Volume I Part 22 (1/2)
He has taken merely the task of an historian upon him. Considered as such (as far as I can judge), most of the chapters are well written, and in such a way as to be very acceptable to the present age.
”But the freedom he has taken to expose the persecuting principles and practices of the first Planters, both in the body of his history and his abridgment of their laws, has displeased some persons here, and perhaps will be offensive there. I must confess I sent for him this week, and gave him my sense freely on this subject. I could wish he had more modified some of his relations, and had rather left out those laws, or in some page had annexed something to prevent our enemies from insulting both us and you on that subject. His answer was, that 'the fidelity of an historian required him to do what he had done;' and he has, at the end of the first and second volumes, given such a character of the present ministers and inhabitants of the country as may justly secure this generation from all scandal; and that it is a n.o.bler thing to tell the world that you have rectified the errors of your fathers, than if mere education had taught you so large a charity. He told me likewise that he had shown in the preface that all such laws as are inconsistent with the laws of England are, _ipso facto_, repealed by your new Charter. But methinks it would be better to have such cruel and sanguinary statutes as those under the t.i.tle of 'Heresy' repealed in form, and by the public authority of the nation; and if the appearance of this book in your country shall awaken your General a.s.sembly to attempt to fulfil such a n.o.ble piece of service to your country, there will be a happy effect of that part of the history which now makes us blush and be ashamed.
”I have taken the freedom to write a line or two to your most excellent Governor on this subject, which I entreat you to deliver, with my salutation; and I a.s.sure myself that Dr. Mather will have a zealous hand in promoting so gracious a work if it may be thought expedient to attempt it.” (Collections of the Ma.s.sachusetts Historical Society, First Series, Vol. V., pp. 200, 201.)
The ”glorious work” advised by Dr. Watts was not ”attempted,” and the ”cruel and persecuting statutes pa.s.sed by the Congregational Court of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay were never repealed by any ”public authority” of that colony, but were tacitly annulled and superseded by the provisions of the ”new Charter” of King William and Mary in favour of toleration and civil liberty.”]
[Footnote 220: History of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 415.]
[Footnote 221: The effect of so much paper was to drive all gold and silver out of circulation, to raise the nominal prices of all commodities, and to increase the rate of exchange on England. Great confusion and perplexity ensued, and the community was divided in opinion, the most being urgent for the issue of more paper money. For this purpose a project was started for a Land-Bank, which was established in Ma.s.sachusetts, the plan of which was to issue bills upon the pledge of lands. All who were in difficulty advocated this, because they hoped that in the present case they might s.h.i.+ft their burdens on to some one else. It was then resisted, and another plan was devised and carried (1714), namely, the issuing of 50,000 of bills of credit by Government, to be loaned to individuals at 5 per cent. interest, to be secured by estates, and to be repaid one-fifth part yearly. This quieted the Land-Bank party for a while. But the habit of issuing bills of credit continued, and was very seductive.
”In 1741, Rhode Island issued 40,000 in paper money, to be loaned to the inhabitants. In 1717, New Hamps.h.i.+re issued 15,000 paper money. In 1733, Connecticut issued 20,000 on the loan system for the first time, Rhode Island made another issue of 100,000.” (Elliott's New England History, Vol. II., Chap, xii., p. 230.)]
[Footnote 222: History of the Province of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay from 1749 to 1774, p. 1.]
CHAPTER VIII.
Ma.s.sACHUSETTS AND OTHER COLONIES DURING THE SECOND WAR BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE, FROM THE PEACE OF AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, 1748, TO THE PEACE OF PARIS IN 1763.
By the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, France and England retained their respective possessions as they existed before the war. Louisburg, which had been captured from the French in 1745 by the skill of the British Admiral Warren, aided most courageously by the Ma.s.sachusetts volunteers, was therefore restored to the French, much to the regret and mortification of the New England colonies, by whom the enterprise against that powerful and troublesome fortress had first been devised and undertaken. By the treaty between France and England, the boundaries of their possessions in America were left undefined, and were to be settled by Commissioners appointed by the two countries. But the Commissioners, when they met at Paris, could not agree; the questions of these boundaries remained unsettled; and the French in Canada, with the Indians, nearly all of whom were in alliance with them, were constantly making aggressions and committing cruel outrages upon the English colonists in the back parts of New England, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, who felt that their only security for life, property, and liberty was the extinction of French power in America, and the subjection of the Indians by conquest or conciliation. The six years which followed the peace of 1748 witnessed frequent and b.l.o.o.d.y collisions between the English colonists and their French and Indian Canadian neighbours, until, in 1756, England formally declared war against France--a war which continued seven years, and terminated in the extinction of French power in Canada, and in the enlargement of the British possessions from Labrador to Florida and Louisiana, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific. This war, in its origin and many scenes of its conflicts and conquests, was an American-Colonial war, and the American colonies were the gainers by its results, for which British blood and treasure had been lavishly expended. In this protracted and eventful conflict, the British Government were first prompted and committed, and then n.o.bly seconded by the colonies, Ma.s.sachusetts acting the most prominent part.
The last act of the British Government, pursuant to the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748, was to restore to the French Government Louisburg, in return for the strongly fortified fort of Madras, which had been wrested from the French by the colonists, a.s.sisted by Admiral Warren with a few English s.h.i.+ps in 1745; and the first act of the French Government, after the restoration to them of Louisburg, was to prepare for wresting from Great Britain all her American colonies.[223] They dispatched soldiers and all kinds of military stores; encroached upon and built fortresses in the British province of Nova Scotia, and in the provinces of Pennsylvania and Virginia,[224] and erected a chain of forts, and planted garrisons along the line of the British provinces, from the St. Lawrence to the Ohio river, and thence to the Mississippi.[225]
The only means at the command of Great Britain to counteract and defeat these designs of France to extinguish the English colonies in America was to prevent them from carrying men, cannon, and other munitions of war hither, by capturing their s.h.i.+ps thus laden and employed; but the French Government thought that the British Government would not proceed to such extremities, for fear that the former would make war upon the German possessions of the latter, the King of England being the Elector of Hanover. Besides, the proceedings of the French in America were remote and concealed under various pretexts; the French Government could oppose a general denial to the complaints made as to its encroachments on British territory and settlements in the distant wilderness of America; while any attack by England upon French s.h.i.+ps at sea would be known at once to all Europe, and excite prejudice against England for such an act in time of peace against a neighbouring nation. The designs and dishonesty of the French Government in these proceedings are thus stated by Rapin:
”Though the French in all their seaports were making the greatest preparations for supporting their encroachments in America, yet the strongest a.s.surances came to England from that Ministry that no such preparations were making, and that no hostility was intended by France against Great Britain or her dependencies. These a.s.surances were generally communicated to the British Ministry by the Duke of Mirepoix, the French Amba.s.sador to London, who was himself so far imposed upon that he believed them to be sincere, and did all in his power to prevent a rupture between the two nations. The preparations, however, were so notorious that they could be no longer concealed, and Mirepoix was upbraided at St. James's with being insincere, and the proofs of his Court's double-dealing were laid before him. He appeared to be struck with them; and complaining bitterly of his being imposed upon, he went in person over to France, where he reproached the Ministry for having made him their tool. They referred him to their King, who ordered him to return to England with fresh a.s.surances of friends.h.i.+p; but he had scarcely delivered them when undoubted intelligence came that a French fleet from Brest and Rochefort was ready to sail, with a great number of land forces on board. The French fleet, which consisted of twenty-five s.h.i.+ps of the line, besides frigates and transports, with a vast number of warlike stores, and between three and four thousand land forces, under Baron Dieskau, were ready to sail from Brest, under Admiral Macnamara. Upon this intelligence, Admiral Holbourne was ordered to reinforce Boscawen with six s.h.i.+ps of the line and one frigate; and a great number of capital s.h.i.+ps were put into commission. It was the 6th May (1755) before Macnamara sailed; but he soon returned with nine of his capital s.h.i.+ps, and ordered the rest to proceed under the command of M. Bois de la Mothe.
”When news of so strong a squadron sailing from Brest was confirmed, the people of England grew extremely uneasy for the fate of the squadron under Boscawen and Holbourne; and it was undoubtedly owing to the bad management of the French that one or both of those squadrons were not destroyed.”[226]
The King, in proroguing Parliament, the 27th of May, 1755, among other things said:
”That he had religiously adhered to the stipulations of the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, and made it his care not to injure or offend any Power whatsoever; but never could he entertain the thoughts of purchasing the name of peace at the expense of suffering encroachments upon, or yielding up, what justly belongs to Great Britain, either by ancient possession or solemn treaties. That the vigour and firmness of his Parliament on this important occasion have enabled him to be prepared for such contingencies as may happen. That, if reasonable and honourable terms of accommodation can be agreed upon, he will be satisfied, and in all events rely on the justice of his cause, the effectual support of his people, and the protection of Divine Providence.”[227]
This speech to Parliament was delivered a year before war was formally declared between England and France; and a year before that, in 1754, by royal instructions, a convention of delegates from the a.s.semblies of the several Colonies was held at Albany, in the Province of New York. Among other things relative to the union and defence of the Colonies which engaged the attention of this Convention, ”a representation was agreed upon in which were set forth the unquestionable designs of the French to prevent the colonies from extending their settlements, a line of forts having been erected for this purpose, and many troops transported from France; and the danger the colonies were in of being driven by the French into the sea, was urged.” The representation of the imminent danger to the colonies from the French encroachments probably accelerated the measures in England which brought on the war with France.[228]
Mr. Bancroft endeavours again and again to convey the impression that this seven years' war between England and France was a European war, and that the American colonies were called upon, controlled, and attempted to be taxed to aid Great Britain in the contest; yet he himself, in one place, admits the very reverse, and that Great Britain became involved in the war in defence of the American Colonies, as the facts above stated show, and as will appear more fully hereafter. Mr. Bancroft states the whole character and objects of the war, in both America and Europe, in the following words:
”The contest, which had now (1757) spread into both hemispheres, _began in America. The English Colonies, dragging England into their strife_, claimed to advance their frontier, and to include the great central valley of the continent in their system. The _American_ question therefore was, shall the continued colonization of North America be made under the auspices of English Protestantism and popular liberty, or shall the tottering legitimacy of France, in its connection with Roman Catholic Christianity, win for itself a new empire in that hemisphere?
The question of the _European_ continent was, shall a Protestant revolutionary kingdom, like Prussia, be permitted to rise up and grow strong within its heart? Considered in its unity as interesting _mankind_, the question was, shall the Reformation, developed to the fulness of Free Inquiry, succeed in its protest against the Middle Age?
”The war that closed in 1748 had been a mere scramble for advantages, and was sterile of results; the present conflict, which was to prove a seven years' war, was against the unreformed; and this was so profoundly true, that all the predictions or personal antipathies of Sovereign and Ministers could not prevent the alliances, collisions, and results necessary to make it so.”[229]
The object and character of such a war for Protestantism and liberty, as forcibly stated by Mr. Bancroft himself, was as honourable to England, as the results of it have been beneficial to posterity and to the civilization of mankind; yet Mr. Bancroft's sympathies throughout his brilliant but often inconsistent pages are clearly with France against England, the policy and character of whose statesmen he taxes his utmost ingenuity and researches to depreciate and traduce, while he admits they are engaged in the n.o.blest struggle recorded in history.
From 1748 to 1754, the contests in America were chiefly between the colonists and the French and their Indian allies (except at sea), and were for the most part unsuccessful on the part of the colonists, who lost their forts at Oswego and Niagara, and suffered other defeats and losses. ”But in the year 1755,” says Dr. Minot, ”the war in America being now no longer left to colonial efforts alone, the plan of operations consisted of three parts. The first was an attack on Fort du Quesne, conducted by troops from England under General Braddock; the second was upon the fort at Niagara, which was carried on by American regulars and Indians (of the Six Nations); and the third was an expedition against Crown Point, which was supported by militia from the northern colonies, enlisted merely for that service.”[230]
The expedition against Fort du Quesne ended in the disgraceful defeat and death of Braddock and one-third of his men, hundreds of whom were shot down by ambushed foes whom they never saw. The contemplated attack upon Niagara was never prosecuted; the expedition against Crown Point was a failure, and exhaustive of the resources of Ma.s.sachusetts; but, as a compensation, Colonel Johnson defeated and took prisoner the French general, Baron Dieskau, for which the King made him a baronet, and the House of Commons voted him a grant of 5,000 sterling.[231]
The most was made in England as well as the colonies of this decisive victory over a famous French general and his troops, as the year otherwise was disastrous to the English, and ”the French, with the a.s.sistance of their Indian allies, continued their murders, scalping, capturing, and laying waste the western frontiers of Virginia and Pennsylvania during the whole winter.”[232]
Nor were the years 1756 and 1757 more successful on the part of the English than the year 1755. Some of the princ.i.p.al events are as follows: War was formally declared by England against France in May, and declared by France against England in August. The expenses incurred by Ma.s.sachusetts and other colonies in the unfortunate Crown Point expedition were compensated by a parliamentary grant of 115,000 sterling.[233]