To Better the Condition of the Province

Article Title
To Better the Condition of the Province
Page Number
Article Type
Article Contents
TO BETTER THE CONDITION OF THE PROVINCE. LETTER XIII. ST. JOHN, March 23, 1882. To His Honor the Honorable Robert D. Wilmot, Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of New Brunswick. To the Honorable the Executive Council, and to the Honorable the members of both branches of the Provincial Parliament. Your Honors and Gentlemen: I said in my last letter, I would show the mismanagement of the war, its ignominious termination, the sufferings of the Loyalists, their coming here, and their connexion with the first settlement of this Province. After the declaration of war by His Majesty, with which the Loyalists had nothing to do, I think it was the duty of His Majesty and his ministers, in declaring the war, to have kept in mind that His Majesty was only a trustee for the State, the people, the beneficiaries; also, that the granted lands of the loyalists were theirs, not His Majesty’s, and in involving them in so fearful a war, His Majesty was in duty bound, for their sake at least, that the war should be furnished with suitable commanders, and conducted, continued and ended in so spirited, diligent, successful and honorable a way as to have preserved the Loyalists’ honor, their homes and their properties for them. The Loyalists came forward at the call by proclamation of their Sovereign, and did all that a brave and loyal people could do for his cause. Each side came to the battle with very considerable military spirit and war experience, in consequence of England and France having been so much at war with each other about Canada -- the taking of Quebec, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia and other places. Those colonists, with their valorous and experienced officers, having taken a very distinguished and beneficial part therein, the leading men of property and influence on the Crown side, in each of the colonies, exerted themselves with all expedition, and in most cases at their own individual expense, in getting up volunteer regiments; drilling, equipping and commanding them, for the war, and in all good faith should have been honorably sustained to the end. I have indeed mentioned, somewhat, in my previous letter, of the Queen’s Rangers, but only as a specimen of the most gallant regiments, and especially their very efficient commanders, of which I have read, heard, and very much admired, and to which, I exceedingly regret, I cannot even begin to do any justice. The regiments were in all, twenty or thirty, twenty-one of which were ultimately put on the half-pay list. I think it my duty, at least, to name the regiments, with their commanding officers, so far as I can discover them, as follows: -- The King’s Rangers – Samuel Bayard, Major. The Royal Fensible Americans – Peter Clinch, Adjutant. The Queen’s Rangers – John J. Simcoe, Colonel. The New York Volunteers – Christopher Billop and George Turnbull, Colonels; John Coffin, Major. The King’s American Regiment – Edmund Fanning, Colonel. The Prince of Wales’ American Volunteers – Gabriel DeVeber, Colonel; Daniel Lyman, Major. The Maryland Loyalists – John Chalmers, Colonel. DeLancy, 1st Battalion -- George Kerr, Captain. DeLancy, 2nd Battalion, -- Richard Hewlet, Col. DeLancy, 3rd Battalion – Gabriel G. Ludlow, Colonel. The Second American Regiment. The King’s Rangers, Carolina. The South Carolina Royalists – Joseph Robinson, Colonel. The North Carolina Highland Regiment – Alexander Stewart, Colonel. The King’s American Dragoons – Daniel Murray, Major; Simeon Jones, Lieut. The Loyal American Regiment – Beverley Robinson, Colonel; John Ward, Major; Lemuel Wilmot, Captain. The American Legion – Thomas Menzies, Major. The New Jersey Volunteers, 1st Battalion – Elisha Lawrence, Col.; Thomas Millidge, Major. The New Jersey Volunteers, 2nd Battalion – Isaac Allen, grandfather of Chief Justice Allen, Colonel. The New Jersey Volunteers, 3rd Battalion – Stephen DeLancy, Colonel; Robt. Tinpany, Major. The British Legion. The Royal Foresters – Andrew Stockton, Lieut. The Orange Rangers – John Howard, Captain. The Pennsylvania Loyalists – Wm. Allen, Col. The Guides and Pioneers – Beverley Robinson, Colonel; Andrew McAlpine, Captain. The North Carolina Volunteers – John Hamilton, Colonel. The Georgia Loyalists. The West Chester Volunteers – Isaac Hatfield, Colonel. The Loyal New Englanders, the Associated Loyalists, and Wentworth’s Volunteers. The whole presenting a valorous and effective force which any Sovereign might justly be proud of, and if commanded by General Washington, Col. Simcoe, or some of the other of the excellent commanding officers of those gallant regiments, would, of themselves, have overcome their opponents, but until moved by the Commander-in-Chief, could do nothing; and if, in addition to this loyal and effective force, England had bespread (as she did for this war) the land and sea by war powers – equipment and every appliance to boot - with such a Commander-in-Chief as Washington, he would have practically put down the rebellion in less than six months. But the commanders-in-chief! Aye, there’s the rub! Any one there fit for the business? No, mere blockheads in practice – so it seemed. English commanders who, with many excellent traits of character, are often as stupid as owls, yet too proud and obstinately set in their own ideas of England, to take advice or think anything of men or military skill in the colonies worthy of their notice, or of practically applying themselves for reasonable efficiency of duty, or some other unknown cause, the commanders in-chief in this war, in fact, showed themselves apparently cowards or the most incompetent creatures that ever disappointed a battle, lost a war, or sacrificed a noble army. The marked slowness, the patent idleness of them all were truly astonishing, as if ever nursing their high-sounding titles or guarding their coats against bullet holes, sword stabs or bayonet thrusts, or other dangers in war; and whenever they did accidentally do anything successful, like Hannibal of old, who lost Carthage and his fine army, they lost their advantage by not following it up – halting when their army should have been on the double-quick pursuing the enemy - the great army idle when it should have been upon the march, and fighting and subduing the enemy in every direction – in fact, actually proving a disappointment and defeat of the enterprise, an obstruction to the honorable success of the brave and dashing regiments above enumerated. The commanders-in-chief were three by land and two by sea. 1st. General Gage, last Governor of Massachusetts, chiefly distinguished, as many others of the King’s Governors had been, by inflaming the Ministry and Parliament against the colonists, and dissuading the English authorities from offering any terms of compromise. He did nothing as Commander-in-Chief, but commanded, with no success, at the battle of Lexington, Mass., on the 19th of April, 1775 – the first act of bloodshed – and was guilty of an act of treachery which exasperated the people against him. When in May, 1775, he was succeeded by the second Commander-in-Chief, Sir William Howe, who commanded at the battle of Bunker’s Hill, Mass., 17th June, 1775; his next engagement was on the 27th August, 1776, the battle of Long Island, New York, and he forced the evacuation of New York; and on the 28th October, 1776, had a successful engagement with the Americans at White Plains; but he seems to have commanded at no other engagement than at the battle of Brandywine, 11th Sept., 1777, in which he was successful, and assisted at the battle of Germantown, 4th October, 1777, and resigned his command in favor of the third Commander-in-Chief, Sir Henry Clinton, in May, 1778. Admiral Howe, brother of Sir William, and Commander of a British fleet of a hundred ships of war, arrived at Halifax, I believe, in April, 1776, from whence he arrived at Staten Island, New York, 12th July, 1776, more than a year after his brother. During his command very little was done by him; he had a successful engagement with provincial forces of the revolutionists, 11th Oct., 1776, on Lake Champlain, and totally defeated them. In July, 1777, he convoyed two hundred and seventy-seven transports, in which the British Army sailed from New York to the Chesapeake. In the winter he repaired to Newport as a safe harbor, that place being threatened by the Americans and French, he relieved in August, 1778, and resigned his command, in 1778, in favor of Admiral Gambier. Sir William well knowing that his Majesty desired the war prosecuted with vigor, knew also that the several Colonial Legislatures had forfeited the property of the Loyalists, and declared them guilty of treason. After the battle of Bunker’s Hill, 17th June, 1775, with his immense armament of British and Colonial forces, why did he not at once proceed in battle against the new States, to take Boston and various other parts of Massachusetts, and direct his forces against Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and conquer those New England States, comprising the chief strength of the enemy? Instead of that he does nothing; and, except Bunker Hill, he never comes into conflict with them at all; and, apparently does nothing, in the way of pitched battles, from 17th June, 1775, till 27th August, 1776, more than 14 months after, when he has a battle in taking Long Island – and doing nothing within those 14 months; then, from October, 1776, until the Battle of Brandywine, 11th September , 1777, about 11 months afterwards; and nothing from his assisting at Germantown, in October, 1777, till he resigned his command in May, 1778, more than 7 months. He appears to have done nothing in the way of pitched battles and, except Bunker Hill, leaving the New England and Northern States, during the 3 years of his command, utterly unconquered. Then Admiral Howe, with his 100 ships of war, what was he delaying for nearly three months at Halifax? No war there, he arrived at Staten Island, July, 1776; had a successful engagement on Lake Champlain in October, 1776 – why did he not take his war ships round to Massachusetts Bay at once, and co-operating with his