CHAPTER VI

SIR JAMES CRAIG

[Sidenote: Changes in administration.]

As has been told in the last chapter, Milnes and Hunter, Lieutenant-Governors of Lower and Upper Canada respectively, took up their appointments in the summer of 1799 when the Governor-General Prescott was recalled to England. General Hunter was not only Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada but also Commander of the Forces in both provinces. These two men held their appointments for six years, until August, 1805. On the 5th of that month Milnes, who was by this time a baronet, Sir Robert Shore Milnes,[216] left for England on leave of absence, and on the 21st of the month General Hunter died at Quebec. For the time being, two civilians acted as Lieutenant-Governors, Thomas Dunn, senior Executive Councillor at Quebec, acting in Lower Canada, and Alexander Grant acting in Upper Canada. Milnes remained on leave of absence in England and drew his salary for over three years. A new Lieutenant-Governor of Lower Canada was then appointed, who in his turn also remained in England for many years and received pay in respect of an office the duties of which he did not perform.[217]

[Sidenote: Evils of absenteeism.]

Thus it resulted that, at a very critical time, two provinces of the British Empire, whose conditions were specially critical, were left without a Governor-General, without Lieutenant-Governors, and without a regular Commander of the Forces, while two men, one holding the office of Governor-General of the two Canadas and the other holding the office of Lieutenant-Governor of Lower Canada, were spending their time and drawing their pay in England. We have learnt something in the last hundred years, in regard to colonial administration, and it is now difficult to appreciate a state of public morality which showed so much indifference to the interests of the colonies, so much acquiescence in sinecures, and so much readiness on the part of capable and honourable public officers to take pay without doing the work to which the pay was nominally attached. But the fact that such things took place, affords a very simple explanation of the difficulties which had already arisen and which subsequently arose in the history of European colonization between a mother country and her colonies. Men could put two and two together in those days as in ours. If colonists saw the rulers of the ruling land treating high offices in the colony as a matter of individual profit and public indifference, they could only come to the conclusion that they had better take care of themselves; and if the answer came that governors and lieutenant-governors were paid not by the colony but by the mother country, then the colonists must needs have concluded that they themselves would prefer to find the money and to have the money’s worth. This may well have been in the minds of the members of the elected Assembly in Lower Canada when, at a little later date, in 1810, they passed uninvited a resolution that the province shall pay the cost of the civil government, a resolution of which more was heard in the course of the long constitutional struggle.

[Sidenote: External dangers which threatened Canada at the beginning of the nineteenth century.]

[Sidenote: Hostility of France to Great Britain.]

What made for keeping up the connexion with the mother country was not so much what the mother country did for the colonies in peace, as the need which the colonies had for the mother country in case of war. An attempt has been made in the preceding chapters of this book to show that good fortune has attended Canada in her development into a nation. The conquest by Great Britain tended to this end, so did the loss by Great Britain of the provinces which now form the United States. At the beginning of the nineteenth century the cloud of war hung over Canada, but still her good fortune did not desert her. There was perpetual danger from two quarters, from France and from the United States. With France Canada, as being part of the British Empire, was nominally at open war throughout the closing years of the eighteenth and the early years of the nineteenth century, except for the very short interval which followed the conclusion of the Peace of Amiens in 1802; but it is noteworthy how the political complications inured to the preservation of Canada as a British possession. France and the United States had strong bonds of sympathy. To French intervention the United States largely owed their independence. Having parted with their monarchy, the French were more attractive than before to the citizens of the American republic; and in the days of the American revolutionary war Congress had pledged itself to defend for ever the French possessions in America. The bulk of the Canadians, French in race, tradition, language and religion, might well be expected to be French in sympathies. How great then might have seemed the probability that England in war with France would lose Canada? It was no wonder that such incidents as a visit of Jerome Bonaparte to the United States caused uneasiness, or again that a report was spread that Moreau, the French republican general then living in exile in America, was likely to lead an invasion of Canada.

[Sidenote: French Canadians not in sympathy with the French Revolution.]

But, as a matter of fact, neither were the Canadians inclined to return to their French allegiance nor were the people of the United States in the least likely to permit France to regain Canada. The Canadians had known forty years of British rule, clean and just in comparison with what had gone before, and the France which would reclaim them was widely different from the France to which they had once belonged. The King was gone; religion was at a discount; Canadian sympathies, at any rate in the earlier years of the revolutionary wars, were rather with Royalist _emigrés_ than with the national armies who went on from victory to victory. Above all antipathy to the United States, without whose abetting or connivance, no French projects for regaining Canada could have effect, tended to keep the Canadians firm in their British allegiance. Thus the news of the victory of Trafalgar was welcomed in Canada.

[Sidenote: The United States not disposed to allow the French to regain Canada.]

Nor again were the Americans, however well disposed to France, in any way or at any time minded to enable her to regain her lost possessions in North America. A Canadian who had left Canada for France when Canada was annexed by Great Britain, wrote, before the conclusion of the Peace of Amiens, expressing the hope that Canada would be regained by France. He regarded Canada, from the French point of view, ‘as a colony essential to trade and as an outlet for merchandize and men’; and he wrote that, if restored to France, it ‘would constantly furnish the means of speculation which would improve the future of the citizens whom war and revolution have reduced to wretchedness’.[218] The words read as those of a man who had known and still sighed for the days of the old French régime in Canada, when men grew rich by illicit traffic; but, apart from the views of individuals, there is no doubt that, as the eighteenth century closed, France and the French people, after the wars of the Revolution, with their power consolidated at home, were in the stage of development favourable to colonial expansion, and mindful of possessions beyond the seas which had once been French but were French no longer.

[Sidenote: Napoleon’s views as to St. Domingo and Louisiana.]

[Sidenote: Abandonment of his American schemes.]

Napoleon, as writers have shown, in negotiating for and concluding the Peace of Amiens which gave him respite from the sea power of Great Britain, had in view the reconquest of St. Domingo where Toussaint L’Ouverture had secured practical independence, and the recovery of Louisiana. By secret bargain with Spain in 1800, he had secured the retrocession of Louisiana; and, had the arrangement been carried out and the French power been firmly planted again at New Orleans and on the Mississippi, a new impetus and a new motive would have been given for French designs on Canada. But the losses in the St. Domingo campaigns were heavy, and in regard to Louisiana Napoleon had to reckon with the American people. Realizing that his policy, if persisted in, would draw the United States away from France and towards Great Britain, he came, with some suddenness, to the conclusion that the game was not worth the candle, and selling in 1803 to the United States the great territory on the line of the Mississippi which after all was not his to sell, he put an end for ever to French aspirations for recovering their North American dominions.

[Sidenote: Danger to Canada from the United States.]

Napoleon’s decision set Canada free from any possible danger of French conquest; but, at the same time, it set him free also to renew war with Great Britain, and cut short any tendency to more cordial relations between Great Britain and the United States. The danger for Canada now was that, either as the direct result of friendship between France and the United States, or indirectly through the incidents to which the maritime war between France and Great Britain gave rise, war would take place between Great Britain and the United States, involving American invasion and not improbably American conquest of Canada. Eventually, in 1812, war came to pass. Once more England was called upon to fight France and the United States at the same time; but in this second war the Canadians, heart-whole in defending their province against their rivals of old time, themselves largely contributed to the saving of Canada.

[Sidenote: The incident of the _Leopard_ and the _Chesapeake_.]

[Sidenote: Sir James Craig appointed Governor-General of Canada.]

[Sidenote: His previous career.]

The causes which led to the war of 1812 have been noted in another book.[219] One of the incidents which preluded it was the action of a British ship of war, the _Leopard_, in firing on the American frigate _Chesapeake_ and carrying off four men, who were claimed as deserters from the British navy. This high-handed proceeding naturally caused the strongest resentment in the United States, and raised the whole question of the right of search. There was talk of invading Canada, which was answered by calling out the Canadian militia; the Canadians answered readily to the call; and shortly afterwards a new Governor-General arrived in Canada, a man well tried in war, Sir James Craig. On the 10th of August, 1807, General Prescott, still Governor-General of Canada, though he had left in July, 1799, was delicately informed by Lord Castlereagh, then Secretary of State, that it was necessary to appoint a new Governor-General. The terms of the letter were that Lord Castlereagh lamented that circumstances required an arrangement to be made which might interfere with Prescott’s emoluments. Sir James Craig accordingly received his commission on the last day of August, 1807, and landed at Quebec on the 18th of October, too ill to take the oaths of office until the 24th of that month, when he took them in his bedroom. Craig, though in failing health, governed Canada for four years. Like his predecessors he was a distinguished soldier. He was a Scotchman but was born at Gibraltar, where his father held the post of civil and military judge in the fortress. He was born in 1748 and was only fifteen years old when he joined the army in 1763, the year of the great Peace. He was wounded at Bunker’s Hill; in 1776 he went to Canada and commanded the advanced guard of the forces which under Carleton’s command drove the Americans out of Canada. He took part in Burgoyne’s expedition, was twice wounded, was present at Saratoga, and was chosen to carry home dispatches.[220] Later in the war he served with distinction under Lord Cornwallis in North Carolina. In 1794 he became a major-general, and in 1795 he was sent to the Cape to take it over from the Dutch. The Netherlands, recently over-run by a French army under Pichegru, had been transformed into the Batavian republic, and the Prince of Orange, then a refugee in England, sent orders by the British fleet under Admiral Elphinstone, which carried Craig and his troops, that the British force should be admitted as having come to protect the colony from the French. The Dutch governor, however, was not prepared to hand over his charge to British keeping. Craig accordingly landed his troops at Simonstown, and successfully attacked the Dutch at Muizenberg, but was not able to occupy Capetown until the arrival of a force from India, which had been ordered to co-operate, and which was under the command of a senior officer, Sir Alured Clarke, the late Lieutenant-Governor of Lower Canada. On Clarke’s arrival the Dutch capitulated, and Craig became the first British Governor of the Cape, being succeeded in 1797 by a civilian, Lord Macartney. He served about five years in India, being promoted to be Lieutenant-General in 1801; and, after returning to England in 1802, was sent in 1805 to the Mediterranean in charge of an abortive expedition to Naples, in which British and Russian troops were to combine against the French. It ended in his transferring his force to Sicily, where the Neapolitan court had taken refuge. He then went home in ill health, and in 1807 went out to Canada. His appointment was no doubt mainly due to his military reputation, for war with the United States seemed close at hand; but he was well qualified for it also by his wide experience of the colonies, and by the fact that, like Prescott, he had already had a short term of colonial administration. He left behind him at the Cape a good record as governor, and but for the state of his health seemed clearly the man for Canada.

[Sidenote: The beginning of his administration.]

In his first speech to the Legislature of Lower Canada in January, 1808, Craig expressed his gratification at meeting the members of the two Houses ‘in the exercise of the noblest office to which the human mind can be directed, that of legislating for a free people’, and he added that he looked forward to the most perfect harmony and co-operation between them and himself. His anticipations were not fulfilled, and during the years of his administration the inevitable struggle for further power on the part of the elected representatives of the community became accentuated. The session of 1808 lasted from January to April. It was the last session of an existing Parliament. No point of difference arose in this short time between the Assembly and the Executive; but, the Assembly having passed a Bill, undoubtedly right in principle though directed against a particular individual, that judges should be incapable of being elected to or sitting in the House, the Bill was thrown out by the Legislative Council. This caused ill feeling between the two branches of the Legislature, and at the same time the Assembly came into collision with one of the constituencies, that of Three Rivers, by passing a resolution which excluded from the House a Jew who had been duly elected as member for Three Rivers and was promptly re-elected. At the conclusion of the session a General Election took place in May, but the Legislature was not called together till April, 1809, and in the meantime friction began between the governor and the popular representatives.

[Sidenote: Friction between the governor and the Assembly.]

In June, 1808, Craig dismissed certain gentlemen from their appointments as officers in the town militia on account of their connexion with the French opposition paper _Le Canadien_. One of them, M. Panet, had been Speaker of the House of Assembly in the late Parliament, and when the new House met he was again chosen to be Speaker, the choice being confirmed by the governor. The House sat for five weeks in 1809, wrangling over the same questions that had been prominent in the preceding year, viz. the exclusion from the House of judges and of members of the Jewish religion: it was then peremptorily dissolved by the governor, who rated the members as so many children for wasting time and abusing their functions at a critical season of national affairs. The election took place in the following October; and, when the Legislature met in January, 1810, the Assembly was composed of much the same representatives as before, any change being rather against than in favour of the governor. In his opening speech the governor intimated that the Royal approval would be given to any proper Bill passed by both Houses, rendering the judges ineligible for seats in the Assembly. The House of Assembly on their side, having passed a resolution to the effect that any attempt on the part of the Executive or the other branch of the Legislature to dictate to them or censure their proceedings was a breach of their privileges, went on to pass loyal addresses appropriate to the fiftieth year of the King’s reign, their loyalty being, perhaps, quickened by the strong reference which had been made in the governor’s speech ‘to the high-sounded resentment of America’, coupled with an assurance that in the event of war Canada would receive ‘the necessary support of regular troops in the confident expectation of a cheerful exertion of the interior force of the country’. There followed an Address to the King and the Imperial Parliament, to which reference has already been made, and in which the Assembly, with many expressions of gratitude, intimated that the prosperity of Lower Canada was now so great that they could in that session pay all the expenses of the civil government. This Address the governor promised to lay before the King, though he pointed out that it was unconstitutional in, among other points, ignoring the Legislative Council. A Bill excluding the judges was then passed and sent up to the Legislative Council, who amended it by adding a clause which postponed its effect until the next Parliament, whereupon the Assembly passed a resolution excluding by name a certain judge who had a seat in the House, and the governor, rightly deeming their action in the matter to be unconstitutional, on the 26th of February again dissolved Parliament.

[Sidenote: Proceedings taken by the governor against _Le Canadien_.]

[Sidenote: Craig retires on ill health.]

[Sidenote: His death and character.]

[Sidenote: Prosperity of Canada under Sir James Craig.]

[Sidenote: Growth of the lumber trade.]

[Sidenote: The first steamer on the St. Lawrence.]

[Sidenote: Road to the Eastern Townships.]

The French newspaper, _Le Canadien_, abounded weekly in scurrilous abuse of the authorities. On the 17th of March Craig took the strong step of seizing the printing press and all the papers, and committing to prison various persons connected with the paper, three of whom had been members of the late House of Assembly. He justified his action in a proclamation to the country at large. The prisoners were released in the course of the summer on the score of ill health or submission, with the exception of one French Canadian named Bedard, who refused to come to terms with the Executive and was still in prison when the new Assembly, to which he had been elected, met on the 12th of December, 1810. The governor, in his masterful proceedings, had acted under the authority of a temporary law entitled ‘an Act for the better preservation of His Majesty’s Government, as by law happily established in this province’. This Act was now expiring, and in his opening address he called attention to the necessity for renewing it. He carried his point, the Act was renewed, and, in addition to resolutions on the subject of Mr. Bedard’s imprisonment, the Assembly did some useful legislative work before the Legislature was prorogued on the 21st of March, 1811. Shortly after the prorogation Mr. Bedard was released, and on the 19th of June, 1811, Sir James Craig left Canada. He had long been in failing health, and in the proclamation, in which he defended his seizure of _Le Canadien_ and those responsible for it, he had referred pathetically to his life as ‘ebbing not slowly to its period under the pressure of disease acquired in the service of my country’. His resignation had been for some months in the hands of the Government, and it was only in order to suit their convenience that he put off his departure to the date when it actually took place. He reached England alive, but died in the following January in his sixty-second year. He was a man of conspicuous honesty and of undoubted courage and firmness. He had a soldier’s view as to discipline and subordination, which made him peremptory as a governor, and his addresses tended to be long-winded and dictatorial. But his personal popularity was great, he was dignified, hospitable, and open-handed, and he commanded respect even from his political opponents and from those whom he put into prison. He may well have been forgiven much not only for his personal qualities, but also because his military reputation was no small asset to Canada. His dealings with the United States were fair and courteous, but behind them was the known fact of his capacity and experience as a soldier. He might dispute with those whom he governed in the sphere of civil action, but in the event of war they had in him a leader upon whom they could rely. The Canadians too had reason to be in the main satisfied with his rule, in that the years during which Craig was governor were years of much prosperity. It was at this time that, stimulated by Napoleon’s attempts to cut off Great Britain from the Baltic trade and by the Non Intercourse Acts of the United States, lumber became an important industry of Canada. It was at this time too, at the beginning of November, 1809, that a citizen of Montreal, John Molson, put the first steamer on the St. Lawrence, her passage from Montreal to Quebec taking sixty-six hours, during thirty of which she was at anchor. Craig himself contributed to improvement of communication in Lower Canada by constructing sixty miles of road which bore his name, and which linked the Eastern Townships, then being settled largely by immigrants from the United States, to the southern bank of the St. Lawrence over against Quebec. This road, which was carried out by the troops under the Quartermaster-General, afterwards Sir James Kempt, Administrator of Canada, was, as Craig wrote to his friend and secretary Ryland, much wanted ‘not merely for the purpose of procuring us the necessary supplies but for the purpose also of bringing the people to our doors’:[221] and it resulted in the price of beef falling in the Quebec market from 7½_d._ to 4½_d._ a lb.[222] It gave an outlet to Quebec to a fine agricultural district, and it opened a direct route to Boston from the capital of Canada.

[Sidenote: Ryland’s mission to England.]

When Craig wrote these letters to Ryland, the latter was in England. He had been sent by the governor to lay the views of the latter upon the political situation in Canada before the Home Government; and, reaching England at the end of July, 1810, he was active in interviewing ministers and supplying them verbally and by written memoranda with first-hand information. Ryland had gone out to America in 1781 as a paymaster in the army during the War of Independence; and, returning with Carleton at the end of the war, had been taken by him to Canada as confidential secretary. He continued to hold that office to successive governors for twenty years, until 1813, when Sir George Prevost, who followed Craig as Governor-General and with whom Ryland was not in harmony, suggested that other arrangements should be made for the secretaryship. Ryland then resigned his office of governor’s secretary but remained clerk to the Executive Council, living in the suburbs of Quebec, until his death in 1838. He seems to have been an able, honourable man, strongly opposed to the democratic party in Lower Canada, to the French and Roman Catholic section of the community. In England he was brought into relations chiefly with Lord Liverpool, who was Secretary of State for War and the Colonies[223] in the Percival ministry, having succeeded Lord Castlereagh in that office, and with the Under-Secretary of State, Robert Peel. Peel was then beginning his public life, and Ryland’s impression of him on his first interview was that ‘though a very young man and but a few days in office [he] appears to be very much _au fait_ in matters of public business’. A week or two later he wrote of him as ‘a very elegant young man of fine talents, as I am informed’, and very pleasing manners.[224] With these two ministers and with various other public men, including George Canning, Ryland conferred or corresponded during his stay in England, which lasted for the better part of two years. On one occasion, soon after his arrival, he was present at a Cabinet Council, being seated, as we learn from the full account which he wrote to Craig, between Percival and Lord Liverpool. He was asked a large number of questions, including a query as to the number of regular troops in Canada, and, as the result, he appears to have formed a very poor opinion of the knowledge and capacity of the ministry.

