suppose, that Admiral Graves had good reasons for the step he took to destroy the town of Falmouth, and that he did not proceed to that extremity without an absolute refusal on the part of the inhabitants to comply with those requisitions, stated in the orders he received from the Lords of the Admiralty, which, however, does not appear from any account of that transaction, which I have seen.'

"After the removal of the British army to Halifax, and General Howe had leisure to inquire into the matter more at large, he collected and sent to the minister the following particulars.

"In obedience to your Lordship's commands for a more explicit account of the expedition to Falmouth, which was intrusted to Lieutenant Mowat of the navy, assisted by a detachment of marines and artillery, I have re-examined the officer, who commanded this detachment, and find that his orders from General Gage were, to embark on board several armed vessels, the 6th October, 1775, and to aid and assist Lieutenant Mowat in annoying and destroying all ships belonging to rebels on the coast and in the harbors to the eastward of Boston; that they first examined the harbor of Cape Ann, and finding the attack upon it inexpedient, they proceeded to Falmouth and laid the armed vessels before the town on the evening of their arrival, after which Lieutenant Mowat sent an officer on shore with a summons to the inhabitants to deliver up their arms and ammunition, acquainting them at the same time, that his orders directed him to destroy the town if they did not comply with his demand, of which they should be allowed two hours to consider and to remove their women and children.

"Shortly after, three persons deputed by the inhabitants came on board, requesting a longer time, and it was agreed to wait their answer until eight o'clock the next morning; about which hour the same persons returned, and reported that the inhabitants were determined to await their fate. Within half an hour a signal was made by Lieutenant Mowat, the vessels began a cannonade, and several carcasses were thrown into the town, which set fire to the houses, and in a few hours consumed the greatest part of them. A detachment was then landed, who completed the destruction and re-embarked without loss. The small vessels in the harbor were burnt, sunk, or brought away, and the armament returned to Boston the 5th of November without attempting any thing further.'

"By this statement it would appear, that Mowat's original instructions were to annoy and destroy the shipping in the harbors on the coast; but, from the boldness of his conduct, it is probable that in burning the town he acted with the consent, if not by the express orders of Admiral Graves, who, as Gordon relates, was offended with the people of Falmouth on account of the obstructions, which they had given to the shipment of masts from that

place. Mowat had likewise been rudely treated at Falmouth a few months before, in consequence of the injudicious zeal and unjustifiable enterprise of Colonel Thompson and his adherents in seizing him while on shore; and this circumstance may be presumed to have been the primary cause of the rash and unwarrantable exploit of burning the town. No part of this reproach can rightfully attach to the British ministry. The act had no higher source, than the wounded pride of a subordinate officer, coinciding with the hasty resentment of his superior in command. In its results, however, nothing could have been more unfortunate for the cause of the government. The whole continent was roused to indignation at so wanton a deed, new antipathies were kindled, and the spirit of resistance became more intense and widely diffused."*- Vol. III. p. 520.

The following note by Mr. Sparks is inserted here for the sake of historical truth-a motive that has guided us in most of our former quotations. "An error of some consequence has crept into history, respecting the proximate cause, which influenced the members of the continental congress in choosing Mr. Hancock to be president of that body. In Belsham's Memoirs of the Reign of George the Third, (Vol. I. p. 318,) it is intimated that his proscription, by General Gage, procured him this honor. Mrs. Warren, in her History of the Revolution, (Vol. I. p. 214,) speaks with still more confidence, and says, 'He was chosen to preside in the respectable assembly of delegates, avowedly on the sole principle of his having been proscribed by General Gage.' But Hancock was chosen president of the continental congress on the 24th of May, [1775] two weeks before Gage's proclamation, proscribing him and Samuel Adams, was issued; that instrument having first appeared on the 12th of June following. It is probable that a main reason of his being chosen, in addition to the notoriety acquired by the zealous part he had acted, was the circumstance of his winning personal address, and his having been for some time president of the provincial congress of Massachusetts, by which he had become familiar with the forms of business in a public body." Vol. III. p. 37.

We take occasion, in this connection, to correct another error respecting John Hancock, which is found in the second volume of Mr. Bradford's History of Massachusetts, p. 32, to wit, "Mr. Hancock was early chosen president of that body [congress] in the absence of Peyton Randolph, of Virginia; and on the death of Mr. Randolph, in October, [1775] he was again elected to that office, which he held as long as his health permitted." Mr. Hancock was first chosen president of congress on the 24th of May, 1775, (as above stated by Mr. Sparks,) on the return to Virginia of Peyton Randolph, who was president of the first congress, from the day of their convening until October 22, 1774, when (as the journal says) he "being unable to attend on account of indisposition, the Hon. Henry Middleton was chosen to supply his place as president." On the second assembling of congress, on the 10th of May, 1775, Mr. Randolph was unanimously chosen president, and officiated till the 24th. He died at Philadelphia, while attending as a member of congress, on the 22d of October, in the same year. Mr. Hancock was president when Mr. Randolph died. Indeed he continued president, from the day of his election, until October 29, 1777, and "then took leave of congress," which had been in uninterrupted session after May 10, 1775. He was succeeded by the Hon. Henry Laurens, who was elected on the 1st Nov. 1777, the secretary having officiated as president in the mean time. An inspection of the journals of congress, under the several dates above indicated, will show Mr. Bradford's inaccuracy.

From the private letters in these volumes, (as distinguished from the official,) we select the following, on account of the lately renewed distinction of the person to whom it was addressed:

To Miss Phillis Wheatley.*

Cambridge, 28 February, 1776.

Miss Phillis,-Your favor of the 26th of October did not reach my hands, till the middle of December. Time enough, you will say, to have given an answer ere this. Granted. But a variety of important occurrences, continually interposing to distract the mind and withdraw the attention, I hope will apologize for the delay, and plead my excuse for the seeming but not real neglect. I thank you most sincerely for your polite notice of me, in the elegant lines you enclosed; and however undeserving I may be of such encomium and panegyric, the style and manner exhibit a striking proof of your poetical talents; in honor of which, and as a tribute justly due to you, I would have published the poem, had I not been apprehensive, that, while I only meant to give the world this new instance of your genius, I might have incurred the imputation of vanity. This, and nothing else, determined me not to give it place in the public prints.

If you should ever come to Cambridge, or near head-quarters, I shall be happy to see a person so favored by the Muses, and to whom nature has been so liberal and beneficent in her dispensations. I am, with great respect, your obedient humble servant.

Mr. Sparks states, in a note, that he has not been able to find among Washington's papers the letter and poem addressed to him. He supposes they were doubtless lost."From the tenor of some of her printed pieces," says Mr. Sparks, "it may be inferred that she was a whig in politics, after the American way of thinking; and it might be curious to see in what manner she would eulogize liberty and the rights of man, while herself, nominally at least, in bondage."

Mr. Sparks has inserted several of "Washington's early papers," in the appendix to the second volume. He found, in the archives at Mount Vernon, fragments of manuscripts

"Phillis Wheatley was born in Africa, and brought to Boston in a slaveship, in the year 1761, then between seven and eight years of age. She was purchased by Mr. Wheatley, but she soon discovered qualities so interesting and peculiar, that she was treated more as an inmate of the family, than as a slave. She died at Boston, December the 5th, 1784, aged thirty-one years."

written during Washington's boyhood and youth. "The most curious piece is a series of maxims, under the head of Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation.' One hundred and ten rules are here written out and numbered. The source from which they were derived is not mentioned. They form a minute code of regulations for building up the habits of morals, manners, and good conduct in a very young person. Whoever has studied the character of Washington, will be persuaded that some of its most prominent features took their shape from these rules thus early selected and adopted as his guide." We copy two or three of these "rules," and cannot but express our mortification that men in high places do not always observe them so scrupulously and invariably as Washington

did.

"Associate yourself with men of good quality, if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone, than in bad company.

"Use no reproachful language against any one; neither curse nor revile.

"When you deliver a matter, do it without passion, and with discretion, however mean the person be you do it to."

We most devoutly pray that John Randolph's prediction— "never will the American purple again fall on the shoulders of a gentleman," may not be verified.

There are also in this appendix other early papers of Washington, such as journals and letters to his friends, which have little interest, except as they illustrate character and habits; yet we would not, by any means, wish to have had them omitted.

It was no part of our object, in noticing these volumes, to write an essay or eulogy on Washington's character. We cannot attain unto it.

"None but a Phidias should attempt a Jove."

"Homo virtuti consimillimus, et per omnia ingenio diis quam hominibus proprior; qui nunquam recte fecit, ut facere videretur, sed quia aliter facere non poterat; cuique id solum visum est rationem habere, quod haberet justitiam omnibus humanis vitiis immunis, semper fortunam in sua potestate habuit."

Those who have studied the character of Washington

most closely, have always been the most deeply impressed with its excellence and completeness; and those who have searched most deeply into his labors have been most ardent admirers of his diligence and method. But we greatly mistake, if the publication of his " Writings" will not enhance the wonder and admiration of those who were best informed concerning his history and works. Few men have ever performed more labor, or labor of a more arduous and harrassing kind. Few have ever been placed in more difficult or vexatious positions; and no one, of whom we have any knowledge, has ever accomplished so much with so feeble means, and left so little that deserves regret or is capable of amendment.

It is not a small merit to exhibit to the inspection of mankind the true portrait of their benefactors. And "in these degenerate days," the labors of those, who have devoted themselves to illustrate the exemplars of ancient virtue and patricism, are entitled to no ordinary gratitude. We are persuaded that they desire no higher reward of their efforts, than that by their means the spirit of Washington and Jay should be rightly appreciated by the people, and emulated by rulers.

ARTICLE VII.

CONDITION OF THE PERIODICAL PRESS IN THE UNITED STATES.

THAT there is to be an indefinite expansion of society in knowledge and virtue, is manifest, not only from the predictions of divine revelation, but from the discoveries of science, the dawning of a better mental and moral philosophy, and the general progress of human events. The theory of the constant flux and reflux of society is not supported by satisfactory evidence. The great accumulation of facts since