Chapter 56

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE DISCUSSED.

The foregoing chapters bear ample testimony how heartily I have sympathized with our elder brother colonists of America, in their conception and manly advocacy and defence of their constitutional rights as British subjects; how faithfully I have narrated their wrongs and advocated their rights, and how utterly I have abhorred the despotic conduct of George the Third, and of his corrupt Ministers and mercenary and corrupted Parliament, in their unscrupulous efforts to wrest from the American colonists the attributes and privileges of British freemen, and to convert their lands, with their harbours and commerce, into mere plantations and instruments to enrich the manufacturers and merchants of England, and provide places of honour and emolument for the scions and protegees of the British aristocracy and Parliament. But I cannot sympathize with, much less defend, the leaders of the old American colonists in the repudiating what they had professed from their forefathers; in avowing what they had for many years denied; in making their confiding and distinguished defenders in the British Parliament--the Chathams, Camdens, Sherburnes, the Foxes, Burkes, and Cavendishes--liars in presence of all Europe; in deliberately practising upon their fellow-colonists what they had so loudly complained of against the King and Parliament of Great Britain; in seeking the alliance of a Power which had sought to destroy them for a hundred years, against the land of their forefathers which had protected them during that hundred years, and whose Administration had wronged and sought to oppress them for only twelve years.

After many years of anxious study and reflection, I have a strong conviction that the Declaration of American Independence, in 1776, was a great mistake in itself, a great calamity to America as well as to England, a great injustice to many thousands on both sides of the Atlantic, a great loss of human life, a great blow to the real liberties of mankind, and a great impediment to the highest Christian and Anglo-Saxon civilization among the nations of the world.

In this summary statement of opinion--so contrary to the sentiments of American historians and to popular feeling in the United States--I mean no reflection on the motives, character, patriotism, and abilities of those great men who advocated and secured the adoption of the Declaration of Independence in the General Congress of 1776. I believe America has never produced a race of statesmen equal in purity of character, in comprehensiveness of views, in noble patriotism and moral courage, to "the Fathers of the American Revolution." Their discussions of public questions, during the eleven years which preceded the Declaration of Independence, evince a clearness of discernment, an accuracy of statement, a niceness of distinction, a thorough knowledge of the principles of government, and the mutual relation of colonies and the parent State, elegance of diction, and force of argument, not surpassed in discussions of the kind in any age or country; their diplomatic correspondence displays great superiority in every respect over the English statesmen of the day, who sought to oppress them; the correspondence of Washington with General Gage commanded alike the admiration of Europe and the gratitude of America; the memorials and other public papers transmitted to England by the American Congress, and written by Jay and other members, drew forth from the Earl of Chatham, in the House of Lords, January 20th, 1775, the following eulogy: "When your lordships look at the papers transmitted to us from America--when you consider their decency, firmness, and wisdom, you cannot but respect their cause, and wish to make it your own. For myself, I must avow that in all my reading--and I have read Thucydides, and have studied and admired the master States of the world--for solidity of reason, force of sagacity, and wisdom of conclusion under a complication of difficult circumstances, no nation or body of men can stand in preference to the General Congress at Philadelphia. The histories of Greece and Rome give us nothing equal to it, and all attempts to impose servitude upon such a mighty continental nation must be vain."

"We shall be forced ultimately to retract; let us retract while we can, not when we must. These violent Acts must be repealed; you will repeal them; I pledge myself for it, I stake my reputation on it, that you will in the end repeal them."

(Those violent Acts were repealed three years afterwards.)

When the Earl of Shelburne read the reply, written by Jefferson, of the Virginia Legislature, to Lord North's proposition, his Lordship said: "In my life, I was never more pleased with a State paper than with the Assembly of Virginia's discussion of Lord North's proposition. It is masterly. But what I fear is that the evil is irretrievable."

Among the statesmanlike productions of that period, the correspondence of Franklin, the masterly letters of Dickenson, the letters and State papers of Samuel and John Adams, Jay and Livingstone, and of many others, exhibit a scholarly race of statesmen and writers of whom any nation or age might be proud.

But it must not be forgotten that the education of every one of these great men, and their training in public affairs, was under English constitutional government, for which every one of them (except Samuel Adams) expressed their unqualified admiration, and to which they avowed their unswerving attachment to within twelve months of the declaration of independence. Though the United States can boast of many distinguished scholars and politicians and jurists, I believe American democracy has never produced a generation of scholarly, able, and stainless statesmen, such as those who had received the whole of their mental, moral, and political training when America formed a part of the British empire.

It is not surprising, indeed, that the major part (for they were not unanimous) of so noble and patriotic a class of statesmen should, by the wicked policy and cruel measures against them by the worst administration of government that ever ruled England, be betrayed into an act which they had so many years disavowed. Placing, as they rightly did, in the foreground the civil and religious liberties of Englishmen as the first ingredient of the elements of political greatness and social progress, they became exasperated into the conviction that the last and only effective means of maintaining those liberties was to sever their connection with England altogether, and declare their own absolute independence. We honour the sentiments and courage which prompted them to maintain and defend their liberties; we question not the purity and patriotism of their motives in declaring independence as the means of securing those liberties; but we must believe that, had they maintained the integrity of their professions and positions for even a twelvemonth longer, they would have achieved all for which they had contended, would have become a free and happy country, as Canada now is, beside the mother country and not in antagonism to her, maintaining inviolate their national life and traditions, instead of forming an alliance for bloody warfare with their own former and their mother country's hereditary enemies.

It was unnatural and disgraceful for the British Ministry to employ German mercenaries and savage Indians to subdue the American colonists to unconditional obedience; but was it less unnatural for the colonists themselves to seek and obtain the alliance of the King of France, whose government was a despotism, and who had for a hundred years sought to destroy the colonists, had murdered them without mercy, and employed by high premiums the Indians to butcher and scalp men, women, and children of the colonists--indeed, to "drive them into the sea," and to exterminate them from the soil of America? Yet with such enemies of civil and religious liberty, with such enemies of their own liberties, and even their existence as Anglo-Saxons, the colonists sought and obtained an alliance against the mother country, which had effectually, and at an immense expenditure, defended them against the efforts of both France and Spain to destroy them. Had the American colonists maintained the position and professions after 1776, as they had maintained them before 1776, presenting the contrast of their own integrity and unity and patriotism to the perfidious counsels, mercenary and un-English policy of the British Ministry and Parliament, they would have escaped the disastrous defeats and bloodshed of 1777-8, and would have repeated the victories which they had gained over the English soldiers in 1775 and the early part of 1776. Unprepared and sadly deficient in arms and ammunition, they repulsed the regular English soldiers sent against them at Concord, at Lexington, at Bunker's Hill; they had shut up as prisoners the largest English army ever sent to New England, and, though commanded by such generals as Howe and Clinton, compelled their evacuation of the city of Boston. In the Southern States they had routed the English forces, and had compelled the Governors of Virginia and South and North Carolina to take refuge on board of English men-of-war. Before the declaration of independence, the colonists fought with the enthusiasm of Englishmen for Englishmen's rights, and the British soldiers fought without heart against their fellow-subjects contending for what many of both the soldiers and officers knew to be rights dear to all true Englishmen; but when the Congress of the American colonies declared themselves to be no longer Englishmen, no longer supporters of the constitutional rights of Englishmen, but separationists from England, and seeking alliance with the enemies of England, then the English army felt that they were fighting against enemies and not fellow-subjects, and fought with an energy and courage which carried disaster, in almost every instance, to the heretofore united but now divided colonists, until France and Spain came to their assistance.

With these preliminary and general remarks, we proceed to state more specifically the grounds on which we regard, as a calamity to the interests of true liberty and of civilization, the change of position, policy, and principles avowed by the General Congress in the Declaration of Independence, 1776.

I. The Declaration of Independence was a renunciation of all the principles on which the General Congress, Provincial Legislatures, and Conventions professed to act from the beginning of the contest. The foregoing pages present abundant testimony and illustration how earnestly, how constantly, how unanimously the American colonists expressed their attachment to the mother country and to the principles of the British Constitution--how indignantly they repelled, as an insult and a slander, every suspicion and statement that they meditated or desired _independence_, or that they would ever consent to sever the ties of their connection with the mother country and the glorious principles of her constitution of government.

In the same Congress of 1775, by which Washington was appointed Commander-in-Chief, the higher departments of the army were organized. Bills of credit to the amount of three millions were emitted to defray the expenses of the war, and after the battles of Lexington and Bunker's Hill, while the English army were shut in Boston by the Provincial volunteers, a declaration was signed by Congress, justifying their proceedings, but disdaining any idea of separation from England. They say, "We are reduced to the alternative of choosing an unconstitutional submission to the tyranny of irritated Ministers, or resistance by force. The latter is our choice. We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. Honour, justice, and humanity forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us....

"With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, _declare_ that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves.

"Lest this declaration should disquiet the minds of our friends and fellow-subjects in any part of the empire, _we assure them that we mean not to dissolve that union which has so long and so happily subsisted between us, and which we sincerely wish to see restored_. Necessity has not yet driven us to that desperate measure, or induced us to excite any other nation to war against them. _We have not raised armies with ambitious designs of separating from Great Britain, and of establishing independent States._ We fight not for glory or for conquest. We exhibit to mankind the remarkable spectacle of a people attacked by unprovoked enemies, without any imputation or even suspicion of offence. They boast of their privileges and civilization, and yet proffer no milder conditions than servitude or death.

"In our native land, in defence of the freedom that is our birthright, and which we ever enjoyed until the late violation of it, for the protection of our property acquired solely by the honest industry of our forefathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before."[393]

"Amidst these hostile operations, the voice of peace was yet heard--allegiance to the King was still acknowledged, and a lingering hope remained that an accommodation was not impossible. Congress voted a petition to his Majesty, replete with professions of duty and attachment; and addressed a letter to the people of England, conjuring them, by the endearing appellations of 'friends, countrymen, and brethren,' to prevent the dissolution of 'that connection which the remembrance of former friendships, pride in the glorious achievements of common ancestors, and affection for the heirs of their virtues had heretofore maintained.' _They uniformly disclaimed any idea of independence, and professed themselves to consider union with England, on constitutional principles_, as the greatest blessing which could be bestowed on them."[394]

It is needless to multiply authorities and illustrations; the whole tenor of the history of the colonies, as presented in the preceding chapters of this volume, evinces their universal appreciation of the principles of the British Constitution and their universal attachment to union with the mother country.[395]

Even in the spring of 1776, after months of agitation by advocates of separation in various colonies, a majority of the delegates in Congress were for weeks opposed to separation; and it required long preparation to familiarize the minds of its advocates to separation, and to reconcile any considerable number of colonists to hostile severance from the land of their forefathers. It may easily be conceived what must have been the shock to a large part, if not a majority, of the colonists, to have burst upon them, after weeks' secret session of Congress, a declaration which, under the term Independence, renounced all the principles and associations in which they had been educated, which they had often avowed and held dear from their ancestors, which proclaimed their mother country their enemy, and denounced connection with her a crime. Such a renunciation of the past, and wrenching from it, could not otherwise than weaken the foundations of society and the obligation of oaths, as may be seen by a comparison in these respects of the sacredness of laws and oaths, and their administration in America before and since the revolution.

