|
As the great profit which attended the Spanish discoveries in the West Indies, gave encouragement to other Nations to try their fortune in the same way, so none were more early in pursuits of this nature than the English, who have in all times been remarkable for their courage and success in maritime affairs; and it appears by Purchas his Pilgrims, the most authentic collection of Travels extant in the English language, printed in the year 1625, that three ships employ'd by the Earl of Cumberland, (appendix i) a subject of England, sailing to the Antilles, discovered the island of Sta. Lucia in the year 1593, which was about 33 years before the French had settlements in any of the Antilles or Carribbee Islands, and about 47 years before their first settlement in Sta. Lucia; for Pere du Tertre, one of their best writers, in his Histoire General des Antilles printed at Paris in 1667, says, the first settlement the French had in the Antilles, was at St. Christophers in the year 1627, and their first settlement at Sta. Lucia in 1640; (appendix ii). He mentions their settlement at St. Christophers in the following words, Mais parce que l'etablissement dans l'isle de St. Christophe a esté comme le fondement de tous les autres etablissements, et que cette isle a eté comme la pepiniere qui a fourny toutes les autres isles, c'est ce que m'oblige de commencer par l'etablissement qui s'y fit l'an 1667, sous la conduite de Monsr. d'Enambuc. This author's relations are frequently vouch'd by the records and royal acts of France and so they are in the present case; (ap. iii.). He says, the English and French took possession of different parts of this island the same day, which must have been some time in the year 1625, but he does not date his settlement till two years after, when a subscription had been taken in, under the protection of Cardinal Richelieu in France, for their support. These subscribers were afterwards known by the name of the French West India Company the first instrument of their Association (ap. iv) bears date 31st Oct. 1626, and the settlement under Monsr. d'Enambuc, mention'd in the French quotation, was made in the following year, 1627. It is very probable that at the time of forming this Company, Sta. Lucia was not known in France, (or that they then knew it to be an English Colony) because the Cardinal Richelieu's Commission (ap. v) as Surintendant du commerce de France to Messrs. d'Enambuc et Rossey, which refers to, and bears equal date with the above-mentioned Association, empowers them to take possession of St. Christophers and Barbadoes only, by name; and in the recital part of that Commission, where mention is made of the Islands which the said d'Enambuc and Rossey had discovered, St. Christophers and Barbadoes only are particularly nam'd. Not many years after the Earl of Cumberland had discover'd the Island of Sta. Lucia, one Sir Oliph Leagh (ap. vi.) a Kentish Gentleman, having embark'd some people for the West Indies (where a brother of his had planted a Colony) sixty six of his men, under the command of Capt. Nicholas St. John, landed at Sta. Lucia in August 1605. This proof is also taken from Purchas, whose Travels were actually printed in England before the first settlement, mention'd by Pere du Tertre, to have been made by the French in any of the Antilles or Charribbee Islands: nor is this much to be wonder'd at, considering how early the British subjects were in making settlements even on the Continent of America, under the conduct of Sir Walter Raleigh, and other famous Captains in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Pere du Tertre takes notice (ap. vii) that the English Colony at St. Christophers increas'd much faster than that of the French, and that the English were very early in condition to settle other Islands; he mentions particularly that of Nevis, and it appears by the books of entries in our Office (ap. viii), that Sir Thomas Warner who took possession of St. Christophers the same day that Mons. d'Enambuc landed there, sent likewise an English Colony to Sta. Lucia in 1626, and made one Major Judge Governor of that Island. Pere du Tertre also observes (ap. ix) that a Company was form'd in England, under the Earl of Carlisle, for settling the Antilles about the same time that the subscription was taken by Cardinal Richlieu in France for the same purpose, by which we presume, he means some Company previous to the patent by which King Charles I granted all the Charribbe Islands or Antilles to that Earl, bearing date 2nd June in the third year of his reign anno 1627; the recital of this Patent runs in the following terms; Whereas Our Well-beloved and faithful Cousin and Councillor, James etc. Earl of Carlisle, having a laudable and zealous care to increase Christian Religion, and to enlarge the territories of Our Empire in certain lands situated to the Northward region of the World, which region or islands are hereafter describ'd, which before were unknown, and by certain barbarous men having no knowledge of the Divine power, in some part possess'd, commonly call'd the Charribbee Islands, containing in them these islands following, vizt., St. Christophers, Granada, St. Vincent, Sta. Lucia, Barbadoes, Mittalanea, Dominico, Marigalante, Dessuda, Todosantes, Guardaloupe, Antigua, Montserrat, Redendo, Barbuda, Nevis, Statia, St. Bartholomew, St. Martin, Anguilla, Sembrera, and Enegada, and other islands before found out, to his great cost and charges, and brought to that pass, to be a large and copious Colony of English." From this recital, far different from that of the Cardinal Richlieu's Commission to Messrs. d'Enambuc and Rossey, it is plain that the English were not only well acquainted with Sta. Lucia and the other Charribbee Islands, but had actually taken possession of them in behalf of the Crown of Great Britain long before this patent pass'd; and by the Lord Carlisle's Commission (ap. x) to Sir Thos. Warner, it is evident that he had taken possession of all the said islands respectively, some time during the reign of King James I (who dy'd 27th March, 1625), as will appear from the said Commission etc. It appears by the books of entries in our Office; that in pursuance of this grant, the Earl of Carlisle continued (ap. xi) to send several Colonies of English to Santa Lucia in 1635, 1637, 1638, and 1640. These facts were verify'd by affidavits taken upon oath before Commissioners appointed by King James II in 1688, to examine into and report upon his title to the Charribbee Islands, an extract of which report is hereunto annex'd, so far as it relates to this affair, the truth whereof we presume, will hardly be contested, because the French do not pretend to have taken possession of this Island till the year 1640. The French Historians, Pere du Tertre and Pere Labbatt (a more modern author) both agree: (ap. ii and xii) that the French had no pretensions to Sta. Lucia, before 1640; and Pere du Tertre says expressly, that the English were possess'd of Sta. Lucia in 1639; But that about the year 1640, the major part of the English inhabitants, with their Governor, were massacred by the Indians: He likewise confesses that the English suspected Monsr. du Parquet, then Governor of Martinique, had instigated the savages to commit this act, but that du Parquet had clear'd himself of that charge to Monsr. de Poincy (then Governor of St. Christophers, and Lieut. General of the French in those parts, to whom the Governor of Barbadoes had complain'd) by proving that he, du Parquet, had given the English warning of the savages' design, assoon as he had notice of it; Be that as it may, it is certain that du Parquet, contrary to the law of Nations, to the amity then subsisting between the two Crowns, taking advantage of our distress, possess'd himself of this island soon after that massacre. Pere du Tertre says, that finding the English were retir'd from Sta. Lucia (and happy they certainly were, that could retire at that time), Monsr. du Parquet sent thither forty men, and built a fort there; but it is evident the French were not then ignorant of the right the King of England had to this island; for the Governor of Barbadoes having complain'd to Monsr. de Poincy, that du Parquet had engag'd the savages to commit this general murther, he clear'd himself, as hath been observ'd, by alledging that he gave the English early notice of it, which he would hardly have done, if both he and Monsr. de Poincy had not look'd upon the English to have been the lawful possessors of Sta. Lucia at that time. It is very remarkable that this possession, so unjustly acquir'd by the French, happen'd during the troubles of England, and during this unfortunate interval it is that the French value themselves upon a succession of Governors in this island for near twenty years, whilst our Civil Wars and daily Revolutions at home prevented the English from asserting their rights in America; though some unsuccessful attempts were made by the Proprietor, Lord Carlisle, even during that time of confusion, for recovery of his right; for it appears by the report (ap. xi) already mention'd that the Earl of Carlisle did send English people thither from Barbadoes in 1644 and 1645, and both Pere du Tertre (ap. xiii) and Pere Labat take notice of some endeavours us'd by the English for regaining Sta. Lucia during their temporary possession; Pere Labat (ap. xiv) particularly mentions a descent made by the English in the year 1657, when, he says, they were beaten off the island by the French; which is another instance of our having kept up a perpetual claim of right there. But upon the Restoration of the Royal Family, King Charles II hardly found himself settled upon the Throne of his ancestors, before he began to think of vindicating his right in a more vigorous manner. The ancient Proprietor, Ld. Carlisle, having surrendred his patent to the Crown, and King Charles II intending to make Francis Lord Willoughby, Governor of the Carribbee Islands, granted to him in 1662, one moiety of the revenue of the said islands for the term of seven years, in which grant Sta. Lucia, St. Vincents and Dominico are particularly nam'd; and in the year following the said Lord Willoughby's Commission for Governor of the Charribbee Islands having pass'd the Seals; he was particularly instructed to assert H.M. right to all the said islands etc. (ap. xvi). In consequence of these Instructions, an agreement was made with the Indians for the purchase of Sta. Lucia in 1663 (ap. xvii), and the said Lord Willoughby sent a regiment of Foot thither from Barbadoes, under the command of Col. Carew in June, 1664, who, being kindly receiv'd by the said Indians, asserted the British right to that island, regain'd our ancient possession from the French, and remain'd for some time Deputy Governor there; as may appear by the Articles of Capitulation between the French Governor of Sta. Lucia and the said Col. Carew, dated the 23rd of June, 1664; as also by Monsr. Seignelay's letter, and by all the proceedings between the English and French Commissaries (ap. xxiv–xxx). But because the French in their conferences with Mr. Poyntz upon this subject, assert that, after the massacre of the English, they took possession of this island by consent of the Indian natives, it may not be amiss to observe, that we must undoubtedly have had the like consent even to our first settlements, far more ancient than theirs; but we rather chuse to put the issue of your Majesty's right upon a more solid foundation, an ancient and continued possession, till the same was interrupted in the manner, and at the juncture already mention'd, and that interruption maintain'd by wrongful force, till Col. Carew in 1664 restor'd the Crown of Great Britain to its ancient possession of this Island, at which time the Indian natives in acknowledgement of our title, so far as they had any interest in the soil, delivered solemn possession thereof by twig and turf, after the old English manner, to the said Col. Carew, which we do not esteem as an original grant, for we had already a title of much older date, but as a confirmation or release, upon our being remitted to our former possession; the deed of purchase for this island, sign'd by the Indians, is enter'd in the books of our Office etc. (ap. xvii). As the regaining our ancient possession of Sta. Lucia by Col. Carew, in the month of June, 1664, is a fact of great importance, so it happens very fortunately, to be attested by the strongest proofs; For, to say nothing farther of the records of our own Office, quote Pere du Tertre, Hist. Gen. des Antilles III, pp. 81, 86, 87. Continue:—In 1665 Robert Cooke Esq. was Governor of Sta. Lucia, and it was during his government that the French pretend the English sent six Deputies to surrender the said Island again to them (ap. xviii), to which fact even Pere du Tertre himself has given a very full answer, namely, that the said Governor Cooke absolutely disown'd those pretended Deputies. About this time, the Lord Francis Willoughby dying, was succeeded by his brother the Lord William Willoughby, who being made Governor of Barbadoes in the year 1666, was particularly instructed to streighten, distress and dispossess any of the French King's subjects, who might attempt to possess themselves of the Islands under his Government, as appears by the records and books of entries in our Office. From that time to this day, the island of Sta. Lucia has always been reputed a dependence upon the Government of Barbadoes, and as such has constantly been inserted in all Commissions and Instructions given to the respective Governors of Barbadoes, since that time etc. Quote 12th Article of Treaty of Breda, upon which chiefly the French have hitherto founded their pretensions. Continue:—To apply this article in support of their pretensions, the French say, that in 1640, the English having deserted this Island, Monsr. Diet du Parquet, then Governor of Martinique, took possession of it by consent of the savages, there being at that time no English men to defend it, that he built a fort, and establish'd a succession of Governors there, who kept possession of the island for upwards of twenty years; that in 1650, the property of this island was sold to du Parquet by the Old West India Company, and in 1664 du Parquet sold that island and Martinique to the French King for 240,000 livres, who being, as they suppose, in possession thereof at the time the Treaty of Breda was made, they conclude that the Crown of France, is, by the above mention'd Article, clearly entitled to the island of Sta. Lucia. That the French under Monsr. du Parquet took possession of this island in 1640, has already been acknowledg'd. It has been fully shewn upon what occasion, and at what juncture of time that possession was taken; it has been prov'd that both Monsr. du Poincy (who was then Governor of St. Christophers and Lt. General of the French in those parts) as well as Monsr. du Parquet, knew this island belong'd to the Crown of Great Britain, and that the possession taken by du Parquet, was not upon a voluntary dereliction, but upon a massacre committed on the English by the savages, in which du Parquet was suspected to have engag'd them; it has been shewn that frequent attempts were made by the Proprietor to regain the possession of the said island, and a perpetual claim kept up there, during the twenty years that it was forceably and unjustly withholden from him; It has likewise been prov'd, that soon after the Restoration King Charles II effectually asserted his right, that he retook the said island from the French, by his troops in June, 1664, and that the said King Charles was in possession of Sta. Lucia at the time prefix'd by the Treaty of Breda, for settling the future right to possessions. As the Treaty of Breda was made to put an end to all differences between the contracting powers, so the most equitable rule for that purpose was, that all parties shou'd be put in the state they were in before the war began: and it is evidently the design of the Treaty, that all the contracting powers should hold what they were possessed of respectively on 1st Jan., 1665. Specifick stipulations were therefore made for the restitution not only of such dominions, where the possession was known to have been alter'd during the course of the war, but even