Chapter VIII (2)

But this session was chiefly distinguished by an act for naturalizing Jews, and a bill for the better preventing clandestine marriages. The first of these, which passed without much opposition in the house of lords, from whence it descended to the commons, was entitled, “An act to permit persons professing the Jewish religion to be naturalized by parliament, and for other purposes therein mentioned.” It was supported by some petitions of merchants and manufacturers, who, upon examination, appeared to be Jews, or their dependents; and countenanced by the ministry, who thought they foresaw, in the consequences of such a naturalization, a great accession to the monied interest, and a considerable increase of their own influence among the individuals of that community. They boldly affirmed, that such a law would greatly conduce to the advantage of the nation; that it would encourage persons of wealth to remove with their effects from foreign parts into Great Britain, increase the commerce and the credit of the kingdom, and set a laudable example of industry, temperance, and frugality. Such, however, were not the sentiments of the lord-mayor, aldermen, and commons of the city of London in common-council assembled, who, in a petition to parliament, expressed their apprehension that the bill, if passed into a law, would tend greatly to the dishonour of the christian religion, endanger the excellent constitution, and be highly prejudicial to the interest and trade of the kingdom in general, and of the city of London in particular. Another petition to the same purpose was next day presented to the house, subscribed by merchants and traders of the city of London; who, among other allegations, observed, that the consequences of such a naturalization would greatly affect their trade and commerce with foreign nations, particularly with Spain and Portugal. Counsel was heard, evidence examined, and the bill produced violent debates, in which there seemed to be more passion than patriotism, more declamation than argument. The adversaries of the bill affirmed, that such a naturalization would deluge the kingdom with brokers, usurers, and beggars; that the rich Jews, under the shadow of this indulgence, would purchase lands, and even advowsons; so as not only to acquire an interest in the legislature, but also to influence the constitution of the church of Christ, to which they were the inveterate and professed enemies; that the lower class of that nation, when thus admitted to the right of denizens, would interfere with the industrious natives who earn their livelihood by their labour; and by dint of the most parsimonious frugality, to which the English are strangers, work at an under price; so as not only to share, but even in a manner to exclude them from all employment; that such an adoption of vagrant Jews into the community, from all parts of the world, would rob the real subjects of their birthright, disgrace the character of the nation, expose themselves to the most dishonourable participation and intrusion, endanger the constitution both in church and state, and be an indelible reproach upon the established religion of the country. Some of these orators seemed transported even to a degree of enthusiasm. They prognosticated that the Jews would multiply so much in number, engross such wealth, and acquire so great power and influence in Great Britain, that their persons would be revered, their customs imitated, and Judaism become the fashionable religion of the English. Finally, they affirmed that such an act was directly flying in the face of the prophecy, which declares, that the Jews shall be a scattered people, without country or fixed habitation, until they shall be converted from their infidelity, and gathered together in the land of their forefathers. These arguments and apprehensions, which were in reality frivolous and chimerical, being industriously circulated among the vulgar, naturally prejudiced against the Jewish people, excited such a ferment throughout the nation, as ought to have deterred the ministry from the prosecution of such an unpopular measure; which, however, they had courage enough to maintain against all opposition. The bill passed the ordeal of both houses, and his majesty vouchsafed the royal sanction to this law in favour of the Hebrew nation. The truth is, it might have increased the wealth, and extended the commerce of Great Britain, had it been agreeable to the people; and as the naturalized Jews would still have been excluded from all civil and military offices, as well as from other privileges enjoyed by their christian brethren, in all probability they would have gradually forsaken their own unprofitable and obstinate infidelity, opened their eyes to the shining truths of the gospel, and joined their fellow-subjects in embracing the doctrines of Christianity. But no ministry ought to risk an experiment, how plausible soever it might be, if they found it, as this was, an object of the people’s unconquerable aversion. What rendered this unpopular measure the more impolitic, was the unseasonable juncture at which it was carried into execution; that is, at the eve of a general election for a new parliament, when a minister ought carefully to avoid every step which may give umbrage to the body of the people. The earl of Egmont, who argued against the bill with equal power and vivacity, in describing the effect it might have upon that occasion, “I am amazed,” said he, “that this consideration makes no impression.--When that day, which is not far off, shall arrive, I shall not fear to set my foot upon any ground of election in the kingdom, in opposition to any one man among you, or any new christian, who has voted or appeared in favour of this naturalization.”

MARRIAGE ACT.

