The History of the Thirteen Colonies of North America 1497-1763

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The History of the Thirteen Colonies of North America 1497-1763
Author: Jeffery, Reginald W. (Reginald Welbury)
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The History of the Thirteen Colonies of North America 1497-1763" ***

THE HISTORY OF THE THIRTEEN COLONIES OF NORTH AMERICA

[Illustration: GEORGE WASHINGTON _From the painting attributed
to Gilbert Stuart in the National Portrait Gallery._]

THE HISTORY
OF THE THIRTEEN COLONIES
OF NORTH AMERICA
1497-1763

BY
REGINALD W. JEFFERY, M.A.
BRASENOSE COLLEGE, OXFORD

WITH EIGHT ILLUSTRATIONS AND A MAP

METHUEN & CO.
36 ESSEX STREET W.C.
LONDON

_First Published in 1908_

PREFACE

It has been my object in this small book to put into a handy form a
short narrative of the History of the Thirteen Colonies. In the limited
space at my command I have endeavoured to give as often as possible the
actual words of contemporaries, hoping that the reader may thereby be
tempted to search further for himself amongst the mass of documentary
evidence which still needs so much careful study. I cannot send this
book into the world without acknowledging my indebtedness to both the
Beit Professor of Colonial History, Mr H. E. Egerton, and the Beit
Lecturer on Colonial History, Mr W. L. Grant, whose kind suggestions
have proved most valuable. At the same time I must thank Mr E. L. S.
Horsburgh, for by his action the writing of this little work was made
possible.

R. W. J.

OXFORD, 1908

CONTENTS

PAGE
CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION: EARLY ENGLISH VOYAGES TO NORTH AMERICA

Spanish, French, and Dutch colonisation--English colonisation
--The Cabotian discoveries--The Cabots' second voyage--The
Bull of Alexander VI.--The voyages of John Rut and Master Hore
--Newfoundland Fishery--Cabot, Willoughby, and Chancellor--The
attraction of the West--The North-West Passage--Martin
Frobisher--Sir Humphrey Gilbert--Sir John Hawkins and Sir
Francis Drake--Sir Walter Raleigh--The Elizabethan Period 1

CHAPTER II

VIRGINIA: THE FIRST GREAT COLONY OF THE BRITISH

Character of the men--Raleigh's Virginian colonies--Motives
for colonisation--Gosnold and Pring--Richard Hakluyt--Elizabeth
and James I.--Formation of the London and Plymouth Companies--
The government of the London Company--The Virginian settlers--
Foundation of Jamestown--Captain John Smith--The lust for gold
--Smith's good work--English interest in Virginia--Sir George
Somers and Sir Thomas Gates--Lord Delawarr--Improvements in
Virginia--The Princess Pocahontas--Samuel Argall--Sir Thomas
Dale--Yeardley and the first Representative Assembly--The
Company in danger--The abolition of the Company--A change in
the character of Virginian history--Wyatt and Harvey as
Governors--A land of peace and plenty--Sir William Berkeley
--Trouble with the Indians--Virginia and the Civil War--
Berkeley's dislike of education--Arlington and Culpeper--
Virginia under Berkeley--Bacon's rising--Sir Herbert Jeffreys
--Virginia and the Revolution--Virginia in the eighteenth
century--Robert Dinwiddie 19

CHAPTER III

THE COLONISATION OF MARYLAND AND THE CAROLINAS

The colonisation of Maryland--Lord Baltimore--Leonard Calvert
--Quarrel over the Isle of Kent--The Civil War--The Commonwealth
--Lord Baltimore restored--A spirit of unrest in Maryland--
Francis Nicholson--Irreligion of the colonists--Industry in
Maryland--The Carolinas--The foundation of the colony--Its
progress--The Fundamental Constitutions--State of anarchy--
South Carolina--William Sayle--Joseph West--Amalgamation of
the two Carolinas--Danger from French and Spaniards--Queen
Anne's War--Indian troubles--The Treaty of Utrecht--The
Carolinas become a Crown colony--Interest of Carolina history 54

CHAPTER IV

THE PURITANS IN PLYMOUTH AND MASSACHUSETTS

Character of New England colonies--The Plymouth Company--The
Puritans--William Bradford--The Pilgrim Fathers--The
foundation of New Plymouth--Life in the colony--Description
of the colony--Development of government--The Civil War--
Ineffectual attempts to obtain a charter--The foundation of
Massachusetts--Ferdinando Gorges, John White, and John
Endecott--A charter granted--John Winthrop--Government of
Massachusetts--Puritan intolerance--Roger Williams--Harry
Vane, John Wheelwright, and Mrs Anne Hutchinson--Harvard
College--The New England Confederacy--Massachusetts and the
Home Government--Brutality to Quakers--King Philip's War--
Edward Randolph's complaints--The rule of Sir Edmund Andros
--The Revolution of 1688--A new charter--Sir William Phipps
--The Earl of Bellomont and Governor Fletcher--Advance of
the colony 76

CHAPTER V

CONNECTICUT; RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATION; NEW
HAVEN; MAINE; NEW HAMPSHIRE

Quarrelsome provinces--The foundation of Connecticut--The Pequod
War--The Restoration--Sir Edmund Andros--Connecticut's progress
--Foundation of Rhode Island and Providence Plantation--Samuel
Gorton--Government of the colony--The Royal Commissioners in
Rhode Island--James II. and the Revolution--The foundation of
New Haven--The regicides in New Haven--The foundation of Maine
--Sir Ferdinando Gorges--The Restoration in Maine--Descriptions
of Maine--Gorges sells his rights--The foundation of New
Hampshire--The greed of Massachusetts--New Hampshire and the
Revolution--The necessity of union 107

CHAPTER VI

THE FIGHT WITH THE DUTCH FOR THEIR SETTLEMENT OF NEW NETHERLANDS

The Dutch Wars--The position of New York--The New Netherlands
--Stuyvesant's attack on New Sweden--Nicolls' attack on the
New Netherlands--Splendid work of Nicolls--The character of
New York--Government of New York and Albany--Francis Lovelace
--The Dutch recapture New York--New Jersey--Thomas Dongan--The
Leisler Rising--Lack of a Constitution--The Earl of Bellomont
and Lord Cornbury--Governors of the early eighteenth century
--Lucrative character of governor's post 128

CHAPTER VII

THE QUAKER SETTLEMENTS AND GEORGIA

The Quakers in America--East and West New Jersey--Delaware--
The Jerseys under one governor--The Jerseys united--William
Penn--The foundation of Pennsylvania--Philadelphia--Penn's
constitution--The Revolution and after--Penn regains
proprietorship--Intercolonial disputes--An asylum of rest--
John and Thomas Penn--The foundation of Georgia--Oglethorpe's
difficulties--John and Charles Wesley--War with Spain--Attack
on St. Augustine--Oglethorpe's daring--Quarrels concerning
slavery--Oglethorpe's work--Georgia becomes a Crown colony--
The coming struggle with France 146

CHAPTER VIII

THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC HISTORY OF NEW ENGLAND

Population of Puritan colonies--Towns--Wooden houses--Industry
and commerce--Minor industries--Shipbuilding--Eighteenth-century
commerce--Agriculture--Want of money--The colonial mint--Paper
money--Wages and prices--The poor-law--Slavery--Missionary
efforts--Religion--Education--Literature--Printing--Means of
travel--Curious laws--The character of the settlers 168

CHAPTER IX

THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC HISTORY OF THE SOUTHERN
AND MIDDLE COLONIES

Character of the colonies--Classes in colonial society--
Indentured servants--Slavery--White population--Industry
and commerce--Money--Education--Literature--Religion--Town
life--Conclusion 187

CHAPTER X

THE FRENCH COLONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

Early French voyages--Jacques Cartier--The Marquis de la Roche
--Samuel Champlain--A passage to the East--The Franciscans and
Jesuits--The Company of the One Hundred Associates--Character
of Champlain--Colbert and colonisation--The Company of the West
--System of government--Count Frontenac--Western discoveries--
Joliet and Marquette--La Salle--The Mississippi--La Salle's great
expedition--His failure--His place in history--The Iroquois--The
Treaty of Utrecht 200

CHAPTER XI

FRENCH AGGRESSION

The colonies were not united--Dongan and Denonville--King
William's war--The Albany Conference--Expedition against Quebec
--The Abenaki Indians--Incapacity of the colonies--The Treaty
of Ryswick--The War of the Spanish Succession--The horrors of
Indian warfare--Samuel Vetch--Colonial jealousies--English
indifference--The capture of Acadia--Colonial fear of English
interference--The English view of the colonials--The Hill-Walker
expedition--Walker's cowardice--The character of the expedition
--The Treaty of Utrecht--A lost opportunity--Relations between
Indians and Canadian Government--The French scheme--Crown Point
--The War of the Austrian Succession--Louisburg--Character of
forces--The capture of Louisburg--Shirley's plans--The Treaty
of Aix-la-Chapelle 224

CHAPTER XII

THE CLIMAX: THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN ENGLISH AND FRENCH COLONISTS

The colonial share in the capture of Canada--The internal
jealousies of the colonies--French aggression in the Ohio
valley--George Washington--Results of the campaign of 1754--
Character of General Braddock--Schemes for 1755--Braddock's
disaster--The work of Dinwiddie and Johnson--The deportation
of the Acadians--The results of the campaign of 1755--The
Seven Years' War--The character of the Marquis de Montcalm--
Webb, Abercromby, and Loudoun--Unsuccessful attack upon
Louisburg--Montcalm at Fort William Henry--The rise of William
Pitt--The plan of campaign of 1758--The character of General
Wolfe--The capture of Louisburg--Abercromby's disaster at
Ticonderoga--The character of Lord Howe--Capture of Forts
Frontenac and Duquesne--The campaigns of 1759--Amherst's
delay--The siege of Quebec--English despair--The discovery of
the path--Death of Wolfe--Wolfe and Montcalm--The climax--The
collapse of the French Empire in the West--The rise of a new
nation 254

CHRONOLOGY 285

BIBLIOGRAPHY 296

INDEX 299

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

GEORGE WASHINGTON _Frontispiece_

_From the painting attributed to Gilbert Stuart in the
National Portrait Gallery._

_To face page_

SIR FRANCIS DRAKE 14

_From an engraving by J. Honbraken in the British
Museum._

CAPTAIN JOHN SMITH 30

_From an engraving in his "Generall Historie of Virginia."_

MAP OF NORTH AMERICA, 1755 144

WILLIAM PITT, LORD CHATHAM 166

_From the painting by W. Hoare in the National Portrait
Gallery._

QUEBEC FROM POINT LEVY IN 1761 200

_From an engraving by R. Short._

THE MARQUIS DE MONTCALM 246

_From a painting by J. B. Massé._

GENERAL JAMES WOLFE 270

_From the picture by Schaak in the National Portrait
Gallery._

THE DEATH OF WOLFE 278

_After the painting by B. West._

THE HISTORY OF THE THIRTEEN COLONIES

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION: EARLY ENGLISH VOYAGES TO NORTH AMERICA

It would be out of place in this small book to give in detail a history
of all the discoveries which were made along the shores of North and
South America at the end of the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth
centuries. As the main object is to depict briefly the political history
of the Thirteen English Colonies on the North American seaboard, it will
be unnecessary to say more than a few words about the discoverers whose
enterprise and bravery made colonisation possible. With the Spanish,
French, and Dutch voyagers it is not proposed to deal; their stories are
well known, and affected but little the establishment of our early
settlements in the West. Like the British nation, these three peoples
also strove to create lasting empires in America; but unlike their
rival, they failed. The Spaniards made the fatal error of attempting to
settle during the period of exploration. They based their colonies upon
slavery, and a mistaken commercial policy; and the sparseness of their
colonists made them incapable of contending against the pressure of
surrounding savagery. The result was that they, who were without the
traditions of public morality and who were to a certain extent lacking
in administrative powers, became intermixed with the inferior races with
whom they came in contact. The French were no more successful in their
endeavours to establish a New France beyond the sea; they failed, partly
because of the French temperament, and partly through obvious errors.
The French character was buoyant and cheerful--both excellent natural
gifts for colonists--but they were unable to combine the spirit of
adventure with that patient commercial industry which so wonderfully
distinguished the Puritan emigrants. The Dutch might have proved serious
rivals to the British in the West had they been able to rise from the
position of mere traders, and had they had a sufficiently large
population on which to draw. Their commercial system deteriorated,
becoming uneconomic and non-progressive; while their arduous and gallant
struggle against Philip II. and Alva had necessarily handicapped them in
the race for colonial aggrandisement.

The English, in strong contrast to these competitors, never drew a
distinct or sharp line between the soldier and the trader. The story of
Great Britain's expansion contains the names of hundreds of gallant
heroes, but they were at the same time sober and industrious men. The
plodding and commercial characteristics possessed by the British
colonial saved him from perpetrating those foolish errors of the
Spaniard which arose from a desire to gain rapid wealth and a tawdry
glory. One fact stands out pre-eminent amongst the reasons of British
success--the English kept their period of exploration almost entirely
separate from their epoch of settlement. The glorious dreams of
Eldorado, the visions of the golden city of Manoa had been dispersed
like a morning mist when the period of colonisation dawned bright and
clear at the beginning of the seventeenth century.

The period which coincides with the reign of Henry VII. forms one of the
greatest epochs of history; it was indeed the veritable Renaissance, the
birth of the New World. It was at this moment that the history of
America, the modern history of England, and the present history of
Europe practically began. These startling facts were due to the
simultaneous discoveries in the East and the West. The voyages of
Bartholomew Diaz, of Christopher Columbus, and of Vasco de Gama might
well have astonished the world, but seem to have had very little effect
upon the English as a nation. England was not yet ready to take up the
position of Mistress of the Seas; the time was not yet ripe for colonial
advancement. The country, from both political and social points of view,
was still suffering from the confusion and anarchy which had resulted
from the rule of the Lancastrians, and from the chaos left by the Wars
of the Roses. Two men, however, seem to have understood something of the
possibilities that lay open to them in the West. John and his son
Sebastian Cabot, of Genoese stock, but sometime resident in Venice,
sailed, under the patronage of Henry VII., from Bristol, in 1497, to
discover the island of Cathay. John Cabot is described as one who had
"made himself very expert and cunning in knowledge of the circuit of the
world and Ilands of the same, as by a Sea card and other
demonstrations."[1] The royal charter, granted to these men in March
1496, contained a most important clause, "to saile to all parts,
countreys, and seas of the East, of the West, and of the North, under
our banners and ensignes, ... to set up our banners and ensignes in
every village, towne, castle, isle, or maine land of them newly found
... as our vassals, and lieutenants, getting unto us the rule, title,
and jurisdiction of the same."[2] Bacon, in his _History of Henry VII._,
refers to Cabot's now celebrated voyage. "There was one Sebastian
Gabato, a Venetian living in Bristow, a man seen and expert in
cosmography and navigation. This man seeing the success and emulating
perhaps the enterprise of Christopherus Columbus in that fortunate
discovery towards the south-west, which had been by him made some six
years before, conceited with himself that lands might likewise be
discovered towards the north-west. And surely it may be that he had more
firm and pregnant conjectures of it than Columbus had of his at the
first. For the two great islands of the Old and New World, being in the
shape and making of them broad towards the north and pointed towards the
south, it is likely that the discovery just began where the lands did
meet. And there had been before that time a discovery of some lands
which they took to be islands, and were indeed of America towards the
north-west."[3] Bacon is here calling attention to what has since become
the great controversial question of whether or not the Norsemen
discovered the American continent in the eleventh century. It is very
improbable that the Cabots knew anything of this tradition; and this
voyage was solely the outcome of the discoveries of Columbus. Their
object is definitely stated to have been a "great desire to traffique
for the spices as the Portingals did."[4] It is a remarkable fact that
very little is known of this voyage, and there are practically no
English records available in which to find the history of so great an
event. A Bristol book contains this terse mention of the exploring
expedition: "In the year 1497, the 24th of June, on St John's day, was
Newfoundland found by Bristol men in a ship called the _Mathew_."[5]
Carrying out the commands of the charter, John Cabot and his son planted
the English standard upon American soil, but they did little besides: no
explorations were made into the interior; they were completely satisfied
with the all-important fact of discovery. As a proof of their success,
Sebastian Cabot brought back three Indians "in their demeanour like to
bruite beastes," but who seem to have settled down and taken up English
customs, for Robert Fabian says, "of the which upon two yeeres after, I
saw two apparelled after the maner of Englishmen in Westminster pallace,
which that time I could not discerne from Englishmen."[6]

The restless ambition of the Cabots incited them to a further voyage in
February 1498, the charter on this occasion being granted only to the
father. They again started from Bristol, and sailed along the North
American coasts from the ice-bound shores of Newfoundland[7] to the
sunny Carolinas or Florida. The younger Cabot afterwards wrote that he
sailed "unto the Latitude of 67 degrees and a halfe under the North Pole
... finding still the open Sea without any maner of impediment, he
thought verily by that way to have passed on still the way to Cathaia
which is in the East."[8] This voyage is recorded by Sir Humphrey
Gilbert, and was frequently quoted as a reason for England's claim to
North America. "The countreys lying north of Florida, God hath reserved
the same to be reduced unto Christian civility by the English nation.
For not long after that Christopher Columbus had discovered the Islands
and continent of the West Indies for Spaine, John and Sebastian Cabot
made discovery also of the rest from Florida northwards to the behoofe
of England."[9] The Cabots disappear from English history for a time and
there are no records of the reception of this voyage. It was undoubtedly
of twofold importance; it started that "will o' the wisp" of the
North-West Passage, that led so many men to risk and lose their lives;
and it may also be regarded as the foundation-stone of the English power
in the West.

The next few years of the history of the exploration of America is
filled with the records of Spaniards, Italians, and Frenchmen. The
voyage of the Bristol merchants by which North America had just been
discovered had no effect, and awakened no enthusiasm in the hearts of
the English during the early portion of the sixteenth century. Henry
VII. and his more adventurous son were both such severe and orthodox
Catholics that they hesitated to trespass upon the limitations laid down
by the bull of Alexander VI., by which everything on the western side of
an imaginary line between the forty-first and forty-fourth meridians
west of Greenwich belonged to Spain; while the Brazil coast, the East
Indies, and Africa south of the Canary Islands fell to Portugal.
Between 1500 and 1550 only two true voyages of discovery have been
chronicled. The first was in 1527, when a canon of St Paul's,
erroneously named Albert de Prado, sailed with two ships in search of
the Indies. It is probable that this was the voyage of John Rut of the
Royal Navy, with whom, there is reason to suppose, a Spaniard, called
Albert de Prado, sailed. They failed to make any real discoveries, but
brought back a cargo of fish from the inhospitable shores of
Newfoundland and Labrador. The second voyage was that of Master Hore, in
1536, who, it is supposed, set out in the spirit of a Crusader, but who
was more probably a briefless barrister accompanied by "many gentlemen
of the Innes of Court and of the Chancery."[10] They were shipwrecked on
the Newfoundland coast, where, as none of them knew how to fish, and
although Hore told them they would go to unquenchable fire, they began
to eat one another. "On the fieldes and deserts here and there, the
fellowe killed his mate, while he stooped to take up a roote for his
reliefe, and cutting out pieces of his bodie whom he had murthered,
broyled the same on the coles and greedily devoured them."[11] Luckily
for the remainder, a French ship was blown into the harbour, and they
seized her with all the food she had on board, sailing home in safety,
leaving the French sailors to a horrible fate, which they seemed to have
escaped; for "certaine moneths after, those Frenchmen came into England
and made complaint to King Henry the 8: the king ... was so mooved with
pitie, that he punished not his subjects, but of his owne purse made
full and royale recompense unto the French."[12]

The two voyages here set forth are the only ones that are actually
recorded, but there is reason for supposing that English ships were
quite familiar with the coast of what was afterwards called Maine.
Between 1501 and 1510 there are many scattered intimations of English
voyages; and one patent in particular, in the first year of the
sixteenth century, shows that men of some importance were granted leave
to sail and discover in the West. In 1503 a man brought hawks from
Newfoundland to Henry VII.; and in the next year a priest is paid £2 to
go to the same island. In or about the eighth year of Henry VIII.,
Sebastian Cabot was again in the employ of the English and in command of
an expedition to Brazil, which only failed owing to "the cowardise and
want of stomack" of his partner, Sir Thomas Pert.[13] It is evident from
the first Act of Parliament relating to America, passed in 1541, that
the Newfoundland fishery was carried on by Devonshire fishermen almost
continuously from the discovery of the island; and the Act of 1548,
prohibiting the exaction of dues, shows "that the trade out of England
to Newfoundland was common."[14] Anthony Parkhurst corroborates this
fact in a letter to Richard Hakluyt in 1578, in which he says, "The
Englishmen, who commonly are lords of the harbors where they fish, and
do use all strangers helpe in fishing if need require, according to an
old custome of the countrey."[15] It may, therefore, be inferred that
the growth of the Newfoundland fisheries, together with the increasing
knowledge of the country and its products, helped to suggest to the
Englishmen of the period the possibilities of future colonisation.

The great voyager Sebastian Cabot returned to England in 1548 from his
sojourn in Spain. Under the patronage of Charles V. he had made several
voyages, including one of particular importance to the Rio de la Plata.
On his arrival in England he was rewarded by Edward VI. with a pension
of £166, 13s. 4d., as a slight evidence of that king's appreciation of
his manifold services. Old man though he was, his mind still ran on the
discovery of a North-West, or North-East Passage to the Indies, and he
became the governor of a company of merchant adventurers for the
discovery of regions beyond the sea. He did not participate in any of
these discoveries, "because there are nowe many yong and lustie Pilots
and Mariners of good experience, by whose forwardnesse I doe rejoyce in
the fruit of my labours and rest with the charge of this office."[16]
Amongst the young and lusty pilots were Sir Hugh Willoughby and Richard
Chancellor, who turned their attentions to a North-East passage. The
former died on his vessel in the midst of the ice floes in 1553, while
the latter succeeded in reaching Archangel, and so brought about,
through a successor, Anthony Jenkinson, the foundation of the Muscovy
Company.

It was, however, the discovery of America, and in particular of the
North-West Passage, that offered great inducements to Englishmen. The
American continent had an ever fascinating attraction, for the reports
of its vast wealth drew adventurous spirits as with a magnet. The gold
of Mexico and Peru dazzled their eyes and made them hope to find some
similar hoard on every barren strip of shore from Patagonia to
Newfoundland. "It was thought that in those unknown lands, peopled by
'anthropophagi and men whose heads did grow beneath their shoulders,'
lay all the treasures of the earth. That was an irresistible temptation
to the great merchants of England, citizens of no mean city, pursuing no
ignoble nor sordid trade."[17] Thus early in the reign of Elizabeth
there was an attempt at American plantation; it certainly was only an
attempt, for it in no way furthered the schemes of colonisation. Thomas
Stukeley, a member of a good Devonshire family, planned, with the
sanction of the queen, in 1563, to colonise Florida. He made the fatal
mistake of so many others, of converting a colonising expedition into
one of mere buccaneering. Spanish and French vessels were his real
objects, not the foundation of an English settlement in the New World.
The scheme naturally failed; and Stukeley removed his activities to
Barbary, where he met a glorious death amongst the chivalry of Portugal
upon the classic field of Alcazar.

The search for the North-West Passage was even more tempting than the
projection of imaginary colonies in the South; it opened before the eyes
of speculative voyagers a promise of all the wealth of the East. A large
proportion of Hakluyt's great prose epic--that marvellous work of
adventure--is filled with the search for Cathay. That mystic land became
the purpose and the goal of hundreds of seamen who, during the
centuries, struggled and toiled through overwhelming perils, ever to be
baffled by the solid and impenetrable ice. Those wild north seas seem
to have caused little terror to the Tudor sea-dogs; Master Thorne, for
example, deserves to live in the memory of Englishmen for all time
simply for one remark with which he is credited. When the objection of
the ice was proposed to him, he waived it on one side with words which
might well be taken as the motto of the British Empire: "There is no
land unhabitable and no sea innavigable."[18] Sir Humphrey Gilbert, in
particular, tried to encourage men to push forward in their adventurous
discoveries, and there is no doubt that his famous work, _A Discourse to
prove a passage by the North West to Cathaya and the East Indies_, did a
great deal to stimulate men in their hopeless task.

It was largely due to this _Discourse_ that Martin Frobisher sailed to
find the tantalising passage, in June 1576, under the patronage of the
all-powerful Earl of Warwick. He sighted Greenland, and then reached
that inlet on the American coast which he called Frobisher Bay. He
brought back with him samples of a black stone which were supposed to
contain gold, and thus added the temptation of easily acquired wealth to
the sufficiently delusive and dangerous task of discovering the passage.
The possibility of mineral wealth in the Arctic Regions brought about
the formation of the Company of Cathay, under the government of Michael
Lok; and as its Captain-General, Frobisher undertook a second voyage in
May 1577. His object was "the further discovering of the passage to
Cathay, and other Countreys, thereunto adjacent, by West North-West
navigations: which passage or way is supposed to be on the North and
North-West part of America ... where through our Merchants may have
course and recourse with their merchandise."[19] Frobisher took
possession of the barren territory, and on his return Queen Elizabeth
"named it very properly Meta Incognita, as a marke and bound utterly
hitherto unknown."[20] The gold-refiners of London were still deceived
by the black stones; and again Frobisher sailed, in May 1578, to work
this imaginary mine. He took with him on this occasion "a strong fort or
house of timber" for the shelter of "one hundreth persons, whereof 40
should be mariners for the use of ships, 30 Miners for gathering the
gold Ore together for the next yere, and 30 souldiers for the better
guard of the rest, within which last number are included the Gentlemen,
Gold finers, Bakers, Carpenters & all necessary persons."[21] This might
be regarded as an early attempt to found a colony, for Frobisher seems
to have hoped to establish a thriving industry in this desolate and
ice-bound land; but as a matter of fact these "necessary persons" did
nothing at all except to discover an island which existed only in their
imaginations, and they returned to England in the autumn. Frobisher's
efforts as a discoverer now ceased; for his seamanship and courage were
required in home waters for the protection of his native land.

[Illustration: SIR FRANCIS DRAKE _From an engraving by J.
Honbraken in the British Museum._]

Sir Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother of Raleigh, was the "first of our
nation that carried people to erect an habitation and government in
those northerly countreys of America."[22] He was a man bold in action
and chivalrous in character; he was one of those giants of the
Elizabethan period, and if he had any faults they were only those of his
age, while his virtues were all his own. As early as 1563 he was
connected with schemes for colonisation in the formation of a company
for the discovery of new trades. He it is who has the proud position of
being the founder of our premier colony, Newfoundland. In 1578, letters
patent were granted to him by Queen Elizabeth for establishing a colony
in North America. He made his first voyage in that year, sailing from
Dartmouth in September. The expedition was a complete failure, and
fearing lest his patent should expire, he undertook that voyage which
has made him one of the most famous men in history. In 1583 he sailed to
Newfoundland, and took possession in the name of the Virgin Queen, "and
signified unto al men, that from that time forward, they should take the
same land as a territorie appertaining to the Queene of England."[23]
His great action was not allowed to be forgotten; the gallant knight
himself never saw England again, but passed to his grave beneath the
rough waters of the Atlantic. Hakluyt, however, printed the story of an
eye-witness, Edward Hayes, who gave a graphic account of the whole
expedition. Gilbert insisted on returning in the _Squirrel_, a small
crazy craft, rather than in the larger vessel, known as the _Hinde_. The
weather became very foul; and on Monday afternoon, the 9th of September,
Hayes says, "the frigate was neere cast away oppressed by the waves, yet
at that time recovered: and giving foorth signes of joy the Generall,
sitting abaft with a booke in his hand cried out unto us in the Hind (so
oft as we did approach within hearing) We are as neere to heaven by sea
as by land." About twelve that night, the frigate being ahead of the
Hinde, her lights suddenly went out; and after a minute's awful
silence, the men of the Hinde exclaimed, "the General was cast
away."[24] Thus the hero, strong in his belief and fear of God, with
chivalrous and stainless name, found his last resting-place in the sea.
He was a forerunner of the very noblest type, an example to the men of
his own generation, and to those fearless adventurers who have helped to
create the British Empire in all parts of the world.

The northern portions of America were for the most part more easily
accessible to the English, and the dangers of Spanish and Portuguese
attacks were more remote. The West Indies, however, and even South
America, were not without their fascination, and many Englishmen made
voyages to those parts, not so much for the purposes of discovery as for
trade, buccaneering, and booty. The earliest of these West Indian
trading voyages was that of Thomas Tison, who, it is known, sailed to
the West, some time previous to the year 1526. He dwelt on one of the
West Indian Islands as a secret factor for some English merchants; and
"it is probable that some of our marchants had a kinde of trade to the
West Indies even in those ancient times and before also: neither doe I
see," says Hakluyt, "any reason why the Spaniards should debarre us from
it at this present."[25] As a trader, pirate, and slave-dealer, Sir John
Hawkins made three celebrated voyages in 1562, 1564, and 1568, between
Guinea and the West Indies. On one of these he was accompanied by
Francis Drake, who was destined for far greater things than
slave-dealing. After many adventures off the Spanish main, Drake, in the
spirit of a Crusader, started on his momentous voyage round the world.
In a small vessel called the _Golden Hinde_ or _Pelican_, with a still
smaller ship, the _Elizabeth_, the great seaman sailed from Plymouth in
February 1577. Sailing down the South American coast, he at last arrived
at the Straits of Magellan, where one of his company, Master Thomas
Doughty, mutinied and was executed. After being deserted by the
_Elizabeth_, the voyage proceeded along the shores of Chili and Peru;
and passing still farther north, it is probable that Drake discovered
"that portion of North America now known as Oregon, and anticipated by
centuries the progress of English colonisation: the New Albion, which he
took over from the Indians, being probably the British Columbia of
to-day."[26] Drake's return was made without any very serious mishaps,
and he dropped anchor in Plymouth Sound in November 1580. It was a fine
exploit, and roundly applauded throughout the country. No one, however,
realised at that time, nor indeed for generations to come, that Drake
had discovered and annexed what was afterwards to become so large a
portion of the British dominions beyond the seas.

One man in particular could not fail to be moved to enthusiasm by these
voyages of discovery. The dream of a great country in the far West,
peopled by the Anglo-Saxon race, was ever before the eyes of Sir Walter
Raleigh. The character of this great man of action was not without many
faults, for it was composed of much fine gold tempered with clay. His
endeavours, however, to extend the limits of Britain's rule excite the
imagination and entrance the mind of the reader. The mantle of Gilbert
fell upon the shoulders of Raleigh, who at once attempted to carry on
the work of colonisation which had been started by his half-brother in
Newfoundland; and the road to which was about to be pointed out by
Richard Hakluyt in his _Discourse of Western Planting_. Raleigh must
have appreciated the appeal made by Sir George Peckham, friend of
Gilbert, when he said, "Behold heere, good countreymen, the manifold
benefits, commodities and pleasures heretofore unknowen, by Gods
especiall blessing not onely reveiled unto us, but also as it were
infused into our bosomes, who though hitherto like dormice have
slumbered in ignorance thereof, being like the cats that are loth for
their prey to wet their feet: yet if now therefore at the last we would
awake, and with willing mindes (setting frivolous imaginations aside)
become industrious instruments to ourselves, questionlesse we should not
only hereby set forth the glory of our heavenly father, but also easily
attaine to the end of all good purposes that may be wished or
desired."[27] Up to this time, by a curious chance, the coastline of the
modern United States, from the St Lawrence to the Savannah River, had
scarcely been visited and was, in fact, very little known. Here then was
an opportunity for Raleigh; and a land, where, if effort was made, the
greatest success might be achieved. The land had been unspoilt and
untouched by the Spaniards; those few hardy seamen who had entered
harbour or creek had found no signs of gold, and had sailed away again.
But it was a land of excellent climate, freed from the ice and fogs of
the more northern latitudes in which the Elizabethan seamen had shown
such pluck and powers of endurance. Captain Carlile, the son-in-law of
Francis Walsingham, had already in 1583 issued his encouraging report
concerning American trade. Raleigh could not fail to be struck by the
sentence, "that whereas one adventureth in the great enterprise, an
hundred for that one will of themselves bee willing and desirous to
adventure in the next."[28] Gilbert's patent for the colonisation of
North America had been transferred to Raleigh, who, with great caution,
in 1584 dispatched two sea-captains, Amidas and Barlow, to spy out this
land of promise. The narrative of these adventurers as given in
_Hakluyt's Voyages_ is extremely picturesque. They steered a more
southerly course than that of any previous British explorer, and finally
reached the island of Roanoke, now within the limits of North Carolina.
They described it as a land flowing with milk and honey. "The second of
July, we found shole water, wher we smelt so sweet and so strong a smel,
as if we had been in the midst of some delicate garden abounding with
all kinde of odoriferous flowers.... We found the people most gentle,
loving, and faithfull, voide of all guile and treason, and such as live
after the maner of the golden age."[29] Amidas and Barlow thus brought
back to their patron Raleigh a story full of hope and wondrous
possibilities. They had found a land worthy of colonisation and well
suited to the English; and this land of promise and of future greatness
was christened by the Virgin Queen--Virginia.

The days of exploration and discovery by sea in the West had practically
come to an end; the great epoch of colonisation was about to begin. When
Elizabeth came to the throne, English ships had seldom sailed further
than Iceland in the north and the Levant in the south-east, where a
lucrative trade had sprung up as early as 1511. But by the end of the
sixteenth century, owing to the encouragement of the Tudor sovereigns,
the religious persecutions, and the "peculiar" policy of Elizabeth, the
English flag had been proudly borne into all the seas of the world. The
globe had been circumnavigated by Drake and Cavendish; trade through
Archangel had been established with Russia; spices had been brought from
the Indies by the East India Company; "the commodious and gainful voyage
to Brazil"[30] was regularly undertaken by the merchants of Southampton;
while a vast fishing trade had steadily grown up off the coasts of
Newfoundland. Above all the "navigations, voyages, traffiques, and
discoveries of the English nation" had laid the foundation for greater
things. Raleigh's dreams were to be accomplished, though not by himself.
Like so many others he was attracted by gold; his thoughts lay too
readily in the discovery of an El Dorado in South America, of which the
Elizabethan poet wrote:--

"Guiana whose rich feet are mines of gold."

The grain of mustard seed had, however, been planted; the idea had been
put forth to the world; a new nation was to rise in the Western
hemisphere; and, although no definite results were to be seen by the
eyes of the Elizabethans, yet their wild adventures, their acts of
knight-errantry, their perils and their sufferings had paved the way for
the industrious, sober, steady, and more prudent enterprises of Stuart
Cavaliers and of Puritan Pilgrims.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] _Hakluyt's Voyages_ (ed. 1904), vii. p. 154.

[2] _Hakluyt's Voyages_, vii. p. 143.

[3] _Bacon's Works_ (ed. 1870), vi. 196.

[4] _Hakluyt's Voyages_ (ed. 1904), vii. p. 153.

[5] Barrett, _History and Antiquities of Bristol_ (1789), p. 172.

[6] _Hakluyt's Voyages_ (ed. 1904), vii. p. 155.

[7] It is thought by some that Cabot sailed to Greenland. Cf. Biggar,
_Voyages of the Cabots and of the Corte Reals_ (Paris, 1903).

[8] _Hakluyt's Voyages_, vii. p. 150.

[9] _Ibid._, viii. p. 37.

[10] _Hakluyt's Voyages_, viii. p. 3.

[11] _Ibid._, viii. p. 5.

[12] _Ibid._, viii. p. 7.

[13] _Hakluyt's Voyages_, x. p. 2.

[14] _Ibid._, viii. p. 9.

[15] _Ibid._, viii. p. 10.

[16] _Hakluyt's Voyages_, vii. p. 149.

[17] Fletcher, _Cornhill Magazine_, Dec. 1902.

[18] _Hakluyt's Voyages_, ii. p. 178.

[19] _Hakluyt's Voyages_, vii. p. 212.

[20] _Ibid._, vii. p. 320.

[21] _Ibid._, vii. p. 321.

[22] _Ibid._, vii. p. 38.

[23] _Hakluyt's Voyages_, viii. p. 54.

[24] _Hakluyt's Voyages_, viii. p. 74.

[25] _Ibid._, x. pp. 6, 7.

[26] Egerton, _Origin and Growth of the English Colonies_, p. 65.

[27] _Hakluyt's Voyages_ (ed. 1904), viii. p. 123.

[28] _Hakluyt's Voyages_ (ed. 1904), viii. p. 141.

[29] _Ibid._, viii. pp. 298 and 305.

[30] _Hakluyt's Voyages_, xi. p. 25.

CHAPTER II

VIRGINIA: THE FIRST GREAT COLONY OF THE BRITISH

The English settlers in America may be less romantic and less
interesting figures than their Elizabethan predecessors, but they were
undoubtedly fitter instruments for the specific work. The Elizabethan
seamen had played their part, and men now arose who were to fulfil a
greater destiny. The Gilberts and the Drakes were of a race which had
ceased to be, and Fuller justly remarks "how God set up a generation of
military men both by sea and land which began and expired with the reign
of Queen Elizabeth, like a suit of clothes made for her and worn out by
her; for providence so ordered the matter that they almost all attended
their mistress before or after, within some short distance, unto her
grave."[31] Although the adventurous spirit of the Golden Age had passed
away, men were still left who could echo the words of Sir Humphrey
Gilbert and say, "and therefore to give me leave without offence always
to live and die in this mind, that he is not worthy to live at all that
for fear or danger of death shunneth his country's service and his own
honour, seeing death is inevitable and the fame of virtue
immortal."[32] The one great figure who appears to connect the old
period with the new was Sir Walter Raleigh. As has already been
mentioned, he had sent out an expedition in 1584 to see what possibility
there was of establishing a colony in America. The glowing accounts
brought back by his two captains made Raleigh decide upon an undertaking
which, though it proved a failure, must ever be regarded as memorable in
the world's history.

In 1585 Raleigh sent seven ships and one hundred and eight settlers to
the land which had been granted to him by patent. The territory had
already been named Virginia, in honour of the Queen, and it was here
that he hoped to establish a little colony composed of sturdy
Englishmen. In June the settlers, having landed in Roanoke, were left
under the leadership of Ralph Lane; the other generals, Grenville,
Cavendish, and Amidas, returning to the mother country. From the outset
it was certain that Raleigh's colony must fail. The man chosen as leader
had no special aptitude for the post, being possessed with the mania for
discovery rather than the desire to teach the settlers to form a
self-supporting community. But even worse than this, Lane made the fatal
error of estranging the natives by the severity and brutality of his
punishments. Exactly a year after the settlers had landed, Sir Francis
Drake put in to see how his friend Raleigh's Utopian schemes progressed.
He found the colony in a miserable plight and, yielding to the earnest
entreaties of the settlers, took them on board and sailed to England.
Raleigh, however, had not forgotten his colony, and had dispatched Sir
Richard Grenville with supplies; but when he reached the settlement he
found it deserted. Sir Walter Raleigh's buoyant nature was not depressed
by this first failure, and in 1587 a fresh attempt to settle Virginia
was made. Under the command of White, one hundred and thirty-three men
and seventeen women were sent out. White soon returned to England for
supplies, leaving his daughter Eleanor Dare, who gave birth to the first
white child born in the New World. The unhappy emigrants received but
little assistance from the home authorities. Certainly two expeditions
were sent out to help them, but they failed because their captains found
it more lucrative and exciting to go privateering. The stirring times in
Europe and the coming of the Armada were sufficient to absorb the minds
of such men as Raleigh and Drake, and the colony in Virginia was left to
its fate. What that fate was can only be imagined, for, when White at
last reached Virginia in 1589, not a trace of the colony was to be
found, while another expedition in 1602 proved equally unsuccessful in
the search. Hunger and the Indians had done their cruel work, and the
hand of destiny seemed turned against the foundation of an Anglo-Saxon
colony in the mysterious West.

There were, however, dominant motives for colonisation at the beginning
of the seventeenth century, and these, together with the intrepidity of
certain of the Elizabethan school, changed the aspect of the whole
question. The previous incentives for discovery and adventure upon the
high seas had been the tricks of imagination, the more glorious scheme
of spreading Christianity and the race for gold. But now there was a
fear amongst the more intellectual thinkers in England that the country
was suffering from a surplus population. This purely imaginary danger
gave birth to the idea that America might provide new homes for this
surplus, and, at the same time, bring new markets into existence which
in the future would very materially help to develop the naval resources
of the English.

One of the most able and energetic of the new patrons of colonisation
was Shakespere's friend, the Earl of Southampton, who in March 1602
dispatched to the West, Bartholomew Gosnold with thirty-two companions.
This little band of adventurers landed further north than Raleigh's
ill-fated colonists, probably at a spot where in later years the Puritan
settlers established themselves. The chief feature of Gosnold's venture
was the discovery of a new route to the West by way of the Azores, and
thus a week was saved in future voyages. In the following year the
_Discovery_ and _Speedwell_ were sent out under Martin Pring, the
patrons of the expedition having first obtained formal permission from
Sir Walter Raleigh, whose patent rights were still regarded as valid. It
is interesting to notice that with this concession on Raleigh's part his
connection with Virginia ceased for ever.

One of Pring's patrons was Richard Hakluyt, to whom all Englishmen are
indebted for his great prose epic and for the stimulus he gave to the
early founders of the British Empire. Hakluyt was born in London about
the year 1552. He was educated at Westminster School and Christ Church,
Oxford, where he took his degree in 1574. His interest in geography and
discovery had been aroused when quite a boy by seeing a map in the
possession of a relative, and from that moment, he writes, "I constantly
resolved, if ever I was preferred to the University, where better time
and more convenient place might be ministred for those studies, I would,
by God's assistance, prosecute that knowledge and kinde of literature,
the doores whereof (after a sort) were so happily opened before me."[33]
Hakluyt's first book was published in 1582, under the title, _Divers
Voyages touching the discoverie of America and the Ilands adjacent unto
the same, made first of all by Englishmen and afterwards by the
Frenchmen and Britons_. This work consisted of a collection of documents
to support England's claim to the prior discovery of America. In the
autumn of 1584 he presented to Queen Elizabeth his _Discourse of Western
Planting_, the writing of which was largely due to the inspiration of
Sir Walter Raleigh. The subject matter had been supplied by the two
voyagers to Virginia, Captains Amidas and Barlow. The first edition of
his great work saw light in the year after the Armada; but Hakluyt was
not satisfied, and for nine more years laboured on, until in 1598 he
produced the second edition in three volumes, and the world was
infinitely the richer for the _Principal Navigations, Voyages,
Traffiques, and Discoveries of the English Nation_.

The year that Hakluyt sent out Pring to make discoveries is ever famous
for the death of Queen Elizabeth. The great queen, whatever her faults
may have been, had indeed bound her subjects to her by affection and
admiration, and created amongst them a remarkable spirit of both
patriotism and gallantry. It was therefore a fitting and happy
circumstance that associated the last of the Tudors with the first of
our American colonies. Virginia, named from Elizabeth, the child, so to
speak, of a queen, came in time to be the mother of Presidents. It is
not, however, until the accession of the pedantic James that a stern
resolve to accomplish the establishment of a colony seems to have been
taken. The irony of history is better illustrated in this fact than
perhaps elsewhere. The mean mind and timid heart of James I. could never
arouse or inspire enthusiasm as Elizabeth's actions had done. And yet
the appreciation of the importance of a great Empire was reserved for
the reign of the first Stuart rather than during the rule of the
greatest of the Tudors.

The pressing question of surplus population which had reached a climax
at the accession of James I., together with the prosperity and success
of the newly formed East India Company may have had something to do with
the momentous decision that was taken in 1606. In that year two
companies were formed: the first was the London Company, which was given
permission by the Crown to plant in North America between 45° and 38°
north latitude; the second division was the Plymouth Company, whose
rights of plantation overlapped those of the London Company, their
district being between 41° and 34° north latitude. With the history of
this second company we shall deal later.

The London Company consisted of various members, such as Richard
Hakluyt, the recorder of voyages; Sir George Somers, "a lamb on shore, a
lion at sea";[34] and Sir Thomas Gates. The Council was nominated by the
King, and included many well-known men of the day; in particular, Sir
Ferdinando Gorges, who played an important part in colonial history for
many years,[35] and Sir Edwin Sandys, who, in the perilous time which
came upon the Company, fought manfully for the right. The system of
administration was of considerable complexity, as the control of affairs
was both divided and qualified. In return for finding the capital for
the proper working of the scheme, the Company was to receive certain
trading privileges. The actual government was vested in two councils,
both of which were nominated by James I., the one to be resident in
England and supreme in all political and legislative affairs, the other
to be established in the colony and liable for the proper administration
of all local matters. The orders given to those in office, when the
first settlement was made, were to a certain extent harsh, but in no way
contrary to the spirit of the times. The Church of England was to be
supported and the supremacy of the King to be acknowledged. All serious
crimes were to be tried by jury and punished with death, but the penalty
for minor offences was left to the discretion of the resident council.
The Company took care that no trade was carried on by private
individuals, and it was insisted that magazines should be erected for
the produce of the colony and for supplying necessities to the
colonists. It may be stated finally that the old ideas of enterprise and
adventure were not lost sight of, and what had stirred Columbus and many
another voyager was now definitely mentioned in the commands. The
settlers were told "to show kindness to the savages and heathen people
in those parts, and use all proper means to draw them to the true
knowledge and service of God."[36]

By the middle of December 1606, one hundred and forty-three
colonists[37] were on board three ships ready to sail for their new home
in the West. On the morning of New Year's Day, 1607, the little fleet
sailed down the Thames. All praise be to them for showing so brave a
spirit in launching out into an unknown world at the very dawn of
England's expansion. And yet it must be acknowledged that they were the
very worst type of settlers that could have been chosen for such an
undertaking. They were idle, discontented, impatient, and incapable.
Many of them were gentlemen, who had no idea of manual labour; some were
goldsmiths and jewellers, who were without knowledge of agriculture,
building, or even protecting themselves from savages. But even worse
than this was the fact that they had no leader with natural gifts for so
important a position. At their head, to begin with, was Christopher
Newport, famous as a raider off the Spanish main. In council with him
were Gosnold, the intrepid voyager, and Captain John Ratcliffe, a
discontented man, as proved by his later actions, although a
contemporary describes him as "a very valiant, honest, and painful
soldier."[38] From the very outset there were quarrels, and Captain John
Smith, whom we shall meet again, was kept in confinement during the
greater part of the voyage.

On the 16th April 1607, the storm-tossed adventurers sighted the
southernmost extremity of Chesapeake Bay, and called it Cape Henry in
honour of the Prince of Wales. On the 13th May they selected a place for
settlement, and Jamestown, the first permanent plantation, was
established in Virginia on the James River. Almost immediately Edward
Maria Wingfield was elected president, which proved to be one of the
many mistakes made by the settlers. Nobody can question Wingfield's
bravery, honesty, and desire to act justly, but it is very evident from
the records that he was formal and pompous in manner, and filled with a
too conscious sense of his own dignity. No sooner had the president been
elected than the colony was weakened by a division of their party.
Captain John Smith with a few followers preferred to accompany Newport
on an exploring expedition, and reached a spot where now stands Richmond
City. The Indians, under their leader Powhattan, appeared friendly to
this party, but native friendship could only bear a slight strain, and
trouble was only too likely to arise from the careless conduct of the
settlers who had remained at Jamestown. The time was passed in a series
of petty squabbles, and the infant colony struggled through a period of
the gravest vicissitudes. Gosnold, one of the best of the party, died,
and this was followed by the deposition of Wingfield, Captain Ratcliffe
being made governor in his place. His period of office was marked by
troubles with the Indians, and dire sickness which broke out amongst the
settlers, owing to bad water, want of food, and the unhealthy situation
of Jamestown.

At last the dominant character of Captain John Smith manifested itself,
and he was chosen chief by common consent. This man's remarkable
adventures read like fiction, but there is little doubt that there is a
great deal of truth in all that he has left on record. Some of the most
romantic episodes that he lays before the reader may perhaps be regarded
as exaggerations or even untrustworthy, but it would be entirely
erroneous to look upon him as a mere Baron Munchausen or a foolish
braggart. He was brave beyond words, robust in person and self-reliant
in mind. In all his actions he was public-spirited, and, at the same
time, for his age and for his training, tolerant, kindly, and humane. He
was one of the most romantic figures of the period, and as such appeals
in his narrative to the sympathy of his readers and captures their
affection. As a soldier in the wars in the Netherlands he had passed
through many a danger. As a traveller in France, Italy, and the near
East he had learnt to understand and command men. As a hardy crusader
and captain in the Turkish wars he had fought manfully against the
infidel in Hungary. He had suffered all the horrors of slavery, from
which he had escaped through the forests of Transylvania. This man of
many adventures may be regarded by posterity as the chief promoter of
the colonisation of Virginia, and, if not her founder, at least her
saviour.

The early settlers in Virginia would have suffered the fate of Raleigh's
colony of 1587 had it not been for Captain John Smith's perseverance,
steady courage, and determination. He struggled hard to teach the
colonists the necessity of making themselves a self-sufficing community.
Most of the men thought that gold was to be picked up anywhere, failing
to see that if they did not strive manfully they must inevitably starve.
Smith himself says, "our diet is a little meal and water, and not
sufficient of that";[39] and his words are proved by the fact that
within the past six months fifty of the colonists died, and to use the
words of the chronicler, "for the most part they died of famine." Smith
determined that this should not continue, and he took for his motto,
"Nothing is to be expected except by labour." Excellent as was the
motto, the material from which he had to build up a colony was of the
very worst, and it is only natural that he should write home and ask for
"thirty carpenters, blacksmiths, masons, and diggers up of trees' roots,
rather than a thousand of such as we have."[40] His past experiences now
stood him in good stead, and he proved himself a capable leader by
succeeding in forcing the colony into a small, settled community. When
he felt that the colony was for the time being fairly secure he went on
exploring expeditions among the Indians. This was part of the purpose
and duty of the colony, for men were eager to find a short passage to
India, and no one imagined that America was of the gigantic size that
later discovery proved it to be. Whilst on these expeditions the
adventures of Smith were most extraordinary, and may possibly have been
coloured by lapse of time and a brilliant imagination. Once he saved his
life by the marvels of his compass and by the writing of notes to his
friends in Jamestown; and once indeed, according to his own record, he
was saved by the lovely Pocahontas, who pleaded with her father
Powhattan for his life. This latter story is, however, extremely
unlikely, for the Indian princess could have been only a child at the
time, and it is probable that Smith added the account when the fame of
Pocahontas had spread to Europe.

[Illustration: CAPTAIN JOHN SMITH _From an engraving in his
"Generall Historie of Virginia."_]

Smith spent the whole of the spring of 1609 in Jamestown endeavouring to
make the settlers industrious by prosecuting the manufacture of tar,
pitch, and soap ashes. Up to this time, with absurd carelessness, the
Jamestown fortification had been left without a well, and Smith now
remedied this obvious defect. With equal energy he turned to building,
and during the months of February, March, and April, he erected twenty
houses, besides a blockhouse, and re-roofed the church. Agriculture and
the fishing industry were no longer neglected, and while some of the
settlers under Smith's guidance brought forty acres under cultivation,
others undertook to supply the colony with fish. Struggle as he did,
Smith continually suffered reverses, and many disasters overtook the
colonists, the most serious being the destruction of their corn by rats.
Starvation stared them in the face, but Smith's firmness and activity
overcame the horrors of famine, and instead of allowing the settlers to
mass together, the men were quartered in different localities where they
had to seek food for themselves. When this remarkable man at last left
the colony, it can scarcely be said to have been in a prosperous state,
but there were four hundred and ninety strong colonists who had been put
on the right road towards progress, partly by Smith's example and partly
by his doctrine "that he who would not work might not eat."

About the time that Smith was preparing to return to England there was
in that country a reawakening of interest in what Drayton called,
"Virginia, earth's only Paradise." The keener interest that was now
being shown was largely due to a number of pamphlets that had been
published, and also to the enthusiastic sermons of many of the clergy of
the day. In a pamphlet named the _Nova Britannia_ it was pointed out
that Virginia was a valuable opening as a new market for English cloth,
and, in addition, that trade between the two countries would stimulate
the merchant navy. "We shall not still betake ourselves to small and
little shipping as we daily do beginne, but we shall rear againe such
Marchants Shippes, both tall and stout, as no forreine sayle that
swimmes shall make them vayle or stoop; whereby to make this little
northern corner of the world to be in a short time the richest
storehouse and staple for marchandise in all Europe."[41] With this idea
of making England "the richest storehouse," a new charter was granted to
the Company in May 1609. The London Company was now put under a number
of influential men, including Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, and Sir
Francis Bacon, while at the same time the old directors remained upon
the board. Under the new charter the dual control of the two councils
disappeared, and the government was to be in the hands of one council
nominated in the first case by the King, and afterwards, as vacancies
occurred, they were to be filled by men elected by the Company. The
powers of the Company were also extended, for besides the right of
levying duties, it was conceded that defensive war might be waged if it
were thought expedient. By these means the Company practically became an
independent body.

The outcome of the change was immediately seen in an expedition which
set out under Sir George Somers and Sir Thomas Gates. In July 1609 these
adventurers were wrecked upon the uninhabited Bermudas, but in the
following spring they succeeded in reaching Virginia. The attractive
picture of the settlement as drawn in pamphlet and sermon in England was
scarcely true to life. As a matter of fact no sooner had Smith left the
colony than its inhabitants dropped back into their slothful ways,
which were at once taken advantage of by the cunning Redskins, who,
peaceful while the great captain was present, had now become most
hostile. Thus Sir Thomas Gates in this year records, "the state of the
Colony ... began to find a sensible declyning: which Powhattan (as a
greedy Vulture) obseruing, and boyling with desire of reuenge, he
inuited Captaine Ratclife and about thirty others to trade for Corne,
and vnder the colour of fairest friendship he brought them within the
compasse of his ambush, whereby they were cruelly murthered and
massacred."[42]

The fate of the colony once more hung in the balance; starvation was
once again at the door. Very fortunately for the settlers, Lord Delawarr
arrived as Captain-General and Governor, with, what was most important,
supplies. The Company, however was becoming disheartened. The colony had
now been in existence for three years and the returns to the
shareholders were meagre indeed. Something had to be done and strong
measures seemed appropriate. In June 1611, Delawarr embarked for
England, but Sir Thomas Dale had already been dispatched with the title
of High Marshal of Virginia. He was armed with a military and civil code
of the greatest severity, for he was confronted with the arduous task of
governing a people made up of "the scourings of London." The military
code was from the first practically a dead letter; but the civil
enactments were so extremely harsh and so peculiar to modern ideas that
they deserve some attention. Daily worship according to the service of
the Church of England was enforced by a penalty of six months in the
galleys. To refrain from attending Sunday service meant death. If any
man "unworthily demean himself unto any preacher or minister of God's
word" he was to be openly whipped three times, and after each whipping
he was to confess his crime. But these laws were almost mild in
comparison with the vague and brutal enactment that "no man shall give
disgraceful words or commit any act to the disgrace of any person in
this colony, or any part thereof, upon pain of being tied head and feet
together upon the ground every night for the space of one month."[43]

These harsh laws continued, but did not affect the tide of emigration
from England. In August 1611, Sir Thomas Gates returned as Governor with
three hundred fresh settlers.[44] From this moment a much better class
of colonists began to come out, bringing with them their own servants,
and forming the nucleus of a sound colonial population. There were, of
course, other reasons for the improved state of affairs, not the least
important being the fact that Gates worked hard for the benefit of the
colony. An excellent change was carried out when the settlers deserted
unhealthy Jamestown for the more salubrious Henrico. Here a church, a
hospital, and good houses of brick were erected, and a palisade was
raised as a protection from the Indians. Industries, too, began to
thrive, for the records show that both silk and iron were manufactured,
while vines were cultivated with success by some Frenchmen introduced
by Lord Delawarr. Even in England the affairs of the Company had changed
for the better, as in 1612 a fresh charter had been obtained, by which
the Bermudas or Somers Islands were added to its dominions.

