Читать книгу The American Jew as Patriot, Soldier and Citizen - Simon Wolf - Страница 14

Table of Contents

Members have no doubt still fresh in mind the interesting items relating to Col. Franks, set forth by Dr. Herbert Friedenwald and Prof. M. Jastrow in No. 1 of our "Proceedings." Since then other data have been collected and published in regard to the Franks family, to which I will merely refer; (see the very interesting article on the History of the Jews of Montreal, prepared for the Montreal Daily Star, December 30, 1893, and repeated in the American Israelite in January, 1894, which has been attributed to Rev. Dr. Meldola de Sola; and also an article on Rebecca Franks by the present writer, which appeared in the American Hebrew, November 9, 14, 21, and also in pamphlet reprint). In the present paper, Colonel Franks' early career in Canada will be chiefly dealt with, the documents herein cited demonstrating the correctness of Dr. Friedenwald's theory (p. 76) that Franks was drawn into the Revolutionary contest through pure patriotism and interest in the struggle which was being carried on south of his earlier domicile. A contemporary periodical furnishes the data I refer to; it is entitled: "The Remembrancer or Impartial Repository of Public Events." Part I, for 1776, London, 1776, pp. 100–6. (The narrative is somewhat condensed herein, but the documents are set forth in their entirety.)

"On May 2, 1775, the bust of the king at Montreal was found daubed over and indecently ornamented, the words, "This is the pope of Canada and the fool of England," being written upon it in French. A reward of 100 guineas was offered for the discovery of the perpetrator, and much indignation was expressed among the French inhabitants, eager to manifest their loyalty to England, one French gentleman even expressing his opinion that the act ought to be punished by hanging. Upon hearing this severe opinion, a young English merchant of the name of Franks, who had settled at Montreal and who at that time happened to be near the speaker, replied to him in these words: 'In England men are not hanged for such small offenses,' which he repeated twice or three times. This provoked M. de B——(the former speaker) to such a degree, that, after giving the young man much opprobrious language, he at last proceeded to blows, and struck him in the face and pulled him by the nose; upon which the other gave him a blow that knocked him down. The next day, May the 3d, upon a complaint of M. de B—— to three officers of justice of a new order, called the Conservators of the Peace for the District of Montreal, not of the blow he had received from Franks (for to this he was conscious he had given occasion by striking him first) but of the words pronounced by the latter, 'that in England people were not hanged for such small offenses,' the Conservators issued the warrant hereunder following for committing young Franks to prison. He was accordingly carried thither by a party of soldiers with bayonets fixed, and £10,000 bail, that was offered to procure his liberty, and be security for his appearance to take his trial for the offence, was refused. And there he continued for a week, at the end of which time, the same Conservators of the Peace (by the direction, as it is supposed, of Governor Carleton) ordered him to be discharged without any bail at all."

The following are the official documents, in translation:

"District of Montreal.

"By John Fraser, John Marteilhe and Réné Ovide Hertel de Rouville, Esquires, Judges and Conservators of the Peace in the District of Montreal:

"Whereas, Francis Mary Picote de Bellestre, Esquire, has made oath on the holy gospels that on Tuesday the second day of this present month of May, as he was standing still in the street to hear a proclamation published, concerning those wretches who had insulted his Majesty's bust, he had openly declared that he thought they deserved to be hanged: and that thereupon one Salisbury Franks had answered with surprise, 'that it was not usual to hang people for such small offences and that it was not worth while to do so,' and that he had repeated those words several times, and with a loud voice.

"We, having regard to the said complaint, and considering that every good subject ought to look upon the said insult to his Majesty's bust as an act of the most atrocious nature, and deserving of the utmost abhorrence, and that therefore all declarations made in conversation that tend to affirm it to be a small offence, ought to be esteemed criminal: Do, for these reasons, authorize and command you to convey the said Salisbury Franks to the prison of the town to be there detained, till he shall be thence discharged according to law. And for so doing, this warrant shall be your justification.

"Given at Montreal, under our hands and seals, on the third day of May, 1775.

(Signed)

John Fraser,

John Marteilhe,

Hertel de Rouville."

The warrant to the jailor we omit, but the warrant for his discharge follows:

"To the keeper of the jail in Montreal.

"Whereas David Salisbury Franks is now in your custody, in virtue of our warrant duly sealed and signed; these are now to command you to forbear detaining any longer the said David Salisbury Franks, but to suffer him to go at large wherever he pleases and that without fees. And for so doing, this will be your sufficient warrant.

"Given under our hands and seals at Montreal, on the 9th day of May, 1775."

(Signed as above).

It will be noticed that the warrant of release gives the full name of Franks and leaves it clear that he was the future American patriot. It should also be noticed that he is described as an Englishman, pointing to that country as the common home of the various members of the family of that name in America. (Compare Life of Peter Van Schaack, p. 143, and Kamble Papers, for references to Franks' family home, a mansion near London). Also that the amount of bail offered for young Franks, £10,000, was extraordinarily large for those days.

It is not proposed herein to repeat the interesting incident in the career of Arnold's aide-de-camp which others have set forth so well. Their accounts may, however, be supplemented by the following. It seems that Franks gave testimony to Mrs. Arnold's innocence of all complicity in her husband's treason. This fact is cited in a note in the present writer's sketch of Rebecca Franks (p. 12), but the original authority, the preface to the privately printed Shipper papers, he has thus far been unable to consult. After the inquiry into Franks' conduct—occasioned by the suspicions aroused against him on account of Arnold's treason—had been held in accordance with his demand, Franks appears to have been sent to Europe with important dispatches to Jay and Franklin, with instructions to await their orders. In a letter from Robert Morris to Franklin, dated Philadelphia, July 13, 1781, we read: "The bearer of the letter, Major Franks, formerly an aide-de-camp to General Arnold, and honorably acquitted of all connection with him after a full and impartial inquiry, will be able to give you our public news more particularly than I could relate them." (Diplomatic Correspondence, edited by Sparks, Vol. XI, p. 382). His conduct in France and Spain appears to have been very creditable; Jay speaks very highly about his discretion and tact and he seems to have won the particular regard of the Count of Florida Blanca, the Spanish Minister, with whom Jay was negotiating. (See "Diplomatic Correspondence of the U. S.," edited by F. Wharton, Vol. IV, 752–754, 756–757, 764–784, V, 121. Thompson Papers (N. Y. Hist. Soc. Collections, 1878), p. 183. Accounts of the U. S. during the Administration of the Superintendent of France, 1781–1784). As noted by Dr. Friedenwald, Franks was sent by Congress to Europe again in 1784, this time to deliver a triplicate of the definitive treaty of peace to our ministers plenipotentiary. Further details about this trip are alluded to in "Military Journal of Major E. Denny" (Pa. Hist. Society, Pub. 1860) p. 415, where letters from Frank's associate, Col. Harman, are quoted, and in a letter written by Harman to a Philadelphia merchant, Jonathan Williams, in 1790, wherein he sends his regards to Franks, and alludes to the "gay moments we passed together in France, particularly the civilities received from you at St. Germain, where I dined with you in company with Mr. Barclay and Col. Franks" (p. 461). Not less interesting is the narrative of an encounter with Major Franks in 1787, by Dr. Cutler, on a trip to Philadelphia: "July 12th. Made our next stay at Bristol. Dined in company with the passengers in the stage, among whom were General Armstrong and Col. Franks. General Armstrong is a member of Congress with whom I had a small acquaintance at New York; Franks was an aide of General Arnold at the time of his desertion to the British. Both of them high bucks, and affected, as I conceived, to hold the New England states in contempt. They had repeatedly touched my Yankee blood, in their conversation at the table; but I was much on the reserve until, after we had dined, some severe reflections on the conduct of Rhode Island, and the Insurgency in Massachusetts—placing the two States in the same point of light—induced me to observe that 'I had no doubt but that the conduct of Rhode Island would prove of infinite service to the Union; that the insurgency in Massachusetts would eventually lead to invigorate and establish our government; and that I considered the State of Pennsylvania—divided and distracted as she was then in her Councils, the large County of Luzerne on the eve of an insurrection—to be in as hazardous a situation as any one on the Continent.'

"This instantly brought on a warm fracas indeed. The cudgels were taken up on both sides: the contest as fierce as if the fate of empires depended on the decision. At length victory declared in our favor. Armstrong began to make concessions. Franks, with more reluctance, at length gave up the ground. Both acknowledged the New England States were entitled to an equal share of merit with any in the Union, and declared they had no intention to reflect. We had the satisfaction to quit the field with an air of triumph, which my little companion enjoyed with a high relish; nor could he forget it, all the way to Philadelphia. But we parted with our antagonists on terms of perfect good humor and complaisance. My companion frequently afterwards mentioned the pleasure it gave him to see Armstrong and Franks, "so completely taken down," as he expressed it, which led me to conclude he was of the party opposed to them in the political quarrels of Philadelphia." (Historical magazine, Third Series, Vol. II, pp. 84–85).

But let us pass from Franks to another Canadian.