The fallacy of the argument employed by the advocates of the treaty, that the Americans would honourably fulfil the recommendations of Congress, was illustrated by the following facts:

"The province of Virginia, a short time before the peace, had come to an unanimous conclusion 'that all demands or requests of the British Court for the restoration of property confiscated by the State were wholly impossible; and that their delegates should be instructed to move Congress that they should direct the deputies for adjusting peace not to agree to any such restitution.'"

The State of New York resolved, "That it appears to this Legislature that divers of the inhabitants of this State have continued to adhere to the King of Great Britain, after these States were declared free and independent, and persevered in aiding the said king, his fleets and armies, to subjugate the United States to bondage: Resolved, That as on the one hand the scales of justice do not require, so on the other the public tranquillity will not permit, that such adherents who have been attainted should be restored to the rights of citizens, and that there can be no reason for restoring property which has been confiscated or forfeited."

PART II.

AGENTS OF LOYALISTS—PROCEEDINGS OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSION—RESULTS.

Of course all hope of obtaining relief under the stipulations of the treaty was abandoned by the Loyalists, who "now applied to the Government which they had ruined themselves to serve, and many of them, who had hitherto been 'refugees' in different parts of America, went to England to state and recover payment for their losses. They organized an agency, and appointed a Committee composed of one delegate or agent from each of the thirteen States,[124] to enlighten the British public, and adopt measures of proceeding in securing the attention and action of the British Ministry in their behalf. In a tract printed by order of these agents (which now lies before us, entitled The Case and Claim of American Loyalists impartially Stated and Considered, published in 1783), it is maintained that 'it is an established rule, that all sacrifices made by individuals for the benefit and accommodation of others shall be equally sustained by all those who partake of it,' and numerous cases are cited from Puffendorf, Burlamaqui and Vattel, to show that the 'sacrifices' of the Loyalists were embraced in this principle. As a further ground of claim, it is stated that in case of territory alienated or ceded away by one sovereign power to another, the rule is still applicable; for that in the treaties of international law it is held, 'The State ought to indemnify the subject for the loss he has sustained beyond his proportion.' And in the course pursued at the close of the civil war in Spain, when the States of Holland obtained their independence, under the Treaty of Utrecht, and at various other periods, proved that the rights of persons similarly situated had been respected and held inviolate. The conclusion arrived at from the precedents in history, and diplomacy, and in the statute-books of the realm, is, that as the Loyalists were as 'perfectly subjects of the British State as any man in London or Middlesex, they were entitled to the same protection and relief.' The claimants had been 'called by their sovereign, when surrounded by tumult and rebellion, to defend the supreme rights of the nation, and to assist in suppressing a rebellion which aimed at their destruction. They have received from the highest authority the most solemn assurances of protection, and even reward, for their meritorious services;' and that 'His Majesty and the two Houses of Parliament having thought it necessary, as the price of peace, or to the interest and safety of the empire, or from some other motive of public convenience, to ratify the Independence of America, without securing any restitution whatever to the Loyalists, they conceive that the nation is bound, as well by the fundamental laws of society as by the invariable and external principles of natural justice, to make them compensation.'"[125]

Though the treaty of peace left the Loyalists to the mercy—rather to the resentment (as the result proved)—of the American States, and as such received the censure of the House of Commons, British justice and honour recognized the claims of the Loyalists to compensation for their losses, as well as to gratitude for their fidelity to the unity of the empire. The King, at the opening of the session of Parliament, said: "I have ordered inquiry to be made into the application of the sum to be voted in support of the American sufferers; and I trust you will agree with me, that a due and generous attention ought to be shown to those who have relinquished their properties or professions from motives of loyalty to me, or attachment to the mother country." Accordingly, a Bill was introduced and passed without opposition in June, 1783, entitled "An Act Appointing Commissioners to Inquire into the Losses and Services of all such Persons who have Suffered in their Rights, Properties, and Professions, during the late Unhappy Dissensions in America, in consequence of their Loyalty to his Majesty and Attachment to the British Government."

The Commissioners named were John Wilmot, M.P., Daniel Parker Coke, M.P., Esquires, Col. Robert Kingston, Col. Thomas Dundas, and John Marsh, Esquire, who, after preliminary preparations, began their inquiry in the first week of October, and proceeded, with short intermissions, through the following winter and spring. The time for presenting claims was first limited by the Act to the 20th of March, 1784; but the time was extended by the renewal of the Act, from time to time, until 1789, when the Commissioners presented their twelfth and last report, and Parliament finally disposed of the whole matter in 1790, seven years after its commencement.

The Commissioners, according to their first report, divided the Loyalists into six classes, as follows: 1. Those who had rendered service to Great Britain. 2. Those who had borne arms for Great Britain. 3. Uniform Loyalists. 4. Loyal English subjects resident in Great Britain. 5. Loyalists who had taken oaths to the American States, but afterwards joined the British. 6. Loyalists who had borne arms for the American States, but afterwards joined the British navy or army. The reason for this classification is not very apparent; for all showed alike who were able to establish their losses, without reference to differences of merit, or the time or circumstances of their adhering to the Crown.

Every applicant was required to furnish proof of his loyalty, and of every species of loss for which he claimed compensation; in addition to which each claimant was put upon his oath as to his alleged losses; and if in any case perjury or fraud were believed to have been practised, the claimant was at once cut off from his whole claim. The rigid rules which the Commissioners laid down and enforced in regard to claimants, examining each claimant and the witnesses in his behalf separately and apart, caused much dissatisfaction, and gave the proceeding more the character of an Inquisition than of Inquiry. It seemed to place the claimants almost in the position of criminals on whom rested the burden of proof to establish their own innocence and character, rather than in that of Loyalists who had faithfully served their King and country, and lost their homes and possessions in doing so. Very many, probably the large majority of claimants, could not possibly prove the exact value of each species of loss which they had sustained years before, in houses, goods, stocks of cattle, fields with their crops and produce, woods with their timber, etc., etc. In such a proceeding the most unscrupulous would be likely to fare the best, and the most scrupulous and conscientious the worst; and it is alleged that many false losses were allowed to persons who had suffered no loss, while many other sufferers received no compensation, because they had not the means of bringing witnesses from America to prove their losses, in addition to their own testimony.

The chairman of the Commission admits the delay and difficulty caused by the mode of proceeding adopted by the Commissioners. He says: "The investigation of the property of each claimant, and of the value of each article of that property, real and personal, could not but be attended with a good deal of time as well as much caution and difficulty, each claim in fact branching out into so many articles, or rather distinct causes, in which the Commissioners were obliged to execute the office of both judge and jury, or rather of arbitrators between the nation on one side, and the individual on the other, whose whole patrimony as well as character depended on their verdict."[126]

The Act passed in 1783, authorizing the inquiry, being limited to two years, expired in July, 1785, but was renewed with some additions, one of which was a clause to empower the Commissioners to appoint proper persons to repair to America "to inquire into such circumstances as they might think material for better ascertaining the several claims which had been or should be presented to them under this or the former Act of Parliament." The Commissioners appointed John Anstey, Esq., a barrister-at-law, as agent to the United States, "to obtain information as to the confiscation, sale, and value of landed estates, and the total loss of the property of the claimants," respecting which he procured much valuable and authentic information and testimony. They sent Colonel Thomas Dundas and Mr. Jeremy Pemberton, two members of the Board, to visit Nova Scotia and Canada, "to inquire into the claims of such persons as could not without great inconvenience go over to Great Britain."

Before the 25th of March, 1784, the latest period allowed by the first Act for presenting claims, the number of claimants was 2,063, and the property alleged by them to have been lost, according to their schedules, amounted to L7,046,278, besides debts to the amount of L2,354,135. The sum was very large, but the losses were undoubtedly very great. The Commissioners made their first report in July, 1784; and after having detailed their assiduous proceeding in the fulfilment of their trust, and care in examining and deciding on individual cases, reported on the part of the cases submitted, and awarded L201,750 for L534,705 claimed, reducing the amount by more than half the amount claimed.

The second report of the Commissioners was made in December of the same year, and states that 128 additional cases had been examined and disposed of, the amount claimed being L693,257, and the amount allowed was L150,935—less than one-fourth the amount claimed.

One hundred and twenty-two (122) cases were examined into and disposed of in May and July, 1785, according to the third and fourth reports—the amount claimed being L898,196, and the amount allowed being L253,613—less than one-third of the amount claimed.

In April, 1786, the fifth report of the Commissioners was presented, announcing that 142 other claims had been considered and decided, the claims amounting to L733,311, on which the Commissioners allowed L250,506—a little more than one-third of the amount claimed.

