux Com. de sa
Majesté Britannique.

_Pièces manuscrites_;—

1632, May 19. Concession à Rasilly.

1635, Jan. 15. Concession à Charles de St. Étienne.

1638, Feb. 10. Lettre du Roy au Sieur d’Aunay Charnisay.

1641, Feb. 13. Ordre du Roi au Sieur d’Aunay Charnisay.

1643, Mar. 6. Arrêt.

1645, June 6. Commission du Roi an Sieur de Montmagny.

1651, Jan. 17. Provisions en faveur du Sieur Lauson.

1654, Jan. 30. Provision pour le Sieur Denis.

1654, Aug. 16. Capitulation de Port Royal.

1656, Aug. 9. Concession faite par Cromwell.

1657, Jan. 26. Lettres patentes en faveur du Vicomte d’Argenson.

1658, Mar. 12. Arrêt (against departing without leave).

1663, Jan. 19. Concession des isles de le Madelaine, etc., au Sieur
Doublet.

1663, May 1. Lettres patentes an Gov. de Mezy.

1664, Feb. 1. Concession an Sieur Doublet (discovery in St. Jean
Island).

1668, Nov. 29. Lettre du Temple an Sieur du Bourg.

1669, Mar. 8. Ordre du Roi d’Angleterre au Temple pour restituer
l’Acadie.

1676, Oct. 16. Concession de la terre de Soulanges par Frontenac et
Duchesneau.

1676, Oct. 16. Concession an Sieur Joibert de Soulanges du fort de
Gemisik par Frontenac et Duchesneau.

1676, Oct. 24. Concession de Chigneto au Sieur le Neuf de la Vallière
par Frontenac et Duchesneau.

1684. M. de Meules au Roi.

1684. Requête des habitans de la Coste du sud du fleuve St. Laurent.

1684, Sept. 20. Concessions des Sieurs de la Barre et de Meules au
Sieur d’Amour Ecuyer, de la rivière de Richibouctou, et an Sieur
Clignancourt, de terres à la rivière St. Jean.

1686. Mémoire de M. de Meules sur la Baye de Chedabouctou.

1689, Jan. 7. Concession à la rivière St. Jean au Sieur du Breuil.

1710, Oct. 3. Lettre de Nicholson à Subercase.

[1087] This document was also published at the Hague in 1756, as
_Répliques des Commissaires Anglois: ou Mémoire présenté, le 23
Janvier, 1753_, with a large folding map.

[1088] The maps of Huske and Mitchell (1755), showing the claims of the
French and English throughout the continent, are noted on a previous
page (_ante_, p. 84), and that of Huske is there sketched. In a _New
and Complete Hist. of the Brit. Empire in America_, London, 1756, etc.,
are maps of “Newfoundland and Nova Scotia,” and of “New England and
parts adjacent,” showing the French claim as extending to the line of
the Kennebec, and following the water-shed between the St. Lawrence and
the Atlantic.

[1089] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,028. A French translation appeared the
next year: _Conduite des François par rapport à la Nouvelle Ecosse,
depuis le premier établissement de cette colonie jusqu’à nos jours.
Traduit de l’Anglois avec des notes d’un François_ [George Marie
Butel-Dumont]. Londres, 1755. The next year (1756) a reply, said to be
by M. de la Grange de Chessieux, was printed at Utrecht, _La Conduite
des François justifiée_. (Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,129.)

[1090] _Discussion sommaire sur les anciennes limites de l’Acadie_
[par Matthieu François Pidansat de Mairobert]. Basle, 1755. (Stevens,
_Nuggets_, no. 2,972.) Cf. also _A fair representation of his Majesty’s
right to Nova Scotia or Acadie, briefly stated from the Memorials
of the English Commissaries, with an answer to the French Memorials
and to the treatise Discussion sommaire par les anciennes limites de
l’Acadie_, London, 1756. (Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,130).

[1091] Stevens, _Nuggets_, no. 2,973.

[1092] It includes, for the most distant points, Boston, Montreal, and
Labrador.

[1093] Various maps of Nova Scotia, drawn by order of Gov. Lawrence
(1755), are noted in the _British Museum, King’s Maps_ (ii. 105), as
well as others of date 1768. Of this last date is an engraved _Map
of Nova Scotia or Acadia, with the islands of Cape Breton and St.
John, from actual surveys by Capt. Montresor, Eng’r._ There is a map
of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in _A New and Complete Hist. of the
Brit. Empire in America_, Lond., 1756; and one of New England and Nova
Scotia by Kitchin, in the _London Magazine_, Mar., 1758. In the Des
Barres series of British Coast Charts of 1775-1776, will be found a
chart of Nova Scotia, and others on a larger scale of the southeast and
southwest coasts of Nova Scotia.

[1094] On three sheets, each 22½ x 18½ inches, and called _Louisiane et
Terres Angloises_.

[1095] _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 293.

[1096] Stevens, _Bibl. Geog._, no. 451.

[1097] See Vol. IV. p. 356.

[1098] The Indians held the Ohio to be the main stream, the Upper
Mississippi an affluent. Hale, _Book of Rites_, 14.

[1099] Cf. also _Propositions made by the Five Nations of Indians to
the Earl of Bellomont, 20 July, 1698_, New York, 1698 (22 pp.). Sabin,
xv. 66,061. Brinley’s copy brought $410.

[1100] See chapters ii. and vii.

[1101] There is a contemporary MS. record of this conference in the
Prince Collection, Boston Public Library. (_Catal._, p. 158.)

[1102] For the movement instituted by Spotswood, and his inspection of
the country beyond the Blue Ridge, see chapter iv., and the authorities
there cited.

[1103] See chapter vii.

[1104] See chapter ii.

[1105] This Indian confederacy of New York called themselves
Hodenosaunee (variously spelled); the French styled them Iroquois; the
Dutch, Maquas; the English, the Five Nations; the Delawares, the Menwe,
which last the Pennsylvanians converted into Mingoes, later applied
in turn to the Senecas in Ohio. Dr. Shea, in his notes to Lossing’s
ed. of Washington’s diaries, says: “The Mengwe, Minquas, or Mingoes
were properly the Andastes or Gandastogues, the Indians of Conestoga,
on the Susquehanna, known by the former name to the Algonquins and
their allies, the Dutch and Swedes; the Marylanders knew them as the
Susquehannas. Upon their reduction by the Five Nations, in 1672, the
Andastes were to a great extent mingled with their conquerors, and a
party removing to the Ohio, commonly called Mingoes, was thus made up
of Iroquois and Mingoes. Many treat Mingo as synonymous with Mohawk or
Iroquois, but erroneously.”

[1106] The inscription on Moll’s _Map of the north parts of America
claimed by France_ (1720) makes the Iroquois and “Charakeys” the
bulwark and security of all the English plantations. This map has
a view of the fort of “Sasquesahanock.” A map of the region of the
Cherokees, from an Indian draught, by T. Kitchen, is in the _London
Mag._, Feb., 1760.

[1107] Chapter vii.

[1108] This fort had been built in 1739, and called Fort St. Frederick.
G. W. Schuyler (_Colonial N. Y._, ii. pp. 113, 114) uses the account
of the adjutant of the French force, probably found in Canada at the
conquest. The fort stood on the west side of the Hudson, south of
Schuylerville, while Fort Clinton, built in 1746, was on the east side.
(_Ibid._, ii. pp. 126, 254.) A plan of this later fort (1757) is noted
in the _King’s Maps_ (Brit. Museum), ii. 300. See no. 17 of _Set of
Plans_, etc., London, 1763.

[1109] _American Mag._ (Boston), Nov., 1746.

[1110] Chapter ii. p. 147.

[1111] _N. E. Hist. Geneal. Reg._, 1866, p. 237.

[1112] See _ante_, p. 9.

[1113] See _ante_, p. 3.

[1114] _Canadian Antiquarian_, vii. 97.

[1115] He was accompanied by Andrew Montour, a conspicuous frontiersman
of this time. Cf. Parkman’s _Montcalm and Wolfe_, i. 54; Schweinitz’s
_Zeisberger_, 112; Thomas Cresap’s letter in Palmer’s _Calendar, Va.
State Papers_, 245; and on his family the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, iii.
79, iv. 218.

In 1750 John Pattin, a Philadelphia trader, was taken captive among the
Indians of the Ohio Valley, and his own narrative of his captivity,
with a table of distances in that country, is preserved in the cabinet
of the Mass. Historical Society, together with a letter respecting
Pattin from William Clarke, of Boston, dated March, 1754, addressed
to Benjamin Franklin, in which Clarke refers to a recent mission of
Pattin, prompted by Gov. Harrison, of Pennsylvania, into that region,
“to gain as thorough a knowledge as may be of the late and present
transactions of the French upon the back of the English settlements.”

[1116] The English got word of this movement in May. _N. Y. Col.
Docs._, vi. 779.

[1117] See papers on the early routes between the Ohio and Lake Erie
in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, i. 683, ii. 52 (Nov., 1877, and Jan., 1878);
and also in Bancroft’s _United States_, orig. ed., iii. 346. For the
portage by the Sandusky, Sciota, and Ohio rivers, see Darlington’s ed.
of Col. James Smith’s _Remarkable Occurrences_, p. 174. The portages
from Lake Erie were later discovered than those from Lake Michigan. For
these latter earlier ones, see Vol. IV. pp. 200, 224. Cf. the map from
Colden given herewith.

[1118] The ruins of this fort are still to be seen (1855) within the
town of Erie. Sargent’s _Braddock’s Expedition_, p. 41. Cf. Egle’s
_Pennsylvania_.

[1119] Now Waterford, Erie Co., Penna.

[1120] The road over the mountains followed by Washington is identified
in Lowdermilk’s _Cumberland_, p. 51.

[1121] Sargent says the ruins of the fort which the French completed in
1755 at Venango were still (1855) to be seen at Franklin, Penna.; it
was 400 feet square, with embankments then eight feet high. Sargent’s
_Braddock’s Exped._, p. 41; Day, _Hist. Coll. Penna._, 312, 642. There
is a notice of the original engineer’s draft of the fort in _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, ix. 248-249. Cf. S. J. M. Eaton’s _Centennial
Discourse in Venango County_, 1876; and Egle’s _Pennsylvania_, pp. 694,
1122, where there is (p. 1123) a plan of the fort.

[1122] This summons is in _Mass. Hist. Coll._, vi. 141. Cf. _N. Y. Col.
Docs._, vi. 840.

[1123] The terms of the capitulation, as rendered by Villiers, had
a reference to the “assassinat” of Jumonville, which a Dutchman,
Van Braam, who acted as interpreter, concealed from Washington
by translating the words “death of Jumonville.” This unintended
acknowledgment of crime was subsequently used by the French in
aspersing the character of Washington. See Critical Essay, _post_.

[1124] In December, 1754, Croghan reported to Gov. Morris that the Ohio
Indians were all ready to aid the English if they would only make a
movement. _Penna. Archives_, ii. 209.

[1125] See chapter ii.

[1126] See _post_.

[1127] Cf. Le Château de Vaudreuil, by A. C. de Lery Macdonald in _Rev.
Canadienne_, new ser., iv. pp. 1, 69, 165; Daniel’s _Nos Gloires_, 73.

[1128] A view of the house in Alexandria used as headquarters by
Braddock is in _Appleton’s Journal_, x. p. 785.

[1129] See chapter vii.

[1130] This was now Fort Cumberland. There is a drawn plan of it noted
in the _Catal. of the King’s Maps_ (Brit. Mus.), i. 282. Parkman (i.
200) describes it. The _Sparks Catal._, p. 207, notes a sketch of the
“Situation of Fort Cumberland,” drawn by Washington, July, 1755.

[1131] Sargent summarizes the points that are known relative to the
unfortunate management of the Indians which deprived Braddock of their
services. Sargent, pp. 168, 310; _Penna. Archives_, ii. 259, 308,
316, 318, 321; vi. 130, 134, 140, 146, 189, 218, 257, 353, 398, 443;
_Penna. Col. Rec._, vi. 375, 397, 460; _Olden Time_, ii. 238; Sparks’
_Franklin_, i. 189; _Penna. Mag. of History_, Oct., 1885, p. 334.
Braddock had promised to receive the Indians kindly. _Penna. Archives_,
ii. 290.

[1132] Two other officers, as well as Washington, were destined to
later fame,—Daniel Morgan, who was a wagoner, and Horatio Gates, who
led an independent company from New York.

[1133] There is an engraving of Beaujeu in Shea’s _Charlevoix_, iv.
63; and in Shea’s ed. of the _Relation diverses sur la bataille du
Malangueulé_, N. Y., 1860, in which that editor aims to establish for
Beaujeu the important share in the French attack which is not always
recognized, as he thinks. Cf. _Hist. Mag._, vii. 265; and the account
of Beaujeu by Shea, in the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, 1884, p. 121. Cf.
also “La famille de Beaujeu,” in Daniel’s _Nos gloires nationales_, i.
131.

[1134] The annexed plan of the field is from a contemporary MS. in
Harvard College library. See _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xvii. p. 118
(1879).

Parkman (_Montcalm and Wolfe_, i. 214) reproduces two plans of the
fight: one representing the disposition of the line of march at the
moment of attack; the other, the situation when the British were
thrown into confusion and abandoned their guns. The originals of these
plans accompany a letter of Shirley to Robinson, Nov. 5, 1755, and
are preserved in the Public Record Office, in the volume_ America and
West Indies_, lxxxii. They were drawn at Shirley’s request by Patrick
Mackellar, chief engineer, who was with Gage in the advance column.
Parkman says: “They were examined and fully approved by the chief
surviving officers, and they closely correspond with another plan made
by the aide-de-camp Orme,—which, however, shows only the beginning of
the affair.” This plan of Orme is the last in a series of six plans,
engraved in 1758 by Jefferys (Thomson, _Bibliog. of Ohio_, no. 107;
Sabin, ii. no. 7,212), and used by him in his _General Topography of
North America and the West Indies_, London, 1768. There is a set of
them, also, in the Sparks MSS., in Harvard Coll. library, vol. xxviii.

These six plans are all reproduced in connection with Orme’s Journal,
in Sargent’s _Braddock’s Expedition_. They are:—

I. Map of the country between Will’s Creek and Monongahela River,
showing the route and encampments of the English army.

II. Distribution of the advanced party (400 men).

III. Line of march of the detachment from Little Meadows.

IV. Encampment of the detachment from Little Meadows.

V. Line of march with the whole baggage.

VI. Plan of the field of battle, 9 July, 1755.

See also the plans of the battle given in Bancroft’s _United States_
(orig. ed.), iv. 189; Sparks’ _Washington_, ii. 90, the same plate
being used by Sargent, p. 354, and in Guizot’s _Washington_. In the
Faden Collection, in the Library of Congress, there are several MS.
plans. (Cf. E. E. Hale’s _Catalogue of the Faden Maps_.)

Beside the map of Braddock’s advance across the country, given
in the series, already mentioned, there is another in Neville B.
Craig’s _Olden Time_ (ii. 539), with explanations by T. C. Atkinson,
who surveyed it in 1847, which is copied by Sargent (p. 198), who
also describes the route. Cf. Egle’s _Pennsylvania_, p. 84; and
the _American Hist. Record_, Nov., 1874. A map made by Middleton
and corrected by Lowdermilk is given in the latter’s _History of
Cumberland_, p. 141. A letter of Sparks on the subject is in De Hass’s
_West. Virginia_, p. 125. The condition of Braddock’s route in 1787 is
described by Samuel Vaughan, of London, in a MS. journal owned by Mr.
Charles Deane.

The _Catal. of Paintings in the Penna. Hist. Soc._, no. 65, shows a
view of Braddock’s Field, and an engraving is in Gay’s _Pop. Hist. U.
S._, iii. 254, and another in Sargent, as a frontispiece. Judge Yeates
describes a visit to the field in 1776, in Hazard’s _Register_, vi.
104, and in _Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., ii. 740; and Sargent (p. 275)
tells the story of the discovery of the skeletons of the Halkets in
1758. Cf. Parkman, ii. 160; Galt’s _Life of Benj. West_ (1820), i. 64.
Some views illustrating the campaign are in _Harper’s Magazine_, xiv.
592, etc.

[1135] “Poor Shirley was shot through the head,” wrote Major Orme.
Cf. Akins’ _Pub. Doc. of Nova Scotia_, pp. 415, 417, where is a list
of officers. Various of young Shirley’s letters are in the _Penna.
Archives_, ii.

[1136] Braddock’s remains are said to have been discovered about 1823
by workmen engaged in constructing the National Road, at a spot pointed
out by an old man named Fossit, Fausett, or Faucit, who had been in the
provincial ranks in 1755. He claimed to have seen Braddock buried, and
to have fired the bullet which killed him. The story is not credited
by Sargent, who gives (p. 244) a long examination of the testimony.
(Cf. also _Hist. Mag._, xi. p. 141.) Lowdermilk (p. 187) says that
it was locally believed; so does De Hass in his _West. Virginia_, p.
128. Remains of a body with bits of military trappings were found,
however, on digging. A story of Braddock’s sash is told by De Hass, in
his _W. Virginia_, p. 129. In July, 1841, a large quantity of shot and
shell, buried by the retreating army, was unearthed near by. _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, iii. 231, etc. A picture of his grave was painted
in 1854 by Weber, and is now in the gallery of the Penna. Hist. Soc.
(Cf. its _Catal. of Paintings_, no. 66.) It is engraved in Sargent,
p. 280. Cf. Day, _Hist. Coll. Penna._, p. 334. Lowdermilk (pp. 188,
200) gives views of the grave in 1850 and 1877, with some account of
its mutations. Cf. Scharf and Westcott’s _Philadelphia_, ii. p. 1002.
A story obtained some currency that Braddock’s remains were finally
removed to England. De Hass, p. 112.

[1137] See a subsequent page.

[1138] _Inquiry into the Conduct of Maj.-Gen. Shirley._

[1139] Stone’s _Life of Johnson_, i. 538.

[1140] _Penna. Archives_, vi. 333, 335.

[1141] There are views of it in 1840 and 1844 in J. R. Simms’s
_Trappers of New York_ (1871), and _Frontiersmen of New York_ (Albany,
1882), pp. 209, 249; in W. L. Stone’s _Life of Johnson_, ii. 497; and
in Lossing’s _Field-Book of the Revolution_, i. p. 286.

[1142] See views of it in Gay, iii. p. 286; in Lossing’s _Field-Book of
the Rev._, i. p. 107, and _Scribner’s Monthly_, March, 1879, p. 622.

[1143] “The loss of the enemy,” says Smith (_New York_, ii. 220),
“though much magnified at the time, was afterwards found to be less
than two hundred men.”

[1144] See the English declaration in _Penna. Archives_, ii. 735.

[1145] On his family see Daniel, _Nos Gloires_, p. 177.

[1146] For the rejoicing of Shirley’s enemies, cf. Barry’s _Mass._,
ii. 212. Shirley had got an intimation of the purpose to supersede him
as early as Apr. 16, 1756. (_Penna. Archives_, ii. 630.) He had some
strong friends all the while.

Gov. Livingston undertook to show that the ill-success of the campaign
of 1755 was due more to jealousies and intrigues than to Shirley’s
incapacity. (_Mass. Hist. Coll._, vii. 159.) “Except New York,” he
adds, “or rather a prevailing faction here, all the colonies hold
Shirley in very high esteem.” Franklin says: “Shirley, if continued in
place, would have made a much better campaign than that of Loudoun in
1756, which was frivolous, expensive, and disgraceful to our nation
beyond comparison; for though Shirley was not bred a soldier, he was
sensible and sagacious in himself and attentive to good advice from
others, capable of forming judicious plans, and quick and active in
carrying them into execution.... Shirley was, I believe, sincerely glad
of being relieved.” _Franklin’s Writings_ (Sparks’ ed.), i. p. 220-21.

[1147] _Grenville Correspondence_, i. 165, June 5, 1756.

[1148] Marshall’s _Washington_, i. 327.

[1149] There seems to be some question if any massacre really took
place. (Cf. Stone’s _Johnson_, ii. p. 23.)

[1150] Referring to the fall of Oswego, Smith (_New York_, ii. 236)
says: “The panic was universal, and from this moment it was manifest
that nothing could be expected from all the mighty preparations for the
campaign.”

[1151] Parkman (i. p. 440) notes the sources of this commotion.

[1152] Loudon had to this end held meetings with the northern governors
at Boston in January, and with the southern governors at Philadelphia
in March, 1757. Loudon’s correspondence at this time is in the Public
Record Office (_America and West Indies_, vol. lxxxv.), and is copied
in the Parkman MSS. When Loudon left with his 91 transports and five
men-of-war, he sent off a despatch-boat to England; and Jenkinson, on
the receipt of the message, wrote to Grenville, reflecting probably
Loudon’s reports, that “the public seem to be extremely pleased with
the secrecy and spirit of this enterprise.” _Grenville Corresp._, i.
201.

[1153] Bancroft and those who follow him, taking their cue from Smith
(_Hist. of New York_), say that Loudon “proposed to encamp on Long
Island for the defence of the continent.” Parkman (ii. p. 2) points out
that this is Smith’s perversion of a statement of Loudon that he should
disembark on that island if head winds prevented his entering New York
bay, when he returned from Halifax. There seems to have been a current
apprehension of a certain ridiculousness in all of Loudon’s movements.
It induced John Adams to believe even then that the colonies could get
on better without England than with her. Cf. the _John Adams and Mercy
Warren Letters (Mass. Hist. Soc. Collections)_, p. 339.

[1154] Plans of the fort and settlement at Schenectady during the war
are in Jonathan Pearson’s _Schenectady Patent_ (1883), pp. 311, 316,
328: namely, one of the fort, by the Rev. John Miller (1695), from an
original in the British Museum; another of the town (about 1750-60);
and still another (1768).

[1155] Chapter vii.

[1156] Hutchinson (iii. 71) represents that Howe, in the confusion,
may have been killed by his own men. On Howe’s burial at Albany, and
the identification of his remains many years after, see Lossing’s
_Schuyler_, i. p. 155; Watson’s _County of Essex_, 88. He was buried
under St. Peter’s Church. Cf. Lossing, in _Harper’s Mag._, xiv. 453.

[1157] Abercrombie’s engineer surveyed the French works from an
opposite hill, and pronounced it practicable to carry them by assault.
Stark, with a better knowledge of such works, demurred; but his
opinions had no weight. A view of the field of Abercrombie’s defeat is
given in Gay, _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 299. M. D’Hagues sent to the
Marshal de Belle Isle on account of the situation of Fort Carillon
[Ticonderoga] and its approaches, dated at the fort, May 1, 1758, which
is printed (in translation) in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 707; and in the
same, p. 720, is another description by M. de Pont le Roy, French
engineer-in-chief.

The condition of the fort at the time of Abercrombie’s attack in 1758
is well represented by maps and plans. Cf. the plan of this date in the
_N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 721; and the French plan noted in the _Catal. of
the Library of Parliament_ (Toronto, 1858), p. 1621, no. 86. Bonnechose
(_Montcalm et le Canada_, p. 91) gives a French plan, “Bataille de
Carillon, d’après un Plan inédit de l’époque.” Jefferys engraved a
_Plan of town and fort of Carillon at Tyconderoga, with the attack made
by the British army commanded by General Abercrombie, 8 July, 1758_,
which Jefferys later included in his _General Topog. of North America
and the West Indies_, London, 1768, no. 38. Martin, _De Montcalm en
Canada_, p. 128, follows Jefferys’ draft. Hough in his edition of
_Pouchot_, p. 108, gives the plan of the attack as it appeared in
Mante’s _Hist. of the Late War_, London, 1772, p. 144; and from this it
is reproduced in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 726.

[1158] When Pitt heard of Abercrombie’s defeat he wrote to Grenville:
“I own this news has sunk my spirits, and left very painful impressions
on my mind, without, however, depriving me of great hopes for the
remaining campaign.” _Grenville Correspondence_, i. 262.

[1159] Most of the writers, following Bancroft, call him _Joseph
Forbes_; and Bancroft lets that name stand in his final revision.

[1160] This paper in fac-simile is in a volume called _Monuments of
Washington’s Patriotism_ (1841). A portion of it is reproduced, but not
in fac-simile, in Sparks’ _Washington_, ii. 314.

[1161] Loyalhannon, _Parkman_; Loyal Hanna, _Bancroft_; Loyal Hannan,
_Irving_; Loyal Hanning, _Warburton_.

[1162] The original MS. report of this conference appears in a sale
catalogue of Bangs & Co., N. Y., 1854, no. 1309.

