r "7 $B 3D^ 315 
 
 Beclaratton 
 
 OK NOTES ON LOED MAHON S HISTOEY OF 
 
 THE AMEEICAN DECLAEATION 
 
 OF INDEPENDENCE. 
 
 BY PETER FORCE, ESQ. 
 
 AUTHOIl OF " THE AMERICA^. ARCHIVES, Oil DOCUMENTARY 1IISTOKY 
 O! rilB T NT EJ) STATES, Ff<\ ETC. 
 
 LONDON: 
 G. WILLIS, GREAT PIAZZA, COVENT GARDEN. 
 
 18o5. 
 
THE 
 
 Bertaratton 
 
 OR NOTES ON LORD MAHON S HISTORY OF 
 
 THE AMERICAN DECLARATION 
 
 OF INDEPENDENCE. 
 
 BY PETER FORCE, ESQ. 
 
 AUTHOR OP " THE AMERICAN ARCHIVES, OR DOCUMENTARY HISTORY 
 OF THE UNITED STATES," ETC. ETC. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 G. WILLIS, GREAT PIAZZA, COVENT GARDEN. 
 1855. 
 
NOTES ON THE DECLARATION OF 
 INDEPENDENCE. 
 
 THE English Government, it is said, engaged the 
 services of SCOTT, the novelist, to write the Life 
 of Napoleon. When it was thought that their " own 
 " story" of the American War " would bear telling, 
 " and ought to be told," S OUT HEY, the poet., was applied 
 to to tell it. His other engagements compelled him 
 to decline " the proposal made to him, so much to his 
 " honour, by the British Government, to undertake a 
 " History of the American War ;" but he suggested 
 the work to LORD MAHON as a fine subject, and which, 
 treated as he would treat it, " would vindicate the 
 " honour of this country, (England,) at the same time 
 " that it would render full justice to the opposite 
 " cause." 
 
 The letter of MR. SOUTHEY, making this suggestion 
 to LORD MAHON, is dated August 13, 1832. Twenty- 
 two years later the " story" was told by his Lordship. 
 It is not attempted here to examine how far his vindi 
 cation " vindicates the honour of England," but to 
 show that he has not " rendered full justice to the op- 
 " posite cause ;" and that in any effort he may have 
 
.y. 5 :.:::::: 
 
 made to render Such justice he has been signally un 
 successful. To enable the readers of his book to de 
 termine for themselves what just ground there may be 
 for this suggestion, the following notes are presented 
 for the consideration of those who have not at hand 
 the means of testing the trustworthiness of his state 
 ments, and who, pleased with the air of candour which 
 he appears at all times to wear, may be induced to 
 give a credit to his assertions to which they are not 
 entitled, and be led into his views of the matters he 
 presents before they suspect any attempt to mislead 
 them. To smooth the way for more effectually allur 
 ing the American reader to follow him in the path 
 he has marked out for himself, Lord Mahon has af 
 fected a great veneration for the character of GENERAL 
 WASHINGTON. It will be remembered that the REV. 
 JACOB DUCHE also professed a great veneration for the 
 character of General Washington in his letter of the 
 8th of October, 1777, where, possibly to prove the 
 sincerity of his professed veneration, he describes the 
 associates of the commander -in-chief and the Congress 
 whose commission he bore. The latter he speaks of as 
 " the dregs of a Congress," " most of them elected by 
 " a little low faction," " their dignity and consequence 
 " gone." As to the army, he asks, " have they not 
 " frequently abandoned even yourself in the hour of 
 " extremity ? " And of the officers he says, " many 
 " have been taken from the lowest of the people, with- 
 " out principle and without courage." He makes 
 Washington the leader and the chief, under the dregs 
 of a Congress, of men without principle, and an army 
 of cowards. This was Mr. Duche s veneration for 
 Washington. 
 
 With every disposition to make the amplest allow- 
 
[ 5 ] 
 
 ance for mistakes arising from a want of correct infor 
 mation, mistakes to which the most careful and the 
 most accurate are sometimes liable ; nay, more, to 
 make a liberal allowance for his national prejudices 
 and his over anxious desire to " vindicate the honour " 
 of his country ; yet any pretence Lord Mahon may 
 make of having rendered " full justice to the opposite 
 " cause," cannot, it is believed, be sustained as honest 
 on any plea of accident or of ignorance. 
 
 It is not proposed to present a review of Lord Ma- 
 hon s History of the American War, nor in a spirit of 
 cavil or fault-finding, to go through his volumes, hunt 
 ing for something to find fault with. On the contrary, 
 the notes are confined to the pages he has appropriated 
 to his History of the American Declaration of Inde 
 pendence (pages 92-98, vol. 6, of his third edition, 
 revised). 
 
 A careful examination of these pages, few as they 
 are, may be enough to show with sufficient distinctness 
 in what spirit Lord Mahon s History is written, and 
 how far it may be received as an impartial and truthful 
 record. 
 
 If the reader meets in these Notes with imputations 
 of " omissions," " corrections," " additions," " im- 
 " provements," " embellishments," " substitutions," 
 " motives," " manufacture," " manufactory," and the 
 like, he must understand that they are not used here 
 for the first time. They are from Lord Mahon s voca 
 bulary, selected and used by him to express his disap 
 probation of all " tampering with the truth of history." 
 
I. 
 
 Lord Mahon (page 92, vol. 6, 3rd edition) says : 
 " Here are the words at the same period of another 
 " popular leader : Notwithstanding the Act of Par- 
 " liament for seizing our property, there is a strange 
 " reluctance in the minds of many to cut the knot 
 " which ties us to Great Britain. " 
 
 Lord Mahon is very emphatic. He declares " here 
 " are the words" that is, the very words, precisely 
 what was written, and which convey exactly the mean 
 ing of Colonel Reed, in his letter to General Wash 
 ington, dated March 3, 1776. Now, let us see what 
 Colonel Reed did say. Here are his words : 
 
 Notwithstanding the Act of Parliament for seizing our 
 property, and a thousand other proofs of a bitter and irrecon- 
 cileable spirit, there is a strange reluctance in the minds of 
 many to cut the knot that ties us to Great Britain, particu 
 larly in this colony, and to the southward. Though no man 
 of understanding expects any good from the commissioners, 
 (Lord and Sir William Howe,) yet they are for waiting to 
 hear their proposals before they declare off. 
 
 These are the words of an ardent patriot, giving 
 vent to his honest indignation at the strange reluct 
 ance of many to cut the knot, at once, notwithstanding 
 the seizing of their property by Act of Parliament, 
 and a thousand other proofs of a bitter and irrecon- 
 cileable spirit. But their reluctance did not proceed 
 from a defection to the general cause of the colonies. 
 They did not know what the commissioners had to 
 offer. Though no man of understanding expected any 
 good from them, many were waiting to hear their pro 
 posals before they declared off. 
 
 Lord Mahon, it will be seen, has suppressed the 
 
[ 7 ] 
 
 most material part of the sentence he has taken from 
 the letter of Colonel Reed the " thousand other 
 " proofs of a bitter and irreconcileable spirit" on the 
 part of England towards the Colonies. What Colonel 
 Reed said of the " bitter and irreconcileable spirit " of 
 England, may have interfered with Lord Mahon s 
 " vindication;" so he suppressed it. If this were a 
 single instance of what must unquestionably be consi 
 dered an act of bad faith in an historian, the suppres 
 sion might and ought to be attributed to accident ; 
 but it is one of many. 
 
 Some of the " thousand other proofs * alluded to by 
 Colonel Reed were enumerated, a few days later, (on 
 the 23rd of the same month,) in the Declaration of 
 Congress in justification of their resolution of the 19th 
 authorizing the fitting out of private armed vessels. 
 
 II. 
 
 But it was not enough for Lord Mahon that so many 
 in nine of the Colonies were opposed to a separation 
 from England : he considered it due to the truth of 
 history to place on record the wild misapprehensions 
 current among many of those who were in favour of a 
 separation, and their profound ignorance in regard to 
 the independence they were talking about. He goes 
 on to say : 
 
 " Besides such total difference of views, there were 
 " also, as in most popular changes, wild misapprehen- 
 " sions current. One gentleman, a correspondent of 
 " Washington, states that he heard this question asked 
 " and answered, as follows : f What do you mean by 
 u independence?* We mean a form of Government 
 " to make us independent of the rich, and every man 
 " able to do as he pleases. " (Pages 92-3.) 
 
[ 8 ] 
 
 Notwithstanding this positive assertion of what the 
 " correspondent of Washington states, * and the honest- 
 looking array of quotation marks, and " this question 
 " asked and answered," it must be said that Lord 
 Mahon has not truly quoted Washington s correspond 
 ent. Mr. Landon Carter, of Virginia, is the corre 
 spondent referred to. In a letter dated May 9? 1776, 
 the passage occurs, out of which Lord Mahon has 
 manufactured what he says was stated in that letter. 
 The statement of Mr. Carter is as follows : 
 
 I need only tell you of one definition that I heard of inde 
 pendency : it was expected to be a form of Government that, 
 by being independent of the rich men, every man then would 
 be able to do as he pleased. 
 
 Mr. Carter says nothing about the " question asked 
 " and answered." This, and the " what do you mean," 
 and the " we mean," and the " us," are merely the 
 artistic embellishments of Lord Mahon, to give better 
 effect to his picture of the " wild misapprehensions 
 " current," which, to make it at all available, it was 
 necessary to alter, to bring within the rule which Lord 
 Mahon says he adopted " to neglect no tale or inci- 
 " dent, however trifling it may appear, that can best 
 " illustrate the feelings which produced or the circum- 
 " stances which attended any great crisis in human 
 " affairs." 
 
 III. 
 
 Lord Mahon having thus established the gross igno 
 rance of many of the Americans in regard to the mean 
 ing of " independence," and as some slight glimmerings 
 of light were afterwards manifested in their action, he 
 found it necessary to account for " the day-breaking 
 " and sun-rising " of their knowledge. 
 
" To inform and to animate the people on this sub- 
 " ject, several writers of pamphlets now appeared. 
 " The chief among these is Thomas Paine." (P. 93.) 
 
 Lord Mahon makes Thomas Paine the chief among 
 the writers of pamphlets in favour of independence ; 
 and then, to show by inference what all the writers 
 were, Paine being " the chief," his lordship says of 
 him that " he had tried various trades and walks of 
 " life, as sailor, excise-man, school- master, and poet, 
 " but at last he settled down a democratic agitator, 
 " rightly conceiving that to brawl and to scribble, 
 " must be at all times easier than to work." With 
 such a chief what must have been the subordinates ? 
 They could only be brawlers and scribblers of a lower 
 grade. These, and such as these, according to Lord 
 Mahon, were they who came forward " to inform and 
 " to animate the people on this subject," that is, of 
 independence. 
 
 But, besides these " several writers of pamphlets," 
 of whom Thomas Paine was the chief, there were 
 several other writers of pamphlets and in newspapers, 
 not referred to by Lord Mahon, who came forward 
 " to inform and to animate the people " against inde 
 pendence, which was a question that had two sides, 
 and both were discussed before the people. Hear 
 what John Adams says of the result of these discussions. 
 In a letter dated July 3, 1776, speaking of the reso 
 lution of independence, adopted the day before, (July 
 2,) he says : 
 
 Time has been given for the whole people maturely to con 
 sider the great question of independence, and to ripen their 
 judgment, dissipate their fears, and allure their hopes, by dis 
 cussing it in newspapers and pamphlets, by debating it in 
 assemblies, conventions, committees of safety and inspection, 
 in town and county meetings, as well as private conversations, 
 
so that the whole people have now adopted it as their own act. 
 This will cement the Union, and avoid those heats, and per 
 haps convulsions, which might have been occasioned by such 
 a declaration six months ago. 
 
 This is the way the people were informed and ani 
 mated. Paine s " Common Sense," there can be no 
 question, had its full share in arousing the people ; 
 and this, it may be, Lord Mahon felt when he wrote, 
 " Paine, I regret to own it, was a native of England ;" 
 for he says it " produced a strong effect in all the 
 " Colonies, and drew forth warm praises from all the 
 " popular leaders." 
 
 IV. 
 
 In addition to the pamphlets, it appears that on 
 some occasions the " popular leaders" used not only 
 " harangues to the soldiers," but likewise " sermons to 
 " the people." Such " harangues" and " sermons" were 
 by no means uncommon. But Lord Mabon will not 
 say that these " harangues " and " sermons " were 
 American inventions ; or that such " harangues " and 
 such " sermons " were unknown to " popular leaders " 
 in the country whose honour his history was written to 
 vindicate. He says : 
 
 It was not solely upon pamphlets that these popular leaders 
 relied. On some occasions use was also made not only of 
 harangues to the soldiers, but likewise of sermons to the peo 
 ple. In both, so far as we can gather, historical parallels were 
 among the favourite figures of speech. 
 
 Thus, for instance, at Philadelphia, we find a preacher 
 comparing the people of Israel with the people of America, 
 and King Pharaoh with King George. Thus, in Massachu 
 setts, a few months before, a British officer going out from 
 Boston, in the disguise of a countryman, saw a company of 
 militia exercised, and listened to the speech of their commander 
 very eloquent, quoting Caesar and Pompey, Brigadiers 
 Putnam and Ward. (Pp. 93-4.) 
 
[ 11 ] 
 
 The two incidents brought together here were rather 
 subjects for the serious reflections of the historian than 
 the levity of a jester. In time they were far apart, and 
 in the interval events had occurred that produced an 
 entire change in the determination of the American 
 people. The " harangue to the soldiers " was in Feb 
 ruary, 1775, when conciliation was yet practicable; 
 the " sermon to the people " was in May, 1776, fifteen 
 months later, when the time for separation had come. 
 Yet, while examining the two papers in which are 
 found the matters he refers to, though in one is fore 
 shadowed the beginning of a war between the Crown 
 and the Colonies, and in the other the separation of the 
 Colonies from the Crown is announced, Lord Mahon 
 could find nothing worthy his notice but the preacher s 
 comparison in one ; in the other nothing but a sneer. 
 
 In the petition of the Congress to the King, of 
 October 26, 1774, in which they enumerate the inju 
 ries done to the Colonies, they say : " We present this 
 " petition only to obtain redress of grievances and re- 
 " lief from fears and jealousies, occasioned by the sys- 
 " tern of statutes and regulations adopted since the last 
 " war." What answer was given to this petition ? 
 Though earnest in its appeal and most respectful to 
 the king, no answer was returned to the people who 
 felt themselves so deeply injured. The answer was 
 sent to the Royal Governors in the Colonies. 
 
 On the 15th of December, 1774, General Gage, in a 
 letter to Lord Dartmouth, said : " Your lordship s idea 
 " of disarming certain Provinces would doubtless be 
 " consistent with prudence and safety, but it neither is 
 " nor has been practicable without having recourse to 
 " force and being masters of the country." Two months 
 later, he had received orders to carry Lord Dartmouth s 
 idea into effect. 
 
[ 12 ] 
 
 Ensign D Berniere, of the 10th regiment, in a report 
 he made of a secret expedition under the order of 
 General Gage, says : 
 
 The latter end (the 22nd) of February, 1775, Captain 
 Brown, of the 52nd regiment, and myself received orders to 
 go through the counties of Suffolk and Worcester and sketch 
 the roads as we went, for the information of General Gage, as 
 he expected to have occasion to march troops through that 
 country the ensuing spring. 
 
 They set out from Boston on Thursday, February 
 23rd, disguised like countrymen in brown clothes, with 
 reddish handkerchiefs round their necks, and returned 
 to Boston on the 30th, with all their notes, plans, and 
 sketches, in safety. On their way back they reached 
 Framingham on the evening of Monday, the 27th, and 
 Ensign D Berniere thus describes what occurred there : 
 
 We arrived at Buckminster s tavern about six o clock that 
 evening. A company of militia were exercising near the 
 house, and in an hour after they came and performed their 
 feats before the windows of the room we were in. We did 
 not feel very easy at seeing such a number so very near us ; 
 however, they did not know who we were, and took little no 
 tice of us. 
 
 After they had done their exercise one of their commanders 
 spoke a very eloquent speech, recommending patience, and 
 coolness, and bravery (which indeed they much wanted) ; par 
 ticularly told them they would always conquer if they did not 
 break, and recommended them to charge us coolly and wait 
 for our fire, and every thing would succeed with them ; quoted 
 CcBsar and Pompey, Brigadiers Putnam and Ward, and all such 
 great men ; put them in mind of Cape Breton and all the bat 
 tles they had gained for his Majesty in the last war ; and ob 
 served that the regulars must have been ruined but for them. 
 
 In this movement of General Gage to secure the 
 most certain information of the country bordering on 
 
[ 13 ] 
 
 Boston, "as he expected to have occasion to march 
 troops through that country the ensuing spring," is seen 
 the answer of the king to the petition of the Congress. 
 That answer was soon after written in blood at Lexing 
 ton. But Lord Mahon could see nothing of all this. 
 
 The remark may be repeated, that at this time, 
 February 1775, conciliation was yet practicable. The 
 Colonies then only sought for redress from grievances 
 imposed upon them within the last twelve years. Had 
 this been conceded there would have been an end to 
 all controversy. But at the time referred to by Lord 
 Mahon, when he says, " thus, for instance, at Phila- 
 " delphia, we find a preacher comparing the people of 
 " Israel with the people of America, and King Pharaoh 
 " with King George," the Colonies were colonies in 
 name only, the oaths to the king having been abolished 
 in each, and every step towards independence but the 
 last had been taken. Lord Mahon found the preacher s 
 comparison in a letter from John Adams, dated May 17, 
 1776. Mr. Adams there said : 
 
 I have this morning heard Mr. Duffield upon the Signs of 
 the Times. He ran a parallel between the case of Israel and 
 that of America, and between the conduct of Pharaoh and 
 that of George. Jealousy that the Israelites would throw off 
 the Government of Egypt made him issue his edict that the 
 midwives should cast the children into the river, and the other 
 edict that the men should make a large revenue of bricks 
 without straw. He concluded that the course of events indi 
 cated strongly the design of Providence that we should be 
 separated from Great Britain. 
 
 This historical parallel, as Lord Mahon calls it, was 
 by no means deficient in appropriateness, which would 
 have been very perceptible even to him had he, like 
 the Americans, felt the weight of the bondage of the 
 Israelites, who were required to labour for the Egypt- 
 
[ 14 ] 
 
 ians. But Mr. Adams, in the same letter, (though 
 Lord Mahon found in it only his " historical parallel,") 
 goes on to say : 
 
 Great Britain has at last driven America to the last step 
 a complete separation from her ; a total, absolute indepen 
 dence, not only of her Parliament, but of her Crown, for such 
 is the amount of the resolve of the 15th. Confederation among 
 ourselves or alliances with foreign nations are not necessary to 
 a perfect separation from Britain; that is effected by extin 
 guishing all authority under the Crown, Parliament, and na 
 tion, as the resolution for instituting Governments has done, 
 to all intents and purposes. 
 
 Mr. Adams wrote the truth. The separation was 
 thus complete in fact, though not in form. The Con 
 gress could not have gone back after the resolution of 
 the 15th was adopted; they could have been driven 
 back only by the fleets and armies of the enemy. 
 
 But the other allusion in the report of the spies 
 (from which he transcribes and improves the witty 
 remark " very eloquent," &c.) to the want of bravery 
 in the American soldiers should not have been omitted 
 by Lord Mahon. u The cowardice of the American 
 " Rebels" was a common by-word in England. The 
 belief or a pretended belief in it there was universal 
 with the people, the army, the navy, the Parliament, 
 the Ministry, and the King himself. This belief, ab 
 surd as it was, as it had a vast influence in all the pro 
 ceedings against the Americans, constitutes an impor 
 tant element in a history of the causes and progress 
 of the Revolution. Lord Mahon may have been 
 ashamed of the vainglorious boasting by the English 
 of their superior bravery over the Americans ; yet as 
 this boasting spirit did exist, and as it did precipitate 
 and prolong the war, it was the duty of the historian 
 
to state the fact, and give to it its due weight among 
 the causes that produced the separation between the 
 two countries. 
 
 In the following, which no one at this day would 
 recognise as an account of the battle at Princeton, in 
 January, 1777, is seen the popular English opinion of 
 the " want of bravery" in the Americans. It will be 
 found in the London Morning Chronicle of March 4, 
 1777. In that battle, according to the returns to 
 General Howe, besides the killed and wounded of the 
 English troops engaged in it, one thousand were 
 " missing." 
 
 New York, January 13, 1777. 
 
 Several skirmishes between the King s troops and the rebels 
 have lately happened in the Jerseys. But the most distin 
 guished rencounter occurred on the 3rd instant, near Princeton. 
 
 The 17th regiment, consisting of less than three hundred 
 men, fell in with the rebel army of very superior force, whom 
 they attacked with all the ardour and intrepidity of Britons. 
 They received a firer from behind a fence, over which they 
 immediately leaped upon their enemies, who presently turned 
 to the right-about with such precipitation as to leave their 
 very cannon behind them. The soldiers immediately turned 
 their cannon, and fired at least twenty rounds upon their rear ; 
 and had they been assisted with another regiment or two, the 
 rebels would have found it rather difficult to make good their 
 retreat. 
 
 This has been one of the most splendid actions in the whole 
 campaign, and has given a convincing proof that British valour 
 has not declined from its ancient glory. Of Colonel Mawhood, 
 their gallant commander, and of his conduct in the affair, too 
 many encomiums cannot be said. The loss was about twenty 
 killed and eighty wounded of the troops. Of the rebels above 
 four hundred were killed and wounded. Among the slain 
 were eleven officers. 
 
 Mr. Mercer, (one of the wounded rebel officers, since dead,) 
 when he was taken up by our people, asked how many the 
 
[ 16 ] 
 
 numbers were who had thus attacked him, and, upon being 
 told, he cried out with astonishment, " My God, is it possible ? 
 " I have often heard of British courage, but never could have 
 " imagined to find such an instance as this." 
 
 Another account says, that the 17th regiment, just before 
 they charged the rebels, deliberately pulled off their knapsacks 
 and gave three cheers, then broke through the rebels, faced 
 about, attacked, and broke through them a second time. 
 Colonel Mawhood then said it would be prudent, as they were 
 so few, to retire, upon which the men, one and all, cried out, 
 " No, no ; let us attack them again." And it was with great 
 difficulty their Colonel could induce them to retreat; which 
 at length they performed in the utmost order. 
 
 The absurdities in these statements are so monstrous 
 that nothing need be said of them, except that the 
 spirit of this braggart claim to superior bravery for 
 the English, and the belief in England in the justice 
 of that claim when extended to every thing else, was 
 the spirit that prevailed in the British Councils that 
 brought on the war. 
 
 Though out of place here (as it belongs to another 
 point for examination in Lord Mahon s History), it 
 may be well to contrast the graphic and spirit-stirring 
 descriptions of " the most distinguished rencounter" 
 near Princeton with the subdued gravity and brevity 
 of General Howe s official reports of the battles of 
 Trenton and Princeton, in his letters to Lord George 
 Germaine, dated at New York, December 29, 1776, 
 and January 5, 1777. 
 
 In his letter of the 29th of December he gives the 
 battle of Trenton. After saying Colonel Eahl, with 
 two regiments, had formed in front of the village, he 
 adds : 
 
 The rebels, without advancing, cannonaded them in this 
 situation, and Colonel Kahl moved forward to attack them 
 
[ 17 J 
 
 with the regiments of Lossberg and Rahl ; in which attack 
 Colonel Rahl was wounded, and the regiments were made 
 prisoners. The rebels then advanced to the regiment of 
 Knyphausen, and also made that corps prisoners." 
 
 In his letter of the 5th of January, 1777, he gives 
 the battle of Princeton, described above as " one of 
 " the most splendid actions of the whole campaign :" 
 
 Lieutenant-colonel Mawhood, not being apprehensive of 
 the enemy s strength, attacked and beat back the troops 
 that first presented themselves to him; but, finding them 
 at length very superior to him in numbers, he pushed for 
 ward with the 17th regiment and joined Brigadier-general 
 Leslie. The 55th regiment retired by the way of Hills- 
 borough to Brunswick, and the enemy proceeding immedi 
 ately to Prince Town, the 45th regiment also retired to 
 Brunswick. 
 
 With what admirable lamb-like meekness the Hes 
 sians permitted themselves to be made prisoners at 
 Trenton by the rebels, who had been the whole of the 
 preceding night struggling with the ice on the Dela 
 ware, and pursuing their march through a heavy snow 
 storm ! These prisoners, however, were only hired 
 Hessians. But at Princeton it was his Majesty s 
 troops that were engaged. There the 17th regiment 
 found the enemy were too numerous, and so " pushed 
 " forward" to get out of harm s way, it would seem; 
 while the 55th regiment " retired" to Brunswick, and 
 the 45th regiment " also retired to Brunswick." But 
 they "pushed forward" and "retired" with such 
 rapidity that the barefooted rebels, after a night march 
 over the frozen ground, without food and without rest, 
 could not overtake them. 
 
[ 18 ] 
 
 V. 
 
 The " wild misapprehensions" said by Lord Mahon 
 to have been current among the Americans as late as 
 May 9, 1776, are much modified in his next paragraph. 
 He now says : 
 
 " The gradual progress of the idea of independence 
 " in the minds of the people may be clearly traced 
 " through the first six months of 1776. Several of 
 " the Colonies sent instructions to their delegates in 
 " Congress desiring or directing them to vote for a 
 " separation." (P. 94.) 
 
 It seems, then, that Lord Mahon could clearly trace 
 this progress through the first six months of the year, 
 notwithstanding what he says of the " wild misappre- 
 " hensions current " among the people, as to what 
 they meant by independence, so late as in the fifth of 
 these six months. He now admits there was such a 
 " progress of the idea of independence " in the first 
 half of the year 1776, that " several of the Colonies" 
 desired or directed their delegates " to vote for a 
 " separation." It was easy for Lord Mahon to have 
 said, in place of his " several," that the delegates of 
 eleven of the Colonies were by their instructions au 
 thorized to vote for a separation. He could have 
 given the exact number ; and " full justice to the 
 " opposite cause," as well as fairness to his readers, 
 required of him not to represent eleven as several of 
 thirteen. 
 
 Instructions to their delegates in Congress directing 
 or authorizing them in their discretion to vote for in 
 dependence were of the following dates : 
 
 Massachusetts, January 18, 1776. 
 tf u South Carolina, March 23, 1776. 
 
[ 19 ] 
 
 Georgia, April 5, 1776. 
 
 North Carolina, April 12, 1776. 
 
 Rhode Island, May 4, 1776. 
 
 Virginia, May 15, 1776. 
 \}i Pennsylvania (Assembly), June 14, 1776. 
 
 Connecticut, June 14, 1776. 
 
 New Hampshire, June 15, 1776. 
 
 New Jersey, June 21, 1776. 
 
 Pennsylvania (Convention), June 24, 1776. 
 
 Maryland, June 28, 1776. 
 
 All these were authorized by their instructions " to 
 " vote for a separation ;" and the instructions of three 
 only of these (Massachusetts, South Carolina, and 
 Georgia) were in general terms. This is what Lord 
 Mahon makes " several of the Colonies sent instruc- 
 " tions to their delegates in Congress, desiring or di- 
 " recting them to vote for a separation." 
 
 VI. 
 
 " Amongst the Virginians, the appetite for such a 
 " measure was so keen that they resolved it for their 
 " own Colony some time before any general system of 
 " that kind had received the sanction of Congress." 
 (P. 94.) 
 
 This is a misstatement. In Virginia, as in all her 
 sister Colonies, there had long been manifested a 
 " keenness of appetite " to be placed on a political 
 equality with their fellow-subjects in England, at first 
 as one nation, but, that having been denied them, 
 they had now determined to secure equal rights by a 
 separation. 
 
 The adoption of the Constitution and Declaration 
 of Hights, in June, 1776, annihilated the Colonial 
 Government and the King s authority in Virginia. 
 
[ 20 ] 
 
 But this was not done, as Lord Mahon asserts, " some 
 " time before any general system of that kind had 
 " received the sanction of Congress." On the con 
 trary, Congress, on the 10th of May, 1776, recom 
 mended, as a " general system," to all the Colonies, 
 " where no government sufficient to the exigency of 
 " their affairs hath been hitherto established, to adopt 
 " such government as shall, in the opinion of the 
 " representatives of the people, best conduce to the 
 " happiness and safety of their constituents in par- 
 " ticular and America in general." 
 
 Long before this, however, the men of Mecklenburg, 
 
 jj* North Carolina, whose appetite was so keen that they 
 
 jJ could not wait for the others, had, on the 31st of May, 
 
 1775, adopted resolutions declaring a total separation 
 
 of the Colonies from England. 
 
 VII. 
 
 " A committee prepared, and on the 27th of May 
 " reported, at Williamsburg, a Declaration of Rights, 
 " which at a later period served the Revolutionists 
 " of France for the model of their more celebrated 
 " l Rights of Man/ In that Declaration it is affirmed 
 " that the rights which are claimed cannot exist with 
 " an hereditary monarchy ; for the fourth article states 
 " that the idea of a man being born a magistrate, 
 " a legislator, or a judge, is unnatural and absurd."- 
 (P. 94.) 
 
 Well, such an idea is just as absurd as that of a 
 man being born an astronomer, or a chemist, or a 
 machinist, or an historian. But the fourth article of 
 the Declaration does not state what Lord Mahon says 
 it does. The Declaration was adopted on the 12th of 
 June, 1776, and what it affirms in the fourth article is 
 
[ 21 ] 
 
 in these words : " That no man or set of men are 
 " entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments and 
 " privileges from the community but in consideration 
 " of public services ; which, not being descendible, 
 " neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or 
 " judge to be hereditary." 
 
 This is what the fourth article of the Declaration of 
 Rights affirms. What Lord Mahon says " in that 
 " Declaration is affirmed " forms no part of the Vir 
 ginia Declaration of Rights, which, he says, served as 
 a model for the revolutionists of France. The report 
 of the Committee of the 27th of May was not entered 
 on the Journal of the Convention. Lord Mahon 
 found it in the American Archives (vol. vi. p. 1537) ? 
 where it is given in a note. The Declaration was 
 adopted on the 12th of June; this he found also in 
 the same volume (p. 1561), in its proper place on the 
 Journal. It could not be overlooked nor mistaken by 
 one who had so carefully noticed the change made by 
 the Congress in the draught of the Declaration of 
 Independence reported by the Committee. Nor could 
 he mistake the report of a committee for a decision 
 by the Convention on any proposition reported by a 
 committee. 
 
 It will be difficult for Lord Mahon to free himself 
 from the charge of having here deliberately substi 
 tuted what was not adopted for what was adopted by 
 the Virginia Convention. 
 
 As to his fling at the Declaration, that " at a later 
 " period it served the Revolutionists of France " for a 
 model, it does not impeach the patriotism nor the 
 wisdom of the framers of it. If France had adopted 
 and adhered to the principles it recognises, it might, 
 perhaps, have been as well for the people of that 
 country. 
 
[ 22 ] 
 
 VIII. 
 
 " In other places there were symptoms less decided 
 " perhaps, but scarcely less significant of the popular 
 " tendency. Thus in the Maryland Convention we 
 " find this resolution adopted on the 25th of May : 
 " That every prayer and petition for the King s 
 " Majesty be henceforth omitted in all churches or 
 " chapels of the province. (P. 94.) 
 
 Here Lord Mahon, with an affected boldness of con 
 scious integrity, gives a resolution of his own making, 
 in place of the resolution of the Convention, which 
 stands recorded in these words : 
 
 Whereas his Britannic Majesty, King George, has prose 
 cuted and still prosecutes a cruel and unjust war against the 
 British Colonies in America, and has acceded to acts of Par 
 liament declaring the people of the said Colonies in actual 
 rebellion ; and whereas the good people of this province have 
 taken up arms to defend their rights and liberties, and to repel 
 the hostilities carrying on against them, and whilst engaged 
 in such a contest cannot with any sincerity or devotion of 
 heart pray for the success of his Majesty s arms : 
 
 Therefore resolved, That every prayer and petition for the 
 King s Majesty in the Book of Common Prayer and adminis 
 tration of the sacraments and other rites and ceremonies of the 
 church, according to the use of the Church of England, except 
 the second Collect for the King in the Communion Service, be 
 henceforth omitted in all churches and chapels in this province, 
 until our unhappy differences are ended. 
 
 What is the Collect that was excepted by the Con 
 vention ? In the Book of Common Prayer the second 
 Collect for the King in the Communion Service in 
 1776 was as it is here given : 
 
 Almighty and everlasting God, we are taught by thy holy 
 Word that the hearts of kings are in thy rule and governance, 
 and that thou dost dispose and turn them as it seemeth best 
 
[ 23 ] 
 
 to thy godly wisdom. We humbly beseech thee so to dispose 
 and govern the heart of GEORGE, thy servant, our King and 
 Governor, that in all his thoughts, words, and works, he may 
 ever seek thy honour and glory, and study to preserve thy 
 people committed to his charge, in wealth, peace, and godli 
 ness. Grant this, O merciful Father, for thy dear Son s sake, 
 Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. 
 
 The prayer for the King, which it is here seen was 
 retained by the resolution of the Convention of the 
 25th of May, flatly contradicts Lord Mahon s resolu 
 tion of the same date. The mere statement of the fact 
 is a sufficient comment on his claim to " honesty of 
 " purpose." How much better it would have been for 
 his reputation as an historian if Lord Mahon had been 
 governed by the principles he laid down for himself as 
 an author. " To state any fact without sufficient au- 
 " thority," he says, "implies not merely literary failure, 
 " but moral guilt." 
 
 IX. 
 
 " The Congress itself, or at least its leading mem- 
 " bers, had become by this time ripe for the change." 
 (P. 94.) 
 
 From Lord Mahon s disregard of dates, or of refer 
 ring to them indistinctly, it is oftentimes difficult to fix 
 with any degree of exactness the time of which he is 
 speaking. " By this time" it may be believed that he 
 means the 27th of May, 1776, or thereabouts. 
 
 On the 10th of May a resolution was adopted which 
 shows that Congress was then ripe. This resolution, 
 in the history of American Independence, is second in 
 importance only to the resolution of independence of 
 the 2nd of July. And yet these great landmarks in 
 the Revolution one pointing to independence, the 
 other independence itself Lord Mahon passes over 
 
[ 24 ] 
 
 in silence, while one-fourth of the six pages he gives 
 to his History of the Declaration, are devoted to 
 " Thomas Paine" and " John Thomson." 
 
 On the 15th of May a declaration or preamble, to 
 accompany the resolution, was adopted, and both were 
 by the Congress ordered to be published. They are 
 as follow : 
 
 Whereas his Britannic Majesty, in conjunction with the 
 Lords and Commons of Great Britain, has by a late Act of 
 Parliament, excluded the inhabitants of these United Colonies 
 from the protection of his Crown ; and whereas no answer 
 whatever to the humble petition of the Colonies for redress 
 of grievances and reconciliation with Great Britain has been 
 or is likely to be given, but the whole force of that kingdom, 
 aided by foreign mercenaries, is to be exerted for the destruc 
 tion of the good people of these Colonies ; and whereas it 
 appears absolutely irreconcileable to reason and good con 
 science for the people of these Colonies now to take the oaths 
 and affirmations necessary for the support of any Government 
 under the Crown of Great Britain, and it is necessary that 
 the exercise of every kind of authority under the said Crown 
 should be totally suppressed, and all the powers of Govern 
 ment exerted under the authority of the people of the Colo 
 nies for the preservation of internal peace, virtue, and good 
 order, as well as for the defence of their lives, liberties, and 
 properties against the hostile invasions and cruel depredations 
 of their enemies. 
 
 Resolved, That it be recommended to the respective assem 
 blies and conventions of the United Colonies, where no Go 
 vernment sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs hath been 
 hitherto established, to adopt such Government as shall, in 
 the opinion of the representatives of the people, best conduce 
 to the happiness and safety of their constituents in particular 
 and America in general. 
 
 The Congress had, however, several times before, in 
 cases of great emergency, advised the establishment of 
 Governments in Colonies where such a measure ap- 
 
[ 25 ] 
 
 peared to be called for by the exigencies of the times, 
 namely : to Massachusetts on the 9th of June, 1775 ; 
 to New Hampshire on the 3rd of November, 1775 ; to 
 South Carolina on the 5th of November, 1775; and 
 to Virginia on the 4th of December, 1775. The reso 
 lution of May, 1776, recommending to all Colonies the 
 adoption of Governments where none had yet been 
 established, was practically cutting " the knot " that 
 tied them to Great Britain. 
 
 X. 
 
 " So far back as the November preceding, they had 
 " appointed a secret committee for corresponding with 
 " the friends of America in Great Britain, Ireland, 
 " and other parts of the world. By that committee, a 
 " few months afterwards, Silas Deane, of Connecticut, 
 lt was dispatched on a private mission to Paris. His 
 " instructions, which bear the date of the 3rd of March, 
 " direct him to inform the Count of Vergennes, the 
 " French Minister for Foreign Affairs, that if we should, 
 " as there is great appearance we shall, come to a total 
 " separation from Great Britain, France would be 
 " looked upon as the Power whose friendship it would 
 " be fittest for us to obtain and to cultivate." (Pp. 
 94-95.) 
 
 That is to say, Mr. Deane was sent on a private 
 mission to Paris merely to inform the French Minister 
 of Foreign Affairs that there would probably be a 
 separation of the American Colonies from Great Bri 
 tain, and that in that event " France would be looked 
 " upon as the Power whose friendship it would be 
 " fittest for us to cultivate." Was this the sole purpose 
 for which Mr. Deane was sent on his private mission 
 to Paris ? Lord Mahon leaves his reader to understand 
 
[ 26 ] 
 
 that he was sent for no other purpose ; but he stopped 
 too soon. If he had continued on and added a few 
 lines to what he has taken, it would be seen that Mr. 
 Deane was not the bearer of a mere complimentary 
 note, for this immediately follows Lord Mahon s ex 
 tract : 
 
 That the commercial advantages Britain had enjoyed with 
 the Colonies had contributed greatly to her late wealth and 
 importance ; that it is likely great part of our commerce will 
 naturally fall to the share of France, especially if she favours 
 us in this application, as that will be a means of gaining and 
 securing the friendship of the Colonies ; and that as our trade 
 was rapidly increasing with an increase of our people, and in 
 a greater proportion, her part of it will be extremely valuable ; 
 that the supply we at present want is clothing and arms for 
 twenty-five thousand men, with a suitable quantity of ammuni 
 tion, and one hundred field-pieces. 
 
 Lord Mahon stopped when he came to the allusion 
 to Britain, that her commercial advantages with the 
 Colonies " had contributed greatly to her late wealth 
 " and importance." He might have passed that over, 
 as he saw in it an unpleasant truth ; but he should 
 not have omitted the application for military supplies, 
 which was the principal object of Deane s private mis 
 sion. The Colonies had men ; what they wanted of 
 France was clothing, and arms, and ammunition. 
 
 When the Americans determined on an appeal to 
 arms, they had neither fleets nor armies ; they had no 
 magazines of powder or other munitions of war, nor a 
 cannon foundry, nor public establishments for making 
 small arms ; they were without materials for making 
 gunpowder, and without lead to make balls for their 
 muskets. They had no manufactories for flax, or of 
 wool, or of iron. For these and for almost every de 
 scription of manufactured articles necessary for their 
 
[ 27 ] 
 
 comfort, they were dependent on England. Besides 
 all this, they had no money : the policy of England 
 drew from the Colonies their specie, and transferred it 
 to the coffers of the more favoured subjects in England. 
 Such was the condition of the Colonies at the begin 
 ning of their contest with the Crown. Their condition 
 was looked upon by the British Government as help 
 less and powerless ; and the same view of their weak 
 ness was taken by the prominent English writers. 
 One of them says : 
 
 Let us suppose the Continental Colonies to be as happy in 
 the necessary agriculture as they really are, but to be abso 
 lutely without manufactures, could they throw off their alle 
 giance to Britain, be their numbers what they would ? No, 
 certainly ; for that is nothing more than supposing that they 
 could throw off their allegiance to hoes and spades, and coats 
 and shoes, which is absurd to imagine. Can any one imagine 
 that a rebellion can be carried on among a people when the 
 greatest success must be attended with the loss of half the 
 necessaries of life. 
 
 Such opinions were entertained by intelligent men 
 in England as to the total inability of the Colonies to 
 make a military resistance ; while the masses there 
 (never remarkable for intelligence) looked upon the 
 Americans as claiming privileges to which they were 
 not entitled, and which none but Englishmen had a 
 right to claim. Thus the measures of the British Go 
 vernment in relation to the Americans had the support 
 of public opinion such as it was at the beginning, 
 at least. 
 
 Notwithstanding the supposed weakness on the side 
 of the Colonies, and the apparently overwhelming 
 strength on the part of the Crown, the Congress deter 
 mined to resist with arms the encroachments on the 
 rights of the Americans. Through the private mis- 
 
[ 28 ] 
 
 sion of Silas Deane, they hoped to obtain from the 
 friendly aid of France supplies of clothing and of 
 arms : they did not seek the assistance of hired mer 
 cenaries. 
 
 XL 
 
 " Besides the other causes of alienation from Eng- 
 " land at this juncture, there was one less obvious, but 
 " not less real. 
 
 " It has been a saying of the Marquis de Mont calm 
 " that our conquests along the St. Lawrence would 
 " hereafter lead to the severance of our American 
 " Colonies from the parent State, and that France 
 " would thus obtain a compensation for her loss." 
 (Page 95.) 
 
 Lord Mahon, though he gives this " saying" of Mont- 
 calm, or " prediction," as he also calls it, without hesita 
 tion, and without an intimation of the slightest doubt of 
 the entire truth of the story, takes care not to vouch for 
 its truth. Notwithstanding the great importance he 
 attaches to this " saying," he is particularly emphatic 
 in disavowing any responsibility or participation in any 
 responsibility for it. In a note he washes his hands clean 
 of it. For his authority he refers the reader to a " most 
 " able speech on Colonial Government, delivered by 
 " Lord John Kussell in the House of Commons, Feb- 
 " ruary 8, 1850;" which speech the reader may find 
 or not find, according to his facilities for making such 
 a reference. Few persons in America have seen the 
 speech of Lord John Russell cited by Lord Mahon, 
 but many are aware of the existence of the spurious 
 letters published as Montcalm s, eighteen years after 
 his death, by John Aim on, London, 1777. Upon ex 
 amining these letters, Lord Mahon will find that they 
 
[ 29 ] 
 
 do not establish as a fact the assumed " saying" of 
 Mont calm. The extreme modesty with which he ac 
 knowledges his lack of information in regard to these 
 letters, appears too much like an affectation of igno 
 rance to gain for it universal credence. He says : 
 " On the prediction of the Marquis de Montcalm, 
 " and on this whole branch of the subject, I would 
 " refer the reader to that most able speech," c. " It 
 " is only through this speech that the words of Mont- 
 " calm, are known to me ; " that is to say, he had no 
 knowledge of the " saying," or " the prediction," or 
 " the words of Montcalm," save what he found in Lord 
 John Russell s speech. Such an admission by Lord 
 Mahon, he ought to know, would detract more from 
 his pretensions for careful research than he can well 
 spare. The existence of the " Letters of Montcalm" 
 was well known, and they were within the reach of 
 Lord Mahon. Why he did not go to these instead of the 
 second-hand allusion to them in the speech, he informs 
 his reader, was, because he knew nothing about them 
 himself, but relied altogether on Lord John Russell. 
 If it had occurred to him to inquire of Lord John 
 Russell where and how he obtained such an important 
 historical fact, he would surely have been relieved 
 from his embarrassment. The following is an extract 
 from one of these letters, about which he so earnestly 
 avers he knew nothing. It is dated " Camp before 
 " Quebec, August 24, 1759 :" 
 
 All the English Colonies would long since have shaken 
 off the yoke, each Province would have formed itself into a 
 little independent republic, if the fear of seeing the French 
 at their door had not been a check upon them. Master for 
 master, they would have preferred their own countrymen to 
 strangers, observing, however, this maxim, to obey as little 
 as possible: but when Canada shall be conquered, and the 
 
[ 30 ] 
 
 Canadians and these Colonies become one people, on the first 
 occasion, when England shall seem to strike at their interest, 
 do you believe, my dear cousin, that these Colonies will obey ? 
 And what would they have to fear from a revolt ? Could Eng 
 land send an army of a hundred thousand men to oppose them 
 at such a distance ? &c. &c. 
 
 In 1759, and for any period of time before included 
 within any space embraced by " long since," the 
 Crown of England had no subjects more loyal than 
 were found in the American Colonies. Even in 1774 
 they asked only to be put in possession of the rights 
 and privileges they enjoyed in 1763. In 1759, the 
 idea that long since " each Province would have formed 
 " itself into a little independent Republic " had entered 
 the mind of no man living. 
 
 Besides, August 24, 1759, was but a few days before 
 the death of Montcalm. Quebec was menaced by an 
 English fleet and army, which was then in its front 
 and on botb its flanks. According to the journal of 
 one who was present on the 20th of August 
 
 The Louisburg grenadiers began their march down the 
 main land of Quebec, in order to burn and destroy all the 
 houses on that side. On the 24th they were attacked by a 
 party of French, who had a priest for their commander ; but 
 our party killed and scalped thirty-one of them, and likewise 
 the priest, their commander. They did our people no damage. 
 The three companies of Louisburg grenadiers halted about a 
 mile down the river, at a church called the Guardian Angel, 
 where we were ordered to fortify ourselves till further orders. 
 We had several small parties in houses, and the remainder 
 continued in the church. The 25th began to destroy the 
 country, burning houses, cutting down the corn, and the 
 like, &c. &c. 
 
 Under the circumstances detailed in the journal 
 from which the foregoing is copied, it is not to be 
 
[ 31 ] 
 
 supposed that Montcalm had leisure, even if he had 
 the inclination, to write long letters speculating mi 
 nutely on matters of future provincial policy on the 
 part of England or of France. His whole time and 
 his whole energies were required and were devoted to 
 the defence of Quebec. He lost both his life and 
 Quebec on the 13th of September, 1759. 
 
 XII. 
 
 " Under the influence of the various motives and 
 " causes which I have endeavoured to explain, but 
 " above all, no doubt, from the feeling of petitions 
 " slighted, and wrongs unredressed, the Congress took 
 " up the question of independence in good earnest." 
 (P. 95.) 
 
 " Petitions slighted and wrongs unredressed," so 
 lightly and carelessly thrown in here as " above all," 
 were by no means the causes that induced the Congress 
 to take up the question in June, 1776. It was then 
 too late to do otherwise. Congress had decided on 
 the question on the 15th of May, after which America 
 did not seek and could not accept any redress short 
 of independence. Lord Mahon could not discover any 
 " causes" in the oppressions that drew from the Colo 
 nies the petitions for redress of grievances ; none 
 in a continued system of oppressions ; none in the 
 efforts of the King to make his American subjects feel 
 that they were held by him to be inferior to his Eng 
 lish subjects, and as such not entitled to equal rights 
 and privileges with them. Lord Mahon could only 
 see and feel and sympathize with the oppressor. His 
 utmost admission to "the opposite cause" was, that 
 their petitions were " slighted." Their petitions were 
 rejected thrown aside with rudeness and contempt. 
 
[ 32 ] 
 
 Wrongs were multiplied and aggravated. The kindest 
 word from the King was a threat, the mildest argu 
 ment the sword. Fleets and armies, including his 
 foreign mercenaries, were his ministers of peace. The 
 only terms of conciliation offered were unconditional 
 submission, or the torch, the bayonet, and the cord. 
 The Colonies preferred war, with all its consequences, 
 unprepared for it as they were, to such a submission. 
 Declared to be out of its protection by the Crown, and 
 war made upon them by sea and by land, they were 
 driven to the last resort a resort not of their own 
 seeking, but forced upon them : they were compelled 
 by the King and Parliament of Great Britain, in self- 
 defence and for self-preservation, to declare themselves 
 independent of the English Crown. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 " Early in June a distinct proposal to that effect 
 " was moved by Mr. Richard Henry Lee and seconded 
 " by Mr. John Adams." (P. 95.) 
 
 By reaching this " distinct proposal at a single 
 jump, Lord Mahon leaps over all the previous pro 
 ceedings that indicated step by step the result to which 
 they inevitably tended, and which, as he says, " may 
 " be clearly traced through the first six months of 
 " 1776;" that is, to the " distinct proposal," as he 
 calls the resolutions of independence : for, after the 
 declaration of the Congress of December 6, 1775, every 
 measure of self-defence in America to protect them 
 selves against the measures adopted in England to co 
 erce the Colonies to submission was one step onward. 
 They were afforded no opportunity to take a single 
 backward step. 
 
 But, besides such acts of the Congress as were cer- 
 
[ 33 ] 
 
 tain indications of the inevitable result to which the 
 oppressive acts of England, if persevered in, would 
 lead, there were proofs that in the Colonies in " se- 
 " veral " of them at least that result had already 
 been attained. Of all knowledge of these transactions, 
 so indispensable to an understanding of the question 
 at issue between the two countries when the " distinct 
 " proposal " was made, Lord Mahon has deprived his 
 readers. 
 
 On the 14th of May the credentials of the delegates 
 from Rhode Island of the 4th of May were laid before 
 Congress and entered on the Journal. Though the 
 Assembly did not use the word " independence," yet 
 it distinctly authorized the delegates to join with the 
 others in a vote for independence. The resolution of 
 Congress, of the 10th of May, with the preamble, 
 adopted on the 15th, was in fact and in effect a reso 
 lution of independence in all but in name. The in 
 structions of North Carolina of the 12th of April, and 
 of Virginia of the 15th of May, expressly authorizing 
 their delegates to vote for independence, were sub 
 mitted to Congress on the 27th of May. This was 
 followed by the " resolutions respecting independence," 
 presented on the 7th of June, the " distinct proposal :" 
 
 Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right, 
 ought to be, free and independent States ; that they are ab 
 solved from all allegiance to the British Crown ; and that all 
 political connexion between them and the State of Great Bri 
 tain is and ought to be totally dissolved. 
 
 That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual 
 measures for forming foreign alliances. 
 
 That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to 
 the respective Colonies for their consideration and approval. 
 
 These were all parts of the same great measure, 
 
 c 
 
[ 34 ] 
 
 (independence,) and all were to stand or fall together. 
 They were considered on the 8th and on the 10th of 
 June. On the latter day the further consideration of 
 the first resolution was postponed to the 1st of July. 
 The order for the postponement directed the appoint 
 ment of a committee to prepare a declaration : 
 
 Resolved, That the consideration of the first resolution be 
 postponed to Monday, the first day of July next ; and, in the 
 meanwhile, that no time may be lost, in case Congress agree 
 thereto, that a committee be appointed to prepare a declaration 
 to the effect of the said first resolution, which is in the follow 
 ing words : That these United Colonies are, and of right 
 ought to be, free and independent States ; that they are ab 
 solved from all allegiance to the British Crown ; and that all 
 political connexion between them and the State of Great 
 Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved. 
 
 The consideration of the resolution was not again 
 entertained by the Congress until the 1st of July. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 " The latter (John Adams) the most conspicuous 
 " among its defenders in debate. On the other side 
 " the principal speaker was Mr. Dickinson. He ob- 
 " served that since the member for Massachusetts had 
 " thought fit to commence by invoking a heathen 
 " God, the God of Eloquence, he, for his own part, 
 " should more solemnly implore the true God, the 
 " God of the Universe, that if the proposed measure 
 " was for the benefit of America, nothing which he 
 " should say against it might make the least impres- 
 " sion." (P. 95.) 
 
 According to Lord Mahon, this was early in June, 
 and before the appointment of the Committee to pre 
 pare the draught of a Declaration of Independence. 
 Mr. Adams is made to speak first, and was answered 
 
[ 35 ] 
 
 by Mr. Dickinson, who in the opening of his speech 
 referred to Mr. Adams as having commenced his by 
 " invoking a heathen God, the God of Eloquence." 
 
 Mr. Adams, in his autobiography, does not deter 
 mine with certainty the day that this debate, " the 
 " greatest and most solemn debate, was had on the 
 " question of independence," but refers to it under the 
 date of July 1. On the 10th of June the further con 
 sideration of the question was postponed to that day. 
 By this postponement those on both sides disposed to 
 take the lead, or to take part in the debate on the 1st 
 of July, had full time to prepare for it. 
 
 Mr. Adams, who did not expect much discussion, 
 but that without it the question would be put and 
 decided, had prepared no notes or references. But, 
 he says, " Mr. Dickinson, however, determined to bear 
 " his testimony against it with more formality. He 
 " had prepared himself apparently with great labour 
 " and ardent zeal, and in a speech of great length, 
 " and with all his eloquence, he combined together 
 " all that had before been written in pamphlets and 
 " newspapers, and all that had before, from time to 
 " time, been said in Congress by himself and others." 
 
 After Mr. Dickinson had concluded, no one else 
 offering to take the floor, Mr. Adams says, " I deter- 
 " mined to speak. It has been said by some historians 
 " that I began by an invocation to the God of Elo- 
 " quence. This is a misrepresentation. Nothing so 
 " puerile fell from me/ 
 
 The facts then appear to be, that Mr. Adams did 
 not speak first, but that Mr. Dickinson opened the 
 debate, and the speech of Mr. Adams was in reply to 
 him ; that Mr. Adams did not begin by " invoking 
 " a heathen God, the God of Eloquence ;" and that 
 
[ 36 ] 
 
 Mr. Dickinson could not have made the remark im 
 puted to him in reference to " the member for Massa- 
 " chusetts." On this point, besides the declaration of 
 Mr. Adams, the fact that Mr. Dickinson spoke first, 
 and not in reply, is conclusive. 
 
 XV. 
 
 " Without expressly adopting the resolution thus 
 " before them, the Congress appointed a committee to 
 " prepare a declaration in the form desired. This 
 " committee was to consist of five members, including 
 " John Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin." (P. 96.) 
 
 On the llth of June a committee for preparing the 
 Declaration, consisting of Mr. Jefferson, Mr. J. Adams, 
 Mr. Franklin, Mr. Sherman, and Mr. R. R. Living 
 ston, was appointed. This committee was appointed 
 at that early day to prepare a declaration " to the 
 " effect of the resolution, for the reason given, "that 
 " no time might be lost in case the Congress agree 
 " thereto ;" that is, to the resolution of independence. 
 Nothing was said about " the form desired." This 
 is one of Lord Mahon s improvements. It was to 
 substance and not to " form" the attention of the 
 committee was directed. What was required of the 
 committee was a draught of a declaration which " a 
 
 o 
 
 " decent respect for the opinions of mankind" would 
 require of the Congress for adopting the resolution of 
 independence. Lord Mahon s " in the form desired" 
 is his own amendment of the Journal of Congress 
 an alteration entirely unnecessary if he meant it for a 
 change of words only ; for it was just as easy to give 
 the words of the record as to substitute others of his 
 own. 
 
 But, as he is careful to show a want of sincerity and 
 
[ 37 ] 
 
 of honesty of purpose in the popular " leaders" of the 
 " opposite cause," he probably selected his substituted 
 words as best conveying the idea he wished to impress 
 on the mind of his readers of insincerity or trickery on 
 the part of Congress to prepare them to overlook the 
 imputation he afterwards insinuates, that the unani 
 mous Declaration of Independence was procured by 
 evasion or deception, when he says, " by such means a 
 " seeming concord an unanimity on paper was at- 
 " tained." 
 
 XVI. 
 
 " Jefferson, though the youngest of all, was destined 
 " to hold the pen. In his own memoirs may be seen 
 " the draught as he had just penned it, with some 
 " slight amendments by Franklin and Adams, and as 
 " it was then reported to the House" (P. 96.) 
 
 When was it reported to the House ? The only 
 dates given by Lord Mahon, after " early in June," 
 are " at the beginning of July," and " the 4th of July ;" 
 and he makes no allusion to the Resolution after " early 
 " in June." When the Declaration was reported to 
 the House by the Committee, and when the Resolution 
 was considered and adopted, and when the Declaration 
 was taken up for consideration in Congress, the reader, 
 if he does not know and desires to know, must seek 
 elsewhere than in Lord Mahon s history for informa 
 tion, the author having omitted all the dates, except 
 " early in June" and " at the beginning of July." 
 The correct dates are here supplied. 
 
 It has been seen that the further consideration of the 
 Resolution of the 7th of June was on the 10th post 
 poned to Monday, the 1st of July, and that on the 
 llth of June the Committee on the Declaration was 
 
[ 38 ] 
 
 appointed. This committee reported a draught on the 
 28th of June, which was read and laid on the tahle ; 
 and on the 1 st of July was referred to the Committee 
 of the Whole on the Resolution of Independence of the 
 7th of June, which, agreeably to the order of the 10th 
 of that month, was considered in Committee of the 
 Whole, and reported to the House on the 1st of July. 
 The Resolution was adopted the next day, July 2. 
 Afterwards, on the same day, the Declaration was for 
 the first time taken up : it was further considered on 
 the 3rd, and adopted on the 4th July. 
 
 In Lord Mahon s search for facts for his " history," 
 it is a matter of great surprise that he did not make the 
 discovery that the Resolution of Independence, and the 
 Declaration of Independence, were separate and dis 
 tinct measures before Congress, proposed at different 
 times, considered at different times, and decided at dif 
 ferent times ; that the Resolution was the great question 
 of American Independence the Declaration was the 
 announcement of American Independence to the world. 
 All this is very plainly stated on the Journals of Con 
 gress ; but, plain as it is, the strikingly ingenious ob 
 scurity of his narrative, in which he lost sight of the 
 Resolution after his first mention of it, leaves his reader 
 in total darkness as to what became of it afterwards. 
 
 XVII. 
 
 " Several alterations of importance were subse- 
 " quently made by the Congress at large. They 
 " deemed it wiser to omit the passages which conveyed 
 " a censure on the British people, and to aim their com- 
 " plaints as directly as possible against the King. 
 " Thus, as they imagined, they should in a great 
 " measure keep clear of offence to their friends in 
 " England." (P. 96.) 
 
[ 39 ] 
 
 This is asserted by Lord Mahon with as little hesi 
 tation and as much positiveness as if he had been seated 
 by the side of Charles Thomson, listening to and taking 
 notes of what was said by the several members of the 
 Congress in the debate on the Declaration of Inde 
 pendence. But he was not there ; and as it is nowhere 
 found upon record that " they deemed it wiser," or 
 that " they imagined," by aiming their complaints 
 against the King, they would " keep clear of offence to 
 " their friends in England," the motives he attributes 
 to the Congress are entirely of his own invention. 
 
 Mr. Jefferson gives a different reason for striking 
 out the passages. He says : 
 
 The pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England 
 worth keeping terms with, still haunted the minds of many. 
 For this reason the passages which conveyed censure on the 
 people of England were struck out. 
 
 Here is nothing about the King, nor of aiming 
 " their complaints as directly as possible against the 
 " King," for the purpose, " as they imagined," of 
 hoodwinking (for that is insinuated by Lord Mahon) 
 their friends in England, and so " in a great measure" 
 keep clear of giving them offence. 
 
 The probability is that the passages were omitted 
 as unnecessary. The paragraph as amended, and as 
 it now stands, says all the occasion demanded, without 
 the details and the argument in the report of the com 
 mittee. The fear of giving offence to their friends in 
 England could not have had much influence in the 
 Congress at that time. 
 
 At an earlier day, when a declaration justifying the 
 capture of British property on the sea was under con 
 sideration, " their friends in England" were remem 
 bered, and a desire to avoid giving them offence was 
 
[ 40 ] 
 
 felt and expressed. This declaration was adopted by 
 Congress on the 23rd of March, 1776 : 
 
 Whereas the petitions of the United Colonies to the King 
 for the redress of great and manifest grievances, have not 
 only been rejected, but treated with scorn and contempt, and 
 the opposition to designs evidently formed to reduce them to 
 a state of servile subjection, and their necessary defence against 
 the hostile forces actually employed to subdue them, declared 
 rebellion : 
 
 And whereas an unjust war has been commenced against 
 them, which the commanders of the British fleet and armies 
 have prosecuted, and still continue to prosecute, with their 
 utmost vigour, and in a cruel manner, wasting, spoiling, and 
 destroying the country, burning houses and defenceless towns, 
 and exposing the helpless inhabitants to every misery from 
 the inclemency of the winter, and not only urging savages to 
 invade the country, but instigating negroes to murder their 
 masters : 
 
 And whereas the Parliament of Great Britain hath lately 
 passed an Act, affirming these Colonies to be in open rebel 
 lion, forbidding all trade and commerce with the inhabitants 
 thereof, until they shall accept pardons and submit to despotic 
 rule, declaring their property, wherever found upon the water, 
 liable to seizure and confiscation, and enacting that what had 
 been done there by virtue of the royal authority were just 
 and lawful acts, and shall be so deemed, from all which it is 
 manifest that the iniquitous scheme concerted to deprive them 
 of the liberty they have a right to by the laws of nature, and 
 the English Constitution will be pertinaciously pursued : 
 
 It being, therefore, necessary to provide for their defence 
 and security, and justifiable to make reprisals upon their ene 
 mies, and otherwise to annoy them, according to the laws and 
 usages of nations, the Congress, trusting that such of their 
 friends in Great Britain (of whom it is confessed there are 
 many entitled to applause and gratitude for their patriotism 
 and benevolence, and in whose favour a discrimination of 
 property cannot be made) as shall suffer by captures will 
 impute it to the authors of our common calamities, do declare 
 and resolve as followeth, to wit : 
 
[ 41 ] 
 
 Resolved, That the inhabitants of these Colonies be permitted 
 to fit out armed vessels to cruise on the enemies of the United 
 Colonies. 
 
 If Lord Mahon had read this declaration he would 
 have discovered that he was entirely mistaken in what 
 he supposed the Congress "imagined;" he would 
 have seen that their " complaints" were as " directly" 
 against the Parliament as against the King ; and that 
 these complaints are accompanied with their regret, 
 that in authorizing reprisals, a discrimination of pro 
 perty could not be made in favour of their friends in 
 England. The passages that " conveyed a censure on 
 " the British people" could not have been more offen 
 sive to their English friends than the capture of their 
 property on the sea. 
 
 But has Lord Mahon ever read the Declaration of 
 Independence ? If so, how could it have escaped his 
 observation that " the passages which conveyed a cen- 
 " sure on the British people" were not all omitted? 
 For the Declaration, as adopted, says : " We have 
 " appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, 
 " and we have conjured them, by the ties of our com- 
 " mon kindred, to disavow these usurpations, which 
 " would inevitably interrupt our connexions and cor- 
 " respondence. They, too, (our British brethren,) 
 " have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consan- 
 " guinity." Thus their complaints (Lord Mahon calls 
 the enumeration of wrongs in the Declaration of In 
 dependence " complaints") were not only directly 
 against the King, but directly against the Parliament, 
 and directly against the British people. 
 
 In the statement of their wrongs the Congress made 
 no distinction. They could make no distinction in 
 favour of the people of England, who sustained the 
 
[ 42 ] 
 
 Parliament and the King. They did not " deem it 
 " wiser," nor did they foolishly " imagine" they could 
 deceive their friends in England by an unworthy arti 
 fice, such as Lord Mahon suggests. 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 " On other grounds of policy they also determined 
 " to strike out the clause inserted by Jefferson, re- 
 " probating in strong terms the African slave trade." 
 (P. 96.) 
 
 Without inquiring as to " other grounds of policy," 
 a sufficient reason for striking out a clause reprobating 
 in strong terms the African slave trade is found in the 
 fact that this trade had already been prohibited. The 
 slave trade was abolished by Congress in April of that 
 year, so that retaining the clause or striking it out had 
 no effect whatever as to the prohibition or continuance 
 of that trade. Lord Mahon had the Journals of Con 
 gress before him, and he could have found the follow 
 ing recorded on the 6th of April, 1776 : 
 
 Resolved, That no slaves be imported into any of the Thir 
 teen United Colonies. 
 
 This resolution for the abolishing the slave trade in 
 America, which there is reason to believe received the 
 unanimous assent of the Congress, Lord Mahon passes 
 by without notice. He does not even give the fact, 
 and intimates by his " other grounds of policy " that 
 they " determined to strike out the clause " because 
 they were determined to continue the slave trade. 
 He may have some ready-framed excuse to offer for 
 his disingenuousness ; he cannot atone for it. 
 
 Lord Mahon had, however, " other grounds of po- 
 " licy " of his own for withholding all allusion to this 
 resolution of the Congress for abolishing the slave 
 
[ 43 ] 
 
 trade. To mention it at all would oblige him, as an 
 " impartial historian," to class it with the other acts of 
 rebellion against the laws of the King and Parliament 
 of England, " who had never sought to prohibit the 
 " importation of slaves, but on the contrary, desired to 
 " continue it." 
 
 XIX. 
 
 " That clause it was found would displease the 
 " Southern Colonies, who had never sought to prohibit 
 " the importation of slaves, but, on the contrary, de- 
 " sired to continue it." (P. 96.) 
 
 It would be supposed that, in making this unqualified 
 assertion that " the Southern Colonies had never sought 
 " to prohibit the importation of slaves, but, on the 
 " contrary, desired to continue it," Lord Mahon was 
 prepared with record evidence at hand to sustain what 
 he asserts. Yet it is believed that he has no such evi 
 dence, and that, on the contrary, the evidence is, that 
 the Southern Colonies, jointly with all the others, and 
 separately each for itself, did agree to prohibit the 
 importation of slaves, voluntarily and in good faith. 
 
 The Continental ASSOCIATION, adopted and signed 
 by all the members of the Congress on the 20th of 
 October, 1774, for carrying into effect the non-import 
 ation, non-consumption, and non- exportation Resolve 
 of the 27th of September, provided for the discontinu 
 ance of the slave trade. 
 
 The second article of the Association is in these 
 words : 
 
 2nd. That we will neither import nor purchase any slave 
 imported after the first day of December next ; after which 
 we will wholly discontinue the slave trade, and will neither 
 be concerned in it ourselves nor will we hire our vessels nor 
 sell our commodities or manufactures to those who are con 
 cerned in it. 
 
[ 44 ] 
 
 This was signed by all the Delegates of the twelve 
 Colonies represented in it. The members from the 
 Southern Colonies who signed it were : Caesar Rodney, 
 Thomas McKean, and George Read, of Delaware ; 
 Matthew Tilghman, Thomas Johnson, William Paca, 
 and Samuel Chase, of Maryland ; Richard Henry 
 Lee, George Washington, Patrick Henry, jun., Richard 
 Bland, Benjamin Harrison, and Edmund Pendleton, 
 of Virginia ; William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, and 
 Richard Caswell, of North Carolina ; and Henry 
 Middleton, Thomas Lynch, Christopher Gadsden, John 
 Rutledge, and Edward Rutledge, of South Carolina. 
 
 As Georgia was not represented in the Congress of 
 1774, the Association could have no signatures from 
 that Colony. But the people of Georgia, as soon as 
 they could speak by their Representatives, expressed 
 themselves as distinctly on this point as any of their 
 brethren of the Southern Colonies. The following are 
 among the Resolutions adopted by the Provincial 
 Congress of Georgia, on Thursday, July 6, 1775 : 
 
 1. Resolved, That this Congress will adopt and carry into 
 execution all and singular the measures and recommendations 
 of the late Continental Congress. 
 
 4. Resolved, That we will neither import or purchase any 
 slave imported from Africa or elsewhere after this day. 
 
 The Continental Association was also adopted by the 
 Maryland Convention on the 8th of December, 1774 ; 
 by the South Carolina Provincial Congress on the 
 1 1 th January, 1775 ; by the Virginia Convention on the 
 22nd of March, 1775 ; and by the North Carolina Pro 
 vincial Congress on the 23rd of August, 1775. The 
 Assembly of Delaware, on the 25th of March, 1775, 
 passed a bill to prohibit the importation of slaves into 
 that Government ; but this was returned by the Go- 
 
vernor, John Penn, who refused to give it his as 
 sent. 
 
 Thus, the Southern Colonies, as far as was possible, 
 besides giving their assent to the Association of the 
 Congress by the signatures of their delegates to that 
 compact, each, in their several Congresses and Con 
 ventions, separately expressed their approval of it, and 
 their determination to support it. 
 
 The enforcement of the Continental Association was 
 entrusted to committees duly authorized in the several 
 Colonies. It may be well to refer to the action of one 
 of these committees in the case of a violation of the 
 second article, by Mr. John Brown, a merchant of 
 Norfolk, in Virginia. 
 
 TO THE FREEMEN OF VIRGINIA I 
 
 Committee Chamber, Norfolk, March 6, 1775. 
 Trusting to your sure resentment against the enemies of 
 your country, we, the committee, elected by ballot for the 
 Borough of Norfolk, hold up for your just indignation Mr. 
 John Brown, merchant of this place. 
 
 On Thursday, the 2nd of March, this committee were in 
 formed of the arrival of the brig Fanny, Capt. Watson, with 
 a number of slaves for Mr. Brown ; and, upon inquiry, it 
 appeared they were shipped from Jamaica as his property, and 
 on his account ; that he had taken great pains to conceal their 
 arrival from the knowledge of the committee ; and that the 
 shipper of the slaves, Mr. Brown s correspondent, and the 
 captain of the vessel, were all fully apprised of the Conti 
 nental prohibition against that article. 
 
 From the whole of this transaction, therefore, we, the com 
 mittee for Norfolk Borough, do give it as our unanimous 
 opinion that the said John Brown has wilfully and perversely 
 violated the Continental Association, to which he had with 
 his own hand subscribed obedience; and that agreeable to the 
 eleventh article, we are bound forthwith to publish the truth 
 of the case, to the end that all such foes to the rights of 
 
[ 46 ] 
 
 British America may be publicly known and universally con 
 temned as the enemies of American liberty, and that every 
 person may henceforth break oif all dealings with him. 
 
 This decision of the Norfolk Committee on the im 
 portation of the slaves by Mr. Brown, in violation of 
 the Continental Association, told the whole story as to 
 who were and who were not in favour of continuing it. 
 The importers of the negroes were the supporters of 
 the Crown ; the importation was opposed by the friends 
 of the Colonies. 
 
 But, in connexion with this subject, LordDunmore s 
 proclamation must not be lost sight of. It is dated on 
 board the ship William, off Norfolk, November 7, 1775. 
 The following is an extract from that able State paper : 
 
 And to the end that peace and good order may the sooner 
 be restored, I do require every person capable of bearing 
 arms to resort to his Majesty s standard, or to be looked upon as 
 traitors to his Majesty s Crown and Government, and thereby 
 become liable to the penalty the law inflicts upon such offences 
 such as forfeiture of life, confiscation of lands, &c. And I 
 do hereby further declare all indented servants, negroes, or 
 others (appertaining to rebels) free that are willing and able to 
 bear arms, they joining his Majesty s troops as soon as may be, 
 for the more speedily reducing this Colony to a proper sense 
 of their duty to his Majesty s Crown and dignity. 
 
 Lord Dunmore here speaks in plain English, and 
 what he uttered was probably good English law. He 
 adopted, at least, the tone and the language used by the 
 King, the Ministry, and the Royal Governors, in their 
 kind and earnest efforts to conciliate the Colonies, and 
 to restore the respect and affection they had once en 
 tertained for his Majesty s person, his Crown, and 
 Government. Lord Dunmore s object, no doubt, was 
 to expedite this return of good feeling, by his declaring 
 " all indented servants, negroes, or others, (appertain- 
 
[ 47 ] 
 
 " ing to rebels,) free" that would join his Majesty s 
 troops for the more speedily reducing the rebels to a 
 proper sense of their duty. But his Lordship did not 
 consider it consistent with his duty to the King nor to 
 humanity to declare any free that appertained to the 
 royalists. No ; the owners of these remained in peace 
 able possession of their indented servants and slaves, 
 and were permitted to import as many negroes as they 
 pleased, under the protection of the British flag. Like 
 Mr. Brown, they had nothing to fear but the vigilance 
 of the committees in enforcing the Association. 
 
 On the 23rd of November, 1775, a reply to this 
 proclamation of Lord Dunmore, of which the following 
 is an extract, was published at Williamsburgh, Vir 
 ginia, in which the policy of England, in regard to 
 the slave trade and the Colonies is stated in brief and 
 strong terms : 
 
 Our Assemblies have repeatedly passed Acts laying heavy 
 duties upon imported negroes, by which they meant altogether 
 to prevent the horrid traffic; but their humane intentions 
 have been as often frustrated by the cruelty and covetousness 
 of a set of English merchants,, who prevailed upon the King 
 to repeal our kind and merciful acts, little, indeed, to the 
 credit of his humanity. 
 
 After this necessarily brief exhibition of unques 
 tionable testimony, if it were not uncourteous to Lord 
 Mahon, it might be said that his assertion that the 
 Southern Colonies " had never sought to prohibit the 
 " importation of slaves, but, on the contrary, desired 
 " to continue it," is " rash, reckless, and groundless." 
 
 XX. 
 
 " But the changes in the draught of the Declaration, 
 " though galling to the pride of its authors, were, in 
 " truth, mere matters of detail." (P. 98.) 
 
[ 48 ] 
 
 " Such numerous mutilations of the draught were 
 " by no means welcome to those who had framed it. 
 " Franklin, who was sitting next to Jefferson, turned 
 " round to him, and said : I have made it a rule, 
 " whenever in my power, to avoid becoming the 
 " draughtsman of papers to be reviewed by a public 
 " body, " &c. (P. 97.) 
 
 It seems, then, that the changes " were in truth 
 " mere matters of detail," " though galling to the pride 
 " of its authors." Yet " such numerous mutilations," 
 though they were, in truth, but mere matters of detail, 
 " were by no means welcome to those who framed it." 
 That is to say, a strong feeling of dissatisfaction was 
 manifested by the authors of the draught of the Decla 
 ration ; and that the changes made in it by the Con 
 gress were " galling to their pride." 
 
 This is what Lord Mahon represents with great 
 seeming honesty, as if what he said he believed to be 
 the truth. He, perhaps, in his desire to find dissen 
 sions and a want of cordiality among the members of 
 the Congress, did not know how far this desire blinded 
 the eyes of his understanding. As his authority, he 
 refers to the " Life of Franklin, by Mr. Sparks, p. 
 407." Let us turn to the page pointed out, to see what 
 is there said about " those who had framed it," or 
 " galling to the pride of its authors :" 
 
 Mr. Jefferson relates a characteristic anecdote of Franklin 
 connected with this subject. 
 
 Being annoyed at the alterations made in his draught, 
 while it was under discussion, and at the censures freely be 
 stowed on parts of it, he began to fear it would be dissected 
 and mangled, till a skeleton only would remain. 
 
 I was sitting, he observed, by Dr. Franklin, who perceived 
 that I was not insensible to these mutilations. I have made 
 it a rule, said he, whenever in my power, to avoid becoming 
 the draughtsman of papers for a public body, &c. 
 
[ 49 ] 
 
 And Mr. Jefferson in a letter to Mr. Adams, dated 
 August 30, 1823, thus refers to the same circum 
 stance : 
 
 During the debate I was sitting by Franklin, and he ob 
 served that I was writhing a little under the acrimonious 
 criticisms on some of its parts ; and it was on that occasion, 
 that, by way of comfort, he told me the story of John Thom 
 son, the hatter, and his new sign. 
 
 Here we see that it was Mr. Jefferson, alone, who 
 appeared to be annoyed. " I was sitting by Dr. 
 " Franklin, who perceived that I was not insensible 
 " to these mutilations." Nothing is said of dissatis 
 faction on the part of any one besides Mr. Jefferson ; 
 and whatever he may have said must have been in an 
 under tone, and in the hearing of Dr. Franklin only. 
 
 That Mr. Jefferson did not approve of all the alter 
 ations, may be inferred from a remark in a letter from 
 him to Richard Henry Lee, of the 8th of July, 1776, 
 where he alludes to those that were made : "I send 
 " you a copy of the Declaration of Independence as 
 " agreed to by the House, and also as originally framed. 
 " You will judge whether it is better or worse for the 
 " critics." 
 
 But Lord Mahon was not uninfluenced by a motive 
 in making of so trivial an occurrence a matter of such 
 vast importance, especially as connected with Frank 
 lin s good-natured story about John Thomson. Its 
 very importance, his lordship informs the reader, 
 brings it under the rule he had adopted, " to neglect 
 " no tale or incident, however trifling it may appear, 
 " that may best illustrate the feelings which produced, 
 " or the circumstances which attended any great crisis 
 " in human affairs. * 
 
 The feelings of Mr. Jefferson neither produced nor 
 
 D 
 
[ 50 ] 
 
 were attended with any circumstance that, in the re 
 motest degree, was connected with any " great crisis 
 " in human affairs." The occurrence neither cooled 
 his ardour nor abated his zeal in the common cause. 
 It was without effect altogether. 
 
 The motive of Lord Mahon, however, is apparent. 
 He desired to convey the idea that conflicting opinions 
 and dissensions prevailed in the Congress ; that all 
 was discord there ; that there was only " a seeming 
 " concord ;" that this was a great crisis ; and that the 
 crisis was caused by the dissatisfaction of Mr. Jeffer 
 son. Here is his motive. But it was then too late 
 even for his crisis. The crisis had been passed. The 
 great measure, the resolution of independence, had, 
 before this debate commenced, been adopted by the 
 unanimous vote of twelve Colonies. When that was 
 done, all that involved principle was done. 
 
 XXI. 
 
 " It is the part of an historian (so at least it seems 
 " to me, and on that principle are the foregoing 
 " chapters framed) to neglect no tale or incident, how- 
 " ever trifling it may appear, that may best illustrate 
 " the feelings which produced or the circumstances 
 " which attended any great crisis in human affairs." 
 (Pp. 97-8.) 
 
 This is given as a reason or an apology by Lord 
 Mahon for inserting the whole story of " John Thom- 
 " son," not as an illustration in a note, but as a 
 digression in the text of his history. As the important 
 bearing of this " tale or incident" on a " great crisis 
 " in human affairs" has been disposed of, it is referred 
 to now merely to supply one of the many he has 
 omitted that comes clearly within his rule, and is of 
 
[ 51 ] 
 
 at least equal importance with that which he has copied 
 at length. It is an advertisement, and relates to two 
 prisoners of war, officers of the British navy, who, on 
 their parole of honour, were residing at Northamp 
 ton, Massachusetts. Here is a copy of the advertise 
 ment : 
 
 Northampton, (Mass.} April 29, 1776. 
 The following prisoners, lately officers in the British navy, 
 who had given their paroles of honour not to depart from the 
 bounds of the town of Northampton without leave from the 
 commander-in-chief, did, on the evening of the 27th instant, 
 abscond and run away, viz. Henry Edwin Stanhope, twenty- 
 four years of age, has lightish eyes, hair, and complexion, 
 pitted with the smallpox, has a large nose, and is about five 
 feet six inches in height. Also George Gregory, twenty- 
 four years old, with light coloured short hair, light complexion, 
 and thin favoured, about five feet eight inches high. They 
 took away a young stone horse, almost black, with a white 
 face and hog mane, and an old roan gelding ; both good horses. 
 It is hoped that the greatest vigilance will be exerted to 
 apprehend the said prisoners, who, in return for the indul 
 gence shown them, have basely violated their word of honour. 
 Five dollars and all necessary charges will be paid for appre 
 hending and securing either of them. 
 
 Per order of the Committee of Northampton. 
 
 EGBERT BKECK, Chairman. 
 
 N. B. The printers in this and the neighbouring Colonies 
 are desired to insert the above in the several papers. 
 
 This Mr. Stanhope, who " basely violated his word 
 " of honour, 1 claimed to be " the only son of the heir 
 " to one of the first earldoms in the British realm." 
 Such an example, by a man of his high pretensions to 
 rank and honours, could not be without its effect on 
 those of humbler birth who like him might be prisoners 
 on their parole of honour. It was, in fact, an invita 
 tion to every British officer so situated to break his 
 
[ 52 j 
 
 parole and " abscond and run away," and even take 
 with him a horse, not his own, but the property of a 
 rebel. Many British officers did follow the example 
 set by Mr. Stanhope. 
 
 XXII. 
 
 " But the changes in the draught of the Declaration, 
 " though galling to the pride of its authors, were in 
 " truth mere matters of detail. On its general prin- 
 " ciple on the main point, that is to say, of indepen- 
 " dence a division was taken at the beginning of 
 " July." (P. 98.) 
 
 This " division" was in Committee of the Whole, 
 on the resolution of Independence, on the 1st day of 
 July. It was not a division on the Declaration of 
 Independence, as Lord Mahon has it. The draught 
 of the declaration was reported by the committee on 
 the 28th of June, and laid on the table. It was not 
 considered in Congress until after the adoption of the 
 resolution on the 2nd of July, before which no changes 
 could be made, or even proposed to be made in the 
 draught. There was no division on the Declaration 
 of Independence, which was adopted by a unanimous 
 vote. 
 
 What induced Lord Mahon so to misrepresent the 
 proceedings of the Congress on the great question of 
 American Independence ? He could not hope for suc 
 cess in his attempt so to distort history. He could not 
 expect that, by excluding the resolution of independ 
 ence from his " history," he would thereby blot it out 
 elsewhere and for ever. Perhaps it was too " galling 
 " to his pride " to record it. But, be his motive what 
 it may, he has succeeded in one thing he has pre 
 sented in one page a mass of confusion and error that, 
 
[ 53 ] 
 
 without other lights than he gives, neither his lordship 
 nor the reader of his " history " can understand. 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 " Nine Colonies decided in its favour. Four others 
 " namely, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, New York, 
 " and Delaware either voted against it, or would not 
 " vote at all." (P. 98.) 
 
 This vote, which, as before stated, was in Committee 
 of the Whole on the resolution on the 1st of July, is 
 represented by Lord Mahon as the vote by which the 
 Declaration was adopted on the 4th of July. With the 
 ample materials before him, he was well informed in 
 regard to this. Why, then, does he give the proceed 
 ings on one question as the proceedings on another 
 the vote in Committee of the Whole on the Resolution 
 of Independence as the final vote in the Congress on 
 the Declaration of Independence? It was to enable 
 him to make it appear that, as to the Declaration, only 
 " nine Colonies decided in its favour," and the re 
 maining four " voted against it, or would not vote at 
 " all ; " while, in fact, and he must have been aware 
 of the fact, this vote was not on the Declaration, but 
 on the Resolution ; and besides, being a vote in com 
 mittee, though a test question, it was not even a deci 
 sion on the Resolution. And of the four Colonies that 
 in the committee " either voted against it or would not 
 " vote at all," Mr. Jefferson says, " South Carolina 
 " and Pennsylvania voted against it," and that " De- 
 " law are had but two members present, and they were 
 " divided." The New York delegates laid before the 
 committee a letter from the Provincial Congress of that 
 Colony, dated June 11, from which it appeared that 
 they were not authorized to vote. The truth, then, is. 
 
[ 54 ] 
 
 that of the thirteen Colonies in the Congress in Com 
 mittee of the Whole, nine voted for the resolution, two 
 voted against it, two could not vote, and that none 
 were guilty of the discourtesy or contumely gratuitously 
 charged by Lord Mahon, that they " would not vote 
 " at all? " 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 " But within a few days, or even hours, means were 
 " found to ELUDE or to overcome that obstacle. The 
 " delegates of South Carolina were INDUCED TO DE- 
 " CLARE that, although they continued to think the 
 " measure hurtful, they would vote for it for the sake 
 " of unanimity." (P. 98.) 
 
 The delegates of South Carolina made no such de 
 claration. It appears that in Committee of the Whole, 
 on the 1st of July, they voted against the Resolution 
 of Independence, and that they voted for it when the 
 question on its passage was taken in the Congress, 
 on the 2nd of July. The South Carolina delegates 
 were not, like the delegates of most of the Colonies, 
 instructed to vote for independence. Nor were they, 
 like the New York delegates, prohibited from voting 
 on the question at all ; but their instructions permitted 
 them to do so. They were authorized by their instruc 
 tions of the 23rd of March, 1776, to vote for every 
 measure which they, " together with a majority of the 
 " Continental Congress, shall judge necessary for the 
 " defence, security, interest, and welfare of this Colony 
 " in particular and of America in general." The 
 whole responsibility of the vote was thrown upon the 
 delegates, and it behoved them on such an occasion to 
 act only on the fullest deliberation. 
 
 On the report of the resolution by the committee the 
 entry on the journal is : 
 
[ 55 ] 
 
 The resolution agreed to by the Committee of the Whole 
 being read, the determination thereof was, at the request of 
 a Colony, postponed till to-morrow. 
 
 Mr. Jefferson says : 
 
 The committee rose and reported their resolution to the 
 House. Mr. Edward Kutledge of South Carolina, then re- 
 quested the determination might be put off to the next day, as 
 he believed his colleagues, though they disapproved of the re 
 solution, would then join in it for the sake of unanimity. 
 
 This " request," according to the journal, and ac 
 cording to Mr. Jefferson, Lord Mahon, with his usual 
 facility, changes for something else better adapted to 
 sustain his own views. With him it was not a mere 
 " request" to postpone for a day the vote on the reso 
 lution. As amended by him it becomes a declaration 
 the delegates of South Carolina " were induced" to 
 make of their reasons for voting for the Declaration 
 of Independence. 
 
 Of the influences brought to bear on the South Ca 
 rolina delegation, by whom, " within a few days, or 
 11 even hours, means were found to elude or to over- 
 " come that obstacle," and to " induce them" to vote 
 for it, his Lordship is silent, as well he might be ; it 
 was with him a groundless imputation against their 
 honour and dignity. 
 
 South Carolina was then an independent State to 
 all intents and purposes, with a Governor, and Coun 
 cil, and Assembly, and all other officers, civil and mili 
 tary, chosen by the authority of the people, under a 
 constitution adopted on the 26th of March. The de 
 legates of South Carolina were influenced only by 
 what they believed to be their duty. If they asked 
 for the delay of a day, it was for the purpose of a con 
 sultation among themselves. On such a consultation 
 
[ 56 J 
 
 they were induced by a conviction of its propriety and 
 necessity to vote for the resolution. The delegation 
 from South Carolina consisted of men who could not 
 have been induced by any other consideration to vote 
 for it. The attempted slur on their integrity by his 
 lordship was as undignified as it was unjust and un 
 called for. 
 
 XXV. 
 
 " In the Pennsylvania delegation a minority assumed 
 " unto themselves the part of a majority, and under- 
 " took to give their signatures as such. By such 
 * means a seeming concord a unanimity on paper 
 " was attained." (P. 98.) 
 
 The integrity of the South Carolina delegates was 
 first impugned. The Pennsylvania delegates are next 
 charged with a gross fraud ; namely, that a " minority 
 " assumed unto themselves the part of a majority, and 
 " undertook to give their signatures as such." And, 
 more than all, the Congress at large is implicated as 
 having countenanced, if they did not encourage, the 
 shameful proceedings to procure " a seeming concord - 
 " a unanimity on paper," merely. So the reader of 
 Lord Mahon s history is given to understand. 
 
 The assertion of his lordship that a minority of the 
 Pennsylvania delegation perpetrated the fraud he 
 charged them with, that is, of doing an act in the 
 Congress which could only be done by a majority, can 
 scarcely be treated seriously ; for such an act could 
 not be done without the connivance or collusion of the 
 majority of that delegation, and of the whole Congress. 
 But to what does he suppose the minority did assume 
 to " give their signatures" as a majority ? Up to this 
 time, the 2nd of July, the proceedings he had been 
 
[ 57 ] 
 
 detailing were on the resolution of independence, 
 which was adopted this day by the vote of twelve 
 Colonies. Lord Mahon, however, seems to appear to 
 think that all he had been saying with such careful 
 and skilful erroneousness about the Resolution, related 
 in fact to the Declaration, though he was re-writing 
 and altering what Mr. Jefferson had written on the 
 subject, who refers particularly to the two distinct 
 questions. Mr. Jefferson says : 
 
 The ultimate question whether the house would agree to 
 the resolution of the Committee (of the Whole) was accord 
 ingly postponed to the next day, (July 2, as requested by Mr. 
 Rutledge,) when it was again moved, and South Carolina 
 concurred in voting for it. 
 
 In the mean time another member had come from the Dela 
 ware counties,, and turned the vote of that Colony in favour 
 of the resolution. 
 
 Members of a different sentiment attending that morning from 
 Pennsylvania, also, her vote was changed, so that the whole 
 twelve Colonies, who were authorized to vote at all, gave 
 their voices for it. 
 
 This was the vote on the Resolution of Independence. 
 It is of this vote Lord Mahon says, with a sneer, " by 
 " such means a seeming concord a unanimity on 
 " paper was attained." But it was more than " a 
 " seeming concord," more than " a unanimity on 
 " paper." It was a unanimity that the arts and the 
 power of England could not sever. 
 
 To Mr. Jefferson s the statements of others may be 
 added. On the 2nd of July, the New York delegates 
 wrote to the Convention of that Colony, urging in 
 strong terms the necessity of sending them instructions. 
 They say : " The important question of independence 
 " was agitated yesterday in a Committee of the Whole 
 " Congress, and this day will be determined in the 
 
[ 58 ] 
 
 " House." They have doubts as to what it would be 
 their duty to do on some occasions, without instructions, 
 " should independency be declared, and that it will 
 " not, we have not the least reason to expect ; nor do 
 " we believe that (if any) more than one Colony (and 
 " the delegates of that divided) will vote against the 
 " question." 
 
 At a later hour on the same day, July 2, 1776, 
 Henry Wisner, one of the New York delegates, wrote 
 to the Convention, enclosing the letter from which the 
 preceding extract is made. In this Mr. Wisner says : 
 
 Since writing the enclosed, the question of independence 
 has been put in Congress,, and carried in the affirmative without 
 one dissenting voice. I therefore beg your answer as quick 
 as possible. 
 
 On the 3rd of July, John Adams wrote : 
 
 Yesterday, the greatest question was decided which ever 
 was debated in America, and greater perhaps never was and 
 never will be decided among men. A resolution was passed, 
 without one dissenting Colony, that these United Colonies 
 are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, &c. 
 
 You will see in a few days a declaration setting forth the 
 causes which have impelled us to this mighty revolution, and 
 the reasons will justify it in the eyes of God and man. 
 
 Mr. Adams again writes on the same day : 
 
 But the day is passed. The second day of July, 1776, will 
 be the most memorable epocha in the history of America. I 
 am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding 
 generations as the great Anniversary Festival. It ought to 
 be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of 
 devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with 
 pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bon 
 fires, and illuminations, from one end of the continent to the 
 other, from this time forward for evermore. 
 
 The adoption of this resolution on the 2nd of July, 
 
t 59 ] 
 
 1776, was the termination of all lawful authority of 
 the King over the thirteen United Colonies made by 
 this act of the Congress thirteen United States of 
 America. The Americans now owed no more alle 
 giance to England than they owed to Germany, or 
 France, or Spain ; they were no longer rebels or in 
 surgents ; they claimed their recognition as one among 
 the family of nations of the earth, and they maintained 
 and sustained the claim. It was in the end acknow 
 ledged by the King of England himself. After the 
 2nd of July, 1776, the English armies, with their 
 Hessian allies, were the invaders of America, sent to 
 reduce the independent States to unconditional sub 
 mission to the Crown of England. And yet this day 
 has no place in Lord Mahon s " history," the day on 
 which was consummated the most important measure 
 that had ever been debated in America. 
 
 XXVI. 
 
 " The Declaration of Independence, appearing as 
 " the act of the whole people, was finally adopted and 
 " signed by every member present at the time, except 
 " only Mr. Dickinson. 
 
 " This was on the 4th of July a day which has 
 " ever since been celebrated as a festival day by the 
 " Americans as the birth-day, for thus they deemed 
 " it, of their freedom." (P. 98.) 
 
 The Declaration of Independence was adopted on 
 the 4th of July by the vote of twelve States, the same 
 that two days before had as Colonies passed the act of 
 independence. On the 4th of July the Congress also 
 ordered : 
 
 That the Declaration be authenticated and printed. 
 
[ 60 ] 
 
 That the committee appointed to prepare the Declaration 
 superintend and correct the press. 
 
 That copies of the Declaration be sent to the several assem 
 blies, conventions, and committees or councils of safety, and 
 to the several commanding officers of the Continental troops ; 
 that it be proclaimed in each of the United States, and at the 
 head of the army. 
 
 All this was done. It was also printed and circu 
 lated among the people, in all the cities, towns, and 
 villages, wherever a printing press was found. It was 
 read everywhere in churches, in the courts, at all 
 gatherings of the people, and in every private company 
 and family circle. It was this universal diffusion of 
 the Declaration that made the 4th of July the great 
 festival day of the nation, instead of the 2nd day of 
 July, the real birthday of American freedom. 
 
 But it should be remembered that on the 4th of 
 July it was " a Declaration by the Representatives of 
 " the United States of America in Congress assembled," 
 as it is found on the journal at this day. It had not 
 then the sanction of New York, whose delegates were 
 without authority to vote on the question, and it could 
 not then be called a unanimous Declaration of the 
 thirteen States. When it received the sanction of New 
 York, and not till then, it was " the unanimous Decla- 
 " ration." This was well understood in the Congress, 
 and is mentioned in a letter from Mr. Gerry to General 
 Warren, dated Philadelphia, July 5, 1776, in which 
 he says: 
 
 New York will, most probably, on Monday next, when its 
 Convention meets for forming a Constitution, join in the 
 measure, and then it will be entitled " the unanimous Decla- 
 " ration of the thirteen United States of America," 
 
 New York did join in the measure in a few days. In 
 
[ 61 1 
 
 the meanwhile the " Declaration by the Representa- 
 " tives" was, as ordered by Congress, authenticated. 
 This was the form of the authentication : " Signed by 
 " order and in behalf of the Congress. John Hancock, 
 " President. Attest : Charles Thomson, Secretary." 
 It bore no other signatures. It was not signed by the 
 members. It was signed by John Hancock, by their 
 order and in their behalf. 
 
 On the 9th of July, when the New York Convention 
 met, they unanimously approved the Declaration, and 
 pledged their lives and fortunes to unite with the other 
 Colonies in supporting it. Unanimity was thus and by 
 these means " attained." The New York resolutions 
 were laid before the Continental Congress on the 15th 
 of July. 
 
 On the 19th of July Congress passed the following 
 resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the Declaration passed on the 4th be fairly 
 engrossed on parchment, with the title and style of " The 
 " unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of 
 " America;" and that the same, when engrossed, be signed 
 by every member of the Congress. 
 
 This was the first order for signing the Declaration 
 of Independence. The order on the 4th was, that it be 
 authenticated and printed ; and even now the order was 
 not that it be signed by the members present on the 
 4th of July or on any other day ; it was to be " signed 
 " by every member of the Congress." 
 
 On the 2nd of August the Journal says : " The 
 " Declaration of Independence, being engrossed and 
 " compared at the table, was signed by the members." 
 It was then signed by the members present on that day, 
 including, of course, the new members who had taken 
 their seats since the 4th of July. But such of the old 
 
[ 62 ] 
 
 members as had left the Congress before the 2nd of 
 August, and did not return before the end of the year, 
 could not sign it. 
 
 This will explain why Mr. Dickinson s name is not 
 found among* the signers of the Declaration. He was 
 not in Congress on the 2nd of August, 1776, when it 
 received its first signatures, nor afterwards in that year. 
 But, because his name is not there, it is by no means to 
 be inferred that he was in the slightest degree disaf 
 fected to the cause. John Dickinson, like Robert 
 Morris, opposed independence on the ground that at 
 that time such a measure was premature. On this 
 ground they both opposed the resolution in debate, and 
 voted against it when the question was taken on the 
 2nd of July ; but both, when the decision was made, 
 acquiesced in the measure, and gave it their earnest, 
 firm, and cordial support. Before the middle of July 
 Mr. Dickinson marched with the regiment he com 
 manded to Elizabethtown, in New Jersey, where he re 
 mained until they were discharged in the following 
 September. In the mean time a new delegation was 
 chosen by the Pennsylvania Convention, in which Mr. 
 Morris was retained, but Mr. Dickinson was not re- 
 chosen. On the 2nd of August, therefore, Robert 
 Morris was in the Congress, and signed the Declara 
 tion ; but John Dickinson, who was then not a member, 
 could not sign it. 
 
 There was another member of Congress who was 
 opposed to independence Mr. John Alsop, of New 
 York. But he appears to have been actually opposed 
 to independence, not at that time only, but at any time. 
 
 On the 15th of July, when the resolutions of the 
 New York Convention of the 9th, approving the De 
 claration, were read in Congress, Mr. Alsop was highly 
 
[ G3 ] 
 
 offended. The next day he addressed a letter to the 
 Convention, expressing his dissatisfaction at the course 
 which had been pursued. In this letter he says : 
 
 I am compelled, therefore, to declare that it is against my 
 judgment and inclination. As long as a door was left open 
 for a reconciliation with Great Britain upon honourable and 
 just terms, I was willing and ready to render my country all 
 the service in my power, and for which purpose I was ap 
 pointed and sent to this Congress; but as you have, I pre 
 sume, by that Declaration closed the door of reconciliation, 
 I must beg leave to resign my seat as a delegate from New 
 York, and that I may be favoured with an answer and my 
 dismission. 
 
 On the 22nd of July the Convention 
 
 Resolved unanimously, That the Convention do cheerfully 
 accept of Mr. Alsop s resignation of his seat in the Continental 
 Congress, and that Mr. Alsop be furnished with a copy of this 
 resolution. 
 
 Of course Mr. Alsop, though one of the members 
 present on the 4th of July, did not sign the De 
 claration. 
 
 The Declaration was not " signed by every member 
 " present" on the 4th of July " except only Mr. Dick 
 
 inson/ 
 
 Thomas M Kean, of Delaware, was present in the 
 Congress of the 2nd of July, and voted for the Keso- 
 lution of Independence, yet his name was not sub 
 scribed to the Declaration in 1776. Like John Dick 
 inson, he commanded a regiment, and early in July 
 marched to the Jerseys. When discharged from his 
 military duties he attended the Convention of Dela 
 ware, which met on the 27th of August to form a 
 State Constitution, and was dissolved on the 21st of 
 September, 1776, after which he resumed his seat in 
 
[ 64 ] 
 
 Congress. On the 8th of November, when the Dele 
 gates to Congress from Delaware were chosen by the 
 Assembly of that State, Mr. M Kean was not re- 
 elected ; nor was he again appointed a Delegate until 
 the 17th of December, 1777. 
 
 On the 2nd of July five delegates from New York 
 were present in Congress, namely, George Clinton, 
 Henry Wisner, William Floyd, Francis Lewis, and 
 John Alsop, as appears by a letter of that date to the 
 Provincial Congress, asking for instructions on the 
 question of independence. Neither Philip Livingston 
 nor Lewis Morris were present on that day. Yet 
 their names are found on the Declaration of the 4th, 
 while those of Clinton and Wisner and Alsop are not 
 found there. 
 
 As the New York delegates had no authority to 
 vote on the question of independence on the 4th of 
 July, they were not authorized to sign the Declaration 
 on that day. On the 15th, however, when the new 
 instructions were received, they had full authority to 
 do so ; and on the 2nd of August such of the dele 
 gation as were in the Congress subscribed their names, 
 to wit, William Floyd, Francis Lewis, and Philip 
 Livingston, the latter of whom took his seat in the 
 Congress on the 5th or 6th of July ; having, on his 
 representing to the Provincial Congress, on the 26th 
 of June, that his attendance at the Continental Con 
 gress was necessary, received permission to leave the 
 Convention after the 29th. 
 
 Lewis Morris probably signed in September. On 
 the 26th of August and on the 3rd of December he 
 was in his seat in the New York Convention. In 
 September and October he was in the Continental 
 Congress. 
 
 o 
 
[ 65 ] 
 
 Of those who were present on the 4th of July, and 
 who did not sign the Declaration, it is sufficient to 
 say, that when the New York delegates received 
 authority to sign it, and before the order for the sign 
 ing of it by the members, George Clinton, like John 
 Dickinson, had joined the army, and was in command 
 in the Highlands ; and Henry Wisner and Robert R. 
 Livingston were in their seats in the New York Con 
 vention. John Alsop, as already stated, resigned. 
 
 Samuel Chase and Charles Carroll were neither of 
 them in Congress on the 4th of July ; both were on 
 that day in the Maryland Convention, then in session 
 at Annapolis. They were in Congress by the middle 
 of the month, and signed with the other members on 
 the 2nd of August, as directed by the resolution of the 
 19th of July. 
 
 And it was under this order of the 19th of July, 
 " that the Declaration be signed by every member of 
 " the Congress," that Mr. Thornton subscribed his 
 name as late as November. 
 
 The signing by the members was discontinued at 
 the close of the year 1776. On the 18th of January, 
 1777, the Congress 
 
 Ordered, That an authenticated copy of the Declaration of 
 Independence, with the names of the members of the Congress 
 signing the same, be sent to each of the United States, and 
 that they be desired to have the same put on record. 
 
 In compliance with this order, it was printed, with 
 the names of the subscribing members, and, authenti 
 cated by the autograph signatures of John Hancock, 
 President, and Charles Thomson, Secretary, was sent 
 to the several States for record. One signature only, 
 that of Thomas M Kean, was afterwards added to the 
 Declaration of Independence. 
 
t 66 ] 
 
 So much for Lord Mahon s " History" of the Decla 
 ration of Independence. If he has not " vindicated 
 " the honour " of England, he has endeavoured with a 
 persevering earnestness of purpose, to disparage and 
 throw discredit on the principles and the men of " the 
 " opposite cause." In his efforts to accomplish this 
 (which with him appears to be a lahour of love), his 
 pen was guided not by the honest historian, but by the 
 less scrupulous partisan, with whom the truth of history 
 is at best but a secondary consideration. What excuse 
 can be offered for him ? While a few of his variations 
 from the truth may be attributed to an imperfect 
 knowledge of the American side of the question, there 
 are others for which no such excuse nor any excuse 
 can be admitted. It might be considered great 
 discourtesy to say that some of these variations are 
 wilful, and intentional, and studied ; and yet it is 
 difficult for the ingenuity of courtesy to find for them 
 milder and at the same time strictly appropriate 
 epithets. 
 
 P.F. 
 Washington, January 1, 1855. 
 
 CIIJJsWlCK PRESS : PRINTED BY C. WI1ITTINGI1AM, 
 TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE. 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 220ct 60MW 
 
 JAN 14 1956 5 
 
 n ,^M LO 
 
 
 nr.t 91960 
 
 s^^j!OJLC 
 
 fi*^ nr^ ** ^ ^^ -^ r 
 
 Pfj n i VI ^ ^- 
 
 \^:^- ********* ^ 
 
 
 
 ftfl^fcORT 
 
 
 ^tcrr 
 
 
 OCT 9 5 FihH 
 
 
 ^ w g o t, fCJOU 
 
 
 DEC1- 196530 
 
 
 i-ir" 1 /^ !^ 
 
 
 REC U 
 ... . _. .^.r- rt ny 
 
 
 NU\li7 65-3rW 
 
 
 PM 
 
 (A9562slO)476B 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley 
 
YB 37317 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY