The Loyalists of America and Their Times Volume II Part 15

CHAPTER x.x.xVIII.

TREATMENT OF THE LOYALISTS BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT AND PARLIAMENT AFTER THE REVOLUTION.

PART I.

PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT--REFUSAL OF THE STATES TO COMPENSATE THE LOYALISTS.

It has been seen, by the fact stated in the last preceding chapter, that the promised recommendations of Congress to the several States, as agreed upon by the English and American Commissioners of the peace negotiations at Paris, were, as had been expected and predicted by Dr.

Franklin at the time, without any result, the State Legislatures pa.s.sing Acts to proscribe rather than compensate the Loyalists. In justification of these Acts, the American writers of that period, and largely down to the present time, a.s.sailed the character of the Loyalists in the grossest language of calumny and abuse; but the most respectable American writers of the present age bear testimony to the intelligence, wealth, and respectability of the Loyalists; and the fact, no longer questionable, that they sacrificed wealth, liberty, country, and chose poverty and exile, in support of their principles, has fully vindicated their character and presented their conduct in advantageous contrast with that of those who deprived them of their liberty, and largely profited by the confiscation of their immense property, while they and their families were pining in exile and want.

The only resource of the exiled and impoverished Loyalists, under such circ.u.mstances, was the Government and Parliament of the mother country to which they had so faithfully adhered, and nothing could be more honourable than the testimony borne in the British Parliament to their character and merits, and the consideration given to their wants and claims. The fifth Article of the Treaty of Paris, leaving the Loyalists to the recommendation of the Congress to the Legislatures of the several States, was severely reprobated in both Houses of Parliament. In the House of Commons, Mr. Wilberforce said that "when he considered the case of the Loyalists, he confessed he felt himself conquered; there he saw his country humiliated; he saw her at the feet of America; still he was induced to believe that Congress would religiously comply with the Article, and that the Loyalists would obtain redress from America.

Should they not, this country was bound to afford it them. They _must be compensated_; Ministers, he was persuaded, meant to keep _the faith of the nation with them_."

Lord North (who had been Prime Minister during twelve years, including the war) said:

"And now let me, Sir, pause on a part of the treaty which awakens human sensibility in a very irresistible and lamentable degree. I cannot but lament the fate of those unhappy men, who, I conceive, were in general objects of our _grat.i.tude_ and _protection_. The Loyalists, from their attachments, surely had some claim to our affection. But what were not the claims of those who, in conformity to their _allegiance_, their _cheerful obedience_ to the _voice of Parliament_, their confidence in the proclamation of our generals, invited under every a.s.surance of _military, parliamentary, political, and affectionate protection,_ espoused with the hazard of their lives, and the forfeiture of their properties, the cause of Great Britain? _I cannot but feel for men thus sacrificed for their bravery and principles_--men who have sacrificed all the dearest possessions of the human heart. They have exposed their lives, endured an age of hardships, deserted their interests, forfeited their possessions, lost their connections, and ruined their families _in our cause_. Could not all this waste of human enjoyment excite one desire of protecting them from a state of misery, with which the implacable resentment of the States has desired to punish their loyalty to their Sovereign and their attachment to their mother country? Had we not espoused their cause from a _principle of affection and grat.i.tude_, we should, at least, have _protected_ them _to have preserved our own honour_. If not tender of _their feelings_, we should have been tender _of our own character_. Never was the _honour_, the _principles_, the policy of a nation so grossly abused as in the desertion of those men, who are now exposed to _every punishment_ that _desertion_ and _poverty_ can inflict, _because they were not rebels_."

Lord Mulgrave said: "The Article respecting the Loyalists he never could regard but as a lasting monument of _national disgrace_. Nor was this Article, in his opinion, more reproachful and derogatory to the _honour and grat.i.tude_ of Great Britain than it appeared to be wanton and unnecessary. The honourable gentleman who had made the motion had asked if those gentlemen who thought the present peace not sufficiently advantageous to Great Britain, considering her circ.u.mstances, could consent to pay the amount which another campaign (twenty millions) would have put us to, for the degree of advantage they might think we had a right to expect? In answer to this, he declared, for one, he had rather, large as the estimated sum in question was, have had it stipulated in the treaty, _that Great Britain should apply it to making good the losses of the Loyalists_, than that they should have been so _shamefully deserted and the national honour so pointedly disgraced_ as it was by the fifth Article of the treaty with the United States."