II. The Declaration of Independence was a violation of good faith to those statesmen and numerous other parties in England who had, in and out of Parliament, supported the rights and character of the colonies during the whole contest. They had all done so upon the ground that the colonists were contending for the constitutional rights of Englishmen; that they intended and desired nothing more. On the ground that the colonists, like the barons of Runnymede, were contending for the sacred rights of Englishmen, and relying on the faith of their declaration that Englishmen they would ever remain, their cause was patriotically espoused and nobly vindicated in England by Lords Chatham, Camden, Shelburne, the Duke of Richmond, and others in the House of Lords; by Messrs. Burke and Fox, Lord John Cavendish, Mr. Dunning (afterwards Lord Ashburton), and others in the House of Commons; and by corporations of cities and towns, and multitudes out of Parliament. Lord Mahon, in the sixth volume of his History of England (pp. 35-37), relates that before the Earl of Chatham introduced his famous "Provincial Bill for Settling Troubles in America," and supported it by his masterly speeches in the Lords, he sent for Dr. Franklin, the principal representative of the colonists, to consult him and ascertain from him distinctly whether there was any tendency or danger of the American colonies separating from England, and was assured by Dr. Franklin that there was not the least feeling in that direction; that the American colonies were universally loyal to connection with the mother country, and desired and contended for nothing more than the constitutional rights of Englishmen.[396]

It was not till after this assurance, and it was under this conviction and with this object, that the Earl of Chatham delivered those appeals in behalf of America which electrified the British public, and gave tone to the subsequent debates in both Houses of Parliament. These eloquent and unanswerable defences of British rights, invaded and denied in regard to the persons of the American colonists, were delivered in 1775 and the early part of 1776; but scarcely had their echoes died away on the waves of the Atlantic, when news came from America that the Congress, so warmly eulogized in the British Parliament for its fidelity to English connection, as well as to the rights of England, had, after a secret session of two months, renounced all connection with England, and all acknowledgment of its authority and principles of government, thus fulfilling the statements and predictions of the parliamentary enemies of American rights, and presenting their advocates, Chatham, Camden, Burke, etc., as liars and deceivers before the British nation and in the face of all Europe. The Ministerial party triumphed; the advocates of colonial rights were confounded, and their influence in and out of Parliament was paralyzed. The power of the corrupt Ministers who had been oppressing the colonies for ten years, was tottering to their fall; they had played their last card; they had exhausted their credit; they had staked their existence on the truth of the statements they had made, and the accomplishment of the measures they had adopted; their measures had failed; they saw that half-armed colonists had everywhere repulsed the picked English generals and soldiers; their statements as to the intentions and principles of the colonists would have also been falsified had the Congress in 1776 adhered to the declaration of principles and avowal of purposes which it had made in 1775; the friends of American rights would have been triumphant, in and out of Parliament, in England, and 1777 would doubtless have witnessed the overthrow of the corrupt British Ministry, the constitutional freedom of the American colonies in connection with the unity of the empire, instead of seven years' bloody warfare, the destruction of the national life and of the oneness of the Anglo-Saxon race.

III. But the Declaration of Independence on the part of its authors was not only a violation of good faith to the statesmen and others in England who had advocated the constitutional rights of the colonists, it was also a violation both of good faith and justice to their colonial fellow-countrymen who continued to adhere to connection with the mother country upon the principles professed in all times past by the separationists themselves.[397]

The adherents of connection with England had, with the exception of certain office-holders and their relations, been as earnest advocates of colonial rights as had the leaders of the separation. The opponents of the constitutional rights of the colonies, in the colonies, were few and far between--not numerous enough to form a party, or even to be called a party. The Congress of 1775 declared the colonies to be "a unit" in their determination to defend their rights, but disdained the idea of separation from the mother country; and Mr. John Adams stated at the same time: "All America is united in sentiment. When a masterly statesman, to whom America has erected a statue in her heart for his integrity, fortitude, and perseverance in her cause, invented a Committee of Correspondence in Boston, did not every colony, nay, every county, city, hundred, and town upon the whole continent adopt the measure as if it had been a revelation from above? Look over the resolves of the colonies for the past year; you will see that one understanding governs, one heart animates the whole."[398]

Such were the sentiments and feelings of America in resisting the innovations upon their rights of a British Ministry, while they denied the idea of separation from the mother country as a calumny; and such were the grounds on which millions in England and Scotland, in and out of Parliament, supported them.[399]

"Though that measure (independence), a few months before, was not only foreign from their wishes, but the object of their abhorrence, the current suddenly became so strong in its favour that it bore down all opposition. The multitude was hurried down the stream; but some worthy men could not easily reconcile themselves to the idea of an eternal separation from a country to which they had long been bound by the most endearing ties." (Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., pp. 161, 162.)

When, therefore, the Congress at Philadelphia voted, by a majority of one or two, but declaring that their vote should be published as unanimous, to renounce all the professions of the past of connection with the mother country, to declare her their enemy, and to avow eternal separation from her, it may be easily conceived how a large portion of the colonists would feel that their confidence had been betrayed; that the representations they had made to English statesmen would bear the stamp of untruth; that their hopes had been blasted, and that they were now to be treated as rebels and traitors for adhering to the faith of their forefathers; for, as Mr. Allan remarks, the Declaration of Independence "left no neutrals. He who was not for independence, unconditional independence, was an enemy."[400] Thus the many tens of thousands of colonists who adhered to the faith of their forefathers, and the traditions and professions of their own personal history, were, by a single act of Congress, declared "enemies" of their country, "rebels," and even "traitors," because they would not renounce their oath of allegiance, and swear allegiance to a self and newly-created authority, to relinquish the defence of the rights of Englishmen for the theory of republican independence, adherence to which had been advocated by the Chathams and Burkes in the British Parliament, in preference to the new doctrines propounded by the leaders in the Philadelphia Congress, for maintaining the unity and life of a great nation rather than dismember and destroy it. Was it doing as one would be done by? Was it not a violation of good faith, and hard treatment, for men to be declared by a new tribunal criminals in July, for maintaining what all had held to be loyal and patriotic in January? All the arguments and appeals of the Northern States against the separation of the Southern States from the Republic, as destructive of the life of the nation, in the recent civil war of 1864-1869, were equally strong, on the same ground, against the separation of the American colonies from the mother country in the civil war of 1776-1783. The United Empire Loyalists of that day were, as the conservators of the life of the nation, against the dismemberment of the empire, as are the Americans of the Northern States of the present day the conservators of the life of their nation in opposing the dismemberment of the Republic.

IV. But this is not all. This Declaration of the 4th of July, 1776, was the commencement of persecutions, proscriptions, and confiscations of property against those who refused to renounce the oaths which they had taken, as well as the principles and traditions which had, until then, been professed by their persecutors and oppressors as well as by themselves. The declaration of independence had been made in the name and for the professed purposes of liberty; but the very first acts under it were to deprive a large portion of the colonists not only of liberty of action, but liberty of thought and opinion--to extract from them oaths and declarations which could not have been sincere, and which could have been little better than perjuries, for the sole purpose of saving life, liberty, or property. They were a numerous and intelligent portion of the community; were equally interested in the welfare of the country as their assailants, instead of being designated by every epithet of opprobrium, and denied the freedom of opinion and privileges of citizenship.[401] Mr. Elliott remarks:--

"The Tories comprised a large number, among whom were many rich, cultivated, and kindly people; these last, above all, needed watching, and were most dangerous. In looking over the harsh treatment of the Tories by the rebels, it should be remembered that a covert enemy is more dangerous than an open one, and that the Tories comprised both of these. Many men of property and character in Massachusetts were in favour of England, partly from conviction and partly from fear. That large and often cultivated class called "Conservatives," who hold by the past rather than hope for the future, and are constitutionally timid, feared change; they were naturally Tories. Most of the Episcopalians in New England (though not in Virginia) opposed the revolutionary movements. They had felt the oppression and contempt of the New England Congregationalists, and looked to the English Government and the English Church for help. But in Virginia, where they were strong, this was not so; and there the Episcopalians were among the warmest asserters of the rights of man."

"In New York there was at first a very large proportion of Tories; in 1776, not less than twelve hundred and ninety-three persons, in the County of Queen's alone, professed themselves subjects to the King. In Suffolk County, eight hundred enrolled themselves as King's militia."

"In New Jersey, Governor Franklin, son of Benjamin Franklin, led the King's friends, and was active against the Americans until it became necessary to put him in confinement. The war carried on between Tories and Whigs was more merciless than any other, and more cruel and wanton than that of the Indians."

"Laws were made in Rhode Island against all who supplied the enemy with provisions, or gave them information.

"In Connecticut the Tories were not allowed to speak or write against Congress or the Assembly.

"In Massachusetts a man might be banished unless he would swear fealty to the cause of liberty.

"Severe laws were also passed against the Tories in New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, and Virginia, and in nearly all the colonies now seaboard States.

"John Jay thought the Confiscation Act of New York inexcusable and disgraceful."[402]

Mr. Hildreth remarks: "Very serious was the change in the legal position of the class known as Tories--in many of the States a very large minority, and in all, respectable for wealth and social position. Of those thus stigmatized, some were inclined to favour the utmost claims of the mother country; but _the greater part, though determined to adhere to the British connection, yet deprecated the policy which had brought on so fatal a quarrel_. This loyal minority, especially its more conspicuous members, as the warmth of political feeling increased, had been exposed to the violence of mobs, and to all sorts of personal indignities, in which private malice or a wanton and violent spirit of mischief had been too often gratified under the guise of patriotism. By the recent political changes, Tories and suspected persons became exposed to dangers from the law as well as from mobs. Having boldly seized the reins of government, the new State authorities claimed the allegiance of all residents within their limits, and under the lead and recommendation of Congress, those who refused to acknowledge their authority, or who adhered to their enemies, were exposed to severe penalties, confiscation of property, imprisonment, banishment, and finally death."[403]

Thus was a large minority of the most wealthy and intelligent (their wealth and intelligence making them the greater criminals) inhabitants of the colonies, by the act of a new body not known to the Constitutions of any of their provinces, reduced to the alternative of violating their convictions, consciences, and oaths, or being branded and treated as enemies of their country, deprived not only of the freedom of the press and of speech, but made criminals for even neutrality and silence, and their property confiscated to defray the expenses of a war upon themselves. Had Congress, in July, 1776, maintained the principles and objects it avowed even in the autumn of 1775, there would have been no occasion of thus violating good faith and common justice to the large minority of the colonies; there is every reason to believe that there would have been a universal rallying, as there had been the year before, in defence of the constitutional rights of Englishmen and the unimpaired life of the empire; there would have been a far larger military force of enthusiastic and patriotic volunteers collected and organized to defend those rights than could ever afterwards be embodied to support independence; there would have been a union of the friends of constitutional liberty on both sides of the Atlantic; good faith would have been kept on both sides, and the "millions in England and Scotland," sustained by the millions in America, instead of being abandoned by them in the very crisis of the contest in the mother country, would have achieved in less than a twelvemonth a victory for freedom, for civilization, and for humanity, far beyond what had been accomplished in the English Revolution of 1688.

V. The Declaration of Independence was the commencement of weakness in the army of its authors, and of defeats in their fields of battle. The Declaration has been announced as the birth of a nation, though it was actually the dismemberment of a nation. It was hailed with every demonstration of joy and triumph on the part of those who had been prepared for the event, and no efforts were spared on the part of those who had advocated independence in the army, in the Congress, and in the provinces, to accompany the circulation of the Declaration with every enthusiastic expression of delight and anticipated free government, in which, of course, they themselves would occupy the chief places of profit and power. But this enthusiasm, notwithstanding the glowing descriptions of some American historians, was far from being general or ardent. Lord Mahon says: "As sent forth by Congress, the Declaration of Independence having reached the camp of Washington, was, by his orders (as commanded by Congress), read aloud at the head of every regiment. There, as in most other places, it excited much less notice than might have been supposed." An American author of our own day (President Reed), most careful in his statements, and most zealous in the cause of independence, observes that "No one can read the private correspondence of the times without being struck with the slight impression made on either the army or the mass of the people by the Declaration."[404]

The Adjutant-General, in his familiar and almost daily letters to his wife, does not even allude to it. But though there was little enthusiasm, there were some excesses. At New York a party of soldiers, with tumultuary violence, tore down and beheaded a statue of the King which stood upon Broadway, having been erected only six years before. Washington, greatly to his honour, did not shrink from the duty of rebuking them next day, in his General Orders, for their misdirected zeal.[405]

Within a few weeks after the Declaration of Independence, Washington's army, composed of forces raised before that Declaration, consisted of 27,000 men--a larger army than he was ever after able to assemble, and more than twice as large as he commanded within a few months afterwards.

It has been seen with what readiness, zeal, and enthusiasm thousands and tens of thousands of volunteers offered their services during the year 1775, and the first part of the year 1776, in defence of British liberty, in union with the friends of civil liberty and defenders of American liberty in England; but when, after the Declaration of the 4th of July, 1776, the cause became one of Congressional liberty instead of British liberty, of separation from the mother country instead of union with it, of a new form of government instead of one to which they had sworn allegiance, and which they had ever lauded and professed to love,--then, in these novel circumstances, the provincial army dwindled from day to day by desertions, as well as from other causes, and recruiting its ranks could only be effected by bounties in money and the promise of lands; the uninterrupted victories of the colonists during the twelve months previous to the Declaration of Independence were succeeded by uninterrupted defeats during the twelve months succeeding it, with the exception of the brilliant and successful surprise raids which Washington made upon _Trenton_ and _Princeton_. But these exploits were wholly owing to Washington's skill, and sleepless energy, and heroic courage, with feeble forces, in contrast to the lethargy and self-indulgence of the English officers on the one hand and the inactivity of Congress on the other.

The first trial of strength and courage between the English and revolutionary forces took place in August, a few weeks after the Declaration of Independence, in the battle of Long Island, in which Washington's army was completely defeated; New York and all New Jersey soon fell into the hands of the British. For this success General Howe received the honour of knighthood, as did General Carlton for similar success in Canada--the one becoming Sir William Howe, and the other Sir Guy Carlton; but neither did much afterwards to merit the honour. The English officers seemed to have anticipated a pastime in America instead of hard fighting and severe service, and the German mercenaries anticipated rich plunder and sensual indulgence.

In the autumn and winter following Washington's defeat at Long Island and forced evacuation of New York, and indeed of New Jersey, Sir William Howe buried himself in self-indulgent inactivity for six months in New York; while a portion of his army sought quarters and plunder, and committed brutal acts of sensuality, in the chief places of New Jersey. Loyalty seems to have been the prevalent feeling of New Jersey on the first passing of the King's troops through it.[406]

This is stated on unquestionable authority (see the previous note); scarcely any of the inhabitants joined the American retreating army, while numbers were daily flocking to the royal army. But within twelve months, when that royal army passed through the same country, on the evacuation of Philadelphia by Sir Henry Clinton (Sir William Howe having returned to England), the inhabitants were universally hostile, instead of being universally loyal, as the year before. The royal historian says:

"In setting out on this dangerous retreat, the British general clearly perceived that it would be indispensably necessary to provide for all possible contingencies. _His way lay entirely through an enemy's country, where everything was hostile in the extreme, and from whence no assistance or help of any sort was to be expected._"[407]

The causes of this change in the feelings of the inhabitants of the Jerseys, in the space of a few months, in regard to the British army and mother country, will be a subject of future inquiry; but, in the meantime, the manifest failure of the revolutionary army to maintain its position during the twelve months following the Declaration of Independence, its declining numbers, and the difficulty of recruiting its ranks, show that the act of violent severance from the mother country did not spring from the heart and intellect of the colonists, but from a portion of them which had obtained all the resources of material and military power, under the profession of defending their rights as British subjects, with a view to ultimate reconciliation and union with the mother country; but had used their advantages to declare severance from the mother country, to excite hatred against it, and establish themselves in sovereignty over America. Referring to the state of the colonies toward the close of 1777, the latest American historian, Mr. Frothingham, says:

"This was a period of great political languor. The burden of the war was severely felt. The blaze of freedom, it was said, that burst forth at the beginning had gone down, and numbers, in the thirst for riches, lost sight of the original object. (Independent Chronicle, March 12, 1778.) 'Where,' wrote Henry Laurens (successor to John Hancock as the President of the Congress) to Washington, 'where is virtue, where is patriotism now, when almost every man has turned his thoughts and attention to gain and pleasures?'" (Letter, November 20, 1778.)[408]

VI. The Declaration of Independence was the avowed expedient and prelude to a sought-for alliance with France and Spain against the mother country, notwithstanding they had sought for a hundred years to extirpate the colonists, and had been prevented from "driving them into the sea" by the aid of the army and navy and vast expenditure of the mother country.

It seems difficult to reconcile with truthfulness, fairness, and consistency, the intrigues and proposed terms of alliance between the leaders of Congress and the King of France. These intrigues commenced several months before the Declaration of Independence, when the authors of it were disclaiming any wish or design to separate from England, and their desire for reconciliation with the mother country by a recognition of their rights as they existed in 1763. As early as December, 1775, six months before the Declaration of Independence, a Congress Secret Committee of Correspondence wrote to Arthur Lee, in London (a native of Virginia, but a practising barrister in London), and Charles Dumas, at the Hague, requesting them to ascertain the feeling of European Courts respecting America, enjoining "great circumspection and secrecy."[409] They hoped most from France; but opposition was made in Congress when it was first suggested to apply for aid to the ancient enemy both of the colonies and England. Dr. Zubly, of Georgia, said: "A proposal has been made to apply to France and Spain. I apprehend the man who would propose it (to his constituents) would be torn to pieces like De Witt." Within three months after the utterance of these words in Congress, M. de Bouvouloir, agent of the French Government, appeared in Philadelphia, held secret conferences with the Secret Committee, and assured them that France was ready to aid the colonies on such conditions as might be considered equitable. These conferences were so secret that De Bouvouloir says that "the Committee met him at an appointed place after dark, each going to it by a different road."[410]

A few weeks later, the Secret Committee appointed Silas Deane commercial agent to Europe (March 3), to procure military supplies, and to state to the French Minister, Count Vergennes, the probability of the colonies totally separating from England; that France was looked upon as the power whose friendship they should most desire to cultivate; and to inquire whether, in case of their independence, France would acknowledge it, and receive their Ambassadors.

In April, 1776, three months before the Declaration of Independence, the inquiry was made of Franklin, "When is the Continental Congress by general consent to be formed into a Supreme Legislature?" He replied, "Nothing seems wanting but that general consent. The novelty of the thing deters some; the doubt of success, others; _the vain hope of reconciliation, many_. Every day furnishes us with new causes of increasing enmity, and new reasons for _wishing an eternal separation_; so that there is a rapid increase of the _formerly small party_ who were for an independent government."[411]

From these words of Dr. Franklin, as well as from the facts stated in the preceding pages, it is clear the Declaration of Independence was not the spontaneous voice of a continent, as represented by many American historians, but the result of a persistent agitation on the part of the leaders in Congress, and their agents and partizans in the several provinces, who _now_ represented every act of the corrupt Administration in England as the act of the _nation_, and thus sought to alienate the affections of the colonists from the mother country. Upon Dr. Franklin's own authority, it is clear that he was opposed to any reconciliation with England and in favour of an "eternal separation" months before the Declaration of Independence; that the party "for an independent government" were "the formerly small party," but had "a rapid increase," which Dr. Franklin and his friends knew so well how to promote, while they amused and deceived the friends of the unity of the empire, in both England and America, by professing an earnest desire for reconciliation with the mother country.

The same double game was played against England by the French Government and the secret leaders of the American Congress, the latter professing a desire for reconciliation with England, and the former professing the warmest friendship for England and disapprobation of the separation of the colonies from England, while both parties were secretly consulting together as to the means of dismembering the British empire. "It was," says Dr. Ramsay, "evidently the interest of France to encourage the Americans in their opposition to Great Britain; and it was true policy to do this by degrees, and in a private manner, lest Great Britain might take the alarm. It is certain that Great Britain was amused with declarations of the most pacific disposition on the part of France, at the time the Americans were liberally supplied with the means of defence; and it is equally certain that this was the true line of policy for promoting that dismemberment of the British empire which France had an interest in accomplishing. It was the interest of Congress to apply to the Court of France, and it was the interest of France to listen to their application."[412]

The application for alliance with France to war with England was far from being the voice of America. The fact that it was under discussion in Congress three months before it could be carried, shows how strong must have been the opposition to it in Congress itself, and how vigorous and persevering must have been the efforts to manipulate a majority of its members into acquiescing in an application for arms, money, and men to a Government which was and had always been the enemy of civil and Protestant liberty--which had hired savage Indians to butcher and scalp their forefathers, mothers, and children, without regard to age or sex, and which had sought to destroy their very settlements, and drive them into the sea, while the British Government had preserved them from destruction and secured to them the American continent. It is easy to conceive how every British heart in America must have revolted at the idea of seeking to become brother warriors with the French against the mother country. Nor was the proceeding known in America until America was committed to it, for the Congress made itself a secret conclave; its sittings were held in secret; no divisions were allowed to be recorded; its debates were suppressed; its members were sworn to secrecy; the minorities had no means of making known their views to the public; it was decided by the majority that every resolution published should be reported as having been adopted _unanimously_, though actually carried by the slenderest majority. The proceedings of that elected Congress, which converted itself into a secret conclave, were never fully known until the present century, and many of them not until the present age, by the biographies of the men and the private correspondence of the times of the American Revolution. The United Empire Loyalists of those times were not permitted to speak for themselves, and their principles, character and acts were only known from the pens of their adversaries. Had the heart of America been allowed to speak and act, there would have been no alliance of America, France, and Spain against England; the American colonies would have achieved their own noblest freedom unstained by future bloodshed, and untainted by so unnatural an alliance; the Anglo-Saxon race and language would have been one, and greatly more advanced than it now is in the cause of the world's freedom and civilization.