[Sidenote: Craig’s views on the political situation in Lower Canada.]

He had brought with him to England a very long dispatch in which Craig had set out his views. Craig estimated the population of Lower Canada at the time when he wrote, May, 1810, at between 250,000 and 300,000 souls, out of whom he computed that no more than 20,000 to 25,000 were English or Americans. The remainder, the French Canadians, he represented as, in the main, wholly alienated from the British section of the community, French in religion, laws, language and manners, and becoming more attracted to France and more alienated from Great Britain, in proportion as the power of France in Europe became more consolidated. The large mass of the people were, so he wrote, wholly uneducated, following unscrupulous men, their leaders in the country and in the House of Assembly. The Roman Catholic priests were anti-English on grounds of race and religion; their attachment to France had been renewed since Napoleon made his concordat with the Pope; and, being largely drawn from the lower orders of society, and headed by a bishop who exercised more authority than in the days of the old régime and who arrogated complete independence of the civil government, they were hardly even outwardly loyal to the British Crown. The growing nationalist and democratic feeling was reflected and embodied in the elected House of Assembly. When the constitution was first granted, some few Canadian gentlemen had come forward and been elected; but, at the time when the governor wrote, the Canadian members of the Assembly, who formed an overwhelming majority, according to his account consisted of avocats and notaries, shopkeepers and habitants, some of the last named being unable either to read or write. The organ of the party was the paper _Le Canadien_, which vilified the Executive officers as ‘gens en place’, and aimed at bringing the government into contempt.

[Sidenote: Constitutional changes recommended.]

To meet the evils which he deemed so great and emphasized so strongly, Craig proposed that the existing constitution should be either cancelled or suspended. His view, as expressed in a letter to Ryland written in November, 1810,[225] was that it should be suspended during the continuance of the war with France and for five years afterwards, and that in this interval the former government by means of a governor and a nominated Legislative Council should be revived. He argued that representative institutions had been prematurely granted, before French Canadians were prepared for them; that they had been demanded by the English section of the inhabitants, not the French; and that at the time the best informed Canadians had been opposed to the change. In the alternative, he discussed the reunion of the two provinces, so as to leaven the Assembly with a larger number of British members, though he did not advocate this course; and the re-casting of the electoral divisions in Lower Canada, so as to give more adequate representation to those parts of the province, such as the Eastern Townships, where the English-speaking element could hold its own. In any case he pointed out the necessity of enacting a property qualification for the members of the Assembly, no such qualification being required under the Act of 1791, although that Act prescribed a qualification for the voters who elected the members. Craig went on to urge, as Milnes had urged before him, that the Royal supremacy should be exercised over the Roman Catholic priesthood, additional salary being given to the bishop, in consideration of holding his position under the Crown, and the curés being given freehold in their livings under appointment from the Crown. There was a further point. The Sulpician seminary at Montreal was possessed of large estates, and Craig considered this clerical body to be dangerous in view of the fact that it consisted largely of French emigrant priests. He proposed therefore that the Crown should resume the greater part of the lands.

[Sidenote: Craig’s views not accepted by the Imperial Government.]

Ryland soon found that the ministry were not prepared to face Parliament with any proposals for a constitutional change in Canada, and that they were more inclined to what he called ‘the namby-pamby system of conciliation’.[226] They thought that it had been a mistake in the first instance to divide Canada into two provinces, but the only step which they now took was to procure a somewhat superfluous opinion from the Attorney-General to the effect that the Imperial Parliament could alter the constitution of the provinces, or could reunite them with one Council and Assembly; and a rather less self-evident opinion that the governor could not redistribute the electoral divisions of Lower Canada without being authorized to do so by an Act either of the Imperial or of the Colonial Legislature.

[Sidenote: Critical condition of England at the time of Ryland’s mission.]

To Ryland the affairs of Canada were all in all; to the ministry whom he deemed so weak, they were overshadowed by events and difficulties at home and abroad, compared with which the political questions which troubled Lower Canada were insignificant, noteworthy only as likely, if not carefully handled, to add to the burden which was laid on the statesmen responsible for the safe-keeping of the Empire. In 1809 Talavera had been fought and hardly won, but it was the year also of the disastrous expedition to Walcheren. In 1810, behind the lines of Torres Vedras, Wellington was beginning to turn the tide of French invasion in the Peninsula. The next year saw Massena’s retreat, but at home the political situation was complicated by the insanity of the old King and the consequent necessity of declaring a regency. In 1812, the year of Salamanca, Percival the Prime Minister was assassinated, his place being taken by Lord Liverpool, who, as long as Ryland was in England, had been in charge of the colonies. In the same year, war with the United States long threatened, came to pass. These years were in England years of financial distress and of widespread misery. William Cobbett giving voice to the hungry discontent of the poor was fined and imprisoned, and Ryland hoped that his fate would have some effect in Canada.[227]

[Sidenote: Legal opinion as to patronage to appointments in the Roman Catholic Church in Canada, and as to the Sulpician estates.]

Lord Liverpool, however, was very loyal to Craig, though he did not support any such drastic measures as the latter had suggested. At the end of July, 1811, by which time Craig had left Canada, he wrote a letter to him expressing the Prince Regent’s high approbation of his general conduct in the administration of the government of the North American provinces and the Prince’s particular regret at the cause which had necessitated his retirement. He wrote too to Craig’s successor, Sir George Prevost, highly praising Ryland and expressing a hope that he would be retained in his appointment. The law officers of the Crown in England had been consulted as to the Roman Catholic Church in Canada in view of the governor’s proposals, and advised that so much of the patronage of Roman Catholic benefices as was exercised by the Bishop of Quebec under the French Government had of right devolved on the Crown. On the further question, whether the Crown had the right of property in the estates of the Sulpician seminary at Montreal, they advised that legally the Crown had the right, inasmuch as the Sulpicians who remained in Canada after the British conquest had no legal capacity to hold lands apart from the parent body at Paris which had since been dissolved, and had not obtained a licence from the Crown to hold the estates; but the law officers, seeing the hardship which would be involved in wholesale confiscation of the lands after so many years of undisturbed tenure, suggested that the question was one for compromise or amicable arrangement. In the end nothing was done in the matter in the direction of Craig’s and Ryland’s views, and many years later, in 1840,[228] by an ordinance of Lower Canada, the Sulpicians of Montreal were incorporated under certain conditions and confirmed in the possession of their estates.

[Sidenote: Sir James Craig’s administration.]

It is not easy to form an accurate estimate of Sir James Craig’s administration. His views and his methods have been judged in the light of later history rather than in that of the years which had gone before. It is somewhat overlooked that at the beginning of the nineteenth century the normal conditions of the world were conditions of war not of peace, and that the governors of colonies were as a rule soldiers whose first duty was the military charge of possessions held by no very certain tenure. The account usually given and received is that Craig was an honest but mistaken man, tactless and overbearing, trying to uphold an impossible system of bureaucratic despotism, instead of realizing the merits of representative institutions and giving them full play. The apology made for him has been that he was guided by and saw with the eyes of a few rapacious officials, who had no interest in the general welfare of the community. ‘The government, in fact,’ writes Christie, ‘was a bureaucracy, the governor himself little better than a hostage, and the people looked upon and treated as serfs and vassals by their official lords.’[229]

[Sidenote: Uniacke.]

[Sidenote: James Stuart.]

Constitutions and systems of government are good or bad according to the kinds of people to which they are applied, the stage of development which they have reached, and the particular circumstances existing at a given time inside and outside the land. It was only with much hesitation that representative institutions had been given to Canada; and one governor and another, bearing in mind the conditions which had preceded the War of Independence, had laid stress on the necessity of having a strong Executive, and on the growing danger of colonial democracy. They were not ignorant or shortsighted men; they looked facts in the face and argued from past experience in America. Again, if the officials were incompetent placemen, out of sympathy with the people, it was the governors who laid stress on the necessity of filling official positions with first-rate men and who occasionally took a strong line with the men whom they did not consider to be adequate. Moreover some of the officials, notably the judicial and legal officers, placed themselves in opposition to the local government and posed as defenders of the people. Craig dispensed, for the time at any rate, with the services of two law officers. One of them, Uniacke, who had been in Nova Scotia, was made Attorney-General of Lower Canada by Lord Liverpool, and, being considered by the governor to be unfit for his duties, was sent on leave to England in 1810 with a request that he should be removed from his office. He subsequently returned to his work in Canada. The other, James Stuart, became a notable figure in Canadian history. He was the son of a United Empire Loyalist, the rector of Kingston in Ontario. He had been appointed Solicitor-General of Lower Canada by Milnes in 1801, but after Craig’s arrival ranged himself, as a member of the Assembly, in opposition to the governor, and in 1809 was obliged to resign his appointment. After some years of bitter opposition to the government, he lived to become a leading advocate of reunion of the two provinces, to be appointed Attorney-General, to be impeached by the Assembly and again deprived of his office, and finally to be appointed by Lord Durham Chief Justice of Lower Canada and to be created a baronet for his public services.

[Sidenote: Thorpe and Willcocks.]

Meanwhile in Upper Canada, where a young Lieutenant-Governor, Francis Gore, from 1807 to 1811 carried on the administration firmly and well, various holders of offices opposed the government and tried to play the part of popular leaders. Judge Thorpe has already been mentioned, on the Bench and in the House of Assembly a blatant and disloyal demagogue; another man of the same kind was Wyatt the Surveyor-General, and another Willcocks, sheriff of one of the districts, and owner or nominal owner of a libellous newspaper, for the contents of which the House of Assembly committed him to jail on the ground of breach of privilege. These three men were suspended from their appointments, and eventually disappeared from Canada to make their voices heard in England or in the United States; and the end of Willcocks was to be killed fighting against his country in the war of 1812. One thing is certain that in their official positions they were disloyal to the government, and that in their disloyalty they received no support from the elected Assembly of Upper Canada. Gore had a difficulty too with his Attorney-General, Firth, a man sent out from England. Firth ended by returning to England without leave and joining in misrepresentations against the Lieutenant-Governor.

[Sidenote: Craig’s opinion of the French Canadians.]

[Sidenote: Real attitude of the French Canadians.]

It may fairly be summed up that in the Canadas many men were found in office who had been pitchforked into appointments for which they were unsuited; but that they were by no means invariably supporters of the Executive against the representatives of the people, nor were the governors their tools. On the contrary there were constant cases of such officials opposing the governors, while the governors in their turn stood out conspicuously in opposition to the practice of appointing men from outside to offices in Canada which required special qualifications in addition to good character and general capacity. But a distinction must be drawn between Upper and Lower Canada. In Upper Canada the voters and their nominees, however democratic, were, with the exception of a few traitorous individuals, intensely loyal to the British connexion. In Lower Canada, on the other hand, the all-important race question complicated the situation, and here Craig saw in the French Canadians, who were also the democratic party, the elements of disloyalty to Great Britain and _rapprochement_ with France. In August, 1808, he wrote that the Canadians were French at heart; that, while they did not deny the advantages which they enjoyed under British rule, there would not be fifty dissentient voices, if the proposition was made of their re-annexation to France: and that the general opinion among the English in Canada was that they would even join the Americans if the latter were commanded by a French officer. His views on this point were fully shared by another man of clear head and sound judgement, Isaac Brock. For reasons which have been given Craig seems to have exaggerated any danger of the kind. Republican France, which attracted American sympathies, repelled those of the French Canadians. France under Napoleon, brought back to law and order and to at any rate the outward conventionalities of religion, became more attractive to the French Canadians, but at the same time, in view of the Napoleonic despotism, it became less attractive to the United States. But at no time probably was there any real intention on the part of the French Canadians to take any active step to overthrow British supremacy. Certainly at no time was there the slightest possibility of their changing their status except by becoming absorbed in the United States. They were as a whole an unthinking people, to whom representative institutions and a free press were a novelty; their leaders liked the words and phrases which they had learnt from English-speaking demagogues or imported from revolutionary France. Their priesthood was not loyal, because it claimed to be independent of the civil government, especially when it was the government of a Protestant Power. The general aim was to see to what uses the new privileges could be applied and how much latitude would be given. The elected representatives opposed the second chamber, the Legislative Council, as much as they opposed the governor; they played with edged tools, but it may be doubted whether at this early stage of the proceedings they meant much more than play.

Under the circumstances, perhaps a fair judgement upon Sir James Craig’s administration would be that he took the Parliamentary situation in Lower Canada too seriously, and did not give sufficient rope to the local politicians. He reprimanded the Assembly when they acted unconstitutionally, and dissolved them when they did not do their work. The strong measures which he adopted, and the repeated dissolutions, were a bad precedent for the future: and the course which he recommended, viz. suspension of the constitution, would, if carried into effect, have been premature and unwise. But for the moment the steps which he took were effective. By his summary action in regard to the newspaper _Le Canadien_, he showed that he had the ultimate power and was not afraid to use it; and the result was that the very law which gave the Executive extraordinary powers was renewed by the Assembly which objected to those powers. Meanwhile Canada thrived, the governor was personally respected, and repeated elections did no one any harm. It was a time of danger from without and unrest within, but many countries with admirable constitutions have fared much worse than did Lower Canada under the rule of a strong soldier confronted by a recalcitrant Assembly.

He was succeeded by a man of wholly different type, Sir George Prevost, who endeared himself greatly to the French Canadians; but internal differences were soon to be overshadowed by foreign invasion, for in one year to the day from the date when Sir James Craig left Canada, Madison, President of the United States, issued a proclamation which began the war of 1812.

FOOTNOTES:

[216] He belonged to the same family as the Earl of Crewe, Secretary of State for the Colonies.

[217] The Lieutenant-Governor in question was Mr., afterwards Sir, F. Burton. His commission was dated November 29, 1808, but he did not go out to Canada till 1822. He left Canada in 1828, but did not cease to be Lieutenant-Governor, as his commission was renewed on October 25, 1830--the year of King William the Fourth’s accession. An Act passed in 1782, 22 Geo. III, cap. 75, commonly known as Burke’s Act, provided against the holding of Patent offices in the Colonies and Plantations in America and the West Indies by sinecurists living in England. The operation of this Act was greatly extended, and the granting of leave restricted by a subsequent Act of 1814, 54 Geo. III, cap. 61.

[218] See Brymner’s _Report on Canadian Archives_ for 1892, Introduction, p. xlix.

[219] _The Canadian War of 1812._

[220] See the _Memoir of Sir James Craig_, quoted at length on pp. 343-5 of vol. i of Christie’s _History of the Late Province of Lower Canada_, 1848. The notice of Craig in the _Dictionary of National Biography_ says that he was sent home with dispatches after the taking of Ticonderoga, which seems to be incorrect.

[221] Letter of August 6, 1810, Christie’s _History of Lower Canada_, vol. vi, p. 129.

[222] Letter of September 10, 1810, Christie’s _History of Lower Canada_, vol. vi, p. 157.

[223] The departments of War and the Colonies were combined under one Secretary of State in 1801. This lasted till 1854, when a separate Secretary of State for War was appointed.

[224] Ryland to Craig, August 4, and September 1, 1810. Christie, vol. vi, pp. 124, 149.

[225] Letter of November 9, 1810, Christie, vol. vi, p. 166. The main dispatch is dated May 1, 1810.

[226] Letter to Craig, August 23, 1810, Christie, vol. vi, p. 146.

[227] Letter to Craig, November 9, 1810, Christie, vol. vi, p. 169.

[228] 3 and 4 Vic., cap. 30.

[229] _History of Lower Canada_, vol. i, p. 350.

APPENDIX I

TREATY OF PARIS, 1783

DEFINITIVE TREATY OF PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SIGNED AT PARIS, THE 3RD OF SEPTEMBER, 1783.

In the Name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the Most Serene and Most Potent Prince, George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunenburg, Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire, &c., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore: and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse between the 2 Countries, upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience, as may promote and secure to both perpetual Peace and Harmony; and having for this desirable end already laid the foundation of Peace and Reconciliation by the Provisional Articles signed at Paris, on the 30th of November, 1782, by the Commissioners empowered on each part; which Articles were agreed to be inserted in, and to constitute, the Treaty of Peace proposed to be concluded between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States, but which Treaty was not to be concluded until terms of Peace should be agreed upon between Great Britain and France, and His Britannic Majesty should be ready to conclude such Treaty accordingly; and the Treaty between Great Britain and France having since been concluded, His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, in order to carry into full effect the Provisional Articles above-mentioned, according to the tenor thereof, have constituted and appointed, that is to say:

His Britannic Majesty, on his part, David Hartley, Esq., Member of the Parliament of Great Britain; and the said United States, on their part, John Adams, Esq., late a Commissioner of the United States of America at the Court of Versailles, late Delegate in Congress from the State of Massachusetts, and Chief Justice of the said State and Minister Plenipotentiary of the said United States to Their High Mightinesses the States General of the United Netherlands; Benjamin Franklin, Esq., late Delegate in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, President of the Convention of the said State, and Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States of America at the Court of Versailles; John Jay, Esq., late President of Congress and Chief Justice of the State of New York, and Minister Plenipotentiary from the said United States at the Court of Madrid; to be the plenipotentiaries for the concluding and signing the present Definitive Treaty: who, after having reciprocally communicated their respective Full Powers, have agreed upon and confirmed the following Articles:

Art. I. His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be Free, Sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his Heirs and Successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof.

II. And that all disputes which might arise in future on the subject of the Boundaries of the said United States may be prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared, that the following are and shall be their Boundaries, viz., from the North-West Angle of Nova Scotia, viz., that Angle which is formed by a line drawn due North, from the source of St. Croix River to the Highlands, along the said Highlands which divide those Rivers that empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the North-westernmost head of Connecticut River; thence down along the middle of that River to the 45th degree of North latitude; from thence by a line due West on said latitude until it strikes the River Iroquois or Cataraquy; thence along the middle of the said River into Lake Ontario; through the middle of said Lake, until it strikes the communication by water between that Lake and Lake Erie; thence along the middle of said communication into Lake Erie; through the middle of said Lake until it arrives at the water-communication between that Lake and Lake Huron; thence along the middle of said water-communication into the Lake Huron; thence through the middle of said Lake to the water-communication between that Lake and Lake Superior; thence through Lake Superior, Northward of the Isles Royal and Phelipeaux, to the Long Lake; thence through the middle of said Long Lake, and the water-communication between it and the Lake of the Woods, to the said Lake of the Woods; thence through the said Lake to the most North-western point thereof, and from thence on a due West course to the River Mississippi; thence by a line to be drawn along the middle of the said River Mississippi, until it shall intersect the Northernmost part of the 31st degree of North latitude. South by a line to be drawn due East from the determination of the line last mentioned, in the latitude of 31 degrees North of the Equator, to the middle of the River Apalachicola or Catahouche; thence along the middle thereof to its junction with the Flint River; thence straight to the head of St. Mary’s River, and thence down along the middle of St. Mary’s River to the Atlantic Ocean, East by a line to be drawn along the middle of the River St. Croix, from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source; and from its source directly North to the aforesaid Highlands, which divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which fall into the River St. Lawrence: comprehending all islands within 20 leagues of any part of the shores of the United States, and lying between lines to be drawn due East from the points where the aforesaid boundaries between Nova Scotia on the one part, and East Florida on the other, shall respectively touch the Bay of Fundy, and the Atlantic Ocean; excepting such Islands as now are, or heretofore have been, within the limits of the said Province of Nova Scotia.

