It was said by General Howe, as we have seen, that the purpose was to cut off the supplies, for the City, which were brought down the river ; but he also said, it will be remembered, there were "other good "consequences dependent upon that measure," of the character of which " consequences " he prudently said nothing. If, among those " other good consequences," it was intended to cut oft" the communication, by water, between New York and Albany and, therefore, between the Army on the northern frontier and the main Army, at the former place, as General Washington suspected,' that would have been a well-devised

* Gmierul George ('Utittfit to General Wunhiugtim, "FoRT MONTOOBIERV, "July 23, 1776."

The sworn statement of Jiuob Hallsted, the owner of the property carried away or destroyed, which is a well-told narrative of some of the evils attendant on every War, may be seen in the Hixloricul Mtniuscripts, etc.: MiseelUineuus Hupers, xxxv., 77.

^ General Hoice to Lord George Germaine, "St.vten Isl.and, 8 July, "1776."

The direct authority for this statement has been mislaid ; but a contirniation of it nniy be seen in tieneral Howe's statement, in his despatch to Lord George Germaine, (" St.vten Isl.\ni), 8 July, 1776,") that no more than the Pht£nix SLUd Hose con\d have been spared, at that time, from the protection of the transports, even for the important service in which those two ships were employed.

" General Washington to John Augustine Washington, " New-Y'oRK, -2 i "July, 1770."