brother’s vast land forces, take the towns of Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire; or do something with his enormously expensive fleet, as long as it was safe upon the coast? But he does nothing till July, 1777, when he convoys the British troops to the Chesapeake. He returns to Newport for winter, harboring his ships, and in summer relieves that place from a threatened attack, as was said, in 1777, and this was the end of his services in America. Hence those two men substantially lost the war, by making great parade in stimulating the enemy, but standing idly in the way, with immense armaments at frightful expense, but the chief of the time, doing nothing. I observe by Allen’s biographical and historical dictionary, Admiral Howe, in 1779, received a very withering letter on his naval conduct in America, supposed to have been written by Lord Sackville, then Colonial Secretary in the style of Junius, or Junius himself. The writer says, “Had your Lordship and your brother saved the Northern army, which you had abundant power to do, the rebellion in its infant state must have been suppressed.” Also that their promptness would have hindered the American alliance with France and Spain and the party factions in Parliament weakening the war. The third Commander-in-Chief was Sir Henry Clinton, from May, 1778 till October, 1781, nearly three and a half years, and according to a description of him in a very late history of the Loyalists by Judge Jones of the Supreme Court of New York, he was a slow, proud, self willed and timid commander, distinguished for his retarding of the army and frightful expenditures in erecting fortifications, apparently for no other purpose than to guard himself from being taken prisoner by the enemy. Lord Cornwallis, under Sir Henry, was an officer or activity and work, though some times unnecessarily harsh. Sir Henry hated Cornwallis and having a fancy to go to New York, Sir Henry ordered a very large amount of the troops to accompany him, having there upwards of eighteen thousand troops, as it is said, apparently for no needful purpose. Lord Cornwallis was operating in the South with six or seven thousand troops – not more than four thousand actually fit for duty – having in view to subdue Virginia, concentrated his troops at Yorktown, and Sir Henry, being informed by Cornwallis of his need of more troops, and promising to send them, but, with his characteristic slowness, not doing it in time, the place was stormed in October, 1781, by Washington and the allied French army, and after a gallant resistance Cornwallis was obliged to capitulate, the Queen’s Rangers and many of the very best troops in America being among them, and became prisoners of war. Before this event the war in the South was considered substantially done and in favor of the British. I see by Maundor’s Biography that the British public (1781 and 1782) censured the conduct of Sir Henry very severely. I think I have sufficiently affirmed my proposition that this was a most disgracefully managed war by the slowness, stupidity and neglect of the commanders. In this casual reverse, but with Washington’s troops nearly played out, and in view of the King’s own honor, could it ever be credited that His Majesty would consent to calmly close the war, leaving his most faithful followers to utter ruin, only because they had been most faithful to his service; or without stipulating that peace could not be made except upon the terms of his devoted loyalists, retaining their homes at least for beds of sadness and suffering, for death and for the grave? But, oh! It became a heart-rending reality. His Majesty did consent to ignominiously close the war and leave his faithful loyalists, by his sole act, reduced from affluence to beggary, without a vestige of their homes, and among their most infuriated enemies, inflicting the most intolerable wrongs, nor a spot where their impoverished and suffering wives and children could lay their heads. All hearts indeed were moved for the poor loyalists. Proud England bowed her head with shame at the ignominious terms. As they came before the House of Commons (see 1 Sabine Loyalists, 99; 2 Ryerson,160), Mr. Wilberforce said, “when he considered the case of the Loyalists, he confessed he then felt himself conquered, that he saw his country humiliated; he saw her at the feet of America.” Lord North said “that for the faithful Loyalists, the objects of our gratitude and affection, who in conformity to their allegiance, their cheerful obedience to the voice of Parliament, their confidence in the proclamation, espoused with hazard of their lives and the forfeitures 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 the dearest possessions of the human heart -- exposed their lives, endured an age of hardships, deserted their interests, forfeited their possessions, lost their connexions and ruined their families, in our cause. If not for them, we should at least have preserved our own honor. If not tender of their feelings, we should have been of our own character; that never were the honor, the principles, the policy of a nation so grossly abused