_Mr. Secretary Townsend_ (afterwards Lord Sydney) said "he was ready to admit that many of the Loyalists had the strongest claims upon the country; and he trusted, should the recommendation of Congress to the American States prove unsuccessful, which he flattered himself would not be the case, _this country_ would feel itself bound _in honour to make them full compensation for their losses_."

_Mr. Burke_ said: "At any rate, it must be agreed on all hands that a vast number of Loyalists had been deluded by this country, and had risked everything in our cause; to such men the _nation owed protection, and its honour was pledged for their security at all hazards_."

_The Lord Advocate_ said: "With regard to the Loyalists, they merited _every possible effort on the part of this country_."

_Mr. Sheridan_ "execrated the treatment of those unfortunate men, who, without the least notice taken of their civil and religious rights, were handed over as subjects to a power that would not fail to take vengeance on them for their zeal and attachment to the religion and government of this country. This was an instance of _British degradation not inferior_ to the unmanly pet.i.tions to Congress for the wretched Loyalists. Great Britain at the feet of Congress, suing in vain, was not a humiliation or a stigma greater than the infamy of consigning over the loyal inhabitants of Florida, as we had done, without any conditions whatsoever."

"_The Honourable Mr. Norton_ said that 'Under the circ.u.mstances, he was willing to approve of the two former (European treaties with France and Spain); but on account of the Article relating to the Loyalists, he felt it impossible to give his a.s.sent to the latter."

_Sir Peter Burrell_ said: "The fate of the Loyalists claimed the compa.s.sion of every human breast. These helpless, forlorn men, abandoned by the Ministers of a people on whose _justice, grat.i.tude_, and _humanity_ they had the best-founded claims, were left at the mercy of a Congress highly irritated against them. He spoke not from party zeal, but as an independent country gentleman, who, unconnected with party, expressed the emotions of his heart and gave vent to his honest indignation."

_Sir William Bootle_ said: "There was one part of the treaty at which his heart bled--the Article relative to the Loyalists. Being a man himself, he could not but feel for men so cruelly abandoned to the malice of their enemies. It was scandalous; it was disgraceful. Such an Article as that ought scarcely on any condition to have been admitted on our part. They had fought for us and run every hazard to a.s.sist our cause; and when it most behoved us to afford them protection, we deserted them."

Several other members spoke to the same effect. The treaty recognizing the Independence of America could not be reversed, as an Act pa.s.sed the previous session had expressly authorized the King and his Cabinet to make it; but it was denied that a treaty sacrificing the Loyalists and making the concessions involved had been authorized; in consequence of which an express vote of censure was pa.s.sed by the Commons by a majority of seventeen. The Earl of Shelburne, the Prime Minister, forthwith resigned in consequence of this vote of censure, and it was nearly three months before a new Administration could be formed; and during this administrative interregnum affairs were in great confusion.

In the _House of Lords, Lord Walsingham_ said that "he could neither think nor speak of the dishonour of leaving these deserving people to their fate with patience." _Lord Viscount Townsend_ considered that "to desert men who had constantly adhered to loyalty and attachment, was a circ.u.mstance of such cruelty as had never before been heard of." _Lord Stormont_ said that "Britain was bound in justice and honour, grat.i.tude and affection, and by every tie, to provide for and protect them." _Lord Sackville_ regarded "the abandonment of the Loyalists as a thing of so atrocious a kind, that if it had not been painted in all its horrid colours he should have attempted the ungracious task but never should have been able to describe the cruelty in language as strong and expressive as were his feelings;" and again, that "peace on the sacrifice of these unhappy subjects must be answered in the sight of G.o.d and man." _Lord Loughborough_ said that "the fifth Article of the treaty had excited a general and just indignation, and that neither in ancient nor modern history had there been so shameful a desertion of men who had sacrificed all to their duty and to their reliance on British faith."

