and possibly the flat shores of Jersey or the bold cliffs of Bergen Heights may have been included in the prospect. The house is no more, and were it still in existence, how different the prospect! The building at 324 to 328 Pearl street, on Franklin Square, opposite Harper & Brothers' publishing house, occupies the site. As late as 1867, an inscription still announced to the curious that this was "The Old Walton House." It was then utilized as a boarding house or hotel for sailors. Another step back, and we find in 1832, that the noble mansion, after nearly eighty years, was still intact as to its interior arrangements. In the "New York Mirror," of March 17 of that year, the following description occurs: "It is a brick edifice, fifty feet in front and three stories high, built with Holland bricks, relieved by brown stone water tables, lentils, and jams, with walls as substantial as many modern churches. The superb staircase in its ample hall, with mahogany handrails and banisters by age as dark as ebony, would not disgrace a nobleman's palace" * Another writer of about that time, whose mother had seen it illuminated in celebration of the repeal of the stamp act, says of it: "It has even now an air of ancient stately grandeur. It has five windows in front; has a double pitched roof covered with tiles and a double course of balustrades thereon. Formerly its garden extended down to the river." | Garden and house have both disappeared, there is not even that inscription "coarsely painted in dingy white on its muddy red walls," to mark the spot where "the nonpareil of the city in 1762, had fallen from its greatness. It was torn down in 1881.

While De Lancey, Hardy, again De Lancey, and finally Colden, ruled the province between the years 1753 and 1761, the cloud of war was not only hanging over the country but burst in storms of considerable violence upon certain parts of it. New-York province and New-York city from their central position, necessarily played an important part in the French and Indian war; and hence there arises the necessity of obtaining a clear view of the circumstances attending its conduct, though mainly from the standpoint of the city's interest and participation therein. The peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, putting an end in 1748 to the general European war, known as that of the "Austrian Succession," was still in force in Europe, so far as the surface of things went, when it had already been infringed for a

* John Austin Stevens, "Biographical Sketches," pp. 61, 62.

+ Historic Tales of Olden Time in New-York City, by John F. Watson (New-York, 1832), p. 192.

year or two in America. In 1756, Frederick the Great of Prussia could restrain his ambition no longer, and precipitated the "Seven Years' War." But in 1754, or even earlier, the movements of the French in America had become so distinctly hostile in intent, if not in action, that a general alarm spread throughout the English colonies, and emphasized the necessity of concerted action on the part of all. From the mouth of the Mississippi along the Ohio to the mouth of the St. Lawrence, it was the plan of the French to establish a chain of forts, to hem in the English upon the sea border. It might thereafter be only a question of time to drive them off this territory also. The scheme was a magnificent one and cannot but compel admiration. It was near enough realization, too, to merit more than admiration in those days, and to lift it above a mere visionary dream. But often do our enemies teach us our best

lessons; and the French chain of forts led to the eventual confederation of American States. In 1754, delegates from all the colonies met in Albany, New-York. The congress met mainly to conclude an alliance with the Six Nations against the French. It assembled in the Court House, on Wednesday, June 19, 1754; LieutenantGovernor De Lancey of New York presided. There were twenty-three delegates New York being represented by four; New Hampshire

by four; Massachusetts by four; Connecticut by three; Rhode Island by two; Maryland by two; and Pennsylvania by four, one of whom was Benjamin Franklin. * Conferences were duly held with the Indians, and the usual flowery speeches exchanged; but at the session of Monday afternoon, June 24, "a motion was made that the Commissioners deliver their opinion, whether a Union of all the Colonies is not at present absolutely necessary for their security and defence." The motion being put, it was carried unanimously, Franklin was made chairman of the committee to draft a plan, and on July 10, the plan he proposed was adopted, and ordered to be laid before the several colonial governments represented at the congress, as also before those not represented. It provided for a PresidentGeneral, appointed by the crown, assisted by a grand council composed of forty-eight representatives chosen by the seven provincial assemblies; none of the colonies to have less than two, but otherwise in proportion to their population, so that Massachusetts and Virginia were each to have seven, the highest number. Strange to say, this "Plan of Union," the forerunner of that confederation and federation which Franklin contributed so much to effect later, was equally distasteful to the colonies and to England. The latter apprehended too great power in the provinces; the provinces were jealous of the too greatly centralized power it would give the crown. But such a seed could not fail of fruitage, for it was laid within exactly the right kind of soil.

Though political consolidation was not yet to be for many a year, and then only at the expense of British dominion, the idea of military combination was put into practical shape by the British ministry in 1756, when the Earl of Loudoun was made commanderin-chief of the Army, throughout British North America. His chief recommendation for the post must have been, as it almost always was in the case of the colonial governors, eminent and signal unfitness for the position. He was, says Bancroft, "utterly wanting in the qualities of a military officer, or a statesman, or of a man in any sort of business." But the secret of the blunder made in the appointment lay in the fact that he was "a friend of Halifax, passionately zealous for the subordination and inferiority of the colonies." This might have been a fine state of mind for a man sent to fight the colonists already in rebellion. But the effect of

Doc. rel. Col. Hist. N. Y., 6: 853.

+ lb., 6: 859.

Ib., 6: 889; "Bancroft, Hist. United States," (ed. 1883) 2: 387.

this temper in dealing with the people he came to defend was to hasten on their insubordination, and thereby to raise them from a state of inferiority to one of national independence and equality. His presence in New-York city was attended by nothing but friction, by insult and tyranny on his part, by resistance and defiance on the part of both people and magistrates. Some of the chief events of the war had already taken place before the commander-inchief appeared upon the scene. In 1755, four campaigns had been planned by General Braddock, a narrow minded, opinionated soldier, but then, at least, a soldier and a brave one, and not a mere puppet or figurehead like Loudoun. Braddock's expedition against Fort Duquesne ended in disastrous failure and his own death. The second expedition depended upon coöperation with the

against Fort Niagara. The third expedition was placed in charge of Colonel William Johnson, the famous Indian agent, and was to be directed against Crown Point. This alone was followed by the discomforture of the French. It brings the blush of shame upon the cheek of one who feels for the honor of Englishmen that a fourth exploit, planned for 1755, was also successful. We need only mention that it was directed against the harmless and unresisting families of French farmers living in Acadia. That this outrage, which words fail to denounce as it deserves, has given us "Evangeline," is the single good that has come to the English name out of this disgraceful evil, only less infamous than the massacre of Glencoe.

In these times of war on its western and northern frontiers, NewYork city was the scene of much bustle and excitement. As early as 1755, after Braddock's defeat, De Lancey urged upon the British

ministry the advantages which New-York city possessed for cstablishing there "a general Magazine of Arms and Military Stores," for the supply of the various armies operating in different parts of the country. The lords of trade entirely agreed with him in this opinion. They therefore proposed that whatever the king should "think proper to order to be sent to North America (except such as are ordered for particular services) should be lodged in a storehouse at New York, under the care of a Storekeeper to be appointed by His Majesty for that purpose, subject to the Controul and direction. of the person who shall be appointed to the command of His Majtys forces there, and of the Gov" or Commander in Chief of New-York.* This, of course, meant business for New York's citizens, a stimulus to trade in arms as well as in farm products, an increase of profits for her merchants; but the arrival of troops was neither so pleasant nor so advantageous to her citizens. In June, 1756, Sir Charles Hardy, first announced that the Earl of Loudoun was coming to assume command of the army; but actual contact was not had with this brilliant individual until after Oswego had been disgracefully lost to the French. A thousand soldiers of the regular army were then sent down to New York for winter quarters. The old barracks in the fort were fitted up after a fashion for their reception, but there was no room for the officers. The law, while requiring troops to be cared for, contemplated payment for the quartering; but Loudoun treated the provincials much as he would an enemy, and insisted, with profane threats and bluster, upon free quarters. Mayor Cruger firmly resisted the outrage, and, when the arrogant commander could not be brought to reason, led in a subscription among the wealthy inhabitants to pay for the lodgings of the officers in the houses of those who could not entertain them without charge.t Meantime efforts had been going on to put the city in a good state

* Doc. rel. Col. Hist. N. Y., 6: 1016.

+ Smith's Hist. N. Y., 2: 292, 294; Stevens Biog. Sketches, p. 7.