27 1 F73 B A t T I C GX€Q V A vj t T S \jt K Price $ 1 . KINGSTON, ONT., BRITISH WHIG PUBLISHING COMPANY LIMITED, 1906. ~X> Rise of the United Empire Loyalists By the Viscount de Fronsac. INTRODUCTION. The United Empire Loyalists of the British Colo- nies in North America of all branches of the Aryan race: — French, English, Dutch, German, — whose pos- terity had settled in America are those who decided that as much of the empire in America as they were able to preserve in 1783 should be saved from republican revo- lution and democratic destruction. In the cases of many it was not affection for the British name and connection, since many were of different nationalities, but it was •" attachment to a constitutional and monarchial umpire- ship of affairs. In fact, many others, of the foremost royalists, were opposed in principle to the House of Hanover on the British throne, considering its right as resting on parliamentary usurpation rather than on the constitution. But they advanced nevertheless to sustain l the principle of monarch}' which it represented in oppo- sition to the leveling, unpatriotic and unconstitutional democracy to which it was opposed. The United Empire Loyalist position then is a dual one; first as a maintenance of the royalty and the classes represented in the ancient charters of the Anglo-Ameri- can colonies, secondly as a defiance of parliamentary interference from Britain in the functions of the crown in the colonies — a recognized protest that no ministers, committee or parliament in England shall stand between the king and royal and constitutional government in the colonies. But to understand this doctrine which is so vital to the history of Canada — on the defence of which rests the integrity of its institutions and the treaties guaranteeing them, it is necessary to go to the very beginning, to the causes of the foundation of the Anglo-American colonies and to the elements which enter therein, on which these institutions in Canada are based and defended, against the doctrine which has overthrown them in what are now the United States of North America. PART I. Colonist Under the Stuarts. It was in the very beginning of these troublesome times of the Stuart reigns that kingdoms were founded beyond the sea. In 1606 King James I. granted a charter to two companies to extend his empire in America, the Company of London, whose territory extended from Old Point Comfort 200 miles northwest and 200 miles south- west, and the Company of Plymouth whose grant com- menced 100 miles further north than the former com- pany's. The motive which prompted the first settler to go from England to Virginia, as the northern division was called, was for commercial self-interest; the finding of gold and the acquiring of estates. But the motive of the king in extending his empire beyond seas was to create regal states, — states whose autonomies might resemble in every feature the autonomy of the parent state as a mirror reflects an image. This idea of the Stuarts was not original. Had it been original it would have been unnatural, on a false, unconstitutional basis. The Bourbons had practised it before in Canada. This idea of the Stuarts and Bour- bons was borrowed from the feudal system and the feudal system had been derived from the Frankish allot- ment of responsibility to semi-independent princes over tracks of conquered domain, wherein each prince was sovereign within his allotment, being responsible only to the supreme majesty, the King or Emperor at the head of all the states, which these allotments of domain were forming. In a government of this sort, if the King or Emperor might be coerced by the democracy of his own particular state — as that which had murdered King Charles I. — the King or Emperor could summon the princes of these inferior states, who, true to their res- ponsibility, holding fealty to the King, and not to the parliament, or democracy, were bound to rally their own proper warriors and crush the enemies of the empire, at the mandate of their Suzerain. This faith, this fealty, Colonist Under the Stuarts. 5 this knightly obligation, could be expected only of a knightly race — it would fail in the hands of such a civi- lization as that which commercialism causes to flourish — a civilization without a class of honor. It was this class of honor, therefore; derived in inspiration from that Frankish chivalry — "formed by the hand of God" — that each sub-chieftain, or prince, or council of feu- datories who held a charter from the Stuart King to found colonies beyond seas, hastened to develop and put in command in each their colonies — to the end that their autonomies might be as royal and sovereign as that of the parent state and subservient only to the sovereign thereof. Beginning with this method all the charters granted by the Stuarts for the establishment of colonies in Amer- ica were in the sense of feudal holdings and of a royal character. This made them so different from the modi- fications which they received under the succeeding House of Hanover, when the charters became subser- vient to parliamentary jurisdiction and were modelled after the commissions of joint-stock companies for colo- nial management and exploitation. Under the Stuarts the system employed rendered it impossible for parlia- ment to intermeddle in colonial affairs. The right of domain in the colony was vested by the Crown in a person, or a company to rule according to the terms of the grant from the Crown which gave him or them the control of that domain, with power to choose not only the officers and to make subinfeudations, but to name their successors, unless the grant was declared heredi- tary — like the principality of Maryland in the family of Lord Baltimore. Holding from the King, as an ancient feudal vassal of the Age of Chivalry, the colonies as fiefs were made to respond, not to parliament which could not enter a fief, but to the King's great vassals, the colonial pro- prietors, or council of proprietors. In their own name, with sovereign power absolute over their colonial fiefs, they granted lands and dignities to be held solely by themselves. Those receiving grants and dignities in the colonies were responsible to their feudal superior, the proprietor, or council of proprietors and he or they 6 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. to the King. In this manner the colonies were made royal even when England itself was becoming parlia- mentarian and republican. In this manner, from the subinfeudations granted by the proprietor, prince, or council of proprietors in the colonies to antrustians — to officers, gentlemen and others on whose honor the pro- prietor might rely for support military and administra- tive, a class of honor was being built up, a colonial aris- tocracy having many of the features of the ancient chiv- alry after whose feudal pattern and nature of fealty it was modeled. That this was the best system may be understood by reason and history proves it by facts. It built up faith and honesty in the entire population wherever it was introduced; it developed a local centre of adminis- tration, free from parliamentary interference and in har- mony with the condition requisite for local prosperity. During that period, after the first hardships of coloniza- tion had been conquered, the greatest happiness and contentment prevailed in the colonies, and the best of those ancient colonial residences, preserved to modern times, show in their design the aspiration and character of the leading families, whose colonial importance under the Stuarts is the proudest boast of their descendants of the present day. In adopting this system the Stuarts were acting along constitutional lines. In regard to the nature of the population, the full meaning of the common law of England was put in active force. This common law recognizes the three classes into which every people is divided : I, the nobility, II, the professional class and, III, the burgesses. The charter of every Stuart colony made a provision for the just representation of each. In some colonies this representation was made more defi- nite than in others, but in all there was a provision for it. The charter granted to Virginia in 1606 introduced the land tenure system of England into the country. Now in that early settlement period, on account of the lack of an exalted motive on the part of the first adven- turers going into the country, the only idea in their minds was, as herebefore stated, the acquisition of wealth, and finally, estate. The English iaw was estab- Colonist Under the Stuarts. 7 lished. According to English law, not only a city but a division of the country must be erected into a "bor- ough" before it might be represented in the legislature. But no baronial or manorial grant was made in Virginia from the earliest date down to the extinction of Crown authority beneath the democratic American revolution. A great many "broken" gentlemen had come over even with the fist colonists, and they were not of a good qual- ity of their own class. There were a few who thought of restoring their family station "in the pomp of her- aldry" and the pride of statecraft, and of erecting manours and baronies in the new world in the romantic spirit of old Europe. But the records show that these "decayed gentlemen" were in general the least valuable of all the colonists to Virginia. In fact, had it not been for the indominatable courage and genius of a soldier among them, Capt. John Smith, the early colonists would have perished from their own dissipation and ignorance and lack of cohesive energy. Smith organ- ized the necessary labors to be performed and compelled their performance by his authority as chief of the colony, he having been appointed to that position by the "Lon- don Council" in control of the colony. This Council consisting of thirteen of the British nobility held the colony as a direct feudatory of the Crown, who were to administer the colony according to the provisions of the charter. This charter was the constitution of Virginia and as such was an abstract of the Common Law of England. In addition this abstract provided that: I. The .Christian religion, Church of England, shall be maintained and the clergy paid from certain revenues of the colony. II. Lands are to descend as in England. The entailment of estates among the aristocracy was encour- aged as a measure necessary for local prosperity and for the independence and well-being of that aristocracy. The officers of a colony were to consist of a gover- nor appointed by the great feudatories — the London Council, — assisted by councellors chosen in the colony from among the great land owners. Later there was added a House of Burgesses elected by the remaining inhabitants, whose office, as every representative office 8 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. is, was to present their grievances to be remedied to the Governor and Council, and to vote the money necessary to carry on the government of the colony. Apart from the taxation and asssessment subject to the House of Burgesses, the Governor and Council — in the name of the great feudatories of the colony (London Council) — administered the feudal lands, known usually as "Crown lands." The early gentlemen colonists of Virginia, who settled Jamestown on the James River in 1607, had their connection broken with their families in Britain, several leaving England to escape the consequences of their debts. On this account they were unable to obtain wives of their own class, even after they had gained appropriate estates in the colony. They knew no other class than their own in Britain. It became necessary for their domestic happiness to have wives of some kind however, and they employed an agent in London, who for the sake of 40 pounds of tobacco for each respectable female whom he could induce to go to Virginia and marry one of the planters, agreed to send over the article required for their domesticity. History does not state whether this article was a little dear, but it was certainly respectable, or the bargain would have been declared "off." From the time of the settlement of Jamestown in 1607 to 1649 affairs in Britain were running more and more in a democratic channel. The people described in Cromwell's address to parliament, the leaders of this democracy, who had raised the indignation of Cromwell himself, had murdered the King, Charles I., and had usurped the royal power. All the counsellors and feu- datories of the King had been killed in battle, or had fled the kingdom and some of those grand old cavaliers came to Virginia at this time, as fugitives, burning with indignation against the unprincipled and presumptuous democracy, whom they had left behind in Britain in the house of empire. "For there was dust of vulgar feet On that polluted floor ; And perjured traitors filled the seat Where good men sat before." Colonist Under the Stuarts. 9 It was at this time that the old feudal fealty showed itself in Virginia, being given an opportunity of expres- sion in favor of the Crown of which Virginia was a fief. It was at this time that Sir William Berkeley was gov- ernor of Virginia, one of those few knightly souls of old Europe who came to America and whose renown is worthy to live forever in the pages of chivalry. "He belonged to an ancient English family; believed in mon- archy as a devotee believes in his saint, and brought to the little capital at Jamestown all the graces, amenities and well-bred ways which at that time were articles of faith with the cavaliers. He was certainly a cavalier of cavaliers, taking that word to signify an adherent of monarchy and the Established Church. For these, this smiling gentleman was going to fight like a tiger or a ruffian. The glove was of velvet but under it was the iron hand which would fall inexorably alike on the New England Puritans and the followers of Bacon" — Cook's "Hist, of Virginia" p. 182. And he was right in his severity, for force only can keep fraud at bay! To write the life of Berkeley could be done better in verse than in prose. He was a hero — a " Rokeby" — the only hero in all the history of the thirteen English colonies of North America whose personality is sur- rounded by the halo of romance. His mind was exalted, keen and active. He wrote a "Discourse and View of Virginia" and his drama "The Lost Lady" was acted in London and made an impression for its merit and character on Pepys. He was an able administrator and looked after the prosperity of the colony in material things. He set an example to planters in the manner in which he cultivated his estate of "Greenspring" ten miles from Jamestown, where he raised 1500 apple trees, besides apricots, peaches, pears, quinces and "mellicot- tons." The colony under his administration advanced to a population of 40,000. In his hospitality he was unbounded. The noble generosity of his soul caused him to stand with knightly valor by those who had pledged themselves in the same cause, through the cal- amities of misfortune and the dangers of civil strife. "When afterwards, in the stormy times, the poor cavaliers io Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. flocked to Virginia to find a place of refuge, he enter- tained them in a regal fashion at 'Greenspring' "- (Cook's "Virginia" p. 183.) It was at this time in 1649 that they brought the news with them — the cavalier exiles — that the monarchy was wrecked, democracy triumphant and the King mur- dered. It was at this time that Sir William Berkeley felt the occasion strong within him and did that act which made the memory of the whole colony of Virginia great, which gave it a reputation from his heroism and fealty that no other colony has ever achieved and which she would never had achieved without that gallant and immortal cavalier. He determined in the line of his duty, his fealty of knight to King, to rally his little power to the cause of the fallen monarchy and to cast the armed gauntlet of defiance at the mighty common- wealth of England and all her dependencies. It was his duty; and not to reason for the expediency of it, or to neglect it for the number and strength of the enemy. According to a manuscript by a Puritan regicide in the British Museum Library, E. 665-3, pages 1604-7, on the "Surrender of the Colony of Virginia," it is related that he "laid about him very busily and very loudly all last summer both in actions and in speeches. * * * * He got the militia of the country to be of his party and nothing talked on but burning, hanging, plundering, etc., or anything rather than yield to such bloody tyrants," (as the parliament of England). What by threatening some and flattering others, the assistance of 500 Indians promised him * * * * he had so far pre- vailed and was of late so far seconded by those unhappy gentlemen that help to ruin themselves and their King * * * that there was indeed little else spoken of, or resolved on but ruin for this poor wicked country." These "unhappy gentlemen" spoken of, who were brought to aid Sir William, were no doubt the few cava- liers who did come to Virginia, and the fingers of both hands are more numerous than their names. These he invited to be members of his military council, and their names are more worthy of preservation than any in the ancient history of Colonial Virginia. Then the old hero, Sir William Berkeley, thought it time to break away from Colonist Under the Stuarts. 1 1 all connection with such a gang of cut-throats, as he called them, and proclaim an independent monarchy in the American Colonies. On Oct. 10, 1649, he forced the House of Burgesses to sign his proclamation, which is given in full in that very rare book "Henning's Statutes at Large of the Colony of Virginia." Vol. I. pp. 358-61. The following is the celebrated Proclamation of an Independent Kingdom in the Colonies under Charles II., against the unconstitutional parliamentary government ruling in England: — Act I. "Whereas divers out of ignorance, others out of malice, schism and faction, in pursuance of some design of innovation, may be presumed to prepare men's minds and inclinations to entertain a good liking of their contrivement, by casting blemishment of dishonor on the late most excellent and now undoubtedly sainted King, and to those close ends vindicating and attesting the late proceedings against the late blessed King (though by so much they may seem to have color of law and form of justice, they may be truly said to have the more and greater height of impudence); and on this foundation of asserting the clearness and legality of the said unparalleled treasons, perpetuated on the said King, do build hopes and inferences to the high dishonor of the regal state, and in truth to the utter disinheritance of His Most Sacred Majesty that now is, and the divest- ing of him of these rights which the law of Nature and of Nations and the known laws of the Kingdom of Eng- land have adjudged inherent to his royal line and the law of God, himself (if sacred writ may be so styled of which this age doth loudly call in question) hath conse- crated unto him. And, as arguments easily and nat- urally deduced from the aforesaid cursed and destructive principles, with endeavor they press and persuade the powers of the commission to be void and null, and all magistracy and offices thereon depending to have lost their vigor and efficacy, by such means assuredly expect- ing advantages for the accomplishment of their lawless and tyraneous intentions. Be it therefore declared and enacted by the governor, council and burgesses of this Grand Assembly and the authority of the same, that 12 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. what person soever, whether stranger or inhabitant of this colony, after the date of this act, by reasoning, dis- course, or argument, shall go about to defend and main- tain the late traitorous proceedings against the afore- said King of most happy memory, under any notion of law or justice, such person, using reasoning, discourse or argument, or uttering any words or speeches to such purpose, and being proven by competent witnesses, shall be adjudged an accessory, post mortem to the death of the aforesaid King and shall be proceeded against for the same according to the known laws of England; or, whoever shall go about by irreverent and scandalous language to blast the memory and honor of the late most pious King, shall on conviction suffer such censure and punishment as shall be thought fit by the governor and council. And be it further enacted, that what per- son soever shall by words or speeches endeavor to insin- ate any doubt, scruple or question of or concerning the undoubted and inherent right of His Majesty that now is, to the colony of Virginia, and these other, His Majesty s dominions and countries, as King and supreme Governor, such words and speeches shall be adjudged high treason. "And it is also enacted, that what person soever, by false reports and malicious rumors, shall spread abroad among the people anything to change of government, or to the lessening of the power and authority of the governor, or government, either in civil or ecclesiastical causes (which this Assembly hath and doth declare to be full and plenary to all intents and purposes), such persons, not only the authors of such reports and rumors but the reporters and divulgers thereof (unless it be done by way of legal information before a magistrate) shall be adjudged equally guilty, and shall suffer such punish- ment even to severity, as shall be thought fit, according to the nature and quality of the offence." The names of the Grand Assembly that proclaimed King Charles II. in Virginia were: — Sir William Ber- keley, Governor. For James County, Walter Chiles, Thomas Swann, William Barrett, George Reade, Wil- liam Whittaker, George Dunston. For Henrico County, William Hatcher. For Charles City, Col. Edward Hill and Charles Sparrow. For Warwick County, Col. Colonist Under the Stuarts. 