III. It is agreed that the People of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the right to take Fish of every kind on the Grand Bank and on all the other Banks of Newfoundland; also in the Gulph of St. Lawrence, and at all other places in the Sea, where the Inhabitants of both Countries used at any time heretofore to fish. And also that the Inhabitants of the United States shall have liberty to take fish of every kind on such part of the Coast of Newfoundland as British Fishermen shall use, (but not to dry or cure the same on that Island,) and also on the Coasts, Bays, and Creeks of all other of His Britannic Majesty’s Dominions in America; and that the American Fishermen shall have liberty to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled Bays, Harbours, and Creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands and Labrador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled; but so soon as the same, or either of them, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said Fishermen to dry or cure fish at such Settlement, without a previous agreement for that purpose with the Inhabitants, Proprietors, or Possessors of the ground.

IV. It is agreed, that Creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impedimenta to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bonâ fide debts heretofore contracted.

V. It is agreed, that the Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the legislatures of the respective states to provide for the restitution of all estates, rights and properties which have been confiscated, belonging to real British subjects; and also of the estates, rights and properties of persons resident in districts in the possession of his Majesty’s arms, and who have not borne arms against the said United States; and that persons of any other description shall have free liberty to go to any part or parts of any of the Thirteen United States, and therein to remain twelve months unmolested in their endeavours to obtain the restitution of such of their estates, rights and properties as may have been confiscated; and that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states, a reconsideration and revision of all acts or laws regarding the premises, so as to render the said laws or acts perfectly consistent, not only with justice and equity, but with that spirit of conciliation, which, on the return of the blessings of peace, should universally prevail. And that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states, that the estates, rights and properties of such last-mentioned persons shall be restored to them, they refunding to any persons who may be now in possession the bonâ fide price (where any has been given) which such persons may have paid on purchasing any of the said lands, rights or properties, since the confiscation.

And it is agreed, that all persons who have any interest in confiscated lands, either by debts, marriage settlements or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the prosecution of their just rights.

VI. That there shall be no future confiscations made, nor any prosecutions commenced against any person or persons, for or by reason of the part which he or they may have taken in the present war; and that no person shall on that account suffer any future loss or damage either in his person, liberty or property, and that those who may be in confinement on such charges at the time of the ratification of the Treaty in America, shall be immediately set at liberty, and the prosecutions so commenced be discontinued.

VII. There shall be a firm and perpetual Peace between His Britannic Majesty and the said States, and between the Subjects of the one and the Citizens of the other, wherefore all hostilities both by sea and land shall from henceforth cease: all Prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty, and His Britannic Majesty shall with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any Negroes or other property of the American Inhabitants, withdraw all his Armies, Garrisons and Fleets from the said United States, and from every Port, Place, and Harbour within the same; leaving in all Fortifications the American Artillery that may be therein: and shall also order and cause all Archives, Records, Deeds, and Papers belonging to any of the said States, or their Citizens which in the course of the War may have fallen into the hands of his Officers, to be forthwith restored and delivered to the proper States and Persons to whom they belong.

VIII. The navigation of the River Mississippi, from its source to the Ocean, shall for ever remain free and open to the Subjects of Great Britain and the Citizens of the United States.

IX. In case it should so happen that any Place or Territory belonging to Great Britain, or to the United States, should have been conquered by the arms of either, from the other, before the arrival of the said Provisional Articles in America, it is agreed that the same shall be restored without difficulty, and without requiring any compensation.

X. The solemn Ratifications of the present Treaty, expedited in good and due form, shall be exchanged between the Contracting Parties in the space of 6 months, or sooner if possible, to be computed from the day of the signature of the present Treaty.

In witness whereof, we, the undersigned, their Ministers Plenipotentiary, have in their name, and in virtue of our Full Powers, signed with our Hands the present definitive Treaty, and caused the Seals of our Arms to be affixed thereto,

Done at Paris, this 3rd day of September, in the year of our Lord, 1783.

(L.S.) D. HARTLEY. (L.S.) JOHN ADAMS. (L.S.) B. FRANKLIN. (L.S.) JOHN JAY.

APPENDIX II

THE BOUNDARY LINE OF CANADA

[Sidenote: The North-Eastern boundary.]

On the North-Eastern side, the Treaty of 1783 prescribed the boundary as follows:--

‘From the North-West angle of Nova Scotia, viz., that angle which is formed by a line drawn due North; from the source of St. Croix river to the Highlands; along the said Highlands which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the North-Westernmost head of Connecticut river; ... East by a line to be drawn along the middle of the river St. Croix, from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source, and from its source directly North to the aforesaid Highlands, which divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which fall into the river St. Lawrence; comprehending all islands within twenty leagues of any part of the shores of the United States, and lying between lines to be drawn due East from the points where the aforesaid boundaries between Nova Scotia on the one part, and East Florida on the other, shall respectively touch the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean, excepting such islands as now are or heretofore have been within the limits of the said province of Nova Scotia.’

So far as these words refer to the sea boundary of the United States no difficulty arose, except in the Bay of Fundy. East Florida was ceded to Spain by Great Britain at the same time that the treaty with the United States was signed, and therefore the boundary line in the South had no further concern for the English.

[Sidenote: The border land between Acadia and New England.]

The North-East had been the border land between Acadia and the New England States. In old days, as was inevitable, there had been constant disputes between French and English as to the boundary between Acadia and New England, while Acadia still belonged to France; and, after the Treaty of Utrecht had given Acadia to Great Britain, as to the boundary between Acadia and Canada. When, by the Peace of 1763, Canada was ceded to Great Britain, the question of boundaries ceased to have any national importance; and no further difficulty, except as between British Provinces, arose until the United States became an independent nation. Then it became necessary to draw an international frontier line, which as a matter of fact had never yet been drawn. There seems to have been a more or less honest attempt, with the help of maps which were, as might have been expected, inaccurate, to adopt a line for which there was some authority in the past, instead of evolving a wholly new frontier; and the result of looking to the past was eventually to fix a boundary which was in no sense a natural frontier.

[Sidenote: The river St. Croix taken in 1763 as the boundary of Nova Scotia and hence adopted as the boundary line in the Treaty of 1783.]

The river St. Croix had always been a landmark in the history of colonization in North America. It was the scene of the first settlement by De Monts and Champlain; and, when Sir William Alexander in 1621 received from the King the famous grant of Nova Scotia, the grant was defined as extending to

‘the river generally known by the name of St. Croix and to the remotest springs, or source, from the Western side of the same, which empty into the first mentioned river’,

Later, the French claim on behalf of Acadia extended as far as the Penobscot river, if not to the Kennebec; but after the Treaty of Utrecht, the claims of Massachusetts to the country up to the St. Croix river were allowed in 1732;[230] and in 1763, after the Peace of Paris, the St. Croix river was, in the Commission to the Governor of Nova Scotia, designated as the boundary of the province, the following being the terms of the Commission:--

‘Although Our said province has anciently extended, and does of right extend, so far as the river Pentagoet or Penobscot, it shall be bounded by a line drawn from Cape Sable across the entrance of the Bay of Fundy to the mouth of the river St. Croix, by the said river to its source, and by a line drawn due North from thence to the Southern boundary of Our Colony of Quebec.’

Accordingly the river St. Croix was designated as the international boundary in the Treaty of 1783.

[Sidenote: Doubt as to the identity of the St. Croix river.]

[Sidenote: Commission appointed under the Treaty of 1794 to identify the river.]

But then the question arose which was the St. Croix river. Between 1763 and 1783 attempts had been made to identify it, but without success, for at least three rivers flowing into Passamaquoddy Bay were each claimed as the St. Croix. After the Peace of 1783, the dispute continued, and eventually the further Treaty of 19th of November, 1794, known from the name of the American statesman who negotiated it in London as Jay’s Treaty, provided in the Fifth Article that the question should be left to the final decision of three Commissioners, one to be appointed by the British Government, one by that of the United States, and a third by the two Commissioners themselves. The article provided that

‘the said Commissioners shall by a Declaration under their hands and seals decide what river is the river St. Croix intended by the treaty. The said Declaration shall contain a description of the said river and shall particularize the latitude and the longitude of its mouth and its source.’

[Sidenote: The St. Croix river determined in 1798.]

In August, 1795, the Treaty was ratified by Washington as President of the United States; and, in 1796, the Commissioners began their work, the third Commissioner being an American lawyer. The work was not concluded until another explanatory article had been, on the 15th of March, 1798, signed on behalf of the two Governments, relieving the Commissioners from the duty of particularizing the latitude and longitude of the source of the St. Croix, provided that they described the river in such other manner as they judged expedient, and laying down that the point ascertained and described to be the source should be marked by a monument to be erected and maintained by the two Governments. Eventually, on the 25th of October, 1798, the Commissioners, who had discharged their duties with conspicuous fairness and ability, gave their award. They identified the Scoodic river, as it was then called, with the St. Croix of Champlain; they selected the Eastern or Northern branch of the river as the boundary line in preference to the South-Western, thereby including in American territory a considerable area which the English had claimed; they marked beyond further dispute the point which was thereafter to be held to be the source of the St. Croix; but they did not demarcate the actual boundary line down the course of the river.

[Sidenote: The Maine Boundary question.]

From the source of the St. Croix, according to the words of the Treaty of 1783, which have been already quoted, a line was to be drawn due North to the Highlands which formed the water parting between the streams running into the St. Lawrence and those running into the Atlantic Ocean, and this line was supposed to form the North-West angle of Nova Scotia. No provision was made in the Treaty of 1794 for determining the boundary North of the source of the St. Croix river, and the labours of the St. Croix Commission were confined to identifying that river from the mouth to the source. A far more serious and more prolonged controversy arose over the territory to the North of the source, threatening to bring war between Great Britain and the United States, and not settled for sixty years.

[Sidenote: The old definitions of the boundary.]

As in the case of the St. Croix, the framers of the Treaty of 1783, in specifying a line drawn due North from the source of that river, to meet the Highlands which parted the basin of the St. Lawrence from that of the Atlantic, had recourse to past history and used definitions already in existence. Nova Scotia, as granted to Sir William Alexander, was, according to the terms of the charter, bounded from the source of the St. Croix

‘by an imaginary straight line which is conceived to extend through the land, or run Northward to the nearest bay, river, or stream emptying into the great river of Canada’.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763, which constituted the province of Quebec after the peace signed in that year, defined the Southern boundary of Quebec as passing

‘along the Highlands which divide the rivers that empty themselves into the said river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the sea’.

The Quebec Act of 1774 again defined the Southern boundary of Quebec as

‘along the Highlands which divide the rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the sea, to a point in 45 degrees of Northern latitude on the Eastern bank of the River Connecticut’.

In the Commission to the Governor of Nova Scotia issued in 1763, the Western boundary of Nova Scotia from the source of the St. Croix was defined

‘by a line drawn due North from thence to the Southern boundary of Our colony of Quebec’.

Therefore the Treaty of 1783, in defining the international line as a line drawn from the source of the St. Croix

‘directly North to the aforesaid Highlands which divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which fall into the river St. Lawrence’,

used the previous definitions of the Western boundary of Nova Scotia and the Southern boundary of Quebec.

[Sidenote: The ‘North-West angle of Nova Scotia’.]

There were only two new points in the wording of the Treaty. The first was that the sea was defined as the Atlantic Ocean, thereby excluding the Bay of Chaleurs, and possibly the Bay of Fundy also, which was, in the Treaty, at any rate according to the British contention, treated as separate from the Atlantic Ocean. The second was the importation of the words ‘the North-West angle of Nova Scotia.’ It was obvious that wherever the Western boundary of Nova Scotia met the Southern boundary of Quebec there must be such an angle, but the Treaty spoke of it as a fixed starting point from whence to draw the boundary line; it assumed that this angle rested on highlands which divided the waters that flowed into the Atlantic from those which were tributaries of the St. Lawrence; and it assumed also that it would be reached by a due North line from the source of the St. Croix river. So the inaccurate maps of the day testified, and so paper boundaries, already recognized, prescribed. When, however, the matter was put to the test of actual geography, it was found that a line drawn due North from the source of the St. Croix nowhere intersected a water parting between the St. Lawrence basin and that of the Atlantic Ocean. The sources of the rivers which run into the Atlantic were found to be far to the West of the Northern line from the St. Croix river, to the West of that line even if it had been drawn from the source of the South-Western branch of the St. Croix, and not, as the St. Croix Commission had drawn it, from the source of its more easterly branch. It was evident that the earlier documents, which the Treaty of 1783 had followed, were based upon inaccurate information and that it had never been realized that the source of the St. John river, beyond which would naturally be sought the head waters of the streams running into the Atlantic, lay so far to the West, as is actually the case.

[Sidenote: The terms of the 1783 Treaty were not in accord with actual facts.]

It was therefore physically impossible to mark out a boundary in accordance with the terms of the Treaty. If the due Northern line was adhered to, the Highlands mentioned by the Treaty could not be reached. If those Highlands were adhered to, the due Northern line must be abandoned. In either case the North-Western angle of Nova Scotia, instead of being a fixed starting point, was an unknown factor, an abstraction which could only be given a real existence by bargain and agreement. The matter was one of vital importance to Great Britain, for it involved the preservation or abandonment of communication between the Maritime Provinces and Canada, all important in winter time when the mouth of the St. Lawrence was closed. The direct North line cut the St. John river slightly to the west of the Grand Falls on that river; and, had it been prolonged in the same direction, searching for Highlands till the St. Lawrence was nearly reached, Canada and New Brunswick would have been almost cut off from each other. The longer the controversy went on, the more clearly this result was seen by the Americans as well as by the English, hence the bitterness of the dispute and the tenacity with which either party maintained their position and accentuated their claims.

[Sidenote: Attempt at settlement in 1803.]

[Sidenote: The second American war.]

[Sidenote: The British Contention.]

On the 12th of May, 1803, a Convention was signed between Great Britain and the United States providing that the dispute should be left to the decision of an International Commission constituted in precisely the same manner as the St. Croix Commission had been constituted; but the Convention was never ratified, and the points at issue were still outstanding when the negotiations were set on foot which ended in the Treaty of Ghent at the close of the second war between the two nations. During the war formal possession was taken on behalf of Great Britain of the country between the Penobscot river and New Brunswick, which included the area under dispute, a proclamation to that effect being issued at Halifax on the 21st of September, 1814;[231] but at the date of the proclamation negotiations for peace were already proceeding, and the only basis on which the Americans would treat was the restitution of the status quo ante bellum, proposals for an adjustment of the boundary between New Brunswick and Massachusetts,[232] of which Maine then formed part, being treated as a demand for cession of territory belonging to the United States. On the British side it was maintained that the line claimed by the Americans

‘by which the direct communication between Halifax and Quebec becomes interrupted, was not in contemplation of the British Plenipotentiaries who concluded the Treaty of 1783’,[233]

and in a later letter, replying to the American representatives, the British negotiators wrote[234]

‘the British Government never required that all that portion of the State of Massachusetts intervening between the Province of New Brunswick and Quebec should be ceded to Great Britain, but only that small portion of unsettled country which interrupts the communication between Halifax and Quebec, there being much doubt whether it does not already belong to Great Britain’.

The inference to be drawn from the correspondence is that, on the strict wording of the Treaty of 1783, apart from the intention of those who negotiated it, the American claim was recognized to be stronger than the British.

[Sidenote: The Treaty of Ghent.]

[Sidenote: A Boundary Commission appointed.]

[Sidenote: The Commissioners disagree.]

The Treaty of Ghent was signed on the 24th of December, 1814, and the Fifth Article provided that two Commissioners should be appointed to locate the North-West angle of Nova Scotia as well as the North-Westernmost head of the Connecticut river, between which two points the Treaty of 1783 provided that the dividing line along the Highlands was to be drawn. A map of the boundary was to be made, and the latitude and longitude of the North-West angle and of the head of the Connecticut were to be particularized. If the Commissioners agreed, their report was to be final; but if they disagreed, they were to report to their respective governments, and some friendly sovereign or state was to arbitrate between them. The Commission first met in 1816, much time was taken up in surveying the North line from the source of the St. Croix to the watershed of the St. Lawrence, and it was not until 1821 that the two representatives, having failed to agree, gave distinct awards, the British Commissioner placing the North-West angle at the Highlands known as Mars Hill nearly 40 miles south of the St. John river, and the American Commissioner locating it nearly 70 miles north of that river, either Commissioner adopting the extreme claim put forward by his side.

[Sidenote: The Convention of 1827.]

[Sidenote: Award given by the King of the Netherlands as Arbitrator.]

[Sidenote: The award not accepted by the Americans.]

In view of the divergence between the two reports, it was necessary, in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Ghent, to submit the matter to arbitration; but this step was not taken until yet another Convention had been signed on the 29th of September, 1827, providing that new statements of the case on either side should be drawn up for submission to the arbitrator. It was laid down that the basis of the statements should be two specified maps, one of which was referred to as the map used in drawing up the original Treaty of 1783. The inaccuracies in this map, Mitchell’s map, had been the origin of all the difficulties which had subsequently arisen. The King of the Netherlands was selected to arbitrate. In 1830 the statements were laid before him, and in January, 1831, he gave his award. It was to the effect that it was impossible, having regard either to law or to equity, to adopt either of the lines proposed by the two contending parties, and that a compromise should be accepted which was defined in the award. The line which the king proposed was more favourable to the Americans than to the English, but the Americans declined to consent to it, on the ground that, while the arbitrator might accept either of the two lines which were presented for arbitration, he was not empowered to fix a third and new boundary.

[Sidenote: Collision in the Aroostook region.]

[Sidenote: The Ashburton Treaty.]

[Sidenote: Final settlement of the Maine boundary question.]

Thus this troublesome matter was still left outstanding, and yet the necessity for a settlement was more pressing than ever. The new state of Maine maintained the American claim with more pertinacity and less inclination to compromise than the Government of the United States had shown; the United States Government was ready to accept a conventional line, but Maine objected, and meanwhile the result of the uncertainty and delay was that the backwoodsmen of Maine and New Brunswick were coming to blows. About the beginning of 1839 the disputes in the region of the Aroostook river nearly brought on war between the two nations, which was only averted by the mediation of General Winfield Scott then commanding the American forces on the frontier. Immediately afterwards two British Commissioners, Colonel Mudge and Mr. Featherstonhaugh, were deputed to survey the debatable territory and reported in April, 1840,[235] their report being followed by a survey on the part of the American Government. At length, on the 9th of August, 1842, Daniel Webster then Secretary of State for the United States, and Lord Ashburton, sent out as special Commissioner from Great Britain, concluded the Treaty of Washington, which put an end to the long and dangerous controversy. By the First Article of that Treaty the present boundary was fixed; the North line from the monument at the head of the St. Croix river was followed to the point where it intersected the St. John; the middle of the main channel of that river was then taken as far as the mouth of its tributary the St. Francis; thence the middle of the channel of the St. Francis up to the outlet of the Lake Pohenagamook; from which point the line was drawn in a South-Westerly direction to the dividing Highlands and the head of the Connecticut river until the 45th degree of North latitude was reached. The boundary was subsequently surveyed and marked out, and upon the 28th of June, 1847, the final results were reported and the matter was at an end.

