Chapter IX: The West, (13)

_Journal of the Siege of Quebec in 1775-76, collected from some old manuscripts originally written by an officer, to which are added a preface and illustrative notes by W. T. P. Short_ (London, 1824). It begins Dec. 1, 1775, and ends May 6, 1776; but the editor continues the narrative, briefly, through the campaign (_Menzie's Catal._, no. 1,107).

_Journal of the most remarkable occurrences in Quebec, from the 14th of Nov., 1775, to the 7th of May 1776, by an officer of the garrison._ It is printed in the _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1880, p. 175. Of the British general accounts, mention may be made of the _Annual Register_, xix. ch. 1, 5; xx. ch. 1; Andrew's _Late War_ (ch. 19, 20); Stedman's _Amer. War_ (ch. 2, 10); Adolphus's _England_ (ii. 237); Bisset's _George the Third_ (i. ch. 15); Mahon's _England_ (vi. 76); W. Lindsay's _Invasion of Canada by the American provincials_ (1826). Sir James Carmichael-Smythe's _Précis of the War in Canada_ criticises the plan of Montgomery's attack. Cf. _Canadian Antiquarian_, v. 145; Lemoine's _Maple Leaves_, pp. 84, 95; his _Picturesque Quebec_, pp. 120, 231; J. Lesperance's _Bastonnais: tale of the American invasion of Canada in 1775-76_ (Toronto, 1877).

Lossing has a paper on the local associations of Quebec in _Harper's Monthly_, xviii. 176; and similar detail is also given in his _Field-Book of the Am. Rev._

FRENCH.—There are three records in the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec: 1. _Le témoin oculaire de la guerre des Bastonnais durant les années 1775 et 1776 par M. Simon Sanguinet_.

2. _Journal contenant le récit de l'invasion du Canada en 1775-1776, redigé par M. Jean B. Badeaux_, printed in their Hist. Documents, 3d series. For Nos. 1 and 2 see Verreau's _Invasion du Canada_ (Montreal, 1873).

3. _Journal tenu pendant le Siège du fort St. Jean en 1776 par M. Antoine Foucher._

The principal general French history on the subject is Garneau's _Histoire du Canada_.

Cf. _Centenaire de l'assaut de Québec par les Américains 31 Décembre, 1775. Compte-rendu de la Séance solennelle donnée par l'Institut Canadien, 30 Déc., 1875._ Quebec, 1876 (Sabin, xvi. 66,997).

[648] A letter of Samuel Hodgkinson, April 27th, is in the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, July, 1886, p. 162.

[649] Sparks's _Corresp. of the Rev._, i. 185, 189, 196; Force's _Archives_, 4th, v., vi.; 5th, i. Among the General Thomas papers, beside drafts of his own letters at this time, there are letters to him from Arnold (May 1, 11, 14); from Schuyler (May 17); and from Baron de Woedtke (May 11, 12, 18, 19). Some memoranda from Thomas's letters are in a collection of _Letters and Papers, 1761-1776_ (p. 165), in the Mass. Hist. Soc. cabinet. Cf. also Lossing's _Schuyler_ (ii. ch. 1, 2); I. N. Arnold's _Arnold_ (ch. 5); Read's _Geo. Read_, 150; Bancroft's _United States_ (orig. ed., viii. ch. 67); Irving's _Washington_ (ii. ch. 20; 22); Stone's _Brant_, i. 154.

[650] See the general narratives, and specially Sparks's _Washington_ (iv. 56), for the capitulation; Resolutions of Congress, July 10, 1776, in Sparks's _Corresp. of the Rev._ (i. 258); S. E. Dawson in _Canadian Monthly_, v. 305; and _Authentic narrative of facts relating to the exchange of prisoners taken at the Cedars, with original papers_ (London, 1777—_Brinley Catal._, ii. no. 3,967). Cf. _John Adams's Life and Writings_, ix. 407; _N. H. Rev. Rolls_, i. 477; and Force's _Archives_, 4th, vi. (p. 598), and 5th, i. The Agreement (May 27, 1776) of Arnold and Foster about the prisoners is in _Sparks MSS._, xiii. and xlv. Jones recounts the disputes arising over the fulfilment of Arnold's agreement for an exchange of the prisoners. _N. Y. during the Revolution_, i. 93. There is a French edition of the _Authentic Narrative_, by Marcel Ethier (Montreal, 1873).

[651] Sparks's _Corresp. of Rev._, i. 525, 531; Force's _Archives_, 4th, vi.; Colonel Irvine's account in _Hist. Mag._; vi. 115; _Life of George Read_ (ch. 3, with memoir of Thompson at end of ch. 2); Lossing's _Schuyler_ (ii. 85); Marshall's _Washington_ (ii. 362); Amory's _John Sullivan_; Bancroft's _United States_, original edition, viii. p. 415, etc.

[652] Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 423; _Corresp. of the Rev._, 211, 216, 231, 237, 239, 241; _John Adams's Life and Writings_, ix. 43. Letters of Sullivan, with some from Arnold during the retreat from Canada, are among the Sullivan papers (_Sparks MSS._, xx.). A letter from Arnold to Gates, Chamblée, May 31, 1776, is among the Gates Papers (copies in _Sparks MSS._, xx.). A letter of Thompson to St. Clair from Sorel, June 2, 1776, is in the _St. Clair Papers_ (i. 367), with notes on the retreat.

[653] The are several personal records and diaries of these final months of the campaign. Dr. S. J. Meyrick, a surgeon of a Massachusetts regiment, wrote, June 1, 1836, to J. Trumbull, his recollections of the retreat, drawn up from contemporary minutes, beginning May 21, 1776 (Trumbull's _Autobiography_, 299).

Diary of Joshua Pell, Jr., beginning at Quebec, May 29, 1776, giving an account of Three Rivers defeat, ending Nov. 22d, is printed in _Mag. of Am. Hist._, ii. 43.

Letters of Colonel Bond (July, Aug., 1776) in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, iv. 71.

In the _Sparks MSS._ (lii. vol. ii. p. 69, etc.) are copies of papers belonging to the Amer. Philosophical Society (Feb., 1831), which contain a journal of Jacob Shallus, beginning in the camp before Quebec, May 6, 1776, and ending at Crown Point, July 1st. A journal of Lieut. Jona. Burton, Aug. 1 to Nov. 29, 1776, is in the _N. H. State Papers_, vol. xiv.