History has justly censured, in the severest language, the conduct of Lord North's Administration for employing German mercenaries to aid in maintaining the assumed prerogative of King and Parliament in the colonies; but was it less censurable and more patriotic for the administrative leaders in Congress to engage French and Spanish forces, both at sea and land, to invade Great Britain and her possessions, and to unite with Republicans for the dismemberment of the British empire?

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 393: Judge Marshall's History of the American Colonies, Chap. XIV., pp. 449-451.]

[Footnote 394: _Ib._, p. 457.]

[Footnote 395: "The commencement of hostilities on the 19th of April, 1775, exhibited the parent State in an odious point of view. But, nevertheless, at that time, and for a twelvemonth after, a majority of the colonists wished for no more than to be re-established as subjects in their ancient rights. Had independence been their object, even at the commencement of hostilities, they would have rescinded the associations which have been already mentioned, and imported more largely than ever. Common sense revolts at the idea that colonists, unfurnished with military stores and wanting manufactures of every kind, should, at the time of their intending a serious struggle for independence, by a voluntary agreement, deprive themselves of the obvious means of procuring such foreign supplies as their circumstances might make necessary. Instead of pursuing a line of conduct which might have been dictated by a wish for independence, they continued their exports for nearly a year after they ceased to import. This not only lessened the debts they owed to Great Britain, but furnished additional means for carrying on war against themselves. To aim at independence, and at the same time to transfer their resources to their enemies, could not have been the policy of an enlightened people. It was not till some time in 1776 that the colonists began to take other ground, and contend that it was for their interest to be for ever separated from Great Britain." (Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap, xii., pp. 158, 159.)]

[Footnote 396: Lord Mahon says: "In framing this measure, he sought the aid and counsel of Dr. Franklin. Already, in the month of August preceding, they had become acquainted, through the mediation of Lord Stanhope, who carried Dr. Franklin to Hayes (the residence of Lord Chatham). Lord Chatham had then referred to the idea which began to _prevail in England, that America aimed at setting up for herself as a separate State. The truth of any such idea was loudly denied by Dr. Franklin_. 'I assured his lordship,' Dr. Franklin said, 'that having more than once travelled almost from one end of the continent to the other, and kept a great variety of company, eating and drinking and conversing with them freely, I never had heard from any person, drunk or sober, the least expression of a wish for separation, or hint that such a thing would be advantageous to America.... In fine, Lord Chatham expressed much satisfaction in my having called upon him, _and particularly in the assurances I had given him that America did not aim at independence_.'" (Works, Vol. V., p. 7, ed. 1844.)

The Earl of Chatham's last speech was an appeal against the separation of the American colonies from England, and his last words were: "My lords, I rejoice that the grave has not closed upon me; that I am still alive to lift up my voice against the dismemberment of this ancient and most noble monarchy." (Bancroft, Vol. IX., p. 495.)]

[Footnote 397: "In the beginning of the memorable year 1776, there was a public opinion in favour of independence in New England, and but little more than individual preferences for it in the Middle or Southern colonies. So deeply seated was the affection for the mother country, that it required all the severe acts of war, directed by an inexorable Ministry and the fierce words from the throne, to be made fully known throughout America before the _majority_ of the people could be persuaded to renounce their allegiance and assume the sovereignty. Jefferson says that Samuel Adams was constantly holding caucuses with distinguished men, in which the measures to be pursued were generally determined upon, and their several parts were assigned to the actors who afterwards appeared in them." (Frothingham's Rise of the Republic of the United States, pp. 468, 469.)]

[Footnote 398: Quoted by Bancroft, Vol. VII., p. 234.]

[Footnote 399: "Millions in England and Scotland" (said John Adams, who nominated Washington as Commander-in-Chief, and was afterwards President of the United States)--"millions in England and Scotland think it unrighteous, impolitic, and ruinous to make war upon us; and a Minister, though he may have a marble heart, will proceed with a desponding spirit. London has bound her members under their hands to assist us; Bristol has chosen two known friends of America; many of the most virtuous of the nobility and gentry are for us, and among them a St. Asaph, a Camden, and a Chatham; the best bishop that adorns the bench, as great a judge as the nation can boast, and the greatest statesman it ever saw." (Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VII., Chap. xxi, p. 235.)]

[Footnote 400: History of the American Revolution, Vol. I., Chap. xiii., p. 353.]

[Footnote 401: It was the plea then, as it had and has always been in all tyranny, whether wielded by an individual or an oligarchy or a committee, whether under the pretext of liberty or of order, to persecute all dissenting parties, under profession of preventing division and promoting unity. But the true friends of liberty, even in perilous times, have always relied upon the justice of their principles and excellence of their policy and measures for support and success, and not upon the prison, the gallows, and the impoverishment of the dissenters by plunder. The Congress itself had declared to England that the "colonists were a unit" in behalf of liberty; but their own enactments and proceedings against the Loyalists refuted their own statements. Even in England, tyrannical and corrupt as was the Government at the time, and divided as were both Parliament and people, and assailed by foreign and domestic enemies, the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament were open to the public; every member was not only free to express his opinions, but those opinions were forthwith published to the world, and every man throughout the kingdom enjoyed freedom of opinion. It was reserved for the American Congress, while professing to found liberty, to conduct its proceedings in secret for eleven years, to suppress the freedom of the press and individual freedom of opinion, and to treat as criminals those who dissented from its acts of policy. The private biography and letters of the principal actors in the American revolution, published during the present century, show (with the exception of Washington and very few others) that individual ambition had quite as much to do in the contest of separation from the mother country as patriotic love of constitutional liberty, which, even at this day, in the United States, is not comparable with that of Great Britain--some of the ablest American writers being judges.]

[Footnote 402: Elliott's New England History, Vol. II., Chap. xxvii., pp. 369-375.

"A large number of the merchants in all the chief commercial towns of the colonies were openly hostile, or but coldly inclined to the common cause. General Lee, sent to Newport (Rhode Island) to advise about throwing up fortifications, _called the principal persons among the disaffected before him, and obliged them by a tremendous oath to support the authority of Congress_. The Assembly met shortly after, and passed an Act subjecting to death, with confiscation of property, all who should hold intercourse with or assist the British ships. But to save Newport from destruction it presently became necessary to permit a certain stated supply to be furnished to the British ships from that town." (Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap. xxxii., p. 102.)

"In the Middle colonies the unwillingness to separate from Great Britain was greater than in the colonies either to the North or South. One reason probably was, that in this division were the towns of New York and Philadelphia, which greatly profited by their trade to England, and which contained a larger proportion of English and Scotch merchants, who, with few exceptions, were attached to the royal cause." (Tucker's History of the United States, Vol. I., p. 150.)]

[Footnote 403: History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap. xxxiii., pp. 137, 138.

On the 18th of June, 1776, about two weeks before adopting the Declaration of Independence, Congress "_Resolved_,--That no man in these colonies charged with being a Tory, or unfriendly to the cause of American liberty, be injured in his person or property, unless the proceeding against him be founded on an order of Congress or Committee," etc. But this resolution amounted practically to nothing. It seems to have been intended to allay the fears and weaken the opposition of loyalists, but contributed nothing for their protection, or to mitigate the cruel persecutions everywhere waged against them.]

[Footnote 404: Life and Correspondence of President Reed, Vol. I., p. 195. Washington, however, in his public letter to Congress (unless Mr. Jared Sparks has _improved_ this passage), says that the troops had testified their "warmest approbation." (Writings, Vol. III., p. 457.)]

[Footnote 405: Lord Mahon's History of England from the Peace of Utrecht, Vol. VI., Chap. liv., pp. 161, 162.

Lord Mahon adds: "It was at this inauspicious juncture, only a few hours after independence had been proclaimed in the ranks of his opponents, that the bearer of the pacific commission, Lord Howe, arrived off Sandy Hook. He had cause to regret most bitterly both the delay of his passage and the limitation of his powers. He did not neglect, however, whatever means of peace were still within his reach. He sent on shore a declaration, announcing to the people the object of his mission. He despatched a friendly letter, written at sea, to Dr. Franklin, at Philadelphia. But when Franklin's answer came it showed him wholly adverse to a reconciliation, expressing in strong terms his resentment of the 'atrocious injuries' which, as he said, America had suffered from 'your unformed and proud nation.' Lord Howe's next step was to send a flag of truce, with another letter, to Washington. But here a preliminary point of form arose. Lord Howe, as holding the King's commission, could not readily acknowledge any rank or title not derived from his Majesty. He had therefore directed his letter to 'George Washington, Esq.' On the other hand, Washington, feeling that, in his circumstances, to yield a punctilio would be to sacrifice a principle, declined to receive or open any letter not addressed to him as General. Thus at the very outset this negotiation was cut short."--_Ib._, pp. 162, 163.]

[Footnote 406: After the battle of Long Island and the evacuation of New York, "six thousand men, led by Earl Cornwallis, were landed on the Jersey side. At their approach the Americans withdrew in great haste to Fort Lee, leaving behind their artillery and stores. Washington himself had no other alternative than to give way with all speed as his enemy advanced. He fell back successively upon Brunswick, upon Princeton, upon Trenton, and at last to the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware. To all these places, one after another, did Lord Cornwallis, though slowly, and with little vigour, pursue him.

"This fair province of the Jerseys, sometimes called the Garden of America, did not certainly on this occasion prove to be its bulwark. The scene is described as follows by one of their own historians, Dr. Ramsay: 'As the retreating Americans marched through the country, scarcely one of the inhabitants joined them, while numbers were daily flocking to the royal army to make their peace and obtain protection. They saw on the one side a numerous, well-appointed, and full-clad army, dazzling their eyes with their elegance of uniforms; on the other a few poor fellows who, from their shabby clothing, were called ragamuffins, fleeing for their safety. Not only the common people changed sides in this gloomy state of public affairs, but some of the leading men in New Jersey and Pennsylvania adopted the same expedient.'

"Yet it is scarcely just to the Americans to ascribe, with Dr. Ramsay, their change of sides to nothing beyond their change of fortune. May we not rather believe that a feeling of concern at the separation, hitherto suppressed in terror, was now first freely avowed--that in New Jersey, and not in New Jersey alone, an active and bold minority had been able to overrule numbers much larger, but more quiescent and complying?

"Another remark made by the same historian might, as history shows, be extended to other times and countries besides his own. The men who had been the vainest braggarts, the loudest blusterers in favour of independence, were now the first to veer around or to slink away. This remark, which Dr. Ramsay makes only four years afterwards, is fully confirmed by other documents of earlier date, but much later publication, by the secret correspondence of the time. Thus writes the Adjutant-General: 'Some of our Philadelphia gentlemen, who came over on visits, upon the first cannon went off in a violent hurry. Your noisy Sons of Liberty are, I find, the quietest in the field.' Thus again Washington, with felicitous expression, points a paragraph at the 'chimney-corner heroes.'

"At this period the effective force under Washington had dwindled down to four thousand men.