Prosperous as the colony appeared there was ever the menace of the
Indian tribes with whom an intermittent war had been waged for some
time, and during which Powhattan had taken captive several of the
settlers. Peace, however, existed between the English and Japazaus, the
Indian chief of the district along the Potomac, to whom Samuel Argall
was sent by the Governor to trade for corn. This was not Argall's first
visit to Japazaus, and a certain friendship existed between the two, the
Indian chief regarding himself as indebted to the Englishman. With the
King of the Potomac district, as wife of one of his captains, was the
romantic Pocahontas, daughter of Powhattan. To the unscrupulous and
ready-witted Argall this appeared a glorious opportunity of demanding
the Princess as a hostage, and paying off old scores against Powhattan.
Argall broached the subject to Japazaus, who readily accepted the plan.
The story is told with strict truth by Ralph Hamor, the secretary of the
colony, who says, "Capt. Argall, having secretly well rewarded him, with
a small copper kettle, and som other les valuable toies so highly by him
esteemed, that doubtlesse he would have betraied his owne father for
them, permitted both him and his wife to returne,"[45] but Pocahontas
remained a captive. Hearing of his daughter's plight Powhattan
immediately restored some of his prisoners and demanded her surrender,
but the English not being satisfied, asked for more. By this time other
influences were at work, and Pocahontas exhibited no desire to return to
her people. In the spring of 1613, she was baptised by the name of
Rebecca, and married to one of the most influential settlers, John
Rolfe, "a gentleman of approved behaviour and honest cariage."[46] The
marriage was welcomed by the Indian chief, and peace was restored for
the time being. Pocahontas and her husband went to England in 1616,
where she was fêted and presented at court, but the English climate did
not suit the Indian beauty, and she died in the spring of the following
year at Gravesend.

The year 1614 is memorable in Virginian history for the first hostile
action between the English and their French rivals. Samuel Argall, who
has been classified as "a sea-captain with piratical tastes," attacked a
French settlement on the coast of Maine and sacked Port Royal, the
capital of Acadia or Nova Scotia. These acts were contrary to all the
principles of international law, but France, under the weak rule of
Marie de' Medici, was in no state to avenge her wrongs, and the matter
dropped after a formal complaint by the French ambassador. This and
other weighty questions caused an animated discussion in Parliament
concerning the rights and privileges of Virginia. Martin, the advocate
of the Company, told the House to look to the advantages to be gained in
Virginia, and not to waste their time on the trifles that generally
engaged their attention. In fact, his speech was so heated that he was
forced to confess his errors on bended knee, and with that the House of
Commons was satisfied, and dropped the subject.

After the retirement of Gates, Sir Thomas Dale continued the government
of Virginia under the merciless code; and yet the colony prospered,
private industry and private property being allowed. Dale's second
period of office was for two years only, and he departed at a time when
a greedy and unprincipled set of men began to administer the affairs of
the Company. In 1617 they selected as their Deputy Governor in Virginia
the most unsuitable Samuel Argall. Certainly he was a man endowed with
ability and resolute courage, but he was one of the few unscrupulous
villains who have disgraced colonial history. Immediately on coming into
power he issued a series of edicts of arbitrary character. Trade with
the Indians was forbidden, but this was not for the advantage of the
shareholders of the Company, but for the benefit of their deputy. The
settlers were made to work as slaves for Argall, for whom the
constitution of the colony afforded splendid opportunities. Such a state
of affairs was not to last for long; the despotic conduct of the
Governor leaked out at identically the moment the Company passed into
the hands of a more honest and capable set of directors.[47] Sir Edwin
Sandys, a leader of that party which was soon to turn boldly against the
King, together with the brilliantly versatile Southampton and the
skilled John Ferrars, were now at the head of Virginian affairs in
England.

The history of Virginia changed for the better in 1619, when Sir George
Yeardley superseded the piratical Argall. The new Governor was not a
particularly strong man, and in many of his actions he proved himself a
weak successor of the stern Sir Thomas Dale. On the other hand there was
beneath the somewhat too gentle exterior a man of considerable worth,
for he succeeded in governing peaceably a turbulent people without
falling back upon unnecessary severity. Yeardley's first year of
administration is ever famous for the establishment of the earliest
representative assembly in the New World. It is only natural that a
fully developed scheme was not evolved at once. There is some
uncertainty as to what classes actually obtained the franchise, but it
is probable that every freeman possessed a vote. Certain it is, however,
that each plantation and each county returned two members, and it is
equally well-known that the assembly took upon itself both legislative
rights and judicial powers. Thus the year 1619 witnessed the creation of
Virginia as an almost independent power heralding a revolutionary change
in the near future.

The colony seemed prosperous in every way, but there were dark clouds
overshadowing the Company on all sides. It was rumoured, and with some
truth, that five thousand emigrants had landed in Virginia, and yet only
one thousand were actually resident. Men asked themselves the question,
"had the settlers returned, or had they died in this so-called land of
promise"? The new board of directors, if they had been left to
themselves, would have put the Company upon an assured footing, and
success would most certainly have attended their efforts. But this was
not to be; the Company was attacked from within and without. Lord
Warwick's party, a clique within the Company, showed every sign of
hostility to Southampton and Sandys. The external attacks came from
three sources, not the least important being that of the Crown. James I.
was jealous of the power of that Company which he himself had created.
His fears were increased by the insidious attacks of the Spanish
ambassador, Gondomar, who informed the King that "a seditious Company
was but the seminary to a seditious Parliament."[48] Even the English
people, little realising the work that the Company was painfully
accomplishing for Imperial purposes, now turned against the men whom,
for sentimental reasons, they ought to have supported, and used the
popular cry against monopolies to bring about the downfall of the
founders of a new nation. The dangers of the Company were increased by
the perils of the colony itself. The old Indian hostility had for a few
years slumbered, but after the death of Powhattan and the succession of
Opechancanough in 1618 the horrors of Indian warfare once more
threatened the colony. In the following year the death of a famous
Indian, Jack the Feather, was a sufficient pretext, and Opechancanough
attacked Virginia. The English proved successful in the end, but not
before they had lost three hundred and seventy of their number. It is
not to be wondered at that the Assembly issued a severe order that "the
inhabitants of every plantation should fall upon their adjoining
savages";[49] this the planters readily obeyed; and the steps taken,
though harsh, appear to have been effectual.

The news of the Indian massacres, the action of Spain and the absurd
desire of a Spanish marriage, worked upon the mind of James I. to such
an extent that he determined to abolish the Company.[50] In 1623 the
King demanded the surrender of the charter, which Sandys and his party
stoutly refused. A writ of _quo warranto_ was then issued to decide
whether the privileges of the Company were purely a monopoly, or whether
they were exercised for the public good. The Law Courts gave a verdict
against the Company, and the charter was declared null and void. The
storm cloud, which had long hung over the Company, had now burst upon
the heads of the devoted directors. They were forced to succumb to the
most pernicious of all influences, for they had been crushed by greed
and covetousness, together with the intrigues of disgraceful courtiers
and disappointed speculators who showed a lack of public spirit that too
often marked the early years of the Stuart period. In reviewing the
actions of the Company it is universally agreed that they had in almost
every case been for good; it is, however, acknowledged with similar
unanimity that for the actual benefit of the colony in the future it was
as well that the Company's powers should pass to the Crown. Had the
actions of the Company been disliked in the colony itself, it is
inexplicable that the colony should have supported the Company at the
time of its trial. The settlers could not foresee what might be the
outcome of a continuance of the Company's rule. At the time they merely
realised with disgust that James had acted as he had done, solely to
gain the fickle and grudging favour of the decadent Spain; but they did
not understand that the Company must inevitably in the future, if it had
not already done so in the past, act as a trammelling influence upon the
progress and prosperity of the little settlement. Unwittingly James, by
his action, had removed the fetters, and had given an opportunity of
free growth to the colony. It was no longer possible for the welfare of
the individual planter to be sacrificed to the merely temporary
advantage of the English trader and shareholder. "Morally and
politically, indeed, the abrogation of the Virginian charter was a
crime"; but "the colony, happily for its future, passed under the
control of the Crown while it was yet plastic, undeveloped and
insignificant."[51] Henceforth the constitution of Virginia was of the
normal type; the administration was carried on by a governor and two
chambers, the one nominated, the other popularly elected.

The first chapter of Virginian history may be said to have closed when
the Company ceased to exist, and at the same time the romantic and
heroic aspect of the colony was concluded. Although perhaps no
individual connected with the foundation of the colony can be compared
with the glorious figures of the Elizabethan epoch, yet in the
characters of Hakluyt, Southampton, Sandys, and Captain John Smith there
was something of the old order. The heroism of the first actors upon the
Virginian stage was probably as great as that of their predecessors, but
the new order of things did not call upon them to exhibit such feats of
strength or of bravery. By the abrogation of the Company's charter a
revolution had indeed been effected. From this moment the history of
Virginia can only be dealt with in a brief and hasty sketch, for happy
is the country that has no history, and such is the case with regard to
the later years of England's first great colony. The interests of the
settlers are in the future mainly confined to the growth of tobacco, as
will be shown in a later chapter, and from 1623 the chroniclers cease to
record the story of the terrible struggle for bare existence, but tell
rather the tale of a steady but unheroic prosperity amongst a rich class
of planters employing negro labour.

The first Governor under the Crown was Sir Francis Wyatt, who was of
good character and inspired the colonists with a self-reliant temper. He
was succeeded in 1626 by Sir George Yeardley, who had already won the
affection of many of the settlers in the days of the Company's rule. The
following year, however, Yeardley died; and the Crown appointed a
creature of its own, Governor Harvey, who quarrelled with the Assembly
on every possible occasion. In fact so bitter did these quarrels become
that a settler, Mathews by name, as leader of the popular party, seized
Harvey in 1635, and placed him upon a vessel where he was kept in
honourable confinement until the old country was reached. It is hardly
likely that the colonists imagined that the Crown would take their part
against the Governor, but their action was probably due to a general
desire to impress the Crown with their power. Charles I., who had
previously shown good feeling towards the colony, now behaved foolishly
in sending Harvey back to Virginia, where he remained for four years,
filling up his time by sending numerous petty and querulous complaints
to the home country of the misdoings of the settlers. During Harvey's
administration the old proprietors made several attempts to obtain a
fresh grant of the charter and the reinstitution of the Company. But
with the same ardent spirit as the colonists had supported the Company
in 1623, so now they opposed its re-establishment and for the same
reason. The change that they had imagined must inevitably take place by
the abolition of the Company was a loss of their titles; but having been
firmly settled under the Crown they were frightened that if the Company
should be again created their titles would be again endangered. The
advocate of the colonists was the pliant and pliable Sandys, who, when
he reached England, deserted his constituents, and pleaded for the
restoration of the old rule. The colony immediately on hearing of this
sent word to the King that their representative was acting contrary to
their wishes, and in 1639 they received the satisfactory reply that
Charles had no intention of restoring the Company.

From this time the settlers appear from contemporary records to have
been contented. The writers point out how nature gave freely, how
beautiful was the land, and how peaceful were the natives. There can be
no doubt that this was the content and boastfulness of a young people,
and that it was unduly exaggerated. On the other hand it must also be
allowed that though Virginia was not quite the paradise represented in
some of the letters written by the settlers, yet it was, when the Civil
War broke out in England, a land of comparative peace and plenty.

Sir Francis Wyatt was again sent out to succeed Governor Harvey in 1639,
but his period of office was short and uneventful. More stirring times
came when the colony passed under the rule of Sir William Berkeley. He
was a typical cavalier, bluff in speech, hot in temper, brave in danger,
and contemptuous of learning. He may, in later years, have exercised a
merciless tyranny, but it was the hardship of his fortunes together
with something closely akin to lunacy that drove him to such actions. On
his appointment, his instructions were more carefully formulated than
had hitherto been the case. This was only natural as the Court party at
home were beginning to see the dangers that were looming ahead, and so
they trusted that in Virginia trouble might be checked by the exaction
of the strictest oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and by the
insistence on the service of the Church of England. This latter was
hardly necessary as speaking widely the Church of England was the Church
of the Virginians. There were, however, three parishes, the members of
which were almost entirely nonconformists until dispersed and scattered
by a conformity act between the years 1642 and 1644.

Sir William Berkeley had hardly taken up the reins of government when
the history of the colony was marked by a great calamity. Opechancanough
was now an old man, enfeebled in body and physically incapable of
leading his people; but his mind was still as active as ever, his savage
cunning was in no way dimmed by years, and he had ever nursed the hatred
he had felt for the settlers since the failure of his attack in the days
of the Company. The rumours of the outbreak of the Civil War in England
soon reached the ears of the Indians, some of whom had actually seen two
ships of the white settlers bombarding each other in the Bay.
Opechancanough seized this opportunity of division and strife among the
Virginians, and fell upon the colony. Before the settlers were ready to
resist, three hundred men, women and children had been slain. The local
militia at last made headway against the savages, and after the capture
and death of the old chief in 1646 a treaty was made as to the boundary
between the English and the Indians, under which peace reigned for
thirty years.

It has been the fashion to regard Virginia as a purely Cavalier colony;
this is probably due to an attempt to accentuate the difference between
the Southern colony and the New England group. It is, however, an
exaggeration to say that Virginia was entirely composed of those
supporting cavalier principles. Certainly there were large landowners
who sympathised with Charles and his party, but there was a very large
and prosperous middle class, composed of small landowners and well-to-do
tradesmen, amongst whom it was only natural to find various opinions and
sympathies. As a whole, however, Virginia may be said to have been
Royalist, not from any rooted objection to the Commonwealth, but rather
because the Royalist party was temporarily predominant in the
settlement. Sir William Berkeley, as a loyal Governor, forbade the
showing of any sympathy to the Parliamentary rebels, and he was
supported in his action by Charles II., who, in 1650, before he left
Breda, despatched a commission empowering Berkeley to act in his name.
The far-reaching power of Cromwell was not to be stayed by any such
commission, for the Commonwealth was determined "to grasp the whole of
the inheritance of the Stuart Kings,"[52] and so Ayscue was sent in 1651
to reduce the colonies to submission. On March 12 of the following year,
Virginia acknowledged the new power in England, much to the rage and
discontent of the Governor. Berkeley had indeed done his best, and had
issued a stirring declaration which concluded with these words, "But,
gentlemen, by the Grace of God we will not so tamely part with our King
and all those blessings we enjoy under him, and if they oppose us, do
but follow me, I will either lead you to victory or lose a life which I
cannot more gloriously sacrifice than for my loyalty and your
security."[53] The settlers, however, were not stirred, and though a
thousand men had been collected at Jamestown, the Assembly refused their
support, not so much for the love of Cromwell as because they feared
material loss if they resisted him. Had the great Protector lived longer
the history of the American colonies might have been very different. He
was the first Englishman who can really be said to have understood in
its fullest sense the word Empire. But the gods were not generous to
this imperialist, and they did not grant to him the necessary time for
the achievement of a policy which Cromwell himself classed as similar to
that of "Queen Elizabeth of famous memory."[54] As it was, the rule of
the Commonwealth had little definite effect upon Virginia, except that
it necessitated a change in governors. The first was Richard Bennet, who
was elected by the Assembly in 1652, and ruled for three years. His
successor, Edward Digges, was a worthy and sensible man, under whose
administration the colony continued a calm and happy existence for one
year. In 1656 Samuel Mathews was chosen, but during his rule Virginian
history was unimportant, and the only cloud upon the horizon was an
Indian panic which came to nothing.

The submission of Virginia was for the time only, and at the
restoration of Charles II. once more the royalist party became supreme.
The King was accepted with perfect quiescence, and it is probable that
the Virginians, like the English, rejoiced at the change, looking
forward to the return of more mirthful and joyous days. As England
learnt to repent the return of the Stuarts, so also Virginia found that
she had fallen upon evil times, a fact which is partially shown in
Berkeley's report in 1671. "As for the boundaries of our land, it was
once great, ten degrees in latitude, but now it has pleased his Majesty
to confine us to halfe a degree. Knowingly I speak this. Pray God it may
be for his Majesty's service, but I much fear the contrary.... I thank
God, there are _no free schools, nor printing_, and I hope we shall not
have these hundred years; for _learning_ has brought disobedience, and
heresy, and sects into the world, and _printing_ has divulged them, and
libels against the best government. God keep us from both."[55]

The greed of the cavaliers under Charles II. is notorious, and it
affected Virginia just as much as it did England. Lord Arlington and
Lord Culpeper obtained in 1672 the most monstrous rights, together with
a grant by which the whole soil of the colony passed into their hands.
An agency was at once sent to England to oppose this discreditable
action, at the same time taking with them a charter for which they hoped
to obtain ratification from the King. Needless to say in this they were
unsuccessful; but the charter is historically important, because it
contained a clause stating that the colonists could not be taxed without
the consent of their own legislature. The work of the agency partly
failed owing to the supineness of Governor Berkeley; chiefly, however,
because the people of Virginia were unable to see that agencies could
not be sent without expenditure. When a poll-tax was enacted to cover
the necessary expenses of their agents, there was a popular outburst.

The inhabitants of Virginia at this time were much divided, and composed
of distinct classes, the well-to-do planter, the tradesman, the "mean
whites," the negro and the criminal. The last class had been growing
steadily for some years as the colony had been used as a dumping-ground
for gaol-birds, and indeed the criminal section would have increased
still more had it not been for the better class of settlers who
determined to stop it. In April 1670, the General Court held at
Jamestown issued a notice "because by the great numbers of felons and
other desperate villains being sent over from the prisons in England,
the horror yet remaining of the barbarous designs of those villains in
September 1663, who attempted at once the subversion of our religion,
laws, liberties, rights and privileges," we do now prohibit "the landing
of any jail-birds from and after the 20th of January next upon pain of
being forced to carry them to some other country."[56] Although this law
tended to exclude a cheap form of labour, nevertheless between 1669 and
1674 Virginia, commercially, was in a most flourishing condition,
raising a greater revenue for the Crown than any other settlement. Sir
John Knight informed Lord Shaftesbury that £150,000 in customs on
tobacco alone had been paid, "so that Virginia is as of great importance
to his Majesty as the Spanish Indies to Spain, and employs more ships
and breeds more seamen for his Majesty's service than any other
trade."[57]

Commercial success was not the only thing that went to make up Virginian
history, for there were signs of external danger only too plainly
exhibited by numerous outrages on the part of the Indians. Had Berkeley
shown any skill or energy in suppressing these disorders all might have
gone well; as it was he did nothing, with dire results. The incapacity
of the Governor at last aroused the wrath of a young, honest,
courageous, but indiscreet, member of the Assembly, named Nathaniel
Bacon. He took up arms and was at first pardoned, but when he once again
attempted to seize Jamestown he was taken, and died in so mysterious a
manner as to give rise to rumours of poison and treachery, though it was
also reported, "that, he dyed by inbibing or taking in two _(sic)_ much
Brandy."[58] Bacon's rising had the effect desired in so far as it
brought about the recall of Berkeley. So vindictively and cruelly did
the Governor punish Bacon's followers that in 1677 the Crown sent three
Commissioners, Sir John Berry, Colonel Francis Moryson, and Colonel
Herbert Jeffreys to look into the grievances of either side. They almost
immediately quarrelled with the Governor, who was anxious to carry on
his severe punishments. The King, however, had commanded the
Commissioners to show, if possible, the greatest lenience. As a matter
of fact out of a population of 15,000, only 500 were on the side of the
Governor, and this small party who claimed to be the loyalists, very
naturally advocated confiscations and fines. Berkeley obstructed the
Commissioners as well as he was able, showing himself reckless of all
consequences, and exhibiting gross discourtesy to the King's
representatives. The truth was that Berkeley was growing old, and had
possessed unlimited power far too long, supported as he had been by a
most corrupt Assembly. The end of the quarrel came when the Governor, or
more probably, Lady Berkeley, insulted the officials beyond forgiveness.
After a consultation at the Governor's house the Commissioners were sent
away in his carriage with "the common hangman" for postillion.[59] This
outrage upon the laws of hospitality was too much; and Jeffreys
immediately assumed the reins of government. Sir William Berkeley gave
one more snarl, informing the new Governor that he was "utterly
unacquainted"[60] with the laws, customs, and nature of the people; he
then sailed for England, which he reached just alive, but "so unlikely
to live that it had been very inhuman to have troubled him with any
interrogations; so he died without any account given of his
government."[61]

Sir Herbert Jeffreys had a difficult task before him in trying to purge
the Assembly. Within a year of taking up office he died, leaving no
lasting memorial of his skill as Governor, but he is "to be remembered
as the first of a long series of officers of the standing army who have
held the governorship of a colony."[62] Jeffreys' successor, Sir Henry
Chicheley, only held office for a few months, and at his departure the
old type of governor disappears. The year 1679 is remarkable for the new
method of administration, a method which proved injurious to the
colony. Thomas, Lord Culpeper, was the first of the new scheme, and
though he resided in the colony for four years he did nothing for its
inhabitants. The appointment of Culpeper was most ill-advised, as he was
already detested owing to the grant of 1672. He took up his office at
identically the same time as the burgesses acquired the right of sitting
as a separate chamber, and he found the council refractory, the colony
unprosperous, and the Company of his Majesty's Guards in "mutinous
humours."[63] His tenure of office expired in 1684, and he was succeeded
by Lord Howard of Effingham. It cannot be said that the new Governor was
idle, but whatever he did was to the disadvantage of Virginia and the
Virginians. By a scandalous system of jobbery he inflicted grievous
financial injury upon individuals, and at the same time retarded the
progress of the colony by a system of new imposts. By his skill he
obtained for the Governor and the Council the right of appointing the
Secretary to the Assembly, which ought not to have been allowed by a
free representative body. From this time the evils of the English
colonial system became apparent, and it is now that absentee governors
enrich themselves at the expense of their settlements, the actual
administration being left to lieutenant governors in the confidence of
their chiefs, who remained at home.

The great stumbling-block to colonial prosperity was the lack of unity
between the different settlements on the eastern coast of North America.
In 1684 an attempt was made to bring about united action against
Indians, who had desolated the western borders of the English colonies.
A conference was called at Albany, and Virginia, like all the other
colonies, sent delegates to discuss the possibility of creating the
United States under the British Crown. Nothing, however, came of it, for
the jealousies and wranglings of the delegates only too well illustrated
the feelings of the different settlements for each other. The Revolution
of 1688 was accepted with tranquillity in Virginia, and two years later
Francis Nicholson was appointed King William's lieutenant governor.
Nicholson was a man of much colonial experience, of violent temper, and
scandalous private life. He strongly opposed the desire for political
freedom, but at the same time he made an excellent governor, and during
his rule, which lasted until 1704 (except for a period of six years,
1692-1698), the colony prospered. A desire for education evinced itself
at this period, and in 1691 Commissary Blair was sent to England to
obtain a patent for the creation of a college. He returned within two
years, his labours having been crowned with success, and in 1693 the
second university[64] in America was established under the title of
William and Mary College.

As the seventeenth century drew to a close, Virginian progress was
stimulated by the settlement, on the upper waters of the James River, of
De Richebourg's colony of Huguenots, which is said to have "infused a
stream of pure and rich blood into Virginian society." If the test of a
colony is its population, Virginia at this time must have been most
flourishing. Less than a century had passed since Newport and his one
hundred and forty-three settlers had sailed into the James River; the
colony had suffered privations, had witnessed many a fluctuation of
fortune, but at the dawn of the eighteenth century about one hundred
thousand souls were living there in peace, plenty and happiness. During
the century that had passed, the settlers had won for themselves
political rights, and practically, political freedom. They were to a
certain extent restricted by the Navigation Acts, but the influence of
the Crown or of the English Parliament was hardly felt. Their interest
in English political life was meagre; the importance of getting
trustworthy lieutenant governors was far greater to the Virginian than
whether Whig or Tory was in power at home. Sometimes the colony was
fortunate, sometimes the reverse, but in every case the lieutenant
governor was opposed to any extension of political rights. The
difficulty of united effort on the part of the planters was, to a
certain extent, intensified by a want of towns. Hampton was Virginia's
chief port, and was composed of a hundred poor houses, while
Williamsburg cannot be regarded as a true centre of either economic or
intellectual activity. This lack of town life is pointed out by
Commissary Blair, who informed the Bishop of London, "even when attempts
have been made by the Assembly to erect towns they have been frustrated.
Everyone wants the town near his own house, and the majority of the
burgesses have never seen a town, and have no notion of any but a
country life."[65] The lieutenant governors during the eighteenth
century had not only to contend with the supineness of the settlers, but
also with intercolonial discord. Thus Alexander Spotswood, in 1711,
attempted to assist North Carolina against the Tuscarora Indians, but he
received no support from either the Council or Assembly of Virginia.
Five years later Spotswood was met with similar bickerings and squabbles
when South Carolina was invaded by the Yamassees. In 1741 Oglethorpe
begged assistance to protect the newly established Georgia; instead of
sending their best we are told that his officer brought back "all the
scum of Virginia."[66]

The worst feature of Virginian life was the omnipresent and omnipotent
slave system, but from the mere commercial aspect this was in favour of
the colony at the time. The planters, however, were never ready to leave
the colony for imperial purposes owing to the fear of a negro rising at
home. This was one of the chief difficulties with which the Governor,
Robert Dinwiddie, had to contend, during that trying period of French
and Indian attack, which prepared the way for the Seven Years' war. With
this period it is not proposed to deal now, but to leave it to a later
chapter concerning the struggle between the French colonists in the
north and west, and the English settlers upon the eastern seaboard
during that period which is peculiarly connected with Britain's imperial
story.

FOOTNOTES:

[31] Quoted by Professor Raleigh in Introduction to _Hakluyt's Voyages_
(ed. 1904), xii. p. 24.

[32] _Hakluyt's Voyages_ (ed. 1904), vol. vii. p. 190.

[33] _Hakluyt's Voyages_ (ed. 1904), vol. i. p. xviii.

[34] Quoted by Doyle, _The English in America_, Virginia (1882), p. 145.

[35] _American Historical Review_, vol. iv. No. 4, pp. 678-702.

[36] Quoted by Doyle, _op. cit._, p. 147.

[37] Doyle says 143 colonists; neither Percy nor Newport mention the
exact number; Bradley, in his life of _Captain John Smith_, says 105.

[38] _Cf._ footnote, Doyle, _op. cit._, p. 149.

[39] Smith's Letter to the Virginia Company.

[40] Quoted by Bradley, _Captain John Smith_ (1905), p. 144.

[41] Force, _Tracts_ (1836-46), vol. i.

[42] Gates, _A True Declaration of the Estate of the Colonie in
Virginia_ (1610).

[43] Force, _Tracts_ (1836-46), vol. iii.

[44] Sir Thomas Dale was Governor 1611 and 1614 to 1616. Sir Thomas
Gates as Governor organised the colony 1611 to 1614. See _Dictionary of
National Biography_, xxi. p. 64.

[45] Hamor, _A True Discourse of the Present Estate of Virginia_ (ed.
1860).

[46] Hamor, _A True Discourse of the Present Estate of Virginia_ (ed.
1860).

[47] The characters of the two parties is controversial owing to the
scarcity of documentary evidence.

[48] Doyle, _op. cit._ p. 220.

[49] _Ibid._, p. 226.

[50] There was no question of abandoning the colony itself, which was
what Spain desired.

[51] Doyle, _op. cit._ pp. 242, 244.

[52] Gardiner, _History of the Commonwealth_, i. 317.

[53] Neill, _Virginia Carolorum_ (1886), p. 215.

[54] _Cromwell's Speech V._, Sept. 17, 1656.

[55] Hening, _Statutes at Large_ (New York, 1823), ii. p. 517.

[56] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1669-1674, p. 64.

[57] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1669-1674, p. 530.

[58] _Strange News from Virginia_ (1677), p. 8.

[59] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1677-1680, p. 64.

[60] _Ibid._, p. 67.

[61] _Ibid._, p. iv.

[62] Fortescue, _Introduction to Calendar_, 1677-1680, p. v.

[63] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1677-1680, p. 589.

[64] See p. 93.

[65] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1697, p. 642.

[66] _Itinerant Observations_, p. 62.

CHAPTER III

THE COLONISATION OF MARYLAND AND THE CAROLINAS

"Maryland is a province not commonly knowne in England, because the name
of Virginia includes or clouds it, it is a Country wholy belonging to
that honorable Gentleman the Lord Baltamore."[67] Such is the
description of the colony that now comes before us, and at the time it
was penned John Hammond, the writer, told the truth. The colony had
arisen under rather peculiar circumstances, which neither resembled the
foundation of Virginia nor the settlement of the Pilgrim Fathers. In
1632 Charles I. granted to George Calvert, first Lord Baltimore, an
ill-defined tract of territory to the north of Virginia. Baltimore was
an old hand at colonisation, for he had some years previous attempted to
form a settlement in Newfoundland which had not been successful. David
Kirke, who took over the Baltimore lands there, said that Newfoundland
agreed with all God's creatures except Jesuits and schismatics, and that
a great mortality among the former tribe had driven Baltimore away.
Whether this was the true reason, or whether, as it has been proposed,
Baltimore was practically driven out by the Presbyterians, it is hard to
decide. His next trial as a colony founder was made in the more
southern lands of Virginia, but here his Roman Catholicism was sternly
opposed by the English Church party. Under these circumstances his
Maryland colony seemed likely to flourish, for there were neither
schismatics nor churchmen, nor Presbyterians, but only Indians to
contend against. Before the first Lord Baltimore could accomplish
anything he died, but the grant was transferred to his son Cecil. The
charter is an important one, for by it the Proprietors gained both
territorial and political rights; the freemen or representative assembly
were to be consulted, and with their advice the Proprietor could enact
laws. All places of worship were to be consecrated according to the
Church of England, and so the Roman Catholic faith had only a
subordinate position in a colony which owed its foundation to a true
upholder of that belief. From the very first Maryland was better off
than several of the other colonies, as the Crown divested itself of the
right of levying taxes within the province; but in other respects the
constitution was normal, consisting of a governor and two chambers, the
proprietor possessing the privilege of creating councillors.

Leonard Calvert, brother of the second Lord Baltimore, sailed to take
possession in 1633, accompanied by two Jesuit priests and three hundred
emigrants. These colonists were neither gaol-birds nor religious
fanatics; they had been selected with great care and were well provided.
One of the Jesuits, Father White, has left on record his _Impressions_
in which he says that the colony was founded with a definite religious
and educational purpose. "We had not come thither for the purpose of
war, but for the sake of benevolence, that we might imbue a rude race
with the precepts of civilisation, and open up a way to heaven, as well
as impart to them the advantages of remote regions."[68] When the
settlers came to the place of landing they "beheld the natives armed.
That night fires were kindled through the whole region, and since so
large a ship had never been seen by them messengers were sent everywhere
to announce 'that a canoe as large as an island had brought as many men
as there was trees in the woods.'"[69] From this moment and onwards the
relations with the natives were always friendly. The small independent
landowners being free from this danger, at first, lived happy and
contented lives, but they were gradually crushed out of existence by
large estate-holders working with gangs of indentured labourers.

The people of Virginia looked with some scorn upon their modern
neighbours, and it was not long before a quarrel took place. The Isle of
Kent lay in such a position off the coast that under Baltimore's patent
it ought to have been included in the province of Maryland. But in 1625
the Virginians had settled there for trading purposes, and were
determined not to be brought under the yoke of Baltimore's
proprietorship. Two years after the establishment of Maryland, the Isle
of Kent was under the rule of William Clayborne, a strong Protestant, a
contentious man, who was described by his enemies as "a pestilent enemie
to the wel-faire of that province and the Lord Proprietor."[70]

Calvert, anxious to establish the rights of his brother, sent two ships
to the Isle of Kent, and these were attacked by the crew of a pinnace
belonging to Clayborne, lives being lost on both sides. The quarrel
continued with so much fervour that it became merged in the greater
struggle of the Civil War. Calvert was granted by the King letters of
marque for privateering purposes, and he took good care to prey upon his
enemy, Clayborne, whose friend Ingle had been furnished with similar
letters from Parliament. Thus having placed the quarrel which was really
personal under the banners of King and Parliament, the two rivals
contended with each other.

The Parliamentary forces were, at first, successful; Ingle and Clayborne
invaded Maryland, seized St Mary's, and Calvert was obliged to fly. But
with assistance from Governor Berkeley of Virginia, he returned and
drove out the Clayborne faction which had disgusted the people by its
incapacity and greed. The quarrel ceased for a short time, owing to
Calvert's death; but it was not long before it was renewed. Lord
Baltimore appointed as his deputy William Stone, an ardent nonconformist
and Parliamentarian, who repaid the Proprietor's generosity by leaguing
with the people of the Isle of Kent. Traitor though he was, it is to be
remembered that during his period of rule one good act was passed.
Maryland was already celebrated for its toleration, but in 1649 it was
still further enacted that a Christian was not to be "in any ways
molested or discountenanced for or in respect of his or her religion,
nor in the free exercise thereof."[71]

For the peace of their minds and the preservation of their property
Stone and the settlers acknowledged the Parliamentary commissioners,
including Clayborne, who landed in 1652. They first displaced Stone, but
realising that he was popular, and thinking that it would be
advantageous for them, reinstated him. Stone, however, once more proved
a trimmer, and sided with the Proprietor; his late followers deserted
him and turned to Clayborne. On the establishment of the Protectorate in
1654 Lord Baltimore asserted his rights, claiming that he now held from
the Protector Cromwell, and declaring that the commissioners' privileges
had ceased. Clayborne and his companions were not the men to take such a
rebuff as this. "It was not religion, it was not punctilios they stood
upon, it was that sweete, that rich, that large country they aimed
at."[72] With this desire, according to a contemporary, Clayborne
asserted his authority by disfranchising the Roman Catholics and
forbidding the oath of loyalty to the Proprietor. William Stone, stung
to resistance and filled with importance as the representative of Lord
Baltimore, took up arms and was defeated by the Protestant party at
Providence in 1655. Many of Stone's followers were executed, and their
property confiscated; Stone himself was sentenced to death, but was
reprieved. Clayborne's party now seemed triumphant, but the home
authorities refused to bestow upon him the Isle of Kent, and within two
years the Protector restored to Baltimore his proprietorship of
Maryland. Trouble still continued, and in 1659 Josias Fendall, the
Proprietor's Governor, so worked upon the members of Assembly that they
claimed full legislative rights and complete independence of the
Baltimore family.

At the Restoration the quarrel came to an end, and Lord Baltimore
re-established his rights with nothing more than a mere show of force.
Philip Carteret was appointed Governor, and during his term of office a
mint was set up in the colony. He was succeeded in 1662 by Charles
Calvert to the alarm of the Protestant inhabitants, who sent an
extraordinary document to the Lord Mayor and London merchants entitled,
"_Complaint from heaven with a hue and cry and a petition out of
Virginia and Maryland, to the King and his Parliament against the
Barklian and Baltimore parties. The platform is Pope Jesuit determined
to overthrow England with fire and sword and destructions, and the
Maryland Papists to drive us Protestants to purgatory._"[73] These,
however, were purely imaginary troubles, and a more real one fell upon
both Virginia and Maryland on August 27, 1667, when a terrific gale
destroyed in two hours four-fifths of their tobacco and corn, and blew
down 15,000 houses. On the whole Virginia suffered perhaps more than
Maryland, but neither colony was really subject to such perils; and
both, during the first fifteen years of Charles II.'s reign, enriched
themselves as well as the Proprietor or the Crown by the fertility of
their soil. This period of prosperity, however, gave way to one of
unrest.

By the death of Cecil, Lord Baltimore in 1675, Charles Calvert, the late
Governor, succeeded as heir to the family titles, estates and
proprietorship of Maryland, the latter being placed under his deputy,
Thomas Notley. The Proprietor was not at first upon the best of terms
with the home government. He was severely reprimanded by the Privy
Council for the imprisonment and assassination of a collector of
customs. It is not hinted that Baltimore had any actual hand in this
crime, but it is thought that he connived "at least _ex post facto_ in
his murder." No sooner had the Proprietor got over this difficulty, than
he fell out with the settlers, who were caused much uneasiness in 1681
by the limitation of the franchise to those freeholders of 50 acres or
those owners of other property of the value of £40. A spirit of unrest
was therefore abroad, and there were not wanting those who were ready to
snatch the opportunity and pose as patriots against the aggression of
the Proprietor. Josias Fendall, who had already tried to deprive the
Baltimore family of their rights, and who had now become an unworthy
demagogue, leagued with John Coode, a clergyman, and revolted. The
insurrection, as such, was short-lived. But exciting events were taking
place in England, and Coode again seized his chance when news of the
Revolution of 1688 drifted across the Atlantic. He placed himself at the
head of the Association for the Defence of the Protestant Religion, and
in 1689, pretending that he was serving William III., seized in the
King's name the government of Maryland. The King bestowed some signs of
favour upon this clever rebel, but his designs were soon discovered, and
the government of Maryland was radically changed. In 1691 the colony was
placed under the direct control of the Crown; the political rights of
the Proprietor were annulled; the Church of England was established, and
the Roman Catholics were persecuted.

The first royal Governor was Francis Nicholson, who had served elsewhere
successfully, but was regarded with suspicion and dislike by many of
the inhabitants of Maryland. Gerald Slye's accusations against
Nicholson, in May 1698, give some idea of this dislike, and are of some
interest as an indication of the means used by an ignorant colonist to
discredit the Governor in England. A few of the accusations will show
how utterly foolish these complaints were. Slye began by asserting that
"all thinking men are amazed that such a man should have twisted himself
into any post in the government, for besides his incapacity and
illiteracy, he is a man who first in New York, then in Virginia, and at
last in Maryland, has always professed himself an enemy to the present
King and government." The next charge was that the Governor "makes his
chaplain walk bareheaded before him from home to church." This is
further extended by the fact that he "usually makes his chaplain wait
ten or twelve hours for service so that often morning prayer is said in
the evening." But there are more charges concerning Nicholson's
treatment of his chaplain, for he, "a pious and good gentleman, the
credit of the clergy in this province, happening one day by the
Governor's means [to be] a little disguised in drink"[74] was suddenly
summoned to conduct Divine Service. And so charge after charge of the
same absurd character were brought against Nicholson not so much because
of his ill-doing, but because he had the misfortune to be Governor.

The people of Maryland were not content until in 1715 the fourth Lord
Baltimore became a Protestant, and by his conversion it was held that
his full rights had revived. Fourteen years later the Proprietor's
title obtained an everlasting memorial in the foundation of the city of
Baltimore as a port for the planters. The restoration of the Calverts to
their former rights was by no means advantageous to the religious life
of the colony. The fourth lord was a hanger-on of Frederick, Prince of
Wales, while the fifth to hold the title was a notorious profligate.
These men insisted on exercising their right of clerical patronage
without any regard to the welfare of the Church. Thus George Whitefield,
who visited the colony in 1739, failed to arouse religious fervour. His
preaching in Maryland was far less successful than it had been in
Virginia. The former colony he found in "a dead sleep," and to use his
own words, he "spoke home to some ladies concerning the vanity of their
false politeness, but, alas! they are wedded to their quadrille and
ombre."[75]

If the Marylanders were conspicuous for their irreligion, they were
equally noticeable for their industry. A large number of German
emigrants had come to the colony, and had started a continuous movement
of extension towards the West. To these Germans is entirely due the
improved state of the country, and the better means of communication
even beyond the mountains. But the rolling westward of the Maryland
population brought the colony into close touch with the power of France;
and like the other colonies it was destined, about the middle of the
eighteenth century, to contend against the policy of the French King, by
which, if it had been successful, the seaboard colonies would have been
deprived of the possibility of further expansion towards the Pacific.

The history of the Carolinas only resembles that of Maryland in the fact
that they were both proprietary colonies. The swampy and low-lying coast
to the south of Virginia had, in the early years of colonisation,
offered little temptation to settlers, and long remained uninhabited by
Englishmen or Spaniards. Certainly in 1564, Laudonnière, a Huguenot
gentleman and naval officer, attempted a plantation at Port Royal in
South Carolina, and named his fortress Caroline, "in honour of our
Prince, King Charles";[76] but it was an absolute failure, and the
history of the fate of these Huguenots at the hands of the brutal
Spaniard, Menendez, is as well-known as the tremendous retribution which
followed his barbarous cruelty. Captains Amidas and Barlow, in 1584, at
the charge and direction of Sir Walter Raleigh, visited this portion of
the North American continent, but nothing came of it, and "Caroline" was
left strictly alone as if a curse were upon the land. Adventurers from
Virginia at last broke down the old prejudices, and by the year 1625
landseekers and discoverers had penetrated as far south as the Chowan.
By a strange chance the country named by Laudonnière was destined in
1629 to receive much the same name from an Englishman for much the same
reason. In that year Sir Robert Heath obtained from Charles I. a grant
of land to the south of Virginia, which was called after the King "the
province of Carolina." No practical result, however, came from this
grant, and Carolina, as it may now be called, still remained uninhabited
except for the natives.

The first real charter to the Lords Proprietor of Carolina was dated the
24th March 1663, but owing to the previous grant of Charles I. numerous
legal steps had to be taken before matters were satisfactorily arranged.
The land between Virginia and Florida was now granted to eight
patentees, amongst whom were the Duke of Albemarle, the Earl of
Clarendon, Sir William Berkeley, but above all the Earl of Shaftesbury.
These Proprietors had political and territorial authority, but there was
also to be an assembly of freeholders with legislative powers. Twenty
thousand acres of land were reserved for the original Proprietors, but
at the same time a notice was issued inviting planters to settle in the
colony, promising one hundred acres to each settler within five years,
together with the privilege of residing in a land blest with the
doctrine of freedom of conscience. This notice was published not only in
England, but also in Barbadoes, the Bermudas, Virginia and New England,
so that the colonisation of the Carolinas was not only, nor even mainly,
undertaken by adventurers from the home country. On Albemarle River a
settlement was made from Virginia, which formed the nucleus of North
Carolina. Near Cape Fear the New Englanders also had a little colony
which was absorbed by a more prosperous settlement from Virginia.
Settlers soon came from Barbadoes, for there the news had been welcomed,
and hundreds of experienced planters showed themselves willing to accept
the offer of the Proprietors, and expressed a desire to come with their
negroes and servants. They had, no doubt, been tempted by the extra
inducements published in August 1663, when the Carolinas were advertised
as wonderfully healthy and a land capable of bearing commodities not yet
produced in other plantations as wine, oil, currants, raisins, silks,
etc. Most of the Barbadoes planters were afterwards absorbed in the
colony sent out from England forming the nucleus of South Carolina.

The history of the first year in the Carolinas is practically unknown,
except that in September the province was divided into two, and the
northern section seems to have been already settled. The growth of the
colony must have been steady, for in June 1665, Thomas Woodward,
surveyor for the Proprietors in Albemarle county, shows that the
population has increased, and that "the bounds of the county of
Albemarle, fortie miles square, will not comprehend the inhabitants
there already seated."[77] He continues to give the Proprietors
excellent advice, and recommends that they should show generosity if
they wish to encourage settlers; "so if your Lordships please to give
large Incouragement for some time till the country be more fully Peopled
your Honore may contract for the future upon what condition you please.
But for the present, To thenke that any men will remove from Virginia
upon harder Conditione then they can live there will prove (I feare) a
vaine Imagination, It bein Land only that they come for."[78] There were
however, others who continued to praise the colony, and one writer in
1670 says of Ashley River, "it is like a bowling alley, full of dainty
brooks and rivers of running water; full of large and stately
timber."[79] The reader can hardly refrain from wondering where the
resemblance to a bowling alley is to be found. Again the panegyrist says
in a somewhat peculiar sentence, "as of the land of Canaan, it may be
said it is a land flowing with milk and honey, and it lies in the same
latitude."[80] The Proprietors were very anxious to preserve this lovely
land for the "better folk," and in December 1671 Lord Ashley wrote to
Captain Holstead not to invite the poorer sort to Carolina, "for we find
ourselves mightily mistaken in endeavouring to get a great number of
poor people there, it being substantial men and their families that must
make the plantation which will stock the country with negroes, cattle,
and other necessaries, whereas others rely and eat upon us."[81]

Carolina's presiding genius and champion was Lord Shaftesbury's medical
adviser, secretary, and personal friend, John Locke. He is supposed in
1667 to have drawn up the Fundamental Constitutions which contained an
elaborate scheme of feudal government. Whether he did produce this
astounding document has never been conclusively proved, nor is it of
much value, since the principles contained in it were never enforced as
a working system, for they were neither adapted to the times nor the
conditions of a colony of freemen. By the year 1670 the elective
Assembly possessed the definite powers of appointing officers,
establishing law courts, and superintending the military defences of the
colony. These privileges did not prevent them committing a great blunder
by which the colony was converted into a paradise for the bankrupt and
the pauper, but a hell for the honest and willing settler. It was now
enacted that no colonist for the first five years after the true
foundation of the colony should be liable for any exterior debts; that
no newcomer need pay any taxes for his first year; and that marriage
should be regarded as valid if mutual consent should be declared before
the governor.

The northern section of the colony suffered most, and for fifty years
this part of Carolina was wearied by ever recurring disputes and
insurrections. "The colony indeed seems to have reached that chronic
state of anarchy when the imprisonment and deposition of a governor is a
passing incident which hardly influences the life of the community."[82]
Thus during the government of Thomas Eastchurch, who was sent out by the
Proprietors to Albemarle in 1677, there was much trouble. Eastchurch
appointed as his deputy the immoral Thomas Miller of the King's Customs.
"Now Miller had a failing, not as the Proprietors point out, the common
one of religious bigotry which had bred such dissension in New England,
but a weakness for strong liquor."[83] On his arrival he undertook to
model the Parliament, "no doubt with alcoholic readiness and assurance,
which proceeding we learn without surprise gave the people occasion to
oppose and imprison him."[84] Thereupon certain unscrupulous men took
Miller's place and began at once to collect the Customs and so defrauded
the Crown. For some short time angry words passed between the home
Government and the colony, but the storm was calmed by the restoration
of the King's duties. Eastchurch was succeeded by Culpeper, who
controlled affairs until Seth Sothel came out as governor in 1683. The
new ruler's rapacity and arbitrary conduct caused the Assembly to
depose and banish him, paying no attention to the feeble remonstrance of
the Proprietors.

Meanwhile the southern portion of Carolina, particularly the settlements
of Yeamans at Cape Fear and Sayle at Charleston, proved themselves more
orderly and promising than the anarchic Albemarle; and probably for this
reason the Proprietors displayed towards them more consideration. The
constitution which was granted to Charleston in 1670 was most liberal in
character, for not only were the freemen allowed to elect the members of
the House of Representatives, but they also possessed the privilege of
nominating ten out of the twenty councillors. As so many of the settlers
had come from Antiqua, "weary of the hurricane,"[85] or from Barbadoes,
they naturally reproduced their old methods of life, and having been
accustomed to slaves, they tried to force the Indians into servility;
but they found the Red Indian very different from the African negro, for
he was possessed of a proud spirit and remarkable cunning that saved him
from serfdom. The community of the South was one of wealthy traders who
generally lived in the capital, partly because of the fine harbour and
the insalubrious swamps inland, and partly because of the scheme of the
Proprietors by which every freeholder had a town lot one-twentieth the
extent of his whole domain.

The first governor was William Sayle, of Barbadoes, described in 1670 as
"a man of no great sufficiency."[86] It is very difficult at this
distance of time to deduce the character of this governor, for Henry
Brayne wrote, "Sayle is one of the unfittest men in the world for his
place"; and he then proceeded to call him "crazy."[87] On the other
hand, when Sayle died in 1671, being at least eighty years of age, he is
called "the good aged governor";[88] and the Council of Ashley River, on
March 4, 1671, recorded that he was "very much lamented by our people,
whose life was as dear to them as the hopes of their prosperity."[89]
Sayle's chief work during his short period of office was an attempt to
inculcate godly ways amongst the somewhat ungodly colonists. He urged
the Proprietors to send out an orthodox minister, and proposed the man
"which I and many others have lived under as the greatest of our
mercies."[90] He knew very well that some special inducement would have
to be held out to the Proprietors, and so uses the scriptural words,
"for where the Ark of God is, there is peace and tranquillity."[91]

Sayle was succeeded by Joseph West as governor in 1671, but his
appointment was only temporary, as Lord Shaftesbury in the autumn of
that year sent a commission to Sir John Yeamans. His unpopularity,
however, caused his deposition; and Joseph West was again nominated as
governor in 1674, a post which he filled with conspicuous satisfaction
and success for eleven years. While West was still in office, the Lords
Proprietor issued an order in December 1679 for the proper establishment
of Charlestown. "Wherefore we think fit to let you know that the Oyster
Point is the place we do appoint for the port-town, of which you are to
take notice and call it Charlestown, and order the meetings of the
Council to be there held, and the Secretary's, Registrar's, and
Surveyor's offices to be kept within that town. And you are to take care
to lay out the streets broad and in straight lines, and that in your
grant of town-lots you do bound everyone's land towards the streets in
an even line, and suffer no one to encroach with his buildings upon the
streets, whereby to make them narrower than they were first
designed."[92] Such was the town to which West welcomed the Huguenots
who were excluded from the colonies of their own country. The
Proprietors, too, appreciating the wisdom of their governor, afforded
the unhappy French means of cultivating their native produce of wine,
oil, and silk, so that they soon established new homes for their
distressed brethren, "who return daily into Babylon for want of such a
haven."[93] By the end of West's administration the Clarendon
settlements centering round Charlestown had become extremely well-to-do,
and the town government, which was of excellent character, administered
the affairs of about three thousand people. But the southern territory
fell into the evil ways of North Carolina; and after West's retirement,
which finally took place in 1685, a series of unsatisfactory governors
caused a continual bickering, ill-feeling, and well nigh insurrection.
Sothel, whose bad government in Albemarle was already known in the
south, was appointed governor in 1690; but after a year the southern
settlers, taking example from their northern brethren, drove him out.

The Proprietors at last found that they had had enough of this
disgusting incompetence and anarchy. The Locke Constitutions had failed
in every way; a change must be made; and it appeared that an
amalgamation of North and South under one governor might have the effect
desired. Their first choice of an administrator was most unsuccessful;
Philip Ludwell of Virginia found he had a hard task before him in
restoring peace out of chaos and anarchy. The task was too much for him,
and having proved himself incapable was succeeded by a Carolina planter,
Thomas Smith, in 1692. Bickering and quarrels continued; Indian attacks
were occasionally met and dealt with; but the southern Spaniards were an
ever present danger that made Smith's rule no sinecure. After three
years Joseph Archdale, a quaker, and one of the Proprietors, came out as
governor, but after a few months in the colony he was succeeded by his
nephew, Joseph Blake. The benign rule of both these governors gave at
last to the Carolinas a peace which they had not known for twenty years.
The Huguenots were once again welcomed by Blake, and although they had
been steadily settling in the Carolinas, particularly since the
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, yet they now obtained a more
hearty welcome and complete toleration. So much had Blake's government
done for the Carolinas that the royal special agent in 1699 records, "if
this place were duly encouraged, it would be the most useful to the
Crown of all the Plantations upon the continent of America."

There were, however, two external dangers to which the Carolinas were
exposed at the very moment they seemed to have obtained internal peace.
The first was the new French settlement on the Mississippi; the second
was the fear of Spanish aggression from Florida. The French danger was
never really very extreme, and the Carolinas escaped many of the horrors
of New England history. But the Spanish peril was true enough, for as
early as 1680 a party of Scotch Presbyterians were routed from their
little settlement at Port Royal, and this was regarded by the Carolina
settlers as a just cause of complaint and an insult to his Majesty King
Charles. To their great disappointment in 1699, when Edward Randolph was
sent out to make investigations concerning Spanish intrusions, he
brought with him no troops for their protection. At the beginning of the
eighteenth century, therefore, it appeared best to the settlers that for
their own defence they should take offensive action.

The war of the Spanish Succession, or, as it was called in the colonies,
Queen Anne's war, had broken out, and rumours had reached the settlers
of a coming Spanish onslaught. To meet this, James Moore, a political
adventurer, but a very brave and capable man, led 500 English and 800
Indian allies into Spanish territory and took the unprotected town of St
Augustine; but the fort, which was used as a last stronghold, resisted
him for three months, and as he was unprovided with siege guns, he was
obliged to retire on the appearance of a Spanish man-of-war. Nothing
daunted, but rather elated with their previous success, a larger raid
was made in 1704. Sir Nathaniel Johnstone was now governor, and he
commissioned Colonel Moore to attack Apalachee, eighty miles to the west
of St Augustine. In this action Moore was again successful, as Colonel
Brewton records that "by this conquest of Apalachee the Province was
freed from any danger from that part during the whole war."[94] The
Spaniards, however, did not remain idle, and in 1706, in alliance with
the French from Martinique, with a fleet of ten sail and a force of 800
men attacked Charlestown. The inhabitants were terrified, and their
anguish was intensified by the horror of a severe outbreak of yellow
fever. Many of them, therefore, fled from the town, but Sir Nathaniel
Johnstone routed the combined forces of France and Spain and captured no
fewer than 230 prisoners.

Factious quarrels within the Province itself now threatened the safety
of the settlers. Since 1691 North and South Carolina had been united
under one governor, but the custom had been established that the
northern portion of the colony was always under the administration of a
deputy. In 1711 Thomas Cary disputed with Edward Hyde as to which held
the office; it was decided in favour of the latter. The purely personal
quarrel drove Cary to forget his feelings of patriotism, and flying from
Carolina he stirred up the Tuscarora Indians, who, with fiendish
delight, attacked a small settlement of Germans from the Palatinate.
South Carolina, where the supreme governor dwelt, immediately dispatched
an army to the assistance of the North, with the effect that apparent
peace was gained and the army was no longer required. Immediately upon
its withdrawal, however, the Tuscaroras again fell upon the helpless
people; this was too much, vengeance must be taken; and this fierce
Indian tribe was practically decimated and forced to migrate north.

