crisis so interesting must have excited a variety of emotions. While, on the one hand, we were animated with joy that our country was freed from danger, and honorably seated in the chair of independence,— on the other, we must have been penetrated with grief; not that we were about to quit the splendid scenes of military command, and mingle with our fellow-citizens; not that toil and poverty would probably be our portion,—for to them we had long been wedded;—but that we were to act the last affectionate part of our military connection, and to separate, perhaps never to meet again. Was it possible to suppress the feelings which the occasion excited? Did not the same principles which had animated you to endure the fatigues of war and dangers of the field, for the attainment of independence, loudly call upon you to institute a memorial of so great an event?

When the representatives of your country bestowed upon you the honorable appellation of the patriot army, and honored you with the united thanks of America for the part you had acted, was it not your duty, by your future conduct, to give the highest possible evidence that the applause was not unmerited? Could you possibly have exhibited a more striking example, or given a higher proof, than by forming an institution which inculcated the duty of laying down in peace the arms you had assumed for public defence? If the various fortunes of war had attached you to each other, if there was sincerity in that friendship you professed, if you wished to contribute a small portion of the little you possessed to the relief of your unfortunate companions, was it possible for you to separate, without forming yourselves into a society of friends, for the continuance and exercise of these benevolent purposes? Heaven saw with approbation the purity of your intentions, and your institution arose on the broad foundation of patriotism, friendship, and charity.

William Hull was born at Derby, Ct., June 24, 1753. He graduated at Yale College in 1772; studied divinity during one year, and then attached himself to the Law School in Litchfield, Ct., and entered the bar in 1775; after which he engaged in the war of the Revolution as a captain.

The first incident recorded by Capt. Hull, on his arrival in camp, is a striking illustration of the deficiency of military order, discipline and etiquette, with which Washington had to contend. A body of the enemy landed at Lechmere's Point, in Cambridge. It was expected an attack would be made on the American lines.

The alarm was

given, and the troops ordered to their respective stations. When the regiment of Col. Webb was formed for action, the captains and subalterns appeared dressed in long cloth frocks, with kerchiefs tied about their heads. Capt. Hull was the only man in uniform. The officers inquired why he came out in full dress, that the regiment was going into action, and that he would be a mark for the enemy's fire. He replied that he thought the uniform of an officer was designed to aid his influence and increase his authority over his men; and if ever important in these points, it was more particularly so in the hour of battle. They referred to their experience, remarking that in the French war it was not customary, and they had never worn it. Capt. Hull yielded to age and experience, sent his servant for a frock and kerchief, and dressed himself after the fashion of his companions. His company was in advance of the British lines. While at this station, Gen. Washington and suite, in the course of reviewing the troops, stopped at the redoubt, and asked what officer commanded there. With feelings of inexpressible mortification, says Gen. Hull, I came forward in my savage costume, and reported that Capt. Hull had the honor of commanding the redoubt. As soon as Gen. Washington passed on, Capt. Hull availed himself of the first moment to despatch his servant, with all possible speed, to bring him his uniform. As he put it on, he quietly resolved never more to subscribe to the opinions of men, however loyal and brave in their country's service, whose views were so little in unison with his own. After the troops had waited four or five hours in expectation of an attack, the enemy returned to his encampment, having no other object in making the descent than to procure provisions. Hull was in the surprise on Dorchester Heights, at White Plains, battle of Trenton, and Princeton, where he was promoted as major; was at Ticonderoga, at the surrender of Burgoyne, in the battle of Monmouth, and at the capture of Stoney Point; was appointed army-inspector under Baron Steuben, became a colonel in the capture of Cornwallis, and was sent on a mission to Quebec to demand the surrender of Forts Niagara, Detroit, and several smaller forts. In Shays' insurrection, Col. Hull had command of the left wing of the troops under Gen. Lincoln, and, in making a forced march through a violent snow-storm, surprised the insurgents in their camp, who fled in every direction. In 1781 Col. Hull married Sarah, daughter of Judge Fuller, of Newton. In 1789 he was the commander of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company.

In 1793 he was a commissioner to Upper Canada for a treaty with the Indians. In 1798 he visited Europe, and on his return he was appointed judge of the Court of Common Pleas, and was in the Massachusetts Senate. In 1805 he was appointed by Congress the Governor of Michigan, when he surrendered Detroit to Maj. Gen. Isaac Brock, Aug. 15, 1812. In 1814 he was condemned by court-martial for cowardice, and sentenced to be shot, but was pardoned by President Madison. In 1824 Maj. Gen. Hull published a series of letters in defence of his conduct in the campaign of 1812. The North American Review said that, from the public documents collected and published in them, the conclusion must unequivocally be drawn that Gen. Hull was required by the government to do what it was morally and physically impossible that he should do; and his grandson, Rev. James Freeman Clarke, author of the Military and Civil Life of Gen. William Hull, in 482 pages 8vo., after a critical examination of the whole case, remarks that the charge of cowardice, when examined, becomes incredible and absurd. The only questions which can now be raised by reasonable men are these: Did not Gen. Hull err in judgment in some of his measures? Might it not have been better to have attacked Malden? And was the surrender of his post at Detroit, without a struggle for its defence, reconcilable with his situation at that time?