"The Congress at this juncture, like most other public assemblies, seemed but slightly affected by the dangers which as yet were not close upon them. On the 11th of December they passed some resolutions contradicting, as false and malicious, a report that they intended to remove from Philadelphia. They declared that they had a higher opinion of the good people of these States than to suppose such a measure requisite, and that they would not leave the city of Philadelphia 'unless the last necessity shall direct it.' These resolutions were transmitted by the President to Washington, with a request that he would publish them to the army in General Orders. Washington, in reply, excused himself from complying with that suggestion. In thus declining it, he showed his usual sagacity and foresight; for on the very next day after the first resolution, the Congress underwent a sudden revulsion of opinion, and did not scruple to disperse in all haste, to meet again the 20th of the same month, not at Philadelphia, but at Baltimore." (Lord Mahon's History of England, etc., Vol. VI., Chap. liv., pp. 189-193.)]

[Footnote 407: Dr. Andrews' History of the American War, etc., Vol. III., Chap. xxxv., p. 111.]

[Footnote 408: Frothingham's Rise of the American Republic, Chap. xii., p. 572.]

[Footnote 409: The Life of Arthur Lee (I., p. 53) contains the letter to Lee, copied from the original MSS. in the handwriting of Franklin, dated December 12, 1775, and signed by Franklin, Dickenson, and Jay.]

[Footnote 410: Frothingham's Rise of the American Republic, Chap, xi., p. 488.]

[Footnote 411: Franklin to Josiah Quincy, April 15, 1776. Sparks' Works, Vol. VIII., p. 181.]

[Footnote 412: History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xv., pp. 242, 243.

The same historian observes: "On the 11th of June, Congress appointed a Committee to prepare a plan of a treaty to be proposed to foreign powers. The discussion of this novel subject engaged their attention till the latter end of September. Congress having agreed on the plan of the treaty which they intended to propose to the King of France, proceeded to elect commissioners to solicit its acceptance. Dr. Franklin, Silas Deane, and Thomas Jefferson were chosen. The latter declining to serve, Arthur Lee, who was then in London, and had been very serviceable to his country in a variety of ways, was elected in his room. It was resolved that no member should be at liberty to divulge anything more of these transactions than 'that Congress had taken such steps as they judged necessary for obtaining foreign alliances.'"--_Ib._, p., 242, 243.

It is worthy of remark, that although Dr. Franklin consented to act as one of the commissioners to France, he opposed the application itself; for he himself wrote a few months afterwards as follows: "I have never yet changed the opinions I gave in Congress, that a virgin state should preserve a virgin character, and not go about suitoring for alliances, but wait with decent dignity for the applications of others. I was overruled, perhaps for the best." (Works, Vol. VIII., p. 209.)]

GENERAL INDEX.

Abercrombie (General)--Arrives in America with the troops, and forty German officers to drill and command regiments in America (which gives offence to the Colonists). i. 257.

Is disgracefully defeated by Montcalm (though commanding the largest force ever assembled in America). i. 258.

With General Loudoun, hesitates and delays at Albany, while the French generals are active and successful. i. 258.

Adams (John)--The prompter and adviser of hanging "Tories." ii. 127.

Address of Governor Winthrop and his company on leaving England, in 1630, to their "Fathers and Brethren of the Church of England," declaring their filial and undying love to the Church of England, as their "dear mother," from whose breasts they had derived their nourishment. i. 55.

Alliance between Congress and the Kings of France not productive of the effect anticipated, and deferred twelve months by France after it had been applied for by Congress. ii. 1.

American Affairs--Misrepresented in the English Parliament and by the English Press. i. 390.

American boastings groundless over the surrender of Cornwallis. ii. 46.

American Colonies--Their position in regard to England and other nations at the Peace of Paris, 1763. i. 274.

American Revolution--primary cause of it. i. 30.

American treatment of Canadians by Americans who invaded them. ii. 464.

Invasions of Canada, and their forces. ii. 262.

Amherst (Lord)--Supersedes Abercrombie as Commander-in-Chief, assisted by General Wolfe. i. 260.

Plans three expeditions, all of which are successful. i. 261.

His energetic movements. i. 262.

He receives all Canada for the King from the French. i. 267.

His parting address to the army. i. 268.

Anderson (Samuel). ii. 192.

Andros (Edmond)--Appointed local Governor of Massachusetts Bay, and Governor-General of New England; his tyranny; seized at Boston and sent prisoner to England. i. 215.

(Examined)--Acquitted by King William in Council, because he had acted according to his instructions. i. 215.

Articles of treaty and preamble. ii. 56.

Associations in the Colonies against the use of tea imported from England. i. 370.

Bancroft--Confirms the statement as to the aggressions and pretensions of the Massachusetts Bay Government. i. 200.

His interpretations against England. i. 247.

Baptists--The persecution of them instigated by the Rev. Messrs. Wilson and Newton, and justified by the Rev. Mr. Cotton. i. 120.

Barnard (Governor)--His reply to the Massachusetts Legislative Assembly. i. 357.

His recall and character. i. 359.

Bethune (Rev. John). ii. 192.

Boston and Massachusetts--Three Acts of Parliament against, all infringing and extinguishing the heretofore acknowledged constitutional rights of the people. i. 389.

Boston--In great distress; addresses of sympathy and contributions from other towns and provinces.

Fourth Act of Parliament, legalizing the quartering of troops in. i. 397.

General sympathy and liberality in its behalf. i. 404.

Boston Massacre--Soldiers acquitted by a Boston jury. i. 365.

Boyle (Hon. Robert)--In a letter in which he expostulates with the Massachusetts Bay rulers on the intolerance and unreasonableness of their conduct. i. 160.

Braddock's unfortunate expedition. i. 247.

Bradstreet (Colonel)--His brilliant achievement in taking and destroying Fort Frontenac. i. 261.

Bradstreet and Norton--Sent to England to answer complaints; favourably received; first thanked and then censured by the Massachusetts Bay rulers; Norton dies of grief. i. 142.

Brock (Sir Isaac)---His address to the Legislature of Upper Canada, ii. 341, 342.

Takes Detroit. ii. 352-354.

Proclamation to the inhabitants of Michigan. ii. 362, 363.

Killed at Queenston Heights. ii. 366.

Brown, Samuel and John--Their character and position. i. 35.

Banished from Massachusetts Bay for adhering to Episcopal worship. i. 35.

Misrepresented by Messrs. Palfrey and Bancroft. i. 37.

Their letters and papers seized, and their complaints successfully denied to the King by their persecutors. i. 46.

Their conduct unblamable. i. 42.

Bunker's Hill, Concord, and Lexington--Battles of, numbers engaged, with the accounts, on both sides. i. 460, 461.

Burke (the celebrated Edmund)--Reviews and denounces the persecuting laws and spirit of the Massachusetts Bay Puritans, during thirty years. i. 122.

Canadian Militia--Their character. ii. 461.

Canada--What had been claimed by old American colonies in regard to the payment of official salaries contended for by, and granted to Canada, to the satisfaction and progress of the country. i. 267.

Canada wholly surrendered to the King of Great Britain, through Lord Amherst. i. 267.

Canada--State of at the close of the war. ii. 471.

Carscallen (Luke). ii. 202.

Causes--Characteristics of early emigration to New England. i. 25.

Change of government in England and end of Lord North's administration. ii. 57.

Change of tone and professions at Massachusetts Bay on the confirmation of the King's restoration. i. 131.

The King's kind reply to their address--their joy at it, but they evade the six conditions on which the King proposes to forgive their past and continue their charter. i. 135-137, 139.

Characteristics of fifty-four years' government of Massachusetts Bay, under the first charter. i. 217.

Charles the First--Deceived by the misstatements of the Massachusetts Bay Puritans, to decide in their favour against the complaints made in 1632. i. 67.

His kind and indulgent conduct to the Massachusetts Bay Company, and how they deceived him. i. 67.

Charles the Second--His restoration; news of it received with joy in all the Colonies except in Massachusetts, where false rumours are circulated. i. 130.

Chateauguay, Battle of. ii. 413.

Chatham (Earl of)--Amendment; speech in the House of Lords (1774) against the coercive policy of the Ministry and defence of Colonial rights; his amendment opposed by Lord Suffolk, and supported by Lord Camden; negatived by a majority of 68 to 18. i. 423-429.

His bill "to settle the troubles in America" not allowed a first reading in the Lords. i. 425.

Chrysler's Farm, Battle of. ii. 419.

Clarendon (Earl of, Chancellor)--Reply to the address to the King, Charles II., of the Massachusetts Bay rulers, dated October 25, 1664, in which Lord Clarendon exposes the groundlessness of their pretensions, suspicions, and imputations. i. 160.

Clark (Colonel John), and his Manuscript contributions. ii.

Clinton (Sir Henry)--Succeeds General Howe as Commander-in-Chief. ii. 14.

Deceived as to the design of Washington and the French commander. ii. 42.

Fails to reinforce Lord Cornwallis. ii. 44.

Colonies--All resolve in favour of a general convention or congress and election of delegates to it, in 1774. i. 408.

How information on subjects of agitation was rapidly diffused throughout the Colonies. i. 405.

Colonial Assemblies--Their dissolutions. i. 356.

Colonists--Their agreements for the non-importation of British manufactured goods. i. 356.

Sons of Governors Barnard and Hutchinson refuse to enter into agreement, but are at length compelled to yield. i. 360.

Their effective services to England in the English and French war; their experience and skill thereby acquired in military affairs; their superiority as marksmen. i. 460.

Desire to provide as aforetime for their own defence and the support of their own local government, as is done in the provinces of the Dominion of Canada. i. 460.

Colonist--The writer a native. i. 1.

Colonies--Three causes of irritation in 1768. i. 348.

Unjust imputations in the British Parliament and Press against their loyalty. i. 353.

Their manly response to the imputations and assertion of British rights, led by the General Assembly of Virginia. i. 355.

Company of Massachusetts Bay--Write to Endicot and ministers sent by them against Church innovations. i. 49, 51.

Deny to the King and British public having made any Church innovations in Massachusetts. i. 53.

Complaints of banished Episcopalians, persecuted Presbyterians, Baptists, &c., to the King. i. 46, 137.

Complaints of the Massachusetts Bay Rulers--a pretext to perpetuate sectarian rule and persecution. i. 183.

Conduct and pretensions of Massachusetts Bay Rulers condemned and exposed by Loyalist inhabitants of Boston, Salem, Newbury, and Ipswich. i. 163.

Congregationalists--None other eligible for office, or allowed the elective franchise at Massachusetts Bay. i. 63.

Congress (First General Congress)-- Met at Philadelphia, September, 1774. i. 409.

The word defined. i. 409.

Each day's proceedings commenced with prayer. i. 410.

Its members and their constituents throughout the Colonies thoroughly loyal, while maintaining British constitutional rights. i. 410.

Its declaration of rights and grievances. i. 411.

Its loyal address to the King. i. 414.

Its manly and affectionate appeal to the British Nation. i. 416.

The address of its members to their constituents--a temperate and lucid exposition of their grievances and sentiments. i. 417.

Its proceedings reach England before the adjournment for the Christmas holidays in 1774, and produce an impression favourable to the Colonies. i. 420.

(Second Continental) meets in Philadelphia, September, 1775; number and character of its members. i. 442.

Its noble and affectionate petition to the King; the King denies an audience to its agent, Mr. Penn, and answers the petition by proclamation, declaring it "rebellion," and the petitioners "rebels." i. 443-445.