as in the desertion of these men who are now exposed to every punishment that desertion and poverty can inflict, because they were not rebels.” Lord Mulgrave declared “that the article respecting the Loyalists he would never regard but as a lasting monument of national disgrace – the Loyalists shamefully deserted, the national honor pointedly disgraced.” Mr. Burke said “that a vast number of Loyalists had been deluded by England and had risked everything, and that to such men the nation owed protection and its honor was pledged for its security at all hazards.” Mr. Sheridan “execrated the treatment of these unfortunate men, who, without the least notice, taken of their civil and religious rights, were handed over to a power that would not fail to take vengeance on them for their zeal and attachment to the religion and government of their mother country; and he denounced it as a crime, the cession of the Americans who had adhered to the crown into the hands of their enemies, and delivering them over to confiscation, tyranny, resentment, and oppression.” Mr. Norton said “he could not give his assent to the treaty on account of the article which related to the Loyalists.” Sir Peter Burrell was of the same opinion. “Sir Wilbrahams Bootle’s heart bled for the Loyalists; they had fought and ran every hazard for England and at a moment when they had a claim to the greatest protection they have been deserted.” A vote of censure passed, in consequence of its being done without authority, and Lord Shelburne, Prime Minister, resigned. In the House of Lords the Opposition was equally violent. Lord Walsingham said “he could neither think or speak of the dishonor of leaving those deserving people to their fate with patience.” Lord Townshend said “that to desert such men was a circumstance as had never before been heard of.” Lord Stormont expressed the same opinion. Lord Sackville said “that he should never be able to describe the cruelty as strong as were his feelings, and that a peace founded on such a sacrifice must be accursed in the sight of God and man.” Lord Loughborough said “that neither in ancient or modern history had there been so shameful a desertion of men who had sacrificed all to their duty and to their reliance upon British faith.” Now, in answer to the above charges of the members of the House of Commons and of the noble Lords against you, my Lord Shelburne: Culprit, what say you to those criminal, those most degrading charges; are you guilty or not guilty? Lord Shelburne: plea, (by the before mentioned histories) he frankly admitted that the Loyalists were left without a 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. This attempted avoidance of your confession, my Lord, appears by history utterly untrue; no necessity, whatever, plenty of troops and appliances there, as appeared without those surrendered at Yorktown, even if those could not be exchanged, to continue the war with success at all events, till an honorable peace could be made, and the Loyalists properly secured; and there was no extremity about it except your own perfidy and cowardice, or utter unfitness for office, like all the British blockheads who have uniformly sacrificed Colonial rights. Why then, in your own words, (if you had any principle) did you not reject the terms proposed, and continue the war? Lord Shelburne again, another attempted avoidance. “A part must be wounded that the whole of the Empire may not perish.” Craven! “Falsus in omnibus!” My Lord, what proof do you offer beyond your unfounded fears or corrupt service of some one-sided set of partizans, as the Merchants’ Service or the Board of Trade, of which you had been the head, or some other unworthy cause, that, had it not been for your confessed sacrifice of the “part wounded,” as you call them, but which the Lords and Commons call wholly destroyed, the British Empire would perish? With abundance of troops and appliances on hand to successfully carry on the war, how could the British Empire perish? What part had those noble loyalists in declaring the war, managing the war, or most disgracefully mismanaging it, or wasting one hundred millions of money, as has been said, namely by blockheads of commanders, and an incompetent ministry? What part had the loyalists in ending the war, or your most ignominious sacrifice of them? They were never consulted, in any stage, why then should the innocent be sacrificed to save the guilty? “Part wounded,” in the sense you use these words, as applied to the Loyalists, means wholly destroyed, like the innocent lamb that was slain for the sins of the many. Atonement, you mean, as said by Mr. Wilberforce, “Proud England at the feet of the 13 States,” to appease them, as I understand you. Did you make that other sacrifice, also, through your own ignorance and weakness? Your dishonest mercantile agent, Richard Oswald, at Paris, in admitted collusion with Dr. Franklin and his fraudulent plan of Boundary, thereby traitorously giving away all that part of the Empire of your Sovereign, which lies between the Mississippi and the Alleghany Mountains (2 Ryerson, 63), with which the 13 States never had anything to do, nor put such in Franklin’s mission, but now composing 8 separate States: -- Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, Michigan and Minnesota. This was another atonement to appease, I suppose, the 13 Colonies, “that the whole Empire may not perish.” My Lord, your want of courage and lack of truth are only equalled by your traitorousness, and the staining so deeply of your Sovereign’s honor and justice, and those of the British nation, and which no distance of time can ever efface, from the pages of history, nor yet from the records of the House of Commons which condemned you to your face on the occasion -- resolving, in this, that you had acted without authority, and that you were no longer worthy of their confidence, and they should have followed it up with your impeachment. (See 2, Ryerson 162.) How many hundreds have been attainted in that Parliament, wherein your crimes were so openly declared and fully confessed, for offences nothing to yours, in England’s hurt and national degradation, and executed as traitors to the State, and yet His Majesty – oh! His Majesty – the Loyalist’s beloved king! for this, your great service, soon after rewarded you with an Earldom. And you, my Lord Chancellor, you, an experienced lawyer and your own conscious honor, you say in the history referred to would “not let you doubt the good faith of Congress.” Indeed? When Franklin told you Congress had no power and that the States would not agree? In view of this evidence and your very wide experience, my Lord, there is malus animus – deep crime of the worst sort – an attempt to justify by obvious mockery and untruth; yet your salvo, “that Parliament could take cognizance, etc., and impart to each suffering individual relief,” etc. My Lord, you very well knew, from the experience of your own frail humanity, and the addition of the saddest sufferings of the Loyalists to wear them out, as well as of the tardiness of Parliament, that, before such relief obtained a very large part of those poor creatures, by reasons of their wretchedness, would be forced away “to that undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveller returns,” not even my Lord, to the boundless Parliament of England, of which you have been the advocate; that many others from their obscurity and helplessness would be practically cut off from relief and you know also that for the widows and orphans which the war had made, the destitute, the suffering and the dying “there was no place like home.” So my Lord your pleas wholly fail to justify the unheard of crimes which the Commons of England and your brother Lords is so justly charged upon you and for which the Commons have declared your government no longer worthy of their confidence. There being no other hope, an appeal was made to Parliament, -- a law enacted to give relief or compensation, and commissioners appointed to hear the Loyalists’ losses in detail. Oh, such pictures of woe as were opened by this scene! “Tell it not in Gath; publish it not in the streets of Askelon. How have the mighty fallen?” The rich and the mighty had fallen in battle, their widows and orphans reduced to beggary, to state their griefs and famishing state to Parliament as beggars, was too much, except for grief, and after a delay to all of 7 or 8 years suffering, many of the most influential and bold fared reasonably well, but claims, in general, were cut down by the commissioners to a third or quarter of the amount claimed. The commissioners adopting the most adverse course with the petitioner and his witnesses, examining them apart. (Does not every one of experience know it is impossible to set money value on innumerable home comforts? Therefore the Parliamentary remedy in this and various other ways was a practical failure and denial of compensation as amply appeared.) Many of the sufferers got little or nothing, others were relieved from their woes by the “still and peaceful grave” long ere any Parliamentary pittance declared for their help, but in the end, though too late, the honest and good-hearted King did all that his Majesty could do to better the condition of the Loyalists – made way for them in Nova Scotia, Cape Breton, this Province, Prince Edward Island and in Canada. And Lord North, then Colonial Secretary – strongly in favor of the Loyalists, as by his speech -- by command of His Majesty, seemed to have exerted himself, by his influence with the British Government, and through the Governor of Nova Scotia, John Parr, and his humane and clever Council, by prompt and extensive surveys of land, escheating lands under forfeited grants, and making large preparations for the extensive granting of lands – afterwards done throughout Nova Scotia (which then combined both Provinces, and also Cape Breton, this Province being the County of Sunbury) – to the Loyalists, helping them through commissions, and otherwise with money to live, and with means to erect abodes. Parr Town, now this city, appears to have been surveyed and granted chiefly for their use. About 3,000 Loyalists appear to have arrived in Parr Town – “the Forest of Arden,” a mere wilderness – in the course of May, 1783, and the number afterwards is supposed in the aggregate to have been about 10,000 persons, and settled here and in various parts of this Province. It is said about 10,000 settled in Canada. – [2 Ryerson, 18, 7]. A vessel named the Martha, with a corps of the Maryland Loyalist Regiment, and a part of the 42nd Regiment -- 174 souls -- destined for the Saint John River, was wrecked near Sable Island, and 99 of the above perished, and the remaining 75 were brought on in fishing boats to the St. John River. In all, there probably came to Nova Scotia, including this Province, and Cape Breton, Prince Edward Island and Canada, upwards of 30,000, whose sons became great towers of strength and defence to save His Majesty’s North American possessions in that unpardonable war of 1812 against Great Britain by the United States, or rather by the dastardly President Madison and his Southern and Western party robbers. A number of the Loyalists went to Shelburne, N. S., under application by Abijah Willard, and others crowded in there to the amount of 12,000 or more (see 2 Hal. History of N. S., 195; 3 Murdoch History N. S., from 6 to 45); but finding there a sterile soil and other objections the larger part moved away; some went back to the States. I will not occupy space with further details, but from the best inquiry I could make and from personal information, the Loyalists, as a mixed class, were a highly respectable body of people, who had long endured great hardships for their loyalty; a large number, especially from Massachusetts and the New England States, highly educated, many graduates of Harvard and Yale universities, very able lawyers among them, suited to fill the highest stations of civilized life, and applied themselves nobly to their hard fate. His Majesty the King and his Secretary, and the Governor and Council, are all entitled to thanks for their doing everything to meet such an emergency and to make the Loyalists’ new homes as acceptable as circumstances would admit. In August, 1784, New Brunswick was set off into a separate Province, chiefly on account of the Loyalists, under Royal Commission and instructions to Colonel Thomas Carleton, a very good soldier (an important requisite in those days) and a man in every way calculated to do honor to his high office. His council, Gabriel G. Ludlow, Joshua Upham, Daniel Bliss, Isaac Allen, Edward Winslow, Jonathan Odell, John Robinson, George Leonard and John Saunders, Loyalists, men of excellent character and attainments, fitted for their important office. The governor who arrived in November, 1784, and his council, having by the Royal Commission power to organize the Province, established the courts and made appointments of judges and other offices. Judges of the Supreme Court: George D. Ludlow, Chief Justice, and Isaac Allen, Joshua Upham and James Putnam judges; men of high character and qualifications, loyalists and who most creditably performed their offices of establishing the practise and discharging the duties of the Supreme Court. The governor and council were empowered, (till a Legislature could be called) to make laws. They appear to have executed their duties with wisdom and discretion, in every way praiseworthy. St. John became an incorporated city in November, 1785. The first General Assembly of this Province was called to meet in the city of St. John in January, 1786. The names of the members elected to serve in this first House of Assembly were: Amos Botsford, speaker; Jonathan Bliss, Ward Chipman, Christopher Billop, William Pagan, Stanton Hay, John McGeorge, Samuel Gay, Andrew Kinnear, Charles Dickson, William Paine, James Campbell, Robert Pagan, Peter Clinch, John Coffin, Ebenezer Foster, Samuel Dickenson, John Yeomans, Daniel Murray, Isaac Atwood, Daniel Lyman, Edward Steele, William Holland, Richard Vandeburg, Elias Hardy, and William Davidson. And when I look over the foregoing list of the Legislature, including the governor and his council, with very few exceptions all Loyalists, and acquainted by history of their superior character and education, I believe this Province has had no Legislature to bear any comparison with their attainments since they passed away. But familiar, by my professional pursuits, with the law structure of their enactments, which have ever since formed the basis of all that is most valuable in our law system, for the great benefit of the public and lasting posterity. Yea, more, from having read, as I once did, the Legislative records of their proceedings from 1786 to 1808, and to observe the masterly, statesmanlike and gentlemanly style in which they conducted their proceedings, even in their severe conflicts with the Council and with one another, comparison being odious, allow me rather to exclaim – Well done, you noble Loyalists! Those records make you shine as the sun, reflecting splendor on your achievements and the manner of your doing them, which claim honor from all, even of the powers that sacrificed you, and eloquently admonish us to be proud of such an ancestry – to cherish and celebrate your memory for ever. (To be continued.)