complied with, and the promises were manifestly evasive, a perseverance on the part of Congress was essential to their honor; and that morever it would probably compel the enemy to give up the notorious author of the confessed murder. After the receipt of the letter from the Count de Vergennes, Congress were unanimous for a relaxation. Two questions, however, arose on the report of the Committee. The first was, on what considerations the discharge of Captain Asgill ought to be grounded. On this question a diversity of opinions existed. Some concurred with the Committee in resting the measure entirely on the intercession of the French Court; alleging that this was the only plea that could apologize to the world for such a departure from the solemn declaration made both by Congress and the Commander-in-Chief. Others were of opinion that this plea, if publicly recited, would mark an obsequiousness to the French Court, and an impeachment of the humanity of Congress, which greatly outweighed the circumstance urged in its favor; and that the disavowal of the outrage by the British General, and a solemn promise to pursue the guilty authors of it, afforded the most honorable ground on which Congress might make their retreat. Others, again, contended for an enumeration of all the reasons which led to the measure. Lastly, others were against a recital of any reason, and for leaving the justification of the measure to such reasons as would occur of themselves. This last opinion, after considerable discussions, prevailed, and the resolution left as it stands on the journal. The second question was, whether this release of Captain Asgill

should be followed by a demand on General Carleton to fulfil his engagement to pursue with all possible effect the authors of the murder.

On one side it was urged, that such a demand would be nugatory, after the only sanction which could enforce it had been relinquished; that it would not be consistent with the letter of the Count de Vergennes, which solicited complete oblivion; and that it would manifest to the public a degree of confidence in British faith which was not felt and ought not to be affected.

On the opposite side it was said, that after the confession and promise of justice by General Carleton, the least that could be done by General Washington would be to claim a fulfilment; that the intercession of the Count de Vergennes extended no further than to prevent the execution of Captain Asgill, and the substitution of any other innocent victim, and by no means was meant to shelter the guilty; that whatever blame might fall on Congress for seeming to confide in the promises of the enemy, they would be more blamed if they not only dismissed the purpose of retaliating on the innocent, but at the same time omitted to challenge a promised vengeance on the guilty; that if the challenge was not followed by a compliance on the part of the enemy, it would at least promulge and perpetuate, in justification of the past measures of Congress, the confessions and promises of the enemy on which the challenge was grounded; and would give weight to the charges both of barbarity and perfidy which had been so often brought against them.

VOL. I.-13

In the vote on this question, six States were in favor of the demand, and the others either divided or against it.

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 8TH.

The preceding question having been taken again, on a further discussion of the subject, there were in favor of the demand, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and of the other States some were divided.

A motion was made by MR. RUTLEDGE, of South Carolina, "That the Commander-in-Chief and of the Southern Department be respectively directed, whenever the enemy shall commit any act of cruelty or violence, contrary to the laws and usage of war, on the citizens of these States, to demand adequate satisfaction for the same; and in case such satisfaction shall not be immediately given, but refused or evaded under any pretext whatsoever, to cause suitable retaliation to be forthwith made on British officers, without waiting for directions from Congress on the subject."

When this motion was first made it was espoused by many: with great warmth, in particular, by the Delegates of North Carolina and South Carolina, as necessary to prevent the delays and uncertainties incident to a resort by the Military Commanders to Congress, and to convince the enemy that, notwithstanding the dismission of Captain Asgill, the general purpose of retaliation was firmly retained.

Against the motion it was objected-first, that the time and place in which it stood would certainly. convey an indirect reprehension of General Washington for bringing before Congress, the case of Captain Asgill and Huddy; secondly, that it manifested a distrust in Congress which, however well founded it might be with respect to retaliation, ought not to be proclaimed by themselves; thirdly, that political and national considerations might render the interference of the supreme authority expedient, of which the letter from the Count de Vergennes, in the late case, furnished an instance; that the resort of the Military Commanders to the Sovereign for direction in great and difficult cases, such as those of retaliation would often prove, was a right of which they ought not to be deprived, but in the exercise of which they ought rather to be countenanced. These objections reduced the patrons of the motion to the Delegates of North Carolina and South Carolina alone, or nearly so. In place of it, the declaratory motion on the Journal was substituted. This again was objected to, as implying that, in the cases of retaliation taken up by the Military Commanders, they had proceeded on doubtful authority. To remove this objection the amendment was proposed limiting the preamble to the single act of discharging Captain Asgill. This, however, was not entirely satisfactory, because that particular act could have no constructive influence on the reputed authority of the generals. It was acceded to by the votes of several who were apprehensive that, in case of rejecting it, the earnestness of some might obtrude a substitute less harmless, or that the resolution might

pass without the preamble, and be more offensive to the Commander-in-Chief. The first apprehension was the prevailing motive with many to agree to the proposition on the final question.

This day a letter was received from General Washington, enclosing one, of the twenty-fifth of October, from Sir Guy Carleton, relative to the demand made on him for a liquidation of accounts, and payment of the balance due for the maintenance of prisoners of war, in which the latter used an asperity of language so much the reverse of his preceding correspondence, that many regard it as portending a revival of the war against the United States."2

SATURDAY AND MONDAY.

No Congress.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12TH.

The re-appointment of Mr. Jefferson, as Minister Plenipotentiary for negotiating peace, was agreed to unanimously, and without a single adverse remark. The act took place in consequence of its being suggested, that the death of Mrs. Jefferson had probably changed the sentiments of Mr. Jefferson with regard to public life; and that all the reasons which led to his original appointment still existed, and, indeed, had acquired additional force from the improbability that Mr. Laurens would actually assist in the negotiation.