'We know not if there exists any evidence to prove, that General Lee had embarked with either party. On the contrary, from the intercourse kept up between Generals Greene and Lee, during their lives, we are induced to think he had not.... That he would have accepted the command, and been gratified in it, there can be no doubt; but there exists no evidence of his having actively engaged in the effort to sink Washington in the estimation of the public, unless his conduct, during, and after the battle of Monmouth, and his severe animadversions on the affair of Fort Washington, receive a construction, of which it must be acknowledged, they were too fairly susceptible.'

'With respect to Gates and Conway, the evidence was such, as left not a doubt upon the public mind. It is well known, that the first development of the intrigue, was made at the table of Lord Sterling, by a gentleman attached to Gates' family.... The present Major General Wilkinson, has in his memoirs, given a detailed account of the circumstances, attending the communication. Until that was published, it was supposed to have been designedly made under the influence of patriotic feelings; but it is now candidly acknowledged, to have been an indiscretion.... In addition to this information, we have the evidence of General Morgan, who was then serving under Gates, and who being tampered with, as he considered it, by Gates, upon this subject, incurred his lasting hatred, by repulsing him with indignation. As to Conway, General Washington pronounced him "an active and malignant partisan."

'The offensive passage in Conway's letter to Gates, was thisHeaven has determined to save your country, or a weak General and bad Counsellors would have ruined it.... We are in possession of various communications, to prove, that the "weak counsellors" of this best of men,... were Generals Greene and Knox, who were supposed to possess his private ear, and were known to be his faithful and affectionate adherents.' pp. 153-157, vol. i.

Such is the mirror, which, according to our biographer, is to reflect the opinions of the best informed persons of that day, in relation to this mysterious affair; and which, from their freshness and novelty, (for they never, it seems, have been detailed before,) cannot fail to be acceptable to modern readers. But did our learned author, in the hurry of his details, stop long enough to ask himself to what they all amounted? Was he aware, that no two of them will support each other? Or does he conclude, that because this discrepancy shows nothing of artifice in making up the story, that therefore it cannot but recommend it to both notice and belief?

It is worthy of remark, that notwithstanding our author's many and careful researches into the contents of the trunk, which Mrs. Shaw ordered to be delivered up to him, nothing

is found to fix even his own opinions, with regard to the leader of this first conspiracy. Whether,' he says the de'sign was to substitute Gates, or Lee, appeared to be unsettled 6 among the party, but certainly to substitute one or the ' other.' Again, he adds, whether Mifflin ever entered 'deeply into the views of the party, cannot now be ascer'tained;' and of course, from want of evidence, the General is acquitted. Yet, in the only proof submitted, and that a letter from Greene, Mifflin is denounced as the leader and head of the faction! An opinion,' says Mr. Johnson,' was ' entertained, on some evidence, [which it is, however, most 'prudent not to detail,] that Samuel Adams, and the Lees, &c. had it in contemplation to substitute Lee for Washing6 ton; but we know not, that any evidence exists to prove, 'that Lee embarked with either party, and we are induced 'to think he did not, from the intercourse kept up between 'him and Greene, during their lives.' And accordingly, though an open and decided vilifier of Washington, he also is absolved by our literary pope !

6

Gates and Conway, the only remaining military conspirators, not having such intercourse with Greene to plead, do not meet with any similar indulgence, but, on the other hand, are pursued, as we think, without mercy, or reason, or justice. A letter of Conway's, said to contain an irreverential passage with regard to Washington's military character and conduct, was written to Gates; and, letters being like stolen goods, the receiver was not unreasonably held to be equally guilty with the writer. Such is the substance of the argument employed; and a very ingenious process it certainly is, for making two criminals out of one. But are we

sure there was one? Where shall we seek for this obnoxious letter? Has our biographer seen it? No: but Wilkinson saw it, and, in 'a moment of indiscretion,' stated its contents to M'Williams-who communicated them to Sterlingwho reported them to Washington-who sent a copy of them to Gates. And what then? Did Gates acknowledge the correctness of the copy transmitted to him? Just the reverse; he declared it to be "spurious," and that, "in both "words and substance, it was a wicked forgery." Indeed! And what said Wilkinson to this? Did he attempt to make good the statement he had furnished? No. Such a course, had it been practicable, would no doubt have been pursued; because, to have fixed a falsehood upon the old, honest, ve

racious conqueror of Burgoyne, and that too in defence of a conspirator, would, at that time, have been merit enough to have made any man's fortune. But "conscience makes cowards of us all." Wilkinson knew well that the statement was false, and, what was still more appalling, tha Gates held the letter in question, and could at all times disprove any misrepresentation of it. Thus unable to go forward, and incapable of remaining where he was, he was constrained to go back; and, though three times questioned on the contents of the letter-once by Conway, again by Sterfing, and lastly by Washington-he uniformly answered in a way to avoid contradicting Gates, and at length came out with a full and unqualified declaration, that the whole story, transmitted by Sterling to Washington, was a falsehood.