Another bill, transmitted from the upper house, met with a reception equally unfavourable among the commons, though it was sustained on the shoulders of the majority, and thus forced its way to the throne, where it obtained the royal approbation. The practice of solemnizing clandestine marriages, so prejudicial to the peace of families, and so often productive of misery to the parties themselves thus united, was an evil that prevailed to such a degree as claimed the attention of the legislature. The sons and daughters of great and opulent families, before they had acquired knowledge and experience, or attained to the years of discretion, were every day seduced in their affections, and inveigled into matches big with infamy and ruin; and these were greatly facilitated by the opportunities that occurred of being united instantaneously by the ceremony of marriage, in the first transport of passion, before the destined victim had time to cool or deliberate on the subject. For this pernicious purpose, there was a band of profligate miscreants, the refuse of the clergy, dead to every sentiment of virtue, abandoned to all sense of decency and decorum, for the most part prisoners for debt or delinquency, and indeed the very outcasts of human society, who hovered about the verge of the Fleet-prison to intercept customers, plying like porters for employment, and performed the ceremony of marriage without license or question, in cellars, garrets, or ale-houses, to the scandal of religion, and the disgrace of that order which they professed. The ease with which this ecclesiastical sanction was obtained, and the vicious disposition of those wretches, open to the practices of fraud and corruption, were productive of polygamy, indigence, conjugal infidelity, prostitution, and every curse that could embitter the married state. A remarkable case of this nature having fallen under the cognizance of the peers, in an appeal from an inferior tribunal, that house ordered the judges to prepare a new bill for preventing such abuses; and one was accordingly framed, under the auspices of lord Hardwicke, at that time lord high chancellor of England. In order to anticipate the bad effects of clandestine marriages, this new statute enacted, that the banns should be regularly published three successive Sundays, in the church of the parish where the parties dwell; that no license should be granted to marry in any place, where one of the parties has not dwelt at least a month, except a special license by the archbishop; that if any marriage should be solemnized in any other place than a church or a chapel without a special license, or in a public chapel without having published the banns, or obtained a license of some person properly qualified, the marriage should he void, and the person who solemnized it transported for seven years; that marriages by license, of parties under age, without consent of parent or guardian, should be null and void, unless the party under age be a widow, and the parent refusing consent a widow married again: that when the consent of a mother or guardian is refused from caprice, or such parent or guardian be _non compos mentis_, or beyond sea, the minor should have recourse for relief to the court of chancery; that no suit should be commenced to compel a celebration of marriage, upon pretence of any contract; that all marriages should be solemnized before two witnesses, and an entry be made in a book kept for that purpose, whether it was by banns or license, whether either of the parties was under age, or the marriage celebrated with the consent of parent or guardian, and this entry to be signed by the minister, the parties, and the witnesses; that a false license or certificate, or destroying register books, should be deemed felony, either in principal or accessary, and punished with death. The bill, when first considered in the lower house, gave rise to a variety of debates; in which the members appeared to be divided rather according to their real sentiments, than by the rules of any political distinction; for some principal servants of the government freely differed in opinion from the minister, who countenanced the bill; while on the other hand, he was on this occasion supported by certain chiefs of the opposition, and the disputes were maintained with extraordinary eagerness and warmth. The principal objections imported, that such restrictions on marriage would damp the spirit of love and propagation; promote mercenary matches, to the ruin of domestic happiness, as well as to the prejudice of posterity and population; impede the circulation of property, by preserving the wealth of the kingdom among a kind of aristocracy of opulent families, who would always intermarry within their own pale; subject the poor to many inconveniencies and extraordinary expense, from the nature of the forms to be observed; and throw an additional power into the hands of the chancellor. They affirmed, that no human power had a right to dissolve a vow solemnly made in the sight of heaven; and that, in proportion as the bill prevented clandestine marriages, it would encourage fornication and debauchery, insomuch as the parties restrained from indulging their mutual passions in an honourable manner, would be tempted to gratify them by stealth, at the hazard of their reputation. In a word, they foresaw a great number of evils in the train of this bill, which have not yet been realized. On the other side, its advocates endeavoured to refute these arguments, and some of them spoke with great strength and precision. The bill underwent a great number of alterations and amendments; which were not effected without violent contest and altercation. At length, however, it was floated through both houses on the tide of a great majority, and steered into the safe harbour of royal approbation. Certain it is, the abuse of clandestine marriage might have been removed upon much easier terms than those imposed upon the subject by this bill; which, after all, hath been found ineffectual, as it may be easily eluded by a short voyage to the continent, or a moderate journey to North Britain, where the indissoluble knot may be tied without scruple or interruption.

{GEORGE II. 1727-1760}

DELIBERATIONS CONCERNING THE SUGAR COLONIES.

Over and above these new statutes, there were some other subjects which occasionally employed the attention of the commons; such as the state of the British sugar colonies, which was considered, in consequence of petitions presented by the sugar refiners and grocers of London, Westminster, and Bristol, complaining of the exorbitant price demanded and given for sugars imported from Jamaica; desiring that the proprietors of lands in Jamaica might be obliged to cultivate greater quantities of ground for raising sugar-canes, or that they (the petitioners) might have leave to import muscovado sugars from other countries, when the price of those imported from Jamaica should exceed a certain rate. This remonstrance was taken into consideration by a committee of the whole house; and a great number of evidences and papers being examined, they resolved, that the peopling of Jamaica with white inhabitants, and cultivating the lands thereof, would be the most proper measure for securing that island, and increasing the trade and navigation between it and Great Britain, and other parts of his majesty’s dominions; that the endeavours hitherto used by the legislature of Jamaica to increase the number of white inhabitants, and enforce the cultivation of lands, in the manner that might best conduce to the security and defence of that island, had not been effectual for these purposes. The house ordered a bill to be founded on these resolutions; but this was postponed until the ministry should receive more full information touching the true state of that island. The planters of Jamaica laboured under many grievances and hardships, from divers heavy impositions and restrictions; and a detail of these was transmitted in a representation to his majesty, which was referred to the consideration of the commissioners of trade and plantations. The cause of the planters was defended vigorously, and managed in the house of commons by alderman Beckford, a gentleman of vast possessions in the island of Jamaica, who perfectly well understood, and strenuously supported, the interest of that his native country.

FATE OF THE REGISTER BILL.

Abortive also proved the attempt to establish a law for keeping an annual register of marriages, births, deaths, the individuals who received alms, and the total number of people in Great Britain. A bill for this purpose was presented by Mr. Potter, a gentleman of pregnant parts and spirited elocution; who, enumerating the advantages of such a law, observed, that it would ascertain the number of the people, and the collective strength of the nation; consequently, point out those places where there is a defect or excess of population, and certainly determine whether a general naturalization would be advantageous or prejudicial to the community; that it would decide what number of men might, on any sudden emergency, be levied for the defence of the kingdom; and whether the nation is gainer or loser, by sending its natives to settle, and our troops to defend distant colonies; that it would be the means of establishing a local administration of civil government, or a police upon certain fixed principles, the want of which hath been long a reproach to the nation, a security to vice, and an encouragement to idleness; that in many cases where all other evidence is wanting, it would enable suitors to recover their right in courts of justice, facilitate an equal and equitable assessment in raising the present taxes, and laying future impositions; specify the lineal descents, relations, and alliances of families; lighten the intolerable burdens incurred by the public, from innumerable and absurd regulations relating to the poor; provide for them by a more equal exertion of humanity, and effectually screen them from all risk of perishing by hunger, cold, cruelty, and oppression. Whether such a law would have answered the sanguine expectations of its patron, we shall not pretend to determine; though, in our opinion, it must have been attended with very salutary consequences, particularly in restraining the hand of robbery and violence, in detecting fraud, bridling the ferocity of a licentious people, and establishing a happy system of order and subordination. At first the bill met with little opposition, except from Mr. Thornton, member for the city of York, who inveighed against it with great fervour, as a measure that savoured of French policy, to which the English nation ever had the utmost aversion. He affirmed, that the method in which it was proposed this register should be kept, would furnish the enemies of Great Britain with continual opportunities of knowing the strength or weakness of the nation; that it would empower an ill-designing minister to execute any scheme subversive of public liberty, invest parish and petty officers of the peace with exorbitant powers, and cost the nation about fifty thousand pounds a-year to carry the scheme into execution. These arguments, which, we apprehend, are extremely frivolous and inconclusive, had great weight with a considerable number who joined in the opposition, while the ministry stood neutral. Nevertheless, after having undergone some amendments, it was conveyed to the lords, by whom it was, at the second reading, thrown out as a scheme of very dangerous tendency. The legislature of Great Britain have, on some occasions, been more startled at the distant shadow of a bare possibility, than at the real approach of the most dangerous innovation.

SIR HANS SLOANE’S MUSEUM PURCHASED BY PARLIAMENT.

From the usual deliberations on civil and commercial concerns, the attention of the parliament, which had seldom or never turned upon literary avocations, was called off by an extraordinary subject of this nature. Sir Hans Sloane, the celebrated physician and naturalist, well known through all the civilized countries of Europe for his ample collection of rarities, culled from the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms, as well as of antiquities and curiosities of art, had directed, in his last will, that this valuable museum, together with his numerous library, should be offered to the parliament, for the use of the public, in consideration of their paying a certain sum in compensation to his heirs. His terms were embraced by the commons, who agreed to pay twenty thousand pounds for the whole, supposed to be worth four times that sum; and a bill was prepared for purchasing this museum, together with the Harleian collection of manuscripts, so denominated from its founder, Robert Harley, earl of Oxford, lord-high-treasurer of England, and now offered to the public by his daughter, the duchess of Portland. It was proposed, that these purchases should be joined to the famous Cottonian library, and a suitable repository provided for them and the king’s library, which had long lain neglected and exposed to the injuries of the weather in the old dormitory at Westminster. Accordingly, trustees and governors, consisting of the most eminent persons of the kingdom, were appointed, and regulations established for the management of this noble museum, which was deposited in Montagu-house, one of the most magnificent edifices in England, where it is subjected, without reserve, to the view of the public, under certain necessary restrictions, and exhibits a glorious monument of national taste and liberality. *

* The library of sir Hans Sloane consisted of above fifty
thousand volumes, including about three hundred and fifty
books of drawings, and three thousand five hundred and
sixteen manuscripts, besides a multitude of prints. The
museum comprehended an infinite number of medals, coins,
urns, utensils, seals, cameos, intaglios, precious stones,
vessels of agate and jasper, crystals, spars, fossils,
metals, minerals, ore, earths, sands, salts, bitumens,
sulphurs, ambergrise, talcs, mirre, testacea, corals,
sponges, echini, echenites, asteri, trochi, crustatia,
stellae marine, fishes, birds, eggs and nests, vipers,
serpents, quadrupeds, insects, human calculi, anatomical
preparations, seeds, gums, roots, dried plants, pictures,
drawings, and mathematical instruments. All these articles,
with a short account of each, are specified in thirty-eight
volumes in folio, and eight in quarto.