Its petition to the House of Commons rejected, and its agent, Mr. Penn, not asked a question. i. 444.

A large majority (Oct. 1775) still opposed to independence, but unanimous in defence of British constitutional rights. i. 448.

Divided on the question of _Independence_, which is first moved in Congress in May, 1776--deferred, after long debates, for three weeks, by a vote of seven to five Colonies. i. 483, 484.

Manipulation and agitation to prepare the members of Congress and the Colonies for separation from England. i. 482-485.

Proceeds with closed doors, and its members sworn to secrecy.

Votes by Colonies, and decides that each vote be reported unanimous, though carried by only a bare majority. i. 486.

After three days' debate, the six Colonies for and seven Colonies against independence; how a majority of one was obtained in favour of it. i. 486, 487.

Refuses to confer with British Commissioners with a view to reconciliation. ii. 2.

Feelings of the people of England and America different from those of the leaders of Congress. ii. 14.

Sycophancy of its leaders to France. ii. 13.

Its degeneracy in 1778, as stated by General Washington. ii. 29.

The depression of its credit. ii. 30.

It confiscates and orders the sale of the property of "Tories." ii. 30.

Appeals to France for men and money as their only hope. ii. 40.

Fallacy of the plea or pretext that it had not power to grant compensation to the Loyalists. ii. 61.

Meets at Philadelphia, 10th May, 1776. i. 479.

Contests--Chiefly between the Colonists, the French, and the Indians, from 1648 to 1654. i. 250.

Colonies--their divided councils and isolated resources. i. 257.

Their alarming state of affairs at the close of the year 1757. i. 255.

Cornwallis--His antecedents, ii. 38; his severe policy injurious to the British cause, ii. 40; his defence of Yorktown, ii. 44; his surrender to the French and American armies, ii. 45; conditions of capitulation, ii. 46.

Count De Grasse--Sails from New York to the Chesapeake with a fleet of 28 ships and 7,000 French troops. ii. 43.

Crown Point taken from the French by the English. i. 263.

Debts--Incurred by the New England Colonies in the Indian wars; how Massachusetts was relieved by England, and made prosperous. i. 240.

Declaration of American Independence--How the vote of the majority of the Colonies for it was obtained, and how reported. i. 486, 487.

Copy of it. i. 488.

Homage of respect by the authors to the fathers of. i. 492-495.

1. A renunciation of all the principles on which the General Congress, Provincial Legislatures, and Conventions professed to act from the beginning of the contest; proofs and illustrations. i. 496-499.

2. A violation of good faith to those statesmen and numerous other parties in Great Britain, who had, in and out of Parliament, defended and supported the rights and character of the Colonists during the whole contest; proofs and illustrations. i. 499-501.

3. A violation, not only of good faith, but of justice to the numerous Colonists who adhered to connection with the Mother Country; proofs and illustrations. i. 501-504.

4. The commencement of persecutions and proscriptions and confiscation of property against those who refused to renounce the oaths which they had taken, and the principles and traditions which had, until then, been professed by their persecutors and oppressors as well as by themselves; proofs and illustrations. i. 504-507.

The plea of tyranny. i. 504.

5. The commencement of weakness in the army of its authors, and of defeat in their battle-fields; proofs and illustrations. i. 508-513.

6. The announced expedient and prelude to an alliance with France and Spain against the Mother Country. i. 513-517.

New penal laws passed against the Loyalists after adopting it. ii. 5.

Detroit--Taken by the British under General Brock. ii. 354.

De Salaberry (General)--Defeats 10,000 Americans with 300 Canadians at Chateauguay ii. 381.

D'Estaing--His doings and failures in America. ii. 17-27.

Diamond (John). ii. 202.

Doane. ii. 192.

Dudley (Joseph)--Appointed Governor of Massachusetts by King James II. i. 212.

Dunmore (Earl of)--Governor of Virginia, commits the same outrages upon the inhabitants of Virginia, and about the same time, as those committed by General Gage upon the inhabitants of Massachusetts. i. 462.

Assembles the House of Burgesses to deliberate and decide upon Lord North's so-called "conciliatory proposition" to the Colonies; the House rejects the proposition on a report prepared by Mr. Jefferson--a document eulogized in the strongest terms by the Earl of Shelburne. i. 464.

East India Company--Disastrous effect of its agreement with the British Government. i. 381.

East India Company's Tea--Causes of it being thrown into Boston Harbour, as stated on both sides. i. 377.

Elections in England hastened in the autumn of 1774; adverse to the Colonies. i. 419.

Emigrants to Massachusetts Bay--Two classes. i. 1.

Emigration to Massachusetts Bay stopped by a change of Government in England. i. 85.

Endicot--Leader of the first company of emigrants to Massachusetts Bay. i. 27.

His character. i. 27.

Becomes a Congregationalist. i. 29.

Abolishes the Church of England, and banishes its adherents. i. 29.

Cause of all the tyrannical proceedings against them. i. 42.

Finally condemned by the Company, but officially retained by them. i. 43-48.

England's best and only means of protecting the Colonies against French encroachments and invasion. i. 244.

Position in respect to other European Powers at the Peace of Paris in 1763. i. 273.

England--Its resources at the conclusion of the Revolutionary war. ii. 48, 49.

The war party, and corrupt Administration, is defeated. ii. 48, 49.

Change of Administration and of policy, both for England and the Colonies. ii. 53.

Names of new Ministers, &c. ii. 53.

English Generals and soldiers refuse to fight against the Colonists. i. 446.

English Government employs seventeen thousand German mercenaries to bring the Colonists to absolute submission. i. 446-479.

Its change of policy, and effect of it in regard to the Colonies after the Peace of Paris, 1763. i. 277.

Its first acts which caused dissatisfaction and alienation in the American Colonies. i. 279.

Falmouth (now Portland) bombarded and burnt, by Captain Mowat, of the British Navy. i. 446.

Five-sixths of the male population disfranchised by Puritan bigotry and intolerance at Massachusetts Bay. i. 63.

Fort de Quesne taken by the English and called Pittsburg. i. 263.

Fox (C.J.)--His amendment to Lord North's address to the King, 1775, rejected by a majority of 304 to 105. i. 430.

France and England at war; mutually restore, in 1748, places taken during the first war. i. 242.

Franklin (Dr.)--His evidence at the Bar of the House of Commons on the Stamp Act, etc. i. 308.

Dismissed from office the following day. i. 426.

His petition to the House of Commons rejected. i. 426.

Proposes to include Canada in the United States. ii. 54.

Counter scheme to defeat the proposition of the English Commissioners. ii. 58.

Outwits the English Commissioners. ii. 63.

His Indian scalp fictions. ii. 119.

French--Attempt to take Quebec. i. 266.

Bitter feeling between French and American officers and soldiers, at Rhode Island, Boston, Charleston, and Savannah. ii. 20-25.

Encroachments on the British Colonies, from 1748 to 1756. i. 243.

Evasions and disclaimers, while encroaching on the British Colonies and making preparations for war against England. i. 245.

Successes in 1755, 1756, and 1757, in the war with England. i. 252.

French Fleet--Its complete failure under Count D'Estaing. ii. 17.

French Officers and Soldiers--Their kindness to the English after the defeat of Lord Cornwallis. ii. 129.

Gage (General)--His arrival in Boston; courteous reception, as successor to Governor Hutchinson; his character. i. 398.

Summons a meeting of the Legislature, which adjourns to meet at Salem, and which replies respectfully but firmly to Governor

Gage's speech; his bitter answer. i. 399.

His curious dissolution of the last Legislature held in Massachusetts Bay according to its first charter, which had proceeded with closed doors, and adopted by a majority of 92 to 12, declaring the necessity of a meeting of all the Colonies to meet and consult together on their present state. i. 401.

Governor of Massachusetts, and Commander-in-chief of the British in America, commences the first attack upon the Colonists. i. 460.

Governments of the British Provinces. ii. 271-276. (1) Nova Scotia. ii. 274-277. (2) New Brunswick. ii. 277-280. (3) Prince Edward Island. ii. 280. (4) Lower Canada. ii. 281-306. (See table of contents, chapter xlv.) (5) Upper Canada, ii. 307-316. (See table of contents, chapter xlvi.)

Governor of Massachusetts Bay Puritans and a majority of the assistants or magistrates vote in favour of submitting to the decision of the King on the conditions of perpetuating the Charter; but Congregational Ministers advise, and the majority of the deputies vote against it. i. 208, 209.

Governors of South and North Carolina (Campbell and Martin), like Dunmore, Governor of Virginia, betake themselves to ships--the Colonists in each case being treated with like severity. i. 473.

Haight (Canniff). ii. 219.

Happiness and prosperity of Massachusetts during seventy years under the second Charter. i. 240.

Harris (Mrs. Amelia). ii. 228-236.

Hessian soldiers--Their unreliable and bad character. ii. 73.

Hildreth, the historian, on the gloomy state of American affairs at the close of 1780. ii. 41.

Hillsborough (Earl of)--Effects of his circular letter to Colonial Governors. i. 345.

Joy in the Colonies at his despatch promising to repeal the obnoxious revenue Acts, and to impose no more taxes on the Colonists by acts of the British Parliament. i. 361.

Holland--Flight of Pilgrim Fathers to; trades there. i. 10.

Howe (Lord)--A monument erected to his memory in Westminster Abbey, at the expense of £250 sterling, by the Massachusetts Court. i. 260.

Hutchinson (Governor of Massachusetts) and his sons alone determine to land the East India Company tea in Boston. i. 376.

His account of the transactions at Boston, and vindication of himself. i. 383.

His conduct different from that of the Governors of other Colonies. i. 387.

Independence disclaimed by Franklin in 1773, by Washington and Jefferson and by leading New Englanders in July, 1775. i. 451-453.

Independents, origin of. i. 7.

Indians--Employed by both French and English in their wars. ii. 75.

Their employment in the war with the Colonies, opposed by the English Generals. ii. 76.

Their employment disadvantageous to England. ii. 76.

Their alliance and co-operation sought for by Congress. ii. 77.

Retaliations upon them by the Congress soldiers exceeded all that had been committed by the Indians upon the Americans--opinion of American writers. ii. 77.

Much that was written against them during the Revolution, since shown by the letters and biographies of its actors to have been fictitious. ii. 78.

Their employment against the English recommended by Washington, July 27th, 1776. ii. 80.

Efforts of General Burgoyne to restrain them from all cruel acts and excesses. ii. 82.

Their conduct injurious to the English cause and beneficial to the American. ii. 83.

The unprovoked invasion of their country, destruction of their settlements, and desolation of their towns, orchards, and crops and farms, by order of Congress. ii. 84.

Further examples of "retaliation," so-called, upon the Indian settlements. ii. 106.

The "Tories" driven among them as their only refuge, and treated as "traitors;" their conduct and duty. ii. 107.

Indians (Six Nations)--Colonel Stone's account in detail of General Sullivan's expedition of extermination against the Six Nations of Indians. ii. 108.

Indians--Treatment of by the Puritans in New England. ii. 293.

Intolerance and persecution of Baptists, Presbyterians, etc., by the Massachusetts Bay Rulers, from 1643 to 1651. i. 112.

