« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
introductory anecdotes. It is all, it appears to me, either a truism or an untruth. A notice of a few dates prefixed to Lady Louisa's interesting Essay, or embodied in it, would do all that is required, or, at least, as much as is done in Mr. Dallaway's sixty pages. I beg your pardon for the length to which my opinion has run; however, I will not lengthen it more by apologies, for I will hasten to subscribe myself,
Ever sincerely yours,
The course here recommended was not followed by Lord Wharncliffe in his new edition. It would have had one advantage beyond what he or I foresaw, since, by some accident, as I have lately been informed, the original MS. has been lost or mislaid, without any copy taken.
I may add that, some years after the date of my letter to Lord Wharncliffe, I chanced to find in the despatches then preserved at the State Paper Office, a passage that bears upon the point in question. It is as follows:—
Mr. John Murray, Minister Resident at Venice, to the Secretary of State.
Venice, Sept. 10, 1756.
Lady Mary Wortley Montagu arrived here two days ago. She has been for some years past, and still continues, in the hands of a Brescian Count, who, it is said, plunders her of all her riches.
GENERAL WASHINGTON AND MAJOR
WHEN in the course of my History of England I had to examine and compare the different authorities on the tragical fate of Major André, I could not fail to observe the statement by Miss Anna Seward, of a communication on this subject received from General Washington. She first related it briefly in a letter to Miss Ponsonby, of August 9, 1798 (Correspondence, vol. v., p. 142, ed. 1811), and next some three years later, with much more of detail. This last letter was addressed to Mr. Simmons, surgeon, in Manchester, and bears date January 20, 1802 (Correspondence, vol. vi., p. 1, ed. 1811).
Here, then, in its latter form, is the statement that Miss Seward makes:–
“In the first paroxysm of anguish for the fate of my beloved friend,' I wrote that Monody under the belief that he was basely murdered, rather than reluctantly sacrificed to the belligerent customs and laws. I have since understood the subject better. General Washington allowed his aid-de-camp to return to England after peace was established and American independence acknowledged; and he commissioned him to see me, and request my attention to the papers he sent for my perusal. Copies of his letters to André, and André's answers, in his own hand, were amongst them. Concern, esteem, and pity were avowed in those of the General, and warm entreaties that he would urge General Clinton to resign Arnold in exchange for himself, as the only means to avert that sacrifice which the laws of war demanded. Major André's letters breathed a spirit of gratitude to General Washington for the interest he took in his preservation, but firmly declined the application to General Clinton. The other papers were minutes of the Court-Martial, from which it appeared that General Washington had laboured to avert the sentence against André, and to soften the circumstances of disguised dress, and those fatal drawings of the enemy's outworks and situation, which placed him in the character of a spy rather than that of a negotiator. The General's next fruitless endeavour was to have obtained the grant of poor André's petition to die a less disgraceful death. His voice, though commander of the American armies, counted but as one on the CourtMartial. General Washington did me the honour to charge his aid-de-camp to assure me that no circumstance of his life had given him so much pain as the necessary sacrifice of André's life; and next to that deplored event, the censure passed upon himself in a poem which he admired, and for which he loved the author.”
* Major André.
This story much perplexed me, and I knew not what degree of weight to assign to it. On the one hand, it bears upon its face some most manifest inaccuracies; on the other hand, it comes in direct and positive terms from a lady, no doubt very tiresome, but of irreproachable character. In this dilemma I determined to apply to my friend Mr. Ticknor, the historian of Spanish literature, being well assured of his thoroughly upright mind, and that no personal or national prepossessions could divert him from the paramount interests of truth. I asked him to ascertain, if possible, to what aid-de-camp of Washington Miss Seward could have referred, and whether the papers of that aid-de-camp might contain anything either to corroborate or contradict her statement.
The following correspondence ensued:—
Mr. Ticknor to Earl Stanhope.
MY DEAR LORD, - Boston, April 25, 1855. Immediately on receiving your first reference to Miss Seward's letter of January 20, 1802, I read it carefully. It is, no doubt, somewhat more positive and detailed in its statements than the one of August 9, 1798; but it is not more satisfactory to my mind, and is open to all the objections which, I think, are fatal to the first. One point, however, which, with your wonted historical perspicacity, you have hit upon, does much with me to clear up and explain the difficulties