[1163] Speaking of Canada, John Fiske (_Amer. Polit. Ideas_, p. 55)
says of the effect of the bureaucracy which governed it that it “was
absolute paralysis, political and social,” and that in the war-struggle
of the eighteenth century “the result for the French power in America
was instant and irretrievable annihilation. The town meeting pitted
against bureaucracy was like a Titan overthrowing a cripple;” but he
forgets the history of that overthrow, its long-drawn-out warfare,
the part that the vastly superior population and the interior lines
and seaboard bases of supplies for the English played in the contest
to intensify their power, and the jealousies and independence of the
colonies themselves, which so long enabled the French to survive. Even
as regards the results of the campaign of 1759, the suddenness had
little of the inevitable in it, when we consider the leisurely campaign
of Amherst, and the mere chance of Wolfe surmounting the path at the
cove. It took the successes of these last campaigns to produce the
fruits of conquest, even at the end of a long conflict.

[1164] A plan of Montresor’s for the campaign, dated N. Y., 29 Dec.,
1758, is in _Penna. Archives_, vi. 433.

[1165] Fort Schlosser had been erected in 1750. Cf. O. H. Marshall on
the “Niagara Frontier,” in _Buffalo Hist. Soc. Publ._, ii. 409.

[1166] In August, Amherst was reporting sickness in his army from the
water at Ticonderoga, and demanding spruce-beer of his commissary.
(_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, v. 101.)

[1167] See chapter vii.

[1168] In a massive old building, the manor-house of the first Seigneur
of Beaufort (1634), which was destroyed in 1879. Cf. Lossing’s sketch
in _Harper’s Magazine_ (Jan., 1859), xviii. p. 180.

[1169] Turcotte’s _Hist. de l’île d’Orléans_ (Quebec. 1867), ch. iii.

[1170] Among the officers of the army and navy here acting together
were some who were later very famous,—Jervis (Earl St. Vincent), Cook,
the navigator, Isaac Barré, the parliamentary friend of America, Guy
Carleton, and William Howe, afterwards Sir William.

[1171] This point is prominent in most views of Quebec from below
the town. Cf. Lossing, _Field-Book of the Revolution_, i. 185, etc.
Montcalm was overruled by Vaudreuil, and was not allowed to entrench a
force at Point Levi, as he wished. Beatson’s _Naval and Mil. Memoirs_.

[1172] The _Life of Cook_ gives some particulars of an exploit of
Cook in taking soundings in the river, preparatory to the attack from
Montmorenci.

[1173] On the 2d, in a despatch to Pitt, he used a phrase, since
present to the mind of many a baffled projector, for when referring
to the plans yet to be tried, he spoke of his option as a “choice of
difficulties.”

[1174] Wolfe’s Cove, as it has since been called. Views of it are
numerous. Cf. _Picturesque Canada_; Lossing’s _Field-Book_; and the
drawing by Princess Louise in Dent’s _Last forty years_, ii. 345.

[1175] _Memoirs of Robert Stobo._ Cf. _Boston Post Boy_, no. 97;
_Boston Evening Post_, no. 1,258. Stobo had made his escape from Quebec
early in May, 1759. Cf. Montcalm’s letter in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x.970.

[1176] Montgomery, nearly twenty years later, with a similar task
before him, said, “Wolfe’s success was a lucky hit, or rather a series
of such hits; all sober and scientific calculations of war were against
him until Montcalm gave up the advantage of his fortress.” (Force’s
_Am. Archives_, iii. 1,638.)

[1177] Sabine collates the various accounts of Wolfe’s death, believing
that Knox’s is the most trustworthy. The _Memoirs of Donald Macleod_
(London), an old sergeant of the Highlanders, says that Wolfe was
carried from the field in Macleod’s plaid. There is an account of his
pistols and sash in the _Canadian Antiquarian_, iv. 31.

Capt. Robert Wier, who commanded a transport, timed the firing from the
first to the last gun, and made the conflict last ten minutes. (_Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, iii. 307.)

[1178] Doyle’s _Official Baronage_, iii. 543.

[1179] A view or plan of this post is given in _Mémoires sur les
affaires du Canada_, 1749-60, p. 40.

[1180] Dr. O’Callaghan (_N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 400) threw some doubt
on this statement, but it seems to be well established by contemporary
record (Parkman, ii. 441). The remains of Montcalm were disturbed in
digging another grave in 1833, but little was found except the skull,
which is still shown in the convent. (Miles’s _Canada_, p. 415.) See
the view in _Harper’s Magazine_, xviii. 192.

[Illustration: HEIGHTS OF ABRAHAM, WITH WOLFE’S MONUMENT.]

Dalhousie, when governor, caused a monument, inscribed with the names
of both Wolfe and Montcalm, to be erected in the town. (Harper’s
Mag., xviii. 188; _Canadian Antiquarian_, vi. 176.) A monument near
the spot where Wolfe was struck down, and inscribed, “Here Wolfe died
victorious,” fell into a decay, which relic-seekers had helped to
increase (see a view of it in its dilapidated condition in Lossing’s
_Field-Book of the Revolution_, i. p. 189), and was in 1849 replaced
by a monument surmounted with a helmet and sword, which is now seen by
visitors, and, beside repeating the inscription on the old one, bears
this legend: “This pillar was erected by the British army in Canada,
A. D. 1849, ... to replace that erected ... in 1832, which was broken
and defaced, and is deposited beneath.” (See views in _Harper’s Mag._,
xviii. p. 183.) A view of it from a sketch made in 1851 is annexed.
An account of these memorials, with their inscriptions, is given in
Martin’s _De Montcalm en Canada_, p. 211, with the correspondence which
passed between Pitt and the secretary of the French Academy respecting
an inscription which the army of Montcalm desired to place over his
grave in Quebec. (Cf. Martin, p. 216; Bonnechose, _Montcalm et Canada_,
App.; Warburton’s Conquest of Canada, ii., App.; and Watson’s _County
of Essex_, p. 490.)

Cf. also Lossing in _Harper’s Mag._, xviii. 176, 192, etc.

[1181] The news which reached England from Murray did not encourage
the government to hope that Quebec could be saved. _Grenville
Correspondence_, i. 343.

[1182] There is doubt where Rogers encamped,—the river “Chogage.”
Parkman in the original edition of his _Pontiac_ (1851, p. 147) called
it the site of Cleveland; but he avoids the question in his revised
edition (i. p. 165). Bancroft (orig. ed., iv. 361) and Stone, _Johnson_
(ii. 132), have notes on the subject. Cf. also Chas. Whittlesey’s
_Early Hist. of Cleveland_, p. 90; and C. C. Baldwin’s _Early Maps of
Ohio_, p. 17.

[1183] Parkman has a plan of Detroit, made about 1750 by the engineer
Léry.

[1184] The _London Mag._ for Feb., 1761, had a map of the “Straits of
St. Mary, and Michilimakinac.”

[1185] Here we find Bellomont’s correspondence (1698) with the French
governor as to the relations of the Five Nations to the English,
pp. 682, 690. Cf. also _N. Y. Col. Docs._, iv. 367, 420; Shea’s
_Charlevoix_, v. 82; a tract, _Propositions made by the Five Nations of
Indians ... to Bellomont in Albany, 20th of July, 1698_ (N. Y., 1698),
containing the doings of Bellomont and his council on Indian affairs up
to Aug. 20, 1698. (Brinley, ii. 3,400.) The same vol. of _N. Y. Col.
Docs._ (ix.) gives beside a memoir (p. 701; also in _Penna. Archives_,
2d ser., vi. 45) on the encroachments of the English; conferences with
the Indians at Detroit (p. 704) and elsewhere in 1700; the ratification
of the treaty of peace at Montreal, Aug. 4, 1701 (p. 722); conferences
of Vaudreuil with the Five Nations in 1703 and 1705 (pp. 746, 767);
the scheme of seizing Niagara, 1706 (p. 773); Sieur d’Aigrement’s
instructions and report on the Western posts (p. 805); a survey (p.
917) of English invasion of French territory (1680-1723); a memoir (p.
840) on the condition of Canada (1709),—not to name others.

For the period covered by the survey of this present chapter, these _N.
Y. Col. Docs._ give from the London archives papers 1693-1706 (vol.
iv.), 1707-1733 (vol. v.), 1734-1755 (vol. vi.), 1756-1767 (vol. vii.);
and from the Paris archives, 1631-1744 (vol. ix.), 1745-1778 (vol. x.).
The index to the whole is in vol. xi. See Vol. IV. pp. 409, 410.

There has been a recent treatment of the relations of the English with
the Indians in Geo. W. Schuyler’s _Colonial New York_, in which Philip
Schuyler is a central figure, during the latter end of the seventeenth
and for the first quarter of the eighteenth century. The book touches
the conferences in Bellomont’s and Nanfan’s time. Colden, who was
inimical to Schuyler, took exception to some statements in Smith’s _New
York_ respecting him, and Colden’s letters were printed by the N. Y.
Hist. Society in 1868.

[1186] The biography of Cadillac has been best traced in Silas Farmer’s
_Detroit_, p. 326. He extended his inquiries among the records of
France, and (p. 17) enumerates the grants to him about the straits.
Cf. T. P. Bédard on Cadillac in _Revue Canadienne_, new ser., ii.
683; and a paper on his marriage in _Ibid._, iii. 104; and others by
Rameau, in _Ibid._, xiii. 403. The municipality of Castelsarrasin in
France presented to the city of Detroit a view of the old Carmelite
church—now a prison—where Cadillac is buried. An engraving of it is
given by Farmer. Julius Melchers, a Detroit sculptor, has made a statue
of the founder, of which there is an engraving in Robert E. Roberts’
_City of the Straits_, Detroit, 1884, p. 14.

Farmer (p. 221) gives a description of Fort Pontchartrain as built by
Cadillac, and (p. 33) a map of 1796, defining its position in respect
to the modern city. Cf. also Roberts’ _City of the Straits_, p. 40. The
oldest plan of Detroit is dated 1749, and is reproduced by Farmer (p.
32). Of the oldest house in Detroit, the Moran house, there are views
in Farmer (p. 372) and Roberts (p. 50), who respectively assign its
building to 1734 and 1750.

Among the later histories, not already mentioned, reference may be made
to Charlevoix (Shea’s ed., vol. v. 154); E. Rameau’s _Notes historiques
sur la colonie canadienne de Détroit. Lecture prononcée à Windsor sur
le Détroit, comté d’Essex, C. W., 1^{er} avril, 1861_, Montréal, 1861;
Rufus Blanchard’s _Discovery and Conquests of the Northwest_, Chicago,
1880; and Marie Caroline Watson Hamlin’s _Legends of le Détroit, Illus.
by Isabella Stewart_, Detroit, 1884. These legends, covering the years
1679-1815, relate to Detroit and its vicinity. On p. 263, etc., are
given genealogical notes about the early French families resident
there. A brief sketch of the early history of Detroit by C. I. Walker,
as deposited beneath the corner-stone of the new City Hall in 1868, is
printed in the _Hist. Mag._, xv. 132. Cf. Henry A. Griffin on “The City
of the Straits” in _Mag. of Western History_, Oct., 1885, p. 571.

[1187] See Vol. IV. p. 316. Shea’s volume is entitled: _Relation des
affaires du Canada, en 1696. Avec des lettres des Pères de la Compagnie
de Jésus depuis 1696 jusqu’en 1702_. (N. Y., 1865.) Contents: La guerre
contre les Iroquois; De la mission Iroquoise du Sault Saint François
Xavier en 1696, ex literis Jac. de Lamberville; De la mission Illinoise
en 1696, par le P. Gravier; Lettre du P. J. Gravier à Monseigneur
Laval, 17 sept., 1697; Lettre de M. de Montigni au Rev. P. Bruyas
[Chicago, 23 avril, 1699]; Lettre du P. Gabriel Marest, 1700; Lettre du
P. L. Chaigneau sur le rétablissement des missions Iroquoises en 1702;
Relation du Destroit; Lettre du P. G. Marest [du pays des Illinois, 29
avril, 1699]; Lettre du P. J. Binneteau [du pays des Illinois, 1699];
Lettre du P. J. Bigot [du pays des Abnaquis, 1699].

These papers illustrate affairs in the extreme west just at the opening
of the period we are now considering. Cf. also the “Mémoire sur le
Canada” (1682-1712) in _Collection de Manuscrits ... relatifs à la
Nouvelle France_, Quebec, 1883, p. 551, etc.

[1188] Letters (1703) from Cadillac to Count Pontchartrain (p.
101), and to La Touche (p. 133); the developments of Cadillac’s
defence in 1703 and later years (p. 142); Père Marest’s letter from
Michilimackinac in 1706 (p. 206); a letter of Cadillac in the same
year (p. 218), reports of Indian councils held at Montreal, Detroit,
and Quebec in 1707 (pp. 232, 251, 263); a letter of Cadillac to
Pontchartrain (p. 277) and D’Aigrement’s report on an inspection of
the posts (p. 280), both in 1708. Speeches of Vaudreuil and an Ottawa
chief, from a MS. brought from Paris by Gen. Cass, are printed in the
_Western Reserve Hist. Soc. Papers_, no. 8. These papers, as translated
by Whittlesey, pertaining to affairs about Detroit in 1706, are revised
by that gentleman and reprinted in Beach’s _Indian Miscellany_, p. 270.

[1189] Cf. Shea’s _Charlevoix_, v. 257; Sheldon’s _Michigan_, 297.

[1190] A memoir on the peace made by De Lignery, the commandant at
Mackinac, with the Indians in 1726 (p. 148); letters of Longueil, July
25, 1726 (p. 156), and Beauharnois, Oct. 1, 1726 (p. 156); a petition
of the inhabitants of Detroit to the Intendant in 1726, with Tonti’s
remonstrance (pp. 169, 175); a memoir of the king on the Indian war,
and another by Longueil on the peace (pp. 160, 165).

[1191] Cf. ch. ii. Dudley’s speech in aid of the expedition is given in
the _Boston Newsletter_, no. 377, and his call of June 9, 1711, upon
New Hampshire to furnish its contingent appears in the _N. H. Prov.
Papers_, iii. 479.

[1192] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 295; Harv. Coll. Lib., 4375.11; Cooke,
no. 2,544; Menzies, no. 2,026; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, ii. 63.

[1193] Carter-Brown, iii. nos. 166, 825; Harv. Coll. Lib., 4375.16;
6374.36.

[1194] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 167; Bost. Pub. Lib., H. 98.18. Cf.
also _Letter from an old whig in town ... upon the late expedition to
Canada_ [signed X. Z.], published at London in 1711. (Carter-Brown,
iii. no. 146; Harv. Coll. lib., 4375.14.)

[1195] _New England_, iv. 281, 282.

[1196] Notwithstanding the failure of the expedition, Dudley issued a
Thanksgiving proclamation for other mercies, etc. _N. H. Prov. Papers_,
ii. 629. In general, see _Boston Newsletter_, nos. 379-81; Penhallow,
pp. 62-67; Niles, in _Mass. Hist. Coll._, xxxv. 328; Hutchinson’s
_Massachusetts_, ii. 175, 180; _N. Y. Col. Docs._, iv. 277; v. 284;
ix., _passim_; Chalmers’ _Revolt_, etc., i. 349; Lediard’s _Naval
History_, 851; Williamson’s _Maine_, ii. 63; Palfrey’s _New England_,
iv. 278, etc., with references; _Mem. Hist. Boston_, ii. 106. The
tax for the expedition was the occasion of Thomas Maule’s _Tribute
to Cæsar, with some remarks on the late vigorous expedition against
Canada_, Philadelphia [1712]. Hildeburn’s _Century of Printing_, no.
120.

[1197] Vol. v. 238, 245, 247, 252.

[1198] Cf. also Garneau, _Histoire de Canada_ (1882), ii. 48;
Juchereau, _Hist. de l’hôtel Dieu_; Grange de Chessieux, _La conduite
des Français justifiée_, and an edition of the same edited by
Butel-Dumont.

[1199] The two volumes are edited, with an introduction, by R.
A. Brock. Bancroft had used these papers when owned by Mr. J. R.
Spotswood, of Orange County, Va. The MS. was carried to England by Mr.
G. W. Featherstonehaugh, and of his widow it was bought by the Virginia
Hist. Society in 1873.

[1200] Mr. Brock refers to accounts of it in Hugh Jones’s _Present
State of Virginia_; the preface to Beverly’s _Virginia_; Campbell’s
_Virginia_; Slaughter’s _Hist. of Bristol Parish_; and in Slaughter’s
_St. Mark’s Parish_ is a paper on “The Knights of the Golden
Horseshoe,” crediting the diary of John Fontaine, which he reprints (it
is also in Maury’s _Huguenot Family_, N. Y., 1872, p. 281), with giving
the most we know of the expedition. Cf. also J. Esten Cooke’s _Stories
of the Old Dominion_, N. Y., 1879; and W. A. Caruthers’ _Knights of
the Horseshoe_. Slaughter also gives a map of Spotswood’s route from
Germanna to the Shenandoah.

Palmer, the editor of the _Calendar of Virginia State Papers_ (p.
lix.), could find nothing official throwing light on this expedition.

[1201] Spotswood’s _Official Letters_, ii. 296, 329.

[1202] It is printed in _Hist. Mag._, vi. 19. The treaty between Keith
and the Five Nations at Albany, Sept., 1722, was printed that year in
Philadelphia, as were treaties at a later date at Conestogoe (May,
1728) and Philadelphia (June, 1728), made with the Western Indians.
Hildeburn’s _Century of Printing_, nos. 189, 356. There were reports in
1732 of the French being then at work building near the Ohio “a fort
with loggs” (_Penna. Archives_, i. 310), and delivering speeches to the
Shawanese (_Ibid._, p. 325).

[1203] Cf. C. C. Royce on the identity and history of the Shawnees in
_Mag. of West. History_, May, 1885, p. 38.

[1204] Walker’s _Athens Co., Ohio_, p. 5.

[1205] Printed in the _Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., vi. 49, and in the
_N. Y. Col. Docs._, ix. 885.

[1206] The Ohio was the division between Canada and Louisiana. Cf. Du
Pratz, Paris, 1758, vol. i. 329.

[1207] _Wisconsin Hist. Coll._, vols. i. and iii. (p. 141).

[1208] _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, octavo ed., i. p. 15.

[1209] _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, i. 163, 319; ii. 407. It was printed in
English by Franklin in 1757. (_Franklin’s Works in the Boston Public
Library_, p. 40.) A journal of his mission to the Ohio Indians in 1748
is given in the _Penna. Hist. Soc. Coll._, i. (1853) p. 23. Cf. T. J.
Chapman in _Mag. of West. Hist._, Oct., 1885, p. 631.

[1210] There is an abstract of Trent’s Journal in Knapp’s _Maumee
Valley_, p. 23.

[1211] _Penna. Hist. Soc. Coll._, i. p. 85. Cf. Proud’s _Pennsylvania_,
ii. 296, and Mr. Russel Errett on the Indian geographical names along
the Ohio and the Great Lakes in the _Mag. of West. Hist._, 1885.

[1212] C. C. Baldwin’s _Indian Migrations in Ohio_, reprinted from the
_Amer. Antiquarian_, April, 1879; _Mag. of West. Hist._, Nov., 1884, p.
41; Hiram W. Beckwith’s paper on the _Illinois and Indiana Indians_,
which makes no. 27 of the _Fergus Historical Series_. It includes
the Illinois, Miamis, Kickapoos, Winnebagoes, Foxes and Sacks, and
Pottawatomies. Cf. Davidson and Struvé’s _Hist. Illinois_, 1874, ch.
iv., and the reference in Vol. IV. p. 298.

[1213] _Pontiac_, i. 32.

[1214] W. R. Smith’s _Wisconsin_, i. p. 60. Cf. also Breese’s _Early
Hist. of Illinois_. The more restricted application of this term is
seen in a “plan of the several villages in the Illinois country,
with a part of the River Mississippi, by Thomas Hutchins;” showing
the position of the old and new Fort Chartres, which is in Hutchins’
_Topographical Description of Virginia_, etc. (London, 1778, and
Boston, 1787), and is reëngraved in the French translation published
by Le Rouge in Paris, 1781. This same translation gives a section of
Hutchins’ large map, showing the country from the Great Kenawha to
Winchester and Lord Fairfax’s, and marking the sites of Forts Shirley,
Loudon, Littleton, Cumberland, Bedford, Ligonier, Byrd, and Pitt.
Logstown is on the north side of the Ohio. The portages connecting the
affluents of the Potomac with those of the Ohio are marked. The map
is entitled: _Carte des environs du Fort Pitt et la nouvelle Province
Indiana, dediée à M. Franklin_. The province of Indiana is bounded by
the Laurel Mountain range, the Little Kenawha, the Ohio, and a westerly
extension of the Northern Maryland line, being the grant in 1768 to
Samuel Wharton, William Trent, and George Morgan.

[1215] Sparks, _Franklin_, iv. 325. Smith (_New York_, 1814, p. 266)
says “there was only an entry in the books of the secretary for Indian
affairs,” and the surrender “through negligence was not made by the
execution of a formal deed under seal.” Cf. _French encroachments
exposed, or Britain’s original right to all that part of the American
continent claimed by France fully asserted.... In two letters from a
merchant retired from business to his friend in London._ London, 1756.
(Carter-Brown, iii. 1,115.)

[1216] James Maury in 1756, referring to Evans’ map, says, “It is but
small, not above half as large as Fry and Jefferson’s, consequently
crowded. It gives an attentive peruser a clear idea of the value of the
now contested lands and waters to either of the two competitor princes,
together with a proof, amounting to more than a probability, that he
of the two who shall remain master of Ohio and the Lakes must in the
course of a few years become sole and absolute lord of North America.”
Maury’s _Huguenot Family_, 387. T. Pownall’s _Topographical description
of such parts of North America as are contained in the (annexed) map
of the British middle colonies, etc., in North America_ (London,
1776) contains Evans’ map, pieced out by Pownall, and it reprints
Evans’ preface (1755), with an additional preface by Pownall, dated
Albemarle Street (London), Nov. 22, 1775, in which it is said that
the map of 1755 was used by the officers during the French war, and
served every practicable purpose. He says Evans followed for Virginia
Fry and Jefferson’s map (1751), and that John Henry’s map of Virginia,
published by Jefferys in 1770, enabled him (Pownall) to add little.
For Pennsylvania Evans had been assisted by Mr. Nicholas Scull, who in
1759 published his map of Pennsylvania, and for the later edition of
1770 Pownall says he added something. As to New Jersey, Pownall claims
he used the drafts of Alexander, surveyor-general, and that he has
followed Holland for the boundary line between New Jersey and New York.
Pownall affirms that Holland disowned a map of New York and New Jersey
which Jefferys published with Holland’s name attached, though some
portions of it followed surveys made by Holland. What Pownall added
of New England he took from the map in Douglass, correcting it from
drafts in the Board of Trade office, and following for the coasts the
surveys of Holland or his deputies. Pownall denounces the “late Thomas
Jefferys” for his inaccurate and untrustworthy pirated edition of the
Evans map, the plate of which fell into the hands of Sayer, the map
publisher, and was used by him in more than one atlas.

[1217] Sparks, _Franklin_, iv. 330.

[1218] This deed is in Pownall’s _Administration of the Colonies_,
London, 1768, p. 269.

[1219] Evans’ map of 1755 is held to embody the best geographical
knowledge of this region, picked up mainly between 1740 and 1750. The
region about Lake Erie with the positions of the Indian tribes, is
given from this map, in Whittlesey’s _Early Hist. of Cleveland_, p. 83.
This author mentions some instances of axe-cuts being discovered in the
heart of old trees, which would carry the presence of Europeans in the
valley back of all other records.

There are stories of early stragglers, willing and unwilling, into
Kentucky from Virginia, after 1730. Collins, _Kentucky_, i. 15; Shaler,
_Kentucky_, 59. A journey of one John Howard in 1742 is insisted on.
Kercheval’s _Valley of Virginia_, 67; Butler’s _Kentucky_, i., introd.;
_Memoir and Writings of J. H. Perkins_, ii. 185.

[1220] _Five Nations._

[1221] _Administration of the Colonies._

[1222] Sparks, _Franklin_, iv. 326.

[1223] This has been reprinted as no. 26 of the _Fergus Hist. Series_,
“with notes by Edward Everett;” certain extracts from a notice of
the address, contributed by Mr. Everett to the _No. Amer. Review_ in
1840, being appended. A recent writer, Alfred Mathews, in the _Mag.
of Western History_ (i. 41), thinks the Iroquois conquests may have
reached the Miami River. Cf. also C. C. Baldwin in _Western Reserve
Hist. Tracts_, no. 40; and Isaac Smucker in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._,
June, 1882, p. 408.

J. H. Perkins (_Mem. and Writings_, ii. 186) cites what he considers
proofs that the Iroquois had pushed to the Mississippi, but doubts
their claim to possess lands later occupied by others.

Franklin’s recapitulation of the argument in favor of the English claim
is in Sparks’ _Franklin_, iv. 324; but Sparks (_Ibid._, iv. 335) allows
it is not substantiated by proofs, and enlarges upon the same view in
his _Washington_, ii. 13.

[1224] Colden’s official account of this conference and treaty was
printed in Philadelphia the same year by Benjamin Franklin: _A Treaty
held at the Town of Lancaster in Pennsylvania by the Honourable the
lieutenant governor of the Province, and the Commissioners for the
provinces of Virginia and Maryland, with the Indians of the Six
Nations in June, 1744_. There is a copy in Harvard College library
[5325.38]. Quaritch priced a copy in 1885 at £6. 10_s._ Cf. Barlow’s
_Rough List_, no. 879; Brinley, iii. no. 5,488; Carter-Brown, iii.
785, with also (no. 784) an edition printed at Williamsburg the same
year. There was a reprint at London in 1745. It was included in later
editions of Colden’s _Five Nations_. Cf. J. I. Mombert’s _Authentic
Hist. of Lancaster County_, 1869, app. p.51. The journal of William
Marshe, in attendance on the commissioners, is printed in the _Mass.
Hist. Collections_, vii. 171. Cf. Wm. Black’s journal in _Penna. Mag of
Hist._, vols. i. and ii. Black was the secretary of the commission, and
his editor is R. A. Brock, of Richmond. Stone, in his _Life of Sir Wm.
Johnson_, i. 91, gives a long account of the meeting. See the letter of
Conrad Weiser in Proud’s _Pennsylvania_, ii. 316, wherein he gives his
experience (1714-1746) in observing the characteristics of the Indians.
Weiser was an interpreter and agent of Pennsylvania, and a large
number of his letters to the authorities during his career are in the
_Penna. Archives_, vols. i., ii., and iii. The _Brinley Catal._, iii.
p. 105, shows various printed treaties with the Ohio Indians of about
this time. Those that were printed in Pennsylvania are enumerated in
Hildeburn’s _Century of Printing_, nos. 852, 870, 907, etc.; and those
printed by Franklin, as most of them were, are noted in the _Catal. of
Works relating to Benjamin Franklin in the Boston Public Library_, p.
39.

[1225] _Mass. Hist. Coll._, vi. 134.

[1226] Thomson, _Bibliog. of Ohio_, no. 1,099; Carter-Brown, iii.
1,092. The French posts north of the Ohio in 1755, according to the
_Present State of North America_, published that year in London, were
Le Bœuf and Venango (on French Creek), Duquesne, Sandusky, Miamis, St.
Joseph’s (near Lake Michigan), Pontchartrain (Detroit), Michilmackinac,
Fox River (Green Bay), Crèvecœur and Fort St. Louis (on the Illinois),
Vincennes, Cahokia, Kaskaskia, and at the mouths of the Wabash, Ohio,
and Missouri. A portion of Gov. Pownall’s map, showing the location
of the Indian villages and portages of the Ohio region, is given in
fac-simile in _Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., ii. Cf. map in _London Mag._,
June, 1754; Kitchin’s map of Virginia in _Ibid._, Nov., 1761; and his
map of the French settlements in _Ibid._, Dec., 1747.

James Maury (1756) contrasts the enterprise of the French in acquiring
knowledge of the Ohio Valley with the backwardness of the English.
Maury’s _Huguenot Family_, 394.

Smith (_New York_, ii. 172), referring to the period of the alarm of
French encroachments on the Ohio, speaks of its valley as a region “of
which, to our shame, we had no knowledge except by the books and maps
of the French missionaries and geographers.”

A tract called _The wisdom and policy of the French, ... with
observations on disputes between the English and French colonists in
America_ (London, 1755) examines the designs of the French in their
alliance with the Indians.

[1227] Beauharnois’ despatches about Oswego begin in 1728 (_N. Y. Col.
Docs._, ix. 1,010). That same year Walpole addressed a paper on the
two posts to the French government, and with it is found in the French
archives a plan of Oswego, “fait à Montreal 17 Juillet, 1727, signé
De Lery.” The correspondence of Gov. Burnet and Beauharnois is in
_Ibid._, ix. p. 999. The plan just named is also in the _Doc. Hist. N.
Y._, vol. i., in connection with papers respecting the founding of the
post. Smith (_New York_, 1814, p. 273) holds that the French purpose
to demolish the works at Oswego in 1729 caused a reinforcement of the
garrison, which deterred them from the attempt. Smith says of the
original fort there that its situation had little regard to anything
beside the pleasantness of the prospect. Burnet, the New York governor,
exerted himself to destroy the trade between Albany and Montreal, and
the report of a committee which he transmitted to the home government
is printed in Smith’s _New York_ (Albany, 1814 ed., p. 246); but in
1729 the machinations of those interested in the trade procured the
repeal of the restraining act. (_Ibid._, 274; cf. Smith, vol. ii.
(1830) p. 97.) At a late day (1741) there is an abstract of despatches
to the French minister respecting Oswego in the _Penna. Archives_ (2d
ser., vi. 51), and a paper on the state of the French and English on
Ontario in 1743 is in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vi. 227.

[1228] _N. Y. Col. Docs._, ix. 386.

[1229] O. H. Marshall on the Niagara frontier, in the _Buffalo Hist.
Soc. Publications_, vol. ii. Smith (_New York_, 1814, p. 268) says
that “Charlevoix himself acknowledges that Niagara was a part of the
territory of the Five Nations; yet the pious Jesuit applauds the French
settlement there, which was so manifest an infraction of the treaty of
Utrecht.”

A view of the neighboring cataract at this period is given by Moll on
one of his maps (1715), and is reproduced in Cassell’s _United States_,
i. 541.

[1230] Of the occupation of Crown Point by the French, Smith (_New
York_, 1814, p. 279) says: “Of all the French infractions of the treaty
of Utrecht, none was more palpable than this. The country belonged
to the Six Nations, and the very spot upon which the fort stands is
included within the patent to Dellius, the Dutch minister of Albany,
granted in 1696.” Again he says (p. 280): “The Massachusetts government
foresaw the dangerous consequences of the French fort at Crown Point,
and Gov. Belcher gave us the first intimation of it.” It was not till
1749 that there were reports that the French were beginning to plant
settlers about Crown Point. (_Penna. Archives_, ii. 20.) Jefferys
published a map showing the grants made by the French about Lake
Champlain.

The English fort at Crown Point was built farther from the lake than
the earlier French inconsiderable work. Chas. Carroll (_Journal to
Canada_ in 1776, ed. of 1876, p. 78) describes its ruins at that
time,—-the result of an accidental fire.

[1231] W. C. Watson’s _Hist. of the County of Essex_, Albany, 1869, ch.
iii.

[1232] _N. Y. Col. Docs._ ix. 1,041, etc.

[1233] _Hist. Documents_ of the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec, in 1840.

[1234] A translation of Weiser’s journal on this mission is in the
_Penna. Hist. Col._, i. 6.

[1235] Pierre Margry has two articles in the _Moniteur Universel_, and
a chapter, “Les Varennes de Vérendrye,” in the _Revue Canadienne_,
ix. 362. The Canadian historian, Benjamin Sulte, has a monograph,
_La Vérendrye_, a paper, “Champlain et la Vérendrye,” in the _Revue
Canadienne_, 2d ser., i. 342, and one on “Le nom de la Vérendrie” in
_Nouvelles Soirées Canadiennes_, ii. p. 5. The Rev. Edw. D. Neill has
a pamphlet, _Le Sieur de la Vérendrye and his sons, discoverers of the
Rocky Mountains by way of Lakes Superior and Winnipeg_, Minneapolis,
1875. Cf. also Garneau, _Hist. du Canada_, 4th ed., ii. 96.

In the Kohl Collection (no. 128) of the Department of State there are
copies of three maps in illustration. The first is a MS. map by La
Vérendrye, preserved in the Dépôt de la Marine, “donnée par Monsieur
de la Galissonière, 1750,” which Kohl places about 1730, showing the
country, with portages, forts, and trading posts, between Lake Superior
and Hudson’s Bay. The second (no. 129) is an Indian map made by
Ochagach, likewise in the Marine. Kohl supposes it to have been carried
to Europe by La Vérendrye, who used it in making the map first named.
The third map (no. 130), also in the same archives, is inscribed:
_Carte des nouvelles découvertes dans l’ouest du Canada et des nations
qui y habitent; Dressée, dit-on, sur les Mémoires de Monsieur de la
Véranderie, mais fort imparfaite à ce gu’il m’a dit. Donnée au Dépôt de
la Marine par Monsieur de la Galissonière en 1750_.

[1236] Cf. _Wisconsin Hist. Coll._, iii. 197; _Hist. Mag._, i. 295;
Joseph Tassé on “Charles de Langlade” in _Revue Canadienne_, v. 881,
and in his _Les Canadiens de l’ouest_, Montreal, 1878 (p. 1, etc.);
also M. M. Strong, in his _Territory of Wisconsin_ (Madison, 1885), p.
41.

[1237] It will be found in Beatson’s _Naval and Military Memoirs_, p.
144, and in the _Amer. Magazine_, i. pp. 381-84.

[1238] Conrad Weiser’s letter, Sept. 29, 1744, in _Penna. Archives_, i.
661.

[1239] Smith’s _New York_, ii. p. 71.

[1240] _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 22, etc.

[1241] Hildeburn, _Cent. of Printing_, no. 959; _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vi.
289, etc.; Brinley, iii. no. 5,490. Stone, _Life of Johnson_, i. ch.
iv., gives a long account. There was about the same time (1745-47) a
plot laid by Nicholas, a Huron, to exterminate the French in the West.
Knapp’s _Maumee Valley_, p. 14. Smith (_New York_, ii. 35) gives an
account of the conference of Aug., 1746.

[1242] Lord John Russell, in his introduction to the _Bedford
Correspondence_, i. p. xlviii., says: “Had the Duke of Bedford been
allowed to order the sailing of the expedition, it is most probable the
conquest of Canada would not have been reserved for the Seven Years’
War; but the indecision or timidity of the Duke of Newcastle delayed
and finally broke up the expedition.” A representation of the Duke of
Bedford and others upon the reduction of Canada, made March 30, 1746,
is in _Bedford Corresp._, i. 65.

[1243] Harv. Coll. lib., 4375.25; Carter-Brown, iii. 1,161; Stevens,
_Bibl. Geog._, no. 1,835.

[1244] Brinley, i. 61. Cf. Stone’s _Johnson_, i. 190.

[1245] _Bedford Correspondence_, i. 285. There was a treaty with the
Ohio Indians at Philadelphia, Nov. 13, 1747 (Hildeburn, no. 1,110); and
another at Lancaster in July, 1748, for admitting the Twightwees into
alliance. (_Ibid._, no. 1,111.)

[1246] In addition to the references there given, note may be taken of
a paper on the expedition, by O. H. Marshall, in the _Mag. of Amer.
Hist._, ii. 129 (Mar., 1878), with reference to the original documents
in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 189, and in the _Penna. Archives_,
2d ser., vi. 63. Cf. Bancroft, orig. ed., iv. 43. On his plates,
see _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, ix. 248; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Jan.,
1878, p. 52; and _Mag. of Western History_, June, 1885, p. 207. A
representation of a broken plate found at the mouth of the Muskingum
River, in 1798, is given in S. P. Hildreth’s _Pioneer Hist. of the
Ohio Valley_, Cincinnati, 1848, p. 20, with the inscription on the one
found at the mouth of the Kenawha in 1846 (p. 23). An account of the
Muskingum plate was given by De Witt Clinton in the _Amer. Antiq. Soc.
Trans._, ii. 430. Its defective inscription is given in the _Mémoires
sur les Affaires du Canada_, p. 209. Cf. Sparks’s _Washington_, ii.
430. Other fac-similes of these plates can be seen in _Olden Time_, p.
288; _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vi. 611; Egle’s _Pennsylvania_ (p. 318; also
cf. p. 1121); De Hass’s _Western Virginia_, p. 50.

The places where the plates were buried are marked on a map preserved
in the Marine at Paris, made by Père Bonnecamps, who accompanied
Céloron. It shows eight points where observations for latitude were
taken, and extends the Alleghany River up to Lake Chautauqua. It is
called _Carte d’un voyage, fait dans la belle rivière en la Nouvelle
France, 1749, par le reverend Père Bonnecamps, Jesuite mathématicien_.
There is a copy in the Kohl Collection, in the Department of State at
Washington.

Kohl identifies the places of burial as follows: Kananouangon (Warren,
Pa.); Rivière aux bœufs (Franklin, Pa.); R. Ranonouara (near Wheeling);
R. Yenariguékonnan (Marietta); R. Chinodaichta (Pt. Pleasant, W. Va.);
R. à la Roche (mouth of Great Miami River).

There are two portages marked on the map: one from Lake Chautauqua to
Lake Erie, and the other from La Demoiselle on the R. à la Roche to
Fort des Miamis on the R. des Miamis, flowing into Lake Erie.

In the annexed sketch of the map, the rude marks of the fleur-de-lis
show “les endroits ou l’on enterré des lames de plomb;” the double
daggers “les latitudes observées;” and the houses “les villages.”

The map has been engraved in J. H. Newton’s _Hist. of the Pan Handle,
West Virginia_ (Wheeling, 1879), p. 37, with a large representation of
a plate found at the mouth of Wheeling Creek (p. 40).

Spotswood in 1716 had taken similar measures to mark the Valley of
Virginia for the English king. John Fontaine, who accompanied him, says
in his journal: “The governor had graving irons, but could not grave
anything, the stones were so hard. The governor buried a bottle with a
paper enclosed, on which he writ that he took possession of this place,
and in the name of and for King George the First of England.” Maury’s
_Huguenot Family_, p. 288.

[1247] The home government ordered Virginia to make this grant to the
Ohio Company. In 1749, 800,000 acres were granted to the Loyal Company.
In 1751 the Green Briar Company received 100,000 acres. Up to 1757,
Virginia had granted 3,000,000 acres west of the mountains.

[1248] _Dinwiddie Papers_, i. 272. The American Revolution ended the
company’s existence. See _ante_, p. 10; also Rupp’s _Early Hist.
Western Penna._, p. 3; Lowdermilk’s _Cumberland_, p. 26; Sparks’s
_Washington_, ii., app.; Sparks’s _Franklin_, iv. 336.

[1249] This treaty was made June 13, 1752. The position of Logstown is
in doubt. Cf. _Dinwiddie Papers_, i. p. 6. It appears on the map in
Bouquet’s _Expedition_, London, 1766. Cf. De Hass’s _West. Virginia_,
70.

[1250] _Ante_, p. 10.

[1251] _Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., vi. 516, and in _N. Y. Col. Docs._,
vii. 267, etc.

[1252] _Penna. Archives_, ii. 31. William Smith, in 1756, spoke of the
French “seizing all the advantages which we have neglected.” (_Hist. of
N. York_, Albany, 1814, Preface, p. x.)

[1253] This plan is also reproduced in Hough’s ed. of Pouchot, ii. 9;
in Hough’s _St. Lawrence and Franklin Counties_, 70; in the papers on
the early settlement of Ogdensburg, in _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, i. 430.

[1254] Translated in Hough’s _St. Lawrence and Franklin Counties_,
p. 85, where will be found an account of the mission (p. 49), and a
view of it (p. 17) after the English took possession. De la Lande’s
“Mémoires” of Piquet are in the _Lettres Édifiantes_, vol. xv., and
there is an abridged version in the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._ The Canadian
historian, Joseph Tassé, gives an account of Piquet in the _Revue
Canadienne_, vii. 5, 102.

[1255] _Travels_, London, 1771, ii. 310.

[1256] _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 205, May 15, 1750.

[1257] _Penna Archives_, 2d ser., vi. 108.

[1258] A paper in _Hist. Mag._, viii. 225, dwells on the impolicy of
the French government in superseding Galissonière.

[1259] _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 220.

[1260] Stone’s _Johnson; Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., vi.

[1261] _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vi. 734; x. 239, etc.

[1262] _Ibid._, vi. 738.

[1263] _Ibid._, vi. 614-39.

[1264] _Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., vi. 123, 125.

[1265] Sedgwick’s _William Livingston_, p.99; Parkman’s _Montcalm and
Wolfe_, i. p. 54.

[1266] Thomson, _Bibliog. of Ohio_, no. 1,149; Parkman, _Montcalm and
Wolfe_, i. 85. Cf. Sparks’s _Franklin_, iv. 71, 330; _Contest in North
America_, p. 36, etc.

[1267] Thomson, nos. 449, 940. Thomas Cresap writes in 1751, “Mr.
Muntour tells me the Indians on the Ohio would be very glad if the
French traders were taken, for they have as great a dislike to them as
we have, and think we are afraid of them, because we patiently suffer
our men to be taken by them.” Palmer’s _Calendar of Virginia State
Papers_, p. 247.

[1268] _Montcalm and Wolfe_, i. ch. v.

[1269] His foot-notes indicate the particular papers on which he
depends among the Parkman MS. in the Mass. Hist. Soc. library, as
well as papers in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vi. 806, 835, etc., x. 255,
and in the _Colonial Records of Pennsylvania_, v. 659. Cf. papers
on the French movements in the Ohio Valley in 1753, in the _Mag. of
Western Hist._, Aug., 1885, p. 369; and T. J. Chapman on “Washington’s
first public service,” in Mag. of Amer. Hist., 1885, p. 248, and on
“Washington’s first campaign,” in _Ibid._, Jan., 1886.

[1270] Cf. _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 259, note.

[1271] Cf. Thomson’s _Bibliog. of Ohio_, 450.

[1272] _Sparks’s Catal._, p. 224; also Sparks’s _Washington_, i.
48, ii. p. x. Sparks considered that these papers “filled up the
chasm occasioned by the loss of Washington’s papers” in the Braddock
campaign. Referring to Washington’s letters during the French war,
Sparks (ii., introd.) says that Washington, twenty or thirty years
after they were written, caused them to be copied, after he had revised
them, and it is in this amended condition they are preserved, though
several originals still exist. In his reply to Mahon (Cambridge, 1852,
p. 30) Sparks says that this revision by Washington showed “numerous
erasures, interlineations, and corrections in almost every letter,”
probably meaning in those whose originals are preserved. With the
canons governing Sparks as an editor, this revision was followed in his
edition of _Washington’s Writings_; but the historian regrets, as he
reads the record in Sparks’s volumes, that the Washington of the French
war has partly disappeared in the riper character which he became after
he had known the experiences of the American Revolution.

[1273] _The Official Records of Robert Dinwiddie, lieutenant-governor
of the Colony of Virginia_, 1751-58, Richmond, 1883-84, 2 vols.

[1274] Brinley, ii. no. 4,189, a copy which brought $560. Though
described as in “the original marble wrapper,” it did not have a map,
as the copy noted in the _Carter-Brown Catal._ (iii. 1,033) does,
though this may have been added from the London reprint of the same
year, which had “a new map of the country as far as the Mississippi.”
This map is largely derived from Charlevoix. Trumbull, in noting this
reprint (Brinley, ii. 4,190), implies that the original edition did
not have a map, which may be inferred from what Washington says of
its being put hurriedly to press, after he had had only a single day
to write it up from his rough notes. This London reprint is also in
the Carter-Brown library (iii. no. 1,034), and Thomson’s _Bibliog. of
Ohio_ (no. 1,187) records sales of it as follows: (1866) Morrell, $46;
(1867) Roche, $49; (1869) Morrell, $40; (1870) Rice, $52; (1871) Bangs
& Co., $28; (1875) Field, $30; (1876) Menzies, $48. The Brinley copy
brought $80. Cf. Rich., _Bib. Amer. Nova_ (after 1700), p. 105; Field,
_Indian Bibliog._, no. 1,623; Stevens, _Hist. Coll._, i. no. 1,618;
F. S. Ellis (1884), no. 310, £7 10_s._ Sabin reprinted the London
edition in 1865 (200 copies, small paper), and other reprints of the
text are in Sparks’s _Washington_, ii. 432-447; in I. Daniel Rupp’s
_Early History of Western Pennsylvania, and of the West, and of Western
Expeditions and Campaigns, from 1754 to 1833. By a gentleman of the
bar. With an appendix containing the most important Indian Treaties,
Journals, Topographical Descriptions_, etc. Pittsburgh, 1846, p. 392;
in the appendix to the _Diary of Geo. Washington_, 1789-91, ed. by B.
J. Lossing, pp. 203-248, with notes by J. G. Shea, N. Y., 1860, and
Richmond, 1861; and in Blanchard’s _Discovery and Conquests of the
North West_, app., 1-30, Chicago, 1880.

Stevens (_Hist. Coll._, i. p. 131) says the “original autograph of
Washington’s Journal” is in the Public Record Office in London.

St. Pierre’s letter to Dinwiddie was also printed in the _London
Magazine_, June, 1754. This and the allied correspondence are in the
_Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., vi. 164, etc.; and in Lossing’s ed. of
_Washington’s Diaries_.

The letter of Holdernesse to the governors of the English colonies,
authorizing force against the French, is in Sparks’s _Franklin_, iii.
251. Sir Thomas Robinson’s letter (July 5, 1754) urging resistance to
French encroachments, with the comments of the Lords of Trade, is in
the _New Jersey Archives_, viii. pp. 292, 294; where will also be found
Robinson’s letter (Oct. 26, 1754) urging enlistments (_Ibid._, Part ii.
p. 17.)

[1275] _Washington_, ii. 7.

[1276] _Penna. Archives_, ii. 233.

[1277] Sparks’s _Washington_, ii. 23; Field, _Indian Bibliog._, no.
1,051, with an erroneous note; Thomson, _Bibliog. of Ohio_, no. 809;
Leclerc, _Bib. Amer._, no. 761.

[1278] Carter-Brown, iii. nos. 1,122-24.

[1279] Leclerc, _Bib. Amer._, no. 762.

[1280] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,151; Thomson, _Bibliog. of Ohio_, no.
264.

[1281] Sparks’s _Washington_, ii. 24; Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,162;
Thomson, _Bibliog. of Ohio_, nos. 811, 812. It was reprinted in 1757 in
Philadelphia. Thomson, no. 810; Hildeburn, _Century of Printing_, i.
1,537.

[1282] Stevens, _Bibliotheca Hist._ (1870), no. 1,383; Carter-Brown,
iii. 1,229; Sabin, xii. 51,661.

[1283] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,167; Cooke, no. 2,904; Sabin, x. p.
412; Murphy, no. 1,510; Field, _Indian Bibliog._, no. 944. It is also
reprinted in _Olden Time_, vol. ii. 140-277 (Field, no. 1,052), and in
Lowdermilk’s _Cumberland_, p. 55, etc.

[1284] _Montcalm and Wolfe_, i. 155.

[1285] Parkman also characterizes as “short and very incorrect” the
abstract of it which is printed in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vol. x.

[1286] Cf. letter of Contrecœur in the _Précis des Faits_; in Pouchot’s
_Mémoire sur la dernière Guerre_, i. p. 14 (also Hough’s translation);
in _Le Politique Danois, ou l’ambition des Anglais demasquée par leurs
Pirateries_, Copenhagen, 1756 (Stevens, _Bibliotheca Geographica_,
no. 2,212; Sabin, xv. no. 63,831); in _Histoire de la Guerre contre
les Anglois_ (Geneva, 1759, two vols.), attributed to Puellin de
Lumina, who speaks of “le cruel Washington;” in Thomas Balch’s _Les
Français en Amérique_ (p. 45); in Dussieux’s _Le Canada sous la
domination Française_, 118; in Gaspe’s _Anciens Canadiens_, 396.
There are other particular references given by Parkman. Garneau’s
account and inferences in his _Histoire du Canada_ are held to be
strictly impartial. Jumonville’s loss is noted in the _Collection de
Manuscrits_, etc. (Quebec, 1884), vol. iii. p. 521.

