blamed. It was said, in the first place, that he ought not to have left so commanding a position unfortified and unoccupied. In the next place it was observed that, if he had attacked the left of the American line, defended only by a slight breastwork, he might have turned their whole position. And lastly, the general was censured for sending the soldiers to mount a steep hill on a hot day in June, laden with heavy knapsacks and three days' provisions.*

Civilians, who did not enter into these military criticisms, remarked, with concern and alarm, that the raw levies of America, raised in haste, and chiefly from a single colony, had advanced unperceived, occupied their post with skill, resisted regular troops with courage, and inflicted a heavier loss on the renowned infantry of Great Britain than they themselves had sustained.

The flame which had been kindled at Boston now spread to other parts of the North American continent. Lord Dunmore, the Governor of Virginia, was forced to retire on board a ship; from which safe port he carried on an inglorious warfare against towns on the coast, but had not even the triumph of a dishonest victory. Mr. Martin, the Governor of North Carolina, was in a similar manner compelled to fly.

In the meantime the Americans proceeded in the work of organization, civil, political, and military. The Congress met for the second time, in Philadelphia, in May, 1775. The most important question for the Assembly was the organization of their army and the appointment of a commander-in-chief. Washington had been noted by his colleagues of the first Congress for the sagacity he manifested on every subject in discussion. When Patrick Henry returned home, he was asked who he thought the greatest * Stedman's "History of the American War."

man in Congress; he replied, "If you speak of eloquence, Mr. Rutledge, of South Carolina, is by far the greatest orator; but if you speak of solid information and sound judgment, Colonel Washington is unquestionably the greatest man on that floor."

Washington had acquired much of that information, and ripened his naturally sound judgment in his service with the British troops during the Seven Years' War. At that time he felt as a loyal and ardent subject of the Crown. "Will, then, our injured country," he wrote on the subject of military mismanagement, "pass by such abuses? hope not. Rather let a full representation go to his Majesty. Let him know how grossly his glory and interest and the public money are prostituted."*

I

How much folly and injustice were required before such a man could be driven to arms against his sovereign!

Washington took the command in the month of July. He found a large numerical force of militia, but provided with ammunition for only three days, and divided into as many commands as there were colonies. It was his first business to organize this force, to reform their discipline, and obtain an influence over their minds.

Among the first military enterprises of the American Congress was an attempt upon Canada. A person of the name of Eathan Allen, with a body of fifty men, obtained by stratagem possession of Ticonderoga and Crown Point. Arnold led his militia forces on another side to the siege of Quebec. After an ineffectual movement he was joined by General Montgomery, who already enjoyed a high reputation as a soldier. An assault was resolved upon. The Americans advanced bravely in two columns; but both * Sparks's "Life of Washington,” vol. i.

were repulsed with loss, and Montgomery, who led one of them, was killed.

After this, General Burgoyne arrived in the St. Lawrence with reinforcements, and the Americans retired from Canada unsuccessful, but unmolested.

Such was the commencement of the American War.

The Court of Great Britain was arrogant and confident; the Parliament indifferent, ignorant, and submissive; the Americans far from unanimous, but generally determined to be free subjects or a free commonwealth. The more moderate thought liberty might be preserved without separation; the more able and ambitious looked to separation as the opening of a higher destiny, the triumph of democracy at home, and the assertion of an equal place among the greatest nations of the globe.

CHAPTER VII.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT-DEBATES-DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCECAMPAIGN IN AMERICA-BATTLE OF BROOKLYN-CONQUEST AND EVACUATION OF NEW JERSEY.

1775-1776.

PARLIAMENT met on the 26th of October, 1775. The King again urged in his royal speech the necessity of reducing the Americans to obedience. He informed his Parliament that, in testimony of his affection for his people, he had sent his Electoral troops to Gibraltar and Port Mahon, with a view of employing a greater portion of his regular forces in America.

Although the language of conciliation was sometimes used, it now took the shape rather of clemency to rebels, when they should be at the mercy of the Crown, than of any compliance with the wishes of the colonists. The argument for coercion, as the only course possible, was put in a more plausible shape by Lord Mansfield, in the House of Lords, than by any of the Ministers. He regretted, he said, the Stamp Act of 1763, and the attempt to obtain a revenue from America; he blamed still more strongly the renewal of that attempt in 1767. But, he argued, that was not now the question to be decided. Congress had not only denied the right of Parliament to tax the colonies, but they had also blamed the appointments of judges, the Admiralty

courts, the post office and other parts of the administration. So that, in fact, pretension was advanced so far as to leave the King with only a barren sceptre in his hand, and the attempt was made to assert a real if not a declared independence. The condition of Scotland before the Union was the model at which the Americans aimed. Unless Parliament were prepared to concede this claim, there was no course open but an appeal to arms. Lord Mansfield's view of the objects of even the more temperate of the American patriots was hardly an exaggeration. They disliked the struggle, but when forced into it, they entered the field with large views and projects. The course taken by Lord Rockingham, in 1765, could no longer be reconciled with American claims, and would not at this time have led to a final settlement. The Americans looked to be what Scotland was before the Union, what Canada is in 1858. But in accordance with the commercial doctrines of that age, they were willing to grant to Great Britain many preferences for her trade and manufactures; or, if England should be willing to renounce her interference with trade, there were some who would be willing to grant her a fixed revenue voted by their assemblies. Had the genius of Chatham presided over the councils of the State, there is every reason to believe that the right of taxation being expressly renounced, and other grievances fairly redressed, America might, even at this time, have been reconciled to Great Britain. With the King urgent for total submission, with Ministers the subservient organs of his will, with a House of Commons obedient to the Crown, and the country blinded by false representations, there was no hope of such a reconciliation.

One more attempt to preserve peace had, however, been lately made by Congress. At the suggestion of Dickin