In reply, _Lord Shelburne_, the Prime Minister, frankly admitted that the Loyalists were left without better provision being made for them "from the unhappy _necessity_ of public affairs, which induced the extremity of submitting the fate of their property to the discretion of their enemies;" and he continued: "I have but one answer to give the House--it is the answer I gave my own bleeding heart--a _part_ must be wounded, that the whole of the empire may not perish. If better terms could be had, think you, my lords, that I would not have embraced them?

_I had but the alternative either to accept the terms proposed or continue the war._" The _Lord Chancellor_ held that the stipulations of the treaty were "specific," and said: "My own conscious honour will not allow me to doubt the good faith of others, and my good wishes to the Loyalists will not let me indiscreetly doubt the disposition of Congress, since the understanding is that all these unhappy men shall be provided for; yet, if it were not so, Parliament could take cognizance of their case, and impart to each suffering individual that relief which reason, perhaps policy, certainly virtue and religion, required."

Such were the sentiments of members in both Houses of Parliament, and of both parties, as to the character and merits of the Loyalists. But there were no prospects of the States compensating them for their losses.

Indeed, this idea was entertained by Lord Shelburne himself, and that compensation would have to be made to the Loyalists by Parliament when, in the speech above quoted, he said that "without one drop of blood spilt, and without one-fifth of the expense of one year's campaign, happiness and ease can be given to them in as ample a manner as these blessings were ever in their enjoyment." This was certainly a very low and mercenary view of the subject. It was one thing for the Loyalists to have their rights as British subjects maintained while they were obeying the commands of the King and maintaining their allegiance to the empire, and another thing for them to become pensioners upon the bounty of the British Parliament, to be paid in pounds, shillings, and pence for the rights and privileges which should have been secured to them by national treaty as British subjects. The House of Commons had adopted a resolution against continuing the American war for the _purpose of enforcing the submission of the colonies_; but it had not resolved against continuing the war to protect the rights and property of British subjects in the colonies. A campaign for this purpose, on the refusal of the American Commissioners to recognize what was sanctioned by the laws and usages of nations, would have been honourable to the British Government, would have been popular in England, and would have divided America; for there were many thousand "Whigs" in America, who believed in the equity of treating the Loyalists after the war as all others were treated who conformed to the laws, as has been the case in Holland, Ireland, and Spain. England was then mistress of the seas, held New York, Charleston, Rhode Island, Pen.o.bscot, and other military posts, and could soon have induced the Americans to do what their Peace Commissioners at Paris had refused to do--place British subjects in America upon the same footing as to property that they possessed before the war, and that they possess in the United States at this day. England could have easily and successfully refused granting to the United States a foot of land beyond the limits of the thirteen colonies, and thus have secured those vast western territories now const.i.tuting the larger part of the United States, and retained the garrisons of New York, Rhode Island, and Charleston as guarantees until the stipulated conditions in regard to the Loyalists should be fulfilled. A joint Commission in America could have settled upon equitable grounds all disputed claims in much less time than the six years occupied by a Parliamentary Commission in examining into and deciding upon the individual claims of Loyalist claimants. If the war to reduce the colonies to absolute submission had been unpopular in England, the peace upon the terms submitted to by the English Commissioners and the Ministry was equally unpopular. If England had been wrong in its war of coercion against the revolting colonists, was she not equally wrong, and more than wrong, in abandoning to their enemies those who had abided faithful to her laws and commands? The language of the speeches of members of both Houses of Parliament, above quoted, is as just as it is severe; although much could be and was said in justification of the policy of the Government in promoting peace upon almost any terms, seeing that England was at war with the three most powerful naval nations of Europe, besides that in America.

The fallacy of the argument employed by the advocates of the treaty, that the Americans would honourably fulfil the recommendations of Congress, was ill.u.s.trated by the following facts:

"The province of Virginia, a short time before the peace, had come to an unanimous conclusion 'that all demands or requests of the British Court for the restoration of property confiscated by the State were wholly impossible; and that their delegates should be instructed to move Congress that they should direct the deputies for adjusting peace not to agree to any such rest.i.tution.'"