The Commissioners proceeded in the same manner with their investigations, and with about the same results, in 1786 and 1787.[127]

On the 5th of April, 1788, the Commissioners reported that they had examined into and declared upon 1,680 claims, and had allowed the sum of L1,887,548 for their payment.

Under all the circumstances, it appears scarcely possible that the Commissioners could have proceeded with more despatch than they did. But the delay caused much dissatisfaction among the Loyalists, whose agents petitioned both King and Parliament on the delay, or on the course pursued by the Commissioners, or on some subject connected with the claims of the Loyalists. Essays and tracts were published; letters and communications appeared in the newspapers on the subject; in 1786, the agents of the Loyalists presented a petition to Parliament, which contained among other things the following touching words: "It is impossible to describe the poignant distress under which many of these persons now labour, and which must daily increase should the justice of Parliament be delayed until all the claims are liquidated and reported; * * ten years have elapsed since many of them have been deprived of their fortunes, and with their helpless families reduced from independent affluence to poverty and want; some of them now languishing in British jails; others indebted to their creditors, who have lent them money barely to support their existence, and who, unless speedily relieved, must sink more than the value of their claims when received, and be in a worse condition than if they had never made them; others have already sunk under the pressure and severity of their misfortunes; and others must, in all probability, soon meet the same melancholy fate, should the justice due them be longer postponed. But, on the contrary, should provision be now made for payment of those whose claims have been settled and reported, it will not only relieve them from their distress, but give credit to others whose claims remain to be considered, and enable all of them to provide for their wretched families, and become again useful members of society."

Two years later, in 1788, a tract was published by a Loyalist, entitled "The Claim of the American Loyalists Reviewed and Maintained upon Incontrovertible Principles of Law and Justice." The writer of that tract thus forcibly states the situation of the Loyalists: "It is well known that this delay of justice has produced the most melancholy and shocking events. A number of sufferers have been driven into insanity and become their own destroyers, leaving behind them their helpless widows and orphans to subsist upon the cold charity of strangers. Others have been sent to cultivate the wilderness for their subsistence, without having the means, and compelled through want to throw themselves on the mercy of the American States, and the charity of former friends, to support the life which might have been made comfortable by the money long since due by the British Government; and many others with their families are barely subsisting upon a temporary allowance from Government, a mere pittance when compared with the sum due them."

Shortly after the publication of the pamphlet containing these statements, the Commissioners submitted their eleventh report, April, 1788, and Mr. Pitt, Chancellor of the Exchequer, yielded the following month to the pressing entreaties of the claimants to allow their grievances to be discussed in Parliament. "Twelve years had elapsed since the property of most of them had been alienated under the Confiscation Acts, and five since their title to recompense had been recognized by the law under which their claims had been presented and disposed of."

We will give an abridged account of the proceedings in Parliament and by the Commissioners in their own words:

"The business came on in the House of Commons on the 6th of June, 1788, which Mr. Pitt opened in a very handsome and eloquent speech respecting the merits of the American Loyalists, and which, he did not doubt, would meet with the unanimous acknowledgment of the House; and he trusted, therefore, there would be no difference of opinion as to the principle, though there might be as to the mode of compensation and the distribution which he thought it his duty to propose.

"The first principle he laid down was, that however strong their claims might be on the generosity of the nation, the compensation could not be considered as a matter of right and strict justice;[129] in the mode, therefore, he had pursued, he had marked the principle in the various quotas of compensation he should propose to be made to the various classes of the American Loyalists.

"He considered the three first classes of them, stated by the Commissioners in their reports as the most meritorious, and who were likewise the most numerous, viz.:

"1st. Loyalists who had rendered services to Great Britain. Number, 204.

"2nd. Loyalists who had borne arms in the service of Great Britain—481.

"3rd. Zealous and uniform Loyalists—626.

"Total number of these three classes—1,311.

"The number of the remaining classes were much fewer, viz.:

"4th. Loyal British subjects resident in Great Britain—20.

"5th. Who took the oath to the Americans, but afterwards joined the British—27.

"6th. Who bore arms for the Americans, but afterwards joined the British—23.

"7th. Ditto, losses under the Prohibitory Act—3.

"8th. Loyal British proprietors—2.

"9th. Subject or settled inhabitants of the United States—25.

"10th. Claims disallowed and withdrawn—313.

"11th. Loyal British subjects who appear to have relief by the Treaty of Peace, but state the impossibility of procuring it—4.

"Mr. Pitt proposed to pay classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, whose liquidated losses did not amount to more than L10,000 each, the full amount of their losses; and if they should exceed the sum of L10,000, to deduct the sum of ten per cent. from excess only of L10,000, provided such losses did not exceed L35,000; and if they exceeded L35,000, then fifteen per cent. from the excess of L10,000, and not above L50,000; and if they exceeded L50,000, then to deduct twenty per cent. from the excess of L10,000; and which principle, he informed the Committee, he meant to follow in every other class.

"With regard to the 4th and 8th classes, viz., of loyal British subjects and loyal British proprietors resident in Great Britain during the war, he did not mean to propose any deduction from the losses under L10,000; but from the losses which amounted from L10,000 to L50,000 he proposed a deduction of twenty per cent. should be made; and a further deduction from those losses amounting to above L50,000, and a still further deduction of seventy per cent. from those from L50,000 to L200,000; and so on in proportion.

"He next considered the case of those Loyalists whose losses principally, if not solely, arose from their loss of office or profession, by which they had been deprived of their livelihood, or means of support, both for themselves or families. These persons were distinct from those who had been in trade or other branches of business, or gained their livelihood by their manual labour. Though these losses were not of so substantial a nature as those who lost property real or personal, yet they could not be easily reinstated in the same lucrative professions which they had enjoyed—civil employment, in the law, in the Church, or in physic—and therefore he thought them entitled to a liberal compensation. But as they were not precluded from exercising their industry and talents in this country, he proposed that all those persons who were reported by Commissioners to have lost incomes not exceeding L400 per annum, should receive pensions at the rate of L50 per cent. of such income, and L40 per cent. for every L100 above L400 per annum; where the value did not exceed L1,500 per annum, L30 per cent. for every L100 per annum exceeding L400; thus the percentage would be governed by and diminish in proportion to the increase of the income lost.

"Having expatiated on these various classes of claimants, Mr. Pitt said he meant to propose that the amount of these various sums should be issued in debentures bearing interest at three and a half per cent., which would be nearly equal to a money payment, and that the whole should be paid off by instalments.

"He began, therefore, by moving 'that provision should be made accordingly.'

"This plan met with general approbation and applause from all sides of the House; not only from the friends of the Minister, but from leaders of the Opposition, particularly from Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke; and Mr. Pitt congratulated the House on their concurrence with him in the plan he laid before the Committee.

"Soon after a motion was made for continuing the Act another year, for the purpose principally of enabling the Commissioners to inquire into claims of certain other persons therein specified, who, it was stated, appeared to have been prevented by particular circumstances from preferring their claims before; provided the Commissioners were satisfied, by proof made on oath, with the reasons assigned by those persons for not having before preferred their respective claims; and the Act passed, including these and other purposes.

"As the Commissioners who had gone to Nova Scotia and Canada had by this time returned to England, and Mr. Anstey was daily expected from the United States, there was more than sufficient to employ the Commissioners, independent of the Act for carrying into effect the plan of relief and compensation into execution.

"The Commissioners immediately, viz., in August, 1788, proceeded with the various matters referred to them.

"Colonel Dundas and Mr. Pemberton, having returned from Nova Scotia and Canada, made a separate report of the proceedings to the Board of Treasury and the Secretaries of State;[130] but the Commissioners, before they finished their deliberations, united the proceedings of both Boards in order to give a comprehensive view of the whole.

"Mr. Anstey also having returned from the United States in September, the Commissioners took a general review of the whole of their proceedings from the commencement of the inquiry, and were thus enabled to supply any defects, to correct any mistakes, and to reconsider any points in which, perhaps, too great humanity to the individuals on the one hand, or too great anxiety to reduce claims which appeared exaggerated on the other, might have led them into error.

"Having thus wound up the business in the spring of 1789, they presented their twelfth and last Report on the 15th of May; and likewise, pursuant to the order of the House of Commons of the 10th of June, 1789, presented a statement of them to that House, comprising the whole of their proceedings in one view, specifying what had been granted by Parliament and what still remained for consideration; but as the inquiring into these claims was not completed, and the Minister thought proper to give way once more to strong applications from various persons, who had been still prevented from preferring or prosecuting their claims under the former Acts of Parliament, the Commission was renewed once more, and it was not till the spring of 1790 that the business was finally settled and adjusted by Parliament. In the beginning of April, in consequence of an order of the House of Commons, on the 31st of March, 1790, the Commissioners laid before the House a statement of the claims and losses of the American Loyalists up to the 25th of March, 1790, with the terms already granted, and of what remained for the consideration of Parliament.

"The general result of this was, that the number of claims preferred in England and Nova Scotia was 3,225—

"Of which were examined 3,225 "Disallowed 343 } "Withdrawn 38 } 934 "Not prosecuted 553 }

"The amount of the claims preferred was L10,358,413.

"The amount of the claims examined was L8,216,126.

"The amount allowed in liquidation thereof amounted to L3,033,091.

"Of which had been provided L2,096,326.

"There remained for consideration of Parliament L936,764.[131]

"The amount of pensions paid to 204 Loyalists, on account of losses of office or profession, was L25,785 per annum, besides annual allowances to 588 persons, chiefly widows, orphans, and merchants, who had no means of livelihood, but had lost no real or personal estate except debts due them,[132] and which had not been gone into for reasons before given.

"As many of the Loyalists who had received pensions or allowances are since deceased, the Lords of the Treasury, by his Majesty's direction, have continued some part of those annual payments to their widows.

"Thus had the nation extended an inquiry for seven successive years into the losses of those who, from motives of loyalty to his Majesty and attachment to the British Government, had risked their lives and sacrificed their fortunes in support of the constitutional dependence of the colonies on Great Britain.

"Whatever may be said of this unfortunate war, either to account for, to justify, or to apologize for the conduct of either country, all the world has been unanimous in applauding the virtue and humanity of Great Britain in rewarding the services, and in compensating, with a liberal hand, the losses of those who suffered so much for their firm and faithful adherence to the British Government."

We will conclude these extracts by giving the Commissioners' account of their mode of proceeding and the reasons for it, together with the acknowledgment of the agents of the claimants in a formal address to the King:

"The principle which has directed our mode of conducting the inquiry," say the Commissioners, "has been that of requiring the very best evidence which the nature and circumstances of the case would admit. We have in no instance hitherto thought fit to dispense with the personal appearance and examination of the claimant, conceiving the inquiry would be extremely imperfect and insecure against fraud and misrepresentation if we had not the advantage of cross-examining the party himself, as well as his witnesses; nor have we, for the same reason, allowed much weight to any testimony that has not been delivered on oath before ourselves. We have investigated with great strictness the titles to real property, wherever the necessary documents could be exhibited to us; and where they have not been produced we have required satisfactory evidence of their loss, or of the inability of the claimant to procure them."[133]

The Commissioners conclude their twelfth and last Report in the following words:

"Great as is the length of time which hath been consumed in the prosecution of this inquiry, it may without difficulty be accounted for by a survey of the multiplicity and complicated nature of the objects to which the Acts of Parliament extended our scrutiny; and when to these are added the investigation (delegated to us by your lordships) of the numerous claims for present relief and temporary support (which alone formed a heavy branch of business, demanding daily attention), the several reviews and modifications of pension lists, and the various other extraneous matters which have incidentally devolved upon us, we trust we shall, on due consideration of this extensive scene of employment, at least stand exculpated by your lordships of inactivity and unnecessary delay. We have felt with anxious solicitude the urgency as well as the importance and delicate nature of the trust reposed in us, and to this impression our exertions towards the speedy, faithful, and honourable execution of it have been proportioned. We cannot flatter ourselves that no errors have been committed; but we have this consolation, that the most assiduous endeavours have not been wanting on our part to do justice to the individuals and to the public. Supported by this reflection in our retirement from this arduous and insidious employment, we shall feel no inconsiderable satisfaction in having been instrumental towards the completion of a work which will ever reflect honour on the character of the British nation.

(Signed) "JOHN WILMOT. "ROBERT KINGSTON. "JOHN MARSH.

"Office of American Claims, "Lincoln's Inn Fields, "May 15th, 1789."

A proper sequel to this whole proceeding will be the following Address of the Agents for the American Loyalists, presented to the King by Sir William Pepperell, Bart., and the other agents, being introduced by the Lord of his Majesty's Bedchamber in waiting; which address his Majesty was pleased to receive very graciously, and they all had the honour to kiss his Majesty's hand:

"To the King's Most Excellent Majesty.

"The Humble Address of the Agents for the American Loyalists.

"Most Gracious Sovereign,—

"Your Majesty's ever dutiful and loyal subjects, the agents of the American Loyalists, who have heretofore been the suppliants of your Majesty in behalf of their distressed constituents, now humbly beg leave to approach your Throne, to pour forth the ardent effusions of their grateful hearts for your most gracious and effectual recommendation of their claims to the just and generous consideration of Parliament.

"To have devoted their fortunes and hazarded their lives in defence of the just rights of the Crown and the fundamental principles of the British Constitution, were no more than their duty demanded of them, in common with your Majesty's other subjects; but it was their peculiar fortune to be called to the trial, and it is their boast and their glory to have been found equal to the task.

"They have now the distinguished happiness of seeing their fidelity approved by their Sovereign, and recompensed by Parliament, and their fellow-subjects cheerfully contributing to compensate them for the forfeiture their attachment to Great Britain incited them to incur; thereby adding dignity to their own exalted character among the nations of the world, and holding out to mankind the glorious principles of justice, equity, and benevolence as the firmest basis of empire.

"We should be wanting in justice and gratitude if we did not upon this occasion acknowledge the wisdom and liberality of the provisions proposed by your Majesty's servants, conformable to your Majesty's gracious intentions for the relief and accommodation of the several classes of sufferers to whose cases they apply; and we are convinced it will give comfort to your royal heart to be assured they have been received with the most general satisfaction.

"Professions of the unalterable attachment of the Loyalists to your Majesty's person and government we conceive to be unnecessary; they have preserved it under persecution, and gratitude cannot render it less permanent. They do not presume to arrogate to themselves a more fervent loyalty than their fellow-subjects possess; but distinguished as they have been by their sufferings, they deem themselves entitled to the foremost rank among the most zealous supporters of the British Constitution. And while they cease not to offer up their most earnest prayers to the Divine Being to preserve your Majesty and your illustrious family in the peaceful enjoyment of your just rights, and in the exercise of your royal virtues in promoting the happiness of your people, they humbly beseech your Majesty to continue to believe them at all times, and upon all occasions, equally ready, as they have been, to devote their lives and properties to your Majesty's service and the preservation of the British Constitution.

"W. Pepperell, for the Massachusetts Loyalists.

"J. Wentworth, for the New Hampshire Loyalists.

"George Rowe, for the Rhode Island Loyalists.

"Ja. Delancey, for the New York Loyalists.

"David Ogden, for the New Jersey Loyalists.

"Joseph Galloway, for the Pennsylvania and Delaware Loyalists.

"Robert Alexander, for the Maryland Loyalists.

"John R. Grymer, for the Virginia Loyalists.

"Henry Eustace McCulloch, for the North Carolina Loyalists.

"James Simpson, for the South Carolina Loyalists.

"William Knox, for the Georgia Loyalists.

"John Graham, late Lieutenant-Governor of Georgia, and joint agent, for the Georgia Loyalists."

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 124: The names of the agents, or delegates, are as follows: W. Pepperell, for the Massachusetts Loyalists; J. Wentworth, jun., for the New Hampshire Loyalists; George Rowe, for the Rhode Island Loyalists; Ja. Delancey, for the New York Loyalists; David Ogden, for the New Jersey Loyalists; Joseph Galloway, for the Pennsylvania and Delaware Loyalists; Robert Alexander, for the Maryland Loyalists; John R. Grymes, for the Virginia Loyalists; Henry Eustace McCulloch, for the North Carolina Loyalists; James Simpson, for the South Carolina Loyalists; William Knox, for the Georgia Loyalists.]

[Footnote 125: Another very able pamphlet was issued some time afterwards, entitled "Claims of the American Loyalists Reviewed and Maintained upon the Incontrovertible Principles of Law and Justice;" printed in London, 1788.]

[Footnote 126: "Historical View of the Commission for Inquiry into the Losses, Services, and Claims of the American Loyalists, at the Close of the War between Great Britain and her Colonies in 1783; with an Account of the Compensation granted to them by Parliament in 1785 and 1788." By John Eardley Wilmot, Esq., London, 1815. Dedicated "To His Most Gracious Majesty George the Third, equally distinguished for justice and beneficence to his subjects and for humanity to his enemies."]

