V

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 06126 5063 ^,

>-" . 1 ' "^

' 7>'r'-
t "

Seview oif Lord litehon's history
of ths Anorican Revolution.
Boston. 18b2.

fcpy

"J^ive theft Bmis
far the founding of a. CoHegt- in- thif Ceie/iy"

Gift of
Mrs. William L. Kingsley
7914

REVIEW

LORD MAHON'S HISTORY

AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

REVIEW

LORD MAHON'S HISTORY

AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

PEOM THE NOEIH AMEEICAN EETIEW FOE JULY, 1852.

BOSTON:
LITTLE, BROWN AND COMPANY.
1852.

Entcretl according to Act of Congress, in the year 1852, by
Little, Bkown and Cohpant,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts.

Cbl?.7>.6

EIVEESIDE, CAMBEIDGE:
PRINTED BY H. O. HOUGHTON AND OOMP.VNY.

REVIEW.

[History of England from ihe Peace of Utrecht. By Lord Mahon: Vol.s.
V. aud VI. 1763-1780. London. John Murray, 1851. pp. 500, xliii.
501, xliii.]
We are not going to comment on these agreeable vo
lumes at large. We have read them with great interest
and enjoyment; — not with satisfaction; that is more
than we can say. Lord Mahon is a better historical
writer than either of the eminent persons who have treated
any portion of English history between the Revolution of
1688 and the accession of George the Third. He is a more
reasonable, at all events a more moderate, Tory than Mr.
Adolphus, who began at the latter era. Indeed, one chief
merit of his book is the fair and generous spirit which
for the most part pervades it. It is quite plain that he
means to maintain good faith with subjects and read
ers, to tell the story frankly and truly, and impartially
to award praise and blame. It is further clear that he
has right and manly feelings, a quiet sympathy with
whatever is honorable and amiable in character, and an
honest antipathy for what is base. " I feel," he says,
in one of his earlier volumes, " that to state any fact with
out sufficient authority, or to draw any character with
out thorough conviction, implies not merely literary fail
ure, but moral guilt. Of any such unfair intention I hope
the reader may acquit me — I am sure I can acquit myself." *
Of all such unfair intention we cordially acquit his Lord
ship. And because we do so, we assure ourselves of his favor
able reception of a few corrections which we are presently
to make of some of his unintentional misstatements.
Lord Mahon is not only an upright historian, but a
writer, in the main, competent and accomplished for his
work. If he makes no parade of philosophical disquisi
tion, his exhibition of events and actors is such that the
reader easily gets at the lessons, with the added pleasure
* Vol. i. p. 3.

4
of seeming to make them his own discovery. His style is
perspicuous and flowing. Though not distinguished by
vigor or grace, it gets over the ground evenly, and with
speed enough, without Gibbon's stilts, or the ground-and-
lofty tumbhng of Carlyle. It has the great merit of a
flexibility which makes it equal to dignified narrative,
and which, at the same time, permits the introduction,
without abruptness or jar, of personal anecdotes and illus
trations of a lighter character.
As to materials, besides those already before the pub
lic in print, Lord Mahon had the advantage of consult
ing the valuable family papers transmitted from his an
cestor, General Stanhope, the soldier and statesman of
Anne and George the First ; those (still in manuscript) of
the Yorke family, the family of Lord Chancellor Hard-
wicke ; the manuscript Memoirs of the Duke of Grafton ;
collections relating to the schemes and enterprises of the
expelled dynasty, particularly the Stuart papers presented
by the Pope to the Prince Regent after the death of
Cardinal York ; and the Grenville papers, now in the
possession of George Grenville's descendant, the Duke
of Buckingham. Lord Mahon says that he had also
opportunity "to examine the despatches to and from
America in our State Paper Office." * That opportunity,
we fear, he did not suitably estimate or profit by. In
those portions of his work which relate to American
affiiirs, we see no evidence of his having pushed his re
searches in that branch of his subject at all beyond the
commonest histories, nor far in them.
To carry out his purpose of impartiality, when treating
of the disputes between Great Britain and her colonies,
was no easy thing for Lord Mahon, with his strong Tory
inclinings. We have said that we have no doubt of his
having aimed at it. We doubt as little that he has
failed of entire success. But though we cannot help
tracing repeatedly in his work the operation of this dis
turbing element, we are bound to avow our opinion that
it is not this chiefly which has made his treatment of the
American part of his subject an unsatisfactory one. The
simple truth is, that, as to this important portion of his
* Vol. vi, Ap. p. ir.

work, — and what is there in modern history more import
ant than the relations between Great Britain and Ame
rica for the twenty years from 1763 ? — he does not appear
to have sufficiently informed himself before he proceeded
to write npon it. We suppose that his reading in the
American historians does not extend beyond the works of
Grahame, Bancroft, Gordon, and Ramsay, and that it is
only a portion of the majority of these which has engaged
his notice.
We also strongly suspect that, not having had his atten
tion previously drawn to its importance, and learning it
only by degrees as it forced itself upon him in the prosecu
tion of his work. Lord Mahon had written up to the year
1765 before looking with any curiosity at the history of
the colonies ; and that he was content, as measures and
events in England succeeded each other in his narrative,
to acquaint himself successively and singly with the cor
responding ones in America. Of course, this is not the
way to write history ; and this is not the way in which
Lord Mahon has written the rest of his work. But, un
less we greatly mistake, such is the account to be given
of the comparatively barren, fragmentary, superficial,
lifeless character of that portion of it which most inter
ests us. One may make a chapter in a book of annals
correctly without knowing any thing out of its limits.
But history deals with sequences of cause and effect. Its
large discourse looks before and after. How could Lord
Mahon have written the English history of the Georges,
as well as he has done, without being well read in the
times of the Stuarts, the Commonwealth, and the Revo
lution ? How could he be expected to understand much
better than he appears to do the men and the measures of
Massachusetts, without knowing something of its disputes
with the mother country as far back as under the old
charter ?
We think that his Lordship mentions the English
North American colonies but once in his first three vo
lumes ; that is, before the peace of Aix la Chapelle in
1748. And then he mentions them to relate the capture
of Louisburg in just the following words, and no more.
" The people of New England had formed a design for reduc
ing Louisburg, the capital of Cape Breton, a French port of
great importance, and sometimes termed the Dunkirk of America.

6
The King's Government afforded its assistance to the enterprise.
Early in the spring, about 4000 volunteers assembled at Boston :
they were reinforced by a body of marines, and supported by
Admiral Warren with a squadron of ten ships of war. For their
commander they chose Mr. Pepperel, a private gentleman, in
whom courage and sagacity supplied the place of military skill.
Landing with very slight loss at Gabarus, four miles from Louis
burg, they invested the place by land while the fleet blockaded
the harbor. The walls were newly repaired and the garrison mus
tered 1200 men, and a resolute resistance was encountered ; but,
nevertheless, on the 1.5tli of June, after forty -nine days' siege, the
town and the whole island were compelled to surrender to the
British arms." Vol. iii. p. 299.
What can it be imagined that the writer of this knew
of the campaign against Cape Breton in 1745 ? What
idea had he of the nature of that enterprise ? The cap
ture of Louisburg was a very extraordinary exploit, in
its conception, in its conduct, in its consequences. It
was one of the wildest undertakings ever projected by
sane people. Crusaders of the twelfth century, rather
than Yankees of the eighteenth, might be supposed to
have devised it. Indeed, a sort of crusading fervor was
part of its impulse. A chaplain took with him a hatchet
which he had consecrated to a service of iconoclasm in
the French churches ; and Whitefield furnished the legend
for the flag of the New Hampshire troops, Nil desperan-
dmn, Christo duce. The Massachusetts people were
vexed by the vicinity of the French at Louisburg, then a
sort of naval guard-house for the North American conti
nent, like Halifax now. Louisburg, about five hundred
miles distant from the capital of Massachusetts, was one
of the strongest fortresses of the world, both by nature
and art. Of a sudden, the idea was conceived of sur
prising it in the winter with a party of militia, and scal
ing its walls, over thirty feet high, with the help of the
snow banks. The attempt was finally resolved upon in
the Massachusetts General Court by a majority of one
vote. As all the artillery at command was ten eighteen-
pounders, borrowed from New York, the plan was, should
a siege become necessary, to depend mainly on a park of
forty-two-pounders, to be first taken from an outwork of
the French. Col. Pepperell was not at all " chosen to the
command " by volunteers, but regularly appointed, as

usual, by the Governor in Council. He had " courage
and sagacity " in abundance; but he had had some expe
rience, too, with the French and Indians in Maine ; and
as to his being deficient in " military skill," to suppose
that is to make it all the more difficult to explain how
Louisburg fell, which is hard enough already. It did
fall, at all events, to the amazement of America and
Europe, after six or seven weeks of siege by Pepperell's
militia, and blockade by Commodore Warren.* The
garrison, when it capitulated, consisted of 600 regulars
and 1200 militia men, a force half as large again as Lord
Mahon supposes. Of the besieging force there were
3250 Massachusetts men, exclusive of commissioned offi
cers, 516 of Connecticut, and 304 of New Hampshire.
The assailants were short of powder and provisions, and
ill provided with camp equipage. Their siege artillery
they had taken in " the grand battery " at Louisburg,
according to the scheme laid out at Boston.
On the arrival in London of the Mermaid frigate with
the news, her commander received a gratuity of five hun
dred guineas ; " the park and tower guns were fired, and
a general joy and gladness," says a London newspaper,
" was diffused through the whole kingdom. Advices were
forthwith sent to his Majesty in Hanover, who was gra
ciously pleased to express the highest satisfaction 
And in further testimony how acceptable this important
acquisition is to his Majesty, a patent has been sent from
Hanover, creating Mr. Pepperell a baronet of Great
Britain  His Grace the Duke of Newcastle has
in the most affectionate manner expressed the just sense
the nation has of the service of the New England troops ;
that it will reflect everlasting honor on their country ; and,
happening when affairs in Europe were in so bad a situa
tion, it will still the more endear them to his Majesty." The
Gentlemen's Magazine took occasion to say, " Our coun
trymen and kinsmen of New England are like shrubs and
trees which increase in beauty and vigor by being trans
planted. They almost shame the soil of their ancestors
* Lord Mahon says that Pepperell landed his troops " at Gabarus." In
the rude old map of Colonel Gridley, the provincial engineer, the well
known Chapeau Rouge Bay is called Gabarus Bay-, — we suppose, a corruption
of the former name, the G in Gabarus being pronounced soft.

by their stately growth." Moore's doctrine was not yet
broached ; " In glorious beauty woods and fields appear ;
Man is the only growth that dwindles here."
The event was one of those singular ones which baffle
all reasonable calculation. The enterprise seemed to have
no one element of success, but its daring. Douglas calls
it " the very, very, very rash, but very, very, very fortu
nate expedition against Cape Breton ; " and says that " if
any one circumstance had taken a wrong turn on our
side, and if any one circumstance had not taken a wrong
turn on the French side, the expedition must have mis
carried, and our forces would have returned with shame,
and an inextricable loss to the province." *
All this may be nothing to the purpose of Lord, iMa-
hon's " History of England. " But it is to the purpose of
that history that the capture of Louisbuj-g was, as far as
England was concerned, the great event ofthe war of the
Imperial succession of 1741-1748. England had no
other success in that war, to compare with it. It was not
without occasion that " His Grace the Duke of Newcas
tle, in the most affectionate manner, expressed the just
sense the nation had of the service of the New England
troops ; " for that service of theirs extricated His Grace
from infinite perplexity, and the nation from danger not
a little. We think it would not be attaching too much
importance to it to say, that by saving the honor of
England, it gave peace to Europe. England, adopting
the basis of the status ante bellum, for the treaty of Aix
la Chapelle, bought back from France, by the retroces
sion of Louisburg in 1748, the conquests which the
more fortunate arms of her rival had been wresting from
her on the other side of the water ; — a disposition of it,
no doubt, very much to the discontent and chagrin of the
New England actors and sufferers, but very greatly to her
own aid and comfort. Lord Mahon had not sufficiently
informed himself respecting the place of that event in the
history of England, when he wrote the little paragraph
which we have quoted. f

* Summary of the British Settlements, .S-c, vol. i. p. 336.
t The facts above stated are partly taken from tho original " Letters relat
ing to the Expedition against Cape Breton," (Massachusetts Historical Col
lections, vol. i.) and partly from newspapers ofthe time.

9
Throughout his work, the noble author appears dis
posed to do hearty justice to Washington, whom he intro
duces in the following terms :
" On the Ohio, the French surprised and sacked Blocks Town,
a settlement of the Virginians, who, in return, sent forward Major
George Washington at the head of 400 men, and with orders to
attack Fort Duquesne. But this officer having advanced to
a place called Little Meadows, found himself surrounded in a
small fort by superior numbers, and, notwithstanding his resolute
resistance, overpowered : he was compelled to capitulate, march
ing out, however, with military honors. This skirmish, of small
importance, perhaps, in itself, was yet amongst the principal causes
of the war. It is no less memorable as the first appearance in
the pages of history of one of their brightest ornaments, — of
that great and good man. General Washington." * Vol. iv.
pp. 65, 66.
But notwithstanding this good disposition. Lord Ma-
hon's want of sufficient study of the transactions of those
times causes him to rob Washington of part of his due.
For instance, in describing that miserable business, the
defeat of General Braddock,t he fails to relate that Brad-
dock's stupid proceedings were in haughty opposition to
the remonstrances of his Virginian aid-de-camp, and that
the intrepidity and conduct of the latter in the action
attracted the universal admiration of the country, were
extolled to and by the British ministry, and in short gave
* Here are some little mistakes. Eor "Blocks Town," one should read
Logstown, (which, however, had not been taken by the French,) and for "Lit
tle Meadows," Great Meadows. And when Washington was "sent forward,"
it was jiot " with orders to attack Fort Duquesne," which was not yet in exist
ence, but to help in building upon its site a fort to be begun by another
Virginia officer, who preceded him. The unfinished work was taken by the
French, under Contrecoeur, before Washington reached it. — Speaking of
"Washington's family further on, (vi. 64) Lord Mahon says, "His great
grandfather, John Washington, had settled in Virginia about eighty years
before, (that is about 1 652,) and was descended from an old gentleman's family
in England. There was a common descent between them and the Earls of
Ferrers, whose ancient device — three mullets above two bars argent, as
blazoned in the Herald's College, and as borne by that line of Earls, appears
no less on the seal of the American General." But the connection of the name
Washington with the Earldom of Ferrers, dates from as late a time as that of
the marriage (about 1675) of Elizabeth Washington to Robert Shirley, after
wards Earl of Ferrers, while the Washington arms are known to have been
borne by the family of that name as early as 1 564, and probably much earlier.
Can any one tell us whether the stars and stripes of the American flag (of the
origin of which we must own our ignorance) have any relation to the mullets
and bars in the arms ofthe commander-in-chief?
t Vol. iv. pp. 68-70.

10
him at once a great fame. Lord Mahon does not men
tion Washington's name as having a place in the expe
dition or the battle. Nor in relating that Braddock's
" troops sought safety in headlong flight," is he careful to
confine this remark to the regulars, or to state that while
they, according to the official report, " broke and ran, as
sheep before hounds," the provincials exerted themselves
with steady valor to cover their retreat.
Again, in relating the capture of Fort Duquesne, in
1758, by General Forbes, which, next to the capture of
Quebec, (though at a long distance,) was the great event
in breaking the French power on thi^ continent. Lord
Mahon speaks of the march from Philadelphia as having
been "fraught with no common difficulties," which, " how
ever, were courageously overcome." * But he ignores the
leading part taken by Washington and the militia in that
expedition. Washington was the life of it, though he is
not so much as named by our author in connection with
the affair. In the only action which occurred in the course
of it (that of the l^l^th of September) the regulars were
again beaten, and it was owing to the Virginians that
the detachment was not cut to pieces. If no better
management than that of General Forbes had been at
work for the overcoming of its difficulties. Fort Duquesne
instead of Pittsburg might have stood at the forks of the
Ohio at this day. At twenty-six years of age, Washing
ton had established the military reputation which, seven
teen years later, made him commander-in-chief of the
forces ofthe united Colonies. It was at the close of this
campaign that he received the thanks of the Virginia
House of Burgesses, and that, being overcome with em
barrassment when he attempted to reply, the Speaker
said, " Sit down, Mr. Washington, your modesty is equal
to your valor, and that surpasses the power of any lan
guage I can use."
The war with the Cherokees in South Carolina, in
1759-1761, Lord Mahon, with his right feelings, would
not have related as he has done,f except from imperfect
knowledge. It was altogether a brutal affair. The Indi
ans, no doubt, when foolishly and cruelly injured, carried
on the conflict after the ferocious fashion of their race.
But Lyttleton, the English governor of South Carolina,
* Vol. iv. p. 203. tibid. pp. 291, 292.

11
was the person chiefly culpable. The Cherokees had been
friendly. With small thanks and less reward they had
done useful service in the expedition to the Ohio. There
had been some disorders on the frontier, and the chiefs
had quieted their people ; but Lyttleton wanted revenge.
With needless and heedless obstinacy, regardless of the
opinions of his best counsellors, — for Lyttleton was a
martinet and, quoad hoc, a blockhead, — he insisted on
having the last Cherokee offenders put to death or sur
rendered to him, when the savages thought, not without
reason, that the account had already been pretty fairly
squared, especially as they were not the original aggress
ors. Sincerely desirous of peace, and submitting to unu
sual humiliations to preserve it, they were driven into war
by the outrageous violence and perfidies of the governor,
who went so far as to keep their envoys as prisoners, and
at length to put them to death under the miserable pre
tence of a conspiracy. His " treaty of peace," of which
Lord Mahon speaks, was all a sham, well known by him
to be so, and only intended to give a color to his violent
proceedings ; it was made with unauthorized persons, and
in disregard of Indian customs. If, the war begun, the
Indians carried it on with ferocity, the English did no less.
A party, sent from the north by General Amherst, under
Colonel Montgomery, and joined by a South Carolina
force, committed horrible devastation among the poor
savages. At length, the Indians waylaid him at Crow's
Creek, and handled his party so roughly that he immedi
ately made a rapid retreat from their country ; a move
ment which Lord Mahon (in the use of a euphemism of
which he presents other specimens) describes as his " re
joining Amherst's main army, according to his instruc
tions." The savages now had their turn, and they used
it accordingly, till the following summer, when they were
finally brought to terms. " A fresh detachment from
Amherst's army," says Lord Mahon, " after the campaign
in Canada, soon compelled the Cherokees to sue for
peace." But the better opinion in America is, that the
detachment from Amherst's army, which was under the
command of the same Colonel Grant whom the Virgini
ans had saved before Fort Duquesne, did no such thing ;
but that, on the contrary, the incompetency of Grant was
2

12
redeemed by Middleton and his South Carolina troops.
However that may be, the poor natives were more sinned
against than sinning. It is a shocking passage in the
mal-administration of the colonial governors ; Lord Ma
hon, had he understood it, could not have found in his
good heart to speak of it so coolly.
But we hasten to his Lordship's just published volumes.
And of these we must say, in frankness, that, as to that
portion of them which relates to American affairs, — or
rather to American events, — they have to us altogether too
much the appearance of iDcing the result of cramming for
the occasion, so unlike the rest of the work, which for the
most part seems to have been written from a full mind.
Lord Mahon appears to have begun his study ofthe colo
nial history when about to write his forty-third chapter,
which relates to the passage of the Stamp Act. We judge,
from the account of the foundation of the New England
colonies, with which this chapter opens, that he is not so
much as aware that Plymouth and Massachusetts were
originally separate governments.' To be sure, they ceased
to be so in the third year of William and Mary ; but in
describing the colony seal of Massachusetts Bay, Lord
Mahon appears to give it to the Plymouth settlers, who,
* "At one time," says Lord Mahon, (Vol. v. p. 98) " Cromwell himself,
then a man of little uote, had been on board ship to join them, when there
came an order from Whitehall that he and the other emigrants should be
disembarked, — an order, it has been aptly said, which, in its final conse
quences, destroyed both king and commonwealth." A note refers to Lord
Byron's preface to Marino Faliero. But the reference to Lord Byron relates.
we suppose, not to the statement of fact, but to the subjoined remai-k of
Lord Byron upon it. The fact we take to be apocryphal, though Lord Ma
hon might quote no bad authority for it. Our own historian, Mather, asserts
it (Magnolia, Book i. chap. v. § 7) ; but in these latter days his credit is
not the highest. Hutchinson (History of Massachusetts, Vol. i. p. 42 ; a book,
by the by, which, eminently important as it was to Lord Mahon's objects, wc
have the sti'ongest persuasion that hfi never saw,) followed Mather, though
with less precision of statement. Hume (chap. Iii.) speaks of Hutchinson
as having put the matter beyond question; and Lord Nugent (Life of
Hampden, Vol. i. p. 256) has alluded to it with the same easy faith. " But
the fair inference from the statement of our O'wn excellent annalist, Winthrop,
(Vol. i. pp. 135, 266,) appears to be that all the persons were ultimately per
mitted to come over to America, who had engaged to do so ; and tlie lan
guage of the contemporary Rushworth, in his record of tho proceedings of
tho Privy Council (Vol. ii. p. 409) perfectly coincides with that of Winthrop.
Nor does there appear any good reason why, when the king hoped to tame
the young Sir Harry Vane by assenting to his desire of living in New Eng
land, ho should have expected to accomplish tho same object as to Crom
well, by keeping liim at home.