[Sidenote: Settlement of the boundary between the province of Quebec and that of New Brunswick.]

The existing boundary is on the whole more favourable to Great Britain than the line which the King of the Netherlands proposed and the Americans rejected; but notwithstanding, Lord Ashburton’s settlement has always been regarded in Canada as having given to the United States territory to which Great Britain had an undoubted claim. The fault, however, was not with Lord Ashburton but with the wording of the original Treaty of 1783; and that treaty, as has been shown, was based on such geographical information as there was to hand, accepted at the time in good faith, but subsequently proved to be incorrect. It should be added that by the Third Article of the Ashburton Treaty the navigation of the river St. John was declared to be free and open to both nations, and that the settlement of the international boundary was followed by an adjustment of the frontier between Canada and New Brunswick. The dispute between the two provinces was, at the suggestion of the Imperial Government, eventually referred to two arbitrators, one chosen by each province, with an umpire selected by the arbitrators themselves. The award was given in 1851, and in the same year its terms were embodied in an Imperial Act of Parliament

‘for the settlement of the boundaries between the provinces of Canada and New Brunswick’.

[Sidenote: The International boundary in the Bay of Fundy.]

In the Bay of Fundy the boundary line between British and American territory was, by the terms of the 1783 Treaty, to be drawn due East from the mouth of the St. Croix river, assigning to the United States all islands within twenty leagues of the shore to the South of the line,

‘excepting such islands as now are or heretofore have been within the limits of the said province of Nova Scotia.’

Here was a further ground of dispute, touching the ownership of the islands in Passamaquoddy Bay. Geographically they would belong to the United States, unless they could be shown to have been within the limits of Nova Scotia. The Convention of 1803, which has already been mentioned as never having been ratified, in the First Article prescribed the boundary; and the Treaty of Ghent in the Fourth Article referred the matter to two Commissioners on precisely the same terms as were adopted by the next Article of the Treaty in the case of the North-West angle controversy, i.e., each nation was to appoint an arbitrator, and, if the two arbitrators failed to agree, separate reports were to be made to the two governments, and the final decision was to be left to some friendly sovereign or state. Fortunately the two arbitrators came to an agreement, delivering their award on the 24th of November, 1817. Three little islands in the Bay of Passamaquoddy, named Moose Island, Dudley Island, and Frederick Island, were allotted to the United States, and the rest of the islands in the bay, together with the island of Grand Manan, lying further out in the Bay of Fundy, were assigned to Great Britain. The actual channel, however, was not delimited; and though many years afterwards, under a Convention of 1892, Commissioners were appointed for the purpose, they failed to come to a complete agreement; this small question therefore between the two nations is still awaiting settlement under the Treaty for the delimitation of International Boundaries between Canada and the United States which was signed on 11th April, 1908.[236]

[Sidenote: The line from the North-Westernmost head of the Connecticut river to the St. Lawrence.]

From the point where the boundary line struck the North-Westernmost head of the Connecticut River, the Treaty of 1783 provided that it should be carried

‘down along the middle of that river to the forty-fifth degree of North latitude, from thence by a line due West on said latitude until it strikes the river Iroquois or Cataraquy’.

Iroquois or Cataraquy was the name given to the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Lake Ontario, and the First Article of Lord Ashburton’s Treaty, identifying the North-Westernmost head of the Connecticut River with a river called Hall’s Stream, re-affirmed in somewhat different words the provision of the older Treaty as to this section of the boundary. Here there was no dispute. The line had already been laid down in the Proclamation of 1763 and the Quebec Act of 1774. In the words of the Ashburton Treaty it was the line

‘which has been known and understood to be the line of actual division between the States of New York and Vermont on one side and the British province of Canada on the other’.

[Sidenote: The line up the St. Lawrence and the lakes.]

From the point where the 45th parallel intersected the St. Lawrence, the line was, under the Treaty of 1783, to be carried up the middle of the rivers and lakes to the water communication between Lake Huron and Lake Superior, with the necessary result that Lake Michigan was entirely excluded from Canada. By the Sixth Article of the Treaty of Ghent two Commissioners were to be appointed to settle doubts as to what was the middle of the waterway and to which of the two nations the various Islands belonged: and, as in other cases, if the Commissioners disagreed, they were to report to their respective governments with a view to arbitration by a neutral power. A joint award was given,[237] signed at Utica on the 18th of June, 1822, the boundary being elaborately specified and the report being accompanied by a series of maps.

[Sidenote: The line between Lake Huron and Lake Superior, and to the most North-Western point of the Lake of the Woods.]

[Sidenote: Nonexistence of the ‘Long Lake’.]

[Sidenote: The ‘most North-Western point of the Lake of the Woods’ determined.]

[Sidenote: The Ashburton Treaty and the Treaty of 1871.]

[Sidenote: Navigation of the St. Lawrence.]

The Treaty of 1783 laid down that the line was to be drawn, as already stated, through the middle of Lake Huron

‘to the water-communication between that lake and Lake Superior; thence through Lake Superior, Northward of the Isles Royal and Phelipeaux to the Long Lake; thence through the middle of said Long Lake and the water communication between it and the Lake of the Woods to the said Lake of the Woods, thence through the said lake to the most North-Western point thereof’.

Under the Sixth Article of the Treaty of Ghent the Commissioners defined the frontier line well into the strait between Lakes Huron and Superior, but stopped short of the Sault St. Marie, at a point above St. Joseph’s Island and below St. George’s or Sugar Island. Here they considered that their labours under the Sixth Article terminated. But the next Article of the Treaty of Ghent provided that the same two Commissioners should go on to determine

‘that part of the boundary between the dominions of the two powers, which extends from the water communication between Lake Huron and Lake Superior to the most North-Western point of the Lake of the Woods’.

Comparing these words with the terms of the 1783 Treaty, it will be noticed that mention of the Long Lake is eliminated, as it had been discovered in the meantime that the Long Lake could not be identified. On this section of the boundary the Commissioners were not at one. Accordingly on the 23rd of October, 1826,[238] they presented an elaborate joint report showing the points on which they had come to an agreement, and those on which they were at variance, with their respective recommendations. As to a great part of the line they were in accord, and especially they defined by latitude and longitude the most North-Western point of the Lake of the Woods, but they wholly disagreed as to the ownership of St. George’s or Sugar Island in the strait between Lake Huron and Lake Superior, and also as to the line to be taken from a point towards the Western end of Lake Superior[239] to the Lac de Pluie or Rainy Lake. They made, however, on either side suggestions for compromise. The matter was set at rest by the Second Article of Lord Ashburton’s Treaty, St. George’s Island being assigned to the United States, and a compromise line being drawn from Lake Superior to Rainy Lake. The channels along the whole boundary line from the point where it strikes the St. Lawrence are open to both nations; and by the Twenty-sixth Article of the Treaty of Washington, dated the 8th of May, 1871, the navigation of the St. Lawrence, from the point where it is intersected by the International Boundary down to the sea is declared to be free and open for the purposes of Commerce to the citizens of the United States, subject to any laws and regulations of Great Britain and Canada not inconsistent with the privilege of free navigation.

[Sidenote: The line from the most North-Western point of the Lake of the Woods to the Mississippi.]

[Sidenote: Mistake as to the source of the Mississippi in the Treaty of 1783.]

[Sidenote: Corrected by Jay’s Treaty of 1794.]

According to the 1783 Treaty the boundary line from the most North-Western point of the Lake of the Woods was to be drawn

‘on a due West course to the river Mississippi’,

and was then to follow that river Southwards. Here geographical knowledge was again wanting. The framers of the treaty were under the impression that the source of the Mississippi was further North than is actually the case, and they prescribed a geographical impossibility. It was not long before the mistake was found out, for the Fourth Article of Jay’s Treaty of 1794[240] began with the words

‘Whereas it is uncertain whether the river Mississippi extends so far to the Northward as to be intersected by a line to be drawn due West from the Lake of the Woods.’

The same Article provided that there should be a joint survey of the sources of the river, and, if it was found that the Westward line did not intersect the river, the boundary was to be adjusted

‘according to justice and mutual convenience and in conformity to the intent of’

the 1783 Treaty.

[Sidenote: The Convention of 1818.]

[Sidenote: First mention in the boundary agreements of the 49th Parallel and the Rocky Mountains.]

The Fifth Article of the unratified Treaty of 1803 provided that a direct line should be drawn from the North-West point of the Lake of the Woods to the nearest source of the Mississippi, leaving it to three Commissioners to fix the two points in question and to draw the line. A further attempt at adjustment was made in 1806-7, when the negotiators provisionally agreed to an Article to the effect that the line should be drawn from the most North-Western point of the Lake of the Woods to the 49th parallel of latitude, and from that point due West along the parallel

‘as far as the respective territories extend in that quarter’.

This solution again was not carried into effect; and though the subject was raised in the negotiations which preceded the Treaty of Ghent in 1814, no mention was made of it in the Treaty itself. Eventually, however, on the 20th of October, 1818, a Convention was signed in London, the Second Article of which ran as follows:--

‘It is agreed that a line drawn from the most North-Western point of the Lake of the Woods along the 49th parallel of North latitude or, if the said point shall not be in the 49th parallel of North latitude, then that a line drawn from the said point due North or South, as the case may be, until the said line shall intersect the said parallel of North latitude, and from the point of such intersection due West along and with the said parallel, shall be the line of demarcation between the territories of His Britannic Majesty and those of the United States, and that the said line shall form the Southern boundary of the said territories of His Britannic Majesty and the Northern boundary of the territories of the United States from the Lake of the Woods to the Stony Mountains.’[241]

Here the Rocky Mountains, under the name of the Stony Mountains, first come in, their existence having been unknown, except by vague report, when the Peace of 1783 was signed.[242]

[Sidenote: The boundary line as far as the Rocky Mountains finally determined by the Ashburton Treaty.]

[Sidenote: The Ashburton Treaty finally determined the points arising out of the wording of the Treaty of 1783.]

Geographical knowledge was creeping on, but the wording of the Article shows that it was still uncertain whether the North-Westernmost point of the Lake of the Woods was North or South of the 49th parallel. This doubt was finally cleared up by the Commissioners who, as already stated, reported in October, 1826, and who fixed the point in question in 49° 23′ 55″ North; thus, when Lord Ashburton negotiated the 1842 Treaty, it was only left for him, adopting the point which the Commissioners had fixed, to lay down in the Second Article that the boundary line ran

‘thence, according to existing treaties, due South to its intersection with the 49th parallel of North latitude, and along that parallel to the Rocky Mountains’.

The 49th parallel runs through the Lake of the Woods, but the anterior provision that the boundary line should be carried to the North-Westernmost point of the lake, coupled with the fact that that point had been already determined, necessitated an unnatural and inconvenient diversion of the frontier line first to the North-West and then due South again, thereby including in American territory a small corner of land which should clearly have been assigned to Canada. For this result Lord Ashburton has been blamed, as he was blamed in the matter of the Maine boundary, but in either case his hands were tied by previous negotiations and the wording of existing treaties. A fair review of the whole subject leads to the conclusion that the Treaty of Washington in 1842 was a not inadequate compromise of the almost insuperable difficulties which the wording of the original Treaty of 1783 had left outstanding.

[Sidenote: Later boundary questions.]

In tracing the evolution of the boundary between Canada and the United States we have now reached the point where the 1783 Treaty ceased to operate, and have seen that the negotiations connected with the interpretation of the Treaty resulted in the line of demarcation being carried far beyond that point, viz., the head of the Mississippi, up to the range of the Rocky Mountains. Meanwhile the Pacific Coast had begun to attract attention, and a new crop of international questions had come into existence.

[Sidenote: The Oregon boundary dispute.]

The Western territory in dispute between the two nations was known as the Oregon or Columbia territory, and it lay between the 42nd degree of North latitude and the Russian line in 54° 40′ North latitude. The Columbia river took its name from the fact that it had been entered in May, 1792, by an American ship from Boston named the _Columbia_, commanded by Captain Gray, who thus claimed to be the discoverer of the river. In 1805 Lewis and Clark, the first Americans to cross the continent, reached its head waters and followed the river down to the sea. In 1811 an American trading settlement was planted at Astoria near its mouth. This settlement was voluntarily surrendered to Great Britain in the war which followed shortly afterwards, but was restored, without prejudice, to the United States under the general restitution article of the Treaty of Ghent. The Third Article of the subsequent Treaty of October 20th, 1818, provided that

‘any country that may be claimed by either party on the North-West coast of America, Westward of the Stony Mountains, shall, together with its harbours, bays, and creeks and the navigation of all rivers within the same, be free and open for the term of 10 years’

to both Powers, without prejudice to the claims either of themselves or of foreign Powers; and this Article was, by a Convention of 6th of August, 1827, indefinitely prolonged--subject to one year’s notice on either side--all claims being, as before, reserved. This last Convention was concluded, as its terms specified, in order to prevent all hazard of misunderstanding and to give time for maturing measures for a more definite settlement.

[Sidenote: The position in 1842.]

On this basis matters stood in 1842, when the Ashburton Treaty was signed. There was joint occupation of the Oregon territory by British and American subjects, and freedom of trade for both. Lord Ashburton had been empowered to negotiate for a settlement of the North-Western as well as the North-Eastern frontier line; but the latter, which involved the question of the Maine--New Brunswick boundary, being the more pressing matter, it was thought well to allow the determination of the line West of the Rocky Mountains to stand over for the moment. As soon as Lord Ashburton’s Treaty had been signed at Washington in August, 1842, Lord Aberdeen, then Foreign Secretary in Sir Robert Peel’s Ministry, made overtures to the United States with a view to an early settlement of the Oregon question. A long diplomatic controversy ensued, complicated by changes of government in the United States, and tending, as is constantly the case in such negotiations, to greater instead of less divergence of view.

[Sidenote: The rival claims.]

The Americans contended that they had a title to the whole territory up to the Russian line, and they claimed the entire region drained by the Columbia river. As a compromise, however, they had already, in the negotiations which ended in the Convention of 1827, suggested that the boundary line along the 49th parallel should be continued as far as the Pacific, the navigation of the Columbia river being left open to both nations. This offer was repeated as the controversy went on, with the exception that on the one hand free navigation of the Columbia river was excluded, and on the other the American Secretary of State proposed

‘to make free to Great Britain any port or ports on Vancouver’s Island, south of this parallel, which the British Government may desire’.[243]

The counter British proposal was to the effect that the boundary line should be continued along the 49th parallel until it intersected the North-Eastern branch of the Columbia river, and that then the line of the river should be followed to its mouth, giving to Great Britain all the country on the north of the river and to the United States all on the south, the navigation of the river being free to both nations, and a detached strip of coast land to the north of the river being also conceded to the United States, with the further understanding that any port or ports, either on the mainland or on Vancouver Island, South of the 49th parallel, to which the United States might wish to have access, should be constituted free ports.

[Sidenote: Settlement of the Oregon boundary question by the Treaty of 1846.]

The arguments advanced on both sides, based on alleged priority of discovery and settlement and on the construction of previous treaties, are contained in the Blue Book of 1846, and are too voluminous to be repeated here. The controversy went on from 1842 to 1846; and, when the spring of the latter year was reached, the Americans had withdrawn their previous offer and had refused a British proposal to submit the whole matter to arbitration. There was thus a complete deadlock, but shortly afterwards a debate in Congress showed a desire on the American side to effect a friendly settlement of a dispute which had become dangerous, and, the opportunity being promptly taken by the British Government, a Draft Treaty was sent out by Lord Aberdeen, which was submitted by President Polk to the Senate, who by a large majority advised him to accept it.[244] The Treaty was accordingly signed at Washington on the 15th of June, 1846. By the First Article the boundary line was

‘continued Westward along the said forty-ninth parallel of North latitude to the middle of the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver Island, and thence Southerly, through the middle of the said channel and of Fuca’s Straits, to the Pacific Ocean’,

the navigation of the channel and straits South of the 49th parallel being left free and open to both nations. By the Second Article of the same Treaty, the navigation of the Columbia river, from the point where the 49th parallel intersects its great Northern branch, was left open to the Hudson’s Bay Company and to all British subjects trading with the same. The effect of the Treaty was that Great Britain abandoned the claim to the line of the Columbia river, and the United States modified its proposal to adopt the 49th parallel as the boundary so far as to concede the whole of Vancouver Island to Great Britain. The news that the treaty had been signed reached England just as Sir Robert Peel’s ministry was going out of office.

[Sidenote: The San Juan boundary question.]

[Sidenote: Arbitration under the Treaty of 1871.]

The delimitation of the boundary which the Treaty had affirmed gave rise to a further difficulty. The Treaty having provided that the sea line was to be drawn southerly through the middle of the channel which separates Vancouver Island from the continent and of Fuca’s Straits into the Pacific Ocean, the two nations were unable to agree as to what was the middle of the channel in the Gulf of Georgia between the Southern end of Vancouver Island and the North American coast. The main question at issue was the ownership of the island of San Juan, and the subject of dispute was for this reason known as the San Juan boundary question. The British claim was that the line should be drawn to the Eastward of the island, down what was known as the Rosario Straits. The Americans contended that it should be drawn on the Western side, following the Canal de Haro or Haro Channel. Eventually it was laid down by the 34th and following Articles of the Treaty of Washington of 8th of May, 1871--the same Treaty which provided for arbitration on the _Alabama_ question--that the Emperor of Germany should arbitrate as to which of the two claims was most in accordance with the true interpretation of the Treaty of 1846, and that his award should be absolutely final and conclusive. On the 21st of October, 1872, the arbitrator gave his award in favour of the United States, and it was immediately carried into effect, thus completing the boundary line from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

[Sidenote: The Alaska boundary question.]

In a message to Congress on the subject of the San Juan Boundary Award, President Grant stated

‘The Award leaves us, for the first time in the history of the United States as a nation, without a question of disputed boundary between our territory and the possessions of Great Britain on this continent;’

and he suggested that a joint Commission should determine the line between the Alaska territory and the conterminous possessions of Great Britain, on the hypothesis that here there was no ground of dispute and that all that was required was the actual delimitation of an already admitted boundary line. The matter proved to be more complex than the President’s words implied.

[Sidenote: Russian America ceded to the United States.]

[Sidenote: Line of demarcation between British and Russian possessions in North America drawn in 1825.]

By a Treaty signed on the 30th of March, 1867, the territory now known as Alaska was ceded by Russia to the United States. It was the year in which the Dominion Act was passed; and, when British Columbia[245] in 1871 joined the Dominion, Canada became, in respect of that province, as well as in regard to the Yukon Territory, a party to the Alaska boundary question. The limits of Russian America, as it was then called, had been fixed as far back as 1825, when, by a treaty between Great Britain and Russia, dated the 28th of February in that year, a line of demarcation was fixed between British and Russian possessions

‘upon the coast of the continent and the islands of America to the North-West’.

