A. Not particularly, but conjointly a British and an American interest.
Q. You will not deny that the preceding war, the war with Spain, was entered into for the sake of America; was it not occasioned by captures made in the American seas?
A. Yes; captures of ships carrying on the British trade there with British manufactures.
Q. Was not the late war with the Indians, since the peace with France, a war for America only?
A. Yes; it was more particularly for America than the former; but it was rather a consequence or remains of the former war, the Indians not having been thoroughly pacified; and the Americans bore by much the greatest share of the expence. It was put an end to by the army under General Bouquet; there were not above three hundred regulars in that army, and above one thousand Pensylvanians.
Q. Is it not necessary to send troops to America, to defend the Americans against the Indians?
A. No, by no means; it never was necessary. They defended themselves when they were but an handful, and the Indians much more numerous. They continually gained ground, and have driven the Indians over the mountains, without any troops sent to their assistance from this country. And can it be thought necessary now to send troops for their defence from those diminished Indian tribes, when the colonies are become so populous, and so strong? There is not the least occasion for it, they are very able to defend themselves.
Q. Do you say there were no more than three hundred regular troops employed in the late Indian war?
A. Not on the Ohio, or the frontiers of Pensylvania, which was the chief part of the war that affected the colonies. There were garrisons at Niagara, Fort Detroit, and those remote posts kept for the sake of your trade; I did not reckon them; but I believe that on the whole the number of Americans, or provincial troops, employed in the war, was greater than that of the regulars. I am not certain, but I think so.