for such as were only suspected to have been alter'd; thus the restitution of the moiety of St. Christophers to the English, was stipulated by the 7th Article, and by the 9th a restitution of a moiety of the same island to the French, in case they had by the chance of war been driven out of it in their turn; thus also by the 12th Article a provisional restitution is agreed on for the islands of Antegoa and Montserrat, in favour of the English, because it was not impossible that these islands might have been in the possession of the French at the time that Treaty was sign'd. This being plainly the sense of the Treaty it is very extraordinary that the French should call upon us, as they have sometimes done during the course of this contest, to shew that the Treaty of Breda had made a specifick provision for the restitution of Sta. Lucia to the English. We had no occasion for such an Article. We were restor'd to our ancient possession there, before the Dutch war began; Colo. Carew retook the island in June, 1664; and as this restoration to our ancient right, happen'd three years before the conclusion of the Treaty of Breda, it was impossible the French should have been so long ignorant of it, and consequently it will be incumbent upon them to produce a specefick article in their favour, for it is an incontestable fact that we were in possession of this island before, and in the year 1665, and if the French had not been convinc'd that Sta. Lucia belong'd to us, they would not have been so negligent of their own interest, as not to have kept up their claim to it by the Treaty of Breda. Here therefore we might safely adventure to rest the issue of this contest, for the Treaty of Breda expressly provides that each of the contracting powers should hold, or be restor'd to, whatever each of those Powers respectively did hold on the first of January, 1665; But on the first of January, 1665, your Majesty's Royal Ancestor King Charles II was in actual possession of the island of Sta. Lucia, and therefore by the Treaty of Breda, as well as by an ancient and almost immemorial right your Majesty is indisputably entitled to the said island. But because your Majesty has been pleased to order us to enable your Ministers at the French Court to answer all such arguments as may probably be offered by the French in maintenance of their title to Sta. Lucia, we shall succinctly deduce the history of this island to the present time. It has already been observ'd, that from the date of Lord William Willoughby's Commission to be Governor of Barbadoes, Santa Lucia has constantly been deem'd a dependence upon Barbadoes, and as such has always been inserted in the Commission and Instructions for that Government since that time. It has been shewn that the Governors of Barbadoes have been instructed to assert the British title to this and other Charribbee Islands included in their Commission; we have seen some instances wherein they have done so, and it is not to be doubted that they have always paid a proper regard to this Instruction. But the first instance we find in our books, of any complaint upon this head from the French, is a memorial from Monsr. Seignelay, bearing date near twenty years after the Treaty of Breda, which gave occasion to the Board in a former report upon this subject, to say that the first claim laid to Sta. Lucia by the French, was in the year 1685, for it was in that year the Governor of Barbadoes receiv'd news of their endeavouring to settle there, from whence they were some time after expell'd; and Monsr. Seignelay's letter upon that subject bears date 19th Nov., 1686. The occasion of this complaint was, that Col. Stede, then Governor of Barbadoes, had in July, 1686, sent one Capt. Temple to Sta. Lucia, with orders to cause all foreigners to remove from thence, unless they acknowledg'd the King of England's Sovereignty over that island: When Capt. Temple arriv'd there, he publish'd the King's title in the presence of such of the French as could be found; and he erected, as a mark thereof, the arms of England in the chief ports, caus'd the French to be remov'd to Martinique, and wrote to the Count Blenac, the French Governor there, to acquaint him with what he had done, requiring him not to suffer any persons within his Government to cut wood, plant, fish or hunt on Sta. Lucia, without licence from the Governor of Barbadoes, as appears by Colo. Stede's letter and by depositions enter'd on record in the books of the Board of Trade (ap. xx). Count Blenac having complain'd of these proceedings, the abovemention'd office was pass'd by Monsr. Seignelay, the effect whereof was, that King James again asserted his title, and Capt. Temple was a second time commission'd to drive off all foreigners from Sta. Lucia, to demolish their houses, and to destroy their settlements, which he did, and was actually in possession of the island in Aug. 1686 (ap. xxi); and in the beginning of Nov. 1686, when the Treaty of Neutrality between the two Nations was sign'd at Whitehall, the King's frigot with a fleet of ships from Barbadoes were cutting timber at Sta. Lucia at that very period of time. Monsr. Seignelay's letter was fully answer'd by the Lords of the Committee of Council for Trade and Plantations. The French pretensions to the island of Sta. Lucia were then built almost upon the same foundation on which they now seem to rely, and the answer then given, pretty near the same with that which we shall now depend upon. The fact complained of by Monsr. Seignelay was committed during the time that the Treaty of Neutrality was in agitation; for in his letter (ap. xxii), he says, Sa Majesté en a été d' autant plus surprize qu' on est (comme vous scavez) depuis près d'un an à concluire un Traité de Neutralité entre les deux Nations etc.; yet not one syllable is mention'd of Sta Lucia in that whole Treaty, which was sign'd the 16th of November, 1686, some few days after the date of this letter, and afterwards ratify'd by both the contracting powers, tho' the French knew, the King of England was then in possession of that island. By the 4th Article of this Treaty, it was agreed that both Kings should hold and retain all they then possess'd in America, (quoted). And by the 19th Article, (ap. xxiii), the Treaty of Breda is fully confirm'd in all its articles and clauses; from whence we conclude, that as well by the Treaty of Neutrality as by the Treaty of Breda, your Majesty is clearly entitled to the island of Sta. Lucia. That the Treaty of Neutrality was understood to be decisive in that point, appears (ap. xxi) by the entries in our Office; for in March 1686–7, Colo. Stede publish'd it in Sta. Lucia, as a dependence on his Government, and caus'd the arms of England to be erected in the most eminent places there, by the King's express order. In May, 1687, Commissaries were appointed on both sides, to put this treaty in execution, and to settle the respective boundaries of the two Crowns in America; the Earls of Sunderland and Middleton, and the Lord Godolphin in behalf of the English; Messrs. Barillon and Bonrepos in behalf of the French; and we have in the Appendix (xxiv.–xxx.) annex'd copies of several papers remaining in our Office upon that subject by which it plainly appears upon how weak a foundation the French pretensions to this island stand. We shall only observe upon these papers, that the whole debate at that time roll'd upon the twelfth Article of the Treaty of Breda, (which had been confirm'd by the Treaty of Neutrality), and as Messieurs Barillon and Bonrepous both acknowledg'd that we were in possession of Sta. Lucia in 1664, before the Dutch war broke out, the then English Commissaries thought, as we do now, that the right to that island was indisputably in the Crown of Great Britain; and indeed there is some reason to believe that the French Commissaries thought so too; for notwithstanding they knew us to be in possession of the island, this Treaty ended in a Convention for a general cessation of hostilities between the two Crowns in America (ap. xxxi). In April 1688, some French being again crept into the island (ap. xxxii), Capt. Wrenn disturb'd their settlements, and asserted the ancient right of the Crown of England. It likewise appears by the report of the Commissioners appointed by Colo. Stede (ap. xi), to make enquiry into the King's title to the Charribbee Islands, dated in 1688, that Captn. James Walker being some years before, sent by the Governor of St. Christophers to subdue the Indians of Sta. Lucia, St. Vincents and Dominico, for the outrages and murthers by them committed on ye King's subjects, and finding some French hunting and fishing upon those islands without licence from the King, or any of his Governors, he drove them from thence; and that after that time the French, in acknowledgement of H.M. right, frequently repair'd to His Governor, for licence and permits to hunt and fish within the limits and bounds of those three islands. Such was the state of Sta. Lucia at the Revolution; and that King William III likewise asserted his right to this Island, appears by the orders sent to Colo. Grey, His Governor of Barbadoes in 1699, for upon notice that some French had employ'd negro's to clear the ground, and intended to make settlements there, H.M. renew'd the directions formerly given Colo. Stede, to advertise the French and all other foreigners who should pretend to settle on that island, that unless they would remove, they should be dispossess'd by force. Upon which we beg leave to observe, that these orders were given by King William about two years after the Peace of Ryswick; the Instructions for the same purpose sent by King James II to Colo. Stede were likewise in time of peace, and almost all the instances we have hitherto produc'd, of asserting the British right to this Island, have been acts done whilst friendship subsisted between the two Crowns; particularly the embarkation under the command of Colo. Carew in 1664, whereby we regain'd our ancient possession, which was about seven months before the Dutch War begun. We must likewise take notice, that about this time the French grew doubtfull of their ancient pretensions, and began to vary the plan of their title ; for we find by a memorial presented to King William in Jan. 1699/1700 by the Mareschall Tallard upon this subject, he places the right to Sta. Lucia in the Charribbean savages, affirming that by some former Treaty that Island and St. Vincents had been allotted them for a retreat; and as the said King had taken the said savages under his protection, His Christian Majesty then demanded those islands might not be possess'd by the English ; extracts of this Memorial and of the answer given by the Board of Trade are annex'd (ap. xxxiv, xxxv). But what Treaty the Mareschall meant, we cannot conceive, having never yet seen or heard of any such agreement between the Two Crowns. |
