that sacrifice which the laws of war demanded. Major André's breathed a spirit of gratitude to General Washington for the interest he took in his preservation, but firmly declined the application to General Clinton. The other papers were minutes of the Court-Martial, from which it appeared that General Washington had labored to avert the sentence against André, and to soften the circumstances of disguised dress and those fatal drawings of the enemy's outworks and situation, which placed him in the character of a spy, rather than that of a negotiator.

'The General's next fruitless endeavors to have obtained the grant of poor André's petition to die a less disgraceful death.' His voice, though Commander of the American armies, counted but one on the Court-Martial.'1 'General Washington did me the honor to charge his aid-de-camp to assure me that no circumstance of his life had given him so much pain as the necessary sacrifice of André's life; and next to that deplored event, the censure upon himself in a poem which he admired, and for which he loved the author.

This story much perplexed me, and I knew not what degree of weight to assign to it. On the one hand it bears upon its face some most nianifest inaccuracies, on the other hand it comes in direct and positive terms from a lady, no doubt very tiresome, but of irreproachable character. In this dilemma I determined to apply to my friend Mr. George Ticknor, the Historian of Spanish Literature, being well assured of his thoroughly upright mind, and that no personal or natural prepossessions could divert him from the paramount interests of truth. I asked him to ascertain, if possible, to what aid-de-camp of Washington Miss Seward could have referred, and whether the papers of that aid-de-camp might contain anything either to corroborate or contradict her statement.

The following correspondence ensued:

MR. TICKNOR TO EARL STANHOPE.

'BOSTON, APRIL 25, 1855. MY DEAR LORD. . . . Immediately on receiving your first reference to Miss Seward's letter of January 20, 1802, I read it carefully. It is, no doubt, somewhat more positive and detailed in its statement than the one of August 9, 1798; but it

'It is believed that Washington never saw André.

is not more satisfactory to my mind, and is open to all the objections which are fatal to the first. One point, however, which, with your wonted historical perspicacity, you have hit upon, does much with me to clear up and explain the difficulties of the case; I mean the fact that, as it was an aid-de-camp of Washington that visited Miss Seward, the person in question must have been Colonel David Humphreys. Now, Humphreys, whose home was in Boston during the latter years of his life, was well known to me; a vain, presuming man, full of pretensions of all sorts, that exposed him to a great deal of ridicule in society, and especially full of pretensions to poetical distinction and to familiarity with literary notabilities in Europe, upon whose regard he founded claims for himself as a poet, which nobody hereabout was disposed to admit. Your mere suggestion of his name, therefore, threw at once a flood of light on the whole affair.

But to come to the point-" Á nos moutons."

Ist. Miss Seward speaks of Washington having. "allowed his aid-de-camp to return to England, &c.," both underscored words being founded on the natural but very heedless error of looking at the visit wholly from an English point of view.

2d. She speaks of Washington's "letters to André as containing warm entreaties that he would urge General Clinton to resign Arnold in exchange for himself;" quite incredible from its absurdity.

66

3d. She says Washington labored to avert the sentence;" again incredible and out of char

acter.

4th. She speaks of "Washington's endeavors to obtain the grant of poor André's petition to die a less disgraceful death." Whereas André's petition is addressed only to General Washington, who had full power to grant it, which certainly not all the other officers of the army put together could have done after sentence rendered; and 5th and finally, she speaks of Washington as a member of the Court-Martial, and as over-ruled there; whereas, everybody knows that he was not a member of it, and that it was within his unquestioned powers to reverse or modify its decision to the last moment of poor André's life. Commander-in-Chief.

He was

The only statement, therefore, that seems to me to need explanation, is the one you have indicated, namely, that the letters of André shown

to Miss Seward are said by her to be in André's "own hand," with which of course she ought to have been familiar; since, besides knowing him personally, she had, as I think appears from her poem, a correspondence with him. Now it may not be a very gallant thing to say, but after having read a good many of her letters for the purpose of seeing her mode of stating facts I give up her accuracy. I am not disposed to use about her language so harsh as that used by the inexorable Mr. Croker, but I think he substantially makes out his case. She is not, I am satisfied, a reliable authority, and if you have not lately looked over his notes to the first volume of "Boswell's Johnson," I mean those about Miss Seward, I think that in reading them again you will agree with me. Indeed, as the two letters about Colonel Humphrey's visit to her are so much at variance with the known facts in André's case, as they were written only from recollection, so long after the occurrence of the visit, one being nearly twenty years after it, and as the accuracy of Miss Seward has been impeached on your side of the Atlantic while, I apprehend Colonel Humphrey's stands no better here, I must think the statements of the lady have no proper value as historical testimony. The widow of Colonel Humphreys, a lady of English extraction, whom he married in Portugal, where her family was established, died in Paris, the wife of a Polish adventurer named Walewski. Before she left this country, however, she entrusted the papers of her first husband to my late excellent and learned friend, John Pickering, son of Washington's Secretary of State. From his family, they passed not long since into the hands of Mr. D. G. Olmstead, of New York, who is a connection of the Humphreys family, and whom I know a little. Their MSS. I understand is considerable, and they were never opened from the time Mr. Pickering arranged them until it was done by Mr. Olmstead at my request. But he writes me word that nothing in relation to André is to be found among them. I am not disappointed. I do not suppose that Colonel Humphreys, when he made his visit to Miss Seward, had any but copies of the official papers, which have been known to the world since 1780.