The line started from the Southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island, which point was defined as lying in the parallel of 54° 40′ North latitude and between the 131st and 133rd degrees of West longitude. It was carried thence to the North, along the channel called Portland Channel, up to that point of the continent where it intersected the 56th parallel of North latitude. From this point it followed the summit of the mountains parallel to the coast until it intersected the 141st degree of West longitude, and was carried along that meridian to the Arctic Ocean. The Treaty provided that the whole of Prince of Wales Island should belong to Russia, and that wherever the summit of the mountains running parallel to the coast between the 56th parallel of North latitude and the point where the boundary line intersected the 141st meridian was proved to be at a distance of more than 10 marine leagues from the ocean, the line should be drawn parallel to the windings of the coast at a distance from it never exceeding 10 marine leagues.

[Sidenote: Free navigation of rivers.]

Free navigation of the rivers which flowed into the Pacific Ocean across the strip of coast assigned to Russia was conceded in perpetuity to British subjects; and, after the transfer of Russian America to the United States, the Twenty-sixth Article of the Treaty of Washington of 1871 provided that the navigation of the rivers Yukon, Porcupine, and Stikine should for ever remain free and open to both British and American citizens, subject to such laws and regulations of either country within its own territory as were not inconsistent with the privilege of free navigation.

[Sidenote: Negotiations for a settlement of the boundary with the United States.]

[Sidenote: The Convention of 1892.]

In 1872, the year after the entry of British Columbia into the Dominion of Canada, mining being contemplated in the northern part of British Columbia, overtures were, at the instance of the Canadian Government, made to the United States to demarcate the boundary, which had never yet been surveyed and delimited. The probable cost of a survey caused delay, and no action had been taken when in 1875 and 1876 disputes arose as to the boundary line on the Stikine river. The Canadian Government in 1877 dispatched an engineer to ascertain approximately the line on the river, and the result of his survey was in the following year provisionally accepted by the United States as a temporary arrangement, without prejudice to a final settlement. Negotiations began again about 1884, and, by a Convention signed at Washington on the 22nd of July, 1892, it was provided that a coincident or joint survey should be undertaken of the territory adjacent to the boundary line from the latitude of 54° 40′ North to the point where the line intersects the 141st degree of West longitude. It was added that, as soon as practicable after the report or reports had been received, the two governments should proceed to consider and establish the boundary line. The time within which the results of the survey were to be reported was, by a supplementary Convention, extended to the 31st of December, 1895, and on that date a joint report was made, but no action was taken upon it at the time.

[Sidenote: Discovery of gold at Klondyke.]

[Sidenote: Further negotiations.]

In 1896 the Klondyke goldfields were discovered in what now constitutes the Yukon district of the North-West Territories, and in the following year there was a large immigration into the district. The goldfields were most accessible by the passes beyond the head of the inlet known as the Lynn canal, the opening of which into the sea is within what had been the Russian fringe of coast. The necessity therefore for determining the boundary became more urgent than before. In 1898 the British Government proposed that the matter should be referred to three Commissioners, one appointed by each government and the third by a neutral power; and that, pending a settlement, a _modus vivendi_ should be arranged. A provisional boundary in this quarter was accordingly agreed upon, but, instead of the Commission which had been proposed, representatives of Great Britain and the United States alone met in 1898 and 1899 to discuss and if possible settle various questions at issue between the two nations, among them being the Alaska boundary. They were to endeavour to come to an agreement as to provisions for the delimitation of the boundary

‘by legal and scientific experts, if the Commission should so decide, or otherwise’,

memoranda of the views held on either side being furnished in advance of the sittings of the Commission. Again no settlement was effected.

[Sidenote: The Convention of 1903. Joint Commission appointed.]

The dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela as to the boundary between Venezuela and British Guiana, in which the Government of the United States had intervened, had, by a Convention signed in February, 1897, been referred to arbitration, the Arbitrators being five in number, two Englishmen, two Americans, and one representative of a neutral State. In July, 1899, before the award in this arbitration had been given, Lord Salisbury proposed to the American Government that a treaty on identical lines with the Venezuela boundary Convention should apply arbitration to the Alaska Boundary question. To this procedure, giving a casting vote on the whole question to a representative of a neutral power, the American Government took exception, and suggested instead a Tribunal consisting of ‘Six impartial Jurists of repute’, three to be appointed by the President of the United States and three by Her Britannic Majesty. A suggestion made by the British Government that one of the three Arbitrators on either side should be a subject of a neutral state was not accepted; and eventually, on the 24th of January, 1903, a Convention was signed at Washington, constituting a tribunal in accordance with the American conditions. The three British representatives were the Lord Chief Justice of England and two leading Canadians, one of them being the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Quebec.

[Sidenote: Points for decision.]

The preamble of the Convention stated that its object was a ‘friendly and final adjustment’ of the differences which had arisen as to the ‘true meaning and application’ of the clauses in the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1825 which referred to the Alaska boundary. The tribunal was to decide where the line was intended to begin; what channel was the Portland Channel; how the line should be drawn from the point of commencement to the entrance to the Portland Channel; to what point on the 56th parallel and by what course it should be drawn from the head of the Portland Channel; what interpretation should be given to the provision in the Treaty of 1825 that from the 56th parallel to the point where the 141st degree of longitude was intersected the line should follow the crest of the mountains running parallel to the coast at a distance nowhere exceeding ten marine leagues from the ocean; and what were the mountains, if any, which were indicated by the treaty.

[Sidenote: Main point at issue.]

The main point at issue was whether the ten leagues should be measured from the open sea or from the heads of the inlets, some of which ran far into the land. If the latter interpretation were adopted, the result would be to give to the United States control of the main lines of communication with the Klondyke Mining district, just as the Maine boundary threatened to cut, and in large measure did cut, communication between the Maritime Provinces and Quebec.

[Sidenote: The Award.]

The Convention provided that all questions considered by the tribunal, including the final award, should be decided by a majority of the Arbitrators. The tribunal was unanimous in deciding that the point of commencement of the line was Cape Muzon, the Southernmost point of Dall Island on the Western or ocean side of Prince of Wales Island. A unanimous opinion was also given to the effect that the Portland Channel is the channel which runs from about 55°56′ North latitude and passes seawards to the North of Pearse and Wales Islands; but on all subsequent points there was a division of opinion, the three American representatives and the Lord Chief Justice of England giving a majority award from which the two Canadian members of the tribunal most strongly dissented. The majority decided that the outlet of the Portland Channel to the sea was to be identified with the strait known as Tongass Channel, and that the line should be drawn along that channel and pass to the South of two islands named Sitklan and Khannaghunut islands, thus vesting the ownership of those islands in the United States. They also decided that the boundary line from the 56th parallel of North latitude to the point of intersection with the 141st degree of West longitude should run round the heads of the inlets and not cross them. One section of the line was not fully determined owing to the want of an adequate survey. The net result of the award was to substantiate the American claims, to give to the United States full command of the sea approaches to the Klondyke Mining districts, and to include within American territory two islands hard by the prospective terminus of a new Trans-Canadian Railway.

[Sidenote: The Behring Sea arbitration.]

It may be added that the Treaty of 30th March, 1867, by which Alaska was transferred from Russia to the United States, gave rise not only to the territorial boundary dispute of which an account has been given above, but also to a controversy as to American and British rights in the Behring Sea, more especially in connexion with the taking of seals. The questions at issue were settled at a much earlier date than the land boundary, having been, by a treaty signed at Washington on the 29th of February, 1892, referred to a tribunal of seven arbitrators, two named by the United States, two by Great Britain, and one each by the President of the French Republic, the King of Italy, and the King of Sweden and Norway. The arbitrators met in Paris and gave their award on the 15th of August, 1893, the substance of the award, as concurred in by the majority of the arbitrators, being that Russia had not exercised any exclusive rights of jurisdiction in Behring Sea or any exclusive rights to the seal fisheries in that sea outside the ordinary three-mile limit, and that no such rights had passed to the United States.

[Sidenote: The Treaty of April 11, 1908.]

The last phase in the evolution of the Boundary line between Canada and the United States is the Treaty of 11th of April, 1908, ‘for the delimitation of International Boundaries between Canada and the United States’, by which machinery is provided ‘for the more complete definition and demarcation of the International Boundary’, and for settling any small outstanding points such as, e.g., the boundary line through Passamaquoddy Bay.

FOOTNOTES:

[230] See the report of the Lords of the Committee of Council for Plantation Affairs, October 6, 1763, given at pp. 116-18 of _Documents Relating to the Constitutional History of Canada, 1759-91_ (Shortt and Doughty).

[231] See _State Papers_, vol. i, Part II, p. 1369.

[232] _Note._--The territory in dispute, however, seems partly to have been claimed by the United States as Federal Territory and not as belonging to Massachusetts. See the letter from Gallatin to Monroe, December 25, 1814. _State Papers_ for 1821-2, vol. ix, p. 562.

[233] See _State Papers_, vol. i, Part II, p. 1603.

[234] See _State Papers_, vol. i, Part II, p. 1625.

[235] See the two Blue Books of July, 1840, as to the ‘North American Boundary’.

[236] The above account of the boundary disputes between Great Britain and the United States in the region of Maine and New Brunswick has been mainly taken from the very clear and exhaustive _Monograph of the Evolution of the Boundaries of the Province of New Brunswick_, by William F. Ganay, M.A., Ph.D., 1901, published in the _Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada_, 1901-2, and also published separately.

[237] It will be found in the _State Papers_ for 1821-2, vol. ix, p. 791.

[238] The report will be found in the _State Papers_, 1866-7, vol. lvii, p. 803.

[239] This point is described in the report as ‘100 yards to the North and East of a small island named on the map Chapeau and lying opposite and near to the North-Eastern point of Isle-Royale’.

[240] _State Papers_, vol. i, Part I (1812-14), p. 784.

[241] _State Papers_, vol. vi, 1818-19, p. 3--also in Hertslet’s collection.

[242] As to the discovery of the Rocky Mountains, see vol. v, Part I of _Historical Geography of the British Colonies_, p. 214 and note.

[243] Correspondence relative to the negotiation of the question of the disputed right to the Oregon Territory on the North-West coast of America subsequent to the Treaty of Washington of August 9, 1842. Presented to Parliament in 1846, p. 39.

[244] A good account of the negotiations is in a _Historical Note_, 1818-46, included in a Blue Book of 1873, C.-692, North America, No. 5 (1873).

[245] The boundaries of British Columbia had been fixed by an Imperial Act of 1863.

INDEX

Abercromby, 51, 102, 126, 189, 203.

Acadia, 49, 50, 69, 238 n., &c.

Act of 1791. _See_ Canada Act.

Adams, John, 289.

Adet, 289.

Administration of Justice. _See_ Justice, Administration of.

Albany, 24, 140, 145-9, 154, 157, 165-72, 174-5, 182, 203.

Alleghany, the, 9, 19, 59, 83.

Allen, Ethan, 101, 106, 107, 119 n., 191.

American Civil War, 228-9.

Amherst, Lord, 11, 15, 17, 19, 23, 63, 102, 106, 125, 126, 129, 130, 189, 203, 289.

Amiens, Peace of. _See_ Treaty.

Anne, Fort, 164, 166, 167, 188.

Anticosti Island, 2, 3, 80.

Arbuthnot, Marriot, 127, 198.

Arnold, Benedict, 98 n., 101, 108-12, 113, 114, 116-20, 122, 123, 157, 175, 177, 178, 180 n., 185, 198, 199, 291.

Ashburton Treaty. _See_ Treaty.

Assemblies, Legislative, 3, 4, 71-3, 77, 87-9, 241, 243, 245, 257-65, 295-6, 318-9.

Australia, 32, 44, 45, 205, 278.

Bahamas, 223.

Barbados, 52 n., 253-4.

Bathurst, Lord, 278.

Batten Kill river, 169, 170, 175.

Baum, Colonel, 169-71, 170 n.

Baye des Chaleurs, 2, 224.

Beaver Creek, 27, 83.

Bedard, 307.

Bedford or Raestown, 17, 19, 20.

Belêtre, 12.

Bemus’ Heights, 174.

Bennington, 168-72, 171-2 n., 198.

Bermuda, 257.

Bird, Lieutenant, 153, 156.

Bloody Run. _See_ Parents Creek.

Bonaparte, Jerome, 300.

Boston, 85, 95, 96, 107, 130-2, 182, 213, 221, 309.

Bouquet, Henry, 11, 17, 18 n., 19, 20 and n., 21, 22 and n., 23, 24, 26, 27, 188.

Bouquet river, 159.

Braddock, General, 14, 18, 19, 21, 174.

Bradstreet, Colonel, 23-6, 98 n.

Brandywine, 134, 289.

Brant County, 234.

Brant, Joseph, 97 n., 119 n., 148-58, 150 n., 185-7, 186 n., 232-5.

Brant, Molly, 58, 149, 155.

Brantford, 152, 234, 235 n.

Breyman, Colonel, 170, 171, 176, 178, 179 n.

Brock, Isaac, 317.

Bunker’s Hill, 90, 106, 125-6, 130, 131, 150, 303.

Burgoyne, 116, 122, 125, 126, 129, 130, 131, 138, 139, 144, 145, 146, 152, 158-85, 160 n., 180 n., 182 n., 187, 188, 203, 237-8, 303.

Burke, 54, 83, 89, 117, 128, 135, 216, 244.

Burke’s Act 1782, 298 n.

Burnet, Governor, 147.

Burton, Colonel, 63-5, 67.

Bushy Run, 21.

Butler, Colonel John, 152, 155, 156, 185.

Butler, Walter, 187.

Caghnawagas, 148-9 n.

Cahokia, 10.

Camden, 174, 197, 198.

Camden, Lord, 87, 129 n.

Campbell, Captain, 15.

Campbell, Colonel, 196.

Campbell, Major John, 98 n., 286.

Canada, 4-6, 8-10, 37, 39, 45, 50-3, 59-74, 114-5, 206-7, 210-1, 238-41, 263-4, 289-319 _et passim_.

Canada, Lower, 232, 238 and n., 246-319.

Canada, Upper, 85, 223-5, 232, 238 n., 246-319.

Canada Act, 239, 242-79, 312.

Canada Trade Act, 271.

Canadians. _See_ French Canadians.

Canals, 191, 239.

Canning, George, 310.

Cap François, 199.

Cap Rouge, 110.

Cape Breton, 3, 80, 223, 224, 237 n., 238 n., 292.

Cape Diamond, 112.

Carignan-Salières Regiment, 230.

Carleton, 32, 68, 75, 76, 89-100, 94 n., 95 n., 96 n., 102, 103-16, 118 and n., 119 n., 122-6, 130, 131, 133, 135, 137-44, 152, 158, 159, 161, 165, 173, 182, 185, 201, 220, 226, 236-88, 250 n., 295, 303.

Carleton Island, 185.

Carleton, Major, 188.

Carlisle, 19, 20.

Carlisle, Lord, 214.

Carolina, 196-9, 218, 220, 222, 304.

Carroll, 122.

Castine, 188.

Castlereagh, Lord, 303, 310.

Castleton, 164, 167, 169.

Cataraqui. _See_ Frontenac, Fort.

Cavendish, Lord John, 215, 216.

Cayugas, 148, 234.

Cedars, the, 119 and n., 120, 152.

Chambly, Fort, 102, 107, 108 and n., 122, 123, 239.

Champlain, Lake, 2, 52 n., 90, 101, 102, 105, 106, 109, 122-5, 130, 138, 145, 157, 159, 162-4, 174, 185, 187, 203, 239.

Charleston, 132, 173 n., 196, 197, 201, 222, 282-3.

Chartres, Fort, 9, 23, 27, 28.

Chatham. _See_ Pitt.

Chaudière river, 109, 185.

Cherry Valley, 151, 186, 187, 212.

Chesapeake Bay, 134, 175, 199, 200.

_Chesapeake_ frigate, 303.

Choiseul, 31.

Christie, Ensign, 17.

Christie, Robert, 315, &c.

Church of England, 265-7.

Civil List, 255.

Clark, George Rogers, 187, 188, 236 n.

Clarke, Sir Alured, 271, 272, 304.

Claus, Colonel Daniel, 152.

Clinton, Sir Henry, 125, 126, 129 and n., 132-4, 175, 177, 181, 195-201.

Clive, Lord, 160.

Cobbett, William, 313.

Colbert, 64, 71.

Collier, Admiral, 127, 188.

Colonies, Relation to Mother Country, 37-59.

Companies, 40.

Congress, 60, 95, 97, 101, 106, 120, 184, 190, 191, 211, 213, 214, 300.

Connecticut, 101, 164, 166, 167, 186 n., 221.

Conway, General, 115, 136 n.

Cornwallis, Lord, 126, 127, 130, 132, 133, 197-201, 304.

Council of Trade and Plantations. _See_ Trade.

Councils, Executive, 142-3, 194, 252-65, 272, 296.

Councils, Legislative, 73, 79, 87, 105, 194-5, 241-3, 249-67.

Courtenay, 237.

Cowpens, 113, 198.

Craig, Sir James, 303-19.

Cramahé, Lieutenant-Governor, 142.

Croghan, 28.

Crown Lands, 95, 253, 266, 290-1, 295, &c.

Crown Land Funds, 253-5, 290.

Crown Point, Fort, 90, 101, 102, 123, 124, 161, 163, 167, 173, 185.

Cumberland, Fort, 19.

Customs Arrangement, 270-1.

Cuyler, Lieutenant, 15, 16.

Dalhousie, Lord, 278.

Dalyell, Captain, 17, 18 and n., 20.

D’Anville, 49.

Dartmouth, Lord, 104, 124, 135.

Dayton, Fort, 154, 157, 186.

Dead river, 109.

De Barras, 200.

De Grasse, Admiral, 127, 199-201.

Delaware river, 59, 132, 133, 139.

Delawares. _See_ Indians.

De Puisaye, Count Joseph, 230-2.

De Rochambeau, 198-200.

D’Estaing, Admiral, 184, 196.

Detroit, 9, 12-18, 20, 23, 25, 28, 225, 238, 245, 247, 284, 286.

Detroit river, 12, 14, 15, 16, 232, 275.

Diamond Island, 173.

D’Iberville, 49.

Dorchester, Lord. _See_ Carleton.

Drummond, Gordon, 147.

Du Calvet, 190 and n.

Dundas, 240 n., 265, 266, 267, 274, 276, 281, 284, 285.

Dundas Street, 274.

Dunmore, Lord, 221.

Dunn, Thomas, 298.

Dunning, 82.

Duquesne, Fort. _See_ Pittsburg.

Durham, Lord, 205, 248 n., 253, 260, 271, 279, 316.

Dutchman’s Point, 239.

Eastern Townships, 308.

East Florida. _See_ Florida.

Ecorces river, 14.

Ecuyer, Captain, 20.

Edge Hill, 21, 22, 26.

Education, 296-7.

Edward, Fort, 146, 164-8, 169, 172, 174, 175, 179-81.

Egremont, Lord, 5.

