Home
  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
all Classics books content using ISYS

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: Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. V (of 8) - The English and French in North America 1689-1763
Author: Various
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. V (of 8) - The English and French in North America 1689-1763" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

AMERICA, VOL. V (OF 8)***


generously made available by Internet Archive/American Libraries
(https://archive.org/details/americana)



      which includes the more than 270 original illustrations.
      Images of the original pages are available through
      Internet Archive/American Libraries. See
      https://archive.org/details/narrcrithistory05winsrich


Transcriber’s note:

      Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).

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

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



NARRATIVE AND CRITICAL HISTORY OF AMERICA

The English and French in North America 1689-1763


[Illustration]


NARRATIVE AND CRITICAL HISTORY OF AMERICA

Edited by

JUSTIN WINSOR

Librarian of Harvard University
Corresponding Secretary Massachusetts Historical Society

VOL. V



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

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

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



                      CONTENTS AND ILLUSTRATIONS.


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

  CHAPTER I.

                                                                    PAGE

  CANADA AND LOUISIANA. _Andrew McFarland Davis_                       1

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

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                      63

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

  EDITORIAL NOTES                                                     75

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

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

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


  CHAPTER II.

  NEW ENGLAND, 1689-1763. _The Editor_                                87

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

  CRITICAL ESSAY. _The Editor_                                       156

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

  EDITORIAL NOTES                                                    164

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


  CHAPTER III.

  MIDDLE COLONIES. _Berthold Fernow_                                 189

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

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

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

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

  EDITORIAL NOTES                                                    240

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


  CHAPTER IV.

  MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA. _The Editor_                                259

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

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     270

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


  CHAPTER V.

  THE CAROLINAS. _William J. Rivers_                                 285

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

  CRITICAL ESSAY. _The Editor_                                       335

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

  NOTE ON THE LATER HISTORIES OF CAROLINA. _The Editor_              354


  CHAPTER VI.

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

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

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     392

  ILLUSTRATION: Handwriting of Oglethorpe, 393.


  CHAPTER VII.

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

  ILLUSTRATION: A French Frigate, 412.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     418

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

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

  MAPS AND BOUNDS OF ACADIA. _The Editor_                            472

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


  CHAPTER VIII.

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

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

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     560

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

  NOTES                                                              611

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

  INDEX                                                              623



                     NARRATIVE AND CRITICAL

                       HISTORY OF AMERICA.



CHAPTER I.

CANADA AND LOUISIANA.

BY ANDREW McFARLAND DAVIS,

_American Antiquarian Society_.


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

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

[Illustration: LA PRÉSENTATION.

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

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

[Illustration]

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

[Illustration]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration]

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

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

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

[Illustration]

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

[Illustration]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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

[Illustration: Le Moyne D’Iberville

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: ENVIRONS DU MISSISSIPI, 1700.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration:

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration]

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

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

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

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

[Illustration]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: NOUVELLE ORLÉANS.[55]]

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: NEW ORLEANS IN 1719.

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

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

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

[Illustration: NEW ORLEANS AND THE MISSISSIPPI.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration]

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

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

[Illustration: FORT ROSALIE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: PLAN OF FORT CHARTRES.

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

[Illustration]

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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

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

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


CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF LOUISIANA HISTORY.

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

[Illustration]

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

[Illustration

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

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

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

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

[Illustration]

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

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

[Illustration: MOUTHS OF THE MISSISSIPPI.

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

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

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

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

[Illustration]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: COXE’S CAROLANA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration]


EDITORIAL NOTES.

[Illustration: JOHN LAW.

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

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

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

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

A few of the contemporary publications may be noted:—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


CARTOGRAPHY

OF

LOUISIANA AND THE MISSISSIPPI BASIN UNDER THE FRENCH DOMINATION.

BY THE EDITOR.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: LOUISIANA. (_Dumont._)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: HUSKE’S MAP, 1755.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



CHAPTER II.

NEW ENGLAND, 1689-1763.

BY JUSTIN WINSOR,

_The Editor_.


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

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

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

[Illustration

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

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

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

[Illustration: ELISHA COOKE, THE ELDER.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: THE PROVINCE SEAL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: BELLOMONT.

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: SAMUEL SEWALL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: JEAN BAPTISTE HERTEL, SEIGNEUR DE ROUVILLE.

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

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

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

[Illustration]

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

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

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

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

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

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

[Illustration: BRITISH SOLDIERS, 1701-1714.

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

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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

[Illustration: GURDON SALTONSTALL.

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

[Illustration

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

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

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

[Illustration: WILLIAM DUMMER.

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

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

[Illustration: JEREMIAH DUMMER.

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: ELISHA COOKE, THE YOUNGER.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

[Illustration: THOMAS PRINCE.

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

[Illustration: BOSTON LIGHT AND THE PROVINCE SLOOP.

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

[Illustration: INCREASE MATHER.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: MATHER BYLES.

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

[Illustration: GEORGE II.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

[Illustration]

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

[Illustration: AN ENGLISH FLEET OF THIS PERIOD.

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

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

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

[Illustration: BENJAMIN POLLARD.

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

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

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

[Illustration]

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

[Illustration: Script

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: WILLIAM SHIRLEY.

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

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

[Illustration: BOSTON HARBOR, 1732.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: HANNAH ADAMS.

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

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

[Illustration: JOHN GORHAM PALFREY.

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

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


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

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


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


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


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

[Illustration]


EDITORIAL NOTES.


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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: RHODE ISLAND PAPER,—TWELVE PENCE.

From an original bill in an illustrated copy of _Historical Sketches of
the Paper Currency of the American Colonies, by Henry Phillips, Jr._,
Roxbury, 1865,—in Harvard College library.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: FORT HALIFAX.]

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

[Illustration]

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

[Illustration]

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: FLANKER, FORT HALIFAX.]

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: FORT HALIFAX, 1755.

(_Restoration._)]

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: BLOCK HOUSE, BUILT 1714.]

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

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

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

[Illustration]

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

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

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



CHAPTER III.

THE MIDDLE COLONIES.

BY BERTHOLD FERNOW,

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


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

[Illustration]

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

[Illustration]

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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

[Illustration: GOVERNOR FLETCHER.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration]

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

[Illustration: GOVERNOR HUNTER.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: GOVERNOR CLINTON.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: GOV. JAMES DE LANCEY.

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

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

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

[Illustration: GOV. CADWALLADER COLDEN.

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

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

[Illustration: GOV. MONCKTON.

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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


CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration]

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

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

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

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

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

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


EDITORIAL NOTES.

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

[Illustration: NEW YORK]

[Illustration:

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

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

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration:

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration:

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

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


[Illustration: BELLIN’S PLAN, 1764.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



CHAPTER IV.

MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA.

BY JUSTIN WINSOR,

_The Editor_.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: FREDERICK, LORD BALTIMORE.

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

When Culpepper ceased to be the Proprietary, in 1684, Virginia became
a royal province, and Charles II. sent out Lord Howard of Effingham
to continue the despotic rule. The new governor had instructions not
to allow a printing-press.[605] He kept the hangman at his trade,
for plant-cutting still continued. The assembly managed to despatch
Ludwell to England to show how cruelly matters were going, and he got
there just after William and Mary were proclaimed. The representations
against Effingham sufficed to prevent the continuance of his personal
rule, but not to put an end to his commission, and he continued to
draw his salary as governor, despite his adherence to James, and after
Francis Nicholson had been sent over as his deputy (1690). The new
ruler was not unskilled in governing; but he had a temper that impelled
him sometimes in wrong ways, and an ambition that made the people
distrust him. He could cajole and domineer equally well, but he did not
always choose the fit occasion. He was perhaps wiser now than he was
when he nearly precipitated New York into a revolution; and he showed
himself to the people as if to win their affections. He encouraged
manufactures. He moved the capital from Jamestown, and created a small
conspicuousness for Williamsburg[606] as he did for Annapolis, in
Maryland. He followed up the pirates if they appeared in the bay. He
tried to induce the burgesses to vote money to join the other colonies
in the French war; but they did not care so much for maintaining
frontier posts in order to protect the northern colonies as one might
who had hopes to be one day the general governor of the English
colonies. They intrigued in such a way that he lost popularity, when
he had none too much of it. He seemed generous, if we do not narrowly
inspect his motives, when he said he would pay the Virginia share of
the war money, if the assembly did not care to, and when he gave half
of a gratuity which the assembly had given him, to help found the
college of William and Mary. This last act had a look of magnanimity,
for James Blair, who had been chiefly instrumental in getting the
college charter, and who also in a measure, as the commissary of the
Bishop of London, disputed Nicholson’s executive supremacy, had laughed
at his Excellency for his truculent ways. The governor had opposed the
“Cohabitation” policy as respects towns, and a certain Burwell affair,
in which as a lover he was not very complacent in being worsted, had
also made him enemies powerful enough to prefer charges in England
against him, and he was recalled,—later to be met in New England and
Acadia, and as Sir Francis Nicholson to govern in Carolina.

His service in Virginia was interrupted by his career in Maryland,
ending in 1698, during which Sir Edmund Andros ruled in the larger
colony. This knight’s New England experience had told on him for the
better; but it had not wholly weaned him from some of his pettish ways.
He brought with him the charter of the College of William and Mary, and
had the infelicity to find in Blair, its first president, the adversary
who was to throw him. This Scotchman was combative and stubborn
enough for his race, and equally its representative in good sense and
uprightness. Blair insisted upon his prerogatives as the representative
of the bishop, and taking the grounds of quarrel with the governor to
England he carried his point, and Nicholson was recalled from Maryland
to supply the place of Andros.

The new college graduated its first class in 1700, and at about the
same time Claude Philippe de Richebourg and his Huguenots introduced a
new strain into the blood of Virginia.

The accession of Queen Anne led to the conferring of the titular
governorship in 1704 upon George Hamilton, the Earl of Orkney, who
was to hold the office nominally for forty years. For five years the
council ruled under Edward Jenings, their president, and when, December
15, 1704, he made his proclamation of the victory of Blenheim, it was
a satisfaction to record that Colonel Parke, of Virginia, had been the
officer sent by Marlborough to convey the news to the queen.[607]

In 1710 the ablest of the royal governors came upon the scene,
Alexander Spotswood, a man now in his early prime, since he was born
in 1676. He bore a wound which he had got at this same Blenheim, for
he had a decisive, soldierly spirit. It was a new thing to have a
governor for whom the people could have any enthusiasm. He came with
a peace-offering in the shape of the writ of _habeas corpus_, a boon
the Virginians had been thus far denied. The burgesses reciprocated in
devoting £2,000 to build him a palace, as it was called, as perhaps
well they might, considering that their annual tobacco crop was now
about 20,000,000 pounds.

The happy relations between the governor and his people did not
continue long without a rupture. The executive needed money to fortify
the frontiers, and the assembly tightened the purse-strings; but they
did pass a bill to appoint rangers to scour the country at the river
heads.[608] Spotswood did the best he could with scant funds. He
managed to prevent the tributary Indians from joining the Tuscaroras
in their forays in Carolina,[609] and he induced the burgesses to take
some action on the appeals of Governor Pollock.[610] He also gave his
energy scope in developing the manufacture of iron and the growing of
vineyards, and in the stately march which he made to find out something
about the region beyond the Blue Ridge.[611] He was indeed always ready
for any work which was required.

[Illustration: ALEXANDER SPOTSWOOD.

After the engraving in the _Spotswood Letters_, vol. i., with a note
on the portraits on p. viii. His arms are on p. vii. Cf. the _Century
Magazine_, xxvii. 447.]

If his burgesses revolted, he dissolved them with a sledge-hammer kind
of rhetoric.[612] If Blackbeard, the pirate, appeared between the
capes, he sent after him men whom he could trust, and they justified
his measure of them when they came home with a bloody head on their
bowsprit.[613] He had no sooner concluded a conference with the Five
Nations, in August and September, 1722,[614] than the opposition to an
assumption which he, like the other governors, could not resist, to be
the head of the church as well as of the state, made progress enough to
secure his removal from office.[615]

During Spotswood’s time, Virginia attained to as much political
prominence as the century saw for her prior to the Revolution. The
German element, which gathered away from tide-water,[616] began to
serve as a balance to the Anglican aristocracy, which made the river
banks so powerful. The tobacco fields, while they in one sense made
that aristocracy, in another made them, in luckless seasons, slaves
of a variable market. This relation, producing financial servitude,
enforced upon them at times almost the abjectness of the African
slaves whom they employed. Above it all, however, arose a spirit of
political freedom in contrast with their monetary subjection. The
burgesses gradually acquired more and more power, and the finances
of the province which they controlled gave them opportunities which
compensated for their personal cringing to the wilful imperialism of
the tobacco market. The people lacked, too, the independence which
mechanical ingenuity gives a race. A certain shiftlessness even about
the great estates, a laziness between crops, the content to import the
commonest articles instead of making them,—all indicate this. The
amenities of living which come from towns were wanting, with perhaps
some of the vices, for an ordinary or a public house generally stood
even yet for all that constituted a settlement of neighbors. In 1728
Byrd, of Westover, speaks of Norfolk as having “most the air of a town
of any in Virginia.”

Spotswood remained in Virginia, and was a useful man after his fall
from office. He was made the deputy postmaster-general of the colonies
(1730-39), and he carried into the management of the mails the same
energy which had distinguished his earlier service, and brought
Philadelphia and Williamsburg within eight or ten days of each other.
On his estates, whether on the Rapidan near his Germans at Germanna,
or in his house at Yorktown, he kept the courtly state of his time and
rank, and showed in his household his tenderest side. His old martial
spirit arose when he was made a major-general to conduct an expedition
to the West Indies; but he died (1740) just as he was about to embark,
bequeathing his books, maps, and mathematical instruments to the
College of William and Mary.

Meanwhile, after a short service in the governor’s office by Hugh
Drysdale (1722)[617] and Robert Carter, in 1727 William Gooch took the
chair, and held it for twenty-two years. It was a time of only chance
excitement, and the province prospered in wealth and population. The
governor proved conciliatory and became a favorite of the people. He
granted toleration to the Presbyterians, who were now increasing on the
frontiers, where Mackemie and the Scotch-Irish were beginning to gain
influence, and the sturdy pioneers were thinking of the country beyond
the mountains.[618] Some of the tide-water spirit was pushing that way,
and in 1745 Lord Fairfax settled in the valley, built his Greenway
Court, and passed his life in chasing game and giving it to his guests,
with other hospitable cheer.[619] Tall and gaunt of person, sharp in
his visage and defective in his eyesight, if he had little of personal
attraction for strangers, he had the inheritance of some of the best
culture of England, and could hand to his guests a volume of the
_Spectator_, open at his own essays. Disappointed in love at an early
day, Fairfax added a desire for seclusion to a disposition naturally
eccentric. He had come to America for divertisement, and, enamored of
the country and its easy life, he had finally determined on settling on
his property. The mansion, which he had intended to erect with all the
dignity of its manorial surroundings, was never begun; but he built a
long one-story building, with sloping roof and low eaves. Here he lived
on through the Revolution, a pronounced Tory, but too respected to be
disturbed, until the news of Yorktown almost literally struck him dead
at ninety-two.

Along the river bottoms of the lowlands, while Major Mayo[620] was
laying out Richmond (1733), and while all tradition was scorned in the
establishment of the _Virginia Gazette_ (1736),[621] the ruling classes
of the great estates felt that they were more rudely jostled than ever
before, when Whitefield passed that way, harrying the church,[622] and
even splitting the communions of the Presbyterians as he journeyed in
other parts.

When Governor Gooch returned to England, in 1749, he left the council
in power, who divided (1751) the province into four military districts,
and to the command of one of them they assigned a young man of
nineteen, George Washington by name. Late in the same year (November
20, 1751) a notable character presented himself in Robert Dinwiddie,
and the College of William and Mary welcomed the new executive with
a formal address.[623] Dinwiddie had been unpopular as a surveyor
of customs, as such officers almost invariably are; and he came to
his new power in Virginia at a trying time, just as a great war was
opening, and he and the burgesses could not escape conflict on the
question of the money needed to make Virginia bear a creditable part
in that war. When it was the northern frontiers towards Canada which
were threatened, neither Maryland nor Virginia could be made to feel
the mortification that their governors felt, if the northern colonies
were left to fight alone the battles in which all the English of the
continent were interested.

[Illustration]

But the struggle was now for the thither slope of the Alleghanies and
the great water-shed of the Ohio. In this conflict Virginia presented
a frontier to be ravaged, as she soon learned to her cost. The story
of that misfortune is told in another chapter,[624] as well as of the
outbreak which Dinwiddie forced, when he sent Washington to Le Bœuf.
The exigencies of the conflict, however, were not enough to prevent
the assembly from watching jealously every move of the governor for
asking money from them; and he in turn did little to smooth the way for
their peaceable acquiescence, when he exacted unusual fees for his own
emolument. The aristocracy were still powerful, and, working upon the
fears entertained by the masses that their liberties were in danger,
all classes contrived to keep Dinwiddie in a pretty constant turmoil of
mind, a strain that, though past sixty, he bore unflinchingly. If, by
his presentation of the exigencies, he alarmed them, they would vote,
somewhat scantily, the money which he asked for: but they embarrassed
him by placing its expenditure in the hands of their own committee.
Dinwiddie was often compelled to submit to their exasperating
requirements, and was obliged to inform the Lords of Trade that there
was no help for it.

It was war indeed, but this chapter is concerned chiefly with civil
affairs. Nothing, therefore, can be said here of the disaster of
Braddock and its train of events down to the final capture of DuQuesne.
Forts were built,[625] and the Indians were pursued[626], and Virginia
incurred a debt during it all of £400,000, which she had to bear with
the concomitants of heavy taxes and a depreciated paper money. At the
end of the war, Norfolk, with its 7,000 inhabitants, was still the only
considerable town.

Dinwiddie had ruled as the deputy of Lord Albemarle. When Lord Loudon
came over in July, 1756, to assume the military command in the
colonies, he became the titular governor of Virginia; but he was never
in his province in person, and Dinwiddie ruled for him till January,
1758, when he sailed for England.


CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

SINCE the enumeration of the records of Maryland was made in another
volume,[627] the Maryland Historical Society, having now in custody
the early archives of the province, has begun the printing of them,
under the editorship of Mr. William Hand Browne, three volumes of which
having been thus far published.[628] The publication committee of
that society have also made to the legislative assembly of the State
a printed report,[629] dated November 12, 1883, in which they give an
account of the efforts made in the past to care for the documents. To
this they append a _Calendar of State Archives_, many of which come
within the period covered by the present chapter.[630]

The general histories of Maryland have been characterized in another
place.[631] Of one of them, Chalmers’s, some further mention is made
in the present volume.[632] Two works of a general character have
been published since that enumeration was made. One of these is the
_Maryland_ (Boston, 1884) of William Hand Browne, a well-written
summary of the history of the palatinate prior to the Revolutionary
period.[633] Mr. Browne’s familiarity with the Maryland archives was
greatly helpful in this excellent condensation of Maryland’s history.
Mr. John A. Doyle has made special use of the colonial documents in
the Public Record Office, in the chapters (x. and xi.) which he gives
to the province in his _English in America, Virginia, Maryland and the
Carolinas_, London, 1882.

There have been some valuable papers of late embraced in the _Johns
Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science_, edited
by Professor Herbert B. Adams, which touch Maryland, particularly its
institutional history. Such are Edward Ingle’s _Parish Institutions
of Maryland_ (_Studies_, 1st series, no. vi.); John Johnson’s _Old
Maryland Manors_ (no. vii.);[634] Herbert B. Adams’s _Maryland’s
influence upon land cessions to the United States, with minor papers
on George Washington’s interest in Western lands, the Potomac Company
and a National University_ (3d series, no. 1);[635] Lewis W. Wilhelm’s
_Maryland Local Institutions, the Land System, Hundred, County, Town_
(nos. v., vi., and vii.).

The one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the foundation of
Baltimore, occurring in 1880, has produced several records. The city
commemorated the event, and printed the next year a _Memorial Volume,
1730-1880_, edited by Edward Spencer;[636] and the _Proceedings of the
Historical Society, October 12, 1880_, constitutes no. 16 of their
Publication Fund series. Mr. J. Thomas Scharf, who had published his
_Chronicles of Baltimore_ in 1874, elaborated the matter into the more
extensive _History of Baltimore City and County_, in 1881, published
at Philadelphia. There is a plan of the city showing its original
and present bounds in this last book (p. 62), as well as in the same
writer’s _History of Maryland_ (i. 416). In 1752 there was printed a
_List of families and other persons residing in Baltimore_, and this
has been thought to be the earliest directory of an American town. In
the same year there was a view of Baltimore by John Moales, engraved by
Borgum, which is the earliest we have.[637]

The coarse, hearty, and somewhat unappetizing life of the colony, as it
appeared to a London factor, who about the beginning of the eighteenth
century sought the country in quest of a cargo of tobacco, is set forth
amusingly, as well as in a warning spirit, in a rough Hudibrastic poem,
_The Sot-weed Factor, by Eben Cook, Gent._[638] (London, 1708.)

There are modern studies of the life of the last century in Lodge’s
_Short History of the English Colonies_, in the seventh chapter of
Neill’s _Terra Mariæ_, and in the last chapter of Doyle’s _English
Colonies_; but the most complete is that in the first chapter of the
second volume of Scharf’s _History of Maryland_, whose foot-notes and
those of Lodge will guide the investigator through a wide range of
authorities.[639]

Illustrations of the religious communions are given in Perry’s
_History of the American Protestant Episcopal Church_ (i. 137), in the
_Historical Collections of the American Colonial Church_ (vol. iv.),
in Anderson’s _American Colonial Church_, in Hawks’s _Ecclesiastical
Contributions_ (section on “Maryland”), and in Theodore C. Gambrall’s
_Church Life in Colonial Maryland_ (Baltimore, 1885).[640] The
spread of Presbyterianism is traced in C. A. Briggs’s _American
Presbyterianism_, p. 123.

[Illustration: MAP OF MARYLAND]

The literature of the controversy over the bounds of Maryland, so
far as it relates to the northern lines, has already been indicated
in another volume.[641] The dispute was ably followed by McMahon in
his _History of Maryland_ (vol. i. pp. 18-59), among the earlier of
the general historians, and the whole question has been surveyed by
Johnston in his _History of Cecil County_ (ch. xix.). He traces the
course of the Cresap war,[642] the progress of the chancery suit of
1735-1750.[643] The diary of one of the commissioners for running the
line in accordance with the decision, being the record of John Watson,
is preserved in the library of the Pennsylvania Historical Society.
Mr. Johnston (p. 307) also describes the line of 1760,[644] and tells
the story of the work and methods adopted by Mason and Dixon in 1763,
referring to their daily journal, one copy of which is, or was,
preserved in the Land Office, the other in the library of the Maryland
Historical Society.[645] The scientific aspects of this famous survey
are considered in the _Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society_
(1769); and a running sketch of the history of the line, by William
Darlington, is reprinted in the _Historical Magazine_ (ii. p. 37).
Another, by T. Edwards, is in _Harper’s Monthly_ (vol. liii. p. 549),
and one by A. T. McGill in the _Princeton Review_ (vol. xxxvii. p. 88).
Dunlap’s “Memoir” (see Vol. III. p. 514) is also contained in _Olden
Time_ (vol. i. p. 529).

The most recent and one of the most careful surveys of the history of
the dispute between Baltimore and Penn and of the principles involved
is in Walter B. Scaife’s “Boundary Dispute between Maryland and
Pennsylvania,” in _Pennsylvania Magazine of History_ (October, 1885, p.
241).

Chief among the maps bearing upon the question of the bounds are the
following:—

_A map of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and East and West New
Jersey, by John Thornton_, which is without date, but probably from
1695 to 1700.[646]

_A new map of Virginia and Maryland and the improved parts of
Pennsylvania and New Jersey, revised by I. Senex, 1719._[647]

_A short account of the first settlement of the Provinces of Virginia,
Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania by the English, to which is
annexed a map of Maryland, according to the bounds mentioned in the
charter and also of the adjacent country, anno 1630_, London, 1735.
This map is a large folding one called “A map of Virginia, according
to Capt. John Smith’s map, published anno 1606; also of the adjacent
county, called by the Dutch Niew Nederlant, anno 1630, by John Senex,
1735.”[648]

The map accompanying the agreement of July 4, 1760, between Baltimore
and Penn, is reproduced, with the text of that document, in the
_Pennsylvania Archives_, iv. (1853), p.3.

Respecting the bounds in dispute between Maryland and Virginia, the
fullest summary of claims and evidence is in the _Report and Journal
of Proceedings of the joint Commissioners to adjust the boundary
line of the States of Maryland and Virginia_, Annapolis, 1874. This
volume gives statements of the Maryland (p. 63) and Virginia (p. 233)
claims, with depositions of witnesses. The volume as deposited in
public libraries is accompanied by a coast survey chart, in which the
determined bounds are marked, with the attestation of the governor of
Maryland.[649]

[Illustration: VIRGINIA. 1738.]

It may be collated with the _Report and accompanying documents of
the Virginia Commissioners on the boundary line between Maryland
and Virginia_, Richmond, 1873, which contains the statements
of the Maryland Commissioners as well as those of the Virginia
Commissioners, the latter having a voluminous appendix of historical
documents, including a large number copied from the British Archives,
and depositions taken in 1872. The _Final Report of the Virginia
Commissioners_ (Richmond, 1874), includes a memorandum of their journal
and their correspondence (1870-72), as well as the journal of the joint
commissions of Virginia and Maryland (1872).

[Illustration: WILLIAM BYRD.

After a cut in _Harper’s Magazine_, April, 1885, p. 712, from the
original painting now at Brandon, on James River. Byrd was b. 1674, and
d. 1744.]

Respecting the bounds of Virginia and North Carolina, commissioners
on the part of both colonies were appointed in 1710,[650] but the
line was not run in its easterly portion till 1728, by commissioners
and surveyors of both governments. Col. William Byrd, one of the
commissioners of Virginia, prepared a sort of diary of the progress of
the work, which is known as a _History of the Dividing Line between
Virginia and North Carolina, as run in 1728-29_. This and other of
Byrd’s writings which have come down to us are in manuscript, in the
hand of a copyist, but interlined and corrected by Byrd himself. The
volume containing them was printed at Petersburg in 1841 (copyrighted
by Edmund Ruffin) with an anonymous editor’s preface, which states that
the last owner of it was George E. Harrison, of Brandon, and that the
family had probably been prevented from publishing the papers because
of the writer’s “great freedom of expression and of censure, often
tinctured by his strong church and state principles and prejudices;”
for Colonel Byrd was “a true and worthy inheritor of the opinions and
feelings of the old cavaliers of Virginia.” These papers were again
privately printed at Richmond, in 1866, under the editing of Thomas
H. Wynne, in two volumes, entitled _History of the Dividing Line and
other tracts, from the papers of William Byrd of Westover_. Mr. Wynne
supplies an historical introduction, and his text is more faithful
than that of 1841, since some of the asperities of the manuscript were
softened by the earlier editor. Byrd had been particularly severe on
the character of the North Carolinians, as he saw it in his intercourse
with them,[651] and not the worst of his characterizations touched
their “felicity of having nothing to do.” Byrd at the time of his
commission was a man of four and fifty, and he lived for some years
longer, not dying till 1744. He was a good specimen of the typical
Virginian aristocrat, not blind to the faults of his neighbors, and
the best sample of such learning and wit as they had,[652] while he
was not forgetful of some of the duties to the community which a large
estate imposed upon him. Among other efforts to relieve the Virginians
from their thraldom to a single staple were his attempts to encourage
the raising and manufacture of hemp.[653] One of Byrd’s companions in
the boundary expedition of 1728-29 was the Rev. Peter Fontaine, who
acted as chaplain to the party, and a draft of the line as then marked
is made in connection with some of his letters in Ann Maury’s _Memoirs
of a Huguenot Family_ (New York, 1852, 1872, p. 356).[654] In 1749 the
line was continued westerly beyond Peter’s Creek, by Joshua Fry and
Peter Jefferson, the father of Thomas Jefferson; and was still further
continued to the Tennessee River in 1778.[655]

Another question of bounds in Virginia, which it took some time to
settle, was the western limits of the northern neck, as the wedge-like
tract of territory was called which lay between the Rappahannock and
the Potomac. It had been granted by Charles II. to Lord Hopton and
others, but when bought by Lord Thomas Culpepper a new royal grant of
it was made to him in 1688.[656] It passed as a dower with Culpepper’s
daughter Catharine to Thomas, Lord Fairfax, and from him it passed
to the sixth lord, Thomas, who petitioned (1733) the king to have
commissioners appointed to run the line between the rivers. Of this
commission was William Byrd, and an account of their proceedings is
given in the second volume of the _Byrd Manuscripts_ (p. 83) as edited
by Wynne. A map of the tract was made at this time, which was called
_The Courses of the Rivers Rappahannock and Potowmack in Virginia,
as surveyed according to order in the years 1736-1737_. The bounds
established by this commission were not confirmed by the king till
1745, and other commissioners were appointed the next year to run the
line in question. The original journal of the expedition for this
purpose, kept by Maj. Thomas Lewis, is now in the possession of John
F. Lewis, lieutenant-governor of Virginia.[657] The plate of the map
already referred to was corrected to conform, and this additional title
to it was added: _A Survey of the Northern Neck of Virginia, being
the lands belonging to the Rt. Honourable Thomas Lord Fairfax, Baron
Cameron, bounded by and within the Bay of Chesapoyocke, and between
the Rivers Rappahannock and Potowmack_. Along the line which is dotted
to connect the head-spring of the southern branch of the Rappahannock
with the head-spring of the Potomac is a legend, noting that it was
determined by the king in council, April 11, 1745, that this line
should be the westerly limit of the Fairfax domain. A section of the
second state of the plate of this map is annexed in fac-simile from a
copy in Harvard College library.[658]

[Illustration: NORTHERN NECK OF VIRGINIA. 1736-1737.]

An account has been given elsewhere[659] of what has been lost and
preserved of the documentary records of Virginia.

The introduction to W. P. Palmer’s _Calendar of Virginia State Papers_,
1652-1781, summarizes the documents for the period of our present
survey which are contained in the body of that book, and they largely
concern the management of the Indians on the borders.[660] Among the
Sparks MSS. in Harvard College library are various notes and extracts
respecting Maryland and Virginia from the English records (1727-1761)
in the hand of George Chalmers, as made for his own use in writing his
_Revolt of the American Colonies_.[661]

There were various editions of the laws during the period now under
consideration. What is known as the Purvis collection, dedicated to
Effingham, was published in London in 1686; and a survey, giving _An
abridgement of the Laws in force and use in her majesty’s plantations_,
including Virginia, was printed in London in 1704. The acts after 1662
were published in London in 1728; while the first Virginia imprint on
any edition was that of W. Parks, of Williamsburg, in 1733; and John
Mercer’s _Abridgment_, published in Williamsburg four years later
(1737), was reprinted in Glasgow in 1759. The acts since 1631 were
again printed at Williamsburg in 1752.[662]

The earliest description of the country coming within the present
survey is John Clayton’s _Account of the several Observables in
Virginia_ (1688), which Force has included in the third volume of his
Tracts. A paper on the condition of Virginia in 1688 is the first
chapter in W. H. Foote’s _Sketches of Virginia_ (1850). An “Account of
the present state and government of Virginia” is in the fifth volume
(p. 124) of the _Massachusetts Hist. Soc. Collections_. The document
was presented to that society by Carter B. Harrison, of Virginia.
It seems to have been written in England in 1696-98, in the time of
Andros’ governorship, and by one who was hostile to him and who had
been in the colony.

Professor M. C. Tyler[663] speaks of the commissary, James Blair,
as “the creator of the healthiest and most extensive intellectual
influence that was felt in the Southern colonies before the
Revolution.” This influence was chiefly felt in the fruition of his
efforts to found the College of William and Mary.[664] _The Present
State of Virginia and the College, by Messieurs Hartwell, Blair and
Chilton_ (London, 1727), contains an account, in which Blair, in
Tyler’s opinion, had the chief hand. Blair’s relations to the college
have had special treatment in Foote’s _Sketches of Virginia_ (ch. ix.);
in Bishop Meade’s _Old Churches and Families of Virginia_ (vol. i.
art. xii.); and in the _Hist. of the American Episcopal Church_ (vol.
i. ch. 7), by Bishop Perry, who gives two long letters from Blair to
the governor of Virginia, after the originals preserved at Fulham
Palace. Additional material is garnered by Perry in his _Historical
Collections of the Amer. Colonial Church_, which includes a large mass
of Blair’s correspondence.[665]

[Illustration]

[Illustration: WILLIAM AND MARY COLLEGE.

After the picture given in Meade’s _Old Churches_, etc., i. 157. Cf.
Perry’s _Amer. Episc. Church_, i. 123; Gay’s _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii.
60.

The original building was burned in 1705. The next building, which by
scarcity of funds was long in erecting, was not completed till 1723.
The above cut is of this second building. In _Scribner’s Monthly_,
Nov., 1875, are views of the building before and after rebuilding in
1859.]

While Francis Makemie was entering the lists in the interest of
“cohabitation,” gaining thereby not much respect from the tide-water
great-estate owners, and printing in London (1705) his _Plain and
friendly perswasive to the inhabitants of Virginia and Maryland for
promoting towns and cohabitation_, setting forth the loss to virtue
by the dispersal of sympathizers in religion, Robert Beverley was
publishing anonymously in London (1705) his _History and Present State
of Virginia, in four parts_. 1. _The History of the First Settlement
of Virginia, and the Government thereof, to the present time._ 2. _The
Natural Productions and Conveniences of the Country, suited to Trade
and Improvement._ 3. _The Native Indians, their Religion, Laws, and
Customs, in War and Peace._ 4. _The Present State of the Country, as to
the Polity of the Government, and the Improvements of the Land_,[666]
which, as will be seen in the last section of the title, particularly
sets forth the condition of the colony at that time, offering some
foundation for Mackemie’s arguments.[667]

[Illustration]

About twenty years later we have another exposition of the condition
of the colony in Hugh Jones’s _Present State of Virginia, giving
a particular and strict account of the Indian, English, and negro
inhabitants of that colony_, published in London in 1724.[668] Jones
was rector of Jamestown and a professor in the college at Williamsburg,
and his book was a missionary enterprise to incite attention among the
benevolent in the mother country to the necessities of the colony. “His
book,” says Tyler,[669] is one “of solid facts and solid suggestions,
written in a plain, positive style, just sufficiently tinctured with
the gentlemanly egotism of a Virginian and a churchman.”

The single staple of Virginia was the cause of constant concern,
whether of good or bad fortune, and the case was summed up in 1733,
in a tract published at London, _Case of the planters of tobacco in
Virginia, as represented by themselves, with a vindication_.[670]
Bringing the history of the colony down to about the date of the
period when Jones made his survey, Sir William Keith in 1738 published
his _History of the British Plantations in America, containing the
History of Virginia: with Remarks on the Trade and Commerce of that
Colony_.[671] Nine years later (1747) Stith published his history, but
it pertained only to the early period, and in his preface, dated at
Varina, December 10, 1746, he acknowledged his indebtedness to William
Byrd.[672]

When Burk published his _History of Virginia_ in 1804,[673] the days
of the Revolution had separated him from those that were in reality
the formative period of the Virginian character, which had grown out
of conditions, then largely a mere record. One would have expected to
find the eighteenth century developed in Burk better than it is. The
more recent authorities have studied that period more specifically,
though Bancroft does not much enlarge upon it.[674] Lodge[675] is
chiefly valuable for the conspectus he affords of the manners of the
time. Doyle in his _English in America_ (London, 1882) depends on
the “Colonial Entry Books” and “Colonial Papers” of the State Paper
Office in London. Since Howison’s,[676] the latest history is that by a
Virginian novelist, John Esten Cooke, and styled _Virginia, a history
of the people_ (Boston, 1883),[677] in which he aims to show, through
succeeding generations of Virginians, how the original characteristics
of their race have been woven into the texture of the population
from the Chesapeake to the Mississippi, as those of New England have
controlled the north from the Atlantic to the Lakes. He laments that
there has never been a study of the Southern people to the same extent
as of the Northern, and says that some of the greatest events in the
annals of the whole country need, to understand them, a contemplation
of the Virginian traits, losing sight, as he expresses it, of “the
fancied dignity of history.” Guided somewhat by this canon, the author
has modelled his narrative, dividing the periods into what he calls the
Plantation, the Colony, and the Commonwealth,—the second more than
covering the years now under consideration. He places first among his
authorities for this period _The Statutes at Large, being a Collection
of all the Laws of Virginia_, by William Walter Hening, in thirteen
volumes, as the most important authority on social affairs in Virginia.
He speaks of its unattractive title failing to suggest the character of
the work, and says, with perhaps an excess of zeal, that “as a picture
of colonial time, it has no rival in American books.”

[Illustration]

The institutional history of Virginia has of late received some
particular attention at the hands of Mr. Edward Ingle, who printed in
the _Mag. of Amer. History_ (Dec., 1884, p. 532) a paper on “County
Government in Virginia,” which he has reprinted with other papers on
the Land Tenure, the Hundreds, the English Parish in America, and the
Town, in a contribution called _Local Institutions of Virginia_, which
makes parts ii. and iii. of the third series (1885) of the _Johns
Hopkins University Studies in History and Political Science_.[678]

We are fortunate in possessing the official correspondence of the two
most notable royal governors of the eighteenth century. The letters
of Alexander Spotswood were used by Bancroft, and were then lost
sight of till they were recovered in England in 1873.[679] They are
now published in two volumes (Richmond, 1882, 1885) as _The official
letters of Alexander Spotswood, lieutenant-governor of Virginia,
1710-1722; now first printed from the manuscript in the collections
of the Virginia Historical Society, with an introduction and notes by
R. A. Brock_, constituting the initial volumes of a new series of the
_Collections_ of the Virginia Historical Society. Spotswood’s official
account of his conflict with the burgesses is printed in the _Virginia
Hist. Register_; and we best see him as a man in William Byrd’s
“Progress to the Mines,” included in Wynne’s edition of the _Byrd
Manuscripts_. Palmer draws Spotswood’s character in the introduction to
his _Calendar of Virginia State Papers_, p. xxxix.[680]

Of the other collection of letters, _The official records of Robert
Dinwiddie, lieutenant-governor of Virginia, 1751-1758; now first
printed from the manuscript in the collections of the Virginia
Historical Society, with an introduction and notes by R. A. Brock_,
Richmond, Va., 1883-84, being vols iii. and iv. of the new series of
the same _Collections_, a more special account is given in another
place.[681]

The valley of Virginia has been more written about locally than the
eastern parts. Beside the old history of Kercheval,[682] W. H. Foote
has embraced it in the second series of his _Sketches of Virginia_
(Philad., 1855), and it has recently been treated in J. Lewis Peyton’s
_History of Augusta County, Va._ (Staunton, Va., 1882), a region once
embracing the territory from the Blue Ridge to the Mississippi.

Norfolk has been made the subject of historical study, as in W. S.
Forrest’s _Norfolk and Vicinity_ (1853), but with scant attention to
the period back of its rise to commercial importance.

The ecclesiastical element forms a large part of Virginia history
in the earlier times. Some general references have been given in
another place.[683] At the opening of our present period, there
were of the established church in Virginia fifty parishes, with one
hundred churches and chapels and thirty ministers,—according to
Bray’s _Apostolic Charity_ (London, 1700).[684] The church history
has been well studied by Dr. Hawks,[685] Bishop Perry,[686] and Dr.
De Costa,[687] in this country, and by Anderson in his _History of
the Colonial Church_ (1856),—a book which Doyle calls “laborious
and trustworthy on every page.” Bishop Meade has treated the subject
locally in his _Old Churches and Families of Virginia_,[688] as has Dr.
Philip Slaughter in his _Saint George’s Parish_, _Saint Mark’s Parish_
and _Bristol Parish_,[689] and he has given a summary of the leading
churches of colonial Virginia in a section of Bishop Perry’s _Amer.
Episc. Church_ (vol. i. p. 614).

The dissenting element was chiefly among the Presbyterians, whose later
strongholds were away from the tide-water among the mountains. The
Reverend Francis Mackemie[690] had been principal leader among them,
and he was the first dissenter who had leave to preach in Virginia.
Their story is best told in C. A. Briggs’ _American Presbyterianism_
(p. 109), and in both series of W. H. Foote’s _Sketches of Virginia_
(Phil., 1850, 1855).

The Baptists in Virginia did not attain numerical importance till
within the decade preceding the American Revolution, and they had
effected scarcely any influence among the opponents of establishment
during the period now under consideration.[691] The Huguenots brought
good blood, and affected religious life rather individually than as a
body.[692]

[Illustration]

In depicting the society of Virginia during this period, we must get
what glimpses we can from not very promising sources. The spirit
which despised literature and schools was in the end dispelled, in
part at least, but it was at this time dominant enough to prevent
the writing of books; and consequently the light thrown upon social
life by literature is wanting almost entirely. The Virginians were
apparently not letter-writers and diarists, as the New Englanders
were, and while we have a wealth of correspondence in Massachusetts
to help us comprehend the habits of living, we find little or nothing
in Virginia. We meet, indeed, with some letters of the Byrds[693] and
the Fontaines,[694] and the official correspondence of Spotswood and
Dinwiddie; but the latter touch only in a casual way upon the habits
of living. A few descriptive and political tracts, like Hugh Jones’
_Present State_,[695] give us small glimpses. Later Virginia writers
like Bishop Meade[696] and Dr. Philip Slaughter,[697] have gathered up
whatever of tradition has floated down in family gossip; and Foote[698]
and Esten Cooke[699] have drawn the picture from what sources they
could command, as Irving has in his _Life of Washington_.[700] The most
elaborate survey of the subject, with philosophic impulses, has been
made by Eben Greenough Scott in his _Development of Constitutional
Liberty in the English Colonies of America_ (New York, 1882),[701]
in which he contrasts the manners of the lowland aristocracy with
those of the farmers of the valley and with the wilder life of the
frontiers.[702] The most elaborate composite of data derived from every
source is the chapter on “Virginia in 1765,” in Henry Cabot Lodge’s
_Short History of the English Colonies_, in which he depends very
largely on the survival of manners in the days when Burnaby, Anburey,
Robin, Smyth, Brissot de Warville, Rochefoucauld-Liancourt, and Weld
travelled in the country,—material which has the great disadvantage
of being derived from chance observation, with more or less of
generalization based on insufficient instances, as Dr. Dwight has
pointed out in the case of Weld at least.[703]



CHAPTER V.

THE CAROLINAS.

BY PROFESSOR WILLIAM J. RIVERS.


NORTH CAROLINA: PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT.—It was certainly manifest to
England that her claim to vast regions of valuable territory would
be substantiated, and her commerce and political power augmented,
by the settling of her subjects in North America. Yet the history
of her colonies bears, on many pages, evidence of the indifference
and inexcusable neglect of the mother country. Instead of a liberal
contribution of arms and munitions of war, the means of sustenance, and
the protection of her ever-present sovereignty to all who were willing
to leave the comforts of home and risk their lives in her service,
far away across the Atlantic, enough appeared to have been done if
lavish gifts of land were bestowed upon companies, individuals, or
proprietors, for their especial emolument, and through them some paltry
acres offered to emigrants, with promises of a little more religious
freedom and a little larger share of political privileges than they
were permitted to enjoy at home. The genesis of a new and potent
nationality may be said to have been involved in the acceptance, by the
colonists, of these conditions, as inducements to emigration, with all
else dependent on their own manly courage.

[Illustration: NORTH CAROLINA.

[This is a sketch of the map in Hawks’ _North Carolina_, ii. 570,
showing the grants and divisions from 1663 to 1729.

Quaritch in his _Catal._ for 1885, no. 29,516, prices at £25 a MS. map
of the south part of Virginia (North Carolina), showing the coast line
from Cape Henry to Cape Fear, and signed “Nicholas Comberford, fecit
anno 1657.” It measures 18¾ × 14 inches.—ED.]]

One of the colonies that struggled, through neglect and almost
insurmountable hardships, into permanent existence was Carolina. Before
its settlement, other colonies had successfully established themselves
in New England, and in Maryland and Virginia. In 1663, Charles II.,
in the second year after his restoration, granted the region south of
Virginia and extending from 31° to 36° north latitude, and westward
within these parallels across the continent, to some of his adherents,
to whom he was indebted for distinguished services. It is stated in
the grant that this extensive region is called “Carolina,” a name used
before, and now, no doubt, retained in honor of the king.[704] The
favored noblemen are thus introduced to us: “our right trusty and right
well-beloved cousins and counsellors, Edward, Earl of Clarendon, our
High Chancellor of England, and George, Duke of Albemarle, Master of
our Horse and Captain-General of all our Forces, our right trusty and
well-beloved William Lord Craven, John Lord Berkeley, our right trusty
and well-beloved counsellor, Anthony Lord Ashley, Chancellor of our
Exchequer, Sir George Carteret, Knight and Baronet, Vice-Chamberlain of
our Household, and our trusty and well-beloved Sir William Berkeley,
Knight, and Sir John Colleton, Knight and Baronet;” who, we are
deliberately informed, “being excited with a laudable and pious zeal
for the propagation of the Christian faith, and the enlargement of”
the British dominions, humbly besought leave of the king, “by their
industry and charge, to transport and make an ample colony” of his
subjects, “in the parts of America not yet cultivated or planted,
and only inhabited by some barbarous people who have no knowledge of
Almighty God.”[705] Had these high functionaries of the realm acted in
accordance with this solemn announcement of their pious zeal for the
propagation of Christianity, the blessing of Heaven would, no doubt,
have rested more largely upon their noble enterprise.

An adverse claim was soon made to the same territory under a grant
obtained in 1629,[706] by Sir Robert Heath, attorney-general of Charles
I. But he had failed to form a colony, and the claims of those to
whom he had conveyed his rights were on that account set aside. The
Proprietors under the new charter began to make immediate exertions to
form a settlement, that the king might see they did not “sleep with his
grant, but were promoting his service and his subjects’ profit.”[707]

[Illustration: AUTOGRAPHS OF THE LORDS PROPRIETORS.

These follow fac-similes given in the _Charleston Year Book_, 1883.]

Before this, settlers from Virginia had moved at various times
southward and taken up their residence on some good lands on and
near the river Chowan, in what is now the northeastern part of North
Carolina. Among these was a considerable number of Quakers, at that
time subject to religious persecution. It happened that Sir William
Berkeley, one of the new Proprietors, was governor of Virginia. He
was empowered by the other Proprietors to form a government forthwith
in this settlement, and appoint its officers; the appointment of
surveyor and secretary alone being reserved to the Proprietors in
England. “We do likewise send you proposals to all that will plant,
which we prepared upon receipt of a paper from persons that desired to
settle near Cape Fear, in which our considerations are as low as it is
possible for us to descend. This was not intended for your meridian,
where we hope to find more facile people, who, by your interest, may
settle upon better terms for us, which we leave to your management,
with our opinion that you grant as much as is possible rather than
deter any from planting there.” Sir William, it is inferred, followed
these instructions. William Drummond was appointed governor;[708] the
tract of land, at first forty miles square, was named Albemarle in
honor of the duke, and a council of six was constituted to make laws
with the consent of the delegates of the freemen. These laws were to
be transmitted to England for approval by the Proprietors. Lands were
granted to all free of rent for three years; and such lands as had been
taken by previous settlers were confirmed to them.

Almost simultaneously another colony (Clarendon) was settled in
what is now North Carolina. As early as 1660 some adventurers from
Massachusetts had gone to the Cape Fear, sometimes called the Charles,
River, and purchased lands from the Indians; but in a few years
abandoned the situation, leaving their cattle and swine in care of
the natives. To the same locality the attention of the inhabitants
of Barbadoes[709] was directed on the grant of the territory to the
powerful noblemen whose names are given in the charter. The passage
already quoted from the letter to Sir William Berkeley had reference to
them and their proposal. Explorers, employed by “several gentlemen and
merchants” of Barbadoes, were sent out (1663) under command of Hilton,
who ascended the Cape Fear far inland, and formed a more favorable
opinion of the country than the New Englanders had been enabled to form
near the mouth of the river. They purchased from the Indians “the river
and land of Cape Fair,” as they express it, and returned to Barbadoes
on January 6, 1664. An account of their exploration was published the
same year, to which were appended proposals from the Proprietors,
through their commissioners, Thomas Mudyford and Peter Colleton, to
all who should settle, at their own hazard and expense, south and west
of Cape Romano, sometimes called Cape Carteret. This was a bid for
volunteer settlers south of the Cape Fear settlement. Nothing whatever,
it appears, was accomplished under this offer of the commissioners.
In a _Description of the Province_, with liberal privileges offered
to settlers, issued also in London (1666), it is stated that a new
plantation had been begun by the English at Cape Fear on the 29th of
May, 1664. In the following November, Robert Sandford was appointed
secretary and John Vassall surveyor of “Clarendon County.”[710] It was
time the Proprietors should agree upon some definite and satisfactory
terms for settlement in their territory. While they did not sanction
the purchase of lands from Indians, as they had also disallowed the
claims of the New England adventurers, they made to all colonists,
from Barbadoes and elsewhere, liberal offers for settlement; and under
“concessions and agreement” a method of government was framed, and
John Yeamans of Barbadoes was knighted by the king (through means of
Sir John Colleton), and commissioned, in January, 1665, governor of the
newly formed Clarendon County[711] and of the territory southward as
far as Florida; for in this direction the Proprietors designed to place
a third colony or county.

The two counties, Albemarle and Clarendon, were formed under the
charter of 1663. Another charter was granted by the good-natured king
in June, 1665, enlarging the limits of the province to 36° 30´ on the
north, and on the south to 29°. This extension may be ascribed to the
desire of the Proprietors to secure beyond doubt the section on which
the Chowan colony happened to be formed near Virginia, and to embrace,
southwardly, the limits claimed with respect to Spanish Florida.

We have very little knowledge concerning the administrations of
Drummond and of Yeamans. It is said that the latter, being near the
sea, began at once to export lumber and opened a trade with Barbadoes;
and reports so favorable were carried thither, and so many were
induced to follow the first emigrants, that the authorities of the
island interposed, and forbade, under severe penalties, “the spiriting
off” of their people. In Albemarle, Drummond was succeeded by Samuel
Stephens as governor in 1667. In Clarendon, the colony soon ceased to
prosper, and most, if not all, of the colonists had abandoned it in
1667. We shall understand better why they did so if we bear in mind
that the territory of the Lords Proprietors was very extensive. There
were other places, not yet explored, more convenient for commerce,
more defensible, more fruitful, more desirable in all respects; the
advantages of which would naturally draw off settlers from the less
favorable localities selected before a thorough knowledge of the
country was obtained. The Proprietors, as we have said, thought of
forming, with larger preparations, a colony still further south. The
famous harbor of Port Royal, in what is now South Carolina, was the
locality they desired to occupy and (with unusual display of wisdom)
to fortify. For reasons, however, which will appear hereafter, when
we treat of South Carolina, the colonists, after visiting Port Royal,
and after a temporary settlement at Albemarle Point on the western
bank of the Ashley River, finally settled down on the opposite side,
at the confluence of the Ashley and Cooper rivers, and founded the
present city of Charleston. There was, indeed, enough to discourage the
settlers at Cape Fear independently of the more extensive preparation
by the Proprietors to place a colony in a better situation. Secretary
Sandford (in his _Relation_ of his voyage in 1666) incidentally
mentions: “Wee were in actuall warre with the natives att Clarendon,
and had killed and sent away many of them, for they [the more southern
Indians] frequently discoursed with us concerning the warre, told us
the natives were noughts, their land sandy and barren, their country
sickly.” Surveyor-General Vassall, in a letter from Virginia (Oct.
6, 1667), speaks of the loss of the plantation on Charles River and
his furnishing shipping to carry away “such weak persons as were not
able to go by land.” And a letter from Boston (Dec. 16, 1667) states
that Cape Fear was deserted, and the settlers “come hither, some to
Virginia.”[712]

Here let us notice the policy and plans of the Proprietors with
respect to their distant colonies. The two charters differ only in a
few particulars. The second increases the extent of territory, its
main object, gives power to subdivide the province into distinct
governments, and is a little more explicit with regard to religious
toleration. No person was to be molested for difference of religious
opinion or practice who did not actually disturb the peace of the
community. With regard to political privileges, there is an important
clause in both charters conferring upon the Proprietors power to ordain
any laws and constitutions whatsoever (if consonant to reason and, as
far as possible, to the laws and customs of England), but only “by
and with the advice, assent, and approbation of the freemen,” or the
majority of them, or of their delegates or deputies, who, for enacting
such ordinances, were to be duly assembled from time to time. These
privileges, we shall see in the history of the colony, were maintained
by the people with a pertinacity commensurate with their importance,
whenever their lordships attempted to control the colonists without
due regard to their approbation and consent. The charter reserved to
the king only allegiance and sovereignty; in all other respects the
Proprietors were absolute lords, with no other service or duty to their
monarch than the annual payment of a trifling sum of money, and in case
gold or silver should be found a fourth part thereof.

On August 6, 1663, a letter to the Proprietors, from members of a
Cape Fear company of New England adventurers, claimed full liberty
to choose their governors, make and confirm laws, and to be free
from taxes, except such as they might impose on themselves, and
deprecated “discouragement in reference to their government” as to
the accustomed privileges of English colonists. While their claims
were not conceded, this letter was answered generally by their
lordships, on August 25th, announcing their concessions to all wishing
to settle in Carolina.[713] The New England claim of privileges is
worthy of notice for what we now call “advanced ideas.” And if we
compare the charters of Connecticut (1662) and Rhode Island (1663)
with that of Carolina (1663), it will appear that the self-interest of
Clarendon[714] and his associates stood in the way of their securing
to their colony some civil privileges which it would not have seemed
strange at that time to concede. And it may as well be stated here,
at once, that besides considerations of self-interest it was also
the express policy of their lordships to “avoid erecting a numerous
democracy” in their province. To carry out this policy, a grand scheme
of government, called the Fundamental Constitutions, was framed by
Shaftesbury and the philosopher Locke, and solemnly confirmed as a
compact among themselves,—the Proprietors,—and which was to be
unalterable forever. A scheme more utopian, more unsuited to the actual
condition of the colonists, could hardly have been devised. Yet its
adoption by the people was recommended, ordered, stubbornly insisted
on by their lordships at the risk of balking—as, for a while, it did
balk—the prosperity of their colony. The first set of the unalterable
Constitutions is dated 21st July, 1669; the second was issued in March,
1670,—and so on till a fifth set had been constructed. Under the right
conferred by the charter, respecting the consent of the freemen, or
their delegates, in establishing laws and constitutions, such consent
was never formally given; and the code was, at least in South Carolina,
again and again rejected. It was a gage of political contention
foolishly thrown down; but in taking it up, the colonists were made
ardent students of political rights.

By these Constitutions, the eldest Proprietor was made Palatine,—a
sort of king of the province. The other seven Proprietors were to be
high functionaries: admiral, chamberlain, constable, chief justice,
chancellor, high steward, and treasurer.[715] There was to be a
Parliament: eight superior courts, one to each Proprietor according
to his high office; county and precinct courts; and a grand Executive
Council, among whose duties was the preparation and first enactment
of all matters to be submitted to Parliament. Among the carefully
composed articles in these Constitutions should be noticed such as
enjoin that no person above seventeen years of age could have the
benefit and protection of the law who was not a member of some church;
and no one could hold an estate or become a freeman of the province,
or have any habitation in it, who did not acknowledge a God and that
He is publicly and solemnly to be worshipped. Moreover, in the set of
the Constitutions printed and sent over for adoption, the Church of
England[716] was made the established church, and “it alone shall be
allowed to receive a public maintenance by grant of Parliament.” It was
also enjoined that no one seventeen years old should have any estate
or possession or the protection of the law in the province, unless he
subscribed the Fundamental Constitutions and promised in writing to
defend and maintain them to the utmost of his power.

Their lordships in England, and most, if not all, of their appointed
officers in the colonies, as in duty bound, contended strenuously for
the adoption of this preposterous form of government till the year
1698; and hardly then did the incontrovertible logic of events convince
them of their folly. A late historian of North Carolina remarks,
“Their lordships theorized, the colonists felt; the Proprietors drew
pictures, but the hardy woodsmen of Carolina were grappling with stern
realities. Titles of nobility, orders of precedence, the shows of an
empty pageantry, were to them but toys which might amuse children; but
there was no romance in watching the savage, or felling the forest, or
planting the corn, or gathering the crop, with the ever-present weapon
in reach of the laboring hand.”

There was another cause of irritation on the part of the colonists,
both in North and South Carolina. The terms of the tenure of land
were of paramount interest to them and their children. The quantity
offered in 1663 was augmented in 1666, and two years later, by the
“Great Deed of Grant,” the fear of forfeiture was removed for not
clearing and planting a specified portion of the land; in other
words, settlers were permitted to hold lands as they were held in the
adjoining royal province of Virginia. At first each freeman received
one hundred acres, the same for his wife, each child and manservant,
and fifty for each woman-servant; paying a half-penny per acre.
After the expiration of servitude, each servant received a liberal
quantity of land with implements for tillage.[717] In 1669, in the
settling of the colony at Ashley River, one hundred and fifty acres
were offered to all free persons above sixteen years of age, and
the same for able-bodied men-servants; and a proportionate increase
for others, if they arrived before the 25th of March, 1670; then a
less number of acres for subsequent arrivals. The annual rent was a
penny or _the value of a penny_ per acre (as also announced in the
unalterable Constitutions); payments to begin September, 1689.[718]
When Governor Sayle died (a year after settling on Ashley River), Sir
John Yeamans came from Barbadoes to the new settlement; and having been
made a landgrave claimed the government as vice-palatine under the
Fundamental Constitutions. Such claim was denied by the colonists;[719]
but he soon received a commission, and his first measure, on assuming
control, was to have an accurate survey made and a record of lands
held by settlers in South Carolina, with a view to the collection of
quit-rents for the Proprietors. When ten years of outlay for their
province had brought them no pecuniary return, they began to think
“the country was not worth having at that rate.” They removed their
former favorite Yeamans, because further outlays were incurred, and
placed West in authority, who had attended more successfully to their
interests. In November, 1682, all prior terms for granting land were
annulled, and if a penny an acre (the words “or the value of a penny”
being omitted) was not paid, a right of reëntry was claimed: “to enter
and distraine, and the distress or distresses then and there found to
take, lead, and carry and drive away and impound, and to detain and
keep until they shall be fully satisfied and paid all arrears of the
said rent.” This produced inequality of tenure, or operated to the
injury of many who had previously taken up, on more liberal terms, only
part of the lands they were entitled to.[720] Their lordships were too
just to interfere with the stability of titles, but the alteration of
the tenure for new grants or of the mode of conveyance, from time to
time, was at least unwise. Besides, there was scarcely any coin in the
province, and the people found it hard that they could no longer pay
in merchantable produce. To their reasonable request for relief and a
better encouragement to new settlers came the reply, “We insist to sell
our lands our own way.” With this reply a peremptory order was sent
that the third set of the unalterable Constitutions should be put in
force.

A part of this manifest diminution of the generosity of the Proprietors
and their unwillingness to bestow further concessions may be accounted
for by the opposition their favorite scheme of government had
encountered in both colonies, and especially by a rebellious outbreak
which had just occurred in Albemarle County. Clarendon County at Cape
Fear had broken up and disappeared, as we have related; and henceforth
our attention must be directed to Albemarle at the northern end of
the province and the Ashley River colony at the south, remote from
each other, with a vast forest intervening, the dwelling place of
numerous tribes of Indians. Before the province was authoritatively
divided (1729), it had divided itself, as it were, into North and South
Carolina; and it is best that, in this narrative, we should begin to
call them so.

In North Carolina, the Quakers, who were in close association and
unison, and so far influential in action,[721] opposed the Fundamental
Constitutions and the Church of England establishment; and all the
settlers looked upon the enforcement of the recent orders of the
Proprietors—the displacement of an easy and liberal method of
government without asking their assent—as a violation of the terms
of settlement, and of the inducements at first held out to them.[722]
Governor Stephens endeavored to enforce the orders of the Proprietors,
but he died soon after receiving them, and was succeeded by Carteret,
president of the council, till an appointment should be made.
Carteret appears not to have been of a nature to contend against the
disaffection and turbulence which had arisen, and, in 1675, went to
England to make known personally, it is said, the distracted condition
of the colony. But two of the colonists, Eastchurch and Miller,
had also gone over to represent, personally, the grievances of the
people. They seemed, to the Proprietors, the ablest men to carry out
their instructions; and the former was made governor and the latter
deputy of Earl Shaftesbury and secretary of the province; he was also
made, by the commissioners of the king’s revenue, collector of such
revenue in Albemarle. They sailed for Carolina in 1677, but the new
governor remained a long while in the West Indies (winning “a lady
and her fortune”), and died soon after reaching Albemarle. Miller as
representing Eastchurch, but really without legal authority to act
as governor, ruled with a high hand. He had gone to represent the
grievances of his fellow colonists; he returned to harass them still
more. The new “model” of government, the denial of “a free election
of an assembly” (as the Pasquotank people complained), the attempt to
enforce strictly the navigation laws, the collection of the tax on
tobacco at their very doors,[723] his drunkenness and “putting the
people in general by his threats and actions in great dread of their
lives and estates,” as the Proprietors themselves express it, became
intolerable to the colonists.

The New Englanders, with their characteristic enterprise, had long
been sailing through the shallow waters of the Sound in coasting
vessels, adapted to such navigation, and had largely monopolized the
trade of North Carolina; buying or trafficking for lumber and cattle,
which they sold in the West Indies, and bringing back rum, molasses,
salt, and sugar, they exchanged these for tobacco, which they carried
to Massachusetts, and shipped thence to Europe without much regard
to the navigation laws. Miller, according to instructions sent to
Governor Eastchurch, sought to break up this thriving and lucrative
business, and to introduce a more direct trade with England. The
populace generally, including the Quakers, had their own grievances,
and fraternized with the New England skippers. Gillam, one of these
bold captains, arrived with his vessel laden with the commodities the
people needed, and armed, this time, with cannon. A wealthy Quaker,
Durant, was on board with him. On land, John Culpepper, who had lately
left South Carolina, where he had created commotions, became a leader
of the malcontents. Influenced, no doubt, by the recent rebellion of
Bacon in Virginia, some participators in which had taken refuge among
them, and led on by men of courage whose hard-earned emoluments were
threatened with ruin, the insurgents seized and imprisoned Miller and
seven of the proprietary deputies, and took from the former a large
amount of money which he had collected for the king. They had won over
to their side the remaining deputy, the president of the council; and
together they now governed the colony as seemed best to them. But they
were aware that violence and usurpation could not be passed over with
impunity by higher authority; and as Miller and some of his adherents
had escaped and gone to England, Culpepper and Holden were also sent
to the Proprietors on a mission of explanation. The explanation of
neither party was entirely satisfactory. Miller lost his offices, and
Culpepper, though he was unpunished by the Proprietors, was seized by
the Commissioners of the Customs to answer for the revenue money which
had been used in the time of the disorders. He was put on trial, in
1680, for “treason committed without the realm.” It is said by Chalmers
that the judges ruled that taking up arms against the proprietary
government was treason against the king. Notwithstanding this view
of the case, Culpepper was acquitted of treason, because Shaftesbury
asserted that the county of Albemarle had not a regular government, and
the offence of the prisoner amounted to no more than a riot.[724]

At this time the Earl of Clarendon sold his proprietary share to Seth
Sothel, who was appointed governor. Mr. John Harvey, as president of
the council at Albemarle, was to exercise the functions of governor
till Sothel’s arrival. The latter, on his voyage, was captured by an
Algerine corsair; Harvey died; Jenkins was made governor, and was
deposed by the people without reprimand from the Proprietors; and
in February, 1681, Wilkinson was appointed. These sudden changes in
executive authority were unfortunate for the prestige of proprietary
power in the colony; for all this while and until Sothel came in 1683,
the old adherents of the Culpepper party, or the popular party, held
control in Albemarle. But still more unfortunate for the Proprietors
was the coming of Sothel. He seems to have purchased his place as
Proprietor and to have come as governor in order to have a clear field
for the exercise of his rapacity. If he was “a sober, moderate man,”
as his colleagues thought when they intrusted their interests and the
welfare of the county to his hands, his association with the Algerines
must have materially changed his character. In 1688, the outraged
colonists seized him, intending to send him to England for trial. On
his appeal this was not done, but the case referred to the colonial
assembly, who condemned him. His sentence, however, amounted only to
banishment for twelve months and perpetual deposition from authority,
Proprietor though he was. He went to South Carolina, and his further
career will be noticed when we review the history of that colony.

The next year Philip Ludwell, of Virginia, was made governor, and after
four years was transferred to South Carolina and appointed governor of
both colonies. For more than twenty years North Carolina was governed
by a deputy of the governor at Charleston, or (when there was no deputy
appointed) by the president of her own council. The Albemarle colony
had become to the Proprietors only a source of vexation. At any rate,
they acted wisely in leaving its management, in some measure, under the
control of those more conversant with its affairs than their lordships
in England could possibly be. Their own mismanagement, in truth, was
the principal cause of the turbulent spirit of the people.[725]

After Sothel’s banishment the executive authority belonged, as a rule,
to the president of the council till Ludwell received it in 1689.
On the latter’s removal to Charleston, S. C., Lillington acted as
deputy in Albemarle. In 1695, Thomas Harvey became deputy governor by
appointment from Archdale, the Quaker Proprietor (who was sent over
to heal grievances in both colonies), and was followed in 1699 by
Henderson Walker, president of the council. In 1704, Robert Daniel was
appointed deputy by Governor Johnson, of South Carolina. John Porter, a
Quaker, or sympathizer with the Quakers (sent to England to complain of
Daniel and legislation in favor of the Church of England in the colony
by “The Vestry Act”), with the assistance of Archdale, prevailed
on the Proprietors to order Daniel’s removal, and Governor Johnson
appointed (1705) Thomas Carey in his place. He was as little acceptable
to the Quakers in North Carolina as his predecessor had been, and
through their influence in England at this conjuncture the appointment
of a deputy by the executive in South Carolina was suspended, Carey
was removed, and a new Proprietary Council formed, including Porter
and several Quakers. Porter returned to North Carolina in 1707, and
called together the new council, who chose William Glover, a Churchman,
president, and, as such, acting governor. He, however, as Carey had
done, required conformity to the English laws respecting official
oaths, which were displeasing to the Quakers; and Porter in opposition
declared Glover’s election as president illegal, formed a coalition
with Carey, whom he had before caused to be displaced, and secured his
election to the presidency of the council. There were now two claimants
for executive authority, and no power at hand to decide between them.
Carey and Glover sat in opposite rooms with their respective councils.
Daniel, being a landgrave, and having thereby a right to a seat in
the Upper House,—as the council with the governor was styled,—sat
alternately with one and the other, and no doubt enjoyed their
altercations.

A new rebellion, so-called, now broke out, based apparently on local
party strife. At first Carey and his Quaker supporters opposing Glover
and his party sought and obtained control of the assembly; and when
Edward Hyde came from England with letters on authority of which he
claimed executive power,[726] the Carey party, at first favorable to
him, finally, on losing control of the next assembly, directed itself
against him. Hyde’s life was endangered by Carey’s armed opposition;
and Spotswood, the energetic governor of Virginia, sent him military
aid and put down his opponents.[727] Carey, on his way through
Virginia, was arrested by Spotswood and sent to England for trial.
This was the occasion of Lord Dartmouth’s circular letter to all the
colonies “to send over no more prisoners for crimes or misdemeanors
without proof of their guilt.”

According to the latest history,—that of Rev. Dr. Hawks,—another
result of this acrimonious contest was the deplorable massacre of
hundreds of defenceless white settlers, men, women, and children,
by the Tuscarora Indians. This is doubtless merely _post hoc ergo
propter hoc_. We must ascribe hostilities solely to encroachments on
the lands of the natives; to ill treatment by traders and others; and
to the killing of one of their number, which called for revenge. The
Tuscaroras, it was thought, could muster 1,200 warriors. They suddenly
made their onslaught at daybreak, September 22, 1711. Their special
task in the diabolical conspiracy was to murder all the whites along
the Roanoke, while other tribes conducted a simultaneous attack upon
other sections. The wielding of the blood-dripping knife and tomahawk,
the conflagration of dwellings and barns, the murderous rush upon the
victims who, here and there, had hidden themselves and who ran out from
the blazing fires to a fate scarcely less dreadful, with other horrors
we are unwilling to relate, continued for three days. One hundred and
fifty were slain on the Roanoke, more than sixty at Newbern, an unknown
number near Bath; and the carnage was stopped only by the exhaustion
and besotted drunkenness of the bloodstained savages. Governor Hyde was
powerless to confront the foe. He could not raise half the number of
men the enemy had. The Quakers were non-combatants; and with them were
affiliated many others who opposed the government. Governor Hyde was
compelled to resort to arbitrary measures in impressing vessels and in
procuring provisions for such troops as he could muster; and these were
so inadequate, and so wide-spread was the Indian combination, that he
called for assistance from Virginia and South Carolina. Both responded
with alacrity. While Spotswood could not supply troops, he checked the
further combination of tribes in his direction. South Carolina sent
troops onward through the forests, under Colonel Barnwell, who defeated
the Tuscaroras and put an end to the war for the time being. But after
he retired to South Carolina, suffering with wounds, the Indians
treacherously renewed hostilities; and it was believed they would soon
be joined by more powerful northward tribes. To add to the calamities
of the people, an epidemic (said to be yellow fever) broke out. The
mortality was fearful, and among the victims was the governor of the
colony. The council elected Colonel Pollock as their president and to
act as commander-in-chief. The following mournful picture is given us
from manuscripts left by Colonel Pollock: “The government was bankrupt,
the people impoverished, faction abundant, the settlements on Neuse and
Pamlico destroyed, houses and property burned, plantations abandoned,
trade in ruins, no cargoes for the few small vessels that came, the
Indian war renewed, not men enough for soldiers, no means to pay them,
the whole available force under arms but one hundred and thirty or
forty men, and food for the whole province to be supplied from the
northern counties of Albemarle only.” South Carolina, being again
called on for help, sent Colonel James Moore, eldest son to Colonel
James Moore, late governor of the colony. On the 20th of March, 1713,
he conquered the last stronghold of the savages, who soon after, broken
and disheartened, left the province in large numbers, and joined
themselves with the Iroquois in what is now the State of New York. Such
of them as remained in North Carolina entered into a treaty of peace
with the whites. During these exhausting calamities the Proprietors
were appealed to; and it was a poor response to refer the matter to
General Nicholson “to enquire into the disorders of North Carolina.”

The next year (May, 1714) Charles Eden, an excellent officer, was
appointed governor. The adherents of Carey, or the popular party,
however, seemed to be actuated against all who were sent to rule the
colony. What grievances they had to palliate or justify their conduct,
on this occasion, we know not; but soon their active opposition had
to be dealt with by the constituted authorities. We shall see, when
we treat of South Carolina, that a few years later the colonists, in
that section, threw off, effectually, the inefficient rule of the
Proprietors, and placed themselves under the immediate control of the
Crown; deposing the last proprietary governor, and electing Colonel
Moore governor in the king’s name. It is probable that the same
spirit actuated the people in North Carolina. Yet her historians have
not made it evident that the continued disaffection and turbulence
and rebellion of the people are indications of their readiness to
act as their more southern brethren acted. Perhaps they had not, at
that conjuncture, the same amount of provocation. When we read the
letter of the Lords Proprietors to the council and assembly (June 3,
1723),[728] “We received an address from you, transmitted some time
since by our late governor, Mr. Eden, wherein you signified to us
your great dislike to the rebellious and tumultuous proceedings of
several of the inhabitants of South Carolina, and your constant and
steady adherence to our government and the present constitution,” we
are to bear in mind that this governor and council were the appointed
officers of their lordships. We are to ask, Where are the records
of the assembly,[729]—records of the thoughts and actions of the
representatives of the people? These, no doubt, will show, if they can
be found, that a spirit of local self-government actuated the people,
and is the thread of development to be followed by the future historian
of the State. We need the testimony of Porter, of Carey, of the able
and virtuous Edward Moseley (chief justice from 1707 to 1711), and of
other leaders of the people against the repressive policy of their
lordships in England and their governors and councils.

Some interesting subjects, indicative of the condition of the colony
in these early times, must be briefly noticed: the emission of paper
money consequent upon the expenses of the Indian war; the occasional
rating of commodities for exchange; the indigenous products of the
soil and staples of export; the forwarding of tobacco abroad through
Virginia, and troubles about boundary lines; the customs and modes of
life among the gentry or planters and the humbler classes, and among
their close neighbors, the Indian tribes; the visits of pirates to the
coast, both in North and South Carolina, notably Teach or Blackbeard,
and the romantic defeat of him in Pamlico Sound; the settling, at
first, along the streams, which became the principal highways for
travel and commerce; the ill effects necessarily resulting from the
habitations being far apart, and from the fact that there was very
little social intercourse; the transmission of letters only by special
messengers; the disadvantageous nature of the coast section, retarding
the prosperity of the colony.

During the proprietary period, or the first sixty-six years of the
colony, the people clung to the seaboard and that part of it which
had no good port of entry. This was as great a misfortune as it was
to cling to the border line of Virginia. The accession of population,
including foreigners, came chiefly through that border. In 1690 and
again in 1707, bodies of French Protestants arrived, and settled in
Pamlico and on the Neuse and Trent; and three years after some Swiss
and Germans settled at Newbern. The whites in the province numbered at
this time about 5,000. Large tracts of unoccupied land lay between the
selected points of settlement. A few towns had been begun: the first,
forty-two years after the first settling in the province. If a good
harbor had been selected and a town properly fortified built there for
exports, the progress of North Carolina might have been more rapid and
substantial. The metropolis was Edenton (founded 1715) on the Chowan.
The legislature met there. It contained forty or fifty houses. There
was no church there. The Rev. Dr. Hawks says: “For long, long years
there were no places of worship. They never amounted to more than some
half dozen of all sorts, while the Proprietors owned Carolina; and when
their unblessed dominion ended, there was not a minister of Christ
living in the province.” There had been, however, missionaries sent
out by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel; and there were
some pious gentlemen in the colony who gave them welcome and all the
assistance in their power. But while a few of the missionaries were
exemplary and accomplished much good, others were a positive hindrance
to “the propagation of the gospel.”

Among the misfortunes of the colonists we must not fail to notice the
incompetent governors sent from England. Favoritism, and not fitness
for office, dictated the selection. Archdale, Hyde, and Eden are
considered the only governors sent to the province who did it much
service. The last two whom their lordships favored with the dignity
of executive authority were Burrington, pronounced “a profligate
blackguard,” and Sir Richard Everard, whom his superseded rival railed
against as “a noodle and an ape,” and “no more fit to be a governor
than Sancho Panza.” It was in the administration of Sir Richard that
the colony passed by purchase under the immediate control of the king.
Two thousand five hundred pounds sterling were paid for each of seven
shares; Lord Carteret declining to dispose of his, as it had come to
him by inheritance.[730] The claims for arrears of quit-rent due from
settlers were also purchased. Before the surrender of the charter
many changes had occurred in the ownership of shares in the province;
and not one of the original Proprietors remained alive to witness the
failure of their successors in the noble enterprise committed to their
management by the munificence of Charles II.

ROYAL GOVERNMENT.—The method of the royal government will be noticed
when we come to write of South Carolina. The more thoughtful in North
Carolina no doubt felt relieved in escaping from the negligent rule of
the Proprietors; but the transition from the old to the new form of
administration appears to have been a matter of indifference to the
people at large. All they saw in 1731 was that George Burrington, who
had been displaced for Everard in 1725, came back with a commission
as the first royal governor, to displace in turn his former rival.
Burrington, favored for his father’s services to the king, was
unsuited for his position, and soon became involved in disputes with
his council, the assembly, and the judges. He appeared to think
the foremost duty of the assembly was to provide for him a salary
suitable to his new dignity, to raise money for other royal officers
and an adequate and permanent revenue for the king. The assembly was
prorogued for declining to do so. His violence and tyranny caused
complaints against him to be sent, through Chief Justice Smith, to
the authorities in the mother country. One service, however, he
rendered, in conciliating the Indians on the western border. To this
end he sent Dr. John Brickell with a party of ten men and two Indian
hunters to assist them.[731] The account of the expedition adds to our
knowledge of the condition of that remote section of the province, as
the interesting work of Lawson does with respect to other sections.
In 1734, on the return of the chief justice, the governor retired to
Charleston and sailed thence to England. Soon afterwards he was found
murdered in St. James’ Park, in London.[732] Nathaniel Rice, secretary
of the province, and the first named of the councillors, administered
the government from April till November, when Gabriel Johnston, a
Scotchman and man of letters, received, through the influence of his
patron, Lord Wilmington, the royal appointment. For nearly twenty years
he prudently administered the affairs of the colony. At first he found
a formidable obstacle to a successful management of the people in their
disregard of laws and of gubernatorial dignitaries, imposed upon them
by foreign authority. Many hard things have been said of the people
by those who, perhaps, did not consider the neglect, mismanagement,
and tyrannical provocation under which they lived for two generations,
and the increasing intercolonial influences in behalf of popular
sovereignty. One of the Virginia commissioners, for laying off (in
1727) the northern boundary, states that the borderers preferred to
belong to the Carolina side, “where they pay no tribute to God or to
Cæsar.” Governor Johnston, at this time, was in need of the latter
kind of tribute. The salaries of the crown officers were to be paid
from quit-rents due to the Crown, the collection of which depended on
enactments of the assembly. The governor, finding great difficulty in
having a satisfactory enactment passed, prorogued the assembly and
attempted to collect the rents on his own authority. Not only was
this resisted by the people, but the assembly, being again convened,
denied the legality of the acts of the governor, and imprisoned his
officers who had distrained for the rents.[733] The assembly was
consequently dissolved (March, 1736). At the next session, in the
following September, the governor addressed the representatives of the
people on the general condition of the province, the lack of moral
and educational advancement, and of proper regard for law and good
order, and assured them “that while he was obliged by his instructions
to maintain the rights of the Crown, he would show a regard to the
privileges, liberties, and happiness of the people.” In the spirit of
compromise a law was passed with the concurrence of the governor, but
which the authorities in England rejected as yielding too much to the
demands of the popular assembly.

At this time (1738) commissioners were empowered to run the boundary
between North and South Carolina, and completed the work from the
Atlantic as far westward as the Pee Dee. The original division of
the coast section into three counties—Albemarle with six precincts,
Bath with four precincts, and Clarendon with one (New Hanover)—was
altered, and the precincts were denominated counties. The very names
of the original counties disappeared. Soon other counties westward or
inland were formed as the population increased, chiefly by overland
immigration. To each county the governor appointed a sheriff, selected
from three persons recommended by the county court. The judiciary
system was modified to suit the new administration and augmentation
of population. The governor had before (1736) deplored the fact that
no provision had been made “or care taken to inspire the youth with
generous sentiments, worthy principles, or the least tincture of
literature;” but not until 1754 was an act passed to establish a public
seminary. It did not receive the royal assent. That there were not many
schools is doubtless due to the sparseness of settlements, and not
to any general indifference to education.[734] During the period of
the royal government there were two schools that we read of,—those at
Newbern and Edenton. In the building of the former, a wooden structure,
the lower house of assembly occasionally held its sessions. In 1749,
printing was introduced at Newbern, from Virginia; and a weekly paper
styled the _North Carolina Gazette_, issued “on a sheet of post-sized
folio,”—“with freshest advices, foreign and domestic.” In 1752
appeared the first edition of the _Provincial Laws_.

At the town of Wilmington, so named in honor of the Governor’s patron,
and sometimes at Newbern, the assembly now met instead of at Edenton,
near the Virginia boundary. A new assembly was convened at Wilmington,
and an attempt was made to establish an equalization of representation,
with a consequent diminution of the number of representatives from
the old and more northern counties,—from five members each to two
members.[735] Dissatisfaction was the result; and the six northern
counties would neither recognize the assembly at Wilmington nor pay
taxes, nor would the jurors attend the courts. The colony, however,
was more thriving than it had been at any previous period. It was
favored by the mother country with bounties on its exports; and the
general prosperity was augmented by the coming in of the banished
Highlanders and of emigrants from Ireland, and especially by the
beginning of the great flow of overland immigration into the central
and more western section of the province. Under the prudent management
of Johnston, harmony at last prevailed, and such laws were enacted as
were necessary. On the declaration of war between England and France,
the defences of the coast received legislative attention, and a fort
mounting twenty-four cannon was erected on the south bank of the Cape
Fear, and called Fort Johnston, in honor of the governor.[736]

Governor Johnston died in August, 1752. What he had written to the
Duke of Newcastle, in 1739, was now even more applicable, that after
years of effort he had brought the colony “to system, where disorder
had before reigned, and placed it on a firmer foundation.” The
administration again devolved on Nathaniel Rice; and on his decease in
January, Matthew Rowan, the next councillor, acted as governor till
the arrival of Arthur Dobbs, in 1754. Rowan’s short term of service
was distinguished by liberal contributions for building churches and
purchasing glebe lands for the support of ministers of the gospel;
and by the convening of the assembly to provide for aiding Governor
Dinwiddie, of Virginia, by whose order George Washington had gone to
examine the alarming movements of the French on the Ohio. The militia
of North Carolina amounted at that time, as stated by Rowan, to 15,400
men.

Besides the early coast-line settlements, and those along the
bottom lands of the northeastern streams, there came, mainly after
Braddock’s defeat, a remarkable tide of immigration from the western
frontiers of Virginia and Pennsylvania into central and western North
Carolina. Between 1750 and 1790 the accession to the population is
computed[737] to be as much as 300,000. Many seeking fertile lands
moved over into the “Up Country” of South Carolina, and westward into
Tennessee. These hardy and liberty-loving German and Scotch-Irish
settlers formed a section of North Carolina which for a long time was
“distinct in population, religion, and material interests.” Their final
fraternization and blending in political union with the people of the
eastern section is a subject for the later history of the province and
State.

Governor Dobbs, a native of Ireland, and who had been a member of
its Parliament, brought to the colony cannon and firelocks, as a
present from the king; and, as a present from himself, “a number of
his relations, who had hopes of offices and preferments.”[738] While,
on the one hand, he sought to conciliate the Indian tribes, on the
other he continuously embroiled himself in contests with the assembly
and on trivial matters. It was, however, the irrepressible conflict
of that day,—the conflict we have been expecting all along in this
history,—the outgrowth of antagonism between the royal prerogatives
and the rights and privileges of the representatives of the people.
Contributions of men and money were called for by the governor for the
general defence of the provinces, and for fortifications within the
limits of North Carolina. The assembly were ever ready to defend their
frontiers and render aid to the neighboring colonies. But in the acts
for founding new counties, they disallowed “the royal prerogative of
granting letters of incorporation, ordering and regulating elections,
and establishing fairs and markets.” In enactments for a new court
system, the further emission of paper money, and the appointment of
an agent in England to solicit the affairs of the province, disputes
ensued between the assembly and the executive. A new assembly being
convened was equally jealous of its rights and privileges, and ably
maintained them in lengthy communications to the governor, but without
moving him from his convictions of duty under the royal instructions.
The assembly was prorogued after appointing, by resolution, the agent
to England, whom the governor had rejected. Upon reassembling, and
again in a new assembly, on various bills the struggle for legislative
rights was continued with the Upper House or council.

Two very different events here arrest our attention: the grant of the
king, through Parliament, of £50,000 to indemnify Virginia, North
and South Carolina, for their war expenses, and the proposal to the
colonies to form a union for common defence against general attacks of
the French and Indians; the one fostering attachment to the Crown, the
other teaching the method of effectual resistance.

Governor Dobbs was now infirm and over eighty years of age, and, having
obtained leave of absence, there was sent over, as Lieutenant-Governor,
the able and energetic William Tryon, a colonel in the Queen’s Guards,
who became, on the decease of Dobbs, in 1765, governor of North
Carolina. He was succeeded by Martin, the last royal governor. We
close this brief narrative, pondering upon the province’s progress
in wealth, population, and political stability; on the intercolonial
influences developing union and constitutional self-government; and on
the portentous shadow of the approaching Revolution.[739]


SOUTH CAROLINA.

PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT.—In 1665 the Lords Proprietors placed in charge
of Sir John Yeamans—whom they had, in January, commissioned governor
of Clarendon county at Cape Fear—the further discovery of the Carolina
coast southward of the portion embraced in the report of Hilton, Long,
and Fabian in 1663. Yeamans and his party left Barbadoes in three
vessels in October. After separation by a storm, they all reached the
Cape Fear or Charles River. But there a violent gale wrecked the vessel
containing the greater part of their provisions, arms, and ammunition.
Being in distress for supplies, their sloop was despatched to Virginia
for aid, and Yeamans himself returned to Barbadoes, leaving Robert
Sandford in commission to obtain a vessel and complete the exploration
of the southern coast. Sandford appears to have first entered the North
Edisto River, where he met the Cassique of Kiawah, who had traded with
the settlers in Clarendon county, and who now invited Sandford to his
country. But the explorers sailed on to Port Royal, arriving there
early in July. Their reception was apparently very friendly, and Dr.
Henry Woodward remained among the Indians to learn their language,
while a nephew of the chief accompanied Sandford. They designed, on
their return, to visit Kiawah; but by a mistake of the Indian who acted
as guide, they passed beyond the entrance (now Charleston harbor) which
led to that country, and the wind not being favorable for putting back,
the voyagers proceeded northward and returned to Cape Fear.[740]

In 1667, the Proprietors took measures to found, in the region reported
on by Sandford, a colony worthy of themselves and of the munificence
of the king in granting them almost royal authority in the extensive
territory lavishly bestowed by the charter. The elaborate plan of
government which Locke assisted in maturing was devised for this new
enterprise, and was solemnly agreed upon as a contract among the
Proprietors. Twelve thousand pounds sterling, a large sum at that
day, were expended in preparation for founding, in what is now South
Carolina, a colonial government calculated to bring both glory and
emolument to their lordships. In August, 1669, three vessels were
ready to sail from England: the “Carolina” frigate, the “Port Royall,”
and the sloop “Albemarle.” On board the first-named were ninety-three
passengers. How many were in the other vessels is not at present
known; but the intention appears to have been to begin the settlement
with at least two hundred. They stopped at Kinsale in Ireland to take
in other emigrants, receiving, however, only seven; and according
to instructions sailed thence to Barbadoes, which they reached in
October. They were to obtain there such plants as the vine, olive,
ginger, cotton, and indigo, and some swine for the new colony; and, no
doubt, as many emigrants as could be induced to join the expedition.
The fleet was consigned to Thomas Colleton, brother of the Proprietor,
Sir Peter Colleton. It seems that the Proprietors were not pleased
with the management of Sir John Yeamans in the previous expedition
and his leaving the perils of exploration to Secretary Sandford; yet
his experience and ability rendered his coöperation desirable, and
power was given him to fill a blank commission sent to him for the
governorship of the new colony. Living in Barbadoes, and familiar
with projects of colonization, he acted on this occasion on behalf
of their lordships, with authority as their lieutenant-general, and
assisted and encouraged the adventurers. But many disasters occurred:
at Barbadoes the “Albemarle” was driven ashore in a gale and lost,
in November; and in January the “Port Royall” suffered the same
fate at the Bahama Islands. A sloop obtained at Barbadoes in place
of the “Albemarle” became separated in a storm, and the “Carolina,”
in a damaged condition, put in at Bermuda for repairs. A part of the
equipments was lost by the wrecks; and Yeamans, to the discontent and
indignation of the colonists, withdrew from further participation in
their fortunes, saying he was obliged to return to Barbadoes as one of
the commissioners appointed to negotiate “with French commissioners
the affair at St. Christopher’s.” He persuaded the colonists to take
Colonel William Sayle, and inserted his name as governor in the blank
commission sent to him by the Proprietors. He describes Sayle as “a man
of no great sufficiency, yet the ablest I could then meet with.”[741]

The expedition sailed again on the 26th of February, 1670, in the
“Carolina” and a sloop bought at Bermuda (where Sayle had, twenty years
before, founded a colony of Presbyterians).[742] The Barbadoes sloop,
with about thirty persons on board, had gone to Nansemond, Virginia,
and joined the rest of the expedition at Kiawah in the month of May.
The other two vessels, about a fortnight after leaving Bermuda, had
reached the coast at a place called Sewee,[743] in March, and proceeded
thence to Port Royal harbor, their point of destination, and where the
instructions of the Proprietors directed them to go. They remained
there a few days. Governor Sayle summoned the _freemen_, according to
instructions annexed to his commission, and they elected Paul Smith,
Robert Donne, Ralph Marshall, Samuel West, and Joseph Dalton their
representatives in the council, which consisted of ten, the other five
being deputies named by the Proprietors. The governor and council, by
the same instructions, were to select the place for building a fort
and a town. Upon examination the land at Kiawah was judged better, and
a more defensible position could there be found than at Port Royal.
A discussion was held, and, the governor favoring Kiawah, it was
determined to remove and settle there permanently. Weighing anchor,
they sailed northward as to their home at last, and in the month of
April selected for their residence a bluff which they named Albemarle
Point, on the western bank of Kiawah River, now called the Ashley,
and began to build a town which they named Charles Town, and to erect
fortifications. Safely settled after a perilous voyage, when now, borne
down with daily toil, they sank to rest, soothing dreams of prosperity
and happiness, no doubt, renewed their courage for the labors and
dangers of the morrow.[744]

The administration of the colony devolved on the governor,
representing the Palatine (the Duke of Albemarle),[745] and the
council, representing partly the other Lords Proprietors and partly
the people. On the 4th July, 1670, the governor and council—because
the freeholders were “nott neere sufficient to elect a Parliament,”
as the instructions required—promulgated certain orders for the
better observance of the Sabbath; and a certain William Owens, arguing
that a parliament was necessary for such legislation, persuaded the
people to elect one among themselves, “which they did and returned
to said governor.” But this 4th July spirit of independence was not
persisted in, the members elect receding from their own “election
into dignity.”[746] The council continued to exercise all necessary
legislative and judicial as well as executive power, till a parliament
was formed.

Sayle was about eighty years of age and in feeble health, and died
on 4th March, 1671, transferring his authority, as he was empowered
to do, on the man of his choice. He selected Joseph West, his able
assistant, who had brought the colonists from England under commission
as “Governor and Commander in Chief of the Fleet.”

Scarcely had the English entrenched themselves when the jealous
Spaniards sent a party to attack them; but finding them stronger than
they expected, they returned to St. Augustine. The chief reason for
not settling at Port Royal, as they were directed to do, was evidently
the exposure of that situation to attacks, both from hostile Indians
and the Spaniards who instigated them, and who, from their early
exploration and settlement, claimed the noble harbor, of which Ribault
had said, a century before, the largest ships of France, “yea, the
argosies of Venice,” might enter therein.[747]

Sayle’s nomination of West, to act with all the authority conferred
upon himself, was of force only till the pleasure of the Proprietors
could be known. When they were informed of Sayle’s decease, they
gave the position of governor to Sir John Yeamans (commission dated
August, 1671); continuing West, however, as superintendent of important
interests in the colony. He was made governor when Yeamans was
displaced (1674); and in December, 1679, their lordships wrote to him,
“We are informed that the Oyster Point is not only a more convenient
place to build a town on than that formerly pitched on by the first
settlers, but that people’s inclinations tend thither; we let you
know the Oyster Point is the place we do appoint for the port town,
of which you are to take notice and call it Charles Town.” The public
offices were removed thither and the council summoned to meet there,
and, in 1680, thirty houses were erected. Even before this, some
settlers had left old Charles Town and taken up their residence at
Oyster Point. Great interest was aroused in all that pertained to the
colony by the active exertions and liberal offers of the Proprietors.
Every vessel that sailed to Charles Town brought new-comers. The
Proprietors’ trading-ship “Blessing” followed the first expedition,
its “main end” and chief employment being to transport emigrants from
Barbadoes, where Yeamans and Thomas Colleton were to advise and help
Captain Halsted in this work of emigration. The “Carolina,” in a return
voyage from the same island, had brought sixty-four settlers, and the
“John and Thomas” forty-two. In the “Phœnix” from New York a number of
German families arrived, who began to build James Town on the Stono
River. When Sir John Yeamans came to reside at Charles Town (April,
1672) he brought the first negro slaves into the colony. In 1680,
the date of the removal to Oyster Point, the settlers numbered about
1,200; in 1686, they were estimated at 2,500, English, Irish, Scotch,
French, and Germans. It is of significance, with respect to the first
political acts of these settlers, to bear in mind that they were mostly
dissenters. Boone, agent in London for a large portion of the people,
stated in his petition to the House of Lords (in 1706) that after the
reëstablishment of the Church of England by the Act of Uniformity, many
subjects of the Crown, “who were so unhappy as to have some scruples
about conforming to the rites of said Church, did transplant themselves
and families into said Colony, by means whereof the greatest part of
the inhabitants there were Protestant Dissenters from the Church of
England.” We must remember, too, that religious freedom was promised
as an inducement to emigrate. As Governor Archdale said, the charter
“had an overplus power to grant liberty of conscience, although at home
was a hot persecuting time.” And this overplus power was at first very
fairly used. All denominations lived harmoniously together, till Lord
Granville became Palatine, whose tyrannical disruption of the religious
privileges of the colonists (by excluding dissenters from the colonial
legislature) nearly cost the Proprietors their charter. The felling
of forests, clearing of plantations, experimenting in agricultural
products, establishing stock farms, building habitations, opening a
peltry trade with the Indians, forming military companies for mutual
defence against hostile tribes, and against the French at times, and at
times against the Spaniards, exploring the adjacent country, caring for
and nursing the sick who succumbed to the malarial influences of the
sultry low country along the coast, where the settlers were for many
years compelled to reside,[748]—amidst such circumstances there was no
disposition for religious dissension and none for political differences
among themselves. And when political opposition did arise, it was for
civil rights, and between the colonists as one party and the Lords
Proprietors and their official representatives as the other party. The
rights for which they contended against irritating obstacles engendered
a persistent spirit of political advancement which led to the overthrow
of the proprietary government in 1719, and in further development
through the royal administration culminated in constitutional
self-government. In this respect, the history of no other colony
presents a more interesting and instructive record. The awakening
of the people to a determined maintenance of what they deemed right
and just began with the stubborn efforts of the Proprietors to force
the colonists to adopt their scheme of government, the Fundamental
Constitutions. The people declared the charter of Charles II. to be
fundamental enough for them. The facts involved in this contention are
now to be related.

Locke and Shaftesbury’s elaborate and cumbrous system, solemnly adopted
by the Proprietors, suited only (if it could be made to suit) a large
population. A copy was sent out for the first governor, but not to be
immediately put in force. He was to govern by “instructions” annexed
to his commission, and prefaced with the words “In regard the number
of the people which will at first be set down at Port Royal will be so
small, together with want of Landgraves and Cassiques, that it will
not be possible to put our Grand Model of government in practice at
first;” the instructions, coming as nigh as practicable to the Grand
Model, must be used instead. The same “paucity of nobility” and people
is given as the reason for two sets of Temporary Laws (1671, 1672)
and the Agrarian Laws (1672). The governor and council are told to
follow always the latest instructions; a prudent order, for they came
in so quick succession, and with so many alterations, that they may
have confused the wisest of governors. In these official papers two
principles are prominent: one that nothing should be debated or voted
in the parliament (the majority representing the people) “but what
is proposed to them by the council” (the majority representing their
lordships); the other “that the whole foundation of the government
is settled upon a right and equal distribution of land,”—for the
Proprietors and provincial aristocracy, first; then the common people
could have their subordinate little share.[749]

Contrast with these official regulations framed in London the actions
of Governor West and his council as recorded in the “Council Journals”
for 1671-72, still preserved in the office of the secretary of state.
They were exercising, on account of the “paucity of nobility,” all
executive, judicial, and legislative powers with promptness and energy,
and were fully supported by the people. They proclaimed war against the
Kussoe Indians, had all fire-arms repaired, began to construct a fort,
raised military companies, commissioned their officers, and reduced
the enemy to submission. They heard and decided complaints and legal
issues, and punished criminals, distributed lands, and provided for the
health and security of the community. They denied to Sir John Yeamans,
Landgrave though he was, any claim to gubernatorial authority, under
the Fundamental Constitutions, and had him before their tribunal for
cutting timber not his own. It is said he retired again to Barbadoes.
But he was commissioned governor and reappeared in the colony, and was
“disgusted that the people did not incline to salute him as governor.”
In obedience to instructions, he immediately summoned, by proclamation,
the freemen to assemble and elect a parliament of twenty members, and
to select five of their number to be members of the grand council. This
legislative body (April, 1672), the first we have knowledge of in the
colony, had at this time very little power, compared with the council;
but it was destined to become, as the representative of the people,
the most potent factor in the political development of subsequent
years. Sir John Yeamans, two years later, gave place again (as before
stated) to his rival, Colonel West, whom the Proprietors declared the
“fittest man” to be governor.[750] He had, more than any other in
the province, promoted the best interests both of the people and of
their lordships. There was some scarcity of provisions at the close
of Yeamans’ administration, and he was charged with exporting, for
his own advantage, too great a quantity of the agricultural products
of the colony. Commotions ensued, and John Culpepper, surveyor, was
engaged in them or instigated them; and having left Charles Town, he
found in North Carolina popular discontents more ready for rebellious
activity. The cause of the commotions at Charles Town does not clearly
appear. The settlement was so prolific in all that sustains life—in
forest, in fields, in a harbor abounding in fish, in herds of swine
and cattle—that it is strange to hear of a scarcity of food; even in
1673, when want is said to have threatened the people, provisions were
exported to Barbadoes.

Governor Sayle, for reasons already stated, was not to put in force
altogether the Fundamental Constitutions; there was, however, a copy
“sent under our hands and seales,” as is mentioned in his commission.
The project of founding the new colony was based on this special scheme
of government. It is positively stated by the colonists, in their
letter to Sothel (1691), that this set originally sent bore date July
21, 1669; was “fairly engrossed in parchment, and signed and sealed”
by six of the Proprietors; and as all persons were required to swear
submission to them _before they could take up land_, “several hundred
of the people arriving here did swear accordingly.” A MS. copy[751] of
this set, but without signatures, is in the Charleston library. It does
not contain the article establishing the Church of England. In other
respects it is as favorable to settlers as the revised set bearing date
March 1, 1669-70, and containing that article. That many colonists (the
majority being dissenters) preferred the first set sent with Sayle’s
commission may thus be reasonably accounted for. It was afterwards
repudiated by the Proprietors (those who were then Proprietors) as “but
a copy of an imperfect original,” to use the words ascribed to them in
the letter to Sothel; and they say themselves in their letter to the
Grand Council, May 13, 1691, “The Constitution, so-called, and dated
21 July, 1669, we do not nor cannot own as ours.” The second set was
printed, and, it is said, was not known at Ashley River till February,
1673.[752]

In 1687, under Governor Colleton, the endeavor to force the adoption of
the Constitutions occasioned such contention between their lordships’
officers and the representatives of the people that no laws were
passed for two years; and as all laws were limited to twenty-three
months, there was in 1690 _not one statute law in force_ in the
colony. A new position was taken and with boldness. “The people
having not, according to the royal charters, assented or approved
of any fundamental constitutions in parliament, have unanimously
declared that the government now is to be directed and managed wholly
and solely according to said charters.” Their revolutionary spirit
went still further. The representatives in Parliament denied “that
any bill must necessarily pass the grand council before it be read
in parliament.” They maintained this position, and in consequence
were dissolved. The Proprietors instructed their favorite, Landgrave
Colleton, brother of one of themselves, to call no more parliaments
“unless some very extraordinary occasion should require it.” Colleton
proclaimed martial law. The Proprietors thought he did right. In
his arrogance, he imprisoned a clergyman and fined him £100 for
preaching what he considered a seditious sermon. The Proprietors
thought it best to remit the fine. The people, however, raised a cry
against his “illegal, tyrannical, and oppressive way of government.”
Fortunately for him, Seth Sothel, a Proprietor by purchase of
Clarendon’s share, arrived,—having been turned out of North Carolina
by its assembly,—and assumed control of affairs in the more southern
colony, and acted pretty much as he pleased, till he was turned out
of his new position by his colleagues in London. The Proprietors, by
their aristocratic folly, had kept the people continually studying
and maintaining their rights. A new policy began, about this time,
in England,—to revoke proprietary charters. The spirit, too, of the
colonists, demanded from the Proprietors some conciliatory concession.
Yet it cannot but appear a triumph for the people, and not a good-will
concession, when “the true and absolute” lords wrote to the Grand
Council (1691), almost in the words which they had written to Andrew
Percival and to the provincial authorities,—as if they wished to
make an emphatic apology,—that there had been “no alteration made in
any of the Constitutions, but for the greater security of the people
of Carolina from oppression, either by ourselves or our officers,
as any one that will please to peruse the several alterations may
plainly perceive; the last in date still bounding our own power most,
and putting more into the hands of the people.” But they were forced
soon—and it must have been with some little feeling of vexation—to
acknowledge the failure of their Grand Model, and to write to their
next governor, Ludwell (who could not conciliate the “factious”
assembly), that they now thought it best for themselves and the
colonists to govern by all the powers of the charter; but that they
would part with no power till the people were disposed to be more
orderly. This was written to Ludwell; but to the public it was at
last definitely announced “that as the people have declared they
would rather be governed by the powers granted by the charter without
regard to the Fundamental Constitutions, it will be for their quiet
and the protection of the well-disposed to grant their request.” The
Proprietors, however, still held to the Constitutions as a compact
among themselves and as a regulation of their mutual interests; and
even endeavored once more to tempt the people to adopt some part of
them in the fifth set, reduced to 41 Articles. They were then laid
aside entirely.

The assembly (we shall no longer call them parliament), not yet aware
of the action of the Proprietors, prepared a summary of grievances:
that the latest form of conveying land was not satisfactory; that
courts ought to be regulated by laws made by the assent of the people;
that the representatives of the people are too few in the assembly and
not appointed according to the charter; that the power of enacting
necessary laws should not be obstructed; that the application of the
laws of England to the province ought not to be by authority of a
Palatine Court (established by their lordships), but such laws are
applicable of their own force, or are to be so by act of the assembly;
that the powers of the assembly and the validity of their enactments
are not to be judged by inferior courts, but by the next succeeding
General Assembly; that martial law should not be resorted to except in
case of rebellion, tumult, sedition, or invasion; that there should be
more commoners in the council; that the deputies of the Proprietors
were forbidden to confirm a certain set of laws (necessary at times
for the immediate welfare of the people) until their lordships’ assent
should be given, which could not be known in the province “in less time
than one year, sometimes two,” and they do not conceive the Patent of
Carolina gives any such powers to their lordships.

There was a further principle announced by the people: that the
Proprietors could send what “instructions” they pleased, but they
certainly could never have intended that they should have the force of
statute laws without the assent and approbation of the people, except
in such matters as wholly belonged to their direction according to the
charter. With so intelligent and progressive a people to control, the
almost impotent “absolute lords” on the other side of the Atlantic
might well have written to Ludwell as they did to Morton, “Are you to
govern the people, or the people you?” Yet a further signal triumph
for the people was at hand. The Proprietors had already seen fit to
modify their rule that the assembly of the people should neither debate
nor vote on any matter except what the Grand Council should propose
to them; but their modification at that time amounted to very little,
namely, that if a necessary law was delayed by the council, and “the
majority of the grand juries of the counties” presented the matter for
legislation, then only might “any of the chambers” take cognizance of
it. It was now the good fortune of Governor Smith,[753] successor to
Ludwell, to announce that “the Proprietors have consented that the
proposing power for the making of laws, which was heretofore lodged
in the governor and council only, is now given to you as well as the
present council.”[754] Henceforth the assembly claimed the privileges
and usages of the House of Commons in England.

[Illustration: COOPER AND ASHLEY RIVERS.

[This is a side-map in a large folding one called _A new map of
Carolina, by Philip Lea, at the Atlas and Hercules, in Cheapside,
London_. Courtenay considers it to be of a date before 1700. There is
a fac-simile of the whole in _Charleston Year Book_, 1883. For the
associations and landmarks of these rivers see C. F. Woolson’s “Up the
Ashley and Cooper,” in _Harper’s Monthly_, Dec., 1875; and P. D. Hay’s
“Relics of Old South Carolina,” in _Appleton’s Journal_, xix. 498. In
the _Charleston Year Book_ (1883) there is a large map, showing the
town and the early farms on the west bank of the Ashley; the present
site of the city up to near the Clements’ Ferry road, with all lines of
fortifications and historic points. Cf. W. G. Simms’ “Description of
Charleston,” in _Harper’s Monthly_, June, 1857.

Moll’s map of South Carolina (1730) is given in fac-simile in
_Cassell’s United States_, i. 439.—ED.]]

When there was no longer any reasonable expectation for the adoption
of the Grand Model of government, a carefully prepared set of
Instructions, in 43 Articles, became the rules for the colony, all
former Instructions and Temporary Laws being abrogated, except such
as related to lands. These rules continued as long as the Proprietors
owned the province. It is not necessary to explain them. They were
for the interest of their lordships; simple enough, but establishing
a proprietary oligarchy. The Palatine and three other Proprietors,
and, in the colony, the governor and three other deputies, constituted
the governing power, with, apparently, a complete check upon the
representatives of the people. The people could not complain if their
lordships carried out what they wrote to Ludwell, that “they would
part with no power” conferred on them by the charter “till the people
were disposed to be more orderly;” for the people had demanded to be
governed solely by the charter. The prominent question now would be:
Do their lordships properly interpret and apply the powers granted them
in the charter?

But fresh political subjects engaged attention: the tenure of lands,
naturalization of the French Huguenots, payment of quit-rents, now
for some years due, the jury laws, and that relating to elections.
Governor Smith lost courage; he could be no champion for their
lordships against his friends and neighbors. The only way out of the
difficulties occasioned by the maladministration of the Proprietors was
that some Proprietor should be sent over “with full power” to heal all
grievances. This plan was adopted. The grandson of Earl Shaftesbury was
appointed, but declined to come. A pious, benevolent Quaker came, John
Archdale, whose policy was a smiling patience, but a strict requisition
of every penny that was due to the “true and absolute lords” of the
province,—himself among them. He thought his patience would, as
he expressed it, allay their heats. But this could only be done by
concessions. He yielded to their request to have thirty representatives
in the assembly. He also remitted, after a struggle, arrears of
quit-rents to Michaelmas, 1695, on condition that the remaining debts
were secured, rents for the future strictly provided for, and the town
fortified by taxation. Some political advancement was gained by the
assembly;[755] the repeal of any law not infringing on the rights of
the Crown or of the Proprietors, or relating to land, was not to be
made without the consent of the General Assembly. The council, too, was
so constituted by the pious Quaker as to be more in harmony with the
dissenters. But he seemed to fear that he might be prevailed upon to
grant too much, and appointing his friend, Joseph Blake, in his place,
hastened away (1696). He lived to see the peace and tranquillity vanish
which he hoped he had firmly established. Two years later the “House of
Commons” petitioned (among other things) for the privilege of coining;
and for the removal of duties on the chief exports from the colony.
They also prayed that no more than 1,000 acres be in future granted in
one piece; that an authenticated copy of the charter be sent them; and
that the colonial authorities have power to repeal laws (if expedient
to do so) which had been confirmed by the Proprietors: and though some
of these things (they said) were beyond their lordships’ power to
grant, their interest with the king was great enough to secure them for
their colonists. Their lordships, as might have, been expected, were
astonished that Blake, himself a Proprietor,[756] should allow such an
address to be issued,—a precedent for so much future evil.

The century now closed. Governor Blake died in 1700. As required under
the 43 Articles, the deputies elected a Landgrave to succeed Blake,
till the Proprietors could be heard from. At first they chose Morton.
He was set aside afterwards by the council, as were all the Landgraves
in the colony, and Colonel James Moore, a deputy, appointed. This
competition gave origin, for the first time in the history of the
colony, to what may be denominated party strife. Besides Moore, several
able leaders now appeared,—among them, Major Daniel, Colonel William
Rhett, and Sir Nathaniel Johnson; while to Nicholas Trott the foremost
place must be assigned for distinguished learning and ability. On his
arrival he espoused the popular cause; but with numerous offices and
honors bestowed upon him by the Proprietors, he and his brother-in-law,
Colonel Rhett, became their zealous champions. These able men so
largely influenced their lordships that at a word from them governors
and councils were sometimes set at naught.

At the opening of the new century, we must cease to look upon South
Carolina as the home of indigent emigrants, struggling for subsistence.
While numerous slaves cultivated the extensive plantations, their
owners, educated gentlemen, and here and there of noble families in
England, had abundant leisure for social intercourse, living as they
did in proximity to each other, and in easy access to Charles Town,
where the governor resided, the courts and legislature convened, and
the public offices were kept. The road that led up from the fortified
town between the two broad rivers so enchanted Governor Archdale that
he believed no prince in Europe, with all his art, could make a walk
for the whole year round so pleasant and beautiful. From the road, to
the right and to the left, avenues of water-oaks in mossy festoons, and
in spring-time redolent with jasmines, gave the passer-by glimpses of
handsome residences, from whose spacious verandas could be seen on the
east the beautiful waters of the Bay, on the west the Ashley River.
Hospitality, refinement, and literary culture distinguished the higher
class of gentlemen.[757]

Governor Moore and his party gained control of the council by filling
vacancies with those of whose good-will they were assured. But they
ineffectually sought, by every means in their power, to elect a
majority of assembly-men in their interest. Even violence was resorted
to, and some estimable gentlemen, opponents of the party in power,
were set upon and maltreated in the streets. The assembly resolved
to investigate the abuses at the election, and were, therefore,
prorogued from time to time; and it was reported that martial law would
be proclaimed. When at last the assembly convened, they began with
recriminations. If the public welfare had required their counsels, why
had the governor, through pique, prorogued them? And was it true that
he designed to menace them with coercion? “Oh! how is that sacred word
Law profaned when joined with Martial! Have you forgotten your Honor’s
own noble endeavor to vindicate our liberties when Colleton set up this
arbitrary rule?”[758] But further disputation was averted. The governor
had planned a secret and sudden attack on St. Augustine. The assembly
joined in the scheme. They requested him to go as commander instead
of Colonel Daniel, whom he nominated. They voted £2,000; and thought
ten vessels and 350 men, with Indian allies, would be a sufficient
force. The doors are closed. Men, and even women, who had been to St.
Augustine, are interrogated concerning its defences. An embargo is laid
on the shipping in the harbor. Moore with about 400 men sets sail, and
Daniel with 100 Carolina troops and about 500 Yemassee Indians march by
land. But the inhabitants of St. Augustine had heard of their coming,
and had sent to Havana for reinforcements. Retreating to their castle,
they abandoned the town to Colonel Daniel, who pillaged it before
Moore’s fleet arrived. Governor Moore and Colonel Daniel united their
forces and laid siege to the castle; but they lacked the necessary
artillery for its reduction, and were compelled to send to Jamaica for
it. Unfortunately the agent sent put back to Charles Town, and the
governor sent Colonel Daniel himself to Jamaica. Before he returned,
two Spanish ships appeared off St. Augustine. Moore instantly burned
the town and all his own ships, and hastened back by land. Colonel
Daniel, coming from Jamaica with the artillery, narrowly escaped
the Spanish ships, and was convoyed to Charles Town by an English
man-of-war which he met at sea. The expense entailed on the colony was
£6,000.

When this attack on St. Augustine was planned, it must have been
anticipated in the colony that war would be declared against Spain
and France. The impending danger to South Carolina, a frontier to
Spanish Florida, induced the Proprietors to appoint as governor
the soldierly Sir Nathaniel Johnson (June, 1702). James Moore was
made receiver-general; Nicholas Trott, attorney-general; Job Howes,
surveyor-general; and Rhett, Broughton, and other men of ability,
adhering to the government in its hour of peril, increased thereby the
power of the dominant party. Colonel Moore, being sent out by Johnson
(December, 1703) with fifty Carolinians and one thousand Indians,
ravaged the country of the Apalatchees, allies of the Spaniards,
and utterly defeated them and a body of Spanish troops that came to
their assistance. Three years later, in August, when yellow fever was
prevalent and five or six deaths a day, in the small population of
Charles Town, was not a rare occurrence, a French fleet of five vessels
under Le Feboure, aided by the Spanish governor at Havana, suddenly
appeared off the harbor. Troops were disembarked at several points. A
council of war was held, and the Carolinians determined to go out and
meet the enemy. Colonel Rhett, Captains Fenwicke, Cantey, Watson, and
others, with many gentlemen as volunteers, defeated the invaders, and
brought 230 French and Spanish prisoners into town. Thus perished the
first attempt to take Charles Town by a naval force, a feat which never
yet has been accomplished. The governor, handsomely rewarded by the
Proprietors, thanked the troops for their valor and their unanimity at
a time when violent estrangements existed between political parties in
the colony.

We must now revert to 1704, and relate the occasion of these
estrangements. The governor and dominant faction favored Episcopacy.
Lord Granville, the new Palatine, was an uncompromising zealot for
the Church of England. It was determined to establish that Church in
South Carolina. This was not contrary to the charter; but most of the
colonists were dissenters, and it would be useless at that juncture
to endeavor to win over a majority of the assembly to the support of
such a project. The assembly stood prorogued to the 10th of May. They
were summoned earlier; and on the 4th a bill was proposed and read,
requiring “all persons that shall hereafter be chosen members of the
Commons House of Assembly, and sit in the same, to take the oaths and
subscribe the declaration appointed by this bill, and to conform to
the religious worship of this Province, according to the Church of
England, and to receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper according
to the rites of said Church.”[759] Some of the members called for the
reading of the charter: but the opposition was soon overcome; the bill
passed and was ordered to the governor and council, who passed it and
returned it to the House; Landgrave Morton, of the council, being
denied leave to enter his protest against it. It was pushed through
the requisite proceedings and ratified under date of the 6th. It was
passed by one majority,—twelve for it and eleven against it; seven
members being absent. Some who voted in the negative are said to have
been Episcopalians. The assembly was then prorogued till October.
It was required by this law that in case a representative elected
refused to qualify as directed, the next on the sheriff’s return should
be entitled to the seat, or the next, and so on till the list was
exhausted; then only should a new writ be issued. The effect was not
only to exclude dissenters, but ten men could elect a member against
the votes of a thousand. Another tyrannical abuse of party power was
exhibited in an Act establishing Religious Worship (passed on the
reassembling of the Commons), which authorized a lay commission for the
trial of ecclesiastical causes. Dalcho says in his _Church History_,
that they “were authorized to sit in the judgment-seat of spiritual
officers, and thus to wrest the ecclesiastical authority out of the
hands of the Bishop of London.” This gave offence to Churchmen. The
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, by whose liberality the
colony had been greatly benefited, resolved not to send or support any
missionaries in South Carolina, till the law, or at least that clause
of it, should be repealed. The dissenters, already elected members
of assembly, were not allowed (on reassembling in October) to enter
their protests against the conduct of the Church party. The Rev. Mr.
Marston was called to account by the commission and deprived of his
benefice, for opposing the action of the oligarchy. But the case was
carried to a higher tribunal, the House of Lords in England. Upon an
able representation of the matter, redress having been refused by the
Proprietors (under lead of Granville), a report was made to the queen,
which caused the annulment of these two provincial laws. Nor was this
all; the Board of Trade recommended the annulment of the proprietary
charter (April, 1706). Since the accession of James II. there had been
a disposition in the English authorities to revoke the charters to
companies or individuals, and bring all the American colonies into a
closer dependence on the Crown. Though the surrender of the Carolina
charter was not on this occasion effected, yet it was manifest to the
colony that an authority more potent than that of their lordships was
interested in their welfare.

Lord Granville was succeeded in the Palatinate by Lord William Craven,
and Colonel Edward Tynte was made governor. The once dominant faction,
which had been transmuted, said Archdale, by Johnson’s “chemical
wit, zeal, and art” into a High Church party, now fell asunder. Much
attention had been awakened in England to the fortunes of the colony
by the publications of Archdale and of Oldmixon and the “Case of the
Protestant Dissenters;” and Governor Tynte entered upon his duties
with kindly assurances and the wish to “render Carolina the most
flourishing colony in all America.” He did not live long, and Colonel
Charles Craven, brother of the Palatine, and previously an officer in
the colony, was appointed in his place (December, 1710). Since the days
of Joseph West, “moderate, just, pious, valiant” (says Archdale), no
man more capable and beloved than Charles Craven had governed South
Carolina. A sentence from an address of his to the Commons (April,
1712) shows the spirit of his administration. However great the honor
of this office might be, “yet I shall look on it as a greater glory
if, with your assistance, I could bring to pass so noble designs as
the safety of this province, the advancement of its riches, and, what
is more desirable” than riches, the unanimity and quiet of its people.
“To what a prodigious height hath the united provinces risen in less
than a century of years, to be able to create fear in some, envy in
others, and admiration in the whole world!” The people, aroused by the
expectation or apparent reality of their increasing importance, voted
£1,500 for the erection of a State House and £1,000 for a residence for
the governor. Unparliamentary altercations gave place to a generous
emulation for the public welfare. The governor expressed the “greatest
tenderness” towards all dissenters and assured them that nothing
should ever be done by him injurious to their liberties. Though the
law excluding them from the assembly was repealed, yet the Episcopal
party retained ascendency and the public support of the Church (by
a new Church Act) was continued. The parish system was inaugurated,
and the representatives were increased to thirty-six. The turbulence
of elections at Charles Town gave place to unmolested elections in
the respective parishes. Libraries and a free school were open to
all, and religious and educational advancement was promoted. Under
Craven’s prosperous administration, it even seemed likely that the
public debt would be liquidated, which had begun with the unlucky
expedition against St. Augustine. But fresh expenditures were demanded
in assisting North Carolina in her conflicts with the Tuscaroras; and
scarcely had Barnwell and Moore rested from that campaign, when the
most disastrous Indian war that South Carolina ever had to encounter
broke suddenly upon her unsuspecting inhabitants. The Yemassees had
been employed against the Apalatchees, and, at a later date, against
the Tuscaroras. Being enticed by the Spaniards, whom their chiefs
often visited, and being largely in debt to the English traders and
irritated by their oppressive misconduct, they turned their experience
in war against those who had taught them to fight, and, hoping for help
from St. Augustine, began an indiscriminate slaughter on the line of
settlements westward from Charles Town. Knowing the colonists to be
formidable opponents, they had allured into conspiracy with them other
Indian nations, notably the Creeks. So wide-spread was the combination
formed that the governor asked assistance from other colonies. North
Carolina in response sent aid under Colonel Maurice Moore (brother of
James Moore), a friendly service which was gratefully appreciated and
acknowledged by the assembly. But “expedition is the life of action,”
said Craven; and not awaiting assistance, he fought the foe at once,
and Colonel Mackay, in another direction, surprised their town, in
which they had vast quantities of provisions and plunder, and attacking
a fort to which they had betaken themselves carried it by assault and
completely routed them. This effectually checked the Yemassees, and
dispirited the tribes engaged to assist them. The assembly met, and,
despatching such business as was necessary, adjourned to take up their
muskets. All available forces were raised and placed under command
of Lieutenant-General James Moore and Colonels John Barnwell and
Alexander Mackay. The Yemassees, though joined by the Apalatchees, were
forced beyond the Savannah, and took up their residence in Florida.
We have not space to narrate the heart-rending or romantic incidents
of this contest. The Yemassees had acted prematurely; otherwise the
disasters to the colony would have been far greater. Many lives were
lost (estimated at 400), an immense amount of cattle, produce, and
other valuable property destroyed, and it was said that the traders
alone lost £10,000 in debts due them. But the invincibility of the
colonists was so forcibly impressed upon the minds of the Indians that
they entered into no more combinations, and never again, except in
straggling parties, penetrated to the vicinity of the fortified English
settlements.

