courage in the dark, gives us very distinct intimations that Burr was a victim of injustice on the part of Washington. At page 83 he says, "There is no doubt that the short residence of Major Burr with General Washington laid the foundation. for those prejudices which, at a future time, ripened into hostile feelings on both sides." At page 78 he tells us that, "In the spring of 1776, the army moved from Montreal to the mouth of the Sorel. Major Burr yet remained with it. While at Montreal he became disgusted with General Arnold on account of his meanness and other bad qualities," &c. On the very next page is related the invitation given him by Washington to join his family. "This invitation," says Mr. Davis, "he accepted, and Burr occasionally rode out with the general, but very soon became restless and dissatisfied. He wrote to the president of congress, who had been an intimate friend of the father, that he was disgusted, and inclined to retire from service. Neither is this collocation of Arnold and Washington, as objects of Burr's disgust, the limit of Mr. Davis's inuendo, for at the close of the volume, after narrating the circumstances connected with the president's refusal to appoint Mr. Burr minister to France, he adds this very unnecessary comment:-" This incident demonstrates, on the one hand, the strong and unchangeable prejudices of General Washington against Colonel Burr; and, on the other, the firm and unbounded confidence reposed in him by the democracy of those days."

Now, what we condemn in all this is the wantonness of the insinuation, that a man so proverbially and severely just as General Washington could be influenced by irrational prejudice, and be guilty of gratuitous injustice to such a man as Burr. In fact, the perplexity and obscurity which Mr. Davis hangs around this single incident in his history is such, that, to account for it, we must attribute it either to perfect stupidity or disingenuousness. Burr never told him that he was ignorant of the cause of Washington's animosity, and, if he had, no one would have believed it; and Mr. Davis either never asked him the question, or else, thinking it better to deal in conjecture and inuendo, has deemed it expedient to suppress the answer. This is a fair inference from his own assertion in the preface, which we have already quoted: "I never," says he, "asked Colonel Burr a question on any subject, or in relation to any man or measure, that he did not promptly and willingly answer. On his part there was no desire of concealment; nor did he ever express to me a wish to suppress an account of any act of his whole life."

Those who have studied the character of Washington, as illustrated by his most familiar correspondence, know that one of its strongest and most beautiful traits was the grateful appre

ciation of the merits and services of those who deserved and received his confidence-those who, in other words and in an enlarged sense, formed "his family." He exacted from those around him the strict performance of duty; he looked for a stern sense of the responsibility which the relation imposed; and, when his requisitions were met, his grateful recollection never was obliterated. Edmund Randolph, who was his aid at the commencement of the war, was, on the organization of the federal government, selected first as his attorney-general, and then as secretary of state. Joseph Reed, of Pennsylvania-his first private secretary, and on whose ability as a writer he most relied-was distinguished by numerous testimonials of his grateful regard, and by the high estimation he had of his talents and moral worth. After being appointed adjutant-general by Washington, and then recommended to congress as brigadier in command of the cavalry, he was only separated from the commander in chief to serve his native state in her highest office. Mr. Reed died in 1785, before the formation of the federal union. Robert H. Harrison, of Maryland, the successor of Mr. Reed as private secretary to the commander in chief, continued at his side, his counsellor and friend, during the larger portion of the war; and, when the new government was formed, received his abundant reward" in being one of the four first selected as judges of the supreme court of the United States. In tendering the commission to his valued friend, the president used this emphatic language: "Considering the judicial system as the chief pillar upon which our national government must rest, I have thought it my duty to nominate, for the high offices in that department, such men as I conceived would give dignity and lustre to our national character." It was such men as these who were trusted by Washington, and who loved him in return. With them, and those like them, such a man as Burr had no sympathy and could have no communion; and it is the knowledge that Mr. Davis had, or ought to have had, that such men filled with honour a station Burr relinquished, which should have taught him the ineffable folly of the remark with which he closes his comment on this period of his hero's story.

