the date of " August 27th," says:-"The enemy, I learn, treated the inhabitants of Washington well."* But what says Mr. Gales, the mouthpiece of the government, he whose presses had been destroyed and whose "types had been so shamefully dispersed."?" When we remarked," says he," in our paper of yesterday, that private property had, in general, been scrupulously respected by the enemy during his late incursion, we spoke what we believed, from a hasty survey, and perhaps without sufficient inquiry. Greater respect was certainly paid to private property than has usually been exhibited by the enemy in his marauding parties. No houses were half as much plundered by the enemy, as by the knavish wretches about the town, who profited by the general distress. There were, however, several private buildings wantonly destroyed, and some of those persons who remained in the city were scandalously maltreated."+ We are to consider that this charge contains the utmost that has been alleged against the British during their 20 hours' occupation of the metropolis of the United States. The" several private buildings," besides "the dwelling-house owned and occupied by Mr. Robert Sewall, from be hind which a gun was fired at general Ros consisted of "a commodious dwelling, bel

ing to the estate of general Washington, and Carroll's hotel:"* the former suffered, from its contiguity to, or absolute junction with, the house from which the firing had been directed; the latter, not unlikely, from the act of some of "the knavish wretches about the town, who profited by the general distress." That the British officers did all they could to secure the inhabitants from injury, both in their persons and properties, may be gathered from Mr. Thomson's acknowledgment, that," the plunder of individual property was prohibited, and soldiers, transgressing the order, were severely punished." ↑

We shall dismiss this subject with an American statement, which, we trust, will set at rest all remaining doubts. "The list of plunder and destruction, copied from a vile and libellous print of that city, into several federal papers, is a gross and abominable fabrication, known to be such by every inhabitant. Most of the plunder was committed by rabble of the place, fostered among the citizens; and from whose villainy no place is free, in times of peril, and relaxation of the law. The British army, it is no more than justice to say, preserved a moderation and discipline, with respect to private

* History of the United States, Vol. III. p. 295.

+ Sketches of the War, p. 336.

persons and property, unexampled in the annals of war."*

At eight o'clock on the evening of the 25th, the British left Washington, by the way of Bladensburg. Here such of the wounded as could ride, or be transported in carriages, were provided with 30 or 40 horses, 12 carts and waggons, one coachee, and several gigs. With these, preceded by a drove of 60 or 70 cattle; the army moved leisurely along. On the evening of the 29th it reached Benedict, † 50 miles from Washington, without a single musket having been fired; and, on the following day, re-embarked in the vessels of the fleet. No complaints, that we can discover, have been made against the British, during their retreat across the country; although, as an American writer has been pleased to say, "general Ross scarcely kept up his order, sufficiently to identify the body of his army."§ The Americans are very difficult to please. If the British decline fighting double the number of Americans, shiness is alleged against them; if, on the other hand, they not only fight, but conquer, as at Bladensburg, more than double their number of Americans, they are denied all credit. In this spirit doctor Smith says:-"The success of general Ross, in

* Georgetown paper, September 8th.

+ See Plate V.

App. No. 62.

Hist, of the United States, Vol. III. p. 299,

this expedition, cannot be ascribed to the display of superior military skill. It was not due to his force, or the deportment of his troops in the field. The resolution to march an army, 50 miles into the interior of a country thickly inhabited, and in the face of another, of superior numbers, affords strong proof of his temerity, but none of his prudence. He succeeded against every rational calculation."*-How could this writer touch upon deportment of troops" ?We rather think, that major-general Ross and rear-admiral Cockburn made their " calculation," upon what they conjectured would be the "deportment" of the American troops; although they certainly did not expect quite so great a contrast to " temerity," as they found upon the field at Bladensburg.

All the American writers who have had occasion to deplore the fate of Washington-city, have levelled their abuse against rear-admiral Cockburn;" on whom," says one of them, "if the safety of the citizens' dwellings had alone depended, they would have rested on a slender guarantee." How will this writer; how will all the other American writers; how will the British public in general, receive the assertion, that rear-admiral Cockburn got blamed by his commanding officer, for not having acted more

Hist. of the United States, Vol. III. p. 299, + Sketches of the War, p. 326.

in the spirit of "retaliation" than he did? This brings us to sir Alexander Cochrane's letter,* in which that harsh word appears. It was an ill-advised letter; serving only to convict us of a seeming intention to do what we never did do. What "towns and districts" upon the American coast, did the British "destroy and lay waste"? Was Washington destroyed and laid waste?— Was Alexandria destroyed and laid waste?—We deny that there was any thing done at either of those places, unless it was the behaviour of an American naval commander at Alexandria, † that was at all" contrary to the usages of civilized warfare." This letter was just what Mr. Munro wanted. It enabled him to declaim, at length, about "the established and known humanity of the American nation."§ The chief of Mr. Munro's unsupported assertions have already been replied to, in different parts of this work: we have, at present, only to do with the paragraph in which he tells us, that "in the course of ten years past, the capitals of the principal powers of the continent of Europe have been conquered and occupied, alternately, by the victorious armies of each other; and no instance of such wanton and unjustifiable destruction has been seen;" and refers us to distant ages for a " parallel" to our

*App. No. 68. +James's Naval Occurrences, p. 383. Now president of the United States. § App. No. 69.