1 3 Thomas Harwood and John Walker. For Isle of White County, George Handy and Robert Pitt. For Nans- mond County, Col. George Carter and Toby Smith. For Elizabeth City, Capt. William Worlick and Joseph Rob- bins. For Lower Norfolk, Barth. Hoskins and Thomas Lambert. For York County, Col. Ralph Wormley and Ralph Burnham. For Northumberland County, Col. Francis Poythers and Joseph Trussell. CHAPTER II. Virginia's Constitutional Right Exercised of Refusing to Recognize the English Parliament's Participation in the Royal Prerogative — External Dissensions. "No person elsewhere on the North American Con- tinent, says Cook's Hist, of Virginia, moved to support the King." And Berkeley was alone, for he had to give energy to the smaller souls of those few who were loyal in Virginia and to guard against the treachery and conspiracy of a body of "Puritan fanatics" who had settled in the colony. The Puritan democracy in England began to act. In 1650 a law of parliament prohibited trade with Vir- ginia and the West Indies and a fleet of ships was sent to suppress Sir William Berkeley and his King's adher- ents. Two war-ships reached Virginia in March, 1652, and one of them ascended the James River and the commander, in the name of the commonwealth of Eng- land, demanded surrender of the colony. But Berke- ley never thought of surrender. He summoned his friends, had cannon placed on the high places and dis- tributed muskets to the inhabitants. But the ship's Puritan captain recognizing those of the same sort as himself among some of the House of Burgesses, had a private interview with them, in which bribes were dis- tributed, and the House of Burgessse voted to surrender the colony over the head of Berkeley. The parliament- ary commissioners were Bennett, Clayborne and Curtis. The only requirements made was an oath of allegiance to the commonwealth of England, and those who refused to take it and abandon "Kingcraft" were to be allowed a year in which to sell their property and leave the country. The haughty Cavalier Berkeley turned his back on the upstart carls of the Virginia democracy that surged into power in the colony with Puritanism. He went to his private estate, and in company with a few brother cavaliers not only refused to take the oath, but was too Constitutional Rights. 1 5 strong to be driven out. One of his followers boasted that, though "they had been reduced by the power of the Usurper they had never come under his obedience." One of the first acts of the Virginian democracy under Governor Bennett in 1652 was to curtail representation of the cavaliers and abolish the name of the King as the head of state. But Virginia was too far away for the English democracy itself to meddle with much and the Virginia democrats were too suspicious of each others integrity to accomplish all the leveling they desired. During this time, there was nothing but plun- dering and persecuting carried on by the triumphant democracy of the Virginia colony against neighboring Catholic proprietors and Lords of the Maryland Manours, who had no protection from any source under the "righteous" government of the Puritan usurpation, whose pretext had been for "freedom of conscience and the rights of men," — a verbal sheep's garment for a voracious wolf. But all these troubles ended at once, when in 1660 the news came across the water that the Scottish army of Gen. Monck, tired of Puritan hypocrisy, corruption and persecution, had marched into London, had over- thrown the English republic and had proclaimed Charles II. as King. The great Cromwell, Lord Protector of England, had died in 1658. He had stayed the persecution made by the Puritan democracy in England and muzzled the democracy itself even as Napoleon was to rout the French democracy, — both leaders using the only argu- ment which democracy respects, the sword. Cromwell had protected the cavaliers who were in hiding in differ- ent parts of the realm, had stopped the burning of witches, and the persecution of the Jews and had main- tained the integrity of the three estates. Referring to the Puritan demagogues whom he despised, he exclaimed "I hate their leveling idea; there is nothing in the minds of these men but overturn, overturn!" On the death of Cromwell, the friends of Berkeley in Virginia took up again the feudal principle which Berkeley as a cavalier had expressed, that as Virginia was a fief of the Crown, now that the Crown had been 1 6 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. abolished in Britain, the fealty between Virginia and England was abolished also. In March, 1660, the plant- ers assembled at Jamestown and agreed to the following resolve: "Whereas by reason of the late distraction — which God in His mercy put a sudden period to — there being in England no resident, absolute and generally con- fessed power, be it enacted and confirmed that, the supreme power of the government of this country shall be resident in the Assembly and that all writs issue in the name of the General Assembly of Virginia until such a command or commission come out of England as shall by the Assembly be adjudged lawful." The second Act declared: "That the Hon. Sir William Berkeley shall be governor and captain-general of Virginia." In May, Charles II. was restored in England and with him the Monarchy, and in October, 1660, he sent his own commission to Sir William Berkeley appointing him governor, which, accepted as supreme by all parties, restored the fealty of Virginia to the Crown. Thus the value of the Stuart system of erecting fiefs beyond sea into royal governments dependent solely on the com- mand upheld by an independent and localized class of Honor was made manifest in the action of Virginia, although the initiative and energy of that action belonged only to one lion-hearted and loyal man. But the restor- ation was superficial in Virginia, where in truth the vast majority of the inhabitants were indifferent, cavaliers few and the democrats more numerous, with the advan- tage of not being encumbered by honest considerations. In 1663 a number of indentured servants were induced to break into revolt with the idea of overturning the gov- ernment and having a republican model. One of them betrayed his comrades, and this revolt was extinguished. Four of the leaders were hung. The Burgesses ordered that henceforward "20 guardsmen and one officer shall attend the governor," as a protection against conspira- tors. Tranquility was threatened on another side by the Baptist preachers, who, inspired with fanaticism, preached a doctrine of religious compulsion, which, if practised, would have imposed a tyranny compared to which the rule of the Spanish Inquisition would have The Bacon Rebellion 0/1676. 17 been that of enlightened liberty. The invasion of the body politic by their "new tangled conceits and heretical inventions" was not only adverse to individual liberty, to the established estates of the colony, and to the authority of the Crown, but to human happiness and prosperity. For these reasons, they were dealt with severely, and in many places forbidden to preach. But there was another outburst of democracy threatening Crown authority, the estates and the gov- ernorship of Berkeley more seriously than the ' 'Revolt of the Valets" and the "Preaching of the Baptists." The Bacon Rebellion of 1 676. It seems that when Virginia surrendered to the Puri- tan English Republic in 1651 that a law had been enacted that Virginia should trade only with England by means of English ships manned by English sailors. Besides this, import and export duties were levied on all the commerce of Virginia. Even this had not aroused the complaints of the Virginians under the commonwealth, possibly because the republicans in the colony had clasped hands with the republicans in the Old Country in the matter of div- ision of the spoil. Perhaps the Virginians might not have complained of it under the succeeding monarchy had not Charles II. granted, as a fief, the territory of Virginia and Accomac to the Earl of Arlington and Lord Culpeper. This grant was to terminate in thirty-one years unless renewed. It was no more than the original grant to the Council of London had been — it disturbed no one. If the sovereign proprietors of Virginia over- stepped the limits of their holding there was an appeal to the Crown unless the Three Estates of Virginia might consider a malfeasance to be an absolution of allegiance — according to feudal law. But republican doctrine had begun to work in Vir- ginia and the House of Burgesses (1670) sent delegates to the King to protest against the new grant. The protest was carefully attended to. The King promised to "grant them a new charter for the settlement and confirmation of all things according to their wishes." The new charter was drafted, had received the royal 1 8 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. signature, and was about to be dispatched to the colony, when the news of the rebellion of the faithless Virginia republicans stayed the royal concession. It seems that there was one, Nathaniel Bacon, a factious and unprin- cipled republican, who had worked in secret a long while among the servants and lower classes of the popu- lation and the Puritan fanatics. His course of action must be noticed in order to show the characters with whom Sir William Berkeley had to deal and who tri- umphed finally in the American Revolution. Bacon caused himself to be elected to the Burgesses by the unconstitutional voting of servants and non-proprietors. He caused the massacre of six Indian chiefs who had come under safe conduct to a council with the whites. Under spacious pretences of reform he rebelled against the governor and the King's authority, and with his mal-contents, who seem to have been the major part of the Virginians, considered the advisability of proclaim- ing independence of England and the setting up of a republic. In his rebellion, while besieging Jamestown, one of his means of protection from the cannon of the enemy was putting the wives and daughters of the planters, who were defending the town, in front of his breast-works. He plundered the private residence of the governor, which was outside the town. He suc- ceeded in stirring up the greater part of the people for universal suffrage, indiscriminate education and the introduction of republicanism. Berkeley, who had only 30 loyal gentlemen, was driven out of Jamestown. He took shelter in Accomac, where he had the satisfaction of hanging Capt. Carver, one of Bacon's followers, who had been sent with a fleet of small vessels to capture and bring back the governor. Berkeley and his men also captured "Gen." Bland, the chief commander of Bacon, and after many vicissitudes triumphed over the rebellion. Bacon had been suc- ceeded in command by a "rope-dancer" named Ingram but he was reduced very speedily. The manner in which Berkeley dealt with these people was summary but just. It is illustrated by the following story: — One of Bacon's officers, named Drummond, was captured; he was brought before Berkeley, who said, "Mr. Drum- The Bacon Rebellion of 1676. 19 mond, you are very welcome. I am more glad to see you than any man in Virginia. Mr. Drummond, you shall hang in half an hour." The time was extended a little. He was tried and sentenced at noon and hung at four in the afternoon. Twenty-three of the leaders of this rebellion were hung. Charles II., the King, did not approve of these severities, but had he shown himself severe in propor- tion in England it is not likely that his brother James II., who succeeded on the throne, would have been driven out, in his turn, by the sons of those traitors and deserters whom Charles allowed to plot in safety during his own reign. As for Berkeley, the clamor of the Virginians against the punishment he meted out to their political treachery caused him to be recalled by the King, and it is said that he died "broken-hearted" in England at the ingratitude of his royal master. It is certain that all the Virginia historians, afflicted with the same com- plaint of which Bacon suffered, condemn Berkeley as a tyrant. Cook, the best of them says: "He was devoted to monarchy, and the church * * * In defence of one he persecuted dissent; in support of the other he waded in blood. * * * * For a quarter of a century he ruled the colony to the fullest satisfaction of the people. He was an elegant host and a cordial companion who made everyone welcome. He displayed not the least desire to invade the rights of Virginians; on the contrary he defended them on every occasion. It may be said with truth that, in all these years, he was the sincere friend of Virginia and Virginians. All his interests and affections were centred there — in his wife and his home. It was 'the most flourishing country the sun ever shone over,' he said. But one day rebellion raised its head in this beautiful land. His idol, the Divine Right, was flouted by these old friends * * * ' then he was merciless to them when they were at his mercy." (Cook's Virginia, p. 296-7). In other words, "he pro- tected the rights" and maintained them, and they — what did they ? They invaded the Rights of the Crown, which they had promised to respect. The}', the faith- less, the treacherous, the unreliable! How could 20 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. Berkeley, once they had lost all consideration of honor, feel confidence in them ! ! The three great innovations on the ancient, political and social conditions against which Sir William Berkeley had to contend and which are the bane of modern states at the present, were: I, Extreme Public Education, Republicanism, and II, Universal Suffrage, I. Berkeley was opposed to extreme public educa- tion, because it tends to declass the members of the population, and in this alone to make them restless, discontented and conceited. Not only that, but to tax the provident and industrious for the benefit of the slothful and careless — who breed like rabbits — is to handicap the better portion of the people. To buy the material of all arts, science and language by enforced taxation and give it to those who do not pay for it, which material reason and fact show that only a few can use, is teaching improvidence to be wasteful of the property of others. It is to furnish to the unprincipled additional means of dishonest livelihood, for the scien- tific adulteration of food and clothing, for the creation of fraudulent stock companies, and for the skilful dis- semination of dishonest principles of government. It is a vain endeavor to produce a republican equality by means of "education" when education itself cannot add one quality to the mind or develop a sentiment where there is not the germ of that sentiment. All the "education" of America has not been able to produce a musician, an artist and a historian, to rank with those of old Europe, where the Class of Sentiment h&s not been destroyed by "republicanism." The Inca Turpac Yupanqui declared that "Learning was intended for those only of generous blood." The clerical classes of ancient Gaul — although possessed of the art of writing, considered the pearls of their tradition too precious to be cast at the feet of swine, and transmitted them to the accepted and approved members of their caste by mem- ory only. It was the same in ancient Egypt. The criminal statistics of the United States show that the worst criminals are the best "educated." The increase of crime has gone the same way, the per cent, rising with the "advantages" offered by the free "higher edu- The Bacon Rebellion of 1676. 21 cation" from one in ten thousand in 1850 to one in four hundred in 1890. In the Southern States, (1890) where "public education" was not so diffused, the percent, of criminality was less than one-half that of New England where "free education" is the longest established on a "liberal" basis. In New York and Chicago, where the public school fund embraces appropriation of millions, filched from those who do not patronize the public- schools and who do not believe in them, the criminality is much higher than in foreign cities of the same size where "education" is not so extravagant. Education of the most exalted and extravagant sort can not fill a heart with lofty sentiment where no germs of sentiment exist. In proportion as education is diffused the standard of literary excellence is lowered, and the continuance of writers of classics is diminished. Because in former days when "Learning was for those of generous blood," who are the few, their demand made the standard high; at the present time, the demand of the "educated" multitude is louder and more potent with publishers than that of the ancient few, and the standard and style are lowered to comply with the demand. The race verges then on an intellectual decline, and the age is called "materialistic" but only for this reason — that the instincts of the many are gross and unsentimental and must remain so ever, and an appeal to them as to a standard results in the exclusion of everything higher and better. Besides provision for a public education shows lack of general ethical perception — the very idea of "educating one man's children with another man's money" is proof of it. It destroys the value of inherited qualities that are not perceptible by educational means, such as generosity, magnanimity and honor, — arranged in the present condition of society as handicaps to their possessors in the race of life; the class of their possess- ors becomes smaller with each generation. II. Universal Suffrage, — In the beginning of the set- tlement of Virginia, before there was any real property interest in the colony, up to the year 1655 "all settlers had a voice in public affairs, first in the daily matters of the commune, or "hundreds," and after 1619 in electing Burgesses * * * * But in 1655 it was changed by 22 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. men of the commonwealth "(to cut off the influence of the retainers of the Cavaliers)." In that year the Bur- gesses declared that none but 'housekeepers, whether freeholders, leaseholders, or otherwise tenants,' shall be 'capable to electing Burgesses.' One year afterwards (1656) the ancient usage was restored, and all 'freemen' were allowed to vote, since it was 'something hard and unagreeable to reason that any person shall pay equal taxes and yet have no vote in the elections' ; but the freemen must not vote in a tumultuous manner.' Such was the record of the first commonwealth." — (Cook's " Virginia."} "In 1670, the King's men restored the first act, restricting the suffrage again. The reason is stated: — The 'usual way of choosing burgesses by the votes of all persons, who, having served their time, are freemen in this country,' produced 'tumults at the election.' There- fore it were better to follow the English fashion and 'grant a voyce in such election only to such as by their estates, real or personal, have interest enough to tye them to the endeavor of the public good.' So, after this, none but 'freeholders and housekeepers' were to vote." ****** ' 'The persons who had served their time as indentured servants had 'little interest in the country'; they were making disturbances at elections * * * * This was the determinate sentiment and the law remained settled, with the exception of one year (1676) when Bacon's Assembly changed it, declaring that 'freemen should vote. ' This was swept away by a general repeal of all 'Bacon's' laws' and the freehold restriction remained the law of Virginia nearly to the present time" (1870) — Cook's Virginia, pp. 223-4. Simply because passengers have purchased a rail- way ticket and have ridden on the cars on their journey is no reason that they ought to vote with the stock- holders of the railway for the choice of directors and for the management of the road. There is but one way for them and that is to become an owner in the stock — of something beyond a railway ticket. The same law of right holds good for the state; no matter what the edu- The Bacon Rebellion of i6y6. 23 cation of the citizen may be, if he does not own stock in the state he has no ethical right to vote for the choice of government, or for the policy of rulership. The lack of ethical consideration in the suffrage is to be expected from the ingress into public affairs of those who have received the unethically obtained public education — of those who have been instructed, not by the laudable efforts of their own family, but from the results of public robbery — whereby one man's property is assessed for the "benefit" of another man's children. Those who have been "benefited" by this species of robbery are ready to try it over again in the state — in the legislature — in the policy of government. Disloy- alty results and the kingdom is overthrown by the trait- ors it has nourished in its bosom, who proceed to form at once a "republic" in which those who raise the greatest clamor may rule, and in which each opposing minority is subject in turn to proscription and plunder. This is the character of the men who have instituted every "republic" that has existed in any age or clime, and this is the process which their government has fol- lowed out until, dismembered by its own corruption and infamy it has been overthrown by the sword of the dic- tator. But affairs did not quite come to such a pass in Virginia, because there was the strong hand of royal power over all. This did not suit the Virginians, who seem to have been a very uneasy, quarrelsome people. James II., last of the Stuarts, wishes to know why they are so "disaffected and unquiet," and they are found to be no better under William of Orange, who succeeded King James as result of the "Revolution of 1688" in England. Having established Virginia and raised it to the dignity of a kingdom and filled it full of prosperous conditions, the ingratitude of the people looked on the "passing" of the Stuarts with indifference. But they were to suffer for it later, for in 1861 their own constitu- tion and the better class were trampled into the dust by the democracy. PART II.