Although the Treaty of Utrecht was signed in 1713, and the Spanish War
of Succession came to an end, yet there was little hope of peace in the
West as long as either side allied with the Indians. The fate of the
Tuscaroras may have stimulated the Yamassee Indians to revenge in 1716.
In April, headed by Spaniards, they massacred about eighty inhabitants
of Granville County, South Carolina. Charles Craven, the governor,
proved himself a man of vigour, activity, and stern resolve, and by his
efforts within a few months the colony was assured of safety, and there
was apparent peace between the settlers of Carolina and the Spaniards of
Florida.

In the winter of 1719 that perpetual love of dissension, and dislike of
any federal action, was once more manifested by the Assembly of South
Carolina. The governor was a son of Sir Nathaniel Johnstone, and he had
done his best for the Proprietors, but unlike the northern portions the
South now disowned all proprietary rule and elected a governor under the
Crown. The home authorities immediately sent out Francis Nicholson, a
capable colonial official who had already had experience in New York,
Virginia, and Maryland. Ten years later the Proprietors accepted the
inevitable, and being compensated financially, handed over the Carolinas
to the Crown. They probably never regretted the bargain, as in 1739 the
war against Spain once more jeopardised the existence of the English
settlements in the south, the inhabitants of which were in chronic fear
of murder and rapine. The chief Spanish attack was made in 1742, when an
army of 5000 landed at St Simon's, owing to the failure of Captain Hardy
to intercept the enemy's fleet. The expedition was unsuccessful; the
colonists held their own; eighty prisoners were brought into
Charlestown; and the Spaniards retired.

The share taken by the two Carolinas in American history during the next
few years was far less than that of other colonies, but will be dealt
with in another chapter. The great interest of the early history of the
Carolinas is that the colony won for itself against very considerable
odds the rights of local government and freedom from the shackles of the
Proprietors. The settlers exhibited from first to last that full
determination which is peculiarly associated with those of English stock
to control their own destiny without the leading-strings of a few,
perhaps benevolent, but generally misguided, human beings, whose powers
have been conferred upon them by chance. The settlers of the Carolinas
were a dogged type of men who faced external dangers with courage and
good sense, distinctly contradictory of their pig-headed, factious,
anarchic spirit in all internal affairs.

FOOTNOTES:

[67] Hammond, _Leah and Rachel_ (London, 1656), p. 20.

[68] White, _A Relation of the Colony of the Lord Baron Baltimore in
Maryland_ (ed. 1847).

[69] _Ibid._

[70] Hammond, _ut supra._

[71] Bozman, _History of Maryland, 1633-60_ (1837), vol. ii. p. 661.

[72] Hammond, _ut supra._

[73] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1661-1668, p. 119.

[74] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1697-1698, p. 246.

[75] _Letters_, vol. i. p. 135.

[76] _Hakluyt's voyages_ (edit. 1904), vol. ix. p. 17.

[77] Saunders, editor of _Colonial Records of North Carolina_, p. 99.

[78] _Ibid._, p. 100.

[79] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1669-1674, p. 186.

[80] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1669-1674, p. 187.

[81] _Ibid._, p. 297.

[82] Doyle, _Cambridge Modern History_ (1905), vol. vii. p. 35.

[83] Fortescue, _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1677-1680, p. ix.

[84] _Ibid._, p. ix.

[85] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1669-1674, p. 620.

[86] _Ibid._, p. 130.

[87] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1669-1674, p. 137.

[88] _Ibid._, p. 187.

[89] _Ibid._, p. 169.

[90] _Ibid._, p. 70.

[91] _Ibid._, p. 86.

[92] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1677-1680, p. 455.

[93] _Ibid._, p. xi.

[94] _Historical Collections of South Carolina_ (New York, 1836).

CHAPTER IV

THE PURITANS IN PLYMOUTH AND MASSACHUSETTS

It has been customary to regard the members of the colony of Virginia as
Cavaliers of the most ardent type, but, as has been shown, this is
scarcely correct, and amongst the Virginians there were many who did not
approve of either the actions of Laud or the dissimulation of Charles.
In much the same way it would be erroneous to ascribe to the New England
group a plebeian origin. The Virginian gentleman found his counterpart
in the New England colonies of Plymouth and Massachusetts. It is,
however, more true to describe these two colonies as the offspring and
embodiment of Puritanism, than to describe Virginia as purely
monarchical. In the northern colonies, congregationalism was the chief
form of religious worship, and this, as was natural, determined their
political form; it was no insurmountable step from a belief in
congregations to a belief in republics. The men who found this step so
easy were a very different pattern to the early ne'er-do-wells of
Virginian colonisation. The northern colonies were founded by the yeoman
and the trader, both of whom were patient, watchful, and ready to assert
with an Englishman's doggedness all political rights. These men formed
small organic communities filled with the very strongest sense of
corporate life. Not that these forms took an absolutely exact line, for
in some cases the community was a pure democracy with limitations and
restrictions; in others there was a very wide and modified oligarchy.
The men were the very best of settlers; they knew what they wanted, and
were ready to work and even sacrifice their lives to gain that object.
It is not surprising that in the New England colonies prosperity raised
its head long before it had come to Virginia, though the soil of the
latter was far more fertile than the sterile lands of the northern
group.

The Plymouth Company had been formed at the same time as the London
Company, but it had accomplished very little.[95] In 1607 it dispatched
an expedition under George Popham and Raleigh Gilbert to the River
Kennebec, in the territory afterwards called Maine. The climate,
however, did not suit the adventurers, and owing to the mismanagement of
the leaders and the indifference of the Company nothing came of the
undertaking. For thirteen years the Plymouth Company made no further
effort, but in 1620 it was entirely reorganised, placed upon a new
footing, and renamed the New England Company. This may have been caused
by two things. In the first place Captain John Smith had made a voyage
to New England in 1614; it was indeed that resourceful but perhaps
boastful adventurer who either gave the name by which the country was
afterwards known, or gave currency to an already existing though not
generally accepted title. "In the moneth of Aprill, 1614 ... I chanced
to arrive in _New-England_, a parte of _Ameryca_ at the _Ile of
Monahiggin_, in 43-½ of Northerly Latitude."[96] But even this voyage
and the several others that followed would not have been sufficient to
arouse the Plymouth Company. It was in truth a second and deeper cause
that started the reorganisation of a corporation that had so long lain
dormant. A new force had now entered into colonisation that was to do
much for the establishment of the Anglo-Saxon race in America. Religion
had sent men to convert the savages, but now religious persecution sent
men to make homes amongst those barbarians.

It is unnecessary here to discuss the rise of the Puritans as an
important sect in English history. They were those "whose minds had
derived a peculiar character from the daily contemplation of superior
beings and eternal interests."[97] They differed in nearly every respect
from the ordinary Englishman of the Elizabethan period, and yet they
were in many instances intellectual and well-bred. They saw, however,
that "they could not have the Word freely preached and the sacraments
administered without idolatrous gear," and so they concluded to break
away from the Church. It was this separation that gained for them the
name of Separatists, and brought upon them the punishment of the State.
To avoid this some sought leave from Elizabeth to settle in the land
"which lieth to the west," their object being to "settle in Canada and
greatly annoy the bloody and persecuting Spaniard in the Bay of
Mexico."[98] Such was the knowledge of geography about 1591, and it was
very fortunate for the would-be-colonists that nothing came of the
scheme. Two years later some Independents of London fled to Amsterdam,
where they hoped to exercise their religion unmolested. Soon after the
beginning of the seventeenth century the Nonconformists of Gainsborough
took refuge in the Low Countries, to be followed in 1606 by the
Congregationalists from Scrooby. They first found shelter in Amsterdam,
and later, some, choosing John Robinson as their minister, moved to
Leyden.

The laws of England had driven these men abroad, but they never forgot
the fact that they were Englishmen. They found their families growing up
around them and naturally imbibing foreign ideas. This fact deeply
pained the parents, who looked back upon their own happy youths in Tudor
England. They determined, therefore, to leave the Netherlands, and
William Bradford, their faithful chronicler, tells in quaint but honest
words why they were driven to this decision. "In y^e agitation of their
thoughts, and much discours of things hear aboute; at length they began
to incline to this new conclusion, of remooual to some other place. Not
out of any new fanglednes, or other such like giddie humor, by which men
are oftentimes transported to their great hurt & danger. But for sundrie
weightie & solid reasons."[99] The most serious of these reasons "and of
all sorowes most heauie to be borne; was that many of their children, by
these occasions (and y^e great licentiousnes of youth in y^t countrie)
and y^e manifold Temptations of the place, were drawne away by euill
examples into extrauagante & dangerous courses, getting y^e raines off
their neks & departing from their parents. Some became souldjers,
others took vpon them farr viages by Sea; and other some worse courses
... so that they saw their posteritie would be in danger to degenerate &
be corrupted."[100] It was for this reason, then, in particular, that
the people of the congregation of Leyden turned their thoughts to the
"countries of America which are frutful & fitt for habitation; being
deuoyed of all ciuill Inhabitants; wher ther are only saluage & brutish
men which range vp and downe, litle otherwise than y^e wild beasts of
the same."[101] And yet though they sought a home for themselves where
they might worship as they pleased, they were at the same time filled
with that missionary spirit which had encouraged Columbus and many
another adventurer to persevere. Their great aim was to lay "some good
foundation or at least make some way thereunto, for y^e propagating &
advancing y^e gospell of y^e Kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of
y^e world; yea, though they should be but even as stepping stones unto
others for y^e performing of so great a work."[102]

With these intentions the ever famous Pilgrim Fathers came to England,
bringing with them a document admitting the supremacy of the State in
religious matters. The wording of the clauses, however, was so artful
that these Puritans proved that though gentle as doves they were not
without the wisdom of the serpent. They obtained leave from James I. to
set out on their voyage; but they were financed by certain London
traders who were to receive all the profits for the first seven years,
when the partnership was to be dissolved. Until this dissolution the
whole band was to live as a community with joint property, trade, and
labour. A few labourers were sent out by the London partners, but the
group to which the term of Pilgrim Fathers strictly applies was composed
of forty-one Puritan emigrants and their families, who had, as a friend
said, "been instrumental to break the ice for others; the honours shall
be yours to the world's end."[103] The voyage of the _Mayflower_ is now
one of the most familiar events in the history of the British Empire.
The little vessel, accompanied by the _Speedwell_, which had to return,
sailed from Plymouth in August 1620. The original intention of the
emigrants had been to land on part of the shores of Virginia; but owing
to storms, the fragile character of the vessel, and the obstinacy of the
captain, they reached Cape Cod, "which is onely a headland of high hils
of sand ouergrowne with shrubbie pines hurts and such trash."[104] While
lying off this inhospitable promontory the emigrants with forethought
bound themselves together by a social compact, thus forming a true body
politic.

The Pilgrims landed at a spot "fit for habitation" in Cape Cod Harbour
on the 22nd of December. Exploring expeditions were undertaken by the
more adventurous under Miles Standish, a man after the type of Captain
John Smith, but less boastful and of sterner religious character. No
definite settlement was fixed upon and the people were therefore forced
to remain in the neighbourhood of Cape Cod, where they faced the winter
unprepared. Although their minister, John Robinson, had described them
months before as "well-weaned from the delicate milk of the Mother
country and inurred to the difficulties of a strange land,"[105] yet
their sufferings during those wild and stormy months must have been
terrible. Several of the party died, amongst them their first governor,
William Carver. His successor was the already mentioned chronicler,
William Bradford, who served the colony well and faithfully for twelve
years. He was the first American citizen of English birth who was
selected as governor by free choice. His strength of character, moral
rectitude, and lofty public spirit made him worthy of the high office
conferred upon him. Fortunately his first year of government was freed
from the burden of Indian attacks. The truth was that the Pilgrim
Fathers always preserved friendly relations with the neighbouring
Redskins; partly because they had been so reduced in numbers by
pestilence that they were never a serious danger, and partly owing to
Edward Winslow, one of the ablest and most highly educated of the
settlers, who had saved, by his knowledge of medicine, the Indian
chief's life, thus establishing from the first amicable relations.

Amidst the most heart-rending adversity the Pilgrim Fathers worked at
the communal industry, and struggled through those months of cold and
semi-starvation, helped no doubt by the fact that they were religious
enthusiasts filled with a sense of a divine mission. In May 1621
Bradford records the first marriage amongst the settlers, which was
conducted on somewhat novel lines, for "according to y^e laudable
custome of y^e Low-cuntries, in which they had liued was thought most
requisite to be performed, by the magistrate."[106] In November fifty
additional settlers came out from the Leyden congregation, and these not
only increased the difficulty of supplying food for everyone, but also
introduced a feeling of dissatisfaction with what they found. Bradford
had, however, the laugh on his side. On Christmas Day the Governor
called them to work as usual, but "the new company ... said it wente
against their consciences to work on y^t day." They were therefore
allowed to remain at home, the rest of the colony going out to work; but
when the governor came home at noon, "he found them in y^e streete at
play openly; some pitching y^e barr & some at stoole-ball and such like
sports. So he went to them and tooke away their Implements and tould
them that it was against his conscience, that they should play & others
worke."[107]

The settlers had indeed laboured hard and not in vain, for a definite
grant of their territory was issued by the New England Company, and
there was now no fear of their log-fort, their houses, or their
twenty-six acres of cleared ground being seized by the original members
to whom the land had been granted by James I. The little plot of ground
thus carefully tended seems to have been a real oasis in the wilderness.
An eye-witness, Edward Winslow, has drawn an ideal picture of the
settlement. "Here are grapes, white and red, and very sweet and strong
also; strawberries, gooseberries, raspas, etc.; plums of three sorts,
white, black and red, being almost as good as a damson; abundance of
roses, white, red and damask; single but very sweet indeed. The country
wanted only industrious men to employ."[108] With such a tempting
account it is not surprising that thirty-five new settlers went out in
1622.

The communal principle gradually began to break down. The younger men
did not care to work so hard and find that they gained no more than the
weak and aged; nor were the married men pleased with the idea of their
wives cooking, washing, and sewing for the bachelors. As early as 1623,
signs of the disappearance of the system were beginning to show
themselves; and by 1627 its break up was completed when the interests of
the London partners were transferred to six of the chief settlers with a
general division of land and live stock. The government of the
settlement was now placed on an assured footing; the laws were passed by
the whole body of freemen, who had also the double right of electing the
governor and a committee of seven assistants. Under the new methods the
colony throve apace, and three years after the change, two new townships
were formed and these sent delegates to an assembly which was primarily
composed of the whole body of freemen, but which, owing to the existence
of these delegates, gradually developed, until in New Plymouth there was
a proper bicameral legislature with a governor at its head.

The Plymouth colonists set "the example of a compact religious
brotherhood."[109] In 1636 they passed a code of laws which in no way
clashed with those of England, but applied more especially to the style
of life which they had adopted. The brotherhood extended its bounds year
by year, and hardly a score of years had passed since their first
landing before eight prim, clean, and comfortable towns had been built,
containing a population of about 3000 inhabitants. By this time the
Civil War had broken out in England, but the settlers were little
affected by it, for they lived their own quiet lives and went on their
way, filled with religious fervour and working hard to support
themselves.

After the Restoration, however, they felt bound to bestir themselves in
political affairs, and in June 1661 their general court sent a petition
to Charles II., asking him to confirm their liberties, explaining to him
that they were his faithful subjects "who did hither transport ourselves
to serve our God with a pure conscience, according to His will revealed,
not a three days' journey as Moses, but near three thousand miles into a
vast howling wilderness, inhabited only by barbarians." They concluded
their petition in the quaintest words, saying that if only the King will
grant their wishes, "we say with him, it is enough, our Joseph (or
rather) our Charles is yet alive."[110] The poverty of the Plymouth
brethren about this time is evidenced by their lack of funds necessary
for the renewal of their charter in 1665; and also in the fact that the
people were not able to maintain scholars for their ministers, "but are
necessitated to make use of a gifted brother in some places."[111]
Nevertheless in this same year they are computed to have had a fighting
force of 2500 men; and on two later occasions (1676 and 1690) they were
strong enough to make strenuous but ineffectual attempts to obtain a
charter from the Crown. The little colony that has perhaps the proudest
of all positions in American history was finally, in 1691, merged in its
more arrogant and pushing neighbour Massachusetts, and the land of the
Pilgrim Fathers lost its identity.

Just as Puritanism had been the cause of the foundation of New Plymouth,
so it was in the case of Massachusetts. Lord Macaulay has pointed out
that "the Puritan was made up of two different men, the one all
self-abasement, penitent gratitude, passion; the other proud, calm,
inflexible, sagacious."[112] The first type represented New Plymouth,
where Puritanism was distressed, and where its followers struggled
manfully but were self-abased. Massachusetts, on the other hand,
resembled the second type; here Puritanism was vigorous; the upholders
of the belief were aggressive, strong, determined, and pushing. Thus the
two colonies were not only different in character, but for that very
reason were destined to differ in prosperity.

As early as 1620, Sir Ferdinando Gorges and others had been interested
in the colonisation of New England; and in a document issued in the
following year, strict injunctions were laid down for the carrying out
of material fit for the foundation of a settlement. Thus, every "shipp
of three score tons shall carry w^{th} them twoe Piggs, two Calves, twoe
couple of tame Rabbetts, two couple of Hens and a cocke."[113] Nothing,
however, seems to have been permanently established, and within two
years this New England Company is said to have been "in a moribund
condition."[114] In 1623 some Dorchester traders started a fishing
station at Cape Ann, Massachusetts Bay. The manager was Roger Conant,
who had disagreed with his brethren in New Plymouth and had separated
from them. Three years later the scheme was abandoned; most of the
settlers returned except Conant and a small band who "squatted" at
Naumkeag, better known in later years as Salem. The failure of the
merchants did not discourage John White, incumbent of Dorchester, and he
determined to form a settlement for Puritans, from which there sprang
the colony of Massachusetts. Matters were at once hurried on, and in
1629 six Puritan partners obtained a grant of land from the New England
Company, which was to extend westward as far as the Pacific Ocean, then
believed to be but a short distance. One of the partners, John Endecott,
was selected to occupy the land. On his arrival he had some trouble with
an earlier but somewhat disreputable squatter called Morton, who had
formed a little colony, Merry Mount, where, apparently, his perfectly
innocent sports, such as dancing round the Maypole, annoyed the stern
New Englanders, and made them class such diversions as "beastly
practices." Endecott took strong measures, and as the Maypole was
particularly disgusting to the Puritan mind, he settled the matter by
hewing "down the _infelix arbor_."[115]

A royal charter was readily granted in March 1629, establishing the
Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay, but omitting to insist on the
Company's meetings being held in England. It was not a very great step,
therefore, to transfer the schemes of a mere trading company to the
principles of a self-sufficing colony; and before the end of the year
the interests of the traders passed into the hands of ten persons who
were particularly concerned in the prosperity of the colony, which in
the future was regarded as perfectly distinct from the Company. The
necessary preliminaries having been satisfactorily concluded, emigration
began at once. The character of the colonists was very superior to that
of the "riff-raff" that had been sent to Virginia. Some of the most
intellectual clergymen of the day took a deep interest in the
undertaking, a few indeed actually accompanied the three hundred and
fifty settlers who embarked for their new homes.

"The first beginning of this worke seemed very dolorous," writes the
chronicler, but the people were most fortunate in their choice of
governor, John Winthrop. He was a man of forty-three years of age, who
had received a good education at Cambridge and had some knowledge of the
law; he had passed the latter years of his life, before emigration, as a
Suffolk squire, and had been moulded in the school of Hampden. His
character was of the best, and he is revered as one of the strongest and
certainly one of the most lovable of the early settlers in America. He
was a thorough Puritan, but of that type of which Charles Kingsley wrote
and made so attractive. Like his brethren the governor showed humility,
but unlike so many he was sweet-tempered and moderate; not that he was
too gentle, for his decisive mind and sound constructive statesmanship
saved him from any appearance of weakness. It may be said, in short,
that Winthrop, as a man of wealth, of good birth, and of great
abilities, was the most remarkable Puritan statesman in colonial
history. He was assisted in his work by "the worthy Thomus Dudly,
Esq.,"[116] as Deputy Governor, and Mr Simon Brodstreet as Secretary.
Endecott's original settlement had been at Charlestown, where the
colonists had pitched some tents of cloth and built a few small huts;
but in 1630 Winthrop moved to Boston, which became the capital, and
within a few months eight small settlements were established along
Boston Bay.

A regular representative assembly with governor and assistants soon
became necessary, its importance being brought forward by the Watertown
protest. The freemen of this settlement refused to pay a tax of £60 to
fortify the new town of Cambridge, "and delivered their opinions, that
it was not safe to pay moneys after that sort for fear of bringing
themselves and posterity into bondage."[117] Thus it was seen that a
representative assembly was indispensable; it was not, however, until a
lost pig in 1644 had caused a petty civil suit which led to a quarrel
between the deputies and assistants that the Massachusetts parliament
became bicameral. Long before this the colony had been regarded with
disfavour in England. Archbishop Laud was only too ready to listen to
any stories against the Puritans; the colony was therefore solemnly
arraigned before the Privy Council and the three chief members were
questioned as to the conduct of the rest; and as an immediate
consequence the intending settlers of the year 1634 were not allowed to
sail without taking the oath of allegiance and promising to conform to
the Book of Common Prayer. The emigrants were willing enough to
subscribe to these as England was becoming unbearable. Laud with his
Arminian theories, Pym with his revolutionary ideas, and Charles with
his irresolution, were gradually causing a distinct emigration to what
the newcomers imagined was a land of peace. They arrived to find it in a
bellicose state, for the fact that a royal Commission of twelve, with
Laud at the head, had been appointed to administer the affairs of the
colonies, had so alarmed them that the colonists had started to fortify
Dorchester, Charlestown, and Castle Island.

Nothing perhaps is more astonishing than the bitter intolerance of those
who had fled to find toleration; but to the Puritan toleration was only
significant of indifference, and was therefore an abhorrent principle at
the very time he so sorely needed it. The religious dissensions during
the early years of the colony of Massachusetts illustrate the fanatical
and bigoted character of the Puritan quite as clearly as any particular
event or series of events in English history. It is painful to find even
in the first few months of the settlement, when Endecott was still in
command, many evidences of intolerance. John and Samuel Browne collected
a congregation and conducted the service according to the Book of Common
Prayer; but so horrible did this appear to Endecott that these luckless
men were expelled from the colony. Two years later political and social
rights were intimately connected with religious privileges by an
ordinance that no one was to be a freeman unless he belonged to a
church; and this was still further extended in 1635, so that no man
could vote at a town meeting unless he possessed the ecclesiastical
qualification.

Religious troubles were fomented, after 1631, by the able but bigoted
Roger Williams. He was a man of very considerable gifts, being both an
energetic and attractive preacher, but at the same time filled with an
intense hatred of Erastianism. As soon as he arrived he was chosen
minister of Salem, where he exhibited his imperfect sense of proportion
and gained for himself the title of "a haberdasher of small
questions."[118] His energy and impulsiveness led him astray, and the
more intellectual could hardly fail to see that his mind was incapable
of distinguishing the vital from the trifle. His political doctrines
forced him into extraordinary actions, such as that of persuading
Endecott to cut the cross out of the royal ensign; while at the same
time he not only denied the English sovereign's right to grant territory
in North America, but also with equal vehemence repudiated all secular
control in religious affairs. For four years the freemen of
Massachusetts quietly suffered Roger Williams' whimsicalities, but in
October 1635 their patience had come to an end, and the General Court of
the Colony banished him with twenty of his disciples, as his sympathetic
chronicler says, "and that in the extremity of winter, forcing him to
betake himselfe into the vast wilderness to sit down amongst the
Indians."[119] The kindly governor, John Winthrop, does not seem to have
approved of the verdict, for many years afterwards Roger Williams wrote
"that ever honoured Governour Mr Winthrop privately wrote to me to steer
my course to Nahigonset Bay.... I took his prudent motion as an hint and
voice from God, and waving all other thoughts and motions, I steered my
course from Salem (though in winter snow which I feel yet) unto these
parts, wherein I may say Peniel, that is, I have seene the face of
God."[120]

During the year 1635 three notable personages came to the colony. The
first was Henry Vane, the younger, "who," wrote Winthrop, "being a young
gentleman of excellent parts, and had been employed by his father (when
he was ambassador) in foreign affairs; yet, being called to the
obedience of the gospel, forsook the honors and preferments of the
court, to enjoy the ordinances of Christ in their purity here."[121] The
other two recruits were, John Wheelwright, a clergyman, and his sister
Mrs Anne Hutchinson, who was a woman of great learning and brilliance,
but by instinct an agitator of a most indiscreet and impetuous
character; although both acute and resolute, she allowed herself to be
carried away by her passion for theological controversy. Her religious
views were Antinomian and were strongly opposed to the doctrines of the
Puritans, who believed in justification by faith, strengthened by
sanctified works. To Governor Winthrop the distinction between the two
doctrines appeared to be a mere jargon of words, and he was not very far
wrong when he said "no man could tell, except some few who knew the
bottom of the matter, where any difference was."[122] Mrs Hutchinson
soon had a large following, including Wheelwright, Thomas Hooker, and
John Cotton, but the latter deserted her and refused to follow her in
all her heresies. In 1636 she was strongly supported by Harry Vane, who
was for a short time the governor; but in the following year both she
and her brother were tried before the General Court and were banished
as heretics.

Meantime the education of Massachusetts was not neglected, as is proved
by the foundation in 1636 of Harvard College at Cambridge, for "it
pleased God to stir up the heart of one Mr Harvard (a godly gentleman
and a lover of learning, then living amongst us) to give the one halfe
of his Estate (it being in all about 1700 _l._) towards the erecting of a
Colledge, and all his Library."[123] The building was erected rapidly
and was "very faire and comely within and without,"[124] says an
anonymous writer in 1641; but Charles II.'s commissioners do not seem to
have been so much impressed, as twenty years later they speak of it as a
wooden college. The great days of Harvard had not as yet arrived; nor
indeed was the learning more advanced even as late as 1680, for the
whole place is described by two Dutch visitors as smelling like a
tavern. "We inquired," they say, "how many professors there were, and
they replied not one, that there was no money to support one."[125] But
out of such small beginnings a great educational establishment rose
which has won for itself a famous name and added lustre to the annals of
the colony.

It seemed extremely likely that the war-clouds that had arisen in the
Old Country might drift across the Atlantic to New England. It was for
this reason that some sort of confederation between the colonies was
proposed; and in 1643 Massachusetts, New Haven, Plymouth, and
Connecticut formed the first New England Confederacy. A distinct desire
for religious and political unity had been in the air for some time,
not only because of the dread of Dutch and Indian attack, but also
because it was hoped that intercolonial quarrels might be checked, and a
firm and united attitude might be shown towards any encroachments on the
part of the British Government. There were, however, in this
confederation two essential weaknesses which sooner or later would
inevitably wreck the whole scheme. In the first place Massachusetts was
by far the largest, richest, and most prosperous of the colonies; it was
therefore called upon to contribute the largest share, but received no
more than the weaker and poorer members of the Union. Secondly, although
the federal government was exactly what was wanted, it could exercise no
direct control over the citizens of any particular colony. This latter
was probably the chief cause of the non-success of the confederation.
Maine and the settlements along the Narragansett Bay in vain pleaded to
be enrolled in the first United States; but they were refused as being
neither sufficiently settled nor possessing political order. The four
confederate colonies bound themselves by written conditions and were
denominated "The United Colonies of New England." It was obvious from
the very beginning that disagreement would come, if for no other reason
because of the struggle that was taking place in England. Massachusetts
was no more for the Parliament than for the King, while the other New
England colonies were as a whole sturdy supporters of Pym and his party.
Disagreement bred disagreement, as is seen in the proposal to fight the
Dutch in America, while Blake was winning fame in European waters. This,
however, was prevented by the commissioners of one colony standing out
against the opinions of the others. A similar lack of unity was only
too apparent in 1654, when Massachusetts consented to make war against
the Nyantic Indians, but the indifference and incapacity of their
captain caused general dissatisfaction among the rest of the
confederation.

The attitude of Massachusetts toward England during the Civil Wars was a
most unsatisfactory one; it was as it were prophetic of what was to
come. The contemptuous and haughty indifference shown by the colony to
Cromwell was not because of any deep-seated loyalty to Charles I.; it
was rather the exhibition of an independent spirit and a desire to leave
England and English affairs strictly alone, if they were allowed, in
turn, to live under the government of a governor and magistrates of
their own choosing and under laws of their own making. This feeling does
not seem to have been understood in England, and at the time of the
Restoration the colony was regarded as having been Parliamentarian in
its sympathies, whereas indeed it had been separatist. The Royal
Commissioners in 1661 found that Massachusetts "was the last and hardest
persuaded to use his Majesty's name in their forms of justice";[126] and
yet in February the King was petitioned to look upon the colonists
kindly and "let not the Kinge heare men's wordes: your servants are true
men, fearers of God and the Kinge, not given to change, zealous of
government and peaceable in Israel, we are not seditious as to the
interest of Cæsar nor schismaticks as to the matters of religion."[127]

The religion of Massachusetts was, at this time, of the narrowest and
most bigoted type. The colonists were intolerant of any opinion save
their own, and their cruel fanaticism was excited particularly against
the humble and law-abiding sect of Quakers. The General Court at Boston
regarded the Quakers as a positive danger to the State, and as people
"who besides their absurd and blasphemous doctrines, do like rogues and
vagabonds come in upon us."[128] In 1656 two Quaker women landed at
Boston; they were immediately treated with extreme brutality and finally
banished to the Barbadoes. This led to further definite enactments, and
at the instigation of some of the most intolerant clergy of Boston, an
act was passed imposing the penalty of death in cases of extreme
obstinacy. So brutal were the punishments inflicted even where no
extreme obstinacy was shown that it is probable that death was
preferable and welcomed by the ill-treated wretches who had fallen into
the hands of these fanatics. At the Restoration, Edward Burrough, an
English Quaker, took up the case of his brethren in Massachusetts, and
laid before Charles II. a list of brutalities that were only equalled by
the horrors of the Inquisition. We read of men being whipped
twenty-three times, receiving 370 stripes from a whip with three knotted
cords; two unhappy wretches were cut to bits by 139 blows from pitched
ropes, one being "brought near unto death, much of his body being beat
like unto a jelly."[129] Others were put neck and heels in irons, or
burnt deeply in the hand; some had their ears cut off by the hangman;
while many other free-born subjects of the King were "sold for bondmen
and bondwomen to Barbadoes, Virginia, or any of the English
Plantations."[130] Burrough succeeded in persuading the King to take
some action, and the Massachusetts Council was severely reprimanded for
the treatment it had meted out to the Quakers. As a result of the King's
interference the General Court at Boston determined in 1661 to act with
as much lenity as possible to the Quakers, but to prevent their
intrusion it was recognised that "a sharp law" against them was a
necessity.

During the last quarter of the seventeenth century the New England
Confederacy, including Massachusetts, was disturbed by all the horrors
of Indian warfare. In the year 1670 the Pokanoket Indians under their
chief Metacam, or as he was generally known, King Philip, became
unfriendly. For some time the warfare was not of a very serious
character, but at last in 1674 an Indian convert brought news of a
general attack, and paid the penalty of his fidelity to the English by
being murdered by Philip or one of his braves. The Indian chief now fell
upon the extreme south of New Plymouth, and fire, murder, and rapine
were common throughout the land. The Puritans of Boston, under their
Governor Leverett, saw in this terrible slaughter the hand of the Lord,
and in November the whole city passed a day of humiliation. Within the
chapels and homes their sins were openly acknowledged, but the people
showed more of the spirit of the Pharisee than of the Publican in this
humiliation before God. They penitently confessed that they had
neglected divine service, but what was to them still worse, they had
shown sinful lenity to the heretical sect of Quakers, and had indeed
invited the Almighty's wrath by an extravagance in apparel and in
wearing long hair. Pharisaical as this day of humiliation sounds, the
greater number of the people were probably genuine in their attitude
towards what they regarded as sin; and certainly when the time came they
were ready to prove themselves sturdy fighters. It was only natural that
the settlers should be successful in the end, for as a civilised people
they were better armed and better organised, but their victory was
delayed in the coming, and when the war was really over they found that
it had cost them dear. Edward Randolph writing at the time sums up the
English losses at a high figure. "The losse to the English in the
severall colonies in their habitations and stock, is reckoned to amount
to 150,000 l., there having been about 1200 houses burned, 8000 head of
cattle great and small, killed, and many thousand bushels of wheat,
pease and other grain burned ... and upward of 3000 Indians, men, women
and children destroyed."[131] King Philip, who had caused all this
destruction, was in 1676 hunted down and shot "with a brace of bullets
... this seasonable prey was soon divided, they cut off his Head and
Hands and conveyed them to Rhode Island, and quartered his Body and hung
it upon four trees."[132] With this last act of unnecessary barbarity
the Indian power was broken, and Philip's war was at an end.

Meantime the administration of New England had been vested in the hands
of special commissioners, whose powers were transferred to the Privy
Council. Under this system, revenue officers appointed in England were
sent out in 1675 to enforce the Navigation Acts, which were excellent as
a stimulus to English shipping, but were nevertheless retrograde with
regard to the colonies. Edward Randolph was despatched to America to
report upon the working of the colonial system under these famous laws,
and he showed, even as early as this, that the revenue acts were openly
violated by the people, who, a century later, were to be notorious for
their smuggling proclivities. Massachusetts was looked upon by the home
authorities with the strongest suspicion, which was still further
intensified by Edward Randolph's eight specific charges against the
settlers. (1) That they have no right to the land or government in any
part of New England, and that they have always been regarded as
usurpers; (2) that they have formed themselves into a commonwealth,
denying appeals to England, and refusing to take the oath of allegiance;
(3) that they have protected the regicides; (4) that they coin their own
money with their own impress; (5) that in 1665 they opposed the King's
commissioners with armed force; (6) that they have put men to death for
matters of religion; (7) that they impose an oath of fidelity to their
government; (8) that they have violated all the acts of Trade and
Navigation to the annual loss of £100,000 to the King's Customs. After
these charges had reached England, the agents of the Massachusetts
government, William Stoughton and Peter Bulkeley, were called upon to
answer the serious indictment. They pleaded that they were unable to
answer any other questions but those concerning the business on which
they had come; but they agreed that as private individuals they would
make some kind of defence, and at the same time promised, on behalf of
the settlers, amendment in the future. This submission only acted as an
incentive for further attack, and Randolph now charged the "Bostoners"
with denying the right of baptism to those not born in church
fellowship; and also with fining certain persons for absenting
themselves from the meeting-houses. The Committee of Trade and
Plantations next turned to the Charter of the colony, and this was
severely criticised; then the Laws of the colony were discussed, and
many illegal imposts were discovered. Amongst other things it was seen
that three shillings and fourpence was the fine levied for galloping in
the streets of Boston; that five shillings was demanded from those who
dared to observe Christmas Day, and that no less than £5 was the fine
for importing playing cards; with all of which they now found serious
fault, though it must be allowed that they tended to create "an ideally
holy and unhappy community."[133] All this time Stoughton and Bulkeley
were most anxious to return to America, but they were obliged to stay
all through 1678, and it was only in 1679 that they were able to leave,
because England was too busy with the Popish Plot to worry about the
affairs of the far distant Massachusetts. The matter, however, was by no
means finished. Randolph was determined to bring the colony to book; and
when he was again sent out in 1680 to supervise the customs he at once
renewed his charges. "The Bostoners, after all the protestations by
their agents, are acting as high as ever, and the merchants trading as
freely; no ship having been seized for irregular trading, although they
did in 1677 make a second law to prevent it."[134] He then says that
his life was threatened by these smugglers, and that as he has only life
and hope left, he is unwilling to expose himself to the rage of a
bewildered multitude. He concludes by beseeching for strong measures,
which he considers are essential, and "for his Majesty to write more
letters will signify no more than the London Gazette."[135] This appeal
had its effect, and the King practically threatened to land redcoats in
Boston "a century before their time, when there should be no Washington
to organise resistance, no European coalition to distract their
operations, and no French fleet and army to drive them from the
Continent."[136]

Even after this thundering declaration the actions of the settlers were
not always in accordance with strict loyalty, and in 1684, though their
agents loudly protested, the Court of Chancery decreed the Massachusetts
Charter to be null and void. James II.'s well-intentioned efforts
carried out in the wrong way by the wrong methods, and generally by the
wrong men, deprived him of popularity both in his home dominions and in
his growing Empire in the West. His great scheme for the colonies was
one of union; but his action was far more destructive than anything that
George III. ever proposed or imagined. The representative principle was
snatched from the youthful colonies; and they were deprived of their
legislative, executive and financial rights, which were given to a royal
Governor and Council, ruling an united province entitled New England,
and bearing a special flag of its own. The Governor appointed by the
King was Colonel Sir Edmund Andros, a very active and most capable
administrator, but an ardent churchman, and therefore particularly
unacceptable to the Puritan colonies of the New England group. He was by
no means a young man when he arrived to take over the administration in
December 1686, but with surprising energy he set about doing what he
could by extending the frontier against the Indians, and establishing a
line of garrisoned forts to keep them in awe. Discontent, however, was
visible on every side; Connecticut refused to give up its charter,
which, according to tradition, was hidden in an oak; while the town of
Ipswich, Mass. refused like Watertown many years earlier to pay taxes
without representation. When James issued his Declaration of Indulgence
some of the best of the Massachusetts colonists imagined that it meant
real toleration; Increase Mather was one of these. He had conducted the
diplomatic relations of the colony during the struggle over the charter;
he was well-beloved as the minister of the old North Church of Boston,
and as President of Harvard College. For these reasons he was once again
selected as mediator, and was deputed to plead with James on behalf of
his colony, but like so many in England he found that he had come on a
fruitless errand, and that genuine toleration was very far from the
thoughts of the Papist King.

The news of the Revolution in England in November 1688 aroused the
people of Massachusetts. Sir Edmund Andros, instead of accepting the
inevitable, arrested John Winslow, the bearer of the good tidings. The
discontent which had long been simmering beneath the surface now broke
out. The covetousness of the rulers, the ruination of trade, the
oppression of the people, and that "base drudgerie" to which they had
been put stirred them to a state of frenzy. Boston and Charlestown
armed; Andros was unable to quell the fury, and he was captured by his
subordinates, who claimed that "the exercise of Sir Edmund's commission,
so contrarie to the Magna Charta, is surely enough to call him to
account by his superiors."[137] In this the people of New England made a
mistake, for although Andros was sent over to England with a party of
his accusers, he was only examined by the Lords of the Committee for
Trade and Plantations, and was almost immediately released without being
finally tried.

The rule of William and Mary in England was acknowledged willingly in
Massachusetts. A new charter was granted to the colony, in which it was
stated that the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor and Secretary were to be
appointed by the Crown. The franchise was now based upon a property
qualification, and the religious oligarchy was swept away. The first
Council was nominated by the Crown, but in the future the members were
to be selected by the General Court. The little colony that owed its
origin to the Pilgrim Fathers was incorporated within the prosperous
bounds of Massachusetts, which from this date to the great schism
remained a Crown colony with distinct tendencies towards, and sometimes
clearly expressed desires of, emancipation and independence. "It was not
as though the colony complained of grievances which could be enquired
into and put right; it simply adopted towards England now openly and
now by equivocation an attitude of 'hands off.'"[138]

The first Governor of the new Crown colony was that romantic character,
Sir William Phipps. He was born in 1650 on a small plantation on the
banks of the Kennebec; he was one of twenty-six children, and until
eighteen years of age kept "sheep in the wilderness." There is little
doubt that from early times he was determined to succeed, and he always
prophesied that one day he would be the owner of a fair brick house in
Green Lane, North Boston. According to his earliest biographer he was
one of the most remarkable men of his day, being "of an Enterprising
Genius and naturally disclaimed Littleness: But in his Disposition for
Business was of the Dutch Mould, where with a little show of Wit, there
is much Wisdom demonstrated, as can be shewn by any Nation. His Talent
lay not in the Airs that serve chiefly for the pleasant and sudden Turns
of Conversation; but he might say as Themistocles, Though he could not
play the Fiddle, yet he knew how to make a little City become a great
One. He would prudently contrive a weighty Undertaking, and then
patiently pursue it unto the End. He was of an Inclination, cutting
rather like a Hatchet than like a Razor."[139] Such was the character of
this man, who, in 1683, found himself the Captain of a King's ship. In
1687 he was fortunate enough to discover a wrecked vessel filled with
treasure, and after being entertained and knighted by James II. he
returned to New England to build the "fair brick house" of which he had
foretold. After the resettlement of Massachusetts, which now
practically extended from Rhode Island to New Brunswick, excluding New
Hampshire, Phipps was appointed Governor. He owed his appointment to the
favour of Increase Mather, but it seems to have been welcomed generally,
for Phipps was at first popular, generous, and well-meaning. At the
outset he was confronted by difficulties that would have baffled a man
of far greater capacity. The taxation of the colony had not been
specifically mentioned in the charter, and the colonists seized upon the
opportunity to enact that no taxes were to be levied without the consent
of the Assembly. The home government immediately rejected this, and so
opened the door for the squabbles and recriminations eighty years
afterwards, which led to the separation of the American colonies from
the mother country. Gradually Phipps lost his popularity, which had to a
certain extent been founded upon his romantic history. He became brutal,
covetous and violent, and so in 1694 the Bostonians turned against him.
His temper had never been calm, and it is said that by the end of his
period of office he was engaged in violent quarrels with every man of
importance in the province.

The governorship of the colony between 1698 and 1701 was amalgamated
with those of New York, New Jersey, and New Hampshire. The Earl of
Bellomont was given supreme control, and won the goodwill of the people
by favouring the democratic party and recommending many reforms. His
special title to Fame is his suppression of the pirates along the
coasts, who according to Bellomont's complaint in 1698 had been
protected and encouraged by Benjamin Fletcher, Governor of New York. "I
have likewise discovered that protections were publickly exposed to sale
at the said rates to Pyrats that were of other companies ... and made
discovery of the bonds the Pyrates entered into to Coll: Fletcher when
he granted them Commissions."[140] Bellomont was determined to save the
colonies from these sea-wolves, and in 1701 he had the satisfaction,
just before he died, of bringing the infamous Captain Kidd to the
gallows.

The later history of Massachusetts must be left to the chapter on French
Aggression. The colony founded first as a trading Company by a few
adventurous Puritans had in seventy years become not only one of the
most prosperous, but also one of the largest of the thirteen States. It
had embraced several of the smaller and weaker settlements, the history
of one of which has already been traced; the story of the others has yet
to be told.

FOOTNOTES:

[95] See p. 24.

[96] Smith, _A Description of New England_ (1616), p. 1.

[97] Macaulay, _Essays_ (ed. 1891), p. 23.

[98] _Calendar of Domestic State Papers_, 1591-1594, p. 400.

[99] Bradford, _History of the Plimoth Plantation_, p. 15.

[100] Bradford, _History of the Plimoth Plantation_, p. 16.

[101] _Ibid._, p. 17.

[102] _Ibid._

[103] Quoted by J. R. Green, _Short History of the English People_
(1893), iii. p. 1051.

[104] Smith, _A Description of New England_ (1616), p. 27.

[105] Quoted by J. R. Green, _op. cit._, p. 1049.

[106] Bradford, _op. cit._, May 12.

[107] Bradford, _op. cit._

[108] Young, _Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers_ (ed. 1841).

[109] Thwaites, _The Colonies, 1492-1750_ (1891), p. 123.

[110] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1661-1668, p. 36.

[111] _Ibid._, p. 344.

[112] Macaulay, _Essays_ (ed. 1891), p. 23.

[113] _American Historical Review_, vol. iv. No. 4, p. 689.

[114] _Ibid._, p. 702.

[115] Doyle, _The English in America_ (1887), vol. i. p. 119.

[116] _A History of New England_ (1654), p. 38.

[117] Winthrop, _The History of New England from 1630 to 1649_. [1633,
Feb. 17.]

[118] Doyle, _Cambridge Modern History_ (1905), vol. vii. p. 17.

[119] _Simplicities Defence against Seven-Headed Policy_ (1646), p. 2.

[120] Massachusetts Historical Society, _Collections_, i.

[121] Winthrop, _The History of New England from 1630 to 1649_ (1853),
vol. i. p. 170.

[122] _Ibid._, vol. i. p. 213.

[123] _New England's First Fruits_ (1643), p. 12.

[124] _Ibid._

[125] _Journal of a Voyage to New York in 1679-80._

[126] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1661-1668, p. 344.

[127] _Ibid._, p. 9.

[128] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1661-1668, p. 32.

[129] Burrough, _A Declaration of the Sad and Great Persecution and
Martyrdom of the ... Quakers, etc._ (1660).

[130] Burrough, _A Declaration of the Sad and Great Persecution, and
Martyrdom of the ... Quakers_, etc. (1660).

[131] Hutchinson, _A Collection of Original Papers_, etc. (1769).

[132] _The Warr in New-England Visibly Ended_ (1677).

[133] Fortescue, Introd.: _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial,
1677-1680, p. xiv.

[134] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1677-1680, p. xviii.

[135] _Ibid._, p. 545.

[136] Fortescue, _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1677-1680, p.
xxi.

[137] Hutchinson, _A Collection of Original Papers relative to the
History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay_ (1769).

[138] Egerton, _A Short History of British Colonial Policy_, p. 62.

[139] Mather, _Magnalia Christi Americana, II._ (1702).

[140] O'Callaghan, editor, _Documents relative to the Colonial History
of the State of New York_ (1854).

CHAPTER V

CONNECTICUT; RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATION; NEW HAVEN; MAINE;
NEW HAMPSHIRE

The early history of the group of colonies which is now to engage the
attention is less interesting than that of either Virginia or
Massachusetts. There is not the glamour of a first colony as in the case
of Virginia; the men were not Pilgrim Fathers in the true sense as in
Plymouth; the prosperity of Massachusetts, the rivalries of Maryland,
and the Spanish danger in the Carolinas, are all wanting in this portion
of New England. There is therefore not only a lack of romance, but there
is too a pettiness in the quarrels which continually occurred in these
colonies.

The New England Company, when once it had started an active existence,
made every effort to extract some advantage from the land which had been
granted to it. In 1631 Lord Saye and Sele, Lord Brooke and others
obtained from the Company a tract of land in the rich valley of the
Connecticut River. Very little, however, came of this scheme; and the
first true settlement was made against the strenuous opposition of the
Dutch, by a party from New Plymouth. A fresh influx of settlers came
from the already rising colony of Massachusetts, for they had found
that the land was somewhat sterile, at any rate not sufficiently fertile
to support them all. The settlers on the Connecticut came from the town
of Dorchester, and planted themselves at Windsor, to the disgust of the
New Plymouth settlers, who were at last forced to retire. This proved,
as often enough in future years, that the unscrupulous and overbearing
temper of the men of Massachusetts earned for them a reward which they
did not deserve. The patentees, seeing their rights invaded by these
Dorchester filibusters, sent out a small party to establish their
privileges, but these in turn were routed, and the men of Massachusetts
were left in possession, though contrary to the wishes of their
mother-settlement. When, however, the versatile John Winthrop, son of
the more statesmanlike Governor, arrived with a commission as Governor
of the new colony on behalf of the patentees, Massachusetts ceased to
complain, and allowed the secession to become complete. Within two years
the new colony of Connecticut had a population of eight hundred men,
women and children, grouped in three towns, Hartford, Wethersfield, and
Windsor. The freemen of these towns declared in 1638 that their
constitution was the same as that of Massachusetts; but there was one
great dissimilarity, for no religious test was imposed. This
constitution occupies a famous place in the world's history, for not
only was it the first written constitution that actually created a
government, but it has also been characterised as "the oldest political
constitution in America."[141] By means of this important document,
issued in January 1639, all possible claims to sovereignty on the part
of Massachusetts were placed on one side for ever; or was there any
reference to the sovereignty of Charles I. or the home parliament. The
document was merely an agreement amongst the colonists themselves, and
by abstaining from any religious tests, or intolerance, they earned the
gratitude and admiration of mankind, and throughout the whole colonial
period bravely sustained this liberal spirit which had distinguished
them so early in their history.

Before accomplishing this great work the colonists had a hard fight for
existence against the Pequod Indians. As early as 1633 a Virginian
ship's captain, Stone, was killed by this tribe near the mouth of the
Connecticut River; two years later John Oldham, a trader, was also
murdered by a party of Narragansetts inhabiting Block Island. It was
evident that the redskins must be taught a severe lesson if Englishmen
were to live in peace. Endecott, with a small force from Massachusetts,
was despatched to punish the Narragansetts, but he utterly failed in his
attack upon the island tribe. In retaliation the settlers in Connecticut
were surrounded by the murderous Pequods, and cut off from the sea;
fortunately, Roger Williams, having the confidence and goodwill of the
redskins, managed, at this time of trial, to obtain the neutrality of
the Narragansetts. This was a great advantage, as Massachusetts deserted
the new settlement, leaving it to fight its own battles. Leaders with
plenty of courage were not wanting, and Captains Mason and Underhill,
with ninety men, marched against the Pequods. Two hundred of these
tribesmen had attacked Wethersfield, and "having put poles in their
Conoos, as we put Masts in our boats, and upon them hung our English
mens and womens shirts and smocks in stead of sayles, and in way of
bravado came along in sight of us as we stood upon Seybrooke Fort."[142]
Captain John Mason was not the man to be discouraged by such warlike
displays, and with considerable strategy attacked them on the flank and
assaulted their chief stronghold. The action was a hot one, for although
only two Englishmen were slain, many were wounded, and six hundred
Pequods are reported to have fallen. The men of Connecticut were
desperate, and fighting for their lives. They were determined to
annihilate the Pequod tribe once for all, and to establish peace by
means of a sanguinary slaughter. Their actions may appear brutal, but
they were necessary as Captain John Underhill took care to explain.
"Great and dolefull was the bloudy sight to the view of young souldiers
that never had beene in Warre, to see so many soules lie gasping on the
ground so thicke in some places, that you could hardly passe along. It
may be demanded, Why should you be so furious (as some have said),
should not christians have more mercy and compassion? But I would refer
you to David's warre, when a people is growne to such a height of bloud
and sinne against God and man, and all confederates in the action, there
hee hath no respect to persons, but harrowes them and sawes them and
puts them to the sword."[143] This massacre and total destruction of the
Pequods had the important effect of reversing the territorial relations
between the English and the Indians; direct communication between the
mouth of the Connecticut and Boston was now made possible, and some form
of union could only be a matter of time.

As has already been shown Connecticut did join in such an union when it
entered into the Confederation of New England in 1643, and it was as a
member of that group that it passed through the period of the civil
wars. With the Restoration the ambitions of the settlers increased, and
in 1661 John Winthrop went to England to obtain a charter which would
define the boundaries of the colony, and include within it the smaller
settlement of New Haven, the members of which protested in vain. The
patent of incorporation was granted in 1662, and the document concludes
with the words which illustrate the interesting but absurd legal fiction
under which the King granted land in America. The Governor and Company
of the English colonists of Connecticut are to hold "the same of his
Majesty, his heirs and successors as of the manor of East Greenwich in
free and common soccage, yielding the fifth part of all gold or silver
ore."[144] So ridiculous was this fiction that the colonists were
actually supposed to be represented in the home parliament by the member
of the borough containing the manor of East Greenwich. It is not
surprising that even as early as this period these rigid Presbyterians
felt that if the actions of the home government endangered their welfare
they would be justified in ignoring that authority, and relying only
upon the common weal as supreme law in the colony. But though they
regarded with jealousy any attempt to limit their rights, they were too
weak, owing to internal dissension, to throw off the yoke of the home
authorities. They had in no way added to their strength by the
incorporation of New Haven, but rather increased their weakness. This
unstable condition is illustrated in particular, first by the
emigration of the people of the town of Branford, who, armed with their
civil and ecclesiastical records, preferred to occupy lands near the
Delaware rather than stay under the jurisdiction of Connecticut; and
secondly by the description of Connecticut itself, as recorded by the
Governor, William Leete, in 1680. He shows that for the last seven years
the popularity of the colony had evidently declined in England, for only
one or two settlers had come from the home country each year. The
population had certainly increased by about five hundred in eight years;
from 2050 in 1671 to 2507 in 1679; but there was very little unity of
feeling or purpose owing to the religious sects being peculiarly mixed,
some being Presbyterians, some "strict congregational men," some "more
large congregational men," some Quakers, and four or five are classified
by the Governor as "seven-day men."[145]

For twenty-three years the people of Connecticut imagined that they
enjoyed the benefits of the charter gained by Winthrop in 1662, "ye
advantages and priviledges whereof made us indeed a very happy people;
and by ye blessing of God upon our endeavours we have made a
considerable improvement of your dominions here, which with ye defense
of ourselves from ye force of both forraign and intestine enemies has
cost us much expence of treasure & blood."[146] James II., however,
cared for none of these things; the charter was forfeited in 1685; and
like Massachusetts, Connecticut felt the heavy hand of the too zealous
Sir Edmund Andros. Being "commissionated by his Majesty,"[147] Andros
appeared with sixty grenadiers in 1687 at Hartford, and took over the
government. On his capture, as already recorded, the people of
Connecticut in May 1689 joyfully fell back upon their old form of
government under the late charter, the forfeiture of which had been
declared illegal in England.

Owing to King William's War, Connecticut was within an ace of losing its
government, and for purposes of defence being united, in 1690, with its
stronger neighbour New York; the proposals fell through, and the fears
of the citizens were set at rest by a legal confirmation of their
constitution. The colony from this time undoubtedly advanced. Its system
of government was active and vigorous; each township controlled its own
affairs, and in the early years of the eighteenth century local
government lay entirely in the hands of the Select-men, to the exclusion
of English officials. At the same time education was encouraged; a
college was established by the clergy in 1698, which found its final
home at Newhaven in 1717. Before this printing had been undertaken, the
first press being erected in 1709 at New London; the immediate work done
was not of a first-rate character, but it was the beginning of better
things. At the same time it is only fair to point out that the colony
was cursed by the presence of turbulent and quarrelsome negro and
mulatto slaves; it was regarded with suspicion by the English governors
as a protector of pirates; and it certainly must be blamed for its
niggardly contributions of both men and money in the great expeditions
against the French.

Connecticut was not the only settlement that was partly formed by a
secession from the parent colony of Massachusetts; nor was it an
isolated example of colonial establishments, for during the same period
several other colonies grew up along the Eastern seaboard. The Reverend
Roger Williams, after his banishment from Massachusetts in October 1635,
purchased land from the Indians, and with twelve other householders
settled at Providence, by the advice of Mr Winslow, the Governor of New
Plymouth. Thus Williams was able to describe himself many years later as
"by God's mercy the first beginner of the mother town of Providence and
of the Colony of Rhode Island."[148] Williams' settlers immediately
started a simple form of government, by which all freemen were to hold
quarterly meetings and settle judicial questions, while five Select-men
were to transact all executive business. Following Williams' example,
Mrs Anne Hutchinson, as another refugee from the intolerance of
Massachusetts, came to much the same district in 1637. She purchased
from the Indians the island of Aquedneck, or, as it was afterwards
known, Rhode Island. Her heretical followers soon founded the town of
Portsmouth, and here the government was carried on by William Coddington
as judge. Mrs Hutchinson, having now time for inventing new heresies,
almost immediately caused a fresh secession, and some of her hitherto
ardent admirers, finding her new doctrines intolerable, left Portsmouth,
and under Coddington established themselves at Newport. The colonies
were reunited in 1640, with Coddington as Governor, and a regular
government was instituted composed of two "assistants" from each
township.

