Chapter 76
"We should be wanting in justice and grat.i.tude if we did not upon this occasion acknowledge the wisdom and liberality of the provisions proposed by your Majesty's servants, conformable to your Majesty's gracious intentions for the relief and accommodation of the several cla.s.ses of sufferers to whose cases they apply; and we are convinced it will give comfort to your royal heart to be a.s.sured they have been received with the most general satisfaction.
"Professions of the unalterable attachment of the Loyalists to your Majesty's person and government we conceive to be unnecessary; they have preserved it under persecution, and grat.i.tude cannot render it less permanent. They do not presume to arrogate to themselves a more fervent loyalty than their fellow-subjects possess; but distinguished as they have been by their sufferings, they deem themselves ent.i.tled to the foremost rank among the most zealous supporters of the British Const.i.tution. And while they cease not to offer up their most earnest prayers to the Divine Being to preserve your Majesty and your ill.u.s.trious family in the peaceful enjoyment of your just rights, and in the exercise of your royal virtues in promoting the happiness of your people, they humbly beseech your Majesty to continue to believe them at all times, and upon all occasions, equally ready, as they have been, to devote their lives and properties to your Majesty's service and the preservation of the British Const.i.tution.
"W. Pepperell, for the Ma.s.sachusetts Loyalists.
"J. Wentworth, for the New Hamps.h.i.+re Loyalists.
"George Rowe, for the Rhode Island Loyalists.
"Ja. Delancey, for the New York Loyalists.
"David Ogden, for the New Jersey Loyalists.
"Joseph Galloway, for the Pennsylvania and Delaware Loyalists.
"Robert Alexander, for the Maryland Loyalists.
"John R. Grymer, for the Virginia Loyalists.
"Henry Eustace McCulloch, for the North Carolina Loyalists.
"James Simpson, for the South Carolina Loyalists.
"William Knox, for the Georgia Loyalists.
"John Graham, late Lieutenant-Governor of Georgia, and joint agent, for the Georgia Loyalists."
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 124: The names of the agents, or delegates, are as follows: W.
Pepperell, for the Ma.s.sachusetts Loyalists; J. Wentworth, jun., for the New Hamps.h.i.+re Loyalists; George Rowe, for the Rhode Island Loyalists; Ja. Delancey, for the New York Loyalists; David Ogden, for the New Jersey Loyalists; Joseph Galloway, for the Pennsylvania and Delaware Loyalists; Robert Alexander, for the Maryland Loyalists; John R. Grymes, for the Virginia Loyalists; Henry Eustace McCulloch, for the North Carolina Loyalists; James Simpson, for the South Carolina Loyalists; William Knox, for the Georgia Loyalists.]
[Footnote 125: Another very able pamphlet was issued some time afterwards, ent.i.tled "Claims of the American Loyalists Reviewed and Maintained upon the Incontrovertible Principles of Law and Justice;"
printed in London, 1788.]
[Footnote 126: "Historical View of the Commission for Inquiry into the Losses, Services, and Claims of the American Loyalists, at the Close of the War between Great Britain and her Colonies in 1783; with an Account of the Compensation granted to them by Parliament in 1785 and 1788." By John Eardley Wilmot, Esq., London, 1815. Dedicated "To His Most Gracious Majesty George the Third, equally distinguished for justice and beneficence to his subjects and for humanity to his enemies."]
[Footnote 127: It has already been mentioned that the Legislature of South Carolina (the only State of the American Republic) had taken steps to restore the estates of several of her Loyalists. This "caused the withdrawal of the claims of their owners (before the English Commissioners), except that in instances of alleged strip and waste, amercements, and similar losses, inquiries were inst.i.tuted to ascertain the value of what was taken compared with that which was returned."
The English Commissioners, in their twelfth and last report, remark on this subject as follows:
"We thought it our duty to state, in our second report of the 24th December, 1784, that the State of South Carolina had, by an Act of the 24th March, 1784, restored the confiscated property of certain Loyalists, subject to the restrictions therein mentioned; and that in consequence thereof many had withdrawn the claims they had before presented to us. We find, however, that in many instances the parties have not been able to reap that advantage they had expected, and which the Act above-mentioned held out to them. In some instances the property restored has been so wasted and injured as to be of little value; in others, the amercements and charges have been nearly equal to the value of the fee simple of the estates; and in many, where the indents[128]
being the species of money received by the State, have been restored to the former proprietors, an inevitable and considerable loss has been sustained by the depreciation. In all these cases we have made minute inquiry into the real benefit that has been derived from such rest.i.tution, whether of the property itself, or of the _indents_ in lien of it; and having endeavoured to ascertain, as nearly as the circ.u.mstances would admit, the value of what was lost and the value of what was restored, we have considered the difference as the real loss of the party."]