The reason for not attacking Malden was the deficiency of suitable cannon for that purpose; and a want of confidence in the militia, as acknowledged by the officers in command, to storm the works at Malden, which were defended by cannon batteries, while reliance on the part of the Americans was on militia bayonets almost entirely.

In considering the conduct of Gen. Hull, in surrendering Detroit, we ought always to bear in mind that he was governor of the territory as well as general of the army; that he accepted the command of the army for the express purpose of defending the territory; and that though, in compliance with the orders of government, he had invaded Canada, a principal object was still the defence of the people of Michigan. If, therefore, his situation was such that even a successful temporary resistance could not finally prevent the fall of Detroit, had he any right to expose the people of Michigan to that universal massacre which would unquestionably have been the result of a battle at Detroit? It must also be remembered that at the time of the surrender the fort was crowded with women and children, who had fled thither for protection from the town, which tended still more to embarrass the situation

and move the sympathies of the governor. If, therefore, some persons, with whom military glory stands higher than humanity and plain duty, may still blame Gen. Hull for not fighting a useless battle, and for not causing blood to be shed where nothing was to be gained by its effusion, we are confident that all high-minded and judicious persons will conclude that, to sign the surrender of Detroit, was an act of greater courage and truer manliness, on the part of Gen. Hull, than it would have been to have sent out his troops to battle. On his death-bed, he expressed his happiness that he had thus saved the wanton destruction of the peaceful citizens of Michigan. He died at Newton, Mass., Nov. 29, 1825.

SAMUEL STILLMAN, D. D.

JULY 4, 1789. FOR THE TOWN AUTHORITIES.

SAMUEL STILLMAN was born at Philadelphia, Feb. 27, 1737; was educated at Charleston, S. C., and married Hannah, daughter of Evin Morgan, merchant of Philadelphia, May 23, 1759. He settled in the ministry at James' Island, but impaired health occasioned his removal to Bordentown, N. J., in 1760, where, after continuing two years, he visited Boston, became an assistant at the Second Baptist Church, and was, on Jan. 9, 1765, installed as successor of Rev. Jeremiah Condy, over the First Baptist Church.

On the repeal of the Stamp Act, Mr. Stillman published a patriotic sermon, which was greatly admired. This occurred May 17, 1766. "Should I serve you a century in the gospel of Christ," says Stillman in this performance, "I might never again have so favorable an opportunity to consider this passage,-'As cold water to a thirsty soul, so is good news from a far country.' It is a proverb, the truth of which you are now feeling; hence, great is the propriety of improving its spiritual meaning. And the preacher will have the advantage, while he attempts to illustrate the glories of the Gospel, by what the people feel. Has not a general joy diffused itself amongst us? Does not Boston and the country wear a face of pleasantness? You may read good news in every countenance. How great the alteration that has taken place amongst us, in consequence of a late most interesting decision in

our favor! When the news arrived, so as to be confidently believed, there was a universal shout. It now became impossible for every lover of liberty and his country to conceal the gladness of his heart,— public and private were the expressions of joy on this important occasion. Yea, your children, yet ignorant of the importance of this event to these colonies, bear a part in the triumphs of the day,— in imitation, no doubt, of their parents and others, whom they observe pleased on this happy occurrence. Well, thought I, good news from an earthly prince, that brings deliverance, and gives us the prospect of the continuance of our most dear and invaluable rights and privileges, which we apprehended on the brink of departing from us, fill us with such a general gladness that scarce a tongue will be silent. O! how much more might we expect that the glad tidings of salvation-salvation from everlasting misery, to the fruition of endless happiness - would diffuse a universal joy!" Samuel Stillman, at that period, was a loyal subject of King George the Third, as appears by this passage: "May the British Parliament receive that deference from us that they deserve, and be convinced by our future conduct that we aim not at independency, nor wish to destroy distinctions where distinctions are necessary, - that we rejoice in being governed according to the principles of that constitution of which we make our boast as Englishmen; yea, further, that if it was put to our choice, whether our connection with Great Britain should be dissolved, we, the inhabitants of these colonies, would rise like a cloud, and deprecate such a disunion."

Mr. Stillman soon became one of the most popular pulpit orators of his day, and was consequently appointed to preach on great occasions. He pronounced a sermon before the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company, under William Heath, and the train of Artillery, under Capt. Adino Paddock, June 4, 1770. In allusion to the massacre in King-street, he says, "On account of which we have wept sore, our tears are still on our cheeks; which doubtless will be a mournful anniversary in years to come. And it is but entertaining such an opinion of his majesty's paternal regards for his subjects as they ought ever to cherish, to suppose that he has wept, or will weep with us, over the five unhappy men who fell on that gloomy night. What heart is hard enough to refuse a tear?" And in a note Stillman says, "However well a wound may be healed, a scar always remains. So, however satisfactorily to the colonists the present disputes may terminate, they will not forget the names of those who were the cause of troops being