On account of the death of Sir Anthony Craven, the governor returned
to England, leaving Colonel Robert Daniel to be deputy (1716) till the
arrival of Robert Johnson (son of Sir Nathaniel), who was appointed
to succeed him. At this time the French were extending their cordon
of forts from Canada down to Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico, and
courting the alliance of the Indians who dwelt on the outskirts of
the whole line of English colonies. In view of these new dangers and
of the deserted condition of the westward parishes of the colony, the
Carolinians were compelled to keep up garrisons and troops of rangers
from the Santee to the Savannah. The expense of defending themselves
and their great losses in the recent Indian war caused an application
to the Proprietors for relief. Lord Carteret, Palatine in place of
the Duke of Beaufort (who, before, had offered on his part to give
up the colony rather than have it in need of adequate relief and
protection), wrote to the Board of Trade, “We, the Proprietors, having
met on this melancholy occasion, to our great grief find that we are
utterly unable of ourselves to afford our colony suitable assistance
in this conjuncture; and unless his majesty will graciously please
to interpose, we can foresee nothing but the utter destruction of
his majesty’s faithful subjects in those parts.” The board asked if
such of the Proprietors as were not minors were “willing to surrender
the government to the king.” There was no king upon the throne now
gratefully sensible of the distinguished services of a Clarendon,
Monk, Berkeley, Carteret, or Craven. It was not, on the other hand,
the influences of a Danson, Amy, Blake, or even the descendants of the
original Proprietors, that formed a barrier to the manifest interests
of the whole British nation; but it was the admirable love of justice
in the rulers of England that saved to the Proprietors the lavish gift
of Charles II., even after their confession of utter inability to help
their colonists. It was evident, however, that the termination of the
proprietary authority must come. The colonists made it come. We shall
now relate how this was done.

The assembly had been forced to issue bills of credit; at first to
meet the debts incurred by Moore’s expedition against St. Augustine.
This easy method of making money was continued, and of course the
bills depreciated. The London merchants complained, and the bills were
ordered to be called in and cancelled. To do this required £80,000.
This large sum the assembly undertook to pay in three years by a
tax on the lands and negroes of the colonists. Before this could be
effected the colonial income, applicable to other expenses, was reduced
by a royal order to cease the tax of ten per cent on importations of
British manufactures; and at the same time an expensive expedition
became necessary to suppress the pirates who infested the coasts,
and at times seized every ship leaving the harbor of Charles Town.
If the Proprietors were unwilling “to expend their English estates
to support much more precarious ones in America,”[760] whom were the
colonists to ask for aid, except the king? When Governor Johnson met
his first assembly, he inveighed against addresses sent to England
without consulting the Proprietors as “disrespectful,” “unjustifiable
and impolitic.” He then offered the distressed colonists a “donative”
from their lordships of a small remission of quit-rents. The assembly
declined the donative. They instructed their committee “to touch
slightly (but not by way of argument or submission) on what the last
two assemblies have done heretofore in addressing his majesty to take
this province under his protection.” The governor was anxious they
should accept the donative; and equally anxious they should, in return,
order a rent-roll for the benefit of the Proprietors. He said, “As the
assembly is to pass wholesome laws even to private persons, much more
to the Lords Proprietors, who are our masters.” The assembly replied,
“We cannot but approve of your honor’s care of their lordships’
interest, who are, as you say, _your_ masters.” “If you look over their
charters,” was the answer, “you will find them to be your masters
likewise.” (December, 1717.)

The assembly elected Colonel Brewton powder-receiver. The governor,
as military chief, required the assembly to order forthwith the keys
to be delivered to Major Blakeway, whom he had commissioned. The
House refused. The governor offered a compromise: “My officer shall
keep the magazines and give receipts to your officer for all powder
delivered into his keeping.” “What is the use,” replied the House,
“of a powder-receiver who does not keep the powder?” “But I insist
upon keeping it,” said the governor, “for I am his majesty the king’s
lieutenant.” He soon saw an advertisement by the House, signed by their
Speaker, declaring their right to appoint “all officers who receive a
settled salary out of the public treasury of this province,” and to
“put out, call to account, and put in place,” at discretion, all such
officers; and commanding, under penalty, the powder-tax to be paid by
all ships to the officer elected by the assembly.

The people, however, were fond of Governor Johnson. They did not
always harmonize with strangers sent over to govern them. But Johnson
was almost one of themselves, and they admired him for his conspicuous
bravery. He had gone personally in pursuit of the pirate Worley, and
after a desperate encounter brought in alive only the chief and one
of his crew, they having been smitten down with dangerous wounds;
and he had immediately caused them to be tried and executed. At this
time, too, Colonel Rhett had captured Bonnet, pursuing him into Cape
Fear River, and brought him and about thirty of his crew to Charles
Town, for speedy execution. The people knew that the governor was in
duty bound to promote the cause of the Proprietors. But some of his
adherents they justly regarded with ill-will. There had been, as before
mentioned, a change, very acceptable to the people, in the mode of
electing their representatives. Trott and Rhett had had great control
in elections while the ballot was in Charles Town; and the former had
been writing to their lordships against the new method of election by
parishes. To the surprise of the governor and of all but Trott, orders
came from London to disallow that method, to dissolve the assembly, and
to summon another to be chosen by the old method; to repeal also the
act for electing the powder-receiver, and other laws, such as that for
the rehabitation of the Yemassee lands by bringing over Irish settlers
to live there, which the people deemed of great importance to the
welfare of the colony.[761] The argument was, with their lordships,
What right have the assembly to alter anything determined by us? It is
true our deputies sanctioned these laws; but we are not bound by what
our deputies do, being ourselves the head and source of legislative
power in our colony. The people thought, on the other hand, that an
enactment by the assembly ratified by the governor and council, the
appointed agents of the Proprietors, should not be set aside by the
mere whim of a few persons on the other side of the Atlantic, or by
the dictation of a man like Nicholas Trott. This gentleman had now to
confront the long-delayed denunciation of Whittaker, Allein, and other
prominent lawyers, who had for years endured his arrogance and tyranny
in court. Thirty-one articles of complaint against him were presented
to the assembly, and by them communicated to the governor and council.
They knew the allegations to be well founded, and united with the
assembly in requesting the Proprietors to restrict their favorite’s
power. It had even been ordered from London that no quorum of the
council should sanction a law unless Trott was one of the quorum. For a
time, too, the whole judicial power was in his hands. Francis Yonge, a
member of the council, deputy of Lord Carteret, and surveyor-general,
was deputed, with suitable instructions, to proceed to London and
confer with the Proprietors (May, 1719). Lord Carteret was absent on
an embassy. The others kept Mr. Yonge waiting, without conference, for
three months; then sent him back with sealed orders. In fact, some
of the Proprietors were minors; others lived away from London; the
few who exercised authority left many matters to their secretary: and
thus, says Yonge, “a whole province was to be governed by the caprice
of one man.” If the secretary managed the Proprietors, Trott and
Rhett managed him. When the sealed orders were opened, it was found
that Chief Justice Trott was thanked, the governor reprimanded, his
brother-in-law, Colonel Broughton, turned out of the council, together
with Alexander Skene and James Kinloch; Mr. Yonge alone being permitted
to remain, in courtesy to the absent Palatine (Carteret) whose deputy
he was. A new council was appointed, and the governor again ordered
to dissolve the assembly and call a new one under the old method of
election.

The deputies excluded from the council and other prominent gentlemen
now became active among the people. The arguments they used must
have been: Have not the Proprietors, spurning all appeals, protected
a tyrannical judge, and continued him in power over the lives and
property of the people? Have they not refused to part with an acre of
their immense uncultivated domains for public use in supporting the
garrisons? Have they not obstructed our efforts to bring an increase
of settlers here for the strengthening of our frontiers, and divided
out the land, by thousands of acres, for their own emolument? To foster
the power of a few favorites, have they not annulled our laws for the
equitable representation of the people by fair and peaceful elections?
Have they helped the colony in its distress, beat back the Spaniards,
resisted the invasion of the French, suppressed the pirates, or quelled
at any time an Indian horde? Can they now, masters as they claim to
be, protect us in any emergency? And if, after all these provocations,
we choose to rebel and throw off their vaunted absolutism, where are
their forces to check our revolt? Will King George, our sovereign, to
whom we appeal for protection, furnish them with an army to reduce us
to submission? Influenced by such sentiments, the people came again
to the polls at Charles Town, to elect their last assembly under the
proprietary government. Mr. Yonge, who was there, tells us, “Mr.
Rhett and Mr. Trott found themselves mistaken, in fancying they could
influence the elections when in town, so as to have such members chosen
as they liked, for it proved quite the contrary; they could not get so
much as a man chosen that they desired. The whole people in general
were prejudiced against the Lords Proprietors to such a degree that it
was grown almost dangerous to say anything in their favor.”

It happened at this conjuncture that war was again declared by England
against Spain, and an attack from Havana was in preparation either
on Charles Town or the island of Providence. Advices being sent to
the colony, the governor called together the council and such members
elect of the assembly as he could collect, to provide for repairing
the fortifications; and as the recent repeals had left him without
adequate funds, he proposed an immediate voluntary subscription. The
members of the assembly whom he consulted told him the duties provided
by law would suffice. “But the Act raising these duties is repealed by
the Proprietors.” They replied, “They did not and would not look on
_their_ repeal as anything,” and dispersed to their homes. The governor
then ordered a muster of all the provincial troops. This afforded an
admirable opportunity for a complete combination. An association of
leading citizens was secretly formed; the people assembled at the
muster; they almost unanimously signed the resolutions submitted to
them by the association, and agreed to support whatever measures they
should adopt. The first notice the governor had of these proceedings
was a letter signed by Mr. Skene, Colonel Logan, and Major Blakeway
(28th November), telling him the whole province had entered into an
agreement “to stand by their rights and privileges, and to get rid of
the oppression and arbitrary dealings of the Lords Proprietors,” and
inviting him to hold his office in behalf of the king. The members
elect of the assembly, in the mean while, held private conferences and
matured their plans.

On meeting at the time required by their writs (December 17), they
waited upon the governor, as was customary; and Mr. Middleton, in their
name, informed him that they did not look upon his present council as
a legal one (the Proprietors having appointed twelve members, instead
of seven, the usual number of deputies), and would not act with them
as a legal council. Anticipating, it appears, a dissolution, they
had resolved themselves into a convention, delegated by the people,
and passed resolutions so revolutionary in character as to alarm the
governor and his few adherents, who resorted to every menace and
means of persuasion without moving the assembly or convention from
their fixed purposes. The governor, therefore, issued a proclamation
dissolving them. The proclamation was torn from the marshal’s hands;
and the convention issued a proclamation, in their own names, ordering
all officers, civil and military, to hold their offices till further
orders from them. Having failed to win Johnson to their interest, they
elected their own governor, Colonel James Moore.

Johnson, who had gone up to his plantation, hearing that the people
intended to proclaim Moore governor in the king’s name, hastened back
and used every effort to prevent it. But he found the militia drawn
up, colors flying at the forts and on all the ships in the harbor,
drums beating, and every preparation made for proclaiming the new
governor. An eye-witness says it would be tedious to tell all the
frantic ex-governor did. But the leaders of the revolution had sent
Mr. Lloyd to keep with him under pretence of friendship and adherence,
and prevent any rash action on his part. The troops began their march,
inspirited by patriotic harangues, and escorted the members of the
convention to the fort: where, by the united acclamations of the
people, James Moore was proclaimed governor of South Carolina in the
name of the king of England (December 21, 1719).

A council of twelve was chosen, as in other colonies under the royal
government; and the convention then resumed its functions as a
legislative assembly, and proceeded to enact such laws as the state
of the province required. They addressed a letter to the Board of
Trade explanatory of their action, and their agent in England (Mr.
Boone, with whom also Colonel Barnwell was sent to act) laid before
the king an account of the misrule of the Proprietors and implored
his protection. Johnson and the Proprietors were equally active, and
the decision of the English government was anxiously awaited by both
parties. During nearly a year such anxiety continued; and as the
clergy in the province were unwilling to perform the marriage ceremony
without, as previously, a license from Johnson as governor, and a
large number of people followed his advice and example in not paying
taxes until executions were issued against them, he supposed he had
a party ready to reinstate him. But it was not till he received aid
from the crews of several English men-of-war that he formed a plan of
seizing the government. The Spanish fleet (to resist which the people
had been mustered) had not come to Charlestown, but had gone to the
island of Providence, and had been there repulsed by Governor Rogers.
The “Flamborough,” Captain Hildesley, and “Phœnix,” Captain Pearce,
arrived in Charlestown harbor in May, 1721; and chiefly, it appears,
by the advice of Hildesley, Johnson appeared in arms with about 120
men, mostly sailors from the “Flamborough,” and marched against the
forts, whose garrisons were obeying the orders of Governor Moore. The
forts opened fire upon them. Whereupon, Captain Pearce was deputed
by Johnson, together with some of his council, to negotiate with
the revolutionists. They refused to negotiate; for they knew from
their agents that the regency in England had determined to protect
the colony, and that General Francis Nicholson had been appointed
provisional royal governor. Johnson requested to see the orders of
the regency and the despatches from the agents. As soon as he read
them, he disbanded his men and gave up all opposition to the existing
government. Nicholson’s commission is dated 26th September, 1720.
He arrived in the colony 23d May, 1721, and was gladly received by
Governor Moore, the assembly, and the people. The revolution was now
complete; although the surrender of the proprietary charter, for such a
sum of money as was finally agreed upon, was not effected till 1729.


ROYAL GOVERNMENT.—We have before us the ninety-six articles of
instruction to Nicholson (30th August, 1720) and the additional ones to
Governor Johnson (1730), detailing the method of the royal government,
and which continued in force, with some modifications, till the
separation of the colony from the mother country. It is not necessary
to give a full synopsis of this method. The enacting clause is “by the
governor, council, and assembly;” and the assembly had the same powers
and privileges as were allowed to the House of Commons in England.
The Episcopal was the established Church, under jurisdiction of the
Bishop of London. School-masters were licensed by the bishop or by the
governor. If the governor died or left the province, and there was no
commissioned lieutenant-governor, the eldest councillor, as president,
acted in his stead. Special care was enjoined for the encouragement
of the Royal African Company for the importation of negro slaves. If
any part of the instructions was distasteful to the people, it was
that which conferred equal legislative authority with the assembly
upon the council; a council of twelve, nominated (or suspended) by the
governor, and three of whom, with the governor, could form a quorum,
in emergencies. On this point contests soon arose, the assembly
thinking that the governor and three or more of their own neighbors
or relatives, who happened to be councillors, ought not to have the
power to counteract the deliberate will of the entire body of the
representatives of the people; that is, of the freeholders who alone
voted for members of the assembly.

But, for the time being, all were happy at their release from “the
confused, negligent, and helpless government of the Lords Proprietors.”
Governor Nicholson, on his arrival, found in all parties a cheerful
allegiance to the king and zeal for the advancement of the colony.[762]
Ex-Governor Moore was made Speaker of the assembly, with Nicholson’s
cordial approbation, and all laws demanded by the condition of the
province were promptly enacted. Peace having been declared between
England and Spain, the new governor applied himself to the regulation
of Indian affairs, and succeeded in bringing the tribes on the
frontier into alliance with British interests. With peace and security
everywhere, he addressed himself to forming new parishes, building
churches and obtaining clergymen by the help of the London Society for
the Propagation of the Gospel. Additional free schools were established
by bequests from three benevolent citizens, and the people generally
emulated the public spirit of their good governor. In 1725 he returned
to England, and the administration of his office devolved upon Arthur
Middleton as president of the council. He had it not in his power to be
the generous benefactor Nicholson had been, and his views of duty to
the royal authority placed him in opposition to the progressive spirit
of those with whom he had been associated in the recent revolution. His
stubborn contest with the assembly prevented the enactment of any laws
for three years. They thought it necessary for the good of the people
to pass a bill for promoting the currency of gold and silver in the
province. The council rejected it as contravening an act of Parliament
in the reign of Queen Anne; and insisted on the passage of a supply
bill by the assembly, to meet the expenses of the government. This
the assembly refused unless their bill was first agreed to. Middleton
resorted to prorogations and dissolutions. This availed nothing; for
the people supported their representatives by reëlecting them. From
1727 to 1731 the same bill was eight times sent up to the president and
his council, and always rejected. He prorogued them six times, and six
times ordered new elections. Among other things in this contest, the
assembly claimed the right to elect their clerk without consulting the
council;[763] ordered an officer of the council to their bar, and put
him under arrest for delay in making his appearance; and maintained
that—as in Nicholson’s time—members elect should qualify by holding
up the hand in taking the oath before the council, if they thought that
best, instead of swearing on the Holy Evangelists, as the governor
required them to do. The contest was not terminated until the arrival
of Governor Johnson (December, 1730) as successor to Nicholson.

Sir Alexander Cumming had been sent to form a treaty with the Cherokees
who lived near the head of the Savannah River and far westward,—a
powerful nation with 6,000 warriors. They sent a deputation of their
chiefs to England with Cumming to visit King George. It was important
to secure the friendship of these Indians before the French should
allure them to their interest. The chiefs returned from England in
company with Governor Johnson. Middleton had before sent agents among
the Creeks and Cherokees, to avert, if possible, the influence of
the French, whose enterprise and energy were likely to become more
formidable to the English settlements than the hostility of the
Spaniards had been. While guarding against danger in this direction,
they had to contend against molestations from their inveterate enemy
in Florida. Runaway slaves were always welcomed there, were made free,
and formed into military companies. Roving bands of the defeated
Yemassees from the same refuge-place plundered the plantations on
the frontier. No compensation could be obtained for such ruthless
spoliation. At length Colonel Palmer was sent to make reprisals; and
with about 300 men, militia and friendly Indians, he completely laid
waste the enemy’s country up to the gates of St. Augustine, and taught
them their weakness and the superior power of the English colonists.
Unfortunately, no definite boundaries were settled upon between the
claims of Spain and England.

[Illustration: PLAN OF CHARLESTOWN, S. C., 1732.

(From Popple’s _British Empire in America_.)

[This was reëngraved in Paris in 1733, “avec privilège du Roi.” There
is a fac-simile of a plan of Charleston (1739) in the _Charleston Year
Book_, 1884, p. 163-4.—ED.]]

The colonial government, however, had erected in Governor Nicholson’s
time Fort King George on the Altamaha, and were determined to keep
the Spaniards to the westward of that river. A Spanish embassy came
to Charlestown to confer with President Middleton about the erection
of this fort. But the only definite understanding reached was in the
avowal by the ambassadors that his Catholic majesty would never consent
to deliver up runaway slaves, because he desired to save their souls
by converting them to the Christian faith. Cunning emissaries from St.
Augustine continued to tamper with the slaves, and rendered many of
them dangerous malcontents. Not long after (1738) an armed insurrection
was attempted in the heart of the English settlement; the negroes
on Stono River marching about plundering, burning farm-houses, and
murdering the defenceless. The planters at that time went to church
armed. It was Sunday. Lieutenant-Governor Bull, riding alone on the
road, met the insurgents, and escaping them by turning off on another
road gave the alarm. The male part of the Presbyterian congregation
at Wiltown—notified of the insurrection by a Mr. Golightly—left the
women in church, and hastening after the murderous horde found them
drinking and dancing in a field, within sight of the last dwelling they
had pillaged and set on fire. Their leader was shot, some were taken
prisoners and the rest dispersed. More than twenty persons had been
murdered. It might have been an extensive massacre, if so many armed
planters had not attended divine service that day.[764]

[Illustration: CHARLESTOWN IN 1742.

[This follows a steel plate, “The city of Charleston one hundred years
ago, after an engraving done by Canot from an original picture by T.
Mellish, Esq.” A long panoramic view of Charlestown in 1762 is given in
the _Charleston Year Book_, 1882; and in Cassell’s _United States_, i.
355. The name “Charleston” was substituted for “Charlestown” in the act
of incorporation of 1783.—ED.]]

There were in the colony above 40,000 negro slaves. The necessity for
increasing the number of white inhabitants had long been apparent
to the English authorities. Some of the German Palatines in England
(1729) and more of them in 1764 were sent over to the colony. Mr.
Purry, of Neufchatel, and his Swiss were granted (1732) an extensive
tract of land near the Savannah River. Some Irish colonists settled at
Williamsburgh (1733). Colonel Johnson, before he came over as royal
governor, proposed to the Board of Trade a plan for forming a number
of townships at convenient points, with great inducements to both
foreigners and Englishmen to remove to the province. Above all, the
proposal by Lord Percival (1730) to establish the colony of Georgia
(between the Savannah and Altamaha), and the carrying of the project
into effect under General Oglethorpe (1733), gave promise of adding
materially to the security and strength of South Carolina. With a new
fort at Beaufort (Port Royal), and abundant artillery and ammunition
furnished by his majesty, and ships of war protecting the harbor, we
have but to look forward a few years to the settlement and improvement
of the healthy and fertile “up country” by overland immigration
from Virginia and Pennsylvania, and the moving up of population
from the coast, to reach the period of permanent prosperity and the
greater development of the material resources of the province. Many
families moved to the upper part of South Carolina when Governor Glen
established peace with the Cherokees; many came when Braddock’s defeat
exposed the frontiers of the more northern colonies to the French and
Indians; while by way of Charlestown Germans came up to Saxegotha and
the forks of the Broad and Saluda—as the Scotch-Irish had come to
Williamsburg.

From 200 to 300 ships now annually left Charlestown. In addition to
rice, indigo, pitch, turpentine, tar, rosin, timber of various kinds,
deer-skins, salted provisions, and agricultural products grown along
the coast, the interior plantations raised wheat, hemp, flax, and
tobacco; fruits, berries, nuts, and many kinds of vegetables were
abundant; and fish from the rivers, and turkeys and deer and other game
from the forest, furnished luxuries for the table, without counting the
ever-present supplies from swine, sheep, and cattle. But we must now go
back a few years.

Governor Johnson died 3d May, 1735, and Lieutenant-Governor Thomas
Broughton on 22d November, 1737. William Bull, president of the
council, succeeded to the administration till the arrival of Governor
James Glen (December, 1743).[765] The lieutenant-governor was a prudent
ruler. He assisted in the settlement of Savannah and in the war of
Georgia upon St. Augustine (sending the Carolina regiment under Colonel
Vanderdussen), and managed wisely in every emergency. Governor Glen
with greater energy and activity extended the fortification of the
province,—visiting every portion of his government, going among the
Cherokees, obtaining a surrender of their lands for the erection of
forts, and erecting them; as Prince George on the upper part of the
Savannah, 170 miles above Fort Moore, and Fort Loudon on the Tennessee
among the Upper Cherokees, 500 miles from Charlestown. These forts
and those at Frederica and Augusta in Georgia were garrisoned by his
majesty’s troops for the protection of both provinces. When Glen, in
1756, was superseded by Governor William Henry Lyttleton, war was
declared between England and France. On the termination of hostilities,
the Cherokees, who had aided the British troops in the more northern
colonies, were returning home through Western Virginia, and committed
depredations, appropriating to their use such horses as came in their
way, and were set upon and some of them murdered. In retaliation they
killed the whites wherever they could, indiscriminately. Among their
victims in Carolina were a few of the garrison of Fort Loudon. This
was done by roving bands of headstrong young Indians. The troops at
Prince George despatched the news to Governor Lyttleton, who instantly
began preparations for war. The Cherokees sent thirty-two of their
chiefs to settle the difficulty, as the nation at large desired
peace and the continuation of their old friendship with the English.
Lyttleton kept the chiefs under arrest, and took them with him along
with his troops. His ill-usage of them and his folly involved the
province in a disastrous war with the whole Cherokee nation. Then,
being appointed Governor of Jamaica, he left the calamities he had
caused to the management of Lieutenant-Governor Bull. Not till 1761
were hostilities ended by the help of Colonel Grant, of the British
army. Dr. Hewatt, who had the advantage of the acquaintance of the
last Lieutenant-Governor Bull, and probably his assistance in the
compilation of his history, gives a detailed and graphic narrative of
this deplorable conflict, carried on in pathless forests, hundreds
of miles from Charlestown. So wasted were Colonel Grant’s men “by
heat, thirst, watching, danger, and fatigue” that when peace was
made “they were utterly unable to march farther.” In the provincial
regiment assisting Grant were Middleton, Laurens, Moultrie, Marion,
Huger, Pickens, and others who became distinguished in the war of the
Revolution.

The Peace of Paris (1763) happily put an end forever to hostilities
arising from French possessions in America. The succeeding royal
governors of South Carolina were Thomas Boone (1762), Lord Charles
Greville Montague (December, 1765), and Lord William Campbell (1773).

The most interesting and continuous thread of events running through
all the colonial history of South Carolina is the development of the
power of the assembly or representatives of the people. Taking up this
subject where we left it at the close of Middleton’s contest with the
assembly, we observe that the choice of their clerk was conceded to
them by the succeeding governor. In the policy both of the proprietary
and royal government, the elective franchise was granted to the people
or freeholders only in choosing members of the assembly. We do not find
that they balloted for any executive or other officer. The success of
the assembly in electing a few administrative officers and holding
them accountable to themselves was an important acquisition, and was
followed by a further gain of power in the same direction. Governor
Glen, addressing the authorities in England (October 10, 1748),
said in substance “that a new modelling[766] of their constitution,”
in South Carolina, “would add to the happiness of the province and
preserve their dependence upon the Crown, any weakening [of the] power
of which and deviation from the constitution of the mother country is
in his opinion dangerous. Almost all the places of profit or of trust
are disposed of by the general assembly.” “Besides the treasurer they
appoint also the commissary, the Indian commissioner, the comptroller
of the duties upon imports and exports, the powder-receiver, etc.
The executive part of the government is lodged in different sets of
commissioners,” “of the market, the workhouse, of the pilots, of
the fortifications, etc. Not only civil posts, but ecclesiastical
preferment, are in the disposal or election of the people, although
by the king’s instructions to the governor” this should belong to the
king or his representative. The governor is not prayed for, while the
assembly is, during its sittings, the only instance in America where
it is not done. “The above officers and most of the commissioners are
named by the general assembly, and are responsible to them alone; and
whatever be their ignorance, neglect, or misconduct, the governor
has no power to reprove or displace them. Thus the people have the
whole of the administration in their hands, and the governor, and
thereby the Crown, is stripped of its power.” In the next place, the
assembly claimed, and with success, the sole power of originating tax
bills, notwithstanding instructions to the contrary. They refused to
the council even the power to amend such bills. In the words of the
Journals of the House (no. 21, 1745), they asserted their “sole right
of introducing, framing, and amending subsidy bills,”—which they based
on the English Constitution as _paramount to the royal instructions_.
It was furthermore intimated that the council had no right to
legislative functions at all,—a view soon after ably advocated by Mr.
Drayton. It was contended that the council was not a counterpart of the
House of Lords, but simply a body advisory to the governor. It was even
argued that, similarly with the mother country, colonial usages and
precedents were to be regarded as constitutional in South Carolina.

The last development of the power of the assembly tended to check the
governor’s prerogative of dissolution and prorogation. In a contest
with Governor Boone, beginning in 1762 and continued to May, 1763,
dissolution and prorogation failed entirely as a means of controlling
the actions or sentiments of the representatives of the people, where
the people were of one mind with the assembly. The subject of dispute
involved the assembly’s sole right to judge of the validity of the
election of its own members, and the argument on the part of the House
was conducted chiefly by Rutledge and Gadsden. But about this time came
proposals that committees from all the colonial assemblies should meet
to consider the British Stamp Act. We conclude this brief narrative
with the remark that in the Continental Congress that ensued the
leading statesmen of the South Carolina popular assembly stepped as
veterans to new battlefields with the dust of recent victories still
upon them.[767]

[Illustration]


CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

BY THE EDITOR.

IT is claimed that Sir Robert Heath conveyed his rights under the
grant of 1630 to the Earl of Arundel, and that these eventually became
invested in Dr. Coxe, as presented in a memorial to William III., and
assumed in the _Carolana_ of his son, Daniel Coxe.[768] The Heath
grant,[769] however, was formally annulled August 12, 1663.[770]
De Laet’s map, showing the coast of what was subsequently North
Carolina at the period of Heath’s grant, 1630, is given in fac-simile
elsewhere.[771]

Dr. Hawks, in his _North Carolina_, prints from Thurloe’s _State
Papers_ (ii. p. 273) a letter dated at Linnehaven, in Virginia, May
8, 1654, from Francis Yardley to John Farrar, giving an account of
explorations during the previous year along the seaboard. In 1662
(March) the king granted the first charter, and this was printed the
same year, but without date, as _The first Charter granted by the King
to the Proprietors of Carolina, 24 March_.[772] In 1665 (June 30) the
second charter extended the limits of the grant. Both charters are
found in a volume printed in London, but without date, and called _The
two Charters granted by King Charles to the Proprietors of Carolina,
with the first and last Fundamental Constitutions of that Colony_.
Issues of this book seem to have been made in 1698, 1705, 1706, 1708,
etc.[773]

[Illustration]

Mr. Fox Bourne, who in his _Life of John Locke_ (London, 1876,
vol. i. pp. 235, etc.) gives the most satisfactory account of
Locke’s connection with the new colony, writes of the Fundamental
Constitutions that Locke had a large share in it, though there can
be hardly any doubt that it was initiated by Lord Ashley, modified
by his fellow-proprietors. He adds: “The original draft, a small
vellum-covered volume of seventy-five pages, neatly written, but with
numerous erasures and corrections, is preserved among the Shaftesbury
Papers (series viii. no. 3), and this interesting document has been
printed, _verbatim et literatim_, by Mr. Sainsbury, in the Appendix to
the _Thirty-third report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records_
(1872), pp. 258-269.”

The same author refers to a draft extant in Locke’s handwriting, dated
21 June, 1669, which varies in some respects from that later issued by
the Proprietors, in print.

There is, or was, in 1845, in the Charleston Library, presented to it
by Robert Gilmor, of Baltimore, in 1833, a MS. copy in Locke’s own
handwriting, dated July 14, 1669; but the earliest printed copy is one
entitled thus: _The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, in number a
Hundred and Twenty, agreed upon by the Palatine and Lords Proprietors,
to remain the sacred and unalterable form and rule of government of
Carolina forever_. _March 1, 1669._[774] Printed first in 1670, the
document was reissued, with some modifications, in 1682, and again,
with more important modifications, in 1698.[775] It is also contained
in _A Collection of several pieces of Mr. John Locke, never before
printed, and not extant in his works_. London, 1720.[776]

It would seem from a map which is given in fac-simile in the
_Proceedings_ of the Massachusetts Historical Society, December, 1883
(p. 402), that it describes the “Discovery made by William Hilton of
Charles Towne in New England, Marriner, from Cape Hatteraske, Lat: 35°
30′, to the west of Cape Roman in Lat. 32° 30′, In y^e yeare 1662,
And laid down in the forme as you see by Nicholas Shapley of the
town aforesaid, November, 1662.” A small sketch of the map, which is
annexed, shows that he passed along the islands which form a barrier to
Pamlico Sound, without noticing, or at least indicating, that interior
water, and then entering Cape Fear River tracked its shores up to a
point where he designated three branches, which he called East, North,
and West. The fac-simile given in the _Proceedings_ by Mr. Hassam, from
a photograph of the original in the British Museum,[777] is too obscure
to make out all the names which occur along the river, while only
“Hatterask” and “C. Romana” are noted on the coast. The intervening
points, Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, are not named.

Hilton had come to Plymouth (Mass.) while a child, in 1623, whence
he followed his father to Piscataqua, but later settled in Newbury
and Charlestown, and in the latter place he died in 1675. Shapley
is supposed to have been the same who was clerk of the writs in
Charlestown in 1662, dying in that town in May, 1663. Although the
New England antiquary, James Savage, and others have not supposed
this Massachusetts Hilton to have been the same who led the Barbadoes
party to Cape Fear the next year, this map and its record would seem
to indicate that when the merchants of that island determined to
accept the proposals of the Proprietors of Carolina to furnish them
with colonists, they placed the expedition which they sent out in
August, 1663, under the charge of one who had already explored parts
of this coast,—no other than this William Hilton of New England.
This exploring party landed at St. Helena and Edisto, and returned to
Barbadoes after an absence of five months. Hilton’s _True Relation_ was
published in London in 1664.[778]

[Illustration: SHAPLEY’S DRAFT.]

The year before (1663), according to Hawks,[779] the Proprietors had
issued proposals for the encouragement of settlers within their grant,
and we have, as Mr. Rivers has stated, the outcome of the Sandford
expedition (1665) preserved in a manuscript among the Shaftesbury
Papers, and the results of this seem to have been embodied in what is
considered a second and expanded edition of their original proposals,
which was now published in London, in 1666,—a mere tract of twelve
pages, called _A brief description of the Province of Carolina, on
the coasts of Floreda; and more perticularly of a New Plantation
begun by the English at Cape Feare on that river now by them called
Charles-River, the 29th of May, 1664. Together with a most accurate map
of the whole province_.[780]

[Illustration: A SKETCH OF THE 1666 MAP.

As indicative of the changes in the North Carolina coast since it was
first explored, Mr. Wm. L. Welsh (_Bulletin Essex Institute_, xvii.
nos. 1, 2, and 3, and separately Salem, 1885), in a paper called _An
Account of the cutting through of Hatteras Inlet, Sept. 7, 1846_, says
that the present inlet of that name was made by the storm of that date,
and that the explorers of 1584 entered through Caffey inlet, since
disappeared, and that all the inlets of that day are closed, except the
little-used Ocracoke inlet.]

It was under the incentive of Sandford’s explorations and this
districting of the country that the Proprietors entered upon the
expedition which reached the Ashley River in 1670, for whose guidance
Locke had prepared his plan of government. The more common knowledge
of the geography of the Carolina coast at this time is seen in the map
of North Carolina in Ogilby’s _America_ (1671), which is reproduced in
Hawks’ _North Carolina_ (ii. p. 53).

In 1671 Sir Peter Colleton wrote to Locke that Ogilby was printing a
“Relation of the West Indies,” and desired a map of Carolina, and asked
Locke to get the drafts of Cape Fear and Albemarle from “my lord,” and
suggest to him also “to draw up a discourse to be added to this map, in
the nature of a description such as might invite people without seeming
to come from us, as would very much conduce to the speedy settlement.”
There remains, in Locke’s handwriting, a list of books to be consulted
for this task, but otherwise he does not seem to have done anything to
produce such a description.

Meanwhile another explorer had approached this region from the north,
entering a country which no European had visited since the incursions
of Lane’s company in the preceding century. We have record of this
expedition in a tract of the following title: _The discoveries of
John Lederer in three several marches from Virginia to the west of
Carolina, March, 1669-Sept., 1670_. _Collected out of the latine from
his discourse and writings by Sir William Talbot._ London, 1672.[781]

[Illustration: LEDERER’S MAP (1669-1670).

Fac-simile of the original in the Harvard College library copy. There
is a sketch of it in Hawks’ _North Carolina_, ii. 52.]

Lederer was a German, and was sent out by Governor Berkeley, of
Virginia. He seems to have penetrated westward “to the top of the
Apalatœan mountains.” He announced his disbelief in the views of such
as held the distance from the Atlantic to the Pacific to be but eight
or ten days’ journey, as shown in the “Mapp of Virginia discovered to
the Hills,”[782] but was nevertheless inclined to believe that the
Indian ocean may indeed stretch an arm into the continent as far as the
Appalachian range.

It was on the second of Lederer’s expeditions, going west and southwest
from the falls of the James, that he extended his course into North
Carolina, and Hawks has endeavored to trace his track. Following him by
his names of places, as Ogilby adopted them in his map of 1671, Lederer
would appear to have traversed the breadth of South Carolina. “We
cannot believe this,” says Dr. Hawks. “The time occupied would not have
been sufficient for it. Lederer’s itinerary presents difficulties which
we confess we cannot satisfactorily solve.” It seems at least certain
that Lederer did not penetrate far enough to encounter the new-comers
who were about founding the commonwealth of Locke.

The earliest account which we have of the English settlers at Port
Royal, before their removal to the west bank of the Ashley River, is in
Thomas Ash’s _Carolina, or a description of the present state of that
country_. London, 1682. The author was clerk on board his majesty’s
ship “Richmond,” which was on the coast 1680-82, “with instructions to
enquire into the state of the country.”[783]

During the next few years several brief accounts of the new settlements
were printed which deserve to be named: Samuel Wilson’s anonymous
_Account of the Province of Carolina in America; together with
an abstract of the Patent and several other necessary and useful
particulars, to such as have thoughts of transporting themselves
thither_. London, 1682 (text, 26 pp.).[784] John Crafford’s anonymous
_New and most exact Account of the fertile and famous Colony of
Carolina.... The whole being a compendious account of a voyage made
by an ingenious person, begun Oct., 1682, and finished 1683_. Dublin,
1683.[785] Crafford is called supercargo of the ship “James of Erwin.”

_Carolina described more fully than heretofore ... from the several
relations, ... from divers letters from the Irish settled there
and relations of those who have been there several years._ Dublin,
1684.[786]

The first edition of Blome’s _Present state of his majesty’s isles
and territories in America_, London, 1687,[787] gave “A new map of
Carolina by Robert Morden” (p. 150), and through translations it became
a popular book throughout Europe, and did something to bring the new
colony to their attention.

Courtenay, in the _Charleston Year Book_, 1883, p. 377, gives a
fac-simile of a map (with a corner map of Charlestown and vicinity)
which marks the lots of settlers, and is thought by him to be earlier
than 1700.

For the next fifteen years there is little in print about the history
of Carolina; but not long after 1700, the attempt of the High-Church
party, led by Nicholas Trott, the chief justice, and James Moore, to
enforce conformity produced a controversy not without results.

[Illustration: MORDEN’S CAROLINA (1687.)

Cf. “A Generall Mapp of Carolina describeing its Sea Coast and Rivers.
London, printed for Ric. Blome,” which appeared in Blome’s _Description
of the Island of Jamaica, with the other Isles and Territories in
America, to which the English are related_. London, 1678.]

The establishment of the “Society for the Propagation of the Gospel
in Foreign Parts,” which had been chartered June 16, 1701, had
given a certain impulse to the movement; and the society had its
historiographer in David Humphreys, who in 1730 published at London his
_Historical Account_[788] of it. This and the abstracts of the early
reports of the society, published with their anniversary sermons,
afford data of its work in the colonies.