Providence and Rhode Island were regarded with dislike and suspicion by
all the other colonies, being classified as the asylum for sectaries,
the hot-bed of anarchy, and the true home of extreme democracy. This
attitude is not surprising when it is remembered that both colonies owed
their existence to parties of religious outcasts. Rhode Island
nevertheless prospered, although throughout the first few years of its
existence it was the centre of disorder, bickerings, and factious
quarrels. At the bottom of most of the trouble was Samuel Gorton, a
contentious and troublesome man, leader of a band of fanatics, who had
forced themselves upon a party of Williams' settlers at Pawtuxet. The
settlers appealed to Massachusetts to remove him as "a proud and
pestilent seducer";[149] and had indeed placed themselves under the
jurisdiction of that colony for this very purpose. In 1643, Gorton, of
"insolent and riotous carriage," with nine of his followers, was
imprisoned for some months at Boston, for blasphemy. The quarrel,
however, did not end here. It was carried by Gorton to England, where he
appealed to the Parliamentary Commissioners, who commanded the General
Court to allow Gorton and his band to dwell in peace. This, at last, the
Massachusetts' government consented to do with contemptuous
indifference, but when Gorton pleaded for their protection against the
Indians he pleaded in vain.

In the same year as the conclusion of the Gorton controversy,
Providence, Portsmouth and Newport, combined into a properly constituted
community. This was the outcome of a visit paid to England in 1643 by
Roger Williams, who asked for a definite charter of incorporation. In
1647, therefore, a general assembly of freemen, governor and assistants,
with a court of commissioners, was established for the "Colony of Rhode
Island and Providence Plantation." At first the assembly met in the
different towns by rotation, and the method of voting was most
complicated and non-progressive; every matter had to be voted on in each
town, and was to be considered as lost unless it was carried by a
majority in every town. So complex a system proved inadequate, and in
1664 an ordinary representative assembly was created. What was equally
important and showed Rhode Island to be more enlightened than most of
the other colonies, was the clear announcement of the doctrine of
freedom of conscience to all who "live civilly." To the annoyance of
Massachusetts the Rhode Island authorities consistently adhered to this
doctrine, and refused to join in the barbarous persecutions of the
Quakers.

The settlers expressly thanked Charles II. for sending Commissioners,
and made great demonstration of their loyalty and obedience in 1665.
Such actions are rather surprising in a Puritan colony, but they may
have been due to the King's grant of a charter, two years before, in
which they obtained a definition of their boundaries. The colony of this
period was described with some minuteness by the Commissioners, who
called attention to the fact that Quakers and Generalists were admitted,
and that owing to the variety of sects there were no places for the
worship of God, "but they sometimes associate in one house, and
sometimes in another."[150] The colony certainly did not advance with
the strides that had been made by Massachusetts, and the people were
still extremely unpopular with the other colonists, being denounced on
one occasion as "scum and dregs." Nevertheless under the government of
Peleg Sandford in 1680, Rhode Island was a small, happy, self-sufficing
colony. The chief town was Newport, built almost entirely of timber. As
to exterior commerce it seems to have been non-existent; "wee have no
shippinge belonginge to our Colloney, but only a few sloopes," and "as
for Merchants wee have none, but the most of our Colloney live
comfortably by improvinge the wildernesse."[151]

This happy state of affairs was somewhat rudely disturbed by James II.'s
action in depriving Rhode Island and Providence Plantation of that
charter of which they were so proud, and which gave "full liberty of
conscience provided that the pretence of liberty extend not to
licentiousnesse."[152] James' harsh treatment did not last for long, and
to the joy of the inhabitants after the Revolution the action of the
Papist King was declared illegal. A time of peace and prosperity now
followed. From 1696 to 1726 Rhode Island increased in wealth and
population, under the annually elected Governor, Samuel Cranston, who,
during these thirty years of office, proved himself a firm, popular, and
successful administrator.

During the year in which Rhode Island was established, another colony,
New Haven, was founded to the South. In 1637 Theophilus Eaton, a leader
in the Baltic Company, and "of great esteem for religion,"[153]
together with a party of settlers who were wealthier men than most
colonists, settled at the mouth of the Quinipiac River, facing Long
Island. The religious beliefs of the settlers were of the most bigoted
kind; their freemen were strictly limited to Church members; and their
minister, "the reverend, judicious and godly Mr John Davenport,"[154]
asserted that the scripture was sufficient guide for all civil affairs.
They soon found "a fit place to erect a Toune, which they built in very
little time, and with very faire houses and compleat streets; but in a
little time they over-stockt it with Chattell, although many of them did
follow merchandizing and Maritime affairs, but their remoteness from
Mattachusets Bay, where the chiefe traffique lay, hindered them
much."[155] Ten years after its foundation, the colony was seen to be
commercially on the decline, although other towns had grown up such as
Guildford, Milford, and Stamford. They were all governed as one town
without representation, and the executive was placed in the hands of an
elected Governor and four assistants. The commercial depression did not
last for long; trade began to increase again, and Newhaven became a
flourishing state, the inhabitants of which were noted for the
magnificence of their buildings and their astonishing opulence.

After the Restoration the colony fell under the displeasure of the
Crown. Two of the regicides, William Goffe and Edward Whalley had,
first, come to Boston, then to Connecticut, and finally to New Haven.
The home government ordered their arrest, and Winthrop was very active
in sending these orders to the Governors of the different colonies,
including the Governor of New Haven, who knew that these men had come
within his rights of jurisdiction but took no steps to effect their
arrest. For some time the King had had strong doubts as to the loyalty
of New England as a whole; here, in any case, was a colony that needed
watching; and so, in 1662, as has already been shown, New Haven was
absorbed by Connecticut. There can be no doubt that Charles had now
struck two hearty blows against the much vaunted New England
Confederation. His refusal to allow the ill-treatment of the Quakers,
and his punishment of New Haven, were sufficient to make the
Confederation nothing more important than a triennial meeting of federal
commissioners, who sat till 1684, but whose powers were nil, whose
mutual beliefs were non-existent, and who were only in complete concord
in resistance to the Indian raids.

Maine was yet another colony of New England, which had a purely
independent foundation, but which was destined to be absorbed by its
more prosperous neighbour. As early as 1623, Levitt established a
settlement on Casco Bay;[156] while at the same time, Sir Ferdinando
Gorges, "the Father of English Colonisation in North America,"[157] made
a plantation at Saco. He followed this up by the formation of a company
in 1631, but four years later the whole territory then called New
Somersetshire was granted to Gorges. Five years later he received from
Charles I. a charter granting to him "all that part and portion of New
England lying and between the River Pascataway ... to Kenebeck even as
far as the head thereof."[158] Sir Ferdinando very soon drew up a most
grotesque constitution for his colony, creating almost more officials
than there were citizens, and whose titles were very magnificent, but
quite meaningless. In exactly the same district the New England Company
claimed to have proprietary rights, and it was not long before many
semi-independent settlements were made in the neighbourhood of Gorges
Colony.

The Civil War having broken out in 1642 Sir Ferdinando Gorges was too
much engaged at home to pay any attention to Maine, "for when he was
between three and four score years of age did personally engage in our
Royal Martyr's service; and particularly in the siege of Bristow, and
was plundered and imprisoned several times, by reason whereof he was
discountenanced by the pretended Commissioners for foreign
plantations."[159] Soon after his exploits at Bristol, Gorges died after
proving himself a man of resolute purpose, but endowed with narrow
ideas. He had certainly taken an active part in the struggle for gain
and position amongst a large number of the most worthless and servile
courtiers, but still around him and his memory there is a halo of
grandeur, borrowed perhaps from the generation to which he really
belonged, nevertheless reflecting upon his person something of that
glory that ought to belong to him who was the last figure of that grand
procession of giants which numbered amongst its train, Gilbert and
Drake, Smith and Raleigh.

No sooner had Gorges passed away than Edward Rigby claimed the whole of
Maine under a grant from the New England Company. Against this the
heirs of Sir Ferdinando put in a strong counter-claim; the decision
between the disputants was left to the authorities in Massachusetts, who
divided the towns into equal halves, three being allotted to Rigby, and
three to the Gorges claimant. The inhabitants of the colony were not
consulted, and in 1649 they took the matter into their own hands and
declared themselves a body politic with an elective governor and
council. But this was not to last. In the early days of the settlement
the colonists showed no signs of religious bigotry or of any religious
views at all, but gradually they came to sympathise with both the
religion and the political opinions of Massachusetts, so that between
1651 and 1658 the townships of Maine readily accepted the authority of
the greater colony.

Soon after the Restoration, Ferdinando Gorges, the grandson of the
original patentee, sought to assert his authority over Maine, but his
exertions were not supported by the Crown, and he was unsuccessful. In
1665 the home authorities set up a provisional government in the colony,
but concerning its history very little is known. According to the
Commissioners of that year the inhabitants themselves petitioned that
they might continue under his Majesty's immediate government. They
expressed their gratitude to Charles II. for his "fatherly care of them
after so long a death inflicted on their minds and fortunes by the
usurpation of the Massachusetts power,"[160] and they ask that the
insults of others towards them may be prevented for the future by the
appointment of Sir Robert Carr as their governor. But this statement
seems very improbable and can hardly have expressed the general wishes
of the people.

It is not surprising that Sir Robert Carr was anxious to obtain the
government of the colony, as from contemporary descriptions it appears
to have been a fertile and productive territory. "In these Provinces are
great store of wild ducks, geese, and deer, strawberries, raspberries,
gooseberries, barberries, bilberries, several sorts of oaks and pines,
chestnuts and walnuts, sometimes four or five miles together; the more
northerly the country, the better the timber is accounted."[161] The
true value of Maine was realised by William Dyre, who pointed out to
Charles II. the manifold advantages that he would gain if he purchased
Maine for himself. By such an action the King would have absolute
dominion over those seas and might settle a duty on all fisheries there;
at the same time he might very easily reduce the turbulent spirits in
Massachusetts "to a ready subjection," while enriching himself with
masts, tar, timber, etc., and thus "conduce to the safety of his
maritime affairs."[162] There were, however, other very different views
on Maine, and John Josselyn, an Englishman of good family, does not
speak well of either the country or its inhabitants, but there are
reasons for supposing that he may have been maliciously inclined. The
people of Maine in 1675 "may be divided," he writes, "into Magistrates,
Husbandmen or Planters, and fishermen; of the magistrates some be
Royalists, the rest perverse Spirits, the like are the planters and
fishers.... The planters are or should be restless pains takers,
providing for their Cattle, planting and sowing of Corn ... but if they
be of a droanish disposition as some are, they become wretchedly poor
and miserable.... They have a custom of taking Tobacco, sleeping at
noon, sitting long at meals sometimes four times in a day, and now and
then drinking a dram of the bottle extraordinarily."[163]

The people of Maine may have been all that Josselyn said, but it is far
from likely. They were sufficiently alert to resent the government of
the Crown, and in 1668 the majority of the settlers acquiesced in the
reassertion of authority by Massachusetts. For ten years the quarrel
between Ferdinando Gorges and Massachusetts continued, but in 1678,
although his grandfather is reported to have spent £20,000 on the
colony, the grandson's claims were extinguished by the purchase of his
rights for £1250. From this moment Maine ceased to exist as a separate
colony, and continued incorporated with Massachusetts for many years.

The last of this early group of colonies was New Hampshire, which, in
turn, like its weaker brethren, became amalgamated with the colony of
Massachusetts. Early in the reign of Charles I., Captain John Mason,
with Sir Ferdinando Gorges and others, formed for colonial purposes the
Laconia Company. When Gorges was granted rights in Maine in 1635,
Captain John Mason also received a grant of territory to the south,
where a settlement was formed, and though by no means a true political
community, was called New Hampshire. Mason died soon after the naming of
his colony and received no benefits from his grant, which had embraced
two earlier settlements: the first founded by David Thompson near the
Piscataqua; the second fifteen miles up the Cocheco, founded by Bristol
and Shrewsbury merchants, who had transferred their rights to Lord Saye
and Sele and Lord Brooke. It was in this latter stretch of territory
that purely independent settlements were made, such as Dover, Exeter,
and Hampton. The latter town, realising its weakness as an independent
community, soon chose to be regarded as within the jurisdiction of
Massachusetts.

The authorities of Massachusetts undoubtedly suffered from "earth
hunger," and the transfer of Hampton was merely the first of a series of
aggressions, for between 1642 and 1643 the other towns of New Hampshire
were swallowed within the greedy maw of the stronger colony. No
remonstrance came from England, for the people of the home country had
enough difficulties to contend with; while the Mason family appear to
have made no serious attempts to recover their rights. After the
Restoration, however, following the example of Ferdinando Gorges, the
heirs of Mason petitioned the Privy Council to restore to them the
rights and privileges contained in the grant of 1635. The law officers
of the Crown took the matter into serious consideration, and although
their verdict was against the Mason family, they declared at the same
time that the colony of New Hampshire was outside the jurisdiction of
Massachusetts, which had annexed it and wrongfully renamed it Norfolk.
This was one more blow for the New England Confederation and for
Massachusetts in particular. The King and his ministers were only too
pleased to have had such an opportunity, for the Royal Commissioners had
but recently accused Massachusetts of disloyalty. They had, in fact,
declared that unless the King punished the authorities, the
well-affected inhabitants would never dare to own themselves loyal
subjects. To better effect the total subjugation of the colony, one of
the Commissioners, Sir Robert Carr, proposed that he should be made
governor of New Hampshire, a proposal which shows only too clearly the
selfish aims of the Crown officials. The actual state of New Hampshire
did not seem to trouble the Commissioners, and whilst the bickering
between the home country and Massachusetts continued, the unfortunate
inhabitants of New Hampshire were suffering all the horrors of the
already mentioned King Philip's Indian war. For this reason the settlers
took the matter into their own hands and turned to the more powerful
colony of Massachusetts for assistance and protection. In 1678 the
inhabitants of Portsmouth and Dover supplicated the Crown to be kept
under the jurisdiction of the stronger colony. The petition from Dover
is particularly noteworthy because of its tawdry character. The
petitioners speak of the favour of his Majesty, "which like the sweet
influences of superior or heavenly bodies to the tender plants have
cherished us in our weaker beginnings, having been continued through
your special grace, under your Majesty's protection and government of
the Massachusetts, to which we voluntarily subjected ourselves many
years ago, yet not without some necessity in part felt for want of
government and in part feared upon the account of protection."[164] In
spite of this petition the Crown created New Hampshire a separate
province, with a council and representative assembly. The first governor
selected was John Cutts, "a very just and honest but ancient and infirm
man,"[165] and with his appointment the people of Massachusetts revoked
all former commissions.

The colony did not forget its old guardian, and looked upon it always
with loyal affection, a feeling which was intensified during the
tyrannical governorship of Edward Cranfield. From 1682 to 1685 this
man's disgraceful conduct was tolerated, but at last the men of New
Hampshire could bear his despotism no longer, broke into open rebellion,
and Cranfield fled for refuge to the West Indies. The desired result was
immediately obtained, for New Hampshire was reunited to Massachusetts.
This, however, was not to last for long, for after the Revolution in
England the proprietorship of New Hampshire was again debated. Samuel
Allen had purchased from the heirs of Captain Mason any rights which
they continued to imagine they possessed; and by the corrupt connivance
of an English official, Allen succeeded in obtaining a proprietary
governorship with a council partly nominated by the Crown and partly by
himself. It is a remarkable fact that, unlike the other colonies at this
time, New Hampshire obtained no charter. The only freedom allowed to its
inhabitants was the exercise of a few independent rights by means of the
representative assembly elected by the freeholders.

The acceptance of the Revolution in America marks an epoch of American
history. All the New England colonies had been established, and had
either proved themselves sturdy enough to stand alone, or had been
forced to find shelter beneath the wing of the more powerful Connecticut
or Massachusetts. The New England Confederation had been tried and
found wanting. The time for union was evidently not ripe, but this
embryo of the United States ceased to exist at identically the hour it
was most wanted. A union of all the colonies was what might have been
expected when French aggression and Canadian pluck taxed all the
resources of the colonists; the scheme of union, however, failed, and
the French had to be met in that haphazard and unprepared way in which,
it would appear from history, Englishmen are accustomed not only to meet
supreme danger, but to come through it with success.

FOOTNOTES:

[141] Bryce, _American Commonwealth_.

[142] Underhill, _Newes from America_ (1638).

[143] _Ibid._

[144] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1661-1668, p. 88.

[145] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1677-1680, p. 577.

[146] _Ibid._

[147] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1685-1688, p. 472.

[148] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1677-1680, p. 398.

[149] Quoted by Doyle, _Puritan Colonies_ (1887), vol. i. p. 249.

[150] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1661-1668, p. 343.

[151] Arnold, _History of the State of Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations_ (1859).

[152] _Ibid._

[153] Winthrop, _History of New England_ (1853), vol. i. p. 226.

[154] Johnson, _A History of New England_, etc. (1654).

[155] _Ibid._

[156] _Mass. Hist. Col._, Series iii., vol. viii. p. 171.

[157] _American Historical Review_, vol. iv, No. 4, p. 683.

[158] Josselyn, _An Account of Two Voyages to New England_ (1675).

[159] _Ibid._

[160] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1661-1668, p. 315.

[161] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1661-1668, p. 348.

[162] _Ibid._, 1669-1674, p. 579.

[163] Josselyn, _ut supra._

[164] _Calendar of State Papers_, 1677-1680, p. 211.

[165] _Calendar of State Papers_, 1677-1680, p. 488.

CHAPTER VI

THE FIGHT WITH THE DUTCH FOR THEIR SETTLEMENT OF NEW NETHERLAND

A new epoch in colonial history was reached when England adopted a
warlike policy to obtain mastery in the West. During the Protectorate,
England and Holland were for the first time engaged in desperate
warfare. The numerous common interests that existed in the two
countries, such as religion and republicanism, were of no avail to keep
the peace. The war that brought such honour to Admiral Blake was not a
war against a "natural enemy," but rather a contest between trade rivals
using the same methods and having the same opinions. The spirit which
animated Cromwell in naval affairs was not Puritanic; it was rather that
of the Elizabethan epoch. The old naval enthusiasm which had so long
slept in the stagnant days of the first Stuarts had now awakened with
renewed vigour, as if its long years of drowsiness had afforded true
refreshment. The celebrated Navigation Act, "the legislative monument of
the Commonwealth,"[166] was the outward and visible sign of this change
in 1651. "It was the first manifestation of the newly awakened
consciousness of the community, the act which laid the foundation of the
English commercial empire.... It consummated the work which had been
commenced by Drake, discussed and expounded by Raleigh, continued by
Roe, Smith, Winthrop, and Calvert."[167] The Dutch, "the Phoenicians
of the modern world, the waggoners of all seas,"[168] were severely
injured by the new law, for goods were no longer to be imported into
England save in English vessels or those vessels belonging to the
country of which the goods were the natural product or manufacture. This
important protective enactment was reissued in the reign of Charles II.,
and, as on the former occasion, it was one of the main causes of
embroiling England and Holland.

For the proper enforcement of the Navigation Act, the English colonies
in the West required a geographical compactness which in the central
period of the seventeenth century they did not possess. A formidable
foreign rival held a valuable commercial settlement between the northern
and southern colonies, for the Dutch possessed in New Amsterdam the very
best harbour along the coast. By the reign of Charles II. the hatred of
the Dutch had become a passion amongst Englishmen, and it had not only
been fostered by the Cromwellian war, but by trade-jealousy both in the
East and in the West. In America the rising colonies of New England, in
particular, looked with greedy eyes upon the splendid waterway of the
River Hudson, which was the finest route for Indian trade. They had,
too, suffered at the hands of their rivals; both the settlements in
Connecticut and Long Island had for many years engaged in innumerable
land disputes with the Dutch, nor did the people of New Haven forget
that some of their brethren had been driven out of New Sweden, which the
Dutch now held.

The Dutch had made their first settlement in 1626 as an outcome of the
foundation of the Dutch West India Company five years before. In its
functions this corporation very closely resembled the English East India
Company, for it made a special combination of naval and commercial
affairs, and almost its first work was the establishment of the New
Netherland settlement on Long Island and along the River Hudson. Their
chief town was planted on Manhattan Island and called New Amsterdam, the
population of which soon after its foundation was 270 souls. A
contemporary narrative speaks cheerfully of the probable success of the
colony, and states that they had a prosperous beginning and that "the
natives of New Netherland are very well disposed so long as no injury is
done them."[169] But from the very first the governors were bad; it was
in fact irregularities in administration and want of enterprise and
courage that caused the recall of Van Twiller in 1637. His successor
Kieft proved himself equally incapable, for he was arbitrary and
ill-advised, earning the detestation of both Dutch patroons and English
settlers. The colonists themselves were few and poor, and the methods
employed by the Company lacked any trace of liberality or real knowledge
of colonial affairs. Peter Stuyvesant, "that resolute soldier," came
into office in 1647; he was the best governor who up to that time had
been sent out, but he was nothing more than a martinet, without either
sympathy or flexibility. Van der Douch in 1650 described the colony as
sadly decayed, and gave as the reasons that "the Managers of the Company
adopted a wrong course at first, and as we think had more regard for
their own interests than for the welfare of the country.... It seems as
if from the first the Company have sought to stock this land with their
own _employés_, which was a great mistake, for when their time was out,
they returned home.... Trade, without which, when it is legitimate, no
country is prosperous, is by their acts so decayed that the like is
nowhere else. It is more suited for slaves than freemen in consequence
of the restrictions upon it ... we would speak well of the government
... under Director Stuyvesant, which still stands, if indeed that may be
called standing, which lies completely under foot."[170]

It may have been this complaint or feelings similar to those stated
therein that forced Stuyvesant to do something that would show that his
rule over the colony had a stimulating effect. He had regarded for some
time with jealousy the little settlement of New Sweden, or as it was
known in later years, Delaware. This colony had been established by one
Minuit, who had been formerly employed by the Dutch West India Company.
He was a friend of William Usselinx or Ussling, who had as early as 1624
obtained a charter from Gustavus Adolphus for a trading company "to
Asia, Africa, America, and Magellanica."[171] But it was not until 1638
that Minuit's Swedish following arrived in America and erected Fort
Christina, named after that extraordinary royal tomboy, the Queen of
Sweden. They soon had so far settled themselves as to be strong enough
to drive out a party from New Haven, but they had not calculated on the
hostility of the Dutch. Stuyvesant was determined to seize New Sweden,
and set out in 1651 to exert Dutch rights, and for their protection
established Fort Casimir on the site of what is now Newcastle, Del. This
was merely the beginning of a larger policy of annexation, which was
accomplished in 1655 when the Swedish settlement passed into the hands
of the Dutch without bloodshed on the appearance of the Governor with an
army of 700 men. The conquered territory was immediately sold to the
city of Amsterdam and a colony was established there under the name of
New Amstel. On the surface this energetic policy had much to recommend
it from the Dutch point of view; but in reality the people of the New
Netherlands gained but little, as in that colony there were no popular
institutions, no true self-government, and not even the advantage of a
really efficient despotism to give interior strength or possibilities of
exterior advance. The fact was that Stuyvesant's action resulted only in
harm to his colony, for in carrying out the extirpation of the Swedish
settlement in Delaware he absolutely drained his own resources and left
himself unprepared and incapable of resisting the onslaught of the
English.

The crushing blow fell in August 1664. In the March of that year Charles
II. granted to his brother James, Duke of York, all the territory then
held by the Dutch, on the plea that it was really British soil by right
of discovery. This was the mere reassertion of an old claim, for James
I. had demanded the territory by right of "occupancy" as early as 1621,
and Charles I. did the same by "first discovery, occupation, and
possession"; Cromwell too had attempted to make possession a real thing
in 1654, but the first Dutch War ended too soon. The action of Charles
II. may well be regarded as a very practical declaration of war. Colonel
Richard Nicolls was appointed to seize the New Netherlands. He was the
most important of the Commissioners sent out to report on the state of
the colonies, and was a good soldier, a man of great courage, but at the
same time forbearing and lenient. The colony which he was ordered to
attack contained a population of about 1500 souls, 600 of whom were of
English stock, dwelling for the most part on Long Island, which was
partially Anglicised by an influx of settlers from Connecticut and New
Haven. At the end of August Nicolls arrived off New Amsterdam with four
ships, and 450 soldiers and Connecticut volunteers. On September 4 he
sent terms to Stuyvesant, stating that "His Majesty, being tender of the
effusion of Christian blood, confirms and secures estates, life and
liberty to every Dutch inhabitant who shall readily submit to his
Government, but those who shall oppose his Majesty's gracious intention
must expect all the miseries of a war which they bring on
themselves."[172] Stuyvesant offered very little resistance, and Nicolls
soon found himself in possession of New Amsterdam. The Dutch West India
Company failed to see that they had been largely to blame for leaving
their colony inadequately defended, and preferred to pour out the vials
of their wrath upon the unfortunate Stuyvesant, who, according to the
Company, "first following the example of heedless interested parties,
gave himself no other concern than about the prosperity of his
bouweries, and, when the pinch came, allowed himself to be rode over by
Clergymen, women and cowards, in order to surrender to the English what
he could defend with reputation, for the sake of thus saving their
private properties."[173]

The conquest of the main city did not leave Colonel Nicolls idle. The
rest of the province had to be subdued, and by his commands the
Assistant Commissioner, Cartwright, went forward, took Fort Orange,
better known as Albany, and above all laid the foundations of that
friendship between the English and the Iroquois which was to prove of
such importance in future years. Sir Robert Carr was also sent to take
the settlements along the Delaware; but his violence and rapacity in
this work contrasted very strongly with the calm and firm rule of
Nicolls, and Carr earned for himself unenviable notoriety for his
severity, which, it has been said, was "the one exception to the
humanity and moderation shown by the English."[174] There were other
difficulties which presented themselves to the Governor of New York, not
the least being the foundation of New Jersey. James, Duke of York,
immediately after the capture of the Dutch settlements, granted all the
territory from the Hudson to the Delaware to Sir George Carteret and
Lord Berkeley. The district was named New Jersey, and Philip Carteret
was sent out by his kinsman to supervise his interests. Nicolls strongly
disapproved of this measure; he was a man with a keen political insight,
and he saw in this mangling of the province the seed of much commercial
and political dispute. His warning was, of course, unheeded, but that
he was right was amply proved by the later history of New Jersey.
Nicolls had also to undo the ill done in Albany by his second in
command, Brodhead, who had shown an extraordinary lack of administrative
ability, treating the Dutch colonists as an inferior and conquered
people, and making numerous arbitrary arrests upon the most trifling
charges. Fortunately for the safety of the colony, news of Brodhead's
action reached Nicolls and the despotic deputy was suspended.

The government of New York was no sinecure. It was probably the most
cosmopolitan town in North America, and though perhaps it is an
exaggeration, it has been asserted that eighteen languages could be
heard in the streets of the late Dutch capital. Before its capture it
had become more Anglicised, as Stuyvesant had not feared but favoured
the English. The first thing done by Nicolls was to put the town in a
state of defence so as to resist any attempt on the part of the Dutch to
regain possession, which was essayed by De Ruyter in 1665, but without
success. A far more oppressive burden to a man who really had his heart
in his work was the difficulty of obtaining supplies for the soldiers.
The English Governor wrote a most pathetic appeal to the Duke of York,
telling him how he was paying what he could out of his own pocket, but
that the people were starving. He describes how the inhabitants of Long
Island were in terrible poverty, and how New York was in "a mean
condition ... not one soldier has lain in a pair of sheets or on any bed
but canvas and straw" since the capture of the town. He said very
pluckily that he did not mind the ruin of his own fortune, but that he
could not bear the loss of his reputation; and then, probably to gain
his way, he concluded with a delightful sentence of praise that ought to
have won the Duke's heart, and which Nicolls no doubt intended that it
should. The colony, he writes, exhibited general joy and thanksgiving
for the signal victory of the Duke over the Dutch off Lowestoft in June,
and for the preservation of His Royal Highness's person, "the very news
whereof has revived their spirits and is antidote both against hunger
and cold."[175]

Meantime representatives from the English-speaking towns met in February
1665 on Long Island; here, acting in accordance with the wishes of the
Governor, a scheme of administration was drawn up; a code of laws was
promulgated, and no attempt was made to interfere with the Dutch
language. Every town was granted powers of assessment, and the right of
choosing a church was given to the freemen who were to declare its
denomination. In the cases of the two main Dutch towns of New York and
Albany, Nicolls was careful not to arouse ill-feeling, and he allowed
them to keep their own mayors. When the first governor retired in 1668,
a tribute to his excellent work was paid him by his fellow commissioner
Maverick; "he has done his Majesty very considerable service in these
parts," he says, "having kept persons of different judgments and divers
nations in peace, when a great part of the world was in wars: and as to
the Indians, they were never brought into such a peaceable posture and
fair correspondence as by his means they now are."[176]

Richard Nicolls was succeeded by Francis Lovelace, who had already acted
for three years as deputy governor of Long Island. He had before him as
governor of New York a far harder task. He followed a man of wonderful
power, and it was now his duty to carry on Nicolls' policy and bring the
preponderant Dutch population surely but quietly under the but recently
established British authority. To accomplish this he adopted a paternal
rule; he granted toleration to all religions; he attempted to gain the
goodwill of the Indians by purchasing their lands and refraining from
any action which might be regarded as aggressive. At the same time he
helped the colony very considerably by opening up intercourse between
New York and Massachusetts, and by the establishment of a regular post
between the two capitals. On the other hand, however, Lovelace was not
really suited to his post. He was a courtier of the conventional type,
and regarded his stay in New York as a form of exile. He speaks of being
in "Egyptian darkness," and asks in one of his letters what is stirring
on the stage in "Brittang." In writing to Sir Joseph Williamson he tries
to arouse his sympathy and says, "we had as well crossed Lethal as the
Athlantiq Ocean." The news from home came to him far too seldom, for the
conveyance of letters was as slow "as the production of _ellephats_,
once almost in two years."[177]

Lovelace's rule soon became unpopular for he was determined to carry out
his plan of paternal despotism and resisted very firmly every attempt to
create popular representation, which was continually demanded. He
angered the settlers by what they regarded a severe tax for defensive
purposes, and he showed his contempt for the freeholders of Long Island
by ordering their protest against his actions to be burnt. It was
unfortunate that this man should have so alienated both Dutch and
English alike, for his period of government coincided with a most
critical epoch in the world's history. In 1670 Charles had allied with
Louis XIV. against the Dutch, and one of the first acts of retaliation
on the part of the authorities in Holland was to retake their colony of
the New Netherlands. In July 1673 the Dutch Admiral Cornelius Eversen
appeared off Fort James when Francis Lovelace was away at New Haven. The
settlers, instead of resisting the Dutch, remembered their hatred of the
Governor, and Captain Manning, second in command, having fired one gun,
surrendered, an action which was called at the time "a shame and
derision to their English nation as hath not been heard of."[178]
Lovelace on his return found the Dutch flag flying over the settlement,
and, having no supporters, fled to Long Island, where the English towns
had refused to give way, not because of goodwill towards the Governor,
but because of patriotism. Here Lovelace met with a scanty welcome and
within a few days was arrested, ostensibly on account of a debt owing to
the Duke of York, and was sent back to England on the 30th July 1673,
where he died soon after.

Weary of a war which was solely for the advantage of the French, Charles
II. came to terms with the Dutch at the Treaty of Westminster, 1674. The
New Netherlands once more became New York, but the English ministers
made a great error in also restoring to Carteret and Berkeley their
rights in New Jersey. The advice of Nicolls was again neglected, and
instead of making New York a compact province, the chance of unity was
lost by severing from its jurisdiction the territory of New Jersey. Sir
Edmund Andros, who was now appointed governor, did his best to
neutralise the effect of this by contending that New Jersey was still
tributary to New York, asserting his rights with considerable vigour.
But the partners in New Jersey were too great favourites at court to
suffer any loss, and before the question was settled Andros was recalled
in 1680. His rule was particularly wise and moderate, and during his
governorship New York experienced a healthy expansion. One thing,
however, he would never grant, though the settlers were always
clamouring for it, and that was a clearly defined constitution with
political rights and privileges similar to those in the New England
colonies.

The exceptionally able Thomas Dongan succeeded Andros, but did not
arrive until 1683. He was forced to contend, as will be shown later,
with French aggression in the valley of the Hudson; his method being a
firm alliance with the Five Nations or Iroquois. They were a wild and
dangerous people, and as such have been described by one who knew them
well. "They likewise paint their Faces, red, blue, &c., and then they
look like the Devil himself ... they treat their Enemies with great
Cruelty in Time of War, for they first bite off the Nails of the Fingers
of their Captives, and cut off some Joints, and sometimes the whole of
the Fingers; after that the Captives are obliged to sing and dance
before them ... and finally they roast them before a slow Fire for some
Days, and eat them." It is interesting to note that the writer records
what must have been a great relief to his readers in the colonies, that
"they are very friendly to us."[179] This amicable relationship between
the English and the Five Nations was largely due to Dongan's good sense
and administrative genius. He persuaded them to become so much subjects
of Great Britain as to set up the arms of James II. upon their wigwams.
The English king, when he heard of his governor's action, informed Louis
XIV. that, as the Iroquois were now true British subjects, he expected
them to be treated as such. Dongan's work did not stop here. He was well
aware that the Iroquois' friendship was an uncertain prop on which to
depend, and therefore palisaded the towns of Albany and Schenectady,
thus beginning the famous system of frontier forts. By his actions he
gained the goodwill of the New Yorkers, to whom, on behalf of the
Proprietors, he granted a charter of incorporation in 1685. But this
acceptance of the views of the people was only very temporary, as it was
reversed in the next year, while at the same time all rights of
legislation were vested in a Council appointed by the Crown.

As has already been shown, James II. amalgamated the colonies in 1685
under Sir Edmund Andros and New York became part of New England. The
Governor was kept far too busy in Massachusetts to pay any attention to
New York, which was placed under a deputy-governor, Colonel Francis
Nicholson, with three Dutch councillors. Nicholson was a clearheaded,
observant man, who had had colonial experience, and would have been a
success except for the fact that he lacked moral force. His position
soon became a very awkward one, for in 1689 he heard that William III.
was all-powerful in England, while he held his commission from Andros,
the Stuart governor, who was in captivity at Boston. At the same time
France had declared war and the Canadians might invade the colony at any
moment. Unfortunately for Nicholson, although he summoned the
authorities, he quarrelled with his subordinate Cuyler, and things were
at a deadlock. At this point the people, seething under the restraints
and burdens which had been placed upon them during the reign of James
II., rose in open revolt, led by a German brewer, Jacob Leisler.
Nicholson was immediately deposed; a convention met, and ten out of the
eighteen representatives invested Leisler with dictatorial authority. He
was a man of some cunning, and under the pretence of possessing a
commission, by intercepting letters and by maltreating their writers, he
succeeded in keeping himself in office for very nearly three years. His
period of government was distinguished by the first Colonial Congress at
Albany, to which he summoned representatives from all the colonies to
discuss definite and united action against the French. Leisler himself
proposed a joint invasion of Canada, and it is probable that it was only
his own arrogance that prevented it. His followers soon came to be as
much hated as their leader, and one indignant citizen wrote in January
1690, "never was such a pack of ignorant, scandalous, malicious, false,
imprudent, impertinent rascals herded together, out of hell."[180]
Careful though Leisler had been to search letters and prevent the news
of his usurpation reaching England, he was unsuccessful. In 1690 the
English Government dispatched Colonel Slaughter to take Leisler's
place. The usurper was first met by a force under Major Ralph Ingoldsby,
second in command to the new Governor; a slight resistance was offered,
and Leisler "fired a vast number of great and small shot in the City,
whereby several of his Majesty's subjects were killed and wounded as
they passed in the streets upon their Lawful Occasions."[181] But
Leisler had lost his former following and he was captured and hanged,
together with his chief supporter Jacob Millborne.

As James II. had left New York without a constitution, a representative
assembly was called in May 1691, and a declaratory act was passed which
annulled Leisler's proceedings. It required that all elections in the
future should be annual, that the franchise should belong to the 40s.
freeholders only, and that the colony itself should be apportioned into
constituencies. At the same time it laid down liberty of conscience
except for Papists, allowing a declaration instead of an oath to please
the Quakers. But above all it declared that no tax was to be imposed
unless it was voted by the colony. The act seemed satisfactory enough,
except the important reservation with regard to taxation; a reservation
which was sufficient to cause the Crown to veto the whole document, and
New York was again without a true and defined constitution. Such a state
of affairs was particularly bad when the colony in 1692 passed under the
rule of the notoriously corrupt Benjamin Fletcher. There are, however,
two things to be said for this man, whose work has been spoken of as
full of deceit, fraud, and subterfuge. In the first place it has been
proved that in military matters he showed considerable skill and
activity; while in the second he undoubtedly realised before many men of
his day the danger of disunion. In May 1696 he wrote, "The Indians,
though monsters, want not sense, but plainly see we are not united, and
it is apparent that the stronger these colonies grow in parts, the
weaker we are on the whole, every little government setting up for
despotic power and allowing no appeal to the Crown, but valuing
themselves on their own strength and on a little juggling in defeating
all commands and injunctions of the King."[182] On the other hand it
must be allowed that Fletcher's methods were particularly scandalous,
for not only did he practically license smuggling and piracy by levying
blackmail upon those who carried on these lucrative trades, but he made
personal friends of them, as for example Captain Tew, "a most notorious
pirate," with whom, to the scandal of the inhabitants, he occasionally
dined.

As has been shown in another chapter, the Earl of Bellomont was made
governor in 1698 to prevent these nefarious undertakings, and as ruler
of New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts he did such
good work that he was universally and sincerely regretted when he died
in 1701. He was succeeded by Lord Cornbury, who was a profligate in
character and overbearing in manner. His rule was one of petty spite and
conflict, and having won the especial hatred of the dissenters and
generally alienated popular support, his recall in 1708 was as much a
cause of rejoicing as Bellomont's death had been of lamentation.

The first sixty years of the eighteenth century were to the inhabitants
of New York years of anxiety and peril, for there was the ever present
danger of the French to the north and west. The story of these years
will be told elsewhere, and here only a rapid sketch can be given of the
domestic history of the colony. Four governors or deputy-governors
attract particular attention during this period. The first was Governor
Burnet,[183] son of the celebrated Bishop, who made himself conspicuous
in 1724 by writing a pamphlet in defence of paper money. The
governorship of William Cosby was not without a constitutional interest,
ten years later, in the prosecution of John Peter Zengler, publisher of
the _New York Weekly Journal_, for criticising the government. He was
described as a "seditious Person, and a frequent Printer and Publisher
of false News and seditious Libels."[184] The same Governor had also a
hard struggle with his people, which caused him to write to the home
Government for more power and patronage, for "ye example and spirit of
the Boston people begins to spread amongst these Colonys In a most
prodigious maner, I have had more trouble to manige these people then I
could have imagined, however for this time I have done pritty well with
them; I wish I may come off as well with them of ye Jarsys."[185]

[Illustration: MAP OF NORTH AMERICA, 1755]

It is evident that as late as 1740 the position of governor was one of
lucrative importance; in that year George Clarke, junior, offered the
Duke of Newcastle £1000 if he would appoint Mr Clarke, senior,
governor, instead of lieutenant-governor as he then was. But this must
have been almost the last case that the post was financially desirable,
for it was clearly the reverse between 1743 and 1753, when George
Clinton was governor. He himself writes, "The Govern^t of New York will
not be near so valuable to Gov^r Clinton as it has been to his
predecessors.--The Province of New Jersey having always till now been
united with New York, and under the same government, and the salary paid
by New Jersey has always been £1000 besides other considerable
advantages, so that the making New Jersey a separate and distinct
govern^t makes New York at least £1000 a year less in value to Gov^r
Clinton than it was to his predecessors."[186] There were, however,
other reasons which in the near future would make the financial position
of the Governor still more precarious, and Clinton could hardly be
expected to foresee that the advantages gained over the French during
his lifetime would in later years be one of the main causes of entire
independence of official governors sent from England.

FOOTNOTES:

[166] Seeley, _Growth of British Policy_ (1897), vol. ii. p. 25.

[167] Seeley, _Growth of British Policy_ (1897), vol. ii. p. 25.

[168] Quoted by Fitchett, _Fights for the Flag_ (1900), p. 3.

[169] _Description and First Settlement of New Netherland_ (_1888_).

[170] _The Representation of New Netherland_ (ed. 1849).

[171] _Documents relative to the Colonial History of the State of New
York_ (1877).

[172] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1661-1668, p. 227.

[173] _Documents relative to the Colonial History of the State of New
York_ (1858).

[174] Doyle, _Cambridge Modern History_ (1905), vii. p. 41.

[175] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1661-1668, p. 337.

[176] _Ibid._, p. 606.

[177] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1669-1674, p. 111.

[178] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1669-1674, p. 525.

[179] Hazard, _Historical Collections_ (1792).

[180] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1689-1692, p. 209.

[181] _A Letter from a Gentleman of the City of New York_ (1698).

[182] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1696-1697, p. 5.

[183] He was also governor of Massachusetts, and died in 1729.

[184] _A Brief Narrative of the Case and Tryal of John Peter Zengler_,
etc. (1738).

[185] _Document relative to the Colonial History of the State of New
York_ (1855).

[186] _Documents relative to the Colonial History of the State of New
York_ (1855).

CHAPTER VII

THE QUAKER SETTLEMENTS AND GEORGIA

There are few examples in history of the possessions of an ardent Roman
Catholic passing quietly and amicably into the hands of members of the
Society of Friends, but the Quaker colonies stand pre-eminent as one
instance of this exceptional circumstance. The Quakers were probably the
most persecuted of all religious sects in North America, and yet by the
irony of fate, one of the most thriving settlements owed its origin to
them; its capital Philadelphia became the most important town of the
Thirteen Colonies, and for one hundred and seventeen years was regarded
as the commercial, political, and social capital of the bickering and
jarring states. In the history of these Quaker settlements the disunited
character of the colonies is peculiarly apparent, and in no colony or
group of colonies is it better exemplified than in those of New Jersey
and Pennsylvania.

The high-handed action of Charles II. in claiming Dutch territory and
granting it to his brother James, Duke of York, has already been
noticed. As soon as his claim had been authenticated by the victory of
Richard Nicolls, the Duke lavishly granted to Sir George Carteret and
Lord Berkeley the land from the Hudson to the Delaware, and it was
renamed East and West New Jersey. From the very first the settlers
hated the Proprietors for being pronounced absentees endeavouring to
exercise control over those who had already purchased the titles to
their lands, and demanding an unearned increment in a most repellent
form. For three years Philip Carteret, the Governor, did not call a
representative assembly, and at last when he did so, imagining the
spirit of the colonists to be broken, he met with a point-blank refusal
from two of the towns. The colony was, in fact, in a state of mutiny. It
was all very well for those in authority to refrain from claiming quit
rents for five years, but this was only a sop to the settlers, who were
angered by the demand that all patents of lands must be obtained from
the Proprietors. The colonists therefore broke into open revolt; set up
their own representative and deposed Carteret. The rebellion was soon
crushed by the Proprietors, but with this state of affairs within, New
Jersey was not in a condition to resist the attack of the Dutch from
without, and in 1673 the old owners took possession.

The Treaty of Westminster in 1674 restored English rule, and the Duke of
York claimed that all previous titles were annulled by the Conquest. The
new arrangement now made was, that the Duke reserved to himself the left
bank of the Delaware; Carteret was granted a tract of land on the
southern bank of the Hudson; while Berkeley's share was no longer
existent, for he had sold his rights to two Quakers, John Fenwick and
"Edward Byllinge, of Westminster, gent, in whom the title thereunto then
was."[187] Fenwick appears to have been a man of energy, for he
endeavoured to form a settlement on the right bank of the Delaware,
which was strenuously opposed by Sir Edmund Andros, as representative
for the Duke of York. Fenwick, however, won in the end, and established
the colony of Salem. About the same time Edward Byllinge transferred any
rights he might possess to William Penn, the world-famed Quaker. He with
others of the Society of Friends began to colonise on the Delaware, and
their plans were still further encouraged in 1680 by a grant from the
Duke of York including the new colony of Salem. As a balance to this
gift to the Quakers, James, in the following year, increased the
territories of the Carteret family and restored the government to Philip
Carteret, who found, on his return, that his old methods were no longer
possible; the proprietary power had already been considerably weakened,
and the settlers had learnt to manage their own affairs. Sir George
Carteret, recognising that his rights, privileges, and perquisites were
practically nil, very sensibly sold this valueless property to William
Penn, Gawen Laurie, and other Quakers. With that extraordinary desire
for the construction of fantastic constitutions, the new Proprietors at
first attempted to foist upon the settlers a scheme of government which
was so elaborate that it was useless and unworkable. In a very short
time they found that they were obliged to fall back upon the more simple
system of a governor, council, and representative assembly.

The results of this action on the part of Carteret and Penn were on the
whole satisfactory. It so happened that some of the new Proprietors were
Scotsmen, and they stimulated emigration from the North, and New Jersey
was all the better for a strong infusion of the vigorous Scottish race.
The action, too, had the effect of bringing East and West New Jersey
into closer contact, and so paved the way for union. In 1692 another
step was taken in this direction, for the Proprietors of both colonies
appointed Andrew Hamilton as joint-governor. There were, however, many
difficulties to be overcome before union was possible. In the first
place there were unending disputes with New York about the levying of
duties; while secondly, the Proprietors' rights had now become so
complicated by frequent sale and transfer that matters were in dire
confusion; besides these very rights appeared to the settlers themselves
as injurious to the welfare of the colony. They looked for political
privileges for themselves, which would, according to the Proprietors,
clash with their interests. To grant to the settlers rights which were
on the surface merely political, appeared, and indeed would be, the
abnegation of all proprietary territorial claims. The man who might have
done so much for the union of the New Jerseys had unfortunately
transferred his affections elsewhere. Penn, filled with schemes of pure
philanthropy, had left his first settlement to look after itself and had
brought all his energies to bear upon his new venture in Pennsylvania.

Even without Penn's assistance the union of the two Jerseys was bound to
come. In 1701 it was pointed out by the Colonial Office of that day,
that "by several letters, memorials, and other papers, as well from the
inhabitants as Proprietors of both these provinces, that they are at
present in confusion and anarchy; and that it is much to be apprehended
lest by the heats of the parties that are amongst them, they should
fall into such violences as may endanger the lives of many persons and
destroy the colony."[188] It seemed obvious to those in London that some
form of union was necessary to save the colony from this fate, and so
New Jersey from the River Hudson to the River Delaware became a united
province when the Proprietors surrendered all their political and
territorial rights in 1702. For a short time New Jersey with New York
suffered under the scandalous administration of the brainless and
profligate Lord Cornbury, but his evil work was to a certain extent
remedied by Governor Robert Hunter, who proved himself an able colonial
administrator.

The tract of land to which Penn had transferred his philanthropic
schemes lay to the south of the river Delaware. It had been taken from
the Swedes and at one time had been granted to Maryland, but up to the
year 1681 it had remained unoccupied. The Quaker Penn, a man of high
social position, friend and favourite of James II., readily accepted
this piece of territory in liquidation of a debt of £16,000 owed to him
by the Crown. The agreement now drawn up between Penn and the Duke of
York was remarkable for its utter indifference to all constitutional
forms. Penn was appointed Proprietor, but his powers were to a certain
extent limited; on all legislative matters the Crown reserved the right
of veto, and in all financial affairs the newly formed colony was to be
regarded as an integral portion of the realm; while, as a further hold
over revenue, an accredited agent of the colony was to reside in England
and was to explain any infraction of the revenue laws.

Pennsylvania, as first conceived by the Proprietor, was not a colony for
one sect only. He offered no particular inducements to Quakers rather
than to others. The early emigrants were a veritable olla podrida, and
consisted of English Quakers, Scottish and Irish Presbyterians, German
Mennonites, and French Huguenots. It was not long, however, before the
Quaker element distinctly preponderated, with two obvious results. In
the first place one of the strongest tenets of Quakerism was a horror of
war and bloodshed, which belief was steadily upheld by the
Pennsylvanians and proved in later years most baneful to the colony when
the French began their aggressions. The second result was just as good
as the first had been bad. The Quakers taught and believed the equality
of all men before God; to them there was no distinction between settler
and savage, and unlike some of the colonists in the Puritan group,
offered the best of treatment to the Red Indians.

In the autumn of 1681, William Penn dispatched four commissioners to
found the colony that was in later years to become so famous. William
Crispen, Nathaniel Allen, John Bezar and William Heage were chosen by
the Proprietor to select a site on the Delaware; Crispen, Penn's
kinsman, died on the voyage, but the other three faithfully carried out
their orders and selected a spot where the river "is most navigable,
high dry and healthy; that is where most ships can ride, of deepest
draught of water, if possible to load or unload at the bank or key
(_sic_) side without boating or lightering of it."[189] Thomas Howe had
been appointed surveyor-general and at once proceeded to lay out the
city of Philadelphia upon a modification of the plans of Penn and
covering a surface area of about 1200 to 1300 acres. William Penn stands
alone as the founder of a great city of which he was justly proud, and
in 1683 he was able to write, "Philadelphia: the expectation of those
who are concerned in this province is at last laid out, to the great
content of those here who are anyways interested therein. The situation
is a neck of land and lieth between two navigable rivers, Delaware and
Sculkill, whereby it hath two fronts upon the water, each a mile, and
two from river to river."[190]

Penn was quick to foresee a prosperous future for his colony, but he
nearly ruined it at the outset by drawing up a well-intentioned but
somewhat cumbersome constitution. There were to be two elective
chambers: the Upper or council, consisting of 72 members, and the Lower,
which was at first to contain 200, and later 500 members. This
constitution, however, was impossible to manage; the Lower assembly was
obviously far too large and proved superfluous; while the Upper was
found to be too bulky for a Cabinet or executive government; for these
reasons a few months after its conception it was radically altered. The
pruning-knife was called into use and the 72 of the Upper chamber were
cut down to 18; at the same time the absurd number of 200 was reduced to
26, and the right of initiating legislation was taken from the
representatives. But Penn was not yet satisfied and undertook still
further alterations in 1686, when he appointed five Commissioners of
State, three of whom were to be a quorum, and to whom the right of veto
in all legislative affairs was granted. This scheme was almost as bad as
his first constitution, for it gave excessive powers to three or four
men; fortunately for the colony it was not perpetuated.

Early in its history troubles came upon Pennsylvania, which had been
founded "with the pious wish and desire that its inhabitants might dwell
together in brotherly love and unity."[191] The flight of James II. was
the first serious blow to Penn's colonial prosperity; it may be that he
was one of the few men who sincerely and deeply regretted the fall of
the last male Stuart ruler of England, for in James' misfortune Penn
also suffered for a time, and his plans as a colony promoter received a
severe check. At the same time Pennsylvania was torn by internal
quarrels concerning what were called the "Territories" or Delaware. This
district, on the south bank of the Delaware River, had been transferred
from the administration of New York and placed under that of
Pennsylvania. The dispute that arose had for its cause the appointment
of magistrates, and it was only settled by a compromise in which
Delaware was for the future to have its own executive, but there was
only to be one elective chamber for the whole province. Still worse days
came to Pennsylvania when the colony was included in the commission to
the pirate-loving Benjamin Fletcher. As in New York, so in the Quaker
settlement he proved himself arbitrary in conduct, brutal and unwise in
action, immoral and corrupt in his private life. The only comfort to the
Pennsylvanian settlers during his rule was that they won their right to
initiate legislation.

A promise of the renewal of the good days of the past appeared when Penn
succeeded in 1694 in regaining his proprietary rights, now somewhat
shorn of their former privileges. The Proprietor immediately set about
the restoration of his colony's prosperity, but excellent as his work
was, Pennsylvania was still more fortunate in having amongst its members
Gabriel Thomas, one of the brightest colonial authors of that period. He
has not only left some writings of particular merit, but his name has
been handed down to posterity as one who laboured hard for seventeen
years to build up, firmly and strongly, the Quaker settlements in the
West. Such work was necessarily slow, and Penn, when he again visited
his colony, must have been much grieved with its moral condition if
Lewis Morris, Governor of New Jersey, wrote the truth. "Pennsylvania is
settled by People of all Languages and Religions in Europe, but the
people called Quakers are the most numerous of anyone persuasion ... the
Church of England gains ground in that Country, and most of the Quakers
that came off with Mr Keith are come over to it: the Youth of that
country are like those in the neighbouring Provinces very Debaucht and
ignorant."[192]

A long series of disputes with the other colonies began in 1701, which
intensified the danger already only too obvious, caused by the disunion
of the American states and left them the more open to French attack. In
addition to their antipathy to war, the Pennsylvanians now pleaded
poverty as an excuse for refusing to assist in contributing funds
towards the restoration of the fortifications of New York. Penn's common
sense forced him to advocate the contribution, but all his eloquence was
wasted upon his settlers, and he pleaded and remonstrated in vain. A
fresh dispute followed, again arising from the government of Delaware.
Since the last quarrel the Assembly had met alternately at Newcastle and
Philadelphia. The people of Pennsylvania, as members of the more
important state, demanded that in the future any legislation passed at
Newcastle should be ratified and confirmed at Philadelphia. This was
naturally intolerable to the weaker side, and the outcome of the dispute
was the granting of a new charter and the complete separation of
Delaware in 1703.

The last official act of William Penn was the incorporation of his
beloved city of Philadelphia, which had steadily increased in size and
population. A contemporary in 1710, possibly Daniel Defoe, has left on
record a description of the town which gives some idea of its character
and importance. Philadelphia "is a noble, large and populous city,
standing on as much ground as our English City of Bristol.... It is
built square in Form of a Chess-Board with each Front facing one of the
Rivers. There are several Streets near two Mile long, as wide as
Holborn, and better built, after the English Manner. The chief are Broad
Street, King-street, High-street, tho' there are several other handsome
Streets that take their Names from the Productions of the Country: as
Mulberry, Walnut, Beech, Sassafras, Cedar, Vine, Ash and Chestnut
Streets.... The Number of the Inhabitants is generally suppos'd to be
upwards of 15,000 besides Slaves.... And if I were oblig'd to live out
of my native Country, I should not be long puzzled in finding a Place of
Retirement, which should be Philadelphia. There the oppress'd in Fortune
or Principles may find a happy Asylum, and drop quietly to their Graves
without Fear or Want."[193] Such was the happy city within thirty years
of its foundation, and as a political centre it remained supreme until
after the American War of Independence.

