to the British connexion.
No less fitted for the work was the Commissioner to whose industry we owe
the transcripts of the evidence here published. Mr. Daniel Parker Coke may
have been less devoted to the work, in that, after two years, he resigned his position
as Commissioner. But, while he remained a Commissioner, no one could have
been more active and zealous. When at last in 1788 Pitt explained his plan of
dealing with the claims of the loyalists, Coke maintained that the loyalists who had
been resident in America when the war broke out should be paid in full ; whilst
Wilmot explained that he had always expected that the full amount reported to
be due by the Commissioners was to be paid to the claimants. 1 The Tory who
could say, Had I been in Birmingham when Dr. Priestly s property was attacked,
I would have lost my life in his defence , was assuredly no mere party hack ; as was
further evidenced by Coke s suggestion to impose a tax upon the stalls of deans
and prebendaries, and upon pews appropriated to private persons . His opposition
to the formation of volunteer corps, without the sanction of Parliament, and his
bold defence of the right of landlords to exercise influence over their tenants
smacked of the same sturdy independence. * Judged by the standard of the time ,
we are told, his public career was marked by independence, moderation, and sober
feeling. But these qualities, coupled with a legal training and the judicial
faculty of weighing evidence, were precisely the qualities essential for an inquiry
of this character.
Curiously enough, both Colonel Kingston and Colonel Dundas had been con
nected, indirectly, with the two great British tragedies of the American War. It was
Major Kingston, then adjutant-general, who was sent by Burgoyne to the American
camp with the offer of entering into negotiations for surrender ; and his repudia
tion of the terms at first offered may have led Gates to recognize the danger of
driving the British army to desperation ; though no doubt Gates s main motive
in conceding more favourable terms was an exaggerated fear of Clinton s resources.
Colonel Dundas had been, along with Major Ross, the messenger by whom
Cornwallis had conveyed to Washington his determination to capitulate. He had
been a doubtless unwilling party to the tenth article of that Capitulation, by which
the loyalists who had joined the army were delivered over to be treated at the
discretion of the American civil power. It is true that the serious consequences
of this article had been evaded, through the loyalists being smuggled away in the
1 Hans., vol. xxvii, p. 615.
( XXXV )
sloop of war which Cornwallis was allowed to dispatch to head-quarters. Never
theless the apparent treachery and disgrace of the article must have been revolting
to the generous feelings of a brave officer. He may well have looked upon his
work upon the Commission as in the nature of reparation for this gloomy episode.
Otherwise Dundas s record in the war was glorious enough. Being given the
command of a brigade, under Cornwallis, he especially distinguished himself
at the engagement at James City Island. * The brunt of the action fell , wrote
George Darner to Lord George Germain, on this Brigade, and particularly upon
the two young regiments, who did themselves great credit, having by their coolness
and attention to their officers completely routed the three lines opposed to them
with two pieces of cannon which they took in little more than an hour. Colonel
Dundas distinguished himself very particularly and invited the approbation of
my Lord Cornwallis given to him in the handsomest terms and manner. 1 It
is noteworthy that Cornwallis, when Governor-General of India afterwards, in
1788, wrote to the home authorities : * I doubt your being able to persevere
in the military line in your choice of governors. ... I have before mentioned the
names of some others and particularly of Colonel Thomas Dundas. 2
More than once in the inquiry these officers were able to bring their personal
knowledge of men and places to bear upon the cases before them ; and it is evident
from Colonel Dundas s proceedings in British North America that he was eminently
fitted for the purpose in hand.
Of the other civilian Commissioner I have sought in vain to obtain knowledge.
Inasmuch as Wilmot says that the beginning of the Commissioners proceedings
was delayed by one of their number being in Ireland, and I have found in the
Treasury Minute Book (April 1783 to January 1784) a direction that Mr. Marsh,
Navy Agent at Cork, should be at once summoned to London, the inference is
natural that he was summoned for the purpose of acting as Commissioner. In this
case he was probably the Mr. John Marsh who died as Chairman of the Victualling
Board in 1817.