In the beginning of June the session of parliament was closed by his majesty, who mentioned nothing particular in his speech, but that the state of foreign affairs had suffered no alteration since their meeting.

The genius of the English people is perhaps incompatible with a state of perfect tranquillity; if it was not ruffled by foreign provocations, or agitated by unpopular measures of domestic administration, it will undergo temporary fermentations from the turbulent ingredients inherent in its own constitution Tumults are excited, and faction kindled into rage and inveteracy, by incidents of the most frivolous nature. At this juncture the metropolis of England was divided and discomposed in a surprising manner, by a dispute in itself of so little consequence to the community, that it could not deserve a place in a general history, if it did not serve to convey a characteristic idea of the English nation. In the beginning of the year an obscure damsel, of low degree, whose name was Elizabeth Canning, promulgated a report, which in a little time attracted the attention of the public. She affirmed, that on the first day of the new year, at night, she was seized under Bedlam-wall by two ruffians, who having stripped her of her upper apparel, secured her mouth with a gag, and threatened to murder her should she make the least noise; that they conveyed her on foot about ten miles, to a place called Enfieldwash, and brought her to the house of one Mrs. Wells, where she was pillaged of her stays; and because she refused to turn prostitute, confined in a cold, damp, separate, and unfurnished apartment; where she remained a whole month, without any other sustenance than a few stale crusts of bread, and about a gallon of water; till at length she forced her way through a window, and ran home to her mother’s house almost naked, in the night of the twenty-ninth of January. This story, improbable and unsupported, operated so strongly on the passions of the people in the neighbourhood of Aldermanbury, where Canning’s mother lived, and particularly among fanatics of all denominations, that they raised voluntary contributions, with surprising eagerness, in order to bring the supposed delinquents to justice. Warrants were granted for apprehending Wells, who kept the house at Enfieldwash, and her accomplices, the servant maid, whose name was Virtue Hall, and one Squires, an old gipsey-woman, which last was charged by Canning of having robbed her of her stays. Wells, though acquitted of the felony, was punished as a bawd. Hall turned evidence for Canning, but afterwards recanted. Squires, the gipsey, was convicted of the robbery, though she produced undoubted evidence to prove that she was at Abbotsbury in Dorsetshire that very night in which the felony was said to be committed, and Canning and her friends fell into divers contradictions during the course of the trial. By this time the prepossession of the common people in her favour had risen to such a pitch of enthusiasm, that the most palpable truths which appeared on the other side, had no other effect than that of exasperating them to the most dangerous degree of rage and revenge. Some of the witnesses for Squires, though persons of unblemished character, were so intimidated, that they durst not enter the court; and those who had resolution enough to give evidence in her behalf, ran the risk of assassination from the vulgar that surrounded the place. On this occasion, sir Crisp Gascoyne, lord-mayor of London, behaved with that laudable courage and humanity which ought ever to distinguish the chief magistrate of such a metropolis. Considering the improbability of the charge, the heat, partiality, and blind enthusiasm with which it was prosecuted, and being convinced of the old woman’s innocence by a great number of affidavits, voluntarily sent up from the country by persons of unquestionable credit, he, in conjunction with some other worthy citizens, resolved to oppose the torrent of vulgar prejudice. Application was made to the throne for mercy; the case was referred to the attorney and solicitor-general, who, having examined the evidences on both sides, made their report in favour of Squires to the king and council; and this poor old creature was indulged with his majesty’s pardon. This affair was now swelled up into such a faction as divided the greater part of the kingdom, including the rich as well as the poor, the high as well as the humble. Pamphlets and pasquinades were published on both sides of the dispute, which became the general topic of conversation in all assemblies, and people of all ranks espoused one or other party with as much warmth and animosity as had ever inflamed the whigs and tories, even at the most rancorous period of their opposition. Subscriptions were opened, and large sums levied, on one side, to prosecute for perjury the persons on whose evidence the pardon had been granted. On the other hand, those who had interested themselves for the gipsey resolved to support her witnesses, and, if possible, detect the imposture of Canning. Bills of perjury were preferred on both sides. The evidences for Squires were tried and acquitted; at first Canning absconded; but afterwards surrendered to take her trial, and being, after a long hearing, found guilty, was transported to the British colonies. The zeal of her friends, however, seemed to be inflamed by her conviction; and those who carried on the prosecution against her were insulted, even to the danger of their lives. They supplied her with necessaries of all sorts, paid for her transportation in a private ship, where she enjoyed all the comforts and conveniences that could be afforded in that situation, and furnished her with such recommendations as secured to her a very agreeable reception in New England.

