The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-09-12

Kings Province on territory acquired by them from
the Indians but meeting this year the deputies OF
Massachusetts at the court, he publicly challenged
them to cite any one demonstration of duty or 10y
atty by their constituents TO the present king or his
father from the period Of their first establishment in
New England. ~ [Grahame's History Of the UNI
ted States, vol l, p. 3l5, edition of 1886
In reference to this groundess attack on the pur-
ty of Clarke, deemed it due e historic truth to
make the following note:
"The charge Of 'bdSeusss' in Grahsme, |. 3l5, ed-
ton of 1886, is Grahame's own invention. His
[Clarke'sl enemies in Massachusetts, dsliked his
principles and his success; they respected his hde-
ity and his blameess character. Grahame is usu-
ally very candid in his judgments"
BY the word invention" meant simply to say,
that the charge of "basenessn had no foundation in
fact and rested on no authority; that it prefer
red this occasion for the first time, and had no
existence but in the mind of Mr.. Grahame him
self in word, that it was what Lord Bacon calls
ian idol Oft the cave" My tribute TO the usual can
dor of Mr.. Grshame seemed to me to explain and
soften the criticism, which regard for historic
truth compelled me to make.
The note should have induced Mr.. Grahame to
revise the grounds of his opinion. Instead OF II,
like Cotton Mather, when witchcrah was question
ed he chose to regard It as an impeachment Of his
personal yeraciy indiscreety insisted that he had
authority for his accusations; and finally indicated
as his authority the annals Of Chalmers.
As soon as | understood the precise nature of Mr.
Gahame's misconception, changed the word Gin
yention" into "unwarranted mlsapprehension;" and
really vexed with myself, that zeal for accuracy,
which ! could not blame, had led me into form Of
expression, liable to an offensive construction on
the part of foreigner for whom cherished friend
ly feelings, took care, through a common friend,
TO inform Mr.. Grahame that he had mlsapprehended
Chalmers. Clarke returned 10 Rhode Island in 1863
About fifteen years after his return, and about two
years after his death, Randall Houldon and John
Greene, deputies from the town of Warwick, IN the
Providence Plantations, appeared at the court OF
Charles the Second, to argue question of land title
before the lords Of the Committee of Trade and
Plantations, against William stoughton and Peter
Buckley, agents for the Massachusetts colony in
New England, from 1877 To 1919 In giving an
account Of the first acquisition of the territory in
question from the Narngansets, in 1914, Chalmers,
at page 273 Of his Annals, summarily and accu-
ratey narrates what transpred IN relation to It IN
l67S-l679.
| deemed it due to Mr. Grahame, to inform him
that he had been led into error respecting Clarke,
by attributing TO his negotiation for a charter, what
happened, as Chalmers truly says, in the reign Of
Charles the Second, but later negotiation about
lands and boundaries-a negotiation which,
observed, took place after ClaTke's return and af
ter his death, The name, Kings Province, added
was not known I'LL after the grant of the charter, and
after Carke's return.
This Mr.. Grahame read, but he would not be con-
WINGED. He appears never himself personally to
have again inspected his authority, but as | had
reason TO believe, took a report secondhand from
some one, whose name never cared to know. In
the final revision of his work though he erased the
word 'baseness" and the reference to the name of
Kings Province he renewed the detraction; and of
one Of the most firm and ingenious men that ever
lived, he wrote deliberately after having been warn
ed "The envoy conducted his negotiation with a
suppleness of adroit servlty that rendered the
cess Of it dearly bought"
In giving publicity to this version of the cal
umny, accompanied by impeachment of my
'candor," CORRECTNESS" and "rectiude," Mr.. Jo-
sah Quincy steps forward to defend it; and in an
elaborate note on pages xxxvi. and xXxv of his
memoir insists explicitly that chalmers represents
Clarke as Boosting Of the loyalty Of Rhode Island,
and challenging the deputies Of Massachusetts, to
display any one act Of duty orloyalty, shown by
their constituents TO Charles the First, or TO the
present king, from their first establishment in New
England"
Now, the words of Chalmers have no reference
to Clarke, either by name by intention, by just
inference The reference is indeed, to deputies"
from the plantations to "Charles the Second" but
the reign of Charles the Second extended to 1855,
while Clarkes mission ended in 1863. But Chal-
mers refers to his authority, which is In the State
Paper Office, in London, and quotes from it. To
leave room for doubt of any sort, have sent to
the State Paper Office [see notes and CT and have
readily obtained certified copy of the original doc
ument, from which Chalmers drew the narrative. Ii
establishes, beyond possible question: that Messrs
Grahame and Quincy attribute to Clarke what hap
pened on late negotiation after his return and after
his death.
The passage in Chalmers referred to by Mr.
Quincy, is to be found at page 273 Of his Annals.
See note D. OF the document from the State Pa
per Office, annex the decisive extract, Note T. ]
and have sent a copy of the whole to Mr.. Savage,
president of the Massachusetts Historical Society.
Mr.. Quincy owes it to me, and owes it to the MEM
DRY of the dead whom he has wronged to correct the
statements which he has put forth, and as he pub
lished Grahame's work by subscription, he should
send copy of the correction to every one of his
subscribers.
GEORGE BANCROFT
WAsuNcTnN Februerv 1SdG