Section IL, 1904 [ 263 ] Trans. R. S. C. 



VII. — Thomas Poiunall. — His Part in the Conquest of Canada. 

 By \V. D. LiGiiTHALL, M.A., F.R.S.L., F.R.S.C. 



(Read June 23, 1904.) 



In an article in the Antiquarian Journal of Montreal (Third 

 Series, Volume III., No. 5), afterwards separately issued in pamphlet 

 form under the title of "''T,he GloTious Enterprise/' I drew attention 

 to a chain of family relationships and other facts, throwing new light 

 on the various plans of campaign for the conquest of the French 

 dominions in America from 1689 to 1700.^ It was sho\\TL from the 

 official documents that the principal of these plans — those of 1689-90, 

 1710-11 and 1759-60 — were in reality forms of one and the same; that 

 they all originated in the province of New York; that they were the 

 W'Ork of one group of men united together by close bands of blood or 

 marriage — a part of the manorial gentry of the province — that this plan 

 and the military and topographioal knowledge connected with it were 

 a kind of family inheritance; and that the outlines of the plan con- 

 stituted the only practical scheme of invasion of New France; the 

 only one by which success was possible ; and the actual one by which 

 success was at last attained. It was shown that its originator was 

 Colonel Peter Schuyler, of Albany, in 1689; that Sir William Phips 

 and General Winthrop were not the true leaders, but in reality second- 

 dary Bictors, in the invasion of that time; that the projected invasion 

 of 1710-11, according to the scheme of Colonel Samuel Vetch, was a 

 resuscitation of the idea, originating in the fact that Vetch married 

 Scihuyleris niece, the daughiter of Eobert Livingston, one of the chief 

 agents in the matter, and lived among them at Albany; and that the 

 final plan adopted, by William Pitt, and assigned by him to Amherst 

 and Wolfe for execution, was the same thing once more, proceeding 

 from Lieutenant-Governor De Lancey, grandnephew of Peter Schuyler, 

 and was drawn from the same store of tradition. 



iTihose concerned were well aware of the breadth and consequences 

 of the idea. In 1689, the Albany agents to the other colonies referred 

 to it as " soe glorious an enterprise," " soe noble a désigne," " such 

 a noble design.'^ In 1709, Vetch wrote of it as "this noble enter- 

 prise," " this noble désigne," Quary as " that noble design against 

 Canada"; in 1711, Gov. Hunter as "this glorious enterprise"; The 

 Sachems of the Five Nations called it " this great design " ; others 



' Some minor errors crept into this pamphlet owing to its being hastily 

 rewritten after loss of the original manuscript. 