— CHAPTER I. Maryland, the Carolinas and New York — The Mary- land Lords of Manors. The charter and arrangements of colonial Maryland, the Carolinas and New York, apart from a general sub- infeudation to the King, peculiar to all other feudal charters, provided for the especial establishment of patrician orders. The colony of Maryland, of great extent from beyond the Susquehanna River on the north to the Potomac river on the south and west, was a principality conceded to the family of Calvert, Lords of Baltimore. The province contains the most beautiful, healthful and most productive part of North America — the unrivalled eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay, as well as the less noted western shore. A region it is, with easy access to the commerce of the seas, to the richness of the land, broken into creeks and inlets teeming with the oyster, the menenoes, the terrapin; abounding in fruits including the fig, the best known area for the sweet potato and the yam. Truly the province of Maryland was a terrestrial paradise in colonial days — a paradise that even the mad extravagance, corruption, oppression and malfeasance of the grim democracy of the United States has not yet succeeded in entirely suppressing — so strong are the arms and limitations of Nature! In the beginning, when Lord Baltimore began the settlement of the colony of which he was by grant of the King sovereign lord proprietor, he decided that an aris- tocracy was as necessary a part of the state as a democ- racy and that its function should be independent — that is, not confused with the function of democracy; that its true ancient Greek meaning of "right to rule" should be exemplified. This was in 1634, after he had brought over the first settlers to the shores of the Chesapeake. However, although the Assembly refused to pass his "Bill for Baronies," he possessed sufficient authority from the King as lord proprietor to establish manors TThe Maryland Lords of Manors. 25 with hereditary magistracy attached thereto. This was like what in ancient English history is called creating "barons by writ" and in old France would be termed "anoblissements. " But in regard to the power of the lord proprietor to do these things: — In the first place, the statute of Quia Emptoris, which had been enacted in the reign of King Edward I., in 1290, and which decreed that in all sales or ' 'feoffments" of land the holder should bear allegiance not to the immediate lord or grantor but to the King, was set aside in favor of Lord Baltimore by King Charles I., so that in Maryland Lord Baltimore was sole tenant of the crown and had the power of erecting manors as though he were the King himself. While allegiance to the King was preserved, oath of office was administered in the name of the proprietor and all writs ran "In the year of our dominion." Now, the lord of a manor has a right to hold court and judge all offences happening within the limits of his manor, except the crimes of murder, counterfeiting and treason. This right is hereditary so long as the manor passes in the family from father to son. If the manor is sold all rights are transferred to the purchaser. At first no one could possess a manor but a "descendant of British or Irish," but in 1683 it was decreed that manors might be held by "any person living or trading in the province properly qualified." This was similar to the manner of holding seigneuries established by the French King, Louis XIV., in Canada, in 1663. But the seigneur, as an officer, was obliged to be the military commander over his tenants, to instruct them for the defense of the country and to settle their disputes as a magistrate. The ancient records show that in Maryland the manorial system died out, not because it was unpopular, for no complaint is mentioned by the people against it, and the benefits as founders of the province which the lords of the manors conferred on the people could not be forgotten. But what caused it to decline was the intro- duction of slavery. Many ignoble and unscrupulous but enterprising persons began to use slaves on their places to do the work. A manorial grant did not auth- orize slavery. This was in the latter part of the seven- 26 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. teenth century, and as time progressed the lords of manors found themselves steadily falling behind in rev- enue, owing to the small return which their tenants gave them. They were eclipsed in splendor of display by the ignorant, low bred, but wealthy, parvenues whose places were worked by slaves. So, one by one, yielding to the temptation and pressure of events, the lords of the man- ors descended from their exalted position, sold the por- tions occupied by tenants to those tenants and with the money purchased slaves to work the portion of the manor reserved for themselves. So the manor disap- peared in the plantation. Those who read this should not forget that the lords of the manors of Maryland were the founders and patri- cians of the province. Lord Baltimore recognized them as such in the writs by which he endowed them with manorial rights. He permitted that anyone finding favor in his sight as a proper person and bringing wealth and people to the province might acquire such manorial rights on the possession of at least 2,000 acres. As an example, a part of the writ creating George Tal- bot, a cousin of Lord Baltimore, Lord of Susquehanna Manor in Cecil County in 1680 is here in evidence: "Know that for and in consideration that our right trusty and right well-beloved cousin and counsellor, George Talbot, of Castle Rooney, of County Roscom- mon, in the Kingdom of Ireland, hath undertaken, at his own proper cost and charges, to transport, or cause to be transported into the province within 12 years from date thereof 640 persons of British or Irish descent here to inhabit, and we, not only having a great love, respect and esteem for our said cousin and counsellor, but will- ing also to give him all due and lawful encouragement in so good design of peopling and increasing the inhab- itants of this our Province of Maryland, well considering how much this will conduce to the strength and defense thereof, and that he may receive some recompense for the great charge and expense he must be at, in import- ing so great a number of persons into this our province aforesaid." * * * * " W e have thought fit to grant unto our dear cousin and counsellor all that tract or div- idend of land called Susquehanna, lying in Cecil County, The Maryland Lot ds of Manors. 27 in our said province. * * * * containing an estimate of 32,000 acres. * * * * w Jth a u t h e prerogatives and royalties of a manor and the magistracy thereof." These Talbots belonged to an ancient Norman fam- ily that had been settled in Ireland for generations. Of the Catholic party, they were opposed to Protestant England, and it was the religion only of James II. that recommended him to the Catholic Irish in the days when Prince William of Orange, invited to England by the Protestants, chased King James over into Ireland. The George Talbot mentioned in this as Lord of the Manor of Susquehanna was cousin of Richard Talbot, Earl of Tyrconnell, commonly known as "Dick" Talbot, who was one of the Irish generals in the service of King James II. against the Prince of Orange in 1698. It is said that Talbot, while deputy governor, stabbed a man with whom he quarreled and fled and took refuge in a cave in Cecil county, where for a long while his food was brought him by several trained falcons. Some of the Talbot loyalists settled in Nova Scotia in 1783. Bashford Manor, on the Wicomico, was granted to Dr. Thomas Gerrard in 1650 for an annual quit rent of 15 bushels of corn. In 1678 he sold it to Governor Thomas Notley, who divided it afterwards into small holdings and sold it, the manor then becoming extinct. The name of Governor Notley has passed into many families and preserves the memory of one of the foremost founders of Maryland. Brooke Place Manor, in St. Mary's county, in 1654 reckoned as its lord Gov. Robert Brooke, president of Lord Baltimore's council. He had in 1650 the Manor of De la Brooke, on Battle Creek, in Calvert county. He had come from England with his wife and 10 child- ren and brought over 28 other persons — servants, retain- ers and colonists. He became the commander of the county. His eldest son, Baker Brooke, was confirmed as the lord of the manor. The council of Gov. Charles Calvert met at this manor-house July 19, 1662, and it was standing until about 80 years ago. This name may be found among the loyalists of Ontario. Cross Manor, on St. Inigoes Creek, in 1639 had been erected in favor of the Hon. Thomas Cornwaleys. 28 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. The manor-house, built of English brick, is the oldest brick house in Maryland, yet standing. Captain Corn- waleys was associated with Lord Leonard Calvert and Mr. Jerome Hawley in the government of the province. The Cornwaleys, or Cornwallis family, were represented in Nova Scotia. Evelynton Manor, in the "Baronie of St. Mary," was conceded to the Hon. George Evelyn in 1638. He was commander of Kent county in 1637. He came as agent of Clabery & Co., of London (Claibourne's part- ners), and he superseded that person after that person's departure for England in 1637. He was the means of bringing Kent Island under Lord Baltimore's jurisdic- tion. He left the colony in 1638 and returned to Eng- land, but he had a brother, Capt. Robert Evleyn, who was interested more permanently in the province. The Evelyns are among the earliest royalist names of Que- bec Province. Warburton Manor, in Prince George's county, in 1690 owned as its lord Col. William Digges, son of Governor Digges, of Virginia, whose father was Sir Dudley Digges, master of the rolls to King Charles I. He married Jane Sewall, daughter of Lady Baltimore by her former marrriage with the Hon. Henry Sewall, of London. This manor passed to William, the eldest son of Col. Digges, and to his children, one of whom, a daughter — Jane — married Col. John Fitzgerald, of Vir- ginia. The government of the United States purchased a part of the manor, on which was erected Fort War- burton, which was blown up in 1814.. The Diggeses of the Nova Scotia loyalists, some settling in Ontario, per- petuate their traditions. Fenwick Manor, on Cat Creek, in 1651 became the fief of Cuthbert Fenwick, member of Lord Baltimore's council. In 1659 the manor house was the scene of the trial of Edward Prescott for "hanging a witch." The only witness who was summoned was Col. John Wash- ington, great-grandfather of President George Washing- ton. When the day arrived for the trial instead of the witness came a letter of excuse in the following phrase- ology: "Because then, God willing, I intend to gette my yowng sonne baptized, all the Company and Gossips The Maryland Lords of Manors. 29 being allready invited." As the witness did not appear, the prisoner was discharged. Right Rev. Edward Fen- wick, the first Roman Catholic Bishop of Cincinnati, was a descendant of Cuthbert, lord of this manor, whose only brother, Ignatius Fenwick, married Sarah Taney, of the family that produced Chief Justice Roger Brooke Tane}-, of the United States Supreme Court. Many other descendants of the lords of Fenwick Manor are scattered about the Western Shore and in the City of Baltimore. It is likely that the Fenwick loyalists of Nova Scotia are their best representatives. Little Bretton Manor, granted to William Bretton in 1640, passed to the Jesuit missionaries. The house was built of English brick and is yet standing. It has a commanding position, overlooking St. Clement's Bay and the Potomac River. William Bretton came over from England in 1637 and was a member of the Assem- bly. His wife, Mary, was daughter of Thomas Tabbs, who came over at the same time. He brought with him, besides his wife and four-year-old son, three ser- vants. For nearly 20 years he was clerk of the Assem- bly. There were several of this Bretton, or Brittain, family among the officers of the loyalist corps settled at St. John, New Brunswick, having commissions from the Province of Nrw Jersey. Resurrection I anor, between Town and Cuckold Creeks, was the possession of the Hon. Thomas Corn- waleys in 1650, but it passed soon after into the Snow- den family. In 1659 and in 1662 the privy council of the province met there. Captain Cornwaleys came to Maryland with the first expedition and brought with him five servants. He was one of the earliest commission- ers of the province. Later he returned to England. The Snowdons came from Wales in 1660 and left many descendants. A leading member of this family, Ran- dolph Snowden, was a loyalist grantee of St. John, New Brunswick. Portland Manor, in Anne Arundel county, was the lordship of the Darnalls, whose ancestor, Col. Henry Darnell, relative of Lord Baltimore, came over 20 years before the Protestant revolution in England. Wood- yard, another residence of this family, in Prince 30 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. George's county, is in existence at the present time and is said to be the most interesting family residence in Maryland. This family has many descendants residing in the state. This name is met with in Ontario. St. Clement's Manor, consisting of St. Clement's Island and part of the adjacent mainland, in 1639 was one of the manors of Dr. Thomas Gerrard, member of the council. It is the only one of the old mansions the records of which are preserved. From 1659 to 1672 court was held there continuously. This Dr. Thomas Gerrard was a strong Catholic, but he married a Protes- tant lady and became involved in the intrigues of Clai- bourne against Lord Baltimore. For this he was attain- ted of treason and was forced to fly into Virginia, in which colony he settled in the County of West- moreland, where his descendants intermarried largely and perpetuated the name. The family came originally from Lancashire, England, where it had been seated for several generations, but the name is of Germanic origin and is met with quite frequently in localities settled by Saxon and German people. Samuel Gerrard, first pres- ident of the Bank of Montreal, was probably of this family. St. Michael's, St. Gabriel's and Trinity Manors were the dependencies of Leonard Calvert in 1639. In 1707 these manors, with the exception of the Piney Neck estate, had passed by inheritance to the children of George Parker from the line of their mother's family, who was a daughter of Gabriel Perrot. The first of the Parker family mentioned in the annals of Maryland is William Parker, who was one of a committee commis- sioned during the lord protectorate of Oliver Cromwell in England to have charge of the affairs of the province, the rights of the Lords Balitmore falling in abeyance during that period, as the Lords Baltimore were royal- ists. There were several Parker loyalists of this fam- ily settled in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. St. Elizabeth's Manor, yet another belonging to Hon. Thomas Cornwaleys in 1639, was on Smith's Creek, but it became the property of the Hon. William Bladen, the first "public printer" of Maryland. His The Maryland Lords of Manors. 3 1 son was Gov. Thomas Bladen, who married Barbara, daughter of Sir Thomas Janssen. St. Inigoes Manor, in St. Mary's county, was owned by Mr. Thomas Copley, better known as the Jesuit priest, Father Philip Fisher. The property is yet retained by the Jesuits. St. Joseph's Manor, near Tom Creek, on the Patux- ent, has been the lordship of the Edloes and Platers. Both these families were among the early settlers. The name of Joseph Edlow, or Edloe, is preserved among the Maryland archives as the first of that family on American shores in 1634. The Platers were disloyal to the crown in 1776, one of them, George Plater, being quite notorious for this. But probably in the transfer of the manor from one family to another other considera- tions than that of fealty were principal. Bohemia Manor, in Cecil county, was conceded to Augustine Herman by Lord Baltimore to reward him for making the first map of Maryland. He was of a res- pectable family in Bohemia, in Europe, but had settled in the Dutch possessions of New Amsterdam, now New York, where in 1651 he married Jane Varlett. He had visited England and was thought by the Dutch to be altogether too familiar and social with the English to suit their taste. So, on one occasion, when he returned to New Amsterdam, after 1672, he was arrested and imprisoned. An old account says that he was per- mitted to take his famous gray horse into jail with him — which must have been in a barn — and that he mounted his horse and dashed out and, though pursued closely, he escaped by swimming with his horse the Delaware, his horse dying of exhaustion on reaching the further shore. The Augustine Manor was conceded to Herman also by Lord Baltimore. Within the manorial domain of Bohemia was the first attempt made in America by a body of men to prac- tice the principles of socialism by the abolition of pri- vate property. One of the sons of the lord of the manor joined this body to the great grief of his father, who manifested that grief in a codicil of his will, whereby he put the disposal of his property out of the reach of his visionary son. The families of Thomson, Foreman, 32 Rise of tlie United Empire Loyalists. Chambers and Spencer claim descent from the lords of Bohemia Manor, and were among the loyalists who left the Province of Maryland when the ancient regime was overthrown. Great Oak Manor, in Kent county, was the lord- ship of Marmaduke Tilden. His ancestors had been lords of Great Tyldens, near Marden, South Kent, Eng- land. He was cousin of Sir Richard Tylden, of Mil- sted. The family had possessed lands in the parishes of Brenckly, Otterden, Kennington, and Tilmanstone in the reign of King Edward III., and William Tylden paid for lands in Kent, England, when the Black Prince was knighted. Sir William Tylden, of Great Tyldens, was the grandfather of Marmaduke Tilden, lord of Great Oak Manor, a direct descendant of Sir Richard Tylden, who was seneschal to Hugh de Lacy, constable of Ches- ter, accompanied King Richard, the Lion Hearted, to the Holy Land and fought under him at the battle of Ascalon against the Sultan Saladin in the year 1190 A.D. One of the sons of Marmaduke Tilden was his heir, also a Marmaduke, and the greatest proprietor in Kent, owning 31,350 acres. He married Rebecca Wil- mer and left a numerous posterity. A famous name among the loyalists of Canada. Eastern Neck Manor, Kent county, owned the sway of Major James Ringgold, whose father, Thomas Ring- gold, came to Kent in 1650 in the fortieth year of his age, bringing his two sons, James and John. Major James Ringgold married Mary, daughter of Capt. Robert Vaughan, commander of the county. Among the descendants of this family may be counted the com- mander of Ringgold's artillery in the war between Mexico and the United States of 1846. Fort Kent Manor, on Kent Island, belonged to Giles Brent. The Brents were related to the Calverts, Lords of Baltimore. They consisted of the brothers Giles and Foulk, and the sisters, Margaret and Mary, who came into the province in 1638, bringing a consid- erable number of servants, male and female. Of their descendants Robert Brent married Anna M. Parnham, of the family of Hon. John Pole, of the Privy Council of England; James Fenwick Brent married Laura, The Maryland Lords of Manors. 