Page images
PDF
EPUB

behaviour. We will dismiss Mr. Munro with this question,-Did any one of the "sovereigns" to whom he alludes, fly "in panic terror" * from one end of his city, while an enemy entered the other? In his search for a "parallel," too, where will he find, even if he goes back to "distant and barbarous ages," that a sovereign behaved, as we have American testimony for asserting, that Mr. Madison, " the commanderin-chief of the armies of the United States," did behave, at, or rather before, the battle of Bladensburg?

"

But Mr. Madison himself must issue his "Proclamation;" + dated from" Washington," too, the "seat of empire," which he, only six days before, had abandoned, to seek an asylum among the hills, west of the great falls."* The five day's march of our troops, including the battle in which he set so bright an example, he calls a "sudden incursion." He then ventures to state the American troops at Bladensburg, as "less numerous" than their British opponents. This is excellent. Admitting that the British were in possession of Washington" for a single day (and night) only," were the 4000 American troops, drawn up in full view of the destruction of the costly monuments of state," led forth by Mr. Madison, or led forth at all, to drive the British away? "We destroyed," he says,

66

"the

Wilkinson's Mem. Vol. I. p. 789. + App. No. 70.

[ocr errors]

public edifices, having no relation in their structure to operations of war, nor used at the time for military annoyance." Was it no" military annoyance," to kill one soldier and wound three, and, by mere accident, not to kill the British commanding general? Where was the war declared, but in the "senate-chamber and representative-hall," contained within the capitol? What enforced "military annoyance,' or gave life to the "operations of war," but the dollars in the "treasury-office"? On the other hand, "the patent-office," in which were collected the rarest specimens of the arts of the country, having no relation to the "operations of war," was not, in the slightest degree, injured.* Who, when colonel Campbell, of the United States' army, destroyed the dwelling-house and other buildings of a Canadian inhabitant, de clared the act to have been "according to the usages of war," because a troop of British dragoons had just fled from them? Why then was not the destruction of the president's palace, from which a company of American artillery, with two field-pieces, had just fled, equally " according to the usages of war”? The only surprise is, that the American government should have so well succeeded in hood-winking the people of Europe. One British editor rates his *Sketches of the War, p. 336. + See p. 111.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

3

ferocious countrymen, for " having levelled with the dust the splendid palaces and sumptuous edifices, by which the city of Washington was so liberally embellished." This can but raise a smile; especially upon a reference to the estimated value of these "splendid palaces."* We shall forbear to notice the long account of "the extent of devastation practised by the victors" at Washington, which has found its way into that faithful record of frays, murders, births, marriages, and deaths, but certainly not of historical events, the "Annual Register for 1814;" and thence, of course, into most of the prints of the United States. But what was there done by the British at Washington, that could provoke an eminent parliamentary orator to describe their proceedings as "so abhorrent, so inconsistent with the habits of a free and generous people; so to be hated and detested, condemned and abjured" + " In burning "In Washington," says this same speaker, “we had acted worse than the Goths, when they were before the walls of Rome." In another place he talks of " the pillage of private property."† What a pity this gentleman did not read even the whole of the American accounts, before he ventured to sanction, with his respectable name

* App. No. 67.

+ Parliamentary Proceedings, November 8, 1814, VOL. II.

X

statements so palpably untrue. If he were alive we could show him an American publication, that has devoted 13 of its pages to an account of our proceedings at Washington, and yet contains not one word of comment upon our destruction of the public buildings. When we mention the work as the "History of the United States," and the author as the reverend doctor Smith; the same who said, "No one need question the conduct of the British troops at Hampton ;" the same who, in every page of his book, evinces the strongest antipathy against the British; and who, as the reader knows, is not over scrupulous as to the truth of the charges he prefers against them, "no one need question" that doctor Smith was thus lenient, because, in the extraordinary fact, that the British, with only 200 troops, entered and fully possessed, the "seat of empire” of the United States of America, he could find, on their part, at least, nothing but " temerity" to find fault with.

+

CHAPTER XX.

Skirmish at Moor's fields-Death of sir Peter Parker-Brief description of Baltimore-Alarm of the inhabitants--Exertions of the militaryDefensive preparations-Strong inducement for an attack by the British-Accidental cause of its being made-Advance of the fleet to the Pa tapsco-Landing of the troops-Amount of the British force Advance of major-general Ross and rear-admiral Cockburn, with a small guard÷ Skirmish and retreat of the Americans→Death of general Ross American accounts-Advance of the British main body Amount of the American force-Details of the battle-Retreat of the Americans American accounts-British and American loss-Further advance of the British -Reinforcement to the Americans at their en trenched camp-Arrival of British ships near the forts in the Patapsco Mutual cannonade between the latter and the bomb-vessels and rocketship-Boat-expedition up the Ferry branch American accountsReasons given for retiring from Baltimore-Unmolested retreat of the : British-American accounts Remarks upon the Baltimore expedition-Character of general Ross-Departure, on separate destinations, of admirals Cochrane and Cockburn-Boat-expe

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »