Chapter IV (4)

But when the firing became general, as it afterwards appears to
have been, and caught with electric rapidity from the square to
the platforms, there is no plea nor shadow of excuse for it,
except in the personal exasperation of the soldiery, nor for the
more deliberate, and therefore more unjustifiable firing which
took place into three of the prisons, No. 1, 3 and 4, but more
particularly into No. 3, after the prisoners had retired into
them, and there was no longer any pretence of apprehensions, as to
their escape.--Upon this ground, as you, sir, will perceive by the
report, Mr. Larpent and myself had no difference of opinion, and I
am fully persuaded that my own regret was not greater than his at
perceiving how hopeless would be the attempt to trace to any
individuals of the military these outrageous proceedings.

As to whether the order to fire came from captain Shortland, I yet
confess myself unable to form any satisfactory opinion, though
perhaps the bias of my mind is, that he did give such an order.
But his anxiety and exertions to stop it after it had continued
for some little time, are fully proved, and his general conduct
previous to this occurrence, as far as we could with propriety
enter into such details, appears to have been characterized with
great fairness, and even kindness, in the relation in which he
stood towards the prisoners.

On the subject of any _complaints against their own government_
existing among the prisoners, it was invariably answered to
several distinct questions put by me on that head, _that none
whatsoever existed or had been expressed by them_, although they
confessed themselves to entertain some animosity against Mr.
Beasly, to whom they attributed their detention in this country;
with what justice, you, sir, will be better able to judge. They
made no complaint whatsoever as to their provisions and general
mode of living, and treatment in the prison.

I have transmitted to Mr. Beasly, a list of the killed and wounded
on this melancholy occasion, with a request that he would forward
it to the United States, for the information of their friends at
home, and I am pleased to have it in my power to say, that the
wounded are for the most part doing well.

I have also enclosed to Mr. Beasly, the notes taken by me of the
evidence adduced before us, with a request that he would have them
fairly copied, as also a copy of the depositions taken before the
Coroner, and desired him to submit them to you when in order.

I cannot conclude, sir, without expressing my high sense of the
impartiality and manly fairness with which this enquiry has been
conducted on the part of Mr. Larpent, nor without mentioning that
every facility was afforded to us in its prosecution, as well by
the military officers commanding here and at the prison, as by the
magistrates in the vicinity.

I have the honor to be, with much respect, your most obedient
humble servant.

(Signed)

CHARLES KING.

_His Excellency John Q. Adams, &c. &c._

DARTMOOR PRISON.

_A Return of American prisoners of war killed and wounded in an
attempt to force the military guard on the evening of the 6th of
April, 1815._