[1287] Poole’s _Index_ refers to the following: “Washington and the
death of Jumonville,” by W. T. Anderson, in _Canadian Monthly_, i.
p. 55; “Washington and the Jumonville of M. Thomas,” in _Historical
Magazine_, vi. 201. The “Jumonville” of Thomas was a poem published
in 1759, reflecting severely on Washington, and may be found in
_Œuvres de Thomas, par M. Saint-Surin_, v. p. 47. Peter Fontaine
represents the current opinion among the English, as to Jumonville’s
action, when he says that the French “were in ambush in the woods
waiting for” Washington. (Maury’s _Huguenot Family_, 361.) It is not
necessary to particularize the references to Smollett, and Mahon,
Marshall’s _Washington_, Warburton’s _Conquest of Canada_, and
other obvious books; though something of local help will be found
in W. H. Lowdermilk’s _History of Cumberland, Maryland, from 1728
up to the present day, embracing an account of Washington’s first
campaign, and battle of Fort Necessity, with a history of Braddock’s
expedition_, etc., Washington, 1878. Sargent also goes over the events
in the introduction to his _Braddock’s Expedition_, p. 43, etc., and
epitomizes the account by Adam Stephen in the _Pennsylvania Gazette_,
no. 1,343.

[1288] _Col. Rec. of Penna._, vi. 195.

[1289] A view of the fort is noted in the _Catal. of Paintings,
Pa. Hist. Soc._, 1872, no. 64. A diagram of Fort Necessity and its
surroundings, from a survey made in 1816, is given in Lowdermilk’s
_Cumberland_, p. 76. A plan of the attack is in Sparks’s _Washington_,
i. 56. De Hass (_Western Virginia_, 63, 65) says that in 1851 the
embankments of the fort could be traced; and that at one time a
proposition had been made to erect a monument on the site.

[1290] _Washington_, ii. 456-68.

[1291] Parkman, _Montcalm and Wolfe_. Cf. also _Penna. Archives_, ii.
146; _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 260; Walpole’s _Mem. of the Reign of George
II._, 2d ed., i. p. 399.

[1292] “It is a constant maxim among the Indians that if even they can
speak and understand English, yet when they treat of anything that
concerns their nation, they will not treat but in their own language.”
Journal of John Fontaine in Maury’s _Huguenot Family_, p. 273.

[1293] Henry Reed added to Mahon’s account in the Amer. ed. of that
historian (1849), ii. 307. There is a detailed account in Lowdermilk’s
_Cumberland_, p. 77.

[1294] _Braddock’s Expedition_, p. 55; Proud’s _Pennsylvania_, ii.
331. The _Enquiry_ has a map of the country, and the second journal
of Christian Frederic Post. The book was reprinted in Philad. in
1867. (Thomson, _Bibliog. of Ohio_, nos. 1145, 1146; Barlow’s _Rough
List_, no. 951, 952; H. C. lib., 5325.44.) Parkman (_Pontiac_, i. 85)
refers to Thomson’s tract “as designed to explain the causes of the
rupture, which took place at the outbreak of the French war, and the
text is supported by copious references to treaties and documents.”
Referring to a copy with MS. notes by Gov. Hamilton, Parkman says
that the proprietary governor cavils at several unimportant points,
but suffers the essential matter to pass unchallenged. Cf. _Several
Conferences between ... the Quakers and the Six Indian Nations in order
to reclaim their brethren the Delaware Indians from their defection_,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1756. (Brinley, iii. 5,497.)

[1295] J. M. Lemoine epitomizes Stobo’s career in his _Maple Leaves_,
new series, 1873, p. 55.

[1296] These articles are also in Livingston’s _Review of Mil.
Operations_, etc.; _Penna. Archives_, ii. 146; De Hass’s _Western
Virginia_, p. 67; S. P. Hildreth’s _Pioneer Hist. of the Ohio Valley_,
p. 36; Sparks’s _Washington_, ii. 459.

[1297] _History of an expedition against Fort Du Quesne, in 1755,
under Edward Braddock. Ed. from the original MSS._, Phila., 1855.
_Contents_:—Preface. Introductory memoir, pp. 15-280; Capt. [Robert]
Orme’s journal, pp. 281-358; Journal of the expedition, by an unknown
writer, in the possession of F. O. Morris, pp. 359-389; Braddock’s
instructions, etc., pp. 393-397; Letter by Col. Napier to Braddock, pp.
398-400; Fanny Braddock [by O. Goldsmith], pp. 401-406; G. Croghan’s
statement, pp. 407, 408; French reports of the action of the 9th July,
1755, pp. 409-413; Ballads, etc., pp. 414-416; Braddock’s last night in
London, pp. 417, 418; Index, pp. 419-423. Sargent was born in 1828, and
died in 1870. _N. E. Hist. and Gen. Reg._, 1872, p. 88.

[1298] Cf. _Catal. of Sparks MSS._, under vol. xliii., no. 4, for the
same.

[1299] Cf. letter dated Fort Cumberland, July 18, 1755, given in _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Coll._, xviii. 153, with list of officers killed; also in
_Hist. Mag._, viii. 353 (Nov., 1864); and in Lowdermilk’s _Cumberland_,
p. 180. It describes the flight of the army.

[1300] Keppel’s letter to Gov. Lawrence, of Nova Scotia, is in the
_Penna. Mag. of Hist._, Jan., 1886, p. 489.

[1301] Also in the _Penna. Archives_, ii. 203 (cf. 2d series, vi.
211), and _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vi. 920. In _Olden Time_, ii. 217, will
be found a re-Englished form of these instructions, taken from a
French version of them, which the French government published from the
original, captured among Braddock’s baggage.

[1302] Second ed., 1870, i. 101.

[1303] Orig. ed., iv. 184-192; final revision, ii. 420.

[1304] _Life and Writings of Washington_, vol. i., Memoir, and vol.
ii. 16-26, 68-93, 468. Sparks also encountered the subject in dealing
with Franklin, for the Autobiography of Franklin (_Franklin’s Works_,
ed. Sparks, i. 183,—some errors pointed out, p. 192; Bigelow’s ed., p.
303) gives some striking pictures of the confidence of Braddock and the
assurance of the public, the indignation of Braddock towards what he
conceived to be the apathy if not disloyalty of the Pennsylvanians, and
the assistance of Franklin himself in procuring wagons for the army (in
which he advanced money never wholly repaid,—_Franklin’s Works_, vii.
95). On this latter point, see Sargent, p. 164; and _Penna. Archives_,
vol. ii. 294.

Neville B. Craig’s _Washington’s First Campaign, Death of Jumonville,
and taking of Fort Necessity; also Braddock’s Defeat and the March of
the unfortunate General explained by a Civil Engineer_, Pittsburgh,
1848, is made up of papers from Mr. Craig’s monthly publication, _The
Olden Time_, published in Pittsburgh in 1846-1848, and reprinted in
Cincinnati in 1876. It had a folded map of Braddock’s route, repeated
in the work first named. Many of these _Olden Time_ papers are
reprinted in the _Virginia Historical Register_, v. 121.

The full title of Craig’s periodical was _The Olden Time; a monthly
publication devoted to the preservation of documents and other
authentic information in relation to the early explorations and the
settlement of the country around the head of the Ohio_. (Cf. Thomson’s
_Bibliog. of Ohio_, nos. 280, 892, 893; Field, _Ind. Bibliog._, no.
381.) Thomson refers to a similar publication of a little earlier date:
_The American Pioneer. A Monthly Periodical, devoted to the objects
of the Logan Historical Society; or to Collecting and Publishing
Sketches relative to the Early Settlement and Successive Improvement
of the Country. Edited and Published by John S. Williams_. Vol. i.,
Chillicothe, 1842; vol. ii., Cincinnati, 1843. After the removal of
the place of publication to Cincinnati, vol. i. was reprinted, which
accounts for the fact that in many copies vol. i. is dated Cincinnati,
1844, and vol. ii. 1843. The publication was discontinued at the end of
no. 10, vol. ii. It contains journals of campaigns against the Indians,
narratives of captivity, incidents of border warfare, biographical
sketches, etc. The Logan Historical Society was first organized on July
28, 1841, at Westfall, Pickaway County, near the spot where Logan,
the Mingo chief, is said to have delivered his celebrated speech.
The society flourished for two or three years. Mr. Williams was the
secretary of the society. An attempt was again made in 1849 to revive
the society, without success.

[1305] _Life of Washington_, i. ch. xiv.

[1306] For 1755, pp. 378, 426. The first intelligence which Gov. Morris
sent to England was from Carlisle, July 16. _Penna. Archives_, ii. 379.

[1307] The latest local rendering is in W. H. Lowdermilk’s _History of
Cumberland (Maryland) from 1728, embracing an account of Washington’s
first campaign, with a history of Braddock’s expedition, etc. With maps
and illustrations_. Washington, D. C., 1878. It is only necessary to
refer to such other later accounts as Hutchinson’s _Mass._, iii. 32;
Chalmers’ _Revolt_, ii. 275; Marshall’s _Washington_; Grahame’s _United
States_; Mahon’s _England_, vol. iv.; Hildreth’s _United States_, ii.
459-61; Scharf’s _Maryland_, i. ch. 15; J. E. Cooke’s _Virginia_, p.
344; A. Matthews in the _Mag. of Western History_, i. 509; Viscount
Bury’s _Exodus of the Western Nations_ (ii. p. 237), who quotes largely
from a despatch which he found in the Archives de la Guerre (Carton
marked “1755, Marine”).

[1308] _Letters_ (1755), and _Mem. Geo. II._, i. 190.

[1309] _Apology for her Life._

[1310] Capt. Bilkum in the _Covent Garden Tragedy_, 1732.

[1311] See a single letter in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, July, 1882, p.
502, dated June 11, 1755.

[1312] Braddock, at a later stage, was supplied with Evans’ map, for
acquiring a knowledge of the Ohio Valley. _Penna. Archives_, ii. 309,
317. There is in the Faden collection (Library of Congress), no. 4,
“Capt. Snow’s sketch of the country [to be traversed by Braddock]
by himself and the best accounts he could receive from the Indian
tribes,”—a MS. dated 1754, with also Snow’s original draft (no. 5).

[1313] Cf. Parton’s _Franklin_, i. 349. Gov. Sharpe’s letter on this
council is printed in Scharf’s _Maryland_, vol. i. 454.

[1314] A plan of Fort Cumberland, 1755, from a drawing in the King’s
Maps (Brit. Museum), is given in Lowdermilk’s _History of Cumberland_,
p. 92. (Cf. Scharf’s _Maryland_, i. p. 448.) A lithographic view
(1755), in Lowdermilk’s _Hist. of Cumberland_, is given in a reduced
wood-cut in Scharf’s _Maryland_, vol. i. p. 458.

[1315] Cf. a memoir and portrait of St. Clair by C. R. Hildeburn, in
the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, 1885, p. 1.

[1316] _America and West Indies_, vol. lxxxii.

[1317] _Mass. Hist. Coll._, vii. 91-94. Cf. _Letter to the people of
England on the present situation and conduct of national affairs_
(London, 1755). Sabin, x. no. 40,651.

[1318] See letter from Camp on Laurel Hill, July 12, 1755, on the
defeat, in _Hist. Mag._, vi. 160. In the _Penna. Mag. of History_, iii.
p. 11, is a MS. Newsletter by Daniel Dulany, dated Annapolis, Dec. 9,
1755, giving the current accounts.

[1319] Parkman notes (p. 221) as among his copies a letter of Gov.
Shirley to Robinson, Nov. 5, 1755, from the Public Record Office
(_Amer. and W. Indies_, lxxxii.); a report of the court of inquiry into
the behavior of the troops at the Monongahela; Burd to Morris, July 25;
Sinclair to Robinson, Sept. 3, etc.

[1320] The sermon was printed in Philad., and reprinted in London
in 1756. (Sabin, v. 18,763; Hildeburn, i. no. 1,409; Brinley, i.
218.) There are other symptoms of the time in another sermon of the
same preacher, Oct. 28, 1756. (Sabin, v. 18,757.) Cf. Tyler, _Amer.
Literature_, ii. p. 242; and W. H. Foote’s _Sketches of Virginia_
(Phil., 1850), pp. 157, 284. See further on Davies (who was later
president of Princeton College) and his relations to current events in
Sprague’s _Annals_, iii.; John H. Rice’s memoir of him in the _Lit.
and Evangelical Mag._; Albert Barnes’ “Life and Times of Davies,”
prefixed to _Davies’ Works_ (N. Y., 1851); and David Bostwick’s memoir
of him accompanying Davies’ fulsome _Sermon on the Death of George II._
(Boston, 1761).

[1321] _America and West Indies_, lxxxii. Cf. the statement of loss
in _Collection de Manuscrits_ (Quebec), iii. 544, and in Sargent,
p. 238. The list of Braddock’s killed and wounded, as reported in
the _Gentleman’s Mag._, Aug., 1755, is reprinted in Lowdermilk’s
_Cumberland_, p. 164. There is among the _Sparks MSS._ (no. xlviii.)
a paper, apparently contemporary, giving the British loss, in which
Washington is marked as “wounded.”

[1322] It is signed T. W., and is dated Boston, Aug. 25, 1755.
There were other editions the same year at Bristol and London. Cf.
Carter-Brown, iii. nos. 1,039, 1,120; Thomson, _Bibliog. of Ohio_,
no. 182; Sabin, iii. no. 12,320, x. no. 40,382; Brinley, i. no. 213;
Harvard Coll. lib., 5325.46. The _O’Callaghan Catalogue_, no. 1,749,
says the T. W. was “probably Timothy Walker, afterwards chief justice
of the Common Pleas in Boston.”

[1323] Hildeburn, i. no. 1,479.

[1324] Carter-Brown, iii. 1,038; Thomson, no. 106; Sabin, ii. 7,210.

[1325] _Mem. of the Reign of George II._, 2d ed., ii. 29.

[1326] The book, which is very rare, was published at Lexington,
Ky., in 1799. (Field, _Ind. Bibliog._, no. 1,438; Thomson, _Bibliog.
of Ohio_, 1,055.) It was reprinted in Cincinnati, in 1870 “with an
appendix of illustrative notes by W. M. Darlington,” as no. 5 of the
_Ohio Valley Historical Series_. (Field, no. 1,440.) It was reprinted
at Philad. in 1831, since dated 1834. (Brinley, iii. 5,570.) The author
published an abstract of it in his _Treatise on the mode and manner
of Indian war_, Paris, Ky., 1812. (Field, no. 1,439.) Parkman calls
the earlier book “perhaps the best of all the numerous narratives of
captives among the Indians.”

There is a sketch of Col. James Smith in J. A. M’Clung’s _Sketches
of Western Adventure_ (Dayton, Ohio, 1852). There have been other
reprints of the _Remarkable Occurrences_ in Drake’s _Tragedies of
the Wilderness_ (Boston, 1841); in J. Pritt’s _Mirror of Olden Time
Border Life_ (Abingdon, Va., 1849); in James Wimer’s _Events in Indian
History_ (Lancaster, 1841); and in the _Western Review_, 1821, vol.
iv. (Lexington, Ky.). These titles are noted at length in Thomson’s
_Bibliog. of Ohio_.

[1327] They are: 1. “Relation du combat du 9 juillet, 1755.”

2. “Relation depuis le départ des trouppes de Québec, jusqu’au 30 du
mois de septembre, 1755.”

3. Lettre “de Monsieur Lotbinière à Monsieur le Comte d’Argenson, au
Camp de Carillon, le 24 oct., 1755.”

[1328] One hundred copies printed.

[1329] _Contents._—Notice sur D. H. M. L. de Beaujeu [par J. G. Shea];
Relation de l’action par Mr. de Godefroy; Relation depuis le départ des
trouppes de Québec jusqu’au 30 du mois de septembre, 1755; Relation
de l’action par M. Pouchot; Relation du combat tirée des archives du
Dépôt général de la guerre; Relation officielle, imprimée au Louvre;
Relation des diuers mouvements qui se sont passés entre les François
et les Anglois, 9 juillet, 1755; État de l’artillerie, munitions de
guerre et autres effets appartenant aux Anglais qui se sont trouvés
sur le champ de bataille; Lettre de M. Lotbinière, 24 octobre 1755;
Extraits du registre du Fort Du Quesne. (Cf. Field, _Indian Bibliog._,
no. 1,394.) Shea also edited in the Cramoisy series (100 copies), as
throwing some light on the battle and its hero Beaujeu, _Registres des
baptesmes et sepultures qui se sont faits au Fort Du Quesne pendant les
années 1753, 1754, 1755, & 1756_. _Nouvelle York_, 1859. (iv. 3-51 pp.)
An English translation of this by Rev. A. A. Lambing has been published
at Pittsburgh.

Cf. the French account printed in the _Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., vi.
256, and the statement of the captured munitions (p. 262). Cf. _N. Y.
Col. Docs._, x. 303, 311. Parkman (app. to vol. ii. 424) brings forward
the official report of Contrecœur to Vaudreuil, July 14, 1755, and
(p. 425) a letter of Dumas, July 24, 1756, written to explain his own
services, both of which Parkman found in the Archives of the Marine
at Paris. It has sometimes been held that Beaujeu, not Contrecœur,
commanded the post. (_Hist. Mag._, Sept., 1859, iii. p. 274.) Parkman
(i. p. 221) also notes other papers among his own MSS. (copies) now in
the Mass. Hist. Soc. library. There is something to be gleaned from the
_Mass. Archives, Doc. collected in France_ (cf. vol. ix. 211), as well
as from the documents copied in Paris for the State of New York (vol.
xi., etc.).

Maurault, in his _Histoire des Abénakis_ (1866), gives a chapter to
“les Abénakis à la bataille de la Mononagahéla.” The part which Charles
Langlade, the partisan chief, took is set forth in Tassé’s _Notice sur
Charles Langlade_ (in _Revue Canadienne_ originally), in Anburey’s
_Travels_, and in Draper’s “Recollections of Grignon” in the _Wisconsin
Hist. Coll._, iii.

[1330] Vol. i. p. 38.

[1331] _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, iii. p. 11.

[1332] _N. Jersey Archives_, 1st ser., viii. 294. The colony was
finally alarmed through fear the enemy would reach her borders.
_Ibid._, viii., Part 2d, pp. 158, 174, 179, 182, 201.

[1333] _Hist. of Maryland_, i. 459.

[1334] Sparks’s _Washington_, ii. 218.

[1335] Sargent, in picturing the condition of society which thus
existed, finds much help in Joseph Doddridge’s _Notes of the Settlement
and Indian wars of the western parts of Virginia and Pennsylvania,
1763-1783, with a view of the state of society and manners of the first
settlers of the western country_, Wellsburgh, Va., 1824. (Sargent,
_Braddock’s Exped._, p. 80; Thomson, _Bibl. of Ohio_, no. 331.)
Doddridge was reprinted, with some transpositions, in Kercheval’s
_Hist. of the Valley of Virginia_ (Winchester, 1833, and Woodstock,
1850,—Thomson, nos. 668-9); and verbatim at Albany in 1876, edited
by Alfred Williams, and accompanied by a memoir of Doddridge by his
daughter (Thomson, no. 332).

Another monograph of interest in this study is John A. M’Clung’s
_Sketches of Western Adventure ... connected with the Settlement of
the West from 1755 to 1794_, Maysville, Ky., 1832. Some copies have
a Philadelphia imprint. There were editions at Cincinnati in 1832,
1836, 1839, 1851, and at Dayton in 1844, 1847, 1852, 1854. An amended
edition, with additions by Henry Waller, was printed at Covington, Ky.,
1872. (Thomson, _Bibliog. of Ohio_, nos. 745-749.)

Of some value, also, is Wills De Hass’s _History of the Early
Settlement and Indian Wars of Western Virginia, previous to 1795_,
Wheeling, 1851. (Thomson, no. 318.)

[1336] James Maury gives a contemporary comment on this harassing
of the frontiers. Maury’s _Huguenot Family_, p. 403. Samuel Davies
pictures them in his _Virginia’s Danger and Remedy_ (Williamsburg,
1756).

[1337] _Penna. Archives,_, ii. 600; _Le Foyer Canadien_, iii. 26;
Sparks’s _Washington_, ii. 137.

These murderous forays can be followed in the correspondence of
Washington (1756); in the _Col. Recs. of Penna._, vii.; _Penna.
Archives_, ii.; Hazard’s _Penna. Reg._; and in the French documents
quoted by Parkman, i. pp. 422-26. There is a letter of John Armstrong
to Richard Peters in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, July, 1882, p. 500; and
local testimony in Egle’s _Pennsylvania_, 616, 714, 764, 874, 1,008;
Rupp’s _Northumberland County_, etc., ch. v. and vi.; Newton’s _Hist.
of the Panhandle, West. Va._ (Wheeling, 1879); Kercheval’s _Valley
of Virginia_, ch. vii., etc.; U. J. Jones’s _Juniata Valley_ (Phil.,
1876); J. F. Meginness’ _Otzinachson, or the West Branch Valley of
the Susquehanna_ (Phil., 1857, p. 62); Scharf’s _Maryland_, vol. i.
470-492; Hand Browne’s _Maryland_, 226.

There is record of the provincial troops of Pennsylvania employed in
these years in the _Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., vol. ii. In February,
1756, Governor Morris wrote to Shirley, describing the defences he had
been erecting along the borders. (_Penna. Archives_, ii. 569.) There is
in _Ibid._, xii. p. 323, a list of forts erected in Pennsylvania during
this period. The enumeration shows one built in 1747, one in 1749, two
in 1753, seven in 1754, eleven in 1755, twenty-one in 1756, three in
1757, three in 1758, and one in 1759. Plans are given of Forts Augusta
at Shamokin, Bedford at Raystown, Ligonier at Loyalhannon, and Pitt at
Pittsburgh.

In 1756, William Smith (_Hist. New York_, 1814, p. 243) says that
William Johnson, within nine months after the arrival of Braddock,
received £10,000 to use in securing the alliance and pacification of
the Indians.

There was published in London in 1756 an _Account of conferences and
treaties between Sir William Johnson and the chief Sachems, etc.,
on different occasions at Fort Johnson, in 1755 and 1756_ (Brinley,
iii. no. 5,495), and in New York and Boston in 1757 a _Treaty with
the Shawanese on the west branch of the Susquehanna River, by Sir Wm.
Johnson_ (Sabin, xv. 65,759).

[1338] Irving’s _Washington_, i. p. 192, etc. A map of the region under
Washington’s supervision, with the position of the forts, is given in
Sparks’ _Washington_, ii. 110. The journal of John Fontaine describes
some of the forts in the Virginia backwoods. Maury’s _Huguenot Family_,
245, etc.

[1339] Parkman, i. 351.

[1340] The book was first published in London in 1759. (Carter-Brown,
iii. 1,217.) Sparks, in reprinting it in his edition of _Franklin’s
Works_, ii. p. 107, examines the question of Franklin’s relations to
its composition and publication. The book had an appendix of original
papers respecting the controversy. The copy which belonged to Thomas
Penn is in the Franklin Collection, now in Washington. (_U. S. Doc._,
no. 60.) Cf. _Catal. of Franklin Books in Boston Public Library_, p. 8.

[1341] Dr. Franklin and the Rev. William Smith are said to have had
a hand in _A Brief State of the Province of Pennsylvania, in which
the conduct of their assemblies for several years past is impartially
examined_, London, 1755. (Rich, _Bibl. Americana Nova_ (after 1700),
p. 111; Thomson, _Bibliog. of Ohio_, 1,070; Carter-Brown, iii. nos.
1,082, 1,133; Brinley, ii. no. 3,034; Cooke, no. 2,007; a third edition
bears date 1756. It was reprinted by Sabin in N. Y. in 1865.) The
purpose of this tract was (in the opinion of the Quakers) to make them
obnoxious to the British government by showing their factious spirit
of opposition to measures calculated to advance the interests of the
province; and on the other side, _An Answer to an invidious pamphlet
entitled A Brief State_, etc., said to be by one Cross, was published
the same year in London. (Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,083; Cooke, no.
2,008; Brinley, ii. 3,035; Rich, _Bib. Am. Nov._ (after 1700), p. 111.)
A sequel to the _Brief State_, etc., appeared in London in 1756 as _A
Brief View of the Conduct of Pennsylvania for the year 1755, so far
as it affected the service of the British Colonies, particularly the
Expedition under the late General Braddock_ (Carter-Brown, iii. no.
1,132; Thomson, _Bibl. of Ohio_, no. 1,072; Cooke, no. 2,006; Brinley,
ii. 3,036; Menzies, 1,580-82; Field, _Ind. Bibliog._, 1,446; Barlow’s
_Rough List_, no. 937), which included an account of the contemporary
incursions of the Indians along the Pennsylvania frontiers. A French
version was printed in Paris the same year, under the title of _Etat
présent de la Pensilvanie_ (Brinley, i. 225; Murphy, 329; Quaritch,
1885, no. 29,677, £2 10_s._). The Barlow _Rough List_, no. 930, assigns
it to the Abbé Delaville. It had “une carte particulière de cette
colonie.”