13
from the time of their having a seal, used one of a quite
different description. To say nothing, however, of earlier
matters, most strangely the movements which immedi
ately led to the Revolution are traced back no further than
to the passage of the Stamp Act ; all that had come and
gone before, since 1760, is despatched with such share
as may belong to it of the two following periods.
" At various periods there had arisen between the North Ame
rican Colonies and the mother country differences touching the
restrictions of trade which the latter had imposed. These differ
ences were, no doubt, of considerable extent and bitterness ; but,
in my opinion, had no other and stronger cause of quarrel broken
forth, they might have been to this day, quietly debated before
the Board of Trade at Whitehall." Vol. v. p. 122.
The story is told with scarcely so much as a mention
of the names of James Otis and Samuel Adams, down to
1770, when Otis was disabled and withdrew from public
life. The tragedy of Hamlet is performed with the part
of Hamlet omitted. For heaven's sake, then, the Ameri
can reader asks, who are put upon the scene ? And the
answer is, Henry and Franklin. For aught the reader
of Lord Mahon knows to the contrary, they bore the
whole burden and heat of the day. For aught that Lord
Mahon appears to know, others might as well have been
spared from the conflict. The chapter which relates to
the passage of the Stamp Act, and its immediate conse
quences, has no place for the Massachusetts Dioscuri, but
sketches at length the characters of " those two eminent
men who at this time took the foremost part in opposing
the pretensions of the mother country on either side of
the Atlantic — Patrick Henry in America, and Benjamin
Franklin in England."
Far be it from us to withhold any honor from those great
names. But fair play is a jewel, and we desire to see it
allowed on afl sides. FrankUn rendered excellent service to
the cause of American freedom. His labors were chiefly, as
Lord Mahon says, in England, where he was agent for the
colonies of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and
Georgia. But he was not one of those to whom the
vision of coming independence was earliest disclosed, nor
will a person well informed on the subject pretend that
any part of his great merit was that of a pioneer in the

14
assertion of Revolutionary doctrine. Lord Mahon's own
volumes would afford some materials for refuting such an
error. As to Patrick Henry, he was a miracle of natural
eloquence. In 1765, he was twenty-nine years old. In
that year he took his seat in the Virginia House of Bur
gesses, having acquired a sudden and brilliant reputation
a year or two before by a marvellous exhibition of foren
sic oratory, but being yet wholly unknown as a legislator
or statesman. He proposed, and, in the face of a formi
dable opposition of the hitherto leading men of the An
cient Dominion, carried through, a series of five Resolu
tions relating to the passage of the Stamp Act. In the
last of them lay the sting of the whole. It was carried
by a majority of only one vote, and, on a reconsideration
the next day, was expunged from the journal, but found its
way before the public through the newspapers. It was as
follows. " Resolved, therefore, that the General Assembly of this colony
have the sole right and power to lay taxes and impositions upon
the inhabitants of this colony ; and that every attempt to vest
such power in any person or persons whatsoever, other than the
General Assembly aforesaid, has a manifest tendency to destroy
British, as well as American, freedom."
These resolutions were passed on the 30th day of May,
1765. They produced a great and salutary excitement
throughout the country. Nearly a year before, on the
13th day of June, 1764, — and in revolutions years are
ages, — the Massachusetts House of Representatives, in
a document of equal formality and publicity, a letter to
their agent in London, written to be communicated to
the ministry, and immediately printed in the newspapers,
had announced the same doctrine in all its breadth in the
following words : " The silence of the province should
have been imputed to any cause, even to despair, rather
than be construed into a tacit cession of their rights, or
an acknowledgment of a right in the Parliament of Great
Britain to impose duties and taxes upon a people who are
not represented in the House of Commons." And in Oc
tober, 1764, the New York Assembly, taking up the same
testimony, proceed to "inform the Commons of Great
Britain, that the people of this colony, inspired by the

15
genius of their mother country, nobly disdain the thought
of claiming that exemption as a privilege ; they found
it on a basis more honorable, solid, and stable ; they chal
lenge, and glory in it, as their right."
We might refer to other facts of the same nature, of
earlier date than the Virginia movement. In what, then,
consisted the great importance of the Resolutions, which,
as Lord Mahon rightly says, " the House of Burgesses of
his [Henry's] province was induced to pass," "mainly
through his eloquence and energy ? " In this, — that they
were the much-desired adhesion of Virginia to the north
ern doctrine. Massachusetts, then the great northern colo
ny, was safe for it long ago. The great southern colony,
Virginia, now adopted it. Had either Massachusetts or
Virginia held back, it could scarcely be that the other colo
nies should go forward. Massachusetts had gone forward.
Virginia now stood by her side. And, from that day,
there was strong encouragement and confidence. And so
far as that made the Revolution, Patrick Henry and his
Resolutions made it, but hardly to the exclusion of the
agency of others, who had earlier done the same sort of
work. If any one thinks that the Revolution is to be dated
from the time when Virginia first maintained strong
doctrine as to the right of taxation, it will be reasonable
for him to refer the Revolution to Patrick Henry's Reso
lutions. But such, we venture to say, is not and will not
be the sentence of history.*
Four years after Henry's Resolutions, James Otis was
still known to the British statesmen as the chief cham
pion of the American claims, and was referred to as such
by Lord Clare and Mr. Burke, in debate in Parliament.
Four years before Patrick Henry's Resolutions, in Feb
ruary, 1761, in the State House in Boston, James Otis
argued the question of the " Writs of Assistance " before
*Lord Mahon says, that "it was universally thought the Address (of the
Congress in 1774) to the English people was composed by Mr. John Jay, of
New York, and the Petition to the King by Mr. Richard Henry Lee, of Vir
ginia." When his Lordship looks into the second volume of the Political
\Vritings of John Dickinson, of Pennsylvania, he will find that the latter
document came from the pen of the famous author of the Farmer's Letters.
Lee wrote the Address to the Colonies. See the Life of Richard Henry Lee,
by his grandson, E. H. Lee. Vol. i. p. 119.
2*

16
the Judges of the Superior Court. John Adams knew
something of the history of American Independence, and
this is what he has left on record as to his sense of the
importance of that transaction.
" Otis was a flame of fire ; with a promptitude of classical
allusions, a depth of research, a rapid summary of historical
events and dates, a profusion of legal authorities, a prophetic
glance of his eyes into futurity, and a rapid torrent of impetuous
eloquence, he hurried away all before him. American Independ
ence was then and there born. The seeds of patriots and heroes,
to defend the Non sine Diis animosiis infans, to defend the vigor
ous youth, were then and there sown. Every man of an immense
crov/ded audience appeared to me to go away as I did, ready to
take arms against Writs of Assistance. Then and there, was the
first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of
Great Britain. Then and there, the child Independence was
born. In fifteen years, that is, in 1776, he grew up to manhood
and declared himself free." Tudor's Life of James Otis, pp.
60, 61.
And, again :
" I do say in the most solemn manner, that Mr. Otis's oration
against Writs of Assistance, breathed into this nation the breath
of hfe." IMd. pp. 87, 88.
Such was the opinion of a friend to the cause, than
whom no other was more discerning or better informed.
What did its enemies think ? Towards the close of
1766, Governor Bernard wrote to Lord Shelburne : " The
troubles in this country take their rise from, and owe their
continuance to, one man, so much that his history alone
would contain a full account of them. This man, James
Otis, Esq., was a lawyer in Boston, when I came to the
government," &c.*
It is the same John Adams, whose opinion of Otis's
services we have given above, of whom Lord Mahon
says :
" I observe that Mr. John Adams, in his private Diary, from
time to time mentions Otis with no high respect. Thus, Dec. 23,
1765 : ' Otis is fiery and feverous ; he is liable to great incquah-
ties of temper, sometimes in despondency and sometimes in a
rage.' Thus again, Sept. 3, 1769 : ' Otis talks aU; he grows the
* Bowcn's Life of Otis, in Sparks's Am. Biog. p. 147.

17
most talkative man alive ; no other gentleman in company can
find space to put in a word.' " Vol. v. p. 408.
The character ascribed by Adams to Otis in 1765
always belonged to him. It was the infelicity of his
temperament, consistent however with generous and
splendid qualities, and by no means excluding " high re
spect " in one who observed and recorded it. With
growing years it became aggravated into insanity, to
which condition it was rapidly tending when, in 1769,
Adams described Otis as growing "the most talkative
man alive." This was the last year that he passed for a
sane man. But if Lord Mahon entertains a " high re
spect " for Lord Chatham, notwithstanding the imbecile
prostration of the time of his second administration, why
is Adams to be quoted as denying respect to Otis under
like circumstances ?
Of " the two Adamses, Samuel and John," Lord Ma
hon says that
" These were distant kinsmen and close friends, and both men
of much ability, but far different in character ; the first a dema
gogue, the second a statesman." Vol. v. p. 408.
According to the etymology of the word, a demagogue
means simply a popular leader. And this Samuel Adams
eminently was. But a demagogue, in the invidious sense
of that word, he certainly was not. He sought no pri
vate ends. He had a Spartan contempt for money and
parade. He was a man of theories, — narrow theories,
sometimes — but standing in his consideration far above
all personal objects. The most special notice which Lord
Mahon takes of him is to repeat a piece of scandal from
the simple, but credulous, and therefore not too trust
worthy Gordon.* But as he subsequently took pains to get
further information, and on the strength of it has made the
amende in his Appendix,! we pass that question by. It is
certain that the people of Massachusetts, and especially his
fellow-citizens of Boston, who best knew and were most
interested in any cause of complaint against him of the
sort alleged, extended to hira a remarkable degree of
confidence throughout his long life. In it there are no so
salient passages as in the life of Otis. But, as much as
* Vol. vi. p. 183. t "Vol. vi. p. xvi.

18
any other person in the early period of the ante-revolu
tionary disputes, Samuel Adams was the man of reflec
tion and daring, and, more than any other person, the
man of business. He tempered and partly directed the
impetuosity of Otis, and his more careful and fastidious
pen was constantly in use to prune the exuberances and
correct the method of his friend. Much of the important
public correspondence of the time, as the Massachusetts
petition to the king, the letters to members of the minis
try and other persons in power in England, and the circu
lar letter to the Assemblies of the other colonies, are
known to have been thus their joint production, Otis fur
nishing the first draft, and Adams making amendments
and additions. To Adams is probably due the invention
of that potent enginery, the committees for correspond
ence between the different colonies. And on all hands,
we believe, he is allowed to have suggested the commit
tees of correspondence between the towns of Massachu
setts, in which the other more extensive plan had its
pattern. He has been said, but we do not know on
what authority, to have first suggested the idea of the
non-importation agreement, and that of the Congress at
New York, in 1764, which led, ten years after, to the Conti
nental Congress.* In the caucuses and the popular assem
blies he was the oracle, and one never known to utter an
ambiguous response. Lord Mahon may depend upon it
that the history of American politics from 1760 to 1770
will not hold together in the absence of those two names.
His Lordship, following Mr. Adolphus, supposes that
the famous speech of Colonel Barre on the passage of
the Stamp Act was an afterthought. He says :
"Within doors the scheme was opposed with little vigor. Pitt
was ill in bed at Hayes, and only a few of his friends, as Colonel
Barre and Alderman Baker, spoke or voted against it. Nine
years afterwards, and in the presence no doubt of many men who
had witnessed these discussions, Mr. Burke described them in the
following terms : ' Far from any thing inflammatory, I never heard
a more languid debate in this House. No more than two or three
gentlemen as I remember spoke against the Act, and that with
great reserve and remarkable temper. There was but one divi
sion in the whole progress of the Bill and the minority did not
* Biography of the Signers, &c. p. 293.

19
reach to more than thirty-nine or forty. In the House of Lords
I do not recollect that there was any debate or division at all.'
" There is extant, nevertheless, an eloquent and well-known
burst of oratory, which is ascribed to Colonel Barre, on one of
these occasions. Mr. Grenville having spoken of the Americans
as children of our own, planted by our care and nourished by our
indulgence. Colonel Barre exclaimed : ' Children planted by your
care ! No, your oppression planted them in America, they fled
from your tyranny into a then uncultivated land;' — and there
follows a fine philippic against the misgovernment of the mother
country. But on further examination there appears the strongest
reason to doubt whether these words were really uttered at that
time. In the first place, they are not recorded in the contempo
rary Debates of Debrett. Secondly, they are hard to reconcile with
the authentic description of Burke. It is probable therefore that
some time afterwards, and when our dissensions with America
had already darkened, this speech, under the name of revision,
and on a slight foundation of reality, was added by the pen of
Barre." Vol. v. pp. 130, 131.
This is an anachronism, and an anachorism besides. A
Congressional orator nowadays publishes a speech in a
pamphlet which it takes two or three hours to read, when
the honorable gentleman has only been twice as many
minutes on his legs. But we never heard of this being
the practice in England. At all events, it was not in
Col. Barre's time. Mr. Adolphus and Lord Mahon are
mistaken. Mr. Francis Dana, afterwards Chief Justice
of Massachusetts, heard Barre's speech, and wrote home
an account of it at the time. But Lord Mahon might
have found his contradiction in print. In June, 1766,
Jared Ingersoll, then recently returned from London,
where he had been agent for the colony of Connecticut,
published at New Haven a pamphlet containing, among
other letters, one addressed by him to Governor Fitch on
the 11th of February, 1765. In this letter he gives the
following account of the proceedings on the passage of
the Stamp Act, at which he was present :
" The debate upon the American Stamp Bill came on before
the House for the first time, last Wednesday, when the same was
opened by Mr. Grenville, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a
pretty lengthy speech; and in a very able, and I think, in a very
candid manner, he opened the nature of the tax ; urged the ne
cessity of it ; endeavored to obviate all objections ; — and took

20
occasion to desire the House to give the Bill a most serious and
cool consideration, and not suffer themselves to be influenced by
any resentments, which might have been kindled from any thing
they might have heard out of doors : — (alluding, I suppose, to
the New York and Boston Assemblies' speeches and votes) —
that this was a matter of revenue, which of all things was the
most interesting to the subject, &c., &c. — The argument was
taken up by several who opposed the Bill, namely by Alderman
Beckford, Col. Barre, Mr. Jackson, Sir William Meredith, and
some others. Mr. Barre, who by the way, I think, and I find I
am not alone in my opinion, is one of the finest speakers that the
House can boast of, having been some time in America as an ofla-
cer in the army, and having, while there, as I had known before,
contracted many friendships with American gentlemen, and I
believe entertained much more favorable opinions of them, than
some of his profession have done, delivered a very handsome and
moving speech upon the Bill, and against the same, concluding
by saying, that he was very sure that most who should hold up
their hands to the Bill, must be under a necessity of acting very
much in the dark, but added, ' perhaps as weU in the dark as any
way.' " After him Mr. Charles Townsend spoke in favor of the Bill ;
— took notice of several things Mr. Barre had said, and conclud
ed with the following, or like words : — ' And now will these
Americans, children planted by our care, nourished up by our
indulgence, until they are grown to a degree of strength and opu
lence, and protected by our arms, will they grudge to contribute
their mite, to relieve us from the heavy weight of thatburden which
we lie under ? ' When he had done, Mr. Barre rose, and hav
ing explained something which he had before said, and which Mr.
Townsend had been remarking upon, he then took up the before-
mentioned concluding words of Mr. Townsend, and in a most
spirited, and, I thought, an almost inimitable manner, said,
" ' They planted by your care ! No, your oppressions planted
'em in America. They fled from your tyranny, to a then uncul
tivated and unhospitable country; where they exposed them
selves to almost all the hardships to which human nature is
liable ; and among others, to the cruelties of a savage foe, the
most subtle, and I take upon me to say, the most formidable of
any people upon the face of God's earth ; and yet, actuated by
principles of true English liberty, they met all these hardships
with pleasure, compared with those they suffered in their own
country, from the hands of those who should have been their
friends. •' ' They nourished up by your indulgence ! They grew by
your neglect of 'em : — As soon as you began to care about 'em,

21
that care was exercised in sending persons to rule over 'em, in
one department and another, who were, perhaps, the deputies
of deputies to some member of this house, sent to spy out their
liberties, to misrepresent their actions, and to prey upon 'em ;
— men, whose behavior, on many occasions, has caused the
blood of those sons of liberty to recoil within them ; — men pro
moted to the highest seats of justice, some, who to my knowledge,
were glad by going to a foreign country, to escape being brought
to the bar of a court of justice in their own.
" ' They protected by your arms ! They have nobly taken up
arms in your defence ; have exerted a valor amidst their constant
and laborious industry, for the defence of a country, whose fron
tier was drenched in blood, while its interior parts have yielded all
its little savings to your emolument. And believe me, remem
ber that I this day told you so, that same spirit of freedom which
actuated that people at first, will accompany them still ; — but
prudence forbids me to explain myself further. God knows I do
not at this time speak from motives of party heat ; what I de
liver are the genuine sentiments of my heart : However superior
to me in general knowledge and experience, the respectable body
of this house may be, yet I claim to know more of America than
most of you, having seen and been conversant in that country.
The people, I believe, are as truly loyal, as any subjects the
king has ; but a people jealous of their liberties, and who will
vindicate them, if ever they should be violated ; — but the sub
ject is too delicate, and I will say no more.'
" These sentiments were thrown out so entirely without pre
meditation, so forcibly and so firmly, and the breaking off so
beautifully abrupt, that the whole house sat awhile as amazed,
intently looking, and without answering a word.
" I own I felt emotions that I never felt before ; and went the
next morning and thanked Col. Barre, in behalf of my country,
for his noble and spirited speech. However, sir, after all that
was said, upon a division of the house upon the question, there
was about two hundred and fifty, to about fifty, in favor of the
bill." Mr. IngersoU's Letters, pp. 14-17.
There can be no question about this evidence. " Last
Wednesday," (which by the calendars we find to be Febru
ary 6th,) Ingersoll says that Barre made a speech, which
Ingersoll reports, just as American children have had it
almost ever since in their school-books. Lord Mahon
says that it is " not recorded in the contemporary Debates
of Debrett." But, as his Lordship has looked into De
brett to verify that statement, he knows that the whole
proceedings in relation to the Stamp Act, are despatched

22
in eleven lines of that concise reporter.* The supposition of
Barre's speech having been made at the time alleged, again
says Lord Mahon, is " hard to reconcile with the authentic
description of Burke." But what proceedings was it
in particular that Burke authentically described ? It is hard
to say. If they were those of the 6th of February, either
Burke's memory was in fault, or he estimated Barre's elo
quence in a way we should not expect from him. In a later
letter (of March 6th,) Ingersoll, referring to his former "par
ticular account of the reception the American Stamp Bill
met with in the House of Commons upon thefirst bring
ing of it in," says, (p. 22,) " since that time, in the further
progress of the bill through the House, there have been
some further debates, the most considerable of which was
at the second reading of the bill." On that day too,
Ingersoll, — a colony agent, interested to observe the facts,
and under no motive, as far as we can see, to deceive, —
says that the presentation of a Virginia petition by Sir
William Meredith " drew on a pretty warm debate ; " that
" Mr. Yorke, the late Attorney-General, delivered himself
in a very long speech ; " that " in the most peremptory
manner " General Conway " denied the right of parlia
ment to tax us ; " that he " urged with great vehemence
the many hardships and what he was pleased to call ab
surdities that would follow from the contrary doctrine
and practice," and that " the hardships and inconven
iences were also again urged and placed in various lights
by our other friends in the House." And he says further
on, under the date of Rlarch 6th, (p. 23,) " It is about
four days since the Bill passed through all the necessary
forms in the House of Commons, and is now ready and
lies before the Lords for their concurrence."
It was then pending in the House from February 6th to
about March 2d. On the 6th of February, Barre made
his famous speech, and it was in answer to Charles
Townsend, and not to George Grenville, whom Lord Ma
hon, by yet another error, supposes to have been the
alleged opponent of Barre on that occasion. " In the
further progress of the bill " there were " some further de
bates," of one of which in particular", Ingersofl, within
three or four weeks at the longest, gives a detailed account.
* Parliamentary Register, Vol. iv. pp. 250, 251.

