'skulk, and put on a prudential mask,

As if their duty were a desperate task.'

But on the night of the 7th, a proclamation was issued by the King in Council, that the military were to act without waiting for directions from the civil magistrate: the King declaring that 'there should be at all events one magistrate in the kingdom who would do his duty.' And after this, the disturbances came to an end as suddenly as they had begun. It is computed that during the four great days of these riots, not fewer than 72 private houses were destroyed, besides four or five strong gaols. Of the rioters 210 were killed in the streets, and 248 were wounded, of whom 75 died afterwards in the hospitals; whilst 21 of the ringleaders were executed after due trial. A sum of £130,000 was claimed in compensation for private losses alone; and this was raised by a rate on the various parishes concerned. Gordon himself was lodged in the Tower on a charge of high treason, but was acquitted on his trial, Feb. 5, 1781. He afterwards became a Jew; and died a prisoner for libel, Nov. 1, 1792. In a letter to Mr. Newton, June 18, 1780, Cowper has preserved a contemporary rumour, 'that this detestable plot was an egg laid in France and hatched in London, under the influence of French corruption.'

Of the historical events of his own day none had a stronger interest for Cowper than that which he persisted in stigmatizing as the 'Rebellion' of our North American Colonies. For notwithstanding his liberal politics, his patriotism would not suffer him to view their conduct as admitting of any palliation, much less of justification; and he even held that they had 'incurred the guilt of parricide' by severing themselves from the mother country. In 1764 George Grenville made the grave mistake of extending the Stamp Act to the British Colonies. This measure, which passed into law in 1765, was resented by the Americans as a species of local excise; and they indignantly denied the right of the mother country to tax her Colonies without their own consent; alleging that there should be no taxa

tion where there was no representation, and that they were not represented in the British Parliament. The Marquess of Rockingham, who had succeeded to office in 1766, repealed the Stamp Act; but in 1767 Charles Townshend repeated the old error by his Revenues Act, which imposed upon the Colonies small taxes on British imports of tea, glass, paper, and painter's colours. This at once rekindled the flame of disaffection. Massachusetts took the lead in resistance to the impost; though the obnoxious duties were all speedily repealed, except one of 3d. per lb. on tea. In 1773 the men of Boston boarded the tea ships, and flung the whole cargo into the harbour. On this the despotic Lord North, now Prime Minister, took the fatal step of shutting up the port of Boston, and erecting a Royal Court of Judicature in Massachusetts, thereby infringing the charter of that State. The other States became instantly alarmed for their liberties; a 'Solemn League and Covenant' was entered into; the Congress of Philadelphia issued a 'Declaration of Rights'; and all trade with England was suspended till they should get their grievances redressed. Hereupon the provincials were proclaimed as rebels. The first battle was fought on April 19, 1775; when General Gage, the Governor of Boston, destroyed the American stores at Lexington. On June 15, 1775, George Washington was elected Commander-in-Chief of all the American forces: but he was not in time to take part in the battle which came off on the 17th, at Bunker's Hill near Boston: when both sides claimed the victory as their own. Even now, the States generally had no desire to take up arms; and on July 8, Congress signed a petition to the King, in which they avowed their loyalty to his person and their desire for reconciliation. To this the King vouchsafed no reply, regarding Congress as a self-constituted assembly, which it would not become him to recognise. This rejection of their 'olive branch' rendered the breach irreparable. It led to the famous Declaration of Independence; which was written by Jefferson, revised by Adams and Franklin, and signed by Congress, July 4, 1776. By it the thirteen American

FRANCE SIDES WITH AMERICA.

lix

provinces renounced allegiance to the British Crown, and declared themselves to be 'free and independent States.' This was the signal for war in earnest on both sides. It was carried on with varying success, till General Burgoyne, commanding the main body of the British force,-finding himself hemmed in by the enemy under General Gates, his troops exhausted by fatigue and scarcity of food, and with little more than 3500 fighting men left to oppose a force of 13,000-was forced to lay down his arms and surrender his whole army. This, which is known as the Convention of Saratoga (a town in the State of New York), took place on October 17, 1777, and was the turning-point of the war. A success like this was just what was wanted to decide the French Court to recognise the Independence of the States. Treaties of alliance and commerce were signed Feb. 6, 1778; and war was thus declared between France and England. Lord North now put out a formal renunciation of the right of this country to tax her Colonies, which received the Royal assent, March 11, 1778. But it was too late; and in July the French fleet, under Count D'Estaing, appeared off Rhode Island. The Spanish Court followed this example in 1779; and on December 20, 1780, war was declared against the Dutch, because it appeared from some intercepted documents, that Holland was on the point of allying herself with the States. The cause of Britain was now virtually lost; though there were occasional successes which served to revive the sinking hopes of those at home. Thus, on hearing of the surrender of Charlestown (May 12, 1780), Cowper wrote to Mr. Newton: 'This event, if my political spectacles do not deceive me, is likely to bring the rebellion to a speedy end. The Spaniards were sick of the war at the very commencement of it; and I hope that by this time the French themselves begin to find themselves a little indisposed, if not desirous of peace, which that restless and meddling temper of theirs is incapable of desiring for its own sake.' But soon he had to confess that his political spectacles could not be trusted; and in December, 1781, we find him suppressing two poetical pieces-onc, a Present to the Queen of France;

the other addressed to Sir Joshua Reynolds—in which he had ventured to prophesy an illustrious consummation of the war.' This was after the surrender of Cornwallis at York Town, with an army of 7000 men, to Washington, October 19, 1781: which was the virtual, though not the actual close of the war. On February 27, 1782, General Conway carried a resolution against all further attempts to reduce the insurgent Colonies, together with an address to the King, informing him that any who should advise the continuance of the war would be regarded as foes to their king and country. On March 15, North resigned, after twelve years' tenure of office. Rockingham, who succeeded him, at once addressed himself to pacific measures; and on his death, the Earl of Shelburne pursued the same policy. The Peace with America was signed at Paris, Nov. 30, 1782; and by it the Independence of the States was acknowledged. It was early in June, 1785, that John Adams, the first Minister of the United States, had his audience of George III. 'The King was much affected,' writes Mr. Adams, 'and I confess I was not less so.' There was royal dignity and manly simplicity in King George's greeting:-'Sir, I will be very frank with you. I was the last to consent to the separation; but the separation having been made, I have always said, as I say now, that I would be the first to meet the friendship of the United States as an Independent Power.'

Cowper was strongly possessed with the belief that our military and naval commanders in this war did not put forth their best energies to assert the honour of the country; and to this opinion he has given frequent and forcible expression

in his poems. Thus he speaks of

'Admirals, extolled for standing still,

Or doing nothing with a deal of skill;

Generals, who will not conquer when they may,
Firm friends to peace, to pleasure, and good pay.'

In this sentiment, which was shared by many at the time, he was probably mistaken; and in the last of the lines quoted, he was unquestionably unjust. Still less was he justified in

extending his censures to the bulk of the army, as when he asked,

'Have our troops awaked?

Or do they still, as if with opium drugged,

Snore to the murmurs of the Atlantic wave?'

Yet it is certain that there was a lack of vigour in the prosecution of the war: and perhaps there was enough to paralyse the head and hand of the British soldier, in the thought that he was fighting against his own flesh and blood, speaking the same tongue, sprung from the same parent stock. Two months after the Declaration of Independence, General Howe took New York (in Sept. 1776); but was remiss in following up his advantage. When the Americans retired across the Delaware, into Pennsylvania, he forbade Cornwallis to pursue them, and ordered him to disperse his troops in winter quarters. The consequence was, that Washington recrossed the Delaware, and recovered nearly the whole of the Jerseys. Had Sir H. Clinton been more expeditious in going up the Hudson, to effect a junction with Burgoyne, the result would probably have been the defeat of General Gates, instead of the Convention of Saratoga. And again, had Clinton come to the aid of Cornwallis, against whom he cherished a private grudge, the capitulation at York Town might have been prevented. When Burgoyne returned to England, the King refused to admit him to his presence; and at the same time evaded his demand for a court-martial, or a commission of inquiry. In December, 1778, both he and Howe appealed to Parliament in vindication of their conduct, complaining that the Government at home had disregarded their recommendations, had imposed restrictions on their exertions, and had neglected to supply them with instructions. Lord Stanhope's judgment on the whole matter is probably correct. 'It was the bane of England,' he writes, 'to have for chiefs men brave indeed and honourable, skilled in the details of the service, and zealous for Old England and King George, but in genius fitted only for a second place, not gifted by nature with that energy and firmness essential to a chief command.