The Student's Life of Washington; Condensed from the Larger Work of Washington Irving For Young Persons and for the Use of Schools

the military committee of Congress, with which he was in frequent consultation, and by the secretaries of war, finance, and public affairs, who attended their conferences. Under his impulse and personal supervision, the military arrangements for 1782 were made with unusual despatch. On the 10th of December resolutions were passed in Congress for requisitions of men and money from the several States; and Washington backed those requisitions by letters to the respective governors, urging prompt compliance. The persuasion that peace was at hand was, however, too prevalent for the public to be roused to new sacrifices and toils to maintain what was considered the mere shadow of a war. The States were slow in furnishing a small part of their respective quotas of troops, and still slower in answering to the requisitions for money. After remaining four months in Philadelphia, Washington set out in March to rejoin the army at Newburg on the Hudson.
    In a recent letter to General Greene, Washington had expressed himself strongly on the subject of retaliation. “Of all laws it is the most difficult to execute, where you have not the transgressor himself in your possession. Humanity will ever interfere, and plead strongly against the sacrifice of an innocent person for the guilt of another.” His judgment and feelings were soon put to the proof in this respect. A New York refugee, by the name of Philip White, had been captured by the Jersey people, and killed in attempting to escape. His partisans in New York determined on a signal revenge. Captain Joseph Huddy, who had been captured when bravely defending a blockhouse in Monmouth County, was now drawn forth from prison, conducted into the Jerseys by a party of refugees, headed by a Captain Lippencott, and hanged on the heights of Middletown. The neighboring country cried out for retaliation. Washington submitted the matter to a board of general and field-officers. It was unanimously determined that the offender should be demanded for execution, and, if not given up, that retaliation should be exercised on a British prisoner of equal rank. Washington accordingly sent proofs to Sir Henry Clinton of what he stigmatized as a murder, and demanded that the officer who commanded the execution of Captain Huddy should be given up. Sir Henry declined a compliance, but stated that he had ordered a strict inquiry into the circumstances of Captain Huddy’s death, and would bring the perpetrators of it to immediate trial.
    Washington about the same time received the copy of a resolution of Congress approving of his firm and judicious conduct, and promising to support him “in his fixed purpose of exemplary retaliation.” He accordingly ordered a selection to be made by lot, for the above purpose, from among the British officers, prisoners at Lancaster, in Pennsylvania. The lot fell upon Captain Charles Asgill, of the guards, a youth only nineteen years of age, of an amiable character, and only son and heir of Sir Charles Asgill, a wealthy baronet. The youth bore his lot with firmness, but his fellow prisoners were incensed at Sir Henry Clinton for exposing him to such a fate by refusing to deliver up the culprit. One of their number, a son of the Earl of Ludlow, solicited permission from Washington to proceed to New York and lay the case before Sir Guy Carleton, who had succeeded in command to Sir Henry Clinton. The matter remained for some time in suspense.
    Lippencott was at length tried by a court-martial, but acquitted, it appearing that he had acted under the verbal orders of Governor Franklin, president of the Board of Associated Loyalists. The British commander reprobated the death of Captain Huddy, and broke up the board.
    These circumstances changed in some degree the ground upon which Washington was proceeding. He laid the whole matter before Congress, admitted Captain Asgill on parole at Morristown, and subsequently intimated to the secretary of war his private opinion in favor of his release, with permission to go to his friends in Europe. In the meantime Lady Asgill, the mother of the youth, had written a pathetic letter to the Count de Vergennes, the French minister of State, imploring his intercession in behalf of her son. The letter was shown to the king and queen, and by their direction the count wrote to Washington, soliciting the liberation of Asgill. Washington referred to Congress the communication from the count, and urged a favorable decision. To his great