23
Nine years after, Burke used language which Lord Ma
hon interprets as proving that the Stamp Act passed
almost sub silentio, and, in particular, that Barre's speech
upon it, as it has since gone into the books, is a fiction.
Lord Mahon must look for some other explanation of
Burke's words. After the facts which we have stated,
he will own that his former inference from them must be
abandoned. Barre's speech, as copied from IngersoU's letter to the
Governor, appeared in the New London Gazette on the
10th of May, 1765, a few days only after the news of the
final passage of the Stamp Act reached America, and
immediately went flying all abroad through the conti
nent on the wings of all the newspapers. This we might
not have been surprised that Lord Mahon should have
overlooked. Biit there is one somewhat public refutation
of his mistake which might have been less expected to
escape his notice. He is acquainted with the phrase
" Sons of Liberty," for he says (p. 361,) " thus did the
opposition parties in America continue (in 1769) to call
themselves." But it seems he did not know that it had
its origin in 1765, in the enthusiasm for Barre's speech,
who had used it. For this fact, which in America is so
notorious as to need no proof, we appeal, for Lord Ma
hon's satisfaction, to IngersoU's pamphlet; who says,
(p. 16, note,) " I believe I may claim the honor of having
been the author of this title, (Sons of Liberty,) however
little personal good I have got by it, having been the only
person, by what I can discover, who transmitted Mr.
Barre's speech to America."
It is perhaps scarcely worth while to mention that the
device of a snake cut in pieces, with the initial letters of
the names of the several colonies affixed to the parts,
with the motto "Join or Die," which appeared at the head
of 'the " Constitutional Courant " after the passage of the
Stamp Act, was not contrived for that occasion, as Lord
Mahon (p. 133) appears to suppose. It was invented by
Franklin, at the beginning of the previous war, with the
design of uniting the colonies against the French, and was
published at that time in his newspaper, the " Pennsyl
vania Gazette." *
* See Sparks's Writings of Franklin, vol. iii. p. 25.
3

24
Of not much more consequence is a mistake a little
further on, if it were not for the unpleasant use which
it is made to serve. After the signature of the treaty of
peace in 1783, a story was current in England that Frank
lin appeared on that occasion in the same dress of " Man
chester velvet," in which he had been clad, when, eight
years before, he was the object of Wedderburn's vitu
peration before the Privy Council ; thus showing the deep
resentment with which he had treasured up the remem
brance of that scene. Lord Mahon says, (vol. v. p. 495,)
" Mr. Sparks has given some strong reasons against the
truth of this story," and adds, referring to that gentle
man's edition of Franklin's Writings, (vol. i. p. 488,)
" But Mr. Sparks is quite mistaken when he proceeds to
say that this story was fabricated in England, ' to gratify
the malevolence of a disappointed party.' " But this is
not precisely what Mr. Sparks did proceed to say. Mr.
Sparks's words were these : " The report was fabricated in
England at a time when the treaty was a topic of vehe
ment discussion ; and it was eagerly seized upon to gra
tify the malevolence of a disappointed party." Now there
can be no question that a story may be fabricated as a
pleasantry, and afterwards seized upon for a purpose.
And this is a distinction which apparently Mr. Sparks
meant to make ; at all events, it is one which his lan
guage intimates. And Lord Mahon should recognize the
difference between fabricating a thing, which his Lord
ship never does himself, and seizing upon it when fabri
cated, an error from which (as in the case of the Baroness
Riedesel's reports,) he is not equally exempt. He goes
on to say, that the story " was told by one whom Mr.
Sparks will hardly consider an adherent of what he terms
the malevolent and disappointed party, namely. Dr.
Priestley, and it was vouched for most distinctly by Dr.
Bancroft, an American, and an intimate friend of Frank
lin." And for this he refers to Sparks's Franklin.* But
here his Lordship is still more astray. He well knows
the difference between the treaty of peace with Great
Britain in 1783, and the treaty of alliance with France in
1778 ; and if he had overlooked it, the very note of Mr.

* Vol. iv. p. 453,

25
Sparks, to which he refers, read carefully, would have
brought it to his mind. That note cites the authority of
Dr. Priestley and Dr. Bancroft for an incident of the sign
ing of the treaty of 1778, and not at all of the treaty of
1783, as Lord Mahon imagines. These things are not
material. But a writer of his Lordship's reputation has a
character for exactness to maintain ; and especially he can
not be too careful as to accuracy in quotations and refer
ences, when he intends to make them the basis of censo
rious comment.
In December, 1776, a large building in the dock-yard
at Portsmouth was consumed by fire. Soon after, a
quantity of combustibles was found concealed in another
building of the same establishment ; and, still later, at
tempts were made to fire the shipping at Plymouth and
BristoL Suspicion fell upon a young Englishman, named
Aitken, who had been in America, and who was other
wise called John the Painter. While in gaol, a fellow-
craftsman gained his confidence, and
" John the Painter was by degrees drawn in to own to his false
friend that he was engaged in a design of setting fire to the seve
ral dock-yards, and thus destroying the navy of Great Britain,
and that he had been more than once to Paris to concert his
measures for that object with Mr. Silas Deane. ' Do you not know
Silas Deane ? ' he asked. ' What, no, — not Silas Deane ? ' He
is a fine clever fellow ; and I believe Benjamin Franklin is em
ployed on the same errand.' The prisoner added that Silas
Deane had encouraged him in his noble enterprise, inquiring all
the particulars, and supplying him with the money he wanted."
Vol. vi. pp. 217, 218.
As Franklin had just arrived in France when the Ports
mouth dock-yard was set on fire, and had not yet reached
Paris, Lord Mahon, in a note, acquits him of any privity
to the transaction. But he does it with little grace, think
ing proper to add, —
" Yet some persons may consider as significant the hint which
he drops in a letter to Dr. Priestley many months before : ' Eng
land has begun to burn our seaport towns ; secure, I suppose,
that we shall never be able to return the outrage in kind.'
Works, voh viii. p. 156." Vol. vi. pp. 217, 218.
This was said by Franklin in allusion to the burning
of Charlestown by the British, during the battle of Bun-

26
ker HiU. If Lord Mahon regards those words of Frank
Un as affording any presumption that FrankUn or his
countrymen would be disposed to send incendiaries into
the cities of England to retaliate that act of military
wantonness, then perhaps less importance is to be attached
to his Lordship's opinion of Silas Deane, on whom, for
want of such a proof of alibi as Franklin's, he appears
willing to allow the Painter's charge to rest.
But to go back again some years. We cannot quite
acquiesce in Lord Mahon's estimate of Sir Francis Ber
nard, though we are aware that he is not without appa
rently good authority for his opinion. We think we
could point to not a few occasions on which a man, such
as he describes Bernard, would not have acted as Bernard
did. We have materials for arguing the point, but, on
the whole, we must pass it by, as requiring an induction
of facts too large for our present limits. Lord Mahon
says that Bernard was " a man of ability and firmness,
but harsh and quarrelsome." We could not select the
epithet " harsh " as well characterizing him, and we are
by no means clear that he should be caUed " quarrel
some." Sir Francis was an accomplished man, of un
exceptionable private life, and of distinguished talents for
society. He had governed New Jersey very satisfactorily
to the people. Notwithstanding the dissatisfaction occa
sioned by the appointment of Hutchinson as Chief Jus
tice, he was, on the whole, popular through the first three
years — Hutchinson says, through the first five years —
of his administration of Massachusetts, and the provin
cial government gave him substantial tokens of its good
wiU. But he was not rich ; he had a large family to pro
vide for ; and this was to be done through official pre
ferment, which accordingly he was always seeking. The
way to preferment was through ministerial favor, and the
way to the favor of court and ministry when George the
Third was king, and George GrenviUe was minister, was
through a lofty assertion of the prerogative. He stood
for prerogative confidently, ably, and at the same time
imprudently. Had he been more cunning, he would have
dealt more in generals. He spread his argument too
much, volunteered too many applications of his principles,
and exposed too many points to attack. He was engaged

2T
with abler men than himself. Otis, Adams, and Bowdoin
made wild work with his state papers. Such refutations
as he got from them are of the things that drive wise
men mad. It was hardly in human nature — it was not
in that of Sir Francis — to bear them with equanimity.
Had there been less in him, he would have ventured less,
and sought quiet in inefficiency. As it was, his conscious
abUity, stimulated by his needy ambition, tempted him
to repeated conflicts, and so involved him, again and
again, in vexatious defeats. That under such circum
stances, he should have sometimes betrayed irritation, and
suffered himself to be driven to undignified expedients,
we do not think justifies calling him " harsh and quarrel
some." But perhaps this is not much more than a dis
pute about words, and at all events we have not space to
pursue it. Champion of parliamentary supremacy as he
was, Bernard was opposed to the Stamp Act* His inde
pendent good sense, had he been left to follow it, would
have saved him from many indiscretions. It was not so
much ill temper that led him into them, as the erroneous
estimates of popular opinion into which he was seduced by
the crown officers and their adherents. He was never, by
any means, so much an object of dislike as Hutchinson
became, though it is true, this was partly owing to the
feeling that Hutchinson, as a Massachusetts man, had
added treachery to oppression.
" In Rhode Island," says Lord Mahon, " there had
taken place a most daring outrage during the past year,
(1772,) when a king's ship, the Gaspee schooner, which
was employed against the illicit traders, was boarded,
set on fire, and destroyed." f Daring, undoubtedly, that
affair may well be called. The Gaspee was boarded

* " I would not presume to give advice to his Majesty's ministers of State ;
but yet I hope I shall be excused when I reveal my earnest wishes, that some
means may be found to make it consistent with the dignity of parliament to
put the Stamp Act out of the question, at least for the present." Bernard's
Letter to Secretary Conway, of October 28th, 1765, in " Select Letters " of
Bernard (London, 1774,) p. 28. " I heartily disapproved of the Stamp Act,
before it passed. I voted against it, and doubt not I shall vote for the repeal.
I knew your sentiments were the same as mine on this subject." R. Jack
son to Bernard, November 8th, 1765, in Massachusetts State Papers, CBos-
ton, 1818,) p. 70.
t Vol. V. p. 483.

28
at midnight, in Narragansett Bay, from eight boats from
Providence, set on fire, and destroyed. On the arrival
of the intelligence in England, a royal proclamation
was issued offering a large reward for the discovery of
the perpetrators, and a royal commission proceeded to
Rhode Island, and made laborious scrutiny for their
detection ; but they kept each other's counsel, and were
not discovered. There had been plenty of " outrage "
on the part of the petty officer in command of the vessel,
to provoke her fate. Contrary to English law, he had
sent property, seized by him, out of the colony, for trial at
Boston ; and in a letter of complaint to Lord HiUsborough,
the Governor of Rhode Island had had occasion to repre
sent that " since the Gaspee and Beaver have been sta
tioned in this colony, the inhabitants have been insulted
without any just cause, with the most abusive and con
tumelious language, and I am sorry that I have reason to
say that the principal officers belonging to said vessels
have exercised that power with which they are vested, in
a wanton and arbitrary manner." A previous correspond
ence on the subject between the Governor and Admiral
Montague, commanding on the station, had been con
ducted by that officer with the insolence customary with
the officers of the royal navy in their communications
with the colonial governments in those times.*
Lord Mahon habitually looks upon the people and the
measures of Massachusetts with less favor than upon
those of the other colonies. In April, 1775, the Provin
cial Congress of Massachusetts addressed a letter to a
missionary among the Indians of the Six Nations, re
questing him to use his " influence wdth them to join with
us in the defence of our rights ; but if you cannot pre
vail with them," it continues, " to take an active part in
this glorious cause, that you will at least engage them to
stand neuter, and not by any means to aid and assist our
enemies." The former of the two clauses which we have
quoted. Lord Mahon cites, with an unpleasant paraphrase
of his own.f For the letter, he refers in a note to Mr.
Sparks's edition of Waslmigton's Writings, (vol. iii. p. 495,)
* The story is told, and tho whole evidence collected in a pamphlet pub
lished by William R. Staples, at Providence, in 1845. See also Gordon's
History, vol. i. pp. 311, 312.
t Vol. vi. p. 53.

29
and adds : " The pretext assigned for this application
was a rumor, ' that those who are inimical to us in Can
ada have been tampering with those Nations,' — an as
sertion very easy to make." It was an assertion very
easy to make. But as Lord Mahon might have learned
from that very note of Mr. Sparks, to which he has re
ferred for the letter, there were facts which made it ap
pear to be also an assertion pretty easy to substantiate.
Several months before, a committee, of which Samuel
Adams, Joseph Warren, and John Hancock were mem
bers, had been directed by the Congress to correspond
with persons in Canada for the purpose of obtaining in-
teUigence of movements in that province.* Emissaries
were likewise despatched to Canada, instructed to consult
with the friends of the American cause, and report such
information as they might procure. They had reported
" that secret agents had been sent among the Indians of
the Six Nations to gain them over and stir them up
against the colonists," — inteUigence, the correctness of
which was substantiated by the shocking butchery of
Americans at the Cedars, early in the following year, by
Indians under the command of a British officer. In a
letter to General Schuyler, towards the close of the same
year, Washington speaks of proofs before possessed " ofthe
ministry's intention to engage the savages against us " as
" incontrovertible," and adds that they were then recently
confirmed by some intercepted despatches.f
In respect to the first battle of the Revolution, that of
the 19th of April, 1775, Lord Mahon very correctly uses
the following language.
" Before the British, now exhausted with long marching, could
again reach Lexington their retreat had grown into a rout. Their
utter destruction would have ensued had not General Gage, to
guard against any adverse turn of fortune, sent forward that very
morning another detachment under Lord Percy to support them.:|:
That new force they found just arrived at Lexington. Here
Lord Percy's men formed a hollow square, into which the British
of the first detachment flung themselves at full length, utterly
* Journals of tlie Provincial Congresses, p. 59 ; Dec. 6th, 1774.
t Sparks's Washington, vol. iii. p. 210.
I In fact. Colonel Smith had sent back to General Gage for this reinforce
ment early in the morning, on finding that the country was alarmed.

30
spent with fatigue, says one of their own Commissaries, and
' their tongues hanging out of their mouths like those of dogs
after a chase ! ' After some brief interval for rest and refresh
ment the whole united force, amounting to eighteen hundred men,
continued the retreat, and towards sunset reached the shores of
Boston harbor, harassed all the way by the American's fire from
behind stone walls and every other place of ambush." Vol. vi.
pp. 55, 56.
This, one would think, might pass for a defeat, on Lord
Mahon's own showing. But he is not content to leave
it so. He must needs complain that,
" The retreat of the British troops to Boston, which was always
intended as soon as they bad accomplished the object of their
march, was held forth as an undesigned and ignominious flight
before a conquering enemy." Voh vi. p. 57.
Why it should not be, we should like to know. As to
its being "ignominious," we will not quarrel about words,
nor do we care to insist that it is ignominious to run
when there is nothing to be got by standing. But as to its
being an " undesigned flight before a conquering enemy,"
we cannot for our lives see how there can be two opinions.
We suppose it was not " intended " by General Gage, that
his troops, " as soon as they had accomplished the object of
their march," should come back from Concord to Boston
upon a trot, a trot which " became a gallop soon." We
take it to have been no part of that officer's plan to have
the retrograde movement of his men so rapid, that when
met by Lord Percy's detachment, and received into a
hollow square, where they were protected by artillery
against king's arms and fowling-pieces, they " flung them
selves at full length, utterly spent with fatigue, and their
tongues hanging out of their mouths like those of dogs
after a chase." Nor do we believe it to have been a feature
of General Gage's sketch of operations for the day, that
even the reinforcing party should owe it only to the ap
proach of night, that a man of them got back to tell the
day's story. To say that the British behaved on that
occasion as well as circumstances permitted, may be fair
enough. But to pretend that they were not disastrously
beaten is puerile.*

* In a note, Lord Mahon refers to Colonel Smith's report to General Gage, in

31
As Lord Mahon carried on the early dispute with Eng
land without the help of Otis or Adams, so he makes
shift to fight the battle of Bunker HUl without Prescott
01* Putnam. Certainly, in a military point of view. Bun
ker Hill was not Waterloo. But the story of Waterloo
would be as complete without WeUington, as that of
Bunker Hill without Prescott.
" The Americans also received from their main army a large
accession of force, led on by Dr. Joseph Warren, the physician
of Boston, who had lately become the President of the Massa
chusetts Congress, and been raised (by his own authority in fact)
to the rank of Major- General." Vol. vi. p. 83.
This is all wrong. General Warren was raised to the
rank of Major-General on the 14th day of June, not at
all by his own authority, but like other general officers, by
a vote of the Provincial Congress. He led no "large
accession of force " to Bunker HiU. Pie went alone, with
his musket on his shoulder, and just before the action
began, reported himself to Prescott as a volunteer, declin
ing the command which Prescott offered him.
Of the numbers engaged at Bunker HiU, Lord Mahon
says, —
" One account, published in Rhode Island, swells the British
to five thousand, while reducing the Americans to two thousand
men, thus nearly inverting the true numbers. • • • • The more
judicious and candid American historians have since admitted
their troops to have amounted to four thousand. But if we may
rely on the ofiicial relation, addressed by General Gage to the
Secretary of State, the British in this battle were opposed by
' above three times their own number,' — that is, by upwards of
seven thousand men." Vol. vi. p. 89.
There is no certainty to be had on this subject. But
by the side of Lord Mahon's argument, we will put down
which that officer charged the Americans with having " scalped and otherwise
ill- treated one or two of our men, who were either killed or severely wounded,
this being seen by a party that marched by soon after." What is true of
this story is bad enough. As the militia drove the British from Concord
bridge, a young man killed with a hatchet a wounded soldier who lay in his
way. It was a brutal act. We wish that innumerable such acts had not
occcuiTed, before and since, in the heat of fight. As to the scalping of either
one or two men, we presume that there is not a particle of proof of such an
occurrence, and Colonel Smith's own vague way of making the representa
tion is not such as to entitle it to credit.

32
that of Mr. Frothingham, who, in his very learned and
trustworthy " History of the Siege of Boston," gives the
result of his investigations as foUows.
" So conflicting are the authorities, that the number of troops
engaged on either side cannot be precisely ascertained. ' The
number of the Americans during the battle,' Colonel Swett says,
' was fluctuating, but may be fairly estimated at three thousand
five hundred, who joined in the battle, and five hundred more who
covered the retreat.' General Putnam's estimate was two thou
sand two hundred. General Washington says, the number engaged
at any one time, was one thousand five hundred, and this was
adopted by Dr. Gordon. This is as near accuracy as can be arrived
at. General Gage, in his ofiicial account states the British force
at ' something over two thousand,' and yet the same account ac
knowledges one thousand and fifty-four killed and wounded.
This certainly indicates a force far larger than two thousand.
Neither British accounts, nor the British plans of the battle,
mention all the regiments that were in the field. Thus, the
movements of the second battalion of marines are not given ; yet
the official table of loss states that it had seven killed and thirty
wounded ; and Clarke, also, states it was not until after the Ame
ricans had retreated, that General Gage sent over this second
battalion, with four regiments of foot, and a company of artillery.
Americans, who counted the troops as they left the wharves in
Boston, state that five thousand went over to Charlestown ; and,
probably, not less than four thousand were actually engaged."
pp. 190, 191.
With much better reason than when he was treating
of the 19th of April, Lord Mahon stoutly maintains that
his countrymen were not beaten at Bunker HiU.
" The Americans at that period — and some of them even to
the present day — have claimed the battle of Bunker's Hill as a
victory. Yet considering that the British were left in possession
of the ground and maintained it for several months to come, and
considering also that, of six pieces of artillery which the Ame
ricans brought into action, they carried away but one, there can
surely be no question that according to the rules of war they
must be considered as defeated." Vol. vi. p. 88.
Lord Mahon may have some authority in view with
which we are not acquainted ; but when he shall quote
the American writer of the present day, or of 1775, or of
any day between the two, who has called the battle of

33
Bunker HiU a victory of the Americans in the common
sense of that word, he wUl give us information which we
are not prepared for. In its moral effect, it was so great
an exploit as to be worth fifty common victories. It
taught the New England people a little of what they
could do against cannon and discipline ; and it taught the
other colonies to rely on the New England people and on
themselves. Had Prescott had a few more rounds of
powder and baU, there is the best reason to believe that
it would have been a magnificent American victory. It
might, or it might not, have been followed by a victory, if
General Ward had acceded to Prescott's urgent solicita
tion to return the next night, and retake the ground with
all the advantage of his own intrenchments against him.
But, as to the rest, after living, man and boy, almost
within the shadow of Bunker Hill for more than half a
century, we protest that we do not remember to have
known it called an American victory, in speech or writing,
by one of our countrymen. The English captain, Ham
ilton, in his entertaining work on " Men and Manners in
America," appears to have thought that this battle was
gained by General Washington. But we suppose that
all American men, women, and children know as well
that it was not gained by the Americans, as they know
that General Washington neither won nor lost it.
Lord Mahon has a happy way of drawing characters.
But sometimes his portraitures lack completeness. Of
Colonel Ethan Allen, of Vermont, the captor of Ticon-
deroga, he says, —
" He was not even a behever in the Christian Revelation, but
composed a book against it, entitled ' Reason the only Oracle of
Man.' The void left in his mind by religious truth was, as we
have often seen it, filled by silly fancies. According to some of
his biographers, he was wont to assure his friends that he ex
pected to return to this life, not indeed once more as a biped, but
in the form of a ' large white horse!'" Vol. vi. p. 60,
And for this anecdote he refers to Mr. Sparks's Life of
Allen, in the American Biography. So far, so good. But
Mr. Sparks introduces the story with the remark that
" some of his (Allen's) biographers have not done him
strict justice in regard to his religious opinions." And

34
then, having told the story, Mr. Sparks goes on to say,
what if Lord Mahon had gone on to quote, he would
have given his readers a better comprehension and a less
unfavorable view of Allen's sentiments on the great sub
ject of rehgion.
" If he was absurd and frivolous enough to say such a thing in
conversation, he has certainly expressed very different sentiments
in his writings. No person could declare more explicitly his
belief in a future state of rewards and punishments, and a just
retribution, than he has done in the following passage contained
in this book.
"' We should so far divest ourselves,' he observes, 'of the in
cumbrances of this world, which are too apt to engross our
attention, as to acquire a consistent system of the knowledge of
our duty, and make it our constant endeavor in life to act con
formably to it. The knowledge of the being, perfections, cre
ations, and providence of God, and the immortality of our souls,
is the foundation of our religion.' Again, ' as true as mankind
now exist and are endowed with reason and understanding, and
have the power of agency and proficiency in moral good and evil,
so true it is, that they must be ultimately rewarded or punished
according to their respective merits or demerits ; and it is as true
as this world exists, and rational and accountable beings inhabit
it, that the distribution of justice therein is partial, unequal, and
uncertain ; and it is consequently as true as that there is a God.
that there must be a future state of existence, in which the dis
order, oppression, and viciousness which are acted and transacted
by mankind in this life, shall be righteously adjusted, and the
delinquents suitably punished.'" Am. Biog. i. 351, 352.
We have not space to discuss the vexed question of
the paper currency, called Continental Money, issued by
Congress during the war. Lord Mahon despatches it too
easily. " Considering the subsequent extension of their national wealth,
and the great pride which they have ever felt in the origin and
event of their Revolutionary War, it might be supposed that all
the obligations contracted in and for that war had been promptly
and punctually discharged. This, however, has by no means been
the case." Vol. vi. p. 62.
Two hundred miUions of doUars, in nominal value,
were issued from time to time, within a period of six
years. There was a great deficiency of other circulating

35
medium in the country, and for nearly two years this passed
readily at par. It then began to depreciate, and continued
to do so, while the necessities of Congress compelled
them to make new emissions. These issues did not go
into circulation at their nominal value, but at the rate
of depreciation at which the currency stood in the market.
It has been estimated that the actual value received
by Congress for the nominal two hundred millions was
not more than about thirty-six millions of silver dol
lars.* Lord Mahon teUs a story (vi. 416) of a British
officer of the Convention troops, who, in 1779, paid an
innkeeper's bill of seven hundred and thirty-two pounds,
with four guineas and a half in gold ; and a writer of that
day, well informed on the subject, says that the circula
tion of the paper " was never more brisk and quick than
when its exchange was five hundred to one." f In one
point of vieW) the whole operation was of the nature of a
tax, each person, through whose hands the money passed,
parting with it again at a loss proportioned to the quan
tity he held, and the time he held it.
Undoubtedly there were great hardships incident to this
process ; but, as the currency circulated among the whole
people, passing through the hands of rich and poor in pro
portion to the respective amounts of their purchases and
sales, the losses were divided among them somewhat in
proportion to their ability and liability to pay a tax. To
redeem it in a way to remunerate the individuals who,
in the gradual progress of depreciation, had sustained the
losses, was obviously impossible ; and there certainly ap
peared great hardship, on the other hand, in paying the
value borne on the face of the paper to a holder who had
taken it at the rate of five hundred for one, when the
payment would have to be made by a second tax on the
same persons who had already been all but intolerably
taxed through the very depreciation which was now to
be made up. These are but hints. If Lord Mahon will
look a little into the discussions of the subject which took
place soon after, or if he will but read a letter written
to the Count de Vergennes, in June, 1780, by John Adams,
which he may find in the forthcoming seventh volume of
* Jefferson's Worlcs, i. 412. t Webster's Political Essays, p. 175.
4

36
that great statesman's Works, he will own, if we mistake
not, that the question is not so simple as to his quick mind
it has appeared.
Ethan Allen took the fort at Ticonderoga, May 10th,
1775. On receiving inteUigence of that event. Congress
resolved, May 18th, that, " whereas there is indubitable
evidence that a design is formed by the British ministry,
of making a cruel invasion from the province of Quebec
upon these colonies for the purpose of destroying our
lives and liberties," and seeing that the cannon and stores
at Ticonderoga would certainly be " used in the intended
invasion of these colonies, this Congress earnestly recom
mend it to the cities and counties of New York and
Albany immediately to cause the said cannon and stores
to be removed from Ticonderoga to the south end of
Lake George." And on the 1st of June it was further
resolved that " no expedition or incursion ought to be un
dertaken or made by any colony or body of colonies
against or into Canada." Yet, on the 27th of the same
month. Congress instructed General Schuyler to repair
without delay to Ticonderoga, and, " if he found it prac
ticable, and it would not be disagreeable to the Canadi
ans, immediately to take possession of St. John's and
Montreal, and pursue any other measures in Canada
which might have a tendency to promote the peace and
security of these colonies." In view of these facts. Lord
Mahon exclaims, —
" Hard task to vindicate on this occasion either the good faith
or the consistency of the American rulers ! Mr. Sparks attempts
it, by pleading that in the interval between their two Resolutions
they had received reports that General Carleton was preparing
an invasion against themselves. But the apologist forgets that,
even some days previous to their Resolution of the 1st of June,
they had in the most solemn manner declared themselves in pos
session of 'indubitable evidence' that such an invasion was de
signed." Vol. vi. p. 115.
" Hard task to vindicate," &c.! Why so ? On the con
trary, does not the whole proceeding hang together like
network? And is it not merely Lord Mahon's own
careless reading of the resolutions on which he comments,
that has drawn from him such an ungracious stricture ?
By the terms of its preamble, which Lord Mahon over
looks when he comes to argue upon it, though he had

37
before quoted them correctly, (p. 92,) the resolution of
May 18th was founded on alleged evidence of " a design
formed by the British ministry, of making a cruel inva
sion," &c., a design which it might take months to mature,
and which, in respect to the course of counteraction re
quired, was an exceedingly different thing from the actual
commencement of operations on the frontier by the Go
vernor of Canada. Between the 1st and the 27th of June,
a Committee at Albany sent information to Congress that
" General Carleton was fortifying St. John's,, building
boats, and preparing to make a descent on Lake Cham-
plain, and attack Crown Point and Ticonderoga." Here
was a pretty clear call for immediate action ; and accord
ingly, on the latter of these days, were despatched the
orders to General Schuyler to make a counter invasion.
" Hard task to vindicate on this occasion " the common
sense " of the American rulers," if they had not altered
their plans to conform to such altered circumstances!
Lord Mahon thinks that the Marquis de Montcalm
foretold the independence of the American States.
" It had been a saying of the Marquis de Montcalm, that our
conquests along the St. Lawrence would hereafter lead to the
severance of our own American colonies from the parent State,
and that France would thus obtain a compensation for her loss."
Vol. vi. p. 143.
And in a note he adds, that " on the prediction of the
Marquis de Montcalm, and on this whole branch of the
subject," he " would refer the reader to that most able
speech on colonial government, delivered by Lord .lohn
Russell in the House of Commons, February 8, 1850."
" It had been a saying of the Marquis de Montcalm,"
&c. How does Lord Mahon know that ? Not, we pre
sume, at second-hand from Lord John RusseU's most able
speech of February 8, 1850, which contains a mere pass
ing allusion to Montcalm's Letters,* but from those letters
themselves. Has Lord Mahon seen that book ? If so,
what does he think of it ? Has he attended to its history
and its structure, which are, briefly, as foUows : In the
year 1777, — Montcalm having died in 1759, of his wound

* Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, Vol. cviii. p. 538.

38
before Quebec, — there appeared in London this pamphlet,
consisting of what purport to be letters written by Mont
calm to Messrs. De Berryer and De la Mole during his com
mand in Canada, and containing speculations on various
topics, commercial, military, and political ; among which is
expressed (p. 24) the opinion to which Lord Mahon refers.
Soon after the publication of this pamphlet, in the course of
a debate in Parliament on Lord Chatham's motion for an
addressto the king. Lord Shelburne declared that the letters
" had been discovered to be a forgery ; " * and, though
Lord Mansfield insisted that they were " not spurious," f
no attempt appears to have been made in any quarter to
establish their genuineness. No explanation was given
of the manner in which the letters were obtained from
France. They are printed in French and English on
opposite pages. Will Lord Mahon look at them and say
whether he is prepared to pronounce that the French was
the original, and the English the translation, instead of
the opposite having been the fact ? As his Lordship,
like a more famous English historian, began his Uterary
career with a book in French, he should be a better judge
of this matter than ourselves ; but, to our thinking, there
are Anglicisms in the turns of phrase of the French copy,
rather than Gallicisms in those of the English. The pro
phetical letter is dated " Camp before Quebec, Aug. 24,
1759," in the critical part of the campaign, three weeks
before the fatal battle. Perhaps Lord Mahon believes, —
but we do not, — that it was with such communications
to his Parisian friends that the French commander amused
his leisure in the intervals between sending fire-ships into
Wolfe's fleet and cannonading his camp across the Mont-
morenci. After describing the evacuation of Boston, in March,
1776, Lord Mahon proceeds to say : —
" The Congress voted that in commemoration of this great
event there should be struck a medal in gold and bronze ; and
it was struck accordingly, not indeed for lack of an artist in Ame
rica, but by their direction, in France." Vol. vi. p. 128.
The history of the medal is of no great consequence.
* Parliamentary Register, Vol. vii. p. 122. t Ibid. p. 127.

39
But, if told, it is as well to have it told correctly. The
votes simply were, first, one of thanks to Washington and
the troops under his command, and then " that a medal of
gold be struck in commemoration of this great event, and
presented to his Excellency." * Nothing is said of bronze,
or of the place at which the medal should be made.
Eleven medals were voted by Congress to officers who
had distinguished themselves in different actions during
the war, but in no instance was it directed that they
should be struck in France. On the 6th of July, 1779,
Congress voted " that the Board of the Treasury cause
the medals in honor of the commander-in-chief and
other officers of the United States, to be struck without
delay." Much delay, however, still followed ; the medals
for Washington, Gates, Greene, and several other officers,
were not procured tiU four years after the signature of
the treaty of peace. They were all executed in Paris,
for the good reason that they could be done there in much
better style than was at that time possible in the United
States. Lord Mahon does more than justice to the claims
of American art in the last century.f
In connection with the account of operations on Long
Island, in 1776, we find the foUowing astonishing sen
tence. " The command of this important post was intrusted by Wash
ington to General Greene, an officer of bravery and enterprise,
but of intemperate habits." Vol. vi. p. 164.
When Lord Mahon knows the wrong he has done to
the memory of an illustrious and blameless man, he will
feel more pain than we feel in recording it. After Wash
ington, there is no military worthy, of the revolutionary
age, whom this country remembers with such veneration
as Greene. No whisper of such a charge as this was
ever before heard against him. Nothing of the sort can
be better known than that it is utterly without founda
tion. Lord Mahon quotes La Fayette in support of his
assertion.

* Journals of Congress, Vol. ii. pp. 108, 109.
t The story of the procming of all the medals in France is told in a letter
of Colonel Humphreys, of November, 1787, published in the American Mu
seum, Vol. ii. p. 493.

40
" Greene, un general souvent ivre. These are the words of
La Fayette ; Mem. et Corresp. vol. i. p. 21, ed. 1837." Ibid.
But he quotes La Fayette incorrectly, and misunder
stands him. La Fayette's words were these, according
to the copy of his " Memoire, Correspondance" &c. which
Mes before us.
" Lord Stirling, plus brave que judicieux, un autre general
souvent ivre, Greene, dont les talents n'etoient encore connus que
de ses amis, commandoient en quahte de Major-generaux." Tome
i. p. 21.
Who the second general was, who was " often drunk,"
is no secret. He was soon dismissed from the army for
misconduct at the battle of Germantown, occasioned by
his bad habit. But it is enough for us that it was
not Greene, of whom La Fayette's whole description is
that " his talents were as yet only known to his friends."
La Fayette knew already and admired them, and the
modest and noble character which they adorned ; and
continued to do so more- and more. In this reference
Lord Mahon has but committed a singular negligence.
But what is to be thought of the knowledge of an histo
rian, writing upon the American Revolution so much in
the dark as to make it possible for him to pass by Gene
ral Greene as " an officer of bravery and enterprise, but
of intemperate habits ? " When one page represents
Greene as a sot, one would scarcely be surprised to find
the next declaring that Jefferson was an idiot.
Lord Mahon refers, without positively adopting it, to
the story told by Mr. Adolphus, (ii. 440,) on the authority
of " private information," of Washington's having received
from Benedict Arnold, on a visit of that officer to head
quarters, the first suggestion of "the idea of attempting to
recross the Delaware, and surprise some part of the King's
troops." * Arnold arrived in camp a week before that ex
ploit. But, several days before he came, Washington had
written to Governor TrumbuU that he meditated " a sti'oke
upon the forces of the enemy, who," he adds, " lie a good
deal scattered, and, to all appearance, in a state of secu
rity." f In fact, the importance of such an attempt seems
* Vol. vi. p. 195. t Sparks's Washington, Vol. iv. p. 541.

41
now so obvious, that it may reasonably be supposed to
have occupied his thoughts from the time he crossed the
Delaware in his retreat. We suppose that the author is
equaUy in error in attributing to Arnold the original con
ception of " the daring and skilful scheme " of the expe
dition from Cambridge through the wilderness to Quebec*
Washington's correspondence indicates nothing of the
kind. September 21st, he wrote, " I am now to inform
the honorable Congress that, encouraged by the repeated
declarations of the Canadians and Indians, and urged by
their request, I have detached Colonel Arnold," (fccj- The
plan was matured about the middle of August, between
the commander-in-chief and several members of Congress,
who were then in camp, during a short adjournment of
that body.
Of La Fayette Lord Mahon speaks in the offensive
terms common with the writers of his school, when re
ferring to that illustrious man. J We cannot go into
a survey of the life of La Fayette or into a vindication
of his course through a long, varied, and eminent ca
reer. We formerly treated these subjects at length, down
to the time of his visit to this country in 1824.§ But we
must not omit to say, that, in the part which he took in
the American war, he acquitted himself with uniform
discretion, fidelity, courage, and honor. Considering his
youth and inexperience (he was not yet twenty years old
when he was appointed a major-general in the American
array), considering that he was acting with and upon a
people of different country, language, and habits, there
are few examples indeed on record of such success as his
in discharging the duties of a high station, and winning
universal confidence and esteem. He was always placed
in as high command as his rank would permit ; he com
mitted no mistakes ; he failed on no occasion to obtain
the cordial approbation of his superiors and of the coun
try. " As a general, it can scarcely be pretended," says
Lord Mahon, " that his exploits were either many or con
siderable." What does his Lordship think, on reflection,

* Vol. vi. p. 116. t Sparks's Washington, Vol. iii. p. 102.
X Vol. vi p. 231. \ N. A. Review, Vol. xx. p. 147, et seq.

42
of the wisdom of that remark ? In the course of his
historical studies, how many generals has he found, in
any time, who have performed " exploits either many or
considerable," in proportion to those who have done their
duty, and served their country well ? Meritorious con
duct, his Lordship knows, is a thing that does not de
pend on fortune. Brilliant achievement is a thing that
partly does depend upon it. La Fayette's " exploits "
were equal to his opportunities. He proved himself
a brave, discreet, sagacious, energetic officer. In com
mand of the American forces in the Virginia campaign
of 1781, he had the dexterity to foil the tactics of Lord
CornwaUis, who had written home, " The boy cannot
escape me," * and to push that officer with his army of
seven or eight thousand men into the trap of the fortified
lines of Yorktown, where they laid down their arms, and
virtually closed the war. His character and his mUitary
talents always commanded the respect and confidence of
Washington, never lightly given ; and at the peace, he
retired from the army and the country universaUy beloved.
Referring to Sir Henry Clinton's expedition up the
Hudson in the autumn of 1777, with a view to forming
a junction with Burgoyne, Lord Mahon says, —
" So important was this diversion of Clinton, that, could it have
taken place only one week or ten days sooner, — could the tid
ings of it have reached Burgoyne at any time, he says, between
the two actions on Behmus's Heights, — it was the deliberate
opinion of that officer, formed after the event, that he would
have been enabled to malce his way to Albany, and that final
success would therefore have attended his campaign." Vol. vi.
p. 281. General Burgoyne, in his " Narrative," (p. 17,) expressed
that opinion, which, under his circumstances, it was not
unnatural for him to entertain. It was against all proba
bility, however. He capitulated nine days after the se
cond battle of Behmus's Heights, at which time, according
to Lord Mahon,! '^i^ force was reduced to 3500 effective
men, and his provisions were nearly exhausted, while the
American army under Gates numbered 13,000 men, well
supplied. If the comparatively small detachment, sent up
* Gordon, Vol. iv. p. 111. t Vol. vi. p. 286.

43
the Hudson by General Clinton, which was engaged in
burning Kingston at the time of Burgoyne's capitulation,
had been ten days earlier in its movement, and had con
trived to effect a landing near Albany, it is to the last
degree improbable that it would have been able to pene
trate through the force which would have been collected in
that city and the adjacent country, so as to form a junc
tion with Burgoyne.
It is a mistake that " General Schuyler, on being re
moved from his command by Congress, had continued to
serve as a volunteer in Gates's army," (p. 285.) He felt
the injustice of being superseded by an officer inferior in
rank, and, immediately on surrendering the command to
Gates, retired to Albany, where he remained till after the
capitulation. In fact, this important campaign is, in va
rious parts, imperfectly described. The defeat of St.
Leger at Fort Stanwix is barely mentioned,* and the
briUiant exploit of Colonel Brown before Ticonderoga, in
September, when he captured three hundred men, and libe
rated a hundred American prisoners,! is not mentioned
at aU, though both were events which materially contri
buted to the failure of Burgoyne's expedition. The fol
lowing imputation demands much more serious rebuke :
" General Gates  was found wiUing to recede from his first
pretensions. He rightly judged it unwise to drive to utter despair
even a far inferior number of brave and disciplined troops. He
felt that the capitulation of such troops on almost any terms, and
under almost any circumstances, would be a most solid advantage,
and would shed on the arms of the United States a lustre which
as yet they had never known. Judging from the event, I am
justified in saying, that another motive also may perhaps have
weighed with some, at least, of the Americans. It matters little
what terms are granted, if it be not intended to fulfil them ! "
Vol. vi. p. 278.
Such a reflection on the integrity of the American
officers who assented to the capitulation, is gross. The
delay in its execution on the part of Congress we shall
not undertake to defend. Congress was exasperated by
* Vol. vi. p. 259.
t See Marshall's Washington, Vol. iii. pp. 279, 280; Williams's History of
Vermont, Vol. ii. pp. 135, 136.

