Count deBruhl The other day I visited Chingford Old Church, Essex, and saw for the first time a plain headstone to the memory of "George, Count deBruhl, died 1855, aged 80 years." It would be very interesting to lovers of Carlyle's "Frederick the Great" if it could be shown what connection there was between the Saxon Prime Minister, Count deBruhl, who suffers from the lash of Carlyle, and the George, Count deBruhl, whose bones lie at Chingford; also what led to his burial overlooking the valley of Isaac Walton's gentle Lea. For the information of the curious among your readers, I may add that the stone is to be found on the left of the stile leading from the path across the Lea valley meadows.
F.H. Wiltshire.
Notes and Queries, Page 189 September 05, 1903
Transcribed by Norman DeBruhl
February 28, 2009
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Harriot Manuscripts
Thomas Harriot's manuscripts
Alphabetical list of History Topics
History Topics IndexVersion for printing
Thomas Harriot died in 1621. He had published no mathematical or astronomical works during his lifetime, but he left his papers in reasonably good order and set out his wishes in his will that they should be properly edited and published. This article tells the story of how 380 years have passed since Harriot's death yet, despite many attempts, his dying wishes have not yet been properly carried out.
The story of how knowledge of Thomas Harriot's mathematical genius has come down to us is related in several of the references, see for example [1], [2], or [4]. We quote from the preface of [4]:-
It is now more than 350 years since Thomas Harriot on his deathbed considered his fame and reputation. Alas! Though recognised by his contemporaries as England's most profound mathematician, most imaginative and methodical experimental scientist, and first of all Englishmen to make a telescope and turn it on the heavens, Harriot had not prepared his works for the use of future generations. The thousands upon thousands of sheets of mathematics and of scientific observations which had occupied most of his waking hours were lost to sight, buried in private archives. Early discussions in the newly founded Royal Society of London centred around the search for Harriot's lost papers, but inquiries made from 1662 to 1669 proved fruitless, and it was finally assumed that they had been destroyed.
The rediscovery of Harriot's papers occurred in 1784. The story is somewhat complicated and future events were much influenced by the character of the person who made the discovery. Franz Xaver Zach was an Austrian, described in [2] as:-
an arrogant young man of boundless ambition.
Zach had been appointed as tutor to the son of Count de Bruhl so, when de Bruhl was sent to England in 1783 as Saxon Minister, Zach came to London with him. While in England, de Bruhl married again, this time to Lady Egremont who was a descendant of Harriot's patron Henry Percy, 9th Duke of Northumberland. The Egremont estates were at Petworth in Sussex and this had been Henry Percy's country estate. The Count de Bruhl visited Petworth in the summer of 1784 and there he found Harriot's manuscripts hidden among the stable accounts.
The manuscripts had been untouched since Henry Percy's death in 1632, eleven years after Harriot's own death. Count de Bruhl passed the manuscripts to his son's tutor, Franz Xaver Zach. Now Zach was certainly ambitious and saw at once that he had had the good fortune to make himself famous. He began making public statements regarding the discoveries he had made in studying Harriot's manuscripts.
It is a little hard today to understand the background of rivalry that existed at this time among English and Continental mathematicians. The rivalry had little to do with science, and everything to do with ignorant nationalism. Sadly newspapers toady still show signs that xenophobia is alive and well, but at least mathematicians and scientists have common goals which today mostly lift them above worrying about national boundaries. In the period when the Royal Society sought Harriot's papers in the 1660s one has the feeling it was more to do with showing that an Englishman was superior to Vite, Kepler and Galileo than it was to do with the importance in studying the development of mathematical thought!
Despite the fact that Harriot's work was of the very highest quality and importance, Zach made claims about it which were over the top [4]:-
...[Zach's] perusal showed Harriot to anticipate and be greater in his accomplishments than either Kepler or Galileo.
In 1786 Zach proposed to the Oxford University Press that he publish a major biography of Harriot together with an edited edition of the most important of Harriot's manuscripts. Thomas Hornsby, the Savilian Professor of Astronomy at Oxford, proposed Zach for an honorary degree which was awarded in 1786. It is somewhat ironical that Hornsby, best known for his role in setting up the Radcliffe Observatory at Oxford, himself made tens of thousands of observations which were not published until 1932, about 150 years after they were recorded.
Also in 1786 Zach was granted the title Baron von Zach which, like his honorary doctorate, Zach used to promote himself. Zach was now appointed as director of a new astronomical observatory to be built at Seeberg, Gotha. This post carried with it important other roles which made Zach a leading man in European science. Although he continued to give lectures on Harriot and wrote an article repeating his over the top claims, von Zach had little time to devote to editing Harriot's papers, a task which might have occupied him without other distractions for the rest of his life. At this stage von Zach held what he considered the most important of Harriot's papers in his own possession, something which Count de Bruhl had been happy to allow to aid von Zach in the editorial task he believed he was undertaking.
Without doing any editorial work whatsoever, and without writing any biographical material, von Zach sent some of Harriot's papers to the Principal of Brasenose College in 1794 and asked that he forward them to Oxford University Press for publication. It was clear to Oxford Press that they had not received manuscripts in a fit state for publication, but they divided the papers into two groups, mathematical papers and astronomical papers, and sent them to two referees for opinions about publication.