Elphinstone, Admiral, 304.

Erie. _See_ Presque Isle.

Erie, Lake, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 23, 83, 84, 233-4, 275, 282, 284, 286.

Etherington, Captain, 16.

Eutaw Springs, 199.

Executive Council. _See_ Council.

Famars, 274.

Fees and Perquisites, 92, 193, 194, 280-1.

Ferguson, Major, 198.

Finlay, Hugh, 248 n.

Firth, 316.

Fishing Rights, 3, 80-1 and n. American, 211, 264. French, 1.

Fish Kill Stream, 180, 181.

Florida, 1, 5, 27, 28, 189, 190, 196, 223.

Forbes, General John, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 51.

Forster, Captain, 119 and n., 120, 121.

Fox, 87, 117, 128, 151, 160, 201, 216, 217, 219, 243, 244, 252, 262, 267, 287.

France, Declaration of War, 282.

Francis, Colonel, 164.

Franklin, Benjamin, 59, 122, 201, 204, 208, 227, 258.

Franklin, William, 59, 212.

Fraser, General, 164, 170, 176-8, 180.

Frazer, Captain, 171.

Freehold Court House, 196.

Freeman’s Farm, 176, 180 n.

French Canadians, 24, 60, 67 n., 75-8, 81, 91-100, 247, 249, 293-7, 310-12, 317-18, &c.

French Creek, 9, 12.

French designs on Canada, 300-2.

French Intervention, War of Independence, 184.

French Royalists Settlement, 230-2, 232 n.

French Rule in Canada, 8-10, 39, 64-6, 141, 252, 294.

Frontenac, Count, 8, 147, 185, 288.

Frontenac, Fort, 9, 24, 225.

Gage, General, 4, 23, 25, 63, 64, 90, 95, 96, 97, 104, 107, 125, 126, 131, 190.

Gananoque river, 275 n.

Gansevoort, Colonel, 153.

Gaspé Peninsula, 2, 224.

Gates, General, 124, 172, 174, 175, 180 n., 181, 182, 197, 198.

General Assemblies. _See_ Assemblies.

Genet, 282, 283.

George, Fort, 90, 101, 122, 166, 188, 272.

George, Lake, 52 n., 58, 102, 162, 163, 166, 167, 173, 174, 187.

Georgia, 1, 196, 222.

Germain, Lord George, 124, 125, 131, 135-41, 152, 158, 165, 172, 173, 182, 190, 191, 195, 201, 215, 217.

German Flatts, 154-5, 186.

German Regiments, 37, 122, 133, 134, 138, 152, 162, 169, 176, 178.

Germantown, 134.

Gibraltar, 69, 201.

Gladwin, Major, 14, 15, 17, 23, 25.

Glenelg, Lord, 279.

Glengarry County, 229.

Gloucester, 199.

Gore, Francis, 316.

Grand river, 233, 234, 235 n.

Grant, Alexander, 298.

Graves, Admiral, 107, 127, 200, 273.

Greek Colonies, 42-3, 45 n., 205.

Green Bay, Fort, 17, 25.

Green Mountain Boys, 101, 191.

Greene, Nathaniel, 128, 198, 199.

Greenville Treaty. _See_ Treaty.

Grenada, 1, 88.

Grenville, George, 53, 54 and n.

Grenville, Lord, 240 n., 246-55, 265, 285.

Guildford Court House, 198.

Habeas Corpus, 74, 88 and n., 95, 193, 195, 241, 242-3, 244.

Haldimand County, 234.

Haldimand, Sir Frederick, 63, 88 n., 143, 147, 150, 185, 188-95, 189 n., 190 n., 220, 224, 225, 233, 236, 239, 241, 246.

Half Moon, 174.

Halifax, 114, 188, 213, 221.

Hamilton, Alexander, 227, 282, 285.

Hamilton, Lieutenant-Governor, 187, 236 n.

Hampshire Grants, 167.

Hastings, Warren, 160.

Havana, 1, 68.

Hawke, Admiral, 127.

Herkimer, General Nicholas, 154-7.

Hessians. _See_ German Regiments.

Hey, Chief Justice, 103 and n., 104, 105 n., 106, 141.

Highlanders, 20, 22, 28, 229, 230.

Hillsborough, Lord, 92, 135.

Hobkirk’s Hill, 199.

Hood, Sir Samuel, 127, 200.

Hoosick river, 168, 170.

Hope, Colonel, 236 n.

Hope, Mount, 173.

Howe, Admiral, 127, 129, 130, 132, 133, 139, 196.

Howe, General, 107, 125, 126, 129 and n., 130-4, 138, 139, 145, 146, 167, 168, 172, 175, 195, 213, 221, 222.

Huberton, 164.

Hudson Bay, 257.

Hudson Bay Company’s Territories, 6, 7, 70, 80, 82, 210, 292.

Hudson river, 131, 132, 134, 146, 165-7, 170, 173-83, 196, 200, 203.

Hudson Straits, 3, 80.

Hunter, General, 292, 298.

Huron, Lake, 2, 5, 9, 13, 232 n., 233, 275.

Illinois, 4, 27, 84, 187.

Illinois Indians. _See_ Indians.

Independence, Mount, 162, 163-5, 175.

Independence, War of, 90-207 _et passim_. Causes, 30-63, &c. Effects, 204-7.

Indians, 5-29, 53, 57-9, 96-7, 97 n., 119-21, 124, 147-59, 153 n., 168, 185-7, 281-6. Delawares, 23-6. Illinois, 9, 27. Iroquois. _See_ Six Nations. Mississaugas, 233. Mohawks, 148-50, 148-9 n., 152, 232-5, 235 n. Ojibwas, 16. Oneidas, 58, 147. Ottawas, 12, 16. Pontiac’s War, 10-29, 99. Senecas, 10, 22, 24, 148, 152. Shawanoes, 24, 27. Six Nations, 10, 22, 58 and n., 59, 83, 147-59, 150 n., 187, 232-5. Tuscaroras, 147-8. War with United States, 281-6. Wyandots, 25.

Indian Territory, 5-7, 58-9, 83, 233-4.

Inglis, Bishop, 267.

Isle aux Noix, 106, 123, 124, 185.

Isle Royale. _See_ Cape Breton.

James river, 199.

Jay, John, 227, 282, 284-5.

Jay’s Treaty. _See_ Treaty.

Jefferson, Thomas, 282, 284, 289.

Jews, exclusion from Quebec Assembly, 305-6.

Johnson, Colonel Guy, 98 n., 149-51.

Johnson, Sir John, 149, 152, 155, and n., 156, 242.

Johnson, Sir William, 24, 27, 28, 57, 58 and n., 59, 71, 97 and n., 102, 147, 149, 151.

Johnson’s Royal Greens, 152.

Judges, exclusion from Quebec Assembly, 305-6.

Justice, Administration of, 73, 77, 79, 92, 248, 265, 272.

Kalm, Peter, 30, 31 and n.

Kaskaskia, 187.

Kaskaskia river, 9, 187.

Kempt, Sir James, 309.

Kennebec river, 109.

King’s Mountain, 198.

Kingston, 9, 225, 232, 233, 242, 272.

Kirkland, Samuel, 148.

Labrador, 2, 3, 80, 81, 80-1 n.

Lachine, 120.

Lafayette, 184, 187, 199, 200, 250.

La Mothe Cadillac, 9.

Land Tenure, 59, 95, 243, 247, 267, 290, 291, 293.

Language Question, 248, 297.

La Prairie, 123.

La Salle, 8, 9.

La Tranche river. _See_ Thames.

Le Bœuf, Fort, 9, 11-12, 17, 20.

Le Canadien, 297, 305, 307, 311.

Lecky, Professor, 38, 48, 128.

Lee, General Charles, 132, 196.

Legislative Council. _See_ Council.

Levis, 114.

Levis, Point, 110, 113.

Lexington, 90, 101, 125.

Ligonier, Fort, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21.

Lincoln, Benjamin, 173 and n., 175, 197.

Liverpool, Lord, 310, 313, 315.

Liverpool Regiment, the 8th Regiment, 152, 153.

Livius, Peter, 140-4, 143 n., 194 and n., 195 and n., 237, 248, 255, 280.

Loftus, Major, 28.

Logs Town, 83.

London, Ontario, 275.

Long Sault Rapids, 2.

Loudoun, General, 126.

Loughborough, Lord, 215.

Louis XIV, 64, 230, 247.

Louisbourg, 41, 49, 50, 51, 52 n., 61, 117, 289.

Louisiana, 1, 10, 37, 50, 230, 282, 283, 302.

Loyalhannon, 19.

Loyalists, 36, 61, 106, 130, 135, 152, 169, 170, 171, 185, 191, 196, 197, 198, 208-35, 218 n., 236, 238 and n., 239, 242, 290, 292.

Loyalist Corps, 220-1, 273.

Lumber Trade, 308.

Luttrell, Captain, 237.

Lymburner, Adam, 243, 247, 262.

Macartney, Lord, 304.

Macdonells, the, 229, 230 and n.

Maclane, 289.

Maclean, Colonel, 108, 111, 188.

Madelaine Island, 3.

Madison, President, 319.

Mahan, Captain, 130.

Maine, 84, 209.

Maitland, Sir Peregrine, 278.

Marion, General, 227.

Masères, 79.

Massachusetts, 37, 52 n., 81, 85, 86, 188, 209, 221.

Maumee river, 9, 13, 16, 284, 286.

McCrae, Jane, 168.

Megantic, Lake, 109.

Melville, Lord. _See_ Dundas.

Miami, 9, 13, 16, 25, 281, 284, 286.

Michigan, Lake, 5, 9, 16.

Michigan Peninsula, 286.

Michillimackinac, Fort, 9, 13, 16, 25, 239.

Militia, Canadian, 114, 294-5, 303.

Miller, Fort, 175.

Milnes, Robert Shore, 292-6, 298, 316.

Mississaugas. _See_ Indians.

Mississippi, 1, 4, 5, 9, 27, 28, 32, 51, 80, 83, 84, 187, 302.

Mohawk river, 24, 145-58, 168, 169, 174.

Mohawks. _See_ Indians.

Molson, John, 308.

Monckton, General, 12.

Monmouth, Battle of, 196.

Monongahela river, 14.

Montcalm, 31 and n., 41, 42 n., 102, 147, 153.

Montgomery, Robert, 60, 106-13, 110 n., 114, 116-18, 118 n., 185.

Montreal, 11, 12, 17, 63, 65, 67, 70, 73, 80, 91, 97, 102, 105, 106-10, 119, 120, 122, 157, 189, 238, 239, 245, 247, 270, 276, 308.

Moreau, 300.

Morgan, Daniel, 113, 175, 198.

Morris, Captain, 25.

Morse, Colonel Robert, 223-4.

Mulgrave, Lord, 216.

Murray, General James, 4, 61 and n., 63-8, 67 n., 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 93, 100, 109, 114, 193, 296 n.

Muskingum river, 26.

Napoleon, 302, 308, 311, 317.

Native Question, 56-9.

Navigation Laws, 41, 47.

Navy Hall, 272.

Newark, 272, 275 and n.

New Brunswick, 80, 84, 209, 223, 224, 237, 238 n., 263, 264, 292.

New England, 24, 39, 40, 41, 43, 49, 50, 52 and n., 53, 56, 62, 81, 104, 166-7, 169, 174, 196, 197, 221, 223.

Newfoundland, 1, 3, 50, 69, 80, 81, 114.

New Hampshire, 101.

New Jersey, 59, 132, 186 n., 198, 200, 212, 213.

New Orleans, 1, 28, 282, 302.

Newport, 133, 200.

New York, 13, 24, 40, 50, 59, 63, 69, 90, 101, 129, 130, 132, 133, 174, 175, 181, 185, 186 n., 189, 191, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 221, 222, 223, 224, 229, 236.

New Zealand, 45, 57.

Niagara, Fort, 9, 11, 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 185, 239, 275 and n.

Niagara river, 9, 15, 24, 82, 225, 233, 272.

Nipissim or Nipissing, Lake, 2.

Non-intercourse Acts, 308.

Nootka Sound Convention, 261.

Norfolk, 221.

North, Lord, 83, 136, 139, 192, 193, 201, 215, 216, 217, 219, 226, 227.

North-west Company, 292.

Nova Scotia, 3, 80, 209, 219, 220 n., 223, 224, 236, 236-7 n., 238 n., 267, 292, 315.

Ogdensburg, 119, 239.

Ohio, 9, 13, 18, 20, 23, 24, 28, 41, 51, 58, 59, 80, 83, 84, 239, 281, 282, 283, 284, 286.

Ojibwas. _See_ Indians.

Oneida, 234.

Oneida County, 59.

Oneida, Lake, 147.

Oneidas. _See_ Indians.

Onondaga, 234, _and see_ Oswego.

Ontario, 3, 5, 6, 11, 223, 224, 229, 238, _and see_ Upper Canada.

Ontario, Lake, 5, 9, 11, 45, 80, 83, 146, 147, 185, 225, 233, 272.

Oriskany, 148, 155-7, 157 n.

Osgoode, Chief Justice, 280, 291, 296.

Oswald, Richard, 201, 202, 217, 227.

Oswegatchie. _See_ Ogdensburg.

Oswego, 24, 28, 146, 147, 153, 157, 158, 189, 239.

Ottawa river, 2, 3.

Ottawas. _See_ Indians.

Ouatanon, Fort, 9, 16, 28.

Ours or Ouse, River. _See_ Grand river.

Palliser, Sir Hugh, 80.

Panet, M., 305, 306.

Parents Creek, 17, 18.

Peace of Paris. _See_ Treaty.

Peel, Sir Robert, 310.

Penns, the, 83, 220.

Pennsylvania, 18, 19, 20, 26, 27, 53, 56, 57, 59, 83, 84, 85, 172, 186 and n., 218, 220, 222.

Penobscot river, 188.

Pepperell, Sir W., 62.

Pepperell, Sir W., 212.

Percival, 310, 313.

Philadelphia, 13, 20, 26, 95, 129-34, 146, 175, 195, 196, 200, 213, 222.

Phillips, General, 199.

Piquet, Abbé, 119.

Pitt, the elder, 32, 37, 51, 81, 89, 126, 128, 136 n., 183.

Pitt, the younger, 201, 220, 237, 244, 245, 248, 252, 261, 262, 267, 268, 273, 287.

Pittsburg, 9, 12, 17-22, 23, 26, 51, 59, 83.

Plattsburg, 123, 124.

Plymouth Settlement, 43.

Point au Fer, 162, 239.

Pointe aux Trembles, 110.

Point Levis. _See_ Levis, Point.

Pontiac, 10, 12, 14, 18, 23, 25, 27, 28, 99, 150, 151.

Pontiac’s War. _See_ Indians.

Portland, Duke of, 219, 231, 240 n., 278, 285, 286, 292.

Port Royal, 41, 50.

Powys, 242, 243.

Prescott, Robert, 286-92, 296, 303, 305.

Prés de Ville, 112.

Presque Isle, 9, 11, 16, 17, 20, 25, 83, 239.

Preston, Major, 107 and n., 108.

Prevost, Sir George, 196, 289 n. 309, 314, 319.

Prideaux, 147.

Prince Edward Island, 3, 80, 236-7 n., 292.

Proclamation of 1763, 1-8, 58, 66, 70, 79, 82, 83, 140.

Protestant Clergy, 265-7.

Protestants, 68, 74-8, 89, 95 n., 100, 229, &c.

Quebec, Province of, 1-4, 70, 79-82, 82 n., 84, 86, 88 n., 225, 236, 238, 241, 242, 245, 246-64, 270, &c.

Quebec, Town of, 3, 41, 52 n., 60, 63, 65, 67, 69, 90, 91, 92, 95, 97, 105, 106-19, 124, 131, 185, 236, 237, 238, 247, 267, 270, 287, 289, 308, &c.

Quebec Act of 1774, 8, 37, 60, 68-89, 87 n., 93, 95, 96, 98, 100, 103-6, 140, 141, 195, 240, 242, 243-4.

Quebec Revenue Act, 87 n., 269 n.

Quiberon Bay, 127, 230.

Quinté, Bay of, 225, 233, 235 n.

Raestown. _See_ Bedford.

Rahl, General, 133, 134.

Randolph, 282, 284.

Rawdon, Lord, 199.

Religion, 72, 74, 76-9, 86, 95 n., 248, 265-9, 294, 296-7, 310-11. _See also_ Protestants _and_ Roman Catholics.

Rhode Island, 133, 167, 196, 197, 198, 200.

Richelieu river, 71, 108, 114, 122, 123, 185, 224, 239.

Riedesel, Baron, 122, 162, 164, 167, 169, 176, 177.

Robertson, Colonel, 19.

Rockingham, Lord, 160, 201.

Rodney, Admiral, 127, 200, 201.

Rogers, Major Robert, 11-13, 11 n., 12 n., 13 n., 17, 18, 102.

Roman Catholics, 61, 72 and n., 74, 76-9, 85-9, 95 n., 265, 266, 294, 296, 311, 312, 314, 318.

Rosieres, Cape, 2.

Ross, Major, 188.

Roubaud, 31 n.

Rouillé, Fort. _See_ Toronto.

Royal American Regiment, 13, 20, 52 n.

Royal Highland Emigrants, 111.

Russell, Peter, 286-7.

Ryland, 309-14, 310 n.

Sabine, 227.

Sackville, Lord George. _See_ Germain.

Saguenay river, 2 and n.

St. Charles river, 110, 112.

St. Clair, General, 163, 281, 283.

St. Clair, Lake, 9, 14, 275.

St. Domingo, 273, 302.

St. Francis, Lake, 119, 225, 239.

St. Francis river, 185.

St. Jean _or_ St. John’s Island. _See_ Prince Edward Island.

St. John, Lake, 2.

St. John river, 2 and n., 3, 80, 223.

St. John’s, Fort, 102, 105, 106-8, 107 n., 122, 123, 124, 239.

St. Joseph, Fort, 16.

St. Lawrence, River and Gulf, 2, 5, 9, 11, 71, 80, 83, 84, 109, 119, 120, 122, 174, 185, 225, 239, 264, 270, 308.

St. Leger, Colonel, 138, 145, 146-58, 157 n., 168, 169, 172, 174, 187, 236 n.

St. Louis, Lake, 120, 239.

St. Luc de la Corne, 189.

St. Roch, 110, 112.

Saints, Battle of the, 201.

Sancoick Mill, 170, 174.

Sandusky, Fort, 9, 16, 25, 27.

Sandy Hook, 196.

Saratoga, 116, 131, 160, 168, 170, 180-4, 201, 304.

Sault au Matelot, 112.

Sault St. Marie, 25.

Saunders, Admiral, 127, 273.

Savannah, 196, 201, 222.

Savile, Sir George, 87.

Schenectady, 149.

Schuyler, Fort. _See_ Stanwix, Fort.

Schuyler, General Philip, 106, 107, 153, 174-5.

Secretary of State for American Department, 135, 240 n.

Senecas. _See_ Indians.

Seven Years’ War, 9, 41, 69, 99, 127, 207.

Shawanoes. _See_ Indians.

