attendants alike and inspired that hope which adds a physic stimulus to the normal healing powers of nature. His home relations were very happy, although not free from sorrows of affliction. In 1855 he was married to Margaret Ann Seward, a daughter of the late J. B. Seward, who was a cousin of William H. Seward. There were born to them a son and a daughter. The daughter always frail, always the center of the family's generous care and affection, died in 1888 at the age of thirty years. Her broad culture, her delicate wit, her bright and happy mind, made her the pride and the pet of her family and her friends. The son Frank Seward Johnson, graduated from the Department of Arts and Sciences in the Northwestern University in 1878 and from the Chicago Medical College in 1881, and is a practicing physician in his native city.

The later years of Dr. Johnson's life were years of comparative rest, although he was never able to reduce his activities more than his failing body compelled. Yet he enjoyed in a measure the restfulness of age, accustomed through life to strenuous work under conditions of fluctuating health and patient suffering. He habitually and unceasingly excelled the bounds of his strength and in February, 1891, after a cold country-ride he succumbed to a disease he had successfully fought in four previous illnesses and died of acute pneumonia, February 26, 1891.

The purity and the simplicity of his early life and the untarnished beauties of his wilderness-home lent their influence in directing the trend of his receptive and active mind and in determining it to high ideals. As his character ripened he developed rare judgment, a judgment deepened by insight and an unerring sense of justice and a love of truth almost divine. These characteristics were coupled with an inborn and an early enforced industry, and were a splendid equipment for his successful life-work. His gentility, equanimity and sense of justice made him universally a favorite, and in the serious work of his life he brought honor and advancement to his every undertaking.

PART II

DOCUMENTS.

DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE OCCUPATION OF THE ILLINOIS COUNTRY BY THE BRITISH.

Contributed by Clarence E. Carter, University of Illinois.

In printing the following documents an attempt has been made to bring together the papers relating directly to the actual occupation of Fort de Chartres* and the Illinois country. Although France definitely gave up her claims to the region west of the Alleghany Mountains in 1763, the British were unable to relieve the French garrison in the Illinois region until 1765. This was due to the breaking out of the great Indian rebellion in 1763, which effectually blocked all the roads to the west. Unsuccessful attempts were made in 1764 to reach Fort de Chartres by way of the Mississippi river. The pacification of the Indian nations, however, seemed to be the first consideration. This was accomplished by 1765 and in the summer of that year General Gage sent orders to Fort Pitt directing Captain Sterling, with a detachment of the 42d Regiment, to proceed down the Ohio river to the Illinois country. The papers here presented relate the story of the occupation and the events immediately following. Although search has been made in the Public Record Office and in the British Museum as well as in our own depositories, I have been unable to find any other documents relating directly to the event. There are, however, numerous references to the occupation scattered throughout the Gage and Johnson correspondence.

Copy, letter from Lieut. James Eidington of the 42d (or Royal Highland) regiment, one of the four officers who with a hundred of that regiment took possession of Fort Chartres, dated Fort Chartres, 17th October, 1765.t

I wrote you from Fort Pitt before I left that place, giving an account of the long journey I was about to undertake; we left the above post August 24th and did not arrive here till the 9th instant; and we have found the distance to answer the French account which is Five

*The French name of the fort was Fort de Chartres. The British officers are probably responsible for the dropping of the ''de".

Chatham MSS., vol. 97 Public Record Office, London. The original draft does not seem to have been preserved. There is nothing in the extract that remains to indicate to whom the letter was written.