[Footnote 127: It has already been mentioned that the Legislature of South Carolina (the only State of the American Republic) had taken steps to restore the estates of several of her Loyalists. This "caused the withdrawal of the claims of their owners (before the English Commissioners), except that in instances of alleged strip and waste, amercements, and similar losses, inquiries were instituted to ascertain the value of what was taken compared with that which was returned."

The English Commissioners, in their twelfth and last report, remark on this subject as follows:

"We thought it our duty to state, in our second report of the 24th December, 1784, that the State of South Carolina had, by an Act of the 24th March, 1784, restored the confiscated property of certain Loyalists, subject to the restrictions therein mentioned; and that in consequence thereof many had withdrawn the claims they had before presented to us. We find, however, that in many instances the parties have not been able to reap that advantage they had expected, and which the Act above-mentioned held out to them. In some instances the property restored has been so wasted and injured as to be of little value; in others, the amercements and charges have been nearly equal to the value of the fee simple of the estates; and in many, where the indents[128] being the species of money received by the State, have been restored to the former proprietors, an inevitable and considerable loss has been sustained by the depreciation. In all these cases we have made minute inquiry into the real benefit that has been derived from such restitution, whether of the property itself, or of the indents in lien of it; and having endeavoured to ascertain, as nearly as the circumstances would admit, the value of what was lost and the value of what was restored, we have considered the difference as the real loss of the party."]

[Footnote 128: Indent—A certificate, or indented certificate, issued by the Government of the United States at the close of the revolution, for the principal or interest of the public debt.—Webster.]

[Footnote 129: The principle thus laid down was neither just, nor true, nor generous. The claimants had not asked for charity, but for compensation, and that not as a favour, but upon the principles of "right and of strict justice." The British Ministry and Parliament alone originated and were responsible for the policy and measures which had led to the calamities so ruinous to the Loyalists, who now claimed compensation. The claimants had had nothing to do with passing the Stamp Act; with imposing duties on tea and other articles imported into the colonies; with making naval officers collectors of customs; with erecting courts of admiralty, and depriving the trading colonists of trial by jury, and of rendering the officers of the admiralty courts, and the complainants before them, the recipients of the first confiscations imposed by such events; with the acts to close the Port of Boston, and supersede the chartered constitution of Massachusetts, all of which, separately and collectively, with other like measures, roused and united the colonists to resistance, from Maine to Georgia, and in consequence of which a majority of the General Congress of the colonists seized the opportunity to renounce their allegiance to the British Throne, and to declare their separation from the mother country. And even after the character of the contest became thus changed from one for British constitutional rights to one for Republican independence, the Loyalists had nothing to do with the selection of British generals, or with their incapacity, their want of tact and energy, their mistakes and rapacity, together with that of their officers and soldiers, from all which the Loyalists grievously suffered. In the camp, on the march, and in the field of battle, the Loyalists were always on the alert, and performed the severest and most perilous services. No class of men had stronger claims on the nation, upon the principles of right and strict justice, than the Loyalist claimants before Parliament. This was acknowledged by all the speakers on both sides, and in both Houses of Parliament, and even by Mr. Pitt himself, and the objectionable and offensive principle which he laid down at the outset was contravened by the whole tenor and spirit of his speech.]

[Footnote 130: The number of claims examined by the Commissioners in Nova Scotia and Canada was 1,272; the amount of claims was L975,310; the losses allowed were L336,753.]

[Footnote 131: What remained for consideration, and which was afterwards granted by Parliament, consisted of seven Articles, and was as follows:

"1. Additional claims liquidated since 1788, to the amount of L224,406

"2. The proprietary claims of Messrs. Pennes L500,000

"3. Do. Do. Trustees under the will of Lord Granville, North Carolina 60,000

"4. The proprietary claims of Robert Lord Fairfax, proprietor of Virginia 60,000

"5. Claims of subjects, settled inhabitants of the United States, many of which were cases of great merit and peculiar hardship 32,462

"6. Claims of persons who appeared to have relief under the Treaty of Peace 14,000

"7. Claims of creditors on ceded lands in Georgia 45,885"]

[Footnote 132: The case of such merchants was peculiarly distressing. In the "Historical Review of the Commission," the Commissioners state:

"The claims for debts due from subjects of the United States, as well from the magnitude of their amount as the peculiar hardship and injustice under which the claimants labour respecting them, form a subject which appears strongly to press for the attention and interposition of Government. The Treaty of Peace having provided that 'Creditors on either side should meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value of their debts in sterling money,' losses of this nature have not been considered as within the inquiry directed by the Act, because we cannot consider any right or property as lost to the party where the Government of the country has expressly provided and stipulated for a remedy by a public treaty. We think it, however, incumbent upon us to represent that the claimants uniformly state to us the insuperable difficulties they find themselves under, as individuals, in seeking the recovery of their debts according to the provision of the treaty, whilst themselves are the objects of prosecution in courts of justice here for debts due to the subjects of the United States. Under such circumstances, the situation of this class of sufferers appears to be singularly distressing—disabled on the one hand by the laws or practice of the several States from recovering the debts due them, yet compellable on the other to pay all demands against them; and though the stipulation in the treaty in their favour has proved of no avail to procure them the redress it holds out in one country, yet they find themselves excluded by it from all claims to relief in the other."]

[Footnote 133: It is certain that but a small proportion of the American Loyalists presented claims before the Parliamentary Commissioners in England for compensation for services or loss of property; and many of those who presented claims did not prosecute them. The Commissioners give the following explanation on this point:

"It may, perhaps, appear singular that so many claims presented, viz., 448, have been withdrawn; but it may be owing, in the first place, to the circumstance of many of these claimants having recovered possession of their estates, and, in the next place, to the uncertainty, at the commencement of the inquiry, as to the nature of the Commission, and the species of loss which was the object of it, and perhaps to the consciousness of others that they were not able to establish the claims they had presented."]



CHAPTER XXXIX.

THE LOYALISTS DRIVEN FROM THE UNITED STATES TO THE BRITISH PROVINCES.

The Loyalists, after having been stripped of their rights and property during the war, and driven from their homes, and hunted and killed at pleasure, were exiled from all right of residence and citizenship at the close of the war; and though the Treaty of Peace engaged that Congress should recommend the several States to compensate them for the losses of their property, the Legislatures of the several States (with one exception) refused any compliance with this stipulation of the national treaty; and the Legislature of New York actually ordered the punishment of those Loyalists who applied for compensation. At the close of the war, therefore, instead of witnessing, as in the case of all other civilized nations at the termination of a civil war, however rancorous and cruel, a general amnesty and the restoration of all parties to the rights and property which they enjoyed at the commencement of the strife, the Loyalists found themselves exiled and impoverished, and their enemies in possession of their homes and domains. It is true about 3,000 of the Loyalists were able to employ agents, or appear personally, to apply to the English Government and Parliament for compensation for their losses; and the preceding chapter records the noble appreciation of their character and services by British statesmen, and the liberality of Parliament in making them compensation for their losses and sufferings in maintaining their fidelity to the mother country. But these 3,000 constituted not one-tenth of the Loyalists who had suffered losses and hardships during the civil war; upwards of 30,000 of them were driven from the homes of their birth, and of their forefathers, to wildernesses of everlasting snow. It was a policy as inhuman and impolitic as that of Spain in expelling upwards of 600,000 Moors, the most skilful and profitable of their manufacturers and artizans; or of France, in compelling the escape of above 500,000 of the best workers in the finest manufactures to other countries where they laid the foundation of industries which have proved a source of boundless wealth to England at the expense of the commerce and manufactures of France. The Democrats were then the ruling party in most of the States; the more moderate voice and liberal policy of the Conservative Republicans were hushed and fanned down by the Democratic leaders, who seemed unable to look beyond the gratification of their resentment and avarice; they seemed to fear the residence and presence of men of intelligence, ability, and energy, who might in the future rival if not eclipse them. The maxim of the Loyalists was, obedience to law; heretofore they looked upon the enactments of the States and of Congress as usurpation; those enactments were now recognized as law by England herself, in the acknowledgment of American Independence; and the Loyalists would have been among the most obedient and law-abiding citizens had they been allowed to remain in the land of their nativity and forefathers, and would have largely added to its social advancement, literature, and wealth, and would undoubtedly, before now, have led to the unity of the Anglo-Saxon race under one free and progressive government. Historians and statesmen have long since condemned this resentful and narrow-minded policy of the States against the Loyalists after the close of the revolutionary war, as do now even American historians.[134]

The Americans inaugurated their Declaration of Independence by enacting that all adherents to connection with the mother country were rebels and traitors; they followed the recognition of Independence by England by exiling such adherents from their territories. But while this wretched policy depleted the United States of some of their best blood, it laid the foundation of the settlement and institutions of the then almost unknown and wilderness provinces which have since become the wide-spread, free and prosperous Dominion of Canada.