[Footnote 128: _Indent_--A certificate, or indented certificate, issued by the Government of the United States at the close of the revolution, for the princ.i.p.al or interest of the public debt.--Webster.]
[Footnote 129: The principle thus laid down was neither just, nor true, nor generous. The claimants had not asked for _charity_, but for _compensation_, and that not as a favour, but upon the principles of "right and of strict justice." The British Ministry and Parliament alone originated and were responsible for the policy and measures which had led to the calamities so ruinous to the Loyalists, who now claimed compensation. The claimants had had nothing to do with pa.s.sing the Stamp Act; with imposing duties on tea and other articles imported into the colonies; with making naval officers collectors of customs; with erecting courts of admiralty, and depriving the trading colonists of trial by jury, and of rendering the officers of the admiralty courts, and the complainants before them, the recipients of the first confiscations imposed by such events; with the acts to close the Port of Boston, and supersede the chartered const.i.tution of Ma.s.sachusetts, all of which, separately and collectively, with other like measures, roused and united the colonists to
[Footnote 130: The number of claims examined by the Commissioners in Nova Scotia and Canada was 1,272; the amount of claims was 975,310; the losses allowed were 336,753.]
[Footnote 131: What remained for consideration, and which was afterwards granted by Parliament, consisted of seven Articles, and was as follows:
"1. Additional claims liquidated since 1788, to the amount of 224,406
"2. The proprietary claims of Messrs. Pennes 500,000
"3. Do. Do. Trustees under the will of Lord Granville, North Carolina 60,000
"4. The proprietary claims of Robert Lord Fairfax, proprietor of Virginia 60,000
"5. Claims of subjects, settled inhabitants of the United States, many of which were cases of great merit and peculiar hards.h.i.+p 32,462
"6. Claims of persons who appeared to have relief under the Treaty of Peace 14,000
"7. Claims of creditors on ceded lands in Georgia 45,885"]
[Footnote 132: The case of such merchants was peculiarly distressing. In the "Historical Review of the Commission," the Commissioners state:
"The claims for debts due from subjects of the United States, as well from the magnitude of their amount as the peculiar hards.h.i.+p and injustice under which the claimants labour respecting them, form a subject which appears strongly to press for the attention and interposition of Government. The Treaty of Peace having provided that 'Creditors on either side should meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value of their debts in sterling money,' losses of this nature have not been considered as within the inquiry directed by the Act, because we cannot consider any right or property as lost to the party where the Government of the country has expressly provided and stipulated for a remedy by a public treaty. We think it, however, inc.u.mbent upon us to represent that the claimants uniformly state to us the insuperable difficulties they find themselves under, as individuals, in seeking the recovery of their debts according to the provision of the treaty, whilst themselves are the objects of prosecution in courts of justice here for debts due to the subjects of the United States. Under such circ.u.mstances, the situation of this cla.s.s of sufferers appears to be singularly distressing--disabled on the one hand by the laws or practice of the several States from recovering the debts due them, yet compellable on the other to pay all demands against them; and though the stipulation in the treaty in their favour has proved of no avail to procure them the redress it holds out in one country, yet they find themselves excluded by it from all claims to relief in the other."]
[Footnote 133: It is certain that but a small proportion of the American Loyalists presented claims before the Parliamentary Commissioners in England for compensation for services or loss of property; and many of those who presented claims did not prosecute them. The Commissioners give the following explanation on this point:
"It may, perhaps, appear singular that so many claims presented, viz., 448, have been withdrawn; but it may be owing, in the first place, to the circ.u.mstance of many of these claimants having recovered possession of their estates, and, in the next place, to the uncertainty, at the commencement of the inquiry, as to the nature of the Commission, and the species of loss which was the object of it, and perhaps to the consciousness of others that they were not able to establish the claims they had presented."]
CHAPTER x.x.xIX.
THE LOYALISTS DRIVEN FROM THE UNITED STATES TO THE BRITISH PROVINCES.