There are local aspects and connections of the campaign to be got from Watson's _Essex County_ (ch. 10); Dunlap's _New York_ (ii. ch. 1, 4); Mrs. Bonney's _Hist. Gleanings_, i.; Smith's _Pittsfield, Mass._ (ch. 15); Temple and Sheldon's _Northfield_, etc.

[654] Sedgwick's _Livingston_. There is also a copy in the _Langdon Papers_, and a copy from that in the _Sparks MSS._ (lii. vol. ii.). A letter of Paine is in _Ibid._ (xlix. ii.).

[655] A letter of John Carroll, describing his journey, and written from Montreal, May 1, 1776, is in Force's _Archives_, v. 1,158.

[656] _Memoir of Josiah Quincy, Jr._, 418. Lives of Franklin by Sparks, Parton, and Bigelow.

[657] _Journal of Charles Carroll to Canada, with notes by B. Mayer_ (Baltimore, 1845). _Journal of Charles Carroll of Carrollton during a visit to Canada in 1776, as one of the Commissioners from Congress_ (Baltimore, 1876—the Centennial volume of the Maryland Hist. Soc.). On Carroll, see Boyle's _Marylanders; Annals of Annapolis_; Niles's _Register_, xxx. 79; J. C. Carpenter in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, ii. 101; J. M. Finotti in _Cath. World_, xxiii. 537; S. Jordan in Potter's _Amer. Monthly_, vii. 401. Poole's _Index_ gives other references upon John Carroll. The Commissioner Charles Carroll was reputed to be the wealthiest man in America. Views of his mansion are in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, ii. 101; Lamb's _Homes of America_; Brotherhead's _Signers_ (1861, p. 81); and in _Appleton's Journal_, xii. p. 321. For a Carroll medal, see _Amer. Journal of Numismatics_, v. 8, xv. 45; _Cath. World_, July, 1876, p. 537.

The best known portrait of Carroll is that painted by Chester Harding, which for a while was deposited in the cabinet of the Mass. Hist. Soc. (_Proc._, i. 500). It has been engraved by A. B. Durand (_National Portrait Gallery_, N. Y., 1834), H. B. Hall (in Carroll's Journal, 1876), and J. B. Longacre. A portrait by Thomas Lally, formerly belonging to Governor Swann, of Maryland, is now in the Mass. Hist. Soc. Gallery (_Proc._, 2d ser., ii. 261). Cf. McSherry's _Maryland_.

[658] A letter of Chase and Carroll from Montreal, May 26, 1776, to General Thomas, is in the _Mass. Archives_, and is copied in the _Sparks MSS_ (lii. vol. iii.).

[659] Their letters, written in May, are in _Force's Archives_, and the originals are preserved in the Archives at Washington; but Brantz Mayer says (_Carroll's Journal_, 1876, p. 37) that their report of June 12, 1776, could not be found. Their last letter, however, of May 27th, which Mayer prints (p. 38), gives their results. It is also in Force (vi. 589). The papers of General Thomas show their letters addressed to him of May 6, 12, and 15.

[660] Maj.-Gen. Robert Howe's report on the defences of Charlestown, some months later (Oct. 9th), is in the _Amer. Archives_, iii. 49.

[661] _An Introduction to the History of the Revolt of the American Colonies, being a comprehensive view of its origin derived from the State Papers contained in the public offices of Great Britain_ (Boston, 1845).

[662] It is to be remembered that these positive statements as to the spirit of independence latent in the colonies were written after the achievement of the fact. It is but fair to say that it has been objected against the positiveness of Chalmers's statements that he presents no specific evidence of their truth from written authorities. (See Sparks's _Washington_, vol. ii. Appendix x., and his Preface to the American edition of Chalmers.) Viscount Bury, in his _Exodus of the Western Nations_ (i. 395, 412), repeats the opinion of Chalmers as positively, yet also without authorities. On the other side, as illustrating how general statements may be affirmed, as if not to be qualified or challenged, we read in Governor Hutchinson's volume of his _History_ written during his exile in England this sentence (vol. iii. p. 69), as of date 1758: "An empire, separate or distinct from Britain, no man then alive expected or desired to see",—an assertion more rhetorical than true. In the debate in the Commons on the Boston Port Bill and the infraction of the charter of Massachusetts, Sir Richard Sutton said "that even in the most quiet times the disposition to oppose the laws of this country was strongly ingrafted in the Americans, and all their actions conveyed a spirit and wish for independence. If you ask an American who is his master, he will tell you he has none, nor any governor, but Jesus Christ" (Adolphus, ii. 108).

[663] This last word recognized the jealousy and apprehension felt in Massachusetts about the sending over of bishops to the province.

[664] _Examination before Committee of Parliament._

[665] See _ante_, chapter i.

[666] This Congress issued a very strong declaration "of the causes and necessity of taking up arms." It sought by clear statements "to quiet the minds of our friends and fellow-subjects. We do not mean to dissolve the union. Necessity has not driven us into that desperate measure. We have not raised armies with the ambitious designs of separation from Great Britain, and establishing independent states." This hesitating and vacillating course of the first two congresses would naturally encourage the British ministry in the belief, first, that the colonists were by no means of one mind as to valid reasons for a united opposition to government; and second, that the strength of the existing feelings of loyalty and attachment, backed by efficient policy, would withstand any looking towards independence.

[667] For an explanation of the reasons why R. H. Lee, the mover, was not made chairman of this committee, see Randall's _Life of Jefferson_, vol. i. 144-159.