The mathematical papers were sent to Abraham Robertson. Now Robertson was a rather remarkable person. He had started out in life as a domestic servant. One day while serving at table he was reprimanded for not paying attention to his duties. He confessed that he had been listening to his master and a guest arguing about the solution to a mathematical problem. Both, he politely pointed out, were wrong in their opinions and he proceeded to explain the correct solution. A poor students place was found for Robertson by his master at Oxford. Three years after receiving Harriot's papers to referee for publication, Robertson was appointed Savilian Professor of Geometry and, in 1810, Savilian Professor of Astronomy.
Robertson reported promptly on the mathematical papers sent top him (see for example [4]):-
These papers, excepting the last, are in no point of view fit for publication. The greatest part of them consists of detached and unfinished explanations ... begun [by Harriot], according to all appearance, with the design of satisfying his own mind upon the subject before him, and dropped abruptly once that satisfaction had been obtained ...
The review ends with the comment that to publish the papers in their present state would injure Harriot's reputation. This assessment was entirely fair. However, expectations of imminent publication had been roused. Hutton wrote in his Mathematical Dictionary published in 1797 (see, for example [1]):-
As to the manuscripts lately discovered by Dr Zach ... it is with pleasure I can announce that they are in a fair train to be published: they have been presented to the University of Oxford, on condition of printing them; with a view to which, they have been lately put into the hands of an ingenious member of that learned body, to arrange and prepare them for the press.
However, when the referee of the astronomical papers failed to reply, these too were sent to Robertson as a referee in 1798. His report on these really does seem to completely miss the point. Robertson claimed that their publication would not:-
... contribute, in the smallest degree, to the advancement of astronomy.
Although Robertson was correct in claiming that no unknown scientific facts were contained in the papers, he seems to have totally missed the fact that Harriot's work is of fundamental importance in the development of the subject.
As the years went by more and more criticism was aimed at Oxford University Press for the lack of appearance of Harriot's papers. They had sent the manuscripts back to Petworth House in 1799 having made the decision that publication in their present form was impossible. In 1822 Robertson, angry that Playfair and others were attacking Oxford University Press, made his reports on the papers public.
The next step was that [4]:-
Rigaud, Savilian Professor at Oxford, and Henry Stevens of Vermont, an antiquarian bookseller, both turned their hands to revealing the true Harriot in the nineteenth century. Neither fully succeeded.
In fact Stephen Peter Rigaud, who succeeded Robertson to both Savilian chairs at Oxford, was much more interested in the history of mathematics than Robertson had been. It is written in [1] that he:-
... played a major part in the renaissance of the history of mathematics - of Newtonian studies in particular ... Besides more general themes, he took pains to explore Oxford's own contributions to historical scholarship.
Rigaud was one of the Delegates of the Oxford Press, and his initial reason in becoming involved in the controversy over Harriot's papers was to defend the position of the Press. In fact Rigaud strongly attacked the claims made by von Zach (less vigorously after von Zach died on 2 September 1832) and, as a consequence, rather talked down Harriot's contributions. He did, however, begin a serious study of Harriot's manuscripts but he died in 1839 leaving copious notes on the manuscripts but another opportunity for publishing a proper edition was lost.
Although Rigaud had tried to find Harriot's will, he failed mainly because he did not know that Harriot died in London. The will was located by Henry Stevens of Vermont (1819-1886), see [5] and [6] for full details of this interesting episode. Stevens was not a scientist but rather an antiquarian bookseller whose interest came through a study of A Briefe and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia which he believed was one of the most outstanding rare books anyone could own.
To further his knowledge of Harriot, Stevens visited London, studied the Harriot manuscripts held in the British Museum, found Harriot's will in the records of the Archdeaconry Court of London, but did not visit Petworth to view the bulk of Harriot's papers nor did he visit Oxford to consult the notes left by Rigaud. Stevens wrote a biography of Harriot but died before he could correct the proofs. The book, Thomas Harriot and his associates was privately printed in London in 1900. Only a few copies were produced and the work did little to fill the gap in knowledge about Harriot. It would also be fair to say that Stevens did not have the necessary mathematical background to understand the proper place of Harriot's achievements.
Harriot's will is a fascinating document which itemises all Harriot's personal possessions, including all his scientific instruments. It also carefully lays out how Harriot's friend Nathaniel Thorperley should proceed to publish his papers. Thorperley was, in fact, a good choice. As well as being a friend of Harriot's he had been Viète's secretary in the 1580s. Thorperley was required to:-
order and separate the chief of them from my waste papers, to the end that after he doth understand them he may make use in penning such doctrine that belongs unto them for public uses ...
Harriot was well aware that some of his revolutionary ideas would be hard to understand and he listed four other friends who Thorperley might consult if he had difficulties. After the papers had been used for publication, Harriot requested that they be:-
... put into a convenient trunk with a lock and key and to be placed in my Lord of Northumberland's library and the key to be delivered into his Lordship's hands.
