mission to seize Arnold, should circumstances favor such an enterprize."-Sparks' Washington, vol. 7, p. 549. There is no evidence, however, within my reach, showing that Gen. Lee was at all privy to this last mentioned affair; but, as Washington had a high appreciation of the sagacity of Lee, such may have been the case, and thus naturally led to the confusion of our story.

I now proceed to examine the testimony of a formidable witness, who does not impugn the authenticity of the story on the ground of any contradictions in the narrative itself, but denies its truth altogether, and declares it impossible to be true. The following extract will speak for itself:

Extract of a Letter from Col. A. McLane, addressed to Mathew Carey, Esq.

"WILMINGTON, (DEL.) March 2nd, 1849.

I have been reading Lee's Memoirs, 2nd vol., where he introduces Arnold's escape, and his sergeant, John Champe. Lee is a classical writer, but I know this part of his Memoirs to be fabulous. I commanded the Infantry on the lines near Paulus Hook when Arnold escaped, and it was not possible for Champe to have gotten to New York, as he states, without my knowledge. More on this subject when we meet. I hope to be in Philadelphia next week."

This is the testimony of an officer who commanded the infantry of Lee's Legion, was present at the scene, and, we may fairly presume, would have heard of such an event

The original of this letter is in the collection of Charles N. Poulson, Esq., of Philadelphia, who possesses a number of most valuable manuscripts illustrative of American history, as does his father the most complete conchological cabinet in the Union.

as the desertion of a sergeant of his own corps. Taken by itself, it would seem conclusive of the falsity of the whole story; yet there is scarcely the shadow of a doubt that McLane is altogether wrong, and that Lee is right. In the first place, it will be seen that the letter of Col. McLane is quite as potent to prove that the Sergeant of Capt. Ogden did not desert on the 30th September, as that Champe did not desert on the 20th October; yet the desertion of Ogden's Sergeant is established (See Life and Treason of Arnold, page 270) beyond a doubt. The truth is that the desertion of a soldier not bearing a commission was so common an event as not to make of itself a very sensible impression on the mind, especially when there was no great notoriety in the case; for at the time the desertion of Ogden's Sergeant, which was as patriotic an act as Champe's, which happened under the eye of McLane, and which is proved to have taken place, was just as notorious as Champe's, yet seems to have been unknown to the Colonel, or altogether forgotten by him. I may add that the defection of Arnold was of so startling a character as to overshadow any minor incident of the kind.

That a Sergeant did actually desert, as stated by Lee, may be inferred from the letter of Washington to Lee, dated the 20th October, prescribing the course he ought to pursue after his desertion, and by the letter of Lee to Wash ington written on the 21st, and recorded by Sparks from the original in the archives of the Commander in Chief (for Lee does not publish the letter himself,) announcing the fact of the desertion the night before, There is no room for doubt in the matter. That the name of the Sergeant was Champe, may be inferred not only from the fact that there could be no motive for Lee's assuming a false name, but that, if he had done so, the error would have been obvious to the many officers and men of the Legion who

were living in 1812 when the Memoirs were published. I cannot, however, find in my library any American record of the name of Champe but that of Lee, and the various references in other books to his Memoirs. Nor does the name appear in either of the volumes of Major Garden, who was a lieutenant in the Legion infantry, and delighted to record the personal incidents of the period. Still no fatal inference can be drawn unfavorable even to the name of Champe, and the records at Washington, as well as the certificate of Washington which is doubtless in existence, as also the private papers of Lee, as well as the testimony of surviving compatriots, and especially some of the elder citizens of Loudon where he was born, would readily prove its existence beyond question.

I once introduced the subject of Champe to the attention of the late Col. Clement Carrington of Charlotte, who was an officer in extreme youth in the Legion infantry, and inquired whether he had heard the story during the war, or had seen Champe. He had not heard the story, but remembered there was a man by the name of Champe who was with the baggage department of the Southern army, adding that he had heard the officers of the Legion say, when some article was wanted for use, that Champe had it, or it was with the baggage under Champe's care;-a recollection, by the way, which may be said almost to demonstrate the truth of Lee's narrative; for, when it is remembered that Champe was, according to Lee, an admirable soldier and eminently fitted for the most responsible active service, it is not probable that he would have kept him beyond the reach of danger, which the care of the baggage implies, without some strong motive. It is true that Lee says that he sent Champe to Gen. Greene, but it may well have happened that the Sergeant tarried awhile among his comrades before departing for the camp of

Greene, and thence for the North. In conclusion I would state, that, with the exception of that part of the narrative relating to Andre, I believe the beautiful story of Champe as told by Lee to be strictly true, and impregnable from attacks from any quarter. I would also say, that no one has a more exalted regard for the virtue and patriotism of the late Col. McLane than I have. He may be said literally to have fought our battles, as he was in the affair of the Great Bridge, which opened the ball of the Revolution in Virginia, and was at the battle of York which closed it. It may also be proper to state that there was an unpleas ant question of rank between Col. McLane and Gen. Lee, which, I am told, induced the former to throw up his com mission and retire from the regular army.

Charlotte.

H. B. G.

THE TEMPERANCE REFORM.

[We have to thank a worthy and intelligent correspondent for the following memoir of the Temperance Reform in our State, which, brief and necessarily imperfect as it is, may serve to give our readers such a general idea of this important and interesting movement as we deem most proper for our pages.]

Notwithstanding the great and alarming extent to which the vice of intemperance had prevailed in our State, no concerted effort was made to arrest its progress amongst us until the year 1826. It is true that as early as some time in 1800, a shrewd Methodist, named Micajah Pendleton, in the county of Amherst, had drawn up and carried. about a written pledge to abstain from ardent spirits; and had obtained some signatures to his paper. But no society was organized; no stated meetings were held; no

public addresses delivered; no measures taken to collect or to publish facts about the countless ills which had flowed from strong drink. At length, however, in October. 1826, a few months after the American Temperance Society had been formed in New England, and, it is said, "before any similar institution was known to exist, by those who originated this," a few persons met in Charlotte, organized what they called "The Virginia Temperance Society," and adopted a constitution to which eleven persons subscribed their names. These eleven, who are worth naming as pioneers in a movement which was destined to enlist warm attachments, or to excite bitter hostilities, were Abner W. Clopton, Eli Ball, Elisha Collins, Reuben Chaney, John A. Davidson, Jeremiah B. Jeter, John W. Kelly, Bryan W. Lester, William Sharp, Daniel Williams, and Daniel Witt. Of these, Messrs. Clopton, Ball, Collins, Jeter, and Witt, were Baptist preachers. Mr. Clopton died in the spring of 1833, after having, by his numerous addresses and effective zeal, caused the new reformation to take root in many parts of Virginia; so that he may as justly be said to have planted it here, as St. Augustin has been held to have planted Christianity in Britain.

Soon after the first meeting in Charlotte, various neighborhoods in the State saw local societies arise, constructed on the same general plan; with the pledge of mere temperance, and this, for the most part, in the use only of ardent spirits. Few minds had then thought of wine, beer, cider, and other fermented drinks, as embodying either immediate harm or remote danger.

There is no exact information as to the number of these Temperance societies in Virginia, at any stage of the movement. It appears, however, that of rather more than a thousand in the whole Union, at the close of 1829, forty two were reported as in our State, based on the principle