With regard to the Commission generally, it has proved very difficult to find
contemporary notices. I have looked in vain through the newspaper files of the
year 1783 in the British Museum, and researches in the Manuscript Room and at
the Record Office have been equally fruitless. If there are such notices, and they
have been overlooked, it is not from want of searching for them.
Such being the personnel of the Commission, it is necessary to say a word as
to the manner of their procedure. It must be remembered that they were not
enacting the part of final arbiters, awarding compensation as they saw fit. They
1 Hist. MSS. Com., Stopford-Sackville MSS., vol. ii ; Papers relating to the Am. War, p. 210.
2 Correspondence of Charles, first Marquess Cornwallis, ed. by C. Ross, 3 vols., 1859, vo ^- i> P- 377-
e 2
( xxxvi )
were merely a Court of Advice, recommending cases to the Government and
Parliament, with whom would afterwards rest the final settlement. In this state
of things it was necessary to arrange the claimants in certain defined classes.
The first was of those who had performed exceptional services on behalf of Great
Britain. The second class was of those who had borne arms against the Revolution.
The third was of uniform loyalists. The fourth, of loyalists resident in Great
Britain. The fifth, of those who took the oath of allegiance to the Americans but
afterwards joined the British. The last consisted of those who bore arms for the
Americans, but afterwards joined the British forces. It proved quite impossible
to maintain a hard-and-fast barrier between these different classes and to arrange
them in marks of comparative merit. For instance, Joseph Galloway might have
been described as at first adhering to the cause of the Americans ; but he had done
far more service to Great Britain than many who had been out-and-out Tories
from the first. In their attempt to weigh motives the Commissioners were
confronted with psychological problems incapable of solution. It is clear from
several of these cases that, at one time, the general opinion in the Middle and
Southern colonies was that the cause of Great Britain must in the end prevail.
What merit, then, attached to men who at first had adhered to the Americans,
had then transferred their favours to what they thought was the winning power,
and had found themselves unable afterwards to suit their politics to the course
of events ? The answer could only be that, if they had finished as loyalists, and,
as such, had suffered losses, it was impossible to inquire too curiously into their
moral merits. At first Pitt intended that those who had borne arms or been
of service should receive 40 per cent, of their claim against 30 per cent, received
by the other classes, but it proved impossible to maintain this distinction
or indeed to make any difference in the treatment of the classes most widely
separated.
The Act of 1783 expired in 1785, and, on its renewal in that year, the Government
asked Parliament to distribute on account the sum of 150,000, in part payment
of the claims already examined and adjudicated upon. No doubt the ignorance
in which the claimants stood of the grounds and principles on which the Com
missioners had proceeded, in arriving at awards which largely reduced the amount
claimed, called forth a feeling of uncertainty and fear which added to the not
unnatural discontent. At the same time the Commissioners were clearly of
opinion that they could not give this information, without the authority of
Ministers and of Parliament, and for the time being it was thought that their
Reports should remain secret documents. On the suggestion being made in
Parliament, in June 1785, that some publicity should be given to the Reports
of the Commissioners, Wilmot remarked that they consisted of 246 large folio
( xxxvii )
volumes, so that it would be impossible to lay their substance before the House.
Dealing in this manner merely with the names of the claimants could be productive
of no good, and might do much harm by incensing friend against friend and brother
against brother. 1 Nevertheless, the secrecy, combined with the long delay, gave
rise to natural ill-feeling. A correspondent wrote to the Morning Chronicle on
May 30, 1785 : Notwithstanding the great assiduity of the Commissioners for
two years, no more than four hundred claims out of two thousands and upwards
have been yet examined. At this rate and in the present mode it will require
five or six years to go through all the claims ; and, if the loyalists are kept in their
present state of suspense and no compensation is made to any of them for five or
six years to come, then I aver that it will be an act of mercy in Government to
order them, with their wives and children, to be instantly shot or strangled. 2
In fact, the rules and principles on which the Commissioners acted were simple
enough. In the first place, they disallowed all claims for uncultivated lands, where
the conditions of the grants had not been complied with ; and only allowed the
purchase-money actually given, when such lands had been the objects of sale, and the
fees of patenting and surveying, when they had not. This rule seems obvious, but,
as we shall see in the papers, in the easy-going, slovenly public opinion of the
eighteenth century, the matter did not seem clear even to distinguished governors
and lieutenant-governors, and the Commissioners thought it necessary to fortify
their position by the considered opinion of the Attorney-General. Next, the Com
missioners invariably disallowed purchases after the beginning of the troubles ;
except where they were made in parts in full possession of the British authorities,
or where there was some urgent necessity of investing moneys in land. This rule
again seems fairly self-evident. A man could hardly be called a loyal subject
who gambled in lands under American occupation. Further the Commissioners
disallowed all rents and profits of estates and all estimated profits of offices, pro
fessions, and trades which accrued during the duration of the troubles. These
they regarded as not peculiar to loyalists, and as met by the grants of temporary
support.
Claims upon the Government for work done, money expended on, or goods
furnished to the army or navy, were obviously not losses in consequence of loyalty .
Neither were such incidents of war as losses occasioned by the action of the rival
armies. Similarly losses resulting for a depreciated paper currency were felt by
all the inhabitants and were not a special consequence of loyalty. The Com
missioners held it to be outside their province to advise compensation for debts
due to the claimants from Americans. These could not technically be treated
as losses, the Treaty of Paris having provided that creditors, on either side, should
1 Gentleman s Mag., vol. Iv, part ii, p. 871. 2 Morning Chronicle, June 3, 1785.
( xxxviii )
meet with no lawful impediment in the recovery of the full value of such debts
in lawful money. They, however, judged it proper to receive an account of such
debts, as stated by the claimants, for the information of Government ; and the
result was a subsequent Commission, intended as a Joint Commission, consisting
of British and American members ; the final outcome of which was that the
British and loyalist creditors obtained, years after, a very partial and inadequate
satisfaction of their claims. With this very confused chapter of the history we
need not, however, for present purposes concern ourselves.
In their first Report dated August 10, 1784, the Commissioners wrote :
* The following descriptions of claims (which have likewise been subject-
matter of doubt) we have considered as falling within the extent of our
inquiry.
1. Losses of property in the United States, sustained by persons of undoubted
loyalty, who have resided in England or elsewhere, out of the limits of the United
States, before or during the troubles ; and which losses have been sustained in
consequence of their loyalty and adherence to the British Government.
2. Losses of offices for life, or during the pleasure of the Crown, possessed
before the breaking out of the disturbances.
3. Losses of professional income which the party was accustomed to acquire
before the commencement of the troubles.
4. Claims of real and personal representatives for losses sustained by deceased
loyalists, such claimants proving the loyalty of themselves as well as of the persons
they represent.
The principle , they added, which has directed our mode of conducting the
inquiry, has been that of requiring the very best evidence which the nature and
circumstances of each case will admit : we have in no case, hitherto, thought fit
to dispense with the personal appearance and examination of the claimant, con
ceiving that the inquiry would be extremely imperfect, and insecure against
fraud and misrepresentation, if we had not the advantage of cross-examining the
party himself as well as his witnesses ; nor have we for the same reason allowed much
weight to any testimony that has not been delivered on oath before ourselves. We
have investigated with great strictness the titles to real property, wherever the
necessary documents could be exhibited to us, and when they have not been
produced we have required satisfactory evidence of their loss, or of the inability
of the claimant to procure them.
But, in spite of strict rules and careful practice, there was a block in the path
that no strictness or care could surmount. Their principal and most obvious
difficulty, inseparable from the nature of the inquiry, was the ascertainment
of the value of the property proved to be lost. * In the investigation of matters
of fact , they ruefully wrote, * the judgement is only in danger of being misled
by wilful, false testimony ; but the estimate of value is the subject-matter of
opinion, in which the most upright must ever be liable to differ even concerning
( xxxix )
ordinary objects ; and with respect to landed property in America, they will
perhaps rarely concur, because it is reducible to no fixed standard or mode of
estimate ; but the value of such estate is so distinctly dependent upon its
peculiar circumstances, in respect of local situation and state of cultivation or
improvement, that, in general, it will not afford a rule whereby to measure that
of the estate next adjacent. These difficulties are not a little augmented by our
distance from the spot, and scanty means of information drawn in great measure
from the memories of persons not unconcerned in the issue of the inquiry. Aware
of the extent of this difficulty at the outset, and sensible of the influences of interest
and prejudice upon the testimony likely to be offered in the cases of individuals,
we employed a considerable part of our time in applying ourselves to every source
we could discover from whence general information might be drawn, as to the
value of the different species of property, real and personal, in the different pro
vinces ;< we examined the most intelligent and most respectable characters from each
province, and by comparison of their several accounts with each other, and with
the other evidence we were able to procure, we endeavoured to acquire such know
ledge of the subject as might in some degree shield us from fallacy and imposition.
But, after every precaution we were able to adopt, it is almost needless for us to
confess that we have found ourselves in many instances of landed property at
a remote distance from certainty. In most cases we have been obliged to depend
for information upon such witnesses as the claimant produced to us, but whenever
we could find out any persons of character possessing knowledge of the subject-
matter, we have on our authority sent for and examined them. 7 At a later date
a great improvement was made by the sending of a new Commissioner, Mr. John
Anstey, to America to inquire upon the spot with regard to values ; but it must
be confessed that, for the period with which alone we are here concerned, this
part of the inquiry leaves on one an impression of extreme vagueness, reminding the
present editor of the remark of a kindly clergyman at his old home who, when it
was suggested to him that he was being cheated by the local coal merchant, replied
with regard to the coal that there seemed a good lot of it. We all know what
a difficult matter it is, even in the most favourable circumstances, to arrive at any
general agreement in matters of valuation. What wonder was it when the lands
were situated upon the other side of the Atlantic, when the witnesses were for
the most part more or less prejudiced, being largely past or future claimants,
when the state of things inquired into belonged to a dead past, buried undej the
cataclysm of a political and social revolution, that this branch of the Commis
sioners work proved wellnigh insoluble ?
In brief the plan proposed by Pitt and approved by Parliament was to pay
the full amount of their losses in the case of loyalists whose losses did not exceed
the sum of 10,000, making deductions upon an increasing scale when the losses
exceeded that amount after payment of the first ^lOjOOO. 1
In the case of loyalists who had lost the benefit of either offices or of professional
incomes, the plan was to put such persons upon half pay when the income lost
amounted to not more than 400 per annum. Those whose losses were greater
were to be paid 40 per cent, for every 100 of such income, about 400 when the
value did not exceed 1,500 altogether. Where it did exceed .1,500, the pro
portion was to be reduced to 30 per cent. Although there had been indignant
letters in the newspapers denouncing the injustice of not paying the claims
in full, the conclusion reached seems to have fairly met the equities of the
case.
The twelfth and final Report of the Commissioners belongs to a date (May 15,
1789) of course much later than the cases here dealt with, but it may be
interesting to inspect the general statement of claims made by and losses liquidated
of American loyalists as appended to the Report set out on the next page.
The general result in 1790, according to Wilmot, was that the number of
claims preferred in England and British North America had been 3,225.
Of these were examined . . . 2,291
Disallowed .... 343
Withdrawn . . . 3$
Not presented . . . -553
934
3*225
The total amount of claims preferred had been .10,358,413. The total amount
of claims examined had been .8,216,126. The amount awarded on such claims
was 3,033,091.
The amount of pension paid to two hundred and four loyalists on account
of losses of office or profession was .25,785 per annum, besides annual allowances
to five hundred and eighty-eight persons, chiefly widows, orphans, or merchants
who had no means of livelihood, though they had lost no real or personal
estate.
1 There is a careful resume of Pitt s speech of June 8, 1788, in the Annual Register of 1788, pp. 136-9.
LOSSES OF PROPERTY CLAIMS UNDER THE ACTS OF 1783 AND 1785
No. of Claims.
Amount of Claims.
Losses Allowed.
I. Loyalists who have rendered services to
Great Britain
I 7 6
1,904,632 4
640,090 19
2. Loyalists who bore arms in the service
of Great Britain ....