44
the perfidy of the British commander in the then recent
affair of St. Leger. And we could quote officers of the
most unblemished honor, who lived and died in the opi
nion that the Convention from the first was void for mate
rial fraud on the part of the defeated party. But we have
not met with evidence to that point which completely
satisfies our minds.* We think there was misconduct, —
we fear there was bad faith, — in relation to the treat
ment of the Convention troops. But, whatever it was,
the responsibility rests on Congress alone. General Gates
and his officers had nothing whatever to do with it.
Lord Mahon does generous justice to the hospitality
shown by the New York people to the Convention troops,
and then proceeds : —
" But on entering Massachusetts the scene was wholly changed.
There rancor against the Royalists seemed to have absorbed
every other feeling. It is stated by Madame de Riedesel, that
whenever she passed in the streets of Boston the female part of
the population cast upon her angry looks, and, in sign of their
disdain, spat on the ground before her. A far worse token of
their rancor is recorded by the same authority. There was a
Captain Fenton, of their town, who had gone to England, hut
had left behind his wife and daughter, the last a beautiful girl of
fifteen. At the news that Captain Fenton continued faithful to
the King, some women of the lower orders seized on these un
happy ladies, tore off their clothes, and tarred and feathered them,
in which condition they were dragged as a show around the town ! "
Voh vi. pp. 294, 295.
The first part of this we profess ourselves unable to
understand. Forms of insult are conventionaL PuUing
the nose, for instance, has, among men, a very serious as
sociated significance of this description, though it would
be impossible to show that, abstractly, it is suited to
convey any meaning of the kind, more than squeezing the
hand. Now expectorating on the ground before a per-
* December 3d, Gates wrote to the President of Congress, " Respecting
the standards. General Burgoyne declared upon his honor, tliat tlie colors of
the regiments were left in Canada." (Gordon, Vol. iii. p. 46.) But the
Baroness de Riedesel boasts (Letters and Memoirs, p. 200,) of the address
with which she got off the colors of the German regiments, by having them
quilted into a mattress. Madame de Biedesel's book, however, was not pub
lished till 1800.

45
son is not an American expression of anger or contempt.
We never saw or heard of its being done with this de
sign. Inns, streets, steamboats, even the carpeted HaUs
of Congress would be perpetual Aceldamas, if this were
the recognized interpretation of that act. Quite as much
are we confounded by the specification of the act itself;
for, culpable as the male American must be owned to be
in regard to it, our fair countrywomen are blameless
of all share in so gi-oss a habit. As authority, however,
for this and the other story in the above extract, the
reader is referred to the Baroness Riedesel's Dienst-Reise,
(ss. 192 - 202. edit. 1801.) The reader wiU do weU to turn
to the volume accordingly, which was published in a trans
lation, in New York, twenty-five years ago, and therein
he will find it thus written.
" Boston is quite a fine city, but the inhabitants were outrage
ously patriotic. There were among them many wicked people ;
and the persons of my own sex were the worst : they gazed at
me with indignation, and spit when I passed near them. Mrs.
Carter resembled her parents in mildness and goodness of heart ;
but her husband was revengeful and false. 'They came often to
see us, and dined with us and in company of our generals. We
endeavored, by all means, to show them our gratitude ; and they
seemed to feel much friendship for us ; though, at the same time,
this wicked Mr. Carter, in consequence of General Howe's hav
ing burnt several villages and small towns, suggested to his coun
trymen to cut off our generals' heads, to pickle them, and to put
them in small barrels ; and as often as the English should again
burn a village, to send them one of these barrels ; — but that
cruel plan was not adopted.
" I had, during my residence at Bristol, in England, made the
acquaintance of a Captain Fenton." Letters and Memoirs,
p. 196. And then follows the anecdote of the tarring and
feathering of the wife and daughter of Captain Fenton.
If Lord Mahon thought the stories of the spitting be
fore the Baroness de Riedesel, and the outrage on the two
other ladies, worthy of credit and preservation, why not
equally that of the proposal to pickle and barrel up the
heads of British generals, which stands between them
on the record ? The Baroness de Riedesel was a lady de
serving all credit when she teUs what she has seen,

46
though she may have put a wrong construction upon it.
But the case is not exactly the same as to every thing
which she may have heard. Perhaps she did not under
stand English perfectly well And perhaps her readiness
to believe may have been abused by that " wicked Mr.
Carter." If so, Mr. Carter was greatly to blame. But
his fault was of a different degree from that of packing
British generals' heads in casks, or maltreating loyalist
females. " There [in Massachusetts] rancor against the royalists
seemed to have absorbed every other feeling." Party
spirit undoubtedly ran very high. How could it be other
wise, when, on the one hand, liberty and life were at stake,
— on the other, rank, fortune, and home ? Madame de
Riedesel was the wife of a person engaged in one of the
most nefarious occupations that human mind and muscle
can be put to. He and his had no quarrel with us and
ours ; but he had been let out for hire by the wretch called
Elector of Hesse Cassel, to come hither and make our
wives and children widows and fatherless. If he could
come on such a business, it was very fit that his wife
should come with him. Heaven knows he stood enough
in need of every solace of domestic love. He failed in what
he came for. He sold his own blood, and not ours. We
caught him and his attendant reptiles, and drew their
fangs. If women whose husbands, fathers, sons, he
would have butchered, perhaps had butchered, spat on
the ground in sign of anger, as his wife passed, it was a
very unfeminine, discourteous, indecent act, though it
was evidently an affront designed for him rather than for
her ; and something may perhaps be pardoned to the rage
of those against whom injuries so enormous, so wicked,
so unprovoked had been committed, or had only failed of
being committed because God's providence and man's
valor dashed the miscreants to the earth in the flush of
their abominable enterprise.* Burgoyne's troops had also

* We speak no worse of these ruffians than did the friends of America
and humanity at the time, in England. " Wo had," said Lord Chatham, in
debate, on the 5th of December, 1777, " swept every corner of Germany for
men ; we had searched the darkest wilds of America for the scalping-knife ;
but, those bloody measures being as weak as they were wicked, he recom
mended that instant orders might be sent to call home the first, and disband

47
something to blame themselves for, for any inhospitality
in respect to their reception in Massachusetts. Gordon,
himself an Englishman, and at that time in Massachu
setts, says, " While upon their march to the neighborhood
of Boston, the British behaved with such insolence as
confirmed the country in their determination never to sub
mit  The Germans stole and robbed the houses
as they came along, of clothing and every thing on which
they could lay their hands, to a large amount." * Hired
stabbers as long as they were in arms, house thieves as
soon as they were beaten, they had nothing better to claim,
at the hands of meekness itself, than mere forbearance and
humanity. But, after all, Madame de Riedesel had not much to
complain of, in her stay in Massachusetts. Massachu
setts did not put her in fear, or even in Coventry. She
testifies that her household " passed their time in Cam
bridge [it was a year] quietly and happily." They occu
pied a spacious mansion, one of the most agreeable resi
dences in the neighborhood of Boston. The Baroness
gave frequent dinner parties, balls, and fetes. At one of
her balls, she says, —
" We had an excellent supper, to which more than eighty per
sons sat down. Our yard and garden were illuminated. The
king's birth-day falling on the next day, it was resolved that the
company should not separate before his Majesty's health was
drank, which was done with feelings of the liveliest attachment
to his person and to his interests. Never, I believe, was ' God
save the king ' sung with more enthusiasm or with feelings more
sincere. Our two eldest girls were brought into the room to see
the illumination. We were all deeply moved, and proud to have
the courage to display such sentiments in the midst of our ene
mies  When our guests retired, the house was surrounded
with people." Letters and Memoirs, p. 199.
The police of Cambridge could not have been very
rigorous, nor the patriotic mob very intolerant.
Having spoken of the dissatisfaction occasioned to the
Americans by Count D'Estaing's saiUng with his squad-
the other ; for peace, he was certain, would never be effected, as long as the
German bayonet and Indian scalping-knife were threatened to be buried in
the bowels of our American bretliren." See Correspondence of WiUiam Pitt,
^c. Vol. iv. p. 474, 475.
* Vol. iii. p. 44. 5

48
ron for the West Indies in November, 1778, Lord Mahon
proceeds : —
" They had formed the most sanguine hopes from the French
alliance. They had found that alliance as yet little better than
a name. Moreover, just before the departure of D'Estaing, he
had given them another valid reason for displeasure. He had
issued a proclamation to the people of Canada, inviting, though in
guarded terms, their return to the sway of their former sovereign.
It need scarcely be observed, that such views were most directly
repugnant to the terms of the treaty signed only nine months be
fore." Vol. vi. pp. 384, 385.
As we read D'Estaing's proclamation, it admits of no
such construction. Having argued in full the reasons
urging the Canadians to take part with the Americans
against the English, it concludes as follows: " I will not
attempt to convince a whole people, for a whole people,
when they acquire the right to think and act, know their
own interest, that to connect themselves [se Her] with the
United States is to secure their happiness ; but I wiU
declare, as I now formaUy do, in the name of his Majesty,
who has given me authority and instructions to that
effect, that all his former subjects in North America, who
will no longer recognize the supremacy of England, may
rely on his protection and support."* What is this but
to say, that, during the contest, they would have the pro
tection and support of France acting in concert with the
United States? There is nothing in the language to
justify its being interpreted as an invitation to " re
turn to the sway of their former sovereign." The Ameri
cans conceived no resentment or jealousy on account of
this declaration. It would have been absurd for them to
do so. " Valid reason for displeasure " in it there was
none, nor a particle of repugnance " to the terms of the
treaty, signed only nine months before." By the sixth
article of that treaty ,-|- the king of France " renounces the
possession of any part of the continent of North Ame
rica, which, before the treaty of Paris in 1763, or in virtue
of that treaty, were acknowledged to belong to the crown

* See Annual Register, for 1779, p. 355. t Secret Joui-nal, Vol. ii. p. 85.

49
of Great Britain ; " and by the fifth article, it was pro
vided that any territory conquered by the United States
in the northern parts of America should " be confederated
with, or dependent upon, the said States." These stipu
lations were strictly and faithfully adhered to by the
French government throughout the war. If they never
lent direct aid to the American invasions of Canada,
neither did they throw any obstacles in the way of the
execution of those plans; still less did they take any
steps whatever to secure Canada for themselves. In fact,
they had had quite enough of it in the war of 1758, even
if there had been no considerations of good faith with
their allies.*
Lord Mahon has his doubts respecting the extent of
the feeling in favor of independent and republican insti
tutions, after the Declaration of Independence.
" In tracing the measures of Congress at this juncture, it is to
be observed that while most of the members were warm and
zealous in prosecution of the war, there was not wanting a minor
ity inclined to absolute and unconditional submission. So much
danger would have been incurred by a manifestation of such
views, that we cannot expect to find them in any manner clearly
or explicitly avowed. But that such a party did exist at Phila
delphia, and that in numbers it was considerable, is recorded by
most unimpeachable authority ; by the Adjutant- General of the
American army, himself a Philadelphian, and connected with all
the chief houses of that city. Few things, indeed, are more re
markable than the lingering attachment to kingly government
which may be traced in these insurgent colonies. So strong was
this feeling that, even when every hope was relinquished of re
turning to the sway of King George, there were some persons
who in their stead turned their thoughts to the Pretender — to
the Prince Charles of ' The Forty-five.' Some letters to invite
him over, and to assure him of allegiance, were addressed to him
from Boston at the very commencement of the contest. Thus,
also, Mr. Washington Irving was assured by Sir Walter Scott,
that among the Stuart Papers which Sir Walter had examined at
Carlton House, he had found a Memorial to Prince Charles from
some adherents in America, dated 1778, and proposing to set up
his standard in the back settlements. These men were not, and
could not be, aware of the broken health and degraded habits
* On this subject, see Sparks's Life ofGouverneur Morris, Vol. i. pp. 189, 190.

50
into which their hero had fallen. They did not, they could not,
know the details of his domestic life at Florence. But such was
still their reverence for Royalty, that they desired to cling to it
even where it might be only the shadow of a shade." Vol. vi.
pp. 184, 185.
Mr. Washington Irving's testimony is incontestable, as
far as it goes. He says that Walter Scott acquainted
him with the contents of a paper in the Stuart collection,
which paper is not now to be found, so that the accuracy
of Sir Walter's recollection cannot be verified. Suppos
ing it accurate, what did Sir Walter say? That " he
had found a memorial to Prince Charles from some ad
herents in America, dated 1778, and proposing to set up
his standard in the back settlements." Where were the
"back settlements"? Boston was not one of them.
More front settlement than Boston, there was none. In
Boston, probably, there were not at that time fifty Catho
lics, nor probably was there any part of the British do
minions where the aversion to that religion was more in
tense. It is just as credible that the Bostonians, or
enough of them to make dny figure in a joint letter,
should have sent for the Grand Lama to rule over them,
as that they should have called in Prince Charles Edward.
Boston being, through the whole early history, the princi
pal English place known to the French on this continent,
their common name for Anglo-Americans was Boston-
nais. When Duten quoted the Abbe Fabroni as having
seen " letters from Americans of Boston to the Pretender,
inviting him to place himself at their head," we presume
that by " Americans of Boston " is to be understood
men of British America. The letters which Fabroni had
seen were probably the same as those afterwards in the
hands of Sir Walter Scott. Sir Walter's invited the
Pretender " to set up his standard in the ¦ back settle
ments." In 1778, there were "back settlements" under
the English flag, but consisting mainly of French Catho
lics, as the posts of St. Louis, Kaskaskia, Cahokia, St.
Vincents, and others, afterwards taken by George Rogers
Clark. Till further informed, we shall strongly incline to
the opinion that it was from settlements of this descrip
tion that the invitation was sent to the grandson of James
the Second. It is a curious passage in history, and Lord
Mahon will do a service by elucidating it further.

51
And, in connection with the last extract, we remark that
he is certainly in error, though it is an error which he shares
with most British writers, in his estimate of the number
and influence of the American Royalists. While they
were more or less numerous in different provinces, —
large, for instance, in New York, and small in Massachu
setts, — the fact is, that taken in the aggregate, and com
pared with the whole population, the number was at all
times very smaU. At first, it consisted mainly of crown
officers, their dependents and adherents, a few native
English " Church and King" men, and a few men of pro
perty, conservatives in grain, who preferred tranquil times
under the old government to the hazards and discomforts
of a revolution. Afterwards, wherever the British army
marched or was stationed, it was not unnatural that
many of the inhabitants, seeking only quiet and safety in
their homes, should, for the time being, maintain friendly
relations with the invaders. And this was the case, to a
considerable extent, particularly in Pennsylvania and the
Southern States. But, on the whole, throughout the
country, the men of talent, of education, and of the great
est weight of character, with few exceptions, rallied in a
body in opposition to the measures of the British Parlia
ment. Hutchinson was a crown officer, and left the
country in that capacity. Of men not holding office
under the crown, there was but one American that had
made any figure in public life, — Galloway, of Pennsyl
vania, — who withdrew from the patriot cause, and placed
himself under the king's protection. Only about a thou
sand left Massachusetts when Sir William Howe was
driven from Boston, in 1776. As a party, acting in con
cert, the Royalists effected nothing. They were not of
consequence enough for any show of influence on the pub
lic counsels after the first year of the war. For some testi
mony on this subject, to which he will allow great
weight, we refer Lord Mahon to John Adams's letters in
October, 1780, to the Amsterdam lawyer, Mr. Calkoen, in
the forthcoming seventh volume of that statesman's writ
ings ; particularly the second, fifth, and seventh letters of
the series.
Connected with this mistake of fact is another of opi
nion. Lord Mahon thinks, that, if Lord Chatham had

52
lived to take the helm of public affairs, to which all cir
cumstances were inviting him in the year 1778, and had
attempted, as he would have done, " to regain the affec
tions while refusing the independence of America," the
undertaking would not have been hopeless, (p. 343.)
Lord Mahon will undoubtedly abandon this opinion as
soon as he shall have read the journals of Congress of
that period, or run over the proceedings of the assemblies
of the several States, or pursued any other course of
inquiry suitable to acquaint him with what was at this
time the sentiment and spirit of the whole people of the
United Colonies. Just before, the British Ministry had
sent out conciliatory biUs, yielding almost every thing
except independence. And how did Congress receive
them ? With a unanimous vote, " that these United
States cannot with propriety hold any conference or
treaty with any commissioners on the part of Great Bri
tain, unless they shall, as a preliminary thereto, either
withdraw their fleets and armies, or else, in positive and
express terms, acknowledge the independence of the said
States." * This vote was passed before so much as an
intimation of the conclusion of the French alliance had
been received. Congress was equally decided two years
before, when proposals for an accommodation were pre
sented from the Ministry by Lord Howe. In short, who
ever supposes that Congress could have been induced to
make peace at any time after the Declaration of Inde
pendence, on the condition of going back to a colonial
state, with any privileges and exemptions whatsoever,
only shows himself quite too little acquainted with the
invariable sentiments of that body.
But, says Lord Mahon, (p. 345,) " the Provinces
might, perhaps, have been inclined to control the delibe
rations, or even to cast off the sway, of the central body,
and make terms of peace for themselves." Than this
there can be no wilder dream. From the organization
of Congress tUl the end of the war, the Provinces, or the
States, as they were called in America, uniformly and
cordiaUy acquiesced in its proceedings in relation to the
parent country. There was no instance of a remon
strance, or of any formal expression of discontent with
* Journals of Congress, Vol. iv. p. 233.

53
the doings of Congress, from the Assembly of a State, or
any association of individuals. Never was a disposition
shown to interfere through separate action, or to press local
interests. With a federal government as feeble and in
compact as well could be, the deficiency was well sup
plied by a strenuous unanimity of sentiment.
On this point, of the possibility of recalling the Colo
nies to their allegiance, there can be no sort of doubt
that Lord Chatham was in error. So far he did not
understand the spirit of their people. His great mind
had been in eclipse during part of the time, while the
feeling of opposition in America had been maturing.
He had lost the bearings of the ship ; winds and tides
had carried it out of his reckoning. When we add to
this the uncompromising character of the man, and the
invincible repugnance which he may naturally have felt
to see the American empire dismembered, which his bril
liant administration had established on so magnificent a
footing, we are in some condition to understand his per
tinacity. Lord Rockingham and the Duke of Richmond
comprehended better the conditions and exigencies ofthe
time, in respect to American affairs. After the capture
of Burgoyne's army, in September, 1777, Lord Rocking
ham and his friends had the discernment to see that the
conquest of America was desperate ; and they adopted
the manly and patriotic part of avowing that conviction
in Parliament, and urging the adoption of a policy con
formable thereto.* It has lately become known, what
had not been unsuspected, that Lord North entertained the
same views, but was borne along in his fatal course by a
principle of honor, which compeUed him to lend himself
to the obstinacy of the king.f Had the advice of the
Marquis of Rockingham and his friends been taken after
the capture of Burgoyne, it would have saved Great Bri
tain five years of costly, discreditable, and unprofitable
* See the debate in the House of Lords on the motion for adjournment,
December 11th, 1777 ; and in Committee, April 7th, 1778 ; and those in the
House of Commons, February, 23 — March 2d, 1778. (Parliamentary Register,
Vols. viii. and x.) ; and speeches of Lord Chatham, and letters to and from
him and Lord Rockingham, in December, 1777, and January and February,
1778, in the Chatham Correspondence, Vol. iv.
t See Sparks's Writings of Washington, Vol. vi. p. 531, &c., and the Ap
pendix to Lord Mahon's Vol. vi. pp. xxix. - xliii. for the letters of George
the Third to Lord North.

54
war with these States. And there can be extremely
little doubt, that an accommodation with America at
that juncture would also have averted the war with
France and Spain, who would not have ventured upon
a breach without the advantage of the hostilities then
going on between Great Britain and her ancient Colo
nies. Lord Rockingham was a statesman of abilities much
superior to what Lord Mahon represents them. Britain
might have owed him much, had not she, or rather her
monarch, been too perverse to hear his counsel. America
owes him gratitude for his moderation and candor, as
well as respect for his good sense.
We have borne our cordial testimony to Lord Mahon's
general good nature. But there is a temptation which
besets a person of that temper when he comes to put pen
to paper, unless he be at the same time a quite self-
relying man. It is that of being occasionaUy piquant,
even at the expense of justice, in order to break and
relieve a dead level of candor and complacency. Lord
Mahon's Tory prejudices have partly dictated the direc
tion in which that seducing impulse should take effect.
To Washington, as we have already said, he almost
uniformly does hearty justice ; scarcely does George the
Third command his reverence more ; though to us he
greatly impairs the praise bestowed on Washington, by
that supposition of his having been laggard in his coun
try's cause, which, perhaps, had some share in buying him
the historian's favor. (Vol. v. p. 483.) The supposition
is entirely unfounded. Washington was never impetu
ous, and, until he was forced into the most responsible
public position, others claimed the public ear before hira.
But, frora the first, he shared in the counsels of the Vir
ginia patriots, and took as early and resolute a part as
any one of thera against the usurpations of the British
Ministry.* Lord Mahon, perhaps, does not know that
the temporary prevalence, to some extent, of a different
opinion, was owing to the publication, in 1776, in Lon
don and New York, of a collection of spurious letters, in
which Washington was represented as expressing to his

* See, on this subject. Life and Writings of Washington, Vol. i. p. 116, ct
seq.