33 daughter of Gen. Walter H. Overton, of Louisiana, and Gen. Joseph L. Brent married Frances R. Kenner, daughter of Duncan Kenner, of Louisiana. Of his fam- ily, also, was Hon. Robert James Brent, one time attor- ney general of Maryland and an oracle of the Maryland bar. Some also were more decided for the old regime, for nearly all the Maryland gentry favored the royal cause. Doughoregan Manor was the seat of the Carrolls, the first of whom in Maryland was Charles, who landed at Annapolis sometime in the seventeenth century. To this family belong two celebrated men in the early his- tory of the United States — Charles Carroll of Carrollten, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and Right. Rev. John Carroll, the first vicar general of the United States, as well as the first archbishop in Maryland. The grandson of Charles Carroll of Carrollton — John Lee Carroll — was one time governor of Maryland. Two of a junior branch of this family were among the loyalists to Nova Scotia. Stokley Manor, whose lord was Jeremiah Laton, in 1675 bequeathed it to the "first Protestant minister who might settle in Baltimore county," so great was his desire to hear the Word spoken as it had been spoken in Massachusetts, from where he had emigrated. A branch of this family were among the settlers of King's county, Nova Scotia, in 1760, after the expulsion of the Acadian French. St. Barbary's Manor belonged to the Carvile fam- ily, the first of whom was the Hon. George Carvile, attorney general of the province. A person of great consequence in the romance of history has been made the subject of a recent novel, "Richard Carvel," and supposed to belong to this family. In the City of St. John's, New Brunswick, Canada, a mansion house called Carvell Hall, belonging to a family of that name, being likely of Loyalist origin and mayhap from the Western Shore of Maryland. Beaver Dam, West St. Mary's and Chaptico, with 20 other unoccupied manors, belonged to Lord Balti- more's kin until the American Revolution, when, as they were Loyalists, true to the crown, their property with 34 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. that of their relative, Henry Harford, the heir of Fred- erick Calvert, last Lord Baltimore, and other Loyalists, was confiscated. And thus perished the last of the manors, the property of those who had nourished the province into strength and maturity. CHAPTER II. The South — Carolina and New York. From the beginning of Albemarle Sound to St. Mary's River and back as far in the interior as the French claim along the Mississippi were the lands of the Carolinas named for the King, Charles II. He was reigning when the province was established as a feudal fief, having several Co-Seigneurs as Lords-Proprietors. Before this, in the early part of the 17th century there had been established a French Huguenot settlement on the St. Mary's River by de Laudauni6re, under the pat- ronage of the Admiral de Coligni of France. But the colonists had been massacred by the Spanish of Florida "not as Frenchmen but as heretics" — a proceeding that was instigated by the bigot Queen of France, Catherine de Medici — the same who planned the massacre of St. Bartholomew in that country. But the Spaniards paid dear for it, for a French Huguenot Lord, Dominic de Gourgues, fitted out an expedition by the sale of his estate for the purpose, and landed with an armed force at St. Mary's, where the Spanish had built a fort. This he captured and hung every mother's son of them on crosses about the place with the words above each "Not as Spaniards but as murderers." This was the land, now vacant, which King Charles II. granted, as a co-seigneurie to a company of the Brit- ish noblesse at the head of whom was the Duke of Beau- fort. The manner in which they subinfeudated the ter- ritory was into twelve counties; each county into eight seigneuries, eight baronies and twenty-four communes. The titles of Landgrave, with the rank of earl, and Cacique, with the rank of viscount, were granted to cer- tain of the gentry who undertook to settle in the country and aid with their arms and wealth in the establishment and rulership of the colony. A landgrave received four baronies and a cacique two with seats in the local coun- cil, or high court, of the colony. Tracts of land of more than 3000 acres and less than 12000 might be erected into manours with courtsleet. The communes were divided 36 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. into lots for tenants to hold of the Lords-Proprietors if they did not chose to be tenants of the Landgraves and Caciques. Every tenant, or colonist, was obliged to swear allegiance to the King and constitution of the province. The high-court or parliament at first consisted of ten members, one-half chosen by the Lords-Proprietors and one-half by the free-holders, but later seven became the number of representatives for the Lords-Proprietors. The Landgraves were John Locke, the philosopher (1671), Sir John Yeamans (1671), James Cartaret (1670), James Colleton (1670), Sir Edmund Andros (1672, Joseph West (1674), Joseph Morton (1681), Thomas Colleton (1681), Daniel Axtell (1681), Sir Richard Kirle (1684), John Price (1686) who alienated in favor of Thomas Lowndes. There was also a gentleman named Smith among the Landgraves whose title passed to the Rhett family. One of the Bellinger family became possessed later with one of these titles. Of the early Caciques were Capt. Wilkinson (1681), Maj. Thomas Rowe (1682), John Gibbes (1682), Thomas Amy (1682), John Smith (1682), John Moncke (1683). The govern- ment of which they were the controlling factors sub- sisted until 1692, when the King purchased from the Lords-proprietors their sovereignty and issued a royal charter by commission to the governors. The province became divided into North and South Carolina and the Landgraves and Caciques, retaining right to their titles, honors and estates, were obliged to share the privileges of the council, or upper house, of the local government, with the other gentry of the colony, while a lower house, or assembly, was created for the representation of the free-holders in general. The Historical Collection of South Carolina is here evidenced, Vol. I., p. 276. "From that period of which the right and title of the land of Carolina were sold and surrendered, by the Lords-proprietors, to the King, and he assumed the immediate care and government of the province, a new era commences in the annals of that country, which may be called the era of its freedom, security and happiness. The Carolinians who had labored long under innumerable hardships and troubles from a New York. 37 weak proprietary establishment, obtained at length the great object of their desires — a royal government the constitution of which depends on commissions issued to a governor by the crown, and the instructions which attend these commissions. The governor and royal council formed the executive judiciary and military departments and were assisted in the legislative function by an assembly elected by the free-holders, as in the other provinces. ' ' The aristocracy of South Carolina has claimed from the first a most prominent place in the history of the Anglo-American colonies by reason of its firm establishment, its high ancestry and its strong hold on the administration of affairs — a hold which was weak- ened by the revolution of 1776 and disappeared entirely before the close of the civil war of 1861-5 — to be replaced by that of the debased and servile democracy of the modern republic. New York. The Dutch had the earliest establishments in New York, although all that land had been within the empire of Charles V. and the claims of the French. The terri- tory of the Dutch Province of New Netherland was col- onized by them under patronage of the Dutch West Indian Company early in the 17th century, and extended from the Connecticut River to Maryland. True to the constitutional law of Europe they represented the aris- tocracy not only in the administration but in territorial holdings and magistracy. In Section III. of the charter of New Netherland, Vol. I., p. 370 N.Y. Hist. Coll., Second Series, it declares: "That ail such be acknow- ledged Patroons of New Netherland who shall within the space of four years next, after they have given notice to any of the chambers (or colleges) of the West Indian Company here (Amsterdam) or to the commander-in- chief there (America) undertake to plant a colony there of fifty persons to be shipped from here." "IV. That from the time that they make known the situation of the places where they propose to settle col- onies, they shall have the preference of all then to the absolute property of such lands as they have chosen." "V. That Patroons by virtue of their power shall 38 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. and may be permitted at such places as they shall settle their colonies to extend their limits 12 miles along shore." "VI. That they shall possess forever and enjoy all the lands lying within said limits '"" " '" and also the chief command and lower jurisdiction * '' '"" No per- son to be privileged to fish or hunt but by permit of the Patroons * * * And when one may establish one or more cities (towns) he shall have power and authority to commission officers and magistrates." "XIX. No colonist or servant shall be permitted to leave his Patroon without permission." Among the servants and menials who were trans- ported to the colony, was one named Vanderbilt. He was direct ancestor of the rich Vanderbilts of New York and of the present Consuelo, Duchess of Marlbor- ough. Such rise from hovel to palace, unless assisted by real merit of race, can happen only under corrupt and republican regimes, among political and financial swindlers, confidence men and grafters. And when such people rise, merit and honor — "in the opposite scale of the balance" as Plato has said,- — necessarily "must fall." This is why the relics of the ancient provincial aristocracy consider such people, in spite of their great but ill-gotten wealth, not only no better than their ances- try, but ethically much worse. How different is the aspect with which the honest and sympathizing reader regards the rise of one endowed by honest genius, strug- gling upward towards that place of command to which he has been prepared by Nature. From the labors of the humble cot, from the exaction of the laws of exist- ence in other places no less lowly, he turns and nourish- ing the hours of his vigilance, and preparation and study by hours plucked from the sheaf of his own slumber — as the pelican feeds her offspring by drops of blood from her own bosom — he mounts the pathway to dominion. By patience, by energy, by talent, by learning, by undy- ing loyalty to his cause, by honesty in all his obliga- tions, by magnanimity to as honest rivals who unite finally with him for constitution and state, he succeeds New York. 39 at last to the joy of the honest beholder, or perishes like some legendary Old Guard with his face to the foe. And that foe in politics, in finance, in sociology, is always the political sycophant, the financial swindler and confidence-man, the social intriguant and vandal — all combined — who occupy that place among mankind which the vampire, the vulture and the hyena do in the animal creation. Amidst these two groups however flourishing on successful chicanery and legalized fraud may be planted the one, what king, or prince, or poten- tate however strong and mighty is there who can expect his empire to endure if he turn from these of honorable achievements to those of corrupt splendor and wealth ? These two forces are in opposition in the state, the one the deadly enemy of the other, and as Plato says, the one can not rise in power but the other must fall. Woe to the state, woe to the king, if it be the fall of genius and honor! Among the great Dutch families of patrician degree in New York were de Peyster, de Veber, Schuyler, Van Brugh, Bayard, Van Ranssalaer, Stenwyck, Luyck, Beekman, Kip, de Milt, Van Buskirk, Paurtt, Van Curler, Colden, Cuyler, Cruger, Van Twiller, Houten, Krieckebreck, Elkens, de Vries, Stuyvesant, Kieft. The following manours are described in the Her- aldic Magazine of 1867: Courtlandt, 83,000 acres, royal patent 1697 to Stephen Van Courtlandt, descended from the Dukes of Courland in Russia and bearing the same blason, Argent, the wings of a wind-mill, sable, voided of the field, between 5 etoiles gueles. His ancestor was Stephen Van Courtlandt of South Holland in 1610, whose son Oloff came to New York in 1649 as a free- holder. His son, Stephen, first lord of the manour, was mayor of New York and royal counsellor in 1677, from whom was descended the last lord of the manor, Col. Philip Van Courtlandt, an United Empire Loyal- ist in 1783. Fordham Manour by royal patent, Nov. 13, 1671, to John Archer, whose ancestry is traced to Humphrey Archer, born 1527. His son John, 2nd lord of the manour, married Sarah Odell in 1686. The best of this family were royalists in 1776. 40 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. Manour Morrisania, by royal patent 1697 to Lewis Morris, governor of New Jersey in 1638. He descended from William Morris, gent, of Tintern, Co. Monmouth, England, and bore, 1st and 4th gules, a lion rampant, regardant or, 2nd and 3rd argent, 3 torteux in fesse; crest, a castle in flames. His son Lewis, born 1698, was a judge in admiralty as was his son Richard. The leaders of this family were U. R. L. and their property was confiscated by the republicans. Scarsdale Manour was erected by royal patent Mar. 21, 1701, for Col. Caleb Heathcote, son of Gilbert, of Chesterfield, Co. Derby, and brother of Sir Gilbert, Lord Mayor of London. He married a daughter of Col. Smith of Long Island, former governor of Tangier. He was surveyor-general of the province. His manour pas- sed to his daughter Ann who married James de Lancey, lieut. -governor and ancestor of that noble U. E. L. Gen. James de Lancey, of 1776-83, whose posterity are in the lower provinces. Pelham manour, 9,166 acres, to Thomas Pell, 1666, grandson of John Pell and Margaret Overand who was son of Rev. John Pell, rector of Southwick, Co. Sussex, Eng., in 1590. His son John obtained additional patent in 1687. The family arms are: ermine, on a canton azure, a pelican or, vulned gules. Livingston Manour, 120,000 acres, in 1686 to Robert Livingston who traced to Rev. Alex. Living- stone, of Stirling, of 1590 (Scotland). This particular family was of the extreme puritan-Presbyterian party containing several clergymen ancestors in succession. Philipsburg Manour, 1500 square miles, royal pat- ent of 1693 to the Royal Councillor Frederic Philippse, who was born in 1626 at Bolsward, Friesland, and whose arms were, azure a demi-lion rampant, issuing from a ducal coronet argent, crowned or; crest, the same. His son Philip married Mary, daughter of Gov. Sparks, of the Barbadoes. His son Frederic married Joanna, daughter of Gov. Anthony Rockholer, of New York, whose children were I., Col. Frederic, U.E.L., leaving 10 children; II., Philip, U.E.L. ; III., Susan, married Col. Beverley Robinson, U.E.L. ; IV., Mary, married Col. Morris, U.E.L. New York. +I Gardiner Manour, 3300 acres, Gardiner's Island, New York, 1639, for Col. Lionel Gardiner from England, which has been possessed by that family up to the Rev- olution of 1776, when its rank and privileges were destroyed. Queen's Manour, Long Island, to the Lloyd family of illustrious Welch ancestry. Granted by royal patent in 1679. Of this family was Henry Lloyd, U.E.L., to Halifax in 1783. There has been every effort made in New York as elsewhere in those republican communities to humiliate the descendants of these families and to neglect a mention in the archives of these patrician founders of the colony. There was always considerable hostility between the Dutch and English settlements, until it was ended by the Treaty of Breda which ceded New Netherland to England, the name of which was changed to New York, in honor of James Stuart, Duke of York, who held it as a fief from his brother, King Charles II. The article of the surrender of the province to England, stipulates "security to property, liberty of conscience and of dis- cipline and the maintenance of existing customs of inher- itance for the Dutch population" (Robert's New York Vol. I., p. 93). Gov. Nicholls, commissioned by the Duke of York, met 34 delegates from 17 counties Feb. 28, 1665. Under the English administration the patroonate system of the Dutch was continued into a manorial sys- tem as in Maryland, and several manours with local magistracy established a nobility in permanent official functions. Among these manorial families may be men- tioned Livingston, Morris, de Lancy, while later the Johnson obtained a baronetcy, the best of whose des- cendants were royalist emigres to Canada at the close of the American Revolution in 1783. Gov. Dongan, son of an Irish baronet, succeeded Nicholls, but the extent of his authority had been dim- inished by the cession of New Jersey to Cartaret and another, yet he claimed for the province, Pemaquid, Martha's Vinyard and Nantucket. He had been instructed by the Duke of York to represent the nobility by a council of 10 members among whom were Stephen 4-2 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. Van Courtlandt and Col. Frederic Phillipse, both lords of manours. An assembly was instituted of 18 members to be elected by the freeholders of the province. The governor and council were to have authority to establish courts, appoint officers, make war and peace for the pro- tection of the province, but the war-revenue or any excessive call could be collected only by assent of the Assembly — (Robert's New York, Vol. I., pp. 189-90). The Assembly had "Free liberty to consult and debate on all laws." The first government met at Albany Oct. 17, 1683, in which was signed the following resolutions: "That the supreme authority under the King and Lord- proprietor shall reside in the governor, council and a general assembly. The elections of assembly are for all free-holders. No aid, tax, custom, loan, benevolence or imposition whatever shall be levied within this province, on any pretense, but by consent of the governor, coun- cil and representatives of the people in general assem- bly." When the Duke of York became King James II. he rescinded portions of these resolutions as incompatible with the authority of the assembly and the constitution: namely, that the Lord-proprietor should not be men- tioned with the King and that the general assembly was not the fount of authority in this province (which author- ity lies in the constitution at the head of which is the King. He extended liberty of conscience to "all per- sons of what religion soever," going beyond the resolu- tion of the assembly which included only those "profes- sing faith in God by Jesus Christ." It is worthy to ob- serve that this King in colonies to which he had given charter (Maryland and New York) did more for liberty of conscience than all others, and above all the puritan pretentions which unseated him finally from the throne in England. As for provincial New York, although it was the most foreign in its population of all the provinces, it furnished the most loyal example — with the exception of Georgia — of all the provinces. And Georgia, originally a part of Carolina, had been made a personal fief of Sir James Oglethorpe in 1732, and its leading people, The Middle Colonies. 43 friends of Oglethorpe and the poor-debtors to whom he had given homes in his colony, would have been unworthy the name of humanity had they been otherwise than loyal. The Middle Colonies. Pennsylvania had been granted by King Charles II in 1657 to William Penn, a wealthy English Quaker, whose father, Admiral Penn, had been so angry with his son for adopting "Quakerish ideas" that it aroused the son's latent obstinacy on this subject until it became a mania in him and a source of ridicule in others. He prevailed on the good nature of Charles II, however, to grant him a tract of land in America, where he might try his scheme of founding a "Quaker State." The Quaker did not believe in war or ostentation, so all those who wished to escape the danger of the one and the expense of the other were enrolled in this peculiar sect whose members adopted a sober garb, sat with their hats on in church and in court, refused to take an oath, and theed and thowed" all the world. It is said that they won more land in the New World by trading with the Indians on a glass-bead basis than any group of the other colonists won with the sword. They were a very prosperous and careful people. When the heirs of Penn were true to their allegiance in 1776-83 they took the occasion to cancel their obligations of debt towards them by an allegiance to the opposite party. They were never noted for hospitality on account of the cost and ostentation." Delaware had been in Lord Baltimore's grant as Avalon but was cut off, under the charge of Lord Dele- ware, for whom it was named. Its early people, some Swedes, some Dutch, some English, were like those of New Jersey, which had been separated from New York. They were the "ne'er do wells" of the neighboring colonies — a trait their descendants have preserved to the present day, so far as honest industry and liberality of spirit go. Col. Ingersoll declared in one of his books that the people of Delaware (1888) were in a state of barbarism. Among them were many of Gov. Stone's puritan colony to Maryland who had been obliged to leave Maryland on account of their factious, bigoted, and intermeddling spirit. PART III.— CHAPTER I. The New England Colony and Government — Founding of Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay Colonies. It was the distinctive purpose of establishing an in- dependent state that prompted the Massachusetts coloni- zation. It was to set up a "commonwealth without a king and a church without a bishop" as wrote the old chronicalists. But the development of Nature will have course, in spite of men's minds to the contrary and their adverse enactments. As Momsen discovered of this law among the ancients, that even in democracy "It has at its core a monarchical principle in which the idea of a peri- clean commonwealth floats ever before the minds of its best citizens." Now the reason for the attempt to set up a commun- ity "without a king and without a bishop" is traced to the preceding religious controversy in England. The king was included with the bishop, solely because the king for the time became a religious partizan and countenanced the bigotry of church ordinances. The ruler of a state must be superior to creeds and churches. It was in 1604 when England began to turn bigot. The Bishop of London in that year procured the ratifica- tion of a "Book of Canons" of 141 articles, non-con- formation to which was punishable with outlawry, ex- communication and imprisonment. At this time, Holland was more liberal than Eng- land; so a congregation of people from Gainsborough in Lincolnshire, and Scrooby in Nottinghamshire, under leadership of Rev. Richard Clifton, Prof. John Robinson and William Brewster, Esq., after many risks and perse- cutions, succeeded in escaping to Leyden, in Holland, in the year 1608. Here it may be added that the rigors of the doctrine of these "puritan" people were if anything severer than the papal and semi-papal from which they fled ; for those who did not believe were no less heretics than they themselves were to the Church of Rome. The New England Colony and Government. 