The first Episcopal church had been built in Charlestown about 1681-2,
and its history and that of those later founded in the province, as
well as of the movement at this time in progress, can be followed in
Frederick D. Dalcho’s _Historical Account of the Protestant Episcopal
Church in South Carolina, from the First Settlement of the Province to
the War of the Revolution; with Notices of the Present State of the
Church in each Parish, and some Account of the Early Civil History of
Carolina never before published_. (Charleston, 1820.)[789]

The early years of the century were distinguished by the sharp
retaliatory attacks of the Carolinians and the neighboring Spanish.
The letter which Colonel Moore sent to the governor respecting his
plundering incursion into Florida is fortunately printed in the
_Boston News-Letter_, May 1, 1704, whence Carroll copied it for his
_Hist. Collections_ (ii. 573). Of this and of later attacks, we can
add something from the _Report_ of the committee of the South Carolina
Assembly, in 1740, on Oglethorpe’s subsequent failure, and from the
narratives of Archdale and Oldmixon, later to be mentioned. Of the
French and Spanish naval attack on Charlestown in 1706,[790] Mr. Doyle,
in his _English in America_, says that the MS. reports preserved
in the Colonial Papers confirm the contemporary account (Sept. 13,
1706) printed in the _Boston News-Letter_, and the statements in the
_Report_ of 1740 on Oglethorpe’s later defeat at St. Augustine. The
_News-Letter_ account was reprinted in the _Carolina Gazette_, at a
later day.

[Illustration: PLAN OF CHARLESTOWN, 1704. (_Survey of Edward Crisp._)

The Key: A, Granville bastion. B, Craven bastion. C, Carteret
bastion. D, Colleton bastion. E, Ashley bastion. F, Blake’s bastion.
G, Half-moon. H, Draw-bridge. I, Johnson’s covered half-moon. K,
Draw-bridge. L, Palisades. M, Lieut.-Col. Rhett’s bridge. N. Smith’s
bridge. O, Minister’s house. P, English Church. Q, French Church. R,
Independent Church. S, Anabaptist Church. T, Quaker meeting-house. V,
Court of guard. W, First rice patch in Carolina.—Owners of houses as
follows: 1, Pasquero and Garret. 2, Landsack. 3, Jno. Crosskeys. 4,
Chevelier. 5, Geo. Logan. 6, Poinsett. 7, Elicott. 8, Starling. 9, M.
Boone. 10, Tradds. 11, Nat. Law. 12, Landgrave Smith. 13, Col. Rhett.
14, Ben. Skenking. 15, Sindery.

This same map is one of the three side maps given in H. Moll’s _Map
of the Dominions of the King of Great Britain in America_, 1715. It
is repeated in Ramsay’s _South Carolina_, vol. ii., and in Cassell’s
_United States_, i. 432.]


Rivers points out that Ramsay (i. 135) adds a few details, perhaps
from tradition. Professor Rivers had earlier contributed to _Russell’s
Mag._ (Charleston, Aug., 1859, p. 458) a paper from the London State
Paper Office, entitled “An impartial narrative of y^e late invasion of
So. Carolina by y^e French and Spanish in the month of August, 1706.”
Governor John Archdale printed at London, in 1707, _A new Description
of that fertile and pleasant province of Carolina, with a brief account
of its discovery, settling, and the government thereof_ (pp. 32).[791]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

The next year (1708) we have an account of the condition of the colony
in a letter signed by Sir Nathaniel Johnson, and dated September 17.
It is quoted in large part by Rivers in his _Sketches_.[792] The name
of John Oldmixon (died in England in 1742) is signed to the dedication
of the _British Empire in America_, London, 1708, and it passes under
his name. A second corrected and amended edition appeared in 1741.[793]
Herman Moll made the maps which it contains, including one of Carolina,
and some have supposed that he wrote the text. Dr. Hawks says of the
book that it contains almost as many errors as pages, and unsupported
is not to be trusted (ii. p. 481).

In 1708 John Stevens began in London to issue in numbers a work, which
when completed in 1710 and 1711 (copies have both dates) was called
_A new Collection of Voyages and Travels into several parts of the
world, none of which ever before printed in English_. The second of
this series, “printed in the year 1709,” was _A new Voyage to Carolina,
containing the exact description and natural history of that country,
together with the present state thereof and a Journal of a thousand
miles travel’d thro’ several nations of Indians, giving a particular
account of their customs, manners, etc., by John Lawson, Gent.,
Surveyor-General of North Carolina_. Other issues of the same sheets,
with new title-pages, are dated 1714 and 1718.[794]

Lawson was a young Englishman, who arrived in Charleston in September,
1700. After a few months’ tarry in that settlement, he started with
five white men and four Indians, and went by canoe to the Santee, where
he turned inland afoot, and as he journeyed put down what he saw and
experienced. In North Carolina he was made Surveyor-General, and this
appointment kept him roaming over the country, during which he came
much in contact with the Indians, and made, as Field says,[795] acute
and trustworthy observations of them. With this life he practised a
literary craft, and wrote out his experiences in a book which was
taken to London to be printed,—an “uncommonly strong and sprightly
book,” as Professor Tyler calls it.[796] His vocation of land-surveyor
was not one calculated to endear him to the natives, who saw that the
compass and the chain always harbingered new claims upon their lands.
Three years after his book had been printed he was on a journey (1712)
through the wilds with the Baron de Graffenreid, when the two were
seized by the Tuscaroras, who suffered the German to agree for his
release. The Englishman, however, was burned with pine splinters stuck
in his flesh, as is generally believed, though Colonel Byrd, in his
_History of the dividing line between Virginia and Carolina_, says he
was waylaid and his throat cut.[797]

[Illustration: WAR MAP, 1711-1715.]

Of about this time we also find a number of tracts, incentives to and
records of German and Swiss emigration.[798] For the Carey rebellion
and the Indian war of 1711,[799] Hawks used a transcript from an early
copy of Governor Spotswood’s letter-book, which had been in his family
and was placed by him in the State Department of North Carolina, where
it had apparently originally belonged. In 1882, the Virginia Historical
Society published the first volume of the Spotswood letters, and the
student finds this material easily accessible now.[800]

In 1715 the General Assembly of North Carolina revised and reënacted
the body of statute law then in force,[801] and twelve MS. copies were
made, one for each precinct court. About a quarter of a century ago,
says Mr. Swain, the State Historical Agent, in his _Report_ of 1857,
two of these copies, moth-eaten and mutilated, were discovered, and
about 1854 a third copy, likewise imperfect, was found. From these
three copies the body of laws was reconstructed for the State Library.

The authorities for the Yamassee war of 1715-16, so far as printed,
are the account in the _Boston News-Letter_ (June 13, 1715), reprinted
in Carroll (ii. 569), where (ii. 141) as well as in Force’s _Tracts_
(vol. ii.) is one of the chief authorities for this and for that other
struggle which shook off the rule of the Proprietors, published in
London in 1726, under the title of _A narrative of the Proceedings
of the People of South Carolina in the year 1719, and of the true
causes and motives that induced them to renounce their obedience to
the Lords Proprietors, as their governors, and to put themselves under
the immediate government of the Crown_.[802] Yonge, who professes to
write in this tract from original papers, is thus made of importance
as an authority, since in 1719 the records of South Carolina seem to
have been embezzled, as Rivers infers from an act of February, 1719-20,
whose purpose was to recover them “from such as now have the custody
thereof,” and they are not known to exist. We get the passions of the
period in _The liberty and property of British subjects asserted: in
a letter from an assembly-man in Carolina to his friend in London_.
London, 1726.[803] It is signed N., and is dated at Charleston, January
15, 1725, and sustains the discontents, in their criticism of the
Proprietary government. The preface, written in London, gives a history
of the colony.

In 1729 all of the Proprietors, except Lord Granville, surrendered
their title in the soil to the Crown;[804] and in 1744 his eighth part
was set off to him,[805] being a region sixty-six miles from north to
south, adjoining the southern line of Virginia and running from sea to
sea. Lord Granville retained this title down to the Revolution, and
after that event he endeavored to reëstablish his claim in the Circuit
and Supreme Courts, till his death, during the continuance of the war
of 1812, closed proceedings.

Meanwhile some sustained efforts were making to induce a Swiss
immigration to South Carolina. Jean Pierre Purry, a leader among
them, printed in London in 1724 a tract, which is very rare: _Mémoire
presenté à sa Gr. Mylord Duc de Newcastle sur l’état présent de la
Caroline et sur les moyens de l’ameliorer_. Londres, 1724.[806] In
1880 Colonel C. C. Jones, Jr., privately printed an English version of
it at Augusta, Georgia, as a _Memorial ... upon the present condition
of Carolina and the means of its amelioration by Jean Pierre Purry of
Neufchâtel, Switzerland_.

The _Gentleman’s Magazine_ of August, September, and October, 1732,
contained an English rendering of a description of Carolina, drawn up
by Purry and others, at Charlestown in September, 1731. This last paper
has been included by Carroll in his _Historical Collections_ (vol.
ii.), and by Force in his _Tracts_ (vol. ii.).[807] Purry’s tracts
were in the interest of immigration, and his and their influence seem
to have induced a considerable number of Swiss to proceed to Carolina,
where they formed a settlement called Purrysburg on the east side of
the Savannah River. Hardships, malaria, and unwonted conditions of life
discouraged them, and their settlement was not long continued.[808]

Bernheim, _German Settlements in Carolina_ (p. 99), points out how the
busy distribution of the rose-colored reports of Purry doubtless also
led to the German and Swiss settlement at Orangeburg, S. C., in 1735,
the history of which he derives from the journals of the council of the
province in the state archives, and from those church record-books,
which are preserved. It is to Bernheim we must look for the best
accounts of the other German settlements in different parts of the
province.

In 1851 the Lutheran synod of South Carolina put the Rev. G. D.
Bernheim in charge of its records, and in 1858 he began to collect
the minutes of the synod of North Carolina, and to interest himself
generally in the history of the German settlements of both States. From
1861 to 1864 he printed much of the material which he had gathered
in the _Southern Lutheran_. He found that the writers in English of
the histories of the Carolinas had largely neglected this part of the
story, perhaps from unacquaintance with the tongue in which the records
of the early German settlers are written. The settlements of these
people at Newbern and Salem had not indeed been overlooked; but their
plantations in the central and western parts of the State, comprising
more than three fourths of the German population, had been neglected.
In the histories of South Carolina the settlements of Purrysburg and
Hard Labor Creek had alone been traced with attention. In 1872 Mr.
Bernheim recast his material into a _History of the German settlements
and of the Lutheran church in North and South Carolina, from the
earliest period_ [to 1850], and published it at Philadelphia. It may be
supplemented by a little volume, _The Moravians in North Carolina_, by
Rev. Levin T. Reichell, Salem, N. C. 1857.[809]

We find some assistance in fixing for this period the extent of the
domination of the English Church in a map which accompanies David
Humphreys’ _Historical Account of the Society for the Propagation of
the Gospel in Foreign Parts_, London, 1730, which is called “Map of
the Province of Carolina, divided into its parishes, according to the
latest accounts, 1730, by H. Moll, geographer.” It has a corner “map of
the most improved parts of [South] Carolina,” which shows the parish
churches and the English and Indian settlements. A fac-simile of this
lesser map is annexed. George Howe’s _History of the Presbyterian
Church in South Carolina, from 1685 to 1800_, Columbia, S. C., 1870, is
another local monograph of interest in the religious development of the
province.[810]

[Illustration: INDIAN MAP, 1730.

In the Kohl collection (no. 220). The original is in the British
Museum, describing the situation of the Indian tribes in the northwest
parts of South Carolina, and drawn by an Indian chief on a deer-skin,
and presented to Gov. Nicholson.]

The Huguenot element in Carolina became an important one, and as
early as 1737 these French founded in Charleston the “South Carolina
Society,” a benevolent organization, which in 1837 celebrated its
centennial, the memory of which is preserved in a descriptive pamphlet
published at Charleston in that year, containing an oration by J.
W. Toomer, and an appendix of historical documents. There is no
considerable account yet published of these Carolina Huguenots, and the
student must content himself with the scant narrative by Charles Weiss,
as given in the translation of his book by H. W. Herbert, _History
of the French Protestant Refugees_ (New York, 1854), which has, in
addition to the narrative in Book iv. on refugees in America, an
appendix on American Huguenots, not, however, very skilfully arranged.
There is a similar appendix by G. P. Disosway[811] at the close of
Samuel Smiles’ _Huguenots_ (New York, 1868); and briefer accounts in
Mrs. H. F. S. Lee’s _Huguenots in France and America_ (Cambridge,
1843, vol. ii. ch. 29), and in Reginald Lane Poole’s _History of the
Huguenots of the Dispersion_ (London, 1880).[812]

Professor Rivers contributed to _Russell’s Magazine_ (Charleston,
Sept., 1859) a paper on “The Carolina regiment in the expedition
against St. Augustine in 1740.”

The natural aspects of the country, as they became better known, we
get from Mark Catesby’s _Natural History of Carolina, Florida, and
the Bahama Islands_, etc., which was published in London, from 1732
to 1748, and again in 1754;[813] and a German translation appeared at
Nuremberg in 1755. The English text was revised in the second edition
by Edwards, and again printed at London in 1771.

The files of the early newspapers of the Carolinas afford needful, if
scant, material. Thomas, in his _History of Printing_, records all
there was. The _South Carolina Gazette_, beginning in January, 1731-2,
was published for little more than a year as a weekly; but this title
was resuscitated in new hands in February, 1734, when the new journal
of this name continued its weekly issues up to the Revolutionary
period. No other paper was begun in that province till 1758, when a new
weekly, the _South Carolina and American General Gazette_, was started.
Three years before this, the first paper had been established at
Newbern, _The North Carolina Gazette_, which lived for about six years.

To Governor Glen is attributed _A description of South Carolina_, which
was printed in London in 1761,[814] and is reprinted in Carroll’s
_Historical Collections_, vol. ii. It gives the civil, natural, and
commercial history of the colony. It is the completest survey which had
up to this time been printed.

In the war with the Cherokees some imputations were put upon the South
Carolina rangers, under Henry Middleton, by Grant, the commander
of the expeditions against those Indians; and this charge did not
pass unchallenged, as would seem from a tract published in 1762 at
Charleston, entitled _Some Observations on the two Campaigns against
the Cherokee Indians in 1760 and 1761_.[815]

For the geography of this period we have two maps in the _New and
complete History of the British Empire in America_, an anonymous
publication which was issued in parts in London, beginning in 1757.
One is a map of Virginia and North Carolina, the other of South
Carolina and Georgia, both stretching their western limits beyond the
Mississippi.

[Illustration: THE SOUTH CAROLINA COAST.

Cf. the Carolina of Moll in his _New Survey_, no. 26 (1729), and a
reproduction of Moll in Cassell’s _United States_, i. 439. A map of
Carolina and Charlestown harbor (1742) is in the _English Pilot_, no.
19.]

At the very end of the period of which we are now writing the MS.
description of South Carolina by the engineer William De Brahm,
which is preserved in the library of Harvard University, becomes of
importance for its topographical account, and its plans and maps,
executed with much care. It is included in a volume, containing also
similar descriptions of Georgia and Florida, which portions are noticed
in the following chapter. There are transcripts of this document which
have an early date,[816] and some at least have a title different from
the Harvard one, and are called _A Philosophico-historico-Hydrography
of South Carolina, Georgia, and East Florida_. From such a one, which
is without the drawings, that portion relating to South Carolina was
printed in London in 1856, by Mr. Plowden Charles Jennett Weston, in a
volume of _Documents connected with the History of South Carolina_. An
engraved map by De Brahm, _Map of South Carolina and a part of Georgia,
composed from surveys taken by Hon. Wm. Bull, Capt. Gascoigne, Hugh
Bryan, and William De Brahm_, published in four sheets by Jefferys,
also appeared in the _General Topography of North America and the West
Indies_, London, 1768. The map itself is dated Oct. 20, 1757, and gives
tables of names of proprietors of land in Georgia and Carolina.[817]

       *       *       *       *       *

The earliest account of the history of South Carolina cast in a
sustained retrospective spirit is the anonymous _Historical Account of
the rise and progress of the Colonies of South Carolina and Georgia_
(London, 1779), which is known to have been prepared by Dr. Alexander
Hewatt,—as his signature seems to fix the spelling of his name, though
in the bibliographical records it appears under various forms.[818]
Carroll, in reprinting the book in the first volume of his _Historical
Collections_, added many emendatory notes.[819] The next year (1780)
produced a far more important book, in respect to authority, in George
Chalmers’ _Political Annals of the Present United Colonies, from their
Settlement to the Peace of 1763_ (London), the first volume of which,
however, was the only one published.[820] Chalmers, who was born in
1742, had practised law in Maryland, but he could not sympathize with
the revolution, and at the outbreak returned to England, where in time
(August, 1786) he became the clerk of the Board of Trade and died in
office, May 31, 1825, at the age of eighty-two.

When Williamson was engaged on his _History of North Carolina_ (i. p.
9), he applied for assistance to Chalmers, whose _Political Annals_
shows that he had access to papers not otherwise known at that time,
but was refused. Grahame, in his _Colonial History of the United
States_ (i. p. xii.), says he got ready access to Chalmers’ papers,
but as he disclosed in his text little new, it was conjectured that
before Grahame’s opportunity much had passed out of Chalmers’ hands.
Sparks, in a letter (1856) to Mr. Swain, the historical agent of
North Carolina, says of Chalmers that “he undoubtedly procured nearly
the whole of his materials from the archives of the Board of Trade.
His papers, after having been bound in volumes, were sold by his
nephew a few years ago (1843) in London. I purchased six volumes
of them, relating mostly to New England. They are not important,
being memoranda, references, and extracts, used in writing his
_Annals_.”[821] Two large volumes of Chalmers’ notes and transcripts
also came into the hands of George Bancroft, and were entrusted by him
to the care of Dr. Hawks and Mr. Rivers, when they were at work upon
their histories of North and South Carolina. Bancroft, from his own use
of them, and of Chalmers’ printed _Annals_, and speaking particularly
of the Culpepper revolution (1678), in the original edition (ii. p.
162) of his _United States_, says: “Chalmers’ account in all cases
of the kind must be received with great hesitancy. The coloring is
always wrong; the facts usually perverted. He writes like a lawyer
and disappointed politician, not like a calm inquirer. His statements
are copied by Grahame,[822] obscured by Martin, and, strange to say,
exaggerated by Williamson.” Dr. William Smyth, in his _Lectures on
Modern History_, calls the work of Chalmers an “immense, heavy, tedious
book, to explain the legal history of the different colonies; it should
be consulted in all such points, but it is impossible to read it.”[823]

[Illustration]

Near the close of the Revolutionary War Chalmers began the printing
of another work, a succinct sketch of the history of the colonies. A
very few copies exist of the first volume, which is without title or
preliminary matter, and in the copy before us a blank leaf contains
a manuscript title in Chalmers’ own handwriting as follows: _An
Introduction to the History of the Colonies, giving from the State
Papers a comprehensive view of the origin of their Revolt. By George
Chalmers, Vol. I. Printed in 1782, But suppressed_. This volume,
beginning with the reign of James I. and ending with that of George
I., was the only one printed. The present copy[824] is marked as being
the one from which Mr. Sparks printed an edition published in Boston
in 1845,[825] in which the preface says that the original issue was
suppressed, “owing to the separation of the colonies, which happened
just at the season for publication, December, 1782, or the prior cause
in April precedent, the dismission of a tory administration.”[826]

When Chalmers’ papers were sold, a manuscript continuation of this
_Introduction_ in the handwriting of the author was found, completely
revised and prepared for the press. When Sparks reprinted the single
volume already referred to, he added this second part to complete the
work, and it was carefully carried through the press by John Langdon
Sibley. Sparks in his introductory statements speaks of the book
as “deduced for the most part from the State Papers in the British
offices, or to speak with more precision, from the confidential
correspondence of the governors and other officers of the Crown in the
colonies.” In regard to its suppression he adds that “no political ends
could now be answered by its publication, and it is probable that he
thought it more politic to sacrifice the pride and fame of authorship
than to run the hazard of offending the ministers.”[827]

Of the later histories it is most convenient to treat each province
separately, as will be done in the annexed note.


NOTE.

THE LATER HISTORIES OF THE CAROLINAS.


=I.= NORTH CAROLINA.—The first published of the general accounts
of this State was the _History of North Carolina_, by Hugh
Williamson,[828] at Philadelphia, in 1812, in two volumes. Dr. Hawks,
the later historian, says (ii. p. 540) that North Carolinians do
not recognize Williamson’s work as a history of their State. It is
inaccurate in a great many particulars, and sometimes when there is
proof that the original record was lying before him. Sparks calls it
“meagre and unsatisfactory,” and adds that it contains but few facts,
and these apparently the most unimportant of such as had fallen in his
way.[829] More care and discrimination, though but little literary
interest, characterized another writer. François Xavier Martin had
a singular career. He was born in Marseilles, became a bankrupt in
Martinique, went friendless to Newbern, in North Carolina, and rose to
distinction as a jurist, after beginning his career in the State as a
translator and vendor of French stories. He had removed to Louisiana,
when he published at New Orleans his _History of North Carolina_, in
1829 (two volumes), and in that State he rose to be chief justice, and
published a history of it, as we have seen. Martin’s accumulation of
facts carries no advantage by any sort of correlation except that of
dates. A painstaking search, as far as his opportunities permitted,
and a perspicuous way of writing stand for the work’s chief merits.
He stops at the Declaration of Independence. Up to Martin’s time
Bancroft[830] might well speak of the carelessness with which the
history of North Carolina had been written.

Next came John H. Wheeler’s _Historical Sketches of North Carolina from
1584 to 1851, compiled from original records, official documents, and
traditional statements, with biographical sketches of her distinguished
Statesmen, Jurists, Lawyers, Soldiers, etc._, Philadelphia, 1851. It
is not unfairly characterized by Mr. C. K. Adams, in his _Manual of
Historical Reference_ (p. 559), as “a jumble of ill-digested material,
rather a collection of tables, lists, and facts than a history.”

David L. Swain,[831] who had been governor of the State, had done much
to collect transcripts of documents from the archives of the other
States and from England, and in 1857, as historical agent of the State,
he made a report, which was printed at Raleigh, in which, speaking of
the statutes at large, which Virginia and South Carolina had published,
he referred to “both of these collections, especially the former, the
earlier and better work, as deeply interesting in connection with North
Carolina history.”

Of the _History of North Carolina_, by Francis Lister Hawks, D. D.,
LL. D., the second volume, published at Fayetteville in 1858, covers
the period of the Proprietary government from 1663 to 1729, the first
volume being given to the Raleigh period, etc. He availed himself of
the fullest permission by state and local authorities to profit by
the records within his own State; and he had earlier himself procured
in London many copies of documents there. The author claims that more
than three fourths of this volume has been prepared from original
authorities, existing in manuscript. He tells at greater length than
others the story of the law and its administration, of the industrial
and agricultural arts, navigation and trade, religion and learning.

The latest local treatment is that of Mr. John W. Moore’s _History of
North Carolina from the earliest discoveries to the present time_,
Raleigh, 1880, in two volumes. There is not much attempt at original
research, and he does not reprint documentary material, as Hawks did,
in too great profusion to make a popular book. Mr. Moore aims to give a
better literary form to the story; but his style somewhat overlays his
facts.


=II.= SOUTH CAROLINA.—To turn to the more southern province,—Dr.
David Ramsay, who was a respectable physician from Pennsylvania,
domiciled and married in Charleston, gained some reputation in his
day as a practised writer, and as an historical scholar of zeal and
judgment. He published first, in 1796, a _Sketch of the Soil, Climate,
etc., of South Carolina_; and later, in 1809, at Charleston, a _History
of South Carolina_, 1670-1808, in which he made good use of Hewatt, as
far as he was available.

In 1836 Carroll republished many of the early printed tracts upon
South Carolina history in his two volumes of _Historical Collections_.
Referring to this publication, a writer in the _Southern Quarterly
Review_, Jan., 1852, p. 185, says: “But for a timely appropriation by
the legislature of two thousand dollars for his relief, Carroll would
have been seriously the sufferer by his experiment on public taste and
sectional patriotism.”

Grahame in 1836 had published the first edition of his _Colonial
History of the United States_, including the early history of the
Carolinas, and Bancroft, in 1837, published the second volume of his
_History of the Colonization of the United States_, and in chapter
xiii. he discussed how Shaftesbury and Locke legislated for South
Carolina,—a chapter considerably changed in his last edition (1883).

The South Carolina novelist, William G. Simms, first published a small
history of the State in 1840, which served for school use. This he
revised in 1860 as a _History of South Carolina_, which was published
in New York. It was spirited, but too scant of detail for scholarly
service.[832]

The South Carolina Historical Society was formed in 1855, Mr. Rivers,
the writer of the preceding chapter, being one of the originators. The
first volume of their _Collections_, published in 1857, contained,
beside an opening address by Professor F. A. Porcher, the beginning
of a list and abstracts of papers in the State Paper Office, London,
relating to South Carolina. This enumeration was continued in the
second and third volumes.[833] There are also in the second volume,
beside Petigru’s oration, a paper on the French Protestants of the
Abbeville district, an oration by J. B. Cohen, and O. M. Lieber’s
vocabulary of the Catawba language. In vol. iii. we find an oration by
W. H. Trescott. No further volumes have been printed.

Mr. Rivers’ _Sketch of the History of South Carolina to the Close of
the Proprietary Government by the Revolution of 1719_, published in
Charleston in 1856, was continued by him in _A Chapter in the Early
History of South Carolina_, published at Charleston in 1874, which
largely consists of explanatory original documents. This section of
a second volume of his careful history was all that the author had
accomplished towards completing the work, when the civil war of 1861
“rendered him unable to continue its preparation.” Mr. Rivers says,
in a note in this supplementary chapter, that an examination of the
records at Columbia has shown him that, to perfect this additional
task, it would be necessary to make examination among the records of
the State-Paper Office in London.

Of these latter records Mr. Fox Bourne, in his _Life of John Locke_
(London, 1876), says: “Locke’s connection with the affairs of the
colony lasted only through its earliest infancy. Down to the autumn of
1672 he continued his informal office of secretary to the Proprietors.
Nearly every letter received from the colony is docketed by him; and
of a great number that have disappeared there exist careful epitomes
in his handwriting. We have also drafts, entered by him, of numerous
letters sent out from England, and his hand is plainly shown in other
letters. Out of this material it would be easy to construct almost the
entire history of the colony during the first years of its existence.”

It was some time before the period of Mr. Fox Bourne’s writing that
the Earl of Shaftesbury deposited with the deputy keeper of the Public
Records the collection of documents known as the _Shaftesbury Papers_,
the accumulation which had been formed in the hands of his ancestor,
and which yield so much material for the early history of the Carolina
government.[834]

The latest use made of these and other papers of the State-Paper
Office is found in _The English in America, Virginia, Maryland, and
the Carolinas_ (London, 1882), written by Mr. John A. Doyle, librarian
of All Souls, Oxford. In a note to his chapter on the “Two Carolinas,”
Doyle says (p. 427), respecting the material for Carolinian history
in the English archives: “To make up for the deficiency of printed
authorities, the English archives are unusually rich in papers
referring to Carolina. There are letters and instructions from the
Proprietors, individually and collectively, and reports sent to them by
successive governors and other colonial officials. It is remarkable,
however, that while we have such abundant material of this kind, there
is a great lack of records of the actual proceedings of the local
legislatures in North and South Carolina. In North Carolina we have
no formal record of legislative proceedings during the seventeenth
century. In South Carolina they are but few and scanty till after the
overthrow of the Proprietary government.[835] Moreover, the early
archives of Carolina, though abundant, are necessarily somewhat
confused. The northern and southern colonies, while practically
distinct, were under the government of a single corporation, and
thus the documents relating to each are most inextricably mixed up.
Again, while the Proprietors were the governing body, the colonies
in some measure came under the supervision of the Lords of Trade and
Plantations, and at a later day of the Board of Trade. Thus much which
concerns the colony is to be found in the entry books of the latter
body, while the Proprietary documents themselves are to be found
partly among the colonial papers,[836] partly in a special department
containing the Shaftesbury Papers.”

In the _Fifth Report of the Historical Manuscripts Commission_ there
is a calendar of the Shelburne Papers, belonging to the Marquis of
Lansdowne, which shows a considerable number of documents of interest
in the history of Carolina: as, for instance (p. 215), Governor
Barrington’s account of the State of North Carolina, January 1,
1732-33; Governor Glen’s answers with respect to inquiries about
South Carolina; an offer (p. 218) of a treaty for the sale of Lord
Granville’s district in North Carolina to the Crown, signed by the
second Lord Granville; and (p. 228, etc.) various reports of law
officers of the Crown on questions arising in the government of the
colonies.



CHAPTER VI.

THE ENGLISH COLONIZATION OF GEORGIA.

1733-1752.

BY CHARLES C. JONES, JR., LL. D.


ACTING under the orders of Admiral Coligny, Captain Ribault, before
selecting a location for his fort and planting his Huguenot colony
near the mouth of Port Royal, traversed what is now known as the
Georgia coast, observed its harbors, and named several of the principal
rivers emptying into the Atlantic Ocean.[837] “It was a fayre coast,
stretchyng of a great length, couered with an infinite number of high
and fayre trees.” The waters “were boyling and roaring, through the
multitude of all kind of fish.” The inhabitants were “all naked and
of a goodly stature, mightie, and as well shapen and proportioned
of body as any people in ye world; very gentle, courteous, and of
a good nature.” Lovingly entertained were these strangers by the
natives, and they were, in the delightful spring-time, charmed with
all they beheld. As they viewed the country they pronounced it the
“fairest, fruitfullest, and pleasantest of all the world, abounding in
hony, venison, wilde foule, forests, woods of all sorts, Palm-trees,
Cypresse, and Cedars, Bayes ye highest and greatest; with also the
fayrest vines in all the world, with grapes according, which, without
natural art and without man’s helpe or trimming, will grow to toppes of
Okes and other trees that be of a wonderfull greatness and height. And
the sight of the faire medowes is a pleasure not able to be expressed
with tongue: full of Hernes, Curlues, Bitters, Mallards, Egrepths,
Wood-cocks, and all other kinds of small birds; with Harts, Hindes,
Buckes, wilde Swine, and all other kindes of wilde beastes, as we
perceiued well, both by their footing there, and also afterwardes in
other places by their crie and roaring in the night.... Also there
be Conies and Hares, Silk Wormes in merueilous number, a great deale
fairer and better than be our silk wormes. To be short, it is a thing
vnspeakable to consider the thinges that bee scene there and shal be
founde more and more in this incomperable lande, which, neuer yet
broken with plough yrons, bringeth forth al things according to his
first nature wherewith the eternall God indued it.”

Enraptured with the delights of climate, forests, and waters, and
transferring to this new domain names consecrated by pleasant
associations at home, Captain Ribault called the River St. Mary the
_Seine_, the Satilla the _Somme_, the Alatamaha the _Loire_, the
Newport the _Charante_, the Great Ogeechee the _Garonne_, and the
Savannah the _Gironde_. Two years afterward, when René de Laudonnière
visited Ribault’s fort, he found it deserted. The stone pillar
inscribed with the arms of France, which he had erected to mark the
farthest confines of Charles IX.’s dominion in the Land of Flowers, was
garlanded with wreaths. Offerings of maize and fruits lay at its base;
and the natives, regarding the structure with awe and veneration, had
elevated it into the dignity of a god.

As yet no permanent lodgment had been effected in the territory
subsequently known as Georgia. The first Europeans who are known to
have traversed it were Hernando de Soto and his companions, whose
story has been told elsewhere.[838] The earliest grant of the lower
part of the territory claimed by England under the discovery of Cabot,
was made by His Majesty King Charles I., in the fifth year of his
reign, to Sir Robert Heath, his attorney-general. In that patent it
is called _Carolina Florida_, and the designated limits extended from
the river Matheo in the thirtieth degree, to the river Passa Magna in
the thirty-sixth degree of north latitude. There is good reason for
the belief that actual possession was taken under this concession, and
that, in the effort to colonize, considerable sums were expended by
the proprietor and by those claiming under him. Whether this grant was
subsequently surrendered, or whether it was vacated and declared null
for _non user_ or other cause, we are not definitely informed. Certain
it is that King Charles II., in the exercise of his royal pleasure,
issued to the Lords Proprietors of Carolina two grants of the same
territory with some slight modifications of boundaries. The latter of
these grants, bearing date the 30th of June in the seventeenth year
of his reign, conveys to the Lords Proprietors that portion of the
New World lying between the thirty-sixth and the twenty-ninth degrees
of north latitude. While the English were engaged in peopling a part
of the coast embraced within these specified limits, the Spaniards
contented themselves with confirming their settlements at St. Augustine
and a few adjacent points.

Although in 1670 England and Spain entered into stipulations for
composing their differences in America,—stipulations which have since
been known as the _American Treaty_,—the precise line of separation
between Carolina and Florida was not defined. Between these powers
disputes touching this boundary were not infrequent. In view of this
unsettled condition of affairs, and in order to assert a positive claim
to, and retain possession of, the debatable ground which neither party
was willing either to relinquish or clearly to point out, the English
established and maintained a small military post on the south end of
Cumberland Island, where the river St. Mary empties its waters into the
Atlantic.

Apprehending that either the French or Spanish forces would take
possession of the Alatamaha River, King George I. ordered General
Nicholson, then governor of Carolina, with a company of one hundred
men, to secure that river, as being within the bounds of South
Carolina; and, at some suitable point, to erect a fort with an eye to
the protection of His Majesty’s possessions in that quarter and the
control of the navigation of that stream. That fort was placed near the
confluence of the Oconee and Ocmulgee rivers, and was named Fort George.

Although by the treaty of Seville commissioners were appointed to
determine the northern boundary line of Florida, which should form the
southern limit of South Carolina, no definite conclusion was reached,
and the question remained open and a cause of quarrel until the peace
of 1763, when Spain ceded Florida to Great Britain.

In recalling the instances of temporary occupancy, by Europeans, of
limited portions of the territory at a later period conveyed to the
trustees for establishing the Colony of Georgia, we should not omit
an allusion to the mining operations conducted by the Spaniards at an
early epoch among the auriferous mountains of upper Georgia. Influenced
by the representations made by the returned soldiers of De Soto’s
expedition of the quantity of gold, silver, and pearls in the province
of Cosa, Luis de Velasco dispatched his general, Tristan de Luna, to
open communication with Cosa by the way of Pensacola Bay. Three hundred
Spanish soldiers, equipped with mining tools, penetrated beyond the
valley of the Coosa and passed the summer of 1560 in northern Georgia
and the adjacent region. Juan Pardo was subsequently sent by Aviles,
the first governor of Florida, to establish a fort at the foot of the
mountains northwest of St. Augustine and in the province of the chief
Coabá. It would seem, therefore, that the Spaniards at this early
period were acquainted with, and endeavored to avail themselves of, the
gold deposits in Cherokee Georgia.

By the German traveller Johannes Lederer[839] are we advised that these
peoples in 1669 and 1670 were still working gold and silver mines in
the Appalachian mountains; and Mr. James Moore assures us that twenty
years afterward these mining operations were not wholly discontinued.

Thus, long before the advent of the English colonists, had the
Spaniards sojourned, in earnest quest for precious metals, among the
valleys and mountains of the Cherokees. Thus are we enabled to account
for those traces of ancient mining observed and wondered at by the
early settlers of upper Georgia,—operations of no mean significance,
conducted by skilled hands and with metallic tools,—which can properly
be referred neither to the Red Race nor to the followers of De Soto.

In June, 1717, Sir Robert Mountgomery secured from the Palatine and
Lords Proprietors of the Province of Carolina a grant and release
of all lands lying between the rivers Alatamaha and Savannah, with
permission to form settlements south of the former stream. This
territory was to be erected into a distinct province, “with proper
jurisdictions, privileges, prerogatives, and franchises, independent
of and in no manner subject to the laws of South Carolina.” It was
to be holden of the Lords Proprietors by Sir Robert, his heirs and
assigns forever, under the name and title of the Margravate of Azilia.
A yearly quit rent of a penny per acre for all lands “occupied,
taken up, or run out,” was to be paid. Such payment, however, was
not to begin until three years after the arrival of the first ships
transporting colonists. In addition, Sir Robert covenanted to render
to the Lords Proprietors one fourth part of all the gold, silver, and
royal minerals which might be found within the limits of the ceded
lands. Courts of justice were to be organized, and such laws enacted
by the freemen of the Margravate as might conduce to the general good
and in no wise conflict with the statutes and customs of England. The
navigation of the rivers was to be free to all the inhabitants of the
colonies of North and South Carolina. A duty similar to that sanctioned
in South Carolina was to be laid on skins, and this revenue was to be
appropriated to the maintenance of clergy. In consideration of this
cession, Sir Robert engaged to transport at his own cost a considerable
number of families, and all necessaries requisite for the support and
comfort of settlers within the specified limits. It was understood that
if settlements were not formed within three years from the date of the
grant, it should become void.

In glowing terms did Sir Robert unfold the attractions of his future
Eden “in the most delightful country of the Universe,” and boldly
proclaim “that Paradise with all her virgin beauties may be modestly
supposed at most but equal to its native excellencies.” After
commending in the highest terms the woods and meadows, mines and
odoriferous plants, soil and climate, fruits and game, streams and
hills, flowers and agricultural capabilities, he exhibited an elaborate
plan of the Margravate, in which he did not propose to satisfy
himself “with building here and there a fort,—the fatal practice of
America,—but so to dispose the habitations and divisions of the land
that not alone our houses, but whatever we possess, will be inclosed by
_military lines_ impregnable against the _savages_, and which will make
our whole plantation one continued fortress.”

Despite all efforts to induce immigration into this favored region, at
the expiration of the three years allowed by the concession Sir Robert
found himself without colonists. His grant expired and became void by
the terms of its own limitations. His Azilia remained unpeopled save
by the red men of the forest. His scheme proved utterly Utopian. It
was reserved for Oglethorpe and his companions to wrest from primeval
solitude and to vitalize with the energies of civilization the lands
lying between the Savannah and the Alatamaha.

Persuaded of their inability to afford suitable protection to the
colony of South Carolina, and moved by the wide-spread dissatisfaction
existing in that province, the Lords Proprietors, with the exception
of Lord Carteret, taking advantage of the provisions of an act of
Parliament, on the 25th of July in the third year of the reign of His
Majesty King George II., and in consideration of the sum of £22,500,
surrendered to the Crown not only their rights and interest in the
government of Carolina, but also their ownership of the soil. The
outstanding eighth interest owned by Lord Carteret, Baron of Hawnes,
was by him, on the 28th of February, 1732, conveyed to the “Trustees
for establishing the Colony of Georgia in America.”

The scheme which culminated in planting a colony on the right bank
of the Savannah River at Yamacraw Bluff originated with James Edward
Oglethorpe, a member of the English House of Commons, and “a gentleman
of unblemished character, brave, generous, and humane.” He was the
third son of Sir Theophilus, and the family of Oglethorpe was ancient
and of high repute.[840] Although at an early age a matriculate of
Corpus Christi College, Oxford, he soon quitted the benches of that
venerable institution of learning for an active military life. With
him a love of arms was an inheritance, for his father attained the
rank of major-general in the British service, and held the office
of first equerry to James II., who intrusted him with an important
command in the army assembled to oppose the Prince of Orange. Entering
the English army as an ensign in 1710, young Oglethorpe continued
in service until peace was proclaimed in 1713. The following year
he became captain-lieutenant of the first troop of the Queen’s
Life-Guards. Preferring active employment abroad to an idle life at
home, he soon repaired to the continent that he might perfect himself
in the art of war under the famous Prince Eugene of Savoy, who, upon
the recommendation of John, Duke of Argyle, gave him an appointment
upon his staff, at first as secretary and afterward as aid-de-camp.
It was a brave school, and his alertness, fidelity, and fearlessness
secured for him the good-will, the confidence, and the commendation of
his illustrious commander. Upon the conclusion of the peace of 1718
Oglethorpe returned to England, versed in the principles of military
science, accustomed to command, inured to the shock of arms, instructed
in the orders of battle, the management of sieges and the conduct
of campaigns, and possessing a reputation for manhood, executive
ability, and warlike knowledge not often acquired by one of his years.
His brother Theophilus dying, he succeeded to the family estate at
Westbrook, and in October, 1732, was elected a member for Haslemere
in the county of Surrey. This venerable borough and market-town he
continued to represent, through various changes of administration, for
two-and-thirty years.

[Illustration: OGLETHORPE.

(See a Note on the Portraits of Oglethorpe on a later page.)]


While he was chairman of the committee raised by the House of Commons
to visit the prisons, examine into the condition of the inmates, and
suggest measures of reform, the idea had occurred to Oglethorpe,—whose
“strong benevolence of soul” has been eulogized by Pope,—that not a
few of these unfortunate individuals confined for debt, of respectable
connections, guilty of no crime, and the victims of a legal thraldom
most vile and afflictive, might be greatly benefited by compromising
the claims for the non-payment of which they were suffering the penalty
of hopeless incarceration, upon the condition that when liberated they
would become colonists in America. Thus would opportunity be afforded
them of retrieving their fortunes; thus would England be relieved of
the shame and the expense of their imprisonment, and thus would her
dominion in the New World be enlarged and confirmed. Not the depraved,
not felons who awaited the approach of darker days when graver
sentences were to be endured, not the dishonest who hoped by submitting
to temporary imprisonment to exhaust the patience of creditors and
emerge with fraudulently acquired gains still concealed, but the
honestly unfortunate were to be the beneficiaries of this benevolent
and patriotic scheme. Those also in the United Kingdom who through want
of occupation and lack of means were most exposed to the penalties
of poverty, were to be influenced in behalf of the contemplated
colonization. It was believed that others, energetic, ambitious of
preferment, and possessing some means, could be enlisted in aid of
the enterprise. The anxiety of the Carolinians for the establishment
of a plantation to the South which would serve as a shield against
the incursions of the Spaniards, the attacks of the Indians, and the
depredations of fugitive slaves was great. This scheme of colonization
soon embraced within its benevolent designs not only the unfortunate
of Great Britain, but also the oppressed and persecuted Protestants
of Europe. Charity for, and the relief of, human distress were to
be inscribed upon the foundations of the dwellings which Oglethorpe
proposed to erect amid the Southern forests. Their walls were to be
advanced bulwarks for the protection of the Carolina plantations,
and their aspiring roofs were to proclaim the honor and the dominion
of the British nation. In the whole affair there lingered no hope of
personal gain, no ambition of a sordid character, no secret reservation
of private benefit. The entire project was open, disinterested,
charitable, loyal, and patriotic. Such was its distinguishing
peculiarity. Thus was it recognized by all; and Robert Southey did but
echo the general sentiment when he affirmed that no colony was ever
projected or established upon principles more honorable to its founders.

As the accomplishment of his purpose demanded a larger expenditure
than his means justified, and as the administration of the affairs
of the plantation would involve “a broader basis of managing power”
than a single individual could well maintain, Oglethorpe sought and
secured the co-operation of wealthy and influential personages in the
development of his beneficent enterprise.

That proper authority, ample cession, and royal sanction might be
obtained, in association with Lord Percival and other noblemen and
gentlemen of repute he addressed a memorial to the Privy Council, in
which, among other things, it was stated that the cities of London and
Westminster, and the adjacent region, abounded with indigent persons
so reduced in circumstances as to become burdensome to the public, who
would willingly seek a livelihood in any of His Majesty’s plantations
in America if they were provided with transportation and the means
of settling there. In behalf of themselves and their associates the
petitioners engaged, without pecuniary recompense, to take charge
of the colonization, and to erect the plantation into a proprietary
government, if the Crown would be pleased to grant them lands lying
south of the Savannah River, empower them to receive and administer
all contributions and benefactions which they might influence in
encouragement of so good a design, and clothe them with authority
suitable for the enforcement of law and order within the limits of
the province. After the customary reference, this petition met with a
favorable report, and by His Majesty’s direction a charter was prepared
which received the royal sanction on the 9th of June, 1732.

By this charter, Lord John, Viscount Percival, Edward Digby, George
Carpenter, James Oglethorpe, George Heathcote, Thomas Tower, Robert
Moor, Robert Hucks, Roger Holland, William Sloper, Francis Eyles, John
Laroche, James Vernon, William Beletha, John Burton, Richard Bundy,
Arthur Beaford, Samuel Smith, Adam Anderson, and Thomas Coram and their
successors were constituted a body politic and corporate by the name
of “The Trustees for establishing the Colony of Georgia in America.”
Ample were the powers with which this corporation was vested. Seven
eighths “of all those lands lying and being in that part of South
Carolina in America which lies from the most northern part of a stream
or river there commonly called the Savannah, all along the sea-coast
to the southward unto the most southern stream of a certain other
great water or river called the Alatamaha, and westerly from the heads
of the said rivers respectively in direct lines to the South Seas,”
were conveyed to the trustees for the purposes of the plantation. The
province was named Georgia, and was declared separate and distinct from
South Carolina. To all, save Papists, was accorded a free exercise of
religious thought and worship. For a period of twenty-one years were
these corporators and their successors authorized to administer the
affairs of the province. At the expiration of that time it was provided
that such form of government would then be adopted, and such laws
promulgated for the regulation of the colony and the observance of its
inhabitants, as the Crown should ordain. Thereafter the governor of the
province and all its officers, civil and military, were to be nominated
and commissioned by the home government.

[Illustration: MAP OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND GEORGIA, 1773.

[Fac-simile of a map in _Some Account of the Design of the Trustees
for establishing the Colony of Georgia in America_, 1733, in Harvard
College Library [Tract vol. 536]. This tract is appended to Smith’s
Sermon (1733). This map also appeared the same year in _Reasonsf for
Establishing the Colony of Georgia_, etc. Cf. also the “New Map of
Georgia” in the French version of Martyn’s tracts published in the
_Recueil de Voyages au Nord_, Amsterdam, 1737; Harvard College Library,
shelf-no. 3621. 9, vol. ix.—ED.]]

In July, 1732, the corporators convened, accepted the charter, and
perfected an organization in accordance with its provisions.[841]
Commissions were issued to leading citizens and charitable corporations
empowering them to solicit contributions in aid of the trust.
Generously did the Trustees subscribe. To prevent any misappropriation
of funds, an account was opened with the Bank of England. There a
register was kept of the names of all benefactors and of the amounts of
their several donations. Liberal responses were received in furtherance
of the charitable scheme both from individuals and from corporations;
and, as an honorable indorsement of the project and its managers,
Parliament gave the sum of £10,000. Tracts commending the colonization
to the favorable notice of the public were prepared,—notably by
Oglethorpe, and by Benjamin Martyn, secretary to the Trustees,—and
widely circulated.

In framing regulations for the observance of the colonists, and in
maturing plans most conducive to the prosperity and permanence of the
contemplated settlement, the trustees regarded each male inhabitant
both as a planter and as a soldier. Hence, provision was made for
supplying him with arms and with agricultural tools. Towns, in
their inception, were reckoned as garrisons. Consequently the lands
allotted for tillage were to be in their immediate neighborhood,
so that in seasons of alarm the inhabitants might speedily betake
themselves thither for safety and mutual protection. Fifty acres were
adjudged sufficient for the support of a planter and his family.
Grants in tail-male were declared preferable to any other tenure. The
introduction and use of spirituous liquors were forbidden. Unless
sanctioned by special license, traffic with the natives was prohibited.
The trustees saw fit also to forbid the importation, ownership, and use
of negro slaves within the limits of the province of Georgia. Provision
was made for the cultivation of the mulberry tree and the breeding of
silk-worms.

Keeping in view the benevolent objects of the association and the
character of the settlement to be formed, it was manifest that only fit
persons should be selected for colonization, and that due care should
be exercised in the choice of emigrants. Preference was accordingly
given to applicants who came well recommended by the ministers,
church-wardens, and overseers of their respective parishes. That the
Trustees might not be deceived in the characters and antecedents of
those who signified a desire to avail themselves of the benefits of the
charity, a committee was appointed to visit the prisons and examine the
applicants there confined. If they were found to be worthy, compromises
were effected with their creditors and consents procured for their
discharge. Another committee sat at the office of the corporation to
inquire into the circumstances and qualifications of such as there
presented themselves. It has been idly charged that in the beginning
Georgia colonists were impecunious, lawless, depraved, and abandoned;
that the settlement at Savannah was a sort of Botany Bay, and that
Yamacraw Bluff was peopled by runagates from justice. The suggestion is
without foundation. The truth is that no applicant was admitted to the
privilege of enrolment as an emigrant until he had been subjected to a
preliminary examination, and had furnished satisfactory evidence that
he was fairly entitled to the benefits of the charity. Other American
colonies were founded and augmented by individuals coming at will,
without question for personal gain, and furnishing no certificate of
either past or present good conduct. Georgia, on the contrary, exhibits
the spectacle, at once unique and admirable, of permitting no one to
enter her borders who was not, by competent authority, adjudged worthy
the rights of citizenship. Even those colonists who proposed to come at
their own charge, and who brought servants with them, were required,
as a condition precedent to their embarkation, to prove that they had
obtained permission from the committee selected by the Trustees to pass
upon the qualification of applicants. Upon receiving the approbation
of the committee, and until the time fixed for sailing, adult male
emigrants passing under the bounty of the Trust were drilled each day
by the sergeants of the Royal Guards.

By the 3d of October, 1732, one hundred and fourteen
individuals—comprising men, women, and children—had been enrolled for
the first embarkation. The “Anne,” a galley of some two hundred tons
burden, commanded by Captain Thomas, was chartered to convey them to
Georgia. She was furnished not only with necessaries for the voyage,
but also with arms, agricultural implements, tools, munitions, and
stores for the use and support of the colonists after their arrival
in America. At his own request, Oglethorpe was selected to conduct
the colonists and establish them in Georgia. He volunteered to bear
his own expenses, and to devote his entire time and attention to the
consummation of the important enterprise. Himself the originator and
the most zealous advocate of the scheme,—this offer on his part placed
the seal of consecration upon his self-denial, patriotism, and enlarged
philanthropy. Most fortunate were the Trustees in securing the services
of such a representative. To no one could the power to exercise the
functions of a colonial governor have been more appropriately confided.

On the 17th of November, 1732, the “Anne” departed from England, having
on board about one hundred and thirty persons. Thirty-five families
were represented. Among them were carpenters, brick-layers, farmers,
and mechanics, all able-bodied and of good repute. Shaping her course
for the island of Madeira, the vessel there touched and took on board
five tuns of wine. After a protracted voyage the “Anne” dropped anchor
off Charlestown bar on the 13th of January, 1733. Two delicate children
had died at sea. With this exception, no sorrow darkened the passage,
and the colonists were well and happy.

[Illustration: EARLY SAVANNAH.

This print, published in London, 1741, is called “A View of the Town of
Savannah in the Colony of Georgia, in South Carolina, humbly inscribed
to his Excellency General Oglethorpe.” References: _A._ Part of an
island called Hutchinson’s Island. _B._ The stairs and landing-place
from the river to the town. _C._ A crane and bell to draw up any goods
from boats and to land them. _D._ A tent pitched near the landing for
General Oglethorpe. _E._ A guard-house with a battery of cannon lying
before it. _F._ The parsonage house. _G._ A plot of ground to build a
church. _H._ A fort or lookout to the woodside. _I._ The House for all
stores. _K._ The court house and chapel. _L._ The mill-house for the
public. _M._ A house for all strangers to reside in. _N._ The common
bake-house. _O._ A draw-well for water. _P._ The wood covering the back
and sides of the town with several vistas cut into it.

It is reproduced in Jones’s _History of Georgia_, i. 121; and a small
cut of it is given in Gay’s _Popular History of the United States_,
iii. 140, and in Cassell’s _United States_, i. 487. There is also a
print (15-3/4 × 21-3/4 inches) dedicated to the Trustees by Peter
Gordon, which is inscribed “A view of Savanah [_sic_] as it stood the
29th of March, 1734. P. Gordon, inv., P. Fourdrinier, sculp,” of which
there is a copy in the Boston Public Library [B. H. 6270, 52, no. 38].
Impressions may also be found in the British Museum, in the Mayor’s
office in Savannah, and in the library of Dr. C. C. Jones, Jr., in
Augusta, Ga.]

Oglethorpe was warmly welcomed and hospitably entreated by the governor
and council of South Carolina. The King’s pilot was detailed to conduct
the “Anne” into Port Royal harbor. Thence the colonists were conveyed
in small craft to Beaufort-town, where they landed and refreshed
themselves; while their leader, accompanied by Colonel William Bull,
proceeded to the Savannah River and made choice of a spot for the
settlement. Ascending that stream as far as Yamacraw Bluff, and
deeming it an eligible situation, he went on shore and marked out the
site of a town which, from the river flowing by, he named Savannah.
This bluff, rising some forty feet above the level of the river, and
presenting a bold frontage on the water of nearly a mile,—quite ample
for the riparian uses of a settlement of considerable magnitude,—was
the first high ground abutting upon the stream encountered by him in
its ascent. To the south a high and dry plain, overshadowed by pines
interspersed with live-oaks and magnolias, stretched away for a mile
or more. On the east and west were small creeks and swamps affording
convenient drainage for the intermediate territory. The river in front
was capable of floating ships of ordinary tonnage, and they could lie
so near the shore that their cargoes might with facility be discharged.
Northwardly, in the direction of Carolina, lay the rich delta of the
river, with its islands and lowlands crowned with a dense growth of
cypress, sweet-gum, tupelo, and other trees, many of them vine-covered
and draped in long gray moss swaying gracefully in the ambient air.
The yellow jessamine was already mingling its delicious perfume with
the breath of the pine, and the forest was vocal with the voices of
singing birds. Everything in this semi-tropical region was quickening
into life and beauty under the influences of returning spring. In its
primeval repose it seemed a goodly land. The temperate rays of the
sun gave no token of the heat of summer. There was no promise of the
tornado and the thunder-storm in the gentle winds. In the balmy air
lurked no suspicion of malarial fevers. Its proximity to the mouth of
the river rendered this spot suitable alike for commercial purposes and
for maintaining easy communication with the Carolina settlements.

Near by was an Indian village peopled by the Yamacraws, whose chief, or
mico, was the venerable Tomo-chi-chi. Having, through the intervention
of Mary Musgrove,—a half-breed, and the wife of a Carolina trader who
had there established a post,—persuaded the natives of the friendly
intentions of the English and secured from them an informal cession
of the desired lands, Oglethorpe returned to Beaufort. Thence, on the
30th of January, 1733, the colonists, conveyed in a sloop of seventy
tons and in five periaguas, set sail for Yamacraw Bluff, where, on
the afternoon of the second day afterward, they arrived in safety
and passed their first night upon the soil of Georgia. The ocean had
been crossed, and the germ of a new colony was planted in America.
Sharing the privations and the labors of his companions, Oglethorpe
was present planning, supervising, and encouraging. In marking out the
squares, lots, and streets of Savannah, he was materially assisted
by Colonel William Bull. Early and acceptable aid was extended by
the authorities of Carolina, and this was generously supplemented by
private benefactions. Well knowing that the planting of this colony
would essentially promote the security of Carolina, shielding that
province from the direct assaults and machinations of the Spaniards in
Florida, preventing the ready escape of fugitive slaves, guarding her
southern borders from the incursions of Indians, increasing commercial
relations, and enhancing the value of lands, the South Carolinians
were eager to further the prosperity of Georgia. Sensible of the
courtesies and assistance extended, Oglethorpe repaired at an early
day to Charlestown to return thanks in behalf of the colony and to
interest the public still more in the development of the plantation.
In this mission he was eminently successful. He was cheered also by
congratulations and proffers of aid from other American colonies.

In nothing were the prudence, wisdom, skill, and ability of the founder
of the colony of Georgia more conspicuous than in his conduct toward
and treatment of the Indians. The ascendency he acquired over them,
the respect they entertained for him, and the manly, generous, and
just policy he ever maintained in his intercourse with the native
tribes of the region are remarkable. Their favor at the outset was
essential to the repose of the settlement; their friendship, necessary
to its existence. As claimants of the soil by virtue of prior
occupancy, it was important that the title they asserted to these their
hunting grounds should at an early moment be peaceably and formally
extinguished. Ascertaining from Tomo-chi-chi the names and abodes of
the most influential chiefs dwelling within the territory ceded by the
charter, Oglethorpe enlisted the good offices of this mico in calling
a convention of them at Savannah. In May, 1733, the Indians assembled,
and on the 21st of that month a treaty was solemnized, by which the
Creeks ceded to the Trustees all lands lying between the Savannah
and the Alatamaha rivers, from the ocean to the head of tide-water.
In this cession were also embraced the islands on the coast from
Tybee to St. Simon inclusive, with the exception of Ossabau, Sapelo,
and St. Catharine, which were reserved for the purposes of hunting,
fishing, and bathing. A tract of land between Pipe-maker’s Bluffs
and Pally-Chuckola Creek was also retained as a place of encampment
whenever it should please the natives to visit their white friends
at Savannah. Stipulations were entered into regulating the price of
goods, the value of peltry, and the privileges of traders. It was
further agreed that criminal offences should be tried and punished in
accordance with the laws of England. In due course the provisions of
this treaty were formally ratified by the Trustees.

Thus happily, in the very infancy of the colony, was the title of the
Aborigines to the lands south of the Savannah amicably extinguished.
This treaty compassed the pacification of the Lower Creeks, the
Uchees, the Yamacraws, and of other tribes constituting the Muskhogee
confederacy.

[Illustration: TOMO-CHI-CHI MICO.

[This head is taken from a German print, engraved at Augsburg,
purporting to follow an original issued in London. The full print also
represents Tooanahowi, his brother’s son, a lad, holding an eagle as
he stands beside his uncle. The entire print on a smaller scale is
reproduced in Jones’s _History of Georgia_; in Gay’s _Popular History
of the United States_, iii. 147; and in Dr. Eggleston’s papers on “Life
in the English Colonies” in the _Century Magazine_.—ED.]]

Nor did the influences of this convocation rest with them only. They
were recognized by the Upper Creeks; and at a later date similar
stipulations were sanctioned by the Cherokees. For years were they
preserved inviolate; and the colony of Georgia, thus protected,
extended its settlements up the Savannah River and along the coast,
experiencing neither opposition nor molestation, but receiving on
every hand valuable assurance of the good-will of the children of
the forest. Probably the early history of no plantation in America
affords so few instances of hostility on the part of the natives,
or so many acts of kindness extended by the red men. Potent was the
influence of Tomo-chi-chi in consummating this primal treaty of amity
and commerce. Had this chief, turning a deaf ear to the advances of
Oglethorpe, refused his friendship, denied his request, and, inclining
his authority to hostile account, instigated a combined and determined
opposition on the part of the Yamacraws, the Uchees, and the Lower
Creeks, the perpetuation of this English settlement would have been
either most seriously imperilled or abruptly terminated amid smoke and
carnage. When therefore we recur to the memories of this period, and
as often as the leading events in the early history of the colony of
Georgia are narrated, so often should the favors experienced at the
hands of this mico be gratefully acknowledged. If Oglethorpe’s proudest
claim to the honor and respect of succeeding generations rests upon the
fact that he was the founder of the colony of Georgia, let it not be
forgotten that in the hour of supreme doubt and danger the right arm
of this son of the forest, his active intervention, and his unswerving
friendship were among the surest guarantees of the safety and the very
existence of that province. Tomo-chi-chi will be remembered as the firm
ally of the white man, the guide and protector of the colonist, the
constant companion and faithful confederate of Oglethorpe.

Accessions occurred as rapidly as the means of the Trust would allow.
Among some of the early comers were Italians from Piedmont, who were
engaged to develop the silk industry, from the pursuit of which
considerable gain was anticipated. As the immigrants multiplied, and
the defences at Savannah were strengthened, Fort Argyle was built on
the Great Ogeechee River, the villages of Highgate and Hampstead were
laid out, Thunderbolt and Skidoway Island were occupied, Joseph’s Town
and Abercorn were peopled, and plantations formed on Augustine Creek,
on the Little Ogeechee, and as far south as the Great Ogeechee River.
On the 7th of July, 1733, occurred a general allotment of town lots,
garden lots, and farms among the inhabitants of Savannah; and this was
confirmed by deed executed on the 21st of the following December. The
town lot contained sixty feet in front and ninety feet in depth; the
garden lot embraced five acres. Forty-four acres and one hundred and
forty-one poles constituted the farm; so that the grant aggregated
fifty acres,—thus conforming to the instructions of the Trustees, and
furnishing land sufficient for the support of the colonist who came at
the charge of the Trust and brought no servants. The conveyance was
in tail-male. Of the moneys realized from the sale of lands in the
island of St. Christopher, the sum of £10,000 was, in pursuance of a
resolution of the House of Commons, paid over to the “Trustees for
establishing the Colony of Georgia in America,” to be by them applied
“towards defraying the charges of carrying over and settling foreign
and other Protestants in said colony.” This timely relief enabled the
Trustees to accomplish a purpose from the execution of which they had
been prevented by a want of funds. In the administration of the Trust
preference had been accorded to English Protestants seeking homes in
the New World. Now, however, they were justified in enlarging the scope
of their charity, because the resolution in obedience to which this
liberal benefaction was made, contemplated in terms the colonization of
foreign Protestants.

[Illustration: COUNTY OF SAVANNAH.

This is a portion of a map in the Urlsperger Tracts, the whole of which
is reproduced in Jones’s _History of Georgia_, i. 148.]

As the first fruits of this expanded charity, on _Reminiscere
Sunday_, according to the Lutheran Calendar, in March, 1734, the ship
“Purisburg” entered the Savannah River having on board seventy-eight
Salzburgers under the conduct of Baron von Reck, and accompanied by
their spiritual advisers the Rev. John Martin Bolzius and the Rev.
Israel Christian Gronau. They came from the town of Berchtolsgaden
and its vicinity, had taken the oath of loyalty to the British Crown,
and were conveyed at the charge of the Trust. “Lying in fine and calm
weather under the Shore of our beloved _Georgia_, where we heard the
Birds sing melodiously, every Body in the Ship was joyful,”—so wrote
the Rev. Mr. Bolzius, the faithful attendant and religious teacher
of this Protestant band. He tells us that when the ship arrived at
the wharf, “almost all the inhabitants of the Town of Savannah were
gather’d together; they fired off some Cannons and cried Huzzah!...
Some of us were immediately fetch’d on shore in a Boat, and carried
about the City, into the woods, and the new Garden belonging to the
Trustees. In the mean time a very good Dinner was prepared for us.” The
inhabitants “shewing them a great deal of kindness, and the Country
pleasing them,” the new-comers “were full of Joy and praised God for
it.”

By the 7th of April all these Salzburgers had been conducted to
the spot designated as their future home. Although sterile and
unattractive, and situated in the midst of a pine barren, to these
peoples, tired of the sea and weary of persecutions, the locality
appeared blessed, redolent of sweet hope, teeming with bright promise,
and offering charming repose. The little town which they built in what
is now Effingham County, they called Ebenezer. Early in the following
year this settlement was reinforced by fifty-seven Salzburgers sent
over by the Trustees in the ship “Prince of Wales.” Accessions occurred
from time to time; and thus was introduced into the colony a population
inured to labor, sober, of strong religious convictions, conservative
in thought and conduct, obedient to rulers, and characterized by
intelligent industry. Disappointed in their anticipations with regard
to the fertility of the soil and the convenience of their location,
these peoples, with the consent of Oglethorpe, in a few years abandoned
their abodes and formed a new settlement on the Savannah River near the
confluence of Ebenezer Creek with that stream.

And now the Moravians, accompanied by the Rev. Gottlieb Spangenberg,
sought freedom of religious thought and worship in the province of
Georgia. To them were assigned lands along the line of the Savannah
River between the Salzburgers and the town of Savannah. With the
Salzburgers they associated on terms of the closest friendship. In
subduing the forests, in erecting comfortable dwellings, and in
cultivating the soil, they exhibited a most commendable zeal.

[Illustration: COAST SETTLEMENTS BEFORE 1743.

[This is the map given by Robert Wright in his _Memoir of General
James Oglethorpe_, London, 1867. There is a similar map in Harris’s
_Oglethorpe._ Cf. Gay’s _Popular History of the United States_, iii.
156.—ED.]]

Encouraged by the development of the plantation, desiring a personal
conference with the Trustees, and rightly judging that the advantage
and security of the province would be materially promoted by taking
with him to England some of the most intelligent of his Indian
neighbors, that they might by personal observation acquire a definite
conception of the greatness and the resources of the British empire,
and, moved by the kindnesses and attentions which he was quite sure
would be extended to them on every hand, imbibe memories that would
tend to cement the alliances and perpetuate the amicable relations
which had been so auspiciously inaugurated,—Oglethorpe, in March,
1734, persuaded Tomo-chi-chi with a selected retinue to accompany him
to London. The reception accorded to these Indians in the English
capital and its environs was cordial and appropriate. This visit of
Tomo-chi-chi and his companions, and the interest awakened by their
presence in London, materially assisted Oglethorpe and the Trustees
in enlisting the renewed and earnest sympathies of the public, not
only in behalf of the colonists, but also in aid of the education
and religious instruction of the natives. Widely disseminated among
the Indian nations was the knowledge of this sojourn of the mico of
the Yamacraws and his companions in the home of the white man. The
novel and beautiful presents which the Indians brought back with them
afforded ocular proof of the liberality of the English, and produced a
profound impression upon the natives, who, grateful for the kindness
shown to members of their race, were encouraged in the perpetuation of
the amicable relations existing between themselves and the colonists.

Through the influence of Oglethorpe the regulations of the Trustees
prohibiting the importation and sale of rum, brandy, and other
distilled liquors within the limits of Georgia, and forbidding the
introduction and use of negro slaves in the province, received the
sanction of Parliament. Commenting upon this legislation, Edmund
Burke remarked that while these restrictions were designed to bring
about wholesome results, they were promulgated without a sufficient
appreciation of the nature of the country and the disposition of the
people to be affected by them. Long and earnestly did many of the
colonists petition for the removal of these prohibitions, which placed
the province at a disadvantage when its privileges were contrasted
with those of sister plantations, and beyond doubt, so far at least
as the employment of slave-labor was concerned, retarded its material
development.

The peopling and fortification of the southern confines of Georgia
engaged the earnest thought of the Trustees. The Spaniards regarded
with a jealous eye the confirmation of this new English colony upon
the borders of Florida. Moved by urgent memorials on the subject,
Parliament granted £26,000 for “the settling, fortifying, and
defending” Georgia. Their treasury being thus replenished, and anxious
to enlist colonists of acknowledged strength and valor, the Trustees,
through Lieutenant Hugh Mackay, recruited among the Highlands of
Scotland one hundred and thirty men, with fifty women and children.
They were all of excellent character, and were carefully selected for
their military qualities. Accompanied by a clergyman of their own
choice,—the Rev. John McLeod, of the Isle of Skye,—this hardy company
was conveyed to Georgia and assigned to the left bank of the Alatamaha,
about sixteen miles above the island of St. Simon. Here these
Highlanders landed, erected a fort, mounted four pieces of cannon,
built a guard-house, a store, and a chapel, and constructed huts for
temporary accommodation preparatory to putting up more substantial
structures. To their little town they gave the name of New Inverness,
and the district which they were to hold and cultivate they called
Darien. These Scots were brave and hardy; just the men to occupy this
advanced post. In their plaids, and with their broadswords, targets,
and fire-arms, they presented a most manly appearance. Previous to
their departure from Savannah in periaguas, some Carolinians endeavored
to dissuade them from going to the south by telling them that the
Spaniards from the houses in their fort would shoot them upon the
spot selected by the Trustees for their abode. Nothing daunted, these
doughty countrymen of Bruce and Wallace responded, “Why, then, we
will beat them out of their fort, and shall have houses ready built
to live in.” This valiant spirit found subsequent expression in the
efficient military service rendered by these Highlanders during the
wars between the colonists and the Spaniards, and by their descendants
in the American Revolution. Augmented at intervals by fresh arrivals
from Scotland, this settlement, although placed in a malarial region,
steadily increased in wealth and influence.

At an early date a road was constructed to connect New Inverness with
Savannah.

On the morning of Feb. 5, 1736, the “Symond” and the “London Merchant,”
with the first of the flood, passed over the bar and came to anchor
within Tybee Roads. On board were two hundred and two persons conveyed
on the Trust’s account. Among them were English people, German
Lutherans under the conduct of Baron von Reck and Captain Hermsdorf,
and twenty-five Moravians with their bishop the Rev. David Nitschman.
Oglethorpe was present, accompanied by the brothers John and Charles
Wesley, the Rev. Mr. Ingham, and by Charles Delamotte, the son of
a London merchant and a friend of the Wesleys. Coming at their own
charge were Sir Francis Bathurst, with family and servants, and some
relatives of planters already settled in the province. Ample stores of
provisions, small arms, cannon, ammunition, and tools were transported
in these vessels. The declared object of this large accession of
colonists was the population of the southern confines of the province
and the building of a military town on the island of St. Simon, to be
called Frederica.

It was not until the 2d of March that the fleet of periaguas and boats,
with the newly arrived on board, set out from Tybee Roads for the mouth
of the Alatamaha. The voyage to the southward was accomplished in five
days. So diligently did the colonists labor, and so materially were
they assisted by workmen drawn from other parts of the province and
from Carolina, that by the 23d of the month Frederica had been laid
out, a battery of cannon commanding the river had been mounted, and a
fort almost completed. Its ditches had been dug, although not to the
required depth or width, and a rampart raised and covered with sod. A
storehouse, having a front of sixty feet, and designed to be three
stories in height, was finished as to its cellar and first story. The
main street which “went from the Front into the Country was 25 yards
wide. Each Freeholder had 60 Feet in Front by 90 Feet in depth upon the
high Street for their House and Garden; but those which fronted the
River had but 30 Feet in Front by 60 Feet in Depth. Each Family had a
Bower of Palmetto Leaves finished upon the back Street in their own
Lands. The Side towards the front Street was set out for their Houses.
These Palmetto Bowers were very convenient shelters, being tight in the
hardest Rains; they were about 20 Feet long and 14 Feet wide, and in
regular Rows looked very pretty, the Palmetto Leaves lying smooth and
handsome, and of a good Colour. The whole appeared something like a
Camp; for the Bowers looked like Tents, only being larger and covered
with Palmetto Leaves instead of Canvas. There were 3 large Tents, two
belonging to Mr. Oglethorpe and one to Mr. Horton, pitched upon the
Parade near the River.” Such is the description of Frederica in its
infancy as furnished by Mr. Moore, whose _Voyage to Georgia_ is perhaps
the most interesting and valuable tract we possess descriptive of the
colonization of the southern portion of Georgia. That there might be
no confusion in their labors, Oglethorpe divided the colonists into
working parties. To some was assigned the duty of cutting forks,
poles, and laths for building the bowers; others set them up; others
still gathered palmetto leaves; while “a fourth gang,” under the
superintendence of a Jew workman, bred in Brazil and skilled in the
matter, thatched the roofs “nimbly and in a neat manner.”

Men accustomed to agriculture instructed the colonists in hoeing and
preparing the soil. Potatoes, Indian corn, flax, hemp-seed, barley,
turnips, lucern-grass, pumpkins, and water-melons were planted. Labor
was common, and inured to the general benefit of the community. As it
was rather too late in the season to till the ground fully and sow a
crop to yield sufficient to subsist the settlement for the current
year, many of the men were put upon pay and set to work upon the
fortifications and the public buildings.

Frederica, situated on the west side of St. Simon’s Island, on a bold
bluff confronting a bay formed by one of the mouths of the Alatamaha
River, was planned as a military town, and constructed with a view
to breasting the shock of hostile assaults. Its houses were to be
substantially built, not of wood as in Savannah, but of tabby. At an
early period its streets by their names proclaimed the presence of
men-at-arms, while its esplanade and parade-ground characterized it
as a permanent camp.[842] Including the camp on the north, the parade
on the east, and a small wood on the south which was to serve as a
blind in the event of an attack from ships coming up the river, the
settlement was about a mile and a half in circumference.

[Illustration

NOTE.—The map opposite, showing the coast from St. Augustine to
Charlestown (S. C.), is copied from one in vol. v. of the _Urlsperger
Tracts_. There is another plan of St. Simon’s Island in W. B. Stevens’s
_Georgia_. i. 186.]

The town proper was to be protected by embankment and ditch, and
places for two gates, called respectively the Town and Water posts,
were indicated. The citadel was to be made of tabby, and formidably
armed. In front, a water battery, mounting several eighteen-pounder
guns, was designed to command the river. It was contemplated to guard
the town on the land side by a formidable intrenchment, the exterior
ditch of which could be filled with water. As Savannah was intended
as the commercial metropolis of the province, so was Frederica to
constitute its southern outpost and strong defence. It soon became the
Thermopylæ of the southern Anglo-American Colonies, the headquarters of
Oglethorpe’s regiment, the depot of military supplies for the dependent
forts built at the south, and the strong rallying point for British
colonization in the direction of Florida. In the history of the colony
there is no brighter chapter, and in the eventful life of Oglethorpe
no more illustrious epoch, than that which commemorates the protracted
and successful struggle with the Spaniards for the retention of the
charming island of St. Simon. In 1737 Oglethorpe kissed His Majesty’s
hand on receiving his commission as colonel. He was also appointed
general and commander-in-chief of all His Majesty’s forces in South
Carolina and Georgia, that he might the more readily wield the military
power of the two provinces in their common defence.

The finances of the Trust were now in a depressed condition, and the
General was compelled to draw largely upon his private fortune and to
pledge his individual credit in conducting the operations necessary
for the security of the southern frontier, and in provisioning the
settlers. Matters were further complicated by the defalcation of Thomas
Causton, the first Magistrate of Savannah and Keeper of the public
stores. Silk culture, from which so much was anticipated, proved a
positive expense. There was no profit in the vine. Enfeebled by the
hot suns of summer, and afflicted with fevers and fluxes engendered by
malarial exhalations from the marish grounds, many of the inhabitants
lost heart and cried aloud for the introduction of African slavery.
Disappointed in their plans for the religious instruction of the
colonists and the conversion of the natives, the brothers John and
Charles Wesley had quitted the province. In the consummation of
his benevolent and educational scheme, the Rev. George Whitefield
was compelled to rely upon foreign aid. With the exception of the
Highlanders at Darien, the Salzburgers at Ebenezer, and the Indian
traders at Augusta, Georgia could not boast that her inhabitants were
either contented or prosperous. There was general clamor for fee-simple
title to lands, and permission to buy slaves was constantly urged.
The disaffected hesitated not to malign the authorities, to disquiet
the settlers, and to exaggerate the unpleasantness of the situation.
Fortunately the Indian nations remained peaceful; and in general
convention held at Coweta-town in August, 1739, in the presence of
Oglethorpe, they renewed their fealty to the King of Great Britain, and
in terms most explicit confirmed their previous grants of territory.

[Illustration: [Fac-simile of a plan of St. Augustine in Roberts’s
_Account of Florida_, London, 1763.—ED.]]

And now the Spanish war-cloud which had so long threatened the southern
confines of the province, seemed about to descend in wrath and power.
Acting under the discretionary powers confided to him, General
Oglethorpe resolved to anticipate the event by an invasion of Florida
and the reduction of St. Augustine,—the stronghold of Spanish dominion
in that province.

[Illustration: COAST OF FLORIDA.

Fac-simile of the plan in _An Impartial Account of the late Expedition
against St. Augustine under General Oglethorpe_. London, 1742.]

[Illustration: HARBOR AND TOWN OF ST. AUGUSTINE.

[Fac-simile of part of the map in _An Impartial Account of the late
Expedition against St. Augustine under General Oglethorpe, occasioned
by the suppression of the Report of the General Assembly of South
Carolina, with an exact plan of St. Augustine and the adjacent coast of
Florida, showing the disposition of our Forces_. London, 1742.—ED.]]

Collecting his regiment, summoning to his assistance forces from South
Carolina, and calling in his Indian allies, in May, 1740, with a mixed
army of rather more than two thousand men, he moved upon the capital
of Florida. In this expedition Sir Yelverton Peyton, with the British
vessels of war,—the “Flamborough,” the “Phœnix,” the “Squirrel,” the
“Tartar,” the “Spence,” and the “Wolf,”—was to participate. The castle
of St. Augustine consisted of a fort built of soft stone. Its curtain
was sixty yards in length, its parapet nine feet thick, and its rampart
twenty feet high, “casemated underneath for lodgings, and arched over
and newly made bombproof.” Its armament consisted of fifty cannon,
sixteen of brass, and among them some twenty-four pounders. For some
time had the garrison been working upon a covered way, but this was
still in an unfinished condition. The town was protected by a line of
intrenchments, with ten salient angles, in each of which field-pieces
were mounted. In January, 1740, the Spanish forces in Florida,
exclusive of Indians and one company of militia, were estimated at
nine hundred and sixty-five men of all arms. As foreshadowed in his
dispatch of the 27th of March, 1740, it was the intention of General
Oglethorpe to advance directly upon St. Augustine, and attack by sea
and land the town and the island in its front. Both, he believed, could
be taken “sword in hand.” Conceiving that the castle would be too small
to afford convenient shelter for the two thousand one hundred men,
women, and children of the town, he regarded the capitulation of the
fortress as not improbable. Should it refuse to surrender, he proposed
to shower upon it “Granado-shells from the Coehorns and Mortars,”
and other projectiles. If it should not yield under the bombardment,
he was resolved to open trenches and reduce it by a regular siege.
The result was a disastrous failure. This miscarriage may be fairly
attributed,—first, to the delay in inaugurating the movement, caused
mainly, if not entirely, by the tardiness on the part of the South
Carolina authorities in contributing the troops, munitions, and
provisions for which requisition had been made; in the second place, to
the reinforcement of men and supplies from Havana introduced into St.
Augustine just before the English expedition set out, thereby repairing
the inequality previously existing between the opposing forces; again,
to the injudicious movements against Forts Francis de Papa and Diego,
which put the Spaniards upon the alert, encouraged concentration on
their part, and foreshadowed an immediate demonstration in force
against their stronghold; and to the inability on the part of the
fleet to participate in the assault previously planned, and which was
to have been vigorously undertaken so soon as General Oglethorpe with
his land forces came into position before the walls of St. Augustine.
Finally, the subsequent surprise and destruction of Colonel Palmer’s
command, thereby enabling the enemy to communicate with and draw
supplies from the interior; the lack of heavy ordnance with which to
reduce the castle from the batteries planted on Anastasia island;
the impossibility of bringing up the larger war vessels that they
might participate in the bombardment; the inefficiency of Colonel
Vanderdussen’s command; the impatience and disappointment of the Indian
allies, who anticipated early capture and liberal spoils; as well
as hot suns, heavy dews, a debilitating climate, sickness among the
troops, and the arrival of men, munitions of war, and provisions from
Havana through the Matanzas River,—all conspired to render futile
whatever hopes at the outset had been entertained for a successful
prosecution of the siege.

Although this attempt—so formidable in its character when we consider
the limited resources at command, and so full of daring when we
contemplate the circumstances under which it was prosecuted—resulted
in disappointment, its effects were not without decided advantage to
Georgia and her sister colonies. For two years the Spaniards remained
on the defensive. During that time General Oglethorpe enjoyed an
opportunity for strengthening his fortifications and increasing his
army; so that when the counter blow was delivered by his adversary, he
was the better prepared not only to parry it, but also to punish the
uplifted arm.

During the preceding seven years, which constituted the entire life
of the colony, Oglethorpe had enjoyed no respite from his labors.
Personally directing all movements; supervising the location and
providing for the comfort, safety, and good order of the colonists
as they arrived from time to time; reconciling their differences,
encouraging and directing their labors; propitiating the aborigines,
influencing necessary supplies, inaugurating suitable defences, and
enforcing the regulations of the Trustees,—he had passed constantly
from point to point, finding no rest. Upon his shoulders, as the
Trustees’ representative and as a _de facto_ colonial governor, did
the administration of the affairs of the province rest. Now in tent
at Savannah; now in open boat reconnoitring the coast, now upon the
southern islands, his only shelter the wide-spreading live-oak,
designating sites for forts and lookouts, and with his own hands
planning military works and laying out villages; again journeying
frequently along the Savannah, the Great Ogeechee, the Alatamaha, the
St. John, and far off into the heart of the Indian country; often
inspecting his advanced posts; undertaking voyages to Charlestown and
to England in behalf of the Trust, and engaged in severe contests
with the Spaniards,—his life had been one of incessant activity and
solicitude. But for his energy, intelligence, watchfulness, valor,
and self-sacrifice, the important enterprise must have languished. As
we look back upon this period of trial, uncertainty, and poverty, our
admiration for his achievements increases the more closely we scan his
limited resources and opportunities, the more thoroughly we appreciate
the difficulties he was called upon to surmount.

There was a lull in the storm; but the skies were still overcast. In
the distance were heard ominous mutterings portending the advent of
another and a darker tempest. Anxious but calm, Oglethorpe scanned
the adverse skies and prepared to breast their fury. In alluding to
the expected invasion from St. Augustine, he thus writes to the Duke
of Newcastle: “If our men-of-war will not keep them from coming in by
sea, and we have no succor, but decrease daily by different accidents,
all we can do will be to die bravely in His Majesty’s service.... I
have often desired assistance of the men-of-war, and continue to do
so. I go on in fortifying this town [Frederica], making magazines, and
doing everything I can to defend the province vigorously; and I hope my
endeavors will be approved of by His Majesty, since the whole end of my
life is to do the duty of a faithful subject and grateful servant.”

Late in June, 1742, a Spanish fleet of fifty-one sail, with nearly five
thousand troops on board, under the command of Don Manuel de Monteano,
governor of St. Augustine, bore down upon the Georgia coast with a view
to the capture of the island of St. Simon and the destruction of the
English plantation south of the Savannah. To resist this formidable
descent, General Oglethorpe could oppose only a few small forts, about
six hundred and fifty men, a guard schooner, and some armed sloops.
With a bravery and dash almost beyond comprehension, by strategy most
admirable, Oglethorpe by a masterly disposition of the troops at
command, coupled with the timidity of the invaders and the dissensions
which arose in their ranks, before the middle of July put the entire
Spanish army and navy to flight. This “deliverance of Georgia,” said
Whitefield, “is such as cannot be paralleled but by some instances out
of the Old Testament.” The defeat of so formidable an expedition by
such a handful of men was a matter of astonishment to all. The memory
of this defence of St. Simon’s Island and the southern frontier is one
of the proudest in the annals of Georgia. Never again did the Spaniards
attempt to put in execution their oft-repeated threat to extirpate all
the English plantations south of Port-Royal Sound. Sullenly and with
jealous eye did they watch the development of Georgia, until twenty-one
years afterwards all disputes were ended by the cession of Florida
to the Crown of Great Britain. Upon the confirmation of the Peace of
Aix-la-Chapelle most of the English troops were withdrawn from the
island of St. Simon, and its fortifications soon began to fall into
decay.

Georgia at this time consisted of only two counties, Savannah and
Frederica. In April, 1741, Colonel William Stephens, who for several
years had been acting in the colony as secretary to the Trustees,
was by them appointed president of the county of Savannah. In the
administration of public affairs he was aided by four assistants. As
General Oglethorpe, who was charged with the direction and management
of the entire province, spent most of his time at Frederica, the
designation of a presiding officer for that division of Georgia was
regarded as superfluous. Bailiffs were constituted, whose duty it
was, under the immediate supervision of the General, to attend to
the concerns of that county. At Augusta, Captain Richard Kent acted
as “conservator to keep the peace in that town and in the precincts
thereof.” Upon the return of General Oglethorpe to England, in order to
provide for the government of the entire colony the Trustees decided
that the president and assistants who had been appointed for the county
of Savannah should be proclaimed president and assistants for the
whole province, and that the bailiffs at Frederica should be considered
simply as local magistrates. They further advised that the salary of
the recorder at Frederica be raised, and that he correspond regularly
with the president and assistants in Savannah, transmitting to them
from time to time the proceedings of the town court, and rendering an
account of such transactions and occurrences in the southern part of
the province as it might be necessary for them to know. Thus, upon
the departure of General Oglethorpe, the honest-minded and venerable
Colonel William Stephens succeeded to the office of colonial governor.
It was during his administration that the Trustees, influenced by
repeated petitions and anxious to promote the prosperity of the
province, removed the restrictions hitherto existing with regard
to the introduction, use, and ownership of negro slaves, and the
importation of rum and other distilled liquors. They also permitted
existing tenures of land “to be enlarged and extended to an absolute
inheritance.”

In bringing about the abrogation of the regulation which forbade the
ownership or employment of negro slaves in Georgia, no two gentlemen
were more influential than the Rev. George Whitefield and the Hon.
James Habersham. The former boldly asserted that the transportation of
the African from his home of barbarism to a Christian land, where he
would be humanely treated and required to perform his share of toil
common to the lot of humanity, was advantageous; while the latter
affirmed that the colony could not prosper without the intervention
of slave-labor. Georgia now enjoyed like privileges with those
accorded to the sister American provinces. Lands could now be held in
fee-simple, and the power of alienation was unrestricted. The ownership
and employment of negro slaves were free to all, and the New England
manufacturer could here find an open market for his rum.

The Trustees had up to this point seriously misinterpreted the
capabilities of the climate and soil of Georgia. Although substantial
encouragement had been afforded to Mr. Amatis, to Jacques Camuse,
to the Salzburgers at Ebenezer, and to others; although copper
basins and reeling-machines had been supplied and a filature
erected; although silk-worm eggs were procured and mulberry trees
multiplied,—silk-culture in Georgia yielded only a harvest of
disappointment. The vine also languished. Olive trees from Venice,
barilla seeds from Spain, the kali from Egypt, and other exotics
obtained at much expense, after a short season withered and died in the
public garden. Hemp and flax, from the cultivation of which such rich
yields were anticipated, never warranted the charter of a single vessel
for their transportation, and indigo did not then commend itself to
public favor. Exportations of lumber were infrequent. Cotton was then
little more than a garden plant, and white laborers could not compete
successfully with Carolina negroes in the production of rice. Up to
this point the battle had been with Nature for life and subsistence.
Upon the stores of the Trust did many long rely for food and clothing.
Of trade there was little, and that was confined to the procurement
of necessaries. With the exception of occasional shipments of copper
money for circulation among the inhabitants, sola bills constituted the
chief currency of the province. Now, however, all restrictions removed,
Georgia entered upon a career of comparative prosperity.

[Illustration: WHITEFIELD.

This cut (see also the _Memorial History of Boston_, ii. 238) follows a
painting in Memorial Hall, Cambridge, Mass. The portraits of Whitefield
are numerous. J. C. Smith (_British Mezzotint Portraits_, i. 442, 443;
iii. 601, 692, 939; iv. 1545) enumerates various ones in that style,
giving a photo-reproduction of one. The Lives of him usually give
likenesses.]

On the 8th of April, 1751, Mr. Henry Parker was appointed president of
the colony in the room of Colonel Stephens, who retired upon a pension
of £80. During his administration the first Provincial Assembly of
Georgia convened at Savannah. It was composed of sixteen delegates,
and was presided over by Francis Harris. As the privilege of enacting
laws was by the terms of the charter vested exclusively in the
Trustees, this assembly could not legislate. Its powers were limited
to discussing and suggesting such measures as its members might deem
conducive to the welfare of particular communities and important for
the general good of the province.

The “Trustees for establishing the Colony of Georgia in America”
resolved to surrender their charter and relieve themselves from the
further execution of a trust which had grown quite beyond their
management. For twenty years they had supported its provisions with
an earnest solicitude, a philanthropic zeal, a disinterested purpose,
and a loyal devotion worthy of every commendation. They had seen a
feeble plantation upon Yamacraw Bluff expand year by year, until it
now assumed the proportions of a permanent colony and disclosed the
potentialities of a future nation. The English drum-beat on the banks
of the Savannah is answered by the Highland bagpipe on the Alatamaha,
and the protecting guns of Frederica are supplemented by the sentinel
field-pieces at Augusta. At every stage of progress and in every act,
whether trivial or important, these Trustees, capable and worthy,
evinced a clear conception of duty, a patience of labor, a singleness
of purpose, an unselfish dedication of time and energy, and a rigid
adherence to all that was pure, elevated, and humanizing, which become
quite conspicuous when their proceedings are minutely and intelligently
scanned. That they erred in their judgment in regard to the best method
of utilizing many of these marish lands, smitten by sun and storms
and pregnant with fevers and fluxes, may not now be doubted; that the
theory upon which they administered the trust was in some respects
narrow and retarding in its influences, is equally certain; that they
were unfortunate in the selection of some of their agents excites no
surprise,—but that they were upright, conscientious, observant, and
most anxious to promote the best interests of the colony, as they
comprehended them, will be freely admitted.

The surrender of the charter was formally concluded on the 23d of June,
1752; and Georgia, no longer the ward of the Trustees, passed into
the hands of the Crown. Until clothed with the attributes of State
sovereignty by the successful issue of the American Revolution, she was
recognized as one of the daughters of England under the special charge
of the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations. By the terms of
the surrender, her integrity as an independent province, separate from
South Carolina, was fully assured, and all grants of land, hitherto
made to the inhabitants, were recognized and respected.

Upon the death of Mr. Parker, Patrick Graham succeeded to the
presidency of Georgia. Until a plan for establishing a civil government
could be perfected, all officers, both civil and military, holding
appointments from the Trustees, were continued in their respective
places of trust, with such emoluments, salaries, and fees as were
incident thereto. The population of the colony now consisted of two
thousand three hundred and eighty-one whites, and one thousand and
sixty-six negro slaves. This estimate did not include His Majesty’s
troops and boatmen, or a congregation of two hundred and eighty whites,
with negro slaves aggregating five hundred and thirty-six, coming
from South Carolina and partially settled in the Midway District, or
Butler’s Colony with sixty slaves.

The plan suggested by the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations
for the establishment of a civil government in Georgia contemplated the
appointment of a governor, by commission under the Great Seal, with
the title of _Captain-General and Governor-in-chief of His Majesty’s
Province of Georgia, and Vice-Admiral of the same_. He was to be
addressed as _Your Excellency_, and was, within the colony, to be
respected as the immediate and highest representative of His Majesty.
His functions, as well as those of the two Houses of the Assembly, were
well defined.[843]

The plan thus submitted for the government of the Province of Georgia
received royal sanction; and His Majesty, upon the nomination of the
Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, was pleased, on the
6th of August, 1754, to appoint Captain John Reynolds governor of the
Province of Georgia; William Clifton, Esq., attorney-general; James
Habersham, Esq., secretary and register; Alexander Kellet, Esq.,
provost-marshal; William Russel, Esq., naval officer; Henry Yonge and
William De Brahm joint surveyors; Sir Patrick Houstoun, Bart., register
of grants and receiver of quit rents; and Patrick Graham, Sir Patrick
Houstoun, James Habersham, Alexander Kellet, William Clifton, Noble
Jones, Pickering Robinson, Francis Harris, Jonathan Bryan, William
Russell, and Clement Martin members of Council.

When during the same year (1754) the other English colonies sent
delegates to represent them at the Congress of Albany, in order to
draft a plan of union against the French, Georgia filled so narrow a
space in the regard of the other colonies that her failure to join in
the proposed league was hardly remarked.

Only three Royal Governors did Georgia have. The terms of service
of Captain Reynolds and of Henry Ellis were short. Assuming the
reins of government in 1760, the third and last Royal Governor, Sir
James Wright, encountered the storms of the Revolution, and in a
brave adherence to the cause of his royal master suffered arrest,
mortification, and loss. It was his lot to preside at an epoch full of
doubt and trouble. During his administration the political ties which
united Georgia to the mother country were violently sundered, and a
union of American colonies was formed, which in after years developed
into the great Republic. The rapid development of Georgia under the
conduct of these royal governors will be admitted when it is remembered
that in 1754 her exports did not amount to £30,000 a year; while,
at the opening of the Revolutionary War, they did not fall short of
£200,000 sterling.


CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

GEORGIA was named in honor of the reigning king of England, George II.,
who graciously sanctioned a charter, liberal in its provisions, and who
granted to the Trustees a territory, extensive and valuable, for the
plantation.

In a report submitted to Congress by the Hon. Charles Lee,
attorney-general of the United States (Philadelphia, 1796), will be
found a valuable collection of charters, treaties, and documents
explanatory of the original cession to the “Trustees for establishing
the Colony of Georgia in America,” and of the modifications and
enlargements to which the same was later subjected. The territory
which, in 1733, became the Province of Georgia at an earlier day
formed a part of ancient Florida, which stretched in the Spanish
conception from the Gulf of Mexico to the far north and westward to the
Mississippi and indefinitely beyond.

It has fallen to the lot of another writer in the present work to
mention the authorities on the primitive peoples of this region; and
by still another an enumeration is made of the archæological traces of
their life.[844]

       *       *       *       *       *

The project of Sir Robert Mountgomery for planting a colony in the
territory subsequently ceded to the Georgia Trustees is fully unfolded
in his _Discourse concerning the design’d Establishment of a New
Colony to the South of Carolina in the most delightful Country of
the Universe_, London, 1717.[845] Accompanying this _Discourse_ is
an engraved “plan representing the Form of Settling the Districts
or County Divisions in the Margravate of Azilia.”[846] Although
extensively advertised, this scheme failed to attract the favor of the
public, and ended in disappointment.

The true story of the mission of Sir Alexander Cuming, of
Aberdeenshire, Scotland, to establish a trade with the Cherokees, and
confirm them in their friendship with and allegiance to the British
crown, has been well told by Samuel G. Drake in his _Early History of
Georgia, embracing the Embassy of Sir Alexander Cuming to the Country
of the Cherokees in the year 1730_, Boston, 1872. A reproduction of
the rare print giving the portraits of the Indians who accompanied
Sir Alexander on his return to London might have been advantageously
employed in lending additional attraction to this publication.[847]

[Illustration: HANDWRITING OF OGLETHORPE.]

Of the memoirs of Oglethorpe,—whose life Dr. Johnson desired to
write, and whom Edmund Burke regarded as the most extraordinary
person of whom he had read, because he founded a province and lived
to see it severed from the empire which created it and erected into
an independent State,—those best known are _A Sketch of the Life of
General James Oglethorpe, presented to the Georgia Historical Society
by Thomas Spalding, Esq., resident member of the same_, printed in
1840; _Biographical Memorials of James Oglethorpe, Founder of the
Colony of Georgia in North America, by Thaddeus Mason Harris, D. D._,
Boston, 1841;[848] _Life of James Oglethorpe, the Founder of Georgia,
by William B. O. Peabody_, constituting a part of volume ii. of the
second series of _The Library of American Biography, conducted by Jared
Sparks_, Boston, 1847, and based mainly upon Dr. Harris’ work; and _A
Memoir of General James Oglethorpe, one of the earliest Reformers of
Prison Discipline in England and the Founder of Georgia in America, by
Robert Wright_, London, 1867. The advantages enjoyed by Mr. Wright were
exceptionally good, and until the appearance of his memoir that by Dr.
Harris was justly regarded as the best.[849]

That the public might be advised of the benevolent character and scope
of the undertaking, and might be made acquainted with the designs of
the Trustees with regard to the proposed colonization of Georgia, two
tracts were published with their sanction: one of them, prepared by
Oglethorpe, entitled _A New and Accurate Account of the Provinces of
South Carolina and Georgia, with many curious and useful Observations
on the Trade, Navigation, and Plantations of Great Britain compared
with her most powerful Maritime Neighbors in ancient and modern Times_,
printed in London in 1732;[850] and the other, written by Benjamin
Martyn, Secretary of the Board, entitled _Reasons for establishing
the Colony of Georgia with regard to the Trade of Great Britain,
the Increase of our People, and the Employment and Support it will
afford to great numbers of our own Poor as well as Foreign persecuted
Protestants, with some account of the Country and the Designs of the
Trustees_, London, 1733.[851] Well considered and widely circulated,
these tracts were productive of results most beneficial to the
Trust.[852]

The development of the province down to 1741 is described and the
regulations promulgated by the Trustees for the conduct of the
plantation and for the observance of its inhabitants are preserved in
_An Account shewing the Progress of the Colony of Georgia in America
from its First Establishment_, London, 1741. This publication was by
authority, and must be accepted as of the highest importance.[853]

Of like interest and value are _An Impartial Enquiry into the State
and Utility of the Province of Georgia_, London, 1741,—appearing
anonymously,[854] but with the sanction of the Trustees, and intended
to correct certain mischievous reports circulated with regard to the
health of the plantation, the fertility of the soil, the value of the
products, and the disabilities under which Georgia labored because of
restricted land tenures, and by reason of the regulations prohibiting
the introduction and use of spirituous liquors and negro slaves; and
_A State of the Province of Georgia attested upon Oath in the Court
of Savannah, November 10, 1740_, London, 1742,—in which the superior
advantages of Georgia, her resources and capabilities, are favorably
considered and proclaimed.

The history of the Salzburgers in Georgia may be learned from _An
Extract of the Journals of Mr. Commissary Von Reck, who conducted the
First Transport of Salzburgers to Georgia; and of the Reverend Mr.
Bolzius, one of their Ministers, giving an Account of their Voyage to
and happy Settlement in the Province, published by the Directors of
the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge_, London, 1734;[855]
from _Neuste und richtigste Nachricht von der Landschaft Georgia
in dem Engelländischen America, etc., von J. M. R._, Göttingen,
1746;[856] from _De Præstantia Coloniæ Georgico-Anglicanæ præ
Coloniis aliis_,[857] et seq., by Joannes Augustus Urlspergerus;
from the _Urlsperger Tracts_, which present with wonderful fidelity
and minuteness of details all events connected with the Salzburger
settlements in America;[858] and from the _Salzburgers and their
Descendants, being the history of a Colony of German Lutheran
Protestants who emigrated to Georgia in 1734, and settled at Ebenezer,
twenty-five miles above the City of Savannah, by P. A. Strobel_,
Baltimore, 1855.[859]

To the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ and to the _London Magazine_ must
recourse be had for valuable letters and contemporaneous documents
descriptive of the colonization of Georgia and the development of the
plantation.

There is in Section xxi. of Chapter iii. of the second volume of
_Navigantium atque Itinerantium Bibliotheca, or a Complete Collection
of Voyages and Travels_, etc., by John Harris (London, 1748), a
“History of the Rise, Progress, and Present State of the Colony of
Georgia.” It is prefaced by an excellent map of the province, and is
fortified by illustrative documents. In its twenty-five quarto pages
are embraced all the noted incidents connected with the early life
of the colony and the successful efforts of General Oglethorpe in
defending the southern frontier of Georgia against the assaults of the
Spaniards. The value of this contribution cannot well be overestimated.

Another work of genuine merit, acquainting us specially with the
condition of Savannah and the adjacent region, with the settlement of
Frederica, and with those preliminary negotiations which resulted in a
postponement of impending hostilities between Georgia and Florida, is
_A Voyage to Georgia begun in the year 1735_, etc., by Francis Moore,
London, 1744.[860]

A most detailed statement of the affairs and events of the province
will be found in the three octavo volumes constituting the diary
of Colonel William Stephens, for some time resident Secretary
in Georgia of the Trustees, and, upon the departure of General
Oglethorpe, advanced to the responsible position of President of the
colony,—entitled _A Journal of the Proceedings in Georgia beginning
October 20th, 1737_, which was printed in London in 1742.[861] Of
this work but a limited edition was published by the Trustees, and a
complete copy is very difficult to find. While its pages are cumbered
with many trivial matters, this rare _Journal_ is remarkable for
accuracy of statement and minuteness of details. Its author was at
the time far advanced in years, and his narrative is not infrequently
colored by his peculiar religious and political notions. He was a firm
friend of the colony, an honest servant of the Trust, and in all things
most obedient and loyal to his king. Retired upon a pension of £80, he
spent his last years on his plantation, near the mouth of Vernon River,
which he called Bewlie [Beaulieu] because of a fancied resemblance to
the manor of the Duke of Montague in the New Forest. There, about the
middle of August, 1753, he died.

In the Executive Department of the State of Georgia may be seen the
original MS. folio volume containing _A general account of all monies
and effects received and expended by the Trustees for establishing the
Colony of Georgia in America_ (June 9, 1732-June 9, 1752), the names
of the benefactors, and the sums contributed and the articles given by
them in aid of the Trust. This carefully written and unique volume,
the entries, charges, and discharges of which are certified by Harman
Verelst,—accountant to the Trustees,—exhibits a complete statement
of the finances of the Trust from its inception to the time of the
surrender of the charter.[862]

The fullest reports of the demonstration of General Oglethorpe against
St. Augustine are contained in _An Impartial Account of the Expedition
against St. Augustine under General Oglethorpe, occasioned by the
suppression of the Report made by a Committee of the General Assembly
in South Carolina, transmitted under the great seal of that Province
to their Agent in England in order to be printed: with an exact Plan
of the Town, Castle, and Harbour of St. Augustine and the adjacent
Coast of Florida; shewing the Disposition of our Forces on that
Enterprize_, London, 1741;[863] in _The Report of the Committee of
both Houses of Assembly of the Province of South Carolina appointed to
enquire into the causes of the Disappointment of success in the late
Expedition against St. Augustine under command of General Oglethorpe,
published by the order of both Houses_, Charlestown, S. C., and London,
1743;[864] and in _The Spanish Hireling detected, being a Refutation
of the Several Calumnies and Falsehoods in a late Pamphlet entitul’d
An Impartial Account of the Late Expedition against St. Augustine
under General Oglethorpe, by George Cadogan, Lieutenant in General
Oglethorpe’s Regiment_, etc., London, 1743.[865] Grievous was the
disappointment at the failure of the expedition; unjust and harsh
were the criticisms upon its leader. “One man there is, my Lords,”
said the Duke of Argyle in the British House of Peers, “whose natural
generosity, contempt of danger, and regard for the public prompted him
to obviate the designs of the Spaniards and to attack them in their own
territories: a man whom by long acquaintance I can confidently affirm
to have been equal to his undertaking, and to have learned the art of
war by a regular education, who yet miscarried in the design only for
want of supplies necessary to success.”[866]

Of his successful repulse of the Spanish attack upon the island of
St. Simon, the most spirited narratives are furnished in General
Oglethorpe’s official report of the 30th of July, 1742, printed in
the 3d volume of the _Collections of the Georgia Historical Society_;
in the letter of John Smith (who, on board the war vessel “Success,”
participated in the naval engagement), written from Charlestown,
South Carolina, on the 14th of July, 1742, and printed in the _Daily
Advertiser_; and in a communication on file in the Public Record Office
in London among the Shaftesbury Papers.[867]

That harmony did not always obtain among the Georgia colonists,
and that disagreements between the governing and the governed were
sometimes most pronounced, must be admitted. While the Trustees
endeavored to promote the development of the plantation and to
assure the public of the progress of the province, malcontents there
were, who thwarted their plans, questioned the expediency of their
regulations, and openly declared that their misrule and the partiality
of the Trust’s servants were the prolific causes of disquietude and
disaster. That General Oglethorpe may, at times, have been dictatorial
in his administration of affairs is quite probable; and yet it must
be admitted that, amid the dangers which environed and the disturbing
influences which beset the development of the province, an iron will
and a strong arm were indispensable for its guidance and protection.

The publication, in the interest of the Trust, of the two pamphlets
to which we have alluded, one entitled _An Impartial Inquiry into the
State and Utility of the Province of Georgia_, London, 1741,[868] and
the other, _A State of the Province of Georgia attested upon Oath in
the Court of Savannah, November 10, 1740_, London, 1742,[869]—both
exhibiting favorable views of the condition of the colony and
circulated in furtherance of the scheme of colonization,—so irritated
these malcontents that they indulged in several rejoinders, among which
will be remembered _A Brief Account of the Causes that have retarded
the Progress of the Colony of Georgia in America, attested upon oath:
being a proper Contrast to A State of the Province of Georgia attested
upon oath and some other misrepresentations on the same subject_,
London, 1743.[870] The magistrates, both at Savannah and Frederica,
were therein declared to be oppressors of the inhabitants. General
Oglethorpe was accused of tyranny and partiality. It will be observed
that most of the supporting affidavits were verified outside the limits
of Georgia. A desire to sell forbidden articles, and to ply trades for
which special licenses had been issued to others; opposition to the
regulation which prohibited the owners of cattle and hogs from allowing
them to run at large on the common and in the streets of Frederica;
alleged misfeasance in the conduct of bailiffs and magistrates in the
discharge of their duties; the unprofitableness of labor, overbearing
acts committed by those in authority, and similar matters, formed
the burthen of these sworn complaints. While they tended to distract
the public mind and to annoy those upon whose shoulders rested the
provincial government, they fortunately failed in producing any serious
impression either within the colony or in the mother country.

Another Jacobinical tract was that prepared and published at the
instigation of Dr. Patrick Tailfer,—a thorn in the side of General
Oglethorpe, to whom, under the signature of “The Plain Dealer,” he
addressed a communication upon colonial affairs full of complaint,
condemnation, and sarcasm. He was the chief of a club of malcontents
in Savannah, whose conduct became so notorious that they were forced,
in September, 1740, to quit the province and seek refuge in South
Carolina. When thus beyond the jurisdiction of Georgia, in association
with Hugh Anderson, David Douglass, and others, he caused to be printed
a scurrilous tract entitled _A True and Historical Narrative of the
Colony of Georgia in America from the first Settlement thereof until
the present period_, etc., Charles-Town, South Carolina, 1741.[871]
The epistle dedicatory is addressed to General Oglethorpe, and is full
of venom. Craving rum, negro slaves, and fee-simple titles to land,
such disaffected colonists hesitated not to malign the authorities,
disquiet the settlers, and belie the true condition of affairs. Georgia
was then in an embarrassed and impoverished situation. Her population
was increasing but slowly. Labor was scarcely remunerative. Onerous
were some of the regulations of the Trustees, and the Spanish war cloud
was darkening the southern confines of the province. The impression,
however, which Dr. Tailfer and his associates sought to convey of
the status of the colony was exaggerated, spiteful, and without
warrant.[872]

The visit of Tomo-chi-chi and his retinue to England is described
in contemporaneous numbers of the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ and of the
_London Magazine_. It was also commemorated in what is now rarely seen,
_Georgia a Poem_; _Tomo-cha-chi, an Ode_; _A copy of verses on Mr.
Oglethorpe’s second voyage to Georgia_, “_Facies non omnibus una, nec
diversa tamen_,” London, 1736. Twenty-two years afterwards appeared
_Tombo-chi-qui or The American Savage, a Dramatic Entertainment
in Three Acts_, London, 1758. Although printed anonymously, it is
generally attributed to Cleland. The poet Freneau, at a later date,
composed an ode to _The Dying Indian Tomo-chequi_. In the _Gentleman’s
Magazine_, vol. x. p. 129, is an interesting letter describing the last
moments and sepulture of this noted Mico. In his _Historical Sketch of
Tomo-chi-chi, Mico of the Yamacraws_, Albany, 1868, the author of these
notes endeavored to present all that is known of this distinguished
chief, to whose friendship and aid the Colony of Georgia was indebted
in a remarkable degree.

It was the custom of the Trustees to assemble annually and listen to
a sermon delivered in commendation of the benevolent scheme in which
they were engaged. Some of these discourses possess historical value,
although most of them are simply moral essays.[873]

In December, 1837, the General Assembly of Georgia empowered the
governor of the State to select a competent person to procure from
the government offices in London copies of all records and documents
respecting the settlement and illustrating the colonial life of
Georgia. The Rev. Charles Wallace Howard was entrusted with the
execution of this mission. He returned with copies of documents filling
twenty-two folio volumes. Fifteen of these were made from the originals
on file in the office of the Board of Trade, six from those in the
State Paper Office, and the remaining volume consisted of copies of
important documents included in the king’s library.[874] These MS.
volumes are preserved in the state library at Atlanta. While they
embrace many of the communications, regulations, reports, treaties,
and documents illustrative of the colonial life of Georgia, they do
not exhaust the treasures of the Public Record Office and the British
Museum.

In private hands in England are several original MS. volumes, connected
with the colonization of Georgia and detailing the acts and resolutions
of the Trustees. Prominent among them are two quarto volumes, closely
written in the neat, small, round hand of John Percival, the first Earl
of Egmont and the first president of the Board of Trustees, containing
the original manuscript records of the meetings of the Trustees for
establishing the Colony of Georgia in America from June 14th, 1738, to
the 24th of May, 1744.[875] They contain also an index of proceedings,
June, 1737, to June, 1738, together with some memoranda relating to
the proceedings of 1745-46. It is probable that there were antecedent
volumes, but they are not now known.

In the Department of State, and in the Executive Department of Georgia,
are some documents of great historical interest connected with the
English colonization of Georgia. The _Historical Collections_ of the
Georgia Historical Society,[876] in four volumes, contain reprints
of many of the early tracts already referred to, and other papers
illustrative of Georgia history.[877]

In the library of Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, there
is a folio MS. in excellent preservation, entitled _History of the
three Provinces, South Carolina, Georgia, and East Florida_, by John
Gerard William de Brahm, surveyor-general of the southern provinces
of North America, then under the dominion of Great Britain, and
illustrated by over twenty maps and plans. The portion relating to
Georgia was, in 1849, edited and printed with extreme accuracy and
typographical elegance by Mr. George Wymberley-Jones, of Savannah.
The edition was limited to forty-nine copies. Six of the eight
maps appertaining to Georgia were engraved.[878] This publication
constitutes the second of Mr. Jones’ “Wormsloe quartos,”[879] and is
justly esteemed not only for its typography and rarity, but also for
its historical value. To the engineering skill of Captain de Brahm was
Georgia indebted for many important surveys and military defenses.
Through his instrumentality were large accessions made to the German
population between Savannah and New Ebenezer.

Of the legislative acts passed by the general assemblies of Georgia
during the continuance of the royal government, many are retained in
the digests of Robert and George Watkins (Philadelphia, 1800), and
of Marbury and Crawford. Aware of the fact that numerous omissions
existed, Mr. George Wymberley-Jones De Renne caused diligent search
to be made in the Public Record Office in London for all acts
originating in Georgia which, having received royal sanction, were
there filed. Exact copies of them were then obtained; but Mr. De
Renne’s death occurred before he had compassed his purpose of printing
the transcripts. His widow, Mrs. Mary De Renne, carried out his design
and committed the editing of them to Charles C. Jones, Jr., LL. D.
The result was a superb quarto, entitled _Acts passed by the General
Assembly of the Colony of Georgia, 1755 to 1774, now first printed_.
_Wormsloe._ 1881. The edition was limited to forty-nine copies. In
this volume appears no act which had hitherto found its way into type.
During the period covered by this legislation, James Johnston was the
public printer in Savannah. By him were many of the acts, passed by the
various assemblies, first printed,—sometimes simply as broadsides, and
again in thin quarto pamphlets. William Ewen, who, at a later date, was
president of the Council of Safety, carefully preserved these printed
acts, and caused them to be bound in a volume which lies before us.
The MS. index is in his handwriting. It is the only complete copy of
these colonial laws, printed contemporaneously with their passage,
of which we have any knowledge. James Johnston was also the editor
and printer of the _Georgia Gazette_, the only newspaper published
in Georgia prior to and during the Revolution. In the office of the
Secretary of State in Atlanta are preserved the engrossed original acts
passed by the colonial General Assemblies of Georgia. The sanction of
the home government was requisite to impart vitality to such acts. As
soon, therefore, as they had received the approval of the Governor in
Council, the seal of the colony was attached to duplicate originals.
One was lodged with the proper officer in Savannah, and the other was
forwarded for the consideration of the Lords Commissioners for Trade
and Plantations. When by them approved, this duplicate original,
properly indorsed, was filed in London. Detaching the colonial seal
seems to have been the final attestation of royal sanction. Of the
action of the home government the colonial authorities were notified in
due course.

       *       *       *       *       *

With regard to the sojourn of Rev. John Wesley in Georgia, of
his designs and anticipations in visiting the colony, and of the
disappointments there experienced, we have perhaps the fullest
memoranda in a little undated volume entitled _An extract of the
Rev. Mr. John Wesley’s Journal from his embarking for Georgia to his
return to London_, Bristol; printed by S. and F. Farley. It gives his
own interpretation of the events, trials, and disappointments which
induced him so speedily to abandon a field of labor in which he had
anticipated much pleasure and success.[880] In a tract published in
London in 1741, called _An Account of money received and disbursed
for the Orphan House in Georgia_, the Rev. George Whitefield submits a
full exhibit of all expenditures made up to that time in the erection
and support of that institution. To it is prefixed a plan of the
building.[881] His efforts to convert it into a college are unfolded
in _A Letter to his Excellency Governor Wright_, printed in London,
1768. Appended to this is the correspondence which passed between him
and the Archbishop of Canterbury. This tract is illustrated by plans
and elevations of the present and intended structures, and by a plat of
the Orphan House lands. There are sermons of this eloquent divine in
aid of this charity, and journals of journeys and voyages undertaken
while employed in soliciting subscriptions. His friend and companion,
the Hon. James Habersham, has left valuable letters explanatory of the
scope and administration of this eleemosynary project. William Bartram,
who visited Bethesda in 1765, wrote a pleasant description of it.[882]

Among the histories of Georgia we may mention:—

_An Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of the Colonies of
South Carolina and Georgia_, London, 1779,[883] in two volumes, octavo.
Although published anonymously, these volumes are known to have been
written by the Rev. Alexander Hewitt,[884] a Presbyterian clergyman and
a resident of Charlestown, South Carolina, who returned to England when
he perceived that an open rupture between the Crown and the thirteen
American Colonies was imminent. While in this work the colonial history
of Georgia is given at some length, the attention of the author was
mainly occupied with the establishment and growth of the Province of
Carolina. His labors ended with the dawn of the Revolution.

To _A View of the Constitution of the British Colonies in North
America and the West Indies at the time the Civil War broke out on the
Continent of America_, by Anthony Stokes, his Majesty’s Chief Justice
in Georgia, London, 1783, we must refer for the most intelligent
history of the civil and judicial conduct of affairs in Georgia during
the continuance of the royal government.

Soon after the formation of the general government Mr. Edward
Langworthy—at first a pupil and then a teacher at Whitefield’s Orphan
House, afterwards an enthusiastic “Liberty Boy,” Secretary of the
Provincial Congress of Georgia, and one of the early representatives
from that State in the Confederated Congress—conceived the design
of writing a history of Georgia. Of fair attainments, and personally
acquainted with the leading men and transactions of the period, he
was well qualified for the task, and addressed himself with energy
to the collection of materials requisite for the undertaking. From a
published prospectus of the work, printed in the _Georgia Gazette_, we
are led to believe that this history was actually written. Suitable
encouragement not having been extended, the contemplated publication
was never made. Mr. Langworthy died at Elkton, in Maryland, early in
the present century, and all efforts to recover both his manuscripts
and the supporting documents which he had amassed have thus far failed.

From the press of Seymour and Williams, of Savannah, was issued,
in 1811, the first volume of Major Hugh McCall’s _History of
Georgia_,[885] and this was followed, in 1816, by the second
volume published by William Thorne Williams. Oppressed by physical
infirmities, and a martyr to the effects of exposures and dangers
experienced while an officer in the army of the Revolution; now
confined to his couch, again a helpless cripple moving only in an
easy-chair upon wheels; dependent for a livelihood upon the slender
salary paid to him as city jailer of Savannah; often interrupted in his
labors, and then, during intervals of pain, writing with his portfolio
resting upon his knees; without the preliminary education requisite
for the scholarly accomplishment of such a serious undertaking, and
yet fired with patriotic zeal, and anxious to wrest from impending
oblivion the fading traditions of the State he loved so well, and whose
independence he had imperilled everything to secure,—Major McCall,
in the end, compassed a narrative which is highly prized, and which,
in its recital of events connected with the Revolutionary period and
the part borne by Georgians in that memorable struggle, is invaluable.
He borrowed largely from Mr. Hewitt in depicting the colonial life of
Georgia.[886]

As early as March, 1841, the Georgia Historical Society invited Dr.
William Bacon Stevens to undertake, under its auspices, the preparation
of a new and complete _History of Georgia_. Liberal aid was extended to
him in his labor, and of its two octavo volumes, one was published in
1847 and the other in 1859.[887] This author brings his history down to
the adoption of the constitution of 1798.

In 1849 the Rev. George White published in Savannah his _Statistics of
the State of Georgia_, and this was followed, six years afterwards,
by his more comprehensive and valuable work entitled the _Historical
Collections of Georgia_, illustrated with nearly one hundred
engravings, and published by Pudney and Russell, of New York. In
this volume a vast mass of statistical, documentary, and traditional
information is presented; and for his industry the author is entitled
to much commendation.

_The History of Georgia_, by T. S. Arthur and W. H. Carpenter,
published in Philadelphia in 1854, and constituting one of Lippincott’s
cabinet histories, is a meagre compendium of some of the leading
events in the life of the Colony and State, and does not claim special
attention.

In his _History of Alabama, and incidentally of Georgia and
Mississippi_ (Charleston, S. C., 1851) Colonel Albert James Pickett
furnishes abundant and interesting material illustrative of the
aboriginal epoch; and, in a manner both intelligent and attractive,
traces the colonization of the territory indicated down to the year
1820.[888]

The present writer has already printed [1883] the first two volumes of
_History of Georgia_; and his preface unfolds his purpose to tell the
story from the earliest times down to a period within the memory of the
living. The two volumes thus far issued embrace the aboriginal epoch, a
narrative of discovery and early exploration, schemes of colonization,
the settlement under Oglethorpe, and the life of the province under
the guidance of the Trustees, under the control of the President and
Assistants, under the supervision of royal governors, and during the
Revolutionary War. They conclude with the erection of Georgia into
an independent State. All available sources of information have been
utilized. The two concluding volumes, which will deal with Georgia as a
Commonwealth, are in course of preparation.

We refrain from an enumeration of gazetteers, historical essays, and
publications, partial in their character, which relate to events
subsequent to what may be properly termed the period of colonization.

[Illustration]



CHAPTER VII.

THE WARS ON THE SEABOARD: THE STRUGGLE IN ACADIA AND CAPE BRETON.

BY CHARLES C. SMITH,

_Treasurer of the Massachusetts Historical Society_.


ALL through its early history Acadia, or Nova Scotia, suffered from the
insecurity to life and property which arose from its repeated changes
of masters. Neither France nor England cared much for a region of so
little apparent value; and both alike regarded it merely as debatable
ground, or as a convenient make-weight in adjusting the balance of
conquests and losses elsewhere. Nothing was done to render it a safe
or attractive home for immigrants; and at each outbreak of war in
the Old World its soil became the scene of skirmishes and massacres
in which Indian allies were conspicuous agents. Whatever the turn of
victory here, little regard was paid to it in settling the terms of
peace. There was hardly an attempt at any time to establish a permanent
control over the conquered territory. In spite of the capture of Port
Royal by Phips in 1690, and the annexation of Acadia to the government
of Massachusetts in 1692, it was only a nominal authority which England
had. In 1691, the French again took formal possession of Port Royal
and the neighboring country. In the next year an ineffectual attempt
was made to recover it; and this was followed by various conflicts,
of no historical importance, in different parts of this much-harassed
territory. In August, 1696, the famous Indian fighter, Captain Benjamin
Church, left Boston on his fourth eastern expedition. After skirting
the coast of Maine, where he met with but few Indians and no enemies,
he determined to proceed up the Bay of Fundy. There he captured and
burned Beaubassin, or Chignecto, and then returned to St. John.
Subsequently he was superseded by Colonel John Hathorne, a member of
the Massachusetts council, and an attack was made on the French fort
at Nachouac, or Naxoat, farther up the river; but for some unexplained
reason the attack was not pressed, and the English retreated shortly
after they landed. “No notice,” says Hutchinson in his _History of
Massachusetts Bay_, “was taken of any loss on either side, except the
burning of a few of the enemy’s houses; nor is any sufficient reason
given for relinquishing the design so suddenly.”[889] By the treaty of
Ryswick in the following year (1697) Acadia was surrendered to France.

The French were not long permitted to enjoy the restored territory.
In May, 1704, Church was again placed in command of an expedition
fitted out at Boston against the French and Indians in the eastern
country. He had been expressly forbidden to attack Port Royal, and
after burning the little town of Mines nothing was accomplished by him.
Three years later, in May, 1707, another expedition, of one thousand
men, sailed from Boston under command of Colonel March. Port Royal
was regularly invested, and an attempt was made to take the place by
assault; but through the inefficiency of the commander it was a total
failure. Reëmbarking his little army, March sailed away to Casco Bay,
where he was superseded by Captain Wainwright, the second in command.
The expedition then returned to Port Royal; but in the mean time the
fortifications had been diligently strengthened, and after a brief
view of them Wainwright drew off his forces. In 1710 a more successful
attempt for the expulsion of the French was made. In July of that year
a fleet arrived at Boston from England to take part in a combined
attack on Port Royal. In pursuance of orders from the home government,
four regiments were raised in the New England colonies, and sailed from
Boston on the 18th of September. The fleet numbered thirty-six vessels,
exclusive of hospital and store ships, and on board were the four
New England regiments, respectively commanded by Sir Charles Hobby,
Colonel Tailer, of Massachusetts, Colonel Whiting, of Connecticut, and
Colonel Walton, of New Hampshire, and a detachment of marines from
England. Francis Nicholson, who had been successively governor of New
York, Virginia, and Maryland, had the chief command. The fleet, with
the exception of one vessel which ran ashore and was lost, arrived off
Port Royal on the 24th of September. The garrison was in no condition
to resist an enemy, and the forces were landed without opposition. On
the 1st of October three batteries were opened within one hundred yards
of the fort; and twenty-four hours afterward the French capitulated.
By the terms of the surrender the garrison was to be transported to
France, and the inhabitants living within cannon-shot of Port Royal
were to be protected in person and property for two years, on taking
an oath of allegiance to the queen of England, or were to be allowed
to remove to Canada or Newfoundland.[890] The name of Port Royal was
changed to Annapolis Royal in compliment to the queen, and the fort
was at once garrisoned by marines and volunteers under the command of
Colonel Samuel Vetch, who had been selected as governor in case the
expedition should prove successful. Its whole cost to New England was
upward of twenty-three thousand pounds, which sum was afterward repaid
by the mother country. Acadia never again came under French control,
and by the treaty of Utrecht (1713) the province was formally ceded to
Great Britain “according to its ancient limits.” As a matter of fact,
those limits were never determined; but the question ceased to have
any practical importance after the conquest of Canada by the English,
though it was reopened long afterward in the boundary dispute between
Great Britain and the United States.

By the treaty of Utrecht, France was left in undisputed possession of
Cape Breton; and in order to establish a check on the English in Nova
Scotia, the French immediately began to erect strong fortifications
at Louisbourg, in Cape Breton, and invited to its protection the
French inhabitants of Acadia and of Newfoundland, which latter had
also been ceded to Great Britain. Placentia, the chief settlement in
Newfoundland, was accordingly evacuated, and its inhabitants were
transferred to Cape Breton; but such great obstacles were thrown in the
way of a voluntary removal of the Acadians that very few of them joined
their fellow countrymen. They remained in their old homes, to be only a
source of anxiety and danger to their English masters. At the surrender
of Acadia to Great Britain, it was estimated by Colonel Vetch, in a
letter to the Board of Trade, that there were about twenty-five hundred
French inhabitants in the country; and even at that early date he
pointed out that their removal to Cape Breton would leave the country
entirely destitute of inhabitants, and make the new French settlement
a very populous colony, “and of the greatest danger and damage to
all the British colonies, as well as the universal trade of Great
Britain.”[891] Fully persuaded of the correctness of this view, the
successive British governors refused to permit the French to remove to
Canada or Cape Breton, and persistently endeavored to obtain from them
a full recognition of the British sovereignty. In a single instance—in
1729—Governor Phillips secured from the French inhabitants on the
Annapolis River an unconditional submission; but with this exception
the French would never take the oath of allegiance without an express
exemption from all liability to bear arms. It is certain, however, that
this concession was never made by any one in authority; and in the two
instances in which it was apparently granted by subordinate officers,
their action was repudiated by their superiors. The designation
“Neutral French,” sometimes given to the Acadians, has no warrant in
the recognized facts of history.

Meanwhile the colony remained almost stationary, and attracted very
little notice from the home government. In August, 1717, General
Richard Phillips was appointed governor, which office he retained
until 1749, though he resided in England during the greater part
of the time. During his absence the small colonial affairs were
successively administered by the lieutenant-governor of Annapolis, John
Doucette, who held office from 1717 to 1726,[892] and afterward by the
lieutenant-governors of the province, Lawrence Armstrong (1725-1739)
and Paul Mascarene (1740-1749). Phillips was succeeded by Edward
Cornwallis; but Cornwallis held the office only about three years, when
he resigned, and General Peregrine Thomas Hopson was appointed his
successor. On Hopson’s retirement, within a few months, the government
was administered by one of the members of the council, Charles
Lawrence, who was appointed lieutenant-governor in 1754, and governor
in 1756.

In 1744 war again broke out between England and France, and the next
year it was signalized in America by the capture of Louisbourg.
Immediately on learning that war had been declared, the French
commander despatched a strong force to Canso, which captured the
English garrison at that place and carried them prisoners of war to
Louisbourg. A second expedition was sent to Annapolis for a similar
purpose, but through the prompt action of Governor Shirley, of
Massachusetts, it failed of success. Aroused, no doubt, by these
occurrences, Shirley formed the plan of capturing Louisbourg; and early
in January, 1745, he communicated his design to the General Court of
Massachusetts, and about the same time wrote to Commodore Warren,
commanding the British fleet in the West Indies, for coöperation. His
plans were favorably received, not only by Massachusetts, but also by
the other New England colonies. Massachusetts voted to raise 3,250
men; Connecticut 500; and New Hampshire and Rhode Island each 300. The
chief command was given to Sir William Pepperrell, a wealthy merchant
of Kittery in Maine, of unblemished reputation and great personal
popularity; and the second in command was Samuel Waldo, a native of
Boston, but at that time also a resident of Maine.[893] The chief of
artillery was Richard Gridley, a skilful engineer, who, in June, 1775,
marked out the redoubt on Bunker Hill. The undertaking proved to be so
popular that the full complement of men was raised within two months.
The expedition consisted of thirteen armed vessels, under the command
of Captain Edward Tyng, with upward of two hundred guns, and of about
ninety transports. They were directed to proceed to Canso, where a
block house was to be built, the stores landed, and a guard left to
defend them. The Massachusetts troops sailed from Nantasket on the 24th
of March, and reached Canso on the 4th of April. The New Hampshire
forces had arrived four days before; the Connecticut troops reached the
same place on the 25th. Hutchinson adds, with grim humor, “Rhode Island
waited until a better judgment could be made of the event, their three
hundred not arriving until after the place had surrendered.”[894]

The works at Louisbourg had been twenty-five years in construction,
and though still incomplete had cost between five and six millions
of dollars. They were thought to be the most formidable defences in
America, and covered an area two and a half miles in circumference.
A space of about two hundred yards toward the sea was left without a
rampart; but at all other accessible points the walls were from thirty
to thirty-six feet in height, with a ditch eighty feet in width.
Scattered along their line were six bastions and three batteries with
embrasures for one hundred and forty-eight cannon, of which only
sixty-five were mounted, and sixteen mortars. On an island at the
entrance of the harbor was a battery mounted with thirty guns; and
directly opposite the entrance of the harbor was the grand battery,
mounting twenty-eight heavy guns and two eighteen-pounders. The
entrance to the town on the land-side was over a draw-bridge defended
by a circular battery mounting sixteen cannon. It was these strong and
well-planned works which a handful of New England farmers and fishermen
undertook to capture with the assistance of a small English fleet.

Pepperrell was detained by the ice at Canso for nearly three weeks,
at the end of which time he was joined by Commodore Warren with four
ships, carrying one hundred and eighty guns. The combined forces
reached Gabarus Bay, the place selected for a landing, on the morning
of the 30th of April; and it was not until that time that the French
had any knowledge of the impending attack. Two days later the grand
battery fell into Pepperrell’s hands through a fortunate panic which
seized the French. Thus encouraged, the siege was pressed with
vigor under very great difficulties. The first battery was erected
immediately on landing, and opened fire at once; but it required the
labor of fourteen nights to draw all the cannon and other materials
across the morass between the landing-place and Louisbourg, and it
was not until the middle of May that the fourth battery was ready.
On the 18th of May, Tyng in the “Massachusetts” frigate captured a
French ship of sixty-four guns and five hundred men, heavily laden with
military stores for Louisbourg. This success greatly raised the spirits
of the besiegers, who, slowly but steadily, pushed forward to the
accomplishment of their object. Warren’s fleet was reinforced by the
arrival of three large ships from England and three from Newfoundland;
the land-gate was demolished; serious breaches were made in the walls;
and by the middle of June it was determined to attempt a general
assault. The French commander, Duchambon, saw that further resistance
would be useless, and on the 16th he capitulated with the honors of
war, and the next day Pepperrell took possession of Louisbourg.

By the capitulation six hundred and fifty veteran troops, more than
thirteen hundred militia, and other persons, to the number in all
of upward of four thousand, agreed not to bear arms against Great
Britain during the war, and were transported to France in fourteen
ships. Seventy-six cannon and mortars fell into the hands of the
conquerors, with a great quantity of military stores and provisions.
The number killed on the side of the French was three hundred, and
on the side of the English one hundred and thirty; but subsequently
the latter suffered heavily by disease, and at one time so many as
fifteen hundred were sick from exposure and bad weather. Tidings of the
victory created great joy in New England, and the news was received
with no small satisfaction in the mother country. Pepperrell was
made a baronet, Warren an admiral, and both Shirley and Pepperrell
were commissioned as colonels. Subsequently, after a delay of four
years, Great Britain reimbursed the colonies for the expenses of the
expedition to the amount of £200,000.

[Illustration: A FRENCH FRIGATE.

[After a cut in Paul Lacroix’s _XVIII^{me} Siècle_, p. 129.—ED.]]

The capture of Louisbourg was by far the most important event in the
history of Nova Scotia during the war, and the loss of so important a
place was a keen mortification to France. As soon as news of the fall
of Louisbourg reached the French government, steps were taken with a
view to its recapture and to the punishment of the English colonists by
destroying Boston and ravaging the New England coast. In June, 1746, a
fleet of eleven ships of the line, twenty frigates, thirty transports,
and two fire-ships was despatched for this purpose under command of
Admiral D’Anville; but the enterprise ended in a disastrous failure.
Contrary winds prevailed during the voyage, and on nearing the American
coast a violent storm scattered the fleet, driving some of the ships
back to France and others to the West Indies, and wrecking some on
Sable Island. On the 10th of September D’Anville cast anchor with the
remaining vessels—two ships and a few transports—in Chebucto; and six
days later he died, of apoplexy, it is said. At a council of war held
shortly afterward it was determined to attack Annapolis, against the
judgment of Vice-Admiral D’Estournelle, who had assumed the command.
Exasperated, apparently, at this decision, he committed suicide in
a fit of temporary insanity. This second misfortune was followed by
the breaking out of the small-pox among the crews; and finally after
scuttling some of the vessels the officer next in command returned to
France without striking a single blow. In the spring of the following
year another expedition, of smaller size, was despatched under command
of Admiral De la Jonquiere; but the fleet was intercepted and dispersed
off Cape Finisterre by the English, who captured nine ships of war and
numerous other vessels.

Meanwhile, and before the capture of Louisbourg, the French had made
an unsuccessful attempt on Annapolis, from which the besieging force
was withdrawn to aid in the defence of Louisbourg, but they did not
arrive until a month after its surrender. In the following year another
army of Canadians appeared before Annapolis; but the place seemed
to be so strong and well defended that it was not thought prudent
to press the attack. The French accordingly withdrew to Chignecto
to await the arrival of reinforcements expected from France. While
stationed there they learned that a small body of New England troops,
under Colonel Noble, were quartered at Grand Pré, and measures were
speedily adopted to cut them off. The attack was made under cover of
a snow-storm at an early hour on the morning of the 4th of February,
1747. It was a complete surprise to the English. Noble, who was in bed
at the time, was killed fighting in his shirt. A desperate conflict,
however, ensued from house to house, and at ten o’clock in the forenoon
the English capitulated with the honors of war.[895] This terminated
active hostilities in Nova Scotia, from which the French troops shortly
afterward withdrew. By the disgraceful peace of Aix la Chapelle (1748)
England surrendered Louisbourg and Cape Breton to the French, and all
the fruits of the war in America were lost.

After the conclusion of peace it was determined by the home government
to strengthen their hold on Nova Scotia, so as to render it as far
as possible a bulwark to the other English colonies, instead of a
source of danger to them. With this view an advertisement was inserted
in the _London Gazette_, in March, 1749, setting forth “that proper
encouragement will be given to such of the officers and private men,
lately dismissed his Majesty’s land and sea service, as are willing
to accept of grants of land, and to settle with or without families
in Nova Scotia.” Fifty acres were to be allotted to every soldier
or sailor, free from the payment of rents or taxes for the term of
ten years, after which they were not to be required to pay more than
one shilling per annum for every fifty acres; and an additional
grant of ten acres for each person in a family was promised. Larger
grants, with similar conditions, were to be made to the officers; and
still further to encourage the settlement of the province the same
inducements were offered to “carpenters, shipwrights, smiths, masons,
joiners, brickmakers, brick-layers, and all other artificers necessary
in building or husbandry, not being private soldiers or seamen,” and
also to surgeons on producing certificates that they were properly
qualified. These offers were promptly accepted by a large number of
persons, but apparently by not so many as was anticipated.

In the following May Edward Cornwallis, then a member of Parliament,
and uncle of the first Marquis of Cornwallis, was appointed
captain-general and governor in chief, and at once embarked for Nova
Scotia with the new settlers. On the 21st of June he arrived in
Chebucto harbor, which all the officers agreed was the finest harbor
they had ever seen; and early in July he was joined by the transports,
thirteen in number, having on board upward of twenty-five hundred
immigrants. The shores of the harbor were wooded to the water’s edge,
“no clear spot to be seen or heard of.”[896] But by the 23d of the
month more than twelve acres were cleared, and preparations were made
for building. A month later the plan of the town was fully laid out,
and subsequently a line of palisades was erected around the town,
a square fort was built on the hill, and a space thirty feet wide
cleared outside of the defensive line. By the end of October three
hundred houses had been completed, a second fort had been built, and
an order had been sent to Boston for lamps to light the streets in the
winter nights. Halifax, as the new town was called, had already begun
to wear the appearance of a settled community; and in little more
than a year its first church was opened for religious services. From
the first, the growth of Halifax was strong and healthy; and it soon
became a place of considerable importance. So early as 1752 the number
of inhabitants amounted to more than four thousand. Stringent rules
were adopted to insure public order and morality; and very soon the
governor and council proceeded to exercise legislative authority.[897]
But their right to do this was expressly denied by the law officers at
home.[898] Accordingly, in the early part of 1757 a plan was adopted
for dividing the province into electoral districts, for the choice
of a legislative body, and was sent to England for approval. Some
exceptions, however, were taken to the plan; and it was not until
October, 1758, that the first provincial assembly met at Halifax,
nineteen members being present.

In the mean time, in 1755, occurred the most memorable and tragic
event in the whole history of Nova Scotia. Though England and France
were nominally at peace, frequent collisions took place between their
adherents in Nova Scotia and elsewhere in America. Early in 1755 it
was determined to dispossess the French of the posts which they had
established on the Bay of Fundy, and a force of eighteen hundred men
was raised in New England, for that purpose, under Lieutenant-Colonels
Scott and John Winslow. The chief command of the expedition was given
to Colonel Robert Monckton, an officer in the English army. The first
and most honorable fruits of the expedition were the capture of the
French forts at Beauséjour and at Gaspereau, both of which surrendered
in June. A few weeks later Winslow became a chief instrument in the
forcible removal of the French Acadians, which has given his name an
unenviable notoriety. It was a task apparently at which his whole
nature relucted; and over and over again he wrote in his letters at the
time that it was the most disagreeable duty he had had to perform in
his whole life. But he did not hesitate for a moment, and carried out
with unfaltering energy the commands of his superior officers.

For more than a generation the French inhabitants had refused to take
the oath of allegiance to the king of England, except in a qualified
form. Upon their renewed refusal, in July, 1755, it was determined to
take immediate steps for their removal, in accordance with a previous
decision, “to send all the French inhabitants out of the province, if
they refused to take the oath;” and at a meeting of the provincial
council of Nova Scotia, held July 28th, “after mature consideration,
it was unanimously agreed that, to prevent as much as possible their
attempting to return and molest the settlers that may be set down on
their lands, it would be most proper to send them to be distributed
amongst the several colonies on the continent, and that a sufficient
number of vessels should be hired with all possible expedition for
that purpose.”[899] Accordingly orders were sent to Boston to charter
the required number of transports; and on the 11th of August Governor
Lawrence forwarded detailed instructions to Lieutenant-Colonel Winslow,
commanding at Mines, and to Major John Handfield, a Nova Scotia
officer, commanding at Annapolis, to ship off the French inhabitants in
their respective neighborhoods. As the crops were not yet harvested,
and there was delay in the arrival of the transports, the orders could
not be executed until the autumn. At that time they were carried
out with a sternness and a disregard of the rights of humanity for
which there can be no justification or excuse. On the same day on
which the instructions were issued to Winslow and Handfield, Governor
Lawrence wrote a circular letter to the other English governors in
America, expressing the opinion that there was not the least reason
to doubt of their concurrence, and his hope that they would receive
the inhabitants now sent “and dispose of them in such manner as may
best answer our design in preventing their reunion.” According to the
official instructions five hundred persons were to be transported to
North Carolina, one thousand to Virginia, five hundred to Maryland,
three hundred to Philadelphia, two hundred to New York, three hundred
to Connecticut, and two hundred to Boston.

On the 4th of September Winslow issued a citation to the inhabitants
in his immediate neighborhood to appear and receive a communication
from him. The next day, he recorded in his journal, “at three in
the afternoon, the French inhabitants appeared, agreeably to their
citation, at the church in Grand Pré, amounting to four hundred and
eighteen of their best men; upon which I ordered a table to be set
in the centre of the church, and, having attended with those of my
officers who were off guard, delivered them by interpreters the king’s
orders.” After a brief preamble he proceeded to say, “The part of duty
I am now upon is what, though necessary, is very disagreeable to my
natural make and temper, as I know it must be grievous to you who are
of the same species. But it is not my business to animadvert, but to
obey such orders as I receive, and therefore without hesitation shall
deliver you his Majesty’s orders and instructions.” He then informed
them that all their lands, cattle, and other property, except money and
household goods, were forfeited to the Crown, and that all the French
inhabitants were to be removed from the province. They were, however,
to have liberty to carry their money and as many of their household
goods as could be conveniently shipped in the vessels; and he added,
“I shall do everything in my power that all those goods be secured
to you, and that you are not molested in carrying them off, and also
that whole families go in the same vessel, and make this remove, which
I am sensible must give you a great deal of trouble, as easy as his
Majesty’s service will admit, and hope that in whatever part of the
world you may fall you may be faithful subjects, a peaceable and happy
people.”[900] Meanwhile they were to remain under the inspection of the
troops. Toward night these unhappy victims, “not having any provisions
with them, and pleading hunger, begged for bread,” which was given
them, and orders were then issued that for the future they must be
supplied from their respective families. “Thus ended the memorable 5th
of September,” Winslow wrote in his journal, “a day of great fatigue
and trouble.”[901]

Shortly afterward the first prisoners were embarked; but great delay
occurred in shipping them off, mainly on account of the failure of the
contractor to arrive with the provisions at the expected time, and it
was not until November or December that the last were shipped. The
whole number sent away at this time was about four thousand. There
was also a great destruction of property; and in the district under
command of Winslow very nearly seven hundred buildings were burned.
The presence of the French was nowhere welcome in the colonies to
which they were sent; and they doubtless experienced many hardships.
The governors of South Carolina and Georgia gave them permission to
return, much to the surprise and indignation of Governor Lawrence;[902]
and seven boats, with ninety unhappy men who had coasted along shore
from one of the Southern colonies, were stopped in Massachusetts. In
the summer of 1762 five transports with a further shipment of these
unfortunate people were sent to Boston, but the General Court would not
permit them to land, and they were ordered to return to Halifax.[903]

The removal of the French Acadians from their homes was one of the
saddest episodes in modern history, and no one now will attempt to
justify it; but it should be added that the genius of our great poet
has thrown a somewhat false and distorted light over the character of
the victims. They were not the peaceful and simple-hearted people they
are commonly supposed to have been; and their houses, as we learn from
contemporary evidence, were by no means the picturesque, vine-clad, and
strongly built cottages described by the poet. The people were notably
quarrelsome among themselves, and to the last degree superstitious.
They were wholly under the influence of priests appointed by the French
bishops, and directly responsible to the representatives of the Roman
Catholic Church at Quebec. Many of these priests were quite as much
political agents as religious teachers, and some of them fell under
the censure of their superiors for going too much outside of their
religious functions. Even in periods when France and England were at
peace, the French Acadians were a source of perpetual danger to the
English colonists. Their claim to a qualified allegiance was one which
no nation then or now could sanction. But all this does not justify
their expulsion in the manner in which it was executed, and it will
always remain a foul blot on the history of Nova Scotia. The knowledge
of these facts, however, enables us to understand better the constant
feeling of insecurity under which the English settlers lived, and which
finally resulted in the removal and dispersion of the French under
circumstances of such heartless cruelty.

In May of the following year, war was again declared between France
and England; and two years later Louisbourg again fell into the hands
of the English. In May, 1758, a powerful fleet under command of
Admiral Boscawen arrived at Halifax for the purpose of recapturing a
place which ought never to have been given up. The fleet consisted
of twenty-three ships of the line and eighteen frigates, beside
transports, and when it left Halifax it numbered one hundred and
fifty-seven vessels. With it was a land force, under Jeffery Amherst,
of upward of twelve thousand men. The French forces at Louisbourg were
much inferior, and consisted of only eight ships of the line and three
frigates, and of about four thousand soldiers. The English fleet set
sail from Halifax on the 28th of May, and on the 8th of June a landing
was effected in Gabarus Bay. The next day the attack began, and after
a sharp conflict the French abandoned and destroyed two important
batteries. The siege was then pushed by regular approaches; but it was
not until the 26th of July that the garrison capitulated. By the terms
of surrender the whole garrison were to become prisoners of war and to
be sent to England, and the English acquired two hundred and eighteen
cannon and eighteen mortars, beside great quantities of ammunition and
military stores. All the vessels of war had been captured or destroyed;
but their crews, to the number of upward of twenty-six hundred men,
were included in the capitulation. Two years later, at the beginning of
1760, orders were sent from England to demolish the fortress, render
the harbor impracticable, and transport the garrison and stores to
Halifax. These orders were carried out so effectually that few traces
of its fortifications remain, and the place is inhabited only by
fishermen.

A year after the surrender of Louisbourg a fatal blow was struck at
the French power in America by the capture of Quebec; and by the
peace of Paris, in February, 1763, the whole of Canada was ceded to
Great Britain. The effects of this cession, in preparing the way for
the independence of the principal English colonies, cannot easily be
overestimated; but to Nova Scotia it only gave immunity from the fear
of French incursions, without in the slightest degree weakening the
attachment of the inhabitants to England.


CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

IN recent years much attention has been given to the study of
Acadian history by local investigators, and important documents for
its elucidation have been obtained from England and France, and
the provincial archives have been put in excellent order by the
commissioner of public records. To his intelligent interest in the
subject we are indebted for one of the most important contributions
to our knowledge of it, his _Selections from the Public Documents of
the Province of Nova Scotia_.[904] This volume comprises a great mass
of valuable papers illustrative of the history of Nova Scotia in the
eighteenth century, systematically arranged. The first part consists of
papers relating to the French Acadians, 1714-1755; the second part, of
papers relating to their forcible removal from the province, 1755-1768;
the third, of papers relating to the French encroachments, 1749-1754,
and the war in North America, 1754-1761; the fourth, of papers relating
to the first settlement of Halifax, 1749-1756; and the last part, of
papers relating to the first establishment of a representative assembly
in Nova Scotia. Mr. Akins has added a sufficient number of biographical
and other notes, and has inserted a conveniently arranged Index.

Next in importance to this volume are the publications of the Nova
Scotia Historical Society, which was formed in 1878, and incorporated
in 1879. Since that time it has printed four small volumes of
_Collections_, comprising many valuable papers. Of these the most
important is the journal of Colonel Winslow at the time of the
expulsion of the Acadians, printed (vol. iii. p. 114) from the original
manuscript in the possession of the Massachusetts Historical Society.
There are also (vol. i. p. 119) the diary of the surgeon, John Thomas,
at the same time,[905] beside a journal of the capture of Annapolis
in 1710, a history of St. Paul’s Church, Halifax, and other papers of
historical interest and value. The fourth volume contains a Memoir
of Samuel Vetch, the first English governor of Nova Scotia, with
illustrative documents, and the journal of Colonel John Winslow, during
the Siege of Beauséjour, in 1755.[906]

Another work of great authority, as well for the later as for the early
history of Nova Scotia, is Murdoch’s _History of Nova Scotia_.[907]
Written in the form of annals, it is somewhat confused in arrangement,
and a reader or student is under the necessity of picking out important
facts from a great mass of chaff; but it is a work of wide and thorough
research, and should be carefully studied by every one who wishes to
learn the minute facts of Nova Scotia history.

The early history of Nova Scotia, from its first settlement down to the
peace of Paris in 1763, is treated with much fulness by James Hannay
in a well-written narrative, which is not, however, entirely free from
prejudice, especially against the New England colonies.[908] But, for
thoroughness of investigation and general accuracy of statement, Mr.
Hannay must hold a high place among local historians. Fortunately his
labors are well supplemented by Duncan Campbell’s _History of Nova
Scotia_,[909] which was, indeed, published at an earlier date, but
which is, however, very meagre for the period when Acadia was a French
colony.

Beside these, there are several county and town histories, of which
the best is Dr. Patterson’s _History of Pictou_.[910] It is a work
of diligent and faithful research, gathering up much traditional
knowledge, and especially full in details respecting the origin and
later fortunes of Pictou Academy. There are also a considerable number
of local histories in manuscript in the archives of the Nova Scotia
Historical Society.

[Illustration]


AUTHORITIES

ON THE FRENCH AND INDIAN WARS OF NEW ENGLAND AND ACADIA, 1688-1763.

BY THE EDITOR.


=A.= KING WILLIAM’S WAR.—This was begun Aug. 13, 1688. A truce
was concluded by Captain John Alden at Sagadahock, Nov. 19, 1690.
(Hutchinson’s _Massachusetts_, i. 404; _Mass. Hist. Collections_, xxi.
p. 112, from the Hutchinson papers.)

Pike and Hutchinson’s instructions for making a truce, Nov. 9, 1690,
are given in James S. Pike’s _New Puritan_ (p. 128), and (p. 131) the
agreement at Wells, May 1, 1691.

Sewall (_Letter Book_, p. 119) writes Aug. 1, 1691, “The truce is over
and our Indian war renewed. The enemy attempted to surprise Wells, but
were disappointed by a party of ours [who] got into the town but about
half an hour before.”

Submission and agreement of eastern Indians at Fort William Henry,
in Pemaquid, Aug. 11, 1693. (_Mass. Archives_, xxx. 338; Mather’s
_Magnalia_; _New Hampshire Provincial Papers_, ii. 110; Johnston’s
_Bristol, Bremen, and Pemaquid_, p. 193.)

Accounts of the French capturing vessels in Massachusetts Bay
(1694-95), correspondence between Stoughton and Frontenac (1695),
and various plans for French expeditions to attack Boston (1696-97,
1700-1704), are in _Collection de manuscrits relatifs à l’histoire de
la Nouvelle France_ (Quebec, 1884), vol. ii.

A bill to encourage the war against the enemy is in the _Mass.
Archives_, xxx. 358. Details of Church’s expedition in 1696 to Nova
Scotia are given in Murdoch’s _Nova Scotia_, i. 233. Cf. also J. S.
Pike’s _Life of Robert Pike, the New Puritan_.

Nicholas Noyes, _New England’s Duty and Interest to be a Habitation
of Justice and a Mountain of Holiness_, an election sermon, Boston,
1698 (Sabin’s _Dictionary_, xiii. no. 56,229; Haven’s list in Thomas’s
_History of Printing_, ii. p. 343; Carter-Brown, ii. 1,546), has in
an appendix (pp. 89-99) an account of a visit of Grindall Rawson and
Samuel Danforth to the Indians within the province, in 1698.

Submission of the eastern Indians at Pejebscot (Brunswick), Jan. 7,
1699. (_New Hampshire Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii. 265; _N. H. Provincial
Papers_, ii. 299; E. E. Bourne’s _Wells and Kennebunk_, ch. xv.; _Mass.
Archives_, xxx. 439.)

Submission of the eastern Indians, Sept. 8, 1699. (_Mass. Archives_,
xxx. 447.)

Various documents concerning the making of a treaty with the eastern
Indians, 1700-1701, are also in _Mass. Archives_, vol. xxx.

The events of this war are covered in Cotton Mather’s _Decennium
Luctuosum, an history of remarkable occurrences in the long war ...
from 1688 to 1698_, Boston, 1699. (Sibley’s _Harvard Graduates_, iii.
p. 67.) It was reprinted in the _Magnalia_.

A detail of the sources on the different attacks and fights of this war
is given in Vol. IV. of the present work, pp. 159-161.


=B.= QUEEN ANNE’S OR GOVERNOR DUDLEY’S WAR.—One of the first acts of
the ministry of Queen Anne was to issue a declaration of war against
France, May 15, 1702, opening what is known in Europe as the “War
of the Spanish Succession.” Governor Dudley in June, 1703, went to
Casco, to avert by a conference the Indian participancy in the war,
if possible. Campbell, the Boston postmaster, in one of his _Public
Occurrences_ says that Dudley found the Indians at the eastward “two
thirds for peace, and one third for war.” (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
ix. 495.) These latter were the more easterly tribes, who came
under French influence, and in Aug., 1703, Dudley issued at Boston
a broadside declaration against the Penicooke and eastern Indians.
(Haven’s list, p. 351.) Plunder and massacre along the frontier
settlements at the eastward soon convinced the people of New England
that they must prepare for another murderous war. (Cf. “Indian Troubles
on the Coast of Maine,” documents in _Maine Hist. Coll._, iii. 341.)

The first organized retaliatory assault was the maritime expedition to
the Bay of Fundy, led in 1704 by Col. Benjamin Church.

Church’s own part in this expedition is set forth in the _Entertaining
Passages_,[911] where will be found Governor Dudley’s instructions to
Church (p. 104). John Gyles, who in his youth had been a captive among
the French and Indians, when he learned to speak French, served as
interpreter and lieutenant.[912] Church’s conduct of the expedition,
which had promised much and had been of heavy cost to the province,
had not answered public expectation, and crossed the judgment of such
as disapproved the making of retaliatory cruelties the object of
war. This view qualifies the opinions which have been expressed upon
Church’s exploits by Hutchinson (_Hist. Mass._, ii. 132); Williamson
(_Hist. Maine_, ii. 47); and Palfrey (_Hist. N. Eng._, iv. 259). Hannay
(_Acadia_, 264) calls Church “barbarous.” It is his own story and that
of Penhallow which have given rise to these opinions.

[Illustration]

Church’s instructions had not contemplated the risks of an attack on
Port Royal, and in ignorance of this Charlevoix accuses the assailants
of want of courage, and Dr. Shea, in editing that writer,[913]
stigmatizes the devastations as “inhuman and savage,” and refers to a
French account in _Canada Documents_[914] (III. ii. pp. 648-652) called
“Expeditions faites par les Anglois de la Nouvelle Angleterre au Port
Royal, aux Mines et à Beaubassin de l’Acadie.”

The French early the next year, under Subercase, inflicted similar
devastation upon the Newfoundland coast, though the forts at St.
John resisted an attack. There is an original account by Pastour de
Costebelle, dated at Plaisance, Oct. 22, 1705, in the possession of Dr.
Geo. H. Moore, which has been printed in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._,
Feb., 1877. Charlevoix (Shea’s translation, iv. 172) naturally relishes
the misery of these savages better than he does the equally brutal
business of Church.

Palfrey (iv. 269) found in the British Colonial Office a paper dated
Quebec, Oct. 20, 1705, containing proposals for a peace between New
England and Canada, in which Vaudreuil[915] suggested that both sides
should “hinder all acts of hostility” on the part of the Indians.

Cf. for this attempted truce and for correspondence at this time
between Dudley and Vaudreuil, _Collection de manuscrits relatifs à
l’histoire de la Nouvelle France_ (Quebec, 1884), vol. ii. pp. 425-28,
435-40, 452.

The Abenakis continuing to disturb the borders,[916] Dudley planned an
attack on Port Royal, which should be carried out, and be no longer
a threat;[917] and Subercase, then in command there, was in effect
surprised in June, 1707, at the formidable fleet which entered the
basin. Inefficiency in the English commander, Colonel March, and
little self-confidence and want of discipline in his force, led to the
abandonment of the attack and the retirement of the force to Casco
Bay, where, reinforced and reinspirited by a commission of three
persons[918] sent from angry Boston, it returned to the basin, but
accomplished no more than before.[919]

These successive disappointments fell at a time when the two Mathers
were defeated (through Dudley’s contrivances, as was alleged) in the
contest for the presidency of Harvard College. This outcome made for
Dudley two bitter and unscrupulous enemies, and any abuse they might
shower upon him gained a ready hearing in a belief, prevalent even
with fair people, that Dudley was using his own position for personal
gain in illicit trade with Acadia. There have been reprinted in the
second volume of the _Sewall Papers_ three testy tracts which grew out
of this conjunction of affairs. In them Dudley is charged with the
responsibility of these military miscarriages, and events are given
a turn which the careful historian finds it necessary to scrutinize
closely.[920]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

Palfrey (iv. 273) pictures the universal chagrin and details the
efforts to shift the blame for the failure of this expedition.
Charlevoix gives a pretty full account, but his editor claims that
the English chroniclers resort to vagueness in their stories. In some
copies of Diéreville’s _Relation du voyage du Port Royal de l’Acadie_
(Amsterdam, 1710) there is an appendix on the 1707 expedition, taken
from the _Gazette_ of Feb. 25, 1708.[921]

Events were tending towards a more strenuous effort at the reduction of
Acadia. Jeremiah Dummer, in London, had in 1709 presented a memorial
to the ministry arguing that the banks of the St. Lawrence belonged
of right to New England.[922] It is printed in _The Importance and
Advantage of Cape Breton_, London, 1746.[923] In April, 1709, the home
government despatched orders to the colonies[924] for an extended
movement on Montreal by way of Lake Champlain, and another on Quebec by
water,—the latter part of the plan falling to the lot of Massachusetts
and Rhode Island, who were promised the coöperation of a royal fleet
and a force of veterans.[925] Colonel Vetch, who was a prime mover in
the proceeding, brought the messages of the royal pleasure, and was
made the adjutant-general of the commander, Francis Nicholson; but the
promised fleet did not come, and the few king’s ships which were in
Boston were held aloof by their commanders, and a project to turn the
troops, already massed in Boston, against Port Royal, since there was
no chance of success against Quebec unaided, was abandoned for want of
the convoy these royal ships might have afforded.[926] Nicholson, the
companion of Vetch, returned to England,[927] and the next year (1710)
came back with a small fleet, which, with an expeditionary force of New
Englanders, captured Port Royal,[928] and Vetch was left governor of
the country.[929]

[Illustration: ANNAPOLIS ROYAL.

One of Des Barres’ coast views (in Harvard College library).

The key of the fort at Annapolis, taken at this time, is in the cabinet
of the Mass. Hist. Society. (Cf. _Catal. Cab. M. H. Soc._, p. 112;
_Proceedings_, i. 101.)]

Col. William Dudley under date of Nov. 15, 1710, sent to the Board of
Trade a communication covering the journal of Col. Nicholson during
the siege, with correspondence appertaining, and these papers from
the Record Office, London, are printed in the _Nova Scotia Hist. Soc.
Collections_, i. p. 59, as (p. 64) is also a journal from the _Boston
News-Letter_ of Nov. 6, 1710. Sabin (ix. no. 36,703) notes a very
rare tract: _Journal of an Expedition performed by the forces of our
Soveraign Lady Anne, Queen, etc., under the command of the Honourable
Francis Nicholson in the year 1710, for the reduction of Port Royal in
Nova Scotia_, London, 1711. A journal kept by the Rev. Mr. Buckingham
is printed from the original MS., edited by Theodore Dwight, in
the _Journals of Madam Knight and Rev. Mr. Buckingham_ (New York,
1825).[930]

The war was ended by a treaty at Portsmouth, July 11, 1713. (_Mass.
Archives_, xxix. p. 1; _N. H. Hist. Soc. Coll._, i. p. 83; _N. H. Prov.
Papers_, iii. 543; _Maine Hist. Soc. Coll._, vi. 250; Penhallow, 78;
Williamson’s _Maine_, ii. 67.)

There was a conference with five of the leading eastern Indians at
Boston, Jan. 16, 1713-14, and this treaty is in the _Mass. Archives_,
xxix. 22. A fac-simile of its English signatures is annexed. Another
conference was held at Portsmouth, July 23-28, 1714; and this document
is also preserved. (_Mass. Archives_, xxix. 36; _Maine Hist. Soc.
Coll._, vi. 257.)

Dr. Shea (_Charlevoix_, v. 267) says that no intelligent man will
believe that the Indians understood the law-terms of these treaties,
adding that Hutchinson (ii. 246) admits as much.

The papers by Frederick Kidder in the _Maine Hist. Soc. Collections_
(vols. iii. and vi.) were republished as _Abnaki Indians, their
treaties of 1713 and 1717, and a vocabulary with an historical
introduction_, Portland, 1859. (Field, _Indian Bibliog._, no. 829;
_Hist. Mag._, ii. p. 84.) It gives fac-similes of the autographs of the
English signers and witnesses; and of the marks or signs of the Indians.

A later conference to ratify the treaty of 1713 was published under the
title of _Georgetown on Arrowsick island, Aug. 9, 1717.... A conference
of Gov. Shute with the sachems and chief men of the eastern Indians_,
Boston, 1717. (Harvard Col. library, no. 5325.24; Brinley, i. no. 431.)
This tract is reprinted in the _Maine Hist. Soc. Coll._, iii. 361,
and in the _N. H. Prov. Papers_, iii. 693. See further in Penhallow,
p. 83; Niles, in _Mass. His