The Quakers found a defender in _An humble apology for the Quakers,
occasioned by certain gross abuses and imperfect vindications of that
people, ... to which are added Observations on A Brief View, and a much
fairer method pointed out than that contained in The Brief State, to
prevent the encroachments of the French_, London, 1756. (Brinley, ii.
3,041.) The latest contribution to this controversy was _A True and
Impartial State of the Province of Pennsylvania_, Philadelphia, 1759.
(Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,232; Brinley, ii. 3,040; Cooke, no. 2,009.)
Hildeburn (_Century of Printing_, i. no. 1,649) says it was thought to
be by Franklin. Parkman (i. p. 351) calls this “an able presentation
of the case of the assembly, omitting, however, essential facts.” This
historian adds: “Articles on the quarrel will also be found in the
provincial newspapers, especially the _New York Mercury_, and in the
_Gentleman’s Magazine_ for 1755 and 1756. But it is impossible to get
any clear and just view of it without wading through the interminable
documents concerning it in the _Colonial Records of Pennsylvania_ and
the _Pennsylvania Archives_.”

Parkman also traces the rise of the disturbance in his _Pontiac_, i. p.
83; and refers further to Proud’s _Pennsylvania_, app., and Hazard’s
_Penna. Reg._, viii. 273, 293, 323.

[1342] _Works_, vii. pp. 78, 84, 94, etc.

[1343] Georg Henry Loskiel, _Geschichte der mission der Evangelischen
Brüder unter den Indianern in Nordamerica_, Leipzig, 1789 (Thomson,
_Bibl. of Ohio_, no. 732), and the English version by Christian
Ignatius La Trobe, _History of the Missions of the United Brethren_,
London, 1794. The massacre is described in Part iii. p. 180. (Thomson,
no. 733.)

John Heckewelder, _Narrative of the Mission of the United Brethren
among the Delaware and Mohegan Indians_, 1740-1808, Philadelphia, 1820.
(Thomson, no. 537; cf. _Hist. Mag._, 1875, p. 287.) There is also a
chapter on “the brethren with the commissioner of Pennsylvania during
the Indian war of 1755-57,” in the _Memorials of the Moravian Church_,
ed. by William C. Reichel (Philad., 1870), vol. i. (Field, _Indian
Bibliog._, no. 1,270.)

[1344] _Penna. Archives_, ii. 485.

[1345] Cf. Parton’s _Franklin_, i. 357; and Franklin’s _Autobiography_,
Bigelow’s ed., p. 319. Franklin drafted the militia act of
Pennsylvania, which was passed Nov. 25, 1755. (_Gentleman’s Mag._,
1756, vol. xxvi.) In Nov., 1755, Gov. Belcher informs Sir Thomas
Robinson of expected forays along the western borders of Virginia and
Pennsylvania. (_New Jersey Archives_, viii., Part 2d, 149.) Even New
Jersey was threatened (_Ibid._, pp. 156, 157, 158, 160, where the
Moravians are called “snakes in the grass”), and Belcher addressed
the assembly (_Ibid._, p. 162), and, Nov. 26, ordered the province’s
troops to march to the Delaware (_Ibid._, p. 174). On Dec. 16 he again
addressed the assembly on the danger (p. 193).

[1346] Cf. Thomson’s _Alienation of the Delawares_, etc.; Heckewelder’s
_Acc. of the Hist. of the Indian Nations_, Phil., 1819; in German,
Göttingen, 1821; in French, Paris, 1822; revised in English, with
notes, by W. C. Reichel, and published by _Penna. Hist. Soc._, 1876.
(Details in Thomson’s _Bibliog. of Ohio_, nos. 533-36.)

[1347] _Administration of the Colonies_, ii. 205.

[1348] The statement is copied in Mills’ _Boundaries of Ontario_, p. 3.

[1349] _N. Y. Col. Docs._, xiii., introduction; Dr. C. H. Hall’s _The
Dutch and the Iroquois_, N. Y., 1882,—a lecture before the Long
Island Hist. Society. In Morgan’s _League of the Iroquois_ there is a
map of their country, with the distributions of 1720, based on modern
cartography. The Tuscaroras, defeated by the English in Carolina,
had come north, and had joined the Iroquois in 1713, or thereabouts,
converting their usual designation with the English from Five to Six
Nations.

[1350] Cf. _N. H. Prov. Papers_, vi. 386, etc. Various letters of
Shirley are in the _Penna. Archives_, vol. ii., particularly one to
De Lancey, June 1, 1755 (p. 338), on the campaign in general, and one
from Oswego, July 20 (p. 381), to Gov. Morris. William Alexander wrote
letters to Shirley detailing the progress of the troops from May onward
(p. 348, etc.).

[1351] Especially one of Sept. 8, “in a wet tent” (p. 402). A letter
from Shirley himself, the next day, Sept. 9, is in the _N. H. Prov.
Papers_, vi. 432. Cf. also _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vi. 956. The records of
the two councils of war, first determining to continue, and later to
abandon, the campaign, with Shirley’s announcement of the decision to
Gov. Hardy, are in _Penna. Archives_, ii. 413, 423, 427, 435.

[1352] Cf. also _Gent. Mag._, 1757, p. 73; _London Mag._, 1759, p. 594.
Cf. Trumbull’s _Connecticut_, ii. 370, etc.

[1353] See particularly for this fight vol. i. 501. Stone treats the
subject apologetically on controverted points. Cf. Field, _Indian
Bibliog._, no. 1,511. Johnson’s letter to Hardy is given in _N. Y. Col.
Docs._, vi. p. 1013.

[1354] Various books may be cited for minor characterizations of
Johnson: Mrs. Grant’s _Memoirs of an American Lady_; J. R. Simms’
_Trappers of New York, or a biography of Nicholas Stoner and Nathaniel
Foster, and some account of Sir William Johnson and his style of
living_ (Albany, 1871, with the same author’s _Schoharie County_, ch.
iv.), called _Frontiersmen of New York_ in the second edition,—works
of little literary skill; Ketchum’s _Buffalo_ (1864). Parkman’s first
sketch was in his _Pontiac_ (i. p. 90). Mr. Stone has also a paper in
_Potter’s Amer. Monthly_, Jan., 1875. Cf. _Lippincott’s Mag._, June,
1879, and Poole’s _Index_, p. 694. His character in fiction is referred
to in Stone’s _Johnson_, i. p. 57.

Peter Fontaine, in 1757, wrote: “General Johnson’s success was owing
to his fidelity to the Indians and his generous conduct to his Indian
wife, by whom he has several hopeful sons.” Ann Maury’s _Huguenot
Family_, p. 351.

William Smith (_New York_, ii. 83), who knew Johnson, speaks of his
ambition “being fanned by the party feuds between Clinton and De
Lancey,” Johnson attaching himself to Clinton.

[1355] Many of these which cover Johnson’s public career have been
printed in the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._ (vol. ii. p. 543, etc.), and_ Penna.
Archives_, 2d ser., vol. vi., not to name places of less extent.

[1356] Cf. _An account of conferences held and treaties made between
Maj.-Gen. Sir Wm. Johnson, Bart., and the Chief Sachems and Warriours
of the Indian nations_, Lond., 1756. (Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,119;
Stevens’ _Hist. Coll._, i. 1,455; Harvard Coll. lib., 5325.48.)
Johnson’s views on measures necessary to be taken with the Six Nations
to defeat the designs of the French (July, 1754) are in _Penna.
Archives_, 2d ser., vi. 203.

As early as 1750-51, Johnson was telling Clinton that the French
incitement of the Iroquois was worse than open war, and that the only
justification for the French was that the English were doing the same
thing.

[1357] _N. H. Prov. Papers_, vi. 422.

[1358] _Ibid._, p. 421.

[1359] _Ibid._, p. 429.

[1360] Haven (Thomas, _Hist. Printing_, ii. p. 526) notes it as printed
at the time separately in a three-page folio as a _Letter dated at
Lake George, Sept. 9, 1755, to the governours of the several colonies
who raised the troops on the present expedition, giving an account of
the action of the preceding day_. There is a copy of a two-page folio
edition in the cabinet of the Mass. Hist. Soc. Dr. O’Callaghan, in the
_Doc. Hist. N. Y._ (ii. 691), copies it from the _Gent. Mag._, vol.
xxiv., and gives a map (p. 696) from that periodical, which is annexed
herewith.

[1361] Wraxall’s letter, Sept. 10, p. 1003; a gunner’s letter, p. 1005;
and a list of killed and wounded, p. 1006.

[1362] Shirley’s commission to Johnson, and his instructions are given
in the app. of Hough’s ed. of _Rogers’ Journal_, Albany, 1883.

[1363] There is an account of Blanchard’s New Hampshire regiment by
C. E. Potter, in his contribution, “Military Hist. of New Hampshire,
1623-1861” (p. 129), which makes Part i. of the 2d vol. of the _Report
of the Adj.-Gen. of N. H._ for 1866. Cf. also _N. H. Revolutionary
Rolls_, Concord, 1885, vol. i. A second N. H. regiment, under Col.
Peter Gilman, was later sent. (_Ibid._, p. 144.) Col. Bagley, who
commanded the garrison left in Fort William Henry the following
winter, had among his troops the N. H. company of Capt. Robert Rogers.
(_Ibid._, p. 156.)

[1364] _Mass. Bay_, iii. 36.

[1365] _The Mass. Archives_ attest this; cf. also _Doc. Hist. N. Y._,
ii. 667, 677. Out of a reimbursement of £115,000 made by Parliament
to be shared proportionately, Massachusetts was given £54,000 and
New York £15,000, while Connecticut got £26,000,—Rhode Island, New
Hampshire, and New Jersey the rest. (Parkman, i. 382.) The rolls which
show the numbers of troops which Massachusetts sent on the successive
“Crown Point expeditions,” 1755-60, are in the _Mass. Archives_, vols.
xciii.-xcviii.

[1366] The friends of Gen. Lyman were angry at Johnson for his neglect
in his report to give him any share of the credit of the victory.
Cf. Fowler’s _Hist. of Durham, Conn._, 108; Coleman’s _Lyman Family_
(Albany, 1872), p. 204. A letter from Gen. Lyman to his wife is given
by Fowler, p. 133.

[1367] Parkman (vol. i. p. 327) touches on this unpleasantness,
referring to _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vols. vi. and vii., Smith’s _Hist. of
New York_, and Livingston’s _Review of Military Operations_; and adds
that both Smith and Livingston were personally cognizant of the course
of the dispute.

[1368] Cf. vol. i. pp. 174, 182, 184, etc. They include Pomeroy’s
account of the fight of Sept. 8, 1755, addressed to his wife; a letter
of Perez Marsh, dated at Lake George, Sept. 26, 1755; and a list of the
killed, wounded, and missing in Col. Williams’ regiment in the same
action, with a summary of the killed in the whole army, 191 in all.

[1369] They are from Albany, June 6, 1755, July 12; from the carrying
place, Aug. 14, 17, 23; from Lake George, Sept. 11, 26, Oct. 8, 19,
Nov. 2; from Albany, June 19, 1756; from Stillwater, July 16; from
Albany, July 31, August 25, 28; Sept. 2.

[1370] Printed in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, Oct., 1863, p.
346, etc.

[1371] Stone’s _Johnson_, i. 523.

[1372] Samuel Blodget’s _Prospective plan of the battle near Lake
George, on the eighth day of September, 1755, with an explanation
thereof; containing a full, tho’ short History of that important
affair_, was engraved by Thomas Johnston, and published in Boston by
Richard Draper, 1755. (Brinley, i. 209.) The size of the plate is
14×18 inches, and the text is called _Account of the engagement near
Lake George, with a whole sheet plan of the encampment and view of the
battle between the English and the French and Indians_ (4to, pp. 5).
It is dedicated to Gov. Shirley. A copy belonging to W. H. Whitmore is
at present in the gallery of the Bostonian Society, Old State House,
Boston. It was reëngraved (“not very accurately,” says Trumbull) by
Jefferys in London, and was published Feb. 2, 1756, accompanied by
_An Explanation ... by Samuel Blodget, occasionally at the Camp,
when the battle was fought_. (Sabin, ii. 5,955; Harv. Coll. library,
5325.45.) Jefferys inserted the plate also in his _General Topog. of
North America and the West Indies_, London, 1768. It was from Jefferys’
reproduction that it was repeated in Bancroft’s _United States_ (orig.
ed., iv. 210); in Gay’s _Pop. Hist. United States_, iii. p. 288; in
_Doc. Hist. New York_, iv. 169; and in Dr. Hough’s ed. of _Pouchot_.
The plate shows two engagements, with a side chart of the Hudson from
New York upwards: _first_, the ambuscade in which Williams and Hendrick
were killed; and _second_, the attack of Dieskau on the hastily formed
breastwork at the lake. The plate, as engraved by Jefferys, is entitled
_A prospective View of the Battle fought near Lake George on the 8th of
Sep^r, 1755, between 2,000 English and 250 Mohawks under the Command of
Gen^l Johnson, and 2,500 French and Indians under the Command of Genl
Dieskau, in which the English were victorious, captivating the French
General, with a number of his men, killing 700 and putting the rest to
flight_.

[1373] The annexed fac-simile is after a copy of this print in the
library of the American Antiquarian Society.

[1374] Carter-Brown, iii. 1,068; Harvard Coll. lib., 4376.37.

[1375] Haven (in Thomas), ii. 525, who assigns it to Samuel Cooper. It
was reprinted in London, 1755. Brinley, i. no. 214.

[1376] Thomson, _Bibliog. of Ohio_, no. 725. Other editions: Dublin,
1757; New England, 1758; New York, 1770. Cf. Carter-Brown, iii. nos.
1,166, 1,762; Cooke, no. 2,146; Barlow’s _Rough List_, no. 944. It is
reprinted in _Mass. Hist. Coll._, vii. 67. Cf. estimate of the book in
Tyler, _Amer. Literature_, ii. 222.

Stone, _Life of Johnson_, i. 202, says that the coincidences between
passages in this letter and others in William Smith’s _Hist. of New
York_ are so striking as to warrant the conclusion that Smith must have
had a share in the _Review_.

Sedgwick (_Wm. Livingston_, p. 114) says: “Allowance is to be made
for its bitter attacks upon the character of De Lancey, Pownall,
and Johnson.” William Smith, alleged to have been a party to its
production, says: “No reply was ever made to it; it was universally
read and talked of in London, and worked consequences of private and
public utility. General Shirley emerged from a load of obloquy.” De
Lancey (Jones’ _N. Y. during the Rev._, i. 436) holds that, while
Livingston was doubtless cognizant of its publication, its real author
was probably William Smith.

[1377] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,196; Harv. Coll. lib., 4375.25. It is
sometimes ascribed to William Alexander, Earl of Stirling.

[1378] The histories have usually stated that Dieskau was mortally
wounded, and Bancroft (_United States_, iv. 207), in his original
edition speaking of him as “incurably wounded,” has changed it in his
final revision (vol. ii. 435) to “mortally wounded,”—hardly true in
the usual acceptation of the word, since Dieskau lived for a dozen
years, though his wounds were indeed the ultimate cause of his death.

[1379] _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, iii. p. 11.

[1380] Vol. i. 115.

[1381] Cf. further Entick, i. 153; Hutchinson, iii. 35; Smith’s _New
York_, ii. 214; Minot, i. 251; Trumbull’s _Conn._, ii. 368; Palfrey,
Compend. ed., iv. 217; Gay, iii. 283; Barry, ii. 191, etc.; and among
local authorities, Holland’s _Western Mass._; Holden’s _Queensbury_,
p. 285; Palmer’s _Lake Champlain_; Watson’s _Essex County_ (1869), ch.
iv.; De Costa’s _Hist. of Fort George_ (New York, 1871; also Sabin’s
_Bibliopolist_, iii. _passim_, and ix. 39.)

As to Hendrick, see Schoolcraft’s _Notes of the Iroquois_; Campbell’s
_Annals of Tryon County_; N. S. Benton’s _Hist. of Herkimer County_,
ch. i.

Rev. Cortlandt Van Rensselaer delivered a centennial address at
Caldwell in 1855, which is in his _Sermons, Essays, and Addresses_
(Philad., 1861), and Stone (i. 547) makes extracts regarding the
grave and monument of Williams. Joseph White delivered a discourse
on Williams before the alumni of Williams College in 1855. Cf. the
histories of that college.

_A Ballad concerning the fight between the English and French at Lake
George_, a broadside in double column, was published at Boston in 1755.
(Haven, in Thomas, ii. 523.) Parkman (i. 317) cites another, “The
Christian Hero,” in _Tilden’s Poems_, 1756.

[1382] What he hoped of the campaign is expressed in his letter to
Doreil, Aug. 16 (_N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 311). Dieskau’s commission
and instructions (Aug. 15, 1755) from the home government, as well as
Vaudreuil’s instructions to him, are in _Ibid._, x. 285, 286, 327, and
in the original French in _Coll. de Manuscrits_ (Quebec), iii. p. 548.

[1383] Here also (pp. 381, 397), as well as in the _Penna. Archives_,
2d ser., vi. 341, will be found the usual annual reports of
“occurrences” transmitted to Paris.

[1384] Printed in _Coll. de Manuscrits_ (Quebec), iv. p. 1, as is also
a letter of Dieskau from the English Camp (p. 5), and a letter of
Montreuil of Sept. 18 (p. 6).

[1385] _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 318.

[1386] It is translated in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 340, and is
accompanied (p. 342) by a diagram of the _cul-de-sac_ which received
the English.

[1387] This seems to be the document which Parkman quotes as _Livre
d’Ordres_, now in the possession of Abbé Verreau. Parkman does not
think it materially modifies the despatches as filed in Paris.

[1388] _New Jersey Archives_, viii., Part 2d, 133; also see pp. 137,
149, 188.

[1389] _New Jersey Archives_, viii., Pt. 2d, p. 168.

[1390] Smith’s _New York_, ii. 224; _N. H. Prov. Papers_, vi. 460, 463;
_The Conduct of Gen^l Shirley_, pp. 53-56; Livingston’s _Rev. of Mil.
Operations_.

[1391] One of his projects, which he had to abandon, was a winter
attack on Ticonderoga. (_N. H. Prov. Papers_, vi. 461, 467.) He
explained in Feb. to Gov. Morris, of Penna., his views of the campaign.
(_Penna. Archives_, ii. 579.) Cf. also _N. H. Prov. Papers_, vi. 480.

[1392] _Johnson_, i. 536.

[1393] Vol. ii. ch. i. Cf. also Parkman, i. 392-3.

[1394] Johnson had held a conference with them at Lake George shortly
after the fight (Sept. 11). _Penna. Archives_, ii. 407.

[1395] Cf. L. C. Draper’s “Expedition against the Shawanoes,” in the
_Virginia Historical Register_ (vol. v. 61). Later in the season
the Pennsylvanians (July and Nov., 1756) sought to quiet the tribes
by conferences at Easton. Cf. _Penna. Archives_, ii. 722, etc., and
Sparks’ note in _Franklin’s Works_, vii. 125, and the histories of
Pennsylvania, and _Several Conferences of the Quakers and the deputies
from the Six Indian Nations, in order to reclaim the Delaware Indians_,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1756, noted in Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,118.
Hildeburn, i. nos. 1,538, 1,539, 1,540, and the _Catal. of works
relating to Franklin in the Boston Public Library_, p. 35, give these
various publications. The opposition of the Quakers to the war was
still an occasion of attacks upon them. Cf. _A true relation of a
bloody battle fought between George and Lewis_ (Philad., 1756), noted
in Hildeburn, i. no. 1,476. In Jan., the New Jersey government had
made a treaty at Croswicks, and the proceedings of the conference were
printed at Philad. (Cf. Hildeburn, i. no. 1,504; Haven, in Thomas, ii.
p. 530.) Governor Sharp erected Fort Frederick for the defence of the
Maryland frontier. Its ruins are shown in Scharf’s _Maryland_, i. 491.

Among the accounts of “captivities” which grew out of the frontier
warfare of Pennsylvania, the _Narrative of the sufferings and
surprising deliverance of William and Elizabeth Fleming_ was one of
the most popular. It was printed in Philadelphia, Lancaster (Pa.), and
Boston, in 1756, in English, and at Lancaster in German. (Hildeburn,
nos. 1,465-1,468.) The _Captivity of Hugh Gibson_ among the Delawares,
1756-59, is printed in the _Mass. Hist. Coll._, xxv. 141. A _Journal
of the Captivity of Jean Lowry and her children, giving an account of
her being taken by the Indians, April 1, 1756, in the Rocky Spring
settlement in Pennsylvania_, was printed in Philadelphia in 1760.
(Hildeburn, _Century of Printing_, i. no. 1,683.) On the Indian
depredations at Juniata in 1756, see Egle’s _Hist. Register_, iii. 54.

[1396] In the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vii., these conferences of 1756 can
be followed equally well, beginning with a long paper by the secretary
of Indian affairs, Peter Wraxall, in which he examines the causes of
the declension of British interests with the Six Nations (p. 15), with
records of conferences from March through the season (pp. 44, 91, 130,
171, 229, 244).

[1397] Cf. the instructions given to Vaudreuil, Apr. 1, 1755, touching
his conduct towards the English, in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 295, and
_Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., vi. 239.

[1398] _Conduct of Shirley_, etc., p. 76; Pouchot’s _Mémoires_, i. 76;
Parkman, i. 375.

[1399] Vol. i. p. 357. Cf. Barry’s _Mass._, i. 211.

[1400] The roll of the regiment which New Hampshire sent into the field
is given in the _Rept. of the Adj.-Gen. of N. H._, 1866, vol. ii. p.
159, etc.

[1401] On Winslow’s appointment, compare _Conduct of Shirley_, etc., p.
65; _Journal of Ho. of Rep. Mass._, 1755-56; Winslow’s letter in the
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, vi. p. 34; Minot’s _Mass._, i. 265; Parsons’s
_Pepperrell_, 289.

[1402] Vol. i. p. 405.

[1403] _Ibid._, i. pp. 401-2.

[1404] Since printed in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (March, 1882), viii.
206. It covers June 11-Aug. 18, 1756.

[1405] Vol. i. p. 72.

[1406] Parkman (vol. i. p. 394) tells the story of that success,
and refers to a letter of J. Choate in the _Mass. Archives_, vol.
lv.; letters from Albany, in the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, i. 482, 505;
Livingston’s _Review_; Niles, in _Mass. Hist. Coll._, xxxv. 417; Mante,
p. 60; Lossing’s _Life of Philip Schuyler_ (1872, vol. i. p. 130), who
was Bradstreet’s commissary.

[1407] Montcalm’s commission is given in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x.
394, and in _Coll. de Manuscrits_ (Quebec), vol. iv. 19. It is dated at
Versailles, Mar. 1, 1756.

[1408] Vol. i. p. 398.

[1409] Loudon was now directing affairs. The circular from Fox,
secretary of state, to the governors of the colonies, directing them to
afford assistance to Lord Loudon, is in _New Jersey Archives_, viii.,
Pt. ii., p. 209; with additional instructions, p. 218.

[1410] _Life of Johnson_, ii. 22.

[1411] Cf. _Coll. de Manuscrits_ (Quebec), iv. 59. Robert Eastburn,
who was captured by the Indians near Oswego and carried to Canada,
published at Philadelphia and Boston, in 1758, a _Faithful narrative of
many dangers and sufferings during his late captivity_. (Sabin, vi. no.
21,664; Hildeburn, i. no. 1,581.)

[1412] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,163; Field, Indian_ Bibliog._, no.
1,064.

[1413] Second ed., York, 1758; fourth ed., London, 1759. (Carter-Brown,
iii. 1,200, 1,241.) Also, Dublin, 1766; and Stockbridge, Mass., 1796.

[1414] Page 64.

[1415] _New York_ (to 1762), ii. 239.

[1416] _Mass._, vol. iii. The latest account and best to consult is
Parkman’s (vol. i. p. 413). Bancroft’s is much the same in his final
revision (vol. ii. 453) as in his original ed. (iv. 238). Warburton’s
_Conquest of Canada_ (ch. ii.) is tolerably full. For local aspects,
cf. Clark’s _Onondaga_, and a paper by M. M. Jones in _Potter’s
American Monthly_, vii. 178.