_The State of New York_ resolved, "That it appears to this Legislature that divers of the inhabitants of this State have continued to adhere to the King of Great Britain, after these States were declared free and independent, and persevered in aiding the said king, his fleets and armies, to subjugate the United States to bondage: Resolved, That as on the one hand the scales of justice do not require, so on the other the public tranquillity will not permit, that such adherents who have been attainted should be restored to the rights of citizens, and that there can be no reason for restoring property which has been confiscated or forfeited."

PART II.

AGENTS OF LOYALISTS--PROCEEDINGS OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSION--RESULTS.

Of course all hope of obtaining relief under the stipulations of the treaty was abandoned by the Loyalists, who "now applied to the Government which they had ruined themselves to serve, and many of them, who had hitherto been 'refugees' in different parts of America, went to England to state and recover payment for their losses. They organized an agency, and appointed a Committee composed of one delegate or agent from each of the thirteen States,[124] to enlighten the British public, and adopt measures of proceeding in securing the attention and action of the British Ministry in their behalf. In a tract printed by order of these agents (which now lies before us, ent.i.tled _The Case and Claim of American Loyalists impartially Stated and Considered_, published in 1783), it is maintained that 'it is an established rule, that all sacrifices made by individuals for the benefit and accommodation of others shall be equally sustained by all those who partake of it,' and numerous cases are cited from Puffendorf, Burlamaqui and Vattel, to show that the 'sacrifices' of the Loyalists were embraced in this principle.

As a further ground of claim, it is stated that in case of territory alienated or ceded away by one sovereign power to another, the rule is still applicable; for that in the treaties of international law it is held, 'The State ought to indemnify the subject for the loss he has sustained beyond his proportion.' And in the course pursued at the close of the civil war in Spain, when the States of Holland obtained their independence, under the Treaty of Utrecht, and at various other periods, proved that the _rights_ of persons similarly situated had been respected and held inviolate. The conclusion arrived at from the precedents in history, and diplomacy, and in the statute-books of the realm, is, that as the Loyalists were as 'perfectly subjects of the British State as any man in London or Middles.e.x, they were ent.i.tled to the same protection and relief.' The claimants had been 'called by their sovereign, when surrounded by tumult and rebellion, to defend the supreme rights of the nation, and to a.s.sist in suppressing a rebellion which aimed at their destruction. They have received from the highest authority the most solemn a.s.surances of protection, and even reward, for their meritorious services;' and that 'His Majesty and the two Houses of Parliament having thought it necessary, as the _price of peace_, or to the interest and safety of the empire, or from some other motive of public convenience, to ratify the Independence of America, _without securing any rest.i.tution whatever to the Loyalists_, they conceive that the nation is bound, as well by the fundamental laws of society as by the invariable and external principles of natural justice, to make them compensation.'"[125]

Though the treaty of peace left the Loyalists to the mercy--rather to the resentment (as the result proved)--of the American States, and as such received the censure of the House of Commons, British justice and honour recognized the claims of the Loyalists to compensation for their losses, as well as to grat.i.tude for their fidelity to the unity of the empire. The King, at the opening of the session of Parliament, said: "I have ordered inquiry to be made into the application of the sum to be voted in support of the American sufferers; and I trust you will agree with me, that a due and generous attention ought to be shown to those who have relinquished their properties or professions from motives of loyalty to me, or attachment to the mother country." Accordingly, a Bill was introduced and pa.s.sed without opposition in June, 1783, ent.i.tled "An Act Appointing Commissioners to Inquire into the Losses and Services of all such Persons who have Suffered in their Rights, Properties, and Professions, during the late Unhappy Dissensions in America, in consequence of their Loyalty to his Majesty and Attachment to the British Government."

The Commissioners named were John Wilmot, M.P., Daniel Parker c.o.ke, M.P., Esquires, Col. Robert Kingston, Col. Thomas Dundas, and John Marsh, Esquire, who, after preliminary preparations, began their inquiry in the first week of October, and proceeded, with short intermissions, through the following winter and spring. The time for presenting claims was first limited by the Act to the 20th of March, 1784; but the time was extended by the renewal of the Act, from time to time, until 1789, when the Commissioners presented their _twelfth_ and last report, and Parliament finally disposed of the whole matter in 1790, seven years after its commencement.