As this testimony of Wilkinson is the pivot on which the accusation turns, and as our author (notwithstanding his quoting it as an authority) cannot but be ignorant both of its nature and its extent, we must be permitted, at even the hazard of being tedious, to make a few extracts from it. At page 340, vol. 1st, of the Memoirs, we read as follows:"Whilst at camp, I was visited by Gen. Conway, a stran"ger, with whom I never spoke before or since. He took "me aside, and inquired whether I had seen a letter of his "to Gen. Gates, containing certain expressions concerning "Gen. Washington's military conduct. He stated the ex"pressions to me, and informed me that Gen. Washington "had charged him with having made use of expressions de"rogatory from his professional character. I recollected "the letter, but I did not think its language accorded with "that, then expressed to me by Gen. Conway; and I answer"ed him to that effect." It is to this interview with Conway, and to this first denial of the correctness of the extract, that Lord Sterling alludes, in the following passage of a letter to Wilkinson:" After you had lately been in camp, he (Conway) says, that he inquired, whether you had seen "the letter he wrote to Gen. Gates;-that you said you "had, and that you had declared, in the presence of several, "that there were no such words, or any words to that effect, "in the letter." To this Wilkinson replies:-"On my late "arrival in camp, Brig. Gen. Conway informed me, that he "had been charged by Gen. Washington with writing a let"ter to Major Gen. Gates, reflecting on the General and the army. The particulars of this charge I cannot now recolVOL. V.

3

"lect. I had read the letter alluded to, and I did not con"sider the information conveyed in his Excellency's letter, "(to Conway,) as expressed by him, to be literal; and well "remember replying to that effect." At page 394, vol. 1st, we have Mr. Wilkinson's account of the conversation held between him and Gen. Washington, on the subject of this very extract:-"I went early, agreeably to request, was "kindly received, and after a few minutes, the General in"vited me into his cabinet, and opened the subject of Gen. "Conway's letter. A conversation ensued, in which I took "occasion to remark on the cruel misrepresentations of Lord "Sterling, disclaiming any correspondence, or even acquaintance with M Williams, and utterly denying the information he (Gen. W.) had received from his Lordship."

66

Here, then, is the most direct evidence (derived too from the informer himself) that the slander, founded on the supposed contents of Conway's letter, propagated and believed for half a century, and now adduced by our biographer, as a proof that two distinguished officers of the army of the revolution had conspired to put down the Commander in Chief, is an impudent and vile falsehood from beginning to end.*

What remains of the evidence brought to support this miserable fiction, are two anecdotes,-the one, told in an anonymous work, ascribed to Capt. A. Graydon, and which affects Conway alone; the other, found in a note attached to Lee's Memoirs, and which affects Gates exclusively. On the former of these we remark, that though we do most conscientiously believe that the whole story of this conspiracy was a fabrication, got up merely to divert public opinion from 'those invidious comparisons, unfavourable to Wash'ington, which were so fashionable at that day,' and which were the unavoidable result of contrasts, forcing themselves on every unprejudiced mind, between battles won in the north and others lost in the south,-still it is by no means our intention, either to assert or to insinuate, that the indiscretion of individuals did not, in some degree, give colour to the fabrication. Rush's ridiculous letter to Patrick Henry, leaves no doubt on this head; and Conway's hasty and in

* How comes it, that our pains-taking biographer should not have noticed the two letters from Gates and Mifflin, published by Gordon, and never contradicted during their lives? In these, they severally and solemnly deny any connexion with a party, having a design to put down Washington, and even any knowledge of the existence of such a party.

decorous remark (as recorded by Graydon) proves it quite as decisively.

Of this gentleman-this French-Irish knight of St. Louis-we happen to know something personally, and what we do know, leaves us perfectly convinced, that among many good qualities which belonged to him, prudence was not to be found. Had he lived in the time, and served in the army of Alexander, his would, no doubt, have been the fate of Philotas. He would neither have believed that the hero was a God, nor the son of a God; nor, (what by the way would have been much easier,) could he have been prevailed upon to say, that he believed he was either; on the contrary, nothing is more probable, than that to the first courtier he met, he would have criticised the pretension, and left to his frank and honourable companion the merit, or the meanness, of remembering the censure, and printing it in a book. That he did not think, like our biographer, that General Washington's military talents never were equalled, is unquestionably true; and that he may have even spoken freely of them, as stated by Graydon, is probable,-but what justice demands is, that we should not exaggerate a mere indiscretion into a case of leze-majesté, and punish it as the act of a conspirator; for, if speaking freely of Washington's military conduct and character, give title to this kind of distinction, how few of our author's greatest favourites will escape? Will he be responsible, that the opinion of Alexander Hamilton has, on that head, been uniformly respectful? and can he assure himself, that that of Baron Steuben differed at all from Hamilton's? Is he aware, that of the trio, who were to grace the banks of the Savannah, by a common residence, two have committed themselves to paper, and in letters to the supposed heads of the very conspiraey we are discussing? As these documents are already before the public, there is no reason why we should not make Mr. Johnson better acquainted with them.

General Joseph Read, of Pennsylvania, who was first the secretary, and again the adjutant-general of Washington, who knew him well, appreciated him justly, and loved him sincerely; and, 'from whose pen,' Mr. Johnson tells us, 'had ' not death interposed, we were to have had such a history of 'the revolution, as we can no longer hope ever to have.' This gentleman, we repeat, thus qualified to judge, addressed the following letter to General Lee, and to give it more solemnity, made it official, by adding his title to his signature: