in America, while these negotiations were pending, that for a time threatened to destroy all hopes of peace. During the war the treatment suffered by the loyalists from the adherents of congress was that of merciless cruelty. In many instances it was a matter of course to hang them when taken prisoners. The feeling entertained toward them was one of relentless hatred, which dictated unceasing persecution. I have related that at the skirmish at King's mountain, in North Carolina, after the defeat of Ferguson, the congress troops acted with extreme ferocity. Ten of the prisoners, men of character and influence, were hanged in cold blood.* They had lately taken prisoner one Philip White, and they had hanged him because he was a loyalist.

There was sitting at this date at New York the "Board of associated loyalists," the president of which was William, the son of Benjamin Franklin, who had been governor of New Jersey. Those composing the Board felt that their only chance of stopping this brutal behaviour was to retaliate, and they resolved that they would act on the same principle; that on every loyalist being so hanged by congress officers, they would hang a congress officer falling into their hands. The unhappy man who was to be the victim of this lex talionis was one Joshua Huddy, who had been taken prisoner by a party under the command of a captain Lippencot. He was hanged on the heights of Middletown, and left suspended, with the notice appended to his corpse, "We determine to hang man for man while there is a refugee living; up goes Huddy for Philip White.”

To the trained soldier who is prepared to carry on war with as much forbearance as possible, and who regards any slaughter in cold blood as an infamy, for even the deserter caught in arms is tried by a court-martial, and the spy must be proved to be a spy before he pays the penalty of his crime; such a proceeding was in every way repellent. Whatever the provocation, every commanding officer would shrink from this indiscriminate retaliation. Clinton was in New *[Ante., Vol. VI., p. 364.]

1782]

CAPTAIN ASGILL.

171

York when this event took place; he was greatly incensed by it. He ordered the arrest of Lippencot, with instructions he should be tried for murder. There was, as might have been looked for, an outcry of passionate rage on the part of congress, although such outrages had repeatedly been committed by its officers. Washington demanded that Lippencot should be surrendered. He could hardly have been sincere in what he asked, as he must have known that compliance with the request was not possible on the part of any English general.

By this date Sir Guy Carleton had arrived to take command, and he had been instructed to adopt a conciliatory policy towards congress. While refusing to hand over Lippencot to Washington, he expressed his abhorrence of the act, with the explanation that he would bring that officer to trial. Lippencot pleaded before the court that he had acted in accordance with his orders from the board of loyalists, and the plea was admitted, that it was not possible to hold him personally responsible for his conduct.

Washington, when he found that his request for the extradition of Lippencot was refused, declared that he would select one of the British prisoners in the possession of congress and would execute him in retaliation. Would Washington really have carried out his threat? I cannot think it, although there was a loud outcry from congress for blood. There were never wanting men in congress of this violent nature in their number, and had this policy been followed, we may, even at this date, shudder to think what would have been the consequence. It certainly would have led to reprisals. The probability is, the men in the ranks would have given no quarter, and there would have been scenes of bloodshed never before witnessed.

Washington, however, apparently persevered in his determination, and the lot fell on a young officer nineteen years of age, captain Asgill, one of those included in the Cornwallis surrender. The matter remained in suspense for weeks. Washington knew the fatal responsibility of carrying out

his threat to satisfy the cry for blood by congress.

In the

interval the strongest representations were made in favour of Asgill. Washington, by the strong feeling which had been called out, gained his point of deferring the perpetration of the act which his nobler nature must have abhorred; and, doubtless, he would have found some means of extricating himself from the dilemma in which he was placed. Congress, however, remained obdurate.

Lady Asgill, the mother of the young officer, had now recourse to de Vergennes, and her appeal to him was followed by a letter to congress asking for the young officer's release. De Vergennes, while he made the request with perfect courtesy, also requested the release on the ground of right. He wrote, "Captain Asgill is doubtless your prisoner, but he is among those whom the arms of the king, my master, contributed to place in your hands at Yorktown." He further added "that in seeking to deliver Mr. Asgill from the fate which threatens him, I am far from engaging you to seek another victim; the pardon to be perfectly satisfactory must be entire." Such a firm declaration of dissatisfaction on the part of the power by whose aid at this critical period the independence of the United States had been finally obtained, together with the advanced state of the negotiations for peace, led to a vote of congress being given that captain Asgill should be set at liberty. This resolution was passed on the 7th of November.