The Commissioners, according to their first report, divided the Loyalists into _six_ cla.s.ses, as follows: 1. Those who had rendered service to Great Britain. 2. Those who had borne arms for Great Britain.

3. Uniform Loyalists. 4. Loyal English subjects resident in Great Britain. 5. Loyalists who had taken oaths to the American States, but afterwards joined the British. 6. Loyalists who had borne arms for the American States, but afterwards joined the British navy or army. The reason for this cla.s.sification is not very apparent; for all showed alike who were able to establish their losses, without reference to differences of merit, or the time or circ.u.mstances of their adhering to the Crown.

Every applicant was required to furnish proof of his loyalty, and of every species of loss for which he claimed compensation; in addition to which each claimant was put upon his oath as to his alleged losses; and if in any case _perjury_ or _fraud_ were believed to have been practised, the claimant was at once cut off from his whole claim. The rigid rules which the Commissioners laid down and enforced in regard to claimants, examining each claimant and the witnesses in his behalf separately and apart, caused much dissatisfaction, and gave the proceeding more the character of an Inquisition than of Inquiry. It seemed to place the claimants almost in the position of criminals on whom rested the burden of proof to establish their own innocence and character, rather than in that of Loyalists who had faithfully served their King and country, and lost their homes and possessions in doing so. Very many, probably the large majority of claimants, could not possibly prove the exact value of each species of loss which they had sustained years before, in houses, goods, stocks of cattle, fields with their crops and produce, woods with their timber, etc., etc. In such a proceeding the most unscrupulous would be likely to fare the best, and the most scrupulous and conscientious the worst; and it is alleged that many false losses were allowed to persons who had suffered no loss, while many other sufferers received no compensation, because they had not the means of bringing witnesses from America to _prove_ their losses, in addition to their own testimony.

The chairman of the Commission admits the delay and difficulty caused by the mode of proceeding adopted by the Commissioners. He says: "The investigation of the property of each claimant, and of the value of each article of that property, real and personal, could not but be attended with a good deal of time as well as much caution and difficulty, each claim in fact branching out into so many articles, or rather distinct causes, in which the Commissioners were obliged to execute the office of both judge and jury, or rather of arbitrators between the nation on one side, and the individual on the other, whose whole patrimony as well as character depended on their verdict."[126]

The Act pa.s.sed in 1783, authorizing the inquiry, being limited to two years, expired in July, 1785, but was renewed with some additions, one of which was a clause to empower the Commissioners to appoint proper persons to repair to America "to inquire into such circ.u.mstances as they might think material for better ascertaining the several claims which had been or should be presented to them under this or the former Act of Parliament." The Commissioners appointed John Anstey, Esq., a barrister-at-law, as agent to the United States, "to obtain information as to the confiscation, sale, and value of landed estates, and the total loss of the property of the claimants," respecting which he procured much valuable and authentic information and testimony. They sent Colonel Thomas Dundas and Mr. Jeremy Pemberton, two members of the Board, to visit Nova Scotia and Canada, "to inquire into the claims of such persons as could not without great inconvenience go over to Great Britain."

Before the 25th of March, 1784, the latest period allowed by the first Act for presenting claims, the number of claimants was 2,063, and the property alleged by them to have been lost, according to their schedules, amounted to 7,046,278, besides debts to the amount of 2,354,135. The sum was very large, but the losses were undoubtedly very great. The Commissioners made their first report in July, 1784; and after having detailed their a.s.siduous proceeding in the fulfilment of their trust, and care in examining and deciding on individual cases, reported on the part of the cases submitted, and awarded 201,750 for 534,705 claimed, reducing the amount by more than half the amount claimed.

The _second_ report of the Commissioners was made in December of the same year, and states that 128 additional cases had been examined and disposed of, the amount claimed being 693,257, and the amount allowed was 150,935--less than one-fourth the amount claimed.