[668] There is a slight conflict of testimony in private records—for we have none that are official—as to some of the details in the preparation of the Declaration. John Adams, trusting to his memory, wrote in his _Autobiography_ (cf. _Works_, ii. 512), twenty-eight years after the transaction, and again in a letter to Timothy Pickering, forty-seven years after it (cf. _Life of Pickering,_ iv. 463), and when he was in his eighty-eighth year, substantially to the same effect, namely, that Jefferson and himself were appointed by their associates a sub-committee to make the draft. Jefferson (_Mem. and Corresp._, iv. 375), on reading this letter, published in 1823, wrote to Madison denying this statement, and making another, relying on notes which he had made at the time. He says there was no sub-committee, and that when he himself had prepared the draft he submitted it for perusal and judgment separately to Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams, each of whom made a few verbal alterations in it. These he adopted in a fair copy which he reported to the committee, and on June 28th to Congress, where, after the reading, it was laid on the table. On July 1st Congress took up for debate Mr. Lee's resolution for independence. Nine colonies—New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia—voted for the resolution. The two delegates of Delaware were divided. South Carolina and Pennsylvania voted against it. The New York delegates affirmed that they approved it, but that their instructions at present did not warrant their voting for it; but on July 9th a New York convention ratified it. Rutledge moved for a day's delay, which being granted, South Carolina accorded. A third delegate coming by post from Delaware turned that colony to the affirmative. Two substituted delegates from Pennsylvania carried that province. The roll of the thirteen colonies was now in union. On the same day, July 2d, and the two days following, Jefferson's draft was under debate, and was amended in committee of the whole. The author of the instrument leaves us to infer that he sat in an impatient and annoyed silence through the ordeal of criticism and objection passed upon it. The two principal amendments were the striking out a severe censure on "the people of England", lest "it might offend some of our friends there." and the omission of a reprobation of slavery, in deference to South Carolina and Georgia. When the committee reported to Congress, such notes of the debates as we have inform us, that, with much vehemence, discordance, remonstrance, and pleadings for delay, with doubts as to whether the people were ready for and would ratify the Declaration, it secured a majority of one in the count of the delegates. Jefferson said that John Adams was "the colossus" in that stirring debate.

There is no occasion here for a critical study or estimate of the Declaration, either as a political manifesto or as a literary production. Its rhetoric, as we know, was at the first reading of it regarded as excessive,—needlessly, perhaps harmfully, severe. That has ever since been the judgment of some. But Jefferson, Franklin, and John Adams, men of three very different types of mental energy and styles of expressing themselves, accorded in offering the document. The best that can be said of it is, that it answered its purpose, was fitted to meet a crisis and to serve the uses desired of it. Its terse and pointed directness of statement, its brief and nervous sentences, its cumulating gathering of grievances, its concentration of censure, and its resolute avowal of a decided purpose, not admitting of temporizing or reconsideration, were its effective points. Dating from its passage by the Congress, and its confidently assured ratification by the people, it was to announce a changed relation and new conditions for future intercourse between a now independent nation and a repudiated mother country. The resolve was sustained. Henceforward, whatever proffers, threats, appeals of amity, for readjustment of quarrels, or for harmony, might come from king or Parliament, or through commissioners, must proceed after the diplomatic fashion, on the admission that the negotiation was no longer between a government and its revolted subjects, but between two distinct sovereignties.

[669] It might be regarded as a matter of course that no parliamentary or other official proceeding or document of the British government would recognize, by way of examination or controversy, the crowning state paper of the American Congress. Chagrin, contempt, vengeful feelings, or a simple regard for its own dignity, may have induced the government to assume indifference. As yet the Declaration was a paper assertion of what was not then secured. But the English press was neither silent nor respectful about the Declaration. An able pamphlet appeared as _An Answer to the Declaration of the American Congress_ (London, 1776). Another pamphlet, at first privately circulated, afterwards published, was written by Governor Hutchinson, then in England, entitled _Strictures on the late Declaration of Congress_. It is reprinted anonymously in Almon's _Remembrancer_, iv. 25. The writer says that the reasons given in the Declaration to justify it are "false and frivolous." He sent a copy of this pamphlet to the king, with an obsequious letter. Adolphus, after saying "that at no preceding period of history was so important a transaction vindicated by so shallow and feeble a composition", adds that "some passages are remarkable for low and intemperate scurrility", (vol. ii. 405, 406).

[670] A shining exception to the sweep of Judge Jones's assertion is found in the case of that gifted and eminent man, Dr. William Samuel Johnson, first Senator in the Constitutional Congress from Connecticut, and president of Columbia College. Though not a clergyman, he had been a lay reader in the Episcopal Church, as inheriting from his distinguished father, and accepting through his own convictions, its doctrine and discipline. Strongly conservative, with many fond ties to England and Englishmen from long residence abroad as an agent of his colony, he might naturally have espoused the side of the mother country. Indeed, rather from a suspicion that he would do so than from any overt act of his, he was arrested on an occasion of popular excitement, in 1779. But he proved to be among the wisest and firmest of patriots. See his _Life, by Dr. E. E. Beardsley_, 2d edition, Boston, 1886.

[671] _Reflections_, etc., p. 115.

[672] _The History of the American Episcopal Church, 1587-1883_, by Bishop W. S. Perry, Boston, 1885, vol. i. chap. xxiv., "The Position of the Clergy at the Opening of the War for Independence."

[673] On the records of the New York Provincial Congress, or Convention, is a letter dated July 11, 1776, drafted by Gouverneur Morris, and addressed to Hancock, president of the Continental Congress, which contains the following remarkable proposition: "We take the liberty of suggesting to your consideration the propriety of taking some measures for expunging from the Book of Common Prayer such parts, and discontinuing in the congregations of all other denominations all such prayers, as interfere with the interests of the American cause. It is a subject we are afraid to meddle with. The enemies of America have taken great pains to insinuate into the minds of the Episcopalians that the church is in danger. We could wish that the Congress would pass some resolve to quiet their fears, and we are confident it would do essential service to the cause of America at least in this State." Happily Hancock did not act on this suggestion. Congress might indeed have issued a revised edition of the English Liturgy; but a censorship of the utterances of extemporaneous prayers would have been beyond its range. These extemporaneous devotions were doubtless at the time sufficiently patriotic.

[674] See _ante_, chapter i.

[675] The writings of Samuel Adams abound in the expression of opinions similar to the following from the pen of his cousin, John Adams: "If Parliament could tax us, they could establish the Church of England, with all its creeds, articles, tests, ceremonies, and titles, and prohibit all other churches, as conventicles and schism-shops" (_Works_, x. 287, 288).

[676] See _The Pulpit of the American Revolution: or, the Political Sermons of the Period of 1776_. _With a Historical Introduction, Notes, and Illustrations. By John Wingate Thornton._ (Boston, 1860.) It contains Election and Thanksgiving sermons by Dr. Mayhew, Dr. Chauncy, Mr. Cook, Mr. Gordon, Dr. Langdon, Mr. West, Mr. Payson, Mr. Howard, and President Stiles, all of them eminent and able divines of Massachusetts and Connecticut, fearlessly bold, yet guided by wisdom.

In the French Archives, among the papers of Choiseul, prime minister of France before our Revolutionary period, there are curious evidences of the intelligent and keenly inquisitive method which that astute statesman employed to acquaint himself thoroughly with the relations of the religious teaching and belief of the people of New England and the spirit of liberty aroused among them. He sent here a messenger to gather information especially upon those as upon many other subjects. He was to collect newspapers, advertisements, and extracts from sermons. It was inferences from such communicative papers, with other interpretations of omens and signs of the times, that helped prepare the government for the alliance of 1778. The French minister sent two emissaries, M. de Fontleroy in 1764 and the Baron De Kalb in 1768. (See Kapp's _Life of John Kalb_.) The latter's letters are copied in the _Sparks MSS._ Cf. the Vicomte de Colleville's _Les missions secrètes du général-major baron de Kalb, et son rôle dans la guerre de l'indépendance américaine_ (Paris, 1885). Franklin was in Paris at this time. Cf. E. E. Hale's _Franklin in France_, p. 2.

[677] _American Presbyterianism, its Origin and Early History_, etc. By Charles Augustus Briggs, D. D. (New York, 1885, ch. ix.)

[678] All that can be said in justification of George III. is said by Mahon (vi. 100). The fact is, that, with the exception of a few like Dean Tucker and John Cartwright, the king's subjects were, like himself, deceived for a long time into believing that the loss of England's colonies would cause her sun to set. It was the king's obstinacy or "steadfastness", as you choose to call it, which kept him longer of that opinion than almost all of his subjects.—ED.

[679] Well might Washington, writing to Dr. Franklin in France, October, 1782, and referring to the delay of the negotiations for peace, emphasize "the persevering obstinacy of the king, the wickedness of his ministry, and the haughty pride of the nation" (Sparks's Franklin, ix. 422).

[680] Lord Mahon's _History_, vol. vi. Appen. lviii.

[681] _Ibid._, vii. Appen. xxix.

[682] An emphatic sentence from the pen of the able and candid historian Lecky may be quoted here. Referring to "the sullen and rancorous nature of an intensity of hatred" towards Chatham, which led the king, against all advice and urgency, to refuse any aid from that noble statesman, Lecky writes "This episode appears to me the most criminal in the whole reign of George III., and in my own judgment it is as criminal as any of those acts which led Charles I. to the scaffold" (_Hist. of Eng. in the XVIIIth Cent._, iv. 83).

[683] The Massachusetts refugee, Judge Curwen, thus writes, in London, in 1780: "In this baneful, woful quarrel, such a continued, unbroken series of disappointments, disasters, and mortifying events have taken place, that it seems to me to be morally impossible but the eyes of all thoughtful, prudent, knowing men must open and discern the impolicy and impracticability of accomplishing the great end for which this war was undertaken,—the reduction of the colonies to the obedience of the British Parliament" (Curwen, p. 311).

[684] Wells's _Adams_, i. p. 164.

[685] There is something very significant as well as comical in the following entry in John Adams's Diary in Congress, in 1775, when he had made his way to a full deliverance: "When these people began to see that independence was approaching, they started back. In some of my public harangues, in which I had freely and explicitly laid open my thoughts, on looking round the assembly, I have seen horror, terror, and detestation strongly marked on the countenances of some of the members, whose names I could readily recollect; but as some of them have been good citizens since, and others went over afterwards to the English, I think it unnecessary to record them here" (_Works of John Adams_, ii. p. 407). Mr. Sparks has gathered (_Washington_, Appendix x. vol. ii.) the expressed opinions of such typical patriots as Washington, Franklin, Henry, Madison, Jay, etc., utterly and emphatically disavowing all thoughts or purposes of independence till the crisis made it a matter of necessity, not of choice. It is but candid, however, to note an anticipation of that acute observer Joseph Galloway, whether it was but a surmise or a reasonable inference. In a letter addressed by him, Jan. 13, 1766, to Dr. Franklin, in London, he writes: "A certain sect of people, if I may judge from all their late conduct, seem to look on this as a favorable opportunity of establishing their republican principles, and of throwing off all connection with their mother country. I have reasons to think that they are forming a private union among themselves from one end of the continent to the other" (Sparks's _Franklin_, vii. 305). The assertion of John Jay is most explicit and emphatic: "During the course of my life, and until the second petition of Congress, in 1775, I never did hear any American of any class, or any description, express a wish for the independence of the colonies" (_Life and Writings of John Jay_, ii. p. 410). Mr. Jay probably referred to the contemptuous treatment of that second petition, "Dickinson's Letter", not to its transmission.

[686] _Works_, vii. 391.

[687] _Reflections_, etc., p. 102.

[688] Before this decision was reached, however, Congress, in 1774, made this tentative effort to recognize the unity of the empire in the extending through it of some sovereign power while holding to a local independence, in this form: "From the necessity of the case and a regard to the mutual interests of both countries, we cheerfully consent to the operation of such acts of the British Parliament as are _bonâ fide_ restricted to the regulation of our external commerce, for the purpose of securing the commercial advantages of the whole empire to the mother country, and the commercial benefits of its respective members, excluding every idea of taxation, internal and external, for raising a revenue, on the subjects in America, without their consent." This was a seemingly candid and sincere suggestion to harmonize the positions taken by the respective parties in the controversy. Britain, the mistress of the seas, protected the great highways of commerce, and so might regulate the trade of her colonies by the ocean, as she did her own. But these colonies had constitutional charter assemblies with exclusive powers for raising and disposing of their own revenues.

[689] A very admirable and faithful digest of the proceedings of Congress, the materials and incidents being gathered by wide and diligent research, may be found in the ninth chapter of _The Rise of the Republic of the United States_, by Richard Frothingham (Boston, 1872).

[690] _History of England in the XVIIIth Century_, iii. p. 377.

[691] A very significant reference to the mixed qualities recognized in Paine by his contemporaries is found in _Men and Times of the Revolution; or Memoirs of Elkanah Watson_, etc. (New York, 1856). Mr. Watson, a native of Plymouth, was patriotic in his sentiments, and was on mercantile business in Europe during the war, honored with the friendship of Dr. Franklin and John Adams in Paris. His brother, Benj. Marston Watson, of Marblehead, was a noted loyalist. (See a "Memoir" of him in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, Oct., 1873.) When Elkanah was at Nantes in 1781, Paine arrived there as secretary of Colonel Laurens, "and took up his quarters at my boarding-place. He was coarse and uncouth in his manners, loathsome in his appearance, and a disgusting egotist. Yet I could not repress the deepest emotions of gratitude towards him, as the instrument of Providence in accelerating the declaration of our independence. He certainly was a prominent agent in preparing the public sentiment of America for that glorious event."

A very fair estimate of the qualities in Paine's pamphlet which adapted it for popular effect is the following, by the English historian Adolphus: "His pamphlet was replete with rough, sarcastic wit, and he took, with great judgment, a correct aim at the feelings and prejudices of those whom he intended to influence. Writing to fanatics, he drew his arguments and illustrations from the holy Scriptures; his readers, having no predilection for hereditary titles, distinctions to them unknown, received with applause his invectives and sneers at hereditary monarchy; a notion of increasing opulence, and false calculations on their population and means of prosperity, had rendered them arrogant and self-sufficient, and consequently disposed them to relish the arguments he employed to prove the absurdity of subjugating a large continent to a small island on the other side of the globe. To inflame the resentment of the Americans, every act of the British government towards them was represented in the most ungracious light", etc. (Adolphus, ii. 400). A most thoroughly candid and discriminating estimate of the character and abilities, the good and the bad elements in Paine, may be found in a letter, not for publication, by Joel Barlow to Cheetham, Paine's biographer (_Life and Letters of J. Barlow_, by Charles Burr. Todd, 1886, pp. 236-239). Cheetham meanly published this letter.

[692] Dr. Josiah Tucker, Dean of Gloucester, sought to be an oracle alike on its commercial and political bearings. He had well informed himself about the history and condition of the colonies. He thought it a mistake that Britain had broken the power of the French, and, by withdrawing the threat of their presence over the English colonists, had left them to set up for independence. The idea that their disaffection began with the Stamp Act he repudiated, as disproved by their restiveness and truculency from their first settlements, and from the occasion there had always been for the interposition of sharp measures of government for restraining them. His opinion of their general character was highly unfavorable, but he was thoroughly satisfied with the impossibility of subduing them, and even of the inexpediency of retaining a forced relation to them. His advice was that Britain should at once give over its attempts at subjugation, and even acquiesce in leaving them to take care and govern themselves, at least till they should repent of their folly. He anticipated, as the solution of wisdom, the complete abandonment of any interference with the recusant Americans, maintaining that the methods of profitable commerce, which would secure English interests and supremacy, would be more effective than a fretting interference with them. His views—which, looked at in the retrospect, appear thoroughly sagacious—were, to most of his contemporaries, either visionary or exasperating. Tucker set forth the positive facts, that while war was most ruinous to the interests of commerce, those interests ought to serve to the security of peace. The war of England against the Spanish right of search had won no benefit, but had added sixty millions sterling to the debt of the realm. The late French war had cost ninety millions more, and by relieving the colonists of all dread of the French had encouraged them to set up for independence.

[693] For further account of Galloway as a controversialist, see _post_, the section on the Loyalists.

[694] _Introduction to the Hist. of the Revolt_, and in his preface to his _Opinions of eminent lawyers_. Cf. J. R. Seeley on the accountability of the old colonial system for the revolt of the American colonies. _Expansion of England_, lecture iv. Cf. W. T. Davis's _Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth_, p. 75. On religious causes, see B. Adams's _Emancipation of Mass._ (last chap.).

[695] _Works_, ii. 411, 413, iii. 45, ix. 591, 596, x. 284, 359, 394; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll.,_ xliv. 300, 465; _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, July, 1876.

[696] There is help in tracing the sporadic instances of the independent spirit to be found in Sparks's App. to his _Washington_ (ii. 496), in Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_ (pp. 154, 245, 291, 315, 364, 428, 438, 449, 452, 469, 483, 489, 499, 506, 509); in Hutchinson's _Massachusetts_ (iii. 134, 264, 265,—cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xix. 135); in Jefferson's _Notes on Virginia_; in Galloway's _Examination_; in Force's _American Archives_, 4th ser., ii. 696, and vi., index, under "Independence;" in Bancroft, vii. 301, viii. ch. 64, 65, 68; in Grahame, iv. 315; in J. C. Hamilton's _Repub. of the U. S._, i. 110; Palfrey's _New England_, i. 308, ii. 266; _Mem. of Josiah Quincy, Jr._, p. 228; Wells's _Sam. Adams_, ii. 242, 352; Greene's _Nath. Greene_, i. 122; Austin's _Gerry_, ch. 13; Rives's _Madison_, i. 108, 124.

The position of parties in Congress can be traced in Randall's _Jefferson_, i. 153; Read's _Geo. Read_; _John Adams's Works_, i. 220, 517, ii. 31-75, 93; Pitkin's _United States_, i. 362.

[697] _Boston Gazette_, April 15th and 29th; _Penna. Evening Post_, April 20th, etc. Several of these are quoted in Moore's _Diary_.

[698] _Declaration of Independence by the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, May 1, 1776, by H. B. Dawson_, N. Y., 1862; or _Hist. Mag._, May, 1862.

[699] _Adams's Works_, iv. 201; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, May, 1884, p. 369; Bancroft, viii. ch. 64; Force, 4th ser., vi. 1524.

[700] _N. Y. Hist. Coll._, 1872, p. 26; and on the timidity of Penna., Reed's _Reed_, i. 199-202.

[701] _Works_, ii. 489, 510; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xliv. 466; _Jameson's Constitutional Conventions_, pp. 115, 116.

[702] _No. Amer. Rev._, by L. Sabine, April, 1848.

[703] Passed May 15th, and written by Edmund Pendleton,—Rives's _Madison_, i. 123, 130. For R. H. Lee see _Life_ by R. H. Lee, Jr.; Sanderson's _Signers_; Brotherhead's _Book of Signers_, etc.

[704] The record is scant in the one called "Secret Domestic Journal." These are described in M. Chamberlain's _Authentication_, etc., p. 17.

[705] In Jefferson's _Writings_, i. 10, 96; _Madison Papers_ (1841), i. 9; Elliot's _Debates_, vol. i. 60; Read's _George Read_, 226. There are other accounts in _John Adams's Works_ (i. 227, iii. 30, 55, ix. 418). John Adams's letter to Mercy Warren (1807) is in Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_ (App.) and in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xliv. 465.

[706] Works, i. 229, and Mellen Chamberlain's _John Adams, the Statesman of the Revolution_ (Boston, 1884).

[707] Bancroft, viii. ch. 65; Wells's _Sam. Adams_, ii. ch. 41, 42; Rives's _Madison_, i. 125; C. F. Adams's _John Adams's Works_, i. 227; and a brief but clear exposition in Lecky (iii. 498). The reasons for and against the Declaration are summarized in Read's _George Read_, 226, 247; and Smyth (_Lectures_, ii. 370) gives from an English point of view the reasons which rendered separation and independence inevitable. The lives of the leading participants—Jefferson, the two Adamses, R. H. Lee, Franklin—necessarily include accounts.

[708] Pitkin's _U. S._, vi. 263; _Penna. Journal_, June 19, 1776; Read's _Geo. Read_, 164; _John Adams_, ix. 398.

[709] Niles's _Weekly Register_, xii. 305, etc.; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xliv. 507; his letter of June 16, 1817, in App. of Christopher Marshall's _Diary_, and one of Aug. 22, 1813, in _Harper's Mag._, 1883, p. 211.

[710] This being sent to a friend in England, thirty copies of the paper were printed under the title of _The Declaration of independence, or notes on Lord Mahon's history of the American declaration of independence_ (London, 1855). The criticism was also printed in _Littell's Living Age_ (xliv. 387).

[711] A copy of it with notes by John Home, the author of Douglas, is in the Philadelphia library.

[712] Cf. Morley, in his _Edmund Burke_, p. 125. Lord John Russell (_Mem. and Corresp. of Fox_, i. 152) thinks the truth was warped in charging all upon the king, while in fact "the sovereign and his people were alike prejudiced, angry, and wilful."

[713] Cf. Franklin's _Works_ (Sparks), x. 293; Wells's _S. Adams_, ii. 340, 360; _John Adams's Works_, i. 204, ix. 627, and his _Familiar Letters_, 134, 137, 146; Moore's _Diary_, i. 208; Jones's _N. Y. during the Amer. Rev._, i. 63; Force's, _Amer. Archives_, indexes. A letter from Charleston, S. C., March 17, 1776, says, "Common Sense hath made independents of the majority of the country, and [Christopher] Gadsden is as mad with it as ever he was without it" (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xi. 254). On Paine, see Duyckinck, Allibone, Poole's _Index_, W. B. Reed in _No. Amer. Rev._, vol. lvii.; J. W. Francis' _Old New York_, 2d ed., p. 137; Parton's _Franklin_, ii. 19, 108; _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, October, 1879. See further, on his influence at this time, Frothingham's _Rise_, etc., 476, 479; Barry's _Mass._, iii. 89; Randall's _Jefferson_, i. 137; Bancroft, orig. ed., ch. 56. On the English side, Smyth's _Lectures_, ii. 430, 446; Mahon, vi. 93; Ryerson, ii. ch. 32. For the Rousseauishness of the sentiments, see Lecky, iv. 51. Louis Rosenthal (_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, July, 1884, p. 46) thinks we need not go beyond English precedents for any of the sentiments of the day. For the bibliography of _Common Sense_, See Hildeburn's _Issues of the Press in Penna._ (1886), nos. 3,433, etc.; Sabin, xiv. p. 124; _Menzies Catal._, no. 1,536; Brinley, ii. p. 166. It was printed and reprinted in Philadelphia, in English and once in German, and in the same year (1776) reprinted in Salem, Newburyport, Providence, Boston, Norwich, Newport, New York, Charleston, and also in London and Edinburgh, and is included in Paine's _Writings_ (Albany, 1791-92; Charlestown, Mass., 1824; New York, 1835, etc.) A volume of _Large Additions to Common Sense_ (Philad. and London, 1776, etc.) was got up by Robert Bell to extend his edition over that of Paine's then publisher (Hildeburn, no. 3,439; Brinley, ii. no. 4,100). Frothingham (p.476) has a bibliographical note. It is included in a French _Recueil des divers écrits_ of Paine (Paris, 1793).

There is a portrait of Thomas Paine by Peale, engraved by J. Watson (cf. J. C. Smith's _Brit. Mez. Portraits_, iv. 1529). A likeness by Romney, engraved by William Sharp, in two sizes. There is a portrait in Independence Hall, Philadelphia.

The chief answer was _Plain Truth, written by Candidus_ (Philad. and London, 1776). In the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, 4to ed., iii. 642, its authorship by Charles Inglis is thought to be established; but see Franklin Burdge in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, ii. 59. Sabin (xv. p. 176) says it was probably by Jos. Galloway; but there is no evidence of it. Hildeburn (no. 3,345) gives reasons for assigning it to George Chalmers. It passed to a second edition.

[714] Bancroft (_United States_, orig. ed., ix. ch. 15; final ed., v. ch. 9), and G. W. Greene (_Hist. View_, p. 104) groups the several records.

[715] Rives's _Madison_, i. ch. 5; Madison's _Writings_, i. 21; Niles's _Principles and Acts_, 1876, p. 301; J. E. Cooke in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, May, 1884; Preston's _Docs. illus. Amer. Hist._, p. 206, and _Bill of Rights passed June 12, 1776, adopted without alteration by the Convention of 1829-30, and readopted with amendments by the Convention of 1850-51, and now readopted as passed June 12, 1776_ (Richmond, 1861; also _Journal of the Convention of 1861_). On George Mason see R. Taylor in _No. Amer. Rev._, cxxviii. 148; _Southern Bivouac_, April, 1886. A portrait is owned by the Penna. Hist. Soc.

[716] Randall's _Jefferson_, i. ch. 6; Grigsby's discourse on the Convention in 1855.

[717] Cf. the account of its centennial celebration, July 30, 1877, with a view of the old senate house at Kingston, in the _Centennial Celebrations of N. Y._ (Albany, 1879), and J. A. Stevens's "Birth of the Empire State" in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, iii. p. 1. Also see _Ibid._, April, 1887, p. 310, and Dawson's _West Chester County_, pp. 182, 206.

Congress, July 1, 1782, passed votes for perpetuating the observance of the day (_Journals_, iv. 43). A famous letter of John Adams to his wife, dated July 3d, and predicting that the future observance would be of July 2d as the essential day, was so far altered as to be dated July 5th when first printed, in order to keep the prophecy true to the custom, which by that time had designated July 4th as the day to be observed (_Familiar Letters_, p. 190; _Works_, ix. 420). A letter of Adams to Judge Dawes on this point is in Niles's _Principles_, etc. (1876), p. 328. Cf. _Potter's American Monthly_, Dec., 1875.

[718] _The Report of a Constitution or Form of Government for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: agreed upon by the Committee—to be laid before the Convention of Delegates, assembled at Cambridge, on the First Day of September, A. D. 1779, and continued by adjournment to the Twenty-eighth Day of October following_ (Boston, 1779). Cf. also _A Constitution or Frame of Government agreed upon by the Delegates of the People of the State of Massachusetts Bay, in Convention begun and held at Cambridge on the First of September, 1779, and continued by adjournment to the Second of March, 1780_. _To be submitted to the Revision of their Constituents &c._ (Boston, 1779), and _An Address of the Convention for Framing a new Constitution of Government for the State of Massachusetts Bay, to their Constituents_ (Boston, 1780). Cf. also Parsons's _Life of Theophilus Parsons_, p. 46; Brooks Adams's _Emancipation of Massachusetts_, p. 307.

[719] Cf. Dr. Charles Deane's report on this document in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, v. 88. The Hon. Alexander H. Bullock read a paper before the Amer. Antiq. Society in April, 1881, which was printed as _The Centennial of the Mass. Constitution_ (Worcester, 1881), and the _Proceedings of the N. E. Hist. Geneal. Society_ in commemoration were also printed, and embodied a report of the proceedings of the State authorities.

[720] The Articles of Confederation can be found in Elliot's _Debates_, i. 79; Ramsay's _Rev. in So. Carolina_, i. 437; Hinman's _Conn. in the Rev._, 103; George Tucker's _United States_, i. App., p. 636; L. H. Porter's _Outlines of the Constitutional Hist. of the U. S._, p. 48; Walker's _Statesman's Manual_ (New York, 1849), i. p. 1; _New Hampshire State Papers_, viii. 747; N. C. Towle's _Hist. and Analysis of the Constitution of the U. S._ (Boston, 1871), p. 328; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 859; H. W. Preston's _Documents illustrating Amer. Hist._ (1886), p. 218, etc. For the debates and contemporary and later views, see John Adams's _Works_, i. 268, ii. 492, ix. 467; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xliv. 315; Wells's _Sam. Adams_, ii. 473, 480; Bancroft, ix. 436; Hildreth, iii. 266; Parton's _Franklin_, ii. 125; Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_, 569; Pitkin's _United States_; Story (i. 209) and Curtis (i. 114) on the _Constitution_; Elliot's _Debates_, i. 70; Von Holst's _Constitutional Hist. of the U. S._, ch. 1; Rives's _Madison_, i. ch. 10; Greene's _Hist. View_, 14; Draper's _Civil War_, i. 265, etc.

[721] Mother of Lindley Murray, the grammarian.

[722] ... "On the 2^{nd} of November 1776 I sacrificed", says he, "all I was worth in the world to the service of my King & country, and joined the then Lord Percy, brought in with me the Plans of Fort Washington, by which Plans that Fortress was taken by his Majesty's Troops the 16 instant, together with 2700 Prisoners and Stores & Ammunition to the amount of 1800 Pounds. At the same time, I may with Justice affirm, from my knowledge of the Works, I saved the Lives of many of his Majesty's subjects. These, Sir, are facts well known to every General officer which was there." . . . . . . . . .

[723] For this New Jersey campaign see chapter v.—ED.

[724] Every true American should be most profoundly grateful that this incompetent general was placed at the head of the British army, not for his own merits, but because of his connection with royalty through his grandmother's frailty. His mother was the issue of George I. and Sophia Kilmansegge.

[725] After Germain had written out Howe's orders, he left them to be "fair copied", and went to Kent on a visit, forgetting on his return to sign them; consequently they were pigeon-holed till May 18th, and did not reach Howe till August 16th, after he had left New York upon his expedition to the Chesapeake, and when it was too late to effect a junction with Burgoyne. Cf. Fitzmaurice's _Shelburne_, i. 358; Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_ (p. 233); Jones's _N. Y. during the Revolution_, i. App. p. 696.—ED.

[726] In ridicule of this appeal, Burke indulged in an illustration which delighted the House of Commons. "Suppose", he exclaimed, "there was a riot on Tower Hill. What would the keeper of his Majesty's lions do? Would he not fling open the dens of the wild beasts, and then address them thus: 'My gentle lions—my humane bears—my tender-hearted hyenas, go forth! But I exhort you, as you are Christians and members of civil society, to take care not to hurt any man, woman, or child.'"

[727] The familiar portrait of Schuyler is one by Trumbull, both in civil and military dress, in engravings by Thomas Kelly, H. B. Hall, and others. Cf. Lossing's _Life of Schuyler_, vol. i.; Irving's _Washington_, vol. ii. 40; Stone's _Campaigns of Burgoyne_, p. 38; _Centennial Celebrations of N. Y._ (Albany, 1878); C. H. Jones's _Campaign for the Conquest of Canada in 1776_; _The Amer. Portrait Gallery_, etc.

G. W. Schuyler (_Colonial New York_, ii. 253), in his account of General Philip Schuyler, points out some errors of a personal nature, into which Lossing and Judge Jones have fallen, respecting Schuyler's private history. For the Schuyler family, see _N. Y. Geneal. and Biog. Record_, April, 1874.

Schuyler's house in Albany, at which he entertained Burgoyne after his surrender, is shown in Lossing's _Field-Book_, i. 304; his _Hudson River_, p. 129; _Mag. of Amer. History_, July, 1884. Cf. _Hours at Home_, ix. 464. Of Mrs. Schuyler, the hostess, see account in S. B. Wister and Agnes Irwin's _Worthy Women of our First Century_ (Philad., 1877). The mansion was sold in October, 1884, to be removed. A plan of Albany during this period (dated 1770) is in the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, iii. 697.—ED.

[728] The total losses in this campaign of the Anglo-British army were: British prisoners, 2,442; foreign prisoners, 2,198; General Burgoyne and staff officers (including six members of Parliament), 12; sent to Canada, 1,100; sick and wounded, 598; making the total surrendered, October 17, 1777, to be 6,350. Then there were taken prisoners before the surrender, 400; deserters, 300; lost at Bennington, 1,220; killed between September 17 and October 17, 1777, 600; taken at Ticonderoga, 413; killed at Oriskany, 300; giving an entire loss of 3,233,—which, with those surrendered, make a total loss of 9,583.

Besides the _personnel_, there were lost in the campaign, 6 pieces of cannon at Bennington; 2 pieces and 4 royals at Fort Stanwix; 400 set of harness; a number of ammunition wagons and horses; 5,000 stand of arms; 37 pieces of brass cannon, implements and stores complete, camp equipage, etc., etc.

[729] Captain John Montressor, a British "Chief Engineer of America" in the Revolution, who was with Putnam under Colonel Bradstreet in 1764, goes so far as to intimate (very likely without warrant) a still stronger reason for the general's inefficiency at Long Island and in the Hudson Highlands. In his journal (page 136), published by the New York Historical Society, 1882, speaking of the venality of the American "Rebel Generals", he says "Even Israel Putnam, of Connecticut, might have been bought, to my certain knowledge, for _one dollar per day_."

[730] _Life and Times of General Philip Schuyler, by Benson J. Lossing_, N. Y., 1872; _Battles of the American Revolution, by General Henry B. Carrington_, N. Y., 1876; _Life and Correspondence of Lieutenant-General John Burgoyne, by Edward B. de Fonblanque_, London, 1876; _Burgoyne and the Northern Campaign, by Ellen Hardin Walworth_, 1877; _The Campaign of Lieutenant-General John Burgoyne and the Expedition of Lieut.-Col. Barry St. Leger, by William L. Stone_, 1877; Addresses and Papers upon Major-General Philip Schuyler and the Burgoyne Campaign, by General J. Watts de Peyster, published variously, 1877-83; _Centennial Celebration of the State of New York_, 1879; _Life of Major-General Benedict Arnold—his Patriotism and Treason, by Isaac N. Arnold_, 1880; _Sir John Johnson's Orderly Book, annotated by William L. Stone, with an introduction on his Life by General J. Watts de Peyster, and Sketch of the Tories or Loyalists by Colonel T. Bailey Myers_, 1882; _Hadden's Journal and Orderly Book, annotated by General Horatio Rogers_, Providence, 1881; _The Hessians in the Revolution, by Edward J. Lowell_, 1884.

[731] _Correspondence and Remarks upon Bancroft's History of the Northern Campaign of 1777, and the Character of Major-General Philip Schuyler, by George L. Schuyler_; _The Life and Times of Major-General Philip Schuyler, by Benson J. Lossing, LL. D._

[732] The ARTICLES of Oct. 16, 1777, were as follows, viz.:—

"I. The troops, under Lieutenant-General Burgoyne, to march out of their camp with the honors of war and the artillery of the intrenchments, to the verge of the river where the old fort stood, where the arms and artillery are to be left; the arms to be piled by word of command from their own officers.

"II. A free passage to be granted to the army, under Lieutenant-General Burgoyne, to Great Britain, on condition of not serving again in North America during the present contest; and the port of Boston is assigned for the entry of transports to receive the troops whenever General Howe shall so order.

"III. Should any cartel take place, by which the army under General Burgoyne, or any part of it, may be exchanged, the foregoing article to be void as far as such exchange shall be made.

"IV. The army under Lieutenant-General Burgoyne to march to Massachusetts Bay, by the easiest, most expeditious, and convenient route; and to be quartered in, near, or as convenient as possible to Boston, that the march of the troops may not be delayed when transports arrive to receive them.

"V. The troops to be supplied on their march, and during their being in quarters, with provisions by General Gates's orders, at the same rate of rations as the troops of his own army; and if possible, the officers' horses and cattle are to be supplied with forage at the usual rates.

"VI. All officers to retain their carriages, bat-horses, and other cattle, and no baggage to be molested or searched; Lieutenant-General Burgoyne giving his honor that there are no public stores secreted therein. Major-General Gates will of course take the necessary measures for the due performance of this article. Should any carriages be wanted during the march, for the transportation of officers' baggage, they are, if possible, to be supplied by the country at the usual rates.

"VII. Upon the march, and during the time the army shall remain in quarters in Massachusetts Bay, the officers are not, as far as circumstances will admit, to be separated from their men. The officers are to be quartered according to rank, and are not to be hindered from assembling their men for roll-call and other necessary purposes of regularity.

"VIII. All corps whatever of General Burgoyne's army, whether composed of sailors, bateau-men, artificers, drivers, independent companies, and followers of the army, of whatever country, shall be included in the fullest sense and utmost extent of the above articles, and comprehended in every respect as British subjects.

"IX. All Canadians, and persons belonging to the Canadian establishment, consisting of sailors, bateau-men, artificers, drivers, independent companies, and many other followers of the army, who come under no particular description, are to be permitted to return there; they are to be conducted immediately by the shortest route to the first British port on Lake George, are to be supplied with provisions in the same manner as the other troops, and are to be bound by the same condition of not serving during the present contest in North America.

"X. Passports to be immediately granted for three officers, not exceeding the rank of captains, who shall be appointed by Lieutenant-General Burgoyne, to carry despatches to Sir William Howe, Sir Guy Carleton, and to Great Britain by way of New York; and Major-General Gates engages the public faith that these despatches shall not be opened. These officers are to set out immediately after receiving their despatches, and are to travel the shortest routes and in the most expeditious manner.

"XI. During the stay of the troops in Massachusetts Bay, the officers are to be admitted on parole, and are to be allowed to wear their side arms.

"XII. Should the army under Lieutenant-General Burgoyne find it necessary to send for their clothing and other baggage to Canada, they are to be permitted to do it in the most convenient manner, and the necessary passports granted for that purpose.

"XIII. These Articles are to be mutually signed, and exchanged to-morrow morning at nine o'clock, and the troops under Lieutenant-General Burgoyne are to march out of their intrenchments at three o'clock in the afternoon.

(Signed) HORATIO GATES, _Major-General_. (Signed) J. BURGOYNE, _Lieutenant-General_.

"SARATOGA, October 16th, 1777."