-------+-------+-----------+--------+--------------+----------+---------
| | | | |Whether |
|Number | | | |man of |
|on | | | |war, |
|general| | | |merchant |
Current|entry | | | |vessel, or|
No. |book. |Names. |Quality.|Ship. |privateer.|Remarks.
-------+-------+-----------+--------+--------------+----------+---------
KILLED.
-------+-------+-----------+--------+--------------+----------+---------
1 | 4884 |Wm. |Seaman, |Enterprize, |Privateer,|
| |Leveridge, | |prize to | |
| | | |Saratoga. | |
| | | | | |
2 | 970 |James Mann,|do. |Siro. |Lett. |
| | | | |Marque, |
| | | | | |
3 | 3134 |John |do. |_Gave himself | |Impres'd.
| |Haywood, | |up from H. M. | |
| | | |Ship Scipion._| |
| | | | | |
4 | 1347 |Jo. T. |do. |Paul Jones, |Privateer,|
| |Johnson, | | | |
| | | | | |
5 | 3936 |John |do. |Rolla, |Merch. |
| |Washington,| | |vessel, |
-------+-------+-----------+--------+--------------+----------+---------
WOUNDED.
-------+-------+-----------+--------+--------------+----------+---------
1 | 6520 |Tho. |Boy, |_Gave himself | |Imp. died
| |Jackson, | |up from H. M. | |Ap. 7,
| | | |Ship Pontes._ | |1815
| | | | | |
2 | 2647 |James |Seaman, |_Gave himself | |Imp. died
| |Campbell, | |up from H. M. | |Ap. 7,
| | | |Ship | |1815
| | | |Volontaire._ | |
| | | | | |
3 | 5769 |John Gier, |do. |Rambler, |Merch. |
| | | | |vessel, |
| | | | | |
4 | 1722 |William |do. |Dispatch, |do. |Impres'd,
| |Penn, | | | |at London
| | | | | |
5 | 5003 |Cornel. |do. |Invincible, |Lett. |
| |Garrison, | | |Marque |
| | | | | |
6 | 3614 |H. |do. |Homeby. |Privateer,|
| |Hontcalm, | | |p. G. Tom.|
| | | | | |
7 | 1965 |Robert |do. |_Gave himself | |Impres'd.
| |Willett, | |up from H. M. | |
| | | |Ship | |
| | | |Andromache._ | |
| | | | | |
8 | 5326 |John Peach,|do. |Enterprize, |Privateer,|
| | | | | |
9 | 2148 |Edw. |do. |_Gave himself | |Impres'd.
| |Wittlebark,| |up from H. M. | |
| | | |Ship Ro. | |
| | | |William._ | |
| | | | | |
10 | 1881 |James |Boy, |Elbridge |Privateer,|
| |Thornbull, | |Gerry, | |
| | | | | |
11 | 3652 |James |Seaman, |Thorn, |do. |
| |Wells, | | | |
| | | | | |
12 | 1236 |Philip |do. |_Gave himself | |Impres'd.
| |Ford, | |up from | |
| | | |H. M. S. | |
| | | |Sult._ | |
| | | | | |
13 | 685 |James Bell,|do. |Joel Barlow, |Merch. |
| | | | |vessel, |
| | | | | |
14 | 94 |John Grey, |do. |St. Martin's |do. |
| | | |Planter, | |
| | | | | |
15 | 436 |Wm. |do. |Magdalene, |do. |
| |Leversage, | | | |
| | | | | |
16 | 1024 |Edw. |do. |Joseph, |do. |
| |Gardner, | | | |
| | | | | |
17 | 1546 |Stephen |do. |Zebra, |Lett. |
| |Phipps, | | |Marque, |
| | | | | |
18 | 486 |John |do. |Two Brothers, | |Impres'd,
| |Roberts, | | | |at Cork.
| | | | | |
19 | 1640 |Thomas |do. |Paul Jones, |Privateer,|
| |Smith, | | | |
| | | | | |
20 | 1819 |Caleb |do. |_Gave himself | |Impres'd.
| |Codding, | |up from H. M. | |
| | | |Ship | |
| | | |Swiftsure._ | |
| | | | | |
21 | 5015 |John Davis,|do. |Charlotte, |Privateer,|
| | | |p. to Mammoth,| |
| | | | | |
22 | 2013 |James |do. |G. Tomkins, |do. |
| |Esdaille, | | | |
| | | | | |
23 | 380 |Peter |do. |Virginia |Merch. |
| |Wilson, | |Planter, |vessel, |
| | | | | |
24 | 2834 |Wm. Blake, |do. |_Gave himself | |Impres'd.
| | | |up from | |
| | | |H. M. S. | |
| | | |Repu._ | |
| | | | | |
25 | 338 |John |2d Mate,|Good Friends, |Merch. |
| |Hogabets, | | |vessel, |
| | | | | |
26 | 4153 |Eph. |Seaman, |Argus, |do. |
| |Lincoln, | | | |
| | | | | |
27 | 4493 |Thomas |do. |Enterprize, |Privateer,|
| |Findlay, | | | |
| | | | | |
28 | 4109 |John |do. |Flash, |do. |
| |Howard, | | | |
| | | | | |
29 | 1228 |Joseph |do. |_Gave himself | |Impres'd.
| |Masick, | |up from H. M. | |
| | | |Ship Furieux._| |
| | | | | |
30 | 6123 |Robert |do. |Grand Turk, |Privateer,|
| |Fillez, | | | |
| | | | | |
31 | 1812 |John |do. |_Ga. himself | |Impres'd.
| |Willet, | |up from | |
| | | |H. M. S. | |
| | | |Rosario._ | |
| | | | | |
32 | 3080 |John Perry,|do. |_Do fr H. M. | |Impres'd.
| | | |S. Tiger._ | |
| | | | | |
33 | 2662 |John |do. |_Do fr H. M. | |Impres'd.
| |Wilson, | |S. Fortuna._ | |
-------+-------+-----------+--------+--------------+----------+---------

(Signed)

THOMAS GEORGE SHORTLAND, _Agent_.

(Signed)

GEORGE MAGRATH, _Surgeon_.

Reply to KING and LARPENT'S Report.

_To the People of the United States._

Having perused, with attention, the report of Mr. CHARLES KING,
and FRANCIS SEYMOUR LARPENT, on their examination of the
_unfortunate_ occurrence at Dartmoor, on the 6th of April last:

We, the undersigned, being there at the time this _unfortunate_
occurrence took place, deem it a duty we owe to the surviving
sufferers of that bloody transaction, to our fellow citizens, and
ourselves, to make some remarks upon such a singular report.
Although we presume the door is forever closed against any further
investigation of that ever to be remembered transaction, we cannot
help, however contrary it may be to our wishes to irritate the
public feeling, already so much excited, entering into a detailed
investigation of that report.

In the committee's address to the public on the 27th of June last,
preceding the publication of the affidavits of some of the
prisoners, taken on that melancholy affair, they have justly
anticipated what would be the report of the commissioners, after
their investigation; they drew their conclusions from the singular
manner in which the investigation was conducted. The report
commences by stating, that, after carefully perusing the
proceedings of the several courts of inquiry, instituted
immediately after that event, they proceeded immediately to the
examination, upon oath, of ALL the witnesses, both American and
English, who offered themselves for that purpose.--How far this
part of the report is correct, we shall leave the public to judge.

On the arrival of the commissioners at the depot, the committee of
the prison were sent for; after waiting some time at the door of
the room, where the inquiry was held, they were called in
separately and questioned as to their knowledge of the
transactions of the sixth.--The depositions of those who were eye
witnesses of that disgraceful scene were taken; some were
questioned as to the general conduct of Shortland, previous to
that affair; it was represented by them as it would have been by
all, as being universally _cruel, overbearing and oppressive_.
After having finished the examination of the committee, they
requested them to bring forward all the evidence that was likely
to cast any light on the subject of inquiry. They accordingly
returned into the prison, and drew up a list of the names of some
of the eye-witnesses of that day's occurrence. Although they could
have brought hundreds to the examination, and the sum of whose
evidence would have amounted to the same, yet the committee not
wishing to impede the progress of the investigation, by a
redundancy of evidence, they were careful to select such men as
were most likely to give a clear and distinct account of all the
circumstances as they occurred under their knowledge, taking care,
at the same time, to procure those whose different situations
afforded them an opportunity of witnessing that transaction, from
the commencement to the close. Such was the evidence the committee
had selected, to the number of about fifty, VERY FEW of whom were
ever examined, although they were kept waiting in the turnkey's
lodge (where they were ordered to stay until called for) during
the hours of investigation. In the course of the inquiry, it
seems, the commissioners found it necessary to survey the
particular situation of the prisons, and the points from which the
different attacks were made; they accordingly came into the yard
for that purpose, and after having been shown all the places from
whence the firing was continued, where the crowd of prisoners had
assembled on the first alarm, and where the hole, so much made a
handle of, had been made--after a slight survey of these different
places, they retired into their session room, leaving orders, once
more, with the committee to hold their evidence in readiness, as
they would soon be called upon for examination. The committee
replied that they had been in readiness since the commencement of
the inquiry, and were then only waiting their orders to appear
before them, feeling happy in the idea of having it in their power
to show to the court, and to the world, by the evidence they had
to produce, that the attack of Shortland on the defenceless
prisoners, was premeditated and unjustifiable in ANY point of
view.