Penn retired from the colony in 1701, but continued to take the keenest
interest in all that went on. At one time he remonstrated with the
assembly for attacking his secretary and staunch supporter, James Logan,
who acted as the Proprietor's agent during his long years of absence. As
long as Penn lived he was able to exercise some control, but when he
died in 1718 he left to his heirs a proprietary claim over a colony torn
in pieces by disputes and factions. The brothers John and Thomas Penn
were never popular, and up to the resignation of their claims in 1759
there were continual quarrels, sometimes over the Governor's salary, and
sometimes because the Proprietors, who possessed three-fourths of the
province, refused to allow the taxation of their lands for military
operations against the French.

It is a noticeable fact that the two last colonies of the famous
Thirteen were founded on philanthropic bases. The excellent William Penn
established Pennsylvania as a home of toleration and peace; and the last
of the original states, Georgia, was founded, upon motives that were
highly creditable to their originator. The colony of Georgia owed its
existence to James Oglethorpe, who, after serving a short time in the
army, became a Member of Parliament and was placed upon a Parliamentary
Committee to inquire into the state of the prisons, at that time
conducted on barbarous lines. What he then learnt led Oglethorpe to
propose the formation of a colony where men might honestly work and
better their position instead of pining away in the horrible debtors'
gaols. In addition to this, as he said, "Christianity will be extended
by the execution of this design; since the good discipline established
by the Society will reform the manners of these miserable objects."[194]
There is, too, in his account of the advantages of the colony, a hint as
to the possible pecuniary gain of the individual and of the nation, for
"when hereafter it shall be well-peopled and rightly cultivated, England
may be supplied from thence with raw Silk, Wine, Oil, Dyes, Drugs, and
many other materials for manufactures, which she is obliged to purchase
from Southern countries."[195] Tempted by these proposals, the
Government readily fell in with his scheme and granted to Oglethorpe and
his associates, including the famous Thomas Coram, a tract of land to
the south of the Savannah River and north of the Spanish settlements in
Florida, and here the debtors' colony was to serve as a barrier and
rampart against Spanish aggression. The Corporation was called "The
Trustees for the colonisation of Georgia," and was given full powers of
administration for twenty-six years, at the expiration of which all
privileges were to pass to the Crown.

In the autumn of 1732, James Oglethorpe embarked with 114 settlers; they
were unsatisfactory colonists, for the men who had so hopelessly failed
in England had not that grit and sturdy endurance necessary for founders
of new homes in the West. The colony, however, started well, for
Oglethorpe immediately won the goodwill of the natives, and made a wise
selection of a site for the first settlement about twenty miles from
the mouth of the Savannah River. The town itself was guarded on the
water side by high banks, while impenetrable swamps on the land side
served as sufficient barrier to any warlike incursions that might be
attempted. Besides these advantages, Oglethorpe had also made friendly
overtures to the neighbouring colonies, and in 1733 was able to say with
satisfaction that "if the colony is attacked it may be relieved by sea
from Port Royal, or the Bahamas; and the militia of South Carolina is
ready to support it, by land."[196] Oglethorpe's satisfaction must have
been very short-lived. From the very first the colonists grumbled,
quarrelled, and disputed, and their resident minister, the Reverend
Samuel Quincy, gives a horrible but exaggerated account of the colony in
1735. "Affairs here are but in an ill-condition, through the
discouragements attending the settlement.... The magistrate, to whom the
government of the colony was left, proves a most insolent and tyrannical
fellow. Several just complaints have been sent home against him, which
do not meet with a proper regard, and this has made people very
uneasie.... In short, Georgia, which was seemingly intended to be the
asylum of the distressed, unless things are greatly altered, is likely
to be itself a mere scene of distress.... Notwithstanding the place has
been settled nigh three years, I believe, I may venture to say there is
not one family which can subsist without further assistance."[197]
Affairs though gloomy were scarcely as black as Quincy depicted them,
for in the next few years there was every sign of progress. Already in
1734 there had been a large increase of population by the immigration
of Salzburg Germans under their pastor Martin Bolzius, who had fled from
the persecution of their Prince Bishop. Two years later the colony had
grown sufficiently to found a second settlement, Frederica, seventy
miles south of the Savannah, at the mouth of the Alatamaha River; and a
party of Highlanders about the same time founded New Inverness. Trade
also began to increase and a definite commercial station was established
at Augusta.

In the same year as the foundation of Frederica, John Wesley,
accompanied by his brother Charles, came out as chaplain to the Georgian
flock. He was in residence for a year and nine months, during which
period he seems to have quarrelled with many of the inhabitants and
particularly with the Moravians, and proved himself both indiscreet and
ill-tempered. He himself records in his _Journal_ that he was told by
one man, "I will never hear you any more. And all the people are of my
mind. For we won't hear ourselves abused. Besides, they say, they are
Protestants. But as for you, they can't tell what Religion you are of.
They never heard of such a religion before. They do not know what to
make of it. And then, your private behaviour--all the quarrels that have
been here since you came, have been long of you. Indeed there is neither
man nor woman in the Town, who minds a word you say. And so you may
preach long enough; but nobody will come to hear you."[198] Wesley seems
to have allowed his own personal feelings to enter into his religious
life. He desired to marry a young woman of his congregation, Sophia
Hankey by name, but she preferred to marry a Mr Williamson. Thereupon,
apparently without any other reason than his own personal feelings,
Wesley excluded Mrs Williamson from communion. Her husband very
naturally regarded this as a slur upon his wife's character and brought
an action against Wesley, who was forbidden to leave the colony while
the question was pending. He records in his _Journal_ for December 2nd
what then took place. "In the Afternoon the Magistrates publish'd an
Order requiring all the Officers and Centinels, to prevent my going out
of the Province; and forbidding any person to assist me so to do. Being
now only a Prisoner at large, in a Place, where I knew by experience
every Day would give fresh opportunity, to procure Evidence of words I
never said, and actions I never did; I saw clearly the Hour was come for
leaving the Place: And as soon as Evening Prayers were over, about Eight
o'clock, the tide then serving, I shook off the dust of my Feet, and
left Georgia, after having preach'd the Gospel there (not as I ought but
as I was able) one Year and nearly Nine Months."[199] In regarding
Wesley's action at this time, it is to be remembered that he was a
self-confident, impulsive young enthusiast, lacking knowledge of human
nature, and also that he had not passed through those years of struggle
and earnest work which in later times made him a man of tact and
forbearance.

Meantime a serious danger threatened the colony. In 1736, the Spaniards,
who had long viewed Georgia with suspicion, made an armed
reconnaissance, but nothing could be done, for there was at that time no
war between the two countries in Europe. It was not until 1739 that
Walpole was forced by popular demand to declare war against Spain, an
act which he regarded with disgust as contrary to all his principles and
desires. Georgia was in a particularly exposed position with regard to
Spanish aggression, and Oglethorpe decided to take the offensive as a
defensive measure and carry the war into the enemy's country. Reading
the signs of the times and knowing what was hatching in Europe, the
English Governor collected a force of about 600 volunteers and boldly
marched for Florida in October 1738. He had been partly led to this
action by the fact that news had been brought that the Spanish troops
had been increased in St Augustine, and that the civil inhabitants had
been turned out of their houses to give quarters to the royal forces.
Oglethorpe's move was an unsatisfactory one, not through want of bravery
on his part, but rather because he was a poor judge of men and his
soldiers were wanting in the spirit of loyalty; some had even concerted
a plot with the Spanish, while others had actually deserted to the
enemy. Nothing daunted, Oglethorpe spent the summer of 1739 securing the
alliance of most of the neighbouring Indian tribes, and when war was
formally declared against Spain the Georgian Governor was in a better
position for whatever fate might have in store.

The home authorities ordered Oglethorpe to attack St Augustine, but
before he could do so the Spaniards struck the first blow. Some fifty
miles south of the town of Frederica, the Governor had thought it
advisable to erect a military station on Amelia Island. This was the
first natural object of Spanish attack, but their success was limited to
the murder of two invalids. Oglethorpe, on the other hand, was more
fortunate in capturing a Spanish outpost, which tempted him to risk an
attack on St Augustine itself. He set out in March 1740, with a land
force of about 2000 men, composed of Georgian militia and Indian allies;
being supported at sea by four King's ships and a small schooner from
South Carolina. This latter was practically the only help from the
members of the richer colony, the generosity of which was of a very
limited character; they ought really to have assisted Oglethorpe as well
as they were able, for their danger from the Spaniards was almost as
extreme as that of Georgia. Ill-supported as he was, the Governor
captured three small fortresses, but soon found that the seizure of the
capital of Florida was beyond his slender resources. The few Carolina
troops deserted; his own men were struck down by fever; and his Indian
allies left him in disgust because he tried to restrain their natural
ferocity. In June, having realised that his attempt was hopeless, he
retreated. His work, however, was not entirely unsuccessful, for
although he had failed to do what he had intended, he succeeded in
staving off from Georgia any serious Spanish attack for the next two
years.

The year 1742 marks the crisis of Oglethorpe's career, for it was then
that he won for himself a reputation for daring and strategy. The
Spaniards attacked the colony and, knowing of their approach by means of
his Indian allies, Oglethorpe concentrated all his forces upon the town
of Frederica. The Spanish vanguard made an impetuous onslaught against
which the Governor led with considerable daring his own ill-organised
men. He showed that spirit of courage and prowess that fascinated even
his wretched followers, who gave him willingly what support they could.
He himself captured single-handed two of the Spaniards. But his strategy
was yet to be displayed. As the fight continued, he sent through the
wood a flank force which fell upon the Spaniards so suddenly and
unexpectedly that they were routed with heavy loss, and the panic was
sustained by an expedient of Oglethorpe's invention. By means of a
deserter he succeeded in hoodwinking the enemy, declaring that he was
ready for a second assault, which would be welcomed with the same hearty
spirit that had been accorded to the first; at the same time he informed
them, in mere bravado, that he was expecting an English fleet. As a
matter of fact the desire for a second attack and the arrival of English
vessels were mere figments of Oglethorpe's imagination. But as the gods
fight on the side of the brave, so Oglethorpe was rewarded by the almost
miraculous appearance of a few men-of-war. From that moment Georgia may
be said to have earned her safety. She owed her existence to Oglethorpe,
and to him and his cunning she owed her salvation. It may be truly said
that at last the colony had thoroughly justified its existence and had
fulfilled one of the main functions for which it had been created. The
aforetime debtors of England had not shown particular courage, but their
leader had fulfilled the promise of ten years before, and Georgia had
stood firm and strong as a bulwark defending its more prosperous
neighbours who lay upon the northern frontier. Those neighbours had much
for which to thank the weakly colony, to whom in time of stress they had
given little or no assistance. It was only one more example of the lack
of unity, and one more instance of that failure to secure really
effective co-operation which, had it existed, would have made so great a
difference to the advance of the colonies. Georgia's position was,
however, all the more exalted, for under Oglethorpe she had stood alone
and had not been found wanting.

The colony was now safe from invasion, but there were many internal
difficulties that had to be confronted. The debtors of England were not
like the hardy and cheerful Salzburgers who managed to flourish and
enjoy life. The climate itself was one of the most serious drawbacks to
white labour, and an influential party saw that the colony could hardly
compete against the other southern states where slave labour was
employed. This party was supported in its views by George Whitefield,
who had come, to Georgia in 1738 and who strongly advocated negro
slavery. When it is remembered that one of the most permanent triumphs
of the Evangelical party was the abolition of slavery, it is curious
that one of the earliest and greatest of its leaders should have
defended and encouraged the slave owners. But his advocacy had no effect
upon the Trustees, who were firm in their determination to prevent negro
slave traffic. The settlers sent a strong protest to England in 1739,
stating that "Timber is the only thing we have here ... yet we cannot
manufacture it for a Foreign Market but at double the Expense of other
Colonies; as for Instance, the River of May, which is but twenty miles
from us, with the Allowance of negroes, load Vessels with that Commodity
at one Half of the Price that we can do.... We are very sensible of the
Inconveniences and Mischiefs that have already, and do daily arise from
an unlimited Use of Negroes; but we are as sensible, that these may be
prevented by a due Limitation."[200] The Trustees replied that the
introduction of negroes would be the introduction of a "baneful
Commodity, which, it is well known by sad Experience, has brought our
Neighbour Colonies to the Brink of Ruin, by driving out their White
Inhabitants, who were their Glory and Strength, to make room for Black,
who are now become the Terror of their unadvised Masters."[201]
Excellent as the answer of the Trustees was, there can be little doubt
that for lack of proper executive both the restrictions on liquor and on
slavery were systematically evaded and after 1752 were allowed to lapse.

[Illustration: WILLIAM PITT, LORD CHATHAM _From the painting by
W. Hoare in the National Portrait Gallery._]

Oglethorpe, promoted to the rank of General, left Georgia in 1743, never
to return. The colony cannot be called an entire success; the very
philanthropy upon which it was founded deprived it to a certain extent
of those enduring qualities which had made the New England colonies
strong and healthy provinces. But though Oglethorpe had not accomplished
all that he had wanted to do, a modern writer has paid him a high
tribute when he says that he "had attained a far larger measure of
success than most men could have won with such material."[202] That the
colony was prospering is shown by Edmund Burke in 1759, when he said,
"At present Georgia is beginning to emerge, though slowly, out of the
difficulties that attended its first establishment: It is still but
indifferently peopled, though it is now twenty-six years since its first
settlement. Not one of our colonies was of so slow a growth, though none
had so much of the attention of the Government, or of the people in
general, or raised so great expectations in the beginning. They export
some corn and lumber to the West Indies; they raise some rice, and of
late are going with success into indigo. It is not to be doubted but in
time, when their internal divisions are a little better composed, the
remaining errors in the government corrected, and the people begin to
multiply, that they will become a useful province."[203]

Some of the "errors in the government" had come up for discussion as
early as 1751, when for the first time a representative assembly was
called, but it was only granted deliberative functions. The whole
character of the government of Georgia was radically altered when,
according to the original agreement, the colony passed into the hands of
the Crown. The population now consisted of 2380 whites and 1060 negroes,
and these came to be governed under a constitution of normal type
consisting of a governor, council, and executive officers nominated by
the Crown, and a representative assembly elected by the freeholders.

Such, then, was the history of the last colony to be founded, completing
the unlucky number thirteen, and it remained the weakest and least
efficient of all. From small beginnings the English colonies came into
being along the Eastern seaboard of America. Puritans and cavaliers,
profligates and mechanics, all helped to create what might have been
except for sad misunderstandings part of the British empire of to-day.
Behind the Alleghany slopes another great power was attempting to form a
colonial empire. North of the St Lawrence, New France had already been
established; by the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana had already
been named. In some places not inaccessible hills, in others not
unnavigable rivers divided the Briton from the Gaul. It was inevitable
that sooner or later the struggle between the two great powers must
come. It might be fought in Europe upon battlefields which are familiar
to all, but it was also fought out upon the far distant border line, and
the struggles of the colonial militia with the French Canadian
backwoodsman presents a story of endurance, courage, and determination
equal if not superior to the annals of those English regiments which
fought in the Netherlands or on "the plains of Germany."

FOOTNOTES:

[187] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1677-1680, p. 587.

[188] Compare the _N.J. Archives_, ii., p. 420.

[189] Quoted in the _Enc. Britannica_.

[190] Janney, _Life of William Penn_ (1852).

[191] Pastorius, _Geographical Description of Pennsylvania_ (1850).

[192] New Jersey Historical Society, _Proceedings_ (1849-1850).

[193] _The Voyages and Adventures of Captain Robert Boyle_, etc. (1726).

[194] Force, _Tracts_ (1836).

[195] _Ibid._

[196] Force, _Tracts_ (1836).

[197] Massachusetts Historical Society, _Collections_ (1814).

[198] Wesley, _Journal_, June 22, 1736.

[199] Wesley, _Journal_, December 2, 1737.

[200] Force, _Tracts_ (1836).

[201] _Ibid._

[202] Doyle, _Cambridge Modern History_ (1905), vol. vii. p. 63.

[203] _An Account of the European Settlements in America_ (1760).

CHAPTER VIII

THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC HISTORY OF NEW ENGLAND

"God sifted a whole nation that he might send choice grain over into
this wilderness."[204] With regard to New England this statement was in
part true, for the people of those northern colonies exhibited a
remarkable homogeneity, and their leaders were men of a peculiarly lofty
character. That this population grew with leaps and bounds during the
first century of settlement is well attested by records. As early as
1643, Massachusetts had a population of 20,000; while Plymouth,
Connecticut, and Newhaven, taken together, must have numbered between
eleven and twelve thousand. At the Restoration the total population is
placed at 80,000, of which two-thirds dwelt in Massachusetts. The
eighteenth century statistics show a steady increase, 100,000 whites and
4000 negroes being a rough computation for the year 1714.

The people dwelt for the most part in little towns, each one of which
was a separate commonwealth possessing representative government. The
corporations were the chief landholders and watched with the greatest
jealousy any increase of individual possession which might trespass upon
their rights. The system was one of antiquity and carries our thoughts
back to mediæval methods where police, finance, justice, and agriculture
were all concentrated in one manorial district. Just as in England in
Plantagenet days there were the division of the land into strips, the
rights of common pasture, and the tilling on a communal principle, so in
the New England of the seventeenth century these systems were employed
with partial success. The houses in which the settlers dwelt were for
the most part built of wood, and stretched in orderly rows along trim
streets. Each homestead was detached, and like the houses of our
Teutonic forefathers, "was surrounded with a clearing," which in America
was usually allotted to fruit trees.

The comfort of the houses was of a very doubtful character, log huts
were extremely draughty, so that houses of brick and stone were most
coveted, but only obtainable by the rich. Although in Plymouth as early
as 1645 glass seems to have been common in the windows, yet the houses
were mainly of wood, which was also the case at Newport as late as 1686.
Governor Bradstreet six years before this had recorded that Boston had
suffered severely by fire and that the houses were therefore to be
rebuilt with brick or stone, "yet hardily to be obtained by reason of
the inhabitants' poverty."[205] Wooden houses continued to be built, and
in fact in a few instances exist to this day. In Boston they were still
common in 1750, if we are to believe Captain Francis Goelet. "Boston,"
he writes, "the Metropolis of North America, Is Accounted The Largest
Town upon the Continent, Haveing about Three Thousand Houses in it,
about two Thirds them Wooden Framed Clap Boarded, &c."[206]

The men of Boston, and of New England in general, were, owing to natural
circumstances, traders. They had found themselves in a land of splendid
harbours, and so they went down to the sea in ships and trafficked upon
its waters. It has of course been urged that this trade of the colonies
was sadly restricted by the English people, who as a nation of
shopkeepers were determined that "the cultivators of America might be
confined to their shop."[207] For this reason the Navigation Act of
1660, on the lines of the famous Act of 1651, insisted on certain
enumerated articles being landed in British ports only; and this was
still further extended by two later enactments. But even Adam Smith
allows that "though the policy of Great Britain with regard to the trade
of her colonies has been dictated by the same mercantile spirit as that
of other nations, it has, however, upon the whole, been less illiberal
and oppressive than that of any of them."[208] The colonial system was
in truth a mistake, but it never undermined the trade of the British
settlements, as was the case in French Canada, owing to the corrupt and
negligent methods of Bigot and his gang. The result was that the New
England trader flourished. The trade had of course small beginnings; at
first merely fish and fur were exported to Virginia. Then corn, cattle,
and butter were sent to the West Indies, and exchanged for cotton and
fruits. More distant voyages followed, and in 1643, wine, iron, and
wool were imported from Spain. In the meantime iron had been discovered
in Massachusetts by the younger Winthrop at Lynn and Braintree; and the
Commissioners in 1665 certified that there was "good store of iron made
in this province."[209] The Commissioners were, however, too optimistic,
for the iron raised proved to be of inferior quality; partly because of
this inferiority, but chiefly owing to trade regulations, scarcity of
labour, and high wages, all cutlery and farm implements were imported
from England well into the eighteenth century. The reported discovery of
silver in Rhode Island in 1648 caused a nine days' wonder, and then the
excitement subsided for nothing came of it. Lead was also found as early
as 1650 in Lynn, but these mineral industries never rose to great
importance under British rule.

Minor commercial industries seem to have flourished, as there are
frequent references to masons, bricklayers, ropemakers, powder and
pitch-makers, and in 1650 Boston had its own goldsmith. Clothmaking was
not altogether unknown, as certain clothiers from Yorkshire settled at
Rowley in 1639 and established weaving and spinning. The venture was,
however, unsatisfactory, and although New England encouraged by bounties
the textile industry, yet it took long to mature, and as late as 1700
there was only one small cloth mill in Connecticut. At the same time it
is evident that the different colonies varied very much in their
prosperity. Plymouth is reported to the Committee of Trade and
Plantations to have no trade beyond the sea. About the same time
Governor Bradstreet complains of the poverty of Boston, and says "the
country in general is very poor, and it is hard for the people to clothe
themselves and families."[210] The general trade of New England,
however, in the eighteenth century seems to have been good. Daniel
Neale, a very careful writer of the day, records in 1720 that the
imports from England were "all sorts of Woollen Drapery, Silks, Stuffs,
and Hats; all Sorts of Linnen and printed Callicoes, all sorts of Iron
Manufacture ... to the value of 100,000 _l._ annually and upwards. In
Return for these Goods, our Merchants export from thence about 100,000
Quintals of dried Cod-fish Yearly, which they send to Portugal, Spain,
and several Ports of Italy, the returns for which are made to London out
of the Products of those Countries, and may amount to the value of about
80,000 _l._ annually."[211]

Governor Wentworth reports in 1730 that New Hampshire manufactured
timber "into beams, planks, knees, boards ... and sometimes into
house-frames."[212] But long before this it had been exported to England
for naval purposes, and on two occasions at least the Massachusetts
Government bought the goodwill of the home authorities by a timely
present of masts. In particular, however, this timber was used by the
colonies for shipbuilding, which became an industry of importance, and
in later years those employed in it actually excelled the English
shipwrights. In 1631 Winthrop built a thirty-ton vessel, soon to be
followed by others of a hundred and even three hundred tons; and seven
years later the first New England vessel sailed safely across the
Atlantic into the Thames. Although in 1643 Massachusetts could only
boast five ships ranging from one hundred to five hundred tons, yet in
1665 the colony had one hundred and ninety-two ships of all sizes; and
in 1708 possessed two hundred, twenty of which were over one hundred
tons burthen. Rhode Island ran Massachusetts very close in this
shipbuilding race. Between 1690 and 1710 her vessels are said to have
increased six-fold, and in 1740 the inhabitants could proudly boast that
they owned no fewer than one hundred and twenty ships. Connecticut never
competed in this form of industry, and in 1708 she is reported to have
had only thirty vessels. New Hampshire too carried on her over-sea
traffic by means of strange vessels, possessing only five ships of her
own. In 1748, although trade was supposed to be in a very depressed
state, five hundred and forty ships sailed from Boston, a fact which
showed a considerable export and import commerce.

It would be erroneous to imagine that the colonies in the eighteenth
century were in any way struggling, poverty-stricken communities. Their
trade had grown with leaps and bounds, and they carried on a profitable
commerce with England which Sir Robert Walpole had encouraged on the
grounds that "the greater the prosperity of the colonies, the greater
would be their demand for English goods."[213] That this proved true is
shown by William Pitt saying in 1766, "the profits to Great Britain from
the trade of the colonies are two millions a year. That was the fund
that carried you triumphantly through the last war.... And shall a
miserable financier come with a boast that he can filch a peppercorn
into the exchequer to the loss of millions to the nation?"[214] For the
same reason Adam Smith has given a conspicuous place to colonial trade
in his _Wealth of Nations_. "Though the wealth of Great Britain," he
writes, "has increased very much since the establishment of the Act of
Navigation, it certainly has not increased in the same proportion as
that of the colonies.... The industry of Great Britain, instead of being
accommodated to a great number of small markets, has been principally
suited to one great market.... The expectation of a rupture with the
colonies accordingly has struck the people of Great Britain with more
terror than they ever felt for a Spanish Armada or a French
invasion."[215]

The colonists did not, however, simply depend upon trade for their means
of livelihood; many of them engaged in agriculture. During the winter
months their beasts suffered as much as those in England, for until the
eighteenth century there were no winter roots. In the same way the
rotation of crops was much restricted, as the settlers were totally
ignorant of artificial grasses. They had still to wait for Lord
Townshend to make his agricultural experiments at home before they could
grow turnips, cereals, and grasses on scientific principles. On the
other hand they seem to have anticipated the discoveries of Mr Jethro
Tull of Mount Prosperous, and some years previous to his work on
husbandry they had inaugurated deep tillage. Tobacco, the principal
commodity of the southern colonies, was not introduced into New England
until 1660, but its place as a staple was taken by the cultivation of
large quantities of rape, hemp, and flax. The colonists also, after many
disappointments, came to be enthusiastic breeders of sheep, horses,
goats, and cattle. At first the sheep fared very badly; the wool crop
was short, and the climate proved unsuitable to the English stock. By
1642, however, there were one thousand sheep in Massachusetts, and these
increased very rapidly. The authorities were most anxious to encourage
sheep-farming, and in 1654 the exportation of sheep was forbidden. In
Rhode Island and Connecticut they flourished upon the public lands, and
by 1670 the latter colony was able to export a fairly large quantity of
wool.

During the whole period there was a great lack of specie, which in the
early years had not been a very serious drawback, as barter was the
ordinary method of exchange, but as the colonies advanced in importance
it was a decided check upon foreign commerce. In 1631, Massachusetts
declared corn to be legal tender, and four years later it was ordained
that public dues were to be paid in this commodity at the rate of 6s.
per bushel. This system was employed in the next decade by both
Connecticut and Newhaven, with decidedly disadvantageous results, for it
brought about the inconvenience of a double price; the monetary payment
being about half the actual value of the payment in kind. For many years
in the Indian trade the settlers had used Indian shell money or wampum.
This medium of exchange was first applied in New Plymouth in 1627, and
was afterwards employed by Coddington when he bought Aquedneck. In 1641,
wampum was declared legal tender under £10, but within eight years the
Massachusetts Assembly refused to accept it for taxes. The fact was that
it depended solely upon Indian trade, and when this began to decline,
wampum was valueless. Rhode Island was the last colony to discontinue
its use for taxes, which it did in 1662; though it acted as small change
in Newhaven well into the eighteenth century.

As early as 1642, Massachusetts, by means of its foreign trade, began to
obtain coined money in the shape of Dutch ducats and rix-dollars. But
the extraordinary mixture of coins was very awkward, so that in 1652 a
mint was established in the colony. John Hall, the goldsmith of Boston,
was made its master. The coins had stamped upon them the word
Massachusetts encircling a tree, which was in early years a willow,
later an oak, and finally a pine. Charles II. was furious at this attack
upon his coinage, and the story goes that to appease his wrath he was
told that the emblem of the oak was in grateful memory of his glorious
escape at Boscobel.

Towards the end of the seventeenth century the amount of coin in the
country had very largely increased, but in the commercially backward
Connecticut, barter was still common. As late as 1698, gold was very
scarce, and taxes continued to be paid entirely in silver. The colonists
firmly believed in the enriching powers of paper money, which in New
England was issued in particularly large quantities by Rhode Island. The
real disadvantage was intercolonial, and not internal, so that most of
the colonists failed to understand the interference of the home
authorities, either in 1740, when the Lords Commissioners for Trade and
Plantations forbade the governors to sanction the issue of bills of
credit, or again in 1744, when an Act of Parliament was passed
forbidding paper money altogether. The fact was that the settlers
believed, like Governor Burnet, "that this manner of compulsive credit
does in fact keep up its value here, and that it occasions much more
trade and business than would be without it, and that more specie is
exported to England by reason of these Paper Bills than could be if
there was no circulation but of specie."[216]

It is not surprising that the colonists should also labour under the
economic delusion that it was necessary to regulate wages and prices. At
first Massachusetts left them both free, but after three years, wages
were found to have risen to what was then regarded as the monstrous rate
of 3s. a day for carpenters and 2s. 6d. a day for common workmen. In
1633, therefore, a scale of wages was proposed by the General Court, and
"they made an order that carpenters, masons, etc., should take but two
shillings the day, and labourers but eighteenpence, and that no
commodity should be sold at above fourpence in the shilling more than it
cost for ready money in England."[217] The enactment, however, proved
fruitless, and was repealed two years later. The enormous rise in wages
and the extortionate prices still exercised the minds of those in
authority, and a committee was appointed in 1637. The outcome of their
deliberations was that about 1643 the wages of farm labourers were fixed
at 1s. 6d. a day. This remuneration appears to have been ample, and it
has been calculated that a careful man could save enough in five years
to become the tenant of a small farm. This was not so difficult as it
might seem, for small holdings were common, and as succession was by
gavelkind and not through primogeniture, holdings tended to be kept
limited in extent. The accumulation of land was rather the exception
than the rule, though there are occasional examples, as in Newhaven,
where some estates contained as many as three thousand acres.

The thriftless man could not, of course, save very much out of such a
wage, and there were therefore many paupers. The burden of their support
fell upon the towns, and in the case of New Plymouth, it was not long
before the township became "the poor law unit."[218] The decision as to
a man's settlement caused as much difficulty in the Puritan colonies as
it was doing in England at the time. In 1639, Massachusetts ordained
that two magistrates should decide this momentous question. Six years
later the power of decision was put in the hands of a committee; while
immediately before the Restoration a three months' residence was
selected as the period of settlement necessary to denote a man's parish.

The richer inhabitants of the Puritan colonies no doubt had slaves, but
throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries negro slavery in New
England was never a very flourishing institution. The tenets of
Calvinism naturally warred against such a practice, while "the main
influence ... was no doubt the unfitness of the climate and soil for
servile industry."[219] The Rhode Island authorities were from the first
against perpetual bondage, and in 1646, Massachusetts also raised its
voice against slavery. As late as 1680 there were, according to Governor
Brodstreet, only one hundred and twenty negro slaves in the colony, and
they sold for £10, £15, and £20 apiece. The methods of employment do not
seem to have been harsh, and according to Mrs Knight in 1704, the slaves
and masters in Connecticut had their meals together: "into the dish goes
the black hoof as freely as the white hand."[220] Towards the end of the
seventeenth century slavery slightly increased in New England, and it
was found necessary to pass several laws for the better regulation of
the negro. In 1703, in Massachusetts, slaves were not to be set free
unless their masters guaranteed that they would not become a burden on
the poor rate. Two years later the marriage between slaves and whites
was forbidden, and a £4 duty was placed upon every imported negro. In
1708 the blacks in Rhode Island numbered only four hundred and
twenty-six, but within twelve years they had risen to one thousand,
three hundred. At the same time Connecticut had eight hundred, while
Massachusetts was the worst offender with three thousand.

The actions and protestations of the New Englanders were somewhat
contradictory. Although negro slavery was preached against, it was
nevertheless practised. So too with regard to the Indians. The New
Englander treated the savage with contempt, yet several efforts were
made, not without some success, to convert the Redskin to the Christian
faith. Thomas Mayhew has earned for himself historic fame by being the
first who really made definite attempts to bring the natives into touch
with the doctrines of Christianity. In 1643, with the ready assistance
of his Indian colleague Hiacoomes, he did what he could, and at least
succeeded in founding schools in some of the Indian villages.
Massachusetts made state efforts in 1646, but they were surpassed by the
individual enterprise of John Eliot of Roxbury, who had laboriously
learnt the Indian tongue to accomplish this great work. Excellent as the
work was, it compares but feebly with the self-denial of the Jesuits in
Canada, whose missionary labours far surpassed in deeds of heroism and
suffering anything that was ever undertaken by the English settlers. A
progressive move was made in 1649, when Parliament incorporated the
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England. The work then
spread more rapidly, so that in two years a convert settlement of four
hundred "praying Indians" was established at Natich. The Society for the
Propagation of the Gospel was encouraged to still further action when in
1662 it was granted a Royal Charter. For this reason it may be said that
the Restoration stimulated missionary effort, the partial success of
which is to be found in the issue of an Indian Bible and the creation of
converted Indian villages in Massachusetts, New Plymouth, Martha's
Vineyard, and Nantucket.

In New England the church and township were inseparable, their members
being for the most part Congregationalists. In the early days a body of
believers simply entered into a Church covenant and that was all. The
methods of worship were somewhat peculiar, and it is asserted that for
sixty years these Puritans had no marriage or funeral ceremonies.
Throughout all the colonies there was the principle that the members of
the church must support their minister, and in 1637 Massachusetts issued
an order to that effect. In 1650 Connecticut and in 1657 Plymouth did
the same. The Churches were separate in their governance, and the synods
of United Churches held at Boston in 1646, 1657, and 1662 were not
viewed with entire favour by all the congregations. At first, as has
already been shown, the Puritans were the most intolerant of people, and
tried to enforce the law that a freeman must be a member of the Church.
Gradually, however, this fanatic flame burnt itself out, and by the end
of the seventeenth century the intensity of feeling on matters of Church
and toleration began to relax. Fifty years later there were men in
Massachusetts and elsewhere who blushed for shame at the harsh bigotry
of their grand-parents, and one writer is able to say "at present the
Congregationalists of New England may be esteemed among the most
moderate and charitable of Christian professions."[221] Nevertheless
even in that eighteenth century there was no lack of factions and
parties, and this was intensified by the preaching of George Whitefield
in 1739. He certainly created a religious revival amongst the
dissenters, but at the same time his words drove many of the
Independents into the arms of the Church of England, which, though by no
means welcomed in Massachusetts, had long been tolerated in Connecticut.
Even after this event, however, the Established Church never really
succeeded in the colonies, for there was no colonial episcopate, and it
was regarded as doing little or nothing for spiritual life. In 1758,
Archbishop Thomas Seeker urged manfully "the establishment of Bishops
of our Church in America,"[222] but it was too late, and the fear of
such an establishment was a main cause of uneasiness in New England at
the outbreak of the War of Independence.

The lack of unanimity in the religious question does not seem to have
existed with regard to education. Unlike the southern and middle
colonies, the Puritans from the outset encouraged the education of the
young with praiseworthy enthusiasm. This owed its origin to several
circumstances, not the least being the fact that so many men from the
two ancient Universities emigrated during the period 1630 to 1640. The
foundation of Harvard, as already mentioned,[223] did something to
encourage teaching. In 1640, Rhode Island, with extraordinary
promptitude, established public education, but without any definite
system. Seven years later, Massachusetts went further still by creating
elementary schools in small villages of fifty householders, and grammar
schools in the larger and more populous towns. The same was done in
Connecticut; but curiously enough New Plymouth seems to have done
nothing for education until the end of the seventeenth century.
Providence had its own school three years after the Restoration; and by
1693 Hartford, Newhaven, New London, and Fairfield were all in
possession of state-supported schools. Connecticut's energy did not stop
here; for Yale College was founded, and in 1717 was permanently
established at Newhaven, where a house had been built "for the
entertainment of the scholars belonging to the Collegiate School."[224]
Thus the clergy of Connecticut were freed from their dependence upon
Harvard. For nothing does New England deserve more unstinted praise than
for these early efforts in the cause of education, the results of which
have proved so eminently satisfactory.

Whether University education had much effect upon the literature of New
England it would perhaps be a little difficult to say. Connecticut, for
example, even with Yale College as a starting-point, produced no great
literary achievements. Nevertheless throughout the first century of New
England's story there was a well-defined and living school of
literature. The school naturally divided into two parts: that of
theology, which to the ordinary modern critic is somewhat meaningless;
and that of history. The historical section was composed for the most
part of chronicles, glowing with patriotism, alive with the picture of
the daily life, and filled with "a dignity of diction belonging to those
who have assimilated the English Bible till their speech instinctively
adopts its form."[225] There was the work of Winthrop; the impulsive,
triumphal hymn of Edward Johnson; "The Simple Cobbler of Agawam" of
Nathaniel Ward, and the writings of many others. But this period of
history and theology died away as the century neared its close. At the
beginning of the eighteenth century Cotton Mather may be regarded as one
of the best known of Boston authors. But the curious thing about the New
England literature is the total absence of anything that might be called
secular. The colonies, however, were not without their poets, for they
had Anne Bradstreet and Michael Gigglesworth, the works of both of whom
were recognised in the seventeenth century as being of real poetical
merit.

This outburst of literature could never have been accomplished had it
not been for the introduction of the printing-press. As early as 1638 a
press was brought by Day to Boston and set up at Cambridge. A second
press was introduced in 1655 by the Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel. Rhode Island had its press in 1708; while Short of Boston
established printing in New London, Connecticut, in 1709. By the end of
the seventeenth century newspapers began to be printed, such as _The
Public Occurance both Foreign and Domestic_ at Boston in 1690, to be
followed fourteen years later by John Campbell's _Boston Letter_.

The increase of newspapers was the natural outcome of better means of
travel and circulation of news. At first the different townships had
been divided by vast forests; gradually, however, roads were built and
communication between the different settlements was established. As
early as 1638, three bridges were ordered to be built in Plymouth, and
in 1652 we read of bridges that were strong enough for horsemen.
Travelling, however, was generally on foot, for coaches were very rare
and were only possessed by the more wealthy citizens of Boston. A postal
service was established in the reign of Charles II. between Boston and
New York; but it was not until 1710 that a General Post Office, with
several sub-offices, was erected by Act of Parliament. The inns were not
of any particular comfort, though they were fairly numerous. The Puritan
was not hospitable like his southern brother, so that throughout New
England taverns were insisted upon by law.

This was probably an excellent enactment and far better than many of the
extraordinary laws that stained the pages of the New England records.
Numerous sumptuary laws were passed against the wearing of gold or
silver girdles, ruffs, or slashed sleeves. Drunkards had to proclaim
their fault by wearing a red D; while Hawthorne's _Scarlet Letter_ has
familiarised all with the cruel punishment meted out to the fallen
woman. In 1658, lying, drinking, and swearing could be punished by
flogging; dancing and kissing also fell under severe penalties, though
Cotton does say he only condemns "lascivious dancing to wanton ditties
and in amorous gestures and wanton dalliances, especially after great
feasts."[226] The attempt to prevent immorality was carried to the most
absurd lengths, and even in the eighteenth century stage plays and rope
dancing were forbidden as "likely to promote idleness and a great
mispence of time."[227]

The laws may have been foolish, but it is perhaps uncharitable to judge
them too sternly at this period. The men who passed them were
undoubtedly conscientious; harsh they may have been, cruel in their
punishments, but their hearts were in what they conceived to be the work
of the Lord. They were bold men in a "howling wilderness"; they were the
pioneers of a great nation. The American spirit to-day is compounded of
much that once animated these first Americans on the eastern sea-coast.
Their industry, their untiring energy, their honesty, their masculine
character have been handed down through many generations to descendants
not unworthy of such an ancestry as that of the Pilgrim Fathers.

FOOTNOTES:

[204] Words of Stoughton, Lieutenant-Governor of Massachusetts.

[205] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1677-1680, p. 529.

[206] _New England Historical and Genealogical Register_ (1870), xxiv.
p. 62.

[207] Adam Smith, _Wealth of Nations_ (ed. 1845), p. 254.

[208] _Ibid._, p. 240.

[209] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1661-1668, No. 50.

[210] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1677-1680, p. 529.

[211] _History of New England_, II. (1720) ch. xiv.

[212] New Hampshire Historical Society, _Collections_, i. p. 228.

[213] Morley, J., Walpole, _Twelve English Statesmen_ (1896), p. 168.

[214] 1 Green, W., William Pitt, _Heroes of the Nations_ (1901), p. 258.

[215] Smith, A., _Wealth of Nations_ (ed. 1845), pp. 245 and 249.

[216] O'Callaghan, _Documents relative to Colonial History of State of
New York_ (1855), v. p. 738.

[217] Winthrop, _History of New England_ (ed. 1853), i., Nov. 1633.

[218] Doyle, _The English in America_, vol. ii. p. 64.

[219] _Ibid._, p. 506.

[220] Knight, _Journal_ (1825), p. 40.

[221] Quoted by Thwaites, _The Colonies_, 1492-1750 (1891), p. 189.

[222] O'Callaghan, _ut supra_, vii. 348.

[223] See p. 93.

[224] Clap, _The Annals or History of Yale College_ (1766), p. 22.

[225] Doyle, _Cambridge Modern History_ (1905), vol. vii. p. 60.

[226] _Mass. Hist. Coll._, Series II. vol. x. p. 183.

[227] Quoted by Doyle, _Colonies under the House of Hanover_ (1907), p.
13.

CHAPTER IX

THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC HISTORY OF THE SOUTHERN AND MIDDLE COLONIES

The southern colonies in their geographical formation, their soil and
climate, were of a uniform character; nor were there any decidedly
marked religious differences. In the middle colonies this was by no
means the case, but even here the style of life in such states as
Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey had many points of resemblance.
In all the colonies except Maryland and Virginia there was a
heterogeneous population of English, Irish, Scots, Dutch, Huguenots, and
Germans, but in New York State mixed nationalities were most apparent.

The distinction between the grades of society was well-marked in both
the southern and middle colonies. In South Carolina in early times there
was practically no middle class, but at the end of the seventeenth
century a few Ulster Protestants settled in the colony as small farmers
and remained in spite of economic conditions. In Maryland there were
yeomen farmers and tradesmen, who were for the most part rude and
uneducated. A professional middle class was unknown until the eighteenth
century; doctors, for example, were not licensed in New York till 1760.
In New Jersey there was a tendency to insist on democratic principles,
though there is every reason to think that the gentleman farmer was
treated with the same respect accorded to the Quaker squire of
Pennsylvania, or the Dutch patroon of New York. In the South the upper
classes resembled their contemporaries in England. Some were indolent,
haughty, and vain, showing the greatest contempt for honest toil; many
were confirmed gamblers and horse-racers. The bottle and the dice were
the household deities of not a few; but they were nevertheless
bountiful, generous, and patriotic, and proved themselves good specimens
of England's manhood in time of peril.

Below these classes were the indentured servants and negro slaves. The
former were composed of paupers and criminals sent out from England, the
earliest instance being in 1618, when Ambrose Smythe, a felon, was
transported to America, as a servant bound for a limited period. The
life in Virginia on the tobacco plantations must have been of the
hardest, but it was evidently preferable to that in the West Indian
islands, as Penruddock, the conspirator against Cromwell, petitioned in
1656 to be sent to Virginia rather than to the Barbadoes. The evil of
the system of indentured servants lay for the most part in the ease with
which _inconvenient_ people were got rid of, and in the kidnapping of
harmless children. Fugitives from justice, guilty husbands or wives, the
felon and the innocent were all to be found on those ships that sailed
from Bristol. The scandal increased from year to year, so that in 1661
the new Colonial Board was obliged to make an effort to regulate
indentured servants, while three years later a commission under the Duke
of York was appointed to look into the whole matter. The outcome of this
was a most salutary enactment by which kidnapping was made a capital
offence. The inquisitorial system necessary for the proper enforcement
of this Act soon came to be burdensome, as proved by a complaint of the
merchants in 1682, concerning vexatious prosecutions; but that it was
absolutely essential is shown by a fresh Order in Council, four years
later, against kidnappers. The one great advantage possessed by the
indentured servant over the negro slave was that no hereditary
disqualification attached to the children of such servants, whereas in
the case of the blacks the stigma of slavery passed from the parents to
their offspring.

The system of binding servants for so many years tended to check the
growth of slavery; but there is little doubt that during the first
hundred years of American colonisation the influx of negro slaves
reached alarming proportions. In 1620 a Dutch ship landed twenty negroes
from the Guinea coast at the recently established Jamestown. From this
small beginning the cursed traffic grew, and so rapidly that in 1637,
and on many later occasions, enactments were passed to check all
intercourse between whites and blacks. Within twenty years of the
introduction of slavery there were in Virginia about three hundred
blacks, while twelve years later the number had reached one thousand. It
is not to be wondered at that the growth was so rapid, for the trade was
a lucrative one,[228] and it was difficult to check when the first in
the land participated in its spoils. Thus in 1662 the Royal African
Company was founded with James, Duke of York, at its head, and with his
brother Charles II. as a large shareholder. The negroes were in theory
regarded as mere chattels, and to check risings such as those of 1678,
1712, and 1741, barbarous laws were passed against them. On the other
hand, as individuals they were as a general rule comfortably clothed,
fed, and housed; they had many amusements, and their work was not as
arduous as has so often been described. At one time it was an understood
thing in the colonies that the lord had the _jus vitae necisque_ over
his slaves, but at the beginning of the eighteenth century the Crown
made the murder of a negro a capital offence, a decision vigorously
upheld by Governor Spotswood. The number of slaves on each plantation
varied very much; the average may, perhaps, be placed at thirty. But the
largest owner in Virginia possessed 900; while in Maryland this was
easily beaten by an owner with 1300. In the eighteenth century the
negroes far outnumbered the whites in South Carolina; but in New York
they only formed about one-sixth the total population. In Maryland and
Virginia they were as one to three, while in the middle colonies it is
calculated that a ratio of one to seven would give a rough estimate of
their numbers.

Figures and statistics with regard to the white population can only be
surmised. In 1650, Virginia, as the oldest of the colonies, may
possibly have had 15,000 inhabitants. Stuyvesant's calculation for New
York fourteen years later was probably exaggerated when he placed that
cosmopolitan people at 10,000. At the time of the Revolution the total
population of Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas was about 90,000;
but the two first colonies had by far the largest proportion, for
although Shaftesbury and Locke had worked so hard, the Carolinas had
only 4000 settlers all told. The population of East Jersey at the
beginning of the eighteenth century was, according to Governor Lewis
Morris, "about eight thousand souls";[229] while that of Pennsylvania
and Delaware may have been 20,000, at least one-half of whom were
English Quakers. Later in the century more exact figures are
ascertainable. Virginia in 1724 was still the largest with 65,000;
Maryland ran it close with 53,000. Pennsylvania and Delaware had
steadily increased owing to immigration to 32,000; and New York, which
in 1705 had had 25,000 people, had by 1724 increased to 30,000. New
Jersey came next with 26,000, while North and South Carolina lagged
behind with 14,000 and 9000 respectively.

With so large a population it is only natural that there were various
kinds of trade. Tobacco was the staple of Virginia and of Maryland; but
by 1701 Virginia tobacco was acknowledged as far superior to that from
the Baltimore plantations. South Carolina for the first ninety years of
its history relied mainly upon rice, the export of which was encouraged
by Sir Robert Walpole in 1730. The colony was now allowed to export rice
to any port in Europe, south of Finisterre, provided it was sent in
British ships, manned by British seamen. "The result was that the rice
of the American plantations beat the rice of Egypt and Northern Italy
out of the markets of Europe."[230] After 1741 or 1742, indigo planting
became an important industry in the colony, for the seed which was then
introduced was found to flourish in the swamps of the South. Iron was
worked in Virginia to a small extent. Its value was pointed out by the
Company in defence of their charter in 1623: "during these 4 last years
that hath been expended in setting up of iron works (the oar whereof is
there in great plenty and excellent) above five thousand pounds, which
work being brought in a manner to perfection was greatly interrupted by
the late massacre."[231] The industry continued throughout the century,
but never on a large scale. In Philadelphia a more profitable iron
industry existed, while in Maryland in 1749 seventeen iron furnaces were
regularly employed. New Jersey made some slight profit from working her
minerals, such as iron and copper, but her chief exports were cattle and
tanned hides. The exports of Pennsylvania were even more varied,
consisting of horses, pipe staves, salted pork and beef, bread-flour,
peas, beans, tobacco, potashes and wax; while from Germantown in
particular there was paper, glass, and coarse cloth. New York carried on
a small linen and woollen manufacture, but the chief industry, until
checked by the policy of Andros, was tanning. After the revolution New
York was famous for its fur trade, particularly that in beaver. Busy as
most of the settlers were, yet almost every necessary of life was
brought from England, including such common articles as wooden bowls. In
a list of the imports of Pennsylvania at the end of the seventeenth
century we find rum, sugar, molasses, silver, salt, wine, linen,
household goods, and negroes. In 1733, to the annoyance of the
colonists, a heavy duty was imposed on all molasses imported from
foreign countries. Tobacco, at the same time, was not allowed to be
exported to any European ports, save those of Great Britain. This,
however, was easily evaded, for the numerous rivers and private
landing-stages in the southern colonies made effective supervision
impossible.

As in the case of the New England colonies, the main check to commerce
lay in the serious want of money. The steady influx of coin was
prevented by the lack of retail trade, and also by the fact that the
planter was nearly always in debt to the merchant. In Virginia and
Maryland the scarcity of specie was overcome by the use of tobacco,
which, "as the staple product of the country, established itself as the
accepted medium of exchange."[232] But even in these colonies a desire
for good money was shown on various occasions. The Virginia Assembly, in
1645, tried to fix the legal value of the Spanish coins which were in
common use, and also proposed a copper coinage of their own. Cecil
Calvert, as a careful proprietor, attempted to assist his Maryland
settlers by establishing a coinage, but nothing came of it. In the
eighteenth century, therefore, most of the southern and middle colonies
fell under the fascinating influence of paper money; New York and
Virginia being the only two to escape this economic evil.

Brief reference has been made to the educational indifference of the
southern settlers. As has already been shown, Governor Berkeley thanked
God that there were no schools in Virginia.[233] To the rich planter
this was not so disastrous, as his sons were either provided with a
tutor or sent to England. But this absence of schools for the small
freeholders presented a great difficulty. Certainly in the Carolinas the
lack of education was not so marked, for there, as society was more
urban, the opportunities of a school training were more numerous. "Their
cohabiting in a town has drawn to them ingenious people of most
sciences, whereby they have tutors amongst them that educate their youth
_à la mode_."[234] South Carolina was particularly famous for its
educational advantages, and in one year there were no fewer than four
hundred educational advertisements in the _South Carolina Gazette_.
Although William and Mary College in Virginia was founded by Blair at
the end of the seventeenth century, it remained for many years nothing
more than a rather superior boarding school. In Philadelphia there was
some attempt to instruct the young, not only in several German and
Moravian seminaries, but also, after 1698, in the Penn Charter School.
New York had its first Church of England School in 1704, but it was not
until fifty years later that King's College, afterwards Columbia
College, was established. A college was founded in New Jersey in 1746,
but two years later Governor Belcher complained that "they are a very
rustical people and deficient in learning."[235] Owing to the energies
of the indefatigable Benjamin Franklin an academy was built in
Philadelphia in 1750 in which the Quaker youth of the colony had the
greater part of their training.

There can be no doubt that the lack of education in the southern and
middle colonies was reflected in the absence of any vigorous literary
development. Virginia is easily first in its possession of three writers
of repute: Robert Beverley, who wrote the history of his own colony; or
the Rev. William Stith, whose work though fragmentary is never dull, and
"might have been produced by a learned, leisurely, and somewhat pompous
English clergyman";[236] or finally, Colonel William Byrd, a man of
education and wealth, who has left on record a witty and interesting
account of his travels. New York was not without two famous names, those
of William Smith, author of _The History of New York_, and Cadwallader
Colden, who has left to posterity a chronicle of the Five Nations,
filled with picturesque descriptions. Pennsylvania, unlike the other
colonies, has to revere the name, not of an historian, but a poet and
tragedian, in Thomas Godfrey, whose short life lasted only from 1736 to
1763.

The religion of the southern and middle colonies was not of the harsh
character of the northerners. The Church of England had more power than
in the Puritan settlements, though its position was a peculiar one. In
New York and New Jersey up to 1693 it was supported owing to orders
from the Crown. From that date its preponderance over other sects was
due to the habit of the governors to appoint Church of England
clergymen. In Maryland and Virginia the Church was established by acts
of the colonial legislature; while in the Carolinas it owed its position
to the Proprietary Charter. In the southern colonies the clergy for the
most part shared the vices of the planters, and "drunkenness is the
common vice"[237] is not an unusual complaint. In North Carolina the
people seem to have been at first utterly indifferent; they were a
lawless population and cared for none of these things. In 1703 there was
no episcopalian minister, nor was there a church until 1705. Six years
later Governor Spotswood reported that there was only one clergyman in
the whole colony. Nor did South Carolina evince a more ardent religious
spirit, for at the beginning of the eighteenth century there were only
two Episcopalian churches, the one at Charlestown, the other at Goose
Creek. Virginia and Maryland seem to have been better than this, for
from quite early times the clergy were readily supported and paid in so
many pounds of tobacco. In Virginia George Whitefield's preaching had
some little effect, but on the whole he failed to arouse any great
religious enthusiasm in the other southern colonies. Maryland and
Pennsylvania were the most tolerant of all the colonies. In the first
Roman Catholics and Protestants had lived together, though not always
peaceably, since its foundation; while in the latter colony there were
Quakers, Lutherans, and Presbyterians tolerating each other. After the
capture of New York by Nicolls, everyone was supposed to conform to the
Church of England; each township was commanded to maintain its own
church and minister. At first the New York authorities were strongly
against Jesuits and Popish priests, but as the eighteenth century grew
in years, there is every reason to believe that within this state there
were Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, and Lutherans living
happy lives and seeing much that was good in their religious
antagonists.

Church life was in no way connected with town life as in New England,
for the simple reason that towns were very uncommon, having "no place in
the social and industrial economy of the south."[238] They consisted for
the most part of scattered houses, an inn, a gaol, and a court-house.
They were visited by the planters nominally for business, but mostly for
pleasure, and the tavern, which was in some cases enforced by law,
became the meeting-place for gossip. Jamestown and Williamsburg in
Virginia, St Mary's and Annapolis in Maryland, are not worth considering
as busy centres of trade. They were rather the meeting-places of
pleasure parties who came for balls and horse races, and when these
gaieties were over they slumbered until again roused for the next joyous
gathering. Charlestown in South Carolina had always been somewhat
different; from its foundation it had taken upon itself the position of
the most important town in the south, and it proved that it was ready to
progress with the times by being the first town to possess a theatre,
which was built in 1735. In the middle colonies the towns played a very
considerable part in the social and economic life of the settlers, and
in this way resembled the northern corporate communities. New York and
Philadelphia were both good towns with wide streets lined with trees;
along the edge were the orchards and gardens surrounding stone or brick
houses with overhanging gables. The two other towns of importance were
Germantown which was very busy, and Newport which is described as
ill-built.

Such in brief were the towns, industries, and style of living of the
southern and middle colonists. The English-born planter depended upon
slave labour or indentured servants; he lived upon a large estate in a
magnificent and often too lavish manner. But they were men of as much
grit as the New Englanders; certainly they were descended from a
different stock, and they looked upon the present life and the future
with very different eyes, but that was all. The settlers of the middle
colonies plunged with readiness into the intricacies of trade, and the
merchant and tradesman were far more conspicuous figures in daily life
than in either Virginia or Maryland. The colonists were, too, far more
cosmopolitan than in the north. In the Carolinas there were a few
Huguenots, Swiss, and German Palatines, but in Virginia and Maryland
there was little trace of any foreign element. But in the middle
colonies there were regular waves of aliens from Germany and Switzerland
intermixed with the earlier Dutch and English settlers. They all helped
to play their little parts in the world's history, and they all came to
look upon England as the home country. Then by the middle of the
eighteenth century they were called upon to resist the aggressions of
France; and during those years of struggle they partly learnt their
power. United at last, English settler and foreigner, Northern Puritan
and Southern planter, they made the one supreme effort, throwing off the
yoke of England, and became no longer colonists, but Americans.

FOOTNOTES:

[228] So lucrative did the slave trade become that, even after the
Abolition Act of 1807, slave dealers realised an enormous profit if one
ship out of three with its living cargo reached an American port.

[229] New Jersey Historical Society, _Proceedings_ (1850), iv. p. 118.

[230] Morley, Walpole, _Twelve English Statesmen_ (1896), p. 168.

[231] _A Declaration of the Present State of Virginia_, etc.

[232] Doyle, _The English in America, Virginia, etc._ (1882), p. 525.

[233] See p. 46.

[234] Lawson, p. 3.

[235] Quoted by Thwaites, _op. cit._, p. 221.

[236] Doyle, _Colonies under the House of Hanover_ (1907), p. 289.

[237] Meade, _Old Churches of Virginia_ (1861), i. p. 385.

[238] Doyle, _The Colonies under the House of Hanover_ (1907), pp.
42-43.

CHAPTER X

THE FRENCH COLONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

"The French empire in the New World has vanished, leaving behind it
ineffaceable monuments of the grand political conception of which it
formed part."[239] Frenchmen were amongst the earliest to be roused by
the discoveries of Columbus, Cabot, and Vasco da Gama; but it was not
until the sixth year of the sixteenth century that any real attempt at
discovery was made. In that year, 1506, Denys of Harfleur sailed across
the Atlantic, hoping to reach the East, but finding instead the great
Gulf of St Lawrence. He was not the only adventurer, for Aubert of
Dieppe followed two years later and astonished his countrymen by
bringing to France some natives of North America. Baron de Léry was the
first to see the advantages of colonisation, and long before Sir Walter
Raleigh was born the quick-witted Frenchman had planned within his
fertile brain a new France beyond the sea. He attempted to carry out his
purpose in 1518, but it was bound to fail, for the time was not yet ripe
for a French colony, since France itself was still unsettled and
imperfectly concentrated. Francis I., realising the advantages gained by
his rival Charles V. from the rich mines of Peru, employed Verrazano, a
Venetian, to "discover new lands by the ocean." He sailed in January
1524, and first reached that part of America now known as the Carolinas,
and then coasted as far north as Newfoundland. "Sayling northeast for
the space of 150 leagues," Verrazano writes, "we approached to the land
that in times past was discovered by the Britons, which is in fiftie
degrees. Having now spent all our provision and victuals, and having
discovered about 700 leagues and more of new countries, and being
furnished with water and wood, we concluded to return into France."[240]

[Illustration: QUEBEC FROM POINT LEVY IN 1761 _From an
engraving by R. Short._]

The year 1534 is the most memorable of all concerning those early French
voyages; it is a year of the very greatest importance in the history of
both France and North America; from this time may be dated the beginning
of New France, for now Jacques Cartier made his first voyage to the St
Lawrence. He found that the people had "great store of Mushe-milions,
Pompions, Gourds, Cucumbers, Peasen and Beanes of every colour.... There
groweth also a certaine kind of herbe, whereof in Sommer they make great
provision for all the yeere, ... and onely men use it, and first they
cause it to be dried in the sunne, then weare it about their neckes
wrapped in a little beast's skinne made like a little bagge, with a
hollow peece of stone or wood like a pipe: then when they please they
make pouder of it, and then put it in one of the ends of the said Cornet
or pipe, and laying a cole of fire upon it, at the other ende sucke so
long, that they fill their bodies full of Smoke, till that it commeth
out of their mouth and nostrils, even as out of the Tonnell of a
chimney.... We our selves have tryed the same smoke and having put it in
our mouthes, it seemed almost as hot as Pepper."[241] On his return to
St Malo, Cartier brought with him some Indian children as a proof of the
success of his enterprise. He was not content with this voyage, and in
the following year sailed again to this land of promise. On this
occasion he penetrated still further up the St Lawrence, bringing his
ship to anchor beneath the cliffs where now stands the city of Quebec.
"It is called," he writes, "Stadacona, ... & beyond, is as faire and
plaine as ever was seen."[242] This second voyage was marked by the
naming of his discoveries, and it is recorded that the new found lands
were by him called New France. Six years later Cartier sailed again to
the West, associated with a royal officer of the name of De Roberval.
Cartier started first and was met by his superior when returning in
disgust. De Roberval, with the title of Lord of Norumbega, proceeded as
he was bound to establish a colony, but by 1542 he proved unsuccessful
owing to the insufficiency of supplies and his own brutal despotism.
There can be little doubt that all concerned in De Roberval's venture
were deeply disappointed with its disastrous failure; its chief interest
lies in the fact that it marks the end of the prologue of this drama of
discovery, and the curtain was rung down not to rise again for half a
century.

In the year celebrated for the Edict of Nantes, the Treaty of Vervins
and the death of Philip II., the French once again started their
attempts to colonise Canada. In that year, 1598, the Marquis de la Roche
established a small settlement of convicts on Sable Island, which lies
off the coast of Nova Scotia. The settlers, however, were incapable,
the callous nobleman sailed away to sunny France, and the unhappy
survivors were left to quarrel among themselves, till eleven only of the
original forty remained alive to be rescued after five long years of
misery and starvation. The spirit of adventure was not crushed, and in
1599 Chauvin, a sea captain, and Pontgravé, a St Malo merchant, obtained
a patent to colonise Canada, and so established a settlement at
Tadoussac. Their object was to monopolise the lucrative fur trade,
rather than to establish any permanent colony. Four years later De
Chastes, a grey-haired veteran of the civil wars, associated himself
with Pontgravé, and they were fortunate in obtaining the services of
Samuel Champlain, whose name is the greatest in the history of French
colonisation. Almost immediately the small association of Chastes was
amalgamated with another under De Monts, a Huguenot nobleman of the
King's household, and together in 1604 they entered the Bay of Fundy. In
the next year Port Royal was established in Nova Scotia on Annapolis
Basin, and the fur traders passed the winter there under the leadership
of Champlain. Supplies were brought out in 1606 by an expedition, which
was accompanied by Lescarbot the historian, but, as De Monts' patent was
cancelled in 1607, Port Royal was abandoned.

The French colonies differed in many respects from the British, but in
one particular most essentially. The story of the British settlements
which has already been told is the story of the progress of communities;
in the case of the French colonies the history is really composed of a
long series of entrancing biographies. The record of Canada from 1608 to
1635 is in fact the biography of Samuel Champlain. His first exploit
was the erection of a _habitation_ at Quebec in 1608, his two main
objects being to support exploration and encourage missionary work. He
thus established the French nation in Canada less than twelve months
after the settlement of the British in Virginia; the two rival nations,
therefore, started their great work of colonisation at practically the
same moment. The progress and results of their settlements resembled
each other in no single item. Not content with founding Quebec, the
adventurous Frenchmen left Pontgravé to encourage commerce and pushed up
the St Lawrence. In 1609 he discovered the Lake that still bears his
name; and for the first time came into direct hostile contact with the
warriors of the Five Nations, whom he defeated at Ticonderoga. In the
same year he returned to France, but re-sailed to Canada in 1610,
leaving a few months afterwards for his native country. On landing in
France he was dismayed to find that his patron, Henry of Navarre, had
been assassinated by the fanatic Ravaillac in the streets of Paris. The
year 1611 found the intrepid voyager once again in Canada preparing the
way for a French settlement at Montreal.

The great change in France, and indeed throughout Europe, caused by
Henry IV.'s untimely end, was felt with almost equal intensity in the
far-distant region of Canada. A new system was immediately inaugurated,
and that most unsatisfactory Regent, Marie de Medici, appointed the
Count de Soissons as supreme Governor of New France. Before the Count
could take over his unaccustomed duties, he died, and the Prince de
Condé was nominated in his place. Champlain was at once created his
deputy, with the main work of regulating the fur-trade and keeping some
semblance of order amongst the turbulent French backwoodsmen.
Champlain's objects, however, were neither commercial nor pecuniary. His
ambition soared above the merely lucrative, and he looked to the
increase of French possessions, and if possible by means of the great
waterways to the discovery of a short route to China and the East. It
was for this latter reason that he was persuaded by Nicholas Vignau, one
of his companions who had passed the previous winter among the northern
Indians, to explore toilfully the waters of the upper Ottawa in 1613;
Vignau having concocted a story about an outlet to the east, a
fabrication which, when discovered after many hardships, nearly cost him
his life.

It is an interesting fact that behind all these adventurous expeditions
undertaken by either the English or the French, there was always
something of the missionary spirit. The first French attempt to convert
the Indians was in 1615, when the Recollet branch of the Franciscan
Order sent out a few brethren to undertake the hazardous task of
instructing the savages in the doctrines of the Christian faith. The
chief of this worthy band was Le Caron, who, taking his life in his
hands, penetrated far into the dangerous Huron country. Ten years had
still to elapse before the Jesuits embarked on a duty which, though in
many ways erroneously carried out, has rightly received the admiration
of the world. It so happened, in 1625, that the Viceroy of Canada, the
Duc de Ventadour, was closely connected with the Jesuit order; and he
celebrated the beginning of his term of office by introducing Jesuit
priests and supporting them from his private purse. The difference
between the newcomers and the Franciscans, who had already bought their
experience, was very marked. The Franciscans, although devoted
missionaries, were not bigots, and they claimed no religious monopoly;
the Jesuits, on the contrary, imported religious despotism. The coming
of the Jesuit fathers had two effects which may perhaps seem
contradictory. They stimulated in many ways the progress of Canada and
did much for her advance; but equally they retarded the true evolution
of the young nation. They were brave men who were ready to sacrifice
themselves for the cause; no body of men have ever shown to the savages
such tactfulness and diplomacy as these members of the Society of Jesus.
As map-makers and discoverers they were pre-eminent. On the other hand
they were the upholders of exclusiveness and the bitterest enemies of
freedom; they formulated a rigid system which was necessarily inimical
to the expansion of a youthful community. Above all, deeming the
Huguenots to be heretics, they excluded from Canada the very people who
might have made the French in Canada a great nation. In supporting the
Jesuits in this action the French Government did itself a double injury,
for by debarring the best artizans of France from French colonies, it
turned them in after years to the British settlements, and they thus
helped to advance those very colonies which were the inveterate foes of
their native land.

Between the years 1620 and 1627 the government of Canada passed through
numerous hands, including those of the Duc de Montmorenci and the
already mentioned Duc de Ventadour; but had it not been for the striking
qualities of Champlain, all must have failed. These years were troubled
by continuous squabbles, and it was only Champlain's steadfastness that
saved the colony. At last in 1627 affairs began to improve. Richelieu
had now become a power in France, and for the better regulation of
Canada he formed the "Company of the One Hundred Associates." Even now
the difficulties of Champlain appeared overwhelming, not the least being
the war between England and France. Richelieu had successfully defeated
the Huguenots and their English allies, and the "weathercock fancy" of
Buckingham had been incapable of devising any further scheme for the
protection of La Rochelle. The war, however, lingered on, and although
it was extremely languid in Europe, it was waged with more smartness in
the New World. David Kirke, nominally a captain in the British service,
but really little more than a pirate, with his three sons entered the St
Lawrence in July 1628; they attacked the French trading station of
Tadoussac, and in the following year starved Champlain into surrender at
Quebec. The victory proved a barren one, for before it had actually been
accomplished, Richelieu had brought about a treaty with Charles I. at St
Germain-en-Laye, by which the newly conquered Canada was restored to the
French in 1632.

Champlain returned to his adopted country in May 1633, and for the next
two years he controlled the affairs of the French Company until his
death on Christmas Day, 1635. New France then lost the man to whom she
owed her all, and the French nation was deprived of one who has been
fitly called "the Father of French Colonisation." From thirty-six years
of age to the time of his death, Champlain had given up the whole of
his energies to increase the power of his native country and to
encourage the welfare and prosperity of New France. He was a hardy
explorer, an excellent administrator, and one of the most trustworthy
writers of his time. His ambitions were lofty, his foresight keen and
intelligent, while the whole of his life was pure and resolute. His
biography is one of the most interesting among the many entrancing
stories of colonial founders, and his memory receives the lasting
respect and honour which his great works naturally demand, not only from
the Frenchman or French Canadian, but from posterity throughout the
civilised world.

Champlain was succeeded by Monsieur de Montmagny, who arrived at Quebec
in 1636. Six years later the first permanent settlement was established
at Montreal, which was at first entirely of a religious character; this
was soon to be followed by another at Fort Richelieu at the point where
the Richelieu River joins the St Lawrence. These new settlements may be
taken as an indication of the progress and general advance of the French
Empire in the West. But as a matter of fact up to the year 1663 the
government of Canada was far from being satisfactory, for the "Company
of One Hundred Associates" had been continually checked by Indian wars,
and was by no means capable of creating a great nation. Colbert, the
successor of Mazarin, and chief minister of Louis XIV., realised the
incapacity of the Company, and in 1663 deprived it of all rights. It is
not surprising that the minister should take this action if a colony's
prosperity is to be judged by its population. It has already been shown
how remarkably the English settlements increased in number; but the
French colony starting at practically the same time had in 1663 a meagre
population of 2500. Father Christian le Clercq, writing at that time,
says, "The colony far from increasing began to diminish. Some returned
to France, others were taken and killed by the Indians. Many died of
misery; the clearing and cultivation of lands advanced but little, and
they were obliged to expect all from France."[243] The Jesuits were to a
certain extent to be blamed for this lack of population; they had for
some years been expending their energies upon the spiritual needs of
Canada, but what Canada wanted, as a new colony, was what the English
settlements had got, married men and women who willingly found new
homes, whose children grew up around them, and whose aims were to create
no temporary but permanent abiding-places. The Jesuits supplied rather
both by teaching and example martyrs and virgins, whose history is
filled with heroic records, but whose actual value to a new colony was
extremely slight. The mission of Le Moyne to the Iroquois in 1653 and
the establishment of those from St Sulpice under Maisonneuve at
Montreal, are both fine examples of reckless devotion and
self-sacrifice, but the outlook on life of these religious enthusiasts
was an erroneous one.

The clear-sighted judgment and the financial genius of Colbert was
needed to remedy the mistakes in the work which had been started so
rashly by Richelieu. As Le Clercq recorded, the progress of New France
required "a more powerful arm than that of the gentlemen of the
Company."[244] Colbert, in 1663, supplied the "more powerful arm" by
making Canada a royal province, and in the following year creating the
"Company of the West." The members of the Company claimed to be the
Seigniors of New France, with the right of nominating the Council for
the government of Canada. The Crown, however, insisted on retaining the
privileges of appointing the Governor and the Intendant. As soon as
Canada became a Crown Colony with such a splendid guide as Colbert the
progress and prosperity of the settlers were assured.

The government of Canada was purely despotic under the all-powerful
Governor, Intendant, and Supreme Council, and the settlers were never
allowed the political freedom exercised by the English colonists in New
England or the Southern States. The law was the customary law of Paris,
added to which were certain ordinances and, on occasions, royal edicts
which received the ratification of the Council. This body had both
legislative and judicial functions, and for the better maintenance of
peace and order minor law-courts were established at Quebec, Three
Rivers, and Montreal. In addition to these courts the seigniors had in
some cases the right to try crimes that were committed on their estates,
and nominally to pass the extreme penalty of death upon their vassals.
The Governor controlled the armed forces, and was in continual conflict
with the Intendant, for each was jealous of the other. The latter was
the King's steward, a civilian, and usually a member of the legal
profession; he was President of the Council, and by controlling the
sinews of war was often more powerful than the Governor. The Bishop sat
in Council with these two, and was spiritually supreme in name and fact.
The great defects of Canada's political system were over-centralisation
and lack of popular representation. The feudal system had been
transferred to Canadian territory, and by its means the seigniors
attempted to tie the peasant to the soil. The whole scheme was that of a
benevolent despot exercising power over a closely restricted people; and
yet the system itself, which was purely artificial, proved the skill of
its originators, for under it the peasants of Canada lived happy and
contented lives for almost a hundred years after they had passed under
British rule.

This scheme of government as devised by Colbert and Louis XIV. was put
into execution by the Marquis de Tracy, who arrived at Quebec in 1665 as
Lieutenant-General of all the French forces in America. His coadjutors
were Courcelles, the Governor, and Talon, the Intendant. These men made
numerous expeditions against the Indians, and in particular against the
Iroquois; but their work was completely overshadowed by that of the next
Governor. The name of Count Frontenac has been ever dear to the French
Canadian from the moment that he came to administer New France in 1672.
He is one of those great figures in history who are perhaps particularly
human; he was not a cold image, but composed of warm flesh and blood; he
was neither a villain nor a saint. His great merits are to a certain
extent balanced by his great defects; his temper was most violent, his
manner haughty, pretentious, and arrogant. It is said with some truth
that he was not altogether clean-handed in the methods he employed in
repairing his fortunes; but grave as his faults were, they were weighed
down on the other side not so much by his kindness, his firm alliance
with those he regarded as his friends, but because his heart warmed to
the land and the people of the land to whom he had been sent as a guide
and governor. Frontenac's memory remains a happy one, because, like
Champlain, he believed in the great future of the Daughter of the Snows.
Canada was unknown to him when he was fifty years of age; when he was
appointed Governor for the second time he was twenty years older; but
this long roll of years did not prevent him from adapting himself to his
surroundings, and with such excellent effect that at the time of his
death in 1698 he left Canada on the highroad to prosperity and
greatness. In particular he must be praised for ridding Canada of
murdering savages, as a means towards which he established, in 1673, an
outpost at Fort Frontenac.[245] His return to France, however,
emboldened the Seneca Indians, the most numerous of the Five Nations, to
make frequent raids until his restoration to office in 1689. Five years
later Frontenac began his great work of suppression, which was marked by
an act of ferocious brutality in 1695, which has deeply stained the old
man's reputation. In the same year he retook Fort Frontenac, which had
been lost, and twelve months later was so successful against the
Iroquois that he not only humbled their pride but actually won their
respect. Ruthless he may have been; brutal in a time when brutality was
common; but whatever his faults, he came to Canada when Canada cried
aloud for such a man, and had the future governors been of the
character and possessed the daring spirit of Frontenac, the Great
Dominion might still have been the New France in the West.

Meantime, brave, devoted adventurers and Jesuits had been endeavouring
to extend the French dominions west and south-west. It has already been
mentioned that Champlain, in 1613, had been tempted to make an arduous
journey to discover by means of the numerous waterways some route to
China. The Great Lakes were first explored; but it was found that none
of these vast sheets of water contained the tantalising secret that was
interesting and engaging the attention of so many European seamen. From
Lake Michigan, then called the Lake of Illinois, the discoverers moved
to the narrows of Lake Huron and onward to the Fox River, following the
course of which they came to Lake Winnebago. Moving still farther south,
they found that a narrow strip of land divided them from another
waterway, the Wisconsin, and that in turn they were destined to discover
was a tributary of the mighty Mississippi. But some adventurers were
more daring than their brethren, and instead of clinging to their canoes
and following the course of streams, boldly skirted the territory of the
dreaded Five Nations and found the "Beautiful" River, or Ohio.

As early as 1635 Jean Nicollet had reached Lake Michigan, and so
successful was he in his explorations of the rivers and lakes that it
has been supposed that he was the original white discoverer of the
Mississippi. Plausible as this would seem, historians have conclusively
disproved his claims; and that honour must be divided between the two
famous explorers Joliet and Marquette.[246] Louis Joliet was a layman,
though connected by early training with the Jesuits; he was a Canadian
born, and had been employed by the Intendant Talon to discover copper in
the neighbourhood of Lake Superior. His companion, Jacques Marquette,
was a Jesuit in priest's orders; he was a man of pure and saintly life,
and within his delicate body there burnt a fiery spirit of endeavour to
convert, a spirit which consumed him, as it were, so that his life was
but a brief one in labouring for his faith. He landed in Canada in 1666;
two years later he was sent forward into the almost unknown wilds and
established himself on Lake Superior, teaching both the Hurons and the
Illinois. It was indeed from the latter that he first heard of the
Mississippi. Being forced by the savages to retire from this outpost, he
and his little following took refuge in 1670 at the mission station of
St Ignace, now known as Mackinaw. It was here that Marquette determined
to make an expedition for the discovery of the great river of which he
had heard. He has left an account of his journeyings written from
memory, as unfortunately he lost his papers on his return. "I embarked
with M. Joliet, who had been chosen to conduct this enterprise, on the
13th May 1673, with five other Frenchmen, in two bark canoes. We laid in
some Indian corn and smoked beef for our voyage. We first took care,
however, to draw from the Indians all the information we could
concerning the countries through which we had designed to travel, and
drew up a map, on which we marked down the rivers, nations, and points
of the compass to guide us in our journey."[247] The discoverers
followed the route laid down by others as far as Lake Winnebago, but no
white man had up to that time crossed over to the river Wisconsin.
Canoeing down that stream, hardly realising where fortune was leading
them, the plucky Jesuit and his companions were carried out on the face
of the broad waters of the Mississippi on 17th June 1673. "We met from
time to time monstrous fish, which struck so violently against our
canoes that at first we took them to be large trees, which threatened to
upset us. We saw also a hideous monster; his head was like that of a
tiger, his nose was sharp and somewhat resembled a wild cat; his beard
was long; his ears stood upright; the colour of his head was grey, and
his neck black."[248] But even this terrible apparition did not
discourage them, and they still pushed on, hoping at first that the
great river would bear them into the Gulf of California. They passed the
mouths of the Illinois, the Missouri, and the Ohio, and came to the
Arkansas; here they learnt their mistake. "We judged by the compass that
the Mississippi discharged itself into the Gulf of Mexico. It would,
however, have been more agreeable if it had discharged into the South
Sea or Gulf of California."[249] They turned back, therefore, having
found out what they wanted to know, and "we considered that the
advantage of our travels would be altogether lost to our nation if we
fell into the hands of the Spaniards, from whom we could expect no other
treatment than death or slavery."[250] Neither Marquette nor Joliet
reaped any great advantage during their lifetime for their plucky
endeavour, but they have had and will have the respect of those who
come after them. Marquette made one more voyage on the stream that was
his own. His burning zeal for the faith made him set out in the winter
of 1674-5 to carry the Christian religion to the Indians of the Illinois
River. He returned to Lake Michigan in the May of 1675, but he was a
dying man. Death came suddenly, and his companions rapidly interred him
far away from his friends; but so great was the love inspired by this
faithful priest amongst the savages that they fetched his bones and laid
them, with every sign of affection, respect, and grief, in the little
mission-chapel where he had laboured for the faith.

Marquette was followed by a man whose name is even better known, but who
was cast in a different mould. Réné Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle,
was born at Rouen and had landed in Canada in the same year as
Marquette. His object was to discover a route to the East, and the name
that he gave to his seignory, La Chine, testifies to this desire. He
began his work of discovery in 1669, and in the next two years he passed
from Lakes Ontario and Erie right through the Illinois country, finally
discovering the Ohio. In 1675 he took up his seignory on the Cataraqui
River at Fort Frontenac. He was only thirty-two years of age, but he had
already made himself famous. He was a man of strong character, and as
such had many enemies amongst his fellow French Canadians; his want of
sympathy turned men against him, and his want of tact wounded their
feelings. To the Jesuits he was most unwelcome, for they recognised in
him a rival discoverer; with the merchants and traders he was no less
unpopular, a fact which was possibly intensified by his seignory being
one of the best positions in New France for pecuniary gain. He was in
every way an austere man, solitary and self-communing; and as his mind
was filled with ambitions and even statesmanlike conceptions for New
France, it is not surprising that the trading element and even his own
followers failed to understand him. From 1675 to 1677 this man of
extraordinary energy employed himself in commerce with the Indians by
means of vessels of his own construction on Lake Ontario; but such work
was too petty for La Salle. He therefore, in 1678, obtained from Louis
XIV. permission "to labour at the discovery of the Western parts of New
France through which to all appearance a way may be found to
Mexico,"[251] in addition to which La Salle was strengthened in his
possession of Fort Frontenac and was granted the privilege of
constructing forts if necessary on his expeditions. On his enterprises
he was accompanied by Henri de Tonty, an Italian officer and ever
faithful to La Salle, and by Father Hennepin, a brave Flemish friar,
whose overwhelming vanity tempted him in later years to try to rob his
leader of the honour of first reaching the sea by the Mississippi River.

The early efforts of La Salle were unsatisfactory. He built a fort at
Niagara and constructed a vessel called the _Griffin_, which foundered
on Lake Michigan and left him in a hostile country swarming with
savages, without supplies, and with mutinous followers. Nevertheless he
kept on and descended the Illinois River, determined to reach the Gulf
of Mexico. In 1680 his men began to desert, but Tonty and a faithful few
assisted him to construct Fort Crèvecoeur on the Illinois. Here the
discoverer left his lieutenant for a time while he returned to Canada
for supplies. The men mutinied, abandoned the fort, and followed La
Salle with the intention of murdering him. Meantime he had sent out an
expedition under Father Hennepin which had been captured by the Sioux
Indians on the Upper Mississippi in what is now Minnesota. The Flemish
friar and his followers were rescued by a Canadian backwoodsman, Du
Luth, and Hennepin returned to France to write his account of the
Mississippi.

Father Membré has left a record of La Salle's great expedition. "M. La
Salle having arrived safely at Miamies on the 3rd of November 1681,
began with his ordinary activity and vast mind to make all preparations
for his departure.... The whole party consisted of about fifty-four
persons, including the Sieur de Tonty and the Sieur Dautray, the son of
the late Sieur Bourdon."[252] The expedition safely passed the mouths of
the Missouri and Ohio; after building a fort, the adventurers reached
the Arkansas, where they were welcomed by the Indians, who knew nothing
of white men. "The Sieur de la Salle took possession of this country
with great ceremony. He planted a cross and set up the king's arms, at
which the Indians showed a great joy.... On our return from the sea we
found that they had surrounded the cross with a palisade."[253] Passing
still farther south, "we arrived on the 6th of April at a point where
the river divides into three channels. The Sieur de la Salle divided his
party the next day into three bands, to go and explore them. He took the
western, the Sieur Dautray the southern, the Sieur Tonty ... the middle
one."[254] On the 9th of April the three parties met on the shores of
the Gulf of Mexico. This success was marked by the ceremony of planting
the cross and raising the arms of France. La Salle took possession of
the river and all the country round in the name of the king, and amidst
a volley of muskets a leaden plate inscribed with the action and the
names of the discoverers was deposited in the ground. Such was the
foundation of the French in Louisiana. La Salle and his party returned
to the North, but he was not the man to rest upon his laurels, for in
the autumn of 1682 and the spring of 1683 he is to be found busily
establishing a French colony on the Illinois. Fort Louis was built on a
rocky summit and promised to be a most important station in the future,
always on the one condition that the connection with Canada was in no
way broken, or even threatened.

Perpetual envy and jealousy tended to keep Canada weak and the French in
the West powerless. When La Salle returned he found himself surrounded
by enemies, and without his friend and supporter, Count Frontenac, who
had retired to France. Seeing no chance of accomplishing anything in
Canada, La Salle sailed to Europe to put his version of the story before
King Louis. He reached Versailles at exactly the right moment for his
fortunes. France and Spain in 1683 were again on the verge of war; and
even before La Salle's arrival, Seignelay, the son of the late grim
Colbert, had proposed to Louis a scheme for the seizure of some port on
the Gulf of Mexico so as to discomfit Spain. La Salle was heard with
respect and attention, and was, in fact, welcomed as the very man
required to carry out the prearranged plans of the king and his
minister. All La Salle's possessions in Canada were restored, and he was
commissioned to conduct a party for the purpose of colonising some strip
of territory upon the Mexican Gulf. The scheme was from the outset
hopeless. La Salle may have seen that it was the last toss of the dice,
fortune or ruin. He may have been blinded by his successful discovery;
but it is impossible to imagine that a man who had always kept his ends
clearly in view, and who had accurately measured the means to attain
them, should now have embarked blindly upon so hazardous a task.
Whatever his private opinions were, he readily undertook the leadership
in conjunction with Admiral Beaujeu. The party embarked in four vessels,
and sailed from La Rochelle on July 24, 1684. At the very outset their
troubles began. One of the most important of the vessels carrying their
supplies was captured by a Spanish buccaneer. The other three ships
managed to reach San Domingo, where the little band of soldiers,
artizans, and women were kept in idleness for two months owing to their
leaders being stricken with fever. At last on January 1, 1685, La Salle
brought the expedition to the shores of Texas, where the colony was
settled within a palisade at a point called Fort St Louis. The distress
of the settlement was terrible, and still further intensified by the
realisation of their distance from Canada. In October, La Salle, driven
to despair, set out to discover a way to the outposts of the northern
colony. In March 1686 he was back again, but unsuccessful. Having rested
for a month, he once more started for Canada, but after wandering until
October he returned to the settlement utterly baffled. What was worse
still was that he found a heavy mortality amongst the colonists; out of
one hundred and eighty who had originally started he now had but
forty-five followers, and very few of these he could really trust. All
his ships were lost, escape to France was impossible, starvation stared
them in the face. The only thing to do was to try to cut a way through
to Canada. On January 7, 1687, La Salle, his brother, two of his
nephews, and half his party set out; mutiny was evident from the
beginning, and on March 19th, ambushed by his own men, the daring
explorer was murdered. His brother, one of his nephews, and Jontel, who
told the tale, escaped, and succeeded after terrible suffering in
reaching Canada.

Louis XIV. and his ministers were far too busy at home to care about the
death of one who had dared so much for France. The insane idea of Louis'
European policy blinded him to the prospects of an empire in the West,
which La Salle might, had he been properly supported, have made so
great. The people in authority in Canada were equally oblivious to the
loss of one of Canada's greatest sons. They were too envious of this
remarkable man who had done so much. One man, however, remembered his
old master. Henri de Tonty, the faithful friend, had set out in 1686 to
find this man whom he regarded with such affection. When he discovered
that La Salle had been murdered, he did what he knew his great leader
would have done and turned his attention to the rescue of the remnant at
Fort St Louis. His efforts were unavailing, for the Spaniards had
learnt, and from them Tonty heard, that the few who had remained on the
shores of Texas had been annihilated by the Indians. Thus the grandiose
schemes of La Salle appeared to end in failure, mystery, and death; but
like his forerunner Marquette, his name still lives in Canada, where the
names of his detractors have long since been forgotten. La Salle will be
remembered as one of the boldest explorers, as a man who, even above any
Englishman of his day, really grasped the imperial idea of a New France
beyond the sea. He was the first to realise the great conception of
uniting the French settlement from the snow-clad plains of Canada to the
sunny shores of Mexico; and he it was who saw that should this dream be
turned to reality, the Anglo-Saxon people would be confined to the
narrow strip along the coast, and the illimitable expanses of the North
American continent, with the enormous wealth of the West, would be the
inheritance of the Gallic race.

There were, however, a few Frenchmen who had glimmerings of the dream of
La Salle. As early as 1686 a party under Du Luth established a French
outpost between Lakes Huron and Erie. Eight years later La Mothe
Cadillac urged upon the French government the importance of holding this
post, which in fact controlled the outlet of the two lakes. The consent
of those in authority having been obtained, the French began in 1701 the
erection of the city of Detroit. The Iroquois at last realised what was
happening; they saw that, just as Fort Frontenac some years before had
very seriously curtailed their rights of hunting and had indeed
endangered their power, so now that they might again be trapped. To
prevent this, on July 19, 1701, they ceded their hunting grounds to the
King of England, retaining the right of free hunting. They were not
versed in European politics; nor did they know that the magnificent
Louis was gradually being ruined by William III. and Marlborough. The
war of the Spanish Succession, fought for the most part in the
Netherlands and Spain, had a vital effect upon those Iroquois nations of
the Western prairies. The victories of Marlborough brought to England
many possessions, and amongst them those lands which had been so
trustingly conceded in 1701.

The Treaty of Utrecht, although it brought peace after a long and
expensive war, may be said to mark a new epoch in the stories of both
British and French colonial expansion. This epoch is not one of peace in
the true sense; the actual fighting, when it occurred, was not always
sanctioned by the home government; but the period was one of aggression
on the part of the French in Canada and resistance on the part of the
British colonists along the Eastern seaboard.

FOOTNOTES:

[239] Bateson, _Cambridge Modern History_ (1905), vol. vii. p. 70.

[240] _Hakluyt's Voyages_ (1904), viii. 438.

[241] _Hakluyt's Voyages_ (1904), viii. p. 242.

[242] _Ibid._, p. 244.

[243] Le Clercq, _First Establishment of the Faith in New France_
(1881), p. 52.

[244] Le Clercq, _First Establishment of the Faith in New France_
(1881), p. 52.

[245] The modern Kingston.

[246] These men were the first to explore the river, but it was
undoubtedly reached in 1659 by two fur traders, Radisson and Des
Grosseilliers.

[247] _French, Historical Collections of Louisiana_ (1850), Part II.

[248] _Ibid._

[249] _Ibid._

[250] _Ibid._

[251] Parkman, _La Salle_ (edition eleven), p. 112.

[252] French, _Historical Collections of Louisiana_ (1850), Part IV.

[253] _Ibid._

[254] French, _Historical Collections of Louisiana_ (1850), Part IV.

CHAPTER XI

FRENCH AGGRESSION

In a previous chapter reference has already been made to the fatality of
having no form of union among the Thirteen Colonies. Every chance of
concentration existed towards the end of the seventeenth century, for
the colonies were contiguous, they lay in compact and continuous
territory along the eastern seaboard, backed by the boundary of the
Alleghanies. They were too, for the most part, inhabited by Englishmen,
who may originally have been driven to emigrate for very different
reasons, but who were in reality of the same stock and blood. But though
everything pointed to union, the necessary concomitants were comparative
only, and union was impossible. The colonies were squabbling, jarring
communities, without any constitutional links; they were surrounded and
separated by vast tracts of impenetrable forest; their traditions,
religions, and beliefs were entirely opposed; and each colony was as
much divided in thought and feeling from its neighbours as from the home
country. This lack of concentration was one of the main differences
between the English on the American coast and the French in Canada. This
want of union was unknown in New France, where centralisation, perhaps
over-centralisation, was the predominating feature. One governor at the
head of all, a semi-feudal system, and an absolute reliance upon each
other and upon support from home made the numerically inferior Canada in
some respects superior to the Thirteen Colonies. At the end of the
seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth centuries, therefore,
the French possessed great advantages over their southern rivals; and
the English, disunited and internally jealous, were likely to prove
impotent against the Government of Quebec.

From the very first the relations between the colonies and Canada had
been unfriendly, but the feelings of antagonism increased as the
seventeenth century grew in years; and by the time that Frontenac ruled
Canada and Thomas Dongan was English Governor at New York, this feeling
had reached a climax. So pressing had the question become that the
colonies, in 1684, held a general conference at Albany, the outcome of
which, to the alarm of the French, was a firm alliance with the Five
Nations or Iroquois. No greater struggle, however, resulted than an
acrimonious literary warfare between the energetic Dongan and the
capable Denonville concerning numerous attacks upon English and Dutch
traders.

The English Revolution, the recall of Dongan, and the reappointment of
Count Frontenac as governor of Canada were contemporaneous and were
sufficient reasons for more trouble. The acceptance of William and Mary
in England meant war in Europe; and Frontenac, seeing his opportunity,
began what was called by the English settlers King William's war. The
French governor made elaborate plans to attack New York, but having
failed, found on his return that the Iroquois had disastrously raided
Canada and massacred the people of Lachine. A fresh expedition was
planned at a most unfortunate moment for the English colonists, who were
suffering from the effects of the Revolution; and New York, in
particular, was in the throes of the already mentioned Leisler rising.
For Frontenac it was the ideal chance; now if ever he felt that he was
bound to succeed against the English. His plans were well laid: his
force was divided into three parties, which were to strike their blows
at the same time and paralyse the settlers with terror. The first party
with a band of Indians, under the famous rangers the brothers
D'Iberville, started along the familiar waterway of the Richelieu River,
Lake Champlain, and the Hudson, to attack Albany. By mischance they
turned to the west and fell upon the little Dutch settlement of
Schenectady, which was unguarded except for a few militiamen from
Connecticut. The scene can only be described as one of helpless and
hideous massacre; all who resisted were butchered and the place was
deliberately and ruthlessly burnt. The second expedition was no less
successful in carrying out their horrible task. It was mere murder. For
three months they worked their way down to the settlement of Salmon
Falls on the borders of New Hampshire and Maine. Here the settlers,
little expecting such a terrible visit, were murdered while sleeping.
Elated with these horrors, the French and Indians moved on to join their
other comrades, and together, between four and five hundred strong,
attacked Fort Loyal in the settlement of Falmouth, where now stands the
town of Portland. Sylvanus Davies, the commander of the fort,
surrendered on the promise of quarter and freedom; the promise was so
much waste paper, and some of the English suffered the fate of the
inhabitants of Schenectady, while others were led captive to Quebec.

The lesson learnt by the English colonists was a salutary one, and the
immediate result of Frontenac's three successes was a tendency on the
part of the settlers to unite. At a solemn conference held in 1690 at
Albany, the colonies came to the conclusion that a combined naval and
military force must attack the French at once. The authorities in
Massachusetts took the lead; the "Bostonnais," as the French called
them, were seamen to the backbone. They had come, as has been shown, of
a sturdy Puritan stock, and as dwellers by the sea and traders on its
waters, they possessed those very characteristics which the Canadians so
sadly lacked. It was therefore the people of Boston who did all they
could to further the attack by sea, by which the main effort was to be
made; the land forces were not supported with the same enthusiasm and
were thereby insufficient for the work in hand, as events afterwards
proved, and instead of a magnificent military exhibition against Canada,
the soldiers did little more than raid a French settlement at La
Prairie.

The memory of David Kirke's attack upon Quebec was still green, although
sixty years had passed since that event. The aforetime ship's carpenter
and sea-rover, Sir William Phipps, governor of Massachusetts, was now
burning to renew the old glories of the colonial navy at the expense of
France. He had already, at the time of the French attack upon Falmouth,
taken possession of their one stronghold in Acadia, Port Royal, and
returned with much booty, some prisoners, and an increased reputation as
a brave, patriotic man. In August 1690, with 34 ships and 2200 men,
Phipps sailed from Nantucket to attack Quebec, the headquarters of the
French Government. The inhabitants had been lulled by continuous peace
into a sense of security, which was neither justified by past experience
not by daily occurring events. The expedition, however, landed too late
in the year. What happened to it was what Wolfe dreaded nearly seventy
years later. It was late in October before the men had disembarked and
the wet and cold season had already set in. The food supplies ran short;
sickness broke out and the little party was easily outnumbered. Phipps
bombarded the lower town to his heart's content, but he made the fatal
mistake of trying to attack from Beauport, instead of by means of the
path, which was afterwards discovered by Wolfe, and which had already
been shown to the "Bostonnais" general. The failure of the gallant band
from Massachusetts was complete; but there was something truly
magnificent about the whole affair. The man who had once tended sheep,
who had been a common seaman, and worked his way up the rungs of the
ladder of fame and prosperity, now pitted himself against the Count de
Frontenac, noble of France; the humble citizens of Boston, who, up to
that moment, had shown more interest in religious intolerance and the
rejection of any unnecessary pressure from England, had dared to attack
the ancient fortress of New France, garrisoned by trained forces and
skilled backwoodsmen warriors; practically one humble Puritanic colony
strove against the pomp and might of his Catholic Majesty, Louis
Quatorze.

The New England colonies, headed by Massachusetts, were bound to
struggle against the French with more determination than any of their
colonial brethren. New York did occasionally suffer severe attacks such
as that which had been intended for Albany; but the French realised very
clearly that their raids in this direction were always liable to be
repulsed, not by the settlers themselves, but by the warlike Iroquois,
who were in every way bound to the English and antagonistic to France.
The Puritan colonies, on the other hand, were threatened by Indian foes
just as friendly to the Canadians as the Iroquois were towards the New
Yorkers. The Abenaki Indians were an ever constant danger along the New
England borders, and their hostile attitude was intensified by the
Jesuits, who had acquired over them an influence even greater than that
which they had gained over other tribes. It was, in fact, the priests'
main task, particularly during the latter years of the seventeenth
century, to incite the Indians in their attacks upon the English. Wild,
looting, scalping, murdering bands poured in upon the unhappy settlers
who dwelt along the borders of New Hampshire and Maine. The French
feared, and with reason, that unless they kept this blood-lust at fever
heat, the Abenaki like the Iroquois would be won over by the English
owing to the fascination of a lucrative commerce.

The onslaughts that had to be resisted were not only from the Indians.
The success of Phipps at Port Royal, and his daring attack upon Quebec,
forced the Canadians to cry aloud for some form of retaliation, which
swiftly came. No sooner had Villebon recaptured Port Royal in Acadia,
than, in 1692, a definite series of massacres were organised along the
colonial sea-coast, and for years the English frontiers were swept with
desolating raids. York in Maine was the first to suffer the horrors of
this combined Indian and French warfare. Wells, further north, was more
successful in its resistance; for here Convers and thirty militiamen
drove back a party of Indians and French who had hoped to perpetrate the
usual butchery. The terror began again in 1694, and the settlers at
Oyster River were either immediately killed or carried into captivity.
That such things were tolerated by the New Englanders, and especially by
the people of Massachusetts, who had been so energetic in their naval
expeditions, is extremely surprising; there can be little doubt that the
settlers in the larger towns exhibited extraordinary indifference to
these raids upon their more isolated brethren. Massachusetts, with a
population of 50,000, was quite capable of building a strong line of
forts and organising a well-equipped border police. A few forts they
certainly had, but these were ill-protected and worse cared for. The
only one of any importance was that of Pemaquid, which lay as a rampart
in the path of any Abenaki attack on New England; but so dilatory was
the conduct of the settlers that, at the very moment when they might
have expected serious trouble with the French, they withdrew most of
their troops and in 1689 allowed the fort to be taken by the Indians.
The energetic Phipps had done his best, and in 1692 Pemaquid was rebuilt
and regarrisoned. The later story of this fort is one that causes
Englishmen to blush for the scandalous and dastardly action of one of
their countrymen. In 1696, acting under the orders of Stoughton,
lieutenant-governor of Massachusetts, Chubb tempted a party of Abenaki
to come to the fort, and there killed some and kidnapped others. The
French immediately seized the opportunity to revenge this cowardly
treatment of the savages, and on August 14, Iberville, after making a
triumphal progress from Quebec, capturing English vessels as he sailed
along the coast, appeared before Fort Pemaquid. Chubb scornfully refused
to surrender, and supported his vainglorious words by capitulating the
very next day.

So delighted were the French by their success that in the following year
they determined to capture Boston. The Marquis de Nesmond was to command
the fleet, while Frontenac was to lead the land forces. Delay for one
reason or another, contrary winds and stormy weather, kept the
expedition back until the summer was passed, when it was found to be too
late in the season to proceed. By the time that any fresh expedition
could be undertaken King William's War was over, and the Treaty of
Ryswick had been signed and was proclaimed in America in 1698. The
importance of the treaty with regard to the American colonies is to be
found only in the fact that it gave breathing-space to the combatants.
Both parties regarded it as a truce more than a treaty, and both looked
forward to a not far distant date when their differences might once
again be decided by the arbitrament of war.

The long-looked-for day came in 1701 when James II. died, and Louis
XIV., with that spirit, half-bravado half-chivalrous, declared the Old
Pretender James III. of England. The real fighting that now ensued took
place not in the forests of North America but in the lowlands of Europe.
The Netherlands, the cockpit of Europe, were once again to be drenched
with blood. The battles of Blenheim, Ramillies, Oudenarde, and
Malplaquet played an important part in the history of North American
colonies. Fighting, however, was not unknown in the West, and on May 4,
1702, war was openly declared. The old raiding expeditions began again,
and the French led the way by an attack on Wells, situated on Casco Bay.
The little town was terribly beset by the marauding Abenaki Indians, and
was almost at its last gasp when succoured by an armed force by sea from
Massachusetts. Then followed the historic attack upon Deerfield in 1704.
It was a small town of 300 inhabitants on the north-west border of
Massachusetts. The French and their Indian allies burst upon it in
February. Fifty of the people were butchered and one hundred were
carried into a captivity made famous by John Williams, one of the
prisoners, in _The Redeemed Captive returning to Sion_. "The direct and
simple narrative of Williams is plainly the work of an honest and
courageous man."[255] He tells of his own and his fellow-captives'
sufferings; and, in particular, of how the Jesuits promised him untold
wealth if he would be converted, to which he replied, "the offer of the
whole world would tempt him no more than a blackberry."[256] As years
went by the captives were either exchanged or, having been converted,
married Canadians and settled at Quebec or Montreal.

The disgrace of these murdering expeditions falls upon the French
Government, for they were planned by French officials and were carried
out for the most part by savage Indians. It must be allowed, however,
that the havoc on the border settlements of Canada had been caused by
the Five Nations, the friends of the English. Thus retaliation was the
feeling that grew up on both sides. The Canadians cared nothing for the
horrors that they perpetrated in the New England colonies; while the
English settlers naturally vented their wrath upon the nearest object of
attack, Acadia, for their indignation had been fanned to white heat by
the unspeakable horrors of Indian war. In revenge for the massacre at
Deerfield, Major Benjamin Church with a force from New England appeared
before Port Royal in 1704, and burnt the French settlement at Grand Pré.
Three years later Colonel John March, supported by a company of
volunteers from Massachusetts, made an attack upon Acadia, which proved
abortive. This expedition, together with a French raid upon Haverfield
on the Merrimac, had the effect of stirring Massachusetts to more
grandiose schemes, and in 1708 Samuel Vetch was sent to England to ask
for the assistance of regular troops.

The emissary selected by the "Bostonnais" had been well-chosen, for in
the colonies he was one of the most notable men of his day. He had lived
in the tropical heats of Darien; he had sojourned amongst the French
Canadians; and he had mixed with the cosmopolitan population of New
York. His adventurous life had given him an intimate knowledge of the
affairs and methods of the English and French colonial systems. He was a
shrewd, self-made man; very impetuous and sanguine, but at the same time
astute and wary. Above all he was filled with determination and
ambition, and if he had his own advance at heart, it was only in
conjunction with the true welfare of his country and her colonies. His
great ambition was, that "Her Majesty shall be sole empress of the vast
North American Continent." Vetch had the common sense to see that this
glorious object could only be accomplished by a united and aggressive
action against France. The first-hand knowledge that Vetch possessed
seems to have had considerable influence at the English Court; and as
Marlborough's victories had been so decisive in Europe, it was thought
that something might be done in America. In fact, the agent was granted
all that he had asked, and he returned to Massachusetts with a promise
of a fleet and five regiments, amounting in all to about 3000 men.

The prospect of conquering Canada now appeared less visionary than ever
before; the settlers ought to have felt that they were entering on the
last great struggle, had it not been for the fact that, as always,
colony was divided against colony. Pennsylvania, the home of the Quaker,
disapproved of war on principle; it was a safe theory for the
Pennsylvanians, for they were out of reach of French attack, and they
knew that they were well protected by those colonies which lay in the
zone of danger. Then, too, instead of acting like true men, the people
of New Jersey refused any actual help in the way of a force, though they
were not so mean as the Pennsylvanians, for they did send a contribution
of money. The New Yorkers exhibited a more magnanimous spirit; they
threw in their lot with the people of New England and roused the Five
Nations against the French. The chief expedition by land was under the
command of Colonel Francis Nicholson, who wrote to Lord Sunderland in
July, and said that if "I had not accepted the command, there would have
been insuperable difficulties."[257] This sentence tells its own story,
for the writer knew that any other commander would have been without
support owing to the shameful provincial jealousies which were the
everlasting reproach and curse of the American states. Nicholson was a
man of robust strength, a clear, practical brain, though ambitious,
vehement, and bold. He had already proved himself a fairly capable
colonial governor in Virginia, New York, Maryland, and Carolina, where,
though his private life may not have been a pattern of strict morality,
his conduct in official affairs was unimpeachable. With 1500 men he
entrenched himself at Wood Creek, near Lake Champlain, where he was
besieged by Ramesay, governor of Montreal. The settlers were able to
drive back the French, but were forced to wait anxiously for news of the
grand naval expedition that was to do so much; they waited in vain, day
by day being struck down by disease and pestilence; and Nicholson was
finally compelled to retreat, leaving behind him innumerable graves as
proofs of the patience and courage of his little force.

The British squadron with the promised regiments was long overdue. The
forces of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island were encamped
at Boston ready, on the appearance of the fleet, to sail to Quebec. From
May to July they were diligently drilled, and Vetch wrote in August,
"The bodies of men are in general better than in Europe and I hope their
courage will prove so too; so that nothing in human probability can
prevent the success of this glorious enterprise but the too late arrival
of the fleet."[258] If it should not come, "it would be the last
disappointment to her Majesty's colonies, who have so heartily complied
with her royal order, and would render them much more miserable than if
such a thing had never been undertaken."[259] The fleet never came! To
the grief and despair of the colonies, it had been sent to Portugal to
meet the exigencies of the European war. Although the hearts of the
English settlers had been made sick by hope deferred, yet a tenacious
energy had always been one of their strongest characteristics; and the
representatives of Massachusetts still urged the home Government to make
a supreme effort against New France. They asked Nicholson, who sailed
for Europe, to point out how much assistance was needed, how
advantageous the undertaking would be to the Crown, and how impoverished
and enfeebled the colony was by the long and expensive war. The last
plea was true enough, for Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island
had spent on the disastrous military schemes of 1709 no less than
£46,000. Like Massachusetts, the colony of New York was equally anxious
to impress the English Crown with the importance of the question at
stake, and in 1710 sent five Mohawk chiefs under the guidance of Peter
Schuyler to interest the English in colonial affairs, and at the same
time to so impress the chiefs with England's power as to dispose them to
hold fast to their alliance.

The resolution and tenacity shown by the colonies had some effect in the
home country. An English force of over three thousand men was at last
dispatched to Boston; and though timed to arrive in March, it did not
reach that port until July. Meantime the people of Massachusetts had
once again stirred themselves; raised their own militia; tempted the
soldiers of 1709 to rejoin by a promise of the Queen's musket; and
actually quartered troops on private houses, "any law or usage to the
contrary notwithstanding."[260] This fresh outburst of energy culminated
in Nicholson again taking command and sailing for Port Royal. On
September 24, 1710, he reached his object of attack; and on October 1
the French, finding themselves outnumbered, readily surrendered; the
town became Annapolis, and Acadia or Nova Scotia passed permanently into
the possession of Great Britain, owing to the bravery of her American
colonists.

The capture of Acadia was to Nicholson merely a stepping-stone towards
the greater defeat of the French and the final subjugation of New
France. He returned to England to further his schemes and was there ably
supported by Jeremiah Dummer, who was at that time in the service of
Henry St John, Viscount Bolingbroke. The Sacheverell trial of 1710 had,
amongst other things, caused the fall of the Whigs and concluded
Marlborough's warlike schemes. The Tories, champions of peace, were left
in power with St John and Harley as their leaders; but so ably did the
two colonials plead the cause of their brethren, that in April 1711
fifteen men-of-war and forty-six transports, containing five thousand
regular troops, sailed for America. To their intense surprise the
officers of this great armament found on their arrival that they were
regarded by the colonists with the strongest suspicion. The ships had
only been provisioned to reach America; definite orders as to their
further destination had not been issued; and the French had attempted to
poison the minds of the Bostonians by the idea that the British forces
were to subvert colonial liberties and reduce Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, and New Hampshire to the position of Crown colonies. One
Frenchman wrote, "There is an antipathy between the English of Europe
and those of America, who will not endure troops from England even to
guard their forts."[261] Another, Costobelle, had said as early as
December 1709, "I do not think that they are so blind as not to see that
they will insensibly be brought under the yoke of the Parliament of Old
England; but by the cruelties that the Canadians and Indians exercise in
continual incursions upon their lands, I judge that they would rather be
delivered from the inhumanity of such neighbours than preserve all the
former powers of their little republic."[262] For the reasons stated in
this report the New England colonists were on the horns of a dilemma;
they feared the British troops, but they were equally afraid of their
French neighbours.

There were, however, other difficulties. The presence of the British
regulars acted as an incentive to ill-feeling, which showed itself in
the deliberate lack of provisions and pilots, and in the willing shelter
offered to deserters from the army. The English officers, too, failed
entirely to understand now, as again in later years, the character of
the colonists; they were often arrogant or at least patronising; and to
the republican New Englander they appeared bumptious aristocrats. The
colonist was a brave and experienced man, and it was irksome to him to
find himself in an inferior position to men who really knew less than he
did about Indian warfare and forest fighting. On the other hand, the
English troops felt quite as bitterly as the colonists, and Colonel King
wrote to St John in July 1711, "You'll find in my Journal what
Difficultyes we mett with through the Misfortune that the Coloneys were
not inform'd of our Coming two Months sooner, and through the
Interestedness, ill Nature, and Sowerness of these People, whose
Government, Doctrine and Manners, whose Hypocracy and canting, are
insupportable; and no man living but one of Gen'l Hill's good sense and
good nature could have managed them. But if such a Man mett with nothing
he could depend on, altho' vested with the Queen's Royal Power and
Authority, and Supported by a Number of Troops sufficient to reduce by
force all the Coloneys, 'tis easy to determine the Respect and Obedience
Her Majesty may reasonably expect from them ... they will grow more
stiff and disobedient every day unless they are brought under our
government and deprived of their charters."[263]

The inhabitants of Boston may have shown many signs of coolness, but the
authorities of Massachusetts loyally supported the expedition which was
supposed to be about to accomplish so much. On the 30th July the fleet
sailed from Boston to the St Lawrence under the command of Sir Hovenden
Walker, of whom little is known, and who in no way added lustre to his
name. The colonial contingent that went by sea consisted of about
fifteen hundred men, led by the experienced and buoyant Samuel Vetch.
Another colonial force was commanded by Francis Nicholson, whose object
was to move north by way of Lake Champlain and attack the Canadian
strongholds. At the head of all was General Hill, or Jack Hill, the man
about town, who was no soldier, and owed his position to his sister
Abigail Hill, the famous supplanter of the Duchess of Marlborough.
General Hill made no attempt to gain laurels for himself or his country,
and his troops struggled back to Boston disgraced, not by their own
actions, but by the want of action on the part of their leader.

Walker's fleet entered the St Lawrence on the 22nd of August. The
Admiral, totally ignorant of the navigation of the gulf, steered his
vessels in misty weather straight for the northern shore. His own ship
was saved just in time, but not so those which followed, and eight of
the transports were dashed to pieces on the rocks, with a loss of almost
a thousand lives. Walker, as proved by his own writings, never possessed
any true ability; and he was only too ready, like Jack Hill, to look for
some pretext for retreat. This horrible disaster was sufficient for the
Admiral's purpose, and three days later the mighty armament turned away
from Quebec, and New France was for the time saved. Walker looked upon
the wreck as providential, and that the army had been saved from worse
disasters. It was indeed a strange action for a British sailor to pen
words of sincere gratitude for the loss of half his fleet. "Had we
arrived safe at Quebec," he writes, "our provisions would have been
reduced to a very small proportion, not exceeding eight or nine weeks at
short allowance, so that between ten and twelve thousand men must have
been left to perish with the extremity of cold and hunger. I must
confess the melancholy contemplation of this (had it happened) strikes
me with horror; for how dismal must it have been to have beheld the seas
and earth locked up by adamantine frosts, and swoln with high mountains
of snow in a barren and uncultivated region."[264] Walker sailed back to
Boston and then with his fleet returned to England, where as a final
completion to the horrible fiasco, the Admiral's ship was blown up.
Swift records this event as taking place in the Thames, but it more
probably occurred at Spithead, owing "to an accident and carelessness of
some rogue, who was going as they think to steal some gunpowder: five
hundred men are lost."[265]

Every disgraceful plot deserved to come to a bad end. The ignominious
conclusion of the Walker and Hill expedition was only to be expected,
since its true object had been to eclipse the victories of Marlborough
and bring about his entire downfall. St John and Harley had not been
animated by patriotic or imperial sentiments when Mrs Masham had agreed
to assist them in the backstairs attack upon the Churchill family. The
price of her assistance was a high military command for her incapable
brother Jack Hill. The two Tory ministers cared nothing for the success
or failure of the colonies; all they required at the time was the fall
of the Whigs with Marlborough at their head. The blame therefore must to
a certain extent rest upon the English Crown ministers; but the
incompetence of the two commanders, though not unparalleled in English
history, was worse than most instances, because it bordered very closely
upon cowardice. Muddle-headed as some British generals have proved
themselves, it is almost impossible to find another case where the more
serious charge can be brought or sustained. Marlborough had certainly
fallen; but his unpatriotic enemies had not succeeded in effacing the
glories of the four battles which still stand out as the chief features
of the War of the Spanish Succession. Although St John's plot was
disgraceful and deserved the failure that it earned, yet the disaster
fell very hardly upon New England. It has been hinted that the colonials
were themselves to blame, and that they were so afraid of the presence
of an English force that they preferred failure to success. They feared,
according to Colonel King's _Journal_, that "the conquest of Canada will
naturally lead the Queen into changing their present disorderly
government."[266] The New Englanders could not, however, be so
indifferent as is supposed, for the people of Massachusetts at any rate
did their utmost to make the attack a success; and it was afterwards
found that one in five of her male population was on active service in
1711; while many years had to elapse before the colony recovered from
the effects of her financial exhaustion.[267]

The War of the Spanish Succession in Europe had for all practical
purposes ceased, and the echo of it in America was dying away. The
belligerents were weary; the English began to feel the burden of their
National Debt; while the French were utterly exhausted, for in 1709 even
nature had turned against the omnipotent Louis, and the country was
impoverished by a winter which killed the fruits and vines. In 1713
terms were at last agreed to; and the Treaty of Utrecht, the first
really great colonial treaty, was the result. It is idle to speculate on
what enormous gains might have fallen to the English if party spirit and
spite had not cut short the remarkable career of England's great
captain. Had Marlborough been allowed to continue his unbroken series of
triumphant victories, and had he been permitted to select a
commander-in-chief in the West, it is most probable that the Treaty of
Utrecht would have contained those clauses which made the Treaty of
Paris so famous half a century later. As it was, the gains to England in
the colonial world were not to be despised. Acadia was surrendered to
Great Britain, with Hudson Bay and Newfoundland; on the other hand, Cape
Breton Island was restored to France. The great faults of the treaty, as
far as it concerned the Western Hemisphere, lay first in allowing the
French certain fishing rights off the shores of Newfoundland, which
remained until recently "a dangerous cause of quarrel between two great
nations, a perpetual irritating sore, a bar to the progress and
prosperity of the Colony;"[268] and, secondly, it was unwise to restore
Cape Breton to the French, as it was the key to the St Lawrence. A
Frenchman pointed this out in 1745, when he said that "it was necessary
that we should retain a position that would make us at all times masters
of the entrance to the river which leads to New France";[269] and even
in 1713 the French Government realised something of the island's
importance, and reared upon its desolate, fog-bound shore the mighty
fortress of Louisburg, a stronghold that came to be regarded as
impregnable, and second only in importance to that of Quebec.

"An avalanche of defeat and disaster had fallen upon the old age of
Louis XIV.,"[270] and he was forced into a treaty which contained many
humiliations. He must, however, have realised that England had once more
lost her opportunity, and that it was still possible for France to
assert her supremacy in the West. Canada, the goal of the New Englander,
was still New France, and for the next thirty years chronic warfare,
sometimes only flickering, but never extinct, smouldered along the
frontier line of the English and French settlers. The Canadians had the
distinct advantage of knowing what their great object was. It was far
more magnificent than that which filled the minds of the English; it was
perhaps too widely extended, but it was undoubtedly grand--North America
for the Gaul. To the governors of Massachusetts and New York the dream
of the total defeat of the French and their banishment from Canada may
have occasionally appeared; but their general outlook upon the question
was as circumscribed as that of the French was diffuse; and to them the
safety of their colonies, the friendship of the Five Nations, and sound,
steady trade were sufficiently difficult problems for solution.

From the moment of the Treaty of Utrecht Acadia was the source of
quarrels and intrigues which were entirely due to the interference of
French Canadian priests. With these difficulties, however, the Thirteen
Colonies had little or nothing to do, but found ample scope for their
energies in resisting priestly plots elsewhere. The Canadian Government,
owing to the preaching of the Jesuit priest Sebastian Rasle, succeeded
in renewing their alliance with the Abenaki Indians on the New England
frontier, although the chiefs of that tribe had made terms with the
people of Massachusetts in 1717. Rasle was a man of zeal, of sturdy
independent spirit, and fired with intense hatred of the English. The
Massachusetts Government realised the danger of allowing this man, from
his mission-station on the Kennebec River, to urge the Indians to acts
of violence and cruelty. Letters are still preserved which prove that he
was the agent of the Canadian Government, and exciting the Indians for
French purposes. It seems a somewhat cowardly action, but it is evident
that New France, concealing itself beneath the banner of ostensible
peace, was fighting the New Englanders by means of savage allies. To
crush this underhand scheme, in August 1724 a body of men under Captains
Harmon, Moulton, and Brown, rowed up the Kennebec, took the Indian
village, killed the Jesuit Rasle, and burnt the Indian wigwams. This
blow, which was both daring and statesmanlike, had an excellent effect,
and was hailed with joy by the border settlers, who saw in it the end of
their troubles; and after a similar raid by Captain Heath on the tribes
of the Penobscot in 1726, the Indians readily made terms of peace which
lasted for many years.

[Illustration: THE MARQUIS DE MONTCALM. _From a painting by J. B.
Massé._]

The main object of the French in the West, during the first half of the
eighteenth century, was to shut the English settlers in behind the
Alleghanies by means of a series of forts. In spite of the strong
opposition of the Five Nations,[271] the French erected one of the
earliest of these permanent blockhouses at the mouth of the Niagara
River in 1720. The English Colonists saw the danger, but the Legislature
of New York was so mean in matters of finance that it refused any
pecuniary assistance in creating a similar erection at Oswego in 1727.
Governor William Burnet had therefore to find the requisite funds out of
his own pocket; and although the fort proved of vital importance to New
York, he was never fully repaid. In May 1727, Burnet wrote to the Board
of Trade and Plantations, "I have this spring sent up workmen to build a
stone house of strength at a place called Oswego, at the mouth of the
Onondaga River, where our principal trade with the far Nations is
carried on. I have obtained the consent of the Six Nations to build
it."[272] The establishment of this fort was a great blow to the French,
who encouraged the Indians to drive out the English, but only received
the reply, "Chassez-les toi-même."[273] As a counterpoise they built
Fort Rouillé at Toronto, but Oswego remained as a bastion against French
aggression and as a lucrative trading station with the Indians until
captured by Montcalm.[274]

Even earlier than the foundation of Oswego the French had tried to
establish themselves, in 1726, opposite Crown Point, where Lake
Champlain contracts to the width of a river; but for the moment they
were deterred by the strong opposition of Massachusetts. New Hampshire
also claimed this territory, and while, with their usual jealousy, the
two colonies "were quarrelling for the bone, the French ran away with
it."[275] French aggression continued, and in 1731 they seized Crown
Point itself, at the instigation of the celebrated Chevalier Saint Luc
de la Corne, and named it Fort St Frederic. The point was claimed by the
colony of New York, but here again the settlers were too much engrossed
in their chronic dispute with New Jersey to take any effective measures
to prevent the loss. It was utterly futile for the New Yorkers and New
Englanders to protest that the fort was a menace to British territory,
for they had neither the will nor the common-sense to place petty
domestic jealousies on one side and unite in driving back the French.
The English found, by the year 1750, that owing to their supineness,
France had succeeded in building forts at Niagara, Detroit,
Michillimackinac, La Baye, Maumee, on the Wabash, St Joseph and Fort
Chartres. These may have been loose and uncertain links, but they had
great possibilities, and they at least connected Canada and Louisiana,
and gave some appearance of the possibility of a French North America.

It seems strange that the aggressive conduct of one of the newest
kingdoms in Europe should have a dire effect upon the New World; but so
it was. The determination of Frederic of Prussia to aggrandise himself
at the expense of Austria, caused, in 1744, the torch to be rekindled in
North America, and packs of howling savages carried rapine and murder
along the borderland of New France and New England. The war actually
began in America in May 1744 when Duquesnel, the Governor of Louisburg,
overpowered the small outpost of Canso in Acadia. The people of
Massachusetts realised that to them the transference of Acadia to the
French would mean a serious loss, and so planned "an enterprise second
to none in colonial history."[276]

Louisburg was a menace to all the northern British colonies, and the New
Englanders had been both exasperated and alarmed by the action of its
governor. The fortification itself was built upon the famous system of
Vauban; it had cost 30,000,000 livres, and had taken twenty-five years
to complete. Strong as this fortification was from without, owing to
mutinous spirits it contained all the elements of weakness within. The
honour of proposing an attack upon this scourge and curse of New England
probably rests on William Vaughan, who at that period was interested in
the fishing industry and dwelt at Damariscotta, Maine. Governor Shirley
lent a willing ear to the daring proposal. He had, as a young barrister,
come to Massachusetts in 1731, and within ten years had by his tact and
cleverness been appointed chief magistrate of his colony. He laboured
under the delusion that he was a military genius, and thought to prove
his powers by engaging in this scheme. The Massachusetts Assembly,
however, composed for the most part of grave merchants and stolid
rustics, refused to undertake anything so risky and expensive. Boston
and other coast towns, knowing well what a harbour of refuge Louisburg
had proved to all hunters on the ocean, petitioned ardently that
Vaughan's plan should be executed; and at length, after many
difficulties, it was agreed that the settlers should make this one
supreme effort. History immediately repeated itself, and the colonies
showed their habitual want of union; and although Shirley appealed to
them as far south as Pennsylvania, all with one accord made excuse,
except Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. Once again,
therefore, the burden of defeating France fell upon the New England
settlements. William Pepperell, a merchant of Maine, was placed in
command of the colonial land force. He came of Devonshire stock, was a
colonel of militia, and fortunately possessed of good sound
common-sense, for he had practically no military experience. The naval
commander was Admiral Warren, who was well disposed to the American
colonists, as he had married an American lady and owned property on both
Manhattan Island and the banks of the Mohawk River. He was a good
sailor, and in later years won for himself some renown in an engagement
against the French in European waters.

Colonel Pepperell was willingly followed by colonists of sturdy
character, still replete with Puritan ideas, and still further
encouraged by the motto given to them by the Evangelical preacher,
George Whitefield, "Nil desperandum, Christo duce."[277] On April 30,
1745, the New England force arrived within striking distance of
Louisburg. The town itself was oblong in shape, built upon a tongue of
land upon which the fortifications were erected with a due east aspect.
The troops of France were composed for the most part of brave men, but
they were in a state of disaffection, and their new commander,
Duchambon, was pusillanimous in his decisions. The whole garrison,
consisting of regulars and militia, was well under two thousand men;
while the colonial army comprised four thousand in all. This
superiority of force was immediately discounted by the privations
undergone by the besiegers; and it has been computed that only half the
army was really fit for action. The mutinous state of the French was but
a poor match for the peculiar mixture of youthful impetuosity and
religious fervour which stirred the colonials. A force under Vaughan
occupied the Grand Battery, and still further encouragement was given by
Admiral Warren's capture, on May 18, of the _Vigilant_, a French
man-of-war of 64 guns, bringing supplies. One who took part in the siege
writes, "Providence has signally smiled, and I doubt not the campaign
will be crowned with success. I am willing to undergo anything for the
good of our cause."[278] The chief danger which threatened the settlers
was relief from New France, but this came too late to be of any service
to the garrison.

After an unsuccessful attempt against the battery on the little island
at the mouth of the harbour, both Pepperell and Warren agreed that their
best move would be a final assault upon the fortification. The French
dreaded the effects of such an action; they were already worn out by
fatigue and anxiety; the town was shattered in every direction by shot
and shell. "Never," Pepperell wrote to Shirley, "was a place more mal'd
with cannon and shell."[279] Rather than sustain the horrors of a wild
attack which might lead to ruthless massacre, Duchambon thought it
better to accept the generous terms offered, and, on June 17th,
capitulated. The town was taken over by Warren and Pepperell, and all
praise must be given to the latter for the splendid way in which he
preserved discipline amongst his colonials, who were forbidden to reward
themselves, for their weary weeks of hardship, by loot and plunder. The
capture of Louisburg was one of the greatest events of the War of the
Austrian Succession; and historians are agreed that the success of the
enterprise was almost entirely due to the courage and perseverance of
the New Englanders, though they are ready to give all praise to Warren
and his seamen. It was a remarkable feat, and it must ever be regarded
as one of the most illustrious actions in American history. The
Bostonians welcomed the news with joy; their brethren, they believed,
had gone forth against the enemies of the Lord, and, like the Israelites
of old, returned victorious. The grim Puritan had shown that though a
man of peace, he was still able, when called upon, to smite the
idolaters hip and thigh.

Governor Shirley's schemes did not stop short at the capture of the key
of the St Lawrence. After Louisburg had been garrisoned by regular
troops, he intended to attack Canada. This plan failed, and he therefore
turned his attention to the more feasible scheme of capturing Crown
Point; but this also proved abortive. In the meantime the French made a
counter-expedition from La Rochelle under the Duc d'Auville. From the
outset the scheme was doomed: D'Auville died; his second in command,
D'Estournel, committed suicide; while his successor, the Marquis de la
Jonquière, was thoroughly defeated by Admirals Anson and Warren off Cape
Finisterre.

The struggle in which the colonists had shown such gallantry slowly
dragged to a close. Neither to Great Britain, nor to France had there
been much gain in those six years of warfare: the glory belonged to the
men of New England, who, in particular, realised the danger of the
French Empire in the West. They had learnt by experience the peril that
menaced them, and Shirley and Pepperell had done their best to remove
that danger by direct attack. In England the enormous value of Cape
Breton Island and Louisburg was not fully understood. George II. is
traditionally reported to have said that Cape Breton was not his to
return to France for it belonged to the people of Boston. This in a
sense was true; it had been won by the men of New England and it would
appear on the surface that it was for them to keep or restore that
frowning outpost in the Atlantic. Peace, however, was most necessary at
the moment, though it was only a breathing space in the colossal
struggle of the eighteenth century; and it was realised that this peace
could only be obtained by the cession of this fortification in exchange
for our East Indian territory at Madras. The possibility of the growth
of an Indian Empire never dawned upon the settlers in the West. They
felt that this small speck in an Eastern land was nothing in comparison
with the Dunkirk of North America. The New England colonies had done
their best; they had given their men and their money to accomplish a
great task. Their lack of unity had often stood in their way, but on the
occasion of the capture of Louisburg the Puritan brotherhood had
succeeded without the help of either Quaker or southern confederates;
they had earned for themselves the respect of their contemporaries and
the admiration of their descendants. Unfortunately, however, the
abandonment of Louisburg "under the pressure of diplomatic necessity
was in the eyes of the colonists an unscrupulous betrayal, and a
manifest proof of total indifference to colonial interests. It gave a
sting to the words of colonial demagogues and cut the sinews of colonial
loyalty."[280]

FOOTNOTES:

[255] Parkman, _Half a Century of Conflict_, vol. i. p. 79.

[256] _Ibid._

[257] Parkman, _Half a Century of Conflict_, i. p. 139.

[258] Parkman, _Half a Century of Conflict_, i. p. 144.

[259] _Ibid._

[260] Parkman, _Half a Century of Conflict_, i. p. 144.

[261] Parkman, _Half a Century of Conflict_, vol. i. p. 161.

[262] _Ibid._, p. 157.

[263] Parkman, _Half a Century of Conflict_, vol. i. pp. 166, 167.

[264] Walker, _Journal_, Introduction.

[265] Swift, _Journal to Stella_, October 16, 1711.

[266] Parkman, _Half a Century of Conflict_, vol. i. p. 169.

[267] _Ibid._, p. 182.

[268] Prowse, _History of Newfoundland_ (1896), p. 258.

[269] Wrong, translator and editor of _Lettre d'un habitant de
Louisburg_, p. 26.

[270] Parkman, _Half a Century of Conflict_, vol. i. p. 183.

[271] The Five Nations were sometimes called the Six Nations after being
joined by the Tuscaroras.

[272] O'Callaghan, _Doc. Hist. of New York_, vol. i. p. 447.

[273] Parkman, _Half a Century of Conflict_, vol. ii. p. 54.

[274] See p. 266.

[275] Mitchell, _Contest in America_, p. 22.

[276] Lucas, _Hist. Geo. of Brit. Colonies, Canada_, part i. p. 198.

[277] _Belknap_, vol. ii. p. 160.

[278] Samuel Curwen, _Journal and Letters_, p. 13.

[279] Doyle, _The Colonies under the House of Hanover_ (1907), p. 532.

[280] Doyle, _The Colonies under the House of Hanover_ (1907), p. 534.

CHAPTER XII

THE CLIMAX: THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN ENGLISH AND FRENCH COLONISTS

"If we can remove the turbulent Gallics the seat of Empire might be
transferred to America."[281] Such were the characteristically pompous
words of John Adams, which nevertheless contained something of the
spirit that animated a few of the thinking colonists in their final
struggle with the power of France. The Conquest of Canada liberated the
settlers of the Thirteen Colonies from a state of continuous and
watchful alarm; but it also increased their attitude of resistance to
interference on the part of England, and was an undoubted cause of the
American War of Independence. The actual conquest was, however, due to
British commanders, and more than half the troops employed consisted of
British regulars. It is not intended to belittle the work of the
colonials, for without them many of the stirring scenes which took place
between 1750 and 1763 could never have been enacted; but without the
discipline and experience of English leaders the great task could never
have been accomplished, because of the hopeless internal jealousies of
these quarrelsome communities. In the last chapter it has been shown
that the burden of the war with the French fell upon the New England
group, and in the period now under discussion the men of Massachusetts
also played an active part; but, whereas the rapine and murder had been
confined to the northern border, the stress of warfare now fell upon the
western frontiers of the more southern States, and New York,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia were called upon to take a serious
share in the great struggle. It had long been seen that these provinces
as they grew in size must necessarily extend their borders, and the men
from Pennsylvania and Virginia must come into hostile contact with the
Canadian backwoodsmen who had pushed into the valley of the Ohio.

It is during this period that the want of unity between the Thirteen
Colonies is more clearly evidenced than even in previous years. New York
was torn by internal factions, and the history of that colony would have
been infinitely more sad had it not been that its fighting contingent
was led by the redoubtable William Johnson. The state of Pennsylvania
was actually worse than that of New York; it was "a sanctuary for sloth,
cowardice, and sordid self-interest. The humanity of Penn, the peace
principles of the early Quakers, were a cloak behind which the factious
and indolent citizen with no sense of public responsibility could always
screen himself."[282] The Pennsylvanians were as callous, during this
colossal epoch, as if the war had been on the plains of Germany, and
were not only inert themselves but endeavoured to neutralise the action
of the other Colonies, so that they have earned the reputation of
selfishness and disloyalty. Maryland was not like Pennsylvania in its
open refusal to help; its attitude was one of indifference, which was
partly due to niggardliness, and partly to the fact that it was safely
screened by the colonies of Pennsylvania and Virginia. The latter colony
has been severely blamed for the ineffective assistance rendered during
the war. It is urged with truth that the inhabitants consisted of the
very men who should have composed a fine fighting force, but that the
Virginian youth exhibited an astounding supineness in following the
gallant Washington. There are, however, two reasons that may be found as
partial excuses for the unpatriotic attitude of the Virginian settlers.
The first was an ever-present dread of a slave insurrection if the
militia left the colony; while the second is to be found in the
irascible temper of the governor, Robert Dinwiddie.

The year after the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, the French governor of
Canada, La Galissonière, had sent Celeron de Bienville to register the
claims of France to the Ohio valley, and thus carry on the great scheme
of shutting in the English settlers behind the Alleghany Mountains. The
demonstration was purely peaceful, and for the next three years nothing
serious came of it. Galissonière resigned his government to De la
Jonquière, who, in turn, was succeeded by the Marquis Duquesne. In the
meantime, in 1750, the Virginian traders, for the most part, had formed
the Ohio Company for the exploiting of that rich valley. The work of
this corporation was not of a successful character, owing to the
jealousies between Virginia and Pennsylvania, both colonies trying to
shift the burden of fort building on to the shoulders of the other. The
French, seeing their opportunity, began to teach these bickering
colonials those bitter lessons which were at last to be an indirect
cause of their union. In June of 1752, the Miami Indians, a confederacy
friendly towards the English, were attacked; their town was burnt, and
their chief killed. This was not a mere raid upon an insignificant group
of Redskins' wigwams, but was the outward and visible sign of the
aggressive policy of Duquesne towards the advanced English traders in
the Ohio valley. In the spring of the next year, a veteran French
officer, Marin, established, by means of two forts, communication
between the Great Lakes and the sources of the Ohio. This, indeed, was a
direct act of trespass upon that debatable land lying on the borders of
Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, and was a heavy blow at the Ohio
Company and their trading station at Fort Cumberland. The French
intrusion aroused the wrath of William Shirley of Massachusetts, and
also of the cross-grained Governor Dinwiddie, of Virginia. Ill-tempered
though the latter was, he possessed clear judgment and tenacity of
purpose, and from this moment worked strenuously for the welfare of the
colonies against the French.

In November 1753, George Washington, then a young land-surveyor, but
already fairly prominent among the Virginians, was despatched to warn
off the French trespassers. He found that what had formerly been an
English trading station at Venango had been converted into a French
Canadian outpost. Resistance was obviously necessary; and Dinwiddie
embarked upon a zealous military policy, calling upon the Governors of
Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and the
Carolinas to assist in preventing the Governor of Canada becoming the
master of the valley of the Ohio. Virginia responded cheerfully to the
Governor's appeal, and subscribed £10,000; North Carolina gave a small
sum and sent a few soldiers; South Carolina and New York also sent a
contingent of militiamen; but Pennsylvania refused both men and money.
Dinwiddie did what he could by despatching, in February 1754, a small
force to build a blockhouse at the junction of the Monongahela and the
Alleghany Rivers. The settlers were overpowered by the Canadians in
April, and the fort which was erected was the work of French hands, and
was called after the Canadian Governor, Fort Duquesne. With a party of
Virginians, Washington was ordered to take this fresh example of
Canadian insolence, then under the command of Contrecoeur. His
lieutenant, Jumonville, was killed in a sortie or scouting expedition,
but even with this advantage Washington's little army was outnumbered.
He was forced to retreat, first to Fort Necessity, and after a nine
hours' fight, across the Alleghany Mountains.

The campaign of 1754 had been utterly disastrous for the English
settlers, but it only encouraged the indefatigable Robert Dinwiddie to
further efforts. He saw that "if the misfortune attending our forces has
aroused the spirit of our neighbouring colonies, it has done more than
probably a victory could have effected."[283] He now did his best to
still further arouse the united enthusiasm of the Middle and Southern
colonies, and so stirred the Assembly of Virginia that it voted £20,000.
The defeat of Washington also gave a stimulus to a movement towards
unity that had already been made in the autumn of 1753. The delegates
of the seven colonies of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, had met in friendly
conference at Albany, and had listened to Benjamin Franklin's great
scheme of union, under which a colonial Council of forty-eight members
was to be formed, each colony supplying members according to its
population. This Council was to have very important powers and
privileges, including those of declaring peace or war. Had Franklin's
statesmanlike proposals met with the general acceptance of the colonies,
North America would have become one great self-governing community,
having more independent powers than any of the present-day colonies of
Great Britain. The time, however, was not yet ripe; the colonies were
still too jealous of their own petty rights and privileges; and those
who were acting for the welfare of the English in America did not at the
moment wish to rush into some great revolutionary change in the
constitution, but desired rather a firm attitude of resistance to the
French aggressions in the Ohio valley. Dinwiddie found the task
difficult enough. He wrote to the Governor of Pennsylvania that the
colonies "seemed satisfied to leave the French at full liberty to
perpetrate their utmost designs to their ruin."[284] But he did not
despair, and asked help from New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and the
Carolinas, and received encouraging replies from all the governors,
except Glen of South Carolina. In his excellent work he was ably
supported by William Shirley of Massachusetts, who, at this time, was
working strenuously to stir the home government to realise the danger
that threatened the Thirteen Colonies.

The combined efforts of these two men were not in vain; and although
there was peace in Europe, two regiments were sent out under
Major-General Braddock in January 1755. Edward Braddock has been the
subject of much controversy; his character has been torn to pieces by
different historians, and certainly the records point to a man of a
curious combination of magnanimity and brutality. When in command at
Gibraltar, he was adored by his men; whereas in America, Horace Walpole
speaks of him as "a very Iroquois."[285] William Shirley, son of the
Governor of Massachusetts, said "We have a general most judiciously
chosen for being disqualified for the service he is employed in, in
almost every respect."[286] This view is upheld by Burke, who wrote of
him as "abounding too much in his own sense for the degree of military
knowledge he possessed."[287] It is, however, extremely doubtful if the
terrible disaster associated with his name can be entirely attributed to
the general's own personal character, and recent writers have shown that
the charge of utter incompetence cannot be satisfactorily
sustained.[288]

Braddock's forces landed at Hampton, Virginia, in February 1755; and a
colonial conference was at once held at Alexandria. This important
meeting was attended by six of the colonial governors, including the
most patriotic and energetic, Dinwiddie, Shirley, and Sharpe. They
concluded that four practically simultaneous expeditions should be made
against the French. The English general was to march against Fort
Duquesne; two forces were to converge on Crown Point from a base of
operations at Albany; while the fourth effort, under Shirley, was to be
made against the French conspirators in Acadia.

The English regiments, the 44th and 48th, were reinforced by two hundred
and fifty Virginian rangers, and by small detachments from New York,
Maryland, and the Carolinas. The force supplied by the wealthy colony of
Virginia was utterly inadequate; while Pennsylvania, as usual, sent no
aid in the way of troops, and only voted a sum of money to be collected
with such difficulty that it was practically valueless. George
Washington, at that time recovering from a severe illness, was requested
by Braddock to accompany him as one of his aide-de-camps. After a series
of delays, on July 3rd Braddock unexpectedly fell in with a French force
under Beaujeu on the right bank of the river Monongahela, about eight
miles from Fort Duquesne. The majority of the enemy were Indians trained
to forest fighting, while the English, accustomed to European methods,
fought in a solid mass, their red coats affording an excellent target
for their invisible foes. Braddock fought with heroic perseverance; four
horses were shot under him, and it was only when he saw the approaching
failure of the ammunition, and that his men were exhibiting distinct
signs of panic, that he gave the order to retreat. At that moment he was
mortally wounded. "I cannot describe the horror of that scene," wrote
Lieutenant Leslie of the 44th, three weeks after the battle: "no pen
could do it. The yell of the Indians is fresh on my ear, and the
terrific sound will haunt me to the hour of my dissolution."[289] The
disaster was immediately attributed to the incompetence of Braddock. The
colonials naturally praised the conduct of the Virginian detachment, the
members of which had had the common-sense to conceal themselves behind
trees, and fought the Indians after their own methods. Thus Washington
wrote: "The Virginia companies behaved like men and died like
soldiers";[290] but there can be no doubt that Washington and other
settlers were prejudiced against the English general and were filled
with contempt for his scheme of fighting. They never took into
consideration that Braddock's failure was partly due to the delay caused
by the quarrels between Pennsylvania and Virginia, and partly owing to
the utterly worthless horses supplied to him by the colonial authorities
for his transports. Where Braddock's great mistake lay was in the belief
that "it was better to be defeated in conformity with orthodox methods
than to win by conduct which seemed lacking in courage, and by imitating
the hitherto unknown tactics of colonials and barbarians."[291]

Dinwiddie, with that same wonderful energy which he had displayed during
the whole of this anxious epoch, did his best to mitigate the harm done
by the terrible disaster. He realised clearly what Washington pointed
out to him, "the consequences that this defeat may have upon our back
settlers."[292] He again sent frantic appeals to the Governors of
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and North
Carolina. The apathy, at this time, of the Middle and Southern colonies
was extraordinary; and "while sleek Quakers and garrulous Assembly men
prated of peace and local liberties, the outlying settlements were given
over to fire and sword."[293] The New England States were, however, more
energetic; and on the northern frontier an attempt was being made by
Shirley and William Johnson to put into execution the other schemes
arranged by the colonial conference. William Johnson was a man who had
lived a semi-savage life and who had gained remarkable influence over
the Iroquois, particularly the Mohawks. Governor Shirley had recognised
this man's gifts, and had appointed him commander of the Massachusetts,
New England, and New York levies, consisting of about 6000 men. In the
early summer of 1755 Johnson rapidly constructed Fort Lyman, and in
August moved slowly forward to the southern extremity of Lake George,
with the intention of taking Crown Point. The French, hearing of these
warlike preparations, despatched Baron Dieskau to Ticonderoga; he
marched still farther south and cut off Johnson's communications with
his recently constructed fort. At first the French cleverly ambuscaded a
party of the English, but in an assault upon Johnson's camp they were
defeated, Dieskau being wounded and taken prisoner. The results of the
fight were of some slight importance, as the capture of the leader and
the repulse of his men were regarded in England and the colonies as some
compensation for the disaster of General Braddock. Johnson was rewarded
with a baronetcy and £5000; the little camp was converted into Fort
William Henry; and the lake, hitherto known as the Lac du Sacrament, was
rechristened, in honour of the King, Lake George. On the other hand, the
object of the expedition, Crown Point, remained in the hands of the
French, and their possibilities of aggrandisement in the West were still
as illimitable as they ever had been.

The two other campaigns of 1755 were under the superintendence of
Governor Shirley. In June he sent two thousand men of Massachusetts to
Acadia. Their commander was the much-respected John Winslow; and by his
assistance the English at last defeated the machinations of the French
under De Loutre. Governor Laurence, however, was forced to take strong
measures to preserve peace, and deported the intriguing and disloyal
Acadians to Massachusetts, Virginia, South Carolina, and elsewhere. His
action has been severely criticised and the story has been depicted in
words of horror by the poet Longfellow. The expulsion of these "men
whose lives glided on like rivers" was, as a matter of fact, absolutely
essential for the welfare of the English nation in Nova Scotia. Winslow,
who assisted in the work of deportation, recognised the necessity
although he disliked the action; but he carried out his orders with the
greatest humanity that could be shown under exceptionally difficult
circumstances. Meantime, Shirley's second expedition, though commanded
by himself, was not so successful. His troops were composed for the most
part of colonials paid by the British Government. His object of attack
was Fort Niagara, a place of considerable danger to the trading station
at Oswego, and one of the main connecting links between Canada and the
south-west. The season grew late; the troops were delayed by unexpected
obstructions; and towards the end of October, having reinforced Oswego,
Shirley found it better to retire.

The campaigns of 1755 had proved most unsatisfactory for the colonists.
The southern confines of Virginia continued to be harried, although
Washington and his little band, for the most part composed of Ulster
Protestants, did what they could to preserve peace along the
border-line. In much the same way the frontiers of New England were open
to attack, and French animosity was by no means decreased by the skilled
scouting expeditions of Robert Rogers and his bold New England rangers.
The only great achievement was in Acadia, a province of more value to
Great Britain than to the settlers of any particular colony. The French
had not only succeeded in remaining in the coveted valley of the Ohio,
but had also repulsed with enormous loss a general of some repute, which
brought with it the much-desired Indian alliance. Along the shores of
the Great Lakes no practical advantages had been gained; and Johnson's
victory at Lake George brought rewards to the individual rather than to
the New Englanders as a community. The Puritan colonists, however, came
out of these campaigns with an enhanced reputation; they were
distinguished from their southern brethren by a readiness to sacrifice
both men and money in a great imperial cause.

In the early spring of 1756, war in Europe had not yet been declared,
but border skirmishes still continued unabated in the distant West. The
main effect on the colonies of the declaration of the Seven Years' War,
on May 11th, was an increase in the number of regular troops sent to
America. These were largely supplemented by the colonial militia and by
colonial royal regiments in the pay of the Crown. Before the arrival of
the regulars, the French again began their raids, and, under De Lery,
captured Fort Bull, thus threatening the more important neighbouring
station of Oswego. Shirley at once despatched Colonel Brodstreet with
supplies and reinforcements to the traders at that fort, and for the
moment baulked the Canadians. But by this time, a greater than De Lery
had been sent to America, in the person of the Marquis de Montcalm, who
immediately undertook the capture of Oswego. For this purpose, in July,
he started from Ticonderoga, and by August 10th was in close proximity
to the doomed blockhouse. The powerful artillery of the French, together
with the cunning tactics of their native allies, forced Oswego to
surrender after its commander, Colonel Mercer, had been killed. This
success was invaluable to the French, for as Braddock's defeat had given
to New France the Ohio valley, so now Montcalm's victory made her
undisputed mistress of the Great Lakes.

The man who had done this great work may be regarded as the French hero
of the Seven Years' War. The Marquis de Montcalm was by this time
forty-four years of age, and had gained his military experience on many
European battlefields. He owed his command to his own intrinsic merits
and not, like so many French generals, to the influences of Court
mistresses. He was a gentleman of France; a man of impetuous spirit, but
possessed of many lovable characteristics; he was kind, tolerant, and
gentle, and yet one of the sternest of soldiers. Owing to his ability
and energy, his chivalrous courage and kindliness of manner, he was a
leader who not only had his men under perfect discipline, but was also
endeared to them by those very sterling qualities which they fully
recognised. He hated corruption, cheating, and lying; he detested the
brutality of many of his companions; and although Wolfe said that
"Montcalm has changed the very nature of war, and has forced us ... to a
deterring and dreadful vengeance,"[294] yet in reality he did his best
to lift the war from mere butchery and murder on to the higher plane of
civilised methods. Montcalm, Marquis of the Château de Candiac, gave his
life to an ungrateful country, which repaid him for his sacrifice by
cruel and unjust charges.

To oppose so good an officer the English Government selected the
unsatisfactory leaders, Colonel Daniel Webb, dilatory in taking action,
General Abercromby, in Wolfe's opinion "a heavy man," and the Earl of
Loudoun, who lacked tact in his treatment of the settlers, and quickness
in his command of troops. To add to the English errors, the home
authorities recalled Shirley, who had given up the best of his life to
sturdily resisting French aggrandisement. Fortunately the colonial
forces were not without their own leaders, in many instances men of
merit, such as William Johnson, friend of the Mohawks, John Winslow,
famous for his Acadian experiences, Colonel Brodstreet, a good and
dashing soldier, and, above all, that daring and clearheaded Prince of
Rangers, Robert Rogers of New Hampshire.

The individual settlers were brave and true, but the year 1757 opened
with the same petty and local quarrels in the colonial Assemblies,
chiefly in Pennsylvania and New York, in the former concerning the
everlasting squabble about taxing the proprietors' land, in the latter
on the question of billeting. The Earl of Loudoun, though his position
had given him some weight and authority in the factious Assembly of New
York, failed to win the respect or goodwill of the colonial forces. They
doubted his capacity, and blamed him in particular for his mismanagement
of what ought to have been the crisis of the war. Ever since the
restoration of Louisburg by the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, the settlers
had been anxious to again seize that key of the St Lawrence. Loudoun
recognised the importance of such an action, and, in conjunction with
Admiral Holborne, in August and September endeavoured either to take the
fortification, or at least to tempt the French fleet into a pitched
battle. That Loudoun was unsuccessful in both schemes was partly due to
those delays that have left deep stains upon colonial history, and
partly because the elements warred against the British, and Admiral
Holborne's fleet being shattered by storms, the expedition had
necessarily to be abandoned.

Meantime Montcalm had again displayed his activity; and while Loudoun
was engaged in his abortive attempts on Louisburg, the colonies received
a severe blow by the loss of Fort William Henry. Towards the end of
1756, the French had made an attack upon this fort, but had been
repulsed. Throughout the following July, Montcalm massed his troops at
Ticonderoga, and with Lévis, his second in command, and La Corne, a
noted Canadian irregular, arrived before Fort William Henry on the 4th
August. General Webb ought to have pushed forward to its relief, but he
felt himself too weak to cope with Montcalm's army of regulars and
Indian allies. For four days the defenders made a gallant struggle; and
on August 9th only capitulated on the terms of safe-conduct to Fort
Edward. The Indians refused to recognise those terms, and fell upon the
English. A massacre ensued, horrible in character and of revolting
details, though possibly these may have been exaggerated by lapse of
years. It is thought that Montcalm and Lévis did what they could to
preserve order, but were unable to prevent the many coldblooded murders
because of the utter indifference of the French Canadian officers, who
had been hardened in the terrible school of border and Indian warfare.

The French had now reached the high-water mark of their triumph in the
West; but in Europe the dawn of better things for the English people had
already come, for the king had been forced to place William Pitt in
office. An end was now to be put to all the dilatory conduct either of
the home authorities or of the colonial Assemblies. A man had been found
to save England and the Empire. Pitt's plans were not original; they had
been tried before; but they were at last to succeed because proper
effort was made, and able generals instead of incompetents were sent
out, and chiefly because behind all was the man who inspired with his
own glorious spirit every one with whom he came in contact. On December
30, 1757, Pitt addressed a letter to the Governors of the Thirteen
Colonies, who cheerfully responded by raising a substantial force.

The first expedition--in which the colonials were not employed--was the
capture of Louisburg. The possession of this fortress on Cape Breton
Island by the English would ensure the starvation of the Canadians, who
were at this time, practically without food. The men chosen for the work
were Admiral Boscawen, a hard fighter and typical English seaman;
General Jeffrey Amherst, a good but cautious soldier; and three others,
Whitmore, Laurence, and General James Wolfe, of "whom the youngest was
the most noteworthy,"[295] and whose name is so famously connected with
the story of the British in North America.

[Illustration: GENERAL JAMES WOLFE. _From the picture by Schaak
in the National Portrait Gallery._]

James Wolfe was born in Kent in 1727. When most modern boys are still at
school, he was adjutant of his regiment, and took part in the Battle of
Dettingen. He then went through the arduous campaign necessitated by the
Jacobite Rising of 1745. At twenty-five years of age he found himself a
full colonel. There can be little doubt that he was possessed of many
ennobling qualities, but his appearance was much against him, as his
face, with its pointed nose and receding forehead and chin, resembled
very closely the flap of an envelope. His figure was loose and ungainly,
and though over six feet in height, he lacked the smart appearance of
the military man. As a soldier he showed the greatest enthusiasm in
everything connected with his profession; he worked hard at mathematics,
tactics, and strategy, and did his best to perfect himself in the French
language. The records of this man's life go to prove that he won the
affection and regard of every one, and that he was almost worshipped in
the different places in which he was quartered. He never, however, lost
his good sense, never became puffed up with pride, never thought himself
greater than others. His gallantry in the unfortunate enterprise against
Rochefort in January 1758 had come to the notice of the great Pitt, and
it was for this reason that he was chosen to accompany Amherst in the
attempt to capture the "Dunkirk of America."

Boscawen's fleet with the transports containing the army came in sight
of Louisburg in June. Since the capture of the fort by the Massachusetts
militia in 1745, something had been done to strengthen its walls, and it
was now regarded in Europe as impregnable, though it was probably not so
formidable as it looked, since Drucour afterwards referred to it as
"crumbling down in every flank, face, and courtine, except the right
flank of the king's bastion, which was remounted the first year after my
arrival."[296] A town of about four thousand inhabitants nestled in
false security beneath the apparently[297] massive walls; but it was of
little good for them to imagine that assistance could reach them from
France, for the British navy made it impossible for her to send soldiers
or supplies. The English force was at last landed, and batteries were at
once erected under the distinguished guidance of Wolfe. These fortified
entrenchments were moved day by day nearer the doomed stronghold. The
guns never ceased to bombard the wretched town that had once considered
itself so secure. Within the harbour were eleven French men-of-war, but
soon four of these were deliberately sunk at the mouth of the harbour
by Drucour, while the rest were driven on shore or captured by a
cutting-out expedition. On the 20th of July, Wolfe had erected his last
battery; an enormous shell was sent into the chapel of the town, and a
fearful explosion occurred. On the 27th the French, under their
Governor, Drucour, were forced to capitulate, and Amherst and Wolfe
entered the fortress in triumph. Shortly afterwards the vast
fortifications were razed to the ground, and to this day there remains
nothing save some few ruined casements and huge, grass-grown stones,
lying in dismantled heaps upon the edge of the restless Atlantic, to
mark the spot where once stood one of the great triumphs of Vauban's
engineering art.

The news that Louisburg had fallen was received with every expression of
joy in all the colonies, and even the Quakers, who could not fight
themselves, gave way to the general outburst and showed suitable signs
of rapture at the victory of British arms. The news came at a moment
when such glad tidings were sadly needed, for only three weeks before
the colonies had been plunged into despair by the horrors of a great
tragedy. General Abercromby, with a large force of regulars and
colonials, had set out from Albany in May, and after tedious delays had
come on July 5th to within striking distance of Ticonderoga. In a
skirmish, two days before the great fight, Lord Howe, the most beloved
of the British officers, was killed. On July 7th Montcalm with Lévis
hurriedly erected a palisade of pines with their branches outward about
half a mile from the actual fort. The English general most foolishly did
not bring up his guns, fearing lest they should impede his progress. On
the morning of July 8 the assault began upon this palisade manned by the
trained marksmen of Canada; regiment after regiment of the English were
ordered to their annihilation. The Black Watch, for example, went into
action about a thousand strong; they straggled out of that awful Gehenna
with only half their numbers. At last, having thrown away the lives of
two thousand men, Abercromby ordered the retreat, and left Montcalm for
the third time the victor.

Amongst the men who fell in that disastrous expedition, no one was so
honestly mourned as Lord Howe. Pitt spoke of him as "a complete model of
military virtue in all its branches,"[298] but these words in no way
summed up the character of one who was not only beloved by the English
Army, but also by every man in the colonial contingent. Wolfe himself
wrote, "if the report of Howe's death be true, there is an end of the
expedition, for he was the spirit of that army, and the very best
officer in the King's service."[299] It was in winning the goodwill,
respect, and admiration of the settlers that Howe differed so remarkably
from his fellow officers. Burke writes of him, "from the moment he
landed in America he had wisely conformed and made his regiment conform
to the kind of service which the country required."[300] In other words,
he acted in a manner which would have caused Braddock to shudder; but it
was the right thing to do. The long-tailed tunic of the British regular,
his wonderful pig-tail, his buttons and smart points were ruthlessly cut
off because they were in the way. He dressed his men as nearly as
possible like the colonials, for he it was who for the first time
recognised that from them the English might gain experience in this new
and strange warfare. He learnt much from men like Rogers the Ranger; and
he taught much. Had Lord Howe and James Wolfe been spared to give more
of their short lives to the American people, the later history of the
Thirteen Colonies must have been very different.

As a set-off to the Ticonderoga disaster, two great victories marked the
last six months of 1758. Colonel Bradstreet, in August, with a small
portion of Abercromby's army, took Fort Frontenac, thus temporarily
cutting off the communication between the French in the Ohio forts with
those on the upper lakes. Besides this, Bradstreet was able to destroy
the presents collected for the Western Indians and all the winter
provisions for Fort Duquesne. These facts considerably assisted General
Forbes, who was no less successful in his undertaking. He had to contend
against the squabbles of Virginia and Pennsylvania, but he managed to
get both men and money. With a force of about six thousand, for the most
part settlers from the southern states, but also including a Highland
regiment, he set out for Fort Duquesne. His first attack was repulsed;
but in November on again advancing he found that the French commander De
Ligneries had been obliged, owing to Indian desertions, to evacuate and
destroy the fort. A stockade was at once erected by the English to take
the place of the once formidable French fortress, and was now christened
by the old general, in honour of his master, Pittsburg.

The year 1759 is called "the year of victories," and one of the chief of
these was the capture of Quebec. With the actual struggle for the
possession of the capital of New France, the colonials had little or
nothing to do; the work was entirely that of the British sailors and
soldiers. The expedition against Quebec, however, was only a part of a
general plan of attack upon Canada, and in this the settlers showed some
activity under the leadership of the Commander-in-Chief General Amherst.
In May, acting under Amherst's orders, General Prideaux, with two
regiments and a small body of colonials, joined Sir William Johnson and
his Mohawks at Schenectady. The plan of campaign was that this force
should move forward to Fort Niagara, then commanded by Pouchot, and if
possible drive out the French. Prideaux's force was quite sufficient for
this, but his lack of skill seems to have delayed the surrender of the
fort. On July 20 Prideaux was killed and the command devolved upon the
more fiery Johnson, who first marched out and defeated a large French
reinforcement, and then returned to receive Pouchet's surrender. The
capitulation of Niagara was of considerable importance, as from that
moment the French were debarred from exercising any influence on the
lower lakes. Burke says that it "broke off effectually that
communication so much talked of and so much dreaded between Canada and
Louisiana."[301]

Meanwhile Amherst advanced north with a large force composed for the
most part of regulars. In July he reached the deserted fort of
Ticonderoga; on August 1 he found Crown Point abandoned. From this
position Amherst ought to have hurried forward to the assistance of
Wolfe at Quebec, but he suddenly directed his energies into wrong
channels, and instead of pushing forward, employed his army in cutting
paths and roads during the whole of August and September. The exertions
of Robert Rogers and his New England Rangers has alone saved the
expedition from contempt. Amherst lost his opportunity, and instead of
being the Conqueror of Canada, by sheer sloth and lack of energy he
allowed another man to do the work and win immortal glory on the Heights
of Abraham.

James Wolfe had returned to England after the capture of Louisburg, but
Pitt had other work for him to do, and he was dispatched to undertake
the siege of Quebec. His immediate subordinates were Townshend,
Monckton, Murray, and Carleton. The men who were to oppose him in this
great undertaking were Montcalm and the incapable Vaudreuil, with
Bougainville, upon whom his senior maliciously placed all the blame. In
June 1759, Wolfe, supported by a strong naval contingent, sailed up the
St Lawrence to the attack of Quebec. The town, steep and precipitous,
frowned defiance upon the English; all along the Beauport shore was one
vast camp, any path being strongly guarded, and the whole ridge being
one long extended earthwork. Montcalm knew his business. If he could but
keep Wolfe out until the winter months had come, he felt convinced that
the expedition must fail. The English general, on the other hand, longed
to tempt the French regulars and Canadian militia out of their snug
position and beat them in open ground. In vain Wolfe established a
battery upon the Ile d'Orleans, opposite to Quebec, and shattered the
lower part of the town. Night after night the countryside was lighted
by the fires of farmsteads and barns which were answered back by the
flashing fires of Lower Quebec in flames. Nothing would tempt Montcalm
to come out. His position was enormously strong, for his flank was
protected by the rushing falls of Montmorency. It was at the foot of
these that Wolfe made his first serious attempt on July 31, which proved
a failure, not for want of bravery, but because of the rash behaviour of
the grenadiers. To the astonishment of the general and his officers, the
grenadiers had no sooner landed than without orders they tried to rush
the hill. They clambered over the rocks, fought their way through bushes
and thickets, and were then suddenly met with a withering fire from the
French above them. A rain-storm came on at the moment and the army below
stood petrified. The rain ceased almost as quickly as it had begun, and
the cliffside was seen to be strewn with the redcoats; and worse, the
Indians had rushed out and were wreaking their vengeance by their awful
custom of scalping.

This success of Montcalm did not tempt him to leave his position and
make an attack upon the English. The latter were now for a short time to
lose all hope, for the news passed rapidly through the army that their
beloved general was at the point of death owing to an incurable
complaint from which he had long suffered. His indomitable spirit,
however, overcame his sufferings, and rousing himself he once more spent
his time gazing carefully at the beetling cliffs. On the 2nd of
September he had found what he wanted and determined to start upon what
seemed to him somewhat of a forlorn hope, but which was destined to
form one of the most glorious pages in British history.

A path had been discovered up the cliffside--the path disclosed seventy
years before to Phipps--at the top there was a small guard and nothing
more. On the night of the great venture the boats slipped quietly down
the river, and as the French were expecting a convoy of provisions two
sentries let them go by after a first challenge. Wolfe, sitting in the
stem of one of the boats, was murmuring in a solemn whisper the
beautiful lines of Grey's Elegy:--

"The boast of heraldry, the pomp of power,
And all that beauty, all that wealth e'er gave,
Await alike th' inevitable hour;
The paths of glory lead but to the grave."[302]

"Gentlemen," said he, "I would sooner have written that poem than take
Quebec."

[Illustration: THE DEATH OF WOLFE. _After the painting by B.
West._]

The landing was successfully accomplished, the guard at the top was
overpowered, and before Montcalm knew that the English had left their
camp, four thousand five hundred men were standing in that "thin red
line" upon the Heights of Abraham. The gallant Montcalm did what he
could, and with surprising energy collected his troops and led them
against the English. The French fired time and again upon Wolfe's men,
but they stolidly awaited their advance until they could see the whites
of their eyes and then let loose upon them a withering fire. The white
coats of the French regulars and the gay costumes of the French Canadian
trappers were ready targets and they reeled and fell. Wolfe then
ordered the assault, and with a second volley the whole army charged,
Wolfe leading his grenadiers. After receiving a slight wound, a fatal
bullet singled out that gallant man, and he fell, unnoticed for the
moment save by four of his officers, who tenderly carried him to the
rear of the advancing host. "They run! They run!" cried one of the
officers. "Who run?" said Wolfe. "The French," they replied. "God be
praised, I die in peace."

Montcalm was also mortally wounded, and just before the city actually
capitulated he passed away, happy that he should not witness the
surrender. Montcalm, like Wolfe, was a hero and a patriot, but whereas
Wolfe gained the love and everlasting memory of a grateful country and
Empire, Montcalm's name was dragged down by unworthy men who never
understood his burning zeal, who had none of his ambition for a glorious
French Empire in the West. Wolfe's "star had only just arisen. For a
moment something like a cloud seemed to have obscured its very dawn;
when suddenly bursting like a meteor across the whole horizon of war and
politics, it vanished amid a blaze of glory as splendid in a sense and
as lasting as that of Nelson himself. It seemed, in truth, as if a great
leader had been found and lost in a single moon."[303]

General Murray was left in command of Quebec to pass one of the most
trying winters ever undergone by a garrison which was without proper
clothing or supplies. At no great distance was a very capable leader,
Lévis, plotting to recover the city, which he very nearly succeeded in
doing, by defeating Murray outside the walls at the battle of St Foy, on
April 28, 1760. The French general, however, lost his opportunity by
not striking at the city itself when the garrison was confused by the
defeat. Murray was saved by the timely appearance of the British fleet
on May 15, and Lévis retreated. All that was now left to be done to
complete the conquest of Canada and the salvation of the Thirteen
Colonies from French attack was a final advance upon Montreal. Murray
was the first to make a move in July; while Haviland advanced down the
Richelieu River with three thousand five hundred men, including Rogers
and his New Englanders. Amherst's army had already collected at
Schenectady, but its progress was retarded by the slow arrival of the
colonial contingent of about five thousand men. The forces at last
combined before Montreal; and on September 8, just a year after Wolfe's
splendid victory, the last stronghold of New France capitulated to the
combined forces of England and the Thirteen Colonies.

According to Lord Chesterfield the acquisition of Canada cost the
English nation four score millions. No one at the present day can think
that the possession of the great Dominion, then regarded as "a few acres
of snow," was not worth twenty times the sum. By the Treaty of Paris,
1763, Louis XV. ceded "in full right Canada with all its dependencies,
as well as the island of Cape Breton and all other islands and coasts in
the gulf and river of St Lawrence." The French had done their best, ever
since the great voyage of Jacques Cartier in 1534, to build up a new
French Empire in the West. They had failed, partly because of the
fallacious principles of the French colonial system, but particularly
for two reasons. The first was the absolute exclusion of the Huguenots,
whereby the Canadians shut out the very people who would have made the
Empire rich and strong; and the second reason was because their dreams
were too diffuse, too magnificent, beyond the physical capacity of so
small a nation. They proposed to shut within narrow limits a nation
twenty times as large in population, far more energetic and industrious,
and one which would by the laws of nature overflow into those very
valleys and happy hunting-grounds that they had marked out for
themselves.

What, then, was the effect of the capture of Canada upon the settlers of
the Thirteen Colonies? We stand at the parting of the ways. The Treaty
of Paris not only marked the increase of the British dominions beyond
the seas, but also carried within it the germ of the future schism
within the British Empire. Several of the Thirteen Colonies had for many
years been filled with "a spirit of independence, puritan in religion,
and republican in politics."[304] Ever since the seventeenth century the
people of Massachusetts had kicked against the pricks of the Navigation
Act. The danger from the north and the west had undoubtedly had a
repressive influence upon the colonists, and had kept them subservient
to the English colonial system, which they hated and which was in
reality at the root of their disaffection. The Peace of Paris removed
all danger from Spain in the south, while the French danger was removed
by the victory of Wolfe; and the rising colonies felt themselves as a
new race about to start some great venture. They were (they knew it
themselves, and the French recognised it most clearly) absolutely free
to choose their future. The sagacious Vergennes predicted events that
actually occurred. "England," he said, "will soon repent of having
removed the only check that could keep her colonies in awe. They stand
no longer in need of her protection. She will call on them to contribute
towards supporting the burdens they have helped to bring on her, and
they will answer by striking off all dependence."[305] The defeat of New
France meant the possibilities of a new nation in the Western
hemisphere; and Old France revenged herself for the loss of her would-be
Empire by throwing in her lot with those aforetime jealous and jarring
Thirteen States. Old France, therefore, though she knew her own Empire
was gone, largely assisted to create the new nation, the new people, the
United States of America. The Thirteen Colonies had scarcely been taught
the lessons of unity by the horrors of Indian barbarities and the French
border war; but so much as they had learnt they tried to put into
practice at the first Philadelphian Congress, and at the time of the
Declaration of Independence. The Treaty of Paris, one of the most
important of all colonial treaties, was merely the forerunner of that
other great Treaty of Versailles; the former gave to us the vast area
now known as the Dominion of Canada; the latter marked the disappearance
of England's Thirteen Colonies, and the creation of the United States of
America. It would not have been any very great or wonderful prophecy for
a statesman, after the Treaty of Paris, to have foretold the rise of
that new nation which has grown with such marvellous strides; and it
would not have been inappropriate for him to have used the words of the
poet in which to describe this great evolution, and say, "Methinks, I
see in my mind a noble and puissant nation, rousing herself as a strong
man after sleep, and shaking her invincible locks. Methinks I see her
like an _eagle_ viewing her mighty youth and kindling her undazzled eyes
at the full midday beam."

FOOTNOTES:

[281] Adams's _Works_ (ed. 1856), vol. i. p. 23.

[282] Doyle, _The Colonies under the House of Hanover_ (1907), pp. 544,
545.

[283] _Dinwiddie Papers_, vol. i. p. 258.

[284] _Dinwiddie Papers_, vol. i. p. 306.

[285] _Letters of Horace Walpole_ (Ed. 1861), vol. ii. p. 459.

[286] Parkman, _Wolfe and Montcalm_ (1901), vol. i. p. 188.

[287] _Annual Register_, 1758, p. 4.

[288] Bradley, _The Fight with France for North America_ (1905), pp.
81-99.

[289] Quoted by J. A. Harrison, _Washington_ (1906), p. 95.

[290] Letter of Washington to Dinwiddie, July 18, 1755.

[291] Doyle, _The Colonies under the House of Hanover_ (1907), p. 575.

[292] Letter of Washington to Dinwiddie, July 18, 1755.

[293] Lucas, _Hist. Geo. of British Colonies, Canada_, part i. (1901),
p. 240.

[294] Wright, _Life of Wolfe_ (1864), pp. 440, 441.

[295] Parkman, _Wolfe and Montcalm_, vol. ii. p. 48.

[296] Drucour's letter, _Annual Register_, 1758, pp. 179-81.

[297] Bradley, _The Fight with France for North America_ (1905), p. 217,
says a million sterling had been spent on the fortifications since 1745.

[298] _Grenville Correspondence_, vol. i. 262.

[299] Quoted by Bradley, _ut supra_, p. 245.

[300] _Annual Register_, 1758, pp. 72, 73.

[301] Burke, _Annual Register_, 1759, p. 34.

[302] Major W. Wood, in _The Siege of Quebec_ (1904), doubts the truth
of this picturesque story.

[303] Bradley, _Life of Wolfe_ (1895), p. 208.

[304] Hunt, _Political History of England_, 1760-1801 (1905), p. 141.

[305] Bancroft, _History of the United States_ (1891), i. p. 525.

CHRONOLOGY OF COLONIAL HISTORY

1492. First voyage of Columbus.
1496. Charter to John and Sebastian Cabot.
1497. John and Sebastian Cabot discover Newfoundland.
1498. The second voyage of the Cabots.
1500. Gaspar Corte Real sailed to Newfoundland.
1501. Gaspar Corte Real wrecked in Chesapeake Bay.
1502. Miguel Corte Real sailed to search for his brother.
1506. Denys of Harfleur reached the Gulf of St Lawrence.
1508. Aubert of Dieppe brought American Indians to France
1523. Verrazano sent out by Francis I.
1524. Verrazano sailed along the coast of North America.
1527. John Rut and Albert de Prado sailed to Newfoundland.
1534. Jacques Cartier of St Malo sailed to the St Lawrence.
1535. Jacques Cartier's second voyage. He reached Stadacona.
1536. Master Hore was wrecked on Newfoundland.
1541-42. Cartier's third voyage, joined by De Roberval.
1553. Voyages of Sir Hugh Willoughby and Richard Chancellor.
1562. Jean Ribault's expedition to Florida.
1564-65. René de Laudonniere sailed to the Carolinas.
1565. The French settlement destroyed by the Spaniard Menendez.
1576. Martin Frobisher's first voyage.
1577. Martin Frobisher's second voyage, and discovery of Meta
Incognita.
1577-80. Drake's voyage round the world.
1578. Martin Frobisher's third voyage.
Grant of a patent for colonisation to Sir Humphrey Gilbert.
1583. Newfoundland claimed as an English colony.
1584. Sir Walter Raleigh sends out Captains Amidas and Barlow.
1585. Raleigh's first Virginian colony.
1586. The colonists brought back by Drake.
1587. Raleigh's second attempt.
1589. First edition of _Hakluyt's Voyages_ published.
1598. Second and complete edition of _Hakluyt's Voyages_.
Marquis de la Roche attempts to found a convict settlement.
1599. Chauvin and Pontgravé attempt a settlement at Tadoussac.
1602. De Chastes obtains the services of Samuel Champlain.
Bartholomew Gosnold makes a voyage to the West.
1603. The voyage of the _Discovery_ and the _Speedwell_ to
America.
De la Roche's settlers rescued from Sable Island.
Samuel Champlain sailed up the St Lawrence.
De Monts obtained a patent to colonise Acadia.
1604. De Chastes joined to De Monts and established Port Royal.
1605. Samuel Champlain remained the winter in Acadia.
1606. Relief arrived. The expedition included Lescarbot, the
historian.
The formation of the London and Plymouth Companies.
1607. The foundation of Jamestown, Virginia.
Popham and Gilbert's expedition to the Kennebec.
1608. Champlain founded Quebec.
1609. Champlain discovered Lake Champlain.
Claude Etienne and Charles de la Tour settled on the
Penobscot.
Sir George Somers and Sir Thomas Gates sail for Virginia.
1610. Lord Delawarr governor of Virginia.
1611. Sir Thomas Gates governor of Virginia.
1613. Marriage of Pocahontas to John Rolfe.
Champlain and de Vignau follow the course of the Ottawa.
1614. Samuel Argall sacked Port Royal in Acadia.
Captain John Smith made a voyage to New England.
1615. Champlain and Le Caron came to Lake Huron.
1616. The Recollet missionaries settled in Canada.
1619. Sir George Yeardley governor of Virginia.
1620. Reorganisation of the New England Company.
The voyage of the _Mayflower_ and establishment of New
Plymouth.
1621. Sir William Alexander obtained a patent to colonise Acadia.
1622. Sir Robert Gordon attempted to settle Cape Breton Island.
1623. James I. demanded the surrender of the charter of the
London Company.
A fishing station at Cape Ann, Massachusetts.
Levitt established a settlement on Casco Bay, Maine.
1625. Jesuit missionaries first came to Canada.
1626. Definite settlement of the Dutch on Manhattan Island.
1627. Death of Sir George Yeardley. Harvey governor of Virginia.
Richelieu establishes the Company of the One Hundred
Associates.
1628. David Kirke destroyed the French fleet in the St Lawrence.
1629. David Kirke captured Quebec.
Sir Robert Heath received a grant of land south of
Virginia.
The establishment of Massachusetts.
1630. Winthrop established Boston.
La Tour made governor of Acadia.
1631. Arrival of Roger Williams in Massachusetts.
Lord Saye and Sele and Lord Brooke obtain land on the
Connecticut.
Sir Ferdinando Gorges formed a company for colonising
Maine.
1632. Grant of Maryland to Lord Baltimore.
Treaty of St Germain-en-Laye, by which Quebec was
restored to the French.
1634. Champlain built a fort at Three Rivers.
1635. Champlain died.
Maine granted to Sir Ferdinando Gorges.
Captain John Mason established New Hampshire.
Foundation of Providence by Roger Williams.
Winthrop, the younger, governor of Connecticut.
Harry Vane, Mrs Anne Hutchinson, and John Wheelwright come
to Massachusetts.
The Pequod War.
1636. The foundation of Harvard College.
De Montmagny succeeded Champlain.
1637. The foundation of Rhode Island.
Theophilus Eaton founded New Haven.
1638. Minuit's Swedish settlement.
1640. Union of Rhode Island and Providence.
1642. Conformity Act in Virginia.
Fort Richelieu (Sorel) founded.
1643. The New England Confederacy.
1647. Peter Stuyvesant made governor of the New Netherlands.
1649. Toleration Act in Maryland.
1650. Sir William Berkeley commissioned by Charles II.
1651. Sir George Ayscue sent to subdue the West.
1651-58. The towns of Maine under the jurisdiction of Massachusetts.
1652. Richard Bennet governor of Virginia.
1653. Le Moyne, the Jesuit, sent as an envoy to the Iroquois.
1654. War with the Nyantic Indians.
1654. Stephenson took Acadia.
1655. Peter Stuyvesant captured the Swedish settlements.
Edward Digges, Governor of Virginia.
Victory of the Protestants at Providence, Maryland.
1657. Lord Baltimore restored in Maryland.
1659. Josias Fendall, Governor of Maryland.
1661. Royal Commissioners sent to the colonies.
1662. Charles Calvert made Governor of Maryland.
Charter granted to Connecticut.
1663. Charter granted to the Lords Proprietors of the Carolinas.
Canada became a Royal Province.
1664. Colbert created the Company of the West.
Richard Nicolls captured New Amsterdam.
1665. Attempt of De Ruyter to retake New Amsterdam.
Marquis de Tracy made Lieutenant-General of Canada.
1666. Courcelles attacked the Iroquois.
The Treaty of Breda.
La Salle arrived in Canada.
1667. Locke's Fundamental Constitutions for the Carolinas.
Terrific gale in Maryland and Virginia.
1668. Francis Lovelace made Governor of New York.
Jacques Marquette, a missioner on Lake Superior.
1669. La Salle supposed to have discovered the Ohio.
1670. Incorporation of the Hudson Bay Company.
William Sayle came from the Barbadoes to South Carolina.
1671. Sir John Yeamans, Governor of South Carolina.
1672. Count Frontenac made Governor of Canada.
Grants in Virginia to Lords Arlington and Culpeper.
1673. Cornelius Eversen retook New York.
The establishment of Fort Frontenac.
Joliet and Marquette reach the Mississippi.
1674. Death of Marquette.
The Treaty of Westminster restored New York to the English.
Carteret and Berkeley given rights in New Jersey.
Joseph West made Governor of South Carolina.
1674-1676. King Philip's War.
1675. Death of Cecil, Lord Baltimore.
1677. The end of Berkeley's rule in Virginia.
Thomas Eastchurch, Governor of Carolina.
1678. Massachusetts purchased all rights over Maine.
La Salle given leave to discover the western parts of New
France.
La Salle, De Tonty, and Father Hennepin allied as
discoverers.
Fort Niagara built.
1679. La Salle sailed up Lakes Erie and Michigan.
1680. La Salle built Fort Crèvecoeur on the lower Illinois.
Father Hennepin travelled on the upper Mississippi.
Edward Byllinge and certain Quakers encouraged to colonise
Delaware.
1681. William Penn founded Pennsylvania.
Limitation of the franchise in Maryland.
1681-1682. La Salle descended the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.
1682. End of Frontenac's first government of Canada.
Formation of the "Compagni du Nord."
1682-1683. La Salle established a French colony on the Illinois.
1682-1684. New Hampshire governed by Edward Cranfield.
1683. Seth Sothel, Governor of North Carolina.
Thomas Dongan, Governor of New York.
1684. La Vallière, Governor of Acadia, succeeded by Perrot.
Lord Howard of Effingham, Governor of Virginia.
The Five Nations allied with the English at Albany.
1684-1685. La Salle's expedition to Texas.
1684-1687. The Mississippi Scheme.
1685. The Marquis de Denonville, Governor of Canada.
The English colonies lose their charters.
Francis Nicholson, Deputy-Governor of New York.
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
1686. Sir Edmund Andros in Massachusetts.
1687. Death of La Salle.
The Marquis de Denonville defeated the Iroquois.
1688. The Revolution in England.
Sir Edmund Andros plundered Pentegost.
1689. Denonville destroyed Fort Frontenac.
Count Frontenac appointed Governor of Canada for the second
time.
Count Frontenac sent three raiding parties into New
England.
Du Luth defeated the Iroquois on the Ottawa.
William Penn lost his proprietary rights.
Leisler's rising in New York.
1690. Congress of the colonies at Albany.
Colonel Sloughter suppressed Leisler's rising.
Port Royal taken by Sir William Phipps.
Sir William Phipps led an expedition against Quebec.
1691. Successful attack of the English on La Prairie.
New Plymouth incorporated within Massachusetts.
Maryland placed under the direct control of the Crown.
1692. Benjamin Fletcher, Governor of New York.
Andrew Hamilton, Governor of New Jersey.
Villebon re-occupied Port Royal.
French attacks on the coast of Maine.
1693. Canadians and Indians attacked the Mohawk towns.
D'Iberville reconnoitred Fort Pemaquid.
English expedition to recover the forts on James Bay.
Establishment of William and Mary College, Virginia.
1694. Proprietary rights restored to William Penn.
End of the rule of Sir William Phipps in Massachusetts.
La Mothe Cadillac sent to command Michillimackinac.
1695. Fort Frontenac was re-occupied.
Sir William Phipps died.
1696. Frontenac, Callières, and Vaudreuil attacked the Iroquois.
D'Iberville took Fort Pemaquid from Chubb.
1696-1726. Rhode Island governed by Samuel Cranston.
1697. Abortive French expedition under the Marquis de Nesmond
against Boston.
D'Iberville took Fort Nelson.
The Treaty of Ryswick.
1698. Establishment of a college in Connecticut.
Frontenac died at Quebec.
1698-1701. Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, New
Hampshire governed by Lord Bellomont.
1699. First colonisation of Louisiana by Le Moyne d'Iberville.
1701. La Mothe Cadillac founded Detroit.
Penn left Pennsylvania.
Execution of the pirate Captain Kidd.
Lord Cornbury succeeded Lord Bellomont.
1702. The Proprietors resigned their rights over New Jersey.
1702-1713. Queen Anne's War.
1703. Separation of Delaware from Pennsylvania.
Colonel Moore's attack upon St Augustine.
1704. Colonel Moore's attack upon Apalachee.
The French attacked Deerfield.
Major Church threatened Port Royal.
1706. The French and Spanish attacked Charleston.
1707. Colonel March threatened Port Royal.
1708. The French attacked Haverfield on the Merrimac.
Lord Cornbury recalled.
1709. Samuel Vetch advocated combined attack on New France.
Colonel Francis Nicholson attacked near Lake Champlain the
forces of Ramesay, Governor of Montreal.
1710. Colonel Francis Nicholson took Port Royal.
1711. The Walker-Hill expedition against Canada.
North Carolina attacked by the Tuscarora Indians.
1712. Birth of Montcalm at Nîmes.
1713. The Treaty of Utrecht.
1715. Proprietary rights over Maryland restored to the fourth
Lord Baltimore.
1716. North Carolina attacked by the Yamassee Indians.
1718. Death of William Penn.
Bienville, brother of D'Iberville, founded New Orleans.
1720. Settlement of German Palatines in New York.
Louisburg on Cape Breton Island began to be important.
The French built a permanent fort at Niagara.
1723. The Jesuit Charlevoix recommended a mission among the
Sioux.
1724. Sebastian Rasle, a Jesuit priest, killed on the Kennebec.
1726. Peace between the Indians and New Englanders.
1727. Birth of James Wolfe at Westerham, in Kent.
The English established a trading centre at Oswego.
Fort Beauharnois built in the Sioux country.
1729. Death of Governor Burnet.
1731-1740. De la Verendrye built forts from Rainy Lake westward.
1731. Saint Luc de la Corne built Fort St Frederic (Crown Point).
1732. General Oglethorpe established Georgia.
1734. Salzburg Germans came to Georgia.
1736. John Wesley in Georgia.
1738. George Whitefield in Georgia.
1739-1742. War in Georgia with the Spaniards.
1742. The Spaniards attacked St Simons, Carolina.
1743. General Oglethorpe left Georgia.
1743-1753. George Clinton, Governor of New York.
1744. War between England and France.
Canso taken by the French.
1745. Shirley, Pepperell, and Warren take Louisburg.
1747. Warren and Anson defeated the French off Cape Finisterre.
1748. Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.
1749. Celeron de Bienville registered the claims of France to the
Ohio valley.
Establishment of Fort Rouillé (Toronto).
Establishment of Halifax.
1750. Le Loutre burnt Beaubassin.
1752. The Marquis Duquesne became Governor of Canada.
Georgia passed into the hands of the Crown.
1753. Proposal to unite the Thirteen Colonies.
Duquesne sent Marin to build forts between the Lakes and
the Ohio. Washington sent on a counter expedition.
1754. The French built Fort Duquesne.
Death of Jumonville.
Washington built Fort Necessity, but obliged to retreat.
1755. Braddock's disaster on the Monongahela.
William Johnson's expedition against Crown Point.
Shirley's advance on Lake Ontario.
Beausejour taken and renamed Fort Cumberland.
Transportation of the Acadians.
Vaudreuil appointed Governor-General of Canada.
1756. Outbreak of the Seven Years' War.
Oswego, under Bradstreet, taken by Montcalm.
Recall of William Shirley.
1757. Loudoun and Holborne made an abortive attempt on Louisburg.
Fort William Henry taken by Montcalm and Levis.
William Pitt joined Newcastle.
1758. Louisburg under Drucour taken by Boscawen, Amherst, and
Wolfe.
Abercromby defeated at Ticonderoga. Death of Lord Howe.
1758. Fort Frontenac taken by Bradstreet.
Amherst appointed Commander-in-chief in North America.
Fort Duquesne taken by Forbes and renamed Pittsburg.
1759. Stanwix sent to Duquesne and Prideaux to Oswego.
Fort Niagara taken by Johnson.
Ticonderoga and Crown Point taken by Amherst.
The capture of Quebec. Deaths of Wolfe and Montcalm.
1760. The Battle of St Foy. Levis forced the English into Quebec.
Relief of Quebec.
Surrender of Montreal to the forces of Amherst, Haviland,
and Murray.
1763. The Peace of Paris.

A SHORT BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THOSE WORKS WHICH CAN BE OBTAINED EASILY

_Large Bibliographies_

Larned, J. N. (editor). The Literature of American History,
Boston, 1902.

Harrisse, H. Notes pour servir à l'histoire, à la bibliographie,
et à la cartographie de la Nouvelle France, etc., Paris, 1872.

Cambridge Modern History, vol. vii., Cambridge, 1905.

_General_

Calendars of Colonial State Papers in the English Record Office.

Bancroft, G. History of the United States, 6 vols., New York,
1883-85.

Doyle, J. A. The English in America, 3 vols., London, 1882-87;
The Middle Colonies, London, 1907; The Colonies under the
House of Hanover, London, 1907.

Egerton, H. L. Short History of British Colonial Policy, New
York, 1898; Origin and Growth of English Colonies, Oxford,
1903.

Hart, A. B. (editor). American History told by Contemporaries, 4
vols., New York, 1897-1902.

Winsor, J. (editor). The Narrative and Critical History of
America, 8 vols., Boston, 1886-89.

_Discoveries_

Fiske, J. The Discovery of America, 2 vols., Boston, 1892.

Hakluyt, R. Principal Navigations, voiages, etc. (1598), 12
vols., Glasgow, 1904-5.

Payne, L. J. Voyages of Elizabethan Seamen to America, 2
vols., London, 1893.

Prowse, D. W. History of Newfoundland, London, 1895.

_The Thirteen Colonies_

Bradley, A. G. Captain John Smith (English Men of Action),
London, 1905.

Brown, J. The Pilgrim Fathers of New England, New York, 1895.

Browne, W. H. Maryland: the History of a Palatinate, Boston,
1884.

Bruce, H. Life of Oglethorpe, New York, 1890.

Bruce, P. A. Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth
Century, 2 vols., New York, 1896.

Clarkson, T. Memoirs of William Penn, 2 vols., London, 1813.

Fiske, J. The Beginnings of New England, Boston, 1889; Old
Virginia and her Neighbours, 2 vols., New York, 1897; Dutch
and Quaker Colonies in America, 2 vols., Boston, 1899.

Johnston, A. Connecticut, Boston, 1887.

Jones, C. C. History of Georgia, 2 vols., Boston, 1883.

M'Clintock, J. History of New Hampshire, Boston, 1889.

M'Crady, E. History of South Carolina, 4 vols., New York,
1897-1903.

Neill, E. D. History of the Virginia Company of London, Albany,
1869.

Rickman, J. Rhode Island, its Making and Meaning, 2 vols., New
York, 1902.

Roberts, E. H. History of New York, 2 vols., Boston, 1887.

Saunders, W. L. (editor). Colonial Records of North Carolina, 16
vols., Raleigh, 1886.

Shurtlegg, N. B. Records of Massachusetts Bay, 1628-86, 5 vols.,
Boston, 1853-54.

Weeden, W. B. Economic and Social History of New England, 2
vols., Boston, 1890.

Williamson, W. D. History of Maine, 2 vols., Hallowell, 1832.

Wenson, J. Memorial History of Boston, 1630-1880, 4 vols.,
Boston, 1880-82.

_Canada_

Bourinot, Sir J. G. Historical and Descriptive Account of the
Island of Cape Breton, Trans. Roy. Soc. Can., Montreal; 1892,
Canada under British Rule, Camb., 1900.

Bradley, A. G. Wolfe (English Men of Action), London, 1889; The
Fight with France for North America, London, 1900.

Green, W. William Pitt (Heroes of the Nation), New York, 1901.

Kingsford, W. The History of Canada, London, 1888.

Lucas, C. P. Historical Geography of the British Colonies, vol.
v., Oxford, 1901.

Parkman, F. Collected Works, edited by W. Kingsford, London,
1900-1.

Wright, R. Life of Major-General J. Wolfe, London, 1864.

INDEX

Abenaki Indians, 229, 230, 232, 245

Abercromby, General, 267, 272-74

Abolition of slave trade (1807), 190

Abraham, Heights of, 276, 278

Acadia, 35, 227, 233, 237, 243, 244, 248, 261, 264, 265

Adams, John, 254

Africa, 6

Agriculture, 174

Aix-la-Chapelle, Treaty of, 256, 268

Alatamaha River, 159

Albany, 134, 135, 136, 140, 141, 225, 226, 227, 229, 259, 261, 272

Albemarle (district), 65, 67, 68, 70

Albemarle, Duke of, 64

Albemarle river, 64

Alcazar, Battle of, 10

Alexander VI., rule of, 6

Alexandria (America), 260

Alleghany Mountains, 166, 245, 256

Alleghany River, 258

Allen, Nathaniel, 151

Allen, Samuel, 126

Alva, Duke of, 2

Amelia Island, 161

Amherst, Jeffrey, 270-72, 275, 276

Amidas, Captain, 17, 20, 23, 63

Amsterdam, 79, 132

Andros, Sir Edmund, 102, 103, 112, 139, 140, 141, 148, 192

Annapolis, 197, 203, 237

Anson, Admiral, 251

Antigua, 68

Apalachee, 72

Aquedneck, 114, 175

Archangel, 9, 18

Archdale, Joseph, 71

Argall, Samuel, 34-37

Arkansas River, 215-18

Arlington, Lord, 46

Arnold, _History of the State of Rhode Island, etc._, 117 _n._

Ashley River, 65, 69

_Association for the Defence of the Protestant Religion_, 60

Aubert (French voyager), 200

Augusta, 159

Austrian Succession, War of, 251

Ayscue, Sir George, 44

Azores, the, 22

Bacon, Sir Francis, 4, 31

Bacon, Nathaniel, 48

Bahamas, the, 158

Baltic Company, 118

Baltimore City, 62, 191

Baltimore, first Lord, 54, 55

Baltimore, second Lord, 55-59

Baltimore, fourth Lord, 61

Barbadoes, the, 64, 68, 96, 97, 188

Barbary, 10

Barlow, Captain, 17, 23, 63

Barrett, _History and Antiquities of Bristol_, 5 _n._

Bateson, _Cambridge Modern History_, 200 _n._

Beaujeu, Admiral, 220, 261

Beauport, 228, 276

Belcher, Governor, 194

Belknap, 249 _n._

Bellomont, Earl of, 105, 106, 143

Bennet, Richard, 45

Berkeley, Lady, 49

Berkeley, Lord, 134, 139, 146, 147

Berkeley, Sir William, 42-49, 57, 64, 194

Bermudas, 31, 34, 64

Berry, Sir John, 48, 49

Beverley, Robert, 195

Beza, John, 151

Bienville, C. de, 256

Biggar, _Voyages of the Cabots, etc._, 5 _n._

Bigot, 170

Black Watch, 273

Blair, Commissary, 51, 52, 194

Blake, Joseph, 71

Blenheim, Battle of, 232

Block Island, 101

Bolingbroke, Viscount, 237

Bolzius, Martin, 159

Boscawen, Admiral, 270, 271

Boston, 89, 96, 97, 100-104, 110, 115 118, 141, 144, 169, 170, 171,
173, 176, 181, 183, 184, 227, 228, 231, 235, 237-39, 241, 252

"Bostonnais," 227, 228, 233

Bougainville, 276

Bozman, _History of Maryland_, 57 _n._

Braddock, General, 260-63, 266, 273

Bradford, William, 79, 82, 83

Bradley, _Captain John Smith_, 29 _n._

Bradley, _Fight with France for North America_, 260 _n._, 271 _n._,
273 _n._

Bradley, _Life of Wolfe_, 279 _n._

Bradstreet, Anne, 183

Bradstreet, Colonel, 266, 267, 274

Bradstreet, Simon, 89, 169, 171, 179

Braintree (America), 171

Branford, 112

Brayne, Henry, 68

Brazil, 6, 8, 18

Breda, 44

Brewton, Colonel, 72

Bristol, 3-6

British Columbia, 15

Brodhead, 135

Brooke, Lord, 107, 124

Brown, Captain, 245

Browne, John, 90

Browne, Samuel, 90

Bryce, _American Commonwealth_, 108 _n._

Bulkeley, Peter, 99, 100

Burke, Edmund, 165, 273

Burnet, Governor, 144, 177, 246

Burrough, Edward, 96, 97

Byllinge, Edward, 147, 148

Byrd, Colonel, 195

Cabot, John, 3, 5, 6

Cabot, Sebastian, 3-6, 8, 9

Cadillac, La Mothe, 222

California, Gulf of, 215

Calvert, Cecil, 193

Calvert, Chas., 59, 60

Calvert, George, 54

Calvert, Leonard, 55-57

Cambridge (America), 89, 93, 184

Campbell, John, 184

Canada, 78, 141, 170, 180, 202-24, 225, 226, 227, 229, 232-34, 242,
244, 247, 251, 254, 257, 264, 273-82

Canary Islands, 6

Canso, 248

Cape Ann, 87

Cape Breton Island, 243, 252, 270, 280

Cape Cod, 81

Cape Fear, 64, 68

Cape Finisterre, 251

Cape Henry, 26

Carleton, Sir Guy, 276

Carlile, Captain, 16

Carolina, North, 17, 52, 63-75, 191, 196, 198

Carolina, South, 53, 63-75, 158, 162, 187, 190, 191, 194, 196-98,
264

Carolinas, The, 5, 107, 201, 235, 257, 258, 259, 261

Carr, Sir Robert, 121, 122, 125, 134

Carteret, Philip, 59, 134, 147,148

Carteret, Sir George, 134, 139, 146, 147, 148

Cartier, Jacques, 201, 202, 280

Cartwright, 134

Carver, William, 82

Cary, Thomas, 73

Casco Bay, 119, 232

Castle Island, 90

Cataraqui River, 216

Cathay, 3, 6, 10

Cathay, Company of, 11

Cavendish, 18, 20

Cecil, Robert, 31

Champlain, Samuel, 203-208, 212, 213

Chancellor, Richard, 9

Charles I., 41, 42, 44, 54, 63, 64, 76, 90, 94, 95, 109, 119, 123,
132

Charles II., 44, 46, 48, 59, 72, 85, 93, 96, 97, 116, 119, 121, 122,
129, 132, 133, 138, 146, 176, 184, 196

Charles V., 9, 200

Charlestown, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 89, 90, 103, 196

Chauvin, 203

Chesapeake Bay, 26

Chesterfield, Lord, 280

Chicheley, Sir Henry, 49

Chowan River, 63

Chubb, 230, 231

Church, Major, 233

Clap, _The Annals or History of Yale College_, 182 _n._

Clarendon, Earl of, 64

Clarendon Settlements, 70

Clarke, George (Junior), 144

Clarke, George (Senior), 145

Clayborne, William, 56-58

Clinton, George, 145

Clothmaking, 171

Cocheco River, 124

Coddington, William, 114, 175

Colbert, 208-11, 219

Colonial Congress, First, 141

Columbus, Christopher, 3, 4, 6, 25, 80, 200

Company of the One Hundred Associates, 207, 208

Company of the West, 210

Conant, Roger, 87

Condé, Prince de, 204

Connecticut, 93, 102, 107-14, 118, 119, 126, 129, 133, 168, 171,
173, 175, 176, 179, 181-84, 226, 249

Connecticut River, 107, 109

Contrecoeur, 258

Convers, 230

Coode, John, 60

Coram, Thomas, 157

Cornbury, Lord, 143, 150

Cosby, William, 144

Costobelle, 238

Cotton, John, 92, 185

Courcelles, Governor, 211

Cranfield, Edward, 126

Cranston, Samuel, 117

Crispen, William, 151

Cromwell, Oliver, 44, 45, 58

Crownpoint, 246, 247, 251, 261, 263, 264

Culpeper, Lord, 46, 50, 67

Curwen, Samuel, 250

Cutts, John, 125

Cuyler, 141

Dale, Sir Thomas, 32, 33 _n._, 36, 37

Damariscotta, 248

Dare, Eleanor, 21

Darien, 233

Dautray, Sieur, 218, 219

Davenport, John, 118

Davies, Sylvanus, 226

D'Auville, Duc, 251

De Chastes, 203

D'Estournel, 251

De Lery, 266

De Ligueries, 274

De Loutre, 264

De Monts, 203

De Roberval, 202

De Ruyter, 135

Declaration of Indulgence, 162

Deerfield, 232, 233

Defoe, Daniel, 155

Delaware, 112, 153, 155, 187, 191

Delaware River, 134, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151-53

Delawarr, Lord, 32, 34

Denonville, 225

Denys, the voyager, 200

Detroit, 222-47

Diaz, Bartholomew, 3

Dieskau, Baron, 263

Digges, Edward, 45

Dinwiddie, Governor, 53, 256-62

Dongan, Thomas, 139, 140, 225

Dorchester (America), 86, 90, 108

Doughty, Thomas, 15

Dover (America), 124, 125

Doyle, _Cambridge Modern History_, 67 _n._, 91 _n._, 134 _n._,
165 _n._, 183 _n._

Doyle, _Colonies under the House of Hanover_, 185 _n._, 195 _n._,
197 _n._, 250 _n._, 252 _n._, 255 _n._, 262 _n._

Doyle, _The English in America_, 24 _n._, 38 _n._, 40 _n._, 87 _n._,
178 _n._, 193 _n._

Drake, Sir Francis, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21

Drucour, Governor, 271, 272

Du Luth, 218, 222

Duchambon, 249, 250

Dudley, Thomas, 89

Dummer, Jeremiah, 237

Duquesne, Marquis, 256, 257

Duquesnel, 247

Dutch West India Company, 130-33

Dyre, William, 122

East Greenwich, manor of, 111

East India Company, 18, 24, 130

Eastchurch, Thomas, 67

Eaton, Theophilus, 117

Education, 182, 183, 194

Edward VI., 9

Egerton, _A Short History of British Colonial Policy_, 104 _n._

Egerton, _Origin and Growth of the English Colonies_, 15 _n._

Eldorado, 2, 18

Eliot, John, 180

Elizabeth, Queen, 10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 45, 78

Endecott, John, 87-91, 109

Eversen, Cornelius, 138

Exeter (America), 124

Fabian, Robert, 5

Fairfield, 182

Falmouth, 226, 227

Fendall, Josias, 58, 60

Fenwick, John, 147, 148

Ferrars, John, 36

Fish trade, 170, 172

Fitchett, _Fights for the Flag_, 229 _n._

Five Nations (see also Iroquois), 139, 140, 204, 212, 213, 246

Flax, 175

Fletcher, Benjamin, 106, 142, 143, 153

Fletcher, _Cornhill Magazine_, 10 _n._

Florida, 5, 6, 10, 64, 72, 74, 157, 161, 162

Forbes, General, 274

Force, _Tracts_, 33 _n._, 157 _n._, 158 _n._, 165 _n._

Fort Bull, 266

Fort Casimir, 132

Fort Chartres, 247

Fort Christina, 131

Fort Crèvecoeur, 217

Fort Cumberland, 257

Fort Duquesne, 258, 261, 274

Fort Edward, 269

Fort Frontenac, 212, 216, 217, 222, 274

Fort James, 138

Fort Loyal, 226

Fort Lyman, 263

Fort Necessity, 258

Fort Niagara, 217, 246, 247, 264, 275

Fort Orange, 134

Fort Pemaquid, 230, 231

Fort Richelieu, 208

Fort Rouillé, 246

Fort St Frederic, 247

Fort St Louis, 219-21

Fort William Henry, 264, 268, 269

Fortescue, _Calendar of State Papers, Colonial_, 49 _n._, 50 _n._,
67 _n._, 100 _n._, 101 _n._

Fox River, 213

Francis I., 200

Franciscans, the, 205, 206

Franklin, Benjamin, 195, 259

Frederic the Great, 247

Frederica, 159, 161, 162

French, _Historical Collections of Louisiana_, 218 _n._, 219 _n._

Frobisher Bay, 11

Frobisher Sir Martin, 11, 12

Frontenac, Count, 211-13, 219, 225-28

Fuller, Thomas, 19

Fundy, Bay of, 203

Fur trade, 170, 203, 205

Gainsborough, 79

Gardiner, _History of the Commonwealth_, 44 _n._

Gates, Sir Thomas, 24, 31-33, 36

George II., 252

George III., 101

Georgia, 156-67

Germantown, 192, 198

Gigglesworth, Michael, 183

Gilbert, Sir Humphrey, 6, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19

Gilbert, Raleigh, 77

Glen, Governor, 259

Godfrey, Thomas, 195

Goelet, Captain Francis, 169

Goffe, William, 118

Gondomar, 38

Goose Creek, 196

Gorges, Ferdinando, 121-24

Gorges, Sir Ferdinando, 24, 86, 119, 120, 121, 123

Gorton, Samuel, 115

Gosnold, Bartholomew, 22, 26, 27

Grand Pré, 233

Granville County, 74

Green, J., _Short History of the English People_, 81 _n._, 82 _n._

Green, W., _William Pitt_, 174 _n._

Greenland, 11

Greenwich, 6

Grenville, Sir R., 20

_Grenville Correspondence_, 273 _n._

Guildford (America), 118

Guinea, 14, 18

Hakluyt, Richd., 8, 14, 16, 22, 23, 24, 40

Hakluyt, _Discourse of Western Planting_, 23

Hakluyt, _Voyages_, 6 _n._, 20 _n._, 23 _n._, 63 _n._, 201 _n._,
203 _n._

Hall, John, 176

Hamilton, Andrew, 149

Hammond, John, 54, 56 _n._, 58 _n._

Hamor, Ralph, 34, 35 _n._

Hampton, 52, 124, 260

Hankey, Sophia, 159, 160

Hardy, Captn., 74

Harley, 241

Harmon, Captn., 245

Harrison, _Washington_, 262 _n._

Hartford, 108, 113, 182

Harvard, 93, 102, 182, 183

Harvard, Mr, 93

Harvey, Governor, 41, 42

Haverfield, 233

Haviland, General, 280

Hawkins, Sir John, 14

Hayes, Edward, 13

Hazard, _Historical Collection_, 140 _n._

Heage, Wm., 151

Heath, Captn., 245

Heath, Sir Robert, 63

Henning, _Statutes at Large_, 46 _n._

Hennepin, Father, 217, 218

Henrico, 33

Henry VII., 3, 6, 8

Henry VIII., 7, 8

Henry of Navarre, 204

Hiacoomes, 180

Hill, Abigail, 240

Hill, General, 240, 241

Holborne, Admiral, 268

Holstead, Captn., 66

Hooker, Thos., 92

Hore, Master, 7

Howard of Effingham, Lord, 50

Howe, Lord, 272-74

Howe, Thos., 151

Hudson Bay, 243

Hudson River, 129, 130, 134, 139, 146, 147, 150, 226

Hunt, _Political History of England, etc._, 281 _n._

Huron Indians, 205, 214

Hutchinson, _A Collection of Original Papers_, 98 _n._, 103 _n._

Hutchinson, Mrs Anne, 92, 114

Hyde, Edward, 73

Iberville, 226-31

Iceland, 18

Ile d'Orléans, 276

Illinois Indians, 214

Illinois River, 215-19

Indian Bible, 180

Indigo, 192

Ingle, 57

Ingoldsby, Major Ralph, 142

Ipswich (America), 102

Iron, 171, 192

Iroquois (see also Five Nations), 209, 211, 212, 222, 223, 225, 226,
229, 263

Jack the Feather, 38

James I., 24, 25, 38, 39, 40, 80, 83, 132

James II., 101, 102, 104, 112, 113, 117, 140, 141, 142, 150, 153,
231

James as Duke of York, 132, 134-38, 146-48, 189, 190

James III. (the Old Pretender), 231

James River, 27, 51

Jamestown, 26-33, 45, 47, 48, 189, 197

Janney, _Life of W. Penn_, 152 _n._

Japazaus, 34

Jeffreys, Sir Herbert, 48, 49

Jenkinson, Anthony, 9

Jesuits, the, 180, 205, 206, 209, 213, 216, 229, 232

Johnson, _A History of New England_, 118 _n._

Johnson, Edward, 183

Johnson, William, 255, 262, 265, 267

Johnstone, Sir Nathaniel, 72, 73, 74

Joliet, Louis, 213-15

Jonquière, Marquis de la, 251, 256

Josselyn, _An Account of Two Voyages to New England_, 120 _n._,
123 _n._

Josselyn, John, 122, 123

Jumonville, Lieutenant, 258

Keith, Mr, 154

Kennebec River, 77, 104, 120, 245

Kent, Isle of, 56-58

Kidd, Captain, 106

Kieft, Governor, 130

King, Colonel, 239, 242

King Philip's War, 125

King William's War, 113

King's College (Columbia), 194

Kirke, David, 54, 207, 227

Knight, Mrs, 179

Knight, Sir John, 47

La Baye, 247

La Chine, 216, 226

La Corne, 269

La Galissonière, 256

La Prairie, 227

La Rochelle, 207, 220, 251

La Salle, Sieur de, 216-22

Labrador, 7

Laconia Company, 123

Lake Champlain, 226, 235, 246

Lake Erie, 216, 222

Lake George, 264, 265

Lake Huron, 213, 222

Lake Michigan, 213, 216, 217

Lake Ontario, 216, 217

Lake Superior, 214

Lake Winnebago, 213, 215

Lane, Ralph, 20

Laud, Archbishop, 76, 89, 90

Laudonnière, 63

Laurence, Governor, 264, 270

Laurie, Gawen, 148

Laws, Peculiar, 185

Le Caron, 205

Le Clercq, Father, 209

Le Clercq, _First Establishment of the Faith in New France_,
210 _n._

Le Moyne, 209

Lead, 171

Leete, William, 112

Leisler, Jacob, 141, 142, 226

Léry, Baron de, 200

Lescarbot, 204

Leslie, Lieutenant, 261

Levant, The, 18

Leverett, Governor, 97

Lévis, French General, 268, 269, 272, 279

Levitt, 119

Leyden, 79, 80, 83

Literature, 183, 184

Locke, John, 66

Locke's _Fundamental Constitution_, 66, 71

Logan, James, 156

Lok, Michael, 11

London Company, 24, 25, 31, 34-42

Long Island, 118, 129, 130, 133, 135-38

Loudoun, Earl of, 267, 268

Louis XIV., 138, 140, 208, 211, 217, 219, 221, 223, 228, 231, 243,
244

Louis XV., 280

Louisburg, 244, 247-52, 268, 270, 272, 276

Louisiana, 167, 219, 247, 275

Lovelace, Francis, 137, 138

Lucas, _Historical Geography of the British Colonies--Canada_,
248 _n._, 263 _n._

Ludwell, Philip, 71

Lynn (America), 171

Macaulay, Essays, 78 _n._

Macaulay, Lord, 86

Magellan, Straits of, 15

Maine, 8, 35, 77, 94, 119-23, 126, 229, 230, 248, 249

Maisonneuve, 209

Malplaquet, 232

Manhattan Island, 130, 249

Manning, Captain, 138

Manoa, city of, 3

March, Colonel, 233

Marie de Medici, 35, 204

Marin, 257

Marlborough, Duke of, 223, 234, 237, 241-43

Marquette, Jacques, 214-16, 222

Martha's Vineyard, 180

Martin, Advocate of the London Company, 35

Martinique, 73

Mary, Queen, 225

Maryland, 54-62, 74, 107, 150, 187, 190-93, 196, 197, 198, 235, 255,
257, 259, 261, 262

Masham, Mrs, 241

Mason, Captain John, 109, 110, 123, 126

Mason, family of, 124

Massachusetts, 76, 86-100, 112, 114-17, 121-26, 137, 140, 143, 168,
171-82, 227, 228, 230, 232-38, 242, 244-46, 248, 254, 257, 259,
260, 263, 264, 271, 281

Mather, Cotton, 183

Mather, Increase, 102, 105

Mathews, Samuel, 45

Mathews, Virginian settler, 41

Maumee, 247

Maverick, 136

Mayhew, Thomas, 179

Mazarin, Cardinal, 208

Meade, _Old Churches of Virginia_, 196 _n._

Mellborne, Jacob, 142

Membré, Father, 218

Menendez, 63

Mercer, Colonel, 266

Merrimac River, 233

Merry Mount, 87

Meta Incognita, 12

Metacam, 97, 98

Mexico, 9

Mexico, Bay of, 78, 167, 215, 217, 219

Miami Indians, 257

Michillimackinac, 247

Milford (America), 118

Miller, Thomas, 67

Minnesota River, 218

Minuit, 131

Missionaries, 179, 180

Mississippi River, 72, 213-15, 217

Missouri River, 215, 218

Mitchell, _Contest in America_, 247 _n._

Mohawk River, 249

Mohawks, 236, 262, 267, 275

Monckton, General, 276

Monongahela River, 258, 261

Montcalm, Marquis de, 246, 266-69, 272, 273, 277-79

Montmagny, 208

Montmorenci, Duc de, 206

Montmorency, Falls of, 277

Montreal, 204, 208-10, 232, 235, 280

Moore, Colonel, 72

Moore, James, 72

Morley, _Walpole_, 173 _n._, 192 _n._

Morris, Lewis, 154, 191

Morton, 87

Moryson, Colonel Francis, 48, 49

Motley, Thomas, 59

Moulton, Captain, 245

Murray, General, 276, 279, 280

Muscovy Company, 9

Nantes, Revocation of Edict of, 202

Nantucket, 180, 228

Narragansett Bay, 91, 94

Narragansett Indians, 109

Naumkeag, 87

Navigation Acts, 52, 99, 128, 129, 170, 174, 281

Neale, Daniel, 172

Negro slavery, 178, 179

Nelson, Lord, 279

Nesmond, Marquis de, 231

New Albion, 15

New Amstel, 132

New Amsterdam, 130-33

New Brunswick, 135

New England Company, 77, 83, 86, 87, 107, 120

New England Confederacy, 93, 94, 97, 111, 119, 124, 126

New Hampshire, 105, 123-27, 143, 172, 173, 226, 229, 235, 236, 238,
246, 249, 259, 267

New Haven, 93, 111, 113, 117, 118, 119, 132, 133, 138, 168, 175,
182, 230

New Inverness, 159

New Jersey, 105, 134, 135, 139, 145-50, 154, 187-95, 234, 247, 257,
259, 263

New London, 113, 182, 184

New Netherlands, 128-45

New Plymouth, 97, 178, 180-84

New Somersetshire, 119

New Sweden, 130-32

New York, 74, 105, 106, 113, 136-54, 184, 187, 188, 190-98, 225,
226, 229, 233-36, 244, 246, 247, 254, 257, 258, 261, 263, 268

_New York Weekly Journal_, 144

Newcastle, Duke of, 145

Newcastle (America), 132, 155

Newfoundland, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 16, 18, 54, 201, 243

Newport, Christopher, 26, 27, 51

Newport (America), 114, 115, 169, 198

Newspapers, 184

Nicollet, Jean, 213

Nicholls, Colonel R., 133-37, 146, 197

Nicholson, Francis, 51, 60, 74, 140, 141, 234-37, 240

North-East Passage, 9, 11

North-West Passage, 6, 9, 10, 11

Nova Scotia (see also Acadia), 35, 202, 264

Nyantic Indians, 95

O'Callaghan, _Documents relative to Colonial History, etc._,
106 _n._, 177 _n._, 182 _n._, 246 _n._

Oglethorpe, James, 156-65

Ohio Company, 256, 257.

Ohio River, 215-18, 255-58, 265, 266

Oldham, John, 109

Onondaga River, 246

Opechancanough, 38-43

Oregon, 15

Oswego, 246, 264-66

Ottawa, 205

Oudenarde, Battle of, 232

Oxford, Earl of, 237

Oyster Point, 69

Oyster River, 230

Paper bills, 177

Paris, Treaty of, 243, 280-82

Parkhurst, Anthony, 8

Parkman, _Half a Century of Conflict_, 232 _n._, 235 _n._, 239 _n._,
242 _n._, 244, _n._ 246 _n._

Parkman, _La Salle_, 217 _n._

Parkman, _Wolfe and Montcalm_, 260 _n._, 270 _n._

Pastorius, _Geographical Description of Pennsylvania_, 153 _n._

Patagonia, 10

Pawtuxet, 115

Peckham, Sir George, 16

Penn, John, 156

Penn, Thomas, 156

Penn, William, 148-56, 255

Pennsylvania, 146, 149-56, 187-96, 234, 249, 255-59, 261, 263, 268,
274

Penobscot, Indians of the, 245

Penruddock, Colonel, 188

Pepperell, William, 249, 250, 252

Pert, Sir Thomas, 8

Peru, 9, 15, 200

Philadelphia, 192, 194, 195, 198

Philip II., 2, 202

Phipps, Sir William, 104, 105, 227-30, 278

Pilgrim Fathers, 54, 80-82, 103

Piscataqua River, 123

Pitt, William, 173, 269, 271, 273, 276

Pittsburg, 274

Plymouth, 76-87, 93, 107, 108, 168, 169, 171, 175

Plymouth Company, 24, 77, 78

Pocahontas, 29, 34, 35

Pokanoket Indians, 97

Pontgravé, 203, 204

Popham, George, 77

Popish Plot, the, 100

Port Royal, 35, 63, 72, 158, 203, 227, 229, 233, 237

Portland, 226

Portsmouth (America), 114, 115, 125

Portugal, 236

Postal service, 184

Potomac, the, 34

Pouchot (French commander), 275

Powhattan, 27, 29, 32, 34, 38

Prado, Albert de, 7

Prices, 177

Prideaux, General, 275

Pring, Martin, 22, 23

Printing, 184

Providence, 114-19, 182

Prowse, _History of Newfoundland_, 243 _n._

Puritans, the, 181,182

Pym, John, 90, 94

Quaker settlements, 146-56

Quakers, the, 96, 97, 98, 116, 272

Quebec, 202, 204, 207, 210, 211, 225, 227, 228, 231, 232, 244,
275-80

Quincy, Samuel, 158

Quinipiac River, 118

Raleigh, Sir Walter, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 63, 200

Raleigh, Professor, 19 _n._

Ramesay, French governor, 235

Ramillies, Battle of, 232

Randolph, Edward, 72, 98, 99, 100

Rasle, Sebastian, 245

Ratcliffe, Captain John, 26, 27, 32

Religion, 195-97

Rhode Island, 98, 105, 114-19, 171, 173, 175, 176, 178, 179, 182,
184, 235, 236, 238, 249, 259

Rice, 191, 192

Richebourg, 51

Richelieu, 207, 209

Richelieu River, 208, 226, 280

Richmond, 27

Rigby, Edward, 120, 121

Rio de la Plata, 9

Roanoke, 20

Robinson, John, 79, 82

Roche, Marquis de la, 202

Rogers, Robert, 265, 267, 274, 276, 280

Rolfe, John, 35

Rowley, 171

Roxbury, 180

Royal African Company, 190

Rut, John, 7

Ryswick, Treaty of, 231

Sable Island, 202

Sacheverell, Dr, 237

Saco, 119

St Augustine, 72, 161, 162

St Foy, Battle of, 279

St Ignace, 214

St John, 241, 242

St Joseph, 247

St Luc de la Corne, Chevalier, 247

St Lawrence River, 16, 166, 201, 202, 204, 207, 208, 239, 240, 251,
268, 276, 280

St Lawrence, Gulf of, 200

St Mary's, 57, 197

St Simon's, 74

St Sulpice, 209

Salem, 87, 91, 148

Salmon Falls, 226

Salzburgers, 159, 164

San Domingo, 220

Sandford, Peleg, 117

Sandys, colonist, 42

Sandys, Sir Edwin, 25, 36, 38, 39, 40

Savannah River, 16, 157-59

Saye and Sele, Lord, 107, 124

Sayle, William, 68, 69

Schenectady, 140, 226, 227, 275

Schuyler, Peter, 236

Scrooby, 79

Sculkill River, 152

Secker, Archbishop, 181

Seeley, _Growth of British Policy_, 128 _n._, 129 _n._

Seignelay, 219

Seneca Indians, 212

Seven Years' War, 265, 266

Shaftesbury, Earl of, 47, 64, 66, 69, 191

Sharpe, Governor, 260

Sheep, 175

Shipbuilding, 173

Shirley, Governor, 248-52, 257, 259-61, 263-67

Silver, 171

Sioux Indians, 218

Slaughter, Colonel, 142

Slavery, 188, 189, 190

Slye, Gerald, 61

Smith, Adam, 170, 174

Smith, Adam, _Wealth of Nations_, 174 _n._

Smith, _A Description of New England_, 78 _n._, 81 _n._

Smith, Captain John, 26-31, 40, 77, 81

Smith, Thomas, 71

Smythe, Ambrose, 188

Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, 180, 184

Somers, Sir George, 24, 31

Somers Islands, 34

Sothel, Seth, 67, 70

Southampton, Earl of, 22, 36, 38, 40

Spanish Succession, War of, 223, 242

Specie, 175-77, 193

Spithead, 241

Spotswood, Alexander, 52, 53, 190, 196

Stamford (America), 118

Standish, Miles, 81

Stith, Rev. William, 195

Stone, Captain, 109

Stone, William, 57, 58

Stoughton, William, 99, 100, 168 _n._, 230

Stukeley, Thomas, 10

Stuyvesant, Peter, 131-33, 135, 191

Sunderland, Earl of, 234

Swift, Dean, 241

Tadoussac, 203, 217

Talon, the Intendant, 211, 214

Tew, Captain, 143

Texas, 220, 221

Thomas, Gabriel, 154

Thompson, David, 123

Thorne, Master, 11

Three Rivers, 210

Thwaites, _The Colonies_, 1492-1750, 84 _n._, 181 _n._

Ticonderoga, 204, 263, 266, 268, 272, 274, 275

Timber trade, 172

Tison, Thomas, 14

Tobacco, 41, 174, 188, 191, 192, 193

Tonty, Henri de, 217-21

Toronto, 246

Townshend, General, 276

Townshend, Lord, 174

Tracey, Marquis de, 211

Trade and Plantations, Committee of, 100, 103, 171, 189, 246

Tull, Jethro, 174

Tuscarora Indians, 52, 73, 74

Ulster Protestants, 187, 265

Underhill, Captain, 109, 110

Underhill, _Newes from America_, 110 _n._

Usselinx, William, 131

Utrecht, Treaty of, 73, 223, 243, 244

Van der Douch, 130

Van Twiller, 130

Vane, Henry, 92

Vasco de Gama, 3, 200

Vauban, 248, 272

Vaudreuil, Governor, 276

Vaughan, 248, 250

Venango, 257

Venice, 3

Ventadour, Duc de, 205, 206

Vergennes, 281

Verrazano, 200, 201

Vervins, Treaty of, 202

Vetch, Samuel, 233, 234, 235, 240

Vignau, Nicholas, 205

Villebon, 229

Virginia, 17, 19-59, 61-65, 71, 74, 76, 77, 81, 88, 97, 107, 170,
187-98, 204, 235, 255-57, 260-62, 264, 265, 274

Virginia Company, 28 _n._, 193

Wabash River, 247

Wages, 177, 178

Walker, Sir H., 239, 240, 241

Walker, _Journal_, 241 _n._

Walpole, Horace, 260

Walpole, Sir Robert, 160, 173, 191

Walsingham, Francis, 17

_Wampum_, 175

Ward, Nathaniel, 183

Warren, Admiral, 249-51

Warwick, Earl of, 11, 37

Washington, George, 256-62, 265

Watertown, 89, 102

Webb, General, 267

Wells, 232

Wentworth, Governor, 172

Wesley, Charles, 159

Wesley, John, 159, 160

Wesley, _Journal_, 159 _n._, 160 _n._

West Indies, 6, 14, 170, 188

West Joseph, 69, 70

Westminster, Treaty of, 138, 147

Wethersfield, 108, 109

Whalley, Edward, 118

Wheelwright, John, 92

White, Father, 55

White, John, 87

Whitefield, George, 62, 164, 181, 196, 249

Whitmore, 270

William III., 49, 60, 103, 141, 223, 225

William and Mary College, 51, 194

Williams, John, 232

Williams, Roger, 91, 109, 114, 115, 116

Williamsburg, 52, 197

Williamson, Mr, 160

Williamson, Sir Joseph, 137

Willoughby, Sir Hugh, 9

Windsor, 108

Wine, 171

Wingfield, Edward, 27

Winslow, Edward, 82, 83

Winslow, John, 102, 114

Winslow, John (Junior), 264, 267

Winthrop, John, 88-92

Winthrop, John (Junior), 108, 111, 112, 119, 171, 172

Winthrop, _History of New England, etc._, 89 _n._, 92 _n._,
118 _n._, 177 _n._

Wisconsin River, 213, 215

Wolfe, General James, 228, 267, 270, 272, 274, 276-79, 280

Wood, _Siege of Quebec_, 278 _n._

Wood Creek, 235

Woodward, Thomas, 65

Wool, 171-75

Wright, _Life of Wolfe_, 267 _n._

Wyatt, Sir Francis, 41, 42

Yale College, 182, 183

Yamassee Indians, 53, 74

Yeamans, Sir John, 68, 69

Yeardley, Sir George, 36, 37, 41

York (Paine), 230

Young, _Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers_, 84 _n._

Zengler, John P., 144

TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The History of the Thirteen Colonies of North America 1497-1763" ***

Home