45 These Puritans who escaped from the persecution of the Church of England differed only in the elective princi- ple of the office of the church which they adopted. They proscribed the grand music of the masters and reproba- ted the aesthetic ornamentation and development of life as superfluous. They rejected symbolism as a specie of idolatry. They proscribed in witch- craft and burned witches with the same fury and abhorence as the Catholics burned heretics. They gave the individual the privilege of self-representa- tion before God and repudiated the demands of the con- fessional. During their residence in Holland, they enjoy- ed the esteem of the Dutch magistrates by their orderly conduct and attention to industry, many among them la- boring as spinners and craftsmen. Yet although enjoy- ing "complete freedom of conscience" in Holland, they reverted often to their original plan of "founding a state without a king, and a church without a bishop." Thus urged by the stimulus of this ambition, they resolved to go to America. Learning of their intent, the Dutch gov- ernment offered them lands in their American posses- sions, but they refused, preferring an independent state. Now as all the land in America was holden by Euro- pean powers, they were obliged to obtain a charter for colonization from some one of them. They chose Eng- land, because England was their home, the provisions of an English charter would be as liberal as any and they were better acquainted with English institutions and law than with those of other states. By the provisions of this charter, which they obtained, they were obliged to take oath of allegiance to the sovereign, making the king, at least in name, the chief authority of their proposed state, being thankful to be well rid of the bishop. In the cabin of their little ship, the "Mayflower," they outlined the measure of their own government, thus: — "November 11th, 1620, this day before we come to har- bor ... it was thought good that there should be an association and agreement, that we should combine together in one body and submit to such government and governors as we shall by common consent agree to choose." (Palfrey, Hist, of New Eng., Vol. I., p. 227.) In 1627, Isaac de Rasiere, a prominent officer and 46 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. merchant of New Netherland (New York) wrote a de- scription of the condition in New England : — "The gov- ernor has his council, which is chosen every year by elec- tion by the entire community, or by prolongation of term. In the inheritance they place all the children in one de- gree, only the eldest son has an acknowledgement for his seniority." Soon after the news of their establishment was ar- rived in England, there came out a great multitude to keep company with their primitive state, among whom were some liberals and others more conventional. This new company obtained an extensive grant of land from the Crown, which grant was denominated "Massachu- setts Bay." This was obtained by Sir John Rowell, kt, Sir John Young, kt., Thomas Southcote, John Hum- phrey, John Endicott, and Simon Whitcomb, gentlemen; but there were with them a great many preachers, and the religious, or church, idea was the dominant one. May 18th, 1631, the General Court at Boston declared: — "To the end the body of the commons be preserved of honest and good men, ordered and agreed, that, for the time to come no man shall be admitted to the freedom of this body politic but such as be members of some of the churches within the same (Palfrey, I., p. 345)." That is, no member of the Church of England, no Catholic, no Quaker, no free-thinker could be a citizen of the new commonwealth. Moreover, a little later, such people when found coming to the colony, were banished with penalties against their returning. This induced a strug- gle of the non-bigoted. The beginning of the fling of defiance against this theological tyranny was made by men of rank, birth and education. These demanded the magistracy. There was a provision that "the magistrates should be men of quality." After this there were three classes, mutually opposed: — 1, the magistrates; 2, the clergy; 3, the citi- zen-electors. The magistrates, originally appointed in England, were confined thenceforward to men of rank in the colony. (Palfrey, I., p. 384.) In 1637, by desire of this genealogical element of rank, since property was evenly divided among the chil- dren and was not a factor in the reckoning, it was decid- The New England Colony and Government. 47 ed: — "That the General Court be holden in May next (1637) for the election of magistrates, and so from time to time as occasion shall require, shall elect a certain number of magistrates for the term of their lives, as a standing council, not to be removed but on due convic- tion of crime," etc. The governor was president of this council. Winthrop, Endicott and Dudley were the first life-counsellors. (Palfrey I., p. 441.) About this time others were admitted to vote for the choice of military officers who were not of the congregational church, provided they were in some of the colonial military or- ganizations. Thus early a distinction began to grow up among military men, proclaiming them to be of a differ- ent mind from those of the civil community. Before this, in 1634, under the governorship of John Endicott, who was thus false to his oath of allegiance, the red cross was cut out of the white flag of England in the colony and the pine tree was substituted as the ensign of New England. A short time after this, a ship of the king sailed into port. There was no Royal Ensign at the fort to salute. A sailor having declared the inhabit- ants to be rebels and traitors was imprisoned by order of the governor. The captain of the ship demanded an English flag to salute. Not one could be found in the colony. The captain agreed to loan one for temporary use at the fort. The governor's council permitted it, without taking formal action to restore the colors, after the loan had been returned — so far had they embarked with their idea of an independent state. No sooner was the colony in a prosperous condition than colonists, some Presbyterian, some Huguenot, the former from the British Isles, the latter from France and Holland, came, attracted by this condition. With them came gradually the infiltration of loftier standards and nobler thoughts, borne from the aristocratic principality of La Rochelle that had withstood the assaults of the Catholic power in France and had made a treaty with the Protestant monarchy of England under Queen Elizabeth ; that had already plotted with the great Coligny to erect the structure of a Roman commonwealth on the Carolin- ian shore, after the pattern of the palatine burghs of the south of Europe. 48 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. Now this idea of a Roman commonwealth, or em- pire, in America, borne across the sea fiom the south of France, legitimated in continuing the empire in America first instituted by Charles V. in the 16th century, al- though blotted out by Catholic intrigue, had much to do in shaping after-politics in America. The palatine burghs of the Roman Empire in France had been Marseilles, Narbonne, Toulouse and Bessieres. Those regions of France in which they were most dom- inant were Aquitaine and Provence. It was in the pa- latine burghs of these provinces that freedom of thought ventured first in Europe, in the 12th and 13th centuries, to stand erect in the glorious magnificence of its genius. In the crucible of its liberality it united the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, which the Arabian doctors brought across the Pyrenees from the Moorish Kingdoms of Gra- nada and Cordova, then in effulgent growth in the Spanish Peninsula. With them was carried the precepts of Mehomet to be united with those of Christ, producing a species of deism whose liberality was above all creeds. This preserved carefully all the ornate surroundings of the ancient cult ; addressed in artistic verse of high-flown poetry the myths of the Ancient World and adored Art and Knowledge as the visible manifestations of Divine Genius. This rennaissance in the South of France was the brightest and most splendid of Europe. From the warm glow of its light and life, it cast a flash that fell as a menace on the dark and gloomy church of the popes. The sound of its joys of Earth's blessing awakened the wrath of the Catholic heirarchy that was striving to re- press the same to its own behests. The sight of the prosperity of the teeming cities of Narbonne, Bessieres and Toulouse, rich with the products of the most intelli- gent and best trained industry of Europe, aroused the cupidity and envy of the Catholic Christians and gave a stimulus to the Pope to pronounce an anathema against this and to preach that Albegensian Crusade which brought the savage allies of the Papacy from every coun- try in Europe in a flood of hatred, lust and extermina- tion. That civilization was swept away. The King of Aragon, who was of this proscription, was slain in bat- tle, helping bravely his friends of France. The scattered The New England Colony and Government. 49 remnants fled into the Pyrennian mountains, from whose dark and broken recesses marched again their descend- ants under their Henry of Navarre. This was the origin and the end for a time, of freedom of thought in Europe — modeled after that which had existed in the old empire of the Romans, when the dilligence of philosophers con- spired to confound superstition by bringing the various gods of the world together in one temple. With a liberty like this, there can be no equality. As Lord Rosebery of the time of Beaconsfield said before the Conservative Club : "Liberty and equality are mutually exclusive." There must be room for Genius, for those who are great, else there is no liberty for them who are the gems of the human race. The rest of the world profits by it, for by the few are made all the advancements which benefit the race, and to the few is due something beyond the mock- ery of thanks — that is, the reins of Power and the Honor of Dominion. This recognized truth, brought to the cities of the Roman Empire the conference of rank for merit, which should not be confounded with the feudal tenure of the Middle Ages, when the holding of a lordship was reserv- ed for nobility of race alone. Nobility, with the Romans, went genealogically within the "gnome" (name), "gens" (race), "pater," "patricius" (father). In the degener- ate application in some countries of Europe, nobility went often, but not always, with the possession of the fief, "No land, no noble." The qualities originally of race then inherred in the tenure. In the organization of each city of the Roman Empire, the senate contained the patricians, or chiefs of the nobility ; the second chamber, the representatives of the trades. The duties of the sen- ate pertained to diplomacy and military affairs; of the second chamber, to decide disputes between trades-asso- ciations; of both, to regulate taxation and expenditure. Thus all classes were represented in each city, or state, of the Roman Empire. It was the coming of people with memories of these things into the American colonies that worked a ferment and reaction against the puritan bigotry of the primitive Yankees. Therefrom, in the North, the clergy, finding a growing difference of opin- ion, religious and political, proceeded to stir up the most 50 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. ignorant, the more numerous and intolerant of their con- gregations to the sending of deputies to the General Court to make stringent religious laws. Thus originated the celebrated "Blue Laws" of New England. "Forbid- den to kiss wife and child on the Sabbath" was not the least of their ridiculous and contemptible ordinances. While in power, they pressed heavily on the necks of the people and imposed a tyranny of greater bigotry and op- pression than even that of the Inquisition of Rome. This body, the clergy, in every state, in every clime and of every creed, has been the greatest hindrance to the friendly intercourse of peoples of different faiths. They formulated against the armorials and rank of the gentry, against the science and art of the professions, against the estates of the proprietors — unless goodly portions were devoted to their own maintenance. They are the direct cause for the sterility of artistic and chivalrous impulses in New England life, by their influence in the body poli- tic; for the dearth of romantic elements in the communi- ties over which they were the presiding ogres. At that time, just previous to 1639, one of them named Wheel- wright received a reprimand from the magistrates and was adjudged guilty of sedition by the excessive violence of his preaching — especially at this time, when the magis- trates were doing all in their power to heal the breaches among different classes caused by the clergy. Nov. 5th, 1639, "Divers gentlemen and others, out of their care for the public weal and safety, and for the advancement of the military art and exercise of arms, de- sired license of the court to join themselves in one com- pany and to have liberty to exercise themselves at such times and places as their occasions would permit." (Pal- frey, I., p. 550.) It was only in such military forma- tions that safety could be had against the wrath of the clergy. Thus was founded the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts. But at the time of its formation in 1638, the civil council, under influence of the clergy, prophesied its "ungodly" influence — that is the protection of individuals joining it against their wrath — "considering from the example of the Pratorian Band among the Romans, and the Templars in Europe, how dangerous it might be to erect a standing authority The New England Colony and Government. 5 1 of military men, which might easily, in time, overthrow the civil power." (Winthrop, I., p. 253.) Thus the military idea began to show itself as a means of liberating people of the better classes from the theological and levelling democracy. During this time, the spirit of an independent state was developing. In 1642, the four New England colonies assumed some of the prerogatives of sovereignty, with the king as the knot of their union, in a "firm and perpetual league of friendship and amity for offence and defence." Massa- chusetts went further yet and established a mint in 1652 and proceeded to coin her own money. However, this was during the protectorate of Cromwell over England and her dependencies. Cromwell favored Massachus- sets and promoted the military spirit in the colony. He had relied on the same weapon in England to relieve him- self from the narrowness and bigotry of the theological democracy in England. With the hypocrisy usual to members of that body, they had installed themselves as the supreme power of the English parliament and were proceeding to use the government for their own purposes and to shape its destinies to conform to their belief, when Cromwell appeared before them suddenly on the day of their most iniquitous proceedings. He accused them of corruption, hypocrisy and double-dealing and caused his soldiers to drive them from the seat of authority. "There is nothing in their minds but overturn, overturn," said he. Now the people in power in New England were mostly of the stamp of Praise God Bairbones Parliament in England, and the religious persecution went on unre- stricted. Later, after Cromwell's government had pass- ed away and Charles II. in 1660 had ascended the throne, the budget of complaints against the theological demo- cracy of Massachussets for persecution, bloodshed, tor- ture, banishment and loss of property and life was very large. The king sent commissioners to the colony in 1666 to report on these abuses of power. Commissioner Randolph declared that the better portion of the people had been driven away and that the public offices had fallen in the hands of the most virulent. Among others reported to the king as an abuse was the exercise of the sovereign prerogative of coining money; for although 52 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. the king had been proclaimed in the colony in 1661, the pine-tree shilling was coined the very next year without any other legend than that of the sovereignty of the col- ony. But the king was mollified considerably when Governor John Leverett, who had been summoned to England to answer for the colony, remarked that the figure on the coin was that of the Royal Oak, which had sheltered His Majesty after the Battle of Worcester — a witty reply which gained for the Massachussetts gover- nor the honor of knighthood. While making the greatest professions of loyalty and agreeing that all the requirements of their charter had been fulfilled, the investigation showed that Puritan loyalty was a lie and that they had not fulfilled one of the requirements which they had promised to fulfil. The king found it necessary therefore that a new charter be given so as to bring the officers in direct contact with His Majesty's government, and that the governors be sent from England, so that they should not belong to any cabal in the colony. The Puritans had not proved them- selves to be a trustworthy people. Their word could not be relied on. CHAPTER II. New England Colony and Government — Beginning of the Royalists in New England — The King's Chapel — The Royal Charter Re-affirmed. As an example of the prosecution of the leveling Puritan democracy of New England whose unethical and republican ideas were being put constantly in force against all comers who were different from them, the history of the early king's Chapel of Boston is an en- lightenment to those who are capable of profiting by a lesson. Besides, King's Chapel, although having passed into the hands of the enemy, is the cradle of the U. E. Loyalists from Boston and vicinity. William Vassell had come over in 1630. He was so disgusted with Winthrop and others in authority who were ignoring their pledges to the crown, that he returned to England, but came back again to the colony determin- ed to make a stand for freedom of conscience and liberty of the individual. He commenced by sending in the following "Remonstrance and Humble Petition" to the General Court. This was signed by five others, among them being Samuel Maverick and Robert Child. "That they could not discern in this colony a settled form of government according to the laws of England, that many thousands in these plantations of the English nation were debarred all civil employments . . . and that numerous members of the Church of England . . . were detained from the seats of the covenant of free grace." They demanded relief from these disabilities and threatened if not relieved to appeal to the High Court of England. The General Court of Massachus- setts, after a great delay, rejected their petition with coarse jocoseness. "And these are the champions," said the court, "who must represent the body of non-freemen. If this be their head sure they have an unsavory head, not to be seasoned by much salt." The petitioners were fined and their papers seized. 54 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. When King Charles II. had come to the throne, the absolute rulership of this Puritan hypocrisy and chican- ery was brought to an end. Bradstreet and Norton, June 28, 1662, received a letter from the king. It de- clared, that, "Since the principal end of that charter was, and is, the freedom of liberty of conscience, we do hereby charge and require you that freedom and liberty be duly admitted and allowed." The General Court demurred, pursed up its lips and attempted to play hide and seek with the meaning of words, to hood-wink, in fact, to come a "Yankee trick" over the commissioners sent from England. But Commissioner Randolph, an old cavalier and royalist, did not fail to see through this chicanery. He wrote back to the king, that by the means employed by the leaders of the puritan democracy, the best people had been driven out of the colony or into retirement, that menials and servants with pretentious mannerisms were in the high places. So the king thought he would abridge it all, because his own church, his own laws could not exist in his own colony on account of these people. The English king is head of the Anglican Church, and his own church could not exist in the colony under a government elected by the Puritans, although they had promised to respect the king's authority, the Church of England and the laws of the realm. In order that the king's chapel could be built, then, it was necessary to give Massachussetts a royal charter, in which the power of appointing the chief officers should reside in the crown. On Feb. 22, this charter was made. May 15, 1686, there entered Boston harbor the "Rose," frigate, bearing a commission from the king to Joseph Dudley to act in the Royal name as president of Massachussetts, Maine, Nova Scotia and the lands between. And with her came Rev. Robert Radcliffe, first minister of the king's chapel. In October, 1688, the foundation of king's chapel was laid on Tremont Street, in Boston, on the corner of what is now School Street. About that church gathered those far-seeing and high-minded royalists in the colony who beheld in the king's authority the only barrier against the narrow Puritan democracy, that, when in The New England Colony and Government. 