These of course were not worth preserving after they served the purpose for which he carried them to England.

I remain, my dear Lord, &c.,
GEORGE TICKNOR."

EARL STANHOPE TO GEORGE TICKNOR, ESQ. "MAY 12, 1855.

MY DEAR SIR-I owe you many thanks for hav ing so fully weighed the statement of Miss Sewa, which I referred to your consideration...

I think with you, that we must give up te truth of the story. Miss Seward as I am co.. vinced meant no deception, but her errors of t as you draw them up in array, are really so mar í and so manifest, that it is impossible to rely upda her accuracy of recollection in the other parts of what she tells. And perhaps the whole thing may be sufficiently explained by the vain ard boastful character which you, from your loud knowledge' ascribe to Colonel Humphreys. T raise his own importance in Miss Seward's eyes he may have assumed a commission from Gener Washington that he never in truth received, or may have made the most of some few words a dressed to him possibly by Washington at hs departure, such as if you see Miss Seward n England, pray explain to her how the matter really stood in André's case.'

Believe me, &c.,

STANHOFE"

Mr. Carlisle further states: "At the entertainment above mentioned (the Meschianza), Andre met persons who introduced him to Arnold. He was well informed of Arnold's character, his peor niary and his temporary disgrace with the American army and Congress."

The entertainment known as "The Meschianza" took place May 18th, 1778. Arnold was severely wounded at the battle of "Behrs Heights" in Cctober, 1777. He was removed to Albany, where he stayed during the winter cafined to his room.

Early in the spring of 1778 he went to Middle town, in Connecticut, where he spent a month of two, and then proceeded to New Haven, and was received with honorable demonstrations of respect for his military character, and his arrival was announced by thirteen discharges of cannon

While in New Haven he received from General Washington a set of epaulettes and a sword-knot, with a letter stating that they were presented "as a testimony of sincere regard and approbation of kis conduct."

A gentleman in France had sent to Washington three sets of epaulettes and sword-knots, reques ing him to retain one for himself and bestow the others on any gentlemen he might choose. The third set was given to General Lincoln. This

Before the end of May, 1778, Arnold joined the army at Valley Forge. The British evacuated Philadelphia on the 17th day of June in that year, and on the 19th of June, 1778, Arnold assumed command in Philadelphia.

It is absurd to suppose that a general officer of the American army would or could enter a city held by the enemy, appear publicly at "The Meschianza," and not be retained as a prisoner. There is nothing in our History to show that Amold was ever in Philadelphia until after the city was deserted by the British. Arnold's first correspondence with André commenced about April, 1779. He was tried by Court-Martial June 1, 1779, but he was not in disgrace with the American army nor with Congress "in May, 1778," but just the contrary. If Mr. Carlisle has any evidence to sustain his assertion I feel certain that your readers will be glad to receive it.

Miss Margaret Shippen, afterwards Mrs. Arnold, did, no doubt, meet Major André, or Captain André as he was then styled, at the Meschianza, but I respectfully submit that there is not the slightest evidence to be found which can convict her of any knowledge whatever of Arnold's treason, until after he left West Point. Arnold declared that she was entirely innocent, and I think there can be no doubt that Washington, Hamil. ton, and the officers stationed at West Point thought so too.

AS TO MAJOR ANDRÉ'S DEFENCE.-I would be glad to know upon what authority Mr. Carlisle asserts that it was copied from the "Journal of the Court Martial."

It does not appear in any edition of André's trial. Mr. Sargent in his "Life of André," does not even mention it, nor have I been able to find any reference whatever to it in any History of the United States that has ever come under my notice. Many years ago I cut this so-called "Defence" from a newspaper, and regret that I neglected to note the name of the paper. It is entitled "Major André's Defence," and in a head note the editor says: "A correspondent of the Newark Daily Advertiser, who seems to be fortunate in the possession of sundry curious old papers and other memorials of the past, as of corresponding knowledge and memory, has furnished for the columns of that paper a document which we do not remember to

André before the Court which condemned him to death as a spy. We have no doubt that it will be read with lively interest."

Some years ago I sent a copy of the Defence to Mr. Joseph Sabin, and it was printed in his "American Bibliopolist," a journal which should be in the hands of every student of American History.

Mr. Carlisle makes the following statement: "The day following this affair (the Meschianza), General Gray (Grey), or 'Noflint Gray' with five thousand select troops undertook to surprise Lafayette," etc..

I think this is an error, "for" says Sir Henry Clinton (in his MSS. Correspondence) "it was before I took the command. . With five thousand men Grant marched on the evening of the 19th (May, 1778), by the Delaware road to a sufficient distance; when turning to the left by White-Marsh, he was at sunrise a mile in Lafayette's rear, and between him and the Valley Forge bridge. At a later hour Grey brought up two thousand men by a more direct road on the south side of the Schuylkill, and established himself at a ford two or three miles in front of Lafayette's right flank," etc.

On page 294 Mr. Carlisle quotes a note "which is a contradiction of the spirit of the Monody," he says, and it is signed "Anna Seward." Sir Walter Scott edited her Poetical Works, and it has always been supposed that he wrote the note, and not Miss Seward. It certainly could not have been reserved for Edward Wigley, Esq., to place these letters before the public, for the letter from which Mr. Carlisle quotes is published in full in Vol. V., page 142, etc., of "Letters of Anna Seward, London, 1811." The extract given by Mr. Carlisle is full of errors.

I give here the most important portion of the extract as it appears in the volume last mentioned, the substance of the remainder has already been given in this paper. The italics are mine.

"No, dear Madam, I was not, as you suppose, favored with a letter from General Washington expressly addressed to myself; but a few years after peace was signed between this country and America, an officer introduced himself, commissioned from General Washington to call upon me and to assure me, from the General himself, that no circumstance," etc.

his wife, under date I believe of July 3d (I have not the letter at hand at this moment and quote from memory), speaks thus: "I am well aware of the toil, the treasure and the blood it will cost to maintain this declaration, to support and defend these States. Yet through all the gloom I can see the ravishing rays of light and glory. I can see that the end is worth more than all the means." Strong prophetic words, breathing the heart-throbs of himself and his mighty co-workers. Farther on I think in the same letter, occurs that other famous prophecy: "Posterity will triumph in this

RETREAT FROM LONG ISLAND.

day's transaction," (this day being July 2d) aye! posterity has triumphed, does triumph, and shall ever triumph, in that day's transaction!

But I did not take up my pen to write an essay upon the "Spirit of '76," and must go to my theme:

After the British had perforce evacuated and abandoned Boston, the scene of active operations was shifted to New York and its vicinity. General Howe with his army retired first to Halifax, and Washington went shortly to New York. That city was then specially noted for the extent and powerful influence of its Tory element.

The British interest had been more powerful here than in any other place in the provinces; and the result of the struggle between the friends of British domination and of American freedom had been more doubtful there than in any other quarter. By steadfast manly courage and unremitting activity, the patriots had secured the as

cendancy. Upon his arrival here, Washington had at once entered upon the effort to place the city and Long Island into a condition for successful defence; he caused vessels to be sunk in the channels of the East and North Rivers, in the hope of thus preventing the near approach of the British fleet, and he constructed suitable fortifications at the points open to attack.

General Howe, after a short stay in Halifax, embarked, with about nine thousand men, and on the 2d of July, landed, without opposition, on Staten Island. Soon Lord Howe arrived with a

fleet and with a large reinforcement for General Howe; this reinforcement augmented the British army threatening New York to nearly or about 30,000 well-disciplined, welldrilled, well-clothed men-the largest and most formidable force thus far in America; and to oppose this splendid army Washington had but 9,000 armed (some of them poorly) and 2,000 unarmed soldiers.

I need not pause to speak of the remarkable manifesto issued by the brothers Howe, and published in the newspapers by order of the Congress. Nor need I repeat the

story of the effort on the part of General Howe to open a correspondence with General Washington without recognizing his official rank as Commander-in-Chief of the American Armies, and the latter's becoming dignity and firmness in refusing to receive any communication without the full title in the address.

The American army was stationed partly at New York and partly on Long Island, General Washington commanding in person the former and General Greene at the latter portion; some accessions had been received, so that the aggregate now reached slightly more than seventeen thousand men, or about three-fifths of the enemy's number; but the disparity was still greater in the personnel and equipment of the opposing forcesthe British were largely veterans, the balance thoroughly trained soldiers, and all fully and perfectly equipped; while very few of the Americans had seen service, the large majority were new