On the ratification of the treaty the British troops were to be withdrawn with all convenient speed from "every port, place and harbour in United States territory, a specification which included the western posts on the lakes; at a subsequent period, the matter of much correspondence. Laurens' influence obtained the introduction of the clause "without carrying away any negroes or other property." The return of all archives, records, deeds, and papers belonging to any of the states, or private citizens, was also provided for.

Article IV. set forth that creditors on either side should

1782]

ARTICLES V., VI.

173

meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts.

The articles V. and VI., still remain the subject of dispute. They were never carried out, and modern United States writers declare that they were never intended to be carried out, that they were impostures introduced to satisfy British requirements, and never designed to be observed. *

I will deal first with the clause VI., for by the harsh nonobservance of its provisions, or by its meaning being strained and perverted, a large number of the loyalist population found its way to the British province of Canada. It provided that there should be no further confiscations or persecutions by reason of the part taken in the war; that no person on that account should suffer in person, liberty, or property, and that persons in confinement, at the ratification of the treaty, should be set at liberty, and all prosecutions be discontinued.

By clause V. it was agreed, that congress should earnestly recommend to the state legislatures to provide for the restitution of the property of British subjects which had been confiscated, and that there should be liberty of passage to any part of the territory, and to remain there unmolested for twelve months in order to obtain this restitution; that the recommendation by congress should include the revision of laws in the premises, and that the owners of the confiscated estates should have power to obtain them, by refunding the purchase money paid by the new owners.

It was agreed that there should be no lawful impediment with any individual, in the prosecution of any claim to confiscate lands.

These conditions were not observed, and it was owing to the non-fulfilment of them that the possession of the posts. was withheld. It was not until 1796, thirteen years after the

* Even so conscientious a writer as Hildreth remarks (Vol. III., p. 420), "The American commissioners made no secret, however, of the certain futility of all such recommendations." I am desirous of availing myself of this opportunity of expressing my great respect for Mr. Hildreth's history. Throughout it is written in a spirit of moderation and truth.

signature of the treaty, that the posts were ceded. I will, on the right occasion, relate the negotiations which, from time to time, took place on this point, owing to the failure to observe the conditions of the fifth article. *

It only remains to state briefly the conditions of the treaty with France and Spain. France obtained the enormous cession of the fisheries which I have described. In the West Indies the islands of Saint Lucia and Tobago were restored, with the cession of the large island of Dominica, the present Hayti, and the small islands of Granada, Saint Vincent, Saint Christopher, Nevis and Montserrat. In Africa she received Senegal and Goree. In India the establishments of Orissa, Pondicherry, Carical and the fort of Mahé; while the article. of the treaty of Utrecht, which exacted the demolition of the harbour and fortress of Dunkirk, was abrogated.

Spain received Minorca. She retained West Florida, and Great Britain ceded East Florida. The right of cutting logwood in Honduras was conceded to the British, and Spain restored Providence and the Bahama isles. The longed-for prize of Gibraltar, the cause of her entering into the war, she could not obtain. The fruit of her interference was the subsequent loss of her colonies; the consequence to France was bankruptcy, the revolution, and the reign of terror.

The preliminary articles were signed on the 20th of January. The two definitive treaties were signed on the same day, the 30th of September, 1783; that with the United States at Paris, the treaty with France and Spain at Versailles.

I have felt it my duty to give the history of this treaty at some length from the influence it exercised upon Canada, and to relate the negotiations which still affect this continent. It remains to bring into prominence the teaching conveyed by the analysis of its conditions. The sacrifice of British territory on the north-eastern boundary sixty years later had its origin in the clumsy incompetence of the British negotiators of this time, and in their culpable indifference to the interests of Canada, the one province which had remained British. * [I append the treaty in full at the end of this chapter.]