Until very recently, the early history of the Loyalists of America has never been written, except to blacken their character and misrepresent their actions; they were represented as a set of idle office-seekers—an imputation which has been amply refuted by their braving the forests of northern countries, and converting them into fruitful fields, developing trade and commerce, and establishing civil, religious, and educational institutions that are an honour to America itself. Yet, when exiled from their native land, they were bereft of the materials of their true history. A living American writer truly observes:

"Of the reasons which influenced, of the hopes and fears which agitated, and of the miseries and rewards which awaited the Loyalists—or, as they were called in the politics of the time, the Tories—of the American Revolution, but little is known. The most intelligent, the best informed among us, confess the deficiency of their knowledge. The reason is obvious. Men who, like the Loyalists, separate themselves from their friends and kindred, who are driven from their homes, who surrender the hopes and expectations of life, and who become outlaws, wanderers, and exiles—such men leave few memorials behind them. Their papers are scattered and lost, and their very names pass from human recollection. * * Of several of the Loyalists who were high in office, of others who were men of talents and acquirements, and of still others who were of less consideration, I have been able, after long and extensive researches, to learn scarcely more than their names, or the single fact that for their political opinions or offences they were proscribed and banished."[135]

The circumstances under which the Loyalists were banished from the States and deprived of their property will largely account for the alienation of feeling which long existed between the Americans and Canadians, which gave intensity to the war of 1812-15, which exists to some extent at this day, but which is gradually subsiding, and is being gradually superseded by feelings of mutual respect and friendship, strengthened by large commercial and social relations, including many intermarriages.

To understand the sacrifices which the Loyalists made, and the courage and energy they evinced, in leaving their old homes and associations in the sunny parts of America, and in seeking a refuge and a home in the wilds of the remaining British Provinces, it will be necessary to notice what was then known, and the impression then existing, as to the climate, productions, and conditions of these provinces.[136]

At that time New Brunswick formed a part of Nova Scotia, and was not organized into a separate province until 1784. The impressions then entertained as to the climate of Nova Scotia (including New Brunswick) may be inferred from the following extracts from a pamphlet published in England in 1784:

"It has a winter of almost insufferable length and coldness; * * there are but a few inconsiderable spots fit to cultivate, and the land is covered with a cold spongy moss in place of grass. * * Winter continues at least seven months in the year; the country is wrapt in the gloom of a perpetual fog; the mountains run down to the sea coast, and leave but here and there a spot to inhabit." Some of the officers, embarking at New York for Nova Scotia, are said to have remarked that they were "bound for a country where there were nine months of winter and three months of cold weather every year." Lower Canada was known as a region of deep snow, intense cold, and little fertility; a colony of the French; its capital, Quebec, the scene of decisive battles between the English and French under Wolfe and Montcalm, and afterwards between Murray and Montgomery, the latter the leader of the American revolters and invaders. Montreal was regarded as the place of transit of the fur trade from the Hudson's Bay Company to England.

Upper Canada was then unknown, or known only as a region of dense wilderness and swamps, of venomous reptiles and beasts of prey, the hunting grounds and encampments of numerous Indian tribes, intense cold of winter, and with no other redeeming feature except abundance of game and fish.[137]

The entire ignorance of the climate of Upper Canada which prevailed at the close of the revolutionary war, may be inferred from the facts stated in a succeeding chapter, when the British commander of New York, being unable to transport any more Loyalists to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, sent for a Mr. Grass, who had been a prisoner during the French war for two or three years at Kingston, then Frontenac, to inquire of him what sort of a country Upper Canada was, and whether people could live there. Grass replied that he thought Upper Canada was a good country, and that people could live there. The British commander expressed much joy at the reply, and asked Mr. Grass if he would undertake to conduct a colony of Loyalists to Canada; the vessels, provisions, etc., would be furnished for that purpose. Mr. Grass asked three days to consider the proposal, and at length consented to undertake the task. It appears that five vessels were procured and furnished to convey this first colony of banished refugee Loyalists to Upper Canada; they sailed around the coast of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and up the St. Lawrence to Sorel, where they arrived in October, 1783, and where they built themselves huts or shanties and wintered; and in May, 1784, they prosecuted their voyage in boats, and reached their destination, Cataraqui, afterwards Kingston, in July. The manner of their settlement and providing for their subsistence is described in a succeeding chapter.

Other bands of Loyalists made their way to Canada by land; some by the military highway to Lower Canada, Whitehall, Lake Champlain, Ticonderoga, Plattsburg, and then turning northward proceeded to Cornwall; then ascending the St. Lawrence, along the north side of which many of them settled. This Champlain route was the common one to Lower Canada, descending the River Richelieu from St. John's to Sorel.

But the most common land route from New York to Upper Canada, chosen by the Loyalists at the close of the war, was to Albany 180 miles up the Hudson river, which divides into two branches about ten miles north of Albany. The western branch is called the Mohawk, leading to Rome, formerly Fort Stanwix. A branch of the Mohawk, called Wood Creek, leads towards the Oneida lake, which was reached by a portage. From Oneida Lake, Lake Ontario was reached by the Oswego river. Flat-bottom boats, specially built or purchased for the purpose by the Loyalists, were used in this journey. The portages over which the boats had to be hauled, and all their contents carried, are stated to be thirty miles. On reaching Oswego, some of the Loyalists coasted along the eastern shore of Lake Ontario to Kingston, and thence up the Bay of Quinte; others went westward, along the south shore of the lake to Niagara and Queenston; some pursued their course to the head of the lake at Burlington; others made their way up the Niagara river to Queenston, conveyed their boats over the portage of ten or twelve miles to Chippewa, thence up the river and into Lake Erie, settling chiefly in what was called the "Long Point Country," now the county of Norfolk. This journey of hardship, privation, and exposure occupied from two to three months. The parents and family of the writer of this history were from the middle of May to the middle of July, 1799, in making this journey in an open boat. Generally two or more families would unite in one company, and thus assist each other in carrying their boats and goods over the portages.

A considerable number came to Canada from New Jersey and the neighbourhood of Philadelphia on foot through the then wilderness of New York, carrying their little effects and small children on pack horses, and driving their cattle, which subsisted on herbage of the woods and valleys. Some of the families of this class testified to the relief and kindness they received in their extreme exigencies from the Indians.

The hardships, exposures, privations and sufferings which the first Loyalists endured in making their way from their confiscated homes to Canada, were longer and more severe than anything narrated of the Pilgrim and Puritan Fathers of New England in their voyages from England to Massachusetts Bay; and the persecutions to which the emigration of the Puritans from England is attributed were trifling indeed in comparison of the persecutions, imprisonments, confiscations, and often death, inflicted on the loyal adherents to the Crown of England in the United States, and which drove the survivors among them to the wilderness of Canada. The privations and hardships experienced by many of these Loyalist patriots for years after the first settlement in Canada, as testified by the papers in the subsequent chapter, were much more severe than anything experienced by the Pilgrim Fathers during the first years of their settlement in Massachusetts. These latter could keep a "Harvest Home" festival of a week, at the end of the first year after their landing in the Bay of Massachusetts; but it was years after their arrival in Canada before the Loyalists could command means to keep any such festival. The stern adherence of the Puritans to their principles was quite equalled by the stern adherence of the Loyalists to their principles, and far excelled by their sacrifices and sufferings.

Canada has a noble parentage, the remembrance of which its inhabitants may well cherish with respect, affection, and pride.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 134: "Had we pursued a wise course, people of our own stock would not have become our rivals in ship-building, in the carriage of our great staples, in the prosecution of the fisheries, and in the production of wheat and other breadstuffs. Nor is this all: we should not have had the hatred, the influence and the talents of persons of Loyalist origin to contend against in the questions which have and may yet come up between us and England.

"Thus, as it seems to me, humanity to the adherents of the Crown, and prudent regard for our own interests, required a general amnesty; as it was, we not only dealt harshly with many, and unjustly with some, but doomed to misery others, whose hearts and hopes had been as true as those of Washington himself. Thus in the divisions of families which everywhere occurred, and which formed one of the most distressing circumstances of the conflict, there were wives and daughters, who, although bound to Loyalists by the holiest ties, had given their sympathies to the right from the beginning, and who now, in the triumph of the cause which had their prayers, went meekly—as woman ever meets a sorrowful lot—into hopeless, interminable exile." (Introductory Historical Essay to Sabine's Sketches of the Loyalists of the American Revolution, pp. 90, 91.)]

[Footnote 135: Preface to Colonel Sabine's Biographical Sketches of the American Loyalists, or Adherents to the British Crown, in the War of the Revolution.]

[Footnote 136: The Loyalists who were attached to military corps raised in the extreme South were principally of the Southern States, and a large portion of them settled in the Bahamas, Florida, and the British West Indies. "Some of the officers who belonged to the 'Maryland Loyalists,' and some of the privates of that corps, embarked for Nova Scotia, but were wrecked in the Bay of Fundy, and a part perished." (Sabine.)]

[Footnote 137: "The western part of Canada, abandoned after the conquest as an Indian hunting ground, or occupied at its western extremity on Lake Erie by a few of the ancient French colonists, began now to assume importance, and its capability of supporting a numerous population along the Great River and the lakes became evident. Those excellent men, who, preferring to sacrifice life and fortune rather than forego the enviable distinction of being British subjects, saw that this vast field afforded a sure and certain mode of safety and of honourable retreat, and accordingly, in 1783, ten thousand (10,000) were enumerated in that portion of Canada, who, under the proud title of United Empire Loyalists, had turned their backs for ever upon the new-fangled republicanism and treason of the country of their birth.

"The obstacles, privations, and miseries these people had to encounter may readily be imagined in a country where the primeval forest covered the earth, and where the only path was the river or the lake. They ultimately were, however, blessed with success; and to this day the original letters U.E., after the name of an applicant for land, ensure its grant." (Sir Richard Bonnycastle's Canada Before 1837, Vol. I., pp. 24, 25.)]



CHAPTER XL.

BRIEF SKETCHES OF SOME INDIVIDUAL LOYALISTS—FIRST SETTLERS IN CANADA AND OTHER BRITISH PROVINCES.

It is not possible to give biographical sketches of all the old Loyalists, officers and soldiers. To do justice to their character and merits would require a massive volume. Besides, the data for such a volume are for the most part wanting. It is not the object of this history to give a biography of the Loyalists; that must be done by others, if attempted at all. The Loyalists were not writers, but workers. Almost the only history of them has been written by their enemies, whose object was to conceal the treatment they received, to depreciate their merits and defame their character, for the vindication of which it is only of late years that materials have been procured. It is the object of this history to vindicate their character as a body, to exhibit their principles and patriotism, and to illustrate their treatment and sufferings.

The best, and indeed only biography of the Loyalists extant is Sabine's "American Loyalists, or Biographical Sketches of Adherents to the British Crown in the War of the Revolution,"—especially the first, not the second edition. The author has more than once quoted the excellent historical essay introductory to the sketches of this work, and from which Dr. Canniff has enriched the pages of his valuable "History of the Settlement of Upper Canada, with special reference to the Bay of Quinte." From these sources we will condense brief notices of some of the early Loyalists, preliminary to the information in regard to others furnished us in the interesting letters and papers which follow. These notices will further illustrate the character and sacrifices of the Loyalist combatants—the treatment they received and the courage they displayed.

1. Samuel Anderson, of New York, entered the service of the Crown, and was a captain in the regiment of Sir John Johnson. In 1783 he settled near Cornwall, Upper Canada, and received half-pay; held several civil offices, such as those of Magistrate, Judge of the District Court, Associate Justice of King's Bench, etc. He continued to reside on his property near Cornwall until his decease in 1836, at the age of one hundred and one. His property in New York was abandoned and lost.

2. Rev. John Bethune (father of the late Bishop of Toronto), of North Carolina, was chaplain to the Loyal Militia; was taken prisoner at the battle of Cross Creek; was confined in jail, first at Halifax and finally in Philadelphia. After his release, his continued loyalty reduced him to great distress. He was appointed to the 84th Regiment and restored to comfort. At the peace, he settled in Upper Canada, at Williamston, near Cornwall, and died in 1815, at the age of sixty-five.

3. Doane, of Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Of this family there were five brothers—Moses, Joseph, Israel, Abraham, and Mahlon. They were men of fine figure and address, elegant horsemen, great runners and leapers, and excellent at stratagems and escapes. Their father was respectable, and possessed a good estate. The sons themselves, prior to the war, were men of reputation and proposed to remain neutral; but harassed personally, their property sold by the Whigs, because they would not submit to the exactions of the time, they determined to avenge themselves by a predatory warfare upon their persecutors, and to live in the open air as best they could. They became the terror of the surrounding country; they spared the weak, the poor, and the peaceful; they aimed at public property and at public men. Generally their expeditions were on horseback. Sometimes the five went together; at other times separately, with accomplices. Whoever of them was apprehended, broke jail; whoever of them was assailed, escaped. In a word, such was their course, that a reward of L300 was offered for the head of each. Ultimately, three were slain; Moses, after a desperate fight, was shot by his captor; and Abraham and Mahlon were living at Philadelphia. Joseph, before the revolution, taught school. During the war, while on a marauding expedition, he was shot through the cheeks, and was taken prisoner. He was committed to await his trial, but escaped to New Jersey. A reward of $800 was offered for his apprehension, but without success. He resumed his former employment in New Jersey and lived there under an assumed name for nearly a year, but finally fled to Canada. The only mention of Israel is that "in February, 1783, he appealed to the Council of Pennsylvania to be released on account of his own sufferings and the destitute condition of his family, and that his petition was dismissed."

4. Stephen Jarvis, in 1782 was a lieutenant of cavalry in the South Carolina Royalists; was in several battles; was in New Brunswick; after the revolution came to Upper Canada, and died at Toronto in 1840, aged eighty-four.

5. William Jarvis was an officer of cavalry in the Queen's Rangers; was wounded at the siege of Yorktown. At the Peace he settled in Upper Canada, became Secretary of the Province, and died at York (Toronto) in 1817.

6. David Jones was captain in the royal service, and the reputed spouse or husband of the "beautiful and good Jane McCrea," whose cruel death in 1777, by the Indians, on her way to join him, is so universally known and lamented. He lived in Canada to an old age, but never married. Jane McCrea was the daughter of the Rev. James McCrea, a Loyalist.

7. Jonathan Jones, of New York, was brother of Captain David Jones, and assisted in the latter part of 1776 in raising a company in Lower Canada, and joined the British garrison at Crown Point. Later in the war he was captain under General Frazer.

8. Captain Richard Lippincott was born in Shrewsbury, New Jersey, on the 2nd of January, 1745. He was descended from an old colonial family, and served during the revolution as a captain in the New Jersey volunteers. He was married on the 4th of March, 1770, to Esther Borden, daughter of Jeremiah and Esther Borden, of Bordentown, New Jersey. On the outbreak of the revolution he warmly espoused the side of the Crown, and was early in the war captured and confined in Burlington jail, from which he escaped in the year 1776, and made his way to the British army at Staten Island. During the remainder of the war he served with his regiment. His connection with the execution of Captain Joshua Huddy, of the rebel service, attracted a great deal of attention both in Europe and America. Captain Huddy was a partisan officer of some repute in New Jersey, and had been concerned in the murder of a Loyalist named Philip White, who was a relative of Lippincott, and a resident of Shrewsbury. One Edwards of the same neighbourhood had also been put to death about the same time. Shortly after, Captain Huddy was captured and taken as prisoner to New York. The "Board of Associated Loyalists of New York" sent Captain Lippincott to Middleton Point, or Sandy Hook, with Captain Huddy and two other prisoners, to exchange them for prisoners held by the rebels. He was authorized to execute Huddy in retaliation for White, who had already been put to death. Therefore, on the 12th of April, 1782, having exchanged the two other prisoners, Captain Lippincott hung Huddy on a tree by the beach, under the Middleton Heights. In 1867 the tree was still to be seen, and tradition keeps alive in the neighbourhood the story connected with it. Captain Lippincott, who was evidently only obeying orders, pinned a paper on Huddy's breast with the following inscription:

"We, the Refugees, having long with grief beheld the cruel murders of our brethren, and finding nothing but such measures carrying into execution,—we therefore determine not to suffer without taking vengeance for the numerous cruelties, and thus begin, having made use of Captain Huddy as the first object to present to your view, and further determine to hang man for man while there is a refugee existing.

"UP GOES HUDDY FOR PHILIP WHITE."

Washington, upon hearing of Huddy's death, demanded the surrender of Captain Lippincott from the Royalist authorities, in order that he might be put to death. This demand was refused, and Washington then ordered the execution of one officer of equal rank to be chosen by lot from among the prisoners in his hands. The lot fell upon Captain Asgill, of the Guards, who was only nineteen years of age. The British authorities secured a respite under promise of trying Captain Lippincott by court-martial. After a full inquiry, Lippincott was honourably acquitted. In the meantime, Lady Asgill, Captain Asgill's mother, appealed to the Count de Vergennes, the French Minister, and, in response to her most pathetic appeal, the Count was instructed by the King and Queen of France, in their joint names, to ask of Washington the release of Captain Asgill "as a tribute to humanity." Washington, after a long delay, granted this request, but Asgill and Lippincott were not set at liberty till the close of the war. Asgill lived to become a general, and to succeed to his father's baronetcy.

After the war Captain Lippincott moved to New Brunswick, to a place called Pennfield, where he lived till the fall of 1787, when he went to England, where he remained till the end of 1788. He was granted half pay as a captain of the British army, and in 1793 he moved from New Brunswick to Canada, when he was granted for his U.E. Loyalist services 3,000 acres of land in the township of Vaughan, near Toronto.

He lived near Richmond Hill for many years. His only surviving child, Esther Borden Lippincott, was married in 1806 to the late Colonel George Taylor Denison, of Bellevue, Toronto, at whose house Captain Lippincott died in 1826, aged eighty-one years. The family of Denisons of Toronto are all descendants of Captain Lippincott through this marriage.

9. McDonald.—There were many of this name who took part with the loyal combatants, and of whom several settled in Canada.

Alexander McDonald was a major in a North Carolina regiment, and was the husband of the celebrated Flora McDonald, who was so true and devoted to Prince Charles Edward, the last of the Stuarts who sought the throne of England. They had emigrated to North Carolina; and when the revolution broke out, he, with two sons, took up arms for the Crown. Those who settled in Canada were Donald McDonald, of New York, who served under Sir John Johnson for seven years, and died at Wolfe Island, Upper Canada, aged 97; and Allan McDonald, of Tryon (afterwards Montgomery), New York, who was associated with Sir John Johnson in 1776, and died at a great age, at Three Rivers, in Lower Canada, 1822.

10. John McGill was, in 1782, an officer of infantry in the Queen's Rangers, and at the close of the war went to New Brunswick; removed thence to Upper Canada, became a man of note and member of the Legislative Council, and died at Toronto, in 1834, at the age of eighty-three.

11. Donald McGillis resided at the beginning of the revolution on the Mohawk river, New York. Embracing the royal side in the contest, he formed one of a "determined band of young men," who attacked a Whig post, and, in the face of a superior force, cut down the flag-staff and tore in strips the stars and stripes attached to it. Subsequently he joined a grenadier company called the Royal Yorkers, and performed efficient service throughout the war. At the peace he settled in Canada; and entering the British service again in 1812, was appointed captain in the colonial corps by Sir Isaac Brock. He died at River Raisin, Canada, in 1844, aged eighty years.

12. Thomas Merrit, of New York (father of the late Hon. W. Hamilton Merrit), was in 1782 cornet of cavalry in the Queen's Rangers. He settled in Upper Canada, and held the office of high sheriff of the Niagara district. He died at St. Catharines, May, 1842, at the age of eighty years.

The Robinson family was one of the distinguished families in America before, during, and after the revolution, and its members have filled some of the most important offices in the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Lower and Upper Canada.

13. Beverley Robinson, of New York, was the son of the Honourable John Robinson, of Virginia, who was President of that colony on the retirement of Governor Gooch. He removed to New York, and married Susanna, daughter of Frederick Phillipse, Esquire, who owned an immense landed estate on the Hudson river. By this connection Mr. Robinson added greatly to his wealth and became very rich. When the revolutionary controversy commenced, he was living on that portion of the Phillipse estate which had been given to his wife, and there he desired to remain in the quiet enjoyment of country life, and in the enjoyment of his large domains. That such was his inclination is asserted by the late President Dwight, and is fully continued by circumstances and by his descendants. He was opposed to the measures of the British Ministry, gave up the use of imported merchandize, and clothed himself and family in fabrics of domestic manufacture.

But he was opposed to the separation of the colonies from the mother country. Still he wished to take no part in the conflict of arms. The importunity of friends overruled his own judgment, and he entered the military service of the Crown. Of the Loyal American Regiment, raised principally in New York by himself, he was commissioned the colonel. He also commanded the corps called Guides and Pioneers. Of the former, or the Loyal Americans, his son Beverley was lieutenant-colonel, and Thomas Barclay, major. He and Washington had been personal friends until political events produced separation between them.

At the peace, Colonel Robinson, with a part of his family, went to England. His name appears as a member of the first Council of New Brunswick; but he never took his seat at the Board. His wife, with himself, was attainted for high treason; in order to secure her property to the Americans, she was included in the Confiscation Act of New York, and the whole of the estate derived from her father passed from the family. The value of her interest may be estimated from the fact that the British Government granted her and her husband the sum of L17,000 sterling, which, though equal to $80,000, was considered only a partial compensation.

Colonel Robinson has highly respectable descendants in New Brunswick as well as in Canada. William Henry, who was afterwards King William the Fourth, enjoyed Colonel Robinson's hospitality in New York at a later date. The Robinsons were unquestionably immediate sufferers from the events which drove them into exile. But though Colonel Robinson was not amply compensated in money by the Government for which he sacrificed fortune, home, and his native land, yet the distinction obtained by his children and grand-children in the colonies, though deprived of their inheritance, has not been without other and substantial recompense, as no persons of the Loyalist descent have been more favoured in official stations and powerful family alliances than the heirs of the daughters of Frederick Phillipse, Susanna Robinson, and Mary Morris (see under the names of Colonel Roger Morris and Colonel Thomas Barclay).

14. Beverley Robinson (jun.) was son of Colonel Beverley Robinson, and lieutenant-colonel in the Loyal American Regiment, commanded by his father; was a graduate of Columbia College, New York, and at the commencement of the revolutionary troubles was a student of law in the office of James Duane. His wife, Nancy, whom he married during the war, was daughter of the Reverend Henry Barclay, D.D., rector of Trinity Church, New York, and sister of Colonel Thomas Barclay. At the evacuation of New York, Lieutenant-Colonel Robinson was placed at the head of a large number of Loyalists who embarked for Shelburne, Nova Scotia, and who laid out that place in a very handsome manner, in the hope of its becoming a town of business and importance. The harbour of Shelburne is represented to be one of the best in North America; the population rapidly increased to about 12,000 persons, but soon as rapidly declined, being outrivalled by Halifax—and many abandoned Shelburne for other parts of the British provinces. Lieutenant-Colonel Robinson went to New Brunswick, and resided near the city of St. John. His deprivations and sufferings for a considerable time after leaving New York were great, but were finally relieved by the receipt of half-pay as an officer in the service of the Crown. In New Brunswick he was a member of his Majesty's Council; and at the period of the French revolution, and on the occurrence of the Napoleonic war between England and France, he was entrusted with the command of the regiment raised in that colony, possessed great energy, and contributed much by his exertions and influence to settle and advance the commercial emporium of New Brunswick. In the Confiscation Act of New York, by which his estate was taken from him, he was styled "Beverley Robinson the younger." He died in 1816, at New York, while on a visit to two of his sons who were residing in that city.

15. Christopher Robinson, of Virginia, was kinsman of Colonel Beverley Robinson; entered William and Mary College with his cousin Robert, escaped with him to New York, and received a commission in the Loyal Canadian Regiment; served at the South, and was wounded. At the peace he went first to New Brunswick, and then to Nova Scotia, receiving a grant of land in each province. He soon removed to Upper Canada, where Governor Simcoe gave him the appointment of Deputy-Surveyor-General of Crown Lands. His salary, half pay, and an estate of 2,000 acres, placed him in comfortable circumstances.

16. Sir John Beverley Robinson was a son of Christopher Robinson, of Virginia; received his early legal education in England, and was admitted to the English bar. He returned to Upper Canada while yet young; served with distinction in the war of 1812, and was in several battles. He was early appointed Attorney-General, and held a seat in the House of Assembly for ten years; after which he was appointed Member and Speaker of the Legislative Council. During the insurrection of 1837, in Upper Canada, he took his musket and went into the ranks, accompanied by his two sons. He was born in 1791; was appointed Attorney-General of Upper Canada in 1818; was raised to the Bench as Chief Justice in 1829; was created Baronet in 1854; and died in 1863, aged seventy-two.