252
i ,040,506 6
263,135 6
3. Loyalists zealous and uniform
414
1,744,429 1 8
531,616 4
4. Loyal British subjects resident in Great
Britain ......
3
342,139 4
140,927 o
5. Loyalists who took oaths to the American
States, but afterwards joined the
British
22
137,718 3
36,530 o
6. Loyalists who bore arms for the Ameri
can States, but afterwards joined the
British
13
103,362 19
26,738 i
7. Loyalists sustaining losses under the
Prohibitory Act, 21 (N.B. of the 21,
15 are included in other classes) .
6
31,427 i
14,412 13
8. Loyal British proprietors
2
537,854 o
290,000 o
9. Loyalists now subjects or settled inhabi
tants of the United States, some of
whom are persons of great merit and
, have met with peculiar hardships
21
51,578 o
20,077 o
10. Claims disallowed and withdrawn :
(i) Disallowed for want of proof \
of loyalty .... 5
(ii) Disallowed for want of satis
factory proof of loss . . 189 1
* J 4
(iii) Disallowed, being fraudulent . 9 j
243
(iv) Disallowed, being for debts
only . . . , .16
(v) Withdrawn . . . . 24 >
II. Loyal British subjects who appear to
have relief provided for them by the
Treaty of Peace, but state the utter
impossibility of procuring it . .
2
13,270 o
12. Claims presented but not prosecuted
448
959,387 19
1,630
6,857,035 14
i,976,797 3
LOSSES OF INCOME
No. of Claims.
Amount of Claims.
Losses Allowed.
Claims for losses of income which have been
allowed ......
252
92,388
75,234
Claims for a person not a subject or inhabi
tant of the United States
I
600
500
Claims where the parties have died since
their claims were examined .
15
4,683
3,838
Claims which have been disallowed
30
9,685
298
107,356
79,572
( xlii )
LOSSES OF PROPERTY UNDER THE ACTS OF 1783 AND 1785 OF CLAIMANTS IN
BRITISH NORTH AMERICA
No. of Claims.
Amount of Claims.
Losses Allowed.
L d.
L ^
I. Loyalists who have rendered services to
Great Britain .....
74
99,765 7 6
2. Loyalists who bore arms in the service of
Great Britain .....
857
125,146 o o
3. Loyalists zealous and uniform .
293
88,676 14 o
4. Loyalist British subjects resident in Great
Britain ......
i
700 o o
5. Loyalists who took oaths to the American
States, but afterwards joined the British
12
1,635 o o
6. Loyalists who bore arms for the American
States, but afterwards joined the British .
7
4,484 15 o
7. Loyalists sustaining loss under the Pro
hibitory Act .....
3
1,554 o o
W7
919,322 9 5
321,961 16 6
It should be noted that the above Lists do not include the claims under an
Act of 1788, the chief claimants under which were the two Penns, who received
.500,000 against a claim of .944,817 ; but I confess that I cannot altogether
reconcile the different figures given in the Commissioners Report and in
Wilmot s book.
(The Reports are set out in the Second Report of the Bureau of Archives for the
Province of Ontario by A. Fraser, provincial Archivist. Toronto, 1905.)
It remains to say a few words upon the character of these claimants. The best
general evidence as to this is the impression they left upon the minds of the Com
missioners. These men spent long hours in private conference with them and their
witnesses, and saw them as it is seldom given to us to see other men. What then
was the testimony of Messrs Coke and Wilmot ? In a debate in the House of
Commons on June 26, 1786, on the motion for the House to go into a Committee
upon the Appropriation Bill, which contained a grant of .175,500 for the relief
of the American loyalists, Mr. Coke observed that when he entered upon the
execution of his duty as a Commissioner to investigate the cases of these unfor
tunate sufferers, he was far from having a predilection in their favour ; but that,
in the course of his inquiries, he had discovered such merit and sufferings, and
such fidelity and attachment to the Government that he now entertained the
warmest sentiments in their favour, that he always considered the House pledged
to grant the full amount of the losses, as they were liquidated, and, under that