Shelburne, Lord, 74, 91, 94, 201, 214, 216, 217, 219, 220.

Shelburne, Township, 223-4.

Sherbrooke, Sir John, 188.

Sheridan, 216, 243, 244.

Simcoe, John Graves, 232 n., 234, 271-6, 273-4 n., 275 n., 284, 286-7.

Simcoe, Lake, 232 and n., 273, 274.

Six Nations. _See_ Indians.

Skenesborough, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 173.

Smith, Adam, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 51 n., 53, 107 n.

Smith, Chief Justice, William, 255-61, 276, 280.

Sorel, 108, 114, 185, 224.

Spain, 1, 2, 282, 283, 302.

Spanish America, 38, 39, 48.

Springfield, 185.

Stamp Act, 41, 54 and n., 55.

Stanwix, Fort, 59, 147, 152-8, 157 n., 169, 172, 174, 175.

Stanwix, Fort, Agreement. _See_ Treaty.

Stanwix, General, 18, 153.

Stark, John, 171.

Staten Island, 132.

Stillwater, 168, 170 n., 174.

Stopford, Major, 107, 108 n.

Stormont, Lord, 215.

Stuart, Colonel, 199.

Stuart, James, 316.

Suffolk, 95.

Sugar Hill, 163, 173.

Sullivan, General John, 187, 196.

Sulpician Seminary, 312, 314.

Sumter, General, 197.

Superior, Lake, 5.

Susquehanna, 59, 151, 185.

Sydney, Lord, 240 and n., 243, 245, 246.

Talon, 64, 71.

Tarleton, 197, 198.

Taxation, 41, 42, 267-9, 267-8 and n., 269 n.

Tea duty, 267-8.

Tecumseh, 150.

Telegraphs, 203-4.

Thames, 274, 275 and n.

Thayandenegea, 148. _See also under_ Brant.

Thompson, General, 122.

Thorpe, Judge, 296, 316.

Three Rivers, 63, 70, 73, 109, 110, 114, 119, 122, 189, 238, 305.

Ticonderoga, 51, 90, 101, 123, 124, 125, 138, 140, 161-6, 167, 169, 172, 173, 174, 185, 281.

Titles of honour, 251, 252.

Toronto, 11, 232, 274 and n., 275.

Toussaint L’Ouverture, 302.

Townshend, Thomas. _See_ Sydney.

Trade, Lords of, 3-6, 135, 195, &c.

Treaty, Aix la Chapelle, 49. Amiens, 301. Ashburton, 84. Fort Stanwix, 59, 151. Greenville, 286. Jay’s, 1794, 218, 285, 286. Paris, 1763, 1, 5, 10, 27, 30, 33, 66 n., 72 and n. Paris, 1778, 184 n. Secret, 1762, 1. Utrecht, 49, 50, 69. Versailles, 1783, 33, 201-2, 208-18, 239.

Trenton, 133, 134, 135, 138, 198, 213.

Trevelyan, Sir George, 46.

Tryon County, 117, 151, 154, 187.

Tuscarawa, 26.

Tuscaroras. _See_ Indians.

Tyendenaga, 233.

Unadilla river, 59.

Uniacke, 315.

United Empire Loyalists. _See_ Loyalists.

United States, 32, 33, 56, 59, 61, 84, 184, 188, 193, 204-18, 225, 226, 239, 263, 264, 265, 281-6, 300, 302, 318, &c.

Upper Canada. _See_ Canada, Upper.

Utrecht. _See_ Treaty.

Valcour Island, 123.

Vancouver, 261.

Vancouver Island, 261.

Vaudreuil, 120.

Venango, Fort, 9, 17, 20.

Vermont, 101, 185, 186 n, 191, 192, 239, 289.

Vincennes, Fort, 9, 28, 187.

Virginia and Virginians, 18, 20, 26, 27, 53, 59, 84, 85, 196, 198, 199, 200, 215, 220, 221.

Wabash river, 9, 16, 28, 187.

Walker, Admiral, 49.

Walker, Magistrate, 67, 97.

Walpole, Horace, 22 and n., 107 n., 115 and n., 116 and n., 124, 136, 137, 160 and n., 161, 165, 171-2 n., 180 n., 204 n.

Walsingham, 215.

Warner, Seth, 101.

Warren, Admiral, 50, 62.

Washington, George, 32, 62, 109, 127, 128, 132, 133, 134, 138, 139, 172, 184, 187, 196, 199, 200, 208, 212, 221, 282-5.

Wayne, Anthony, 283, 284, 286.

Wayne, Fort. _See_ Miami.

Webb, General Daniel, 126, 153.

Wedderburn, Solicitor-General, 88 n.

Western Territories, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86.

West Florida. _See_ Florida.

West Indies, 1, 127, 199, 200, 223, 289.

Wilberforce, 216.

Willcocks, 316.

Willett, Colonel, 153-7, 155 n., 157 n.

William Henry, Fort. _See_ George, Fort.

Williams, Fort, 153.

Wills Creek, 19.

Wilmington, 198.

Wilmot, John Eardley, 219, 220 n.

Windham, Township, 232.

Windham, William, 231.

Wolfe, 17, 24, 32, 52 and n., 68, 110, 114, 116, 125, 130, 183, 289.

Wood Creek, 58, 147, 153, 154, 164 n.

Wood Creek (Lake Champlain), 164 and n., 166.

Wyandots. _See_ Indians.

Wyatt, 316.

Wyoming, 185, 186 and n. 212.

Yonge, Sir George, 274.

Yonge Street, 232 n., 274.

York. _See_ Toronto.

York, Duke of, 274-5.

York river, 199.

Yorktown, 126, 183, 199, 200, 201, 217.

CLARENDON PRESS BOOKS

HISTORY

Greece, Italy, Egypt, etc.

Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici, from the LVIth to the CXXIIIrd Olympiad. Third edition. 4to. £1 14s. 6d. net. From the CXXIVth Olympiad to the Death of Augustus. Second edition. 4to. £1 12s. net. Epitome. 8vo. 6s. 6d. net.

Clinton’s Fasti Romani, from the death of Augustus to the death of Heraclius. Two volumes. 4to. £2 2s. net. Epitome. 8vo. 7s. net.

Greswell’s Fasti Temporis Catholici. 4 vols. 8vo. £2 10s. net. Tables and Introduction to Tables. 8vo. 15s. net. Origines Kalendariae Italicae. 4 vols. 8vo. £2 2s. net. Origines Kalendariae Hellenicae. 6 vols. 8vo. £4 4s. net.

A Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions. By E. L. HICKS. New edition, revised by G. F. HILL. 8vo. 10s. 6d. net.

Latin Historical Inscriptions, illustrating the history of the Early Empire. By G. M^CN. RUSHFORTH. 8vo. 10s. net.

Sources for Greek History between the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars. By G. F. HILL. 8vo. Reissue, revised. 10s. 6d. net.

Sources for Roman History, B.C. 133-70. By A. H. J. GREENIDGE and A. M. CLAY. Crown 8vo. 5s. 6d. net.

A Manual of Ancient History. By G. RAWLINSON. 2nd ed. 8vo. 14s.

Finlay’s History of Greece from its Conquest by the Romans (B.C. 146) to A.D. 1864. A new edition, revised, and in part re-written, with many additions, by the Author, and edited by H. F. TOZER. 7 vols. 8vo. 63s. net.

The History of Sicily from the earliest times. By E. A. FREEMAN. 8vo.

Vols. I and II. The Native Nations: The Phoenician and Greek Settlements to the beginning of Athenian Intervention. £2 2s. net.

Vol. III. The Athenian and Carthaginian Invasions. £1 4s. net.

Vol. IV. From the Tyranny of Dionysios to the Death of Agathoklês. Edited from posthumous MSS, by A. J. EVANS. £1 1s. net.

Italy and her Invaders (A.D. 376-814). With plates and maps. Eight volumes. 8vo. By T. HODGKIN. Vols. I-IV in the second edition.

I-II. The Visigothic, Hunnish, and Vandal Invasions, and the Herulian Mutiny. £2 2s.

III-IV. The Ostrogothic Invasion. The Imperial Restoration. £1 16s.

V-VI. The Lombard Invasion, and the Lombard Kingdom. £1 16s.

VII-VIII. Frankish Invasions, and the Frankish Empire. £1 4s.

The Dynasty of Theodosius; or, Seventy Years’ Struggle with the Barbarians. By the same author. Crown 8vo. 6s.

Aetolia; its Geography, Topography, and Antiquities. By W. J. WOODHOUSE. With maps and illustrations. Royal 8vo. £1 1s. net.

The Islands of the Aegean. By H. F. TOZER. Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d.

Dalmatia, the Quarnero, and Istria; with Cettigne and Grado. By T. G. JACKSON. Three volumes. With plates and illustrations. 8vo. 31s. 6d. net.

Cramer’s Description of Asia Minor. Two volumes. 8vo. 11s. Description of Ancient Greece. 3 vols. 8vo. 16s. 6d.

The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia. By W. M. RAMSAY. Royal 8vo. Vol. I, Part I. The Lycos Valley and South-Western Phrygia. 18s. net. Vol. I, Par. II. West and West Central Phrygia. £1 1s. net.

Stories of the High Priests of Memphis, the Sethon of Herodotus, and the Demotic Tales of Khamnas. By F. LL. GRIFFITH. With Portfolio containing seven facsimiles. Royal 8vo. £2 7s. 6d. net.

The Arab Conquest of Egypt. By A. J. BUTLER. With maps and plans. 8vo. 16s. net.

Baghdad during the Abbasid Caliphate, from contemporary sources. By G. LE STRANGE. With eight plans. 8vo. 16s. net.

Archaeology

Ancient Khotan. Detailed report of Archaeological explorations in Chinese Turkestan carried out and described under the orders of H.M. Indian Government by M. AUREL STEIN. Vol. I. Text, with descriptive list of antiques, seventy-two illustrations in the text, and appendices. Vol. II. One hundred and nineteen collotype and other illustrations and a map. 2 vols. 4to. £5 5s. net.

Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, including the Cabinet of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. (Published for the Trustees of the Indian Museum.) Royal 8vo, with numerous collotype plates. Vol. I, by V. A. SMITH, 30s. net; or Part I (Early Foreign Dynasties and Guptas), 15s. net, Part II (Ancient Coins of Indian Types), 6s. net, Part III (Persian, Mediaeval, South Indian, Miscellaneous), 10s. 6d. net. Vol. II, by H. N. WRIGHT (the first section of Part II by Sir J. BOURDILLON), 30s. net (Sultáns of Delhi, Contemporary Dynasties in India). Vol. III, by H. N. WRIGHT, 40s. net (Mughal Emperors).

Ancient Coptic Churches of Egypt. By A. J. BUTLER. 2 vols. 8vo. 30s.

A Catalogue of the Cyprus Museum. By J. L. MYRES and MAX OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER. 8vo. With eight plates, 7s. 6d. net.

A Catalogue of the Sparta Museum. By M. N. TOD and A. J. B. WACE. 8vo. 10s. 6d. net.

Catalogue of the Greek Vases in the Ashmolean Museum. By P. GARDNER. Small folio, linen, with 26 plates. £3 3s. net.

The Cults of the Greek States. By L. R. FARNELL. 8vo. Vols. I and II, with 61 plates and over 100 illustrations. £1 12s. net. Vols. III and IV, with 86 plates. £1 12s. net.

Classical Archaeology in Schools. By P. GARDNER and J. L. MYRES. 8vo. Second edition. Paper covers, 1s. net.

Introduction to Greek Sculpture. By L. E. UPCOTT. Second edition. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d.

Marmora Oxoniensia, inscriptiones Graecae ad Chandleri exempla editae, cur. GUL. ROBERTS, 1791. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.

De Antiquis Marmoribus, Blasii Caryophili. 1828. 7s. 6d.

Fragmenta Herculanensia. A Catalogue of the Oxford copies of the Herculanean Rolls, with texts of several papyri. By W. SCOTT. Royal 8vo. £1 1s.

Thirty-six Engravings of Texts and Alphabets from the Herculanean Fragments. Folio. Small paper, 10s. 6d., large paper, £1 1s.

Herculanensium Voluminum Partes II, 1824, 8vo. 10s.

English History: Sources

Baedae Opera Historica, edited by C. PLUMMER. Two volumes. Crown 8vo, leather back. £1 1s. net.

Asser’s Life of Alfred, with the Annals of St. Neot, edited by W. H. STEVENSON. Crown 8vo. 12s. net.

The Alfred Jewel, an historical essay. With illustrations and a map, by J. EARLE. Small 4to, buckram. 12s. 6d. net.

Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel; with supplementary extracts from the others. A Revised Text, edited, with introduction, notes, appendices, and glossary, by C. PLUMMER and J. EARLE. Two volumes. Crown 8vo, leather back. Vol. I. Text, appendices, and glossary. 10s. 6d. Vol. II. Introduction, notes, and index. 12s. 6d.

The Saxon Chronicles (787-1001 A. D.). Crown 8vo, stiff covers. 3s.

Handbook to the Land-Charters, and other Saxonic Documents, by J. EARLE. Crown 8vo. 16s.

The Crawford Collection of early Charters and Documents, now in the Bodleian Library. Edited by A. S. NAPIER and W. H. STEVENSON. Small 4to, cloth. 12s.

The Chronicle of John of Worcester, 1118-1140. Edited by J. R. H. WEAVER. Crown 4to. 7s. 6d. net.

Dialogus de Scaccario. Edited by A. HUGHES, C. G. CRUMP, and C. JOHNSON, with introduction and notes. 8vo. 12s. 6d. net.

Passio et Miracula Beati Olaui. Edited from the Twelfth-century MS by F. METCALFE. Small 4to. 6s.

The Song of Lewes. Edited from the MS, with introduction and notes, by C. L. KINGSFORD. Extra fcap 8vo. 5s.

Chronicon Galfridi le Baker de Swynebroke, edited by Sir E. MAUNDE THOMPSON, K.C.B. Small 4to, 18s.; cloth, gilt top, £1 1s.

Chronicles of London. Edited, with introduction and notes, by C. L. KINGSFORD. 8vo. 10s. 6d. net.

Gascoigne’s Theological Dictionary (‘Liber Veritatum’): selected passages, illustrating the condition of Church and State, 1403-1458. With an introduction by J. E. THOROLD ROGERS. Small 4to. 10s. 6d.

Fortescue’s Governance of England. A revised text, edited, with introduction, etc., by C. PLUMMER. 8vo, leather back. 12s. 6d.

Stow’s Survey of London. Edited by C. L. KINGSFORD. 8vo, 2 vols., with a folding map of London in 1600 (by H. W. CRIBB) and other illustrations. 30s. net.

The Protests of the Lords, from 1624 to 1874; with introductions. By J. E. THOROLD ROGERS. In three volumes. 8vo. £2 2s.

The Clarendon Press Series of Charters, Statutes, etc.

From the earliest times to 1307. By Bishop STUBBS.

Select Charters and other illustrations of English Constitutional History. Eighth edition. Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d.

From 1558 to 1625.

Select Statutes and other Constitutional Documents of the Reigns of Elizabeth and James I. Third edition. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.

From 1625 to 1660. By S. R. GARDINER.

The Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution. Third edition. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.

Calendars, etc.

Calendar of Charters and Rolls preserved in the Bodleian Library. 8vo. £1 11s. 6d.

Calendar of the Clarendon State Papers preserved in the Bodleian Library. In three volumes. 1869-76.

Vol. I. From 1523 to January 1649. 8vo. 18s. Vol. II. From 1649 to 1654. 8vo. 16s. Vol. III. From 1655 to 1657. 8vo. 14s.

* * * * *

Hakluyt’s Principal Navigations, being narratives of the Voyages of the Elizabethan Seamen to America. Selection edited by E. J. PAYNE. Crown 8vo, with portraits. Second edition. Two volumes. 5s. each.

Also abridged, in one volume, with additional notes, maps, &c., by C. RAYMOND BEAZLEY. Crown 8vo, with illustrations. 4s. 6d. Also, separately, ‘The Voyages of Hawkins, Frobisher, and Drake.’ 2s. 6d.

Aubrey’s ‘Brief Lives,’ set down between the Years 1669 and 1696. Edited from the Author’s MSS by A. CLARK. Two volumes. 8vo. £1 5s.

Whitelock’s Memorials of English Affairs from 1625 to 1660. 4 vols. 8vo. £1 10s.

Ludlow’s Memoirs, 1625-1672. Edited, with Appendices of Letters and illustrative documents, by C. H. FIRTH. Two volumes. 8vo. £1 16s.

Luttrell’s Diary. A brief Historical Relation of State Affairs, 1678-1714. Six volumes. 8vo. £1 10s. net.

Burnet’s History of James II. 8vo. 9s. 6d.

Life of Sir M. Hale, with Fell’s Life of Dr. Hammond. Small 8vo. 2s. 6d.

Memoirs of James and William, Dukes of Hamilton. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Burnet’s History of My Own Time. A new edition based on that of M. J. ROUTH. Edited by OSMUND AIRY. Vol. I. 12s. 6d. net. Vol. II. (Completing Charles the Second, with Index to Vols. I and II.) 12s. 6d. net.

Supplement, derived from Burnet’s Memoirs, Autobiography, etc., all hitherto unpublished. Edited by H. C. FOXCROFT, 1902. 8vo. 16s. net.

The Whitefoord Papers, 1739 to 1810. Ed. by W. A. S. HEWINS. 8vo. 12s. 6d.

History of Oxford

A complete list of the Publications of the Oxford Historical Society can be obtained from Mr. Frowde.

Manuscript Materials relating to the History of Oxford; contained in the printed catalogues of the Bodleian and College Libraries. By F. MADAN. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

The Early Oxford Press. A Bibliography of Printing and Publishing at Oxford, ‘1468’-1640. With notes, appendices, and illustrations. By F. MADAN. 8vo. 18s.

Bibliography

Cotton’s Typographical Gazetteer. First Series. 8vo. 12s. 6d.

Ebert’s Bibliographical Dictionary. 4 vols. 8vo. £3 3s. net.

Bishop Stubbs’s and Professor Freeman’s Books

The Constitutional History of England, in its Origin and Development. By W. STUBBS. Library edition. Three volumes. Demy 8vo. £2 8s. Also in three volumes, crown 8vo, price 12s. each.

Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Mediaeval and Modern History and kindred subjects, 1867-1884. By the same. Third edition, revised and enlarged, 1900. Crown 8vo, half-roan. 8s. 6d.

History of the Norman Conquest of England; its Causes and Results. By E. A. FREEMAN. Vols. I, II and V (English edition) are out of print.

Vols. III and IV. £1 1s. each. Vol. VI (Index). 10s. 6d.

A Short History of the Norman Conquest of England. Third edition. By the same. Extra fcap 8vo. 2s. 6d.

The Reign of William Rufus and the Accession of Henry the First. By the same. Two volumes. 8vo. £1 16s.

Special Periods and Biographies

Ancient Britain and the Invasions of Julius Caesar. By T. RICE HOLMES. 8vo. 21s. net.

Life and Times of Alfred the Great, being the Ford Lectures for 1901. By C. PLUMMER. 8vo. 5s. net.

The Domesday Boroughs. By ADOLPHUS BALLARD. 8vo. 6s. 6d. net.

Villainage in England. Essays in English Mediaeval History. By P. VINOGRADOFF. 8vo. 16s. net.

English Society in the Eleventh Century. Essays in English Mediaeval History. By P. VINOGRADOFF. 8vo. 16s. net.

The Gild Merchant: a contribution to British municipal history. By C. GROSS. Two volumes. 8vo, leather back, £1 4s.

The Welsh Wars of Edward I; a contribution to mediaeval military history. By J. E. MORRIS. 8vo. 9s. 6d. net.

The Great Revolt of 1381. By C. OMAN. With two maps. 8vo. 8s. 6d. net.

Lancaster and York. (A.D. 1399-1485.) By Sir J. H. RAMSAY. Two volumes. 8vo, with Index, £1 17s. 6d. Index separately, 1s. 6d.

Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell. By R. B. MERRIMAN. In two volumes. [Vol. I, Life and Letters, 1523-1535, etc. Vol. II, Letters, 1536-1540, notes, index, etc.] 8vo. 18s. net.

A History of England, principally in the Seventeenth Century. By L. VON RANKE. Translated under the superintendence of G. W. KITCHIN and C. W. BOASE. Six volumes. 8vo, £3 3s. net. Index separately, 1s.

Sir Walter Ralegh, a Biography, by W. STEBBING. Post 8vo. 6s. net.

Biographical Memoir of Dr. William Markham, Archbishop of York, by Sir CLEMENTS MARKHAM, K.C.B. 8vo. 5s. net.

The Life and Works of John Arbuthnot. By G. A. AITKEN. 8vo, cloth extra, with Portrait. 16s.

Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton. By L. PEARSALL-SMITH. 8vo. Two volumes. 25s. net.

Great Britain and Hanover. By A. W. WARD. Crown 8vo. 5s.

History of the Peninsular War. By C. OMAN. To be completed in six volumes, 8vo, with many maps, plans, and portraits.

Already published: Vol. I. 1807-1809, to Corunna. Vol. II. 1809, to Talavera. Vol. III. 1809-10, to Torres Vedras. 14s. net each.

Anglo-Chinese Commerce and Diplomacy: mainly in the nineteenth century. By A. J. SARGENT. 12s. 6d. net.

Frederick York Powell. A Life and a selection from his Letters and Occasional Writings. By OLIVER ELTON. Two volumes. 8vo. With photogravure portraits, facsimiles, etc. 21s. net.

David Binning Monro: a Short Memoir. By J. COOK WILSON. 8vo, stiff boards, with portrait. 2s. net.

F. W. Maitland. Two lectures by A. L. SMITH. 8vo. 2s. 6d. net.

School Books

Companion to English History (Middle Ages). Edited by F. P. BARNARD. With 97 illustrations. Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d. net.

School History of England to the death of Victoria. With maps, plans, etc. By O. M. EDWARDS, R. S. RAIT, and others. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d.

Oxford School Histories

Crown 8vo, with many illustrations, each 1s. 6d. net.

Berkshire, by E. A. G. LAMBORN.

Oxfordshire, by H. A. LIDDELL.

Others in preparation.

Also, for junior pupils, illustrated, each 1s.

Stories from the History of Berkshire. By E. A. G. LAMBORN.

Stories from the History of Oxfordshire. By JOHN IRVING.

History and Geography of America and the British Colonies

For other Geographical books, see page 12.

History of the New World called America. By E. J. PAYNE. Vol. I. 8vo. 18s. Bk. I. The Discovery. Bk. II, Part I. Aboriginal America. Vol. II. 8vo. 14s. Bk. II, Part II. Aboriginal America (concluded).

The Canadian War of 1812. By Sir C. P. LUCAS, K.C.M.G. 8vo. With eight maps. 12s. 6d. net.

Historical Geography of the British Colonies. By Sir C. P. LUCAS, K.C.M.G. Crown 8vo.

Introduction. New edition by H. E. EGERTON. 1903. (Origin and growth of the Colonies.) With eight maps. 3s. 6d. In cheaper binding, 2s. 6d.

Vol. I. The Mediterranean and Eastern Colonies. With 13 maps. Second edition, revised and brought up to date, by R. E. STUBBS. 1906. 5s.

Vol. II. The West Indian Colonies. With twelve maps. Second edition, revised and brought up to date, by C. ATCHLEY, I.S.O. 1905. 7s. 6d.

Vol. III. West Africa. Second Edition. Revised to the end of 1899 by H. E. EGERTON. With five maps. 7s. 6d.

Vol. IV. South and East Africa. Historical and Geographical. With eleven maps. 9s. 6d.

Also Part I. Historical. 1898. 6s. 6d. Part II. 1903. Geographical. 3s. 6d.

Vol. V. Canada, Part I. 1901. 6s. Part II, by H. E. EGERTON. 4s. 6d. Part III (Geographical) in preparation.

Vol. VI. Australasia. By J. D. ROGERS. 1907. With 22 maps. 7s. 6d. Also Part I, Historical, 4s. 6d. Part II, Geographical, 3s. 6d.

History of the Dominion of Canada. By W. P. GRESWELL. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Geography of the Dominion of Canada and Newfoundland. By the same author. With ten maps. 1891. Crown 8vo. 6s.

Geography of Africa South of the Zambesi. With maps. 1892. By the same author. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

The Claims of the Study of Colonial History upon the attention of the University of Oxford. An inaugural lecture delivered on April 28, 1906, by H. E. EGERTON. 8vo, paper covers, 1s. net.

Historical Atlas. Europe and her Colonies, 27 maps. 35s. net.

Cornewall-Lewis’s Essay on the Government of Dependencies. Edited by Sir C. P. LUCAS, K.C.M.G. 8vo, quarter-bound, 14s.

Rulers of India

Edited by Sir W. W. HUNTER. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. each.

Asoka. By V. A. SMITH. Bábar. By S. LANE-POOLE. Albuquerque. By H. MORSE STEPHENS. Akbar. By Colonel MALLESON. Aurangzíb. By S. LANE-POOLE. Dupleix. By Colonel MALLESON. Lord Clive. By Colonel MALLESON. Warren Hastings. By Captain L. J. TROTTER. Mádhava Ráo Sindhia. By H. G. KEENE. The Marquis of Cornwallis. By W. S. SETON-KARR. Haidar Alí and Tipú Sultán. By L. B. BOWRING. The Marquis Wellesley, K.G. By W. H. HUTTON. Marquess of Hastings. By Major ROSS-OF-BLADENSBURG. Mountstuart Elphinstone. By J. S. COTTON. Sir Thomas Munro. By J. BRADSHAW. Earl Amherst. By ANNE T. RITCHIE and R. EVANS. Lord William Bentinck. By D. C. BOULGER. The Earl of Auckland. By Captain L. J. TROTTER. Viscount Hardinge. By his son, Viscount HARDINGE. Ranjit Singh. By Sir L. GRIFFIN. The Marquess of Dalhousie. By Sir W. W. HUNTER. James Thomason. By Sir R. TEMPLE. John Russell Colvin. By Sir A. COLVIN. Sir Henry Lawrence, the Pacificator. By Lieut.-General J. J. M^CLEOD INNES. Clyde and Strathnairn. By Major-General Sir O. T. BURNE. Earl Canning. By Sir H. S. CUNNINGHAM. Lord Lawrence. By Sir C. AITCHISON. The Earl of Mayo. By Sir W. W. HUNTER.

Sketches of Rulers of India. Abridged from the _Rulers of India_ by G. D. OSWELL. (In the press.)

The Imperial Gazetteer of India. New edition. To be completed in twenty-six volumes. 8vo. Subscription price, cloth, £5 net; morocco back, £6 6s. net. The four volumes of ‘The Indian Empire’ separately 6s. net each, in cloth, or 7s. 6d. net with morocco back; the Atlas separately 15s. net in cloth, or 17s. 6d. net with morocco back. Subscriptions may be sent through any bookseller.

Vol. I. Descriptive. Vol. II. Historical. Vol. III. Economic. Vol. IV. Administrative. Vol. V-XXIV. Alphabetical Gazetteer. Vol. XXV. Index. (In the press.) Vol. XXVI. Atlas. (In preparation.)

Each volume contains a map of India specially prepared for this Edition.

Reprints from the Imperial Gazetteer.

A sketch of the Flora of British India. By Sir JOSEPH HOOKER. 8vo. Paper covers. 1s. net.

The Indian Army. A sketch of its History and Organization. 8vo. Paper covers. 1s. net.

A Brief History of the Indian Peoples. By Sir W. W. HUNTER. Revised up to 1903 by W. H. HUTTON. Eighty-ninth thousand. 3s. 6d.

The Government of India, being a digest of the Statute Law relating thereto; with historical introduction and illustrative documents. By Sir C. P. ILBERT. Second edition, 1907. 10s. 6d. net.

The Early History of India from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the invasion of Alexander the Great. By V. A. SMITH. 8vo. With maps, plans, and other illustrations. Second edition, revised and enlarged. 14s. net.

The Oxford Student’s History of India. By V. A. SMITH. Crown 8vo. With 7 maps and 10 other illustrations. 2s. 6d.

The English Factories in India. By W. FOSTER. 8vo. (Published under the patronage of His Majesty’s Secretary of State for India in Council.)

Vol. I. 1618-1621. 12s. 6d. n. Vol. II. 1622-1623. 12s. 6d. n.

(The six previous volumes of Letters received by the East India Company from its Servants in the East (1602-1617) may also be obtained, price 15s. each volume.)

Court Minutes of the East India Company, 1635-1639. By E. B. SAINSBURY. Introduction by W. FOSTER. 8vo. 12s. 6d. net.

The Court Minutes of the Company previous to 1635 have been calendared in the Calendars of State Papers, East Indies, published by the Public Record Office.

Wellesley’s Despatches, Treaties, and other Papers relating to his Government of India. Selection edited by S. J. OWEN. 8vo. £1 4s.

Wellington’s Despatches, Treaties, and other Papers relating to India. Selection edited by S. J. OWEN. 8vo. £1 4s.

Hastings and the Rohilla War. By Sir J. STRACHEY. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

European History

Historical Atlas of Modern Europe, from the Decline of the Roman Empire. 90 maps, with letterpress to each: the maps printed by W. & A. K. JOHNSTON, Ltd., and the whole edited by R. L. POOLE.

In one volume, imperial 4to, half-persian, £5 15s. 6d. net; or in selected sets--British Empire, etc., at various prices from 30s. to 35s. net each; or in single maps, 1s. 6d. net each. Prospectus on application.

Genealogical Tables illustrative of Modern History. By H. B. GEORGE. Fourth (1904) edition. Oblong 4to, boards. 7s. 6d.

The Life and Times of James the First of Aragon. By F. D. SWIFT. 8vo. 12s. 6d.

The Renaissance and the Reformation. A textbook of European History, 1494-1610. By E. M. TANNER. Crown 8vo, with 8 maps. 3s. 6d.

A History of France, with numerous maps, plans, and tables, by G. W. KITCHIN. Crown 8vo; Vol. I (to 1453), revised by F. F. URQUHART; Vols. II (1624), III (1795), revised by A. HASSALL. 10s. 6d. each volume.

De Tocqueville’s L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution. Edited, with introductions and notes, by G. W. HEADLAM. Crown 8vo. 6s.

The Principal Speeches of the Statesmen and Orators of the French Revolution, 1789-1795. Ed. H. MORSE STEPHENS. Two vols. Crown 8vo. £1 1s.

Documents of the French Revolution, 1789-1791. By L. G. WICKHAM LEGG. Crown 8vo. Two volumes. 12s. net.

Napoleonic Statesmanship: Germany. By H. A. L. FISHER. 8vo, with maps. 12s. 6d. net.

Bonapartism. Six lectures by H. A. L. FISHER. 8vo. 3s. 6d. net.

Thiers’ Moscow Expedition, edited by H. B. GEORGE. Cr. 8vo. 6 maps. 5s.

Great Britain and Hanover. By A. W. WARD. Crown 8vo. 5s.

History of the Peninsular War. By C. OMAN. To be completed in six volumes, 8vo, with many maps, plans, and portraits.

Already published: Vol. I. 1807-1809, to Corunna. Vol. II. 1809, to Talavera. Vol. III. 1809-10, to Torres Vedras. 14s. net each.

School Geographies

Relations of Geography and History. By H. B. GEORGE. With two maps. Crown 8vo. Third edition. 4s. 6d.

Geography for Schools, by A. HUGHES. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.

The Oxford Geographies. By A. J. HERBERTSON. Crown 8vo.

Vol. I. The Preliminary Geography, Ed. 2, 72 maps and diagrams, 1s. 6d.

Vol. II. The Junior Geography, Ed. 2, 166 maps and diagrams, 2s.

Vol. III. The Senior Geography, Ed. 2, 117 maps and diagrams, 2s. 6d.

Practical Geography. By J. F. UNSTEAD. Crown 8vo. Part I, 27 maps and diagrams. 1s. 6d.

Geography and Anthropology

The Dawn of Modern Geography. By C. R. BEAZLEY. In three volumes. £2 10s. Vol. I (to A.D. 900). Not sold separately. Vol. II (A.D. 900-1260). 15s. net. Vol. III. 20s. net.

Regions of the World. Geographical Memoirs under the general editorship of H. J. MACKINDER. Large 8vo. Each volume contains maps and diagrams. 7s. 6d. net per volume.

Britain and the British Seas. Second edition. By H. J. MACKINDER.

Central Europe. By JOHN PARTSCH.

The Nearer East. By D. G. HOGARTH.

North America. By J. RUSSELL.

India. By Sir THOMAS HOLDICH.

The Far East. By ARCHIBALD LITTLE.

Frontiers: the Romanes Lecture for 1907. By Lord CURZON OF KEDLESTON. 8vo. 2s. net.

The Face of the Earth (Das Antlitz der Erde). By EDUARD SUESS. Translated by HERTHA SOLLAS.

Anthropological Essays presented to EDWARD BURNETT TYLOR in honour of his seventy-fifth birthday; by H. BALFOUR, A. E. CRAWLEY, D. J. CUNNINGHAM, L. R. FARNELL, J. G. FRAZER, A. C. HADDON, E. S. HARTLAND, A. LANG, R. R. MARETT, C. S. MYERS, J. L. MYRES, C. H. READ, Sir J. RHŶS, W. RIDGEWAY, W. H. R. RIVERS, C. G. SELIGMANN, T. A. JOYCE, N. W. THOMAS, A. THOMSON, E. WESTERMARCK; with a bibliography by BARBARA W. FREIRE-MARRECO. Imperial 8vo. 21s. net.

The Evolution of Culture, and other Essays, by the late Lieut.-Gen. A. LANE-FOX PITT-RIVERS; edited by J. L. MYRES, with an Introduction by H. BALFOUR. 8vo, with 21 plates, 7s. 6d. net.

Folk-Memory. By WALTER JOHNSON. 8vo. Illustrated.

Celtic Folklore: Welsh and Manx. By J. RHŶS. 2 vols. 8vo. £1 1s.

Studies in the Arthurian Legend. By J. RHŶS. 8vo. 12s. 6d.

Iceland and the Faroes. By N. ANNANDALE. With an appendix on the Celtic Pony, by F. H. A. MARSHALL. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d. net.

Dubois’ Hindu Manners, Customs, and Ceremonies. Translated and edited with notes, corrections, and biography, by H. K. BEAUCHAMP. Third edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. net. On India Paper, 7s. 6d. net.

The Melanesians, studies in their Anthropology and Folk-Lore. By R. H. CODRINGTON. 8vo. 16s. net.

The Masai, their Language and Folk-lore. By A. C. HOLLIS. With introduction by Sir CHARLES ELIOT. 8vo. Illustrated. 14s. net.

The Nandi, their Language and Folk-lore. By A. C. Hollis. With introduction by Sir CHARLES ELIOT. 8vo. Illustrated. [In the press.

The Ancient Races of the Thebaid: an anthropometrical study. By ARTHUR THOMSON and D. RANDALL-MACIVER. Imperial 4to, with 6 collotypes, 6 lithographic charts, and many other illustrations. 42s. net.

The Earliest Inhabitants of Abydos. (A craniological study.) By D. RANDALL-MACIVER. Portfolio. 10s. 6d. net.

LAW

Jurisprudence

Bentham’s Fragment on Government. Edited by F. C. MONTAGUE. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Bentham’s Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Second edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d.

Studies in History and Jurisprudence. By the Right Hon. JAMES BRYCE. 1901. Two volumes. 8vo. £1 5s. net.

The Elements of Jurisprudence. By T. E. HOLLAND. Tenth edition. 1906. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

Elements of Law, considered with reference to Principles of General Jurisprudence. By Sir W. MARKBY, K.C.I.E. Sixth edition revised. 1905. 8vo. 12s. 6d.

Roman Law

Imperatoris Iustiniani Institutionum Libri Quattuor; with introductions, commentary, and translation, by J. B. MOYLE. Two volumes. 8vo. Vol. I (fourth edition, 1903), 16s.; Vol. II, Translation (fourth edition, 1906), 6s.

The Institutes of Justinian, edited as a recension of the Institutes of Gaius. By T. E. HOLLAND. Second edition. Extra fcap 8vo. 5s.

Select Titles from the Digest of Justinian. By T. E. HOLLAND and C. L. SHADWELL. 8vo. 14s.

Also, sold in parts, in paper covers: Part I. Introductory Titles. 2s. 6d. Part II. Family Law. 1s. Part III. Property Law. 2s. 6d. Part IV. Law of Obligations. No. 1. 3s. 6d. No. 2. 4s. 6d.

Gai Institutionum Iuris Civilis Commentarii Quattuor: with a translation and commentary by the late E. POSTE. Fourth edition. Revised and enlarged by E. A. WHITTUCK, with an historical introduction by A. H. J. GREENIDGE. 8vo. 16s. net.

Institutes of Roman Law, by R. SOHM. Translated by J. C. LEDLIE: with an introductory essay by E. GRUEBER. Third edition. 8vo. 16s. net.

Infamia; its place in Roman Public and Private Law. By A. H. J. GREENIDGE. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

Legal Procedure in Cicero’s Time. By A. H. J. GREENIDGE. 8vo. 25s. net.

The Roman Law of Damage to Property: being a commentary on the title of the Digest ‘Ad Legem Aquiliam’ (ix. 2), with an introduction to the study of the Corpus Iuris Civilis. By E. GRUEBER. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

Contract of Sale in the Civil Law. By J. B. MOYLE. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

* * * * *

The Principles of German Civil Law. By ERNEST J. SCHUSTER. 8vo. 12s. 6d. net.

English Law

Principles of the English Law of Contract, and of Agency in its relation to Contract. By Sir W. R. ANSON. Eleventh edition. 1906. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

Law and Custom of the Constitution. By the same. In two volumes. 8vo.

Vol. I. Parliament. (Out of print. New edition in preparation.)

Vol. II. The Crown. Third edition. Part I, 10s. 6d. net.