After attending in the turnkey's lodge during the sitting of the
commissioners, until the middle of the third day, without having
but very few of the evidences sent for, and being fearful that
they might be waiting for them, the committee sent them word that
the witnesses were still in attendance. No answer being returned
to this message for some time, the committee became uneasy on
account of the long examination of the officers, soldiers, clerks,
and turnkeys, attached to the depot, without admitting the
prisoners to an equal privilege; and understanding the
commissioners were about closing their inquiry, they again sent
word they would be glad to have an interview for a few moments,
for the purpose of explaining the nature of their evidence, and
the necessity of a full hearing on both sides of the question. NO
ANSWER BEING RETURNED TO THIS REQUEST, and still waiting with the
anxious hope that they would soon send for some of us, when we
were told by one of the turnkeys, that the commissioners were
prepared to depart, having finished the examination. Astonished to
think they meant to leave the depot without clearly investigating
the circumstances that were the cause of their meeting, and
feeling indignant that a cause of so much importance should be
passed over so partially, the committee addressed a note to Mr.
King, begging him not to shut the door of communication against
the prisoners, by closing the inquiry without giving them the
privilege of a hearing, as the greatest part of our witnesses were
yet unexamined, and their evidence they conceived to be of the
utmost importance to the investigation. _No reply was made to this
note_; but, in a few moments, we were told, that the commissioners
had left the depot. How far they are justifiable in saying they
examined ALL the evidences that offered themselves, we think is
sufficiently shewn.

The commissioners next go on to mention the insurrection of the
prisoners about the bread, on the 4th, two days previous to the
events, the subject of that inquiry. Although the report correctly
states, the prisoners quietly returned to their own yards, after
their demands having been complied with, Mr. King forgot to
mention, that it was clearly represented to him, had the
prisoners been so disposed, on that night, they could have easily
made their escape. Although that transaction had nothing to do, as
relates to the prisoners, with the events of the 6th, we merely
represent this circumstance to show, that there was no intention
whatever on their part to break out of the prison, as Shortland
and his adherents have attempted to prove.

The report now goes on to mention, that on the evening of the 6th
of April, about six o'clock in the evening, a hole was made in one
of the walls of the prison sufficient for a full-sized man to
pass, and others had been commenced, but never completed, and that
a number of the prisoners were over the railing erected to prevent
them from communicating with the sentinels on the walls, and that
they were tearing up pieces of turf, and wantonly pelting each
other, in a noisy manner.

As to the hole made in the wall, we believe the causes and reasons
have been already sufficiently explained by the affidavits laid
before the public. With respect to the prisoners being between the
iron paling and the wall, it could have been, if it was not,
easily explained to Mr. King, had he given an opportunity. It
seems, that on the afternoon of the 6th, some of the prisoners
having obtained _leave_ of the sentinels on the walls to go over
and lay upon the grass, others seeing them laying so much at their
ease, went over to enjoy the same privilege; and as the sentinels
made no objection to this proceeding, the number was soon
increased to such a degree, that it became no longer an enjoyment
to those who first obtained the privilege; some scuffling then
ensued among themselves, and they began to pelt each other with
turf and old shoes, principally in play, and among so many, no
doubt, there must have been considerable noise; but how they can
possibly connect this circumstance with the hole made in the wall,
is entirely out of our power to conceive, as the iron railings
separated them from the pretended breach in the wall, and distant
from it more than half the length of the yard; of course, had the
hole been intended as a breach, the iron paling would have become
a barrier, instead of facilitating the means of an escape.

As to that part of the report which mentions the guard-barracks
being the repository for the arms of the guard off duty, and of
its standing in the yard to which the hole in the wall would serve
as a communication, and of its being a further cause of suspicion
and alarm to Captain Shortland--to one acquainted with the
situation of the prison, such an idea would be ridiculous; but to
those who are not acquainted with it, it will be only necessary
for us to mention, that if the prisoners had the intention of
breaking out through this passage, and had actually got into the
barrack-yard, the difficulties they would then have to encounter
would be much greater than to break a passage through the market
square, or the back part of the yard. As to the idea of their
possessing themselves of the muskets standing in the racks in the
guard-barracks (even if they knew of any being there) it is
childish; for how easy would it have been for the commanding
officer, on the shortest intimation of such an attempt, with one
blast of his bugle, to have called all his guards to the spot
before a hundredth part of the prisoners could have got into the
yard, and by that means instantly put a stop to any further
proceedings on their part.

We cannot conceive how Mr. King can possibly come forward and say,
on these grounds, it appeared to him that Captain Shortland was
justified in giving the order for sounding the alarm bell, when,
if he found the prisoners were conducting themselves improperly,
had he sent for the committee (as always had been his custom
heretofore, when he had any charge against the prisoners for
improper conduct) and told them that the prisoners were breaking
the wall (which circumstance, as has been published before, was
not known to one tenth of the prisoners) and requested them to
have represented to those engaged in it, the consequences that
must ensue if they persisted in such conduct, we have not a
moment's hesitation in saying, they would have put a stop to any
further proceedings of that kind.

That part which relates to the breaking of the iron chain which
fastened No. 1 gate, and which follows next in the report, says
there was no evidence to show whether it was done before or after
the alarm bell rang. As this was a material point on which they
grounded Shortland's justification, we have to regret that the
evidence we had to lay before the commissioners, and which would,
in our opinion, have sufficiently cleared up that point, was not
examined.

On the ringing of the alarm bell, the rush towards the gates
leading into the market square was so great (attracted as has been
before stated by curiosity) that those in front were irresistibly
pushed forward by those in the rear, and if the chain had not
broke, the lock must have given way to the pressure, and by this
opening, it is but natural to suppose, that a number must have
been shoved into the square, in front of the soldiers, who were
drawn up in a line across the square, with Shortland at their
head.

If, as the report now goes on to state, there was no direct proof
before them of a previous concert or preparation on the part of
the prisoners, and no evidence of their intention or disposition
to effect their escape on this occasion, excepting that which
arose by _inference_ from the whole of the detailed circumstances
connected together, had Mr. King examined the evidence on the part
of the prisoners, as minutely as it seems he examined those on the
part of Shortland, he could not even have drawn the _shadow of an
inference_ of that being their intention.

Where the commissioners got their evidence for asserting that
Captain Shortland, by quiet means and persuasion, endeavored to
persuade the prisoners to retire into their respective yards, is
unaccountable to us, as those who know Captain Shortland, know he
is not a man of persuasion. It is correct that Dr. M'Grath used
every exertion to persuade the prisoners to retire out of the
square, which if Shortland had allowed sufficient time, would have
been quietly done; but the crowd, by this time, had become so
great, and the pressure from the rear so strong, that those in
front could not retreat until time should be allowed for those in
the rear to fall back, but the hasty, haughty, and overbearing
temper of Shortland, could not allow him to use such conciliatory
means. He orders (the report says) fifteen file of the guard
fronting the open gate, to the charge; and after some little time
the charge was so effectual, with but very little or no injury to
the prisoners, as to drive them, for the most part, quite out of
the square, with the exception of a small number who continued
their resistance about No. 1 gate. Under these circumstances,
continued the report, the firing commenced.

Here we beg leave to request an attentive perusal of the
affidavits of some of the prisoners, taken by the committee, and
which relate particularly to this part of the transaction. It is
there positively stated, that on the soldiers coming to the
charge, the prisoners ALL retreated into the yard, and pushed the
gate to after them. If the commissioners had examined the
evidence, this part of the report ought to have been differently
expressed.

We cannot conceive how Mr. King finds it difficult to reconcile
the testimony respecting Captain Shortland's giving the orders to
fire; when he reports that SEVERAL of the Americans SWEAR
POSITIVELY, that Captain Shortland gave that order--and many of
the soldiers and the English witnesses heard the word given by
some one, but could not swear it was by Captain Shortland; and
some of them (among whom is the officer commanding the guard)
THINK, if Captain Shortland had given such an order, they must
have heard it, which they did not. Thus, then, stands the
foundation for this part of the report. An English officer THINKS
it is not so, and several Americans SWEAR it is so; and he finds
it very difficult to reconcile their testimony.--The lightness
with which they seem to have passed over this most important point
of that day's transaction, cannot but be deeply regretted by those
who feel for the unhappy sufferers, when they go on to state, "It
may remain a matter of doubt whether the firing first began in the
square by an ORDER, or whether it was a spontaneous act of the
soldiers themselves; it seemed clear it was continued and renewed
both there and elsewhere, without orders--and that on the
platforms and several places about the prison it was _certainly
commenced without any authority_." We must once more request the
attention of the public to the affidavits already published; it is
there sworn by one of the witnesses, that PREVIOUS to the alarm
bell being rung, and while walking in the yard, _a soldier called
to him from the walls_, and _told him to go in_, as they would
soon be fired upon. How, then, can it be possible, that a soldier
on the walls should know that they would soon be fired upon, if
the order had not been previously given to that effect? And had
the bugle-man been examined, he could have stated that, previous
to the ringing of the alarm bell, he received orders to _sound to
fire_; so that when the soldiers took their stations on the walls,
they were charged and prepared for that purpose. With such
information, we conceive the committee to stand fully justified in
stating in their report, the belief of its being a pre-concerted
plan, on the part of Shortland; and if the commissioners had
possessed themselves with a knowledge of these circumstances,
which they could and ought to have done, would they, then,
reported Shortland as justifiable, even in a _military_ point of
view?

The next thing we have to notice in the report is, that very
singular paragraph, which says, "from the fact of the crowd being
so close, and the firing at _first_ being attended with _very
little injury_, it appears probable, that a large proportion of
the muskets were, as stated by one or two of the witnesses,
levelled over the heads of the prisoners, a circumstance, in some
respects, to be _lamented_." Is it, then, to be _lamented_, that
the soldiers did not level their pieces, on the _first_ fire,
directly into the crowd, which they have stated to be so great and
so close that a soldier declared he could not come fairly down to
a charge? or is it to be _lamented_, that one or two hundred were
not killed at the first discharge, and a thousand or two wounded?
If so, we think it much to be _lamented_, that the reporters were
not there, and placed foremost in the crowd.

