narrative I have followed, and shall continue to follow, the statement of Chief Justice Marshall that “during "this interval the Americans also were reinforced by a body of their countrymen led by General Warren and Pomeroy."

86

66

Nor are the American writers by any means agreed who on their side commanded in chief at Bunker's Hill. This question may be seen more fully treated in a volume of great industry and merit which has come into my hands since the publication of my own: "the History of the Siege of Boston by Richard Frothingham, the second edition, Boston, 1851," kindly transmitted to me by George Ticknor, Esq.

66

Here are some few of the many conflicting authorities upon this question, as they are drawn out in array by Mr. Frothingham between the pages 372. and 381. of his book.

Mr. John Adams, the second President of the United States, in a letter dated June 19. 1818, declares that the army had no Commander-in-chief, but that he always understood that General Pomeroy was the first officer of Massachusetts on Bunker or Breed's Hill.

Mr. Webster was the author of an article entitled "Battle of Bunker's Hill" which appeared in the North American Review for July 1818. This article contends that "General Putnam commanded at the rail-fence and "on Bunker's Hill, while Prescott commanded in the "redoubt."

On the other hand, in October of the same year (1818) Mr. David Lee Child published in the Boston Patriot another article on the same transaction. Its main object is to establish the point that "General Putnam was not in "any part of the battle of Bunker or Breed's Hill."

George's Cambridge Almanack or Essex Calendar for 1776 contains a brief narrative of the battle, in which it is stated that Joseph Warren "was commander-in-chief "on this occasion."

Thus also Governor Trumbull, in his letter dated August 31. 1779, gives a sketch of the battle and names General Warren as the commanding officer.

General Henry Dearborn, who commanded a company

* Life of Washington, vol. ii. p. 210. ed. 1805

during the action in Stark's regiment, wrote an account of it for "the Portfolio of March 1818. In this he declares that "during the action no officer but Colonel "Stark gave any orders."

Lee's Memoirs of the War in the Southern Department, published in 1812, state that in this battle the Americans were commanded by Colonel Prescott. He does not even mention Putnam's name.

The same assertion as to Colonel Prescott is made in Tudor's Life of Otis published in 1823. On the other hand, Mr. Frothingham, in noticing Gordon's History, of which the Preface is dated in 1788, bids us observe: “This is the first time Colonel Prescott appears, in print, as the commander of the intrenching party.

66

With such irreconcileable differences among the best American writers it seems scarcely just to blame an English one, who may incline to any among these various opinions, or who (as in my own case) refrains from naming any American officer as having had the chief command in the battle of Bunker's Hill.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt, whatever may have been Colonel Prescott's exact measure of authority, that his conduct at the redoubt was in a high degree gallant and praiseworthy. He was the grandfather of Mr. William Prescott, the excellent historian of Ferdinand and Isabella, of Cortez, and of Pizarro, a gentleman whose high abilities and most agreeable manners were well appreciated and will long be remembered in England. We learn from the Frothingham volume (p. 168.) that Mr. William Prescott descends, on the mother's side, from Captain Linzee, an officer engaged with the British on the day of Bunker's Hill; and the swords borne by both these brave men on opposite sides in the same conflict " are now "crossed on the walls of the fine library of the historian.” June, 1853.

M.

LORD NORTH TO THE DUKE OF GRAFTON.

On August 31. 1775, the Duke of Grafton had written to Lord North, urging conciliation with America, and asking, "If Parliament meets early, might not the two Houses address his Majesty that orders should be given to his General to communicate to the rebel army that, from various motives of tenderness, affection, and humanity, no hostile steps should be taken until the issue should be known, in case the Colonies would depute persons to state to Parliament their wishes and expectations?"

To that letter, after seven weeks, the Duke received the following reply:—

MY DEAR LORD,

Downing Street, Oct. 20. 1775.

I DEFERRED answering your Grace's very obliging and friendly letter till I could, with a tolerable degree of certainty, convey to you the general outline of our American plan. For that purpose, I take the liberty of enclosing a draft of the King's Speech, which is now so nearly completed, that it will, I believe, undergo very few alterations before it is delivered in Parliament. It is longer and fuller than Speeches at the opening of Sessions have usually been, because it was intended to give a general plan of the measures to be pursued against the American rebels.

Your humble servant, and, I believe I may add, his Majesty's other counsellors, still remain ready to agree with any province in America upon the footing of the Resolution of the House of Commons of the 27th of February last. But the leaders of the rebellion in the Colonies plainly declare themselves not satisfied with those conditions, and manifestly aim at a total independence. Against this we propose to exert ourselves, using every species of force to reduce them; but authorising, at the same time, either the Commander-in-Chief, or some other Commissioner, to proclaim immediately peace and pardon, and to restore all the privileges of trade, to any Colony upon its submission. Authority will likewise be given to settle the question of taxation for the future

upon the plan held forth last year, and to put every other matter now in dispute between them and this country in a course of accommodation. Till the provinces have made some submission, it will be in vain to hope that they will come into any reasonable terms, and I am afraid that declaring a cessation of arms, at this time, would establish that independence which the leaders of the faction in America have always intended, and which they now almost openly avow. I beg pardon of your Grace for touching on these matters so slightly and superficially, but I shall be glad of an opportunity of going into the business more largely when your Grace comes to town. In the meanwhile, I must desire you not to communicate the inclosed speech to any one, as it is not yet entirely perfect, and has not been finally settled in the Cabinet. I have the honour to be, &c.

NORTH.

RIGHT HON. JAMES GRENVILLE TO LORD MAHON. Butleigh, Nov. 29. 1775.

I REJOICE, my dear Lord, that you and your companion returned safe and well from your expedition to Bath. Certainly I committed a sad blunder in inviting you to come so far, at such a season of the year, to participate of so poor an entertainment. I am now told the reasons of our disappointment; but I should have better known them before. The greater part of our worthy friends in the Corporation, with all their bluster of virtue, public spirit, and disinterestedness, were, it seems, overwhelmed in debts to their late representative, Mr. Smith. His executors, not having the same reasons for acquiescence with their principal, have called upon some of them to discharge, not their consciences by their votes, but their bonds by an early payment. This has occasioned a transfer of stock privately transacted with their present member, who succeeds to his predecessor's bonds and seat, though not to his Parliamentary conduct. If the parties had been, what they were not, free to choose, I have still reason to believe you would have been their choice. They could not have made a better; and my endeavour

would not have proved abortive, but expense, pride, pleasure, and dissipation make havoc everywhere; and no nation upon earth is more enslaved than this. I wish that even the Gentle Dove of Worcester may have none of its feathers rumpled! You will probably think that I have a bad hand at pointing out the road that leads successfully to a seat in Parliament, where I most heartily wish to see you placed, for reasons very different from my friends at Bath. However, permit me to mention it to you, though it is not entirely suited to your temper and genius: Be deaf to the call of every principle in human society; be fond of shedding blood, of inciting the slave to murder his master in his sleep, of arming savages to kill the child, and to tear the flesh from the head of the mother; swear and forswear that 250 are more than 1100 or 1,100,000! Do this and be ready to do every thing else, and you shall infallibly succeed in getting into Parliament. I thought it proper for me to submit these few hints to your consideration by way of compensation (as they are very valuable) for the unlucky trouble I lately gave you. If you pardon it for my good intentions, no harm is done, and all is well.

I am very sorry to learn from your accounts, and from those I have lately received from Hayes, that there is no amendment yet made in the state of Lord Chatham's health;

And remain ever yours, &c.

JAMES GRENVILLE.

MR. FOX TO THE DUKE OF GRAFTON.

MY DEAR LORD,

London, December 4. 1775.

As your Grace seemed to wish to be informed of anything of moment that might be going forward during your absence, I think it right to inclose you the Bill which has been read a second time in our House, and which we are to have in the Committee to-morrow. Upon reading this Bill you will see in a moment that it contains the whole of the business of the Session, and therefore I own I think it ought not to go through the