Volume II Part 17 (1/2)
”We should be wanting in justice and grat.i.tude if we did not upon this occasion acknowledge the wisdom and liberality of the provisions proposed by your Majesty's servants, conformable to your Majesty's gracious intentions for the relief and accommodation of the several cla.s.ses of sufferers to whose cases they apply; and we are convinced it will give comfort to your royal heart to be a.s.sured they have been received with the most general satisfaction.
”Professions of the unalterable attachment of the Loyalists to your Majesty's person and government we conceive to be unnecessary; they have preserved it under persecution, and grat.i.tude cannot render it less permanent. They do not presume to arrogate to themselves a more fervent loyalty than their fellow-subjects possess; but distinguished as they have been by their sufferings, they deem themselves ent.i.tled to the foremost rank among the most zealous supporters of the British Const.i.tution. And while they cease not to offer up their most earnest prayers to the Divine Being to preserve your Majesty and your ill.u.s.trious family in the peaceful enjoyment of your just rights, and in the exercise of your royal virtues in promoting the happiness of your people, they humbly beseech your Majesty to continue to believe them at all times, and upon all occasions, equally ready, as they have been, to devote their lives and properties to your Majesty's service and the preservation of the British Const.i.tution.
”W. Pepperell, for the Ma.s.sachusetts Loyalists.
”J. Wentworth, for the New Hamps.h.i.+re Loyalists.
”George Rowe, for the Rhode Island Loyalists.
”Ja. Delancey, for the New York Loyalists.
”David Ogden, for the New Jersey Loyalists.
”Joseph Galloway, for the Pennsylvania and Delaware Loyalists.
”Robert Alexander, for the Maryland Loyalists.
”John R. Grymer, for the Virginia Loyalists.
”Henry Eustace McCulloch, for the North Carolina Loyalists.
”James Simpson, for the South Carolina Loyalists.
”William Knox, for the Georgia Loyalists.
”John Graham, late Lieutenant-Governor of Georgia, and joint agent, for the Georgia Loyalists.”
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 124: The names of the agents, or delegates, are as follows: W.
Pepperell, for the Ma.s.sachusetts Loyalists; J. Wentworth, jun., for the New Hamps.h.i.+re Loyalists; George Rowe, for the Rhode Island Loyalists; Ja. Delancey, for the New York Loyalists; David Ogden, for the New Jersey Loyalists; Joseph Galloway, for the Pennsylvania and Delaware Loyalists; Robert Alexander, for the Maryland Loyalists; John R. Grymes, for the Virginia Loyalists; Henry Eustace McCulloch, for the North Carolina Loyalists; James Simpson, for the South Carolina Loyalists; William Knox, for the Georgia Loyalists.]
[Footnote 125: Another very able pamphlet was issued some time afterwards, ent.i.tled ”Claims of the American Loyalists Reviewed and Maintained upon the Incontrovertible Principles of Law and Justice;”
printed in London, 1788.]
[Footnote 126: ”Historical View of the Commission for Inquiry into the Losses, Services, and Claims of the American Loyalists, at the Close of the War between Great Britain and her Colonies in 1783; with an Account of the Compensation granted to them by Parliament in 1785 and 1788.” By John Eardley Wilmot, Esq., London, 1815. Dedicated ”To His Most Gracious Majesty George the Third, equally distinguished for justice and beneficence to his subjects and for humanity to his enemies.”]
[Footnote 127: It has already been mentioned that the Legislature of South Carolina (the only State of the American Republic) had taken steps to restore the estates of several of her Loyalists. This ”caused the withdrawal of the claims of their owners (before the English Commissioners), except that in instances of alleged strip and waste, amercements, and similar losses, inquiries were inst.i.tuted to ascertain the value of what was taken compared with that which was returned.”
The English Commissioners, in their twelfth and last report, remark on this subject as follows:
”We thought it our duty to state, in our second report of the 24th December, 1784, that the State of South Carolina had, by an Act of the 24th March, 1784, restored the confiscated property of certain Loyalists, subject to the restrictions therein mentioned; and that in consequence thereof many had withdrawn the claims they had before presented to us. We find, however, that in many instances the parties have not been able to reap that advantage they had expected, and which the Act above-mentioned held out to them. In some instances the property restored has been so wasted and injured as to be of little value; in others, the amercements and charges have been nearly equal to the value of the fee simple of the estates; and in many, where the indents[128]
being the species of money received by the State, have been restored to the former proprietors, an inevitable and considerable loss has been sustained by the depreciation. In all these cases we have made minute inquiry into the real benefit that has been derived from such rest.i.tution, whether of the property itself, or of the _indents_ in lien of it; and having endeavoured to ascertain, as nearly as the circ.u.mstances would admit, the value of what was lost and the value of what was restored, we have considered the difference as the real loss of the party.”]
[Footnote 128: _Indent_--A certificate, or indented certificate, issued by the Government of the United States at the close of the revolution, for the princ.i.p.al or interest of the public debt.--Webster.]
[Footnote 129: The principle thus laid down was neither just, nor true, nor generous. The claimants had not asked for _charity_, but for _compensation_, and that not as a favour, but upon the principles of ”right and of strict justice.” The British Ministry and Parliament alone originated and were responsible for the policy and measures which had led to the calamities so ruinous to the Loyalists, who now claimed compensation. The claimants had had nothing to do with pa.s.sing the Stamp Act; with imposing duties on tea and other articles imported into the colonies; with making naval officers collectors of customs; with erecting courts of admiralty, and depriving the trading colonists of trial by jury, and of rendering the officers of the admiralty courts, and the complainants before them, the recipients of the first confiscations imposed by such events; with the acts to close the Port of Boston, and supersede the chartered const.i.tution of Ma.s.sachusetts, all of which, separately and collectively, with other like measures, roused and united the colonists to resistance, from Maine to Georgia, and in consequence of which a majority of the General Congress of the colonists seized the opportunity to renounce their allegiance to the British Throne, and to declare their separation from the mother country. And even after the character of the contest became thus changed from one for British const.i.tutional rights to one for Republican independence, the Loyalists had nothing to do with the selection of British generals, or with their incapacity, their want of tact and energy, their mistakes and rapacity, together with that of their officers and soldiers, from all which the Loyalists grievously suffered. In the camp, on the march, and in the field of battle, the Loyalists were always on the alert, and performed the severest and most perilous services. No cla.s.s of men had stronger claims on the nation, upon the principles of right and strict justice, than the Loyalist claimants before Parliament. This was acknowledged by all the speakers on both sides, and in both Houses of Parliament, and even by Mr. Pitt himself, and the objectionable and offensive principle which he laid down at the outset was contravened by the whole tenor and spirit of his speech.]