The circumstance of so few being hurt at the first discharge is
not strange to those who are acquainted with the situation; and
this occurrence alone corroborates the American evidence, and
ought to have been sufficient proof to the commissioners, that the
prisoners upon being charged upon, retreated through the gates,
and shut them after them, before the firing commenced; and which
circumstance, alone, should have shut the door of justification
against Shortland for commencing a fire upon them, as they were in
their own yards. As this was the actual situation of the prisoners
on the first discharge, and the soldiers having to fire through
the iron paling, and the prisoners retreating on a descending
ground, of course brought the muskets, when down to a level, over
the heads of the prisoners--it was owing to this _fortunate_
circumstance that so few were injured on the first discharge of
the musketry; and it seems the inhuman Shortland was aware of this
circumstance, when he was distinctly heard to order his soldiers
to fire low. This does not appear to correspond with that part of
their report which says, "Captain Shortland was in the market
square, exerting himself in giving orders to stop the firing."

That there was any provocation given to the soldiers to justify
their subsequent brutal conduct, the commissioners themselves seem
to find it very difficult to trace any evidence, although they
say, it appears, that there was some resistance made to the
turnkeys in shutting the prison, and that stones were thrown at
the military. Had they examined the _prisoners_ sufficiently, they
would have been convinced that no resistance was made to the
turnkeys in shutting the doors. As to throwing stones at the
military, while they were chasing them from corner to corner, and
firing at them in every place where they had taken shelter from
the balls, could it be expected but they would seize on something
for self defence, when they saw the soldiers running at them with
their bayonets, and having no possible means of escape, as it has
been before stated, all the doors in the prisons had been
previously closed except one, and that one perhaps, the length of
the prison from him. Is there a man, in such a situation, but
would seize on the first weapon that offered itself, and sell his
life as dear as possible. How can they, then, make that the
slightest justification for such outrageous conduct on the part of
Shortland or the military?

As to most of the officers being absent is erroneous; it could
have been proved that there was an officer in every yard, and in
one instance where he was heard to give the order to fire on a
party of prisoners close by the door, and running and making every
exertion to enter the prison.

As to Captain Shortland being busy in the square with the
turnkeys, receiving and taking care of the wounded, certainly
shows the commissioners' want of correct information, for it is
already before the public, in affidavit, the cruel manner in which
the wounded were treated by him, and of his abuse to the prisoners
who were bearing the wounded to the hospital gate. That part of
the report which relates that the time and commencement of this
transaction was the officers' dinner hour, is too ridiculous for a
comment. We do not believe that there was a prisoner in the depot
that knew when or where the officers dined, and therefore, can be
no ground for an argument, that the prisoners were taking this
opportunity to escape.

The report goes on to state, "the cross fire, which was kept up
from several of the platforms on the walls round the prison, and
directed against straggling parties of prisoners, running about
the yard, endeavoring to enter the prison by the door which the
turnkey left open, according to their usual practice, _does seem_
to have been without object or excuse, and to have been a wanton
attack upon the lives of defenceless, and, at the same time,
unoffending individuals." In answer to this paragraph, we shall
only reply, that had the commissioners examined ALL the American
evidence, and attached the same credit to it, which it appears
they have done to ALL the English evidence, similar expressions
would have been made use of against Shortland's conduct throughout
the whole of their report.

It appears to us, after an attentive examination of this report,
that the commissioners meant to justify Shortland in commencing
his murderous attack upon the prisoners, and to condemn the
soldiers for continuing it. Singular as this idea appears, it is
no less strange to us, how it can be possible they could reconcile
it to their feelings to make up a report containing such a direct
contradiction to reason; for surely if Shortland could be
justified in using coercive measures in the first instance, the
military certainly should be acquitted for the subsequent
massacre, as the whole was conducted under his immediate
command;--and if he had A RIGHT to kill one, on the same ground he
might have extended it to a thousand. And, on the other hand, if
any part of the transaction is to be condemned, Shortland should
answer for the whole; for what necessity could there be made to
attempt identifying any of the soldiers? Surely the commissioners
could not think of bringing them to punishment, as they acted by
the direct orders of Shortland and his officers!--and if any one
could or ought to be made to answer for the outrage, it should be
Shortland.

In addition to the contradictions contained in the commissioners'
joint report, Mr. King, in his letter to his excellency J. Q.
Adams, almost denies the ground on which they have, in part,
founded Shortland's justification, when he says (alluding to have
heard several Americans _swear, positively_, that Shortland did
give the order to fire, and an officer of the guard _thinking_
that he did not, as he should have heard him) "perhaps the bias of
my mind was, that Shortland did give that order; and wishing the
report to go forth under our joint signatures, I forbore to press
some of the points so far as otherwise I MIGHT have done."

If, then, any part has been neglected, or passed over for
accommodation, or any other purpose (and one there certainly has,
in not paying the same attention to the American as was done to
the English evidence) it is to be regretted that Mr. King should
so far forget the sacred duties attached to the appointment of a
commissioner to enquire into the murder of his countrymen, as to
pass over any points which might have brought to light the means
of punishment for the murder, or obtained in some measure an
indemnity for the surviving unhappy sufferers.