17. Sir Charles Frederick Phillipse Robinson, G.C.B., of New York, was the son of Colonel Beverley Robinson; entered the King's service early in the Revolution, and at the peace returned with his father to England, where he was continued in the British army; became Lieutenant-General, and received the honour of knighthood. He was with the Duke of Wellington, and saw much hard service. At the storming of St. Sebastian he was dangerously wounded. He was in the battle of Vittoria, Nive, Orthes, and Toulouse. During the war of 1812 he came to America, and was employed in Canada. He commanded the British force in the attack on Plattsburg, under Prevost, and protested against the order of his superior, when directed to retire, because from the position of his troops he was of opinion that his loss of men would be greater in retreat than in advance upon the American works. After the conclusion of hostilities he embarked at New York for England.

18. Morris Robinson, of New York, was also son of Colonel Beverley Robinson, and was captain of the Queen's Rangers. When that corps was disbanded at the close of the war, most of the officers were dismissed on half pay, and settled in New Brunswick; but Captain Robinson, by good fortune, was continued in commission, and at the time of his decease he was lieutenant-colonel, and assistant-barrackmaster-general in the British army. He had three sons officers in the British army, and two daughters, Susan and Joane; the former became the wife of Robert Parker, judge of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick; and the latter the wife of Robert T. Hagien, Esq., barrister-at-law, master in chancery, and formerly mayor of the city of St. John.

19. John Robinson, of New York, likewise a son of Colonel Beverley Robinson, was during the revolution a lieutenant of the Loyal American Regiment, commanded by his father; and when the corps was disbanded at the close of the war, he settled in New Brunswick, and received half pay. He embarked, and successfully, in mercantile pursuits, and held distinguished public stations, being deputy-paymaster-general of his Majesty's forces in the Province, a member of the Council, treasurer of New Brunswick, mayor of St. John, and president of the first bank chartered in the colony. He died at St. John in 1828, aged sixty-seven.

Several other Robinsons were engaged on the royal side in the American Revolution, but none of them so prominently connected with the British provinces as those above mentioned.

20. Roger Morris, of New York, was a captain in the British army, in the French war, and one of the aides of the ill-fated Braddock. He married Mary, daughter of Frederick Phillipse, Esq., and settled in New York. At the commencement of the revolution he was a member of the Council of the colony, and continued in office until the peace, although the Whigs organized a government, under a written Constitution, as early as 1777. A part of the Phillipse estate was in possession of Colonel Morris in right of his wife, and was confiscated. In order that the whole property should pass from the family into the hands of the Americans, Mrs. Morris was included with her husband in the New York Confiscation Act of attainder. It is believed that this lady, her sister Mrs. Robinson, and Mrs. Ingles, were the only ladies who were attainted of treason during the revolution, and that merely to get possession of their property. "Imagination," says Sabine, "dwells upon the attainting of a lady whose beauty and attractions had won the admiration of Washington.[138] Humanity is shocked that a woman was attainted of treason for no crime but that of clinging to the fortunes of the husband whom she had vowed on the altar of religion never to desert."

But it appeared in due time that the Confiscation Act did not affect the rights of Mrs. Morris's children, who were not named in, and therefore not disqualified by the Act of Confiscation. In 1787, the Attorney-General of England examined the case and gave the opinion that the reversionary interest (or property of the children at the decease of the parents) was not included in their attainder, and was recoverable under the principles of law and of right. In the year 1809, their son, Captain Henry Gage Morris, of the Royal Navy, in behalf of himself and his two sisters, sold his reversionary interest to John Jacob Astor, Esquire, of New York, for the sum of L20,000 sterling. In 1828, Mr. Astor made a compromise with the State of New York, by which he received for the rights thus purchased by him (with or without associates) the large amount of $500,000. The terms of the arrangement required that he should execute a deed of conveyance in fee simple, with warranty against the claims of the Morrises, husband and wife, their heirs, and all persons claiming under them; and that he should obtain the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, affirming the validity and perfectibility of his title. These conditions were complied with, and the purchasers of the confiscated lands were thus quieted in their titles derived from the sales of the Commissioners of Confiscated Property.

21. Allan McNab was a lieutenant of cavalry in the Queen's Rangers, under Colonel Simcoe. During the war he received thirteen wounds. He accompanied his commander to Upper Canada, then a dense unpeopled wilderness. He was appointed Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Assembly of Upper Canada, and held the office for many years. He was father of the late Sir Allan McNab, who was born at Niagara, in 1798, of Scotch extraction, whose grandfather, Major Robert McNab, of the 42nd Regiment, or Black Watch, was Royal Forester in Scotland, and resided on a small property called Dundurn, at the head of Loch Earn. Sir Allan McNab, though very young, distinguished himself in the war of 1812. In the insurrection of 1837 he was appointed to the command of the militia, dispersed the rebels, and cut out and burnt the rebel steamer Caroline, at Black Rock, for which he was knighted. He was Speaker of the House of Assembly of Upper Canada before the union of the two Canadas, and was afterwards Speaker of the Legislative Council of United Canada.

22. Luke Carscallen (resident of Bay of Quinte) was an Irishman by birth, and had served in the British army; he had retired and emigrated to the American colonies prior to the revolution. He desired to remain neutral and take no part in the contest. The rebels, however, said to him, that inasmuch as he was acquainted with military tactics, he must join them or be regarded as a King's man. His reply was that he had fought for the King, and he would do it again, consequently an order was issued to arrest him; but when they came to take him, he had secreted himself. The escape was a hurried one, and all his possessions were at the mercy of the rebels—land to the amount of 12,000 acres. They, disappointed at not catching him, took his young and tender son, and threatened to hang him if he would not reveal his father's place of concealment. The brave little fellow replied, "Hang away!" and the cruel men, under the name of liberty, carried out their threat, and three times was he suspended until he was almost dead, yet he would not tell; and then, when taken down, one of the monsters actually kicked him. (Canniff.)

23. John Diamond was born in Albany, with several brothers. An elder brother was drafted, but he tried to escape a service so repugnant to his feelings; was concealed for some time, and upon a sick bed. The visits of the doctor led to suspicion, and the house was visited by rebels. Although he had been placed in a bed so arranged that it was thought his presence would not be detected, his breathing betrayed him. They at once required his father to give a bond for $1,200 that his son should not be removed while sick. He got well, and some time after again sought to escape, but was caught, and handcuffed to another. Being removed from one place to another, the two prisoners managed to knock their guards on the head, and ran for life through the woods, chained together. One would sometimes run on one side of a sapling, and the other on the opposite side. At night they managed to rub their handcuffs off, and finally escaped to Canada. Of the other brothers, two were carried off by the rebels and were never more heard of; John was taken to the rebel army when old enough to do service, but he also escaped to Canada, and enlisted in Rogers' Battalion, in which he served until the end of the war, when he settled with the company at Fredericksburg. He married Miss Loyst, a native of Philadelphia, whose ancestors were German. She acted no inferior part, for a woman, during the exciting times of the revolution. They were married in Lower Canada. They spent their first summer in Upper Canada in clearing a little spot of land, and in the fall got a little grain in the ground. They slept during the summer under a tree, but erected a small hut before winter set in.

24. Ephraim Tisdale, of Freetown, Massachusetts. In 1775, he fled from home, and went to New York. During the war, while on a voyage to St. Augustine, Florida, he abandoned his vessel at sea to avoid capture, and gained the shore in safety. Though nearly destitute of money, he accomplished an overland journey to New York, a distance, by the route which he travelled, of fifteen hundred miles. In 1783 he embarked at New York for New Brunswick, in the ship Brothers, Captain Walker; and on the passage his wife gave birth to a son, who was named for the master of the ship. Mr. Tisdale held civil and military offices in New Brunswick. He removed to Upper Canada in 1808, settled in the Township of Charlotteville, near Vittoria, and died in 1816. He left eight sons and four daughters. Walker Tisdale, Esq., of St. John (the son above referred to), was in Canada in 1845, when the descendants of his father there were 169, of whom he saw 163. The Tisdales were active on the side of the Crown in the insurrection of 1837. The whole family have always been distinguished for loyalty.

25. Lemuel Wilmot, of Long Island, New York, entered the King's service as an officer, and at the peace was captain in the Loyal American Regiment. In 1783 he settled on the River St. John, New Brunswick, near Fredericton, where he continued to reside until his death, which took place in 1814. Five sons survived him. The Honourable Lemuel A. Wilmot, the son of his younger son William, was a member of the Legislative Assembly, and leader of the Liberal party; became Attorney-General, and afterwards Chief Justice, and ultimately Lieutenant-Governor of the province. He had for many years been superintendent of the Sunday-school, and leader of the choir in the (Methodist) Church to which he belonged, and continued to discharge the duties of both offices during the five years that he was Lieutenant-Governor, and until his death, which occurred suddenly in May, 1878.