Although no proper edition of Harriot's papers have yet been published, there has been great interest in his work by historians of mathematics over the last few decades. As the preface of [4] put it:-
Only in the second half of the twentieth century, when the significance of science has become of crucial importance and the study of history and philosophy of science has matured, has Harriot's reputation started to come into its own. Now that the Harriot papers have seen the light of day, Harriot stands clear as a key figure at the time when the new science of logic, reason, mathematics, and experiment was coming into being. A man, who, like Bacon, took all knowledge for his province, Harriot, through both theory and practice, has proved himself to be a true Renaissance Scientist.
References (6 books/articles)
Article by: J J O'Connor and E F Robertson
History Topics Index
Alphabetical list of History Topics
Main index
Biographies Index
Famous curves index
Birthplace Maps
Chronology
Time lines
Mathematicians of the day
Anniversaries for the year
Search Form
Societies, honours, etc
Alphabetical list of History Topics
History Topics IndexVersion for printing
Thomas Harriot died in 1621. He had published no mathematical or astronomical works during his lifetime, but he left his papers in reasonably good order and set out his wishes in his will that they should be properly edited and published. This article tells the story of how 380 years have passed since Harriot's death yet, despite many attempts, his dying wishes have not yet been properly carried out.
The story of how knowledge of Thomas Harriot's mathematical genius has come down to us is related in several of the references, see for example [1], [2], or [4]. We quote from the preface of [4]:-
It is now more than 350 years since Thomas Harriot on his deathbed considered his fame and reputation. Alas! Though recognised by his contemporaries as England's most profound mathematician, most imaginative and methodical experimental scientist, and first of all Englishmen to make a telescope and turn it on the heavens, Harriot had not prepared his works for the use of future generations. The thousands upon thousands of sheets of mathematics and of scientific observations which had occupied most of his waking hours were lost to sight, buried in private archives. Early discussions in the newly founded Royal Society of London centred around the search for Harriot's lost papers, but inquiries made from 1662 to 1669 proved fruitless, and it was finally assumed that they had been destroyed.
The rediscovery of Harriot's papers occurred in 1784. The story is somewhat complicated and future events were much influenced by the character of the person who made the discovery. Franz Xaver Zach was an Austrian, described in [2] as:-
an arrogant young man of boundless ambition.
Zach had been appointed as tutor to the son of Count de Bruhl so, when de Bruhl was sent to England in 1783 as Saxon Minister, Zach came to London with him. While in England, de Bruhl married again, this time to Lady Egremont who was a descendant of Harriot's patron Henry Percy, 9th Duke of Northumberland. The Egremont estates were at Petworth in Sussex and this had been Henry Percy's country estate. The Count de Bruhl visited Petworth in the summer of 1784 and there he found Harriot's manuscripts hidden among the stable accounts.
The manuscripts had been untouched since Henry Percy's death in 1632, eleven years after Harriot's own death. Count de Bruhl passed the manuscripts to his son's tutor, Franz Xaver Zach. Now Zach was certainly ambitious and saw at once that he had had the good fortune to make himself famous. He began making public statements regarding the discoveries he had made in studying Harriot's manuscripts.
It is a little hard today to understand the background of rivalry that existed at this time among English and Continental mathematicians. The rivalry had little to do with science, and everything to do with ignorant nationalism. Sadly newspapers toady still show signs that xenophobia is alive and well, but at least mathematicians and scientists have common goals which today mostly lift them above worrying about national boundaries. In the period when the Royal Society sought Harriot's papers in the 1660s one has the feeling it was more to do with showing that an Englishman was superior to Vite, Kepler and Galileo than it was to do with the importance in studying the development of mathematical thought!
Despite the fact that Harriot's work was of the very highest quality and importance, Zach made claims about it which were over the top [4]:-
...[Zach's] perusal showed Harriot to anticipate and be greater in his accomplishments than either Kepler or Galileo.
In 1786 Zach proposed to the Oxford University Press that he publish a major biography of Harriot together with an edited edition of the most important of Harriot's manuscripts. Thomas Hornsby, the Savilian Professor of Astronomy at Oxford, proposed Zach for an honorary degree which was awarded in 1786. It is somewhat ironical that Hornsby, best known for his role in setting up the Radcliffe Observatory at Oxford, himself made tens of thousands of observations which were not published until 1932, about 150 years after they were recorded.
Also in 1786 Zach was granted the title Baron von Zach which, like his honorary doctorate, Zach used to promote himself. Zach was now appointed as director of a new astronomical observatory to be built at Seeberg, Gotha. This post carried with it important other roles which made Zach a leading man in European science. Although he continued to give lectures on Harriot and wrote an article repeating his over the top claims, von Zach had little time to devote to editing Harriot's papers, a task which might have occupied him without other distractions for the rest of his life. At this stage von Zach held what he considered the most important of Harriot's papers in his own possession, something which Count de Bruhl had been happy to allow to aid von Zach in the editorial task he believed he was undertaking.
Without doing any editorial work whatsoever, and without writing any biographical material, von Zach sent some of Harriot's papers to the Principal of Brasenose College in 1794 and asked that he forward them to Oxford University Press for publication. It was clear to Oxford Press that they had not received manuscripts in a fit state for publication, but they divided the papers into two groups, mathematical papers and astronomical papers, and sent them to two referees for opinions about publication.
The mathematical papers were sent to Abraham Robertson. Now Robertson was a rather remarkable person. He had started out in life as a domestic servant. One day while serving at table he was reprimanded for not paying attention to his duties. He confessed that he had been listening to his master and a guest arguing about the solution to a mathematical problem. Both, he politely pointed out, were wrong in their opinions and he proceeded to explain the correct solution. A poor students place was found for Robertson by his master at Oxford. Three years after receiving Harriot's papers to referee for publication, Robertson was appointed Savilian Professor of Geometry and, in 1810, Savilian Professor of Astronomy.
Robertson reported promptly on the mathematical papers sent top him (see for example [4]):-
These papers, excepting the last, are in no point of view fit for publication. The greatest part of them consists of detached and unfinished explanations ... begun [by Harriot], according to all appearance, with the design of satisfying his own mind upon the subject before him, and dropped abruptly once that satisfaction had been obtained ...
The review ends with the comment that to publish the papers in their present state would injure Harriot's reputation. This assessment was entirely fair. However, expectations of imminent publication had been roused. Hutton wrote in his Mathematical Dictionary published in 1797 (see, for example [1]):-
As to the manuscripts lately discovered by Dr Zach ... it is with pleasure I can announce that they are in a fair train to be published: they have been presented to the University of Oxford, on condition of printing them; with a view to which, they have been lately put into the hands of an ingenious member of that learned body, to arrange and prepare them for the press.
However, when the referee of the astronomical papers failed to reply, these too were sent to Robertson as a referee in 1798. His report on these really does seem to completely miss the point. Robertson claimed that their publication would not:-
... contribute, in the smallest degree, to the advancement of astronomy.
Although Robertson was correct in claiming that no unknown scientific facts were contained in the papers, he seems to have totally missed the fact that Harriot's work is of fundamental importance in the development of the subject.
As the years went by more and more criticism was aimed at Oxford University Press for the lack of appearance of Harriot's papers. They had sent the manuscripts back to Petworth House in 1799 having made the decision that publication in their present form was impossible. In 1822 Robertson, angry that Playfair and others were attacking Oxford University Press, made his reports on the papers public.
The next step was that [4]:-
Rigaud, Savilian Professor at Oxford, and Henry Stevens of Vermont, an antiquarian bookseller, both turned their hands to revealing the true Harriot in the nineteenth century. Neither fully succeeded.
In fact Stephen Peter Rigaud, who succeeded Robertson to both Savilian chairs at Oxford, was much more interested in the history of mathematics than Robertson had been. It is written in [1] that he:-
... played a major part in the renaissance of the history of mathematics - of Newtonian studies in particular ... Besides more general themes, he took pains to explore Oxford's own contributions to historical scholarship.
Rigaud was one of the Delegates of the Oxford Press, and his initial reason in becoming involved in the controversy over Harriot's papers was to defend the position of the Press. In fact Rigaud strongly attacked the claims made by von Zach (less vigorously after von Zach died on 2 September 1832) and, as a consequence, rather talked down Harriot's contributions. He did, however, begin a serious study of Harriot's manuscripts but he died in 1839 leaving copious notes on the manuscripts but another opportunity for publishing a proper edition was lost.
Although Rigaud had tried to find Harriot's will, he failed mainly because he did not know that Harriot died in London. The will was located by Henry Stevens of Vermont (1819-1886), see [5] and [6] for full details of this interesting episode. Stevens was not a scientist but rather an antiquarian bookseller whose interest came through a study of A Briefe and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia which he believed was one of the most outstanding rare books anyone could own.
To further his knowledge of Harriot, Stevens visited London, studied the Harriot manuscripts held in the British Museum, found Harriot's will in the records of the Archdeaconry Court of London, but did not visit Petworth to view the bulk of Harriot's papers nor did he visit Oxford to consult the notes left by Rigaud. Stevens wrote a biography of Harriot but died before he could correct the proofs. The book, Thomas Harriot and his associates was privately printed in London in 1900. Only a few copies were produced and the work did little to fill the gap in knowledge about Harriot. It would also be fair to say that Stevens did not have the necessary mathematical background to understand the proper place of Harriot's achievements.
Harriot's will is a fascinating document which itemises all Harriot's personal possessions, including all his scientific instruments. It also carefully lays out how Harriot's friend Nathaniel Thorperley should proceed to publish his papers. Thorperley was, in fact, a good choice. As well as being a friend of Harriot's he had been Viète's secretary in the 1580s. Thorperley was required to:-
order and separate the chief of them from my waste papers, to the end that after he doth understand them he may make use in penning such doctrine that belongs unto them for public uses ...
Harriot was well aware that some of his revolutionary ideas would be hard to understand and he listed four other friends who Thorperley might consult if he had difficulties. After the papers had been used for publication, Harriot requested that they be:-
... put into a convenient trunk with a lock and key and to be placed in my Lord of Northumberland's library and the key to be delivered into his Lordship's hands.
Although no proper edition of Harriot's papers have yet been published, there has been great interest in his work by historians of mathematics over the last few decades. As the preface of [4] put it:-
Only in the second half of the twentieth century, when the significance of science has become of crucial importance and the study of history and philosophy of science has matured, has Harriot's reputation started to come into its own. Now that the Harriot papers have seen the light of day, Harriot stands clear as a key figure at the time when the new science of logic, reason, mathematics, and experiment was coming into being. A man, who, like Bacon, took all knowledge for his province, Harriot, through both theory and practice, has proved himself to be a true Renaissance Scientist.
References (6 books/articles)
Article by: J J O'Connor and E F Robertson
History Topics Index
Alphabetical list of History Topics
Main index
Biographies Index
Famous curves index
Birthplace Maps
Chronology
Time lines
Mathematicians of the day
Anniversaries for the year
Search Form
Societies, honours, etc
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Captain General Edward Cornwallis Letters to the Lords of Trade and Plantations.
Letters to the Lords of Trade and Plantations from Edward Cornwallis, the new Governor of Nova Scotia. In this, the first one, he reports that the voyage started well, but the ships ran into "contrary winds" after eight days and the remainder of the trip was slow and difficult. They arrived at Chebucto Bay on 21 June 1749.
His first report was dated 22 June, 1749. It was received in London 15 August, 1749. The transports with the settlers followed in a few days.
The coastline was completely forested, except for some clearing by the French settlers for their cattle. The harbor, which everyone agreed was the finest they had ever seen, was also filled with fish.
After a month, Cornwallis was as enthusiastic as ever about the new colony's potential, but not of the majority of the settlers who had come out from England.
On 24 July, he wrote of some problems. This letter was received in London 28 August 1749.
"I beg leave to observe to your Lordships that amongst these the number of industrious active men proper to undertake and carry on a new Settlement is very small, of Soldiers there is only 100, of Tradesmen, Sailors, and others able and willing to work not above 200 more. The rest are poor idle worthless vagabonds that embraced the opportunity to get provisions for one year without labour, or Sailors that only wanted a passage to New England.
Worse, said Cornwallis, some of the settlers came to Nova Scotia "as into a Hospital, to be cured". Many had venereal diseases. But he was not going to let the idle and foolish hinder the industrious and wise. He issued a proclamation that if the settlers didn't shape up or went AWOL he would expel them from the colony to fend for themselves. He did as threatened. Eight men who had gone off in canoes on their own were driven from the colony and stricken from the mess books. No small punishment in such a harsh new land with hostile Indians and French. But it had a salutary effect on the other settlers. There were others, however, who were singled out for praise by the governor, " There are among the Settlers," he said, "a few Swiss who are regular honest industrious Men easily governed and work heartily."
And there was yet another group who impressed this Son of the British aristocracy. "There are indeed many come over of the better sort who tho' they do not work themselves, are very useful in managing the rest."
By the end of August, the first capital crime had been committed, "murther." (murder)
followed almost immediately by the first hanging.
On 11 September, 1749, Col. Cornwallis wrote of the threat posed by the Indians, in particular the Micmacs, who were being incited to make war on the English by the French Priest/missionaries. On 19 August 20 Englishmen were taken prisoner, including 5 of the settlers. The others had come up by ship from Boston in order to cut hay.
A palisade was built around the new town, a double row of 10 foot poles, six inches thick. As the trees were cleared they were used for the fencing.
The major issue was the sizable number of French remaining in Nova Scotia after its cession to the British. All of them were Catholics who were now obliged to swear an oath of allegiance to the Protestant British King.
By August, Cornwallis was giving Halifax as the return address.
In October, he wrote of many transgressions by the Indians, including deaths at their hands. But the settlers had successfully fended off the attacks.
Cornwallis had no illusions about the French and their designs on North America.
He warned correctly, that they would not give up easily. " The settlement I am sent to make is sore to France, it touches them to the quick."
Finally, on 1 October 1749, the council unofficially declared war on the Micmac Indians. The English declined a formal declaration, which would tacitly admit that the Micmacs were "a free and independent people" worthy of being treated to diplomatic niceties, whereas, in reality, "they ought to be treated as do many Banditti Ruffians, or Rebels to His Majesty's Government."
Raiding parties were to be sent out and a bounty of 10 guineas was to be paid for every Micmac killed or captured.
Religion, as always, was the issue. The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel suggested sending out French Bibles and a large group of French Protestants to counter the effect of the "bigoted Papists."
The Indians, religion aside, were indeed a constant threat.
On 1 May 1750 Cornwallis wrote that the French and Indians had moved against the settlements and occupied all of Nova Scotia on the west side of the Bay of Fundy. The letter was an urgent appeal for help. While there was peace in Europe, in Nova Scotia the war continued.
He realized early on the machinations of the French and their Indian allies and did not hesitate to warn the Board of Trade in England what would happen if they did not respond to the problem in this the most Northern of the Colonies.
Particularly galling to the new settlers was the continuing trade by the lower colonies with the French and Indians. Cornwallis complained much about the people of Massachusetts Bay who were supplying the French and Indians with goods and arms, which enabled them to make war on his settlers.
Cornwallis, had turned over his regiment in the Highlands to a Major James Wolf, who would distinguish himself in Nova Scotia later on. Horace Walpole speaks of Cornwallis as "a brave sensible young man of great temper and good nature" a perfect picture of the man, and Wolfe afterwards mentioned Cornwallis' "approved courage and fidelity".
His first report was dated 22 June, 1749. It was received in London 15 August, 1749. The transports with the settlers followed in a few days.
The coastline was completely forested, except for some clearing by the French settlers for their cattle. The harbor, which everyone agreed was the finest they had ever seen, was also filled with fish.
After a month, Cornwallis was as enthusiastic as ever about the new colony's potential, but not of the majority of the settlers who had come out from England.
On 24 July, he wrote of some problems. This letter was received in London 28 August 1749.
"I beg leave to observe to your Lordships that amongst these the number of industrious active men proper to undertake and carry on a new Settlement is very small, of Soldiers there is only 100, of Tradesmen, Sailors, and others able and willing to work not above 200 more. The rest are poor idle worthless vagabonds that embraced the opportunity to get provisions for one year without labour, or Sailors that only wanted a passage to New England.
Worse, said Cornwallis, some of the settlers came to Nova Scotia "as into a Hospital, to be cured". Many had venereal diseases. But he was not going to let the idle and foolish hinder the industrious and wise. He issued a proclamation that if the settlers didn't shape up or went AWOL he would expel them from the colony to fend for themselves. He did as threatened. Eight men who had gone off in canoes on their own were driven from the colony and stricken from the mess books. No small punishment in such a harsh new land with hostile Indians and French. But it had a salutary effect on the other settlers. There were others, however, who were singled out for praise by the governor, " There are among the Settlers," he said, "a few Swiss who are regular honest industrious Men easily governed and work heartily."
And there was yet another group who impressed this Son of the British aristocracy. "There are indeed many come over of the better sort who tho' they do not work themselves, are very useful in managing the rest."
By the end of August, the first capital crime had been committed, "murther." (murder)
followed almost immediately by the first hanging.
On 11 September, 1749, Col. Cornwallis wrote of the threat posed by the Indians, in particular the Micmacs, who were being incited to make war on the English by the French Priest/missionaries. On 19 August 20 Englishmen were taken prisoner, including 5 of the settlers. The others had come up by ship from Boston in order to cut hay.
A palisade was built around the new town, a double row of 10 foot poles, six inches thick. As the trees were cleared they were used for the fencing.
The major issue was the sizable number of French remaining in Nova Scotia after its cession to the British. All of them were Catholics who were now obliged to swear an oath of allegiance to the Protestant British King.
By August, Cornwallis was giving Halifax as the return address.
In October, he wrote of many transgressions by the Indians, including deaths at their hands. But the settlers had successfully fended off the attacks.
Cornwallis had no illusions about the French and their designs on North America.
He warned correctly, that they would not give up easily. " The settlement I am sent to make is sore to France, it touches them to the quick."
Finally, on 1 October 1749, the council unofficially declared war on the Micmac Indians. The English declined a formal declaration, which would tacitly admit that the Micmacs were "a free and independent people" worthy of being treated to diplomatic niceties, whereas, in reality, "they ought to be treated as do many Banditti Ruffians, or Rebels to His Majesty's Government."
Raiding parties were to be sent out and a bounty of 10 guineas was to be paid for every Micmac killed or captured.
Religion, as always, was the issue. The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel suggested sending out French Bibles and a large group of French Protestants to counter the effect of the "bigoted Papists."
The Indians, religion aside, were indeed a constant threat.
On 1 May 1750 Cornwallis wrote that the French and Indians had moved against the settlements and occupied all of Nova Scotia on the west side of the Bay of Fundy. The letter was an urgent appeal for help. While there was peace in Europe, in Nova Scotia the war continued.
He realized early on the machinations of the French and their Indian allies and did not hesitate to warn the Board of Trade in England what would happen if they did not respond to the problem in this the most Northern of the Colonies.
Particularly galling to the new settlers was the continuing trade by the lower colonies with the French and Indians. Cornwallis complained much about the people of Massachusetts Bay who were supplying the French and Indians with goods and arms, which enabled them to make war on his settlers.
Cornwallis, had turned over his regiment in the Highlands to a Major James Wolf, who would distinguish himself in Nova Scotia later on. Horace Walpole speaks of Cornwallis as "a brave sensible young man of great temper and good nature" a perfect picture of the man, and Wolfe afterwards mentioned Cornwallis' "approved courage and fidelity".
More than this, Cornwallis was incorruptible, a very rare quality in Colonial Governors of his time. He was slender, somewhat over middle height, an aristocrat to his fingertips, conscious of his dignity and inclined to be cool and ceremonious except when the "great temper" took charge. We are told he had a pleasant voice, fine eyes, and a winning expression. Later on his voice acquired a rasp, and so did his pen, as troubles mounted and the harsh winters of the new colony destroyed his health.
His Aide and right-hand man was a young army bachelor like himself, Richard Bulkeley, tall, handsome, Irish, wealthy, a former king's messenger and captain of dragoons whose equipment for the wilderness included a valet, groom, a butler, three blood horses and a vast amount of baggage. Another aide was Captain Horatio Gates son of the Duke of Leeds on the wrong side of the blanket, a capable young officer who in later years was to make his name famous on the wrong side of the field in the American Revolution.
Ref: Warden of the North: Raddell.
Kew/Public Record Office Colonial Office 217 Piece 9
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Michael Samuel DeBruhl New York Engraver 1759-1763
These notes from the Iconography of Manhattan Island:
Among those who are taking subscriptions for "the Gentlemen and Ladies Military Closet Furniture" is Mr. Michael DeBruhl (DeBruls,) Engraver, at Mr. Futer's Silver-Smith, in French-Church Street" N.Y. Mercantile, March 5, 1759. Between 1759 and 1763, DeBruhl was the chief engraver on copper in New York, Stauffer, American Engravers on Copper and Steel, I 31-33, For advertisements of his work, see May 3 and October 11, 1762, the latter having reference to proposed views of New York
Plans of several of the sites of engagements between the French and English forces
near Fort Niagara, are advertised as "curiously engraved on two large Copper Plates, by Michael DeBruhl, Engraver, and an Inhabitant of this City." DeBruhl himself, is taking subscriptions for these "in the Road beyond the New Goal (Jail), on the Hill, where the above engraved Plates may be seen." N.Y. Mercantile, May 3, 1762. For DeBruhl's proposed views of New York City, see Oct, 11.
Chronology: The English Period 1664- 1763
Michael DeBruhl (deBruls) solicits subscriptions for "Two different Water Views and two different Land Views" of New York City which he proposes to publish. These views will have "References in English, High Dutch and Low Dutch," and are to be "curiously engraved on a Copper Plate, of 21 by 12 Inches each, and printed on best large Paper." There will also be "neatly engraved on another Copper Plate" a plan of the streets" with their respective Names," Along with the prints will be published a pamphlet giving " an exact account of the wholesome climate, pleasant situation, products, etc, of this Province, for the benefit of the Subscribers, which they may chuse either in English, High Dutch, or Low Dutch,"
The subscription price is stated as 20 shillings, One Half to be paid on subscribing, the other Half on the Delivery of these Five Prints." Each Subscriber will "give his Quality and Place of Abode," and subscriptions "will closed on the last Day of January next." DeBruhl's establishment was "at the lower End of New Street, Next door to Colonel Thodey." N.Y. Post-Boy Oct. 11, 1762. In the Expense Account Book
(M.S.) of Cadwallader Colden (preserved in N.Y. Historical Society), under date of October 31, 1763, appaers this item: " paid DeBruhl on Subscribing for 2 Setts of his Plans of New York. L 1:4:0 Da Baumitiere, in his notes on maps, etc.(book 1412 Y, Ridgeway Branch, Library Co. of Philadelphia.) speaks of these views as follows(translated):
"DeBruhl (DeBruyl), a German and good workman but a Mauvais Sujet. undertook in 1763 to engrave some views of New York which he had drawn himself. I saw there (in New York) in that year the plates which had been commenced. He took up a subscription, by the terms of which he was to receive half of the sum ($100) at the time of the subscription, but he kept the money and never finished the work."
Among those who are taking subscriptions for "the Gentlemen and Ladies Military Closet Furniture" is Mr. Michael DeBruhl (DeBruls,) Engraver, at Mr. Futer's Silver-Smith, in French-Church Street" N.Y. Mercantile, March 5, 1759. Between 1759 and 1763, DeBruhl was the chief engraver on copper in New York, Stauffer, American Engravers on Copper and Steel, I 31-33, For advertisements of his work, see May 3 and October 11, 1762, the latter having reference to proposed views of New York
Plans of several of the sites of engagements between the French and English forces
near Fort Niagara, are advertised as "curiously engraved on two large Copper Plates, by Michael DeBruhl, Engraver, and an Inhabitant of this City." DeBruhl himself, is taking subscriptions for these "in the Road beyond the New Goal (Jail), on the Hill, where the above engraved Plates may be seen." N.Y. Mercantile, May 3, 1762. For DeBruhl's proposed views of New York City, see Oct, 11.
Chronology: The English Period 1664- 1763
Michael DeBruhl (deBruls) solicits subscriptions for "Two different Water Views and two different Land Views" of New York City which he proposes to publish. These views will have "References in English, High Dutch and Low Dutch," and are to be "curiously engraved on a Copper Plate, of 21 by 12 Inches each, and printed on best large Paper." There will also be "neatly engraved on another Copper Plate" a plan of the streets" with their respective Names," Along with the prints will be published a pamphlet giving " an exact account of the wholesome climate, pleasant situation, products, etc, of this Province, for the benefit of the Subscribers, which they may chuse either in English, High Dutch, or Low Dutch,"
The subscription price is stated as 20 shillings, One Half to be paid on subscribing, the other Half on the Delivery of these Five Prints." Each Subscriber will "give his Quality and Place of Abode," and subscriptions "will closed on the last Day of January next." DeBruhl's establishment was "at the lower End of New Street, Next door to Colonel Thodey." N.Y. Post-Boy Oct. 11, 1762. In the Expense Account Book
(M.S.) of Cadwallader Colden (preserved in N.Y. Historical Society), under date of October 31, 1763, appaers this item: " paid DeBruhl on Subscribing for 2 Setts of his Plans of New York. L 1:4:0 Da Baumitiere, in his notes on maps, etc.(book 1412 Y, Ridgeway Branch, Library Co. of Philadelphia.) speaks of these views as follows(translated):
"DeBruhl (DeBruyl), a German and good workman but a Mauvais Sujet. undertook in 1763 to engrave some views of New York which he had drawn himself. I saw there (in New York) in that year the plates which had been commenced. He took up a subscription, by the terms of which he was to receive half of the sum ($100) at the time of the subscription, but he kept the money and never finished the work."
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Michael Samuel DeBruhl Jr. Silversmith and watchmaker.1806
Michael Samuel DeBruhl Jr. listed in 1806 as doing business at 35 Union Street Charleston, SC
from 1798-1806 . Moved possibly to Abbeville, SC Partnership with Mary Matilda Dunseeth as Dunseeth & DeBruhl dissolved in 1804. Silversmith watch and clock makers of South Carolina. Examples of his work is in the Charleston, SC museum. ( a silver ladle, and chatelain)
from 1798-1806 . Moved possibly to Abbeville, SC Partnership with Mary Matilda Dunseeth as Dunseeth & DeBruhl dissolved in 1804. Silversmith watch and clock makers of South Carolina. Examples of his work is in the Charleston, SC museum. ( a silver ladle, and chatelain)
The DeBruhl Marshall House 1820
A two story brick building constructed in 1820 by Jesse DeBruhl a low country planter and broker, now the DeBruhl Marshall House, was designed, it is believed by Robert Mills, the architect who is responsible for many famous buildings in South Carolina and throughout the nation. His most famous work was the Washington Monument. This house was for many years the home of the late Col. J.Q. Marshall grandson of Jesse DeBruhl, and subsequently his daughter Mrs. James Hammond. It was in the possession of Mrs. Rhodes as of 1973 who is credited with saving the house from destruction by developers. In later years the house was placed on the National Registry of Historic Places through the efforts of Norman DeBruhl and Josephine Parker DeBruhl and the late Senator Strom Thurmond. It is situated on the northeast corner of Laurel and Marion Streets and is one of the most imposing residences in the City of Columbia. The wide spacious piazza does not extend the entire length of the house as it did in many of the houses of that date, but it's massive Doric columns that reach to the gabled roof lend an air of dignity to this old brick mansion. An artistic fan shaped transom above the large front doorway furnishes ample light for the wide hall running the entire length of the house. Unlike the houses of that period, the staircase was hidden from view, being concealed in a small back room, known as the staircase room, but of late years this staircase has been removed and one is now to be seen in the rear end of the hall. The halls, both upstairs and down, are flanked on both sides by two big square rooms, with high ceilings and deeply recessed windows. It was in this home that the Confederate General Joseph E. Johnstone, made his headquarters in 1864-1865. When it was vacated by Johnstone, it seemed good to General Sherman's soldiers as fuel for their extensive conflagration and was about to be set in flames when Mrs. John S. Wiley, Jesse DeBruhls widow who was a very young and beautiful woman, appealed directly to General Sherman, whose headquarters were located directly behind the house on the next street. She begged that her home be spared, the soldiers heart softened and he ordered that guards be placed around the house. Thus we have left today one of the most artistic productions of the nineteenth century. The roof rafters still show char marks where Union soldiers tried to start a fire in the attic.
South Carolina Historical Society
Professor Yates Snowden, says that it was from the porches of the Moore House 1409 Gervais Street that he as a little boy watched the progress of Sherman's Army as it marched down Gervais Street in February, 1865. At the head of Main Street not a building was left on that street, everything was burned for one and a half miles and in a belt from a quarter to a half mile wide eighty four squares containing three hundred and sixty six acres and thirteen hundred houses were destroyed. General Sherman was seen riding leisurely through the streets smoking a cigar but he gave no orders and seemed to take little interest in what was going on.
Ref. Great Houses of SC Scribners rare book section.
South Carolina Historical Society
Professor Yates Snowden, says that it was from the porches of the Moore House 1409 Gervais Street that he as a little boy watched the progress of Sherman's Army as it marched down Gervais Street in February, 1865. At the head of Main Street not a building was left on that street, everything was burned for one and a half miles and in a belt from a quarter to a half mile wide eighty four squares containing three hundred and sixty six acres and thirteen hundred houses were destroyed. General Sherman was seen riding leisurely through the streets smoking a cigar but he gave no orders and seemed to take little interest in what was going on.
Ref. Great Houses of SC Scribners rare book section.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Goddard DeBruhl drowns 1791
State of Georgia Richmond County, Personally appeared before me William Firhard who being duly sworn saith that he was personally present and well acquainted with Godard DeBruhl and that some time in February in the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety one,(1791) he and the said Godard DeBruhl was on board a boat bound for Savannah Georgia, belonging to James Henderson about five miles before the Town of Augusta and the boat got fastened in the River. And that some time in the night the said Godard DeBruhl went on Deck for some occasion and fell overboard and got drowned and further this deponent saith that he and the rest of the boat hands got a dingy and searched for the said Godard DeBruhl but could not find him. But he understood and believes that the said Godard DeBruhl was taken under some considerable time afterwards, further this deponent saith not. William Firhard sworn to before me this 22nd day of January 1795.
Samuel Jack JP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)