55 power with brute force, and, when not in power, with cunning and chicanery, sought to accomplish its purpose and impose its tyranny. As Voltaire says, it is "better to be under the paw of the lion than be knawed by a million rats." The building of His Majesty's chapel brought the royal charter to supercede the original permit of govern- ment, which had left the power in the hands of the ma- jority to persecute those who did not believe as they. Even the land on which the chapel stands the king's gov- ernor was obliged to appropriate as the local authorities refused to sell, and the records show that he paid the original owners four-fold the value of the land. But the time of the Puritan triumph was coming, again, and in it they were to show "what manner of men they were." When the House of Stuart that had created the church and charter ceased to reign in England in the person of King James II., who was succeeded by William of Orange, whom the treachery and Revolution of 1688 put on the throne, the Puritan mob in Boston, according to a pamphlet printed in London in 1690, entitled "New England's Faction Discovered," proceeded to their work. They seized the governor and principal members of the king's chapel and put them in prison. "The church, it- self, had great difficulty to withstand their fury, receiv- ing the marks of their indignation and scorn by having the windows broken and the doors and walls daubed and defiled with dung and other filth in the rudest and basest manner imaginable, and the minister for his safety was forced to leave the country and go to England." But the Revolution in England, of 1688, did not go so far as the Puritan democracy of Massachusetts had hoped. Sul- lenly but cringingly they retraced their steps when King William of Orange showed that liberality which intelli- gent men hope ever to find in a king. He continued the royal favor to King's chapel and presented the service with new silver. "It was the only building in New Eng- land where the forms of the court church might be wit- nessed. The prayers and anthems which sounded forth in the cathedrals of the mother-country were here no longer dumb. The equipages and uniforms which made gay the little court of Boston brightened its portals. 56 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. Within, the escutcheons of the royal governors hun? against the pillars." At Christmas time it was the only church that was wreathed in green, or celebrated the nativity of Christ with gladness and song of rejoicing-, — for Christmas had been forbidden to be celebrated among the Puritans, because they said it was popish and idola- trous." (Hist, of King's Chapel, Vol. I.) The sound of the first organ in New England was in King's chapel and heralded the introduction of an art, the most gracious and lovable of all arts — an art which had been forbidden to enter the Puritan democracy. Here on the walls of the chapel were emblazoned in all the pomp of heraldry the Royal Arms, the arms of the royal governors, Dudley, Shute, Burnet, Belcher, Shirley, Andros, and those of Col. Nicholson and Capt. Hamilton. And what rays of chivalry had penetrated the thick and somber atmosphere of Puritan bigotry and intolerance were focused into a brighter light in the immediate circle of those royalists who gathered within its walls. Sir- William Shirley had done the most to prop the royal cause in the colony, and, as a means to that end, had favored the King's chapel with all his influence. In 1741, just before he was appointed governor, Lieut.-Gov. Dunbar wrote, from New Hampshire to the Board of Trade: "New England might be made a very useful colony . . . were the Church of England encourag- ed, it would bring them (the people) to better principles than they are now of, being generally republicans." An- other cause of trouble to the Puritan republicans was the culture of art and music, which the liberties of the new charter allowed to be encouraged with the building of King's chapel. One very beautiful picture was Benjamin West's "Last Supper," which was one of the adornments of the chapel's interior. At the time of the American Revolution, when the hand of lawless violence was unre- strained against everything that had provoked republican bigotry and hate, Mr. Davis, who had the guardianship of the picture, committed it to the protection of the re- publican leader, John Hancock, which protectorate seems to have terminated in proprietorship, without compensa- tion to the original owners. Now it must not be thought that all the royalists in New England were Church of The New England Colony and Government. 57 England men, or, that all in Boston were members of King's chapel. Many of the Presbyterians who came to New Hampshire, New York and Virginia, especially those from Ireland, among whose members were descend- ants of the Huguenots, who had followed the banner of the Marquis de Rouvigni into England and Ireland in 1688-90, were distinctly royalist, although not ardent for the domination of England. Guizot notices the royalism of the Presbyterians in his "Vie de Charles I." In Bri- tain, after the Church of England and the monarchy had been overthrown by Cromwell and the Puritans, it was the Presbyterians who pronounced against republicanism and took up arms for the king, and finally, with Gen. Monck at their head, proclaimed Charles II. as king and entered London with their armed hosts to restore the monarchy. But among the royalists of King's chapel alone at this time, immediately preceding the republican revolution of 1776, were Peter Faneuil, who gave Faneuil Hall to the city, Dr. Gardiner, who supplied the colonial troops with medicines free of charge, and Isaac Royall who founded the first law professorship at Harvard Uni- versity. Whatever was great and excellent and unselfish belonged to them. They were, in truth, as Leckey, the historian, says, "The gentry of the colonies." The entire membership of King's chapel were royalist to the core, loyal to the head of this colony, which head was the king:, the emperor of all the provinces. A month after the royal authority had left Boston, in 1776, with the British troops and the members of King's chapel, the chapel was reopened by the enemy, by the Puritan congregational republicans, whose sires had opposed the erection of the church, and had "besmeared its walls with dung" during the disturbance of 1688. They came from the Old South meeting-house, and occu- pied the king's property without warrant; for the king's property passed to the commonwealth by act of the Treaty of 1783, as the property of absentee royalists had passed before by the confiscation acts of 1778-9. In con- sequence of persecutions like the above, the democracy of Massachusetts Bay was deprived of its usurpation by or- der of King Charles II. The colony of Plymouth was united to that of Mas- 58 Rise of the United Empire- Loyalists, sachusetts Bay, under a Royal Charter from King Charles II., Feb. 22, 1669, with the following provisions : I. "That all householders, inhabiting in the colony, take the oath of allegiance, etc." II. "That all men of competent estate; that is men who own property enough to enable them to have aright to vote, and civil conversation, though of different judg- ments, may be admitted to be freemen, and have liberty to choose and be chosen as officers both civil and mili- tary." III. "That all men and women of orthodox opinion, competent knowledge and civil lives (not scandalous) be admitted to the sacrament of the Lord's supper, and their children to baptism, if they desire it." IV. "That all laws and expressions of law deroga- tory to His Majesty, if any such have been made in these troublous times, he repealed, altered, and taken off from the file." The Plymouth colony had fulfilled all these pro- visions. The Massachusetts colony had violated every one. Yet the governor and chief men of the colony tes- tified that all had been carried out. In the first instance the oath of allegiance was not administered in Massachu- setts at this time or before. In the second instance only those were allowed to vote who belonged to the Congre- gational church of the colony, and all others were perse- cuted. In the third instance no one but of the Congrega- tional church was permitted to receive the sacraments or baptism. Laws were made forbidding any other form of worship. It was made an act of treason to appeal from the laws of the colony to the crown that had given the colony its charter. This was also a violation of the fourth requirement, because such laws were contrary to the charter from the crown on which the government of the colony existed. Thus from the very beginning, the religious demo- cracy of Massachusetts manifested a desire to be as far away from the royal government in everything as pos- sible. Roger Williams, a clergyman, desirous of religious and political liberty, fled away from the tyranny of the The New England Colony and Government. 59 Massachusetts democracy and founded the Providence Plantation in 1636, now known as Rhode Island. The Connecticut colony was established about the same time at Hartford and New Haven. Capt. John Mason obtained a grant of land between the colony of Massachusetts and the Province of Maine, which latter was conferred on Sir Ferdinand Gorges. Mason's land was known as New Hampshire and was a royal colony. Maine was under the proprietorship of Gorges, until 1690, when it was ceded to Massachusetts. Massachusetts then may be seen to have been not only the leading colony of the north, but the parent of three others. Indeed, her population flowed over into them all. Plymouth and the Province of Maine were incor- porated with Massachusetts in 1690. Before this the governors had been elected by the people, after 1690 they were appointed by the Crown, together with the Lieuten- ant-Governor and Secretary of the Province and the councillors. The governor, under the last charter, ap- pointed also, the Judges, Sheriffs, Marshals, Provosts and military officers. The people of the colony elected their deputies to the General Court as formerly, and any man was qualified to vote and serve in any office, if elect- ed or appointed, if he possessed land in the province to the value of 40 shillings per annum or to the worth of i50 sterling. It was impossible after 1690 for the Puritan malig- nants of the colony to burn witches, persecute Quakers, drive off Episcopalians and disfranchise those who dif- fered from them in opinions political and religious, as they had done before because the chief magistrate was now appointed by the Crown. PART IV.— CHAPTER I. . Union Era — Parliament Usurps Crown Functions in the Provinces. Since the Revolution of 1688, in England, during which parliament usurped all the functions of the crown, set aside the rightful dynasty and invited to the throne William of Orange, its pretentions knew no bounds ; the constitution was not regarded — since had it been, the acts of parliament would have been null. The leader of this movement against the trust imposed in them by the late King James II. were a set of the most dispicable scoun- drels that had ever attempted a government by revolu- tionary means and for the sole purpose of the booty of office. Chief of these was Marlborough the deserter, so well described by Macaulay (Hist, of England.) The set of people who flocked about them as followers were of the same quality, but of a minor degree of rascality — like those in most so-called "Liberal" parties. Green's "Hist, of the English People," Vol. IV., p. 1523, relates : "Parliament became corrupt, jealous of power, fickle in its resolves and factious in spirit. . . It grumbled at the ill-success of the war, at the suffering of the merchants, at the discontent of the churchmen, and it blamed the crown and its ministers for all at which it grumbled. . . Its mood changed, as William bitterly complained with every hour." It seems that before this date, in 1672, the late king, James II., had formed a cabi- net of five members, chosen by himself, as advisers on different functions of the administration. Parliament had no right to expect a share in these functions of the crown at that time. But after the Revolution of 1688 — after it had put on the throne a king of its own, it felt that it ought to be the guardian of that king, by shaping: the administration through a cabinet indicated by itself. William of Orange had continued the practice of form- ing his cabinet without consulting parliament, and what parliament was aiming to do was to control the king's choice. But not one of its members knew how to accom- Union Era. 61 plish it, as it had never been done before. The credit of solving the difficulty, of further betraying his country and bringing disaster on it in the subsequent loss of the American empire, belongs to Robert Spencer, Earl of Sunderland. He had been a minister in the reign of Charles II. and part of that of James II., whom he had betrayed by the basest treachery to William of Orange. "Since the Revolution (1688) Sunderland had striven to escape public observation in country retirement, but he came forward now with his plan for William" — who felt that something must be done to appease the appetite of parliament, because parliament that had made him, con- trary to the constitution, could unmake him in the said manner. "His plan was to place all the power of the crown in parliament by choosing the ministers from the strongest faction in parliament." From that date the government became not the government of the empire, of the king, but of a faction; from that date (1697) the power of the crown became the jack-pot for the play of political parties ; from that date, by the plan of a rene- gade, the loyalty of the ministry is pledged not to the crown and empire, but to the faction from whom they are chosen, while their oath of office to crown and constitu- tion remains a constant perjury on their lips. Green's "Hist, of the English People" shows that this class in power in England carried corruption on by excesses throughout the entire administration. Now while the Anglo-Amrican provinces made no great trouble over the change of dynasty, they refused to recognize in the slightest degree this participation of par- liament in the government of the colonies, — even the best features of that government. And the worst features the provinces would not endure. In Ryerson's "Loyal- ists of America," Vol. I., p. 473, it reads : "The South- ern colonies with those of New England shared the same fate of misrepresentation, abuse and invasion of their rights as British subjects. The flames of discontent were spread through all the colonies by a set of incompetent and reckless governors, the favorites and tools of perhaps the worst administration and the most corrupt that ever ruled in Great Britain." It is true the American colonies, especially the four 62 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. New England colonies, had been protected by Great Bri- tain during all the past wars with the French in Canada, into which Great Britain had been drawn on their ac- count. For a period of seventy years the fleets and armies of England had been employed in the service of Massa- chusetts and her dependant off-shoots to save them from being "Driven into the sea." The debt of Great Britain, in consequence of these exertions, amounted in 1764 to £140,000,000 or $700,000,000. Even in the struggle for their own preservation and security, what the colonies had contributed had been sub- ject to the caprice of their legislatures. Some of the colonies had made exertions "so far be- yond their quota" as to be able to demand a reimburse- ment from the national treasury, which was accorded them; the other colonies had paid only part of the debit long after it was due, and who could compel them, and how was that compulsion to be enforced in the future ? The solution of the problem by parliamentary inter- ference led to disturbance and to the final separation of the American colonies from Great Britain. Even Mr. Pitt, so long the friend of America, told Dr. Franklin that "When the war closed, if he should be in the minis- try, he would take measures to prevent the colonies from having a power to refuse or delay the supplies that might be wanted for national purposes." The first act of the British parliament to force the colonies to pay their part of the war debt was passed March 10th, 1764. It levied heavy duties on all articles brought into the colonies from the French and other West Indian islands, and ordered that these duties must be paid into the treasury of London in specie. Another bill was brought into parliament in the same session to "Restrain the currency of paper money in the colonies." Popular meetings were held in the colonies, when the news of this reached them, to express indignation thereat. Associations resolved to abstain from the use of all articles imported on which duties were assessed, and to use only home-made goods. But yet, when the colonists were excited to opposi- Union Era. 63 tion they had no grounds for complaint against the right of the British Parliament to impose these duties, because regulation of affairs between the colonies and for the empire as a whole in commercial and external relations came under the rule of office of the London Parliament). But parliament when it discovered that, through evasion and the non-use of articles of foreign make, very little money was raised, began to devise other means, and these means effected the internal arrangements of the colonies, which the colonists felt were infringements of the rights of their own legislatures and of their own charters of self-government. The chief bill of this de- scription was introduced into parliament by Mr. Gren- ville, March 10th, 1765, to raise a revenue in the colonies by stamps which should be affixed to all newspapers, law papers, ship papers, property transfers, college diplomas and marriage licenses. A fine of ilO was imposed for non-compliance with the act. Jurisdiction was taken away from the local courts by this act and confined to the Courts of Admiralty without juries, the officers of which were appointed by the London Parliament, and who were paid fees out of fines imposed, the informer receiving one half. Thus, by this act, the colonies felt that, not only were the rights conferred on them bv charter interfered with and their local courts debarred from exercising power, but that the London Parliament, contrary to the consti- tution, was usurping the prerogative of the crown in America. The legislative assembly of Massachusetts was dis- solved by the royal governor Barnard because of its re- monstrance, and also oh account of a circular letter ad- dressed by it to the other colonial legislatures. The Vir- ginia House of Burgesses was also dismissed by the royal governor, Lord Botetout. The British Parliament, however, in 1769, was brought to repeal 5s 6d of the duties on imported goods. But the next year, 1770, an affray occurred in the streets of Boston between some soldiers on duty and a mob of rioters who were creating a reign of terror. The British Parliament then made the governor and judges independ- ent of all colonial power. These actions on the part of 64 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. the British Parliament added to the hostility of the Am- erican colonists. It needed but a few more measures on both sides to change the latent hostility into strife. In 1770 parliament allowed the East Indian Com- pany of England to sell tea in the colonies free of duty, thereby depriving the American merchants of a share in the profits of that trade. The Americans throughout the years 1771-2 and 3 contented themselves with forming associations pledging themselves not to use the tea im- ported. These were the conditions in all the colonies. But in September, 1774, a Congress, composed of mem- bers sent by the citizens of ajl the colonies, met at Phila- delphia to consider the state of affairs and what measures ought to be taken to correct them. An address was offered to the crown. It terminated with these words : — "Place us in the same situation that we were at the close of the late war, and our former harmony will be re- stored." When the British Parliament met in January, 1774, there were laid before it, not only the papers from the Colonial Congress, but a number of letters from the royal governors and revenue and military officers, testifying to the spirit of opposition existing in the colonies against the unconstitutional acts of the London Parliament. The consequence was, that, instead of renouncing the tax on the colonies, recalling the troops sent to coerce them and restoring to their courts and legislatures their proper functions, the English Parliament resolved to abate nothing of their vigor against the Americans until they yielded unconditionally. Moreover, parliament pro- ceeded to pass an act to punish all of the New England colonies for their sympathy with Massachusetts, by re- stricting their trade with England and depriving them of Newfoundland fisheries. In 1775 the General Assembly of New York adopted a memorial to present to the king, begging him to restore the charter to Massachusetts, which had been taken away, and to open the port of Boston which had been, closed. The petition of New York was rejected by the British ministry without a hearing. In the same year, 1775, the second Continental Con- gress met again at Philadelphia. All the colonies sent Union Era. 65 representatives but Georgia. The mission of this con- gress was to restore harmony in the colonies between the royal and local authorities and to obtain a redress of grievances. A petition was framed by this congress and present- ed to the king. It, like all similar colonial documents of the period, abounded in expressions of loyalty and humb- ly prayed for just and constitutional usage such as was accorded them by their charters, whose rights were now infringed. The petition sent by the Continental Congress, ask- ing that the restrictions be removed, was ignominously disregarded by parliament, and the colonists were termed rebels for exercising this constitutional right of protest. The royal officers in the colonies were commanded to seize the cannon and ammunition and small arms of the colonists. The attempt of Gen. Gage, who commanded the British troops in Boston, to capture the stores of the col- onists, thirty miles away, at Concord and Lexington, led to an engagement between the provincials and the king's troops, in which the stores were saved and lives were lost on both sides. Lord Dunmore, governor of Virginia for the king, performed a similar hostile act by seizing the stores at Williamsburg in that colony. He was driven, however, by the armed forces of the Virginians to seek shelter on, a British ship of war. It was during this state of feeling that the Conti- nental