Invasions of Canada by Americans; numbers of invaders. ii. 462.

James II.--Succession to the throne; thanked by the Massachusetts Bay Rulers for his Proclamation which violated the rights of England, and cost him his crown. i. 216.

Jarvis (Stephen). ii. 193. (William). ii. 193.

Johnson's (Sir William) victory over the French General Dieskau. i. 250.

Jones (David). ii. 193. (Jonathan). ii. 193.

King Charles the Second--Enjoins to cease persecuting the Quakers; how answered. i. 135.

The King retains Puritan councillors, who are kindly disposed to the Massachusetts Bay Puritans. i. 138.

The King's pardon and oblivion of the past misdeeds of the Massachusetts Bay Rulers, and promised continuance of Charter joyfully proclaimed; but the part of the letter containing the conditions of pardon, and oblivion, and toleration withheld from the public; and when the publication of it was absolutely commanded, the Massachusetts Bay Rulers ordered that the conditions of toleration, etc., should be suspended until further orders from their Court. i. 139-141.

Royal Commissioners appointed by the King, to inquire into the matters complained of in the New England Colonies, and to remedy what was wrong. i. 145.

Royal Commission appointed; slanderous rumours circulated against the Royal Commissioners. i. 146.

Copy of it explaining the reason and object of it. i. 147.

Duly received by all the New England Colonies except Massachusetts, where slanderous rumours were circulated against the Commission and Commissioners. i. 146, 147.

King Charles the Second's reply to the long address or petition of the Massachusetts Bay Court, dated February 25, 1665, correcting their misstatements and showing the groundlessness of their pretended fears and actual pretensions. i. 166.

Kind letter without effect upon the Massachusetts Bay Rulers, who refuse to receive the Royal Commissioners; second and more decisive letter from the King, April, 1666. i. 169.

Grants Charters to Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1663, with remarks upon them by Judge Story. i. 172.

On receiving the report of his Commissioners, who had been rejected by the Massachusetts Bay Rulers, orders them to send agents to England to answer before the King in Council to the complaints made against the Government of the Colony. i. 179.

Entreated by the Massachusetts Bay Rulers, who try to vindicate their proceedings, and instead of sending agents, send two large masts and resolve to send £1000 sterling to propitiate the King. i. 180.

Desists for some time from further action in regard to the Massachusetts Bay Rulers, but is at length roused to decisive action by complaints from neighbouring Colonists and individual citizens of the invasions of their rights, and persecutions and proscriptions inflicted upon them by the Massachusetts Bay Rulers. i. 187.

Seven requirements of the Massachusetts Bay Rulers, in his letter to them, dated July, 1679, just and reasonable, and observed by all British Colonies at this day. i. 188.

King George III.--Alleged author of the scheme with the East India Company; his condemnation of the petitions and remonstrances from the Colonies. i. 382.

His speech at the opening of the New Parliament, March 30th, 1774; and answers of both Houses. i. 419.

Opposition to the Royal Speech in both Houses; protest in the Lords. i. 420.

Denounces the Earl of Chatham and others. i. 424.

La Fayette returns from France in 1778, with a loan of money and reinforcements of land and naval forces. ii. 33.

Liberty (civil and religious) established in Massachusetts, not by the Puritans, but by Royal Charter. i. 237.

Lippincott (Captain Richard). ii. 193.

Long Parliament--Its ordinances in regard to Massachusetts trade in 1642. i. 87.

Appoints Commissioners and Governor General to Massachusetts Bay in 1646, with large powers. i. 88.

Orders the surrender of the Massachusetts Bay Charter; and means employed to evade it. i. 99, 100.

Loudoun (Earl of)--Arrival of from England, with troops, as Commander-in-chief. i. 252.

Disputes between him and the Massachusetts Court, in regard to the Mutiny Act, and quartering the troops upon the citizens. i. 255.

His arbitrary conduct in quartering his officers in Albany and New York. i. 258.

Hesitates and delays at Albany; never fought a battle in America. i. 259.

Loyalists--Circumstances of, after the surrender of Charleston to the French and Americans. ii. 46.

Unprotected in the articles of peace. ii. 57.

Constituted a majority of the population of the Colonies at the beginning of the contest. ii. 57.

Sacrificed in the treaty, as stated by Dr. Ramsay and Mr. Hildreth. ii. 59-61.

What demanded had been sanctioned by all modern civilized nations, in like circumstances. ii. 61.

Their deplorable condition during the war; utter abandonment by the English commissioners. ii. 64.

Much of what was written against the Revolution, since shown by the biographies and letters of its actors to be fictitious. ii. 77.

Summary of their condition and treatment. ii. 123.

Changes of their relation and condition by the Declaration of Independence. ii. 124.

The elements of their affectionate attachment to England. ii. 125.

The largest part of the population of the Colonies after the Declaration of Independence. ii. 124.

Their claims to have their rights and liberties restored. ii. 125.

Their position and character, described by Mr. Hildreth, and abused by mobs and oppressed by new Acts, and authorities. ii. 125.

First scene of severity against them; new American maxim of forgiving "Tories." ii. 127.

Their treatment in New York, Philadelphia, Virginia, and other places. ii. 128.

Legislative and executive acts against them. ii. 130-136.

Rhode Island, Connecticut. ii. 130.

Massachusetts. ii. 131.

New Hampshire, Virginia, New York. ii. 131.

New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware. ii. 132.

Maryland, North Carolina, Georgia. ii. 132.

South Carolina. ii. 136.

Their treatment on their applications for compensation after the Revolution. ii. 139-144.

Their treatment by the British Government and Parliament after the Revolution. ii. 159-182.

Refused compensation by the States of America, as proposed in the Treaty of Peace, and contrary to the practice of civilized nations. ii. 159.

Their compensation advocated in both Houses of Parliament. ii. 160, 163.

Their agents in England; proceedings of Parliamentary Commission; results. ii. 166-182

Driven from the United States to the British Provinces; and sketches of twenty-three of them. ii. 191-204.

Dr. Canniff's account of their first settlement on the North shore of the St. Lawrence and in the country around and West of Kingston. ii. 203-208.

Their adventures, sufferings, and first settlement in Canada, privations and labours, as written by themselves and their descendants. ii. 206-270.

(See table of contents, chapter xli.)

Loyalists--New penal laws passed against them after the Declaration of Independence. ii. 5.

Loyalists, in Massachusetts, who maintain in the Court and among the people, the Royal authority. i. 162.

The true Liberals of that day. i. 152.

Lundy's Lane--Battle of. ii. 438.

Marsden (Rev. J.W.). i. 298.

Maryland General Assembly's reply to the message of the Lt. Governor on Lord Hillsborough's circular. i. 344.

Massachusetts and other Colonial grateful acknowledgments to England for deliverance from the French and Spaniards. i. 27.

Massachusetts Bay Rulers persecute the Baptists, etc. i. 87.

Prohibit writing or speaking in favour of the King as a capital offence, but authorize it in favour of the Parliament. i. 87.

Petition Parliament in 1651, and address Cromwell in 1651, 1654. i. 108.

Massachusetts Bay Rulers' treatment of Cromwell at his death, and their professions in regard to Cromwell and Charles the Second at his restoration. i. 124.

They evade the conditions on which the King promised to continue the Charter, and deny the King's jurisdiction. i. 149.

They present a long address to the King, and enclose copies of it, with letters to Lord Chancellor Clarendon, the Earl of Manchester, Lord Say, and the Hon. Robert Boyle. i. 152.

Massachusetts Bay Rulers aggressors throughout upon the rights of the Sovereign and of their fellow-subjects. i. 75.

They side with the Long Parliament and Cromwell; their first address and commissioners to. i. 86.

They pass Acts for publication in England, and then adopt measures to prevent their execution in Massachusetts--such as the Navigation Act, Oath of Allegiance, the Franchise, Liberty of Worship, and Persecution of the Baptists and Quakers. i. 195.

They bribe Clerks in the Privy Council, and offer a bribe to the King. i. 205.

Their double game played out. i. 204.

Massachusetts circular displeasing to the British Ministry. i. 341.

Circular from Lord Hillsborough, Secretary of State for the Colonies. i. 341.

Massachusetts compensated by Parliament. i. 267.

Benefited by the English and French war. i. 270.

Massachusetts General Assembly refuse to legislate under the guns of a land and naval force. i. 357.

General Assembly--Its proceedings on the quartering of troops in Boston. i. 358.

Massachusetts never acknowledged the Act of Parliament changing its constitution without its consent. i. 407.

Its proceedings before the affairs of Lexington and Concord to enlist the Indians. ii. 79.

Massachusetts Legislative Assembly's noble circular to the Assemblies of other Colonies, on the unconstitutional and oppressive acts of the British Parliament. i. 338.

Massachusetts--Seed-plot of the American Revolution. i. 1.

First emigration to. i. 1.

Mahon (Lord)--His reflections on the American contest; apology for George III.; unhappiness of the Americans since the Revolution; unity of the Anglo-Saxon race. ii. 154.

Mather (Rev. Dr. Increase) makes a violent speech--appeals from man to God--decision against him. i. 209.

His proceedings in England, i. 226.

Fails to get the first Charter restored. i. 228.

First protests against the second Royal Charter, then thanks King William for it. i. 229.

Merritt (Thomas). ii. 196.

McDonald (Alexander). ii. 195.

McGill (John). 196.

McGillis (Donald). ii. 196.

McNab (Allan). ii. 202.

Moneys provided for the war, abstracted from England and expended in the Colonies. i. 270.

Montcalm, French General, captures Forts Oswego and William Henry. i. 253.

Morris (Roger). ii. 200.

Montreal besieged and taken from the French. i. 267.

Navigation Act passed by the Long Parliament in 1651, oppressive to the Southern Colonies, but regularly evaded in Massachusetts by collusion with Cromwell. i. 111.

Neal (the Puritan historian) deprecates the persecutions by the Massachusetts Bay Rulers. i. 120.

Newark (now Niagara)--Seat of Government of Upper Canada first established there. ii. 308.

Burned by the Americans. ii. 423.

New England--Two distinct emigrations to. i. 1.

Two separate Governments in for seventy years, and characteristics of each. i. 1.

New Plymouth--Original name of--first Sabbath in. i. 7.

First mild winter and early vegetation at. i. 8.

First "Harvest-home." i. 9.

Their government, toleration, oath of allegiance, loyalty. i. 15.

Their answers to the King's Commissioners. i. 18.

The melancholy end of their government. i. 22.

The loyalty and enterprise of their descendants. i. 23.

Ancestors of English Peers. i. 23.

New York--First Act of Parliament against. i. 329.

New York Legislature, which had not endorsed the first continental Congress, in 1774, now petitions Parliament on the subject of Colonial grievances; but its petition, presented by Mr. Burke, defended by Mr. Fox and others, is refused to be received, on motion of Lord North, by a majority of 186 to 67, and the Lords reject the same petition. i. 434-440.

Niagara (Newark) taken from the French by the English. i. 263.

Nineteen years' evasion by the Massachusetts Bay Rulers of the conditions on which King Charles II. promised to perpetuate their Charter. i. 193.

