1784] FORGOTTEN SERVICES. 213 We may still read the diatribes on the misgovernment and wrong endured by the virtuous colonist from the mother country. But even during the excitement arising from the stamp act, it was the intervention of the mother country which saved the west of Pennsylvania from the terrors of an Indian war. The achievement was recognized at the time. The services of Bouquet at the hard fought battle of Edgehill in 1763, which lasted two days, and his march to the forks of the Muskingham in 1764, by which the whole Ohio territory was brought under the control of the white man, received the thanks of the senate of Pennsylvania in the memorable words which should be placed on his monument, if one ever be erected to his memory.* In those days it was a matter of life and death to the colonists that the British navy should protect their commerce, and British troops undertake the conquest of Canada. However much we may read of this indignant feeling, the truth is really laid down in a formula by a prominent United States writer "that the patriots had resolved to have a country of their own, free from foreign masters." + Shortly before this declaration of independence, congress recommended that no "Tory," or anyone unfriendly to the cause, should be injured in person or property. The injunction was answered by the self-election of committees, including the most prominent agitators, who dictated the Although a century and a quarter has elapsed since this event, it would yet be an act of duty and justice to raise a monument to Bouquet within the cathedral of St. Paul's, that masterpiece of Wren's genius. The words of recorded thankfulness, the last of that character uttered in the old provinces are : "Those eminent services and your constant attention to the civil rights of his majesty's subjects demand, sir, this grateful tribute of thanks from all good men; and, therefore, we, the representatives of the freemen of Pennsylvania unanimously for ourselves, and in behalf of all the people of this province, do return you our most sincere and hearty thanks." If the memories of illustrious men of the modern United States are preserved with marks of honour and respect in our national edifices, surely the great services rendered the state in former times, which have passed out of mind, should likewise be remembered and perpetuated. [Ante., Vol. V., p. 108.] † [Dr. George E. Ellis. Justin Winsor's Narrative and Critical History of America. Vol. VII., p. 197.] treatment of men supposed to be loyalists. The names of those suspected of attachment to the mother country were submitted to secret inquiry, and the destruction of their property followed; personally they were subjected to every indignity, even to the loss of life. There is no record of the authorities having extended redress to a single individual. Even the signature to a loyal address, at an early stage of the quarrel, was considered as a crime committed against congress. When the evacuation of Boston was perpetrated, a few weakly armed privateers having been permitted by the incapable admiral to defy the British fleet, the loyalists who sailed with Howe's force, and who abandoned their property and possessions, were actuated by the feeling that it was the only course by which they could escape the vengeance of the supporters of congress. Massachussetts confiscated the property of all conceived to be loyalists. In 1778 an act was passed forbidding, under the pain of death, the return of any who then left the province. Three thousand loyalists accompanied Clinton on the abandonment of Philadelphia to avoid the rigourous persecution they knew would be their fate. Even as early as 1775, congress passed a vote, recommending the provincial assemblies to imprison every person who, it was thought, might endanger the liberties of America. The attempt has been made to shew that the clauses protecting the loyalists admitted into the treaty were never intended to be kept, and that they were introduced as a matter of expediency to save the character of the British ministry. One difficulty could not but have been foreseen, that all those who had obtained at a nominal price the confiscated estates would resort to every art to make restitution impossible. As those engaged in smuggling in Boston were among the most violent vituperators of the new commercial regulations which had formed the early subjects of dispute, so the holders of the confiscated estates were the most blatant in opposing the return of the loyalist. The unfortunate choice of the incapable British negotiators in the treaty of 1784] PROTECTION OF THE LOYALISTS. 215 1783, who had to deal with the cunning and duplicity of Franklin, may explain that they were overreached by that astute personage, but it does not establish that the articles were a mere matter of form.