Will not the shades of the departed victims haunt him in his
midnight slumbers, and, pointing to their lacerated bodies, say,
these still remain unavenged? Will not the unhappy survivors show
the stumps of their amputated limbs, and say, these wounds fester,
and still remain unatoned? Will not the widow and the helpless
orphan raise their innocent hands to heaven, and cry, why was
justice denied us? Why was the heart so callous to our sufferings?
And why was the bosom shut to sympathy? Let Mr. King point out
some means to appease these bitter complaints, and we shall be
satisfied.

We shall now close these unpleasant remarks, by noticing another
unaccountable error in Mr. King's letter to Mr. Adams, where he
mentions, speaking of Shortland, "and his general conduct,
previous to this occurrence, as far as I could with propriety
enter into such details, appears to have been characterized with
great fairness, and even kindness, in the relation in which he
stood towards the prisoners."--We shall not pretend to ask Mr.
King where he obtained the evidence on which he grounds this
assertion; we are sure it was not from the prisoners, who ought to
have been the best judges of that circumstance; but, instead of
all that, all the Americans who were permitted to express an
opinion on that subject, at the examination, declared, without
reserve, as would all the prisoners in the depot, had they been
asked the question, that Shortland's conduct, from the
commencement of his appointment to that station, had been cruel,
oppressive, and overbearing; and, instead of taking measures to
alleviate the distresses of the wretched objects under him, as a
feeling man would have done, he seemed to take a pleasure in
harrassing them whenever he could find the slightest pretext for
so doing.

_W. Colton_, _Joseph Swain_, _Arch'd Taylor_, _David Ingalls_,
_Reuben Sherman_, _Arch'd I. Mackay_, _Philip Black_, _Homer
Hall_, _James B. Mansfield_, _Abr'm M'Intire_, _Wm. Cochran_,
_Henry Dolliver_, _John Jones_, _B. Weeks_, _Wm. Demerell_,
_Thomas Ward_, _William K. White_.

REMARKS.

In presenting to the world the record of a transaction, probably
the most barbarous which the history of modern warfare can
furnish, we cannot refrain from remarks.--Whatever our feelings
may be, upon a subject so amply calculated to excite the
indignation and abhorrence of every friend to humanity, and every
one who has respect for the laws of civilized and mitigated
warfare, we will, nevertheless, refrain, so far as the
circumstances of outraged humanity will permit, from the violence
of invective, and wholly from unwarranted crimination. Those, into
whose hands these documents may fall, will, however, preserve them
as a monument erected to the memory of their slaughtered
countrymen, and a memento of the unfeeling cruelty of our late
enemy.

Though we are far from believing that there are not persons of
noble and humane minds in the English nation, yet, a uniformity of
conduct, on the part of the Government and its agents, has taught
us to believe that they, at least, are blood thirsty and cruel.

The incarceration of Americans in the Jersey Prison Ship at
New-York, and Mill Prison, in England, in the Revolutionary war,
raised in the minds of the sainted heroes of those times, the most
exalted feelings of indignation and abhorrence. The history of
those prisoners, where hundreds were compelled to wear out an
existence, rendered miserable by the cruelty of an enemy,
professing a reverence for the sublime principles of Christianity,
is already familiarized to the minds of the American people. If
the feelings of Americans were then indignant, what should they
be, on beholding those cruelties renewed with more than ten fold
severity? The conduct of Thomas George Shortland, the agent at
Dartmoor Prison, is such as should "damn him to everlasting fame."

Upon what principles the conduct of this man, precedent to the
ever memorable 6th of April, 1815, can be justified, we cannot
determine. The indiscriminate confinement of both officers and men
in the same prisons, and those the most unfit, decayed, and
loathsome of any which the Government could furnish, was an
infraction of the established laws of civilized nations for the
treatment of prisoners of war. It was equally abhorrent to the
principles of humanity, and only sanctioned by British
governmental agents, and those petty Nations of Savages, whose
known usages of warfare have hitherto kept them beyond the pale of
national law. The history of modern European wars can furnish no
parallel to this part of the history of Dartmoor. But when we
arrive at the slaughter of prisoners on the 6th of April, the
climax of barbarity is complete, and the mind is sated with the
contemplation of principles as shocking to humanity as the
consequences are degrading to the character of the English nation.

An eminent writer upon national law, has formerly extolled the
"English and French for their treatment given to prisoners of
war," and at the same time mentions the case of Charles I. King of
Naples, who, having defeated and taken prisoner Conrade, his
competitor, caused him, together with his fellow-prisoner,
Frederick of Austria, to be beheaded at Naples. Upon this case our
author has the following pertinent remarks:--"This barbarity
raised an universal horror, and Peter the third, King of Arragon,
reproached Charles with it, as a detestable crime, till then
unheard of among Christian princes. However, the case was of a
dangerous rival contending with him for the throne. But, supposing
the claims of his rival were unjust, Charles might have kept him
in prison until he had renounced them, and given security for his
future behavior." If this act of Charles raised an "universal
horror," what should be the excitement produced by the cold
blooded massacre of a number of unarmed and unoffending prisoners
of war in confinement? Humanity shudders at the thought, and
language furnishes no appropriate epithet with which to brand the
infamous perpetrator of so foul, so hitherto unheard of a crime.
Did that writer now live, he would no longer extol the humanity of
the English nation, but in common with the friends of humanity, he
would join in the "universal horror" which British cruelty has
excited.

The complexion of this transaction is rendered still more dark and
barbarous, and its criminality most shockingly enhanced, by the
circumstances under which many of those unfortunate men became
prisoners, and finally were offered up as victims to gratify the
cruel and insatiate feeling of the British agent. They were
American Citizens, who had been impressed into the service and
bondage of Great Britain, in time of peace. They had served that
government from a necessity, arising from the assumed principle of
a right to search neutral vessels for British seamen, and the
practice of taking Americans and compelling them to service. We
cannot, however, too much applaud the magnanimity of those men, in
refusing to fight against and slaughter their countrymen; nor can
we too much detest the conduct of Great Britain, in confining them
as prisoners of war.

This practice assumed as a right in the first moments of our
existence as an independent and commercial nation, has "grown with
our growth," and the evil thereof has increased in proportion as
our commercial rivalship has become more alarming to the pride and
injustice of Great Britain. It is a practice which cannot be
traced to any principle of justification; and yet we have seen
the legislators of Massachusetts, clothed with a garb of official
sanctity, send to the world a report, amounting almost to a
denial, that such a practice was in existence! We pretend not to
judge of their motives: but we remark, how soon they are
confounded by the report of Shortland and Magrath. By that
instrument it appears, that of thirty-eight who were killed or
wounded, twelve were of the number of Impressed Americans, who had
given themselves up as prisoners of war, upon the commencement of
hostilities. If this be the correct proportion of their prisoners,
who have been impressed from American vessels, and as it is an
official document of British authority, we cannot believe the
ratio to be less, we see the advocates of British magnanimity
confounded and put to shame, by the testimony of those same
British agents, whose justification they have so eagerly, though
unsuccessfully attempted. It might, indeed, have been supposed,
that after having so frequently been treated with the same
contempt, they might have learned sufficient caution, at least, to
stay their measures until the pleasure of their transatlantic
friends should be known. But their overweening anxiety has only
tended to plunge them in deeper embarrassments, and should teach
them, that more prudence and less zeal in the cause of a national
enemy, might secure them a safer retreat in the moments when those
whose friendship they had so anxiously sought, had deserted, and
condemned them.

By the report of the Legislature of Massachusetts upon the subject
of impressments, it would appear that no more than sixteen had
been impressed from this Commonwealth. What must be our conclusion
upon a comparison of this report, with that of Messrs. Shortland
and Magrath? It is irresistable, either that the former did not
report the full number of impressments, or that the latter have
aggravated their guilt and condemnation, by swelling the number to
a degree beyond what the facts would justify, from some cause,
unknown to their American advocates, and in favor of the facts and
principles, for which the American government have uniformly
contended. A few of those assumed as facts, by the present
dominant party in New-England, may aid us in this enquiry, and
perhaps conduct us to a correct conclusion. They have repeatedly
told us, that New-England, and more particularly Massachusetts,
has ever been the nursery of our seamen. That this section had
furnished more than the whole remaining part of the United States.
Admitting the correctness of the report of Shortland and Magrath,
we are wholly unable to reconcile the report of our Legislature
with those which they assume as facts, and upon which the
principles of their report were, in part, predicated. It exhibits
to our view a disposition to fritter away the enormities of the
British Government, and a determination to justify them in every
act of barbarity, however unjustifiable in its circumstances, or
however shocking in its operation.

The report of Messrs. King and Larpent may here claim a portion of
our attention. Unpleasant as the task may be, to reflect, even
indirectly upon the conduct of one of our countrymen, acting in
the high and solemn capacity to which Mr. King was called, we
cannot, however, without doing violence to our own feelings, and
criminating numbers of our countrymen, perhaps equally entitled to
credibility with Mr. King himself, afford our credence to his
singular report; especially when we see it contradicted
unconditionally, by the unfortunate witnesses of the unhappy and
barbarous transaction.

Even Mr. King himself, in his letter to Mr. Adams, furnishes a
tardy acknowledgment, that he had not completed the duties to
which he had been called. "Considering it of much importance (he
says) that the report, whatever it might be, should go forth under
our joint signatures, I have forborne to press some of the points
which it involves as far as otherwise I might have done." And why
did Mr. King forbear to press every point involved in the report?
Was it from a disposition to perform his whole duty to his
country; or, rather, from a too common admiration of British
principles and British characters.

The numerous affidavits accompanying the report made by the
committee of the prisoners, together with the reply to the report
of Messrs. King and Larpent, afford the most positive testimony in
contradiction to many of its prominent features. We can form no
other opinion respecting this report, than either that Mr. King
was overreached by his colleague, or that he was pre-determined to
fritter down the abuses which the British Government and its
agents had lavished upon their American prisoners. Why either
Messrs. King or Larpent should decline the examination of all the
witnesses offered by the prisoners, is wholly inexplicable, unless
we attribute to them a mutual and fixed determination to justify
the conduct of Shortland and his accomplices, at the expense of
criminating hundreds of Americans, who were no less entitled to
credibility than either of themselves. Hereafter "let no such men
be trusted."

The treatment of the prisoners appears to have proceeded from the
same principles of inhumanity, which have given rise to the
hostile operations of the British Commanders upon our maritime and
inland frontiers, during the continuance of the late contest. Such
principles belong only to Savages or their allies. The outrages at
the river Raisin, Hampton, Havre de Grace, Washington, and those
attempted at New-Orleans, it was thought, might have filled the
measure of British barbarities. But to the prisons of Dartmoor was
transferred the scene of its completion. Americans, armed in
defence of their soil, their Constitution, and natural rights,
were too invincible to the "veteran" conquerors of the East.
Prisoners of war in confinement, and without arms, were selected
as the objects upon which they might glut their malice.

We have heard much from a certain class of our politicians of the
burning of Newark and St. David's; but little have they said of
the destruction of Buffalo, of Washington City, or the massacre of
our unfortunate countrymen at Dartmoor; and that little has been
directed to the justification of the perpetrators. The
conflagration of our Capitol, with the appendages of art and
taste, and even the slaughter of our countrymen, could not excite
in those minds one feeling of indignation; whilst the unauthorized
destruction of a few houses, within the territorial limits of our
enemy, not only excited their warmest sympathies for the enemy,
but their foulest denunciations of our own Government.

We might here attempt a comparison of the treatment of each
Government to their prisoners. But the contrast is so evident,
that we shall commit it to our readers without remark.

Where is the American, whose feelings do not become indignant,
after a full and dispassionate view of all the circumstances
connected with this savage transaction. Though we may again be
told, that Great Britain is the 'Bulwark of our Religion;' yet it
may be hoped, that few, indeed, will be found to worship in a
temple stained with the blood of their countrymen, or consign
their consciences to the keeping of the upholders of the temple of
Juggernaut, or the restorers of Papal power.

Though our policy as an Independent Republic is pacific, yet
should our rights again be assailed, and future wars ensue, WE
WILL REMEMBER DARTMOOR!

* * * * *

We here subjoin a letter from the Right Honorable Lord Castlereagh
to our Commissioners at Ghent, with their answer, together with
the reply of our Secretary of State to the British charge des
affairs at Washington:

_Lord Castlereagh to Messrs. Clay and Gallatin._

Foreign Office, May 22, 1815.

GENTLEMEN--I lost no time in laying before the Prince Regent the
report made by Mr. Larpent and Mr. King, respectfully appointed on
the part of his majesty's government, and that of the United
States of America, to enquire into the circumstances of the late
unfortunate occurrence at Dartmoor Prison.

His Royal Highness has commanded me to express, through you, to
the government of America, how deeply he laments the consequences
of this unhappy affair.

If any thing can tend to relieve the distress which his Royal
Highness feels on this occasion, it is the consideration, that the
conduct of the soldiers was not actuated from any spirit of
animosity towards the prisoners, and that the inactivity of the
officers may be attributed rather to the inexperience of militia
forces, than to any want of zeal or inclination to afford that
liberal protection which is ever due to prisoners of war.

But as his Royal Highness has observed, at the same time, with
sincere regret, that although the firing of the troops upon the
prisoners may have been justified at its commencement, by the
turbulent conduct of the latter, yet that the extent of the
calamity must be ascribed to a want of steadiness in the troops,
and of exertion in the officers, calling for the most severe
animadversion. His Royal Highness has been pleased to direct the
commander in chief to address to the commanding officer of the
Somerset militia, his disapprobation of the conduct of the troops,
which it is trusted will make a due impression on the minds of the
officers and men who were engaged in this unfortunate transaction.

As an additional proof of the sentiments which animate the Prince
Regent on this occasion, I am further commanded to express his
Royal Highness' desire to make a compensation to the widows and
families of the sufferers; and I have to request that you,
gentlemen, would make this known to your government, inviting
them, at the same time, to co-operate with his majesty's charge
d'affairs in the United States, in investigating the respective
claims, for the purpose of fulfilling his Royal Highness'
benevolent intentions upon this painful occasion.

I request that you will accept the assurance of the distinguished
consideration with which I have the honor to be, &c.

(Signed)

CASTLEREAGH.

To Henry Clay, Esq. and Albert Gallatin, Esq.

_Copy of a letter from Messrs. Clay and Gallatin, to Lord
Castlereagh._

Hanover Street, Hanover Square, March 24, 1815.

MY LORD--We have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your
lordship's official note of the 22d inst.

Having, as we have already informed your lordship, no powers on
the subject to which it refers, we will lose no time in
transmitting it to our government.--We will also place in the
possession of the American minister, near his Britannic majesty's
government, whose arrival here we daily expect, a copy of your
lordship's note, together with a statement of what had previously
passed respecting the unfortunate event at Dartmoor.

We embrace the opportunity of tendering, &c.

(Signed)

H. CLAY,
ALBERT GALLATIN.

The Right Honorable Viscount Castlereagh, Secretary of State for
the Foreign Department, &c. &c.

_The Secretary of State to Anthony St. John Baker, Esq. his
Britannic majesty's charge d'affairs._

Washington, Department of State, December 11, 1815.

SIR--I have the honor to receive your letter of the 3d of August,
communicating a proposition of your government to make provision
for the widows and families of the sufferers in the much to be
lamented occurrence at Dartmoor.

It is painful to touch on this unfortunate event, from the deep
distress it has caused to the whole American people. This
repugnance is increased by the consideration that our governments,
though penetrated with regret, do not agree in sentiment,
respecting the conduct of the parties engaged in it.

Whilst the President declines accepting the provision contemplated
by his royal highness, the Prince Regent, he nevertheless does
full justice to the motives which dictated it. I have the honor to
be, &c.

(Signed)

JAMES MONROE.

Anthony St. John Baker, Esq. his Britannic majesty's charge
d'affairs.

From all which it appears that nothing further can now be done relative to this shocking transaction. The government and the people of America have similar feelings. His Royal Highness the Prince Regent of England offers to give money by way of compensating the widows and families of the slain, as was offered in the affair of the Chesapeake; but the PRESIDENT very properly refused the price of blood. There is now no constituted earthly tribunal before which this deed can be tried and punished, it is therefore left, like some other atrocities from the same quarter, with the feelings of Christian people. They have already tried it, and brought in their verdict.--But, "_vengeance is mine, and I will repay saith the Lord_;"--and to HIM we leave it.