Congress reassembled on May 10th, 1776. The delegates to this congress were nerved to more determined action by the knowledge of what had taken place in Massachusetts and Virginia, and by the fact that parliament had, in the preceding December, passed an act to increase the army and navy, and had hired 17,000' Hessian and Hanoverian troops to aid in reducing the colonies to submission. But the colonists would not re- cede from their demands, which were these: I. The right to tax themselves by their own elected representa- tives ; II. The right of providing for the support of their own civil government and its officers; and III. Non-in- 66 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. terference of parliament with crown functions in the pro- vinces. These rights they had already enjoyed, according to the privilege of British citizenship and the provisions of their own charters, until these privileges and charters were taken away. The colonists declared that they would defend these rights and oppose with arms the en- forcement of whatever was contrary to them. CHAPTER II. Consolidation on Constitutional Basis Against Parlia- mentary Usurpation Parties in the Colonies. It had been the policy of the Stuarts, according to the feudal constitution, to create a confederacy — a feder- ation of states — each independent of the others but in feudation to the king. England was but one of these states, although the principal one — the one in which was to be situated the general capital of the empire. In this system — which was the feudal system — the same on which rested the constitution of Britain and of all Euro- pean states — the parliament of England had no more right to legislate for the Province of Virginia, or Mary- land, than the parliament of Virginia or Maryland had to legislate for the Kingdom of England. In England the chief authority was the king and parliament ; in Virginia it was the king and government of Virginia; in Massa-i chusetts it was the king and government of Massachu- setts, and likewise in each of the other provinces. For furtherance of the plan of federating the various states and principalities of his empire, King James II. had or- dered in 1688 — the very year that the Revolution in Eng- land prevented its execution — the confederation of the Northern colonies at Albany under the name of the "Dominion of New England." May 1, 1690, a congress of their representatives did meet to consider means for a' common defence against the Indians, the New York members being Jacob Leister and Peter de La Noy. An- other congress met in Albany for the same purpose in 1722. But these meetings were inspired by the encour- agements given by the former Stuart kings as means of building up centres of power on the outskirts of the em- pire as well as for local needs and protection. But after the Revolution of 1688, when the London Parliament usurped crown functions and extended its withering, jealous and illegitimate authority to every province, 68 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. blighting provincial life and expansion for the benefit of its own narrow constituency, these provincial confedera- tions were discouraged. In 1754 seven governors assembled at Albany, Pro- vince of New York, and signed a treaty of peace with the Iroquois Indians. At the same time they addressed the Home Government on the project of a federal union, whereby the force of the several colonies might be em J ployed to act against a common enemy. This proposed government was to consist of a President appointed by the crown, and a general council commissioned by the provincial authorities. The President was to have execu- tive authority, appoint all civil and military officers and act with his council legislatively. This government was to have power to make war and peace in America, andi impose taxes with approval of the crown. The project! was rejected by the English Parliament. In 1778 Mr. Ogden, chief justice of New Jersey^ suggested a government for America to have similar power, only its composition was to consist of a governor- general appointed by the crown, and a legislature to con- sist of a house of barons with hereditary privileges, cre- ated by the crown for honorable and meritorious families in the colonies, and a house of assembly elected by the freeholders of the population. The political disturbances existing in the colonies at that time prevented the enter- tainment of Mr. Ogden's proposition, but it is likely that the English Parliament would have viewed it with dis- favor. David Ogden was at that time one of the Board of Delegates of the United Empire Loyalists and his pro- position was advanced as a remedy for healing the wounds made by the English parliament in the Provin- cial understanding of constitutional government. The particular of his proposal provided that: "The right of taxation of America by the British Parliament be given up; that the several colonies be restored to their former constitutions and form of government. . . that each colony have a governor and council appointed by the Crown, and a house of representatives elected by the free-holders inhabiting the several counties . . who shall have power to make all necessary laws for the in- ternal government and benefit of each colony that are not Consolidation Against Usurpation Parties. 69 repugnant to the laws of Great Britain or the laws of the American Parliament . . that an American Parlia- ment be established for all the English colonies on the continent to consist of a Lord-Lieutenant, Barons (to be created for the purpose), not to exceed for the present more than twelve nor less than eight, from the principles Of each colony . . a House of Commons not to ex- ceed twelve nor less than eight from each colony to be elected by the house of representatives of each colony that this American Parliament have supervision and government of the several colleges in North Ameri- ca, most of which have been the great nurseries of the late rebellion, instilling into the tender minds of youth prin- ciples unfavorable to monarchical government and favor- able to republican and other doctrine incompatible with the British constitution." But while the intelligent and conservative people were basing their opposition on an assertion of the con- stitution as a means of redress, — a constitution that the London Parliament was knawing and eating into by those rats of jurisprudence, the "fictions" of the English law — the demagogues and liberals of the colonies were stirring up the lower classes with democratic intent, for separa- tion from the empire, the plunder of the royalists and the institution of a republic. From the time of the earliest Puritan settlements there had been a strong' democratic inclination among the lower orders of the population and the extreme Congregationalists. This feeling, reen- forced by religious prejudice, was hostile to monarchical institutions- — notwithstanding that the Bible favors mon- archy and Heaven is represented as a Kingdom. In 1704 Chief-Justice Montperron of New York wrote to the Earl of Nottingham that : "The inhabitants of Rhode Island conduct their affairs as though they were not of the British dominions." About the same time Lord Cornbury wrote to the London Board of Trade that the people of Connecticut bore "a great hatred towards those who held allegiance to the sovereign." It is true that there were many arguments used to promote this feeling of hostility. Not the least of these were the restrictions placed by the London Parliament — since it had usurped royal functions in the colonies over 75 resist this the Colonists had strong entrenchments on the Hudson and a good army under Gen. Gates to confront Burgoigne. Gen. Sir William Howe with the British troops en- tered Philadelphia in triumph Sept. 26th, 1777, and an- other British expedition captured Forts Montgomery and Clinton on the Hudson (Oct. 6th.) But Oct. 7th, Gen. Burgoigne was unable to force his way through Gates' army in the Battles of Stillwater, where he was over- thrown by the incomparable valor of the Scottish Colo- nial regiments of New Hampshire and Kentucky, under Starke and Morgan. In spite of this triumph, the Colo- nists would have been broken speedily had not aid arrived from the outside. Washington's army was fugitive, starving and deserting at Valley Forge, when France and Spain began to send troops, arms and ships of war for the expulsion of the British from the continent. In 1779 Washington wrote : "France by her sup- plies has saved us from the yoke thus far. . . . The recruits of 1780 could not have been armed without the 50 tons of ammunition supplied by the French." On receipt of the news of Burgoigne's defeat and of the declaration of war by France and Spain, which na- tions had recognized the legitimate position of the united provinces, consternation prevailed in England. Immedi- ately bills were passed in the British Parliament (1778) granting all that the colonists had demanded. But Con- gress rejected all overtures,- — France having acknowl- edged the independence of the United States. In September, the same year, a Scot, Capt. John Paul Jones, in command of a French frigate, but with a commission from the colonies, met the British man-of- war "Sarapis," and captured her after a most desperate fight, his ship, the "Bonhomme Richard," going down in the conflict. Lord Cornwallis, the British commander in the South, after he had gained successes over Gen. Greene and had routed completely Gen. Gates, of whom it was said that he had "exchanged Northern laurel for South- ern cypress," had taken up quarters in Yorktown. There, in that port, whose excellent harbor offered easy access 106 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. to the sea, he awaited reinforcements from the British reserves at New York, Rochambeau, commanding the French army in America, was informed of this, and he suggested to Washington the plan for the capture of the British general. In combination with the French fleet of the Count de Grasse, which blocked the entrance to the harbor, the land forces shut in Cornwallis by a sudden move and he was obliged to surrender after an ineffectual attempt to cut his way out. This surrender, of Oct. 19th, 1781, showed the Bri- tish the folly of continuing the combat, for in April of the next year, Holland joined her arms against Britain and Russia united with Denmark in an armed neutrality. News arrived at the same time that Hyder Allee had in- vaded British India at the head of 200,000 men. Then, Britain decided to abandon the war in America to con- front dangers which were menacing her own shores. During this war the most loyal province was Georgia. She was the last to send delegates to the Continental Con- gress. The Georgia royalists organized a separate gov- ernment in 1778 and in 1779 made a separate treaty with the Crown. As a military order, they held the colony free from republican domination until 1782. Even then they promised to expell all revolutionists and republicans and to preserve the province under the protection of the British Empire if but one British regiment might be added to their own Georgia Rangers. In South Carolina and Virginia the attachment to the Crown had not been quenched even after the imposi- tion of the new republican model in 1787. In South Carolina during this war there were manifested the greatest animosities between the two parties. Here were perpetrated the greatest atrocities in a warfare of mutu- al extermination. Yet after the triumph of the revolu- tionary faction in 1783, no colonial legislature dealt so> leniently with the unfortunate royalist families who re- mained. And this was because, in the Southern colo- nies, the entire population had been more favorable to a royal form of government. In the North, on the other hand, the meanest perse- cution that only the basest Yankee mind could conceive The Climax. 107 was heaped on those royalists who remained — but there were very few who were so stupid as to offer themselves a sacrifice for the gratification of the cruelty of the demo- crats. In this war for American independence, from first to last, on the independence side, there had been in the field 396,286 troops. This enumeration includes the continentals, the regulars and the state militia. Outside of these, there were small partizan corps whose numbers cannot be ascertained. Sabine, in his "American Loyal- ists'' estimates the number of loyalists in the British army at one time as high as 20,000. This war had been terminated by the preliminaries of a negotiation for peace which were signed by the representatives of Great Bri- tain and the United States, secretly, at Paris, November, 1782. Although the Yankees had pledged to the French King an alliance in exchange for his aid, not to be broken without his consent, yet when the British ambassador ap- proached the Yankee commissioners at Paris and offered great inducements for them to betray their trust, they! concluded this arrangement unknown to the French court. It was the beginning of the illustration of those peculiarities of Yankee diplomacy in history which have ceased to be the wonder of nations. April 11th, 1783, peace was proclaimed by Congress. The 19th it was announced by Washington to the army< Sept. 3rd, France, Spain, and Holland had concluded their treaty of pacification. Nov. 23rd, the British fleet sailed from New York, which had been held ever since the Bat- tle of Long Island in 1776. The American colonies which were named by Bri- tain as "free, sovereign and independent states" were acknowledged each as a nation. The royal charter of each was its constitution of government. But the revo- lutionists very soon turned on the royalists who remained in the colonies and destroyed every vestige of these char- ters in a government of universal sufferage, rapine and plunder, which was not fully extended until after the civil war of 1861-5 had reduced the Southern provinces) to the same illegal and majority-ridden regime. As for, these Yankee democrats, on account of their greed, theft and lack of honor, their French allies "held them in the greatest contempt for their venality and baseness." 108 Rise of the United Empire Leyalists. Washington wrote, Dec. 30th, 1778: "Speculation, peculation and an insatiable thirst for riches seem to have got the better of every consideration and almost of every order of men." July 10th, 1782 : "That spirit of free- dom, which at the commencement of the contest would have gladly sacrificed everything to the attainment of the object, has long since subsided and every selfish passion has taken its place." La Fayette wrote to Washington, June 12th, 1779 : "For God's sake prevent Congress from disputing so loudly together. Nothing so much hurts the interests and reputation of America." Most of their motives were contemptible, although hidden beneath plausible pretexts. In Sabine's "Ameri- can Loyalists," Vol. I., p. 56, it is written : "Otis was revengeful because the Crown did not make his father a judge in Massachusetts. John Adams became a rebel because he was refused a commission as Justice of the Peace ; Sam. Adams, because he had been dismissed as a defaulting collector of taxes; Hancock, to escape paying smuggling fines and on account of wounded vanity. Joseph Warren was a broken man and sought speculating in civil strife to better his condition. Washington was soured because he had not been retained in the British army for his services during the French and Indian wars. The Lees were all unsound men, and Richard Henry Lee was disappointed in not receiving the office of stamp dis- tributor which he had solicited, and Franklin at the oppo- sition to his land scheme and plan for settlement on the Ohio." These people, after coming into supreme control, turned against the aristocracy remaining in the colonies — even those members who had been dupes of their pro- mises and had proffered aid. They repudiated all the indebtedness of the government to its own citizens, so that Robert Morris, who had pledged his fortune to the cause, died in a debtor's prison ; Governor Langdon of New Hampshire with scores of others were reduced to poverty ; Gen. George Rogers Clarke, who had conquered the West, was in such miserable poverty that he entered the military services of a foreign prince ; John Paul, alias Jones, the ablest sea-captain and the founder of their The Climax. 109 navy, followed after Clarke, and a nephew of Washing- ton died with the rank of Colonel in the armies of Greece, cursing his country. The few families of eminence that survived the insidious machinations of Congress against the aristocracy owed their survival to territorial grants they had held from the Crown in the colonies — for all those who had pledged their property in defense of the new states were robbed by their government, in the repu- diation of all indebtedness towards its defenders. Not only this, but they proceeded gradually to alter, abridge or modify the charters which they had claimed to defend, or else interpret their meaning in such a way as to destroy their significance in every state. The revolu- tionary government of France, which was modeled close- ly after the one set up in America, proceeded along the same lines, and, as Glasson says, "destroyed the feudality and the obligations subsisting between it and the people. From that time there was no pact, or contract, between the government and the people, as formerly, only the will of a majority composed of ignorant and irresponsible multitudes." The English government itself, at the close of this war, when making the Treaty of Peace of 1783 with the American commissioners at Paris, out of revenge, most likely against the royalists for their first opposition to the London Parliament, insisted on no terms to prevent their suffering from further depredations in America. Ryer- son (Vol. II., p. 164-5) says on this subject: "A cam- paign for the purpose, on the refusal of the American commissioners to recognize what was sanctioned by the laws and usages of nations, would have been honorable to the British government and popular in England. . . England was mistress of the seas, held New York, Charleston, Rhode Island, Penobscot and other military ports and could soon have reduced the Americans to do what their peace-commissioners at Paris had refused to do — place British subjects in America on the same foot- ing as to property that they possessed before the war. . . England could have easily and successfully refused granting the United States one foot of land beyond the limits of the 13 colonies and thus have secured those vast Western territories, now the larger part of the United no Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. States, and retained her garrisons in New York, Rhode Island and Charleston to hold those places as guarantees until the performance of these requisitions on the part of the United States." But the people in control in England ever since the Revolution of 1688 dethroned the Aryan aristocracy have degenerated slowly in the grander traits of rulership. Suported by the wealth of a colossal empire whose for- ward movement has not yet lost its momentum, although relaxed in vital energy by this displacing of classes, the power of England seems to be greater by this inflation. But as Tyndal says in his "Life of the Earl of Strafford" : "It remains to be seen whether the many (the Anglo- Saxon democracy) can retain what the few (the Franco- Norman, or Gothic, aristocracy) have won." They have commenced by losing the richest empire in America the world has ever seen. PART V.— CHAPTER I. Confederation of the Royalist Orders for Constitutional Recognition. "Let our halls and towers decay, Be our name and line forgot, Lands and manours pass away, — We but share our Monarch's lot. If no more our annals show Battles won and banners taken, Still in death, defeat and woe, Ours be loyalty unshaken!" II. "Constant still in danger's hour, Princes own'd our fathers' aid; Lands and honors, wealth and power Well this loyalty repaid. Perish wealth and power and pride! Mortal boons by mortals given; But let Constancy abide, — Constancy, the gift of Heaven." (Rokeby by Sir Walter Scott.) The cardinal principles of the Royalists as United Empire Loyalists are included in the three articles of the Minute Men, viz. : I. To defend the Royal Prerogative' and Honor and Dignity of the Crown in the Colonies. II. To defend the Constitution of the Provinces against any infringements by the London Parliament, or the Colonial Democracy. III. To combine together for these purposes, and choose their leaders and obey them. These Minute Men fought against the pretensions of the Lon- don Parliament in America until 1778 when that parlia- ment rescinded all its acts of interference with the royal prerogative in the colonies and with the provisions of the ii2 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. Colonial Charters, or Constitutions. Then the Minute Men disbanded and demanded a settlement of the matter from Congress, that they had supported until this. But Congress, whose good material had left it in disgust, re- presenting but the riff-raff and democracy refused, and the greater number of the Minute Men, reorganized as Loyalists, turned their arms against those who had per- jured their trust and forsaken their allegiance, while others of the Minute Men retired into private life — espe- cially those of the Stuart adherents who were not dispos- ed to go so far as the others for the sake of the usurping House of Hanover. In 1778 (Feb.) Sir Henry Clinton with authority from the king to recognize the United Empire Loyalists, issued a royal commission for such purpose to form a council for the "Associated Loyalists of America" to William Franklin, Governor of New Jersey; J. S. Mar- tin, Governor of North Carolina ; Gen. Timothy Ruggles, and Hons. Daniel Coxe, G. Ludlow, Edward Lutwyche, George Romer, George Leonard, Anthony Stewart and Robert Alexander. The Presidents of the various colonial branches in 1779, given in Ryerson, Vol. II., p. 182 (Loyalists of America"), were: Sir William Pepperrell, Massachu- setts ; Sir John Wentworth, New Hampshire ; Hon. George Rowe, Rhode Island; Gen. James de Lancey, New York; Hon. David Ogden, New Jersey; Hon. Jos- eph Galloway, Pennsylvania and Deleware ; Hon. Robert Alexander, Maryland; Maj. James R. Grymes, Virginia; Hon. Henry Eustace McCulloch, North Carolina; Atty, Gen. James Simpson, South Carolina; Hon. William Knox and Lieut.-Gov. John Graham, Georgia. The regi- ments raised and officered by them were The King's Rangers, The Royal Fencible-Americans, New York Volunteers, King's American Regiment, Prince of Wales' American Volunteers, Maryland Loyalist Regi ment, De Lancey 's Battalion, 2nd American Regiment, King's Carolina Rangers, South Carolina Royal Regt., North Carolina Highland Regt., King's American Dra- goons, Loyal American Regt., American Legion, New Jersey Volunteers, British Legion, Loyal Forresters, Confederation of the Royalist Orders. i i 3 Orange Rangers, Pennsylvania Loyal Regt., Guides and Pioneers, North Carolina Volunteers, Georgia's Loyal Rangers, West Chester Volunteers, Loyal New England- ers, Associated Loyalist Militia, New Hampshire Loyal- ists, Hamilton's New York Battalions. For Canada there were raised by the Loyalists (French and Scotch) two regiments of their Seigneurial Guard ; the first, under the Colonel, Baron de Longueuil, was directed to the relief of Fort St. Jean-Iberville, the second, sometimes known as the Royal Immigrant Regi- ment, commanded by those Scottish Seigneurs — former officers of the old 79th Cameronian Highlanders — who had had seigneuries conceded to them by Governor Mur- ray after 1763 — assisted Governor Sir Guy Carleton in the successful defence of Quebec. The two greatest exploits of arms of the Loyalists — apart from those of the regular troops in the field — were the defense of Savannah and the defence of Fort St. Jean. The Loyalists organized their military order and their rangers in Savannah, Georgia, in 1778, under com- mand of Gen. John Prevost, who came up from St. Au- gustine in Florida for the purpose. The next year, the royal governor, Sir James Wright, baronet, returned from England and took supreme command. Gen. Lin- coln, commanding the republican force in the vicinity, determined to capture Savannah, the royalist stronghold, and combined his movements with a great Frencb fleet under the Comte d'Estang, which carried also an army of the veteran troops of France. In the attack which fol- lowed, the heavy cannon of the French, swept the ram- parts of Savannah and silenced all the cannon of the roy- alists. Then the French and republican troops were massed and advanced to carry the intrenchments by the bayonet, as the royalists refused to surrender. But the royalists feared not, they grasped their muskets and sabres with stout hearts and iron hands, stood to the shock and beat back the numerous foe, so that the French were glad to return to their fleet and the republicans to their quarters in Carolina. From that success, the royal- ists advanced and obtained possession of all of Georgia as far North as Augusta, and held the province until the ii4 i?M£ of the United Empire Loyalists. treaty of peace of 1783 delivered it over to the enemy, in spite of their protests of possession. The most important action, from its effect of pre- serving Canada to the crown, was the defense of Fort St. Jean, Sept. 5th, 1775 ; the American Generals, Montgom- ery and Schuyler, with 2,000 men, appeared before Fort St. Jean, on their way to capture Montreal, Three Rivers and Quebec. The English of the lower class in the coun- try encouraged the insurgents; the French of the lower class were inclined the same way and were prevented go- ing over to the enemy in a body only by the priests, who feared for their own rights under a revolutionary and puritanical regime. The seigneurs and officers of the noblesse, both French, and Scottish, the latter of whom had received seigneurial grants from Governor Murray, raised a seigneurial guard of two contingents, one of which, mostly Scottish, was directed towards Quebec, the other, mostly French, under the Baron de Longueuil, was sent to relieve Fort St. Jean. The arrival of this little company of elite at the fort raised the spirits of the garri- son, whose officers were induced thereby to make a vigor- ous defense. This Seigneurial Guard did mos t of the fighting during the 45 days of resistance which held the American army back among the marshes of the Riche- lieu. It was among them only that any were killed in sortis. And when by lack of succor, and of provisions, the place surrendered finally, the delay had enabled Sir Guy Carleton to put Quebec in such a condition of de- fense that it held the disaffected in the country quiet and beat off the last efforts of the foe. From this time and until after the conclusion of the peace of 1783 Canada; became the objective point of settlement for the 45,000 American loyalists who were directed towards Canada by land and sea with their wives and children and such poor relics of their former affluance, which they could carry with them from the clutches of an insolvent and crueK foe. Towns sprang up in the old province where they settled; the new orovinces of New Brunswick (1784) and Ontario (1791) were created by them; refinement, wealth, and above all loyalty to principle — the best heri- tage — followed in their footsteps. They and the French royalists "have proved a barrier to the growth of *aj an- Confederation of the Royalist Orders. n 5 nexation party" (Bourinot, "Story of Canada," p. 292). "Although no noble monument has been raised to these founders of new provinces ... yet the names of all are written in imperishable letters in provincial annals . . . and one who traces to this source is as proud of his lineage as a Derby or a Talbot of Malahide, or an in- heritor of other noble name" (ibid, pp. 296-7). "They were an army of leaders, for it was the loftiest heads that attracted the hate of the revolutionists. The most influ- ential judges, distinguished lawyers, capable and prom- inent physicians, most highly educated of the clerp-v, the royal councillors of the colonies, crown officers, people of culture and social distinction" (Roberts' "Hist, of Can- ada" p. 202). "They were the gentry (noblesse) of the American colonies" (Lecky, "Hist, of England"). As a gentry, a noblesse, they were incorporated in Canada with the constitution and principles for which' they had fought and which the crown and parliament had guaranteed, as well as by Act of the Sovereign Council of Quebec, Nov. 9th, 1789, to wit : — "In presence of the Governor, Lord Dorchester, and Royal Councillors, the Hons. William Smith, Hugh Finlay, Thomas Dunn, J. G. Chossegros de Lery, F. Baby, Charles de Lanaudiere, Le- compte Dupre, etc., his Lordship intimated to the council that it was his wish to put a Mark of Honor on the fami- lies that had adhered to the un*ity of the Empire and had joined the Royal Standard in America before the Treaty of Separation of 1783" . . "The Council concurred and it was ordered that the several Land Boards take course for preserving a Registry of all persons falling under description aforesaid so that their posterity may be distinguished from other settlers." . . They were en- titled to write the letters "U.E." (United Empire) after their names as an inheritance of distinction to their pos- terity in the family name of the original loyalists and as a means of taking precedence of others of the same rank — an U. E. Seigneur, before a seigneur ; an U. E. gentle- man, before a gentleman. Besides this creation by law of a precedence for the Order of the United Empire, the agreement of the British government that the constitution of Canada by the Act of 1774 should not be altered and by the Act of 1778 that the n6 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. meaning of the Anglo-American constitution should not be infringed, recognized virtually the right of represen- tation in the council of the province of the colonial aris- tocracy ; it confirmed the laudable practise on the part of the governor of keeping a registry for the colony and the king of the best families for appointment in the council. The Lords of Manours and Patroons in New York, the Lords of Manours in Maryland, the Landgraves and Caciques in Carolina, the European nobliesse and chivalry established in landed tenure in the other colonies and in Florida, the relics of the aristocracy deriving from the Order of the Empire of Charles V., whose first creation in America was the duchy of Veragua in Central Ameri- ca to the grandson of Christopher Columbus from this time saw their hopes realized in Canada. In framing the model of government for Canada in 1791, based on this constitution — any model is null not so based — Lord William Pitt prepared for the honest prac- tise which all colonial charters demanded, and which the Houses of Lords and Commons acknowledged anew in passing the bill. This bill provided for sittings in the Upper House in Canada to be annexed to hereditary hon- ors in the colony. But the ministry in England and the governors sent over from England made no effort to put this acknowledgement in practise, and the politicians of Canada, ever fearful of the aristocracy, worked to oppose it and to ostracise and keep from public position the de- scendants of the patricians and founders of the country. In 1879 the descendants of these various orders of nobil- ity, knighthood and chivalry in the old colonies (United States and Canada) took up the movement of their or- ganization — although a movement had been suggested as early as 1798. The old order of the Empire of Charles V. in America was reorganized under the name of the Aryan Order of the Empire and reserved for the descend- ants of the Royalists of 1776-83, known as the Order of the United Empire, the Seigneurs of Canada, the Baro- nets of Nova Scotia, the Patrons and Lords of Manors of New York and Maryland, the Landgraves and Caciques of Carolina, and other patrician families estab- lished on landed tenure in America. It was decided that "none but those of the White Aryan race shall be elegible, Confederation of the Royalist Orders. 117 notwithstanding what their other claims may be." The first chancellor of the order in 1879 was the late Frederic Forsyth, Viscount de Fronsac, succeeded by Gen. Alex. P. Stewart of Mississippi, and he by Gen. John B. Gor-, don, of Georgia, and he by Sir Edward Warren, of Paris, and he by Harvey Leonadas Byrd, M.D., President of the Baltimore Medical College and a descendant of the renowned Sir William Byrd of Westover, Virginia. It counted among the early members Dr. Olando Fairfax, Richmond, Virginia ; Dr. Leprohon, of Montreal, French Consul at Portland, Maine; Thomas Supplee, of Ohio; W. L. Ritter, of Baltimore, etc., until in 1891 the Chan- cellorship fell to Dr. Joseph Gaston Bulloch, of Savan- nah, Georgia, who published a pamphlet on the order the next year. In 1894 the State of Georgia granted the council the privilege of incorporation. But the order was attacked by the republican press> throughout the United States ; it was accused of desiring to restore an empire, and of organizing an aristocracy on the principle that "a good name is rather to be chosen than great riches" ; it was condemned for recognizing the truths of history and the laws of Nature. It became impossible for its continuance in the United States, where the edicts of majority-rule have declared that the lowest man who votes, whether negro or white, is the standard of selection and that there shall be no other standard of race recognized above this equality; it had gathered to- gether the widely scattered of the legitimist families from the obscurity of their private life and endowed them with a corporate existence. Already the proper place, where these various orders of the colonies have a legal and con- stitutional recognition, was made manifest by those of the United Empire Loyalists in St. John, New Bruns- wick, forming a branch society in 1883 under the presi- dency of Sir Leonard Tilley, lieutenant-governor of the province, who was succeeded later by Sir John C. Allen, the chief-justice. In 1896, on a large scale, Frederic Gregory Forsyth, Viscount de Fronsac at Montreal, on May 18th, with a brief from the Aryan Order, laid the foundation of the United Empire Loyalist Association of Canada and was succeeded in the presidency of the gen- eral body by Sir William Johnson, Baronet of Chambly,i 1 1 8 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. grandson of the great Sir John Johnson, Baronet, who led his battalions of loyalist troops into Canada in 1783. The next year (1896), by letters from the Viscount de. Fronsac to Col. W. Hamilton Merritt of Toronto, a divi- sion was established there under presidency of the Hon. John Beverley Robinson, lieutenant-governor of Ontario, and grandson of the U. E. Loyalist, Lieutenant-Governor Sir Frederic Phillippse Robinson, baronet, who came to Ontario in 1783. In 1897 by the energy of Rev. Arthur Pyke, member of the general council at Montreal, the Nova Scotia division was established at Halifax under presidency of the Hon. A. G. Jones, now (1905) lieuten- ant-governor of Nova Scotia. About the same time the descendants of the Seigneurs of Canada in the Aryan Or- der chose as their president Charles Coleman Grant, Baron de Longueuil, replaced at his death by his brother. Reginald d' Iberville Grant, Baron de Longueuil. There remains yet in the Aryan Order for choice of officers under its own ancient charter, the; descendants of the Baronets of Nova Scotia. The move- ment of reorganization although participated in by Cana- dian descendants had taken place first in the United States, because, strange as it may seem, there were in- dividuals there stronger and more independent in royalist belief and sentiment, at that time (1879-80) than in Can- ada. They were the relics few and far between — but mostly in the Southern States, — of those Royalist and Cavalier families who had fought for the Stuarts under Charles I. and James II., and had been the "first to charge the foe, on Preston's bloody sod" in the time of Prince Charlie (1745). They were of the Royalist Minute-men of 1776-8, who, while guarding the prerogative of the crown in the colonial charter, refused to recognize the Hanoverian usurpation outside of those charters, and had gone to their homes in 1778 rather than fight against the colonies with the U. E. Loyalists, after the charters were assured. They had spurned with contempt the supercili- ous condescension of the court of George III. that was offering them "pardons" if they submitted to its insolent and illegal domination in the colonies. But they were royalists and turned with even greater scorn from the dishonest propaganda of the Yankee republic. As Pol- Confederation of the Royalist Orders. 119 lard in his "Lost Cause" says, "There could be no con- geniality between the Puritan exiles who sought the cheerless shores of New England and the cavaliers who drank confusion to round-heads and regicides in their baronial halls of Virginia and the Carolinas." But the foundation for the Order itself in the United States had been destroyed by the overthrow of the colo- nial charters in the republic. It had a right of existence and of representation however in Canada as a constitu- tional quantity. By the constitution on which the Do- minion of Canada is founded, acknowledged by the capitulations of Montreal of 1760, by the order of crea- tion of the Baronets of Nova Scotia, by the Quebec Act; of 1774, by the Acts of Parliament in recognition of simi- lar sovereignty of the colonial constitutions of 1778 (which contained the representation of colonial aristo- cracy), by the Loyalist Act in 1789 — acts in themselves' recognizing the irrefragibility of the constitution of the) country and which no Canadian, or other parliament, has authority to undo, not even by a "British North American Act," which is null, wherein it disagrees with the above' pledges, and when enforced in an unconstitutional man- ner, absolves from allegiance the same as in 1776 a simi- lar proceeding did. Through the officers the order open- ed communications with the British and Canadian gov- ernments. Dr. Stirling Ryerson, President of the U. E. Loyalist Division at Toronto, was deputed by the other U. E. Loyalist divisions to attend the Queen's Jubilee of 1897 as a representative and to present the address of the various bodies. In that address was a request that the decoration of the Loyalists, designed by Dr. Ryerson, and consisting of a bronze cross of the Victoria pattern, might be recorded with the precedence due it according to the law of 1789. He was referred to the Colonial Sec- retary, Mr. Chamberlain. To escape the dilemma of a refusal, Mr. Chamberlain said that it would be considered if recommended by the Canadian government. But the Canadian government, in the name of the King, in 1789' had already agreed to the recognition. However, Dr. Ryerson called to see the polite, political and liberal Pre- mier, Laurier, and he with sauve diplomacy postponed action on the matter until a "more propitious season." 120 Rise of the United Empire Loyalists. During the administration of Lord Aberdeen, the Herald-Marshal, in the name of the Seigneurs of Can- ada, opened communication with that individual to know what arrangements had been made at the receptions at; Ottawa, for the seigneurial precedence. Aberdeen did not deign a reply until he was rudely awakened by a command from his superior, the colonial secretary, to answer the demand of the Seigneurial Order. Then he replied stating that he had "referred the matter to the Canadian government." Absurd,— to a set of politicians who exist solely as a franchise under a constitution, a part of which is the Seigneurial Order itself! Lord Minto, (who had united with these republican politicians and others of that ilk to insult the King's commander in Canada, Lord Dundonald, by signing his dismissal be- cause he had done his duty contrary to the wishes of these politicians) seemed to be ignorant that there was anything in Canada but Himself and Them. But in the meantime the Aryan Order of the Empire in all its branches, perfecting its organization, founded on the constitution, supported by the legitimate prerogative of the crown, and by the vast majority of all the people of the Province of Quebec — who stand by the exact inter- pretation of the same constitution because it guarantees their religion, law, and language in exchange for their alegiance — is forming a physical force to employ in main- tenance of its legal rights. And these rights, in this con- stitution, by the full strength of the Crown and Majesty of the Empire, by the very oath and mandium of the Sovereign, are bound to be sustained. INDEX. Page. Introduction , ,. . - 3 PART I. Chapter I. Colonies under the Stuarts 5 Chapter II. Virginia's Constitutional right exercised of refusing to recognize the English Parliament's par- ticipation in Royal Perogative — External dissension® . . 14 Bacon Rebellion of 1676 17 PART II. Chapter I. Maryland, Carolina, New York. The Mary- land Lords of Manours 23 Chapter II. The South, — Carolina . . . ., 35 New York ■....!.., < . . 37 Middle Colonies < i 43 PART III. Chapter I. New England Colony and government; found- ing of Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay Colonies .... 44 Chapter II. Beginning of Royalists in New England. King's Chapel. The Royal Charter 53 PART IV. UNION ERA. Chapter I. Parliament usurps Crown functions in the Provinces , , i . . i.. 60 Chapter II. Consolidation 1 on Continental Basis against Parliament usurpation. Parties in the Colonies 67 Chapter III. Conspiracy and Hypocracy and Loyalty and Honor armed together !....,.. 77 Chapter IV. Struggles in the Field . ., 83 Chapter V. Declaration of Independence 95 Second Declaration of Independence 98 Articles of Minute-Men . . ..... . .) ;..,.. . . 102 King a factor of the Charters . . . .i . . . , 103 Chapter VI. The Climax ..,,...., 104 PART V. Chapter I. Confederation of the Royalist Orders for Con- stitutional Recognition Ill Viscount de Fronsac's Publications. Price. I. First Canadian Epoch (edition sold) „ 50 cents. II. . Political History of Canada (edition sold) .. 50 cents. OPINIONS: "Just what I needed for concise understanding of Can- adian history". — U.S. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Washington, D.C. "Invaluable for the working library of the journalist and public man". — Sir John C. Gordon, B.N.S. "The best history of Canada that has come to us". — Sunday Journal, Boston, U.S.A. III. Rise of the Loyalists $1 IV. Memorial of the Forsyth de Fronsac Family, bound, illustrated $3.50 V. Provincial Charters and American Revolution (ready for print) $1 VI. Empire Beyond the Sea (Ready for Print) . . $1 VII. Notes on Science and Art of Warfare .." " $1 VIII. La Constitution du Canada (Ready for Print) .. $1 IX. Heraldry in Relation to Art. Literature and History (Illustrated) (Ready for Print) $3.50 X. Poetical Collection (Ready for Print) $1 XL Sixteen Musical and Song Compositions. Two-steps, Marches, Waltzes, Ballads. Price from 10c. to 25c. each OPINIONS: "One of the best of the better class of historians". — Late C. H. E. Carmichael, editor of Taswell-Lang- mead's Constitutional History of England, Lon- don, Eng. "A writer who unites the accuracy of history to the vigorous beauty of Rousseau and the noble dignity of Conieille".— Henri Ducom, bachelier-es-lettres, late of University of Paris, France. For descriptions, books and information, address the Viscount de Fronsac, Ottawa, Canada.