55
friends sentiments inconsistent with his public course,
and condemning the Declaration of Independence and
the rest of the bold policy of Congress. In this country,
where his character was known, the fraud accorapUshed
nothing ; the letters were set down for a forgery at once,
as he, at a tirae of more leisure, declared them, under his
own hand, to be.
To New England, and especially to Massachusetts,
the leading province. Lord Mahon is generaUy unjust to
a painful degree. Of the abiUty and the services of the
patriots of Massachusetts he has no notion ; at all events,
he gives his readers none. James Otis he almost ignores.
Samuel Adams he singles out for the repetition of a
scandalous story, though on a sober second thought he
takes it back in the Appendix.* John Hancock he com
memorates mainly as a smuggUng merchant. (Vol. v. p.
356.) James Bowdoin he despatches in a hasty period
or two. Josiah Quincy, Jr., he does not know by name.
Joseph Warren he knows, or rather misknows, as " the
physician of Boston, who had lately become the Presi
dent of the Massachusetts Congress, and been raised (by
his own authority, in fact,) to the rank of major-gene
ral," and who led " a large accession of force " to Bun
ker HUl. Than John Adams, no statesman was more
important, to say the least, in the first two Continental
Congresses. If Thomas Jefferson, more than any other
man, was the author of the document The Declaration of
Independence, of the Declaration of Independence as a
measure, taking place at the time that it did, John
Adams was the author, more than any other man.
Scarcely less material were his diplomatic services pre
sently after in Europe. Yet Lord Mahon can treat of
American politics down to 1780, and find John Adams's
place of highest honor in the court-room, where he acted
as counsel for Captain Preston ; a highly honorable act,
no doubt, but scarcely of the same consideration as

* We will help the author for his next edition, so far as to refer him for
this story to Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts, Vol. iii. pp. 294, 295.
Strange as it may seem, that his Lordship should never have seen a book on
the period of which he treats, of such extreme importance, and one so pecu
liarly suited to his use, as maintaining the loyalist side, still we believe such
to be the fact.

56
that of his great agency in redeeming the continent to
freedom. " It is not to be supposed that the ferment in any other colo
nies of North America, — and in some there was, it may be said,
no ferment at all, — bore any proportion to that in Massachu
setts  In no other was there the same Cromwellian
leaven at work." Vol. v. p. 361.
Amen. Massachusetts was very prompt, resolute, and
active, in asserting her chartered privileges and her un
chartered rights, in talkative town-meeting, solemn coun
cil-chamber, and, in good time, bloody field. Hinc illce
lachrymcB. Massachusetts was very " Cromwellian," if
Lord Mahon pleases. We have no sort of objection to
the phrase. After a not un-CromweUian fashion, she
looked at things in various points of view; she fasted
and prayed, and meanwhile filled her magazines, and
drilled her demure young yeomanry. Minding a lesson
which was her own before it was CromweU's, she trusted
in God and kept her powder dry.
Yet Massachusetts — ugly customer as she was, and
more or less had always been, to the king — was at the
same time without public spirit, and sordid. This charge
Lord Mahon tries to sustain, (vol. vi. p. 122,) by extracts
from private letters of Washington to Joseph Reed, in
November and February, 1775, 1776, and from a letter
to the President of Congress, in December, 1775.
Heaven forbid that we should find fault with any
strong expression of Washington's discontent and anx
iety at that dismal period ! Little money, scarcely any
powder, difficult enlistments, inexperienced officers, troops
impatient to be discharged, subordination to be intro
duced into an army of which the officers and privates
were at home each other's equals, — his embarrassments
were all but intolerable ; they would have been intolera
ble to any mind but such as his. His own responsibili
ties and difficulties were enough to occupy his thoughts.
It was not for him to be thinking of excuses for others,
but rather of stimulating thera by censure, reraonstrance,
complaint. But impartial history may and ought to look
a little at the other side. These troops, so reluctantly
detained in camp, had left their homes unexpectedly in

57
early spring, and their absence had been prolonged into
the depth of winter. Literally, in many instances, leav
ing the plough in the furrow and the steers yoked, they
had come to the war on the signal of Concord battle ; and
ploughing-time, sowing-time, harvest-time, had passed,
while, scantily provided themselves, — so that Washing
ton found them " very deficient in necessary clothing,"
(vol. iii. p. 21,) — they were still distant from their unpro
vided families. We shall not maintain that many of
thera might not have shown more self-sacrifice than they
did show, nor shall we deny that such a course would
have been more to their honor. We could wish that every
Massachusetts man had been a very Curtius in his self-
devotion, though perhaps history has not often had to
record more of the prevalence of a Curtius spirit than
shone forth here in 1775. But, at aU events, whUe the
occasions for complaint on one side were most promi
nent when the conflict was flagrant, it is now time to
allow their fair weight to the difficulties on the other.
In his answer to the address of the Provincial Congress
of Massachusetts, July 4th, 1775, Washington thought it
not unfit to use the following language.
" In exchanging the enjoyments of domestic life for the duties
of my present honorable but arduous station, I only emulate the
virtue and public spirit of the whole province of Massachusetts
Bay, which, with a firmness and patriotism without example in
modem history, has sacrificed all the comforts of social and poli
tical life, in support of the rights of mankind, and the welfare of
our common country." Writings, Vol. iii. p. 14.
In the same paper he very justly says, —
" The course of human affairs forbids an expectation, that
troops formed under such circumstances should at once possess
the order, regularity, and discipline of veterans." Ibid.
The difficulties which he thus reasonably anticipated,
and which he afterwards experienced, he was not indis
posed to make allowances for.
" This unhappy and devoted province has been so long in a
state of anarchy, and the yoke of ministerial oppression has been
laid so heavily on it, that great allowances are to be made for
troops raised under such circumstances. The deficiency of num-

58
hers, discipline, and stores can only lead to this conclusion, that
their spirit has exceeded their strength." Vol. iii. p. 24.
In November, there was so much impatience of longer
detention that Washington found himself compelled to
grant furloughs (vol. iii. p. 176) " to fifty at a time from
each regiment ; " and it is at this period, under the vexa
tion arising from this cause, that Washington uses his
severest language. No doubt, the state of things was
perplexing, irritating, deplorable. It was enough to cre
ate all the displeasure that Washington felt. But, after
all, what did the men want their furloughs for ? Not to
take themselves out of the enemy's way, nor out of the
way of an unprovided winter in camp. Washington
himself answers that question.
" One thousand five hundred at a time are to be absent on
furlough, until all have gone home to visit and provide for their
famihes." Voh iii. p. 189.
A not unreasonable object to present itself, as winter
came on, to husbands and fathers, who, in the last spring,
had left their homes impromptu, — though very unpropi-
tious to the discipline of the army, annoying to its gene
ral, and hazardous to the public safety. And presently
after, Washington felt better. The last quotation is from
a letter of December 5. The militia were called in to
supply the places of the men absent on furlough, and
December 11th, Washington wrote as follows : —
" The militia are coming in fast. I am much pleased with the
alacrity which the good people of this province, as well as those
of New Hampshire, have shown upon this occasion." Vol. ih.
p. 195. And again, just a week later : —
" The returns of men enlisted since my last amount to about
eighteen hundred, making in the whole seven thousand one hun
dred and forty. The militia that are come in, both from this
province and New Hampshire, are very fine-looking men, and
go through their duty with great alacrity. The despatch made,
both by the people in marching and by the legislative powers in
complying with my requisition, has given me infinite satisfac
tion." Vol. iii. pp. 205, 20G.
On the 7th of March, 1776, Washington informed the

59
President of Congress of that movement to take posses
sion of Dorchester Heights, which drove the British army
from Boston. He says, —
" It having been the general opinion, that the enemy would
attempt to dislodge our people from the Heights, and force their
works as soon as they were discovered, which probably might
have brought on a general engagement, it was thought advisable
that the honorable council* should be applied to, to order in the
mil'.*' from the neighboring and adjacent towns. I wrote to
thelii on the subject, which they most readily complied with ;
and, in justice to the militia, I cannot but inform you that they
came in at the appointed time, and manifested the greatest alert
ness, and determined resolution to act like men engaged in the
cause of freedom." Vol. iii. p. 304.
To Colonel Reed he wrote on the same day, —
" Every thing had the appearance of a successful issue, if we
had come to an engagement on that day. It was the 5th of
March, [the anniversary of the Boston Massacre, so called,]
which I recalled to their remembrance as a day never to be for
gotten. An engagement was fully expected, and I never saw
spirits higher, or more ardor prevailing." Reed's Life and Cor
respondence, Vol. i. p. 169.
Once more, acknowledging, on the 18th of April, the
vote of thanks by Congress to his troops, Washington
said, —
" They were, indeed, at first ' a band of undisciplined husband
men,' but it is, under God, to their bravery and attention to their
duty, that I am indebted for that success," &c. Writings, Vol.
iii. p. 361.
The hardships in camp required great exertions out of
camp, and such exertions were made as do not indicate
a penurious people. The usual sources of revenue were
cut off, and Massachusetts was extremely poor ; and as
yet there was scarcely a new social organization, such as
deserved to be called government. In December, the
army was suffering for want of firewood and hay ; and
the way in which provision was made iUustrates the im
perfection of the fiscal machinery, as well as the public
spirit which supplied its defects.
* The Executive Council of Massachusetts.
6

60
" The Assembly of Massachusetts undertook to supply these
articles, by calling on the towns, within twenty miles of Boston,
to furnish at stated times specific quantities, according to the
population of each town and its distance from camp. This requi
sition was generally complied with by the selectmen and com
mittees of the towns, although it was issued only in the form of a
recommendation, and the wants of the army were effectuaUy
relieved." Vol. iii. p. 190, note.
It is a bitter and a cruel thing for any man to look
back from these calm and abundant days, and say that the
people of Massachusetts have ever been a parsimonious
people when public exigencies required great expense.
We can give but one example ofthe action of its village
democracies before we pass from the topic, and we take
that of the town of Concord, because the record of its
doings lies at hand, and because we can present it in the
language of R. Waldo Emerson, in his Centennial Dis
course fifteen years ago. Concord is fourteen or fifteen
miles from Cambridge, where were then head-quarters.
It was and is a very patriotic town, and we will not say
that it did not do better than the average of other towns
in the autumn of 1775. But here is what it did then, and
through the war.
"Its little population of 1300 souls behaved like a party to
the contest. The numher of its troops constantly in service is
very great. Its pecuniary burdens are out of all proportion to
its capital. The economy so rigid, which marked its earlier his
tory, has all vanished. It spends profusely, affectionately in the
service. ' Since,' say the plaintive records, ' General Washington,
at Cambridge, is not able to give but 24«. per cord for wood, for
the army ; it is voted, that this town encourage the inhabitants to
supply the army, by paying two dollars per cord, over and above
the General's price, to such as shall carry wood thither ;' and 210
cords of wood were carried. A siniilar order is taken respecting
hay. Whilst Boston was occupied by the British troops. Concord
contributed to the relief of the inhabitants £70 in money ; 225
bushels of grain ; and a quantity of meat and wood. When, pre
sently, the poor of Boston were quartered by the Provincial Con
gress on the neighboring country. Concord received 82 persons
to its hospitality. In the year 1775, it raised 100 minute-men
and 74 soldiers to serve at Cambridge. In March, 1776, 145
men were raised by this town to serve at Dorchester Heights.
In June, the General Assembly of Massachusetts resolved to raise
5000 militia, for six months, to reinforce the Continental army.

61
'The numbers,' say they, 'are large, but this court has the fuUest
assurance, that their brethren on this occasion, will not confer
with flesh and blood, but wUl, without hesitation, and with the
utmost alacrity and despatch, fill up the numbers proportioned to
the several towns.' On that occasion. Concord furnished 67 men,
paying them itself, at an expense of £622. And so on, with
every levy, to the end of the war. For these men, it was con
tinually providing shoes, stockings, shirts, coats, blankets, and
beef. The taxes, which, before the war, had not much exceeded
£200 per annum, amounted, in the year 1782, to $9,544 in silver.
The great expense of the war was borne with cheerfulness, whilst
the war lasted ; but years passed, after the peace, before the debt
was paid. As soon as danger and injury ceased, the people were
left at leisure to consider their poverty and their debts. The
town records show how slowly the inhabitants recovered from the
strain of excessive exertion.' — pp. 37,38."
In Philip's war, the debt incurred by Plymouth exceeded
the aggregate personal estate of all the inhabitants of the
colony ; and she paid it, dollar for dollar. In one year of
the French war of 1758 - 1763, Massachusetts taxed her
self thirty-six per cent, on the income frora real, and sixty-
six per cent, on the incorae frora personal estate, besides
several excises ; and more than one third of the effective
men of the colony were in the field. At the time of the
Boston Port BiU, Salem, Marblehead, and other seaboard
towns, which the ministry hoped to bribe, with the spoUs of
Boston, to opposition to her policy, offered to receive the
Boston ships, and load and unload them without charge.
In the war of the Revolution, 298,134 men (231,971 con
tinental, 56,163 militia,) were at different times employed.
Of these, the four New England States, including the
little State of Rhode Island, furnished 147,373, only 1,694
less than half of the whole number ; whUe the single
State of Massachusetts furnished 83,262, or only 24,174
less than half the aggregate number furnished by all the
other twelve States, nearly 8000 more than half the num
ber furnished by the nine States out of New England,
and between twice and three times as many as Virginia,
the largest of those States, which sent 32,288 men to
the war. At the same time, the excess of her payments
into the common Treasury from 1775 to 1783, over and
above what she drew from it, was greater than that of

62
the aggregate of her twelve sister States. No. Lord Ma
hon may depend upon it that he has faUen into an error, in
taking Massachusetts for his example of halting or penu
rious public action. " CromweUian," he is free to call
her, without any denial from us; but the two descriptions
do not agree together.
In speaking of what is called Conway's cabal. Lord
Mahon says, (vi. 367,) that Conway " leagued himself
with several other ambitious officers and scheming mem
bers of Congress ; several, above all, frora the New Eng
land States." No part of the country was more Wash-
ingtonian than New England was from first to last. She
took the lead in Congress in selecting him to be commander-
in-chief ; and throughout his life, military and civil, none
of the States was more devoted to his virtues, his policy,
and his glory. Massachusetts stood stiffly by him through
his Presidency, when his own Virginia was averse or cold.
StiU if New England had any particular connection with
Conway's plot, by all means let it be known ; and let justice
be done, though the sky faU. Mr. Sparks, after a thorough
examination of the subject, in a note, which Lord Mahon
describes as " well deserving of perusal," concludes that
there was nothing of the kind. Without producing a
particle of evidence or of argument to refute him. Lord
Mahon, who perhaps has looked into Botta, says that
Mr. Sparks seeks "to glide gently over the participation of
the New England members." We appeal to any candid
reader of Mr. Sparks's note to say, whether he does any
thing of the kind ; whether, on the contrary, it is not
a most upright and dispassionate investigation of a curi
ous historical problem, as well as thorough, so far as the
extant materials permit. Mr. Sparks concludes his note
of thirty-six closely printed octavo pages as foUows : —
" Some writers have laid the charge heavily upon the New
England members ; but this charge has been ably and conclu
sively refuted in Mr. Austin's Life of Gerry, where several inter
esting facts on the subject may be found. Others implicate the
Southern members, but with no better evidence than conjecture.
In truth it cannot be proved, nor is it probable, that any combina
tions unfavorable to the Commander-in-chief existed, either in the
army or in Congress, which partook of local interests, or were
sustained by the prejudices of any particular State or district of
the Union." Washington's Writings, Vol. v. p. 518.

63
" The biography of Mr. Elbridge Gerry," replies Lord
Mahon, " seems to me wholly inconclusive, and to make
{for an American book) one most singular blunder." What
sleepiness is it, in which his Lordship dreams that the
oversight of the author of Gerry's Life, in incidentally
naming Philadelphia as the place of the session of Con
gress in November, 1777, when in fact Congress was
sitting at York, is of any avail against the cogent argu
ment there presented respecting Conway's cabal?* If Lord
Mahon has any facts upon the subject, not known in this
country, or not recorded by our writers, let him oblige
and instruct us with them. But until he has done so,
or has been at some pains to place the facts known to
us in some new light, we will not say that his ex cathedrd
judgment on this point is impertinent, but we must say
that it is not weighty.
Our readers have seen some proof that Lord Mahon is
not eminently good at weighing authorities, or even suffi
ciently careful in his citations of them. It is painful to
see how he sometimes disposes of such an authority as
that of our learned countryman, Mr. Sparks, a writer to
whom Araerican history is much more indebted than to
any other, for fruits of original research. He is not per
haps so sprightly a writer as Lord Mahon, but among quali
fications for historical composition there are several which
rank higher than liveliness of style. The habit of accu
racy in investigation and in statement is one of them ;
and in this great merit, as well as in otherp, Mr. Sparks
excels, to a degree which makes Lord Mahon's flippant
allusions to him a subject of mortification to such as wish
well to his Lordship's fame.
Of the Declaration of Independence, Lord Mahon says,
(vi. 161,) that " it excited much less notice than might
have been supposed." That measure had, however, been
sufficiently long in progress not totake the public mind
by surprise ; it produced no change, like a French Revo
lution, in the form of government or the condition of the
people; — the revolution had taken place before, in the
several States ; it scarcely raised anticipations, or intro-

* Austin's Life of Gerry, Vol. i. pp. 232-245.
6*

64
duced a poUcy, not already existing in full maturity. Un
der these circumstances, it appears to us that no greater
excitement was reasonably to have been looked for than
what the newspapers of the day show to have been actu
ally produced, which was certainly by no means sraaU.
But what irks us most in connection with this matter is,
that as a qualifying circumstance, Lord Mahon takes
occasion (vi. 161) to add, " Washington, however, in his
public letter to Congress (unless Mr. Jared Sparks has
improved this passage) says that the troops had testified
' their warmest approbation.' " * " Unless Mr. Jared Sparks
has improved this passage " ! Is it thus that self-respect
ing men, engaged in liberal pursuits, should speak of one
another ? Neither this passage, nor any other, has Mr.
Sparks improved in the manner that Lord Mahon ventures
to imply. There is an old collection of Washington's " offi
cial letters " during the war, published while he was Presi
dent. The edition before us is the second, issued at Bos-
ion in 1796. Lord Mahon knows the book, for he has
quoted frora it, (vi. 378,) and therein, (vol. i. p. 176,) the
passage stands, word for word, as printed by Mr. Sparks.
Thirty seconds' time would have sufficed to inform his
Lordship whether he had a right to suppose it to be an
improvement by that gentleman, and would have saved him
from the discontent he wUl feel in reflecting upon so rash
a sneer. After making an extract from one of Washington's
letters, and referring to others relating to the detention of
Burgoyne's troops by Congress, Lord Mahon says, —
" How far Mr. Sparks may have either garbled these passages
or suppressed others, I know not. Mr. Adolphus says that
Washington remonstrated with force and firmness against this
national act of dishonor. {Hist. vol. iii. p. 99, edit. 1802.)" —
VoL vi. p. 299.
We suppose that Mr. Adolphus was mistaken. He may
have had evidence not known to us ; but, as at present ad
vised, we presume that Washington, whatever may have
been his private opinion, never "remonstrated" to Congress
against their measures in relation to this subject. It would
* Writings, Vol. iii. p. 457.

65
have been contrary to his rule and practice. WiU Lord
Mahon get Mr. Adolphus's vouchers, and set us right as
to that question ? But his Lordship " knows not how far
Mr. Sparks may have either garbled these passages, or sup
pressed others." He might easily have known, however,
as to one of thera. He had only to turn . to his copy of
that raanual, to which we have just referred as an ac
quaintance of his, and he would have found that pas
sage (voh ii. p. 207,) in precisely the forra in which it is
printed by Mr. Sparks. The others, we presurae, are from
letters hitherto unpublished, except in Mr. Sparks's edition.
Lord Mahon's not knowing whether they have been " gar
bled" would have been a more material fact, had he not
declared himself to be equally unknowing in respect to
the former, when knowledge concerning it was so cheaply
to be had from a little book just laid by him upon his
own shelves.
Having quoted from the " Official Letters " some sen
tences in which Washington conderans the policy of pre
scriptive measures by which loyalist merchants and me
chanics would be driven from Philadelphia, Lord Mahon
adds, (vi. 378,) " Mr. Sparks has deemed it expedient to
omit the letter containing these passages." No doubt of
it. Mr. Sparks not only "deemed it expedient," but found
it unavoidable, to omit several thousands of letters. The
same feeble sort of implied complaint often occurs in
these pleasant volumes, as if it were something discredit
able to Mr. Sparks that he did not print Washington's
remains bodily, in forty or fifty volumes, instead of making
such a selection frora thera as might be comprehended
within eleven. If his Lordship will refresh his memory
with the contents of his own preface to his edition of
Lord Chesterfield's letters, he wiU own that reasons for
such omissions do sometiraes exist.
Besides occasional petulances of this kind scattered
through his sixth volurae. Lord Mahon devotes to the
work of our learned countryman a whole article in his
Appendix. After some commendations of Mr. Sparks's
work as " of great historical interest and importance," and
of his "notes and Ulustrations " as "written not only
with much abUity, but in a spirit, on most points, of can
dor and fairness," Lord Mahon proceeds : —

66
" I am bound, however, not to conceal the opinion I have
formed, that Mr. Sparks has printed no part of the correspond
ence precisely as Washington wrote it, but has greatly altered,
and, as he thinks, corrected and embellished it." Vol. vi. p. iv.
We have much allowance and charity for obiter dicta.
But this is not one. Lord Mahon has formed an opinion.
It is so clear, matured, and consequential, that he is
" bound not to conceal " it. And it is this ; " that Mr.
Sparks has printed no part of the correspondence precisely
as Washington wrote it." To arrive intelligently at that
opinion, (relating as it does, by its terras, to every part,)
one needs to have becorae acquainted, we will not say
with the whole, but at least with a very large portion of
that correspondence in the original, and to have observed
constant deviations from it in the printed copy. This
being so, what is Lord Mahon's opinion that Mr. Sparks
has correctly printed " no part of the correspondence "
good for ? His Lordship will answer that this is not
what he meant. So we suppose. But then we must be
allowed to ask. What is the authority of so sweeping an
opinion, when he who utters it with such judicial stateli-
ness is not at pains to understand himself enough to be
able to announce his meaning with raore precision ?
But justice to an adrairable national monument ofthe
nation's greatest man, and to an eminent and most merit
orious American scholar, deraands that we should look
more closely at the question thus presented. Fourteen
years ago, four years or raore after the completion of Mr.
Sparks's work, we spoke of it as follows, expressing, as
we believed and believe, the well-determined sense of
good judges in this country.
" To judge of the service which Mr. Sparks has rendered the
country, we must compare the previous accounts of Washington's
career with that which we now possess. All that is contained in
Marshall is meagre and incomplete in comparison with the copi
ous details and ample illustrations with which we are at present
furnished. We have Washington to the life, from boyhood to
the last hour ; narrating his own career ; explaining himself, the
formation of his own character; and promulgating his views on
every question of his day. And these letters are not left unex
plained. The editor has gathered coUateral aid from every

67
quarter ; and sparingly, yet clearly and admirably, illustrated the
whole work by researches of the deepest interest. As a critic,
the mind of Mr. Sparks seems to know no bias. He pursues the
truth, and is enamored of inquiry ; and, where explanation is
needed he does not rest satisfied, till he has exhausted every
source of information.
" The great merit of Mr. Sparks, giving him the first rank
among the critical students of our history, consists in his candor
and his completeness. In the selection of documents he appears
ever to have been guided by the highest reverence for historic
truth. But more than aU, he perceived clearly, that the history
of our revolution, the life and character and influence of Wash
ington, could not be derived from American sources alone ; and
with a wide grasp, which proves his mind to be enlarged not less
than accurate, he has sought materials in England and on the
continent of Europe. He saw clearly the momentous importance
of the diplomatic connections of our country ; and would not rest
satisfied, till, at a vast expense of time and fortune, he had culled
the most interesting memoirs from the archives of London and
Paris, and, through friends, from the papers of the Spanish Court.
And he has, in consequence, been able to accomplish a great
work. He has published such an edition of Washington's works,
as is never likely to be excelled ; thus winning a claim to regard
by his zealous care for the remains of our greatest benefactor,
and permanently connecting himself with a name that will never
perish. " The admirable fund of historic information which Mr. Sparks
has acquired, and holds in his own mind, ought not to rest unem
ployed. It would take an apprenticeship of many years for a
new critic, — and a critic of equal natural endowments is a rare
phenomenon, — to attain the position which Mr. Sparks occupies.
His judgment is disciplined ; his acquisitions, such as to save
him from imperfect conceptions or undue estimates of the import
ance of new documents ; familiar with the relative merits and
activity of the men of the revolution, we cannot too strongly
desire, that his mind may continue to be bent upon illustrating the
history of his country." N. A. Seview, Vol. xlvi. pp. 483,
484. And again, —
" We dismiss his work with unqualified satisfaction. Its ex
tent required a patience of labor, which few men could have
brought to the task. To these have been added rigid literary as
well as moral integrity, and that love of his theme which engaged
him in supplementary and illustrative researches, in this country
and Europe, of the most important and interesting character.

68
Mr. Sparks must not look for his reward to pecuniary compensa
tion. Notwithstanding Mr. Moore's recent complimentary re
marks on the splendid dowry which literature now brings to
those who espouse her, we doubt not he has been as well paid for
the lightest of his own graceful effusions by the Maecenas of
Albemarle Street as Mr. Sparks will be for his ten years of un-
relaxing and conscientious labor. His reward has been already
in part enjoyed; it must be found in the consciousness of labo
riously and worthily performing a noble work ; — in the convic
tion that he has contributed to give a wider diffusion, and a more
abiding permanence, to the fame of Washington ; and that, when
ever the authority of the greatest and best of chieftains and
patriots is appealed to in all coming time, it will be in some asso
ciation with his own name and labors." N. A. Review, Vol. xlvii.
p. 381. And such, while widely circulated, and subjected to
criticism far and near, has continued to be the reputa
tion of this great work, unquestioned tiU within about a
year. In 1847 was published " The Life and Correspond
ence of Joseph Reed," by his grandson. It contained seve
ral private letters from Washington to Reed, (for some time
his private secretary,) some of them the same which had
before been printed by Mr. Sparks. A comparison be
tween those letters, as published in the two works respect
ively, exhibits some discrepancies. They were com
mented upon, last year, in a tone unfriendly to Mr. Sparks,
in one or more of the New York newspapers ; and catch
ing at this frora across the water, and echoing it with
sorae exaggeration, Lord Mahon has given it form and
permanency. Mr. Sparks understood the difficulties of his undertak
ing beforehand, as well as those who criticize him under
stand them, after having been enUghtened by his exposi
tions and experience. In the Preface to the first volume
published, (the second in the series,) he expressed himself
as follows.
" It has been a task of some difiiculty to determine what gene
ral principles should be adopted, in selecting the parts for publi
cation from the whole body of papers left by Washington. In
the first place, the mass of manuscript, which extends to eighty
volumes, consisting chiefly of letters, is so large as to preclude
the idea of publishing more than a comparatively small portion.
Again, from the nature of the correspondence, being mostly ofii-

69
cial, and many of the letters having been written to different per
sons on the same subject, there are necessarily frequent repetitions,
and numerous particulars constantly intervening, which, though
essential at the time in the transaction to which they relate, have
no longer any interest or moment. Of this description are the
innumerable details incident to the subordinate arrangements of
an army, such as supplies, provisions, clothing, camp equipage,
arms, ammunition, and other points of minor consideration, which
engaged the incessant care of the Commander-in-chief, and en
tered largely into his correspondence even with Congress, and
the highest officers, both civil and military. To print all the
materials of this kind would not only be useless in itself, but
would add so much to the size and expense of the work, as at the
same time to make it cumbersome and unattractive to readers,
and raise its cost above the means of many individuals, who may
wish to possess these personal records and authentic memorials
of the acts, opinions, and character of the Father of his Coun
try. " Under these circumstances, I have endeavored to pursue such
a course as would the most effectually attain the object to be
desired, in bringing these papers before the public ; namely, to
exhibit the writings of Washington in a manner that will render
strict justice to the imperishable name of their author, and con
tribute the greatest advantage to his countrymen, both at the
present time, and in future ages. For this purpose I have laid
down two rules, which I have labored to follow with as much
discrimination as possible ; first, to select such parts as have a
permanent value, on account of the historical facts which they
contain, whether in relation to actual events, or to the political
designs and operations in which Washington was a leading or
conspicuous agent ; secondly, to comprise such other parts as
contain the views, opinions, counsels, and reflections of the writer
on all kinds of topics, showing thereby the structure of his mind,
its powers and resources, and the strong and varied points of his
character. Upon this plan, it has been my study to go carefully
through the manuscripts, without regard to what has heretofore
been made public, and gather from the whole, and combine into
one body, the portions most important for their intrinsic value and
historical characteristics ; so that the work in its complete form,
may be a depository of all the writings of Washington which it
is essential to preserve, either as illustrating his political and pri
vate life, or the history of his country during the long and bril
liant period of his public career.
"According to this plan, when a letter throughout bears the
features above described, it will be printed entire, as will, in

70
every case, the addresses, speeches, messages, circulars, and other
state papers, issued by him from time to time. But many of the
letters, both in the public and private correspondence, for the
reasons already assigned, will necessarily be printed with omis
sions of unimportant passages, relating chiefly to topics or facts
evanescent in their nature, and temporary in their design. Spe
cial care will be taken, nevertheless, in all such omissions, that
the sense shall not be marred, nor the meaning of the writer in
any manner perverted or obscured. Nor is this difiicult, because
the omitted passages usually treat upon separate and distinct
subjects, and may be removed without injury to the remaining
portions of the letter.
" It ought to be premised here, that, in preparing the manu
scripts for the press, I have been obliged sometimes to use a lati
tude of discretion, rendered unavoidable by the mode in which
the papers have been preserved. They are uniformly copied
into volumes, and this task appears to have been performed,
except in the Revolutionary correspondence, by incompetent or
very careless transcribers. Gross blunders constantly occur, which
not unfrequently destroy the sense, and which never could have
existed in the original drafts. In these cases I have, of course,
considered it a duty, appertaining to the functions of a faithful
editor, to hazard such corrections as the construction of the sen
tence manifestly warranted, or a cool judgment dictated. On some
occasions the writer himself, through haste or inadvertence, may
have fallen into an awk-syard use of words, faults of grammar,
or inaccuracies of style, and when such occur from this source, I
have equally felt bound to correct them. It would be an act of
unpardonable injustice to any author, after his death, to bring forth
compositions, and particularly letters, written with no design to
their publication, and commit them to the press without pre
viously subjecting them to a careful revision. This exercise of an
editor's duty, however, I have thought it aUowable to extend
only to verbal and grammatical mistakes or inaccuracies, main
taining a scrupulous caution that the author's meaning and pur
pose should thereby in no degree be changed or affected." Wash
ington's Writings, Vol. ii. Introd. pp. xii.-xv.
If the correctness of these views taken by Mr. Sparks
of his editorial duty, and submitted by him to the judg
ment of experts at his first publication of two volumes,
was liable to any doubt, then, when objections were
almost solicited, was the time for objections to be made.
Had any error in his plan then been pointed out, the
exposure of it would have influenced the remainder. But

71
no error was pointed out. Approbation was expressed,* and
silence gave consent, and the plan was thought to be most
judiciously conceived, and met universal concurrence.
Has there been a departure in the execution from the
plan and principles announced ? Lord Mahon, and the
American journalists whom he has followed, say that
there has been ; that into Washington's letters Mr. Sparks
has interpolated matter of his own. We shall see pre
sently how that is.
Lord Mahon has "formed the opinion," and is "bound
not to conceal" it, "that Mr. Sparks has printed no part
of the correspondence precisely as Washington left it."
The deviations must have been of one or more of three
classes, namely, additions, omissions, or alterations.
Of additions, Lord Mahon and his American author
ities have imagined that they detected one. A passage
in a letter from Washington to Reed, of March 7, 1776,
stands in Reed's " Life and Correspondence " as foUows.
" The drift and design are obvious, but is it possible that any
sensible — but enough." Vol. i. p. 170.
While Mr. Sparks presents it thus.
" The drift and design are obvious, but is it possible that any
sensible nation upon earth can be imposed upon by such a cob
web scheme or gauze covering ? But enough." Washington's
Writings, Vol. iii. p. 310.
Upon this Lord Mahon makes himself boisterously
merry. In his exhilaration, he ventures on what is rare in
his writings, a jest of his own.
" I know not whether my readers will concur with me in lik
ing Washington's own, and, though homespun, excellent cloth,
much better than the ' cobweb schemes or gauze coverings,' which
have, it seems, been manufactured in its place." Vol. vi. p. viii.
Droll, certainly ! And the distinction does honor to
his Lordship's critical acumen. How clear, (when pointed
out,) and how ludicrous the contrast between the genuine
grave rhetoric of Washington and the flimsy suppositi
tious texture of Sparks.
" Demens ! qui nimbos et non imitabile fulmen
" jEre, et comipedum pulsu simul^rat equorum ! "
* For our own judgment at the time, see N. A. Review, Vol. xxxix.
pp. 468-471. 7

72
The flout and the fun have only one flaw. The fault
is in the finder. The language, so ridiculously unUke
Washington's, and so presumptuously invented by Mr.
Sparks for him, is Washington's own. It was not added
in Mr. Sparks's edition, but, by some accident, it was
omitted in Mr. Reed's. In both editions it was printed
from the same original letter. By Mr. Sparks it was
printed correctly ; by the editor of Reed's " Life and Cor
respondence," not so. Lord Mahon, we have no doubt,
will easily get from that gentleman a confirmation of
this statement of ours, if he chooses to take the trouble ;
and he will then suspect himself to be not an infaUible
judge of the warp and woof of Washington's homes
pun, or a sufficiently cautious censor of a fellow-fi-eeman
of the repubUe of letters.
As to the charge of additions, it is clear that Lord
Mahon wiU have to try again. So far, Mr. Sparks's
assertion in his recent pamphlet stands unimpeached, that
" not a single line, or fragment of a line, was intentionally
added to the original text, throughout the whole twelve
volumes of the work." *
Of omissions there may be different kinds : as of whole
letters ; of portions of a letter, treating topics distinct
from the rest ; of single words or phrases.
To complain of the omission of letters, and those in
great nurabers, is to complain that Mr. Sparks did not pro
pose a work consisting of forty or fifty volumes instead of
twelve ; or that he could not command the treasury of
the nation to defray the cost, instead of having to look
to the patronage of the trade and of readers. What the
reading public wanted, and was ready to pay for, was a
selection. If the number of volumes was not judiciously
determined, if the selection would have been materiaUy
better suited to its purpose by being more voluminous,
let that be shown ; it wiU be fair matter for censure.
French readers wanted only six volumes ; and for their
use Guizot reduced Mr. Sparks's work to that number.
The Germans craved but two ; and with two, accord
ingly, they were accommodated by Von Raumer. The
question whether, all things considered, the American
* Reply to the Strictures, &c. p. 8.

73
public would have been better suited with more than
eleven, we think Mr. Sparks, prima facie, better qualified
to decide than Lord Mahon. StUl we are open to con
viction, and are ready to give our best attention to his
argument whenever he is ready to make it.
The coUection, however, may be comprehensive enough,
but not judiciously made. In other words, some letters
which are omitted may have had a better right to be
embraced in it than some which have a place. That is
a very intelligible case, and not improbable in point of
fact. We do not remember that, in any instance. Lord
Mahon or the critics whom he has foUowed have adopted
this line of argument, and undertaken to show that the
collection would have been, on the whole, improved by
the rejection of this letter and the substitution of that.
Yet it would in no degree surprise us if, in some instance,
this should be shown. We should be much more sur
prised if the editor's judgment, applied to so many dif
ferent comparisons, should in every case prove to be
unquestionable. To argue that the coUection ought to have been en
larged, or that some letter should have been omitted from
it in order to find place for some other, is to argue to
the purpose. But it is not to the purpose to say, simply,
" Mr. Sparks has seen fit to omit this letter," as if to
exclude any letter was a thing unfit ; when three letters
out of four, or seven out of eight, or two out of three,
or some proportion or other, were necessarily to be
omitted. In respect to the omission of portions of a letter, treat
ing some topic distinct from the rest, we have not a word
to add to the perfectly clear, and, to our minds, perfectly
satisfactory exposition of Mr. Sparks himself.
" The propriety of omitting parts of letters, and retaining
other parts, may, perhaps, at first view, be thought questionable.
But when it is considered that parts of letters, treating upon
totaUy distinct and unconnected topics, are in reality the same
as so many distinct letters, it is obvious that to omit such parts
differs in no respect from omitting separate letters. More
over, if entire letters had in every instance been printed, it
would have been necessary to leave out of the work much that
was valuable and important, which is now included, and fre-

74
quently to repeat the same matter, and sometimes in the same
language. " In the correspondence during the Revolution, it often hap
pened that several letters were written nearly at the same time
to different persons ; the President of Congress, the governors
of States, officers of the army, or other official characters, in
which not only the same facts were communicated, and the same
topics discussed, but whole paragraphs were almost literally trans
cribed from one letter into others. These repetitions grew out
of the nature of the business in hand, and could not have been
avoided without unnecessary circumlocutions and strained at
tempts to seek a variety of language for expressing the same
ideas. As to letters of this description, it was the practice to
print some one of them entire, and to select from the others such
parts as were free from repetitions. But in all omissions, whe
ther for these reasons or others, whether short or long, special
care was taken not to break off in the midst of a topic or train of
thought, and not, by any abrupt transition, to weaken or obscure
the sense of the author." Reply, pp. 20, 21.
The remaining case, of omissions of words and phrases,
stands on substantially the sarae principles as that of
alterations ; so that, in what we have to say of them, it
will be most convenient to treat the two classes together.
What are the privileges, and what the obligations of
an editor of posthumous letters, in respect to such omis
sions and alterations ? The question is not without its
difficulties ; there is something to be said on both sides.
In discussing it, we desire distinctly to apprise the
reader beforehand, that we shall take some positions
which do not at all belong to the defence of Mr. Sparks ;
which he has not assumed, or had occasion to assume ;
and which we cannot say that, in any editorial exigency,
he would approve.*

* Gray, by his will, left his papers to his friend Mason, who published a
selection from them, prepared according to his notions of editorial duty. But
when "he that is first in his own cause seemetli just," sometimes " his neigh
bor cometh and searcheth him." By and by Mitford, the editor of Milton,
published a larger selection, with a preface, animadverting severely on the
method of his predecessor, in omitting, transposing, and altering. But what
does the censor say of his own course 1 This : (Vol. i. Advertisement,) " The
editor has only further to observe, that he has formed the following selection ac
cording to the best of his judgment ; he has made a few omissions when the
subject turned on mere matters of business, or private and domestic circum
stances ; and he has taken the liberty of altering a very few words, which
occurred in the freedom of the most familiar correspondence ; but it must be

75
The great public has a prurient curiosity to see a great
man in dishabUle. If, being a good thinker, he has some
times used bad reasonings, — if, being or not being a
good scholar, he has made some lapses in speUing,
grammar, rhetoric, or recollection of facts, there is a sort
of satisfaction to readers in having them exposed, and
in having opportunity afforded to exercise their own
critical gifts, and to feel, so far, their own superiority.
If hasty opinions, alien from the usual habits of thought,
have somehow been put on record; if some petulant
expression has been used, out of harmony with the cha
racteristic style of comment and intercourse ; if some
thing which the man kept to himself, during his life, can
be got at, now that he is no longer here to protect it,
there is many a reader who especiaUy rejoices in such
spoil. How far is that taste to be accommodated, by one
who has an editor's responsibiUty for a great renown ?
If a man may reasonably disUke the thought of having
his dead body exposed to a mob of students on a dis
secting table, has he no privUeges whatever of exemption
from a vulgar exposure of his mind ? If he may be
allowed to have his corporeal carbon and nitrogen quietly
inurned, according to his own notions of decency and
taste, is his unclad mind to be at the mercy of any rude
survivor, who may be incUned to gibbet it by the high
way for the inspection of the passers-by ?
We cannot but think that some consideration is due to
the known judgment and feelings of him whom we com
pel to make a posthumous appearance upon the stage.
It is no smaU liberty that we take with a man, when,
after he has gone beyond the reach of being consulted.

added that this has not taken place above three or four times in the whole
collection of letters, and only in those cases where the original expression
could not with propriety have been retained." In other words, the fierce
purist fotmd it impossible to reck his own rede. The rules which he was so
shocked at another's departure from, turned out to be too rigorous for his
own application ; and, after all, he was fain himself to " tamper with the
truth of history." We shall not undertake to defend Mason's freedoms,
which were utterly unlike the judicious fidelity of Mr. Sparks. But in high
quarters there has been a favorable opinion of his labors. It was after Mit-
ford's publication that the Quarterly Review, (Vol. xv. p. 377,) pronounced
Mason's to have " put to shame every subsequent attempt of the same nature."
7'

76
or the power of crushing us for our impudence, we take all
of him that was most his own (including all that he would
most have cared to keep so,) and share it with the world.
The freedom ought not to be extended a great way fur
ther than is necessary for the pubUc good. And if ever
there was a man, as to whom more than to all others,
such terras oUght to be kept, that man perhaps was
Washington. Perfect, punctilious, rigid propriety and
dignity of public appearance was perhaps more consi
dered by him than by any other great man in history.
Cicero would not have wished to appear to posterity in
his letters, otherwise than as he does appear. Pliny and
Walpole, in their correspondence, dressed themselves up
for posthumous enthronement, like Peruvian Incas. In
the letters of Dryden and Swift there is a vast deal, and
in those of Pope not a little, which dying they ought to
have wished to blot ; but they did not wish to blot it, and
therefore it is doing thera the less wrong to let it stand.
Cromwell's letters defy the rhetorician's art to bring thera
into any shape ; but they are true and precious iUustra-
tions of the man, nor is there the shghtest ground for
supposing that he would have been disinclined to have
thera used, just as they are, for that purpose. The care
less expressions, which very rarely occur in Washington's
letters, are not illustrations of the raan. They are illustra
tions of nothing but of what the raan carefully and strenu
ously intended not to be or do, and of what he uni
formly in fact avoided when he voluntarily stepped into
the public view. An editor of the \\Titings of Adams, Jef
ferson, or Madison, would occupy, we think, a different
position in this respect, from an editor of those of the
first President. Secure in the consciousness of scholarly
culture, John Adams would not have cared a groat had
he known that rhetorical or even grammatical errors of
his were going to be reprinted to the end of time. With
Washington it was different. Not only had gravity and
precision a singular prominence in his estimation of
character, not only did dignity make in a peculiar man
ner his point of honor, but, like most erainent men who
are not, strictly speaking, scholars, he had a sensitive ten
derness on the point of apparent deficiency in that respect.
So correct were his habits of thought, so complete his

77
method, and so clear his perceptions of the meaning of
words, that few men of his time on the whole wrote bet
ter, when he had time to compose with care. He always
did compose with care, when he was composing for the
public. So solicitous was he on this head, that, on import
ant occasions, he availed himself largely of the criti
cisms of others. When writing not for the public, nor with
tirae for correction, still the qualities of his mind stamped
themselves on his language, and it was generaUy all that
could be desired. Sometimes, no doubt, it could not fail
to be otherwise ; and then, if ever, there was a sleeping
worthy, whom a posthumous exposure of infelicities of the
kind would have made revisit in complete steel the glimpses
of the moon, that terrible avenging shade would have
been Washington's. And its aspect would have been
more awful than was that of its substance, — though that
was awful enough, — when Gouverneur Morris, feigning
to have mistaken him, slapped him on the shoulder.
But we repeat, that in throwing out some general views
upon this subject, which strike us as not unworthy of
consideration, we have gone much further than was at all
necessary for the defence of Mr. Sparks's work, and much
beyond any principles of editorship which he has an
nounced or applied. Washington's understanding was
so accurate, and most of what he wrote was so carefully
considered, that there was very little left by him requir
ing different treatment from what any judicious editor of
posthumous letters left for publication by a thoroughly
trained writer, would think proper to apply. Those who
think Mr. Sparks has used too much freedom, of course
know how the thing could have been better done. How
then would they have gone to work themselves ? Wash
ington, like some great men of letters, as Pope, and like
many great commanders, as Napoleon and Frederick,
— did not always spell correctly, either according to the
fashion of our day, or even according to that of his own.
Would it have thrown any useful light on Washington's
character or career, or would it have been in any way
entertaining or profitable to the reader, to have the press
foUow such inadvertencies, not always uniform, either,
with each other ? In a letter printed by Mr. Sparks, (vol.
iii. p. 35,) Washington speaks of " Captain Derby," com-

78
mander of the Essex frigate. We knew the fine old gen
tleman weU, and he always spelt his name with those
letters. But at the time when Washington wrote of him,
it was pronounced Darby, and we observe that it is so
printed in the copy of the same letter in the " American
Archives," (vol. ii, p. 1707,) which we dare say is a cor
rect representation of Washington's original, since his
orthography would be likely in this case to be guided by
his ear. But would any thing have been gained to his
torical truth, if Mr. Sparks, by letting " Captain Darby "
stand, had veiled that gallant officer's' identity from the
view of posterity ? If an editor is bound to preserve an
author's orthography, every new edition of Paradise Lost
is a new violation of the truth of history on a large scale.
We wiU take it for granted that the objector, since he
does not mean to be consummately absurd, will yield us
this point ; though in doing so he abandons his own
chosen ground ; for that Washington wrote a word with
a certain combination of letters, is for these minute phi
losophers an historical fact, and when Mr. Sparks, pro
fessing to represent him, uses another combination of
letters, he "tarapers with the truth of history," if their
doctrine is good.
A step further brings us to cases of grammar. Suppose
Washington, or one of his copyists, has written in his
letter-book, " Greene and Putnam has gone up the river."
Is it of any use to anybody, to have that peccant singu
lar form of the verb perpetuated ? Does the page look
better ? Is the reader better instructed ? Is Washing
ton better understood ? Is the fideUty of history usefuUy
subserved ?^ We wish one who thinks so, would try the
making of a book on that principle. We fancy that
booksellers and purchasers, or rather no purchasers, would
before long impress him with another view of the subject.
Grammatical errors occur very rarely in any thing written
by Washington's own hand. Would it have been of any
sort of benefit to vary his general correctness in this re
spect with a hortus siccus of specimens of his occasional
oversight ?
" The truth of history," according to Lord Mahon's
sharp conception of it, is pretty effectually disposed of
already. But if violations of it may go thus far, may they

79
proceed another step ? May they be pushed an inch into
the department of rhetoric? If Washington at Mon
mouth swore some Virginia oaths when he met Lee re
treating, (which we do not know that he did,) does histori
cal integrity require their preservation ? Lord Castlereagh
was a great man, besides being an English University
man ; but he is reported to have spoken, in his place in
parliament, of " the fundamental features on which the
question hinges," and of " the honorable gentleman on
the other side, who, crocodile-like, put his hands into his
breeches pockets and wept." Does Lord Mahon think
that an editor of Lord Castlereagh's speeches is bound to
embalm those less select expressions, on pain of being
charged with tampering with the truth of history ? Wash
ington never sinned so far against Quinctilian's rules about
mixed metaphors, or any metaphors. But does histori
cal integrity require the preservation of an expression in
a famiUar and confidential letter, so alien from Washing
ton's usual style as " a hundred thousand dollars will be
but a flea-bite " ? Letters are sometiraes as exterapora-
neous as speeches.
The legitimate discretion of an editor is to be used,
we conceive, in respect to these three classes of pecca
dilloes with a freedom, as to each, in the reverse order of
that in which we have named them. In respect to the
last class, it appears to us that Mr. Sparks has been, as
he ought to have been, exceedingly cautious. In fact, in
the great mass of letters, as we have already said, there
was not, in any view, occasion or opportunity for changes.
There was no temptation to make thera. In what Wash
ington wrote for the public, or in what he wrote with
care, as he wi'ote alraost every thing, all was in as good
order as any pedant or pedagogue could wish it. The
instances which Lord Mahon parades in his Appendix
are aU from eight letters (out of more than twenty-five
hundred contained in the work) addressed by Washing
ton to Joseph Reed, in the last two months of 1775 and
the first three of 17'j'6. Written with a carelessness alto
gether unusual with him, they were evidently of the most
confidential description. It is pretty clear that he re
garded the correspondence in that light. He kept no
copies of his own letters, and, as the editor of Reed's

80
•' Life and Correspondence " informs us (voL i. p. 163,
note,) none of Reed's letters previous to March 1776 are
preserved ; the inference from which must be, either that
they were destroyed by Washington, or else returned
to their writer, and by him destroyed.* Our only doubt
is whether, under these circumstances, Mr. Sparks should
have given them any place in his coUection, though
they contain so much interesting matter that the induce
ment was strong, and the mere reader cannot but be
thankful for the decision to which he came. Respecting
them, the editor of Reed's " Life and Correspondence "
says : —
" In a letter from Professor Sparks to the author, dated 21st
February, 1838, he says, ' The letters from Washington to your
grandfather, in '75 and '76, which you were so kind as to send
me, and a selection from which I printed, seemed to me the most
imperfect I had ever seen from his pen. They were evidently
written in great haste, in perfect confidence, and without any
thought that they would ever be published. I used more caution
in selecting from these letters than from any others.' These let
ters are now for the first time printed entire." Life and Corres
pondence, Vol. i. p. 125.
If they were to be printed at all, they appear to have
required some such caution as Mr. Sparks has used.
The reader does not seem to lose much that is worth de
ploring in the omission of the epithets " rascaUy " and
" dirty," nor in the metaphors of the " flea-bite," and the
" lame hand." One diversity of expression however, does
convey a diversity of sense. The passage which Mr.
Sparks has printed, " If this has given rise to the jealousy,
I can only say that I am sorry for it," reads in the PhUa-
delphia copy of the letter of December 15th, 1775, " If
this has given rise to the jealousy, I cannot say that I am
sorry for it." On this we wait for further Hght. There
has been carelessness somewhere. But we shaU not con
fidently lay the blame on the editor of Washington's
Writings, as Lord Mahon has done, tiU we know what is

* Washington's scrupulosity in this matter is especially illusti-ated by the
fact of the destruction of his letters to his wife. Only one sm-vives ; that
printed by Mr. Sparks in Waslmigton's Writings, Vol. iii. p. 2.

81
the true reading of the original, to which we have not
access. One alleged addition of Mr. Sparks to one of
these letters, which was in fact the gravamen of the
charge against him, has turned out to be, on the contrary,
a true copy by him, and an omission by the Philadelphia
editor. W'hat happened once, may have happened twice,
though we by no means intend to assume it. We only
suspend our judgment on the present case, and await more
proof. The omission in the printed PhUadelphia copy
which occasioned an arraignment of Mr. Sparks on the
charge of §.dding, wgis an accident, — no more. The dif
ferent reading of Mr. Sparks in the letter of December
15th, was an accident, too, if it turns out to be his error,
and an accident of less importance.
Washington's table at Carabridge in 1775 and 1776
was not surrounded by gray-beards. He, the oldest of
the group, was forty-three years old. Harrison and Mifflin
had not reached half the age of man. Palfrey was thirty-
four, and no Heraclitus at that;; Moylan and Baylor
were at an age for nonsense. With aU the gravity which
the general communicated to the intercourse of his board,
it is not likely that it uniformly witnessed all and more
than aU the solemnity of fourscore. And if the com
mander ofthe right wing was some times there irreverently
caUed " Old Put," the designation might undeliberately,
and withal blamelessly, slip into Washington's private
correspondence with Reed, who had just left him, though
it is about as impossible as any thing else that can be
imagined, that the writer, being what he was, should have
been willing to serve it up to the public eye. Further ;
Reed caUs General Pujnam Old Put in his letter to Wash
ington of March 15th,* and in Washington's letter to
Reed of April 1st " Old Put " is guarded within quota
tion marks. Do they indicate a reference in the latter
letter to the nick-name given in the former ? If so, the
force of the expression would lose its point and fitness
when Washington's letter is printed apart from Reed's.f
* Eeed's Life and Correspondence, Vol. i. p. 172.
t Lord Mahon thinks it worthy of mention (vol. vi. p. 57, note,) that in
Mr. Peabody's Life of Putnam it is not recorded — as it is by Gordon — that
that officer had kept a tavern. If his Lordship thinks himself defrauded of
any thing by that omission, we will indemnify him by the information that

82
But we do not intend to vouch for the infallibility of each
and every of Mr. Sparks's decisions of this nature. Per
haps he would not be disposed to stand by every one of
thera himself. Single little matters must be summarily
disposed of. De minimis non curatur, is a general rule,
and though Mr. Sparks's diligence forms an eminent
exception to it, it was irapossible for an editor of thou
sands of octavo pages, an investigator of tens of thou
sands of pages of raanuscript, to pause tUl he had ob
tained absolute conviction on the respective clairas of
" General Putnara," and " Old Put." StiU we should faU
in candor did we not own that, had we been in Mr. Sparks's
place, we should have been strongly tempted, at least, to
win Lord Mahon's approval by holding on, as with hooks
of ste(;l, to " Old Put " and the " flea-bite." We should
have been sensible to a natural — it could scarcely be
called a malicious pleasure, — in showing that Washing
ton, statuesque as he almost always was, and as he
always meant to be, had after all in his grand heart a
secret chord of sympathy with human levities. Mr.
Sparks's austerer judgment, more penetrated with the
spirit of his master, determined otherwise, and though
we can scarcely approve, we shaU not undertake magisteri
ally to blame.
Lord Mahon rebukes Mr. Sparks (vol. vi. p. 122,) for
the omission of the following sentence from a letter of
Washington to Reed, of February 10th, 1776.
" Notwithstanding all the public virtue which is ascribed to
these people, there is no nation under the sun, that I ever came
across, which pays greater adoration to money than they do."
Where does his Lordship get that sentence, which Mr.
Sparks ought to have inserted as Washington's ? The
censor does not stand rectus in curia. It is not for him to
be loud-tongued against changes and omissions, when he
corrects them after this fashion. He professes to copy
Greene, his supposed sot, began life as an anchor-smith; that Knox, the
chief artillery officer, served his apprenticeship with a book-binder ; and tliat
Stark, Prescott, Heath, and others, were farmers who held the plough. If
men so trained could dispose of British and German regiments as they did,
possibly their more elaborate initiation into the science of iu'ms might have
more speedily cleared their country of its invaders.

83
the omitted sentence frora Reed's " Life and Correspond
ence." We turn to the letter in that work (vol. i. p. 157,)
and we find the word " pay " where Lord Mahon has
written " which pays."
Again, on the same page. Lord Mahon quotes the
foUowing as from Washington's letter to Reed of No
vember 28th, 1775.
" Such stock-jobbing and fertihty in all the low arts to obtain
advantages of one kind or another in this great change of mili
tary management, I never saw before, and pray God I may never
be witness to again."
In the last clause, for " and pray God," Mr. Sparks
(voh iii. p. 178) has " and pray God's mercy." TiU fur
ther inforraed, we shall think it probable that this is an
accidental oraission in the Philadelphia edition, such as
we pointed out in a forraer case,* rather than an addition
by Mr. Sparks, to which there was no apparent terapta-
tion. As far as to the last clause, Mr. Sparks and the ed
itor of Reed's " Life and Correspondence " (vol i. p. 130,)
print the sentence precisely alike ; and they both have the
word " arrangement," where Lord Mahon has " manage
ment." We are bound to suppose that their united testi
mony is to be received, as Lord Mahon has no know
ledge on the subject from inspection of the original.
In these cases, to use hi^wn language, applied to Mr.
Sparks, his Lordship has ''altered, and, as he thinks, cor
rected and embellished." He should not have ventured
on such liberties, in the same paragraph in which he re
proves them. WiU he say they are errors of a copyist or
of the press ? Very weU. The accident may reveal to
him an element of fair criticism of the works of others.
And certainly Mr. Sparks never, through any oversight,
or error of copyist or compositor, has printed an altera
tion, of a kind to do injustice to character, like that of
Lord Mahon in his erroneous quotation from La Fayette
in relation to General Greene.
Though our remarks have been drawn out far beyond
what we expected, we have by no means exhausted the
subject, nor shaU we pretend to do so. There remain,
* See above, p. 194.

84
however, two or three points which we ought not to pass
wholly without notice, and we shall best present them in
Mr. Sparks's own words.
" In regard to the text, also, it is proper here to repeat what
has been said in another place, that frequent embarrassments have
occurred. It was Washington's custom, in all his letters of im
portance, first to write drafts, which he transcribed. In making
the transcripts he sometimes deviated from the drafts, omitting,
inserting, and altering parts of sentences ; nor did he always cor
rect the drafts, so as to make them accord with the letters as sent
to his correspondents. These imperfect drafts were laid aside,
and from time to time copied by an amanuensis into the letter-
books. [The amanuenses were sometimes the rude and igno
rant overseers of his plantations.] Hence the drafts, as now re
corded, do not in all cases agree precisely with the originals that
were sent away. My researches have brought under my inspec
tion many of these original letters. Regarding them as contain
ing the genuine text, I have preferred it to that in the letter-
books, and it has accordingly been adopted wherever it could be
done. " But the discrepancies are of little moment, relating to the
style, and not to the substance. For the most part, I have been
obliged to rely on the letter-books ; and, for the reasons here
mentioned, it is probable that the printed text may not in every
particular be the same as in the originals, that is, the corrected
copies, which were sent to his correspondents." Reply, pp. 23, 24.
In Reed's " Life and Correspondence," (vol. ii. p. 41,)
is published a letter of Washington, dated December 12th,
1778, also contained in the " Writings of Washington,"
(vol. vi. p. 130.) In the latter copy as compared with the
former, there appear some variations ; as " I am at a loss
to discover," for " is beyond the reach of my conception ; "
" our posts," for " the posts ; " " be so much out," for " miss
it so much ; " and seven or eight others of the same im
portance, or rather unimportance. But their importance
or unimportance is not now our point. On a reexamina
tion it appears, that Mr. Sparks's copy is an exact transcript
frora Washington's letter from which he printed, except .
in two particulars ; and these are " logged houses," in the "
letter-book, for " log houses ; " and " lest disaster might
happen," for "lest a disaster might happen;" — which
amounts to this, that the letter sent to Reed had some
verbal variations from the copy kept by Washington,
which was Mr. Sparks's only guide. Again, in Marshall's

85
" Life of Washington," (vol. v. p. 15,) is a letter of Octo
ber 10th, 1784, to Benjamin Harrison, of Virginia, also
printed in " Washington's Writings," (voL ix. p. 58,) in
which a comparison of the two copies discloses a few va
rious readings of no more consequence ; as " stumbling-
blocks," for " impediraents ; " and " connections in a com
mercial way," for " comraercial connections." On re
currence to the letter-book at Washington, it proves to
be truly represented, word for word, by Mr. Sparks's copy.
Having stated these facts, and another set of them, of the
same description, occurring in a letter to Richard Henry
Lee, of December 14th, 1784, Mr. Sparks proceeds as fol
lows :
" These specimens will serve to show the state of the text in a
large portion of Washington's letters, as they now exist in manu
script, particularly those ^v^itten at Mount Vernon, and others of
a private nature written elsewhere. The originals sent to his
correspondents seldom agree throughout in phraseology with the
copies retained on record. Moreover, these copies are constantly
marred by the blunders or mistakes of illiterate or careless trans
cribers. For the most part there was no resource for the editor
but to follow the letter-books." Reply, p. 30.
" Ajiother example, still more striking, may be mentioned.
Washington kept a copy of his official correspondence during his
military services in the last French war before the Revolution,
written on sheets loosely stitched together. Some twenty or thirty
years afterwards, he revised this manuscript, making numerous
erasures, interlineations, and corrections in almost every letter.
This corrected copy was then transcribed into bound volumes
under his own direction. Which is now the genuine text ? Which
would Washington himself have printed ?
" The one in the letter-books was adopted, because it seemed
obvious, that, after the pains he had taken to prepare it, he in
tended that copy for permanent preservation and use. It would
be easy to cavil here, and say that we have not the precise lan
guage employed by Washington to convey his thoughts at the
time the letters were written, but a garbled substitute introduced
at a much later day. Yet this was an act of his own, and cer
tainly no editor would be justified in disregarding it. In these
letters, therefore, the same kind of discrepancies wiU necessarily
appear, as in the cases alluded to above, between the printed text
and that of the originals sent out to his correspondents." Ibid.
pp. 30, 31.
The amended form in which Washington had his letters
copied into books, was not that which they bore when

86
transmitted to the persons addressed, Mr Sparks printed
them frora the manuscript books. Has some one " tam
pered with the truth of history " to bring them into the
shape which they bear on the printed page ? If so, who
was it?
But we have detained our readers long enough with
comments of detail, which were not, however, to be
avoided, if we undertook to treat this important work.
With great respect for Lord Mahon's character and labors,
but with greater respect for the truth of history and for
the'principles of a generous criticism, we have felt bound
to present some of his errors to his notice. Some of
them are material. Others are of smaU account ; but they
throw light on that credulity and haste which have be
trayed him into those of the graver sort. So far as we
have exposed any, to his own conviction, we rely upon
his upright nature to correct them for those future edi
tions in which we believe his history is destined to five
and " gather aU its fame."

Page 44, line 3. For " St. Leger," read « the Cedars."
Page 66, fine 30. For " Mr. Sparks's work," read "five volumes of
Mr. Sparks s work."

ihll

1 1^

-'"4 •

''''iV

'1"^l!

im