The Loyalists, after having been stripped of their rights and property during the war, and driven from their homes, and hunted and killed at pleasure, were exiled from all right of residence and citizens.h.i.+p at the close of the war; and though the Treaty of Peace engaged that Congress should recommend the several States to compensate them for the losses of their property, the Legislatures of the several States (with one exception) refused any compliance with this stipulation of the national treaty; and the Legislature of New York actually ordered the punishment of those Loyalists who applied for compensation. At the close of the war, therefore, instead of witnessing, as in the case of all other civilized nations at the termination of a civil war, however rancorous and cruel, a general amnesty and the restoration of all parties to the rights and property which they enjoyed at the commencement of the strife, the Loyalists found themselves exiled and impoverished, and their enemies in possession of their homes and domains. It is true about 3,000 of the Loyalists were able to employ agents, or appear personally, to apply to the English Government and Parliament for compensation for their losses; and the preceding chapter records the n.o.ble appreciation of their character and services by British statesmen, and the liberality of Parliament in making them compensation for their losses and sufferings in maintaining their fidelity to the mother country. But these 3,000 const.i.tuted not one-tenth of the Loyalists who had suffered losses and hards.h.i.+ps during the civil war; upwards of 30,000 of them were driven from the homes of their birth, and of their forefathers, to wildernesses of everlasting snow. It was a policy as inhuman and impolitic as that of Spain in expelling upwards of 600,000 Moors, the most skilful and profitable of their manufacturers and artizans; or of France, in compelling the escape of above 500,000 of the best workers in the finest manufactures to other countries where they laid the foundation of industries which have proved a source of boundless wealth to England at the expense of the commerce and manufactures of France.
The Democrats were then the ruling party in most of the States; the more moderate voice and liberal policy of the Conservative Republicans were hushed and fanned down by the Democratic leaders, who seemed unable to look beyond the gratification of their resentment and avarice; they seemed to fear the residence and presence of men of intelligence, ability, and energy, who might in the future rival if not eclipse them.
The maxim of the Loyalists was, obedience to law; heretofore they looked upon the enactments of the States and of Congress as usurpation; those enactments were now recognized as law by England herself, in the acknowledgment of American Independence; and the Loyalists would have been among the most obedient and law-abiding citizens had they been allowed to remain in the land of their nativity and forefathers, and would have largely added to its social advancement, literature, and wealth, and would undoubtedly, before now, have led to the unity of the Anglo-Saxon race under one free and progressive government. Historians and statesmen have long since condemned this resentful and narrow-minded policy of the States against the Loyalists after the close of the revolutionary war, as do now even American historians.[134]
The Americans inaugurated their Declaration of Independence by enacting that all adherents to connection with the mother country were rebels and traitors; they followed the recognition of Independence by England by exiling such adherents from their territories. But while this wretched policy depleted the United States of some of their best blood, it laid the foundation of the settlement and inst.i.tutions of the then almost unknown and wilderness provinces which have since become the wide-spread, free and prosperous Dominion of Canada.
Until very recently, the early history of the Loyalists of America has never been written, except to blacken their character and misrepresent their actions; they were represented as a set of idle office-seekers--an imputation which has been amply refuted by their braving the forests of northern countries, and converting them into fruitful fields, developing trade and commerce, and establis.h.i.+ng civil, religious, and educational inst.i.tutions that are an honour to America itself. Yet, when exiled from their native land, they were bereft of the materials of their true history. A living American writer truly observes:
"Of the reasons which influenced, of the hopes and fears which agitated, and of the miseries and rewards which awaited the Loyalists--or, as they were called in the politics of the time, the Tories--of the American Revolution, but little is known. The most intelligent, the best informed among us, confess the deficiency of their knowledge. The reason is obvious. Men who, like the Loyalists, separate themselves from their friends and kindred, who are driven from their homes, who surrender the hopes and expectations of life, and who become outlaws, wanderers, and exiles--such men leave few memorials behind them. Their papers are scattered and lost, and their very names pa.s.s from human recollection.
* * Of several of the Loyalists who were high in office, of others who were men of talents and acquirements, and of still others who were of less consideration, I have been able, after long and extensive researches, to learn scarcely more than their names, or the single fact that for their political opinions or offences they were proscribed and banished."[135]
The circ.u.mstances under which the Loyalists were banished from the States and deprived of their property will largely account for the alienation of feeling which long existed between the Americans and Canadians, which gave intensity to the war of 1812-15, which exists to some extent at this day, but which is gradually subsiding, and is being gradually superseded by feelings of mutual respect and friends.h.i.+p, strengthened by large commercial and social relations, including many intermarriages.
To understand the sacrifices which the Loyalists made, and the courage and energy they evinced, in leaving their old homes and a.s.sociations in the sunny parts of America, and in seeking a refuge and a home in the wilds of the remaining British Provinces, it will be necessary to notice what was then known, and the impression then existing, as to the climate, productions, and conditions of these provinces.[136]
At that time New Brunswick formed a part of Nova Scotia, and was not organized into a separate province until 1784. The impressions then entertained as to the climate of Nova Scotia (including New Brunswick) may be inferred from the following extracts from a pamphlet published in England in 1784: