son; who, referring to the use of rifles in the dark, says:-"The musket and bayonet, with buckshot, is preferable; because, in nocturnal affairs, nothing decisive can take place, but at close quarters."-The British returns of loss show, as clearly, that the militia brought up with colonel Scott's division, and who, as already stated, were, for the most part, without arms, did not rally, after their surprise by the enemy, as that those, forming part of the advance, behaved in a distinguished manner. The few Indians present were of no use whatever. According to the official returns at the foot of general Brown's letter, the American loss amounted to, one major, five captains, one adjutant, four subalterns, 10 serjeants, and 150 rank and file, killed; one major-general, one brigadier-general, two aides de camp, one brigademajor, one colonel, one lieutenant-colonel, four majors, seven captains, one adjutant, one paymaster, three quarter-masters, 32 subalterns, 36 serjeants, three musicians, and 478 rank and file, wounded; and one brigade-major, one captain, six subalterns, nine serjeants, and 93 rank and file, missing. † Total, 171 killed: 572 wounded; and 110 missing: grand total 854. The loss, thus admitted by the Americans, was highly creditable to the skill and gallantry of the inferior numbers opposed to them. But Wilkinson's Mem. Vol. I. p. 538. + App. No. 33. A general Brown's loss has certainly been underrated; for 210 dead, besides a great many wounded, Americans were counted upon the field of battle, on the following morning; and, upon the subsequent advance of the British to Chippeway, they found a number of fresh graves, in which the bodies had been so slightly covered, that the arms and legs were, in many instances, exposed to view. As first in order among the American accounts of this action, we will take general Brown's letter. In American official correspondence, this letter forms, in one respect, an anomaly: it no where mentions, that the Americans had. superior numbers to contend with. What are we to infer from this, but that the reverse fact. was too glaring to be questioned? The letter is certainly well written; and the writer, we should suppose, gave the number of his own troops, at least, in this " memorable battle." Perhaps the paragraph, containing that information, was suppressed, by the order of the government. Such things, we know, have been frequently done; and, did the number agree with what a writer from Buffaloe stated general Brown's force, in the Lundy's lane battle, to have amounted to, namely, "about 4000 men," the probability is encreased. The American commander begins his letter, with telling us of the gallant men" he had the good fortune to lead;" and yet freely confesses, that one regiment "faltered," and another “ gave way and retreated." Upon the whole, however, the American troops fought bravely; and the conduct of many of the officers, of the artillery corps especially, would have done honor to any service. Had general Brown's wounds allowed him to remain long enough on the field, he would have found that it was not the last British, but the last American "effort," that had been "repulsed;" and that it was after that last effort, "that the victory was complete." How are we to reconcile this confidence of "victory," with the order which colonel Hindman, of the artillery, received from general Brown, as the latter was retiring from the field, on his way to Buffaloe Collect your artillery, as well as you can, and retire immediately; we shall all march to camp"*? This was deposed to at general Ripley's court-martial. If the American troops, who had marched two miles to the field of battle, needed some refreshment," what must have been the state of the British troops, all of whom, except the advance, had marched 14 miles to the field of battle?: ! Some parts of Mr. O'Connor's account are worth extracting:-" Wellington's invincibles," says he," had just arrived from Europe, and Drummond resolved that they should not only maintain their character, but maintain it in a manner that would make the most desponding *Wilkinson's Mem. Vol. I. his App. No. 14. impression on the brave, but raw recruits of the republic." "A fine moon-light night favored, equally, the operations of both armies."-This is excellent; when all the American officers examined at general Ripley's court-martial, concur in the fact, that the night was unusually dark. "The Americans," proceeds this accurate gentleman, "could not be driven, nor withstood: deter mined not to be overthrown, even by superior numbers, they seemed resolved to crush whatever foe opposed them. Had they been conquered, they would yet deserve honor; as victors, they covered themselves with glory." He attributes the loss of the "howitzer,” to the highspirited horses having run with it into the ranks of the enemy." On the other hand, it was the "want of horses" that compelled the Americans to leave to us "most of the cannon which were taken." Here we discover, that Mr. O'Connor alludes to the British unlimbered 6-pounder, for which an American one had, by mistake, been placed upon a British limber.+ The British loss is made to amount to "between 1200 and 1300 men ;" and their" force engaged, by their own confession, 4500 men, mostly, or wholly regulars, besides a host of Indians: the American force," proceeds Mr. O'Connor, "did not exceed 2800; consisting, in a great proportion, of the militia of Pennsylvania and New York." Yet, this writer, in the very next line, , p. 257. + App. No. 30. * Hist. of the refers to "general Brown's official letter;" in which the militia-volunteers are stated at less than a third part of the American force in the field. And how came Mr. O'Connor to omit the honorable corps, styled, in the American returns," Canadian volunteers," and commanded by the "gallant colonel Wilcocks;" whose traitorous acts, as the assistant of M'Clure, fell so heavy upon the inhabitants of Newark? ‡ Mr. Thomson devotes 19 pages of his book to the battle of Lundy's lane. He describes the hour's action previous to the arrival of the whole of Ripley's and Porter's brigades, as fought between generals Riall and Scott; although general Drummond, with his reinforcement, had been present from the commencement. He evidently mistakes colonel Scott's, for general Drummond's arrival. This misnomer is of some use to us. Mr. Thomson, after stating that general Riall had 66 despatched messengers to lieutenant-general Drummond at Fort-George, to inform him of the desperate nature of the conflict," says:"Until this period of the engagement," that is, until, in reality, colonel Scott's arrival," his force, including the incorporated militia and some Indians, amounted to 1637 men."§:. Mr. Thomson has here, by pure accident, stated nearly the amount of general Drummond's force, * Hist. of the United States, p. 257. |