[1417] Vol. i. p. 356-360.

[1418] The governors of Canada were in the habit of reporting to the
Marine; but Montcalm sent his despatches to the department of War.
Various ones are given in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x., and in _Coll. de
Manuscrits_ (Quebec), vol. v.

[1419] Such are an officer’s letter (p. 453), a journal (p. 457),
Montcalm to D’Argenson (p. 461), an engineer’s letter (p. 465), an
account (p. 467), Vaudreuil to D’Argenson (p. 471), other narratives
with enumeration of booty (pp. 484-85, 520, 537), Lotbinière’s account
(p. 494), etc. Cf. the French account, Aug. 28, 1756, in the _Penna.
Archives_, 2d ser., vi. 376, beside the letter of Claude Godfroy (p.
391). Pouchot’s _Mémoires_, i. pp. 70, 81, gives the current French
account.

[1420] Boston Pub. Library; Murphy, no. 2,114. It is given in _Coll. de
Manuscrits_ (Quebec), iv. 48.

[1421] They will be found in the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, iv. pp. 169, 170
(Sept., 1755), 171, 175 (Oct.), 176 (Nov.), 184 (Jan., 1756), 185
(June), 286 (July), etc.

[1422] It was reprinted at Dublin in 1769. (Thomson, _Bibliog. of
Ohio_, nos. 996, 997; Field, _Ind. Bibliog._, no. 1,315; Carter-Brown,
iii. nos. 1,474, 1,702; Barlow’s _Rough List_, nos. 983-84; Brinley,
i. no. 256; Menzies, no. 1,716; H. C. lib., 4376.21.) In a condensed
form it makes part of a book edited by Caleb Stark, and published at
Concord, N. H., in 1831, called _Reminiscences of the French War_, and
it also appears in an abridged form in Caleb Stark’s _Memoir of John
Stark_, Concord, 1860, p. 390. The best edition is that edited by Dr.
F. B. Hough, with an Appendix, Albany, 1883. The _Journals_ cover the
interval from Sept. 24, 1755, to February 14, 1761. Haven (Thomas, ii.
p. 560) cites from the _Boston News-Letter_, Apr. 15, 1762, proposals
for printing at Charleston, S. C., in 4 vols., a “Memoir of Robert
Rogers, containing his journals, 1755-1762,” but the publication was
not apparently undertaken.

[1423] Hough’s ed., p. 9; Parkman, i. p. 437.

[1424] The best later accounts are in Parkman (vol. i. 431), Stone’s
_Johnson_ (ii. 20), and the papers by J. B. Walker in the _Granite
Monthly_, viii. 19, and _Bay State Monthly_, Jan., 1885, p. 211. Sabine
has a sketch of Rogers in his _Amer. Loyalists_, and more or less of
local interest can be gathered from H. H. Saunderson’s _Charlestown, N.
H._, ch. 5 and 6; N. Bouton’s _Concord_, N. H., ch. 6; Caleb Stark’s
_Dunbarton, N. H._, p. 178; and Worcester’s _Hollis, N. H._, p. 98.
Caleb Stark prints a sketch of Rogers in his _Memoir of Gen. Stark_.
Cf. references in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, Apr., 1885, p. 196.

The officers of Rogers’ Rangers are given in the _Report of the
Adj.-Gen. of N. H._, vol. ii. p. 158, etc., but it is there stated that
but few fragments remain of their rolls.

There is an account by Asa Fitch of the affair of Jan., 1757, in the
_N. Y. State Agric. Soc. Trans._, 1848, p. 917. The legend of “Rogers’
slide,” near the lower end of Lake George, has no stable foundation.
Hough’s ed. of _Journals_, p. 101.

[1425] _Brinley Catal._, i. no. 469.

[1426] Vol. xv. no. 63,223.

[1427] Vol. i. p. 451.

[1428] Some of these are printed in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x., like
Vaudreuil’s letter (p. 542), enclosing an extended narrative (p. 544),
Montcalm to D’Argenson (p. 548), to M. de Paulmy (p. 554), beside other
statements (p. 570, etc.).

[1429] The general accounts which had been earlier printed, and which
were based on contemporary reports, were, on the English side, in
John Knox’s _Historical Journal of the Campaigns, 1757-60_ (London,
1769), Mante’s _History of the Late War_ (London, 1772, pp. 82-85), and
Smith’s _New York_, ii. 246. To these may be added the reports which
were printed in the newspapers and magazines of the time, like the
_Boston Gazette_ and the _London Magazine_. An important letter of John
Burk from the camp at Fort Edward, July 28, 1757, is in the _Israel
Williams MSS._ (Mass. Hist. Soc.).

[1430] Col. Frye’s “Journal of an attack on Fort William Henry, Aug.
3-9” is printed in Oliver Oldschool’s (Dennie’s) _Portfolio_, xxi. 355
(May, 1819).

[1431] Printed in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x.: Montcalm’s letter (p.
596); Journal, July 12 to Aug. 16 (p. 598); Bougainville’s letter
to the ministry (p. 605); articles of capitulation (p. 617); other
accounts (p. 640); number of the French forces (pp. 620, 625), of the
English garrison (p. 621); account of the booty (p. 626), etc. The
same volume contains (p. 645) a reprint of a current French pamphlet,
dated Oct. 18, 1757. These and other documents are in the _Coll. de
Manuscrits_ (Quebec), vol. iv.: Montcalm’s letters from Montreal; his
instructions, July 9 (p. 100); his letters from Carillon (p. 110); his
letter to Webb, Aug. 14 (p. 114); an account of the capture, dated at
Albany, Aug., 1757 (p. 117); Munro’s capitulation (p. 122).

[1432] Vol. iv. Cf. Felix Martin’s _De Montcalm en Canada_, p. 65. The
letter is translated in Kip’s _Jesuit Missions_, and is reprinted by
J. M. Lemoine in his _La Mémoire de Montcalm vengée, ou le massacre
au Fort George_, Quebec, 1864, 91 pp. (Field, _Ind. Bibliog._, no.
906; Sabin, x. p. 205.) Cf., on Roubaud, “The deplorable case of Mr.
Roubaud,” in _Hist. Mag._, 2d ser., viii. 282; and Verreau, _Report on
Canadian Archives_ (1874). A late writer, Maurault, in his _Histoire
des Abénakis_ (1866), has a chapter on these Indians in the wars. They
are charged with beginning the massacre. The modern French view is in
Garneau’s _Canada_, 4th ed., vol. ii. 251.

[1433] There is a letter on the capture, by N. Whiting, among the
_Israel Williams MSS._ (ii. 42) in the Mass. Hist. Soc. library. Cf. a
paper by M. A. Stickney in the _Essex Inst. Historical Collections_,
iii. 79.

[1434] Cf. Scull’s _Evelyns in America_, p. 260.

[1435] The Journals give a sketch of the intrenchment near Fort William
Henry, laid out by James Montresor (p. 23), and describe how the firing
was heard at Fort Edward (p. 26), and how the survivors of the massacre
came in (p. 28). Webb’s reports to the governor during this period are
noted in Goldsbrow Banyar’s diary (Aug. 5-20), in the _Mag. of Amer.
Hist._, January, 1877. The _Journal of General Rufus Putnam, kept in
Northern New York during four campaigns, 1757-1760, with notes and
biog. sketch by E. C. Dawes_ (Albany, 1886), shows (pp. 38-41) how the
news came in from the lake,—the diarist, whose father was a cousin of
Israel Putnam, being stationed at Fort Edward.

[1436] Niles’ _French and Indian Wars_; Minot’s _Massachusetts_ (ii.
21); Belknap’s _New Hampshire_ (ii. 298); Hoyt’s _Antiq. Researches,
Indian Wars_, (p. 288); Williams’ _Vermont_, (i. 376). Chas. Carroll
(_Journal to Canada_, 1876, p. 62) tells what he found to be the
condition of Forts George and William Henry twenty years later.

[1437] Orig. ed., iv. 258; final revision, ii. 463.

[1438] Vol. iii. 376.

[1439] Stone’s _Johnson_, ii. 47. The admirer of Cooper will remember
the interest with which he read the story of Fort William Henry as
engrafted upon _The Last of the Mohicans_, but the novelist’s rendering
of the massacre is sharply criticised by Martin in his _De Montcalm en
Canada_, chaps. 4 and 5. Cf. also Rameau, _La France aux Colonies_,
ii. p. 306. Cooper, in fact, embodied the views which at once became
current, that the French did nothing to prevent the massacre. The news
of the fall of the fort reached the eastern colonies by way of Albany,
where the fright was excessive, and it was coupled with the assurance
that the massacre had been connived at by the French. (_N. H. Prov.
Papers_, vi. 604, 605.) Montcalm had apprehensions that he would be
reproached, and that the massacre might afford ground to the English
for breaking the terms of the surrender. He wrote at once to Webb and
to Loudon, and charged the furor of the Indians upon the English rum
(_N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 618, 619), and Vaudreuil wrote a letter (p.
631) of palliation. Some later writers, like Grahame (_United States_,
iv. 7), do not acquit Montcalm; but the more considerate hardly go
further than to question his prudence in not providing a larger escort.
(Warburton, _Conquest of Canada_, ii. 67.) Potter (_Adj.-Gen. Rep. of
N. H._, 1866, ii. 190) says that of 200 men of that province, bringing
up the rear of the line of retreating English, 80 were killed; and
he reminds the apologists of Montcalm that, when the English were
advised to defend themselves, the French general knew that they had
not surrendered till their ammunition was expended. Stone (_Johnson_,
ii. 49) says that thirty were killed. Parkman (i. p. 512) says it is
impossible to tell with exactness how many were killed—about fifty,
according to French accounts, not including those murdered in the
hospitals. Of the six or seven hundred carried off by the Indians, a
large part were redeemed by the French. The evidence, which is rather
confusing, is examined also in Watson’s _County of Essex, N. Y._, p.
74. Cf. _Les Ursulines de Québec_, 1863, vol. ii. p. 295.

[1440] Of the later writers, see Parkman, ii. 6; Stone’s _Johnson_,
ii. 54; Simms’s _Frontiersmen of N. Y._, 231; and Nath. S. Benton’s
_Herkimer County_, which rehearses the history of the Palatine
community, 1709-1783. Parkman, referring to Loudon’s despatches as he
found them in the Public Record Office, says they were often tediously
long. They were, it seems, in keeping with the provoking dilatoriness
in coming to a point which characterized all his lordship’s movements.
Franklin gives some amusing instances. (Cf. Parton’s _Franklin_, i.
p. 383; Sparks’ _Franklin_, i. 217-21.) “The miscarriages in all
our enterprises,” wrote Peter Fontaine in 1757, “have rendered us
a reproach, and to the last degree contemptible in the eyes of our
savage Indian and much more inhuman French enemies.” (Maury’s _Huguenot
Family_, 366.)

Attached to a collection of papers in the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, vol. i.,
relating to the Oneida country and the Mohawk Valley, 1756-57, is a
sketch-plan of the Mohawk River and Wood Creek, showing the relative
positions of Fort Bull, Fort Williams, and the German Flats.

[1441] G. H. Fisher on Bouquet in _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, iii. 121.

[1442] _Minutes of Conferences with the Indians at Harris’s ferry and
at Lancaster, Mar., Apr., May, 1757_, fol., Philad. (Haven, in Thomas,
ii. p. 535.)

[1443] _A treaty with the Shawanese and Delaware Indians at Fort
Johnson, by Sir Wm. Johnson, with a preface_, N. Y., 1757. (Harv. Coll.
lib., 5321.30.) It was also printed at Boston. (Haven, p. 535.) Cf.
_Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., vi. 499, 511.

[1444] Stone’s _Johnson_, ii. 26.

[1445] _Johnson_, ii. 28.

[1446] _Minutes of Conference held with the Indians at Easton, July and
Aug., 1757_, Philad. (Haven, p. 535.) A journal of Capt. George Croghan
during its continuance and Croghan’s report to Johnson are in _Penna.
Archives_, 2d ser., vi. 527-538, and in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vii. 280.
In a sale of Americana at Bangs’s in New York, Feb. 27, 1854, no. 1,307
of the _Catalogue_ shows MS. minutes of this conference, which is
endorsed by Benj. Franklin, “This is Mr. [Chas.] Thomson’s copy, who
was secretary to King Teedyuskung,” who was the Delaware chief. No.
1,308 of the same _Catalogue_ is the MS. Report of the council.

An account of Johnson’s proceedings with the Indians from July to
Sept., 1757, is in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vii. 324; and in the same
volume are various letters of Johnson to the Lords of Trade.

[1447] It is told graphically in Macaulay’s _Essay on Chatham_. Cf.
also J. C. Earle’s _English Premiers_, Lond., 1871, vol. i.

[1448] Cf. _Occasional reflections on the importance of the war in
America, in a letter to a member of Parliament_, Lond., 1758. (H. C.
lib., 4375.34.) The _Carter-Brown Catal._ (iii. 1,201) assigns this to
Peter Williamson, who published at York, in 1758, _Some considerations
on the present state of affairs wherein the defenceless condition
of Great Britain is pointed out_. (H. C. lib., 6374.19.) Cf. also
_Proposals for uniting the English Colonies ... so as to enable them
to act with force and vigour against their enemies_, London, 1757.
(Carter-Brown, iii. 1,165; Harv. Coll. library, 6374.14.)

[1449] Vol. ii. ch. xviii.

[1450] Orig. ed., iv. 144; final revision, ii. 457.

[1451] _Conduct of a noble commander in America impartially reviewed_,
Lond., 1758, pp. 45. (Carter-Brown, iii. 1,176; Sabin, iv. 15,197.)

[1452] In June, 1758, Simon Stevens, who commanded a reconnoitring
party from Fort William Henry, was captured by the enemy, and an
account of his experiences, till he escaped from Quebec, was printed in
Boston in 1760.

[1453] Cf. letter in _Penna. Archives_, iii. 472. Later historians
have followed Dwight (_Travels_, iii. 383) in supposing the earthworks
still remaining to represent the work of Montcalm in preparation for
the fight. Hough (ed. of _Rogers’ Journal_, p. 118) so accounts them.
Parkman says, however, that these mounds are relics of the strengthened
works that Montcalm threw up later, his protection at the fight being
of logs mainly.

[1454] _Travels_, iii. 384.

[1455] Items from this diary are quoted in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
vol. xvii. (1879), p. 243. The original is in the cabinet of that
society.

[1456] Parkman refers (ii. 432) to letters of Colonel Woolsey and
others in the _Bouquet and Haldimand Papers_ in the British Museum.
A letter of Sir William Grant is given in Maclachlan’s _Highlands_
(1875), ii. 340. Knox (i. 148) gives a letter from an officer. Dwight
refers to a letter in the _New Amer. Magazine_. There are among the
letters of Chas. Lee to his sister (_N. Y. Hist. Coll._, 1871) one
from Schenectady, June 18, and one from Albany, Sept. 16, 1758. He
describes his being wounded at Ticonderoga, and is very severe on the
“Booby-in-chief.” Other letters are in the _Boston Gazette_, 1758. The
_Boston Evening Post_, July 24, 1758, has “the latest advices from
Lake George, published by authority,” in which, speaking of Montcalm’s
lines, it is said that “the ease with which they might be forced
proved a mistake; for it was not possible with the utmost exaction of
bravery to carry them.” It gives a table of losses as then reported;
and adds extracts from a letter dated Saratoga, July 12, “which are
not authenticated.” There is in the _Israel Williams MSS._, in the
Mass. Hist. Soc. library, a letter from Col William Williams, dated
July 11, 1758, at Lake George, as at “a sorrowful situation.” The same
papers contain also a letter from Oliver Partridge, Lake George, July
12, 1758; a detailed account of the campaign, by Col. Israel Williams;
a letter of his nephew, Col. William Williams, Aug. 21, 1758; a rough
draft of a narrative of the campaign by Colonel Israel Williams, dated
at Hatfield, Aug. 7, 1758; a letter from Timothy Woodbridge, Lake
George, July 24, 1758; and others from the camp, Lake George, Sept. 26
and 28, by William Williams.

Several diaries have been printed: Chaplain Shute’s is in the _Essex
Inst. Hist. Coll._, xii. 132. In the same, vol. xviii. pp. 81, 177
(April, July, 1881), is another by Caleb Rea, published separately as
_Journal, written during the expedition against Ticonderoga in 1758_.
_Edited by F. M. Ray, Salem, Mass._, 1881.

In the _Historical Mag._, Aug., 1871 (p. 113), is the journal of a
provincial officer, beginning at Falmouth (Me.), May 21, 1758, and
ending on his return to the same place, Nov. 15.

The journal of Lemuel Lyon, during this expedition, makes part (pp.
11-45) of _The military journals of two private soldiers_, with
illustrative notes by B. J. Lossing, published at Poughkeepsie in 1855.
(Field, no. 963; Sabin, x. no. 42,860.) An account by Dr. James Searing
is given in the _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1847, p. 112, and Rufus
Putnam’s journal, 1757-1760, edited by E. C. Dawes (Albany, 1885),
covers the campaign. A Scottish story of second sight,—a legend of
Inverawe,—in reference to the death of Major Duncan Campbell in the
fight, is given in _Fraser’s Mag._, vol. cii. p. 501, by A. P. Stanley;
in the _Atlantic Monthly_, Apr., 1884, by C. F. Gordon-Cumming; and by
Parkman (vol. ii., app., P. 433).

[1457] Vol. ii. p. 432.

[1458] A list of the killed and wounded of the English, from the
_London Mag._, xxvii. p. 427, is in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 728. In
a volume of miscel. MSS., 1632-1795, in the Mass. Hist. Society, there
is a list of officers and soldiers killed and wounded in the attack on
Ticonderoga, July 8, 1758, “from papers of Richard Peters, secretary of
the governor of Pennsylvania.”

[1459] Other general sources: Entick; Hutchinson, iii. 70; Smith’s _New
York_ (1830), ii. 265; Trumbull’s _Connecticut_; Bancroft, orig. ed.,
iv. 298, final revision, ii. 486; Williams’ _Vermont_; Warburton’s
_Conquest of Canada_, ii. ch. 5, who accuses Grahame (_United States_,
ii. 279) of undue predilection for the provincial troops; Watson’s
_County of Essex_, ch. 6; Stone, ii. 173, who neglects to say what
part Johnson’s braves took in the fight; beside the general English
historians, Smollett, Belsham, Mahon, etc.

[1460] Such are Montcalm’s letter to the Marshal de Belle Isle, July
12 (p. 732), his report to the same (p. 737), and his letter to
Vaudreuil (p. 748). The governor made the victory the occasion of
casting reproaches upon the general (p. 757), and Vaudreuil’s spirit
of crimination is shown in his letter to De Massiac, Aug. 4 (p. 779),
and in his observations on Montcalm’s account of the fight (p. 788,
etc.), as well as in Vaudreuil’s letter to Montcalm, and the latter’s
observations upon it (p. 800). The _Coll. de Manuscrits_ (Quebec), vol.
iv., has several documents, like Montcalm’s letters to Vaudreuil of
July 9 and Oct. 21 (pp. 168, 201).

A letter of Doreil, dated at Quebec, July 28, is also in the _N. Y.
Col. Docs._ (pp. 744, 753), as well as a reprint of an account printed
at Rouen, Dec. 23, 1758 (p. 741). A _Journal de l’affaire du Canada,
passée le 8 Juillet, 1758, imprimé à Paris, 1758_, is in the _Coll. de
Manuscrits_ (Quebec), iv. 219. There is a French letter (July 14) in
the _Penna. Archives_, iii. 472, of which a translation is given in the
_N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. p. 734. (Cf. also pp. 747 and 892.) The journal
of military operations before Ticonderoga from June 30 to July 10 is in
_Ibid._, p. 721, as well as a journal of occurrences, Oct. 20, 1757, to
Oct. 20, 1758, which also rehearses the details of the fight (p. 844).

M. Daine, in a letter to Marshal de Belle Isle, dated Quebec, 31
July, 1758, gives him the details of the victory at Carillon, as he
had collected them from the letters of different officers who were in
the action. (_N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 813.) It resembles Montcalm’s own
letter to Vaudreuil.

[1461] On the part of the Indians in the battle, see Joseph Tassé, “Sur
un point d’histoire,” in _Revue Canadienne_, v. 664. Ernest Gagnon has
a paper, “Sur le drapeau de Carillon,” in _Ibid._, new series, ii. 129.

[1462] _Proceedings_, 2d ser., i. p. 134.

[1463] _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1862, p. 217.

[1464] Called “Molong” by the early chroniclers on the English side,
and even by Tarbox, in his _Life of Putnam_. Parkman says Humphreys’
account of the battle is erroneous at several points. There are details
in Rogers’ _Journals_; in a record by Thomson Maxwell in the _Hist.
Coll. of the Essex Institute_, vii. 97; in _Gentleman’s Mag._, 1758, p.
498; in _Boston Gazette_, no. 117; in _N. H. Gazette_, no. 104; beside,
on the French side, in the Paris documents of the Parkman MSS. Cf.
account of the ground in Lossing’s _Field-Book of the Rev._, i. 140,
and Holden’s _Queensbury_, p. 325. A letter of Oliver Partridge, Sept.,
1758 (_Israel Williams MSS._), describes the movements of Rogers.

[1465] Bradstreet himself is thought to have had a hand in _An
Impartial Account of Lieut.-Col. Bradstreet’s Expedition to Fort
Frontenac, by a Volunteer on the Expedition_, London, 1759.
(Carter-Brown, iii. 1,203; Field, _Indian Bibliog._, no. 171; Bost.
Pub. Library, H. 95.74; Brinley, i. 210.) There is in Harvard College
library a copy of a MS. which belonged in 1848 to Lyman Watkins, of
Walpole, N. H., and is called _A Journal of the Expedition against Fort
Frontenac in 1758, by Lieut. Benjamin Bass, with lists of officers_,
etc. (H. C., 5325.51.) Fort Frontenac, after its capture, is described
in a _Letter to the Right Hon. William Pitt, Esq., from an officer at
Fort Frontenac_, London, 1759. (Carter-Brown, iii. 1,223; Sabin, x.
40,533.)

[1466] His letter announcing the occupation is in _Penna. Archives_,
viii. 232, and _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 905.

[1467] Parkman’s notes on these indicate that in Sparks, ii. p. 293,
the letter is abbreviated and altered; p. 295 is altered; p. 297 is
varied; p. 299 has great variations; p. 302 has variations; p. 307 is
shortened and changed; p. 310 has variations.

[1468] This is reprinted in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 902. Cf. _Penna
Archives_, 2d ser., vi. 429.

[1469] _Bibliog. of Ohio_, no. 939; Sabin, xv. 64,453; Field, no.
1,233. It is reprinted in Proud’s _Hist. of Penna._, ii., app.; Rupp’s
_Early Hist. of Western Penna._, p. 99; _Olden Time_, i. 98; _Penna.
Archives_, iii. 520 (cf. also pp. 412, 560). Stone, _Life of Johnson_,
ii. ch. 4, magnifies Johnson’s influence in this pacification of the
Indians. Cf. Parkman’s _Pontiac_, i. 143.

[1470] Vol. ii. ch. 22.

[1471] Orig. ed., iv. 308; final revision, ii. 490.

[1472] Vol. i. ch. 24.

[1473] Cf. Sargent’s _Braddock’s Exped._, introd.; Darlington’s ed. of
Smith’s _Remarkable Occurrences_, p. 102; A. W. Loomis’ _Centennial
Address_ (1858), published at Pittsburgh, 1859; Gordon’s _Hist. of
Pennsylvania; The American Pioneer_ (periodical). A sketch of Fort
Pitt, as Mr. Samuel Vaughan found it in 1787, is given in his MS.
journal, owned by Mr. Chas. Deane.

[1474] The Parkman MSS. contain letters of Bougainville dated July
25, 1758; Paris, Dec. 22, Versailles, Dec. 29; Paris, Jan. 16, 1759;
Versailles, Jan. 28, Feb. 1, 16; Bordeaux, March 5; Paris, Dec. 10.

[1475] Some letters of Doreil on his Paris mission (1760) are among the
Parkman MSS.

[1476] The disheartening began early, as shown by Doreil’s letter of
Aug. 31, 1758 (_N. Y. Col. Docs._, 828), and Montcalm, addressing Belle
Isle in the spring (Apr. 12, 1759), had to depict but a sorry outlook.
(_Ibid._, x. 960.)

[1477] Particularly (p. 857) in the abstracts of the despatches in the
war office, complaining of Vaudreuil.

[1478] Sabin, xii. 47,556. Cf. the address of J. M. Lemoine,
_Glimpses of Quebec_, 1749-1759, made in Dec., 1879, and printed in
the _Transactions_ of the Lit. and Hist. Soc., 1879-80; Martin’s _De
Montcalm en Canada_, ch. 9; and Viscount Bury’s _Exodus of the Western
Nations_ (vol. ii. ch. 9), who seems to have used French documentary
sources.

[1479] N. Y. ed., ii. ch. 6 and 7.

[1480] _Rule and Misrule of the English in America_, N. Y., 1851, p.
209.

[1481] Vol. ii. ch. 1.

[1482] New York, 1882, p. 51.

[1483] See his introduction; also Part ii. p. 59. Various
characteristics of French colonization in Canada are developed by
Rameau in the _Revue Canadienne_: e. g., “La race française en Canada”
(x. 296); “L’administration de la justice sous la domination française”
(xvi. 105); “La langue française en Canada” (new ser., i. 259);
“Immigration et colonisation sous la domination française” (iv. 593).

[1484] Stanwix worked hard to put Pittsburgh into a defensible
condition. Maury’s _Huguenot Family_, 416.

[1485] Indeed, military critics have questioned the general multiform
plan of Pitt’s campaign as a serious error. Cf. Smollett’s _England_,
and Viscount Bury’s _Exodus_, ii. 288. Pitt’s letter of Dec. 9, 1758,
to the colonial governors on the coming campaign is in the _New
Hampshire Prov. Papers_, vi. 703; and his letter of Dec. 29, 1758, to
Amherst on the conduct of it is in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vii. 355.
Cf. also _Chatham Correspondence_. Jared Ingersoll’s account of the
character and appearance of Pitt in 1759 is given in E. E. Beardsley’s
_Life and Times of William Samuel Johnson_, Boston, 2d ed., 1886, p. 21.

Col. Montresor submitted a plan for amendments which, in its main
features, was like Pitt’s. Cf. _Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., vi. 433, and
_N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 907. (Cf. _Collection de Manuscrits_, Quebec,
iv. 208.) The plan of Vaudreuil, Apr. 1, 1759, on the French side,
is in _Ibid._, x. 952. In Dec., 1758, Gen. Winslow was in England,
and William Beckford was urging Pitt to have recourse to him for
information. _Chatham Correspondence_, i. 378.

[1486] _Life of Johnson_, ii. 394, etc.

[1487] There is a contemporary letter in the _Boston Evening Post_, no.
1,250, a composite account in the _Annual Register_, 1759, and another
in Knox’s _Hist. Journal_, vol. ii. Papers from the London Archives are
in the _New York Col. Docs._, vii. 395. There are among Charles Lee’s
letters two (July 30 and Aug. 9, 1759) describing the siege of Niagara,
and his subsequent route towards Duquesne is defined in another (March
1, 1760). _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1871, p. 9.

[1488] Vol. ii. 42; vol. iii. 165.

[1489] Cf. on Pouchot, _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 668, note. In the same
(p. 990) are the articles of capitulation.

[1490] Vol. ii. p. 130.

[1491] Vol. ii. p. 104, etc.

[1492] Gage’s Letters, 1759-1773 (MS.), in Harvard College library.
In one of them he says to Bradstreet: “You must not conclude that all
the oxen that leave Schenectady reach this; and in your calculation of
provisions make allowance for what may be lost, taken by and left at
the Indian castles, beside what are used at the several posts.”

[1493] Amherst’s letters chronicling progress are in _N. Y. Col.
Docs._, vii. 400, etc. Early in Nov., 1758, it had been rumored in
Albany that Amherst was to supersede Abercrombie. (C. V. R. Bonney’s
_Legacy of Hist. Gleanings_, Albany, 1875, p. 26.) A large number of
letters addressed to Amherst are in the _Bernard Papers_ (Sparks MSS.),
1759. On Amherst’s family connections, cf. James E. Doyle’s _Official
Baronage of England_ (London, 1886), i. p. 38.

[1494] An _Orderly Book_ of Commissary Wilson, in the possession of
Gen. J. Watts De Peyster, was printed as no. 1 of _Munsell’s Historical
Series_, at Albany, in 1857, with notes by Dr. O’Callaghan, which in
the main concern persons mentioned in the record.

A journal of Samuel Warner, a Massachusetts soldier, is printed in the
_Wilbraham Centennial_, and is quoted in De Costa’s _Lake George_.
Parkman was favored by Mr. Wm. L. Stone with the use of a diary of
Sergeant Merriman, of Ruggles’ regiment, and with a MS. book of
general and regimental orders of the campaign. The _Journal of Rufus
Putnam_ covers this forward movement. A MS. “Project for the attack on
Ticonderoga, May 29, 1759, W. B. delt.,” is among the Faden maps, no.
24, Library of Congress.

[1495] A centennial address of the capture of Ticonderoga, delivered
in 1859, is in Cortlandt Van Rensselaer’s _Sermons, Essays, and
Addresses_, Phil., 1861.

[1496] Parkman refers to an account by Thompson Maxwell as of doubtful
authenticity, as it is not sure that the writer was one of Rogers’s
party. A hearsay story of equal uncertainty, respecting an ambush laid
by Rogers for the Indians, as told by one Jesse Pennoyer, is given by
Mrs. C. M. Day, in her _Hist. of the Eastern Townships_. Stone (_Life
of Johnson_, ii. 107) says he could not find any tradition of the raid
among the present descendants of the St. Francis tribe. Maurault, in
his _Histoire des Abénakis_, gives an account. Vaudreuil refers to it
in his letters in the _Parkman MSS._ Cf. Watson’s _County of Essex_, p.
106.

[1497] The first attempt to recount the exploits of Wolfe in the shape
of a regular biography was made by a weak and florid writer, who, in
1760, “according to the rules of eloquence,” as he professed, got out
a brief _Life of General James Wolfe_, which was in the same year
reprinted in Boston. (Carter-Brown, iii. 1,280; Haven in Thomas, p.
557.) Nothing adequate was done, however, for a long time after, and
the reader had to gather what he could from the _Annual Register_,
Smollett’s _England_, Walpole’s _George II._, or from the contemporary
histories of Entick and Mante. (Cf. various expressions in Walpole’s
_Letters_.)

The letters of Wolfe to his parents were not used till Thomas
Streatfeild made an abstract of a part of them for a proposed history
of Kent; but his project falling through, the papers passed by Mahon’s
influence (_Hist. of England_, 3d ed., iv. 151) to the Rev. G. R.
Gleig, who used them in his _Lives of the Most Eminent British Military
Commanders_ (1832). About 1827, such of the Wolfe papers as had
descended from General Warde, the executor of Wolfe’s mother, to his
nephew, Admiral George Warde, were placed in Robert Southey’s hands,
but a life of Wolfe which he had designed was not prepared, and the
papers were lost sight of until they appeared as lots 531, 532 of the
_Catalogue of the Dawson Turner Sale_ in 1858, which also contained
an independent collection of “Wolfiana.” Upon due presentation of the
facts, the lots above named were restored to the Warde family, together
with the “Wolfiana,” as it was not deemed desirable to separate the
two collections. This enlarged accumulation was submitted to Mr.
Robert Wright, who produced the _Life of Major-General James Wolfe_,
which was published in London in 1864. To the domestic correspondence
of Wolfe above referred to, which ceases to be full when the period
of his greatest fame is reached, Mr. Wright added other more purely
military papers, which opportunely came in his way. Some of these had
belonged to Col. Rickson, a friend of Wolfe, and being filed in an old
chest, in whose rusty lock the key had been broken, they had remained
undisturbed till about forty years ago, when the chest was broken open,
and the papers were used by Mr. John Buchanan in a sketch of Wolfe,
which he printed in _Tait’s Magazine_ in 1849, and reprinted in his
_Glasgow Past and Present_ in 1856. Wright found the originals in the
Museum of the Antiquarian Society of Scotland, at Edinburgh, and he
says they, better than the letters addressed to his mother, exhibit the
tone and bent of Wolfe’s mind. The letters which passed between Wolfe
and Amherst during the siege of Louisbourg (1758) were submitted to
Wright by Earl Amherst, and from these, from the “Wolfiana” of Dawson
Turner, from the _Chatham_ and _Bedford Correspondence_, he gathered
much unused material to illustrate the campaigns which closed the
struggle for Canada. See particularly a letter of Wolfe, from Halifax,
May 1, 1759, detailing the progress of preparations, which is in the
_Chatham Correspondence_, i. 403, as is one of Sept. 9, dated on board
the “Sutherland,” off Cape Rouge (p. 425). Walpole speaks of the last
letter received from Wolfe before news came of his success, and of that
letter’s desponding character. “In the most artful terms that could
be framed, he left the nation uncertain whether he meant to prepare
an excuse for desisting, or to claim the melancholy merit of having
sacrificed himself without a prospect of success.” (_Mem. of the Reign
of George II._, 2d ed., iii. p. 218.) Mr. Wright, from a residence in
Canada, became familiar with the scenes of Wolfe’s later life, and was
incited thereby to the task which he has very creditably performed.

[1498] Cf. also, on Wolfe, James’ _Memoirs of Great Commanders_, new
ed., 1858; _Bentley’s Mag._, xxxi. 353; _Eclectic Mag._, lxii. 376;
_Canadian Monthly_, vii. 105, by D. Wilson. Mahon (_England_, iv. ch.
35) tells some striking stories of the way in which Wolfe’s shyness
sometimes took refuge in an almost crazy dash.

[1499] The Abbé Verreau is said to have one. I note another in a sale
catalogue (Bangs, N. Y., 1854, no. 1,319), and a third is cited in the
_Third Report of the Hist. MSS. Commission_, p. 124, as being among the
Northumberland Papers at Alnwick Castle.

[1500] This address was delivered before the N. E. Hist. Geneal. Soc.
in Boston. It was not so much a narrative of events as a critical
examination of various phases of the history of the siege.

Mr. W. S. Appleton describes the medal struck to commemorate the
capture of Quebec and Montreal, in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xi.
298, and in the _Amer. Journal of Numismatics_, July, 1874. A cut of it
is given on the title of the present volume. Cf. _Quebec Lit. and Hist.
Soc. Transactions_, 1872-73, p. 80.

[1501] Those on the English side are as follows:—

1. _Journal of the expedition up the river St. Lawrence from the
embarkation at Louisbourg ‘til after the surrender of Quebeck, by the
sergeant-major of Gen. Hopson’s Grenadiers_, Boston, 1759. (Sabin, ix.
36,723.). This appeared originally in the _N. Y. Mercury_, Dec. 31,
1759, and is reprinted in the second series of the _Hist. Docs. of the
Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec_.

2. _Journal of the expedition up the river St. Lawrence_, beginning
at Perth Amboy, May 8, 1759. The original was found among the
papers of George Allsop, secretary to Sir Guy Carleton, Wolfe’s
quartermaster-general. It has been printed in the _Hist. Docs._, 4th
ser., of the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec.

3. Capt. Richard Gardiner’s _Memoirs of the siege of Quebec, and of the
retreat of M. de Bourlamaque from Carillon to the Isle aux Noix on Lake
Champlain, from the Journal of a French officer on board the Chezine
frigate ... compared with the accounts transmitted home by Maj.-Gen.
Wolfe_, London, 1761.

4. _An accurate and authentic Journal of the siege of Quebec, 1759, by
a gentleman in an eminent station on the spot_, London, 1759. (Brinley,
i. 207; H. C. library, 4376.29; Carter-Brown, iii. 1,233.)

5. _Genuine letters from a volunteer in the British service at
Quebec_, London [1760]. (Carter-Brown, iii. 1,257.) 6. “Journal of the
particular transactions during the siege of Quebec,” by an officer
of light infantry, printed in _Notes and Queries_, xx. 370. It is
reprinted in the _Hist. Mag._ (Nov., 1860), iv. 321. It extends from
June 26 to Aug. 8, 1759, purports to be penned “at anchor opposite the
island of Orleans.” The original is said to have been in the possession
of G. Galloway, of Inverness, and is supposed to have been written by
an officer of Fraser’s regiment.

7. _A short, authentic account of the expedition against Quebec, by a
volunteer upon that expedition_, Quebec, 1872. It is ascribed to one
James Thompson.

8. _Memoirs of the siege of Quebec and total reduction of Canada, by
John Johnson, clerk and quartermaster-sergeant to the Fifty-Eighth
Regiment._ A MS. of 176 pages, cited by Parkman (ii. 440) as by a
pensioner at Chelsea (England) Hospital. It belongs to Geo. Francis
Parkman, Esq.

9. _A short account of the expedition against Quebec ... by an engineer
upon that expedition (Maj. Moncrief), with a plan of the town and basin
of Quebec, and part of the adjacent country, showing the principal
encampments and works of the British army, and those of the French army
during the attack of 1759. Catal. of Lib. of Parliament_ (Toronto,
1858), p. 1277. There is, or was, a MS. copy in the Royal Engineers’
office at Quebec. The original is without signature, but is marked with
the initials “P. M.” (Miles, _Canada_, p. 493.)

10. Col. Malcolm Fraser’s _Journal of the siege of Quebec_. This
officer was of the Seventy-Eighth Highlanders. It is printed in the
_Hist. Docs. of the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec_, 2d series. Cf.
“Fraser’s Highlanders before Quebec, 1759,” in Lemoine’s _Maple
Leaves_, new series, p. 141.

11. In the _N. Y. Hist. Coll._ (1881), p. 196, is a journal of the
siege of Quebec, beginning June 4, 1759, and extending to Sept. 13,
accompanied (p. 217) by letters of its author, Col. John Montresor, to
his father (with enclosed diaries of events), dated Montmorency, Aug.
10; Quebec, Oct. 5 and Oct. 18.

12. In Akins’ _Pub. Doc. of Nova Scotia_, p. 452, is a long letter
(July-Aug.) from James Gibson respecting the progress of the siege.

13. In the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Register_ (1872), p. 237, is a
brief journal of the siege, beginning July 8th, kept by Daniel Lane.

14. A letter dated at Quebec, Oct. 22, 1759, written by Alexander
Campbell, in the _Hist. Mag._, iv. 149.

15. Joseph Grove’s _Letter on the glorious success at Quebec ... and
particularly an account of the manner of General Wolfe’s death_,
London, 1759.

16. Timothy Nichols was a private in the company of John Williams, of
Marblehead, and reached Wolfe’s army, by transport, July 19. He notes
the daily occurrences of cannonading, fires in the town, skirmishes,
fire-rafts, the attack near Montmorency, ceasing his entries Aug. 22,
and dying Sept. 9. The MS., which is defective, belongs to Dr. Arthur
H. Nichols, of Boston, to whom the editor is indebted for extracts.

On the French side we have:—

1. _The Second Report of the Hist. MSS. Commission_ (p. 30) notes,
as among the Earl of Cathcart papers, a folio MS., “Journal de la
expédition contre Québec, 1759.” It has 34½ pages, and extends from May
1 to May 10, according to the report.

2. Martin, in his _De Montcalm en Canada_, p. 239, describes an English
MS. in the Bibliothèque du Ministère de la Guerre (Paris), called for
a general title _Memoirs of a French Officer_, and divided into two
parts:—

(1.) Begins with a narrative of the Scottish rebellion in 1745, and
then gives “An account of the war in Canada to the capitulation of
Montreal in 1760, with an account of the siege of Louisbourg in 1758,
and an exact and impartial account of the hostilities committed in
Acadia and Cape Breton before the declaration of war.”

(2.) _a._ Dialogue in Hades between Montcalm and Wolfe, reviewing,
in the spirit of a military critic, the mistakes of both generals in
the conduct of the campaign, not only of Quebec, but of the other
converging forces of the English. This portion is given in English in
the _Hist. Docs. of the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec_. Martin has a
French translation of it.

_b._ “A critical, impartial, and military history of the war in Canada
until the capitulation signed in 1760.” Published by the Lit. and Hist.
Soc. of Quebec in 1867.

The whole MS. is attributed to a Scotch Jacobite, Chevalier Johnston,
who after the suppression of the Scotch revolt went to France, and
served in the campaign of this year in Canada as aid to Lévis, and
afterwards as aid to Montcalm.

3. In the first series (1840) of the _Hist. Docs. of the Lit. and Hist.
Soc. of Quebec_ there is a “Relation de ce qui s’est passé au siége
de Québec, et de la prise du Canada, par une Religieuse de l’Hôpital
Général de Québec: addressée à une communauté de son ordre en France.”
It is thought to have been written in 1765; and the original belongs to
the Séminaire de Québec. It was again printed at Quebec in 1855.

There was also published at Quebec, about 1827, an English version,
_The siege of Quebec, and conquest of Canada: in 1759_. _By a nun of
the general hospital of Quebec. Appended an account of the laying of
the first stone of the monument to Wolfe and Montcalm._

4. Parkman (ii. 438) considers one of the most important unpublished
documents to be the narrative of M. de Foligny, a naval officer
commanding one of the batteries in the town, namely a _Journal
mémoratif de ce qui s’est passé de plus remarquable pendant qu’a duré
le siége de la ville de Québec_. It is preserved in the Archives de la
Marine at Paris.

5. In the _Hist. Docs. of the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec_, 4th
series, there is a paper, “Siége de Québec en 1759—journal tenu par
M. Jean Claude Panet, ancien notaire de Québec.” It is the work of an
eye-witness, and begins May 10.

6. “Journal tenu à l’armée que commandait feu M. le Marquis de
Montcalm” is also printed in the _Hist. Docs. of the Lit. and Hist.
Soc. of Quebec_. Parkman calls it minute and valuable.

7. Parkman cites, as from the Archives de la Marine, _Mémoires sur la
Campagne de 1759, par M. de Joannès, major de Québec_.

8. _Siégede Québec, en 1759. Copie d’après un manuscrit apporté de
Londres, par l’honorable D. B. Viger, lors de son retour en Canada, en
septembre 1834-mai 1835. Copie d’un manuscrit déposé à la bibliothèque
de Hartwell en Angleterre._ This was printed in a small edition at
Quebec in 1836, and Parkman (ii. 438) calls it a very valuable diary of
a citizen of Quebec.

9. In the first series of the _Hist. Docs. of the Lit. and Hist. Soc.
of Quebec_ is a “Jugement impartial sur les opérations militaires de
la campagne en 1759, par M^{gr} de Pontbriand, Évêque de Québec.” It
aims only to touch controverted points. It is translated in _N. Y.
Col. Docs._, x. 1059. Cf. “Lettres de M^{gr} Pontbriand,” in _Revue
Canadienne_, viii. 438.

10. Leclerc, in his _Bibliotheca Americana_ (Maisonneuve, Paris),
1878, no. 770, describes a manuscript, _Mémoires sur les affaires du
Canada, 1756-1760, par Potot de Montbeillard, Commandant d’Artillerie_,
as a daily journal, written on the spot, never printed, and one of
three copies known. Priced at 400 francs. This has been secured by Mr.
Parkman since the publication of his book.

11. The Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec has also printed a document, the
original of which was found in the Archives du département de la Guerre
at Paris, entitled: _Événements de la Guerre en Canada durant les
années 1759 et 1760: Relation du Siége de Québec du 27 Mai au 8 Aôut,
1759: Campagne du Canada depuis le 1^{er} Juin jusqu’au 15 Septembre,
1759_. These are followed by other documents, including no. 6 (_ante_).

[1502] The Parkman MSS. contain transcripts from these archives,
1666-1759.

[1503] These are translated in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x., with others:
such as a published narrative of the French, ending Aug. 8 (p. 993); an
account, June 1 to Sept. 15 (p. 1001); Montreuil’s letter (p. 1013);
a journal of operations with Montcalm’s army (p. 1016); and Bigot’s
letter to Belle Isle on the closing movements of the siege (p. 1051).

The collection of Montcalm letters in the Parkman MSS., copied from the
originals in the possession of the present Marquis of Montcalm, begins
in America, May 19 (Quebec), 1756, when he says that he had arrived
on the 12th. The others are from Montreal, June 16, 19, July 20, Aug.
30; from Carillon, Sept. 18; from Montreal, Nov. 3, 9, Apr. 1 (1757),
16, 24, June 6, July 1, 4, 8, Aug. 19; from Quebec, Sept. 13, Feb. 19
(1758); from Montreal, Apr. 10, 18, 20, June 2; from Carillon, July 14,
21, Aug. 20, 24, Sept. 25, Oct. 16, 27; from Montreal, Nov. 21, 29,
Apr. 12 (1759), May 16, 19.

The Parkman MSS. also contain letters of Montcalm to Bourlamaque,
copied from the Bourlamaque papers, beginning with one from Montreal,
June 25, 1756, and they are continued to his death; to which are
added letters of Bougainville and Bernetz, written after the death of
Montcalm.

[1504] Vol. ii. 441.

[1505] Cf. “Où est mort Montcalm?” by J. M. Lemoine, in _Revue
Canadienne_, 1867, p. 630; and the document given in the _Coll. de
Manuscrits_ (Quebec), iv. 231.

[1506] Vol. ii. 325.

[1507] In this last there seems to be an allusion to a book which
appeared in London in 1777, in French and English, published by Almon,
called _Lettres de Monsieur le Marquis de Montcalm à Messieurs de
Berryer et de la Molé, écrites dans les années 1757, 1758, et 1759_.
(Sabin, xii. p. 305; Barlow’s _Rough List_, no. 1,095.) The letters
were early suspected to be forgeries, intended to help the argument
of the American cause in 1777 by prognosticating the resistance and
independency of the English colonists, to follow upon the conquest of
Canada and the enforced taxation of the colonies by the crown. These
views came out in what purported to be a letter from Boston, signed “S.
J.,” to Montcalm, and by him cited and accepted. The alleged letters
were apparently passed round in manuscript in London as early as Dec.,
1775, when Hutchinson (_Diary and Letters_, p. 575) records that Lord
Hardwicke sent them to him, “which I doubt not,” adds the diarist, “are
fictitious, as they agree in no circumstance with the true state of the
colonies at the time.” Despite the doubt attaching to them, they have
been quoted by many writers as indicating the prescience of Montcalm;
and the essential letter to Molé is printed, for instance, without
qualification by Warburton in his _Conquest of Canada_ (vol. ii.), and
is used by Bury in his _Exodus of the Western Nations_, by Barry in his
_Hist. of Mass._, by Miles in his _Canada_ (p. 425), and by various
others. Lord Mahon gave credence to it in his _Hist. of England_ (orig.
ed., vi. 143; but see 5th ed., vi. 95). Carlyle came across this
letter in a pamphlet by Lieut.-Col. Beatson, _The Plains of Abraham_,
published at Gibraltar in 1858, and citing it thence embodied it in
his _Frederick the Great_. Ten years later Parkman found a copy of the
letter among the papers of the present Marquis de Montcalm, but inquiry
established the fact that it was not in the autograph of the alleged
writer. This, with certain internal evidences, constitutes the present
grounds for rejecting the letters as spurious, and Parkman further
points out (vol. ii. 326) that Verreau identifies the handwriting of
the suspected copy of the letter as that of Roubaud.

Mr. Parkman first made a communication respecting the matter to the
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, June, 1869 (vol. xi. pp. 112-128), where the
editor, Dr. Charles Deane, appended notes on the vicissitudes of the
opinions upon the genuineness of the letters; and these data were added
to by Henry Stevens in a long note in his _Bibliotheca Historica_, no.
1,336. Carlyle finally accepted the arguments against them. (_M. H.
Soc. Proc._, Jan., 1870, vol. xi. 199.)

[1508] This periodical was begun in 1758, and Mahon speaks of its
narratives as “written with great spirit and compiled with great care.”

[1509] The victory of Quebec, as well as British successes in Germany,
induced the formation in England of a “Society for the Encouragement
of the British Troops,” of which Jonas Hanway printed at London, in
1760, an _Account_, detailing the assistance which had been rendered
to soldiers’ widows, etc. (Sabin, viii. no. 30,276. There is a copy in
Harv. Coll. Library.)

[1510] Smith’s _Hist. of New York_ (1830, vol. ii.); the younger
Smith’s _Hist. of Canada_ (vol. i. ch. 2); Chalmers’ _Revolt_, etc.
(vol. ii.); Grahame’s _United States_ (vol. ii.); Mortimer’s _England_
(vol. iii.); Mahon’s _England_, 5th ed. (vol. iv. ch. 35), erroneous in
some details; Warburton’s _Conquest of Canada_ (vol. ii. ch. 10-12);
Bancroft, _United States_, orig. ed., iv.; final revision, vol. ii.;
Gay’s _Pop. Hist. U. S._ (vol. iii. 305); a paper by Sydney Robjohns,
in the _Roy. Hist. Soc. Trans._, v.

[1511] It is reprinted in the _Eclectic Mag._, xxvii. 121, and in
_Littell’s Living Age_, xxxiv. 551.

[1512] Fourth ed., vol. ii. p. 313.

[1513] Cf. also his papers on Montcalm in the _Revue Canadienne_, xiii.
822, 906; xiv. 31, 93, 173. Thomas Chapais’ “Montcalm et le Canada,”
in _Nouvelles Soirées Canadiennes_, i. 418, 543, is a review of
Bonnechose’s fifth edition.

[1514] Vol. ii. 298, 305, 436.

[1515] Miles’ _Canada_, 418.

[1516] Parkman, ii. 317. Walpole (_Mem. of the Reign of George II._, 2d
ed., iii. p. 218) says that “Townshend and other officers had crossed
Wolfe in his plans, but he had not yielded.”

[1517] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,267.

[1518] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,268.

[1519] _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vii. 422.

[1520] Aspinwall Papers, in _Mass. Hist. Coll._, xxxix. 241.

[1521] Stone’s _Life of Johnson_, ii. 122, etc.

[1522] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xxxix. 249, etc.

[1523] _Ibid._, p. 302.

[1524] _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 1139. There are letters received by
Bourlamaque between June 28, 1756, and the end of the contest in Canada
(1760), preserved in the collection of Sir Thomas Phillipps. They are
from Vaudreuil, De Lévis (after 1759), Berniers, Bougainville, Murray,
Malartic, D’Hébécourt, etc. Copies of them are in the Parkman MSS.
(Mass. Hist. Soc.).

There is a summary of the strategical movements of the war in a _Précis
of the Wars in Canada, 1755-1814_, prepared, by order of the Duke of
Wellington in 1826, by Maj.-Gen. Sir James Carmichael-Smyth, “for the
use and convenience of official people only.” During the American civil
war (1862) a public edition was issued, edited by the younger Sir James
Carmichael, with the thought that some entanglement of Great Britain
in the American civil war (1861-1865) might render the teachings of
the book convenient. The editor, in an introduction, undertakes to
say “that the State of Maine has exhibited an unmistakable desire for
annexation to the British Crown,” which, if carried out, would enable
Great Britain better to maintain military connection between Canada and
New Brunswick.

[1525] _America and West Indies_, vol. xcix.

[1526] Vol. ii. 359.

[1527] Vol. ii. 292-322.

[1528] Vol. ii. 359.

[1529] _Quebec Past and Present_, p. 177.

[1530] _Canada_, 4th ed., vol. ii. 351.

[1531] _Picturesque Quebec_, 305.

[1532] Cf. Martin, _De Montcalm en Canada_, ch. 14; Philippe Aubert
de Gaspé’s _Anciens Canadiens_ (Quebec, 1863), p. 277. In 1854 E.
P. Tache delivered a discourse at a ceremonial held by the Société
Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Québec, on the occasion of “l’inhumation
solennelle des ossements trouvés sur le champ de bataille de
Sainte-Foye.” There is an account of the monument on the ground in
Lemoine’s _Quebec Past and Present_, p. 295.

For the winter in Quebec, see _Les Ursulines de Québec_, vol. iii.

On the 26th of January Col. John Montresor was sent by way of the
Chaudière and Kennebec to carry despatches to Amherst in New York.
His journal till his return to Quebec, May 20, is in the _N. E. Hist.
and Geneal. Reg._, 1882, p. 29, and in the library of the N. E. Hist.
Geneal. Soc. is the map which he made of his route. (_Mag. of Amer.
Hist._, Oct., 1882, p. 709.) Cf. also _Maine Hist. Coll._, vol. i.; _N.
Y. Hist. Coll._, 1881, pp. 117, 524.

[1533] Woodhull was the colonel of the Third Regiment of N. Y.
Provincials, and was with Amherst. The journal begins at Albany, June
11, and ends Sept. 27, 1760. It is in the _Hist. Mag._, v. 257.

[1534] Mante’s account is copied in Hough’s _St. Lawrence and Franklin
Counties_, p. 89, where the passage down the St. Lawrence is treated
at length. Dr. Hough judges the account of the taking of Fort Lévis,
as given by David Humphrey in his _Works_ (New York, 1804, p. 280),
to be mostly fabulous. Hough (p. 704) also prints Governor Colden’s
proclamation on the capture. Pouchot gives a plan of the attack. There
are various documents, French and English, in _Collection de documents_
(Quebec), iv. 245, 283, 297.

[1535] Vol. xxxix. p. 316.

[1536] Vol. ii. p. 360.

[1537] The success of the campaign made Amherst a Knight of the Bath,
and his investiture with the insignia took place at Staten Island in
Oct., 1761, and is described in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, ii. 502.

Charles Carroll (_Journal to Canada_, ed. 1876, p. 86) seems to give
it as a belief current in his time (1776) that Amherst took the route
by Oswego and the St. Lawrence because he feared being foiled by
obstructions at Isle-aux-Noix. The correspondence of Amherst and the
Nova Scotia authorities is noted in T. B. Akins’s _List of MS. Docs. in
the government offices at Halifax_ (1886), p. 12.

[1538] Amherst’s order to Rogers is in Lanman’s _Michigan_, p. 85.
Rogers made a detour from Presqu’isle to Fort Pitt to deliver orders to
Monckton.

[1539] Cf. Rupp’s _Early Penna._, p. 50.

[1540] Cf. also Blanchard’s _Discovery and Conquests of the Northwest_,
ch. vi.

[1541] Cf. Lemoine, _Maple Leaves_, new ser., 79.

[1542] Lemoine, p. 115. See also _Les Anciens Canadiens_, ii. p. 5.

[1543] Moreau’s _Principales requêtes du Procureur-Général en la
commission établie dans l’affaire du Canada_ [1763].

_Mémoire pour le Marquis de Vaudreuil, ci-devant Gouverneur et
Lieutenant-Général de la Nouvelle France_, Paris, 1763.

_Mémoire pour Messire François Bigot ... accusé, contre Monsieur le
Procureur-Général ... contenant l’histoire de l’administration du Sieur
Bigot_, Paris, 1763, 2 vols. This is signed by Dupont and others, with
a “Suite de la seconde Partie,” “contenant la discussion et le détail
des chefs d’accusation.”

_Mémoire pour Michel-Jean-Hugues Péan contre M. le Procureur-Général
accusateur_, Paris, 1763.

_Réponse du Sieur Breard, ci-devant contrôleur de la marine à Québec,
aux mémoires de M. Bigot et du Sieur Péan_ [par Clos], Paris, 1763.

_Mémoire pour D. de Joncaire Chabert, ci-devant commandant au petit
Fort de Niagara, contre M. le Procureur-Général_ [par Clos], in three
parts.

_Mémoire pour le Sieur de la Bourdonnais_ and _supplément_.

_Mémoire pour le Sieur Duverger de Saint Blin, lieutenant
d’enfantrie dans les troupes étant ci-devant en Canada, contre M. le
Procureur-Général_, Paris, 1763.

_Mémoire pour_ [Charles Deschamps] _le Sieur de Boishebert ci-devant
commandant à l’Acadie_ [par Clos].

_Mémoire du Sieur_ [Jean-Baptiste] _Martel_ [de Saint-Antoine] _dans
l’affaire du Canada_, 1763.

Jean-Baptiste-Jacques-Elie de Beaumont’s _Observations sur les profits
prétendus indûment faits par la Société Lemoine des Pins_, 1763.

Sufflet de Berville’s _Jugement rendu souverainement et en dernier
ressort dans l’affaire du Canada du 10 Decembre, 1763_, [contre Bigot,
etc.], Paris, 1763.

Some of these are mentioned in Stevens’ _Bibl. Geographica_, nos.
546-551.

On Bigot, cf. Lemoine, “Sur les dernières années de la domination
française en Canada,” in _Revue Canadienne_, 1866, p. 165.

[1544] See Vol. III., Index.

[1545] Frothingham, _Rise of the Republic_, p. 86. Bancroft makes a
brief summary of movements towards union in the opening chapter of vol.
viii. of his final revision.

[1546] Cf. also _Rise of the Republic_, p. 111.

[1547] Cf. _Rise of the Republic_, p. 111.

[1548] _Rise of the Republic_, p. 112.

[1549] _Hist. Mag._, iii. 123.

[1550] Cf., on Coxe, G. M. Hills’ _Hist. of the Church in Burlington,
N. J._ (2d ed.), where there is a portrait of Coxe.

[1551] No attempt is made to enumerate all the conferences with the
Indians in which several colonies joined. They often resulted in
records or treaties, of which many are given in the _Brinley Catalogue_
(vol. iii. no. 5,486, etc.). Records of many such will also be found
in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._ and in _Penna. Archives_. Cf. Stone’s _Sir
William Johnson_. See chapters ii. and viii. of the present volume.

[1552] _Rise of the Republic_, 116. Cf. also Kennedy’s _Serious
Considerations on the Present State of the Affairs of the Northern
Colonies_, New York, 1754. James Maury was writing about this time: “It
is our common misfortune that there is no mutual dependence, no close
connection between these several colonies: they are quite disunited by
separate views and distinct interests, and like a bold and rapid river,
which, though resistless when included in one channel, is yet easily
resistible when subdivided into several inferior streams.” (Maury’s
_Huguenot Family_, 382.) In March, 1754, Shirley urged a union upon the
governor of New Hampshire. (_N. H. Prov. Papers_, vi. 279.)

[1553] The commissions of the deputies are printed in _Penna.
Archives_, ii. 137, etc.

[1554] Cf. Shirley to Gov. Wentworth, in _N. H. Prov. Papers_, vi. 279.

[1555] Sparks’s ed., iii. 26. The “Short Hints,” with Alexander’s and
Colden’s notes, are preserved in a MS. in the N. Y. Hist. Soc. Library;
and from this paper they were first printed in Sedgwick’s _Life of
William Livingston_, Appendix. A MS. in Colden’s handwriting is among
the _Sparks MSS._ (no. xxxix.).

[1556] It can also be found in _Penna. Col. Rec._, vi. 105; _N. Y.
Col. Docs._, vi. 889; Minot’s _Massachusetts_, i. 191; Pownall’s
_Administration of the Colonies_, 1768, app. iv.; Trumbull’s
_Connecticut_, app. i.; Haliburton’s _Rule and Misrule of the English
in America_, p. 253,—not to name other places.

There is a MS. copy among the Shelburne Papers, as shown in the _Hist.
MSS. Commission’s Report_, no. 5, p. 55.

[1557] The first of these is by Franklin, in his _Autobiography_. It
will be found in Sparks’s ed., p. 176, and in Bigelow’s edition, p.
295. Cf. also Bigelow’s _Life of Franklin, written by himself_, i. 308,
and Parton’s _Life of Franklin_, i. 337.

The second is that by Thomas Hutchinson, contained in his _Hist. of
Mass. Bay_ (iii. p. 20).

The third is William Smith’s, in his _History of New York_ (ed. of
1830), ii. p. 180, etc.

The fourth is in Stephen Hopkins’s _A true representation of the plan
formed at Albany [in 1754], for uniting all the British northern
colonies, in order to their common safety and defence_. It is dated
at Providence, Mar. 29, 1755. (Carter-Brown, iii. 1,065.) It was
included in 1880 as no. 9, with introduction and notes by S. S. Rider,
in the _Rhode Island Historical Tracts_. Cf. William E. Foster’s
“Statesmanship of the Albany Congress” in his _Stephen Hopkins_ (_R.
I. Hist. Tracts_), i. p. 155, and his examination of current errors
regarding the congress (ii. p. 249). This account by Hopkins is the
amplest of the contemporary narratives which we have.

[1558] Cf. John Adams’ _Novanglus_ in his _Works_, iv. 19; Parton’s
_Franklin_, i. 340; John Almon’s _Biog., Lit., and Polit. Anecdotes_
(London, 1797), vol. ii.

[1559] This subject, however, is examined with greater or less
fulness—not mentioning works already referred to—in William
Pulteney’s _Thoughts on the present state of affairs with America_
(4th ed., London, 1778); Chalmers’ _Revolt of the American Colonies_,
ii. 271; Trumbull’s _Connecticut_, ii. 355-57, 541-44; Belknap’s _New
Hampshire_, ii. 284; Minot’s _Massachusetts_, i. 188-198; Sparks’s
edition of _Franklin_, iii. p. 22; Pitkin’s _Civil and Political Hist.
of the U. States_, i. 143; Bancroft’s _United States_ (final revision),
ii. 385, 389; Barry’s _Massachusetts_, ii. 176 (with references);
Palfrey’s _Compendious Hist. New England_, iv. 200; Weise’s _Hist. of
Albany_, p. 313; Stone’s _Sir William Johnson_, i. ch. 14; Munsell’s
_Annals of Albany_, vol. iii., 2d ed. (1871); Greene’s _Hist. View
Amer. Revolution_ (lecture iii.).

[1560] Another MS. is in the _Trumbull MSS._, i. 97.

[1561] It is printed in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vi. 917; _Penna. Archives_,
2d ser., vi. 206.

[1562] It is printed in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vi. 903; _Penna. Archives_,
2d ser., vi. 206.

[1563] _Montcalm and Wolfe_, ii. 383, etc.

[1564] Orig. ed., iv. ch. 17; and final revision, ii.

[1565] There was an English version issued in London the same year.
Carter-Brown, iii. nos. 1, 294-95. The tract is known to be the
production of Jean François Bastide. Both editions are in Harvard
College library [4376.34 and 35].

[1566] _Considerations on the importance of Canada ... addressed to
Pitt_, London, 1759. (Harv. Coll. lib., 4376.39).

The superior gain to Great Britain from the retention, not of Canada,
but of the sugar and other West India islands, is expressed in a
_Letter to a Great M——r on the prospect of peace, wherein the
demolition of the fortifications of Louisbourg is shewn to be absurd,
the importance of Canada fully refuted, the proper barrier pointed out
in North America, etc._, London, 1761. (Carter-Brown, iii. 1,299.)

_Examination of the Commercial Principles of the late Negotiation,
etc._, London, 1762. (Two editions. Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,321.)
_Comparative importance of our acquisitions from France in America,
with remarks on a pamphlet, intitled An Examination of the Commercial
Principles of the late Negotiation in 1761_, London, 1762. There was a
second edition the same year. (Carter-Brown, iii. nos. 1,317-18.)

Burke was held to be the author of a tract, _Comparative importance
of the commercial principles of the late negotiation between Great
Britain and France in 1761, in which the system of that negotiation
with regard to our colonies and commerce is considered_, London, 1762.
(Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,319.)

[1567] Carter-Brown, iii. 1,263-1,266. The two great men were Pitt
and Newcastle. The _Letter_ was reprinted in Boston, 1760. As to its
authorship, Halkett and Laing say that it “was generally attributed to
William Pulteney, Earl of Bath, and is so attributed in Lord Stanhope’s
_History of England_; but according to Chalmers’ _Biographical
Dictionary_ it was really written by John Douglas, D. D., Bishop of
Salisbury.” Sabin says that it has been attributed to Junius. Cf.
Bancroft, orig. ed., iv. p. 364.

[1568] There were editions in Dublin, Boston, and Philadelphia the
same year. (Carter-Brown, iii. nos. 1,251-55. Cf. _Franklin’s Works_,
Sparks’s ed., iv. p. 1.)

[1569] Cf. Bancroft, orig. ed. iv. pp. 369, 460. “After the surrender
of Montreal in 1759, rumors were everywhere spread that the English
would now new-model the colonies, demolish the charters, and reduce all
to royal governments.” John Adams, preface to _Novanglus_, ed. 1819, in
_Works_, iv. 6.

[1570] Sparks’s _Franklin_, i. p. 255; Parton’s _Franklin_, i. 422. It
is also held that Franklin’s connection with this pamphlet was that
of a helper of Richard Jackson. _Catal. of Works relating to Franklin
in the Boston Pub. Library_, p. 8. Lecky (_England in the XVIIIth
Century_, iii. ch. 12) traces the controversy over the retention of
Canada. Various papers on the peace are noted in the _Fifth Report of
the Hist. MSS. Commission_ as being among the Shelburne Papers.

[1571] Among other tracts see _Appeal to Knowledge, or candid
discussions of the preliminaries of peace signed at Fontainebleau, Nov.
3, 1762, and laid before both houses of Parliament_, London, 1763.
(Carter-Brown, iii. 1,340.) There is a paper on the treaty in _Dublin
University Mag._, vol. 1. 641. Cf. “The Treaty of Paris, 1763, and the
Catholics in American Colonies,” by D. A. O’Sullivan, in _Amer. Cath.
Quart. Rev._, x. 240 (1885).

[1572] The treaty is printed in the _Gent. Mag._, xxxiii. 121-126.

[1573] It is given in the _Annual Register_ (1763); in the _Gentleman’s
Magazine_ (Oct., 1763, p. 479), with a map (p. 476) defining the
boundaries of the acquired provinces; in Sparks’s _Franklin_, iv. 374;
in Mills’ _Boundaries of Ontario_, pp. 192-98, and elsewhere. For other
maps of the new American acquisitions, see the _London Magazine_ (Feb.,
1763); Kitchen’s map of the Province of Quebec, in _Ibid._ (1764,
p. 496); maps of the Floridas, in _Gent. Mag._ (1763, p. 552); of
Louisiana, _Ibid._ (1763, p. 284), and _London Mag._ (1765, June).

[1574] Thomson, _Bibliog. of Ohio_, no. 838; Sabin, xii. 49,693; Harv.
Coll. lib., 4375.29; Rich, _Bib. Am. Nova_ (after 1700), p. 121.

[1575] Brinley, i. 221.

[1576] Rich, _Bib. Am. Nov._ (after 1700), p. 134.

[1577] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,351; Stevens, _Bibl. Geog._, no. 891.

[1578] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,389; Rich, _Bib. Am. Nova_ (after
1700), p. 144.

[1579] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,483. Cf. similar titles in Sabin, iv.
15,056-58, but given anonymously.

[1580] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,680; Sabin, ix. p. 529; Rich, _Bib. Am.
Nova_ (after 1700), p. 168.

[1581] Rich, _Bib. Am. Nov._ (after 1770), p. 180.

[1582] Field, _Ind. Bibliog._, no. 1,003; Brinley, i. no. 241; Rich,
_Bib. Am. Nova_ (after 1770), p. 188; Sabin, xi. 44,396. It is worth
about $75 or more.

[1583] Rich, _Bib. Am. Nov._ (after 1700), p. 146; Barlow’s _Rough
List_, nos. 985, 986.

[1584] In the vol. for 1757 (xxvii. p. 74) there is a map of the seat
of war.

[1585] Rich, _Bib. Am. Nova_ (since 1700), p. 135.

[1586] Sabin, xv. 64,707.

[1587] Sabin, xv. 64,708. Part (57) of the edition (200) is in large
quarto. Field, _Indian Bibliog._, no. 1,236.

[1588] On the publications and MS. collections of the Lit. and
Hist. Soc. of Quebec, covering the period in question, see _Revue
Canadienne_, vi. 402. The society was founded in 1834 by the Earl of
Dalhousie.

[1589] _Bib. Am. Nova_ (after 1700), p. 131.

[1590] Leclerc, _Bibl. Americana_, no. 771; Stevens, _Bibl. Geog._, no.
1,122; Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,221.

[1591] _Transactions Lit. and Hist. Soc. Quebec_, 1871-72, p. 117.

[1592] A letter from Mr. Parkman, cited in vol. ii. p. xv., explains
the gaps which provokingly occur in the Poore collection. See _ante_,
p. 165, and Vol. IV, p. 366.

[1593] Mr. J. M. Lemoine has a paper, “Les Archives du Canada,” in the
_Transactions of the Royal Soc. of Canada_, vol. i. p. 107.

[1594] Various documents relating to the war, particularly letters
received by the governor of Maryland, are in the cabinet of the
Maryland Hist. Soc., an account of which is given in Lewis Meyer’s
Description of the MSS. in that society’s possession (1884), pp. 8, 13,
etc. The printed index to the MSS. in the British Museum yields a key
to the progress of the war under such heads as Abercrombie, Amherst,
Bouquet, etc.

[1595] _Laws and Resolves_, 1885, ch. 337.

[1596] Resolves, 1884, ch. 60. See _ante_, p. 165.

[1597] See _ante_, p. 166.

[1598] Rich, _Bib. Amer. Nova_ (after 1700), pp. 108, 114.

[1599] See _ante_, p. 158.

[1600] London (1757, 1758, 1760, 1765, 1766, 1770, 1777, 1808, two),
Dublin (1762, 1777), Boston (1835, 1851); beside making part of
editions of Burke’s _Works_. Its authorship was for some time in doubt.
(Sabin, iii. 9,282, 9,283, who also enumerates various translations,
9,284, etc.)

[1601] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,767; Rich, _Bib. Am. Nova_, after 1700,
p. 178.

[1602] Rich, _Bib. Am. Nov._, after 1770, p. 192.

[1603] Rich, _Bib. Am. Nov._, after 1700, p. 262.

[1604] Rich (_Bib. Am. Nov._, after 1700, p. 118) describes it. There
is a copy in Harvard College library.

[1605] Sabin, ix. 35,962-63.

[1606] See _ante_, p. 162.

[1607] London, 1757. Harv. Coll. library; Barlow’s _Rough List_,
939, etc. The Beckford copy on large paper, with the original view
of Oswego, was priced by Quaritch in 1885 at £63. An octavo ed. was
printed in 1776. A French version, _Histoire de la Nouvelle-York_, was
published at London in 1767.

[1608] _New York_ (1814), pp. xii., 135. Cf. Cadwallader Colden on
Smith’s _New York_ (_N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii. 203, etc.).

[1609] Vol. IV. p. 367.

[1610] Vol. IV. pp. 157, 367.

[1611] Cf. a “Discours” at Garneau’s tomb by Chauveau, in the _Revue
Canadienne_, 1867, p. 694; and an account of Garneau’s life in _Ibid._,
new series, iv. 199. Cf. J. M. Lemoine (_Maple Leaves_, 2d ser., p.
175) on the “Grave of Garneau.” Cf. Lareau’s _Littérature Canadienne_,
p. 157, and J. M. Lemoine’s “Nos quatre historiens modernes,—Bibaud,
Garneau, Ferland, Faillon,” in _Trans. Roy. Soc. Canada_, i. p. 1.

[1612] Lareau’s _Littérature Canadienne_, p. 230.

[1613] G. W. Greene, in _Putnam’s Mag._, 1870, p. 171.

[1614] _United States_, i. 263.

[1615] _History of the Rise and Progress of the United States._ Lond.,
1827; N. Y., 1830; Boston, 1833. Sabin, vii. no. 28,244.

[1616] _History of the United States to the Declaration of
Independence._ Lond., 1836; 2d ed., enlarged, Philad., 1845; but some
copies have Boston, 1845; Philad., again in 1846 and 1852. Sabin, vii.
28,245.

[1617] Edmund Quincy’s _Life of Josiah Quincy_, p. 479. In the present
History, Vol. III. p. 378.

[1618] _Hist. of the United States of America._

[1619] _Hist. of the United States of America._

[1620] _Popular Hist. of the United States._

[1621] _History of England._

[1622] _History of England from the Peace of Utrecht to the Peace of
Versailles, 1713-1783, by Lord Mahon_, 5th ed., London, 1858.

[1623] In review of this book, Gen. J. Watts de Peyster gives a
military critique on the campaigns of the war in the _Hist. Mag._, May,
1869 (vol. xv. p. 297).




      *      *      *      *      *      *




Transcriber’s note:

—Obvious errors were corrected.





*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK NARRATIVE AND CRITICAL HISTORY OF AMERICA, VOL. 5 (OF 8) ***


    

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.


START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

    This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
    other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
    whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
    of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
    at www.gutenberg.org. If you
    are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
    of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
  
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

    • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
        the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
        you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
        to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
        agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
        within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
        legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
        payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
        Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
        Literary Archive Foundation.”
    
    • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
        you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
        does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
        License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
        copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
        all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
        works.
    
    • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
        any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
        electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
        receipt of the work.
    
    • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
        distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
    

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.