* The whole treaty constitutes a lesson for all the outer provinces of the empire, enforcing the necessity of guarding in the future that their interests be not sacrificed to the political exigencies of a British ministry, and the too often experienced want of wisdom of the colonial office. We have at least the satisfaction of knowing no such puerile folly could be again permitted, What took place on the debate of the treaty cannot be adduced as any genuine expression of feeling. In many instances the opinions expressed were dictated by the intention of embarrassing the ministry. The peace had brought no credit to the country, however much it had been desired, and it was conceived to be a point on which the administration could be assailed. Burke made the extraordinary statement that the loyalists had been deluded by England, and so had risked everything in her behalf. It was but a continuation of his sympathy with the cause of the United States, a cause which had been strengthened as much by his utterances as by any other influence, if we put out of sight the want of judgment of the British ministers, especially Germain, and the incompetent generals placed in command. What is certain, however, is that the surrender of the * Shortly after his arrival in England as ambassador from the United States, John Adams, in 1786, demanded the surrender of the western posts, in accordance with the treaty. The reply received by him was, that, contrary to its express provisions, difficulties had been created in several of the states to prevent the collection of debts due in Great Britain, contracted previous to the revolu tionary war moreover, that the loyalists were receiving no satisfaction with regard to their confiscated property. Until these difficulties were removed the posts would not be surrendered. No minister had been sent to the United States a departure from courtesy, attributable to the dissatisfaction felt in England at the mode in which the conditions were being carried out. Further, Pitt, then first minister, declined to enter into any treaty arrangements, with the United States, for the regulation of commerce. With these facts to guide us, it seems inexplicable, that the assertion should be made that the claims were never intended to be observed. western forts was withheld by the British government on the ground that the clauses assuring the payment of just debts, and those affecting the royalists, had not been carried out, a fact which establishes that the conditions were not accepted as a dead letter. Several loyalists had found refuge in London, and from time to time sums had been paid to them. On the change of ministry in 1782 an examination had been made of such payments, by which it was known that £40,280 had been paid to 315 recipients. The matter was referred to a commissioner, when it was found that twenty-five were dead or made no claim, that some received too much, some too little, and the lists were revised. The cases of 428 were considered, and the total amount granted was £43,245. There was one clause of the treaty sufficiently plain: that there should be no further confiscations, or prosecutions, and that no one should for the future suffer loss or damage. This is no mere engagement to make a recommendation as a matter of form. It is a positive stipulation that could not be avoided without an abandonment of honour and fair dealing. It is at least plain from its conditions, that those whose estates had not been confiscated had the right to expect the restoration of them, a result which those interested in obtaining them were determined to resist. * When parliament met in 1783, the speech from the throne brought prominently before the house the condition of the loyalists. The appointment of commissioners to inquire into their case followed. The time for receiving the claims was closed on the 25th of March, 1784. The bill was passed at the end of June. Notwithstanding the urgent circumstances under which the committee had been appointed, there was no meeting of the commissioners until September, and it is not a pleasant fact to record. The investigations were carried on from year to year until 1788. During this inexcusable * "I trust you will agree with me that a due and generous attention ought to be shewn to those who have relinquished their properties or their possessions from motives of loyalty to me, or attachment to the mother country." 1784] EARLY LOYALIST SETTLEMENTS. 217 delay bitter disappointment and suffering were felt on the part of those interested, and this culpable dilatoriness on the side of the commissioners is a painful passage in the history of these times, for, admitting that great difficulty in the adjustment of these claims presented itself, five years taken to the consideration of them was an unwarrantable period. The loyalists felt the delay acutely; petition upon petition was sent to parliament, and pamphlets were published to appeal to public opinion for the enforcement of immediate settlement.* Such was the endeavour of the imperial government to relieve the sufferings of those who had lost all in her cause. The great ground of complaint is that it was not put forth more energetically and rapidly. As we read the clauses of the treaty affecting the loyalists, and the proceedings which followed in the United States to stay the enforcement of them, the words of Livy must rise to our minds, "nimis callidi exsolvendi jurisjurandi interpretres." † In Canada, from the beginning of the contest, the loyalists who sought refuge in the province were cared for and tended. As early as 1778 many had arrived and were sent to Machiche, on the north of lake Saint Peter, where rations were furnished to 192 souls. In 1779 the numbers had increased to 853, distributed, at St. John's 209; Chambly, 27; Montreal, 208; Point Claire, 126; Machiche, 196; Sorel and Nouvelle Beauce, 87. The provincial regiments serving in Canada The total amount originally claimed was .. .£10,358,413 Reduced amount of claims to be adjudicated 3,225 343 38 553 934 2,291 = $50,410,941 = 8,216,126 39,985, 146 3,886,087.14.5= 18,912,294 [Historiarum Liber, XXIV., 18. "The too ingenious interpreters of the mode of discharging a sacred obligation."] |