North (Lord)--His Bill to repeal the Colonial Revenue Acts, except the duty on tea. i. 368.

His agreement with the East India Company rouses and intensifies opposition in America. i. 371.

Combined opposition to it by English merchants and the Colonists. i. 372.

Explains his American policy. i. 394.

His resolution for address to the King, 1775, endorsing the coercive policy, and denouncing Colonial complaints as "rebellion;" debates on it. i. 426-429.

Second great debate in the Commons on his warlike resolution. i. 430.

His address made the joint address of both Houses of Parliament; the King's reply. i. 431.

Lord North's proposed resignation and preparations for it. ii. 8.

Defeat of his Administration. ii. 51.

Opinions of Lords Macaulay and Mahon on the success of a Commission recommended by the Earl of Chatham. ii. 8.

Origin of non-importation agreement in New York; sanctioned by persons in the highest stations. i. 360.

Origin of republicanism and hatred of monarchy in America. ii. 66.

Paine (Tom)--His appeal to the Colonists, called _Common Sense_, the first publication in America against monarchy. i. 450.

Author of republicanism and hatred of monarchy in America; his character and writings, and their effects. ii. 66-72.

Palfrey's and other New England historians' unfair statements and unjust imputations against the British Government of that time. i. 190, 211.

Parliament--Its authority over the Colonies. i. 317.

Three Bills passed by, to raise a revenue in the Colonies. i. 331.

Parliament passes an Act (1775) to punish the Colonies for countenancing Massachusetts. i. 433.

Parliament passes oppressive Acts in 1775 and 1776, with measures for employing foreign soldiers, Indians, and slaves against the complaining Colonists. i. 459.

Parliament passes no Act to authorize peace with America for three months after the accession of the new Ministry. ii. 54.

Parliament votes £115,000 sterling to compensate the Colonies for expenses incurred by them. i. 252.

Parties--Origin of political parties at Massachusetts Bay. i. 209.

Petitions and representations to the King from Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc., in Massachusetts Bay, on their persecutions and disfranchisement by the local Government. i. 137.

Petitions from various towns in England, Scotland, and Ireland against Lord North's coercive American policy. i. 425.

Pilgrim Fathers--who. i. 2.

Their settlement, and residence of 12 years in Holland. i. 3.

Long to be under the English Government. i. 3.

Cross the Atlantic in the _Mayflower_. i. 3.

Where intended to settle in America, i. 4

What known of Cape Cod before the Pilgrims landed. i. 4.

Their agreement and constitution of government before landing. i. 5.

Remarks upon it by Messrs. Bancroft and Young. i. 6.

Inflated American accounts of their voyage. i. 7.

Their first "Harvest-home." i. 9.

Pitt (afterwards Earl of Chatham) changes the whole fortune of the war with the French in America in favour of England. i. 260.

Policy of the British Ministry in employing foreign soldiers and Indians, deprecated by all classes in Europe and America. ii. 72-74.

Pownall (Governor)--His speech and amendment in the House of Commons to repeal the duty on tea; rejected by a majority 242 to 204. i. 361.

Preface--The reason and objects of writing the history of the Loyalists of America. i. 3-5.

Protests and Loyal Petitions of the Colonists against English Parliamentary Acts to raise a revenue in the Colonies. i. 337.

Puritan authorities alone adduced in this historical discussion. i. 59.

Puritan letters suppressed by the biographer of Governor Winthrop. i. 59.

Puritans of Massachusetts Bay Company. i. 24.

Their Charter and settlement in 1629. i. 23.

Their intolerance. i. 24.

Their wealth and trade. i. 25.

Their enterprise under two aspects. i. 26.

Professed members of the Church of England when they left England. i. 26.

Puritan treatment of the Indians. i. 298.

Puritan legal opinions in England on the constant violation of the first Charter by the Massachusetts Bay Rulers. i. 233.

Quebec taken by General Wolfe. i. 263.

Queenston Heights--Battle of. ii. 365-8.

Quo Warranto--Notice of sent to the Rulers of Massachusetts Bay in July, 1683, to answer to thirteen complaints against them for violating the Royal Charter; received in October, 1683; judgment given July, 1685, nearly two years afterwards. i. 208-211.

Remonstrances of the Rev. Drs. Owen, T. Goodwin, and other Nonconformist ministers in England against the persecutions by the Massachusetts Bay Puritans. i. 185.

Retrospect of the transactions between Charles I. and II. and the Massachusetts Bay Rulers from 1630 to 1666, with extracts of correspondence. i. 171.

Revolution--Principal characteristics of it, and the feeling which should now be cultivated by both of the former contending parties; by J.M. Ludlow. ii. 145.

Richardson (Rev. James)--Letter by. ii. 208.

Robinson (Beverley). ii. 196.

Robinson (Christopher). ii. 198.

Robinson (Sir J.B.). ii. 199.

Robinson (Sir C.K.P.). ii. 199.

Robinson (Morris). ii. 199.

Robinson (John). ii. 200.

Rockingham (Marquis of)--His death and its consequences. ii. 53.

Royal Charter (second) by William and Mary; nine principal provisions of it, establishing for the first time civil and religious liberty in Massachusetts. i. 229-233.

Royal Charter to Massachusetts Bay Puritans. i. 28.

Its provisions. i. 30.

Violated by the Massachusetts Bay Puritans. i. 33.

Transferred from England to Massachusetts Bay, and the fact concealed for four years. i. 69.

Royal Commission issued to examine into the complaints made against the Massachusetts Bay Rulers--conduct of parties. i. 72.

Royal Commissioners' Report on the Colony of Massachusetts Bay; twenty anomalies in its laws inconsistent with the Royal Charter; evades the conditions of the promised continuance of the Charter; denies the King's jurisdiction. i. 149.

Royal Patriotic Society of Upper Canada and its doings. ii. 464.

Royal Speech on meeting Parliament, October 26th, 1775, and discussions upon it. i. 474.

Ryerse (Rev. George)--Letter by. ii. 226.

Ryerse (Colonel Samuel). ii. 229.

Ryerson (Colonel Joseph). ii. 257.

Salaries of officials paid independent of the Colonies--cause of dissatisfaction. i. 366.

Saltonstall (Sir Richard) remonstrates against the persecutions by the Massachusetts Bay Rulers. i. 116.

Scadding (Rev. Dr.)--Sketch by. ii. 259.

Second Charter--Its happy influence upon toleration, loyalty, peace, and unity of society in Massachusetts. i. 237.

Seven years of war and bloodshed prevented, had Congress in 1776 adhered to its previous professions. ii. 56.

Shelburne (Earl of)--Correspondence with Dr. Franklin on negotiations for peace. ii. 54.

Simcoe (General Graves)--First Governor of Upper Canada. ii. 308.

Soldiers--The humiliating position of soldiers in Boston. i. 360.

Insulted, abused, and collisions with the inhabitants. i. 365.

Spain joins France against England in 1779. ii. 28.

Spohn (Mrs. E.B.)--Paper by. ii. 264.

Stamp Act and its effects in America. i. 283.

Virginia leads the opposition against it. i. 287.

Riots in Boston against it. i. 288.

Petitions in England against it. i. 291.

Its repeal and rejoicings at it. i. 323.

Extracts from speeches respecting it by Charles Townsend and Colonel Barré, and remarks upon them. i. 296.

Extracts from the speeches of Lords Chatham and Camden on the passing and repeal of the Stamp Act. i. 302.

Summary of events from its repeal, March, 1766, to the end of the year. i. 323-336.

Statements of the historians Hutchinson and Neal on the persecutions by the Massachusetts Bay Puritans. i. 185.

Story (Judge) on the happy influence of the second Charter, and improved legislation and progress of the Colony under it. i. 235.

Tea Duty Act virtually defeated in America. i. 370.

Opposition to it represented in England as "rebellion," and the advocates of Colonial rights as "rebels" and "traitors." i. 388.

Tea--Duty of threepence per pound, to be paid in America into the British Treasury, continued. i. 363.

Three Acts of Parliament passed to remove all grounds of complaint on the part of the Colonists. ii. 6.

Ticonderago taken by the English. i. 263.

Treaty of Peace between Great Britain and the United States; rights and interests of the Loyalists sacrificed by it; omissions in it; protests against it in Parliament. ii. 164, 165.

Vane (Sir Henry) remonstrates against the persecutions by the Massachusetts Bay Rulers. i. 116.

Vice-Admiralty Courts and the Navy employed as custom-house offices in the Colonies. i. 331.

Virginia House of Burgess's admirable answer to the Massachusetts Circular, 1668, and similar replies from other Colonies. i. 342, 343.

Rejects Lord North's so-called "conciliatory proposition" to the Colonies. i. 464.

Its traditional loyalty of Virginians, and their aversion to revolutions; but resolved to defend their rights. i. 464.

Remonstrate with Lord Dunmore for leaving the seat of his government and going on board of a vessel; assure him and his family of perfect safety by remaining at Williamsburg. i. 467.

Are horror-struck at Lord Dunmore's threat and proclamation to free the slaves. i. 465.

Moved by his fears, goes on board of ship, twelve miles from the seat of government. i. 466.

Attempts to destroy the town of Hampton; reduces to ashes the town of Norfolk, then the first commercial city in Virginia. i. 467, 471.

His conduct unlawful and inhuman; English accounts of his conduct. i. 470, 472.

War formally declared between England and France in 1756. i. 252.

War party and corrupt Administration defeated in the House of Commons, 1782. ii. 49.

War by the United States against Great Britain, 1812-1815. ii. 316-330.

(See table of contents, chapters xlvii., xlviii., xlix., l., li., lii., liii., liv., lv., lvi., lvii., lviii.)

War--Close of; remarks; conclusion. (See table of contents, chapter lx.)

Washington--Weakness of his army and depression of American finances in 1778. ii. 32.

His despondency without funds. ii. 41.

With the French commander plans an expedition to the South. ii. 42.

His skill and courage. ii. 47.

Washington recommended by Dunwiddie, Governor of Virginia, but his services are not recognized. i. 257.

Washington, under date of July 27th, 1776, recommends the employment of the Indians in the Revolutionary Cause. ii. 80.

Watts (Rev. Isaac)--A remarkable letter from him addressed to the Rev. Dr. Cotton Mather, explanatory of Neal's History of New England, on "the persecuting principles and practices of the first planters," and urging the formal repeal of the "cruel and sanguinary statutes" which had been passed by the Massachusetts Bay Court under the first Charter. i. 239.

White (Rev. John), projector and founder of the Massachusetts Bay Settlement. i. 26-28.

Wolfe (General)--His heroism at Louisburg. i. 262. Takes Quebec. i. 263.

Wyoming--The massacre of, original inflated accounts of. ii. 85.

Four versions of it, by accredited American historians--Dr. Ramsay, Mr. Bancroft, Mr. Tucker, and Mr. Hildreth. ii. 85-90.

Discrepancies in four essential particulars of these four accounts. ii. 92.

Supplementary remarks upon, by the author of the Life of Joseph Brant, etc. ii. 94.

Massacre (alleged) of Wyoming--American retaliation for. ii. 99-106.

(See table of contents, chapter xxxv.)

END OF VOL. I.