"During the short period that he remained in the family of General Washington, he was treated with respect and attention; but soon perceived, as he thought, an unwillingness to afford that information, and those technical explanations of great historical military movements, which an enquiring and enlightened mind like Burr's sought with avidity and perseverance. He therefore became apprehensive, if he remained with the commander in chief, that, instead of becoming a scientific soldier, he should dwindle down into a practical clerk-a species of drudgery to which his pecuniary circumstances did not render it necessary for him to submit, and for which neither his habits, his education, nor his temperament, in any degree, qualified him." Vol. I. pp. 82, 83.

It has been seen that Colonel Burr's military life terminated in July, 1779. Immediately afterwards he commenced the study of law with his friend, Judge Patterson; and, having completed it with Mr. Thomas Smith, was admitted to practise at Albany in January, 1782. In the previous year he married Mrs. Prevost, a lady of loyalist connections and considerable wealth. In the spring of 1784, he was elected to the state legislature; he attended two sessions as a member, during one of which he distinguished himself by his active and able opposition to what was known as the Mechanics' Bill-a bill to confer chartered privileges of unlimited extent on a few individuals connected with mechanical pursuits, and to connect them with the corporation of the city of New York. It was defeated mainly through the agency of Mr. Burr. From 1785 to 1788, he was unknown as a politician. His own health was precarious, and that of Mrs. Burr caused him constant alarm. He had but one child, a daughter, on whose education he bestowed the greatest care, and to whom he seems to have appropriated all the gentleness of his nature. As has been already stated, Burr, in 1787, was ranked with the anti-federal party, and in the spring of that year was an unsuccessful candidate for the legislature. In September, 1789, he was appointed by Governor Clinton attorney-general of the state of New York, which office he filled with great distinction till 1791, when he was elected to the senate of the United States. His colleague and political opponent was Rufus King. In 1792, he was appointed by Mr. Clinton judge of the supreme court, which honour however he promptly declined. During his term of service, Mr. Burr was a leading member of the opposition party, and, as we have already stated, took an active part in all the discussions of the senate. None of his speeches, however, are preserved by his biographer. In 1800, the democratic party triumphed in the state of New York, and Burr was taken up and elected with Mr. Jefferson on its ticket. Here Mr. Davis's volume concludes.

Before we leave the historical part of this work, there are two subjects incidentally referred to which are worthy of a passing remark. Mr. Davis has made two statements, on the authority of Colonel Burr, which we have no hesitation in saying are totally destitute of foundation. The first is a revolutionary incident thus related:

"In the summer of 1780, Major Andre, of the British army, was in correspondence with Mrs. Arnold (the wife of General Arnold), under a pretext of supplying her, from the city of New York, with millinery and other trifling articles of dress. On the 23d of September, 1780, Major Andre was captured, and the treason of the general discovered. When this news reached West Point, Mrs. Arnold became, apparently, almost frantic. Her situation excited the sympathy of some of the most

distinguished officers in the American army. Mrs. Arnold, having obtained from General Washington a passport and permission to join her husband in the city of New York, left West Point, and on her way stopped at the house of Mrs. Prevost, in Paramus, where she stayed one night. On her arrival at Paramus the frantic scenes of West Point were renewed, and continued so long as strangers were present. Mrs. Prevost was known as the wife of a British officer, and connected with the royalists; in her, therefore, Mrs. Arnold could confide.

"As soon as they were left alone Mrs. Arnold became tranquillized, and assured Mrs. Prevost that she was heartily sick of the theatrics she was exhibiting. She stated that she had corresponded with the British commander-that she was disgusted with the American cause, and those who had the management of public affairs-and that, through great persuasion and unceasing perseverance, she had ultimately brought the general into an arrangement to surrender West Point to the British. Mrs. Arnold was a gay, accomplished, artful, and extravagant woman. There is no doubt, therefore, that, for the purpose of acquiring the means of gratifying an inordinate vanity, she contributed greatly to the utter ruin of her husband, and thus doomed to everlasting infamy and disgrace all the fame he had acquired as a gallant soldier, at the sacrifice of his blood. Mrs. Prevost subsequently became the wife of Colonel Burr, and repeated to him these confessions of Mrs. Arnold.

"The preceding statement is confirmed by the following anecdote. Mrs. Arnold was the daughter of Chief Justice Shippen, of Pennsylvania. She was personally acquainted with Major Andre, and, it is believed, corresponded with him previous to her marriage. In the years 1779-80, Colonel Robert Morris resided at Springatsbury, in the vicinity of Philadelphia, adjoining Bush Hill. Some time previous to Arnold's taking command of West Point, he was an applicant for the post. On a particular occasion, Mrs. Arnold was dining at the house of Colonel Morris. After dinner a friend of the family came in, and congratulated Mrs. Arnold on a report that her husband was appointed to a different but more honourable command. The information affected her so much as to produce hysteric fits. Efforts were made to convince her that the general had been selected for a preferable station. These explanations, however, to the astonishment of all present, produced no effect. But, after the treason of Arnold was discovered, the family of Colonel Morris entertained no doubt that Mrs. Arnold was privy to, if not the negotiator for, a surrender of West Point to the British, even before the general had charge of the post." Vol. I. pp. 219, 220.

So far from confiding in the statement thus given at second hand, we believe there is no fact, not susceptible of demonstration, better ascertained than that Mrs. Arnold was not privy to her husband's treachery. Mr. Sparks, who has examined this whole subject with the greatest care, has stated this to be his conviction; and the surviving members of the lady's family, some of them her contemporaries, are satisfied that the texture of her mind did not qualify her to be the confidante of such perilous secrets, and that Arnold knew too well the desperate game he was playing to trust her. As respects the correspondence between Andre and Mrs. Arnold prior to her marriage, the fact is probably as stated by Mr. Davis; but it is equally probable that it was a correspondence of perfect innocence--the VOL. XXI.-NO. 41.

14

correspondence of a gallant young soldier with a gay young lady, devoted to happy reminiscences of feasts and balls, rather than to subtle treason or dark stratagem. We therefore confidently reiterate our discredit of the whole tale of Mrs. Arnold's privity to her husband's plans, even though supported by the reflected evidence of Mrs. Prevost.

The other point to which we refer, has relation to the promise with which Mr. Davis closes his first volume. After referring to the mystery which the author thinks still environs the history of the contested presidential election of 1801, in the house of representatives, he winds up his memoir with this grandiloquent finale :

"But the period has arrived when the question should be met with manly firmness; when the voice of history should announce to posterity the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so far as it can be ascertained. The generation which were the actors in those scenes have passed away. The parties immediately interested are sleeping the sleep of death. Few, very few, indeed, now living, understand the nature of that contest. The curtain shall be drawn aside. The documents which develop its character, and which are scattered in fragments, will be brought together, and recorded (it is hoped) in a permanent and tangible form.

"It will be seen that the immediate friends and advisers of Mr. Jefferson, until within a few hours of the balloting, had no confidence in certain leading and distinguished members of congress, whose names shall be given, but who, on his coming into power, promptly received the most substantial evidence of his kind feelings, by appointments to office. The clearest evidence will be presented that Mr. Jefferson entered into terms and conditions with the federal party or some of their leaders; that the honourable James A. Bayard, of Delaware, acted on the part of the federalists, and the honourable Samuel Smith, of Maryland, at present mayor of Baltimore, on the part of Mr. Jefferson; and that terms and conditions were agreed upon between them before Mr. Jefferson could be elected; while, on the other hand, it will be demonstrated that the charges which have been made against Colonel Burr of having intrigued and negotiated with the federal party to obtain the office of president, were as unjust as they were groundless. But 'I come to bury Cæsar, not to praise him." " p. 436.

We are far from wishing to discourage the publication of this second volume; on the contrary, we are anxious to have some of the later portions of Colonel Burr's life illustrated by the unreserved personal testimony of Mr. Davis himself, but we do not believe that it is in his power, or that of any other man living, supposing the witnesses who have testified to have told the truth, to throw any new light on the history of the election of 1801. And further, we have no hesitation in asserting, that if Mr. Davis's concluding remark is meant to convey the idea that there was a corrupt understanding between Mr. Bayard and Mr. Jefferson, there is not a shadow of authority for it, nor can he produce one tittle of evidence to sustain it. Mr. Davis must,