attainable, and which, if
attained, could not be long preserved; and the establishment of those
amicable relations which reciprocal interests produce between
independent states, capable of being serviceable to each other by a
fair and equal interchange of good offices.

This opinion, however, was not yet embraced by the cabinet of London;
and great exertions were still to be made for the reannexation of the
American states to the British empire. Even the opposition was not
united against a continuance of the war for the object now proposed;
and the Earl of Chatham, who had endeavoured first to prevent the
conflict, and afterwards to produce conciliation, closed his splendid
life in unavailing efforts to prevent that dismemberment which had
become inevitable.[12]

[Footnote 12: The author has been favoured by his estimable friend,
Major General Scott, with the perusal of an introduction written by
Mr. L. De Sevelinges, to Botta's "History of the war of the
independence of the United States of America," translated into French.

Mr. De Sevelinges professes to have received the most precious
explanations, relative to incidents and motives, from a gentleman
equally distinguished for his knowledge and his character, whose
situation enabled him to become acquainted with facts which were
concealed from the public. Speaking of the attempt made by Mr.
Johnson, he says, p. 19, it was essential "to break off all
communication with the agents of the British minister. Mr. Girard
directed all his efforts to this object, and had the good fortune to
effect it.

"But the English faction of tories subsisted. It was powerful from the
credit of its chiefs."

In a note on this passage, he says, "The most influential were Samuel
Adams and Richard Lee, (Richard H. Lee,) the brother of Arthur Lee,
one of the deputies of congress in France. He was convicted of having
secret intelligence with the British minister."

It would be injustice to the memoirs of these distinguished patriots
to attempt their vindication against this atrocious and unfounded
calumny. A calumny supported by no testimony, nor by a single
circumstance wearing even the semblance of probability, and confuted
by the whole tenour of their lives. The annals of the American
revolution do not furnish two names more entirely above suspicion than
Samuel Adams and Richard Henry Lee. With the first gentleman the
author was not personally acquainted. With the last he was; and can