EXECUTION OF DR. CAMERON.

Next to this very remarkable transaction, the incident that principally distinguished this year in England, was the execution of Doctor Archibald Cameron, a native of North Britain, and brother to Cameron of Lochiel, chief of that numerous and warlike tribe who had taken the field with the prince-pretender. After the battle of Culloden, where he was dangerously wounded, he found means to escape to the continent. His brother, the doctor, had accompanied him in all his expeditions, though not in a military capacity, and was included with him in the act of attainder passed against those who had been concerned in the rebellion. Notwithstanding the imminent danger attending such an attempt, the doctor returned privately to Scotland, in order, as it was reported, to recover a sum of money belonging to the pretender, which had been embezzled by his adherents in that country. Whatever may have been his inducement to revisit his native country under such a predicament, certain it is, he was discovered, apprehended, and conducted to London, confined in the Tower, examined by the privy-council, and produced in the court of king’s-bench, where his identity being proved by several witnesses, he received sentence of death, and was executed at Tyburn. The terror and resentment of the people, occasioned by the rebellion, having by this time subsided, their humane passions did not fail to operate in favour of this unfortunate gentleman; their pity was mingled with esteem, arising from his personal character, which was altogether unblemished, and his deportment on this occasion, which they could not help admiring as the standard of manly fortitude and decorum. The populace, though not very subject to tender emotions, were moved to compassion and even to tears, by his behaviour at the place of execution; and many sincere well-wishers to the present establishment thought that the sacrifice of this victim, at such a juncture, could not redound either to its honour or security.

TUMULTS IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE KINGDOM.

The turbulent spirit, which is never totally extinguished in this island, manifested itself in sundry tumults that broke out in different parts of South Britain. The price of provisions, and bread in particular, being raised to an exorbitant rate in consequence of an absurd exportation of corn, for the sake of the bounty, a formidable body of colliers, and other labouring people, raised an insurrection at Bristol, began to plunder the corn vessels in the harbour, and commit such outrages in the city, that the magistrates were obliged to have recourse to military power. A troop of dragoons were sent to their assistance, and the insurgents were quelled, though not without some bloodshed. Commotions of the same kind were excited in Yorkshire, Manchester, and several other places in the northern counties At Leeds, a detachment of the king’s troops were obliged in their own defence to fire upon the rioters, eight or nine of whom were killed on the spot; and, indeed, so little care had been taken to restrain the licentious insolence of the vulgar by proper laws and regulations, duly executed under the eye of civil magistracy, that a military power was found absolutely necessary to maintain the peace of the kingdom.

DISTURBANCES IN FRANCE.

The tranquillity of the continent was not endangered by any new contest or disturbance; yet the breach between the clergy and the parliament of Paris was every day more and more widened, and the people were pretty equally divided between superstition and a regard for civil liberty. The parliament having caused divers ecclesiastics to be apprehended, for having refused to administer the sacraments to persons in extremity, who refused to subscribe to the bull Unigenitus, all of them declared they acted according to the direction of the archbishop of Paris. Application being made to this haughty prelate, he treated the deputies of the parliament with the most supercilious contempt, and even seemed to brave the power and authority of that body. They, on the other hand, proceeded to take cognizance of the recusant clergy, until their sovereign ordered them to desist. Then they presented remonstrances to his majesty, reminding him of their privileges, and the duty of their station, which obliged them to do justice on all their delinquents. In the meantime they continued to perform their functions, and even commenced a prosecution against the bishop of Orleans, whom they summoned to attend their tribunal. Next day they received from Versailles a _lettre de cachet_, accompanied by letters patent, commanding them to suspend all prosecutions relating to the refusal of the sacraments; and ordering the letters patent to be registered. Instead of obeying these commands, they presented new remonstrances, for answers to which they were referred to the king’s former declarations. In consequence of this intimation, they had spirit enough to resolve, “That, whereas certain evil-minded persons had prevented truth from reaching the throne, the chambers remained assembled, and all other business should be suspended.” The affair was now become very serious. His majesty, by fresh letters patent, renewed his orders, and commanded them to proceed with their ordinary business, on pain of incurring his displeasure. They forthwith came to another resolution, importing, that they could not obey this injunction without a breach of their duty and their oath. Next day _lettres de cachet_ were issued, banishing to different parts of the kingdom all the members, except those of the great chamber, which the court did not find more tractable than their brethren. They forthwith resolved to abide by the two resolutions mentioned above; and, as an instance of their unshaken fortitude, ordered an ecclesiastic to be taken into custody for refusing the sacraments. This spirited measure involved them in the fate of the rest; for they were also exiled from Paris, the citizens of which did not fail to extol their conduct with the loudest encomiums, and at the same time to express their resentment against the clergy, who could not stir abroad without being exposed to violence or insult. The example of the parliament of Paris was followed by that of Rouen, which had courage enough to issue orders for apprehending the bishop of Evreux, because he had refused to appear when summoned to their tribunal. Their decrees on this occasion being annulled by the king’s council of state, they presented a bold remonstrance, which, however, had no other effect than that of exasperating the ministry. A grand deputation being ordered to attend the king, they were commanded to desist from intermeddling in disputes relating to the refusal of the sacraments, and to register this injunction. At their return they had recourse to a new remonstrance; and one of their principal counsellors, who had spoken freely in the debates on this subject, was arrested by a party of dragoons, who carried him prisoner to the castle of Dourlens. In a word, the body of the people declared for the parliament, in opposition to ecclesiastical tyranny; and had they not been overawed by a formidable standing army, would certainly have taken up arms in defence of their liberties; while the monarch weakly suffered himself to be governed by priestly delusions; and, secure in his military appointment, seemed to set the rest of his subjects at defiance. Apprehensive, however, that these disputes would put an entire stop to the administration of justice, he, by letters patent, established a royal chamber for the prosecution of suits civil and criminal, which was opened with a solemn mass performed in the queen’s chapel at the Louvre, where all the members assisted. On this occasion another difficulty occurred. The letters patent, constituting this new court, ought to have been registered by the parliament which was now no more. To remedy this defect, application was made to the inferior court of the Chatelet, which refusing to register them, one of its members was committed to the Bastile, and another absconded. Intimidated by this exertion of despotic power, they allowed the king’s officers to enter the letters in their register; but afterwards adopted more vigorous resolutions. The lieutenant,-civil appearing in their court, all the counsellors rose up and retired, leaving him alone, and on the table an _arret_, importing, that whereas the confinement of one of their members, the prosecution of another, who durst not appear, and the present calamities of the nation, gave them just apprehensions for their own persons; they had, after mature deliberation, thought proper to retire. Thus a dangerous ferment was excited by the king’s espousing the cause of spiritual insolence and oppression against the general voice of his people, and the plainest dictates of reason and common sense.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIET RELATIVE TO EAST FRIEZELAND.

The property of East Friezeland continued still to be the source of contention between the electors of Bran-denburgh and Hanover. The interest of his Britannic majesty being powerfully supported by the house of Austria, the minister of that power at the diet proposed that the affair should be taken into immediate consideration. He was seconded by the minister of Brunswick; but the envoy from Brandenburgh, having protested in form against this procedure, withdrew from the assembly, and the Brunswick minister made a counter-protestation, after which he also retired. Then a motion being made, that this dispute should be referred to the decision of the Aulic council at Vienna, it was carried in the affirmative by a majority of fourteen voices. His Prussian majesty’s final declaration with regard to this affair was afterwards presented to the diet, and answered in the sequel by a memorial from his Britannic majesty as elector of Hanover. Some other petty disputes likewise happened between the regency of Hanover and the city of Munster; and the former claiming some bailiwicks in the territories of Bremen, sequestered certain revenues belonging to this city, in Stade and Ferden, till these claims should be satisfied.

EXTRAORDINARY TREATY.

The court of Vienna having dropped for the present the scheme for electing a king of the Romans, concluded a very extraordinary treaty with the duke of Modena, stipulating that his serene highness should be appointed perpetual governor of the duchy of Milan, with a salary of ninety thousand florins, on condition that he should maintain a body of four thousand men, to be at the disposal of the empress-queen; that her imperial majesty should have a right to place garrisons in the citadels of Mirandola and Reggio, as well as in the castle of Massa-Carrara: that the archduke Peter Leopold, third son of their imperial majesties, should espouse the daughter of the hereditary prince of Modena, by the heiress of Massa-Carrara; and in case of her dying without heirs male, the estates of that house and the duchy of Mirandola should devolve to the archduke; but in case of her having male issue, that she should enjoy the principality of Fermia, and other possessions in Hungary, claimed by the duke of Modena, for her fortune; finally, that on the extinction of the male branch of the house of Este, all the dominions of the duke of Modena should devolve to the house of Austria.

CONFERENCES WITH RESPECT TO NOVA SCOTIA BROKE UP.

While the powers on the continent of Europe were thus employed in strengthening their respective interests, and concerting measures for preventing any interruption of the general tranquillity, matters were fast ripening to a fresh rupture between the subjects of Great Britain and France, in different parts of North America. We have already observed that commissaries had been appointed, and conferences opened at Paris, to determine the disputes between the two crowns, relating to the boundaries of Nova Scotia; and we took notice in general of the little arts of evasion practised by the French commissaries, to darken and perplex the dispute, and elude the pretensions of his Britannic majesty. They persisted in employing these arts of chicanery and cavil with such perseverance, that the negotiation proved abortive, the conferences broke up, and every thing seemed to portend approaching hostilities. But, before we proceed to a detail of the incidents which were the immediate forerunners of the war, we will endeavour to convey a just idea of the dispute concerning Nova Scotia; which, we apprehend, is but imperfectly understood, though of the utmost importance to the interest of Great Britain.

{GEORGE II. 1727-1760}

DESCRIPTION OF NOVA SCOTIA.

Nova Scotia, called by the French Acadia, lies between the forty-fourth and fiftieth degrees of north latitude, having New England and the Atlantic ocean to the south and south-west, and the river and gulph of St. Lawrence to the north and north-east. The winter, which continues near seven months in this country, is intensely cold; and without the intervention of any thing that can be called spring, it is immediately succeeded by a summer, the heat of which is almost insupportable, but of no long continuance. The soil in general is thin and barren, though some parts of it are said to be equal to the best land in England. The whole country is covered with a perpetual fog, even after the summer has commenced. It was first possessed by the French, before they made any establishment in Canada; who, by dint of industry and indefatigable perseverance, in struggling with the many difficulties they necessarily laboured under in the infancy of this settlement, subsisted tolerably well, and increased considerably, with very little assistance from Europe; whilst we, even now, should lose the immense expense we have already been at to settle a colony there, and should see all our endeavours to that end defeated, if the support of the royal hand was withdrawn but for a moment. This country, by the possession of which an enemy would be enabled greatly to annoy all our other colonies, and, if in the hands of the French, would be of singular service both to their fishery and their sugar islands, has frequently changed hands from the French to the English, and from the English back again to the French, till our right to it was finally settled by the twelfth article of the treaty of Utrecht, by which all the country included within the ancient limits of what was called Nova Scotia or Acadia, was ceded to the English. This article was confirmed by the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, but, for want of ascertaining distinctly what were the bounds intended to be fixed by the two nations with respect to this province, disputes arose, and commissaries, as we have observed, were appointed by both sides to adjust the litigation.

The commissaries of the king of Great Britain conformed themselves to the rule laid down by the treaty itself, and assigned those as the ancient limits of this country, which had always passed as such, from the very earliest time of any certainty, down to the conclusion of the treaty; which the two crowns had frequently declared to be such, and which the French had often admitted and allowed. These limits are, the southern bank of the river St. Lawrence to the north, and Pentagoet to the west: the country situated between these boundaries is that which the French received by the treaty of St. Germain’s, in the year one thousand six hundred and thirty-two, under the general name of Acadia. Of this country, thus limited, they continued in possession from that period to the year one thousand six hundred and fifty-four, when a descent was made upon it, under the command of colonel Sedgwick. That these were then the undisputed limits of Acadia, his Britannic majesty’s commissaries plainly proved, by a letter of Louis XIII. to the sieurs Charnisay and La Tour, regulating their jurisdictions in Acadia; by the subsequent commissions of the French king to the same persons, as governors of Acadia, in the sequel; and by that which was afterwards granted to the sieur Denys, in the year one thousand six hundred and fifty-four; all of which extend the bounds of this country from the river St. Lawrence to Pentagoet and New England. That these were the notions of the French with respect to the ancient limits of this province, was further confirmed by the demands made by their ambassador in the course of that same year, for the restitution of the forts Pentagoet, St. John’s, and Port Eoyal, as forts situated in Acadia. In the year one thousand six hundred and sixty-two, upon the revival of the claim of France to the country of Acadia, which had been left undecided by the treaty of Westminster, the French ambassador, then at the court of London, assigned Pentagoet as the western, and the river St. Lawrence as the northern, boundary of that country; and alleged the restitution of Acadia in the year one thousand six hundred and thirty-two, and the possession taken by France in consequence thereof, as well as the continuation of that possession, with the same limits, to the year one thousand six hundred and fifty-four, as proofs of the equity and validity of the claim he then made; in which claim and in the manner of supporting it, he was particularly approved of by the court of France. The same court afterwards thought it so clear, upon former determinations, and her own former possessions, that the true ancient boundaries of Acadia were Pentagoet to the west, and the river St. Lawrence to the north, that she desired no specification of limits in the treaty of Breda, but was contented with the restitution of Acadia, generally named; and, upon a dispute which arose in the execution of this treaty, France re-asserted, and Great Britain, after some discussion, agreed to the above-mentioned limits of Acadia; and France obtained possession of that country, so bounded, under the treaty of Breda. The sense of France upon this subject, in the years one thousand six hundred and eighty-five, and one thousand six hundred and eighty-seven, was also clearly manifested in the memorials delivered at that time by the French ambassador at the court of London, complaining of some encroachments made by the English upon the coast of Acadia: he described the country as extending from isle Percée, which lies at the entrance of the river St. Lawrence, to St. George’s island; and again, in a subsequent complaint, made by Mons. Barillon and Mons. Bonrepaus to the court of Great Britain, against the judge of Pemaquid, for having seized the effects of a French merchant at Pentagoet, which, said they, was situated in Acadia, as restored to France by the treaty of Breda. To explain the sense of France, touching the bounds of Acadia in the year one thousand seven hundred, the British commissaries produced a proposal of the French ambassador, then residing in Great Britain, to restrain the limits of that country to the river St-George. They also instanced the surrender of Port Royal in the year one thousand seven hundred and ten, in which Acadia is described with the same limits with which France had received it in the years one thousand six hundred and thirty-two, and one thousand six hundred and sixty-seven. And further to ascertain the sense of both crowns, even at the treaty of Utrecht itself, they produced the queen of Great Britain’s instructions to her ambassadors, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eleven, in which they were directed to insist, “That his most christain majesty should quit all claim or title, by virtue of any former treaty, or otherwise, to the country called Nova Scotia, and expressly to Port Royal, otherwise Annapolis Royal.” To these they added a manifest demonstration, founded on indisputable facts, proving that the recital of the several sorts of right which France had ever pretended to this country, and the specification of both terms, Acadia or Nova Scotia, were intended by Great Britain to obviate all doubts which had ever been made concerning the limits of Acadia, and to comprehend with more certainty all that country which France had ever received as such; finally, to specify what France considered as Acadia. During the treaty, they referred to the offers of that crown in the year one thousand seven hundred and twelve, in which she proposed to restrain the boundary of Acadia to the river St. George, as a departure from its real boundary, in case Great Britain would restore to her the possession of that country. From all these facts it plainly appears that Great Britain demanded nothing but what the fair construction of the words of the treaty of Utrecht necessarily implies; and that it is impossible for any thing to have more evident marks of candour and fairness in it, than the demand of the English on this occasion. From the variety of evidence brought in support of this claim, it evidently results that the English commissaries assigned no limits as the ancient limits of Acadia, but those which France herself determined to be such in the year one thousand six hundred and thirty-two; and which she possessed, in consequence of that determination, till the year one thousand six hundred and fifty-four; that in one thousand six hundred and sixty-two, France claimed, and received in one thousand six hundred and sixty-nine, the country which Great Britain now claims as Acadia, restored to France by the treaty of Breda under that general denomination; that France never considered Acadia as having any other limits than those which were assigned to it from the year one thousand six hundred and thirty-two, to the year one thousand seven hundred and ten; and that, by the treaty of Utrecht, she engaged to transfer that very same country as Acadia, which France has always asserted and possessed, and Great Britain now claims, as such. Should the crown of France, therefore, be ever willing to decide what are the ancient limits of Acadia, by her own declarations so frequently made in like discussions upon the same point, by her possessions of this country for almost a century, and by her description of Acadia, during the negotiation of that very treaty upon which this doubt is raised, she cannot but admit the claim of Great Britain to be conformable to the treaty of Utrecht, and to the description of the country transferred to Great Britain by the twelfth article of that treaty. There is a consistency in the claim of the English, and a completeness in the evidence brought in support of it, which is seldom seen in discussions of this sort; for it rarely happens, in disputes of such a nature between two crowns, that either of them can safely offer to have its pretensions decided by the known and repeated declarations, or the possessions of the other. To answer the force of this detail of conclusive historical facts, and to give a new turn to the real question in dispute, the French commissaries, in their memorial, laid it down as a distinction made by the treaty of Utrecht, that the ancient limits of Acadia, referred to by that treaty, are different from any with which that country may have passed under the treaties of St. Germain’s and Breda; and then endeavoured to show, upon the testimonies of maps and historians, that Acadia and its limits were anciently confined to the south-eastern part of the peninsula. In support of this system, the French commissaries had recourse to ancient maps and historians, who, as they asserted, had ever confined Acadia to the limits they assigned. They alleged, that those commissions of the French government over Acadia, which the English cited as evidence of the limits they claimed, were given as commissions over Acadia and the country around it, and not over Acadia only; that the whole of the country claimed by the English as Acadia, could not possibly be supposed ever to be considered as such, because many parts of that territory always did, and still do, preserve particular and distinct names. They affirmed New France to be a province in itself; and argued that many parts of what we claim as Acadia can never have been in Acadia, because historians and the French commissions of government expressly place them in New France. They asserted, that no evidence can be drawn of the opinion of any crown, with respect to the limits of any country, from its declaration during the negotiation of a treaty: and, in the ends relying upon maps and historians for the ancient limits of Acadia, they pretended that the express restitution of St. Germain’s, and the possession taken by France in consequence of the treaty of Breda, after a long discussion of the limits and the declaration of France during the negotiation of the treaty of Utrecht, were foreign to the point in question. In refutation of these maxims, the English commissaries proved, from an examination of the maps and historians cited by the French in support of their system, that if this question was to be decided upon the authorities which they themselves allowed to belong, and to be applicable to, this discussion, the limits which they assigned were utterly inconsistent with the best maps of all countries, which are authorities in point for almost every part of the claim of Great Britain. They showed that the French historians, Champlain and Denys, and particularly this last, with his commission in the year one thousand six hundred and fifty-five, assigned the same northern and western limits to Acadia which they did; and that Escarbot, another of their historians, as far as any evidence can be drawn from his writings, agrees entirely with the former two. They observed, that all these evidences fall in with and confirmed the better authorities of treaties, and the several transactions between the two crowns for near a century past; and that the French commissaries, by deviating from treaties, and the late proceedings of the two crowns, to ancient historians and maps, only made a transition from an authentic to an insufficient sort of evidence, and led the English commissaries into an inquiry which proved that both the proper and the improper, the regular and the foreign evidence, upon which this matter had been rested, equally confuted the limits alleged by the French commissaries as the ancient limits of Acadia.