One hundred and twenty-two (122) cases were examined into and disposed of in May and July, 1785, according to the third and fourth reports--the amount claimed being 898,196, and the amount allowed being 253,613--less than one-third of the amount claimed.

In April, 1786, the fifth report of the Commissioners was presented, announcing that 142 other claims had been considered and decided, the claims amounting to 733,311, on which the Commissioners allowed 250,506--a little more than one-third of the amount claimed.

The Commissioners proceeded in the same manner with their investigations, and with about the same results, in 1786 and 1787.[127]

On the 5th of April, 1788, the Commissioners reported that they had examined into and declared upon 1,680 claims, and had allowed the sum of 1,887,548 for their payment.

Under all the circ.u.mstances, it appears scarcely possible that the Commissioners could have proceeded with more despatch than they did. But the delay caused much dissatisfaction among the Loyalists, whose agents pet.i.tioned both King and Parliament on the delay, or on the course pursued by the Commissioners, or on some subject connected with the claims of the Loyalists. Essays and tracts were published; letters and communications appeared in the newspapers on the subject; in 1786, the agents of the Loyalists presented a pet.i.tion to Parliament, which contained among other things the following touching words: "It is impossible to describe the poignant distress under which many of these persons now labour, and which must daily increase should the justice of Parliament be delayed until all the claims are liquidated and reported; * * ten years have elapsed since many of them have been deprived of their fortunes, and with their helpless families reduced from independent affluence to poverty and want; some of them now languishing in British jails; others indebted to their creditors, who have lent them money barely to support their existence, and who, unless speedily relieved, must sink more than the value of their claims when received, and be in a worse condition than if they had never made them; others have already sunk under the pressure and severity of their misfortunes; and others must, in all probability, soon meet the same melancholy fate, should the justice due them be longer postponed. But, on the contrary, should provision be now made for payment of those whose claims have been settled and reported, it will not only relieve them from their distress, but give credit to others whose claims remain to be considered, and enable all of them to provide for their wretched families, and become again useful members of society."

Two years later, in 1788, a tract was published by a Loyalist, ent.i.tled "The Claim of the American Loyalists Reviewed and Maintained upon Incontrovertible Principles of Law and Justice." The writer of that tract thus forcibly states the situation of the Loyalists: "It is well known that this delay of justice has produced the most melancholy and shocking events. A number of sufferers have been driven into insanity and become their own destroyers, leaving behind them their helpless widows and orphans to subsist upon the cold charity of strangers. Others have been sent to cultivate the wilderness for their subsistence, without having the means, and compelled through want to throw themselves on the mercy of the American States, and the charity of former friends, to support the life which might have been made comfortable by the money long since due by the British Government; and many others with their families are barely subsisting upon a temporary allowance from Government, a mere pittance when compared with the sum due them."

Shortly after the publication of the pamphlet containing these statements, the Commissioners submitted their eleventh report, April, 1788, and Mr. Pitt, Chancellor of the Exchequer, yielded the following month to the pressing entreaties of the claimants to allow their grievances to be discussed in Parliament. "Twelve years had elapsed since the property of most of them had been alienated under the Confiscation Acts, and five since their t.i.tle to recompense had been recognized by the law under which their claims had been presented and disposed of."

We will give an abridged account of the proceedings in Parliament and by the Commissioners in their own words:

"The business came on in the House of Commons on the 6th of June, 1788, which Mr. Pitt opened in a very handsome and eloquent speech respecting the merits of the American Loyalists, and which, he did not doubt, would meet with the unanimous acknowledgment of the House; and he trusted, therefore, there would be no difference of opinion as to the principle, though there might be as to the mode of compensation and the distribution which he thought it his duty to propose.

"The first principle he laid down was, that however strong their claims might be on the generosity of the nation, the compensation could not be considered as _a matter of right and strict justice_;[129] in the mode, therefore, he had pursued, he had marked the principle in the various quotas of compensation he should propose to be made to the various cla.s.ses of the American Loyalists.

"He considered the three first cla.s.ses of them, stated by the Commissioners in their reports as the most meritorious, and who were likewise the most numerous, viz.:

"1st. Loyalists who had rendered services to Great Britain. Number, 204.